Prof G Markets - No, We Do Not Have An Iran Deal

Episode Date: June 22, 2026

Scott Galloway and Ed Elson break down the memorandum of understanding between the United States and Iran and explain why the agreement was unlikely to succeed from the start. Then, they unpack the financials behind OpenAI and Anthropic, exploring what it would take for either company to become profitable, and when that might actually happen. Finally, they revisit Snap Specs to examine why the product flopped, and why Snap’s dual-class share structure makes meaningful change at the company nearly impossible. Subscribe to the Prof G Markets Youtube Channel  Subscribe to the Prof G Markets newsletter  Order "Notes on Being a Man," out now Note: We may earn revenue from some of the links we provide. Follow the podcast across socials @profgmarkets Follow Scott on Instagram Follow Ed on Instagram, X and Substack Send us your questions or comments by emailing [e-mail] Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Support for this show comes from Fetch Pet Insurance. Do you have a pet? Every six seconds, a pet owner in the U.S. gets hit with a vet bill of over $1,000. And it's almost always an unwelcome surprise. That's where Fetch Pet Insurance comes in. Fetch is the most complete pet insurance. Get paid back up to 90% of vet bills. You can use any vet in the U.S. and Canada.

All vets are in network. Go to fetchpet.com slash save. Right now for your free quote. That's fetchpet.com slash save. Support for the show comes from Cohere. As AI advances, one thing matters more than ever, staying in control. Most AI comes with strings attached, like sharing your data and infrastructure or compromising your independence.

With Cohere, you don't have to give up control to gain capability. You can have both. From frontier models to out-of-the-box tools, Co-Hare gives you everything you need to build and deploy secure, scalable AI that drives growth and delivers results. Your data, decisions, and competitive edge stay yours. You control your AI on your terms. To see how AI can empower your organization without compromising what matters most, visit cohere.com slash Vox.

Support for the show comes from Plod. If you're an executive, small business owner, project manager, journalist, or anyone responsible for important decisions, details matter. conversations move fast and it's easy for key contacts, follow-ups, and action items to slip through the cracks once the meeting ends. Plod is an AI-powered note-taking system built around dedicated recording hardware. It captures conversations, transcribes them, and turns them into searchable transcripts summaries and action items so you can focus on the discussion instead of worrying about capturing every detail yourself. Visit plod.a.i slash markets to learn more and use that markets code to get up to 15% off.

Today's number 16. That's the total number of goals Lionel Messi has scored in all his World Cup appearances, now tied for the competition's record. So I'm going to say, Who gives a shit? The tartan army's coming for all you bitches, including you, Lionel Messi. Now, haggis, that's a real meal. Watch out, Morocco.

Here we come after a resounding defeat of that world-class, Haitian team. We're top of the table right now. We're literally leading our flight, our group. That's right. I'm just now learning you are a massive Scotland fan. I have a question for you. Can you name one player?

Oh, I don't know. McTamony. There we go. Well, done. I don't know. He's the only one who really matters. That's a great, I'm so glad to hear that. Now, the other guy, the midfielder is incredibly,

incredibly, incredibly good. What's his name? McGinnis? Oh, fuck. McGinn, John McGinn. That's right. Yeah, he's supposed to be... Yeah, he's a great player. He's supposed to be absolutely outstanding.

Unfortunately, my favorite Scottish player, Billy Gilmore, who was previously a Chelsea legend, is injured at the moment. But it's great to see you're doing well. You know who else is doing well? Oh, you saw Team England, right? That's right. Four two.

Yeah, no, that was resounding. And against a good team, too, right? That's right. Exactly. Croatia is a very good team, very strong. Luca Modrich, still in good form and good shape. I heard his great grandson is going to be in the next World Cup. No, no, no, no. Don't do Luca like that. By the way, it's Leonel Messi, not Lionel Messi. Lion, he always been Lionel to me.

What's your favorite player on Team England? Reese James. You know, I'm a lifelong Chelsea fan, so I've got to support all the Chelsea boys. It's very sad to see Cole Palmer. not included. He's been posting some Instagram photos of him in like Marbea or Ibiza or something. So he's living his best life and we wish him well.

God, that guy's going to need a Belondo or whatever they call it to get laid. He's not an attractive man. He is not an attractive man. That bitch better splash the cash in Ibiza he's looking to have a little world cupping of his own, so is big.

You left out Andrew Robertson, the captain of Team Scotland. I'm so embarrassed. I got, what's his name? John McGins wrong. Name wrong. Yeah, Scotland has a decent squad. A decent squad. They're very, they have, they have one of the best left backs of his generation in Andrew Robertson. Are you reading off of AI right now? No, I'm not. I've been, I've been totally, I got this in my notes, actually, because I'm so excited about them, but I'm not reading off of AI. But I think, I'm curious, I don't know if, I'm hoping this is McThominee's Cup, we'll see, I don't know, I'm putting a cart before the horse, but tomorrow night I'm joining the Tartan Army here in London and we're marching to a pub.

And I bought my kids. That's great. I bought my kids all these awesome jerseys. And we all have kiltz, but they're refusing to wear their kilt, so I'm going to shut off their phone and tell them I'm not turning it on until they put on their kiltz. Good. That's the only leverage I have. But if they make it, I'm definitely, have you heard what's going on in Boston that they're out of beer? Out of beer?

It appeared. How awesome is that? How awesome is that? It's amazing. It really is. I'm seriously excited. So I am all in on Scotland until they're out and then I'm going for Team England. Going for Team England. Over Team USA. Because I got to say USA looked pretty good too. I was impressed. USA was outstanding. They say this is the best team they've ever assembled. Incredible athleticism. I don't know. There's just something. I hate to say it, but I feel like the rest of the world needs it more than the U.S. It's just so strange, though. It's so much about team vibe. I used to go, so we're a house divided.

I think I told you this. I like Arsenal. My youngest likes Chelsea. My oldest likes Tottenham. And we go to a lot of Tottenham games, and Harry Kane and Son were the strikers or the forwards, two of the greatest of the game. And the team never jelled.

It just never jelled. It's so much. And they say that's the difference between the American club and the European ones. is that I guess the Americans don't have a lot of opportunities to play together, and they just never quite gel in an elite level. Yeah. And that's always been the problem for England, too, that we've always been so...

They're outstanding. No, I mean... It's such a British thing to say. If they don't win, they have problems. Well, we came close in the last one, so credit-taking for that. But, I mean, it's... Last time we won was 1966, and we've had... We've always had many of the best players in the world.

The best talent in the world. The story of Team England has not been a very good one, at least over the last few decades. But apparently what really got everyone going was Thomas Tuchel, the manager's speech at halftime. Thomas Tugel basically said to them, he said, if we lose, we lose, and that's fine, but we're going to do it our way. And that's what we're going to be happy about. We'll lose our way. So that is my message to you as we begin this podcast. If we have a shitty podcast, if we're doing it our way, what we're talking about, it'll be our way.

it'll be our way. Dick jokes of plenty. That's what you're saying. That's what you're asking for. Let's bust right into it, my man. Let's do it. Let's do it our way. Now is the time to buy.

I hope you have plenty of the world at all. The United States and Iran have signed a memorandum of understanding that pauses the conflict and reopens the straight of Hormuz to commercial shipping for the next 60 days. In exchange, the U.S. will lift its naval block. of Iranian ports. But the agreement leaves some of the toughest issues unresolved. Key negotiations, including the future of Iran's nuclear program, have been deferred to a second round of talk scheduled over the next two months. Let me just go through quickly what this memorandum of

understanding actually says, and then we can get into what it means. It's a 14-point plan. I've collected some of the most important takeaways here, which I'm just going to go through right now. So first off, both sides declare an immediate end to military operations on all fronts, including Lebanon. U.S. lifts its naval blockade on the strait immediately. Okay. Iran will reopen the strait, free of charge within 30 days. That's good. But, importantly, that no charge clause ends after the 60 days, meaning we can go back to normal for 60 days,

and then Iran has the right to basically jack up cars. and charge a fee for any ship that goes through it. So that's not great. Okay, Iran reaffirms it won't develop nuclear weapons. Both parties agreed to discuss the issue of enrichment, but Iran will, quote, maintain the current status quo of its nuclear program. So what I take away from that is nothing has changed there.

The U.S. will undertake with regional partners a $300 billion reconstruction fund to rebuild Iran. The U.S. will also undertake, that's the word they use, undertake, to unfreeze all of the currently frozen Iranian assets, and the U.S. will terminate all sanctions on Iran. So, that's basically the deal. If I could summarize what it gets us, it basically gets us nothing, because the nuclear program will basically continue as is, and lots more to negotiate there. And the strait, which was open before the war, will be re-overed. And then in exchange, we paid in 14 American lives, $100 billion in taxpayer funds to fund this war, also a full percentage point of inflation, which will amount to billions of dollars in household expenses. And then potentially we're going to pay another $300 billion for this reconstruction fund, although there is an agreement on that. I mean, this to me, if it's even a deal, and that's questionable, might be the worst deal ever.

And I don't think I'm being hyperbolic when I say that. What are your reactions? So I don't know if you heard, but this morning, Mexico presented the U.S. with a memo of understanding where we're going to give them Phoenix back. I told my kids that they kept misbehaving. I was going to bomb them, and they presented me with a memo of understanding where I've agreed to buy them a new iPhone. This is, okay, so to be serious for a moment, the perfect reflection here was the signing at Bersai, where nobody in the Trump administration, it clearly, took a history course and realized that Versailles is known for elaborate signings that don't mean a fucking thing.

It just shocks me. No one said, uh-oh, that's a bad look to sign this at Versailles. So let's go through this in more detail. In terms of documentation and seriousness, I've said for a while, a memo of understanding is meaningless. It outlines that you're interested in getting to a deal. I've never even heard memo of understanding in the context of geopolitics.

The JCPOA was 159-page agreement. The MOU is less than two pages. This is not a serious document. The core issue that everyone around the world and Trump agree on is that nuclear constraints with a core problem. The JCPOA required Iran to reduce its enriched uranium stockpile by 98%, which they complied with, and dismantled two-thirds of its centrifuges and cap enrichment at 3.7 percent, and excepted, unannounced IAEA monitoring. The memo contains no nuclear constraints at all. Just a pledge, oh, okay, the IRGC is pledging never to build a weapon, which, by the way, Iran made the same pledge

in 1970 when it signed a non-proliferation treaty. Verification and inspections, which is kind of the meat and potatoes of this, the JCPOA had IAEA inspectors, continuous monitoring, 24-hour-a-day access provisions, the MOU, the memo, defers all of this to a 60-day negotiating window with no guarantees. This is paying more for a worse product. The memo comes with a $25 billion price tag and another $300 billion in quote-unquote reconstruction framework, exceeding the JCPOA's cost while delivering fewer nuclear concessions.

They're at 60% enriched uranium, which is way above what it was, when they tore up the JCPOA at 3.7. So Iran enters these talks in a much stronger position than it was when Trump decided to tear up the agreement. We're giving away military leverage. The memo commits the U.S. to not increasing its regional forces with Washington withdrawing extra forces within 30 days of the final agreement. And the reason we spend $1.5 trillion dollars on a military is so we can have one of our 11 aircraft carriers anywhere to tell people when they get out of line to sit the fuck down and we're taking that away. In addition, something that hasn't gotten any coverage, and it's really important in my view, is the JCPOA

was a multilateral agreement. Its signatories included the U.S., Iran, the EU, UK, France, Germany, and get this, China and Russia, meaning that if Iran went back on its word and started enriching uranium, China and Russia had an incentive to economically punish Iran. And at this point, their incentives are probably to see a stronger Iran if it keeps sticking its finger in the eye of the Western world and in US geopolitical power abroad. So there's no enforcement mechanisms, no monitoring mechanisms. We have reduced our credibility globally. We have given up leverage of our military. We have alienated European allies. We have sent the world and the economic array. We have shown the Gulf states and every other nation around the world that when you put a U.S. military base on your territory, it's not protection. It's a bullseye. And basically the political outfall from this, or the political, amongst an incredible neutering and weakening of the United States for the next several decades is Trump knows what a shitty deal this is and is already throwing his vice president under the bus, the political equivalent of sending a mob with a

noose after J.D. Vance saying, oh, well, the parts I negotiated are strong. But this is J. J. And by the way, even Secretary Hexathe and Secretary Rubio, no, this is a giant steaming pile of shit and are nowhere to be found. And they've said, J.D., you go on the view. You go talk about this deal. This is, in a word, disastrous. Your thoughts, that? I think in addition to that, I agree with everything you said, I think there are so many reasons to believe that whatever, quote-unquote, deal we have isn't actually a deal. And that doesn't seem to do. And that doesn't seem to be what the markets are believing right now, at least when you look at oil prices, which have come down and the stock market, which has gone up, because there's a lot more

optimism about this. But I just want to go over, like, all of the reasons why you shouldn't think that this is actually a deal. So, number one, since the MOU was signed, Iran has already fired multiple drones at commercial ships, and those drones were intercepted by the U.S. military. So already it doesn't seem real, because Iran is still firing missiles. And of course, the U.S. doesn't want to talk about that, because if they talk about that and recognize that we don't seem to have an actual ceasefire agreement or a peace deal here, then suddenly Trump looks bad.

So that's a big problem. There's also this $300 billion reconstruction fund thing that everyone's bickering about and arguing over, which again is a signal to me that we don't actually have a deal. It is in the MOU. It is one of the points, one of the 14 points in that agreement that the US is going to, quote, undertake to construct this $300 billion reconstruction fund. The question is, what does undertake actually mean? Does that mean that they're in charge of getting other, quote unquote, regional partners to pay for this thing? Does it mean that the U.S. is going to pay for this thing? I don't know. But what I do know is that Iran is expecting $300 billion. And if they don't get it, then the deal is off.

Well, Trump has gone out and said, quote, that the story that the U.S. is paying Iran $300 billion is fake news put out by the DomoCrats. He also reiterated in an interview that we're not investing and that we don't have a fund. So clearly there is disagreement over what are we going to do about that. That's a huge deal. Also, it's only a 60-day agreement. So by definition, it isn't really a deal because it's going to expire. So it's really more of a pause. But then finally, and this is the most important in my view,

based on what Trump has said, I don't think even he takes this seriously. And this goes back to what you said about how he's blaming it on JD, and we will get to that in a moment. I have an interesting clip to play for you. But I just want to read you some of the quotes that he said about this deal that signal to me that he himself doesn't think that it's a real deal.

So he said, quote, it's a memorandum of understanding. And if I don't like it, we'll go back to shooting at them, dropping bombs on their head, end quote. He also said, quote, we have an understanding of certain things without writing it,

and if they don't honor that, we'll probably go back to bombing them. end quote. So he's already talking about how this isn't that real, this isn't that strong, and we can just always go back and shoot them again. Then he was asked how long the military will stay in the Gulf. He said, quote, probably a while. That's not good. And then when he was asked if he saw this deadline of 60 days as a hard deadline, he said, quote, no, I don't. Just as long as they're behaving, I really don't care that much. So everyone seems to be like collecting around this idea that this one's real, this one means something.

I think it probably means something more than the previous fake frameworks of deals, but I don't think that we can take this that seriously if the president himself isn't seeming to take it that seriously. I have a clip of this JD Vance situation, which I think is interesting, but I just want to get your views on whether you think that this deal is actually a deal or if it's like bullshit, like the rest of them? Well, let's play the clip and I'll comment. Okay.

So this is the clip of when Trump was asked about how J.D. Vance is handling it. Let's see what you think of this. There's some element to this where you send the vice president. If it works out, great, you'll look like a genius for sending him. And if it doesn't work out, it's the vice president's call. I like that idea. Sure, boy. This way, if it works out, I'm going to take the credit.

If it doesn't work out, I'm blaming him. JD, you better be careful, JD. So he's basically just said it. God, I appreciate its authenticity. Yeah. Yeah, look, this isn't, just to be clear, this isn't an agreement. It's a memo of understanding. It's a business document.

And memos of understanding, less than half the time, advanced to an agreement. I think this agreement or this understanding never gets to an agreement. First off, they talk about the cessation of all hostilities in Lebanon. Yet, Hezbollah nor Israel are signatories to this. this thing. There's no incentive for Iran to actually come to any sort of agreement. All they, they have accomplished what they needed. They have basically given the president his symbolic out so we can try and declare victory and leave. He's left. He's gone. And the notion that they're going to go back if they misbehave in 30, 60 or 90 days with military action is just not realistic,

given the absolute lack of support in the upcoming midterms. What you're going to see here is Iran will operate within two goalposts, and that is they are still going to try and exert enough pressure to show the world they have their boot on the carotid artery of the global economy, and they control the Strait of Hormuzim will leverage that for political and financial advantage. That, to me, is clear. At the same time, they won't be so aggressive that we have no choice but to go in again, which is, that gives them a huge birth, but this is, Iran emerges from this much stronger than we went in. We have given them a nuclear weapon in the form of their ability to now control and influence the strait of Hormuz.

And the political takeaway domestically is the following. J.D. Vance will not be president. There is going to be no way he can escape this. The president is hanging this anchor around him. It's as if he sent a mob and a news for him politically. And I've said all along that neither Vance nor Rubio are going to be the nominees from the Republican Party because what history tells us about Donald Trump is that he is the equivalent of political Chernobyl and that anyone close to him dies of leukemia. He doesn't give a shit about J.D. Vance. He gives a shit about having a fall guy when he knows this is a disastrous agreement. And I think J.D. Vance shows a total lack of political savvy. Anyone here from Secretary Hagseth? He's like, oh, no, no, no, J.D., you take it. You take it. I don't want anywhere near this. This is, I mean, there's just, it's, it's. It's, it's just, it's. is comical that they're even calling this some sort of agreement. It, in no one already, already no one appears to be living up to it. Also, just the 300 billion reconstruction fund, the way I read that, and I'm curious to

get your take, is that essentially Kushner and Wickhoff have said, they see everything as a transactional business opportunity. They've said, you know what, Iran's a huge economy, 80 million people, we want to build the next St. Regis there. We'll go in, we'll raise money. This is a huge opportunity to go in and invest alongside of Halberton or Exxon or Chevron. This is an opportunity to make money. The only frame of thinking is like hotels and resorts. Yeah, how do we make money? So I would imagine at some point they said, you know, we're going to raise money out of the Gulf and investors and Jared and Whitkoff are going to raise a fund to invest in Iran. And guys, wink, wink, let's get along. Let's make money. Let's make money together, guys. You're reasonable people. Have you said what he's said about. about the IRGC that some of them are rational people. I mean, this is, he sees everything. It's like he's the buyer and the seller, and he thinks if he wills the car dealership into selling him a Ferrari

for the price of a Camry, that somehow they'll decide to do that. We, i.e., the president, have been so played here by the IRGC, and unfortunately, European allies, China, and Russia are kind of all saying, you know what, I don't mind if this guy gets his eyebrows singed really badly and if he loses a couple fingers and maybe even a couple hands, because he's been such an asshole. I mean, it's just weird to think that the IRGC now has potentially more support. And then the wildcard here is Israel. Israel, Netanyahu is on record for decades saying, if given the opportunity, he is going to eliminate what he perceived. is Israel's enemies and their proxies. They're the wild card here because I'm not sure Trump has as

much authority or power over Netanyahu as he would like to believe. And notice they were not, Netanyahu was not shown the quote-unquote memo because I thought he was worried he was going to front run it and say, no, this isn't going to happen. We're not going to cooperate. Yeah, exactly. So many wildcars in here, including Israel, including also if this deal is branded as a disaster, which I believe it already is, then you can probably see Trump just going back on it, because all he really wants at this point is to just save his skin and probably to save himself for the midterms. Because that's really, I think it's likely that this is what this is all about. His approval ratings are tanking, inflation's going up, everyone knows that this is a disaster,

so he needs to save face in some way, shape, or form. And if everyone believes that this wasn't a success, then he hasn't really accomplished his objective. So maybe he'll just blow it up again as he's done multiple times in the past. In terms of the economic takeaways, why should investors care about this? Again, this all goes back to inflation and as a result, interest rates and the probability of rate hikes. I mean, if your belief is that we have a deal and therefore inflation is going to come down, I would just encourage you to just reconsider that.

I just don't think that you can really say with any level of confidence or certainty or optimism that we have a deal here and that we're going to see oil prices coming down significantly and materially and that ultimately that is going to mean that inflation is going to come down and therefore that we won't have to raise rates. I mean, the Federal Reserve meeting was literally unanimous for the first time ever. It was the first time that we didn't see anyone advocating for a cut and now the probability of a rate hike in 2026 has gone up to more than 50%. So, The likelihood is, yes, we will have rate hikes. And I think if we learned anything for the Federal Reserve, it's that we know now that they are very worried about inflation. And I just, I think maybe this can slightly reduce your concerns about inflation, but I don't think it can eliminate them. And I certainly don't think that this changes the path forward for the Fed in any significant way. So those are the economic takeaways, in my view.

We'll see. But I think we should expect rate hikes in 2026. We'll be right back after the break, and if you're enjoying the show so far, send it to a friend, and please follow us on YouTube, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. Support for the show comes from DeleteMe. Have you ever thought I should really be doing something to protect myself from stockers, scammers, and hackers, but you're not sure what? Here's what you do.

Go to join DeleteMe.com slash PropG and enter code PropG, and you'll get 20% off DeleteMe. Delete Me removes your personal information that's being sold on 100%. hundreds of data broker sites. I could tell you more, or I could let our producer, Jen Sanchez, tell you about her experience using Delete Me. Jen? Working in media, I've become a lot more aware of how much information about all of us exists online. One day, I searched for myself and I found details like my phone number, old addresses, you name it. So I'm really glad that I started to take my online privacy a lot more seriously. Take control of your data and keep your

Private Life Private by signing up for Delete Me. Now at a special discount for our listeners. Get 20% off your DeleteMe plan when you go to Join DeleteMe.com slash Profji and use promo code Profji at checkout. The only way to get 20% off is to go to Join DeleteMe.com slash PropG and enter code Profji at checkout. That's Join DeleteMe.com slash PropG code PropG. 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 public. 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. com slash markets rules and restrictions may apply support for the show comes from vanta what's the one thing moving through business faster than a i a i risk every new platform your team adopts every vendor rolling out ai features every added integration can create new exposure for your company and most security

programs weren't built to move at a i speed that's where vanta comes in vanta is the leading agentic trust platform trusted by more than 16 000 fast-growing companies including ramp cursor and Harvey to stay continuously audit ready. And now, Vanta helps companies like yours track the risks that appear between audits across vendors, AI tools, and your broader environment. The Vanta agent works like a 24-7 GRC engineer behind the scenes, identifying issues, suggesting fixes, and cutting vendor assessment time by up to 50 percent. Whether you're a fast-growing startup or a global enterprise, Vanta is here to help you automate your security and compliance and earn and prove trust. Get started today at vanta.com slash markets. That's va-n-ta-com

slash markets. We're back with Profi Markets. As the two biggest AI companies prepared to go public, investors are getting a look at the numbers behind the hype. Last week, leaked financial statements revealed that OpenAI lost $39 billion in 2025, raising questions about how long the company can sustain its current level of spending. Anthropic, meanwhile, appears to be on a different trajectory. According to reporters from the Wall Street Journal, the company expects revenue to surge 130% year-of-a-year to $10.9 billion in the second quarter,

and supposedly it is on track to generate its first operating profit. But because both companies remain private, we still have only a partial picture of their finances. So we wanted to fill in some of the blacks in this section. So, Scott, there's a lot of nuance. to these numbers, especially the numbers that I just mentioned in this intro. And I think it's really essential for two of the most important and significant IPOs in history, Open AI Anthropic, which are coming down the pipeline this year. I think it's essential for us to have an understanding

of how profitable or unprofitable these companies actually are. And in a lot of the discourse, what I'm getting a sense of is that people have a lot of opinions about Open AI or anthropic, but no one really seems to have an actual understanding of their profitability and how much money they are making and how much money they are losing and spending. So I wanted to just start here with like a demystification of what's really going on. And I'm going to start with Open AIs financials. So those financials were leaked, and we had a conversation with Ed Zitrin who leaked them earlier in the week. And it gave us a picture into open-eyes financials in 2025, and it was independently verified by multiple sources, including the Financial Times. So let's just go through them. So $13 billion in

revenue in 2025, up 240%. That is significant. That's a big deal. They lost $38.5 billion. That was the net loss. That's a big number, very scary, very bad. But there is some nuance in there because that was reflective of multiple things like stock-based compensation, and then also supposedly this one-off charge that they had to pay during their reorg from non-profit to for-profit. There's some debate on this, so it's a little bit unclear. We'll return to that in a moment. But let's just focus on what we know about their operating profitability,

because we actually do have clarity on that now. And that is meaningful. So just as a reminder for our listeners, on what operating profitability actually is. This is basically the amount of money that you're either making or losing from your day-to-day operations.

So it doesn't include your capital expenditures. In the case of OpenAI, it wouldn't include how much they're spending on building like the Stargate Data Center. So this is like what the business looks like day-to-day. Let's just break down what the line items are in the operating profits. So how much are they spending on general

and administrative. That's the first line item. This is mostly how much they're paying their employees. It was $1.6 billion in 2025. Sales and marketing expenses, $5.7 billion. Staggering number. I'm sure you have some thoughts. Costs of revenue. This is basically the cost of delivering the product. I see this as inference costs. How much are you paying for compute when your users are asking chat GPT questions? $7.5 billion. Daggering number. Finally, research and development. This is training costs. This is how much you're paying to compute providers when your engineers are basically training in models, the number was $19 billion.

So their total operating costs and expenses in 2025 was $34 billion. That's on $13 billion in revenue, which means their total operating loss, and this is the most important number, was $21 billion in 2025. That's how much they lost on day-to-day operations. There's a lot of business.

debate on this, but that I can tell you with a high degree of certainty. I want to get your reactions and then we can maybe keep going and digging into these numbers. The weird thing is I don't think it matters anymore. I think that I think what matters more is, well, one, SpaceX, the SpaceX IPO has been such a, I know what the term is, it's been such a spectacle. It's been so incredible in terms of the valuation and the fact that it, I think it's up 30 or 40% since then. It's come back a little bit, but it's still just remarkable that every person at OpenAI and Anthropic is calling whoever was the lead banker at SpaceX and saying, can you manufacture the same scarcity and cadence of lockups? And they're all trying to take a note out of SpaceX's book,

right? And I think operating losses to a certain extent have become moot. It's manufactured scarcity. It's growth, and which SpaceX doesn't have, but more than anything, it's an ability to articulate an infinite TAM or total addressable market. Also, I think it's a race to see who gets there first, because the valuation of Anthropic and Open AI, whatever their valuations would have been if they'd gone after SpaceX, are up 20 to 50 percent because the most exciting thing from an investor relation standpoint or from the bankers who are going to market this, is that, well, if you thought SpaceX was a great deal and it popped 40%, what if I told you I had a company that was growing 10 times as fast,

and is only 40 times revenues, welcome to Open AI or Anthropic? The bigger problem right now for Open AI versus Anthropic is that what you're seeing, I've had some dialogue with different CEOs of companies talking about. about AI and their investments in AI. And what you're seeing is what I call a blame the model narrative right now. And that is a lot of companies are waking up and saying, Jesus Christ, I'm spending all this money on AI. And they're putting pressure on their CFOs and some of their managers to show a return. And so what a lot of them are doing is swapping out open AI for Anthropic because they think, oh, it's a model problem. It's not. I mean, I think Anthropics great. But you have a lot of

blame the model, which is disadvantaging Open AI and Anthropic. And I think what you're going to see is the numbers come out is not only as Anthropic operating at greater fiscal discipline, it's still a money furnace, but it's, you know, it's an oven as opposed to the volcano that the incinerator open AI is. But I don't even think that that's what the market's going to be focused on. I think the market is going to be focused on to Anthropics advantage that anthropic will reflect more momentum upwards. But the fact that, the fact that it's going to be focused on, I think, The fact that these companies are a money furnace, I don't know. I think they're going to be able to position it as if you have a company like SpaceX out there

with $2.5 trillion market cap and they need at some point, it's basically, it's got one great business, right? It's got the Starlink business. That's a great business, but it's, you know, a relatively smallish business. It's got a sexy business, the rocket business, which is an even smaller business. And then it's got a money furnace. They're smart. They just bought Cursor, which is a real business. But if I were marketing Open AI Anthropica, I'd say, you know, at the end of the day, there's a floor on this of, say, three or four hundred billion, because why wouldn't must come in and buy this thing if things got rough? And overnight, be the, you know, at some point he's going to have to backfill these expectations. So it's almost as if cash flow is at least for the next couple of years don't appear to have to have to backfill these expectations. So it's almost as if cash flow is at least for the next couple of years don't appear to have much importance.

Growth, shockingly, had less impact on the SpaceX IPO. It's total addressable market, which I think both OpenAI and Anthrop are going to be able to have all sorts of pictures of every person in the world losing their job to AI and everything being run by AI. And then what they'll also, I think, be able to say is, Jesus Christ, these are value stocks at these valuations. We're going out at 40 or 50 times revenues, which is a value stock compared to what else, compared to the thing you just bought shares in. So I think the money furnace that is open AI is less important than we might think. Yeah, I think it's definitely possible that that could be true when these companies go out. and that'll be really interesting to see to test the markets. Do investors care about the thing that honestly only matters,

the only thing that really matters in investing, which is profitability? I mean, maybe I'm like a boomer at heart for thinking that, but that's basically what the whole game is all about. But the question is, can they paper over that giant wound in the business with something else? And I think to your point, SpaceX has been a success story, and they've employed very interesting and very honestly smart tactics to do that. One thing that you mentioned was this tiny flow, the fact that 4% of the shares are publicly traded,

which basically means that the stock can be pumped by its superfans, by the retail investors, to a big degree. And that is exactly what we're seeing right now. To be clear, as the lockups expire, I still think that this stock is going to get crushed over the long term. I think in 6 to 12 months, you can see huge amounts of selling of the stock because people are going to realize they need to take their winnings and use it to buy something like a house or a cool apartment, whatever it may be.

You also mentioned the total addressable market. The fact that SpaceX said that the TAM is $28 trillion, which is more than the GDP of every nation on Earth except for America. And by the way, 26 trillion of that was attributable to AI, which means that technically Open AI and Anthropic could play the same game. They could say, oh, our TAM is the GDP of America, because we're an AI. There's all this excitement and such a huge opportunity here. And so they could recreate that.

The thing they can't recreate is the cult of personality. There's Elon Musk. And I think that is a big reason why SpaceX has been as successful as it has been going out in this IPO. And that is there is a huge cult following around Elon Musk, around his track record of making people rich in the form of his 240 million followers on Twitter, the fact that he is this, you know, Jamie Diamond is calling him the Edison of our time, whether or not you agree with him, that's what people are saying about him. And that's not something that Sam Altman and Dario Amadei can really do. They don't have that level of cultic following, nor do they have the storytelling ability

that Elon Musk has and has demonstrated to have had in his long tenure of being a public company's CEO of both Tesla and now SpaceX. So I think that eventually the profitability problem is going to have to matter. And I just want to dispel some myths that are going on about Open AI right now because when those financials came out, as I said, there was this net loss of $38.5 billion, but in the Financial Times reporting, they talked to someone who was, quote, familiar with the matter, and that person said that that number doesn't make sense or that it isn't real, because $30 billion of that net loss was attributable to this one-off charge from when they went to a for-profit. And so supposedly the more accurate net loss that is going to be recurring for Open AI was $8 billion,

and that is the number that all of the AI boosters are clinging to right now. They're saying it's not that bad. It was only $8 billion. The Ed Zitrin financials are fake. Like, this is not that big of a deal. But I just want to bring us back to again what happened, what we know about the operating profitability. And that is we know that the operating losses were $21 billion. Negative.

Those losses are not massageable. You can't bullshit out of those. Those are the actual losses. And so my takeaway here is that someone is lying. either it's the Financial Times who is lying about what we saw on the income statement, or Ed Zittran, who's lying about those financials, which were independently verified by those journalists, or someone who is familiar with the matter is lying about what the profitability actually looks like. Either way, this stuff is getting very shady, very weird, there's a lot

of murkiness, and I think eventually investors are going to have to care, because eventually the entire business model of AI is going to be called into question, and more and more people are asking themselves, does this business actually make sense? Open AI is reducing their prices because they need to compete with those Chinese models that we've talked about, which means that their margins, negative margins, are only going to get even wider. So I do think that eventually it becomes a problem, but to your point, maybe in the first few weeks of trading, it doesn't matter to people. But if you're a long-term investor, I don't know. I think eventually you have to care about this. Well, here's your flaw. You're speaking rationally at it. And,

yeah, I mean, let's forget what companies are supposed to do. Companies are supposed to gather inputs and use culture, IP, plant property, and equipment to produce an output that they can sell more for their cost of the inputs. That's called profitability and cash flow. And when you buy a share of stock you're buying an ownership in that cash flow. And growth companies, which have dominated the market, have done so because they've been able to say, if you give us enough capital, we can use that cheap capital to pull the future forward or make acquisitions. And ultimately, we end up with, especially in a digital economy, these just cash volcanoes of high margin revenues and basically are essentially monopolies in the form of toll boost on, you know, the global,

citizens or West's daily life. These companies, everyone's looking for the next one. At some point, you know, you find out that, okay, if this company can't produce profits, at some point, it's either an acquisition target, or it has IP value, or it's a trophy asset, or something like that. But I generally believe we have made the jump to hyperspace right now, and it feels like 1999, where as long as it's a hot area, either space or AI, I think you could price these things at a ridiculous number, and I'm predicting a pop on day one. I just think retail investors have thrown in the towel, and institutional investors have said, yeah, it's not an investment, it's a trade, but why wouldn't we get in on the trade as long as the getting is good?

But that never ends well. Right, unless you get out before it ends. Right. And that is, I don't think people, I would bet a lot of institutional, I mean, maybe there's some institutional players looking to hold these things for 10 years. But at a minimum, I don't care what the price is. If I get allocation and Open AI or Anthropic, I'm going to take everything I can. And after the end of the first day, I'm going to look at it, the end of the second day, the end of the fifth day, I'm going to look at it. I think it would be very difficult for any of these companies to sustain their current valuations unless it ends up that 40% of American jobs go away and it's all replaced by tokens and AI. And data centers in space, it ends up, I'm wrong,

and that every person I know that knows fuck all about physics, who's told me this is literally impossible, what they're explaining in their S-1 or in their prospectus. Until then, this is a trade, but it's a trade that's working out for everybody, so it keeps attracting more capital. But you're talking about long-term, rational valuations, and cash flow.

We are in a different era right now, and I'm officially saying, this is 99. In 99, you could sell $30 worth of dog food or $70 that cost $60 to ship, but if you sold it for 1995, the total adjustable market of Internet commerce was so huge that you would bid up at Pets.com. You would bid up these ridiculously stupid companies that made no sense that we're losing more money as they grew that had negative margins. At least these companies, in most instances, have positive margins.

These are great companies that won't collapse the way they did in the dot-com era. But they could easily, easily, I mean, Barry Riddholt said, if SpaceX declines by 80%, in absence of knowing where it was, you wouldn't look at it at $500 billion and think that it's cheap. You'd think that it was expensive. So I think, look, if you get out, my, I've had a bunch of people calling me saying, should I get allocation or should I sell? And the people who call me and say, should I sell, I'm like, yeah, wait till the first couple trades and then sell as much as you can.

And the people who think they said, I've been offered allocation, I'm like, take it. And I think it's a trade. I think you trade out of this thing sooner rather than a layer. As an investment, I'm a boomer. I cannot in any way see how these companies sustain the growth and profitability they're going to need to justify these valuations over the medium and the long term. Yeah. It's just a really big statement, which I agree. with, I want to return to Anthropic because Anthropic is possibly the only company in this space, the only hot company that is potentially defying this narrative, specifically because of that Wall Street Journal report that we got last month, which said that they are on track to achieve operating profitability in the June quarter. And if that is true, that is a big deal, because here we have the one AI company that is supposedly profitable on an OPEX basis.

if it's true. And personally, my view, I don't think that it is true. I think that this is an extreme example of the numbers being massaged, because if you dig into the numbers, you learn that they are extrapolating based on a quarter in which they are receiving a huge discount on their compute deal with SpaceX, a discount which will literally end at the end of the June quarter, at which point they will be spending $15 billion a year on their contract with SpaceX. In other words, their compute costs are about to explode. So for them to say, we're about to reach operating profitability is sort of, it's like the profitability equivalent of bullshitting your ARR, I think. It's like if we would assign some massive one-off contract with an advertiser, and then we just

multiplied it by 12, and we were like, look, we have this incredible ARR, we're going to keep making money like this, but of course, we won't. So when people say Anthropic is profitable, one, they're not. they said that they're trending to be in a single quarter, and two, we should treat that statement with a lot of skepticism. Having said that, from a spending perspective, Anthropic, we don't know much, but what little we do know, it appears that Anthropic has its shit together in a much bigger way than Open AI. And we did a little bit of analysis on this,

according to a Wall Street Journal report, Anthropics compute costs last year were $7 billion. dollars. However, the Wall Street Journal had also gotten that wrong in that same report about Open AI. They were off by about 60% now that we know what Open AI's real financials are. So let's assume the same thing was true of Anthropic. That means their compute costs were about $11 billion last year. That is an estimate. Then you add in some of the sales and marketing costs, which would be a lot smaller than Open AI's. Also, the employee compensation. Big point here. Anthropic has about half the number of employees as Open AI does,

our estimate is that Anthropics costs came out last year to just under $16 billion, which would mean given their revenues that they lost $11 billion in 2025. That's a lot, but it's half as much as Open AI. So I think if Anthropic, they say they've got $47 billion AOR right now. If they actually hit that number,

if they actually generate that much revenue, and if they can not, let their costs grow by 200%. They have a path to profitability, I think. But that's a lot of ifs, a lot of stuff up in the air. That's where I land on this. I think that it's possible for this business model to work. But I think that you have to be crazy, crazy strict about your spending and about managing your costs, something that I think Anthropic has somewhat of an interest in doing, but Open AI doesn't at all. So open eye to me, trade, anthropic, potentially a real investment.

Yeah, and also I do believe that if these companies wanted, they could be profitable right away. If they priced it, there are a lot of users who would pay a lot more money for these models, and I think they could cut a lot of cost and investments, and I do think that cost with scale will come down dramatically. The problem is that business is a great business worth 30 or 50 billion, not worth 500 billion or a trillion. in. So they have to kind of spend against a future that they're predicting to justify these valuations. But these are businesses, I do believe, that could be profitable sooner rather

than later. They just wouldn't be able to sustain, you know, what is it? Anthropics growing 5x a year. So again, the market, not even the market, valuations are the tail to wags the dog. What is wagging the dog right now? Getting J.P. Morgan and Goldman Sachs through soft and hard lockups and a low flow to create manufactured scarcity. A vision of a total adjustable market that is just so enormous that it's impossible for anyone to calculate where your potential market size is. And then, you know, a spokesperson who is just commanding a ton of attention. And I think these companies, they should all send a thank you. you know, wine and roses to Elon Musk because these companies are going to look cheap by comparison.

And it's going to create, I think it's going to create, I used to think, well, we're going to run out of money to invest in these guys because Musk is soaking up all the capital and alphabet preempting a cutting line. I've now gone now. Everyone is drunk on this and is going to pile into these things. And they're going to pull back, I wouldn't be surprised if they pull back the numbers of shares they're offering that they try and implement some of those tactics, the soft lockups with retail investors or what have you. But you can bet, you know, the CFOs of OpenAI and Anthropics are saying, can we speak to the bankers at J.P. Morgan and Goldman and how they manage the float here and how they marketed this. And they'll say, come on in because this is hundreds of millions of dollars of fees.

and I worked with SpaceX, and we said that revenues would grow 100x by 2030. None of us knew what we were talking about, but it didn't matter because we cashed out. So I 100% agreed on that. We'll see. In the meantime, I'm using AI models to try and predict what are the cost of Team Scotland tickets if they're getting to the quarterfinals. It's not pretty. It's not pretty. If that happens, we need to do a live podcast in the stadium.

If we do that, we're going. Yes. If we do that, we're going. Yep. Okay, I'm very excited about that. Now I might be Team Scotland. We'll be right back. And for even more markets content, sign up for our newsletter at profitymarkets. Support for this show comes from Fetch Pet Insurance. Do you have a pet? Every six seconds, a pet owner in the U.S. gets hit with a vet bill of over $1,000. And it's almost always an unwelcome surprise. That's where Fetch pet insurance comes in. Fetch is the most complete pet insurance.

Get paid back up to 90% of vet bills. You can use any vet in the U.S. and Canada. All vets are in network. Go to fetchpet.com slash save. Right now for your free quote. That's fetchpet.com slash save. Support for the show comes from Avin. Americans are carrying over a trillion dollars in credit card debt

at rates north of 23%. Meanwhile, homeowners are sitting on the largest pool of untapped equity in U.S. history. Think about that, asymmetry. You own a home. You've built real equity. And yet, when you need capital, the financial system routes you to a 23% unsecured card instead of the asset you already own. Avin built the first home equity line of credit issued on a visa card. So the same swipe that used to cost you 23% now costs a fraction of that, saving you hundreds of dollars a month. Check your offer at no cost with no

impact to your credit score, no hidden fees. Avon holds a 4.9 star trust pilot rating from over 8,000 verified customers. Go to Avon.com. That's AVEEN.com. Aiven. Stop over paying for capital. Aven Financial Inc. NMLS number 204-2345 cards issued pursuant to a license from Visa USA Inc.

by Coastal Community Bank. NMLS number 462289 member FDIC equal housing lender subject to approval. Terms apply. Visit Avan.com for details. 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 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 a select few reap all the benefits. Until now. Introducing VC. 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. Snap is making its biggest product bet in years, but it may be a giant thud. Last week, the company unveiled its new augmented reality glasses, the Snap Spex. CEO Evan Spiegel has described the launch as a crucible moment for the company,

but investors were less than impressed. Shares fell nearly 8% following the announcement. One of the main concerns for investors is the price. Snap Spex will retail for roughly 2,000. $2,200, which is nearly three times the cost of META's competing smart glasses. So, Scott, these new smart specs, snap specs, excuse me, have been released. I'd love to just play this clip of Evan, the CEO, getting interviewed on CNBC, unveiling his new snapspecks.

You're wearing your new specs, which you just unveiled. They cost $2,195. the stocks down more than 5%. How do you address investor concerns about the potential market for these? Well, Julia, thanks so much for joining us here at AWE. It's been such an exciting day for the company and something we've been working towards for more than 12 years now to really bring computing into the world and make it more human. Are you buying Scott? When I saw him put on those glasses, I thought, I thought for the first time in my, ever, I thought, I am much cooler than Evan Spiegel. I think I could pull at a bar more easily than Evan Spiegel with those things on.

If he wore those things, I think it's an even race. Look, they launched specs in 2016 at $150 or it was $130, and nobody bought them, so they decided the solution was obviously to launch $2,200 glasses that look even more stupid. This is the bottom line. the beginning of the end of Snap is a hardware company. And on a larger level, what this reflects is the danger of dual-class shareholder stocks because Snap's stock is off 90% in the last five years, while the S&P has been up 80%. Evan Spiegel and his fever dreams of being Apple, you know, instead it's Zoon, it has cost his shareholders an absolute ton of,

of money, and this is the tragedy. You know, Snap is actually, the core business is actually pretty good. If they, I mean, if essentially Meta came in with this fever dream also of wearables, but they can lose $60 billion, and it's a speed bump. Snap cannot. Cook can waste a billion dollars trying to have an option to see if, in fact, Zuckerberg was crazy genius with this mixed reality headset. kill it, it doesn't even show up in the earnings.

Snap has spent $3.5 billion in augmented reality since 2014. The stock's down 17% since it unveiled the glasses, erasing $1.5 billion in market value. And essentially... It's a hilariously small number, by the way, just shows you how not valuable this company is. This is the problem. And it's the perfect activist play.

But as an activist who was stupid enough to go into dual class, shareholder companies with people who are not business people as the people controlling the business, you're just in the back seat as someone drunk has their hands on the wheel. And there's nothing you can do. You can scream, slow down. But they've got the radio blasted and they're doing shots of jack with their hands on the way. They just don't give a shit what you think. Because if you look at the core business, Snap has a young engaged user base, nearly half a billion daily users.

Four-fifths are under the age of 35. That's an advertiser's dream compared to meta, where it's 43%. And American Snapchatters open the app, and I can testify to this as the father of teenagers, 30 times per day. Investors value meta's daily users at $400 each. Investors value SNAP's daily users at $16 each because the CEO is fucking crazy. It's out of his mind and has an obsession has a meth addiction, a crack addiction to burning capital on prophylactics, cosblank wearable. So I know some people on this board act like fucking fiduciaries. Either spin the specs company or shit can it and focus on what is SNAP's core asset.

And the fact is that it's a great messaging platform with one of the most attractive user bases. This stock is it four bucks or five bucks? 90% value destruction. It's easily a $20 or a $30 stock. If they get this guy's lips off of the crack pipe of believing he's Steve Jobs and can come up with the next iPhone, their subscale, they don't have the capital. The guy went to design school. This is where he spends all his time and money, and he's the controlling shareholder here, and he's already a billionaire married to a model. Does it give a flying fuck what your stock price?

crisis, and that's the problem. So this is the problem with dual-class shareholder companies, is you can be rational, and it doesn't matter. They're in charge. Yeah, I just want to, the dual-class shareholder point is a really important one. I just want to make sure we're all on the same page about it. What this means, and this used to not be a thing, and in the last two decades-ish, starting at Google, it became a thing. It means that there are two classes of stock. One of them has a lot fewer votes, and the other has a lot more votes.

And essentially what happens with these dual-class share companies is that the founders give themselves all of the stock that has more votes, basically giving them more voting power. That's the case for a lot of companies, Google, meta, plenty of them. Snap is that times a million because they have three classes of stock. There's Class A, which is the shares that you can buy as a retail investors,

the publicly traded shares. They have no voting rights whatsoever. You don't get any vote. Class B, you get one vote. Class C, you get 10 votes. Evan and his co-founder are the only people in the world who own Class C, which means that him and his co-founder together

control 99% of the voting power in this case. company. Evan personally controls 53% of the voting power, which basically means that he controls the company, no matter how many shares other people go out and try to buy, no matter if an activist investor tries to come in and steer the ship in the right direction. And also, by the way, you mentioned the board should get their act together. What are they supposed to do? They can't fire him. He's the only guy who can make the real decisions about what the company does. And I think it's such an important point because the dual-class stock has become such a popular thing over the last few years. More than 40% of tech companies that went public last year went public with dual-class stock.

In the 90s, that number was less than 10%. This is one of the sexiest things in terms of corporate governance right now is issuing two classes of stock and giving the founder, the founder, CEO, all of the power. And usually it's worked out. It worked out for meta. It worked out for Google. But to your point, this is the perfect example of dual. class stock going in the wrong direction. My friend Alex Heath had the best quote. He said,

this is founder mode gone wrong, which I think is 100% true. This guy clearly investors, shareholders have lost their faith in him. But there's nothing you can do about it because he's in charge. I never missed a chance to tell a story that I think makes me seem more important than I am. You asked what the board members should do. They should do what I did on the board of the New York Times. and that is be such a fucking pain in the ass, eventually they kick you off of the board. I can tell you, Arthur Solzberger, was so happy to finally kick me off the board

because every time he showed up to a board meeting, he knew that asshole was going to be there, asking him questions like, what the fuck are we thinking owning 17% of the Boston Rets? Why do we own about.com? Snapboard members? You should be making Evans' life fucking miserable every three months. He has made the lives of your shareholders who you are supposed to represent.

He has made their lives miserable. He needs to feel that every 90 days. What are the chances? This Sunday night, I've been invited to a party hosted by Evan and of RSVPDs. What is the chance that that invitation is withdrawn? Let's create a thing on Calci right now. Because the board members will be there. And guess what board members? You are not doing your fucking job unless you make that guy's life miserable during the board meeting every 90 days. Because the people you represent are miserable. Yes.

What do you think? Do you think I'm in my room Sunday night ordering room service? True story. True story. What do you think? You shitpost a lot of people and they seem to continue to keep coming. back to you. I think I think you still get that invite. I'll just put the caveat out there. We're criticizing Evan Spiegel. We're criticizing his strategy because you and I both think

that it's a bad one. From what I understand about the guy, I like the guy. I actually think he seems like a really nice. Very likable. He's a lovely young man. Yeah, he's a lovely young man. But so are you. So are you. But if you have your head up your ass and lose 90% of shareholder's money, you deserve to be fired. I mean, it's not about whether he's love. Here's the bottom. I'm just trying to get your invite back. That's all I'm doing. Humans. We're going to be at the Hotel de Cap on Sunday night.

The guy's a billionaire. He's handsome. He's married to a model. Does he care that some hedge fund manager managing the Wisconsin public retirement fund is down 90%? It's a surprisingly important point. Does he give a shit? He's a billionaire in the coat d'ezure

surrounded by people who will kiss his ass and tell him that the glasses are great. I tried him last night. Oh my God. This thing is literally, these glasses are a steaming pile of shit. It is so ridiculous that these things, it's like, these things made Tim Cook with that mixed reality headset look cool.

He looked like he had game with that thing on. Yeah. Anyway, I'll see a Sunday, Evan. Final point here. Snap has a market cap of $8 billion. It's less valuable than Dominos Pizza. It's roughly as valuable as the gap. I mean, compared to like SpaceX just bought Cursar for $60 billion,

$8 billion, this is chump change, meaning this is a very acquireable company. I think that I would be shocked if companies aren't looking at that market cap and thinking, let's go in and make an offer, acquire the audience, acquire maybe some of the hardware and some of the wearables, tech if we're interested in it. And Claire made this, our producer Claire Miller,

we were thinking, who might be the acquirer? And she suggested a company that actually, I totally agree with. And I think this will probably happen. Open AI. Open AI loves spending money on stupid bullshit. They've acquired 18 companies so far. If they're trying to build this wearables device with Johnny Ive, Evan Spiegel's gotten halfway there with his 132 gram pair of glosses

that weighs as much as a baseball. maybe they can get to the finish line with Snap. So I think that this is going to be an interesting story. Is Snap going to be acquired? Will there be activist investment or interest, I think, certainly? But I could totally see Open AI making an offer. An activist in a dual-class shareholder company is not even peeing into the wind.

It's jerking off into the wind. It is such an exercise and futility that I thought I was going to change Arthur Salzberger's mind and get him to think rational. I'm sorry, I'm still on joking. I just thought of that. That's pretty good, right? By the way, Team Scotland.

Team Scotland, it's jockeying off into the win, you wee. If it's not haggis and shite. If I'm not exaggerating, the board of snap, okay, this stock's at four or five bucks. If he announced, I'm shutting the specs division down and I'm declassified. the stock, it's at 20 bucks in two days. And I always like to try to bring my profanity and an ability to get uninvited from things back to a personal learning. One of the most powerful words in business vocabulary is fiduciary. And a fiduciary means the following, that once I have my deal, I'm getting a certain amount of money as a board member. I'm a

fiduciary, I represent the interests of other people. One of the biggest honors I've ever had is twice I've been asked to be someone's executor for their estate. That is you're a fiduciary for them after they are dead, meaning they trust you, they trust you 100% to represent them after they have no voice at all. That is such a, fiduciary is such a powerful word. You are representing other people's interests. And what I would remind this, the board of SNAP is you're supposed to be fiduciaries for all shareholders. It is such a powerful word and board members consistently forget that that F word. Anyways, that's my speech. I love it. I think it's great. Let's take a look at the week had. We'll see the Fed's preferred measure of inflation from the Personal Consumption Expenditures Index for May.

We will also see earnings from FedEx, Carnival, Cerebris, and Micron Technology. Not that exciting, but maybe something interesting will happen. Scott, do you have any predictions? God, that felt like a giant flaccid penis after everything we've been talking about. That felt like my sexual performance. Bring us back. Bring us back. That felt like my sexual performance after a few too many margaritas.

Yeah. God, I'm so profane today. You are. Jesus. It's the Scotland in you. Shocking, I was kicked off the board of the New York Times, isn't it? Isn't that hard to believe? Yeah, I love that that's your advice to board members get kicked up.

He couldn't wait to kick me off. When you think about it, one of the worst pieces of vice possible. Go out with all, sometimes the best thing you can do is, anyways, that's the problem. Ultimately, for shareholders, it's the right move. But if you're trying to be on board. You know what's going to happen. The board, I already know it. The board members are going to be at the hotel to cap, collecting their quarter of a million dollars or $500,000 for you here.

Do the shareholders even matter? They don't even care. They don't even hear from them. Those anyways. Can't wait to see you in the Cote d'Zo. Prediction? Well, look, something's got a, something, anything has to happen here. And I don't know what it is.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that Evan has some, some responsibility. And there are some sane board members that have the wherewithal, and the gravitas and the logic and the relationship with Evan to go, Evan. We've been at this since 2016. We've been at this for 10 years, this hardware fantasy. It needs to stop. You have some obligation to your shareholders, to management here. How do they hold on to any employees?

Do you realize not a single employee has made any real money there? Look at the employees. They're just waiting around to see when's the next round of 1,000-person layoffs. Who's made money there? The people at Snap, I would imagine the best and brightest at Snap, had tons of offers from Meta. What if you had gone to work for Meta in 2016 versus Snap? I'm sure there's people that have been there for a decade. They've made their three or 400 grand a year.

If they'd taken that job at Meta, they'd be worth 30 or 40 million. Yeah. Go out for an AI company as well. I mean, at least Zuckerberg had the, no one was more all in on the metaverse and wearables in Zuckerberg. and even he had the foresight and the obligation to say, okay, it is time to sunset this thing. So anyways, my prediction is that there is a board member on the board of SNAP that can sit Evan down and go, look, Evan, how does $20 a share sound right now?

It's not that hard. You'll be a hero. We'll give this company newfound growth. It's a great company. You have one of the most attractive user bases in history. we don't need glasses. We don't need them. You've built an amazing platform, an amazing product for advertisers that has incredible loyalty of a half a billion people who use it every day who are literally advertisers' bullseye. Let's move. Come to the light, Evan. Come to the light. My prediction is a hopeful prediction that he's going to listen

to one of these board members. Okay. I like that. I like that a lot. My prediction, I just want to end on this, I don't know if you saw Mid Journey, which is the AI Image Generator, they secretly were working on a hardware project, which they just announced, which is an ultrasound scanner that does all of the work of an MRI machine within 60 seconds. And they've basically put all of these little ultrasound cameras around in a wheel, and they use water, and you step inside of this basically bathtub and then within 60 seconds you get a full body MRI. I mean, we'll

see how legit it actually is, but from what I've seen, this thing is absolutely incredible. Like, I'm so amazed and inspired by it. And just sort of a kind of a general prediction, I do think that this might inspire a hardware revolution. I think that

there's a lot of excitement around building in hardware, and I think that what we're about to see is that hardware is about to become the new software where the coolest thing to be working on isn't the next AI LLM or software product, but to be working on something physical, something like this ultrasound machine, probably not wearables, probably not the snap specs, but something that you can actually touch and feel because this technology is really exciting. So that will be my prediction.

I think, yeah, but I think this is your way of telling us that you're pregnant. And I want you to know we support you. Team Scotland. Team Scotland. Team Scotland. I'm not going to let you take away from that. Team England. We'll see. Both of them. And we'll record something if we get to the quarters. Team UK. This is very exciting. That's right. This episode was produced by Claire Miller and Alison Weiss and engineered by Benjamin Spencer. Our video editor is Jorge Calti. Our research team is Dan Chalon, Isabella Kinsel, Chris Nudanahu and Mia Sovereo. Jake McPherson is our social producer. Drew Burroughs is our technical director. And Catherine Dillon is our executive producer. Thank you for listening to Prof. G markets from Profi Media. If you liked what you heard, give us a follow and tune in tomorrow for a fresh take on the markets.