Today's number 57. That's the percentage

of American dating app users who are

men. Ed. True story. I was furious when

I found my wife had a profile on Rya.

That lying [ __ ] isn't fun to be around.

I like the Ronald McDonald approach to

dating. Quarter pounder.

Ooh, that's Claire's got her hands over

her eyes. She's got her hands over her

eyes.

>> At least it's clever.

>> How are you, Ed?

>> I'm doing very well. Back in New York.

Good to be here.

>> Oh, you did make it home.

>> I made it home. I made it home. The the

blizzard was a real problem.

>> So Ed is like an amateur traveler, like

a little snowstorm, and he's stuck in

London for 3 days. He's like, "Oh no, I

missed a flight. I have to be here until

the winter solstice and go on the Queen

Mary. [laughter] He's You're so

amateur." You know, I also left a

sweater on the plane, so I'm now having

to deal with that. So, you are right. I

am an amateur.

>> I'm sorry. Okay. Okay, dude. Do you

realize how much [ __ ] The fact you even

brought that up?

>> I know. I I should just I should just go

get myself a new one, right? But it's my

favorite sweater. I looked online, tried

to find it, couldn't find it in the

right color, and so yeah, I put I put

the complaint in

>> for a sweater. I've lost computers and

passports and Panerai watches on planes,

and this is what you do.

>> [laughter]

>> Oh, I need a new computer, Panerai, or

or or passport. You're never getting it

back. Well, how do you think these

flight attendants look so good when

they're not working? [laughter]

>> You think they've ever returned

anything?

>> I will check back with you. I'm going to

get that sweater back.

>> You get your sweater back? Yeah.

>> How are you?

>> Uh, I'm doing really well. I've done a

bunch of podcasts. I'm trying to figure

out what to do with resistant

unsubscribe going to March. Do I do Meta

March? I'm doing this event next Sunday

in Minneapolis. My youngest got a shadow

day at a high school we were applying

to. So, I'm taking him to the US and

then I might go to the Zero Bond opening

party in Vegas. So, [panting]

[laughter]

a little bit of little bit of chocolate

and peanut butter there.

>> Do you have to go to the Zero Bond

opening party in Vegas?

>> No. The the the [snorts] correct

question is do I have to go to the

[ __ ] shadow day for my kids high

school? [laughter]

Daddy needs to head to Vegas.

>> Love that. Vegas. Vegas, baby.

>> You want to come with me? Yeah. No, I'm

taking Claire. I think Cla's dirtier

than you. I don't think she minds me

getting [ __ ] up.

>> I think Cla wants to go. I think Cla

wants to go. I think you should take

Cla.

>> He'll judge me. [laughter]

>> You seem You seem surprisingly

uncomfortable. Were my jokes that bad

today?

>> I do.

>> You seem very uneasy. Is it because you

don't have your favorite sweater? Do we

need Claire? [laughter] Do we need to

get Ed a plushy?

>> Yeah, he needs a stuffed down.

>> Do we need to get Ed a plushie? That's

what you decide to talk about on the

podcast that you left a sweater on a

flight.

>> I live a boring life. These things are

important.

>> You live a very exciting life.

>> I'm not going to the Zero Bond opening

party in Vegas.

>> Yeah, but the problem is you're going to

get more action at South by Southwest.

Everyone's going to be like, "Can you

introduce me to Ed?"

>> Well, speaking of South by Southwest,

quick shout out. We are returning to the

Vox Media podcast stage at South by

Southwest on Saturday, March 14th. I'm

very excited about it. Scott, I think,

is very excited about it. So, join me

and Scott at 10:00 a.m. for a live

taping of ProfG Markets. Last year was

honestly pretty epic. We filled out that

that auditorium and we had a great time.

The year before that was our very first

time doing a live show. less epic, but

still pretty fun. But I think this year

is going to be the greatest ever.

>> Is there another thing? Are we doing do

we have a sponsor? Are we doing it at

some corporate headquarters? Are we

doing it actually at South by Southwest?

>> We're doing it at South by Southwest on

the Vox Media podcast stage on the main

stage.

>> We're taking I think 16 of us are going,

aren't we? It's like a bunch of us. You

guys stay at a shitty hotel and daddy

stays at the Austin proper cuz daddy's

daddy. Um, but I love it there. I think

it's so much fun. I think it's and

please and trying to be sincere which

isn't easy for me but please come up and

say hi especially [clears throat]

Ed's a little like pretentious and a

little arrogant thinks he's better than

everyone else I am to Claire and I are

down

>> with the digerati at Southby.

>> All right. Well, before we move on here

I'd love for you to really genuinely and

passionately read the info about our

special discount on the voxmedia.com

website. Could you?

>> Great that they're discounting us

already. That's a good sign. [laughter]

>> Um, for [snorts] more info and a special

discount, visit voxia.com/sxswssw.

That's voxmedia.comsxswssw.

We'll see you there. Oh, that's

[laughter] compelling copy.

That's compelling copy.

>> You can feel the excitement. [music]

It's palpable. Okay, let's move on. A

blog post about AI from Catrini Research

stirred up some market chaos last week

after it dropped. The Dow fell as much

as 2% and software stocks fell 5%. We've

seen markets react to AI commentary

before, but this time there was a twist.

This piece wasn't really an analysis.

This piece was actually fiction titled

[snorts] the 2028 global intelligence

crisis. The blog imagines a scenario

where AI drives unemployment to 10%,

where consumer spending collapses, where

markets plunge, and the entire economy

is fundamentally

reshaped. So Scott, we discussed this a

little bit with Josh Brown uh during the

week last week. He had some interesting

thoughts. We also got a lot of feedback

from our audience. Um, a lot of people

are very shaken by this article. Again,

it doesn't really tell us anything we

didn't already know, but it does imagine

a potential scenario where AI is so

powerful. It's so productive that

actually it just completely rewrites the

script of our economy and actually puts

the S&P puts all markets into the red um

and takes the consumer economy down with

it. So let's just start with your

initial reactions to the Catrini

research article the blog post and also

how the markets reacted. I think the

best thing about that paper that paper

inspired an enormous draw down in the

market and it's inspired me to start

buying stocks in Apollo, TPG and Blue

Owl because

I mean just to summarize and I bet

everybody's already heard this but the

basic notion is that okay these white

collar work gets kicked in the nuts

right and that unemployment basically

doubles and then there's because of all

these big spenders who have good jobs

get fired. They cut their consumer

spending and consumer companies uh are

forced to look for places to save money

to maintain their IBIT to margins. They

turn to AI and it just kind of inspires

us and so on and so on in this downward

loop. That's not an original concept. I

mean the idea that we've gone from 90%

of us in agriculture to 2% you would

have thought that people being laid off

spend less money spend less money on

food and other you know technically it's

not a new concept. What's different here

is the speed and they think the severity

where I had with this is that

effectively what you have now the

companies I'm looking at I've been doing

a lot of selling and buying I've been

selling down Apple and Amazon for kind

of resistant unsubscribe and I'm

reallocating it into SAS companies and

also I think the new opportunity

is in these PE private credit or what

they call business development firms. So

just to look at them, Apollo is trading

at 14 times earnings while maintaining

double digit earnings and AUM growth and

that's how they make money is they

deploy AUM and they collect 2 and 20 on

it. So it's trading below market

multiple of the S&P despite higher

growth. TPG

is uh trading at about a third below

kind of fair value estimates relative to

its peers. It's got incredible

fundraising and it's expanding its fee

earnings and essentially these prices

reflect pessimism more than growth

trajectory. And then Blue Owl, which was

kind of the ground zero for this, has a

78% dividend yield. And you know, the

market appears to be in my opinion

overinflating

the fears around private credit. Or or

put another way, I think the opportunity

here, and I want to get your thoughts,

is that there's a growth versus

valuation mismatch, and that is all

three of those companies are growing AUM

and recurring fee revenue, and sector

multiples compressed due to kind of

private credit or liquidity fears. So I

would argue kind of to summarize

compressed multiples plus durable feed

growth plus strong fundraising

all adds up to um what I think is

undervalued stocks relative to the

broader market. All those companies you

mentioned they have gotten really they

got really hit hard after this article

came out. Um, some other names that have

gotten really hit hard again because of

this AI narrative, Visa, uh, Mastercard,

uh, American Express, Door Dash, a lot

of the big software names. And you ask

yourself like, okay, what do what do all

of these companies what all of these

stocks have in common? If you look at

their fundamental businesses, they do

not have a lot in common. They're very

different businesses pursuing very, very

different objectives. The thing that all

of those companies have in common is

they were all mentioned by name in the

blog post, which tells you that these

drawdowns have absolutely nothing to do

with fundamentals,

nothing to do with what we're actually

seeing with their businesses on the

ground, nothing to do with their

earnings. It's all about the vibes. It's

all about the fact that they were

included in the big bucket of stocks

that this guy who wrote this interesting

and as we've discussed very well-written

article that was really creative and

really fun to read. I think that's an

important underlooked aspect of this.

And they were all mentioned by name. And

because of that, you saw this gigantic

draw down literally in a single day on

all of these stocks because they were

included in that article. And that is

like the most obvious, perfect example

of narrative running away from

fundamentals, narrative becoming untied

and untethered from the numbers. And so

I think you're right with your instincts

to just go in and be like, "Okay,

probably going to have to buy these

things." Because they it it is such a

clear indication of such a level of

panic and confusion in the markets. I

mean, imagine you are an asset manager

and you've been invested in, let's say,

Door Dash for a number of years and

you've done like pretty well, uh, if you

were an early investor and imagine this

article comes out because your friend's

friend sent it to you over DM on Twitter

and you read it and you see the name

Door Dash and the guy who wrote the

article says that Door Dash is going to

be the poster child of the AI

apocalypse. And then you see people

retweeting it and people commenting

about it and then you start to look at

the markets. Maybe you see a little bit

of a draw down beginning to occur and

then suddenly you say, "Oh my gosh, all

bets are off. I'm panic selling right

now." That is such a crazy thing to do.

And what I would love to to know is like

who is actually selling right now? I

mean, we could talk about the macro

themes in this blog post. I think

there's a lot in there that is very

interesting and that we should take

seriously. But the selling pressure that

we're seeing after these blog posts come

out. We saw the same thing with the

other blog the other week. Something big

is happening. Another dude writing a

think piece. It's a creative writing

project. Not telling us anything new,

telling us all the same things that we

already know, but reframing it in a

creative and slightly doomerish way. and

then suddenly we're deciding to just

rerate everything based on that

interesting and creative think piece. I

mean, it really doesn't make a lot of

sense. So, I think that your instincts

are correct on that. Um, on the the the

blog itself, I mean, some of its

conclusions I think are fair and worthy

of discussion. I think that there is a

real unemployment risk here with AI that

is worth talking about. Um, I think that

the the way that the article kind of

ties in all of the different elements

and pieces in the ecosystem and how

there could be a chain reaction that is

triggered by AI. I don't agree with the

the fact the idea that it's going to

bring down the markets by 40%. I think

that's way over the top. But the fact

that all of these things are

interconnected, I think that is a

worthwhile statement. But it's the

conclusions that are being drawn and the

actions that are being taken after these

things come out which just makes me

think like where is your conviction? I

mean if if you were invested in these

companies for the past 10, 15 years and

then suddenly some guy writes something

and you decide this is it now I'm going

to sell. It's like, well then I don't

really I don't really agree with your

prize in the first place if this is what

it took. Some article that some guy

wrote online that was kind of

interesting and spurred some imaginative

thoughts. So we should turn, I guess, to

some of his economic

uh predictions.

>> What were the biggest assumptions around

some of the macro factors he's assuming

here? The central stat is again that

he's writing this as if it's 2028 and

we're looking at what's happening in the

headlines. Quote, "The unemployment rate

printed 10.2%

and the cumulative draw down in the S&P

was down to 38% from October 2026 highs.

And the central thesis is that AI

adoption is going to cause this mass

unemployment which is going to reduce

wages and reduce earnings across the

board and it's going to put the economy

into this downward spiral. And there's

this idea that he brings up called which

he calls ghost GDP. And I'll just read

you the quote. It says, "When cracks

began appearing in the consumer economy,

economic pundits popularized the phrase

ghost GDP, output that shows up in the

national accounts but never circulates

through the real economy." And this is

really the central idea of this AI

thesis that there's going to be a lot of

value that is created, but none of us

are really ever going to see it. And I

think that that is

arguably fair only up to a point. And

the trouble is it gets into this level

of doomerism that just is is is really

unrealistic where there's this idea that

actually we're not going to be able to

have to get paid anything because AI is

going to completely replace us which is

going to completely eviscerate incomes

completely eviscerate wages and

meanwhile as that is happening

consumption of the AI products is going

to keep growing and growing and growing

and this is the part that doesn't really

make sense because how is it that you're

going to have people who don't have

enough money to pay for anything or to

consume anything and yet consumption

continues to go up. And this is the part

where he's very descriptive on the value

destruction that we might see, but then

completely ignores the value creation

and what we might do with all of that

productivity. And I think this is the

thing that a lot of people are taking

issue with. It's something that I take

issue with as well. I think that there's

not enough analysis of what's going to

happen on the other side of those

accounts. I mean, if if you've got

consumption going up, then that

necessarily assumes that people have

money to pay for things. But he doesn't

really acknowledge that side of the

equation. He only focuses on the

downside, which when you read it is kind

of interesting, but when you start to

logically think it through, it doesn't

really make much sense. what you've done

and I want to use it as a jumping off

point. You've been talking a lot about

what does AI mean for your career and

I've been thinking a lot about okay on a

meta level how should you be thinking

about not only how you allocate your

financial capital and we talk a lot

about where we think things are oversold

and there's opportunity as we do in the

SAS space and now the I don't know the

private credit space or the business

development space

in terms of your own human capital the

way I would try and frame it is the

following my mom was a secretary and she

oversaw the secretarial pool at the

southwestern university school of law in

downtown LA where by the way I worked in

the mail room

and that's gone away. Word processing

you know there's no more secretaries

they're gone but my mom had good EQ and

went upstream and became an executive

assistant. Another example,

we have e every piece, every contract I

had with an advertiser, with an

employee, I used to if I got investment

document, uh if I'm negotiating

agreement with Vox, I'd send to our

lawyers and some mid-level, not even a

partner attorney would review it, come

back with some thoughts, I'd jump on the

call, cost me one, three, $5,000. Every

agreement, send it, send it to a lawyer.

Now I say to Clo who's working with us,

no, you're smart. Have AI look at it,

give the prompt on what you're worried

about it, get a feedback, and you're now

the in-house counsel at the same time.

So being a quote unquote fairly

mid-level attorney. That's not a good

place to be. At the same time, I'm

spending more money than ever

on a woman named Lucy Lee, who's this

partner at at a firm called Citroen

around things like corporate structure,

ensuring that the types of compensation

strategies for you guys that give you

the opportunity to sell shares some at

some point, long-term capital gain,

structuring the company such that any

capital I put in, if we hold on to it

for 5 years, might might qualify for

1202. do I am spending probably more on

legal this year but it's moving upstream

from reviewing simple advertising

agreements to okay corporate structure

and tax efficiency which is Latin for

tax avoidance. So the question everyone

should be asking in their job is of all

the things I do here what is most

complicated and generally most of them

come down to a lot of them come down to

sort of EQ or complexity. What do I do

that's hard or complex? what involves

relationships

and will I have an opportunity to move

upstream or downstream, you know,

because this a lot of that stuff will be

taken out.

>> I think this is a really important

point. You mentioned you you're pulling

back on a certain type of legal service

and you're spending a lot less money on

that because you've got this AI tool

that is helpful and you've hired someone

who's going to consolidate that work,

but then you're spending more on the

corporate restructuring over here. And

that is a dynamic that I think a lot of

people are not really recognizing which

is sure some money might move out of

this ecosystem but then where is it

going to go? That's the question that

people aren't really asking enough and

that the Catrini research article

actually refuses to to to acknowledge at

all. They spend a lot of time saying

here's where the money's going to move

away from. it's going to pull out of

here and here and here and here and here

and then I don't know and they just

offer no other alternatives. And I think

one of the the the in my view one of the

silliest um predictions is the idea that

friction goes to zero. This is a big uh

thesis that we see in the article. The

idea that all forms of friction in

business and in daily life when you're

you know trying to book something and it

takes time and it's annoying. All of

these things that often involve some

level of middle management or human

relationships, all of that is going to

go to zero because AI agents can do them

for us. Therefore, friction on which a

lot of the economy is built is going to

be entirely eliminated. That's the way

they describe it. It's just gone. Now,

that again is a is the wrong

characterization because what's

happening, it's not that the friction is

suddenly eliminated. is that we now have

a technology and a set of companies that

are just handling the friction better

than the old companies which is the same

thing we always see with technology. If

you look at you know Visa which was

brought up in the article or Mastercard

you you someone might make the argument

that when they came up with the credit

card they eliminated the friction of

paying in with a check or paying with

cash and so therefore friction is gone.

No, the friction has just been handled

by someone else and now the value and

the money is occurring to a different

player. The same thing is going to

happen with these AI agents and the same

thing is going to happen for as you say

you you're taking the money away from

here and now I'm going to spend it on

something that is also worth my time.

And so the money is going to go to

someone. The only real concern if this I

mean if the doomsday scenario actually

plays out would be that all of the value

is sucked up and literally hoarded with

no redistribution mechanism whatsoever

into the hands of literally just like

the the few people that own the AI

companies. Now, that's not a totally

ridiculous statement because we're

already seeing how that's kind of

playing out in our current economy, but

it's it's not going to go to the to the

extent that I think that this article

assumes. You you're going to need some

level of consumption in the regular

economy for the value to go up and for

the value to acrue somewhere. And that's

the part that that the article doesn't

really acknowledge enough. I do want to

say one more point. This was a a YouTube

comment uh that I read this morning that

was responding to Josh's view that I

think is kind of similar to us that this

article is a little bit out there and

it's it's it's it's not it's fiction.

It's not going to happen. So, I just

want to get your reactions to this

YouTube comment. This guy says, "Okay,

Josh, but what happens when AI renders

my kid's $250,000 finance undergraduate

degree useless because he can't get an

entry-level analyst job because the jobs

have all been assimilated under some AI

chatbot, or if their law degree is

useless because they can't get an

associate job because the partners have

discovered AI can get rid of 80% of

their associates and parallegals. When

this hits white collar, the way

automation has hit blue collar jobs,

then what? Are we all communists for

advocating for UBI or do they all pivot

to just deliver for Uber Eatats? Oh

wait, they can't. All the cars are

autonomous because of a robotic delivery

driver. Um,

this was a popular comment on the

YouTube. I just want to see if you have

any thoughts or responses to that.

>> I think that comment is a function of

dissatisfaction with our economy where

too few people are enjoying the spoils.

I don't even think there some of that is

a function of technology, but what we

hate to admit is we keep voting in

people.

You know, Bernie and Senator Sanders and

Senator Warren have been bitching and

moaning about inequality for 30 years

while they've been in the Senate,

including when they controlled all three

houses. We have purposely

chosen, Democrats and Republicans,

income inequality. So, yeah, technology

has been played a part in it. But be

clear, we have decided we want income

inequality in the US because we all

believe at some point that we'll be a

millionaire and just wait to see how we

treat the bottom 99% when we're in the

top 1%. Now, is that a breaking point

where it's at the same the genie

coefficient is at the same levels of

France during the French Revolution.

Absolutely. But the

what Josh has said that really struck

me, you need to ask yourself what could

go right. I love that. So, what does

your kid do? First off, in terms of this

narrative that your college degree isn't

worth, that's effectively what he's

saying is that the college degree at

Stern or at UVA is not worth $300 to

$500,000.

Okay, I get it in theory, but guess

what? Applications hit record highs this

year to law school. If there's a place

you would think people would not be

applying to school or would have no

pricing power, you would think it'd be

law schools. No evidence of that. people

are still doubling down on on law

school. I would argue that probably it's

because EQ and being a well-rounded

person better immunizes you against

whatever change comes down from this

technology or others than any than

anything else you can do. In addition,

when people ask me what's the difference

when I speak here in the UK, what's the

difference between the UK and the US? I

say the same thing. You're the ones that

stayed. The word risk defines our

success. were more willing to take risks

on capital. We're more willing to start

crazy stupid businesses. People are much

more promiscuous with their own capital

thinking maybe someday I'm investing in

the right Google. People are much much

more risk aggressive giving up a good

job and moving to San Francisco and

taking a lower salary and more equity in

a startup. And just along the lines of

risk, the number of new business permits

or new business applications in 2004,

not that long ago, was 150,000 new

business applications.

This year or last year, it was half a

million. Triple the number of people

have decided to try and start their

businesses. Some of that might be

because they're fed up in the corporate

world or they don't have any choice. But

whatever it is, it's it's just striking

how many people are starting businesses.

When I graduated from business school in

2002 92

um there were only two entrepreneurs in

my entire class and my co-founder was

the second there were no one was

starting businesses

I you know just to be the optimist here

there is a really solid case here around

what could go right the American ethos

of risk-taking and understanding of

technology

every

innovation in technology techology has

over the medium and the long term

created more jobs. The market responds

with good government policy. It tries to

fill in the gaps. Unfortunately, the V

might be more severe here in America. We

are not good at taking care of the

people or retraining them who are on the

wrong side of this trade. But not to

sound too much like a I don't know a

polyiana here, I think it's a pretty

interesting time to be coming out of

college and looking at different

opportunities.

What if Edson was coming out of

Princeton and you had two co-founders.

Now granted, you're white and privileged

and a little bit snoody, [laughter] but

okay, you come out of Ohio State or you

come out of Michigan State, which are

both really good schools, and you you

are outstanding at leveraging AI and

you're going to start a senior uh you

know, some sort of you're going to help

people find the right seniors facility

for popup or nana and you're going to

charge them 200 bucks instead of the

consultants charge 5,000. And then

you're going to negotiate using AI

agents the best deal possible. I think

that's a really cool little bit. I just

made that up in, you know, 30 seconds. I

think it's a really cool little business

and people are going to fill all sorts

of niches and be able to find capital

and not, you know, and do really cool

interesting businesses. If I was coming

out of school right now, I'd be saying

I'd want to learn AI and I'd want to

understand healthcare and I'd want to

I'd want to cut a swath through the

middle of those two things. Anyways,

longwinded way of saying I think it's

important to ask what could go right. I

think the the thing that a lot of people

are feeling right now is there's this

incredible cognitive dissonance because

the argument for what could go right as

you say is actually very very strong and

we've heard it from you, we've heard it

from me and we've heard it from many

others. [snorts] At the same time, the

argument for what could go wrong is also

quite strong because this technology is

incredibly powerful and we don't know

what's going to happen. We are at such a

time of incredible uncertainty that

having a position on either side, both

of them are very reasonable. And that's

why I think a lot of people would maybe

listen to us right now and say, "Oh,

they're talking out of both sides of

their mouth." It's like, yeah, because

there are different futures here. And

there are different probabilities to

those different futures. And it's that's

what we're trying to pulse out right

now. What is the probability of it going

right? What is it? What's the

probability of it going wrong? They're

both decent probabilities. Now, a

framework that I would add on to this, I

think, going forward. I think it is the

investor's job to ask what could go

right because as you say, if you are an

investor and you spend all your time

thinking what could go wrong, you are

going to get absolutely destroyed. If

you never put your capital to work, if

you never take risks, if you always

think that tomorrow is going to be

doomsday, you're just never going to get

rich. That's just the reality. So that's

why we're asking this question. This is

an investing show. This is a markets

show. If you want a chance of getting

rich, sorry, you must ask yourself what

could go right. You have no other

choice. If you want to just sit and

stay, you know, never increase your

income, never increase your assets, then

okay, go for it and just always ask what

could go wrong. Having said that, I also

think that it is the government's job to

ask what could go wrong. It's the

regulator's job to be asking that

question. What could AI do to job

displacement? How many jobs could it

theoretically get rid of? If that

happens, what is going to be our

response to that? How do we regulate

this technology such that we don't walk

into an economic disaster? And the thing

that I am noticing right now is that the

investors right now seem to be obsessed

with the question of what could go

wrong, which is a bad idea. And the

government seems to be obsessed with the

question of what could go right. The

government seems to think everything's

going to be fine. Don't worry about it.

Hands off. Everything's going to be

great. We're not even going to include

any policies. In fact, we're going to

create policies that make sure that no

one else creates any policies. And that

is a very, very stupid idea because we

should be asking that question. It is a

legitimate possibility. We should be

thinking about things like UBI. We

should be thinking about a worker

reinvestment fund. We should be thinking

about what would happen if the

unemployment rate actually was 10%. Not

if you're in an investor. I don't think

that's a very wise move to assume that.

But if you're in government, if you're a

regulator, I think these are good things

to assume. You should be erring on the

side side of caution. And what we're

seeing in government is not that at all.

>> The fact that we're talking about this

means convinces me this is not going to

happen as it's played out because it's

the [ __ ] you're not expecting to get to.

Very few people other than a really

intelligent CI analyst was thinking,

"Oh, a bunch of young men from Saudi

Arabia are going to hijack planes and

slam them into buildings." That just

wasn't something we were worried about.

That took down the economy for a brief

time. The subprime crisis, you know,

Michael Bur saw it, but not many people

saw that, including the smartest

financial people in the world, were

layering on layering and all the risk

models did not turn this up. We did not

see a virus shutting down the economy

and taking GDP down 31%. It's the [ __ ]

you're not worried about. Do you too

young to remember this? We spent a year

masturbating over Greek sovereign bonds.

We were convinced that Greece was going

to take down the EU and the global

economy. You know, 2% of the GDP of

Europe, and we sat here obsessing over

it. There's a phenomena when you worry

about something a lot, it doesn't happen

because you start to prepare for it.

So I I just don't think by virtue of the

fact that we've done so much

catastrophizing around this we don't

worry about it. The thing that is

actually a bigger issue in the markets

right now is the following.

AI and the capex and the incredible

opportunity of AI and the excitement

around these things which I think is

probably overhyped as well to the upside

has created real economic growth capex

and buoyed the market. Right?

but a sclerotic industrial policy that

makes Europe look more competitive and

more decisive where we have an

administration saying anthropic you got

to do what we want even though you're a

private company you've got to do what we

want putting in place laws around guard

rails around how companies should behave

we're just going to do one-offs based on

this guy's blood sugar level oh the

administration is going to get to decide

who gets to acquire whom and oh we're

taking a stake in one ship company and

not others. Oh, we know how to run a

steel company when the deepest pools of

capital become more shallow because

foreign investors don't know who the

[ __ ] they're waking up to next because

there's different laws that might be

imposed on them. What has happened in

the last 12 months? Despite the massive

investment and success of these tech

companies,

the American market has underperformed

every major market. Why? Because the

dollar's gotten much weaker because

people have less faith in the full

credit and faith of the United States

government, our ability to pay back its

debts because of fiscal

irresponsibility.

And the entire world is rerooting their

supply chain around us, including the

capital they invest in these companies.

And one of the reasons that people were

willing to invest so much capital in the

US is because there was a rule of fair

play and we have lost that and people

are rotating out of US stocks. That is a

in my opinion a much bigger threat to

our economy when we have decided that

with a third of the world's GDP we can

control it whereas we used to be the

operating system through cooperation

rule of law and standards and

consistency where we were the operating

system for 2/3 of the world's economy

and everybody wanted to invest in the

US. Do you think big Canadian pension

funds are thinking how do we invest more

in the US right now? [ __ ] you. I'll

invest in Alibaba or in I'll invest in

Mistl or whatever it is or Salonus in

Germany. They're like we need to

diversify away from this [ __ ] And

you're seeing that show up in our

valuations in our market. That is a in

my view that is the existential threat

here to a decline in our prosperity is

the price of products go up when people

either ban our products or stop buying

our products. shrinking our markets for

exports. They impose reciprocal tariffs.

human capital stops coming here which

reduces our uh the quality of our teams

and institutions don't want to invest in

everything we do here taking the PE down

of everything reducing or increasing our

cost of capital making us less

competitive because of absolutely head

up your ass sclerotic lurching

irrational industrial policy from our

government in my opinion it's not the

Terminator that it's going to kill us.

It's a [ __ ] clown called the

president.

>> 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 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

[music] cataract surgery on Saturday

morning cartoons or running a promo for

this show on a video about Roblox or

something. No offense to our [music] Gen

Alpha listeners, but that would be a

waste of anyone's ad budget. So when you

want to reach the right professionals,

[music] you can use LinkedIn ads.

LinkedIn has grown to a network of over

1 billion professionals and 130 million

decision [music] makers according to

their data. That's where it stands apart

from other ad buys. You can target your

buyers by job title, [music] industry,

company role, seniority, skills, company

revenue. All so you can stop wasting

budget on the wrong audience. [music]

That's why LinkedIn ads boasts one of

the highest B2B return on ad spend of

all online ad networks. Seriously, all

of them. Spend $250 on your [music]

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 [music] and conditions apply.

Support for the show comes from

DeleteMe. 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

[music] to make everyone vulnerable.

This is not a oneanddone service. Delete

Me sends you regular personalized

privacy reports showing what info they

found, [music] where they found it, and

what they remove. Our producer, Jennifer

Sanchez, [music] tried delete me. She

was surprised to find out how much

personal information was actually

already out there about her and Delete

Me made [music] it easy to clean it up.

She said, "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% [music]

off your Delete Me plan when you go to

joindeme.com/profg

and use [music] promo code profg at

checkout. The only way to get 20% off is

to go to joindeme.com/profg [music]

and enter code profg at checkout. That's

jointdeme.com/profg. [music]

Code profch.

Support for this podcast and the

following message is brought to you by

Erade from Morgan [music] Stanley.

Simplify your finances and discover the

convenience of investing and banking all

in one place with Erade from Morgan

Stanley. Choose from a wide range of

investment choices and award-winning

banking solutions together in one

platform. Plus, get up to $1,500 when

you open a brokerage account with a

qualifying deposit today. Learn more at

errade.com/offer. [music]

Banking products and services are

provided by Morgan Stanley Private Bank,

National Association, Member FDIC. Terms

and other fees apply. Investing involves

risks. Morgan [music] Stanley Smith

Barney LLC, member SIPC.

We're back with Profy Markets. President

Trump used his 107 minute State of the

Union to paint an optimistic picture of

the country, declaring what he called a

quote turnaround for the ages. He

touched on everything from inflation and

immigration to healthcare and voter

fraud. But not everyone feels so

positive about it. So let's move past

the rhetoric and let's dig into the

numbers. We're going to take a look at

the data on inflation, on markets, on

GDP, and employment. And we are going to

reach a consensus on the real state of

the union. So Scott, uh I think maybe we

should just start with some of the

untruths that we that we witnessed um in

this State of the Union just so that

we're all on the same page here about

how America is doing uh and what's true

and what isn't. So, I think the first

big lie that we need to just dispel

immediately is that we secured $18

trillion of foreign investment in 12

months. I have no idea where Trump has

gotten this number from. That is

literally more than half of our current

GDP. His own website says that the

number is 9.7 trillion, which is also a

madeup number. This is like based on

nothing. As we've said, none of these

are actual deals. They're just verbal

commitments and then they explode the

numbers by 100% to the upside and the

downside depending on the day. I mean

that number is totally bogus. So that's

the first thing. The other thing he said

is that foreign countries are paying the

tariffs. Not true. Multiple studies have

been done. 90 to 96% of the tariff

burden is falling on US firms and US

customers. He said the prices are

plummeting downward. Not true. Prices

have risen nearly 3%. Uh inflation is

going up. Gas is below $230 in most

states, $1.99 in some. Also not true. No

state had an average below $2.37

and only two states average below $2.50.

Those were sort of the big lies. Um

so now that we agree hopefully that

those are not true, uh let's start with

your reactions to the State of the

Union.

>> I thought it was mostly a nothing

burger. I I thought if I try to cleanse

my biases, I thought he came across as

robust. He didn't say a lot. I didn't

think it was that

I mean it felt like not much to me. I

was waiting for some sort of

announcement. There was no new pol new

policies. He teased tax cuts. We didn't

see that. It was 75 minutes. There was

20 standing ovations. There was 80

applause breaks. I feel like these,

you know, I feel like Congress burns

more calories clapping than actually

legislating.

>> Totally agree.

>> And okay, so unemployment, to be fair,

unemployment is pretty low. Inflation is

down from its peak, but it's still above

where it was when Biden left office. GDP

growth is positive, but it's especially

concentrated around a small number of

companies.

He's sort of asking everyone to stare at

AI and big company capbacks and then

take off your glasses when you're

looking at your grocery receipts, right?

So, I I don't know. I felt like it was a

master class and cherrypicking.

I have trouble getting through the whole

thing. Uh, so I didn't I actually

thought the the Democratic response from

Abigail Spamber, is that her name? I

thought that was really strong. I

actually have an idea there that I want

to pitch you. But like the data the data

was sort of real. The spin was much

realer. And

again, I just don't think we're dealing

with the real issues here. And that is

um the deficit. I I I think at some

point we're getting an adult in the room

that says, "Okay, folks, you know,

Democrats, we're going to have to cut

spending. Republicans we're going to

have to raise taxes. Let's get to it.

You know who is the who are the adults

in this room? Is anyone is anyone

actually ready to address? Oh, and we we

need a billion doses of GOP1 drugs to

try and bring the average cost of

healthcare from 13,000 per person down

by $400 a year for the next 10 years and

address the deficit cuz all roads lead

to entitlements which lead to

healthcare. Anyway, no, I feel like I

would love to just write this speech and

just look at all of them and say, "Okay,

who's ready? Is is there anyone in the

middle here ready to actually address

these issues? So, you know, I had I have

trouble watching it at this point. I

just think it's so insane. And these at

one point, I think he said that we

brought in $18 trillion in investment.

Like, where the [ __ ] is he even getting

these numbers? It's like, so it it felt

like it's an earnings call whereas

investors are the Republicans and

there's no SEC. You can't get in

trouble. You can just throw out numbers.

>> It's a great great analogy. It'd be like

if Jensen Hong said, "Our earnings were

up 11 million%. This the greatest

earnings quarter in history

and and our backlog we're going to grow

this uh we grew our revenues 440fold."

It's honestly a great point. There

should be legal implications for lying

about the numbers of the economy during

the State of the Union address. If we

have legal implications for Jensen Hang

saying the wrong thing, shouldn't that

exist for the president? I It's a really

good point.

>> That's an interesting statement on

America and that is we're much more

protective and value investors more than

we do citizenry.

>> Right.

>> So, oh my god, that was the most

insightful thing we've ever said.

[laughter]

That wasn't come see us at South by

Southwest. Um,

>> it's a really good point. I hadn't

thought of that.

>> Let me just bring it down a bit. Quarter

pounder.

>> [laughter]

>> Um

anyway, sorry about that.

>> Um his I mean just to run with this

analogy between the State of the Union

address and an earnings report. I think

that's exactly right. There's a level of

spin here and cherry-picking which was

actually quite deaf and I think you

actually have to give credit to whoever

wrote that speech for navigating all of

these issues pretty well. But to your

point, he's asking America to believe

that everything is going really great

for Americans and that gas prices are

are coming down and that food prices and

grocery bills are coming down. He's

asking everyone to believe that when

that is simply not true and consumer

sentiment among Americans right now is

absolutely tanking. Most Americans,

twothirds of Americans agree that he has

completely bungled these tariffs. I

think most Americans are realizing what

tariffs are doing to consumer prices,

what they are doing to their grocery

bills. That is, they're making their

grocery bills go up because, as we've

discussed, the tariffs are being passed

through onto the consumer. And so, it's

consumers that are paying the cost of

the tariffs. They're also we're also

seeing that a lot of Americans are

saying, "We just don't agree with and we

don't approve of how he is handling the

economy." And yet [snorts] he's asking

in this state of the union for us to

just say

things are going well. Look at this

number over here. Look at this number

over here. Look at the fact that our GDP

has grown. Look at the fact that our

quote economy is roaring like never

before. And then as you kind of point

out, not acknowledging that the reason

that is happening is because AI is

adding a full half percentage point to

GDP growth right now because America is

essentially becoming a giant bet on AI.

The reason that we're probably going to

see some more uh growth in in the next

year is as you say because of this

unbelievable deficit spending which is

going to reach $2 trillion

next year. That's a level that we've

only reached during recessions and

during pandemics. So the underlying

situation and picture isn't great and

he's asking us to believe it is great.

But the most important point is the one

you brought up in the previous section,

which is that you look at the stock

price.

We are underperforming every major

index, every major international market

right now by a pretty significant

margin. When you look at last year where

yes the S&P rose 16% which was good but

you look at the all country world index

minus the US which rose 29% which is

almost double the return of the US

>> not even dollar adjusted what was our

big prediction the end of 24 rotation

out of US stocks into

>> rotation out of US and then the big

question was is this going to continue

in 2026 or was all of the juice squeezed

out of that trade in 2025 it is

continuing year to S&P is flat year to

date. MCI world minus USA index is up

10%.

So all of these other stock markets I

mean they [clears throat] are

outperforming and you can get up there

on on the stage and you can say look at

the stock market we're doing well but as

we all know all of this stuff is

relative. When you compare us to the

rest of the world, we're actually not

doing so well, which is surprising

because you would think that if we own

all of the AI companies, which we do,

why aren't things going well? And I

think it's to your point, the capital

flows are adjusting. People are rotating

out, people are looking for an excuse to

sell these companies and to get into

something else. And that's a real

problem for him and for Americans. But

again,

it doesn't matter how great the barbecue

is if it's raining outside. Like the

atmospherics and the context matter and

you can't There are some amazing

companies in Latin America that have

grown their revenues and profits every

year for the last 10, 20 years. And all

of them are flat or down because you

can't outrun flows. And the flows out of

Latin America have been one way to other

markets until last year. So great

companies maybe with the exception of

Marcalo Libre just went down. You can't,

you know, market dynamics trump

individual performance. And what we're

seeing now because again of a lack of

faith in our current current

administration, industrial policy and a

degradation of the rule of law, I think

you're seeing

um flows out. And with respect to the

state of the union, I loved what I think

it was with Jonathan Height, I forget

who said this about Mark Zuckerberg and

Meta,

you know, they they would say, "All

right, what's happening with teen

depression?" And they would they would

cite a bunch of false data or lies or

they would it was clear that they were

hiding data, their own data about how

much mental impact, anguish it was

creating on young people, especially

girls.

And this one person said something that

really struck me. Maybe it was Francis

Hogan. And that is when all the mistakes

are in your favor, they're not mistakes,

they're lies.

I constantly use that quote when I I

check out of hotels. I never check my

bill, but whenever I do, I find

mistakes. The mistakes are never in my

favor.

It's always, "Oh, wait. Didn't you check

in a day?" No, I didn't check in. I

check on Wednesday. I checked in on

Thursday. Oh, it says here you had, you

know, six ginger als. No, I I didn't

touch them. There's never a mistake

where they forget to charge you. [gasps]

And I always say this. I'm like, when

all the mistakes are in your favor,

they're not mistakes, they're lies. And

every single mistake in his state of the

I mean, the lying has gotten so out of

control that it's been normalized,

that it's been, okay, we've just given

up on factchecking. and the North Korean

or the Soviet pala bureau duma here will

just stand I mean the the the thing that

it reminded me of is in North Korea and

in Iraq under Hussein when they'd have

these meetings or state of the unions

you got the very real sense that if they

were not seen jumping up and applauding

there was a chance they might be

strapped to a cannon and executed the

next day and that's not much of an

exaggeration that's how it felt it's

like okay I don't care if you're

Republican or not. You're smart people.

You can do math. They didn't bring $18

trillion back to the US in new

investment. These tariffs aren't are

making America I mean, these guys know

this is [ __ ] [ __ ] but they're

all so scared. I just can't figure out

what is so amazing about being an

elected leader because I do think he has

the power to primary people, but is it

just that awesome to be in Congress?

like what

what is so incredible about being in

Congress that you're willing just to

prostrate yourself like this? But yeah,

it was it was a series of meetings and

it was my idea is the following. Did you

see the Democratic response from Abigail

Spamberger?

>> I didn't.

>> Okay. So, Abigail Spamberger, 46, uh

former

uh I believe she was either in the NSA

or the CIA, just former intelligence

officer, just such an incredibly

impressive person. exactly who you want

in government. And she's the 75th

governor of Virginia. She did the

response. This is my idea.

I called and I called uh uh a Democratic

senator who's running for president, so

he has to take my calls because he

thinks I'm going to give him a lot of

money. But [laughter]

[snorts] I'll text him and say, "I have

an idea." And he's like, "Oh,

>> name drop him and ruin his campaign."

>> He calls me right away. These poor guys,

they have to they have to listen to me.

It

>> is awful. Anyways, so I'm like, I got an

idea for the next So, 30 years ago, the

halftime show was irrelevant. Everyone

would took a break. No one cared. No one

really cared about Michael Jackson or

whoever. Well, they had a I remember my

favorite was they had a Disney halftime

show once were all your favorite Disney

characters. And now the halftime show is

more important than the game.

I would make a real effort over the next

two years to make the half to make the

Democratic response more important than

the Republican response. I'd rent an

amazing venue. I would hire um Jay-Z's

Rock Nation, give him a huge budget,

10,000 raid hot young Democrats,

have [ __ ] amazing music lead up to

it. Her speech was so awesome. And I'd

have lights and sex because the moment

it comes after the majesty and the sex

appeal of the rotunda, it just feels

flat. Sex it up. Sex it up. Make it

super cool, super overproduced, and turn

it into the halftime show. That's more

important because the contrast, if you

read her speech, it was outstanding. It

was fact checked. It was really solid.

She went right for the jugular and

everything she said was on point.

They did her a disservice by not

wrapping it. It was all chip, no salsa,

all substance. They need to sex it up.

Anyways, that was my big idea. We'll be

right back. And for even more markets

insights, [music]

sign up for our newsletter at

profarkets.com/subscribe.

[music]

Support for this show comes from VCX,

the public ticker for private tech. For

generations, American companies have

moved the world forward through their

ingenuity and determination. And for

generations, everyday Americans could be

part of that journey through perhaps the

greatest innovation of all, the US stock

market. It didn't matter whether you

were a factory worker in Detroit or a

farmer in Omaha. Anyone could own a

piece of the great American companies.

But now that's changed. Today, our most

innovative companies are staying private

rather than going public. [music] The

result is that everyday Americans are

excluded from investing and getting left

further behind [music] while a select

few reap all the benefits. Until now.

Introducing VCX, the public ticker for

private tech. VCX by Fundrise gives

everyone the opportunity to invest in

the next generation of innovation,

including the company's leading AI

revolution, space exploration, defense

tech, and [music] more. Visit getvcx.com

for more info. That's getvcx.com.

Carefully consider the investment

material before investing, including

objectives, risk charges, and [music]

expenses. This and other information can

be found in the funds perspectives at

getvcx.com.

This is a paid sponsorship.

[music]

This episode is brought to you by SoFi

Small Business Loan Marketplace. You

know, the one that helps you get your

money right with student loans and high

yield savings. Now, they're helping

small businesses find fast funding.

[music]

If you run a small business, you're

probably dealing with cash flow, trying

to find capital for new opportunities,

or thinking about other ways to expand.

With SoFi's small business loan

marketplace, you can get fast digital

solutions. That's SoFi Small Business

Loan Marketplace. In one single simple

search, SoFi matches you with vetted

providers for your business in just

minutes. You'll get matched with loan

options that meet your goals. And if you

find a loan that works for you, you can

receive funds as soon as the same day

you're [music] approved. You can also

explore business bank accounts and

business credit cards. Visit

sofi.com/proofg

and see your loan options in minutes,

all with no impact to your credit score.

The SoFi marketplace website is owned by

SoFi Lending Corp. Terms, conditions,

and state restrictions apply.

CFL6054612,

NMLS1121636.

[music]

We're back with Profy Markets. Netflix

has dropped out of the Warner Brothers

Discovery bidding war. That clears the

path for Paramount to make the

acquisition just days after submitting a

revised 111 billion offer. Warner

[snorts] Brothers gave Netflix 4 days to

counter, but the company declined,

saying the deal was quote no longer

financially attractive. The transaction

will still need regulatory approval, but

for now, Paramount has come out on top.

On the news, Warner Brothers stock fell

3%, Paramount climbed 7% and Netflix

popped 10%.

Scott, Paramount, David Ellison, the son

of Larry Ellison, they are the winners

or it appears they're going to be the

winners pending regulatory approval. Uh,

initial reactions to Paramount beating

Netflix.

>> Well, it depends what you mean by

winners. So, let's talk about winners

and losers here. And the top of the list

in terms of winners is Warner Brothers

Discovery shareholders.

And that is David Zazz. I I think he was

a pretty I don't know mediocre operator.

He's an outstanding investment banker. I

mean they literally got if either the

Ellison's or Sandos ever thought you're

going to bid more than 25 bucks a share

for this, you know, 6 months ago, they

would have said no [ __ ] way. That

companyy's not worth it. This is a

company that's gone from a low of seven

bucks a share to 31

uh with no change. Arguably, the

business has gotten worse over that

period. So, he he was he put on a master

class and his bankers and how to get

testosterone involved and competitive

dynamics and literally the the every

possible scent on the table has gone to

um Warner Brothers Discovery

shareholders. So, they're the biggest

winners.

a close second in terms of winners

is Netflix shareholders

because what this shows or Ted surround

specifically what this shows is Ted is a

disciplined operator. He can put out a

press release saying we have a

obligation to shareholders at some point

no deal makes sense. He was able to show

he could do a deal. He handled it well.

I think he acquitted himself well and

they're doing what good operators do and

that is they walk away when it no longer

you know every deal makes sense at some

price and no deal makes any sense at a

certain price. So him walking away

from from this deal, they save I think

the total consideration was

approximately $120 billion.

And then uh and we predicted this, the

stock is up 10% Netflix on the news. So

with a $350 billion valuation, they they

got a they get $ 36 billion for walking

away and increased market cap. they're

going to get another two and a half

billion in in cash for the breakup fee.

So if you look at the total

consideration of say 120 billion plus

the kind of 40 billion free gift with

purchase in terms of stock appreciation

and [snorts] the breakup fee, you know,

Netflix got $160 billion technically for

not doing this deal.

And I mean, [clears throat] you we're

getting to the point where Netflix could

take the money that they're registering

from not buying

Warner Brothers and the increase in

their stock price and now they're in

striking distance of potentially buying

Disney. Disney's got about a $200

billion market cap. So for, [snorts] you

know, close second in terms of winners,

Ted Sranos and Netflix from showing

discipline and walking from a deal that

made no sense. In addition,

if I were them and I were more mavelian,

I would uh start firing up my lobbyists

and start questioning this deal.

Lawsuits everywhere and I would try and

if not scuttle this deal, but delay it.

And it's going to put most of Hollywood

into a sense of stasis.

And that is

I have a I have a deal at Netflix during

this period. it was sort of I don't want

to say on hold but there was a lot of

insecurity around what they were going

to do. Supposedly CBS and Paramount

um are in a bit of like flux right now

for a lot of different reasons. So the

insecurity here is going to be pretty

dramatic. Meanwhile, Ted Sarandas can

say to his creative team, just for shits

and giggles, what could we do? What else

could we do with $120 billion?

Could we own sports? Could we become the

biggest sports network in history and go

out and buy a bunch of rights, Olympics,

NFL? Could we decide that we're going to

be the most dominant streaming media

platform in all of Southeast Asia, Latin

America, and Africa over the next

decade? I mean, there's just they've got

a lot of firepower now that they weren't

going to shoot at this. So, Netflix the

second biggest second biggest winner

here. Um, let's talk about and then I I

think you'd have to say Paramount

because this was an existential musto

for Paramount. If Paramount hadn't

gotten this deal and gotten some scale,

they would have been in the company that

paid overpaid for a subscale Paramount.

So, their only way out here is scale.

Now, can they ever show dad a return on

this investment? You know, I don't know.

That remains to be seen. But at least

now they are they are a scaled player in

Hollywood whether they decide to use AI

but they now have the requisite scale to

compete with the bigger players. I agree

up to a point that Netflix is coming out

a winner here because that should that

price is totally ridiculous for the

company. As you point out, this is a

company that was trading at seven to $10

a share as recently as a year ago, and

now a company's come in and decided to

buy it for $31 a share. That is

ridiculous. And the reason that they're

willing to do that is because it's the

son of Larry Ellison, who's the founder

of Oracle, who is a multi multi

multi-billionaire. And that's the only

reason that this is even possible in the

first place is you've got a guy who

doesn't really know what to do with his

tens of billions of dollars. and that's

how he's putting up the money for this

deal, which is why he's willing to pay

such an irrational price for it. And it

would be dumb for Netflix to pay that

much money. And they said that they said

that this is an irrational this is a

ridiculous price. We're not going to pay

it. Having said that though, we should

also acknowledge that since this all

unfolded, Netflix stock is still down.

It's up since in the past, you know,

month or so. But remember this this all

started to go down before that. This

started to go down in December. From the

time that uh that Netflix was announced

as or revealed as one of the potential

buyers of Warner Brothers, the stock has

slid from 100 to around 85 and they have

lost almost $200 billion in market cap

since that moment. Now is that purely

because of the Warner Brothers deal? I'm

not so sure. I think there are probably

some other forces at play there, too.

But I I it's hard for me to to position

Netflix as a total winner coming out of

this considering the fact that before

that before Netflix and Warner Brothers

were even in the same sentence, Netflix

was trading at above $100 a share.

>> Right? So it depending on when you time

sort of the deal was revealed whether it

was before Netflix entered the frey they

are off kind of 20 plus%.

But it just this press release that

they're walking the stock's up 10% in

the pre-market.

>> They're the winner of the week or the

month for sure.

>> I think we're in agreement here. And

that is as soon as the market looked at

this deal, the market said they're

overpaying. And one of Netflix's

advantages is similar to Apple and that

is their culture is so strong internally

and they built such an incredible

machine, they aren't very acquisitive

because as Deodoran points out,

twothirds of acquisitions don't succeed.

One because testosterone gets involved

and they overpay and it becomes about

winning and losing and two [snorts]

the acquirer overestimates synergies and

underestimates the difficulty of

integration.

So, I mean, this would have been all

hands on deck of the most talented

people or managers at Netflix trying to

figure out how to incorporate how to

like how to get Frankenstein to move

into your house and get along with your

three kids who are, you know, you know,

Frank is different and he's going to be

a big presence here and if it doesn't

work, the whole household's going to

come down. So the parents, you know, the

babysitters, the grandparents, everybody

was going to be focused on the wrong

metaphor here, on how to integrate

Frank. And now it's just going to be a

lot of fun to say to Bella Bajaria,

who's arguably one of the better content

minds in all of Hollywood,

uh, we just got we just freed up a lot

of money. What What are your ideas here?

So, let's go through let's go through

the losers.

I think first and foremost the biggest

loser is the creative community. Um this

combined company they have paid so much

for these two companies. When I say they

the Ellison's for Paramount and now

Warner Brothers

there's no vision that's going to

increase revenues to the extent to

justify

this the these prices they paid. They

are going to have to focus on the

expense side. [snorts] Larry Ellison is

one of the biggest players in AI.

You know, I think I use the analogy in

the first Star Wars, Obi-Wan Kenobi is

on the Millennium Falcon and has to sit

down because he feels a disturbance in

the force. And that disturbance is that

millions of people died in an instant

when Darth Vader orders the Death Star

to destroy the planet Aldderon.

And he said he hears a scream and then

nothing. I think

last night when this deal when Netflix

walked I think you heard a scream from

millions in the creative community that

they're just the unions WGA and SAG

afterra are literally too [ __ ] stupid

to realize what just happened

>> cuz the image of Ted Sandos feeling a

disturbance in the force

taking a seat having a breath

>> Ted was a Jedi so say what you want you

know Hollywood [ __ ] about Netflix

having too power. But Ted

likes Hollywood. I was at the BAFTA

awards. He shows up with a bow tie. He

likes creatives. The guy ran video store

chains. He was the manager of of a video

rental chain. He likes movies. He likes

the creative community. Netflix may have

outsourced much of their production to

overseas, arbitrageing geographically,

but he believes in big production makeup

artists, gaffers, editors, actors, you

know, he's sort of he is he is part of

the community. Do you think Ellison

gives a [ __ ] about I think he's going to

literally say to his son, "All right,

okay. This has been a lot of fun. Good

gift for you. I'm glad it's your legacy.

This [snorts] company's trading at a

crazy multiple viba. You got to grow

revenues high single digits. You got to

cut expenses 10 to 20% within 24 months.

Where are those? Well, how are we going

to do that, Dad, without dramatically

reducing the top line? We're going to

use AI and instead of putting out 30

movies at 150 million each, we're going

to put out 50 mo movies at 30 million

each using this new cool thing called

AI.

And I'm not saying it's going to work.

It might be a bunch of AI slop. Uh but

that that all roads lead to the

following.

SAGra and WGA, grab your [ __ ] ankles.

You are about to see so many people in

your unions get so rode so hard and put

away wet. You're going to see a

destruction in human capital. It's going

to make it's going to make Jack Dorsey's

announcement yesterday look soft and

cuddly. The other losers um I do think

that the American public and this would

have been true of whether Netflix or

Paramount 1. I think this consolidation

and concentration

is not good for America. Whether it's

Netflix owning Warner Brothers, I

compared it to like Walmart owning LVMH

or uh with Paramount, we're going to

have CBS, CNN,

Paramount and Tik Tok in the hands of

one entity. I don't think that's good.

>> And Warner Brothers and HBO and HBO Max

and TNT and Discovery and MTV and Comedy

Central. Like the list is quite insane.

>> Fair points. You know, the people at CNN

this morning, it's like a it's like a w

a wake over there right now. They're so

freaked out. Totally.

>> Having said that, I'm not as worried.

People have made these existential

threats about free speech in America. I

find I said this to Cara yesterday. I'm

like, if if the Washington Post and CNN

go away, America's going to be just

fine. Because I I find I think what you

find is the two things between us us and

what I would call more fascism are one

midterm elections and two what I refer

to as distributed media. [snorts] And

that is a lot of people Jake Tapper,

Anderson Cooper, Dana Bash, Michael

Smirkconish, they're all incredibly

uh talented. If they need to, they're

just going to go start their own media

companies, go to work for Puck, Axios,

their own podcasts. It's not as if their

voices are going to be silenced. And the

means of production here has gotten so

expensive and inefficient. I pulled up I

did an analysis of our listenership in

the core demographic versus CNN, CNBC

and Fox. And I can show that more people

more people in the core demographic

listen to Protune Markets than listen to

any CNBC show.

And we do it at a fraction of the cost.

So, this is you're going to see there

will be some there'll be some

high-profile exits from CNN. They'll

write out their contracts cuz quite

frankly, they're overpaid from an old

day, you know, days gone by where people

would pay $80,000 for a 30 secondond

spot to convince you you had opioid

induced constipation.

Those days are gone. But I don't think

it's what I I don't I you know, CNN at

least the morale there, that's a loser.

But I don't think it's the existential

threat to

uh media. You think

>> it's a really interesting point because

I I think that uh aligns with the way

Hollywood sees Paramount and the Ellison

family at this point and also the way uh

the journalistic institutions like CNN

and and all of the you know legacy

journalists view David Ellison and the

Ellison family and that is they don't

like them. I mean, the the the push back

against CBS and his decision to bring in

Barry Weiss and then leading to Anderson

Cooper leaving 60 Minutes. I mean, more

and more it seems as though uh the

predominantly more liberal community

that is entrenched in these

institutions. They do not like David

Ellison. We just saw that photo that

went viral of David Ellison hanging out

with Lindsey Graham before the the State

of the Union. and now he's gonna own all

of Hollywood. And what does it mean if

all of Hollywood decides they hate their

new boss? Does that mean that they just

don't want to work with them anymore?

What does it mean if all of Hollywood

realizes that their new boss is going to

try to fire 50 to 60 to 70% of them?

What What does that mean for the

remaining uh 30 or 40% left over? Are

they going to say, "Screw this. We don't

want to work with you. We don't want to

be on your team." Does that mean that

they're going to all shift over to

Netflix, which as you say actually has

become entrenched in Hollywood in a way

where I think Hollywood respects and

likes Netflix in a lot of ways it was

kind of the saving grace of Hollywood

over the past decade. And I think that

is something that is probably going to

be an underrated force in the markets

and that is just how unpopular David

Ellison is becoming among the very

community that he is trying to be a part

of. He wants to be in the Sunset

Boulevard Hollywood Club. He wants to be

in uh the newsrooms at CNN. He wants to

be working with these people. And

they're all probably going to say,

"Screw this guy. We don't like him." The

Ellison's brought in bought the free

press. Basically was an aqua hire for

Barry and Barry Weiss and her team. I'm

I actually think and and they hate her

and the creative community hates her

because she's again there's a bit of a

bias there. She's a Republican. I think

they've been a little unfair. I think I

think the free press is is actually very

innovative and did a great job. However,

Barry has created has scored just a

series of own goals whether it was

spiking a CBS story. You know, there's

she's come across a little bit as a

propaganda vehicle or doing the

president's bidding and a centerle

creative community hates that. There has

been a series of unforced errors on the

part of the Ellison's visav Barry Weiss

that have have basically dyed their hat

black and kind of confirmed the creative

community's worst fears. The idea of

I it'll be really interesting to see if

they say Barry Weiss is now in charge of

CNN because that's when I do think you

see uh hair on fire. Now, the notion

that they're all going to walk out

tomorrow is just kind of is just sort of

is sort of a fantasy because and I'm I'm

not exaggerating. If you were to name

10 of the top

TV journalist anchors,

um I have probably had offline

substantive conversations with half a

dozen of them and it goes something like

this. I realize that this ship is

sinking and I'm thinking about doing a

podcast or starting, you know, they're

all like want to figure out the next

thing and I have an open conversation.

I'm like, "Okay, how much money are you

making?" And they're like this. I'm

like, "How long's your contract?" I'm

like, "Don't go [ __ ] anywhere. You're

overpaid."

>> Yeah. What are the numbers? Is I heard I

from my googling around it's something

like like

high high single digit millions.