Prof G Markets - Markets Rebound from China Tariff Threats, OpenAI’s Broadcom Deal & JPM’s America-First Plan

Episode Date: October 14, 2025

Ed Elson is joined by Luke Kawa, Markets Editor at Sherwood News, to discuss how the markets reacted to Trump’s latest tariff threat to China. Then, Ed and Scott break down JP Morgan’s new investments in critical industries. Finally, Ed examines OpenAI’s latest deal with Broadcom and why he doesn’t think we should be taking Sam Altman’s statements seriously.  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

Support for the show comes from Workday. New people to develop, new products to launch, new goals to crush. Workday Go is designed for smaller mid-sized businesses because there's never a dull moment and it can be a lot to keep up with. With HR and Finance on one AI platform, you'll have everything you need to think big, go big and grow big and go live in as little as 30 to 60 business days. Simplify your SMB with Workday Go. Find out what Workday Go can do for you.

Visit Workday.com slash go to learn more. Today's number, 43. That is the percentage of millennials who use PTO to stay in bed and catch up on sleep. The other 57% will they call that working from home? Money markets, Matt. If money is evil, then that building is hell. Welcome to Profit Revenue Markets, I'm Ed Elson. it is October 14th. Let's check in on yesterday's market vitals.

The major indices rallied following Friday sell-off. More on that in a moment. The S&P had its best day since May. The dollar climbed, and finally, gold hit a new high and silver reached its first record since 1980. Okay, what else is happening? Late last week, President Trump rattled markets by saying he was considering a, quote, massive increase in tariffs on Chinese goods. The SP fell more than 2% for the first time in six months, and the NASDAQ saw its steepest drop since April.

Then, over the weekend, Trump softened his tone, saying, quote, the USA wants to help China, not hurt it. And by Monday, Scott Besant said that tensions had, quote, substantially de-escalated, which sent the S&P rebounding. Okay, so lots of tariff confusion, once again, from the president. They were on, they were off, markets were down, then they were up. Let's just look at what actually happened here.

Let's go through the timeline. So on Thursday, China announces these new restrictions on their rare earth metals, which are, of course, one of their biggest levers of influence against the US. We've seen this play out before. China expanded its list of restricted exports. They added five more metals to the seven that they had curbed in April. And this time, they said we're also going to target the equipment that, is used to refine those metals. So in response, President Trump announces this plan of imposing

100% tariffs on all Chinese imports on top of the existing tariffs, and that was going to start on November 1st or even sooner. He also said he was going to move exports of, quote, any and all critical software, and then he threatened to cancel a meeting with President Xi over what he called China's aggressive behavior. So quite negative headlines there. Then China hits back. And Beijing rolls out these new countermeasures against U.S.-linked ships. They also launched this antitrust probe into Qualcomm, and they warn that if Washington doesn't back off, they will take, quote, resolute measures to defend their interest. So markets sell off almost instantly.

As I mentioned, stocks had their worst day since April. Shipmakers took the biggest hit. InVedia down 5%, AMD down 8%. The dollar weakened. Meanwhile, crypto saw its largest liquidation event ever. And then on Sunday, the taco moment occurs. And Trump softens his stance, and he says that the U.S. actually wants to, quote, help China, not hurt it. And that was the moment at which investors exhaled.

And by Monday morning, stocks were opening higher. The Dow climbed 1%. The S&P rose 1.5%. The NASDAQ rebounded 2%. We saw a rally in crypto again, too. The dollar rose. So, again, we saw the tariffs go on. And then we see the tarco reaction.

once again. So here to help us make sense of all of this and the market's reaction to all of this. We are speaking with Luke Kawa. He is the markets editor at Sherwood News. Luke, thank you for joining us on Profji Markets. Oh, my pleasure. Thanks for having me. So we saw the worst day for the stock market since April on Friday. Trump announces these tariffs that we think are going to happen and then he sort of softens that position. We see this rebound on Monday. Just tell us what do you make of what happened in the markets over the past couple of days. Did anything catch your attention? Did anything surprise you? I mean, what's really caught my attention is even zooming out a little bit. I think in the past week

in change, we've had the two biggest fears for the stock market this year resurface in miniature form and both have been completely dismissed. So the first would have been last week when we had the information report come out about Oracle having pretty crummy profit margins on its NVIDIA GPU rental business. That was shrugged off, I think, for, you know, kind of good reasons, just the idea, you know, early in your ramp, you might not be that profitable. And, you know, of course, you get another open AI deal announcement in the interim. That kind of solves all wounds. And then at the same time, you have, you know, another tariff announcement. But as far as we know, tariff announcements are not tariff realities. They aren't always. There's,

Taco. There's Trump always chickens out. There's also tart. Trump always raises tariffs. And the truth kind of lies somewhere in between with a third four-letter acronym F-A-F-O. I'll leave that to be Googled. And so far, we are effing around. And we have not really found out that things have deteriorated to the point where they're really hitting the earnings expectations of the largest publicly traded companies. So where do you think things go from here? As you say, we had tart and then we Taco, and we've seen that movie before. The markets rallied. What are the markets telling us are going to happen here? I mean, first, they were very scared about this. Now apparently investors are not so scared about this. Has there been any actual progress in terms of

China relieving those restrictions on those rare earths? Have they come to some sort of agreement? Is there a reason to believe that, yes, we are in for Taco? What happens going forward here? So I would say there's been nothing concrete beyond the true social posts, which, you know, weren't concrete to begin with when they were negative. And they are not concrete now when they're also offering a more optimistic tone. What I would say in terms of market reaction, like a lot of times I, you know, I love when things move on reasons. I love when things have a very easy story where you can say this is what's happening and why. But I also believe markets are just a collection of individuals making buying and selling decisions. I think it's big. very, very noteworthy that the momentum ETF, which is, you know, holds the stocks that have done the best effectively, it did better, i.e. went down by less on Friday and outperformed again on Monday. I think that's a sign that people are really eager to keep bidding up the things that have been doing well. I would also point to effectively every speculative pocket of the market, except for one stock, kind of got hit pretty badly on Friday. A lot of those have more

them bounce back. For instance, Goldman Sachs has a index of non-profitable tech companies that has completely erased its losses. It's actually up 1.2% since Thursday's close. We have applied materials, which I think would be one of the stocks that would be most negatively impacted by this. A couple weeks ago, they announced that because of expanded export restrictions, that they were going to lose out on 600 million in revenues next year. China's their biggest market. You see, you know, China, U.S. tensions heating up again. This company is also now down like half a percent over the past

two sessions. So it's not really something that's that negative fundamentally. It's not being treated as such. It was treated maybe as a reason to take some profits and some high flyers, created much more negative ripple effects in the crypto space.

I would say those have been really quite interesting. But by and large, what I see is people were very keen to react to this. This tells me that people are a lot more fully invested than they were in May, June, July when it was the most hated rally grinding back to all-time highs. And then that fervor to get back into speculative pockets of the market tells me that, hey, the stock market is the place where we go to bet on the long-term earnings potential of companies, some of which have no earnings to speak of right now, and we do it

overwhelmingly using short-term call options. Call options on Friday hit a record even as the market was going down. There was a lot of activity again today, and a lot of that is focused in speculative names in quantum computing. Oclo, a $25 billion now pre-revenue company that is now worth more than first solar. So I think the appetite to buy

is still very much alive and well, and it takes more than a true social post, whether good or bad, to make that go away. So much in there. I do want to get your reactions to what happened with crypto. As you say, very interesting. we saw one of the largest crypto sell-offs ever.

I think the largest, correct me if I'm wrong, $19 billion in market value erased practically overnight because of tariff news, because of America's relationship with China, which to me seems very surprising. I don't fully see the connection there. Why did we see this sell-off? What was so concerning to crypto investors

following this tariff news? For me, it's less of how the potential relationship with China change, and it's more about how our relationship with leverage has changed in the U.S. and well beyond the U.S. in the crypto space. So what happened was a very, very, let's call it curiously time trade was put on. About half an hour before Trump's post at shortly before five on Friday, so at about 420, a large position was put on on an exchange, a short position of over $1 billion that used over 10 percent leverage, which you can gain by using perpetual futures, which are a lot like futures contracts, except they have

the ability to add a lot more leverage and also a lot of the exchanges that predominantly carry this trading are outside of the U.S. It's seeped into the U.S. more over the past, let's call it three months. Interest is picked up. But that big bet was put on. And when a big leverage bet is put on, when it has a catalyst, when a lot of trading is done using these perpetual futures, I believe 70% of crypto volume this year has been through perpetual futures. That means a 2% move for you at 20 times leverage if you're using that. Well, that's more than you got pretty much. That's pretty much wiping out positions. So what really happened here is to me a story of how our search for asymmetry, it cuts both ways. For me in a past life, asymmetry was,

hey, I might lose 5% to make 10 to 12%. The search for asymmetry in modern times is now a lot more like, hey, I'm willing to risk it all for 2 to 300 to 400% and you see, that's how you see kind of moves have the ability to snowball a lot more because even as Bitcoin and other cryptos, they became a lot less volatile

once institutional adoption came into play. We've now, effectively, through more financial innovation, through different institutions in some cases, introduce the ingredients for volatility to really return and be injected back into the space because people are selling not because they want to, not because they think there's a reason to, but because they have to because of that leverage.

Yes. In other words, any drawdown that we would see in the stock market because of anything that happens in the world, i.e. tariffs, if you see, let's call it a 3, 2, 3, 4% drop in the stock market, because of the amount of leverage in the crypto market, you're naturally going to see, you know, five to ten times that drawdown. Essentially, that is what you're describing. Is that correct? Lusely, I would just, like, generically say the potential for cascades,

the potential for bigger, more volatile moves because of the leverage, it's much more apparent in crypto than it is in stocks proper. Yes. Why is that happening, do you think? We've talked about perpetual futures on this podcast before. As you mentioned, the stat that really blew our mind is the first. fact that these perpetual futures account for nearly 70% of all Bitcoin trading volume. That was the thing that really got us. It's not just crypto at large, which we know is already a little bit of a

casino. It's Bitcoin 2. And so as a result, as you point out, we're seeing these massive swings in the price of Bitcoin, which is supposed to be the hedge or the safe haven. And yet these perpetual futures, 70% of trading volume for Bitcoin in 2025, these perpetual future, these perpetual futures account for that amount of trading volume. Your reactions to perpetual futures, the rise of perpetual futures, the fact that we are seeing so much more leverage in crypto and in trading at large. I just saw Coinbase, they just upped their maximum leverage on perp futures to 50 times, which is just, I mean, out of control. Your reactions to why we're seeing this. Hey, listen, I would say I'm 35 now, 10 years ago. I was a lot more.

reckless and risk embracing of a human being. What we know about Gen Z and the way they trade stocks, it's they like using short-term options. That is something that looks to me a lot like a parlay bet. You need something to go right by a certain point of time and, you know, by a certain amount. So, you know, multiple legs to the bet. Guess what Gen Z also loves betting.

Parlay's. Guess what also the youth also love. Perpetual futures. It, to me, the markets right now are really, really defined by this search for asymmetry and the ability to get rich relatively quick using vehicles that were previously in the domain of more, let's call it, sophisticated investors. That, to me, really is the alpha and the omega of the story. We are living in a world where you're not, if not encouraged, you're very much allowed

to do this through increasingly more mainstream traditional means. on exchanges at popular brokerages. And we've effectively socially allowed this type of activity to happen. So, you know, whether you think it's good, whether you think it's bad, whether you think it's dangerous, this is what people want. This is what regulators are increasingly willing to allow. So this is now the world we live in. And it works really well in a bull market.

And, you know, one thing that's come to my mind is not just my generation, not just millennials, Gen Z has lived in a world where for the S&P 500, since 2013, since we were hitting all-time highs, bouncing back from the financial crisis, besides two incidents, we spent a maximum of six months before hitting all-time highs. So besides 2015, 2016, when China was really falling apart, there was the oil crash, U.S. Industrial Recession, and then generationally high inflation in 2022, less than six months. It takes to make your money back, to be made hold. The appetite, the willingness to buy the dip, the willingness to bet on continued upside in a world where there is no persistent bear market, it's a Pavlovian response.

It's something that becomes natural. And if you become rewarded for doing something over and over, you're going to keep doing more of it. All right. Luke is market editor at Sherwood News. Luke, we really appreciate your time. Thank you. Oh, pleasure being here. After the break, a new investment strategy from J.P. Morgan.

If you're enjoying the show, give Profi markets a follow. Support for the show comes from LinkedIn. One of the hardest parts about moving to a new city is finding your people. You can look far and wide, but it's hard to find the people who just get you. And the same goes for B2B marketers, locating the right people who align with your business and an audience that connects with your product and your mission can make all the difference. But instead of spending hours and hours scavenging social media feeds,

you can just tap LinkedIn ads to reach the right professionals. According to LinkedIn, they have grown to a network of over one billion professionals, making it stand apart from other ad buys. You can target your buyer by job title, industry, company role, seniority skills, and company revenue, giving you all the professionals you need to reach in one place. So you can stop wasting budget on the wrong audience and start targeting the right professionals only on LinkedIn ads. LinkedIn will even give you a $100 credit on your next campaign so you can try it yourself.

Just go to LinkedIn.com slash markets. That's LinkedIn.com slash markets. Terms and conditions apply only on LinkedIn ads. With Amex Platinum, access to exclusive Amex pre-sale tickets can score you a spot trackside. So being a fan for life turns into the trip of a lifetime. That's the powerful backing of Amex. Pre-sale tickets for future events subject to availability and vary by race. Terms and conditions apply.

Learn more at mx.ca.com. Hundreds of Texas National Guard troops have arrived in Illinois and are getting ready to deploy in Chicago. Residents there have been pushing back against ice. They blocked DHS Secretary Kristi Noem from using the bathroom. That's what Governor Pritzker says is cooperation in keeping people sane. Then actually even more bathroom stuff. They don't even let our ICE officers and our air.

Our Border Patrol officers use restrooms and facilities. But it's not all bathroom-related. You're going to use that gun on your people. Shame on you. I hope right now your ancestors are looking at you. And this tension, combined with President Trump's early morning call for the governor of Illinois to be jailed, has raised fears about what is coming next. That's on Today, explained from Vox every weekday.

We're back with Profi Markets. J.P. Morgan is embracing the America First Playbook. The bank plans to invest up to $1.5 trillion over 10 years to fund what it calls critical industries. That includes everything from national security to rare earth minerals, which are, of course, as we discussed, a major interest of Trump's right now. Shares of rare earth mineral companies surged after this announcement. Lithium Americas was up 11%, MP Materials was up 24%, and USA Rare Earth was up 32%. Now, the big question that everyone is asking, what was the motivation for this more than trillion

dollar initiative? Was this a legitimate strategic investment? Or was this another moved by an American corporation to curry favor with the president, as we've seen. Jamie Diamond has come out, and he said, it is the former. He said this is not philanthropy. He said this is 100% commercial. He also said the bank has not spoken with anyone from the administration about this investment. At the same time, many people are pointing out the optics here, and that is, this is the same play we've seen from several other companies who have tried to get in good with the president. We saw Tim Cook, who gave Trump a trophy, and then he announced this multi-billion dollar investment in America, or Jensen Huang going to the MAGA fundraiser and then

doing the same thing, or Zuckerberg praising Trump, and then he invests to, we've seen this before. And so for Jamie Diamond to come out and do almost the exact same thing and then publicly say, no, no, no, don't worry, this isn't what you think it is. Well, it begs the question. Perhaps it is what we think it is. Yes, Jamie Diamond has criticized. Trump, specifically about the tariffs, but perhaps this is a way of retracing his steps and perhaps scoring some political points with this administration. I don't know. I'm not sure.

We're simply asking the question, but perhaps Scott Galloway has a perspective on this. So let's give him a call. Scott, good to see you. Good to see you, and I feel as if we haven't seen each other in a while. It felt like years. I've missed you. Go. You miss your mentor. You miss daddy.

A full three days. You miss daddy. Exactly. That's right. I did. So we want to get your reaction to this investment from J.P. Morgan. They are announcing this one and a half trillion dollar initiative to invest in these critical industries. People are calling it sort of an America first investment. It does seem to align with all of Trump's strategic objectives. There's this emphasis on rare earth minerals and rare earth metals, which, of course, has been a point of contention in these China deals. And there is this question of whether this is really about investing in America, really about investing in getting a return,

or is this more sycophantry, the likes of which we've seen from Zuckerberg and Tim Cook, and maybe Jamie Diamond is doing the same. Your reactions? My initial reaction, quite frankly, when I read the release of the first articles on it, was that Jamie Diamond is running for president. it feels to me like very much a it felt to me like a stump speech you know all this all this language about we need to come together and America first and bipartisanship and ensuring that

America maintains a lead and I know a bunch of people I don't I met Jamie I don't know him but he's got he's got kind of all of the attributes to someone who should run for president and everyone says he doesn't want to But I read that thing and I thought, it sounds like he's running for president. That was my first inclination. My second reaction, Ed, is that these investments, this reads great, and I'm hugely in support of it. But if you look at the really big critical technologies and sectors

that required investment for American competitive advantage, they're traditionally shitty investments, and that's why the government does it. so if you look at the most seminal technologies in history that have created the most shareholder value for the first 20 or 30 years they were terrible investments so gps which gave rise to you know the iPhone in an entire you know the entire mobile industry that was initially a technology developed by the events department such that they could put a tomahawk missile in gulberchav's you know pocket and it didn't economically make sense for a long time the internet that, arguably the technology that's created a massive amount of shareholder value, that was DARPA. That was a post-communications or a post-apocalypse communications network that ultimately, they couldn't figure out what to do with it. And academics started using it, but it made no financial sense for a long time.

Vaccines have not been, have not had a great ROI. So generally speaking, you know, there's sort of America first investing in technologies that are key to American competitiveness. I'm all for it, but typically that's what the government does, because in the short run, those technologies don't show an ROI, and that's why the government makes them, because few other places have the capital and the tax base to make those types of investments, and then hopefully over time, they leak and they spill into the private sector. Or put another way, you know, this a little bit feels to me like go woke, go broke, And that is, if you're focused on American competitiveness,

I'm not sure that's the way to make, get your limited or your investors a return. What are your thoughts? Where do I have this wrong? Well, I think that's probably right. What is interesting, though, is J.B. Morgan has done this kind of thing in the past. In 2020, they had this big investment that was designed for racial equity, $30 billion. In 2021, they had this big $2.5 trillion. initiative for climate and sustainability initiatives. I mean, they have done this before,

and it does raise this question of, is this actually a commercial investment where they're interested in making return, or is this a branding event or a press release where they say, you know, we're going to attach this big dollar number to this press release, and we're going to say this is generally the mission of the company going forward. And perhaps there's a political element to that too. I think that's really where I am starting to land here. This is this is more a branding event than an actual funding event. Yeah, it's sort of a different twist on, I think Larry Fink from Black Rock was constantly talking about sustainability and investing in climate change. Kleiner Perkins made a huge, was very out in front on climate and had a climate fund,

and the returns were abysmal. And it's interesting that you say, they've done this before so maybe you know we look at the returns of those past investments but a 30 billion i think that the number i saw was this one and a half trillion is that right yes so this is you know 50x the size look jp morgan is worth more first off it's an incredibly well-run institution james is a fantastic leader he's built a great bench of really thoughtful smart people and jp morgan is now worth more than the 10 largest european banks combined So big, bold bets, that's the kind of thing that a CEO with his kind of gravitas and job security should be doing. So, you know, hats off to him, thinking big and bold, I generally find the types of things that move the needle in terms of geopolitical advantage are money losers in the beginning.

That's why the government does them. Yes. And that's not to say you can't unleash the power of the government. I mean, we're going to need a lot more energy production, as you pointed out, or Mia pointed out, China will add more solar electricity production in 2025 than we have already existing in the U.S. I mean, they're just making the kinds of staggering investments that should give them a geopolitical advantage. Now, the question is, is the private sector making those or is the government making them? Because the kind of investments you need to establish geopolitical advantage, whether it's soft power, whether it's a strong military,

better national grid. You know, no one can make money. So I like it, more power to them. I hope it works. It feels to me like wrapping themselves on the flag a little bit. And I'd be curious to see more details around what this means. But, you know, good for them. But my first reaction is it felt a little bit performative

and like more of, I think your assessment right, like how much of this is brand building. All right, you heard it here first. This was Jamie Diamond's presidential bid. It's been in disguise. Scott, appreciate your time. That's right, brother. Open AI and Broadcom just unveiled a multi-billion-dollar deal

to develop 10 gigawatts worth of custom AI chips over the next four years. Open AI plans to design its own GPUs, which will power both its own data centers and those run by its partners. The chips co-developed with Broadcom are set to roll out in the second half of next year. Broadcom stock jumps nearly 10% on this news. So, 10 more gigawatts for OpenAI

in yet another deal signed by the world's most ambitious AI company. We covered the math of OpenAI's financial commitments last week when they made this deal with AMD. But just to remind you of that math, Open AI execs have. estimated that one gigawatt of chips is equal to about $35 billion. So by that math, by what people believe the price of one gigawatt actually is, that would make this deal worth an approximate $350 billion or a whopping $88 billion per year.

And this is only one deal. There's also the deals that they have with AMD and Invidia and Corweave and Oracle, which total around $880 billion. So we went over that math last week. We're going to add in this new Broadcom deal we have here. And Open AI's compute commitments are now upwards of $1.2 trillion, which is roughly five times what all of big tech plans to spend on CAPEX this year. It's also more than $90 times larger than the $13 billion in revenue that Open AI is on track to make this year.

So, the numbers are absolutely crazy. We've talked about this before, but if you are listening to Sam Altman's aspirations, if you're living in the Sam Altman bubble, well, then this might track. I mean, he recently told his employees that he intends to build out 250 gigawatts of compute capacity by 20303, which would cost upward of $10 trillion. Now, should we take that statement seriously? Of course not. it is a made-up number, he fabricated it, he pulled it out of thin air, and it makes no financial

sense whatsoever. The more important question, however, is whether or not we should take the Broadcom number seriously. Because while we may not really believe it, the reality is the market does believe it. Broadcom added roughly $150 billion in market value yesterday, not because their revenues grew, not because they cut costs, but because Sam Altman made a very valuable. promise to the company that realistically he cannot keep. And yet, Wall Street doesn't care because they're too excited about Open AI, they're too excited about data centers, they are so excited that they are actually struggling to recognize that the probability of any of this even happening is quite low. And this brings us to a mistake that we made last week, which I

would like to highlight. And that is last week when we were discussing all of these multi-billion dollar open AI deals. We mentioned that Open AI had struck a $10 billion deal with Broadcom. And the reason we thought that was because back in September, Broadcom announced a $10 billion deal with some unidentified compute partner and analysts and journalists looked into it and they widely reported we think it is Open AI. And once that narrative got out that Broadcom was partnering with Open AI, the stock, Broadcom stock that is, popped about 20%. And crucially, Broadcom didn't say anything. They didn't correct anyone. They didn't amend any statements. They simply stayed silent while the stock skyrocketed. And so naturally, we all assumed,

yes, the partner is Open AI. Well, we learned yesterday. It turns out that's not actually true. It turns out they have a different partner. And that is why we're now seeing this separate $350 billion deal with Open AI. And we only learned that yesterday when the Broadcom CEO told us on CNBC. He said Open AI isn't the partner that we talked about in September. Now, that mistake doesn't change much overall.

But it does highlight something very important that is happening in AI right now. And that is a lot of vague statements are being made and a lot of investors are interpreting those vague statements and then they're filling in the blanks. And in many cases, they're filling in the blanks and they turn out to be wrong.

And that's what happened here. They said, oh, we think it's open AI. Turns out it wasn't even open AI. And even we, we who are skeptics of this whole situation, even we were fooled. Now remember, Broadcom went up 20% because of a deal that turned out to be something very different from what people thought it was,

which would make you think, okay, it went up 20%, probably the stock will correct. Indeed, we saw no correction. Why? Because the clarification of that deal coincided with the announcement of another deal, this open AI deal, which made the stock go up even more. And so what we have here is an endless cycle of these complicated announcements which amount to, let's be honest, bullshit. Bullshit when it comes to who's participating in the deals. Bullshit when it comes to who are the beneficiaries of the deals. Bullshit when it comes through the size of the deals.

The bullshit is everywhere in AI right now. To be clear, bullshit isn't new. It's been around since the beginning of time, and it has certainly been around since the beginning of markets. So we shouldn't be surprised by or afraid of bullshit. What we should be afraid of, however, is when we all start buying the bullshit at the same time. That's where we'll run into trouble.

Okay, that's it for today. This episode was produced by Claire Miller, edited by Joel Passen, and engineered by Benjamin Spencer. Our associate producer is Alison Weiss. Our research team is Dan Jalan, Isabella Kinsel, Chris Nodonoghue, and Mia Silverio. Our technical director is Drew Burroughs. Thank you 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. Thank you.