The Prof G Pod with Scott Galloway - Prof G Markets: Is Google a Buy? + Is Uber Recession Proof?

Episode Date: May 12, 2025

Scott and Ed discuss Trump’s new trade framework with the U.K., the Federal Reserve’s latest decision, and the Melania coin grift. Then they take a look at Apple’s potential move to replace Google as Safari’s default search engine, unpacking the ripple effects on Google’s stock. Ed lays out his case for why the company is deeply undervalued. Finally, they break down Uber’s latest earnings and explain why certain societal factors make them particularly optimistic about the company’s future. Subscribe to the Prof G Markets newsletter  Order "The Algebra of Wealth," out now Subscribe to No Mercy / No Malice Follow the podcast across socials @profgpod: Instagram Threads X Reddit Follow Scott on InstagramFollow Ed on Instagram and X Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Support for the show comes from Mercury, the fintech that more than 200,000 entrepreneurs use to simplify their finances. When banking can do more, your business can do more. With Mercury, you can watch your revenue climb with every invoice you send. You can stay current with contractors with built-in bill pay. You can unlock the credit you need to scale faster. Check it out for yourself at mercury.com. Mercury, banking that does more. Mercury is a financial technology company, not a bank. Banking services provided by Choice Financial Group, Column N.A., and Evolve Bank and Trust, members FDIC. The IO card is issued by Patriot Bank, member FDIC, pursuant to a license from MasterCard. There you are, pushing your newborn baby

in a stroller through the park. The first time out of the house in weeks. You have your Starbucks venti, because, you know, sleep deprivation. You meet your best friend, she asks you how it's going, you immediately begin to laugh, then cry, then laugh cry. That's totally normal, right? She smiles, you hug. There's no one else you'd rather share this with. You know, three and a half hours sleep is more than enough. Starbucks, it's never just coffee.

Over the last 20 years, at-home DNA tests have helped millions of people connect with family members they didn't know they had. I want to see someone else whose face looks like mine. I want to see someone else whose face looks like mine. I want to see someone else whose eyes look like mine. So what happens to all the genetic data for all those Americans if the company goes away? That's this week on Explain It To Me. New episodes every Sunday wherever you get your podcasts. Hey, ProfG listeners, it's Ed. If you're hearing this message, it's because you're still listening on the ProfG Pod feed, which means you are missing half of our episodes, which are on the ProfG Markets feed. So, for all of the content, head over to the ProfG Markets podcast and hit follow.

We've also left a link in the description to make it easier. You'll see it's a different logo. ProfG Pod is turquoise with Scott's face. ProfG Markets is green with me and Scott's face. Proffesy markets is green with me and Scott's face. Thank you. I'll see you over on the other feed. Today's number $200 billion. That's how much Bill Gates plans to give away to philanthropies over the next 20 years. True story, Ed. All of Bill Gates nannies supposedly quit and went to work for Steve Jobs. And he was reported to say, fucking jobs coming for our immigrants.

Get it? Little turn of phrase there. Little twist of phrase, little, little semantic humor there. How are you Ed? I'm doing pretty well. Did you, did you come up with that joke? Did you find that you Ed? I'm doing pretty well. Did you, did you come up with that joke? Did you find that joke? Nothing I do is original Ed.

Really? Okay, it's an interesting joke to be floating out there in the ether, very specific to our business. Yeah, nothing I do is original. A greatness is in the agency of others. I'm like, I'm like a less wealthy form of China. I steal a lot of IP and I repackage it as my own. And then I export it back to, uh, to other people via this podcast.

Exactly. It's a winning strategy. There you go. You're back in New York, right? I am. It's such a beautiful day here. It's great. I just got nice just in time for you.

You're very lucky. God, it's gorgeous. Yeah. No, it's, it's nice. I went to Shea Margot last night to see black coffee. And of course I went home before he came out. I'm like, did you, how was that? Well, I's nice. I went to Shea Margot last night to see Black Coffee, and of course I went home before he came out. I'm like... Did you? How was that? Well, I was fear... I've turned into that guy.

I'm like, when's he coming out? I pay all this money for a table. And then like, he comes out at midnight. I'm like, what? I like made reservations at like 6 p.m. for dinner. But did you stick around to see him? I stuck around for like 10 minutes. I was whacked. Do you like that kind of music? That's the kind of music I listen to. Oh yeah? I should have taken you, but I don't want to spend any time with you. But...

But the thought is there. The thought is there. It's the thought that counts. God, this is a deusy conversation. Anyways, I'm going to see Calvin Harris and I've seen Kygo and all these like kind of... I know every one of the DJ community is like so disgusted with me because I like I like the equivalent of Britney Spears of DJs I like the big popular ones yeah who are the DJs you listen to I'm a big black coffee fan you were a fan of Rufus de Sol for a while I'm a huge that's

sort of like the other Britney Spears figure in in DJ world but I'm a huge Rufus de Sol fan as well I used to listen to Rufus DeSoul every night and then I realized I was getting more and more depressed and I wondered if it was Rufus DeSoul and I stopped listening to it. It's like too emotional for you? It's just too like, duh, duh. It's pretty intense, yeah.

It's very like, oh, we're in a dystopia, maybe you should kill yourself. I know about that. It's a dystopia. I'm not sure. It's pretty rough, but I actually saw Rufus DeSole at the Miami Electra Festival. And all I could think about when I was there, I thought I am getting too old for music festivals. Cause all I could think about is where's the nearest fire safety route.

You know, that's what running through my head. I couldn't enjoy it. Anyways, enough of that shit. Get to the headlines. Let's start with our weekly review of market vitals. The S&P 500 rose. The dollar climbed. Bitcoin breached $100,000 for the first time since February. And the yield on 10-year Treasuries was relatively stable. Shifting to the headlines. President Trump announced a framework for a trade deal with the UK that will lower tariffs on British cars while maintaining the broader 10% tariff on imports.

The two countries have not finalized a deal but will supposedly work to do so in the coming weeks. The Federal Reserve kept interest rates steady but cautioned that rising tariffs could fuel both higher inflation and increased unemployment. Jerome Powell said he won't rush to cut rates without greater clarity on trade policy. Nonetheless, all three major indices closed higher on that news. And finally, a handful of traders made nearly $100 million dollars buying Melania Trump's meme coin, just before its launch. They then quickly offloaded their positions with 81% of their sales occurring within the

first 12 hours. Okay, well, we'll start with this UK trade deal that Trump announced. It was kind of a lot of pomp and circumstance around this. And then the trade deal came out and they had this press conference that Keir Starmer was featured on. And my sense is they haven't really ironed anything out. I mean, from, from what I understand, from what I gather, we're going to reduce the auto tariffs on the UK from 25% to 10%, the standard 10% tariffs

that we have and all these other nations, that's going to remain in place. But there are a lot of things that actually there was just disagreement on. I mean, for example, the UK, they thought that the US was going to drop these steel and aluminum tariffs to zero. And then the US came out and said, no, we're negotiating an alternative arrangement. There was also confusion over this, this tax that the UK charges on social media companies and whether that was going to go away or not. And that's not ironed out either. There's also talk about expanding access to beef and having this reciprocal trade agreement on beef. All of these details that I was trying to just understand and be like, okay, what is the deal?

What is the UK getting and what is America getting? I couldn't really glean much and maybe that'll change over the next few days. Maybe they'll actually iron something out. But from everything I can understand about this quote unquote trade deal, this agreement, nothing's really been determined. Yeah, I was confused by this. At first I thought, OK, their big win

is they're going to get them to drop the tariffs. The UK is going to have to drop the tariffs on digital services. And so again, the UK is gonna have to drop the tariffs on digital services. And so again, the biggest corporations with lobbyists and you're given million dollars to Trump, get their tariffs dropped, but small businesses. Don't as far as I can tell. And we've had this thesis for a long time that the net net of all of this shit is almost zero.

Okay. So they're going to drop tariffs on this, but increase here. I think this guy is looking for any reason to claim victory, and we're gonna end up in the same, or maybe even worse, because the people negotiating these deals based on what I understand, or what I've seen at the administration, is that they're fucking idiots.

We don't have our best and brightest doing this shit. You know, the analogy I use, I don't know if you saw me, I was in Anderson Cooper last night at CNN. I did. I saw your segment. And I was so bummed out cause the, the only like one talking point I wanted to get out, I wasn't able to get out and it's the following. I don't mind a certain amount of corruption in our government.

I think sometimes civil disobedience and corruption can actually be leadership. What do I mean by that? FDR sent munitions and armaments to Europe without congressional approval. He violated the constitution. I thought it was real leadership at the end of the day. I thought he saw it as such an existential threat, he thought, you know, fuck it, I'm going to do this behind the backs of Congress. You know, as long as you're right. The thing I find most disappointing about what is this ridiculous tariffing in the corruption here is that we essentially have a mob boss. We have a mob family running the government right now. Okay, that's bad.

What's worse is that Michael Corleone is running the grift and Fredo is running the government. And that is, I wish they brought the same expertise and elegance and timing to government and tariffs as they're bringing to their grift. And so every time we talk about their grift, I'm sort of impressed with how elegant and strategic it is. And then I look at this shit and I'm like, what is this Peter Navarro and his, you know, drunk advising them on, okay, we're lowering the tariffs on autos now, or so we can increase it over here, and somehow that's gonna bring back our manufacturing jobs.

So what is this? A whole lot of fucking nothing. That's what this is, your thoughts. It almost seems like the odd of the deal here. I mean, I keep on asking the question, like, what is the deal? What are we getting in return? We've gone through all of this ridiculous pain and confusion putting these tariffs out. And I keep on trying to figure out, okay, when do we win? What is the win for America?

And I was unable to find a win in the terms of the deal itself. I mean, this expanded access on beef, which is not even ironed out. It's not clear what the win is there. There was talk about the UK, the UK is going to be the winner. And I think that's the biggest thing that's happened in the terms of the deal itself. I mean, there's expanded access on beef, which is not even ironed out. It's not clear what the win is there. There was talk about the UK is gonna buy

$10 billion worth of Boeing planes, which you'd think, oh, maybe that's a good thing, but then you realize, actually, this is nothing new. The UK has been one of Boeing's largest European customers for years now, so nothing's changed there. Then there's the potential reduction of that 2% tax on the big tech companies. You know, it's a win for big tech.

If that goes through, apparently it's not going through, but then you think, okay, well, how is that going to benefit the American people? It won't. And I'm starting to think that the only win, the thing that Trump really wants, like the outcome of the art of the deal, it's ultimately just a press release. He starts all this chaos, he does all this stuff, and we're seeing it with this UK trade agreement here.

They haven't even reached a deal. What he mostly wants though is to go out to the public and say, hey, look, we have this big beautiful deal. What's the deal? Oh, don't worry about it, but all you need to know is it's big and beautiful. And he did the same thing with the stock market where he tanked the stock market after liberation day. And then a few days later, when he pulled the tariffs back and the stock market ripped, he said, look, auto the deal. Look, it's a fantastic day. One of the best days in the history of the stock market. So I'm starting to think that all he really wants is a symbolic and visual win in the form of a

press release. Trump is all about appearances, full stop. And I think the best thing that could happen for our military is if Pete Hexheth started going bald and gained 30 pounds, because I think the only reason he's still in the job is because he's handsome and seriously, I think. I know, I agree. By the way, Scaramucci told me the same thing. I think Trump likes the idea of this like big handsome guy running the defense department. And the guy that took the fall

was not as attractive as Hegseth. And so this guy is all about appearances, is not about confidence. How do I get a press release? How do I look good? Is it time for my spray tan? I mean, it just, again, anyway, fuck, let's go on to the next story. Yeah, let's talk about this Fed decision. Jerome Powell is keeping interest rates steady. Just the backdrop and the context here, Trump has been calling for Powell to cut rates. He obviously threatened to fire him and then he walked that back.

But then on Sunday, before the interest rate decision, which came out on Wednesday, on Sunday, Trump said, quote, we have a stubborn Fed. He should lower them. He being Powell and them being interest rates. What do you know? He didn't lower them. Trump also highlighted his concerns about what these tariffs will do to economic growth and more specifically what it will do to inflation, which is obviously the thing he's

trying to get under control. I think probably the most interesting to me though was that the expectations for a rate cut, which most traders believe will happen in July, that actually came down a little bit. There was an 80% probability of a rate cut coming in July, and that came down to 70%. So the net net is there is less of an expectation that we will get rate cuts soon in the summer, but it's still sort of a high probability. They think 70%, that's what the markets believe.

I'm gonna take the other side of this. The vibe I got here was that Powell is extremely cautious. He said the words wait and see 11 times in the press conference. I think what he's doing is he's clearly waiting to get the data. He wants to see what is the actual impact of these tariffs. And we haven't seen that yet. So my prediction after this press conference, I think we're not going to see a rate cut

until September because I think Jerome Powell is waiting for more data. Specifically, I think he wants to see the Q2 GDP report, and that's not going to come out until the end of July. And my view is only then will he decide that he has enough data to actually make a decision, which would mean that the next time that he could potentially cut rates, if that's all true, would be September. It could be possibly even later, but my prediction, this isn't going to happen. We're not going to get any cuts until September at least.

The biggest fear, right, is that we continue to see inflation and the economy slows. That's called stagflation. It hasn't happened since the 70s. That is the scariest thing for a Fed chair. And if that happens, they will raise interest dramatically as they had to do in the 70s and they will throw jobs to the wolves, to the fire, and they will create huge unemployment to tame inflation because unemployment creates a change in governments. Inflation can start wars. In know, inflation can literally create chaos. When, if it spins out of control and people think,

well, I need to buy lunch right now, or buy bread right now, because it's going to be 10% more expensive next week, you lose control of it. Because no one wants to hold on to money and you just have too much money chasing goods and it can just, it can crash an economy. So when he sees, okay, maybe the economy is slowing down.

It doesn't appear to be. So we're not going to cut interest rates and inflation based on what this guy's going to do or not do. I can't predict his blood sugar level, but in case there is inflation, no, we're not bringing, we're not bringing interest rates down. Let's talk about Melania Coin. So the Financial Times did this great analysis. I'm so glad that journalistic institutions are doing this because it's so important.

24 anonymous accounts purchased Melania Coin before Melania Coin was announced. And per this analysis from the FT, those guys made $100 million. There was one wallet that bought $681,000 worth of Melania coin 64 seconds before the project was announced. And within 24 hours, that account had made $39 million selling those coins. It then made another four and a half million selling the rest of the coins over the next three days. Just unbelievable, historic levels of grift. We've been saying from the very beginning, since the beginning of Trump coin, our Melania coin, how awful this is.

We're now seeing the data coming in and showing us numerically. What's so bad about this, Scott, what more is there to even say about Melania coin or Trump Coin? We are in the midst of the greatest grift in history in terms of size and the amount of money that's being grifted. This is a family that has increased their net worth a billion dollars a month since they became president. And the pattern across all of these coins, whether it's the Trump coin or the Melania coin or the new World Financial Liberty coin token, I think, is simple. A small group of insiders get word of him

either announcing a dinner or announcing the coin. They pile in with big trades and then they dump and then a bunch of retail investors who think, who may be fans of the Trump administration come in and they get smoked. There was someone who made a shit ton of money as you highlighted on the Melania Con and since then it's lost 96% of its value. I remember reading that 33 people at the very beginning of the Trump coin that was launched the Friday before inauguration under the cover of dark because there was so much news and so much noise.

Thirty-three of them made several hundred million dollars. And by the way, three-quarters of those wallets are international wallets. And then I think something like 800,000 people, as you and Mia pointed out, have gone on to lose billions. A kleptocracy is a small number of people with proximity to power, oligarchs, who get inside information and advantage. This is making Putin blush. There has never been a president or prime minister who's been able to aggregate a billion

dollars a month in these types of gains. And then people say, well, he hasn't sold any coins yet. They've made $300 million just in fees because they take fees in terms of trading also we don't even know i mean there are so many accounts like all these accounts are anonymous so like we don't we don't really know if they haven't sold i just want to solutions because i'm sick of crying into tiktok or threads or whatever i believe that the democrats need to draft legislation, propose it, it will not pass, that says anyone participating in this grift, these people at World Trade Liberty Financial or whoever it is,

you know, be clear, he might pardon himself and his kids, but if you don't get a presidential pardon and you took place in anything ranging from ICE raids that illegally incarcerated US citizens to engaging in a grift, the statute of limitations is more than three years and nine months. We're coming for your ass. As opposed to all of us just saying, wow, it's the biggest grift in history. I know we're going to be right. I'm fairly confident we're going to be right. And then they sail off into the sunset. Okay, the president's probably going to get off here. He'll pardon himself.

He doesn't care. Fine. But I would start sending a chill down the spine of all the people who are enabling this, including his advisors, including members of Congress, that if you are engaged in this grift, and this is a grift, let me, let me back up. The definition of insider trading or really what insider trading is, is it's asymmetry of information. And the reason why we have those laws

is that if just a small group of insiders are making money at the expense of everyone else, then everyone else stops investing in the markets. They stop buying stock, they stop investing in bonds and corporate America no longer has access to cheap capital and the people who own those shares don't get as wealthy because people stop trusting the markets. What we see everywhere here is asymmetry of information

where people close to the president have an unfair trading advantage, and it comes at the cost of people that don't have inside information, that don't have proximity to the president. And what this means is that people are less inclined to invest in US markets. We've already seen this, the rivers of capital into the US, both human and financial have a reverse flow.

As you've pointed out, EU index funds have had their greatest inflows in the last 30 years. Why? Because they're flowing out of the US. German, the Bunds, the German bonds are decreasing in cost. Germans can now borrow money to lower interest rate because people don't think their government is fucking corrupt. And ours are teetering or consistently feel like pressure that they're going up,

which means our student loans, our mortgages, our auto loans are going to get more expensive, but a small number of people are going to get really fucking rich. Senator Warren summarized it perfectly. And this is how you push back on this type of kleptocracy. She said, they're getting richer and you're losing your health care. Us talking about 75% of these wallets being in international domains, people don't get it and they don't care.

But when you start saying, okay, folks, you're about to lose your health care, but these people are getting really, really fucking rich, or the stock start saying, okay, folks, you're about to lose your health care, but these people are getting really, really fucking rich or the stock market is going down and the only people making money are the ones that get to pay a million and a half bucks and come and say, Oh, by the way, we're about to announce tomorrow a new, you know, a new dinner for the coin or something like that. People start to connect the dots. And I hope that's going to start to happen because I do think it's coming out

and people are starting to wrap their head around the fact that this is the biggest grift in history. It hurts them. They will end up paying more for their mortgage. Their stocks will go down. The thing that infuriates me, I totally agree. We need to actually take action. Like we can talk about how it's a big grift,

but how are we actually going to address this? Like, how do we, how will we see justice for what is clearly, just look at it, it's like criminal behavior. I think it really frustrates me. This is all in the domain of the SEC. It's the SEC's job to regulate insider trading and to prosecute it. And the trouble is, everything he's doing because of the fact that we have not established any proper regulation on crypto, so far it's legal. And that's why they're doing it. And this is why I've always called the crypto industry legal crime.

This is criminal behavior. However, our legislation, as of now, we don't have words to describe it. So it exists outside of the domain of the law. And the justification for why people will say, oh, this is legal, or the legal justification is, these aren't securities, these are memes. So it falls outside of the purview of the SEC because the SEC is supposed to be regulating securities. And my response is like, okay, it's not a security, it doesn't pass the Howie test because it's not actually buying into a business, it's some meme, it's like Beanie Babies, whatever.

I don't really fucking care. All I know is that people's money is being stolen through this financial grift. So do whatever you have to do. Why not just create a new bucket, create a new legal bucket, call it meme coins and say, you're not allowed to do this. You're not allowed to inside a trade on these meme coins. But the trouble is we're not going to see any of that. We barely saw it with Gary Gensler's SEC, where I actually think he didn't go hard enough on crypto. He just sort of sat there and then everyone said,

oh, Gary Gensler's against the crypto industry because there's no regulatory uncertainty. But if he were to get real with it, he'd say this shit is fucking illegal. The trouble is, the new head of the SEC, Paul Atkins, he's an outwardly pro crypto guy. He founded a crypto advisory firm. He was the chair of this crypto advocacy group under the Chamber of Digital Commerce. He was literally hired to let all of this happen. That was the whole point of his appointment.

So I wish we could get our act together, but I got to say the way things are trending and when you look at who's in charge of the SEC and their total lack of action so far, I mean, this guy should be speaking out. He should be up in arms about this. If he cared about regulating, if he was a proper SEC chairman, he'd be all over the news talking about how terrible this is, but he isn't because his job is to not talk about it. The Department of Justice was freaked out enough to assemble a group of people and they

were going to work in conjunction with the SEC that pursued criminal fraud specific to the crypto industry. They had a division and on April the 8th, the Trump administration disbanded that division. They said, we'd just rather not have people poking around and looking for evidence of fraud in the crypto market given that we have just launched two coins. Yeah, pro-business, let people grift each other. And the latest grift, I mean, speaking of what's for sale,

there's now the World Liberty Financial Token that Eric and Don are taking over or involved in. Justin Su, who is being pursued for criminal fraud by either the DOJ or the SEC, invested $75 million in World Liberty financial token. And guess what happened? He was pardoned. And I'd like to see some people confront him on it. I mean, the lack of confrontation on Trump on this issue specifically, which, as I've said, is completely inexcusable. You can't steel man it. No one's asking him questions.

Like I've seen maybe one reporter when Trump coin was announced who asked him a little bit about it. Like, what is it? And he basically said, Oh, I don't really know. Like he just didn't really have a response. Like, oh, I launched it. I think it went well, right? I think it went well. Yeah, I don't really know what's going on with that.

Like, why aren't people fucking confronting this guy? Yeah, my favorite was, do you have a responsibility to uphold the constitution? I don't know, I need to check with my lawyers. Yeah, right. I'm not sure. It's unbelievable. I'm so done with the crypto industry.

And I'm also so done with the argument where they say, well, this isn't the real crypto industry. Actually, it is the real crypto industry. If you look at the crypto industry, this is where all the action is taking place. It's happening in the meme coins, it's happening in the Trump coin, it's the dinners at the White House, it's the VIP tours of the Capitol. This is the crypto industry. So enough with this argument where you say,

oh, this isn't really us, it is you. And you're the same guys who donated to this guy to make sure that these guys wouldn't be regulated. It's a hundred percent the crypto industry. Maybe we'll make some concessions for Bitcoin, but we need to stop using that as an excuse to let people do illegal things. It's just, it's so bad and it's so shameless.

I'm just so shocked that people aren't more upset about it. You're shocked, you're shocked. I love that. I love your moral clarity on this. I like that you're this young person who hates crypto. Yeah, because it's terrible and it's so obvious. There you go. We'll be right back after the break

with a look at Apple's Safari shift. If you're enjoying the show so far, be sure to give Proficy Market a follow wherever you get your podcasts. Support for the show comes from the Fundrise Flagship Fund. For decades, real estate has been a cornerstone of the world's largest portfolios, but it's also historically been complex, time-consuming and expensive. But imagine if real estate investing was suddenly easy, all the benefits of owning real, tangible assets without the complexity and expense.

That's the power of the Fundrise Flagship Real Estate Fund. Now you can invest in a 1.1 billion dollar portfolio of real estate starting with as little as $10. 4700 single-family rental homes spread across the booming Sunbelt, 3.3 million square feet of highly sought-after industrial facilities thanks to the e-commerce wave. The flagship fund is one of the largest of its kind, well-diversified, and managed by a team of professionals. And now it's available to you. Visit fundrise.com slash profg to explore the fund's full portfolio.

Check out historical returns and start investing in just minutes. Carefully consider the investment objectives, risk charges, and expenses of the Fundrise flagship fund before investing. This and other information can be found in the fund's prospectus at fundrise.com slash flagship. This is a paid advertisement. Support for the show comes from public.com. All right.

And if you're serious about investing, you need to know about public.com. That's where you can invest in everything, stocks, options, bonds and more. They even offer some of the highest yields in the industry, including the bond account's 6% or higher yield that remains locked in even if the Fed cuts rates. With Public, you can get the tools you need to make informed investment decisions. Their built-in AI tools called Alpha doesn't just tell you if an asset is moving, it tells you why the asset is moving, so you can actually understand what's driving your portfolio performance. Public is a FINRA-registered, SIPC-insured, US-based company with a customer support team

that actually cares. Bottom line? Your investments deserve a platform that takes them as seriously as you do. Fund your account in 5 minutes or less at public.com slash ProfG and get up to $10,000 when you transfer your old portfolio. That's public.com slash provgy. Paid for by Public Investing, all investing involves the risk of loss,

including loss of principal, brokered services for U.S. listed registered securities, options and bonds, and a self-directed account are offered by Public Investing Inc., member FINRA and SIPC. Complete disclosures available at public.com slash disclosures. I should also disclose I am an investor in public.

When does fast grocery delivery through Instacart matter most? When your famous grainy mustard potato salad isn't so famous without the grainy mustard. When the barbecue's lit, but there's nothing to grill. When the in- decide that, actually, they will stay for dinner. Instacart has all your groceries covered this summer, so download the app and get delivery in as fast as 60 minutes. Plus enjoy $0 delivery fees on your first three orders. Service fees exclusions and terms apply. Instacart. Groceries that over-deliver.

We're back with Profit-U Markets. Google stock fell 9% after Apple SVP Eddie Kew testified that Apple may begin integrating AI search engines like Perplexity into Safari. Speaking during the DOJ's antitrust case against Google, Eddie Kew revealed that Safari saw a decline in search volume for the first time last month, a shift that he attributed to users turning to AI-powered search tools. While he said Google should remain the default for Safari, Kue believes AI search tools will eventually replace traditional search

engines. So this is a huge deal in terms of what it did to Google stock. Google stock fell 9%, wiped out around a quarter of a trillion dollars in market value. And let me just, I just want to clarify, like, what are the implications of what this random dude at Apple said in this testimony, in this antitrust case? So the first is that according to him, Google searches are declining for the first time First is that, according to him, Google searches are declining for the first time on Apple devices as measured by search entries on Safari, which of course is the default app browser on Apple devices. So that's the first thing.

The second thing, he said he thought that AI tools like OpenAI and Perplexity and Anthropic, that they are eventually going to replace Google and that Apple is now focusing on AI-based search. And the third thing is that he seems to be signaling that this 20 billion dollar per year contract between Google and Apple, remember Google pays Apple 20 billion dollars a year to be the default option when you search things on on your Apple device, when you're searching for things on Safari. He seems to be signaling that after when it's all said and done in this antitrust trial,

that that contract will be outlawed, that the Google $20 billion per year contract with Apple will no longer exist. So many implications that are happening here as a result of these comments and Wall Street really did not like it. I mean 9% drop in Google stock that is a huge drop when you're looking at a two trillion dollar plus company. So Scott any reactions to what's happened here to Google any reactions to Eddie Q's comments in this testimony what do you think of this news? It's great to be a monopoly. And when something threatens your monopoly power,

it takes the stock down. And also, I think this was, I think people felt that this might expedite the transfer of market share from Alphabet to chat GPT. There's been talk even about potentially open AI bidding for Chrome if they're forced to spin it. And so it feels like momentum has its own momentum and things are not great for Alphabet. And one, that's an incredible high margin payment, $20 billion a year.

And Google, it does feel like open AI is an existential threat. I would argue that Google or Alphabet is the cheapest. If I were going to put money into one of those companies right now, I'd be tempted to go for growth in Metta, but I can't morally reconcile investing in Metta. What I just don't get is if the S&P trades at 24, I think it's just hard to understand how Alphabet is not in the top median of companies in terms of growth and it's trading at 17.

So to me, Alphabet feels like the least expensive of them. You had, I think a great stat and that is as of today, Google is registering 353 times as many searches as OpenAI. Let me put it this way, the carcass is bleeding, but this is going to be a big carcass for a long, long time. I'm hard agree with you on this. Just want to like, I mean, first, it might be worth asking, like, why exactly is Wall Street selling? And there's so many different reasons. I mean, is it because they believe Google will be broken up? Is it because they believe Google needs this partnership with Apple to dominate in search? Is it because they believe or because they learned that the search volume on safaris going down? Is it because Apple is moving into AI and maybe

that's evidence that AI based search is going to kill traditional search? I mean, all of these questions, and my guess is it's sort of this combination of all of these things. And I like what you said, like momentum has momentum. It's almost like all of the uncertainty around those questions kind of turbocharged this pessimism surrounding Google. And that's why you saw this massive devaluation of the stock. But I do want to like step back and look at the valuation and

more specifically look at it vis-a-vis the sum of its parts. And I just want to clarify this is sort of a very quick rough and dirty valuation but I think it's helpful in understanding what's going on here. So Google Cloud is a 43 billion dollar business. If we were to apply a comparable multiple, say of Oracle, which trades at eight times sales, then you're looking at $350 billion in market cap. You look at YouTube, $54 billion business. Give it a Netflix multiple of 12x, that's a $650 billion market cap. Then there's all of the other stuff

that Google makes money off of, like Google One and Google Health and Waymo and the Google phone. But for the sake of this argument, let's just not even include them. So let's just be very conservative. Let's look at cloud. Let's look at YouTube. Those businesses, you're looking at a market cap of a trillion dollars, which means that under those assumptions, the search business, which generates $200 billion in revenue per year, that business is trading at the current price at around probably less four times sales. Because I remember I didn't even include all those other

businesses and the other bets that Google's getting into. And granted, this is a quick and dirty analysis. But my sense is that when you look at the company, when you do a sum of parts analysis, I think the search business here is massively undervalued. What I think is happening, I think the market's gotten a little too carried away with this whole AI is replacing Google thesis. I mean, you look at how the market reacted to this news. They're basically saying that Google search is doomed. And what they seem to be ignoring is, one,

the fact that Google search is actually still growing when you look at revenue. And two, Google is also investing heavily in AI. Like they're not out of the AI race. And so the idea that you hear these comments from some Apple executive, and then you suddenly decide Google search is over, to me that is exuberant,ering on irrational and it seems also to

ignore all of Google's other growth investments. So I think Google is way undervalued right now. If you're thinking about buying Google, I would argue the time to buy is right now. It's gotten crushed year to date down almost 20%. It's trading at its cheapest levels in a decade, 17 times earnings. Compared to the S&P, which is trading at its cheapest levels in a decade, 17 times earnings. Compared to the S&P, which is trading at like 25, 26. Google, it's a juggernaut tech company, and yet it's being valued today like it was like a dying industrials company.

Yeah, I love that, some of the parts analysis. I used to do that when I was an activist investor and go in and get board seats and tell them to break up and they'd say, fuck off. And then I'd leave. Not gateway though. Yeah, they sold. They sold. What a baller. Gateway. Anyways, I would say if you really did a hard analysis, Google or the Google search business is being valued at two to three times revenues. Pinterest is three times revenues. So Google is just a

better business than Pinterest. The thing we're not talking about that I'm increasingly thinking is about to happen that I think we're on the verge of the autonomous wars. And autonomous is going to create a massive amount of excitement. It was supposed to happen, supposed to happen, supposed to happen, didn't happen, supposed to happen, didn't, didn't, didn't. People have just sort of like constantly sick of rolling their eyes. It feels like it's happening.

And it's going to reshape transportation and the unit economics of last mile. And there'll be a ton of excitement. And hands down, the leader is Waymo. Just one other implication that I want to get your take on. You know, I think one of the reasons Wall Street is freaking out is just the possibility of a breakup. You've made this point before, but I just think it's worth highlighting again,

that like breakups can actually be really good for shareholders. Like I feel like there's this feeling in the investment community that if you break up a company, it's like you're almost seizing's this feeling in the investment community that if you break up a company, it's like you're almost seizing people's shares in the company. You're just making them poor overnight. They're not acknowledging that actually, no, all it means is you're separating out these business segments into different companies. You're still going to keep your shares.

It's just the shares are going gonna be spread across multiple companies. And you've made this point, and Matt Stoller has made this point in his newsletter, that this can actually be value accretive for shareholders. You look at Standard Oil, which got broken up. It ended up creating Exxon and Mobil and Conoco and Chevron, all these other companies. And Rockefeller, he ended up quintupling his wealth.

Like the shareholders of Standard Oil did incredibly well after that breakup. And it feels to me that maybe the market's sort of forgotten that, and they're not really considering that. They're considering this breakup concept to be this existential threat that would just kill Google overnight.

I'm not considering that there's actually like, there's upside risk here too. It could be value accretive for the company. You're singing for my Himbo brother. I think that if you look at the history of breakups, you know, PayPal used to be the payment system within eBay. It's now worth more. It's now worth twice as much as eBay.

Every one of the seven baby bells in the AT&T breakup was worth more than the original AT&T within 10 years. So breakups almost always work for shareholders. And if the way you find alpha and dislocation here is if the wolves really circle for meta or for alphabet and the stock goes down, I think that's an enormous buying opportunity because it's not like the asset is taken away

from those shareholders, the shareholders own a proportionate amount in that new co. And so all of a sudden, and then you get diversification. I used to own a share of Alphabet. Now I own one share of Alphabet and three shares are of Google and three shares of YouTube and two shares in Waymo, however they decided they wanted to break it up. And the reality is a spin of assets that creates more pure plays is a creative to share all this. Because here's the thing, I don't need Alphabet to diversify for me. I would like the opportunity to just buy a pure play YouTube. I would like that. I'm not sure I want me at Waymo. Maybe I do, maybe I don't. Maybe I don't want to invest in Google or maybe I do want to invest in a cheap Google

because people think it's declining, whatever it is. We don't need conglomerates to diversify for us. We can diversify on our own. So I think that is a huge opportunity and just thinking about this, I keep saying I'm going to sell everything and invest in European stocks. I might do a little dribble into Alphabet, into the Alpha to the everything and invest in European stocks. I might do a little dribble

into alphabet, into the alpha to the bet and see what happens here. There we go. You've talked me into it. There we go. Coming back to America. We'll be right back after the break with a look at Uber's earnings. If you're enjoying the show so far, hit follow and leave us a review on Proffesgy Markets. Okay, all right. When a core's light is cold enough, the mountains on the can turn blue. So the next time you want a cold lager, cold filter, cold package, core's light, just wait until those glorious mountains on the can turn blue.

It's easy to say that fast when you're freezing gold. Harvey Weinstein is back in court this week and appeals court overturned his 2020 conviction in New York saying he hadn't gotten a fair trial. And so his accusers must now testify again. Weinstein has always had very good lawyers but the court of public opinion was against him. Until now, it seems.

At the beginning of this case, I concluded that Harvey Weinstein was wrongfully convicted and was basically just hung on the Me Too thing. The commentator Candace Owens, who has previously defended Kanye and Andrew Tate... Andrew Tate and his brother were actually a response to a misandrist culture. Women that hated men. Before Andrew Tate, there was Lena Dunham. ...has taken up Weinstein's cause and it seems to be gaining her followers.

Coming up on Today Explained when Candice met Harvey. We're back with Profgy Markets. Uber's first quarter earnings largely beat expectations, but the stock dropped more than 2% as revenue and gross bookings fell short of forecasts. Still CEO Dara Koshrasahi noted there are no signs of weakening consumer sentiment. He also highlighted efforts to lower prices and said autonomous vehicles are quote, the single greatest opportunity ahead for Uber. I'll give some of my initial reactions

to these earnings here. You know, they missed on revenue, but barely. It was 11.5 billion versus what Wall Street wanted, which was 11.6. But it was still up 14% from a year earlier. I think that's fantastic growth. I think the real highlight to me, which was honestly a little surprised to see the stock drop, uh, was the bottom line where they had 83 cents per share in,

in EPS versus 50 cents expected. And that was a big beat. And you know, I think, I think this is the most important piece of the Uber business right now. I mean, for years it was all about growth, growth, growth, revenue, revenue, revenue. But the question now is, can this company, or at least the question in the past two or three years, can this company figure out a way to get profitable?

That was the big concern. Now they had their first ever profitable year in 2023. They followed it up again in 2024. But what we're seeing is that in 2025, it's only getting better. You look at every line item on the income statement, costs are going down across the board. And you look at the operating profitability, adjusted EBITDA is up 35% year over year.

It's really, really strong on the profitability front. So I think what I'm learning about Uber is yes, still a growth company, yes, still a tech company, it's still got significant expectations to live up to. But now that it has the scale, it feels like the model actually makes sense. And it's not this speculative bet anymore. It feels like they've kind of stripped out the risk here. And again, I'm going to be bullish on this one too. 19 times earnings, I think that's quite, quite low. I was bullish at the beginning of the year. It's up 30% year to date. I'm still bullish. I think there's a lot of room to grow here and I was very impressed by those profitability numbers.

This feels like a very solid, safe company that is also betting big on some growth vehicles. I mean, there's so many amazing CEOs running amazing companies, but I think Dara was one of them. And he took an incredible concept that Travis started and he kind of evolved the firm to sort of adult management, made some great acquisitions and Uber's just sort of running away with it. They have scale, it's well managed, he got into food delivery, he's embraced rather than saying, oh, autonomous is not

coming, he's embracing it and I think he's done deals with the biggest players. And they have almost near monopoly status. I'm trying to think in terms of actual impact on my life and consumer usage, there's very few brands that I didn't use 20 years ago that are more integrated and important in my life. I could stay at home and take Edibles and just order Ubers and just watch where the car is. I'm like, oh, it's a QXCistee. Why is he going left on Broom? I find it like enjoyable to see where my car is. You might be alone there. I'm not sure I do. When I think about it, I grew up in a time where you actually got a driver's license.

I went to the DMV with my friend Adam Arkman on my 16th birthday. He came with me because it was so important. And I've loved cars. I've spent a ridiculous amount of money on cars. I don't have a car because of Uber. And I would bet I spend $5,000 a month on, $3,000 a month on Ubers. I will take Ubers everywhere.

If I'm, I mean, I just love, I love that service. I think they do an amazing job. I didn't like the company initially because I thought they were using cheap capital and software to circumvent employment labor laws and figured out a way to get people to monetize their car as a payday loan because they were so desperate. Which was true. But they're charging more, which I think is the right thing to do. I think it's a great service. They're paying their drivers more.

I think Uber Eats is fantastic. I think Dara's done a great job. So they barely missed expectations. I would call this a meet. I think they met expectations. I think it's really hard to say they missed. It's interesting you say, I mean, I don't think you're the average consumer. I don't think most people are spending $3 five thousand dollars a month on their uber.

But where you might be indicative of the average consumer is at least this is what the market is telling us. You know, this is a pretty tariff insulated business. I mean, certainly in terms of first order effects, I mean, they're not getting tariffed on anything. But I think the question that the market, that investors should be asking is like, what are the second order effects from tariffs? What actually happens to the consumer? If prices are going up and affordability is difficult for the consumer, will Uber be impacted by those price increases in everyday items? If you're strapped for cash, are you still gonna be taking Ubers?

I think that's a question that I'm not sure I could answer, but the market seems to believe, at least so far up 30% year to date, the market seems to believe, yeah, people will still use Ubers. It's such a systemic part of, for those who take Ubers, it's such a systemic part of their lives those who take Uber, it's such a systemic part of their lives, in the same way that the market believes people

aren't gonna cut back on their Netflix subscriptions, the market seems to believe people aren't gonna cut back on riding around in an Uber. I think that's probably not gonna be true of food delivery. I think if there's one place you start cutting, it's you decide, okay, I'll probably walk to Chipotle versus having a taxi deliver my burrito to my doorstep. But it is interesting that question, like it does seem that this is

becoming so endemic to the human experience, the American human experience. At least if you live in a city, I don't want to speak for rural Americans, but if you live in New York, as an example, like yeah, you're, you're, you're, you're Ubering around a lot. I'll do four Ubers today. And to your point about, about it being stitched into, you know, societal norms and tuned to the zeitgeist of our culture, because I write a lot about young men and mating, I get served all of these TikToks with people talking about dating. And have you seen this?

One of the new litmus tests for whether a guy is worth dating is, or a new minimum table stakes for a date is did he send an Uber? To bring her to the location? Yeah, to bring the date to the dinner, yeah. Oh, fuck off, no way. Uh-oh, glad you're in a relationship. Yeah, that that's sort of an expectation now.

And I thought, I can't imagine when I was a kid, like, sending a limo for my date. I'm like, this generation has become pretty entitled. Well, he's going to send you like a Honda Accord. He's going to send you now. Because maybe you go for the Uber Lux. Look, this company would, I think this company is vulnerable to recession, but I bet it would be more, all right, I'm not going to take Uber Lux, I'm going to take UberX or whatever. I think consumers have just gotten way too used to the convenience of having a private

driver show up and drive you somewhere. I think jury's still out on that question. Like, I think the market might be being a little too optimistic. I'm cautious of how they're pricing this in terms of Netflix as well. I'm just not sure. I guess because we haven't seen how bad the tariff impact would be. But it is certainly an interesting question and it's interesting to see the market take a position,

it sounds like, in agreement with you. Let's talk a little bit about autonomous because that was a big focus. And Dara stated that it's a huge priority. I mean, just some context, as we've discussed, Uber has entered this partnership with Waymo. They've now got 100 autonomous Waymo vehicles operating in Austin that you can just order on the Uber app. On the earnings call, he said that those vehicles are now more productive than 99% of drivers in the city. They said the program has exceeded expectations.

I think the autonomous program is very exciting. I think it's a big deal. I think that's where you're gonna get this growth from Uber. The only question mark I have here on Uber and its role in autonomous, as we know, Uber was developing their own vehicles. They wanted to make their own robot cars essentially. And then they decided to scrap that. And instead what they're doing is they are entering these contracts

with Waymo. Waymo has the cars, Uber has the network, Waymo pays Uber to use the network. And it's great for Uber because it means they don't have to invest any upfront capital. They can just sort of leverage their existing technology. It's also great for Waymo because Waymo needs to focus on the hard stuff. They need to manufacture the cars and create the software. They need to make sure that these cars are actually safe and people aren't crashing. So it works right now and Uber has that leverage. My question though, just from a long-term perspective,

what happens down the line? What happens if Waymo perfects the technology and then suddenly they decide, actually we're gonna build our own network, we don't wanna pay these fees to Uber? I don't think we're anywhere close to that, but if that does happen and Uber loses that leverage, suddenly you're out of the AV race,

which as you said, the race is on now. So that's sort of the long-term question I'm thinking about. I think it poses a real incentive for Uber to maybe get back into building these vehicles in-house because if autonomous is the future of mobility, and I think it is, if you're Uber, you don't want to lose out on that market, right? Yeah, I just think the cost, when you say build the vehicles, you mean build the autonomous driving technology? Yeah.

Yeah, I just think it's such an arms race, and there's so much capital involved, that I think you're underestimating the power of the custody of the consumer, and how lazy consumers are when they get comfortable with an interface. I have uploaded all my credit cards to Uber. I understand it. And it's just super easy for me to hit it and go.

And so, I mean, essentially, Uber has become the iOS for transportation. And I'm so comfortable with it. It's so deeply integrated in my life. I understand it. My credit cards are there that I think that these guys are going to figure out a way to work together. And, you know, it's sort of like the people are,

the default operating system, you know, Android and iOS have so much power because consumers are comfortable with that UI. Or even maybe another analogy would be like, Boeing versus Delta, like Boeing's gonna make the plane, but Delta developed the network and the customer base. You're gonna book your flight with Delta. The idea of me pulling up Waymo,

that app, downloading it, uploading my credit cards, as opposed to just Uber, which has the selection, the option of autonomous, or the option of an SUV, or the option if I don't want, if I want a driver. Um, I just think they're going to be in a position to drive so much customer value that they'll be able to negotiate contracts that say, look, uh, you can't fuck us or, or, I, I think they're going about it the right way. The same way that Apple said, we're not gonna spend a ton of money

on developing our own browser instead, or our own search. We're gonna just cash a check for $20 billion from someone else and focus on other things. I think Uber actually has made the right choice. I mean, because remember initially, they were really big and autonomous and spending a lot of money on it. No, they certainly made that decision independently, yeah.

I think they're actually, I think it's a smart idea for them. I think they're gonna they're going to still be a winner here. I think there'll be room for more. I think Waymo will be a big winner here and I think Uber will also be a big winner. Let's take a look at the week ahead. We'll see earnings from Walmart, from Toyota and Alibaba. We'll also see the consumer price and producer price indices for April. Scott, do you have any predictions? So my prediction is that Alibaba is going to beat. I think that one of the knock-on effects here is that Alibaba and Chinese companies have had this overhang of being Chinese.

And I saw this data that just blew my mind. And I presented it in Hamburg, Germany yesterday. And that is that for the first time in history, when you survey people from around the globe, more of them believe that China is a force for good in the world in the US. And I just could, it just absolutely blew my mind. That's crazy. How does that drill down to Alibaba? I think that European companies and international companies have been, felt much more confident

Using American cloud providers to store their data And I think a lot of them are now reconsidering potentially using Chinese companies specifically Alibaba for their cloud needs And I think Alibaba is gonna report earnings that show especially strong growth in their cloud unit, which will give their stock a pop This episode was produced by Claire Miller and engineered by Benjamin Spencer. Our associate producer is Alison Weiss, Mia Salvario is our research lead, Isabella Kintzel is our research associate, Dan Chalane is our intern, Drew Burrows is our technical director, and Catherine Dillon is our executive producer. Thank you for listening to ProfG Markets from the Vox Media Podcast Network.

Join us on Thursday for our conversation with Alice Hahn, only on Profgy Markets. I mean, okay, so I'm a little bit triggered by delivery because, um, uh, it's put a real strain on my marriage at first with some drunken one night stand during a business trip. Then it was her boss and the pool guy. And lately she's been fucking, you know, uh, know, let me start over. I'm trying to follow that joke. No. So look, I relate to delivery. This is the last straw. I'm now divorcing my wife. At first, it was one night stands and then her boss, then our pool guy, then the delivery guy.

And then it was her very own stepbrother, Ed, and even my own best friend. I don't know, Ed, I just can't stop sucking cocks. Ah, what do you think of Uber earnings? Are you gonna rotate out of the business world and just get a full send into the comedy world? You need to start hanging earnings. Are you going to rotate out of the business world and just get a full send into the comedy world? You need to start hanging out with comedians. I'm descending into something.

It's not the comedy world. I'm definitely descending into something. But no, it's not the comedy world. I love that joke. I've used that joke a lot. That's a big, that's a crowd pleaser. That's a crowd pleaser. Is it?

You know, I'm not sure. We'll find out in the comments. It's hard to know when you're sort of, we're not even hearing the audience. We're sort of on a podcast. I think that's important.