Prof G Markets - The Oil Blockade Isn’t Spooking Markets — Yet

Episode Date: April 14, 2026

Ed Elson and Michael Gapen break down how markets are responding to the rapidly shifting headlines out of Iran, and where inflation is headed after the oil shock. Then, Ed is joined by Theresa Payton to break down Anthropic’s new Mythos model and what it means for the future of cybersecurity. Finally, Ed explains why it seems like we’re living in a world without law enforcement.  Michael Gapen is the Managing Director and Chief U.S. Economist at Morgan Stanley. Theresa Payton is the CEO of Fortalice Solutions and former White House Chief Information Officer. 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 Virgin Atlantic. A lot of people dread flying. I've been on some bad flights and I've been on some truly miserable flights. But it's a whole different story when an airline shows up for you and the crew treats you like a VIP. Virgin Atlantic offers warm one-on-one service from the moment you step on board. Its upper class cabin features four-course meals, fully lay flat seats, and drinks delivered on demand. Make the journey as exceptional as a destination when you fly Virgin Atlantic. Go to virgin Atlantic.com to learn more.

for the show comes from Hostinger. Ever had an idea for a business or side hustle, but never actually launched it? With Hostinger, you can turn that idea into something real in minutes instead of weeks. Hostinger is an all-on-one platform that brings everything into one place, your domain, website, email marketing, AI tools, and AI agents. You can create websites, online stores, and custom apps with simple prompts. Then, use AI agents to automate tedious tasks and grow your business. Go to hostinger.com slash the prop G to bring your ideas online for under 3.3.000. $3 a month. Use promo code the Provji for an extra 20% off. Today's number, $1.2 trillion.

That's how many dollars the U.S. government racked up in deficit spending in the first half of this fiscal year on track for more than $2 trillion for the full year. That is a roughly 20% increase from the previous year. Thank God for fiscal conservatism. Money markets met. is evil, then that building is held. Show those up! Welcome to Profite Markets, I'm Ed Elson.

It is April 14th. Let's check in on yesterday's Market Vitals. The major indices climbed on hopes of a deal with Iran. Meanwhile, oil prices rose as the U.S. moved to blockade the Strait of Hormuz. We'll talk about that in a second. The yield on 10-year treasuries fell, and finally, Oracle shares surged nearly 13% after the company revealed new AI tools for the utility sector that gain lead software stocks higher, with broader sentiment turning positive to start the week.

Okay, what's happening? The U.S. Navy has blockaded the strait of Hormuz. The blockade went into effect yesterday morning after peace talks in Pakistan collapsed this weekend. In a post on truth, Social Trump threatened to, quote, eliminate any Iranian ships that come near the blockade. Oil jumped nearly 8% on the news climbing back above $100 per barrel. By the afternoon, Trump said Iran had reached out about negotiations and oil prices paired some gains. This latest trouble at the strait follows a hot inflation report back in the States where the price of oil

has already pushed gas prices higher. So here to discuss what this blockade means, what these latest developments in Iran mean. We are speaking with Michael Gapen, managing directs. and Chief U.S. economist at Morgan Stanley. Michael, we have a blockade on the blockade, and it's a little hard to understand however one feels about it because we do have oil prices, obviously, rising, but then also we have stock prices rising. I mean, investors seem to be somewhat bullish in a lot of ways

coming into the week. What do you make of this blockade? What does that actually mean for inflation? investors. Well, you're right that I think investors, I don't want to use the word complacent, because certainly they're not complacent, but I think they're optimistic in the sense that the interpretation of markets is that the day-to-day events here are probably still what they would call in a de-escalation camp, meaning it doesn't appear like things are escalating in a way. So oil is staying around this $100 per barrel level. That's certainly a lot higher than it was

going into it. But the view from the market is $100 oil may not be great, but it's something the U.S. economy can withstand and the global economy can withstand as well. So it's inflation's rising. Yes, that will crimp purchasing power. We can talk about that. But it does not appear that oil is at a level that would destroy demand, right? Because a little bit of oil, I mean, I should say it's been more than a little, but a large increase in oil, it initially shows up inflation, but if it rises too much, then what it starts to do is weaken activity. And I think the market is telling you, we're in that first stage, we're in that first part. It's likely an inflation story. It may dampen demand, but it should, the global economy should remain in an

expansion in 2026, and that's why I think stocks have rebounded. What do you make of the inflation report that we saw as well for March came in at 3.3 percent, two-year high, gasoline up over 20 percent in a single month. I mean, that inflation report was pretty bad, but of course it is measuring, I mean, the immediate effects of the war in Iran. I mean, as the U.S. economist over at Morgan Stanley, like, what are you supposed to do with that data? Is that meaningful in your long-term projections of how things are going to go. It's certainly meaningful for where we think headline inflation is going, right? So we typically split out headline and core.

Core is X energy and X food because these are commodities determined in global markets. And Core kind of gives us a view of where underlying inflation trends may be going. And the data history in the U.S., I mean, this goes back 30 to 40 years now, where shot Tox to oil tend to push headline inflation higher in the U.S., but it often has very limited second-round effects on core. That's important from the economist point of view because you're saying, okay, we get the direct effect from energy, we can't avoid that. It goes right into gasoline prices very quickly in the U.S.

But the good news is history says we don't get second-round effects, where other prices rise because gasoline prices are higher or oil prices are higher. So we've raised our forecast for headline inflation. We actually think headline inflation will peak around 3.7 percent on a year-on-year basis. So there's still probably a little more to come in that regard. But we really haven't changed our outlook on core inflation. We think core inflation can actually move a little lower as we get into the second half of the year. That will be dependent, though, I think primarily on whether the tariff passed through to goods prices, and we think it will by the middle of the year.

But that's how we're looking at it. It's a boost to headline inflation, but it may not change the underlying dynamics of inflation, and inflation could be lower by the end of the year. Walk me through that thesis, then, because my understanding is, I mean, yes, we see the immediate impacts of oil prices on gasoline, but we also know that what's,

what's happening, if the Strait of Hormuz is blockaded further, then, I mean, fertilizer prices will go up. You need fertilizer to grow food, which would mean food prices would go up. In addition, you know, you need gasoline to transport things around the country, to move stuff from countries to other countries. I mean, my understanding is that pretty much the whole economy is dependent on oil in one way or another. So how would it not pass through to core inflation to things like food, groceries, consumer goods, etc. Well, two things. One is higher oil prices tend to weaken activity, right?

So gasoline prices go up. You and I pay more for prices at the pump. We can't spend it elsewhere. So demand in the economy actually slows. And it's that softening in demand and that softening in activity, which means other prices don't tend to go up. Now, this is just what history suggests is the guide. It may not be the case this time around. The U.S. has been above its 2% target for about five years, and you make good points about, let's say, the downstreaming of oil into other distillates and products.

And, like, for example, food costs do involve a lot of transportation. So it's conceivable. Maybe we do get some second round effects this time. So history says we won't, but we can't be too blasé about it. Right. And we may get it. The other point I'd like to follow up on that, it's a good point you make, is right now we're still largely talking about this as the effect of higher oil prices. What you're getting at with the closure, the potential long-term closure of the straight is, well, at some point, this may turn into a quantity story. Right. So right now I might be able to get as much oil as I need at a higher price. What happens if it's not available at any price?

Then you could start to see things through the lens of supply chain disruptions like we had during COVID. Where that's going to show up first is in Asia, because I think as you know, about 85% of the oil that comes out of the Strait of Hormuz, its destination is Asia. So if some economies are going to experience outright short, shortages first, it will be there. And then you're talking about, I can't get the oil or, as you say, the fertilizer or the distillate that I need. Therefore, activity has to stop. So those are the risks.

We could get second round effects on inflation because we've been above target for so long, or this conflict could go on long enough where it actually changes from price effects to quantity effects. Then you're right, we could see a much more persistent inflation story. Right. It is really interesting, just and kind of depressing almost, that when you look through history, basically what you're describing is that when oil prices rise, the reason that everything else doesn't rise is because people are so strapped for cash that you literally can't test them that much further. Either way, the situation is you're testing the American consumer literally to their limit.

And if you hit that limit, then there is a world in which, you know, companies will basically say, okay, well, we can't raise our prices further because they're just not going to pay for this. It does get into sort of murky territory, I think, when we think about things like food, where it's like, well, you've got to pay for food. But, I mean, it's just striking that we are getting to that point. Just from an investment perspective, I mean, the way this story has changed is getting almost comical. like we start with, you know, we're only going to be in Iran for four or five weeks. Then we say, actually, we're going to increase that and we're going to create a deadline.

And then we get to the deadline and we say, we're going to escalate this. And then we say, actually, no, we're not escalating it. Now we have a deal. And then we say, actually, wait, no, the deal didn't really work because now more bombs are being dropped. And so now we're going to blockade the thing. So we don't have a deal. Now we're going to blockade in response. I mean, in a funny way, nothing is really happening here.

And yet every time something happens, the market is reacting and saying, okay, something's changed. Now we have a blockade. Now we don't have a blockade. Now oil is going to pass through fine. And to me, I'm sort of like, shouldn't we just not even be reacting at all? What is the correct response to what we're seeing? You laid it out very well. I would argue that markets are reacting a little less to the headlines now than they were two to three to four weeks ago.

So as you said in your introduction, oil was up around 8, 9, 10 percent today in response to the implementation of the blockade. But U.S. equity markets did okay today. So I do think the market is discounting a little bit, the headline noise, looking through some of the day-to-day volatility in a way that it did not. do it a few weeks ago. So I agree with you that you can be very disconcerting to hear headlines one way, one day, and in the other way the next day. But I think the market's actually starting to filter that out better, and volatility has come down. I think a second factor behind that is markets had to de-risk for the first two to three to four weeks of this. Most investors were positioned for rates to fall, at least at the front end of yield,

all throughout the, throughout most of the world, not all the world, but much of the world. And what this oil price shock did, of course, was push yields higher. So markets needed to rebalance and de-risk and get out of positions and kind of get flat or neutral, as we would call it. That process leads to a lot of initial volatility. But now that positions have been squared to use the terminology of the industry, and risk is a little more neutral. now markets can afford to look through some of this headline noise.

Yeah. I mean, we've seen how investors are reacting. You know, as an economist, it's a slightly different job because you're not necessarily trying to make a bet on what's going to happen. You're just trying to understand what are the possible potential scenarios, what are the possible futures. I guess as an economist, I mean, when you put your economist hat on, how, seriously have you taken these developments in terms of their potential to, I guess, adjust the trajectory of the U.S. economy? Like, when you see the headlines and you see, okay, now he's blockaded the blockade, do you look at that and then say, okay, well, this is going to change the economy in this way, or this isn't going to change things?

I mean, how is an economist supposed to digest what's happening here? So the way that we've approached it is to kind of think of the world through three lenses, three possible paths here. One is kind of the everything goes back to normal, and we return to February 27th. We think that's very unlikely. We think there has been a structural regime shift in the balance of power in the Middle East in the way oil flows in and out of the strait. So we're not here thinking,

hey, if we just get over this or that, things are going to go back to where they were six to eight weeks ago. So that leaves us kind of two possible outcomes. Obviously, there's more than two, but I'm just in terms of trying to think about how things may go. And one is what I'll call the oil is high, but not too high. And then the second one is oil moves so high as to create recessionary kind of outcome.

So there's a non-linearity here where above a certain price, oil becomes really problematic for the U.S. expansion and the global expansion. Below that level, it's kind of what I was saying before. It's about a spike in headline inflation. It suppresses demand a little bit in the U.S., but the U.S. economy continues to go and the expansion continues. Right. After all, we had about $120 per barrel oil at the beginning of the Russia, Ukraine. conflict. Now, it was a slightly different U.S. economy at that point in time, a lot of fiscal stimulus in the economy, a lot of jobs being added. But, you know, this price level of oil is not unusual.

So we have passed it through the lens of essentially saying, well, the average consumer, about two and a half percent of their spending goes to gasoline. Lowered middle income households, it's more like four to five percent, it's about double the average. And so what it's really doing is that shock, that hit to real disposable income and real purchasing power, is basically offsetting the fiscal stimulus that we assumed from the one big, beautiful bill act. So in some of our prior conversations, you know, before the Iran conflict started, we were talking about how optimistic the outlook was for the U.S. this year. We've trimmed the sales on that from growth rates that could be above two and a half percent, closer to three percent, maybe, and thinking, well,

this is just going to offset that fiscal stimulus. Maybe it's another year of growth around, around 2 percent, but you're getting inflation moving higher. Maybe we get the Fed cuts that we were expecting. Maybe we don't. Maybe the Fed stays on the sideline. So right now, we're saying it's a headwind. But we need to be watchful, as we were saying, that maybe it becomes a quantity story. Maybe it does re-escalate. Maybe oil moves to $125 to $150 a barrel. And then I think equity markets would look much weaker, sentiment would be worse. And in addition to weaker spending, maybe what you get then is negative wealth effects.

And the private sector that says, well, let's delay that capital spending plan. Let's delay those hiring plans. Right. And then the economy can slow down much more abruptly. All right. Michael Gapen, Managing Director and Chief U.S. economist at Morgan Stanley. Michael, always appreciate your time. Thank you. Thank you.

After the break, we look at Anthropics Cybersecurity Threat. And if you're enjoying the show, please follow our new Profi Market's YouTube channel. The link is in the description. This is advertiser content brought to you by Virgin Atlantic Ed. A couple weeks back, I got you a birthday gift not to pat myself on the back, but it was a pretty good one. It was indeed. me with Virgin Atlantic upper-class tickets to London. So tell us all about it.

It was pretty incredible. From the moment I entered that upper-class cabin, I have to tell you, I felt like a VIP. Anything I needed, a drink, snack, assistance with the seat. Flat seats. Flat seats. Flat seats. Exactly. Had the four-course meal.

Got my champagne. Very delicious. Enjoyed the food. And the journey home? The journey home was great. I went to the Virgin Atlantic LHR Clubhouse. That's the Heathrow Clubhouse. Heathrow Clubhouse was awesome.

Got myself a coffee. Headed over to the meditation pod that they called the Somer Dome. Kind of felt like a sort of spaceship where you relax and think nice thoughts. So I did that for a little bit. Then we went over to the wing, which are these acoustically sealed booths where you could do some work. You could even record a podcast. I didn't do that, but maybe I should have. It was a very enjoyable experience.

So, Ed, the real question here is, What are you planning to get me for my birthday? See the world differently with Virgin Atlantic. Flying should be more than just transport. It is part of the adventure. Go to virginatlantic.com to learn more. Tickets and lounge access provided by Virgin Atlantic. This episode is brought to you by Tell Us Online Security.

Oh, tax season is the worst. You mean hack season? Sorry, what? Yeah, cybercriminals love tax forms. But I've got Tell Us Online Security. It helps protect against identity theft and financial fraud so I can stress less during tax season or any season. Plans start at just $12 a month.

Learn more at talus.com slash online security. No one can prevent all cybercrime or identity theft. Conditions apply. AI is moving fast across the enterprise. But without visibility, it's just chaos, different tools, different models, different teams using AI in completely different ways. Service now turns that chaos into

With the AI control tower, you see all your AI across the business in one place. What it's doing, what it's done, and what it's about to do. So you stay in control. To put AI to work for people, visit servicenow.com. We're back with Prof.G Markets. Anthropic announced its most powerful model yet last week and decided that the world isn't ready for it. The model called Claude Mythos found thousands of previously undetected software bugs

and identified security vulnerabilities in every major operating system and web browser. Instead of a public launch, Anthropic is limiting access to a group of the world's biggest tech companies, including the company's major competitors. The consortium known as Project Glasswing will use mythos to find and patch vulnerabilities before bad actors do. So, how powerful is this model really?

And what does it mean for cybersecurity in the future? Joining us to discuss this, we're speaking with Teresa Payton, CEO of Fortiless Solutions and former White House Chief Information Officer. Teresa, I mean, this model, regardless of what we even know about it, has just totally shaken everyone's confidence. And it was very scary that they basically got together and said, we're not even going to release the product because it's that powerful.

What do we know about this model and what are your takeaways from the announcement of Claude Mythos? Sure, absolutely. you know, thanks for having me. And this is a very important topic for a couple of reasons. One, I know there is sort of a camp that says, well, maybe this is a marketing ploy or maybe they're overplaying their hand on this and it's not as bad as we think. And for all intents and purposes, they're allowed to say that for now until we have a third party point of view because this is self-reported by Anthropic. However, Anthropic at their ethos talks about having an ethical constitution. And they've brought in a lot of experts from the outside to talk about safety and ethics and

security and reliability. So let's assume the self-reporting is accurate for right now until we know more. If it is accurate, that means that mythos as a frontier AI is actually the smartest AI on the planet right now, and if it is true based on their self-reports, it's going to be the best and the worst nightmare for cybersecurity teams everywhere. I'm going to quote somebody on my team who said, I won't say the name, a bomb just went off in the cybersecurity industry, and we all need to read everything we can about it to understand how it can help us and how it can be used against us. What do you make of how the markets have been reacting? Because, I mean, if we look at what happened last week, mythos has announced, and it did look like a bomb went off. I mean,

some of the biggest names, absolutely plummeting. Then we come into the beginning of the week, and people seem a little bit less concerned. Some of these big names, CrowdStrike was up, Palo Alto networks went up, Cloudflare went up. Like, a lot of the big cybersecurity names are actually rallying now. What changed in the minds of investors do you think? Oh, well, I mean, I mean, they did have a weekend to think about things. To process, yeah. I mean, I mean, it's interesting. I mean, there is strategic positioning around what day of the week you deliver bad news. And so people at the weekend maybe to think about it, but also to say, you know what, let's learn more.

So there's this consortium coming together with Anthropic, and we're going to hear more. But again, if the self-reporting is true, that means that mythos in a limited release found thousands of very serious bucks. including zero days, they said some of them were hidden almost over two decades. And if that is the case, that means that every cybersecurity product that has been installed did not find these. And so we have to ask the question, what does that mean for today's cybersecurity products? And are they going to have to completely reimagine the design of these products with a tool like mythos? Now, also, what if somebody else? else has built a tool like mythos, but they don't have the ethical kind of foundational elements

that Anthropic has committed themselves to. That should also be a huge concern right now, because there could be a hidden mythos that none of us is aware of that is ready to launch. What are you supposed to do then, as someone who works in cybersecurity? Like, what are you supposed to do with this information? I mean, clearly it's a bad idea to just write it off and say, oh no, it's all just marketing. It's not real. It's not serious. But then on the other hand, I mean, how do you accept your fate? Like, are you just accepting fate if it's just, this is just infinitely more powerful than all of the solutions that we've had in the past? And this is going to completely destroy the industry as we know it, or at least completely disrupt

the industry as we know it. Like, what do you do if you're working in cybersecurity and you see this? Should you really be, I mean, how do you process it? How do you even change your behaviors moving forward? I think this opens up a new door. You know, the way I like to think about this, you know, I used to live in Hawaii. And so when the tsunami bell goes off, you don't say, oh, gosh, this is it. This is when we're all gone. You go to higher ground.

Right. And you know the plan and you get the playbook out and you hear the bell, you hear the warning, you find out how much time you have, and you execute against that plan. And so this should be our tsunami bell warning of whatever you, you hear the warning. of whatever you were planning on doing, you need to operate at machine speed and not at bureaucratic speed. So a couple of things, because I don't want people to not feel empowered

and engaged on what to do here. So if you're an executive listening to our conversation right now, a couple of things you need to be doing. You need to be asking your vendors and your CISO right now, how are we systematically testing our critical software, our open source dependencies,

our cloud infrastructure, against AI augmented vulnerability discovery because Mythos will eventually be commercially available, but somebody else may make it available, and it won't be in the good guy's hands, it'll be in the bad guy's hands. Ask whether or not, because of the vendor relationships you already have, do you have access to get intel

for what they're learning as they continue to run the tool? And then also be asking your board and your risk committees if they are getting regular quantified updates on the exposure that the company has due to sort of this dual-use AI risk of frontier models being used against you instead of on your behalf. I would say for the security teams, a lot of the things you already had on your roadmap that you just haven't had a chance to get to because the enterprise you work for hasn't prioritized it or put money against it, the door's now open for you to go back in and have that conversation. to say, we have to operate at machine speed because that's going to be what's coming at us.

What do you make of this, the fact that Treasury Secretary Scott Besson actually gathered all of the big bank CEOs at the White House to talk about what this would mean and to talk about the cybersecurity threat here? I mean, that was a moment where I was like, okay, this is, this is real, this is very scary. We're literally trying to figure out how to regulate this thing, or I don't know what the conversation even was. I mean, what do you think was saying? said in that room, what should have been said? What do you make of the fact that that happened? Yeah, I mean, so I understand, many of them were already there for another reason, for another conversation, but this is fairly unprecedented to have this kind of a meeting called potentially

on this topic. We don't, there's no minutes of the meeting. We don't know what was discussed. But the fact that they got together at this level and had a conversation should give everybody sort of pause. One, we know that the way the world moves around is money has to move around. And so obviously there's concern about some type of an attack that could either stop money from moving or make sure that money moves to the wrong places and not to the right places. And remember, money does now move at the speed of machine. So how are we protecting at the speed of machine? That probably was a big part of the conversation and making sure that people really understood this is your top priority.

What do you think this will ultimately mean for AI policy? Because it seems as though if this is as powerful and disruptive as Anthropics says it is, I could imagine a world where we basically say, well, we can't let this out because it'll literally destroy our digital economy, if it can just hack everything, if it can hack every major bank, which makes me think, okay, well, then the government will just say, no, this, you can't release this product. It's illegal. And what do you think will actually happen here from a regulatory perspective? And, you know, as someone who actually worked in the White House, what do you think are some of the correct pods forward? What should we do about this? This is a very tough

decision for policymakers. And I feel for it. them, you can't hold this product back. And the reason why I say that is, is somebody else is developing the same thing. It's sort of the equivalent of saying, don't build up, you know, whether it's a military for kinetic perspective, because we wouldn't want to have a military because that could create, you know, sort of unsafe posture. Well, but if somebody else is building a military, you need to at least, you know, kind of have that perspective. So it's the same thing with something like this. You don't want to say, you can't release this tool. because it's dangerous.

Well, it's dangerous not to have this tool now that we know that we have it because cybercriminal syndicates and nation states, if they weren't already building one, they just literally read the headline and they're building one. And so what you have to do

is figure out how can you take a tool like this, make it commercially available, so it is a force for good, that it has the right governance and guardrails around it so it doesn't end up in bad hands. But just like a hammer can help build a half,

A hammer can also be used as a weapon. So you can't blame the tool. You have to have the right policy and you have to have the right governance. Something we are sorely lacking right now. Yeah. All right. Theresa Payton, CEO of Foresliss Solutions,

former White House Chief Information Officer. Teresa, very interesting times. Thank you for joining us. Thanks for having me. Here's a fun fact to end the show today. Ever since we invaded Iran, Google search interest for Epstein has fallen 75%. And many have theorized that the real reason we invaded Iran

wasn't to destroy their nuclear capabilities, which, according to the president, had already been destroyed, but rather it was to distract our attention away from the Epstein files. Personally, I think that that theory is a little far-fetched, but if it's true, well, then you would have to admit it's kind of working. But there is something implicitly puzzling about this theory and about every theory of distraction that we keep hearing about for that matter. And that is the following.

Since when did prosecuting a crime in America become dependent on our attention? I mean, if a guy robbed a bank, for example, and we knew he robbed a bank, would that not be enough as it is to just bring him to court? I mean, would it even matter if regular Americans knew about the crime and talked about the crime, if the crime were discussed on TV? No, all of that would be irrelevant because, again, it's not about how much attention we pay to the crime. It's about whether or not the guy committed a crime. Our opinion doesn't matter.

And yet, we seem to no longer live in that world. We seem to live in a world where prosecution is no longer the responsibility of, law enforcement, but it seems we believe that prosecution is the responsibility of citizens. And it's not just Epstein. I mean, consider all of the insider trading scandals we've discussed as it relates to the Iran war, the billions of dollars of oil futures that were traded just minutes before Trump made major announcements related to Iran, or the millions of dollars that Trump's children made timing their investments in crypto, timing their investments in defense companies and drone start-ups in accordance with the president's actions.

And somehow we all believe that it's on us to identify these crimes and to examine the evidence and keep track of the trades and, of course, to not get distracted by other things. Why is that? Why isn't that the job of the cops? Well, this strikes at the heart of one of the most fundamental changes we're witnessing in this administration. And that is, despite the fact that,

being tough on crime, as they often say, what we're seeing is that law enforcement is actually being systematically dismantled right before our very eyes. And we're seeing this across multiple different agencies. The SEC, for example, whose literal job is to investigate financial crime. They have seen their staffing numbers drop by nearly 20% in just one year under Trump. And as a result, The SEC's enforcement actions have fallen roughly 30%. That is one of the largest drops in history. The same is true of the Department of Justice. Last year, Trump cut nearly a billion dollars worth of DOJ crime prevention programs,

and in addition, white-collar crime prosecutions have been cut in half. The same is also true of the IRS. This is the agency whose job is to find and prevent tax evasion, to prevent tax crimes, their workforce has been cut by roughly a third since the previous administration and audit rates, which already declined 9% last year, are on track to decline another 39% this year, and this is before the additional funding cuts that are planned for next year. So put another way, despite all of the rhetoric, Trump and his team are actually defunding the police. They're actually attacking and dismantling.

the mandate of law and order, and they are especially doing it in the Department of White-collar crime and of high finance. So when I ask myself, why do we suddenly think it's our job to investigate criminals and to figure out financial crimes and to hold it all to account, the answer is quite simple because it now is. Yes, law enforcement still exists, but as I hope the numbers show, we are witnessing a systematic and growing neglect by the law enforcement. those organizations to actually enforce the law. And it's all coming from the top down. Now, I know what you're probably thinking. This is a markets show. Aren't we supposed to be talking about markets? Yes, it is a market show, and yes, I agree. But the fundamental underpinning

of any market system is that there are rules. There are laws of the game that you have to follow. But if those laws don't exist anymore, or if the referees whose job is to enforce those laws don't exist anymore, as we are increasingly seeing. Well, then we should start to recognize how the game of investing is fundamentally changing, and more importantly, how we might be witnessing the arrival of an entirely different game. Okay, that's it for today. This episode was produced by Claire Miller and Alison Weiss, edited by Joel Patterson, and engineered by Benjamin Spencer. Our video editor is Brad Williams. Our research team is Dan Shalahn, Isabella Kinsel, Chris Nodonohue, and Mia Silverio,

and our social producer is Jake McPherson. Thanks for listening to Profty Markets from Profit Media. If you liked what you heard, give us a follow. I'm Ed Elson. I will see you tomorrow. The Madamy Holmes bike for brain health supporting Baycrest returns on May 31st for its fifth anniversary with a new start and finish at the Aga Khan Museum. Join thousands of cyclists as we take over the DVP and Gardner Expressway in support of dementia research and brain Health. Riders of all abilities are welcome, and both regular bikes and e-bikes can participate. Bring your friends, family, or corporate team, and make an impact. Register today at fightforbrainhealth.ca. When a country's productivity cycle is broken, people feel it in their

paychecks, their communities, their futures. What does this mean for individuals, communities, and businesses across the country? Join business leaders, policymakers, and influencers for CGs national series on the Canadian Standard of Living, Productivity and Innovation. Learn what's driving Canada's productivity decline and discover actionable solutions to reverse it.