Searching For Value Outside the U.S. — ft. Lyn Alden

26:25and i think you know one of the ways to mitigate it was to have a fairly diversified portfolio so for a long time having international exposure was kind of an anchor on a portfolio whereas in this particular sell-off international equities on average did better it's kind of early rotation potential as well as owning other types of assets i mean gold's you know poking around its all-time highs and so it's kind of funny because from a when i look at a portfolio, it's like nothing to write home about, you know, like a kind of a week, you know, month long period or more. But the sentiment on social media from what I've seen has been pretty kind of surprised.

27:03And I think it's mainly because the things that underperform the most tend to be the consensus. So some of the large cap growth underperformed the S &P, and then the S &P underperformed global. And that just kind of messed up a lot of people's positioning. Yeah, it does almost feel like all of the truisms of finance and portfolio management are suddenly true again. It's like, you know, you shouldn't just be overweight US tech, you should also invest in dividend stocks and international stocks and treasuries, etc. A lot there is very interesting that we will definitely get into. I do quickly just want to get your take on tariffs and this tariff policy.

27:40I'm sure we're all getting bored of it, but I do want to get your position because I think everyone we've talked to has had the same view, which is this is a bad idea and it's bad execution. And I actually just read a tweet from our friend Morgan Housel, and I love this. I think it's very true. He said, nutritionists fiercely disagree on what's the best diet, but all seem to agree that sugar is bad. The same seems true for economists and tariffs. I would like to get your view, because I don't think you're, you know, you're an outside of the box thinker, I would say. I just want to check in. Do you have a different reaction to tariffs?

28:17Is there anything positive about this, or is it mostly bad? I wouldn't necessarily have a different reaction, but I think I might come at it from a different time frame or a different perspective. So one of the things I have been writing about for a while is the structural U.S. trade deficits and why they do matter. and I've kind of pointed out that that's pretty tied at the hip with the dollar being the reserve currency. So basically, compared to most other currencies other than maybe one or two other sizable ones, there's a lot of countries that want to hold U.S. assets or U.S. currency directly.

28:50It's basically the biggest, most saleable network effect for money in the world at the current time. And so a lot of international contracts and trade are priced in dollars. A lot of financing is price in dollars. So a lot of countries and corporations have dollar-dominated debt that's not even owed to American entities. It's often owed to European entities or owed to other foreign entities. It's basically cross-border dollar financing. And so that's this really powerful network effect. And so for most currencies, they tend to trade on things like industry differentials, trade balance differentials, things like that.

29:24There's kind of this control loop that happens if a currency gets too expensive, too cheap. The dollar is kind of different because it has this more structural bid on top of the normal things like industry differentials and trade. Because basically, the whole world needs dollars. And the way that they get dollars is basically, we just pour them out like, you know, trillions of dollars over time, generally through structural trade deficits. And the mechanism is that because so many people hold it, they kind of inflate the value of the dollar. So our import strength gets stronger, and our ability to export lower margin things shrinks.

29:59And so we can be good at tech, healthcare, and finance, but it's hard to be good at manufacturing in that environment. And when you run that policy for decades, you kind of hit more critical parts. You get more de-industrialization. You get rising populist politics and changes on the electoral map. So I start from the viewpoint that the trade deficits do matter. And it's not surprising to see that increasingly become a political touchpoint. But I do think that the shot could all tear of policy is likely to have backlash. I think we're already seeing that. So it's not necessary to say that I endorse that approach.

30:36And the other thing that I generally point to is, if you kind of look at the administration, there's obviously different actors in it. One of the ways to help at least understand the somewhat intellectual framework that they're doing is Stephen Mirren wrote a paper he's uh trump's nominee for his chair chairman of the council of economic advisors he wrote a paper in november 24 that talked about realigning global trade um and it kind of laid out it's kind of like the more um intellectual like if you were a steelman what they're trying to do that's the paper to read uh because that's kind of the you know the the more intellectual version which is okay he kind of looks at tariffs he looks at um the trade balance he looks at some of these things I just talked about, then says, okay, which approaches could address that?

31:25And then what are the risks of using those approaches? Because he freely admits these are risky tools to be using. So I think that in the context of understanding some of the voices in the administration to see what they're at least trying to do, I get that. But yeah, I would generally agree with the consensus view that tariffs are more likely to slow down or impair an economy than help it. And how will those tariffs affect the dynamic you described there, where we have this trade deficit that kind of works because of the dollar status as the global reserve currency, and we've sort of been floating off of this benefit that we didn't necessarily earn, perhaps.

32:08I mean, what do implementing these tariffs do to that dynamic? It adds uncertainty and it adds costs. And so around the margins, it can change where those things go. Now, the issue is that tariffs can impact in the very short term. You can just flip a switch and tariffs are on, whereas supply chains take a very long time, especially at scale, to move. And so my original background is engineering. So I always kind of look at things from a pretty tangible perspective. It's easy to kind of sit in New York or sit in Washington and kind of look at everything, numbers on a chart. But when you actually are moving facilities, moving logistics hubs and things like that, That's actually a really time-consuming thing.

32:44So in the near term, it's likely to be inflationary and disruptive. Longer term, I think the best case scenario is it can kind of signal a priority shift. In that paper, The Economist covers not just the tariff side, but also ironically trying to discourage the rest of the world from stashing all their excess value in U.S. financial assets and overvaluing the dollar because of that. So it's kind of like this one-two punch of trying to make imports more expensive and and also trying to discourage excess capital recycling. Len, it was good to see you. One of our big themes for 25 was that the rivers would reverse, that the constant flow of capital into U.S., specifically U.S.

33:26growth, would not only stop, but that it would reverse. And we're starting to see some signs of this. Do you think this is a temporary blip, or is this structural where we might go into a 10 - or 15-year period of underperformance of U.S. markets relative to non-U.S. markets? Do you see this as a significant turning point or something that, you know, kind of wait and see? So I think it's a potential turning point. And I started writing about that last year before all the terrorist stuff came into effect. My initial catalyst was the U.S. was entering a rate cutting cycle. And so it would be the first window since 2019 that could be a catalyst for some of those capital outflows.

34:06Now, 2019 didn't really end up doing that because within a year, COVID hit and the big US network effect tech stocks really benefited from that. And also the US did more fiscal and kind of came out a little bit more explosively than the rest of the world, while China and other places were still kind of in contraction mode. And so that didn't work out last time. And so my kind of framework is this is the next window for it. Now, a window doesn't mean it's going to happen, but it basically means that it's one of the first higher probability areas in a while. The area of my portfolio that has been more challenging has been expecting a little bit more of a rotation earlier.

34:49So I've been early on that trade. So I'm always a little bit cautious to say, okay, this is the big rotation because I'm mindful of the difficulty of making that call. But I do continue to hold the view that it's more likely than not that this is early sign of a rotation. Because now there are a number of things there. There's the initial rate cutting period. Then there's all the tariff uncertainty. Then there's the fact that I've been emphasizing China because they've been in a balance sheet recession for a while. They're trying to deflate their property market. It kind of deflate bubbles there at kind of a gradual pace.

35:30but last year they started to hit certain pain points on chinese social media um they were you know it was it was starting to come up and then they were starting to hit red lines in the equity market where their kind of um priority shifted and so my view was that they were going to come out with some sort of hyper stimulus but that they're going to come out with a series of smaller ones whenever they keep bouncing into these red lines and that they're starting to put a floor under things rather than a ceiling over things and so when we see you know european fiscal open up a little bit, not necessarily for great reasons, but European fiscal opening up a little bit, Chinese consumer stimulus opening up a little bit, while at the same time the U.S.

36:08is still being fairly tight with monetary policy while also around the margins trying to contract fiscal. And then you add tariffs. It's a pretty good recipe for the rest of the world, especially because there's also that big valuation differential and everybody is on one side of the boat stuffed overweight into U.S. markets. So you've talked a lot about something that struck me the last couple of times we've talked is just how impactful it is to have$2 trillion in additional stimulus in the form of deficits. That's just going to inflate the market or that's going to be tremendously stimulative.

36:45Do you think that, and this is a comment wrapped in a, or disguised in a question, do you think that the renewed emphasis on taking European defense spending from 1.9 % of GDP to 3 % they're talking, that we're about to see kind of a similar multi-trillion dollar stimulus come into the European market that might be very bullish for stocks there? I think yes, but smaller. It's not the same thing as, say, sending checks out to households or PPP loans that turn into grants. It's not quite as explosive as what we come used to, but it's similar, I think, to the U.S. 2023-2024 period, where Social Security was basically pretty big cost of living adjustments and the pretty top-heavy demographics that's pouring out into the economy.

37:35even interest expense is pouring out into the economy, which is spendable around the margins. And so defense spending isn't some rapid effect, stimulatory thing, but it does trickle out to all the people that work in those supply chains and their spending power and their employment. And so in the marginal sense, we can say that basically Europe's going from kind of low fiscal to maybe moderate fiscal, while the U.S. isn't really increasing anymore. And so on the margins, that fiscal difference has narrowed. And so I think you do get a similar effect in Europe, just maybe smaller. This is interesting.

38:16I mean, we're five months into fiscal year 2025 in the U.S., and the deficit is currently at around one, I think a little over$1.1 trillion, which is a record high. And that includes the four months under Biden, but also the first month under Trump. And Trump has said he's going to change this. He said that he's going to balance the federal budget. That's word for word what he said. We're going to balance it. And, you know, the fiscal deficit is such a huge part of your analysis. It seems to inform many of your investment decisions. What is your outlook for fiscal spending under Trump? He's talked a big game about cutting spending.

38:56We've obviously had Doge, which has been dominating the headlines. Do you think that spending in the short term or maybe the medium term in America will come down or is it going to remain the same? The short answer is I don't think it will come down. It could, you know, maybe flatline for a little bit just because of the renewed focus on it. The issue is that the vast majority of the spending is these really big buckets that are hard to cut. So Social Security, Medicare, interest expense, defense spending, veterans benefits. And if you look at even, for example, back in the Paul Ryan Republican era, so the past decade, they were trying to reform Social Security, Medicare, raise retirement age, trim things, potentially privatize some of it.

39:41Whereas in kind of the Trump version of the Republican Party, like if you look at 2024 GOP platform, Promise 24 is don't cut Social Security or Medicare and don't raise the retirement age, which is normally what you see in a Democratic platform historically. that's where the biggest stuff is so that the optics are the idea that there's a lot of government waste a lot of employees and you can start trimming that and while you can rack up a lot of these like optical winds or dramas depending on what side of any given issue you are it's it's it doesn't really eat into the the biggest things on the pie chart probably the only area that is big enough discretionary speaking is defense but then the issue there is every single congressperson who who has some program in their jurisdiction is going to fight tooth and nail to keep it.

40:27So you have to go through all that, let alone the fact that outside of defense and outside of all those big transfer, like those transfer programs, you know, we look at like FAA, Department of Education, XYZ, all those like little tiny slices on the pie chart compared to those really big things. So my view is generally that all the optics aside, when we look at this in a year or two, while they might have consolidated in some areas, I don't think they're going to really be effective at touching any of the big things. We'll be right back.

41:11In business, they say you can have better, cheaper, or faster, but you only get to pick two. What if you could have all three at the same time? That's exactly what Cohere, Thomson Reuters, and Specialized Bikes have since they upgraded to the next generation of the cloud, Oracle Cloud Infrastructure. OCI is the blazing fast platform for your infrastructure, database, application development, and AI needs, where you can run any workload in a high availability, consistently high-performance environment, and spend less than you would with other clouds. How is it faster? OCI's block storage gives you more operations per second.

41:50Cheaper? OCI costs up to 50 % less for compute, 70 % less for storage, and 80 % less for networking. Better? In test after test, OCI customers report lower latency and higher bandwidth versus other clouds. This is the cloud built for AI and all your biggest workloads. Right now, with zero commitment, try OCI for free. Head to oracle.com slash vox. That's oracle.com slash vox.

42:44almosts. So what if there was a breakthrough sitting at this crossroads right now? The potential to cut carbon emissions with sustainable aviation fuel, or SAF, is real. SAF works just like Jet A1, which is a standard jet fuel used worldwide. But the difference is its contribution to aviation emissions reduction. It could change the future of flight, and that's why several major U.S. carriers have already increased their commitments to fuel with SAF. But it's not just up to the airlines. What's needed is an industry-wide push to increase the supply to meet growing demand. You can learn more about how Airbus is contributing to accelerating this journey at fly.airbus.com slash the flight path.

43:36The pumpkin spice latte is back at Starbucks. Crafted with our signature espresso and real pumpkin sauce. Then topped with whipped cream, cinnamon and nutmeg. The PSL. Get it while it's hot or iced. Only at Starbucks.

43:56We're back with ProfG Markets. I want to pivot us to crypto. Trump has established this national crypto reserve that will include Bitcoin, but also many other cryptocurrencies, Ether, XRP or Ripple, Solana, Cardano. He intends to keep buying those cryptocurrencies in regular installments. I know you've written a lot and done a lot of research on crypto, especially Bitcoin. I know that you are a Bitcoin bull yourself. What do you make of this national crypto reserve? And do you think it's a good idea? Well, so there are a couple of different phases of this. There's that he posted on True Social that they would have Bitcoin, Ethereum, and then the three others.

44:39That got some backlash, not just among Bitcoin proponents, but also some CEOs of major exchanges that are involved in multiple cryptos. There's one of the projects in particular that is not well liked by the rest of the space. That's probably what encouraged some of that backlash. Which one is that? XRP is particularly controversial in the space. the way that the executive order actually came out seemed to include or take into account a lot of that criticism and probably behind the scenes lobbying, which is they separated Bitcoin from other cryptos. So Bitcoin's part of a reserve, whereas crypto, other crypto is part of a stockpile.

45:17And those two pools, at least as far as its executive order remains in effect, it could be undone by a later executive order, either by this president or a later one. But under this current framework, the Bitcoin is instructed not to be sold, and that Besant and Letnik are authorized to find budget-neutral ways to accumulate more of it. That's how it's worded. Whereas the crypto stockpile, the Treasury Secretary, so Besant, has discretion on how to handle those, which could include sales, and that they're not really meant to accumulate more other than through the normal course of seizures and forfeitures, which is how they have all these holdings in the first place.

45:58So I actually think that the executive order came out better than it could because instead of going out and buying, you know, crypto XYZ that probably passes the Howie test and make certain insiders and VCs rich and was pre-mined and, you know, has an issuer. And it's kind of like if the U.S. picks certain stocks to own and not other stocks to own, that's right for all sorts of conflict. I actually think that they separated out pretty well. And the thing I wrote about before this all happened is my base case is they ring-fenced the Bitcoin they already have, which is basically what they did. They're capitalizing it with the Bitcoin they already have from seizures and forfeitures.

46:36They'll see if any of those should legally be returned to certain entities. There's a particularly big bucket of those that is probably owed to an exchange. They got hacked. They weren't involved in criminal stuff. So we'll see what happens there. But other than maybe that big chunk, I think they hold that. They might accumulate a little bit more. I generally take the under on the idea that they're going to go out and buy like a million Bitcoin, as some of the proposals have said. So I tend to assume that it'll be roughly the size it is now, maybe a little bit larger because they probably want to get some optical wins of, hey, look, we sold this crypto and we put the proceeds toward a budget neutral acquisition of a little bit more Bitcoin, or we did this and we bought a little bit of Bitcoin.

47:18But, you know, we'll see. I was just going to say, is this not exactly that an obstacle win? Because what you're essentially describing is all of the cryptocurrencies that the government already had from seizing them from illegal transactions. I think people don't really realize that. Yes, we have billions of dollars worth of Bitcoin held by the government, but we only have that because there was criminal transactions happening and the government went in there and they seized the Bitcoin. And what you're basically saying is, Trump made this whole statement, we're going to become the Bitcoin nation, we're going to go out and buy a bunch of Bitcoin.

47:53People pushed back, and now he's saying, oh, actually, we're just going to hold on to the Bitcoin we do have, except there's a new name for it. I mean, it sounds like essentially nothing has happened on the crypto front. It's not quite that, because I think, you know, their policy before was to gradually sell the coins they have. And so merely not selling them is a - It's a we're holding. Yeah, it is a tangible change. Two, it would take a reversal to undo that, which is not impossible, especially if you get a different administration. It's a ton of free marketing. So a lot of that is just optics.

48:30But then it's also like the fact that they did differentiate Bitcoin from other crypto, I think was, you know, good. It could have turned out more problematic, more prone of conflicts and things like that. So, Lynn, you're, I think, presenting what I would call a kind of a neutral and sober view of it. I bring a bias here, and that is this makes absolutely no fucking sense to me. There's nothing strategic about a strategic Bitcoin. Like if there's a strategic petroleum reserve, if we run out of petroleum, that's bad. We can't make tanks, our cars stop. If we run out of Bitcoin, I don't see any existential crisis to the U.S.

49:07So effectively, and I'm very open to pushback here. we've decided that we're in the business of being asset managers and and seizing stuff and not selling it is not much different than buying it because traditional u.s policy is when we seize a yacht or assets we turn it into money and give it back to the victims or we put it into the treasury so not selling it is not really any effectively any different than buying it and when you're running deficits the net effect of this is we have decided to buy a certain asset class and increase the deficits. So how is this any different than us deciding to increase the deficit and go buy four or five stocks that the president likes who gave him a quarter of a million dollars as the crypto community did?

49:49This just feels totally asymmetric or nonsensical. I agree with probably two thirds of it. I think the fact that not selling it is effectively the same as buying it is true, which is why I mentioned that this is not just an optical change, there actually is substance to it because it involves either not selling or selling potentially hundreds of thousands of coins. And so that's fully true. It just means that the purchases were essentially already made. It doesn't mean that more purchases are coming, but they're still effectively purchases in that sense. And it's also true that it's not like oil where the U.S.

50:25could find itself suddenly deficient in Bitcoin and needs Bitcoin. I think there are other countries where it can serve a more strategic purpose, which is that if they're worried about getting cut off by sanctions or things like that. Or hyperinflation. Hyperinflation, yeah. But even just for the fact that they could make a payment to another nation that settles in a half hour under multiple blocks, that actually gives them something. Whereas if you are the U.S. global reserve currency issuer, then effectively the value you're getting is as an investment. So in that sense, it's not like oil. It's more like the gold holdings.

51:00And then the question is, is it worth adding to our gold holdings? Is it worth adding another kind of monetary-like asset to that? Now, the part that I would see a little bit differently is it's not quite the same as holding five stocks the president's like because Bitcoin doesn't pass the Howey test. So it's effectively a digital commodity. It's an asset without an issuer. And so I do put it more on gold in that case with the caveat that it's still a fairly small asset. And this does obviously benefit those who hold Bitcoin or they're bullish on Bitcoin. so it does you know potentially help certain constituents not others and as you point out many of them did lobby for it um and so i don't you know i don't really disagree with that part other than to clarify that um there i would i would see a big difference between them doing with bitcoin versus them doing with like crypto xyz that literally had vcs founders a pre-mine insiders um things like that it is somewhat different um but at the end of the day it is It's basically just an investment decision.

52:02If Bitcoin should, over the coming 5, 10 years, go up 5 or 10x in price, then they have effectively made a good investment decision. Whereas if it stagnates, if it goes down, then it will have been a waste. Now, I think at the scale that they're doing it on, it probably gets disproportionate attention in the sense that they're not saying, hey, we want to go out and accumulate trillions of dollars with this. They're basically saying the couple hundred billion we have, which is a month or two of fiscal deficits and a pretty small fraction of the gold reserve. So I think there is controversy to it, but I kind of put it on small enough potatoes that it is what it is.

52:46And it's a little bit different than a security. Just want to begin to wrap up here. I'd love to just check in on your portfolio. One thing I admire about you, Lynn, is that you make your portfolio public. so everyone can see what you're doing and what kinds of investments you're making. Are there any changes that you've made to your portfolio recently? Are there any investment themes or theses that you are focused on in 2025? So I haven't made any major decisions, but the parts of the portfolio that are working or not working are certainly changing. So it used to be that the U.S. growth stocks were great.

53:22Obviously, Bitcoin and MicroStrategy were great. um the gold slice has been you know i purposely was kind of a bond bear and and wanted some of that slicing gold which has been a good decision the the part that i mentioned before the anchor has been the international equities and to a lesser extent the u.s kind of dividend stocks you know the u.s stocks are doing pretty good but they're not the mag 7 for example um and the recent rotation is basically saying that you know there might be some current wake-up on overvaluation among U.S. growth and a little bit of wake-up on opportunities elsewhere.

53:55And one thing I like to point out is that it's not just tech. Everybody focuses on, obviously, that tech is popular and expensive. But I've been highlighting the fact that Costco has been trading at 60 times earnings. And it's a 45-year-old retailer. I'm not even sure exactly what date, but it's a four or five-decade-old retailer. It's a great company. I mean, their growth numbers are good. I'm very bullish on the underlying company, just not at 60 times earnings. And so there's actually a lot of things like that that are just priced. Maybe not that extreme, but there's a lot of things that are just priced pretty expensively.

54:31And so I think we're entering the period where that starts to matter. But because I have been concerned for that for a while, I'm already positioned for some of that. And the caveat that is that during where only U.S. growth mattered, the equity side had a little bit of anchor on it, which lately has turned into a little bit of a booster. And so it's not that I'm making changes, it's that I'm noting things that are happening. And I think my biggest question now is to see if this has follow-through. Because I mentioned that the rotation has been a very hard call to make. I think this has likes to it, but I do want to see continued evidence that it has likes to it.

55:09Scott is rotating out. He's talked about it on the podcast. He's rotating out of U.S. stocks into international stocks. I would say quite aggressively. Scott, you can interject wherever, but from my understanding, Scott, you are dumping all of your Apple, I think all of your Amazon too, and you're going to put it into international stocks. It sounds like, Lynn, you agree, it's time to start rotating. For anyone who's listening right now who feels overweight US stocks, how would you do it? How would you rotate out? Would you trim? you know is there a certain percentage of your u.s stocks that you would you would trim in favor of international what would the rotation actually look like i think i would look for areas of overvaluation things that you're not comfortable with and and reduce those overweight positions i mean the s &p 500 is very concentrated the nasdaq 100 is very concentrated um i do still think there's pockets of value in the u.s um just generally not in the big u.s growth um and i also differentiate on a company by company basis.

56:10I mean, you know, like, Apple is a case that I've not been bullish on that for a while, just because it's, it's kind of a value stock that's priced like a growth stock. And that's been the challenge. When you look internationally, there are pockets, you know, like, and it's funny, because some of them have the same issues, like Brazil has had some friction lately because of its of its budget deficits. But the budget deficits have not really been that different than the US. And it's just a matter of whether or not there's external demand for the currency and the assets or not. But I generally, I find I've been less bearish on Brazil than it seems like the average consensus investor was, especially given some of the valuations and opportunities there.

56:52Like I said, I have been bullish on China with the caveat that there's a small percentage that something geopolitically happens and it entirely messes up that side of the portfolio. Kind of like what we saw with Russia, for example. And so it's like, you know, 90 % chance I was like, these are undervalued, super cheap. You know, they actually became more shareholder friendly. So for example, some of the big Chinese tech stocks were like initiating dividends or buying back shares when they were super cheaply priced. And I mean, that's kind of a change in that space. So more shareholder friendly policies.

57:28I do think that there are a lot of pockets out there that are quite interesting. And Europe, I have historically found a little bit less compelling. But when it's been dead money for a while, and you do have marginal fiscal waking up, it's nice to own some of that, at least compared to American dividend stocks. You can look around and say, are there ways I can diversify my value or dividend exposure? Lynn Alden is a full-time investor, independent analyst, and the author of Broken Money, why our financial system is failing us and how we can make it better. Her work has been featured in the Wall Street Journal, Business Insider, Market Watch, and CNBC.

58:06She has also served as a consultant to startup companies, hedge funds, and executive committees. You can find her research at lynnaldin.com. Lynn, always a pleasure to have you on the show. Thank you again for joining us. Thanks, Lynn. Thank you. This episode was produced by Claire Miller and engineered by Benjamin Spencer. Our associate producer is Alison Weiss. Mia Silverio is our research lead. Isabella Kinsel is our research associate. Drew Burrows is our technical director. And Catherine Dillon is our executive producer. Thank you for listening to Prof G Markets from the Vox Media Podcast Network.

58:39If you liked what you heard, give us a follow and join us for a fresh take on markets on Monday.

58:58In kind reunion As the world turns And the dark flies In love, love, love

59:22Mercury knows that to an entrepreneur, every financial move means more. An international wire means working with the best contractors on any continent. A credit card on day one means creating an ad campaign on day two. And a business loan means loading up on inventory for Black Friday. That's why Mercury offers banking that does more, all in one place, so that doing just about anything with your money feels effortless. Visit Mercury.com to learn more. Mercury is a financial technology company, not a bank. Banking services provided through Choice Financial Group Column N.A. and Evolve Bank and Trust members FDIC.

1:00:03Last lap alert. The Daily Tech Showcase roars into Richmond Raceway. October 14th. And the biggest names in tech are in the driver's seat. Apple, AWS, Meta. It's the main event for education, government, healthcare, manufacturing, and enterprise leaders ready to hit the gas on innovation. Time's running out. Claim one of the last few spots at daily.com slash VA25 before the checkered flag waves.