Support for the show comes from Schwab.

With Schwab Investing Themes, it's easy to invest in ideas you believe in, like online music and videos, artificial intelligence, electric vehicles, and more. Schwab's research process uncovers emerging trends, then their technology curates relevant stocks into themes.

Choose from over 40 themes, buy all the stocks in a theme as is, or customize to better fit your investing goals, all in a few clicks.

Schwab Investing Themes is not intended to be investment advice or a recommendation of any stock or investment strategy. Learn more at schwab.

Com/thematicinvesting.

Support for this podcast comes from Public. Before we start the show, I want to take a moment to talk about one of my sponsors, public. Com, the investing platform that just launched an industry-leading 5.1% high-yield cash account with no fee, subscriptions, or balance requirements. 5.1% interest on your cash straight up. So full disclosure, I'm an investor in public. They do not sell their order flow versus some of the other companies in the space, and I think they're good guys. This is a paid endorsement for public. Com, 5.1% annual percentage yield as of December 20th, 2023, and is subject to change. Full disclosures in terms and conditions can be found in the podcast description. High-yield cash accounts are available for US members only.

This week's number, 8.3 million. That's how many people are on China's personal debt delinquency blacklist, meaning they can't purchase luxury items such as high-speed train tickets or nice hotel rooms. Ed, it's not true that China doesn't have free speech, as no one says so, ever. Get it, Ed? Little geo-political humor there. Yeah, I get it.

Sort of a change of pace this week.

It's nice. We're mixing it up a little bit.

How was your TED Talk?

I love being here. My talk went well. I was really happy with it. I spent a lot of time or specifically Mia spent a lot of time on it. It just occasionally it all comes together. It was really nice because I was super fucking nervous. I really like Chris Anderson. I like his wife, Jacquelyn Overgrats. For what we do, Ted's the Super Bowl, if you will. It was important to me, and I was more nervous than usual, and I followed Andrew Yang and Barry Weiss. But the thing that's amazing about Ted, and literally in the last 15 minutes, I I've had a coffee with one of my role models, Sam Harris, who I just adore. Sam got me off of Twitter. I just think the world of him. I love how courageous and just how fucking smart he is. I think he's going to go down as one of the great philosophers of our time. Did you realize that at the time, people never think a philosopher is a philosopher. It's not until they're dead. I think Sam, after he's gone, is going to be remembered as one of the great thinkers of our time.

Then five minutes later, this woman comes running up to me and I'm like, Who's this good-looking brunette? Quite frankly, that was my first thought. That seems to want to know me. It was Monica Lewinsky. She and I are Twitter friends. She's got a really fantastic Twitter feed, and she's super smart. I've always really admired her. She's my second Twitter friend. George and I started, George Hon and I started corresponding on Twitter. We felt as if we knew each other and we talked, but she's a super impressive woman. I was glad to meet her. But I've had a wonderful time. Vancouver is beautiful. I forgot about how beautiful Vancouver is. And I'm just really... I'm just in a good place right now. The talk went well. Everyone's been super nice to me. I've just had a really nice time because the thing about me, I don't like the public because when I go out in public, I have to deal with the public. But everyone's been so friendly in Sonai.

And they're all famous people, which helps, right?

Yeah. But no, there's a whole band of young people doing vertical farming or saving the planet from volcano radiation or all these. I call them rich kids. Other people would call them socially minded. I mean, I literally listen to someone saying, well, I'm trying to figure out a way to turn volcano ash into something that cools the Earth. And I'm like, oh, so I think what you're saying is you have rich parents. Is that wrong? Anyways, it's a lot of very impressive people. But enough of that. Let's talk about today. What are we talking about? What are the headlines?

Let's start with our weekly review of market vitals. The S&P 500 declined, the dollar was stable, Bitcoin dropped to its lowest level since February, and the yield on 10-year treasuries climbed. Shifting to the headlines. The IMF forecasted that the US economy will grow by 2.7 11% this year. That's higher than previously predicted and double the rate of any other G7 nation. Microsoft is investing $1.5 billion in G42, an Abu Dhabi-based AI company which the US government has scrutinized for its ties to China. As part of the deal, G42 will use Microsoft's cloud platform Azure and also add Microsoft's President Brad Smith to the board. United Airlines' shares rose more than 17% after the company delivered a stronger than expected forecast for the second quarter. The airline also posted a beat for the first quarter despite a $200 million loss in potential earnings from the grounding of some Boeing 737s. United announced it expects 40 fewer planes from Boeing this year than previously planned and will turn to Airbus for new planes in 2026. Truth Social's stock has fallen as much as 70% from its all-time high. Shares dropped sharply following announcements last week about an expansion into streaming and the sales of millions of additional shares.

The stock then rebounded more than 15% in a single day to break its losing streak. Finally, TikTok débuted its Instagram competitor, TikTokNotes, in Australia and Canada. The company said the new app, which is a dedicated space for photo and text content is in the early phases of distribution. Scott, thoughts?

Us economy is just a phenomenon right now globally. The article I read that everyone is blowing everyone's mind is that everyone assumed that higher interest rates would actually dampen the economy. That's one of the principles of economics. It makes the cost to borrow money more expensive, so you're less aggressive about new investments, and the economy slows down. What they think might be is the acceleration in interest rates, that there's actually more money in money market vehicles than there is consumer debt owed. The amount of money being garnered by households from the additional interest they're getting on their short term deposits and their money market funds, is greater than the incremental cost of higher interest rates, which has put more money in the hands of consumers who are fueling the economy. It's blowing everyone's mind that the idea that higher interest rates actually might be stimulative to the economy me. I just find that fascinating. Consumers seem to be fairly confident, but it's an absolute phenomena, and it just strikes me that Biden's not more popular.

That's the most interesting thing to me, that 60% of Americans still think Biden is doing a bad job on the economy. I think the IMF has published an important number here. It's a testament to the great job the Biden administration has done. But the shame is that Americans either won't read it or if they even do, they probably won't take it seriously, because as we've learned, when it comes to the economy, politics almost always trumps the actual data. Do you have any thoughts on Microsoft's investment in G42, the AI company?

I love this. I want to pull as many Gulf nations westward and towards capitalism as possible. If we can get some of the Arab nations looking West as opposed to partnering with China on AI or what have you, I think it's a good thing adding Brad Smith to the board. I'm excited about that.

On Brad Smith joining the board, this relates to what we discussed last week, which is interlocking board seats. I find it pretty remarkable that a week later, This has happened again. Brad Smith, President of Microsoft, Microsoft on the board of Open AI, invested in Open AI inflection mistral. And literally the week after we discussed that, the President joins the Board of a different AI company. Do you have any concerns about that?

I think this is different, Ed. I think it's a matter of whether you're using a board seat to have implicit and explicit control of the company without triggering a DOJ review, or you're just, This is a big corporate We want an investment. We want representation on the board. I think this feels like a different situation to me.

I'm surprised you say that because what we've been focusing on is this soft power that they have with all of these different AI companies. And the other side to this is that Microsoft is now going to be G42's primary cloud service provider. So that's the other string that's attached to these investments. It feels like every time we see an announcement on one of these investments, it's like, oh, and they're also announcing a partnership where they're going to use Microsoft or Amazon as their dominant infrastructure provider. And there's just one stat that really drives this home for me, which is that last year, Microsoft and Amazon alone accounted for two thirds of all AI investment globally. That's roughly $20 billion. Microsoft alone invested more in AI than every other VC firm in the world combined. It is the biggest VC firm in the world for AI. Does Is that not... I'll just say it now, it concerns me. I'm surprised it doesn't concern you.

What it comes down to for me, and I have been on a couple of boards where there's a corporate investor, they invest, they go on the board, and then we get an offer from a competitor. If it's good corporate governance, you ask that person to recuse himself from the conversation. I was on the board of Gateway Computer, and I said to Gateway when they were raising money, the hedge fund I'm working with would be interested in providing financing. They said, Okay, there's a conflict here because you want the price to be as high as possible for the money we're borrowing from you. We want the price to be as low as possible, so you're conflicted. So I recuse myself from conversations. If there's good governance here in their minority shareholders, they should be able to, for example, sell to another company, make moves that are not in Microsoft's best interest, but in the interests of G42. You can have, I would call, decent corporate governance here. What you're talking about is really interesting in the sense that at some point, Do all of these investments mean that they are this multi-tentacled Hydra or multi-headed Hydra, where the market becomes ossified because no one can sell to anybody else?

Every deal benefits Microsoft. If a plaintiff's attorney or someone at the DOJ says, We have evidence that all of these investments are disadvantages the market and creating a less competitive market, then they'll have a case. But they should be able to handle this with good corporate governance. Truth Social, I think that that is... I mean, this is a meme stock now, right? It has absolutely nothing to do with the underlying business, $4 million business. Property will be a bigger business than true social. Everyone says, Oh, the stock is down 70%. It's still worth $4 billion or a thousand times revenue. So it's a meme stock. It's trading on things other than anything to do with the underlying business or the fundamentals. Now, the thing about meme stocks is they always return to gravity. Michael Jordan, when he jumps from the free throw line, looks like, Oh, this guy can defy gravity. Every time, 100% of the time, he hits the ground again. Gravity is unnegotiable or it's non-negotiable. I feel the same way about the markets with respect to meme stocks, and that's whether it's bad Bath and Beyond, AMC, Gamestop. Yeah, they might stay airborne for a while.

At some point, at some point, gravity kicks in. This company is not worth 50 million, much less 4 billion. And so the question is, when does gravity kick in? And I think it's going to kick in sooner rather than later, because I think that the people who went into this, even if they went into it to support Trump, and every week, they could see all these headlines that there are $1,000 is off 30 %. I think that's a decent amount of pain. And I think after a while, at some point, they go, You know what? I'm the idiot. It's like that thing, if you're in a room and you don't know who the stupidest person is, that means it's you. I think at some point, a lot of these investors are going to go, What am I doing? Why am I the dumb one? Especially when they see headlines like Trump is doing everything he can, obviously, to try and sell shares and he's suing the founders. So this is nothing. It's off 70 %. It's still more to Oh, my God. This thing hasn't even really started. It's deceleration. Probably the most interesting story that people are talking about is the TikTok one.

I think that's just wild. I think TikTok has such unbelievable technology, has executed so well. They have such a built-in consumer base, this is going to be very interesting. This is them going up and saying, Hey, Metta, we're not scared of you. As a matter of fact, we're coming for your lunch. And how this translates is I actually, despite the fact that I think TikTok is a defense threat, I do think it's going to be divested. And from a pure capitalist standpoint, I think this is a great time to go into the secondary market and buy TikTok shares. Because I do think that the divestment is going to happen, the geo The geopolitical cloud will be lifted. And if this thing works, I don't think there's any reason why you wouldn't look at TikTok and say, Well, they're in the same weight class as Meta, growing faster, not as big, but growing faster, which might I think what's meta, 1.3 trillion might get them a trillion dollar market cap or four times what it is now.

We'll be right back after the break with a look at Tesla's new shareholder vote.

My dad works in B2B marketing, but I never really knew what that meant. Then one day, my dad came by my school for Career Day and told everyone in my class he was a big ROAS man. Then he just kept saying things like, The bigger the ROAS, the better, over and over. My friends still laugh at me to this day. I think it means calculating a return on ad spend? One thing is for sure. I'll be known as the ROAS man's kid for the rest of my days. Why couldn't you just be a fireman or a lawyer? Why? You ruined my life, dad. Not everyone gets B2B, but LinkedIn has the people who do. And with ads on LinkedIn, you'll be able to reach people based on job title, industry, likelihood to buy, and more. Start converting your B2B audience into high-quality leads today.

We'll even give you $100 credit on your next ad campaign.

Go to linkedin. Com/scott to claim your credit. That's linkedin. Com/scott. Terms and conditions apply. Linkedin, the place to be, to be.

Support for this podcast comes from Grammarly. Isn't it? It's so frustrating when you have to read someone else's bad writing.

Isn't things just the worst when you have to read bad someone?

Okay.

Isn't things just the worst when you have to read... Isn't things just the worst when you have to read bad someone else's writing that is also bad?

Worst it is, absolutely worst. You hear that? That was written without Grammarly. Slopy writing can cause serious issues in the workplace. A few misspelling's here, some poorly chosen words there, and good communication goes completely out the window.

Thankfully, Grammarly is a trusted AI writing partner that saves your company from miscommunication and all the waste the time and money that goes with it. But Grammarly is more than just a grammar check. It can help generate AI prompts or even help you strike the right tone and personalize your writing based on audience and context. We here at the Profit team use Grammarly, and what I would say is that we take this very seriously. This is something my mother drilled into me at a very young age. If you want to come across as educated and intelligent, you need to write well. And one of the pillars of that is grammar. Plus, Grammarly integrates seamlessly across 500,000 apps and websites. No cutting, no pacing, no context switching. Personalized on-brand writing help is built into your docs, messages, emails, everything. So why not join Grammarly to work faster? Hit your goals while keeping your data secure. Learn more at grammerly. Com.

Support for Prop G comes from Mint Mobile. We cover a lot of so-called disruptors on the show. Companies that move fast, break things, and try to find innovative ways to move a product category forward. Some of take big swings and fall flat on their faces. Think movie Pass, Google Glass, 3D television. But other places actually pull off the vision. So let's talk about Mint Mobile. They took the radical step to nix all retail locations and sell the wireless plans exclusively online. That's why mintMobil can offer wireless plans for just 15 bucks a month when you purchase a three-month plan. All of their plans come with high-speed data and unlimited text and talk delivered on the nation's largest 5G network. Plus, you can use your own phone with any mintMobil plan and bring your phone number with for you, along with all your existing contacts. To get this new customer offer and your new three-month unlimited wireless plan for just 15 bucks a month, go to mintMobil. Com/profg. That's mintMobil. Com/profg. Cut your wireless bill to 15 bucks a month at mintmobile. Com/profg. $45 upfront required, equivalent to $15 a month. New customers on first three-month plan only.

Speed slower above 40 gigabytes on unlimited plan. Additional taxes, fees, and restrictions apply. See mintmobile for details.

We're back with Profgee Markets. Tesla's board is asking shareholders to vote on Elon's 56 billion dollar pay package again. As we discussed back in February, a Delaware judge rejected that payment plan, finding that the board failed to engage in a meaningful negotiation over the package's terms. Now shareholders will vote on whether to reinstate the package anyway, and they'll also vote on whether Tesla should leave Delaware and reincorporate in Texas. This is an awkward time to solicit shareholder opinions. Earlier last week, the company announced it will lay off 10% of its workforce, and two senior executives departed. Shares are also down 29% this year, making Tesla the worst performing stock in the S&P 500. Here to help us break down what this new vote means for Tesla and beyond is Charles Elson, founding director of the Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance at the University of Delaware. You might have noticed that Charles and I share the same name. That is because Charles also happens to be my uncle. But don't let that color your opinion of him. He is a leading expert in the field of corporate governance, and we're very happy to have him. Charles, thank you for joining us.

I'm very happy to be with you all today.

About two months ago, Scott and I were discussing this ruling by the Delaware Court that found Elon's compensation plan, that it found that it was invalid. Before we discussed this recent proposal from Tesla. Could you just remind us why that original compensation plan was, according to the courts, unacceptable?

The court concluded a couple of interesting things in a ruling back in February. It was done by Chancellor McCormick, who is a chief judge, if you will, the Delaware Court of Chancery. What she said is, first of all, the directors who awarded this to him were not independent of him, which is really important in a compensation decision. In In this case, she found that there really wasn't any negotiation, that there was no effort done to really compare the comp to peer groups and things like that, and that the committee itself was clearly, in her view, not independent and did not carry out an effective process of negotiation. In fact, Musk himself effectively in depositions and testimony, basically said he was negotiating with himself on the plan. It was his idea, and that was that. She then found that the plan as disclosed to the investors wasn't appropriately done, that when they voted to approve the plan, that all of these details that she discovered in the trial or found that had occurred in the trial weren't disclosed to them, and therefore, their vote was not effective. Now, this is the key to the decision. She, in the decision, says, Look, awful process, not independent directors, and I find that the result of this was an unfair plan.

She made the argument, interestingly enough, that, Look, he had 20 % of the company itself. It's equity. Giving him another, gosh knows how many shares really doesn't get you anywhere. It doesn't incent him to do anything differently than if he had the same equity he held it holding with none of these extra shares. If you have a transaction, even if a majority of shareholders approve it, if it has nothing to do with a company, it doesn't match corporate purpose, which she suggested this plan did not, that it basically is a gift. Shareholders can always approve a gift of company money to someone, but everyone has to do it. It has to be unanimous shareholder approval, which obviously didn't happen here. That's why she said, The plan is not equitable, and I'm ordering recision. In other words, canceling the whole thing out. That's the sticky wicket today, is how you fit a a new vote, even if informed, so to speak, by the shareholders, fit into that paradigm. And I don't think it does. It's certainly helpful for a company to have independent shareholders vote on something. But ultimately, if it's not fair, it has to be unanimous.

Mr. Wilson, nice to meet you. Thanks for being here. So the problem I find is the word equitable. And some of the things that I think are a bit misleading here is, okay, $55 billion pay package. Well, right away, that doesn't sound equitable. It sounds like an insider job where the board directors aren't representing the fiduciary interests of all shareholders, meaning that they could have paid him $5 billion, and he probably still would have showed up for work 20% of the time, which is what he's doing now. But isn't the correct number to evaluate around equitable equitable? It's distinct to the corporate governance around their obligation to do a market check, negotiate with them. But the numbers are the headline news here that it's really the value of the options package that was awarded to him at the time of award. Actually, that number is much lower, right? Because the stock went up 5 or 10X. So wouldn't the right number to look at whether or not they were serving their shareholders be in the billions? And again, and I hate defending Elon Musk, but if someone said, if Tim Cook said, I'm going to take Apple from 3 trillion to 30 trillion, and you're going to pay me $1 trillion, wouldn't shareholders approve that?

They may, but again, what she found was this an incentive plan. In other words, suppose you didn't do anything at all. Wouldn't he have had the same incentive to, in fact, bring it to that value? This wasn't a little stock award, ignoring the quote value. This was giving him a nice chunk of the company. I can remember years ago, I was on a board, a company called Sunbeam, and we had a Superstar CEO. So they said Al Dunlop. Chainsaw Al. Chainsaw Al. Yes. I actually had to make the motion to fire Chainsaw Al. But Chainsaw Al made a similar request. And that, well, I produce so much value and I should take home so many % of what I produce. Well, that was a misnomer. He didn't really produce it. It were the other people, the company working with him, who produced it. And he had a lot of equity in the company anyway. And I've always been suspicious of those kinds of demands for mega, mega grants to begin with. This one was not... This one was significant. It wasn't one or two %. It was huge. And I think that you have to remember, too, the Court of Chancery is a Court of Equity, not a Court of Law, a Court of Equity.

And an equity court has the right and responsibility to make equity in a given situation. That's their power. And it was not equitable in her view in that you were awarding him so much of the company for something that he was already incented to do. And it's also interesting to note that Mr. Musk did sell a lot of his 20 % to fund the purchase of X. What was he doing? Selling his stock in Tesla, right? Which is not a great sign for an investor. Ceo is dumping stock to deploy this asset somewhere else where he feels he will make more money rather than keeping it in his own company, that's not a great sign one way or the other. As it turns out, Mr. Musk, as you correctly point out, doesn't spend all his time with Tesla. In fact, very recently, you might recall that he demanded another enormous equity grant if he were going to allow Tesla to develop AI. Otherwise, he'd say, I'll just set something else up. Well, he has a duty of loyalty to the company who to the shareholders who he serves. And threatening to take this corporate opportunity, theoretically, somewhere else to a business that he would own 100% of is really not the way a fiduciary, which he is as the CEO, should operate.

So anyone who can ask you for that money and threaten to blow themselves up, if you don't, isn't, in my view, worth ultimately ultimately keeping on. Remember this, Tesla, the shareholders of Tesla believe it's a perpetual organization. In other words, it goes way beyond the career of Elon Musk. And if someone can hold you over a barrel like that and threaten to go and make unreasonable demands, which I think she thought this was, particularly the way it was handled within the board, that at some point you have to say enough, because your obligation as a director isn't to Mr. Musk, it is to the shareholders of the organization. And if Mr. Musk gets hit by a bus, decides he'd rather live on an island somewhere, the company doesn't disappear. There are other people out there who can do the same thing. And I think that was the mistake of the board. And I think that certainly factored in their decision. I also think that after this happened, interestingly enough, as companies do compensation by comparing to other companies, we began to see in Silicon Valley another group of CEOs asking for the same thing, these mega grants.

So the damage wasn't just to the Tesla shareholders. It became industry-wide, Silicon Valley-wide, I guess, which was the disadvantage of shareholders in other companies. It became a peer model. And I think that that, I think, factored in decision. She had mentioned, I did an amicus brief, and that was a point I made, and she adopted the brief seemingly. But that was a problem, too.

We're both brothers from another mother on this, and that is I'd call us old-school, for the like of a better term, boomers on corporate governance. And that is when I was the CEO of companies, and I would occasionally say, Well, we're giving up all these options. I'd like some more. They'd say, Scott, you're the founder, you're the largest shareholder. We think you're fully staked. We're not giving you additional equity. And I thought that was reasonable, and I never threatened to leave the company. I was incentivized. What I have found is that the cult of the founder has grown, that that's no longer common practice, that CEOs expect, regardless of how many shares they already have, that they expect to get more and more shares. And quite frankly, sometimes the board does that. And what is also problematic is now what's different is when I was the CEO of a company, you It was very discouraged for you to sell any shares until everyone else got out first. Now, CEOs sell their shares all the time, and they come back and say, Well, I only own 3% of the company. I said, Well, boss, that's because you sold $40 million of shares in the last three or four years.

And what I found is that the leverage has gone back to the CEO. And as a result, boards are approving stuff that I never would have thought of. The only place I would push back on you, Mr. Elson, is that I get it theoretically that an enterprise should be bigger than any one individual. But I'm not sure the market believes that when it comes to Tesla. I do think the market, correctly or incorrectly, feels that Musk and Tesla are synonymous and that there's an argument to be made that this guy is different. He is exceptional. We should give him a big award. The other thing is my sense is, I'm speculating here and I'm curious, if they reincorporate in Texas and they do a benchmarking study, get their shit together from a governance standpoint or just a process standpoint, that they will probably approve the comp package. But I do think the reason why this decision was so important is because I think they will decide, the board will decide, it is a bridge too far to give this guy another 20% of the company because he's asked for it. So anyways, speculation hypothesis, you respond.

The newly incorporated company in Texas approves the comp package. They get their governance cleaned up. But this ridiculous notion that I should just have another 20 % because I'm Elon Musk and I want control of the company. The time to ask for control was a dual shareholder class company way back when. That was what I would speculate what happens from point forward. What are your thoughts, Mr. Elson?

I think it's going to be very tough for them to reincorporate in Texas. It doesn't make this suit go away. To do so, you have to have significant share of approval. And think of it this way. He says, first of all, he won the SolarCity case in Delaware, which a lot of people thought was insider-driven and problematic. So he won one, X, he never decided, or Twitter. And this one He lost. And he's saying, I lost, therefore I want to leave because I don't want these people deciding my fate again. Telling a shareholder, Look, I want to leave a regime that protects your interests. It is a shareholder friendly regime that thought that what was happening was unfair, not just to those who approved it, but unfair to everybody, those who voted against the plan. Delaware protects minority shareholders. And if you don't, you'll never raise minority capital. And that, I think, is the key to this whole thing. So he's telling them, okay, I want to move to a place that will not protect you. Isn't that a great idea? Well, I don't think the large institutions who do have a presence in this company, index funds and whatnot, are going to allow that.

If they allow it here, then any company can do that. You're also assuming that a Texas judge would say, okay, which would suggest that their political influences in Texas, a la he big employer that would swing the boat. Why would any shareholder from somewhere else want to subject themselves to that? And that's why I'm really thinking that this is more of a more ego-driven Let's say, as opposed to rationally thought out as appropriate. Texas is saying corporate law is Delaware, basically, just different tradition, I guess. But it would certainly be against a shareholder's self-interest to make that decision and vote to reincorporate. Look, this all comes back to the notion of the Superstar CEO. That was a theory that was very big in the '80s, '90s. It was a lot of academic literature on that. I've written a piece on the superstar in compensation. And the theory was the superstar needs to be paid so much because they'll jump to a similar company. We looked at 1,500 companies over 15 years. We only found 17 lateral moves, and Most of those 17, they were flops. They did not do well. As CFOs, they do move around a lot.

General counsel, their skills are much broader. But as CEOs, it's much more company-specific. And I think this notion, whether the board or the street itself, I think they make a mistake. And they find out, if they always do in the end, the superstars always blow themselves up because, yes, they're certainly highly skilled. But their skill set is usually, A, usually company-specific, and B, they make mistakes, and they dominate their boards through either sheer personality or dual class stock. Problem is human beings are fallible. We all make mistakes, and a good board helps you avoid the bad, the mistake you're about to make. But in these situations, it's not going to happen. They'll never challenge you. And that was the point that the judge was making here, that a board that effectively gives the CEO willy-nilly something because they If they don't, they get replaced. That's not the most effective way to run the company, not for the CEO, but for everybody else. Listen, if Mr. Musk is really as good as he believes he is, and he's obviously been talented, that instead of doing something like this, instead, he would buy everyone out, take it private, as he did with Twitter.

Twitter is completely run by him, and he can do what he wishes. But anytime you take someone else's money, you're a fiduciary, and that's the rub here.

Mr. Elson, just as we wrap up here, I want to ask the question that all our listeners are thinking, what was Ed like as an eight-year-old boy?

He was always interested, talkative, curious, and a lot of fun.

That's right. What was the trauma that resulted in the dysfunctional adult that is Ed Elson? What happened?

You'll have to ask his dad and his grandfather.

Well, Mr. Elson, we very much appreciate your time and expertise, and thanks for joining us today.

That was fun.

Ed I just don't get it. So, Brian, skip it, generation. Your uncle seems very smart.

He is very smart.

I'm glad we got him on. He seems like a nice, sweet man. Yeah, he is. That shocked me when I thought in the notes. On a corporate governance expert, Ed's uncle. I'm like, that's how deep we have to go into the barrel here. That's literally... That's our go-to- That's the trajectory here, yeah. Around guests is we have to go with family members.

Well, he was just on CNBC discussing this issue, and I saw him. Oh, no, he's very credible. I'm like, oh, man, we should get him on.

I just think that's hilarious. I'm going to bring in for analysis on the macroeconomic environment, I'm going to bring in my personal trainer.

You should bring on your kid like Cara.

Oh, God. Every fucking week.

We'll be right back after the break with a look at Big Bank earnings.

Support for Profit She comes from Babel. Learning a new language can open up a world of new experiences. Being fluent in a second language doesn't just unlock travel destinations or free you from the tyranny of subtitles. It can actually reshape the way you think. New phrases, sentence structures, and vocabulary make for a richer internal life that might even seep into your dream world. And Babel is a great way to tap into all of those possibilities. Babel is a science-backed language learning app with lessons created by real people for real conversations. Babel doesn't rely on artificial intelligence to build its 10-minute lessons. Instead, they're handcrafted by more than 200 language experts focused on teaching phrases and vocabulary you'll actually need to communicate. Our producer, Caroline, tried Babel, and she had a grand old time with the app. She said that it was enjoyable and that she felt she had learned Italian faster than she would have otherwise. Here's a special limited time deal for our listeners. Right now, get up to 60% off your Babel subscription, but only for our listeners at babel. Com/propg. Get up to 60% off at babel. Com/propg, spelled B-A-B-B-B-E-L. Com/propg. Rules and restrictions may apply.

Support for Prop G comes from Adlassian.

Adlassian software, including Jira, Confluence, and Trello, help power the collaboration for teams to accomplish what would otherwise be impossible alone.

Because individually, we're great, but together, we're so much better. That's why millions of teams around the world, including 75% of the Fortune 500, trust Adlassian software for everything from space exploration and green energy to delivering pizzas and podcasts.

Whether you're a team of two, 200 or two million, or whether your team is around the corner or on another continent altogether, Atlassian software is built to help keep you all on the same page from start to finish.

That way, every one of your teams, from engineering and IT to marketing, HR and legal, can stay connected and moving together as one towards shared company-wide goals. Learn how to unleash the potential of your team at adlacian.

Com. That's A-T-L-A-S-I-A-N. Com. Adlassian. Support for this podcast comes from Public. At the beginning of the show, I mentioned one of my sponsors, public. Com, the investing platform that just launched their 5.1% high yield cash account with no fees, period. Full disclosure, you might have heard me say this before, but Public is actually one of my personal investments. I love what they've done over the years in terms of bringing more trust and transparency to the markets. Now they're offering a simple way to earn an industry-leading 5.1% interest with a high-yield cash account. In some, I think they're good guys. No payment for order flow, which I think is a terrible way to manage a business. Just think a lot of the founders and think they're doing a good job. There are no fees, subscriptions or balance requirements, and you get up to 5 million FDIC insurance, which is 20 times the standard coverage. I know I'm repeating myself, but it's really just as simple as 5.1% annual percentage yield with a high-yield cash account at public. Com. This is a paid endorsement for public. Com, 5.1% APY. That's on December 20th, 2023, and is subject to change.

Full disclosures of terms and conditions can be found in the podcast description. High-yield cash accounts are available for US members only.

We're back with Profitree Markets. Big bank earnings are in for the first quarter, and across the board, they were stronger than expected. Despite a slight drop off in profits, the six largest US banks registered a combined revenue increase of 4% from a year ago. The biggest driver of that growth was investment banking, which surged everywhere. J. P. Morgan's investment banking revenue rose 21%, Goldman's and Citigroups rose 32%, and Bank of America's rose 38%. Scott, decent quarter overall. What can we learn from these earnings, particularly this increase in the investment banking business?

Well, so collectively, investment banking sales of the five big banks, they increased 27% year-on-year. So that's big. All segments of iBanking strong this year, led by underwriting, and Goldman's debt underwriting revenue grew nearly 40%, while J. P. Morgan's grew 58% and Citi's grew 62%, but I bet that's off a lower base. Debt sales accelerated this quarter on the back of diminished expectations for rate cuts, and their equity capital markets grew 45% at Goldman, 51% at J. P. Morgan, and 57% at Citi. So the investment banking is doing really well. And some between consolidation, more capital inflows from some of the weaker regionals and a renewal in investment banking business. It's just a good time to be a bank or bank with Wall Street. Consumer banks are down a little bit. I thought net interest income would be up, but I was wrong. The difference between what banks pay out for deposits and charge on lows, shrank on a quarterly basis at JPMorgan for the first time since 2021. I was not expecting that. I got that wrong. Americans are starting to realize the value of higher yield savings account. Ncds, they're moving into higher interest rate stuff.

Where that net interest margin has been a bit starked out. I also wonder if they're enjoying renewed revenue growth and more business on top of a rationalized consumer base, and that is banks had enough cloud cover in difficult earning seasons to justify more, quote, unquote, efficiency, which is Latin for layoff people and pay them less. And when they grow back off of a smaller cost base, more of it hits the bottom line. Do you have any thoughts on banks?

I I also thought it was interesting that the low light for all of them was the net interest income. I guess the thing that we underestimated is how smart consumers are, because what we're seeing is that they're all finally moving their deposits out of low-yield checking accounts and regular savings accounts into high-yield savings accounts. In other words, they're earning more interest on their assets, which the banks are now having to pay out. Something else we should mention is this new bank regulation proposal that's just come out of the Fed, or it's been in discussion for a few months, but Jerome Powell spoke on it last week. It's known as Basel Endgame. And these new proposed rules would increase capital requirements for large banks across America. Now, those requirements are dependent on the amount of assets that you hold as a bank, but on average, capital requirements would increase 16 %. Now, why is the Fed doing this? Well, it's a reaction to the Silicon Valley bank collapse from a little over a year ago, which, as you remember, that was a result of a pretty standard bank run. And the idea from the Fed is that the more assets you hold, the more resilient you are to these types of black swan events.

So the banks are very upset about this because they believe they're already sufficiently capitalized. They argue that by increasing those requirements, it's going to restrict their ability to take on more risk. It's going to restrict their ability to lend. Put simply, it'll just make everything they do more expensive. And as you'd expect, they'd argue they're saying that those higher costs would likely be passed down onto consumers. I'm wondering if you have any thoughts on this proposal and perhaps whether you would pick aside here between the Fed and the banks.

First off, I'm in favor of this only because I think the term Basel Endgame is just so fucking gangster. If I had... So one of my big regrets is that I didn't have a third. So I imagine if I'd agreed to have a third, you know what would have happened? Thinking I was going to have a daughter, I would have son. And as compensation for my disappointment around having another son, I would have named him Basel Endgame. I just think that'd be an awesome name.

Basel Endgame, Galloway.

Anyways, I haven't been listening. What do you think of this legislation or whatever the fuck it is?

Oh, my God. People want to hear your thoughts on this. Increasing capital requirements because of the Silicon Valley bank collapse, do you think that that is reasonable legislation for the banks?

No. Look, it bugs the shit out of me when Bernie Sanders and Senator Warren, when they say banking should be a boring business and there should never be a bank failure and capital reserve ratios should be one to one, my sense is that SVB showed that the banking system is resilient and the FDIC is amazing. They took a big... The FDIC reserve account took a big hit, but it's already been built back up. The more capital requirements you put on the banking system, the slower the growth of the economy. At the same time, you have to have enough bank requirements such that when shit gets real, the banks can stand a stress test. It's like, okay, it's like, how much risk do you want to take? My sense is, based on the fact that a bunch of 50 plus in-sale panic room Twitter shit of use your phone and get your assets out of SVB now. If it can withstand that, then I personally don't think that the crisis... I think the crisis last year shows that the system is resilient and we don't need additional requirements because keep in mind, you increase the requirements, you decrease the likelihood of a banking crisis, but you decrease growth in the United States.

The miracle of modern banking in the United States, and it is a miracle, is that if people deposit $100, but it's different people who need the money back at different times, you can loan out $120 or $130 and grow the economy. I mean, it sounds so simple and so obvious, but it's a miracle that we can do this. Now, if you start saying, Well, no, for every $100, you can't lend out $130. You have to only lend out $120. Okay, you decrease the likelihood of the impact of a run on the bank. But the economy is not going to grow as fast because that means fewer businesses and people are going to be able to borrow money to start businesses or buy cars or what have you. When I look at what happened last year with this massive panic being fomented by people who are looking for attention, and the market to absorb it just fine. That says to me that we don't need additional banking requirements. I find that these arguments are populist and that it's lazy thinking to think, Oh, increase the requirement. I don't think people understand there's a downside there.

All right, let's take a look at the week ahead. We'll see earnings from Google, Meta, Microsoft, Boeing, and Tesla. We'll also see US GDP data for the first quarter and the personal consumption expenditures index for March. And finally, it is a big week for us because your book, The Algebra of Wealth, officially launches tomorrow. So before we get your predictions, Scott, let's just talk about the book for a minute. What inspired you to write this book, and why do you think people should read it?

You know that study that says you are the sum of your five closest friends in the average? There's all these studies showing that your peer group is more important than your school, your parents, that you become the sum and then the average. So the five people you hang out, you end up being the same weight, the same political affiliation. You make about the same amount of money, same college attendance. Where there's variance is that if you have five people, even if they make the same amount of money, three will end up in the same place, one will end up economically struggling, and one will end up wealthy. I wanted to figure out what are the behaviors and strategies for people across a similar income trajectory in terms of who ends up wealthy and who doesn't. There's just some basics I wish I had applied, some basic lessons and principles. It's easy to say, We'll be a baller and make more money. That's important. But actually, the distinction between who ends up economically secure and those who don't is not about how much money you make. It's about how much you save and then your approach to deploying that capital and basic diversification, letting time take over, low-cost index funds.

When you're younger, developing a savings muscle, bringing your full self. I love what Jason Stavrish said, that wealth is a full person project, being a good person, showing up with character. I have found in our research that the myth of really rich people being bad people is in fact not only incorrect, but it's wrong, that if you want to be really wealthy, the key is bringing generosity and forgiveness to relationships. The most economically ruinous things are divorce personally, where you lose 60% of your wealth overnight because you have to cut your assets in half, and then you lose more because now you're supporting two households and you're a four-seller of assets, which is a never That's a good thing. But also when you get divorces from people professionally, show me a great small firm that implodes, and I'll show you partners and owners that get divorced from each other that aren't getting along. What I did was I looked at this book about basic financial literacy see in a basic lessons through different stages of your life such that you can end up in a better place than I did earlier. I got lucky. I got bailed out.

I deployed all of these strategies, but later in life. If I had just employed some basic strategies when I was your age, I would have ended up financially secure and had a much more stressful life at a much younger age. This is really a book I wish I had read when I was 25 or 30. This is not a book for people who are struggling with credit card debt. It's not cut up your credit cards and pay cash. This is a book for people who think, I'm going to make a decent living, maybe even a very good living, with a little bit of discipline. It's like working out. A little bit of effort gets you such dramatic gains around working out. So that's the basics of the book. I want more young people to, at an early age, think, I can spend more time with my family. I can spend more time focusing on relationships. I can have stress over things that matter, stress around my relationships or people not doing well, as opposed to stress around money. I think you can get there. And some, what I say about the book is, the good news is, I know how to get you economic security.

I really do think I know how to get you there. The bad news is the answer is slowly. But take you through a series of steps and disciplines to establish economic security.

I'd love to end there because that was so great, but we need to hear a prediction from you. Do you have any predictions for us?

I made it earlier. True Social is below 10... It's a single-digit stock within 30 or 60 days, and there's actually a decent chance it's below 4, 3, 2, 1 bucks in about sooner rather than later. This, Gravity always wins.

This episode was produced by Claire Miller and engineered by Benjamin Spencer. Our associate producers are Jennifer Sanchez and Allison Weis. Our executive producers are Jason Stavers and Katherine Dylan. Mia Silverio is our research lead, and Drew Burrows is our technical director. Thank you for listening to Prof. G. Markets from the Vox Media Podcast Network. Join us on Wednesday for Office Hours, and we'll be back with a fresh take on more kids every Monday.

You have me in kind reunion as the wall turns and the dog flies in love, love, love, love. Support for Profitee comes from LinkedIn. When you're hiring, quality is more important than quantity. Sure, seeing hundreds and hundreds of resumes can give you a large pool of candidates to choose from. But if you want the right person for your position, LinkedIn jobs can provide you quality professionals fit for the role. Linkedin isn't just a job board. Linkedin helps you hire the professionals you can't find anywhere else, even those who aren't actively searching for a new job. A few months ago, our team posted on LinkedIn jobs, and I have to tell you that we sourced several quality candidates pretty quickly. According to their data, 86 % of small businesses get a qualified candidate within 24 hours. So you can hire professionals like a professional on LinkedIn jobs with tools to help you find the right people for your team, faster and for free. Post your job for free at linkedin. Com/prof. That's linkedin. Com/prof to post your job for free. Terms and conditions apply.