Microsoft Rises, Google Tanks: Why Investors Are Polarized On Big Tech

Support for the show comes from Xero. Just because you run a small business doesn't mean you should have to settle for second-rate financial tools. Xero, spelled with an X, is a simple but powerful platform built for small business owners that makes managing business finances easier from day one. Accounting, payments, payroll, and analytics are available in one connected platform. Report 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 dot com. If you run a small business, you know that having a clear picture of your finances is invaluable. Reports, visual dashboards, forecasts, and AI insights help owners better understand cash flow and make smarter decisions. Run a business shouldn't feel like surviving a software group project. One app for accounting, another for inventory, another for sales, and somehow, none of them talk to each other. That's where Odoo comes in. An all-in-one business management software that brings every part of your business together. From sales and accounting to inventory and marketing, all in one powerful platform. No messy integrations, no bouncing between tabs, and best of all, no spreadsheets. Stop managing software and start managing your business with one unified system. Try for free today. at Odoo.com slash Vox. That's O-D-O-O dot com slash Vox. Welcome to Prof G Markets. I'm Ed Elson. It is October 29th. Let's check in. On yesterday's. The major indices climbed following the Federal Reserve's interest rate decision. More on that in a bit. The yield on 10-year treasuries rose. Brent crude remained elevated around $114 per barrel on news that the U.S. may strike Iran again after the midterms. And finally, Oracle shares popped 11% after the company projected a return to positive free cash flow in 2029. Okay, what else is happening? Microsoft and Google both reported earnings yesterday, but investors had very different reactions to the results. Microsoft beat expectations with revenue up 19% year over year. The company also disclosed Azure revenue in its earnings statement for the first time, revealing that its cloud business grew 48% from a year earlier. Shares jumped as much as 5% in after-hours trading. Google's earnings, meanwhile, disappointed investors. Despite posting 25%. In the third quarter, advertising revenue fell short of analysts' expectations, and the company reported a decline in free cash flow. Shares dropped as much as 11% following that report. Here to break it down, we're speaking with Gil Luria, head of technology research at D.A. Davidson. Gil, thank you for joining us. I'm more interested in Google, but let's start with Microsoft. Microsoft. Microsoft. Microsoft. Microsoft. Microsoft. get to Google. What stood out to you? That it was a clean beat across the board. Not only was the Azure business great and accelerated from 43% to 48%, this is $120 billion plus business. Those are tremendous growth rates at better margins, but also the rest of the business, the non-AI business performed well enough that that translated to overall revenue beat, earnings beat, better guidance than expected, a clean beat and raise, which is why the stock is up. And importantly, it's a company that still has positive cash flow. Can't say that about Amazon, Google, and Meta. It is true about Microsoft. And right now, that's what investors want to hear. That's what I was going to bring up, which is their free cash flow is still positive. Cannot say the same about Amazon or Google or Meta, which that statement in and of itself is quite striking. But it came down significantly, down 27%. Basically, they're spending ridiculous amounts on data centers, but not so ridiculous that their cash flow is negative. I guess talk more about their spending plans here when it comes to AI. So what Microsoft does slightly different, so different than Amazon and slightly different than Google, is they've been relying on overflow capacity from NeoCloud. So they don't need to build all the data center capacity to meet their customer needs. They just need to build enough that they have good visibility. So they're making 15-year commitments on a significant portion of their build-on. But then they're saying, that doesn't need demand right now. Let's go get some of the compute elsewhere on short-term contracts with these NeoClouds that we can still provide what our customers want, but we don't have to spend as much on CapEx. Not to mention the fact that they just have a more profitable business. So the combination of those two things means they can stay free cash flow positive. The reason that's important is that that means they don't have to go to the capital markets, right? We saw Google with a debt raise and then equity raise. They're still issuing stocks and then add the market offering. We saw Meta sell stock and they're going to have to borrow and they're doing special purpose vehicles. Microsoft doesn't have to engage in that. They have positive cash flow, even if it is lower. So they don't have to raise capital again. That makes them look better. They're all spending a lot, but Microsoft's doing it a little bit more responsibly. And sometimes that's all you need to get the credit from investors. You say it makes them look better. Do you believe that it is better? That it puts them in a genuinely stronger position? Because that seems to be, to me, that seems to be the big question and the most important question, which is like, where's the money going to come from? And if you have to raise it from someone else, which is what we're seeing with Meta, and I'm looking at Meta, which has gotten crushed this week, that's kind of a problem, especially if the money, for whatever reason, dries up. I don't think it will in the case of big tech, but we have seen a lot more pressure on some of those smaller names like the Neoclouds. It seems like Microsoft is in a genuinely stronger position than the rest of the hyperscalers. Yes, absolutely. And part of it is that they have a much more thoughtful approach. Again, they're taking some longer-term investments, some shorter-term capacity. They're lending themselves to what they have. Again, they're still expanding their business. 48% growth in Azure. That's still accelerating on a $120 billion business. Still tremendous growth. It's drawing other revenue. That's important because Microsoft, on top of the AI compute, is also selling a lot more enterprise software, a lot more infrastructure. And I think that's a really good point. I think that's a really good point. That's a really good point. A lot more infrastructure software, a lot more application software, bumping up the tiers for companies that use Windows and Office products. They're leveraging AI to do that so they can have the resources and they can just draw the limit to say, you know, let's not spend more than what we have. We're generating a lot of cash flow. This is a good return. It's helping the rest of our business. But if we don't spend more than we have, we don't have to borrow. We don't have to be beholden to the capital markets, which we've now seen when the capital markets, Microsoft doesn't have to engage in that. Okay, let's shift to Google. So Google revenue is up 25%. Cloud revenue is up 103% is what I have here. The stock immediately tanks. What are investors reacting to? It's not the cloud business. The cloud business is doing great. To your point, doubling. Again, doubling to $120 billion is a lot. Part of it is teaching people how to do it. A lot of it is thinking about how to do it. A lot of it is the momentum in Anthropic. Talked about Anthropic decelerating, but still added a lot of revenue. And a lot of that goes in referral fees and compute fees to Google Cloud. So that part of the business was great. If that's all they reported, the stock would be up. It's the other part. It's that core advertising business. We have long been worried that that business would be negatively impacted by AI. And it is Google's search that's going to be impacted by AI. That was the big weakness. If people stop Googling and start GPTing, that means less ad sales. And they've been able to assuage those concerns for the last couple of years and keep nice growth rates within Google search. But this quarter, it appeared to abruptly slow down. They're talking about having tough comps, but that's an abrupt slowdown that nobody expected. And now investors are going to ask themselves, is it happening? Is it happening? Is it happening? Is it happening? The shift to AI now means that the most lucrative business Google has ever been in, which is selling search ads, is that business going to be impacted. That's why you're seeing that big step down in the stock, is that that's the core cash generator. If that's suffering, and by the way, it's not the ad market that's the problem. Meta accelerated growth to the high twins last week. Meta is now growing more than twice as fast in the digital advertising business than Google. They're gaining a lot of share. The concern seems to be specifically about what Google is doing in search advertising. Do you believe that that is what is happening? And to be clear, it's not that the search revenue is falling, but the growth is slowing down. And part of me thinks, well, this is a gigantic business to begin with. A slowdown in growth, I'm not necessarily that surprised by. But do you think that it is genuinely a reflection of people are not using the product as much because they're using other products? They're using Cloud. They're using all of these things that everyone was so afraid would eat Google's lunch at some point. It's too early to tell. One quarter, I don't think investors need to panic about it. It's just this was the raw nerve that got exposed when Chad GPT came out. When Chad GPT came out, we all jumped to the conclusion that this is going to happen. It didn't happen for the subsequent three years. That's why we're very on edge about the possibility of this. Of this change in behavior impacting their advertising business. But you're right. They're still growing. It's one quarter. You don't need to panic. But it is something that is very much top of mind. Because again, that's where a vast majority of the profit comes from, from Google. That is the engine. That is where they had overwhelming share. Remember, we all used to Google 90% plus share in the search market. In the chat market, there are two. Chad GPT is the number one chat. And then it's Gemini. And now we also have a digital assistant category, which is very adjacent. And Muse took the lead there. This is the concern. Maybe it is happening. And Google's done a good job of selling a lot of ads in the AI flow. But maybe at some point, that's not enough. Because they are losing in that behavior. People are changing their behavior. And maybe that's just accelerating right now. What about the CapEx? It jumped again. It hit more than $51 billion in the quarter. It's up from $45 billion in the previous quarter. Free cash flow is negative again. But now we're at negative $9.1 billion. That jumped out to me. Is it significant in your view, the amount that they are technically losing on a cash flow basis to build these data? Yes, because it means that they'll have to go back to the capital markets if they keep it this way. Let's not forget, last quarter, they told us and they just, when they reported, they repeated that they're going to increase CapEx significantly next year. We're all taking that to mean that they're going to go from $200 to $300. That's a lot of capital they're going to have to raise. And the capital is available to them. When we talk, this isn't Corwade, right? That people will be willing to lend to Google. People will be willing to buy Google shares in the market. But still, that's pressure. It's pressure on the yield that they're going to have to pay. It's pressure on the share price. The more they use cash, the more they have to raise. That's going to be on investors' mind as well. One of the interesting things that they said was we are now starting to offload because we can't handle all the demand. So again, Microsoft started this strategy three years ago and is now much better positioned to manage its cash flow. And that's going to be on the investors' mind as well. So Google now realizes that it has to do it as well and is reacting by offloading capacity. That means lower margins, which again feeds into these concerns about the core business. What do you make of these share sales, these equity issuances, the debt issuances? Because it seems like this AI trade is increasingly becoming, or these companies are becoming increasingly dependent on the share price. On someone that isn't them, specifically the capital markets. And, you know, that's okay, so long as there is real demand in the capital markets. And it appears there is. We can look at Meta's share sale, where my understanding, it was five times oversubscribed. And it, you know, it worked. They wanted to go out and raise, I think, $85, $95 billion, and they were able to do it. But at the same time, you're opening yourself up to this vulnerability, which is like, we're no longer self-sustainable on this path. We require help from you, from investors. We need you to fund us via issuing shares or via issuing debt. And I guess the logical next question, as we enter this next chapter, is how long can that go on? Like, at what point could the music stop and investors say, we don't want to do this anymore? And when that happens, I mean, they're screwed, right? Is that too much to say that? It depends on who you mean by that. So, yes, capital is finite. It hasn't seemed like it so far. A lot of capital has flown into building out the AI ecosystem, but it is finite. In fact, Meta pointed this out in their filing last week. They said, hey, look, we need to go get capital before it's all gone. SpaceX raised a lot of capital. They said, hey, look, we need to go get capital. Anthropic's going to raise a lot of capital in three weeks. And now Google went out and got a lot of capital. Meta's going in. It's finite. There's only so much equity and, importantly, debt investors are willing to fund this build-out. So, at some point, not everybody's going to get a piece. And some parts of the capital markets may actually already be seizing up, right? That's what we saw with some of these higher CDSs and very, very high yields on some of these outstanding bonds is that it is finite. Some parts of it may be seizing up. But Microsoft's going to be fine. They don't need capital. Amazon, Google, Meta, still investment-grade. Could probably raise as much as they want to a point. It's everybody else that you have to worry about. Oracle talked about the fact that they've changed their plans, that they're now only going to raise $20 billion, $10 billion in equity and $10 billion of debt. That's not because they don't need a lot of capital. It's because they have to go to plan B. Plan B is bring your own chip. Plan B is vendor financing. And because they are recognizing that the capital is not as available as it used to be. Once you start getting past them in the value chain, in the food chain, and you get to ankle biters like Corweave, I'm not sure where the capital is going to come from. Gil Luria is head of technology research at D.A. Davidson. Gil? Always appreciate your time. After the break, the Fed's path forward. 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. Thanks for watching. Download the Built app and join the membership for where you live at joinbuilt.com slash markets. That's J-O-I-N-B-I-L-T dot com slash markets. Use our link so that they know that we sent you. Support for the show comes from Comiteer. You want great coffee. You also know great coffee takes time and effort. That is unless you're having Comiteer. It's an entirely new way to make coffee. With Comiteer, you get the convenience of a capsule. Except you're He was making something that was brewed to perfection, sourced from some of the best roasters in the world here's how it works cometier flash freezes the coffee to lock peak flavor and freshness it comes with these recyclable aluminum capsules and all you have to do is melt it no machine or plastic group path required it ships frozen on dry ice right to you and you can make hot coffee ice lattes iced coffee whatever you want this isn't your average cup of joe in fact george howell wildly known as the godfather especially coffee gave it a glowing endorsement he said that cometier will do for coffee what the bottle did for wine and one of our producers allison tried cometier for herself allison says she loves it it's some of the best coffee she's ever had and it's super quick and easy to make if you're still unconvinced you can try it for yourself and get 20 off your first order at cometier.com slash prop g or use code prop g for 20 off we're back with prof g markets the fed decided to hold rates steady yesterday as expected but not everyone was on board two officials governor lisa cook and cleveland fed president beth hammock dissented in favor of a quarter point hike it was cook's first descent since joining the fed in 2022 others said the fed has time to wait and see chair kevin walsh said that financial and credit conditions have quote tightened for some businesses and households but the fed said it's time to wait and see the fed said that the economy is growing at a strong pace an upgrade from solid in september walsh also announced a change to the fed's meeting schedule starting next year one of the fed's eight meetings will focus on long-term strategy with no rate decision traders now put the odds of a december hike at 80 on calci so joining us to discuss the fed's decision we've got mike gapen chief u.s economist at morgan stanley mike good to see you uh it was a hold people expected that we did see these two dissents did anything surprise you about this did anything jump out well i think what jumped out at for me and probably for for others also is that i don't think we got a convincing explanation from the chair as to why the committee decided to stay on hold this month we heard from many fomc participants going into the meeting that for a variety of reasons they didn't feel a sense of urgency to to raise rates this month uh but we didn't really hear the chair's explanation now that in some ways that's not a surprise he doesn't like to provide a lot of information but i i do think kind of the lowest hanging fruit is to to talk to markets and investors and individuals about why you did what you did what decision you took today and and why so to me that was the the surprising part there are there are a few other things that were surprising on the margin but i think that was the most important one if you're looking for a reason as to why the fed stayed on hold despite strong growth despite a stable labor market despite inflation being above target you didn't really get one today what do we think the reason is um i mean some have said there has been conjecture at least that maybe there was a political motive this is the week before the midterms uh maybe i mean we know that the president is not a fan of the feds but i think that's the reason why the feds didn't get one today and i think that's the reason why the feds didn't get one today and i think that's the reason why the feds didn't get one today and i think that's the reason why the feds didn't get one today and i think that's the reason why the feds didn't get one today and i think that's the reason why the feds didn't get little. I would say that, yes, you can imagine being faced with two choices. Inflation is high, it's driven by movements in energy prices that you can't affect directly. So what you could do is raise rates a lot, maybe weaken asset markets, weaken demand, and you could bring inflation down to two quickly, but you'd pay a pretty high economic cost for that. An alternative is to say that what we want to do is make financial conditions a little more restrictive, moderate some of the growth in the economy, kind of prevent second round effects, as you said, the energy effects from spilling through into other parts of the production process, and assume that over time those supply forces go away. So it's a strategy, it's not guaranteed, but I think doing nothing probably, you know, they view doing nothing as not the right answer. The question is, how much do you want to do and how fast do you want to do it? And the committee is saying we need, say, a modest recalibration of policy. Rates should go higher, but it's not clear they have to go higher at consecutive meetings, and we do have some time to assess what's happening. Yeah, that makes sense. Something he also emphasized was this 2% target. He's like, I think he said, we double down on the 2% inflation target. Which we have been quite a long way away from for several years now. I'm starting to think that that's just never going to happen. I'm starting to think we just live in a world where inflation is never close to the target. Because I just don't see, I mean, they keep on saying it. I keep on knowing, yeah, this 2% thing, it's apparently important. But we've been miles off for years. So, I guess my question to you, do you think that the 2% target is realistic, feasible? Do you take it seriously? I do on all three of those points. I would say if we go back to, you know, pre-liberation day tariff decisions, inflation was coming down. For example, in Europe, it did come all the way back down to the ECB's target. It probably, you know, this is a counterfactual I cannot prove. But inflation was decelerating. If we did not get the tariffs, if we did not get the conflict in the Middle East that pushed up energy prices, it may very well be the case that inflation would have gotten close enough down to 2, if not all the way to 2. So, you know, I think the Fed was trying to bring it back down to 2%. We just got additional supply shocks out of the Russia-Ukraine crisis, the conflict in the Middle East, and tariffs. Here's a good point, in that you've got a target, you say this is your target, and you say you're going to hit it. Actions have to speak. Words are important, but actions ultimately are most important. And that's where I think there was maybe some, say, conflict in the message today. If all of this is that important and that urgent and the economy is this strong, why did you wait? Again, I think you've got reasons why to wait, but we didn't necessarily hear those today. We're going to get the PCE data tomorrow. Do you have any expectations for what we might see? And do you have any expectations for how inflation will fare over the next. few months. I mean, it isn't seeming to get better and they haven't raised rates. So I'm not sure what to think about prices at this point. It seems like at least we're going to be looking at very high prices until the end of the year. But what do you think? So I think that's right, at least through the end of the year and probably even through the first quarter of 2027. Core inflation will focus on that because we know headline is being really driven by energy right now. Core is probably a reasonable measure of where underlying inflation trends are. That'll probably be 3.1% year on year. And we think it'll be around 3% by year end, so a smidge lower. And then you've got that usual feature of the economy where we get a lot of price increases in the first quarter, what economists call residual seasonality. In other words, there are many firms that raise prices once a year and they do so early in the calendar year. But then after that, it's probably the case that inflation shows a clearer downward trend. Not a lot. We think core PCE finishes next year at around 2.6. So not all the way to the Fed's target, but directionally going towards the target. But you're right. It may be the case, it's likely to be the case, that inflation will be elevated and sticky at least through the end of the first quarter. So alongside that, I do think the Fed will be raising rates further. We think they will raise rates again in December and then for a third time in March. So I think you could argue maybe they should just get there in three consecutive meetings, but I think they can also get there by early next year and that'll deliver more or less the same amount of restriction as we look into 2027 and 2028. What do you make of Kevin Walsh's job so far? He's new to the job. I mean, in terms of how he's communicating, the decisions that he's made, what do you make of him so far? On the point of communication, it's obvious he doesn't want to say as much. He has a view that Fed should speak less. And I think that's perhaps frustrating to a generation of all of us, whether you're an economist, a market watcher, an investor, or the average American out there who watches the Fed a few times a year. It may be frustrating to not get the information you're accustomed to. He says so much without saying anything. It's very frustrating. Yeah. But it's skillful in a way. Yeah, you hear a lot. And then at the end, what did I actually get out of that? Yeah. But the other backdrop is he's coming into the position as a reformer. He views himself as a reformer. He thinks the way that the institution has worked over the past decade or two is in correct, and he wants to change things. So it's not surprising in that way that he's going to want to do things differently, and it may throw some of us off in the short run. But he views the institution as having moved away from some of its core principles, and he wants to steer the institution back. So that's also a bit of a recipe for conflict, not just outright conflict, but I mean, 16, 17, 18 FOMC members who are kind of doing things the old-fashioned way, we'll put it that way, and Warsh who wants to do things differently. So it might make for mixed messages. But then I'll also say every new chair has indigestion, and it takes time to evolve in the role. And you learn to develop your own style, your own relationship with markets, your own way of communicating to investors and households. That process usually takes six months to a year. So having bumpy moments is not unusual for new Fed chairs. Michael Gapin is chief U.S. economist at Morgan Stanley. Michael, appreciate your time. Thank you. Thanks for having me on. In addition to earnings, Microsoft has also announced that it will be offering voluntary buyouts for $27 billion. The company is about to pay nearly a third of its employees to leave. And why would they do this? Well, probably because of AI. Back in July, Microsoft announced nearly 5,000 layoffs, citing that AI is, quote, changing how work gets done. And since then, the company's AI investments have only gotten larger. Capital expenditures for the September quarter should exceed $50 billion. And you have to think that those commitments are crowding out payrolls. In other words, it seems like AI is taking jobs. At the same time, though, there has been some compelling pushback to this AI is taking your job narrative. Because, yes, tech companies are announcing layoffs across the board. But at the same time, most of these companies significantly overhired during the pandemic. Microsoft, for example, added almost 60,000 employees in just two years after COVID. So it is a lot of work to do. And I think that's possible that these layoffs aren't actually about AI. It's possible that this is just a regular cyclical correction, some natural return to normal. But there is one key fact about this round of Microsoft layoffs that makes me question that argument. And that is the following. If Microsoft actually eliminates 27% of its workforce, like they're suggesting, then their total headcount will actually be lower than what they're suggesting. And that's because they're not what they're suggesting. They're not suggesting that they're going to be lower than what it was before the pandemic. Put another way, that doesn't look like a correction to an overhiring problem. That actually looks like a structural consequence of AI. Now, some people will argue that it isn't the actual AI that's replacing the workers, but that it is the cost of the AI that's replacing the workers. After all, the more they spend on data centers, the less they might be willing to spend on employees. And, you know, that makes sense. That might be true. But I think that's true. But I would respond with the following question. What's the difference? Regardless of what aspect of AI is replacing tech workers, the reality is that it seems that tech workers are getting laid off because of AI. The more layoff announcements we see, the more that seems to be true. Now, to be clear, that doesn't mean AI is getting rid of all jobs. In fact, its impact on the overall job market in the U.S. has been almost negligible. But it does appear that, for this specific job, in this specific sector, it is beginning to have an impact. How long will that last? I don't know. And if this whole AI thing doesn't work out, you can be sure they will go back to employing humans. But that doesn't negate the fact that these companies are, at the very least, trying to replace workers with AI. That is the objective. And this announcement is an admission of that goal. 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 Silverio. And our social producer is Jake McPherson. Thank you for listening to Prof G Markets from Prof G Media. If you liked what you heard, give us a follow. I'm Ed Elson. Tune in tomorrow for a conversation with Josh Brown. Now at Kroger, your points add up to more ways to save every trip. Use them your way to take dollars off groceries at checkout or save at the pump. You can even save up to $35 on your next fill-up. Same points, more choices. And with low prices on fresh, quality food, plus digital and personalized offers tailored to how you shop, your dollar goes further. Redeem your points online or in the app. Kroger. Fresh for everyone. Restrictions apply. See site or store for details. Return on investment over three years and pays for itself in just three months. Learn why over 16,000 of the fastest-growing companies use Vanta at Vanta.com.