The Hidden Risk Inside SpaceX

I want to live on the moon. I mean, it's a good song, but Tim.

“Okay, well, first of all, how do we define a city on the moon?”

You know, I think that's, it's in the details there. So we are growing city, Tim. Hi, everyone from New York Magazine in the Vox Media Podcast Network. This is on with Kara Swisher and I'm Kara Swisher. We're talking about SpaceX.

That's Elon Musk's rocket slash satellite internet slash AI company. Its mission according to its IPO filing is to quote, "extend the light of consciousness" to the stars. But before that happens, the company needs to address more practical concerns like making money. And today we're going to get into all the ways the unprofitable SpaceX is making and losing money.

SpaceX debuted on the NASDAQ in June with the largest IPO ever, raising a record $86 billion.

But the stock has been on a wild ride this summer. It's attracted interest from short sellers or investors betting against the stock, adding to the volatility. The company weathered its first earnings report last week pretty well, actually. And it's even managed to hold most of its value after more than 900 million shares that had been locked up became tradable. But that doesn't mean it's smooth sailing ahead.

I've gathered a panel of experts to dig into SpaceX's business and why it matters.

“I think it's critically important to talk about SpaceX because the question is, is it Enron?”

Will it cause an enormous problem in the stock market? Given how many different things Elon's done to try to prop up the stock? Or is it really going to be one of these groundbreaking companies that will break through? It's a great question. And there's a lot to discuss here.

Ed Elson is an analyst, writer and co-host of Prophecy Market's podcast from the Vox Media podcast network. Tim Higgins is a business columnist for the Wall Street Journal, CNBC contributor, and the author of books including I. War, Fortnite, Elon Musk, Spotify, WeChat and Laying Seesh to Apple's Empire. Bethany McLean is a contributing editor at Vanity Fair. She's also a columnist at Yahoo Finance and a contributor to CNBC.

She's the author of books including the smartest guys in the room, the amazing rise,

and scandalous fall of Enron.

“Our expert question today comes from Aswath Demotorin, a professor of finance at the Stern School of Business at NYU,”

who's also known as the Dean of valuation. So stick around. One more thing before we get into it, I'm going to be doing a live taping of on at the Odue Experience Conference in San Francisco on September 2nd. You can register for the conference on their website. We'll drop a link in the description for this episode.

Support for this show comes from Odue. Running a business takes everything you've got, and a lot of the tools out there that are supposed to make your life easier, just aren't great at talking to each other, and that means you end up having to toggle between a dozen different apps and services

just to keep the lights on, enough of that. Now there's Odue, the all-in-one fully integrated platform that actually might help you get it all done. Thousands of businesses have made the switch so why not you. Try Odue for free at Odue.com. That's Odue.com.

Support for the show comes from KPMG. In any organization disruption is inevitable, but struggling through it doesn't have to be. The KPMG adaptability index is your blueprint for building capabilities to handle what comes next. It uses real data to look at how your culture, strategy, and partnerships all work together

to help your business thrive. Stop reacting and start adapting. Visit kpmG.com/US/adaptability to explore the adaptability index and pull surveys today. I'm Seth Matlins and this week on my podcast Creator Destroy,

which is a business show and marketing show and show that argues they've always been the same thing.

Down with JP Morgan Chase CMO, Carla Hassan, to talk about how she builds trust in 84 million customers when amongst other things her product is in many ways intangible. Turns out it requires real human connection of physical branches, enterprise-wide alignment and the discipline to admit when you broke it. Check out Creator Destroy, reimagining marketing on YouTube and your favorite podcast app.

Ed Tim and Bethany, thanks for coming on on. Thank you. Thank you. Ed.

This is a great topic and it's sort of a look into Wall Street in general.

“What's happening right now around tech stocks.”

But volatility has defined SpaceX's runs since going public in June. It was the biggest public offering that we've had in forever. When we're taping on this Tuesday morning, the shares are trading around $135 a share up a little bit. But around where it went public in, we'll get into the investors who are betting against the company.

In a moment, it first make the bullish case for SpaceX.

What's driving the value? Let's be fair to Elon. Ed, you go first and Bethany and then Tim. This is going to be a tough one for me. I know.

I'd like to be my best. Okay. The bullish case is that you have a really exciting and pretty profitable business install link. That is their connectivity business. That's the satellites.

And that's actually a business that I genuinely ambellish on. I think that's a great business. The space business is currently a money loser and it's not really driving much of the value of this company. At this point, despite the fact that it's called SpaceX. But if there's a world where we're sending lots more people into space,

if we are going to start building orbital data centers, which is what they like to talk about, then there's a world in which you need a lot of rockets to send that stuff out. And that stuff out into the atmosphere. And then the final piece of the business, which was kind of just an add-on a few months ago,

but it's now become basically the entire story of SpaceX is the AI business.

They're building LLMs. They're also building data centers. That is a massive money loser at this point. And so the bet is that eventually you'll see that ROI eventually AI will become so massive. They say that the town, the total addressable market of AI is $26 trillion.

So if that all happens, then yeah, there'll be well-position. The question is if you actually believe that AI is a $26 trillion market. Right, which seemed to have gotten out of thin air. Bethany?

“So I think the bullish case is Musk himself.”

He is the master of hype. And I used to be, and wait this is the bullish case. I used to be very offended, but I think they're because the old school view, right, is that you let the results speak for themselves and you deliver. And that's not the way Musk operates. But I've actually come to believe that he was on the something ahead of people like Sam Altman and Sam Altman has taken a cue from him and Musk has realized that the way to make this work is to be the master of hype and to be able to keep raising capital no matter what the results are.

And I think in the market we're in now that ability to keep raising capital and keep people believing no matter what the results are and get the money ahead of the results may be the winning recipe. Is that a good thing? I'm not sure. It's a good thing, but it's the way the markets are now. It's a good thing if he can eventually deliver.

I think that's going to have to happen at some point. But the ability to get people to believe in you and to be able to keep funding you even when your deliverables don't appear on time. That is a semi-miraculous feat that Musk has accomplished. And so your standards have declined enough. My standards have changed, standards have changed, Tim.

“I think the bulk case is the creation of a giant space economy, right?”

That we'll be having moon bases and going to Mars and living there. And he will be the foundation of that new world order or that new universe order. I mean, that is the dream, you know, that's the big bet within the company. You know, if you mentioned robotics, which is interesting, which I think is where he's furthest along.

But we'll get to that in a second.

Let's take a step back to the IPO. And in June, you predicted that as soon as SpaceX hit the market, the stock would immediately jump 25%. And that within six months probably sooner it would be cut in half because the valuation makes no sense whatsoever. We're not alone in that skepticism, former fidelity manager George Noble has pointed out what he calls SpaceX is, quote, horrible fundamentals. But earnings last week generally be analyst expectations.

So given what happens so far, what's your assessment of the company now? It got close to $100 a share and some people think it should be worth 70, 60, etc. Well, the first thing I'll say is that I was right. Thank you. You went up 25% immediately, which is the first part of the prediction, and then it was cut in half.

My prediction was that it would get cut in half within six months. It happened within less than two months. If we look at the stock price now, it's trading around $135 a share, which people are saying, Oh, that's exciting because it was at $109, but let's not forget that it's high. It was trading at $225 per share.

So it's down 40% right now. And a lot of people have lost a lot of money on this thing. The initial buyers and the initial buyers who are largely retail investors, because they allocate to 30% of this thing to the retail, which is three times higher than the average IPO, because I believe they believed that the only people who would be interested in buying this thing at 200 are the Elon fans,

But if you just look at the story that they were telling you in the perspective, it was when I started to get very worried about this thing. Because the story that they told us was truly a pipe dream that really made no sense. And you can see that in the language. They say that the mission of the company is to,

"extend the light of consciousness to the stars." That's not what companies do.

“That's what people talk about when they have IOSK at trips,”

and they talk about finding their own ourselves. That's not what a company should be doing. He says it all the time for a long time. He says it all the time, and actually it's getting worse. I mean, if we look at the Q2 earnings on the stuff that he talked about,

he said that they're not just going to be building orbital data centers in space, which was the first story. Now they're going to build data centers on the moon. And now they're going to use humanoid robots to service those lunar data centers. And SpaceX factories will enable us to, these are his words,

scale the economy of Earth to 1,000 times maybe even a million times.

So these are fabricated numbers. They're coming out of thin air. And the idea is to make you believe that the actual numbers, the fundamentals that they don't matter, because the future is so fantastic and so fabulous

that who could come up with a reasonable price for this thing. Make it two trillion, three trillion, four trillion dollars, who cares? And as Bethany noted, it's working a little bit. It continues to work.

But Bethany, in New York Times opinion piece in July, you made the distinction between SpaceX's astronomical 1.77 trillion dollar IPO price. And it's debt, which is priced as if it were junk. Shortly after going public,

the company issued $25 billion in new debt,

SpaceX's bonds of an average rating of BBB, according to credit scores compiled by Bloomberg, essentially they're teetering at the edge of junk. Talk about why this matters and explain it for people understand why does it reveal about the underlying investor skepticism

in SpaceX and Musk's vision that you talked about? So historically, the equity market is regarded as the dumb money and the bond market is regarded as the smart money. And that's because equity investors want to believe a story. They get paid if the story comes true.

That investors don't make any more money if the story comes true, and they just care about getting paid back. So they tend to be much more skeptical over time.

“And so I think that explains the difference between the view”

of the equity and the view of the debt, which was quite profound when the stock was soaring, post the IPO. And not only is the debt barely rated investment grade, but the credit default swaps, which is essentially insurance on debt. That was priced even more as if SpaceX might have problems in the future.

And so there was this real split. And you want to say, and I think on some level, it's true, that that means that the smart money is skeptical of a SpaceX. Exactly as Ed just expressed much more in line with Ed's point of view. And over time, when there has been a gap like this between the equity and the debt,

the debt has typically been right. So in the run up to the financial crisis, for instance, there was a lot of skepticism about the way triple A, which supposedly triple A mortgages were trading. And they showed skepticism while the stocks and the investment banks were still hitting their highs.

Back in the days of Enron, this tool that you can use to bet against the debt was soaring, even as Enron's stock was still priced like everything was fine. And so it's typically an early warning sign.

That said, it's not 100% the case that the debt is always right.

Sometimes the so-called smart money gets it wrong. So there was a period of time where Amazon's bonds back in the early 2000s were also trading like the company make a bankrupt. They were trading like junk and Amazon. That was obviously not Amazon's feed.

“So it's not always right, but it does tell you something you should know.”

So smart money. People would cost money for versus speculative stock money. People who are really doing the work looking at this, saying, not just believing the story, but saying, wait, how do I get paid?

How do I get a coupon on this debt? I'm owed. How am I paid over time? How is this pile of debt paid back? And that forces you not to be a believer in the big dreams of space or a believer in the hype

that Musk is excellent at. It forces you to just do the numbers. What have you done for me lately? So then be very analytical about what the possibilities are that the money is going to be there to pay back the debt.

So more than 900 million space extras unlocked last Thursday increasing the tight flow to shares available to trade to more than 11% so that's larger. Last Friday, SpaceX stock had one of its best days and weeks ending the day up nearly 16% but that was only in the first of a series of unlocks. Another 390 million shares could unlock next week followed by roughly 700 million in

September and close to that number and October. CNBC reports Tim first explained this lock-up structure, the share lock-up structure, what happened last week after the first one which people are expecting the stock to suffer and what were I think analysts were and is the markets response so far a reliable indication of what's to come?

has these lock-ups occur is going to be volatility.

“I think last week was a pretty good example of that.”

The first earnings call, the first earnings report, the market reacted very negatively

to those results. I think in large part because there was some concern about the just the size of spending an investing in AI. It gets to this idea of, it's a space company but it's now also an AI company. The big bulk of that money is going to AI whereas the space part of the company

needs a lot of cash as well. You've got this overall concern in the marketplace about companies spending huge amounts of money on AI and questions about when the payback will be for that. You've got that money up the water and then going into this lock-up period where the first time the insiders and folks who were given some of these shares before the IPO

they couldn't sell into this point. There's other tronches as well to try to keep some of the volatility from happening earlier on.

“I think going into that there was a lot of concern that that was going to see a huge drop.”

Going up that week, the end of the week. I mean this was a swing of 20% throughout that week. You ended the week, 20% up during the point of the week of earnings. You were down.

It was like the second worst day in their short history of the publicly traded company.

It's like a roller coaster ride, which to me signals investors in Musker signing up for kind of what we saw with Tesla for the first 10 years of its publicly traded life. Where you had these dramatic swings on any utterance or any kind of signal of positive or negative because it is a widely speculative stock at this point. It's a story stock and people are trying to figure out what the story is.

So, how do you look at this? What do you make of these lockups and why the reaction is so varied? Because most people assume the more lockups the more people will get while they get and it's good and so. How do you look at it?

“Well, I think the first thing to keep in mind is that yes, we had more lockup explorations,”

which means that there are more shares available to be traded. If you were an early investor, you want allowed to sell your shares and then suddenly after that earnings report, you were allowed to, which is why there was an expectation that we'd have so much selling pressure. That's not what we saw, I think a large part of that is because there was a lot of short interest in the stock leading up to that event. But again, and this goes to Tim's point about the volatility, we should recognize the float is still very small.

We're only at 11%, and the average float at an IPO is around 20%. So we have seven more rounds of lockup explorations that are going to come by the end of the year. And my view around that, yes, I think it's going to be a lot of volatility,

but ultimately, I think it's going to be a lot of selling pressure from people who want to take their SpaceX winnings

because they were an early stage investor in the series B or the series C. And then they go out and they buy themselves a boat or a house or maybe even a plane. That would be my expectation for what they're going to do. We'll be back in a minute. Support for the show comes from Quince.

Take to break a tube, but now it's August and it means summer is almost over, maybe that's a relief. Autumn means cooler weather, which also means it might be time to find some cozy cold weather staples. Enter Quince. Quince specializes in effortless high quality essentials, like ultra soft organic cotton and premium mungle and cashmere sweaters. They're beautifully tailored, built to last and transitioned seamlessly from morning meetings to dinner. Quince also has premium stretch denim starting at just $50 with a kind of perfect fit structure and weight you'd expect from a luxury designer brand.

I really have like all my Quince stuff and actually going to buy some more stuff for the fall. I love their sweaters. I like all their sweaters. I wear one of their cardigans all the time. I like all their pieces.

They're very comfortable in a way that I really enjoy. Upgrade your everyday download the Quince app for app exclusive offers. Go to Quince.com/charac, get free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. Now available in Canada and the UK too. That's QUINCE.com/charac.

Support for the show comes from groans. Summer can disrupt our routines with busy weekends that are full of travel and events and with everything going on. It can be hard to remember to stick to your wellness habits. Well groans is one of the wellness habits you don't have to think about. It can be the easiest tastiest part of your busy schedule.

Groans are convenient comprehensive formula in one delicious daily pack of gummy bears. This isn't a multivitamin, a greens gummy or a pre-biotic. It's all of these things and then some of the fraction of the price and it takes great. They're able to pack in 20 vitamins and minerals in a daily pack with 16 ingredients. All of which include nutrient-dense and whole foods.

A greens pack also contains 6 grams of pre-biotic fiber.

Groans ingredients are backed by over 35,000 research publications.

You can't put the amount of nutrients, groans does into one daily gummy, which is why it comes in a pack. Say 52% off with a code [email protected]. That's code Cara K-A-R-A-G-R-U-N-S dot C-O. Support for the show comes from O-Do. Running a business is hard enough and you don't need to make it harder with a dozen different apps that don't talk to each other.

One for sales and other for inventory, a separate one for accounting.

“Before you know it, you find yourself drowning in software and processes instead of focusing on what matters growing your business.”

That's where O-Do comes in. It's the only business software you'll ever need. O-Do is an all-in-one fully integrated platform that handles everything. That means CRM, accounting inventory, e-commerce, HR, and more. No more app overload, no more juggling logins, just one scene system that makes work easier.

And the best part is that O-Do replaces multiple expensive platforms for a fraction of the cost. It's built to grow with your business, whether you're just starting out or you're already scaling up. Plus it's easy to use, customizable and designed to streamline every process. It's time to put the clutter aside and focus on what really matters, running your business. Thousands of businesses have made this switch, so why not you?

Try O-Do for free at O-Do.com. That's O-Do-O.com. Let's do a breakdown of the SpaceX business, so people understand. You each mention it. It's at the start, but Tim, you've noted SpaceX has built the biggest space launching operation in the world.

As well as Starlink, the largest satellite system in low orbit, the company's aiming to launch its 14th test flight of Starship, which is its bigger rocket. This month, explaining why the rockets their size were usability and payload capacity are important to the strategy.

“How do they factor in SpaceX's current business and interplanetary ambitions?”

Others are catching up, let's be clear, not as fast as they are, but they're certainly on their way. Yeah, maybe it would help just take a quick step back in the history of SpaceX. The whole company was created on the idea of creating reusable rockets to lower the price of going into outer space. The idea that it could become so cheap that it would just become a regular thing. That was the original big dream.

And along the way, as they look for a business, there was this realization that they satellite's internet was going to be something that they could do, and they started developing that Starlink, and they had this huge moat because they can send rockets up all the time.

So they built this kind of incredible low-Earth orbit satellite business that has really had profound effects beyond just the business world,

geopolitical issues have a reason that they're really able to provide internet to basically the entire world where they're allowed. And that's given them a great business and a lot of political leverage in various places. And that's the kind of the crown jewel right now, the internet business, but it's very dependent upon having that ability to get up into space. And that has also helped fuel some of that development. The idea is they're going to build this bigger spaceship called Starship that can really take a just a ton and ton of stuff into space.

The idea that there could unlock potential on the moon with mining and facilitate NASA's ambitions of taking humanity back to the moon in Musk's bigger vision of going beyond earth and moon to Mars and all sorts of things like that. That's built upon this idea of being able to take massive amounts of materials and outer space. Right, right stuff. So they've got to be this big in it, actually. He built his the only profitable business using that, particularly if we can understand.

So SpaceX is one of NASA's biggest contractors. This also become embedded in national security as a defense contractor. The US government is reportedly SpaceX's largest single client. Last year during his feud with Musk, President Trump discussed ending some space x contracts, but ultimately didn't because they were too important.

“That's any, would you make of the US government's reliance on SpaceX and vice versa?”

Well, there are a lot of people out there doing work on this and who are skeptical of it. I think Quincylbodean is among them with his recent book about Musk.

And there can be a view that I guess this is a positive or a negative that Musk is so embedded with the US government that SpaceX will simply never be able to fail.

And that can be a positive. I think if you're not a fan of corporate chronism, this is potentially a worrying sign that you don't like to see yet another company that is too big to fail. We've lived through that before and it's not a great recipe for the way capitalism is supposed to work. So I think it might provide some comfort to SpaceX's shareholders, but I'm not sure that it should provide much comfort to us as a democracy and a supposedly capitalist society.

Well, the thing is if SpaceX really is that embedded in NASA, the change of president won't make a difference because you see when these things happen that it is bigger than anyone person.

And that when a company is that embedded in the US government or in any kind of government, then they may be despised by a new president. But that doesn't mean the new president will be able to change something. And again, as we've saw when Trump briefly turned on Musk, the stock did fall, so there is also, you know, be careful the friends you make. Meanwhile, a piece of SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket crashed into the moon last week with a force of nearly three tons of TNT. So SpaceX is now adding lunar litter on top of orbital space junk, orbital space junk is quite common, by the way, for people don't know.

It made headlines just for the company's reported earnings. And with SpaceX's valuation now and they're more scrutiny or incidents like this getting more attention than they would have before an IP or is it just interesting to crash into the moon. There is a very funny threat or something that moon didn't feel it at all because it was so small.

“But does it matter to investors or is it just sort of a side like weirdness?”

I don't think it does matter to investors, and I think the reason it doesn't matter is quite interesting. Yes, things crashing into the moon, that's a spectacular story everyone wants to hear about that. I'm fascinated by that myself. But I think if this were five years ago, four years ago, even three years ago, yes it would have mattered because SpaceX was a space business. SpaceX is no longer a space business. It's an AI business or at least that is the story that they are trying to tell us.

So, I mean, if you look at the amount that actually the space business is contributing to their overall revenue, at this point it's like a tenth of the business. And it's not the story that they're trying to tell. And we saw that in the story that was told in the IPO perspective where they mentioned the word AI more than 1250 times, which is actually more features than the word Jesus gets in the Bible. And that tells you something about what they're trying to do here. It's no longer about space spaces to small of a prize.

They want to go for something bigger. They want to go for AI. And that is what a lot of these investors are buying into. It's what the Wall Street banks are buying into, whether you believe that their intentions are good or not. But at this point, I mean, any news that I hear on the space business to me, it's like, okay, well that's a footnote.

Because if we were just valuing the space business, then we're looking at a company that's maybe a couple hundred billion dollars in market cap of people are very excited about it.

But we only get into the trillions when we start talking about an AI future service by humanoid robots and you mentioned the robotics. We should point out that the robotics business is part of Tesla.

“So the question now is, are they going to merge the two? I know you have predicted this. I think it's very, very likely perhaps probable that will happen.”

But anything going wrong in space to me less important than it used to be. So SpaceX is starlinked division focused on the internet connectivity as the company's most valuable business, obviously. And it's only profitable in starlinked satellite services generated $1.66 billion in operating income. So starlink is really the engine of growth right now. Tim, is it sustainable given how ambitious SpaceX's goals are? And especially because there are going to be competitors in this space, lots of competitors.

At XAI, which SpaceX acquired earlier, is my cohost got Galloway likes to call XAI a money furnace. So it's linked to those in the idea of orbital data centers, which would you space X plus all the other parts of it? Yeah, the starlink part of the business is like I said, is the crown jewel right?

“And you look at the growth. It's been pretty impressive right?”

The second quarter subscribers added was double what it was the previous year.

Lots of potential out there. You see Amazon trying to get into that game as well. They've got ambitions for low earth orbit satellites with their Leo division. But it's not operational yet, but they are saying that it is getting closer and closer, perhaps this year we'll see that. And that will be, I think, one of the big tests to how, you know, how much of a lock SpaceX has on this market is a big competitor moves into that space. Now, Amazon's ramp up is probably going to be slower because they've got to catch up.

SpaceX has kind of head start, but if you're a US government customer or your business customer of SpaceX now, you might like the idea of having a potential going with Amazon. Especially if you're using Amazon's cloud service AWS and having that ability to be connected in to that ecosystem. So that's some of the stormy clouds ahead. The question that I have, and I think others have is they listen to SpaceX and Elon,

and to his people talk about the potential for that market is, you know, what exactly is the market? It's almost suggesting that they're going to be competing against the cell phone providers of the world.

And just the technical aspect of that, the Starlink works because there's a basically an antenna on outside they can see the satellite.

And so it's not something that's going to naturally work if you're in your office. You've got to have an infrastructure to make that work.

“And so there's a lot of, you know, happy thinking when you think about a business, it's going to replace AT&T as your cell phone provider, right?”

So that doesn't mean it's not going to happen, but it's not a shoe in the way that it's being suggested. He can't just buy a wireless service and then just be up and running. He'll just be running a regular while. Exactly right. So both Bethany and add these orbital data centers. This via Muscle X-A-I, which space X acquired earlier this year, which I also said he would do. And again, Scott called it a money furnace.

Talk a little bit first, Bethany, about these orbital data centers, the idea that this somehow will all clip together in some terrific way.

I don't think I'm going to be able to give a very good explanation for how it might clip together in some defensible way. I'm a little bit in Ed's camp on this one in terms of the way in which the big promises don't quite seem to make a lot of sense when you look underneath them.

“I also think I was thinking about this when you guys were mentioning both the acquisition of X-A-I and then the potential acquisition of Tesla is that when we talk about robotics, who owns what?”

Do shareholders in each company think that they own something that the other company actually owns? So I think there are a lot of questions. Ed? Yeah, I think the orbital data centers are another example. I mean, it's not a controversial take to say that the orbital data centers are as close as you get to nonsense. We know that there has been this thing called the Elon Musk premium. And that is he's clearly a genius on some level. He's clearly a great storyteller.

But my question is to what point does this start to run out? What point do people start to realize? Actually he says a lot of stuff that doesn't really make sense and that actually doesn't come true. You look at Tesla, the stocks down nearly 30% year to day. I think investors actually are getting tired of hearing this. It's coming. It's coming. Just wait. Just wait. It's going to be amazing. The future is incredible. And I think they're going to feel the same way about SpaceX when they start to realize that actually no we're not building orbital data centers.

“Yeah, I've talked to a number of physicists and mechanical. They said it's absolutely impossible. What are you saying from a physics point of view?”

Every episode, we get a question from an outside expert. It comes from ASWAT Demotorin, a professor of finance at the steering school business in NYU. Let's listen. When space six went public and filed its prospect is a big part of the space six story was it was going to be a lead player in AI. It's the biggest market of the three. That said, though, how would you reconcile that story with the fact that right now XA makes very little revenue from selling AI products and services and almost all of its revenues come from leasing or renting up.

Compute power, do its lead competitors. Tim go first and then Bethany the net. You know, it's interesting because that's in some ways one of the bright spots, right? Even if you listen to the earnings call, the CFO is talking about the return on the payback for that investment can be within a year. And so they see a lot of potential there. But during the lead up to the IPO, there was this confusing part because even it was almost kind of downplaying that part of the business.

In part, I think, because it's not very sexy. It reminds me of Tesla when he would kind of downplay a key part of the financing of Tesla, which was regulatory credits. Money that company would make because other companies weren't selling enough EVs and Tesla could sell them that. And it was a good, it was a good part of the business and oftentimes would help them be profitable.

But it was never sexy because it's not the story that Tesla was selling just like with SpaceX, the story of SpaceX is not land based data centers.

Yet, they have shown an ability to be able to get those things operational very quickly to get the chips from Nvidia. And that potentially is something that could in the near term provide money for them. Right. At the same time, this great number of lawsuits, for example, though, they put them up and growing, growing problem. We'll talk about that in a second. Bethany. I think it shows a side of Musk that people who talk about what a genius he is, which he is, don't often comment on, which is that he can be quite manipulative. He's quite good at spinach.

And so the reality is that rock was behind the other models and he's figured out how to position a loss as a win. And I think that that is potentially it is a win if he can keep selling excess capacity and produce profits on it. But it also puts SpaceX right on the edge of this enormous AI cap X vent that is potentially a problem for the entire U.S. economy. And it's a gigantic risk for SpaceX that the productivity simply doesn't show up among the end users of AI and time to generate all of this massive spend.

Right. They're holding on to something that might not be as valuable if you do much excess capacity and it's in the ground and it's sitting there. It reminds me a little when AOL started selling its furniture and put it on as it was an extraordinary revenue and they hit it. And I found it and I'm like, you can't sell the chairs twice and they're like, that is true. But it was very strange. I forgot all about that number and sold the chairs that was a moment ahead. Go ahead.

“I think what asked us is pointing out in that in his comments is the truth about SpaceX crying out for help.”

This is a company that originally told us that they were going to be one of the leading frontier model providers similar to an anthropic or an open AI. And so the way that they were going to do that was they were going to build their own data centers, their own AI infrastructure. Unlike anthropic. As he did with Tesla for people to understand exactly owned the entire supply chain.

And the idea was that that was how they were going to make money and growth was going to be this incredible LLM.

What asked what is pointing out is that suddenly at some point this year they turned around and said actually we're going to start leasing our AI infrastructure in our data centers to who anthropic. The very company that they were supposed to be competing with and in fact, if you look at the revenue concentration of the company right now, they point out to that credit, they admit something. They admit that there is one customer on which they are relying for 20% of their revenue that customer is called customer A.

They don't say who the customer is. If you look into the reporting if you look into what's actually going on, you know that that customer is anthropic. So asked what is pointing out a very important thing here, which is that actually they don't really know how they're going to monetize this thing.

“Is it that they're going to be the compute provider and they're going to compete with the hyper scalers like a meta, like an Oracle, like a Google, or is it going to be that they're going to compete with anthropic and open AI?”

And the answer is they don't know. They haven't figured it out. And so they're kind of scraping the barrel here.

Look at the valuation of this company, which is now trading close to 80 times sales, you compare it to the hyper scalers who I guess they're now competing with meta's trading at seven times revenue. Google's trading at 10 Microsoft's trading at 11. I mean, if these are actually comparable companies, then we need to get real about what the pricing on this company should actually be. Speaking of which SpaceX announced a $60 billion dollar do require AI coding startup called cursor. What's the strategy? What is it signal about ambitions?

To me, that's them trying to get in the LLM game. That's them trying to compete with open AI and anthropic. And I would also add that I think that was their attempt in their way at trying to legitimize the idea that they had basically just bolted on this AI business onto the space business. So whatever they can do to bolster up that business and to say this is a real business and we have real traction and we've got all of these engineers.

“Because whatever they can do to support that narrative will ultimately be beneficial to the stock, or at least I think that is the intention.”

We'll be back in a minute. Hi everybody, it's Megan Repino. I've been thinking a lot about this one question I've been asked over and over. A question about the choices I've made, the colors of my hair, the things in the world I've spoken about and the things that I haven't.

I've heard this question asked so many different ways, but it always came down to why are you like this?

And as you know, there's no simple answer because people are not simple. We're messy and complicated and contradictory and layered. So on my new show, I'm sitting down with the ultimate disruptors, the athletes, the artists, the activists, and the architects of our culture who looked at the way things were and asked, why do we do it like this and can we do it differently? My hope is to give us a little more space to that question and to the person on the other side of the mic. Not to tell us their answer or read from their script, but to take us on their journey.

Check out my new show "Why Are You Like This?" on YouTube or listen in your favorite podcast app, new episodes drop every Thursday. If there's anything we've heard about this entire summer, no matter where we go or who we talk to, it's about gas prices. I want to show you something, look at these guys, right, they're ridiculous. I don't drive as much. I think they're just skyrocketing day in day out.

Gas prices are up since Donald Trump started his war with Iran, but how much does a little pain at the pump actually affect people's vote? Who is telling the truth? And who is going to represent us and do something about it? And if gas is still near $4 a gallon come November, is it game over for Donald Trump and the Republicans?

You know, Trump trying to not recognize what people are struggling with and then to ignore the severity of it is just not a winning strategy.

That's this week on America, actually. Catch us every Saturday on YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts.

“This week, two of the most important people in Google's AI division left their jobs.”

Depending on who you are that's either really terrible news for Google's whole AI project or a sign that AI may be closer to something truly world-changing than we even thought. This week on the vergecast, we're dissecting what's going on at Google DeepMind and whether we truly are in the foothills of the singularity. All that plus the state of the no-screen wearable, what's going on with open-weight models and much more. All that on the vergecast, wherever you get podcasts. So aside from these orbital data centers, which most of us think are kind of ridiculous, not kind of arbor-diculous.

By the way, Jeff Bezos is also really into the idea of putting data centers in space, butifying.

That's his passion project, at least he's sort of honest about what that is. Yeah, that's whatever that's the Botox talking. To explain not the orbital data centers, because there's real things happening on Earth. Earlier this summer, writers reported Mississippi residents sued XAI in space, sex, residency of power plant, fueling nearby data centers is blasting, quote, "President and Escapable Noise," that is eroded.

They're health and home values. He was the tip of this sort, I think, when he did that, and there's lawsuits all over the place for other companies from Amazon and all of them.

But this was the first one, where he really put up all these engines that spewed all manner of things.

It's a very big political shift. You just saw the Vic Rammath Smoney do a 180 on data centers. So what impact will it have on the company and its valuation? Well, you know, it's interesting because to be fair to Musk for several years now, going back to a couple years ago. He was really on the tip of talking about how the US didn't have the infrastructure in place that was going to be needed to provide the electricity for all of these data centers.

So he was seeing that before that was conventional wisdom.

“And I think again, he had his fingers on kind of the pulse of where things were going with the idea of data centers in outer space, right?”

It is a very cynical view on where this country is going and its ability to allow data centers to be built, whether because of the need for electricity or regulatory. The allowance or local governments, state governments or federal government going to allow these things to be built in the quantity that's being projected by these AI companies, right? So that's part of the story. The idea that it's easier to do this in space than it is on earth. That is kind of the foundation of why he is saying data centers in outer space is such a good business, right?

And it gets to this ability to see where the politics on these things are going. In a lot of ways, AI is a scary thing for a lot of people. Yes. And for good reason, some of the biggest minds in this technology have been warning that it's going to take our jobs, that it is going to totally rewrite the fabric of our reality in the near term. And, you know, people listen to that and they don't necessarily like that idea.

And there's concerns about this and the data centers become the physical manifestation of this technology. Yeah, absolutely. And we're seeing at the city level, the county level, local level, a great kind of populous uprising. It's the one thing that the right and the left on the fringes kind of agree on is that AI data centers are bad and that they should kind of push back on that. And musk in his ability to kind of move quickly, somewhat say skirt regulations and kind of build these things became a flashpoint, right?

And so it's an example of kind of tech leaders, tech titans, maybe not having their fingers on the pulse of kind of the populous movement is they push these things. I know, let me bring something to you, maybe they don't care.

“Yeah, I think he pushed it through because he precisely knew this would be a problem, right?”

And he also didn't care about the residents. It seems to me between musks, efforts in Mississippi and Kevin, the Shark Tank, O'Leary's efforts in Utah. They're absolutely moronic villains in terms of creating this problem for everybody else, right? And I interviewed just this last week a mayor of Lansing and he had a good data center that had all of bells and whistles he'd want for safety and everything else. And he wasn't able even to get that one through.

So even good ones, even ones that are done with the cooperation and lack of NDAs and regulatory involvement and paybacks to citizens they don't want them.

I think he's going to do it.

“But I think what would be the case for Tesla and SpaceX, aside from fact that SpaceX already buys a lot of cyber trucks.”

I will let's put that in mind the reason cyber trucks are selling is because Musk's own companies are buying them. Other people, men with middle-aged crisis is also buying them, but not very many numbers. So what is the case to do this? Tesla's on the decline. They haven't had a fresh new car in a while. And of course, humanoid robots is their new business. Talk a little bit about why he wants to do this. Well, I think the believers case would be that they are actually both in the same business now, especially as Tesla increasingly does not position itself as an EV company.

And that the overlap between the two businesses is pretty profound. Optimists included why not just merge them and have them all be one. So there's not this question about which piece of technology is owned by which company. They just announced the huge joint venture together to build the data center. Another sign that might be that you're of course right and that might be a preliminary sign that this is going to happen. And then there's the cynical case for why the merger might happen, which is that it's Tesla and solar city all over again, that just a solar city was starting to struggle and Tesla swooped in and bought it before the signs of weakness could materialize.

Musk will fold Tesla into SpaceX, where he still has a narrative going before the signs of weakness at Tesla become so overpowering that they threatened to challenge the narrative that Musk is in principle in that all of this always works out. Like with Twitter? Yes, or with Twitter as well. And that has been now a playbook for Musk that when something is starting to falter, he figures out a way to fold it into another part of his empire so that you can't see the thing that is faltering.

Because if that thing really did falter, then suddenly we would realize that Musk wasn't a god and that everything doesn't always work out.

“And I think that would be a huge challenge for where we started this conversation, which is the Musk premium.”

And then there's the really cynical side, too, which is that for a visionary genius, he also does care about his own pocketbook and is the journal reported. I think today, or yesterday, he stands to make a lot of money to that merger go through. And so these things he has to meet, he has all these hurdles he has to meet in order to get the enormous pay package that he was promised by Tesla and the journal reported that if this merger were to take place that half of that pay package could become due to him now.

And so it would be extraordinarily enriching to him. So I think there are all sorts of reasons why we might see that merger sooner or later. Good ones, valid ones and ones that might make you a little more cynical. Right, we're all cities bored with the car business. Like and obviously hasn't created an interesting car in a long time.

So before we talk about the bigger picture at the end, I want to take a moment to quickly assess some of these claims that you've been talking about, especially on SpaceX, stack rank three of Musk predictions from most plausible to least plausible and briefly explain why you chose that order.

I'm going to read them out, add you go first and Bethany and then Tam.

Number one, SpaceX would build a self-growing city on the moon in less than 10 years. Two, he predicted last week that SpaceX would hit a trillion dollars in revenue in 2030, not 20, 31 as they originally projected. And he said, "Starlink would provide a majority of the world's internet in less than 10 years." All right, each of you stack rank those and from most plausible to least and explain why, add you go first.

“I honestly think it's an insult to statistical probability to even try to stack rank any of those claims.”

I don't think any of them will materialize. So if I can put them all at the bottom, maybe I'll go three, two, one. But I think that each of those claims are ridiculous. And I think that we could find many other claims that he's made that are also ridiculous. I mean, something that we haven't really talked about either is the fact that a lot of Wall Street is kind of gobbling up these claims.

You know, JP Morgan saying this company's worth three trillion and Raymond James says it's worth more than $10 trillion. I mean, the conflicts of interest there are quite significant because this company needs to continue to raise hundreds of billions of dollars over the next several years just to cover its cost, which means that that's a lot of underwriting fees that the Wall Street banks can scoop up and then translate into investment banking revenues. So which they did on this, they made enormous amounts of money on which they did on the IPO exactly.

And so when you look at all of the Wall Street banks that recommended this company is a buy, what are they all having common? They were all underwriters on the IPO. And a lot of people would say, well, why would they continue to pump this stock if they've already taken their money?

The answer is there's a lot more deals left over in the pipeline, whether it's debt issuance or equity issuance, they're going to take a cut up.

So I, I, all of them. If I can respectfully abstain from this bank. You may, you may. I actually ran into one of those bankers is trying to make the case to me and I just went hush.

So in the interest of not abstaining as well, I will take a shot at this and I'm going to vote for Starlink first because, you know what, it's a real business.

So I'm just going to say if something is going to work. I hear Tim's very valid skepticism from earlier about Starlink, but I'm still going to put that one at the top of the list. That could be not completely preposterous, but go ahead. It could be not completely preposterous, I mean, yes. And giving Ed credit for what he said and seconding all of that last preposterous than the other two clients.

I'm trillion dollars in revenue. I'm going to put that next because, you know what, I don't know, merge everything into something and buy something else using space access and play it and stock. And maybe you can somehow get to a trillion dollars in revenue.

So I'm going to put that one next.

And then I'm going to say that the least likely one unfortunately because that would be my personal favor to come to is the moon. You would go to the moon. No, I wouldn't go myself, but I wouldn't mind having another place for humanity to flourish. I like that as a possibility, but I don't think it's a probability. So I'm going to put that one at the bottom.

I don't want to live on the moon. I mean, it's a good song, but Tim.

“Okay, well, first of all, how do we define a city on the moon?”

You know, I think that's, it's in the details there. Will we are growing city, Tim? Well, I mean, is it a hut? I think once we figure out what a city is, I mean, there is a possibility of getting something on the moon. It's kind of mold itself growing.

Go ahead, sorry. Yeah, I mean, so the definition is there. I so, you know, maybe a city. The trillion dollars a year on revenue. I think is a really good example of like, I can't do the math there.

But the bravado kind of covers up something that he does have to brag about.

And that is this idea of a hundred billion dollar revenue run right by the end of the year.

And there is math.

“I think there is some math there that shows how they can do that.”

And that is kind of one of those things where like he's just just can't stop from pushing it to beyond where, you know, a win. He had a huge win, a potential win there. And you know, the next idea on the majority of the internet coming from Starlink. You know, okay, I understand how he thinks he's going to get there. So that's an exciting thing to watch for.

Okay, so then again, Starlink's the most plausible, although none of them are plausible to any of you. All right, let's end up by looking about why this matters. Before SpaceX went public writers reported that Nasdaq changed its rules for the Nasdaq 100 to allow the newly public company to join in its 15th day of trading. SpaceX requested the change former fidelity, a manager George Noble has called this move wrong. And he response will sing will lead to force buying for funds that are required to track the Nasdaq 100 for example.

But then he wants the significance of the rule change and does SpaceX inclusion into the index fund create more of a risk for people are actively choosing to invest in the company like say carousuisher. I think it does create more risk and I also think along with the very small sorry. I also think along with the very small float that I talked about earlier. It's another example of how this stock was manipulated from the get go, but having it included in the index funds and by having such a small float you almost guaranteed an upward trajectory.

At least for some part of this and so I think that that's that's another example of how this is not so much a story of just pure belief in all these beautiful and grandiose dreams is it is some actually very calculated manipulation going into this as well. And this is something saying a next president can shut down right a new SEC hit. You would you would think so I'm not sure if a new SEC head could shut it down or would have the mojo to shut it down and I think what's frightening about this is the broader societal impact of this is quite worrisome to me because you have a whole lot of people who.

It's belief in capitalism and maybe fragile belief in the system that we're in right now is predicated to some extent on space acts and if this turns into a giant disaster and a giant wipe out as much as there's part of me that is very cynical about mask I don't think that that's actually good for anybody. It's not good for everybody's pocket books and it's not good for people's belief in our system. All right other tech companies including enthrapping an open-air reportedly planning a public in the next few months Tim what is SpaceX performance so far indicated about how those mega IP OS moco and how the market could respond probably most people feel open-air will wait till 2027 but it's not clear at this moment.

“Yeah huge huge interest in AI right they'll be able to gamble to be able to invest in this next frontier technology. I think that's what the SpaceX the initial SpaceX pop suggested.”

I think anthropic is a little bit more challenging in part because it's become so politicized with the Trump administration and it it an IPO this fall it comes kind of in some ways. Is it the best time or potentially the worst time right as we head toward midterm elections with AI being in a lot of ways not on the ballot but on the ballot as a proxy for concerns about technology.

So I think it's really happening benefit the anthropic gets the more the White House raises concerns about its power and concerns about what it can do it just tells investors that they have some kind of see the magic within their models that you want to be part of because it's going to be world changing technology.

So in short I think the SpaceX IPO because it was so AI focused suggest there's a lot of excitement for anthropic.

I would just linger on a moment on Bethany's points about the SEC and its inclusion in the Nasdaq and the changing of the rules to include this company in the Nasdaq. I think this is a genuine scandal. I think this is as bad as it gets. This is like the ultimate crossover event between corporate greed and regulatory capture that is encapsulating all of the things that are going wrong about markets today.

“The whole point of having these rules in the first place is to protect investors when they invest their retirement funds into passive indexes. That's why we have these rules. We just decided to get rid of them.”

I mean the question is why did that happen? We don't know but we can look at what's happened to the SEC over the past year and a half under Trump. This agency has been completely ripped apart. This agency has lost a fifth of its workforce. Enforcement actions of fallen 30% their enforcement director Margaret Ryan mysteriously resigned after she tried to investigate the Trump family for insider trading and she got word from her bosses and then suddenly she disappears. I mean the rot is extremely deep here and I will just go back to the points that I made about the conflicts of interest with the Wall Street banks and this is where it gets really bad in my view.

We used to have rules that were supposed to prevent the Wall Street banks from pumping stocks that they privately believed were not good stocks. We saw this in the dot com boom.

This guy named Henry Blodgett who went on to start business inside and he was a Wall Street analyst. He was banned from the securities industry because it was discovered that he had privately disparaged companies that he had publicly recommended in his equity research. The reason he did that was to win underwriting fees, then the bubble collapses everything comes crashing down. The SEC says okay, let's do something about this and they create this rule called the global research analyst settlement, which was designed to eliminate the conflict of interest between the investment bankers and the research analysts.

That was the idea. They created all of these frameworks, all of these rules. In December of last year, that settlement was eliminated by the SEC. They decided to get rid of it and in fact the former SEC chair or the levitt wrote a piece in the Wall Street Journal talking about how the SEC is now subjecting itself to the possibility of corruption and scandals.

“And so I look at what's happened to SpaceX and you can call me alarmist. You can say that I'm having Elon DeRangement syndrome, but I look at what's happening. It's the same thing that we've seen over and over again.”

We are deteriorating our regulatory bodies because we know that if you do that, you can capture value through insider trading through corruption and through getting around the rules. I see it as no different from what we've seen from Trump and his insider trading campaign as it relates to actual stocks. And also crypto currencies as well. I would say people like to make fun of Elon's purchase of Twitter is a bad business decision. But I would argue that it was pretty wise for him because it's given him enormous cloud and helped in these kinds of situations.

“It's allowed him a huge megaphone to weaken some of the cornerstones of public life, right? To go after the SEC. To go after proxy advisor firms like ISS, right?”

To have for years a voted on shares and try to ensure corporate governance that would protect against some of these things. It has allowed him to go after the media that might be looking into him. And it's given him this enormous power to try to kind of weaken some of the guardrails that you point to that maybe would have changed some of these things. Absolutely. I went when he bought it, Mark Cuban text and he said ignore the price he's doing it for influence a hundred percent.

It first it was abroad. Like if he goes into the country as head of SpaceX, he's not as powerful as head of Twitter and SpaceX.

He creates an influence paddling thing. He said don't pay attention anything else was interesting. And by the way, we learned in these earnings, we got a little bit of an insight into how much he has destroyed that business. The revenues are down 70 percent from 2020. The money doesn't matter. It is actually worth the money. I was going to say it's just more it's more insight into Elon's personality that he may as be a genius, but he is also clever and he is also manipulative.

No, they don't. So that begs the last question, the SpaceX IPO and the IPO boom more broadly have been compared to the Enron era. This short seller Jim Channos said that partly because of the valuations just don't add up the math isn't math thing.

I'd like to know if you agree Beth and you go first and you know a ton about this from having written a book about the rise and fall of Enron, then add and Tim you get the last word.

So Jim yes has called this the golden age of fraud and he's been a skeptic of Tesla from the beginning and has been at least in terms of the direction of the stock wrong and is obviously a huge skeptic of SpaceX.

“I think the only thing and I was thinking about this when Ed was talking earlier about how it's some point the fact that Elon's promises don't materialize it has to matter.”

I would have said that years ago and I think Jim would have said that years ago and the runway keeps being longer than anybody would have expected. And so I completely agree with the sentiment but as I tried to start this by saying Elon is how to remarkable ability to buy himself time and as long as he can keep buying himself time. There is a chance it will all work out. I've often said there's a fine line between a visionary and a fraudster and sometimes the visionary is just the fraudster who is able to keep going and keep raising money until it wasn't a fraud anymore.

And then everybody looks back and says oh what a visionary and so there's still some chance that that could be a on-strijectory at noon next.

I think Bethany put it perfectly I mean these things only become frauds once the price goes down that's what we learn from all of these companies. I mean we're pointing out things that many would say and we'll look back on and we're like that was nuts how do we let that happen and the answer is we're down with it because it makes people money right now. But as soon as the price goes down then suddenly everyone's going to look at the damage everyone's going to look at what happened and say okay who do we blame for this how do we get our retribution.

So we have ourselves to blame for this as well the more that the price goes up and the more that we decide or neglect to actually think about the things that matter think about regulation think about protecting investors the more we have ourselves to blame.

“I think at the end-run comparison is aggressive but I don't think it is completely unreasonable if SpaceX were to crash tomorrow then yes everyone would be saying it's end-run.”

Tim last week. You know after the earnings shares dropped but I feel there was really nothing there that investors shouldn't have known prior to the IPO which is that the future of SpaceX is really built on a lot of hope.

I hope for a brighter future that Elon is promising.

And if you're an investor in SpaceX you're taking a huge bet on the ability to bring the light of consciousness to the world right so. It's hard I think to feel bad for investors who lost money in the last week or so because this is part of the ride they signed up for. Absolutely. I just I just want to just approach back slightly on that point true we should feel bad for the passive investors who invested in the NASDAQ and who didn't even know that SpaceX was being stuffed into their portfolios. I agree with you about the day traders who should have known that there are all of these risks associated with SpaceX.

“But I think that we get into dangerous territory and we start to actually do a disservice to investors when we start to put these in a passive index funds and people don't know that they actually own SpaceX those people I do feel bad for.”

Let me just jump in with one last comment on that which is that I have come to believe that for all that the they should have known and there's enough information out there for people to know information travels still the information you need to know travels in very very very tight loops. So yes, maybe that's fair to some extent it's not fair in total there are things people know about Elon about what he's doing that those average investors have no chance of knowing so that's correct. Anyway, I really appreciate this is a super smart discussion and you guys are brilliant and we'll see where it goes we'll have you back when it goes up or down.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Today's show was produced by Nishot Kerwat Michelle Aloy Catherine Millsott Megan Bernie Madeline Leplant Dubi and Kaylin Lynch special thanks to Dave Shaw Bradley Sylvester Devon Schwartz Jim Mackel and Manolo Marino. Our engineers are Fernando Aruda and Rick Vaughn and our theme music is by Tracodemix.

If you're already following the show you're ready to slip the surly bonds of earth. If not, we're exiling you to Elon's moon colony. Go wherever you listen to podcasts search for on with caroswisher and hit follow. Thanks for listening to on with caroswisher from podium media New York Magazine the box media podcast network and us will be back on Monday with more.

Because the truth is there's still a lot about AI that business owners don't exactly understand, but it still feels like your competitors are pulling away from you.

Fortunately, there's net sweet next.

“Net sweet is an AI powered business management suite that securely connects all of your data.”

It's a unified suite that brings your financials inventory commerce HR and CRM into a single source of truth trusted by over 43,000 customers.

Net sweet next is the next huge leap in how business gets done because AI is built into everything you do.

“Net sweet next automatically surfaces custom insights throughout your day. Their AI agents work alongside you to solve problems and handle routine work.”

Plus, net sweet is customized for a wide range of industries, so it supports the way your business truly works.

Whether your company earns millions or even hundreds of millions of time for net sweet next for your business meets AI.

“For the first time ever, you can try net sweet next for free.”

If your revenues are at least in the seven figures, go to net sweet.ai/on. Built for every industry, ready for every boardroom, net sweet.ai/on.