Prof G Markets - Why a Doomsday AI Blog Wiped Out $300 Billion

Episode Date: February 25, 2026

Ed Elson breaks down why a new Substack post from Citrini Research sent software stocks into freefall with Josh Brown. They also discuss the rise of HALO stocks. Then, Ed is joined by Robert Armstrong to unpack warning signs in the private credit market from Blue Owl Capital.  Josh Brown is the CEO at Ritholtz and host of The Compound & Friends podcast. Robert Armstrong is the US financial commentator for the Financial Times. Check out our latest Prof G Markets newsletter Follow Prof G Markets on Instagram Follow Ed on Instagram, X and Substack Follow Scott on Instagram Send us your questions or comments by emailing [e-mail] Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Support for the show comes from 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. Where are my gloves? Come on, heat. Winter is hard, but your groceries don't have to be. This winter, stay warm. Tap the banner to order your groceries online at voila.ca.

Enjoy in-store prices without leaving your home. You'll find the same regular prices online as in store. Many promotions are available both in store and online, though some may vary. For a lot of Americans, credit card debt feels like a fact of life. I think it's just important for people to understand how credit can work for you or against you. Why that little piece of plastic has so much power. That's this week on Explain It to Me. Find new episodes Sundays wherever you get your podcasts.

Today's number, 13 million. That's how many views a video of RFK Jr. Jumping into a pool with jeans on received last week. The bizarre clip was designed to encourage Americans to, quote, get active, but it ultimately drove viewers to get therapy instead. Money markets left. If money is evil, then that building is hell. The show goes up!

Welcome to Profi Markets. I'm Ed Elson. It is February 25th. Let's check in on yesterday's market vitals. The major indices all climbed as tech rallied out of Monday's sell-off. AMD led the way, climbing 9% after Meta signed a multi-year deal to buy their chips. Meta will also have the option to take a 10% stake in the chipmaker over a period of time. Meta's stock was actually flat on the news. meanwhile gold declined and finally Bitcoin fell below $63,000. Okay, what else is happening? A new substack piece has sent software stocks into yet another freefall. An article entitled The 2028 Global Intelligence Crisis, published by Citrini Research on Sunday,

outlines a nightmare scenario and that is what if AI leads us into a financial crisis? The premise is simple. By 2028, AI displacement has caused unemployment to hit 10%, spending plummets, the S&P slumps, and the economy becomes unrecognizable. After this piece was released, the Dow fell as much as 2%, and software stocks fell 5%. So here to break down this Citrini research article and the chaos that ensued. We're speaking with Josh Brown, CEO at Ritt Holtz,

and host of the Compound and Friends podcast, Josh. Good to see you. I want to get your reaction to this Citrini research blog post. This is like the second blog that's gone mega viral in three weeks related to AI and now we're seeing just crazy selling in the markets. Do you agree with the market's reaction? Are you as worried as other investors seem to be? Not really, but I love the piece. I think it's fascinating. We have people like submitting their creative writing projects like it's college and the market instantly like starts repricing MasterCard and Visa by 10%. I think it's fucking hilarious.

I think it was very well written. And I and I appreciated that ability to like try to think two years ahead and all the knock on effects. The thing is I've seen. this before and I'm not going to finish that sentence by saying I know how it turns out. I just know it turns out differently than every single negative piling on top of each other without an offset in sight. That is very rarely how these things end up. And so I think it's important for us to think through the issues that Satrini raises. But I think it's highly

unnecessary for us to all conclude, oh yeah, it'll probably, it'll probably shake out just like this. Every possible terrible externality will occur all at once, and it'll be game over for the economy. Like, obviously, that's not the way these things play out. Yeah, 100. I 100% agree. It was so well written. It was so interesting. It carried through the whole narrative, it collected all of the details, all of the relevant details that we should be talking about. And then the part where it lost me was when the market decided to sell pretty much everything, or at least everything in software. Software was down 5%. You saw very big names falling. DoorDash fell as much as 6%. Sure, why not? Because this guy wrote that AI would essentially replace it. What do you make of the actual

argument of the piece, which is essentially that AI is going to be so incredible, so productive, that actually it's going to destroy our economy in all of these unexpected ways. GDP will grow. There will be a lot of output, but the economy itself will be in a state of structural crisis. This could only be written by someone who employs no people and has no customers and has never really been in business before. It's a, it's a, it's like a gen Z slash millennial think piece written by very bright people, of course, who don't understand that the frictions in the economy are not just like these annoying things with a friendly, the relationships in a real world. They're not just like, oh, here's a friction, but we put a salesperson in front of it and therefore it'll persist forever.

because the thing that business owners understand is that, and I don't mean business owners, like I run a hedge fund, I sit in front of a Bloomberg all day. I mean like people that actually run businesses where there is like face-to-face interaction. The thing that we all implicitly know is that every business effectively is a solution to a problem. Yes. Even like the most abstract example, because the examples that are right at my fingertips, a hospital is a business and it's solving the problem of people being sick and wanting to get better. Okay, that's easy. What is the four seasons?

It's a solution to a problem. People want to be entertained slash they want to travel to places, but they have the means and the standards that are high enough where a regular hotel won't do. So like if you think of businesses as just solutions to problems, which is really all they are, then what this is this piece is saying is that we're going to run out of problems. Right. Come on. In a hundred thousand years of the evolution of human society, do we ever actually run out of problems to solve? So this idea that we're in a post labor economy and people aren't going to have to work anymore because it's going to be nothing for them to do. Like, are we losing our collective minds?

There will always be problems to solve, and every wave of technology solves old problems, introduces new ones. And this idea that we'll be able to just turn everything over to agents who will solve problems on our behalf, okay, I'll buy that a lot of what's going to happen is that. Great. And you think we're just going to sit in a room quietly and read a book? Right. No, we'll be out creating new problems. Think about a lawyer. The fundamental constraint of a lawyer filing lawsuits is he doesn't have enough associates to do the paperwork.

What if that constraint were removed and utilizing agentic AI he could file paperwork till his heart's content? Is he filing more or less lawsuits in that scenario? Right. Filing more. Obviously more. And more lawsuits means more people defending themselves against lawsuits. And you see how this, I didn't come up with this, I didn't come up with this concept, but it's a very important one. Someone said in 1955, the work will expand to fit the time available. Like, the more time we have, the more work we will create for ourselves.

And until you process that, you're not going to understand just how misguided these types of sci-fi writings really are. Yeah, it seems to also say that this idea of friction, friction that we experience in our daily lives, is going to be just totally eliminated as a concept because of AI. Maybe we'll see it less in our daily lives, maybe a little bit. But even so, I mean, the friction is still being handled by someone. It's just being handled by an AI now. So that's still a business. That's still going to create value.

That's still going to create a whole ecosystem and an economy around it. And there were people who used to sit on an elevator all day. And they would wear a uniform and a special cap. It was literally only the elevator guy could wear this cap. And he stood there and he pressed people's floors for them. He operated the elevator. Or maybe this is before buttons and he used a lever. Is anyone like, what happened to all the good elevator operator jobs?

There were trucks that drove around Brooklyn. They were knife sharpening trucks. They had the same bells as like an ice cream truck. And they would roll slowly through a neighborhood. And all the women would come running out of their kitchens, aprons on with an armful of knives that needed sharpening. And then the technology improved to the point where, hey, we don't actually need to sharpen knives. We throw them out and buy new ones. Yeah.

It's like, of course we're going to have disruption and entire categories of jobs being lost. The thing that people are worried about is that they all happen at once. Yes. The more realistic scenario is that this rolls industry through industry. And as each industry sees lots of jobs be disrupted, it creates new ones in their wake. And look, I think what most people end up realizing is that AI is a better compliment to experience workers than it is a replacement. Doesn't mean no one gets replaced. It means the people that don't get replaced utilize AI and do bigger business.

and that leads to more job creation in other areas of the economy. It happens every time. It'll happen this time. It'll be uncomfortable in certain pockets. Nobody is, nobody's delusional about that. Exactly. And the timeframe is the question. It's like how many jobs will be replaced, displaced within a certain time frame,

how many of them in that time frame? That's going to be the disruption. But the idea that this has structurally changed the entire fabric of the universe, that's where it's, I start to get lost. I do need to wrap us up here. I think a big piece of this, or at least something that is very interesting to me, is, again, the market's reaction to a blog that was posted on Substack, by, as you call it, it was a think piece, by a very smart person who wrote a very, very interesting and creative article.

And it inspired incredible selling pressure, incredible value destruction, which to me says something about how investors are feeling right now. And something that you have described, you came up with this term, Halo, which stands for heavy assets, low obsolescence, which is the new type of company that investors seem to like right now, which is companies that have nothing to do with AI. AI won't even touch it. So before we go, could you just describe this halo term that's gotten pretty popular? Wall Street Journal wrote an article about it. It's your term. Just describe what that means and how investors feel right now. So in early February, I was talking about the types of stocks that were on the 52-week high list. And what they all had in common was they have heavy assets on their balance sheets and they have low obsolescence risk. And it occurred to me that this was a reversal of the entire post-financial crisis period where we fetishized the opposite, asset-like businesses.

We wanted companies with subscription revenue, ARR, very little cost of doing business. and almost no assets on their balance sheet. And now it's flipped. It's the reverse. You look at stocks like Anheiser Bush, Coca-Cola, Pepsi. You cannot type, I want a Diet Coke, into a prompt, and have somebody else create that product. It is not disruptable.

Natural gas transmission lines, utilities, Caterpillar, deer. Most stocks that are related to heavy industry, in fact, completely halo. And there were some really fascinating examples inside of one industry. You can say Expedia is highly disruptable by AI. You can plan trips. You can book flights. You can have an agent that scours these airline websites and find the optimal trip for you, putting Expedia out of business. But within the same sector, there's Delta.

Can you prompt yourself a fucking airplane? Obviously not. So this is a really interesting market. What this does, Ed, just to sum up, it throws out all these old paradigms that people think about in the stock market. It crushes the growth versus value thing. That's now irrelevant.

It gets rid of cyclical versus defensive. That's irrelevant too. It even breaks the tech versus non-tech idea because certain tech stocks like Apple are extremely halo. You cannot get around the physical iPhone device and chat GPT is probably just going to become a plug-in to the iOS ecosystem. So Apple is Halo, while Adobe is not. So I think that that's a really important

prism through which to view the stock market. And I think that dynamic will remain important throughout the rest of the year. Absolutely. Lots more that we could discuss. I mean, again, my takeaway, people are very confused and very anxious right now. All of the paradigms that they've been following are just being thrown out the window. And it's very confusing to see which ones actually work. It's not supposed to be easy. If it were easy, everybody could do it. Get used to it. That's exactly right.

Josh Brown, thanks very much for your time. Cheers, Ed. After the break, warning signs from Blue Owl. And for even more market's insights, you can subscribe to my weekly newsletter simply put at edwardelson.substack.com. It's never too early to plan your summer story in Europe with WestJet, from rolling countryside to cobblestone streets.

begin your next chapter. Book your seat at westjet.com or call your travel agent. WestJet, where your story takes off. When you look beyond the headlines at the trend lines, what is really going to matter? Even if you're not worried about AI per se, you certainly ought to be concerned. Do we have the cultural strength and resilience to get it right now? Imagine we had to write a new constitution today, put aside AI. Like how good a job do you think we would do?

I'm John Feiner. I'm Jake Sullivan, and we're the hosts of The Long Game, a weekly national security podcast. This week, we're joined by economist and author Tyler Cowan. We discuss China, the AI race, and aliens. The episode's out now. Search for and follow The Long Game, wherever you get your podcasts. In the wake of the release of millions of documents related to the Jeffrey Epstein case, the rich and famous are finally feeling some pain. But even with corporate resignations here, and with former Prince Andrew being arrested in the UK,

The question remains, how did Jeffrey Epstein remain a thriving member of the elite for decades when everyone seemed to know what he was up to? I don't think you could be friends with Jeffrey Epstein, whose M.O. was obviously having sex with young girls, even as Trump said, on the younger side and not know his M.O. Untangling the Epstein conspiracy. That's this week on Today Explained. Every weekday and now on Saturdays. We're back with Profty Markets.

Blue Owl Capital is at the center of a new panic over private credit. In recent weeks, investors have attempted to pull their money from the asset manager. Those requests are driven in part by concerns over the company's exposure to software borrowers. Now, following the increased demand for withdrawals, Blue Owl is shutting the gates on one of its private credit funds. Investors will no longer be able to ask to withdraw their money every quarter. Instead, the firm will sell assets and offer limited liquidity on a, quarterly basis. Shares of Blue Owl plunged 10% on the news and the sell-off rippled across other

alternative asset managers as well. Ares, Apollo and Blackstone fell more than 5%. So, what exactly is Blue Owl and why is it preventing its investors from withdrawing cash here to help us answer these questions? We're speaking with Robert Armstrong, US Financial Commentator for the Financial Times. Rob, welcome back to Prof. markets, I want to get into Blue Owl with you. I keep on seeing this name in the news. I kind of know what they do, but not really. Can you just start off for us? What is Blue Owl? Why should we even care about them? Blue Owl is a large, what would I call them? Fixed income investor. So they run assorted funds that manage credit investments on behalf of investors in various different ways. And they're a big

player in the space. They've been around for a long time and they've made a lot of money. So they're a meaningful player, especially in private credit, which is, of course, kind of the asset du jour of the last couple of years. So talk a little bit about how it is the asset du jour, because I think that's a big piece of this story here. The reason why it probably matters to people is because private credit is suddenly a big deal, and it used to not be. It used to not be.

And it's not so often that a new asset class kind of appears, right? The last, you know, private credit is now something that an institution say, you know, a respectable institution will have a private credit allocation in their portfolio. And that might not have been true three or four or five years ago. And, you know, you have to go back 30 years before that when kind of junk bonds became like this new asset class that people were getting into. And I think the magic of the asset class has two parts.

One is that it is reputed to have fixed income like returns. like the returns you might get from high-yield bonds, but with a little bump because you are lending to a special class of borrowers. These funds are lending to borrowers who, for one reason or another, would like to avoid public markets. Either they don't want, you know, they want a bilateral relationship with their lender or their business is such that it's hard for larger markets to understand. understand, or their cash flows are uneven, or for whatever reason, they don't want to be buffeted

by the daily grind of the high-yield bond market. So they do a bilateral deal with a lender who charges them a little bit more. So let's say you are getting 8% on your high-yield bond part of your portfolio and institution. Maybe the private credit guy offers you 10, let's say. I'm just kind of picking those up. But you got a little edge there. And that is called reaping an illiquidity premium. Right? You're not in the bond market, you can trade in and out all the time. You go to private credit. In theory, you get a couple more percentage points of yield, but you're like locked into this fund for five years. And everybody likes this. Extra yield, everybody loves it. So what we have here is this massively growing asset class. Yes.

that is interesting to a lot of people for various reasons. One of them being they might not want to go to the public markets. That's for the borrowers. For the borrowers. For the borrowers. For the borrowers. For the borrowers. For the people who are lending the money, they're making a lot of money.

Yeah. There's another very important point, which I, is going to come up in this conversation, which I think I should mention. Please. Which is that the value of the funds that have these, private loans in them are not marked to market every day. Yes. Right?

They're marked every corridor or so or however, very infrequently. And one of the things institutional investors love about this is that just because of the way the math works, this means that the returns from private credit look uncorrelated to public markets. And without boring you with the mathematics of portfolio construction. it's better to have an uncorrelated portfolio, the returns from different things in your portfolio moving in different directions makes the whole thing the return for the level of risk superior in an uncorrelated portfolio.

Now, it may not really be uncorrelated. The appearance of uncorrelation is created by the fact that the thing isn't marked to market every day like your bond, your junk bond portfolio, your equity portfolio, or whatever else. But that's a very important feature of why people like this product so much. And I think this gets to the core of why this is important and perhaps could be a real problem and people are beginning to talk about this. And I think it all comes down to the name, which is private credit, which is you don't know what is really going on. Yes.

You don't see, it's not market, you don't see what's really happening. You don't see really the redemptions. You don't really see the performance of these investments. And this is now becoming a real issue, especially in the AI world, where Blue Owl has been a huge player, loaning out tons and tons of money to build all of these data centers. And then we're posed with the question, it's like, well, we don't really know what all of that debt is. And the big question that investors have been worried about is how much debt is being used to build out this infrastructure. And this brings us to the conversation that we're speaking with Josh Brown on this. There was obviously the Citrini blog post that went absolutely haywire this

week that brings up this issue of what AI and private credits association with AI could do to the private credit ecosystem and how much default we might see in this ecosystem. So, I mean, a lot there. There's a lot there. But if you could speak to all of it. Let me, you've given us a lot to think about. Let me complicate it even further. The point, there is two issues there. One of them is with private credit that you need to try to keep separate. One of the issues is lack of transparency. How much do we know about the performance of the underlying loans and how much do we know about what they are worth when they are not marked to market every day? And you might have greater or lesser transparency depending on the product. Liquidity is a separate issue, right?

But the two kind of converge, right? Because when people get nervous rightly or wrongly, you know, maybe this AI thing is really worth worrying about it. maybe it's not. But as long as people are nervous, then the liquidity thing becomes an issue, right? Yes. Because if, you know, a couple people head for the exit and the fund says, and something like this happened to one of Blue Owls funds, and the fund has a limit on how many people can come or leave. As we said at the beginning of the discussion, these are long-term loans, bilateral agreements. You can't just liquidate when investors want to leave. So there's gates on a lot of these private credit funds, and only so many people can leave in a given quarter or so forth.

But anyway, the instant anybody gets told, actually, we're up to our limit, nobody else can leave. That is the moment where everybody wants to leave. Which is exactly what has just happened this week. Right. Yeah, exactly. And it's exactly what happened to Silicon Valley Bank. It's the But Silicon Valley Bank, but Silicon Valley Bank, they don't have, you, you can take a deposit out of a bank any time. Right. The point about a private credit fund is it says right on the wrapper, you're only going

to have an access, access to your money back. In the case of an institution, it might be years. And you kind of know that going in. And so you have to ride it out with them. But where the story gets interesting is when you try to sell this institutional product with the kind of low liquidity that institutions are designed to handle. They have an infinite life. They have a diversified portfolio.

And you say, wouldn't it be great to sell this wonderful product to retail investors? Because after all, where the real money is is selling a product to retirees. That's the biggest pile of money there is. And so you take this product with low liquidity and you sell it to retail investors. They actually have higher demands for liquidity. And now you're trying to kind of square the circle. You've got investors who are retail investors, not institutional investors, who want and need liquidity, and you have a product whose very identity is in not providing liquidity. And then you mix in the AI stuff you're talking about, and it can be quite a combustible mixture.

I know that was a lot, but I think the liquidity issue becomes live as soon as there's even questions about the credit quality. issue. Yes, 100%. And that is what we're seeing shares of Blue Owl plunging 10% on this news. I think this is a story that many of us are not fully tackling because there are so many complicated moving parts. Yes. But it is getting to that point. It seems that we do need to be talking about Blue Owl. Yeah, I think we do. And but the important point I'd like to make to you and to your listeners, is that you can get in trouble, a product, you know, a fund can get in trouble at times like this, even if the underlying loan quality is good. And I think there's good reason to think maybe the loans in this Blue Owl product that, you know,

they were going to merge and they didn't and they stopped redemption, so forth. Maybe the loans are fine. Yeah. Right? But because you are taking this product that is designed for institutional investors and selling it to retail investors and trying to give them a little bit of liquidity, you're setting yourself up for trouble, right? Nobody waits around to see how bad the trouble really is. Exactly. I want to end here with a quote from this guy, Orlando Gehm's chief investment officer for asset management.

He said, quote, the red flags we are seeing in private credit today are strikingly familiar to those of 2007. This is a comparison we are seeing more and more. What do you think of this statement? It seems pretty strong. I mean, the weird thing, you started us out with concerns about AI investment. And the thing about those concerns have companies overinvested, will the loans come good? is AI going to undermine the software businesses? We know it, et cetera, et cetera.

All those are concerns in kind of medium to long term. So it's this weird situation where the companies you're dealing with or the data centers you're financing or whatever, like they're making their monthly payments. Earnings is coming in as expected. There's just this thing on the horizon that you know it's a thing and you're worried about it, but it's not today. It's not showing up in earnings or cash flows or interest payments today.

Yeah. But what about tomorrow? And that makes the situation really hard to judge. In 2007, the wheels were coming off and there was no cash flow today. Right. That problem happened very much in the present, whereas we're having anxieties about the future, and I think that's an important difference. All right.

Rob Armstrong, U.S. Financial Commentator for the Financial Times. Rob, we appreciate you taking us through a complicated topic, but I think it's simplified things. Cheers. All right, before we end here, let's return to this Satrini research blog that took the internet by storm and took the markets down with it. This is the second viral blog post in three weeks that has erased hundreds of billions of dollars in market value overnight, which tells you more about how investors a feeling than about the blogs themselves, because what you have to remember here is that these blogs aren't actually telling us anything new. They are simply synthesizing existing information in a creative and interesting way, and it's the feeling they are arousing within us, not the

information that is causing these massive corporations to lose as much as five, six, seven percent of their value within just a few hours. So let me give you my perspective. on this viral blog that sent the markets into meltdown yet again. So first off, it's a really good blog. It's way better than that other blog we discussed a few weeks ago. And the reason it's so good is because it ties together all of the relevant issues that could materialize because of AI, not just how it might disrupt software,

but also how it might disrupt the job market. and the consumer economy and the debt markets and the insurance industry and so on and so forth, it illustrates how AI is calling into question all of the little pieces in our system that we tend to take for granted. Another way to put it is that it describes the catastrophic risks that Aswath Demoderin was warning us about in our episode on Friday. And so in that sense, it is a really good read, and I encourage you to read it. But does it warrant the cataclysmic reaction that we saw from the markets? No, it doesn't. Because again, it doesn't tell us anything new.

In fact, it simply describes a hypothetical situation, which sounds like an absolute because of the way it was written, and that is it's written in the past tense, as if all this stuff actually happened, which makes it feel scarier. But let's be very clear, the entire post, top to bottom, is conjecture. It's informed conjecture, but it is conjecture nonetheless. In addition, it also misses several key points. For example, the premise of this blog is that all the companies that handle friction, so law firms and software companies and payments processes, they will all die a slow death because AI will eliminate the business

of handling friction. Agents will be doing everything for us. Now, that might be kind of true, but if that is the case, then the friction handling business won't actually be eliminated. It will simply be transferred to a new set of players,

namely the companies that own the agents. Now, that might be a new set of companies. It could be open AI, could be anthropic, that would cause some disruption, or it might just be the existing set of companies. It could be big tech, in which case, those companies that embrace AI are going to get very, very rich. Put another way, yes, this technology is unique to this

era, but the general rules of disruption remain the same. Just as Visa eliminated the friction of paying by check, it ultimately created a whole business around that in credit cards, which did employ people and did generate value, and ultimately created an ecosystem just like any other market. This blog seems to conveniently ignore that reality. It's very descriptive about the value destruction that AI could inspire, but it's almost silent on the value creation that it could also inspire. There are some more blind spots in the blog that we can maybe discuss another time, but the net net is this. It was an excellent, creative, interesting blog that also shouldn't have erased $300 billion in value. But it did, which tells you how investors are really feeling right now.

Anxious, apprehensive, and very, very confused. Okay, that's it for today. This episode was produced by Claire Miller and Alison Weiss, edited by Joel Patterson, and engineered by Benjamin Spencer. Our video editor is Brad Williams. Our research team is Dan Chalonne, Isabella Kinsel, Chris O'Donohue, and Mia Silverio. And our social producer is Jake McIntyreux. Furson. Thanks for listening to Profitee Markets from Proftry Media. If you liked what you heard,

give us a follow. I'm Ed Elson. I will see you tomorrow.