Today's number 25. That's how many years

old Wikipedia turned last week. Sadly,

that also means it can no longer date

Leo DiCaprio.

Welcome to Profy Markets. I'm Edson. It

is January 21st. Let's check in on

yesterday's market vitals. The major

indices sold off in their worst session

since October. Bitcoin dropped below

$90,000. The dollar weakened and the

yield on 10-year treasuries jumped to

its highest level since August.

Okay, what's happening?

The S&P plunged 2% yesterday, erasing

its gains for the year as Wall Street

reckoned with President Trump's

escalating threats to acquire Greenland.

Volatility spiked with the VIX, the

market so-called fear gauge, hitting its

highest level since November. And you

guessed it, gold hit another record high

as investors ran for cover. The drama is

playing out in Daros right now as

business and political leaders gather

for the World Economic Forum. President

Trump arrived yesterday and he agreed to

meet with officials to discuss

Greenland, but he says, quote, "There

can be no going back on his plan to

seize the territory." Meanwhile,

Greenland's prime minister is urging the

island to prepare for an invasion, which

is still unlikely, but no longer

unthinkable.

>> How far are you willing to go to acquire

Greenland?

>> You'll find out.

>> All right. Joining us now to tell us

what's happening in the markets, how

this all relates to Greenland. We're

speaking with everyone's favorite,

Justin Wolfers, professor of public

policy and economics at the University

of Michigan. Justin, thank you for

[music] joining us. Would you believe me

if I told you I was coming to you live

from Greenland?

[laughter]

>> I'm not sure I would. I'm not sure I

would. [snorts]

>> Looks the same. Looks like you're you're

you are in Ann Arbor right now. Is that

right?

>> It's as cold as Greenland, mate. And we

have been taken over by federal

authority as well.

>> Right. Right. It's it's not it's not too

not too dissimilar. Well, what's

happened in the markets is quite

astounding really. Stocks are plunging,

uh, yields are rising, all the safe

haven assets like gold are hitting

record highs. I guess let's just start

with your initial reactions. It's kind

of remarkable what we're seeing here, at

least to me. Do you feel the same way?

>> Look, um, the thing that's more

remarkable than what's happening in the

markets is what's happening in the

world.

Um,

the president woke up and decided the

United States needed Greenland, which

had never been part of the US, well, not

never, in recent years, hadn't been part

of the US security planning at all. And

he's saying he wants to buy it, take it,

something it, rename it. No one's quite

sure what.

And he's putting tariffs

on countries who vent sent vast forces

of up to dozens of troops to defend

Greenland from American hostile

aggression. That is astonishing on its

face. I know that your podcast is called

Markets.

Mate, sometimes we got to pause on the

world. The world's where the action is.

So yes, markets are responded to this.

I guess the reason that the market's

response seems relevant to me is we see

a lot of crazy stuff um from the

president. We saw crazy stuff in the

past few weeks. We saw the Powell

investigation. We saw the invasion of

Venezuela and the capture of Madura. We

saw what happened in Iran. And so I find

that the markets help to give us a sense

of what's maybe real and what isn't. And

it seems that the markets are telling us

right now, this one's real. This one is

different. This one is actually giving

us pause. And it it feels almost like

we're back in April 2025.

Everyone's deciding to sell. So I guess

that's why it's kind of interesting to

me or or seems important. I guess my

question to you would be why is this

different or at least why do markets

maybe believe that this is different?

I'm not sure I'd give exactly the same

explanation that you would, Ed. Um,

>> okay,

>> let's say the president. So, here's the

problem, right? The bloke comes up with

a hairbrained idea every day. Nine out

of 10 times he tacos. Trump always

chickens out and the world moves on. And

so, if you're a trader, you want to

discount these because if you responded

to each and every one of them, you'd

sell off and then the next day the

markets would rise as it became clear it

wouldn't happen and then you lost a lot

of money. So you got to scale your

response to the likelihood that Trump

will actually follow through.

If Trump follows through in the short

run, the obvious is he launches a trade

war with the European Union. Um because

remember he's talking about 25% tariffs

by June. You can't just, you know, it's

not as much as he's picked out Germany

that he wants to go after the United

Kingdom. You don't just declare a trade

war on particular members of the EU. The

entire union responds. the EU plus

Norway plus the United Kingdom

collectives 22% of American exports. So

that's a big economic threat right

there. There are two other things you

learn if he's serious. One is if he

follows through with a trade war,

there's actually a chance he follows

through with a war war.

>> That then is the end of NATO

and the end of the postwar world order.

That in turn is the end of American

military leadership. we move into some

complicated world and you can get one of

these guys who likes to point at the

globe and tell you how complicated that

gets. All I know is that Ed, in the the

brief time you and I have been alive, we

haven't seen fighting on our shores. And

that's not true for our grandparents.

And so

even if you don't like what we've had,

it's been remarkably successful relative

to the rest of human history that we've

grown up without wars on our shores.

So there's some chance that that's the

end of that for the United States, the

world, economic productive activity, it

would be catastrophic. Um, one war is a

lot of wars. Walking closer to one war

is a lot of problems. I think the

markets have probably priced in and so

and then the other part is so he's

launched a trade war a new trade war

with you. The other part is you then

learn tariff mc tariff face wants to

tariff everyone at will deals don't mean

anything. The idea that we'd get through

2025 and that was the end of tariffs cuz

we would have done deals is clearly

hopeless and we just have trade wars and

trade uncertainty for the next 3 years

ahead of us as well. Those are really

really big generational shifts. Um I

know I wrote a study years ago looking

at the stock market effect of the

invasion of Iraq. We found that if the

diff the stocks were valued 15% lower if

the US invaded Iraq relative to if it

didn't. So if you thought something like

that, if you thought Greenland were

Iraq,

there's lots of reasons to think it's

not right, you would expect stocks to

fall on the order of 10 to 20%. Today

they fell on the order of 1 to 2%. So my

interpretation is they've built in a 1

in 10 chance the guy is serious.

In some sense, markets are really useful

here that are a wakeup call. It's not

about the probability he follows

through, it's about the consequences if

he follows through, which is they're

screaming, "This is terrible." But

they're not screaming screaming. If you

remember liberation day, they screamed,

they howled. We weren't quite used to

the Trump twostep of two steps forward

and an immediate backdown.

If we're in a world in which he never

followed through on anything, of course,

markets would react to nothing. The

problem is that the president actually

does sometimes do things. You could ask

the Venezuelans about that. And the

problem is we couldn't tell before the

fact if he was serious about Venezuela

and then we learned after the fact he

was. And I would like to think he's not

serious about Greenland, but I don't

want to wake up tomorrow and

all of a sudden discover he was. Um, so

I think this is the markets putting in

only a small chance, but it's a small

chance of a big bad outcome.

Just looking at what he's said recently,

it does seem that he's somewhat serious

from what he's been saying. That's a

hard question to answer, but he's at

least trying to present as serious. He

also sent that text to the prime

minister of Norway saying that he

wouldn't be doing this if he had won the

Nobel Peace Prize. This is maybe like a

hyperbolic question, but I I I don't

think it is. At what point do you think

it's fair to say that he's actually lost

his mind?

>> Yeah.

>> And I mean that like very legitimately.

And not in the sense that oh, he's has

dementia and he's just totally crazy,

but I mean he's clearly operating on a

different level of reality. He's decided

that the world order as as it is now is

unacceptable. that that globalism this

is the end of it and we're kind of going

back to the 1800s. I mean it appears

that he might have gotten I don't know

so drunk on power so deluded by

something that he might have actually

like lost his mind here. Is that too

far?

>> I've had the same thought and look I

like to speak to my expertise. I'm a PhD

economist and so there are many

questions where and I've increasingly

had to do this say I think you should

talk to a psychiatrist not an economist

but what's striking is that the most

important economic question of the day

is best answered by a psychiatrist.

That's your point

>> right

>> and it's a profoundly important point.

There are actually ethical reasons why

psychiatrists are not meant to you're

not meant to speak up about someone whom

you've not examined.

>> Yeah.

>> Um and I I hope you don't mind. I I I

might take your idea a little deeper

because I've been thinking about this

quite a lot. I I certainly don't think

if the president as he currently is

acting as rational or at least we should

put a high probability on that. And that

worries me and I'm like, "Oh, wow. What

happens if once every hundred years we

have a leader, a world leader who is

bonkers?" We've certainly had people who

were bonkers.

>> I think Adolf was bonkers.

>> I don't want to draw that comparison,

but the point is that's

>> it's happened.

>> Yeah.

Then I got to thinking about it. Indulge

me for a moment here. You would have

what sort of person would want to run

for president of the United States.

Who wakes up in the morning and thinks I

know I should run the free world? I and

I alone am uniquely qualified to run

this country and this country is the

largest economy with the largest

military in the world.

>> Yeah. I think if you ran a survey of

Americans, people with profound

personality disorders would be much more

likely to say yes than people without

profound personality disorders.

That's just a it's an obvious statement.

You could say, "Justin, run for

president tomorrow and I'd be like, are

you kidding? I'm going to teach econ 101

tomorrow and I'm worried I've got too

many students. I'm not qualified."

I hope you'd say the same, Ed.

[laughter]

>> I don't know. This pod's going pretty

well.

[laughter]

>> Boy, you give a bloke 30 under 30 and

all of a sudden he thinks he can walk on

water. But it's actually a really

interesting point because if that point

is correct, it says the amount of mental

illness among world leaders is likely

exorbitantly high. That in turn changes

how we ought to think about

institutions.

It says that we basically need to design

our political institutions so they're

lunatic proof. Yeah.

>> And in some sense you go back and you

read like you know the Federalist papers

you get a sense of this. They would

often talk about good versus evil

instead. But I think actually just

batshit versus not. After Nixon we had a

whole cleansing of like how do we

corruptionp proof the US government. And

I wonder whether people all around the

world ought to be thinking about how do

we mental healthp proof

>> our governments. And you know we are

meant to have checks and balances. And

our biggest problem right now, of

course, is Mike Johnson, which is we do

have checks and balances. They just

refuse to play. And they refuse to play

because the guy with the potentially the

mental health problem is also the most

charismatic figure in the country. And

maybe that's what a mental health

problem allows you to do. Anyway, that

was more about politics than markets.

Let's come back to markets. I think the

threat here is utterly dire. What I

haven't had a chance to do today is if I

wanted to make the case that it was what

I said a small probability of a horrible

outcome rather than it being a

moderately large probability of a

moderately bad outcome which I think is

what you were suggesting. I think the

way to tell the difference between our

two stories would be to look at what was

happening to way out of the money

options. I haven't had a chance to look.

So maybe some bright spark who's who's

in our audience has looked at way out of

the money options and can tell us how

they're behaving and and drop a note in

the comments. I think that would be good

advice. Okay, we're going to let you go

here. I I assume we're going to be

discussing this again. Probably maybe

tomorrow. Uh, who knows? Justin Wolf is

professor of public policy and economics

at the University of Michigan. Uh,

Justin, really appreciate it as always.

Great pleasure. We'll be right back. And

if you're enjoying the show so far, be

sure to like and subscribe to the Profod

YouTube channel at the link below.

Support

for the show comes from LinkedIn. It's a

shame when the best [music] 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 [music] on a video about Roblox or

something. No offense to our Gen Alpha

listeners, but that would be a waste of

anyone's [music] ad budget. So, when you

want to reach the right professionals,

you can use LinkedIn ads. LinkedIn has

grown to a network of over [music] 1

billion professionals and 130 million

decision makers according to their data.

That's where it stands apart from other

ad buys. [music] You can target buyers

by job title, industry, company role,

seniority, skills, company revenue. All

so you can stop wasting budget on the

wrong audience. [music] That's why

LinkedIn ads boasts one of the highest

B2B return on ad spend of all online

[music] ad networks. Seriously, all of

them. Spend $250 on your first campaign

on LinkedIn ads and get a [music] 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 property markets.

Netflix's stock fell as much as 5% after

its forecast for the first quarter came

in below expectations. That reaction

overshadowed an otherwise solid quarter.

Revenue and earnings per share both beat

estimates up 18% and 31% year-over-year.

and fullear revenue came in at $45

billion, up 16% year-over-year. The

company also hit a major milestone,

reaching 325 million paid global

subscribers earlier in the day. Netflix

also officially revised its bid for

Warner Brothers Discovery, moving to an

allcash offer of $83 billion instead of

the previous mix of cash and stock. here

to discuss these earnings and also what

this new bid actually means. We are

speaking with Rohan Gwami, business

reporter at Semaphore. Rohan, thank you

for joining us.

>> Ed, happy to be here.

>> So, let's start with the earnings. Uh,

Netflix just reported earnings. The

stock sunk in after hours as much as 5%.

Um, which is kind of interesting because

they beat on earnings, they beat on

revenue. What do you make of the

earnings and what do you make of Wall

Street's reaction?

>> So, look, they they they they did beat

on both those fronts and and they guided

to around their midpoint for the full

year next year and they also had, you

know, a decent subscriber number, 325

million. That's a milestone for them.

But look, there's an overhang on this

stock. And as you and I have talked

about, Netflix is down, I think, 30 or

40% since rumors first started circling

about their interest in Warner Brothers,

uh, for a simple reason. They are great

builders. They are unproven buyers.

They've never done a big deal like this

before and uh their investors who have

counted on them for steady reliable

earnings growth are kind of in a wait

and see mode. So the call is going on

right now. Um Ted Sarandos and and his

coco are expected to sort of preview and

give us a little bit more information on

their thinking around this. But it also

comes as they've made a they've doubled

down on their Warner Brothers bid,

right? You know, they've this morning

announced what we've all known was

coming. They've flipped all cash. Uh

Warner's board has approved it. We got a

lengthy 500page proxy statement today,

which you know, I spent my entire lunch

hour reading. [laughter] Um, and look,

there's there's no doubt these guys

right now are telling the world they are

in it. They're in it to win it and they

could give a damn about the Ellison's.

>> Yeah. What's new about this bid? I mean,

we know that it's it's all cash now. Is

that the only thing that's new? What

have we learned about this new bid that

was just announced on Tuesday?

>> In terms of the actual bid, that's it.

That's the only new thing. It lets us

have a cleaner, although not perfect,

apples to apples comparison between

Paramount and Netflix's bid. [snorts]

The interesting thing, there are some

details that have come out in this proxy

filing, and as you know, when companies

are trying to combine, they make their

case to shareholders through a formal

document called a proxy statement,

right? that lays out all the financial

analysis that their bankers have done.

Uh the potential legal risks and the

most fun for reporters, a detailed

lengthy background to the solicitation,

which is a fancy way of basically saying

the storyline of how these two companies

came together. Thankfully, a lot of the

reporting out there was confirmed by

this background to the solicitation,

which is always good news for reporters.

The big thing that we finally as uh

reporters, as investors got to look at

was how Warner Brothers has decided to

value their spin-off business. Now,

remember, we've talked about this. This

is the business that they say is worth

anywhere from $3 to $5 a share, uh,

which Paramount says is worth a buck

generously, and which Netflix has said,

"We don't want anything to do with that.

Don't give it to us. We don't want to

touch it. Spin it off. We don't care."

So we finally got a valuation for that

business uh underpinned and justified by

some financial analysis that Allan and

company and and other bankers have done

for Warner Brothers. That was really the

big thing out of this.

>> Yeah. Yeah. Just your point earlier that

the the stock Netflix stock has slid

like 30 40% since the room has started

getting going. Talk a bit more about why

that's happening. We've also seen

obviously today some selling activity.

Um, but what's so bad about buying

another company like Warner Brothers? I

mean, what what are what are investors

so worried about here?

>> It's the uncertainty, right? This is

what executives and bankers call

execution risk, right? The ability for a

company to actually do something with

the assets they're picking up. And M&A

is littered. Generally, most big M&A

doesn't work. Keep in mind, Warner

Brothers Discovery itself is a child of

two and a half decades of crappy M&A

going back to AOL Time Warner, which was

the worst deal of all time by any

account, right? Um, so it's literally

genetic with this company. There's never

been a good deal for this company.

Anyone who's bought this thing has

almost immediately regretted it. AT&T

picked it up and immediately dumped it,

right? So, it's not a good asset. It's

kind of cursed, and investors aren't

superstitious, but it is kind of cursed.

It's also a big bite at Apple for, as we

were talking about earlier just now, a

company that has chosen to build, right?

Starting with House of Cards, but now,

you know, a multinational, multi-

language content business. Netflix has

been really good at coming up with hits,

executing on those hits, spending a lot

on those hits, but executing on those

hits. Now, they're picking up a content

library which has existed for decades

from, you know, decades here. And while

there's no question it's a valuable

content library, investors are a little

confused about why these guys who have

steadfastly time and time again when

they've been asked, "Would you buy this

company? Would you buy that company?"

Why this time is different, right? Why

Warner Brothers is so compelling to

them. Now, they've laid out the case.

They think that the streaming business

is going to be a $4.5 billion business,

I think, by 2030, which is meaningful

for a company like Netflix, which did

$50 billion of revenue or is expecting

to do around $50 billion of revenue next

year. But still, at the end of the day,

it's a big bite. Shareholders have to

pay for that. And if they don't see the

results immediately, you know, these

guys are skittish. These guys are

skittish in the best of times. And it is

not the best of times right now in the

markets.

>> So interesting. It's almost like the the

Netflix shareholders don't seem to want

this deal. Warner Brothers shareholders

don't seem to want this deal, or at

least they've been pushing for the

Paramount deal instead. I'm I'm kind of

wondering who who even wants this. Is it

is it literally just Ted Sarandos and

David Zazoff? Like like who's decided

that this is this is a good idea? Why is

this even happening? At this point,

>> history is decided by the victors. So,

you know what? If two years from now,

you and I are talking about this and

they've done a wonderful job, we'll be

saying, you know, they were so preient,

who were we to doubt them? But it is

kind of true to your point that nobody

seems particularly thrilled about this

process with the exception, yes, of

Warner Brothers board and of Netflix.

The one interesting thing I should have

mentioned earlier is we actually do have

an explanation for why uh Warner

Brothers went completely dark on

Paramount. And it actually helps explain

and answer your question of who really

wants this. Ted Sarandos really wants

this. Uh we know this because in his

lawyer's final message before the deal

was signed, his lawyers basically said,

"Look, Warner Brothers, we're prepared

to move on this right now. And if you

don't get back to us by tonight, we're

walking. We're done. It's a move called,

you know, you go pencils down. You

basically walk out. You explode the

deal." And Warner Brothers just rather

than risk losing Netflix said, "All

right, all right. All right, fine. We'll

go with you." They've got an executed

merger agreement. It's clear that Ted

Sarandos and you or I are both pretty

smart people. We're not Ted Sandos

smart. Ted Sarandos thinks there's a lot

of value for shareholders here. I don't

know if he's actually going to get it in

the end, but if history is any guide,

patience with that guy usually is

rewarded.

>> Yeah, just looking at the Netflix

business, what they're doing here. So,

they they doubled their ad revenue in

2025, which is interesting. It seems

like they're going to be leaning more

and more on advertising going forward.

Another thing that we've been seeing

recently, they're getting into

podcasting.

Just announced their first original

video podcast with Pete Davidson.

My question is, what's the difference

between a video podcast and a talk show?

Maybe there isn't one. Um, and then I

guess this isn't relevant necessarily to

Netflix, but Disney also announced

recently they're going to get into

vertical video on Disney Plus. So, a lot

of interesting product announcements

happening in the streaming world. It's

kind of moving to an audio/social media

um economy, it seems. What do you make

of these moves? Um, and just before we

let you go, what do you think 2026 is

going to look like uh in terms of

streaming? Is it just going to be kind

of is it going to look like YouTube, I

guess, is my question.

>> I mean, look, everything is TV, right?

That's that's what we're seeing.

Podcasts were radio and now they're TV.

everything is TV. Uh for Netflix

specifically, it's not they've been

making this move for some time and and

the driver has been the consumer is a

little weaker, right? We're paying for a

lot of things. We don't really have a

clean bundle yet, no matter how hard the

legacy cable companies are trying here.

Ad supported makes sense for them at

this point because you've got a weak

consumer. You've got an uncertain

economy. Yes, the the thinking is gone.

People will always spend money on

content. How much money they'll spend

and for what content is the bigger

question, which again ties into why they

want to buy Warner Brothers, right?

They've got some iconic franchises.

They've got a lot of great content. And

that's what Netflix is paying for. They

don't care about HBO Max necessarily.

They don't care about the actual

infrastructure of it all because Netflix

is the pioneer in this space. For the

space at large, it's a harder question

to answer, right? the content, the big,

you know, buffaloos in the room, the

Apples, the Netflixes, the HBO's have

shown in recent years, even before the

economic slowdown, a sensitivity to the

kind of blank check Yellowstone style

productions that cost hundreds of

millions of dollars and have crazy perks

for the talent and the directors.

They're a little more sensitive to that

now. They've realized they're actually

needs to be measurable ROI. So, if

there's one thing from a business

perspective that I think will change for

Netflix, whether it's because of this

deal, because of antitrust, because

investors just expect it, I expect, I

hope I should say, for more clarity that

they'll offer to the street on the

actual underpinnings of their business.

Remember, this is a company that has

kind of steadfastly refused to divulge

pretty elementary information, viewing

time, engagement, uh, things that

analysts and investors have expected

from legacy streamers, from cable

companies for decades. So, I would hope

that this process, this big bite of the

apple, forces Netflix to talk to

shareholders a bit more and say, "Look,

here's what we're doing. Here's what

we're seeing from consumers around the

world." There's no question they've got

a great product. The trick will be

explaining why what they're doing is

going to make this product better. And

really, the only way to do that is going

to have to be some more transparency.

>> All right, Rohan Gwami, business

reporter at Sema. I guess uh just before

you let you go, Rohan, who's going to

get WBD? I forget if I've already asked

you this, but if you had to lock in a

prediction, who wins?

>> You asked me this and and I actually the

first time I said Netflix, then I said

Paramount. Now I'm going to say

Paramount with an asterisk. Okay. And

here's why. Hear me out.

>> Wow. I'm glad I asked you. Okay.

>> They've got to bump their price.

>> They They've got to bump their price.

It's It's getting ridiculous now. You

know, they they if they want this thing

so badly and they need this thing, they

got to pay more. They know that, too.

But they just got to pay more. It's that

simple. Yeah,

>> the money talks.

>> Money talks. Okay. Thank you, Roan

Gwami, Sam Ford, Business Reporter.

Appreciate your time. Thank you.

>> Thanks, Ed.

>> We'll be right back. And if you're

enjoying the show so far, be sure to

like and subscribe to the Prof Pod

YouTube channel at the link below.

Support for the show comes from Ziotics.

Having a good night out shouldn't come

with a rough next morning. You can set

yourself up for success with Zbiotics.

Ziotics pre-alcohol probiotic drink is

the world's first genetically engineered

probiotic. It was invented by PhD

scientists to tackle rough mornings

after drinking. [music] And according to

Zbiotics, here's how it works. When you

drink, alcohol gets converted into a

toxic byproduct in the gut. It's this

byproduct, not dehydration, that's to

blame for your rough next [music] day.

Pre-alcohol produces an enzyme to break

this byproduct down. Just remember to

make pre-alcohol your first drink of the

night. Drink responsibly [music] and

you'll feel your best tomorrow. Uh, I am

trying as I get older to reduce my

intake of alcohol, but when I do drink,

I make it my first drink of the night.

That is, uh, Zbiotic. So, I'm a I'm a

consumer. Ready to try it? Go to

zbiotics.com/propg

now. You'll get 15% off your first order

when you use PropG at checkout. Plus,

it's backed by a 100% money back

guarantee, so there's no risk.

Subscriptions are also available for

maximum consistency. Remember to head to

zbiotics.com/propg

and use the code propg at checkout for

15% off.

>> We're back with Propy Markets.

>> Well, with everything happening in

Greenland, it's hard to remember that

things are still happening in America.

And one of those things is a slate of

affordability plans that have been put

forward by the president. One of them is

to implement a 10% interest rate cap on

credit cards. We touched on that last

week. Another is to ban institutional

investors from buying single family

homes. Another is to buy up $200 billion

worth of mortgage bonds. Another one is

to issue a tariff refund. Another is a

health care plan that Trump is calling

the great health care plan. And the

stated goal of all of these plans is to

address affordability to bring costs

down. Now, when I read these plans, I

see good news and I see bad news. The

good news is Trump seems to now be

recognizing that this affordability

thing is a big deal and if he wants to

get votes, he needs to address it. The

bad news is I don't think he's actually

taking it seriously at all. And across

each of these proposals, each of these

plans, that is the main theme. They are

unserious proposals. Take the credit

card interest rate cap for example. You

know, as Saul Martinez told us last

week, if this were actually implemented,

it would decimate the business models of

all the big banks and all the big credit

card companies, which is why it's

strange that when he announced this

plan, those stocks decline, yes, but

they didn't crater. And the reason they

didn't crater is because Wall Street

recognizes this isn't a serious

proposal. It's a little too ridiculous,

a little too absurd. it isn't going to

happen. Same thing is true of the great

health care plan. Trump announces his

plan to reinvent healthare, although he

doesn't really provide any details on

how he'll actually do that. And once

again, Wall Street doesn't really have a

reaction to it. Why? Because they don't

think anything is actually going to

happen. One healthcare analyst from Vita

Partner said it best. He said, quote,

"We think the plan is intended to

demonstrate that the White House is

doing something about affordability, but

we believe the policies either stand

little chance of being enacted or will

have a minimal impact if enacted." I

could go on about all the other ideas,

too. I could talk about the mortgage

bond idea and the institutional home

buying idea. I'll just cut to the chase.

I don't think that those are serious

proposals either.

But even if they were, even if they did

make sense, I would add that it would

still be hard to take any of it

seriously when we're still living under

a regime that has implemented one of the

worst affordability plans in the history

of America. And that is the tariffs. I

would remind you that before the

tariffs, inflation had come down to

2.3%. After the tariffs, they went up to

3%. And that makes perfect sense because

as we've discussed, it's Americans that

pay the cost of the tariffs, not

foreigners. The importer pays the tariff

and they pass that on to the consumer

with price increases. In fact, a new

report from the Keel Institute has

confirmed this. They found that

Americans are absorbing 96%

of the tariff costs. Foreigners,

meanwhile, are only taking on 4%. Even

Andy Jasse, the CEO of Amazon, made this

point yesterday at Davos. He literally

said that sellers are passing on the

tariff costs to American consumers.

So all of these affordability proposals

which are already unserious, they are

especially unserious when you also

consider the fact that we have tariffs.

And if we're in the business of

suggesting proposals, if the idea is to

come up with a plan that will bring

costs down, the idea is to come up with

a plan that will address affordability.

I have a really easy one that the

administration could implement right now

and that is they could just get rid of

the tariffs. It would be quick. It would

be doable. It would be effective and it

would bring costs down by probably a

percentage point. Of course, that won't

happen because Trump has doubled down on

this and he doesn't want to look

foolish. But this is all just to

highlight what a foolish situation we

find ourselves in. Here we are

pretending to care about affordability

and at the same time actively making our

lives less affordable.

So until we get rid of the tariffs, I

don't think there's any other reasonable

response to these proposals than what

Logan Roy said to his kids and that is

you are not serious people.

Thanks for listening to Profy Markets

from Profy Media. If you liked what you

heard, subscribe to our YouTube channel

and tune in tomorrow for [music] more.

>> [music]