The Biggest IPO In History Isn’t What You Think It Is

on your FYP and I'm starting a brand new podcast, wait, don't swipe away, it's called

"That sounds like a lot." You know that feeling when you check your phone, read a few headlines and think "That sounds like a lot, I can't do this." Well, I can, and I'm gonna get into it every Friday. You can watch on YouTube or listen wherever you get your podcast. I'm gonna start by breaking down whatever insanity is happening in the world, and then I'll

“sit down with a comedian or actor or writer or honestly anyone who responds to my DMs.”

This is not the place to get the news, but it is a place to feel a little bit better about it. That sounds like a lot coming May 1st part of the vox media podcast network. More and more Americans are finding themselves taking care of their kids and their parents at the same time. Well, you know, I joke that there's a dark game which I was playing, which family member will disappoint today. How to care for others without burning out in the process.

That's this week on Explained It To Me. Find new episodes, Sundays, wherever you get your podcasts. What are the biggest threats we face today? And the reason we call it everything everywhere all it wants is because the idiosyncratic nature of the threats. I'm Preet Barara. In this week, NYPD's Deputy Commissioner for Intelligence and Counterterrorism, Rebecca Weiner, joins me to discuss the evolving nature of terrorism and targeted violence.

The episode is out now. Search and follow stay tuned with Preet wherever you get your podcast.

“Today's number? 90. That's how many seconds a Russell Brands spent trying to find his favorite”

Bible quote live on Pierre's Morgan before he finally gave up. The former comedian was on the

show to discuss his new book How to Become a Christian in seven days. Sources say step one is to be accused of sex crimes. Welcome to Frosty Markets. I'm Adelson. It is April 28th. Let's check in on yesterday's market vitals. The major indices were mixed as Trump considered a proposal from Iran to end the blockade and open the straight of Hormuz, the S&P and the Nasdaq edged up to new records

while the dial fell slightly, meanwhile oil prices rose and Microsoft stock fell early on the day on a renegotiated deal with open AI the stock later recovered to end in the green more on that later. Okay, what else is happening? SpaceX is gearing up for the biggest IPO in history, but investors are starting to wonder what exactly they're being asked to buy. The company is targeting a two trillion dollar valuation which would instantly rank it among the largest companies

in the S&P 500, but this is no longer just a space company. It's also a satellite internet company, a launch company and increasingly an AI company with new bets and new acquisitions adding to the story. And for all of the hype, there are real questions hanging over what would be the market's biggest event in years such as can space-based data centers actually work at scale. What happens to Elon Musk control once the company goes public and ultimately can that two trillion dollar

valuation be sustained in the public markets? Well, here to help us answer many of these questions, we are speaking with Patrick Boyle, professor at King's College London, former hedge fund manager and host of one of the most popular finance YouTube channels, Patrick, so good to see you and so glad to finally have you on the show. I wanted to speak with you because this SpaceX IPO is set to be one of

the most important events in a really long time in the financial markets and you recently released a video

titled quote, "the SpaceX IPO scandal." So I will start with the obvious question which is, why did you describe this IPO as a scandal? How is this company being sold to investors? What do you skeptical of with this IPO? Well, the thing that's quite questionable about the way this IPO is being done is just the way that it is being forced into the Nasdaq 100 index. Almost instantly,

“I think there's going to be a 15-day delay and also the waiting that it'll be given is much higher”

than you would expect for a company with a very low flow. So in a funny way, the company goes public at a very high valuation. People will probably buy, and firstly there's a lot of people are just very excited about Elon Musk and his companies that they'll put money in, but then the expectation is that the indexes will be buying 15 days later. You know, at the current valuation they're talking

for early inclusion as well, and that would essentially mean that there's just a frenzy if it's been bought up, stuffed into the portfolio of people who index, who are not really valuation sensitive. And the valuation they're talking about, to be clear they're talking about 125 times sales. So that's not earnings, that's sales. And we don't even really know what the earnings are of SpaceX. There was

you know, the Reuters published that they had EBITDA of $8 billion, but EBITDA is not earnings.

It's earnings before essentially the cost of building satellites and building rockets, you know,

“which for SpaceX you have to imagine is a significant cost. There's a famous quote”

from, I think, around 2002, where Scott McNeely, who was the CEO of Sun Microsystems, spoke about the price that people had invested in Sun Microsystems. And he said, well, you know, what were they thinking they invested at 10 times sales? And he said, you know, if you put your money in a 10 times sales in order for me to return it to you in 10 years time, I have to pay all of the earnings out, or sorry, all of the sales out as dividends. And that assumes that I'm

not paying any staff, that I've no warranty cost, that there's no manufacturing costs. He said, there was no way people were going to get a return on investment at 10 times sales. Now we're talking about 125 times sales. And, you know, it's worth noting as well that SpaceX is, it is an exciting

“company, it is growing, but it's not, you know, analysts expected to grow 25% next year. That's”

not good enough, like Google when public, I forget how long ago, but it they were growing a 240% a year and they went public at 10 times sales once again. And so the price, it's not really, the question isn't whether it's a good or a bad company. A bad company can be a good investment,

if you get in at a low enough price. And an amazing company can be a terrible investment,

if you overpay for the stock. So much in there to unpack, I mean, I guess let's just focus on the price for a moment. Why is, I mean, when it goes public, you could imagine a world, if we lived in an efficient market, it's world, you could imagine a world where investors would say, $2 trillion, that's ridiculous, I'm not buying and the stock immediately plummet's. In which case,

“maybe it's not a problem. It seems as though in the private markets, there seems to be a little bit more”

BS available and you can command these kind of ridiculous valuations, I guess, because the negotiations are a little bit more entrenched, and Elon just says to Trillian, we say, whatever, and we sign the contract. But I feel like there's a bit of a, it's a harder bar to hurdle to get over in the public markets. So I'm with you on all of this, but I wonder if maybe there's an argument to be made here. Well, if it goes public, the markets will decide what the true valuation is.

And therefore, maybe there isn't a scam. Yeah, I mean, that is the purpose of markets is to essentially weigh these companies. And in the long run, it doesn't matter. Like, in the long run, a good company that grows earnings will go up. And, but of course, in order to go up more than the market, it needs to surprise to the upside, right? Like a company needs to be better than people taught it was to perform better than the market. If it's, if people are right about how good the company

is, well, then it would expect to get, you know, standard stock market returns. So when you go public

market, such an extreme valuation, I mean, the likes of which has never been heard of before,

right? You know, it's funny because there's some analysts out there and they're saying, well, there's nothing to compare it to. And, you know, you can compare it to aerospace companies, you can compare it to technology companies, you can compare it even to, we'll say, just companies like Nvidia that have a product that there's a lot of demand for. And, you know, and then you'd say, well, how much is Nvidia growing, how much will SpaceX grow, blah, blah, blah. But, you know,

the problem is there's nothing to compare to if you go with a valuation like this. If you went with a more, I don't know, moderate or, you know, earthbound valuation. There's plenty to compare

and, you know, delivers payloads into space. Right. It almost seemed as though, I mean,

the markets will decide what the valuation is, but thus far, they have taken a few kind of shortcuts to achieve this valuation. And it seems that some of those shortcuts would include talking about data centers in space and talking about the future, and then merging XAI and putting that into the company, and then buying cursor and putting another AI company into the thing.

“So, that you have to keep on growing and growing and then the other point that you make,”

which I, to up until now, hadn't thought properly about, is the idea of just shortcutting your

way into the NASDAQ, which I assume immediately puts more buying pressure on the stock because it's

essentially inserted into people's portfolios. Many 401Ks throughout the country, thus resulting in an elevated valuation, hence it seems like that's kind of where the scandal is, that when it's employing all of the strategies to almost fake it. Yeah. Like, you know, the idea that so firstly, NASDAQ had to change all of their rules to allow this inclusion, because not only a company needs to be, you know, there's a list of rules as to how they weigh, you know, a low-float

company going into an index, how long it's been public, because the idea is it needs to be seasoned in the market and sort of find a valuation with real buyers and sellers. So, normally you would expect it to take about a year, at least, to even consider adding it 15 days as unheard of, and then getting rid of the caps for the flowed on it. And, you know, Reuters reported that this is because Elon Musk negotiated with NASDAQ and said, you know, we can list this thing on the NYC, we can list it on the NASDAQ,

“we can list it wherever we want. If you want it on the NASDAQ, you have to go with fast-tracked”

index insertion, and so that, you know, it's, I mean, obviously that's good for everyone who already owns SpaceX stock, but if you are a person who owns index funds, and it's worth noting, it's not even just index funds, because there's an awful lot of, you know, fund managers who claim to be active managers, but if you look at their portfolios, they look exactly like an index, and so apart from the index is buying, there will be just a bunch of portfolio managers who say,

I can't afford to take the risk of not owning a stock that's four and a half percent of the NASDAQ, if I'm being judged against the NASDAQ, and so, you know, in all honesty, it's a very smart way of maximizing demand for the stock right on the point of it going public. It's questionably ethical from the perspective of the people at NASDAQ to sort of change all of their rules, you know,

“right around what is by far the, I believe it's the biggest IPO on history, because”

before that we had Saudi or Ram Co, where they did, I think they did a $29 billion IPO,

they're talking about $75 billion for this, you know, the public float. So yeah, a lot of the ethical questions do land on the NASDAQ here, and I'm reminded of when the NASDAQ decided to include micro strategy in the index, and as soon as I saw that, I was like, oh, now it's really a problem. It used to be that this was just a guy, you had this Bitcoin treasury company, and it was kind of a bunch of BS, but if you bought it, you bought it, and that's okay. But as soon as we system

it, and if you bought it, you got what you wanted, but then suddenly you're putting it into people's hands who don't even know what it is or what they're actually buying. And I guess the question that I would ask is like, why is the NASDAQ incentivized to do this exactly? Why are they changing their rules? Why are they so desperate to include this company in the index? Well, it's a huge, it's going to be a huge company, especially if it goes public at at what 1.75 to 2 trillion dollars,

it will be, I think there's only five US companies bigger than that right now. You're talking about like Google, Microsoft, and video like, you know, they will be listing a big company. There's all sorts of exchange fees, trading fees, whatever that they earn off of this, it would not be, they would be unhappy if it ended up on the NASDAQ for example. Yeah, just looking at the business itself, what do you make of SpaceX as a business? I mean, clearly, you believe in many places

make of this business when making the valuation? Well, the real question is, there's an awful lot of stuff in there that you would consider sort of lottery tickets, right? Like where it's stuff that it seems a little bit unlikely this whole data centers in space thing. It's been tried. There's a company I can't think of their name now, but they launched one Nvidia chip into space in a

“little satellite to run an AI program where I think it was meant to learn the works of Shakespeare”

or something like that. It constantly had to be shut down because it overheats, because it's very difficult. Everyone says will space is cold, but it's also a vacuum and you need air blowing over something or water or whatever to cool it via convection. If it has to cool radiatively, you need these massive, massive cooling fins on it. And so the next version of this tiny,

you know, Shakespeare satellite is going to have the second largest cooling array in space

behind the international space station, right? Like so we're talking about, you know, a very question, to cool like an actual data center, the type of thing they build on Earth. I mean, you're talking about cooling fins that are miles and miles square. Like I mean, it's, it would be the largest man made object in space by a long, long, long shot. So in terms of like, could this ever work, it could like, I mean, that, you know, it doesn't violate the laws of physics,

but it might be very difficult to manufacture and to get up there in a timely manner. You know, there's also those kind of insane expectations around the real profit center, like 66% of the profits, at least as far as we know, of SpaceX come from Starlink, you know, the satellite

“internet company, and they have at the moment around 10 million pay in customers, I believe.”

You know, there's some analysts out there and they said that, that they would reach 1.2 billion

customers. Now, that's quite an amazing number when you look at the population of the planet who are like, there's 1 billion people on the planet who are in 35 dollars a day, which comes to bid under $12,000 a year. They will not be paying for, you know, $150 a month in internet access, right? Like the, the question is, how big can can Starlink get? And it's reasonable to think that maybe it's close to its capacity. And then when you even look at at SpaceX's launch,

they are the biggest launch provider in the world, like they take the most stuff into space. But I think around two thirds of what they bring into space, if not more, is Starlink satellites, like it's their own stuff, they're putting up there. So, in terms of, like, how big the market is for other companies that want to put stuff in space, it's not obvious that it's a whole lot bigger than what's being launched right now. Patrick Boyle, Professor of Kings College London,

former hedge fund manager, host of a popular finance YouTube channel Patrick, we're going to after continue this discussion at the time. It's so much to get into here and it is going to be such an important event that people need to wrap their heads around and actually understand the details and a lot of those details that you bring up on massively important. So thank you very much for joining us. Thank you for having me on, it's been a pleasure.

After the break, why emerging markets are on a tear right now? And by the way,

“we are heading out on tour at the end of May. So if you want to come see us live,”

go to ProftyMarketsTour.com to get your tickets. Can't wait to see you. I'm Aesthet Herndon, and this is America, actually. We're all talking to each other just see what did we do wrong, what did we not see? I'm in Washington DC this week to interview Ruben Geigo. He's a Democratic senator from Arizona and he's been thinking openly about running

for higher office, but he's recently running to some hot water because of his connection to Congress Minerick's Wallwell. I have to learn from this and I will learn from this. But for me, it's not a

20-28 question. It's about what it means to be a better first boss in my office and also a better

center to my constituents. This week on America, actually, we asked Geigo about predatory behavior in Washington. His plans for immigration reform and more. Hi everyone, Kara Swisher here. We just won the Webby Award for the best interview show in

Here are some you don't want to miss. Tristan Harris, the co-founder of the Center for Humane Technology. I talked to him about his biggest worry when it comes to development and deployment of AI Hintint. It has something to do with the CEOs and how they stand to profit. I interviewed

Documentarian Louis Theroux, his latest documentary into the Manus Fear focuses on the incredible

and horrifying influence this group of individuals has, especially on young men and boys. And recently, I caught up with Katie Kurok, Amy LaRaca, and my brother, Jeff Swisher, to debunk some of the fads and misinformation behind the billion dollar wellness industry.

“And we talked about the important medical tests that are actually worth your while.”

All of these conversations are available now. You can find them on YouTube or wherever you get your podcast and we've got plenty more lined up for the summer, so be sure to subscribe to on with Kara Swisher to catch them all. Explain what the Fed actually is, why it exists, and how this one institution control the interest rates on your mortgage, credit cards, student loans, and more. We're diving into

why raising or cutting rates isn't just boring policy talk. It's the difference between affording a house or watching prices spiral out of control. Plus, I'm breaking down the current controversy over firing Fed board members, and why both Republicans and Democrats are freaking

“out about it because this fight isn't just political theater, it could mean real chaos for your”

wallet. Listen wherever you get your podcasts or watch on YouTube.com/yourrichbf. We're back with Proftory Markets. Emerging market stocks are on a tear right now. The MSCI emerging markets index hit a new all-time high yesterday, suppressing its February peak. The index is up about 16% this year. That's roughly three times the gains of the S&P 500. South Korea and Taiwan are leading the move driven by AI

chip demand. This latest rally came on a report that Iran offered to reopen the straight in exchange for the U.S. lifting its blockade of Iranian ports. However, the oil markets remain on edge with Brent crude still trading at around $110 a barrel. So, hit a help us unpack seeing in emerging markets right now. We are speaking with Sid Jane, deputy portfolio manager at GQG partners. Sid, thank you for joining us on the show. Before we get into what's happening

“here, could you just remind us what emerging markets are? What is this category? What does it entail?”

Absolutely. So, emerging markets is a broad term generally includes countries that are less developed earlier on in their financialization. But frankly, from a market perspective, a lot of countries that fall under that aren't what you would consider emerging. So, for example, a Taiwan, South Korea, this is generally a highly developed high-income countries. But because of their legacy, they still get included under the emerging markets from a market's perspective.

Yeah, I always think that we should create a new name for them. I just feel like emerging markets

doesn't really do it justice either way. Those markets are up 16% year to date. They sold off when they are on war started, but they've now recovered all of it. And that's three times more than three times higher than the S&P's gain so far this year. So, they are massively outperforming U.S. markets at the moment. I guess the question is, why is that happening? Sure. So, what's interesting with the current composition of the emerging market index is that it's really not a

reflection on the underlying emerging market economies. It's basically become a bet on the AI capex build out you're seeing. So, the big drivers of the emerging markets for the last better part of the last two to three years now have been the semiconductor plays specifically in Taiwan, TSMC being the big one and South Korea, the memory companies S.K. Hinex and Samsung. And it wants that that's pretty much mind blowing is that if you look at it a year to date basis, those three

semiconductor companies TSMC Samsung S.K. Hinex are driving almost 70% of the entire indexes earnings growth. Wow. So, this is basically become a one-way bet on the capex build out that you're seeing. We saw a similar thing last year where again emerging markets weigh out performed the S.K.

S.P. was up to 16% emerging markets was up 30% for the year kind of incredible performance.

So, there was a big driver and just based on how large these companies are as a portion of benchmark

it moves the needle. So, for example, TSMC alone has a higher weighting in this benchmark in the entire country of India. So, it matters, but there are a lot of bright spots you're seeing across other non-semic semiconductor markets. So, for example, 2025 was a fantastic year for pretty much every country in South America, Brazil being another large winner, not just in 2025, but year to date, where the countries are actually doing quite well. Economies are improving. Their stocks are incredibly cheap

“and an important catalyst has been a electoral cycle where the countries are moving from”

the left on the spectrum to more way right-wing business friendly environment. So, you're seeing that dynamic. But by in large, I would say, a lot of these emerging markets are structurally improved versus what was the case 10 years ago. 10 years ago, these economies were in a funk, Morgan Stanley called, had a term called a fragile side for a lot of these countries, but as a cycle, they've turned around and built this finally coming back up for a long time.

Do you think that this is something that we're going to see continue? I mean, it's been kind of a spectacular rally for emerging markets, lost year continuing into this year and I feel like that was a big question at the start of the year, which is like, it was an anomaly that the U.S. was kind of outpaced by basically everyone else lost year. The question for 276 was like,

is that going to continue to happen? So, before the answer is yes, do you think that it will

continue to be yes going forward? So, I would say you do have to look at it from a country by country basis, because again, the index is so misleading given how long sight it is on AI. If the AI epic story slows down or God forbid turns negative ever, the index will be in a world of pain. However, outside of that, there's a lot of attractive bottom-up stories. I mean, I talked about South America, India, we're finding opportunities Eastern Europe. So, there's actually quite

“a bit of exciting names and I think what's again, where we are on the cycle is so fascinating,”

where, for the first time, you're seeing earnings growth in these countries actually look pretty strong, which was not the case pre-COVID. So, for example, if you take an India from 2010 to 2019, India earnings growth was basically zero on a dollar basis. Now you're getting loaded meetings, earnings growth, the answers of fundamental change versus what was the case before. How much of this has to do with the sell America trade, which got a lot of,

made a lot of headlines last year? It turned out not really to be sell America. It was probably more like hedge America. You weren't really seeing that much selling pressure on US stocks, but ultimately, you were seeing a lot of buying pressure on all the other stocks.

How much of this is that versus, say, just the incredible performance of a handful of these AI

companies? So, I wouldn't go, I wouldn't characterize it as sell America, but rather just people realizing how under-exposed they are to the rest of the world, because, for the better part of 15 years, the best earnings growth by far wasn't the US. There really was not many other options. The Tina trade, so to speak, there's no alternative. That's kind of over. Where, yes, US has some fantastic companies, but from a growth perspective, you're seeing it percolate

to other parts of the world, and so it doesn't make sense to have all your eggs in one basket, where you can find better opportunities at generally lower valuations outside the US. So, to move a rebalancing, then a wholesale, let's get out of America. Yes, but certainly to do with it, it sounds like a rebalt. I mean, so much exposure in the US, and then it's like, okay, well, we need to de-risk somehow. Just go back to Iran for a moment.

As I mentioned, there was this sell-off, and then emerging markets recovered, and it seems as though this is largely a result of investor expectations about the supply chains of these chip companies,

“I think, though it's kind of hard to understand how the market's really feel about Iran and the”

straight-of-formers, what can be said about what's happening in Iran and how it relates to the performance of emerging markets so far? What do we know about the relationship between the two? No, it is an excellent question, and I don't think it's just an emerging market question, but also a developed market question in the US. So, the AI excitement has thus far overcome any potential

shortage, so to speak, is worse than the oil shortage. That's the market perception.

“Our view is that the streets are still very much closed. Oil, Brent oil is close to $110 per barrel,”

and if you look at the refined products of gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, they're closer to $200 per barrel, and you're already seeing an economic slowdown across most Asian countries, and our view is that the next leg will be in Europe. So, we're actually thinking the markets are being very complacent about the risk of an oil shock or a higher for a longer oil environment. What are you? It's so interesting, because I could understand why American investors feel this way.

This complacency that we all, that some people believe is present in the markets right now,

as it relates to Iran. In America, there's an argument to be made that America is insulated. We're

energy independent. This isn't going to be that much of a problem for the US or for US companies,

“but then I see the performance of emerging markets stocks in areas where we are seeing a lot of”

direct economic consequences, where gas prices are rising far higher than we're seeing in the US, which makes me think why on investors in those markets, why are they feeling complacent, why do they feel optimistic about the situation despite the fact that on the ground, as you say, it isn't really getting better? Yeah, it's interesting, because in a lot of the non-AI countries, so to speak, you are seeing earnings get cut, and there is, like for example,

an India, Malaysia, Philippines, where there is quite a bit of nervousness when you talk to other

market participants on the implication energy shock. The new ones, again, going back to earlier point is it doesn't really matter yet at all actually for the big chip companies. So for example,

“these companies have another big leg up on the back of Intel earnings a couple of days ago. And so”

if your view is that AI is structural, these companies in theory can grow through any sort of energy shock, although we find it skeptical if a lot of their customers are struggling, the people using AI or the people spending or digital advertising, there will be a ripple on effect to the capex you see, but that's the market you thus far, that these are secular road stories. Yeah, it's so interesting, it seems is there. I mean, we talk a lot on this podcast about how

AI is essentially the US stock market at this point, and you can't, if you're investing in any index finder, it doesn't even invest in corporate debt, you are exposing yourself to AI. I hadn't fully considered how much that is also true of emerging markets too. I have markets around the world. AI is literally everywhere, you cannot escape it. I could talk about this for hours with you, but we are out of time. I'm going to let you go, said Jane, deputy,

portfolio manager at GGG partners said we really appreciate your time. Thank you. Appreciate your time, thank you. Some news in the world of AI, open AI and Microsoft have officially renegotiated the terms of their relationship and have reached what some are calling a truce. I just as a reminder, Microsoft and Open AI have had a contractual relationship for many years, but recently that

situation became contentious. Part of the agreement was that in exchange for its compute, Microsoft would be the only cloud provider that could sell Open AI products. In other words, the relationship between Microsoft and Open AI has long been exclusive. But now they're changing that. Open AI will be allowed to partner with other companies, which means they can now sell Apache BT through other platforms such as AWS, which is Amazon's cloud unit, which effectively

means that the relationship with Microsoft is now an open relationship. And that is why a lot of people are calling this a win for Open AI because they're no longer tied up in their sugar daddy relationship with Microsoft. Kind of. And this is the part that investors seem to ignore in the morning when Microsoft shares fell, but slowly started to realize as the day went on. And that is that this is also a win for Microsoft for a few reasons. In the older agreement, for example, Microsoft had to pay

percentage of their cloud revenue to Open AI because of this exclusive Open AI offering that they got to sell to their customers. Well, now they don't have to pay revenue share to Open AI.

In other words, Microsoft's cloud revenue just went up. At the same time,

Microsoft still has significant control over Open AI. Microsoft will still receive a percentage of Open AI's revenue over the next five years. They will still maintain 27% ownership of the entire company. And they will still get unfettered access to Open AI's technology. Only the difference now is that this access will end in 232 versus the previous contract where it would end as soon

“as Open AI achieved quote, AGI, artificial general intelligence. How did they define AGI?”

They didn't. In other words, Open AI could have ended that agreement basically whenever they wanted.

Well, now they can't. So this is what we call a great deal. And that is both sides are equally happy with the situation, but also equally unhappy with the situation. There are pros and cons to both no one really comes out on top. And so the conclusion for Microsoft investors here

“is that the picture now is roughly the same. The company still needs to prove itself with Microsoft”

co-pilot. It still benefits from its relationship with Open AI, although it still shouldn't

become dependent on that relationship that was also true before. And it's overall business compared to the other hyper scalers, for example, is still significantly undervalued. Microsoft is trading at 22 times forward earnings, alphabet trading at 30, Amazon's trading at 32. So we land where we land

“at last week. And that is that Microsoft stock still looks pretty attractive. As I mentioned a couple”

weeks ago, I bought it when the stock hit $400 and I bought again when it hit $380. It's now up to $425. We will find out more when the company reports earnings later this week. But as of today, it still seems relatively cheap. And this news doesn't do much to change that. Okay, that's it for today. This episode was produced by Claire Miller and Alison Weiss, edited by Joel Passen and engineered by Benjamin Spencer. Our video editor is Brad Williams. Our

research team is Dan Chalon, Isabella Kinsel, Chris No Donahue and Mia Solvario. And our social producer is Jake McPherson. Thank you for listening to Proof to you markets from Proof to Media. If you liked what you heard, give us a follow. I'm Ed Elson. I will see you tomorrow.