U.S. Takes 10% Stake in Intel, Powell’s Jackson Hole Speech + OnlyFans’ $7B Boom

0:00This episode is brought to you by On Investing, an original podcast from Charles Schwab. I'm Kathy Jones, Schwab's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. And I'm Lizanne Saunders, Schwab's Chief Investment Strategist. Between us, we have decades of experience studying the indicators that drive the economy and how they can have a direct impact on your investments. We know that investors have a lot of questions about the markets and the economy, and we're here to help. Join us each week as we explore questions like, how do you evaluate corporate bonds? And what sectors of the stock market are outperforming?

0:31So Kathy will analyze what's happening in the bond market and at the Fed, and I'll give you our latest analysis of the equities market and the U.S. economy. And we often interview prominent guests from across the world of investing and business. So download the latest episode and subscribe at schwab.com slash oninvesting or wherever you get your podcasts.

0:54Rinse takes your laundry and hand delivers it to your door, expertly cleaned and folded. So you could take the time once spent folding and sorting and waiting to finally pursue a whole new version of you. Like tea time you. Mmm. Or this tea time you. Or even this tea time you. So did you hear about Dave? Or even tea time, tea time, tea time you. Mmm. So update on Dave. It's up to you. We'll take the laundry. Rinse. It's time to be great. These days, every business leader is under pressure to save money. But you can't crush the competition just by cutting costs. To win, you need to spend smarter and move faster.

1:35You need Brex. Brex is the intelligent finance platform that breaks the tradeoff between control and speed with smart corporate cards, high-yield banking, and AI-powered expense management. Join the 30 ,000 companies that spend smarter and move faster with Brex. Learn more at brex.com slash grow. Today's number, 46. That's how many people are employed by the fire department of Antarctica. When asked what they do all day, a spokesperson replied, more than McKinsey. Money markets matter. If money is evil, then that building is hell. The show goes on! The folks are never watching. Show, show! Welcome to Profity Markets.

2:25I'm Ed Elson. It is August 26th. Let's check in on yesterday's market vitals. The major indices all fell, retreating from last week's rally following Jerome Powell's speech in Jackson Hole. We'll talk more about that later. The yield on 10-year treasuries and the dollar rose. Meanwhile, Elon Musk's XAI sued Apple and OpenAI, accusing them of an anti-competitive scheme. Apple's stock was unmoved by that threat and it ended the day in line with the Nasdaq. Okay, what else is happening? The US government just made perhaps its biggest move in corporate America since the financial crisis. President Trump announced the government is taking a 10 % stake in Intel worth nearly$9 billion.

3:10That makes Washington the chipmaker's largest shareholder, though it won't have a board seat or any governance rights, apparently. Intel shares has jumped more than 6 % on this news. Now, a lot here. What does this mean, first off, for Intel? I mean, the answer is who really knows? Perhaps they'll get some form of preferential or special treatment from the government. I think that's certainly what the markets are pricing in right now. And, you know, to be fair to Intel, in the age of Trump, that's kind of a good thing to have. I mean, that's exactly why Tim Cook and all these other tech CEOs are literally bringing gifts made of gold to the king, a very similar setup, by the way, to what Henry VIII had back in the 1500s, because, you know, they know there is an ROI to this.

4:00There is an ROI, there is a return on your investment to kissing the feet of the emperor. It can actually yield returns. That's at least what Apple is betting. So, you know, perhaps there is some upside here for Intel now that they are in bed with the White House, now that the administration owns 10 % of them, perhaps. The more interesting question, though, is what does this mean for government? I mean, this is a Republican president. This is the party of small government and deregulation, and they've just gone and seized a 10 % stake in a private sector company. That's what the CCP does. I'm sorry to go there, but that's basically ground zero for communism.

4:47By the way, can you imagine the reaction if a Democrat did this? Can you imagine if a Democrat had looked at a flailing American company and decided, oh, the solution to your problems is for the government to own you? Can you imagine what would be happening on Fox News if a Democrat did that. Now, of course, the defense for many people has been that this is nothing new. And to be fair, they're kind of correct on that. America does have a history of taking strategic stakes in key industries. It happened during World War I, when the railroads were nationalized, along with telegraph and telephone systems.

5:25It happened in the 50s when Truman temporarily seized the steel mill industry to avert a strike. And it happened after the 2008 crisis when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were bailed out and placed into conservatorship and controlled by the federal government. It's happened before. But you may notice that all of these examples have one thing in common, and that is they were a response to a crisis. without some sort of intervention, there would have been some form of imminent economic collapse. At least that was the argument. And that is the problem with this deal, is there is no crisis here. The economy is doing just fine without Intel.

6:09The AI economy is ripping. We are home to NVIDIA, which is alone worth 44 Intels. And if this really were a crisis, as the administration is seeming to suggest. If the problem is that we're too reliant on Taiwan or China to get our chips, that's what some people are saying, well then why are you off brokering these deals between NVIDIA and AMD to sell more chips to China? I mean, none of that really makes sense. And the only justification that I can come up with here is that Trump basically just wants to throw his weight around and, you know, get some deals done. I mean, that's the only thing here that makes sense to me.

6:47But who knows? Maybe there are some other answers. Let's check in with our friend, Professor Justin Wolfers. He is a professor of public policy and economics at the University of Michigan. Let's see if he can make some sense of this deal. Professor Wolfers, thank you very much for joining me again on Prof G Markets. Great to have you. It's so exciting. How many days do we get to talk about nationalizing the means of production? I've been waiting for this all my life. I'm glad you just got right to it, because that's what I want to get your reactions to. The administration, the government taking up 10 % in intel, nationalizing the means of production, as you call it.

7:32Just your initial reactions. What does this mean? What does this say about the state of business and possibly the state of America right now? There are so many ways I could have fun with this right now, and it's so hard for me not to. So I'm not going to, Ed. No fun. Mate, here's, I just want to start by teaching the economics of this, and then we can talk about the broader issues. What the federal government has done is it's taking a bunch of stock certificates, stock in Intel, and they're in someone's safe. I don't know if they're in my mutual funds or if they're actually still sitting at Intel HQ, but they're taking a bunch of stock certificates and they're moving in from that safe to another safe.

8:13safe stored at the federal treasury. That's it. Nothing's changed. So if this is about helping Intel, the physical location of stock certificates seems like a very weird way of doing it. So the CEO hasn't changed. The corporate strategy hasn't changed. Intel's line of business hasn't changed. Where it stands in the line for government procurement contracts hasn't changed. its list of strategic advisors might've gotten smaller because those stock certificates were sitting in someone's safe and maybe those folks were activist investors. Now sitting in the federal government's safe, the federal government has said that they're not going to be active investors.

9:00So one fewer, if you believe the government, one fewer group looking over the board's shoulder. So once you understand what's happened, you're left wondering what problem is solved by moving stock certificates.

9:25Are you posing the question to me? Yeah, to everyone, to the federal government, to President Trump, to Howard Lutnick, to the CEO of Intel. there are lots of arms to industrial policy and lots of debates about industrial policy and lots of ways of doing industrial policy but you have to understand a problem that you want to solve before you come up with a solution right you know i don't know what problem they're trying to solve but i do know i'm a pretty creative guy i cannot think of a single problem that is solved by the relocation of stock certificates, which is what the government's claiming it's doing.

10:06Right. So until someone can explain that, I'm left to conclude this is stupid. Or they're not being honest. So go into the honesty, because if I were to answer that question right now, I would say the difference between the stock certificates now being in the hands of the government is that now those stocks and the company as a whole are perhaps subject to preferential and special treatment. Why? Because the government owns it now, because Trump is in bed with Intel. So when we talk about actual ROI, real business returns, perhaps the returns here are, well, now you're part of the club and now you're going to get special treatment.

10:51I don't know what that special treatment looks like, and I'd like to get your opinions on what it might look like, but perhaps that's the upside and that's the difference between having it in a different safe so we're in this totally unusual and bizarre world where if we take the government at its word we're left with the implication that it's an incoherent policy so you and i have to make up rational rationales so let me tell you why i was how i was taking government at its word yeah there are a bunch of things the government could do it could be that what it's going to do is now we own 10 % of Intel, we're going to use that.

11:25We're going to use Intel chips throughout the federal government for federal procurement. It could be that the president's going to call the CEO of Apple and tell Tim Apple that he has to use Intel chips, or he could be about to call Prof G Markets and suggest that all future podcasts have to be produced with Intel chips. And it could be the government's going to use its enormous leverage to rescue Intel. except Secretary Besant said, literally, we are not going to do that. It could be that there's a bailout here, except they said they're not going to do that. It could be that the White House understands how to run a chip company better than the CEO, and they will put pressure on Intel to make smart decisions rather than dumb decisions, but A, is this a White House whose ability to execute business plans is one you particularly trust?

12:29And B, they've said they intend to be passive investors. Right. So I'm not being funny when I say, when you believe what they're saying, then all they're doing is transferring stock certificates. Yes. So that means we're left with, if you believe what they're saying, they're doing nothing helpful for anyone. So you and I now are left with a game of, if they're only lying in this part or this part or this part, what does it all mean? And in fact, the president has shown a tremendous interventionist urge. Right. He wants to tell Coke what recipe to use, how much to use sugar versus corn syrup. He wants to tell Harvard how to teach and hire.

13:13So it could be that's what we're going to get. maybe not. It could be that the government is in fact going to bully other people into using Intel chips. That's a different form of intervention. Do you want the White House deciding what sort of chip will be in your next computer or would you like the freedom to decide for yourself? Would you like to use Intel or another great American company, AMD, who are not getting this special government interest. Do you think that the president is the optimal tech advisor for choosing what should be inside your laptop? I happen not to. It could be the president's decided he is now our stock picker in chief.

13:56Yeah. And he understands that Intel is currently undervalued. Wall Street does not. And he's just wisely investing our money. But honestly, I would prefer to make my own stock picks and not have the White House do it for me. Yeah. The question now becomes, is this a precedent for the future? And I would like to quickly play you a clip from an interview with Kevin Hassett, who is the director of the National Economic Council. He seems to sort of answer the question for us. Let's get your reaction. The president has made it clear all the way back to the campaign that he thinks that in the end, it would be great if the U.S.

14:30could start to build up a sovereign wealth fund. And so I'm sure that at some point there'll be more transactions, if not in this industry and other industries. So I think we're going to see more of this. I mean, we already saw the US Steel in the golden share. Now we're seeing with Intel, probably going to see some more of this. Your thoughts? Okay. There's so much there. So I know you want to be quick. I want you to come back and ask me about sovereign wealth funds. Okay. And then I'm going to go elsewhere first. Is this the bleeding edge? So if the question is, is this the bleeding edge of government intervention?

15:00Yeah, it's already gone, right? This is the most interventionist government of my lifetime, whether it's Coke, whether it's Harvard, whether it's... By the way, this is so weird. The beginning of August, the bloke tweets, posts on Truth Social, we must, Intel must fire its CEO. Then the Intel CEO visits the White House. And then he tweets, we're buying 10 % of Intel. Yeah. I have no idea what that means. But like, wow. That now means we are. What did he do in there? It means you and I are stockholders in a company run by a guy the president thinks shouldn't be CEO. Yeah. I tend to buy stock in companies run by good CEOs.

15:40That's just me. I'm old fashioned. So look, are we on the way to interventionism? Absolutely. Yes. We're already there. Government ownership of the means of production or of private companies, arguably nationalizing. So it's very unclear what's happened here. If you, I watched an interview with Howard Lutnick. Lutnick says his claim is that he sat down with the Intel CEO. The Intel CEO, according to Lutnik, says, you're scheduled to write me a$10 billion check. I don't want it. If that's true, I definitely want to fire the guy. That's a$10 billion mistake right there. And then he says, here, have 10 % of my company.

16:21If this is true, then Lutnik sat down and basically threatened the guy with something, something, something. And the guy said, have 10 % of my company. Right. I don't want to invest in creating capital if we're doing that form of capital taxation. Right. So if you believe them, they didn't buy it, they nationalized it. Yeah. And I'm saying, if you believe them, I don't actually know what to think anymore. But that's like through the looking glass. And so now let me come back to, you said this is going to be the first of a whole lot. So basically what just happened was Kevin Hassett made up a fancy set of words for, we're going to keep doing this.

17:01And I think it's, by the way, every third world dictator does this. Right. They decide that they're going to have national champions. That's why these tiny little countries that have airlines and these countries that can't run a currency have their own currencies. And they all do it because that's how they show their might. And one would have thought the US already had plenty of might without needing our own, and indeed plenty of chip companies without needing this. But apparently that's where we are. so Hassett has to come up with some language for this so the language is this is going to be part of a sovereign wealth fund well if it were a sovereign wealth fund first of all there'd be a pile of money and we would have used some of it to buy 10 % of intel that part's completely unclear secondly I just want you to understand this is a country that owes the rest of the world a lot of money so if we're creating a pile of money for the president to buy stock with that must mean over here, we're borrowing more.

17:53So my advice to my friends, if you don't have a lot of money to lose, don't go into debt to gamble. Yeah. That's literally what it would be. A sovereign wealth fund would be, we're going to borrow money in the global market to have the stock pickers in the White House hopefully make money on that. Yeah. I don't have a great deal of faith. I have a great deal of faith in markets. I don't have a great deal of faith that the White House is a great set of stock pickers. Yeah, exactly. Well, Professor Wolfers, I think we could talk for hours about this, and I think we probably should soon for a full interview on our interview episode.

18:37But for now, we're going to thank you for joining. Really appreciate your time. Great pleasure, Ed. That was Professor Justin Wolfers, Professor of Public Policy and Economics at the University University of Michigan. Well, you heard it from him and you heard it from Kevin Hassett. We've had a lot of interventionist policies. We've seen the golden share at US Steel. Now we're seeing it at Intel. I think we can only assume that this is going to continue. We'll be right back after the break with Jerome Powell and his speech at Jackson Hole. And if you're enjoying the show so far, hit follow and leave us a review on Profit Markets.

19:23Support for Profit Markets comes from Found. Does it ever feel like keeping up with your business finance is a whole second job? That's where Found can help you out. Found is a business-making platform that makes it simple to track expenses and manage invoices. You can even stash money for specific goals and keep spending in check with customizable virtual cards. Found doesn't just bring your finances under one roof. It also takes repetitive tasks off your plate. You can even automatically spot tax write-offs. And the best part, there are no hidden fees, no maintenance costs, no minimum balance, and signing up is completely free.

19:53With Found, your financial world is streamlined and your time is freed up, so you can put your energy into growing your business. Oh, and by the way, other small businesses are loving Found too. This Found user said, Found is going to save me so much headache. It makes everything so much easier, expenses, income, profits, taxes, invoices even. And Found has 30 ,000 five-star reviews just like this. You can open a Found account for free at F-O-U-N-D dot com. Found is a financial technology company, not a bank. Banking services are provided by Piermont Bank, member FDIC. Don't put this one off. Join thousands of small business owners who have streamlined their finances with Found.

20:30Tuesday on NBC, Jimmy Fallon and Bozema St. John host a highly anticipated new competition show. I hired 10 creatives from all walks of life. They will be battling it out to see who can impress the world's biggest brands. This is a huge opportunity. This is the battle for the next big idea. This is not play play. We're spending millions of dollars. I'm so excited to embark on this adventure with all of you. Make the best idea win! On brand with Jimmy Fallon. Series premiere Tuesday on NBC.

21:03When did making plans get this complicated? It's time to streamline with WhatsApp. The secure messaging app that brings the whole group together. Use polls to settle dinner plans. Send event invites and pin messages so no one forgets mom's 60th. And never miss a meme or milestone. All protected with end-to-end encryption. It's time for WhatsApp. Message privately with everyone. Learn more at whatsapp.com.

21:33We're back with ProfG Markets. All eyes were on Jerome Powell last week as he gave his final speech as Fed chair at the annual Jackson Hole conference. While he stopped short of explicitly backing a rate cut at the Fed's next meeting, he did send his clearest signal yet that rate cuts are on the way. Markets rallied on the news, sending stocks higher and pushing the Dow to its first record close of the year. In a speech, Powell said, quote, the shifting balance of risks may warrant adjusting our policy stance. What is that shifting balance he's referring to. Well, you may remember July's employment data came in much weaker than expected.

22:09And when the labor market shows signs of deterioration, the Fed typically cuts rates to stimulate hiring. Meanwhile, on the inflation side of the equation, Powell said the effects of tariffs on prices are, quote, clearly visible, but the impact may be short-lived. Okay, so Jerome Powell has spoken. He said a lot of stuff, but more interesting than what he said is really what he didn't say. No mention of his dealings with the president, no mention of the dissent and division that is growing within the Fed right now, no mention of the accusations of fraud against Lisa Cook, who of course sits on the Fed Board of Governors, and no mention of Trump's call for her to resign, no mention of any of that.

22:52And that's not really surprising that he didn't mention these things, but these are the elephants in the room right now when it comes to the Federal Reserve. And the speech that he gave, It was distinctly apolitical. It is quite evident, as Josh Brown predicted in our previous episode, that Jerome Powell is trying to take the temperature down. He's been called a moron by the president. He's been called dumb, a numbskull. He's been threatened to be fired. But none of this showed in this Jackson Hole address, where he was basically just as neutral as the last one. I mean, you would never have known that this is the guy who is getting absolutely berated on a week-to-week basis by the commander-in-chief.

23:34Now, in terms of policy, there were some developments. In sum, the position from Jerome Powell, despite the fact that inflation is still way out ahead of the Fed's target of 2%, the position is rate cuts are on the table, and we might see rate cuts in September. In fact, we can look at the rate cut probabilities for the Fed's next meeting on September 17th. Before the address, Wall Street had it at 73%, 73 % likelihood of a rate cut. After the address, it's up to almost 85%. So right now, the money is certainly on a 25 basis point cut in September. So lots to think about here. Let's get some more analysis.

24:16Our producer Claire spoke with Aditya Bhave, who is a senior US economist at Bank of America Global Research. So I think Chair Powell was definitely more dovish than markets were expecting. The key passage in his speech was when he said it may be appropriate to adjust policy rates. Our takeaway was that the onus is now very heavily on the data. To disprove the case for a cut in September, you would need, in particular, a rather strong August jobs report. So decent job growth for August, unemployment rate of 4.2 % or less, and importantly, minimal downward revisions or preferably upward revisions to July in order to prevent a cut.

24:59Otherwise, the Fed seems inclined to cut. And if they do go in September, it's probably not going to be a one-off because if you think about the economic impact of just doing 25 basis points of rate cuts, it's basically zero. So if you're going to go, you're probably going to do more than 25. five, I would guess, you know, maybe 50 basis points or kind of a mini cutting cycle and then reassess. But I would point out that our call is still that they don't cut in September. We still think that they are risking a policy mistake by cutting rates just because the economy might be reaccelerating and inflation is headed towards 3%.

25:36Are you worried at all that that September rate cut might be politically motivated and that he, Powell might want to just get Trump off of his back? Or do you think that this is still a data-driven decision? I won't really get into the politics of this. Just in terms of the data, Powell is really quite concerned, it seems, about the labor market. And our concern, again, is that May and June might just have been a blip, in which case the labor market could recover. We maybe there's some seasonal effects around the summer. And if the labor market picks up again into the fall, I think they're going to look worse than they did last year.

26:21Last year looked like a policy error. This year is going to look worse because inflation is even higher. And when I say policy error, we're not in the business of telling the Fed what it should do. I'm thinking more in terms of how markets will respond. And markets will say it's a policy error if the long end sells off. Because ultimately, the transmission of monetary policy happens through long-term rates, through borrowing rates, right, mortgage rates and so on. So if the long end sells off, they've wasted ammunition and they basically achieved nothing, which is kind of what happened with the cuts last year.