Money Rehab with Nicole Lapin - Legendary Venture Capitalist Bill Gurley on the AI Bubble, Why IPOs Feel Rigged and How to Find Your Dream Job

Episode Date: March 4, 2026

Bill Gurley is a Wall Street and Silicon Valley legend. He’s the analyst who led the Amazon IPO and went on to become one of the most successful VCs of all time and an early investor in Uber, Zillow, and GrubHub. Today, he joins Nicole to answer the biggest questions on investors' minds right now. Bill doesn't mince words: yes, we're in an AI bubble— and he explains exactly why, from circular spending deals that smell like Enron to the speculative behavior that always follows a real wave of innovation. He breaks down why the IPO system is rigged against retail investors, what tokenization could do to fix it, and what a SpaceX IPO would actually mean for everyday investors. He also shares the one market sector he thinks is quietly becoming a buy, and the specific Chinese battery stock he personally owns. Then the conversation shifts to Bill's new book, Runnin’ Down a Dream, and his surprisingly personal framework for building a career you actually love. He shares the question he asked himself twice that changed the entire course of his life, his research on career regret, and why chasing passion is a competitive advantage. Check out Nicole’s financial literacy course The Money School  Find a Financial Advisor or Financial Coach from Nicole’s company Private Wealth Collective Watch video clips from the pod on Money Rehab’s Instagram and Nicole Lapin’s Instagram Get Bill's book Runnin’ Down a Dream  Here's what Nicole covers with Bill:  00:00 Are You Ready for Some Money Rehab?  01:12 SpaceX + xAI: What Elon's Deal Really Means  03:18 Why Retail Investors Keep Getting Shut Out of the Best Companies  05:55 The IPO System Is Rigged  08:36 Inside the Amazon IPO 10:40 Are We in an AI Bubble?  16:30 AI vs. the Dot-Com Bubble 21:15 Which AI Tools Bill Actually Uses  22:00 Bill's Take on AGI Hype  23:30 Where Bill Sees Opportunity Outside of Tech  27:30 The Chinese Battery Stock Bill Personally Owns  28:45 How to Evaluate Stock Options as an Employee  31:50 The Hidden Value of Joining a Fast-Growing Company  33:15 Buy Side vs. Sell Side Analysts  35:40 The Question That Changed Bill's Career Twice  38:00 Why Following Your Passion Is a Competitive Advantage  42:00 How Tito's Vodka Started with a Blank Sheet of Paper  45:20 Bill's Next Chapter: A Policy Institute  48:00 Nuclear Energy, Healthcare, and the Issues Bill Wants to Fix  51:06 Bill Gurley's Tip You Can Take Straight to the Bank All investing involves the risk of loss, including loss of principal. This podcast is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, or legal advice. Always do your own research and consult a licensed financial advisor before making any financial decisions.

I'm listening to How to Keep House while drowning, and it feels like forgiveness. I picked it up thinking it would have a few tips on organizing my home while working more than full time and being a wife and mother. Don't get me wrong, it does have tips and tricks, but it's also a masterclass in understanding why organizing the bathroom counter is a little harder for some people than others. And what to do when that's you. It's time to take care of you. Who better to help you do that than the top voices in well-being on Audible. You can level up your parenting, career, finances, sleep, relationships, or mindset. The Audible Well-Being Collection has everything to inspire and support you every step of the way. Here are the latest from best-selling authors,

Bray Brown and Jay Shetty, Master Nutrition with Chef Jamie Oliver. Hear Nature Sleep Sounds from The Sleeping World or get on top of your finances with Rachel Rogers. Plus, you'll find all the best parenting guides like Raising Good Humans. With this at your fingertips, you can imagine more for yourself and your family. Kickstart your well-being journey with your first audiobook free when you sign up for a free 30-day trial at audible.com slash MNNM membership is 1495 a month after 30 days. Cancel any time. Listening to the top voices in well-being sounds like self-care to us.

Audible. There's more to imagine when you listen. You know I love a deal, so I've been dying to go to Japan. With the exchange rate, the trip is basically on sale. I mean, you can get Michelin Star quality food for the price of a fast food meal. And don't even get me started on the thrift shopping. Japan's secondhand scene is legendary and your dollar, well, your yen, is going to stretch so much further than you think.

I'd love to go in late March or early April to see the cherry blossoms. Yes, that's peak season, but I have a plan for that. One way I can earn a little extra cash for the trip is by hosting my place on Airbnb while I'm out of town. Hosting my home on Airbnb can help offset the cost of travel, making that dream vacation less of a dream and more of a reality. But it's not just me. While you're away, you could host your home on Airbnb, and now hosting is easier than ever with Airbnb's co-host network. You can hire a vetted local co-host to take care of the hosting for you. A co-host can create your listing, manage reservations, message guests, and provide on-site support, so the stay runs smoothly even when you're away.

You get to share your space with someone traveling to your area while you're off making memories somewhere else. If you've considered hosting but need a little help, find a co-host at Airbnb.com slash host. You've heard me talk about Built as the loyalty program that lets you earn points on rent wherever you live. and they just leveled up even more. As of 2026, homeowners can also earn up to 1.25X points on their mortgage payments. This is thanks to Bilt's three new credit cards, the Palladium card, obsidian card, and blue card. All three turn your housing payments, rent or mortgage, into flexible rewards, so you can choose the card that fits your lifestyle without missing out on points and exclusive benefits.

Built points can be redeemed at top airlines and hotels, Amazon.com purchases, future rent payments, and more. Built points have also been ranked by top publications as the industry's most valuable point currency. Your housing payment is already your biggest expense. Make it your most rewarding. Find the card that fits your lifestyle and apply today at join built.com slash money rehab. That's j-o-in-b-l-t.com slash money rehab. Make sure to use our URL so they know we sent you. Terms and limitations apply. Subject to approval and eligibility. Built cards are issued. issued by column N.A., member FDIC pursuant to license from MasterC International Incorporated. Are we in an AI bubble?

Yes. Modern IPOs are way over-hyped. Do you feel like the system is rich? They handpick a price. The retail investors get screwed. Bill Gurley is a legend on Wall Street and in Silicon Valley. He was the lead analyst on the Amazon IPO, and then he went on to make a name for himself in VC as an early investor in Uber, Zillow, and Grubhub.

Today, Bill answers some of the most important questions for investors right now. I really like this battery manufacturer in China. I think China is extremely well positioned to serve solar and battery demand across the world. We don't have any competitive products whatsoever in the U.S. And we even cover his secret to thrive in a career you actually love. I reflected and asked myself the question, do I want to do this for the next 30 years? And in both cases, I reached a point where the answer was no. I'm Nicole Lapton, the only financial expert you don't need a dictionary to understand.

It's time for some money rehab. Bill Gurley, welcome to money rehab. Thanks for having me on, Nicole. Appreciate it. So excited to talk about your book, Running Down a Dream. But first, I really want to talk about news that just came out yesterday. We're talking on the day after Elon said SpaceX is acquiring X-I ahead of the potential IPO, which could be the biggest one in history ahead of everything. the company formerly known as Facebook, Alibaba.

What are your initial thoughts? There's a lot going on that one could use to argue why this would happen. There are a number of investors that invested in Twitter and X along the way that have kind of been rolled into each of these things. And this certainly increases their likelihood of success. So to the extent that Elon had a particular reason to care about the people that stood up and backed them when he did the Twitter. deal. And if you remember, the price of Twitter went way down afterwards and kind of worked its way

back. The second thing I thought about this morning that I hadn't really considered before, but I saw that somewhere in the EU, they're coming after them for some of the GROC images. And Starlink in particular has a lot of political power. Like the fact that you can offer high-speed internet, especially rurally in any country. It's just a, it's a chip, you know, that, you know, help trade if you're fighting those kind of battles, global political battles. So that could be part of it too. But that makes more sense about why you might merge a Starlink and a Twitter and a grok. It gives you a little bit more power. It is probably the most anticipated IPO and they've said that they plan to continue on path and we've had a dearth and absence of

IPOs. So, yeah, it could be pretty successful. And then I guess lastly, the open AI has made it clear that they're going to raise lots and lots and lots of money. So if you want to be in the, if you want to compete on the consumer side of AI, you need to have deep pockets. That touches on a big concern, especially among young people, that some of the greatest companies of our time from SpaceX to Open AI and Stripe are private and therefore if you're not an accredited investor, you don't get access to them. You know, real wealth like the generation before us did with Apple and Google. I know you have a lot of issues with the IEPO system, which we can get into.

But could this open the door to the public markets and access that most investors have been shut out? I mean, they've signaled that the M&A transaction went down at over a trillion dollars. So I think you've already. missed. I mean, I worked on the Amazon IPO. It was under a billion dollars. Like, so that's one thousandth of this. And like this window that there used to be for everyday consumers to trade these tech companies in their growth phase. I think you're right. I think they're being taken out of the market. And I think it's caused primarily by the behavior of the late stage VC industry.

they're begging these companies not to go public and it does create the problem you described. I think, unfortunately, their answer to it's going to be to try and get the regulators to let retail investors invest in their vehicle not to get the company's public sooner, which is exactly what's happening in the P.E market right now. They're trying to put 401Ks into P.E funds. I think they've gotten a legal waiver to do that. They have, which is a whole other can of worms. I think this would be a can of worms too, by the way. I think a lot of the efforts to allow retail access to non-public companies

would be best solved by having these companies just go public sooner. Because there's a level of rigor and responsibility in being public that's not there when it's not public. And if we allow a whole bunch of people to play in private companies, there will be a lot of people burn because, you know, when you invest in private companies, like you see PowerPoints with financials that aren't audited, like constantly. And the players like myself that are doing that, you know that going in. And so you double and triple check things.

But the retail investor is not going to have any, like, ability to manage that problem. Yeah, or double click on the charts that go up and. to the right, you know, not every company is Google or Amazon either. And when Figma IPO last year, I did a video about some of your tweets that modern IPOs are way overhyped and inefficient because of supply and demand issues. Can you explain? Do you feel like the system is rigged there? Well, I mean, it's definitely rigged. They don't match supply and demand.

I mean, automated trading was implemented in the late 50s and match supply and demand is. understood by any first-year comp-sized student or a first-year finance student. And yet, that's not how they allocate. It's not how they determine the price. It's not how they allocate shares. So regardless of the Figma IPO or any IPO that traded up or down, the right and fair thing to do on an initial offering is to let price win, you know, and to allocate shares based on whoever is willing to pay the highest price.

It's how every stock opens for trading every single day. Like these techniques are known. And it's how a direct listing works. And ironically, it's how an initial coin offering works. So that's how, you know, anyone in the crypto world would match supply and demand. And we've just gotten used to that not being the case in the public markets. And these stocks are all mispriced because you're, and here's another huge irony. The next morning, it's like an hour to open.

They're opening it the way you do a direct listing. That next day, they do match supply and demand. And the reason there's a gap is because they didn't do it the night before. It's really sad. I'm surprised. I'm personally surprised that more people aren't astonished at it. And I'm surprised that people aren't embarrassed by it. But the long-term clients of the investment bank get a free one-day,

and then they give some of that money back through overpriced trading. So the money flows back to the investment bank. Yeah, but not to the people that jump in on day one. Yeah, no, the retail investors get screwed because they set the price the next day. If they had been part of the initial bundle, you know, you would have had an entirely different situation. and the big clients of the investment bank aren't locked up at all so they can sell into that retail demand the next day. And they make a one day like windfall profit. It makes no sense.

The SEC should be more upset about it and they're not. They got a lot on their plate. But I'm hopeful, oddly, that tokenization could solve this problem. That's my latest leaning. Let me just sort of paraphrase what you're saying. to break down what the issue is. So Figma, for example, way over subscribed. So there was 30 buyers for every one share.

And you're saying that this is engineered. Like the banks behind the scenes did this by setting the price lower than what the market would pay. So that generates a bunch of demand. And then the stock price jumps. But the institutions are the ones that are holding the really valuable shares. Yeah, look, I mean, the fact that when they run an IPO, the investment banks put out put up to their clients and say,

hooray, look, what a great IPO. It was 25, 30 times over subscribe. It's just like the irony that that's a marketing message is just, I can't believe it's lost on so many people. They've mispriced it. They're telling you if there's 25 times the demand for the shares raise the price. Like you're not, this isn't hard, but it's what we've evolved to. It's a real shame.

A lot of people on Wall Street and in the SEC, like to say that we're, that the, the U.S. capital markets are the gold standard of the world. And we're just not. I mean, playing these stupid games is by far not the gold standard. But the reason I'm hopeful is, you know, I don't know if you've talked about tokenization on your show, but there's this growing idea of using the blockchain to basically keep track of trades, which is actually a pretty good use for the blockchain. And we now have able to transacting at volumes where the rails have been tested, right? They're really tested at very high volumes.

And the next step people want to do, and the SEC seems to me behind it, is to let stocks trade on-chain when the markets are closed. And that just gets you in a position to where you could theoretically think about doing an on-chain offering. And as I already mentioned, all of the initial coin offerings that have ever been done to date, match supply, and demand. the way you wouldn't a direct listing. Let's fast forward for the rest of the year. Let's say SpaceX goes public. What should retail investors be wary of? I mean, SpaceX is a way different beast than Figma.

Yeah, I mean, one thing that's been true in the past, this was true of Uber, these really, really, really big IPOs, they're so large that it's harder to game the system. Like, it's harder to underprice them. You need too much. Like, if they go public, where are they going to raise them? the offering, you know, 20 billion or something. And the people that stand up and say they're going to do it, they need them to be able to write the checks.

And so I think people get more conservative on these bigger deals. I think you're lovely to see a pop. What about for a retail investor? It's just hard. I mean, I haven't seen the financials. And so I'd really want to wait and see those before I opine. Like, I don't know if it's, you know, to say it's trading at a trillion, but I don't. know what the revenues look like. I don't know what the cash flows look like. I'd want to see that

stuff before opine on what someone should do. It is a, it is a highly speculative time right now. And there are a lot of, there's a lot of money flashing around, especially in the venture world at very high prices. And so I would be cautious in general as a retail investor, even towards AI. If you, if you own the max, if you own, there's one, Another irony is if you own the index, you have pretty good AI exposure already. Like the index is, Nvidia is a big part of it. Microsoft's a big part of it. Google's a big part of it. And it's opposed to AI, even just simply being an index investor.

Yeah, the Mag 7 and then there's the rest of the S&P. But they're just so overweighted. I mean, I would love to actually go behind the scenes if you don't mind, take us into the room where it happened, so to speak, because you're on the Georgia team that won and left. as you mentioned, the underwriting position for the Amazon IPO. So I'd love to hear, you know, what happens in those rooms? How did you make the Amazon IPO strategy and solve for that supply demand mismatch that you're talking about?

Well, it is a funny thing. And keep in mind, that was whatever, 1998, 99. So long, long time ago, 28 years ago. Jeff Bezos, unlike a lot of people. is a very independently-minded individual. And he put a lot of pressure on us to price it high, and he didn't care if it broke issue. It did, in fact, break issue.

It traded under for a couple months. And so he pushed us for more perfect pricing because he cared about the long term and he didn't have this silly hang-up about whether it went down or not. But part of the reason these companies are getting a position where they can be taken advantage, of is the press likes to talk about a pop as a win. Oh, look, it's so people wanted it so much, but the company sold stock at a price below its, I mean, would you feel good if you sold your

house and the next day it traded at 2x the price to somebody else or would you feel stupid? Like, that's how you should think about it from the company side. That house is a good analogy too. Like, you know, if you know that your house is, going to trade for 2 million, but you price it at 1 million and start some bidding more to push the price up. Yeah, but imagine if instead you price, you put a price out on Zillow, and that's the price. And your realtor comes to us. You said, we have 25 people that want to buy at that price, and we're going to close with one of them because they're reputable. Wouldn't you be pissed? You'd be like, no, we're going to ask for auctions and raise the price. Of course, that's

what you do. Yeah, it's pretty. simple. Anyway. But it's interesting to kind of go behind the scenes. Yeah, Bezos pushed us up on price, so this didn't happen. It didn't pop. It actually went down because we priced it so high. And you guys are homieus, right? Did he tell you personally that you won the bid? Yes. The team that won the deal was at a investment bank called Deutsche Morgan Grumfeld. So Frank Quattron had left Morgan Stanley. And we were competing with Goldman and Morgan. So yes, we won the mandate, but it was a pretty, once again, Jeff being independently minded, it was pretty risky bet to bet on a bank that no one knew. We did have Frank Quattron, who was the most

experienced guy in the business, but that's what happened. Good trivia question, which bank took Amazon public? Most people can't get that one. I don't know. That's definitely a trivia night in the valley. But let's zoom out on AI. I mean, the biggest market question, you alluded to it, earlier that I'm sure you're getting, I'm getting over the last six months is we can probably say it in unison. Are we in an AI bubble? Yes. So there's a great book by Carlotta Perez where she studies tech innovation and waves for over 400 years. And I think this is like I think this is beautifully elegant. But what she says is if the wave is real and there's people getting rich quick, which is true here,

you eventually are going to attract charlatans and speculators. So most people want to put you in a box and say, do you think it's real or a bubble? And what she says, if it's real, there will be a bubble associated with it. And I agree with her analysis. So I think AI is real and there's bubbleish behavior. That's a consequence of it being real.

And I think we've already seen some speculators. We had later here in Texas, we had to Rick Perry's data center SPAC that went up and down already. That's an outsider trying to glom on to a new thing that's happening. I think the circular deals are really bad. I think they smell bad. I did this thing where I just described them to chat, GBT. I didn't tell it what industry it was. I just described the structure of the deals.

And it immediately said, oh, that's like Enron. and like, you know, it brought up these names. So I don't know why they got started with that. It was the Microsoft Open AI, the very first deal, which was one where they gave them credits, you know, to use back. But you shouldn't be able to, you shouldn't be able to boost your income statement by leveraging your balance sheet. And the reason we know about this stuff is the auditors forced them to disclose it.

But when it, when we go over the top and there's a correction, which will happen at some point, everyone's going to point to these deals. So there's, look, I believe AI is real. It's disruptive. It's fun. My behavior is completely changed. I use open AI 30 or 40 times a day. So I do. But there's also business behavior that's speculative. They're both true. And yeah, so both can be true at the same time, but the circular spending is a concern. It's not necessarily illegal. It just smells bad. So can you explain, like in the Microsoft Open AI example, just follow the money trail? Yeah, yeah.

So, and by the way, I, you know, this is an argument to have with, with some super experienced auditor, although they typically won't go on podcast and talk. I've tried to have auditors come talk. Like, people think that auditing is this black or white thing, but there are many gray areas. And I can assure you, not from knowledge, but just once the Microsoft deal, happen the next person their auditor probably said i'm not sure and they go well Microsoft did it like they pressure them to say it's okay but here's here's what microsoft did so in the very first deal with open a i Microsoft invests

x billion dollars let's just say it's 500 million but instead of giving open AI cash they give them credits to use azure and so they in by making this investment they're assuring they're going to have revenue down the line And then OpenAI uses those credits, and Microsoft counts that as revenue. But guess what? There was no cash flow. So it's cash flowless revenue for Microsoft. And that should be questionable.

It's certainly low revenue quality. You're right. I can't prove it's illegal, but it's extremely low revenue quality for a reason. And now it's all over the place. I mean, I guess, NVIDIA committing two big. billion dollars to Corweave when Corweave may not have another source of funds. And it's just, it's not good. It's, it's very non-ideal. Not money laundering. I don't know. That's a pretty strong word, money laundering,

but it is, you're using your balance sheet to prop up your revenue, you know. And, and those, when you do that, the revenue that you get in the future doesn't create positive. positive cash flow for you. If you give credits, it certainly doesn't. And in the case of if Nvidia invest in Corrie, they're giving them the money, but then they're giving it back, you know. And so there's no incremental cash flow. So you have revenue without incremental cash flow.

And if, I mean, that's, I think Buffett would would puke all over that. And there's so much comparison to the dot com bubble. You were at benchmark at the peak. Yeah. How do you see it being similar or different to what we're seeing right now? Well, I think you can point to certain things in both directions. I think the revenues weren't as big in the companies back then. And so a bull would say that there's more real spend here from the end customers, the enterprises, and the consumers.

One thing I would say, most of the circular deals back then involved debt. So they were loaning. Cisco was giving loans to companies to buy their products. but debt comes due fairly quickly. Using equity to do it would allow for it to run for longer because you don't have to pay it back. And so in some ways, it's more speculative to use investments than loans for that reason. You mentioned being on chat UBT 20 times a day. So you're a chat TBT guy, not a guy.

I try and use them all. And there was a time where for current things, perplexity was better. But then Chat TBT caught up a little bit on, you know, doing a search, like recognizing you're looking for something current, doing a search and coming back at you. So that differentiation, I felt, got closed. But I do try and jump around. It seems like all the LLMs, though, are ravenously running toward AGI. What do you think that looks like?

and who do you think wins? I'm probably on the other side of this one. Nicole, I just, I think there's a lot of rhetoric in the U.S. model business, and I think a lot of that rhetoric is purposeful to try and attract regulatory capture. And I'm not as convinced that the sentient AI is right around the corner. So, and there are other people that are smarter than me about this that agree with me. And of course, there are other people on the other side. But I'm not, I'm not personally sitting around worried about it. Oh, so what are you sitting around worried about right now? What scares

you about this market outside of AI? Where do you see the opportunities? Yeah, I mean, I would say one thing that I use the word scare. I think the venture capital industry, you know, from the day I entered to the day I left only got more competitive. And since I've stopped doing new investments, I would say it's gotten even more competitive. And how that manifests itself in the markets is the vast majority of new investments in successful companies are preemptive and proactive, which means the company didn't go out looking to raise money. The investor came to the company and insisted they take their money. And I experienced this in the Uber lift situation. It is, it creates a situation where these companies have burn rates that are much bigger than anyone

before them. And, you know, it's funny when, when Uber was burning one or two billion a year, everybody thought we were crazy. And now Open AI is burning a number that's a multiple of that. And so that, that means you're in these businesses where it's kind of a sport. kings and you got to get comfortable with massive burn rates and you're not allowed as a founder or an investor to say hey let's just sit around and be disciplined we're not going to do that so if you take like the legal AI category you can have chat CBT do this analysis for you but there's like eight companies that have raised over a hundred million dollars so if you're if you're a entrepreneur 14 entering this market and you think like you know you're you're just you're you're

You're just, you're dead, you're dead man walking. Like, you got no shot because there's just going to be so much money spent. I mean, I wish it was a sport or game of Queens, but it's not. Yeah, that's a fair. That's a fair. Pushback on the term. But what I meant was that everyone out there has massive amounts of money. And you're very unlikely to be able to compete if you don't, if you don't have access to a similar amount of money.

Whether you like it or not. I think everybody would love to have more money. But it's dilutive. It's dilutive. It pushes up your valuation. Your valuation really represents discounted future expectations. So now if you raise money at really high prices, you've got to perform higher. Or you run the risk of a down round.

Down rounds in private companies are messy as all get out. I'm not convinced that for a founder, always having more money is a good thing. I think there are a lot of negative consequences. So outside of tech and AI, do you see other opportunities? Ray Dalio, who's been on the show, you know, has his all-weather portfolio that stocks and long-term bonds and intermediate bonds and gold and commodities? I've spent my life as a venture capitalist, not as an LP. So, I mean, I've generally, every time someone asked me for investment advice,

I ask them if they've read a random walk down Wall Street by Burton McAil. If you haven't, like, go read that and then let's have a conversation. But I generally believe unless you have a reason to know that you have an edge in a particular field, you should run a well-balanced portfolio, as Burton would suggest, you know. And so whether or not someone knows someone have an edge is really a question for them, not me. But in general, that's how I feel. If I were to say one thing, the SaaS companies have been beat up pretty bad late recently, very recently. And if you had a correction that was caused by AI that took them down even further,

like that would be, I think, an incredible entry point for some pretty strong positive cash flowing stocks. And I'm also somewhat skeptical of this argument some people have made that because AI can write code, they won't buy software anymore. And I just like, I can't imagine. someone saying like replacing SAP with you know just telling AI oh well we'll just dump our transactions into AI and see it like I really can't see I don't think the auditors would be okay with it it's just too cute it's a step too far so I would I would watch and wait for a bit more of a correction and then I think you can get some real bargains in non-AI stocks B2B Sastro you're talking about the sales forces of the world yeah yeah I mean I think you could

like there are certain companies like Adobe where you may be more susceptible to AI risk. But yeah, I'm talking about, you know, workday, SAP, those kind of things. Yeah, if those get beat up even further, I think you're picking up stuff really cheap. How often do you check your portfolio? Not as much as I should at this point. Not as much as I should at this point. There's another trade I like, which is here I say you should all index and then I'm going to give specific name. I really like this.

battery manufacturer in China. I think China is extremely well positioned to serve solar and battery demand across the world. We don't have any competitive products whatsoever in the U.S. And, you know, Elon recently when he was at Davos, he said we should cover like a small fraction of Utah or Nevada with solar panels and we could serve the whole energy in the U.S. And the person said, well, I want that happen. And he said, because we can't import these Chinese products because of tariffs. And so that's a big hint to me that the rest of the world is going to buy a ton of this stuff.

And this, this company is particularly innovative. So it's an innovative exporter in China. Say the ticker one more time. It's CATL. It trades on the Hong Kong exchange. And just as a reminder, not financial advice to our own research. And I do own it for full disclosure. Thank you for that. It was my next question. You know, we talk about this idea of private markets being risky, but another way that people have exposure to private equity or private company stock is being employed by them. And you talk in your book about how you were offered stock options for the very first time when you're in compacts. One of the most popular episodes we've had on the show is actually how to assess stock options as an employee when you're joining a company and you're being

offered, you know, base salary plus options. What are good things to look for in order to see if it's worth taking a smaller salary in exchange for? Yeah. So, I mean, I could imagine all the different kind of things you guys could have talked about because it's quite complex. Most people that take stock options probably have no idea how many total shares outstanding they are, which is a really important thing to know if you're going to try to attempt to value what you're getting. Unfortunately, there's this practice called 409A where you try and have an opinion of what the company's actually worth. And I think from a, just purely from a financial rigor standpoint, that process is really sadly imperfect. And so that number is not something I think you can

hold much weight on. I mean, it, it's, it's important to know what the strike price you're being offered is compared to what you think the company's worth. And you need to know total shares outstanding to pull that off. I think compared is the interesting word there or just context in general because, you know, I think people see a big number or a bunch of shares and they're like, oh my God, I'm going to be rich. And then end of story. In the episode, we talked for sure about the number of shares outstanding, you know, the founders' goals for liquidation events. I mean, people don't know this, but a company can have as many shares outstanding as it wants. So some founders have made the argument that if they just say,

okay, well, we'll have 400 million shares. Then when their offers to the individual, we'll have more absolute shares. But then on the eve of the IPO, you might do a big 10 to one reverse split to clean it up before you go public. And all of a sudden, the number of shares that person has gets cut in by 10. And that happens frequently.

So, yeah, you really need to know total shares outstanding. Probably the thing that matters most, though, is that the company's really well positioned and going places. And there's, there are multiple reasons, especially for someone early in their career, to jump on a Jim Barksdale, you'd say get in front of a parade. Like, if the company's working really well, two things are going to happen regardless of how many shares you get. If it's growing really fast, the opportunity for advancement is really high.

You know, if you're in a company that doesn't grow in order for you to move up, someone's got to get fired or quit because you're not hiring. And these companies that are expanding aggressively, you know, if you're doubling headcount every year, there's management opportunities coming up all the time or the ability to move up. And then, two, you're going to be around some of the brightest people that you could ever imagine being around if you're at a hot company.

And those networks are going to give you value long into your life. And so when young people, you know, ask me about, and if they don't have some massive passion to like start a company themselves or whatever, you know, I think being a part of something that's really working for a year or two or three or four can be super helpful to an early resume. But maybe beat low expectations, like in your mind, assume it could also be worth nothing. Yeah. Oh, yeah. But I'm making a different point, I guess, which is the long-term impact to what you may be worth from merely improving your network and being exposed to great people might mean more than whatever the options are worth.

You're talking about the intangible. value. Yes, yes, yes. And a lot of our listeners are first-time investors wanting to get into the market. I'd love to just briefly talk about your previous life as an analyst on both buy side and the sell side. Do you decode for us when you hear in the headlines like analysts, so-and-so changes stocks such and such from hold to buy or whatever? Who is making those calls? How seriously should we be taking them? I wouldn't take it very seriously. So the They spent four years of my career as a sell-side analyst. So most of the people that are quoted that way are at sell-side firms.

And what the term sell-side means is they're being paid by the companies that want you to trade stocks and the purpose of what they're doing is to get you to trade stocks. Now, the amount you can make for trading a stock used to be a lot higher before automated trading. And there were some famous things that happened during the dot-com period that caused Elliot Spitzer to build this wall. And the cell site analysts don't make nearly as much as they used to. But they're still the ones that are most quoted. But I find that a lot of what they write is just a regurgitation of what the company

told them to write. They don't have, I'd be much more interested personally. You can't get this information. but if the buy side was making a call, so the people that actually buy or sell the stock, like if you see, you know, even invest in your respect, like a capital group or a fidelity move out of a stock, that's a bigger signal, I think, a more important signal. Unfortunately, the media doesn't track that as much as they could. The filings are a little delayed.

They're like 90 days delayed. They could. I mean, not pay that much attention to it. Yeah, to that point, we had a big fund manager on the show saying that it's, It's a lagging indicator because of that delay. So, you know, but when you go onto a brokerage, you see a lot of reports. And it's kind of fuzzy to see how much weight you should put. Yeah.

Yeah. Even though I came from that world and loved every minute of it, and I would like to think I was differentiated. I just think you asked the question. I'm giving you my opinion. I wouldn't put that much weight on. I appreciate it. Loving every minute of it,

You've also said that you've gotten your dream job in VC. You talk about this realization in your book, getting your dream job, or even liking your job isn't necessarily a given that you have to continue to make it your dream job. How do you do that? Well, for me, there was a, there was, I've discovered something in talking about the book that I didn't know because everybody likes to go through my journey. I didn't realize I was doing it. But my first job was as an engineer. and my second job was as a cell site analyst. And in both cases, about two or three years in, I had a moment where I asked myself the question,

I reflected and asked myself the question, do I want to do this for the next 30 years? And in both cases, I reached a point where the answer was no. And I don't know how many people take the time to ask that question. You get caught up in the moment. You're trying to get ahead. You're working. It's not a question. anybody provocatively tells you to ask yourself.

But there's quite a bit of data that when people get towards the end of their life, their biggest regrets, Daniel Pink talks about this a lot. Their biggest regrets are regrets of inaction. They don't hold, they're not mad at themselves for the mistakes they made. They're mad at themselves for the things they didn't try. Daniel calls them boldness regrets. And so if you want to, you know, life short. I have a phrase in the book, Life is Use It or Lose.

at Proposition. And I think it's awesome to explore. I think it's awesome to, I don't think anyone should be, feel guilty if they're in a job they don't love. But give yourself the opportunity to move on and be flexible about a lot of people change jobs, a lot of people change careers, nothing set in stone. Plenty of people end up working in areas that are different from their major. And so just be fluid, be flexible, and ask yourself this question. you know, do I want to do this for 30 years? And if not, man, life's short. Go do something else. Have fun. I thought it was really interesting in the book that you have the study with Wharton that said nearly six and ten people would do things differently if they could start over. They had wished they'd followed their interests, but also a ton of people in the survey said they wish they made more money.

I think there's quite a bit of data through a bunch of different research that money doesn't drive happiness. And one of the things I was careful to do in the book, we have a number of stories. In fact, every other chapter is a story. And I was very careful to pick industries that are the kind of jobs where your parents might tell you not to go into them. Because I think one of the problems we've gotten to is parents with very strong positive intentions push people towards jobs where they can make money. But if you're unhappy, like, I just don't think it's going to matter how much money you have. And one of the things that I hope I uncovered with the stories in the book, if you go into a sector that may not be one that's known for making money, but you thrive and you really love it, the wealth tends to follow. And so I would at this point in time, with all the data from all these surveys, there's another survey in the book you didn't mention.

the Gallup poll survey that only like 23% of people would call themselves engaged at work and like 59% are quiet quitting. Like that's not ideal. Like that's not an ideal way to go through your whole life. Just worry a little bit, Bill, about this, just follow your passion rallying called because I think there has to be a baseline. Unless you're from a privileged position or family, you know, there's no shame in obviously needing money to feed yourself.

your family and sometimes your interests don't lead to even that baseline. So that makes people feel bad that they're optimizing for money. Here's what I would say. I would not, I would not hold out to you the argument that the point of the book is to be a operating manual for every human on the planet for every job. The goal of the book is to help unlock human potential, to give those people who have the little bit of inkling or a little bit of spark or a little bit of fire, the permission to go do what they love. And I think for those people, they're going to have a much more satisfied life if they do it. And I think the money will follow.

And one important corollary and caveat to that is they're going to have to work their butt off, you know. And so all those things have to line. But I do think that if we have more of those types of people in the world, world to better place. I think they're the ones that will dent the universe. They're the ones that will change their fields. They're the ones that you'll be inspired by. And so, yeah, the goal of the book is to create more of those types of people. And certainly, I think a number of people won't qualify for that, for that mission. I mean, for me personally, I made my job, my dream job out of necessity. I started as a poetry major. And so continuing on that passion wasn't going to pay the bills.

But once I got into business news, I sort of found the shaded part of the then diagram of what I love to do. And then the opportunities I had, so I started writing. Like, I incorporated some of what I wanted to do into, you know, the jobs that I had to pay the bills. No doubt. And look, there's a number of you said, which I double click on. First of all, a lot of podcasters are in their dream job. Like they love, they get to talk to interesting people. They love it. And most of them, and you're probably similar, kind of created the job yourself, right? You didn't apply to be a podcaster somewhere, right? This is something you went out and hustled and made happen. We use a phrase in the book, be a candidate of one. And so many of the stories are people that are purposefully

creating the job they want. A good friend of mine is named Mike Mowke. Mike loves reading books about the brain and investing and talking about investing. And he has found a way for 30 years now to get paid to read everything he possibly can and to synthesize it. And his career is very non-traditional. He's, you know, found people to hire him that appreciate that he does that. But he's got to do what he loves, you know, his entire life. And that's the kind of thing I'm talking about.

like helping people to unlock that. The example you used about thinking about where you're good at and what you love, there's a story in the book about this gentleman who lives here in Austin, Texas, that was a seismologist undergrad, did that for a while, became a mortgage broker. He's 40 years old. He's watching a PBS show. And someone has an exercise where they take a blank sheet of paper, draw a line down the middle, put what they're good at on one side, what they love to do on the other, and try and find an intersection.

And that is how Tito's vodka was started, that him doing that simple example with that sheet of paper. Most successful spirit brand in America, he owns 100% of it. And it all started from that exercise. And this gets back to my point about, like, if someone said the time stamp date when Tito started, Tidos, I'm going to start a beverage company in Austin, Texas. They would tell you you're not going to make money doing that. You're going to fail. That's a quixotic thing to go do.

And he's one of the richest people in America today. And I just, I have examples in the book that are more realistic that maybe relate to your major. But like, there's a gentleman who fell in love with the Grand Canyon and started writing about it. And he's published several books now and has a podcast. And like, he has enough listeners. He gets, you know, he's doing fine, you know, and loves what he does.

There's another one that does the same thing for Texas horticulture. And if you can do it in those fields, I think you can do it in almost any field. You do have to love it. I had this argument, a similar argument about whether you should chase your dreams or not with a counselor at one of the top universities in the country and brought up poetry. And I brought up these examples. And she said, yeah, but you'd have to work really hard. And I said, yes.

absolutely you'd have to work really hard yeah look one of the big points we make in the book is that if you can find something you're fascinated by that you're extremely curious about it won't feel like a grind you'll be out there doing continuous learning all the time and that means working hard won't feel like working hard and you'll be successful

And by the way, the flip side of it is an interesting lens to which to evaluate. You send someone into a job they don't love. If they're competing with someone that does love that job, that other person's going to be out there doing continuous learning, doing the networking, the mentorship, connecting with peers. And you're going to fall behind. And because the other person is just going to be more motivated. So that's a dangerous trap. I would argue of just going into a job because you think it's safe.

Well, you mentioned a dream job being podcasting, and you have an excellent, the most excellent podcast voice. But I think you know that. And in October, you did an episode of the BG2 pod that you used to co-host, where you talked about the next phase of your life is all about giving back. You said that this was something you were looking to do not only with the book, but, quote, in the next project after the book. So sounds like you already know what that project is. But can I guess? Yes, I do.

Sure. Anything in politics? It's somewhat related. So, first of all, one of the things allowed me to focus on this book. And people have asked me why I wrote a book about careers. Why didn't I write a book about VCs or investing or tech or any of those things? And once I decided to hang up my boots from venture investing and started thinking, about what I do with my life from here forward. I read this great book by Arthur Books from

strength to strength, which is really targeted writing for people where I am. And I think I did make a decision that finding a way to give back was what I wanted to do. And once that decision was made, this was really the only book I wanted to write. I had done the speech on this topic six years earlier. And so I knew the content was there. But this book, hopefully, has ability to impact a way broader audience than writing a VC book would have. So I'm hopeful for that.

I also, I'm going to turn my attention to a foundation that's associated with the book. So we're going to give out $5,000 grants to people that apply that want to chase their dreams and need a financial boost. So I'll be doing that. But that's not the thing. That's not the thing you were asking about. And the last page in the book talks about the foundation and there's a website. Well, at the end of the book, I appreciate that you say you could have written an Uber book or a memoir, but you didn't.

And you found this really cool niche and sweet spot. And you're putting your money where your mouth is. My intention past the book is to start a policy institute. So there was something that happened in the past five years that I, considered to be a win from a policy perspective. And that is, it relates to nuclear energy. So there were a, there were these huge voices that had decided that nuclear wasn't clean. And you had a bunch of people, you know, arguing to tear down nuclear plants.

And unfortunately, in places like Germany, they started decommissioning plants all over the place. And a number of voices, many of who I respect, like Stephen Pinker and Elon Musk and the Collison brothers, pushed back. And they were willing to go out despite the fact that the political winds were going the other direction and said, this is silly. And Josh Wolf at Lux. Josh used to say, if we had never had a nuclear bomb and we had just discovered nuclear energy, we'd have been like, oh, my God, this solves all the world's problems. And we're sitting here worried about climate change. Anyway, there's also a woman here in Austin, Isabelle, I can't, Bo Miki. I can't pronounce her last name.

But she became like an influencer on this topic. And anyway, it shifted. There was a moment like a year or two ago where everyone kind of woke up and agreed, oops, that was a mistake and flipped back the other way. And now there's a bunch of people that all agree nuclear is really smart. And so I'm going to be looking for opportunities that have that type of thing. I don't want to lobby. I don't want to get in and deal with little bitty state-by-state laws.

But I'd like to find big ideas where some research and some synthesis can lead to better thoughts and decision-making. Topics that interest me include nuclear, the U.S. health care problem. I just want to go tilt at that. I really don't have an answer. I want to go learn for a long, but we got a real problem. U.S.-China relations, the K-12 education system in America, I think, could use an overall. And I just want to figure out what those big top-down type decisions that could be made that could

potentially fix some of these things. Fix it, Bill. Those are the biggest ones. I don't. I mean, it might be a quixotic effort, but it's what I'd like to spend my my brain time on. Quixotic is an excellent word. You've used it twice and I really appreciate it. So it sounds like the dream that you're running down now is policy. Yeah, and by the way, it took me, and who knows, let me get into it and not like it, but it took me a while to come to that conclusion.

A lot of people wanted me to go be an angel investor. A lot of people wanted me to manage my own money. A lot of, you know, there were people pushing me in different directions. But this is the one. And it took a couple years. And Arthur Brooks' book really helped on this also. He has been on the show. And I agree. Oh, great.

But the linkage there is really asking yourself. Not everybody else will bring you happiness. We end all of our episodes, Bill, by asking our guests for a tip they can take straight to the bank. I'm going to steal one from the book that we hinted at. But I fundamentally believe that the most advantage people in any field are those that have this commitment to continuous learning. And I don't think you can fake it. And I don't think you can muscle your way through it because you'll burn out. And Angela Duckworth has come out like 10 years after she wrote grit and said,

I probably should have put more weight on passion than perseverance because we've talked. taught these kids how to grind, but eventually, like, they just burn out, like, if they don't love it. And people like to talk about AI taking jobs. I'd like to make an argument that for those that are curious and are fast learners in their field, they're going to, it's going to be an accelerant. They're going to move faster as a result of AI being out there. But you've got to, you've got to want to learn. It's almost got to be for free.

I've used the phrase, like, it's got to compete with Netflix. Like, do you want to go learn about this more than you want to watch a TV series? And if you can find that place, I think you're going to have an awesome life. Well, the cool thing about learning is that the more you learn, the more you realize there is to learn. And so the cycle continues.