Prof G Markets - Is Amazon Losing Its Edge? What the AWS Outage Means for the Cloud Wars

Episode Date: October 21, 2025

Ed Elson speaks with Mark Mahaney, head of internet research at Evercore ISI, about what the AWS outage reveals about Amazon’s role in the cloud space and what’s next for the stock. Then Ed is joined by Maurice Obstfeld, senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, to check in on the economic impact of tariffs since Liberation Day.  Check out our latest Prof G Markets newsletter Order "The Algebra of Wealth" out now Subscribe to No Mercy / No Malice Follow Prof G Markets on Instagram Follow Ed on Instagram and X Follow Scott on Instagram Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

When you're with Amex Platinum, you get access to exclusive dining experiences and an annual travel credit. So the best tapas in town might be in a new town altogether. That's the powerful backing of Amex. Terms and conditions apply. Learn more at Amex.ca. support for the show comes from H-Refs. AI is changing how people search from chatGPT to Google's AI overviews.

With H-Ref's brand radar, you can see exactly how your brand shows up across AI, search, and the web, and how it stacks up against competitors. Track brand mentions, monitor reputation, and uncover AI gaps so you know where to act before anyone else. It's the platform powered by 150 million prompts and 15 plus years of data. Stay visible as discovery moves to AI. Learn more at H-Refs.com. This episode is brought to you by Peloton. A new era of fitness is here.

Introducing the new Peloton Cross Training Tread Plus, powered by Peloton IQ, built for breakthroughs with personalized workout plans, real-time insights, and endless ways to move. Lift with confidence, while Peloton IQ counts reps, corrects form, and tracks your progress. Let yourself run, lift, flow, and go. Explore the new Peloton Cross-Training Treadplus at OnePeloton.C.A. Today's number, 100,000. That's how many New Yorkers showed up on Saturday to the No King's protest about which many had warned of Antifa-led violence.

Today's other number is zero. That's how many people were arrested for being violent. Money markets matter. If money is bad. evil, then that building is held. The show goes up. Welcome to Property Markets. I'm Ed Elson. It is October 21st. Let's check in on yesterday's Market Vitals.

The major indices all climbed more than 1% with the S&P logging its best two-day gain since June. Apple rallied 4% to its first record of the year following a strong iPhone 17 sales report. Meanwhile, treasury yields declined and finally gold. hit its 49th record close of the year. Okay, what else is happening? Amazon Web Services, the backbone of the Internet, suffered a major outage that took hundreds of services offline across the globe. The disruption logged more than 6.5 million outage incidents,

and over 8 million user reports within hours, what looked like a routine technical issue, quickly became a worldwide event. More than 1,000 company websites went dark. from Hulu to McDonald's to Snapchat to WhatsApp. Even banks like Barclays and Lloyds couldn't connect to their own systems. Even the platform that we use to record this podcast was affected. So it was a red flag for Amazon, but also a red flag for the Internet at large,

which has revealed itself as extremely reliant on AWS. AWS now accounts for one-third of the global cloud market. It alone generates more than $107 billion a year, As a reminder, what actually is AWS, it is essentially the infrastructure for everything we do on the internet. It's how companies host apps and process payments and store their data. So when AWS stops, it's similar to the power going out. Everything stops. And that is exactly what we saw yesterday morning.

One small era in one region, in this case, Virginia, which cascaded through millions of systems around the globe. So, to help us make sense of this outage and what it tells us about Amazon and its place in our global economy, we are speaking with Mark Mahaney, head of internet research at Evercore. Mark, great to see you again. Good to see you, Ed. So this AWS outage that is kind of affecting all of us, certainly affecting us up here at Prof.G, let's just start with your initial reactions. Any top-line thoughts when this happened yesterday?

Well, one, yes, it is impacting all of us. This show had to switch formats, I guess, and then my collegiate son called me to tell me that he wasn't able to finish an exam this morning or something because it... God forbid. Yes. So it really has impacted so many things. I think we were having, and here at Evercore, we were having problems getting our research notes out. So, yes, it's had a dramatic impact. I guess what it tells you is just how a crucial AWS is to the internet. So I guess, I guess that's one take. And then secondly, this is a pretty big black eye for AWS. Now, they've had outages before. It was about a year and a half ago, almost a year and a half ago in June of 24. I think they had a seven-hour blackout. So they've had these problems before. I'm not sure

actually whether this was a mistake execution error on their port or whether they were something malicious that went on. I think it's more the first than the latter, but we won't know. We don't know and probably won't know for a little bit. So yeah, it's in a time when, AWS, the backdrop on all this is that AWS is a very significant percentage of the value for Amazon. Amazon is a stock, is underperformed for some time because of the belief that AWS has been slow to embrace AI, that they've been a shared donor to companies like Azure and maybe Google Cloud and maybe Oracle. This doesn't help. This doesn't help Amazon and it doesn't help the narrative on the stock. But for now, it looks like investors are willing to shrug it off. I hope it doesn't

speak about broader issues in Amazon, though. Yeah, it was quite interesting to see the stock's reaction because, you know, we've seen pretty significant stock declines on kind of small news for Amazon this year. And then on this news, you'd think it would be pretty negative. And then the stock goes up, not dramatically. But I wonder if perhaps investors are maybe realizing how important this is. Maybe this brought to light how much everyone needs AWS, just want to get your reactions to perhaps that view.

You may be right, Ed. I'll take a different point of view. I just think it's that the company has had out. AWS has had outages before and they've been able to come back. And so I think that's the market expectation. But it does seem like this is dragging on. My guess is that if it turns out that this is, you know, a 12, 24 hour partial outage, I would think you'd see a stock reaction tomorrow.

If it's not clearly, I don't know, handled, you know, completed, whatever, or taking care of, you know, sometime this evening or tonight, you know, East Coast time, I would think you would see a bleeding into the stock then. As an internet analyst, is this the kind of thing that is a legitimate, bearish signal for Amazon? Is this the kind of thing where you see this and you think actually, you know, cloud, one of the most important sectors of the stock market at large at this point, is this the kind of thing where you think maybe we need to diversify, maybe we need to look at other cloud providers? What does this mean for Amazon long term?

Well, it'll depend on the duration of the outage and the partial outage. But, you know, the extent that this, you know, continues, it'll cast real, I mean, AWS has been, didn't invent actually the cloud industry. I think that was actually Google. But, you know, for all intents and purposes, they have been the cloud poster child for, you know, good solid 15 years now. Maybe it's faded a little bit in the last two years. And, you know, to the extent that something like this, you know, happens, it just raises just more questions about the durability of AWS's leadership, not about the durability of cloud demand, storage and compute, but about the durability of AWS's leadership. Yeah, just look at the valuation. It's quite striking.

It's kind of one of the big laggards in the Mag 7, training it 17 times EBITDA. You got MET at 19, Apple at 27. And it seems that there is kind of sluggish sentiment, perhaps you could call it, around Amazon right now. Just wondering if you have any thoughts on why that is, perhaps aside from the outage, why is Wall Street not so excited about Amazon when you compare it to the other Mag 7 stocks?

I think the single biggest reason has to do with AWS and the AI narrative. I think the single biggest factor behind not all tech stocks, but a large number of them is whether they are perceived correctly or incorrectly to be AI winners or AI losers. And it's very hard not to look at the AWS results of the last two years, dramatically slower growth than what Azure's been able to put together, Google Cloud's been able to do, and maybe even Oracle.

It's very hard to look at that in a time when clearly AI cloud demands have our growing triple digits year over year. Very hard to look at that and not think that Amazon kind of missed a little bit this transition. They were a little late, slow in terms of their product development. It doesn't mean they can't catch up, but it's hard to avoid that there. And I think that's been the single biggest overhang on the stock. Look, it's not the retail business. That's been growing kind of solid, you know, 10%. It's growing faster than online retail so they continue to take share. It's not profitability in the retail segment. That's been gaping up the last two years.

The ads business has been doing well for Amazon. It's up with that margin. So it's none of those factors. It's really been the big drag factor has been AWS. And AWS and Amazon need to prove that they can grow at least in line with the market again. And until they do that, I think this overhang is going to remain. You often talk about, I believe the term is dislocated high-quality companies. Did I get that right?

Yes, you did. Do you think that Amazon could be a contender? I mean, it's a high-quality company for many of the reasons that we've discussed. Perhaps it is dislocated because of the AI narrative. Do you think that that could fit in the category or no? Yeah, I think so. I mean, we're also in a point where, you know, I do hunt for these DHQs. Sorry, you have to come up with an acronym. So dislocated high quality. You've got to do it. And, you know, at the beginning of the year, I thought that was Uber. Great. That worked out. Then four or five months ago, that was our top pick. And then we made Google our top pick. All this is useless to you now because those are all picks in the past. But now what do we do? And we made Amazon our number one pick on the belief that it's not fully dislocated. But look, it's certainly underperformed.

Weakest performer. It's flat on the year, down slightly on a year in which the S&P 500 is up solid, you know, mid-high teens. So, yeah, it's been, it's somewhat dislocated. It's not trading at a trough multiple, but it's actually pretty close to one. So I put all that together. Yeah, I haven't been as aggressive as. calling it DHQ. I mean, I thought Google when it was trading it 15 times earnings. I thought that was clearly DHQ. I wouldn't quite say that about Amazon, but it comes as close as any

other stock I look at now to being a DHQ. So yeah, and what they need to do, the market may well be right. The market's view is that AI is causing Amazon to lose share in this cloud segment. And also, AI is leading, leading companies to spend differently than they were before. or startups not leaning in, starting off with AWS and cloud storage and compute, but leading in with LLM tools. Like, it may be that there's just a shift in enterprise spend away from AWS's core competency. All of that feeds into this AI loss narrative. And the only way that Amazon is going to prove or disprove this is by showing, you know,

material acceleration in the back half of the year. And probably, you know, to me, the number on Wall Street is 20%. If AWS can show that they're exiting this year, 2025, with 20% year-over-year growth, I think that narrative will change rapidly, just like it did with Google on a very different setup about four months ago. All right. Mark Mahaney, head of internet research at Avercore. We really appreciate your time. Thanks, Mark. Thank you, Ed.

After the break, an update on tariffs six months in. If you're enjoying the show, give Profitue Markets a follow. Support for the show comes from Brex. These days, every business leader is under pressure to save money, but you can't crush the competition just by cutting costs. To win, you need to spend smarter and move faster. You need Brex. Brex is the intelligent finance platform that breaks the trade-off

between control and speed with smart corporate cards, high-yield banking, and AI-powered expense management. Join the 30,000 companies that spend smarter and move faster with Brex. Learn more at brex.com slash grow. Your business doesn't move in a straight line. Some days bring growth, others bring challenges. But what if you or a partner needs to step away? When the unexpected happens,

count on Canada Life's flexible life and health insurance to help your business keep working, even when you can't. Don't let life's challenges stand in the way of your success. Protect what you've built today. Visit canadalif.com slash business protection To learn more. Canada Life. Insurance, investments, advice. Ever gone on vacation outside the country and felt like the food was just better? When I was in Japan recently, the produce and meat were amazing and even a minor skin issue that I usually have cleared out by the end of the two weeks.

What's up with what we eat here? Tomatoes are renowned for looking delicious, but not tasting delicious. Is some food actually better in other countries? And what are they doing differently? A law passed in 1993 that said, if you're buying bread in a boulangerie, it must be made with four ingredients, essentially. Find out more this week on Explain It to Me. New episodes every Sunday, wherever you get your podcasts. We're back with Prof.G. It's been more than six months since tariffs were announced on Liberation Day, and since then,

we've seen tariffs imposed on many U.S. allies, 35% on Canada, 50% on Brazil and India. Just 10 days ago, Trump threatened a 100% tariff on all products from China, marking a dramatic escalation in U.S.-China trade tensions. And last week, the latest round of tariffs targeting furniture, kitchen cabinets, and lumber took effect, which economists believe could raise homebuilding costs for many Americans. Markets are watching closely. Just yesterday, major indices climbed on signs that U.S.-China tensions may be easing. Either way, we thought that this would be a good time for a quick tariff update.

What impact have these tariffs had so far, who is really absorbing the cost and what is really going on? So here to explain that, we are speaking with Maurice Obsfeld, professor of economics Emeritus at Berkeley and senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. He is also former chief economist at the IMF. Maurice, thank you for joining us on ProfG Markets. Thank you, Red. Happy to be here.

So we are about six months into the tariffs. So we were thinking this is probably a good moment to get the update. What is the update on the tariffs? What have we learned so far? What have been the impacts? Give us your read. The administration's goals of these tariffs were, first of all, to reduce the trade deficit. Secondly, to bring back manufacturing jobs.

Thirdly, and a more recent goal was to raise revenue and help finance the tax cuts in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Critics of these predicted that they would be negative for employment and growth would raise inflation and would not fully accomplish the administration's goals. My assessment so far would be a mixed bag. There are a lot of other things going on in the economy that obscure the pure effects of tariffs alone. But on the whole, I would argue there's very little evidence that the goals are being met and some evidence of harm to the economy that is probably likely to grow. Just taking those examples that you gave there, impact on manufacturing and job growth, we've seen that, impact on prices, we've seen that. In what sense is it a mixed bag? I mean,

I was almost thinking you were going to say it's had been exactly what the critics thought, but in what sense are we seeing a mixed bag, how is it sort of perhaps been? beneficial, or at least in line with what Trump wanted? I don't think it's been beneficial at all. I think it's a mixed bag in terms of, you know, obvious evidence of the worst outcomes that economists predicted. I think, you know, all the costs are there and will become more evident over time. But, you know, other factors in the economy have obscured what's going on. I don't think that they can hide the damage for long.

So, for example, you know, we're basically in the midst of an AI boom, which is lifting investment, lifting stock market prices. You know, we're also benefiting from some legislation that was passed in the Biden administration that is operating with the lag, the Chips Act, the infrastructure bill, for example. So these things obscure the effects. And so you'll see people saying the economists were all wrong. They didn't know anything. But I think the negative effects are there. And you see it in the anecdotal evidence of businesses that are in real trouble because their input costs are higher. You see it in a labor market where hiring has slowed to a crawl.

you see it in an inflation rate, which, while it hasn't spiked, has remained very stubborn. And if you look under the hood, as the Harvard Business School Prices Project has at, you know, disaggregated data, you see, you do see prices of goods affected directly by tariffs or goods which are similar to those affected by tariffs rising. You know, a lot of the damage is hidden, but I think they'll come out soon. For example, we see a fair amount of revenue from tariffs coming into the government's coffers. You see that foreign exporters to the U.S. have not lowered their dollar prices. Somebody's paying for that.

Partially, it's consumers, but a lot of it is coming out of business profits and business margins, and that's going to lead businesses to raise prices not too far down the road. So, the effects are definitely all bad, to my mind. They're somewhat disguised by, you know, what a very strong economy that Trump inherited, which, you know, had a lot of momentum and is being powered by this AI boom, some call it a bubble, you know, which may or may not pan out.

Yeah, when I look at what sort of the other side or what MAGA would argue, I'm saying the other side, my position has been quite clear. I think these tariffs are a very bad idea. But the other side would say, look at the revenue that we've brought in. August and September,

$63 billion in tariff revenue, i.e., America is raising money because of these tariffs. Is there more to that story? What would be your response to that bragging point, let's call it, and yes, tell us more about the fiscal implications of all of this. Well, suppose instead of raising tariffs, we had simply let the 2017 Tax Cust and Job Act expire as they were set to do, then revenue would be coming in. And, you know, we could be

crowing about that revenue coming in. But we wouldn't be because we might be saying, well, you know, people are paying higher taxes. That hurts their consumption. higher taxes might slow the economy, right? No Republican would be crowing about that revenue. But why are tariffs any different? You know, basically, Americans are paying this money to the government. It's creating inefficiency on the production side. It is allowing companies to be less competitive under the tariff wall.

It's hurting innovation. It's hurting exports. It's hurting the price. of intermediate inputs that firms rely on for investment. And essentially the fiscal policy that the Trump administration pursued was to exchange this revenue for the tax cut revenue. Now, if you compare the two, the income tax cuts mostly benefit the rich tariffs, mostly hurt those who are less well off. It's really not a fair trade in terms of how aggressive

the tax system is. And so the revenue is nothing to brag about, and it's not going to be nearly enough to plug up the deficit hole that the one big, beautiful bill has created. Tariffs are at most going to bring in an extra $200 billion a year. The numbers you cited, tariff revenue, are tariff revenue, including revenue from the tariffs that already existed prior to the Trump administration. So they're not the net increase in tariff revenue. That net increases of, let's say, $2 trillion over a 10-year horizon has to be put against the net decrease of about $4 trillion over a 10-year horizon that the one big beautiful

bill act has caused relative to the general. January 2025 budget baseline. If I had to sort of simplify what you're describing here, all of these economic terms being thrown out tariffs, income tax, but ultimately, I mean, what we're describing is taxes, and what you're saying is the tariffs have been a tax windfall that we are basically extracting from consumers, i.e. poorer Americans, or at least middle-class Americans. And the, the tax cuts that we're going to go into see in the

big beautiful bill, those are tax cuts that we're seeing among the rich, predominantly. So it sounds like what we're describing here is basically a wealth transfer from middle class and lower income Americans to higher income Americans. Is that

correct? That's exactly right. The Trump administration is trying to move back at least partially to the kind of tax system we had in the 19th century, in the early part of the 20th century, which was based largely on tariffs. The income tax had not even been instituted because it was not viewed as being consistent with the Constitution. We had a constitutional amendment that made it possible, and then we moved away from the tariff-based system.

We lowered tariffs. It was very good for general prosperity. It was good for the distribution of income. And the reason we moved away from tariffs toward this income tax system was in part because the tariff-based system was so regressive. It's so penalized the relatively poor. And the income tax was viewed as much fairer and much more equitable. And this strategy that the Trump administration has is just turning the clock back more than 100 years. Final question. Do you think this is going to continue? Would you expect that prices will

continue to rise? I think prices will continue to rise. I think we'll see more inflation down the road. I think we'll also see more business distress down the road, especially small businesses. I fear that these tariffs, because the government is going to become dependent on that revenue, will not be easily removed ever, even if the administration changes parties. Maurice Ovesfeld, really appreciate your time. Thank you for joining us. Pleasure, Ed. Thank you. That was Maurice Obsfeld, Professor of Economics Emeritus at Berkeley and Senior Fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. Now, if you are following the administration on social media, well, you would probably get the idea that tariffs have been a win. And most recently, you would have probably heard about this $198 billion surplus that the U.S. registered in September.

but many people are talking about it. It's a $118 billion increase from September of last year. And according to many officials, it is because of the tariffs, which sounds pretty good. As usual, however, we are missing some context, some important context, which tells us a very different story from the one we're being told. And that is $88 billion of that $198 billion. That was actually counted from August because the first of September fell on a weekend. So it was really an accounting blip. And at the same time,

130 billion of that 198 billion was also a one-off savings number from this restructuring of our student loan portfolio, i.e. another accounting blip. So if you actually account for those two distortions, well, this month's surplus, which everyone keeps talking about, it would actually amount to a deficit of $20 billion. So not really a win. Now, how Having said that, we shouldn't just write off the tariffs and the revenue that the tariffs are generating. The tariffs have raised revenues, roughly $118 billion in fiscal year 2025, which again, some would say is actually a good thing. But I will once again remind you, as we just discussed, from whom those tariff revenues are actually being raised. And it's you.

It's the consumer. because as we've said many times on the show, tariffs aren't really a tax on foreign nations, they are actually a tax on Americans because it's the importer that pays the tariff, i.e. the American company, and the American company can either cover the costs fully themselves or they can pass the costs onto the consumer.

And indeed, the data is telling us, just as we predicted, the costs are being passed onto the consumer, at least in part, According to Goldman Sachs, the American consumer is shouldering roughly 60% of the tariff burden right now, which is why prices are going up. We saw the previous CPI report where inflation rose to 2.9% up from 2.4% before the tariffs went into effect. Which items rose the most in price? Of course, the tariff sensitive items, toys, TVs, coffee up 10% in August. In fact, without the tariffs, the most recent inflation reading in August would have been about a half a percent lower.

We're also seeing it play out in retail. Walmart has outwardly acknowledged they have raised their prices because of tariffs. Procter and Gamble, they have also acknowledged they have raised their prices because of tariffs. Amazon, they actually haven't outwardly acknowledged it, but indeed they are raising their prices anyway. Target is raising their prices. Home Depot is raising their prices. Everyone is raising their prices. And there is a very obvious thread that runs through all of these stories.

And obviously it is tariffs. Tariffs are raising prices. We predicted this back in the spring when it was a lot less popular to say it. It takes 90 to 180 days for a U.S. retailer to place an inventory order, get it shipped, get it fulfilled, place it on a shelf, price it, and then sell it. which means if you implement tariffs in April, you're not going to see these price increases in the same month. You're not even going to see the price increase in the next month. It's going to happen three to six months later, which means that realistically, inflation's going to come, but it's going to come sometime in the fall, maybe just before Christmas. And you can lock that prediction in

from me right now. And here we are. It is fall. It is two months before Christmas. Indeed, the tariff impact has taken effect. The question now is, whether or not it will continue whether or not it will get worse. And we will begin to see that on Friday. We'll see the Consumer Price Index for September. We'll probably get a better picture of the downstream impacts that these tariffs are having on the consumer. Our prediction, our view at Prof G is quite simple.

We are only getting started. Okay, that's it for today. This episode was produced by Claire Miller, edited by Alison Weiss and engineered by Benoit. Benjamin Spencer. Our research team is Dan Chalan, Isabel Kinsel, Chris Nodonoghue, and Mia Silverio, and our technical director is Drew Burroughs. Thanks for listening to ProfG Markets from Profg Media. If you liked what you heard, give us a follow. I'm Ed Elson. I will see you tomorrow.