Today's number, $2.9 billion. That's how

much US consumers spent on sushi from

grocery stores in 2025. A 7% increase

year-over-year. Ed, what did the sushi

chef say to the bee?

>> What?

>> What's up, Bee?

I have to go clean. We got [ __ ] David

Solomon. I mean, we've got David Solomon

coming on.

>> Dawned David Solomon.

>> Yeah. I had to I had to go dad joke.

>> I love the dad jokes as you well know.

That was pretty good. I actually that

that might have been one of your best. I

I hate to say it. That was pretty good.

>> All right. How are you, Ed?

>> I'm doing very well. Um I I'm excited to

hear how things are going. I know you

are somewhere special right now. Why

don't you tell everyone where you are?

>> I am in Davos for the first time in 26

years.

>> I can't When I was your age, I got

invited here because I was a player. My

guess is you're got a motion in a couple

years and then I kind of pretty much

everything in my life went sideways.

Moved, divorce, my company went out of

business and what do you know? They

didn't invite me back. And now and then

all of a sudden I got an invite back and

I thought, "Oh my god, I can't wait to

go back and be the triumphant MacArthur

like hero returning to Davos." And I'm

like, "Okay, what am I doing here? I'm

not raising I'm not raising money. I'm

not running for office. I'm not selling

anything. My life has changed so much

since I was last here.

>> Yeah. What are you do? What like I mean,

>> why am I here?

>> What What does your day look like? Oh,

we'll get the full rundown on on

Monday's episode, but just a quick

teaser. What does it look like?

>> Well, this is supposedly the biggest

year in a while because Trump, everyone

showing up. Carney spoke today. Trump

spoke today. I ran into Gavin Newsome or

Governor Nuomo. Everybody's here, quote

unquote. And so, it's it's supposed to

be the most crowded it's ever been. What

am I doing here? I met the guy who runs

Black Rockck at another Master Universe

conference and he said I'd really love

to host you at Davos and he's the new

chairman

>> and I got all excited and I said great

and they put me on some panels but

mostly I'm just kind of walking around

and trying to avoid eye contact for some

young person who wants to pitch me on

their AI startup.

Um yeah, I'm not I'm not doing a whole

hell of a lot. And I don't know if you

can see this lovely hotel room, but this

hotel room can be yours for about €200

for 51 weeks a year. And during this

week, it's €2,200 a night. So, I'm

excited to be here.

>> Sounds like you're having a great time.

>> So far, no. So far, no.

But since I was last here, I've joined

the faculty of NYU, lived in San

Francisco, Miami, New York, and now

London.

had two boys, had four companies go out

of business, had two get to exits.

The number one movie in 19 or the

biggest movies in 1999 were The Six

Sense, which is awesome. Um, Phantom

Menace and Toy Story 2. And the biggest

movies now are Zootopia 2,

uh, Avatar Fire and Ice and Lilo and

Stitch, which I think pretty much

cements the decline of Western

civilization.

And back then, we were all sort of

optimistic. Clinton was president. And

it was sort of like, wow, I want more

and I can't wait for tomorrow. Like now

we're just like, I hope it doesn't get

any [ __ ] worse. Um, things are

different now and things are different.

So yes, Ed, I'm in Davos. Where are you?

>> Still in New York. Still living it up.

It was very good to see you when we when

you were in New York just last week. We

had our nice business meeting. Set out

our growth objectives for the year. 20%

growth is the plan for Profit Markets.

So, please, if you're listening to this

and you're thinking about sending it to

a friend or someone you know, you got to

do it because I need to hit those

benchmarks if I'm going to get a raise.

So, just think about that every time

you're listening. 20% growth for the

year. That's what we need.

>> Yeah. Send it to if there's five of you,

send it to one friend. Does that make

sense? I guess so. Anyways, but yeah, it

was good to see you. And um yeah, I got

nothing. I got nothing else. Should we

get to our interview with the

I'm in a shitty room in the middle of

the Alps in this like tier 2 ski resort

trying to fill this hole of emptiness

that if I think if I come to Davos again

that somehow that then I'll be enough.

Ed, then I will be enough. Tomorrow I'm

hosting a fascinating panel on why are

we so divided? Oh my god. Okay, meta.

Next panel.

>> How many panels are you doing?

>> I'm doing three. I'm like this is how it

works here. They have they have global

leaders who are like in, you know,

meetings in the back of shitty

restaurants redrawing the maps of the

world. They have CEOs of companies

figuring out a way to become

trillionaires. And then they have what I

would call a small gaggle of

intellectual support dogs. And I'm one

of those that's supposed to make this

whole thing like interesting.

So I'm I'm the intellectual one of the

intellectual support dogs. It's like me,

Adam Grant, Jonathan Height, and like

three other academics and some

>> Yeah. Simon Synynic. Call it a day.

Yeah. And and

>> we've got David, guys.

>> Yep. David's here. David's here.

>> Got to cut you off.

>> Here is our conversation with David

Solomon, chairman of the board of

directors and chief executive officer of

Goldman Sachs. David, thank you very

much for joining us on Profy Markets.

Where does this podcast find you?

>> Thank you for having me. the podcast

finds me in Florida uh for the day and

uh then on my way to uh to Davos where I

believe Scott is for the next few days

and so I'll be there I'll be there

tomorrow morning and certainly should be

an interesting week with everything

going on in the world.

>> Absolutely. Soon to be parting it up

with Scott. We want to uh bust right

into this um because we only have you

for so much time. So I'm going to get

right into our questions. I want to

start with your reflections on the past

year 2025.

Your company is coming off one of its

strongest years in a long time. Stock

rose around 50%.

Uh 58 billion in revenue, 17 billion in

profit. As you look back on 2025,

what do you make of the year? What went

right? What went wrong? What surprised

you?

>> 2025 was a pretty constructive

environment for our business, and I

actually think 2026 is going to be a

pretty constructive environment for our

business, too. Um there obviously in

2025 there was a speed bump you know in

April with the launch of the uh the

tariff of the trade policy which slowed

things down and certainly sapped

investor confidence for a period of time

but the macro setup's pretty good. We

can certainly spend some time talking

about the macro setup for Goldman Sachs

and Goldman Sachs's performance. We've

been executing. We did our first

investor day back at the beginning of

2020 where we laid out a plan to really

grow the firm to really invest in our

core business of global banking and

markets. We pointed to four areas that

we thought we really could grow the

firm. Asset management, wealth

management, transaction banking, digital

consumer banking, and we pledged to run

the firm over time more efficiently. And

really for the last five years, we've

been we've been executing on that. Five,

six years, we've been executing on that

aggressively and making good progress.

And you go back to the end of 2019 when

we laid out that plan, the firm was

about a $ 36 billion revenue firm. The

market cap was about $70 billion. And as

you highlight, you know, we're a $60

billion revenue firm. Uh we've grown our

revenues kind of 60 65%. We've grown our

earnings by over 100%. We've really

grown the franchise and scaled the

franchise in 2025. Really saw that all

come together. We made some pivots or

changes along the way. Uh but we really

have got the firm in a powerful position

with two big businesses that are well

positioned to win leaders in their space

growing nicely and you know I feel quite

optimistic about the prospects as we

look ahead but 2025 was a year where we

you could really see the progress very

concretely from investments and

decisions we've made over the last five

six seven years. I have here this this

article from Business Insider that was

published in 2023. Uh and the headline

reads RIP Goldman Sachs and then there's

a by line. It says when I started out at

Goldman it was the most feared firm on

Wall Street. Those days are gone. Um I

remember a few years ago everyone was

saying that Goldman Sachs was in

trouble. Um and it is kind of remarkable

what's happened in the past one or two

years. there's been at least as as an

observer this incredible comeback from

the company. I'd love to just get your

reflections on what happened in those

two years for those who don't know like

what were the concerns about Goldman and

then how did you guys come back from

that? How could you explain what's

happened in the past couple of years?

>> I don't think the firm was ever doing so

terribly. you know the press and the

media you know can be a powerful tool

and a powerful amplifier of a small

number of voices but fundamentally you

know the firm was a private partnership

for 130 years and it went public in 1999

because the capital markets were

globalizing from 1999 you know through

2007 the firm was growing close to 20%

on the top line and it really ran as a

public company in that period exactly

the same way that it operated as a

private partnership for 130 years. The

financial crisis changed everything. It

created a new regulatory structure, a

new operating structure. It reset the

firm. It forced the firm to double its

capital base. And the firm kind of came

out of the financial crisis and really

stuck to its knitting. Um, and you know,

chugged along through that decade, but

really wasn't, you know, operating to

grow. And if you look at that decade

after the financial crisis, the firm's

revenues were pretty steady around 34

billion. The earnings were pretty

steady, the capital, the balance sheet

were all pretty steady. And so we we

entered the end of the decade saying we

really had to make some difficult

changes to really take this enterprise

and grow the enterprise. And whenever

you change a big enterprise, you know,

there's going to be resistance. People

hate change. And 2022 was kind of a

tough period. You had the Russian

invasion of Ukraine, big markdowns in

asset prices. It was a slower year for

the firm. The firm did just fine. It

made 10% on its equity capital in 2022.

Um, which is, you know, it's not, you

know, it's not a blowout year, but it's

not, you know, poor poor performance.

Um, but, you know, I think we had a

little bit of internal agitation given

the structural changes we were making

and that created a lot of noise in the

media. The media gobbled it up and um,

it became very noisy. We stuck to our

knitting. We kept our head down. We knew

the changes and the investments we were

making were right. And really over the

last few years, you know, that's panned

out correctly. Ultimately, performance

and execution matter, but change and

growth take time. You can't you can't do

it instantaneously. And I I would say

that was a, you know, kind of a bumpy,

noisy period for the firm. Uh, but the

firm's on really good forward footing at

the moment.

>> You're in a bunch of different

businesses, all related with different,

you know, asset management, sales and

trading, investment banking, etc. If you

had to pick one business that you think

is going to outperform the others over

the next 5 years and and you're the CEO

of public companies, so let me let me

make it more broadly of your sector,

which business do you think is going to

outperform the others? Realizing you

don't have a crystal ball, but which

business do you think is poised to show

the greatest returns over the next 5

years? And is there a new business that

you think you guys will be in that'll be

big in 5 years?

>> Yeah, I don't think over the next 5

years that we'll fundamentally be in a

big new business. We're going to

continue to focus on our core business

of investment banking and markets where

we're a clear leader. You know, I think

in investment banking the undisputed

leader, you know, and markets, you know,

one of the clear leaders and the kind of

the combination of those two businesses,

global banking and markets. I would um I

wouldn't take anybody's mix. I prefer

our mix to anybody else's mix. I think

one of the things that's been

surprising, Scott, over the last 5 years

is that business has grown much better

than I think we or the market would have

expected it to grow. I think there are

things we did where we outperformed and

we took share during that period, but

the overall business has had better

growth for a very very large mature

business than I think the market

expected. I think the world's set up

where that can continue. I think the

more interesting thing for us is what

we're doing in asset and wealth

management and I think there's very very

strong secular growth in asset and

wealth management particularly around

our positioning which on the wealth side

is for the ultra wealthy you know

obviously as asset prices you know

continue to appreciate you think about

the mo the the generational wealth

transfer from the baby boom generation

that's going to go on uh to the younger

generation my kids generation there's

some powerful dynamics there and I just

think we're very well positioned in that

business. So we have a wealth business

that that grows you know nicely double

digits. We have an asset and wealth

management business collectively where

we've said we think we can grow the

feebased durable revenue high single

digits but we're growing better than

that right now. And so I really think

that we're in a long secular you know

upswing opportunity in wealth and in

asset management. there'll be some bumps

maybe along the way, but I I just think

we're very well positioned when you look

at our portfolio there and um the growth

dynamics for those businesses are quite

attractive for us.

>> So, just switching to more macro topics,

I'm going to talk a little bit about AI.

I started my career uh in the two-year

analyst program uh at Morgan Stanley in

investment banking. And when I look back

on what I did, I'm pretty confident with

AI, I couldn't do the same amount of

work that I did in two years and 3

months, but maybe 6 months. And you just

got to think it's going to have a real

impact on human capital and hiring and

training in these types of businesses

like Goldman Sachs. What are your

thought on the intersection of AI and

entry- level jobs at a place like

Goldman? What what are your thoughts

around um human capital as it relates to

AI in these information intensive

businesses?

>> Technology in our business, you know,

professional services, financial

business, technology has been increasing

productivity and allowing people to uh

smart people to do more, you know, for

decades and decades. And I, you know,

just to be anecdotal about it for a

moment, I go back to when I started and

I first was doing analysis, putting two

companies together. I go to the library

and get the annual reports and on

greenlined paper I'd literally write the

balance sheets and income statements

down. I'd add them together. I mean it

would take me a week to 10 days to

actually put two companies together and

look at the combined financial results.

And then in 1985 somebody put an IBM 286

desktop computer on my desk and gave me

Lotus 123 software and something that

took me 10 days could be done in two

hours. And so the productivity game was

massive. You obviously here have

dynamics where some of the work that

analysts have been doing will be

automated from this and we will use we

may have less in the shortrun of those

people but I think the opportunity is to

have more people doing more productive

things with clients that can't be done

simply by the technology and so you know

there'll be this shifting dynamic you

know if you look back at the firm 25

years ago when I joined and you looked

at the productivity when you look at

people and revenues the firm is much

more productive today than it was 25

years ago. I bet 10 years from now it'll

be much more productive than it is

today. But people, relationships,

connectivity, they're still hugely

important in this. And the question is,

how do we shift the way people work and

therefore free up more capacity to touch

more clients, build more relationships,

broaden the footprint? It's it's not as

black and white as people in, people

out. So I do think the pace of change is

quick. I think you will see, you know,

some constraining of some of the

entry-level jobs in these professional

services platforms. It'll be more

amplified in certain businesses rather

than others. But I don't think it's

going to be as disruptive in terms of

the need for really smart people to work

collaboratively to serve clients as some

of the narrative around it. But we're

very focused on it. We're giving our

people the tools at an accelerated pace.

We're reimagining processes very

quickly. And the reason I'm excited

about it is not because it takes people

out. It frees up people to allow us to

invest in other parts of the business

that really do scale with people. You

know, for example, ultra high net worth

wealth really scales with people. And

so, you know, at the end of the day,

we've been constrained in some of the

places we can invest. We see enormous

productivity opportunities. And you move

people around to different places. The

firm today has, you know, 12 13,000

engineers. If you go back 20 years ago,

we had a fraction of that. My guess is

we're going to have more leverage for

coding and engineering with fewer

people, but that will free up capacity

to invest in other areas where we still

need people to scale some of the work

that we need to do. So, it's it's it's a

very interesting time with change, but

not as binary and linear as I think a

lot of people are talking about it.

>> Well, let me ask a more pointed

question. In 36 months, do you think

Goldman will have the same, fewer, or

more employees? My guess is the growth

trajectory of the overall headcount of

the firm will flatten for a period of

time. So if you want to say 36 months,

you know, it it'll be a flatter

trajectory for the next 3 years than

it's been for any other three-year

period, you know, going back, you know,

three, six, you know, 9 years, it'll be

flatter. Um, but if you want to take,

you know, 5 10 years out, I think we'll

have more employees.

We'll be right back after the break. And

if you're enjoying the show, send it to

a friend and please follow us if you

haven't already.

Support for the show comes from

Fundrise. Investing in companies already

in the S&P 500 can sometimes feel like

you're being served someone else's

leftovers. It's still a great meal, but

it's hard not to imagine what the food

tasted like when it was fresh out of the

oven. Historically, only venture capital

investors were served access to the best

tech companies in the world that hadn't

gone public yet. And that meant the rest

of the world simply had to sit on their

hands and wait for an IPO. Fundrise says

they're completely upending that dynamic

with its new venture capital product.

With just a $10 minimum investment,

Fundrise's mission is to give everyone

the access required to invest in the

best tech and AI companies before they

go public. There's nothing wrong with

leftovers. But now, if you want with

Fundrise, you can take a seat at the

table alongside the biggest names in

tech investing. Visit fundrise.com/provg

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 your buyers by job

title, industry, company role,

seniority, skills, company revenue. All

so you can stop wasting budget on the

wrong audience. 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 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. What are

some of the biggest risks that you are

looking at heading into this year? What

are the kinds of things that that keep

you up at night?

>> Well, I think the macro setup is very

very constructive. And I think the

things that keep me up um or keep me

worrying that could kind of set us off

what's a pretty constructive environment

are exogenous things that we don't see.

I mean they can center around things

like geopolitics and you know events you

know in the political realm or the

policy realm that really change

confidence um in the short term. You

know an example of it last year was

liberation day and the way the trade

policy was rolled out that certainly you

know sap confidence for a period of

time. Um cyber is a big risk that we

don't talk about a lot um but a big

cyber event in some way shape or form

can sap confidence but generally if you

step back the macro setup is very

strong. We have enormous fiscal

stimulus. The big bill last year, a

bunch of which comes into impact in 26

puts more fiscal stimulus into the

economy. We've got uh big big capital

investment around AI infrastructure,

which is also very stimulative for

growth in the economy. We've had

monetary easing about 100 basis points

in the policy rate in the last year with

an expectation of another cut or two in

2026. That's stimulative. On top of

that, we have a more deregulatory agenda

which also is stimulative for capital

investment. Plus, you know, we have

midterm elections coming up with a lot

of focus on affordability which leads to

some what I'll call idiosyncratic

actions that are also stimulative. So,

from an economic growth perspective in

the United States, it's a pretty

constructive environment. That doesn't

mean that there aren't big broad policy

issues that have to be wrestled with.

But the kinds of things that'll change

that economic growth trajectory or

sentiment are really more in the

shortrun exogenous events that we can't

anticipate or we don't see. I mean,

you've seen it a little bit this morning

after some of the noise over the

weekend. You know, the markets opened

with a little bit more uncertainty this

morning, but you know, that's not that's

not the kind of thing that really

derails us.

>> What about the long run? I think from

our conversations on this podcast, we

agree that in the short run, it looks

like it's going to be a pretty good year

or at least not a bad year based on a

lot of the reasons you describe. Um the

fiscal stimulus would probably be the

biggest example. But, you know, think

like 2 3 4 5 maybe even 10 years out. Um

those are the kinds of things that don't

really hold water over the long term. I

mean, if we're just going to continue

spending, as an example, what that does

to the nation's balance sheet, it could

become a problem. The debt that we're

seeing um in the US at large, what are

some of the long-term concerns that you

have? Um and is that, I guess, a

different story from the short term?

First of all, I don't think 2 3 4 years

is long term. I think 2 3 4 years is a

very short period of time. Yeah. um 10

years we're starting to talk about the

medium-term and you know the long term.

You know the next 10, 20, 25 years we're

talking more about the long term. I've

said repeatedly in public settings and

I'll say it again you know here on your

podcast I am very concerned about the

debt and deficit and our inability on

either side of the aisle to control our

spending. And I think we've kind of

gotten to a point where until we have

some sort of a crisis or an event that

kind of reframes us, we've really put

ourselves on very very difficult fiscal

footing. Now we have a lot of latitude

because of the US economy, the breath of

the US economy, the US dollar, the role

of the US dollar in the world. Um we've

got a lot of breath and we've got

headroom um around that. But ultimately

there will be a significant price to pay

if we either don't get the spending and

the debt under control in the medium

term or we don't create an economy

that's got a higher growth trajectory

than the kind of 2% trend we've had.

>> And so you know it's it's very you

cannot given the spending levels and the

debt levels. You can't simply cut

spending or drive more revenue. You have

to have higher growth to make sense of

where we are. when you start thinking

about, you know, 5, 10, 15, 20 years

from now based on the trajectory we're

on. We have entitlement programs that

don't work structurally, um, you know,

we we have more headroom to let them

run, but ultimately, um, you know, there

will be a point at which we have to

wrestle with that. So, those are things

that with a longer term lens I'm very

concerned about. I think from a policy

perspective, they're hard things to get

at without some sort of, you know, I

don't want to be overly dramatic, but

some sort of a crisis or speed bump or

something that resets the mindset, uh,

creates more of a need for, you know,

kind of bipartisan approach to correct.

Um, and we're just not in that place at

the moment. And so, you know, that that

that allows us to continue to uh put

ourselves in a position where ultimately

the correct unless we generate higher

growth, you know, is more difficult.

Now, in the short term, I actually think

this year, you know, I'm on the over on

the growth forecast. I do think

inflation will be stickier this year

than the consensus, but I think we could

see, you know, nominal growth that's

higher than what the expectation is

given the confluence of kind of

stimulative events I talked about. So

even if you wound up with, you know,

with closer to 3% inflation, you know,

you could have, you know, real growth of

three or over 3% this year because you

could have higher nominal growth than I

where I think the the expectation

currently is. So I'm one that's in the

camp that that's a possibility. But

unless you create that on a sustained

basis where you have higher real growth

and you control inflation, um, you know,

we're setting oursel up at some point

for some big speed bumps. Were you

surprised by the deficit spending in the

the big beautiful bill? I mean, given

the fact that it seemed that it was a

priority for this administration to

balance the budget, or at least that was

the stated goal at the beginning of last

year, I'm just wondering, you know, from

your time as an executive, you know,

watching all of this unfold, were you

surprised by the amount of spending that

actually we are signing up for in 26?

I'm not surprised um on either side of

the aisle. Both sides have been poor

fiscal stewards. Um and it continues

because the politics, you know, play

well until there's real pressure that

forces, you know, a different kind of

political discipline. So, I'm not

surprised. Now, if if this

administration can marry it with better

growth for a period of time, we we might

wind up in a place where the overall

debt to GDP looks better and more

attractive. But the longterm trajectory

is both sides of the aisle are not

showing an ability to show fiscal

discipline and we haven't yet been able

to crack the code of higher growth to

justify the spending levels and the debt

levels. And so, you know, these are

things that we have to wrestle with. A

lot of talk about monetary policy. You

know, you'd notice that the policy rates

down 1% in 2025, but the tenure really

didn't move. stayed kind of stuck over

the entire year between 4.1 and 4.2%.

You'd notice in 2024, you know, we saw

interest rate cuts, but you actually saw

a steepening of the curve and long rates

moved up a little bit. So, you know, the

market is telling you that, you know,

proceed with caution and uh you know, I

I think in the short run, we have a

tremendous ability because of the

headroom we have, because of the dollar

to be less concerned about this. But

ultimately, these are issues we're going

to have to wrestle with in my my humble

opinion.

>> So, uh, speaking of rates, the the buzz

here in Davos isn't about income

inequality or climate change. It's about

or or the vibe, I would say, is how fed

up uh different European states or

nations are with the US administration.

And one of the ideas that seems to be

getting a lot of chatter is the idea

that they would in a concerted way as a

union or coordinated way dump a bunch of

US treasuries. Do you think the US is

susceptible because of the amount of

debt um that's held? It's actually only

30. It's 70% domestic, but 30% of $37

trillion is still a lot of money. Do you

think the US is vulnerable to a foreign

nation coordinating and selling our

debt?

>> You know, I think at the margins, Scott,

um you know, you can see moves you

around treasuries, but vulnerable is a

big word and vulnerable to me and and

and you know, correct me if you're if

you're not thinking about in this. When

you when you say

>> vulnerable, the fundamental structure of

the world is that for you know lots of

people in the world that have you know

excess reserves you know there's not a

lot of places they can go. We've

obviously seen gold rally but you know

vulnerable would mean you have very very

significant moves that change the

fundamental structure of the way people

think about reserves and the dollar is

still you know a reserve currency. I

think the chance of that getting offset

in the short run because of this

political noise even though I hear the

frustration too and I think we're going

to hear a lot of it this week, Scott. I

think the chance in the short run of

that getting really set off in a

significant way is very very low. Um but

you know I think longer term if we

continue to grow the debt we are not

going to have the same latitude to have

everyone around the world finance it.

And so ultimately we ourselves in the

United States will have to finance that.

You know to finance that you have to ask

you know how does that get attractive

where savers and investors that have

been very very tied to the equity

markets think about the fact that the

S&P over the last 40 years has

compounded by 11%ish. you know, people

have been trained to that are investors

and savers to think about equity

markets, you know, not, you know,

10-year treasuries or 30-year treasuries

of four to 5%. You know, at what rate do

you start shifting savers and investors

from the S&P, you know, to longer

treasuries? It's it's not four or 5%.

So, that can create pressure over time,

but I don't think it happens

dramatically in the short run. In the

short run, it's marginal. So tariffs um

threatening to annex

other sovereign nations. It feels as if

the current administration isn't afraid

to kind of uh or run the risk of

deglobalization so to speak. Do you

worry that as a global firm that you

risk or the administration risks

antagonizing other nations and other

countries who decide to not only have

reciprocal tariffs, not only place more

punitive measures on our big tech firms,

but decide not to work with US service

firms, including Goldman. You know, at

the end of the day, we compete in a big

global world. You know, I I I do think

at the margin there can be behavioral

changes, but the economy is very

globally interconnected. you know, over

time for resilience, for security,

people change supply chains, but those

shifts, you know, are five, 10 years in

the making. Political cycles are

shorter. Um, and generally, you know,

things balance. I hear some noise about

some of this stuff, too. I don't see it

in the facts at this point in time. We

watch it carefully, Scott, but

ultimately the economies are very, very

interconnected. It's hard to pull them

apart, and I'm not a big believer in

deglobalization. I am a big believer

that as geopolitics and policies shift

that there are marginal changes in the

way people think about you know the

economic structure of their nation. I

think we're at a moment where more

nationalism is being bred. I don't think

that's great. Um but when you when you

step back and talk about big structural

changes they're much harder and they

take a long time and they certainly

outlive what I'll call shorter political

cycles. So uh the prime minister of our

largest trading partner Canada has said

that they are going to structurally

shift away from the US that in some he

feels they screwed up being so dependent

and integrated into the US. You don't

see other the the some of the world's

largest economies including China

diversifying from the US as a as a

cyclical issue. I mean it feels like a

structural issue that'll that'll damage

us. What what do the Goldman chief

economists say about this potential

structural shift away from uh trade with

the US?

>> There's a lot of noise at the moment

around these issues. Um some of it's

still in the construct of an active

negotiation. At the end of the day, the

economies are massively intertwined and

while there will be changes at the

margin, you know, I don't think our

economic teams believe that the

long-term structural shifts will be

real. But at the end of the day, I think

people when you get through the noise,

people will do what's in their economic

interest and there'll be a more balanced

result than some of the rhetoric we're

hearing right now. But, you know, watch

the space, watch what happens. You know,

Canada, for example, huge trading

partner. China, huge trading partner. I

think China's in a place where things

are more deescalated for the next 12

months. We'll see what comes out of

that. We obviously have a President

Trump visit to China and a she visit

coming back this way. There's so there's

a roadmap this year to see if there is

more progress in that bilateral

relationship. We have to watch USMCA and

how that progresses. It's easy to talk

about the fact that there's a lot of

noise, but it's harder to talk about the

long-term consequences because to make

real changes is more complicated than

simply talking or threatening.

>> The follow-up question would be what

what is that line in your view for where

structural change does come about? I

think that's something that's been

difficult for me to pass out personally

where you know we we keep pushing up

against that line and you know it's yes

it's just a post that was on social

media but at the same time it is

actually a threat of military action. I

guess there's a question as to whether

it's serious or whether the threat is

real, but I I I think something that

that I kind of I I don't know how to

think about is what is that line? At

what point do we say, "Oh, no. Actually,

this is structural. This is long-term.

And this isn't something that could be

reversed based on the election cycle."

You know, I think you're asking a

question that's an interesting question,

but I don't spend a lot of time trying

to figure out where the line is because

I don't think any of us there's not a

line. Okay? There's there's enormous

nuance and complexity to the economy.

There's enormous nuance and complexity

to the the individual bilateral

relationships and they change and shift

based on the lens of what's going on at

any moment in time. And so, you know,

yes, are norms of the way we see certain

things challenged? Uh, absolutely. But

there's not I don't I I think you're

looking for an answer that doesn't

necessarily exist. Um there's not

there's not a definitive marker that

says okay the structural economics of

the world are now going to permanently

shift in a different direction.

Everything's at the margin. Everything's

nuanced. And you know at the moment

we're we're at a particularly noisy

moment. And I think you know one of the

things we try to spend a lot of time

doing at the firm is thinking about

what's noise and what substantively

matters. And I just say, and that's this

doesn't mean I like the noise. A lot of

what, you know, we're touching on or

talking about is noise more than

substance.

>> Um, but you know, the markets have to

absorb that. People have to absorb that.

And I'm not sitting here saying I have

the answers and I know how it plays out.

I just think that it's it's it's more

nuanced. It's more longer term. Um, and

the swings because elections, you know,

we we move one way to the other. the

swings are probably shorter than what's

required to make these these long

structural changes.

>> What is the same and different about

1999 with e-commerce and 2026 with AI?

What do you think? What do you think is

it different this time or does this feel

awfully frothy and sort of begging for a

correction again? I would frame it a

little bit differently just to to make a

point that these things when you get one

of these super cycles, you know, if tech

investment, it can feel frothy and they

can run for a long time before

ultimately you have a recalibration or a

significant pullback. And the analogy I

would draw is that Alan Greenspan talked

about irrational exuberance in markets

in the I believe in the fall of 1996

when the NASDAQ was at 1300. you're now

talking about 1999. The NASDAQ

ultimately went to 5200 doubled, you

know, in March of 2000 and then it

retreated 85%, you know, over the next

18 months. So, you know, what what I

would say is I don't know if we're in

1999 or or 1996 or, you know, or or in

2000, but when you have these

accelerations, you have massive capital

formation around forward growth. And by

the way, I'm a I'm a big bull on the

technology, the opportunity, etc. At

some point, there'll be rebalance and

recalibration. I think one of the things

I'm watching closely, Scott, is the pace

at which enterprises adopt the

technology

>> because that's obviously where a lot of

the economics to support the investment

come as enterprises adopt the

technology. And I think that it's going

to be harder and slower for enterprises

to adopt. and the perception of how

quickly that will come, you know, might

actually turn out to disappoint a little

bit. That could create a recalibration.

I'm not suggesting that the

recalibration has to look like, you

know, the NASDAQ recalibration of um

2000 2001, you know, and remember also

here a lot of the capital that's getting

invested is coming from massive

companies that have extraordinary cash

flow and earnings and they might not get

reasonable returns on that capital, but

that's very very different um because

that's out of their free cash flow. So

when you look at the big hyperscalers

and they you know the top four spent you

know $400 billion last year you know it

would be a shame if they don't get

reasonable returns on that but the

market impact on that is different than

what we were looking at when you were

looking at you know the internet

expansion um and you know all the

capital was coming directly from public

markets so similarities differences you

know I do think we have a tendency to

look ahead with optimism and ultimately

that requires recalibrations on

valuation

Um, I'm sure, you know, there will be

some of that around this, but it's hard

to say whether we're in 1996 or, you

know, or 1999.

We'll be right back. And for even more

markets content, sign up for our

newsletter at profgarkets.com/subscribe.

Support

for the show comes from Public, the

investing platform for those who take it

seriously. On Public, you can build a

multi-asset portfolio of stocks, bonds,

and options. And now, generated assets,

which allow you to turn any idea into an

investable index with AI. It all starts

with your prompt. From renewable energy

companies with high free cash flow to

semiconductor suppliers growing revenue

over 20% a year-over-year. You can

literally type any prompt and put the AI

to work. It screens thousands of stocks,

builds a one-of-akind index, and let you

back test it against the S&P 500. Then

you can invest in a few clicks.

Generated assets are like ETFs with

infinite possibilities, completely

customizable and based on your thesis,

not someone else's. Go to

public.com/provg

and earn an uncapped 1% bonus when you

transfer your portfolio. That's

public.com/provg.

Paid for by public investing, broker

services by open to the public

investing, Inc. member FINRA and SIPC.

Advisory Services by Public Advisors LLC

SEC registered advisor. Generated assets

is an interactive analysis tool. Output

is forformational purposes only and is

not an investment recommendation or

advice. Complete disclosures available

at public.com/disclosures.

Support for the show comes from

Shipstation. If your company is scaling

fast, order fulfillment can make or

break your momentum. But most businesses

are stuck juggling between disconnected

apps and tools, making it harder to get

what you need to your customers fast.

ShipStation says they can help. Their

time-saving automations can help you

reclaim up to 15 hours a week on order

fulfillment. The platform automatically

selects the right carrier, finds the

best rate, prints labels in bulk, and

even sends tracking updates to your

customers. According to Shipstation,

they compare rates across all major

global carriers like USPS, UPS, and

FedEx, including any discounted rates

you already have to choose the best

shipping option for every order with

discounts of up to 90% off. You can try

ShipStation free for 60 days with full

access to all features. No credit card

needed. Go to shipstation.com and use

code markets for 60 days for free. 60

days gives you plenty of time to see

exactly how much time and money you're

saving on every shipment. That is

shipstation.com codearkets.

shipstation.com

codearkets.

We're back with ProfG Markets. I'm just

going to shift us away from AI and the

economy. I want to talk about you,

David. You're the CEO of a company that

employs 46,000 people that manages $2

trillion in assets. Um, that is very

rare. We don't often interview CEOs like

yourself. That's a level of

responsibility that that none of us have

experienced. Um, just on at a personal

level, what is that like? Does that does

that weigh on you? Um, what does your

dayto-day look like? Do you ever wake up

and think, you know, how did I get here?

I appreciate the question and it's

certainly fair to say that there are

lots of days um you know where I've

woken up and said how did I get here?

I've certainly saw myself as a very

unlikely candidate to steward this firm.

Um and I think I I use the word steward

because I think it's an important word.

The firm's been around for over 155

years. You know I I've been running it,

you know, for I'm I'm in my eighth year.

Um but um but I'm a steward of a great

institution and my job is to do

everything I can with the broad

leadership team to leave this

organization stronger than we founded as

a leadership team so the next leaders

can steward it you know further along

and there aren't a lot of organizations

you know that make it under one name you

know for 150 you know plus years and so

that's a tremendous responsibility um I

would say these jobs are not easy I

think anyone that winds up in one of

these jobs has certain skills and

preparations the day they get the job,

but they continue to grow and have more

skills and better preparation as they go

through the fire and, you know, and make

mistakes and and, you know, turn left

when they should turn right and, you

know, jump up when they should sit down.

I mean, it's, you know, you're learning

every day. And I certainly feel much

better equipped um to uh, you know, to

to handle some of the responsibilities

today than I did eight years ago. But

that's, you know, that's true, I think,

with anybody that steps into one of

these jobs. You try to surround yourself

with great people. you try to listen.

I'm blessed to have an extraordinary

team at Goldman Sachs, an extraordinary

leadership team that's been incredibly

stable over the course of the last five,

six years. Um, we work together to

steward the firm and, you know, we try

to be as nimble and as flexible to adapt

to what the world throws at you. I think

one of the things I'd also highlight

that's changed over the last 10-15

years, the visibility of these jobs is

very different than it was 15, 20 years

ago

>> in terms of the transparency and

everything you say, everything you do.

You know, the scrutiny. It's a different

standard. But I feel very, very lucky to

have had this opportunity. I've learned

a lot. I feel good about what we're

doing. I'm sure there'll be more bumps

before I'm before I'm done and the board

moves on to who's ever next. But um it's

it's an incredible privilege. You know,

47,000 extraordinary people work for

Goldman Sachs. We have access to the

most interesting people in the world.

You learn every day. Um and it's it's

it's it's an incredible organization

that I feel fortunate to steward.

something I I didn't know uh before this

interview. You actually, and correct me

if this is wrong, but I read that you

applied to the Goldman Analyst program

and you were rejected not once but

twice. This is when you were just

starting out on Wall Street. Supposedly,

one partner described you as quote not

Goldman Sachs material. You are now CEO

of Goldman Sachs. Just looking back,

what do you think you got right? How did

you end up in this position? I guess I'm

sort of restating the question, but what

is there that that young people can

learn about your rise as someone who was

rejected from this company and now

you've you're running it? I applied the

first time when I was graduating from

Hamilton College. Um, and I got a very,

you know, quick letter back, no thank

you. But I got a lot of those. I mean, I

think I remember I got, you know, back

in the early 1980s when you applied for

jobs. you wrote formal letters, sent

your resume, applied for a job, you

know, you got a rejection letter back. I

got a lot of those. I was very fortunate

to get a job at the Irving Trust Company

in a credit training program in 1984 and

that kind of set me down in this path. I

was very lucky to be recruited to join

Goldman Sachs in 1999. I really thought

it was an opportunity to work for the

best financial firm in the world. Uh I

think um I've worked very hard over a

long period of time, but the real reason

that I'm sitting in the seat is a

confluence of things. A big portion of

which is just luck and serendipity. I

mean, one of the things, you know, you

might have heard me say before is, you

know, if if if the leadership of the

firm had transitioned at a different

time, I wouldn't be running the firm. I

mean, one of the things I you know, I

can point to Lloyd Blankfine um I mean,

this is well known. you know, Lloyd

Blankfine um had cancer um in 2015 and

he stepped back, you know, to deal with

his treatments for a period of time. You

know, he chose to step back, but to stay

at the firm, someone else might have

decided, you know what, I have to deal

with this and I'm going to step away. If

if Lloyd had stepped away in 2015,

someone else, probably Gary Con probably

would be running the firm. It wouldn't

be me. And so, you know, the fact that

the transition occurred in 2018, I

happened to be one of the right people

at that moment, at that time in the

right place, but if it had been 2012, if

it had been 2015, by the way, if it had

been 2022, I mean, I it it it wouldn't

have been me either. So, it's, you know,

these things are a journey of hard work.

There are lots of people at Goldman

Sachs that are capable of running the

firm. Um, and then it's a confluence of,

you know, luck and timing that goes with

the hard work that that allowed me to

wind up in the seat. But I'm I'm very

cognizant of the fact that a lot of it

is luck and serendipity.

>> Beyond the professional stuff, what

advice would you give to your younger

self about being I won't even say being

a good friend, being a better friend,

being a better partner, and being a

better father?

>> I you know, I think the thing you learn

as you you go through life is that um,

you know, it's a marathon, not a sprint.

It's never a straight line. Um, lots of

thing are going to get knocked down and,

you know, bumped around. And at the end

of the day, there are certain things

that I think are true north. For me,

true north has always been first and

foremost my family, my two daughters,

you know, true true north. Always. It's

always been I can't say that I always

got the balance perfectly right, you

know, every step of the way, every day.

Um, but it's always been true north. And

you know after that my friends I'm very

blessed to have an extraordinary group

of friends many of whom I've been

friendly with you know for for you know

25 35 45 50 years or more. Um and you

know keeping those people you know in

your life investing in those

relationships because life gets busy and

you go in different directions. Um, but

you know, keeping the compass pointing a

true north, taking a long-term view,

understanding that you're going to get

knocked down, but you get up, you learn

from the experience, you dust yourself

off, and, you know, you just do the best

you can do, and life throws a lot of

things at you that are out of your

control. But be patient, take a

long-term view, keep the compass pointed

at your loved ones, your family, your

friends, and, you know, do the right

thing. If you keep that stuff in

balance, there'll be ups and downs. But,

you know, I think there's lots of joy,

you know, that comes out of the kind of

the success of a job well done is to do

it and to do it well and to have the

personal satisfaction for raising a

family, for building a career, for

having success and also when you fail,

from learning from the failing and being

able, you know, to kind of look ahead

and and take the learnings and do even

better and constantly try to

self-improve. Scott's question um is

really about how you'd advise yourself

um you know your your younger self. I'd

be interested to hear your advice for

young people right now given the

environment we're in. I think one of the

biggest things that young people are

probably worried about is AI and the

potential for AI to take your job. Yes,

we'll probably be working with AI, but

it could be disruptive in the short

term. Um I think you know young people

are also worried about affordability

issues uh the cost of housing etc.

What would be your advice to a young

person who's just starting out right now

given the environs and the things that

we should be thinking about?

>> You know, on that question, one of the

things I just reflect on that I just

think is interesting. You know, when I

graduated in 1984, we were worried about

affordability. We were worried about

getting jobs. I remember when I

graduated, a very significant portion

of, if I looked at, you know, the the

the the people I graduated from school

with did not have jobs in the summer

after we graduated. Um, you know, we all

went out into the world and we figured

out how are we going to make a dollar,

how are we going to participate? You

know, it wasn't it wasn't so simple that

everybody had jobs and, you know, the

world was the world was different, you

know, then and the expectations were um,

you know, were different. So, you know,

when I when I look at young people

today, I mean, a couple of pieces of

advice that are simple. I still think

that hard work matters. I still think

commitment and sacrifice matters. I

still think showing up, being present,

and building connectivity and

relationships with people directly

matters. I think understanding that

nothing comes easy and anything that's

worthwhile in life requires hard work,

investment, commitment, and sticking

with it for a period of time. I think

all of that matters. So, you know, my

advice is as you come out of school and

you're looking at the world, find a

place where you can get engaged. Find a

place when you can learn, where you can

apply skills that you think you're good

at. Understand there going to be bumps

and it's not going to work perfectly,

but stick with it. Show up, be present,

try to outwork people around you. Try to

be more committed than people around

you. Compete um and compete, you know,

to do the best you can. Compete to

learn, to win. And if you do that and

you do it over time, chances are that

good things will happen. But these

issues that people worry about, we were

worrying about them, you know, 40, 50

years ago. I'm not saying they're

exactly the same, but it is very natural

to come out of school and worry about

those things. And you've got to go out

and look forward. I'm very optimistic

about the world. Sure, there are lots of

problems. Um, but I do think that it is

a wonderful time to be alive and there's

lots of exciting stuff that's going to

happen in the next, you know, 5, 10, 15,

20 years that this generation will play

an enormous part in. David Solomon is

the chairman of the board of directors

and chief executive officer of Goldman

Sachs. Previously, he served as the

firm's president, chief operating

officer, co-head of the investment

banking division, and global head of the

financing group. He joined Goldman Sachs

as a partner in 1999. David, thank you

so much. Really appreciate your time.

>> Yeah, David, I'll see you tomorrow. And

just to sign off, when I I wrote a piece

on Weiwork and I was critical of Goldman

and David reached out and said, "Let's

have breakfast." We had breakfast and by

the end of the breakfast I had

transferred all of my assets to Goldman

Sachs.

David just reeks of credibility and

honesty. Really appreciate your time,

David.

>> Thank you both. Appreciate you having

me.

>> Ed, what do you think?

>> I think I really like the guy. That's

sort of my reaction.

uh very charming, very likable, all the

things you'd want in a CEO. Um and you

know,

I you got to think that job is just

impossible. The thing he said at the end

there about publicity and visibility,

the fact that everyone is watching your

every word. I mean, he comes on this

podcast and he knows that if he says

anything that is, you know, slightly off

color or, you know, too doomer or

anything that is even remotely

hyperbolic, that's just a headline.

That's like an article right there. And,

you know, I just think that's a crazy

position to be in as a human being.

Every time you speak, people have their

pen to paper. They're waiting for

something that you say, and they know

that you're just a walking story.

Um, so to be personable and engaging and

magnanimous despite those circumstances,

I mean, maybe I'm just being stare eye

because this the CEO of Goldman Sachs,

but I think it's pretty impressive. What

do you think?

>> Well, first off, they're all likable.

Yeah. Um, you have to be to get to that

point. You have to just create allies

along the way. And

>> also, there's no upside for him doing

this podcast. I cornered him at a

restaurant.

um like all great CEOs and I'm a client

of Goldman. He pretends to like me. So I

kind of cornered him and said, "You need

to come on the pod." And he kind of

hummed and hawed and looked for an

excuse and he wasn't that quick on his

feet and he said, "Sure, I'd love to." I

mean, I could just tell I was like, "Oh,

fuck."

>> So all meetings start.

>> But it's a true story. When I I had

breakfast with him, by the end of the

breakfast, I'm like, "Okay, I'm

transferring all my assets to Goldman."

He's very smart, very likable. Uh, and

being CEO of Goldman Sachs is a little

bit like being president of the United

States in the sense that one, it's a

very demanding job, but two, you not

only have to be the right person, you

have to be the right person at the

moment. And he referenced this. So many

moons have to line up because I know I

was good friends who was a vice chairman

there who was supposed to be the next

CEO and didn't get it. I have another

friend who was on the CEO track there.

Literally, I bet a third of the firm

wakes up in the morning, looks in the

mirror and says, "Hello, Mr. or Mrs. CEO

of Goldman Sachs. You have at Goldman,

you have

this alchemy, this concentration of the

most ambitious, successful people on the

planet and their career has been nothing

but an upward trajectory and then the

pyramid gets very crowded at the top

very fast.

>> The thing Goldman does really well that

McKenzie does well is they clear out a

lot of senior people. They they have a

compensation schematic where it almost

becomes lucrative to leave and they like

that because they want to create enough

upward mobility for young talent such

that they don't get stuck and think oh

you know Bob's the only reason Bob's

here is because he's been here 30 years

at Goldman. There's very few people that

are that are very senior just because

they've been there a long time. They are

very good at clearing out kind of the

dry wood if you will. They also have

this other

interesting at least I don't know I

assume they still do. They have a lot of

co-heads

of things because they want to make sure

nobody has that much leverage.

They have co-heads of Europe or they

used to anyways. They used to have

co-heads of investment banking. That way

when Lisa walks in and says you're

[ __ ] without me, they're like, "No,

Lisa, Bob's also the co-head of Europe

and we're going to be just fine." But

it's an incredible firm with an

incredible culture and

uh to kind of be the CEO there. You're

just your in I would imagine his inbox

is never empty. It's uh you know Jamie

Diamond

uh I don't know who the CEO Morgan

Stanley is right now but

>> Ted Pick, right?

>> Yeah. And then uh very impressive woman

runs city.

>> Jane Fraser. Yeah.

>> You would find Well, you could have any

of them on. They're all super impressive

and all super likable. That's just

that's just, you know, kind of like I

said, kind of like us. Um

>> I got a question for you.

>> Yeah.

>> Uh would you want to be the CEO of

Goldman Sachs?

>> Not in a million years.

>> Really?

>> Yeah. I'd like the money. I'll take

that. Here's the thing about running a

services company. I've run much smaller

services companies and once we have

someone who's a CFO or someone in HR, I

I I make someone else the CEO. Um the

services companies, Goldman's in the

business, but Goldman is a services

company. They're outstanding

companies to work uh to manage and lead

except for two things, the employees and

the clients. Other than that, they're

outstanding places to lead.

Thank you for listening to Prof Markets

from Prof Media. If you liked what you

heard, give us a follow and join us for

a fresh take on markets on Monday.