Is Nvidia Selling More Chips Than Anyone Can Use?

Support for the show comes from VCX, the public ticker for private tech. The U.S. stock market started history's greatest wave of wealth creation, from factory workers in Detroit to farmers in Omaha. Anyone can own a piece of the great American companies. But today, our most innovative companies are staying private longer, which means everyday Americans are missing out. Until now. Introducing VCX, a public ticker for private tech, now available wherever you buy stocks. Visit GetVCX.com for more info. That's GetVCX.com. Carefully consider the investment material before investing, including objectives, risks, charges, and expenses. This and other information can be found in the fund's prospectus at GetVCX.com. This is a paid sponsorship. More business owners that makes managing business finances easier from day one. Accounting, payments, payroll, and analytics are available in one connected platform. Reports, visual dashboards, forecasts, and AI insights help owners better understand cash flow and make smarter decisions. Join the 5 million customers worldwide using Xero. Learn more at Xero.com. That's X-E-R-O.com. Exchanges on the M&A and IPO landscape. Exchanges on the dynamics affecting global trade. For the sharpest analysis on finance, business, and the economy, count on exchanges. The Goldman Sachs Podcast. Listen now. Money markets matter. If money is evil, then that building is hell. The show goes on. Get back in there and watch the show. Show. Welcome to Profit G Markets. I'm Ed Elson. It is October 21st. Let's check in on yesterday's market vitals. The S&P 500 and the Dow climbed. The Nasdaq was flat as chip makers fell again. Brent crude dipped just below $109 per barrel. The yield on 10-year treasuries decreased. And Netflix shares fell in after-hours trading following earnings that showed the slowest revenue growth in three years. Okay, what else is happening? Amazon is spending $220 billion this year to build AI. However, some of what it bought may be sitting unused. According to new reporting from Business Insider, despite the fact that Amazon is spending billions of dollars a month on NVIDIA server racks and GPUs, it can't actually immediately install them in their data centers. Because these chips are so scarce, Amazon and other companies are forced to buy more than they currently have the capacity to use. Meaning, that some of these racks are currently sitting inside of a warehouse. An Amazon spokesperson said that this is routine and, quote, best business practice. But others fear that this is proof that the hyperscalers have overestimated AI demand. Our next guest is one of those people. Last month, he wrote an investigative piece estimating that roughly half of AI chips in America are, quote, sitting in warehouses. He believes that hyperscalers significantly overbought GPUs relative to data. And he's also a senior analyst at the Microsoft Institute of Technology. He's also a senior analyst at the Microsoft Institute of Technology. was nvidia didn't they used to have to not pay for the racks until they put them in the data center now early rack receipt we've got to do it i think nvidia is channel stuffing to pump its earnings that's a bad sign for nvidia but also has created material harm throughout the world has made the price of and people say oh you don't need consumer electronics yeah as long as you don't want to live in society you want to buy a phone you want to buy a laptop even the cheap ones they're more expensive now every single one even the cheapest apple macbook neo is more expensive as a result of this and it's all because jensen huang is greedy and his hyperscale pay pigs will do whatever they can to make sure that they can keep this up because if they stop buying gpus the markets will immediately reward them and then they'll say why'd you do that as long as they keep buying them they can keep kicking the can and they can keep saying oh ai will pay off in the future will pay off at some point in the future i am 100% agreement with you that there is a pricing there are a a production mismatch there is something there is some uh misalignment in the market here which is clearly causing uh memory prices to soar and it is why iphones and consumer electronics are soaring a hundred percent i'm not sure i agree with you on on on what exactly is causing it because in my view i mean on the one hand there's this idea that maybe nvidia and jensen huang are going to be the ones that are trying to force uh the hyperscalers hand and say okay you need to buy our chips early and you basically need to over order um you know ahead of schedule but at the same time i'm looking at this other thing which is that it does appear that data center construction is being massively delayed it does appear that that investors and the builders of these data center companies just didn't really know how difficult and expensive it would be to build possibly because a lot of we're seeing a backlash which might be a real problem in terms of the ai build out and to me that that is a a plausible explanation as to why there is a mismatch right now maybe amazon goes and they buy the chips they think that the data centers are going to come online within the next few months or so and then they learn actually no because the local community said we don't want you to do this or for whatever reason to be clear i'm not actually sure what the reasons are but it seems to me more like a supply problem of the data centers that to me seems more plausible than than an artificially uh intentional decision by jensen huang what would you say to that i would agree with you if it wasn't for the explicit use of a term of early rack receipt program if it wasn't for the fact that within that story they say they are taking three billion dollars worth of deliveries every single month for the foreseeable future if they know that there's tons of delays and they've known a while the delays have been obvious for six to twelve months then they could say hey nvidia we won't need these until here could it not be that they thought that there was going to be huge demand and they and amazon decided themselves we want to try to get ahead of ahead of the curve here we're going to sign up for some program where we get early chips and now they learn that was a stupid idea because we have all of these chips in a warehouse i think early rack receipt is an amazon program versus an nvidia one and again it's i would agree if it wasn't for the fact that the story also said that they previously did not have to pay for racks until they went in that's where the disconnect is if it was because if it was consistently the jensen one was saying you pay for these things you take them when they're ready that would be it would be bad it would suck but it would make it would fit in it would be a standard business thing however it's obvious that something has changed it's in the story and remember nvidia has ballooning accounts receivable as well so who knows what is going on there their accounts the first half of the year was five companies with 70 percent of it how much of that is amazon we don't know and i agree there are absolutely delays but the artificial increase in the cost of ram is directly a result of nvidia taking up so much of the fabs it's a direct result of the high bandwidth memory going into nvidia gpus that are sitting in warehouses i think hundreds of million at least 200 billion dollars worth of them are sitting in warehouses and here's the thing i again i would agree with you if it wasn't for the fact that so much if it wasn't for the fact that so much if it wasn't for the fact that so much if it wasn't for the if it was okay we've hit a wall and nvidia goes all right yeah you don't like we'll stop shipping them to you no i think jensen has these morons over a barrel because outside of anthropic and open ai there's really no large customers of ai compute you can listen to whatever insane guy on twitter you all you want but the analysts across the financial markets all are in agreement that it's 70 plus it's anthropic and open ai so it's not like they have so it's not like they have insane demand outside of that they need to capture i think that they are just kind of just doing what they can to keep up i think that they're doing this so that they can make sure they don't piss off jensen there was a story in the wall street journal a few months ago saying that if you as a neocloud were to buy amd gpus that you would get put in something called jensen jail which is when jensen huang will no longer sell to you it's a general story i think it's robbie wheeland uh katherine blunt i believe who wrote it is about google's tpu so jensen huang is very he's he's done this before he's done it i think that this is a case where he is channel stuffing where he's saying to his partners no you will take delivery or you won't get vera rubin and i know for a fact i have a source who told me that there are vera rubins making their way to amazon so it's obvious that they're buying so many things they have blackwells that they haven't installed but they're buying and taking receipt of vera rubins this is very strange and it strikes me that they're buying and taking receipt of vera rubins and they're buying and taking receipt of vera rubins and they're buying and taking receipt of vera rubins is that nvidia is just channel i i can see no other way and people really want i'm not saying you here but people really want to take a charitable view of jensen goddamn huang who misstated that gaming revenue was growing about a decade ago when it was actually crypto sales i want to know what the real truth is and i i mean i i i think that i i can see a world in which there was a gold rush i mean this story to me is quite indicative of what we saw with like the railroads as an example and we just had liaket ahmed on to explain the similarities where to me i'm i'm i'm less jumping to jensen manufactured this but we know he had a lot of power there was a there was a there was a chip rush that was akin to a gold rush everyone wanted to buy chips suddenly everyone's trying to buy them and to me this is an example of oh yeah we overspent this is sort of the the the physical example of we put too many railroad tracks on the ground and now we're not using them now they're sitting in a warehouse because we didn't fully figure out uh how to match our timelines and let me just be explicit about what i'm saying i think you were right for the most part i think yeah he got a ton of orders that backed up like that's one like there was a gold rush it happened i now think with this early rack receipt program he's taking advantage of that because this whole thing about scarcity just does not make sense to me what's scarcity when you've got microsoft google amazon meta all of these companies with hundreds of billions of dollars of gpus they can't install how is there scarcity scarcity like there's clearly enough of them there's clearly so many of them you can't install them what's making the scarcity happen or indeed maybe the question is what would make these scarce and it seems what would make them scarce was not taking delivery we may never know unless someone gets actual reporting around that and eugene kim did a magnificent job with this eugene has been around forever he should get his rose over this one he should get his rose over this one i think even if you don't agree with me on the channel stuffing this is a sign that hyperscalers are overburdened with these assets and we are so close to this thing bursting and at some point investors are going to turn on them and start demanding they pull back on capex i mean justifiably because if you're an investor in a hyperscaler right now and you're saying okay i invest and i want the value of my equity to go up because you're buying these gpus and you hear these things aren't even being installed the natural question is why are you still doing this oh you claim there's demand why don't stop buying them until there's you've you've taken your fill is there a reason you can't well at least until the data centers are able to be operational exactly well not to me is a it's it's less of a they pulled a fast one and more of a they just haven't figured this problem out and so i mean as we start to wrap up here thinking about the next chapter in this story i mean it seems to me that if we have physical retailers over buying chips the next chapter in the story is they're going to buy fewer chips because for whatever reason it is whether it's because of channel stuffing i'm not sure about it but i mean what is certainly clear is the data centers aren't coming online as quickly as they had hoped that is a good enough reason i think to say okay let's reduce our order next month let's buy fewer chips than we did last month and we're starting to see some signs some bad signs in the story we've seen cds spreads on some of the big data center names and widening oracle's five-year credit false swaps hit a record high last week we have ramp data showing that token spending is not growing in fact it's been flat for two straight months one of these ai data center companies just went public at least fell more than 30 there are bad signs brewing i guess as we start to wrap here what are you focused on uh what data or what signs do you think are most important in terms of understanding what's next in this story i think capex I think what they do with CapEx, if CapEx is flat, that's a problem. If CapEx is higher, that's a bigger problem because the question is why? But I think it ultimately comes down to, does Anthropic go public? Does Anthropic go public at 1.5? Does it go public at 2? Because if it goes public at 1.5, that screws OpenAI's 1.4 trillion private round. And also, Anthropic's numbers came out just before we went through it. These companies are clearly not economically viable unless you really squint. And so I think it's going to come down to, is the CapEx going to keep up? Because you can remove Anthropic and OpenAI fully from the picture. Hyperscalers don't disclose their AI revenues. So it really comes down to, will hyperscalers keep spending? Because if they stop, I don't think that there are any parties big enough to fill the gap with NVIDIA other than SpaceX and Oracle. And we're at a point when even still, the 10-year treasuries are 5.1 still. So I mean, things are so expensive, and they're only seeming to get more expensive. And the more of the. they buy, and these chips that are waiting in warehouses, the more expensive the RAM gets, the more expensive the servers get. At some point, something has to break. So I'm looking at the numbers that are kind of the enumeration of spend on tokens, token spend as you brought up, but also on CapEx. And if anyone pulls CapEx, that's a bad scene for everyone. So on that note, the Wall Street Journal just reported more details from Anthropic's S1. This happened just before we started recording. And I want to get your. your reaction to some of these numbers that we learned. So H1 2026, net loss of $81 billion. That's crazy. $72 billion of it from fair value accounting charges on convertible notes. So we'll give him a big asterisk there. Compute spend of $9 billion in the first half, and two customers account for about one-fifth of H1 revenue. Okay, so we have some more color on Anthropic's financials. Your initial reactions, Ed? Well, so that's an $8 billion net loss-ish. Journal, I love them to death. Love Anissa over there. The numbers in that piece are put in the world's worst chart. It's malpractice. I don't know why you'd do that. $8 billion net loss. Also within the second quarter, Elon Musk was discounting SpaceX's compute. But nevertheless, this company lost $8 billion in the first half of the year. This company had a net loss of $80 billion, but the cash loss is about $8 billion. This is not a company that's improving its economy. It's got about $413 billion of non-cancellable commitments. I'm going to be honest. I don't think any amount of growth can make up for the fact that Anthropic's business just isn't particularly good. And also, we have now, despite this, this is about the first half of the year, we now have tangible proof. Revenue growth's slowing. The run rate, as bollocks as that number is, is plateauing. And the reason that they are pushing, Anthropic is pushing so hard this drug discovery stuff. They know that they are running out of coding revenue. There's only so far they can go on it. And also, Ramp has data that says 80% of their revenue comes from the 1% of their customers, most of which are unprofitable, unsustainable AI startups funded by venture capital. And this company, as big as their revenues may be, and they are big because everyone's focused on them, everyone's sending them money, this company is a load-bearing part of the AI trade and also of the AI economy, 70% of computers. I don't know what this company's going to do. I think that they should get rated CCC by Moody's and S&P. They are junk, junk, junk. And this is a test of financial regulators. And also, honestly, the market's overall intelligence. It's a dog of a company. Predictions for when it goes public. Do you think it goes out at $2 trillion? I think $1.5. I think I just, I get the sense $1.5. No, everyone I've talked to in finance is just like, $2 trillion? No, thank you. The nerves are bad right now. The vibes are bad. I think it's going to go out at $2 trillion. Bad vibes in AI. That's the headline. Ed Zittrain is host of the Better Offline podcast and author of the Where's Your Ed At newsletter. Ed, appreciate your time. Thank you. Thanks for having me. After the break, SpaceX earnings. And for even more markets insights, you can subscribe to my weekly newsletter, simply put, at edwardelson.substack.com. I'll see you next time. I assume this is just that Anthropics paying a lot of money, and Google's paying a lot of money. And there is a question, an open question, as to how long is this compute boom going to actually last? Is Anthropic going to continue to pay billions of dollars for this compute when, I mean, from a business perspective, they're actually not profitable, and they're basically taking venture capital dollars to fund this thing. So I guess when you look at that, just from an underlying fundamental perspective, what is the trajectory of SpaceX? And is that kind of revenue and that kind of trajectory, is it sustainable? Great question. And I think there's three points I'd want to make there. The first, it's a perfect illustration of what I was talking about with lumpiness. So 800% year-on-year growth is almost an arbitrary phenomenon, because this business didn't, this renting out servers didn't. happen a year ago, right? So there you have it. But I think you've asked the nub of the question, which is, let's say, beyond a quarterly type time horizon, you know, 2027, 2030, how, you know, these deals, I think, are dated for three-ish years, cancelable, etc. Sure, they're going to make a chunk of money renting out servers. You know, just a few minutes ago on the call, the comment was, well, we probably will use most of our capacity for Grok, because Grok is going to be great. So, and in a way, you can't have both in terms of the, you know, who's using all this capacity. In the short term, or call it even three to five years, their best play right now is to rent out the capacity that they've built. They've done an amazing job, let's say, quickly scaling out the data centers that they have, and I think they're going to do more. And these other operators, Anthropic and SpaceX, they're going to do more. And I think they're going to do more. And I think have the money and are willing to pay the money to rent out this capacity as they grow their user base. They're trying to do a operating leverage type scale where the incremental users using their already trained bots add a lot of, you know, incremental profit eventually as they amortize, let's say, the training costs. SpaceX is really still in that middle layer of the infrastructure play. And, you know, I would say, ironically, I can get to $144 fair value if all they do is rent out Colossus for the next five years and never launch another satellite. I don't think they're going to do that. But, you know, it's a good business for them. It's great. It's just that at the end of the day, what's the run rate and the profitability of sort of what rental you can get for the capacity over the longer term? Sure, it's undervalued. It's undervalued. It's undervalued. It's undervalued. capacity now or, you know, demand outstrips supply. And what we see is a bunch of picks and shovels going out and building more supply. The sort of normal laws of the market would say that eventually, and economics would drive supply catching up. And so then these billions of dollars of rental agreements, does that flatten out? You know, that's the question I have. And I think you have to get it just right, let's say. I mean, I'm just looking at the CapEx, $20 billion in the quarter. Nearly $50 billion year to date. And mind you, they're also going out and raising tens of billions of dollars of debt. I mean, that was just a couple of weeks ago when they announced their $40 billion debt raise. They're spending enormous amounts of money. And on an operating basis, the company looks like it's pretty good because it's achieving operating profitability. But those numbers are enormous. And it doesn't seem like it's going to be I mean, it's not clear to me that those numbers are going to come down anytime soon. So I guess what do you make of those numbers? How important are they relative to, say, the fact that revenues are increasing at a very high clip? Sort of simplifying the picture, you know, I'm trying to run this 20-year forecast model. And so, you know, $50 billion is nothing. There's hundreds and hundreds of billions, if not trillions of spending in the cards, if you believe me. And so, you know, there's a lot of money in there. And so, you know, I don't believe they're going to put a million satellites in orbit, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. The thing to watch is if we spent $50 billion in CapEx this year, that's not hitting our income statement. But it will as we start depreciating those things that we bought. To the extent that their GPUs, those last, call it, five years, that's actually a pretty steep depreciation cliff. So your operating expenses pile up, let's say, cumulatively as you run through this CapEx. SpaceX also, I think, has a penchant here for renting GPUs as a way of maybe mitigating some of that. And I think that was part of the debt raise or a previous deal where they have a third party buy the GPUs and then SpaceX rents them. So it's just another way to move fast. The stock was actually down from its IPO price before the earnings. It's risen an after hours trading. So we'll see what happens over the course of the day. But, you know, the stock has had a comeback from, I mean, we talked before when it had gotten cut in half and it has certainly come back in kind of a big way. Do you have any predictions or thoughts on how this stock might fare over the next several months? What do you think is going to happen here? My general prediction would be it's more of an observation and sharing notes with my colleague, Seth, who has a very loyal, installed base, if you will, of share owners, which I would argue lowers the liquidity even more than than otherwise in a thinly floated stock. You know, folks who are who are who are going to hodl forever. And then he's going to give it to them for free. He's going to put them in their in their accounts as well. I mean, that to me seems like more even going a step further, right? A share certificate in every pot, right? Yeah. Putting that aside, so there's I would say sort of some structural demand for the shares. There's and so it's still relatively thinly floated. And you're you're talking about a an exciting, you know, list of scientific projects and a team that arguably is the best equipped to go after some of these things, you know, in terms of reusable rockets and cheap satellite Internet. They're the best show in town. So there's some legitimate reasons to be excited about the stock. My job is to try to put a reasonable valuation on it using, you know, let's say, defensible economic assumptions. And that's where we keep coming back to these numbers that are half what the market price is. All right. Nicholas Owens is equity analyst at Morningstar. Nicholas, always appreciate your time. My pleasure. France is on the brink of a fiscal crisis as investors weigh the possibility that the EU's default a bond market sell off in recent weeks has sent borrowing costs skyrocketing. France's 10 year yield soared to four point nine three percent on Monday, one of the market's worst days this year. The gap between French and German borrowing costs is now the widest it's been since the eurozone debt crisis of 2012. And the country's debt pile is growing. France's debt to GDP ratio is expected to climb to one hundred and twenty two percent next year. Meanwhile, political pressures are mounting with nationwide protests escalating over the weekend. Over two thousand people were arrested as people demonstrated against surging energy and living costs. And with a presidential election six months away, it's unclear whether lawmakers will pass the spending cuts the country needs. The crisis is raising a big question. Is France reaching its borrowing limit? Joining us to discuss this, we're speaking with Terry Wiseman, global FX and rate strategist at Macquarie Group. Terry, thank you for joining us. I guess we should start with you. I think we should start with you. I think , we should start with you. I think or is it students joined by the syndicates, the unions, the teachers' unions, example, the so-called yellow vest protesters of several years ago. The scope of these protests, who's involved and who's benefiting from this, and we might be directing them behind the scenes, I guess, are the essential questions that the French are trying to answer these days. The fact that it's coming at the same time as this bond market sell-off, it seems to indicate that something has gone wrong in terms of France's political governance and its fiscal policy. What are the big red flags for France right now? Well, one red flag, and I think you just alluded to it, is that there is a potentially a connection between what is happening in the bond market and what is happening on the streets. And that makes a modicum of sense. If you think about it, the fact that bond yields have been rising is an indication that the market is less trustful of France's ability to rein in its deficits. And, of course, the fact that the bond market is less trustful of France's ability to rein in its deficits is an indication that the bond market is less trustful of France's ability to rein in its deficits. And, of course, the fact that the bond market is less trustful of France's ability and get to a situation where their debt is sustainable. But, of course, when the market puts these kind of pressures on a country, what the market is effectively saying is they would like that country to reduce spending or raise taxes, certainly to reduce spending, because France, in the case of France at least, the amount of spending that comes from the government relative to GDP is among the highest in the euro zone, certainly in the EU, and within the broader developed market countries. Now, if that's the case, then I think it's a good idea to think about that. And that is the pressure that the market is applying to the French state, to the French government. The people effectively know about this pressure. It may not be because they watch the market, but they certainly know because politicians have been talking about reducing spending. And that calls them out into the street. The problem is that when they're called out into the street, what they're effectively demanding, to some extent, is more spending. And, of course, when they go out into the streets, it hurts GDP. There are quite a few French businesses that are in terms of their revenues and their sales because of this. But, of course, when GDP goes down and suffers, tax revenue comes down as well. So it puts even more pressure on the bond market, effectively, because it detracts from France's and the French state's ability to honor its debt obligations. You need growth to be able to pay down your debt. So there's some people have discussed this in the context of a doom loop, effectively a loop between what the bond market is doing and what the protesters are doing in the street, and one that could be used to only be resolved if the state takes a strong position one way or the other, i.e., with respect to finding its way to austerity or finding its way to some sort of political dissolution of France's ties to the European Union and the Eurozone. Because, effectively, those are the constraints that France has right now, the constraints on its spending that are imposed by the rules of the pact and the Maastricht Treaty and its obligations to the EU. Just looking at the 10-year yield on French bonds, we're above 4.9%. The U.S. 10-year yield, the 10-year treasury yield, is above 5%. Does that mean that the U.S. is in worse shape than France? Why or why not? Not at all. First of all, the French are paying that 4.9% on a much larger debt load. Their debt-to-GDP ratio is approximately 120%. The U.S.'s is barely above 100%. So the debt load is larger than France. But that's not the most important difference. The most important difference is that the U.S. is growing more rapidly in nominal terms and in real terms. The French are not. So from a perspective of what is going to happen in the future, of course you would like a country's GDP to be growing faster because one way of diminishing that debt-to-GDP ratio over time is to say that the U.S. Simply have GDP grow faster than the debt, the numerator in that ratio. The U.S. has much faster growth than France. France has been in a state of low growth for quite a while, at the same time that it has been running high deficits in excess of 4% for quite a few years. So the U.S. is not France in that regard. The U.S. still has growth, and that is something that is making the market actually quite comfortable with U.S. debt right now. I know that yields have been going up in the last few years, and that's linked to a lack of comfort with the U.S.'s ability to pay its own debt. If it were that lack of comfort, you'd be seeing spreads on credit default swaps for the U.S. go up. They have not. Certainly in France, they have gone up quite a bit. What is your view on what is driving high yields in America right now? My view on what's driving high yields is that there's a lot of bond issuance. The government is issuing bonds. Corporations are issuing a lot of bonds because they have to finance the AI infrastructure build-out. So the result of this is that there are just too many bonds in the marketplace being issued, especially bonds that the government competes with. In other words, high-grade, long-term issuers are issuing those bonds. The other problem is that the savings rate in the U.S. is quite low right now. People are fancying consumption. They're not fancying saving. So there is effectively a dearth of capital from within the country to buy those bonds. And as a result, the U.S. has to depend, as it has for a long time, on savings from abroad to finance the issuance of bonds. Of these projects, effectively. The deficit being a project, but the build-out of the AI infrastructure being another project. At the same time, though, we have seen pretty significant increases in our interest payments as a result of our debt load. The cost to finance our debt just crossed a trillion dollars this year, so 14% of the federal budget. One, is that not a problem? Two, is France sort of a cautionary tale for where the U.S. might be headed if we continue down this path, where it does seem that debts will continue to rise and also that financing costs will continue to rise as well? Right. Now, I did not mean to infer that the U.S. does not have a problem. What I was trying to say is that the market does not see it as a problem yet. Certainly, it could become a problem because of the debt financing costs that the U.S. is being required to bear in view of its high debt-to-GDP ratio. And its ongoing high deficits, which, by the way, the deficit in the U.S., we don't have much visibility on it coming down. And to the extent we do not, it does look like it's going to continue to run at about 6% to 6.5% of GDP, which, mind you, is larger than France's. But again, I would highlight the fact that the U.S. is growing. That's the saving grace. Now, with regard to whether ultimately this will become a problem for the U.S., yes, it certainly can be. But there's still another important difference between the U.S. and France in this regard, and that is that the U.S. issues debt that is denominated in U.S. dollars. And ultimately, effectively, an agency of the federal government, which is the Federal Reserve, our central bank, has ultimate control over the supply of dollars. And if need be, it could always step in to help support public finance in the U.S., public finance at the federal level. The French don't have that luxury, right? They created a common currency back in the late 1990s, and they effectively assigned, control of the supply of that currency to a central bank that's federated. In other words, that is supposed to look after the well-being of the Eurozone as a whole, and not just France. Now, this has been a problem since the creation of the ECB, of the central bank in Europe, because there will always be countries that are weak in Europe and might need lower interest rates and countries that are strong. It might need higher interest rates. But of course, the European Union is a one-stop shop. It can only have one interest rate that prevails upon the whole continent, to the detriment, if it's too high, of countries that are weak. And France, of course, has been having weak growth for quite a while. So having devolved the powers of monetary policy to a federated central bank, let's say, is not working in France's interest these days. Do you see a future where France leaves the EU or where they take some sort of action in order to have control over their own monetary policy, to have their own central bank issue their own currency? Is that kind of where they're headed? It's not inconceivable, but there really isn't a protocol for a country effectively exiting a currency and reverting back to its original currency called the French franc. It's not as simple as that. It's a lot simpler, actually, to combine national currencies into one common currency than to go the other way. Having said that, I do see. I do see referendums potentially coming in France that will point towards, you know, let's call it a staged disassociation from the strictures of Brussels and the EU. That is possible. Of course, it's going to be much more likely if the national rally wins the presidency and then wins a controlling interest within the National Assembly. Okay. Terry Wiseman is Global FX and rate strategist at Macquarie Group. Terry, we appreciate your time. Thank you, Ed. The results of the Signal Awards are in, and I am happy to report that we won, not just in one category, but in three categories. Thanks to your support and your votes, ProfitGMarkets was able to win Best Daily Podcast and Best Money and Finance Podcast. And my newsletter, simply put, won Best Newsletter, which is super exciting because I just started writing that thing in January, and I did not expect that we would be winning an award. So, thank you very much. Thank you. So I would like to take this moment as we end this episode just to say thank you. These awards are dumb in a lot of ways, but they're also quite important, especially for a show like this, where we started out not fully knowing what we were doing or where we were going with this, but we believed that there was just something missing in traditional markets coverage. We found that a lot of it was either too apathetic or out of touch, or on the flip side, that it was too crude or too lacking in nuance. And we wanted to find some sort of middle ground where you could learn something about the financial markets, but at the same time, learn about people and the world and the way these things all interact with each other. Now, we're really proud of where we have gotten, but we really couldn't have done it without your help, because your comments, your feedback, and your interest in all of this, that has all shaped the direction of this podcast. And now that you have helped us to win these awards, it really feels like we have a real show. And I know that might sound surprising, but that's the way it feels. We are a very small team. We are young. We are very scrappy. And so to get this kind of recognition, it really does mean a lot to us. So thank you. To be clear, there are other awards out there that we also want to win. We can't help ourselves. So please don't be surprised if we ask for your vote again for something else in the future. But for now, we're going to enjoy this moment. We're very proud. We're very grateful. And we will take this energy to improve the show and hopefully make your morning more interesting, more informative, and ultimately more rewarding. Okay, that's it for today. This episode was produced by Claire Miller and Alison Weiss and engineered by Benjamin Spencer. Our video editor is Brad Williams. Our research team is Dan Chalon, Kristen O'Donoghue, and Mia Solverio. And our social producer is Jake McPherson. Thank you for listening to Profity Markets from Profity Media. If you liked what you heard, give us a follow. I'm Ed Elson. I will see you tomorrow. you