The Bull Case for 2026 — ft. Tom Lee

Ed Elson and Scott Galloway are joined by Tom Lee, co-founder, managing partner, and head of research at Fundstrat Global Advisors, to break down why he’s so bullish on 2026. He also shares his outlook on Bitcoin, explains how his company is leveraging AI, and highlights the sectors he thinks are currently undervalued. Visit fundstrat.com/tom for complimentary access to Tom Lee's Fundstrat research. Check out our latest Prof G Markets newsletter Follow Prof G Markets on Instagram Follow Ed on Instagram and X Follow Scott on Instagram Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.

• 0:00Speaker 00

  Are your ad campaigns lighting up the dashboard? But not the pipeline? That's bull spend. And marketers are calling it out in dashboard confessions.

• 0:09Speaker 01

  My boss asked for results, so I opened my dashboard for the only positive sounding metric I had: impressions.

• 0:17Speaker 00

  Cut the bull spend. See revenue, not just reach. LinkedIn delivers the highest return on ad spend of major ad networks. Advertise on LinkedIn. Spend $250 on your first campaign and get a $250 credit. Go to LinkedIn.com/campaign. Terms and conditions apply.

• 0:30Speaker 02

  Energía baja. Falta de concentración? Nebla mental? You might be dehydrated. Gatorade Zero Powders han sido diseñados científicamente para ayudarte a mejorar el balance de hidratación en el cuerpo. Hechos con la mezcla número uno de electrolitos, sin colores ni sabores artificiales. Shop now online or at retailers nationwide. Gatorade: Hydrates better than water. Is it in you? Signos de dehidratación leve y moderada. Consulta a tu médico si los síntomas persisten.

• 1:00Speaker 03

  Welcome to Sephora.

• 1:01Speaker 04

  I'm looking for a perfume that's not too perfumey?

• 1:05Speaker 03

  I got you.

• 1:06Speaker 05

  Serum moisturizer or moisturizer syrup?

• 1:09Speaker 03

  Let's get into layering.

• 1:11Speaker 04

  My concealer is making me look worse?

• 1:14Speaker 03

  Sounds like the wrong shade. Let's get you matched.

• 1:18Speaker 06

  There's only one store that really gets what you're going for. Get beauty from people who get beauty. Only at Sephora.

• 1:25Speaker 07

  Hi, I, uh...

• 1:26Speaker 03

  Let's get you a basket.

• 1:29Scott Galloway?

  Today's number 30. That's the percentage of US travelers who now use generative AI tools to plan trips. Ed, true story. When I enter a foreign country and have to fill out a visa form and it says profession, I put chaos. Boom! That's right. That's how I roll, Ed. I'm an agent of chaos coming in.

• 1:50Speaker 09

  Listen to me. Markets are bigger than us. What you have here is a structural change in the world distribution. Cash is trash.

• 1:56Speaker 01

  Stocks look pretty attractive. Something's going to break.

• 1:59Speaker 09

  Forget about it.

• 2:00Scott Galloway?

  I have so many travel stories, Ed. When I was a first-year analyst right out of UCLA at Morgan Stanley, I don't know if you know this, but I'm not really good with details. And before there was GPS, there was Maps. And I lived in LA. And my other analyst, Don Larson... We had to go to Stanford for a recruiting trip. So we're bombing to the airport. I take a right turn on Los Angeles instead of a left turn. And finally, Don catches up with me and says, you're going the wrong way. Turn around, get to the airport, and we see the plane pull away. And then we, there's one every 30 or 60 minutes. San Francisco, we're at Stanford lecturing, talking about how great Morgan Stanley fixed income was, which was a total lie. So we went up there and started lying to people.

• 2:42Ed Elson?

  It's the job.

• 2:43Scott Galloway?

  And then a woman comes in and says, is Donald Larson here? And they said, yeah. And Don went out and he came back in and he was all upset. His father had had a heart attack. And because the plane we were, we missed went down. And it was, you probably, you're too young to remember this, but it changed aviation history because a disgruntled employee got on the plane with a gun. And employees up until that point didn't have to go through metal detectors, pilots and crew. And he shot the pilot and the plane crashed and everyone on the onboard died.

• 3:13Ed Elson?

  Oh, my God.

• 3:13Scott Galloway?

  And because I turned a right, we missed the plane instead of a left.

• 3:17Ed Elson?

  Oh, my God.

• 3:18Scott Galloway?

  I thought to myself, does anyone I know know that I'm even up here? And it was no, so I didn't make any calls. And of course, my friend, Dennis, my roommate from the fraternity, was expecting me and called my mom. And my mom called my assistant and my assistant looked it up and said, yeah, he was on that flight. And so I called my mom and my mom had friends over because they thought I had gone down on this plane and she thought she was hallucinating. Not a hallmark story here. Not a hallmark story here. But anyways, Ed, people think I'm inconsiderate because I'm late all the time and I get lost a lot. I don't mind missing stuff and being a little bit late. It's worked out for me.

• 4:02Scott Galloway?

  It's worked out for me.

• 4:04Ed Elson?

  You're focused on the important stuff. That's what matters. But yeah, that is crazy. I'm, I'm just imagining you driving a car right now, which I can't picture. And I, I wonder, are you a good driver? Because I know you don't, you don't drive anymore, really.

• 4:19Scott Galloway?

  I'm a great driver because I grew up in LA. And I started driving, literally at the age of 15 and a half, I got my learner's permit. And then back, California dreaming culture in California was, I'm not exaggerating, I got my driver's license on my 16th birthday. And it just freaks me out that my, my son right now is technically, what is he, nine months away from driving, which makes no sense. But yeah, when you're in LA, you just drive everywhere all the time. So it wasn't that I was especially deft at driving, but you just get, you just get very well practiced.

• 4:52Ed Elson?

  When, when's the last time you drove?

• 4:54Scott Galloway?

  That's really interesting. It's probably in a couple of years. I don't, yeah, I don't drive, but I can drive stick, I can drive a big rig.

• 5:00Ed Elson?

  Wow.

• 5:00Scott Galloway?

  I love cars. When you grew up in California, you love cars. I just don't, I hate shoelaces, passwords, keys and cars because they all demand things from me. Also, most of my relationships are now starting to ask for something in return, which is really bumming me out.

• 5:17Scott Galloway?

  That's not why we're here.

• 5:21Scott Galloway?

  The key term is service, specifically acts of service from you to me. And I pay for everything. That's the deal. Talk to me about cars, Ed. Do you own a car?

• 5:32Ed Elson?

  I don't own a car. My girlfriend does, though. And we've, so I drive around with her car and it really is sort of a game changer.

• 5:40Scott Galloway?

  What kind of car does she have?

• 5:41Ed Elson?

  Subaru Outback.

• 5:45Scott Galloway?

  So she's a lesbian?

• 5:47Ed Elson?

  Exactly.

• 5:47Scott Galloway?

  Sorry, Ed. So should Claire, should we tell them?

• 5:50Speaker 11

  I had the same, same reaction in my head.

• 5:54Scott Galloway?

  And let me get it, you're, she doesn't want to have kids, but you're going to get a German shepherd puppy.

• 6:02Scott Galloway?

  Do you want my car history?

• 6:04Ed Elson?

  Yes.

• 6:04Scott Galloway?

  My first car was best gift I have ever received, hands down. Best material item that has meant more to me than anything. And I've had a lot of nice material items. When I was 15, when you lived in California, if you didn't have a car, you had no social life. There was no, there was no Subway, there was no Uber. We had the RTD, which was just awful. And so if you wanted to have any social life, you had to have a car. And my friend Adam got a Fiat Spider. And then he bought an Austin Healey Mark VII. He was like fucking James Bond. He was this good looking guy in a leather coat. I didn't have the money for a car and my mom borrowed money to buy an Acura. And she gave me her lime green Opel Manta. I remember the day she came home, we used to practice driving it.

• 6:48Scott Galloway?

  She'd come home and go into the underground garage in our apartment complex and honk the horn. And I'd run down and she'd teach me how to drive stick. And on my 16th birthday, she came home and in this new like bad Acura. And she came up to me and put her hands on my shoulders and said, you're a handsome man who owns his own car now. And she gave me the keys to her Opel Manta. That's nice. Oh, I'm gonna cry. Not nice. Yeah. Anyways, I had that. Then I had a Renault LaCarr. Then I had a Rabbit. Speaking of closeted heterosexuals, convertible Rabbit. My, my girlfriend in college dated a guy with a convertible Rabbit. I'm like, okay, should we tell her? Anyways, and then out of business school, hit it pretty early.

• 7:30Scott Galloway?

  Got, got the Lexus GS300, which was the bad Lexus that never had a market, but it was a Lexus and I was super excited. Then I had three BMW 7 Series in a row, including Jason Stavers, who used to work with us here at Prop G, used to house it for me. And he calls and says, I'm, I figured we're on vacation. We used to go to Hawaii because we lived on the West Coast. Says, well, I got in a terrible auto accident. I ran the car into the side of like, I think it was Grace or San Ains Church. Like he swerved out of the way. Jason, I did not, Jason totaled your BMW. Yeah, Jason Stavers totaled, he totaled my first seven Series. He doesn't bring that up much anymore.

• 8:15Scott Galloway?

  You know, we do employee reviews. You're about to get yours tomorrow. By the way, we're asking you for money back. You're not getting a bonus. But I remember I couldn't wait to do his review because I had it as the first bullet point in his review, totaled boss's car.

• 8:32Scott Galloway?

  Anyway, so he goes, I've had this terrible accident, da, da, da, your car's starting. I'm like, just stop right there. I'm like, the important question is the following. How was the car?

• 8:43Scott Galloway?

  Ed, are we done with banter?

• 8:46Ed Elson?

  Let's call it there. We've got a big interview to get into here. All right, let's get into our conversation with Tom Lee, co-founder, managing partner, and head of research at Fundstrat Global Advisors. Tom, thank you for joining us.

• 8:57Tom Lee?

  Great to see you and Merry Christmas.

• 9:02Scott Galloway?

  All right, let's bust right into it. You've been vocal that investors are still underestimating how strong 2026 can be. What's, why are you so bullish on 26?

• 9:11Tom Lee?

  I think the economy and stocks have been suppressed for the past few years. Part of it is, of course, that we've seen six, what I call extinction events, take place in markets, everything from COVID to the bullwhip supply chain effect as the economy restarted, to that the fastest inflation cycle in history, and then followed by the fastest Fed hikes in history. And then we've, of course, had a very controversial administration, which put tariffs in place in April of this year that caused a miniature bear market. And then we've even had the US bombing Iran's nuclear facilities. I think all of these collectively

• 9:53Tom Lee?

  had made, have made investors very nervous about what I call investing in full risk because these are what, six black swans that happened in four years. And I think on top of that, we've had a Fed that's had, has not really given a green light about monetary easing. And I think the Fed's reluctance has actually suppressed business, quote, animal spirits, because the ISM has been below 50 for, for more than three years now. So I think that's all been a business cycle that has been pretty good, but not one that has been really expansionary. And I think that starts to happen next year.

• 10:34Scott Galloway?

  It feels as if the market has become so concentrated or dependent or circling around a small number of stocks that to be bullish on 26. Sort of mandates that you're, well, tell me if you think this is true, indicates that you're bullish on the magnificent 10 and AI stocks. Is that necessarily true? And are you bullish on the magnificent 10?

• 10:55Tom Lee?

  Yeah, I mean, I think 2026 is going to look a lot like this year, meaning we are probably going to have many months where the market is actually down year to date. You know, I mean, this year we were down double digits at one point before the market recovered. I think that plays out next year. But for the reason I previously stated, I think that we end up a bullish outcome despite all the skepticism. And it does require large cap tech and AI stocks to still produce earnings growth and not have a lot of PE reduction so that you still get positive return. But I think the the rest of the

• 11:35Tom Lee?

  stock markets or the other 490 or so can actually perform well because if the Fed is cutting and interest rates are coming down and the business cycle is sort of really starting, that that's good for other stocks.

• 11:49Ed Elson?

  As you say, we've seen a lot of these black swan events, things that you would think would freak the markets out and make people worried. And yet I look at what has happened in the markets. And my view of it is, it's not necessarily that it's suppressing sentiment. To me, it almost looks like the market is deciding to shrug everything off. So when you describe how, you know, perhaps these black swan events have made investors perhaps have less lower risk appetite. To me, I'm almost kind of taking the other side of that in my head. I'm like, it seems as if these things happen, these things that are concerning. One example would be what we're seeing with these AI circular deals.

• 12:32Ed Elson?

  And it seems to me that the market is kind of swatting it away, shrugging it off, and and the market continues to climb. And that's what we've seen this year, and we saw the previous year, and we saw the year before that. We continue to have this bull market despite what many would say are really concerning events. So how would you think about that? How would you respond to my concerns there?

• 12:54Tom Lee?

  You're almost kind of mirroring what we're observing, but just with a different take. I mean, our take is markets climb a wall of worry. You know, historically, when there's a lot of skepticism. Stocks can rise. In fact, you know, markets actually peak on good news. You know, they don't peak when people are bearish. Markets peak when everyone's bullish and it no longer responds to good news. Just like markets bottom on bad news. And I think many people are skeptical, but stocks have risen. It doesn't really mean markets are shrugging off the concerns. That's one way to interpret it.

• 13:36Tom Lee?

  My other interpretation is, you know, it, there is a wall of skepticism. And I mean, maybe that's just the, it is like, maybe we're just talking about the same sides, just of the same thing. And, but, you know, like if, if someone asked me, are we, is it worrisome? You know, I was a technology analyst in the 90s. So I covered wireless stocks, starting in 93. And I witnessed the bubble that was created, you know, a decade in the making, really two decades in the making. And by 99, not only were, was there no skepticism, there was a, you know, excessive entitlement.

• 14:21Tom Lee?

  Investors were expecting stocks to do explosively. And, you know, a 20% upside wasn't satisfactory and valuations were already elevated and expanding. So I'd say that if I was trying to compare this to the bubble of the 90s and, you know, and wireless was a central cast character in that internet infrastructure build, we're, I don't really see the echoes of that today.

• 14:46Ed Elson?

  I think it's so interesting what you say there about, you know, we're looking at the same things and we're drawing slightly different conclusions about what that means for markets. And we had a similar conversation with, actually, I mean, you were the chief equity strategist at JP Morgan. We spoke with their head of investment strategy, Michael Semblist. And we were talking about a lot of these issues. And where he ultimately landed was, he was quite bearish or bearish-ish. And I just want to play you what he said and get your reaction, see what you think.

• 15:21Speaker 13

  It would be kind of shocking if you didn't have some kind of profit taking correction. In 2026 at some point on the order of 10 to 15%. It would be, I'd be, I'd be really surprised not to see that.

• 15:35Ed Elson?

  So that's his base case is some, some sort of correction 10 to 15%. Looking at your 2026 outlook, you've got S and P price target of 7,700. We're at 6850, so that would imply, you know, a little over 10% rise next year. So two very different views. Where, where do you land compared to his view? What do you think he might be overlooking and where do you differ, do you think?

• 16:06Tom Lee?

  Our outlook actually does call for a drawdown next year. So very similar to this year of probably closer to 20%. So I think we are going to have another miniature bear market next year. But then we're going to recover. I mean, let's, let's take 2025. Let's say that at the end of last, at the end of 2024. And actually, we did talk about, you know, the idea of a drawdown in 2025. But let's say that someone plays the clip. So let's say it's Michael Semblis, but you don't, let's just pretend he's saying at the end of 2024. And he says the market will be down 10 to 15%. That doesn't rule out where we are by the end of 2025, because in fact, we did have a drawdown.

• 16:51Tom Lee?

  And I think I'm, I'm not again, saying, I actually think Michael and I are pretty aligned in the sense that I think there is going to be a drawdown next year. He says he wouldn't be surprised, but to me, it doesn't mean that's the end of, of the actual bull market. And in fact, I think stocks fully recover.

• 17:10Ed Elson?

  So the, the wall of worry here that, that we're talking about and that, that you outline in, in your outlook. You got several elements in there. You've got, and these are the things that you describe as people are worried about, investors worried about. So politically divided nation, social unrest, Supreme Court overturns tariffs, new Fed chair. And then you have two ones here that I, I really agree with. I feel like I'd love to have you dive in on AI valuations. Which I think a lot of people are concerned about. And then also 20% equity returns in the past three years, i.e. each year for the past three years, the stock market has risen

• 17:52Ed Elson?

  by an average of 20%, which may imply maybe we're running out of steam at some point. Could you just unpack what your concerns are in that wall of worry? And do you think those would be the trigger of such a correction?

• 18:08Tom Lee?

  Let's start with the one that you just mentioned. The stock market, you know, we're up 16%. So I think if we rally three percentage points, we'll be three years of 20% gains back to back. And it's actually more common than we realize. In fact, when we look at the last 65 years, you know, it's happened in 20 different, I think it's happened 20 times in different countries and multiple times in the US. I'm sorry, 12 times. It means a lot of good news is priced in. I mean, of course, you know, stocks being up 20% a year, three years in a row, it's definitely pricing in a lot of good news. So to me,

• 18:53Tom Lee?

  I do think that we have to consolidate those gains. And that's why I think a drawdown next year makes perfect sense to me. But because there isn't a lot of leverage in the economy, you know, household sector has not really borrowed money. It's been expensive to borrow money. And even margin debt, it's risen, but it hasn't risen parabolically. So it's actually essentially tracked S and P gains. So that's, it's not like people are borrowing faster than the market's been going up, especially if you look at a five

• 19:30Tom Lee?

  year CAGR. So I would be in a camp that as long as the economy's holding up, that drawdown is going to be viewed as a buying opportunity. Now, on AI valuations, it makes perfect sense for someone to say, a lot of the valuations for AI are probably absurd because this is the nature of like, of an exponential sector, right? If we look at an industry that could grow parabolically for 10 years.

• 20:08Tom Lee?

  All of the future value is in the latter half of those years, right? So it's, and then we're trying to discount that back to today. And so stocks are going to look absurdly expensive. And more importantly, investors make a common mistake, which is that they assume that the existing universe of companies are going to be the central cast characters over the next 10 years, which is not the case. So the reason valuations don't make sense today is that, one, of all the AI stocks, I'd say it's probably safe to say only 10% are going to be good investments. Maybe it's even generous, maybe 5%.

• 20:52Tom Lee?

  And of course, there's going to be a new emergence, set of new players. And in fact, the economic model might change. But it doesn't mean it's a bad investment. And we've highlighted this as generational traits in past reports. For instance, like if you look at the internet, if you bought the internet basket in 99, okay? So you bought it near the peak and you held it to today. You actually still outperformed the S and P 500, even though 99% of the stocks went to zero. So it wasn't, it was a bad investment if you tried to pick a winner, but it wasn't so bad if you held it as a basket.

• 21:34Tom Lee?

  So I think AI, it's probably going to be fair to say 90% of the stocks are going to be, do way worse than people expected. They were too optimistic, but I think as a basket, it's probably going to outperform.

• 21:46Ed Elson?

  That all makes sense to me. I'm with you. But it seems to be a little bit more nerve wracking when we realize that a lot of the AI companies are the largest companies in the world. It's the big tech companies. I mean, I think Google is an AI company at this point, or an AI stock. Meta, Nvidia, I mean, these are the largest, most valuable companies in the world. And the market really depends on their, their performance. So when I think about the idea that, you know, Many of these companies and the and the expectations that have been pinned to the AI cycle, the fact that that could affect some of the largest, most valuable companies in the

• 22:28Ed Elson?

  world, where we're seeing the highest concentrations in those small companies, the higher concentration than we've ever seen in history. To me, that makes it scarier what you just said. So I guess my question is, do those companies, do the big tech companies, the magnificent seven, do they count in your analysis of AI valuations being too high and the possibility that perhaps we might lose out or that the value won't actually show up for many of these companies?

• 22:58Tom Lee?

  I might even just add to your concern because there's a because there's a lot of CapEx here, too. So that these are, you know, a lot of the Mag Seven used to be asset-light businesses. You know, they the remarkable equity, you saw rent-seeking model of them was that they could create growth with very little spending. I mean, R and D spending was there, but really, CapEx was not there. But today, as you know, AI is extremely capital-intensive and it's energy-intensive, and it's only justifiable if it's replacing real work somewhere else.

• 23:40Tom Lee?

  Then you can justify it, because now it's creating assets to replace future OpEx, you know? I'm going to give you a spin about what's happening that is not disagreeing with what you're saying, but it's probably observing a change in the reality, okay? Which is,

• 24:01Tom Lee?

  tech companies are becoming a bigger part of our life. So naturally, they're going to have a larger share of spending. By the way, we wrote about that in 2018, that if you go back to 1930, and you just use simple demography, okay, population tables, whenever the population growth rate grows faster than the prime-age workforce.

• 24:32Tom Lee?

  Which means you have compounded labor deficit. You've always had a technology cycle. That is 1948 to 67 and 1991 to 99. In both of those periods, the population growth rate was growing fast, which is demand faster than worker supply. And we entered the third epic or era of labor shortage, which started in 2018 and is going to last to 2035. So then, technology spend is necessity because you don't have as much labor available. So there's going to be less wage spend.

• 25:15Tom Lee?

  Now, if I substituted the word and called this, instead of the word banks, tech companies, I called them financial institutions. We would not be saying there's a financial institution bubble because for every level, for every unit of GDP growth, there's a unit of financial spend. I mean, it's literally the other part of the ledger. And in fact, the financial industry has all circular spending. I mean, think about this. Real estate is valued as a separate asset, but every company needs real estate just to run a business. So why are we valuing real estate? Like, in a GDP sense, real estate should be an interim product, not a final product. So I think tech is becoming so central to the economy, especially because of labor

• 26:00Tom Lee?

  shortage, that we're, when we see tech intensity growing, people are flagging that as a bubble. Whereas, I'm actually just pointing out, it's actually out of economic necessity. But it becomes a bubble if the multiple we're applying to the tech streams don't justify higher valuation. I think tech earnings are probably more valuable than Costco, for instance.

• 26:27Ed Elson?

  Yeah, I agree.

• 26:29Tom Lee?

  Or Walmart, right? But do you know Walmart trades at 37 times more earnings and Costco trades at 50 times? So Nvidia, trading at 27.

• 26:40Tom Lee?

  I mean, is that, is there a bubble in Costco and Walmart because Nvidia is at 27x earnings?

• 26:45Ed Elson?

  Hundred percent. And we've looked at that, those costs, that Costco valuation, it's crazy. I totally agree. But then I go back to what, something that Aswath Damodaran said when he joined us on the podcast. And he said, he can't see value anywhere. He thinks everything is overvalued when he looks at the stock market. So that's the other side. And I, as Scott and I have discussed, you know, we're not necessarily in agreement with him on all of that. But that I think becomes a concern. And then to the, to the circular deal making and the capex point, I think the concern, unlike the financial institutions is like, the, we haven't seen the AI product

• 27:26Ed Elson?

  proven itself yet in terms of its ability to provide the value that we're pricing in, I guess, is, is the, is the problem. We haven't seen that these data centers, one, I mean, are even going to be necessary to keep the workforce and the labor market going, as you say, to keep our economy growing at a fast clip. Therefore, it seems that we're making giant, giant predictions with not that much evidence, which, you know, we could call it a bubble, or we can just call it what, what I said, which is, we don't really know what's happening. And yet we're spending tons of money. And so if there becomes a moment where suddenly everyone says, wasn't what we thought it was, then that could be quite damaging to portfolios.

• 28:11Tom Lee?

  Yeah, hundred percent agree. Because by the way, anything that is relying on future growth, none of us is an expert on the future. I mean, that's right, like that, there's many roads to the future. Um, one thing I just want to point out, Benjamin Graham's book, The Intelligent Investor, which I did read. I don't know if you remembered his rule of thumb about what a proper PE is.

• 28:35Ed Elson?

  No, please.

• 28:35Tom Lee?

  It's 12 times plus two times the growth rate. That is in his book. I'm just saying, when I, when someone says they're a value investor and they're saying stocks are expensive, I know they didn't read his book because I read the book.

• 28:51Speaker 04

  I love that.

• 28:52Tom Lee?

  But you know, as you know, that's because he didn't believe things could grow 10% a year. You know, that's three out, like 10% is a lot of growth, um, back then.

• 29:01Scott Galloway?

  Yeah, that was a pre-digital economy.

• 29:02Tom Lee?

  The second point I would make is when I did wireless in the 90s. Okay, now I was in my twenties. Um, I was a senior analyst at the age of 23, so I was really lucky to be very young and actually a senior equity analyst. But when I was covering wireless, the industry only had 34 million cell phones in 1993. And the industry telecom services was dominated by long distance and local telephony. These things called the Bell operating companies. And they made all their money from two businesses. The Bells made, the biggest profit maker for the telephone companies was the directory business. And number two was local business telephony.

• 29:47Tom Lee?

  They made more money selling local exchange service to Chase than they did from any other business. So when wireless was happening in the 90s, as me in my twenties, my imagination was ignited. And you know, I talked about how, you know, you could do so many more things with cellphones. And we joked about how it would have changed the path of like the Revolutionary War, right? If Paul Revere had a cellphone.

• 30:15Tom Lee?

  But most of the money managers were in their 40s and 50s and all the experts were in the 40s and 50s. And they mostly thought cellphones was an expensive yuppie toy. They said the economics didn't make sense. You could never fit that much traffic on cellular waves. And all the money was in long distance and local. So the telephone companies and the long distance providers, including MCI, would do everything to protect their existing businesses and use regulatory strengths to make sure cellular never really grew. Now, look back, that was, of course, the wrong bet.

• 30:56Tom Lee?

  And remember, cellular companies had to build, they had to spend $50 per pop to build out a cellular system. So if you took any city.

• 31:06Tom Lee?

  Of 10 million people, you had to spend $50 per person just to build a basic system. It was enormously expensive and cellphone penetration was 6%. You had to make a bet that you would have a lot of penetration. I think that I'm seeing people make the same arguments against AI. And I think one of the things we have to say is which lens are you using? If you're using it through the lens of a 40-year-old, really wealthy person, no new technology looks interesting to you because you're more interested in protecting your wealth and incumbency. But young people are the ones who change the world. Look at Chase Institute. Credit card spending growth only comes from people under age 50.

• 31:51Tom Lee?

  And what are young people doing with AI? I mean, my daughter is, one of my daughters is in college, my youngest. They have adapted to OpenAI and ChatGPT in a way that I can't even fathom. And so those people represent the future vintage of AI adoption. Just like cellular adoption in the 90s, it was 70% of 20-year-olds had a cellphone and it was like 5% of 60-year-olds. So of course, all my clients who are in their 50s and 60s said, you know, who needs a cellphone?

• 32:32Tom Lee?

  They didn't realize that those 20-year-olds become 60 and that 70 became 90 and soon everybody had a cellphone. So I think we have to be more, we have to think about how the 14-year-olds using these models compared to us. Because we're already, you know, we've already lived our lives and we've established our regimes and our, so it doesn't mean that AI stocks are correctly valued. I'm just saying we have to really understand that the future change is coming from young people.

• 33:19Speaker 00

  Flowing ad budget on metrics that look great till the CFO sees them? That's bull spend and marketers are calling it out in dashboard confessions.

• 33:29Speaker 01

  I remember telling my boss, it'll be good for the brand when leads were slow. Yeah, it it wasn't.

• 33:36Speaker 00

  Cut the bull spend. LinkedIn lets you target by company, job title and more. Advertise on LinkedIn. Spend $250 on your first campaign and get a $250 credit. Go to LinkedIn.com/campaign. Terms and conditions apply.

• 33:50Speaker 02

  Energía baja, falta de concentración, nebla mental? You might be dehydrated. Gatorade Zero powders han sido diseñados científicamente para ayudarte a mejorar el balance de hidratación en el cuerpo. Hechos con la mezcla número uno de electrolitos, sin colores ni sabores artificiales. Shop now online or at retailers nationwide. Gatorade hydrates better than water. Is it in you? Signos de dehidratación leve y moderada. Consulta a tu médico si los síntomas persisten.

• 34:19Speaker 03

  Welcome to Sephora.

• 34:20Speaker 04

  I'm looking for a perfume that's not too perfumey.

• 34:24Speaker 03

  I got you.

• 34:25Speaker 05

  Serum moisturizer or moisturizer serum.

• 34:29Speaker 03

  Let's get into layering. My concealer is making me look worse. Sounds like the wrong shade. Let's get you matched.

• 34:37Speaker 06

  There's only one store that really gets what you're going for. Get beauty from people who get beauty only at Sephora.

• 34:44Speaker 07

  Hi, I.

• 34:45Speaker 03

  Let's get you a basket.

• 34:53Scott Galloway?

  We're back with Prof G Markets. You said something, Tom, that really stuck out to me. You said that we went, we're in this labor shortage cycle from 2018 that will last through 2035. And I just, you can't avoid the catastrophizing around the destruction of the labor force from AI. Do you still believe we're going to be in a cycle of labor shortage even with AI?

• 35:16Tom Lee?

  I vacillate because there's times where I'm, I like, when I read a book like The Coming Wave, I panic. And I realize like, wow, like we, we need to re-educate society. But. One thing that gives me hope is that we did at FunStrat study another technological wave that wiped out at least 20% of the labor force in the 20th century, which was frozen foods. So what many people don't realize is that when Charles Birdseye created Flash Frozen, which by the way was a venture backed by Goldman Sachs, it was a VC-backed company. I love this.

• 36:00Tom Lee?

  And by the way, his name is Birdseye because he was an ornithologist. He actually was studying birds. But he found that the Inuit tribe in Alaska had kept their fish super fresh and it's because they were putting it in a frozen saltwater solution that Flash froze the fish. If we look at the labor tables from the 20s, 40% of the US labor force was employed on farms. It was literally, we spent, most of the economy was people working on farms and most of the service sector that was defined back then were household servants, people working for someone else.

• 36:39Tom Lee?

  Food was over 25% of the wallet prior to frozen foods being widely mass market because most was spoiled on the way to the supply chain. And so grocery aisles were mostly fresh and what was frozen back then had freezer burn and was terrible. So Flash Frozen allowed suddenly the cost of food to drop dramatically because you had less spoilage and the number of people working on a farm today is down to what, 2% of the US workforce? So Flash Frozen was really the key innovation that brought down the cost of food from 20%

• 37:19Tom Lee?

  of the wallet to, what is it, 5 or 6% today and reducing farming labor from more than, I think it was 40% at the peak, down to 2. An economist in 1920, okay, let's just pretend on CNBC in 1920, there is none, but let's say there was a CNBC in 1920 and these economists were saying, frozen food, if it comes along and it's going to wipe out 95% of all farmers.

• 37:49Tom Lee?

  This is going to wipe out the US economy. The US economy can't survive frozen food. And instead, it freed up time, right? And it created, it allowed people to be repurposed. And it created a completely new labor force. So I, so Scott, to your point, I think that there is an adverse outcome. But then, when I look at past episodes of huge labor disruption, it's actually had positive outcomes.

• 38:16Scott Galloway?

  Every technology thus far, it's followed the cycle. You're talking about some short term destruction of labor and then profits and innovation get reinvested. And we reinvent ourselves. But I want to, we're about the same age, Tom. I want to walk down memory lane. In the 90s, I think you were, you were a telco analyst with Kidder and then Solomon. Is that right?

• 38:34Tom Lee?

  Yeah, that's right.

• 38:35Scott Galloway?

  And I was raising money for internet companies, the internet companies that started e-commerce companies in the 90s. And I can't help, but this smells a lot like Teen Spirit. I feel like I've been to this movie and I have this certain muscle memory. And I might be wrong, but I'm curious if you would, if you think my timeline trues up with your, where you think we are. And that is, The Economist perfectly called the dot bomb. They said how it would happen, how it would unwind. They were exactly right, but they called it a 97. And the Nasdaq doubled between 97 and 99. And what you said also that really struck was that the market seems to be calling, climbing a wall of worry.

• 39:18Scott Galloway?

  And that is, in 97 and 98, we were just very anxious. These things are overvalued. There's no way we can sustain this. And the markets kept going up. And then in 99, we had this, this zeitgeist where all the short sellers, all the long hedge, all the hedge funds, I mean, Julian Robinson, just like threw in the towel and gave up and said, I can't predict this market. And then there were all these articles, I remember one specifically in the Wall Street Journal saying, maybe we have moved to a new economic model that the internet has ushered in. And we should be thinking about things differently. And then wham, the market crashed. So if I were to look back and trying to equate this to the 90s and the internet.

• 40:01Scott Galloway?

  You know, the internet timeline, it feels like we're more like 97 and 98. A ton of catastrophizing that might indicate a surge up. My sense is when prices are, P multiples are crazy, which I would argue they are right now. They go insane before they crash. Does this timeline, A, is that even useful to think about, this economic history? And does that timeline sort of where 97, 98, not 99, true up with what you're thinking?

• 40:27Tom Lee?

  It does, Scott. We both have experience of 35 years or more in markets and in technology. And we have to keep in mind that the median tenure of a portfolio manager today managing a fund is nine years. So they've experienced the markets really only since 2015, you know, being generous. So to them, the 90s is only a legend that their bosses talked about or things that they heard and it's become second and third hand stories.

• 41:03Tom Lee?

  Now, when I was a wireless analyst, there was so much meat to the stories in the 90s and that's like by the, in the 97 period, like real things happening, TDMA, adoption, the quality of the customers were good. There was real spending taking place. It wasn't startups paying for everything, you know? But by the late 90s, the customer quality had already essentially, you exhausted the post-pay world. You had to suddenly go into a prepaid model. And, you know, you, technology, what we called a bleeding edge.

• 41:48Tom Lee?

  There was innovation coming, but there wasn't apps and services to support it. Like, you know, picture messaging and, you know, these were still years away. So I'd say that it, there is going to be a moment where like,

• 42:05Tom Lee?

  We've all gotten so accustomed to stocks going up that we insist that that's the new regime. Like, that's what you're talking about in like 2000, right? That's when everyone capitulated. But that's not what I encounter today. You know, when we talk to our institutional investor clients, this is a market that's frustrating to them because they don't really want to be buying and buying expensive stocks. There's a lot of discipline in place today. And I think that that discipline is the reason markets are climbing a while. I worry because I think there's, as you know, a lot of cash on the sidelines. Sentiment is still really bearish and a lot of people are claiming that we're at a top. But again, I just, you know, in my experience, you know, people are not bearish at the tops.

• 42:49Tom Lee?

  They're bullish at the tops and I don't really find that many bullish people.

• 42:53Scott Galloway?

  When people talk about the types of jobs that AI will, quite frankly, destroy, I think they're describing the analysts at Fundstrat. So tell me what is actually happening on the ground at Fundstrat? How are you using AI? And what, if any, impact is it having or do you think it's gonna have on your human capital?

• 43:14Tom Lee?

  Wall Street itself has actually been a victim of technology because, you know, first, many investment firms have been using essentially versions of AI systems for a long time, right? They've been investing in quant systems and models. And the sell-side firms have invested in technology to replace labor constantly. I don't think there's been a year in my career on Wall Street that money wasn't being spent to actually reduce the labor intensity of the job. I mean, I remembered when I was at JP Morgan, you know, in the 90s and the early 2000s, trading occupied a huge percentage of the cash equities business, real estate.

• 43:58Tom Lee?

  You know, it was a couple of floors. And then one day, went to electronic systems and like the number of traders went to like, you know, a 10th of a floor. So I think that's the nature of Wall Street, that every job is eventually automated away. And so, value capture is shifting around. In the 90s, when I started, equity research was a back office job. You know, it wasn't like, because I went to Wharton undergrad and I graduated. I wanted to get into research. Firms weren't really actively hiring for research. Research was an apprenticeship industry. You had to like find a job and find an analyst that would hire you and take you in.

• 44:43Tom Lee?

  Of course, research has become a much more important business today as other parts of Wall Street became commoditized. But you know, when I graduated in the 90s, traders were the highest paid people, the sales trader. They were like the masters of the universe. And of course, now it's just computer code. So I think you're exactly right. In the future, a mediocre research person is not going to be any better than a mediocre open AI or LLM, right? So Wall Street needs to constantly evolve. I know that at our company, we are using AI at so many levels.

• 45:27Tom Lee?

  It's not just research and we are using it to ingest data. But it's really how we manage our data now and even how we manage our customer service experience. Because Fundstrat has 11,000 RIA and family offices plus around 400 hedge fund clients. So we, but the way we manage them and identify their needs, we are using AI. So I would say I have not found any of the AI models that have been shown to us and that we trial, because everybody wants Fundstrat to adopt one of their models, has not been good at stock picking. We actually run three ETFs.

• 46:12Tom Lee?

  Fundstrat Capital has Granny Shots, GRNY, GRNJ, which is a small mid-cap version, and GRNI. But GRNY has a one year of history. Has outperformed the S and P by 800 basis points this year. And it and none of the AI systems that have been shown to us have actually outperformed our own process for stock picking.

• 46:36Ed Elson?

  What would you say makes a great researcher and a great analyst? And then I want to get into crypto. So this is one of my final AI questions. But when you talk about AI is going to replace the analyst. What are the kinds of skills that makes you irreplaceable as an analyst? What kinds of things should white collar workers, working professionals in general, be trying to work on and be trying to hone in order to not be replaced by AI?

• 47:05Tom Lee?

  AI is very good at looking at the past. So if you need to build a model, you need to recall data, even say, give me the last 12 times something happened.

• 47:19Tom Lee?

  That is AI. But as you know, to do true training, then you need to have it work in the future. Now, future has not a binomial outcome. It's multiple forward scenarios and the probabilities are unknown of each future event. Okay. So you're dealing with so much uncertainty that I don't know how a probabilistic way to give you a single point answer would ever work. I mean, to give an example, someone will say, this is the fair value of a stock. And they say, this is the PE and this is the E.

• 48:03Tom Lee?

  And I, I can never understand that because I'm always wondering, which E are you using? And you know, I mean, like, because price is today, but then what's forward metric? And then how do you discount it? How do you explain to AI that you have to look at 10 years of future earnings, but you don't know which future earnings will actually matter the most? And then how do you assign the weights? I mean, that's really what we do at Fundstrat is we're constantly assessing the probabilities of future events and then deciding, we do have to pick a direction, right? Then we say this is the path we're going to take, but it's a guess. So I think that the best qualities of a researcher, at least in

• 48:45Tom Lee?

  my opinion, are you do need to be unemotional, but you also need to know the difference between conviction and being stubborn. Because stubborn is riding something when and believing in something when all the facts have changed. Conviction is basically riding through the volatility and it's not easy to tell the difference until history has already passed. And I think, you know, the third thing that's really important in markets is to know what's already priced in. I don't know if AI is going to really have a good sense for, like if all, if AI is the only thing managing money in the future, I

• 49:27Tom Lee?

  think a human will be the market because all the AI systems will be predictable. You know what I mean? And then you can spoof them all. So that, that, like, that's really where I think human judgment matters because, you know, I'm constantly surveying our clients and I'm in constant touch with them. So I kind of know where the money is and what the bets are and how they react to the Fed. And I don't know how you can program AI unless it is, well, it'll get very good, but they really have to think not just on a specific outcome, but on a series of future outcomes. And that's what we're always sort of obsessing over.

• 50:15Ed Elson?

  We'll be right back. And for even more markets content, sign up for our newsletter at profgmarkets.com/subscribe.

• 50:31Speaker 14

  The new LinkedIn Hiring Pro can't undo your last hire. The no-show. Who set you back because they didn't show up on day one? Or day two, or ever again? And now your product launch is delayed because you're talking to alien abduction podcasters to track them down. But LinkedIn Hiring Pro can help make sure your next hire sticks. In fact, businesses who use LinkedIn are 24% less likely to reopen a role in the next 12 months. Hire right the first time with LinkedIn Hiring Pro. Post a free job today at LinkedIn.com/quality.

• 51:02Speaker 02

  Energía baja. Falta de concentración? Nebla mental? You might be dehydrated. Gatorade Zero Powders han sido diseñados científicamente para ayudarte a mejorar el balance de hidratación en el cuerpo. Hechos con la mezcla número uno de electrolitos, sin colores ni sabores artificiales. Shop now online or at retailers nationwide. Gatorade: Hydrates better than water. Is it in you? Signos de dehidratación leve y moderada. Consulta a tu médico si los síntomas persisten.

• 51:31Speaker 03

  Welcome to Sephora.

• 51:32Speaker 04

  I'm looking for a perfume that's not too perfumey?

• 51:36Speaker 03

  I got you.

• 51:37Speaker 05

  Serum moisturizer or moisturizer syrup?

• 51:41Speaker 03

  Let's get into layering.

• 51:42Speaker 04

  My concealer is making me look worse?

• 51:45Speaker 03

  Sounds like the wrong shade. Let's get you matched.

• 51:49Speaker 06

  There's only one store that really gets what you're going for. Get beauty from people who get beauty. Only at Sephora.

• 51:56Speaker 03

  Hi, I... Let's get you a basket.

• 52:06Ed Elson?

  We're back with Prof G Markets. Speaking of future outcomes, last month, I want to talk about crypto. Last month, you said you think Bitcoin could go as high as $200,000 in January. We're currently at $94,000. It's been a rough couple of months for Bitcoin and for crypto. Where do you stand on Bitcoin right now? Do you still believe that we could hit 200K in January? What do you make of what's happening in the crypto markets?

• 52:37Tom Lee?

  Well, crypto's had a rough year. It was actually having a great year until October 10th. Because on October 10th, Bitcoin was up 36% for the year. And now it's currently, I think it's like flat for the year. So it lost a lot of its gains.

• 52:55Tom Lee?

  I'm still very optimistic because crypto still has its best years ahead. But crypto should have had a good year this year and it was on track to until there was a liquidity crisis on October 10th. That was a bigger wipeout in terms of liquidation than any event in history. The most recent one before this would have been 2022 with FTX. And that wipeout pales in comparison to what happened on October 10th. But in 2022, it took eight weeks before crypto, the smoke cleared, the leverage wipeout

• 53:36Tom Lee?

  was enough in the mirror that crypto prices began to recover. This week is the eighth week since that crisis. And I think crypto prices are beginning to actually recover. That's why I think Bitcoin can double from here by the end of January. Now, many people don't expect it because of the four-year cycle. And that's going to be the big question. If Bitcoin breaks 125 in January, there is no four-year cycle.

• 54:07Ed Elson?

  What did happen on October 10th? Everyone knows crypto markets got hit. It seems unclear to people what actually happened. And as you say, it was one of the largest liquidation events that we've seen in the history of crypto. What happened?

• 54:24Tom Lee?

  I'm going to give you what we've been able to piece together. And I would say that it's like a 90% correct. Because, you know, there's going to be 10% you don't know if there was something else.

• 54:37Ed Elson?

  Just to clarify, is the reason we don't know what's happening because of the anonymity of crypto? We don't know who owns which wallets and so it's harder to track what's actually happening?

• 54:45Tom Lee?

  Well, it's that and plus, you know, when we look at liquidation events like in the stock market. Ninety percent of what someone will explain is probably correct, but 10%. Like 90%, it would be 90% to correct say that the February to April decline was largely due to the Trump tariffs. But the other 10% would be like, well, stocks were already expensive and they were overdue for a correction. So that's, that's what I mean by 90/10.

• 55:17Ed Elson?

  So give us your 90%. What do you think happened?

• 55:20Tom Lee?

  On October 10th, there was two things that happened. One was a triggering event, which was Trump announced, you know, a re-escalation of tariffs with China, like a tripling of proposed tariffs. And because markets were closed, historically crypto is what reflects reaction to a macro event when you're already aftermarket hours. Like if the S and P was open, crypto probably wouldn't have been gut punched as hard. But crypto prices fell. Now crypto prices falling, system can handle that because, you know, crypto is a hyper volatile by nature. So large swings in prices shouldn't really overload the system.

• 56:05Tom Lee?

  And even volume shouldn't overload the system because crypto trades, you know, there's so much automated trading. However, there was an algorithm in place that actually what I call a glitch happened on a, on a specific exchange. Okay.

• 56:25Tom Lee?

  Many people use leverage in crypto. I mean, it attracts leveraged trading, but people put up collateral so they can do leveraged trading. One of the collaterals is stable coins. Okay. And stable coins are a pretty safe collateral because hey, if it's tether, it trades at a dollar, it's pretty safe collateral. And so you can borrow a lot against safe collateral. And if it was USDC, Circle, that's also a really stable coin because it's, it's backed by dollar. However, there was a popular stable coin called USDA. It was an algorithmic stable coin. Okay.

• 57:07Tom Lee?

  And on one particular exchange, because of the shock of Friday, internal prices, like people bid ask of that stablecoin actually got out of whack. Suddenly, the price went to 65 cents, even though it's supposed to be essentially worth a dollar. So, but within one exchange, that the quoted price dropped to 65 cents. Well, that meant that all the collateral for every account that used that particular stablecoin to borrow money was now in deficit.

• 57:42Tom Lee?

  Okay, even if it was just $1 that traded at that price, it was already putting every single piece of collateral at risk, into deficit. So then something called ADL was triggered, automatic deleveraging. And so in one exchange, everybody who had, who had used that stablecoin as collateral basically got wiped, their accounts liquidated. Well, what were those accounts long? They were long altcoins and all these different cryptos that suddenly got jumped on to spot exchanges. So then on all these other exchanges, suddenly, some crypt, some altcoins suddenly went down 99% because there was a lot of selling from ADL.

• 58:27Tom Lee?

  But it triggered a domino effect of all these other exchanges, triggering other ADLs because spot prices of all these alts dropped. So that, to me, was a glitch because it was like an illiquid quote that didn't represent a true VWAP, triggered an ADL that triggered a cascade of ADLs. And that led to millions of accounts being literally zeroed out. It won't happen again, I'm sure, because in the future, I'm sure they will use a composite set of prices. Or if there's a variance between what's quoted internally versus on spot, or if it's a volume-based measure. So that's why I don't think it would happen again, but that's what happened on October 10.

• 59:10Ed Elson?

  Okay, well, you finally got our answer. I've asked this question to many people, and I never get a proper answer. My takeaways from that are that, you know, it seems vulnerable, this asset class that is...

• 59:23Ed Elson?

  It was supposed to be a hedge in a lot of ways. We are learning in various ways is extremely vulnerable to what seems to be almost nonsensical mechanical glitches, which I guess that is my takeaway.

• 59:38Tom Lee?

  In 2020, the price of oil went negative. Right? I mean, oil is the most liquid commodity in the world and it traded at negative price. So these glitches happen in all markets, but it does happen in crypto because it's a gigantic place where people are trying to experiment and create, you know, what they view as free from censorship and interference. But of course, there's, every event's going to bring something new and you're 100% right. You know, it's terrible that it happened.

• 1:00:21Tom Lee?

  But again, I remembered oil was negative, you know, and people actually were able to buy negative oil. They were paid to like take oil.

• 1:00:30Ed Elson?

  I guess I'll wait for a negative stock price.

• 1:00:32Tom Lee?

  I'd love the opportunity to get, yeah, negative stock. Remember, remember bonds? Corporate bonds had a negative yield in Europe. You were actually paid to own, like, the issuer was paid to issue a bond.

• 1:00:46Scott Galloway?

  Can you identify any sectors or geographies that you think are dramatically over or undervalued right now?

• 1:00:52Tom Lee?

  Undervalued, I think, is small caps because there is real earnings growth now coming, but there is no money flows. So small caps are a whole group that professional investors can afford to ignore because no one else is buying them. You know, the amount of active money in small caps is like at record lows. I think financials are also dramatically undervalued, Scott, because.

• 1:01:23Tom Lee?

  Well, this is where we could be wrong. But in my view, I think the financial sector is actually becoming a tech sector. That as money is becoming more digital and as AI implementations are heavily, heavily taking place in financial services, it's going to make, it's creating an advantage for the companies, the companies who issue capital. And in companies like JP Morgan, probably, as we just discussed earlier, could really dramatically reduce their dependence on humans, which is their largest expense. So I think financial companies are increasingly going to look like tech companies and their multiples may become more like tech multiples.

• 1:02:06Tom Lee?

  So that, to me, is one group that in the future could have a 30 PE, even though they used to trade at 10x earnings.

• 1:02:13Ed Elson?

  We've been talking with a lot of different people in the markets. We've been talking with renowned professors, investment strategists, economists. We talk with a lot of people. Most of them are somewhat bearish right now. You are one of the only real bulls that we've talked with. I've seen you described online as a perma bull. That was what Bloomberg called you. What do you think about that label? And how, how is it that you are bullish right now in a sea of bears? And what do you think that says about who you are?

• 1:02:55Tom Lee?

  I was first called a perma bull in 2009. In fact, it was major newspapers that were using it as a mocking term. Here's what's interesting. 16 years later, what was the right call to be? Now the optimists have won. And yet, today, if I had to say what proportion of investors are bullish versus bearish, it's really risen in the last year. In fact, it's kind of close to the 2009 levels. I think people are already betting on the fact that we're in a bear market.

• 1:03:36Tom Lee?

  And now, many people were convinced of that in 2022 because of the Fed hikes, and they just never changed their views three years later. But as you know, what made people a lot more bearish is also because President Trump is a very unpopular president, he's a very divisive figure. I'm a registered independent, so I have never tried to let politics be involved in how I view markets, but I can't help notice that I think that political lens plays into many of our clients' views around markets, that they tend to view... When Biden was president, there were a lot of people who were critical of Biden.

• 1:04:21Tom Lee?

  I thought the economy, I cared about the economy, I thought the economy was fine. I think the economy's still doing fine under Trump. So that's kept me... I use that as one level of coding that I think has kept people bearish. But, you know, I think America, as long as it's a place of innovation, and we are because we're at the center of AI, I think it's pretty bullish. But you guys have raised the key point. I mean, there's a chance that this AI is a disaster for labor markets, and if it is, the US will be the least scathed, but everyone's going to go down.

• 1:05:05Ed Elson?

  Tom Lee is the co-founder, managing partner, and head of research at Fundstrat Global Advisors, a leading independent research firm. He has more than 25 years of experience in equity research and has been top-ranked by Institutional Investor every year since 1998. Prior to co-founding Fundstrat, he served as JP Morgan's chief equity strategist from 2007 to 2014. Tom, I wish we could do this for three hours, maybe next time we will. Really appreciate your time, thank you. Thanks, Tom. Good to see you.

• 1:05:35Tom Lee?

  Yeah, next time.

• 1:05:46Ed Elson?

  Scott, what did you think?

• 1:05:47Scott Galloway?

  Yeah, I have a lot of respect for Tom. Not just because I think he's a great analyst and does the work, but I just appreciate how measured he is. He's, he basically says, yeah, that's a good point. You could be right. When these guys go on CNBC and sort of talk their own book and say, no, the market's going up 20% next year and this is why. He's, he's very measured around this is what I, this is what I, I think, but I don't know. And he acknowledges, he acknowledges the other side. He just strikes me as very reasonable and tempered and, you know, I can kind of see why institutions like his research because I think he's, I think he's probably got a

• 1:06:32Scott Galloway?

  track record of sort of, you know, I hope most of this is right, but I know some of it's wrong and buyer beware. He just strikes me as the adult in the room when he's making these recommendations.

• 1:06:41Ed Elson?

  Like, I think it's good that we had the bull come on before the end of the year. We've had a lot of bears on. I think all of them have presented really-

• 1:06:49Scott Galloway?

  He and Josh Brown. Josh Brown's a kind of a bull.

• 1:06:51Ed Elson?

  Well, we'll definitely get him on in, in 2026. But yeah, I think, I love his analysis of frozen foods. I think that was a great example-

• 1:07:01Scott Galloway?

  That was really interesting, wasn't it?

• 1:07:02Ed Elson?

  Of a technology that had real impacts on the labor force, but ultimately it freed up time and it left us with more productive things to do. I don't think that that means that we're not going to see an impact on, on individuals' lives. I mean, he talked about how, you know, frozen foods happened. Everyone thought that farmers would go out of business and then we were fine. It's like, some of those farmers did go out of business and some of those farmers were not fine. But long-term, as an investor, yes, the idea of these technologies creating short-term destruction in the labor market shouldn't worry you too much. I think the question is, you know, he was talking about his younger, his children using AI and, and young people using AI, which I think is a fantastic point.

• 1:07:45Ed Elson?

  We should be really looking at how are young people using it? I think the question is, what exactly is the market pricing in? Because it's hard to tell if the market is underestimating.

• 1:07:59Ed Elson?

  The potential or overestimating the potential. And it seems that we haven't really reached a consensus on this. And perhaps that's just the way markets work. We can't know. But I think that is sort of my big question. It's like, you know, just how optimistic or pessimistic or neutral on AI is the market really based on current prices? And then I think the final point that I think was a good point to end on for the end of the year, as he says, you know, yes, he expects or he could easily see a 10 to 15% correction next year. And I think that was a little bit scary hearing that. But then he also points out it's a long time, a year, 52 weeks.

• 1:08:41Ed Elson?

  So he expects that we actually will see a rally after then. So I think it was a good way to end the year. Appreciate his perspective and we'll definitely want to talk to him again.

• 1:08:57Ed Elson?

  This episode was produced by Clyde Miller and Alison White and engineered by Benjamin Spencer. Our research team is Dan Shlan, Isabella Kinsel, Chris O'Donoghue and Mia Severio. Drew Burrows is our technical director and Catherine Dillon is our executive producer. Thank you for listening to Prof G Markets from Prof G Media. If you liked what you heard, give us a follow and join us for a fresh take on markets on Monday.