Full Transcript for Josh Brown: If This Is A Bubble, It’s Pathetic

Support for this podcast comes from Juro. Contracts can be painful, but what if your business has someone who could draft, negotiate and manage contracts all while never sleeping, eating or taking a day off? With AI, it's possible. And with Juro, it's a reality. Juro is the complete AI solution for business contracting from draft to signature and beyond.

Juro has powered 3 million contracts for a fraction of the cost of hiring a lawyer. Go to Juro.com slash Vox to find out more.

A breakdown of market moves and macro signals in 10 minutes or less. The Markets Podcast from Goldman Sachs. Listen now.

Support for this show comes from Anthropic, the team behind Clawed. Every business wants to move faster. Few can afford to be wrong. That's why nine of Fortune 10 now run on Clawed for the work they want to get right. Safety and accuracy are not just line items for Anthropic. That's their whole mission. See what's next at clawed.ai.vox.

Today's number, $100. That's how much U.S. consumers spend on restaurants per week on average. Ed, what fast food chain would I like to see in space? What's that? I'd like to see Five Guys on Uranus.

I've been thinking about saying that all morning. Listen to me. Markets are bigger than us. What you have here is a structural change in the world distribution. Cash is trash. Stocks look pretty attractive. Something's going to break. Forget about it. Welcome to Profiting Markets. How are you, Ed? How are you, Ed? I'm doing very well. Doing very well.

There's something about in and out I could have thrown in there, but I just stayed away from it. I just stayed away from it.

Too much, too far? Nope. On brand, on point. I missed you guys. You keep bringing on people smarter than me, and it really bums me out. It makes me feel insecure.

Well, we're going to have a great time tonight. No comment. Oh, that's right. We're all going out. We're going to Casa Cipriani. Very fancy. I might have to put on non-athleisure wear. You're going to have to put on your coat and tie. I'm not going to put on a coat and tie, but I will put on a coat. I'm excited to see everybody. I haven't seen everyone in a while.

Me too. Business is rocking. I mean, markets is way down. But anyways, very excited to see everybody. Excited to see you. Should we get into our episode? Let's get into it with our favorite. This week brought one of the most anticipated S1 filings in recent memory, Anthropix. The filing answered some big questions, including how quickly revenue is growing and how much the company is losing.

But it also left some unanswered, including who its biggest customers actually are. And there was even more drama in the AI world to start the week. Elon Musk took aim at the neo-cloud industry, warning that many of these companies could be headed for a wave of failures and consolidation. In a post, he argued that debt markets are increasingly cutting off funding for companies without substantial revenue beyond AI data centers, leaving more than 200 neo-clouds vulnerable.

His comments sent neo-cloud stocks tumbling. That selling pressure adds to an already difficult stretch for the AI sector. CoreWeave and Nebius have both fallen more than 30% over the past month, as investors reassess the risks of the AI infrastructure boom. So there is a lot to unpack here. So to help us make sense of what could go wrong with the AI trade, but also what could still go right, we are joined by one of our favorite guests, the one and only Josh Brown, co-founder and CEO of Ritholtz Wealth Management.

Josh, great to have you back. Always good to see you. I think we should probably just start with the thing that everyone's talking about right now, which is the Anthropic filing. We finally got to see what's going on underneath the hood. General question, your reactions to the filing, what stood out to you? I think the revenue growth is probably the thing that stood out to me most.

We all understood that there was massive revenue growth. And of course, there have been leaks and there have been comments from private investors. So I think directionally, we all understood that there was a lot happening there. But Even I was surprised at what the actual growth is. So it's off a low base, but it's a 1300% increase for the first six months of this year versus the first six months of last year, the comparable period.

So they went from 1.2 billion to 16.3 billion.

That's a lot of revenue for a three-year-old business that began life as a public benefit corporation. I mean, no matter what you want to say about the other side,

the losses, which I'm sure we'll get into, which I just think it deserves a moment's reflection. This company is on pace to do something on the order north of $30 billion in its third year in existence. And I think even the bearers would have to admit that's impressive.

We understand there's customer concentration. We understand that. We don't fully understand how the ARR calculation works. Is it a snapshot on one day that happens to be its best day? And then they just extrapolate. Like, we all understand the different ways that that can be nitpicked and criticized. But they put it in an SEC filing. So let's just go ahead and assume that they're not complete and total Bernie Madoff liars, and that that is a reasonably accurate reflection of the sales that are happening to customers.

I think it's worth reflecting on. I totally agree with you. I think that the increase in sales has been remarkable. The thing that people are saying has not been a remarkable or has been a problem on the revenue side. I'm more worried about the profitability side, which we'll get into. But on the revenue side, Some point out that in Q3, the growth significantly slowed.

I think it slowed to something like 40% to 50%, which sounds ridiculous because that's already a huge number. It has to slow. You can't write. So, Ed, you're right. But investors are worried about this because the assumption, I think, for a lot of them has been that 1,300%.

is going to continue, not forever, but at least for the next several quarters, perhaps the next year or so. I'm going to disagree. I don't think investors are worried about it. I think it's almost guaranteed that you can't 16x revenue twice. Like, we understand. Because if you... This is the exercise where you place a grain of rice on a chessboard and then two on the next square and then four on the third square and then eight and 16.

We all understand that this company is not going to, in its life as a public company, do 1600% growth. So I think what investors are more worried about, and maybe this is the more reasonable bear take on Anthropic and AI in general, is the stickiness of the platform And the durability of that revenue more so than the growth rate. Like, let's take what you just said, 40% to 50%.

If they go public and they come out and say, we think we're going to grow 40% to 50% a year on

like a CAGR of 40% to 50% for the next five years, I think everybody would be okay with that kind of guidance. Not that they're giving it. Agreed. The bigger issue is... How easy is it for the next model that's 10% more powerful or advanced to snatch away those customers and those workflows? To me, if you're going to worry about something, it's not the headline growth rate no longer being 1300%, 1600%.

To me, that's the concern. Is there a moat? Is there a moat? And I wish I could tell you definitively one way or the other, but that's the thing that might give me pause in saying, yeah, you're right. This company's worth $2 trillion right off the bat. What do you make of the profitability side? Well, there isn't any.

There's that side. It's the dark side of the moon, Ed. Well, it's a little less nothing than perhaps some people thought. You know, I was thinking that we would see on the income statement, you know, several billions of dollars in losses

on a quarterly basis or in the first six months. And what we saw was a nearly $700 million net loss. Or operating loss, at least. We're going to set aside the $80 billion because that doesn't tell you anything that's associated with the value of the company going up. But nearly $700 million in operating losses, which I thought was narrower than I had expected.

However, there was the other problem, which I'd like to get your reaction to, which is that we also saw further down the document that that they have signed up to spend $800 billion on compute purchasing agreements at some point. And we don't really know how long over what timeframe that's gonna be spread out. But to me, I'm like, oh, this profitability thing, which seemed like it was trending in the right direction, might actually be a total red herring because we're not seeing the truth.

Respectfully, I have to interrupt because I think you have it wrong. Okay. The headline number that hit Twitter immediately, of course, is $80.7 billion. And as has been extensively reported, I don't have to get into all the details, that is due to the way that they have to report the financing of their expenses in a certain way. I think that's stupid.

And that includes that $9 billion in compute figure. And just the way they account for that, the operating loss is the thing that people in New York, people that are managing money, are more focused on. And that number, $693 million down from $2.1 billion a year earlier, that is the more important number. And actually, ironically, Warren Buffett is instructive here.

Huge Anthropic fan. No, I'm just kidding. Warren... Warren Buffett spent decades telling investors to focus on book value.

He said, my job as the chairman of this company is to grow the nominal book value per share number. And then like eight or nine years ago, he said, throw it out. It's the stupidest thing because of new accounting rules. All right, so let's say Berkshire Hathaway invests in plants and equipment or they acquire something and the value drops.

They have to write it down, like based on the accounting rules, which is a hit to book value. But then if that thing that they had previously written down increases in value, you don't get to write it up. There's no such thing. So it makes the exercise of focusing on book value almost nonsensical. And so he switched from that metric to other metrics that he then said, this is actually...

So he focused more on things like cash flow. So with an anthropic, it's not that we should ignore any number that looks bad if we want to be constructive. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying like the most... Bombastically negative numbers are going to be the ones that they put on on on the cover of the newspaper or on the news. And of course, then the nuance is discussed.

But in today's day and age, nobody reads articles. We read headlines and we react to headlines. So I think like. Let's just be like a little bit fair and say this company understands that a certain point profitability will be expected. The $80 billion, I agree, is irrelevant. It's a good thing. It's associated with the value of the company going up.

It's basically the conversion on a lot of those notes. So I'm with you. I'm talking about—and anyone who's like, oh, my God, $80 billion in net losses, this company is screwed, has it wrong. 100% agreement. I'm talking about the— future compute purchase agreements that haven't been reflected in the income statement yet, which they are going to pay for in cash, and have said so.

And they've said that they're going to invest in CapEx. And so what I'm saying is, It seems as though currently the income statement isn't giving us a very accurate reflection of the trajectory of the company because they're about to spend significantly more amounts of money over the next whatever the time frame is, five or ten years. And they haven't told us over what time frame.

I think that's exactly right. I want to talk about the word loss, though, because it's loaded.

Not all losses are losses. And not all losses, even if they are losses, are bad. And sometimes in certain periods of history, when companies have come to the realization that they're in a land grab, the more important thing than accounting profitability is grabbing as much land as possible so that you can eventually generate the profitability that everyone wants.

And, you know, the corporate leaders of the 80s and 90s

mostly went to University of Pennsylvania and Harvard and Yale, and they were taught the Ben Graham textbooks about securities analysis, and they were taught management in a very textbook way. The leaders of today in Silicon Valley were schooled on John Malone and Jeff Bezos. And in those two examples, John Malone recognized that he was in a land grab.

He had to buy every mom and pop independent cable system in every region of the country in order to actually build something that could eventually become profitable. And Bezos did it a generation later with the internet. He had to own e-commerce and he had to become so scaled that profits would not only be possible, but inevitable. And in both cases, it worked.

It doesn't work all the time. It's not a guarantee that Anthropic could pull it off, but I want you to understand the textbooks. that this generation read very different textbooks than classical finance. I would actually take it a step further. I'm not a venture capitalist, but if I were and Dario gave a shareholder update and said, we are projecting

25% profit margins in Q4, I would say, what the fuck are you doing? You have open AI on your ass. You have Gemini. You have free models being developed out there every day. Now you have Meta and Muse. What do you mean 25% profitability? What are you thinking? It's the worst possible thing you could say. And I know on the show Silicon Valley, it was, you know, there's a caricature, Russ Hanneman, who gets, he has to hang up the phone when he hears people talking about revenue.

No revenue. I understand it's a punchline. But think about this.

If any of these platforms are going to be sticky, and I'm not predicting that they will, but let's say the goal is to be the first to amass 3 billion users. Like, that's... Like that's how you're going to pay for all these compute leases and all this equipment and so on. Let's say that's the goal. Don't you owe your shareholders right now, the fiduciary duty that you have to your shareholders, don't you owe them the best possible chance of getting to 3 billion users? And isn't the best possible chance of getting there throwing everything you have at scale at land grab right now? I think that's the way Sam Altman's thinking.

So if you're Dario, you have to be thinking the same way. And look, if you don't think that they're going to raise 100 to 140 billion later this month when they go public, then that's a huge problem. But if you think that they probably will, and I do,

I think they're doing what the shareholders expect them to do. The people who are invested in this company are not, it's not the widows and orphans fund. It's not an insurance company in Scotland, right? You know what I'm saying? Like, it's Masayoshi's son. What do you think he's telling them to do? Guys, a riverboat gambler. Go for it. It's Adrian coming out of the coma in Rocky II and telling him, win.

When? This is, I don't even know, like profitability. What are you, high? This is like, this is year three. It could be a 30 year battle for supremacy. In year three, the goal is lose money, but make it count for something. I think they think they're making it count for something. They have enterprise users out the ass. They have normal, regular people talking to Claude like it's their therapist slash boyfriend.

Like this is what they're supposed to spend the money on. Now, oh, 80 billion loss. Five years ago, Kid Rock took out a machine gun and just went to town on a pyramid of cases of Bud Light. For cultural reasons. It's a big cultural moment in America. We're all very proud.

Anheuser-Busch or Ambev ended up with millions and millions of cases of unsold Bud Light in inventories around the country. It was a huge problem. They had to eventually take that loss. That's a real loss. That's product that you can't sell. That's not what these quote unquote losses are. So when I say sometimes a loss, not a loss, I'm not saying it's good, like negative $80 billion.

I'm not saying it's good. I'm just saying this is not the same thing as, oh, we literally lost money. Yeah, yeah. They have an accounting loss for sure. The $80 billion is a red herring. Okay. 100%. So we're on the same page. We're on the same page about that, for sure. I'm just waiting for Scott to shut up already.

Scott, chime in and shut him up. Yeah, well, in the words, another great rocket quote, I must break you.

So, like, Talia Shire, I wasn't expecting her to make an appearance here. I had dinner with Josh last night, and just for shits and giggles, I'm going to put forward the thesis I put forward.

And Ed and Citrin are going to literally turn in their graves. I think in the next 36 to 48 months, there's a non-zero probability that Anthropic's the most valuable company in the world. Yeah.

Revenue went from 1.2 billion to 16 billion in the first half. That's a 13x increase. No company has ever grown revenue this fast at that absolute dollar scale. Palantir's historic 85% year-on-year growth viewed next to Anthropic's 1,200% looks anemic. And Anthropic went from 9 billion to 65.

in that 7X and trades at what, 60 times revenues? So they're estimating, and I think it's a conservative estimate, that in 27 or 28, they'll be at a $200 billion run rate, which implies a multiple of 10, which looks cheap, or even looks reasonable compared to Nvidia, which I would argue is trading at suppressed earnings, PE, because everyone's worried about where the E goes.

But I brought up that thesis last night, With Josh, and he had pretty severe pushback. So I want to recreate it. Josh, I think Anthropic might be the most valuable company in the world in three to four years. Your thoughts? I don't think they have the moat that SpaceX has. So

SpaceX is sort of like the blueprint for how do you go public worth a trillion or two. Yeah. People understand that what Elon has built is not replicable by any other company. The rockets, the payloads, the cost of getting satellites into space, the setup of Starlink, Starlink now going for 200 million users. It's not...

There's not an obvious competitor to SpaceX. There's another publicly traded company called Rocket Labs that are, it's tiny in comparison. They have two launch sites. They're trying to put up a couple of rockets a year. I'm not saying it's not a good company, but like it's a dwarf. So when I think about like what could be trillion dollar companies, I try to think of companies that have moats that are like undeniable competitors.

Like you cannot replicate these. It's not that you can't compete with them. It's that it's like almost a one of a kind asset. Scott, I don't know that Anthropic has the type of moat that SpaceX or Nvidia has. or Apple. I just, I think those moats are unassailable. And Anthropix, we're not sure. It might be. So you could, you could absolutely end up right.

I just don't feel as sure of that. OpenAI will go public in Q1. It might even get, if Anthropix is as well received as I think it's going to be,

OpenAI could be a January IPO. And, uh, they could rip each other to shreds for the next three years and Gemini in the mix. Like it could be really, it could be ugly. It could be a price war. I'm like, I'm open to that possibility. I don't think you're definitely wrong. I just don't feel as good about agreeing with you as I would want to.

Ed, you talked about profitability at these gross margins. I mean, it looks like it's going to have Morningstar says it's, At $150 billion, which it might be the end of next year, and at 30% free cash flow, which it looks like it's charting towards, or 30% free cash flow margin, that's $45 billion a year in potentially free cash flow in the next 24 months against a $2 trillion valuation that's 44 times free cash flow.

Palantir is at 150 times and there is no freak. I mean, this is the kind of multiple markets have paid for durable moat protected infrastructure businesses to be clear. And Josh, the way I would summarize what you're saying is it's hardware versus software, right? The ultimate moat is the Falcon 9 or whatever the new rocket is called, right? That is very hard.

You could argue NVIDIA, it's not in hardware, it's in design and IP. So that's technically is, yeah, that's a moat, I guess. But this to me, I want to be clear, I wouldn't feel comfortable saying in eight or 10 years or even five years, this is the most valuable company in the world. But I'll say it here, I think at some point in the next 48 months, If this company can sustain anything like the numbers and the lines, even if it decelerates to like 5X growth, right? And also I have a bias here.

I have found, and this is anecdotal evidence, but occasionally anecdotal evidence is evidentiary, is that the product here is unbelievable. So I would say, I think there's a real shot that this thing, when people get excited about it, bumps up to four or $5 trillion when Nvidia and Apple have a bad quarter and then for, I think this thing's gonna sit on the iron throne for a bit.

It's an unbelievable product and it is now undergoing this process of recursive learning. It's teaching itself to get better. It is learning the habits of hundreds of millions of individual daily users and conforming the way it works to those habits on an individualized basis, there has never been software development like that, like ever.

So what we have, you look at the large enterprise software players, They build a product. They observe the market. If it's vertical software, they understand the ins and outs of whatever. We make software for dry cleaners or we make

software for people that manage payroll at large enterprises.

It's a version. And then they update the version every three to six months. And it's great. This is like updating based on what you, a normal person, say to it. You're not a developer.

You don't have a dev budget. The thing is getting better based on its interactions with you. I feel like that aspect of it is being glossed over. I would also say, if you are primarily concerned with the financial aspects of Anthropic, Bear in mind what its cash balance is relative to how much it's raised. It really has not used up a lot of the cash that it's.

So I want to get into these numbers and I'll have you react to this. OK. They said in the S-1 they have one hundred and twelve point four billion in cash and cash equivalents as of June 30th. That's 80% of the 141 billion that they've raised over the course of six years since they founded the company. So they've raised 141. They're still holding on to 112.

They have 19 billion in what they call securities and short-term investments. Some of that is money market funds. So just like consider that liquid, let's say. So they've been pretty good recently. with the money they've been able to raise, plus the cashflow they've generated, versus the costs of running this thing. I think it's fair to say that.

What do you think? I think that's totally fair to say. And that's why, you know, I don't have big problems. I was thinking that we were gonna get this filing And it was going to be like non-gap palooza. And they were going to make all these ridiculous adjustments, take out the training costs and do all of these gymnastics. They didn't do that.

It was clear. It was honest. And it's very clear, as you point out, that they are making real efforts to be sustainable in terms of the amount that they spend. And I give them total credit for that. And I think it's something that we have given them credit for in the past. The thing that I'm a little stuck on is the fundamental business model itself, because And this goes, Scott, you mentioned the cash flows.

I think that that is a backward-looking analysis, and we're not paying enough attention to the fact that they have already signed up to spend $800 billion. And we're not seeing any of those dollars reflected in the income statement currently. They have a more than $160 billion compute agreement with Broadcom. They have a $120 billion agreement with SpaceX, $110 billion agreement with Amazon.

And to Josh's point about these moats, they have recognized that it's kind of a problem that they have to spend all of this money buying compute from companies that are actually their competitors. in a lot of ways, and that they have actually expressly named as their competitors. And they have said that that's- What would you suggest they do? Because if they get caught without enough compute, it's probably worse than overcommitting.

Like given given where we are, like because then you definitely lose. If you can't do my work, you can't do my my workloads. OK, no problem. Alphabet can. So 100 percent is some is some element. So what would you say if you let's say you had the ear of the business planners at Anthropic? What would you tell them to do if not lock up as much compute as you can on a guaranteed contract basis? Well, this is where I think I agree with you, which is I think they're probably making the right decisions given the situation they're in.

And by the way, they've told us what they're going to do, and that is they're going to start building their own compute. And this is what I thought was most important about the filing, where they said that they're going to build out computing infrastructure that will require, in their words, substantial capital expenditures that will, in their words, quote, change the cash flow profile of the business.

So for me, I think their answer is like, we can't... We can't continue in a situation where Google might rope us into some onerous agreement because they're our competitor and we've named them as such. We have to be independent. But to me, that means spending tens of billions of dollars, which we're not seeing reflected. I think they could buy a neocloud.

Maybe that's the answer. Maybe once all of the wreckage of the neoclouds has been sort of piled up, maybe they'll go in there and buy a neocloud on the cheap. Honestly, I think that might be the answer. I think that's a good idea. But my point isn't to say they're making bad decisions, they're stupid, they've got it all wrong. I don't think that at all.

I think that they've, you know... for what they've done, it's incredibly impressive. I just think that the position that they're in is actually very difficult. And I think that it aligns with your points, Josh, that they don't have much of a moat here. They're competing with these other companies that already have their own cash cows and these businesses that are incredibly profitable.

They're plowing their money into compute. Who has more of a moat to you? OpenAI or Anthropic? So ChatGPT or Claude? No. Which has a moat? Neither? Well, if momentum is a moat, no. In software, it is very hard. I mean, your moats are intellectual property, human capital, culture. I'm more worried about ChatGPT. Well, the momentum right now is very much for Anthropic and slightly against ChatGPT.

I 100% agree with that. And the enterprise business at Anthropic, the cloud enterprise is much further along. and they're less price sensitive. A couple of things. Ed, your number about the commitment, and that's used as the scary thing here, is the infrastructure. The number is somewhere between $500 billion and $800 billion, based on the reporting I've seen.

And some of these are firm, non-cancellable contracts. Others are options with looser commitment language. The SpaceX one. But the numbers I've seen and the gross margins I've seen show that if it maintains anything resembling the scale it's growing at, that it's going to begin to hemorrhage cash. And the question I would have is if they're showing– and granted, I hate some of the suggested EBITDA bullshit, but it does look like they have positive gross margins and at this– And at this scale, wouldn't you expect those compute costs? It already has the second greatest revenue per employee just behind Nvidia, with a company that's five years old or six years old.

If it just continues, even if its growth rate's cut in half, it strikes me that the costs for a computer are gonna go down. And at this scale, which is 1 5th, 1 10th, 1 20th of the scale, they're estimated in the next 24 to 36 months.

It feels like those gross margins should only go up. And they're able right now to show something resembling being an earshot of substantial free cash flow without a fraction of the scale that it looks like they're going to be at in 12 or 24 months. The per unit cost of compute is going down. It's actually crashing. The thing is, the usage is going up by so much that the overall dollar amount being spent on compute does not fall.

It goes up. So the per token cost is plunging like it should. This is the history of technology. That's good. The thing is, the services are so popular and in so much demand that while the per token cost falls, the sheer explosion in everyday usage is rapidly outpacing that so that the dollar cost of compute is not falling. It's rising. But you'd make the argument that's actually a good thing because it shows that how sustainable this bull market in AI demand should be.

What do you think about that? I think that the fact that the tokens spend, the spend on the tokens on the

application layer end is going down is a problem for anthropic and open AI. So I think compute costs per token, per token compute costs coming down is going to be very important for them. And I think the more that they can manage figuring out how to get as much compute as possible and paying the least amount for it, that's what they have to do.

I think they're in a difficult position to do that. But if the per token compute costs are coming down for them, that's a great thing. The only thing that's the problem is if the startups who are buying the tokens or buying the LLMs usage from them, if that per token spend is also going down, which it is, then that is also going to be a problem.

because it means that their revenues are going to start to slow. And that's what I worry about, and I worry that considering the extent to which their business model is reliant on startups that are primarily funded with VC dollars, in fact, based on RAMPS data, they show that 80% of the spending on open AI and Anthropiq is coming from 1% of the companies, and within that 1%, 80% of them are venture-backed.

It seems as though they're reliant on capital continuing to rush in in Silicon Valley, in the VC industry. They're reliant on the stock market to stay buoyant. I guess here's where I land. I think this is where probably you and I agree, Josh. And you point this out about Masa's son, which is like, I think you said he's a riverboat gambler, like he's making these very bold bets.

And I think that's what this is. And I think as a result, all I can say is it could be an incredibly valuable company. But I think they could also get caught in a very bad situation. And there is significant risk that they don't keep up with their costs. And eventually they could go bankrupt. I know you guys have spoken to Steve Eisman. We had him on our show recently.

Maybe he said the same thing. But I do think that this is the crux of the matter.

The Fortune 500 CEOs and CFOs two years ago said, do AI to their employees. What do you mean? I don't know. I'm on a stage every week somewhere, and everyone's talking about these amazing things that they're doing with AI. Go do some AI. Do it.

And in the early days of this, it's crazy to be talking about the early days. I'm talking about like 18 months ago. The way that enterprises were being built was like, you know, sass. Like, oh, here's how much per head per month. Go at it. And then the token use just started getting out of control. Like guys pressing enter and just having the machine running for 48 hours over the weekend while they were in Cape Cod.

Like that's obviously not gonna... So the guy from Uber came out in March and said, we blew through the 2026 token budget already for the year in the first quarter. So now you have two things happening at once. And this is the real bear case. Number one, there's gonna be some sort of budget on AI use company-wide, and they're gonna have to make decisions like, okay, this department gets X dollars in budget for AI, that department only gets Y dollars because what the hell are we doing here? We're not running experiments, we're running a business.

Okay, so I wouldn't say rationing token use, I would say rationalizing token use. Okay, so that's one thing. The second thing is the free weight, the open weight models, the free models, and just this idea that there actually are no switching costs. And a Fortune 500 business with a sophisticated IT department and an army of consultants, they look at the quarterly numbers.

They say, why are we, you know, seven cents per share behind expectations? Where do we trace it back to? Oh, shit, look how much money we just paid Anthropic. Isn't there a way that we can swap in some of the like we can use a harness and the harness will be a governor on cost and it'll decide, OK, for this leg of the trip, we need a Mercedes Benz.

But that's only 10 percent for the rest of the 90 percent of this of the trip. We'd be fine with an ox cart. And all of a sudden you start seeing companies get smarter. about the efficiency with which they utilize these tools, that's obviously bearish if you're trying to sell the premium furthest out on the frontier model at a premium price.

So to me, that's a really reasonable bear case. And probably, you don't have to go so far as to say it's a price war. Maybe it is. But it's the opening innings of people being a little bit more... governed about how they're spending money and where the money goes

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 or on spotify or wherever you get your podcasts

Support for the show comes from BCX, the public ticker for private tech. For generations, American companies have moved the world forward through their ingenuity and determination. And for generations, everyday Americans could be a part of that journey through perhaps the greatest innovation of all, the U.S. stock market. It didn't matter whether you were a factory worker in Detroit or a farmer in Omaha, anyone could own a piece of the great American companies.

But now that's changed. Today, our most innovative companies are staying private rather than going public. The result is that everyday Americans are excluded from investing and getting left further behind while a select few reap all the benefits. Until now. Introducing VCX, the public ticker for private tech, now available wherever you buy stocks.

VCX, by Fundrise, gives everyone the opportunity to invest in the next generation of innovation, including the companies leading the AI revolution, space exploration, defense tech, and more. Visit GetVCX.com for more info. That's GetVCX.com. Carefully consider the investment material before investing, including objectives, risks, charges, and expenses.

This and other information can be found in the fund's prospectus at GetVCX.com. This is a paid sponsorship.

Support for the show comes from Perplexity Computer. If you run an e-commerce business, this might seem familiar. You start your morning by opening, say, five to 10 tabs, Shopify, Google Ads, Klaviyo, maybe a few half-baked spreadsheets you've been meaning to organize better. Then you do the dance of making all those tabs work together. Before you know it, it's already lunchtime and you've spent your day pulling information together from a half a dozen different places.

Perplexity Computer can help simplify things. Instead of opening every dashboard yourself, Computer connects to the tools you already use and built a command center that gives you a complete picture of your business. It pulls together your revenue, ad spend, margin, inventory, email performance, and more, all before you've even had your coffee.

The best part is that it doesn't tell you what's happening. It actually gets to work, and instead of being locked into one AI model, You can send your project to the right model for the job. For a limited time, only our listeners can try Perplexity Computer for free. Go to pplx.ai slash propgmarkets. That's pplx.ai slash propgmarkets to try computer today.

Most AI tools are still answering questions while Perplexity Computer is completing full projects.

Real innovation is powered by real people. This is Amex Corporate. Trusted experts, smarter technology, 24-7 dedicated support from day one to answer questions, help set up policies and approvals, and consult on spend capacity as your business needs evolve. Plus, on-demand resources help level up operations at every stage. That's the trusted service you've come to expect.

Built to simplify, designed to scale. This is Amex Corporate.

We're back with Prof G Markets. I wanted to hate this S-1, but after reading it, I just, I couldn't help but recognize some of the numbers here. And I've now, I won't say I've done a 180, but this is a company that, as far as I can tell, posted positive adjusted operating income. And I hate the word adjusted because it did take out, it excluded stock-based comp.

but they posted essentially adjusted operating income for a company that's scaling at an unprecedented rate. What's so rare here is the combination at this growth rate. Most companies growing 13x are burning cash at an accelerating rate, not approaching profitability and on an adjusted basis. If you look at this thing in the pricing, it's pricing cheaper than Palantir, and roughly in line with Nvidia while growing much faster than both.

It just feels like on a risk-adjusted basis, and I want to be clear, there are existential threats everywhere. If all of a sudden, if a programmer at Anthropic actually

tells the bots or the agents to be creative and have a sense of humor, and it starts, it decides to disclose, a billion people's porn usage, the next day it's shut down. There's all sorts of political existential risk here. If Nvidia figures out a way to put their chip on an iPhone and go straight to client, if Facebook takes advantage of the agentic layer and connects the 500 million businesses they already have a relationship with to the 3 billion consumers they already have a relationship, there are existential threats everywhere.

But based on what we're seeing now, if they can navigate this landmine and continue to show a fraction of the growth they're recognizing right now, this thing becomes a cash spigot trading at a multiple that makes NVIDIA and especially Palantir look expensive. But I'm not worried about the political risk. I'm worried about the financial risk that they've already signed up for.

I'm worried about the $800 billion that are about to show up. I worry more about the former. I worry about both, you know,

If the Europeans decide that they don't really want this in their country or there's got to be— U.S. frontier labs, you're out. Yeah, there has to be a different version that conforms to the EU. And,

you know, this could happen in Asia, too. Like, I think we're so early in this. We don't even really know where the true political fault lines are. And like to me, that's why, Scott, it's not pricing in line with its growth. I think the market is being– I know it sounds crazy. I'm saying the market's being rational and then it's going to be a $2 trillion company with losses.

I just think like we're not pricing this thing based on its growth rate and not taking into account all the existential risks that you just cited and I did. I think we're sort of doing both at the same time. Do you think it goes out, Josh, at $2 trillion? Because there's been debate where it might get cut down to one and a half. If it gets cut down to one and a half, it'll get to two.

I think the enthusiasm around this company will be peaking right as it goes public. Like, I don't think this is one of those things where, oh, they fucked up, they stayed private too long, and the heat is off of this thing. I actually think they nailed the timing. And again, I... So Sam Altman did something interesting. He said,

actually... We're not going to go public until we figure out all these safety issues, because this is the part he didn't say out loud. I don't want my S1 to read like Dario's S1. Yeah, because he's such a thoughtful guy concerned about us. Well, no, opportunistically, he's saying, let Dario write the S1 that talks about the extinction of humanity, and then I'll come public and say I've solved safety.

That might have been a tactical error. So I think this company is coming public just as the excitement around it is peaking. And that's a good thing, that bodes well for the first few days of trading. I also think we now have some prototypes in the market for staggered liquidation periods for shareholders, like

Cerebras didn't go as well as it could have. And then SpaceX came along afterwards and sort of did it better. And then, you know, whatever they've learned from that, they'll apply now to the anthropic IPO. Like, we are learning to do $100 billion to $1 trillion IPOs in real time. The bankers have this instant feedback loop that they're benefiting from.

And it's just a different day and age. So do I think they could raise $100 billion today? Yeah, like with their eyes closed. They could do it in the private market right now if they wanted to. What they actually, what they need to do is say, we're the safe one. We're publicly traded. We're conforming to SEC. We're answerable to all of the regulators around the markets, debt and equity.

We're the consumer-friendly, safe. We're the ones that wring our hands in public about all the risks to humanity. We're the good guys. That's what they're doing here with the IPO. They don't have to go public right now. I know people said they better go public right now or they're screwed. I don't think that's true. I think they could do a Series G and easily raise $100 billion.

I think this is the smart move. The ducks are quacking on Wall Street. If you never learn anything from me other than this, it's good enough.

When the ducks are quacking, you feed the ducks. That's what they're doing. All right. So, Josh, we're increasingly hearing, open quote, bubble claims. Ken Griffin and Ray Dalio both suggested last week that we're in a bubble. What's your response to the bubble question today? If it is a bubble, it is the most pathetic bubble

I have ever seen in my life. We are discounting We are factoring in growth skepticism every single day the market is opened. It is an anti-bubble. The only thing that you can credibly say is that it's an earnings bubble and that the profitability our tech giants are enjoying today is not sustainable. You could say that. You cannot say it's a valuation bubble.

The semiconductor industry is the largest contributor to tech earnings growth. and there's a lot of tech earnings growth, and the semis are by far the biggest contributors. The year-over-year estimate for tech earnings growth is 65.6% for the quarter that we're in now. Just think about that number for a second, okay? Sector-wide, it's not one company.

65% for the tech sector is If you exclude semis and semi equipment, it falls to only 24.9%. So the entire tech sector is growing 25%. And within that, the semis are almost triple that.

We're getting tech reports now that are continuing to crush. We had Western Digital print $4.64 in earnings versus 4.11 expected. Oracle, $1.92 versus $1.74. Big earnings per share surprises. And yet we are seeing a contraction in the number of 52 week highs within the SMH, the semiconductor ETF. There has not been an above average reading, which I would say is like 70% or higher names making new highs.

Since July, there are 0% 52 week highs for the semis. Explain to me how that's, why is it a bubble? How is it a bubble? Here are the three cheapest stocks in the market right now. Sandisk has a price to earnings growth or peg ratio of 0.08. 0.08! In a bubble, it's like five.

Micron, 0.10. Western Digital, 0.13. Micron is selling at five times earnings. So if this is a bubble, it is the worst bubble ever. I want my money back. I pity the fool that thinks this is a bubble. Another rocket quote. NVIDIA's forward PE is 15 times earnings. This is the lowest valuation I think in history on a forward earnings basis you have ever had the opportunity to buy NVIDIA.

Now, I'm not saying it should be 30 times. Should it be 15? And if it is 15... The only bubble must be, therefore, in this year's earnings. It's not in the valuation. Scott, I agree with Josh and keep talking about it. Do you have any follow-ups? I'm looking up Rocky quotes right now.

My Wings Outside, this is the greatest Rocky quote. They say, he's on the street. Or he's inside. The guy wants to fight him. He says, my ring's outside. I didn't hear no bell is another good one.

Get up, you son of a bitch. Nobody owes nobody nothing. You owe yourself.

Josh, I'll put forward a thesis. So I agree with you. Like when we look at the multiples on like the hardest AI names, they have come down. NVIDIA's multiple has fallen almost 50% since last year. Micron's has fallen, but it's gotten cut in half. Broadcom's, SK, you know. So I'm totally with you, which is like, if this is a bubble, And I think you could make a claim that it is, as you say.

I guess it depends on your definition of bubble. It's a very, very small one where it seems as though all of the risks of things going wrong are being priced in. And to me, I'm kind of like, oh, that's good. It's almost like we've seen the big short so many times, all of the stories are so resonant and so real in our minds that Wall Street is going, yeah, we're not gonna make that mistake again.

We're gonna predict and we're gonna front run the possibility that there are boom and bust cycles, we've gone through the boom, and now the bust is probably going to happen, which I honestly think that they're right about. And so my expectation is that we're going to see some sort of correction. We're going to see some sort of drawback. There'll be some problem.

We're beginning to see it with the neoclouds, which everyone was very excited about last year. And now people are pointing out that they have some precarious debt obligations. And will the money run out? And I think for a lot of them, they will. I think that's bullish. I was going to say, if we see a crash... it'll look like nothing compared to the real crashes that we've seen in the past.

And it'll be fun. We're taping Tuesday. Tomorrow night is Wednesday. We're going to get Microsoft and Alphabet. And then on Thursday, we're going to get

Amazon. And then this episode will come out. So I won't say... What I will say is... If you think there's gonna be a shakeout in the neo-clouds that are spinning up all this compute and are doing it with debt capital, and you think that that debt capital will be less available or unavailable, and that is a worst case scenario for that part of the market, who is it good for? Well, if you're AWS, which Amazon Web Services hit 28% growth in the April quarter, 37% growth in the July quarter, they reported $496 billion in backlog for AWS the last time they reported.

To put that into perspective, three quarters prior, it was $200 billion. So if you're AWS and four or five Neo Clouds somewhere in the world fold, that's pretty cool because you are ready to serve that demand. Your backlog will only grow. If you are SpaceX, that's pretty cool. We are the best builders of compute on the planet. We got this.

Don't fucking worry about Nebius. We got this. If you are Microsoft Azure, if you are the Google Cloud, How is it bad if the neoclouds can't raise money at less than 15%? It sounds great to me. What does the stock market care more about, Nebius and CoreWeave or Microsoft and Alphabet? And then lastly, lastly, we really only have two examples in the publicly traded market of a company that has a premier model and its own source of compute to run that model.

We have obviously Alphabet and Google Gemini, and now we have Meta and Muse. Something tells me that's gonna become important. At some point, investors might actually care about a company that's got AI end to end. We face the consumer with our own proprietary product and we supply the compute to that product. I don't know when, but when we talk about what could be the largest company in the world, unfortunately for Anthropic, they're gonna spend $900 billion on compute.

They're not gonna supply any of it unless they spend a lot of money to build it, as we talked about.

Microsoft had a partnership with OpenAI. That seems to have not gone well. Now they're bring your own model like everybody else. Okay, fine. But the alphabet Google Gemini thing could become really strategically important. And the Metamuse thing too. And I'm not saying that's actionable today, but tuck that idea in the back of your head because we only have two.

Companies that can run their own compute and have the front end that touches the end user. You don't think AWS qualifies for that? First off, verticalization is inevitable in any company that wants to sustain. What's AWS's AI product, Rufus, that helps you find the cheaper...

cheaper product on the... I mean, I guess they have chatbots. I don't even know what that is, so that says something. Yeah, that says something. It's not a large-scale LLM. In fact, Amazon

had Bedrock which was the original bring your own model platform. And the big idea was that AWS does not discriminate. We don't care what kind of AI you wanna use, you can use it here. And that made a lot of sense in the early days. And I'm not saying it won't in the future, but just think about that we only have two end-to-end AI players today.

That might become important at some point in the future. And then people might come back and revisit this conversation.

We'll be right back. And for even more markets content, sign up for our newsletter at profgmarkets.com.

Support for this show comes from Anthropic, the team behind Claude. Somewhere between the third meeting of your day and the 14th browser tab, there's not a lot of room for the work that matters most to you. Claude makes room. It takes on the forms, the follow-ups, and the deck that needs reformatting. You get back to the parts that actually need you.

Bring Claude into your work at claude.ai.com.

Now for a quick message from Anthropic, the team behind Claude, the AI built for businesses. Every business wants to move faster. Few can afford to be wrong. That's why nine Fortune 10 companies count on Claude for the work they want to get right. Safety and accuracy aren't just boxes to check off for the research team at Anthropic. It's kind of their whole mission.

See how Claude works at claude.ai.span. The action's on the court, and as the official beer sponsor of the NBA, Michelob Ultra is getting fans closer to the game with a chance to win courtside seats, merch, and more. Visit MichelobUltra.com slash courtside to enter. Michelob Ultra Courtside 26-27. No purchase necessary. Open to U.S. residents 21+.

Begins on October 1, 2026 and ends on June 30, 2027. Multiple entry periods. See official rules at MichelobUltra.com slash courtside for free entry, entry deadlines, prizes, and details.

We're back with Prof G Markets. I just want to put a footnote on your Amazon call. My big tech stock pick for 26 is Amazon. Ed likes Meta, but we pick Amazon for different reasons. While AWS, I agree with you, is going to be a serious unlock. I think it's return or the empire strikes back around the retail unit because what I see is a collision between industrialized robots and AI.

And Jassy is saying that he thinks they can double the size of their retail business by 2032, which by dollar volume is their biggest business without one single incremental higher. So all of a sudden, this large, top-line, low-margin business is about to become a massive top-line business with reasonable margins. I like that idea. I think it's three years from now, but robots as a service, the same way that they AWS was initially conceived as being for internal use.

Like we need our own, we need our own cloud. And then, uh, The thing that got Sundar the top job is like, oh, we're going to turn this outward and everyone's going to utilize this. It's not impossible that what you just said, Scott, ends up being really important, which is, do you want to own your own robot, really? Or do you want to utilize Amazon's, by then, fleet of millions of capable robots and rent them? And it could be big.

400,000 industrialized robots in America sounds Amazon. Amazon has a million. You said something before, Josh, that struck me that

what you think is bad for the markets actually is good for these guys. You said something that really struck me. You said recently that high interest rates and high oil prices turn out to be great for the market. What did you mean by that? We make this mistake often. We talk about business or corporate America monolithically as though like it's all one thing and what's good for business is good for business.

Or good for people with the economy, right? Yeah, so the reality is when you look at the S&P 500,

those are not just businesses. Those are literally the best one and two companies on the planet in their category.

Almost by definition, the way you get into the S&P 500 these days, I think the minimum market cap is around 25, 30 billion. So these are obviously companies that have proven they can do billions of revenue. You have to be profitable. So this is not business. These are 500 Michael Jordans. People don't understand this. They think that there's some correlation between business, like all businesses, and there really isn't.

When you have higher compliance costs, higher energy costs, difficult trading issues, and international law, and all of these things that are a huge headache for an average or a substandard business, Those become moats for the biggest businesses because they are the only places that can appropriately staff with the experts that help them navigate or they have the scale to almost circumvent.

The MAC-7, these are basically nation states with ticker symbols. So sometimes... quote-unquote struggles in the economy actually end up being tailwinds for the largest companies in each sector because they actually take on a comparative advantage and they take market share from everyone else. And the only proof of that idea that you need to see is a 15-year chart of the Russell 2000.

versus the S&P 500, or the NASDAQ 100 versus the Russell 3000. And then you begin to understand, oh, you mean all these challenges along the way were actually showing up in the stock market in the form of regulatory capture, economies of scale, and all these things that benefited the S&P 500. So unlike Rocky, The investment class is not busy rooting for underdogs.

We are reveling in the fact that we have these international champions that trade publicly here in the U.S. And the worse conditions get for most companies, the more of an advantage they find themselves squeezing out when you get to the other side. I think a lot of people hear that, Josh, and they're like... That's depressing. Or that's a shame.

This is why you guys have me on the show, though, because I say what it is, not what I would like it to be. 100%. Josh is the most uplifting person we speak to. But I guess my question for those— Your guy Zitron makes me want to find guns and butter. I mean—

Anyways, go ahead. For those who hear that and are like, okay, so the biggest companies continue to get bigger. The rich get richer. The winners win more than the losers. No, no. Anthropic is going to create what all is said and done. Thousands of multimillionaire households. I have spoken to people who work there. These are regular people.

Not everybody working at Anthropic is on their third go round in Silicon Valley with like stock options coming out of their ears and $10 million houses. They're regular people. They followed their dream. They wanted to work on something that had meaning. Some way or another, they met a recruiter from this company. They took the job. They believed in what the company was doing.

They're still there. They've accumulated stock options. We talk to people who have never had investments, who are now going to have $50 million overnight.

This can still happen in America. It'll never happen in Europe. There are almost right laws against it. It's crazy, but it's true. So I don't want, Ed, I don't want what I said about size advantage and national champions and that dominance to be construed as it only benefits the rich and the rich keep getting richer. Yeah, because the reality is these companies are in everyone's 401ks.

I mean, we're talking about the S&P. But there is a dynamic of... Bet on the biggest companies. Bet on scale. In the public markets, that actually is an investment thesis. It's been working for, like, a decade and a half since the financial crisis. There are a lot of reasons behind that that we don't have time to get into. Monetary policy.

We don't police necessarily. We don't even pay attention to monopolistic behavior anymore, except briefly when there's a Democrat in the White House. Like, there's a lot of things that go into that stew. But, um... You can still invent something that changes the world overnight. You can still come out of nowhere.

The best investments are not necessarily being birthed in Cupertino at Apple. Like a lot of cool things are being invented elsewhere and you can change your life, change your coworkers and your employees' life. You can do that in America still. In the public stock market, Basically, the S&P 500 is being driven by the earnings power of like 50 or 60 companies.

The other companies, it's not that they're not all so profitable. They're not big enough to move the chains mathematically in the index. So what I'm trying to say is,

Don't think about is such and such good or bad for business. Ask the smarter question, is this good or bad for the Mag 7? Is good or bad for the S&P 100? Because that's what will affect your investments. The only asterisk I just want to add here around, you're right, this could only happen in America. Anthropic, which was founded six years ago, had been founded in Europe.

It'd be one of the five most valuable companies in the world. but there is a pretty serious concentration of wealth here. It's 5,300 employees. You know, Eli Lilly has 60,000, P&G has 100,000, Apple has 150,000. And this is a trend. And granted, I do think that AI over time will create more jobs than it destroys, but we are in a bit of a weird spot right now where the best earnings calls in the world are where Meta says we grew 23% with 20% fewer employees.

There is a fear here that the wealth concentration, I mean, rents are supposedly up 24% quarter on quarter in San Francisco. The SpaceX IPO created 12 new billionaires. in Texas. Meanwhile, there's a lot of people who are just freaked out about gas prices or can't afford, you know, 40% of American households have dental or medical debt. I'm an AI optimist, but when you see a company like this worth this much money and spreading it across, at least I get the 401k, I get the valuations, stock market, but the reality is, as you pointed out to me last night, Josh, 10% of America owns all of the stocks.

There is something that we have to keep a real eye on here, and it's potentially very dangerous, that it seems like a disproportionate amount of the spoils are going to a fewer and fewer number of very talented and also very, very lucky employees. Can I asterisk your asterisk? Anthropic doesn't owe anybody employment or stock options. Like it's a- Agreed.

Yeah. When they commit to something like eight or $900 billion in compute, that all has to get built. You're talking about millions and millions of jobs. One of the really interesting things that I didn't read a lot about, or you don't hear the politicians say, all this back, quote unquote, backlash against the data centers, you know, it's not saying a peep.

The construction unions, because they love it, because it's guaranteed employment as far as the eye can see for as many members that they have. And probably they could double the size of their membership just to satiate the demand for construction of all these things. There's a ripple effect anytime a company like Anthropic comes along. and spends money the way that they're spending.

And maybe it doesn't show up in the form of stock options for a million people, but it's employment for a million people. It's a lot of projects, a lot of work to be done. And I think It would be nice if everybody had a million dollar portfolio, but the next best thing is everybody working. The dignity that comes along with that, the pride, the opportunities, being out in the sun on a construction site is better than sitting at home and saying, yeah, we showed them no data center in our backyard.

So I think there's more to it than just how many people get stock options. Although I do agree with the premise that we have to create more investors in this country, desperately, desperately. Being outside in the sun on a construction site, the three of us. Not that I know anything about that. I was going to say, you look like a construction worker.

I'll give you that. But to your point. Yeah, we make, we build bagels where I'm from. The Economist.

The economist has said so far, it looks like AI thus far has created a million jobs and has destroyed 100,000. So I am with you. I do think it's going to create more jobs than it steals. I won't get into taxation. Ed, do you? Oh, I have a question for you, Josh. I would love for you to talk a little bit. You've been, like me, a longtime Netflix bull.

What are your thoughts on what's going on at Netflix? This is the stock that I am the most wrong about this year. So I bought it at 100, down from 140. I thought it was a steal. Then I bought more in the 80s, then I bought more in the 60s. Then it got into the 70s and I sold half right before they reported, and I'm glad I did. Now it's 63.

It's just a slow bleed. I think the big problem for Netflix They're being compared to something that they can't do anything about. So Wall Street... What's that? Wall Street has become obsessed with this metric, time spent. So it's measuring the amount of hours that people spend watching Netflix versus everything else. And they're being compared to YouTube, which is now lapped Netflix.

It's 2x the amount of time spent. Now, I don't know that that's meaningful. Do people just put YouTube on a screen and walk away into the other room? Probably. It just autoplays. It just, like if somebody's watching Prof G Markets and that ends, then maybe my show comes on and then maybe someone else, and it just plays. Is that meaningful really to anyone? Well, unfortunately for Netflix, it's the thing that's being scrutinized more than anything else.

Netflix is hugely profitable. They're earning like $3 billion a quarter. They're expanding internationally. They just shook up the programming people. They brought someone in who's pretty well respected. The quality of the movies is not great. The typical show that they've put out is not great. That could be fixed. It's not rocket science.

Just, you know, the way that they're spending money has to, this $20 billion annual film and TV budget, just do it better. Like they've done it before. The thing is, It almost doesn't matter because Wall Street is fixating on, are they losing to YouTube? And they are. And I don't even know that they can do anything about that other than to lean in on the fact that it's premium content and because it's premium and the viewer actually chooses it rather than has it autoplayed, that there's some signal there about future subscription holding up and future cash flows as a result.

I think they can do that. What's not gonna work is trying to be YouTube-lite And just throwing podcasts on the platform and video games. And, you know, I think they should do what Paramount's about to do, which is double down on the quality of the programming and make the case to the street that these viewers, these users are really sticky.

I think they put out East of Eden. I think it's the best thing they've made in five years. Fantastic. They can do it when they put their minds to it. I think they've gotten distracted. Paramount's gonna double down on HBO. You'll see. Premium quality, stuff that you can actually raise the prices for because people can't live without it. You're not gonna do that with podcasts that somebody could just watch on YouTube.

So I think they've gotten the memo. They brought this guy in from Disney. He's got an extensive history in the studio system. He's done big sports deals too. You need to have must-have programming that people get pissed off when everyone's talking about it and they didn't see it. That's the roots of what Netflix did with House of Cards in 2013, completely reinvented what the platform was.

They can do it again. I think the good thing is that they've now identified that that is the solution. The solution is, hey, we can do YouTube, too. That's not going to work. Although I would push back. I do think Netflix should acquire independent podcasts at any price, Josh. I'm sure you do. At any price. The best ones. Ed, bring us home.

Wrap this dog's breakfast up. Quoting Talia Shire. You lost all credibility right out of the gate. Win! The amazing Talia Shire. I'm pitted a fool. Hold on. Did you even watch Rocky II ever in your life? I've seen all the Rocky films. Not you. I know you did. I'm going to get destroyed. No, I haven't. No, I haven't. You haven't seen the Rocky films? No.

Scott, are we going to put up with this? Jesus Christ, man. I was praying this question would not be asked of me. Because I fancy myself a movie buff, but it's a weak spot. Stop now.

Movie buff. That hurts. But you still love me, right? Oh my God. You couldn't love me more. Just, you don't have to watch all 12 of them.

You sort of get the gist, but the first four are canon. Yeah. They're canon. I know. You have to catch up. I'll do it this weekend.

And then I'll give you a call and I can give you my thoughts. My final question. We had you on at the beginning of the year. There were a lot of concerns about the market. Very similar to the concerns that we're talking about today. How'd I do? and were up 12%. And you did very well. And you said that earnings growth would be extremely strong.

You felt that there were, and believe there were a lot of tailwinds going into this market that outweighed the headwinds. So far, look at the numbers. That has been correct. Here's a freebie.

When the S&P is up double digits through the midpoint of the year, you have like an 89% chance that the high of the year will take place in December. Hmm. That's a historical... Well, we only have 100 years of data, so I won't call it science, but it's a lot of years of data. And it turns out almost all the time in bull markets, which we're in,

the high of the year is either in December or January. Well, that was going to be my question, which is where does the S&P end at the end of the year? It sounds like you think higher. Look, I thought we would have a volatile October, which is also seasonally like historically seasonal. And we did. And it was, you know, it was select. They didn't kill everything.

But we had real corrections and we had semis down 29 percent. We had industrials down 30 percent, like some big name industrials down big like it. The financials got killed this past month. The thing is, we got through the Fed meeting. We knew they had to hike because they had to hike. Now you have bond yields backing off. Oil is not quite backing off, but it's not racing higher.

Get another Fed meeting, fine, whatever. Get the stupid midterms out of the way. Come Thanksgiving, people are sitting around looking at their portfolios. They're up 15%. And anthropic price as well. Like, that's the setup. Like, oh, shit. The midterms were over. They did the stupid token weight hike. They priced the biggest IPOs in history.

And I don't know. I'll buy something. I just feel like it resolves that way. So where that won't happen is an exogenous shock that no one sees coming. Yeah, sure. So, yeah, this is why Josh is managing $11 billion and I'm managing 23 millennials that are bitching about pet bereavement leave. Yeah.

By the way, you really don't know who Clever Lang is. You really don't. Clever Lang, that means nothing to you. Apollo Creed. Apollo Creed, that means nothing to you? I've seen Creed. I assume that's what I did. Yeah, yeah. I've seen Creed. That's his son. You see, the son had to get revenge. Well, next time we'll do a movie podcast. I'm here to pick up my daughter.

That's how I feel right now. Anyways. Love you guys. Thank you for having me back. Love you, Josh. Josh Brown is the co-founder and CEO of Ritholtz, a New York City-based investment advisory firm managing $9.5 billion in assets for individuals, corporate retirement plans, and foundations. You can also check out his podcast, The Compound and Friends for more.

Josh Brown, we always love having you. Thank you so much. Thanks, brother. Thank you, guys.

This episode was produced by Claire Miller and Alison Weiss and engineered by Benjamin Spencer. Our video editor is Jorge Carti. Our research team is Dan Chalon, Kristen O'Donoghue, and Mia Silverio. Jake McPherson is our social producer. Drew Burrows is our technical director. And Catherine Dillon is our executive producer. Thank you for listening to Profiteer Markets from Profiteer Media.

If you liked what you heard, give us a follow and join us for a fresh take on the markets on Monday.

Lifetime Now for a quick message from Anthropic, the team behind Claude, the AI built for businesses. Every business wants to move faster. Few can afford to be wrong. That's why nine Fortune 10 companies count on Claude for the work they want to get right. Safety and accuracy aren't just boxes to check off for the research team at Anthropic.

It's kind of their whole mission. See how Claude works at claude.ai.span.

Life is all about making decisions. Sometimes you make questionable ones, like buying a new TV that's too big for the wall because the electronics store employee was a little too good at their job. Then sometimes you make great ones, like protecting your home and auto with Progressive. You get customized coverage options so you can be sure you have the right coverage.

Get your quote today at Progressive.com. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company affiliates and other insurers not available in all states. As wish lists grow, you know where to go. Head to Ulta Beauty. We have gifts they'll love from brands like Tato One and Rare Beauty by Selena Gomez. Shop beauty faves to give or keep from Shark Beauty, Sol de Janeiro, and more.

Not sure what they want? You can't go wrong with Balmain, Clinique, or Redken. And don't forget to put yourself on the list. Book a salon moment or add a little more sparkle to your season. Shop holiday in-store or at Ulta.com. Ulta Beauty, the