All-In with Chamath, Jason, Sacks & Friedberg - SpaceX-Cursor Deal, SaaS Debt Bomb, New Apple CEO, SPLC Indictment, Colon Cancer Spike

Episode Date: April 24, 2026

(0:00) Bestie intros! (4:55) SpaceX-Cursor deal, compute as leverage (18:33) SaaS bloodbath, debt bomb incoming, buy the dip? (46:20) New Apple CEO: John Ternus succeeds Tim Cook, what's next for Apple? (1:00:32) SPLC indictment, out of control NGOs (1:19:03) Science Corner: Potential cause discovered for colon cancer spike in young people Apply for Summit 2026: https://allin.com/events Follow the besties: https://x.com/chamath https://x.com/Jason https://x.com/DavidSacks https://x.com/friedberg Follow on X: https://x.com/theallinpod Follow on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/theallinpod Follow on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@theallinpod Follow on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/allinpod Intro Music Credit: https://rb.gy/tppkzl https://x.com/yung_spielburg Intro Video Credit: https://x.com/TheZachEffect Referenced in the show: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-04-21/spacex-says-has-agreement-to-acquire-cursor-for-60-billion https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-03-02/cursor-recurring-revenue-doubles-in-three-months-to-2-billion https://techcrunch.com/2026/04/17/sources-cursor-in-talks-to-raise-2b-at-50b-valuation-as-enterprise-growth-surges https://polymarket.com/event/will-spacex-acquire-cursor https://polymarket.com/event/spacex-ipo-by https://x.com/ttunguz/status/2046815725285945820 https://x.com/elonmusk/status/2032201568335044978 https://www.reuters.com/business/thoma-bravo-nears-agreement-turn-software-firm-medallia-over-creditors-source-2026-04-22 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-04-02/blackstone-squeezes-thoma-bravo-and-its-ailing-software-company-medallia https://x.com/Benioff/status/2044981547267395620 https://www.apple.com/leadership/john-ternus https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-04-21/apple-bets-new-ceo-john-ternus-will-bring-back-jobs-era-decisiveness https://polymarket.com/event/next-ceo-of-apple https://x.com/joecarlsonshow/status/2046349686253265302 https://x.com/nickshirleyy/status/2043756610955423782 https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/federal-grand-jury-charges-southern-poverty-law-center-wire-fraud-false-statements-and https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1437146/dl https://www.vice.com/en/article/2014-vice-news-awards-the-most-offensive-tweet-ubers-white-privilege https://x.com/nickshirleyy/status/2043756610955423782 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-026-04342-5

Jason, you are the unique person that is at the intersection of both the and the SPLC files. Do you have a comment? No, do you have a comment, Jason? No, I'm not in the SPLC files. Yes, you are. I'm adjacent.

You're SPLC adjacent and your. What does that mean? In the Venn diagram. Thank you, though. For putting me in the crosshairs of all the loop. He's got a really good way to select. There's a reason why I'm carrying this, guys. Oh, my God.

It's because the people. What the fuck is going on? the reason why I carry a stiletto at a P-35. What the fuck are you doing? There's a reason. If you want to jump the fiends, feel free. Shake Al is ready. All right.

All right, everybody. Welcome back to the greatest podcast in the universe, episode 270 of the All In Podcast, your podcaster's favorite podcast with me again, your Sultan of science, David Freeberg, the Dick Tater, which is from out of Polly Hopatia. And yeah, the rain man is back. Yeah, it's definitely David, David Sacks. He's definitely in D.C. with POTUS, yeah, Potus lets him drive in the driveway. Sacks, what's going on? You pushed back, you big shot at the entire crew and pushed the show back an hour.

Simple text. He's like, with POTUS. It's unbelievable. Start later. Okay. We'll just wait. Okay, Daddy. Look at him. All right. All right, big shot. What's going on? No, look, I was in D.C. today and I was at the White House, and I just asked if the president had time and he made time. And we did have a little meeting. And so we did push back the pod for that. One thing I just want to say is just what a pleasure he is to deal with. You know, when I read in the media, they're always describing him in a certain way that, you know, he's yelling at people or he's moody or something like that. And that's never ever been my experience with him. He's always pleasant to be with. He's always genial.

He asks questions. He's interested in the subject matter. It's just a completely different portrayal. I don't get where the media is coming from at all on this. He's charming AF. Totally. Totally. I mean, maybe if you double crossed him, maybe, I don't know.

But I've just never seen any evidence of how they describe them at all. And I think on our issues of AI, I think we're really lucky that he's the president who's in the White House when this AI revolution is happening. I mean, doing old history, sacks, what would happen if Congress? Tomola Ding-Dong was in right now, and we'd have, like, no data centers. We'd have no data centers, and they'd be using AI to censor us, and they'd be promoting DEI values through AI. That was in the Biden executive order. President Trump just wants the country to win and be successful, and he doesn't have these, like, dumer neuroses about it. That's not to say we don't support any regulation at all,

but we should have specific solutions for specific problems, as opposed to being cowering in fear over this and just trying to halt all progress. And I think a really good example of that was his idea around data centers where he said over a year ago, before data centers even became a hot political topic, that we should let our AI companies stand up their own power generation behind the meter. And that's a much better approach than the Bernie Sanders approach of just shutting everything down. So I don't know. I think we're like very fortunate that he's the president during this critical time and development of this technology. And like I said, he's always been interested in it. He talks to a lot of business leaders. I'm always actually,

very impressed with what he already knows. He listens to like all the top guys in the industry, and he synthesizes what he hears. I think he's very good at that. He was talking about the anthropic guys, and he was like, these are brilliant guys, and he was like giving the flowers to them and how genius they were and that they were working on a deal. Any insights there about the relationship between the White House and anthropic? I thought what he said was very balanced and accurate. Like you said, he said that they were very smart guys. They do have a great product. I've certainly acknowledged that. He also said that they were very left wing, but that was something we could work through.

Didn't have to be a deal killer. He said they tried to tell the Pentagon what to do, which the Pentagon didn't like. But in any event, I mean, look, he wants American companies to be successful. And he, I think genuinely really does like high IQ people. I mean, he says it all the time and people think he's joking. But I actually think it's like one of his core convictions is he just really likes smart people. He likes being around smart people. Loyal people, smart people, people who are good on camera seem to be the three circles, and, hey,

sacks, you fall into two of the three. All right. The audience figured that out. Topic one, SpaceX has signed a huge deal with Cursor. You know, Cursor. That's the AI coding startup. Really, they define the category, XAI and Cursor are building and collaborating on a new AI coding model that would, quote, be the world's best coding and knowledge work AI. The deal, as it's been explained, SpaceX will either buy cursor by the end of 2026 for 60 billion,

that's 10 billion more than they were rumored to be raising at, or they will pay cursor $10 billion for their collaboration together. Bloomberg says you can think of that $10 billion essentially as a breakup fee, so I think it's fate accompli that this deal is going to get done. Cursor's run rate, $2 billion at the end of February. This is a money printing machine. They expect to end 2026 with a $6 billion run rate. They're going to triple it. SpaceX projected revenue between 22 and $24 billion in 2026. So this is quite accretive to the revenue story at SpaceX, at the IPO of SpaceX, which is now targeting a valuation of $2 trillion, which would be trading at roughly 80 times top line revenue, which is a, you know, people would say it's a high valuation, but also

commensurate with the opportunity. Curser's valuation would be $30. So this is a good deal. I think for everybody at the end of the day. Cursor started, I think, built off of Anthropics LLM. You could use any LLM previously on it, but in March, Cursor released the second version of their proprietary model Composer 2. And here it is. It's ranked pretty high right now.

It's between GPT 5.4 and Opus 4.6. As you can see on the screen, the key part of the story here is that Elon has 550 thousand GPUs in Colosses. He's scaling up to one million, and then of course he's going to bring it to space. So if you believe that infrastructure matters, and it's pretty clear it does, this is incredible for Cursor, who has been compute-constrained. So this is peanut butter and chocolate. If you put these two together, I predict that this is going to move space X, X, X, A, and cursor to the front of the coding leaderboard within 12 months. That's my predict.

Chimoth shareholder in SpaceX via the acquisition of the Starlink company that you were a backer of. What are your thoughts? The acquisition was essentially negotiated and the way that it's structured is so that the S-1 doesn't go stale. So I think the way that it was announced has more to do with the fact that they don't want to slow down and have to rewrite parts of the S-1, have to redo the disclosures, have to redo the risks. And so I think what you're going to see is that this will get done. In fact, the deal is effectively done.

But what's so smart is that where is SpaceX today? Let's call it a trillion. Where could it be, just for the purpose of this argument, let's say $2 trillion. So when the deal gets done on a stock for stock basis, it's going to be, again, if it's 60 billion in tomorrow dollars, effectively Elon's gotten a 50% discount. and what has he bought? He can issue $60 billion a stock at a $2 trillion valuation and get a model and a service that I think is extremely compelling in coding, which is where we know all of the immediate and short-term revenue gains are. It's also patterns that are hard-fought and are really

valuable in reinforcement learning. He gets all of that. And then he gets a very cracked team, which we've known for a while that the cursor team is absolutely excellent. If you look at the GROC usage, it shows why he had this excess capacity. There was a moment where GROC had a very steep and very aggressive discount on their output tokens. And in that moment, there was just a lot of experimentation and usage. And over time, that sort of went away. So there was a lot of capacity and a relatively low utilization, I think, inside of Colossus, that he was able to turn around, jiu-jitsu move the whole thing and basically acquire the most interesting and valuable third-party rapper service in AI right now. And the fact is that they got it effectively, I think,

at this price for $30 billion. So I think it was a really good deal, really smart deal. Sack your thoughts, if you want to unpack it a bit. Under the framing, I think it'd be interesting for you. If we were sitting here three years ago, the Biden administration didn't invite Elon to the EV Summit and the SEC and other organizations, Delaware, they were explicitly involved in lawfare. They were trying to put Elon in prison. And here we are the most important company in the history of the United States, Space XXXAI and Tesla now on the verge of just creating the greatest products in the history of humanity between SpaceX, clusters in space, and optimists. Your thoughts? Well, you're right. I do remember a press conference where Biden said,

We've got to look at the sky. And so on the heels of that, the DOJ brought a lawsuit attacking the company for not hiring enough. SpaceX. Signate ease. Remember that? Yeah, exactly. They can't.

They could. Exactly. Under I tar. Anyway, that's all ancient history. So let's put that behind us. Look, I agree with your guys' analysis on this. I think these two companies are very complimentary. Pursor obviously is very strong in coding.

That's what it brings to XAI. XAI brings compute and they bring a foundation model. And the problem that cursor had is that even though coding is kind of like the white, hot area of AI right now, when it got started, it was really competing against generalists in the form of OpenAI and Anthropic. But now those generalists have decided to vertically integrate in this area of coding, right? And so cursor is now competing against QuadCode and OpenAI's codex. and so they were dependent on foundation model companies that were getting in the business of competing with them, which was just not a good place to be, right?

So now they have this new alliance with a different foundation model company, which also brings the compute. It just makes a lot of sense. And then they bring, cursor brings to XAI, the training data, a lot of enterprise clients, and the experience encoding. And I think this will accelerate XAI in this area. Sacks, you think they're going to dump Kimi K2. 0.6 because I think

Cursor Composer Composer 2 uses the Moonshop model there's no reasonable way that Elon's going to pay $60 billion and not run on top of grog.

I got to think that it seems like it likely but I don't know I think it might be tough depending on the users one of the things that makes cursor so good is they've got

say more on that what do you mean? So I think that the different developers want to have choice in that sense there's a toggle so one of the things

that's really good about cursor is they've got this very well built out IDE, this application layer that puts them probably from a U.X perspective, meaning developers are using the tool above codex, above Claude, above anything else. You can use a third-party IDE and integrate the models or integrate whatever other third-party service you're using. But I would imagine that the developers are going to want to continue to have at least some choice on what's actually writing the code for them. The thing that people are waking up to in the

last 120 days is just how much of the value of AI is being realized by writing software. And we've kind of got this wrapper term, we call it agents. But agents are fundamentally just quickly spun up applications. But for all of them, as we're realizing very quickly, you end up making too many agents. They end up being super inefficient. They need to be engineered. And you still need to have a strong software engineering capability and competency to fix all the agents, to build all the harnesses, to make everything work well together. And that's why having a

strong developer environment, a strong IDE, actually solves that biggest problem. So eventually all the enterprises that are getting hot and heavy on agents are going to be like, whoa, wait a second, we've actually got to fix how this is all being done, as we saw this week in that story with Amazon, where there's like a million agents being spun up inside and everything's wasting resources, redundant data creation, redundant data stores, redundant API calls, et cetera, tons of money being wasted. So you have to centralize still. You have to have good software engineering talent that's making good infrastructure

and good use of these agents. And that ultimately will require an integration of the AI tooling with a standard software engineering front end, which is the IDE that cursor has. So I think that that's probably where everyone's waking up to the fact that having the software engineers

may end up winning you the arms race here and seems pretty smart for Elon to buy cursor. What another piece of it? You mentioned Kimmy K2. 2.6. Yeah. I mean, so I think that one of the things is going to become a priority over the next several months is this idea of optimizing because enterprises, token bills are going through the roof right now. I mean, this month of a month, they're spending increasingly large amounts because their employees are just building more and more software. But I'm not sure that anyone's been incentivized yet to be efficient about it. And it really only makes sense to go to a frontier model for a frontier task. But more mundane things could be done, using an open source model or a less expensive model. And I think, like you're saying, whether it's the IDE or something else, there needs to be some sort of middleware that determines which model you go to and how much

you're willing to spend and what the most efficient way of getting the tokens is going to be. I am deep in playing with XAI suite of products. And I would predict we're going to be sitting here in six to 12 months and they are going to be dramatically, dramatically improved. Let me just flag one other area. that I think is maybe the wide hot center within this red hot area of coding, which is cyber. And I think Mythos has kind of woken everybody up to the potential of frontier models to be a weapon that can be used by either cyber offense or cyber defense.

Now, the issue with Mythos is that it's very large and expensive. It's something like a 10 trillion parameter model. And there's a lot of reports that Anthropic just doesn't have enough compute to be able to serve it. I'm not sure it was ever built to be a commercial model, to be honest, because I just think it's so big and expensive. But I think what will happen is these companies will start training dedicated cyber models. Let's say mythos comparable models, but with a lower token cost. And I think there's a real race on right now to get those products to market because I think IT departments and CSOs are very worried about the risk of hacks right now, AI-powered hackers.

So this is something I think over the next three to six months will be, again, this may be the hottest part of the market. Polymarket says all this is fate. A complete. SpaceX acquiring cursor, 74% chance. SpaceX IPO by the end of August, 80% chance. So this is happening, folks. All right, let's keep.

By the way, I think that deal structure is smart because, I mean, to Chama's point, yeah, it prevents the IPO process from being disrupted. Also, it kind of gives a huge motivation. to these cursor guys to bust their ass and make it work over the next, I don't know, six months. Yeah, they have a $10 billion breakup fee, but I'm sure they want the deal to be successful. Well, the $10 billion breakup fee will go back to SpaceX anyways, because if they actually run the compute and they're not owned by SpaceX, they're going to have to pay for it, that is not cheap. I mean, we saw a bunch of these XAI co-founders leave after the acquisition by SpaceX.

I don't know if that was the reason why, but all of a sudden they're sitting on SpaceX stock and they may have felt like they had it made, you know? Yeah. Well, it's always a problem. It's always a problem with M&A. This cursor thing came about pretty quickly because, okay, let's just say friends of ours who were supposed to wire into that round, we're like, where's the wiring instructions?

It all just evaporated. Here's a tweet from Elon. We don't have to speculate too much here, Sacks. He was very clear that XAI wasn't built right the first time around. the quote, XAI was not built right. First time around, so is being rebuilt from the foundations up. Same thing happened with Tesla. And that tweet is from about five weeks ago.

How crazy is it that when he tweets, he gets 50.8 million views. It takes the four of us seven months to get 50. I mean, it's probably our collective. It's unbelievable the distribution he asked. Well, also, how many CEOs would just fess up like that and say, yeah, we didn't do it right the first time now we're rebuilding it? I mean, most of not going to say that. He's a magnet for talent. He's a magnet for the right kind of talent.

And the SpaceX talent has his philosophy. He inherited, I think, a lot of, you know, maybe people for XAI or for Twitter that were not in his mold. And they're clearly getting aligned. And it's also going to make his day-to-day life much easier when all of these things are occurring in the same building with the same team. The continuity of not having to task switch between companies is going to be great. We talked a little bit about the possibility of Tesla and SpaceX merging. Even Walter Isaacson now is on the Tesla SpaceX merger train. There you go.

He just did a pod. Everybody's confirmed it. It's going to happen. We called it here first. Okay. Topic two, is there a SaaS debt bomb in private equity? Toma Bravo. We had Orlando Bravo at the fourth All-In Summit last year is nearing a deal to hand its portfolio

company medallia over to its creditors. This is a SaaS for customer experience company. TB acquired them in 2021 for $6.4 billion, all cash at the top of the market. As part of the deal, they incurred $3 billion in debt. And for background in 2021, this company had $470 million in revenue growing 20% a year. Earlier this month, Bloomberg reported that TB's debt servicing costs for medallio, were about to triple from 100 million a year to 300 million a year. Blackstone and other firms refused to extend a lifeline to the company, to the SaaS company. So it looks like Toma Bravo just handed the keys back and wiped out $5.1 billion in equity, Chimov. Your thoughts, we've been talking about the SaaS headwinds for a bit. You've been quite vocal about it.

Well, first of all, I think Toma Bravo is an unbelievably well-run organization. Their returns are bonkers and Orlando's really, really, really good investor. So what do I think happened? I suspect that they probably got enough of their equity, if not all of their equity. There's probably a decent chance that they did at least one or two dividend recaps in the last five years. And if I had to guess, I suspect that they are positive return. It may not be the return that they would want. And so turning the keys over becomes easier because you have to remember in private equity the entire playbook is for transformations of assets that are at some point not working right it's very rarely that they're buying the same kinds of businesses that the four of us would buy which is just sort of this you know

clean white sheet de novo grow at all costs kind of business so they have operating partners and all of these other people waiting in the wings to unfuck fuck situations that's the whole playbook. So to turn it over, I suspect, means that there is a core rot that people couldn't fix combined with the fact that they have probably gotten enough downside protection that it's not a huge thing for them. Now, this is an issue for the bondholders, and then that'll maybe flow through to the borrowing cost that Toma Bravo has to pay maybe for a subsequent deal. I don't know, but I doubt that they would just walk away from a business. So I suspect they probably got most of their money out. I don't know if that's true. There was someone that published some internal data

showing that the sales team was like 18% of target at Medalia. Do you guys know what this company does, Medalia? Customer support is the general arena and customer experience. Customer experience management. It's like surveys. I don't know what that means. Yeah, they'll basically send like you go on Caribbean cruise ships and you get a survey afterwards and then they use that survey data to provide management insights and operational insights to the leadership team and the operating team on how to improve the quality of their product or their service. So it's sort of like this feedback surveying loop. So if I were to tell you guys, hey, you want to build a feedback surveying loop to run your business better, are you going to buy SaaS today? Are you going to ask your AI to spin up an

agent for you to do that? And I think that's a big part of what's happened is all these sorts of companies where the alternative to buying a SaaS product is to spend something up internally. and it's much cheaper and easier to spin it up internally. You get a custom workflow. No, no, I agree with that. I'm just saying in the last five years, you think they sat on their hands and didn't take a dollar out? They're not that dumb.

Maybe they took cash out. Maybe they didn't. But there was still a big debt overhang. And the debt's clearly gotten impaired, which means that the equity, the debt holders, the debt holders are clearly screwed here. Yeah. The question is, is don't have a bravo screwed.

And I would say, if you sat around for five years, that's not their style. They generate too much money. They're too good. So they may have taken cash out. and covered some of their costs, but the equity got fully impaired, and then the debt is clearly impaired, because you can see how the debt and the CLOs are trading, which indicates that this business is just not doing well. And then someone else on Twitter posted some internal information

from Medalia saying the sales team is just not hitting their targets. They're like way, way off their sales targets, which I think speaks to the underlying problem here. Yes. Which is that all of these-pack that, yeah, please. Yeah, so the underlying problem is that these businesses in the SaaS space where you're driven by net new sales every year. How many new customers are you signing up? And then you're trying to manage retention and you're trying to increase sell through and retain customers. They're just having a really hard time sourcing new customers and there's probably higher than modeled attrition. That's right. And when you have a very kind of typically historically predictable business where you can say, hey, I've got a net revenue

retention of 118% or what have you, meaning I'm selling into my install base by 18% over what I'm making last year, and then I'm signing up new customers, you can lever that business, right? You can borrow money against those cash flows because it becomes predictable. And what's happened in the last year in particular is agents have become so good and so fast and so cheap that many enterprises can simply spin up an alternative to a vertical SaaS solution, and that's crushing the sales team's ability to sell in. That's who you're competing against. Now, I want to make one point and just link this with something else that happened this week. And that's Kevin Warsh's hearing for Fed Reserve Chair.

Kevin Warsh went and talked a lot about the deflationary effect of AI. And I actually think we all talk about the SaaSpocalypse as if it's this sort of like isolated business phenomenon where these SaaS companies are getting blown up. I think another lens to look at what's going on is the incredible deflation of how much it costs to successfully run a business and you don't have to pay a premium price for SaaS products anymore. meaning that that piece of the business can suddenly get much cheaper. That's right. That AI is delivering on its deflationary promise.

I'll just say one thing about what Warch said. Warch spoke a lot about the deflationary evolution promised by AI and that he expects that it will drive productivity growth like we've never seen before. But he said, I don't know what that's going to do to the job market, that there may be a dislocation between that productivity growth being realized and how the labor markets are going to be able to respond to those things. fundamentally, he's saying that we're going to see economic deflation. The problem with economic deflation is that when it occurs, it means some business is seeing their revenue go down.

And if that segment of the economy is levered, if they have debt sitting on top of that piece of the economy where it's supposed to always, always, always grow, like a SaaS company's top line is always supposed to grow, suddenly that debt gets impaired. And that can have an economic ripple effect that is adverse. But what he's pointing out is that as a result of deflation, because it's not coming from some cost-cutting or economic contraction. What he's saying is that the deflationary forces ultimately lead to economic expansion because other parts of the economy will now grow. So if I can suddenly cut, you know, call it 50% of my SaaS budget,

and I can reinvest that capital in other ways of growing my business instead of managing my expenses, all of a sudden, my enterprise will grow and the economy will grow. He also said, just as an aside, and I want to make sure I cover this so that we're really clear. He said the way that we've been measuring inflation is wrong and that he doesn't agree with the way the Fed has been measuring inflation because you can do a survey of any household and they'll tell you, my God, everything's so expensive. So all of the indices and bullshit that are being used to calculate an inflation index is completely misrepresenting what the average American

is actually feeling. And so he wants to rethink how the Fed is addressing inflation from an interest rate perspective, but he does think that the overall kind of economic picture is one of deflationary pressure and productivity gains coming out of AI. Sacks, I'll drop this off to you. I think it's pretty clear what's happening here is that the loss, SASS's loss is the token dealers gain, right? And startups are now, and we always see the tip of the spear, they're writing their own tools, they're making their own dashboards. I see that every day. And if you look at the SaaS product index, here it is. Salesforce down 32% in the past six months. Shout out to Bestie, Benio. off, best guess we've had, Housax at the summit. Service now down 54%, Snowflake, down 43%,

Figma, which had a huge IPO pop, and is now down 67%. So what is the role of venture capital and then private equity in addressing the software market? Software was eating the world. Now, tokens are eating the SaaS business and the software business, yeah? Well, I'm of two minds about this. I'm going to talk about the opportunity. for private equity. Let me just say backing up that historically we only had two good exits for software businesses. One was IPO, the other was M&A. And then these big private equity shops came along and gave us a third potential exit, which is you would sell to them. And then they would raise the capital based on, I don't know, one third equity and two thirds debt. So it was debt

financed buyouts, which is something that's been around and let's call it the non-tech part of the economy for a long time, but was a relatively new interest. into the world of technology. And the reason for that is that if you're going to debt finance a purchase, you need to have very stable cash flows because if you miss, if your cash flows miss and you can't pay your interest on the debt, then you're going to lose all your equity because the debt holders will foreclose. So in order to do a debt financing of any kind, you have to have very predictable cash flows.

And it was believed for a long time that software did have those predictable cash flows, at least for the mature businesses, the ones that were at the stage where, you're at the stage where, you they could IPO as a potential alternative. So it was a very attractive thing. Like I said, I think it was great to have that third option. I'm of two minds about where the private equity businesses today. On the one hand, the pricing now has got to be super attractive for them. I mean, we're seeing public SaaS companies that are doing a billion of ARR with 20% growth rates, 80% gross margins. And they're trading at three times ARR. Yeah. You know, and so. dollar for 50 cents.

So is that an opportunity, Sacks, do you think? Well, that's what I'm thinking is. Hit rock bottom. We should do a roll-up. Well, on the one hand, I do think that the pricing has never been more attractive if you're a private equity shop looking at a business like that. I mean, those companies used to be valued at 13 times ARR. Now, it's three.

I'm talking about like a category leader. Now, the downside of that. By the way, Salesforce is off 9% today. I don't know if you guys saw this, but the market's absolutely tanking today after the Medalia announcement came up. Right. Okay. So that would be like, you know, I said I'm off two minds about it.

So I would be bullish for private equity just based on pricing. But the bearish part is that in order for their business model to work, you have to have predictable cash flows. You can't have a SaaS company go from, I don't know, 120% net dollar retention one quarter to 80% net dollar retention six months or a year later because a big part of their customer basis is attributed to using tokens, right? or to basically creating some bespoke software. You just said the absolute critical thing in all of this,

which is you have to have predictable cash flows. I think what happens is when you're a startup, you typically have to figure out how to disruptively price to enter the market. So you're like, okay, if I deliver $10 of value, I'm going to charge a dollar. And that's the normal playbook, like a 10% ratio, right, of price to value. The problem is when you start to stack venture capital into it and then you stack growth equity into it, what you're effectively creating in the preference stack of your company is that you are creating a higher return hurdle.

You've got to clear 300 million, 500 million, a billion of preff, and then you have to return 15 or 20 percent on top of that. So what do people do as they raise more money? They increase price. But the problem is at some point when you increase price, you engender a ton of competition and you put a huge target on your back, private equity is the last stop because when they come in

and they layer in billions and billions of dollars of not just equity but also debt, and that has to then be completely predictable and paid back, their only lever is to raise price. They can never cut price to take share. They can't underwrite that to pay back their debt holders. And so, Sachs, part of the big problem here and why nobody wants to touch these companies

is that they are overpriced. Yes, they're making a billion dollars of ARR, but the unit cost has gotten out of control. It used to be 10% of value. It's probably now 30% of value. And everybody's looking at their contracts thinking, well, when it comes time to a renewal, I'm going to just cut this in half, or I'm going to cut this by two thirds, or I'm going to cut this by 75%, because the value isn't there anymore. Or they can threaten to and negotiate a better deal.

And it becomes even worse because the minute you make these products headless, right? And you say, I'm just going to communicate with these products via MCP and with agents. You can't charge on a per seat basis. What do you do then? Freebrook doesn't need 50 seats of, you know, workday. He needs two seats because the agents act as the way to write in and out of workday. So he wants to pay for two seats, not 50. And then if you multiply that by a million companies, that's what gets us to this place where it just feels like a falling knife. And I think it comes down to these unit costs. the unit costs and the price to value of these products are out of whack with what the market

needs and wants. And until they reset that or you find new products that can do it cheaper, we're not going to get a cleansing and a clearing here. By the way, Salesforce today is down 9%. 140 billion enterprise value on 15 billion of free cash flow. This thing is trading it less than 10 times free cash flow. It's unbelievable. I think it might be a bargain, to be honest.

Yeah. It sounds like bargain hunting. And what if Bennyoff who's the king of acquisitions? What if he just starts cleaning up and buying something? He's buying his own stock. Yeah, and we didn't put this on the docket, but did you guys see his kind of headless product announcement? Yeah.

Did you see this? It's actually very... It's very smart. Yeah. I think it's very smart. There's ways that that business can maneuver, right? And I think they're pretty unique. It may be that of all the businesses in the escape,

like the ones that have that scale, that have that multi-product platform, that have a lot of your data, there's a lot of opportunity for them to, you know, maneuver their way into an evolution of the business. Benioff's the first one. Because, like, if you look at it and you compare it, for example, to other companies,

I think the workday response was to say, you can't have an AI interact with us without paying some kind of, like, toll. You're exactly right. Whereas Beniol's the exact opposite, which is he's like, okay, we're going to go headless for the whole thing, which is really.

You're exactly right. You're exactly right. I think that's going to be the distinction of the winners here and the losers and are you on the wrong side of this? The problem is that we have to figure out what is the bottom clearing price, and that has nothing to do with business quality. And so is Salesforce a good buy at 10 times free cash flow?

Historical artifacts would tell us a screaming yes. The problem is that if you cut everybody's cash flows off at year five or six or seven, then all of a sudden, I think you see the natural compression to between three and five times free cash flow. And that has nothing to do that's crazy. has nothing to do with business quality. That just says you literally mathematically take years seven through N of the future and you discount it to zero. And having free cash flow in a war chest gives massive optionality. We've seen this with Salesforce. We've seen it with Apple.

We've seen it with meta, with Google, with Uber. Just having massive free cash flow, and you've got tens of billions of dollars, you can put it to work and you can weather these storms. By the way, another way to think about this is, you know, to the question about maneuverability and who has the gumption to make the hard choices right now. Look at Benioff. He's the founder of the company.

He's run this thing since it's founding decades ago. He is willing to bet it all. He's willing to make the change. And it may be that the index you buy in this era of AI transformation is the index of founders, that the founders

who are still running their businesses are going to be the ones who are most likely to see the future. They'll burn the boats. They'll burn the boats. They can call the code red. They can call code red. All of the guys who have hired managers to run the business are going to do the things that Chimov's talking about, which is trying to charge fees and try and maintain the old way of doing things, as opposed to reinvent for the new future.

If you look at the 10Ks, if we could figure out what the unit price cost and the trend and the inflation is of a per seat license for these products, I will point to the ones that are going to die first. Can I make two quick points? Yeah, wrap us up. One is, yes, I would like fully endorse what you said about Benny Off. He's made every previous wave work to his benefit, whether it was social, whether it was mobile, whether it was big data, all that kind of stuff. What are the odds he's going to make AI work to his benefit? I'd say pretty good.

So his stock might be a bargain right now. So that would just be point number one. I want to say just a quick thing about venture debt, which is, look, I think it's fine when private equity guys use it because they know what they're doing. But I've always hated when founders take on venture debt. I know, Jake, you agree with me. part of it is that founders forget that they have to pay it back. They treat it like venture capital and they forget about that.

And then they get surprised. But the other thing I've never liked about it is it makes you more fragile. It basically subjects you to a bunch of business covenants. And it makes it harder for you to do an abrupt shift in your business because now you've got a bank looking over your shoulder and they want to make sure they get paid and they have to review your financials and all the rest of it. And to your point, J-Cal, the companies that have free cash flow right now are the ones again, the most maneuverability. I hate taking away maneuverability from founders. And that is what

debt does because it subjects you to a fixed schedule of payments. And so this is always a thing to remember, whether you're a business or you're an individual, you know, when you put on that debt, it makes you more vulnerable to big disruptions in the market. Yeah, it just, you become incredibly brittle and founders who are listening. When you get that in peak markets, peak ZERP, you're have venture debt people offer you tons of cash and then the problem, Dave and I saw up close and personal many different companies, where the founders would look at it as like, oh, I'm extending my runway. Well, if you're a hot startup, there's always more venture capital. There's always more people who want to own equity. The equity sale gives you optionality and you have more people

on your team, more people rooting for you and aligned with equity interest. As opposed to now you have a debt instrument. They have a different goal. They have different downside. They're trying. No bank wants to be your last three to six months of runway. Because that means that in a high percentage of cases, they're going to lose their money. Yeah. So they're built to try to avoid that. I've never seen venture debt work well to improve the quality of a business. Never.

Never. It doesn't work. Only, only ever seen venture debt lead to cracks that damage companies. And if you get the venture debt, you can never actually use it. So the venture debt investors that ultimately make money, it's because they put money in a company and the company never actually used the money they gave them. I hate this business. I think venture debt's like the worst vulture-like business in Silicon Valley.

It's terrible. If you get down, if the last money in the bank is the debt you owe to the bank, they're going to rug you. That's when you get rugs. 100%. You think they can afford to lose 100% of their money when they're getting an 8% return or something like that? No way.

That's not how it works. VCs can afford that because we have the opportunity for a 10x or 100 X or 100 X or 1,000 X for that moonshot. So we can accept a bunch of zeros. The bank can't accept a bunch of zeros. Well, and then when they do get scared and when they do think they're going to lose their money, wait do you see what they extract in terms of value, what they ask for. They will ask, they'll double the interest rate, they'll ask for warrants. It's basically like being in debt in prison. Chamov, you can talk a little bit about your experience when you were in debt in prison. It's not going to be pleasant. I've been in debt. I mean,

I've had a $420 million credit line. And I had a moment where it was reflexively kind of collapsing inward because the assets that I was using to secure it shrank in value in a moment of market disruption, I was scrambling. And then at the same time, there was a risk. It was the worst moment of my professional working life. I had like a couple hundred million dollars sitting at Credit Suisse and they were about to implode. And so on a weekend, I was trying to figure out whether my money was still there.

I had always had this rule, don't have debt, and then I violated it to try to run the number up. I almost got run over. I almost lost everything. I will never do it again. And if I ever do it again, if you guys ever hear me do it again, please just come and punch me in the face. We will. We've been waiting for an excuse. Can we punch you in the face for other things too?

Buffett has this line about this is how smart guys go bankrupt is they take on debt. Debt equals prison bitch. Keep it in your mind, guys. You will be a bitch. Unless you socialize the debt, and then everyone thinks it's okay, which is what we do with governments. And that's the problem with governments.

Don't get to start going off. Don't push the button. All right, listen, we got to talk about Tim. Just a quick aside on that. In the 1950s, all the corporations in America had pension plans where you would get some guaranteed payout at the end when you retire. And they were all like, we're all going to go bankrupt

because a pension plan is either significantly overfunded or underfunded. If it's underfunded, you're bankrupt. If it's overfunded, you've wasted all this money. you can't do anything with it. So they all moved to 401Ks and everything got moved to define contribution plans except governments. And that's because the government employees

form public employee unions. And they're like, we want to keep the pension plans. And now the pension plans, it turns out, 70 years later, are going to bankrupt all the governments in the United States. By the way, that guy Spencer Pratt, who's running for mayor, he started uncovering all of the salaries

of the union folks and their pensions in Southern California. it's bonkers. They're making $400,000 a year right before they go on pension. Then they double their overtime and they get two thirds or a half. The pension doesn't work. You got to go superannutation fund. I don't know how many times we've talked about it here. But you don't need an education fund. You just need a 401K. Let people have an account. They got their money in their account. Yeah, but it's just a way to force people to contribute to it. So a forced 401k is different than a 401k. You've got to force people and you're not allowed to force people into the 401K as you know.

As we've seen in California, everything related to the government is a giant grift. It's a giant scam. There's tons of fraud going on. We've talked about the homeless industrial complex, 12 billion a year to homelessness, but the number of homeless keeps going up. There's a million examples like that. The racism industrial complex. Yeah. Maybe that's a good time.

Let's shift to SPLC because I think it's a good example. We'll get to. We'll get to it. Yeah, but you know what's even better is you can just pass a law like the Nick Shirley Act and you can put your fingers in your cover your eyes and say la la la la la. and just pretend the fraud's not happening, which is their reaction in California. How much fraud has Nick Shirley uncovered so far in California? Billions.

He should be a billion. Where's his... You know, he should be doing it privately and then getting the whistleblower awards. I think that actually would be a better strategy for him. We told him that was the... We told him that business model, remember? Yeah, no, I think he's addicted to the views,

but I mean, he could literally raise money on that concept. He's making thousands when he could be making... billions to Brioz Plainer. No. Well, but it's better, it's better for the public that he's doing what he's doing. Thank God. Thank God for Nick Shirley. So thank you, Nick Shirley, whether you could be making more money or not, what you're doing is God's work.

And you know what he also did? He shamed the mainstream media who's forgotten about investigative journalism, who forgot the ability to knock on a door and just ask a basic question. And now Bari Weiss, with CBS, has deputized one of her reporters, and she's doing the exact same playbook and meeting him punch for punch. Where's CNN? Anderson Cooper should have a Nick Shirley on his team. The New York Times should have a Nick Shirley. The L.A. time should have a Nick Shirley. Why don't they? That should be the number one higher. You're talking about old media that does things one way. And the point about Nick Shirley is it's new media. It's citizen journalism. It's people on the street

distributing fact-finding, distributing information gathering. And old media in order to survive became an opinion organization. Didn't the media used to care that the Pentagon was $900 for a hammer or what have you. Like 60 Minutes used to do things. Now it's like the media just wants to protect the waste fraud and abuse no matter how egregious it is. Do you remember that guy, Dennis Kozlowski, the CEO of Tyco who went to jail and they like had just a field day.

His umbrella stand. Umbrella stand. Yes, the umbrella stand. It's like the $6,000 umbrella stand. Made out of like ivory from like, buy no elephants. I know you bought that at auction. You're so right. Chachshunds, you're so right.

People you really used to care except when it was their team. And then the minute that it was their team, they're like, oh, no, let's just look the other way. You're right. If a CEO, if a CEO basically engages in some misbehavior, and I'm not defending it, the press will be all over that. All over.

But when the government does it, they don't do anything. Free pass. And in fact, we had one of the most successful, probably the most successful entrepreneur of our generation donating its time to the government to find waste. and the media basically drove them out of that. They vilified them and drove them out.

They made it untenable. Well, this is whoever comes up with a way to eliminate waste fraud and abuse like Doge did, and they productize that and make that their platform, that's the way to win in 2028 and going forward is to convince the public that they don't need to have their taxes raised. They could have their taxes reduced just by eliminating the minimum of 20 or 30 percent of waste, fraud, and abuse there is. in the system. We'll get to Tim Cook stepping down in just a moment, but I want to remind everybody

liquidity sold out. I'm sorry, we added a couple of tickets. We burn through them immediately, but you can still get into the All In Summit. This is our fifth edition in Los Angeles, September 13, 14th, 15th, all in.com slash events to apply. Please apply and then don't come to us 60 days out and say, I didn't get a ticket. I'm a bestie. Get me in. Just buy your damn ticket and don't get left out. I have a liquidity announcement. Oh, yum, yum. We are going to do one political panel. Okay.

And it's going to be Dave McCormick and John Federman, the two sitting senators from Pennsylvania, on stage with us talking about all topics from a left and right perspective. Amazing. So Federman's coming, which means the dress code is now sandals, shorts, and a T-shirt. Construction sheet. Get your Timberlands out. Get your team with that phone. I mean, is he really going to show up looking like a hobo?

I love his hobo style. It's great. McCormick's very fit and handsome. So, like, he'll balance him out. We should, that's what we should program it as. Like, he should wear his best brioni suit versus the old Navy for bettermen who wore it better. All right, listen, just rapid fire here on the Tim Cook resignation and moving on. This guy, John Ternis, is a 25-year vet.

He did lots of hardware worked on iPad, AirPods, and he was the favorite on Polly Market since day one. He's a bold decision maker according to reports. And unlike Tim Cook, Tim Cook did a great job of squeezing every last nickel out of Steve Jobs' product line, which lasted for a decade, iPhone, Apple TV, watch. I don't need to repeat them. But here we are. We got a product person in the seat, which is what we all know they needed because, hey, these tools are. getting a little bit stale. Siri, disgraciat, AirPods, discracead.

The whole system is not built on innovation anymore. It's built, Freiburg. I think you would agree on just bringing more profits, more profits. What's your hope here? Because, man, they miss so many great swings at bat. They didn't get the Oculus, you know, Raybans that Meta did. They canceled their self-driving car. What would you hope that this new CEO of Apple focused?

is on Freiburg in terms of innovation. They don't have a problem selling phones still. They don't have a problem selling laptops and making a ton of money. But if you're in the seat, if you were on the board of Apple, which wouldn't be a bad idea for them, if I'm being honest, what would you tell the new CEO to focus on David Freeberg? I mean, I don't know. The software layer of the future is not the software layer of the past. So it's pretty obvious. I don't know how much there is to talk about, but you just need the Siri equivalent that's ubiquitous in all of your devices, knows who you are, personalized to you, it's easier. your email, sees your calendar entries, knows what kind of music you like, has connection to your

home, basically build that AI layer for your life and make it ubiquitous in all of your Apple devices that no matter what device you're using, it knows who you are, you can engage with it using kind of a natural language method. And it's, you know, it's pretty obvious. Yeah. They should buy whisper flow. I mean, that would be. I don't know how they're, I don't know how they're running the business, but. Well, they're running it for profits, obviously sacks. I would say buy whisper flow and just replace the Siri team with that because Siri has been just, the fact that Siri can't spell polyhapitia or Calacanis after 20 years of us giving them $20,000 for iPhones is just disgraceful. Sacks, if you were on the board of Apple, again, not a bad idea, what would be your hope for the

company? What would be your sage advice for the new CEO? Well, I mean, everybody is going to be asking the same question, which is what are you going to do about AI? I don't know that they needed to be on the bleeding edge of it, but they are going to need an answer at some point, and Siri can need to be AI empowered. Probably the way it should work is that you get to choose your model. I mean, I don't know that they need to pick just one model provider. It could be a setting where you go in and you set up your account with whatever, chat GPT or GROC or GROD or what have you, and you can choose your own model provider, and then you'll have more customization and more ability to control your storage.

Let me just say, just on Tim Cook's retirement, he had an incredible. run as CEO of Apple. I mean, he ran it very effectively for 15 years. The market cap of the company went up by over 10x. The revenue grew from roughly 100 billion a year to over 400 billion a year. He also improved the quality of revenue by moving the mix into services. Yeah, that's partly why I got a higher valuation. And, you know, people say that, well, they never did any innovation under Tim Cook, but, you know, I've seen people tweet lists of products that were released under him. And there were a lot of them. Now, it's true, nothing as big as the iPhone, but they did release a lot of products under Tim Cook. And then just finally, I mean, you look back over the last 15

years and there really weren't any public snafus or scandals or broglios with Apple. It's one of the few tech brands that is still, I think, beloved by the population. I think a major part of that was Tim Cook's dedication to privacy and keeping the company on the right side of that, which I think users do appreciate. And, you know, Tim Cook even got praise from the president. I think it was unsolicited where the president talked about how Tim Cook didn't call him up that often, but when he did, it was something important and therefore the president tried to help them out. It seems like he nurtured a good relationship with the president over the last decade or so. So you just have to say that he navigated what could have been a turbulent period with a great deal of grace and aplomb.

Clearly, Chimath, he was a great steward of the brand, even though that list of products were all developed under Steve Jobs, and they were just executed well, but he didn't bring in a lot of new products or services. Any final take of John? Actually, can I let me ask you a question? What do you think, other than AI, you know, AI powered Siri, let's say? what do you think he missed? I mean, like, what should Apple have done that they didn't do? They would have out by now a pair of glasses that weren't 17 pounds like the Applevision Pro.

They would have gotten glasses that pair perfectly with your phone, take videos for kids, and they're coming out with it. It's just on a really broken timeline. They would have had a killer Siri. They would have had a search engine-ish perplexity-like product. They would have had a self-driving car. when you went to the Apple store, you would have been buying two or three very important products. Glasses, a car, and probably a television set.

If you look at actually what they did innovative under Tim Cook, I think they have great taste, and Apple TV produced a lot of great programming. He was working on a television set, not Apple TV clunked onto the back. I think those three products would have been four products. Siri, glasses, car, television set. Those would have been extraordinary. and who knows what he would have come up with when they lost Johnny Ive and obviously Steve Jobs passed away. They lost the soul of the company. They lost the innovative, groundbreaking soul of

the company and they just went into profit and iteration mode. But no acquisitions of note, nothing important was acquired and nothing important was released. Vision Pro, you can give them like maybe that's like the sixth best product or something, but it obviously hasn't hit the mainstream. Chimov, any final thoughts from you? Yeah, I have three specific things to say. The first is that he had honestly like an impossible job. It's sort of like you play basketball with Michael Jordan and then you're asked to be Michael Jordan.

And I think that that's an impossible task. And on that dimension, I think he has done just an incredible job. He has been an incredible steward of the business. Sacks is right. No major staffos. I think he did a really smart thing around doubling down on privacy. And just as a practical matter

of being a great CEO, like if you, I think you can categorize CEOs in two buckets. One is the innovator, the person that's pushing the envelope, and then the second is just a great steward. He's at the top of the top of that second

category. I sent you a couple of charts to to show this. And he found a lane that allowed him to separate himself from Steve Jobs. So, you know, as an example, like, what does it mean to be a steward? Well, when you're a steward, you're allocating resources and the two most important resources you control is capital and people. And I think on that dimension, what Tim did, if you just look at this, is he was able to invest appropriately in R&D. They completely divested their need of intent. they spun their entire new line of silicon.

That silicon, it turns out, and this will be important in the future, is very useful in AI with all of this open-cloth stuff and, you know, some of you guys are completely addicted to it. And they've kept the acquisitions light. So he was very capital efficient. If you look at the next chart, what's so interesting is like it is the exact opposite of what Steve Jobs did. Look at the amount of money that Steve Jobs returned to shareholders in his tenure at Apple.

It's easy to count. It was zero. He loved to keep that money on the balance sheet, and he probably, or maybe, I'm guessing, would have directed that at some huge shot on goal. In the Tim Cook era, it was very different. He shrank the share count by almost 50%. I think it's like 44%. That's insane.

Is there any corollary to that, Chama? No. He's been a prolific shareholder-friendly CEO, finding ways to give us money back, which I think everyone who's owned the stock has very deeply appreciated. The last thing I'll say, though, is what is the future for John Turnus? And I think it's in this final chart. We talked about the problematic nature of increasing per unit pricing in SaaS.

And what I would say is if you look at the iPhone, the unit price has gone up. And people would say, yes, but the capabilities have gone up in turn. And I acknowledge that. But the problem with the per unit pricing being as high as it is, is what Freebrook says is going to happen. AI rips open the canvas of the devices that we will use to interact with information and knowledge. We are going to live in a much more heterogeneous world in the future. It's not going to be two devices and two different operating systems that get you to knowledge. There's going to be all kinds of stuff, pens, orbs.

Who knows, Jason, your glasses, whatever. And so the problem is if you get too addicted to a single thing that has an incredibly juicy profit margin and great stickiness and the ability to raise price, it's a hard drug to get off of. So I think really what John Turnus has to do is figure out how to move to this world where everybody will be launching umpteen devices via MCP or otherwise. All of these services will be open, it'll be agentically talking to everything. I think the moats decay. And I think if that happens, that's problematic if you're too reliant on a single thing to kind of keep it going. Yeah, and just expanding on what you said, like wearables is where they really made some good

inroads in terms of getting people to use them, whether it's AirPods or the watch. And the next wearable, this is a plod pin that I use to record. You can put it here, put it on your wrist. that AI synchronicity of having your eyes, having your ears, having your watch, having your phone, your desktop all synced together with AI could be a huge product line. I'll also add a fifth robotics. I think Steve Jobs, if you were alive today, would have been looking at Roomba. He would have been looking at Optimus, and he would have said, hmm, consumer robotics in addition to a consumer car, those are two things I think he would have absolutely executed on at a high level. Okay, let's keep moving here.

And we'd love to have you on the pod, John. So just come on the pod when you're ready. We'll have you come sit in. Go ahead. So actually get the final word. Just one last point on this is that I think the succession at Apple is reminiscent a little bit of the succession at Disney. And apparently Steve Jobs and Tim Cook had this conversation back when Steve was alive. And Steve told Tim, Tim, don't do what Disney did. where basically after Walt Disney died, the company kind of languished because it felt so beholden to Walt's vision that they never really iterated. Now, when Walt died, his brother Roy took over, and Roy was already in the business. He was sort of like the business co-founder. He was a CEO type,

a little bit like Tim McCook. And he kept the magic going for about five years. And then he himself died. I think it was around 1971. And then you had this string of CEOs who took over kind of uninspired. and it wasn't until Eisner came in in 1984 that he sort of revitalized the business. And so, as I understand it, Steve and Tim had this conversation. And Steve told him, don't be too beholden to my vision. You need to figure out your own and extend it. I think that, you know, you could argue that Tim in a way was like the Roy figure here, very effective business partner of Steve.

He got a 15-year run. Roy only got five. And I think, again, he added a zero to the value of the company. Crazy. The market gap went up over 10X. So you have to say fantastically successful run as CEO. I think the question now for John Turnus is, okay, you're now past, let's say, the Walt Disney and Roy Disney part of the business. Is it going to be like the 1970s Disney or is it going to be more like the 1980s?

Do you figure out a way to revitalize it or do you have to go through kind of a funk first? Yeah, and I think it's like really illustrative of this discussion, Eisner and Eiger. Because Eisner's innovation was he realized that Disney was, I think he called it the vault strategy. He would, and we probably remember this from our childhoods, he would re-release all into theaters, all of their IP every seven years. You couldn't get some of those Bambies, whatever, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. You couldn't get those products except in theaters. And he figured out a cadence to keep publishing. But then Iger came in and said, hey, what if we use this balance sheet and we use this distribution at the parks with their brand to buy Pixar, Marvel, and Star Wars?

And so there's multiple ways to do it. There might be something there in terms of acquisitions, bold acquisitions with the Apple balance sheet could be super accretive to shareholders as opposed to lowering the share count and just distributing a ton of. Cash. All right, listen, we're going to talk about the Southern Poverty Law Center. Racism Corner. Let's go to race. Fake, fake racism corner. I want to know how the SPLC managed to accumulate $822 million in offshore bank accounts. Yeah, this is incredible. These are big numbers. Okay, SPLC. How is that possible? What is going on? All right, let me tee it up here for the team. This is like one of the biggest grifts of all time. Anyway, this is a big one. SPLC has been indicted, indicted, not

found guilty yet on 11 counts of wire fraud and money laundering. Keep that in the back of your head, wire fraud and money laundering. Here's the core allegation between 2014 and 2023. The Southern Poverty Law Center used hidden bank accounts to funnel three million in donor money to paid informants. Like, these are confidential informants like the police or FBI might use. They use these as a nonprofit NGO to infiltrate hate groups. And so the official mission, of the SPLC is, quote, to be a catalyst for racial justice in the South and beyond, working in partnership with communities to dismantle white supremacy, strengthen intersectional movements, and advance the human rights of all people.

Okay, sounds great on paper. Examples of organizations they were trying to infiltrate KKK, Aryan nation, your Nazi groups, and the unite the right organizers. Proud Boys labeled as a hate group by the SPLC, Oathkeepers not listed as a hate group, of the militia movement. My friend, Sam Harris, he was not listed as a hate group, but he was also pinned by the SPLC as like hate adjacent in their hate watch headlines. And this is something that I had a major problem with this organization on, which is they would just very loosely label people as hate speech and try to get them canceled. All of this kind of came to ahead. The revenue

before Charlottesville, you remember the incorrectly clipped Charlottesville hoax where they said Trump said both good people on both sides, but they didn't give his full quote. Very unfair to President Trump. We found out later. And that was the reason Biden, of course, ran. He said the Charlottesville both sides thing was his inspiration. 58 million in 2026, to your point, Chama, doubled and spiked to 136 million, more than double. And it's remained elevated ever since. Here's some, you know, images. For the indictment, and I'll wrap on this and then get everybody's feedback. They had F-37 as one of their confidential informants. He was a member, and this is according to the indictment, quote, member of the online

leadership chat group that planned the 2017 Unite the Right event in Charlottesville, Virginia, and attended the event at the direction of the SPLC. F-37 made racist postings under the supervision of the SPLC and helped coordinate transportation to the event for several attendees between 2015 and 2023. the SPLC secretly paid F-37 more than $270,000. That's the legal case here. Let me pause there. Can I add one thing?

Sure. Keep adding. There's a lot of details to this case. Yeah. So you're right that the SPLC allegedly did fund $270,000 to help plan Charlottesville. In addition to that, they secretly funneled more than $3 million to a bunch of violent, racist, extremist groups, including the Klu Klux Klan, the American Nazi, party, Aryan nation, United Clans of America, and it goes on from there. So I think, don't forget

about the $3 million. So this group that was supposed to be fighting racism, in fact, was fomenting racism by paying these groups to basically organize protests that SPLC could then point to and say that America has a huge racism problem, donate to us. And that's basically what happened after Charlottesville. they increased the amount of money that they were able to fundraise by $81 million. So that $270,000 investment led to an $81 million return pretty good. But this is kind of the whole point of the story is that these guys are basically running a grift. And one of the ways that you know this is a grift is because, according to the indictment, that they opened bank accounts under fictitious entities to conceal the payments that they were making from their own donors.

Because if their donors knew that they were funding the KKK, they wouldn't be getting all these contributions from Hollywood celebrities and all the rest of it. So it's really just this unbelievable story. It really boggles the mind. And just to clean up a little bit there, these are allegations. They haven't made the jump from planning these events. And the SPLC claims they were not planning these things. They were monitoring.

So that's going to be their argument. I'm not saying I agree with that. I know. I know. You're right that the SPLC's cover story is that they were simply paying informants. That's what they've claimed. But there's two problems with that story. Number one is they were paying the actual leaders of these groups, not just sort of moles who are infiltrating the groups. And second, these leaders, they weren't paid to inform. They were paid to ferment the activities. So I'm just saying that's the flaw. I understand they have this cover story that they were just paying. informants. I'm just saying, in my view, that does not hold up. And again, if they were just paying informants, why the extraordinary efforts to conceal the payments from their own donors, if they were proud of these efforts to infiltrate these groups, they should have basically informed their donors what they were doing. In fact, they hit it. And well, here's the reason that it was hidden according to them. Again, I'm not taking the side. SPLC is not an organization. I'm endorsing in any way. Their version of this is we didn't plan any of this. If we put

Put SPLC bank accounts together for informants, that would be like the FBI sending a check to an informant from an FBI account. That's their explanation. They're not a law enforcement agency. Well, that's actually the question I had about all this is like, what is a nonprofit doing hiring confidential informants, Chamoff, to infiltrate these organizations to what end? And then if you show me an incentive, you're going to see an outcome. And the outcome here is, hey, we'll get more donations. if there's more racism. Your thoughts, just generally speaking here,

Chamoth. Again, all of this is alleged. These NGOs have completely run amok. They're cosplaying as these overlords and power brokers in our lives, and it needs to get stopped. They should all be dismantled. The people that donated to the SPLC should sue them, rip open all of the documentation, get their money back.

Because just so you guys know, if you are listening or watching and you have donated, there is $822 million of your money sitting in an offshore bank account waiting for you to get it back. Okay. And then separately, if you are thinking of donating to any of these organizations in the future, unless there is a full transparent auditing of it, you actually may be doing the opposite of what you thought. If you are against racism, you may be supporting racism. If you are against discrimination for gays, this could be actually promoting discrimination for gays.

if you are supportive of trans rights, this may be pushing back against trans rights, because the playbook seems to be, do the opposite, to create the narrative, give it to your friends in the media, who will look the other way and just amplify it, tell the lie,

create the craziness, and then raise a bunch of money, make a bunch of stink, and try to curate power. Freeberg, do you think this is, in your estimation or your gut, tell you this is arsonist firefighters, they're lighting things on fire

so that they can go put it out? Or do you think this is like a lawfare as some people are claiming? Because there hasn't been, to Chmott's point, they don't have donors taking this action. They're being accused of wire fraud on behalf of donors who haven't shown up yet to do a legal action. What's your take on all of this, Friedberg? The IRS definition of what a 501C3 nonprofit organization is meant to be doing is to engage in exempt activities. The definition of exempt activities is charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literacy, public safety, or fostering amateur sports competition or preventing cruelty to children or animals. You tell me how the fuck 90% of what we call nonprofits today fall under that definition.

We have completely closed our eyes to the fact that organizations, regardless of political affiliation, social interest, have fundamental commercial and probably not aligned interests with the definition of a 501c3, and we've allowed them all to get away with it for far too long. I don't think that this is a blue or red thing. I think that this is a thing where we let these organizations make it easy to get money, to hide the money, and to do whatever the hell they want with the money.

And we need to stop it. And I think that it's an amazing opportunity right now for everyone to kind of reset the decks by cleaning all the shit up and getting all of these organizations flushed and make sure that any organization that wants to do whatever bullshit nefarious things they want to do, by all means do it. But it's not a non-profit. And you shouldn't get a charitable donation deduction and the government should not be putting money into these sorts of things.

This is an entirely different sort of activity in the social order. And as a libertarian, I'm all for it. But I don't think that they should be tax exempt. And I don't think they should be getting government money. And I don't think that individuals should be benefiting from giving them money. And if we could fix all that shit up, I think a lot of these problems are going to go away. And I think this is a major problem. I think the theme of this episode is audit everything, whether it's government waste and abuse,

or it's these NGOs or it's people like Dow making these chemicals that 30 years later, you know, perhaps are correlated with cancer. We need to audit everything. We need to take a fresh look at this because it's not red versus green. This is not red versus blue. It's green. This is clearly a monetary incentive and it is incredibly disruptive for society to not know the truth about what's going on with race in this country.

I got absolutely, you guys might not know this, but this is part of the cancel culture moment in time where they tried to take people having reasonable discussions about race in this country and tried to cancel them. And they tried to do this to me in 2014. Very famously, you guys may not know this, but I have won a couple of awards in my career. Most offensive tweet ever by Vice in 2014 was my alleged racist tweet where I said, hey, if you want to get into blogging in journalism, there's no racism in Czech journalism. All you have to do is publish for a couple of years, a blog post.

Nobody can stop you. And there will be a ton of jobs available to you. And then what they do is they tried to cancel me and tried to cancel all my media properties, my investing. And this stuff had like a modest impact on me, maybe for a year. And then now it's obviously all being. Oh, right. I'm not sure I understand.

Jake, you're saying the SPLC put you on a cancellation list? No, they put Sam Harris on it. Vice put me on a cancellation list. It didn't get picked up of the SPLC, but I experienced the same thing, which was they said because I said,

you know, race doesn't play a role in hiring. You're so careful about your virtue signaling. I'm just shocked that anyone would try to cancel you. Well, that's what's shocking about it. It's like, I know, I was very clear. I said in journalism, like a very vertical thing that I have a lot of experience. You're a very skilled virtue signal. So, I mean, they tried to cancel me, guys.

I don't, you know, they tried to cancel you too, Jamma. Jason. Go ahead. You have a question for me. I'm uncancellable. Yes. Because I don't give a. That's what we found out through all this.

No. You care about what all these idiots think. No, I don't know. Never have. Jason, I have a question for you. Go ahead. What percentage odds now do you keep in the back of your, mind that your petite little illustrious human rights watch is actually creating human rights abuses

to try to whip up. This is actually a very good point. You know, a lot of the human rights organizations from back in the day. What is the organization that you were, what does it call? Amnesty International. When I worked at Amnesty International, a very fine mandate. The mandate was human rights abuses as described in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights created by Eleanor Roosevelt and the this is like Science Corner. or what you help him this has done sex. No, but it was torture. It was people being put in jail and being tortured.

It was people being censored because of freedom of speech. And that's what I worked on when I was at Amnesty International. These groups went adrift in order to get money, human rights watch included. And then they started taking on things like, you know, transgender rights, this rights, that rights. And censoring people, they went after Sam Harris because he had Charles Murray from the bell curve. Stop with all this bullshit. I'm asking a very specific question. No, I think it's a 50-50 chance that all these organizations are involved in shenanigans.

Depending on the organization. SPLC, I'm going to guess, 95%. Yeah. Amnesty International, you think, is 50-50 that they're engaging in nefarious bullshit to try to whip up people's belief that there are human rights abuses happening that are not happening. You're saying it's a coin flip. I think it's probably a coin flip, yeah. That's what I would say today, because these organizations all got co-opted.

SPLC might have had a great origin story. but now it is... I admire your intellectual honesty, and I appreciate you saying that. Well, I mean, just based on facts, so let's see what this legal case brings about. Well, let's be clear. This is not... Let's be clear. Them investigating SPLC, 100%.

When you bring a grand jury indictment, you've already preview the evidence. This is not like some guys trying to whip up lawfare. Okay? Actually, you don't have to bring all the evidence, but that's a side thing. And they're very frisky about allowing you to indict somebody as we, we, we, experienced with Trump. Grand Juries are a whole different animal. Yeah. They will indict a ham sandwich is the line. So we'll see. Let's give them their day in court is always my position. Well, I mean, in regards to what happens in court, if it's true that the SPLC is funding the Ku Klux Klan

and the American Nazi party. Just so we're clear. They stop using confidential informants. That's good enough for me. It's insane. It's good enough for me. Listen, here's a systemic problem with nonprofits and NGOs. is, let me just contrast it with business. In business, you set up a company, the company has to make revenue, it has to make profits, and if it doesn't, it's going to go out of business, right? Because it'll lose money. So there's a feedback mechanism from the market. The company has to create products that people are willing to buy, and those products have to make money. With an NGO, nonprofit, what have you, they raise money. They don't sell things. They fundraise from donors

in order to engage in an activity. But what happens over time is the actual activities, may stop mattering. And all that really matters is they're able to keep fundraising, right? Because they're just trying to figure out a justification to keep going back to donors to get more and more money out of them. That's what perpetuates the organization. And they're trying to keep their job. Exactly.

And then if it's an NGO that gets money from the government, then it's even worse because all they do from that point forward is try to lobby the government to get more money. And it doesn't really matter whether the program is working or not. All that matters is whether they can spin it as working. Why wouldn't the Southern Poverty Law Center focus on Southern poverty, which is an issue that actually still exists? It should be a better thing. I mean, and why do you call it one thing, focus on racism and then all of a sudden whip up fake racism? Here's my theory.

Here's my theory on it is I do think that at one time in this country, civil rights was a noble cause, a very legitimate cause. Of course it was. We had the legacy of segregation and Jim Crow. and there were groups that were set up to basically change that. And they succeeded. But again, no one in an NGO or a nonprofit ever declare its victory. Exactly. They're never going to say, you know what?

Like we addressed this problem. We solved it. You know, I always saw that in 2008. Fire me. Fire me. My job's done. Yeah. But when Obama got elected in 2008, I thought that, regardless of whether you liked Obama or

or not, agree with his politics, I thought that at that point, most people could see that this was not a. racist country. Whatever else you could say, the fact that the highest office in the land was not denied to anybody showed that this country was not holding people back based on their skin color. And instead of just basically packing up shop and saying, okay, we've achieved our goal, the goalposts all got moved. Remember, that's when the whole anti-racism thing started was around Obama's second term. And what anti-racism was, it said that it's not good enough not to be, just not to be racist. You have to be.

actually had to be anti-racist, but what anti-racism meant was basically that all the distributions had to match the population. Basically, it meant a quality of outcomes, not a quality of opportunity. So effectively, this whole goalpost was moved from a quality of opportunity to a quality of results. Once you see it, you can't unsee it. It's like they sat around and they said, now what? And one person was like, I got an idea. Well, and make racism again. Exactly. But if they just said, if they just said, if they just, just said at that time, you know what, we're going to move the goalposts from a quality of

opportunity to a quality of results. We're going to basically make everyone equal at the finish line, which is to say, I guess, communism or some sort of identity socialism, people would have said, no, we're not on board for that. So instead, they created this whole new terminology to justify it. And it's taken us years to unpack that and realize what's really going on. Gosh, I don't want to put myself in a position of the SPLC. They were partners with the FBI for a long time to your point, Shamoth, or Sax's point, rather. There was probably a time when it was important to infiltrate the KKK and the Nazi groups. It's not 2025. But it's not in 2026, like I think necessary to be doing this work. I think law enforcement can handle it in 2020. Okay, I'm going to give

you guys a news flash. I just got, this just hit the wire. This is really important. Breaking news here. America is profoundly less racist than you think. Okay. Okay, breaking news. Wake up. Friedberg wanted to do a surprise science quitter. This is the first. We don't know what he's about to talk about, but David looks like he's been working really hard

and he needs a nap. So, Freiburg, you have the microphone. Let's go. Surprise science. Yeah, this is not necessarily a big surprise, but there was a really interesting paper published this week on trying to elucidate the underlying cause or predictor of colorectal

cancer. So I don't know if you guys know any young friends, but colorectal cancer, Nick, if you could just pull up this first image or colon cancer, has become now the third leading cancer. Over the last 20 years or so, there's been a scary rise in the number of young people, people generally under 50 years old that are getting colon cancer. That number is climbed by over 80% in just the last two decades. Historically, it's been an age-related disease. So as you get older, over 70 years old, your probability of getting colon cancer shoots through the roof. But this rise in young people getting colon cancer has been pretty alarming. And there's been a real question mark on what is causing it. What's the underlying trigger?

So this research team out of Barcelona in Spain did an amazing study where they looked at the difference in the epigenome or the gene expression in tumor cells of patients. that are under 50 years old and those that are over 70 years old. The sort of data will show you what different environmental triggers are associated with those changes in gene expression. So whenever we're exposed to something in the environment, whether it's some food or some drink or whatever else it is, some chemical in the environment, the cells in our body that are exposed to that chemistry or exposed to that environmental trigger have genes that

get switched on and off. And you can see which genes are on and off by looking at the RNA of those genes, which tells you that those genes are expressing RNA to make protein or not make protein. And you can look at that gene expression to determine what is changing when a cell is exposed to a particular environmental trigger. And so they were able to get these samples of colon adenocarsinomas from the cancer genome atlas, which is funded by the federal government And they were then able to take a look at these cancer cells from colon cancer in patients that are under 50 and patients that are over 70. And look at the difference in the gene expression profile and what environmental triggers are associated with that gene expression profile. So that will tell you, hey, these environmental triggers are more likely the cause or an underlying driver of the risk of getting this colon cancer.

and one thing rose to the top. So they looked at a whole bunch of things. They look at lifestyle factors. They look at eating, index, how much you ate, how overweight you were, alcohol, birth weight. They adjusted for gender. They adjusted for all these different things. And as you look down this list, you'll see this is the difference between people that got colon cancer that were over 70 when you typically have a very high chance of getting it and people that are under 50 when you don't. And what is going on with people under 50? and you can see there's this one row here that's all orange. That row is a pesticide called Piclorum. Piclorum is a pesticide that was developed by the Dow Chemical Company in 1963. This is the chemical formula for that pesticide. It's related to oxen, which are these hormones that plants make,

and in the 1960s there was this big rush to try and make synthetic plant hormones that you would then apply to a plant. It would cause the plant to oocynt, which are these hormones that plants to open. overgrow and the plant would quickly die. And Piclorum became a very widely used herbicide in our environment. It's used to manage weeds in rangeland and pasture land where cattle graze. It's used to control weeds near roads and near railroads on industrial sites to clear weeds away from highways and utility corridors. And the problem with Piclorum, one of the things that's been known about it is it's very persistent. It doesn't biodegrade very well. Piclorum sticks around. for well over a year, it stays in the water, it moves into groundwater, and it's persistently

in the environment after it's been used for some period of time. I went back and looked at the EPA data on this chemical. The last time there was an EPA safety study done was in 1995. And so this was before we had this capacity to do epigenomic studies like what was just done to elucidate that even though a chemical might not be causing cancer immediately, and you can't apply it to a cell and see it trigger a cancer, the long-term use or exposure to certain chemicals in our environment causes a change in the epigenome,

which means that these genes are being turned on and off, and when certain genes are turned on or off in the wrong way, it can trigger cells in the tissue to start to malfunction and go haywire and ultimately lead to cancer. And I think that this paper shows a pretty strong effect of piglorum in driving colon cancer in young people. It will very likely lead,

and it should lead to an EPA, review on whether this should be legally allowed, but it should also lead to a new mechanism by which we assess chemistry that we're using in our food supply, in our environment, in our industrial applications, because we can now look at all of this sort of epigenomic data to try and figure out what are these chemicals doing to us before we see them cause the problem. So I thought this was like an amazing paper done by this team. They did a lot of work to try and make sure that the statistics were sound in the studies that they did. It really, I think, elucidated something pretty scary. Is this like a Monsanto thing where like one company makes it or

Piclorum is broadly available? It's off patent now and so I'm pretty sure my guess I haven't looked into this but my guess is most of this is made generically in China and then it's probably packaged up with lots of different brands in the US and all over the world. So it's one of these chemicals that's just become ubiquitous in our use that just shows up everywhere. But I think it really speaks to the fact that historically, think about 1995, you can look at what the immediate chemical application of something does to a raft or a human cell. And you can say like, oh, it didn't cause cancer. It's good to go. Let's go. Didn't cause, quote, toxicity. Can I ask a question? In that study, are you exposed to piclorum based on where

you live? Because like, if you're- Oh, yeah, sorry, that's a great question, Chamon. So I was going to talk about this. Thank you for asking that. They then took that piclorum exposure. And then they looked at all the counties across the United States. They were able to gather data where there's enough data in California, Connecticut, Georgia, Iowa, New Mexico, Utah, Washington, and they were able to look at piclorum use estimates from the PICLORM National Synthesis Project and try and deduce in places where Piclorum was highly used and not highly used. And once again, it elucidated signal, which is that when Piclorum was used in the environment in the counties more frequently, there was a much higher frequency of colon cancer in those counties. And that R squared is weak or it's strong?

Reasonably strong. The odds ratio is like 3x. It's very strong. This is accomplished free from a combination of big data and this science to study these. Yeah, I think it's important. Yeah, I think it's important. Increased testing as well, right? So you have this confluence of increased testing, increased data, you know, knowing where these instances are occurring. And if you add a layer of AI onto this freeberg, this is like a really positive use,

going back and looking at all these compounds and figuring out which ones we need to eliminate. Yeah. So I'll put my P-Cast hat on. Thank you, David Sacks, for the role. And I think this speaks to one of the important roles that government has in doing fundamental science and fundamental research. So the National Cancer Institute and the federal government stood up this genome Atlas with $100 million a couple years ago.

They spent only a few million dollars a year now to maintain it to get cancer tissue samples and then create the availability to scientists to use those cancer tissue samples to do the sort of epigenomic analysis and study supported by, you know, government grants, or in this case, supported by a foreign university getting funding to do it. And so there's an important role that fundamental science still has in elucidating this that we would have otherwise not been able to see if we didn't have this resource available to us from the federal government and federal funding of scientific programs like this. And that leads to this discovery.

You don't need fancy AI for this to be frank, J-Cal. There's an incredible amount of data that's available or resources that are available. What's happened in the last couple of years is what's called RNA sequencing. where you can actually look at which genes are on or off, not just what's the DNA, but in the DNA. Remember, we've talked a lot about the epigenome, what genes are on or off, and how that changes when you have different cancers or when you have different chemicals. And when you have a certain chemical like pichlorum, your colorectal cancer goes through the roof, and you can see that relationship in those tissues.

And then you can put all the data together and say, oh, my gosh, there's a lot of evidence here that points to this connection, very powerful. I think it's important that it opens up the window that there shouldn't just be a one off research project conducted by a team in Spain, but maybe should be a fundamental role that some of the government agencies play, which is to stop Americans and the world from getting frigging cancer. Let's figure out the things that we got wrong in industry and go back and delete them out of our food supply and out of our industrial supply. And I think this is a really good example of that. So, XA, how does Freiburg's focus on Uranus inform your co-leading of P-Cast here? Are you going to go deep

into this colon research, how deep do you plan on going? And how will you get through eight of these presentations a day at PHS? It's all good. This is why we hired Freeburg. Yes. By the way, that you guys... He's going to handle Mars, Neptune, and Uranus. Absolutely. He's going to go deep into Uranus and clean it up. We need to clean up Uranus. Great work, Freeberg. Great work. Anyway, I think this is important. And I don't think there's any news attention on this since it came out a couple days ago. So I thought it was. would be worth bringing up on the show and making people aware. But thank you guys for sitting through it.

Well, no, I think it's great work you're doing there. I just read the paper. Yeah. All right, everybody. That's it for episode 270 of the world's greatest podcast. I am your world's greatest moderator. Thank you, Chamoff by Hopatia, David Sachs, and David Freiburg for the episode to your friends, your neighbors.

And we'll see you all next time. Bye-bye. Love you, boys. Bye-bye. Love you, Skiy. Queen of kenship, but they just need to release. To get merchies are back. I'm doing all.