Prof G Markets - The S&P 500 Enters Correction Territory

Episode Date: March 17, 2025

Scott and Ed open the show by discussing Southwest Airlines' decision to start charging for checked bags, Eric Schmidt’s appointment as CEO of Relativity Space, and the latest developments in Saudi Arabia’s Neom project. They then analyze the ongoing tariff battle, exploring its biggest potential consequences and why Scott believes China could ultimately come out ahead. Finally, they break down the $4 trillion market sell-off, and Ed highlights the key winners and losers from the plunge. Subscribe to the Prof G Markets newsletter  Join us for a live recording at SXSW Order "The Algebra of Wealth," out now Follow the podcast across socials @profgpod: Instagram Threads X Reddit Follow Scott on Instagram Follow Ed on Instagram and X Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Support for this show comes from Indeed. Indeed-sponsored jobs can help you stand out and hire fast. Your post even jumps to the top of the page for relevant candidates to make sure you're getting seen. There's no need to wait any longer. Speed up your hiring right now with Indeed. And listeners of this show will get a $100 sponsored job credit. To get your jobs more visibility, at indeed.com slash vox ca.

Just go to indeed.com slash Vox CA right now and support the show by saying you heard about Indeed on this podcast. Indeed.com slash Vox CA. Terms and conditions apply. Hiring Indeed is all you need. DEI went from workplace darling to persona non grata in the blink of an eye.

The thing that I loved is when I saw that the president's executive order was named ending illegal discrimination. I was like, what? Oh my goodness. Thank you for that gift. Why one workplace diversity expert is embracing the change and what it could mean for your job. That's this week on Explain It to Me. New episodes Sundays wherever you get your podcasts. Is Trump's plan for Gaza actually plausible? The less you really know about something,

the more confident your views about it, right? I'm Preet Bharara. And this week, I'm joined by a panel of Middle East experts to discuss the future for Gaza and the true potential for peace in the Middle East. The episode is out now. Search and follow, stay tuned with Preet, wherever you get your podcasts.

Today's number, five inches. That's the length of a live turtle that a Pennsylvanian man attempted to smuggle through airport security in his pants last week. True story Ed, I was blessed with a seven inch dick, but now the priest is in jail. ["Tru Cielo"] Ed, how are you? Ed, how are you?

I'm just putting it together in my head. We have all these young interns. They're literally just note to self exhibit 22B. If I don't keep giving them increase, they're literally every day balancing the money they'll get from the lawsuit that'll settle out of court. Only upside for us. Oh, we have a new intern. Wait, who's the new one? That's probably Bella you're talking about, who just came on full time.

No longer an intern. Oh, Bella. Hey, Bella. Welcome to Prop G Markets. That's right. She came to, let's talk about me. I was at Stern yesterday and I spoke to, I spoke to 500 students and Bella came. And, uh, yeah, it was was I was super nice to everyone and

then she told me she works for us and I'm like I pay you I don't need to be nice to you. That's right anyways welcome Bella. Very good. Welcome Bella. Let's talk about Priest. What's going on with you Ed? I'm doing pretty well Scott back in New York and I'm just kind of I just feel very good about how that South by trip went. I thought that was a great show. Talk about that. That was awesome, wasn't it? So much fun. I think the key detail is that we had 1500 people outside of the doors.

So that's what I've been telling everyone when I just come back and brag to people about how successful this show is. That's my big takeaway, that we had to turn away two thirds of the audience. What was your takeaway? I'm now Pete Townsend. I'm the most talented member of the band,

but fucking what's his face? The lead singer? What's that guy's name? I don't even know who Pete Townsend is. Oh, Jesus Christ. I know you're gonna just, exactly you're gonna have a panic attack hearing that. He was the lead guitarist of The Who,

but the front man, Richard Daltrey, who starred in a great movie, Pinball Wizard, very handsome, better looking than the more talented Pete Townsend. This is where I'm going. Everyone's like, oh, oh, Roger Daltry, not giving any love to the real talent, Peter Townsend.

And that's what it feels like at South by Southwest. Everyone's like, oh, Provji, what's that like? That's not true at all. Yeah, what did you think of the, we went to this Vox Media Dinner, and it was very cool for me because I got to sit next to Andy Roddick and I was a huge fan of him growing up.

You're not a fan of Megan Rapinoe. I think there's a little sexism in here. There are a lot of amazing female athletes that you have not mentioned at that dinner. There were, I wasn't that into women's soccer at the time. Jesus, Claire, can you believe this guy, Bella? I apologize. And he calls himself a football fan too.

No love for Megan. Arguably one of the greatest football players in history, but you didn't bring her up. I didn't, but Andy Roddick. You brought up the white dude that plays tennis. Okay, you got to give Andy Roddick his credit. Fastest serve in history, yes. And you went to Princeton, right?

Okay, yeah, yeah. Six foot three white male. Figures. Priv right? I did, yeah. Yeah, yeah. Six foot three, white male. Figures. Privilege. The patriarchy. Oh my god. Thank god I've got Claire. I totally agree with that.

But literally on that stage of us, with us, was Megan Rapinoe, arguably one of the greatest football players in history. Her wife, Sue Bird, a retired WNBA player, who has also, I think, won the NCAA championship two or three times. It doesn't sound as good when you're reading the Wikipedia page. Bitch, who signs your checks?

Is that on your Wikipedia page, who pays you? I don't have a Wikipedia page. Get to the headlines. Okay. Good. Let's start with our weekly review of Market Vitals. The S&P 500 entered correction territory. The dollar snapped its losing streak. Bitcoin fell below $80,000.

And the yield on 10-year Treasuries dropped on Monday, but recovered through the week. Southwest Airlines will begin charging passengers for checked bags. Beginning in late May, passengers get a free checked bag only with top tier loyalty status, a business class ticket or the airline's credit card. Shares rose 8% on that announcement. Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt has acquired a controlling stake in Rocket Startup Relativity Space and he will now take over as its CEO. The company is known for its use of 3D printers for rocket production. And finally, Saudi Arabia has reportedly invested $50 billion in its Neom project so far, with

the total projected cost reaching $8.8 trillion. That is more than 25 times the country's annual budget, and the project's construction is expected to continue for another 55 years. Scott, we will start with this new policy from Southwest Airlines. This is very interesting because the whole free bag check thing has been central to Southwest and its brand for years. In fact, they actually trademarked this phrase, bags fly free. So this was their big differentiator. And last year, the company even said that the free bag policy was the third biggest reason

why customers choose Southwest Airlines. And now they're scrapping it. Now, why are they doing it? It's quite simple. It's because of Elliott Management, the activist firm. You might remember last year, Elliott bought a 10% stake in Southwest. They installed five directors to the board.

And this was one of their big arguments in that play. They said, we want to charge fees on the back. So I'm very interested to get your view on this. This feels like almost a classic business school case study. Like there's a fork in the road. Do you charge extra on this thing you know you can make money off of? Or do you forego the additional revenue and maybe you get some more loyalty and maybe some more interest from your customers in the long run?

What do you think, Scott? This industry is arguably one of the more seminal technologies in history. The ability to... My parents had to crawl across the Atlantic over seven to nine days getting seasick to get to America. Now you can get... you can realistically fly from London to New York in about seven hours and if you book well ahead, you can do it for $400. This technology has been such an unbelievable unlock for economic growth, the ability to see your family more regularly, mobility of capital to its greatest return. It's been just an enormous breakthrough.

Airlines, if you net out all their profits and all their costs so far, are break even. Like they just, it's been a shitty business. Differentiation is near impossible in this industry. What do they have? They're all flying the same 10 cans. They're all flying one of two planes from different, one of two manufacturers, Airbus or Boeing. They're all flying one of two planes from different, one of two manufacturers,

Airbus or Boeing. They're all flying into the same airport. It's very hard to differentiate on labor or service. And Southwest was able to find differentiation around a brand that meant freedom. Okay, you just got fired and you want to head to Vegas, you make a reservation, you need to change it, no change fees. We're not going to nickel and dime you with bags. It's freedom. It's the ability. It was total cost structure. They even, their planes are super fucking ugly.

They're orange because they found early on that that was the paint that was most over ordered and they could get the lowest cost on they had all 7 37s for a long time to create scale around repair and maintenance. Everything was about low cost to give you economic freedom to take your human capital where and when you wanted. This is exactly what you just said, and that is somebody has done the analysis that says, okay, this cost of free bags is greater than the brand equity bump we're getting. In the short term, they will absolutely recognize a really substantial increase to the bottom line.

But in an environment where it is so difficult to establish differentiation, I think they are trading off long-term margin for short-term stock gain. I remember one of my first clients, I started a strategy firm my second year in business school, one of my first clients was Dreyer's. And this CMO who's just incredibly smart, this guy named Tyler Johnston. We were going into a recession, this was 1992.

I said, well, why don't you just take down marketing spend? They were a company that was always about to be acquired by a bigger food company which ultimately they were for a lot of money. He said, you can't take down, you always have to be disciplined about brand and marketing spend, otherwise all you're doing is juicing your bottom line and trading off long term strength. And I think that's what Clifrenco with they're probably doing here. I haven't seen the numbers, the people from Elliott are very smart, but

in an environment that is almost near impossible to maintain, establish and maintain differentiation, this was, establish and maintain differentiation. This was a tangible point of differentiation. So I would call this short-term financial engineering at the cost of long-term differentiation and margin power. I do want to bring up a similar story in Costco because I think this is one of my favorite stories in business.

So Costco is famous for their hot dogs and specifically the fact that their hot dogs cost $1.50 and they have cost that amount since 1985. They are known for this. Now, of course, this doesn't really make that much sense economically. Inflation has risen almost 200% since then. So if they were selling it at the same price,

what 150 was in 1985, they should be selling it for 450 today. Several years ago, the then CEO, this guy, Craig Jelinek, he was looking at the situation, looking at the income statement. He said, okay, we need to raise the price of these hot dogs. We're losing money on this. So he goes to the founder of Costco, Jim Senegal, and he says, you know,

hey, this isn't really working. I know the 150 thing, the hot dogs, it's cute, but I think we need to raise the price. And Jim responded with what I think is the most iconic line in the history of business. He said to him, quote, if you raise the price of the fucking hot dog, I will kill you. And that was it. End of story. To this day, the Costco hot dog is $1.50. That happened back in 2009. The stock was around $50 per share at that time. It's now at around $1,000 a share. I don't think it's because of the hot dog, but I do think there is something to be said for sacrificing potentially short-term profits in exchange for in the future,

goodwill, a better brand, stronger brand, customer loyalty, all of these things that ultimately over the long-term result in greater profits and more shareholder value. So I think, I wonder if Elliot even cares about the long term value of this company, because presumably they're just trying to make as much money as they can in as short a time as possible, and then they sell their position and move on to the next thing.

And by the way, I love hot dogs. Last night I decided to share a hot dog with a homeless person and he said, fuck off, get your own hot dog. Anyways. Uh, let me be serious for a second. So I started a company called Red Envelope and we spent a disparate, basically I love benchmarking,

which is consultant speak for ripping off other people's IP and I was always fascinated with Tiffany, specifically how much IP and brand associations he managed to inject into this aquamarine blue box and that elegance, sophistication, romance, Audrey Hepburn. And I said, I'm going to start a company that is the Tiffany of hip, urban, progressive, more erotic

sensibilities. And we came up, we spent a lot of time and a lot of money on a beautiful red box with a gorgeous bow. And we had people in our fulfillment center tie the bow with hands. When a machine ties a bow, it looks like a drunk guy with big thumbs tied it. It just looks weird.

And it was really expensive. And someone did the analysis and said that we actually have negative margin on some of our least expensive products when you put it in this beautiful red box. And I said, you don't get it. That is key to our brand. And so this is simply,

this is why managers are supposed to get paid really well. They have to trade off the temptation to add everything to the bottom line while managing long-term investments that create sustainable margin and brand power. And the thing about luxury brands and the thing about great brand builders, the analogy I use is like working out.

When you work out, it's time expensive, it's a pain, and you're sore. And so is brand building. It's expensive. And the next day, it just fucking hurts. But if you're disciplined about spending and offering the services that buttress your brand associations, over time, you get stronger. You have an easier time getting supplier relationships. You have an easier time recruiting employees. You have an easier time getting supplier relationships. You have an easier time recruiting employees. You have an easier time raising prices.

But in a company like Southwest, I would be very careful to remove any tangible point of differentiation. I mean, how on earth did these guys compete against each other? What is Southwest's value proposition or differentiation now? Like, what is it? Well, we're just Southwest, we're orange. I mean, what is it? Well, we're just Southwest, we're orange.

I mean, what is it? Yeah, exactly. Let's move on to Eric Schmidt, the former CEO of Google, who is now taking a new CEO position at Relativity Space, which is this small space startup that builds rockets with 3D printers. I think most notably here, Eric Schmidt bought his way into this. So he made an offer to the company to buy a controlling stake,

but that offer was contingent on his becoming the CEO. The then CEO who founded the company, this young entrepreneur, he has stepped aside and he will now take a seat on the board. Scott, I don't love this on a personal level. Just the visual of a billionaire who sees Bezos and Musk and Branson all getting involved in the space race, then deciding not to build his own company, but to buy his way into one, combined with

the visual of this young Y Combinator entrepreneur being swept to the side. It just, it all reminds me of this intergenerational wealth dynamic that we so often talk about, where you have all of these old guys who are billionaires with too much money and too much time on their hands. And then they just use the money to install themselves into positions of power where they can play pretend startup or play pretend politics. Maybe that's too harsh. As I'm saying it out loud, I actually think maybe I am being a little harsh, but that is where my mind goes.

Yeah, I think you're being unfair. So there's two sides of this trade. And that is the way corporate governance and decisions get made is that shareholders get to decide who are the board members and the board members get to decide who would be best for stakeholders, which is Latin for shareholders. And the board decided that to get a guy like Eric Schmidt, who is arguably one of the most lauded, successful CEOs

in history to come run their firm, which sounds like it was struggling, quite frankly, is they decided, yeah, that is absolutely worth it. And I would imagine the value of the company is up substantially just on that press release. So there's two sides of this trade, including, you know, if the CEO had control of the company because he didn't have to raise a lot of money or he was doing so well, that he had that kind of credibility of the board, he could have decided what to do. And maybe he did decide that it makes sense for Eric Schmidt to take over.

Now having said that, I would not invest in this thing. I'm ageist when it comes to startups, and that is when Eric Schmidt took over Google, he was much younger and probably willing to put all relationships and all vacations aside for a while. And now he's a billionaire in his 60s who's probably in the midst of, like many of us, of a realization that he's going to be dead soon and he's not going to work his ass off. He's going to focus on St. Barts and relationships and time with loved ones and going to the World Economic Forum and talking about big thoughts and climate change.

This is, to drive a company like this is a young woman's game. And what he should have done in my view was taking the chairman role because I think 80% of his expertise right now could be leveraged 10, 20, 30 hours a week and kept someone else in the CEO position. And also I believe that luck is symmetrical. And in order for a company to have

the kind of extraordinary success that Alphabet has recognized, that was a lot of luck. And I typically don't invest behind a person two times in a row, because if it's super successful, I'm like, it's unlikely we're going to get lucky again. And I know that's a weird thing to say. But I think a guy like Eric Schmidt, I don't get why he's doing this personally. I, you know, I think he's in his mid sixties, maybe late sixties.

It's, it feels like maybe he's bored. Maybe he wants something to do. He's just written his book. But by the way, respect to Eric Schmidt. I really don't want to just rag on this guy. And I do respect him a lot as an offerator and as a businessman, but it feels like he's bored. He sees Bezos and Branson and Musk and he's like, hey, that looks like fun.

I want to do that. They're CEOs of those companies. Why don't I do it? Well, actually Bezos has stepped down as CEO, because he's realized he's about to die soon, so he wants yachts and thongs. I think he gets it. But I think the question everyone's asking is,

Ed, why do you hate Eric Schmidt? No, look, the guy is the chairman of everyone's dreams. He's intensely smart, intensely well-connected. I just don't understand why a guy at that point in his life would want to do the work. When you're the CEO of a startup, I speak from experience here, your inbox is never empty. And you have to be able to work 15 and 16 hour days.

The only time I've ever really grown shareholder value is when quite frankly, my personal life is a bit of a shit show. Because the marketplace is competitive and gives advantage to people who are willing to do nothing but work all the fucking time. And this is not a hallmark commercial. I'm not saying this is aspirational.

And I think a lot of people go to work for big companies to leverage their IP, their distribution channels, and their platform, and their size, and the regulatory capture so they can work 40 to 50 hours a week, not 60 to 80. You want to be in a startup? You want to be in a company like this? I don't, I think it's table stakes,

even for a guy like Eric Schmidt, to have to work around the clock. And if I were him with his wealth at his age, there's no way I would do that. Anyways, I'm bullish on Eric Schmidt, but as a chairman, I think this is a bad idea for him to get back into the game like this. Maybe he can run it from St. Barts

and all will go smoothly, yeah. Look at me, I have, not that I'm comparing myself to these individuals, I have Catherine Dillon run our company so I can just make dick jokes and go to South by Southwest. That's what he should be doing. Taking a note out of Scott's book, Eric Schmidt. Let's talk about Neom. This is Saudi Arabia's plan to build a new city.

It's gotten a ton of coverage over the years, ton of hype, ton of interest. Just for those that don't know, the plan is to build a 105 mile long glass domed megacity in the desert of Saudi Arabia. It's supposed to house 9 million people with no cars, fully staffed by robots, fully powered by wind and solar. It's supposed to have its own ski resort and my personal favorite stat, it's supposed

to have its own artificial moon. I've thought this is ridiculous for a long time because it's just unrealistic. And now we're learning they're 55 years away from completion. The projected cost is $9 trillion now. And I just want to emphasize the original budget for the city was 500 billion. So they are over budget by 1700% or in dollar terms, $8.5 trillion. And I think this highlights a problem that I've flagged before about Saudi Arabia and their investment decisions. Quite simply, I think they're childish. I just don't think these are very serious

investors. The combination of the ski resort and the moon, the obsession with the Premier League, with the World Cup, with golf, with giant AI chips that company Cerebris, the obsession with eSports and gaming. Just last week, they bought Pokemon Go for three and a half billion dollars. And I look at what's happening in Saudi Arabia and what they're investing in. The whole thing to me is reminiscent of a rich kid with a billionaire dad who just gave him the keys to the family trust. And by the way, that's pretty much what that country is.

Like the only difference is that it's not a trust fund, it's an oil reserve. So I think these are unserious, frankly stupid investments, but I'm gonna brace myself for when you call me racist in the next two minutes. You're accurate. It is a rich kid. My interaction with the kingdom has mostly been around involvement with hedge funds, raising money and some of the investments they make.

And I find that they're actually incredibly disciplined and very smart and that they hire the best and brightest from the alternative investments world to try and allocate their capital efficiently. In this instance, I think that the best investment is going to very smart and that they hire the best and brightest from the alternative investments world to try and allocate their capital efficiently. In this instance, that maybe their eyes are bigger than their stomach, maybe it'll be scaled back. But I'd like to see more big outrageous ideas proposed. I would like to see in the U.S. them say, we're going to spend several trillion dollars to build a national high-speed rail, at least up and down the Eastern seaboard.

I'd like to see some big bold infrastructure announcements in the U.S. We did one, our infrastructure act was 700 billion, I think. They have seven projects of over a trillion. It looks as if this one is probably unrealistic, but I think that a place like the kingdom has the money and the mandate to quite frankly be, I don't know, be out over their skis a little bit. I do think there's a difference between a high speed rail and an artificial moon.

And there's somewhere in that difference is where we draw the line. To your point though, they are attracting a ton of investment. They're attracting especially a lot of consulting businesses and advisory businesses. The advisory business has grown 13% in the Gulf states in the past year. Deloitte has nine offices in the UAE alone. And there's this stat that I love, which is that McKinsey, which is consulting

on this Neom project, McKinsey is reportedly earning more than $130 million per year to consult on Neom. And my reaction to that is you got to hand it to McKinsey. I mean, they are just exceptional at finding rich people, building them PowerPoint presentations, and then charging them crazy fees. All I can think is just what a great business consulting is. These huge margins, very little overhead. You were a consultant for many years. Do you have any thoughts on just how the consulting business works? Let me give you the pluses and the minuses of consulting.

It's a great company to start because it requires little capex. Your expenses and your assets go home in the elevator every night. And if you don't have business, you can lay off people. If you do have business, you can ramp up. So in the sense, it's services companies are good businesses to start because they don't require a lot of IP or dramatic CapEx. You can start a consulting company as I did by just getting a client. I got Dreyer's and I got Levi Strauss and company and William Sonoma's my first clients. It's an incredible training. If you want to be an athlete, you have to be a good communicator. You have to go to the analytics.

You have to be good at managing relationships. You have to be able to sell. It really is training for a triathlon or decathlon. I think it's a fantastic, if you're coming out of business school and think I want a second MBA, but I want it in the private sector, consulting is a fantastic training. It turns you into a great athlete. You make good money.

You never get really wealthy. That's the downside because the barriers of entry here, it's a multiple of EBITDA business. When I started my second consulting firm, L2, which I called Business Strategy, I turned it from intermittent consulting engagements. I used to charge William Sonoma half a million dollars to do their internet strategy. Instead, I said to Nike, give me a quarter of a million a year and I'll meet with you every three months and just look at data and give you advice.

It is a very taxing business. It again, see above, it's a young woman's game. It's very taxing on your health and your relationships because when you're in the services business, you're always someone else's bitch. Actually, this happened to me three times. The CMO of Audi, who was my biggest client, called and said, Scott, we love you. Can you be on Ingolstadt tomorrow?

And the answer was always, yeah. Yeah. I'll get on a fucking plane from San Francisco, flying to Munich, being coach, because it was my money back then, with six young people trying to figure out a PowerPoint presentation of what we were going to say to Audi that they hadn't heard from McKinsey and bombed to the Kinkos when we got to Munich at 9 a.m. to print this thing out and then fly back

to San Francisco the next day. It takes a real toll on your relationships and your health. It's a very taxing industry. It's also you make a good living, but it's hard to get really wealthy in consulting because it's all current income. I found it fucking exhausting. I don't want to golf or have dinner. If you're having golf and dinner

with people you don't really like, it means you're in an undifferentiated industry. What do you mean by that? I mean, the truly great companies don't need to socialize with their clients. And also, if you're spending time, a lot of time getting taken to basketball games or dinners by third-party vendors,

it means you're paying too much. It means you're getting ripped off. So Vanguard's not gonna take you out to lunch, but your wealth advisor from Name the Brokerage, who takes you to a basketball game, that means she is charging you onerous fees. Great point. Anyways, the services business is we're all selling

the same shit and the way we differentiate is relationships. Anyways, that's my Ted talk on the services business. I love it. By the way, I think if you were still doing that today, you would be printing money in the Gulf and kissing ass in Riyadh. But maybe you'll still do that anyway. We'll be right back after the break with a look at the latest on tariffs.

And if you're enjoying the show so far, be sure to give Proffesor Markets a follow wherever you get your podcasts. Support for the show comes about public.com. That's where you can invest in everything, stocks, options, bonds, and more. They even offer some of the highest yields in the industry, including the bond account, 6% or higher yield that remains locked in even if the Fed cuts rates. With public, you can get the tools you need to make informed investment decisions. Their built-in AI tools called Alpha doesn't just tell you if an asset

is moving, it tells you why the asset is moving so you can actually understand what's driving your portfolio performance. Public is a FINRA registered SIPC-insured US-based company with a customer support team that actually cares. Bottom line? Your investments deserve a platform that takes them as seriously as you do. Fund your account in five minutes or less at public.com slash profg and get up to $10,000 when you transfer your old portfolio. That's public.com slash profg.

Paid for by Public Investing. All investing involves the risk of loss, including loss of principal, brokered services U.S. listed registered securities, options and bonds, and a self-directed account are offered by Public Investing Inc., Member FINRA, and SIPC. Complete disclosures available at public.com slash disclosures. I should also disclose I am an investor in public. Support for the show comes from the Fundrise Flagship Fund. Real estate investing is boring. Now prediction markets on the other hand, or even the stock market, which can swing wildly on a headline, those will keep you on the edge of your seat. But with real estate

investing there's no drama or adrenaline or excuses to refresh your portfolio every few minutes. Just bland and boring stuff including diversification and dividends. So you won't be surprised to learn the Fundrise flagship real estate fund is a complete snoozefest. The fund holds 1.1 billion worth of institutional caliber real estate, managed by a team of pros focused on steadily growing your net worth for decades to come. See? Boring. And that's the point. You can start investing in minutes and with as little as $10 by visiting fundrise.com slash prop G. Carefully consider the investment objectives, risks, charges, and expenses of the Fundrise Flagship Fund before investing. Find this information and more in the fund's prospectus at fundrise.com slash flagship.

This is a paid ad. Support for this show comes from Indeed. You just realized your business needed to hire somebody yesterday How can you find amazing candidates fast? Easy just use indeed with indeed sponsored jobs your post jumps to the top of the page for relevant candidates And you're able to reach the people you want faster, and it makes a huge difference according to indeed data worldwide faster. And it makes a huge difference. According to Indeed data worldwide, sponsored jobs posted directly on Indeed have 45% more applications than non-sponsored jobs.

Plus with Indeed sponsored jobs, there are no monthly subscriptions, no long-term contracts, and you only pay for results. There's no need to wait any longer. Speed up your hiring right now with Indeed, And listeners to this show will get a $100 sponsored job credit to get your job's more visibility at indeed.com slash vox ca. Just go to indeed.com slash vox ca right now and support this show by saying you heard about Indeed on this podcast. Indeed.com slash vox ca.

Terms and conditions apply. Hiring Indeed is all you need. We're back with Profgy Markets. The tariff drama has continued to unfold. Last week, so much happened. So I'm just going to take you through a timeline of all things tariffs. So first off, back in February, Trump announced a 25% tariff on all steel and aluminum that comes into the US. And the big news is that that tariff officially went into effect last week on Wednesday. Then, as we discussed in the previous week, the Premier of Ontario announced a 25% tariff on all electricity that comes out of Ontario.

And Trump got very mad about this. And a few days later, he said he would double tariffs on Canada's steel and aluminum to 50%. Now, in response to that, Doug Ford backed down, he suspended his tariff. And then after that, Trump also backed down and he brought the tariff back down to 25%. In other words, a ton of headlines and a ton of back and forth, but nothing actually happened. We're still in the same position we were a couple of weeks ago.

Let's just shift to what happened in Europe. As I said, that steel and aluminum tariff, which applies to the whole world, that came into effect on Wednesday. So that does affect Europe. Europe's response was, we're going to tariff you right back. They put a tariff on American whiskey, on American jeans, on Harley Davidson motorcycles. It's a pretty hilarious lineup of items. I think they're intentionally cartoonish to make a statement. But if you add up the numbers, it does actually make sense

because those tariffs will be $28 billion on America and that's the same amount Europe will pay on the steel and aluminum. Then in response to that, Trump got angry again. He threatened a 200% tariff on European wine. Okay, now the question is, does any of this actually matter? Probably not. Because for all we know, the picture will look very different in a few days.

They'll be reversed, unreversed, increased, decreased, whatever. And I have to say, Scott, it's beginning to make my job a little ridiculous. Because the size and scope of these policies and the financial impact they have on our economy, they're too big to ignore. I can't simply resign from understanding them and say, I don't really know what happened with tariffs, they went up, they went down, whatever. At the same time though, this is a complete and utter waste of my time. And for analysts and for investors and for CFOs and CEOs, it's even worse because for those guys,

there is actual money on the line. If you're a Jack Daniels or a Levi's or a US Steel, you do need to understand the tariffs. You need to write up research reports. You need to model out the economics, analyze the downside, analyze the upside. It's a lot of work. And so these guys probably spent weeks figuring out what will these tariffs actually do to our business. And they woke up one morning, they checked the news and bang, none of it mattered anymore. And that's the thing that I think corporations and executives are going to be most upset about this. And we'll talk about what's happened in the markets. But Scott, first, just your reactions to what happened last week with tariffs.

Well, as you know, I like to ground everything in a personal parable, so I can talk more about me. So tariffs coming in, you charge a tariff. We charge tariff on aluminum and steel. And the rationale was we need to maintain a healthy domestic production or supply of steel. That kind of makes sense. If we go to war, we need tanks. We don't want to be too vulnerable. That kind of makes sense if we go to war, we need tanks, we don't want to be too vulnerable. So great, Cleveland Cliffs and US Steel saw their earnings go up because their product became more competitive because foreign imports became more expensive.

But that additional incremental income was vastly outweighed by the decrease in demand for products that had to dramatically increase their prices because of the additional costs of the input of steel and aluminum into their products. So we're net losers, even when they pay the tariff and there's no reciprocal tariff. And this comes back to my first parable. I don't know if you've noticed when we're on this show,

I angle my head to the left. I guess I haven't, now I'm noticing. You need to start investing in this relationship, you never notice. You haven't noticed all the Pilates I've been doing, to try and be more attractive to either, you awful person. Oh no, I've noticed that for sure. Oh, I fucking hate Pilates.

The- The- Angle of your face. All right, the angle of my face. My nose goes to the right. And the reason why it goes to the right is when I first moved to New York, I had, I was bored, too much time on my hands.

I was doing yoga and I was doing boxing. And I got a trainer, this guy, this boxing guy, and I'd spar with him and he convinced me, it's like, you know, you've got pretty good hand speed, you're in good shape, why don't you enter this boxing tournament, this boxing gym we belong to. And I'm like, was stupid enough to think that was a good idea.

So I'm 6'2", 190. It ends up that a guy who's 5'9", and 190, and knows how to box is fucking Mike Tyson. So I get into the ring with this guy. All I hear, all I remember was the bell. And the next thing I remember was all of these bright lights, because I was flat on my back. The amount of money I would pay to watch this fight, it's crazy. Oh my God.

And my nose has never straightened. My nose now goes to the right. And here's the thing. Strategy, one of the biggest mistakes we make in strategy is believing that we're boxing against someone we're paying or a speed bag, that it won't hit back. And that's where Trump's biggest flaw is in my opinion, is he believes that he can just impose tariffs unilaterally

and there won't be reciprocal tariffs that dampen the demand for our products in bigger. Our best companies sell, Nike gets two thirds of its revenue from outside of the US. Google probably gets four fifths of its revenue from outside of the US. And you don four fifths of its revenue from outside of the US. And you don't believe that these nations are gonna slap on recipients.

You don't believe they're not gonna hit back and break your fucking nose. Of course they are. This is one of the biggest mistakes. Whenever you're doing scenario planning, you have a tendency to believe that you're doing it in a vacuum and that all of your competitors

are just gonna sit there and not respond. This is the biggest flaw in scenario planning. Well, if we do this, the following things will happen. Generally what corporate strategy executives leave out is like, okay, the moment we do this, what will they do? They'll respond. Well, if we decrease prices,

we're gonna capture more share, we're gonna roll up the industry and be able to charge monopoly rents. Well, you realize the day after we decrease prices, we're going to capture more share. We're going to roll up the industry and be able to charge monopoly rents. Well, you realize the day after we lower prices, our competitors are probably going to lower prices too, right? So we're just going to inspire a decrease in margin across the industry. And unless we have more capital, they can go toe to toe with us. This is Trump's, in my opinion, one of his many flaws is he's under the impression he's, he's boxing against someone he's paying or a speeding back to the biggest negative impact of this is that we have become an unserious partner in studies with rats.

They can get food without a shock. They love that. They can get food with a shock every time, or they can get food with a shock, they love that. They can get food with a shock every time, or they can get food with a shock intermittently. And the rats that are the most stressed are not the ones who get shocked every time because they know what to expect. It's the rats that are shocked half the time

because they don't know what to expect. And this is where we are with our supply chain and our global alliances. Every country in the world is thinking about how they diversify away from doing business with America because they do not know who they are waking up next to. I think this is the first time where my classics degree has ever been useful. And it'll probably be the last time, but there's a quote by Cicero that I will leave you with.

And that is quote, more is lost by indecision than wrong decision. Indecision is the thief of opportunity. Indecision will rob you blind. I think that's pretty much sums up what's happening with tariffs right now. We're not even committing to the tariffs. We're flip-flopping every second and we're wasting both our partner's time and our own time. And one final story that I think is quite interesting and I want to get your quick reaction to on tariffs. So Walmart was recently summoned by the Chinese government

who was very upset with them. Because apparently Walmart has been asking Chinese suppliers to reduce their costs because Walmart is so worried about these tariffs. So they went to these Chinese suppliers, they say, hey, we have to deal with these tariffs. Is there any way you could bring costs down? The CCP got very, very angry about this.

They called up Walmart and their executives and they discussed the issue. And the Chinese authorities, the state media, they said publicly, quote, if Walmart insists, then what awaits Walmart is not just talk. So it's so interesting how what started as a political altercation is now implicating companies

and their executives. Walmart is now stuck in the crosshairs of this trade war, and they're being threatened by national governments. And so this is yet another reason why I think it's not just anti-MAGA people who are upset about this. I think it's basically the entire corporate world who has to deal with the fact that they are on the wrong end of the stick when it comes to the president's foreign policy and his decisions on these tariffs. You're a classics major from Princeton

who likes a white tennis player. Seriously, you're the most translucent person I know right now. You're literally the widest guy in the world right now. By the way, let me get to a point. This is how a real man quotes people. General Eisenhower said, the wrong decision is bad, no decision is worse. Not fucking Cicero. Better when Cicero said it. Jesus Christ. Anyways, your point is exactly the right one. The inconsistency and uncertainty is worse than the actual tariffs themselves.

You can't operate a company much less a business or a country this way. We've taken for granted the fact that most nations, when they enter into an agreement, they respect us. They think that we'll do our best. The laws, the contract law applies to them and applies to us. They think that we'll do our best, that the laws, the contract law applies to them and applies to us, that there's a rule of fair play, consistency, we do what we say we're gonna do. And you know who the big winner here is China. Chinese officials are roaming around the EU right now

and saying, hey, we're the devil you know. We'll do what we say, we're open for business. You want a trade relationship, you've been buying all the stuff from America, you can't count on them. Guess what? You may not like us, but you know what? We do what we say, you can count on us. If we enter into a trade relationship and we,

or an agreement between this supplier and your company assembling this in Stockholm, you can count on us. You know who you're waking up next to. We'll be right back after the break with a look at the four trillion dollar market sell-off. If you enjoyed the show so far, hit follow and leave us a review on Proffesgy Markets. So I'll tell you like, I'll tell you a story. This week on Unexplainable, a story about researchers building AIs. And the system says, well, this is a great view. This is awesome.

And I was like, oh crap. Researchers who watch their experiments go horribly wrong. Wait a second. Like what's even going on here? Only to realize the answer has been staring at them in the mirror. Humans are just suckers for anything that looks human. Good Robot, a four-part series on the stories we tell about AI from Julia Langoria and Unexplainable. And if you want more new episodes of the show, follow Unexplainable wherever you listen.

Hey, this is Peter Kafka, the host of Channels, a show about what happens when tech smashes into media. And this week I'm talking about Twitch. Not the thing my eye does when I don't get enough sleep, but the pioneering live streaming service that Amazon bought for a billion dollars back in 2014. Twitch is still a big deal in live streaming, but so are lots of other places. So how is Twitch CEO Dan Clancy going to deal with that competition? Why exactly do I want to watch people talk live on the internet anyway?

I asked Dan Clancy all about that and more on this week's channels from the Vox Media Podcast Network. This week on the Vergecast, we have questions about smartphones. Questions like, why isn't Siri better? And where is the better Siri that Apple has been promising for a long time? Questions like, why are all of our smartphones kind of boring now? And why is it that all of the interesting ideas about how smartphones could look or how they could work or what they could do for you, happening in countries like China and not in the United States? We have answers and we have

some thoughts and we also have a lot of feelings about what a smartphone is actually supposed to be in our lives. All that and much more, much, much more on the Vergecast, wherever you get podcasts. We're back with ProfG Markets. US stocks have faced their toughest start to a presidency since 2009, with the market losing $4 trillion in value. Amid a three-week sell-off, the VIX, or the market's fear gauge, surged to its highest level since December.

Bitcoin fell below $80,000 and treasury yields fell as well. Across asset classes, the so-called Trump bump we saw after the election has disappeared. So, Scott, in terms of the stock market, since Trump went to the office, the S&P has dropped 7%, the NASDAQ has fallen 11%. We're starting to hear the word recession a lot more. In fact, we discussed that in the live podcast. I'm also hearing people say bear market. I've also seen some comparisons to the dot com bubble. In fact, it was exactly 25 years ago, as of last week,

that the dot com bubble burst and the stock market crashed. And so I've been seeing speculation that maybe we're in for dot com bust 2.0 here, or that the stock market might fully collapse. that maybe we're in for dot com bust 2.0 here, or that the stock market might fully collapse. So you lived through that crisis in the year 2000, which many people are comparing this period to. Do you think we're anywhere close to that? Are we close to a bear market perhaps?

First off, you could say that, okay, all we've lost is the Trump bump. The stock market is still at a pretty near historical high. Now, Warren Buffett timed it perfectly. As soon as they announced the tariffs and he saw Apple at 250 bucks trading at 38 times earnings when it usually trades at about 18 over its history, he's gone straight to cash. So America just looks expensive. You could argue that some of the air being let out here is just a natural part of the cycle and it's still at fairly robust highs. The question is what do you do about it?

And a lot of people are saying I'm moving to cash. I believe that moving to cash, it's very hard to time the markets. I'm always invested. What I am doing and the lesson or the advice I would give around this around how to respond, learn from my mistakes. In in 2016 when Trump was elected, I thought,

this guy's a fucking idiot and the market's going to crash. He's stupid. And so I sold pretty much everything. The markets ripped. So in addition to paying capital gains on the stocks that I ended up buying back into six months later at a higher price, when I realized what an idiot I was trying to time the markets and probably not acknowledging that the president has less impact on the markets than we'd like to think and gets more blame and credit than they deserve. It was an emotional reaction. So now I'm not going to have the same emotional reaction. What I am doing though is deciding, okay, over

the medium and long term, because of demographics and productivity and innovation, the markets globally do go, tend to go up and to the right. So what I am doing is diversifying out of US stocks. I won't sell everything. I still have a lot of money in the private markets here and in real estate, but I'm getting more exposure to European and Latin American stocks, because the way I have really fucked up my economic health and economic wellbeing

is through a lack of diversification. And that is I was all in on tech in 1999 and then all in on growth in 2007. And by the middle of 2000 and the middle of 2008, I was broke. I went from wealthy to broke and I'm not doing that again. And the way you try not to do that again is through diversification, but trying to time the markets and moving to cash,

I believe you should always be invested, but you want to diversify. And I think if you just look at the relative valuations, it's not a bad idea to take some money off of the table in US and put it into global index funds. I think there'd probably be some people out there who are saying, but we're down 10%. You know, the market's down.

Why would I want to sell now? Or freaking out that, you know, we're in the middle of this big crash. I do want to point out, so far at least, this is very much a correction and not a crash. The market's down 10% from its high. If we were to enter an actual bear market, it would need to come down 20%. So we're not a crash. The market's down 10% from its high. If we were to enter an actual bear market, it would need to come down 20%. So we're not there yet. And if you look at the historical P.E. of the S&P 500, last month it was trading at 25 times earnings on average. And you compare that to

the long-term P.E. of the S&P 500, which is 16 times earnings. So even still, it is still a richly valued market. So if you're thinking of unwinding some of your positions and diversifying elsewhere, yeah, it's maybe a little annoying you didn't do it a month ago, two months ago, three months ago, but big picture, it really isn't a big deal at all. The market is still doing pretty well on a price to earnings basis.

Okay, so Apple's PE has crashed from 38 to 34. I bought Apple and it's better to be lucky than good in 2011 and I paid nine times earnings. So to think that all of a, wow, Apple is cheap. Okay, it's not as insane as it was a month ago, but to believe that the markets are on sale right now in the US, no. I mean, they're not at all time highs, but by any metric, they're still expensive.

Let's just go through some of the winners and the losers in this sell off. We touched on it a little bit in our last episode, but I think it's worth examining more. I'll start with the winners. I mentioned in at South by Southwest, a big winner here are these traders who are trading on the volatility. Let's focus on stocks for this session. I have two groups of winners here. First off, we have the domestic steel

and aluminum stocks. That's basically two or three companies. It's like US Steel and its new core. There are very few companies that are actually benefiting from the tariffs from a steel and aluminum perspective. And actually if you look since inauguration day, they're almost flat. So they're barely winners. But I think we can count them because last week when the tariff stuff happened, they rose a little bit. The second group of winners is what I will call the defensive stocks. And these are stocks that are highly unspeculative, no tech, very old, very mature. And crucially, these are the stocks that issue dividends. So companies like Johnson & Johnson and Coca-Cola, they are up since Trump took office. Again, not by that much.

It's not a huge win, but they are outperforming. And I think the dynamic we're seeing here is investors are now looking for safety. They're not interested in these moonshot AI bets or software plays or anything basically that depends on an optimistic future. Instead, they're going to the stocks that can hand you cash in your pocket today, the dividend stocks. Let's go to the losers. First off, the tech companies.

Amazon down 10% year to date. Apple down 11%. Google down 12%. Nvidia down 17%. Also the banks. Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, they are all suffering since Trump was elected. Small cap stocks, so these are the small market cap companies, companies in the Russell 2000, they are taking a beating right now.

Also Tesla, of course, that's its own story, but it's down 35% on the year. Now what do all of these companies have in common, all of these losers? So interesting. They are all the Trump trades. These are the very companies that we talked on this podcast that was supposed to benefit from the administration. You remember we spoke with Tom Lee. He was bullish on these companies specifically.

And to be clear, I agreed with him, but the market is basically telling us right now, Hey, remember everything we said about Trump and who he's going to help and which companies are going to benefit? Forget all of that. No longer true. We misjudged him. We didn't realize. Sorry, our bad. And this is all reminding me of something that Anthony Scaramucci told us nine months

ago when we were in the middle of the election, no one knew what was going to happen. And Trump was beginning to talk about this tariff thing. And there was this consensus view on Wall Street. And I had many discussions with many investors and many people on this podcast. There was this view that it's all just talk. He doesn't really mean it. He's just, he's throwing meat to the base. He's not going to go through with this. Think what it would do to the markets.

He doesn't want to do that. Why would he do that? Anyway, we had that conversation with Anthony Scaramucci and I put forward that thesis to Anthony. He's calling for sky high tariffs, which will cripple poor people. Tariffs, as you both know, are regressive taxes on poor people. Do you think he's serious about those? So Ed, this guy knows how to boil a frog better than anybody that I've ever met, right? You're in the cold water and he simmers the frog until the frog is dead. Do you know how many things from 2016 to today that we could say, is he serious about that? And then you say, oh no, he's not serious about that.

And he fucking does it. 100%. And you're like, holy shit, he is serious about that. And then he does it again. I mean, he completely nailed it. And I think it is very interesting to see what's happening in the markets right now. The fact that the markets are down

and Wall Street and corporations are suddenly realizing, oh my God, he was serious. Maybe he's not on our side. And I think that's the vibe shift that is making Wall Street and investors so freaked out right now. We thought that Trump was one of us. Maybe he isn't. Let's take a look at the week ahead. We'll hear the Fed's interest rate decision for March. We'll also see earnings from Nike, FedEx, and Five Below. Scott, any predictions? So supposedly, SoftBank was about to lead around into open AI evaluation of between

$260 and $300 pre-money, putting a $40 billion around, putting it a post of 300 or a post of 340. I think the insecurity in the market right now is probably gonna give them a reason to hit the sanity button and either get different terms or better terms or not do this investment. It strikes me that valuing open AI is amazing a company as it is, is valuable or as impactful as AI is going to be.

I would imagine a lot of his investors are like, it's beginning to smell a lot like we work. I guess my prediction is I'm not sure this round is going to close on the terms initially reported in the press because it hasn't closed yet. And I, I, it just feels to me, this is too rich. If you're a limited partner in SoftBank, basically Masayoshi San has tried to convince you that within five years, this will be one of the 10 most valuable companies in the world, because it's going to have to have a trillion dollar plus market cap to justify the kinds of returns for this type of risk.

I think that is a difficult argument to make with any level of certainty right now. Is OpenAI an amazing company at 50 or 100 billion? Absolutely. At 300 billion? I don't know. That feels very toppy to me, Ed. This episode was produced by Claire Miller and engineered by Benjamin Spencer. Our associate producer is Allison Weiss, Mia Silverio is our research lead, Isabella Kintzel is our research associate, Drew Burrows is our technical director and Catherine Dillon is our executive producer. Thank you for listening to ProfD Markets from the Vox Media Podcast Network. Join us on Thursday for our interview with Lynn Alden, only on ProfD Markets. Lifetimes

You held me in kind Reunion As the world turns And the blood flies In love, love, love, love