Prof G Markets - The IPO Frenzy Has Begun — ft. Howard Marks

Episode Date: June 12, 2026

Ed Elson and Scott Galloway are joined by Howard Marks to discuss whether the IPOs from SpaceX, Anthropic and OpenAI are legitimate investments or signs of irrational exuberance. They explore how investors should think about the enormous uncertainty of AI, where opportunities still exist in an increasingly expensive market, and whether fears about private credit are overblown or warranted.  Howard Marks is the co-founder and co-chairman of Oaktree Capital Management. Subscribe to the Prof G Markets Youtube Channel  Check out our latest Prof G Markets newsletter Follow Prof G Markets on Instagram Follow Ed on Instagram, X and Substack Follow Scott on Instagram Send us your questions or comments by emailing [e-mail] Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Support for the show comes from Odu. Running a business takes everything you've got, and a lot of the tools out there that are supposed to make your life easier just aren't great at talking to each other. And that means you end up having to toggle between a dozen different apps and services just to keep the lights on. Enough of that. Now there is Odu,

the all-in-one fully integrated platform that might actually help you get it all done. Thousands of businesses have made the switch, so why not you? Try O-Doo for free at O-Doo for free at O-do.com. That's O-D-O-O-O-com. When it comes to home improvement, even the most experienced DIYer has a limit. I'm not going to come in here with the blowtorch and get it hot and solder and put the copper pipes to cop. I'm not doing it. I call it very nice man to handle it.

When to call the experts and when to do it yourself. That's this week on Explain It to Me. Find new episodes, Sundays, wherever you get your podcasts. Welcome to ProfG Markets. This could be one of the most consequential weeks for the markets in years. Today, SpaceX is expected to complete the largest IPO in history, and it may be just the beginning. Anthropic and Open AI have both filed to go public, setting the stage for a wave of blockbuster offerings. Meanwhile, some of the richest companies on the planet are competing for investor capital before the IPO pipeline fully opens. As we've discussed last week, Google announced the biggest stock sale in history,

and met a signal that it too is exploring a major equity raise. So how should investors think about this moment? What happens when an unprecedented amount of equity hits the market? What are the opportunities and what are the risks? To help us make sense of it all, we're joined by someone who spent more than 35 years writing some of Wall Street's most influential memos and has earned a reputation as the king of common sense.

His memos inform investors across finance, even Warren Buffett himself. This is our conversation with Howard Marks, the co-founder and co-chairman of Oak Tree Capital Management. Howard, thank you so much for joining us. I want to start with a quote that you said in one of your earliest members. You said, quote, in the late stages of the great bull markets, people become willing to pay prices for stocks that assume the good times will go on ad infinitum. We're about to see this SpaceX IPO.

This company is about to be priced at more than 100 times sales. We have a feeling that this is a little. a little bit of investor spirits, animal spirits, people thinking it's the good times. What do you make of this IPO and the other IPOs that we're seeing? Is this a frothy market? There's no question about the fact to use Alan Green's band's saying from about 30 years ago that we have exuberance. That's the only thing we know for sure. He pioneered the phrase irrational exuberance. The question is, is today's exuberance? The question is, is today's exuberance? I don't think anybody can definitively say so.

And the reason I say that is that I don't think, I've never heard anybody tell me exactly what AI will be able to do or when or for whom or how much profit it'll produce and for whom. There's an arms race going on between what you described, as some of the greatest companies on the planet, I would describe what we call the hyperscalers as mostly the greatest companies I've ever seen. And they're engaged in an armory, arms race.

Can only one win? Is it winner take all? Can several win? Nobody can tell me these things. So I don't think there's an analytical or what we call a value-based way to decide whether or not to participate in these IPOs, and if so, at what price?

Where in, you know, AI, as far as, I think virtually all of us are concerned, is a concept. We can't define its parameters, and it's a great concept. It's likely to be the most powerful force any of us have ever seen. But I think that's all we know.

And a decision to participate or not participate and what price to participate at is it's really, well, it's what my South African friends call a thumb suck. You know, you can't put numbers on a pad and figure out what these things are worth, which is what value investors like me historically have done. I guess the question then is, because I agree with you that you ask these questions and investors say, don't worry about it. It's not really about the fundamentals right now. It's about the future.

It's about the technology. It's about what's going to happen at some point in the timeline. That sounds a lot like the irrational exuberance that we have seen in previous cycles. And you've been around to see many of them and you've invested and made a lot of money, trading, and figuring out an investment strategy to profit off of those cycles and to time it correctly, or you could correct me on what your strategy was, but does it not seem like those previous cycles

does not feel to you like, I don't know, dot-com era? It does feel like that. We have a technological innovation. I've seen several. I've read about many more over the last, let's say, 150 years, this may be the greatest. This may be the most powerful.

It's also in many ways the least specifiable. So the technological innovations I'm talking about, let's just for a starting point, let's say the railroads back in the 1860s. And then radio in the 1920s, the automobile, computers in the 1950s and 60s internet in 2000.

It may be revisionist history, but I think we had a much better view of what all of those could do. They didn't have this unimaginable, unlimitable upside that AI has or the, in my opinion, degree of uncertainty. We knew that the railroad would carry goods and people from coast to coast.

We knew that radio would carry messages. We may not have known exactly how they would produce profits or how they would become television. But anyway, all the things I mentioned were accompanied by what we call bubbles. people got excited about developments which were unprecedented. They threw vast amounts of money about building the infrastructure for it. There was a winner-take-all race. There was excitement. There was exuberance.

The capital flowed in like water. in every case, too much capital flowed in. I think it's fair to say too much infrastructure was built and prices were paid that were too high and a lot of the people who provided the capital for these bubbles lost their money. I think it's fair to say that those comments are have been true in every case that I enumerated.

So I wrote in a memo recently this year, and I think it's true that if this technological innovation with its exuberance doesn't produce a money-losing bubble, it'll be the first. And now it could happen. You know, you can't rule these things out. And, you know, maybe this is a good time for me to introduce the rejoinder of the optimist. What do they say?

This time it's different. Okay, that was true about the railroads. It was true about radio. It was true about computers in the Internet. But this time, it's different. And this time, we have a development of incalculable, unlimitedable value. So this time, it's really true that there's no price too high. That's what they say.

Right. But the problem with that, is they always say that. This time it's different is never different. And they've said it in each of those bubbles that I mentioned, I think. So nobody, including me, should say definitively that this is a bubble, that the people who invest in, in, these early stages of AI will lose their money, that the people who invest in the companies you named will pay prices that they'll never see again. But you must be alert to the possibility. The way people get into trouble is by not being alert to the possibility. And this all seems incredibly

relevant today on the day when SpaceX is set to go public at close to a $2 trillion valuation. We'll see how it trades. But if you're looking for signals of everything you just described, it seems like that's it. My favorite fortune, Coupe, says that the cautious seldom are or write great poetry. So, you know, investing in these companies today could be a huge error, but it could be great poetry. And the people who resist, because it could be an error, could miss out on the greatest thing in history. And that's what makes these decisions so hard. You know, the people who invest today

in traditional industries, in transportation, in distribution, in retailing, in real estate, they don't have, for the most part, the risk of committing grievous error, but they also don't have access to the possibly best thing in history. So you just have, when you sit here with something that's so young

and where the future is so unestimable, you just have to deal with it as a concept or not deal. How does an investor deal with it, so to speak? I like the fact that you said, you know, sort of like, you know, what could go right, the upside is sort of unimaginable, the downs. I mean, it sounds like you recognize that both scenarios are feasible here. The bulls could be right, the bears could be right.

But in terms of how do you actually invest around it? Because I look at these companies at a $4 trillion valuation, if it is in fact the upside scenario, I don't see how any other company survives. We end up with five companies if these companies actually become worth 50 or $100 trillion. If they have the same type of returns we're used to getting from Amazon or Apple or Google when they went public, that means there's going to be three or four companies controlling all the market cap globally, which my mind below is trying to think about what that would mean for society. If you're a 25 or a 35-year-old trying to, you know, thinking about building wealth and you got your 401k,

how do you invest around the kind of the unknowable here? in dealing with the future, the way most people deal with the future is by coming up with the forecast. I argue strangely that if you want to deal with the future, you need two things, not one. You need a forecast, and you need a judgment

regarding the probability that your forecast is right. So you can make a forecast about the future of AI. You can make a forecast which is optimistic. But I just think, If you say, this is my judgment about the future of AI, and by the way, I'm highly confident that I'm right, I think you're probably making a big mistake. You know, I've never met anybody who thinks they can tell me what this world is going to look like five or ten years from now. And so why should any, the young person you've described who's laying the foundation for its investment portfolio, why should he conclude that he's probably right when all these other people,

other people are. We know it could be great. I bet it's probably going to be great. I said in my last memo that it's, that it, in terms of its basic capabilities, my guess is that it's more likely to be underestimated today than overestimated today. But what we're talking about is how much capital should it receive? And what is a piece of a company that engages in this activity worth? And, you know, the value investor, the old-fashioned investor like me and my fellow travelers, what we do is we figure out what a company's like, we look at what it makes today and what it's, what potential earning power is building. We try to figure out what its earnings will be in five or ten years.

We put what we think is a reasonable valuation on those earnings, largely related to the potential in the subsequent decades. And then we look at the price today, and we try to figure out whether today's price is fair relative to that earnings power. And, you know, I don't think I've ever seen an industry or companies where that is less feasible. You know, if somebody will tell me what they think

anthropic, net earnings will be in, 2036, I'll bet them that they're not within 50% of the truth. Of course, we have to wait 10 years to find out. But if I'm right, then you, and you make an investment in an anthropic stock in the IPO, you have to accept the likelihood that what you're doing is closer to speculating. And I don't say that word pejoratively, then analytical investing. And you have to, there's a, there's a spectrum, which goes from what I'll call analytical investing in prosaic, understandable companies, to speculative investing in futuristic companies that can't be described at all.

And you have to, you should, you should calibrate your activities based on where you are on that spectrum. That's the whole thing, and it's very hard to do. This is the hardest thing I think I've ever seen in the investment world because of this enormous degree of uncertainty. Are there other sectors where you feel more confident, other asset classes or other business sectors where you think you're more comfortable looking, making a forecast and saying this appears to be overvalued or undervalued? Well, that's what we do for living. And historically, we have made those judgments and, you know, pretty well.

But then since the Internet came along roughly 30 years ago, we have a new concept, which is extremely important today, and that's disruption. You take what I call a prosaic company in a prosaic industry, and you say, well, it's not so futuristic. think we can probably anticipate what it's going to look like in five or ten years from now. And it's not, it doesn't have these technological things that, that are going to make it or break it. But then you think a little further and you say, well, let me think of whether that's right. You know, 30 years ago, we have this word in a value investing business or the investment is called a moat. Things that surround a company that are protective,

that make it less attackable. And historically, the value investor, the cautious analytical investor, has preferred to invest in companies with moats. So if you go back 30 years ago, what was an example of a company with the great moat? And a great example is a newspaper. And if you own the newspaper in a given city,

it would be hard for a competitor startup from scratch. The newspaper from another city couldn't compete against you because the used car ads and the help wanted ads and the movie times would all be irrelevant in your city. And it cost a quarter, let's say, so anybody could afford it. And if people bought one today, they'd still have to buy it tomorrow.

because yesterday's newspaper is already obsolete. So it's a small amount of money that people are going to spend regularly and they're never done buying it. And it can't be, you know, there are reasons why radio couldn't compete and why the newspaper from the next town could compete. That was a strong set of moats.

And a lot of smart people invested in the newspapers and made a lot of money. Now it's true with the movie industry and other in particular communications industries. But now the newspapers are a lot of them are out of business, and they're under profit pressure. So what happened to them out? And the answer is that the Internet and digital communications came along

and put a lot out and out of business and gave them competition that nobody thought was possible 30 years ago. So, and I'm sorry for the length of this discussion, but what can't be disrupted now by AI? Who can't lose their job to AI? I used to say, well, how about everybody says plumbers. Well, maybe a robot can come into your house

and with a camera and assess your situation and make the needed repairs. then I said a masseur. Why can't somebody build a robot that can give you a good massage? And so the world has become a much more uncertain place. The probabilities that can be assigned to the future are much broader today than ever. I think that's an important change. when I was a kid

the world didn't change a comic book was always a dime new technologies didn't come along that often the world we were pretty confident that the world would look the same 10 years later and for the most part it did but today

I think you have to accept that much more change is possible so the investor has to recognize that he or she is living in and dealing in a much less predictable world. 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.

Hi, I'm Maria Sharpova, host of the Pretty Tough podcast. Each episode, I sit down with high-achieving women to discuss the pursuit of excellence without apology. This week, model Sports Illustrated cover girl and entrepreneur Ashley Graham talks about the time she almost quit. I called my mom and I said, Mom, I'm not going to do this anymore. And she told me, no, you are going to stick this out.

Your body is going to change someone's life. Every decade, you're going to go through something different. So be really happy with who you are right now because things change. Check out Pretty Tough, new episodes on Wednesdays. You can watch it on YouTube or listen in your favorite podcast app. of the show comes from Odu. Running a business is hard enough. So why make it harder with a dozen different apps that don't talk to each other? One for sales, another for inventory, a separate

one for accounting. Before you know it, you are drowning in software instead of growing your business. This is where Odu comes in. Odu is the only business software you'll ever need. It's an all-in-one fully integrated platform that handles everything, CRM, accounting, inventory, e-commerce, HR, and more. more app overload, no more juggling logins, just one seamless system that makes work easier. And the best part, Odu replaces multiple expensive platforms for a fraction of the cost. It's built to grow with your business, whether you are just starting out or already scaling up. Plus, it is easy to use, customizable, and designed to streamline every process. So you can focus on what really matters, running your business. Thousands of businesses have made the switch, so why not you? Try to

Odo for free at Odu.com. That's ODOOO.com. 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. Cohere started seven years ago with a bold mission, scale enterprise intelligence without sacrificing sovereignty. Their solution, AI that leaves you in charge of your data and infrastructure, allowing you to maintain your competitive edge. It's designed for enterprises, governments, and organizations that refuse to give up control in pursuit of innovation.

From frontier models to out-of-the-box tools, Cohere gives you everything you need to build and deploy secure, scalable AI that drives growth and delivers results. Their platform is designed around your business with models that can be customized and trained on your proprietary data so the solutions are unique. weekly yours. And control doesn't stop a customization. Cohere is built with multi-layered protections, access, and industry certified security standards that help safeguard your data while supporting privacy, compliance, and other requirements. As AI continues to transform every industry, Cohere gives you the power to put it to work today on your terms. Take charge of your AI with Cohere. To learn more, visit cohere.com slash Vox. We're back with ProfiMarkets. Given that you do, you are a for other people's capital, you do have to make forecasts and develop

theses and invest people's capital. So at some point, I can't imagine, so let's acknowledge that there's more known unknowables or unknown unknowables than ever before, given that you are charged with deploying capital and developing forecasts and theses. What are some of those forecasts? Where do you find value right now? I still think there is a more predictable part of the economy. It'll probably be a while before the energy business gets disrupted to the point where we use something in lieu of oil and gas.

That's probably largely true of the food industry, probably the timber industry and the home building industry. transportation. It's probably going to be a while before we walk into a station, become dematerialized, and show up in another city. Retail has been disrupted, but it looks, maybe we're at a baseline level of in-person shopping that's not going to go further. I don't know.

But so you can identify areas, you know, metals and mining, paper, chemicals. I guess I would say for the most part, that things that have less intellectual content are less likely to be disrupted by AI, which is basically an intellectual problem solver and productivity tool. So, you know, I think that's,

we can make a list of things that we think are less likely to be disrupted by AI. We just shouldn't be too cock sure about it. But that's what we do for living, Scott. We're still investing. We're investing according to the same investment philosophy and in many of the same industries. But we have to constantly renew our thinking.

It seems that the most laughable thing to do today would be to say, you know, I found some companies in industry that will never change. I'm just looking at the Schiller PE ratio, which is currently close to 42, very close to the bubble era where it hit a peak of 44 times earnings. That right there is an example of an indicator

that we could draw whatever meaning we want from it. And I could say, okay, here we are. the top, this is the bubble. But I'm not sure how much I should believe that. I guess my question to you, what kinds of indicators do you find to be most informative or most valuable when you're assessing the exuberance and the value of stocks and bonds and everything in the markets today? We start with the traditional indicators of valuation, like the PE ratio, whether it's the Schiller, Cape ratio or the traditional S&P PE ratio. And, you know, those things showed the market to be,

I used the expression a year ago, lofty but not muddy. You know, the non-Shiller PE ratio is about 23 or so today. The 80-year average is 16, so we're roughly 50%. higher today, but in 2000, I think it was 32. When I started in this business as a young man, in the research department at Citibank, the bank and most of the banks invested in what were called the nifty-50, which were considered to be the best and fastest growing companies in America,

Xerox, IBM, Kodak, Polaroid, Merck, Lilly, Texas Instruments, Shulid, Packard, Coca-Cola, Avon, etc. And most of those stocks were selling at PE ratios between 60 and 90. So to look at the at the at the max seven take out Tesla, they're selling a P ratio is in the 30s. That sounds so expensive to me. But that, and that's just P.E. But, you know, you can't just depend on P.E. That's too simplistic.

The companies are different. Their capital intensiveness is lower. their marginal profitability is higher. Since the product is an intellectual product rather than a piece of metal, it doesn't cost much to make the next one. So they can, so they can, their incremental profitability is much higher. And then another thing is we've never, ever seen companies growing at the rates of today. You know, and I don't know the Pacific, so I don't want to go there.

But, you know, you hear about companies that are growing 50% a month or 100% a year or whatever it might be. You've never seen that before. And, you know, you look at AI and the progress that it has made in the last four years. You know, three years ago, you know, you talk about moats, you talk about impregnability. Three years ago, most people thought software was a great industry. to invest in because everybody who used computers, which was everybody needed software. And if you had a software system

that served your company and industry, it would be expensive to change. And for the most part, it was hard to figure out a reason to change. So that's a pretty good moat. More recently, people are wondering whether the whole software industry is gonna go out of business because nobody writes software.

anymore. AI writes its own software for itself. People have to tell it what to write, but it can write it without any help. So now people have, in that world, there's something called SaaS, software as a service. And around February 1st, we had something called the SESPocalypse, where, you know, the great AI companies announced some coding models. And everybody said, that's it. The whole software industry has gone out of business. That's probably an exaggeration.

But it's very hard to figure out these things. By the way, I want to come back to something that you asked me a long time ago, and I didn't answer, and I don't want to leave it unanswered. How do you invest in this, given all these uncertain? these that I'm talking about. And, you know, what history has shown is that one of the greatest mistakes you can make is being not optimistic enough. And another mistake you can make is to say, the future is unclear so I can't invest. Those two things don't necessarily go together. The future is

always unclear. Maybe it's more unclear than ever. But that's not a reason not to invest. You just have to invest carefully, knowingly. You have to be aware of the risks you're taking. So how to invest in AI. Like anything else, there's a spectrum, and at one end of the spectrum, we have ultra-high possible returns with great uncertainty, and at the other end of the spectrum,

maybe we have somewhat lower possible returns with less uncertainty. Now, all of this is more unscertainty. certain than ever, but that spectrum still exists. And so you can choose a point on that spectrum. Let me give you a couple of examples. You can invest in what we call the hyperscalers, Amazon, Google, meta, Microsoft, for example. They have established businesses with moats, enormous operating cash flow.

They want to get into AI. They maybe feel that they have to compete vigorously in this winner-take-all battle. But still, with established businesses and cash flow and some diversity of business, these are, as I said before, without naming names, some of the greatest companies I've ever seen. So you would think that investing in them, would be maybe the low-risk way to invest in AI. But if AI boons and takes off and octoples in the next three years, since they have other businesses holding back their growth rate,

they're not going to be the maximum profit winners. Then you have established companies, as you said before, we don't know their profitability, their finances, and maybe, and they're one product companies in the sense that they're all AI. So maybe it's harder to specify their future. But Anthropic and Open AI, for example, Nvidia have a very high probability, I think, not being an expert, a high probability of still being successful five or ten years from now.

they may not be the number one they are today, but they're unlikely, I think, to be obsolete. So they're, depending on the price you pay and its fairness, they may be riskier than the hyperscalers, but they're not making it or break it. They're not, you know, they're already up and running. And then you have startups. You have startups where you don't know. know where they may not have revenues.

They may have revenues but no profits. You may not even know what the product will be. But if you can get in at something called, you know, ground level and they turn, and one album turns into be a big winner, you can make an incalculable amount of money. And I described this in a recent memo, as a lottery ticket.

And so at the, at the riskiest end of the spectrum, you have lottery behavior. And if you think about the lottery, most people who buy lottery tickets lose all their money. A few people become incredibly rich. So that's probably the profile of performance at the riskiest end of the spectrum. You can pick where to play on the spectrum. You can mix positions on the spectrum, and then you can decide how much should all of these companies on the spectrum be of your total portfolio. I guess the problem just on that point is that it seems that we are muddying what the

spectrum actually is, and we're almost rebranding lottery tickets as certain safe investments. I think the best example would probably be SpaceX, whose losses. grew 700% year of a year. It's an incredibly unprofitable business, especially the AI business. Anthropic is also unprofitable, though maybe we're starting to see, although we haven't seen the financials if that's starting to change. Open AI is certainly very unprofitable, but a lot of times when you say this, people will say, but the revenue is growing spectacularly. It grew, as you say, like 50% month over month, crazy revenue growth. And that's sort of the justification as to why it is a lottery ticket. Don't worry about the profitability. The top line's growing really fast. And I'm

actually not sure what to make of that argument. Part of me wants to say, no, it's still losing a ton of money, still a lottery ticket. But as someone who's looked at so many companies over the years, I mean, what do you make of that argument? What do you make of subsidizing these losses to the tune of literally hundreds of billions of dollars? This seems like we're entering a new era. It seems as though profitability isn't really a thing anymore, or at least I guess it's not a problem, and they can come on these valuations. And so I guess I asked that to you, knowing that, you know, you're not a VC, but you're someone who's seen so many cycles you've experienced investments work and not work conceptually. What do you make of it?

In the heat of the moment, in the exuberance, people say things, like, you know, profits don't matter. What matters is in the future, you know. We used to value stocks on earnings. Then when we started investing in companies with no earnings, we talked about investing on the basis of sales, ratio of sales. Then when we talked about companies that had no sales, people, back in 1999, 2000, people say, well, how much per eyeball, how much per click?

and people put values on on internet stocks based on how many people were going to their site even though they were going they're free. But I believe ultimately it always comes down to value.

Ultimately at some time in the future profitability will matter. And if you find a company that's a great tech leader today and it looks like it has an unlimited technological franchise

and great expertise and if you tell me that 20 years from now, it still won't be making money, my guess is that the price paid today by an exuberant investor will produce disappointment. When exuberance is replaced by sobriety, people say, well, of course profits matter.

We invest in companies, which we think will make money, and their profits will make money for us. So it's silly to disregard completely the possibility of profits. And by the way, Warren Buffett said in connection with the Internet, in I think 2000, he said there's no doubt about the fact that the Internet will add to efficiency, but that's not the same as adding to profitability.

And that's relevant today also. You know, AI is going to change the world. I have no doubt about that. Who will it make money for? You know? I mean, if it's a, if, if all the hyperscalers plus the anthropics and an open A eyes of the world and Tesla and some of the startups, if they all engage in battle. and compete against each other at enormous costs, how profitable will they be?

Who will make the money? And if AI is primarily a labor saving device, which I think might be an accurate description, who gets the benefit of the labor savings? Maybe the customer, the shipping company or the retail company or the warehouse company, benefits from a price war among AI providers

such that the user adds to his or her profits, but the purveyor of AI services doesn't do that great. You know, these things can't be specified now. We'll be right back, and for even more markets content, sign up for our newsletter at profity markets.com. Support for the show comes from DeLeemeyMe. 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 prop g and enter code prop G, and you'll get 20% off Delete Me. Delete Me removes your personal information that's being sold on 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 Profi and use promo code Provji at checkout. The only way to get 20% off is to go to join deleteme.com slash provchee and enter code propji a checkout. That's join deleteme.com slash propg code profji. Support for the show comes from Vanguard to all the financial advisors listening. Let's talk bonds for a minute. Capturing value in fixed income is not

easy. Bond markets are massive murky and let's be real. Lots of firms throw a couple flashy funds your way and call it a day. But not Vanguard. Vanguard bonds are institutional quality. Institutional quality isn't a tagline. It's a commitment to your clients. It means top-grade products across the board. The lineup includes over 80 bond funds. They are actively managed by a 200-person global squad of sector specialists, analysts, and traders. Lots of firms love to highlight their star portfolio managers, like it's all about that one brilliant mind making the magic happen.

Vanguard's philosophy is a little different. They believe the best active strategies shouldn't be locked away with one person. they should be shared across the team. That way, every client benefits from the collective brain power, not just one individual's take. So if you're looking to give your clients consistent results year in and year out, go see the record for yourself at vanguard.com slash audio. That's vanguard.com slash audio.

All investing is subject to risk, Vanguard Marketing Corporation distributor. 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 V.C. 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 Prof G Markets. I want to ask a question about your business. I've been in your business nearly as long as you, but I've been around it. And I remember when I first moved to New York, I was in San Francisco ago in the 90s and the New York from 2000 on, I just knew a ton of people making a great living in your business.

Now I know a small number of people making an astronomical living, and the rest are gone. The rest, it feels like there's been just an incredible consolidation in your business. where you're either a Leviathan or you're a no man's land. I would just love to get your take on your business as a business and how you've seen a change and where you think it's headed. How long do you have? I mean, that's a pretty broad question. Sure.

First of all, you know, I'm pretty sure I'd predate you. When I attended the University of Chicago in 1968, the professor pointed out that the act, average mutual fund did worse than the S&P before fees and then charged a high fee. And so he says, why don't they just buy, why don't you just buy one share of each stock in the S&P? There were no index funds or no concept of indexation, but it came along and it, you know, today the majority of mutual fund equity capital is managed by indexation or passive investment. That's one reason why a lot of people have disappeared.

The consumer was not well-informed and paid a high fee for a defective product, which is not a great business model. On the other hand, in the last, well, let's say 40 years, which is maybe it's a little more or less, there have been all these innovations. We lived 40-plus years in a period of declining interest rates, which made a lot of things very successful. And a lot of people cashed in and built very, very profitable businesses investing in what are called alternative investments, private equity, private credit and things like that. And they found an environment which was perfect for them. And especially since March of 2009, which was the low point of the global financial crisis, things have been rosy for over 17 years. and so a lot of people have made a lot of money.

This tends to get sorted out in the bad times. In the good times, the great investors do great, the bad investors do good. In the bad times, it gets sorted out. There may be rougher times ahead for some of these new, new things in the investment business, and some of it may get sorted out. By the way, let me just close this stuff. own for Oatree, in the last 15 years, they've developed a business called private credit, which is really the term, it's a broader term for what we call direct lending, which is

private loans for mid-sized buyouts. And I'm informed on good authority that, so this came, this didn't exist in 2010, and it's $1.7 trillion today. And I'm told that there are roughly 700 direct lending managers. And so the availability of that $1.7 trillion put a lot of people into business and made a lot of people extremely successful, along with a very favorable economy and with low or generally low or generally declining interest rates, which are salient. So this has been an ideal environment. And we have 700 managers making money in this industry today. What will it look like five or ten years from now? We'll find out.

But I'm told that of the 700, roughly 3% were in business before the global financial crisis. So we don't know how many of them have been. what it takes to deal with a harsh environment. Making money in a salutary environment proves almost nothing. To make money in a salutary investment environment, you can do it on the basis of good judgment and hard work and skill, or you can do it on aggressiveness and getting lucky. It doesn't get sorted in the good times.

As Buffett says, it's only when the tide goes out that we find out who's been swimming naked. So this period that you describe, and particularly the period 2009 to date, this has been salad days. It's a halcyon days. And nobody should look at those 17 years and say, oh, that's a long period. So that's probably normalcy. This was the greatest period imaginable for the investment industry and especially for the alternative investment industry. And one day, I think, the tide will go out, and one day some of this will be sorted. Just a quick question to wrap up here. We didn't touch on private credit. There's a lot of fear and a lot of

concern around private credit right now. Do you think those fears are overblown, underblown? What is your view on the private credit market right now? And I realize that's an awfully big market, but it's getting a lot of attention right now. I think it's overblown. These were managers who collected money from clients and gave loans for mid-sized buyouts. And some of them will be unsuccessful, but probably not a large percentage.

I mean, this activity has been around under different guises in 78 or 77, I was lucky to be asked to start Citibanks High O Bond activity in 78. And we've been making loans to companies of moderate creditworthiness and doing well for 48 years.

People who don't do it as well will not have great results. But most of the loans will pay. And the people who are throwing up their hands are probably exaggerating the difficulty and extrapolating the fears in software, which are probably overblown. Having said that,

retail investors or individual investors bought these products, and these are private loans. There's no market for them. You can't get out of them at the drop of a hat. And so a lot of these, I think most of the unease concerning what you call private credit, what I call direct lending, is around the fact that people have said, okay, you know what, I'm not that happy.

I'd like to get my money back. And if you went into a non-traded BDC, which is what we call these things you're talking about, the people said, we can only let out 5% of the investors per quarter. And other people said, you know what do you mean? I put money in. I can't get it out. Well, that was always the term. if you read the prospectus, which admittedly very few people do, it was there.

None of this is a surprise, but people do things in the good times when they're feeling no pain, sometimes without adequate care or research or prudence, and they tend to regret them into bad times. Some of that is going on, but I don't think there was a misrepresentation. people should not be surprised that they can't get all their money out every quarter. But one of the most powerful forces in the investment business is disillusionment. And people went from being unwired to now thinking that the ship is sinking, and that's very painful. The unwarried feeling was mistaken, and now the feeling that the ship, is hopelessly sinking is also probably mistaken.

Howard, you've been incredibly successful on Wall Street. You started one of the most successful asset management firms in the world. A lot of young people listen to this podcast starting their careers who want to build economic security, who want to be successful. What advice would you give to those people who are just starting out in their careers right now? I've enjoyed a great career, and I don't consider it over. investing is a fascinating field. I mean, just think about this podcast

and think about the number of times I said, I don't know, or something's unpredictable, or inestimable, or incalculable. So what we do every day is we peel an onion and we deal with uncertainty and we make judgments, we make the best judgments we can

in an uncertain world. In his book, fooled by randomness, Nassim Thaleb talked about, made comparison between investing in dentistry. And he said, if you go to dental school and you learn how to fill a cavity and you fill the cavity that way every time, you'll be successful every time. That's not true of investing. So if you're the kind of person who wants to be successful every time, don't become an investor, become a dentist or an engineer or something where you have physical rules in play that are reliable. There are no physical rules in investing that will make you successful all the time.

Warren Buffett, the most successful investor of all times, attributes his success to 12 investments over the last 60, 70 years. Now, he didn't have that many abject failures, but many, many, many investments that he made were only moderately successful. He did 12 great ones. So do you like dealing with uncertainty and ambiguity? Can you live with a batting average, which is far from 1,000? The only thing I would emphasize is that investing has been enormously profitable industry

for those of us participating in it in the last 50 years. you shouldn't become an investor just because it's a high-paid industry. But if you meet the description that I just laid out, I think it's a great thing to do. It's exciting, it's intellectually challenging. You never reach a point where you say,

well, I got this figured out, and I find that to be a wonderful attribute. I wish we could keep going for hours, but alas, we cannot. Howard Marks is the co-founder and co-chairman of Oak Tree Capital Management. Prior to co-founder, Oak Tree, Marx led the groups at the TCW group that were responsible for investments in distressed debt, high-yield bonds and convertible securities, who was also chief investment office of a domestic fixed income at TCW previously. Marks was with Citicorp Investment Management for 16 years.

Howard has published three books on investing, including the most important thing, uncommon sense for the thoughtful investor and mastering the market cycle, getting the odds on your side. Howard, we really appreciate your time. Thank you so much. Thank you, Howard. Thank you, fellows, for your great questions. It's been a pleasure. This episode was produced by Claire Miller and Alison Weiss and engineered by Benjamin Spencer. Our video editor is Jorge Carty. Our research team is Dan Jalan, Isabella Kinsul, Chris Nodonoghue and Mia Silverio. 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 ProfG Media. If you liked what you heard, give us a follow and join us for a fresh take on markets on Monday. Formula One, so hot right now. It's like if traders in succession had a baby on wheels. Teams lying. Drivers beefing. Celebrities everywhere. And scandals.

Lots of scandals. So we made a show about it, the Red Flag's podcast where we recap races and break down all latest F1 headlines. But no nerdy tech talk. We only cover the stuff you'll want to hear about. Yeah, and the only thing hotter than the drivers are our takes. And now we're doing it on Vox. Oh, we're so legit now.

We're basically thought leaders. Ted Talk incoming. And we do a podcast with Gunter Steiner called Venka Hours. I still can't believe that's true. Well, believe it. There is so much for the beautiful Vox media audience to enjoy. So come check out. out the Red Flax podcast every Monday on YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts.