Prof G Markets - Two Months In: Why Markets Stopped Caring About Iran

Episode Date: April 27, 2026

Scott Galloway and Ed Elson discuss how the war in Iran has impacted prices and markets as the conflict passes the two month mark. They also break down what makes a great CEO in light of Tim Cook’s decision to step down from the helm of Apple. Finally, they explore why SpaceX is acquiring Cursor. Get your tickets to the Prof G Markets tour  Subscribe to the Prof G Markets Youtube Channel  Subscribe to the Prof G Markets newsletter  Order "Notes on Being a Man," out now Note: We may earn revenue from some of the links we provide. Follow the podcast across socials @profgmarkets Follow Scott on Instagram Follow Ed on Instagram, X and Substack Send us your questions or comments by emailing [e-mail] Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Support for the show comes from VCX, the public ticker for private tech. The U.S. stock market started history's greatest wave of wealth creation. From factory workers in Detroit to farmers in Omaha, anyone could own a piece of the great American companies. But today, our most innovative companies are staying private longer, which means everyday Americans are missing out. Until now. Introducing VCX, a public ticker for private tech. Visit getvcx.com for more info. That's getvcx.com.

carefully considered the investment materials before investing, including objectives, risk, charges, and expenses. This and other information can be found in the funds perspective at getvcx.com. This is a paid sponsorship. Amazon presents Laura versus fruit flies. Swarming your fruit and terrorizing your kitchen. These little freaks multiply at a rate that would make a rabbit say, yo, chill. But Laura shopped on Amazon and saw,

saved on cleaning spray, countertop wipes, and fly traps. Hey, fruit flies, your baby boom ends here. Save the Everyday with Amazon. 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 Tellus 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. Today's number $150. That's how much New Jersey Transit is considering charging for a round-trip train ticket to the World Cup this year. Ed, what do a 12-volt battery and an asshole have in common? What? Well, you know you're not supposed to put your tongue on it, but you do anyways. Are we going to get to the World Cup this summer? What are we going to do about this?

I'm very upset because this is like the big moment. I should obviously be going to the World Cup. Huge football fan, never gone to the World Cup in my life. And it finally arrives in America, but I can't get a ticket. It's just insane. Well, I don't know if you heard, but an alcoholic, a priest and a pedophile

are going to the World Cup, and that's just the first person. What is the joke? Who are you making fun of? I'm saying they're the same person, alcoholic, pedophile, priest. Anyways, maybe I didn't deliver that well. It's time to bring in our producer.

Okay, wait, hold on. No, no, no, no. I've got a better one. I was interviewing for a job, and the interviewer said, what is this for your gap and your resume? And I said, well, I went to Yale. And she said, wow, that's impressive. You're hired.

And I said, oh, God, that's such good news. I really need this job. Think about it. I got it. I got it. Again, the silence is not an indication of confusion. Anyways, how are you, Ed? I'm doing well.

I, again, present you the question. What are we going to do about this World Cup thing? Are you going to be able to figure it out? Like, I don't know what to do about it. I'm just going to regret it the rest of my life. Is it really that hard to get tickets right now? It is, unless you're willing, I think, to spend, like... A lot?

Not just a lot, but, like, a fortune. Better start wearing more quince, bitch. So I've been, yeah, I've been the last two times. Look, I get, I don't know, I get, a brand takes me, so I don't, but I would bet if you want to figure it out, I would bet tickets start to free up towards, America's never been that into football. So I don't, I would bet a lot of tickets will free up, but I don't, do you want to go to the big games or do you want to follow Team England? I mean, England would be incredible, but I mean, that's, I think that's high hopes to go see England. I'd go to anything. I'd go to anything in New York.

I'm just to get curious, what is your plan here? Are you waiting for a brand to tell you, hey, we have some tickets come along? Yeah, that's exactly my plan. You just literally outline my plan. I don't think about me. It's not till when is it? Oh, it's coming up. That's what I'm saying.

I got to get my act together. I get this sense, Ed. You're going to figure this out. We're going to figure this out for you. I get the sense that someone's going to... Well, that's kind of why I bring it up. I was hoping that maybe you give me sort of the inside baseball. This is you fishing for invites to the World Cup.

Yeah, exactly. Maybe you get offered tickets and then you kind of forward me the email, like maybe you have a conflict or something. Yeah, I think the answer is Paramount Plus. We'll see. We'll figure it out. Paramount Plus. That's very exciting. And in other good news, they are...

I'm now going to get dragged for saying good news. It's not good news. Warner Brothers has officially decided that they are going to get sold to Paramount, which is something we could discuss. But that's not on the docket today. We have other stuff to discuss. Before we get to that, though, I want to promote our tour. Again, we are hitting San Francisco, L.A., Miami, Chicago, New York.

We're going to be on the road May 27th to June 2nd. If you haven't gotten your tickets, do it now. Go to Prof.g.marketstor.com. Scott and I are going to be live in conversation. We're going to be doing Q&A. We're going to have some very, very special guests. It was just interesting. We were worried.

We knew we would do well in New York. We're almost sold out in New York, but we're almost sold out in the city. We thought we were going to do least well in. You know what city that is? I do. San Francisco. That's right.

I think they're coming to throw shit out us. But, yeah, we're doing well in San Francisco. But it's going to be great. It's going to be a chance for us to spend a lot of time together, which will we know. Nice. But anyways, I don't know how to promote it other than saying there are a great time. And Ed likes to drink, unlike Kara Swisher, he likes to drink. So we'll try and do an after party at all of them, which will be fun. I'm going on the road with Scott. I'm excited about that part. We're going to take a big bus. We're driving across this great nation. We're going to get groupies? Let's hope so. Yeah. I don't know. All right. In other news, let's talk about Iran. Oh, God. Let's move to something more light. Okay, let's do it. Now is the time to cry.

I hope you have plenty of the war at all. The war with Iran reaches its two-month mark tomorrow. That's well beyond the four-week timeline the Trump administration had initially suggested. So, with the conflict stretching into its third month, we thought it was a good moment to step back and assess how it's impacting prices and also the broader market.

but the bigger question still looms. How and when does this actually end? Scott, let's just look at what's happened with the markets here. We're now at month two. We started this war on February 28th, so we're essentially two months into this thing. Oil prices are rising still. Brent Crude is above $103 a barrel, so I think a lot of people expected that maybe oil prices would kind of calm down that the markets would sort of temper. That hasn't really happened. It's still very volatile, and it's still pretty significantly elevated compared to where we were before the start of the war. But what has been interesting is how well the stock market has performed. So since the ceasefire was announced, the Dow has risen 6%. The S&P has risen 8%. And the NASDAQ has

risen 12%. And actually, it's not just U.S. markets that are rallying. It's markets everywhere around the world. So, again, since the ceasefire, since Trump announced that ceasefire, and we can debate whether it actually was a ceasefire. But since that announcement, Europe's stock market, up 3 percent. Germany's, up 4 percent. China's, up 5 percent. India's up 5 percent. Japan, up 10 percent. So it does seem that investors are either breathing a sigh of relief or deciding that things don't matter perhaps as much as they originally thought when it comes to the war and its impact on the larger economy,

or they're just looking at the earnings that we're seeing and the earnings have been pretty phenomenal, that which we've seen since the start of this war. The point being, market, stock markets, are doing pretty well right now, and they continue to do quite well. There's some nuance that we can dive into, But let's just start with your reactions to that fact. S&P up 8% since the ceasefire.

The market seemed to believe that the war is going to come to an end. Also, I think it's a bit of a recognition or belief that we have fully transitioned to a tech and services economy. And the straight-of-homuz doesn't stop that. And that the center for tech and services is the United States. And distinctive the fraying of our alliances. I mean, I think long-term to just impot. to believe this is not going to have some sort of a pretty serious economic impact. But when the majority of the S&P is fueled by companies and services and tech, whether it's JPMorkin or Microsoft,

those companies don't seem to be, I mean, in many ways, those companies kind of benefit from this. I mean, there was talk of data centers being bombed, but not really. The tariffs don't affect them. Energy prices, I guess arguably might affect them, but they have the capital to try and, I mean, the really good ones kind of secured the energy supply before this nonsense, right? So it has been, and if you look at the markets that have performed the best, two markets that perform the best are one Taiwan up 15 percent. And I wonder how much of that is like, okay, AI is the place to be. They are the number one producer of chips, right? And so their markets up 15 percent. As the chips market goes, so does the Taiwanese market. And the interesting one is Israel,

is up 9%. And I think what people have, I think, if you try and read into it, the market has basically decided that Israel is the new superpower, is the superpower, the definitive superpower in the Middle East and its tax sector. I mean, I think the market is betting that their technological excellence as demonstrated during the war. If you look at many of the, a lot of people would argue who argue for military spending, that the spillover effect is actually. accretive, that whether it was, you know, radar, which gave rise to GPS, you know, jet technology, which ended up transforming jet transportation, that there's a lot of spillover. Darpa was basically a backbone communications network for post-apocalyptic America that gave rise to the internet. And I think a lot of

investors are looking at Israel and saying that technology has demonstrated during this, what feels like a permanent conflict the last, better part of the last three years, is it going to spill into their tech sector, which is now, I think, the third largest tech sector in the world. And it's really registered incredible growth. They have more unicorns per capita than any nation in the world. So I think the world or the markets have come to the conclusion, one, rich people drive the markets and they don't care about energy prices. And two, the world has become, we're no longer a fossil fuels economy. It makes a difference. But this is a technology and a services economy now. And these companies are doing really well. And also, to be fair, the earnings have

been really strong across these companies. So consumer sentiment, there's some dissonance. While consumer sentiment claims studies say consumer sentiment is its lowest level, it doesn't seem to be translating to a decline in consumer spending. I mean, I guess the first thing to address why are my markets rising. And it could be that one investors think that the war is about to end, in which case I fundamentally disagree with them. I don't think this war is coming to an end. I don't think we had any indication that this war is even close to coming to an end. I think it's actually going to keep going for a long time. Or two, they've decided that this doesn't matter that much in terms of the markets, because the markets

care about earnings. And so far, as you say, earnings have been extremely strong. Every sector's earnings estimates have risen since the war began, especially the tech sector, which is the most important one, which the market is pretty much dependent on at this point, their earnings estimates have seen the largest increase in recorded history. So I think that that is the correct reading, or at least if you're going to justify why the markets should go up, why right now is a buying opportunity, I think the correct reasoning is you would say, not that the war's going to end, but regardless of what happens with the war, earnings in corporate America are fundamentally very, very strong right now,

and they are increasingly driven by one sector that isn't going to be hamstrung by the fact that there is traffic and blockades in the Strait of Hormuz. It isn't going to be fundamentally affected by rising gas prices. That's not going to be really a problem. And to your point, when we look at the backward-looking data, meaning the data that we already know, the evidence that we have, yeah, consumer spending is actually not going down. We've seen that consumer spending is pretty stable.

We saw that in most of the earnings from the banks. We also saw it from Capital One. In their earnings last week, they said that, quote, So far, we've not seen any adverse effects on our portfolio, even in our credit or in our spend metrics. Consumer spending is pretty much fine at the same time. As you say, you've got consumer sentiment, which has literally reached a record low. So how people feel about the economy right now is not good at all. And then the question then becomes, how much of a metric is that really?

The question then becomes, what happens next, though? because we haven't really seen what elevated and durable gas prices will do to this economy yet. And while, yes, we have electrified our economy more so than we have in the past. And while, yes, the top 10% of consumers make up half of all consumer spending and they are not very sensitive to gas prices, the reality is we haven't seen what a long and durable period of elevated gas. prices, which are up 35% in America since the war began, and they're up even higher in basically every other market around the world. And so the question then becomes, is it going to have a real

impact next quarter or the following quarter or the following quarter after that? And that is a question of how long are we going to remain in Iran. It's a very complicated and unclear question right now. And it is, it does all go back to this point that we've said a lot a lot of the time, which is that the economy is so fundamentally dependent on both a handful of tech companies at the top and also a handful of earners and thus spenders at the top as well, which means that it's very hard to even understand how the economy is even doing. And so the stock market is just, as we've said, a pretty shitty indicator of general economic health. But that's what we're here to talk about. And so far, investors believe in that.

they're probably right that oil prices are not going to have that much of an impact on earnings, especially when we're in this AI boom and AI spending and revenue continues to rise. I mean, it's a couple things in terms of markets. Your proximity to AI coupled with the trade surplus of oil. So are you an oil export or importer in your proximity to AI? So in the security around it. So Israel markets are tremendous proximity. to AI, Taiwan's tremendous proximity to AI, but they're both oil. My understanding is oil importers.

And what that says to me is that proximity to AI bests your need for energy. And then you look at the U.S., it has both got, it not only has proximity to AI, it's ground zero for it, and we're an oil exporter. And despite the fact, okay, so think about the cost of production for oil have not gone up in the United States. They can still extract a barrel of oil for about the same price as they could five weeks ago. The difference is they're now getting, you know, 40% more per barrel. That is money that goes into the pockets of shareholders of U.S. companies. So it's not leave, to a certain extent, the increase in energy costs here aren't leaving our shores. They're just being redistributed, maybe inefficiently. But you have a lot of companies, you have oil companies,

big companies in the S&P 500 in the United States who are benefiting from this. So while it'll cost consumers money, and at some point you'd think that squeeze out other purchases, but you're not seeing a decline in the purchases of site licenses for Anthropic because people are spending more on gas this week, and that's what drives the market. Now, in terms of moving forward, also, it just appears, I mean, there's just no getting around it. The market has just become this incredibly resilient organism. Yeah, it's just a dip-buying machine. Yeah. It seems to be surviving wars, pandemics. And a friend of mine, Jason Mudrick, who started Mudrick Capital, is a distressed credit investor, said something that is so simple, but it struck me as really insightful. It's like, as long as there's demographic growth,

as long as there's population growth, and innovation through technology, markets will over the medium and long-term go up into the right. And he's struck me, he's right. The market has decided that these dips are opportunities, that they're not structural, they're cyclical, and then immediately capital ways in to benefit from the up cycle again. Now, having said that in 2022, I didn't see any cause for the markets to throw up, and they did. I don't know if it was people taking, we should ask Josh Brown what happened, money off the table. But I still think it's more likely that a announcement from a large corporation who has been a big purchaser of site licenses of AI comes out and says, we're not get, we're scaling back on our AI efforts because we're not getting the ROI we had

initially anticipated. I think that is going to be more likely to be responsible for a drawdown in stocks in 2026 than Iran or the oil or energy crisis. We're just, we've been saying this forever. We transitioned from an agricultural society to manufacturing to services. And a lot of people said it's always been about energy. I get it. You know, Indonesia is a bit screwed here. India, big oil importer. But it does. feel like oil, and I can't imagine the investment in renewables isn't going to have such a huge uptick that fossil fuels are going to play an even less significant role moving forward. You mentioned, like, if there were a drawback in AI spending, then that would be the thing

that kills the market, it's not this. 100% agree, that's definitely true. The thing that is striking to me, and I made this point in our previous Monday episode, and I also said it on the Daily Show last week. It also, to me, shows that investors just don't really care about Iran anymore, or at least their interest and their concern for the matter is waning. And when you're in that mindset, as we've discussed, you start to go big, zoom out, zoom out, and you go big picture, and you say, you know what? Fundamentals are strong, earnings are strong in the medium, the long term, markets go up, population, you know, all the things which are true,

and you revert to those things. But at the same time, I believe that there is a fundamental, as you said, dissociating from what is happening on the ground in Iran. And I think where they might mess up is mistaking their lack of caring for convincing themselves that the situation is fine and sorting itself out in Iran. That, to me, is a lot of. That, to me, is a lot of, you know, is just wrong. And I just look at what happened in terms of developments in the past week, where we had, I mean, I told you how the markets have responded since the ceasefire began. They've gone up.

But the fact is we didn't have a ceasefire, really. We still had Iran shooting at ships in the Strait of Hormuz. We still had a U.S. Navy destroyer shooting at an Iranian container ship. We still had multiple violations of the ceasefire as expressed by both parties by the U.S. and Iran. And then we had an extension of the ceasefire, which didn't mean anything because the ceasefire wasn't a ceasefire to begin with. They were still firing at each other. But Trump says, oh, we extended it. It's good.

Things are, we're moving in the right direction. Meanwhile, Iran says that the ceasefire extension means nothing. And they're right, because the original ceasefire meant nothing. So you're extending essentially nothing. we're still in the same situation that we were a week ago, two weeks ago, three weeks ago, we're getting into seven, eight weeks. We're still in a very, very precarious situation on the ground there to the point where it's like, okay, I take the argument that maybe it doesn't matter.

That, I think, is fair. But I think where we're going to run into trouble is if we start confusing ourselves by saying it doesn't matter, by saying, oh, it's getting better and oil prices are going to go back up again. No. So I think that is going to be the thing that investors have to keep in mind at this point and that we all have to keep in mind because the more this goes on, like, to be frank, the more desensitized we become to the situation. When you see these headlines and then you see things blowing up and you go, oh yeah, it's just another day. Just that's what happens. There's a war in the Middle East. Yeah, okay. And we become, the whole situation becomes normalized. And what I would just,

again, just emphasize there's a difference between believing that it doesn't, and affect the global market system because we are such a tech-heavy and top 10% to 1% heavy economy versus believing that the thing is going to resolve itself. To your point, it is a little scary that the markets have totally dissociated from war. And I wonder, okay, does that mean future presidents decide that have more of just a hair trigger? And that is, I mean, the problem is I think we go to war too easily and to be blunt, and this will piss off the people on us. I think we leave too easily. And that is we have a glass jaw.

And that is, okay, things don't go well, 14 people die, tragedy for them and their families. Russia is losing 1,000 people a day. And effectively, the way you win a war, if you're a foe of the U.S. is the following. You just survive. I don't care if it's the Taliban. I don't care if it's the IRC. They don't need to win. All they need to do is survive, is just hold on.

Now, as it relates to energy prices, to a certain extent, the war in Iran, the impact it's having on the U.S., that economic impact has been registered by Europe for the last 30 or 40 years, what I mean by that? Everyone's saying, oh, the elevated gas prices will have a huge impact on the U.S. economy. Maybe those same – the gas prices we're paying now. European nations have been paying for decades. The gas prices everywhere else –

from America, it's just unbelievable how they've increased. So these economies in Europe, and I went on this podcast called Trigonometry, and this really intelligent guy, Constantine Kissen, who I find really interesting, is basically said that Europe has just fucked itself with all this taxation around energy. That access to low-cost energy is kind of the grist or the mother's milk for a strong economy. And the, which is sort of interesting is basically for the last 30 years, European energy prices have been where our greatest fear is around our own energy prices, which leads to the fact that, well, okay, what does that say about taxation of energy? What does it say about renewables?

His whole point was just stupid, this massive move to renewable at the at the tradeoff of economic growth. I don't fully agree with that framing. I think saying that taxation is the reason that energy prices are high in Europe is just the wrong focus. To me, it's like you need to invest more in your own energy and become energy independent. That is definitely a good thing, especially if you're reliant on these nations like Russia, who you're now at war with. So I just disagree with this framing. We should talk about the nations that have had the worst performance. Indonesia, you know, they're an oil importer, dollar-denominated debt, which has become harder to service. And also, the global risk aversion leads to capital outflow, some risk.

emerging markets like Indonesia itself. The one that surprises me is India, which I thought would have had a lot of proximity to AI. Their market is down about 5%. Again, they're a major oil importer, and they're worried that they're exposed to price spikes, which could lead to inflation. But it definitely, I feel like we're in uncharted territory.

I just wonder, I just think my guess is, and I don't have a rationale for this, the war ends and the markets collapse. It's just something, this is just such a strange market right now. I don't know, I don't know how to play it. And again, it goes back to our major theme on this show. You don't try and play it. You know, if you're worried about the world, then diversify.

But my view is you're always in the market, and you don't try to time it. And the key is just diversification and low-cost index funds. Because if you, it would have been very easy to make an emotional decision in March. Well, of course the market is down 10%. This war is not going well. be a forever war. We've lost all this credibility. They're sending, they've fired more missiles into the UAE than they have into Israel. I'm selling. And then the market's trip back. Yeah. And I think just on top of that, like, if you're going to play the market, if you're going to

play games, if you're going to trade, don't do it on war. Don't think that you understand geopolitics and military strategy more than other people. I'm sort of down with making these more specific sector-specific bets. Maybe you have some insight in the tech sector or you have some insight in some supply chain thing, in some very specific industry, and you want to kind of get involved in that and make some trades and pick some stocks. I'm actually for that. I think that it means that you get a better understanding of how markets work and how flows and volumes work. But the idea of like, oh, I know what's going to happen here, that is certainly not something that you should be trading on. Totally fair to have an opinion on it. And you can have a belief

about what's going to happen in the future. But the idea of like, and now I'm going to bet on that belief. Now I'm going to bet on the outcome of our military engagement with Iran. That is just such a bad idea. And we have started seeing that some hedge funds, I forget exactly what the hedge fund is called. But there's this hedge fund that just lost like 50% of its portfolio just this week because they were betting again

on what was going to happen to oil prices as a result of what happened in Iran and in the straight-of-h-h-h-h-moos, and it was just such a terrible bet. So it is a reminder, like, yeah, you definitely, if you're going to play games, you certainly don't want to play games on this subject. This is one of those things that you literally just cannot predict, especially when it's all in the hands of this one guy

who not even his cabinet can understand or predict his thoughts and his actions. The people making the majority of the money here are the ones on the inside who know what he's about to announce the next day. Yeah, exactly. Plus it's rigged. Are you really going to play that game? It's a terrible idea. We'll be right back after the break.

And if you're enjoying the show so far, please follow our new ProfG Markets YouTube channel. The link is in the description. Support for the show comes from DeleteMe. Delete Me makes it easy, quick and safe to remove your personal data online at a time when surveillance and data breaches are common enough to make everyone vulnerable.

Digital privacy isn't just a concern for those in the spotlight. The truth is that even private citizens are at risk and we should all be thinking about how to keep our own personal data as well as our families safe. Our colleague Jennifer Sanchez tried Delete Me. She was surprised to find out how much personal information was already out there, but Delete Me made it very easy to clean it up. Take control of your data and keep your private life private by signing up for Delete Me. Now at a special discount for our listeners. Get 20% off your Delete plan when you go to join delete me.com slash profg and use promo code profg at checkout.

The only way to get 20% off is to go to join deleteme.com slash profg and enter code profg at checkout. That's join delete me.com slash profg code profg. Support for the show comes from upwork. There's no extra credit for doing it all yourself. In fact, that's more likely to lead to dropped balls and burnout. Successful businesses know when to delegate, even when that means growing the team. And if you're looking to hire, try Upwork. Upwork helps grow your business by giving you fast access to specialized talent across more than 125 categories so you can fill skill gaps, launch projects faster, and scale without committing to full-time headcount. And finding the right talent is easy. You can browse

profiles, review past work, and get help scoping the role so you can get started quickly. Seriously, you could connect with the right freelancer in just a few hours, especially when you sign up with Business Plus. Their AI-powered shortlisting pairs you with the top 1% of talent in under six hours. No endless searching required. Upwork also cuts down operational hassle by handling things like contracts and payments in one place, so you can spend more time running your business. You can visit upwork.com right now to post your job for free.

That's upwork.com to connect with top talent, ready to help your business grow. That's upwork.com. Upwork.com. Support for the show comes from VCX, the public ticker for private tech. For generations, American companies have moved the world forward to their ingenuity and determination. And for generations, everyday Americans could be part of that journey through perhaps the greatest innovation of all, the U.S. stock market. It didn't matter whether you were a factory work in Detroit or a farmer in Omaha. Anyone could own a piece of the great American companies. But now, that's changed.

Today, our most innovative companies are staying private rather than going public. The result is that everyday Americans are excluded from investing and getting left further behind, while a select few reap all the benefits. Until now. Introducing VCX, the public ticker for private tech. VCX by Fundrise gives everyone the opportunity to invest in the next generation of innovation, including the company's leading the AI revolution, space exploration, defense tech, and more. Visit getvcx.com for more info.

getVcx.com. Carefully consider the investment material for investing, including objectives, discharges, and expenses. This and other information can be found in the fund's perspective at getvcx.com. This is a paid sponsorship. We're back with Profury Markets.

2026 is shaping up to be the year of successions for some of the world's most iconic companies. Tim Cook announced he's stepping down as Apple's CEO after 15 years. He'll be succeeded by John Ternis, Apple's head of hardware engineering, and a couple weeks ago, Netflix co-founder Reid Hastings said he will leave the board in June. We have seen some other departures.

Earlier in the year, Disney named Josh DeMorrow as Bob Iger's successor, and also Warren Buffett stepped down as CEO of Berkshire Hathaway after more than six decades at the helm. So with so many legendary leaders leaving their roles, it raises an interesting question, which is what actually makes a great CEO and what defines, and I can't. one. So, Scott, a lot of departures here, some that I didn't announce or mention in that intro, Doug McMillan of Walmart, also stepping aside, James Quincy of Coca-Cola, Brian Cornell of Target, and then, of course, the big news this week is Tim Cook. Let's just start with Tim Cook and kind of take a look back at his legacy, what he achieved, just some of the stats that really

jump out. He quadrupled revenue during his tenure, quadrupled profits, 13x to the company's market cap from $350 billion when he took over to $4 trillion when he left, almost $4 trillion. He outperformed the S&P by 4x. Apple returned 2,000% during his tenure. The S&P returned around 500%. I mean, when you just look at the scoreboard, when you look at the statistics, pretty remarkable, what do you make of his departure and what do you make of his legacy? Well, he's first ballot Hall of Fame for business. He is the most successful successor in history. And you weren't around, or you weren't a professional age when jobs died. But what happened, there was this weird shift in our society where we transitioned from the idolatry of athletes and government leaders and actors to innovators. And that is because of it, I think as attendance and religious institutions went down, we still. wanted kind of godlike answers, and the closest thing we could get to godlike mysticism was technology. I still don't understand how my phone does what it does, and then he collapsed that

or collide it with our idolatry, the dollar, and then our new heroes are these innovators. And all of a sudden, Bill Gates and Steve Jobs became the new, you know, the new gods, especially Steve Jobs, because he did such a great job of branding, and he was taken from us early, like Jesus, and, you know, so they were the new Jesus Christ, if you will. So literally Tim Cook didn't have to fill shoes. He had to fill, you know, Jesus' smock or whatever. And right away, they started second-guessing Tim Cook, no new products, lacks the creativity, you know, all this shit. And like you said, he's probably added more shareholder value than any CEO in history with the exception maybe of Jensen Huang. And he has, I mean, there's a few things that are extraordinary that won't be

talked about as much because they're boring. He built arguably the most successful commercial supply chain in history, and that is the supply chain to aggregate and coordinate 2,000 separate components and build an item in China in a different country that takes advantage of their advanced manufacturing and their low cost of labor, such that he could produce a supercomputer for $400, instead of trying to produce it in any Western nation, it would cost $4,000. The result was the most profitable, successful product in history, and that is the iPhone. And generally, the rules of marketing are you can have an aspirational niche product like a Ferrari. It's highly differentiated and has huge margins. Or you can have a mass product that's great value where you focus on cost and you

have huge production volumes. That's Toyota. Apple is really the only product. The iPhone is the only product I can think of that has the margins of Ferrari with the production volumes of Toyota. It's created more gross margin dollars for shareholders than any product in history. It's arguably the most successful thing in history. And he did it because of this in his background, what's in supply chain. He doesn't get enough credit for products because my favorite product, and I think the most under-hyped technology product of the last 10 years, is AirPods. And if AirPods were their own business, they would be a Fortune 50 company. In addition, he said, rather than trying to come up with new gizmos, I'm going to take this product, which is the most profitable product in history,

and I'm going to move it slowly but surely, but incrementally and purposely, from being a phone to a supercomputer that's your center for media, that where you can make payments, so you can interact with other people, you can create presentations. I mean, this isn't a phone. It's a supercomputer, and it's revolutionized the way people do business, his ability to create a ring fence and ecosystem such that he could get a little bit of the app store, which is arguably the second most successful product in history or service in the world, the app store. 100 billion in services revenue. And then another tectonic move. And while it was job's idea, Cook executed against it, just at the time when pre-purchase branding, i.e. advertising, was losing its effectiveness. They took billions of dollars out of pre-purchase branding

and transitioned it and reinvested it into distribution, where the distribution around technology, again, you're too young to remember this. If you wanted to go buy a computer, you went to Comp USA or Circuit City, or to like goodies or some shitty place. If your computer broke down, God help you, took it to this weird place

so they gave you a number and a guy who looked like he had to register with his neighbors gave you a number and told you to come back in two weeks so you could find out that you need a new computer. And then they built these temples to the brand, 450 of them. You want to go an Apple store?

I'd like to live in one of those places. If Apple put up a coffee bar in any one of its stores, it would be the highest revenue per square foot retail in the world. But wait, they already are the highest per square foot retail in the world, having surpassed Tiffany in the odds. So incredible innovation around distribution, consolidation of products into their core product, which has the margins of Ferrari, the volumes of Toyota, also a great manager. No people going on background, no dramatic firing, no scandals, no lawsuits. Yeah, you know, he himself, I think, handled himself with a lot of grace,

didn't shitpost other CEOs. Except for the plaque. I mean, that was his one, that was his one mistake from a PR perspective, the trophy that he gave to Donald Trump. People would say his sycifference tree around Trump is a bit of a stain on his legacy.

No one gets it right all of the time. And what he, I think, decided to do, he decided to take one for the team and the team with shareholders, right? I can't imagine that Tim Cook's skin didn't crawl going to the Melania premiere. I just, but, Look, let me put it this way.

He had an opportunity to be a leader there and like the other 499 S&P 500 CEOs, he decided not to. Fine. But I don't think that's, you know, if your career, if your business career is 35 frames in the blink of an instant, you know, he got 34. It's like, try and find a CEO who's been more right than Tim Cook.

It is really difficult. I really like your framing there. It's like he took one for the team. He ruined his life. He made himself look like just a sycophantic idiot. Everyone made fun of him, and he did it for shareholders. That's why he did. It was all for the investors, which honestly, when you put it like that,

it's like, okay, fair enough. Great CEO. He took one for the team. So just let me also, Tim Cook will overshadow everybody, but it is important to recognize Doug McMillan. He started out, I think, loading trucks. I actually did some work with him back when I was, at L2. Very decent guy, very smart.

Stock return, in his 10 years, up fivefold, 15% annualized return, outperformed a lot of large-cap peers, Nike Nestle, Diageo, and he was really one of the stronger large-cap CEOs and probably the most iconic CEO, where most important CEO in retail. And, you know, he was ever, he was the first retailer to hit a trillion-dollar market cap in 26. And O has been sort of a historically low, multiple slow growth business, revolutionized retail. And my story about Doug McMillan was, he asked me to come to present to the board of Walmart, I think it was about seven, eight years ago. And the next day, he invited me to his office. And he spent an hour, they invite their associates, whatever they're called.

There was a line of like, you know, Walmart has a lot of employees. So 400 people who all looked to be like 110 showed up. when they're smocks or Walmart smocks. And he just spent an hour going down the line and saying hi to everybody. It seemed very easy for him. He generally seems like a, I think arguably he's kind of the most down-to-earth. Like he's the guy that, like, will continue to live in Little Rock. You know, he's not one of these CEOs who shoots in and then heads out to the Hamptons.

He struck me as a very down-to-earth, decent guy. My point is Tim's going to suck all the oxygen out of the room. And another iconic CEO we talked about Reid Haystang. Doug did an outstanding job. And also, Walmart had a lot of arrows coming from them, whether was the cheap capital of Amazon or especially retail or investors looking for higher growth companies. He was just, he was an adult in the room, and he, I mean, he's been through, he's traversed, he's weighted in pretty dangerous waters with a lot of gray whites with cheaper, cheaper capital coming for him. Walmart definitely could have been, I think under less deft leadership,

Walmart could have been Kmart but bigger, but he didn't. It's been a solid performer outperforming the S&P. Yeah, and it's one of the best performing stocks of the year. I mean, the multiple is just incredible on Walmart at the moment. Just to go back to Tim Cook for a moment, I mean, the question we began here with is what makes a great CEO, what makes an iconic CEO, and that is the question that I'd like to get to the bottom of, Just to go through some of his wins, you mentioned many of them.

AirPods was a win. The Apple Watch was a win. Wearables was $36 billion in revenue last year. Also growing the services business to more than $100 billion in revenue, scaling the iPhone. He sold more than $3 billion iPhones during his tenure, grew it into a more than $200 billion business. Also, something that we didn't mention in our Apple episode during the week

was pioneering the M1 chip. Apple used to have a dependency on Intel for their chips. They created this, what they called this unified memory design, where the CPU and the GPU kind of comes together into one chip. And it is what led to what is now very popular in the AI community, which is the M4 Mac Mini, which is now this go-to machine for all these AI engineers. It is the most popular consumer product that you can buy if you want to run large language models. And he did that back in 2020.

I don't know if it's because he predicted what was going to, happen with the AI, but the reality is it is another winner of the AI boom. And then the biggest thing is that he was this supply chain genius. I mean, the biggest criticism of Apple before he came in was that the supply chain was a disaster. And he came in, he reduced the number of suppliers by 75%. He shut down half of the warehouses. He moved things into China. He massively increased margins, partly by doing that in China where he had all this cheap labor. He reduced the labor, costs per iPhone by nearly 25% while tripling the price. So he massively expanded the margins. I mean, those are just some of his biggest wins. His failures, you'd have to say, was the Apple car,

but also maybe credit to him for shutting it down internally. Vision Pro, certainly a failure. I think it's a little bit of a flop that they're kind of quietly pulling that and now he's leaving. And then also potentially AI, their AI strategy has been considered by many to be not a very good one. I mean, there's also the question of should they be investing in data centers, their decision is to not do it. While everyone else does do it, we'll see if that ends up being a good decision or a bad decision. But certainly in terms of consumer AI, Apple Intelligence, has been kind of a flop. Siri was very well primed to be a great winner of the AI revolution, and it wasn't. So you'd have to say that AI was kind of a failure on that front. And then finally,

just his management style is something that I think would be interesting to unpack. Tim Cook has been described as the master of silence. That's what a lot of people call him. And supposedly he had this rule that in meetings, he would always be silent for at least 10 minutes. And he made it a rule that he wasn't allowed to react or give any signals as to how he felt about what the other person was saying. And he said, quote, if I gave any reaction at all,

people would often tell me what they thought I wanted to hear. I found that they were much more likely to say what they really thought, even if it wasn't what I was hoping to hear when I was careful not to show what I thought. And that was kind of his reputation, which is also very, very different from Steve Jobs, as we should also note, who was famously, I mean, very aggressive, commanded the room. He was the center of attention. Tim Cook decided to actually play at the opposite. He was this kind of quiet, methodical operator, not really a large,

than Life Founder CEO. So that's an interesting dichotomy there. But I figure we should put it in contrast with Reid Hastings because he was kind of the not quite Steve Jobs level of the founder CEO cowboy, but kind of getting there. He was known for these very bold, risky bets, starting with DVD by mail, then betting the whole company on streaming at a time

when Internet speed in America was pretty terrible, then betting and going all in on an original content. and then going all in on foreign content, et cetera, et cetera. So, I mean, as a CEO, Scott, and as someone who's been, like, looking at these guys and studying these guys for a long time, what do you take away from, like, how to manage a company, how to manage an organization,

what are your main learnings from Tim Cook, in contrast to, say, Reed Hastings? And perhaps which things do you think they got wrong? If a CEO doesn't have gigantic flops, means they're not trying hard enough. It means they're not at the front air edge of innovation. So I would argue that, okay, the mixed reality headset, that was just an option to make sure that, okay,

if that crazy Zuckerberg is crazy right, we at least will be a letter D. And they shut that down. The whole thing was fucking stupid. Did they miss out on AI or they decided they don't want to go into those capital wars and they'll ultimately garner a ton of revenue by being the default AI.

The car company, in my view, and this will come back to what I think, I'll come back to that on what I think makes a great CEO. So I've never run a big company. I've run small and medium-sized companies, but I've worked with a lot of CEOs. And I think, generally speaking, it kind of comes down to three things that great CEOs or attributes that they share. The first is they demonstrate excellence. They are someone who came up through the ranks, and they were just outstanding of what they did,

and they understand the business. So Tim Cook is arguably the best supply chain person in the world. A guy like David Solomon had a reputation for being a great trader. I think Jamie Diamond was a great investment banker, a wealth management guy. These guys are just, you know, they're just very, they are better at a component of their business than almost anyone. Everyone looks at these people and says they are just very good. You have to demonstrate excellence and not just be, quote, unquote, a manager that can shift the pieces around. And this might be like an obvious question, but why do you have to do that? Why is it important to be excellent?

Well, I'll give an example. John Donahoe, who was a failed CEO at Nike, was he a great merchandiser? Was he a great brander? Like, what was his greatness? He was essentially a consultant. I don't, I think it helps to be demonstrably great at a key component of the business. You know, Steve Jobs is arguably the best marketer in the world. So I, I think, I think it helps to be demonstrably great at a key component of the business. you know, Steve Jobs is arguably the best marketer in the world. So I think demonstrating excellence around a specific function of the company, most of the great CEOs I know are just outstanding at a key component of the business, and that's how they got to that point, and it gives them an insight into the insight into the company. Something I was just to build on that, something I was going to also think is important. And typically gray leaders don't interrupt, but anyways, go ahead.

Okay. This is Christ, like fucking Kara Swisher. Second thing. I'm sorry, go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead. I think the other thing that is interesting about demonstrating excellence and is important is that it commands respect. Yeah.

And you need the employee base to be like, yeah, this is the right guy for the job. And the reason I'm thinking that is because we just saw my favorite team, Chelsea. We just fired this guy Liam Rossignor, the manager of Chelsea. How many managers is that Joey Bag of Donuts posing as a football club had in the last three years? Yeah, exactly. It's getting out of control. And one of the big problems was he just didn't have a lot of. lot of experience. But then everyone said, yeah, but, you know, he could be great. He could be great.

And the problem is he comes into the club and because he doesn't have enough experience, because he hasn't demonstrated the excellence beforehand, apparently what happens is that the people in the dressing room just didn't respect him. And that in and of itself is a problem. So they could have given him some time and maybe he would have turned out to be great. But the trouble is because he didn't have the track record, it just meant that when he said things, people just didn't listen to him. because they didn't respect him. So that's just a side comment. I apologize for the interruption.

He's no Mikhail Arteta. He's not Michael Arteta. So, but these guys, I would argue these guys, most CEOs I've known are, you know, specifically like they're just, no one could do, no one could do an earnings call or invest relations like Jet Bezos. You really were in awe of these people. I've worked with some CEOs where I think, gosh, these guys, these guys are just so good. And they're almost always guys.

And then two, and this is key. They hold their people accountable. And it's not a Hallmark commercial. They put in place very definitive metrics for people. They have honest and open conversations. Because the fastest way to just really diminish morale is to let mediocre performers survive and keep them in your company. Everybody in a company, they don't need to like each other, but they need to be able to look left and look right and go, okay, I get it. get why they're here. They're good at what they do. Otherwise, why am I working so fucking hard?

If Joey Bag of Donuts over here can be just, you know, okay at their job and take off early on Thursdays. And they get, you know, they make, I get 6% at the end of the year and they get 5%. So holding people accountable, outlining metrics, straightforward honest conversations with them, shedding people on a regular basis. And I know that sounds harsh, but I think great CEOs hold people accountable. And this goes back to the Apple Titan, which was their car effort. I think what happened there was it was constantly delayed, constant production overruns, weak designs, bad strategy. And he said, fuck it, I'm closing the whole thing down. He held that team accountable rather than, you know, that must have been embarrassing.

And then people talk about it as a failure. I see it as a sign of a good CEO. This isn't working. You said you were going to deliver X by Y. You haven't. I'm shutting this shit down. I doubt the head of Apple's Titan came to him and said, you should shut us down. He kept coming to him or, you know, or her kept coming to Tim and saying, oh, this is why we have missed this deadline.

This is why this is not going well. And he said, okay, you're shit out of luck. And then the third thing, and it is more of a Hallmark commercial, is I generally find these really good CEOs have really good empathy. And that is they understand what their employees want and get to know them on a personal level and what's important to them, and then they try and adapt or they try and recognize, maybe that's more true in small companies, but I always found that if I could understand somebody and what was important to them, whether it was flexibility so they could coach Little League, where they were totally focused on. Some people love to manage people. They just get

a thrill out of managing people. So find that person and say, I want you to manage this person. Some people get so much reward out of seeing their name and lights, right? Big egos. I'm one of those people. So I used to, if a newspaper would call, I would say, do you want to give this person a quote? And letting them give a quote in whatever it was, women's wear daily was like enormous compensation for them. So trying to understand your management team, what's important to them, and reflecting that I have empathy for you. And the key component, the key message, the CEO has to give to his management team is the following. If I win, you're going to win. You're coming on this ride with me.

and I am really good at what I do. And when I win, it's going to be a win for you. I want you to be successful. I'm going to hold you accountable, but I'm going to give you good feedback, and I want you to win. I don't need to like you, but I want you to have economic security. I want this to be the best platform you have ever engaged in, and I'm going to take my excellence as platform and an understanding of what you're good or not good at, and I'm going to get you further faster here than any other platform you could associate with. Not necessarily because I'm a nice guy, but I understand why you're here

and I promise you I'm really fucking good. And me being really fucking good is gonna mean you're gonna do really well too because I'm gonna bring you along with me. And it sounds trite, but it's true, team of the best players wins. The metric I always looked at in a corporation at board meetings was churn.

I wanna know industry average for churn at every level of the company. And if we're churning faster, there's always a good reason for why, oh, so-and-so left to go to another company. I'm like, well, okay, why? What? I'm an investor in an AI company right now,

and we've lost two senior managers to AILM. So I'm like, how the, why would these people leave? They've got big equity stakes. Like, what's wrong here? And I said to the CEO, this is a poor reflection on you. How could you, why did these people decide they don't have the, they don't have faith in this company and you for you to get them to the promise land?

Like, what's, is it a culture thing? Is it, uh, we're not, They don't have strong expectations about an outcome here. So, one, demonstrates excellence, two, holds the team accountable, and three, has an ability to really understand what people want and convince them that if I'm successful, you're going to be successful because I understand you and I understand the unique kind of desires you have, what you're looking to get out of this. Anyways, those are my three.

No notes. Killed it. I 100% agree with all of that. I love it. Who tells the best dick jokes, Ed? Who demonstrates excellence at the top of the show? That's right. That's right.

Yeah, that's not your area of expertise, but you have plenty of others. My oldest asked me what condoms are used for, and I said, so you can avoid stupid questions like this one. We'll be right back. And if you're enjoying the show, come join us on tour and hang out with us live. You can get your tickets at profgmarketstor.com. The link is in the description. Support for the show comes from Indeed. When the pressure's on and you need to hire the right person for the job, Indeed sponsored jobs has got your back. It matches you with quality candidates fast so you don't need to spend tons of time searching for that elusive new talent. According to their data, sponsored jobs posted directly on Indeed are 95% more likely to report a hire than non-sponsored jobs. Join the 3.3 million employers worldwide that use Indeed to connect with quality talent that fits their needs. Spend less time searching and more time actually interviewing candidates.

who check all your boxes. Less stress, less time, more results. When you need the right person to cut through the chaos, this is a job for Indeed sponsored jobs. And listeners to this show will get a $75 sponsored job credit to help you get your job to the premium status it deserves at Indeed.com slash podcast. Just go to Indeed.com slash podcast right now and support our show by saying you heard about Indeed on this podcast. That's Indeed.com slash podcast. Terms and conditions apply. Hiring, do it the right, way with Indeed. Hi, everyone. Kara Swisher here.

We just won the Webby Award for the best interview show in news, business, and society. And I've had some great guests on my podcast on with Caras Swisher. Here are some you don't want to miss. Tristan Harris, the co-founder of the Center for Humane Technology. I talked to him about his biggest worry when it comes to development and deployment of AI, hint it. It has something to do with the CEOs and how they stand to profit. I interviewed documentarian Louis Theroux, his latest documentary,

the Manosphere focuses on the incredible and horrifying influence this group of individuals has, especially on young men and boys. And recently, I caught up with Katie Couric, Amy LaRocca, and my brother, Jeff Swisher, to debunk some of the fads and misinformation behind the billion-dollar wellness industry, and we talked about the important medical tests that are actually worth your while. All of these conversations are available now. You can find them on YouTube or wherever you get your podcast, and we've got plenty more lined up for the summer, so be sure to subscribe to On with Kara Swisher to catch them all. I'm a Sted Herndon, and this is America actually.

We're all talking to each other to see what did we do wrong? What did we not see? I'm in Washington, D.C. this week to interview Ruben Gaiago. He's a Democratic senator from Arizona, and he's been thinking openly about running for higher office. But he's recently running to some hot water because of his connection to Congressman Eric Swalwell. I have to learn from this, and I will learn from this. But for me, it's not a 2028 question. It's about what it means to be a better.

first boss in my office and also a better senator to my constituents. This week on America, actually, we asked Gallego about predatory behavior in Washington, his plans for immigration reform, and more. We're back with Profi Markets. SpaceX just struck a major deal with coding startup cursor. The agreement gives SpaceX the option to acquire the company for $60 billion, or pay $10 billion for its technology if it chooses not to buy the company. The timing is notable

ahead of a potential SpaceX IPO later this year. Okay, so Scott, SpaceX is buying cursor, for those that don't know, cursor is this AI coding company. It's exactly how it sounds. They use AI to basically do the coding for you or code alongside you.

And they're buying this thing for $60 billion, and they also have the option to pay $10 billion, dollars to work together if it doesn't work out, which essentially just means it's just a breakup fee, a $10 billion breakup fee, which means that they probably believe that there's a chance, maybe a significant chance that this won't go through for whatever reason. But this is pretty notable because SpaceX is about to go public. And that's what everyone has been talking about at nearly a $2 trillion valuation. So the idea that they would then buy a company for $60 billion,

which is a pretty big deal for... a private company, a startup. It's a pretty big deal for any company. And they're doing this just months before they go public. And if this goes through, by the way, they're going to have to refile their S-1. They're going to have to report new financials, etc. So it's kind of a big deal in the IPO world because everyone's so excited for SpaceX to go public.

This is going to be the largest IPO in history on various metrics. and now they're buying a company for $60 billion, that's a big deal. What do you make of it, Scott? Well, my understanding is what it feels like, is there's definitely an aqua higher component to this, but XAI is desperate. My understanding is XI is just not scaled or shown an ability to develop a product or a front end that registers revenues, and that I think cursor is an attempt to establish a front end or bolt on a front end that might help them get more actual revenues going.

The thing that struck me about the deal and its announcement is that, you know, that saying statisticians lie and liars use statistics. This number just feels like such bullshit to me. First off, nobody's cashing a check for $60 billion here. I'd love to see the deal terms, but it's something along the lines of if we go public, you're going to get, and you're here for one, two, three, four years, you'll get 0.5, 1, 2, and 3 percent options on 3 percent of the company and at a $2 trillion market cap, that's $6,000. $60 billion. No one's cashing a check for $60 billion here yet. And so it feels to me like, and there's just so many bullshit numbers out there. Like, you know, take any number that Sam Altman says about investments in compute, right? What was it? One or two trillion dollars and that went away. $850 billion valuation. Well, okay, if you offer me a 17% guaranteed return and a preference, a liquidity preference, all invested in $850 billion valuation, knowing the company's worth less than Anthropic, which just raised money at $350. So these numbers are more about a press release and kind of a jaw dropped than they are about something that's actually real. I mean,

SpaceX only had $25 billion in cash on hand. It feels like he's trying to create, I mean, nobody is better at saying, look over here as he stuffs more rabbits into the hat. And to bring together this salad of space, connectivity, AI, a communications platform, you know, it all feels like, okay, at $1.5 trillion, I need a really dramatic story here. It can't be that SpaceX is only $12 billion. It can't be that my AI seems to be going nowhere. It can't be that robots, there's really no commercial application for these things, but all taken together, it just feels like the future, right? So I don't, I would just love to know that how do they get to that $60 billion number and what does it, what does it mean? And I think he's also, and it kind of goes

to my prediction, I think he's going to roll Tesla into this thing because Tesla all of a sudden, what you have is there's so much Elon magic built into these multiples. So many people just want to invest behind Elon. They think he's the, you know, he's the Edison of our generation or this age, which I think, you know, is a credible statement. So they think, I just need to invest behind this guy. The problem is that the promise always outpaces the performance, so he always has to make a new promise because it's becoming clear that Tesla is a great automobile company that should trade a 20 to the 30 times earnings, not 155. So he'll probably roll that into the whole thing and say that it's about autonomous and AI and that only his space connectivity and only his AI can power this autonomous car and that he's going to have more

data inputs than anybody else. He'll keep just look over here, look over here, look over here, robots, you know, humanoid robots. So I don't, but this circling back to the beginning feels like he needed a front end for XAI, which is a distant player right now in AI. Yeah, I think that's exactly right. You point out this idea that the $60 billion number is, what does that mean? And that is a really important point, because

I mean, the first question is, is that $60 billion, or is that $60 billion worth of SpaceX stock? Is that what the cursor team is going to get paid? If it's $60 billion worth of SpaceX stock, then at what valuation are we talking here? Is it the private valuation that we've seen? Is it the internal valuation that they placed on themselves? Is it the IPO price, which is going to be closer to $2 trillion? I mean, that whatever the answer to that question is would change the $60 billion by orders of magnitude to the point where saying that they bought them for $60 billion literally does mean like actually nothing. The only thing that you could say maybe means something is they'll pay them $10 billion because maybe there's more of a likelihood that that would be in cash.

But even still, it could also be stock, in which case we don't even know what that means. And this, crucially, is becoming a trend in the problem. private markets. And this has always been a thing with private markets where valuations aren't very clear. It sort of depends on which VC is preempting the deal and, you know, how much were you able to raise? And the numbers are softer. People don't really talk in terms of strict financials. They talk in terms of monthly revenue and then they extrapolate and call it run rate and ARR and all these things. The numbers in the private markets world are famously very soft. And that's okay when you're dealing with very new young companies, because usually those companies

don't really have much of a business yet. So to act as if their Walmart is, you know, a little unfair. You should be maybe a little bit more lenient on how they report the numbers. But we are now getting to a place where these companies are worth literally trillions of dollars, and they're still private, and yet they're still treating it as if they are a series A startup that is just getting their feet off the ground. And the reality is these companies are about to go public, and it's not just SpaceX, it's also OpenAI, it's also Anthropic. And if you put them to, I mean, we can just talk about what the expected IPO valuation is going to be for SpaceX. It's $1.75 trillion. For Anthropic, it's going to be more than a trillion. For Open AI, it's also going to be more

than a trillion. And if you add that up, if you add the combined market cap of those three companies, it would exceed the value of every single IPO from the dot-com era put together. And at the same time, it would also be equal to half of every IPO from the 50 years before that combined. So we're looking at one of the biggest moments in financial markets in a really, really long time. And it's not just that they're just going to be inserted into the stock market. They're going to go in the S&P. There's no way that they are not included in the S&P 500. So what you're essentially doing there is you're adding more than $3 trillion in equity value into the S&P 500 and crucially at the same time, adding $0 in earnings because all of them are burning cash. SpaceX lost $5 billion last year

reported, we think, based on sources. Again, none of the same. is actually disclosed. Anthropic burned 10 billion. Opening eye burned 25 billion. And so we're now getting to a point where these companies are doing all of the things that gigantic public corporations would do. They're spending tens of billions of dollars on these huge M&A transactions. They're behaving like an Nvidia, like a Walmart. They're doing all the things that those companies would do. And their market valuations would suggest that they are actually commanding that. But the way they're disclosing things is so, so unclear, like even cursor when you look at the reporting on the deal, the first thing I'm thinking is like, okay, what's their revenue?

No one knows. We don't know what their revenues. We know based on Bloomberg's projections that they're at a $2 billion dollar ARR. That's the run rate. But again, ARR is just you take one month and then you times it by 12. who knows what the month was before that, who knows if they're cherry picking their months to increase the ARR.

And then it's the same with the biggest company. It's the same with Open AI. We don't really know what the revenue situation actually is. Because again, we're depending on sources say that the number is close to this. Open AI said that they generated $2 billion in revenue last month. So I guess the ARR, we'd say, is $24 billion. But again, this stuff is.

isn't that clear. And that's important, especially if they're about to go public. And I do think, I guess, just to sort of put a button on this, when they finally disclose their financials, once we finally see the S-1 from SpaceX and from Open AI and from Anthropic, there's going to be no more capacity for the bullshit that we've been kind of receiving in these sources, say, reporting for the past several years. And I think it's very very, very possible that suddenly investors are going to go, actually, you know what? This thing is pretty ugly. They're way overpaid for this company. They're burning too much cash. This is not something that deserves a $1.75 trillion valuation. And I think that could be the downfall. But again,

we're going to have to wait and see if they even do go public. Maybe they won't. Anyway, I think you're on to something with that $60 billion number being bullshit. And I think it's indicative of something larger and more systemic in the private markets ecosystem right now. So if you look at the way the deal was structured, it was just weird. So it's all-stock deal, no cash. Structured is a share exchange, and each X-A-I share converted to 0.14 shares of SpaceX. You're talking about the X-A-I merger. Yeah, X-A-I and SpaceX.

But essentially, X-AI was priced at $76 bucks, SpaceX at $527, which valued SpaceX at $8.59 to $1.3 trillion, which is expensive. but a value to X-A-I at like $250 billion. And basically that overvalues, in my opinion, massively X-A-I, which is also, I believe, now owns Twitter, which was overpaid at $44 billion. But what you have here is a lack of representation for the individual companies. I don't think an independent, attruently independent SpaceX would ever pay that kind of money for X-A-I. But again, that number is also BS. And that's because remember the headlines came out. They were like, $250 billion for X-A-I.

Wow, what a company. And then you look at it, it's like they actually made that number up. It's based on a like a ratio of SpaceX shares that they converted. And they just decided, oh, SpaceX is worth a trillion dollars. Okay, but SpaceX, 15 to 16 billion in revenue, $8 billion in profit. So, you know, trading it, whatever, 100 to 145 times revenue. So that's fucking insane. but it's an amazing company.

XAI, they did $2 to $500 million last year, and they burned $8 billion, and it's being valued at $250 billion. So my prediction is the following that the biggest IPO in history will be SpaceX, it'll get out, the best performing IPO will be anthropic. I've never seen, that company has more momentum right now than any company, and this is the big prediction.

I don't think OpenAI gets out. I think that the numbers are so stark right now for OpenAI, that, and it's going to be so overshadowed by the upward trajectory of Anthropic, I think they're going to come up with a jazz hands reason for why they're delaying the IPO. Yeah, I think that's going to be really interesting. And I think the other thing to keep an eye on and the big moment is going to be when these companies release their S-1 filings to the public. I can't wait.

I cannot wait. We're going to finally see. And who knows, maybe it'll be a lot of, as you often say, smearing vassalian over the lens. Maybe it will look like we work again. We know what WeWork did. They created the most BSS-1 filing in the history of markets, and a couple people, namely Scott Galloway, were like, hey, this is a bunch of bullshit. This doesn't make any sense. They're basically just lying over and over again and obfuscating and confusing away from the point, which is this is not a great business.

It's possible that SpaceX does that. But even so, I do think people are going to be looking for that. Like, this is such an important, systemically important IPO for the entire. market. I mean, it's literally going to be inserted into the portfolios of essentially every American. There's no way this doesn't get placed in the S&P. Same with Anthropics. Same with OpenAI. And so everyone's going to have to be very, very vigilant. Like, okay, we're finally going to learn what actually is going on with these businesses. How good are they really? What did they pay for Cursar? What did Open AI pay for TBPN? Was that cash? Was that stock?

What did SpaceX, I mean, what does this XAI SpaceX merger actually look like? What are the financials of Twitter? How is that all playing out? I mean, so many gigantic questions, which they just haven't had to answer because they've been private. But I'm excited for them to go public because we are finally going to get some answers to those questions. Okay. Let's take a look at the week ahead. We will see consumer confidence for April.

we'll see an inflation reading from the Personal Consumption Expendages Index for March and GDP for the first quarter and the Federal Reserve will deliver its next interest rate decision on Calci, the odds that the Fed will hold rates steady are at 99%. And finally, we'll see earnings from Google, from Apple, from Microsoft, Amazon, Meta, Eli Lilly, MasterCard, Visa,

Coca-Cola, Exxon, Chevron, BP, Starbucks, Spotify, and UPS, a ton of earnings and most importantly the big tech earnings. Scott, do you have a prediction for us? Yeah, almost every one of those companies is going to be to the upside. The expectations have been a little bit beaten down by the war in Iran, and I don't see any of those companies other than to the upside, see above Chevron are going to be affected. So I think there's going to be – we're about to see just a series of earnings

speeds. And then the prediction I made before, SpaceX's biggest IPO in history, Anthropics is the best performing. Open AI does not get out. And then also, if SpaceX gets out at the level, I think it's going to, I think a lot of that, I think there's a lot of acolyte buying in Tesla. They go, I don't care if it's not a company. I don't care that it's had quarters of declining sales.

I don't care that BYD is kicking its ass all over the world. It's got that Elon magic, and he'll figure it out. And I think a lot of that capital, that acolyte capital, is going to go into SpaceX and out of Tesla. and I think just as you're going to see an unnatural multiple in SpaceX, some of that is going to come at the cost of a rationalization and a leveling and a recalibration down of Tesla when it becomes obvious that Musk is much more interested in his new SpaceX thing.

And people are going to say, I want some of that Musk's secret sauce, but I'm going to sell this at 125, you know, whatever it is or whatever Tesla trades at, and I'm going to go into the new cool thing. And then there's an outside shot that he merges Tesla into the whole thing to try and sustain it such that it doesn't just totally implode.

My prediction is a two-part prediction. Number one, we've got the interest rate decision. My prediction is that we're not going to see any rate cuts for the entirety of the year. That's not that bold of a prediction, but the reason I think that is because of my second part of the prediction, which is I think that the war is going to continue into 2027.

We're at two months. My takeaway is nothing's changed. Cease fire, no ceasefire, no blockade, no blockade. Seen this movie before. They said Iraq would be six weeks. It was eight years. They said Afghanistan would be $200 billion.

It was $2 trillion. Trump just requested one and a half trillion dollar defense budget for next year, up from $900 billion. I mean, I think all the signals are clear that this war isn't going to end anytime soon. So I think it's going to continue to 2027. I don't think that necessarily means that markets get crushed

for all the reasons that we described, But I certainly think that it means that we're not going to see any interest rate cuts, despite whatever pressure Trump puts on the new guy, Kevin Walsh. So that is my prediction. This episode was produced by Claire Miller and Alison Weiss and engineered by Benjamin Spencer. Our video editor is Jorge Carty. Our research team is Dan Shlan, Isabella Kinsel, Chris Nodonohue, and Mia Silverio. Jake McPherson is our social producer.

Drew Burroughs is our technical director and Catherine Dillon is our executive producer. Thank you for listening to ProfG Markets from ProfG Media. If you liked what you heard, give us a follow and tune in tomorrow for a fresh take on the markets.