Today's number 60. That's the percentage

of Americans who say they've had a

paranormal experience. I was invited to

go see a porn horror film. But Ed, I was

too scared to come.

[Music]

>> Oh, Ed. Ed, you don't use ED drugs yet,

do you?

>> Not yet.

>> Oh my gosh. Got a lot of that in your

future. Just a heads up. Just a heads

up. It's coming, my friend.

>> I can't wait. You were about to hit me

with a by the way. Was that your by the

way?

>> Speaking of uh erectile dysfunction

drugs.

>> Here it is.

>> Uh do you hear that Governor Nuome gave

me a name checked me and said that I was

a rock star when speaking to Jake

Tapper?

>> Did he? Wow. I know I know he's name

checked you before. That has happened.

Um but I didn't know he called you a

rockstar. What was the context? He said

that I'm I'm his fashion and aesthetics

and fitness uh role model.

>> Did he actually say that?

>> Dude, have you met me? Have you met me?

>> No. You know, the whole young man thing.

>> I am squeezing that lemon like there's

no tomorrow.

>> Well, that's pretty good cuz I think

he's going to be president.

>> Why do you say that?

>> He's the rock star. As we discussed with

with Bradley Tusk, there are three rock

stars. Actually, four rock stars.

There's Mandani, there's AOC, there's

Bernie Sanders, and there's Gavin

Newsome. Gavin Newsome is the only one

who could be president.

>> You mean he's the only one that's not

crazy? Um, actually, I don't

think Bernie's crazy. I love AOC, too. I

got so angry at this shutdown. I

committed on stage last night to giving

$100,000 to the to the AOC for Senate

campaign if she announced she was

primary Schumer in the next seven days.

I am so Anyway, we're not supposed to

talk about politics. Advertisers hate

politics. Tell us about the live tour.

You You're on tour for the show for for

the other show, the show that shall not

be named.

>> Pivot Live. Started in Toronto on

Saturday. Then we did Boston on Sunday

and we did New York last night. And

after this, I'm about to bomb on the

train to DC. Do DC tonight. Then after

the show, head to Chicago where we do a

show um tomorrow.

>> It's a lot of shows. Are you switching

up the content for each show? I mean,

every day. That's pretty intense. trying

trying different lesbian marriage jokes.

So,

straight people get married for kids,

gays for aesthetics,

and lesbians for that mid-century couch

on Pinterest. And then when they get

divorced, uh there's an argument over

who gets the couch in the Subaru. And

the way they decide is whoever's name is

on the REI loyalty card.

I told that last night. I told that last

night. Yeah.

>> It got a good response.

>> Yeah. you know,

u people look at each other like, is it

okay to laugh? And then Cara laughs. One

of the things I love about doing a

podcast with Cara is that she gives

everyone permission to laugh.

>> I also saw that a 10-year-old was there

and asked you a question about um about

dating. I thought that was kind of

sweet. I didn't realize that there were

10-year-old fans of Pivot.

>> Okay, hold on. Boston so far has taken

the crown in Q&A. And we don't prepare

for this. We don't plant the questions.

People just line up at the mic. This one

dude comes up and goes, "I have a

question for Cara." And he goes,

"Actually, I mean Sarah." And he turns

around and gets on his his knee and he

proposed marriage.

>> Wow.

>> Yeah. So, my love language is money. So,

I just reached into my pocket and took

out all my money and gave it to them.

And then the most adorable 10-year-old

kid, I mean, this kid's out of central

casting, right? He just such a So,

anyways, very just this lovely young man

asked he said so cute. She said, "I

really like this girl and she's taller

than me and I don't know how to approach

her." And Cara busted into the, you

know, the whole like, "Be kind, da da

da." And I'm like, "Have your parents

throw a kick-ass party. That's how you

increase social capital when you're in

school. If you have the coolest party,

you become

>> partially good advice.

>> You become the cool kid in school.

Everyone wants to come to your party."

And I said, "Also, learn how to dance or

more importantly, just always dance like

no one's watching." I mean, the ladies

love a man who can move, but even more,

they love a man who can move and isn't

self-conscious about it. I think that's

true.

>> Yeah, I think that's good advice. I like

that.

>> Are you a good dancer, Ed?

>> I I think I get by. I think I I don't

look

super awkward if I'm doing it, which I

think is a win. I think that means I'm

I'm I'm good enough.

>> I love what Richard Reeves says. He says

that you want a man who is invaluable in

a shipwreck and acceptable at a dance. I

am I am not a good dancer. I'm not a

good dancer. It my dancing ability is

entirely correlated to how much I've how

much I've drank.

>> Oh yes, for sure.

>> But what I try to do is I try to dance

as if I'm the people you think are good

dancers. With women, they have to be

good dancers. With men, they just have

to look like they're enjoying it.

>> Yes, that's right.

>> And then people admire them. And I think

a decent metaphor for how to live your

life is occasionally if you're at some

one of those douchy overpriced vacation

spots that you you you uh go to, you'll

see someone really hot get up on the

table in the middle of lunch and start

dancing. And we're all just captivated

by this person. And not only because

they typically are, you know, a woman

brought by some Russian oligarch who

tends to be quite attractive, but

because they look as if they don't care

that anyone's watching them. And we're

so drawn to people who have the

confidence to sort of just dance out

loud that I think that it's a decent

metaphor that the real winners in our

society that we're just really drawn to

kind of live out loud and they don't

really care. They risk embarrassment.

They don't care. They're just kind of

willing to like dance on tables and live

their lives out loud.

>> This has nothing to do with today's

episode, Ed.

>> It's good. It's valuable philosophical

advice. That's what people are here for.

So, my final question before we get into

this conversation that I'm super excited

about with Ask West Motor. What have

been your your takeaways from Pivot

Live? like are you surprised or any

takeaways from like who's coming to

these events, what the energy is, what

they're looking for, how it differs from

say this show, like what are your what

are your halftime

um takeaways with this live tour? I have

a tendency to just be down and see

everything through, you know, kind of

gray colored glasses. And it just for

me, the events have been so nice and the

crowds have been, it just reinforces the

notion I need to get out more because

people in the real world are just so

lovely and so much fun. And I am

extremely online and online is extremely

depressing and angry. And then

you go to a theater in Brooklyn with

people who've decided to take their, you

know, their Tuesday night or their

Monday night, I don't even know where we

are. Um, and come out to Brooklyn and be

with other people and laugh and clap and

meet other people and everyone stayed

after. It's just again, it goes back to

this basic notion. I wish there was a

way to input into the code of AI that we

need to extrapolate the data it's

crawling to the real world because the

real world is actually really lovely or

at least I find it is in America and I

realize people face a lot of challenges

but I find that humanto human mammal to

mammal interactions

are generally speaking just so much

tangibly more kind gentle funny

interesting than the digitto digits

interactions we have online.

So, it's been lovely. I'm excited. We're

going to do a tour and I think my

understanding is people are we've

decided that whatever cities get the

most suggestions, we're going to.

>> We also need to go to London cuz I need

to go home.

>> You need to go home. Do you consider

that your home?

>> Yeah. Where I grew up, where my family

is. Uh, so we need to do that.

>> Okay. Other than that,

>> cuz and it's all about me, really. It's

about me getting home and having a nice

time with my family. That's what this is

this live tour is going to be about.

>> Be nice to have your parents there. Um,

>> true.

>> Yeah, we'll do London. So, I think we

start I think we figured out our first

city. Our first or our last city is

going to be London.

>> All right. Should we get into our

conversation with Asworth?

>> Let's do it.

>> Here's our conversation with Professor

Asworth Demoder and the Kersner family

chair in finance education and professor

of finance at NYU's Stern School of

Business. Professor Demodin, thank you

very much for joining us again on Profy

Markets.

>> Thank you for having me.

I've been very excited to talk with you

uh especially right now and I want to

start with AI and this AI bubble that

everyone's talking about. Um it is kind

of conventional wisdom at this point or

it appears to be conventional wisdom

that we are in some form of a bubble.

I'm just going to read you some of the

headlines that I read today. Quote, Bill

Gates says we're in an AI bubble similar

to the dot bubble. quote, "Michael Bur

doubles down on AI bubble claims." Uh,

this was a great one in Vogue. Quote,

"Is fashion ready for the AI bubble to

burst?" So, what is fascinating to me,

we've been talking a lot about are we in

a bubble, are we not in a bubble? What

is fascinating to me is that everyone

seems to believe we are in a bubble. Uh,

people in tech, people in media, even

people in the fashion world know what's

happening here. Uh, I'll put the

question to you. Are we in a bubble?

>> Other than Michael Bur, the rest of the

talk is just talk, right? I mean, it's

easy to talk about bubbles when there's

no money behind it. At least Michael's

putting his his money behind what he

said. No, but let's play the lawyerly

game, which is, you know, how you can

stipulate something and then let's

stipulate this above. So what? Why are

we so I mean, why all this hand ringing?

Why? I mean, what exactly are we

accomplishing

by spending so much time talking about

this bubble? So, what if there's a

bubble?

>> Markets are are cyclical, right? And

they get oversold and overbought. That's

just a natural part of the cycle and it

creates opportunities and we learn

lessons from it. Uh so, yeah, it's not a

Greek tragedy. The fear I think with

this is that now that you have 40%

resting in 10 companies and then when

the S&P represents 20% of total global

market cap that our market has become

unhealthy and fragile and that if this

bubble bursts it's going to be a pop

herd around the world that it could take

down the entire global economy is is I I

think the straw man argument for why are

we perhaps uh why is it more justified

to be a little bit more worried about

this pop.

>> Even if this is

whether or not this is worse or the same

as previous bubbles, the reality is I've

got my money in my retirement account. I

don't want the number to go down. That's

another reason. I'll tell you who's

going to be hurt. Two groups of people.

One are the people who've joined the

market in the last year, the LA last

couple of years. Basically, you're

getting in to the bubble as it's

peaking. The other is people who chase

bubbles after they've happened, right?

People who move their money out of

industrials

into invidia and pallet in the last year

or two. There are two groups of people

are going to burn. And I think it's

worth focusing on that because investors

who've been in the market for the long

term have benefited from the upside. And

even if there's a correction, I think

many of them will look at what they have

and relative to what they had in 2015

said, "Look, I'm still better off. I'm

still I've still earned a 7% return. I

think the economic effects that Scott is

talking about are much more a much more

of an issue.

much of the growth in the real economy

this year has come from the capex going

into these data centers and AI and

taking it out will effectively mean that

we've actually been in a recession that

without it we would have been in a

recession and that might be much more of

an issue that with this bubble than it

even was with the dotcom bubble because

so much more of the real economy the

dotcom bubble if you think about the

infrastructure spending for the dotcom

bubble was a fraction

of the infrastructure spending that has

gone into the AI phenomenon. Let's not

call it a bubble yet because we don't

know it. So there is that question what

happens if those hundreds of billions of

dollars and that I think is there will

be clearly an economic effect. I don't

think it'll show up in terms of jobs

lost because it's not as if these

investments have created a lot of new

jobs. That's the other thing about this

AI infrastructure investment is it's a

money that's been spent in physical

stuff and chips rather than hiring tens

of thousands of people. So that's worth

thinking about a real economic damage

but not with hundreds tens of thousands

of jobs lost but in terms of people

looking at their portfolio saying I feel

worse off than I did a year ago. I might

be better off than seven years ago but

I've lost a lot of what I thought I did.

So I'm not underestimating the effect of

this happening but I would argue that

this is a feature not a bug of any big

change in economy. I've talked before

about what I call the big market

delusion. If I have it here's how it

plays out. You have a big change coming

to markets. It creates essentially pods

of people who think that they can

essentially benefit from it. So think

about a thousand AI pods where say this

is going to be big. I'm going to take

advantage of it. And because these pods

are created by overconfident people who

are fed by overconfident venture

capitalists, it's almost by definition

there's going to be a bubble every time

you have a big structural change in

markets. It happened with PCs. It

happened with uh you know with obviously

it happened to a lesser extent but it

did happen with social media and it's

now happening with AI perhaps on

steroids because the magnitude of the

change that's coming. But I think that

this is part and parcel of change. There

will be a correction. There will be

people who are hurt. The economy will be

hurt. But there will be change that

comes out of it. It almost is a cycle

that repeats itself. And this won't be

the last time this happens. Once you do

this, people say, "I've learned my

lesson. I will never do this again." And

guess what? 20 years later, there will

be a different bubble with a different

acronym or a different buzzword, a

different change driving it. It's the

way human, you know, change in human

beings occurs. We overreach, we correct

and we overreach again and correct

again. So to me, it does doesn't

surprise me that there's an AI bubble.

And the reason I would be wary about

trying to make money off the bubble

because there are people saying if it's

a bubble and it's going to burst, why

can't I do the Michael Bur thing and

sell short? Is you need a catalyst.

>> Yes.

>> And with AI, it's tough to see what that

catalyst will be, right? It's not like

you have a day of reckoning and you say

there aren't enough AI products and

services. I'm going to correct that

catalyst is going to be fuzzy. It's

going to be difficult to kind of put

together. And that's why I agree with

Michael Bur that that AI stocks are

collectively overvalued. We can we

whether you call it a bubble or not, but

I'm not ready to come to the conclusion

that they're overpriced because

overpricing means that there's a

catalyst, a demand supply chain that's

going to cause the pricing to move back

down. So you can believe that AI is

overvalued, but the market is pricing AI

and it doesn't seem to be as concerned.

And until there's a catalyst that causes

the two to converge, you can believe

there's a bubble, but not much you can

do about it. I want to dig into this

catalyst concept because we discussed

this um on our on our Monday episode. Um

I totally agree. You need a moment. You

need a shock. You need some sort of

event catalyst to catalyze the

correction. If I had to make any bets on

what the catalyst would be, I made the

bet in our previous episode. It would be

the implosion of open AI because of the

amount of spending that we've seen or

the amount of promised spending uh that

they've talked about that Sam Alman has

talked about $1.5 trillion in spending

and the fact that they are only

generating $13 billion in ARR. So how

are they going to pay for it? And the

big tell for me at least and I think for

many was this moment last week where Sam

Alman was asked the question on a

podcast, how are you going to pay for

it? And he had this incredible defensive

reaction and we actually have that clip

and I'd like to get your reaction to it.

So let's just play that clip.

>> How, you know, how can a company with 13

billion in revenues make 1.4 trillion of

spend commitments? And you've heard the

criticism, Sam. Well, we're doing well

more revenue than that. Second of all,

Brad, if you want to sell your shares,

I'll find you a buyer.

I just enough like, you know, people are

I think there's a lot of people who

would love to buy OpenAI shares. I don't

I don't think you want,

>> including myself.

>> Including myself

>> who talk with a lot of like breathless

concern about our comput stuff or

whatever that would be thrilled to buy

shares. So I think we could sell, you

know, your shares or anybody else's to

some of the people who are making the

most noise on Twitter, whatever about

this very quickly.

>> Incredibly defensive reaction, which

leads us to believe perhaps that's going

to be the catalyst. What is your

reaction?

>> It's not just defensive. There's no

business argument in there, right?

There's I mean, you run a business. I

want to hear your business rationale for

why small revenues will become big

revenues and you're going to be able to

make profits on those revenues. He

doesn't even try that. I mean it's and

you may very well be right open AI might

be the trigger. The only problem is that

the money flowing into open AI is I mean

today I heard that you know the that

soft bank is pulling

its money out of Nvidia but it's putting

into open AI it's it's buying in. I

think unfortunately there are a lot of

people with deep pockets who will keep

open AI going.

So even when you get those

disappointments, revenues not going up,

they'll find rational excuses.

I I think it's going to be a corporate

governance issue at OpenAI. In addition

to not having business sense, they have

a person at the top that at this point

in time has complete power over where

this enterprise is going. If we don't

know how to build a business, it's not

going to build itself. So that might be

the catalyst but that catalyst could

take three or four years to play out

because there are enough delusional

people supplying capital who will keep

supplying capital because you know it'll

take a lot of reckoning before they say

okay this isn't working. So, but I think

he, you know, Sam should probably stay

away from microphones because this might

speed up the process if you realize the

person you handed tens of billions to

doesn't know how to build a basic

business.

We'll be right back after the break. And

if you're enjoying the show, send it to

a friend and please follow us if you

haven't already.

Support for the show comes from

LinkedIn. One of the hardest parts about

moving to a new city is finding your

people. You can look far and wide, but

it's hard to find the people who just

get you. And the same goes for B2B

marketers. Locating the right people who

align with your business and an audience

that connects you with your product and

your mission can make all the

difference. But instead of spending

hours and hours scavenging social media

feeds, you can just tap LinkedIn ads to

reach the right professionals. According

to LinkedIn, they have grown to a

network of over 1 billion professionals,

making it stand apart from other ad

buys. You can target your buyer by job

title, industry, company role, seniority

skills, and company revenue, giving you

all the professionals you need to reach

in one place. So you can stop wasting

budget on the wrong audience and start

targeting the right professionals only

on LinkedIn ads. LinkedIn will even give

you a $100 credit on your next campaign

so you can try it yourself. Just go to

linkedin.com/markets.

That's linkedin.com/markets.

Terms and conditions apply only on

LinkedIn ads.

[Music]

We're back with Profy Markets.

>> So as I just want to put forward a

thesis and something we've been talking

about and have you nullify or validate

it. But when I look at these valuations

kind of baked into these valuations are

either massive incremental revenues from

new products as a as a function of these

chips and LLMs or efficiencies. And all

I see in terms of an ROI in this

unprecedented investment so far is the

latter. And that is I don't see a lot of

moisturizers from L'Oreal or cars from

GM that were sort of AI inspired. What I

do see, and it's real, is companies

saying we're going to cut our legal fees

by 30 or 50 million using AI.

But in order to justify these

valuations,

it strikes me that the level of quote

unquote efficiencies, which is Latin for

layoffs, is going to be pretty

extraordinary.

And if you look at if you assume that

150 million jobs in the US, fewer people

work than people think. And if you

assume half those jobs are somewhat

immune to AI, you know, you're a

masseuse or a pipe fitter. So assume 75

million jobs are somewhat vulnerable. I

see one of two things in the next 12

months. Either there is pretty serious

chaos in the labor markets across some

industries that are vulnerable or the

magnificent seven these companies get

cut in half. It just feels like one of

those two things has to happen. Your

thoughts?

>> The weakest link in the argument is a

product and service market. the

architecture people have spent immense

amounts on even the open AI the the

other players in the middle of the game

you know going to provide the software

you that's been built up there is very

little evidence right now that you're

able to even the companies that are

talking about cost cutting you look at

the actual amount of costs that have

been cut you look at the expenses across

periods you don't see a massive drop off

in expenses so right now the product and

service market is all talk And my belief

is the consumer side of that market is

not going to be particularly lucrative.

I look at the kinds of things I get as a

consumer from AI and I say that's neat

but I'm not paying $10 a month for that.

The businessto business AI there are

segments but only in the highowered

segments where the the coming together

of large data and and computing power is

going to make a difference. I don't

think open AI is going to make u you

know equity research better or portfolio

managers perform better. So in those

areas I don't see the net plus that

comes out of it. I can see the minus of

people being laid off but right now it's

still more talk than actual action. So I

believe it when I see fidelity layoff

half their analysts saying we replace

them with AI. No either way it's not

good news because they replace them with

AI. Those are people who will not have

jobs. they don't replace him with AI.

All this investment in AI has no real

easy way to pay off. So I agree with

your broader thesis. I'm not sure though

it'll happen in the next 12 months. This

is the problem with these open-ended

it's still developing is we cut so much

slack to companies and they'll find a

way to explain away why it didn't happen

in 12 months and there will be enough

people who buy into that explanation. So

I think something else has to come in in

addition to the numbers not coming in

for that recognition to say hey guys

we've overshot but I think you're right

you know I don't see I'll give you a

rough estimate given even what's already

been spent on the AI architecture the AI

products and services market has to

generate about $4 trillion

in revenues either in save cost or or

additional revenues

>> 4 trillion

>> 4 trillion

It's so basically take the architecture

investment and multiply by even with the

high margins you need to get 4 trillion

and from that because remember you got

to pay for that investment earn a

reasonable return so you back into it.

So four trill and right now it's it's

it's in the tens of billions

and you're looking at a $4 trillion

target and I'm looking at how do we make

up that difference and I don't see a way

we get there you know I don't see how

you increase revenues by that much with

just AI products and service or cut cost

by that much you're right something has

to give I'm just not sure when that

moment of recognition will be when you

start to adjust numbers down and it's

not all of the X7, right? I mean, it's,

let's face it, it's Meta,

Microsoft, those are big players.

Perhaps Alpha, but Amazon, there's still

much less of its value coming from AI.

Apple, I think, you know, much less. So,

I think it's going to be a kind of a

disjointed effect even across the Mac 7.

But I do think that there will be an

adjustment. I'm just not sure when. And

that's why I can't be on Michael Bur's

bandwagon saying, "Let's sell short

because there your time horizon is set

by somebody else.

and that's not a place I want to be. So

I I agree it's overvalued, but I'm not

comfortable enough to make the judgment

that it's overpriced enough to go out

and make a bet on the price correcting

in the next 6 months or the next 12

months.

>> So across the Magnificent 10 and it's

grown to 10 now because it it it the

numbers get more dramatic when you when

you when you bake in three more not

overvalued but fully valued companies.

But let's list them out. Nvidia, Apple,

Amazon, Alphabet, Microsoft, Meta,

Tesla, Advanced Micro Devices, Broadcom

and Palunteer, which now

which now make up 40% of the S&P by

total market cap. So you got the S&P

490 or 60% of the value and the S&P 10,

if you will, or the magnificent 10 or

40%. Amongst those 10, have you done any

analysis and are you comfortable saying

which you think are most overvalued or

most fairly valued? I'm going to go out

on a limb here and say there aren't

that. It'd be difficult to find one

that's undervalued.

>> There's nothing cheap. Yeah,

>> nothing cheap. What looks most

irrational, if you will.

>> I think Nvidia, I mean, five trillion, I

mean, as I said, it's it's an amazing

company, but at 5 trillion, you're

looking at uh the greatest company ever,

delivering 80% gross margins in

perpetuity on revenues that are going to

be a trillion dollars or more. And none

of those things hold up to any kind of

scrutiny. So from a pure over Tesla I

would put into that same grouping for a

different reason. I'm not even sure what

Tesla is as a company anymore. I reached

a point of I can't tell you what the

story is because I'm not sure Tesla

knows what the story is going forward.

So I think if I were to build a

portfolio around it, those would be the

two companies that take out the first.

And I'd probably leave Alphabet and

Amazon in there as my two mag seven

companies that are least overvalued

because you know Alphabet has had to

struggle more in the during this year

doesn't have that AI boom to it that the

other stocks have and Amazon I think

will find ways to make money which don't

require AI at all. So I think they might

be one of those companies which actually

is able to convert the promise of AI

into lower costs. It'll be brutal in

terms of the people hired at Amazon, but

there will be ways I think they can

convert the pro, you know, but I think

that to the extent that there's going to

be a correction, there's no place to

hide in stocks. I I can't see a way

because if the mag 10 go down by 40%.

It's not like the industrials are going

to hold their value while this happens,

the panic that that's going to create is

going to ripple through stocks. And I

think there's a good reason why gold is

hitting all-time highs. At the same

time, that's that's unusual because

usually when gold goes up, it's in the

context of a crisis where markets are

collapsing or with hyperinflation. The

there's I think you know I describe gold

as a niche market which in good times

when times are solid. That niche market

is composed of paranoid people and

doomsday fanatics.

But in other times it expands to bring

in people who normally invest in stocks

and bonds. I think the gold market is

attracting people who historically would

have been financial asset investors but

are scared enough now of a bubble not

just in AI but across stocks and across

financial assets that they're willing to

leave their money in something that

doesn't pay a coupon or cash flows.

That's the only way I can explain a gold

price rising in a year when stocks are

up 15 20% and you know financial assets

seem to be doing well. Interest rates

are not going up. Inflation at least in

posted numbers doesn't look like it's

taking off. There's enough of a subset

of the market that's saying I don't

believe these numbers. Something bad is

coming. And that's pushing up the price

of gold. So there's a message there for

investors. And if you're an investor

primarily invest in stocks and bonds, my

advice is even though historically you

might never have invested in

non-financial asset categories, this

might be a time where you think about,

you know, kind of at least moving a

portion of your portfolio know bigger

chunk than ever into cash or something

close to cash or maybe even

collectibles, things that I I've never

owned collectibles, but you know, for

the first time in my investing history,

I'm saying maybe I should hold something

that is not going to be effective.

Inflation goes to 10%, there's a market

and economic crisis that is catast

potentially catastrophic because that's

not being priced in by markets right now

and you know the chance of it happening

is perhaps greater than it's been in any

time the last 20 years.

>> I was shocked that at the top of your

list of companies most of valued in

those 10 wasn't Palunteer at 120 times

sales. I was counting them in the mag

seven. You know, obviously when you add

palente to the mix, you know, you add

now I I haven't done a recent my last

valuation of palenteer was almost a year

ago when the market cap is much smaller.

Obviously, the story's changed,

company's market cap has changed. I

haven't valued my palenteer recently.

So, it might very well be competing with

Nvidia at the top. And maybe that's the

reason Michael Bur's picked Palenter as

his other choice is, you know, where's

where's the number coming from? So, but

I apologize. I was focusing on the Mag

7, but you were talking about the Mag 10

there. So,

>> so just asking for a friend if someone

is thinking that not collectibles, but

something that might be more inflation

resistant. How do you feel about real

estate right now as an investment?

>> Rental properties more than traditional

real estate. I think that that's income

stream. So, you know, to the So, again,

it depends on where you buy the real

estate. I live in San Diego. That bubble

you see in stocks and bonds is playing

out in housing, right? because people

are feeling wealthy because their

portfolio is up 30%, they're going out

and buying a house reflecting that

portfol

or let's put quotes around the bubble in

AI or stocks is spilling over into the

consumption and buying habits of the

people who have a lot of money in the

market which is one reason if you look

at the economy it's the the top 10 20%

in terms of wealth that's driving a lot

of the energy the economy is they're

feeling rich because their portfolios

look bad, right? And that's, you know,

that's determining what house they buy.

But if you're in real estate, I think

you got to be selective. It might not be

buying a house in the city you live in.

It might be buying a rental property in

some other part of the country that's

not hot or you get enough rental income

that it covers what you'd have made

investing in a T- bond, but you have

something physical real you've invested

in. So again, something I've never

invested in the past, but something I'm

more likely to look at now than I would

have 5 years ago, 10 years ago, 20 years

ago.

>> I'm kind of amazed by almost how bearish

you sound. And just go over what you

said here. So one, um, there is a

bubble, an AI bubble. Two, there is no

place to hide in the stock market. And

three, for the first time you said ever,

you are looking at parking your money

into one cash and two collectibles

>> or physical assets which pay

>> that to me is a very striking statement.

I actually didn't expect that um from

you. uh what is different right now than

say 20 years ago, 10 years ago, 5 years

ago. The fact that this is the first

time you're considering it in your time

as an investor and as a legendary

investor and educator, what's different?

Right now,

>> we live in a world where everything

seems to be correlated, right? I mean,

it used to be even 10, 20 years ago, I

said, I'm going to put my money in

European stocks or Asian stocks or Latin

American stocks. You know, if I thought

US stocks were overvalued or I'm going

to move my money out of this sector into

this one because utilities tend not to

go down as much during the crisis than

technology companies. You know, one of

the problems and maybe you can lay

passive investing for this and the flow

of money is the correlations across

asset classes, across sectors, across

geographies has risen to the point where

know that classic rule of if you spread

your money across multiple geographies,

multiple sectors, you're going to be

more protected. that advice is not

holding up anymore because of the corate

because the markets seem to be moving so

much more. So you almost have to

struggle to find something that doesn't

move with markets where you didn't have

to do that 10 or 20 years ago. Now part

of this might be globalization. Part of

it might be the way in which people

invest through funds and through large

large index funds that move their money

to wherever the largest market cap is.

But it does make investing a lot more

dangerous because you know I can't tell

you as I said know people call me all

the time I feel worried where should I

put my money 20 years ago the kind of

advice I'd have given them if you can

stay in the stock market but try to

shift your money out of this sector into

this one you're going to be more

protected. I don't feel as inclined to

give that advice anymore because I don't

see that protection playing out as much.

>> So, you're assuming that there's going

to be some very very large, I assume,

correction in in the stock market.

>> It could be a large correction or a long

and painful correction, right? You could

have a 35% drop in the market over a

couple of weeks or you could have a

market that stretches out doing nothing

down six or 7% a year for three or four

or five years. Right? This is 1970s much

you know. So it either way you're hurt.

The second is an easier way for you to

kind of at least manage the decline. The

first is a shock. I'm not sure which

one's better as an investor to be quite

honest with you. get it out of the way

and say, "Okay, now my portfolio is now

down. Let me start building up again."

Because long stretches of flat or down

markets are incredibly,

you know, difficult to deal with as an

investor. They suck all the energy out

of you, right? Which is one reason by

the time you got to the late '7s, people

had had stopped investing in there were

some people who said, "I will never

invest in stocks again." Because it

that's what long stretches do. And

that's what we don't know yet how this

will play out. Will it be this climactic

moment where everybody wakes up and says

this is terrible. What have we done and

have this massive correction or is it

going to be something that's going to be

a drip drip drip correction that occurs

over time and you know we're going to

find out at least in we won't know until

hindsight but you know that's what I'm

watching for is where you know how will

that play out. For those who would say

to you, I've heard investors get

concerned before. Uh the people who say,

you know, economists have predicted

eight out of the last three recessions

or whatever the the the phrase is. Um

and I'm sure some people would listen to

this and that's running through their

head right now. This guy's saying he's

very worried there could be a lot very

large correction or a very long

correction. Either way, it's going to be

very painful. And so you kind of want to

trim your position out of the markets

and into something else, something that

isn't correlated. What would you say to

those people who have that skepticism of

like, you know, I've heard doomsday

predictions before. I'm not saying it's

a doomsday prediction, but it's a

negative prediction. Um, and you know,

some people get burned when they're

negative or if they're bearish.

>> I tell them exactly what I'm doing. I'm

not selling all the stocks in my

portfolio. I'm not running for the

hills. I'm not buying putting all my

money in gold or Bitcoin because I think

that's the kind of action where even if

you're right, you end up losing in the

long term because once you get out of

stocks entirely, it becomes very

difficult to get back in. You stay out

of markets too long. I know people who

sold in 2008, they got the timing right,

but they stayed out for the next decade.

And in hindsight, they're saying, "I

wish I hadn't done that." I'm not

selling everything, but I'm mopping and

loping portfolio positions in a and and

it's nice to be in a position where

you're taking a stock that's up 20 200%

or 2,000% in your portfolio. You're

selling 25% of it. I'm not even selling

all, you know, my even my Nvidia, I

staggered out over four different and I

still hold on to a quarter of the

Invidia that I tended to hold. So, I'm

not suggesting drastic selling

everything, but I'm suggesting taking

your profits. don't get greedy and

taking those profits and rather than

putting in the next hot stock holding it

in cash

or look so my portfolio allocation has

adjusted only gradually over the last 10

years and Michael Bur would look at my

portfolio and say you're overinvesting

stocks and he's probably right I will

probably feel more pain in a correction

than somebody who steps out of stocks

entirely now but I also feel more

comfortable in the long term I'm doing

this gradually and kind of doing this

adjustment because I'm never completely

I will never completely be out of stocks

and bots. It's not my nature. It doesn't

work with my risk aversion, but I'm I

have less of my portfolio invested in

long-term bonds and stocks. I don't own

much bonds to begin with stocks then

probably anytime in the but but that's

not come from just selling off

everything but for selling off my most

profitable my biggest winners and

bringing them back in line. Now I have

this upper limit of no no stock should

be more than 15% of my portfolio and

that served me well to get a lot of cash

on the side because I've had to lock

positions on my biggest winners to get

there. So I would say don't do anything

rash. I'm not suggesting you sell

everything. I don't s I know I don't I'm

not suggesting buying puts on the index.

I mean those are the kinds of things

that get people into trouble but at

least gradually start thinking about how

much you know at least for you know in

terms of cash needs for the next two or

three years. See if you can get a

portion of your portfolio where you

don't have to sell things cuz you need

to pay for your s for your kids tuition

college tuition because who knows what

price you might be selling at. So think

ahead, think ahead of what your needs

are are, your cash needs are going to be

and start thinking about, you know, what

in your portfolio you might want to take

your profits on.

>> You mentioned maybe you want to put it

in cash, maybe you want to put it in

physical assets, real estate, uh maybe

rental properties. Uh collectibles,

could you just describe what

collectibles are? What fits into that

category?

>> Gold is the classic one right now.

Basically, collectibles is entirely

driven by scarcity and enduring demand.

Now, would I put my money in Pokemon

cards? No, not, you know, that's not my

the collectible I would go with. I would

look for collectibles that have survived

the test of time. It's one reason I

would pick gold over Bitcoin. Cuz much

as Bitcoin has been a better money maker

for you in the last 15 years, I'm not

sure it survives that shake out that

comes when people say, "Oh my god."

So you want to steer your money to

collectibles and if it's a collectible

which you truly enjoy, it's you get

emotional dividends. So you love

paintings, you know, and this is what

you work with. If if that's where you

want to put some of your money into is

is baseball cards because you've truly

done your work on baseball cards. Who am

I to step in and say that's not a great

place to put your money? No. So I think

collectibles it has to depend on where

you get your emotional dividends. What

makes you happy? Because a collectible

is not going to give you any dividends

while it's sitting in your portfolio.

You might as well look at it and enjoy

it while you have it. So maybe you enjoy

looking at gold. Maybe you like wearing

jewelry. Maybe you like art on on the

wall. But you know, collectibles, I

think there is no one know one sizefits

all. It really depends on your makeup as

a person and what you think your

collectible class is. And yet it does

seem to fly in the face of the

principles of value investing a little

bit where you're investing in cash

flows.

>> Oh, absolutely.

>> For the value investors who who would

say, you know, if you're trying to

invest uh in downturns, you want assets

that produce cash flows, that can pay

dividends.

>> Then put your money in cash, right? Put

your money in tables. It's as simple as

that. So, if you don't feel comfortable

with collectibles, I completely

understand. I I mean I'm not comfortable

with electables so it's not my first

instinct but I think one of the problems

is if your worry is not about market and

economic crisis but hyperinflation all

those temporary things we started after

co have become permanent things and

we're not willing to raise the revenues

to cover those expenses we're setting

ourselves up for doubledigit inflation

then even cash is not going to protect

you because your currency is going to

devalue so it depends on What scares

you? If it's economic or market crisis

and holding your money in cash works. If

it's inflation, then I think you got to

almost leave the financial asset domain

and that includes cash even in

short-term investments and think about

what do I put my money in? And it's not

easy to find something. It's not a

healthy place to be as a marketer in

economy where that's what we're looking

for. But I'd wait that there's a subset

of the investing community which has

reached that place. I'm not sure whether

Ray Dalio or um um Jamie Diamond own

gold, but they talk a lot like they

should be owning gold, right? You listen

to them and say, "What exactly are you

holding?"

>> I know Ray has Ray Ray's big on gold

right now. Yeah,

>> that's uncommon, right? Because if you'

asked Ray Dal, 40 years ago, would you

buy gold? My guess is he'd have looked

at you like two heads saying, "Are you

crazy? Why would I buy gold? I'd go buy

Chinese companies or buy undervalued

companies in this economy." The very

fact that Ray Dalio is holding gold

tells you something about safe places

and how difficult it's become to find

them within the financial asset markets.

>> We'll be right back. And for even more

markets content, sign up for our

newsletter at profarkets.com/subscribe.

[Music]

Support for the show comes from Ziotics.

We often look forward to a night out

with friends, but we definitely don't

look forward to the next morning. That's

why there's Zbiotics. Zbiotics

pre-alcohol probiotic drink is the

world's first genetically engineered

probiotic. It was invented by PhD

scientists to tackle rough mornings

after drinking. And according to

Zbiotics, here's how it works. When you

drink, alcohol gets converted into a

toxic byproduct in the gut. It's this

byproduct, not dehydration, that's to

blame for your rough next day.

Pre-alcohol produces an enzyme to break

this byproduct down. Just remember to

make pre-alcohol your first drink of the

night. Drink responsibly and you'll feel

your best tomorrow. As I've mentioned

many times on the show, I enjoy

drinking. I'm trying to drink less as I

get older, but when I do drink, oftent

times try Ziotics. And I found that it

takes away probably about 30 to 40% of

of kind of that gross feeling the next

morning. Go to zbiotics.com/propg

to learn more and get 15% off your first

order when you use PropG at checkout.

Ziotics is backed by a 100% money back

guarantee. So, if you're unsatisfied for

any reason, they'll refund your money,

no questions asked. Remember to head to

zbiotics.com/propg

and use the code propg to check out for

15% off.

>> We're back with Profy Markets. Well,

each year as swath, we do a predictions

stack and one of the things we do is we

try and pick one of the big tech stocks

or one of the magnificent 10 that we

think is going to outperform the others.

And it's key that we say outperform the

others cuz I don't think anything looks

cheap right now. I'm not comfortable

saying this is a good this is a good

buy, but I think it will outperform,

meaning it might get it might go down

less than the others. And this year

we're thinking

um that it's going to be our pick is

going to be Amazon. Last year was

Google. It just looked cheap relative uh

to the rest of the S&P uh because of

this existential overhang that we

thought was over overblown about the

existential threat of uh AI relative to

its search business. By the way, search

business was up 14% and the stocks up

63% in the last 12 months. But the pick

this year we're thinking and I'd love to

get your thoughts is Amazon and that is

it's not cheap but it doesn't look

historically expensive. It's trading at

a pe of about 34. They've announced that

their retail unit they may achieve

double the revenues with the same number

of people. It feels like the collision

of AI and robotics and the early

investments they made in robotics is

really starting to pay off. And then

some, you know, free free gifts with

purchase. Uh an AI business or a cloud

business that's the leader that hasn't

gotten the valuation that some of the

other cloud or attention players have

gotten because it's seen as not the AI

capable cloud. We think they will fix

that. Kyper, you know, putting

satellites. We think that it'd be

interesting if they get any traction

there in some. How do you feel about our

pick of Amazon being uh on a

riskadjusted basis outperforming the

rest of the magnificent 10 over the next

12 months?

>> I think I you know I would pick Amazon

and Apple as my picks and the reason is

they haven't gone crazy on their AI

spending. I mean it's to me the caution

the natural caution that Tim Cook has in

terms of throwing money at new

businesses is going to be a plus not a

minus right so I know equity research

analysts pick on Apple for not being

aggressive in the AI and I think that's

going to be a good thing because when

the correction comes the people who have

been most aggressive are the ones who

are going to be most exposed and Apple's

lack of aggression I think might work in

their favor because they haven't been

throwing the 50 60 80 billion that you

see some of the other big tech companies

throwing at it. So I and Amazon's been

in my portfolio now for a few years and

as I said I you know it's one of those

companies that I would hold on to here

even through a correction and

continuence cuz let's face it it's

become such a central part of so many

people's lives. I I don't see it kind of

having a collapse of business

you know even if with an economic

contraction or correction. In fact, it

might benefit from that. Who knows?

Target might get so cheap that Amazon

could pick it up for pennies on the

dollar. So, who knows where it's going

to go next. So, I, you know, I I like

your pick. I mean, Amazon would be my

pick as well.

>> Going back to

what you're thinking about in terms of

trimming your positions,

um, I'm wondering if you have any uh if

your thoughts differ depending on

someone's risk profile, risk appetite,

and perhaps their age as well. So me as

an example, I'm a young person. AI is

the big hot new thing. Um, you know, I

want to get involved. I want to be on

the train somehow. Um, does your advice

change depending on your age and what

you're looking for? or for someone like

me, for example, I agree there's going

to be a correction, but I've also got to

tell you, I I don't want to dump AI and

get in cash. I don't want to do that.

>> I think, you know, if I were advising

you, I'd say do what you're doing, but

do it with caution. So, you know, you're

not you not only have a portfolio,

you're adding to that portfolio

presumably each year with, you know,

savings and additional money. My advice

is that additional money you're putting

into your portfolio don't all I mean if

your traditional practice I'm going to

buy the index fund every year you know

which is what I advise my kids to do

take your savings buy index funds go

back to doing your regular jobs because

I don't want you setting spending

evenings trying to pick stocks it's not

worth the effort now this year my advice

to them is that additional the savings

you got from your income this year

instead of putting it all into stocks

why don't you hold it as cash so it's

not advice about changing your existing

portfolio. It's about additions to your

portfolio being more cautious in those

additions at least for the near term now

or if you're you know I'm not a great

fan of of doing things on a staggered

basis but maybe rather than putting it

all at one go rather put it in four

installments over the next four

quarters. If nothing else if there's a

correction there then you don't get it

all up front. So it's just a little more

caution about increments to your

portfolio. But you have two things going

for you. One is the fact that you have a

long longer time horizon. The other is

you don't need your portfolio to supply

you cash to meet needs. You know for

people who don't need their portfolio to

provide cash, you get an advantage. You

get an advantage because you have a

downturn. You don't need the portfolio.

You don't need to sell it to get the

cash. So people who are closer, so it's

not as much age as how close are you to

having to cash out your portfolio to do

something, to buy a house, to go to

college, the closer you are to that, the

more cautious I would suggest you become

or maybe convert more of your portfolio

into cash cuz those are the people who

will be most damaged by a correction

that happens just before

they were planning to take the cash out

because then your lifestyle will have to

change. your choice of college might

have to change and that's not something

you want coming out of your portfolio.

So my advice would be would depend on

your age, how much cash needs you have,

what are you looking to do because those

will all play out and what you should be

doing. But I'm not a great fan of these

drastic actions where you sell

everything in your portfolio and you try

to move it all into something else

because often the long-term consequences

of that, you know, you end up worse off

than somebody who wrote through the

correction and was able to kind of come

back from it.

>> I'm glad you bring that up because I

think it it gets to the heart of of what

the problem is with corrections, which

is it is a timing problem. And you

mentioned that with Michael Bur. It's

like yes, you can go short, but that's

not the question. The question is the

timing. It's like, are you are you going

to time it right? And then the same

thing is true of what does the timeline

look like on your life? When will you

need the cash? And what position will

you need to be in on that time frame,

which I think is helpful. But I'm I am

struck by even for those who are not so

worried about timing, for those who have

a somewhat steady income and who are

young and who are trying to build a

portfolio, your view is still maybe

maybe don't keep um dollar cost

averaging into the market. maybe get

into cash, which is striking to me,

especially given inflation,

which is high, uh, appears to be going

even higher. It doesn't look like we're

going to be in a 2% inflation world. Um,

what would you say to those people?

>> Buy 3 month tables, roll them over. If

inflation actually turns out to be

higher than expected, that table rate

will rise. I mean the best measure of

protection against expected inflation

has been buying short-term treasuries.

So I think that you know my advice is if

that is your concern is that inflation

should up keep it shortterm. I mean I

buy my treasuries directly from the US

Treasury. So you're not going through

intermediaries. You basically pick the

per the the expiration date when the

table's going to expire 3 months 6

months whatever works for you. have a

preset rule as to when you plan to get

that into stocks. So you might say,

"Look, I'm going to put this into

treasuries, but I won't be the one who

pulls the trigger when it goes into

stocks. This is what'll happen when once

the cash sits there for 6 months or 9

months, it almost on autopilot moves

into my index fund." So it's not you're

not changing your historical pattern of

being invested in risky assets and

looking for the higher return. You're

just slowing the process down. So you're

not jumping in at a time just before a

correction hits and then fe facing you

know. So I think that's all you're doing

is kind of giving yourself a little

slack in this process. When we last

chated it was in August and we were

talking about big tech valuations. we

were talking about not that there was an

AI bubble, but that there were there was

a lot of momentum and perhaps a lot of

hype and you were somewhat bearish on AI

or somewhat bearish on tech at the time.

Now you are more bearish, it appears to

me at least. Um I'm wondering if there

was a moment or maybe uh a specific

company or a specific valuation that

sort of changed your tune on this. I

know that it wasn't a 180, but there's

certainly been an acceleration in your

views.

>> I think it's more incremental and part

of it is watching these companies invest

in each other, right? I mean, it's it's

there's this almost incestuous

relationship between the big AI players

and one of two things can be driving.

One is that they want to dominate the AI

space that's going to emerge 5 years

from now and they want to create these

barriers to entry. The other is this is

almost like a Ponzi scheme where they

have to keep investing in each other,

making each other look more valuable

because that's the only way they can get

the rest of the market to go in. I'm not

ready to make a decision that it's the

latter. But watching that happen has

made me more negative about AI. If you

really feel as, you know, as invi that

you're going to carry the game, why

would you need these crossinvesting in

other players in the game? because that

seems like you're hedging your bets and

protecting yourself and making sure that

nobody new is going to break in. So that

suggests to me that much as they they

convey confidence in the market that

they think they're going to rule the

world of AI that within these companies

there's still uncertainty about whether

they will in fact rule the world of AI

and what they're creating is this

preemptive barrier to other people

entering. So that's the one thing that I

think has changed for me is watching

that

cross company investment and what it

tells me about what's in their mindsets

about the future of AI.

>> Going back to the beginning of this

episode where I asked about you know

this this conventional wisdom the idea

that a lot of people are saying that

there is a bubble and a lot of people

are also pointing out what you just said

which is the circular investments the

incestuous relationships and all the

negative connotations that come about.

Um, and yet we're looking at all-time

highs and yet we're looking at, you

know, 56 times earnings on Nvidia. We we

are looking at very very rich valuations

while everyone says, "Yeah, it's a

bubble." Even the people who run these

companies in some cases are saying maybe

not it is a bubble, but it certainly

could be a bubble. Is that unusual? Does

that surprise you?

>> Not at all. Right. Because think of how

portfolio managers get evaluated, right?

They get evaluated against other

portfolio managers. So if you did not

own the MAG 7 over the last 5 years, all

the money's left your port your clients

have left. If you do buy into Nvidia

now, even if it's a high and there's a

correction, guess who you get measured

against? Other portfolio managers who

also own Nvidia who also see the same

correction. You're down 37%.

But if everybody else is down 43%, you

still say, "Look, I came out of this

much better off." And because we let

people create their own their own

pathways, I'm a tech investor. I'm a

They essentially have this argument.

Look, I had no choice. I had to invest

in this because this is what tech look

like. I think the way we reward and

punish success in active money

management doesn't reward people who

lead the herd, right? It's so if I were

if I had a ch a son or a daughter as a

portfolio manager, I'd say look, you

know, pile into with the momentum

because even if you're wrong, you have

lots of company when you're wrong and

nobody gets fired when 90% are wrong.

But if you have a contrarian path and

you decide to sell short on the Mac 7

and you turn out to be wrong, you lose

your job. So I think the way we and

that's why it's only people like Michael

Bur who can do this. I'm going to sell

short because they're not managing

conventional money. They're not they've

got a subset of clients who bought into

their into what they do. But you can't

do this if you're a big portfolio

manager, big endowment fund because the

way you get judged, way you get rewarded

and punished essentially keeps you on

that stay with the crowd. Even if that

crowd is wrong, it's better to be with

the crowd and be wrong than to break

away from it.

>> For those who are listening to this and

feeling perhaps anxious, um I mean there

are a lot of concerns. There's the the

valuations that you're describing, the

possibility of a correction, there's the

fact that AI could have massive effects

on the job market. Um perhaps some

people I know many listeners feel that

they are concerned about the security of

their jobs. Um what would you say to

those people? Uh what would be your

advice?

>> You can control only what you can

control. So my advice is take your job

take a look at what you do. If 998

97% of what you do is mechanical,

whether AI is here or not, you're asking

to be replaced by a machine.

So try to create a component of what you

do that is going to be difficult for a

machine to do. I mean, I give I gave a

talk right after, you know, about AI

bots because I had an AI bot that was

trying to replicate me and I said,

"Look, I'll make your job easier. Here

are the things that I do that you could

replicate. those data sets that I

upgrade every year. Hey, you can do that

very simply yourself, you know. So, so I

actually took out the 80% of what I do.

So, you can do this. Here's the part

that I think I can do that you're going

to have a much tougher time. I would say

impossible because who knows how

sophistic I think we all need to do a

personal inventory of what we do at our

jobs and whether it's something that a

machine could do better. Now, I'll give

you a very simple example. Right now

people keep sending me ways in which

they think they can beat the market if I

do this and this and I have a very

simple response that can chat do what

you've just described as doing so I buy

low PE stocks with high growth rates

will I make money and I said how

difficult do you think it is going to be

to find low PE stocks with high grow

especially when you look at past growth

chat GPT can do that why do you think

you're going to be able to make money on

something that a machine can do

effortlessly.

So my advice to people is act like AI is

going to take your job because it's

better to do that and not have AI

measure up to its promise than the

alternative which is think AI is never

going to take off. You keep doing what

you're doing and one day you walk into

your office and you've been fired and

replaced by a by a bot that essentially

does what you do. Could I just ask for

you personally when you eliminated all

the 80% of the things that you believe

that AI could replicate in your work?

What were you left over with? What what

can AI not do that you do?

>> Imagination and creative the kinds of

things where my my family takes issue

with me. I'm a daydreamer. I I connect

these unconnected things in my mind and

most of the time it's useless. I'm you

know people say I'm wasting time because

I'm doing this but some of my most

productive thoughts have come from

connecting you know I wrote a piece on

this about catastrophic risk and I don't

know whether I ever mentioned this was

about start of this year I got an email

from somebody in Iceland who read my

blog and he said look I've been reading

your blog but I have a valuation

challenge I'm valuing this Icelandic spa

called Blue Lagoon it's a legendary spa

and I'm facing a problem I've never

faced before there's this volcano that's

erupted and the lava is flowing in the

general direction of the blue lagoon and

I don't know how to bring that into

valuation. I've looked at all the books.

There's no lava risk in any of the

books. So I read the email. I never

answered to him, but I took my dog for a

walk and while I was on the walk, I was

thinking about this and I started

thinking about

the fact that fossil fuel companies, you

know, you have COP 30 and you talk

about, you know, how come fossil fuel

companies are trading at much higher

multiples of earnings and there is

there's catastrophic risk looming. And

while I'm thinking about fossil fuel

companies, I remember the house I own

two blocks from the Pacific Ocean, one

of the worst earthquake falls. And I

said, "What was I thinking when I paid

the money that I paid for that house?"

Again, catastrophic risk. And I'm acting

like it's not there. And while I'm still

there, I'm thinking about the Mad Max

movies. I'm thinking about how often in

the Mad Max movies do people check their

portfolios almost never. And the

conclusion I came to was we as human

beings take catastrophic risk and we

don't build build it into our

expectations. We set it to the side cuz

our view is if that happens, who cares

what your portfolio looks like, you

know, we don't build in nuclear war into

our expectations. We don't build in the

fact that the oceans could rise 3 ft

because if that happens, none of the

other stuff matters.

And that all came from a 30 minute walk

where I let my mind wander.

So I don't think a computer is going to

do it because it's going to be too I

mean it's not that's what makes us human

beings the capacity to connect

disconnected thoughts an apple falling

on your head and the law of gravity. How

the heck do you go from one to the

other? But Newton did this right? Some

of the greatest insights of mankind have

come from people connecting disconnected

things. So keep an idle mind. Read less.

think more, daydream more. I mean, and I

think unfortunately, if you were a

conspiracy theorist, you would argue

that technology companies are setting us

up to be replaced because they're taking

every space of idle time we have and

filling it up with something. I mean,

you go to catch a flight, take a look

around you, every person is checking

their iPhone, right? You're filling your

space, reading Facebook posts, reading,

looking at it. We are not giving

ourselves that idle time to let our mind

connect. And I know it's a strange thing

to say, but that's an advantage I have

over a machine that's going to be very

difficult for the machine to replicate.

So, you know what I'm going to do? Read

less, daydream more. And I've been doing

that a lot because for the last 3

months, I've been looking after my

granddaughter who just turned 6 months.

And when you're with and I'm the

caregiver so you don't have the luxury

of reading or so basically I'm spending

all my time holding a baby feeding it

putting it to sleep and it's an amazing

time to let your mind wander and to me I

you know I I I don't know what will come

out of this maybe nothing will but I'm

glad I have that time should be a vital

time cherish it because that's when I

think you can find your AI beater within

you

>> as deodoran is the kasha family chair in

finance education and professor of

finance at NYU Stern School of Business

where he teaches corporate finance and

valuation. You can also read his

research on his blog musings on markets.

Professor Demodin uh always a pleasure.

Thank you so much.

>> Thank you for having me.

>> Very much appreciate your time as well.

>> Take care Scott.

>> Thank you for listening to Profy Markets

from Profy Media. If you liked what you

heard, give us a follow and join us for

a fresh take on markets on Monday.

[Music]