The Trouble With Tariffs + Why Palantir Could Dominate AI — ft. Aswath Damodaran

26:29You've got the sort of NVIDIA, OpenAI, American story, let's call it. And then you've got this deep seek, lower cost China story. I don't know which story to believe. And that's part of my problem. You know, there's the issue of how much did they actually spend on this thing? How many GPUs did they actually have? And then there's this new wrinkle, which is this question of legality. where OpenAI is saying, well, actually they stole our model, we think, and that's illegal. And in which case it's like, okay, which story are you supposed to go with? That's why I think the story is not about DeepSeek or China.

27:11It's about asking a question about, are the entry requirements for AI products and services as high as the story was? So this has nothing to do with US and China, right? That was the story told. And I'll tell you one of the reasons I was wary of that story is I work with people who keep coming up with stuff to do valuations, investing, accounting with automated products. They might not have called it AI, but think of it as early versions of AI. So I can see an AI accounting product. And an AI accounting product doesn't require any data. You don't need to know how every accountant in history has ever accounted.

27:52All you need are the rules. and the reality also is you don't need supercomputers. You can get there with fairly low power computers. So the original AI story, I was being told to build an accounting AI, you still need the NVIDIA chips and lots of data. And what DeepSeek did was open the door to all of those people who are skeptical saying, you know what, at least for a segment of the AI product and service market, I'm going to call them, I call them low grade in my post. I'll call them low-intensity products and services, products that don't require huge amounts of data. They're rule-based, not intuition-based, and don't require incredible computing power.

28:31DeepSeek offers a way of getting into the market with a much lower entry cost. So you know what? Both things can be true. The old AI story still applies for the Palantir version of AI, which requires huge amounts of data. It's more intuitive. It has to build on data and needs supercomputing. But what I think it's done is it's created a bifurcated AI market where one segment is going to stay premium or the old story will apply. And there'll be a few big winners with huge computing power and lots of data. And a different market for AI products and services, this low intensity stuff, which will be more commoditized because a lot more people enter that market.

29:10It's great for customers because this is good news, no matter how you slice it for customers, because you're now going to get access to AI products and services at a lower cost. but it's going to be much more difficult to make money in that segment. That to me is the takeaway from this because you're absolutely right. There are things that will come out about DeepSea that it spent a billion dollars rather than six million, that it did use 150 NVIDIA chips to essentially get to where it is, that it might have, I don't want to use the word stolen because that will already require me to pass judgment.

29:44Distilled is the word they're using. That they borrowed data from the open. Inspired by. Inspired by. And that the Chinese government is an affair. All of those things might actually play out here. And deep sea could disappear tomorrow. But guess what? The story, the emperor's new clothes are basically not new clothes anymore. The wardrobe malfunction is told as to the old AI story is not going to hold. And that, I think, is the change that one weekend wrought on the entire AI story. And it's healthy, I think, because one of the problems when you have these big buzzwords driving what markets do, social media, internet, PCs, is early in the process, use the buzzword to justify everything.

30:33Why should I pay too much? It's an AI company. And I think we were, you know, every one of these buzzwords, there was this moment that, I call this the bar mitzvah moment where you wake up and you say, hey, where's the grown-up part of this story? I think this was a good part for the AI story because it says, look, there is no AI company. Are you an AI architecture company or software? So we will, if we're sensible, we'll start asking questions about AI that I think are much healthier questions, hopefully, after DeepSeek than before. So Aswath, we both teach at the same institution. And, you know, I don't know if you have this.

31:12I have a series of go-tos where I think, okay, I got to build a classroom on this because it's actual something resembling insight. And one of those is what I think I still hold on to. And that is almost every consumer market ultimately bifurcates into a Walmart and a Tiffany. And that is there's an aspirational high-end model. And then there's a, you know, lowest cost massive selection. and also that somewhere in between, the companies that actually grow the fastest and have created the most shareholder value over a short period of time are the Old Navies, 80 % of the market leader for 50 % of the price.

31:45Southwest, largest market cap of any U.S. airline, 80 % of Delta, American, United for 50 % or 60 % of the price. One, is this essentially the market going Walmart and Tiffany and or two, is deep seek the potentially the old navy of AI and is going to grow its value faster than the rest of them? I think actually the market is going to have three segments to it. One is the Tiffany, the Walmart, and the third is we got these platform players, right? Microsoft, Meta, Google. And there is this possibility that for them, AI will be a freebie that the products and services will be freebies they offer people to stay on their platform more.

32:29So that's why I said it's good news for customers, because if you're a Meta customer on Microsoft, my guess is there's going to be freebie stuff that's coming. That sounds free, but it's getting you to spend 15 minutes more on LinkedIn or Office. I do think that within the commoditized market, you're right, there will be companies that find other competitive advantages. Because let's face it, brand name and other things were created because you are in a commoditized market. Perfume is perfume. And the way you separated yourself was you created some kind of illusion that you, I wouldn't be surprised if you got this middle segment in the AI market of companies that provide commoditized AI products and services, but attach a name to it that makes it feel like you're getting something more, almost a brand name version of AI.

33:17So I think the retail market is a great way to think about how the AI product and service market is going to end up separating. And I think that the winners and losers are going to reflect what you've seen in the retail market as well, is how do you come up with competitive advantages when entry costs are low? You're essentially offering the same thing that everybody else is, but you've got to get people to pay a higher price for your product. So I think it'd be fun to take the retail analogy and play it out here. The reason I'm a little wary about DeepSeek being the old Navy, because as Ed pointed out, there are all these things that make me suspicious of whether the DeepSeek story is being fully told.

33:58Now, I'll be quite honest. If I were DeepSeek, I'd have laid all my cards on the table. If it cost them a billion dollars, I'd have said it cost us a billion dollars. If they'd used 150 NVIDIA chips, I'd say we used 150 NVIDIA chips. If they stole open AI data, that's not fixable. But if they borrowed data, I would frame it as such. Because even if they spent a billion and had 150 NVIDIA chips, it's still impressive that they've churned out a product for a lot less than OpenAI. I mean, there's an old saying, it's good to have the competition, the types of competition. Because in the case of DeepSeek, their best advantage is they're competing against OpenAI.

34:44And OpenAI is a corporate governance fiasco. I don't trust Sam Altman further than I can throw him. And that might actually benefit DeepSeek because it's not like we trust ChatGPT and OpenAI to do the right thing for us because there's nothing there to base that trust on. So in many ways, the opening year is the existing players are so unreliable and untrustworthy to begin with, that even if you have issues with DeepSeek, you can say, I can live with that because I've lived with that with OpenAI and what the big tech companies are doing with it. So I think we're early in this game, but there's a lot more rocky stuff coming ahead of us in terms of how this market will play out.

35:29But I wouldn't be surprised if none of the names we've talked about ends up being one of the winners. This is like being in the internet market in 1995. Nobody mentioned Amazon at that time, the ultimate winner. We're talking about, you know, will AOL win this game or will Cisco win the game? Lycos, AltaVista. Yeah. Hot mail. I find it hilarious that Sam Altman is crying foul and saying they stole. It's like Hannibal Lecter accusing people of eating too much meat. I mean, it's just karma's a bitch. I just think it's hilarious. It even has the backbone to accuse other people of stealing data. Anyway, we were blown away.

36:08We had Robert Armstrong, the markets analyst from the Financial Times, and he outlined a thesis that has just entirely changed my view on this, and I want to lay it out and get your response. I came to Orlando last night in an aircraft that skirted along the surface of the atmosphere at eight-tenths the speed of sound. It has changed the world. I didn't have to get on a steamship like my parents for 14 days and get sick or seasick. I didn't 150 years ago have to get in a wagon and end up eating each other and dying of scurvy over the Rockies. It has changed the world massively. Unbelievable technological breakthrough.

36:49Airlines have lost more money than they've made. PCs change the world. Very few PC makers have made any money. There are a set of companies and technologies where the majority of the value accretes to stakeholders versus a small number of shareholders. Could DeepSeek signal that AI, and I think this would be a good thing, might be more like the airline and the PC industry than search or social, where in fact, the winners are going to be the general public, and no one or small number of companies is going to be able to capture all of the value. I think for the commoditized segment, that may very well be the endgame.

37:31But I do believe a portion of AI where you use exclusive data and superpower computers, I think Palantir might be a winner in that space because I can't imagine a way that a competitor is going to come in. Because the airline business, in a sense, What killed it was open entry and the fact that your weakest companies never left the game. I mean, that's the problem with the airline business is you kept the weakest players going and new people kept coming in. There was no way this business could fix itself. Since 1977, the business has gone back. You know, this is between bankruptcy and making billions.

38:08It's not figured out a way to make money. I do think the premium AI market, it'll be the data plus supercomputing that gives those companies advantage, there will be winners. In the commoditized market, it's entirely possible that what you're going to get is competition that essentially drives the businesses in this space into, not into bankruptcy, but into this period where they keep flirting with bankruptcy while consumers benefit. But consumer benefits come with side costs, which is we're all better off, but there's also side costs we create for the society. And I think that's a part that concerns me.

38:51We might all have AI products and services, often at cost, pretty close to nothing. Will that make us happier? I mean, I think that's a question that I don't... I mean, it's a cultural question, not an economic question, But I've heard these promises before from tech people that they're going to take our drudgery off. And that's why the last part of my post was about, hey, every time you get these new technologies, I'm told that this is going to make my life simpler, less drudgery and happier. And every time I look back and say, really? You know, and I worry about that AI effect on all of us. What exactly are we going to be looking back at 15 years from now?

39:31as Scott and I both know Jonathan Haidt, he's pointed out that the end effect of smartphones might not be that you can get DoorDash delivered in 15 minutes. It might be that your teenager has a greater chance of going through depression because of the exposure to smartphones. The net effect, I think, with AI that I worry about is the effect on society overall. I'm not, you know, equipped to think through all of that, but I am old enough to remember the promises made with each technological shift and what we end up seeing as a result of it. We'll be right back.

40:24Rinse takes your laundry and hand delivers it to your door. expertly cleaned and folded, so you can take the time, all that time once spent on folding and sorting, watching and waiting, to finally pursue a whole new version of you, like birdhouse building you. Yeah, the birds are going to love this. Or dollhouse building you. Yeah, the kids are going to love this. Or maybe house DJ track building to the bass drop you. Oh yeah, the kids are gonna love this.

41:07Do you love it? Oh, that's a good you.

41:17It's up to you. We'll take the laundry. Rinse. It's time to be great.

41:28we're back with prof g markets you mentioned palantir there which just had a blowout quarter it is now the 49th most valuable company in the world it's up around i want to say 1500 percent in the past two years um i kind of expected you to walk in and say it's way overvalued but you sound a little bit bullish, maybe. I'll be quite honest. It's a one, usually I never say never with a company. I view it as a challenge in a company. Palantir is the one company that I kind of hold off on fully valuing because I'll be quite honest, I have no idea what they actually do. And I'm terrified to ask in case I might end up in Guantanamo Bay because it's the nature of what they do and especially on their defense, secret service side is it's, but if you were building a prototype of a premium AI product, it would look a lot like Palantir, right?

42:28It would be data that is exclusive to you. It would be require intuitive components to the data because they're trying to second guess what might happen in the gaming out wartime activities. This, you know, you can't just feed it roots. You got to feed it in much. You need supercomputers and you're very sticky customers. Because once the defense department chooses you, it's not like a competitor can come and say, I'll offer 20 % less because there are all these links you built in that are almost unbreakable. So does it justify a 1500 % price increase? I don't know. But I'm willing to listen to somebody who says it is.

43:12but as an investor, I need to at least have the, at least a sense of what a company actually does that makes it unique to be able to bet on it. And Palantir has always been this bridge too far for me. It's one of the few companies in the world where I look at and say, interesting company, fascinating, but as an investor, I can't buy you as a business because I really don't know what you do. I could trade it, but I'm not a trader, right? Trading is just looking for a higher price. Momentum can carry you there. But to me, it is exactly the kind of prototype for this premium AI market that I'm thinking about where there will be companies that find a space like Palantir and then harvest that space to make as much money as they can.

43:55Do you think it's possible that the rest of Wall Street feels similarly as you do? And therefore, that's why we're seeing this price increase? Because is it possible that basically most of Wall Street doesn't really understand what Palantir is or does. And that's what kind of excites them about the company. And that's the difference between investing and trading. Investing, if you don't understand a business, you can't put your money in trading. All you need to do is a momentum in your direction. So if you believe there's a big enough story, and as long as there are enough players who believe the story, you're going to be able to sell at a higher price.

44:31So Wall Street may be trading on the fact that Palantir is one of the few players you can point to and say, that guy has a premium product. Other people think like me because you're just making guess on whether other people stay with the herd. So I believe that Palantir is one of the few companies with a tangible product or service that you can point to and say, you know, they'll find a way to make money on it because it is unique and different. We need to get like the Department of Defense on the line, get a product review. from them. To figure out what is going on. And the problem is once you lock those guys in, I mean, they're going to keep paying.

45:08I mean, it's a nice continuing income model, which is a nice customer base to have. No, I've worked with the government. They're the worst business prospects in the world, but they're the best clients because if you can figure out a way to get in there, it's hard to leave. Just real quick, I was going to, part of this conversation was to two most overvalued stocks in the world, one Palantir, and you've convinced me, don't trade it. There's just too many known unknowns. My other one, this is a cross I'm going to die on here. Now do Tesla. Tesla has become as much of a political bet as it is an electric car bet.

45:47And I think that worries me. I mean, I've invested, before Tesla, I've invested in companies in other countries where connections with who's in power was a big factor. You know, I talk about the Adani enterprises in India, where you're making a bet on the company, but you're also making a bet on whether the BJP, which is the ruling party in India, will win the next election because the two are tied together. Historically, that's not been the issue in US companies, which have tended to give to both sides of the aisle. So you're not buying a Republican company or a Democratic company, you're buying a company.

46:24I think Tesla kind of broke that rule and effectively has, it's not Tesla that broke the rule, it's Elon. And by making a company that's all about, that's personality driven. Now, this morning in class, I was doing my certificate class. I asked somebody in my class, do you like Elon? And he said, why do you care? I said, you tell me what you think about Elon Musk. I'll tell you whether you're likely to find Tesla to be undervalued or overvalued. It's come to that point where this is, and that's troublesome as an investor, right? This is now less to do with electric cars and automated driving. I made a good bet buying Tesla last year at 170.

47:07But at 400, the question I'm asking is, what am I holding now? Am I holding a bet on the next great electric car company in the world? or am I holding a bet on what Elon Musk is going to do to the U.S. government? I'm not sure what I'm betting on right now. So I think it's reached a point where when you think about Tesla, your narrative is all over the place because you now have other players, which are political players, pushing into the story. And I've never been good with political companies. And we also got to get your thoughts on NVIDIA. I think it was September of last year you said NVIDIA was overvalued it was trading at around$109 per share it's now at around$115,$116 I assume you still think it's overvalued?

48:00Well, my value went the other direction it went from$87 down to$78 because of deep sink basically if it's a segment of the market that's going to be premium AI and I'm being generous and I make the segment $300 billion for AI chips rather than 500 billion, it is going to have consequences for NVIDIA and it played out as a lower value. But the price is actually higher than it was. So if it was overvalued in September, it's even more overvalued now, which is one reason I have, at some point in time, I have to act on my valuations. I sold half my NVIDIA in 2023. I'm selling my other, another half of what I've left.

48:38I'm still holding on to a little bit of it because it's psychological. It's this regret factor that led me to kind of hold half. It's that way. Either way, I can point to something I've done and say I'm okay with it. And that's my psychology. I need that to make sure that it doesn't spill over into something else I do. So it feels more overvalued to me, but it's my story. And I want to, you know, I don't, that's why I said this is not investment advice. I'll give you my framework. Maybe you have a different perspective on what DeepSeek did. And maybe your conclusion would be that DeepSeek actually made NVIDIA more valuable.

49:17I have a tough time figuring out what that story would be. But I think that it's, the game is on. And I think at this point, I think if NVIDIA was overvalued in September, in my story, it's even more overvalued now. To pivot us to Trump land, do you have any views on tariffs and what Trump has done with tariffs, specifically the tariffs on Canada and Mexico and China? You know what? It's the one thing that I think both supporters and people who like Trump and don't like Trump will agree is that he's a change agent. The only difference is the guys who support him believe that the change is what's needed to shake up a system that's become very, very rigid that needs fixing.

50:03The people who don't like him say the change is chaos for the sake of chaos. and I'm one of those people who see shades of gray in everything. I think that D.C. is broken. I think everybody agrees that the way our government raises money and spends money is just the system is broken. Does that mean I think tariffs and Musk-like, you know, the doji cost-cutting is the way to go? I don't think so because I think that you're breaking everything and hoping that you're not breaking things that shouldn't be broken. I think the problem with something like tariffs is you're breaking the rules of what drove a global economy for a while.

50:46We know what happened last century when tariff wars went to crazy. But you're doing it expecting only positive consequences. And what if something you break is something you shouldn't have broken in the first place? So I worry about the fact that you're pulling all these things, you're breaking everything at the same time, said, trust us, we know we can fix it. What if we cannot, right? So I think that this is something that's going to play out for the next four years. You're going to see things broken. Sometimes those things that are broken should not have been broken in the first place. It's going to be tough to fix them.

51:25Net though, I think that I can't see how tariffs play out as better for the global economy. There is no story you can tell where tariffs collectively make us globally better off. But here's a caveat. Could a tariff war end up with the global economy hurting, but the U.S. potentially gaining? Yeah, it could happen because this is one of the few advantages you get when you're as consumption driven as we are as an economy is it might end up that the end game is. And in many ways, Trump seems to think of that as the end game, which is if the U.S. gains, what if the rest of the world goes into? And the Canada example is a perfect one, right?

52:09That's a game where U.S. actually has a pretty strong hand. It's more likely to win. But I think it's almost like you're not thinking through what does it mean when your neighbor to the north is now no longer an ally? It's almost you're not thinking through the long-term consequences. But long-term has almost nothing to do with this. It's short-term. It's what can I pull in the U.S. best interest in the short-term. And I have a worry that clearly some of this stuff will be paying the price in the long-term. You mentioned there's just this fear of things breaking, that you break the kinds of things that you didn't want to break in an attempt to shake up or, you know, break the things that you wanted to break.

52:57Oh, you wanted to break because you thought you could replace it, but you find that you can't replace it. That's my worry is that breaking things and I can replace it. What if you cannot? I mean, you break the Medicare computers. I agree with you. It's a horrifically outdated system. My wife's mother was on Medicare and she'd be on the phone for two hours where they couldn't find things. It was incredibly outdated. No, so I agree it needs change. But if you break the system and you're not able to replace it, and remember, you have to replace it instantaneously, what happens if you can't mail the checks out or cover Medicare costs?

53:35I mean, that is a horrific side cost to this, is even if it's only weeks, you've created weeks where people in their 70s and 80s might not be able to get the medical attention they need because you broke the system. So I think that you break systems, you've got to recognize that if you can't replace them right away, there were going to be costs and consequences. And those costs and consequences can be catastrophic for some of the people involved in that space. You mentioned previously that you could predict if someone believes Tesla is under overvalued based on whether they like Elon Musk or not, which I think is really, that's interesting.

54:13Somebody told me that, or the head of JP Morgan asset management in front of mine, Amanda Cohen said that if you add up equity values and debt, that the U.S. now represents 70 % of the capital markets globally. So to me, that says, all right, you can either own the U.S. for$70 or you can own the rest of the world for$30. And that strikes me as the U.S. is overvalued and the rest of the world is undervalued. And if you apply the same logic, do you like America as a means of deciding whether it's under or overvalued and potentially whether you invest in the U.S. or start to invest again in other countries that the flows might reverse?

54:52I think, though, I think we're assuming that U.S. companies are the U.S., right? I mean, in a sense, they're buying the U.S. And I think that's what's changed that makes the story, because I've heard variants of the story every year for the last 15 years. And if you carry it to it, basically means you should be shifting your money out of U.S. equity index funds, if you're an index investor, into European and emerging market funds. And for the last 15 years, every single year, you look back and say, I wish I hadn't done that. So I've been looking at this because clearly either the market is just really delayed in reacting or there's some.

55:29And I think the part of the story that the 70 percent, I think adding bonds to equities is, I think, a little skews in numbers because the U.S. is the most bond friendly debt market in the world. The rest of the world, it takes bank debts. If I were to add bonds to stocks, then I should be adding bank debt to equity in other markets to get. So I'll stay with the 50%, which is still an impressive number of just market cap. And you look at the biggest market cap companies in that segment. It's, of course, the MAG-7, the big tech companies. And you look at where they get their revenues and you start to very quickly come to the recognition that these are not U.S.

56:09companies. These are multinationals through the accident of history that happen to be U.S.-based. They get huge segments of their revenues from outside. So when you buy the S &P 500, you're no longer buying the 500 largest market cap stocks in the U.S. You're buying 500 largest market cap multinationals that you are getting global companies. So the 50 % U.S. share is really a much smaller share. If you look at what segment of U.S. market cap is U.S. revenue-based. Is it still too high? Maybe, but you're not getting the compelling number you get by just looking at market cap. And I think there's a reason for that.

56:48I mean, every market that I go to, I do a corporate, I take the companies in the index. And as you know, one of my pet fads is this corporate lifecycle fad. And I put the companies in the index in the corporate lifecycle. I did this in Brazil. And you take the Vespa and you take every company and put in the lifecycle. They're all mature to declining companies. There isn't a single new bank might be the only one that's younger, slight growth, but they're all mature and declining. You go to even countries like China and India, which have growth. If you look at the biggest companies, they all tend to be old time mature business.

57:22You go to Europe and forget about it. The indices are basically zombie companies that are well past the due date. But you look at the U.S. market and look at the top 30, the top 50 stocks. You have stocks that are 12 years old, and they're in there. For better or worse, what's driving U.S. market cap is the fact that the energy for growth is still coming from those young companies. And the U.S. seems to be the only market where these young companies actually become large companies, scale up. In most of the other markets, they're consumed by the status quo. The existing companies buy them out. In a strange way, you're seeing the market rewarding the US for still creating at least a pathway for a young company with potential, not only scaling up, but scaling up so much that it becomes one of the large companies in the game.

58:14Now, I know that's an indirect answer to your question, but I think in a sense, the number scares me less than other issues. I think the fact that interest rates could go up, I think worries me more than the concentration effect that you see with U.S. equities. Just last question, a theme here is fallen angels. I love looking at stuff that's been cut way down. And I look at Nova Nordisk cut in half, Moderna, which I think is a great company, it's up 90 % since its high, Intel, Starbucks, even with its rebound. You called, I take credit for it, but you called Meta's value back when it was 90 or 95 bucks correctly.

58:56You just said, regardless of what you think of the company, it's a cash volcano and it's been overly punished. Any companies you would describe right now as having been overpunished? Let's take the companies we talked about, right? Nova Nordisk, even if you cut the price by half, if you compare the market cap to where it was pre-Osempic, pre-Wagovi, it's way up there. I think what people are reassessing about Nova Nordisk is let's face it, they got valuable because they were in the right, they got lucky. I mean, it's not like amazing R &D where they said, we're gonna come up with a weight loss drug.

59:28that diabetes drug happened to have a side benefit. And the question is, is this luck or is this going to change? And I think that until they come up with another product that is a market changer, a blockbuster drug, I think the hypothesis has to be that they got lucky with these two drugs and they're going to go back to being a sleepy Danish diabetes drug company. And that market cap is actually far lower than the half that you estimated. So there I'm going to hold off to see what their R &D can turn out, because this is a very tough business to create blockbuster drugs and make money on them.

1:00:05And that jury is still out. Intel and Starbucks, though. I bought Intel after I did my assessment. Last September when we talked, I talked about Intel and Starbucks. I think Intel, I think there's a pathway back to not growth. But the market is pricing it as a dying company. And I think that may be a little over the top. I think they have enough strength still that they can go back to being at least a mature chip company. And DeepSeek in a strange way might give them new life because it says, look, you know, everybody's not going to go after NVIDIA chips if you can make these kinds of chips. So Intel, I think, with the right management in place, and that'll take a few iterations because as you know, the CEO's kind of moved out to somebody they're looking for, somebody who can come in without, I don't want somebody who's incredibly ambitious who says, I want to make Intel the next NVIDIA or the next DSMC.

1:01:00Just be the old Intel, right? Just go back to making what you did. You're going to be okay. Starbucks, and I speak as a Starbucks user, I'm not sure how you fix the company, right? I mean, I noticed that they're already starting to charge different prices for Starbucks across San Diego, depending on which location. It didn't used to be. The airport locations are always expensive, but maybe because lease rates are higher. They have this problem. They have these incredibly expensive leaseholds they've taken for Starbucks. And there's nobody in them most of the time. They're all lined up outside the pickup window.

1:01:44they picked up their online. I'm not sure how you walk back to a business model that's sustainable. I'm sure they'll try, but there's so much legacy cost that they're going to have to cut through that I don't feel as optimistic about their way back to a healthy, steady state as I do with Intel. So I'm going to take each of these because each of the companies, I think, has a different issue. the question I'm asking is, can new management fix the issue? If it can, then I'm more inclined to invest in it. If it's something systematic, something that's going to be more difficult to fix with the new management team, then I'm going to hold off because I think there's, you know, you could be in a value trap, but these companies keep looking cheap and get cheaper over time rather than more expensive.

1:02:32Aswath Damodaran is the Kirshner Family Chair in Finance Education and Professor of Finance at NYU Stern School of Business, where he teaches corporate finance and valuation. You can also read his research on his blog, Musings on Markets, which, by the way, is probably my favorite financial blog out there. I really could not recommend it highly enough. Just in terms of signal versus noise, I think it's just one of the most, the highest signal financial blogs out there. And Ed, I want to add that I leave typos and miss bad links in there just to make sure people realize it's not written by a bot.

1:03:07A bot would never screw up like that. So think of those as intentional typos and intentional links that don't work. Absolutely. Professor DeMoto, thank you so much for joining us. It's always a pleasure. Thanks, Oswald. 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 Kinsell 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. If you liked what you heard, give us a follow and join us for a fresh take on markets on Monday.

1:04:06As the world turns And the dark flies In love, love, love, love

1:04:30One quick note before we sign off. We're expanding Prof G Markets with a new weekly newsletter that breaks down key market moves with data-driven analysis and crisp visuals. Subscribe now at www.profgmarkets.com slash subscribe.

1:05:03Your wealth, customize and save, we say. That may have been too much feeling. Only pay for what you need at LibertyMutual.com. Liberty, Liberty, Liberty, Liberty. Savings vary underwritten by Liberty Mutual Insurance Company and affiliates. Excludes Massachusetts.