Prof G Markets - David Solomon on AI, Debt, and America’s Future

Episode Date: January 23, 2026

Ed Elson and Scott Galloway are joined by David Solomon, Goldman Sachs’ chairman of the Board of Directors and chief executive officer, to discuss the path ahead for the firm and the broader economy. He also weighs in on deficit spending, the impact of AI on human capital, and whether deglobalization poses a meaningful risk to the economy. Check out our latest Prof G Markets newsletter Follow Prof G Markets on Instagram Follow Ed on Instagram, X and Substack Follow Scott on Instagram Send us your questions or comments by emailing [e-mail] Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Support for the show comes from Fundrise. Investing in companies already in the S&P 500 can sometimes feel like you're being served someone else's leftovers. It's still a great meal, but it's hard not to imagine what the food tasted like when it was fresh out of the oven. But with venture capital by Fundrise, you can finally get in early and take a seat at the table alongside the biggest names in tech investing. Fundrise's mission is to give everyone the access required to invest in the best tech and AI companies before they go public. visit fundrise.com slash profg to check out Fundrise's venture portfolio and start investing in minutes. All investments involve risk, including the potential loss of principle. Past performance is not indicative of future results. This is a paid advertisement.

Support for this show comes from Indeed. If you're looking to hire top tier talent with expertise in your field, Indeed says they can help. Indeed's sponsored jobs gives your job the best chance at standing out and grants you access to quality candidates who can drive the results you need. Spend more time interviewing candidates who check all your boxes. Less stress, less time,

more results. Now with Indeed's sponsored jobs. And listeners of this show will get a $75-sponsored job credit to help get your job the premium status it deserves at Indeed.com slash Fox Business. Just go to Indeed.com slash Fox Business right now and support our show by

saying you heard about Indeed on this podcast. Indeed.com slash Vox business. Terms and conditions apply. Hiring, do it the right way with Indeed. Today's number, $2.9 billion. That's how much you as consumers spent on sushi from grocery stores in 2025, a 7% increase year over year. Ed, what did the sushi chef say to the bee? What? Wasab bee. Listen to me. Markets are bigger than I. What you have here is a structural change the world distribution. Cash is trash. Stocks look pretty attractive.

Something's going to break. Forget about it. I have to go clean. We got fucking David Solomon. I mean, we've got David Solomon coming on. Donned David Solomon. Yeah. I had to go dad joke.

I love the dad jokes, as you well know. That was pretty good. Actually, that might have been one of your best. I hate to say it. That was pretty good. All right. How are you, Ed? I'm doing very well.

I'm excited to hear. how things are going. I know you are somewhere special right now. Why don't you tell everyone where you are? I am in Davos for the first time in 26 years. When I was your age, I got invited here because I was a player. My guess is you got invited in a couple years. And then I kind of pretty much everything in my life went sideways, moved, divorce, my company went out of business, and what do you know, they didn't invite me back. And now, and then all of a sudden I got invited back, and I thought, oh my God, I can't wait to go back and be the triumphant MacArthur, like, hero returning to Davos. And I'm like, I go, what am I doing here? I'm not raising, I'm not raising money. I'm not running for office.

I'm not selling anything. My life has changed so much since I was last year. Yeah, what are you doing? I mean... Why am I here? What does your day look like? I'll get the full rundown on Monday's episode, but just a quick teaser. What does it look like? Well, this is supposedly the biggest year in a while because everyone's shown up. Carney spoke today, Trump spoke today. I ran. to Gavin Newsom or Governor Newsom, everybody's here, quote-un-unquote. And so it's supposed to be the most crowded it's ever been.

What am I doing here? I met the guy who runs BlackRock at another Master of the Universe conference, and he said, I'd really love to host you at Davos, and he's the new chairman. And I got all excited, and I said, great, and they put me on some panels. But mostly I'm just kind of walking around and trying to avoid eye contact for some young person who wants to pitch me on their AI startup. up. Yeah, I'm not doing a whole hell of a lot. And I don't know if you can see this lovely hotel room, but this hotel room can be yours for about 200 euros for 51 weeks to year. And during this week,

it's 2,200 euros a night. So I'm excited to be here. It sounds like you're having a great time. So far, no. So far no. But since I was last here, I've joined the faculty of NYU, lived in San Francisco, Miami, New York, and now London, had two boys, had four companies go out of business, had two get-to-exets. The number one movie in 19-door, the biggest movies in 1999 were the sixth sense, which is awesome. Phantom Menace and Toy Story 2,

and the biggest movies now are Zootopia 2, Avatar Fire and Ice, and Lilo and Stitch, which I think pretty much cements the decline of Western civilization, And back then we were all sort of optimistic. Clinton was president. It was sort of like, wow, I want more. And I can't wait for tomorrow. Like now we're just like, I hope it doesn't get any fucking worse.

Things are different now and things are different. So you said, I'm in Davos. Where are you? Still in New York. Still living it up. It was very good to see you when you were in New York just last week. We had a nice business meeting. Set out our growth objectives for the year.

20% growth is the plan for profitry markets. So please, if you're listening to this, and you were thinking about sending it to a friend or someone you know, you've got to do it because I need to hit those benchmarks if I'm going to get a raise. So just think about that every time you're listening. 20% growth for the year.

That's what we need. Yeah, send it to, if there's five of you, send it to one friend. Does that make sense? I guess so. Anyways. But yeah, I was good to see you. And, yeah, I got nothing else.

Should we get to our interview with the... I'm in a shitty room in the middle of the Alps in this, like, tier two ski-refer. resort trying to fill this hole of emptiness that if I think if I come to Davos again, that somehow then I'll be enough, Ed, then I will be enough. Tomorrow I'm hosting a fascinating panel on why are we so divided? Oh my God. Okay. Meta. Next panel. How many panels are you doing? I'm doing three. I'm like, this is how it works here. They have, they have global leaders who are like, you know, meetings in the back of shitty restaurants, redrawing the maps of the world. They

have CEOs of companies figuring out a way to become trillionaires. And then they have what I would call a small gaggle of intellectual support dogs. And I'm one of those that's supposed to make this whole thing like interesting. So I'm, I'm the intellectual, one of the intellectual support dogs. It's like me, Adam Grant, Jonathan Hyde and like three other academics and some. Yeah, Simon Sinek. Cool of a day. Yeah. And you've got David guys. Yep, David's here. David's here. Got to cut you off.

Here is our conversation with David Solomon, chairman of the board of directors and chief executive officer of Goldman Sachs. David, thank you very much for joining us on Profty Markets. Where does this podcast find you? Thank you for having me. The podcast finds me in Florida for the day. And then on my way to Davos, where I believe Scott is for the next few days. And so I'll be there. I'll be there tomorrow morning.

And certainly should be an interesting week with everything going on in the world. Absolutely. Soon to be potting it up with Scott. We want to bust right into this because we only have you for so much time, so I'm going to get right into our questions. I want to start with your reflections on the past year, 2025. Your company is coming off one of its strongest years in a long time.

Stock rose around 50%, 58 billion in revenue, 17 billion in profit. As you look back on 2025, what do you make of the year? What went right? What went wrong? What surprised you? 2025 was a pretty constructive environment for our business,

and I actually think 2026 is going to be a pretty constructive environment for our business, too. They're obviously in 2025, there was a speed bump, you know, in April with the launch of the tariff of the trade policy, which slowed things down and certainly sapped investor confidence for a period of time. But the macro setup's pretty good. We can certainly spend some time talking about. the macro setup for Goldman Sachs and Goldman Sachs' performance. We've been executing. We did our first investor day back at the beginning of 2020 where we laid out a plan to really grow the firm to really invest in our core business, a global banking and markets. We pointed to four areas

that we thought we really could grow the firm, asset management, wealth management, transaction banking, digital consumer banking, and we pledged to run the firm over time more efficiently. And really for the last five years, we've been executing on that five, six years. we've been executing on that aggressively and making good progress. And you go back to the end of 2019 when we laid out that plan. The firm was about a $36 billion revenue firm. The market cap was about $70 billion. And as you highlight, you know, we're a $60 billion revenue firm. We've grown our revenues kind of 60, 65 percent. We've grown our earnings by over 100 percent. We've really grown the franchise and scaled the franchise in 2025, really saw that all come together.

We made some pivots or changes along the way, but we really have got the firm at a powerful position with two big businesses that are well positioned to win, leaders in their space, growing nicely. And, you know, I feel quite optimistic about the prospects as we look ahead. But 2025 was a year where you could really see the progress very concretely from investments and decisions we've made over the last five, six, seven years. I have here this article from Business Insider that was published in 2023. and the headline reads, RIP Goldman Sachs, and then there's a byline. It says, when I started out at Goldman, it was the most feared film on Wall Street.

Those days are gone. I remember a few years ago, everyone was saying that Goldman Sachs was in trouble. And it is kind of remarkable what's happened in the past one or two years. There's been, at least as an observer, this incredible comeback from the company. I'd love to just get your reflections on what happened in those two years? For those who don't know, like, what were the concerns about Goldman?

And then how did you guys come back from that? How could you explain what's happened in the past capital years? I don't think the firm was ever doing so terribly. You know, the press and the media, you know, can be a powerful tool and a powerful amplifier of a small number of voices. But fundamentally, you know, the firm was a private partnership for 130 years and it went public in 1999. Because the capital markets were globalizing from 1999, you know, through 2007, the firm was growing close to 20 percent on the top line. And it really ran as a public company in that period exactly the same way that it operated as a private partnership for 130 years. The financial crisis changed everything. It created a new regulatory structure, a new operating structure, reset the firm,

it forced the firm to double its capital base. And the firm kind of came out of the financial crisis and really stuck to its knitting and, you know, chugged along through that decade, but really wasn't, you know, operating to grow. And if you look at that decade after the financial crisis, the firm's revenues were pretty steady around $34 billion. The earnings were pretty steady. The capital, the balance sheet were all pretty steady. And so we entered the end of the decade saying we really had to make some difficult changes to really take this enterprise and grow the enterprise. And whenever you change a big enterprise, you know, there's going to be resistance. People hate change. And 2022 was kind of a tough period. You had the Russian invasion of Ukraine,

big markdowns and asset prices. It was a slower year for the firm. The firm did just fine. It made 10 percent on its equity capital in 2022, which is, you know, it's not, you know, it's not a blowout year, but it's not, you know, poor, poor performance. But, you know, I think we had a little bit of internal agitation given the structural changes we were making. And that created a lot of noise in the media. The media gobbled it up and it became very noisy. We stuck to our knitting. We kept our head down. We knew the changes and the investments we were making were right. And really over the last few years, you know, that's panned out correctly. Ultimately, performance and execution matter. But change and growth take time. You can't, you can't do it instantaneously. And I would say that was

kind of a bumpy, noisy period for the firm. But the firm's on really good forward footing. the moment. You're in a bunch of different businesses, all related with different, you know, asset management, sales and trading, investment banking, et cetera. If you had to pick one business that you think is going to outperform the others over the next five years, and you're the sea of a public company. So let me make it more broadly of your sector. Which business do you think is going to outperform the others, realizing you don't have a crystal ball, but which business do you think is poised to show the greatest returns over the next five years? And is there a new business that you think you guys will be in. It'll be big in five years. Yeah, I don't think over the next five years

that will fundamentally be in a big new business. We're going to continue to focus on our core business of investment banking and markets where we're a clear leader. You know, I think in investment banking, the undisputed leader, you know, in markets, you know, one of the clear leaders and the kind of the combination of those two businesses, global banking and markets, I wouldn't take anybody's mix. I prefer our mix to anybody else's mix. I think one of the things it's been surprising, Scott, over the last five years, is that business has grown much better than I think we or the market would have expected it to grow. I think there are things we did where we outperformed and we took share during that period, but the overall business has had

better growth for a very, very large, mature business than I think the market expected. I think the world's set up where that can continue. I think the more interesting thing for us is what we're doing in asset and wealth management. And I think there's very, very strong secular growth in asset and wealth management, particularly around our positioning, which on the wealth side is for the ultra wealthy, you know, obviously as asset prices, you know, continue to appreciate, you think about the generational wealth transfer from the baby boom generation that's going to go on to the younger generation, my kid's generation. There's some powerful dynamics there, and I just think we're very well positioned in that business. So we have a wealth business

that grows, you know, nicely double digits. We have an asset and wealth business. We have an asset and wealth management business collectively where we've said we think we can grow the fee-based durable revenue high single digits, but we're growing better than that right now. And so I really think that we're in a long secular, you know, upswing opportunity in wealth and an asset management. There'll be some bumps maybe along the way, but I just think we're very well positioned when you look at our portfolio there. And the growth dynamics for those businesses are quite attractive for us. So just switching to more macro topics, I'll talk a little bit about AI. I started my career in the two-year analyst program at Morgan Stanley in investment banking. And when I look back on

what I did, I'm pretty confident with AI. I couldn't do the same amount of work that I did in two years in three months, but maybe six months. And you just got to think it's going to have a real impact on human capital and hiring and training in these types of businesses like Goldman Sachs. What do you thought on the intersection of AI and entry-level jobs at a place like Goldman? What are your thoughts around human capital as it relates to AI in these information-intensive businesses? Technology in our business, you know, professional services, financial business, technology has been increasing productivity and allowing people to smart people to do more. for decades and decades. And I, you know, just to be anecdotal about it for a moment, I go back to

when I started. And I first was doing analysis, putting two companies together. I go to the library and get the annual reports. And on green line paper, I'd literally write the balance sheets and income statements down. I'd add them together. I mean, it would take me a week to 10 days to actually put two companies together and look at the combined financial results. And then in 1985, somebody put an IBM 286 desktop computer on my desk and gave me Lotus 1,2, 3 software, and something that took me 10 days could be done in two hours. And so the productivity game was massive. You obviously here have dynamics where some of the work that analysts have been doing

will be automated from this. And we will use, we may have less in the short run of those people, but I think the opportunity is to have more people doing more productive things with clients that can't be done simply by the technology. And so, you know, they'll be this shifting dynamic. You know, if you look back at the firm 25 years ago when I joined and you looked at the productivity when you look at people and revenues, the firm is much more productive today than it was 25 years ago. I bet 10 years from now it'll be much more productive than it is today.

But people, relationships, connectivity, they're still hugely important in this. And the question is, how do we shift the way people work and therefore free up more capacity to touch more clients, build more relationships, broaden the footprint? it's not as black and white as people and people out. So I do think the pace of change is quick. I think you will see some constraining of some of the entry-level jobs in these professional services platforms. It'll be more amplified in certain businesses rather than others.

But I don't think it's going to be as disruptive in terms of the need for really smart people to work collaboratively to serve clients as some of the narrative around it. But we're very focused on it. We're giving our people the tools. an accelerated pace. We're reimagining processes very quickly. And the reason I'm excited about it is not because it takes people out. It frees up people to allow us to invest in other parts of the business that really do scale with people. You know, for example, ultra high net worth wealth really scales with people. And so, you know, at the end of the day, we've been constrained in some of the places we can

invest. We see enormous productivity opportunities and you move people around to different places. The firm today has, you know, 12, 13,000 engineers. If you go back 20 years ago, we had a fraction of that. My guess is we're going to have more leverage for coding and engineering with fewer people, but that will free up capacity to invest in other areas where we still need people to scale some of the work that we need to do. So it's a very interesting time with change, but not as binary and linear as I think a lot of people are talking about it. Well, let me ask a more pointed question. And in 36 months, do you think Goldman will have the same fewer or more employees?

My guess is the growth trajectory of the overall headcount of the firm will flatten for a period of time. So if you want to say 36 months, you know, it'll be a flatter trajectory for the next three years than it's been for any other three-year period, you know, going back, you know, three, six, you know, nine years, it'll be flatter. but if you want to take, you know, five, ten years out, I think we'll have more employees. We'll be right back after the break, and if you're enjoying the show, send it to a friend, and please follow us if you haven't already. Support for the show comes from Fundrise. Investing in companies already in the S&B 500 can sometimes feel like you're being served someone else's leftovers.

It's still a great meal, but it's hard not to imagine what the food tasted like when it was fresh out of the oven. Historically, only venture capital investors were served access to the best companies in the world that hadn't gone public yet. And that meant the rest of the world simply had to sit on their hands and wait for an IPO. Fundrise says they're completely upending that dynamic with its new venture capital product. With just a $10 minimum investment, Fundrise's mission is to give everyone the access required to invest in the best tech and AI companies before they go public. There's nothing wrong with leftovers, but now, if you want, with Fundrise, you can take

a seat at the table alongside the biggest names in tech investing. Visit funrise.com slash ProVG to check out Fundrise's venture portfolio and start investing in minutes. All investments involve risk, including the potential loss of principle. Past performance is not indicative of future results. This is a paid advertisement. Support for the show comes from public. The investing platform for those who take it seriously on public, you can build a multi-asset portfolio of stocks, bonds, and options, and now generated assets, which allow you turn any idea into an investable index with AI. It all starts with your prompt from renewable energy companies with high free cash flow to semiconductor suppliers

growing revenue over 20% a year over year. You can literally type any prompt and put the AI to work. It screens thousands of stocks, builds in one-of-a-kind index, and lets you back-test it against the S&B500. Then you can invest in a few clicks. Generated assets are like ETFs with infinite possibilities,

completely customizable and based on your thesis, not someone else's. Go to public.com slash ProvG and earn an uncapped 1% bonus when you transfer your portfolio. That's public.com slash provok paid for by public investing, Brofurt Services by Open to the Public Investing, Inc.

Member FINRA and SIPC, advisory services by public advisors, LLC, SEC registered advisor, generated assets as an interactive analysis tool output is for informational purposes only and is not an investment recommendation or advice. Complete disclosures available at public.com slash disclosures. Support for the show comes from Ship Station. If your company is scaling fast, order fulfillment can make or break your momentum. But most businesses are stuck juggling between discount

connected apps and tools, making it harder to get what you need to your customers fast. ShipStation says they can help. Their time-saving automations can help you reclaim up to 15 hours a week on order fulfillment. The platform automatically selects the right carrier, finds the best rate, prints labels in bulk, and even sends tracking updates to your customers. According to ShipStation, they compare rates across all major global carriers like USPS, UPS, UPS, and FedEx, including any discounted rates you already have to choose the best shipping option for every order with discounts of up to 90% off.

You can try ShipStation free for 60 days with full access to all features, no credit card neither. Go to Shipstation.com and use Code Markets for 60 days for free. 60 days gives you plenty of time to see exactly how much time and money you're saving on every shipment. That is shipstation.com code markets. Shipstation.com code markets. We're back with Prof G Markets. What are some of the biggest risks that you are looking at heading into this year? What are the kinds of things that keep you up at night? Well, I think the macro setup is very, very constructive.

And I think the things that keep me up or keep me worrying that could kind of set us off what's a pretty constructive environment are exogenous things that we don't see. I mean, they can center around things like geopolitics and, you know, events, you know, in the political realm or the policy realm that really change. confidence in the short term. You know, an example of it last year was Liberation Day and the way the trade policy was rolled out. That's certainly, you know, sap confidence for a period of time.

Cyber is a big risk that we don't talk about a lot, but a big cyber event in some way shape or form can sap confidence. But generally, if you step back, the macro setup is very strong. We have enormous fiscal stimulus. The big bill last year, a bunch of which comes into impact in 26, puts more fiscal stimulus into the economy. We've got big, big capital investment around AI infrastructure. It is also very stimulative for growth in the economy. We've had monetary easing, about 100 basis points in the policy rate in the last year with an expectation of another cut or two in 2026. That's stimulative.

On top of that, we have a more deregulatory agenda, which also is stimulative for capital investment. plus, you know, we have midterm elections coming up with a lot of focus on affordability, which leads to some what I'll call idiosyncratic actions that are also stimulative. So from an economic growth perspective in the United States, it's a pretty constructive environment. Yeah. That doesn't mean that there aren't big, broad policy issues that have to be wrestled with. But the kinds of things that will change that economic growth trajectory or sentiment are really more in the short run exogenous events that we can't anticipate or we don't see.

I mean, you've seen it a little bit this morning after some of the noise over the weekend. You know, the market's opened with a little bit more uncertainty this morning. But, you know, that's not the kind of thing that really derails us. What about the long run? I think from our conversations on this podcast, we agree that in the short run, it looks like it's going to be a pretty good year or at least not a bad year, based on a lot of the reasons you describe. The fiscal stimulus would probably be the biggest example. But, you know, think like two, three, four, five, maybe even ten years out. Those are the kinds of things that don't really hold water over the long term.

I mean, if we're just going to continue spending, as an example, what that does to the nation's balance sheet, it could become a problem, the debt that we're seeing in the U.S. at large. What are some of the long-term concerns that you have? and is that, I guess, a different story from the short term? First of all, I don't think two, three, four years is long term. I think two, three, four years is a very short period of time. Ten years, we're starting to talk about the medium term and, you know, the long term. You know, the next 10, 20, 25 years, we're talking more about the long term. I've said repeatedly in public settings, and I'll say it again, you know, here on your podcast,

I am very concerned about the debt and deficit and our inability on either side of the aisle to control our spending. And I think we've kind of gotten to a point where until we have some sort of a crisis or an event that kind of reframes us, we've really put ourselves on very, very difficult fiscal footing. Now, we have a lot of latitude because of the U.S. economy, the breadth of the U.S. economy, the U.S. dollar, the role of the U.S. dollar in the world, we've got a lot of breath, and we've got headroom around that. But ultimately, there will be a significant price to pay if we either don't get the spending and the debt under control in the medium term, or we don't create an economy that's got a higher growth trajectory than the kind of 2% trend we've had.

And so, you know, it's very, you cannot, given the spending levels and the debt levels, you can't simply cut spending or drive more revenue. You have to have higher growth to make sense of where we are when you start thinking about, you know, 5, 10, 15, 20 years from now based on the trajectory one. We have entitlement programs that don't work structurally. You know, we have more headroom to let them run. But ultimately, you know, there will be a point at which we have to wrestle with that. So those are things with a longer term lens I'm very concerned about.

I think from a policy perspective, the hard things to get at without some sort of, you know, I don't want to be overly dramatic, but some sort of a crisis or speed bump or something that resets the mindset, creates more of a need for, you know, kind of bipartisan approach to correct. And we're just not in that place at the moment. And so, you know, that allows us to continue to put ourselves in a position where ultimately the correct unless we generate higher growth, you know, is more difficult. Now, in the short term, I actually think this year, you know, I'm on the over on the growth forecast.

I do think inflation will be stickier this year than the consensus. but I think we could see, you know, nominal growth that's higher than what the expectation is, given the confluence of kind of stimulative events I talked about. So even if you wound up with, you know, with closer to 3% inflation, you know, you could have, you know, real growth of 3 or over 3% this year because you could have higher nominal growth than where I think the expectation currently is. So I'm one that's in the camp that's a possibility. But unless you create that on a sustained basis where you have higher real growth,

and you control inflation, you know, we're setting ourselves up at some point for some big speed bumps. Were you surprised by the deficit spending in the big, beautiful bill? I mean, given the fact that it seemed that it was a priority for this administration to balance the budget, or at least that was the stated goal at the beginning of last year, I'm just wondering, you know, from your time as an executive, you know, watching all of this unfold, were you surprised by the amount of spending that actually we are signing up for in 26? I'm not surprised on either side of the aisle. Both sides have been poor fiscal stewards.

And it continues because the politics, you know, play well until there's real pressure that forces, you know, a different kind of political discipline. So I'm not surprised. Now, if this administration can marry it with better growth for a period of time, we might wind up in a place with the overall debt to GDP looks better or more attractive. But the long-term trajectory is both sides of the aisle are not showing an ability to show fiscal discipline. And we haven't yet been able to crack the code of higher growth to justify the spending levels

and the debt levels. And so, you know, these are things that we have to wrestle with. A lot of talk about monetary policy. You know, you'd notice that the policy rates down 1% in 2025. but the tenure really didn't move. Stayed kind of stuck over the entire year between 4.1 and 4.2%. You'd notice in 2024,

you know, we saw interest rate cuts, but you actually saw steepening in the curve and long rates moved up a little bit. So, you know, the market is telling you that, you know, proceed with caution. And, you know, I think in the short run, we have a tremendous ability because of the headroom we have,

because of the dollar, to be less concerned about this, but ultimately these are issues we're going to have to wrestle with, in my humble opinion. So speaking of rates, the buzz here in Davos isn't about income inequality or climate change. It's about, or the vibe, I would say, is how fed up different European states or nations are with the U.S. administration. And one of the ideas that seems to be getting a lot of chatter is the idea that they would, in a concerted way, as a union or a coordinated way, dump a bunch of U.S. treasuries. do you think the U.S. is susceptible because of the amount of debt that's held? It's actually only 30. It's 70% domestic, but 30% of $37 trillion is still a lot of money. Do you think the U.S. is vulnerable to a foreign nation coordinating and selling our debt? You know, I think of the margins, Scott, you know, you can see moves around treasuries, but vulnerable is a big word. And vulnerable to me. And, you know, correct me if you're not thinking about it. When you say vulnerable, the fundamental.

structure of the world is that for, you know, lots of people in the world that have, you know, excess reserves, you know, there's not a lot of places they can go. We've obviously seen gold rally, but, you know, vulnerable would mean you have very, very significant moves that change the fundamental structure of the way people think about reserves. And the dollar is still, you know, a reserve currency. I think the chance of that getting offset in the short run because of this political noise, even though I hear the frustration too, and I think we're going to hear a lot of it this week, Scott. I think the chance of the short run of that getting really set off in a significant way is very, very low. But, you know, I think longer term, if we continue to grow the

debt, we are not going to have the same latitude to have everyone around the world finance it. And so ultimately, we ourselves in the United States will have to finance that. You know, to finance that, you have to ask, you know, how does that get attractive where savers and investors that have been very, very tied to the equity markets, think about the fact that the S&P over the last 40 years is compounded by 11 percentish, you know, people have been trained to, that are investors and savers to think about equity markets, you know, not, you know, 10-year treasuries or 30-year treasuries of 4 to 5 percent. You know, at what rate do you start shifting savers and investors from the S&P, you know, to longer treasuries, it's not four or five percent. So that can't create pressure

over time, but I don't think it happens dramatically in the short run. In the short run, it's marginal. So tariffs, threatening to annex, other sovereign nations, it feels as if the current administration isn't afraid to kind of run the risk of de-globalization, so to speak. Do you worry that as a global firm that you risk or the administration risks, antagonizing other nations and other countries who decide to not only have reciprocal tariffs, not only place more punitive measures on our big tech firms, but decide not to work with U.S. service firms, including Goldman. You know, at the end of the day, we compete in a big global world.

You know, I do think of the margin there can be behavioral changes, but the economy is very globally interconnected. You know, over time for resilience, for security, people change supply chains. But those shifts, you know, are five, ten years. the making. Political cycles are shorter and generally, you know, things balance. I hear some noise about some of this stuff, too. I don't see it in the facts at this point in time. We watch it carefully, Scott. But ultimately, the economies are very, very interconnected. It's hard to pull them apart. And I'm not a big believer in de-globalization. I am a big believer that as geopolitics

and policies shift, that there are marginal changes in the way people think about, you know, the economic structure of their nation. I think we're at a moment where more nationalism is being bred. I don't think that's great. But when you step back and talk about big structural changes, they're much harder and they take a long time and they certainly outlive what I'll call shorter political cycles. So the prime minister of our largest trading partner, Canada, has said that they are going to structurally shift away from the U.S. That in some, he feels they screwed up being so dependent and integrated into the U.S. you don't see other some of the world's largest economies, including China, diversifying from the U.S. as a cyclical issue.

I mean, it feels like a structural issue that'll damage us. What do the Goldman chief economists say about this potential structural shift away from trade with the U.S.? There's a lot of noise at the moment around these issues. Some of it's still in the construct of an active negotiation. At the end of the day, the economies are massively intertwined. mind, and while there will be changes at the margin, you know, I don't think our economic teams believe that the long-term structural shifts will be real. But at the end of the day, I think people, when you get through the noise, people will do what's in their economic

interest and there'll be a more balanced result than some of the rhetoric we're hearing right now. But, you know, watch the space, watch what happens. You know, Canada, for example, a huge trading partner, China, huge trading partner. I think China's in a place where things are more de-escalate, for the next 12 months. We'll see what comes out of that. We obviously have a President Trump visit to China, to she visit coming back this way. So there's a roadmap this year to see if there is more progress in that bilateral relationship. We have to watch USMCA and how that progresses. It's easy to talk about the fact that there's a lot of noise, but it's harder to talk about the long-term consequences because to make real changes is more complicated than simply

talking or threatening. The follow-up question would be, what is that line in your your view for where structural change does come about. I think that's something that's been difficult for me to pause out personally, where, you know, we keep pushing up against that line. And, you know, it's, yes, it's just a post that was on social media, but at the same time, it is actually a threat of military action. I guess there's a question as to whether it's serious or whether the threat is real. But I think something that I kind of, I don't know how to think about is what is that line? At what point do we say, oh, no, actually, this is structural, this is long term, and this isn't something that could be reversed based on the election cycle? You know, I think you're asking a

question that's an interesting question, but I don't spend a lot of time trying to figure out where the line is because I don't think any of us, there's not a line, okay? There's, there's, there's enormous nuance and complexity to the economy. There's enormous nuance and complexity to the individual bilateral relationships, and they change and shift based on the lens of what's going on at any moment in time. And so, yes, or norms of the way we see certain things challenged, absolutely. But there's not, I think you're looking for an answer that doesn't necessarily exist. There's not a definitive marker that says, okay, the structural economics of the world

are now going to permanently shift in a different direction. Everything's at the margin. Everything's nuanced. And, you know, at the moment, we're at a particularly noisy moment. And I think, you know, one of the things we try to spend a lot of time doing at the firm is thinking about what's noise and what substantively matters. And I just say, and this doesn't mean I like the noise. A lot of what, you know, we're touching on or talking about is noise more than substance.

But, you know, the markets have to absorb that. people have to absorb that. And I'm not sitting here saying, I have the answers, and I know how it plays out. I just think that it's more nuanced, it's more longer term. And the swings, because elections, you know, we move one way to the other, the swings are probably shorter than what's required to make these long structural changes. What is the same and different about 1999 with e-commerce and 2006 with AI. What do you think, what do you think is it different this time or does this feel awfully frothy and sort of begging for a correction again? I would frame it a little bit differently just to make a point that these things, when you get one of these super cycles, you know,

with tech investment, it can feel frothy and they can run for a long time before ultimately you have a recalibration or a significant pullback. And the analogy I would draw is that Alan Greenspan talked about irrational exuberance in markets, and I believe in the fall of 1996, when the NASDAQ was at 1,300, you're now talking about 1999. The NASDAQ ultimately went to 5200, you know, in March of 2000, and then it retreated 85%, you know, over the next 18 months.

So, you know, what I would say is I don't know if we're in 1999 or or 1996 or, you know, or in 2000. thousand, but when you have these accelerations, you have massive capital formation around forward growth. And by the way, I'm a big ball on the technology, the opportunity, et cetera. At some point, there'll be rebalance and recalibration. I think one of the things I'm watching closely, Scott, is the pace at which enterprises adopt the technology. Because that's obviously where a lot of the economics to support the investment come as enterprises adopt the technology. and I think that it's going to be harder and slower for enterprises to adopt, and the perception

of how quickly that will come, you know, might actually turn out to disappoint a little bit. That could create a recalibration. I'm not suggesting that the recalibration has to look like, you know, the NASDAQ recalibration of 2000 and 2001. You know, and remember also here, a lot of the capital that's getting invested is coming from massive companies that have extraordinary cash flow and earnings. and they might not get reasonable returns on that capital, but that's very, very different

because that's out of their free cash flow. So when you look at the big hyperscalers, and the top four spent $400 billion last year, it would be a shame if they don't get reasonable returns on that, but the market impact on that is different than what we were looking at when you were looking at, you know, the internet expansion. And, you know, all the capital was coming directly

from public markets. So similarities, differences, is, you know, I do think we have a tendency to look ahead with optimism and ultimately that requires recalibrations on valuation. I'm sure, you know, there will be some of that around this, but it's hard to say whether we're in 1996 or, you know, we're 1999. We'll be right back. And for even more markets content, sign up for our newsletter at profgmarkets.com slash subscribe. Support for the show comes from LinkedIn. It's a shame when the best B2B marketing gets wasted on the

audience. Like, imagine running an ad for cataract surgery on Saturday morning cartoons or running a promo for this show on a video about Roblox or something. No offense to our Gen Alpha listeners, but that would be a waste of anyone's ad budget. So, when you want to reach the right professionals, you can use LinkedIn ads. LinkedIn has grown to a network of over one billion professionals and 130 million decision makers according to their data. That's where it stands apart from other ad buys. You can Targeted buyers by job title, industry, company role seniority, skills, company revenue, all suit and stop wasting budget on the wrong audience. That's why LinkedIn ads boast one of the highest B2B return on ad spend of all online ad networks.

Seriously, all of them. Spend $250 on your first campaign on LinkedIn ads and get a free $250 credit for the next one. Just go to LinkedIn.com slash Scott. That's LinkedIn.com slash Scott. Terms and conditions apply. At Medcan, we know that life's greatest moments are built on a foundation of good health, from the big milestones to the quiet winds. That's why our annual health assessment offers a physician-led, full-body checkup that provides

a clear picture of your health today and may uncover early signs of conditions like heart disease and cancer. The healthier you means more moments to cherish. Take control of your well-being and book an assessment today. Medcan. Live well for life. Visit medcan.com slash moments to get started. We're back with ProfG Markets. We're just going to shift us away from AI and the economy. I want to talk about you, David. You're the CEO of a company that employs 46,000 people,

that manages $2 trillion in assets. That is very rare. We don't often interview CEOs like yourself. That's a level of responsibility that none of us have experienced. just at a personal level, what is that like? Does that weigh on you? What is your day-to-day look like? Do you ever wake up and think, you know, how did I get here?

I appreciate the question, and it's certainly fair to say that there are lots of days, you know, where I've woken up and said, how did I get here? I certainly saw myself as a very unlikely candidate to steward this firm. And I think I use the word steward because I think it's important word. The firm's been around for over 155 years. You know, I've been running it, you know, for, I'm a May 8th year. But I'm a steward of a great institution. And my job is to do everything I can with the broad leadership team to leave this organization

stronger than we found it as a leadership team. So the next leaders can steward it, you know, further along. And there aren't a lot of organizations, you know, that make it under one name, you know, for 150, you know, plus years. And so that's a tremendous responsibility. I would say these jobs are not easy. I think anyone that winds up in one of these jobs has certain skills and preparation the day they get the job, but they continue to grow and have more skills and better preparation as they go through the fire and, you know, and make mistakes and, you know, turn left when they should turn right and, you know, jump up when they should sit down. I mean, it's, you know, you're learning every day. And I

certainly feel much better equipped to, you know, to handle some of the responsibilities today than I did eight years ago. But that's, you know, that's true, I think, with anybody that steps into one of these jobs. You try to surround yourself with great people. You try to listen. I'm blessed to have an extraordinary team at Goldman Sachs, an extraordinary leadership team that's been incredibly stable over the course the last five, six years. We worked together to steward the firm. And, you know, we try to be as nimble and as flexible to adapt to what the world throws. at you. I think one of the things I'd also highlight that's changed over the last 10, 15 years, the visibility of these jobs is very different than it was 15, 20 years ago in terms of

the transparency and everything you say, everything you do, you know, the scrutiny. It's a different standard. But I feel very, very lucky to have had this opportunity. I've learned a lot. I feel good about what we're doing. I'm sure there'll be more bumps before I'm done. And the board moves on to who's ever next, but it's an incredible privilege. You know, 47,000 extraordinary people work for Goldman Sachs. We have access to the most interesting people in the world. You learn every day. And it's an incredible organization that I feel fortunate to steward. Something I didn't know before this interview, you actually, and correct me if this is wrong, but I read that you applied to the Goldman Analyst program and you were rejected not once but twice.

This is when you were just starting out on Wall Street. Supposedly one partner described you as, quote, not Goldman Sachs material. You are now CEO of Goldman Sachs. Just looking back, what do you think you got right? How did you end up in this position? I guess I'm sort of restating the question. But what is there that young people can learn about your rise

as someone who was rejected from this company? and now you're running it. I applied the first time when I was graduating from Hamilton College, and I got a very quick letter back, no thank you. But I got a lot of those. I mean, I think I remember I got, you know, back in the early 1980s when you applied for jobs, you wrote formal letters, sent your resume, applied for a job.

You know, you got a rejection letter back. I got a lot of those. I was very fortunate to get a job at the Irving Trust Company in a credit training program in 1984, and that kind of set me down in this path. I was very lucky to be recruited to join Goldman's, Sacks in 1999. I really thought it was an opportunity to work for the best financial firm in the world. I think I've worked very hard over a long period of time, but the real reason that I'm

sitting in the seat is a confluence of things, a big portion of which is just luck and serendipity. I mean, one of the things, you know, it might have heard me say before is, you know, if the leadership of the firm had transitioned at a different time, I wouldn't be running the firm. I mean, one of the things I, you know, I can point to Lloyd Blankfein, I mean, this is well known. You know, Lloyd Blankfein had cancer in 2015, and he stepped back, you know, to deal with his treatments for a period of time. You know, he chose to step back, but to stay at the firm, someone else might have decided, you know what, I have to deal with this. And I'm going to step away. If Lloyd had stepped away in 2015, someone else probably Gary Cohn probably would be

running the firm. It wouldn't be me. And so, you know, the fact. You know, the fact that, you know, that the transition occurred in 2018, I happened to be one of the right people at that moment at that time in the right place. But if it had been 2012, if it had been 2015, by the way, if it had been 2022, I mean, it wouldn't have been me either. So it's, you know, these things are a journey of hard work. There are lots of people at Goldman Sachs that are capable of running the firm. And then it's a confluence of, you know, luck and timing that goes with the hard work that allowed me to wind up in the sea. but I'm very cognizant of the fact that a lot of it is luck in serendipity.

Beyond the professional stuff, what advice would you give to your younger self about being, I won't even say being a good friend, being a better friend, being a better partner, and being a better father? You know, I think the thing you learn as you go through life is that, you know, it's a marathon, not a sprint. It's never a straight line. Lots of things you're going to get knocked down and, you know, bumped around. and at the end of day,

there are certain things that I think are true north. For me, true north has always been first and foremost, my family, my two daughters, you know, true, true north.

Always. It's always been, I can't say that I always got the balance perfectly right, you know, every step of the way, every day, but it's always been true north.

And, you know, after that, my friends, I'm very blessed to have an extraordinary group of friends, many of whom I've been friendly with, you know,

for, you know, 25, 35, 35, 45, 45, 50 years or more. And, you know, keeping those people, you know, in your life, investing in those relationships because life gets busy and you go in different directions. But, you know, keeping the compass pointing to true north, taking a long-term view, understanding that you're going to get knocked down, but you get up, you learn from the experience, you dust yourself off, and, you know, you just do the best you can do.

And life throws a lot of things at you that are out of your control, but be patient, take a long-term view, keep the compass pointed at your loved ones, your family, your friends, and, you know, do the right thing. If you keep that stuff in balance, there'll be ups and downs, but, you know, I think there's lots of joy, you know, that comes out of the kind of the success of a job well done is to do it and to do it well and to have the personal satisfaction for raising a family, for building a career, for having success. And also, So when you fail from learning from the failing and being able to kind of look ahead and take the learnings and do even better and constantly try to self-improve.

Skel's question is really about how you advise yourself, your younger self. I'd be interested to hear your advice for young people right now, given the environment we're in. I think one of the biggest things that young people are probably worried about is AI and the potential for AI to take your job. Yes, we'll probably be working with AI, but it could be disruptive in the short term. I think, you know, young people are also worried about affordability issues, the cost of housing, et cetera. What would be your advice to a young person who's just starting out right now, given the environs and the things that we should be thinking about? You know, on that question, one of the things I just reflect on that I just think is interesting, you know,

when I graduated in 1984, we were worried about a affordability. We were worried about getting jobs. I remember when I graduated a very significant portion of, if I looked at, you know, the people I graduated from school with did not have jobs in the summer after we graduated. You know, we all went out into the world and we figured out how are we going to make a dollar, how are we going to participate? You know, it wasn't, it wasn't so simple that everybody had jobs and, you know, the world was, the world was different, you know, then. and the expectations were, you know, were different. So, you know, when I look at young people today, I mean, a couple of pieces of advice that are simple.

I still think that hard work matters. I still think commitment and sacrifice matters. I still think showing up being present and building connectivity and relationships with people directly matters. I think understanding that nothing comes easy and anything that's worthwhile in life requires hard work, investment, and commitment and sticking with it for a period of time, I think all of that matters. So, you know, my advice is as you come out of school and you're looking at the world,

find a place where you can get engaged, find a place when you can learn, where you can apply skills that you think you're good at, understand they're going to be bumps and it's not going to work perfectly, but stick with it, show up, be present, try to outwork people around you, try to be more committed than people around you,

compete. and compete, you know, to do the best you can, compete to learn, to win. And if you do that and you do it over time, chances are that good things will happen. But these issues that people worry about, we were worrying about them, you know, 40, 50 years ago. I'm not saying they're exactly the same, but it is very natural to come out of school and worry about those things. And you've got to go out and look forward. I'm very optimistic about the world. Sure, there are lots of problems.

but I do think that it is a wonderful time to be alive, and there's lots of exciting stuff that's going to happen in the next, you know, five, 10, 15, 20 years that this generation will play an enormous part of him. David Solomon is the chairman of the board of directors and chief executive officer of Goldman Sachs. Previously, he served as the firm's president, chief operating officer, co-head of the Investment Banking Division

and global head of the financing group. He joined Goldman Sachs as a partner in 1999. David, thank you so much. Really appreciate your time. Yeah, David, I'll see you tomorrow. And just to sign off, when I wrote a piece on WeWork, and I was critical of Goldman, and David reached out and said, let's have breakfast. We had breakfast, and by the end of the breakfast, I transferred all of my assets to Goldman Sachs.

David just reeks of credibility and honesty. Really appreciate your time, David. Thank you both. Appreciate your having me. Ed, what did you think? I think I really like the guy. That's sort of my reaction. Very charming, very likable, all the things you'd want in a CEO.

And, you know, you've got to think that job is just impossible. The thing he said at the end there about publicity and visibility, the fact that everyone is watching your every word. I mean, he comes on this podcast, and he knows that if he says anything that is, you know, slightly off-color or, you know, too-duma or anything that is even remotely hyperbolic, that's just a headline. That's like an article right there. And, you know, I just think that's a crazy position to be in as a human being.

Every time you speak, people have their pen to paper, they're waiting for something that you say, and they know that you're just a walking story. So to be personable and engaging in magnanimous, despite those circumstances. I mean, maybe I'm just being story-eyed because the CEO of Goldman Sachs, but I think it's pretty impressive.

What do you think? Well, first of up, they're all likable. Yeah. You have to be. To get to that point, you have to just create allies along the way. And also, there's no upside for him doing this podcast. I cornered him at a restaurant.

Like all great CEOs, and I'm a client of Goldman, he pretends to like me. So I kind of cornered him and said, you need to come on the pod. and he kind of hummed and hawed and looked for an excuse, and he wasn't that quick on his feet. And he said, sure, I'd love to. I mean, I could just tell.

I was like, oh, fuck. It's our whole meetings start. But it's a true story. When I had breakfast with him, by the end of the breakfast, I'm like, okay, I'm transferring all my assets to Goldman. He's very smart, very likable. And being CEO of Goldman Sachs is a little bit like being president of the United States in the sense that, one, it's a very demanding job. But two, you not only have to be the right person, you have to be the right person. you have to be the right person at the moment.

And he referenced this. So many moons have to line up because I know I was a good friend who was a vice chairman there who was supposed to be the next CEO and didn't get it. I have another friend who was on the CEO track there. Literally, I bet a third of the firm wakes up in the morning and looks in the mirror

and says, hello, Mr. or Mrs. CEO of Goldman Sachs. You have, at Goldman, you have this alchemy, this concentration of the most ambitious, successful people on the planet. and their career has been nothing but an upward trajectory. And then the pyramid gets very crowded at the top, very fast. The thing Goldman does really well, that McKinsey does well, is they clear out a lot of senior people.

They have a compensation schematic where it almost becomes lucrative to leave, and they like that because they want to create enough upward mobility for young talent, such that they don't get stuck and think, oh, you know, the only reason Bob's here is because he's been here 30 years. open, there's very few people that are very senior just because they've been there a long time. They are very good at clearing out kind of the dry wood, if you will. They also have this other interesting, at least, I don't know, I assume they still do. They have a lot of co-heads of things because they want to make sure nobody has that much leverage. They have co-heads of Europe,

or they used to, anyways, used to have co-heads of investment banking. That way, when Lisa walks in and says, you're fucked without me, they're like, no, Lisa, Bob's all. also the co-head of Europe, and we're going to be just fine. But it's an incredible firm with an incredible culture. And to kind of be the CEO there, you're just, you're in, I would imagine his inbox is never empty. It's, you know, Jamie Diamond, I don't know who the CEO Morgan Stanley is right now. Ted Peck, right? Yeah, and then a very impressive woman run city. Jane Fraser, yeah. You would find, well, you could have any of them on, they're all super impressive and all super likable. That's just, that's just, you know, kind of like I said.

Kind of like this. I got a question for you. Yeah. Would you want to be the CEO of Goldman Sachs? Not in a millionaires. Really? Yeah. I'd like the money.

I'll take that. Here's the thing about running a services company. I've run much smaller services companies. And once we have someone who's a CFO or someone in HR, I make someone else the CEO. The services companies, Goldman's in the business. But Goldman's a services company. They're outstanding companies to work. to manage and lead, except for two things.

The employees and the clients. Other than that, they're outstanding places to lead. This episode was produced by Claire Miller and Alison Weiss and engineered by Benjamin Spencer. Our research team is Dan Shlon, Isabella Kinsel, Chris Nodonohue, and Mia Silverio. Drew Burrows is our technical director and Catherine Dillon is our executive producer. Thank you for listening to Prof G Markets from ProfG Media. If you liked what you heard, give us a follow and join us for a fresh take-on markets on Monday.