Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

GIH Borrower, LLC. Delaware. Formed Aug 12, 2024. Three and a half months later it borrowed $1.175B. First lien, cov-lite, SOFR+250, due Nov 2031. Underneath it sits Guggenheim's $367B asset management business. Fri Aug 14: it told lenders Q2 revenue fell 38% to $186M, earnings down 77%. Mon Aug...

ericjackson's profile picture

Eric Jackson

168,043 subscribers

56,607 views • 24 days ago •via X (Twitter)

FinanceNews & Politics
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

This stock has more than doubled in four months. One of my speakers called it live at our March summit, back when the rest of Wall Street was sprinting for the exits. The company had just told the SEC it couldn't file its annual report on time. The headlines screamed accounting trouble, the crowd hit sell on reflex, and the stock got cut down to roughly half the multiple of its peers. Van Drunkenmiller looked at the same company and saw the OPPOSITE of a problem... The stock was Astrana Health (ASTH), and it was trading around $24. His thesis was almost insultingly simple: Astrana coordinates care for seniors and the chronically ill, which happens to be the one group in America that grows larger and sicker every single year. Revenue was already ripping 56% higher, and the only thing actually broken was a piece of paperwork. The market was pricing a delayed filing as if the entire business had collapsed. The filing got resolved, the accounting cloud lifted, and the May numbers landed exactly as he called them, with revenue up 56% and adjusted EBITDA up 82%. The same analysts who had frozen suddenly raced to raise their targets, and Barclays upgraded it with a $50 target. Astrana closed at $49.81 on July 1. The opportunity was sitting in plain sight, wearing a problem as a costume, priced for fear instead of fundamentals. Van is coming back to do it again. On July 22, he joins me and 14 elite investors for our Best Stock Ideas Online Summit. Each will bring the single highest-conviction idea, all for $99, with replays within 24 hours. The last one handed you a stock that doubled, and so much more. You cannot afford to miss this one. Grab your ticket today:
1:26

This stock has more than doubled in four months. One of my speakers called it live at our March summit, back when the rest of Wall Street was sprinting for the exits. The company had just told the SEC it couldn't file its annual report on time. The headlines screamed accounting trouble, the crowd hit sell on reflex, and the stock got cut down to roughly half the multiple of its peers. Van Drunkenmiller looked at the same company and saw the OPPOSITE of a problem... The stock was Astrana Health (ASTH), and it was trading around $24. His thesis was almost insultingly simple: Astrana coordinates care for seniors and the chronically ill, which happens to be the one group in America that grows larger and sicker every single year. Revenue was already ripping 56% higher, and the only thing actually broken was a piece of paperwork. The market was pricing a delayed filing as if the entire business had collapsed. The filing got resolved, the accounting cloud lifted, and the May numbers landed exactly as he called them, with revenue up 56% and adjusted EBITDA up 82%. The same analysts who had frozen suddenly raced to raise their targets, and Barclays upgraded it with a $50 target. Astrana closed at $49.81 on July 1. The opportunity was sitting in plain sight, wearing a problem as a costume, priced for fear instead of fundamentals. Van is coming back to do it again. On July 22, he joins me and 14 elite investors for our Best Stock Ideas Online Summit. Each will bring the single highest-conviction idea, all for $99, with replays within 24 hours. The last one handed you a stock that doubled, and so much more. You cannot afford to miss this one. Grab your ticket today:

George Noble

38,722 views • 2 months ago

Google just reported $99 billion in profits it never actually received. Alphabet posted net income of $112.1 billion for a single quarter. Earnings per share came in at $9.11 against a Wall Street estimate of $2.87. That is one of the largest profit quarters any company has ever printed. Yet the stock fell about 7% the same day. When people read past the headline and opened the earnings release, they found the reason sitting in one footnote... $99 billion of that profit came from a line called other income. Alphabet describes it as "primarily the result of net unrealized gains on our equity securities." So Google did not sell anything. It marked up shares it already owned and ran the increase through its income statement. That single line added $77.1 billion to net income after tax. It accounted for $6.26 of the $9.11 in earnings per share. Strip it out and adjusted earnings per share were $2.85. Analysts wanted $2.89. The ACTUAL business missed. Now here is what makes this insane: Most of that $99 billion came from two holdings, SpaceX and Anthropic. SpaceX went public on June 12 at roughly $1.77 trillion, up from about $400 billion a year earlier. Alphabet's stake is worth $94.1 billion, and roughly $80 billion of it sits under sale restrictions. Anthropic went from a $350 billion valuation to $965 billion inside the same quarter. Alphabet's private company holdings were worth about $124.3 billion on June 30, and the vast majority of that is Anthropic. Google cannot sell either position right now. Now trace where that valuation came from: Google started putting money into Anthropic in 2023. A $300 million bet has grown into a $13.3 billion position with commitments of up to $30 billion more. Anthropic committed to buying at least five gigawatts of computing capacity from Google Cloud. Google Cloud revenue then grew 82% to about $24.8 billion, the strongest quarter that business has ever had. That growth is part of the story the market uses to price both companies. And when Anthropic's valuation jumped, Google booked the jump as its OWN profit. Google is the investor, the supplier, and the party deciding what the asset is worth. A tax and accounting consultant named Robert Willens flagged this back in April, pointing out that Alphabet is able to influence the value of one of its own assets. And Alphabet's free cash flow for the quarter was negative $5.9 billion. That is the first negative quarter since Google went public in August 2004. Capital spending hit $44.9 billion. Operating cash flow was $39.1 billion. Capex now eats about 37.5% of every dollar of revenue, the highest share in the company's public life. To fund it, Alphabet has taken on roughly $100 billion of debt this year and raised about $85 billion in a June share sale, its first in more than two decades. This is a company that spent years buying its own stock back. What happens next: Alphabet raised 2026 capital spending guidance to between $195 billion and $205 billion, the second raise in three months. The finance chief told analysts 2027 spending will rise significantly. The company also disclosed $811 billion in contracted future spending commitments as of June, up nearly $500 billion from March. Those commitments are signed contracts that get paid in cash. The profit is an estimate of what a private company might be worth on a given day. Estimates move in both directions. If Anthropic or SpaceX gets repriced downward, the same line that produced the biggest quarter in Google's history runs backwards, and this quarter produced no free cash flow to absorb it. Meta, Microsoft and Amazon are all carrying their own private AI stakes into their own earnings reports. Watch how much of their profit they actually collected in cash...
0:48

Google just reported $99 billion in profits it never actually received. Alphabet posted net income of $112.1 billion for a single quarter. Earnings per share came in at $9.11 against a Wall Street estimate of $2.87. That is one of the largest profit quarters any company has ever printed. Yet the stock fell about 7% the same day. When people read past the headline and opened the earnings release, they found the reason sitting in one footnote... $99 billion of that profit came from a line called other income. Alphabet describes it as "primarily the result of net unrealized gains on our equity securities." So Google did not sell anything. It marked up shares it already owned and ran the increase through its income statement. That single line added $77.1 billion to net income after tax. It accounted for $6.26 of the $9.11 in earnings per share. Strip it out and adjusted earnings per share were $2.85. Analysts wanted $2.89. The ACTUAL business missed. Now here is what makes this insane: Most of that $99 billion came from two holdings, SpaceX and Anthropic. SpaceX went public on June 12 at roughly $1.77 trillion, up from about $400 billion a year earlier. Alphabet's stake is worth $94.1 billion, and roughly $80 billion of it sits under sale restrictions. Anthropic went from a $350 billion valuation to $965 billion inside the same quarter. Alphabet's private company holdings were worth about $124.3 billion on June 30, and the vast majority of that is Anthropic. Google cannot sell either position right now. Now trace where that valuation came from: Google started putting money into Anthropic in 2023. A $300 million bet has grown into a $13.3 billion position with commitments of up to $30 billion more. Anthropic committed to buying at least five gigawatts of computing capacity from Google Cloud. Google Cloud revenue then grew 82% to about $24.8 billion, the strongest quarter that business has ever had. That growth is part of the story the market uses to price both companies. And when Anthropic's valuation jumped, Google booked the jump as its OWN profit. Google is the investor, the supplier, and the party deciding what the asset is worth. A tax and accounting consultant named Robert Willens flagged this back in April, pointing out that Alphabet is able to influence the value of one of its own assets. And Alphabet's free cash flow for the quarter was negative $5.9 billion. That is the first negative quarter since Google went public in August 2004. Capital spending hit $44.9 billion. Operating cash flow was $39.1 billion. Capex now eats about 37.5% of every dollar of revenue, the highest share in the company's public life. To fund it, Alphabet has taken on roughly $100 billion of debt this year and raised about $85 billion in a June share sale, its first in more than two decades. This is a company that spent years buying its own stock back. What happens next: Alphabet raised 2026 capital spending guidance to between $195 billion and $205 billion, the second raise in three months. The finance chief told analysts 2027 spending will rise significantly. The company also disclosed $811 billion in contracted future spending commitments as of June, up nearly $500 billion from March. Those commitments are signed contracts that get paid in cash. The profit is an estimate of what a private company might be worth on a given day. Estimates move in both directions. If Anthropic or SpaceX gets repriced downward, the same line that produced the biggest quarter in Google's history runs backwards, and this quarter produced no free cash flow to absorb it. Meta, Microsoft and Amazon are all carrying their own private AI stakes into their own earnings reports. Watch how much of their profit they actually collected in cash...

Ricardo

364,597 views • 1 month ago

Microsoft is deceiving you by inflating its AI empire with money it handed its OWN customer first. They sold Wall Street a $37 billion AI business, then went silent the moment its own filing showed where that money came from. The line sits in the annual report for fiscal 2026: Microsoft recorded $24.1 billion of revenue from commercial arrangements with OpenAI, including revenue sharing payments. If you run that figure against Microsoft's own AI disclosures you'll find that OpenAI made up more than half, and likely around 70%, of everything the company counts as AI sales. ONE customer. A Microsoft spokesperson confirmed the figure covers all sales and revenue share from OpenAI. The 70% comes by assuming Microsoft's AI run rate kept growing at the 123% pace the company itself reported in March, which is the company's own optimistic math turned around on it. Now follow where that money starts: Microsoft has put around $12 billion into OpenAI since 2019. OpenAI spends its cash on computing power, and Microsoft is the cloud provider selling it. So the money leaves as an investment and comes back as an Azure bill. Microsoft then books that bill as AI revenue and shows it to investors as proof the AI business is "working." Microsoft invests in OpenAI -> OpenAI buys Microsoft compute -> Microsoft records the payment as AI revenue -> the AI growth story goes to Wall Street And a chunk of it never actually arrived. The same filing shows $6 billion of accounts receivable from OpenAI as of June 30. That is $6 billion of AI revenue Microsoft booked and had not been paid when the year closed. Now here's where it gets really concerning for anyone holding the stock... Microsoft has told the public how big its total AI business is exactly twice. Once for the quarter ending December 2024, when it said the unit was on pace for more than $13 billion a year. And once for the quarter ending March 2026, when Satya Nadella put it on pace for $37 billion. That $37 billion number went everywhere. It was the headline proof that Microsoft had won the AI race. Then fourth quarter earnings arrived, and Microsoft did NOT update it. The company that had been announcing the figure as its own scoreboard stopped announcing the figure. In the same stretch, the filing landed showing where most of it came from. So what is actually left underneath? The full year AI business ran near $34 billion. Take OpenAI out and roughly $10 billion remains. Microsoft has spent about $261 billion on capital expenditure since the start of 2022. That is the scale of the bet against what the rest of the AI business currently brings in. And the one customer holding it up is walking further away every quarter. In October, Microsoft's stake in OpenAI dropped to 27% from 32.5%. In April the partnership was rewritten so OpenAI can sell its products across any cloud it likes, which is how Amazon got a seat at the table. The exclusivity that made this arrangement valuable is gone. The compute bill and the unpaid $6 billion are still on Microsoft's books. Nadella spent two years telling the market Microsoft built the largest AI business in software. The filing shows one client bought most of it, on credit, using money Microsoft partly supplied. So watch the next earnings call: If Microsoft puts a fresh total AI number back on the board, the business found customers beyond OpenAI. If you hear a lot about AI momentum and never hear what it adds up to, you already know why the number went missing. But nonetheless, how is something like this even legal?
0:56

Microsoft is deceiving you by inflating its AI empire with money it handed its OWN customer first. They sold Wall Street a $37 billion AI business, then went silent the moment its own filing showed where that money came from. The line sits in the annual report for fiscal 2026: Microsoft recorded $24.1 billion of revenue from commercial arrangements with OpenAI, including revenue sharing payments. If you run that figure against Microsoft's own AI disclosures you'll find that OpenAI made up more than half, and likely around 70%, of everything the company counts as AI sales. ONE customer. A Microsoft spokesperson confirmed the figure covers all sales and revenue share from OpenAI. The 70% comes by assuming Microsoft's AI run rate kept growing at the 123% pace the company itself reported in March, which is the company's own optimistic math turned around on it. Now follow where that money starts: Microsoft has put around $12 billion into OpenAI since 2019. OpenAI spends its cash on computing power, and Microsoft is the cloud provider selling it. So the money leaves as an investment and comes back as an Azure bill. Microsoft then books that bill as AI revenue and shows it to investors as proof the AI business is "working." Microsoft invests in OpenAI -> OpenAI buys Microsoft compute -> Microsoft records the payment as AI revenue -> the AI growth story goes to Wall Street And a chunk of it never actually arrived. The same filing shows $6 billion of accounts receivable from OpenAI as of June 30. That is $6 billion of AI revenue Microsoft booked and had not been paid when the year closed. Now here's where it gets really concerning for anyone holding the stock... Microsoft has told the public how big its total AI business is exactly twice. Once for the quarter ending December 2024, when it said the unit was on pace for more than $13 billion a year. And once for the quarter ending March 2026, when Satya Nadella put it on pace for $37 billion. That $37 billion number went everywhere. It was the headline proof that Microsoft had won the AI race. Then fourth quarter earnings arrived, and Microsoft did NOT update it. The company that had been announcing the figure as its own scoreboard stopped announcing the figure. In the same stretch, the filing landed showing where most of it came from. So what is actually left underneath? The full year AI business ran near $34 billion. Take OpenAI out and roughly $10 billion remains. Microsoft has spent about $261 billion on capital expenditure since the start of 2022. That is the scale of the bet against what the rest of the AI business currently brings in. And the one customer holding it up is walking further away every quarter. In October, Microsoft's stake in OpenAI dropped to 27% from 32.5%. In April the partnership was rewritten so OpenAI can sell its products across any cloud it likes, which is how Amazon got a seat at the table. The exclusivity that made this arrangement valuable is gone. The compute bill and the unpaid $6 billion are still on Microsoft's books. Nadella spent two years telling the market Microsoft built the largest AI business in software. The filing shows one client bought most of it, on credit, using money Microsoft partly supplied. So watch the next earnings call: If Microsoft puts a fresh total AI number back on the board, the business found customers beyond OpenAI. If you hear a lot about AI momentum and never hear what it adds up to, you already know why the number went missing. But nonetheless, how is something like this even legal?

Ricardo

24,389 views • 1 month ago

The man who wrote the essay that started the entire AI boom just got DESTROYED by it. Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, and Bank of America teamed up to liquidate their own client overnight. Leopold Aschenbrenner left OpenAI in 2024 and published an essay called "Situational Awareness" arguing that AGI was arriving before the decade was out, and that whoever owned the compute would own everything after it. Silicon Valley read it and started spending. Then he raised a fund named after the essay and bet on his own thesis with borrowed money. The numbers he put up were the best on Wall Street: He started with roughly $225 million in late 2024. Patrick and John Collison wrote checks. So did Nat Friedman, Daniel Gross, and Jane Street. Through June 30 of this year the fund was up 439% net of fees, according to the investor letter the Financial Times reviewed. The firm had a handful of employees, and he had no prior record managing anyone's money. It also ran leverage reported as high as 4x. For every dollar of his own capital he borrowed three or four more, then bought the physical guts of the AI buildout. He owned Micron, SanDisk, CoreWeave, Nebius, and SK Hynix. In July every one of those names fell somewhere between 27% and 54%. The Kospi, home to SK Hynix, lost about a third of its value. His collateral and his position were the same thing. The stocks fell, the loans against them came due, and selling to cover those loans pushed the stocks down again. The fund finished July down 67%. But the UGLY part happened in the six days before that... On July 24 he wrote to his investors and called the selloff some of the most attractive opportunities since early 2025. He invited them to commit fresh capital, with a deadline of August 1. That deadline is today. Six days after asking for more money, he was margin called by Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, and Bank of America. He spent Wednesday trying to sell anything that would move. Millennium looked at the positions and passed. Jane Street looked and passed, and Jane Street was an investor in his own fund. Late that night he agreed to sell $3.5 billion of his Anthropic shares to a group led by Greenoaks and Sequoia Capital. The Collison brothers sat in his offices while he negotiated past midnight. Then Ken Griffin called... Before Thursday's open, Citadel bought the bulk of the public portfolio at more than 10% below market value. The same prime brokers squeezing him for cash, Goldman, JPMorgan, Bank of America, and Citigroup, helped arrange the trade that bailed him out. He used Griffin's money to pay off his lenders. And Thursday morning he walked away from the Anthropic deal. So he sold every asset that had a public price, at a discount, and kept the one asset that gets valued by whatever the last funding round said it was worth. The fund survived with about $10 billion. The Anthropic stake inside it is carried at $5 billion, off a May round that valued the company at $965 billion. No open market has ever tested that number. Anthropic could list as soon as October, and Aschenbrenner is now running a fund whose value rests almost entirely on that one line. His letter to investors blamed short sellers. What happens next: The fund is still up roughly 80% for the year, which is why half of finance spent the weekend defending him. But the other half noticed that a manager with no prior fund record ran a 4x levered book into the most telegraphed drawdown of the cycle and had to hand the whole thing to Ken Griffin before sunrise. The public book got a real price on Thursday morning. The private mark is still waiting for October. What do you think?
1:12

The man who wrote the essay that started the entire AI boom just got DESTROYED by it. Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, and Bank of America teamed up to liquidate their own client overnight. Leopold Aschenbrenner left OpenAI in 2024 and published an essay called "Situational Awareness" arguing that AGI was arriving before the decade was out, and that whoever owned the compute would own everything after it. Silicon Valley read it and started spending. Then he raised a fund named after the essay and bet on his own thesis with borrowed money. The numbers he put up were the best on Wall Street: He started with roughly $225 million in late 2024. Patrick and John Collison wrote checks. So did Nat Friedman, Daniel Gross, and Jane Street. Through June 30 of this year the fund was up 439% net of fees, according to the investor letter the Financial Times reviewed. The firm had a handful of employees, and he had no prior record managing anyone's money. It also ran leverage reported as high as 4x. For every dollar of his own capital he borrowed three or four more, then bought the physical guts of the AI buildout. He owned Micron, SanDisk, CoreWeave, Nebius, and SK Hynix. In July every one of those names fell somewhere between 27% and 54%. The Kospi, home to SK Hynix, lost about a third of its value. His collateral and his position were the same thing. The stocks fell, the loans against them came due, and selling to cover those loans pushed the stocks down again. The fund finished July down 67%. But the UGLY part happened in the six days before that... On July 24 he wrote to his investors and called the selloff some of the most attractive opportunities since early 2025. He invited them to commit fresh capital, with a deadline of August 1. That deadline is today. Six days after asking for more money, he was margin called by Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, and Bank of America. He spent Wednesday trying to sell anything that would move. Millennium looked at the positions and passed. Jane Street looked and passed, and Jane Street was an investor in his own fund. Late that night he agreed to sell $3.5 billion of his Anthropic shares to a group led by Greenoaks and Sequoia Capital. The Collison brothers sat in his offices while he negotiated past midnight. Then Ken Griffin called... Before Thursday's open, Citadel bought the bulk of the public portfolio at more than 10% below market value. The same prime brokers squeezing him for cash, Goldman, JPMorgan, Bank of America, and Citigroup, helped arrange the trade that bailed him out. He used Griffin's money to pay off his lenders. And Thursday morning he walked away from the Anthropic deal. So he sold every asset that had a public price, at a discount, and kept the one asset that gets valued by whatever the last funding round said it was worth. The fund survived with about $10 billion. The Anthropic stake inside it is carried at $5 billion, off a May round that valued the company at $965 billion. No open market has ever tested that number. Anthropic could list as soon as October, and Aschenbrenner is now running a fund whose value rests almost entirely on that one line. His letter to investors blamed short sellers. What happens next: The fund is still up roughly 80% for the year, which is why half of finance spent the weekend defending him. But the other half noticed that a manager with no prior fund record ran a 4x levered book into the most telegraphed drawdown of the cycle and had to hand the whole thing to Ken Griffin before sunrise. The public book got a real price on Thursday morning. The private mark is still waiting for October. What do you think?

Ricardo

40,001 views • 1 month ago

Big Tech just ran out of money building AI and what they're doing to cover it up should be illegal. Google, Amazon, Microsoft, and Meta are spending a combined $700 BILLION this year on AI infrastructure. This eats up 94% of their total operating cash flow. The richest companies in human history are almost broke. And instead of slowing down, they're covering it up with the biggest financial engineering operation since 2008: Google just sold $80 billion in stock to fund AI infrastructure. That was their first equity raise in 20 YEARS. The last time Google needed to sell stock, YouTube didn't even exist. Sundar Pichai admitted the thing keeping him up at night is "compute capacity." The company that prints $100 billion a year in ad revenue just told Wall Street it isn't enough anymore. Amazon's free cash flow is projected to go NEGATIVE this year for the first time ever. Morgan Stanley estimates a $17 billion deficit and Bank of America says $28 billion. The most profitable logistics machine on Earth is about to burn more cash than it generates, and they quietly filed with the SEC saying they may need to raise even more debt and equity to keep building. All four hyperscalers are now borrowing hundreds of billions in bonds to keep the AI buildout alive. These were the most cash-rich companies in human history, and they're leveraging themselves to the teeth to build infrastructure that nobody has proven will generate enough revenue to pay for itself. And the cracks are already starting to show: Broadcom makes the custom AI chips that power Google, Meta, OpenAI, and Anthropic. This week their AI revenue TRIPLED year over year, sales grew 48%, and profits smashed every Wall Street estimate. The reward for all of that was $320 billion in value erased in a single trading session. Their CEO Hock Tan went on the earnings call and exposed three things about the AI industry: Google is already shopping for cheaper AI chip alternatives, broadcom abandoned its strategy of selling complete AI systems and is now retreating to selling bare chips at lower margins. And despite supposedly "unprecedented demand," Tan refused to raise his full-year forecast, which tells you everything about what he's actually seeing behind the curtain. Wall Street heard all three and hit the sell button so hard it dragged AMD, Intel, and the entire chip sector down with it. When a company triples its AI revenue and gets punished because tripling isn't fast enough, the expectations have left the atmosphere entirely. And here's the really scary part... These companies ARE your retirement account. Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Google, Meta, and Nvidia make up roughly 30% of the S&P 500. If you have a 401k or an index fund, you are already exposed to this bet whether you chose to be or not. Every single one of these companies is telling you AI will generate trillions in revenue. But right now the math says they're spending trillions FIRST and hoping the revenue shows up later. If the revenue catches up, this becomes the greatest infrastructure buildout in human history. Bigger than railroads and bigger than the internet. If it doesn't, the companies that make up a third of the American stock market just leveraged their balance sheets into the largest write-down cycle since 2000. And unlike the dot-com crash, this time the bubble companies aren't random startups with no revenue. They're the backbone of the entire global economy.
2:08

Big Tech just ran out of money building AI and what they're doing to cover it up should be illegal. Google, Amazon, Microsoft, and Meta are spending a combined $700 BILLION this year on AI infrastructure. This eats up 94% of their total operating cash flow. The richest companies in human history are almost broke. And instead of slowing down, they're covering it up with the biggest financial engineering operation since 2008: Google just sold $80 billion in stock to fund AI infrastructure. That was their first equity raise in 20 YEARS. The last time Google needed to sell stock, YouTube didn't even exist. Sundar Pichai admitted the thing keeping him up at night is "compute capacity." The company that prints $100 billion a year in ad revenue just told Wall Street it isn't enough anymore. Amazon's free cash flow is projected to go NEGATIVE this year for the first time ever. Morgan Stanley estimates a $17 billion deficit and Bank of America says $28 billion. The most profitable logistics machine on Earth is about to burn more cash than it generates, and they quietly filed with the SEC saying they may need to raise even more debt and equity to keep building. All four hyperscalers are now borrowing hundreds of billions in bonds to keep the AI buildout alive. These were the most cash-rich companies in human history, and they're leveraging themselves to the teeth to build infrastructure that nobody has proven will generate enough revenue to pay for itself. And the cracks are already starting to show: Broadcom makes the custom AI chips that power Google, Meta, OpenAI, and Anthropic. This week their AI revenue TRIPLED year over year, sales grew 48%, and profits smashed every Wall Street estimate. The reward for all of that was $320 billion in value erased in a single trading session. Their CEO Hock Tan went on the earnings call and exposed three things about the AI industry: Google is already shopping for cheaper AI chip alternatives, broadcom abandoned its strategy of selling complete AI systems and is now retreating to selling bare chips at lower margins. And despite supposedly "unprecedented demand," Tan refused to raise his full-year forecast, which tells you everything about what he's actually seeing behind the curtain. Wall Street heard all three and hit the sell button so hard it dragged AMD, Intel, and the entire chip sector down with it. When a company triples its AI revenue and gets punished because tripling isn't fast enough, the expectations have left the atmosphere entirely. And here's the really scary part... These companies ARE your retirement account. Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Google, Meta, and Nvidia make up roughly 30% of the S&P 500. If you have a 401k or an index fund, you are already exposed to this bet whether you chose to be or not. Every single one of these companies is telling you AI will generate trillions in revenue. But right now the math says they're spending trillions FIRST and hoping the revenue shows up later. If the revenue catches up, this becomes the greatest infrastructure buildout in human history. Bigger than railroads and bigger than the internet. If it doesn't, the companies that make up a third of the American stock market just leveraged their balance sheets into the largest write-down cycle since 2000. And unlike the dot-com crash, this time the bubble companies aren't random startups with no revenue. They're the backbone of the entire global economy.

Ricardo

228,416 views • 3 months ago

The rate that sets your mortgage just hit a 20 year high. Then something strange happened. The government made ONE move trying to force it back down… But did it work? Here is what almost everyone missed: There is a market bigger than the stock market. It is the market for government bonds. When the government needs money, it borrows by selling bonds. The interest it pays on those bonds is called the yield. That yield quietly sets the price of almost everything. It shapes your mortgage rate, your car loan, and your credit card. Even the value of the stocks you own. This week, that yield did something alarming. The rate on 30 year government bonds hit its highest level in almost 20 years. The last time it was this high, the year was 2007. You remember what came right after 2007. To be clear, a high yield is not a crash by itself. But it is a warning light on the dashboard of the economy. And this light had not flashed this bright in a generation. Why did this happen? The government keeps borrowing more and more money. Prices are still rising faster than anyone wants. And companies are flooding the market with their own debt. All of that competes for the same pool of money. So lenders demanded a higher and higher return. Rising yields are like a slow tax on everything you own. They make borrowing more expensive for every person and company. They pull money away from stocks. They tighten the screws quietly, in the background. Then something telling happened. The government stepped in to rescue the situation. It announced it would buy back large amounts of its own long term bonds. The goal was simple. Push that yield back down. And it worked, at least for now. The 30 year yield dropped. The dollar fell to a three month low. Gold jumped to its highest level since early June. Read that again. The government had to intervene to calm its own bond market. That is not a small thing. Here is the lesson most investors miss. The risk that wrecks you is rarely the one on the front page. It is the one building quietly while you look elsewhere. Everyone was watching stocks hit record highs. Almost nobody was watching the foundation underneath them crack. You cannot track every hidden risk in the system. No person can. There are too many moving parts. That is exactly why a rules based system matters. It reacts to what the whole market is doing, not just the headlines. It does not need you to spot the danger in advance. Surmount was built to watch the whole board for you:
3:50

The rate that sets your mortgage just hit a 20 year high. Then something strange happened. The government made ONE move trying to force it back down… But did it work? Here is what almost everyone missed: There is a market bigger than the stock market. It is the market for government bonds. When the government needs money, it borrows by selling bonds. The interest it pays on those bonds is called the yield. That yield quietly sets the price of almost everything. It shapes your mortgage rate, your car loan, and your credit card. Even the value of the stocks you own. This week, that yield did something alarming. The rate on 30 year government bonds hit its highest level in almost 20 years. The last time it was this high, the year was 2007. You remember what came right after 2007. To be clear, a high yield is not a crash by itself. But it is a warning light on the dashboard of the economy. And this light had not flashed this bright in a generation. Why did this happen? The government keeps borrowing more and more money. Prices are still rising faster than anyone wants. And companies are flooding the market with their own debt. All of that competes for the same pool of money. So lenders demanded a higher and higher return. Rising yields are like a slow tax on everything you own. They make borrowing more expensive for every person and company. They pull money away from stocks. They tighten the screws quietly, in the background. Then something telling happened. The government stepped in to rescue the situation. It announced it would buy back large amounts of its own long term bonds. The goal was simple. Push that yield back down. And it worked, at least for now. The 30 year yield dropped. The dollar fell to a three month low. Gold jumped to its highest level since early June. Read that again. The government had to intervene to calm its own bond market. That is not a small thing. Here is the lesson most investors miss. The risk that wrecks you is rarely the one on the front page. It is the one building quietly while you look elsewhere. Everyone was watching stocks hit record highs. Almost nobody was watching the foundation underneath them crack. You cannot track every hidden risk in the system. No person can. There are too many moving parts. That is exactly why a rules based system matters. It reacts to what the whole market is doing, not just the headlines. It does not need you to spot the danger in advance. Surmount was built to watch the whole board for you:

Surmount

22,352 views • 27 days ago

Anthropic is asking the public for $2 trillion using a revenue number from…2028. That valuation would make it the largest stock market debut in history, ahead of SpaceX, which went public in June at $1.77 trillion. The company last raised privately in May at $965 billion. Investors now expect roughly DOUBLE that in October. And the unusual part is not the size here: Public companies are normally priced off the last 12 months of results, or at a stretch off next year's estimate. Reuters reported on Friday that bankers and investors are applying revenue multiples to Anthropic's forecast for 2028, which is more than two years past the deal. That forecast is $190 billion to $200 billion of annual revenue. It is more than four times the run rate the company disclosed in May. Before dismissing it, look at what the company has actually done, because the growth is not imaginary: Anthropic's annualized revenue run rate was around $9 billion at the end of 2025. By May it was $47 billion and it passed $65 billion at the end of July, a 7x increase inside a year. Second quarter revenue came in above $11.5 billion against roughly $787 million in the same quarter of 2025. The company projected its first quarterly operating profit of $559 million. Investors expect the run rate to reach $100 billion to $120 billion before the year closes. By comparison, OpenAI's run rate sat near $40 billion at the end of July, around 60% of Anthropic's. So the growth is real. But the question is whether anyone can price three more years of it. Because the things that could bend that curve are already visible today: Anthropic's top model costs more than two and a half times OpenAI's flagship. Chinese open-weight models deliver usable performance at a fraction of either price. And revenue growth slowed in June when the Commerce Department temporarily restricted exports of the company's best models, which is a reminder that a single government decision can reach directly into the forecast. Now look at what the multiple HAS to be… Palantir trades at 53 times expected 2026 revenue, which already makes it one of the most expensive stocks on the market. Cloudflare and SpaceX both sit near 41.6 times. Those are the reference points bankers are using. One investor told the Financial Times that a company growing at 800% a year should command at least 30 times revenue, which on their own math points to $3 trillion rather than two. And there is one more thing worth holding onto: Anthropic filed confidentially with the SEC in June and has been in a quiet period since. Every figure in this post reached the public through people speaking anonymously, and the company has declined to comment on all of it. So the largest listing ever attempted is being marketed to public investors through numbers none of them can independently check, against a forecast for a year that has not started yet. This is becoming the house style of the 2026 IPO market rather than a one-off. Cerebras priced its listing on ramping infrastructure demand. SpaceX built its debut around an addressable market model that reached years past its actual financials. Both asked buyers to fund a shape rather than a result. Anthropic is the biggest version of that trade anyone has attempted. The bull case is straightforward and it MIGHT be correct: A business compounding this fast, already turning an operating profit, selling into enterprises that are rebuilding their workflows around it, may look cheap at $2 trillion in three years. The bear case is equally simple: Every dollar of that valuation above the current run rate is a forecast, and whoever buys the stock in October is the one holding that forecast if the curve bends. Do you believe in Anthropic?
0:50

Anthropic is asking the public for $2 trillion using a revenue number from…2028. That valuation would make it the largest stock market debut in history, ahead of SpaceX, which went public in June at $1.77 trillion. The company last raised privately in May at $965 billion. Investors now expect roughly DOUBLE that in October. And the unusual part is not the size here: Public companies are normally priced off the last 12 months of results, or at a stretch off next year's estimate. Reuters reported on Friday that bankers and investors are applying revenue multiples to Anthropic's forecast for 2028, which is more than two years past the deal. That forecast is $190 billion to $200 billion of annual revenue. It is more than four times the run rate the company disclosed in May. Before dismissing it, look at what the company has actually done, because the growth is not imaginary: Anthropic's annualized revenue run rate was around $9 billion at the end of 2025. By May it was $47 billion and it passed $65 billion at the end of July, a 7x increase inside a year. Second quarter revenue came in above $11.5 billion against roughly $787 million in the same quarter of 2025. The company projected its first quarterly operating profit of $559 million. Investors expect the run rate to reach $100 billion to $120 billion before the year closes. By comparison, OpenAI's run rate sat near $40 billion at the end of July, around 60% of Anthropic's. So the growth is real. But the question is whether anyone can price three more years of it. Because the things that could bend that curve are already visible today: Anthropic's top model costs more than two and a half times OpenAI's flagship. Chinese open-weight models deliver usable performance at a fraction of either price. And revenue growth slowed in June when the Commerce Department temporarily restricted exports of the company's best models, which is a reminder that a single government decision can reach directly into the forecast. Now look at what the multiple HAS to be… Palantir trades at 53 times expected 2026 revenue, which already makes it one of the most expensive stocks on the market. Cloudflare and SpaceX both sit near 41.6 times. Those are the reference points bankers are using. One investor told the Financial Times that a company growing at 800% a year should command at least 30 times revenue, which on their own math points to $3 trillion rather than two. And there is one more thing worth holding onto: Anthropic filed confidentially with the SEC in June and has been in a quiet period since. Every figure in this post reached the public through people speaking anonymously, and the company has declined to comment on all of it. So the largest listing ever attempted is being marketed to public investors through numbers none of them can independently check, against a forecast for a year that has not started yet. This is becoming the house style of the 2026 IPO market rather than a one-off. Cerebras priced its listing on ramping infrastructure demand. SpaceX built its debut around an addressable market model that reached years past its actual financials. Both asked buyers to fund a shape rather than a result. Anthropic is the biggest version of that trade anyone has attempted. The bull case is straightforward and it MIGHT be correct: A business compounding this fast, already turning an operating profit, selling into enterprises that are rebuilding their workflows around it, may look cheap at $2 trillion in three years. The bear case is equally simple: Every dollar of that valuation above the current run rate is a forecast, and whoever buys the stock in October is the one holding that forecast if the curve bends. Do you believe in Anthropic?

Ricardo

18,076 views • 28 days ago

Alex Sacerdote (Whale Rock Capital) on spotting hidden S-curve opportunities: “These S-curves can be dynamic. When Amazon had AWS and it was a hidden line item inside of Amazon… covered by retail internet analysts, not hardware chip analysts… it was a new business model… But we realized the TAM for this was the largest TAM in enterprise IT ever.” ___ That same dynamic is playing out right now at MercadoLibre $MELI — except this time it’s advertising (Mercado Ads) that’s the hidden growth engine buried inside the core commerce and payments business. The ads segment has been accelerating for four straight quarters: $MELI Advertising Revenue Growth (YoY) Q1 2026 → 73% (63% FX-neutral) Q4 2025 → 70% (67% FX-neutral) Q3 2025 → 56% (63% FX-neutral) Q2 2025 → 38% (59% FX-neutral) Q1 2025 → 26% (50% FX-neutral) $MELI finished 2025 with $1.55B in advertising revenue. At a 31% CAGR over the next seven years, that scales to ~$11B in annual ads revenue. Apply reasonable assumptions (30% operating margins + 24x multiple) and the ads business alone could be worth ~$80B in enterprise value — roughly $MELI entire market cap today. While this may sound like an aggressive assumption at first glance, it is achievable. LATAM’s digital advertising market is already ~$50B in 2026 and growing at 12–16% annually (projected to be $71B by 2029). Starting from a small base of just $1.55B in advertising revenue, $MELI has enormous runway to capture a much larger slice of this expanding TAM. Just like early AWS, the street is still modeling $MELI as “the $AMZN of Latin America” while missing the fact that its advertising business — Mercado Ads — is quietly becoming one of the fastest-growing retail media networks, powered by decades of proprietary first-party data, +650M users, and AI tools driving the acceleration. A noteworthy takeaway? Sometimes best investments are rarely obvious on the first read of the 10-Q. It pays to dig deeper — to look past the headline metrics and find the hidden line items, within exceptional business models, that are compounding at S-curve speeds. The weighing machine eventually catches on. The question is whether you see it before the crowd does. ___ 🎙️ Invest Like The Best | Alex Sacerdote (06/09/26)
0:22

Alex Sacerdote (Whale Rock Capital) on spotting hidden S-curve opportunities: “These S-curves can be dynamic. When Amazon had AWS and it was a hidden line item inside of Amazon… covered by retail internet analysts, not hardware chip analysts… it was a new business model… But we realized the TAM for this was the largest TAM in enterprise IT ever.” ___ That same dynamic is playing out right now at MercadoLibre $MELI — except this time it’s advertising (Mercado Ads) that’s the hidden growth engine buried inside the core commerce and payments business. The ads segment has been accelerating for four straight quarters: $MELI Advertising Revenue Growth (YoY) Q1 2026 → 73% (63% FX-neutral) Q4 2025 → 70% (67% FX-neutral) Q3 2025 → 56% (63% FX-neutral) Q2 2025 → 38% (59% FX-neutral) Q1 2025 → 26% (50% FX-neutral) $MELI finished 2025 with $1.55B in advertising revenue. At a 31% CAGR over the next seven years, that scales to ~$11B in annual ads revenue. Apply reasonable assumptions (30% operating margins + 24x multiple) and the ads business alone could be worth ~$80B in enterprise value — roughly $MELI entire market cap today. While this may sound like an aggressive assumption at first glance, it is achievable. LATAM’s digital advertising market is already ~$50B in 2026 and growing at 12–16% annually (projected to be $71B by 2029). Starting from a small base of just $1.55B in advertising revenue, $MELI has enormous runway to capture a much larger slice of this expanding TAM. Just like early AWS, the street is still modeling $MELI as “the $AMZN of Latin America” while missing the fact that its advertising business — Mercado Ads — is quietly becoming one of the fastest-growing retail media networks, powered by decades of proprietary first-party data, +650M users, and AI tools driving the acceleration. A noteworthy takeaway? Sometimes best investments are rarely obvious on the first read of the 10-Q. It pays to dig deeper — to look past the headline metrics and find the hidden line items, within exceptional business models, that are compounding at S-curve speeds. The weighing machine eventually catches on. The question is whether you see it before the crowd does. ___ 🎙️ Invest Like The Best | Alex Sacerdote (06/09/26)

Dimitry Nakhla | Babylon Capital®

52,645 views • 3 months ago

Samsung and Micron INVENTED the memory shortage. Samsung has already pleaded guilty to running this exact scheme once before. Every phone, laptop, console and car got more expensive over the last 18 months because of one component. You were told AI ate the supply. But a lawsuit filed in California reveals the AI story is just the cover: In 2002 a federal grand jury opened an investigation into the price of computer memory, and it found a cartel. Samsung pleaded guilty and paid $300 million, at the time the second largest criminal antitrust fine in American history. Hynix paid $185 million. Infineon paid $160 million. Elpida paid $84 million. More than a dozen executives went to federal prison. Micron paid nothing because it walked into the Justice Department first and informed on everyone else. Then the grand jury subpoenaed Micron for documents showing competitor pricing. A regional sales manager named Alfred Censullo altered them and concealed them. He pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice. That is the industry. Now here is the new accusation: 17 plaintiffs sued on June 25 in the Northern District of California. 14 of them are ordinary consumers. 3 are small computer repair shops. They say Samsung, SK Hynix and Micron, who together control roughly 90% of the world's memory, cut production in 2022 and never restarted it, then used the pivot toward AI memory as cover to strangle the ordinary chips everything else runs on. They put the price increase at 697%. And one chip in particular makes that number very hard to explain: DDR4 is 12 year old technology. AI accelerators do not use it. Nobody is building new factories for it. Its price is supposed to fall forever. But in April a mainstream DDR4 chip traded near $16. By late July it hit $42.08. A 64GB memory kit that cost $191 last August now runs $1,118. In December, Micron shut down Crucial, the memory brand it had sold to ordinary people for 29 years, at the most profitable moment that brand ever had. The company said it was leaving to serve its larger customers better. That same quarter, Micron booked $21.75 billion in revenue. SK Hynix booked $27.98 billion. Industry revenue jumped 81% in ninety days. They walked away from the retail market at the exact moment retail became the most lucrative it had ever been. Then the bill reached the company everyone had been blaming: Bloomberg reported on Friday that Nvidia's biggest customers were told prices on its AI systems will rise more than 15% starting early next year. The reason given was memory costs. Nvidia spent three years as the company that ate the world's memory and it just became the company being charged for it. Apple raised prices on Macs and iPads. Microsoft raised Xbox prices. Valve promised a machine under $1,000 and shipped it at $1,049. Wanting higher margins is not a crime in itself. But three companies looking at the same market and reaching the same answer is not a conspiracy, and judges have confirmed it. An almost identical lawsuit over the 2016 price spike was thrown out, and the appeals court agreed. Micron denies all of it and says it will fight. Proving a cartel takes a grand jury, a whistleblower, or someone careless enough to leak it. The last time, it took years. The three companies that make the memory inside everything you own have done this before, paid the fine, kept the factories, and are now the most profitable they have ever been. They're literally doing it again, and it's even harder to stop them.
0:27

Samsung and Micron INVENTED the memory shortage. Samsung has already pleaded guilty to running this exact scheme once before. Every phone, laptop, console and car got more expensive over the last 18 months because of one component. You were told AI ate the supply. But a lawsuit filed in California reveals the AI story is just the cover: In 2002 a federal grand jury opened an investigation into the price of computer memory, and it found a cartel. Samsung pleaded guilty and paid $300 million, at the time the second largest criminal antitrust fine in American history. Hynix paid $185 million. Infineon paid $160 million. Elpida paid $84 million. More than a dozen executives went to federal prison. Micron paid nothing because it walked into the Justice Department first and informed on everyone else. Then the grand jury subpoenaed Micron for documents showing competitor pricing. A regional sales manager named Alfred Censullo altered them and concealed them. He pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice. That is the industry. Now here is the new accusation: 17 plaintiffs sued on June 25 in the Northern District of California. 14 of them are ordinary consumers. 3 are small computer repair shops. They say Samsung, SK Hynix and Micron, who together control roughly 90% of the world's memory, cut production in 2022 and never restarted it, then used the pivot toward AI memory as cover to strangle the ordinary chips everything else runs on. They put the price increase at 697%. And one chip in particular makes that number very hard to explain: DDR4 is 12 year old technology. AI accelerators do not use it. Nobody is building new factories for it. Its price is supposed to fall forever. But in April a mainstream DDR4 chip traded near $16. By late July it hit $42.08. A 64GB memory kit that cost $191 last August now runs $1,118. In December, Micron shut down Crucial, the memory brand it had sold to ordinary people for 29 years, at the most profitable moment that brand ever had. The company said it was leaving to serve its larger customers better. That same quarter, Micron booked $21.75 billion in revenue. SK Hynix booked $27.98 billion. Industry revenue jumped 81% in ninety days. They walked away from the retail market at the exact moment retail became the most lucrative it had ever been. Then the bill reached the company everyone had been blaming: Bloomberg reported on Friday that Nvidia's biggest customers were told prices on its AI systems will rise more than 15% starting early next year. The reason given was memory costs. Nvidia spent three years as the company that ate the world's memory and it just became the company being charged for it. Apple raised prices on Macs and iPads. Microsoft raised Xbox prices. Valve promised a machine under $1,000 and shipped it at $1,049. Wanting higher margins is not a crime in itself. But three companies looking at the same market and reaching the same answer is not a conspiracy, and judges have confirmed it. An almost identical lawsuit over the 2016 price spike was thrown out, and the appeals court agreed. Micron denies all of it and says it will fight. Proving a cartel takes a grand jury, a whistleblower, or someone careless enough to leak it. The last time, it took years. The three companies that make the memory inside everything you own have done this before, paid the fine, kept the factories, and are now the most profitable they have ever been. They're literally doing it again, and it's even harder to stop them.

Ricardo

52,015 views • 24 days ago

Bloomberg broke that a LeBron James entity borrowed ~$300M from two life insurers against his non-NBA income, and wrote that "terms are otherwise scant in the records reviewed by Bloomberg." I bought the records. Midland National (66044) and North American (66974), 2025 annuals. `49549*-AA-3` secured term loan, 4.800%, funded 03/06/2018, matures 12/01/2049. **NAIC 1.E PL.** `49549*-AB-1` secured term loan A-2, 5.750%, funded 09/01/2022, matures 12/06/2056. **NAIC 1.G PL.** NAIC 1 is the top tier, the treatment given to high grade corporate debt. PL means private letter rating. The filing withholds the agency and withholds the analysis. What surfaces is the grade and the capital charge that follows from it. Matt Levine asked that morning whether a LeBron bond "could be an investment-grade credit instrument." It is. It's in the filing. Then I counted the rest. **658 privately rated positions across the two insurers.** King James Funding is 2 of them. Three lines below LeBron sits Vanderbilt University Medical Center at ~$102M. ⚠️ ~$11.8B of ~$78B is a proxy pending confirmation of the dollar column. The COUNT of 658 is solid. Treat the dollars as an order of magnitude. Sammons has >$147B in assets and >1.7M policies. Guggenheim was the sole asset manager until 2021 and still runs ~73% of the book. LeBron has done nothing wrong. His spokesperson calls it a securitization of personal non-NBA income, the 2022 deal was NBA-approved, and Bloomberg says plainly there's no link to the Walter inquiries. He's the door. The room is 658 positions graded in a way nobody outside can read. They had the sources. I had the filings. Anyone can buy them.
9:30

Bloomberg broke that a LeBron James entity borrowed ~$300M from two life insurers against his non-NBA income, and wrote that "terms are otherwise scant in the records reviewed by Bloomberg." I bought the records. Midland National (66044) and North American (66974), 2025 annuals. `49549*-AA-3` secured term loan, 4.800%, funded 03/06/2018, matures 12/01/2049. **NAIC 1.E PL.** `49549*-AB-1` secured term loan A-2, 5.750%, funded 09/01/2022, matures 12/06/2056. **NAIC 1.G PL.** NAIC 1 is the top tier, the treatment given to high grade corporate debt. PL means private letter rating. The filing withholds the agency and withholds the analysis. What surfaces is the grade and the capital charge that follows from it. Matt Levine asked that morning whether a LeBron bond "could be an investment-grade credit instrument." It is. It's in the filing. Then I counted the rest. **658 privately rated positions across the two insurers.** King James Funding is 2 of them. Three lines below LeBron sits Vanderbilt University Medical Center at ~$102M. ⚠️ ~$11.8B of ~$78B is a proxy pending confirmation of the dollar column. The COUNT of 658 is solid. Treat the dollars as an order of magnitude. Sammons has >$147B in assets and >1.7M policies. Guggenheim was the sole asset manager until 2021 and still runs ~73% of the book. LeBron has done nothing wrong. His spokesperson calls it a securitization of personal non-NBA income, the 2022 deal was NBA-approved, and Bloomberg says plainly there's no link to the Walter inquiries. He's the door. The room is 658 positions graded in a way nobody outside can read. They had the sources. I had the filings. Anyone can buy them.

Eric Jackson

100,798 views • 21 days ago

Bertha & Bonds 1⃣To kick off the Bertha initiative, we are moving forward with the initial order of BTC miners later this month, committing $250K–$350K USD in capital. This investment will fill approximately 30–35% of the Bertha facility, pushing $TITAN’s APR to around 20% and that’s just the beginning. 2⃣We are also introducing T-Bonds, a first-of-its-kind initiative on Cardano designed to unlock capital efficiency and accelerate ecosystem growth.👀 What Are T-Bonds? T-Bonds are like a loan from the community to the project. In return, you get a guaranteed return at bond maturity. Why This Works for TITAN? 15% of the total $TITAN supply is held in our treasury, reserved specifically to be sold gradually over time to fund investments as the token’s price grows. By combining our capital with the T-Bond raise, we aim to push the APR above 20-40%+. At that level, demand for $TITAN increases, driving the price higher. If the token price doubles as a result, our $TITAN investment treasury’s value grows from $1M to $2M. From there, we can gradually sell treasury-held $TITAN over a 12-month period, using the proceeds to repay bonds, expand mining capacity, and fund, new investments — all of which drive APR even higher and continue growing the treasury. Higher APR → More demand → Higher price → Larger treasury → More investments → Even higher APR. This is how we trigger the flywheel. Bond Terms: - 12% Fixed APR (pegged to USD value on the day), - 2.5% Bonus $TITAN airdrop, - 12-month term Bertha gets filled. Rewards go up. The flywheel spins. Bond Mint Date: -Thursday, July 24th–26th — 48 hours only. -This is a limited pilot with a hard cap. -Full details dropping next week. The success of the bonds isn’t critical for us it’s not something we need to do. We see it as an innovative concept that makes sense given our treasury model and adds value, but there's no pressure. Whether we scale with bonds or without them, the trajectory remains the same. Bonds simply accelerate the process and introduce a fresh mechanism into the ecosystem that could be tied to our ATLAS DeFi platform in the future. This is how TITANS win.
1:50

Bertha & Bonds 1⃣To kick off the Bertha initiative, we are moving forward with the initial order of BTC miners later this month, committing $250K–$350K USD in capital. This investment will fill approximately 30–35% of the Bertha facility, pushing $TITAN’s APR to around 20% and that’s just the beginning. 2⃣We are also introducing T-Bonds, a first-of-its-kind initiative on Cardano designed to unlock capital efficiency and accelerate ecosystem growth.👀 What Are T-Bonds? T-Bonds are like a loan from the community to the project. In return, you get a guaranteed return at bond maturity. Why This Works for TITAN? 15% of the total $TITAN supply is held in our treasury, reserved specifically to be sold gradually over time to fund investments as the token’s price grows. By combining our capital with the T-Bond raise, we aim to push the APR above 20-40%+. At that level, demand for $TITAN increases, driving the price higher. If the token price doubles as a result, our $TITAN investment treasury’s value grows from $1M to $2M. From there, we can gradually sell treasury-held $TITAN over a 12-month period, using the proceeds to repay bonds, expand mining capacity, and fund, new investments — all of which drive APR even higher and continue growing the treasury. Higher APR → More demand → Higher price → Larger treasury → More investments → Even higher APR. This is how we trigger the flywheel. Bond Terms: - 12% Fixed APR (pegged to USD value on the day), - 2.5% Bonus $TITAN airdrop, - 12-month term Bertha gets filled. Rewards go up. The flywheel spins. Bond Mint Date: -Thursday, July 24th–26th — 48 hours only. -This is a limited pilot with a hard cap. -Full details dropping next week. The success of the bonds isn’t critical for us it’s not something we need to do. We see it as an innovative concept that makes sense given our treasury model and adds value, but there's no pressure. Whether we scale with bonds or without them, the trajectory remains the same. Bonds simply accelerate the process and introduce a fresh mechanism into the ecosystem that could be tied to our ATLAS DeFi platform in the future. This is how TITANS win.

House Of Titans

15,443 views • 1 year ago

Every Wall Street giant that owns an AI data center is suddenly looking for a buyer. And NONE of them want to be the last one holding it. Three of them made their move in the last two weeks: Vantage Data Centers is exploring an exit. Its owners, Silver Lake and DigitalBridge, are weighing a listing at around $100 billion, or a sale, or a stake sale. It would be the largest data center IPO ever done. Three days earlier, CyrusOne started the same process. KKR and Global Infrastructure Partners met Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, and the banks pitched for roles on a listing that could come as early as 2027. Last month, Switch hired Goldman and JPMorgan to take it public at close to $80 billion including debt, possibly by the fourth quarter. Three different companies moved inside the same 14 days, and the same handful of investment banks took every call. And these are the exact same firms that BOUGHT these companies off the public market four years ago. Between June 2021 and early 2022, private equity took the data center industry private. Blackstone bought QTS. KKR and Global Infrastructure Partners took CyrusOne private in a deal worth about $15 billion. DigitalBridge and IFM took Switch private for about $11 billion. Together those deals ran past $35 billion. By 2023 there were only two pure-play data center companies left on the public market. The logic at the time was that data centers burn cash for years before they pay, and public shareholders hate that. But private money was patient, and private money could wait. Four years later, the AI boom arrived and every one of those buildings became a gold mine. So follow this: Switch went private at about $11 billion in 2022. Its owners now want close to $80 billion for it. That is roughly 7x, in four years, on the same buildings. And DigitalBridge sits on both sides of this. It owns a piece of Vantage and it took Switch private. It is now looking for the door on BOTH. The question now is who is supposed to buy. There is no bigger private buyer left to sell to. These are already the largest infrastructure funds on Earth, and the price tags now run to $100 billion. The only pocket deep enough is the public market, which means anyone with a brokerage account or an index fund. The people who bought low from the public are now organizing to sell high back to the public. And they are doing it while telling everyone the buildout is just getting started. KKR raised a record $19.2 billion for its newest infrastructure fund this month, and in June launched a separate company with over $10 billion committed to finance more construction. So one hand raises fresh billions to build more data centers, and the other hand sells the finished ones to whoever will take them. None of this proves anyone thinks the boom is ending. Selling into strength is what these firms are paid to do, and every one of these deals is early stage and might never happen. But the timing tells you something: The most sophisticated infrastructure investors alive spent four years accumulating these assets in private, and all decided in the same two weeks that now is the moment to find someone else to own them. Four years ago these firms decided the public market was too impatient to own data centers. Now they want the public market to own them again, at 7x the price. Quite suspicious.
1:52

Every Wall Street giant that owns an AI data center is suddenly looking for a buyer. And NONE of them want to be the last one holding it. Three of them made their move in the last two weeks: Vantage Data Centers is exploring an exit. Its owners, Silver Lake and DigitalBridge, are weighing a listing at around $100 billion, or a sale, or a stake sale. It would be the largest data center IPO ever done. Three days earlier, CyrusOne started the same process. KKR and Global Infrastructure Partners met Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, and the banks pitched for roles on a listing that could come as early as 2027. Last month, Switch hired Goldman and JPMorgan to take it public at close to $80 billion including debt, possibly by the fourth quarter. Three different companies moved inside the same 14 days, and the same handful of investment banks took every call. And these are the exact same firms that BOUGHT these companies off the public market four years ago. Between June 2021 and early 2022, private equity took the data center industry private. Blackstone bought QTS. KKR and Global Infrastructure Partners took CyrusOne private in a deal worth about $15 billion. DigitalBridge and IFM took Switch private for about $11 billion. Together those deals ran past $35 billion. By 2023 there were only two pure-play data center companies left on the public market. The logic at the time was that data centers burn cash for years before they pay, and public shareholders hate that. But private money was patient, and private money could wait. Four years later, the AI boom arrived and every one of those buildings became a gold mine. So follow this: Switch went private at about $11 billion in 2022. Its owners now want close to $80 billion for it. That is roughly 7x, in four years, on the same buildings. And DigitalBridge sits on both sides of this. It owns a piece of Vantage and it took Switch private. It is now looking for the door on BOTH. The question now is who is supposed to buy. There is no bigger private buyer left to sell to. These are already the largest infrastructure funds on Earth, and the price tags now run to $100 billion. The only pocket deep enough is the public market, which means anyone with a brokerage account or an index fund. The people who bought low from the public are now organizing to sell high back to the public. And they are doing it while telling everyone the buildout is just getting started. KKR raised a record $19.2 billion for its newest infrastructure fund this month, and in June launched a separate company with over $10 billion committed to finance more construction. So one hand raises fresh billions to build more data centers, and the other hand sells the finished ones to whoever will take them. None of this proves anyone thinks the boom is ending. Selling into strength is what these firms are paid to do, and every one of these deals is early stage and might never happen. But the timing tells you something: The most sophisticated infrastructure investors alive spent four years accumulating these assets in private, and all decided in the same two weeks that now is the moment to find someone else to own them. Four years ago these firms decided the public market was too impatient to own data centers. Now they want the public market to own them again, at 7x the price. Quite suspicious.

Ricardo

71,148 views • 1 month ago

The world's safest bonds are suddenly not acting safe. The 30-year Treasury just hit its highest yield since 2007. Germany, France, and Japan are seeing the same thing. Yet the stock market is partying near record highs... A government bond is a loan you make to a country. The yield is the interest that country pays you. When the yield jumps, it means lenders are nervous. They are demanding more to hold that debt. This is not one country having a bad week. Long-term rates are spiking all over the world. Japan just hit a 30-year high. Germany hit its highest level since 2011. France hit levels not seen since 2008. The United States is leading the pack. The 30-year US yield touched 5.3% this week. The last time it was this high was 2007. Now look at what makes this so strange. The economy has actually been slowing down. Jobs data has cooled off. Retail sales just fell. That should push interest rates lower, not higher. Instead they keep climbing. So why are rates rising anyway? The bond market is scared of something bigger. The US government is drowning in debt. That pile is about to cross $40 trillion. In July alone the deficit hit $432 billion. The government keeps borrowing more every month. So lenders are demanding more to keep lending. Higher rates make that debt even harder to carry. Lending to a government once felt risk-free. That assumption is quietly breaking. Recent debt auctions tell the same story. The latest 30-year sale drew its highest yield since 2001. Buyers are forcing the government to pay up. They want more to lend for thirty long years. Oil is making all of this worse. It just pushed back above $90 a barrel. That feeds straight into inflation fears. And inflation is the enemy of every bond. There is one more warning sign: The biggest lenders are starting to walk away. China, Japan, and the UK all cut their holdings. Someone still has to buy all that new debt. Fewer buyers means even higher rates. Now come back to the stock market. It is still sitting near record highs. Wall Street has a comforting story for this. Strong earnings will power right through it. Maybe they will. But the bond market is not buying that story. Two markets are telling opposite things. Stocks say the party keeps going. Bonds say the ground is shifting underneath. When they disagree this sharply, bonds usually win. The bond market is bigger and harder to fool. It sets the cost of money for everyone. Higher yields quietly make every stock worth less. This is not just a Wall Street problem. These same yields set your mortgage and car loan. A new car loan now runs about 7%. When the government pays more, so do you. Retail watched the stock market. The bond market wrote the real story. That's the whole game. Surmount builds automated strategies that follow the data, not the noise. Start for free and let the signals lead.
6:37

The world's safest bonds are suddenly not acting safe. The 30-year Treasury just hit its highest yield since 2007. Germany, France, and Japan are seeing the same thing. Yet the stock market is partying near record highs... A government bond is a loan you make to a country. The yield is the interest that country pays you. When the yield jumps, it means lenders are nervous. They are demanding more to hold that debt. This is not one country having a bad week. Long-term rates are spiking all over the world. Japan just hit a 30-year high. Germany hit its highest level since 2011. France hit levels not seen since 2008. The United States is leading the pack. The 30-year US yield touched 5.3% this week. The last time it was this high was 2007. Now look at what makes this so strange. The economy has actually been slowing down. Jobs data has cooled off. Retail sales just fell. That should push interest rates lower, not higher. Instead they keep climbing. So why are rates rising anyway? The bond market is scared of something bigger. The US government is drowning in debt. That pile is about to cross $40 trillion. In July alone the deficit hit $432 billion. The government keeps borrowing more every month. So lenders are demanding more to keep lending. Higher rates make that debt even harder to carry. Lending to a government once felt risk-free. That assumption is quietly breaking. Recent debt auctions tell the same story. The latest 30-year sale drew its highest yield since 2001. Buyers are forcing the government to pay up. They want more to lend for thirty long years. Oil is making all of this worse. It just pushed back above $90 a barrel. That feeds straight into inflation fears. And inflation is the enemy of every bond. There is one more warning sign: The biggest lenders are starting to walk away. China, Japan, and the UK all cut their holdings. Someone still has to buy all that new debt. Fewer buyers means even higher rates. Now come back to the stock market. It is still sitting near record highs. Wall Street has a comforting story for this. Strong earnings will power right through it. Maybe they will. But the bond market is not buying that story. Two markets are telling opposite things. Stocks say the party keeps going. Bonds say the ground is shifting underneath. When they disagree this sharply, bonds usually win. The bond market is bigger and harder to fool. It sets the cost of money for everyone. Higher yields quietly make every stock worth less. This is not just a Wall Street problem. These same yields set your mortgage and car loan. A new car loan now runs about 7%. When the government pays more, so do you. Retail watched the stock market. The bond market wrote the real story. That's the whole game. Surmount builds automated strategies that follow the data, not the noise. Start for free and let the signals lead.

Logan Weaver

11,838 views • 28 days ago

This tile guy started a concrete coatings business three months ago and he'll do $69,000 this month. $60k his first full month. and on track for 7 figures Startup cost? Under $1,000 if you rent the grinder. Maybe $25K if you buy everything new. Profit margins? Yes, Thanks for asking. Over 50%. This is just garage floor coatings. Nobody NEEDS their concrete coated. It's a luxury product. But the types of people who want it have money and they're not price sensitive. Mike charges $8 per square foot. His all-in materials cost is $2.06 per square foot. A typical two car garage is about 700 square feet. That's $5,600 in revenue and over $3,400 in profit per day. One crew can do a job in 10 hours. Sometimes less. Oh and he learned how to do this by watching YouTube videos. His first job was his own garage. Then he told people at church he was starting this thing. Booked three jobs that week just from word of mouth. From there it's been Meta ads at $30-100 per lead, 20% close rate, and booked solid ever since. In this episode Mike: - Breaks down the exact unit economics and profit margins - Shows how he reverse-engineered his pricing model - Tells me why Facebook ads crush Google for this business - Gives the three-material stack he uses and why he picked it - Explains why the bar is so low in blue collar businesses - Walks through how to start this for under $1,000 Mike's on track to do a million dollars his first year. It might be one of the best times ever to be AI savvy and in blue collar work. Mike is proof. Full episodes in the first comment below
1:33

This tile guy started a concrete coatings business three months ago and he'll do $69,000 this month. $60k his first full month. and on track for 7 figures Startup cost? Under $1,000 if you rent the grinder. Maybe $25K if you buy everything new. Profit margins? Yes, Thanks for asking. Over 50%. This is just garage floor coatings. Nobody NEEDS their concrete coated. It's a luxury product. But the types of people who want it have money and they're not price sensitive. Mike charges $8 per square foot. His all-in materials cost is $2.06 per square foot. A typical two car garage is about 700 square feet. That's $5,600 in revenue and over $3,400 in profit per day. One crew can do a job in 10 hours. Sometimes less. Oh and he learned how to do this by watching YouTube videos. His first job was his own garage. Then he told people at church he was starting this thing. Booked three jobs that week just from word of mouth. From there it's been Meta ads at $30-100 per lead, 20% close rate, and booked solid ever since. In this episode Mike: - Breaks down the exact unit economics and profit margins - Shows how he reverse-engineered his pricing model - Tells me why Facebook ads crush Google for this business - Gives the three-material stack he uses and why he picked it - Explains why the bar is so low in blue collar businesses - Walks through how to start this for under $1,000 Mike's on track to do a million dollars his first year. It might be one of the best times ever to be AI savvy and in blue collar work. Mike is proof. Full episodes in the first comment below

Chris Koerner

76,542 views • 3 months ago

🚨 THE SPACEX PUMP JUST ACTIVATED THE INSIDER SELL BUTTON And almost nobody buying at $159 understands what just happened: SpaceX IPO’d at $135 on June 12. Five days later, it peaked at $226. Everyone was calling it the trade of the decade. Almost nobody understands what is really happening. 95% of SpaceX shares are still locked. You are trading on just 5% of the total supply. A $2.35 trillion valuation was set by a tiny float that can be moved by thin volume. Thin liquidity pumps easily and dumps easily as well. Now the part that should concern everyone buying here: There is a clause buried in the lockup agreement. An early unlock can trigger if the stock holds 30% above the $135 IPO price. 30% above $135 is $175. SpaceX peaked at $226. It opened the door to an additional insider unlock. If this isn’t surprising you, the calendar will: In a month, the first insider shares can hit the market around Q2 earnings. December 8: the full 180-day lockup will be over. June 2027: Musk’s 6.4 billion personal shares unlock. This creates enormous selling pressure. I saw this movie before: Facebook IPO’d at $38 in 2012. Four months later, it was trading at $18. 60% of the value was erased. Now look at SpaceX. $2.35 trillion peak valuation. $18.7 billion in 2025 revenue. 125x sales. And Musk’s own $1 trillion revenue target is still “maybe by 2030.” You are paying for that future today. So ask yourself one question: Who is selling into your buy today, at $159? People who got in at $20/$40/$60. Insiders sitting on 5x, 8x, 10x gains who have waited years for this window. They do not need the price higher. They need buyers. And right now, that buyer is you. The rockets are real. The company is real. The technology is real. The unlock calendar is real too. At $159 after the $226 ATH, you are the exit. Remember: I was the one who publicly called Bitcoin’s ATH in October and cycle bottom in 2022. And I will call it again. That’s literally my job. Make sure to follow and turn notifications on. If you are not following yet, you will regret it.
0:39

🚨 THE SPACEX PUMP JUST ACTIVATED THE INSIDER SELL BUTTON And almost nobody buying at $159 understands what just happened: SpaceX IPO’d at $135 on June 12. Five days later, it peaked at $226. Everyone was calling it the trade of the decade. Almost nobody understands what is really happening. 95% of SpaceX shares are still locked. You are trading on just 5% of the total supply. A $2.35 trillion valuation was set by a tiny float that can be moved by thin volume. Thin liquidity pumps easily and dumps easily as well. Now the part that should concern everyone buying here: There is a clause buried in the lockup agreement. An early unlock can trigger if the stock holds 30% above the $135 IPO price. 30% above $135 is $175. SpaceX peaked at $226. It opened the door to an additional insider unlock. If this isn’t surprising you, the calendar will: In a month, the first insider shares can hit the market around Q2 earnings. December 8: the full 180-day lockup will be over. June 2027: Musk’s 6.4 billion personal shares unlock. This creates enormous selling pressure. I saw this movie before: Facebook IPO’d at $38 in 2012. Four months later, it was trading at $18. 60% of the value was erased. Now look at SpaceX. $2.35 trillion peak valuation. $18.7 billion in 2025 revenue. 125x sales. And Musk’s own $1 trillion revenue target is still “maybe by 2030.” You are paying for that future today. So ask yourself one question: Who is selling into your buy today, at $159? People who got in at $20/$40/$60. Insiders sitting on 5x, 8x, 10x gains who have waited years for this window. They do not need the price higher. They need buyers. And right now, that buyer is you. The rockets are real. The company is real. The technology is real. The unlock calendar is real too. At $159 after the $226 ATH, you are the exit. Remember: I was the one who publicly called Bitcoin’s ATH in October and cycle bottom in 2022. And I will call it again. That’s literally my job. Make sure to follow and turn notifications on. If you are not following yet, you will regret it.

Alex Mason 👁△

228,437 views • 2 months ago

Elon Musk just told lenders he's paying back $17.5 BILLION in debt across X and xAI. Including $3 billion in high-yield bonds being redeemed early at 117 cents on the dollar. NOBODY knows where the money is coming from. And nobody seems to care. Let me explain why you should: Morgan Stanley has been calling existing lenders and telling them everything gets repaid in full. The X debt from the Twitter buyout. The xAI bonds from June. All of it. The bonds were structured to stay outstanding for at least 2 years. They're being called back less than a year later at a 17% premium. Bondholders are thrilled. Of course they are. They're getting paid above par on junk paper. But here's the part that should make you uncomfortable: xAI lost $1.46 billion in a single quarter last year. Burned through $7.8 billion in cash in the first 9 months of 2025. Revenue for the September quarter was $107 million. That's a company hemorrhaging roughly $1 billion a month. On a standalone basis, xAI exited 2025 at about a $500 million annualized revenue run rate. Even with optimistic projections, they might hit $2 billion in 2026. So where does $17.5 billion come from? xAI raised $20 billion in a Series E round in January. That's the most likely answer. Take the money investors gave you to build AI infrastructure and use a huge chunk of it to retire debt. But that's NOT a sign of strength. That's financial engineering. You raise $20 billion from investors who think they're funding the next frontier of artificial intelligence, then you turn around and use most of it to clean up the balance sheet before an IPO. Because that's what this is really about. SpaceX is targeting a confidential SEC filing as early as this month. IPO could come in June. Valuation targets exceed $1.75 trillion. The combined SpaceX-xAI entity currently carries about $18 billion in obligations. You can't take a $1.25 trillion company public with $18 billion in legacy debt from a money-losing AI startup and a social media platform that was acquired with leveraged buyout financing. So you nuke the debt. Clean the balance sheet. Present a simpler story to IPO investors. Smart? Absolutely. But let's be honest about what it actually is. SpaceX proper generated about $15 billion in revenue and $8 billion in profit in 2025. xAI generated roughly $250 million in six months and lost $2.5 billion doing it. At a $1.5 trillion IPO valuation, you're looking at roughly 94x trailing sales and 500x trailing earnings for the combined business. Those are not rational multiples. Those are lottery ticket multiples with better branding. And the $17.5 billion debt payoff doesn't change the underlying economics. It only changes the optics. xAI is still burning close to $1 billion a month. Grok still has a fraction of ChatGPT's market share. The revenue doesn't come close to justifying the infrastructure spend. What this reminds me of is the classic pre-IPO playbook taken to an extreme: Use private capital to dress up the financials, time the listing for maximum enthusiasm, and let public market investors hold the bag if execution falls short. The companies that need to clean house before going public are rarely the ones that reward you for buying on day one. My positioning hasn't changed. The AI infrastructure spending boom is real. But the returns aren't materializing for the companies actually deploying the technology. That gap between spending and results is where fortunes get destroyed. Stay skeptical. Stay disciplined. And remember: If the source of $17.5 billion in repayment capital is a mystery, it's a WARNING.
0:48

Elon Musk just told lenders he's paying back $17.5 BILLION in debt across X and xAI. Including $3 billion in high-yield bonds being redeemed early at 117 cents on the dollar. NOBODY knows where the money is coming from. And nobody seems to care. Let me explain why you should: Morgan Stanley has been calling existing lenders and telling them everything gets repaid in full. The X debt from the Twitter buyout. The xAI bonds from June. All of it. The bonds were structured to stay outstanding for at least 2 years. They're being called back less than a year later at a 17% premium. Bondholders are thrilled. Of course they are. They're getting paid above par on junk paper. But here's the part that should make you uncomfortable: xAI lost $1.46 billion in a single quarter last year. Burned through $7.8 billion in cash in the first 9 months of 2025. Revenue for the September quarter was $107 million. That's a company hemorrhaging roughly $1 billion a month. On a standalone basis, xAI exited 2025 at about a $500 million annualized revenue run rate. Even with optimistic projections, they might hit $2 billion in 2026. So where does $17.5 billion come from? xAI raised $20 billion in a Series E round in January. That's the most likely answer. Take the money investors gave you to build AI infrastructure and use a huge chunk of it to retire debt. But that's NOT a sign of strength. That's financial engineering. You raise $20 billion from investors who think they're funding the next frontier of artificial intelligence, then you turn around and use most of it to clean up the balance sheet before an IPO. Because that's what this is really about. SpaceX is targeting a confidential SEC filing as early as this month. IPO could come in June. Valuation targets exceed $1.75 trillion. The combined SpaceX-xAI entity currently carries about $18 billion in obligations. You can't take a $1.25 trillion company public with $18 billion in legacy debt from a money-losing AI startup and a social media platform that was acquired with leveraged buyout financing. So you nuke the debt. Clean the balance sheet. Present a simpler story to IPO investors. Smart? Absolutely. But let's be honest about what it actually is. SpaceX proper generated about $15 billion in revenue and $8 billion in profit in 2025. xAI generated roughly $250 million in six months and lost $2.5 billion doing it. At a $1.5 trillion IPO valuation, you're looking at roughly 94x trailing sales and 500x trailing earnings for the combined business. Those are not rational multiples. Those are lottery ticket multiples with better branding. And the $17.5 billion debt payoff doesn't change the underlying economics. It only changes the optics. xAI is still burning close to $1 billion a month. Grok still has a fraction of ChatGPT's market share. The revenue doesn't come close to justifying the infrastructure spend. What this reminds me of is the classic pre-IPO playbook taken to an extreme: Use private capital to dress up the financials, time the listing for maximum enthusiasm, and let public market investors hold the bag if execution falls short. The companies that need to clean house before going public are rarely the ones that reward you for buying on day one. My positioning hasn't changed. The AI infrastructure spending boom is real. But the returns aren't materializing for the companies actually deploying the technology. That gap between spending and results is where fortunes get destroyed. Stay skeptical. Stay disciplined. And remember: If the source of $17.5 billion in repayment capital is a mystery, it's a WARNING.

George Noble

471,839 views • 6 months ago

A man sold a website with no profits to Yahoo for $5.7 BILLION on April Fool's Day. Yahoo thought it was the deal of the century. They shut it down three years later. – Mark Cuban grew up in Pittsburgh selling garbage bags door to door at 12 to afford basketball sneakers. – In 1995 he started a company called The idea was simple. Let people listen to out of town sports radio on the internet. That was the whole company. – In 1998 he took it public. On the first day of trading the stock jumped 250 percent. The company hit $1 BILLION in value. Cubans owned 30 percent of it. – They had 570,000 users. The company had never made a single dollar of profit. – Yahoo was in a war with AOL and Microsoft to become the dominant homepage of the internet. – They were spending BILLIONS buying anything that looked like the future. – On April 1 1999, April Fool's Day Yahoo bought for $5.7 BILLION. Cuban's personal share was $1.4 BILLION. – But Cuban was nervous. The dot-com bubble was clearly out of control. So he paid $20 MILLION in fees to Wall Street banks to lock in a guaranteed price on his Yahoo shares before the market crashed. – Six months later the bubble burst. Yahoo stock fell from $300 to $5 per share. Had he held on his $1.4 BILLION would have been worth $25 MILLION. – He walked away with every dollar. Wall Street called it one of the top ten trades of all time. – Yahoo shut down in 2002. Three years after paying $5.7 BILLION for it. – In 2017 Verizon bought all of Yahoo for $4.5 BILLION. Less than what Yahoo paid for Cuban's website alone. – Cuban used the money to buy the Dallas Mavericks NBA team and became one of the most famous investors on Shark Tank. A website with no profits sold for $5.7 BILLION on April Fool's Day and shut down three years later.
0:40

A man sold a website with no profits to Yahoo for $5.7 BILLION on April Fool's Day. Yahoo thought it was the deal of the century. They shut it down three years later. – Mark Cuban grew up in Pittsburgh selling garbage bags door to door at 12 to afford basketball sneakers. – In 1995 he started a company called The idea was simple. Let people listen to out of town sports radio on the internet. That was the whole company. – In 1998 he took it public. On the first day of trading the stock jumped 250 percent. The company hit $1 BILLION in value. Cubans owned 30 percent of it. – They had 570,000 users. The company had never made a single dollar of profit. – Yahoo was in a war with AOL and Microsoft to become the dominant homepage of the internet. – They were spending BILLIONS buying anything that looked like the future. – On April 1 1999, April Fool's Day Yahoo bought for $5.7 BILLION. Cuban's personal share was $1.4 BILLION. – But Cuban was nervous. The dot-com bubble was clearly out of control. So he paid $20 MILLION in fees to Wall Street banks to lock in a guaranteed price on his Yahoo shares before the market crashed. – Six months later the bubble burst. Yahoo stock fell from $300 to $5 per share. Had he held on his $1.4 BILLION would have been worth $25 MILLION. – He walked away with every dollar. Wall Street called it one of the top ten trades of all time. – Yahoo shut down in 2002. Three years after paying $5.7 BILLION for it. – In 2017 Verizon bought all of Yahoo for $4.5 BILLION. Less than what Yahoo paid for Cuban's website alone. – Cuban used the money to buy the Dallas Mavericks NBA team and became one of the most famous investors on Shark Tank. A website with no profits sold for $5.7 BILLION on April Fool's Day and shut down three years later.

Aisar

1,078,245 views • 2 months ago

In 1879, JP Morgan paid a man to invent the lie that is the foundation of modern economics. A billionaire who helped start Amazon just exposed the whole thing on Diary of a CEO, and once you hear it you will never look at paychecks the same way again: 146 years ago, a guy named Henry George wrote a book called Progress and Poverty. It was the first mainstream book about the rich systematically stealing from the poor, and It literally became the bestselling book in the history of the United States at the time. The working class was reading it everywhere, and the people at the top of the economy completely lost their minds. So JP Morgan personally brought a man named John Bates Clark to Columbia University, which was essentially the intellectual headquarters of Wall Street, and told him to fix the problem. Clark wrote a book called The Distribution of Wealth. In it, he invented something called the "theory of marginal productivity," which claims that because markets are perfectly efficient, the amount of money you earn reflects EXACTLY the value you contribute to the economy. If you make $15,000 a year, that's because you're providing $15,000 of value. If a hedge fund manager makes $500 million a year moving money around, that's an accurate reflection of the value he creates in the world. And Clark literally said the quiet part out loud IN HIS OWN BOOK. He wrote that they had to prove to working people that no matter how much they make, whether it's a little or a lot, it accurately reflects their value, because if workers ever concluded that their labor was worth more than they were being paid, they would revolt and destroy the entire system. That was the whole point. The theory was built to prevent a revolution. And it worked so well that it got absorbed into mainstream economics and is STILL taught as a foundational principle to this day. Every time a CEO tells you "the market decides your salary," they're repeating a framework that was literally commissioned by JP Morgan in the 1800s to convince you not to ask for more. Nick Hanauer, the billionaire who told this story, also shared the numbers that prove why it matters right now: The median full-time worker in America earns about $60,000 a year. If that same worker had maintained the same share of GDP they held in 1975, they wouldn't be making $60,000. They'd be making $120,000. That gap goes all the way up to the 90th percentile. If you earn $180,000 today, you'd be earning $250,000 under the old distribution. The ONLY people who benefited from 50 years of economic growth were the top 10%, and the vast majority of that went to the top 1%. That is trillions of dollars every single year that used to be wages for ordinary working people and now sits in the accounts of the wealthiest people on the planet. This happened because of policy. Tax cuts for the rich, deregulation for the powerful, and wage suppression for everyone else, all justified by an economic theory that was invented specifically to make you believe you deserve exactly what you're getting. And the craziest part is that GDP growth rates in America were 4 to 4.5% for decades when workers were included in prosperity. As soon as the neoliberals took over in the mid-1970s and implemented these policies, GDP growth fell to 3% and eventually to 2%. Including people in the economy doesn't slow growth down. It's literally the thing that CREATES growth. And the theory that convinced the world otherwise was a hit job paid for by one of the richest men in history to keep workers quiet. What do you think?
2:00

In 1879, JP Morgan paid a man to invent the lie that is the foundation of modern economics. A billionaire who helped start Amazon just exposed the whole thing on Diary of a CEO, and once you hear it you will never look at paychecks the same way again: 146 years ago, a guy named Henry George wrote a book called Progress and Poverty. It was the first mainstream book about the rich systematically stealing from the poor, and It literally became the bestselling book in the history of the United States at the time. The working class was reading it everywhere, and the people at the top of the economy completely lost their minds. So JP Morgan personally brought a man named John Bates Clark to Columbia University, which was essentially the intellectual headquarters of Wall Street, and told him to fix the problem. Clark wrote a book called The Distribution of Wealth. In it, he invented something called the "theory of marginal productivity," which claims that because markets are perfectly efficient, the amount of money you earn reflects EXACTLY the value you contribute to the economy. If you make $15,000 a year, that's because you're providing $15,000 of value. If a hedge fund manager makes $500 million a year moving money around, that's an accurate reflection of the value he creates in the world. And Clark literally said the quiet part out loud IN HIS OWN BOOK. He wrote that they had to prove to working people that no matter how much they make, whether it's a little or a lot, it accurately reflects their value, because if workers ever concluded that their labor was worth more than they were being paid, they would revolt and destroy the entire system. That was the whole point. The theory was built to prevent a revolution. And it worked so well that it got absorbed into mainstream economics and is STILL taught as a foundational principle to this day. Every time a CEO tells you "the market decides your salary," they're repeating a framework that was literally commissioned by JP Morgan in the 1800s to convince you not to ask for more. Nick Hanauer, the billionaire who told this story, also shared the numbers that prove why it matters right now: The median full-time worker in America earns about $60,000 a year. If that same worker had maintained the same share of GDP they held in 1975, they wouldn't be making $60,000. They'd be making $120,000. That gap goes all the way up to the 90th percentile. If you earn $180,000 today, you'd be earning $250,000 under the old distribution. The ONLY people who benefited from 50 years of economic growth were the top 10%, and the vast majority of that went to the top 1%. That is trillions of dollars every single year that used to be wages for ordinary working people and now sits in the accounts of the wealthiest people on the planet. This happened because of policy. Tax cuts for the rich, deregulation for the powerful, and wage suppression for everyone else, all justified by an economic theory that was invented specifically to make you believe you deserve exactly what you're getting. And the craziest part is that GDP growth rates in America were 4 to 4.5% for decades when workers were included in prosperity. As soon as the neoliberals took over in the mid-1970s and implemented these policies, GDP growth fell to 3% and eventually to 2%. Including people in the economy doesn't slow growth down. It's literally the thing that CREATES growth. And the theory that convinced the world otherwise was a hit job paid for by one of the richest men in history to keep workers quiet. What do you think?

Ricardo

334,366 views • 3 months ago