Prof G Markets - Why The World Is Spending More On War

Episode Date: July 8, 2026

Ed Elson is joined by Steve Feldstein to break down why countries are pouring so much money into defense and what that says about the future stability of the world. Then, Zed Francis joins the show to break down why chip stocks are selling off despite strong earnings from Samsung. Finally, Ed is joined by Ara Kharazian to dig into his paper which showed that the biggest AI spenders are actually hiring more than non-adopters. Steve Feldstein is a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Zed Francis is the CIO & Co-Founder at Convexitas. Ara Kharazian is the Lead Economist at Ramp. Subscribe to the Prof G Markets Youtube Channel  Check out our latest Prof G Markets newsletter Read the Ramp paper 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

One day, with the help of science, you might be able to live forever. Forever. Your body will just need a couple tune-ups. Injecting bone marrow in your 40s, your kidney in your 50s, your heart in your 60s, and so on, and then potentially a whole body transplant by the time that you were 90. This week on Explain It to Me, The Quest for Longevity. Find new episodes, Sundays, wherever you get your podcasts. Money markets bad.

If money is evil, then that building is hell. The show goes up. Watch the sell, sell. Welcome to Profi Markets. I'm Ed Elson. It is July 8th. Let's check in on yesterday's Market Vitals. The major indices declined, as chip stocks tumbled once again.

More on that in a minute. Oil rose after three ships were attacked in the strait of Hormuz. The U.S. rescinded its authorization of Iran. and oil sales following those strikes. Microsoft stock rose on news that it is replacing OpenAI and Anthropic with its own models to bring down costs. And finally, SpaceX declined nearly 7% on its first day in the NASDAQ 100. Okay, what else is happening?

The NATO summit kicked off yesterday in Turkey. And the big takeaway so far is that a new global arms race is underway. Trump is pulling U.S. military assets out of Europe and shifting focus to the Middle East and Indo-Pacific. That is forcing Europe to shoulder more of its own defense. NATO allies have agreed to at least $50 billion in defense industry deals and $40 billion in counter-drone capabilities. But America isn't slowing down either. Trump's 2027 budget proposes $1.5 trillion for defense, which is the largest request in history. And Silicon, Valley once in. Defense tech companies have raised more than $19 billion so far this year,

already blowing past last year's record in 2025. In short, an enormous amount of capital is flowing into defense right now. The question is, what exactly are we gearing up for? Joining us to discuss this, we are speaking with Steve Feldstein, senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, his new book, Bites and Bullets, Global Rivalry, Private Tech, and the new shape of modern warfare comes out in September. Steve, thank you so much for joining us on the show today. I'd love to get your initial reactions to what we saw at the NATO summit. It seems like a big conclusion or a big takeaway is that we're going to spend a lot more money on weapons, a lot more money on defense.

Is that the right takeaway? I think it is. Thanks for having me on. And I really think that there's an overall context that's worth bearing in mind. And I think there are three factors that I've been looking at over the past couple years that are really relevant. So I think the first one is that we are just seeing far more conflict occurring around the world today than even in the last five years. Last year, something like 250,000 people were killed alone on battlefield. So it means that war is prevalent and around.

And countries recognize that there's growing levels of insecurity. And so that matters. I think the second thing is that we're seeing a growing menace from Russia as it continues to get on a wartime footing because of the Ukraine war, as it. continues to increase its drone capacity and manufacturing of other types of weapons, countries in Europe and NATO in particular are concerned. And they know they need to keep up and they need to retool accordingly. And then finally, I think especially coming from the Iran war, we're seeing the use of new technologies, particularly AI targeting systems and so forth in play. And I think it's also giving a recognition to countries like Germany, France, and others

that they also need to really think carefully about innovation. and what types of weapon systems they need to incorporate so that they are able to fight wars effectively in the future. Yeah, I mean, one of the stats that blew me away that we just learned is that defense tech has raised more than $19 billion this year, and that's in six months. So we already beat last year's record, and it seems as though Silicon Valley and technology

is playing more and more of a role on the battlefield. What do you make of that dynamic and that shift, how should we feel about the fact that tech companies are participating in warfare at this point? It's a trend that's, you know, really begun to ramp up. And I see it is not necessarily a substitute to traditional arms manufacturers, but more as a compliment. So I'll give you a good case and point. You know, a lot of people have focused on the Maven targeting system from Palantir that's paired

with Claude and how it was used in the Iran War. And so a lot of people look at bond systems like that, and they say, okay, we, need something similar. We need a better way to have more efficient targeting and to match our missiles to potential places of military targets to strike. So it doesn't mean that you don't need traditional ballistic missiles. What it does mean is that you need that plus you need a more efficient way in which to generate the coordinates for how you would target and identify, you know, different military assets. And so to that end, a lot of it is sort of creating other types of weaponry in addition to what's already needed in terms of munitions based on the fact that countries

see that there's more war and more insecurity all around, whether it's from China, prospectively, Russia in the near region or other places. When you look at some of the tech companies that are participating, I mean, some of the companies you've written about, Google, Meta, Cloudflare, obviously, Palantir, one thing that always strikes me is these are companies that are offering enterprise software services and solutions, and then also playing a role in the Ukraine war, in the war in Iran. I mean, that's quite a striking dynamic. And I wonder if that's something that we should, I don't know, maybe be worried or investigate in some capacity, the fact that, you know, the CEO of an enterprise company is also

directing the outcomes of what happens on the battlefield, I'd be curious to get your views on what you make of that, and if that is worth thinking about. I think you're right. It is a new role, and I think there's a few different conflicts of interest that arise from that. I mean, I think one of the great examples is, you know, if you have a company like Microsoft, and it is both providing data infrastructure that is being used by militaries like Israel's military or other militaries, but it's also selling consumer goods to a wide variety of clients. Well, how do those two things work together? And I don't think there's an easy answer to that, but so far they've been able to skirt around the issue. At some point, these issues are going to become front and center,

where countries will say, look, either you're providing military equipment for the security objectives of a particular country, or you're selling to consumers across the board neutral items meant for civilian applications and not for military use. And so these are, I think, questions that are coming to bear for a variety of companies, whether it's OpenAI, Anthropic, Microsoft, Google, AWS, or others, which are so far somewhat having it both ways. You mentioned earlier that what all of this spending tells us is how unstable things have become from a geopolitical perspective. I remember last year, Jamie Diamond saying that this was sort of the most unstable or maybe he said the most uncertain time.

since World War II. I mean, I think that was almost a year ago. That was certainly last year. Where are we now? Like, when you compare July 8th, 2026 to July 8th, 2025, is this a more unstable time and is it going to continue to get more unstable?

It is. I mean, certainly last year, we hadn't yet encountered the Iran War and all the spillover effects from that. So that's a really big thing that everyone is sort of grappling with. And it's not just about Iran and immediate adversaries in the Middle East. It's about a wider security architecture and questions there. We also see a continuing amount of fighting when it comes to the Ukraine war. And if anything, we're seeing even more escalation between the two sides, with Ukraine striking Crimea, Russia coming back and

striking Kiev and making bigger threats in terms of other, you know, potential adversaries. And so, And then that's not to mention the kind of prospective questions related to China, which frankly, at this point, has been quieter because of these other, you know, situations that taking place. So there are a lot of different geopolitical issues that are flaring up simultaneously. And we also are seeing, I think, a bit of an ebbing of power or at least the limitations to American power at this point, not to mention a volatile precedent who seems to change on a dime very quickly. the geopolitical objectives of the United States. All these ingredients coming together make for lots of unpredictability when it comes to security and what things will look like in the coming months. I think the question for investors is, I mean, the main question is, will the spending keep going up? Clearly, it's gone up last year, coming into this year.

will defense tech companies keep on getting massive contracts? Will they get larger contracts? Will some of the larger, more traditional players get larger contracts? Will government spend more and more? Do you think that defense spending will go even higher than it is today?

So one issue is that we have seen a ramp up in NATO spending, as you mentioned. And I think that will continue to increase. But what's interesting right now is that there's a gap between the amount of money that's there and the ability of current manufacturers to be able to produce according to the money that's been allocated.

So I think the first thing we're gonna need to see is greater capacity that's built up to match the money and the allocated contracts that are there for munitions. I think the second thing that we're gonna see is a real ramp up when it comes to countering drones. So drones are proliferating. We're seeing that Iran, we're seeing that Ukraine,

and so forth. And we are also seeing that. a dire need by countries like UAE, Saudi, the United States, for that matter, countries in Europe when it comes to actually countering these drones and coming up with the right systems. That's a growth area. That's an area where you just are starting to see products at scale come to the market. And I think you will see continuing demand and investments for more of these types of systems, especially as we see drone use proliferate, which I'm certain will continue to be the case.

Final question, Trump is now renewing his threats, thoughts about Greenland. He said the territory, quote, should be controlled by the United States. Is the Greenland story not over? Is that something that we should be worth, that is worth us paying attention to like we did at the beginning of the year? Well, it's certainly that over in his head. And because he is president of the country, I don't think we can completely dismiss it. It's not something that. I tend to focus on on a day-to-day basis. Trump says a lot of things. He has a lot of grievances. He has a lot of different issues that are top of mind for him. They tend to move from place to place depending on context and where he is. So it's not something that I think is due for an imminent action, but we can't just take it off the agenda completely either because he's the president of the United States and he says it. And so therefore, it matters. Steve Felton is senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Steve, we appreciate your time. having me. After the break, chip stocks, take a tumble. And for even more markets insights, you can subscribe to my weekly newsletter, simply put, at simply put.proftymedia.com. Support for the show comes from Gusto. When you run a small business, you don't just do the job itself. You're also the hiring manager, the payroll department, and the benefits team. And you're usually switching between all those hats before lunch. Gusto takes a few of those items off your plate quickly and seamlessly. is an online payroll and benefits software built for small businesses. It's all in one, remote-friendly, and incredibly easy to use, so you can pay, hire, onboard, and support your

team from anywhere. Automatic payroll tax filing, simple direct deposits, health benefits, commuter benefits, workers' comp, 401k, you name it. Gusto makes it simple and his options for nearly every budget. Unlimited payroll runs for one monthly price. That means no hidden fees and no surprises. You can save time with built-in automated tools, offer letters, onboarding docs, direct deposit, and more. It's quick and simple. It's quick and simple. to switch to Gusto. Just transfer your existing data to get up and running fast. Plus, you don't have to pay a cent until you run your first payroll. Try gusto today at gusto.com slash markets and get three months free free payroll at gusto.com slash markets. Again, that's gusto.com slash markets.

Is Donald Trump still cool? Well, at first, there was what he was promising to America. He was promising change. Yeah, promising big change. Has he lived up to that? No. No, I wouldn't say so. I was disappointed. We're in Washington, D.C. for one of the events that Donald Trump is throwing for America's 250th anniversary and it's UFC night. Pride to be American, we got free tickets. It's just gonna be a great time.

That's about it. It's an opportunity to talk to a group that was central in the 2024 election, young men. Why do we think Trump and men seem to have a connection? I feel like he just knows how to advertise himself to the younger priority. It aligns with masculinity, I feel like, to a certain extent. But if they don't like Donald Trump, what do they prefer politically otherwise? I care about my family. I care about my country. I want people to be safe and happy where they live. Care about my wallet, too, man.

I'm Instead, Herndon, and this is America Actually. Catch us every Saturday on YouTube or wherever you get your podcast. We're back with Prof G Markets. After a meteoric rise, the semiconductor rally might finally be slowing down. Samsung, which is up nearly 400% over the past year, posted blowout earnings yesterday. The company saw revenues more than double and profits increased by 1,800%. And still, that wasn't enough to satisfy investors. The stock fell 7%, sending nearly the entire market down with it.

The Philadelphia Semiconductor index closed the day down 6%. The NASDAQ closed over 1%. And the S&P 500 closed over a half percent. So for more on how Samsung's beat somehow spooked the market and what's going on with chip stocks, we are speaking with Zed France, a CEO and co-founder at Convexitas. Zed, thanks for joining us. Chips have just gotten crushed over the course of the day. And actually, if we look at the semiconductor index over the past five days, it's down 11%.

This was supposed to be the leader. It has been the leader in the market. throughout the year, and it seems like it's coming to an end, your initial reactions to what we're seeing. Yeah, this quarter earnings is going to be very different than Q1 earnings. And it's as simple as valuations have changed dramatically. Back in Q1, so think back to April and early May when all these names were reporting, they basically all kind of did the beaten raise, and mostly the stocks had very favorable performance on the day after those earnings. But spot PEs were below three-year average back then. Today, they're about 10 handles above their three-year average.

And 4Ps back then were below the S&P 500. Today, they're above the S&P 500. Now, the peg ratio for the space is still reasonably attractive. But all that means is the market is pricing in much differently this time, the amount of growth embedded into these companies. And so the hurdle is that much higher. So I would expect this entire earning season, to if there's anything, any small item that feels like a miss to have these kind of nasty downward moves. And I expect it to just in general be a very volatile earnings season for the sector. Is there any reason why it's happening now? I mean, it just seems strange. Samsung reports this crazy earnings report. It's a beat on pretty much all fronts, unless I'm wrong about that,

I'm pretty sure it was. And yet now's the time that investors say, we're out. This has gone this has gone too far. Again, I think you're going to need micron level of blowout to really impress the market at this point with the current kind of valuation metrics in the space. Just looking at what Michael Burry has done, he's kind of made a name for himself in this semiconductor boom because he is shorting it.

He shorted the semiconductor index. He's shorted Micron. He also shorted Invidia. He's betting that Micron's going to fall 30%. what do you make of Michael Burry's moves? Do you think that he's ultimately making the right choice? Eye expertise is in volatility, and when looking at volatility, he's not in a unique camp. Implied volatility, you know, the actual price embedded within the options you can actually trade, is off the charts.

You know, semiconductor, you know, using SMH, we can do the same thing with socks. The spread of volatility in the semiconductor ETFs and comparison. send a QQQ. Again, massive overlap of constituents that spread is at its hundredth percentile. You know, SMH volatility on its own is near its all-time hundredth percentile. This is a sector that's obviously performed very well. Yes, it's, you know, 10-ish percent off of those highs from, you know, a couple weeks back. But it's a common theme that folks are using options to bet against the space. And why I can say it with a little bit more conviction is when you look at the indices, again, SOX, SMH, things along, you know, that basket of style of trading instruments,

daily volumes are about four to one puts to calls. Open interest is similarly about four to one puts to calls. And during Q2, implied volatility just kept on climbing during all that trading activity that was heavily put slanted, suggesting that it's mostly people buying puts as volatility is expanding well that's mostly trading. And additionally, as the semiconductor space has faded, as you said, over the last, you know, five-ish trading days, volatility in those ETS is actually fading a little bit with it. So we're seeing that stocks up, vol up, stocks down, fall down, which again suggests to me a significant amount of hedging and potentially over-hedging in that space.

Why, when, you know, it's profitable to be hedging the space, there's a little bit of that monetization actually pushing volatility lower. So I think it's, we'll call it, not a unique view by a famous short participant. And frankly, the options are pricing it in. I mean, it's really expensive to have that view. Just when we look at the comparison between, I guess, the chips. And so the companies that are making money off of the AI infrastructure buildout boom right now versus the hyperscalers, i.e. the companies that are paying to build out the AI infrastructure. So,

you know, Microsoft, Oracle, meta, et cetera. It's quite interesting because the hyperscalers have gotten punished so far this year. The infra players, the chip stocks, the memory stocks, those are crushing, which makes sense. Those are the companies that are really making all the money. But it seems like it's starting to reverse now. And it seems like the two are now starting to converge. I'd be curious to get your views on what this all means to what we're seeing for the hypers. Also for a lot of the software names, which are also bouncing back this week. Are those two dynamics related, do you think?

Meta's announcement last week, I think definitely we'll call it spooksome folks in terms of the rotation, now that they're going to lease out some of their excess capacity. Maybe it's not excess capacity, but I think that's all the market's currently reading it. But what I think is interesting for the long term where both may be successful is, again, it's an asset-heavy build-out. It's a capital-intensive build-out. And these hyperscalers are investment-grade can borrow essentially as cheaply as anybody out there. So if you're somebody like meta, borrowing at 30-year term at 6, 6.5% to be able to facilitate leasing out this compute to other players, that cannot essentially lock in any sort of term in terms of financing,

especially not at those rates. They're just kind of doing a, we'll call it, grown-up type of play where they're using their balance sheet to go ahead and build out capacity that other players cannot and hopefully capturing that spread of the long term. So, you know, I view it as this is the next phase for the hyperscalers. They're building things out for themselves. Now they're coming up with additional ways to increase free cash flow from the spend on information.

infrastructure build, but it doesn't necessarily mean the semiconductor wave is over. In fact, it might elongate it depending on how successful they are essentially becoming that intermediary between the end client and building out that infrastructure. All right, Zed Francis, CIO and co-founder at Convexitas. Zed, thank you so much. Thanks for having me. Over the past couple of years, we've heard many projections about what AI may do to the labor market. According to Daria Amadei, AI could eliminate, quote, half of all entry-level white-collar jobs, and according to Sam Altman, entire job categories would be, quote, totally, totally gone. But lately, business leaders have been changing their tune. Sam Altman recently told CNBC,

quote, our industry underestimated how much we're going to be able to keep people at the center of everything. And Amaday said that companies, quote, can now do more with the same amount of resources, A recent paper from economists at Ravellia Labs and Ramp seemed to back that up. They found that the biggest AI spenders are hiring more than non-adoptors, not less. So we wanted to speak to one of the authors of that study and ask the question, is AI coming for our jobs or not?

Joining us is Ara Karazian, lead economist at Ramp. Ara, thank you so much for joining us on the show. So the change of tune has been notable from these AI leaders. But you've been studying this. You wrote a paper on AI job loss. Your finding seemed to be that AI is not killing jobs. What did you find? You know, this is a market where there's been a lot of mixed messages,

both as far as what businesses are hearing about how they should be using AI and what people on the job market are hearing as far as how AI is going to affect them. So this was the first of, study to use firm-level data on what happens at firms that adopt AI. So instead of using surveys or AI exposure scores, we could look at these firms bought AI, these firms didn't, what happened to their hiring going forward? So what we found is the firms using AI heavily grew their headcount

10% over the two years following adoption. The firms that used AI lightly only grew at about the same rate as the control group. So we can talk exactly about what that means high-intensity versus low intensity. Beyond that, we also found outsized growth for entry level higher, so 12% over two years. Yeah, could you break down the difference in those control groups there, but what it means to sort of be adopting it heavily versus lightly? Well, what we found in our research is that the vast majority of firms that are using AI are using it in a fairly simple and basic way. You might have a chat GPT subscription across your entire employee base. But I think if you've used that technology, you will notice very quickly it's nice to have, but it's not particularly

productivity enhancing. It's certainly not the technology that's going to vault the United States into the next generation of economic growth and development. However, the top third of firms in our dataset are using AI a little bit differently. They're more likely to use multiple models. They're more likely to use the coding agents. They're more likely to use dedicated software for specific task like customer service operations. So those businesses tend to be assigned to our high-intensity group. And it's there that we see these concentrated gains. Now, there are caveats with that, too. Those firms tend to be in high-growth sectors already. Now, their growth accelerates after AI adoption.

And while we have not seen any declines in hiring outside of these high-growth firms, we're also not necessarily seeing a lot of gains from AI adoption. So that's, I think, the open question for research going forward, whether or not the gains to AI adoption will be experienced by firms outside of tech. That seemed to be one of the interesting points is that we're seeing this specifically in the tech sector. We don't quite know how it works for the rest of these. sectors and how generalizable it is. One critique that I'd be interested to get your views on is that, I mean, it doesn't seem that this is proving causality here, meaning it could be that if you're a

company that is heavily adopting AI, maybe your headcount is growing for other reasons, such as maybe you're a venture-back company and you're forced to continue to grow. I know a lot of AI startups that are growing significantly. And in that sense, I'm not sure it necessarily surprises me or disproves the long-term thesis, which is that AI could ultimately reduce jobs, at least in the short to maybe medium term. How do you respond to those critiques and do you think that they are valid? It's valid in that we do actually control for it. So we run the analysis on two different control groups. One, we had run it against firms that use AI versus firms that never use AI at all. And there we see a very similar dynamic to what you're describing. Firms that

use AI are notably different than firms that don't even try it. They're already faster growing. They're more likely to be VC-backed or in tech. So instead, we run this analysis against a different control group, firms that have not adopted AI yet in that period, but eventually do. And there, we're able to compare firms that are on otherwise similar growth paths. So in that version of the analysis, which is how we primarily report our results, We do see that firms that adopt AI are already faster growing, but that growth accelerates after adoption. Now, to the extent that we can or cannot prove causality, I do think the step for further

research is to now identify what are the mechanisms by which firms see this growth. One of the very complicated facts about measuring AI adoption is that the firms that are using it well have no incentive to publish their playbook. They have no incentive to tell us what they're doing that is different and allows them to grow faster than their competitors. Now, we do have some signs of that starting to emerge in our data, specifically that they're using some of the more advanced tools and that they're using multiple models and they're experimenting heavily. But that's the question for future research. For my own understanding, too, the control group that, as you explain, adopted AI later

compared to the earlier AI adopters who are presumably VC backed and probably their whole thing, is to, they're probably AI startups, really, that are growing really significantly. And you're saying, well, we found a batch of companies that adopted it later. To what extent does that still control for the problem, I guess would be my question? Because could it not also be possible that many of those companies are also VC-backed and they simply started adopting AI later as the assumption that companies that adopt it later are late-stage companies, companies more similar to like, you know, a large enterprise like a Microsoft or an Oracle or whatever. Well, not necessarily.

I mean, when we're measuring the growth in the high-intensity adopters group, we are comparing them to firms that otherwise adopt with high-intensity in the post-adoption period. And so we are comparing firms that are like for like both in terms of their likelihood of being VC-backed in terms of what they sell and whether or not their tech companies already, and whether or not they're startups. So I do think our analysis is robust to that. But even so, if you compare,

if you take out all of the tech companies in our data set, you know, you still find high-intensity users of AI. And while they're not necessarily adding a lot of headcount, they're also not cutting head count. And so I think that's the finding that is informative as far as if you're someone on the job market and you are seeing these statements from CEOs saying that we have to do all these layoffs because of AI,

but say that you should be skeptical. because our data shows that, you know, if they're not necessarily hiring more, their headcount is not necessarily changing because of AI adoption. Now, the mix of jobs may change going forward, but overall the companies that adopt AI tend to grow faster following adoption. So when you see some of these headlines that we've seen, obviously now we're seeing sort of a change in the messaging from these AI leaders, presumably because it's gotten so unpopular, I think,

but, I mean, jury's still out on that. But we have seen a lot of headlines from companies. They say, you know, we're going to lay off 8,000, 10,000 people, and we're doing it because of AI. In fact, 100,000 layoffs so far this year have been attributed to AI. Do you think that they are kind of misattributing what the layoffs are really all about and just saying something to, I don't know, please shareholders? I mean, what do you make of those headlines?

I can't surmise exactly why companies say, say it. I mean, I think the fact is that most layoffs and job losses in general are due to a number of reasons. I mean, there's a side finding in this paper as well that the tech sector in general was shedding jobs in the post-pandemic overhiring period and that that trend reversed following AI adoption at these firms. We didn't spend a lot of time on that in the paper, but there's a side finding there that is AI that actually allowed the tech sector to start hiring again and that powered that boom. So there's that, and not to say that there won't be people who will be affected by AI in terms of their job prospects. Let's remember this paper only focused on white-collar work.

So we're not looking at the impact of self-driving cars on drivers or manufacturing automation on factory workers. And then second, even within white-collar work, there are still workers that may be affected by AI in the workplace and whether or not they're able to learn it quickly enough. Now, after we found this broad growth in hiring following adoption, the next, test of the research is, well, who are they hiring and what are they hiring differently? And although I think it's too soon to stay on many metrics and job functions, we are seeing an outsized growth in entry-level hiring. And you can imagine that that is, first of all, that's being powered by the firms that are high-intensity adopters of AI. It's our first sign that they're looking for different types of employees. Likely people who already know how to

use AI and use it well. And what better place to look than recent grads, people in college, and people who know how to use AI and new technologies well, as has been the case for all of the other technological developments over the last 20, 30, 40, 50 years. All right. Aura Karazian, lead economist at Ramp Aura. We really appreciate your time. Thank you.

Thanks for having me. Okay, that's it for today. This episode was produced by Claire Miller and Alison Weiss and engineered by Benjamin Spencer. Our video editor is Brad Williams. Our research team is Dan Chalon, Christian O'Donohue, and Mia Silverio. and our social producer is Jake McPherson. Thank you for listening to ProfG Markets from Profg Media. If you liked what you heard, give us a follow.

I'm Ed Elson. I will see you tomorrow. Hey, y'all, it's Kelly Clarkson with Wayfair. Ever order furniture online and wonder, what if? Like, what if it doesn't hold up? That sofa was four days old. You should have ordered from Wayfair. With Wayfair, there's no what if. Just style you love and quality you can trust.

Visit Wayfair.ca.cair, every style, every home.