Prof G Markets - Inside Nvidia’s $500B AI Financing Loop

Episode Date: August 12, 2026

Ed Elson is joined by Jay Goldberg to break down why Nvidia is partnering with Wall Street on a $500 billion AI financing package. Then, Tim Farrar returns to the show to unpack earnings from AST SpaceMobile and Rocket Lab, and how SpaceX’s IPO impacted the space industry. Finally, Ed shares his thoughts on the fraud allegations against Phoebe Gates. Jay Goldberg is an analyst at Seaport Global Securities. Tim Farrar is the president of TMF Associates. Subscribe to the Prof G Markets Youtube Channel  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 VCX, the public ticker for private tech. The U.S. stock market started history's greatest wave of wealth creation, from factory workers in Detroit to farmers in Omaha. Anyone can own a piece of the great American companies. But today, our most innovative companies are staying private longer, which means everyday Americans are missing out. Until now. Introducing VCX, a public ticker for private tech,

now available wherever you buy stocks. Visit getvcx.com for more info. That's getvcx.com. carefully consider the investment material before investing, including objectives, risks, charges, and expenses, this and other information can be found in the fund's prospectus at getvcx.com. This is a paid sponsorship. Support for the show comes from Alumni Ventures. Your financial advisor may be perfectly happy keeping you in public index funds and spending the afternoon golfing, hoping you don't call. But public markets are not the whole market anymore. Alumni Ventures has spent over a decade building away for individual accredited investors to assemble their own Blue Chip venture portfolio. backed by professional diligence and co-investment alongside leading VC firms, Time and CB Insights both rank alumni ventures, a top 20 U.S. venture firm. You can sign up for free, see the weekly deal flow, and decide for yourself, or write one check into the Alumni Ventures Foundation Fund for a diversified portfolio of about 25 private venture deals.

Go to A.V.V.V.c. slash prof. G. Not an offer to sell securities. Venture capital involves substantial risk, including loss of capital invested. See disclosures and fund offering materials for more. information. Summer vacation has gotten very expensive. Flights, hotels, food, why bother? And so a lot of people, I think, just this summer, kind of looking around and saying, like, well, I want to go on vacation, but also, is this going to be a really expensive disaster? This week, On Explain It to Me, how to make the most of that precious PTO. New episodes, Sundays, wherever you get your podcasts. If money is evil, then that building is hell. The show goes up.

Welcome to Profi Markets. I'm Ed Elson. It is August 12th. Let's check in on yesterday's market vitals. The major indices declined again. After another day without progress in Iran, Brent Crude climbed. The yield on 10-year treasuries inched lower ahead of the next inflation report due this morning. And finally, Apple shares fell more than 1%. on news that its head of Apple pay is retiring. Okay, what else is happening? NVIDIA is joining forces with Wall Street in one of the most ambitious financing efforts ever attempted.

On Monday, NVIDIA announced memorandums of understanding with six major asset managers to secure half a trillion dollars to fund the AI buildout. The firms will lend that capital to NVIDIA's customers helping them build more data centers and buy more chips. BlackRock CEO Larry Fink called the project the beginning of, quote, the next future for financial engineering. And Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang said that AI chips have now become an investable asset class.

However, Nvidia shares fell nearly 4% on the news, which was first reported by the Financial Times. joining us to discuss this half a trillion dollar financing arrangement. We are speaking with Jay Goldberg, analyst at Seaport Global Securities. Jay, thanks for joining us on the show. I've been looking at this $500 billion deal. I can't really tell what the deal actually is. There are a bunch of Wall Street banks and firms involved.

It's a big number. But who's lending money to work? What is the financing package actually looked like? What do we actually know about this? We don't know a lot. There's a lot of unknowns in here. They had a press release out yesterday, and the press release was almost entirely sort of hagiographic quotes

from all the participants about how great they all were. And then Jensen posted on Twitter today gave a little bit more, a little bit of granularity to a couple things, but we don't really know. And I think it's worth pointing out that, In the press release, it actually is very clear that the agreements are not finalized. So they don't know what the details are yet. Yeah.

I mean, the term that jumped out to me was memorandum of understanding. I've heard that before in a deal with Iran that turned out to not be a deal and turned out to be a little bit of a disaster. Is that the right comparison here? I will say that Nvidia had a similar MOU with OpenAI, I don't know, six months ago, eight months ago, eons in AI time, and they were going to invest a lot of money into OpenAI, and that deal, again, was press release before the contract was finalized, and it ended up not happening. Or it radically shifted. It was a very different deal, the one that actually emerged six months afterwards.

So, Nvidia is a company that cares a lot about its image and likes to keep people excited. And so they put out this press release. I'm curious, I don't know why they did it now. That's a little odd. I don't know the timing. It seems, I don't say premature, but there's just a lot of unknowns. What do you make of the stock reaction, the fact that Invidio shows fell nearly 4%. I mean, if the idea was to inspire excitement and confidence, that's not what happened.

What is the stock price telling us? What is Wall Street feeling on this deal? Yeah, I think there is an undercurrent among some investors, not all, but certainly sizable chunk of investors who are worried about circular financing. And this certainly looks like it's a one piece of, so it's a big piece of circular financing going on here because Nvidia is providing money to customers to buy Nvidia parts. I think that makes people uncomfortable. Not, you know, run for the hills, sell all our Nvidia stock, but just like we're starting

to see investors ask more questions about these kinds of deals and where this is all headed. Jensen Huang wrote in the blog post sort of announcing a deal. He addressed that question. He said, quote, is this circular financing? And then he continued on to say, this initiative is designed to address that concern. We are bringing independent, long-term institutional capital into the AI infrastructure market. The demand is real. It comes from frontier AI labs, AI-native startups, enterprises, cloud providers, and countries building AI services, the investors make independent financing decisions. I'm not sure he answers the question. He certainly doesn't say the word no, or the words, it isn't circular financing. To what extent is this circular financing? What is

circular about this, if at all? So I think there's a fine line between, when companies provide financing for the customers, there's a fine line between, in this, enabling demand and creating demand. And Nvidia has been walking that line ever closer for a couple of years now. And I think it's perfectly reasonable to provide some form of working capital loan. You lend your, you know, you give them favorable terms. You let the customer pay six months, nine months. That's a form of financing. Or you loan them a little bit of money. It's common practice in a lot of, you know, CAPX intensive industries. This one, I think, catches everyone's eye because it's so big, right? Half a trillion dollars, like you said. And it's just not entirely clear. If you are coming from the point of view that AI is a bubble and nobody can articulate what the ROI on that investment is or what even the use case is or the business model, you had a guest on earlier this week who was talking about that, if you come from that viewpoint, this looks very much like, invidia's creating demand that might not exist otherwise.

Now, invidia's take is, no, no, we're not creating that demand. We see a mispriced asset class, if you will. The lenders don't know how to lend to this. They're missing the point. They're missing the opportunity. They don't understand it. We will step in and help bridge that gap. I get the logic, but it's such a big number, and there's so many questions around it.

It's hard to see this as something that's not. that Nvidia, giving money to customers so they can buy from Nvidia, left hand, paying the right hand. Is that the biggest risk for the company right now? Like, is that the main problem? And if so, is that why Jensen Huang is specifically calling it out in his blog post? I don't know why he's doing addressing it in that way. I think he's very cognizant of what the street says about him and what the sort of what the zeitgeist on the street is. So I think he wanted to address that. But I do think there is a bigger concern here, which is as complicated as this is, and you want to call it financial engineering or, you know, a whole new asset class, ultimately it's debt, right?

And lenders don't care about fancy technology. They don't care about AI. They care about when they're going to get paid back. And ultimately, who's responsible in the event of non-payment? And so looking through all this, we don't know, but my strong suspicion is that NVIDIA is backstopping, providing some form of guarantee, not for the whole $500 billion, but some portion of it. There's talk in his blog post about a 25% coverage of certain things, sort of paying for the depreciation risk, paying down the whatever the exact mechanism. We don't know, but NVIDIA is providing some form of guarantee ultimately that is giving the lenders, comfort enough that they can lend at a reasonable interest rate, right? Because imagine the counterfactual,

if Nvidia weren't involved in this, what would happen? These deals wouldn't get done, right? Because the interest rates would be too pressed too high. What that also boils down to is some of this is ultimately a debt, a form of debt for Nvidia. And I think debt is very pro-cyclical, right? When times are good, like they are now, everybody wants AI, so much demand. This is. is going to amp that up considerably. The problem is when the cycle turns and the cycle always turns, this kind of thing

will amplify the pain on the downside. Because imagine what happens at some point in the future, when the hypers have run out of balance sheet and don't want to buy any more AI or can't afford to buy any more Nvidia GPUs. AI demand gets saturated.

Just at that moment is when these obligations are going to come due and all the neoclods who have borrowed money from this platform are going to suddenly see unused capacity, and they're going to put that back to Nvidia. But at the same time, Nvidia's own sort of core business,

sales will be declining, or margins will be declining. You know, earnings will trend downwards. And that's going to be, it makes it much more painful on the backside of this. That's the big sort of fear. It is debt, right? That $500 billion,

I assume it's debt. You say, it seems like it's mostly debt. That's what it is, right? It's just $500 billion in debt. Yeah, we don't know that. We don't know. I'm hedging a little bit, but yeah, it's dead.

Like, ultimately, it's a form of debt. The one thing that I just want to get your reaction to as well, he mentioned this idea that chips are an investable asset class. That seems to be kind of the main thrust of this announcement. And he said that on CNBC. He had this roundtable with all of the Wall Street CEOs. I want to play you this clip and say what you've make of it. This is really the first time that technology chips have become an investable asset class.

This is a very big concept. It's a big concept because the computers, these, these systems, are not like our PCs or like our phones. These are revenue generating assets. Now they're productive, they're long lived, they're fungible, they're flexible. You can use it for all kinds of different things. Why is it so important to him to communicate that the chips are an investable asset class and why is that such an essential component of this big announcement? So let me wind back the clock a couple years. There's a history here for Nvidia providing financing for customers. In the early days in 2022 and 2023, Nvidia provided essentially what I was talking about before, easy working capital terms to the first round of neoclods like CoreWeave.

And it was it was so hot back then that CoreWeave could take delivery of systems, earn enough from running those systems for a few months that they could pay back NVIDIA very quickly. Over time, as the Neoclouds and NVIDE's ambitions grew, that wasn't enough. The numbers got too big, and so NVIDA started getting more actively involved. And the key thing they did at that point was they provided backstops, right?

If you can't sell all the compute we're selling you, if you can't use it all, we'll buy some percentage of it. Now, today, InVidi already has, has, as of last quarter, Nvidia had $30 billion of, what are they called, compute service agreements in place. It's not on the books.

It's not on the balance sheet, but it's in the flip notes. What's been happening on the debt side, as these neoclouds, these due cloud service providers are coming up, there are hundreds of them now,

and they've all gone to lenders and said, hey, loan us some money so we can buy some GPUs. And the lenders look at that, and they want collateral, and they have always said that the GPUs are not,

sufficient collateral. And so if you look at most of the really big neocloud financing that have taken place, the debt is ultimately backed not by the GPUs, not the hardware, but by the customers, right? Microsoft signs signs a long-term agreement. They're going to buy this compute. That's the credit guarantee that the lenders want. And even that wasn't enough. And so NVIDIA's had to step in more and more to provide sort of a topper on that commitment. I think a lot of the the borrowers in this market would really, really, really like to have GPUs themselves as collateral, right? Because we're at the point now where the hyperscalers

who have been providing most of the commitment so far are getting much more aggressive in building their own capacity. They don't need to use third parties as much. They're less willing to sign these deals with third-party neoclods. They want to use their, they want to use their balance sheet for their own purposes, for buildings and data centers that they control. And so that sort of source of guarantee is not going away. It's not gone, but it's probably shrinking. And so what's going to provide the guarantee here? What's going to me the collateral? It sure would be nice if the lenders would accept GPUs as collateral. And I think that's the message he's trying to get across. I personally don't think that's going to land with investors. I think

they're still going to want to see some other forms of guarantees. And that's ultimately why NVIDIA is going to take on some form of obligation here. So he's basically saying this is the anchor of the $500 billion in debt that I'm about to go raise. And you guys should all do the same thing because this is something that we can all do, right? That's right. Now, in fairness to them, I will say that one of the big concerns around this market has been depreciation of GPUs. Yes. This has been hotly debated.

Michael Burry's talked about it. You guys have talked about it. Jensen makes a valid point in that older hardware doesn't depreciate quite as quickly as the worst as the bears will say. And Nvidia has actually done a really good job of updating and advancing the capabilities of its older platforms.

So you can get more output, more tokens from a system now than you could a year ago, from the same system, through software and other tweaks. So there is some of that, too. He's trying to get that message across to do. And they've done a good job of that. I want to give them credit for it. But ultimately, it's trying to sell GPUs as collateral. And it's not,

it's tough sell to investors. All right. Jay Goldberg is analyst at Seaport Global Securities. Jay, we really appreciate your time. Thank you. Thank you. After the break, an update on the space industry. And by the way, starting Monday, this show will be taking a summer vacation. Yes, we will be on break for the next two weeks. We will be back on August 31st with a fresh episode. Until then, enjoy your summer. Support for the show comes from Granola. You know the struggle of back-to-back meetings.

You're nodding along, contributing, trying to stay present, where you still find your eyes drifting to the clock and willing it to go faster. Meetings can be a lot, but Granola makes them a whole lot better. Granola is the AI-powered notepad built for the way real people actually meet. Here's how it works. You take rough notes like you normally would and in the background. Grinola securely transcribes the meeting. Then it turns everything into clean, structured, actually useful notes when the meeting ends.

And the best part, Grinola works through your device's audio, which means it integrates seamlessly into the video conferencing tools you already use, no setup, no awkward bots. Now you get to actually listen instead of frantically typing every word and still walk away knowing exactly what was decided. Who's doing what and what comes next. So if meetings are eating your day, granola is a no-brainer. You can try it totally free for three months. Just head to granola.a.a.ai slash markets. That's granola.com. To get your time back,

get three months free at granola.a.ai slash markets. Support for the show comes from Framer. If your team wants a website that looks and feels handcrafted, but is still fast to ship, Framer is built for that. You design on a visual canvas with responsive layouts, hosting, and a CMS built in, so the work is production ready from day one.

Agents work alongside you to draft pages and polish sections, then you review and publish what goes live. Framer is the pro-site builder for creators, teams, and businesses that want a professional site and care enough to get every detail right. Agents solve the gap between AI-generated ideas and production-ready website work. The agent works in the same place where the real site is designed, managed, reviewed, and published. It lands on the canvas, stays editable, and can be published when the team is ready. Agents and Framer work alongside teams to streamline collaboration on the same canvas, build custom code components, create a managed CMS content, optimize SEO settings, and ship everything all in one place.

Learn how you can get more out of your site from a Framer specialist or get started building for free today at Framer.com. slash markets for 30% off a Framer pro annual plan. That's framer.com slash markets for 30% off. Framer.com slash markets, rules and restrictions may apply. Support for the show comes from BCX, the public ticker for private tech. For generations, American companies have moved the world forward through their ingenuity and determination.

And for generations, everyday Americans could be a place. part of that journey through perhaps the greatest innovation of all, the U.S. stock market. It didn't matter whether you were a factory worker in Detroit or a farmer in Omaha. Anyone can own a piece of the great American companies. But now, that's changed. Today, our most innovative companies are staying private rather than going public. The result is that everyday Americans are excluded from investing and getting left further behind while they select few reap all the benefits. Until now.

Introducing VCX, the public ticker for private tech, now available wherever you buy stocks. VcX by Fundrise gives everyone the opportunity to invest in the next generation of innovation, including the companies leading the AI revolution, space exploration, defense tech, and more. Visit getvcx.com for more info. That's getvcx.com. Carefully consider the investment material before investing, including objectives, risk, charges, and expenses. This and other information can be found in the fund's prospectus at getvcx.com. This is a paid sponsorship. We're back with Profi Markets. Two of the biggest space companies in America reported earnings Monday night, and neither one gave investors much to like.

Rocket Lab brought in a record $234 million in revenue, up 62% from last year, but it lost more money than analysts were expecting. AST Space Mobile came in short on revenue, and its losses more than doubled to $231 million. A big chunk of that loss was $126 million write-off from a satellite that Blue Origin had launched into the wrong orbit earlier this year, both stocks fell on those reports. The real story for these two, though, goes back to June, when SpaceX went public and investors sold off the rest of the sector, presumably to buy in.

Rocket Lab dropped 11% on the day of SpaceX's IPO, and AST dropped 16%. Space stocks continue to slide through July, with some of them cratering as much as 40%. Today, SpaceX trades below its IPO price, but that money still hasn't come back to the rest of the space sector. So what is next for the space industry? We are speaking with Tim Farrah, president of TMF Associates. Tim, thanks for joining us on the show.

We got some pretty important earnings reports from two of the other big space companies, ASD Space Mobile and also Rocket Lab. It seems that investors are getting kind of shaky about this sector right now. What do you make of the earnings and what do you make of space post-SpaceX IPA? Well, both Rocket Lab and AST are trying to emulate SpaceX. They're trying to vertically integrate. So Rocket Lab started off building rockets. It moved into satellite systems. Now it's buying Eridium to add the application layer to that service.

So that's the same as SpaceX, which started off with rockets, building satellites, build up Starlink itself. AST started in a different direction. They started building satellites to launch their own constellation. They just raised over a billion dollars a couple of months ago to try and move into the launch business because they're struggling to get launches from third parties. And as you said, they had the problems with Blue Origin

which were amplified when the New Glenn rocket exploded on the pad just after their failed launch, and now they're scrambling for launchers. So, you know, all these companies are trying to put those three things together and build up their companies, but they're suffering from delays. So AST has got this problem trying to find launches to launch its satellites. It's struggled to build as many satellites as it wanted to do as well. And then after that, it has, obviously, to stand up a service and try and compete head-to-head with Soling.

Rocket Lab, you know, they're launching their small rocket, but they, they, got this new bigger neutron rocket coming along, and that's really, really delayed. You know, last year they were saying it was going to launch in 25. Now they're saying we hope 26. A lot of analysts are thinking probably 27. And that's really critical to launch more and bigger satellites and take advantage of this consolidation with erudium. To what extent did the SpaceX IPO change the dynamics of this market? Because, I mean, you had a handful of names. These were some of the hottest stocks last year, the space stock specifically. Then SpaceX comes along. Gigantic company, one of the most valuable companies in the world.

Presumably, that really shakes up the way this market works. How has it affected things in the space industry? Well, I think both Rocket Lab and AST had got very inflated valuations based on their current business. I mean, that's a lot the same as SpaceX. It also has a really high valuation for the size of the business it actually has. So the fall in SpaceX has been mirrored by a fallback in these valuations as well. But I think the difference between the two companies is that Rocket Lab is buying an established business with Iridium. That, you know, should be a fairly solid business. It generates a bunch of cash flow. In a way, you could say maybe it's a bit like aOL back in 2000 buying Time Warner and exchanging its shares from real assets. But it's a good

thing to do if you have a high-flying stock. And AST, on the other hand, has really been trying to do it all itself and now has sort of been stranded by the lack of launches. Are all of them inflated, in your view? Are they all overvalued? I think that's right. I think certainly where those companies have gone up to based on the current revenues and the profitability, I think it's hard to know how they will trade relative to SpaceX, because SpaceX is so dominant in this business now. it's got all this cash and its balance sheet. Yeah, it may spend most of that on AI and stuff like that, but it's competing really heavily,

particularly against AST. We've heard all this news about SpaceX getting into the mobile business, competing with the mobile carriers, building a whole new generation of installing mobile satellites, and that's exactly what AST is trying to do as well. So, you know, Rocket Lab, I think, has a slightly better position. It's trying to avoid the head-to-head competition with SpaceX. So Iridium is very much in the safety services, things like position, navigation and timing, things like aviation and maritime safety, not quite so threatened by SpaceX.

But still, yeah, these things are going to trade. If people are negative about SpaceX, they're going to start to be negative about some of these other companies as well, at least on the valuation perspective. What do you make of the fact that SpaceX has been plowing so much of its money and also just in sort of its time and its energy? into the AI story because I kind of, I look at space and I'm like, this is a hot sector, this is what every investor has gotten so excited about. And then suddenly it seems like SpaceX pivoted away from space. Space is now like a tenth of their business, and now it's all about AI. It's all about being something between a Google hyperscaler and an anthropic or an open AI.

I mean, what does that say about the space industry if we're no longer, the largest space company in the world isn't even a space company. Well, I think the question marks are there about what is the ultimate size of the Starlink business and the launch business as well. So, you know, AI, no one knows how big it is, but we all assume it's going to be many billions, if not trillions of dollars, not least because all the other companies are investing in it as well. Space, you know, it's a more limited market.

Historically, it's been pretty small. Now Elon Musk spent half the weekend on Xer talking about how he was going to take over the internet and convey most internet traffic over Starlink in the future and how it was going to serve lots of robots and every car in the world. That's all a bit crazy. But I think it speaks to the fact that he's got a sort of talk up SpaceX and Starlink as well because he can't just lean everything on AI. What do you make of some of the bull cases that we're hearing as it relates to specific. basically orbital data centers, asteroid mining. I mean, one of the other big projects for SpaceX is civilizations on Mars and civilizations on the moon.

It seems a little nuts. But are those real? Are those businesses that are actually going to materialize in your view? Well, I think they're all far into the future. And I think what Musk threw out there on the earnings call last week with a statement that Star Ship's going to be launching every day. next year, you know, 12 months from now. And that's not going to be filled up with people going asteroid mining or colonizing the moon or any of these sorts of things. Not even going to be

filled it with data centers because they have to go and get their tariffab factory built to make the chips that go on those satellites. They're going to have to get this launch site. They're buying some more land in Louisiana that they're going to have to build a new launch site for all these orbital data center satellites. Those are going to take years. So next year, if Musk is right and they're going to be launching Starship, and, you know, every week or every day even, that's going to have to be filled up with Starlink satellites. And that's why he's so keen to highlight that, you know,

there's this huge market for Starlink. What is the most realistic bullcase in your view for the space industry? Like, what is the prize that might actually come to fruition in the space industry over the next few years? Well, the real question is how competitive space becomes, with terrestrial. To date, Starlink has made a lot of progress. It's got to $10 billion of revenue over $10 billion last year.

But that's just really taking business away from existing satellite companies. It's competing for people who didn't really have much option. Now they're starting to take on the terrestrial telcoats, and that's why we hear all this noise about what T-Mobile and AT&T and Verizon think of all this. data centers are the same sort of thing. They've got to compete with terrestrial data centers as well. So, you know, people say, well, let's put all these data centers in space because we're not going to have all these environmentalists.

Well, you know, maybe, but maybe they might object to launch sites as well. But, you know, that's the real question is how economic are things going to be in space relative to on the ground? And to be honest, I think, you know, people forecast space is going to be much better than on the ground now is, you know, it's hard to believe that space. is going to improve so quickly, but stuff on the ground isn't going to get solved as well. You know, nuclear power stations on the ground, you know, might solve the power problem. You know, there's a lot of land in places like Texas that aren't necessarily going to be so environmentally

sensitive as other states around the country. You know, I'm bullish about what might happen on the ground. And so I think that inevitably means that what we do in space is going to tend to be limited to a small percentage of the overall market. All right. Tim Farrah, president of TMF associates. Tim, appreciate your time. Thank you. Thank you. Startup founder, Phoebe Gates, the daughter of Bill Gates, is being investigated for defrauding her clients with fake revenue numbers. According to Bloomberg, the Stanford grad engaged in something known in the affiliate marketing industry as cookie stuffing, a common form of fraud where you take

credit for sales that you didn't actually drive. And, according to Bloomberg, she knew what she was doing, but she did it anyway. Now, I could understand why a more desperate founder who needed the money might engage in this kind of thing. But it's unclear why you would ever try to defraud your way into financial success if your dad was Bill Gates. So the only explanation that makes any sense, to me at least, is more of a sociological phenomenon that we have discussed before. and that is this idea of the cult of entrepreneurship. And that is, today, unlike any time in history, everyone wants to be a founder. Because, unlike in years previous, when being a founder basically just meant being a business person, today it means being a lot of other things too.

It means being an influencer, a celebrity, a trendsetter, maybe even a podcast host. These are the kinds of sociocultural benefits that are now associated with being a trendsetter, a podcast host. These are the kinds of sociocultural benefits that are now associated with being a founder. And, as evidenced by Phoebe Gates, it's now gotten to a point where it's not even about the money. It's about everything else. This is what happens when a society is trained to believe that its ultimate heroes are the founders of tech companies. Everyone wants to be the next Steve Jobs, the next Jensen Huang, the next Bill Gates. The upside is, it does mean more business formation, but the downside is this. This, from Sam Bankman-Fried to Elizabeth Holmes and now Phoebe Gates,

too many young people have gotten drunk on the Kool-Aid that is founder-worship. And, as with any addictive substance, the ramifications can be devastating. Okay, that's it for today. This episode was produced by Claire Miller and Alison Weiss and engineered by Benjamin Spencer. Our video editor is Brad Williams. Our research team is Dan Chalon, Kristen O'Donoghue, and Mia Silverio, and our social producer is Jake McPherson.

Thank you for listening to Property Markets from Property Media. If you like what you heard, give us a follow. I'm Ed Elson. I'll see you tomorrow.