What did they want from Professor Galloway?
To do one or more of those Andy Rooney segments.
So, you're Andy Rooney. You know what really bothers me about Sodapop is?
We've got a lot to get to. So, let's dig in. Hunter Biden, he's into his act, too, and I'm loving it. He's has fame on X, former president son now has 700,000 followers on the platform after he reemerged last month saying, "I'm Hunter Biden. You never actually heard from me." Since then, he's taken this incredibly candid approach. He's quite canny at social media, joking about his previous controversies, including drug use. In one post, he addressed the bag of cocaine found at the White House in 2023, saying it definitely wasn't his because he would never forget in his forgotten his drugs. In another, he replied to an accusation that he was part of an elite oligarch class with a selfie of himself at a Super Eight motel off I-95. Um, it's really interesting because he's actually engaging with MAGA people a lot and they're kind of liking it. They're kind of liking him. Really interesting. I know it's kind of silly and sort of me, but I gotta say I find it very interesting how he's doing it. It's authenticity, I guess. Any thoughts?
I think people... Yeah, he's like, he's funny,
Yeah. And I think people love that kind of vulnerability and honesty. And also, I think I'm on this anti-optimization kick or... I think the optimization trend has just gotten way too far.
And you see that if you're truly about optimizing, you go to 80%. 80% of good sleep, good health, good nutrition, and then you indulge the other 20%. You don't want your metrics to consume the joy in your life. And also, I think people are just sort of ready for a funny guy who smokes crack.
Well, he doesn't anymore, so that's...
Anyways, from what I've heard, it has... it's pretty addictive. But anyways, I hope for him that he's no longer smoking crack.
But I think Hunter, he's just a unique personality. He's got that kind of, I don't know, for lack of a better term, that Twitter wiz.
But the thing that kicked it off, and I hate to admit this, was his interview with Candace Owens.
Yeah, that was interesting.
That was part of his comeback.
And I refused to watch it because my understanding is he kind of indulged your conspiracy theories on Israel, Charlie Kirk, and Trump's assassination attempts, or he didn't push back.
But the Google search on Hunter Biden has skyrocketed. He is, you know, he's an interesting guy. And there's, get this, there's now a 26% chance on Khi that he runs for president in 2028.
No, he's not president in the fact that he's defending the Bidens. They've been so clottish about defending themselves. I don't think Joe Biden's so great. Or Joe certainly isn't. But he's sort of like, "Yeah, we're broken people. So what?" And like the stuff you're throwing around about me isn't true, but some of it is. So, I think that's why it works is that he's defending his family in a way that feels...
That's a great point. People want to like a Biden right now.
Well, but they... I don't... The Bidens have done a great job, you know.
That's my point. They're looking for someone to like. In fact, I thought, okay, Dr. Biden. I don't think she's... she hasn't served the Biden family well in my view.
Yeah, they seem, you know, she's mad and righteous. Yeah.
Yeah. I don't... Anyways, I'm really enjoying Hunter. I'm really enjoying what you're doing. And it's... see where it goes. I'll be interested because you can't just live on Twitter and social media alone. As Spencer Pratt just found out, there was a lot more heat around him than there were votes. And so, he's just been surpassed in Los Angeles. And of course the right is saying, including President Trump, that the election was stolen. It wasn't. There was a very big movement around... it's Nithya Raman, who is a very well-qualified person. And she's pulled ahead of him in the LA mayoral primary. And of course the right is calling it rigged, but it's not. That's how they do votes in California, slowly because a lot of mail-in. So that was a lot. It was sort of snakes... he was like snakes on a plane of politicians. That's my feeling. Although we did okay. He got a lot of votes still.
I actually think the California elections are somewhat heartening, you know.
Hilton was attention. The Sara appears to be experiencing competence and he appears to be doing well. And the mayoral race... I mean, at some point we're going to talk about candidate quality because it struck me as incompetence versus a conspiracy theorist. But I like the fact that he came in third. It's actually bad for Bass. It would have been better in a traditional...
Div because this other woman's impressive in many ways. She's a democratic socialist, I think. But she's got, you know, she's an MIT person. She worked on homelessness. She worked in India. She wor... she's a really interesting character. Well, I don't know enough about her, but I certainly am going to learn. She's got a race on her hands here now.
She is interesting, but more than that, it's D versus D now versus D versus R. And D versus R in LA, it's vastly skewed towards D. Especially when the D is... their primary qualification to run for mayor is that their house burned down. So, you know, California politics have been kind of... it's blurred the line between entertainment and public service, but you know, at least Netflix cancels shows when they're underperforming. They don't seem to do that in California. And I think a lot of this has started with not only Trump, but the fact that it appears that the primary qualification for a cabinet post now is that you're a, you know, a news host or a celebrity.
Well, but it didn't work, right? You know, it didn't work. He had a lot more heat on social media than real actual voters. You know, it's interesting because we talked about this last week, but you know, we said that Daniel Lurie is doing a great job in San Francisco, but he's also online. And I said, "It's not like he's compelling like Spencer Pratt who's a douche nozzle." And I got a call from... and all I pick up the phone, I wasn't looking who called and he goes, "Not compelling." And it was Daniel. And I said, "Yes, that is how you... that is why you're doing so."
Meant that in the best way.
Yeah. I said that. I said, "No, you're not compelling at all." And he is a douche nozzle and you are not a douche. Anyway, it just shows you that social media may not be what we think it is. Right. Exactly. In terms of politics. Voters want what voters want and I really feel good about voters right now. I think they know what they want. Anyway, let's move on to the big story. Again, FCC chairman Brendan Carr, the has inserted himself into the 60 Minutes drama. I don't know why because he's supposed to be deciding on this. Carr posted on X about fired correspondent Scott Pelley after Pelley spoke to the New York Times, responding to a comment about how Pelley was surprised he got fired. Carr wrote, "One of the reasons why trust in media is low. So many legacy journalists are completely out of touch. You do not get away with that behavior in any run-of-the-mill job." Well, yes, Brendan, you. And he was asking a basic question of why were people who had no reason to be fired got fired anyway. He should not be weighing in. Neither should any of those people, though. Pelley says CBS management are the ones out of touch. Let's listen to a clip from an extraordinary interview he did with a friend of mine, Lulu Garcia-Navarro at the New York Times. It was full of stuff. So, let's listen to it.
Of course, we have to reach out to a younger and younger audience. But their argument about joining the internet age is just disingenuous. It's almost as if Barry Weiss and Nick Bilton were sealed in a time capsule in 1990 and it just cracked open. They've just discovered the internet and they're running around telling everybody how important it is at CBS News. Yeah. Join the fight.
Anyway, I love his voice. It was such a good burn. We've been saying that it's not the... everyone knows this. It's not new fresh things. So I want to talk about this in a different way. I mean, I thought the interview was extraordinary and extremely damaging. That said, I don't know if something's going to happen about it. But we had a great talk last night. Scott called me and there's a business aspect to this I really want to talk about. Obviously, the interview was really a lot and including this idea that he put his hands on Nick Bilton, who was put in place to run 60 Minutes. A lot of controversy around him. Which didn't turn out to be true, but this one executive, Tom, and I don't know how to... I can't pronounce his last name. Anyway, he was saying that he tried to manhandle Nick Bilton, which wasn't true, and then said, "Oh, okay." You didn't like the lack of reporting on the behalf of CBS management is really quite striking. And Scott called them out. Scott Pelley, whose voice is fant... Maleficulous. Maleifulous, whatever. But you had this really great take about business, and I'd love you to reel it out a little bit because I thought it was different than the typical those kind of thing, which in fact, they are. But go ahead.
Yeah, I think if you just look at the industrial logic or lack thereof, you get to what's going on here, and that is this is a rare instance of broadcast media performing well. And so from an industrial logic standpoint, you just wouldn't with it. And we use the analogy performing open heart surgery on your best performing player.
I thought that was so smart.
Makes no sense, right? So why does this make sense? Because regardless of whether you like the Ellisons or not, David Ellison is a smart guy. His father is a brilliant business person. He just is. And they understand... they may not understand media or journalism, but they understand culture incentives and they vastly understand shareholder value.
I would say Larry does, but go ahead.
Fair enough. Although I would argue his son at least seems competent.
He's competent. He's competent. Not around media, but he's good at making Maverick, Top Gun. But go ahead. So the question is why would they... why would they with something that's working?
Yeah. I mean that's the question. So it becomes all right. First off, and this is where I go too. While journalists and media are obsessed with themselves and think this is like an attack on democracy and journalism. I understand that the chill on journalism and that journalism is a key component of democracy. I'm of the camp that quite frankly if the Washington Post and 60 Minutes go away, journalism is going to be just fine. That's not to say we shouldn't be concerned. That's not to say this isn't another example of Trump trying to put a chill on journalism. I get it. When you try and encourage taking vaccines off the market, I think that is a real existential threat to the health and wellbeing of Americans. I think if 60 Minutes were to go away, those people are going to find amazing jobs and create reasonable facsimiles of incredible journalism as they've continued to produce at 60 Minutes.
May I just push back a tiny bit? This... that's not true. They are an important part of the many fixtures and it's working. I do think it's more than that. And what Scott Pelley was asking, why are you firing competent people who are doing a great job? And I do think they're important. I think it's important to have a top of the food chain and a lower part too. And it's sort of... so I don't... I do think with the Washington Post is very damaging because of some of the stuff they do and with 60 Minutes, same thing. So go ahead.
And I believe that those journalists and their outstanding work and their willingness to take truth to power will find a ton of different vessels if the Washington Post and 60 Minutes as a construct go away.
I don't think it's a threat to journalism.
As evidenced by what you're doing and hundreds of other interesting new companies are doing.
Having said that, what's interesting here is just looking at it through a business lens.
It doesn't make any sense to go up to Derek Jeter and say, "We don't like you. We want to bench you." Or it's like benching Lionel Messi in the World Cup. It just doesn't make any industrial logic. And so, if you go up the food chain, it's one of two things here. Either the Ellisons are so passionate about having a viewpoint that puts forward a more conservative viewpoint that they're willing to take these risks and potentially kill Messi right before the World Cup or whatever. I don't... and I don't think that's it. I think that the math is pretty straightforward here. I think the Ellisons, the owners of Warner Media, the new owners have decided there's more economic upside if they do Trump's bidding and potentially lose value at 60 Minutes. It's not economically an important business to CBS. It might have a halo effect on the whole thing.
But even CBS, the network itself, I think the Ellisons have done the math and decided that we would rather... there is more... and this is a problem with an autocracy and this is a bigger indictment in our society. I think the Ellisons have done the math and say we would rather risk killing a healthy player that's a small business and currying favor with a guy who can give us TikTok on a platter at 80% off.
They already... he already did that.
And I think he'll continue to do it as long as we curry favor with it. And this is the problem. This isn't about the death of journalism. This is about an autocracy where oligarchs are made if you support the current administration. And the Ellisons have done the math. Yeah, we'd like to hold on to 60 Minutes, but what's more important... we don't care. I think don't care is more important.
Yeah. A nice to have. We don't really care because the numbers here are so small. Where the numbers turn into tens of billions of dollars is if the president is on our side because he perceives us as being on his side. And if we have to throw 60 Minutes on the funeral pyre to show loyalty, so be it.
Yeah. It's really interesting when you said that. At first I was like, "Oh, Scott, it's important." You know, and then I thought, you know, actually when Tim Cook brought that golden statue, why'd he do it? Like because the reputational hit was bad. And then he appeared at the Melania thing, right? It's such a reputational hit. And I was like, "Oh, he invested a hundred million here and got like... Elon giving money to the PACs invested 50 million here, he got 500 million, billion here or five billion here." And I was like, "Oh, it's a trade." And they don't mind taking the reputational hit. Same thing with Bezos. Why would he go yammer on so idiotically, right? Because he wants something, right? I mean, that whole... he's gotten more mature. Like, come on. Like, stop it. Like, you just saw that Kristen Welker interview, looks like a giant baby. A giant baby Huey. And I was like, you're right. He gets... they get more money out the other side. The issue is they don't mind throwing out the really beautiful thing, right? Like sometimes when you junk something that's just fine but they... that's what it is and so it feels much more... it is political. It is political because I do think they're much more pro-Israel, etc., etc. And much more like anti-woke, which sort of feeds into their selections of editorial selections. But it is about like they'll get more out of it. Now, two things I'd love you to comment on. Look, Trump's at the very end of this... we're at the end of the... you know, this... the king is falling down like on a daily basis. He looks quite sick. Let's not pretend he doesn't look like he had a stroke or something. Something happened to him. And so it's at the tail end. You see the Republicans pushing back. You see the polling which is really significant even among female conservatives, male conservatives, farmers, like all his thing breaking down. Why would you double down on him right now? Because it seems like you'll get the reputational hit because afterwards when the Democrats come in, they're not going to forget. And by the way, probably the attorney generals will file a suit while we're taping this against... to slow down the merger and it will slow down the merger. So why would you do it now? Like if you're as smart as Larry Nelson is, and trust us when we tell you he's very smart. Why would you do it? It seems like the dumb bet right now.
Yeah, I don't think it is. Kara, keep in mind that the deal has... the deal hasn't closed yet, right? It has to close, right? The deal hasn't closed. If Brendan Carr gets a call from Trump and say, "I'm having second thoughts about media consolidation," a deal hasn't closed. And Trump has shown a willingness to violate all norms, not afraid of court battles. Yeah. Maybe gets overturned in court in a year or two years at which point CBS continues to hemorrhage viewership. Trump can absolutely kill this deal. Trump can call Ellison and basically say, "I want you to cancel Big Bang Theory" and he would do it right now. And I'm trying to come up with a CBS show like the new Matlock, whatever it is. Yeah.
And I think... I think Larry calls his son and goes, "Kill this show."
Because if this deal doesn't go through and it doesn't close, I mean, so one, he has very strong short-term incentive to be supportive of Trump. And two, they still have two and a half... you know, you still have two and a half years left and nothing proves... I mean, think about all the guys that showed up that we mocked, all the tech executives from Sachin Nadella to Altman.
Did tariffs affect any of them?
No. And they got contracts with government. They got this, they got that. They got everything they wanted.
And Jensen Huang, I'm going to take you to China and try and get you to sell chips. And now the Chinese are saying, "Fuck you. We're not going to buy your chips." There has never been a return. Not capbacks, not AI, not plant property equipment, like investing in Trump right now. That is what a good autocrat does. He says, okay, but what happens come November when the Dem... if the Democrats win the way they think, if they even win half of what they're going to win, there's going to be hell to pay. Or maybe they don't think... the problem.
Maybe they don't think that.
Here's the problem. Graham Platner... Graham Platner has had a series of really disturbing accusations against him by various women and the talking. Okay. The problem is we apply a purity test to ourselves and to our candidates that the Republicans don't apply. And as a result they feel safer. They're like, we threat... lock her up. Have you heard... we don't have chance of lock him up at Democratic. We're better than that. And I get it. I like that. But the reality is the incentives are the following right now. Get on... get in with Trump. Get your money. The Democrats are...
And that was the wrong word to use.
That's all right. I like that.
The word... the Democrats, they'll feel bad for us and they'll try and understand us and they'll haul us in front of Congress. Fine, but the upside here is so much greater than the downside. We're dealing with an autocrat.
You're right. It's a risk assessment. I do make a little prediction here. We should probably move on in the thing, but I think the Democrats are much more less a than you think. I think so. I have talked to a lot of them and they're like, "Well, let me ask you this. Do you think... do you think they should replace Platner right now so we have our high ground?"
No. No. No. You know, I don't. And I have an argument with my wife about it. No, I don't. I don't. I think the voters of Maine should decide. That's my feeling. I always feel like the voters should decide. And if they make bad decisions, they have to live with it, right? If they had picked Pratt, they have to live with it in Los Angeles. And I know the rest... everyone who didn't vote for them have to live with it. But I am... I'm a firm believer in voters. I just am always... I always feel like they always get it ultimately. And I think pundits and everyone else doesn't often get it. Sometimes they do. Sometimes they're very canny. But I just feel like to me you're betting on someone who's about to collapse. And we've been saying that... we've been saying that for a while.
Have... Look at him. Look at him. It's... You think he looks that... Do you really think he looks that bad?
I'm just... Look, I'm not talking about him. Yes, I think he looks that bad. But that's not what I was talking about. I'm not talking about death. I'm not like... whatever. He's old. He's going to die within 10 years. So, whatever. It's going to... somewhere in there. Somewhere in there. And but the numbers... I'm looking at the polls and a year ago I said I think his polling is going to collapse and it has collapsed. And so that's what I'm looking at is voters. Voters don't like this. And I think they are sticking their chin out so far with all their nonsense. Why would you fire competent people? What it looks... and also it creates... listen, other CBS executives are furious because it's ruining the CBS brand which is a very successful... it's done okay in the network with all their old people shows, they're doing okay. And so I think you're starting to see leaks from... you know, there was one from this woman who was running CBS Entertainment. You're sort of starting to see it from other news. You're just starting to see it and if she could... this could mess up the deal itself because of the heat on this on the other side, right? It'll embolden more people from 60 Minutes to speak out. It'll embolden more stories. And let me tell you folks, there's more shoes about to drop. I hear about everything. And so, it's going to be a continuing leak, leak, leak. And if you remember the Chris Licht thing, and I just think David Zaslav is just quicker to fold, right? Or... but it took Jeff Bezos two years to fold on Will Lewis, but eventually it messes up the brand. And they happen to have other things. Now, Jeff just has the Washington Post so he could hold out for two years, but Zaslav was starting to feel the pain elsewhere. And so, that to me is the problem. So, and then David looks dumb and David looking dumb to daddy is not a good thing for him. You know what I mean? Like, and so that's why I think there's a lot more at play here. And I do think the Democrats will extract something from them in a way. I don't think they're as weak as you think they are. And from hearing from them, bygones is not in their vocabulary right now. It is we will now be coming around and remembering what you did. So maybe they won't do it, but that's the tone I get from them. So we'll see. Anyway, I really enjoyed your idea of what they're doing and you're absolutely right. The business way to look at this.
Just to talk more about 60. So four of the seven... I think four of the seven anchors have left and the key executives, the editors, the key editors who you don't know their names but critical... that's really the heart and lungs. But the 75... what you call staff editors, junior producers, statisticians, did it... none of them have left. It all comes down to this. I think it's the following. Just as we thought, they can't leave. Let's be clear, they have jobs. There's not... it's not a big market. So, right. And they have mortgages and not only that, I know exactly what the Ellisons did here. They called them and said... they called Lesley Stahl and said, "Lesley, you're an icon. Things are tumultuous. We promise, we promise we'll let you do whatever you want. And by the way, if you just stick around another 12 months until things settle down, there's another $5 million bonus for you." That's what I would have done. And I'm sure that call took place. And then they called the 12 critical people of the rank and file and said, "Look, tell everyone that when there's this kind of tumult and the top of the pyramid gets chopped off, there's a tremendous sucking sound upward." And they would be stupid not to hang around to see what additional opportunities emerge.
And people will always think about themselves before they think about the brave new world of the attack on journalism. They have mortgages to pay. They have college funds to fund. And this is what will happen. Just as we thought all the noise in social media was going to dictate the mayoral race, all the noise around 60 is going to come down to the following. If the first six or dozen episodes in the fall are good, 60 will be fine. And if they're not, that thing will collapse under the weight of all this controversy. So, it's going to be about the product. Full stop. If you can make the product because you do need those correspondents...
I know the people they're calling because I'm hearing from everyone they're calling and none of them want to go there. They don't want to... they're calling some interesting people who are good but all of them are like, I'm not selling my reputation.
How do they get guests? And also I never miss an opportunity to make myself feel important. I was approached about a role at 60 Minutes and what did I say? I'd break your arm. Correct.
Well, and I said no way. I don't want to be... that's like the last thing I mean. And quite frankly, why the is Lesley Stahl staying?
Well, can I give a word on that and then we'll move on. I know Lesley really well. She used to come to all my conferences. She's really terrific. I've talked... she was trying an internet thing off a couple years ago and I helped her with it. She's not texting me back. Let's just say, Lesley, I've helped you a lot. I really feel irritated by the fact that you won't even text me back. But that's another issue. I think I predicted she would do this and everyone said I was wrong. But listen, this is the end of her career. She wants that retrospective of her career next year or the year after. She wants the party. She does have a loyalty to the place. She's been there so long and so she feels by staying, she's protecting it like at least someone's here to hold it back and watch them. My is... and I think that's genuine. I do. I think it's genuine with her. She's... she like you cut her open she bleeds 60 Minutes, right? So I think that's in her thing and she wants that. Like if she left now there'd be no retrospective, there'd be no end of her career and I think she wants that from... that's from a selfish point of view. From the other point of view she thinks she can save it, she can at least protect it for the time being until she'll wait them out. My problem is they're going to go just around her. They're just going to go around her and I don't think she realizes that how much they're... as canny and smart and tough as she is, she doesn't have as much leverage by staying. And that is I think she made a mistake but I thought she would stay. So that's my take on it. So I don't know because I haven't talked to her.
Okay. So under... in the latest episode of...
I'm glad you didn't go. Thank you. I would have not been happy about that.
Under the auspices of the latest episode of Don't These People Have Friends? Lesley Stahl is an icon. Lesley Stahl is 84. Between 1 and 2% of 84-year-olds work full-time. By the time you're 87, it's less than 1%. You know, Lesley Stahl may live another 20 years. She's going to be working full-time for a matter of, you know, years, if not months. I mean, that's just... and I know that sounds agist. I am an agist, and so is biology.
She shouldn't be buying green bananas at this point.
Now, I don't think it's a good choice. As a friend, a friend should say to her, Lesley, you put out the following memo. I have loved and appreciated and feel blessed to have been a part of this organization. I am proud and did my best regarding my work here. It is time for me to leave.
Yeah, I would agree. And everyone else would have filled in the blanks. In every room she would have walked into for the rest of her life, she would have got a standing ovation. Instead, now under some narcissistic notion that she's going to be able to control what happens in every production meeting. Oh my god, how naive are you? She had a chance to put the world's greatest dot on top of an exclamation point at the end of a career and she's missed it. This was the perfect... perfect exit to a storied career. I know. I'm not... I'm not angry. I'm not posting her for staying. I'm posting her for not taking an unbelievable opportunity. I agree. And goodbye.
To put a Tiffany ribbon on the aquamarine blue box. That was her Tiffany career.
What a missed opportunity.
Goodbye, sir. Like that kind of thing.
Good day, sir. Can I ask you... I want you to say what they wanted you to do in 60 Minutes, which would crack me up. Because then it's not to do the like big interviews with Trump or do the investigative pieces where you dress up in a beard just for people to know. What did they want from Professor Galloway?
To do one or more of those Andy Rooney segments.
Yeah. So, you're Andy Rooney. And by the way, what really bothers me about is...
I grew up watching 60 Minutes with my mother.
Had someone called me 12 or 24 months ago and offered me that role.
I would have just... I would have said I'll pay you. What do you want? What do you want? What do you want me to do?
I would have... that would have been literally other than hosting a podcast with you, that would have been my crowning achievement professionally.
And now I'm not... I'm not going to add to this chorus watching that of unqualified people. This cosplaying journalism. I'm like, the last thing I want to do now is wake up to social media after they hear that I'm joining... I'm having anything to do with this show right now.
Yeah. And you were scared of me, right? Were you scared of me?
I just would have yelled at you like, "Are you..."
No, no, no. I... You know what? Can I just say you're better than that? That's how I feel. Yeah.
And quite frankly, I think I like the people there more than you do. I don't have a... you know, I actually...
Yeah. This is the last thing I want to be associated with right now.
Anyways, you're stuck with me, Kara. You're...
I know. I love it. I love it. You can do 60 Minutes things here and you can do them about penises. So, you can do it there. I'm just saying. Anyway, we're going to move on. Really interesting story, but I appreciate your business thing. I was so struck by it last night when you called me. Anyway, we're going to go on a quick break. When we come back, the SpaceX IPO approaches.
Support for this show comes from DeleteMe. It's never too late to start protecting your online privacy. My wakeup call when I looked at the dashboard of DeleteMe and saw how much crap was out there about me and a lot of my personal information all collected in really strange and weird ways by a lot of companies. I had no idea who they were and made me feel like that I was being stalked. I discovered a lot of inaccuracies also at the same time and I found an enormous amount of information about my life for dozens of years. So, if you've ever thought I should really be doing something to protect myself from stalkers, scammers, and hackers, but you're not sure what, here's what you do. Go to joindeleteme.com/pivot and enter the code pivot. You'll get 20% off DeleteMe. DeleteMe removes your personal information that's being sold online. You can get an individual plan for a little over $8 per month with an annual plan. And discounts get even better with a 2-year plan or whenever you enroll your partner or family. Take control of your data and keep your private life private by signing up for DeleteMe now at a special discount for our listeners. Get 20% off your DeleteMe plan when you go to joindeleteme.com/pivot and use the promo code pivot at checkout. The only way to get 20% off is to go to joindeleteme.com/pivot and enter code pivot at checkout. That's joindeleteme.com/pivot code pivot.
Support for this show comes from Cohere. As AI advances, one thing matters more than ever, staying in control. Most AI comes with strings attached, like sharing your data and infrastructure or compromising your independence. With Cohere, you don't have to give up control to gain capability. You can have both. Cohere started 7 years ago with a bold mission. Scale enterprise intelligence without sacrificing sovereignty. Their solution AI leaves you in charge of your data and infrastructure, allowing you to maintain your competitive edge. It's designed for enterprises, governments, and organizations that refuse to give up control in pursuit of innovation. From frontier models to out-of-the-box tools, Cohere gives you everything you need to build and deploy secure, scalable AI that drives growth and delivers results. Their platform is designed around your business with models that can be customized and trained on your proprietary data. So, the solution is uniquely yours. And control doesn't stop at customization. Cohere is built with multi-layered protections, access, and industry certified security standards that help safeguard your data while supporting privacy, compliance, and other requirements. As AI continues to transform every industry, Cohere gives you the power to put it to work today on your terms. Take charge of your AI with Cohere. To learn more, visit cohere.com/vox.
Scott, we're back. I thought you did a great job sort of analyzing the SpaceX IPO. It really helped me and a lot of people were telling me that. But the company is expected to begin trading on the NASDAQ this Friday in what could be the largest IPO in history. A lot of moving parts. A couple things we've learned in the last few days. SpaceX has set its share price at $135, giving the company a valuation of roughly 1.77 trillion. You said it would be under two trillion. It won't be fast-tracked onto the S&P 500. This is a new development after the index decided not to change its rules for these mega cap IPOs. Thank you. They probably got a lot of pushback from people. And there's more. SpaceX also made a major deal with Google selling off its seed core. Google will pay SpaceX $920 million a month over the next three years for computing power. That includes access to at least 110,000 Nvidia chips. Elon was smart to grab those. This is similar to a deal that SpaceX recently made with Anthropic. So, it's becoming an infrastructure provider. Essentially, Google, which is already an investor in SpaceX, everybody is, by the way, is calling this a short-term timely agreement to ensure they can keep up with surging AI demand. They will go get their own stuff later and they're not going to rent it. Talk about what's happening now and what you see happening in the NE because it's the next week and the deal and we're going to talk a lot about the IPO on Friday obviously, but right now going into it, how are you looking at it? It's just so interesting and my judgment is clouded because I've been so wrong about Elon Musk's adventures in the market and I haven't fully appreciated what a meme stock he is and everything he touches. So look, Alphabet agreed to pay SpaceX almost a billion dollars a month for compute capacity from Xi from XAI.
Data centers. What's interesting is that they overbuilt, and it ends up that's fine because they can just rent the capacity out to someone else at probably a higher price than they had originally anticipated. Look, SpaceX's current multiple, it's going out at 94 times revenues. The deal would value a deal that would total at least, you know, 1 trillion in additional market cap from if you just valued this what it should trade up versus its competitors, even being generous. What does it matter for Alphabet? It owns a 6% stake in SpaceX which it purchased in 2015. So, and they did this when the company was valued at just $12 billion. So, 6% of a 1 trillion in market cap is about 60 billion or more than 5x.
Remember, remember when Yahoo had the Google stake? That was one of the big things they got out of it anyway. They had a big stake in Google.
By them agreeing to purchase this compute, when you look at the multiple, for every dollar they spend on compute, they're technically getting five back in the increase in the value of their stake in SpaceX.
So we talk about these circular deals, but this one looks like a no-brainer for Google.
So I think SpaceX's multiple will deflate dramatically as revenues grow, but the point stands. You know, Alphabet has a vested interest in SpaceX's revenues going up. And then, look, I think in the last just 7 days, maybe 14, there has been a dramatic vibe shift. And that is this study that came out at MIT that said 95% of CFOs are stating that they're not getting the return they had initially anticipated.
I was on a webinar hosted by Section talking about AI, and the comments I would describe is whenever people come in and talk about the brave new world of AI, it's like a giant eye roll. People in the business world are really starting to sour on the brave new world of AI. And this won't be the same litmus test directly as Anthropic or OpenAI. And I'm curious if you sense this, but I sense a little bit of like, you know what, this is beginning to feel like the job apocalypse everyone's been predicting is not here. The notion that this is going to change absolutely everything. The idea that we're going to have one-person companies that could be billion-dollar unicorns.
Right? Remember that one?
You know, I had the CEO of Lilly. He said AI's ability to accelerate drug discovery is vastly overhyped. I just wonder if people are beginning to say, okay, this is beginning to feel a little 99. And it feels like there's been a tangible vibe shift around AI in the last few weeks. Do you sense the same thing?
How does it affect the SpaceX IPO? Because there's other businesses in here. Is it just because this is an AI IPO or?
Well, the AI that's got attached to it, as I refer to affectionately as a money furnace, is, I mean, there's no doubt he's saddled. He's turned a great space business into a company hemorrhaging money because he's going to try and fund and play catch-up in AI. What's interesting is it looks like he's got a rip cord here in the form that he's now renting out his infrastructure. But nothing feels or says froth in a market like a 94 times revenue valuation.
Right? But is that Elon or AI? That's the question. Is it just the Elonness of it?
