David Solomon on AI, Debt, and America’s Future

Support for the show comes from Fundrise. Investing in companies already in the S&P 500 can sometimes feel like you're being served someone else's leftovers. It's still a great meal, but it's hard not to imagine what the food tasted like when it was fresh out of the oven. But with venture capital by Fundrise, you can finally get in early and take a seat at the table alongside the biggest names in tech investing. Fundrise's mission is to give everyone the access required to invest in the best tech and AI companies before they go public. Visit Fundrise.com/PROFG to check out Fundrise's venture portfolio and start investing in minutes. All investments involve risk including the potential loss of principle, past performance is not indicative of future results. This is a paid advertisement. Megan Rapino here. This week on Attach More, Figure Skating Legend and Tara Lapinski joins us to talk about the upcoming Winter Olympics, whether this will be the comeback year for US Women's Figure Skating and what she learned about herself after appearing on the reality show, The Traitors. Plus, we're talking about the end of a cell's high-impact player role, aka The Rodman Role, and why the player's union is against it. Check out the latest episode of Attach More wherever you get your podcasts and on YouTube. Are we dumber than we used to be maybe or maybe we're just wrong about what it means to be smart? Our brains evolved for social interactions, you know, so when you're like cocking your friend next to you in the math class, that is actually what our brains are for. This week, unexplain it to me from Vox. Our crisis of stupid and how to get our brains back. New episodes, Sundays, wherever you get your podcasts. Today's number, $2.9 billion. That's how much you as consumers spend on sushi from grocery stores in 2025, a 7% increase year over year. Ed, what did the sushi chef say to the bee? What? What saw a bee? Listen to me, markets are bigger than what you have here as a structural change in the world. If you should cash, it's trash. Stocks look pretty attractive. Something's going to break. We got about it. I have to go clean. We got fucking David Solomon, I mean, we've got David Solomon coming on. How on to David Solomon? Yeah, I had to go dad joke. I love the dad jokes, as you well know. That was pretty good. I actually, that might have been one of your best. I hate to say it. Yeah. All right. How are you Ed? I'm doing very well. I'm excited to hear how things are going. I know you are somewhere special right now. Why don't you tell everyone where you are. I am in Davos for the first time in 26 years. I can't, when I was your age, I got invited here because I was a player. My guess is you're getting invited in a couple years and then I kind of pretty much everything in my life went sideways, moved, divorced, my company went out of business and what do you know they didn't invite me back. And now, and then all of a sudden I get invite back and I thought, oh my god, I can't wait to go back and be the triumphant MacArthur hero returning to Davos and I'm like, what am I doing here? I'm not raising money. I'm not running for office. I'm not selling anything. My life has changed so much since I was last year. Yeah. What all you do? I mean, why am I here? What does your day look like? Oh, get the full run down on Monday's episode, but just a quick teaser. What does it look like? Well, this is supposedly the biggest year in a while because everyone's showing up. Carnie spoke today. Trump spoke today. I ran into Gavin Newsom or Governor Newsom. Everybody's here, going to court. And so it's supposed to be the most crowded. It's everything. What am I doing here? It's the guy who runs BlackRock at another mass media conference and he said, I'd really love to host you at Davos and he's the new chairman. And I got all excited and I said, great, and they put me on some panels. But mostly I'm just kind of walking around and trying to avoid eye contact for some young person who wants to pitch me on their AI startup. Yeah. I'm not doing a whole hell of a lot. And I don't know if you can see this lovely hotel room, but this hotel room can be yours for about 200 euros for 51 weeks here and during this week, it's 2200 euros a night. So I'm excited to be here. That's not what you have in a great time. So far no, so far no, but since I was last here, I've joined the faculty of NYU, lived in San Francisco, Miami, New York, and now London, had two boys, had four companies go out of business, had two get to assets. The number one movie in 1990 are the biggest movies in 1999, where the sixth sense, which is awesome, Phantom Menace and Toy Story 2 and the biggest movies now are Zootopia 2, Avatar, Fire and Ice and Lilo and Stitch, which I think pretty much cements the decline of Western civilization. And back then, we were all sort of optimistic, Clinton was president. It was sort of like, wow, I want more and I can't wait for tomorrow, like now we're just like, I hope it doesn't get any fucking worse. Things are different now and things are different. So you said I'm in Davos, where are you? Still in New York. Still living it up. It was very good to see you when you were in New York, just last week. We had a nice business meeting, set out our growth objectives for the year. 20% growth is the plan for property markets. So please, if you're listening to this and you're thinking about sending it to a friend or someone you know, you got to do it because I need to hit those benchmarks if I'm going to get a raise. So just think about that every time you're listening, 20% growth for the year. That's what we need. Yeah, send it to. There's five of you. Send it to one friend. Does that make sense? I guess so. Anyways. But yeah, I was good to see you and yeah, I got nothing else. Should we get to our interview with the. I'm in a shitty room in the middle of the Alps in this like tier two skewers or trying to fill this whole of emptiness that if I think if I come to Davos again that somehow that, then I'll be enough then I will be enough. Tomorrow I'm hosting a fascinating panel on why are we so divided? Oh my God. Okay. Metta. Next panel. How many panels are you doing? I'm doing three. I'm like, this is how it works here. They have. They have global leaders who are like, you know, meetings in the back of shitty restaurants redrawing the maps of the world. They have CEOs of companies figuring out a way to become trillionaires and then they have what I would call a small gaggle of intellectual support dogs. And I'm one of those that's supposed to make this whole thing like interesting. So I'm the intellectual, one of the intellectual support dogs. It's like me, Adam Grant, Jonathan Hyden, like three other academics and some. Yeah. Simon Sinek. Cool out of the day. Yeah. And. You've got David, guys. Yep. David's here. David's here. He's got to cut you off. Here is our conversation with David Solomon, Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer of Goldman Sachs. David, thank you very much for joining us on Profty Markets, where does this podcast find you? Thank you for having me. The podcast finds me in Florida for the day and then I'm my way to Davos, where I believe Scott is for the next few days. And so I'll be there. I'll be there tomorrow morning and certainly should be an interesting week with everything going on in the world. Absolutely. Soon to be partying it up with Scott. We want to bust right into this because we only have you for so much time. So I'm going to get right into our questions. I want to start with your reflections on the past year, 2025. Your company is coming off one of its strongest years in a long time. Stock rose around 50%, 58 billion in revenue, 17 billion in profit. As you look back on 2025, what do you make of the year? What went right? What went wrong? What surprised you? 2025 was a pretty constructive environment for our business and I actually think 2026 is going to be a pretty constructive environment for our business too. There obviously in 2025, there was a speed bump in April with the launch of the tariff of the trade policy, which slowed things down and certainly sapped investor confidence for a period of time. But the macro setup is pretty good. We can certainly spend some time talking about the macro setup for Goldman Sachs. Goldman Sachs' performance, we've been executing, we did our first investor day back at the beginning of 2020, where we laid out a plan to really grow the firm, to really invest in our core business, a global banking and markets. We pointed to four areas that we thought we really could grow the firm asset management, wealth management, transaction banking, digital consumer banking and we pledged to run the firm over time more efficiently. And really for the last five years, we've been executing on that five, six years. We've been executing on that aggressively and making good progress. And you go back to the end of 2019, when we laid out that plan, the firm was about a $36 billion revenue firm. The market cap was about $70 billion. And as you highlight, you know, we're a $60 billion revenue firm. We've grown our revenues kind of 60, 65%, we've grown our earnings by over 100%. We've really grown the franchise and scaled the franchise in 2025. Really saw that all come together. We made some pivots or changes along the way, but we really have got the firm a powerful position with two big businesses that are well positioned to win leaders in their space, growing nicely. And, you know, I feel quite optimistic about the prospects as we look ahead, but 2025 was a year where you could really see the progress very concretely from investments and decisions we've made over the last five, six, seven years. I have here this, this article from Business Insider that was published in 2023 and the headline reads, RIP Goldman Sachs, and then there's a byline, it says, when I started out at Goldman, it was the most feared firm on Wall Street, those days are gone. I remember a few years ago, everyone was saying that Goldman Sachs was in trouble. And it is kind of remarkable what's happened in the past one or two years. There's been, at least as an observer, this incredible comeback from the company. I'd love to just get your reflections on what happened in those two years. For those who don't know, like, what were the concerns about Goldman? And then, how did you guys come back from that? How could you explain what's happened in the past couple of years? I don't think the firm was ever doing so terribly. You know, the press and the media, you know, can be a powerful tool and a powerful amplifier of a small number of voices. But fundamentally, you know, the firm was a private partnership for 130 years. And it went public in 1999, because the capital markets were globalizing from 1999, you know, through 2007, the firm was growing close to 20% on the top line. And it really ran as a public company in that period exactly the same way that it operated as a private partnership for 130 years. The financial crisis changed everything. We created a new regulatory structure, a new operating structure. We set the firm and forced the firm to double its capital base. And the firm kind of came out of the financial crisis and really stuck to its knitting. And you know, chugged along through that decade, but really wasn't, you know, operating to grow. And if you look at that decade after the financial crisis, the firm's revenues were pretty steady around 34 billion. The earnings were pretty steady. The capital, the balance sheet were all pretty steady. And so we, we entered the end of the decade, saying we really had to make some difficult changes to really take this enterprise and grow the enterprise. And whenever you change a big enterprise, you know, there's going to be resistance. People hate change. And 2022 was kind of a tough period. You have the Russian invasion of Ukraine, big markdowns and asset prices. It was a slower year for the firm. The firm did just fine. It made 10% on its equity capital in 2022, which is, you know, it's not, you know, it's not a blowout year, but it's not, you know, poor, poor performance. But you know, I think we had a little bit of internal agitation given the structural changes we were making. And that created a lot of noise in the media. The media gobbled it up and it became very noisy. We stuck to our knitting. We kept our head down. We knew the changes and the investments we were making were right. And really over the last few years, you know, that's panned out correctly. Ultimately performance and execution matter, but change in growth take time. You can't, you can't do it instantaneously. And I would say that was a, you know, kind of a bumpy noisy period for the firm, but the firm's on really good forward footing at the moment. You're in a bunch of different businesses, all related to different asset management sales and trading, investment banking, et cetera. If you had to pick one business that you think is going to outperform the others over the next five years and you're the CEO of a public company. So let me, let me make it more broadly of your sector. Which business do you think is going to outperform the others realizing you don't have a crystal ball? But which business do you think is poised to show the greatest returns over the next five years? And is there a new business that you think you guys will be in? It'll be big in five years. Yeah. I don't think over the next five years that will fundamentally be in a big new business. We're going to continue to focus on our core business of investment banking and markets where we're a clear leader, you know, I think in investment banking, the undisputed leader, you know, in markets, you know, one of the clear leaders and the kind of the combination of those two businesses global banking markets, I would, I wouldn't take anybody's mix. I prefer our mix to anybody else's mix. I think one of the things that's been surprising Scott over the last five years is that business has grown much better than I think we or the market would have expected it to grow. I think there are things we did where we outperformed and we took share during that period. But the overall business is that better growth for a very, very large mature business. And I think the market expected it. I think the world set up where that can continue. I think the more interesting thing for us is what we're doing in asset and wealth management. And I think there's very, very strong secular growth in asset and wealth management, particularly around our positioning, which on the wealth side is for the ultra wealthy, you know, obviously as asset prices, you know, continue to appreciate, you think about the, the generational wealth transfer from the baby boom generation that's going to go on to the younger generation, my kids generation. There's some powerful dynamics there. And I just think we're very well positioned in that business. So we have a wealth business that that grows, you know, nicely double digits. We have an asset and wealth management business collectively where we've said we think we can grow the fee-based durable revenue high single digits, but we're growing better than that right now. And so I really think that we're in a long, secular, you know, upswing opportunity in wealth and an asset management. There'll be some bumps maybe along the way, but I just think we're very well positioned when you look at our portfolio there. And the growth dynamics for those businesses are quite attractive for us. So just switching to more macro topics, I'm going to talk a little bit about AI. I started my career in the two-year analyst program at Morgan Stanley in investment banking. And when I looked back on what I did, I'm pretty confident with AI, I couldn't do the same amount of work that I did in two years and three months, but maybe six months. And you just got to think it's going to have a real impact on human capital and hiring and training and these types of businesses like Goldman Sachs. What do you thought on the intersection of AI and entry-level jobs at a place like Goldman? What are your thoughts around human capital as it relates to AI and these information-intensive businesses? Technology in our business, you know, professional services, financial business. Technology has been increasing productivity and allowing people to smart people to do more, you know, for decades and decades. And I, you know, just to be anecdotal about it for a moment, I go back to when I started. And I first was doing analysis, putting two companies together. I go to the library and get the annual reports and on green line paper, I literally write the balance sheets and income statements down. I'd add them together. I mean, it would take me a week to 10 days to actually put two companies together and look at the combined financial results. And then in 1985, somebody put an IBM 286 desktop computer on my desk and gave me Lotus 1, 2, 3 software and something that took me 10 days could be done in two hours. And so the productivity game was massive. You obviously here have dynamics where some of the work that analysts have been doing will be automated from this and we will use, we may have less in the short run of those people. But I think the opportunity is to have more people doing more productive things with clients that can't be done simply by the technology. And so, you know, they'll be the shifting dynamic. You know, if you look back at the firm 25 years ago and I joined and you look at the productivity when you look at people and revenues, the firm is much more productive today than it was 25 years ago. I bet 10 years from now it'll be much more productive than it is today. But people, relationships, connectivity, they're still hugely important in this. And the question is how do we shift the way people work and therefore free up more capacity to touch more clients, build more relationships, broaden the footprint. It's not as black and white as people and people out. So I do think the pace of change is quick. I think you will see, you know, some constraining of some of the entry-level jobs in these professional services platforms, it'll be more amplified in certain businesses rather than others. But I don't think it's going to be as disruptive in terms of the need for really smart people to work collaboratively to serve clients as some of the narrative around it. But we're very focused on it. We're giving our people the tools in an accelerated pace. We're reimagining processes very quickly. And the reason I'm excited about it is not because it takes people out, it frees up people to allow us to invest in other parts of the business that really do scale with people. You know, for example, ultra-high net worth wealth really scales with people. And so, you know, at the end of the day, we've been constrained in some of the places we can invest. We see enormous productivity opportunities and you move people around to different places. The firm today has, you know, 12, 13,000 engineers. If you go back 20 years ago, we had a fraction of that. My guess is we're going to have more leverage for coding and engineering with fewer people, but that will free up capacity to invest in other areas where we still need people to scale some of the work that we need to do. So it's a very interesting time with change, but not as binary and linear as I think a lot of people are talking about it. Well, let me ask a more pointed question. In 36 months, do you think open will have the same fewer or more employees? My guess is the growth trajectory of the overall head count of the firm will flatten for a period of time. So if you want to say 36 months, you know, it'll be a flatter trajectory for the next three years than it's been for any other three-year period, you know, going back, you know, 36, you know, nine years. It'll be flatter, but if you want to take, you know, 5, 10 years out, I think we'll have more employees. We'll be right back after the break and if you're enjoying the show, send it to a friend and please follow us if you haven't already. Investing in companies already in the S&B 500 can sometimes feel like you're being served someone else's leftovers. It's still a grave meal, but it's hard not to imagine what the food tasted like when it was fresh out of the oven. Historically, only venture capital investors were served access to the best tech companies in the world that hadn't gone public yet. And that meant the rest of the world simply had to sit on their hands and wait for an IPO. Fundrise says they're completely upending that dynamic with its new venture capital product. With just a $10 minimum investment, Fundrise's mission is to give everyone the access required to invest in the best tech and AI companies before they go public. There's nothing wrong with leftovers, but now if you want, with Fundrise, you can take a seat at the table alongside the biggest names in tech investing. Visit Fundrise.com/ProvG to check out Fundrise's venture portfolio and start investing in minutes. All investments involve risk, including the potential loss of principle. Pass performance is not indicative of future results. Support for the show comes from public. Investing platform for those who take it seriously on public, you can build a multi-ass portfolio of stocks, bonds, and options. Now, generated assets, which allow you to turn any idea into an investable index with AI. It all starts with your prompt from renewable energy companies with high-free cash flow to semiconductor suppliers growing revenue over 20% a year over a year. You can literally type any prompt and put the AI to work. It screens thousands of stocks, builds one of a kind index, and lets you backtested against the SMB 500, then. You can invest in a few clicks. Credit assets are like ETFs with infinite possibilities, completely customizable, and based on your thesis, not someone else's. Go to public.com/ProvG and earn an uncapped 1% bonus when you transfer your portfolio. That's public.com/ProvG. Pay for by public investing, broker services by open to the public investing ink, member Finra, and SIPC advisory services by public advisors LLC, SEC registered advisor, generated assets as an interactive analysis tool output is for informational purposes only and is not an investment recommendation or advice, complete disclosures available at public.com/disclosures. Support for the show comes from SIPC station. If your company is scaling fast, order fulfillment can make or break your momentum, but most businesses are stuck juggling between disconnected apps and tools, making it harder to get what you need to your customers fast. SIPC station says they can help. Their time-saving automations can help you reclaim up to 50 hours a week on order fulfillment - the platform automatically selects the right carrier finds the best rate, prints labels and bulk and even sends tracking updates to your customers. According to SIPC station, they compare rates across all major global carriers like USPS, UPS and FedEx, including any discounted rates you already have to choose the best shipping option for every order with discounts of up to 90% off. You can try SIPC station free for 60 days with full access to all features, no credit card needed. Go to SIPC station.com and use code "Markets" for 60 days for free. 60 days gives you plenty of time to see exactly how much time and money you're saving on every shipment. That is SIPC station.com, code "Markets", SIPC station.com, code "Markets". We're back with Profty Markets. What are some of the biggest risks that you are looking at heading into this year? What are the kinds of things that keep you up at night? I think the macro setup is very, very constructive and I think the things that keep me up or keep me worrying that could kind of set us off with a pretty constructive environment are exogenous things that we don't see. They can center around things like geopolitics and events in the political realm or the policy realm that really change confidence in the short term. One example of it last year was Liberation Day and the way the trade policy was rolled out. That's certainly SIPC confidence for a period of time. SIPC is a big risk that we don't talk about a lot, but a big SIPC event in some way shape or form can SIPC confidence. But generally, if you step back, the macro setup is very strong. We have enormous fiscal stimulus. The big bill last year, a bunch of which comes into impact in 26, puts more fiscal stimulus into the economy. We've got big, big capital investment around AI infrastructure, it is also very stimulated for growth in the economy. We've had monetary easing, about 100 basis points in the policy rate in the last year with an expectation of another cut or two in 2026. That's stimulative. On top of that, we have a more deregulatory agenda, which also is stimulated for capital investment. Plus, we have midterm elections coming up with a lot of focus on affordability, which leads to what I'll call idiosyncratic actions that are also stimulated. From an economic growth perspective in the United States, it's a pretty constructive environment. That doesn't mean that there aren't big broad policy issues that have to be wrestled with, but the kinds of things that will change that economic growth trajectory or sentiment are really more in the short run exogenous events that we can't anticipate or we don't see. You've seen it a little bit this morning after some of the noise over the weekend, the market's opened with a little bit more uncertainty this morning, but that's not the kind of thing that really derails us. What about the long run? I think, from all conversations on this podcast, we agree that in the short run, it looks like it's going to be a pretty good year or at least not a bad year. Based on a lot of the reasons you describe, the fiscal stimulus would probably be the biggest example, but think like two, three, four, five, maybe even ten years out. Those are the kinds of things that don't really hold water over the long term. If we're just going to continue spending as an example, what that does to the nation's balance sheet, it could become a problem, the debt that we're seeing in the US at large. What are some of the long term concerns that you have? Is that, I guess, a different story from the short term? First of all, I don't think two, three, four years is long term. I think two, three, four years is a very short period of time. Ten years we're starting to talk about the medium term and the long term. The next 10, 20, 25 years we're talking more about the long term. I've said repeatedly in public settings, and I'll say it again here on your podcast, I'm very concerned about the debt and deficit and our inability on either side of the aisle to control our spending. I think we've gotten to a point where, until we have some crisis or an event that reframes us, we've really put ourselves on very, very difficult fiscal footing. We have a lot of latitude because of the US economy, the breadth of the US economy, the US dollar, the role of the US dollar in the world. We've got a lot of breadth and we've got headroom around that. But ultimately, there will be a significant price to pay. If we either don't get the spending and the debt under control in the medium term, or we don't create an economy that's got a higher growth trajectory than the kind of 2% trend we've had. It's very, you cannot, given the spending levels and the debt levels, you can't simply cut spending or drive more revenue, you have to have higher growth to make sense of where we are when you start thinking about 5, 10, 15, 20 years from now based on the trajectory one. We have entitlement programs that don't work structurally. We have more headroom to let them run, but ultimately, there will be a point at which we have to wrestle with that. So those are things that were the longer term lens I'm very concerned about. I think from a policy perspective, there are hard things to get at without some sort of, I don't want to be overly dramatic, but some sort of a crisis or speed bump or something that resets the mindset creates more of a need for kind of bipartisan approach to correct. We're just not in that place at the moment. So that allows us to continue to put ourselves in a position where ultimately, the correct unless we generate higher growth is more difficult. Now in the short term, I actually think this year, I'm on the over on the growth forecast. I do think inflation will be stickier this year than the consensus, but I think we could see nominal growth that's higher than what the expectation is given the influence of kind of stimulative events I talked about. So even if you wound up with closer to 3% inflation, you could have real growth of 3 or over 3% this year because you could have higher nominal growth than where I think the expectation currently is. So I'm one that's in the camp that that's a possibility. But unless you create that on a sustained basis where you have higher real growth and you control inflation, we're setting ourselves up at some point for some big speed bumps. Were you surprised by the deficit spending in the big, beautiful bill? I mean, given the fact that it seemed that it was a priority for this administration to balance the budget or at least that was the stated goal at the beginning of last year, I'm just wondering from your time as an executive watching all of this unfold, were you surprised by the amount of spending that actually we are signing up for in 26? I'm not surprised. On either side of the aisle, both sides have been poor fiscal stewards. And it continues because the politics play well until there's real pressure that forces a different kind of political discipline. So I'm not surprised. Now, if this administration can marry it with better growth for a period of time, we might wind up in a place with the overall debt to GDP looks better and more attractive. But the long term trajectory is both sides of the aisle are not showing an ability to show fiscal discipline. And we haven't yet been able to crack the code of higher growth to justify the spending levels and the debt levels. And so these are things that we have to wrestle with. A lot of talk about monetary policy, you notice that the policy rates down 1% in 2025, but the 10 year really didn't move. State kind of stuck over the entire year between 4.1 and 4.2%. You'd notice in 2024, we saw interest rate cuts, but you actually saw a steepening of a curve and long rates moved up a little bit. So you know, the market is telling you that, you know, proceed with caution. And, you know, I think in the short run, we have a tremendous ability because of the headroom we have, because of the dollar to be less concerned about this. But ultimately, these are issues we're going to have to wrestle with in my humble opinion. So speaking of rates, the buzz here in Davos isn't about income inequality or climate change. It's about, or the vibe, I would say, is how fed up different European states or nations are with the US administration. And one of the ideas that seems to be getting a lot of chatter is the idea that they would, in a concerted way, as a union or a coordinated way, dump a bunch of US treasuries. Do you think the US is susceptible because of the amount of debt that's held? It's actually only 30. It's 70% domestic, but 30% of 37 trillion dollars, still a lot of money. Do you think the US is vulnerable to a foreign nation coordinating and selling our debt? You know, I think of the margin, Scott, you know, you can see moves around treasuries, but vulnerable is a big word, and vulnerable to me. And, and, you know, correct me if you're, if you're not thinking about it in this, when you say vulnerable, the fundamental structure of the world is that for, you know, lots of people in the world that have, you know, excess reserves, you know, there's not a lot of places they can go. We've obviously seen gold rally, but, you know, vulnerable would mean you have very, very significant moves that change the fundamental structure of the way people think about reserves. And the dollar is still, you know, a reserve currency. I think the chance of that getting offset in the short run, because of this political in the ways, even though I hear the frustration too. And I think we're going to hear a lot of it this week, Scott. I think the chance of the short run of that getting really set off in a significant way is very, very low. But, you know, I think longer term, if we continue to grow the debt, we are not going to have the same latitude to have everyone around the world finance it. And so ultimately, we ourselves in the United States will have to finance that, you know, to finance that, you have to ask, you know, how does that get attractive? Where savers and investors that have been very, very tied to the equity markets, think about the fact that the S&P over the last 40 years is compounded by 11% dish, you know, people have been trained to, that are investors and savers to think about equity markets, you know, not, you know, 10 year treasuries or 30 year treasuries of four to five percent. You know, what rate do you start shifting savers and investors from the S&P, you know, to longer treasuries? It's, it's not four or five percent. So that can't create pressure over time, but I don't think it happens dramatically in the short run. In the short run, it's marginal. So tariffs threatening to annex other sovereign nations. It feels as if the current administration isn't afraid to kind of run the risk of de-globalization, so to speak. Do you worry that as a global firm that you risk or the administration risks antagonizing other nations and other countries who decide to not only have reciprocal tariffs, not only place more punitive measures on our big tech firms, but decide not to work with U.S. service firms, including Goldman. You know, at the end of the day, we compete in a big global world. You know, I, I, I do think of the margin. There can be behavioral changes, but the economy is very globally interconnected. You know, over time, for resilience, for security, political change, supply chains, but those shifts, you know, were five, 10 years in the making, political cycles are shorter, and generally, you know, things balance. I hear some noise about some of this stuff, too. I don't see it in the facts at this point in time. We watch it carefully. Scott, but ultimately the economies are very, very interconnected. It's hard to pull them apart. And I'm not a big believer in de-globalization. I am a big believer that as geopolitics and policies shift, that there are marginal changes in the way people think about, you know, the economic structure of their nation. I think we're at a moment where more nationalism is being bred. I don't think that's great. But when you, when you step back and talk about big structural changes, they're much harder, and they take a long time, and they certainly outlive what I'll call shorter political cycles. So the prime minister of our largest trading partner, Canada, has said that they are going to structurally shift away from the U.S. That in some, he feels they screwed up being so dependent and integrated into the U.S. You don't see other, some of the world's largest economies, including China diversifying from the U.S. as a cyclical issue. I mean, it feels like a structural issue that'll damage us. What do the Goldman chief economists say about this potential structural shift away from trade with the U.S.? There's a lot of noise at the moment around these issues. Some of it's still in the constructive and active negotiation. At the end of the day, the economies are massively intertwined, and while there will be changes at the margin, you know, I don't think our economic teams believe that the long-term structural shifts will be real. But at the end of the day, I think people, when you get through the noise, people will do what's in their economic interest, and there'll be a more balanced result than some of the rhetoric we're hearing right now. But, you know, watch the space, watch what happens. You know, Canada, for example, a huge trading partner, a China huge trading partner. I think China's in a place where things are more de-escalated for the next 12 months. We'll see what comes out of that. We obviously have a President Trump visit to China, to see visit coming back this way, so there's a road map this year to see if there is more progress in that bilateral relationship. We have to watch USMCA and how that progresses. It's easy to talk about the fact that there's a lot of noise, but it's harder to talk about the long-term consequences because the make-real changes is more complicated than simply talking or threatening. The follow-up question would be, what is that line in your view for where structural change does come about? I think that's something that's been difficult for me to pass out personally, you know, we keep pushing up against that line. It's, yes, it's just a post that was on social media, but at the same time, it is actually a threat of military action. I guess there's a question as to whether it's serious or whether the threat is real. But I think something that I kind of, I don't know how to think about, is what is that line? At what point do we say, "Oh, no, actually, this is structural, this is long-term, and this isn't something that could be reversed based on the election cycle?" I think you're asking a question, that's an interesting question, but I don't spend a lot of time trying to figure out where the line is because I don't think any of us, there's not a line. There's enormous nuance and complexity to the economy, there's enormous nuance and complexity to the individual bilateral relationships, and they change and shift based on the lens of what's going on at any moment in time. And so, yes, there are norms of the way we see certain things challenged, absolutely, but I think you're looking for an answer that doesn't necessarily exist. There's not a definitive marker that says, "Okay, the structural economics of the world are now going to permanently shift in a different direction." Everything's at the margin, everything's nuanced, and at the moment, we're at a particularly noisy moment, and I think one of the things we try to spend a lot of time doing at the firm is thinking about what's noise and what's substantively matters. And I just say, and this doesn't mean I like the noise, a lot of what we're touching on or talking about is noise more than substance, but the markets have to absorb that, people have to absorb that. And I'm not sitting here saying I have the answers, and I know how it plays out. I just think that it's more nuanced, it's more longer term. And the swings, because elections, we move one way to the other, the swings are probably shorter than what's required to make these long structural changes. What is the same indifferent about 1999 with e-commerce in 2026 with AI? What do you think is it different this time, or does this feel awfully frothy and sort of begging for a correction again? I would frame it a little bit differently, just to make a point that these things, when you get one of these super cycles, if tech investment, it can feel frothy and they can run for a long time before ultimately you have a recalibration or a significant pullback. And the analogy I would draw is that Alan Greenspan talked about irrational exuberance in markets, and I believe in the fall of 1996, when the NASDAQ was a 1300, you're now talking about 1999, the NASDAQ ultimately went to 5200, you know, in March of 2000, and then it retreated 85% over the next 18 months. So, you know, what I would say is I don't know if or in 1999 or 1996 or, you know, or in 2000, but when you have these accelerations, you have massive capital formation around forward growth. And by the way, I'm a big bull on the technology, the opportunity, et cetera. At some point, there'll be rebalance and recalibration. I think one of the things I'm watching closely, Scott, is the pace at which enterprises adopt the technology, because that's obviously where a lot of the economics to support the investment come, as enterprises adopt the technology. And I think that it's going to be harder and slower for enterprises to adopt. And the perception of how quickly that will come, you know, might actually turn out to disappoint a little bit. That could create a recalibration. I'm not suggesting that the recalibration has to look like, you know, the NASDAQ recalibration of 2000 and 2001. You know, and remember, also here, a lot of the capital that's getting invested is coming from massive companies that have extraordinary cash flow and earnings. And they might not get reasonable returns on that capital, but that's very, very different because that's out of their free cash flow. So when you look at the big hyperscalers and they, you know, the top four spent, you know, $400 billion last year, you know, it would be a shame if they don't get reasonable returns on that, but the market impact on that is different than what we were looking at when you were looking at, you know, the Internet expansion. And you know, all the capital was coming directly from public markets. So similarities, differences, you know, I do think we have a tendency to look ahead with optimism. And ultimately, that requires recalibrations on valuation. I'm sure, you know, there will be some of that around this, but it's hard to say whether we're in 1996 or, you know, or 1999. We'll be right back. And for even more markets, content, sign up for our newsletter at ProfGMarkets.com/Subscribe. Support for the show comes from LinkedIn. It's a shame when the best B2B marketing gets wasted on the wrong audience. Like imagine running an ad for cataract surgery on Saturday morning, cartoons or running a promo for this show on a video about roadblocks or something. No offense to our gen alpha listeners, but that would be a waste of anyone's ad budget. So, when you want to reach the right professionals, you can use LinkedIn ads. LinkedIn is ground to a network of over one billion professionals and 130 million decision makers according to their data. That's where it stands apart from other ad buys. You can target buyers by job title industry company role seniority skills, company revenue, all students stop wasting budget on the wrong audience. That's why LinkedIn ads was one of the highest B2B return on ad spend of all online ad networks. Seriously, all of them. It's been $250 on your first campaign on LinkedIn ads and get a free $250 credit for the next one. Just go to LinkedIn.com/scot. That's LinkedIn.com/scot, terms and conditions apply. Right now in the world of AI, two things are happening simultaneously. One, the technology is getting better fast. People are finding new uses for it. It's more popular than ever. And two, every company that makes AI is absolutely hemorrhaging cash. On the first cast this week, we're talking about what open AI and other companies are doing to try to finally figure out how to make some money off of this technology. Spoiler alert, it's mostly ads. And we're talking about whether any of it's actually going to work. All that plus some stories about the Chinese company that appears to be beating Tesla on the VARGE GASTS, wherever you get podcasts. This week on Network and Chill, I'm breaking down the essential money tips for every stage of your relationship from the first state to forever. Who actually pays on the first state? How do you split rent when you move in together if one of you makes way more than the other person? And yes, we need to talk about prenups. Plus, I'm sharing why I believe in equity over equality when it comes to splitting costs. Whether you're single and swiping, moving in with your partner or planning your wedding, this episode will help you navigate the uncomfortable money conversations that can make or break your relationship. Listen, wherever you get your podcasts or watch on youtube.com/yourrichbf. I was going to shift us away from AI and the economy. I want to talk about you, David. You're the CEO of a company that employs 46,000 people that manages two trillion dollars in assets. That is very rare. We don't often interview CEOs like yourself. That's a level of responsibility that none of us have experienced. Just at a personal level, what is that like? Does that weigh on you? What does your day to day look like? Do you have a wake up and think, how did I get here? I appreciate the question. And it's certainly fair to say that there are lots of days where I've woken up and said, how did I get here? I've certainly saw myself as a very unlikely candidate to steward this firm. And I think I use the word steward because I think it's important. Word, the firm's been around for over 155 years. I've been running it for, I'm a May 8th year, but I'm a steward of a great institution. My job is to do everything I can with the broad leadership team to leave this organization stronger than we found it as a leadership team. So the next leaders can steward it further along. There aren't a lot of organizations that make it under one name for 150 plus years. So that's a tremendous responsibility. I would say these jobs are not easy. I think anyone that winds up in one of these jobs has certain skills and preparation the day they get the job, but they continue to grow and have more skills and better preparation as they go through the fire and make mistakes and turn left when they should turn right and jump up when they should sit down. You're learning every day and I certainly feel much better equipped to handle some of the responsibilities today than I did eight years ago, but that's true, I think with anybody that steps into one of these jobs. You try to surround yourself with great people. You try to listen. I'm blessed to have an extraordinary team of Goldman Sachs, an extraordinary leadership team that's been incredibly stable over the course of the last five, six years. We work together to steward the firm and we try to be as nimble and as flexible to adapt to what the world throws at you. I think one of the things I'd also highlight that's changed over the last 10, 15 years. The visibility of these jobs is very different than it was 15, 20 years ago in terms of the transparency and everything you say, everything you do. The scrutiny, it's a different standard, but I feel very, very lucky to have had this opportunity. I've learned a lot. I feel good about what we're doing. I'm sure there'll be more bumps before I'm done and the board moves on to whoever's next, but it's an incredible privilege. 47,000 extraordinary people work for Goldman Sachs. We have access to the most interesting people in the world. You learn every day and it's an incredible organization that I feel fortunate to steward something I didn't know before this interview. You actually encourage me if this is wrong, but I read that you applied to the Goldman analyst program and you rejected not once, but twice. This is when you were just starting out on Wall Street. Supposedly one partner described you as quote, not Goldman Sachs material. You are now CEO of Goldman Sachs. Just looking back, what do you think you got right? How did you end up in this position? I guess I'm sort of restating the question, but what is there that young people can learn about your rise as someone who was rejected from this company and now you're running it? I applied the first time when I was graduating from Hamilton College and I got a very quick letter back. No, thank you, but I got a lot of those. I mean, I think I remember I got back in the early 1980s when you applied for jobs. You wrote formal letters, sent your resume, applied for job. You know, you got a rejection letter back. I got a lot of those. I was very fortunate to get a job at the Irving Trust Company in a credit training program in 1984 and that kind of set me down in this path. I was very lucky to be recruited to join Goldman Sachs in 1999. I really thought it was an opportunity to work for the best financial firm in the world. I think I've worked very hard over a long period of time, but the real reason that I'm sitting in the seat is a confluence of things, a big portion of which is just luck and serendipity. I mean, one of the things, you know, it might have heard me say before, is, you know, if if the leadership of the firm had transitioned at a different time, I wouldn't be running the firm. I mean, one of the things I, you know, I can point to Lloyd Blightfine, I mean, this is well known, you know, Lloyd Blightfine had cancer in 2015 and he stepped back, you know, to deal with his treatments for a period of time, you know, he chose to step back but to stay at the firm. Someone else might have decided, you know, what I have to deal with this and I'm going to step away. If Lloyd had stepped away in 2015, someone else probably Gary Cohn probably would be running the firm. It wouldn't be me. And so, you know, the fact that the transition occurred in 2018, I happened to be one of the right people at that moment at that time in the right place. But if it had been 2012, if it had been 2015, by the way, if it had been 2022, I mean, it wouldn't have been me either. So it's, you know, these things are a journey of hard work. There are lots of people at Goldman Sachs that are capable of running the firm. And then it's a confluence of, you know, luck and timing that goes with the hard work that allowed me to wind up in the seat. But I'm very cognizant of the fact that a lot of it is luck and serendipity. Beyond the professional stuff, what advice would you give to your younger self about being, I wouldn't even say being a good friend, being a better friend, being a better partner and being a better father? I think the thing you learn is you go through life is that, you know, it's a marathon, not a sprint. It's never a straight line. Lots of things you're going to get knocked down and, you know, bumped around. And at the end of the day, there are certain things that I think are true North. For me, true North has always been first and foremost my family, my two daughters, you know, true, true North always. It's always been, I can't say that I always got the balance perfectly right, you know, every step of the way, every day. But it's always been true North. And, you know, after that, my friends, I'm very blessed to have an extraordinary group of friends, many of whom I've been friendly with, you know, for, for, you know, 25, 35, 45, 50 years or more. And, you know, keeping those people, you know, in your life, investing in those relationships, because life gets busy and you go in different directions. But, you know, keeping the compass pointing to true North, taking a long-term view, understanding that you're going to get knocked down, but you get up, you learn from the experience, you dust yourself off, and, you know, you just do the best you can do. And life throws a lot of things that you that are out of your control. But be patient, take a long-term view, keep the compass pointed at your loved ones, your family, your friends, and, you know, do the right thing. If you keep that stuff in balance, there'll be ups and downs. But, you know, I think there's lots of joy, you know, that comes out of the, kind of the success of a job well done is to do it and to do it well and to have the personal satisfaction for raising a family, for building a career, for having success. And also, when you fail from learning from the failing and being able, you know, to kind of look ahead and take the learnings and do even better, and constantly try to self-improve. Scott's question is really about how you advise yourself, you know, your younger self. I'd be interested to hear your advice for young people right now, given the environment we're in. I think one of the biggest things that young people are probably worried about is AI and the potential for AI to take your job. Yes, we'll probably be working with AI, but it could be disruptive in the short term. I think, you know, young people are also worried about affordability issues, the cost of housing, et cetera. What would be your advice to a young person who's just starting out right now, given the environments and the things that we should be thinking about? You know, I'm that question. One of the things that just reflect on that I just think is interesting. You know, when I graduated in 1984, we were worried about affordability, we were worried about getting jobs. I remember when I graduated a very significant portion of, if I looked at, you know, the people I graduated from school with did not have jobs in the summer after we graduated. You know, we all went out to the world and we figured out how we're going to make a dollar, how we're going to participate. You know, it wasn't, it wasn't so simple that everybody had jobs and, you know, the world was different, you know, then and the expectations were, you know, were different. So, you know, when I look at young people today, I mean, a couple of pieces of advice that are simple, I still think that hard work matters. I still think commitment and sacrifice matters. I still think showing up being present and building connectivity and relationships with people directly matters. I think understanding that nothing comes easy and anything that's worth while in life requires hard work, investment commitment and sticking with it for a period of time, I think all of that matters. So, you know, my advice is as you come out of school and you're looking at the world, find a place where you can get engaged, find a place when you can learn, where you can apply skills that you think you're good at, understand they're going to be bumps and it's not going to work perfectly, but stick with it, show up, be present, try to outwork people around you, try to be more committed than people around you, compete and compete, you know, to do the best you can, compete to learn to win. And if you do that and you do it over time, chances are the good things will happen. But these issues that people worry about, we were worried about them, you know, 40, 50 years ago. I'm not saying they're exactly the same, but it is very natural to come out of school and worry about those things and you've got to go out and look forward. I'm very optimistic about the world. Sure, there are lots of problems, but I do think that it is a wonderful time to be alive, and there's lots of exciting stuff that's going to happen in the next, you know, 5, 10, 15, 20 years, that this generation will play an enormous part in them. David Solomon is the chairman of the board of directors and chief executive officer of Goldman Sachs. Previously, he served as the firm's president, chief operating officer, co-head of the investment banking division and global head of the financing group. He joined Goldman Sachs as a partner in 1999. David, thank you so much, really appreciate your time. Yeah, David, I'll see you tomorrow and just to sign off, when I wrote a piece on WeWork and I was critical of Goldman and David reached out and said, let's have breakfast. We had breakfast and by the end of the breakfast, I transferred all of my assets to Goldman Sachs. David just reeks of credibility and honesty. Really appreciate your time, David. Thank you both. Appreciate your having me. Yeah, what do you think? I think I really like the guy. That's sort of my reaction. Very charming, very likable, all the things you want in a CEO. And, you know, I, you got to think that job is just impossible. The thing he said at the end there about publicity and visibility, the fact that everyone is watching your every word. I mean, he comes on this podcast and he knows that if he says anything that is, you know, slightly off color or, you know, to do more or anything that is even remotely hyperbolic, that's just a headline. That's like an article right there. And, you know, I just think that's a crazy position to be in as a human being. Every time you speak, people have their pen to paper, they're waiting for something that you say and they know that you're just a walking story. So to be personable and engaging and magnanimous despite those circumstances, I mean, maybe I'm just being story, because this is the CEO of Goldman Sachs, but I think it's pretty impressive. What do you think? Well, first up, they're all likable. Yeah. You have to be. To get to that point, you have to just create allies along the way. And also, there's no upside for him doing this podcast. I cornered him at a restaurant, like all great CEOs and I'm a client of Goldman. He pretends to like me. So I kind of cornered him and said, you need to come on the pod and kind of hummed and hot and looked for an excuse. And he wasn't that quick on his feet and he said, sure, I'd love to. I mean, I could just tell it was like, oh, fuck. That old meeting start. But it's a true story. When I have breakfast with him by the end of the breakfast, I'm like, okay, I'm transferring all my assets to Goldman. He's very smart, very likable. And being CEO of Goldman Sachs is a little bit like being president of the United States. In the sense that one, it's a very demanding job, but two, you not only have to be the right person, you have to be the right person at the moment. And he references so many moons have to line up because I know I was good friends who was a vice chairman there who was supposed to be the next CEO and didn't get it. I'm another friend who was on the CEO track there. Literally, I bet a third of the firm wakes up in the morning, looks in the mirror and says, hello, Mr. or Mrs. CEO of Goldman Sachs, you have a Goldman, you have this alchemy, this concentration of the most ambitious, successful people on the planet. And their career has been nothing but an upward trajectory. And then the pyramid gets very crowded at the top very fast. The thing Goldman does really well, that McKinsey does well, is they clear out a lot of senior people. They have a compensation schematic where it almost becomes lucrative to leave. And they like that because they want to create enough upward mobility for young talent such that they don't get stuck and they go, you know, the only reason Bob's here is because he's been here 30 years. At Goldman, there's very few people that are very senior because they've been there a long time. They are very good at clearing out kind of the dry wood, if you will. They also have this other interest. I don't know, I assume they still do. They have a lot of co-heads of things because they want to make sure nobody has that much leverage. They have co-heads of Europe or they used to anyways, used to have co-heads of investment banking. That way when Lisa walks in and says, you're fucked without me, they're like, no, Lisa, Bob's also the co-head of Europe and we're going to be just fine. But it's an incredible firm with an incredible culture and to kind of be the CEO there. You're just, you're in, I would imagine his inbox is never empty. It's, you know, Jamie, Diamond, I don't know if the CEO Morgan Stanley is right now, but yeah, and then a very impressive woman runs city. Jane Fraser here. You would find we could have any of them on. They're all super impressive and all super likable. That's just, that's just, you know, kind of like I said, kind of like us. I've got a question for you. Yeah. Would you want to be the CEO of Goldman Sachs? Not in a million years. Really? Yeah. I'd like the money. I'll take that. Here's the thing about running a services company. I run much smaller services companies and once we have someone who's a CFO or someone in HR, I make someone else the CEO. The services companies, Goldman's in the business, but Goldman's a services company. They're outstanding companies to work, to manage and lead, except for two things. The employees and the clients other than that, they're outstanding places to lead. This episode was produced by Claire Miller, an Allison Weiss and engineered by Benjamin Spencer, our research team is Dachlan. It's about a council, Chris Nodon, Hugh and Measel Vario. Drew Barrows is our technical director and Catherine Dylan is our executive producer. Thank you for listening to ProfG Markets from ProfG Media. If you liked what you heard, give us a follow and join us for a fresh take on Markets on Monday. In time we're yours as the world does. And the bright lights in our lives.