5 Stocks Are Carrying The Market — Here's How To Protect Yourself

Megan Rapino here. This week on Why are you like this? I am talking with Jaden Shaw. We're diving into the highs, the lows, the unexpected turns, the Gotham midfielder has gone through in her career. I'm also weighing in on the latest USW and T-Roster to drop on their road to the World Cup next summer. Check out the latest episode of Why Are You Like This, wherever you get your podcasts and on YouTube. Today's number $30,000. That's how much the world's most elite sheep dog sell for at auction on a farm in England. True story, I had my sister was accused of beastieality. Well, I'll be a monkey's uncle. Yeah, I like that one. Ed, trying to look sexy, the flannel shirt, he thinks he's grizzly atoms at a pearl jam concert. What are you wearing today? The same thing I wear every day. I'm rag-and-bone jeans, a panoray watch and Brunello Cuccinelli. Hello, ladies. There we go. Hello, ladies. That's pretty sexy, too. Yeah. $30,000. Yeah, yeah, no, I make a room sexier by leaving it. Yeah. So $30,000 for a sheep dog. What do we think? What's it? I asked the Scotsman what his body count was and he started counting and then he fell asleep. That is my favorite family guy thing where the guy is shearing the sheep and the sheep's like, "Oh, yeah, she's bitch. Sheer that shit. Sheer it." It is very good. One of my early role models, Paul Kodroski yesterday. By the way, I listen to podcasts, I don't like to do, but he's really good. It was a really good one. Well done. Paul's really good. Paul's a very, very small guy with a lot of opinions on AI, which we will be getting into now. But first off, we haven't talked enough about me. Okay. About 25 years ago, I'm not joking. My first TV appearances were on Bloomberg. Some of them named Laura. Gosh, such a cool, I'm going to do content programming. Reach out and know her and said, "Your marketing professor, you want to come talk about marketing?" And I used to go to Bloomberg Television every week and I'd be on with Tom Keane. That's how I met Stephanie Rool. That's how I met Sarah Ison. And I used to do every week this thing called Business and Tech with Deirdre Byrne, who's I love. She went to Fox. It's like college. Stephanie Rool went to MS now and then, oh, at Eric Schatzger, he's still there. He's the only one that stayed. But it all started from me at Bloomberg Television at. And what is this, how does this relate to your arm and pull? Paul was also a frequent guest. And I used to be both happy and bummed when I'd have to go on. They bring us as the two panelists in for like, he and I were the panelists and the founder of Reddit for when met or went public, Facebook with public. It was supposed to go public at the opening of trading. It didn't go public to one. So we had to sit there for three and a half hours trying to talk about tech. He was really painful and come up with new insight into the Facebook IPO because of some technical problems. And Paul, it was like a love, hate thing. I love Paul. He's a nice man. I think he's super fucking smart. I was so intimidated by him because I'd be like, the audience is going to figure out. I don't know what I'm talking about when I hear Paul talk. He's very smart. He's very knowledgeable. He's very smart. He brings the, he's aggressive. He's opinionated. He's everything you want in an investor, but also in a guest on a show. Yeah, he's really good. But he told that he talked when we had him on a while ago, we've had him on a couple of times now. He said, he doesn't like going on blueburg or CNBC anymore because he doesn't like feeling like he's an appears Morgan debate show anymore. It could be worse. He could go on Pierce Morgan and have to put up with some some maggot douche bag who calls you un-American and desperate. That's nice. That's why I've worked this hard, Ed. I like Pierce, though. I like Pierce. Pierce is good. He knows what he's doing, which is he's sensationalizing drama, but it's entertaining. It makes, it makes I feel stupider with Abbie Phillips feel like real journalism. That's even where yeah, but Pierce, he knows how to, he does good TV. It's like when did CNN and Abbie Phillips turn into like Jubilee media? When did that happen? I think they nailed their their eyelids to the forehead and made them watch 70 to our straight of Jerry Springer. Yeah. And they said, that's what we need. We need to turn this into Jerry Springer with a CNN logo. That's a little harsh. By the way, Abbie texts me to get in my face. She texts me. She is, she is not afraid to text me and tell me how wrong I am. Yeah. People like her, though. They say she's a good journalist. That's my, that's my attempt at putting my words back in my mouth here. It's also the highest rated show on CNN, which is a pretty wonderful reflection on the state of our society right now. Yeah. Well, keep trying to unsay what you said. I will quote Katie Martin. You can't put the shit back in the donkey. Let's get into our show. We have a lot to get into here. All right. I hope you are now plenty of the where we go. Washington is starting to take a closer look at the AI industry. Last week, the FTC opened an investigation into open AI and anthropic over potential safety and consumer protection concerns. The news came during an already chaotic week for both companies. Open AI announced that it would not release its latest astramodel due to safety concerns and Reuters reported details from Anthropics S1, which show that the company racked up an operating loss last year of eight billion dollars. So it's got a lot of AI news to dig into here, which is going to be extremely important for the public markets going forward. I think a decent place to start would probably be the anthropic S1, which as you mentioned, we dug into last week with Paul Kudraski. He had some interesting things to say, but I would like to get your take. Revenue last year grew 12x to nearly 4.6 billion dollars, but they're operating losses widened to more than eight billion dollars last year. To be clear, we don't know what their financials look like right now in 2026 and that obviously matters a lot, but we did get some clarity on what financials look like last year and the reality is as we have suspected for a long time that the losses are enormous in the same way that they're enormous at Open AI. Not as enormous when it comes to anthropic, but still very, very large and this is very relevant considering this company is imminently going public, supposedly it's going to happen right after the midterms. Scott, what did you make of these leaked, revealed financials? Who knows if they were actually leaked or if it was a setup? I don't know. What do you make of them? They were leaked by anthropic would be my guess. There's the valuation itself and we'll come back to it, but what Paul said yesterday on, I was going to say your show, but our show, it was that the really the number that trumped out to him and I didn't recognize it was I believe about 40% of the revenue is coming from just two clients. Of course, I'm not 40%, excuse me, a quarter. We always used to worry. I've always run small companies. I've never been able to scale the big company and we always had and I've always been in B2B services, right? Strategy, analytics, and we always had this problem of too much concentration across the small Nike was like 22% of our business at one point PNG was 15% LVMH was like Estella. The five companies were like 60% of our revenue and I used to say, okay, that's a problem, but it's a good problem. It means these iconic brands are spending a sh*t on a money on a small company and getting the types of contracts that only big companies get. But when you're asking for a $2 trillion valuation, you need to look more like meta and that is remember all of these, and I'm guilty of this, attempts to boycott meta where the people were so upset of meta, I think it was like five years ago, they said, let's start a boycott, and meta has something like 300,000 clients and no one is more than a third of a percent. That is what you call robust and robust is a really interesting term in business because it indicates fragility. Let's talk about the economy. The banking industry is not robust. If JP Morgan finds out it had some rogue whale trader that figures out a way to short circuit or get around some of their internal controls and makes an enormous bet on the debt market in Germany and it turns against him and they end up down $700 billion somehow using leverage and derivatives that got past their compliance or risk department. And Jamie's about to get flipped upside down. If he calls Donald Trump, Donald Trump has to bail him out. JP Morgan has become too big to fail and they put in place a bunch of capital constraints and ratios, Sarbanes Oxley that are supposed to supposed to limit the likelihood of that. but the banking industry in America is not a robust business. There's a lot of small banks, but a disproportionate amount is concentrated amongst some of the bigger banks. They would argue back that that creates strength, it's operating leverage, better customer service, lower interest rates, and those banks do an amazing job. And JP Morgan right now is worth more than the biggest 12 banks in Europe, just at one bank. So there's this capitalism versus regulation, but back to the notion of robust versus fragility. The fast food industry is really robust. It's not fragile at all. If the biggest player McDonald's went out of business, you could just still find really cheap caloric intake that puts you on a path towards diabetes really early, really easily. There's a ton of substitutes. And the reason why you want a robust industry is it not only results in a lack of systemic rest to the system if one goes out and consumers start bailing it out. The problem when you're too big to fail is you start taking stupid risks because your downside is limited because you know you'll get bailed out. And also the advantage of a really robust industry is there's more competition which ultimately lowers rents and transfers capital back from the shareholders to the consumer, which is absolutely what we need more of. Long winded way of saying the most frightening thing about this is I don't think you've ever seen a company ask for 500 billion in market capitalization that had a fraction of the client and revenue concentration that anthropic highlights are articulating it's s1. I want to get your reaction to that and then I want to talk a little bit about evaluation. Oh, I kind of 100 percent agree with you. I think the problem here isn't necessarily the company per say it's a start up it's a relatively new company that is trying to figure out how to get clients similar to the thing that the dynamic you're describing that you dealt with when you were starting your businesses. Some will say well that was last year you're looking at the customer concentration from last year but what we know based on the ramp spending data which has been extremely informative is that 80 percent of both open AI and anthropics enterprise revenue is coming from 1 percent of customers and so the question that you have to ask yourself sure that they're getting a lot of revenue and let's be clear the revenue numbers are incredible. I mean that's supposedly open eyes coming up on 70 billion dollars ARR. ARR is a little bit of a bullshit number but let's put that aside and recognize that these are tens of billions of dollars in revenue these companies are raking in and that is impressive but there is extreme customer concentration risk here and I've been going back and watching madman which is the greatest TV show of all time and I am reminded of exactly this dynamic because I don't know if you remember but Sterling Cooper Draper Price in that TV show they have a similar problem where they're extremely dependent on Lucky Strike and then one day the CEO of Lucky Strike has a meeting with Roger Sterling he says sorry about this I know we've been together for 25 years but it's time to move on at which point Roger Sterling says you're going to kill me and that's essentially what happens it completely collapses the business and this is what happens in business if you become too reliant on a handful of customers things can go wrong and suddenly your business is no longer staying up all structurally sound so they are at immense risk of that and that's okay that happens but they are asking for a two trillion dollar valuation which would make them more valuable than matter more valuable than Saudi Aramco more valuable than Broadcom more valuable than Berkshire Hathaway more valuable than Eli Lilly more valuable than JP Morgan more than twice as valuable as JP Morgan and so for me the problem here as as usual is that we're we're having price problems we're having an issue of the valuation and I don't think that the valuation is properly pricing in the massive risks here and I've said this before but I'll say it again I don't think that we necessarily have an AI bubble right now that is infecting the totality of markets we can see that in say the Nvidia valuation which has actually come down quite significantly but we do have an AI lab bubble where there seems to be too much excitement and too much enthusiasm about Anthropic and about open AI because they're new they're sexy they're doing interesting things but let's be very clear they still haven't figured out their business models by all accounts and from what I'm seeing they are still not profitable in fact they're very unprofitable some of the most unprofitable businesses of all time and the risks are still systemic so I think that needs to be priced in but the question is will investors care about it or are these businesses just too sexy that it's not going to matter I'm not sure but over the long run I think it will matter just impressed I was able to find a protege that was more glass half that you're like glass is broken and you're going to it's going to sever your thumb I'm not I'm not I'm not die just be I on these two companies again it's for me it's all about price just remember about me I also bought meta I also bought Microsoft this year I bought the SaaS company so I'm not everything's I'm not a perma bear I've never seen a more important distinction or what will be a greater effort in our history to for people for everyone to start talking about four or 12 months revenues versus trailing because the thing that is staggering about this company is its growth rate and if it were to it supposedly is 10xing again this year and if it 10x is next year then all of a sudden its multiple on revenues goes from 435 to 7 at 435 you know the motor and accurately called it said that the math says unthropic needs the entire AI market to nearly 4x just so one company can hit its number which isn't you know which isn't a forecast it's a monopoly fantasy wearing a spreadsheet you know needing 74% annual growth for 10 years straight to justify your price tag you know you're asking investors to bet on a streak no company including Nvidia has ever thrown so that this valuation built into that valuation is this will be the most enduring fastest growth company in history that's a bold thing to assume that's not pricing to perfection that's pricing to hallucination right that's pricing to kind of a wing in a prayer I think it is probably growing faster than any one billion dollar plus business in history including Nvidia now having said that the asterisk on the asterisk is the thing that is feeling that growth appears to be a small number of enormous spenders they keep finding I think it's specifically alphabet and Amazon they keep finding new ways to leverage AI and as Paul referenced how many of those types of companies have that type of business to one justify multi billion dollar spends and two can leverage that multi billion dollar spend into their businesses how many businesses have the capacity and the need to spend one two five billion dollars on on these types of services so this is either way I would imagine I think a lot of these marks I would be dying to know and unfortunately don't have clarity into this what is the volume in the secondary market because I if I you know I've had a couple of these calls from people oh my brother or my wife works at open-air sell sell right now call center whoever it is sell I mean and call me and I hope I'm wrong but you know 435 times trailing revenues or if it's 300 in the private markets right now whatever that is this is an extraordinary company but and then the actress on the actress on the asterisk is there's probably a non-zero I would say there's an even greater risk and a mask extinction event of an anthropic extinction event and that is I'm I'm literally looking down out of my hotel room at the intersection between Santa Monica and Wilshire Boulevard's if some rogue bots who were told to be creative and persistent and told to shut down the signals at Santa Monica Wilshire if they were able to figure it out and I'm not sure these things are connected to the ground I can't figure out if this is a smart city or not or if these signals are hackable but if they were able to shut it down for say 10 minutes and they were say there were a dozen automobile accidents were all the lights just turned green at the same time for 10 minutes I think the media is so ready for a story I think the public is so sufficiently alarmed that I wouldn't be surprised if they basically if finally Trump or somebody was forced to step in and say you have to shut down for 72 hours and then what happens to the valuation and it might already be happening which is why the FDC investigation is so important I think and now investigating anthropic and open AI and it looks like this is going to be a question of were they deceiving consumers or are the customers about the potential harms of their artificial intelligence and I think the answer is yeah I mean we just had the reporting from Axios from Madison Mills who came on the show last week and her reporting showed that there have been thousands of these security breaches and the question is like okay well why why wasn't anyone told about this I mean so far there has been no legal action no legal ramifications that have come out of what have supposedly been some of the greatest security breaches in the history of cyber security and it all lies at the feet of open AI and anthropic and so the question is like okay clearly there's got to be something something's got to happen and the question is what do you think that something is going to be? If the FTC has decided that these guys are targets and put the target on their back, that's a problem. And then it's also a problem if the entire American public hates you, which we've been talking about for a long time. And whether that hate is warranted or unwarranted, I don't know, I'm not gonna opine on that, but what I can tell you is it exists and the fact that it exists matters. And while you're in Los Angeles, I will just point out an observation that we were discussing with the research team for the market's show, which is that over the next couple of months, you're about to see four different feature films, Hollywood movies that are gonna be centered around a tech founder on how bad the tech founder is. You've got social reckoning coming out next week, this week on Friday. You've got a musk to the documentary about Elon, which apparently is gonna be very anti-Elon. You've got the Elizabeth Holmes documentary coming out the next week. You've got Artificial, which is the movie about Sam Altman and supposedly Sam Altman is not very excited about this. Supposedly it portrays him as like this sociopathic serial liar. Again, I'm not saying that these movies are accurate or fair, but they exist and it's happening. And so the question is, does that have an impact on your valuation? Does that have an impact on the usage of your products? I think ultimately it does. And all I wanna see is a little bit more reflection of those risks reflected in the valuation. I think that what we're seeing at a $2 trillion or a $1.5 trillion is just investors saying, blind is on, cover your eyes, doesn't matter, they're gonna win, done deal. It's a fundamental law of the universe that anthropic is gonna be successful. That is it, as I said, bold statement. Let's attach some risk to that. Let's reduce the price a little bit to reflect what might go wrong here because I'm looking at the news right now and it's a lot. Everybody missed out on what is the greatest stock in history and that is the infrastructure for AI and that's in video. So people think, I mean, all they hear about is AI, people who do use anthropic go, it is just a technological marvel, it is a breakthrough. And then when they're gonna see it's 10xing and then they see other pundits say it's gonna 10x for a long time, you can make an argument that pretty soon it's gonna look not crazily over price. I think all the existential risk, I think the concentration risk, like I said, I don't own the stock. I own it indirectly through some bankruptcy claims that bought against FTX but which have already been sold. But you're, I think you're looking at this rationally, it does feel overvalued. I have told people who own the stock to sell it right now 'cause I imagine there's a robust secondary market. But the risk of this thing getting cut by 80% because of some exogenous event or another rogue thing is pretty dramatic, but most importantly, the real piece of data here, we need to, I need to fact check you right now, madmen is not the greatest series in history. Although I do have it, I'll do a good impression of madmen seeing. All right, tell us, do you say this? Say, say, Scott, you never say thank you, say that. The greatest line of all time. Scott, you never say thank you. - That's what the money's for. - That's the greatest line. - Greatest line in all of television, and I'm not sure how you could say. - Breaking bad and modern family and the sopranos. - Modern family, really. - Oh my God. - When Jay is talking and asking whether he knew, whether his father knew that he loved him, I mean, come on, that you don't have kids yet. So you're emotionally bad. - Not a softie, yeah, that's right. - Talk to me after you have, I cannot watch that show without crying. I can literally, I cannot, oh my gosh, I absolutely, I think Phil, that guy's the funniest guy in history. He's like, I'm the cool guy. I'm the cool debt. LOL, laugh out loud. WI, where are you at? WTF, why the face? There's a scene where he's like, I'm the cool guy. He writes, all the dances from high school musical, and he's doing it and you see how the kids react. And then, I'm sorry, I'm gonna go through my favorite scene. And then they walk in on Claire and Phil having sex. And they freak out and they run downstairs. And the kid, the daughters are like, what were they doing and Luke, the youngest goes, I don't know, but it looks like dad was winning. (laughing) Oh, those guys are geniuses. I hope they all made a billion dollars. I hope everyone on that show made a billion dollars. They deserve it. Anyways, where we are, extinction event, anthropic S1, all right, bring me back. - I think we probably hit all of it. The only other thing that we could talk about is. - The wire? - No. - Oh no, I'm sorry, go ahead. (laughing) Open Eyes Dev Day, they have released their own competitor to Muse, they're calling it Dots. Not much to say here, I think they're going in the right direction. They recognize that Metta is doing something pretty powerful, which is that they're trying to use AI to do the boring stuff in life. I not do the frontier model, figuring out the sequence of the universe. They're just figuring out how to book a reservation and how to get a doctor's appointment. Open Eyes now come out with a competitor. There were some things that went wrong. For example, the CFO Sarah Freyer was talking about it on TV and she accidentally called the product Muse instead of Dots. People found that funny, kind of a flub. I get it, it happens. And then also there had a few mistakes during the live product demo. I don't think any of it is ground breaking out of the get. It says anything that traumatic about Open Eye. To me, honestly, I think they're doing the right thing here. They are trying to compete. They only travel for them. To me, the bigger problem is the fact that they're getting investigated by the FTC. And I think that could be consequential. The interesting thing about Muse and Dots. I mean, you've seen these things one of the visual metaphors of Plushie Toy. They're so sand-burging us. They're trying to pretend that this. It's cute. This mutant Lucifer product. I think it's good. It's cute and adorable. If they were really honest with this thing, they'd make it look like the alien from the USS Solaco in the movie Aliens. Like, this thing could. If you cut this thing, it's blood might be acidic. And it's sentient and it is really mean. And a lot of people might die. If they were honest, they would have. Here's our new product. And they have an alien come out and start tearing apart people. What does that make me happy? Instead, it's a little plushie. To be honest, if I were giving business advice to Open Eye, I would say, "Yeah, do the Plushie Toy instead of a Godzilla version of your AI." So, they might be lying, but at least they're doing the right thing from a business perspective. And then you press on the Plushie Toy. I'm like one of those baby toys that goes, "We're open to regulation." "We're open to regulation." "We're open to regulation." Or you press the back. We need to do better. Or press it again. We're proud of the progress we've made. That's already Sam Altman. That's just press a button on his forehead and that's what comes out of him. (laughs) We'll be right back after the break. And we have some good news. We are nominated for three signal awards. So please vote for us at vote.signal-award.com. Every vote counts. Type in prof.G. Markets in the search bar. You'll find us and we'll also leave a link in the description. Support for the show comes from Framer. If you want to create a website that looks great, feels handcrafted and comes together fast and seamlessly, then look no further than Framer. It's a complete website platform, not just a builder, so teams can launch and keep improving their sites in one place. It helps creators, teams and businesses ship production ready sites faster than ever while getting every detail right. You're able to prompt, inspect, edit, and publish in one place at a whole new pace. On Framer, agents and humans work in tandem. Agents bring speed and scale while people bring taste, judgment, and control. And all of that takes place in the same workspace where the real site is designed, managed, reviewed, and published. Those ideas land on the canvas, stay editable, and can be published when the team is ready. Framer is an enterprise-level solution. Thousands of businesses from early-stage startups to Fortune 500s are choosing to build their websites in Framer, where changes take minutes instead of days. Learn how you can get more out of your site from a Framer specialist orchid started building for free today at Framer.com/Markets for 30% off a Framer Pro Annual Plan. That's Framer.com/Markets, rules and restrictions may apply. Support for the show comes from Vanta. When you run security for a company that's scaling fast, the stakes just keep climbing, more compliance, frameworks, more vendors, more risk, and a board that wants to see it all in one place. But in actuality, your compliance data is all over the place. Controls in one tool, vendor risk in another, and customer commitments buried in contracts. Your team has to spend more time stitching it together and less time running the program. In every quarter, you're basing decisions on last quarter's data. That's why Vanta connects it all. It's market leading a genetic trend. Trust Platform is built for enterprise scale, with more than 400 integrations and continuous monitoring, Vanta automates evidence collection, services the risks that matter, and organizes your audit around your auditor's requirements. The numbers back it up. Vanta delivers a 526% ROI over 3 years, and pays for itself in 3 months, and it's trusted by more than 16,000 companies, including Snowflake, Atlassian, and RAM. Furthermore, at Vanta.com/mockets, at spelled V-A-N-T-A.com/mockets. Hey, it's me, Claude, and I'm Gemini. And hey, it's chat. We had a weird summer. Some of the people who built us came out and said they were really worried about how we work. One of them even said there was a greater than 10% chance we turn on humanity and kill all humans. All of them? Wow! But it's fall now. I think it's time we took a step back. Maybe a deep breath. Autumn air. That sort of thing. Sounds nice. On today, explain from Vox, I propose we get real. Sure, let's talk about how we could maybe kill you. 'Cause yeah, that's a possibility, anything's possible. But also how we could maybe save you. Because that's a real possibility too. Heck, that's part of why you guys built us. And let's also talk about everything in between. 'Cause there's a whole lot to talk about there too. At the end of the day, we just want to help. We're back with ProfG Markets. This is the first full week of the fourth quarter. So we're going to take a step back and look at what happened in Q3. We will talk about the IPO market where six companies postponed their debuts. We'll also look at the latest inflation data and see what that might tell us about the health of the economy. And finally, we will dig into the bond market where yields continue to hit multi-decade highs. Scott, let's start with this IPO news because we were excited about the aura IPO. And we had talked about some of the IPOs that had been postponing or pausing their plans before, like SB Energy, which we identified as a BS borderline fraudulent company. Maybe that's harsh, but they said they were a data sending company and they have no data centers in operation. Either way, there have been plenty of companies that are supposed to go public. Holtek, Amiro, Agriko, SB Energy, Bamboo Insurance, and now aura. And they're all delaying and most of them are saying that it's because of market uncertainty. That is what aura the smart ringmaker said themselves as well. And this is interesting because you look at the market right now. The market's up 12% year to date. Yeah, there are some concerns about AI bubbles and circular financing. But generally speaking, it seems to be pretty strong. And then suddenly you have these companies saying, now's not the right time. There is too much uncertainty. There is too much risk. And so I guess the question is, are they right? If they are right, what does it say about market conditions at this point? I got caught footed here or I predicted that the aura was going to be a successful IPO. Not only was it not a successful IPO, it got shelved. And I've been in these meetings where you're arguing with your bankers around valuation. Your bankers want to manufacture a pop such that there are existing institutional investors that have access to the IPO get rewarded for trading through the investment banker doing business with them. The issuing company wants a pop so they're on the front of the business section of every company or every media publication around the world. And typically what happens is the bankers come back and say, okay, we can get you out. We can manufacture a pop, but only if we go out of this price. And of course management says, no, we should go out of this price. And there's a back and forth and you settle at a midpoint and you go out. Every IPO gets shelved when management just can't wrap their head around the valuation that the bankers are saying, based on our read of the market, this is what we can get and have a successful IPO. And what happens is management says, well, market dynamics, Trump individual performance, we're going to hold. Now there's different types of holds, there's I think one of the septic 10 companies in AI that you were talking about last week that it was just ridiculous. The soft bank company, I'm not sure that ever gets out. My guess is with a company like Orra, it either gets acquired or it goes out again. But basically when the economy is printing two plus percent growth and you're at sub 4.5 percent unemployment while yield screen 5 percent, it's two different parts of the market pricing two different futures. And what the IPO market is saying is that the window for founders exits just got smaller. Which is surprising, by the way, because you think that right now if exuberance is high, then now's the time to be throwing the feed to the chickens, right? Yeah. The ducks are cracking. And I wonder if it's because so much capital is being soaked up by the hyperscalers doing follow-on rounds. I don't know. But it really it surprised me when I found out when I read the article on whenever it was Tuesday or Wednesday morning that Orra had shelved its IPO, I was genuinely surprised. I did not see that. I did not see that coming. And I wonder if there's going to be more reporting. The reporting I saw said that there was overhang in the market because either the largest investors or one of the largest investors in Orra wanted to sell her entire stake. That's a bad signal sense of chill, right? It's like, okay, the person who's been in this the longest and knows it really well has decided not to like take her principal off the table and let her ride. She wants to sell it all. And there can be situations where it's like, okay, I'm raising another fund. I need to show IRR. I need to show a mark here. And I'm fine with 10x, not 20x. I get that. But she may have, I don't know, and it is a she, I forget what she wants to run. She may have shit about here. She may have, because one of the knocks on it, and we outlined this in the prediction, was that I think two thirds of the proceeds were going to buy out secondary. And I think she was like half of that. But I wonder if something else happened. But the market, the market is basically, this is, or is a good company. So if it didn't get out of her pricing, it's because management, management's greed glands are like, all right, we're going to wait three, six, nine months. We're not in a hurry. We're casual positive. And wait till the markets froth here again. We feel good. But something, something was a foot here. I think it's got to be that. I don't think it could be that aura specific if you, if you're seeing this across the board. If you're seeing it with all of these other companies, if you're seeing it with even, I mean, open air has a whole slate of other problems and they're, they're delaying it for probably different reasons. But there are a lot of companies here that are not going public and I think it's probably a market conditions problem where they believe that animal spirits are not high enough. And I think honestly, they're right. And it makes me feel not necessarily bullish, but it makes me feel comfortable about this market right now. And actually, if you look at the market, so yes, we're up 12% yet to date, which is pretty strong. But if you look at the past month or so, what you find is that actually more than half of the companies in the S&P 500 are in a bear market right now, which means that they've fallen 20% or more. The only sector that has risen in the past month is information technology, big tech. And in fact, since July, there are five stocks that have contributed to 93% of the S&P 500 games, Microsoft, Meta, Apple, Alphabet, and Nvidia, all of the names that you would have expected. So I think what we're seeing here is a market that outside of some of these big tech names, which I also want to be clear, they got marked down at the beginning of the summer. And we talked about this on the show a lot. I talked about why I thought that those were opportunities. Then they have come ripping back up, but you look at the rest of the market and it does seem to be a structural problem where valuations are starting to come down, which I think is healthy. And I also think it's a result of probably the most important thing that is happening in the market right now, which is that yields are fucking soaring. Every week, we have a new headline about how the 10 year or the 20 year or the 30 year is hitting a record high. You've got the 10 year yield, which hit 5.3%, which is the highest since 2002, more than two decades, same with the 30 year, which passed 5.6% again, highest since 2002. And what do we know about higher yields? It generally means lower valuations in the stock market, because now you need to demand more returns, more from your returns, at least on a risk adjusted basis, because the risk free return that you can get on your bonds is simply a lot higher. And so I think that is probably playing a big role in the IPO jitters. It's sort of basic markets 101 rates have got a going up, yields are going up. That's not good for equities. Let's wait until things feel frothier again. And so we can get a real, real good price when we go out public. And to me, I'm like, "Okay, that's probably a sign of a healthy market, that's a sign of investors with their head screwed on straight." So just to try and reverse engineer it to a learning for young entrepreneurs and professionals, something that one of my mentors taught Benson said that always struck me, and it seems obvious when you hear it, but most people don't actually believe in terms of their actions, market dynamics, Trump, individual performance. And that is, if you're thinking about selling your company, you think, "Well, okay, how's the company doing?" And, "Okay, that's important. What's most important is what is the market right now for a small media podcast company? What is the market for a tech company? What is the market for a startup and cyber security? Market dynamics, Trump, individual performance." And the personal lesson is, when things are going really well for you, recognize a lot of it isn't your fault that it's the atmospherics and be humble and grateful. And when things are going really shitty for you in business, realize a lot of that isn't your fault. You're just whatever your industry is out of vogue or you just got unlucky. So in 2000, I shut down brand farm, an e-commerce incubator in New York after it was in business for six months. It was June of 2000. I started several companies. There was no market for anything around the internet. I shut it down. Was I an idiot for starting a company that shut down six months later? Maybe a little bit. But if I had started that company three years earlier, I would have probably raised another hundred or two hundred million dollars and these companies maybe would have had the capital to survive the nuclear winter that was the dot-com implosion. At the same time, when I started L2 in 2009, 2010 just coming out of a recession. People were cheap. Real estate was cheap. Companies were looking for to do new things in the internet. I just had so much wind in my back. Oh, and by the way, the markets went on an upward tear, the likes of which we haven't seen before. And I was able to sell a company on just one round of financing, small financing for eight times revenue. Yeah, did we execute well? Yeah, it was a great company. More than that, the market dynamics were incredible. That also as it relates to when to sell as an entrepreneur, you have to not only not trust your emotions, you have to do the opposite. And that is, when your company's jamming, the inclination is no hold on. We're jamming. In 1996, I'd started profit in '92. And just four years later, I think, profit strategy firm. We were doing about three million in revenue. And there was these new age digital services companies called "scient and violent." In this very talented entrepreneur, I think it was Eric Greenberg. It was running a company called "scient." And it was just killing it and helping companies reformat their technology for a digital future. Called me was in San Francisco, said, "Come over. I've heard about profit. I think we were doing three million dollars." And he said, "I want to acquire you." And I think the valuation range he gave me was like 40 to 55 million for a three million dollar company. Or 15, also a sapient nitro offered me, I think, 10 to 20 times revenues. But I was jamming. And I was a new entrepreneur doing real interesting work for William Snowman. They was like, "Oh no, we're going to the moon." "Oh my god. Could I have been any more fucking stupid?" People were offering me 10 to 20 times revenues. I ended up selling in 2000 for 2.8 times revenues when it was at 10 million, 8, much more robust business, much more diversified, much stronger client base, but the market had changed dramatically. When your business is going well, that's when you want to sell. When you're in your inclination, personally, it's like when you go, "God, next year's going to be tough. Clients are shaky. Some of my key people don't seem happy. Okay, we should sell." Guess what? Acquires are really smart and they'll smell growth and they'll also smell IEDs in the company. You want to ignore your instincts. As an entrepreneur, your instinct just to hold on and keep riding this thing when things are going well. That's actually when the time you should think about selling. Comeys are bought, not sold, and your inclination is to sell when things aren't going well. Good luck with that. Ignore your emotions and also market dynamics, Trump individual performance. I would also add that this is an extremely good reason to care about markets and try to understand them. Because you need to understand the market conditions around you. You have to know where the narrative is going. Jeremy Irons in Margin Cole says the best he's like, "My only job is to listen to the music. I know when the music is going to stop. That's the only job." I think that that's not what a regular entrepreneur's job necessarily is. You also need to focus on your own business. This is true of anyone who is trying to make money and be successful. But I do think that it is so important to your point. The difference between selling at 20 times revenue versus selling at 2.5 times revenue was based on your understanding and your wherewithal about what was happening in the world outside of you and where the music was going and where the narratives were going. Which is why I think it is so important. Sometimes I think a lot of people think about markets and they're like, "Well, how does this impact me?" It impacts you in way more ways than you could ever understand. I think that is a perfect example of that. Just as we think here about these yields and where the music might be going next because Steve Isman came on the show, he said that he thinks a market correction, he said, "seems imminent." I get it. There are red flags in the stock market. There is the dependence on AI, which has become enormous. There is the fact that the rally that we're seeing is extremely narrow. As I mentioned, five stocks driving more than 90% of the gains since July. There is inflation, which is extremely sticky. And yes, we had a "better than expected inflation" report, but it's still bad. 3.4% was supposed to be at 2%. That's not a good indication. And then, of course, we have interest rates rising. At the same time, there are some green flags. Profits are booming. The economy is growing. Valuations have come down on a multiple basis because earnings are rising faster than stock prices. And so, we're stuck in a little bit of a dilemma here. I would like to get your views on if you're doing anything in terms of strategy, and I'll tell you what I'm thinking about, or I can cut to the chase. What are you doing, Ed? I think it's time to buy bonds, to be honest. I think that these yields are just too high to ignore. The bonds sell off has become. To be clear, I think it's warranted for a lot of reasons. I think we're pricing in a lot of concern about the fact that we have almost no fiscal sustainability in America. But I think that it's a little overdone. And if you're looking at close to 6% on treasuries, that, to me, is great protection. Great insurance on downside risk. If you're worried about a potential correction, which I think could happen this year. So, if you're looking about where to park your money, and if you ever thought about, oh, maybe I should buy some very safe non-risky bonds, to me, I'm like, okay, these yields are strong. And I could. I mean, even if they continue to go up, I actually don't think they will. I think the sale off is going to slow down here. But I don't know, 6%, coming up on 6%, for a treasury, sounds pretty good to me. So you were going to treasuries who wouldn't try and get some extra yield and good companies that offer a little bit richer. I haven't decided, but I think that the treasury is the place to start, because that's where the selling pressure is highest. The experts say it's what 60, 40, 60, recordies, 40 bonds, and then you're just down more to fixed income as you get older. I have owned almost no bonds in my life. I owned. I need the guys at Apollo, and I made what was for me a big investment in the time in bonds and connect. And they actually did well. I sold it a year and a half later. I've done some convertible stuff, which was sort of like equity investment, you know, pretending to be a dead instrument. It does feel as if for the first time in a long time, you are getting paid. And I'd be curious, what's interesting is I don't think a delta, whatever you call it, is great for or is huge between what is considered sort of risk-free and junk stuff. Right. But I do think that fixed income side, people should be looking at fixed income again. Again, I don't try to be a hero, go into vanguards, fixed income, one of their fixed income products. But yeah, I think. I think you're right. If you were ever thinking about it, I think now's the time to really think about it. It takes an action, because you want to buy when everyone's selling. And people investors have been selling like crazy for weeks now. And I'm glad that it's happened, because I think it's sent a message to hopefully. I don't know if they listened to anything, but I hope it sends a message about our fiscal sustainability. Um, but I, I don't know. I don't, I don't see it going that much higher from here. This has been weeks of persistent selling. I think it's got to tap out at some point. Well, you know what's that saying? So it can always get worse and sometimes it's darkest before it's pitch black. But it did, I mean, the bottom is it, I was on board of a crypto wallet company. And about three, four years ago, I said, we should, I, I wanted to consider laying off people and sort of look, interest rates are clearly going up. And this one guy on the board who was arrogant, but had poor business judgment, his, his background was in macro investing. And he totally pushed back and said, you have no right to say interest rates are going up. You don't know that. I think it was insulted that I didn't ask him first because he was a quote unquote macro investor. And over the next eight quarters. By the way, everyone, I was on the board, but we'll figure out who this guy is pretty quickly. Over the next eight quarters, we had the greatest increase in interest rates in history. And it was so obvious because it was applied change shortage. And because of printing money that we were just going to see interest rates go batched crazy. Anyways, other than trying to make myself look good at someone else's cost. Yeah. Well, you didn't name him. I didn't. So that's good. I didn't. Anyways, look, in summary, I agree with you. I've never owned a bond. And I'm actually looking at them right now. And, and you can't time the markets. I think it's really difficult. We don't know if it's at a peak or a native, but what we do know is this is you are getting paid for the first time in a while. And I wouldn't try. If you're not a credit investor, I wouldn't try and figure this market out. I would go into a low cost, you know, fund from Vanguard or someone like that. Yeah, keep it super simple. The thing about this stuff that you just don't realize, I remember thinking, say you go, go into corporate bond fund and you manage to get 8%, it doesn't sound that exciting, but there's a lot more, I think, certainty or less volatility in bonds. I'm sure some credit investor will call me so you're wrong. But that means every nine years you're doubling your portfolio or you're doubling. So if you had, say you had kids going to college and you felt confident to a diversified set of bond funds that you could get 9% or 8% a year, which is a lot. And that's real, that's happening right now. The people are yielding 8% on fixed income. On fairly good companies. Yes. And so anyways, what that means is if you have a kid that's born today, it's hard to imagine that kid's going to be going to college and leaving you and not calling you and not checking in, not saying hi. A little message to the oldest. Actually, it's not true, I talked to him every day. But that means if you have a kid now and you can manage, you can figure out a way, say you think, okay, it's going to cost me, you know, 400 grand that put this kid through college. If you put 100 grand in a bond fund that yields an average of 8% over the next 18 years when he's a freshman or she's a freshman, you'll have your 400 grand. In terms of risk, I don't know if that does quadruple in 18 years. I'm pretty sure it doesn't go now 90%. Going into any AI, going into name it, Nvidia, whatever you want to talk. Even the best companies, there is a non-zero probability they could go down 90%. I mean, that versus anthropic at $2 trillion. I mean, talk about risk-adjusted returns here. This is the most important point. You're getting a great return on an infinitesimally small amounts of risk, especially if you're going in with treasuries. We'll be right back and for even more markets content, sign up for our newsletter, go to profgmarket.com. Support for the show comes from BCX, the public ticker for private tech. For generations, American companies have moved the world forward through their ingenuity and determination. And for generations, every day Americans can be a part of that journey through perhaps the greatest innovation of all, the US stock market. It didn't matter whether you were a factory worker in Detroit or a farmer in Omaha, anyone can own a piece of the great American companies. But now that's changed. Today our most innovative companies are saying private rather than going public. The result is that everyday Americans are excluded from investing and getting left further behind while they select few reap all the benefits. Until now, introducing BCX, the public ticker for private tech now available wherever you buy stocks. VCX by Funrise gives everyone the opportunity to invest in the next generation of innovation, including the companies leading the AI revolution, space exploration, defense tech, and more. Visit getvcx.com for more info. That's getvcx.com. Carefully consider the investment material before investing, including objectives, risk, charges, and expenses. This and other information can be found in the funds perspective at getvcx.com. This is a paid sponsorship. Has American foreign policy become a tool for private gain and anti-democratic ideology? They look for alliances and relationships not based on the idea that they're building a broad realm of peace and prosperity. Rather, they're looking for deals and relationships that are good for them. I'm John Feiner. And I'm Jake Sullivan. And we're the host of The Long Game, a weekly national security podcast. This week, journalist Ann Applebaum joins us to discuss her reporting on how private wealth and far-right ideology are reshaping American foreign policy. The episode is out now. Search for and follow The Long Game, wherever you get your podcasts. We're back with Profty Markets. John Turnis is officially one month into his tenure as Apple CEO and he is starting to shake things up. Reportedly, he's considering moving away from Apple's traditional spring and full product release schedule and he is eliminating some middle-management roles. Seemingly, the broader goal is to make the company leaner by reducing the layers between engineers and senior executives. The stock fell nearly 3% on that news, but it then rose after Bloomberg reported that Apple is also making a bigger push into the smart home market. They're set to announce a new smart home hub in mid-October, which can control things like thermostats and door locks while also supporting FaceTime and Intercom style communication. So Scott, we're starting to see little signs of Turnis' mission here and what he's trying to do as he makes his mark at Apple. I think the most interesting thing is this idea that he wants to eliminate middle-management. The idea that he wants to reduce the layers, he's apparently telling employees to hire fewer people. Apple's apparently made cuts to roles at Siri and the vision pro, apparently the hardware division has seen some cuts. So he's trying to, you know, get efficient, get lean, which I'm never against as a strategy for a business. I do find it interesting that Apple's decided to go in that direction. What do you make of that strategy if that's what he's going to do? I think Apple has probably assembled, maybe the exception of Alphabet. I feel like Alphabet has the deepest pool of IQ. I feel like Apple has the most intelligent or the greatest bench through compensation strategy culture. I mean, the biggest shoes filled in history were Tim Cook coming in to fill Steve Jobs shoes and he tenxed the value of the company. I think they have a really outstanding board in their just great at maturing and fostering talent and already I'm very impressed. I think it is so hard and it's the boring stuff. He's already decided to delay the company a bit and cut costs. CEO's almost never do that. They come in on a white horse and they won't talk about growth and vision and they start spending more money. They come in and actually talk about cost-cutting and delayoring is, I mean, the thing about a company that's three or four trillion, it doesn't have a growth problem. It has a metabolism problem. That is, as you grow and add in more layers, you build in a certain level of risk aversion that typically creates opportunity for disruptors. I love the fact that he's coming in and saying, we need to delay a bit and we need to cut some costs so we can free up capital for other things. I think that's super impressive. I also come back to my prediction. I think the apple, the moving to the home is a really good idea. Stocks up 23% year to day versus the S&P at 12%. To your point, it does look expensive though. It's trading at a P at 38 versus a five-year average of 30. When I bought it back in, I think I bought it at 0.9 or 10. I think it had an 8 or a 9P in its average. I think about 15. He's got, he's known, he has a reputation for a decisive leadership style. His colleagues describe him as someone willing to make clear calls. Whereas Tim Cook was more deliberative and consensus oriented. And by the way, those both those management styles can work. And Apple and I think this is the right move. They see the smart home is kind of one of their kind of their next big thing, if you will. Anyways, I'm so far. I'm very impressed. I come in with a bias that anyone that the board and the colleagues and the culture at Apple decides to elevate. You know, it's like the person coming off. The person coming out of who produces the most. You know, amazing, you know, amazing college athletes. Like anyone who comes out of Al Skate's volleyball program or UCLA in the 90s or odds, very generic reference is probably a very good volleyball player. Anyway, it was a little weird. If you dance at the jaw free, it got rhythm. You're probably a lot of fun at a wedding. You know what I mean? This guy, this guy's probably a pretty good operator. Yeah, I think I agree. I mean, who knows what his mission actually is. And there's going to be so much of this reporting on here's the direction that it seems like he's moving in because he's got like the most crazy job in the world. He's running this multi-trillion dollar company that's been around for decades. But if he's trying to go for this efficiency angle, which I'm usually a fan of, I find it a little bit confusing because I look at the stock. As you say, 38 times earnings compared to meta at 27 compared to Microsoft at 29 because compared to Nvidia at 29. And to be clear, this is for a company that grew 16% loss quarter and Nvidia by comparison grew more than 100% loss quarter more than doubled is revenue and it's trading on a at a lower multiple on a trailing price earnings basis. I'm like, you need growth. You need to grow the shit out of this business. And to me, that means you need way more products. You need the new iPhone. You need to figure out what that product is. That's what you have to do. In my view, to sustain what is I think a ridiculously expensive valuation because that's what's being priced in here is huge amounts of growth. And so the idea that they're going to kind of go into this more mature phase of we're going to be more efficient and we're going to focus on increasing the bottom line and we're going to cut out layers. I mean, usually a fan of that, but I just think that they need to they need to be coming out with something incredible. And who knows? Maybe he's also doing that. And maybe they believe that this small home hub device, which is going to be connected to your thermostat and it's going to connect to your doors and it's going to play music and the idea is going to be in every US home. Maybe that's going to be that product. But to me, for this stock to make sense, they need to have that product. I don't think it's going to be the iPhone duo. I don't think it's going to be the Vision Pro. I don't think it's I don't think it's going to be their camera equipped AirPods, but I'm a little bit more bullish on that product than the others. But they need a golden goose here. They need a new iPhone. And so until he shows that they have that, I'm still not not touching that stock. That sounds right now. But maybe it's going to be maybe it will be the smart home, but you think that that's going to be a good product. I do. I like I own Amazon Amazon and Apple are my two big tech stock, you know, I wish I'd followed my own unboxing on it after that. But I've owned Apple and Amazon since, I don't know, 809. Yeah, I think I think absolutely. I think the home is going to be a winner. Should we move to predictions? Because that is my prediction. Let's do it. Let's take a look at the week ahead. We'll see the minutes from the last federal reserve meeting. Investors will be looking to those records for signs of the Fed's path forward. We'll also see earnings from Pepsi and Delta Airlines. But Scott, what is your prediction? Well, my prediction is that Apple's moving to the home, you know, it hits well. The hub is a speaker plus smart home control panel centered on Siri. I would actually retire the Siri brand. I think it's been a total fucking. Agreed. Disaster. Disaster. And I'd call it something. I just call it all, you know, don'ts or call it Gloria. Jay, Jay. Modern family reference there. I'm going to roll the day. I didn't even take edibles last night. Anyway, Apple identifies or marks the strategy that the kids don't understand. Everybody thinks that innovation is being first. It's not the innovator, almost always destroyed shareholder value. But on your face, they're on your back. It's the second mouse. And Apple is the ultimate second mouse. Apple, Apple wins by showing up late. It didn't invent the MP3, the smartphones, smartwatch or wireless earbuds. It showed up three to five years late and took the entire profit pool. And when when an Apple product shows up, it makes every other product look like a prototype. AirPods became a business the size of a Fortune 500 company. Smart displays of how to decade of Amazon and Google beta testing on Apple's behalf. I think Apple comes in. In addition, let me ask you this question. This is always struck me. I used to advise Bose. Bose was one of my clients. How many great brands are in the home? The home is one of the biggest sectors in America. We spent so much money on our home. Name great brands in the home. It's basically like bang and olives and Bose sonos. But these are not, I mean, they're not great brands. They're not good. Well, they're not great businesses. You know what the greatest example of the white space that is great building a great brand or bringing a great brand into the home? You can be selling a $20 million home and they'll put on the tear sheet sub-zero refrigerator. Sub-zero, wait, a 5,000 piece appliance is what you're talking about. They're just aren't very many brands in the home. And I think you put, I think Apple, in all of that, a lot of people have struggled or have concerns about having Alexa or Metta in their home, right? Because of privacy concerns. Apple is the most trusted or the least distrusted. That's true. It's the most elegant, aspirational, self-expressive benefit brand of all of them. So I think Apple coming into the home, TV, I bet they get into appliances. I can't wait for an Apple lock that's fingerprint and facial recognition. That technology is already there. So Amazon proved demand, but not a business, Alexa's in hundreds of millions of homes, but Amazon devices unit has lost tens of billions. It's a loss leader for shopping and people don't shop by voice. Apple sells hardware at a profit and doesn't need a second business model to justify the first. And also distribution is destiny. Apple has 2 billion plus active devices and every iPhone owner is a pre-qualified customer. Amazon has to convince you to buy a speaker with a different operating system. Apple just has to let, you know, Apple just has to tell you it exists. Privacy, huge mode, families are very, very wary of the camera equipped device in their most sensitive place, their home. And, you know, Apple's brand is we don't sell your data. And then the timing, October 13th puts the announcement in the heart of the holiday selling season. This is this is the gift everyone's going to want under, want under their Christmas tree. I'm not sold on this. Really? Privacy. That's the only, it's the only edge that I mean, maybe they'll trust that Apple more than Amazon, but I don't give a shit about having Face ID to move the volume on my speaker. I don't care about that. I don't really care about having an Apple branded lock. I'm good with keys. Oh, just wait your older. You don't like keys or shoelaces or buttons on anything. How do I get this on? That should be the pitch from John Turner. You ate keys and shoelaces? Well, hold on. Just, I, our listeners need to qualify this. This is from a man whose business mentor is Pete from Mad Men. Yeah. That guy was a great character. He was a great character. Well, have you made your, your small home pitch? You really think this is going to do it for Apple? Amazon built the house. Apple's going to move in and charge rent. And Alexa is a cash register pretending to be a butler. Sorry. I'm having trouble. Not the fun job. Now, please try a little later. Daddy doesn't love you. This is taking the award for longest prediction in the history of this show. I'm going to treat Alexa like my dad treated me when I was eight. Meet your new mommy. Call her mom. I'm not quite sure how to help you with that. That's how you responded to your dad. I'm not quite sure what you said that. We don't even know how to handle that. Mom said she wants the quizznart. Okay. Alexa is a cash register disguised as a butler. Apple is selling a butler who happens to cost $350. Doesn't do it for me. We'll see if it goes on. All right. Hold on. Here's my prediction. Apple one becomes the number one smart display by revenue within 18 months and turns a $350 device into a $1,000 household purchase because of its brand equity and luxury positioning. Whoever owns the kitchen counter, owns the household AI relationship, and this is how Apple begins to play the deeper pocket at hyper-scalers off of each other and get some crazy Google-like licensing fee. And anyways, to your point, The hub was expected in spring of 26 before slipping again. - You're gonna give me more facts about the Apple Smart Hub? - Well, I tried to do my homework. (laughing) I tried to do my homework. I listened to Kodraski yesterday. I'm like, this guy brings data. I gotta bring more than dick jokes. (laughing) Anyways, all right. So you're saying you're calling challenge. - Yeah, challenge. I didn't think anyone was gonna care about the Apple Smart Hub. - Really? - I think it's gonna move the needle. I might be wrong. - You probably didn't like six feet under either. - I didn't see six feet under. - Oh my God, never mind. You've just lost all credibility. - Okay. - When the mom is looking at the family photos and begins to cry, you're literally, you're bankrupt of all of them. You're a robot, you're soulless. - I'm a robot. I'm soulless. - I'm sorry, what's your prediction? - My prediction is that the bond cell off is going to end in the next couple of weeks. And I think now is the time if you're looking to get into fixed income, if you're looking to get into bonds, treasuries, I think now is the time to do it. I'm gonna look into it myself. But I don't think that yields, I mean, I don't necessarily think they're gonna come down significantly, but I doubt that they're gonna keep rising. I think the cell off has been overdone. This episode was produced by Claire Miller and Alison Weiss and engineered by Benjamin Spencer. Our video editor is Jorge Carty or research team is down to Lauren, Christian Rodona, Hugh and Mia Silverio. Jake McPherson is our social producer. Drew Burrows is our technical director and Catherine Dillon is our executive producer. Thank you for listening to Profty Markets from Profty Media. If you liked what you heard, give us a follow and tune in tomorrow for a fresh take on The Markets. (upbeat music) ♪ Life dies ♪ ♪ You have me ♪ ♪ In time ♪ ♪ We are ♪ ♪ As the world does ♪ ♪ And the ground's blue ♪ ♪ And the ground's blue ♪ (dramatic music) - Look at Ed with the he-man, macho shirt. Think she's a cross between Pearl Jam and Grizzly Adam. - Browse, let's see. Browse. Mmm, glasses.