The Trouble With Tariffs + Why Palantir Could Dominate AI — ft. Aswath Damodaran

Scott and Ed open the show by discussing the potential tariffs on Mexico and Canada, Palantir’s earnings, and Vanguard’s largest fee cut ever. Then Aswath Damodaran, professor of finance at NYU’s Stern School of Business, returns to the show to analyze how DeepSeek’s rise reshapes the AI landscape. He shares why he hasn’t valued Palantir yet but still sees it as a potential AI leader and a prototype for the premium AI market. Aswath also weighs in on whether Tesla and Nvidia are overvalued, offers his views on tariffs, and explains why he thinks Intel has been overly punished. Subscribe to the Prof G Markets newsletter Order "The Algebra of Wealth," out now Subscribe to No Mercy / No Malice Follow the podcast across socials @profgpod: Instagram Threads X Reddit Follow Scott on Instagram Follow Ed on Instagram and X 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

  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.

• 0:09Speaker 01

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

• 0:17Speaker 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 slash campaign. Terms and conditions apply.

• 0:30Scott Galloway?

  Today's number 3600. That's the population of tigers in India, more than double the level from a decade ago. True story. My dad used to abandon me at zoos. And then when I'd go to the lost and found and I'd say, Dad, why did you abandon me? He said, Well, I was hoping your real parents would claim you.

• 0:56Scott Galloway?

  Welcome to Prof G Markets. I don't have the cameras on of the producers. If the producers laugh, I feel like I have cloud cover. Uh oh, Claire's not laughing. It's a wry smile. Does that count? OK, here we go. Welcome to Prof G Markets. Today's episode is presented by Funrise, probably for the last time after they hear that joke. I doubt it. You doubt it? And we're speaking with Aswath Damodaran, professor of finance at NYU Stern School of Business. For those who don't know, Aswath is the Jesus Christ of higher education. He's won best professor award seven of the last eight years. Who won the eighth time? Not me. Not me. Anyways, how are you, Ed? Time for banter.

• 1:36Ed Elson?

  I'm doing very well. I'd love to hear how you are. You're in a hotel in Orlando, I believe. I believe you're at Disney World. Is that right?

• 1:43Scott Galloway?

  I'm at the Dolphin Hotel in Disney World where the rooms are $1,400 a night, but the food and the service are bad. So that makes you feel especially good. I would describe affectionately as Disney World as the seventh circle of hell. This is not where you want to be.

• 2:03Ed Elson?

  Especially not with your children, right? You don't have, your kids aren't with you. You're alone in Disney World, which is actually a very creepy concept.

• 2:10Scott Galloway?

  I'm alone at Disney World. I just spoke to one of the millions of healthcare companies. It is, I don't know, caring for our health. And someone came up to me and introduced me as the CEO of this company. I said, what's the company? He's like, that's the conference we're hosting, where the ones paying for you to be here. And I'm like, oh, and I love, I love Praxis Health.

• 2:33Scott Galloway?

  Literally like that guy. But yeah, I'm in Disney World. Took me nine hours to get here last night. Immediately got here, so fucking jet lagged, I couldn't sleep. So I popped Xanax, overslept, phone blowing up. So I ran down and greeted a group of 3,000 healthcare professionals. And still, still a little bit of a, little bit of a zany hangover. So ask me how the talk went, Ed.

• 3:00Ed Elson?

  How did the talk go, Scott?

• 3:01Scott Galloway?

  I don't know. I don't know. Anyways, that's, that's my story.

• 3:07Ed Elson?

  That's exciting stuff. All right. Well, let's get into some headlines here.

• 3:11Scott Galloway?

  Am I boring you? I'm sorry, go ahead, go to the headlines.

• 3:16Scott Galloway?

  Now is the time to fly. I hope you have plenty of the weather.

• 3:23Ed Elson?

  President Trump has agreed to delay tariffs on goods from Canada and Mexico for one month. Meanwhile, a 10% tariff on goods from China went into effect Tuesday, and Beijing has threatened its own retaliatory measures. Palantir's stock soared 22% after the company reported fourth quarter revenue and full year guidance that exceeded expectations. The company also saw strong growth in US commercial and government sales, including a $400 million contract with the US Army. Over the past 12 months, the stock has quintupled in value. And finally, Vanguard has announced its largest fee cut ever, lowering expense ratios on actively managed and index-based funds by an average of 20%.

• 4:05Ed Elson?

  That move should save clients about $350 million per year. Scott? Your thoughts, beginning with the tariff news. 25% on Canada, 25% on Mexico. We thought that was going to happen and go into effect, but the tariff on China remains intact.

• 4:26Ed Elson?

  I'll give you a minute.

• 4:27Scott Galloway?

  Jesus, where's my Xanax? Like, the geopolitical game is a function of power and relationships. We have a lot of power, that's clear. But what we also have is really strong relationships. If you were to say to your spouse, "You better do X, Y, and Z, or I'm leaving you", they might get so worried about you leaving, they might do it. But over the long term, does that help the relationship? We're in a position to invade Canada, or start detonating nuclear bombs, or move in with heavy artillery, and we have the upper hand here. The question is, all right, maybe they give in and say, "Fine", and then what does that do for the relationship moving forward?

• 5:12Scott Galloway?

  I think he got so rolled here. I think they're basically doing shit that they were already going to do or already doing to calm him down. And then, over the long term, the relationship is damaged. Look at Canada. Whenever we go to war, or we want to expel Hussein from Kuwait, they put their young men in women's lives in harm's way because they see us as, we're brothers in arms. When we have fires, they send their bravest and most interesting aviation innovation, the scooper, no questions asked. They don't ask for compensation, they don't posture. I just had, I called a SEAL last night of a company I'm on the board of,

• 5:56Scott Galloway?

  and he said, "I said, how's the quarter?" And he was like, "Well, it was going great till yesterday", and I had two manufacturing clients, a tire company and an auto parts company, cancel or put the renewal on hold because they're worried about how the tariffs are going to take impact. So this is threatening people because I'm bigger at the cost of long-term relationships. That's before we even go to the "head up your ass" notion that somehow tariffs work. This is taking decades of goodwill in trashing it.

• 6:26Scott Galloway?

  And by the way, the market called us. The market wasn't scared. The market said this is all posturing. It's going to get solved when he realizes this is just stupid. This will hurt us.

• 6:34Ed Elson?

  Kind of. There was, I mean, some serious drawdowns across, you know, the companies that thought they would be directly affected, even in tech, you saw Apple down like 3%.

• 6:45Scott Galloway?

  Dude, you're too young to remember what a drawdown is.

• 6:49Ed Elson?

  Come on. I'm just saying that the market reacted. They probably, they didn't take it as seriously, to your point, but the market was still like, okay, this is something to think about.

• 6:59Scott Galloway?

  I think the market basically said, hold my beer. We don't think there's much of a chance this is going to happen. I think this is basically a mob-like negotiation, but it's an Al Capone-like negotiation, except when he was suffering from raging syphilis. He's like, it's not even Tony Soprano. It's Al Capone raging syphilis type of negotiation strategy. Your thoughts?

• 7:21Ed Elson?

  So this whole thing reminds me of being in London in the summer of 2016, when Brexit was on the table. And the issues were very different, but the fundamental sentiment was the same, where the Brits basically said, we are an extremely powerful economic force, and we have all of these kind of unnecessary ties to other countries, specifically the EU, and we could just be doing all of this on our own. The result of that move was an absolute decimation of the UK's economy, because the Brits basically overestimated how powerful

• 8:02Ed Elson?

  they actually are. And it turns out, we actually did need all of that stuff from Europe. We were not self-sufficient in the way we thought we were. And it turned out to be the greatest economic mistake in modern British history. So I look at this tariff stuff, and it gets me anxious because it feels a lot like Brexit. And I think the question America has to ask itself very honestly, the question that Britain did not ask itself, is how self-sufficient are we really? Now, could we actually live without Canada? Could we actually live without Mexico and without China? Would that actually work for us? And I've been looking into this question. And the answer is a little bit more complicated than you might think because

• 8:44Ed Elson?

  America, unlike the UK, is one of the most self-sufficient nations in the world. If you look at our imports as a percentage of our overall GDP, it makes up around 14%. And you look at the UK, that number is 32%, so it's low. But it's also not crazy low. You've got similar numbers in Argentina, similar numbers in Brazil, similar numbers in China. So in other words, America is quite self-sufficient, but not completely self-sufficient. And then the question becomes even more interesting when you look at the distribution of imports in America, because it turns out that of the imports that we do bring in,

• 9:26Ed Elson?

  we are crazy reliant on three countries. And those countries are China, Mexico and Canada. They alone supply almost half of the imports that come into America. And if you look at specific products, that number gets even higher. So for crude oil, for example, they supply 70% of the imported oil to America. For toilet paper, it's 85%. For tomatoes, it's 99%. So I think the answer here is yes, America, while it needs other countries less than Britain, it does need other countries, specifically those three countries.

• 10:08Ed Elson?

  And if these tariffs were to go into effect in one year, it's estimated it would cost us around $300 billion, which translates for the average US household to an additional $2,500 in expenses every year, which basically means that the average American family should just expect, if these tariffs go into effect, we'll see, they should expect a 3% increase in their monthly payments, which is a lot of money. So I just want to make sure we're all clear on how powerful America actually is. It's very, very powerful, but it's not. All powerful. It's not completely powerful. And the worst situation would be for America to make the same mistake the UK did, where you overestimate your power, you get carried away with all this patriotism in self sufficiency.

• 10:53Ed Elson?

  You ignore the fact that you're actually part of a global economy. And then it comes back to bite you in the worst way possible, which is even higher prices and lower growth. I literally watched it happen in real time to Britain. It killed the country. It was a total catastrophe. And all I'll say is we just cannot let that happen again in America.

• 11:15Scott Galloway?

  This is literally the definition of stupid. Hurting other people while you hurt yourself.

• 11:22Ed Elson?

  Let's talk about Palantir. I just want to point out the position Palantir was in heading into these earnings. They were up 400% in the past year, 1300% in the past two years, trading at 75 times sales. Compare that to Nvidia, which trades at 26 times sales. The expectations for Palantir literally could not have been higher. And the only way they could have come out of this earnings call with a higher stock price would be to just shatter expectations, which is not what I expected. I was expecting a drawdown. I was completely wrong. Monster quarter, they beat on revenue by 6%. They beat on guidance by 8%. They beat on earnings by 27%. They beat on free cash flow by 70%.

• 12:08Ed Elson?

  This is probably the best quarter of 2025 from an expectations perspective. You've got this already hyped up AI company. Everyone's waiting for them to slip up. And then suddenly they come out and do this. I'm kind of blown away by Palantir. Now worth almost a quarter of a trillion dollars in market cap. Forty ninth most valuable company in the world. And get this, more valuable than Uber and Airbnb combined. So Palantir just absolutely crushing. Any reactions to their latest earnings call?

• 12:39Scott Galloway?

  Well, the question is, is Palantir massively overvalued or is it?

• 12:44Scott Galloway?

  Massively exceeding expectations on every level. And the answer is yes. There's also, I've always felt Palantir benefits from what we don't know. Typically, in a company, you want to be as transparent as possible such that you develop credibility. You say when things are bad, you put out earnings revisions if you think you're going to have a bad quarter because the market likes honesty. It appreciates it. And then when you say things are good, it takes, you know, it trusts you. In the case of Palantir, they benefit from kind of these known unknowns. And that is, we work with the Defense Department. A lot of what we do is super secret. And there's this kind of spy versus spy, James Bond field of the company. And also, the narrative here, I would argue the CEO is the best storyteller, probably

• 13:28Scott Galloway?

  in terms of nuance in the world of business right now. Walks around doing unusual earnings calls that feel very authentic, goes on Bill Maher. Palantir zagged when everyone else zigged. They said, we're totally, we're absolutely going to work with the US Department of Defense. There are a lot of enemies out there. They draped themselves in the flag. And I think there is a large market that is not represented by the kind of what I'll call a lot of virtue signaling in tech companies pretending that they cared what their employees thought. That was my favorite. Bring your full self to work, right? That's what they told these people. No, be clear. And this is actually, I'm, I'm trying to be, God, I sound so boomerish and get off my lawn rhyme now.

• 14:13Ed Elson?

  You do, you do indeed, yeah.

• 14:14Scott Galloway?

  But I mean this sincerely. My advice to young people would be the following. Keep your politics out of the office. No one cares. When a lot of people started talking about progressive ideals, and I think they were well-meaning, at least on employee base, people would say, come up to you and say, you're a leader, thank you for that, thank you for pointing it out, and then memo to self, lay off this person and the next layoff. And even if your CEO is pretending to give a good goddamn about Juneteenth, I don't think they do. I think the virtue signaling and trying to attract employees who they think are progressive in the moment they're asked actually. You know, have the rubber meets the road and maybe have a board and an executive management team that looks more like their customer base or looks more like their employee base. If it costs them any money, they're not going to do it.

• 14:58Scott Galloway?

  And so Palantir zigged the other way. And I think the market has responded in spades. And I got to think also, they're in the right place at the right time. I got to think the Trump administration loves these guys.

• 15:11Ed Elson?

  Interestingly, the CEO donated to Kamala, which I just found pretty fascinating because he seems like such a, you'd think he's more of a Trump guy, which is interesting, but I totally agree with all of that. Let's talk about Vanguard. Vanguard is lowering the expense ratios on their ETFs. We talk about how important this is a lot. I wonder how much this has to do with this active versus passive investing trend we've been talking about, this idea that everyone is starting to realize that the fees, the higher fees on active investment funds just aren't worth it. You might as well go passive instead where the fees are a lot lower. And that's why we saw last year almost $200 billion allocated out of active funds and

• 15:55Ed Elson?

  almost a trillion dollars in inflows invested into passive funds. So I wonder if this is sort of a response to that trend because the funds that are going to have the biggest price reductions here are going to be the active funds. In other words, I wonder if Vanguard is saying, okay, we're seeing lower demand in actives, so we're going to lower our prices here. But I do think it all gets back to a very simple point, which is expense ratios are everything. I mean, before you invest in anything, you have to look at the management fees, you have to look at the expense ratios. And it's, you know, good news here that one of the biggest asset managers is deciding to lower their fees across the board.

• 16:37Scott Galloway?

  Vanguard is the Amazon of the financial services industry. Jack Bogle is a legend and he's probably the most underappreciated icon of business. And that was before it was cool. He said, you don't need to find a needle in the haystack, buy the whole haystack. And the myth that CNBC, mutual funds, the entire alternative investment universe has tried to con the American public with is that they have people who can find the needle in the haystack. And everything I've learned over 30 years of working with hedge funds, private equity people, working with people I have to watch the motor in is for the most part, nobody has any fucking idea. And what you need to do is diversify and find the lowest cost fund hands down.

• 17:19Scott Galloway?

  And people don't realize because it's, they think, oh, it's only 1% a year or 2% a year in a mutual fund that's branded, that advertises on CNBC. That eats up about a third of your returns over the long term. And these guys, what have they done? Similar to Amazon or similar to Walmart, as they grow in scale, they pass on their savings to the consumer. And I have outperformed the market in my own personal investments. And it's not because I'm better. I'm convinced that, and this is a position of privilege, but because I work with these funds, I have one rule. I don't pay fees. People say, we'd like to get you involved in a company. Would you be an advisor? And if I co-invest, I have a lot of friends in the hedge fund business and they call me and say, love to have you as a limited. I'm starting a fund.

• 18:04Scott Galloway?

  I'm like, I don't pay fees. And that has made such a difference in my returns because what people don't realize is if they're paying, if they're clipping 1% to 2% a year over 10 years.

• 18:15Ed Elson?

  That's why they're all rich. Yeah. They're not investing that well, they're just scooping up a fee.

• 18:20Scott Galloway?

  If you took the entire alternative investments universe and aggregated it all, it's underperformed the market by their fees. So I love Vanguard. I think they've done, they've done, they're the definition of smart. They've helped themselves. They continue to aggregate more and more assets and pass those assets on to consumers. And the lesson here is the following, folks. Your fees are their prosperity and there is no connection between returns and the fees you pay.

• 18:47Ed Elson?

  Exactly. And I just want to give us, oh, this is some examples of some great low cost ETFs that you can just go out and buy. So some of the lowest cost ETFs we found here. One is VOO. That's Vanguard's S and P 500 ETF tracker. The expense ratio is 0.03%. SPLG is another one at 0.02%. Those both track the S and P 500. If you want a total. Stock market ETF that is also very, very low cost, 0.03%. Try VTI or I T O T. These are all extremely low cost ETF options, but the point here is you need to look at the expense ratio. You need to be checking the expense ratio before you buy.

• 19:31Ed Elson?

  And you also need to be checking the expense ratio as you own. You just want to make sure that those expense ratios aren't going up. In which case you need to start looking at another ETF. But definitely go with the lowest cost ETF possible. And those examples are some good ones that you can go with. We'll be right back after the break for our conversation with Professor Aswath Damodaran. If you're enjoying the show so far and you haven't subscribed, be sure to give Prof G Markets a follow wherever you get your podcasts.

• 20:07Speaker 04

  Here's your report.

• 20:09Speaker 05

  Oh, thanks, Jane. I wish I could hire someone just like you.

• 20:12Speaker 04

  Try LinkedIn Hiring Pro. It's more than a job board. It's like the recruiter you always wished you had. Hiring Pro uses real time insights to match your role to LinkedIn's unique network of professionals and delivers a shortlist of best fit candidates. You'll spend less time sorting applicants and more time talking to the right people.

• 20:28Speaker 05

  Let's do it. You're irreplaceable, Jane, but another you would be great.

• 20:32Speaker 04

  Hire right the first time. Post your job for free on LinkedIn today at LinkedIn.com/quality.

• 20:43Ed Elson?

  Welcome back. Here's our conversation with Professor Aswath Damodaran, the Kerschner Family Chair in Finance, Education, and Professor of Finance at NYU's Stern School of Business. Aswath, thank you for joining us again on Prof G Markets.

• 20:55Aswath Damodaran?

  Thank you for having me, Ed.

• 20:59Ed Elson?

  So I would love to start with DeepSeek, which you recently wrote an article on. Just give us your headline reactions on what happened with DeepSeek and what you think it means for the rest of the AI market.

• 21:13Aswath Damodaran?

  You know, it's because I am a teacher first and an investor second. I'm always stoned when something like DeepSeek happens because it kind of brings home something I've been trying to get through in class so much more effectively than words I could have used. In fact, the week before DeepSeek, weekend before DeepSeek showed up on our radar, I taught my first undergraduate valuation class. And as Scott knows, I mean, I teach in Paulson Auditorium, the three fifty, twenty one year olds, twenty to twenty one year olds in there. And they're eager to learn about valuation. So I talked about what valuation is. They're coming expecting to become Excel ninjas. And I never open an Excel spreadsheet. I talk about how every valuation is a bridge between stories and numbers.

• 21:58Aswath Damodaran?

  Then as an add on, I said, you're going to be telling a story about a company and valuing the company. But here's what you have to be ready for. Things will happen out there because you're valuing a real company in your time that will change your story. And their reaction, I could say from their faces, was, how much can change in a story in fifteen weeks? And then, over the weekend, DeepSeek happens. And in many ways, it's changed the AI story. So to me, the most interesting thing about DeepSeek is not the company or its Chinese origins or the fact that they've built it over fifty. A lot of that might be fiction. It's PR. It's at how fundamentally it has shifted your perspective on the AI story.

• 22:41Aswath Damodaran?

  In fact, I use the emperor's new clothes as an analogy. And I said, now, how the emperor's new clothes? Nobody was willing to call attention to the fact that he had no clothes. It's not that the AI emperor has no clothes of DeepSeek, but the AI emperor has definitely sprung a wardrobe malfunction, as I described in my post after DeepSeek, because people are saying, maybe that part of the story is not true anymore. So to me, its capacity to change this huge story that's been driving markets over the last couple of years has been amazing to watch, even though part of my investor side felt the pain of, this is what it did to my Nvidia stock price.

• 23:23Ed Elson?

  So take us through exactly what that AI story was before DeepSeek and what it is now after DeepSeek.

• 23:30Aswath Damodaran?

  The pre-DeepSeek AI story had three parts to it. The starting part first is that The market for AI products and services is going to be incredibly huge. The reason that's kind of tricky is there's no product or service right now that's out there that actually makes money, but the assumption is going to be huge. Okay, so that's the starting point, that we'll all subscribe into some and we'll pay for it and we'll pay high prices for it. That was the starting point. And people started throwing numbers around in the trillions of dollars that this AI product and service market will be three trillion, four trillion, five trillion. That's the end of the story. The start of the story is to enter the market, you needed two things.

• 24:11Aswath Damodaran?

  One is insanely powerful computers powered by chips that could be made, that were made efficiently by only one company in the world, Nvidia basically had a lead. And insane amounts of data, that the entry cost was going to be huge. And the middle part actually falls out of those two other parts, which is the entry costs are huge and the end market is going to be immense, that there'd be a few big winners making immense amounts of money because they'd have paid the entry cost, entered the market, now be able to sell their products and services. That was the dream that's been driving markets since the November 30th of 2022, the day ChatGPT showed up. What DeepSeek said was maybe there's a different way to play the story.

• 24:53Aswath Damodaran?

  So the post-DeepSeek story can be different, but the pre-DeepSeek story that drove not just the value of Nvidia, but the constellation energy, I mean, a whole set of companies involved in building the architecture. As well as companies that might or might not be able to produce in products and services was the story that you see driving markets through Friday before DeepSeek showing up.

• 25:17Ed Elson?

  Yeah, this is, I love describing it as two competing stories because I think another dynamic that we have here that I am personally struggling with, you've got the sort of Nvidia, OpenAI, American story, let's call it, and then you've got this DeepSeek, lower cost China story. I don't know which story to believe. And that's part of my problem. You know, there's the issue of how much did they actually spend on this thing? How many GPUs did they actually have? And then there's this new wrinkle, which is this question of legality, where OpenAI is saying, well, actually, they stole our model, we think, and that's illegal.

• 26:01Ed Elson?

  And in which case, it's like, OK, which story are you supposed to go with?

• 26:06Aswath Damodaran?

  That's why I think the story is not about DeepSeek or China. It's about asking a question about are the entry requirements for AI products and services as high as the story was? So this has nothing to do with US or China, right? That was the story told. And I'll tell you, one of the reasons I was wary of that story is I work with people who keep coming up with stuff to do valuations, investing, accounting with automated products. They might not have called it AI, but think of it as early versions of AI. So I can see an AI accounting product. And an AI accounting product doesn't require any data. You don't need to know how every accountant in history has ever accounted. All you need are the rules.

• 26:51Aswath Damodaran?

  And the reality also is you don't need supercomputers. You can get there with fairly low-power computers. So the original AI story, I was being told, to build an accounting AI, you still need the Nvidia chips and lots of data. And what DeepSeek did was open the door to all of those people who are skeptical, saying, you know what, at least for a segment of the AI product and service market, I'm going to call them, I call them low-grade in my post. I'll call them low-intensity products and services. Products that don't require huge amounts of data, they're rule-based, not intuition-based, and don't require incredible computing power. DeepSeek offers a way of getting into that market with a much lower entry cost. So you know what? Both things can be true.

• 27:36Aswath Damodaran?

  The old AI story still applies for the Palantir version of AI, which requires huge amounts of data. It's more intuitive. It has to build on data and needs supercomputing. But what I think it's done is it's created a bifurcated AI market, where one segment is going to stay premium, where the old story will apply. And there'll be a few big winners with huge computing power and lots of data. And a different market for AI products and services, this low-intensity stuff, which will be more commoditized, because a lot more people enter that market. It's great for customers because this is good news, no matter how you slice it for customers, because you're now going to get access to AI products and services at a lower cost. But it's going to be much more difficult to make money in that segment.

• 28:21Aswath Damodaran?

  That, to me, is the takeaway from this, because you're absolutely right. There are things that will come out about DeepSeek, that it spent a billion dollars rather than six million, that it did use one hundred and fifty Nvidia chips to essentially get to where it is, that it might have, I don't want to use the word stolen, because that will already require me to pass judgment.

• 28:42Scott Galloway?

  Distilled is the word they're using.

• 28:44Aswath Damodaran?

  That they borrowed data from the.

• 28:46Scott Galloway?

  Inspired by.

• 28:48Aswath Damodaran?

  Inspired by, and that the Chinese government is in a fair. All of those things might actually play out here, and DeepSeek could disappear tomorrow. But guess what? The story, the emperor's new clothes are basically not new clothes anymore. The wardrobe malfunction is told as the old AI story is not going to hold. And that, I think, is the change that one weekend wrought on the entire AI story. And it's healthy, I think, because one of the problems when you have these big buzzwords driving what markets do. Social media, internet, PCs, is early in the process, you use the buzzword to justify everything. Why should I pay too much? It's an AI company.

• 29:33Aswath Damodaran?

  And I think we were, you know, every one of these buzzwords, there was this moment that, you know, I call this the bar mitzvah moment, where you wake up and you say, hey, you know, where's the grown-up part of this story? I think this was a good part for the AI story, because it says, look, there is no AI company. Are you an AI architecture company, a software? So we will, if we're sensible, we'll start asking questions about AI that I think are much healthier questions, hopefully, after DeepSeek than before.

• 30:04Scott Galloway?

  So Aswath, we both teach at the same institution, and, you know, I don't know if you have this. I have a series of go-tos where I think, okay, I got to build a class around this, because it's actual something resembling insight. And one of those is what I think I still hold on to, and that is almost every consumer market ultimately bifurcates into a Walmart and a Tiffany. And that is, there's an aspirational, high-end model, and then there's a, you know, lowest-cost massive selection. And also that somewhere in between the companies that actually grow the fastest and have created the most shareholder value over a short period of time are the old navies. Eighty percent of the market leader for fifty percent of the price. Southwest, largest market cap of any US airline, eighty percent of Delta, American United,

• 30:49Scott Galloway?

  for fifty or sixty percent of the price. One, is this essentially the market going Walmart and Tiffany? And/or two, is DeepSeek the potentially the old navy of AI? And is it going to grow its value faster than the rest of them?

• 31:05Aswath Damodaran?

  I think actually the market is going to have three segments to it. One is the Tiffany, the Walmart, and the third is we've got these platform players, right? Microsoft, Meta, Google. And there is this possibility that for them, AI will be a freebie that they, the products and services will be freebies they offer people to stay on their platform more. So that's why I said it's good news for customers, because if you're a Meta customer or Microsoft, my guess is they're going to be freebie stuff that's coming. That sounds free, but it's getting you to spend fifteen minutes more on LinkedIn or Office. I do think that within the commoditized market, you're right, there will be companies that find other competitive advantages, because let's face it, brand name and other things

• 31:50Aswath Damodaran?

  were created because you were in a commoditized market. Perfume is perfume, and the way you separated yourself was you created some kind of illusion that you... I wouldn't be surprised if you got this middle segment in the AI market of companies that provide commoditized AI products and services, but attach a name to it that makes it feel like you're getting something more. Almost a brand name version of AI. So I think the retail market is a great way to think about how the AI product and service market is going to end up separating. And I think that the winners and losers are going to reflect what you've seen in the retail market as well, is how do you come up with competitive advantages when entry costs are low?

• 32:32Aswath Damodaran?

  You're essentially offering the same thing that everybody else is, but you've got to get people to pay a higher price for your product. So I think it'd be fun to take the retail analogy and play it out here. Whether the reason I'm a little wary about DeepSeek being the Old Navy, because as Ed pointed out, there are all these things that make me suspicious of whether the DeepSeek story is being fully told. No, I'd be quite honest, if I were DeepSeek, I'd have laid all my cards on the table. If it cost them a billion dollars, I'd have said it cost us a billion dollars. If they'd used a hundred and fifty Nvidia chips, I'd say we used a hundred and fifty Nvidia chips. If they stole OpenAI data, that's not that's not fixable. But if they borrowed data, I would frame it as such.

• 33:16Aswath Damodaran?

  Because even if they spent a billion and had a hundred and fifty Nvidia chips, it's still impressive that they've churned out a product for a lot less than OpenAI. I mean, there's an old saying, it's good to have the competition, you the types of competition. Because in the case of Open DeepSeek, their best advantage is they're competing against OpenAI. And OpenAI is a corporate governance fiasco. I don't trust Sam Altman further than I can throw him. And that might actually benefit DeepSeek because it's not like we trust ChatGPT and OpenAI to do the right thing for us.

• 33:59Aswath Damodaran?

  Because there's nothing there to base that trust on. So in many ways, the opening here is the existing players are so unreliable and untrustworthy to begin with, that even if you have issues with DeepSeek, you can say, I can live with that because I've lived with that with OpenAI and what the big tech companies are doing with it. So I think we're early in this game, but there's a lot more rocky stuff coming ahead of us in terms of how this market will play out. But I wouldn't be surprised if none of the names we've talked about ends up being one of the winners. This is like being in the internet market in nineteen ninety five. Nobody mentioned Amazon at that time, the ultimate winner. We're talking about, you know, will AOL win this game or will Cisco win the game?

• 34:43Scott Galloway?

  Lycos, AltaVista.

• 34:44Aswath Damodaran?

  Yeah.

• 34:45Scott Galloway?

  Yeah. Hotmail. The I find it hilarious that Sam Altman is is crying foul and saying they stole. It's like Hannibal Lecter accusing people of eating too much meat. I mean, it's just karma's a bitch. I just think it's hilarious it even has the backbone to accuse other people of stealing stealing data. Anyway. We were blown away. We had Robert Armstrong, the markets analyst from the Financial Times. And he outlined a thesis that that has just entirely changed my view on this, and I want to lay it out and get your response. I came to Orlando last night in an aircraft that skirted along the surface of the atmosphere at eight tenths of speed of sound. It has changed the

• 35:28Scott Galloway?

  world. I didn't have to get on a steamship like my parents for 14 days and get sick or seasick. I didn't 150 years ago have to get in a wagon and end up eating each other and dying of scurvy over the Rockies. It has changed the world massively. Unbelievable technological breakthrough. Airlines have lost more money than they've made. PCs changed the world. Very few PC makers have made any money. There are a set of companies and technologies where the majority of the value accretes to stakeholders versus a small number of shareholders. Could DeepSeek signal that AI, and I think this would be a good thing, might be more

• 36:10Scott Galloway?

  like the airline and the PC industry than search or social, where in fact, the winners are going to be the general public and no one or small number of companies is going to be able to capture all of the value.

• 36:24Aswath Damodaran?

  I think for the commoditized segment, that may very well be the endgame. But I do believe a portion of AI where you use exclusive data and superpower computers, I think Palantir might be a winner in that space because I can't imagine a way that a competitor is going to come in. Because the airline business, in a sense, what killed it was open entry and the fact that your weakest companies never left the game. I mean, that's the problem with the airline business is you kept the weakest players going and new people kept coming in. There was no way this business could fix itself. Since 1977, the business has gone back. You know, there's a between bankruptcy and making

• 37:05Aswath Damodaran?

  billions. It's not figured out a way to make money. I do think of the premium AI market, it'll be the data plus supercomputing that gives those companies advantage. There will be winners. In the commoditized market? It's entirely possible that what you're going to get is competition that essentially drives the businesses in the space into, not into bankruptcy, but into this, this, this period where they keep flirting with bankruptcy while consumers benefit. But consumer benefits come with side costs, which is we're all better off, but there's also side costs we create for the, for, for the society, for, and I think that's, that's,

• 37:47Aswath Damodaran?

  that's a part that concerns me. We might all have AI products and services, often it costs pretty close to nothing. Will that make us happier? I mean, I'd say, I think that, that's a question that I don't, I mean, it's a cultural question, not an economic question, but I've heard these promises before from tech people that they're going to take our drudgery off. And that's why the last part of my post was about, hey, every time you get these new technologies, I'm told that this is going to make my life simpler, less drudgery and happier. And every time I look back and say, really? You know? And I worry about that AI effect on all of us. What exactly are we going to be looking back

• 38:28Aswath Damodaran?

  at 15 years from now? As you know, Scott and I both know Jonathan Hyde, he's pointed out that the, the end effect of smartphones might not be that you can get DoorDash delivered in 15 minutes. It might be that your teenager has a greater chance of going through depression because of the exposure to smartphones. The net effect, I think, with AI that I worry about is the effect on society overall. I'm not, you know, equipped to, to think through all of that, but I am old enough to remember the promises made with each technological shift and what we end up seeing as a result of it.

• 39:22Speaker 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.

• 39:31Speaker 01

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

• 39:38Speaker 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.

• 39:56Ed Elson?

  We're back with Prof G Markets. You mentioned Palantir there, which just had a blowout quarter. It is now the 49th most valuable company in the world. It's up around, I want to say 1,500% in the past two years. I kind of expected you to walk in and say it's way overvalued, but you sound a little bit bullish, maybe.

• 40:19Aswath Damodaran?

  I'll be quite honest. It's a one, usually I never say never with a company. I view it as a challenge in a company. Palantir is the one company that I kind of hold off on fully valuing because I'll be quite honest. I have no idea what they actually do. And I'm terrified to ask in case I might end up in Guantanamo Bay. Because it's the nature of what they do, and especially on their defense of secret service side is it's. But if you were building a prototype of a premium AI product, it would look a lot like Palantir, right? It would be data that is exclusive to you. It would be require intuitive components to the data

• 41:04Aswath Damodaran?

  because they're trying to second guess what might happen in. They're gaming out wartime activities. This, you know, you can't just feed it roots. You got to feed it in much. You need supercomputers and you have very sticky customers. Because once the Defense Department chooses you, it's not like a competitive incumbent say, I'll offer 20% less because there are all these links you built in that are almost unbreakable. So does it justify a 1500% price increase? I don't know, but I'm willing to listen to somebody who says it is. But as an investor, I need to at least have the, at least a sense of what a company actually does that makes it unique to be able to bet on it.

• 41:49Aswath Damodaran?

  And Palantir has always been this bridge too far for me. It's one of the few companies in the world where I look at and say, interesting company, fascinating. But as an investor, I can't buy you as a business because I really don't know what you do. I could trade it, but I'm not a trader, right? Trading is just looking for a higher price. Momentum can carry you there. But to me, it is exactly the kind of prototype for this premium AI market that I'm thinking about where there will be companies that find a space like Palantir and then harvest that space to make as much money as they can.

• 42:23Ed Elson?

  Do you think it's possible that the rest of Wall Street feels similarly as you do? And therefore, that's why we're seeing this price increase? Because is it possible that basically most of Wall Street doesn't really understand what Palantir is or does? And that's what kind of excites them about the company?

• 42:42Aswath Damodaran?

  And that's the difference between investing and trading. Investing, if you don't understand a business, you can't put your money in. Trading, all you need to do is a momentum in your direction. So if you believe there's a big enough story and as long as there are enough players who believe the story, you're going to be able to sell at a higher price. So Wall Street may be trading on the fact that Palantir is one of the few players you can point to and say, that guy has a premium product. Other people think like me because you're just making guesses on whether other people stay with the herd. So I I believe that, you know, Palantir is one of the few companies with a tangible product or service that you can point to and say, you know, they'll find a way to make money on it because it's it is unique and different.

• 43:25Aswath Damodaran?

  We need to get like the Department of Defense on the line, get a product review from them.

• 43:29Scott Galloway?

  To figure out what is going on.

• 43:30Aswath Damodaran?

  And the problem is, once you lock these those guys in, I mean, they're going to keep paying. I mean, it's a it's it's a nice continuing income model, which is a nice customer base to have.

• 43:43Scott Galloway?

  No, I've worked I've worked with the government. They're the worst business prospects in the world, but they're the best clients because if you can figure out a way to get in there, it's hard to leave. Just just real quick. I I was gonna, part of this conversation was to get two most overvalued stocks in the world, one Palantir, and you've convinced me, and don't trade it. It's just there's there's just too many known unknowns. My other one, this is a cross I'm gonna die on here. Now do Tesla.

• 44:06Aswath Damodaran?

  Tesla's become as much of a political bet as it is an electric car bet. And I think that worries me. I mean, I I've invested before Tesla, I've invested in companies in other countries where connections with who's in power was a big factor. You know, I talk about the Adani Enterprises in India, where you're making a bet on the company, but you're also making a bet on whether the BJP, which is the ruling party in India, will win the next election because the the two are tied together. Historically, that's not been the issue in US companies, which have tended to give to both sides of the aisle. So you're

• 44:47Aswath Damodaran?

  not buying a Republican company or a Democratic company, you're buying a company. I think Tesla kind of broke that that rule and effectively has, it's not Tesla that broke the rule, it's Elon. And by making a company that's all about that's personality driven. Now, this morning in class, I was doing my certificate class, I asked somebody in my class, do you like Elon? And he said, why do you care? I said, you tell me what you think about Elon Musk, I'll tell you whether you're likely to find Tesla to be undervalued or overvalued. It's come to that point where this is become and.

• 45:23Aswath Damodaran?

  That's troublesome as an investor, right? This is now less to do with electric cars and automated driving. I made a good bet buying Tesla last year at one seventy. But at four hundred, the question I'm asking is, what am I holding now? Am I holding a bet on the next great electric car company in the world? Or am I holding a bet on what Elon Musk is going to do to the US government? I'm not sure what I'm betting on right now. So it's, it's, I think it's reached a point where, you know, you, when you think about Tesla, your narrative is all over the place because you now have other players in it, which is, which are political players pushing into the story.

• 46:08Aswath Damodaran?

  And I've never been good with political companies.

• 46:10Ed Elson?

  And we also got to get your thoughts on Nvidia. I think it was September of last year. You said Nvidia was overvalued. It was trading at around a hundred and nine dollars per share. It's now at around a hundred fifteen, a hundred sixteen. I assume you still think it's overvalued.

• 46:28Aswath Damodaran?

  Well, my value went the other direction. It went from eighty seven down to seventy eight because of DeepSeek. Basically, if it's a segment of the market that's going to be premium AI, and I'm being generous and I make the segment, um, three hundred billion for AI chips rather than five hundred billion. It is going to have consequences for Nvidia and it played out as a lower value. But the price is actually higher than it was. So if it was overvalued in September, it's even more overvalued now, which is one reason I have, you know, at some point in time, I have to act on my valuations. I sold half my Nvidia in twenty twenty three. I'm selling my other, another half of what I've left. I'm still holding on to a little bit of it because it's psychological.

• 47:10Aswath Damodaran?

  I just, you know, it's this, this regret factor that led me to kind of hold half. It's that way, either way, I can point to something I've done and say I'm okay with it. And that, that's my psychology. I need that to make sure that, that it doesn't spill over into something else I do. So it feels more overvalued to me, but it's my story. And I want to, you know, I don't, that's why I said this is not investment advice. I'll give you my framework, maybe you have a different perspective on what DeepSeek did. And maybe your conclusion would be that DeepSeek actually made Nvidia more valuable. I have a tough time figuring out what that story would be. But I think that it's, um, it, the game is on.

• 47:52Aswath Damodaran?

  And I think at this point, I think if Nvidia was overvalued in September in my story, it's even more overvalued now.

• 47:58Ed Elson?

  To pivot us to Trump land. Do you have any views on tariffs and what Trump has done with tariffs, specifically the tariffs on Canada and Mexico and China?

• 48:08Aswath Damodaran?

  You know what? It's, um, the one thing that I think both supporters and people who like Trump and don't like Trump will agree is that he's a change agent. The only difference is the guys who support him believe that the change is what's needed to shake up a system that's become very, very rigid that needs fixing. The people who don't like him say the change is chaos for the sake of chaos. And I'm one of those people who's capable, you know, sees shades of gray and everything. I think that DC is broken. I think everybody agrees that the way our government raises money and spends money is just, the system is broken.

• 48:51Aswath Damodaran?

  Does that mean, I think tariffs and Musk like, you know, the Doji cost cutting is the way to go? I don't think so, because I think that you're breaking everything and hoping that you're not breaking things that shouldn't be broken. I think the problem with something like tariffs is you're breaking the rules of what drove a global economy for a while. We know what happened last, uh, last century when tariff wars went to crazy. But you're doing it expecting only positive consequences. And what if something you break is something you shouldn't have broken in the first place? So I worry about the fact that you're pulling all these things, you're breaking everything

• 49:34Aswath Damodaran?

  at the same time, said, trust us, we know we can fix it. What if we cannot, right? So I think that this is something that's going to play out for the next four years. You're going to see things broken. Sometimes those things that are broken should not have been broken in the first place. It's going to be tough to fix them.

• 49:53Aswath Damodaran?

  Net though, I think that I can't see how tariffs play out as better for the global economy. There is no story you can tell where tariffs collectively make us globally better off. But here's a caveat. Could a tariff war end up with the global economy hurting but the US potentially gaining? Yeah, it could happen because this is one of the few advantages you get when you're as consumption driven as we are as an economy is it might end up that the end game is the and in many ways Trump seems to think of that as the end game, which is if the US gains, what if the rest of the world goes into and the Canada example is a perfect one, right?

• 50:37Aswath Damodaran?

  That's a game where US actually has a pretty strong hand. It's more likely to win. So, but I think it's almost like you're not thinking through what does it mean when your neighbor to the north is now no longer an ally. It's almost not, you're not thinking through the long term consequences, but long term and it's almost nothing to do with this. It's short term, it's what can I pull in the US best interest in the short term? And I have a worry that's clearly some of this stuff will going to be paying the price in the long term.

• 51:13Ed Elson?

  You mentioned there's just this fear of things breaking, you break the kinds of things that you didn't want to break in an attempt to shake up or, you know, break the things that you wanted to break.

• 51:24Aswath Damodaran?

  Or you wanted to break because you thought you could replace it, but you find that you can't replace it. That's my worry is that breaking things saying I can replace it. What if you cannot? I mean, you break the Medicare computers. I agree with you. It's a horrifically outdated system. My wife's mother was on Medicare and she'd be on the phone for two hours where they couldn't find things. It was incredibly outdated.

• 51:50Aswath Damodaran?

  No, so I agree, it needs change. But if you break the system and you're not able to replace it, and remember, you have to replace it instantaneously. What happens if you can't mail the checks out or cover Medicare costs? I mean, that is a horrific side cost to this. Is even if it's only weeks, you've created weeks where people in their seventies and eighties might not be able to get the medical attention they need because you broke the system. So I think that you break systems, you got to recognize that if you can't replace them right away, there were going to be costs and consequences. And those costs and consequences can be catastrophic for some of the people involved in that space.

• 52:31Scott Galloway?

  You mentioned previously that you could predict if someone believes Tesla is under overvalued based on whether they like Elon Musk or not, which I think is really, that's interesting. Somebody told me that, or the head of JP Morgan Asset Management in front of mine, Amanda Cohen, said that if you add up equity values and debt, that the US now represents 70% of the capital markets globally. So to me, that says, all right, you can either own the US for $70 or you can own the rest of the world for $30. And that strikes me as the US is overvalued and the rest of the world is undervalued. And if you apply the same logic, do you like America as a means of deciding whether it's under or overvalued? And potentially whether you invest in the US

• 53:16Scott Galloway?

  or start to invest again in other countries that the flows might reverse?

• 53:20Aswath Damodaran?

  I think, though, I think we're assuming that US companies are the US, right? I mean, in a sense, they're buying the US. And I think that's what's changed, that makes the story. Because I've heard variants of the story every year for the last 15 years. If you carry the tooth, it basically means you should be shifting your money out of US equity index funds, if you're an index investor, into European and emerging market funds. And for the last 15 years, every single year, you look back and say, I wish I hadn't done that. So I've been looking at this because clearly either the market is just really delayed in reacting or there's some, and I think the part of the story that the seventy percent, I think adding bonds

• 54:02Aswath Damodaran?

  to equities is, I think, a little skewed the numbers because the US is the most bond-friendly debt market in the world. The rest of the world, it takes bank debts. If I were to add bonds to stocks, then I should be adding bank debt to equity in other markets to get. So I'll stay with the fifty percent, which is still an impressive number of just market cap. And you look at the biggest market cap companies in that segment. It's of course the mag seven, the big tech companies. And you look at where they get their revenues and you start to very quickly come to the recognition that these are not US companies. These are multinationals through the accident of history that happen to be US-based. They get huge segments of their

• 54:43Aswath Damodaran?

  revenues from outside. So when you buy the S and P five hundred, you're no longer buying the five hundred largest market cap stocks in the US. You're buying five hundred largest market cap multinationals that you are getting global companies. So the fifty percent US share is really a much smaller share. If you look at what segment of US market cap is US revenue-based. Is it still too high? Maybe, but you're not getting the compelling number you get by just looking at market cap. And I think there's a reason for that. I mean, in every market that I go through, go to, I do a corporate, I take the companies in the index. And as you know, one of my pet fads is this corporate lifecycle fad. And

• 55:24Aswath Damodaran?

  I put the companies in the index in the corporate lifecycle. I did this in Brazil. And you take the Bovespa and you take every company, put in the lifecycle, they're all mature to declining companies. There isn't a single, New Bank might be the only one that's younger, slight growth, but they're all mature, declining. You go to even countries like China and India, which have growth. If you look at the biggest companies, they all tend to be old-time, mature business. You go to Europe and forget about it. The indices are basically zombie companies that are well past their due date.

• 55:58Aswath Damodaran?

  But you look at the US market and you look at the top 30, the top 50 stocks. You have stocks that are 12 years old and they're in there. For better or worse, what's driving US market cap is the fact that the energy for growth is still coming from those young companies and the US seems to be the only market where these young companies actually become large companies, scale up. In most of the other markets, they're consumed by the status quo. The existing companies buy them up. In a strange way, you're seeing the market rewarding the US for still creating at least a pathway for a young company with potential, not only scaling up, but scaling up so much that it becomes one of the large companies in the game.

• 56:42Aswath Damodaran?

  Now, so I know that's an indirect answer to your question, but I think in a sense, the number scares me less than other issues. Like, I think the fact that interest rates could go up, I think worries me more about, worries me more than the concentration effect that you see with US equities.

• 56:59Scott Galloway?

  Just last question, a theme here is fallen angels. I love looking at stuff that's been cut way down and I look at Nova Nordisk cut in half. Moderna, which I think is a great company, it's up 90% since it's high. Intel, Starbucks, even with its rebound. You called, I take credit for it, but you called Meta's value back when it was 90 or 95 bucks correctly. You just said, regardless of what you think of the company, it's a cash volcano and it's been overly punished. Any companies you would describe right now as having been over punished?

• 57:31Aswath Damodaran?

  Let's take the companies we talked about, right? Nova Nordisk, even if you cut the price by half, if you compare the market cap to where it was pre-Ozempic, pre-Vagovi, it's way up there. I think what people are reassessing about Nova Nordisk is, let's face it, they got valuable because they were in the right, they got lucky. And it's not like amazing R and D where they said, we're going to come up with a weight loss drug, their diabetes drug happened to have a side benefit. And the question is, is this luck or is this going to change the market? And I think that until they come up with another product that is a market changer, blockbuster drug. I think the hypothesis has to be that they got lucky with these two drugs and they're

• 58:16Aswath Damodaran?

  going to go back to being a sleepy Danish diabetes drug company. And that market cap is actually far lower than the half that you've estimated. So there I'm going to hold off to see what their R and D can turn out because this is a very tough business to create blockbuster drugs and make money on them. And that jury is still out. Intel and Starbucks though, I bought Intel after I did my assessment, you know, last September when we talked, I talked about Intel and Starbucks. I think Intel, I think there's a pathway back to not growth. But the market is pricing it as a dying company and I think that may be a little over the top. I think they have enough strength still that they can go back to being at least a mature

• 59:01Aswath Damodaran?

  chip company. And DeepSeek in a strange way might give them new life because it says, look, you know, everybody's not going to go after Nvidia chips if you can make these kinds of chips. So Intel, I think with the right management in place, and that'll take a few iterations because as you know, the CEO's kind of moved out to somebody they're looking for, somebody who can come in without, I don't want somebody who's incredibly ambitious, who says, I want to make Intel the next Nvidia or the next DSMC. Just be the, just be the old Intel, right? Just go back to making what you, doing what you did, you're going to be okay. Starbucks, and I speak as a Starbucks user, I'm not sure how you fix the company. Right?

• 59:43Aswath Damodaran?

  I mean, I, you know, I noticed that they're already starting to charge different prices for Starbucks across San Diego, depending on which location. It didn't used to be, the airport locations are always expensive, but with, maybe because rent, lease rates are higher, they have this problem, they have these incredibly expensive leaseholds they've taken for Starbucks.

• 1:00:07Aswath Damodaran?

  And there's nobody in them most of the time. They're all lined up outside the pickup window. They picked up their online. I'm not sure how you walk back to a business model that's sustainable. I'm sure they'll try, but there's so much legacy cost that they're going to have to cut through that I don't feel as optimistic about their way back to a healthy, steady state as I do with Intel. So I'm going to take each of these companies, because each of the companies I think has a different issue. The question I'm asking is, can new management fix the issue? If it can, then I'm more up inclined to invest in it. If it's something systematic, something that's going to be more difficult to fix

• 1:00:49Aswath Damodaran?

  with a new management team, then I'm going to hold off because I think there's, you could be in a value trap. But these companies keep looking cheap and get cheaper over time rather than more expensive.

• 1:01:00Ed Elson?

  Aswath Damodaran is the Koshner Family Chair in Finance Education and Professor of Finance at NYU Stern School of Business, where he teaches corporate finance and valuation. You can also read his research on his blog, Musings on Markets, which by the way, is probably my favorite financial blog out there. I really could not recommend it highly enough, just in terms of signal versus noise. I think it's just one of the most, the highest signal financial blogs out there.

• 1:01:27Aswath Damodaran?

  And Ed, I want to add that I leave typos and missed bad links in there just to make sure people realize it's not written by a bot. A bot would never screw up like that. So think of those as intentional typos and intentional links that don't work.

• 1:01:43Ed Elson?

  Absolutely. Professor Damodaran, thank you so much for joining us. It's always a pleasure. Thanks, Aswath.

• 1:01:48Aswath Damodaran?

  Thank you.

• 1:01:51Ed Elson?

  This episode was produced by Claire Miller and engineered by Benjamin Spencer. Our associate producer is Alison Weiss. Mia Silverio is our research lead. Isabella Kinsell is our research associate. Drew Burrows is our technical director and Catherine Dillon is our executive producer. Thank you for listening to Prof G Markets from the Vox Media Podcast Network. If you liked what you heard, give us a follow and join us for a fresh take on markets on Monday.

• 1:02:59Ed Elson?

  One quick note before we sign off. We're expanding Prof G Markets with a new weekly newsletter that breaks down key market moves with data-driven analysis and crisp visuals. Subscribe now at www.profgmarkets.com/subscribe.

• 1:03:15Speaker 07

  Close your eyes, exhale, feel your body relax and let go of whatever you're carrying today.

• 1:03:23Speaker 08

  Well, I'm letting go of the worry that I wouldn't get my new contacts in time for this class. I got them delivered free from 1-800-CONTACTS. Oh my gosh, they're so fast. And breathe. Oh, sorry. I almost couldn't breathe when I saw the discount they gave me on my first order. Oh, sorry. Namaste. Visit 1-800-CONTACTS.com today to save on your first order.

• 1:03:43Speaker 07

  1-800-CONTACTS.