we're about to see is $400 billion worth

of new supply flooding the market all in

one go. And so the question is, is the

demand going to keep up with the supply?

When I look at the fact that the largest

IPO year ever was 2021, where $140

billion was raised, we're about to see

triple that. We're about to see 10 times

more the amount of money that was raised

in the IPO markets last year. It was

around $44 billion. We're about to see

$400 billion, probably more than that.

My view, supply is about to flood this

market. It is going to outstrip demand.

The only answer after that is that

prices go down.

>> Today's number 59. That's the percentage

of Americans who say they will not watch

any World Cup match, is it? What's worse

than the US men's national soccer team?

>> What's that?

>> Absolutely nothing, Ed. Nothing.

Are you excited about the US team?

>> No, I'm not excited about the US team.

I'm excited about the England team.

>> Team England, your man Cole Palmer.

>> Well, he's been left out. You You heard

that?

>> What?

>> Cole Palmer. I mean, it was just

devastating news. Cole Palmer has been

left out of the England squad. So, a lot

of not really much reason for the

Chelsea fans to be watching, but I'm

still going to be cheering for England

anyway. We still got some amazing

players on the team. Harry Kane's going

to be carrying us. Jude Bellingham, you

know, team England all the way. But

yeah, it's very, very sad about Cole.

>> Cole Palmer did not make the England

squad

>> because we've just had a we've had a bad

season. And Cole, I mean, as much as I

love him, he hasn't performed. And I

think this guy is is basing his

decisions over form versus fame. Uh, he

also didn't include Phil Fodden, who's

kind of our other star.

>> Foden, I understand. When I I I've been

to three World Cups, I've been to the

US, Russia. last time we did it whenever

it was like 94

and then and then I was in Russia and

then Qar and when Cole Palmer was at

Ezie came on the field in the second

half

>> Mhm. I had lunch with I forget the name.

The guy was a team England coach of the

last one. Lovely guy. And of course I

couldn't like stop heckling from the

cheap seats.

>> Gary Southgate, right?

>> Yeah. Southgate. Based on the fact that

I've played FIFA once or twice, which

makes me a coach. I'm like, every time

Ezian Palmer came in, the whole mood,

the whole vibe, the whole momentum of

the game changed. I'm like, why didn't

you start them? And of course, he sat

there and he was very polite, thinking,

who the [ __ ] is this guy asking me about

football?

I didn't even imagine how much second

guessing that guy that guy gets. Uh but

yeah, I can see. Well, anyways, um I

think it's a big mistake not to have who

are the well, let me put it this way.

Who are the two or three young stars

from team England that everyone's

excited about?

>> Ez's uh in the squad um this tournament

and he's been playing incredibly well

for Arsenal. So, people are very excited

about EZ. Um Manchester Saka, of course,

everyone's excited about Saka. There's a

there's a new defender on Manchester

City, Nico O'Reilly, who will be

interesting to see. But I mean, the

other big star who got left out as well

is Trent Alexander Arnold, who's the

Real Madrid star.

>> We need to speak to the coach.

>> Oh, yeah. Let's get him on the phone.

Thomas Tukul, Scott Galloway has some

advice for you. You need to stick with

your superstars versus I don't know,

whatever this intellectual

um I don't know what you would call

this.

Going for form, form over fame. I mean,

that's it's Yeah,

>> this show is off to an awful start. It's

off to an awful start.

>> Well, this was what happens when you go

on tour and you have this hangover. I

slept 12 hours yesterday and I still

feel terrible. This is the problem. I'm

not I'm not sharp right now.

>> Well, imagine doing it when you're like

90 years old and you're with a bunch of

children roaming around the nation

trying to figure out what you're gonna

say tonight that's any different than

the night before. I felt like MC Jagger

out with a boy band.

>> Yeah. like with out with in sync when

they were still in high school.

>> Um, what was the highlight for you of

the tour? Let's

>> Well, we'll get to that. We're going to

do a full review of the tour at the end

of the show.

>> So, I think I'm just going to launch us

into the business stories of the show.

What do you think about that?

>> Let's do that. What? What the hell?

>> What the hell?

>> What the hell?

>> Google is making a massive bet on AI and

asking investors to help fund it. The

company is planning an $85 billion

equity offering, which would be the

largest stock sale in history. Roughly

$10 billion of that investment is

expected to come from Burkshire

Hathaway, which will reportedly receive

a 6.5% discount on their shares.

Google's stock fell 4% after the

announcement. The fundraising effort

highlights the significant cost of

competing in the AI race, and Google had

already been ramping up spending

aggressively. In April, it raised its

projected capex to as much as $190

billion for the year. And the timing is

notable because Anthropic just

confidentially filed for an IPO last

week. And SpaceX is set to go public

this week as well. So, some analysts

believe that Google is trying to secure

the investor capital now, possibly

before it has to compete with those

other offerings. Scott, we've got an

absolute whirlwind of huge equity

offerings here. We've got SpaceX. We've

got Anthropic soon to come. We've got

Open AI supposed to come later. And now

we've got Google with this 80 to85

billion equity offering, the largest

public equity offering of all time. Um,

initial reactions.

>> I just loved reading this. I think it's

such corporate genius. And a tech

executive that doesn't get her due is

the CFO of Alphabet, Ruth Pat.

So, first off, this is going to be the

largest equity offering in history or to

date, unless I don't know, one of the

big three, the other three going out

raises more money. And it's kind of the

story that or the the news story so far

has been if Alphabet needs to tap the

markets for additional capital with the

kind of cash generative juggernaut it

is, it's kind of like Warren Buffett

taking out a mortgage. It just gives you

a sense for how with the how thirsty

this capex is or how much how much is

required to keep up. Now, I would argue

that's not this. I think they could fund

this off their balance sheet. My my

sense is is that a CFO's job is to find

the cheapest capital possible and use

that capital as a weapon to pull ahead

of everybody else. That's their job. How

do we raise more money less expensively

than everybody else?

And I think what Ruth Pat or and what I

believe is everyone else, you know,

Microsoft, Nvidia, Cororeweave,

Apple are going to may do the same thing

is they're like, okay, look at the

valuations that are being paid or

supposedly might be paid for, you know,

they'll call them the big three,

Anthropic, Open AI, and SpaceX. That is

insane. And so what they're saying to

the market is, okay, you want some of

that upside of incredible infrastructure

investment on this brave new world of AI

which has a TAM the size of, you know,

not Everest but of constellations.

Okay, you can get some of that upside

with us and there's a whole lot of less

downside. If AI doesn't work for

Alphabet or it doesn't live up to the

expectations, it's still an amazing

business. And so what they're doing is

they're cutting the line and saying,

"Okay, if you're if there's this cheap,

i.e. stupid, capital out there that is

so dying to get into this business that

they'll pay this type of valuation,

fine. Here you go. We're cutting the

line and we're going to take $85 billion

off of the table because the cruelty of

capitalism is that every resource is

finite." And the amount of new capital

willing to go into AI infrastructure

bets is finite. and they're about to

take $85 billion off the table. So, I I

wouldn't be surprised if we see Amazon

all of a sudden announce a new equity

offering. I I think this is genius.

Cutting the line and taking $85 billion

of cheap capital off the table and

saying, "Hey folks, uh look over here.

We're we're we're hot. We're in the hot

space and there's less downside with

us." I I think it's I think it's

brilliant because AI has become the

railroad boom of the 21st century. And

that is everyone agrees it's

transformative, but it's more difficult.

The harder question is whether or not

the people laying the tracks will earn a

return on that capital. And every time

we've had this kind of capex in the

past, whether it's the highways, the

global telco build out in the late 90s

or railroads twice, there ends the

electric grid, there's usually a bit of

a crash following it as people realize

the ROI is just not just not there. But

I I I love this story. We talked about

it yesterday on the editorial call. I

just think it's hilarious. These guys

are stepping in front of the little kids

and basically the twofur here is Gemini

wants to kick Anthropic and OpenAI in

the nuts and they're doing this by by

stepping on the corateed artery of their

capital raising plans.

>> Yeah, I think that's exactly right. And

the thing that you mentioned yesterday

is, you know, maybe the pitch to

investor is maybe there's less upside

for the Google IPO versus the SpaceX

IPO, but at least you're protected on

the downside. My argument is I think you

could argue that there's actually a lot

more upside in the Google offering

because you've got SpaceX going out at

more than 100 times earnings or more

than 100 times sales, excuse me. I mean,

if we were to price Google, which is

already an incredibly successful

business at the same multiple of SpaceX,

Google would be worth $45 trillion. And

so this is I mean this is a company that

is is actually priced quite reasonably

when you compare it to the other

offerings out there. So I would argue

that when you look at it on a

riskadjusted basis actually there's a

lot of upside here and so they're almost

just rebranding themselves as the hot

new AI company by making this equity

offering and I think I think it's really

fair game. Now, you mentioned this idea

that they're going to extract the

capital out of the ecosystem, which I

think is very true, and I think it does

pose a problem to Anthropic and to

OpenAI and potentially to SpaceX,

although SpaceX is set to go out pretty

soon. And it does seem that there is a

little bit of a concern here that

whoever goes out first is going to suck

up all of the energy and all the capital

out of the room. And Google is is

creating a problem there. So that's one

point that those those new AI companies

need to be aware of. But I just want to

go through the size of these offerings

here and add it all up. So you've got

SpaceX which is going to raise $75

billion in its IPO. Largest IPO of all

time. Uh I mean the the largest amount

that was ever raised was Saudi Aramco in

2019 with around $29 billion. SpaceX is

going to raise 75 billion. So that's

one. Then you've got anthropic.

Anthropic just raised a private round.

It's series H. They raised $65 billion

in their private round. Just for

context, that is more than double the

size of the largest IPO of all time. And

this is a private round. Now, this this

company's going to go public. It's going

to IPO later this year. So, presumably,

they're going to raise more money at the

IPO. Let's call it say hundred billion

or somewhere in that ballpark. It seems

reasonable that that's what they're

going to do. Now, let's look at OpenAI,

also going to go public. Their last

private round, they raised $122 billion,

more than triple the largest IPO of all

time. So, let's just assume that they're

also going to raise, I mean, we're going

to be conservative here, somewhere in

the ballpark of hundred billion. And

then you've got Google, which is raising

80 to $85 billion, the largest public

equity offering of all time. So add it

all up, these companies alone are about

to ask investors for $360 billionish

of fresh capital. And that's in addition

to the $30 billion that have already

been raised so far from IPOs this year.

So this is $400 billion of new equity

issuance that is about to be flooded

into the market. I just want to go back

to to Econ 101. What is Econ 101 all

about? It's all about supply and demand.

This is the the fundamental thing that

we all learn when we take economics and

and the the rule of supply and demand is

what happens to prices when there is an

over supply of a product when the supply

outstrips demand. The answer is prices

go down. And I think what we might be

about to see in the stock market is the

same thing. And that is for years what

we have seen in the public markets is a

scarcity of new equity supply. There's

been very few amounts of IPOs that have

been happening, very, very little new

equity issuance. The IPO market's

practically been dead since 2021. But

we're about to see $400 billion worth of

new supply flooding the market all in

one go. And so the question is, is the

demand going to keep up with the supply

or is the supply going to outstrip the

demand? It's a very simple question. And

I think to me when I look at those

numbers, when I look at the fact that

the largest IPO year ever was 2021 where

$140 billion was raised, we're about to

see triple that. We're about to see 10

times more the amount of money that was

raised in the IPO markets last year. It

was around $44 billion. We're about to

see $400 billion, probably more than

that. My view, supply is about to flood

this market. It is going to outstrip

demand. The only answer after that is

that prices go down. I do think that the

once these companies go public, that's

going to signal the top and we're going

to see a very significant bull pullback

specifically in the AI trade because

there simply isn't enough capital to go

around to keep prices propped up.

>> The other thing that's that hasn't

gotten the reporting that I think it

deserves is that Berkshire Hathaway is

getting a 6 and a half% discount. So

when arguably the richest company in the

world needs to sell stock at a discount,

they're telling you that the even the

capital has become scarce even for them

at these levels, right? I mean that's

that's struck me that they needed I

don't know if they wanted the

credibility or an anchor for the deal or

the diligence or or brand halo that

Bergkshire Hathaway brings, but why on

earth did they need to offer Bergkshire

Hathaway a 6 and a half% discount to

what retail investors are going to pay?

Do you have any thoughts there?

>> I think that's part of the problem here.

Why are they why is there a concern and

I think there is a very reasonable

concern. We're get now getting to a

point where people are asking is there

actually enough dry powder left to go

around? I mean the the the fundamental

question you have to ask yourself if if

we're about to see all of these IPOs and

it's going to total somewhere close to

$400 billion. The question is do

investors have $400 billion laying

around in cash right now? Does that

actually exist or and so that's the

first question. It sounds like Google at

least maybe is a little bit concerned or

maybe there's like a a shred of of doubt

that that actually it does exist right

now. So they'll they'll give some shares

to Buckshire Hathaway because they said

we'll lock it in and we'll do it at the

6 and a half% discount. So does that

exist or are investors going to have to

sell something in order to buy these

IPOs? I think that is the question. If

the cash exists, then great, no problem.

The markets continue to rip uh as they

have done for a long time. I mean, later

down the line, we're going to see that

investors are a little bit more strapped

for cash and there might be problems

later on, but if that's if the money's

there, then okay, good. My I doubt that

all of that money is there or that

investors are willing to shell out like

that. I would think that people are

going to have to sell something in order

to buy these. And then the question

becomes, what are they going to sell?

Are they going to sell their homes to

buy the SpaceX IPO? I don't think so.

Are they going to sell their defensive

positions like their industrials and

healthcare and utilities? I don't think

so because I don't think you want to

switch from those defensive positions

and then go into these highly risky AI

AI positions. I think if you're selling

something to buy SpaceX or to buy

anthropic or to buy Open AI,

realistically, you're trimming your tech

positions. like you're probably trimming

down on Tesla for example to get into

SpaceX or Nvidia or Broadcom or maybe

you had some investments in these

ridiculously

uh high-erforming chip companies like

SanDisk and all the rest of the chip

companies and you're going to take some

of your profits from those positions and

then put them into these other IPOs.

Either way, the point is there is now a

significant justification to pull back

from these standard equity positions in

AI, which is going to put pressure on

prices moving forward. So, this is

really the real test of AI. Can you keep

these prices up when you suck out this

degree, this amount of capital out of

the markets? And is that going to be

sustainable for the long term? And I

would just finish here by by by pointing

out some research from BCA research

where they looked at some of the largest

IPOs going back to the 30s. They looked

at like the Xerox IPO in 1936 and the

Ford IPO and the McDonald's IPO. And

what they found is that the S&P tends to

underperform right after these major

blockbuster IPOs because what always

happens is that there's so much

excitement when the IPO happens. the IPO

sucks all the capital out of the

ecosystem and then it leads to a period

of time where there simply isn't enough

capital to prop up that demand. And so

it's hard to believe that that isn't

going to happen at this point. I don't

think it necessarily means that we enter

like a structural bare market, but I do

think that it means that this is I mean

we're in kind of crazy town right now.

These companies know it, which is why

they're going out to the markets now,

raising at the largest valuations that

are humanly possible. And then we're

going to enter sort of the sobriety

phase where we realize, okay, I mean,

what more can we buy? What more can we

prop up? Um, and so I think that's the

thing to to to keep track of right now.

>> I mean, remember when Andre said

software is eating the world, it now

it's transitioned to AI is eating

balance sheets.

>> Yeah.

>> It's just it's just coming in and

soaking up. and I just got off a a

webinar for a section the AI adoption

company and um uh disclosure I'm an

investor. The

I mean the the the thing that fascinates

me they were asking me what are I

advising companies around and and I'm so

happy not to be advising companies

anymore. Anyways the

>> instead you're advising Gareth Southgate

a lot more fun.

Seriously, the amount of golf I had to

[ __ ] play, Ed, with people I didn't

enjoy that much.

>> I just cannot picture you playing golf.

>> Oh, I played I got to like a eight

handicap. Um, I was playing golf every

weekend, like twice a week. If you if

you ran a strategy firm in the 90s in

San Francisco, you either played golf or

you didn't have new clients. It was

>> it was absolutely how you got to know

your clients was golf. I promised myself

when I moved to New York, I was going to

pour all of that time into fitness. And

I have played golf maybe three times in

the last 20 years and I do not miss it.

Anyways, one of the things everyone's

talking about token maxing and the wrong

incentives. You should be focused on

productivity versus how many tokens

used. But something that struck me is I

finally got one of those prompts. I've

been I love Claude. I play with it. I

play with it a lot. I think one of my

biggest unlocks in terms of a hack was

connecting my Gmail. And I it's such

incredible it's such incredible

optimization for your search because if

I'm trying to figure out all right what

is the you know Vox gets acquired by

James Murdoch I'm like okay what does

that mean for us? So I say please go

into my email and look at the agreement

I have with Vox is there a change of

control provision you know I and you

can't ask the web that. But there's so

much information that's germanine to you

and your communications with everyone

and it goes through and it says here's a

thread from 2023 that explains and the

agreement that you both parties signed

in the exact paragraph. It's just such

Anyways, I'm fascinated with Claude. I

love it. I'm purposely don't ask it for

personal advice because I just I don't

ever want to have anything that gets in

the way of my relationships or or

inspiration or motivation or incentive

to ask people and friends for advice

versus asking something that's just

going to take me to a regression of the

mean. But anyways, I got one of those

prompts finally that said, "You're out

of tokens and we need you to upgrade to

Claude Pro Max for $200 a month."

And at first I'm like 200 bucks a month.

I'm like wow. And then I I thought

that's a lot. And then I read that Cloud

Pro Max costs if I sign up it costs

Anthropic $5,000 a month in compute and

inference to service you. And so I quite

frankly what I'm saying to people now is

like all right create incentives around

or try and attach productivity

regardless of the technology you use and

have workshops and lunch and learns that

are optional. This is how you connect

different things. this is what it's good

for. This I I have found that AI is

really disappointing as it relates to

imagery. You know, everybody thought it

would come up with great videos or

Instagram posts or imagery. I find it's

really disappointing there. I find it's

terrible at original writing, but it's

amazing for distillation

um editing and finding interesting data

that or analogies that you might insert

into your writing. But the writing

itself has to start with a human. At

least that's what I found. But what I

tell people is if you if you had a

business tool that right now cost 20

cost you 20 cents but the provider was

spending five bucks on it, you might

want to you might want to adopt and

experiment at at the outer edge because

you are getting it's never been cheaper.

They're at some point they're going to

have to I while I think there'll be a

war and the cost will come down. It's

pretty inexpensive right now. Um well

actually it may get cheaper with these

Chinese open way models but let me

summarize this word salad.

There has never been a moment in history

where despite the unparalleled revenue

growth which Mark Mahaney reminded us of

the RBC analyst in San Francisco

>> ever.

>> There's never been revenue growth like

this. There has never been a time when

you've had this type of percentage of

GDP invested in infrastructure that

hasn't resulted in a subsequent crash.

The railroads proved to be

transformative. The internet proved to

be transformative as did the highways.

But part of getting there was a froth

and a market that crushed early

investors or not early investors but

investors buying at what was I don't

know what you call it the first peak if

you will.

>> Yeah. The IPO.

>> Yeah. Amazon and Cisco lost 90 plus% of

their value from 99 to 2001. Obviously

Amazon came back and then some. Uh Cisco

did not. But uh I I this is these

capital wars are are just extraordinary.

We've never seen anything like it. And I

got to think that in the next 12 to 24

months, one or two of these three

companies is off 60 or 80%. I just don't

see how they maintain this momentum.

>> Just just to that point, I mean, this is

the question everyone's all every

investor is asking themselves. Should I

buy the IPO? Um, and I just want to

point you to an analysis that was done

by Truist where they looked at all 30 of

these like big blockbuster IPOs. They

looked at everything from Facebook to

Uber to Roblox to Door Dash. They looked

at the 12 month returns of those

companies after the IPO. And what they

found was that the average draw down

that was experienced by these companies

within a year of going public, the

average maximum draw down was 55%.

Negative 55%. So in other words, you you

could expect based on history with a

relative degree of certainty that at

some point within a year of going

public, the stock is going to get cut in

half. Now, that doesn't mean that the

stock's going to not going to come

roaring back later and go way up over

the over the long term, but it does mean

that when these companies go public,

that is the peak hype. That is peak

demand. That's when everyone wants to

buy the stock. And usually what happens

is once the demand fades and the hype

kind of uh uh deflates, you see that the

stock starts to draw to to fall and and

and over the over the 12-month average,

usually they get cut in half. So, I

think the question for the investor is,

do you want to buy right at the IPO when

the stock is most in demand, when it's

at its sexiest, when everyone's talking

about it, when everyone's talking about

it in the news and social media and on

podcasts, or do you want to wait for the

hype to likely come down and then find

your entry point when greed is low and

fear is high? And I think that's what

what you need to think about here.

SpaceX going to go public, Anthropic's

going to go public, open air is going to

go public. Maybe they'll have a pop.

Maybe they'll just have this explosive

uh entry into the public markets, but

realistically given history, they're

also going to enter a downturn and

they're probably going to dip below the

amount or the valuation that they went

public at. That's when you want to think

about buying. That's when you want to

find your entry point because doing it

now when hype is like at an all-time

high and that I mean these valuations

are just ridiculous. We'll see what

actually happens with Anthropic and Open

AI, but if SpaceX is sort of a signal of

what's to come, that's not the time that

you should be buying. You should be

waiting for these stocks to come back

down and realistically they all will. So

that would be my advice. Don't buy at

the IPO. Give it some time. Wait for the

hype to fade. then you could find your

entry point.

>> What you're doing is what we say a

little bit not to do, but I'll engage in

it and that is you're trying to time the

market, right? And I I understand that

>> you know at these valuations you may

want to stay away from the I agree with

that. The

what typically investment bank does, one

of the reasons to go public is it's a

branding event and you only get to go

public once and you want to manufacture

scarcity and hype such that you get a

pop. And I've even said advise companies

that are going public price well below

the demand because if you're up 40 60 80

circle went public at you know 200% pop

the additional five or 7% dilution which

isn't the case here because they're

raising so much money but the additional

5 or 7% dilution from or 2 or 3% from

leaving money on the table because

technically you're raising money you

could raise a lot more money at a lower

dilution but the branding you get when

you're seen as, wow, this IPO,

even if you can raise money at a cheaper

cost, to be able to have CNBC analysts

fawning over the fact that your your

first trade was 30% up, that's almost

worth a dilution because it creates a

certain momentum and halo. Wow, this

must be a great company. No, the bankers

manufactured the pop. Sometimes they

misestimate and the pop is more, but the

last thing you want is a broken IPO

because that'll be the story. If SpaceX

were to price at 1.8 8 and go out on the

first trade at 1.5. That would be an

extraordinary victory for everyone

including SpaceX. Uh obviously not the

first trade, the people who bought into

the IPO or got allocation, but every

story would be SpaceX broken IPO. Not

SpaceX raises money at 80 times

revenues, but SpaceX a broken IPO. So

the banks are smart at estimating

demand. They'll look at the number of

times overs subscribed it is and they'll

say price lower price lower whatever it

is and such that we can manufacture a

pop. So if you're fortunate enough and

99.9% of people aren't to get into our

allocation in the IPO then fine have at

it take the bet on the trade and the

first trade. Beyond that I would say

look out below. And if we're going to if

we're going to have fun here, I think

the company that most likely has the

biggest pop is anthropic because loosely

speaking, the story, the overall halo is

that there's a lot of noise out there

that SpaceX is overvalued. That's just

sort of becoming the the little bit of

the narrative, right?

>> And in this case, it's true. The

narrative is actually true.

>> Yeah. And then if you look at OpenAI

Anthropic,

we've never seen a more vicious

trading places or Freaky Friday of the

market leader in the number two happen

in 90 days. And OpenAI is on the wrong

side of that and Anthropic is on the

right side of that. So I think Anthropic

probably they have quite frankly

Anthropic has more momentum in RZ right

now than either of those two companies.

The story of SpaceX is it's overvalued.

The story of Open AI is it's no longer

number one, it's number two. And the

story of Anthropic is that it's just

kind of firing on all 12 million

cylinders, if you will.

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 on

YouTube, Spotify, or wherever you get

your podcasts.

Support for the show comes from Hems.

It's not good enough to just lose

weight. It's about looking and feeling

better. That's why Weight Loss by HIMS

now offers access to the FDA approved

WGOI pill at its lowest price ever.

Along with the FDA approved WGOI pen,

WGOI is designed to help you lose weight

and keep it off so you can stay back on

track with your goals. With WGO at HIMS,

you can lose up to 20% or more of your

body weight when combined with diet and

exercise. It helps you regulate your

appetite and eat less, so success is

within reach. And now, WGO is available

in a pill, so there are no needles

needed. Ready to reach your goals? Visit

hymns.com/markets

to get a personalized, affordable plan

that gets you. That's

hs.com/markets.sh.com/markets.

Weight loss by HIMS is not available in

all 50 states. WGOI is the registered

trademark of Nova Nordiskas. To get

started and learn more, including

important safety information, WGOI

clinical study information and

restrictions, visit hymns.com.

Support

for the show comes from LinkedIn ads.

There's no worse feeling than making a

major investment in something only to

realize it didn't exactly live up to the

hype, such as buying a nice piece of

tech that ends up in storage collecting

dust, or taking a business workshop

where your main takeaway was little more

than a few motivational words. If you

work in marketing, this can happen with

ads. You optimize for the numbers that

look great, impressions, reach, and

reactions. But when they don't show

revenue, well, that can turn into an

unfunded conversation with the CFO.

LinkedIn has a word for that, bull

spend. Reach the right buyers with

LinkedIn ads and invest in what looks

good to your CFO. According to the 2026

Dream Data Benchmark report, LinkedIn

ads generated the highest rorowaz of all

major ad networks. It's 121%. You can

target by company, industry, job title,

and more. It's time to cut the bull

spend. Advertise on LinkedIn, the

network that works for you. Spend $250

in your first campaign on LinkedIn ads

and get a $250 credit for the next one.

Just go to linkedin.com/scott.

That's linkedin.com/scott.

Terms and conditions apply.

Support for the show comes from Navon.

Business trips are great. The baggage

that comes with them is not. The shuffle

of paper receipts, the dreaded post-trip

paperwork. Non deletes all that grunt

work so employees can actually focus on

the business part of business trips.

More than 12,500 companies including Box

Anthropic and Kraton Barrel refuse to

work the old way. They choose Non to

make the manual expense report extinct.

So if you want to save 15% on your T&

budget, yes, 15%, check out non.com.

We're back with Profy Markets. It's been

a rough year for fast food franchise

operators. So far, we have seen

bankruptcy filings from operators for

Subway, Applebee's, Popeye's, and Kohl's

Jr., and some are blaming the franchise

model itself. One McDonald's franchisee

said that operators quote cannot absorb

all these costs, do all this

discounting, and still pay to remodel

our landlord's building. This issue is

especially relevant for McDonald's. Its

franchised and affiliated locations

account for more than 95% of restaurants

and roughly 62% of total sales. Because

of that exposure, the company has rolled

out a new initiative called McDonald's

Next, which is designed to make its

restaurants quote easier to run and more

enjoyable to visit. What stands out is

how explicitly the strategy focuses on

operators, not just customers. The

message is clear. Improving the

experience for franchises is key to

improving the business overall. So,

Scott, fast food franchises are

struggling right now. Plenty of

bankruptcies. Burger King operators

filing Chapter 11. Uh Popeye's

operators, Cooh's Jr., there was a

Domino's franchisee, which also just

went bankrupt this year. Um, and

apparently there are concerns about the

franchise model. Um, apparently it

doesn't really work anymore. That is

that is at least what these franchise

operators are saying or complaining

about to the larger corporations. I mean

when you look at all of these fast food

closures, do you do you think it's that

or do you think it might be something

else? So the franchise model is like the

licensing model. It's the ultimate

business model. They come up with a good

concept that people love and then rather

than scale the company and use your own

capital, you find local entrepreneurs

that want to open. I was on the board of

Panera and the largest Panera there was

a you know a franchise that had you know

40 stores in southern Florida and you

have a talented on the ground you have

talented on the ground management the

key to retail is that the owner is there

so for example the most successful

franchise model I would argue or

arguably so Panera Starbucks and

Chipotle always had NPS scores of like

62 or 63 and NPS is basically considered

kind of the holy grail of consumer

metric And that is the number of people

that would recommend it, strongly

recommend it versus people that wouldn't

recommend it. So it's sort of passion,

consumer passion. Chipotle, Panera and

uh Starbucks always around the same

thing. And then 10 points above that was

Chick-fil-A. I mean, just striking. And

I and Chick-fil-A secret sauce. Yeah,

the chicken's fine. It's it's it's a

great product, but the other ones have a

great product, too. It was that they had

this really unique model where they have

25,000 people apply to be one of the 80

or 120 franchises and they call from

former military veterans to and they

have this really sophisticated means of

trying to find somebody who they think

is just passionate about the brand and

will be on site every minute of every

day. There's all this data showing that

a restaurant does not work if the owner

isn't there a lot. whether it's

shrinkage, making sure the bathrooms are

clean, saying hi to consumers. And so

Chick-fil-A,

where I'm headed with this, this isn't

about a business model. This isn't even

about them competing with each other.

Um, newspapers made the same mistake.

Uh, you know, the New York Times thought

it was competing against the LA Times or

the Boston Globe or the Chicago Tribune.

No, they were competing against a

structural shift in consumer behavior.

And I want to acknowledge I'm a hammer

and everything I see is a nail. But I

think this is all about I I think this

has nothing to do with the franchise

model. I think this is about GLP-1.

And that is one in eight 30 million

Americans are on GLP1s. The population

of Texas is on GLP1s now. And you don't

go into a Wendy's

and eat, you know, a double Whopper or

whatever the [ __ ] they serve as and then

leave and think, "Wow, that was a good

idea. Wow, that made all kinds of sense.

Superers sizing my McDonald's meal at

Newark Airport. By the way, that's

that's an amazing meal. New York airport

McDonald's shout out. It's like

supposedly one in three times a pack of

cigarettes is sold. The person buying it

is swearing to themselves it's going to

be their last pack ever. You typically

don't walk out of fast food thinking,

"Great idea. Great idea. You need cheap

calories because it's gotten so

expensive

and working so [ __ ] hard that if

you're a single mother. I used to eat

fast food all the time when I was

growing up with my mom because quite

frankly it was the most affordable means

of getting cheap calories and it was

convenient, it was fast, it was easy.

Unfortunately, it is really bad for you

because they're they're engineered to

addict you with salty, sugary, and fatty

food that we couldn't find on the

savannah several thousand years ago. And

it's just really bad for you. And what

do you know? GLP1s come there's

something like 20% of America eats at

McDonald's once or twice a day. And I

got to think GLP1s are starting

uh to kick in here. I just don't

the the economics of a franchise model

are somewhat at play here. And that is

the labor model worked or the franchise

model worked when labor was cheap,

interest rates were low and consumers

weren't counting calories. All all of

that is broken. But more than anything,

people are having an easier time driving

by a Jack in the Box and driving by it

and just saying, "I'm going to go home

and eat kale or I'm going to go home and

have a bowl of, you know, whatever it

is, a bowl of cereal, or I'm just not

I'm just not that hungry." And I think

this is I think GOP I mean I've said

this before. I think GOP ones are bigger

than AI. So I think that that that this

is sure I'm sure it's something about

the franchise model, interest rates, all

that. You know, labor, inflation. I'm

sure all their concerns are real. But if

everybody was was eating more, that

would roll over the anomalies in the

franchise model. This is the oxygen is

being sucked out of the room and there's

just it's like when a company is

shrinking everybody starts blaming each

other and they questioning the business

model. It's like no people just aren't

buying newspapers any longer. They're

reading they're getting news from

different sources. So I'm open to push

back here but I think this is more a

story of GLP1 as opposed to the

franchise model doesn't work. I think

that makes a lot of sense and I think I

think the comparison to the newspapers

is a great one because it's easier to if

your business is declining and if your

competitors going bankrupt and then

you're struggling as well, it's it's an

easier pill to swallow to say that

there's something that you need to do

organizationally or management wise to

sort of restructure your business. Oh,

maybe we need to sort of start changing

the way that we uh present our menu.

Maybe we need to, you know, upscale our

locations. Those are easier problems.

But it's a different thing to say that

our entire industry is structurally

undergoing a shift which is going to eat

away at our bottom line. And that is

exactly what happened with the

newspapers. And it does seem like a

similar thing is happening here. Like a

lot of people are saying, "Oh, it's

inflation. Oh, it's it's the fact that

prices are going up. People are

downscaling." Historically speaking,

fast food is recession proof.

>> I mean, you look at most major

recessions. You look at 2008, fast food

traffic was stable because it is one of

the cheapest options. I mean, that's

kind of what you do. You go get a really

cheap option over at McDonald's if

you're struggling economically. But so,

I don't see that as a very viable

argument, but it is true. Foot traffic

to fast food restaurants is going down.

Last quarter it fell more than 1%. The

quarter before that it fell around 2%.

And you have to think that crucial

statistic there that I'm sure a lot of

these franchises aren't really thinking

about because it probably seems to out

there which is as you said one in eight

US adults are now using GLP-1 drugs.

That is 30 million people and that

number is only going up over time. And

so if you look at the I mean that's the

GLP-1 penetration. Let's look at the

fast food penetration. Four in five

Americans are eating fast food at least

once a month. And around two in five

Americans are eating it weekly or more.

So if you just count that up among the

adult population, that's around 110

million people. 110 million adults who

are eating fast food weekly. If you got

30 million on GLP1s, you just do the the

napkin math. You're essentially reducing

the total addressable market by about 27

to 30%. And that's assuming that the

people who are taking GLP-1 drugs aren't

going to McDonald's. They aren't going

to Wendy's. They're not going to

Popeye's, Burger King, Kohl's Jr., you

name it. And I think that is a

completely fair assumption to make. If

you're on GLP1s, I doubt that you're

feeling very good or even excusing the

fact of or or the idea of going to to

McDonald's once a week or even more than

that. I just don't think that that is

really happening. So, I think that this

is definitely true. Um, I think that

this is something that these companies

need to start taking really seriously.

And I think when these companies report

their earnings, it seems that so far

they've kind of brushed these concerns

aside and said, "No, we're not really

worried about that." At a certain point,

I think they need to take it a lot more

seriously and recognize that this is

something that Wall Street and investors

are genuinely concerned about because it

has way larger implications than you're

not running your business right. This is

a structural secular issue that they

need to start taking seriously. So, I'm

with you. I I'm in agreement.

>> You know who's probably adopted the

franchise model at a greater scale than

fast food restaurants is hotels. Very

few hotels are owned by the flag. Four

Seasons owns one of its property, its

flagship property, its headquarters in

Toronto. Every other Four Seasons is

owned by a rich guy who thinks, "I'd

like to I'd like to own the local Four

Seasons." And then they come in, it's a

much better model. They plant the flag.

They let them tap into the reservation

systems. They have a very ownorous owner

agreement around you have to have

someone 24 hours a day at the check-in

desk, you have to clean the rooms twice

a, you know, whatever it is. And they

take 8 to 12% of topline proceeds. And

the owner of the Four Seasons in New

York, I think, had to give it back to

the bank because they had to maintain

these ownorous standards when no one was

checking in. But it's an amazing model.

And by the way, in the hotel business,

it's still working because people love

the idea of owning the six senses. But

all of almost all of these companies,

almost all of the big brands now in

hotels, Starwood, Hyatt, a lot of them

are basically a franchise model. Um, and

it's working. So again, I but but GLP1,

as far as I can tell, I it's one of the

few industries I haven't been able to

reverse engineer a disruption from.

GLP1,

this isn't the model here. This is it. I

beef and these shitty foods need to be

priced to their real costs. We we bury

the Central Valley and cattle ranchers

and water and we subsidize the [ __ ] out

of beef that in bad beef that's not good

for you. So I don't feel for and also

the fast food industry. You could argue

employs people, but a decent number of

employees, but I don't think this is an

industry we're going to miss a lot. I

don't I don't I my feeling is this is a

healthy part. It's like I don't think we

need more CVS's or bank branches in

Manhattan. and I'm ready for a lot of

those to go out of business and I don't

think we need nearly as much fast food.

Now, some people would argue you're

being an elitist. There's food deserts.

It's cheap calories. Um, and eating

healthy is really expensive, but I can't

imagine, and we've talked about this

before, a more I just think GLP1s are

going to be so massively accreative. And

I had the head of Lily. I had the uh CEO

of Lily, which is probably the most

important company in the Midwest right

now. A trillion dollar company located

in headquartered in guess. Do you know

where it's headquartered, Ed?

>> No, I don't. Where is it?

>> Indianapolis. I'd love that. The latest

trillion dollar company is in San

Francisco, New York, or wherever.

London. It's in Indianapolis.

>> Yeah, it's great.

>> And GLP1 drugs have gone from $1,000 a

month to somewhere between $250 and 500.

I think they're going to be sub $100.

And if you can do a GLP1 at sub $100 a

month, I would argue you're probably

going to save money because, you know,

these costs, these indulgences, shitty

food, alcohol, whatever it is, it adds

up pretty fast in terms of an expense.

So, I'm I mean, I hate to say it, I'm

sort of I'm sort of excited to see Jack

in the Box, just fewer of them. Now, I

would like to see a lot more In-N-Out

Burgers. I will say that. But I do want

to, you know, if if there's fewer

McDonald's, I'm not sure that's a bad

thing for the economy.

>> Yeah, I think I agree with that. By the

way, just before we end on this point,

you know, you used a few I think it was

a few years ago, we were talking about

GLP1s. I mean, we we've been excited

about this for a long time and we're

trying to think about all of sort of the

after effects and sort of who would be

the downstream winners and losers. We're

talking about maybe fitness companies

and I think I believe we said lingerie

companies. Here's just some interesting

news. Victoria's Secret Stock rose 40%

last week. Why? Because of an incredible

earnings report where they posted

massive revenues up 15% to $1.56

billion. They raised their fullear

revenue guidance to more than $7

billion. They saw sales increases across

every single income group. Uh, and a lot

of people are asking, okay, why is it

why is suddenly everyone super excited

about buying lingerie and buying

underwear? I think you could make the

case that a lot of it has to do with

GLP1s that people feel sexier, they feel

more fit, they're in shape, and now they

want to go and they and they want to buy

more more sexy lingerie. So I I mean we

can't quite prove causation yet, but I

think you can make a case that this is

one of the winners. What do you think?

100%. When you lose weight and you feel

good about yourself,

um you know, what do you know? You you

want to go out and buy a new wardrobe.

Uh so I think you know, look, uh Urban

Outfitters, a company I was on the board

of, their stock has doubled in the last

5 years. you know, you you feel sexier.

I think it's going to have a a bit of a

baby boomlet maybe because supposedly

lowering obesity rates increases the

fertility of somebody. And I think

that's a fancy way of saying people are

more down to [ __ ] when they feel good

about themselves.

It's true, right? You feel good about

yourself. You look better naked, which I

mean, all of this adds up to a bunch of

wonderful things. New wardrobe. I I

think gyms are going to boom cuz you you

want to keep the weight off. You feel

good about yourself. It does seem that

this entire the entire country is taking

fitness a lot more seriously and then

we've just been given a literal drug

that is speedballing that process and

that transformation.

>> I also think it's going to in a weird

way I think the pharma companies who

have doubled down on GLP1 are going to

boom. I wonder if we're going to see a

decline in anti-depressants because

there's a link between obesity and

depression.

So look, I'm just so excited about this

technology. Um, but yeah, I don't we

asked Mia, one of the moments I loved uh

at at Prop G was Mia went downstream and

looked at the supply chain of GLP1 about

3 years ago and said there's a publicly

traded company that that um manufactures

the syringes and we talked about it and

the stock doubled in the next 3 or 6

months. But now I think it's um I think

it's Nova Nordisk because has just come

out with pill form. And what I think

you're going to see here is a giant

decline in the cost of these drugs which

I think is amazing. But meanwhile I

think the profits and the total revenues

are going to up. I think we're about to

get the mother of all lessons and

elasticity that as prices go down total

total revenues will go up because it'll

start penetrating into the communities

that need it.

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

markets content, sign up for our

newsletter at profymarkets.com.

Support for the show comes from Upwork.

When you run a business, one of the

biggest hacks is realizing you don't

have to do everything all by yourself,

which is especially good news if you're

feeling underwater and might be looking

to hire someone. Upwork makes it easy

for you to bring in the right

freelancers so you can stay focused on

running your business. Upwork is a

one-stop platform to find, hire, and pay

expert freelancers. Find specialized

talent across web and software

development, data and analytics,

marketing, business operations, and

more. You can browse profiles, review

past work, and can get help scoping the

role so you can hire with confidence.

Upwork also has Business Plus, which

gives you access to the top 1% of talent

on their platform. With AI powered

shortlisting, you'll get matched to the

right freelancer in under 6 hours. Skip

the endless searching. And when it comes

down to contracts and payments, don't

sweat it. Upwork has all the operational

stuff covered. It's free to sign up and

posting a job is easy. Visit

upwork.com/markets

right now and post your job for free.

That's upwork.com/markets

to connect with top talent ready to help

your business grow. That's

upw.com/markets.

upwork.com/markets.

Support for the show comes from Vanta.

What's the one thing moving through

business faster than AI? AI risk. Every

new platform your team adopts, every

vendor rolling out AI features, every

added integration can create new

exposure for your company. And most

security programs weren't built to move

at AI speed. That's where Vanta comes

in. Vanta is the leading agentic trust

platform trusted by more than 16,000

fast growing companies including Ramp

Cursor and Harvey to stay continuously

audit ready. And now Vanta helps

companies like yours track the risks

that appear between audits across

vendors, AI tools, and your broader

environment. The Vant agent works like a

247 GRC engineer behind the scenes,

identifying issues, suggesting fixes,

and cutting vendor assessment time by up

to 50%. Whether you're a fast growing

startup or a global enterprise, Vanta is

here to help you automate your security

and compliance and earn and prove trust.

Get started today at advant.com/markets.

That's van.com/markets.

We're back with Profs. We are back in

the studio after the first ever Prof

Markets tour. Over the past week and a

half, we traveled to five cities, San

Francisco, Los Angeles, Miami, Chicago,

and New York. We met listeners, we

talked about markets, and we got a

firsthand look at how people around the

country are thinking about the economy

and investing. Now that the tour is

behind us, Scott, it is time to debrief.

Let's discuss our learnings from the

from the tour. Uh, and let's also get

into the numbers here. I'll just give

you a little bit of data around how this

tour actually went down. We sold 5,239

tickets in our five cities. Our biggest

city was New York where we sold out the

town hall. Almost almost 1,400 people

showed up for that show. Our second

biggest show was San Francisco where we

sold more than 1,100 tickets. Scott,

takeaways, success financially,

personally, emotionally.

>> Uh, so just to be honest, I found it

very stressful. Um,

you know, if someone gives up, it's one

thing if this pod sucks, they go back to

walking their dog, right? They just turn

it off. I think when you have 1,200

people show up for an event and they've

spent a hundred bucks or more. By the

way, on StubHub, our tickets in New York

were going for 500 bucks. You have to

bring it, you know, you have to

>> that' be good.

>> Yeah. You want them to really enjoy

themselves. So, and also I felt more

responsibility cuz when I did this with

Pivot, Cara is so experienced with live

events and I just kind of show up, tell

a dick joke, maybe occasionally stumble

on some insight and the whole thing

works and she manages the whole thing.

And in this one, you you're you're

outstanding, but I felt more pressure to

kind of be the MC, if you will, and and

keep it on track. And I was just I was

just quite frankly, I was anxious. Um so

I was super relieved but we had what are

some observations? I think that live

events are booming because people want

to get out and touch grass. I think

getting your your every brand needs a

certain number of evangelists.

Evangelists are key to a brand and that

is people who just when they hear the

brand name they they say to their people

oh property markets someone hopefully

goes I love that show and I saw it and

it was a ton of fun. that is just so

important to a brand. So getting out

there and trying to find your evangelist

and also when it works and this tour did

work, it's really rewarding and also it

was a nice moment for us. I think when

Hillary when Secretary Clinton came out

on stage, it felt like sort of the show

was validated. The fact that someone

that interesting and important and

although it's not really markets related

would show up live at one of our events,

it was just a nice moment of validation.

I enjoy flying around with the team. I

felt like MC Jagger flying around with

InSync while they were in high school.

I'm like, Jesus Christ, I everyone is

just so I'm like, "All right, everybody

needs to be be in bed by 11 p.m. Like

literally I'm with children." Um, and

what you're finding is you can the

ticket What's interesting about live

events, the ticket sales cover your cost

maybe a little bit more, but where you

make money is on the sponsorship. That's

where the big money is. And that is our

sponsorships range from like 100 grand

to 500 grand. We try and get for the

tour, we try and get three of them

because the power of branding an

in-person show is really powerful. And

you know those events are just uh you

know they're just economically I'm not

sure they make sense. It's a lot of

work. F I was in seven cities and six

days and five stops and threw a speaking

gig in there and then anyways but uh so

I found it exhausting very rewarding. Uh

the trend is a is towards in-person

events. People are recognizing one of

the biggest trends in the consumer

economy right now and it's the reason

why Flexjet is doing well and LVMH is

not and LVMH just took a stake in

Flexjet and why Disney parks are up but

you know

people buying [ __ ] is down is that

people realize as they get older and

coming through co that we overestimate

the pleasure and happiness we're going

to get from things and we underestimate

the pleasure and happiness we're going

to get from experiences and

Unfortunately, with Live Nation, which

is a monopoly, it means that Taylor

Swift tickets go for $2,800.

>> People are upset about that with our

with our tour. I mean, what I can say is

there's not really much we can do about

it. This is the ecosystem. Like, we we

kind of have to play ball here with

them.

>> Well, and we're charging what I think it

was 100 bucks or 200 bucks. I went to

Coachella. My god. a VIP ticket such

that you don't like have to be in a

teepee and have like a 19-year-old

running over you trying to see Justin

Bieber. It's 2500 bucks,

>> which is, by the way, that's about what

it costs for like a nosebleleed and for

at the Knicks game right now. I think if

you want to go see the Knicks, it's just

like 2500 3,000.

>> Well, I don't know if you heard, but I'm

going to get really crazy. The tickets,

tier one tickets to the finals for World

Cup are $38,000.

>> Someone sponsor us. Someone take us,

please.

>> Yeah. Yeah. By the way, I think FIFA is

the most corrupt organization uh with

the best product in the world.

>> I was just going to give some

observations as well on this tour. I

mean, I think it's a really interesting

point and it's an important point from a

business perspective that this doesn't

make that much sense for us financially.

Like this event is profitable, but we

could do other things that are a lot

more profitable. specifically continuing

to do this podcast and charging way

higher than average CPMs because we have

a good brand and because we have a good

aspirational audience. I mean, that's

really how we make money. It's not from

going and doing live tours. That's kind

of how like comedians go make their

money because they don't make as much

money charging for the CPMs on their

podcast. They make more money uh getting

people to pay large prices for live

events. But I think there are some

really important things that are

rewarding for us down the line which is

what makes it worth it for us. One, it's

fun. That was I mean just a whirlwind

roller coaster of a time traveling

around the world around the world around

the nation with the team. uh you know

when one we went and we partied at the

Fena and then uh the some of the the

rest of the team we went out to club

space and we stayed out partying and it

was our uh research assistant Dan's

birthday and we got him

>> 23rd birthday and we celebrated which is

fun and it's also great for team morale

which is actually important when you're

running a very high intensity

organization where you're making

podcasts and videos literally every

single day. So that was really

important. And then also it's really

important for us to understand who the

audience is to connect with the audience

and to deliver some sort of a payoff for

our super fans. Like I I I was so one

thing that we did at the end of every

show is we like stuck around and we

talked with everyone because that was

meaningful to us and I want to make sure

that if you're listening to the show

that you're getting some real reward

from this and that you're being feeling

that you are part of a community which

is exactly what we delivered for these

shows. So that's really important from

the audience perspective. And then

finally, in terms of making money for

the long term, when you're in the

business of advertising, there there are

two things that you want to do. One is

you want to get as many downloads and

clicks as possible. We all know that.

But two, you want to demonstrate to

advertisers that the the relationship

with the audience that there is a depth

to that relationship and there is a

strength in that relationship that the

audience has a level of loyalty to you.

And so if you can go out there and show

the world, hey, we have a show and 1,300

people in New York took time out of

their day. They showed up on a Tuesday

night and they paid hundreds of dollars

for a ticket to show up and watch this

show. That says something very

meaningful to to the audience or to the

advertisers. That tells the advertisers

that the audience is listening and the

audience cares. So, I'm just sort of

laying out why this all makes sense from

a financial business perspective for

profit markets. Despite the fact that

these things aren't that profitable

compared to other things that we could

be doing, over the long term, it really

pays off and that's sort of the business

case for why we're doing it. The final

point I will make on why it makes sense

to do this is the content that we get

for social media. I mean, we got a lot

of clips from the tour. What I said to

the team is, "We want to make sure that

we inspire a massive sense of FOMO among

anyone who isn't showing up to these

live events. I want you to be seeing how

much fun we're having. I want to be

posting it all over Instagram, all over

X, all over LinkedIn, all over threads.

I want everyone who isn't at this show

to think, "Godamn it, I need to show up

to the next live tour." So, I hope that

we did that. I had an incredibly good

time. It was genuinely so fun meeting

everyone who listens to this show and I

couldn't believe it at times, but it was

so rewarding and I hope for those who

showed up, I hope you had a good time,

too.

>> Yeah. Other than the relevance,

validation,

narcissism, and money, for me, it's all

about the fans.

>> Yeah.

>> This is this is what we're all about. We

are transparent. But seriously, one of

the things I found interesting was that

I've done a bunch of live events and a

bunch of speaking gigs for years and I

would I would there's been a transition

in Q the Q&A is always the most

fascinating thing. Anytime I speak

somewhere, I demand Q&A. I think that's

the most interesting part. And we had

Q&A for a good 20 sometimes 30 minutes

in every event.

The shift in questions is dramatic in

that is a few years ago people wanted

stock tips. It was greed. It was they

wanted to know what what do you think is

the big tech stock pick for the next

year. Now they want career insurance and

that is the things that it was more

about it was less about greed and more

about anxiety. People are talking about

AI housing and quite frankly whether we

had a lot of questions from parents

really basically saying are my kids

going to do as well or better than me

and we had over uh looked at the data

800 audience questions and if you were

to summarize them in one sentence it

would be that people aren't worried

about the economy they're worried about

their place and their children's place

in it. So it's gone from greed to

anxiety

um you know and and it's moving towards

the greatest luxury in America

is moving from

wealth to certainty and it just reminds

me of happiness studies and that is they

every year they rank the nations on who

are the happiest and every year six of

the 10 happiest places in the world are

in Northern Europe and I'm going to

Stockholm next week and whenever you go

there in the summer you sort of

understand and why they're so happy and

then you go back in the winter and can't

figure out why they're happy. Um, but

it's not the beautiful weather or the

beautiful people. What it is is that

happiness is not only a function of what

you have, but an absence from the fear

of things being taken from you. And that

is it's great to have a lot of money,

but what's even more important to

happiness is not worrying that if your

wife gets lung cancer, you're also going

to go bankrupt.

And in the US now we've decided to

optimize the happiness for people who

have a lot of money at the expense of

the anxiety for people who are in kind

of in the lower 90 especially I think

the upper middle class who have more

economic anxiety than they've ever had

and you could just feel that in the

questions people asking what should

their kids do what what skill would you

give your kids what is the likelihood my

industry gets disrupted here so in a

certain way it's it It was kind of I

don't want to say disheartening, but but

people are really

people are just worried and and all of

the catastrophizing coming out of the AI

community, which I think is basically

fundraising. Um, you can feel it. It's

it's quote unquote it's working. People

are really uh really worried. What about

any optimistic notes to end our show?

What were you what were you what did you

feel good about coming out of that tour?

Uh the the most rewarding thing is a a

chance to spend time with the team. You

guys have a you know we have a great

team. They're nice people. They really

enjoyed it. That was nice. I think it

was bonding for all of us. Hands down

though. The most the nicest thing about

the whole tour was that in every city we

had parents who brought their teenage

kids.

And that's just very rewarding to see

parents hanging out with their their um

kids at um you know at our event. I mean

the most I went to see Taylor Swift

because I want to understand the

phenomena and I wanted to go to SoFi.

Yeah. Me at a Taylor Swift conference.

Does that make sense? Does that make

sense? Me. Anyways,

>> I just love how you have to qualify. I

don't like her. I'm not interested in

her music. I just wanted to go see

what's happening so society and

culturally.

>> It's true. But the thing that the the

the the thing that was worth it was when

I was leaving, there's this gigantic

platform, cement platform or deck or

terrace at SoFi, and the driver who who

I was with who takes people to and from

the the Swift concerts all the time is

like, you look to your left when we get

out here, you're going to see about 800

dads in cargo pants. And I look to the

left and there's this gigantic terrace

full of like guys in their 30s and 40s

all on their phones in cargo pants and

he goes, "It's dads waiting for their

daughters. They didn't want to spend the

money. You know, it's too expensive."

So, they buy ticket. I thought it was so

nice. It's too expensive. I'm like,

"People don't I thought to myself,

these, you know, all these guys are such

good men. They come to the concert, they

bring their 13-year-old daughter, but

they don't want to spend the money on a

ticket. So they wait outside for 3 hours

and listen to, you know, the talking

heads and RM or do whatever it is they

do and then um wait for their daughter

to come out because they don't want to

spend that kind of money on a ticket.

Anyway, I found the most rewarding thing

hands down was when um people brought

their their young adult children. I

thought that was really affirming.

>> The Taylor Swifts of Business. That's

what we are.

>> Yeah, that's what we are.

>> Yeah. Well, we really appreciate

everyone who came out. It was

>> so much fun. I mean, honestly, just

surreal from like the size of the crowds

and and and seeing those lines and just

seeing the fact that, you know, we

started this thing like three or four

years ago and we didn't really know what

we were doing or at least I certainly

didn't know what we were doing. I mean,

even just having Hillary Clinton come

out on the stage with us and talking

with her about the future of the

economy, the future of America, speaking

with Governor Pritska, speaking with Ted

Sarandos, the CEO of Netflix, about

Hollywood. Like, we've come a long way.

And it was it was it's nice to have

moments where you just observe that and

you recognize that and you celebrate

that. And that's what that was for us.

Um, so again, everyone who came out to

the show, I'm so grateful. Thank you so

much. And I can't wait to do it again

next year. We're gonna have to do it

again next year. We're gonna have to

figure out where else to go. I know a

lot of people in Denver, strangely, were

upset that we didn't go to go there.

Same with Boston. We probably have to

hit DC next time. Uh, I I will note the

Chicago audience. I wasn't sure if we'd

have much of an audience there. That was

arguably the best audience. I mean, they

went they went nuts. It was awesome. Um,

so long story short, that was a great

time and I can't wait. I can't wait for

the next one.

>> I'm glad.

>> Let's take a look at the week ahead,

Scott. We will see earnings from Oracle.

We will see inflation data uh from the

consumer price index and producer price

index for May. And then finally, SpaceX

is set to price its IPO Thursday night

and go public on Friday. Scott, do you

have any predictions?

>> Well, I sort of made it. I think that

the three the big three coming up um

I'll be interested to see if they're I

don't this isn't prediction. I wouldn't

be surprised if their pricing has to

come down a bit but I think the biggest

first day pop or the biggest initial pop

on the first trade is going to be

anthropic. I think the momentum,

the ris so so much about an IPO is the

narrative versus the numbers and the

narrative is just strongest around

anthropic and weakest among open AI and

somewhere in the middle of SpaceX

because you have Elon. He's a meme. He's

great at he's great. You know, it is an

exciting company. It's got kind of just

it's every 8-year-old's dream, you know,

space and rockets and technology. And I

think some of those animal spirits will

come in around SpaceX. But if I were to

rank them, I think that Anthropic has

the biggest first day pop.

>> All right. My prediction is that these

IPOs will mark the top. As I said, I

think the amount of capital that they

are demanding in these fundraising

events is just going to be too much. And

I think that there's too much supply

that's going to outstrip the demand. I

think that that's going to be the top

these companies going public. And then

we'll see a period of relative

underperformance over the next several

months. So that would be my prediction.

Thank you for listening to Profit

Markets from Profit Media. If you liked

what you heard, give us a follow and

tune in tomorrow for a fresh take on the

markets.