Today's number, $5,923.

That's the price of the cheapest ticket

to the Super Bowl this year. Ed, I don't

even watch the game. I watch for the

commercials. My favorite commercial,

Cardi B's Wet Ass Pepsi.

>> What's going on, Ed?

>> I'm doing very well. It's still freezing

cold here. It's unbelievable. Mountains

of snow on the streets of New York. It's

It's pretty insane. How are you doing?

>> I'm good. I'm in Jackson Hall. I spoke

at one of these master another master of

the universe conference and decided to

stay here and ski. When I say ski, I

mean sit inside a beautiful room and do

podcasts all [ __ ] day long.

>> Just to confirm you you I know you

already did one. Is it two in Jackson

Hall or is it just the one and you're

there for a for a few days?

>> No, it was just the one. I've done a

bunch of meeting though cuz one of the

great things about having the footprint

that I enjoy um is if you post where you

are, people like you haven't heard from

like, "Oh, remember me? We played

basketball together in the 11th grade.

You want to have coffee? I'm like, no,

but it's good to hear from you. Um,

people, it's so funny. I was out last

night and a bunch of people came over

and the people I with are like, "Do

people come up to you?" I'm like, "Yeah,

they come up to me a lot and they say,

why do you think that is?" It's because

everyone assumes I'm so [ __ ] pathetic

that they're doing me a favor coming up

and saying, "Hi." Everyone assumes that

I'm so lonely and so desperate and

depressed and have so few friends that

people don't come up to me and say I

mean they come up and they're very nice

but they're more like do you want to

join us? Are you okay?

So it's

>> I highly highly doubt that.

>> It's a different type of approach. But

anyways, I'm here in Jackson Hole. It is

it is beautiful.

>> Are you skiing?

>> No, I'm all about injury. The only time

I ski now is with my boys because I'm

all about injury prevention.

Uh, but I'm going to go snowshoeing. I'm

officially an old man. In between World

War II documentaries, I'm going to go

snowshoeing.

>> You're not skiing because you're afraid

of getting injured. Really? It's a

That's a little bit of a lame excuse. I

I just got to be real with you.

>> I don't like the outdoors and I

especially hate skiing.

>> Okay, fair.

>> I can't stand The reason I ski is I want

to be able to trap my boys on a mountain

for four or five hours where they have

to talk to me.

>> Yes.

>> And so I ski I maintain I'm I'm also not

very good at it. Are you a good skier?

I'm a decent skier. Yeah. I'm not I'm

not amazing, but I'm okay.

>> I'm not. And their mother is such an

extraordinarily beautiful skier. I

remember the first time I saw her ski, I

was like, "Wow, that's amazing.

>> It is very cool." And people are good at

skiing.

>> And she grew up very kind of lower

middle class, middle class in Poland.

And she said her parents just always put

her on skis two or three weeks a year.

And I said, "We got to do that for our

boys." But unfortunately, when you do

that, you have to actually ski with

them. So, but no, if I if I don't I

would much ra I'm sitting in here. I'm

going to go work out. I might, you know,

do one of these weird like hot stone

wrecky massage treatments with some dude

with beads who's going to talk to me

about my chakra. And I like that [ __ ]

Now I'm turning into like the white

women of wine. I'm just into the spa.

Um, and I'll just hang on. We'll go for

a really nice dinner. But here I am

stuck in the middle with you. Anyways,

are you resisting and unsubscribing, Ed?

Isn't that next month?

>> Next month, [ __ ] Do you even follow

anything I do? Starting on Sunday, and I

know Ed's very interested. We're trying

to engage in a targeted national

economic strike against big tech and the

companies enabling ICE and the Trump

administration's policy of terror and

anxiety come to you in your own town.

And we're putting on a site listing all

these companies that might move the S&P.

Trump responds to markets, not to

protests or to political pressure. He

responds to markets. And we think we

found a way to press on the soft tissue

of the markets and that is to go after

these big tech firms by just

unsubscribing.

Um, we talked about this in the last

one, but the site goes live on Sunday.

We think it's we think we're on to

something in terms of a low tax,

loweffort way to perform what is the

most radical act in a capitalist society

and that is not participation. But I've

been spending a lot of time on it, Ed.

People have called challenge on my

[ __ ] and said the music needs to

match the words. What are you actually

doing

>> now? You have to do something.

>> I know. I hate that. I hate that. I'd

rather just [ __ ] from the I'd rather

just heckle from the cheap seats. Ed,

>> can we

just talk about

>> Can I just pretend to be concerned?

>> This is an outrage. Off to off to

Jackson Hoer game.

Gosh. Most of the Magnificent 7 reported

earnings last week. Overall, it was a

strong quarter with Microsoft, Meta, and

Apple all beating expectations on the

top and bottom lines. However, the

reactions from the market have been not

as consistent. So, we're going to go

through all of these earnings, Scott,

see what you make of them. Uh, and I

think that we should probably start with

Meta. Fourth quarter sales rose 24% from

a year earlier. Also issued strong than

expected sales guidance for the current

quarter. stock rose as much as 10%.

So that has been the biggest performer.

Um I think you know a few things stand

out to me about the the Meta earnings. I

mean one is as we'll see the earnings

were pretty similar to what Microsoft

reported but it was a tale of two stocks

here because Meta rose around 10%

Microsoft fell around 10%. Microsoft

wiped out nearly half a trillion dollars

in value. So I think the big question

here is what was different about Meta

and I think the thing you have to sort

of look at here is this unbelievable

revenue growth of 24% $60 billion in

revenue um over the year. So that is

just a staggering

um increase from what we've seen before.

And I think what Zuckerberg is basically

proving is that AI is turbocharging the

business. And now investors are

realizing, okay, this guy probably knows

what he's doing. We could also talk

about the capex which exploded or at

least the guidance exploded 115 to 135

billion in capex guidance for 2026 up

60% from last year. He's doubling down

on AI. Last year people were scared

about that. Now investors decide

actually we trust this guy. Scott, any

initial reactions to Meta and then we'll

get into the other earnings as well.

>> Well, it appears that it's better to be

in the business of leveraging AI than in

the business of AI. And there's few

companies that can boast that they have

adopted to greater effectiveness AI than

Meta right now. Um the users clicked on

Facebook ads 3 and a half% more often

this quarter and boosted conversions on

Instagram by 1%.

And the number you talked about, they

increased, what was it? They increased

their revenues 23%.

>> 24%.

>> I mean on on that number on that topline

number what I would have loved to have

seen is I don't think they did it with

many more employees.

So, you know, they are kind of I mean,

quite frankly, anyone who's on Instagram

or on Rails or on threads understands

the power of AI because I keep getting

served with more and more relevant I

mean almost kind of those eerie moments

where I'm talking about doing a trip to,

you know, DC with my kids and I start

getting served ads by the park high at

DC and it's like, who are they? You

know, it just it's incredible how

they've been leveraging AI. Microsoft,

it was that, and you said this, that the

new expectation is that you beat

expectations and they only met

expectations. So, it wasn't, you know,

they took the stock down 10%. Which I

I'm not entirely sure I understand.

Maybe it's cuz they're just got out over

their skis, but the metal one really

struck me. Any thoughts on Microsoft,

Ed?

>> Yeah, Microsoft is pretty staggering. um

you know $440 billion in market value

just erased pretty much overnight after

they I mean you say met expectations

which is more accurate they beat by like

marginally I mean revenue was up 17%. I

think saying they met expectations is

the right characterization.

Um I think two issues for Microsoft. One

is that Azure the the cloud growth this

is all that investors really care about

because this is representative of how uh

how growthy is your AI business. It grew

39%. I still think that's a pretty big

number. It also beat expectations or as

you say met expectations but it's

slightly lower than the previous

quarter. So I think investors are kind

of upset about that. I think maybe in

comparison to Meta um they see the

growth of that business and they don't

like that. But I think the big problem I

would estimate and we'll see over the

coming weeks uh is their RPO number,

their remaining performance obligations,

their future future commercial bookings.

Basically this is how much revenue they

have in the in the pipeline. the

contracts they've secured which they're

going to see in the income statement uh

in the next few quarters. It grew

dramatically to $625 billion. So that's

great news. However, 45%

of that backlog is attributable to Open

AI. I think investors have decided what

we have been saying for a long time,

which is you can't really trust this

company if you're making $1.5 trillion

in spending commitments all over the

place.

um and you're only making generating $13

billion in revenue and you're going out

there and you're kind of struggling to

raise not struggling to raise but

they're raising they're talking about

raising you know hundred billion but

that that doesn't cut it there's so many

so much money they have to spend on

these contracts in the next few years

and basically Microsoft is coming out

there there and saying hey we have a

bunch of growth opportunity coming down

the pike uh but half of it is going to

come from open AI and it appears that

investors are saying uh we call

[ __ ] We don't think that that

revenue is actually going to come in. I

would guess that that is the main

concern. I think there's the additional

concern that compounds the mistrust in

OpenAI which is where is that revenue

actually coming from? Well, it's not

coming from their profits. This is not a

profitable business. It's coming from

Microsoft. Microsoft is the main

investor in OpenAI. So, this is just the

circular transaction happening again.

Microsoft invest and then it comes back

to Microsoft in the form of these

remaining performance obligations which

makes it doubly concerning. So I think

these are this is the investor response.

People are coming around and saying you

know this open AI thing

this has gone a little a little too far

at this point. And so if you come out

and say yeah we've got all this money

coming in but most of it's open AI we're

not going to take it all too seriously.

I see a theme emerging where it's better

to draft off of the AI wars in terms of

capital expenditure than to be on the

front lines. And that is it feels like

people are increasingly skeptical that

uh Open AI is going to be able to

justify an $850 billion valuation much

less the trillion or trillion half

dollar valuation that's been floated for

a public offering. and that there's, you

know, only about three or five percent

of its users actually upgrade to a paid

subscription and it looks like they're

being bested by anthropic in the

enterprise market. So that's beginning

to infect Microsoft who again is looking

to similar to the way that Tesla is

claiming Optimus robots are going to be

the growth vehicle being reliant or

claiming that you can justify a $4

trillion valuation because of all the

additional profits and revenues to your

point you're going to get from your

investment or your relationship with

Open AI that looks like there's no way

it can meet its expectations is a

dangerous place to be. At the same time,

when you're a company like Meta or even

I would argue a company like Whimo

where you're leveraging AI, you're

you're drafting off of or freewriting

off of other people's cheap capital and

massive investments. I mean, even Apple,

I think Apple will probably be a

beneficiary of AI because what they'll

do is similar to avoiding the search

wars, they'll stay out of it and they'll

start figuring out ways to provide

licensing agreements or access to the

billing consumers. But it feels like the

new kind of Libus test is all right.

It's great to be in AI, but your

valuations have gotten out in front of

your skis and you're spending so much

money that the sweet spot is to leverage

AI and leverage the falling price and

inference and show that you know how to

leverage AI see above, you know, Meta's

targeting capabilities. Can we talk

about Tesla for a second, Ed?

>> Yeah, we should talk about Tesla. I mean

ju just before we move on to Tesla, I

would just add one caveat which is that

Meta is spending like crazy on AI. I

mean that capex was unbelievable. But I

think that to your point what investors

want to see is like show us that you

have leveraged AI, show us that there's

real money coming in. Meta was able to

do that which gives them the option to

go out and spend like crazy. That could

reverse, you know, on a dime and we've

seen this continue to happen over the

past year. I think what we're

increasingly seeing in the AI wars is

this is this is a a war of vibes, a

narrative. This is all about like does

the market generally agree that you know

what you're doing with AI and are you

associating with the right people. Last

year associations with open AI was a

vibe to the upside. Now it's reversed.

It's a vibe to the downside. I think

it's it's highly possible that that vibe

could keep whipsing back and forth, but

there is no question the vibe is

massively important to valuations right

now. It's literally moving hundreds of

billions of dollars at a time.

>> Well, just just just to use an acronym

here, ROI, right? It's all about ROI to

some extent. And there's a a raft of new

unicorns and it's an exciting part of

the economy and we got to give AI, you

know, its credit. it there it's created

an ecosystem of companies that put a

thick layer of innovation on top of

inference and then sell into niche niche

you know uh products and services into

into specific sectors and they're

basically free riding off of the massive

the massive eye right and they get a big

return because they can free ride and

have small eye themselves which makes

the ROI bigger and then there's

companies that are huge on the eye but

it's not entirely clear what the R is I

would put open AI high in that bucket.

It's like it's very hard to figure out

how all of this spending and these

trillion dollar commitments where the R

is going to be big enough. But the sweet

spot is companies that have huge R and

huge I because they're seen as pulling

away from everybody else but also are

showing the massive kind of return. And

right now that's meta huge capbacks can

make that capback so they can pull ahead

of Pinterest didn't lay off people

because of AI efficiency. to laid off

people because they can't compete with

um a company like Meta and in addition

it's showing huge Rs. So the sweet spot

that creates, you know, what might be

the most valuable company in the world

at some point is enormous R and enormous

I so to speak. Tesla.

>> Tesla.

>> Tesla. Oh my gosh, I love that he's

trying to distract. Talk about weapons

of mass distraction on the on the

earnings call. I don't know if you saw

this. Musk updated investors on Tesla's

new mission, which is open quote

>> to build a world of amazing abundance.

and we're going to build a world of

amazing

abundance. I I would translate that into

an abundance of ketamine before the

earnings call. He also focused on

Tesla's humanoid robot product, Optimus.

Sales of the robot are expected to begin

in 2027. Musk mentioned Optimus 28 times

on the earnings call. I'm I'm shocked he

didn't threaten to bomb Iran at this

point to distract from the fact that the

Cybert truck is a total [ __ ] disaster

and revenues were actually down.

Automotive revenues declined 10% yearon

year and their pre-tax profit margins in

2025 were about 6% less than half as

much as Toyota's. Just to give you a

sense for what is I would say with the

exception of Palanteer the most

overvalued company in the world. Uh

Tesla trades now at 400 times earnings.

Toyota which in my view is the best

managed automotive company in the world

trades at 10 times earnings. Your

thoughts? I would love to know if there

have been companies in history and that

I would go with large cap companies in

history that have traded at near 400

times earnings and yet their revenue has

been in decline for not just multiple

quarters but going getting on to

multiple years now. I mean that is just

unbelievable the fact that revenue the

stock actually jumped in after hours

then it came down. People seem to kind

of, I guess, come to their senses a

little bit, but revenue was down 3%

year-over-year.

And yet, this is the company of the

future. It's a declining business.

>> It's a declining business, trading at

400 times earnings.

>> And we can just go through more of the

statistics. I mean, there's no question

this was a horrific year for Tesla.

>> Operating margins down, everything.

>> Yes. Free cash flow down 30%

year-over-year. Net income down 61%

year-over-year. Also, a lot of the

reason why they're staying afloat is

because of these regulatory credits

where they registered half a billion

dollars because of these regulatory

credits. Without them, profit would have

fallen another 65%. And of course, the

big beautiful bill is going to get rid

of those regul regulatory credits going

forward. But the genius, and I mean you

call his bluff, and so do I, and I think

so do many investors, but the market

seems to believe it. The genius is Elon

has been able to just launder in a new

future growth project every few years to

keep the multiple afloat. He's not he's

not keeping this business or this

valuation up through fundamentals. He's

decided he doesn't even care about that.

The car sales are done, whatever. But

he's laundering in his next project,

which is the Optimus, which as you say,

he mentioned 28 times on the earnings

call. He said he's going to stop

producing the Model S and the Model X

because he's going to increase the

production capacity for these humanoid

robots. So, that's one piece. And then

there are these rumors out or at least

Bloomberg has been reporting this that

he's considering merging Tesla with

SpaceX and also merging Tesla with XAI

and also investing having Tesla invest

$2 billion into XAI. So then the stock

goes up again on that news. So this guy

is just like a a magician of I guess

brand laundering would be perhaps sort

of maybe multiple laundering, valuation

laundering. I'm not sure what exactly

what it is, but it's working because

somehow this business is in decline and

yet the markets are saying, "Yeah, it's

okay. We've got the we got the robots

coming later. We got the AI coming

later. It'll be fine."

>> I think he's going to attach every

anchor to the the ship here that is

SpaceX. I think he's going to roll it

all up into one kind of AI story about

space, communications, connectivity,

self-driving cars, robots, and talk

about a world of abundance where you can

get to where you need to be faster,

communicate with people faster, new

ideas, new communication,

um, new means of of self-expression,

unlimited abundant. I think it's going

to turn into this giant kind of tomorrow

belongs to me narrative with all these

granted amazing products and companies

and the ones that aren't working he'll

roll up into the ones that are working

>> right

>> u but I think this has been his plan all

along it's you're right it's a ton of

jazz hands it's trying to sell the

narrative over the numbers and

constantly get people to look away from

the numbers

>> so they're focused on the narrative and

also the narrative is very exciting

space launch capabilities

you know, huge communications platform,

self-driving cars, electric EVs. I mean,

it's like every 8-year-old's dream is

this company, you know, or every

8-year-old boy's dream is this company.

And then never lets never lets the

company settle in enough to let analysts

say, "Okay, this is what this company

is, and this is the multiple it should

be trading at or the range of the

multiple it should be trading at." I

think it's so true that there's a

benefit to having analysts and

commentators and investors and observers

just arguing over what actually is the

company.

>> Yeah. Just whips it around.

>> Yeah. And it gives it this this air of

like it's so mysterious. We don't even

know what it is. How do you even define

it? You can't even pin it down.

>> You just described Palunteer.

>> Exactly. Palanteer as well.

>> And it's like it's almost as if that's

what you need to do as a CEO these days

if you want to get that extraordinary

multiple. you have to just sort of

obiscate around this. You you can't

define what our company does. Our

company does so many different things.

We're doing all these things out in the

future. You don't you don't even know

what we're doing. And then we all

quibble in the comments about what is

Tesla. Is it a car company? Is it not a

car company? And ultimately, I think it

translates to an extraordinary multiple.

I find it ridiculous, but I mean, I

guess give the guy credit because it's

working. He's selling that narrative and

it's working well.

We'll be right back after the break. And

if you're enjoying the show so far, send

it to a friend and please follow us if

you haven't already.

Support for this podcast and the

following message is brought to you by

Erade from Morgan Stanley. Now that

Erade is part of Morgan Stanley, there's

even more to love. Get the freedom to

invest on your own with 0 commissions on

stocks, options, ETFs, and mutual funds,

plus account types for every investor.

And when you're ready, speak with a pro

to help guide you on your financial

journey. Discover more ways to make the

most of your money and get up to $1,000

when you open a brokerage account with a

qualifying deposit today. Learn more at

errade.com/offer.

Terms and other fees apply. Investing

involves risk. Morgan Stanley Smith

Barney LLC. Membership. Erade is a

business of Morgan Stanley.

Support for the show comes from

Fundrise. For the past 70 years, there's

been a room in finance that most people

couldn't enter. A room where you could

have invested in some of the biggest

names in tech companies including Airbnb

and Uber before their multi-billion

dollar IPOs. I'm talking about venture

capital. But unless you had millions of

dollars and the right connections, the

door to the venture capital room was

closed. You were stuck waiting in line

with everyone else. But recently,

Fundrise took a sledgehammer to that

door when they launched their venture

capital product and made it available to

anyone with a minimum investment of just

$10. Fundrise says their mission is to

give everyone the chance to invest in

the best tech and AI companies before

they go public. Visit fundrise.com/propg

to check out Fundrise's venture

portfolio and start investing in

minutes. All investments involve risk,

including the potential loss of

principle. Past performance is not

indicative of future results. This is a

paid advertisement.

Support for the show comes from

LinkedIn. It's a shame when the best B2B

marketing gets wasted on the wrong

audience. Like, imagine running an ad

for cataract surgery on Saturday morning

cartoons or running a promo for this

show on a video about Roblox or

something. No offense to our Gen Alpha

listeners, but that would be a waste of

anyone's ad budget. So, when you want to

reach the right professionals, you can

use LinkedIn ads. LinkedIn has grown to

a network of over 1 billion

professionals and 130 million decision

makers according to their data. That's

where it stands apart from other ad

buys. You can target buyers by job

title, industry, company role,

seniority, skills, company revenue.

Also, you can stop wasting budget on the

wrong audience. That's why LinkedIn ads

boast one of the highest B2B return on

ad spend of all online ad networks.

Seriously, all of them. Spend $250 on

your first campaign on LinkedIn ads and

get a free $250 credit for the next one.

Just go to linkedin.com/scott.

That's linkedin.com/scott.

Terms and conditions apply.

We're back with Profy Markets. We talk

about Apple. Uh not that much

interesting here. Stock is up a little

bit around 1% better than expected

earnings. Revenue was up 16% which is

pretty impressive. Um beat on EPS. I

think, you know, I think one analysis

that we found kind of interesting that

says something about Apple, I I'm not

particularly bullish on Apple, as you

probably know, um, but this was an

analysis from Sherwood. They got this

data from the Consumer Intelligence

Research Report, which found that people

aren't buying iPhones for the new

features of the iPhone. In fact, that

number is only 14%.

Everyone is buying an iPhone either

because their iPhone is old or because

their iPhone is lost or it's broken. And

they they lay out these numbers. It

translates to around 70% of new iPhone

purchases are for one of those two

reasons. And for me, I mean, I I think

Apple has gotten so entrenched in our

society as a product that the iPhone has

at least. And it is impressive that they

are growing sales, but in the long term,

I don't think it's very exciting what

they're doing. And I think the market's

response kind of reflects that. It's

like, "Yep, you did well. You're doing

things right. Congrats, and we're going

to reward you with, you know, a 1% bump

in the stock. I'm not going to give you

a super extraordinary multiple right

now, but, you know, things are going

well." I mean, it seems that Apple is

more and more becoming a a legacy uh

tech company and it seems to be

reflected in in in the numbers and also

uh in the way they're handling the

business. But any reactions from you?

>> I think you're being a little unfair. I

I was actually I was actually shocked

that they grew their revenues 16%. I

mean, that's on a company of this

revenue base, 16% is real.

>> Yeah.

>> And it's actually its fastest quarterly

growth in more than four years. So it

looks like growth has kind of revved up

again and its earnings per share

increased 19%. I mean there's that's an

incredible quarter for a company this

size and that's despite a pretty

lackluster AI story. Uh the growth came

from as you mentioned better than

expected iPhone sales and record

services revenues which have you know

greater margins and hardware. Um so I

was I I would say the topline number

surprised me more than any other

company. 16% on this company is I mean

basically they grew this company you

know kind of like the the size of

Proctor and Gamble in one quarter. I

mean it just uh 16% I mean let me put it

this way. Tim Cook would love to repeat

this quarter over and over and it just

shocked me because I I always get the

new iPhone more signaling than anything

else. It's just automatic for me to have

the newest iPhone but I don't really

sense any difference. As a matter of

fact, I think the operating system is a

little bit confusing. I think it's sort

of a step backwards.

>> They say the camera's better, but at

some point, you know, camera, the last

camera seemed pretty incredible,

>> but they grew their revenue 16% topline.

I just I I was quite frankly I was

really shocked to the upside by the

revenue growth.

>> Yeah, I think that the the 16% I think

that's a totally fair point. the 16%

revenue growth is very impressive and

it's because people are buying the

iPhone and you know I think that that is

a testament to their marketing

capabilities.

Um I don't think it's a testament to the

product itself and I think that is my

point. The thing that you were saying

there about the iPhone itself I mean I

got the new iPhone. The reason I got it

was because my old iPhone was the

battery was kind of dying and I figured,

okay, like I guess I should get the new

iPhone and it's time for an upgrade. Um,

but I'm not impressed by the new iPhone.

I'm not impressed by the product. That's

what I'm hearing from most people. I

don't think anyone's really impressed by

the operating system and the growth

potential of AI is not really there. He

was asked about how they're going to

monetize AI. Tim Cook was on the call

and he didn't really have an answer to

that. So, I I think I think that's true.

I think it is impressive the sales

growth um of the iPhone, but I just

don't view it as that sustainable going

forward because I just don't I don't see

them introducing new products that

people are really excited about. Um but,

you know, perhaps I'm being perhaps I am

being too harsh on Apple. Perhaps I'm

upset with Tim for going over the

Melania show.

Um, I think Apple is going to

basically essentially create an enormous

new licensing agreement with one of

these

um, LLMs that's raising ridiculous

amounts of capital to have to be the AI

LLM of choice to their billion

wealthiest consumers in the world. I

think they're doing the same thing. I

think they're going to stay out of the

AI wars and leverage their leverage

their custody of the billion most

important consumers in the world and

enter into some sort of similar

agreement as they have with search. You

know, they never got into the search

wars. They said we can't compete. It's

better to it's better to rent our

consumer base than go vertical in this.

I think they're doing the same thing in

AI. So anyway, we'll see.

>> President Trump has nominated Kevin

Walsh to be the next Federal Reserve

chair. If confirmed by the Senate, Walsh

would replace Jerome Powell in May. The

major indices fell slightly on the news.

Meanwhile, the dollar climbed and

long-term bond yields rose. In a truth

social post, Trump said, quote, "I have

known Kevin for a long period of time. I

have no doubt that he will go down as

one of the great Fed chairman, maybe the

best. On top of everything else, he is

central casting and he will never let

you down." Um, we finally got our Fed

chair. People thought it was going to be

Kevin uh Hasset. People thought it might

be Chris Waller. Then people thought it

might be Rick Reer. It is going to be

Kevin Walsh. Um my initial reactions to

this, the options were not that great.

At least if you were to look at uh Kevin

Walsh versus Kevin Hasset versus Chris

Waller. I don't know as much about Rick

Reader because he came onto the scene

very late. Uh what I do know is that in

my opinion at least Kevin Wat is the

least bad of the options. Um you know

he's definitely been a sickopant of late

but he could not have been more

sickantic than Hasset has been and also

than Waller has been. And what is also

quite interesting is you know he is

traditionally known as a monetary hawk.

His view is at least in his past has

been you need to fight inflation which

means higher interest rates which is

interestingly the exact opposite of what

Trump wants right now. He is of course

changing his position a little bit

lately to make Trump like him. I mean

they're all doing this. They're all

playing the syphant role. Um, but it it

will be interesting and I could see this

playing out quite similarly to the

Jerome Powell situation where Trump said

very similar things about Jerome Powell

and then eventually Jerome Powell held

his own um and he did what he thought

was right for inflation and now they're

in this war against each other and the

administration is trying to investigate

him. So

uh I think he was the least bad of the

options. So I think this went about as

well as it could have gone given the

circumstances.

>> That feels right. I think the markets

are doing a collective exhale right now.

And the key term you used was hawkish. I

think the fear was that he was going to

put some sycopant alkali in and the guy

and the person was immediately going to

cut interest rates to 1% and and ignite

an upward spiral a death spiral of

inflation

and that that was kind of the doomsday

scenario. And this guy is known as a

hawk. Yeah, he likes Trump's policies

but we knew that was going to happen. uh

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney,

who's seen as a responsible guy. He was

the first nonUK citizen to, I think,

chair the Bank of England, called him a

fantastic choice. He's also said Walsh

has also been critical of the Fed for

enabling too much deficit spending,

which I'm I'm a big fan of that

viewpoint. Um, so, you know, he has ties

to the billionaire class. He's a Trump

fan, but he's I I think, you know, I

think this is a good pick. We'll see.

>> Yeah, we'll see. I thought the central

casting quote was hilarious. It's

possible that he meant that he has the

right resume, but I think it's more

likely he meant that the guy's

good-looking and tall.

>> I think he's listening to our podcast.

Central out of central casting is our

term.

>> I think he listens to Fox News and turns

into Edson.

>> Get that young guy. What's that young

guy think? What's that young guy? You

know, the guy with the communist

professor.

>> Let's arrest him. Let's put him in a

cell next to Don Lemon.

>> Yes. That's what's going to happen.

>> By the way, just a brief note, breaking

news this morning. Don Lemon was

arrested. And this wasn't an arrest of

like a bunch of people trespassing. So,

one by one, this was a targeted arrest

by our attorney general. And when you

start targeting journalists, it's not

enforcing the law. It's trying to shape

reality. And just to bring this back to

markets, whether it was Turkey in 2013

or Russia in the early 2000s, the moment

you start uh policing speech, it creates

a level of selfcensorship that is really

bad for democracy and bad for economics

and history is brutally clear here. The

moment you start censoring people and

arresting journalists,

markets just start to fail and the

nations become much poorer and much

angrier. So distinctive what you think

of first amendment rights targeted abuse

and arrest of people who speak out

against the Trump administration. Be

clear if we it's a fast hill down and a

slow hill back up to restore free

speech. But the moment you you you put

up with the arrests of journalists your

nation is about to get much much poorer.

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

markets insights, sign up for our

newsletter at profarkets.com/subscribe.

Support for the show comes from Delete

Me. Sometimes it feels like being online

is mandatory if you want to work and

maintain your social life, but it is

more important than ever to keep your

personal information safe. That's where

Delete Me comes in. One of our producers

uses Delete Me. She says it was super

easy to use. They actually found 47 data

brokers with her personal info and they

were able to remove it. Also, you just

give them your info one time and they

keep on monitoring it in the background.

Delete Me makes it easy, quick, and safe

to remove your personal data online at a

time when surveillance and data breaches

are common enough to make everyone

vulnerable. Take control of your data

and keep your private life private by

signing up for Delete Me now at a

special discount for our listeners. Get

20% off your DeleteMe plan when you go

to joindeleteme.com/profg

and use promo code profg at checkout.

The only way to get 20% off is to go to

jointdeme.com/profg

and enter code profg at checkout. That's

jointdeme.com/profg.

Code profg.

Support for the show comes from Vanta.

If you're a business owner, you may have

noticed that both risk and regulation

are ramping up. And customers expect

proof of security just to do business.

And demonstrating trust to customers and

prospects is critical to closing deals.

But it can also be costly, time

inensive, and complex. Vanta says that's

where they come in. Vanta automates your

compliance process to bring compliance,

risk, and customer trust together on one

AI powered platform. They automate the

process of achieving and maintaining

compliance with over 35 security and

privacy frameworks including SOCK 2,

ISO27001

and HIPPA. This helps companies get

compliant fast and remain compliant,

opening doors to next level growth

opportunities and praying up valuable

time. And Vant doesn't just help you

check boxes. It helps you build real

trust at scale with continuous

monitoring, real-time reporting, and

security reviews you can share

instantly. Vanta makes it easy to prove

your security posture to customers,

partners, and investors. So instead of

scrambling for audits and spreadsheets,

you get a system that works in the

background, keeping you compliant,

reducing risk, and helping your business

move faster with confidence. You can get

started at vanna.com/markets.

That's v- na.com/markets.fv

fanta.com/markets.

Support for the show comes from Upwork.

Starting a business is hard enough, so

when it's time to scale, the last thing

you need is for the hiring process to be

a headache. That's the problem that

Upwork was designed to solve. Upwork

says they can help grow your business by

giving you fast access to specialized

talent across more than 125 categories

so you can fill skill gaps, launch

projects faster, and scale support up or

down without committing to full-time

headcount. No more waiting through

endless resumes. With Business Plus, you

can access the top 1% of talent on

Upwork. And with AI powered

shortlisting, their data shows you'll

get matched to the right freelancer in

under six hours. Thousands of growing

businesses already trust Upwork to hire

flexible, highquality freelance talent

for everything from one-off projects to

ongoing support. Visit upwork.com right

now and post your job for free. That is

upwork.com to connect with top talent

ready to help your business grow. That's

upw.com.

upwork.com.

We're back with Profy Markets. 2026

could be a blockbuster year for IPOs. In

fact, Blackstone's president said the

company had lined up quote one of our

largest IPO pipelines in history. SpaceX

is reportedly targeting a midJune

listing, seeking to raise up to $50

billion at a roughly $1.5 trillion

valuation. That would make it the

largest IPO in history. Open AAI,

meanwhile, is reportedly raising

additional funding at a valuation of

$830 billion with discussions underway

about a potential IPO later this year.

Anthropic and Data Bricks are also

expected to go public this year. So,

Scott, everyone said last year was going

to be the year of the IPO. It was kind

of the year of the IPO, but not really.

We didn't really see any huge big

splashes in the IPO market. It seems

that this actually will be the year. Um,

and according to John Gray, president of

Blackstone, he says it's going to be the

largest ever. Your thoughts?

>> It may be the largest ever, but it'll be

the largest ever by gross dollar volume

raise. And unfortunately, it'll be

crowded into a small number of

companies. We've been sort of we keep

getting hints of some sunshine that the

kind of the nuclear winter and the IPO

market is coming to an end and there's

the beginning of a thaw and it never

quite gets its mojo. So I think they're

saying this is there's so much pent-up

demand and these companies have you know

have reached such exceptional valuations

in the private market that they need to

find

you know the greater fool and the

greater fool I think in those instances

will be taking these unbelievable brands

and an unbelievable technology and

giving retail investors the first shot

at owning them. In terms of the

companies themselves,

you know, SpaceX, I think SpaceX has as

big a moat as OpenAI does not. And that

is SpaceX, I think it's like 80 or 90%

of launch capability now is controlled

by one company, SpaceX. I think the next

big big thing in terms of a company with

no revenues being worth 200 billion is

going to be space defense. All the moons

are lining up around that. And the

infrastructure play, the Nvidia of space

quite frankly is SpaceX. I just I think

I don't I I have trouble thinking of a

company that has built a wider moat than

SpaceX. Open AI, I think, could be

I think Open AI could get pulled. I I

think there's a nonzero probability that

Gemini and some of these open weight

gain so much traction against

open AI and Anthropic is kind of beating

them in the enterprise has done a better

job of branding instead of branding

catastrophe.

Anthropic has branded itself as a

partner if you will and their ads are

much clever. They're more about humans

and saying this is a tool not the you

know not something that could be the end

of the world. Uh, I don't think OpenAI

has done a good job managing their brand

of late, especially the proximity

between Sam Alman and the president. I

think people are starting to gag on that

and I think they're way out in front of

their skis in terms of the valuation

they're that they're anticipating.

Anyways, I'm very bullish on SpaceX. I I

don't know from a valuation standpoint,

you know, how unreasonable the the

valuation is going to be, but I I very

rarely see a company that has the kind

of competitive advantage or sustainable

advantage it has. And I think Open AI

sustainable advantage is really really

thin. You mentioned the valuation of

SpaceX, you ask the question, is it

unreasonable or unreasonably high? The

answer is pretty much yes. I mean one

and a half trillion that would be a

price to sales multiple of 97

>> and you just look at

>> Palunteer. I mean yeah true Palanteer

but you know Microsoft when when

Microsoft hit a trillion they had $97

billion in revenue. Google had 183 Apple

had 265.

SpaceX has less than $16 billion in

revenue in 2025. But to your point, the

moat of this company and the potential

growth of this company is also

unreasonably high. I mean, as you say,

80 to 90% of all global launches. SpaceX

is responsible for them. They have and

operate twice as many satellites as the

rest of the world combined. Uh, also,

they're way cheaper than all of their

other rivals. And I do think it's it's

it's going to be, you know, the growth

potential of just space as an industry

is just gigantic. I totally agree. Space

defense could be a huge thing as well.

So $1.5 trillion, I mean, it's hard to

come up with a reasonable valuation for

a company that is pursuing such an

unreasonable and crazy and unknown

business. Uh but the number itself is

staggering. One and a half trillion is

just completely insane. Um, by the way,

if it happens at one and a half

trillion, Bloomberg estimates that this

will increase Elon Musk's net worth to

$950 billion.

And now, according to Khi, the

probability that he will become a

trillionaire next year is 64%.

So, it's more than likely that Elon will

be a trillionaire next year. Yeah.

>> Well, thank God he's he's responsible

and not an addict.

That could be scary having that much

power in one person's hand if that

person, I don't know, had a drug

addiction or uh was generally seen as

not having a great deal of empathy for

HIV positive mothers or

um yeah, so thank God, thank God he's so

stable and doesn't sleep with a loaded

gun next to his bed.

>> It is quite striking. um that would mean

that his net worth would be equal to 3%

of America's GDP.

And if you compare this to John D.

Rockefeller, widely known as the richest

man in the history of America, at the

peak of the guilded age, his wealth

amounted to 2% of America's GDP. So Elon

is basically

the wealthiest as a percentage of the

pie, the wealthiest man in the history

of this country about to get uh even

wealthier likely u because of this

SpaceX IPO. I feel like there's a lot to

talk about there.

>> Yeah. And I want to be clear. I I think

we need billionaires. I'm not sure we

need trillionaires, but I think we need

billionaires. And one of the wonderful

things about capitalism is the incentive

structure to make just a crazy amount of

[ __ ] money.

The thing that bums me out about that is

that now that he lives in Texas, he's

going to end up paying

does 1202 matter? I don't know. He's

going to end up paying a tax rate

probably of like 15 or 18% on that

money. Whereas the people who work the

engineers who work at SpaceX who make 23

$400,000 a year will end up paying

especially the ones back in California

will end up paying 40 45 some will

probably pay 50%. Anyways, um our first

Wow. Wow. So Calier Poly Market predicts

it's going to be it's more likely than

not he'll be a trillionaire. That's just

wild.

>> By next year, if you look at by 2028 or

2029, the odds go up to above 80%. It's

basically baked in to prediction markets

that Elon will become a trillionaire

within the next few years. Likely, more

likely than not, as soon as next year.

>> Yeah. Hand it to SpaceX and Elon Musk. I

mean, technology is changing the world

of protests. It's changing

what would have happened. What would

have the response been to the activities

of ICE in Minneapolis had there not been

the advent of camera phones, right? Or

of cameras on phones. It just would have

been, you know, one narrative versus the

other. And also SpaceX or Starlink

terminals in Iran have helped kept the

world apprised of what's going on. So

both of these technologies and I think

Elon's done a really good job of trying

to ensure I assume it's him trying to

ensure that the people of Iran have some

sort of communications

hotspots. But and also when I paid like

50 or $70,000 to have crazy high-speed

internet in my home in London and they

had to run a cable across Regions Park

or whatever and of course it went out

and this guy was running around and he

what did he do? We installed Starlink

and it wasn't as good as the fiber, but

it was the quickest, best, quick

solution. It's an incredible product. I

used Starlink on a plane the other day

and I could have done a podcast. It was

that good. It was Anyways, um I I I just

don't think there's any denying. I I

think SpaceX is going to be worth more

than X, worth more than Tesla, worth

more. I I I think that's that's his I

don't know his golden egg, if you will.

>> A question about investing in a IPOs. I

mean, this is obviously the question.

>> Don't

>> Excuse me.

>> It's an easy one. If you have access to

the IPO, absolutely. But buying on the

first trade is usually a bad bad idea,

>> right? Yeah. So, we've got Canva, we got

Revolute, Stripe, Data Bricks,

Anthropic, Open AI, SpaceX. Your view on

these is don't invest. The game is

[ __ ] rigged. It's essentially either

you're powerful and know the CEO or have

influence or you're an institution that

gives so many fees to these investment

banks that they give you an allocation.

They purposely price it 10 to 40% below

what they think the market with the

first trade will be. The institutions

and the powerful friends of management

get in get easy money and then the

retail investors get to come in and buy

the first trade which is usually you

know at market. So buying on the first

trade of these things has not been a

high return strategy in the last couple

years cuz these things have been so

priced so aggressively. That is exactly

the data I've got in front of me.

Institutional investors own about three

times more than retail investors on the

IPO. The reason being the institutional

investors, the insiders, they get early

access, which gives you access to a

price that is almost always discounted

to what the what the stock goes at when

after it's gone public. So, we saw that

with Figma as an example. And as a

reminder again, we were saying that

Figma was a good buy at 33, which was

the IPO price. Then it gets listed on

the public markets. Some people got

access to that price, but if you did and

you were a retail investor, if you got

access, it's most likely you only got

one share, then it lists and it goes up

to 120. So, it's likely that the same

thing is going to happen for a lot of

these IPOs. And I think because there is

so much pent-up demand because we've

seen so few IPOs over the past year, it

basically means that that opening price

is going to be even more crazy because

everyone's going to want to get in on

the OpenAI IPO and the Anthropic IPO and

the SpaceX IPO and it's going to be a

completely irrational price. But what

will be interesting is to see the

insiders price. What are they going to

price it at for them? And I think for

those guys, it's basically a given that

you want to buy um at that price because

yeah, I think it's as you say, it's it

is a totally rigged game. I'm not sure

what to do about it. Um from a

regulatory perspective, it seems unfair

that insiders just get better returns.

That's just the way it is. Um but yeah,

I think that's that is the truth that

you highlight. One interesting idea is

the tokenization of companies from a

very early stage so everyone has access

early stage fewer transaction fees. The

thing I hate about the secondary market,

I get opportunities all the time as

anyone does through setter or you know

all these secondary markets is it's very

inefficient. They want to charge you 7%.

You don't have confidence to buy because

it's not a liquid market with a price.

But I like the idea of some sort of

tokenization where you use AI to grade

the compliance of the company

um and the disclosures and the

transparency. But from a very early

stage, you can buy tokens in these

startups and they don't go public. they

just have a a publicly traded currency

that represents ownership. The problem

is that creates all sorts of all sorts

of um disclosure requirements. But I

wonder sometimes if the SEC and these

regulatory bodies want to hold on to

their jobs as opposed to acknowledge

that you know the entire market has

become very speculative. So and there's

so much opportunity for speculation but

that people have with their money. what

exactly who exactly are you protecting

from what with these you know and I

think AI could serve uh we've talked

about this as a pretty thick layer of

disclosure where you buy a token and

your buddy that started that company

Rogo that has that that layer of

innovation on top of AI for financial

services companies you know should that

company have tokens right now that

anyone could buy and it doesn't it never

goes public it just keeps increasing or

decreasing in value um but there's

There's got to be some sort of

innovation here that gives retail

investors access to this access to this

stuff.

>> Yeah. I I think my my view on this is

the the line between private and public

markets has become so blurred at this

point that it should really just be

eliminated. I mean, the fact that we're

we have all these investor accreditation

laws that are supposed to protect people

from buying shares in OpenAI. Meanwhile,

you can buy [ __ ] Rocket and Pepecoin is

just completely ridiculous. or bet on

the Super Bowl on like what if the next

play is going to be a run or a pass. I

mean, enough already.

>> Exactly. And it's like, oh, no, we we

want to we want to make sure that you're

only investing in real companies. So,

that's why we're going to have to go

through this accreditation process and

you're going to have to prove to us that

you've made uh $200,000 a year for two

years in a row and then you're able to

invest in these private. It's just

completely ridiculous. So all of these

private companies, everyone should be

able to invest in them. If we're going

to say that crypto is legal, then

investing in private companies should

also be legal. My only problem with the

tokenization point is I feel like it

assumes that it needs a crypto aspect

because crypto is highly associated with

tokenization. I don't think it needs

that. I think all you need to do is say

anyone can invest in private companies.

That's the law. And so let them invest.

And then that will mean that the New

York Stock Exchange and all these public

exchanges can reach out to private

companies and have them list. And it

basically just means that everyone can

list as a public company. I don't think

you necessarily need crypto or AI to

enable that to happen. I take your point

about um you know

getting the auditing done on some of

these companies, but the reality is

we're not auditing prediction markets.

We're not doing any of that [ __ ] on

crypto. So why are we pretending that we

should be do doing it with companies

too?

>> Yeah, but I was thinking about,

you know, we do a plan every quarter or

we get I get all the financials from the

I try to pretend I have a board at Prof

Media. By the way, I love not having a

board, but I try to pretend I have a

board and I do kind of an internal

quarterly board meeting where

>> Who's on the board?

>> Oh, it's it's Scott Galloway and his 17

alternative personalities.

>> It's news to me. I didn't know we had a

board. I didn't know we had a pretend

board. Uh, I'm gonna have the second and

third board members will be those two

hotties from that gay hockey series. I

want to put those two on my board. But

what I do is I put together a board deck

or something resembling a board deck.

Basically, I ask Karen and the finance

team to put together all these metrics

and and I run it through AI where we

where is there opportunity, where there

isn't. I look at it. I've I've gone

through a million board decks. But I was

even thinking about publishing it

because

a I think it's illuminating how an

entrepreneur thinks about a small media

business and each media business it's

trying to grow 20 or 30% a year and

trying to grow its EBIT to 40% a year.

But also I do think that I just I think

AI I think AI could say all right I

think there's a business in becoming an

SEC an AI version of SACE where it says

all right we need the following I need

the following access to the following

APIs I need access to your company's

bank account it'll be anonymous not

going to release any information I need

access to your payables I need access to

your client contracts I need access to

and if you give me access to all those

things I'm going to put out a rating on

your company and I'm going to write

fantastic analyst reports and it'll give

people the confidence to invest or not

invest and you could create it almost

like well if you don't have this good

housekeeping seal of approval stay away

and then you could have a much simpler

much lower cost means of buying and

selling shares or tokens in that company

as long as it had this AI audit on a

regular basis and it could do it every

day but just total transparency

you wouldn't have insider trading

problems because everyone would kind of

know everything. And if a company says,

"Well, for strategic reasons, we don't

want the AI publishing that we're in a

deal. We're thinking about acquiring

this company." It's like, "Yeah, there's

certain things that are anonymized,

certain things that are not disclosed

publicly, but we have metrics on how

well the AI in a millionth of a second

says there, this is how good they are

return on invested capital. This is how

good their turnover is or bad it is.

This is how good they are at managing

their IP. This is how good they are

managing their expenses. This is their

renewal rates." And it may it doesn't

even need to publish that. It just gives

it a rating and says, "Oh, also on a

fraud detection thing, we see almost no

evidence of fraud or there's something

fishy going on here or their internal

checks and controls don't seem to be up

to snuff. It just there's this a

gigantic administrative infrastructure

bureaucratic government layer in between

investors and companies that is

expensive, cumbersome, and I would argue

is now not probably adding the value

that an AI infrastructure or AI layer

could. Uh I mean again it's the boring

[ __ ] that moves the needle. It doesn't

sound fun, right? that I think that

could be

>> doesn't sound fun, but it also sounds

difficult and you better hope that that

AI isn't hallucinating. Current

technology will not really guarantee

that at all. I mean, if it's possible

for ratings agencies and Moody's and S&P

to hallucinate as they frequently do,

then think about the hallucination rates

of the AIs. And then are we taking that

at face value? This is this is the

truth. This is what what's going on with

this company. These are the risks. Well,

what's closer to an objective truth,

right? Because Moody's Moody's had AAA

ratings on all the bonds, the subprime

bombs bonds before they literally folded

and almost took down the global economy.

What I think is important is the reason

you have Moody's and Fitch is, you know,

and I forget the third one

>> is you benchmark them against each

other. And what I always do, I never ask

one LLM a question of any importance

without asking two or three and then

cross referencing them. And I think you

could do that here. I think you would

run it through a variety of LLMs to say

where because you're right, it gets it

wrong all the time, but I would argue

>> it gets it wrong all the time. I mean,

it I I'll ask it a question. I'll say

this is the answer. And they'll say,

"No, it isn't." And they're like, "Oh,

you're right. No, it's not. It's it's

this. No, it isn't. Oh, sorry, you're

right. It's this."

I do this on and on and on and on. I

find the ratings agencies and those guys

have find they've been so weaponized by

who their clients are. And anyways, um I

find it's the boring [ __ ] that moves the

needle. If I were thinking about an AI

startup, I would think about trying to

connect it downstream with Galaxy

Digital or something around tokenization

and some sort of rating method.

AIdriven, no mercy, no malice, un can't

influence it, can't bastardize it that

puts out a rating on a company that you

then have the opportunity to buy tokens

in. Okay, let's take a look at the week

ahead. We'll see job openings for

December. We'll also see ADP employment

data and the employment rate for

January. Meanwhile, we will get earnings

from Amazon, Google, Palanteer, AMD,

Disney, Uber, FISA, Eli, Lily, and Novo

Nordisk. Scott, any predictions?

>> Well, I'm talking my own book here, but

um basically I think these economic

strikes are about to become a static

part of a new era in a citizenry quiver

of pushing back on governments. And that

is, and we talked a lot about this, my

observation is that the current

administration and also leadership

around the world is now responding more

to markets than they are to the

citizenry or the even the Supreme Court.

And that while protests are effective,

I'm not suggesting they're not. They're

very cinematic. But I would argue that

the current administration has only

responded to changes in the economy and

the markets. And the greatest political

movement in history in terms of action

and size of action was in Q1 of 2020

uh with COVID. And again, it wasn't

because hundreds of thousands of people

started dying. It's because GDP went

down 31%.

And the greatest act of again the

greatest act of radical transformation,

you know, kind of radical action in a

capitalist economy is not participation.

And I'm seeing a bunch of economic

strikes, including the one that we're uh

organizing, pop up. And I think that the

marketplace's vulnerability around such

a huge concentration of value across a

small number of companies who also

happen to be the companies, many of whom

who are enabling the president with

their sickopantry or showing up to

premers or giving money for a new White

House or or whatever it is. Your free

gift with purchase here is that a small

number of companies have a big impact on

the S&P. of a small amount of action.

Cancelling Apple TV Plus, canceling your

Amazon Prime just for the month of

February, going to one streaming

platform, having one LLM versus two and

being loud about it will get a lot of

attention. And you're going to see

national economic strikes. You're going

to see a bunch of them and they're going

to about to become a static part of the

resistance. And if you like what I'm

saying, don't like and subscribe. Resist

and unsubscribe. And by the way, that's

our website, resistandunsubscribe.com

or unsubscribe February. We have a list

of the companies at ground zero that

would have a disproportionate economic

impact on the markets. And then we have

something called the blast zone and

that's companies ranging from Home Depot

to to Hilton who are kind of aiding or

or participating in the support of

providing infrastructure to ICE. And um

anyways, prediction uh national economic

strikes are about to become the new

technology of pushing back on what I

think are fairly upsetting policies of

terror and anxiety

in the United States.

Thank you for listening to Propy Markets

from Prof Media. Tune in tomorrow for a

fresh take on the markets.