Legendary Venture Capitalist Bill Gurley on the AI Bubble, Why IPOs Feel Rigged and How to Find Your Dream Job

basically on sale. I mean you can get Michelin star quality food for the price of a fast food meal

“and don't even get me started on the thrift shopping. Japan's second hand scene is legendary and”

your dollar, well, your yen, is going to stretch so much further than you think. I'd love to go in late March or early April to see the cherry blossoms. Yes, that's peak season but I have a plan for that. One way I can earn a little extra cash for the trip is by hosting my place on Airbnb while I'm out of town. Hosting my home on Airbnb can help offset the cost of travel, making that dream vacation less of a dream and more of a reality. But it's not just me. While you're

away you can host your home on Airbnb and now hosting is easier than ever with Airbnb's co-host network. You can hire a vetted local co-host to take care of the hosting for you. A co-host can create your listing, manage reservations, message guests and provide onsite support so the stay runs smoothly even when you're away. You get to share your space with someone traveling to your area while you're off making memories somewhere else. If you've considered hosting but need a

little help find a co-host at Airbnb.com/host. I love getting paid but waiting to get paid is no fun and when you have investments lined up or interest bearing debt it can even feel like

“waiting for your paycheck has an opportunity cost. That's why I love my pay from time for my friends”

on a salary. My pay from time gives you access to up to $500 of your paycheck any time and you can get paid up to two days early with direct deposit. With qualifying direct deposit the new time card has another added benefit. You can get 1.5% cash back on eligible time card purchases. No annual fees, no interest and no strings attached. Chime is not just smarter banking, it is the most rewarding way to bank. Join the millions who are already banking fee free today.

It just takes a few minutes to sign up. Head to trime.com/mnn. That is trime.com/mnn. Chime is a financial technology company not a bank banking services a secure time visa credit card and my pay line of credit provided by the bank or bank and a or strike bank and a. My pay eligibility requirement supply and credit limit ranges $20 to $500. Optional services and products may have fees or charges. See trime.com/feasonfo advertised annual percentage yield with

time plus status only. Otherwise 1.0% APY applies, no man balanced required. Chime card on time payment history may have a positive impact on your credit score. Results may vary. See Chime.com/details and applicable terms. I'm listening to how to keep house while drowning and it feels like forgiveness. I picked it up thinking it would have a few tips on organizing my home while working more than full-time and being a wife and mother. Don't get me wrong,

it does have tips and tricks but it's also a masterclass in understanding why organizing the bathroom counter is a little harder for some people than others and what to do when that's you. It's time to take care of you. Who better to help you do that than the top voices in well-being on audible? You can level up your parenting career finances, sleep relationships or mindset. The audible well-being collection has everything to inspire and support you every step of the way.

Here the latest from best-selling authors, Brune Brown and Jay Shetty, Master Nutrition with Chef Jamie Oliver, here nature sleep sounds from the sleeping world or get on top of your finances with Rachel Rogers. Plus, you'll find all the best parenting guides like raising good humans. With this at your fingertips, you can imagine more for yourself and your family.

Kickstart your well-being journey with your first audiobook free when you sign up for a free

30-day trial at audible.com/mn and membership is 1495 a month after 30 days. Cancel anytime. Listening to the top voices in well-being sounds like self-care to us. audible. There's more to imagine when you listen. Are we in an AI bubble? Yes.

“Modern IPOs are way overhyped. Do you feel like the system is rich?”

They hand-picked a price. The retail investors get screwed. Bill Gerley is a legend on Wall Street and Insillacan Valley. He was the lead analyst on the Amazon IPO and then he went on to make a name for himself in V.C. as an early investor in Uber, Zillow, and Drabhub.

Today Bill answers some of the most important customers for investors right now.

I really like this battery manufacturer in China. I think China is extremely well-positioned to serve solar and battery demand across the world. We don't have any competitive products whatsoever in the US. And we even cover his secret to drive in a career you actually love. I reflected and asked myself the question, "Do I want to do this for the next 30 years?" And in both cases I reached a point where the answer was no.

I'm Nicole Lappin. The only financial expert you don't need a dictionary to understand.

Bill Gerley, welcome to Money Rehab. Thanks for having me on Nicole. Appreciate it. So excited to talk about your book running down its dream.

But first I really want to talk about news that just came out yesterday. We're talking on the

day after Elon said SpaceX is acquiring XI ahead of the potential IPO, which could be the biggest one in history ahead of everything of company formerly known as Facebook, Alibaba. What are your initial thoughts? There's a lot going on that one could use to argue why this would happen. There are a number of investors that invested in Twitter and X along the way that have kind of been rolled into each of these things. And this certainly increases their likelihood of success. So to the

extent that Elon had a particular reason to care about the people that stood up and backed him when he

“did the Twitter deal. And if you remember the price of Twitter went way down afterwards and kind of”

worked the way back. The second thing I thought about this morning that I hadn't really

considered before, but I saw that somewhere in the EU, they're coming after them for some of the rock images. And Starlink in particular has a lot of political power. Like the fact that you can offer high speed internet, especially early in any country, it's just a chip that helped trade if you're fighting those kind of battles, global political battles. So that could be part of it too. But that makes more sense about why you might merge a startling in a Twitter and a grok.

It gives you a little bit more power. It is probably the most anticipated IPO and they've said that they plan to continue on path and we've had a earth and absence of IPO. So yeah, it could be pretty successful. And then I guess lastly the open AI is made it clear that they're going to

“raise lots and lots and lots of money. So if you want to be in the, if you want to compete on the”

consumer side of AI, you need to have deep pockets. That touches on a big concern, especially among young people that some of the greatest companies of our time from SpaceX to open AI and stripe are private and therefore you're not an accredited investor, you don't get access to them. You know, real love like the generation before us did with Apple and Google. You know, I know you have a lot of issues with the IPO system. Yeah. What we can get into. But could this open the door to the public

markets and access that most investors have been shut out? I mean, they have signaled that the M&A transaction went down at over a trillion dollars. So I think you've already missed. I mean,

I worked on the Amazon IPOs under a billion dollars. So that's one thousandth of this. And like

this window that they're used to be for everyday consumers to trade these tech companies in their

“growth phase. I think you're right. I think that it's being, they're being taken out of the market.”

And I think it's caused primarily by the behavior of the late stage BC industry. They're begging these companies not to go public. And it does create the problem you described. I think, unfortunately, their answer to it's going to be to try and get the regulators to let retail investors invest in their vehicle, not to get the company's public sooner, which is exactly what's happening in the PE market right now. They're trying to put 401k's into

peak funds. I think they've gotten the legal waiver to do that. They have, which is a whole other can of worms. I think this would be a can of worms too, by the way. I think like, a lot of the efforts to allow retail access to non-public companies would be best saw by having these companies just go public sooner. Because there's a level of rigor and responsibility in being public. It's not there when it's not public. And if we allow a whole

bunch of people to play in private companies, there will be a lot of people burned. Because, you know, when you invest in private companies, like you see power points with financials that aren't audit, like constantly, and the players, like myself that are doing that, you know that going in. And so you double in triple check things. But the retail investors are not going to have any heightened ability to manage that problem. Yeah, or double click on the charts that go up into the

right, you know, not every company is Google or Amazon either. And when Figma IPO last year, I did a video about some of your tweets that modern IPOs are way overhyped and inefficient,

Well, I mean, it's definitely rigged. They don't match supply and demand. I mean, automated trading was implemented in the late 50s and match supply and demand is understood by

any first year, Comp size student or first year finance student. And yet that's not how they how

it's not how they determine prices, not how they allocate shares. So regardless of the Figma IPO or any IPO that's traded up or down, the right and fair thing to do on an initial offering is to let price win, you know, and to allocate shares based on whoever's willing to pay the highest price. It's how every stock opens for trading every single day. Like these techniques are known.

“And it's how direct listing works. And ironically, it's how an initial coin offering works. So that's how,”

you know, anyone in the crypto world would match supply and demand. And we've just gotten used to that, not being the case in the public markets. And these stocks are all mispriced because

and here's another huge irony. The next morning, things like an hour to open, they're opening it

the way you do a direct listing. That next day, they do match supply and demand. And the reason there's a gap is because they didn't do it the night before. It's really sad. I'm surprised. I'm personally surprised that more people aren't astonished at it. And I'm surprised that people aren't embarrassed by it. But the long-term clients of the investment bank get a free one-day pop. And then they give some of that money back through overpriced trading. So that the money

“flows back to the investment bank. Yeah, but not to the people that have jumped in on day one.”

You know, the retail investors get screwed because they set the price the next day. If they had been part of the the initial bundle, you know, you would have had an entirely different situation. And the big clients of the investment bank aren't locked up at all. So they can sell into that retail demand the next day. And they make a one-day like windfall profit. It makes no sense. The SEC should be more upset about it and they're not. They got a lot on their

play. But I'm hopeful, oddly, that tokenization could solve this problem. That's my latest leaning. Let me just sort of paraphrase what you're saying to break down what the issue is. So a figment, for example, way over subscribe. So there was 30 buyers for every one share. And

“you're saying that this is engineered like the banks behind the scenes did this by setting the”

price lower than what the market wouldn't pay. So that generates a bunch of demand and then the stock price jumps. But the institutions are the ones that are holding the really valuable shares. Yeah, look, I mean, the fact that when they run an IPO, the investment banks put out and put their clients and say, "Whoray? Look, what a great IPO. It was 25, 30 times over subscribe." It's just like the irony that that's a marketing message is just, I can't believe it's lost on so many

people. They've mispriced it. They're telling you, if there's 25 times the demand for the shares, race the price, like you're not, this isn't hard. But it's what we've evolved to. It's a real shame a lot of people on Wall Street and in the SEC like to say that the US capital markets are the gold standard of the world. And we're just not, I mean, playing these stupid games is by far, not the gold standard. But the reason I'm hopeful is, I don't know if you've talked about tokenization

on your show, but there's this growing idea of using the blockchain to basically keep track of trade,

which is actually pretty good use for the blockchain. And we now enable coin, transacting at volumes, where the rails have been tested, right? They're really tested at very high volumes. And the next step people want to do in the SEC seems to be behind it is to let stocks trade on chain when the markets are closed. And they just get you in a position to where you could theoretically think about doing an online chain offering. And as I already mentioned,

all of the initial coin offerings that have ever been done to date match supply and demand, the way you wouldn't have direct listing. Let's fast forward for the rest of the year. Let's say SpaceX goes public. What should retail investors be wary of? I mean, SpaceX is a way different beast than Figma. Yeah, I mean, one thing that's been true in the past, this was true of Uber, these really, really, really big IPOs. They're so large that it's harder to game the system.

where are they going to raise an offering, you know, 20 billion or something. And the people that

stand up and say they're going to do it, they need them to be able to to write the checks. And so I

“think people get more conservative on these bigger deals. I think you're lucky to see a pop.”

What about for a retail investor? It's just hard. I mean, I haven't seen the financials and so I'd really want to wait and see those before I open. I don't know if it's, you know, say it's trading at a trillion, but I don't know if the revenues look like. I don't know if the cash flows look like I'd want to see that stuff before. I don't know what someone should do. It is a highly speculative time right now. And there's a lot of money flashing around,

especially in the venture world at very high prices. And so I would be cautious in general as a retail investor, even towards AI. If you own the max, if you own it, there's one, another irony is if you own the index, you have pretty good AI exposure already. Like the index is Nvidia is a big

part of it, Microsoft's a big part of it, Google's a big part of it. And so, first AI, even just simply

being an index investor. Yeah, the max, seven. And then there's the rest of the S&P. But they're just so overweighted. I mean, I would love to actually go behind the scenes if you don't mind, take us into the room where it happens. So to speak, because you're on the door to team that one and led, as you mentioned, the underwriting position for the Amazon IPO. So I'd love to hear, you know, what, what happens in those rooms? How did you make the Amazon IPO

strategy and solve for that supply demand mismatch that you're talking about? Well, it is a funny thing. And keep in mind, that was whatever 1998, 1999. So long, long time ago, 20, 28 years ago, Jeff, Jeff Bezos unlike a lot of people is a very independently minded individual. And he put a lot of pressure on us to price at high. And he didn't care if it broke issue. It did in fact break issue. It traded under for a couple months. And so he pushed us for more perfect

pricing because he cared about the long term. And he didn't have this silly hang up about whether it went down or not. But part of the reason these companies are getting a position where they can be taken advantage of is the press likes to talk about a pop as a win. Oh, look, it's so people wanted it so much, but the company sold stock at a price below it's, I mean, would you feel good if you sold your house in the next day, it traded two x

“the price to somebody else or would you feel stupid? Like, that's how you think about it from”

the company side. And houses a good analogy, too. Like, you know, if you know that your house is

going to trade for two million, but you price it at one million and start somebody more to

to push the price up. Yeah, but imagine if instead you price, you put a price out on Zillow. And that's the price and your realtor comes to us. He said, we have 25 people that want to buy that price. And we're going to close with one of them because they're reputable. And it wouldn't you be pissed. You'd be like, no, we're going to ask for auctions and raise a price. Of course that's what you do. Yeah, it's pretty simple. Anyway, but it's interesting

to kind of go behind the scenes. Yeah, base, base those pushed us up on price so this didn't happen. It didn't pop. It actually went down because we'd priced it so high. And you guys are home. It was right. Did he tell you personally that you want a bit? Yes. The team that won the deal was at an investment event called Deutsche Morgan Gromfeld. So Frank quite thrown it left Morgan Stanley. And we were competing with Goldman and Morgan. So yes, we won the mandate.

But it was a pretty, I once again, Jeff being independently minded. It was a pretty risky bet to balance a bank that no one knew. We did have Frank quite thrown it was the most experienced

“guy in the business. But that's what happened. Good trivia question. What bank took”

Amazon public? Most people can't get down on it. I don't know. That's heavily had trivia in the Valley. But let's zoom out on the AI. I mean, the biggest market question you alluded to it earlier. I thought I'm sure you're getting, I'm getting over the last six months. Is we could probably say it in unison? Are we in an AI bubble? Yes. So there's a great book by Carlotta Perez where she talks. She studies tech innovation and waves for over 400 years.

And I think this is, like, I think this is beautifully elegant. But what she says is, if the wave is real and there's people getting rich quick, which is true here, you eventually are going to

do you think it's real or a bubble? And what she says, if it's real, there will be a bubble associated

“with it. And I agree with her analysis. So I think AI is real and there's bubbleish behavior that”

consequence of it being real. And I think we've already seen some speculators. Here in Texas, we had to Rick Perry's data center spec that went up and down already. That's an outsider trying to glam on to a new thing that's happening. I think the circular deals are really bad. I think they smell bad. I think you can, I did the thing where I just described them to chat, GBT, I didn't tell what industry it was. I just described the structure of the deals.

And it immediately said, oh, that's like in Ron and, you know, it brought up these names. So

I don't know why they got started with that. It was the Microsoft Open AI, the very first deal,

which was one where they gave them credits to use back. But you shouldn't be able to, you shouldn't be able to boost your income statement by leveraging your balance sheet. Like, and the reason we know about this stuff is the auditor's foot force through the disclose it. But when it, when we go over the top and there's a correction, which will happen at some point. Everyone's

“going to point to these deals. So there's, look, I believe AI is real. It's disruptive. It's fun.”

It's, my behavior is completely changed. I use Open AI 30 or 40 times a day. So I, but there's also business behavior that's speculative. They're both true. And yes, so both can be true at the same time. But the circular spending is a concern. It's not necessarily illegal. It just smells bad. So can you explain, like, in the Microsoft Open AI example, just follow the money trail? Yeah, yeah. And by the way, I, you know, this is an argument to have

with some super experienced auditor. Although they typically won't go on podcasts and talk. I've tried to have auditors come talk. Like, could people think that auditing's this black or white thing, but there are many gray areas. And I can assure you, not from knowledge, but just once the Microsoft deal happened, the next person, their auditor probably said, I'm not sure and to go, what Microsoft did, like, they pressure them to say, it's okay. But here's here's

what Microsoft did. So in the very first deal with the Open AI, Microsoft invests

$X billion. Let's just say, $500 million. But instead of giving Open AI cash, they give them

credits to use Azure. And so by making this investment, they're assuring they're going to have revenue down the line. And then, and then Open AI uses those credits and Microsoft counts that as revenue. But guess what? There was no cash flow. So it's cash flowless revenue for Microsoft. And that should be questionable. It's certainly low revenue quality. You're right, I can't prove it's illegal, but it's extremely low revenue quality for a reason. And now it's all over the place. I mean,

to me, I guess in video committing $2 billion to CoreWave when CoreWave may not have another source of funds. Like, and it's just, it's not good. It's, it's a very non-ideal. Not money laundering. I don't know. That's a pretty strong word, money laundering. But it, it is, you're using your balance sheet to prop up your revenue. You know? And, and those, when you do that, the revenue that you get in the future doesn't create positive cash flow for you.

If you give credits, it certainly doesn't. And, and, and in the case of if in video investing CoreWave, they're giving them the money, but they're giving it back. You know? And so there's no incremental cash flow. So you have revenue without incremental cash flow. And I mean, that's,

“I think Buffett would, would puke all over that. And if so much comparison to the dot com bubble,”

you are at benchmark at the piece. How do you see it being similar or different to what we're seeing right now? Well, it's, I think you can point to certain things in both directions. I think the, there were, the revenues weren't as big in the companies back then. And so a bull would say that there's more real spend here from the end customers, the enterprises and the consumers. One thing I would say, most of the circular deals back then involve debt. So they were loaning,

Cisco was giving loans to companies to buy their products, but debt comes due fairly quickly. Using equity to do it would allow for it to run for longer, because you don't have to pay it back.

You mentioned being on chat to B.T. 20 times a day. So I'm getting here at chat to B.T. Guy, not.

I, I try and use them all. And there was a time where for current things, perplexity was better, but then chat to B.T. caught up a little bit on, you know, doing a search, like recognizing you're looking for something current, doing a search, and coming back at you. So that differentiation, I felt cut closed. But I do try and draw. I do try and jump around. It seems like all the LLMs, though, are ravineously running toward

“AGI. What do you think that looks like? And who do you think wins?”

I'm probably on the other side of this one. Nicole, I just, I think there's a lot of rhetoric in the US model business. And I think a lot of that rhetoric is purposeful to try and attract regulatory capture, and I'm not as convinced that the sentient AIs right around the corner. So, and there are other people that are smarter than me about this, that agree with me. And of course, there are other people on the other side. But I'm not personally sitting around worried about it.

So what are you sitting around worried about? Right now, what scares you about this market outside of A.I. Where do you see the opportunities? Yeah, I mean, I would say one thing that that I use towards scare. I think the venture capital industry, from the day I entered to the day, I left only got more competitive. And since I've stopped doing no investments, I would say it's gotten even more competitive. And how that manifested itself in the markets is the vast majority

of new investments in successful companies are preemptive and proactive, which means the company didn't go out looking to raise money. The investor came to the company and insisted they take their money. And I experienced this in the Uber left situation. It is, it creates a situation where these companies have burn rates that are much bigger than anyone before them. And, you know,

it's funny when Uber was burning one or two billion a year, everybody thought we were crazy.

And now open a eyes burning a number that's a multiple of that. And so that means you're in these businesses where it's kind of a sport of kings and you got to get comfortable with massive burn rates. And you're not allowed as a founder or an investor to say, hey, let's just sit around and be discipline. We're not going to do that. So if you take like the legal A.I. category, you can have chat to B.T. do this analysis for you. But there's like eight companies that have raised over $100 million.

So if you're, if you're an entrepreneur 14 entering this market and you think like, you know, you're just, you're dead, you're dead man walking. Like you got no shot because there's just going to be so much money spent. I mean, I wish it was a sport or a game of queens, but it's not it. Yes, that's a fair. That's a fair pushback on the term, but what I meant was that everyone out there has massive amounts of money. And you're very unlikely to be able to compete if you don't.

If you don't have access to a similar amount of money, whether you like it or not.

“I think everybody would like to have more money. But it's diluted. It's diluted. It pushes up your”

valuation. Your valuation really represents discounted future expectations. So now, if you raise money really high prices, you've got to perform higher. Are you running the risk of a down-round, down-round some private companies or messy as all get out? I'm not, I'm not convinced that

we're a founder, always having more money is a good thing. I think there are a lot of negative consequences.

So outside of tech and AI, do you see other opportunities? Ray Dalio, who's been on the show, you know, has his all-weather portfolio that stocks and long-term bonds and intermediate bonds and gold and commodities. Yeah, I've spent my life as a venture capitalist, not as an LPs. So, I mean, I've generally, every time someone asked me for investment advice, I asked them if they've read a random walk down Wall Street by Burton McKay on. If you haven't, like, go read that and then

let's have a conversation. But I generally believe, unless you have a reason to know that you have

“an edge in a particular field, you should run a well-balanced portfolio, has Burton wood suggests,”

you know? And so, whether or not someone, no one have an edge, is really a question for them, not me, but in general, that's how I feel. If I were to say one thing, the SaaS companies have

that took them down even further, that would be, I think, an incredible entry point for some

“pretty strong positive cash flowing stocks. And I'm also somewhat skeptical of this argument.”

Some people have made their because AI can write code. They won't buy software anymore. And I just, like, I can't imagine someone saying, like, replacing SAP with, you know, just telling AI, oh, well, we'll just dump our transactions in AI and see it. Like, I really can't see. I don't think the auditors would be okay with it. It's just too cute. It's just step too far. So I would, I would watch and wait for a bit more of a correction. And then I think you can get some real

bargain to get none of AI stocks. Be it a piece after you're talking about the sales forces of the world. Yes, yeah. I mean, I think you could, like, there are certain companies like Adobe, where you may be more susceptible to AI risk. But yeah, I'm talking about, you know, workday SAP, those kind of things. You have those get beat up even further. I think you're picking up stuff really cheap. How often do you check your portfolio? Not as much as I should at this point.

Not as much as I should at this point. There's another trade I like, which is, I dare I say,

“you should all index and now I'm going to give specific name. I really like this battery manufacturer”

in China. I think China is extremely well positioned to serve solar and battery demand across the world. We don't have any competitive products whatsoever in the US. And, you know, Elon recently when he was at Davos, he said, we should cover like a small fraction of Utah or Nevada with solar panels and we could serve the whole energy in the US. And the person said, well, I want that happen, and he said, because we can't import these Chinese products, because it tariffs. And so

that's a big hint to me that the rest of the world's going to buy a ton of this stuff. And this, this company is particularly innovative. So it's an innovative exporter in China. David, ticker, one more time. It's CATL. It trades on the Hong Kong exchange. And just as a reminder, not financial advice to my own research, and I do own it for full disclosure. Thank you. This is my next question. You know, we talked about this idea of private markets

being risky, but another way that people have exposure to private equity or private company stock is being employed by them. And you talk in your book about how you are offered stock options

for the very first time when you're in compacts. One of the most popular episodes we've had on

the show is actually how to assess stock options as an employee when you're joining a company and you're being offered, you know, base salary plus options. What are good things to look for in order to see if it's worth taking a smaller salary in exchange for? Yeah. So I mean, I can imagine all the different kind of things you guys could have talked about, because it's quite complex. Most people that take stock options probably have no idea how many total shares outstanding

they are, which is a really important thing to know. If you're going to try to attempt to value what you're getting. Unfortunately, there's this practice called four on 9A where you try and have an opinion of what this company's actually worth. And I think from a, just purely from a financial rigor standpoint, that process is really sadly imperfect. And so that number is not

“something. I think you can hold much weight on. I mean, it's, it's important to know what the strike”

price you're being offered is compared to what you think the company's worth. And you need to know total shares outstanding to pull that off. I think compared to the interesting worth there, or just context in general, because, you know, I think people see a big number or a bunch of shares and I'm like, oh my god, we're going to be rich and then end of story. And the episode, we talked for sure about the number of shares outstanding, you know, the founder's goals

for liquidation of. I mean, people don't know this, but a company can have as many shares outstanding as it wants. So some founders have made the argument that if they just say, okay,

well, we'll have 400 million shares. Then when they, they're offers to the individual,

we'll have more absolute shares. But then on the eve of the IPO, you might do a big 10-to-1 reverse split to clean it up before you go public. And all of a sudden, the number of shares that person has gets cut in by 10, and that happens frequently. So yeah, you really, you really need to know total shares outstanding. Probably the thing that matters most, though, is that the company's

early in their career, to jump on Jim Barstell, he's sick in front of a parade. Like, if the company's

working really well, two things are going to happen regardless of how many shares you get. The if it's growing really fast, the opportunity for advancement is really high. You know, if you're going to come to the doesn't grow in order for you to move up, someone's got to get fired or quit, like, cause you're not hiring. And these companies that are expanding aggressively, you know, if you're double in headcount every year, there's management opportunities coming up all the time,

our ability to move up. And then, too, you're going to be around some of the brightest people that you could ever imagine being around if you're at a hot company. And those networks are going to give you value long into your life. And so when young people, you know, ask me about, and if they

“don't have some massive passion to like start to coming themselves or whatever, you know, I think”

being a part of something that's really working for a year or two or three or four can be super helpful to an early resume. But maybe beat low expectations, like in your mind, assume it could also be worth nothing. Yeah. Oh, yeah. But I'm making a different point, I guess, which is the long-term impact to what you may be worth from merely improving your network and being exposed to great people might mean more than whatever the options are worth.

You're talking about the intangible value. Yes, yes, yes, yes. And a lot of our listeners are

first-time investors wanting to get into the market. I'd love to just briefly talk about

your previous life as an analyst on both BICI and the cell side. Yeah. Decode for us when you hear in the headlines like analysts so-and-so changes stock, such and such from hold to buy or whatever. Who was making those calls? How seriously should we be taking them? I wouldn't take it very seriously. So the event four years of my careers at cell side analysts. So most of the people that are quoted that way are at cell side firms. And what the term cell side means is they're being paid by the

companies that want you to trade stocks. And the purpose of what they're doing is to get you to trade stocks. Now, the amount you can make for trading a stock used to be a lot higher, but before we're automated trading. And there were some famous things that happened during the dot-com period that caused Elliott Spitzer to build this wall. And the cell side analysts don't make nearly as much as they used to, but they're still the ones that are most quoted. But I find that a lot of

what they write is just a re-geriditation of what the company told them to write. They don't have to be much more interested personally. You can't get this information, but if the buy side was making a call, so the people that actually buy or sell the stock, like if you see, you know, even past you respect like a capital group or a fidelity move out of a stock, that's a bigger

“signal. I think a more important signal. Unfortunately, the media doesn't track that as much.”

They could. The filings are a little delayed. They're like 90 days to late. They could. I'd be not pay that much attention to it. Yeah, we had, to that point, we had a big fun manager on the show saying that it's a lagging indicator because of that delay. So, but when you go on to your brokerage, you see a lot of reports and it's kind of fuzzy to see how much wage it put. Yeah. Yeah, even though I came from that world and loved every minute of it,

and I would like to think I was differentiated. I just think you asked a question I'm giving you my opinion. I wouldn't put that much weight on it. I appreciate it. Loving every minute of it, you've also said that you've gotten your dream job in Vc. You talk about this realization in your book,

“getting your dream job, or even liking your job isn't necessarily a given that you have to”

continue to make it your dream job. How do you do that? Well, for me, there was, I've discovered something and talking about the book that I didn't know because everybody likes to go through my journey.

I didn't realize I was doing it, but my first job was as an engineer, my second job was as a

self-site analyst, and in both cases, about two or three years in, I had a moment where I asked myself the question I reflected and asked myself the question, "Do I want to do this for the next 30 years?" And in both cases, I reached a point where the answer was no. And I don't know how many people

you're trying to get ahead. You're working. It's not a, it's not a question anybody

provocatively tells you to ask yourself, but there's quite a bit of data that when people get towards the end of their life, their biggest regrets, Daniel Pink talks about this a lot. Their biggest regrets are regrets of inaction. They don't hold, they're not mad at themselves for the mistakes they made, they're mad at themselves for the things they didn't try. Daniel calls them boldness or regrets. And so, if you want to, you know, life short, I have a phrase in

“the book, life is to use it or lose it proposition. And I think it's awesome to explore. I think”

it's awesome to, I don't think anyone should be feel guilty if they're in a job. They don't love, but, but give yourself the opportunity to move on and be flexible. About a lot of people change jobs. A lot of people change careers. Nothing's set in stone. Plenty of people end up working in areas that are different from their major. And so, just be fluid, be flexible, and ask yourself this question, you know, do I want to do this for 30 years? And if not, man, life short, go do something

else, have fun. And that was really interesting in the book that you have the study with Wharton, that's then nearly 6 and 10 people would do things differently. If they could start over, they'd wish they'd followed their interests, but also a ton of people in the survey said they wish they made more money. I think there's quite a bit of data through a bunch of different research that money doesn't drive happiness. And one of the things I was careful to do in the

book, we have a number of stories. In fact, every other chapter is a story. And I was very careful to pick industries that are the kind of jobs where your parents might tell you not to go into them,

“because I think one of the problems we've gotten to is parents with with very strong positive”

intentions, push people towards jobs where they can make money. But if you're unhappy, like, I just don't think it's going to matter how much money you have. And one of the things that I hope I uncovered with the stories in the book, if you go into a sector that may not be one that's known for making money, but you thrive and you really love it, the wealth tends to follow. And so I would, at this point in time with all the data from all these surveys, there's another survey

in the book you didn't mention. The Gallup poll survey that only like 23% of people would call themselves engaged at work in like 59% or quite quitting. Like, that's not ideal. Like, that's not an ideal way to go through your whole life. I just worry a little bit about this follow your passion, rallying called, because I think there has to be a baseline. Unless you're from a privileged position or family, you know, there's no shame in obviously needing money to

feed yourself or your family. And sometimes your interests don't lead to even that baseline.

So that makes people feel bad that they're optimizing for money. Here's what I would say.

I would not, I would not hold out to you the argument that the point of the book is to be a operating manual for every human on the planet for every job. The goal of the book is to help unlock human potential to give those people who have the little bit of inkling or a little bit of

“spark or a little bit of fire, the permission to go do what they love. And I think for those people,”

they're going to have a much more satisfied life if they do it. And I think the money will follow. And one important core layer in caveat to that is they're going to have to work their butt off, you know. And so all those things have to line, you know. But but I do think that if we have more of those types of people in the world, the world's a better place, I think they're the ones that will dent the universe. They're the ones that will change their fields. They're the ones

that you'll be inspired by. And so the goal of the book is to create more of those types of people. And certainly I think a number of people won't qualify for that for that mission. I mean for me personally, I made my job, my dream job out of necessity. I started as a poetry major. And so continuing on that passion wasn't going to pay the bills. But once I got into business news, I sort of found the shade of part of the then diagram of what I love to do. And then,

maybe as I had, so I started writing. Like, I incorporated some of what I wanted to do into, you know, the jobs that I had to pay the bills.

No doubt. And look, there's a number of you said, which I double click on. First of all, a lot of

podcasters are in their dream job. Like, they love, they get to talk to interesting people,

Right? You didn't apply to be a podcast or somewhere, right? This is something you went out and

“hustled and made happen. We use a phrase in the book, be a candidate at one. And so many of the”

stories are people that are purposely creating the job they want. A good friend of mine is named Mike Mobison. Mike loves reading books about the brain and investing and talking about investing. And he has found a way for 30 years now to get paid to read everything he possibly can and to synthesize it. And his career is very non-traditional. He's, you know, found people to harm that appreciate that he does that. But he's got to do what he loves, you know, his entire life.

And that's the kind of thing I'm talking about, like helping people to unlock that. The example

you used about thinking about what you're good at and what you love. There's a story in the book

about this gentleman who lives here in Austin, Texas that was a seismologist, undergrad, did that for a while. But came a mortgage broker. He's 40 years old. He's watching a PBS show. And someone has an exercise where they take a blank sheet of paper, draw a line down the middle. But with their good at, on one side, what they love to do on the other and try and find an intersection. And that is how Tito's vodka was started, that him doing that simple example with that sheet of paper.

Most successful spirit brand in America. He owns 100% of it. And it all started from that exercise. And this gets back to my point about, like, if someone said the time stamp date when Tito started Tito's, I'm going to start a beverage company in Austin, Texas, they would tell you, you're not going to make money doing that. You're going to fail. That's a that's a quick side of thing to go do. And he's one of the richest people in America today. And I just, I have

examples in the book that are more realistic that maybe relate to your major. But like there's a gentleman who fell in love with the Grand Canyon and started writing about it. And he's published several books now and has a podcast. And like he has enough listener. He gets, you know, he's doing fine. You know, and loves what he does. There's another one that does the same thing for Texas horticulture. And if you can do it in those fields, I think you can do it in almost any field.

“You do have to love it. I had this argument a similar argument about whether you should chase”

your dreams or not with a counselor at one of the top universities in the country and brought up poetry. And I brought up these examples. And she says, yeah, but you'd have to work really hard. And I said, yes, absolutely. You'd have to work really hard. And yeah, look, one of the big points we make in the book is that if you can find something you're fascinated by that you're extremely curious about, it won't feel like a grind. You'll be out there doing continuous learning

all the time. And that means when working hard won't feel like working hard and you'll be successful. And by the way, the flip side of it is an interesting lens to which to evaluate, you send someone into a job they don't love. If they're competing with someone that does love that job, that other person's going to be out there doing continuous learning, doing the networking, the mentorship, connecting with peers, and you're going to fall behind. And because the other

person's just going to be more motivated. So that's a dangerous trap. I would argue of just going into a job because you think it's safe. Well, you mentioned a dream job being podcasting, and you have an excellent, the most excellent podcast voice, but I think you know that. And and for you did an episode of the BG2 pod that you used to co-host, where you talked to the next

“phase of your life is on giving back. You said that this was something you were looking to”

do not only with the book, but quote in the next project after the book. So sounds like you already know what that project is. But can I guess? Yes, I do. Sure. Anything in politics?

Somewhat related. So first of all, one of the things allowed me to focus on this book. And people

asked me why I wrote a book about careers, why didn't I write a book about VCs or investing or tech or any of those things. And once I decided to hang up my boot from venture investing and started thinking about what I do with my life from here forward, I read this great book by Arthur Books from Strength to Strength, which is really target writing for people where I am.

once that decision was made, this was really the only book I wanted to write. I had done the speech

“on this topic six years earlier. And so I knew the content was there. But this book hopefully”

has a ability to impact a way broader audience than writing a VC book would have. So I'm hopeful for that. I also, I'm going to turn my intention to a foundation that's associated with the book. So we're going to give out $5,000 grants to people that apply that want to chase their dreams and need a financial boost. So I'll be doing that. But that's not the thing. That's not the thing you were asking about. And there's the last page in the book talks about the foundation and there's a

website. Well, and at the end of the book, I appreciate that you say you could have written an

Uber book or a memoir, but you didn't. And you found this really cool niche in the sweet spot. And you're putting your money where your mouth is. My intention past the book is to start a

“policy institute. So there was something that happened in the past five years that I”

considered to be a win from a policy perspective. And that is, it relates to nuclear energy. So there were, there were these huge voices that had decided that nuclear wasn't clean. And you had a bunch of people arguing to tear down nuclear plants. And unfortunately, in places like Germany, they started decommissioning plants all over the place. And a number of voices, many of who I respect, like Stephen Pinker, and Elon Musk, and the college and brothers pushed back. And they were

willing to go out despite the fact that the political winds were going in the other direction.

And said, this is silly. Like if in the Josh Wolf at Lachs, Josh used to say, if we had never

had a nuclear bomb and we had just discovered nuclear energy, we'd have been like, oh my god, this solves all the world's problems. And we're sitting here worried about climate change. Anyway, there's also a woman here in Austin, Isabelle, Bob Bomicki, I can't pronounce her last name, but she became like an influencer on this topic. And anyway, it shifted. There was a moment, like a year or two ago where everyone kind of woke up and agreed, oops, that was some mistake,

and flipped back the other way. And now there's a bunch of people that all agree, nuclear is really smart. And so I'm going to be looking for opportunities that have that type of thing. I don't want to lobby, I don't want to get in and deal with a little bit of state-by-state laws, but I'd like to find big ideas where some research and some synthesis can lead to better thoughts and decision-making. Topics that interests me include nuclear, the U.S. health care problem. I just want to go tilt at that.

I really don't have an answer. I want to go learn for a long time, but we got a real problem.

“U.S. China Relations, the K-12 education system in America, I think, could use and overall,”

and I just want to figure out what those big top-down type decisions that could be made to could potentially fix some of these things. Fix it, Bill. Those are the biggest ones. I don't know. I mean, it might be a quick side effort, but it's what I'd like to spend my brain time on. Quick side is an excellent word. You've used a twice, and I really appreciate it. So it sounds like the dream that you're running down now is policy. Yeah, and by the way, it took

me, and who knows, let me get into it and not like it, but it took me a while to come to that conclusion. A lot of people wanted me to go be an angel investor, a lot of people wanted me to manage my own money. There were people pushing me in different directions, but this is the one, and it took a couple of years and Archer Brooks book really helped on this also. He has been on the show, and I agree. Oh, great. The linkage there is really asking yourself, not everybody else. We'll bring you happiness.

We end all of our episodes, Bill, by asking our guests for a tip they can take straight to the bank. I'm going to steal one from the book that we handed at, but I fundamentally believe that the most advantage people in any field are those that have this commitment to continuous learning. And I don't think you can fake it, and I don't think you can muscle your way through it, because you'll burn out. And Duckworth, Angel the Duckworth, has come out like 10 years after

because we've taught these kids how to grind, but eventually they just burn out, like if they don't

“love it, and people like to talk about AI taking jobs, I'd like to make an argument that for those”

that are curious and are past learners in their field, they're going to be an accelerant.

They're going to move faster as a result of AI being out there. But you've got to want to learn.

It's almost got to be for free. I've used the phrase, it's got to compete with Netflix.

“Like, do you want to go learn about this more than you want to watch a TV series?”

And if you can find that place, you're going to, I think you're going to have an awesome life. Well, the cool thing about learning is that the more you learn, the more you realize there is to learn. And so, the cycle continues.