The Prof G Pod with Scott Galloway - Is Wall Street Rigging the Game for SpaceX? Plus, What Investment Banking Really Teaches You

Episode Date: June 29, 2026

Scott Galloway unpacks whether the S&P and Nasdaq rule changes for mega-cap IPOs mean you're no longer as diversified as you think, gives advice on thriving in a fully remote sales role, and reflects on what investment banking and the corporate world really teach you. Want to be featured in a future episode? Send a voice recording to [e-mail], or drop your question in the r/ScottGalloway subreddit. Plus, you can now call or text Scott a question at our new Office Hours hotline: ‪[phone]‬. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Support for the show comes from O-Doo. Running a business takes everything you've got. And a lot of the tools out there that are supposed to make your life easier just aren't great talking to each other. And that means you end up having to toggle between a dozen different apps and services just to keep the lights on. Enough of that, now there's O-D-O-D-O-D-O-D-O-D-O-D-K platform that might actually help you get it all done. Thousands of businesses have made the switch, so why not you? Try O-D-U for free at O-D-O-D-com. That's O-D-O-O-O-O-O-com. Are you feeling stuck?

I'm Rapin'Artson, VPN head instructor at Peloton. I've watched literally millions of people try to transform their lives, and I have heard the same five sentences hold people back. So this week on Project Swagger, we're doing a self-talk audit. I am going to name each of these destructive sentences and tell you what it's costing you and give you the reframe, the swap you need, to unlock your true potential. Let's go.

Follow Project Swagger now wherever you get your podcasts. Welcome to Office Service of ProPG. This is the part of the show where we answer your questions about business, big tech, entrepreneurship, and whatever else is on your mind. If you'd like to submit a question for next time, you can send a voice recording to Office Hours of Prophysmedia.com. Again, that's Office Hours of Prophemy.com. Or post your question on the Scott Galloway subreddit, and we just might feature it in our next episode. Plus, now you can call or text us a question at 201 472-3656. Again, that's 201-472-3656.

All right, let's bust into it. Our first question comes from a listener who emailed us. Why aren't more alarm bells going off about the rule changes such that SpaceX can get into the NASDAQ and then it's expensively forced to buy shares? It seems like corruption to me. Also, the fact that there's no recourse against Elon, no matter how atrocious his behavior may become. Thanks. Okay, some context here. Major stock indices are rewriting their inclusion rules specifically, if not explicitly, to accommodate blockbuster IPOs.

SpaceX most immediately, but Open AI and Anthropic are also in the pipeline. pipeline for 2026. For the NASDAQ 100, their new fast entry rules mean mega-cap stocks can be added to the index, just 15 trading days after their IPO, down from the historic seasoning period of three months. This applies to companies with market cap ranking within the top 40 members of the NASDAQ 100, and fast-entry inclusions won't require an already listed security to be dropped, allowing the index to temporarily exceed 100 constituents. Futsi Russell also changed rules to allow faster inclusion of mega-cap IPOs and the S&P 500. The S&P considered shortening the seasoning period, waiving minimum flow requirements, and removing

its profitability requirement, but ultimately said it wasn't making any changes dealing a setback to SpaceX. They're keeping the traditional bar, 12 months public plus four consecutive quarters of gap profitability. So what is some of the impact of this change? More than 30 trillion in assets are benchmarked in the S&P 500 Dow Jones NASAC Composite and Futsi Russell indices. analyst estimate conservative forced buying of 15 to 30 billion across S&P 500, NASDAQ 100, blah, blah, blah, with more aggressive float-weighted scenarios running far higher. I see above being forced to buy these things. Goldman Sachs analysts estimated the NASDAQ fast entry rule change alone could trigger up to 60 billion

and force buying across NASDAQ 100. Okay, so I think a lot of the pushback here is people, I'm a hammer, everything I see as a nail. I think it's income into quality. I think people are just so sick of these people and the amount of money they're making. And when they see these outrageous valuations that are difficult to justify and that all of the shareholder gains from zero to a trillion have been captured, or in the case of SpaceX, trying to go out to retail investors in $1.8 trillion, that all of that juice has been squeezed by private institutional investors. And the IPO market has, in fact, become sort of the last stop on the chump train. And that is when Google in public, I think it was an $80 billion market cap, it's off, you know, $500. full, retail investors have had a chance to garner a tremendous, you know, 500, 500 extra

turn. If you'd get that from SpaceX after it goes public, what would that be to try and that be, I don't even know what, what is that a gazillion? I don't know what that is. So I think people are naturally pissed off. And another, they vent their anger anyway, any change is an opportunity to ship post these companies. I don't think waiving the rules here is necessary. I'm not as ex-sized about that, because at the end of the day, these indices are meant to be a reflection of the most important largest market cap companies. And all three of these companies already are that. Anthropic was founded five years ago. If it had been founded in Europe, it'd be one of the five most valuable companies in Europe. So I think including them in these indices, I think you can make a

pretty rational reason for it. And being forced to buy these companies like you're some victim, Well, you're forced to buy Monsanto, who brought us Agent Orange, unless I think you are. I wonder if Philip Morris is in the S&P 500. Anyways, my point is these indices probably include a lot of companies that on your own you wouldn't buy shares in. That's why it's an index. It does bring up an interesting point in that,

is it unfair that a new public company gets juiced beyond its public market reception because it's automatically included in these indices? Should it go through a hazing period where it shows, its fair value once retail investors have have some time to play with it before you decide whether it should go into the index. I think that's a viable argument. I don't know if, you know, I worry this is going to, this is another technique to get a first pop out of the gates. I would like to see sort of a cooling off period before you decide whether it should go into the indices. But essentially, companies used to take seven years to go public. Now they take 12,

and these companies have gone faster. But having the most important companies, and these are important, valuable companies in the indices, that doesn't, I think on balance, this kind of makes sense. I probably still would have waited a little bit just to see what that first trade is because it does feel like this is a convenient means of creating demand that hasn't been there for other IPOs,

thereby creating a false print on the first print. If these companies are getting that additional demand right out of the gates that every other company going public hasn't enjoyed. At the same time, you know, one of the big complaints is that retail investors haven't had access to these companies. And also, if you're in S&P indices or index funds and you don't want to own these companies, then sell your S&P index fund and go into, I'm sure there's a lot of funds that don't include the magnificent 10. My guess is there's probably even an ETF that is the S&P minus these 10 companies, because I'm sure there's a lot of funds that don't include the magnificent 10

companies because a lot of people think they've been overweighted and now they're responsible for 40% of the S&P. So when you buy the S&P, you're effectively buying the Magnificent 10 to almost 40 or 43%. I think that is not dangerous, but not smart. And that is the whole point of buying index funds was diversification and the S&P is becoming dramatically less diversified. So in sum, these indices are supposed to reflect the most valuable and important companies. These are are those companies even distinct of the fact they're not public yet. But the idea of creating artificial demand up front, which is doesn't give you a fair litmus test on the initial trade. I can see some concern there. I would have asked for at least a 30 or 60 day cooling off period

to make sure that these companies still qualify. But what this reflects is a broader trend, that the S&P 500 is no longer really diversification as you're concentrated now amongst 10 companies. And what does that mean for you if you don't like? You know, you don't like Chick-fil-A, don't eat a Chick-fil-A. You don't want to be an enforced investor in SpaceX, Anthropic, and Open AI, then sell your S&P index funds and go into other funds, which I'm sure there's a ton of them that don't, that avoid these companies. But really, I think the learning here is that to believe you're diversified in an S&P or S-B-Y index fund, you're not. You're all in America.

You're mostly in tech, and you may want to think about other index funds that look at other asset classes and other geographies. Thanks for the question. Question number two comes from Reddit. SpellSad 83-52 says, Hi Scott, I'm 27 years old and spent the last three and a half years in construction equipment sales and had lots of success. In a few weeks, I will be starting a new job, also in sales, at a software startup working fully remote.

What advice would you give to someone, number one, on transitioning to a fully remote role, specifically sales, and number two, working at a startup. Gosh. Okay, a 27 boss, I would argue the office is a feature not a bug and do everything you can to get around other coworkers. There's evidence saying you're 40% more likely to get promoted if you're in the office. And I think you're in the kill zone, and that is I think you're in the exact wrong demographic to be working remotely. I think you want

mentors, you want to find friends, mates. HR hates this, but one in three relationships begin at work, and 99.9% of them have been consensual. So I think the office is a feature, not a bug, for a 27-year-old male. Having said that, working remotely, I think you've got to be pretty disciplined about a schedule on deadlines, setting up deadlines for the number of new business calls you're going to make, number of meetings you're going to go to in person. You know, you've got to come out of the gate strong because you're going to have to impress everybody, and they're going to have very, very adroit anodyne metrics, number of calls you make, number of deals or conversations you set up in your close rate. And I think you want to figure out a way to be in person with clients and coworkers

as much as possible. And you may, I don't know, I don't know how. I think being at home, just trolling LinkedIn, trying to set up meetings, I don't think that's good for a 27-year-old man. So I think that, one, try and figure out a way to get out of the office or get out of your home as much as possible such that you can meet with clients face-to-face,

meet with your boss, meet with your coworkers as often as possible. I think that's hugely important. And in order to do, I would have been a disaster remote work at your age home alone. I just would have been really good at walking my dog and, you know, getting more exercise in, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. But you're going to have to be very disciplined and set metrics for yourself every night before you go to bed or whenever saying I need to do the following things. And I guess in sales, especially with remote work, they're good at creating metrics for you. but I would be

I would be careful not to fall into a world of making good money again I'm preaching here because my way isn't necessarily the right way but it's my way. But I think the only way you really get ahead is through relationships and remote work doesn't set yourself up for relationships or strong relationships. So the reality is I'm I see the glass is half empty here and I would try and figure out a way to show a certain level of performance

and then it sets that you can get to a position that involves more peer-to-peer-to-peer contact and peer-to-client contact. And if you're going to be at home, you just got to set up the schedule and deadlines to hold yourself accountable, which is difficult I find at your age. I find it difficult at my age. Anyway, sorry I'm not more optimistic there, but congratulations on the job. If you know how to sell, you can always make more money than you deserve. The most overcompensated people in any company are the salespeople and everyone resents them

because they're willing to do one thing other people aren't. That is get out a big spoon and eat shit. And that is called people who don't want to hear from you. And when they say, don't call me again, you say, oh, I think that means I should call you back in three months. And just have, I don't know if salespeople played with the right toys or the wrong toys or if they have exceptionally high or exceptionally low self-esteem. It doesn't matter. If you can sell, you can always make a good living. And you develop the ultimate skill set, which is the ability to endure rejection.

So clearly you have that skill set if you're doing well in sales. Anyways, congratulations to you and best of luck. We'll be right back after a quick break. Support for the show comes from Upwork. Scaling a business takes time, but it's not entirely a straight line. There are stops and starts and times when you need to sprint and bring in talent fast. And Upwork can help your team grow quickly by bringing in specialized freelancers so you can meet the moment and take your business to the next level. Upwork is a one-stop platform to find, hire, and pay expert freelancers across web and software development, data and analytics, business operations, and more.

Upward also helps grow your business by giving you fast access to specialized, talent across 125 plus categories. So you can fill skill gaps, launch projects faster, and scale support up or down without committing to full-time headcount. Thousands of growing businesses already trust Upwork to hire flexible, high-quality freelance talent for everything from one-off projects to ongoing support. You can browse profiles, review past work, and get help scoping the role so you can hire with confidence and get started quickly. It's free to sign up and posting a job is easy. Visit upwork.com slash ProfG right now and post your job for free. That's upwork.com slash Prop G to connect with top talent today ready to help your business grow. That's UPWORK.com

slash PropG. Upwork.com slash propG. Support for the show comes from SOFI. If you're a parent helping your child navigate college, you know just how fast the costs can pile up between tuition, housing, textbooks, and everyday living expenses, funding higher education is a major financial commitment. That's where today's sponsor, SOFI, comes in. SoFi offers private student loans that can cover up to 100% of school certified costs, not just undergrad and graduate tuition, but SOFi can also help cover housing, books, food, and other education-related expenses. SoFi's private student loans are all about flexibility. They offer competitive, fixed, or variable rates, multiple term options, and monthly payments so you can build around your budget. The application process is completely online, and you can check your rate in minutes.

And for families exploring their options together, adding a qualified co-signer may help improve chances of securing a lower interest rate. And there are zero fees required. That means no origination fees or late fees, no surprises. What you see is what you pay back. Head to sophy.com slash profjee student to check your options and get your education funded the smarter way. That's sophy.com slash profcci student. Originated by SOFi Bank, N-A member FDIC, Terms and Conditions Apply. please borrow responsibly.

Support for the show comes from Jevity. Most people who get blood work done hit the same wall. Results come back, you get a nod and everything looks fine, and then you go about your day. But what happens when something does come up and you're still left to your own devices?

Your blood work flags something, but now you need to figure out what to do about it. Jevity was made to close that gap. It's the first all-on-one precision health membership. As a member, you get access to a dedicated three-person care team, including a functional health expert

and longevity clinician. They review your blood work and build a plan personalized to you. Then, whatever you need, such as supplements or prescriptions, are shipped to your door every month. And their full body testing goes beyond blood work. For example, you can get gut microbiome analysis, genetic testing, cancer screening, and more. It's testing plus clinical support, plus intervention, all in one membership. Here's some data. 93% of members see meaningful improvements from their first to second round of blood work.

Right now, listeners can get 20% off membership. at Gogevity.com slash prof-G-G-E-V-I-T-I-com slash Prop-G for 20% off your membership. Welcome back, question number three. Hey, Scott, I enjoy your podcast, and I don't know if you ever come back to a question and drill down further, but I want to follow up on the value of an investment banking career early in one's path. I heard you tell somebody on a recent podcast, that the value of an investment banking experience basically was learning to work hard, attention to detail,

getting along with others, and you also referred to an approach to work. My challenge for you is, if you're somebody who's applied himself and gone to college and applied himself in college, you probably know how to work hard. You probably know attention to detail. You probably know how to get along with others.

So from my perspective, if you came out of college and did investment banking for a few years. And those were really the primary skills that you walked away with. That just feels sort of redundant and maybe even a loss or a waste of time relative to learning something more applied that you could use in the rest of your life. Now, maybe you do learn some really important applied skills. Maybe there's something about, for in your case, doing fixed income that actually useful for the rest of your career, whether it's spreadsheets or balance sheets or other economic

considerations. But I would love for you to clarify that. Like, which is it? Is it the soft skills? Is it the hard skills? But what makes the value of an investment banking career? Thanks for the question. So I'm trying to increasingly recognize that in my age, a lot of times I don't know what I don't know because the world has obviously changed a lot. I was 21 when I showed up at Morgan Stanley in 1987. And my only skill set was I interview well. Why did I go into investment banking? The only reason I even went into, if you asked me what investment banking was the day I showed up, I don't think I could have told you. But I was, I had a roommate my senior year, as a lot of young men are. I was very competitive with him and him with me. And his dream must

be an investment banker. So I thought if he wants to do it, I'm going to do it. That's why I wanted to be an investment banker. Also, I thought it would impress my mom, and I thought it would impress strange women. I had no fucking idea what I wanted to do, so I thought I'll just be awesome of being an investment banker and got the job. And I think you're right. I think if you have a really strong skill set around finance and discipline, then you wouldn't have registered or there wouldn't be the same upside as I received. I didn't have those things. So UCLA, my primary skill set garnered was how to make bongs. out of household items.

And I was not disciplined. I was not, you know, I didn't work hard. And so Morgan Stanley was kind of like the Marines for me. And that is a really sort of was a swift kick in the ass. And also just learning about the capital markets, you can't learn that strictly from a book. When I showed up, I think two months later, six weeks later, it was Black Friday, October,

I figure it was 19, 1987. And one of the MDs in the investment bank group said, we should go down to the trading floor because he knew it was a big day. And it was just mayhem on the trading floor and trying to understand what was going on. I think the S&P went from, you know, 1,400 to 900 and one morning and everyone thought it was the end of the world. But just trying to understand what was happening and how humans reacted to it. And there were some layoffs in the trading department. You just got a feel for business. And then meeting with, you know, the county commissioners for L.A. and proposing and trying to understand how a quarter percent increase in sales

tax was going to fund this subway in LA that is now still opening stops, you start to connect, at least I did finance in the bond market to capital formation and building things and tax rebonds versus bonds for real estate and the credit market. So I think I learned a lot. And there's nothing about the hierarchy of the corporate sector that you can replicate in school, I don't think. could you have shown up with stronger skills if you went to a better school or took school more seriously? Absolutely. But I think those kind of, it was a two-year program when I went. You went two years and they went back to business school.

There was 87 analysts in my class and literally, I think 84 of us went back to business school. I think that path or that sort of mentorship or trainee program where you work your ass off and you get decent pay or good pay and you get that stamp on your forehead. I like that model. And unfortunately, I think a lot of investment banks, Goldman doesn't hire out of business school anymore. They find people out of undergrad and they'd say, don't go back to business school because we'd rather just more, you know, train you in the two years here. We'll give you more skills. So I look back, it's the only kind of job I've ever had since then. I wasn't very good at it and I wasn't very successful at it.

And I didn't have the skills to navigate a large organization. What do I mean by that? I was literally too insecure. People go into a conference room and I would think they were talking about me. I resented anybody senior to me that I think was as smart as me. And the reality is they're probably as smart or smarter. I was just too immature to navigate a corporate environment. And if you can navigate a corporate environment on a risk-adjusted basis,

it's a better place to get wealthy. You know, the guy who was my boss is now the vice chairman, and I think he's probably made hundreds of millions of dollars and had much less tumult and indigestion than I've had as an entrepreneur up and down and up and down. And so the American corporation is still the greatest wealth generator in history. And you do need skills to navigate it. You've got to be mature.

Occasionally, there's going to be injustice. Someone not as smart or talented in you is going to get promoted over you. You're going to have to put up with bullshit. You're going to have to get emails telling you that we've changed this approach. You don't even know why, and it makes no sense. It just, there's that. In exchange, they'll remove that mole for you. They'll give you health insurance.

You get rich slowly. They have their incredible platform. for creating shareholder value. You meet a lot of smart people. So I think that entrepreneurship is vastly overrated and the corporate world is vastly underrated because it's just cooler and sexier to start your own business,

ignoring the fact that six out of seven businesses aren't around in about seven years or small businesses. So I got a lot out of it. It's kind of like, again, serving in the Marines. I'm glad I did it past tense. I still think that working for a corporation right out of school, if they have some sort of formal training program,

It's a fantastic way to meet peers, get a good training, get a good swift kick in the ass, deepen your skills. And if you're like me and you don't like it, that's a blessing too. I think your 20s are about figuring out not only what you like, but what you don't like. You want to workshop your 20s to figure out what you're good at. So, and to just be around that quality of human capital that Morgan Stanley was able to attract was hugely beneficial for me. And my two, there were three analysts in my department in Los Angeles. One went into the fish business and rolled up a bunch of fish distribution companies in Chicago and then sold to private equity.

The other guy is a personal wealth manager in Connecticut. And then one of my other analysts in my class went on to be the CEO of Helmand and Friedman at the age of 40 or 45. I think he's probably the most successful among us. And I'm sure a lot of people went on to do it. Another guy owns my stalemate. Another guy is a private equity guy and he owns, God, a boat company. I forget what it's called. I tell myself, Hinkley.

You know, it's Hinkley's. They're like picnic boat. Anyways, so I think these two-year or three-year analyst programs, at least for me, were hugely accruive. I get what you're saying around showing up with more discipline. If I'd shown up with some of the skills you described, I would have been more successful there. But I still think you get a lot from those formal training programs at high-calibre companies.

The basic compact with those companies and young people, is we own your ass. You're going to have no balance in your life. You're going to work insanely. It's almost borderline abusive. But in exchange, we're going to pay you more than your parents made when they were 10 years older than you. And guess what? A lot of young people will raise their hand and they want that. They want that tradeoff. I wanted that. I just wanted to make money and I wanted to develop a skill set in contact so I could make more money. So the most successful organizations in the world typically have that type, at least economically, have that compact with their employees. And that is you're going to sacrifice a lot. and we're going to move you further faster here.

And there's a lot of people to sign up for that. I don't care if it's Disney, Goldman Sachs, McKinsey. You know, these are, you know, go to meta and see what your hours are like, at least in the growth stages or the early days. Is that sustainable? Typically not over the long term. Is it? I don't know.

It's just a different culture. It's just what you're looking for. But I think that apprentice culture are going to work for a great brand. If you have access to those platforms, if you can get into a J.B. Morgan or a Bain, quite frankly, I think you need to opt towards yes because you're not going to go do a two-year analyst program at Bain when you're 40. It's a unique time.

You don't have dogs or kids or spouses. You can work your ass off, get a lot of experience. And I've carried that brand on my forehead for several decades now, and I think it's served me well. I think people take me more seriously when I talk about the credit markets because I did work in fixed income

in investment bank. That was a word salad. I appreciate the question. That's all for this episode. If you'd like to submit a question, please email a voice recording to Office Hours of Propton Media.com. Again, that's Office Hours of Propton Media.com. Or if you prefer to ask on Reddit, just post your question on the Scott Galloway subreddit, and we might feature it in an upcoming episode.

This episode was produced by Jennifer Sanchez and Laura Jinnar. Camerica is our social producer. Brad Williams is our editor. And Drew Burroughs is our technical director. Thank you for listening to the PropGPod from Propvgy Media.