The Compound and Friends - Memory Is a Bubble, Nvidia’s Blow-Out Quarter, SpaceX Is Coming With Jan Van Eck

Episode Date: May 22, 2026

On episode 243 of The Compound and Friends, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Michael Batnick⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ and ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Downtown Josh Brown⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ are joined by Jan Van Eck⁠⁠⁠ to discuss: the AI infrastructure boom, Nvidia and the semiconductor trade, whether mega-cap dominance is structural or cyclical, the risks hiding in U.S. deficits and long-term rates, equal weight vs cap weight, the SpaceX IPO, and much more! This episode is sponsored by Tema ETFs. Learn more about their ETF lineup at  https://temaetfs.com/ Sign up for The Compound Newsletter and never miss out: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠thecompoundnews.com/subscribe⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Instagram: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠instagram.com/thecompoundnews⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Twitter: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠twitter.com/thecompoundnews⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ LinkedIn: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠linkedin.com/company/the-compound-media/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ TikTok: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠tiktok.com/@thecompoundnews⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Investing involves the risk of loss. This podcast is for informational purposes only and should not be or regarded as personalized investment advice or relied upon for investment decisions. Michael Batnick and Josh Brown are employees of Ritholtz Wealth Management and may maintain positions in the securities discussed in this video. All opinions expressed by them are solely their own opinion and do not reflect the opinion of Ritholtz Wealth Management. The Compound Media, Incorporated, an affiliate of ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Ritholtz Wealth Management⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, receives payment from various entities for advertisements in affiliated podcasts, blogs and emails. Inclusion of such advertisements does not constitute or imply endorsement, sponsorship or recommendation thereof, or any affiliation therewith, by the Content Creator or by Ritholtz Wealth Management or any of its employees. For additional advertisement disclaimers see here ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://ritholtzwealth.com/advertising-disclaimers⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Investments in securities involve the risk of loss. Any mention of a particular security and related performance data is not a recommendation to buy or sell that security. The information provided on this website (including any information that may be accessed through this website) is not directed at any investor or category of investors and is provided solely as general information. Obviously nothing on this channel should be considered as personalized financial advice or a solicitation to buy or sell any securities. See our disclosures here: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://ritholtzwealth.com/podcast-youtube-disclosures/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Here's our annual tie. I love it. Wait, what's the theme this year? See if you can figure it out. It's gotta be Warsh, no? No. Hamilton. Hold on, hold on. Look at the eagle. What's CCL?

Carnival Cruz lines. Oh, I love pink. Yon, no, who is this? What is CCL? Is that? Dude, I'm walking out of here. You have it back up? Is that, um...

What's the C in Latin? What is this? is the C-Strable. Cerebris. 100. $250. Oh my God. Is that George Washington?

Cerebus? Cerebris. Who's the other guy? Celebrex. Who is it? Cellebrace. Three most important things in financial history. Hamilton, the founding of the system.

FDR, bailed out the banks. Stable coin. First time that financial company can compete against banks. Is this Kissinger? Who is it? It looks like him. It's Hamilton, FDR, and stable coins. That's FDR.

I miss the stable coin. That does not... Where? Over here next to mine. I thought that was like... You know, it's USDC. That's a symbol. I couldn't put...

I couldn't put tether because, of course, Tether is like... So thanks to Jan, I wear blazers now because Jan invited me to an event. And he said, I said, yeah, right? Yeah, of course, I'd love to come. Thank you. And he goes, he email me back goes,

not to be a dick, but please... Everyone else is wearing suits. Don't wear a t-shirt. And he wore a t-shirt and the finest hoodie. I wore a t-shirt on a blazer. Wait. Nick, put this on my desk. I'm going to wear that on TV.

So the first time I met Josh was in 2011. I was in a dark place in my life. My mother was about to pass away. I had just gotten the last, like, quasi-legitimate job opportunity. I'm sitting down for game three. in Madison Square Garden. Nick's heat. We were down too out because, you know, LeBron.

And as I sit down, I remember, it's like a flashballed memory for me. Because as I sit down, like, my body, my soul left my body. I was like, prepared to go home and like... Get the email at the game. Literally as I'm sitting down from the CFO of a company. And you think you're going to get this job?

It was just, it was the last hope in the planet. And I was already unemployed for like a year. Like, I was such, it was such a rock bottom time in my life. Yeah. So it was. game three, Mario Chalmers, who I would kiss him if I saw him for this. He hit a corner three, put the next time like 21. At the end of the third, I said, I'm leaving.

And my friend goes, who do, where are you going? I said, I got to go home. I was like, not in the mood. Can't enjoy a basketball game. So I was unemployed for a year. It was, it was not great. So that was the first time I left the playoff game early. And I met this guy that night.

And if married, we met on the, we met on the train platform back in America. I had like 1145, and literally, if Chalmers missed that shot, I probably would have stayed. All right. Fast forward. Now, what was I doing that night? Was I at St. Venus? You were drinking. Well, definitely.

But why was I getting off a train at 1145 that night? It was a Friday night. It was a different era. So it was a different era. You were a young man. Hold on. He was married, though. What was I doing?

You were never. You were a young man. I would never come home at quarter to 12 now. What are you talking about? No, now because. Yeah, never. All right. So fast forward, fast forward 14 years.

So that's where I met Josh, leaving a playoff game early. Fast forward 14 years last year, game one of the garden. We were up by 12 with like legitimately like a minute left, whatever it was. And I said, all right, I'm going to go catch a train. I like beat the crowd. And I escaped. Thank God. I escaped the Halliburton shot.

I would have, I might have been crying. Dagger. I might have been crying if I was in my seats. All time dagger. So on Monday night or whatever it was, a Monday night, Tuesday, night. On Tuesday night, Dean Wade hit a three and one, put us down 19. Next trip, Donovan Mitchell, Hilda 3, put us down 22.

I said, all right, I'm leaving. I just, I don't want to be here anymore. Like, the game's over. I'll see you. And so, you know what? We all know what happened. I feel like the market basketball guys. For the people that don't listen to basketball, it might have been a top 10 all-time

post-season comeback. Not might have. Maybe top five. So there was a number like teams up 20 were, were 643 and O, up 20 with six minutes to go. Seven minutes ago. No one has ever done. Never, ever, ever.

So I missed. Now, the basketball gods, I feel like I'm even. I avoided a catastrophe with Halliburton. I met this fucking guy. And I feel like I'm good now. I'm even. However, yesterday morning or Wednesday morning,

yeah, yesterday morning, I got so many emails, including from Adam, saying I can't, you must have had the time of your life. And so I am, I am simultaneously, You could play it that way. I'm happy that we won, but genuinely, I was feeling... Were you watching it on your phone?

Yeah, I watched the fucking end of the game in Roses and the Guard in Penn Station. You deserve to be roasted, though, for the following reasons. So I'm genuinely a little bit depressed. Like, I missed the... I've been to 300 baseball days in my life. I will never see that again. But it's not just that. You will never see that again.

It's not, that's not the reason why he deserves to be roasted. These are the reasons. First things first, if you watch the game on TV, you know nobody left. That garden, was fuller than any other arena would be for any other team. The crowd was great. I don't really want basketball. Like, they were quiet, but they jumped to their feet the minute we started to score.

Okay, I left. I left at the bottom. I left at the bottom. Okay, that's one. Two. Hold on. I deserve credit. I changed the whole juju of the arena.

Even Kendall Jenner hadn't left by the time you left. Two, and this is like... She wasn't there. Those were... Do you sit at least $10,000 tickets right now? No, stop, stop. How much could you have sold that ticket for? 1100.

That has nothing to do with anything. No, but you have two of them. Yeah, I split it with a friend. But that is absolutely nothing to do with anything. I understand, but I'm making the point. Somebody else would have loved to have paid that much money to have sat through the whole game. Totally erroneous.

Next. Why is it erroneous? What does that have to do with anything? You deprived the real Knicks fan. You deprived a real Knicks fan of the opportunity of a lot. That's too much? Yeah. Too much?

Where's Duncan? Duncan would be laughing. Is there anything else? I love you. I'm sorry that happened. Well, I'm going to know. And I am not leaving. I'm not fucking even.

It could be down 30. You're not leaving. I'm not leaving. So, shall we pod? Yeah, that's fine. Oh, my God. This is my favorite show. Stop.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Stop the clock. Here's a word from our sponsor. This episode is brought to you by Tema ETFs. You've heard us talk on the show about how fast markets are shifting. TEMA builds thematic ETFs around structural trends they believe have staying power, the kinds that are durable across market cycles, not just driven by headlines, the growth of the space economy,

the surge in electricity demand as AI and data centers push the grid to its limits, the shift back to U.S. manufacturing as stretched supply chains and geopolitical tensions complicate trade. Tema has nine institutional quality funds tracking these themes, and more, learn more about their lineup, with their insights, and stay up to date at temaetfs.com. That's T-E-M-A-E-T-Fs.com. Welcome to The Compound and Friends.

All opinions expressed by Josh Brown, Michael Batnik, and their castmates are solely their own opinions and do not reflect the opinion of Riddholt's wealth management. This podcast is for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon for any investment decisions. Clients of Riddholt's wealth management may maintain positions, in the securities discussed in this podcast. Really?

Comp out of France? You guys in? Oh, man. What a treat. What an absolute treat we have for everybody listening. I have to tell you guys, this is an amazing time in the markets. It's an incredible time in certain sectors in the markets. Maybe witnessing something that we've never seen before.

I have to say. And that could turn out really good or really bad. We're all going to find out together. We have a fan favorite returning champion with us today. Mr. Jan Van Eck, give him around applause. There was a 0% chance. 99.9.9. With me, as always, my call host, Michael Batnik.

Yeah, hi. My name is downtown Josh Brown. First-time listeners, last time listeners. We appreciate you. Yon is the president, the CEO of Vanek, a global investment management firm he has led since 2010, having joined the family founded firm in 1991. Vanek currently manages $199 billion as of $3.31, including the legendary SMH ETF, which has annualized at 29% a year since inception in 2011. Holy cow. Before we get into the show, can I ask you an SME?

question. I know the answer for the audience. The origin story of that product is a little bit wild. It was a Merrill Lynch vehicle. And you guys acquired it. Why did they sell it? They got out of the ETF business wholesale. Well, they got out of asset management, right, during the financial crisis. And this was a product that made no fees. They created it actually for the commission revenue because it was a very tradable. It was only 25 stocks that super liquid. And, yeah, was it based on the socks? No. So that's interesting. Is there? The Philadelphia Semiconductor Exchange, like everyone calls it the socks, but like, that had been a longstanding thing that people paid attention to. But that wasn't what SMH was built on.

So the problem with the trusts, besides no fees, which is not good for anything in life, is they would create a basket of stocks and you literally couldn't change it. So for example, the funniest one, sorry, for me, was the regional holders, regional bank holders. That's what the H stands for holders. H-O-D-R-S. Correct. Okay. And the regional bank holders, what happened, all these central banks, big money center banks were buying the regional banks.

So what was in that thing? B-of-A, you know, city bank. Like, so the regional banks wasn't even a regional bank because once it was purchased, you had to keep, you got stock in the parent company. Yeah, you got stock in the parent, you couldn't trade it. So these things were really distorted,

and they didn't have to follow 40-act law, you know, rules of diversification, all that kind of stuff. So it was their better. I asked Claude this week about the Philadelphia semi-conduct index because I thought, why Philadelphia? What does it?

Did Ben Franklin find, you know, invent these semiconductor? That's where they were listed back in the day. Yeah. I didn't even know that there was a Philadelphia stock exchange. Yeah. That's the oldest stock exchange. I'm sure you know that. Not the-

United States, the United States. Don't think it's the oldest. Claude and Claude. Don't think Claude is right. The Buttonwood tree was 1700s. I don't think anything predated. That was like a stock exchange. That was where...

Literally. There was a document in the new, I just looked at it. I brought a guest to the New York Stock Exchange today. They have the actual founding document that the 19 original dealers signed, incorporating themselves as an exchange. I think the first trading was in Philadelphia, but wasn't an exchange, because they were trading government bonds. Are they trading fucking cheese steaks?

Government bonds. That was a big thing. And stock in the U.S. Bank of the United States, which was our first central bank. And Hamilton, when he was Treasury Secretary, actually, you know, he created the bond system to begin with U.S. government bonds. But basically there was a crisis. And he intervened in the market. He did whisper rumors that the U.S. government was going to buy. He did some purchases.

And there were people outside, to your point, in Philadelphia and the streets trading. But I don't think it was an exchange per se. How big is the SMH? It's big. Are you allowed to say? It's like over $60 billion or something. Is it the more? Is it the most successful in those terms, sector ETF in the market?

It's got to be. Not sector industry, because like sector is like XLK. Certainly the biggest semi by a mile. Do you guys consider yourself like the big, an Indy? Are you the biggest indie? Are you like so far past Indy? How do you consider yourself like Vandak Asset Management? Yeah, Indy.

But you got to be the biggest. Because you're not, you're not State Street. You're not a bank. Right. Right. And you're not BlackRock. but you, but you're, wisdom tree.

Yeah. You're, that's, right now, right now we're pretty big. But you're huge. We're relying on SMH and some other things, but yeah.

And we've actually had a big European business. So our European assets last year went from like $11 billion to $45 billion. How? Why? We had a defense CTF and then a bunch of other things. And, you know, Trump is like,

you know, he's our top salesperson for a defense CTF in Europe. That's what I think. When I think about, you guys have some of the most iconic, I don't want to call them, thematic because they're indexes, but you have GDX, GDX, SMH. Every trader on earth knows what these things are.

And in the case of SMH, I almost think it's become shornhand for the sector. Nobody talks about the fill up the socks anymore. It's almost like talking about the KBW bank index, which nobody does. Yeah, the reason SMH has performed so well as it's only that it's been around. Right, but it just... Second worst performer, though, we spoke about it. For people that are listening, it's how you construct it. You can call it, I'm sure 20 ETFs called semiconductor,

but what are the rules of inclusion? And the cap, the bit meaning the biggest holding in our ETF can be up to 20%. And that's Nvidia. And so the main differential on performance is because of Nvidia. The other ETFs have smaller weight, plus they own all those mid-sized companies that really, it's a viciously competitive industry,

and they all kind of went sideways. It's an interesting point. I don't know why equal weighting is so popular for sector or industry group ETFs. I don't understand, do they hate momentum? Because why wouldn't you want Broadcom and Nvidia to become outsized positions? And the reason I'm asking that is I think about like biotech, XBI versus IBB. XBI owns, I don't know, 1% of 100 biotech stocks or whatever it is. Why does anyone want that?

Why wouldn't you want, when the sector's in favor, you want the biggest biotechs that are going up the most to be the biggest part of the portfolio? I own XBI. But why do you? Because it's high beta. No, no, no, no. Stop, stop, stop.

Stop. Right, because it's higher beta. Because, like, if you think of, I want the juice. I want the juice. You're taking your winners and cutting them down. Yeah, and am I right? I want the juice. Tommy's wrong.

I'm not buying it holding this forever. We live in this era where it's been, all momentum, all large caps in every sector, like that has driven performance, emerging market, like top, top to bottom. But in the old days, you wanted the smaller companies, like small caps, like small cap gold miners used to be, GDXJ used to trade much more volatile and much more on the upside than GDX. Yeah.

But that's the reason. Sometimes manufacturers just create these things to create them, though, Josh. Yeah. Okay. So for me, if I think a sector is going to be in favor, and I, I want to be along the sector. It seems you would almost have to have brain damage to say, but I don't want the winners to be more than 2% of the portfolio.

No, no, no, no, no, you're conflating things. You think, you think that bigger market caps are automatically the winners. They have been. That's not. No, they have been for 100 years. No, they haven't. No, they haven't. Like, you have 15 years, 20 years.

Waiting by market cap and waiting by momentum, I mean, we just built porthouse. It's not the same thing. The S&P 500 allocates by market cap waiting. And market cap waiting is not always, it has been the last. 15 years, those are not always the winners. For either you guys, true or false. Periods in which equal weight or small caps would

be the other way to phrase that, outperforms large caps are sporadic and short duration. In the last era of 15 years or whatever. Are there entire decades? Yes.

There are entire decades where an equal weight approach is better. Remember all the academic literature. Remember like, you know, there's whole firms based on this. You want value? and you want small cap, right? Yeah. Yeah, and you've seen this chart. As soon as they published that research, right?

That's how you lose clients and AUM. You know the chart from Ned Davis that showed if you invested a dollar in the S&P versus a dollar in the largest weighted stock at the time, investing in the largest stocks at the time up until Apple in 2013 when it broke the mold was a terrible strategy. It's been in the last era, the last 15 years, where the largest have also happened to have the best momentum,

the best earnings growth, et cetera, et cetera. But it's not permanent. It's not always. No, I mean, I wanted to talk about, you know, we'll talk about semis and Nvidia maybe in this pod, but like that's the question. It's like, oh, the biggest companies, they always fail. You always look back and go to the top 10 in the 70s.

They never make it to the 80s and 90s. I do think that era is, it's a structural permanent shift, in my opinion, because the amount of money that it takes to compete these days, not just with AI and the computer and all that stuff, although that's a big part of it, the moats are more durable, I think, than they have been in the past. Obviously, not with everything. We're learning, and Intuit is down 23% today.

Like, obviously, you know, things change and stuff. But the moats with capital are different than I think they were in the 50s. I think there's two other things. We've never had network effects businesses on the scale that we have them now. That's it. So that's number one. It's the internet. So that's the internet.

Number two, we stopped enforcing antitrust 25 years ago. Both parties are guilty. to some extent. We just allowed companies to not only dominate one industry but to spread out horizontally and dominate 12 industries. I don't see any real political momentum

to reverse that. And so in that environment where you have network affects businesses where the bigger they are, the more profitable they become and nowherewithal whatsoever to trust bust. Why would you think that there's going to be any sort of durable advantage

to small caps? It's like what is, is the story, but the only thing I can come up with is a bare market and the small caps have less to fall because they were already at a lower multiple. I can't come up with why that would be a durable advantage to be smaller in the year 2026. So, I mean, I could be wrong. It's today's market structure. I agree. It's all about earnings. And if you look at earnings, right, the tech giants, it just cry. Yeah. They're lapping. They're lapping everyone else. But they're not just growth. If you could have small companies that used to grow fast

earnings-wise, that's a great story. But Michael and I have a response to you. Kroger is a publicly traded company. If you wanted to equal weight companies that are involved in the supermarket business, you would get an equal amount of Kroger as you would Amazon. Amazon literally could give groceries away for free so long as people are paying the prime fee. Like, it almost wouldn't even matter. There's no world in which for any reason, that's just going to flip itself on the,

intranet. No, it feels like we've been at the end of the runway for the story for the last 10 years, and it just keeps extending, even prior to AI. So I was listening to a podcast by Matt Bellany about like vertical video is now the next big thing. So Reels is monetizing such an incredible amount. They're at a $50 billion annual run rate. And Reels just started monetizing in like 2022 or 2023. Reels has now surpassed Netflix. All of Netflix. Just Reels does more revenue than Netflix. And if you think about what we just saw this week with SpaceX S1 and what Starlink is doing, have you seen what's happening to the broadband cable companies? They are literally crashing through the floor, all of them. It's unbelievable. So it just keeps getting bigger and bigger and bigger.

But that's the genius of Elon, right? Creating this whole satellite phone network. Like, I mean, who thought, right? And that's the argument. against the antitrust policy or for the laissez-faire antitrust policy is someone will come along and they'll compete and they'll leap for argue. That still is possible. It's hard, but it's possible. You could still come out of nowhere, but it just the likelihood of it seems less. That may not be true. A lot of this is like anecdotal or a feel thing, but like the likelihood just seems less that the businesses that we talk about every day are disruptible in any way. The good news is,

they all compete with each other. There was a time when, like, I think Steve Jobs sat on Google's board, stuff like that. They're all amazing competitors, and they do compete. They just don't compete with small companies. They compete against each other.

Amazon Prime competes with Netflix every day. And Apple TV. YouTube is competing with, you know, like they're all competing for attention in a macro sense, and then on a micro level, every one of them has a business going up against another one. Just think like what Waymo versus Tesla versus Uber?

Like that'll be a battle royal for the next 10 years. An open AI came out of nowhere, right? And suddenly have hundreds of millions of users. Now, whether they can monetize it, you know, but still, right? So it's possible. In AI, we weren't even talking about AI five years ago, right? So five years ago when you were here, or it wasn't five years ago, but one of my favorite appearances that you made on the show

was when you were screaming, about the bond market and how there's no buyers. And that was a long bond market ago. We are not in Kansas anymore. How much of the sovereign debt around the world was negative yielding? I can't remember what it was, but it was a lot. All right. I assume, I know you weren't happy about that.

I assume you're not happy about the current yields today either. Meany, listen, I, in my 10-year macro view, bullish AI, bullish India, really worried about our debt levels in the United States. It's a timing thing in the markets. Like, it's like the housing crisis. It's going to hit at some point. We just don't know when. So I'm the most sensitive.

I'm freaking out, and everyone's like, John, chill. What's going to hit? We're borrowing a trillion dollars a year, right? Our budget deficit was six and a half percent, now shrunk to the low fives. If Trump spends all this money on defense, it's going to have a six handle again.

When the markets lose confidence, the Fed has no control over the 10-year. Yeah. So right now, everyone's not even paying attention. I don't know when this is going to be. The one thing I do point out is the UK bond on the long end. UK bond yields are going up. Japan.

They're way off. 30-year bonds. 30-year bond, long-duration bonds. Can you explain what you think went on in the last week where all of a sudden the 30-year treasury hit a high it hadn't been at since 2007? And the market, the stock market, did not even blink. we were so caught up in this AI cap.

And maybe that's part of why the 30-year bond is doing that. I'd love to hear what you think. Yeah, no, it's an interesting question. Why didn't equities react more to the backup in rates, I guess, if you want to put that way? They did a little bit. Housing stocks did. Yeah, they wobbled, but they didn't really fall over.

And I think that's why I am bad on timing on this thing, because I just don't think it's a worry right now. Why are rates doing that? Why are rates going up? Well, we had a bad... Oil? No, we had a bad inflation print, right? I know, but because oil.

I think that's it. Look, I think it's two things happening at the same time, and you can't prove it. That's a wonderful thing about finance. It's the bad CPI and PPI numbers, right? So people are worried about inflation, and they're just worried about... You need higher nominal yields, the higher interest rates in a higher inflation environment, right? Otherwise, real rates go down. Okay.

At the same time, this war seems to last forever, and we're spending a lot of money. if we spend another half a trillion dollars on defense next year, it's a blowout. It's a budget blowout. But what do you think when this goes bad, when something, what does that mean? Sorry, just to be clear, the markets may not price it in for another decade, but I'm just saying it's something I'm watching. You say it's a blowout, $500 billion to fight Iran for a year. Okay. We don't have that.

That's the hidden secret. Like, he can go over to China and talk to Xi Jinping. We don't have that money. That's our big Achilles heel in the United States. The markets are not paying attention at all. Is that why Iran is able to hold out? They're well behaved, I would argue. But, you know, when the tenure goes over, I don't know, five or five and a quarter,

I'm going to be freaking out. Is that why the Iranians are able to hold out? I don't think they think about that. You don't think they think about the financial situation of the country that they're going, because we think of nothing but blockading them and harming them financially. You don't think it's crossed their mind? I think it's very much in China. I think it's very much in China's mind.

I think they think we're really weak because of that, ultimately, and they're going to catch up on the technology front. And one day they're going to wake up, and they're going to say, we have more gold than the United States, and we've got a military that's competitive. And your financial system, you know, we blew up, right, during the financial crisis. They were fine.

Wow. Some would argue they swept some things under the rug like they did during COVID. but we can say I'm not I'm not extolling China I'm just saying it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a political perspective it's a weakness for the United States but I don't think Iran cares about let me paint an alternate possibility of what's happening in the market so friend of the show frequent guest Warren Pyes tweeted this great chart chart three Daniel he said S&P 500 forward sales growth is projected at 18% over the next 24 months historically this corresponds to 12.4% nominal GDP growth, about 6% annualized,

something to consider as yields and the Fed look for a new equilibrium. This is pretty, that's pretty tight. Not a hundred, but it's pretty, directionally, it's pretty good. Yeah. So this is, this is the glass half full view of what's happening. It's like, listen, sales growth is really strong, economic growth is really strong. Why would tenure be at 3%? That wouldn't make sense either.

Right. You know, that's, sorry, that's really, you're right. That's the third point. that might be explaining higher yields, which is our economy's heating up, which is great. So anything good happening in the economy is either directly or indirectly related to AI. There's nothing, my opinion, there's nothing else good in the economy. The housing market's terrible. The bottom third of the country can't pay their bills.

Delinquencies are starting to edge up very slowly. In a lot of areas, people are having trouble with cell phone bills. that had trouble with utility bills over the last six months, auto delinquencies starting to come off the bottom. Existing home sales, you literally can't buy or sell anything. Nobody else is. There's a lot of negatives in the economy. None of that shit matters for the S&P 500.

We have, I read Adam Parker today, basically says there's 263 companies in the S&P that are involved in building the AI infrastructure. It's like more than half the market. Whether it's Caterpillar or a digital reet or a utility or company selling equipment to a utility, it doesn't matter. Almost everything happening that's positive is directly related to AI Cappex buildout or selling AI something to people. I don't see that changing. I could be an idiot.

I could be wrong. And I'm not even saying it's a negative for investors. But like anything that's away from the AI theme, stocks aren't working. the companies aren't hiring people. Like, it just, it really seems to be getting into a place where the entire, Adam says the entire S&P has become an AI momentum ETF. Is that too extreme for your taste? Or what are your thoughts on that concept?

I think there's another industry besides AI. And it's, you talk about this. It's the wealth industry. It's the industry that we're in. We're part of this AI boom, though. We're part, right. Well, okay, so we're definitely related. We're at the hip, but I'm just saying,

Our businesses are booming. But I mean, booming. It's driving the stock market. It's driving a wealth. But wait. Right. IPOs, wealth creation on a massive scale, and stock prices which drive AUM fees. That's what's going on. They're the same trade.

It's very reflexive. And it's all based on one thing. And the wealth that's going to happen from these SpaceX and anthropic IPOs. I was at dinner with someone who bought a house in Norway Valley in San Francisco. A week later, someone bid another million dollars for the same house. The amount of cash that's going to be hitting northern California for the people who haven't left. Tsunami of cash. It's insane.

The amount of wealth in this country is beyond my experience. You said it's reflexive. So my, the risk, though. I think it's recursive. I think it's a circle. It's around and around we go. Because, like, hear me out, the person that's SpaceX early shareholder, maybe they're employee, maybe they're an investor. So the first window to sell for this deal, I think, is five

weeks. Like, it's very different. No, it's a six-month lockup. No, it's not. You're wrong. They're changing the way they do this specifically for SpaceX. They're having a rolling lockup period. And I think, like, within a few weeks, the first sales can be made. You can't dump your whole position. But I think the liquidity coming from these wealth creation events will be very different than prior IPOs where they made you wait six months, nine months. You're talking about a $2 trillion IPO. Even if you allow 10% of shares to be sold, think about how much new cash that is. What does that cash do?

It finances the construction of New McMansion, probably Ferrari, more Rolexes, tons of stock market activity, tons of wealth management activity, fee-related stuff, maybe starting new companies with that money. Like, it's just, it's, so it's recursive. It's, and I don't know what breaks the cycle. Obviously, a stock market crash would do it. Barring that, I just don't know where it ends. But this could break the cycle.

So Tom Lee was talking about this. He said the amount of, same thing, the amount of wealth that's going to be created is going to be staggering. Guess what? The amount of wealth has to also come from somewhere because who is going to finance these purchases of SpaceX and open AI and anthropic on the open market? Where does the $80 billion in cash come from?

And what is that going to do to the stock? Index funds, ETFs. So is there enough money to support it? That's, I think that's, they're smart. SpaceX is smart in two senses. They know, they've changed the rules of a lot of indices so that ETSs, like some of ours, we've changed our rules or created them that way, we can buy pretty much right after it lists.

Normally an ETF would have a rule of depending on how, you know, how much they rebalance or how frequently they rebalance, you know, six months later or even a year. year later for some for some ETFs. So they're managing the initial float I heard there's only going to be like three or three and a half percent, which is teeny. You normally wouldn't get included in an index with that little float because it can whip around so much. So I think they're really managing this intelligently, but it's going to be a lot of shares to unlock. Like it's going to be like 10 percent. It's going to be a lot of cash is going to have to come in. I've heard some people say this is great that SpaceX will be in the NASDAQ,

it'll be in the index in 10 days, because how stupid would it be to have the fifth largest publicly traded company outside of the index that's meant to represent the stock market? What are they going to wait for it to go up another 100% at it? So I heard that version. Yeah. And then I heard the other version, which is,

so basically the world's richest man says to the stock market. I think it's how things work now because I need my shareholders to be. able to sell and you need to provide suckers in the form of ETF shareholders. So I don't feel strongly in either direction. I understand both arguments. What are your thoughts as an asset management executive? It should be in the indices, right?

I mean, the basics. I think that's right. And it's just interesting that our industry, the ETF industry, is learning because it used, because the market's changing, right? And we've never seen anything like this. Tesla coming into the market. It took about eight years too long. Yeah.

Right. It was so big and they pushed it off as long as they could. And then by the time they added it, the index fund shareholders missed like 90% of the move. Right? Yeah. So they don't want to repeat that. Yeah. Which I think is good.

If we can swallow these companies coming public, I don't know when open eye an anthropic are going to. Obviously, they seem primed. But if we can get past this without the market just cratering, what's left for the bears? deficits? I told you. Yeah, 10 year, 10 year rates. No, but come on. No, I'm serious.

Like, you guys are really good at history, right? Always the risk, the financial crises have come from the banking system, right? Banks have done stupid stuff and they've blown up. This time, the blow up will be in D.C. Yeah, but there's a difference between government debt and the amount of leverage that is in the system at the corporate and household level. There's not a lot of leverage in the system. There's not. It's all equity.

It's VC. It's like, it's not. After the financial crisis, we solve the private sector's debt issues, right? So we just got to keep our eye on the government. But look, I'll give you my acid test when I meet with clients. I'm like, is the U.S. government going to meet all its obligation in the next 10 years? 90% of say, of course they are. That's ridiculous.

No way. We are not fixing the Social Security Trust Fund. That will run out of money. No, it will not. Payments will be cut 20% in the early 3.000. Where are you going to get the money from? Find it. No.

Taxes. Yon. It's going to call it. That's my triggering. Under whose administration? You can't fix a retirement system three years before it goes bankrupt. Hear me out. You can't.

Hear me out. No need for retirement because no one's going to be working. Just saying this is something that I'm hearing. I'm hearing no more work. Nobody needs to work. It'll just be a citizen dividend from AI productivity. Let's talk about the incoming new Fed chairman. So this is a Donald Trump appointee, Kevin Warsh, expected to lower rates.

Obviously, the president was pressuring Jerome Powell, calling him all sorts of names. And the Washington Journal wrote an article recently, the economy Kevin Warsh is inheriting is not the one that he wanted. So the previous Fed, for the most part, let's go to chart two. There was consensus. Everybody was on the same page in terms of when it's time to raise rates, when it's time to cut rates for the most part, this is a, this is from the Wall Street Journal showing Fed governors and regional banks and how many members were dissenting. And from 19, almost no dissent. From 18 to 24,

everybody was on the same page. And all of the sudden, there was a lot of, there was a lot of different opinions about what the Federal Reserve and what the chairman should do about the direction of interest rates. And the market was pricing in a couple of rate cuts. And all of the sudden, it's pricing in a rate hike. And I thought that idea was ridiculous. I don't think it's that ridiculous as I did six months ago. This is, and they always say, I don't know if they're like what the data shows, that they always test, the market always test a new Fed chairman. Looks like we're setting up for that again. Could be. It's a different environment, right? I think coming into the year, like Besson was scathing about Powell, right? The critique was, you know, yeah, you had consensus

in the Fed and those people were out of their minds and out of touch with reality. This, you know, the temporary inflation, they were all, they were all. They were all. they all agreed with each other. They were all wrong and massively wrong, right? Too late, Powell. And I think as we get away from him, and he was very articulate and communicative and obviously, you know,

a responsible public official. But I think he won't look so great in retrospect. I don't know if we'll hear that much from Orche, right? He is kind of the, the Fed shouldn't do so much camp, right? Yeah. And like, you think if inflation is up because of oil prices,

do you think the Fed should... The Fed has no control over oil prices. So I think their instinct is to do nothing and to say less. And so I think that's kind of... We're where we're at. But I don't know how he deals with all the different voices at the table. But that's kind of... I've penciled in, you know, for the last six months already kind of not a lot of change

in monetary policy this year. I don't think that's a risk to the market. I think it's good. Just stable policy. I think that's a thing that we all agree on. Like, I've been saying, I don't understand why there are 12 different people speaking on behalf of the Fed in different cities throughout the course of the month. Even when there's no rate decision, why am I hearing these people's names all day? I'm not saying don't give speeches.

I think that Janet Yellen Fed was the worst example of this. It was just a cacophony day after day after day. And when you actually look at rates during her term, almost nothing happened. happened. Like, there was no, there was really, there's nothing to do with her. There was no reason for there to be a ton of raid stuff. And then Trump, you know, he's got to get rid of her. She doesn't, uh, she's not central casting.

She doesn't look the part. Fine. I'm not saying I like the decision. I don't like this. I'm just saying he puts his guy in. And Powell, to his credit, I think he's serious. But he also, another one could not stop talking. Could not stop doing things also.

Like changing direction, making a way. 180 from one month to another. This month, we're knowing you normal. Next month, hey, we're going to cut three more times. Make up your mind. Or shush. Shush. We, I mean, we put a lot of thought.

No question. Warsh was the most kind of hardcore of the nominees. And we thought a lot about, like, is he going to, like, shrink the balance sheet and really upset the bond market? And, like, my personal view is another house view is I'm not that worried. I just think he's not going to react as much. But that's really a concern, right? If he starts really shrinking the balance sheet,

that might have an effect. A contraction area of it. So when you get in the shower, let's say the temperature is not perfect. Do you just get in and let your body get used to whatever it is? Or are you twiddling the cold, twiddling the hot, like trying to find the perfect temperature. I'm the first thing.

Like, whatever the shower is within reason, it's enough for me. It's fine. I'm here to take a shower and get out. I feel like the power fed is characterized by this idea that they have to constantly be turning the knobs left and right. And I hate it. And I don't think it helped in the end.

There are times to do things times not to. It's very hard to know. We all get that. But the constant talking about it and mind-changing. Like, I hope we get an era where we almost never hear from Marsh. I like that bet. I like that about the Greenspan era. It came out twice a year like Santa Claus.

And it was enough. But also, in Powell's offense, look at where the Fed funds rates were during his tenure. It's a lot easier to sort of do nothing when we're at a more normal neutral rate or close to a neutral rate than when we're at 1%. Don't give me a story. I mean, he blew up Silicon Valley Bank, right? And he raised rates so quickly. And he, that was his jurisdiction.

That could have been so much worse. He's a regulator. It could have been way worse. But they're like, he shouldn't have blown him up in the first. We agree. That was so obvious that it was coming. Quarter after quarter, they were having to write down. Remember Bank of America had $120 billion in mortgage bonds.

They were upside down in or something on the portfolio. Yeah, right around the corner. Should somebody be aware of that before we jack interest rates up 13 times? All right, let's talk in Vida and semis. So they reported last night, business as usual, Colette Cress, CFO said with analysts now forecasting hyper-scaler CAPEX to exceed $1 trillion in 2027. energetic AI beginning to proliferate all industries. AI infrastructure spending is on track to reach

$3 to $4 trillion annually by the end of this decade. Holy shit. Makes sense. I mean, supply is here. Demand for AI is here. We have such a compute shortage. It's impossible for us to get our minds around it. That's where we're at.

In 10 years, we're going to look back and go, oh, my goodness, that was so silly. How could we have missed this? whether it's a trillion a year or two trillion a year, whatever it is, the demand. And the other news of this year, right, that I find so interesting is corporate America is willing to pay for this buildout, right? They're paying money for Anthropic. And I love that NVIDIA broke out data center. That's cool.

Revenue from non-data center revenue. Because to me, you know, corporate America, if I were running a huge corporation, I'd want my own instance of AI because of security concerns. and who's mixing my data with other people's data. You don't want to be intermingled in a data center. If you're a large corporation, you need your own situation. Totally. I don't want some guy at AWS or woman miskeying something

and suddenly like my data is exposed, right? And that's a huge risk. Here are some of the myths that have been blown up in the last six weeks since Liberation Day. The first myth is that, like, there was a, going to be some KAPX slowdown because one of the hyperscalers was going to blink. Nobody's blinking. And at this point, they probably couldn't even if they wanted to. Like, the customer demand is what's fueling this.

Not the hubris of Satchinadella. It's what the customers are. We need more compute. It's not like one man's whim. I want to keep spending. Right. They're being told that they need to keep. spending or those workloads are going to go to someone else's cloud.

I mean, isn't that simple? Yeah. Okay. I don't really hear the CAPEX bearers anymore. They kind of have gone away. They're coming up with their new story, right? The circular financing, like the whole thing is spinning plates or whatever. I'm not hearing a ton of that.

The cybersecurity stocks, I think almost all of them are back at all-time highs, ripping. Another myth blown up. that every type of software would be instantly worthless thanks to Claude. It seems obvious now in hindsight. It does show there's a path forward for software companies if they do something that's important enough that people won't screw around with vibe-coded versions.

What do you think about that idea? I mean, to your first point, it is kind of amazing that hypers galers have gone from very capital-light, high-margin businesses to capital-intensive businesses, and the stock market's kind of not. carry too much unless your name is Oracle, right? Because they're going to have to start borrowing money, right? I mean, they're kind of doing it a little weird off balance sheet now.

And usually the stock market would kind of punish companies like that. Like they were the perfect company, high margin, low capital needs. And now they've kind of changed. And I'm a little surprised. They haven't been punished, though. Microsoft and Meta are not on the new high list. The only one that is is alphabet because it has its own. LLM

Yeah, but they're still spending money on it. Apple's on an ultimate high today. Yeah. Apple not involved in AI at all. They don't even actually acknowledge that AI exists yet. Yeah, you gave us a cool chart showing how you guys are using it.

So the journal reported this says everybody's getting ready to come public. Anthropics revenue was set to more than double to 10.9 billion in the second quarter. I'm pretty sure that's like quarter over quarter. I don't think it's year over year. Then there were $4 billion. So they're now at a $40 billion annual run rate.

You know, nothing, we haven't seen anything like this. We keep talking about it. You shared a chart with us, chart 9, VanX token usage at Claude. So walk us through this. Like, how are you guys using them? And these, what is this? There's a lot of tokens. Are you guys, is this a lot of money that you guys are spending with these, with these

LLMs? What's the left axis? That's the number of tokens? That's the number of tokens, right? So, contextually, we used chat. We got an enterprise chat last year. and then we added Claude. So this is only like a snapshot.

I just picked one of the charts. And we started it only in February of this year. And just kind of eyeballing it, we've doubled our token usage in three or four months. But part of it's moving away from chat. There are a couple of interesting things. Claude will actually tell you how many tokens you're using. Open AI doesn't.

Sorry, moving from chat GPT to Claude. Yeah, but I'm saying they're anthropic Claude tells you how many tokens you're actually using. That's why I say actual at the top. Whereas open AI, you don't really know how many tokens you're using. It's really weird. You know, you do the queries, but they just don't report that information to our CTO. The other thing about this, actually, it surprised me that it's not steeper.

And I think that goes to everyone else's narrative, which is that corporations are going to take years to deploy AI. Is this because you're constrained? You can't get more? No, it's just people need, yeah. Well, no, it's just also not enough people at Van Heck are deploying AI in their day-to-day. I mean, it's growing. Okay, people aren't using enough tokens.

To me, I look at that. I wish it were steeper. Right. And so the math around this. Like, do you have ideas for what they should be doing and they're not doing them? Or do you want, like many companies, you want your employees to play and come up with ways to make themselves more efficient? Yeah, I'm not smart enough to think through every workflow application.

I want them to be as creative as possible. That's why we don't have any budget for this. They can do it as much as they want. I think to put a number on it, we spend $750,000 a year right now on both of these. If you think about that and what investment people cost, like there's a positive payback. So you'll be at a million dollars in a second.

And I think they've reported they have a thousand enterprises, and it's probably $2,000 at this point, that are paying a million dollars. And people that are not at the enterprise level, like I'm paying whatever. a hundred bucks a month, whatever it is. And I'm running out of tokens. So this is like in a micro level.

They're weight limiting less. So last night, I asked it to summarize, give me the best points of the S1 for SpaceX. And it took a minute. And I, you know, I'm just curious. Like, wow, that was really awesome. How many pages, how many words were in the S1? And it said, like, actually,

we only were able to go through the first 40 pages because you hit your limit. And I was like, son of a biscuit. Yeah. Well, that's why. You should have stopped by Van Ack and used one of the thing. He said, he said there's no budget. Just come on in and start clawing yourself whatever you want.

How come Barry's not paying for an enterprise version here? It's good. We're working with that. We're talking with the enterprise folks at a lot of AI plate. To be to be determined. Okay. But in terms of how it's impacting like workflows for financial professionals, Gavin Baker was on Patrick's podcast yesterday.

And he was saying there are so many podcasts where material, market moving executives are speaking. And I can't listen. to seven of them in a day, but I need to know what they're saying because oftentimes they're saying things that are not in the transcripts that are golden nuggets. And I am using the agentic agents to transcribe all of them and to feed them to me. Right. Are you, when you look at that token usage, are you delineating between what Michael's

talking about, like an always on agentic thing that might be running for 24 hours and versus somebody at their desk that has an idea and wants to follow? a mental thread toward a possible solution to a problem? No, we don't, we don't do that, right? So we... Would you be interested to know the two different versions of token use? So one of my colleagues corrected me on this, right? So a lot of this usage is kind of prompt into their website and have them run a task.

And then obviously, now you can build up memory and that requires a little bit less compute and all that kind of stuff. That's very different than the open-claw agentic AI, where they are doing the whole task and you don't need to intervene. You don't need to ask them. The hamster wheel is just turning. And that is, we're very early days at Van Nu. We've only allowed, you know, some of our analysts to go do that on their home computer,

you know, sort of or in a sandbox. It's because the risk is unbelievable with our proprietary data, right? This is what Gemini Spark, what they announced this week at the I.O. conference is like, just imagine Gemini just always running and doing things on a regular basis without the prompt. And that's, that's the agentic part that we're, you're right. It's like people are talking about it, but I don't know that there are any companies coming out and saying, we're agentically running this whole revenue operation inside

our business. Then we might get there by the end of the year. So we're in a different world, though. We're in a world of client data. Yeah. Like you are, we are. We're in a heavily regulated, heavily regulated business. I know a lot of the, um,

FinTech guys are running around on LinkedIn, talking about all this shit. But in reality, I actually don't think there are going to be big innovations that are initiated in financial services. I think like most innovation waves, we're going to be more toward the end than toward the beginning.

Just given the nature of how little you can really experiment when you have people's personal data. So that's just my gut. I still think we should try. And I still think that we should be experimenting. or asking questions and trying to answer them with this new technology, I don't think we should be taking customer information and uploading it into a cloud

and hoping that it will spit back critical insights while simultaneously potentially compromising the people that we're responsible to. That's a corporate policy here. We're not going there. So I know a lot of firms want to, but it won't be us. It kind of depends on what you're doing. We have some tasks that are just like someone told me, 47 spreadsheets to run the accounting for one of our hedge funds.

Well, that's, right. That's crazy. That's obvious. Yeah. Yeah. No, but so you add enough of those things, you're saving bodies. Right. Do you think the productivity boom has a positive externality in the stock market that outruns

the threat of automation-driven job loss? Like, are you a glass half full or a glass half empty or undisputy or undisputed? I'm a glass half full. Okay. Just always by nature. But I think a lot of, oh yeah, totally I'm biased that way. But I do think, I think history, you know, supports that. If you look at, and I've, if you look at charts of how automation has affected different jobs,

sure, secretarial jobs are down 75% in two decades. But it took two decades, you know, for that, for that change to happen. Maybe AI accelerates things, but people are slow to change in general. 40 million women entered the job force after World War II. If you look at an employment chart, you can't see a blip, right? Because that's not how employment works. And new jobs were created. And I see, you know, the AI, sorry, the IT guys at Van Eck, who's literally last year

thought, oh, my God, my job is in danger because AI is going to take my job. They are now 5X more productive. And they're more needed, not more needed, but as needed as they were. So I just, but I do think it's a huge concern for a lot of people because they're technophobic. People are concerned about their jobs. Like that is completely legitimate. Somebody at UBS put out sort of like their own model of what this looks like and they compared SaaS software companies to newspapers in the 90s. Do you think it could be that dire for a lot of software businesses?

like we basically ended up with one, two newspaper companies probably left? I think there's no AI without data. So if you can add value by organizing data, and that's where a lot of this AI activity right now is, it's better organizing data because you realize you've got this great tool, but if you don't have data to process internally, that's valuable. And some things are obvious, but some things aren't,

that that's really where the the value is. And so I look at if Salesforce, we're a big Salesforce user, if they can efficiently organize our data, okay, maybe there's some value, but I would pay less for it. We shortened our Salesforce contract, you know, to only two years. So what you see happening in the multiples of those stocks?

And, you know, it's competitive. It deserves a re-rating down. Okay. So you think that's, well, you got it. It's appropriate. Can we talk about chips a little bit? Sure. Okay.

How outrageous is this on the scale of 1 to 10, what we've seen go on? I'm not saying like talk down the SNH, but like some of the moves, I think Intel's up 100% this year. Daniel, chart 11. Or more. Some of the moves, not for you to comment individually on the stocks, but like this seems sort of unsustainable. Yeah, and you think we're looking at Mike Ryan and Sandisk. The EPS went from $9 in March 2025. to 85 bucks for micron sand this one from two dollars to 99 dollars this is the forward EPS

you think that this is a bubble or what exactly do you think so i look at you know i take my 10 year perspective or looking back do these companies have competitive moats that's how i look at this kind of stuff and the answer and and and so i have a thesis on invidia maybe we can get to that i don't think these memory companies have a competitive mode okay because memory you know chips became, you know, Invidia went from a single commodity GPU provider to being the mainframe of AI. Kuda. I love to talk about that more, right?

These companies are, they are using, they don't really have competitive technology. Sure, there's only, it's a duopoly, you know, for the most part for the memory, but they're vulnerable. And most of their profits are coming because they're like, oh, you need my stuff? I'm going to raise my prices. It's not really value added. Jensen is giving you much more. compute. He's like the Walmart of compute, right? He's just giving you better value and more

quantity. And that's ultimately what everyone wants. Is that true? They're just raising their prices. When you see this earnings expectation, let's just take Micron $9 to $85, the majority of the growth is not selling more units. It's price. Yes. What disrupts that? You're not going to get a new memory chip company spring up, are you? Yeah. We don't know, but Chinese memory memory, memory manufacturers could definitely export. What if the models get more efficient at the utilization of memory? Well, that'll happen too. That'll definitely happen.

So these are a whole ecosystem. That's why I love to say, who's going to be around in 10 years? Because this whole ecosystem is going to change, right? It's pre-learning. It's inference. Every part is memory. It's every single part. There's vicious competition.

Right. And it's changing, right? At some point, our CTO is going to say, stop spending $3 million. or I'm going to tell him, stop spending $3 million on compute. And he's going to say, okay, I'll do fewer API, you know, requests and all this kind of stuff, right? So he'll change his programming to make it efficient. That's actually, we're already doing that. So it's a changing evolving system.

My thesis is that InVidio is a blue chip survivor because of Kuda, because of the software. There's nothing more motivated than a founder who used to be at a command. moddity business, which he was when he was just selling GPUs to, you know, game players, right? Then, wow, now I can control an ecosystem, right? So he did a deal on inference. He's doing a deal everywhere in the universe to be. And, you know, the analogy I look at is IBM, right? IBM has survived for many, many decades because it was super close to the end customer. And they pivoted from being hardware to software and then software to services. And they survived. So you have to be able to pivot as a company, but if you're in that position, it's kind of in a way, I'm more optimistic than

my colleagues, but I think it's Nvidia's game to lose, at least as being one of the blue chip providers. Every serious person working in AI is fluent in the Kuta software platform and how to use it and all the certifications in the AI space, all the training. It has, it's the bedrock of AI. You don't see that as being shakeable anytime the next few years. That's the key to selling more chips. They'll get competition. Google has its own chips like there's other chip makers out there. But their ecosystem, it'll be, the ecosystem has to be the cheapest per token at the end of the day. Cheapest per result that you want. And so that's why I, you know, I'm a bull on in video because he's like, like I call him the Walmart of this ecosystem. He's always trying to drive cost. He's always trying to

drive costs down. That's why he said, like, my competitors could give their chips away. It doesn't matter. They're so inefficient. I will kill them. Last night, they reported, like, yet again, one of the most insane victory lapse of a quarter we've ever seen from any company ever. Earnings were up 125%.

Revenue was up, like, 80 or something. They guided higher by $4 billion than expectations for the rest of the year. they did gross margin 75 they did everything that everyone wanted and more um the stock i know it rallied 15 percent into the news but fell three it's down one and a half percent down one and a half percent today can i give you my theory on this yeah what the f f okay invidia's been i'm going to call it flat right for nine months or a year and so what was interesting to me is soft bank sold right so someone who had made a ton of money, said, okay, I like to take higher risk, and I'm going to redeploy my capital. So I love what people are talking about after the internet bubble and how there had to be a

rotation in these stocks like Amazon, all these people that took years to kind of grind through a different shareholder base. And that's kind of, I think, what's happening, right? InVitya is going from hypergrowth to kind of more blue chip investor base. This is still hypergrowth, but I get your point. No, and so they're looking, and it's got but it's got all the DNA of a great blue chip stock. They're starting to pay out dividends. They're doing stock buybacks. They've got great margins.

And their cash flow is phenomenal, right? So, you know, that's why I think that's what explains why the stock, you know, the forward earnings have come down. But it's sort of like, can I sleep at night owning this stock? I'm like, absolutely. That's me. I may not make as much money as the next guy, you know. When did soft bank sell?

sometime last year. And you think that was the pressure on the stock that kept it in a horizontal plane? No, no, no, that per se. But it triggered my thinking, Josh, that all these people that have made so much money in the stock, they're just rotating through it. I get it. Like, I get it. That's all I'm saying.

It's like, that's what's happening in my mind. What do you think about this? I asked the people on the trading desk on halftime report today, the existing buyback left on the previous authorization was $39 billion. They jacked it up. They took it to 80 last night. I said, does anyone think that this is meaningful for like the share price? They were all like, no, it's not.

I understand it's a $5 trillion market cap and $80 billion. But still, it's a lot. It's another person sucking up stock when somebody else gets bored with it and wants to sell. Well, you know, what do you think? I think the answer is why the stock isn't moving the way that you would expect a company to when it reports. It's a gigantic stock and it takes a lot of buying pressure to it's a it's an elephant. 80 is not enough. It's like you and me trying to move an elephant. Like it's just it's a lot of weight. But getting back to our conversation, I don't think. I mean, no, it's,

meaningful. Getting back to the conversation about equal weight versus cap weight, this, this blew my face off. So, Bank of America put out a chart, chart 17. The earnings outlook is more dependent on a few stocks than ever before. And this is not new news, but this in particular, the top five is a quarter of the index earnings. And there's one name in here that I said, holy shit. Invidia, Google, Microsoft Apple, and then Micron. You could have given me 100, well, I probably would have, after 100 would have guessed. You could have me, give me 30 guesses.

I don't think I would have said micron. So again, it's Nvidia, Google, Microsoft, Apple, and micron are a quarter of the earnings of the index. What if I said which one of these won't be on here in 24 months? Micron. Very obviously, Micron. Five years, 10 years, Micron. Okay, five years, okay.

Okay. Just by process of elimination, like which, you know, um, invidium. It's so insane how much they're paying in taxes. Yeah. Micron. Like, in these, and these Korean memory chip makers, like someone gave me the statistic.

I can't remember it this week. But they're like, those two companies are like equal to the entire prior years tax revenue for the country. They'll solve the deficit. For the country. You talk about. You talk about. We should move.

from here, you're right. You talk about 10-year macro forecasts. Nvidia is going to be as important to automation and robotics as it is right now for large language models and chat, right? Like, they're planning to play heavily in robots, cars. Isn't that the reason not to be shouting stock bubble right now? Like, we haven't even gotten the humanoid robots. The self-driving cars just hit the.

road in the last six months. Almost no one's been in one yet. Like for, because we were talking about like, well, all right, fine, eventually this will be a bubble. But like, you want to say bubble now before the first time a robot brings you a martini in a bar? Like, today you want to say bubble? I just, I'm mystified.

I look at what SpaceX is coming to the table with and Tesla and all the stuff Jensen's talking about now, which is physical AI. And I just feel like, yeah, I get it. Stock prices will rise. in fall, but, like, we want to say this is the top before the robots are even here. It's not only that, again, compute demand is here and supply is here. That's the big. So until they get to an efficient market, like, what are we talking about?

We're going to look back and go, like, what were, you know, what was the, who was missing the big trade? I don't think we're missing the big train. You guys are all over it. I'm just saying, now, having said that, Josh, within the ecosystem, within the ecosystem, within the ecosystem, there are corrections, like, or. was down 50% right? That's a crash.

Open AI. That's a salt, brother. Open eye looked like it was being lapped by anthropic, right? And so there are pieces of this ecosystem that will go up and down. Do you guys have a robotics ETF? You must. Yeah. What is it?

I can ask you. I'm asking you. I bought. Tell me. I bought. I bought. Okay. I'm not that shy.

No, it's crazy, though, like the rules for talking about ET. We're learning this. Yeah, we have ETS now. No, I can't say what they're calls. Unless your, what's your ETF call? I don't say. I think the rule is you have to say Candyman three times. You can put it in a bottle and throw it into the ocean if somebody finds it.

Here's why, here's the anti-bubble. I can give you a riddle. And if you solve it, I could tell you the- No, we can do wordle for our ETF. So, Daniel, chart 18. All right. S&P 500 margins going through the roof. This is from Peter Bereson.

We're looking at the S&P 500 profit margin forward, trailing. This is remarkable. I mean, this is remarkable. And this is almost kind of scary because there are political ramifications coming. I mean, they're here today, but they're definitely coming when we see more layoffs and you see S&P 500 prices and margins at all time highs. That is for society, that is a dangerous cocktail. He's not worried.

He's not as worried about it. Well, listen, listen, let's just articulate exactly what we're talking about. No, let's really look at it. We got the midterm elections, right? Let's say that the Republicans lose the House. Okay. Are we going to change monetary? policy? No. Are we going to change fiscal policy? No. Right? So, I'll impeach Trump a couple of

more times, right? Nothing will happen. It'll be, that'll just be performance, right? Are we going to solve inequality in America in the next 12 months? No. No. You know, I mean, there's no, there's no, there's no, not to get in my soapbox. There's no, never been a society where you've had egalitarian wealth, period, in the history of the world. Well, Josh has a paperback book coming out where he wrote about that. Yeah. So, thank you, Michael. What an assist.

So I have, this is contractually obligated. Harriman House would like for me to mention. There's a paperback edition of my book coming out this summer. But to Michael's point. That does look good. But we tried that. So, to Michael's point, I think it's, I should probably know this. What was it the name of the blog post?

Chapter two, you weren't supposed to see that. And we named the book after it. But like, it was this thing where we had a moment where everybody had enough money to not work. And it was COVID. And it was 2021. And everyone could just start a business or start fucking baking sourdough loaves or maybe show up at Wendy's for their shift. Maybe not. Maybe work from home or pretend to work.

People could just like switch careers, switch. switch states they lived in, and everyone had enough money in the bank that, like, for a moment, it didn't last long. And what I wrote about is how it literally tore society apart. We ended up with people marching in the streets, burning stores down, race riots, fast food companies that couldn't open the doors

because nobody would show up to work. Like, it's maybe the worst possible thing for everyone to have enough money. money all at once. It's so pitch black to say it out loud. And I went through all of the aid that was paid out. And I came up with, and I did this in a pre-AI, by the way, this is myself. I came up with like $20 trillion worth of just giveaways and money raised and Broadway and small businesses and restaurants and sporting events. And just like all of the, here, don't worry, please just don't riot um we broke society like Powell is Powell at having weights too low is

the least of it we kind of reordered society by virtue of doing a version of a of UBI like here you're good your bank accounts full your bills are paid any other problems no that's great I'm gonna go fly a kite now the country broke and we can't do it again so like I guess the bigger point is we actually need people who are hungry enough to strive and show up to their jobs. So I don't know that there is some future where it's like, oh, don't worry, corporate profit margins are so high. We'll just distribute the money. We can't do it. It's, it's, it's, it works us. I think I put it even, you know, yeah, I guess I would just say I feel like wealth can be very corrosive. This is not even wealth, though. This is, I know, I know that's not

what you're talking about, but I'm also talking about wealth. Don't worry about going to work. What do you mean? Happiness comes from... Growth. You get happiness from your family. You get happiness from working, from having meaning in your life. And wealth is an enemy of that. Wealth can make you lazy. It can lead to bad habits. It can amplify bad habits.

So no one, I think, thinks that, look, I think capitalism is good. Materialism is bad, right? I don't know. I'm from Long Island. I don't know if I agree with that. statement. Materialism is bad? Material, over, it can't be, it can't, consumerism, that can't be your only value in life. I think, I think your point is, right? And whether it's religion or family or work, like, we all need our communities, we

need satisfaction from something else, is my point. I'm really kind of making the same point that you are. Yes. And all I'm saying is some of the wealth and some of the pockets and maybe it's because I live in Westchester or whatever, but like it's just, it's very, it's jarring to me compared to the era that I grew up. Do you have a lot of like, do you have a lot of wealth,

well, non-working wealthy people in the community? It's not that. It's just like the concept of a private chat. Like, I mean, obviously, I don't fly private, right?

It's just weird, right? And kids, your kids go to other, go to school with kids that fly private, right? That's just weird. I watch your life on TV.

It's called your friends and neighbors. That is literally my neighbor. Where I live, the wealthiest people are the people who work the most ours. Like, we, I don't live in a place where that linkage is broken. The people who are the, would you agree with that? The most prosperous people in my town, I'm a micro, it's a micro example, but like, the most prosperous people financially are also the people who do not stop working.

We don't have inherited wealth in our town. Right. Nobody who inherits money would live where we live. Or like Nepal babies. They live on the North Shore, like not near us. Yeah. So I, so it's like, I always think of materialism. It's like, yeah, but they earned it.

Like, they will, because we don't have anybody who's just, like, laying around cash and checks. You're talking about Michael's new set of clothing. No, now where Barry lives on the North Shore, it's a whole other story. With a wine cell. I actually don't, right. I actually don't know a lot of people who live there that actually work. So it's a whole different. But that type of wealth is corrosive.

Yeah. That, the inherited wealth and the overnight success, that's why the most miserable pricks on the planet are the people that won like the lottery of finance, whether it's an overnight literal lottery winners or people that sold the business. And you're also ostracized from your community. When you have that much money and you live in a normal neighborhood, like, if Josh and I had $100 million an hour town, people like, what do you get out of here? You got to hide it. Right. Or why are you here? Right. Yeah, yeah, yeah. People don't want their kids necessarily to even be around like a household that's like that where everybody's. I agree. I think

that's neat. And I'm not saying inherited wealth is necessarily bad because it can allow people to buy houses for their kids and stuff like that. So I'm not on soapbox, but I'm just trying to make that distinction because I think, you know, capitalism is something that kids should learn to appreciate in school. What a great system we live in and what wealth and new technology enables for our generation, you know, for this country. It's amazing. You know, we have full employment and we live in a great free country, relatively speaking. And that capitalism narrative can be very negative and corrosive what kids are taught. That's my differentiation.

And of course, there is nothing wrong with being born into wealth and having successful parents. We're marrying into it. Well, that's even better. But when did you take over your company? Yeah, 2010. But I was there in the 90s. I joined after law school in 93. Right.

Oh, and we were losing money. No, we were. He inherited debts. My brother and I took over. We had to fire 40% of the firm. So I wanted to ask you, Beth, I wanted to ask you about, like, your opinion on this. We had a project where we have all these different investment strategies inside the firm, different allocations, and they have names. And one of the names for one of the strategies is Lennox Hill.

They're all neighborhoods in Manhattan. So Lennox Hill is the 70s, let's say from Fifth Avenue to maybe Madison or to Park, right? So like 70th up to 80th. So it might grow neighborhood in New York. But it has the Metropolitan Museum of Art. It has all those limestone buildings on Fifth Avenue. And one of the things about that is that's from 100 years ago, the quote unquote robber barons. They created all this wealth.

But what they did with their wealth, is they built these institutions for the public. They built opera houses and museums, and they set aside nature preserves, things like Central Park, not just in New York, but all over. There was something about making money in a filthy business like steel or shipping

or copper mining or even J.P. Morgan in banking, cutting people's throats all day, being John D. Rockefeller, being like relentlessly aggressive, but then turning around with all of that accumulated wealth and building things for the public. I'm not saying we don't have philanthropists.

I'm aware of Michael Dell and Michael Bloomberg. I understand that. But it does feel to people that we don't have that same civic payback from people that are now creating themselves as trillionaires. Do you think that's too harsh? Do you think like the modern day robber barons are doing enough in a civic setting So people walk by these institutions and say yeah, I understand

I got this back from the people who built Palantir and Tesla and like what do you think about that idea Because all they brag about now is I create jobs But like if you don't work for the company. I don't give a fuck that you create jobs Yeah, it's it's sort of Gates versus look at this shit whole city I live in I don't care that you created jobs for people that I don't know. Like, look at this massive wealth you've accumulated. Why aren't you reinvesting in the places that people live? It's Bill Gates, right, who made a lot of money and then very thoughtfully invested in a lot

of different technologies and philanthropies versus Elon Musk who's like, I'm going to make as much money and create as much wealth. Well, he thinks he's saving humanity by enabling us to get to the moon. And he might be right, but none of us who are alive today will explain. experience the benefit of that. But, yeah, don't you think that's part of the problem with doing what Josh is suggesting is that the cities and the governments that run the cities are so shitty at distributing and executing and there's so much corruption.

Like Amazon searched for a new headquarters or one of the projects that they tried to come here and we villainized them and we drove them out. Like I think a lot of these people, and they are doing, there's a lot of people that are incredibly philanthropic. That's like sort of quiet. I mean, that's more your world than hours, of course. But there's people that are doing that. But at the public institutional level, it's hard. Yeah. Yep. I think it's a great question. I think we don't really know because a lot of the wealth has been created in the last decade or two. And so we don't know what they're really going to do with. I want to give them a break. And also, I'm not sure what's so obvious to give money to,

I give to educational institutions primarily. That's kind of my point. Oh, Michael Dell, I forget the number. Is it $50 billion, $10 billion or $2 billion to all of the Trump accounts? Right. Just like, I'm adding to your accounts personally. So it's not a museum with columns, I understand. And maybe most of the recipients don't even know where it came from.

I understand that too. but like it's a bold example of somebody who's been philanthropic's whole life seeing a need and saying, you know what, I believe in that cause and here I'm going to turn on the afterburner for what those accounts could grow into. I think that's amazing.

I just don't think there maybe is enough of it and that's why we have people like AOC literally voting down and chasing out an Amazon project that would have employed people who live in her district. It almost seems insane, but maybe that's part of the problem, is they don't come off as philanthropic as they are. You know, I think also, I'm just kind of going back to history books here.

There were some amazing philanthropists. Like the Rockefeller family is just insane. I mean, you know, you could spend an hour just listing all the things that they did, just in New York, much less around the country and the world. But, you know, probably there were a lot of robber barren people that made a lot of of money that just created started their own private banks and managed their money and didn't do a lot with it. And so I bet there's probably both types in both eras if we were going to be fair. So here in New York. But I do think it's an issue for our society now, right? This wealth inequality

is, is bothers a lot of people. And you're right. They have them and they're very public figures. Yeah. Here in New York, we have this incredible tradition of like the fabulously wealthy doing real I mean, Vanderbilt's name is still on everything, and Carnegie's name is on a ton of stuff. And we have modern day of Ken Langone, I think, is like one of the greatest men who's ever lived. He basically said to the NYU Medical School, from here on out, every student is tuition free. All that I ask is you take your education,

go back to the place you came from or go somewhere new, and treat people. And like, I wish there were 10 or 20 of those, but there's like one of those. Barry Dillard did the park down there. Yeah. Yeah. So people have done stuff. You're right.

Kenlon's a giant. Yeah. He's a giant. I agree. And he's also hands on, right? I mean, he really transformed in NYU medical facility, but he really was, he didn't just try to check,

is my point. He really, really helped the morale over the place. Do you think we can turn this anti-capitalism wave around? And if so, does it require some sort of like grand gesture? or is it just like time? Because right now, I think we do have a lot of people in their 20s who might like permanently be anti-capitalist. And I think hurting themselves,

but it's also like not great for the continuation of America if it persists. Well, I'm really into celebrating our 250th and understanding what it was, what it was all about. And so, yeah, I think academia is kind of becoming a little bit more balanced over time. And, you know, I think there's, so, yeah, I think that's fixable. And that's the distinction I made between materialism and capitalism, right? Our system is really good. And I think sometimes they confuse it just with, oh, those rich people that I hate them or I'm envious of them and that kind of stuff. And it's like, well, yeah, but think about the system and what

it's done. And then you don't have to, no one's worshipping materialism, I guess, is that, That's my point. And the very younger generation, we should talk to Howard Linson about this, is not the, you know, the D-Gen economy, but there's like a pushback, right, for dumb phones and being unplugged and more people getting involved in religion. You know, so we'll see. You know, society always kind of adjust. Funny you bring that up.

They're bringing back rock and roll music because of how imperfect it is to experience in person. Guitarist plays the wrong chord every once in a while. the singer loses their voice and it's so different from the world that kids live in online where there are no imperfections and everything is very plastic and sterile and you know they manage you through an algorithm

exactly where they want to get you. You go to a rock show somewhere in Brooklyn and every night's a different experience and it's kind of cool to see analog things plugging an instrument into an amp versus a fucking laptop at a day club in Las Vegas. So I like I like that. that there's a counterculture sort of groundswell of that amongst young people?

I think social media was a technology that had a lot of negative social implications. And I know a lot of people talk about it, but I think that's not the diagnosis. It's kind of the pushback on what are the behaviors? And I think a lot of our institutions were super slow. Like John Haight wrote this book about what I just mentioned. It's like take phones out of schools, make kids talk to each other. Like, we should have done that a decade ago. Yeah.

Like, really. But it's happening now. But that's one of the biggest misses in my lifetime is like, wow, this created a lot of weird behavior. And it still affects politics. I still know, like probably your friends too that are totally caught on the right or the left. And they just have no perspective because they're in the echo change. I can't talk to those any people anymore. But they were in our society.

Like, and they just don't, you know, they don't shut up on social media. I have a physical device. It's called a brick. where I lock my social media when I get home because I am addicted like everybody else and I don't want to be scrolling when I'm in bed with my kids which I happen for the last fucking seven,

nine years of their life. So when did you do that? Two months ago. They took the phones out of my kids high school this year. Yeah, same. It was like they didn't miss a beat. The kids are fine. It's so much better.

They don't need it. They don't need it, right? Well, they don't need poison? Yeah. They took comedy clubs putting the phones in pouches. Get over it. It's an hour and a half.

But what if the babysitter calls? Okay, you stay home then. Everybody else wants to hear the comics say what they're going to say without the fear of seeing a camera in their face. Like, I feel like, I'm not saying like no phones anywhere. I'm saying where appropriate, yeah,

put the phone down, do something different. So, easier said than done for most people. Weird way to end the show. Yeah, anyway. But don't put the phone down when we drop this episode, ladies. and gentlemen. John, great job today. Daniel, thank you. Do you have fun on the show today? Awesome. Love you guys. All right. Shout out to Jan Vanek. I want to tell people,

you guys are an incredible asset management firm. We think the world of you. Every time I see you on TV or I hear you saying something, I know I'm going to learn something. And you brought us some history books. So tell the audience which books you handed to us. And I'm probably going to read one of them, at least. I'm on vacation next week. So 1776, I kind of, what's the one book? I was talking to someone at a bank. He didn't know anything about history. And frankly, I didn't know a lot 10 years ago.

What's the one book you want to give someone? Founding Brothers by Joseph Ellis. Founding Brothers. Founding Brothers. Okay. And it's not a page Turner, but it explains who all the founders were. They're different political philosophies and their personalities. And so it's a good grounding.

It's not military history, like, who cares? It's not focused just on one founder. It's the people. It's ensemble. It's a one book, I guess, and I reread a bunch for that. And then the other book is totally a difference, how the Scots invented the modern world. And it's just...

Besides for the iPhone, what did they invent? They're so fierce. And, like, all over the world, like, they settled Hong Kong, right? They settled Australia. The Scott settled Hong Kong? the Scots were the fighters in the British Empire. Is this the metaphor? Look at the mixed, you know, blah, blah, blah, all over the place, right?

They were the fighters. I think seven presidents were Scots-Irish. Like, Andrew Jackson, like all these people, they were really the, and it's a really fascinating story. Oh, what's the, what's the? And obviously, they were big investors, right? It was the Scots, the Dutch, and, you know. What, okay.

And then there's another book that I read. million years ago, how the Irish saved civilization. So the Scots and the Irish were more important than we think. Yeah, that's a more narrow story, I would say, about how they saved, like, some Christian documents. They were copying the written canon of Christianity before it was burned everywhere else or whatever. Exactly. All right. All right. So I'm going to, so I'm going to, I think I'm going to read the, I think I'm going to read the Scots one just because I've read a lot about American history already, but I've never heard that story. So, all right. Yon, we think we think the world of you. Thank you.

Thank you so much for joining us on the show. We appreciate you. Guys, thank you for listening. Thank you for watching. We'll see you soon. Have a great week. Thanks again. The Madamy Holmes bike for brain health supporting Baycrest returns on May 31st for its fifth anniversary with a new start and finish at the Aga Khan Museum. Join thousands of cyclists as we take over the DVP and Gardner Expressway in support of dementia research and brain health. Riders of all abilities are welcome and both regular bikes and e-bikes can participate. Bring your friends, family, family, or corporate team and make an impact. Register today at fight for brainhealth.ca.