# Steve Eisman: Here's What Anthropic Isn't Telling You

Markdown copy of https://realalpha.app/v/8uoSVG3P6z0/ on Real Alpha, the best minutes from long interviews with the people building AI. Cite and link the page, not this copy.

Steve Eisman says Anthropic’s S-1 leaves key growth and compute risks unclear; Dan Chiolan says Waymo leads the robotaxi race.

- Show: Prof G Markets
- Hosts: [Ed Elson](https://realalpha.app/people/ed-elson/)
- Guest: [Steve Eisman](https://realalpha.app/people/steve-eisman/) · Investor
- Guest: [Dan Chiolan](https://realalpha.app/people/dan-chiolan/) · Research Associate, Prof G Media
- Published: Oct 28, 2026
- Length: 33 min

## The best minutes

- [2:15](https://realalpha.app/v/8uoSVG3P6z0/?t=135) [Q3 numbers reveal Anthropic’s growth slowed after token maxing](https://realalpha.app/s/q3-numbers-reveal-anthropics-growth-slowed-after-token/) (3 min)
- [5:42](https://realalpha.app/v/8uoSVG3P6z0/?t=342) [Anthropic’s commitments raise costs while price cuts test its moat](https://realalpha.app/s/anthropics-commitments-raise-costs-while-price-cuts-test-its/) (5 min)

## Also worth watching

- [25:32](https://realalpha.app/v/8uoSVG3P6z0/?t=1532) [Autonomous fleets create opportunities beyond vehicle makers](https://realalpha.app/s/autonomous-fleets-create-opportunities-beyond-vehicle-makers/) (3 min)
- [20:59](https://realalpha.app/v/8uoSVG3P6z0/?t=1259) [The U.S. leads AV commercialization while China leads manufacturing](https://realalpha.app/s/the-u-s-leads-av-commercialization-while-china-leads/) (3 min)

Skip the sponsor reads and opening market recap, the AV safety, rollout and regulation discussion, and the closing Anthropic recap.

## Full analysis: Steve Eisman says Anthropic’s Q3 growth fell to 45%

- Sequential revenue growth fell from 147% in Q2 to 45% in Q3, Eisman said.
- His estimate of $800 billion to $900 billion in commitments raises cost questions, but timing remains unclear.
- Investors should separate accounting losses from future spending and track growth after any price cuts.

Its 6 sections, what it means for you and what to watch are on [the page](https://realalpha.app/v/8uoSVG3P6z0/#analysis), free with an account:

- [4:31](https://realalpha.app/v/8uoSVG3P6z0/?t=271) Eisman says Q3 growth slowed after token-maxing
- [8:07](https://realalpha.app/v/8uoSVG3P6z0/?t=487) The filing offers a stale operating snapshot
- [6:51](https://realalpha.app/v/8uoSVG3P6z0/?t=411) Future commitments complicate today’s cost picture
- [8:24](https://realalpha.app/v/8uoSVG3P6z0/?t=504) A reported price cut would test pricing power
- [10:17](https://realalpha.app/v/8uoSVG3P6z0/?t=617) Founder control limits public shareholders’ influence
- [32:02](https://realalpha.app/v/8uoSVG3P6z0/?t=1922) Elson calls the model risky, not the product

## Summary

Steve Eisman is described as the legendary Big Short investor and host of The Real Eisman Playbook. Dan Chiolan is a research associate at Prof G Media and recently presented on autonomous vehicles for Prof G+.

Eisman says Anthropic’s S-1 is backward-looking: sequential revenue growth fell from 147% in Q2 to 45% in Q3, while future compute commitments total an estimated $800–$900 billion. He questions whether price cuts, limited shareholder rights and the lack of a moat make the company investable, and says investors should watch CoreWeave’s debt. Chiolan says Waymo leads Tesla in commercial robotaxi scale, though Tesla has a cost advantage; he sees U.S. companies ahead in paid rides and Chinese companies with manufacturing cost advantages and traction in Europe and the Middle East. Elson says Anthropic’s $80 billion first-half net loss reflects convertible-note accounting, but argues future commitments and spending make the business model risky rather than a safe investment.

### Minute by minute

- [1:25](https://realalpha.app/v/8uoSVG3P6z0/?t=85) **Anthropic’s Q3 growth slowed.** Eisman says sequential revenue growth rose from 43% in Q4 to 135% in Q1 and 147% in Q2, then fell to 45% in Q3 as token-maxing eased. Revenue divided by compute and infrastructure costs also fell from 2.08 to 1.7. He says reports of an October price cut of about 50% would be another key data point, though he could not confirm them.
- [5:42](https://realalpha.app/v/8uoSVG3P6z0/?t=342) **The filing leaves future costs unclear.** Eisman calls the S-1 backward-looking because its main charts stop at Q2, before the slowdown he sees in Q3. He says future compute commitments of roughly $800–$900 billion mean expenses will rise, while increased capital spending may add costs that are not yet reflected in the income statement.
- [9:25](https://realalpha.app/v/8uoSVG3P6z0/?t=565) **Eisman says shareholders have no rights.** Eisman says a reported 50% price cut would reinforce his view that Anthropic has no moat if it must rely on price to gain share. Elson outlines the share classes, including a single Class F share controlled by the seven cofounders that carries 50.1% of the vote. Eisman says shareholders have no rights and compares the structure to Meta.
- [11:35](https://realalpha.app/v/8uoSVG3P6z0/?t=695) **Investors should watch CoreWeave’s debt.** Elson says Anthropic had been expected to go public at $2 trillion, while Eisman says he has no expectation on its IPO price. Eisman says Q3 results could change investor sentiment and identifies CoreWeave’s debt yield, which he puts at about 15%, as a key signal for its ability to finance data centers.
- [15:39](https://realalpha.app/v/8uoSVG3P6z0/?t=939) **Waymo leads the robotaxi field.** Chiolan says about 40,000 Americans and over a million people globally die in car crashes each year, and 94% of crashes are due to human error. He says Waymo operates in 15 U.S. cities and has 500,000 paid rides weekly, compared with Tesla’s service in six cities. Zoox has about 100 vehicles in two cities, while Uber facilitates autonomous rides through partnerships in five cities.
- [19:31](https://realalpha.app/v/8uoSVG3P6z0/?t=1171) **Tesla’s cost advantage is substantial.** Chiolan says Tesla has moved quickly from supervised rides to fully autonomous commercial service in six cities, but Waymo still does about seven times as many weekly miles. He puts Tesla’s Cybercab production cost at about $25,000, versus upward of $100,000 for a Waymo vehicle, whose sensor load makes it more expensive and slower to build.
- [21:07](https://realalpha.app/v/8uoSVG3P6z0/?t=1267) **The international race favors China.** Chiolan says China has a manufacturing cost advantage, while the U.S. leads in commercial paid rides, with no Chinese company matching Waymo’s volume. He expects competition to play out in Europe and the Middle East, where Chinese firms have gained ground through their existing vehicle presence; U.S. firms have focused on their domestic rollout.
- [23:17](https://realalpha.app/v/8uoSVG3P6z0/?t=1397) **Regulation and public opinion remain hurdles.** Chiolan says U.S. regulation is fragmented across states, forcing companies to seek approval and lobby state by state; he also notes rising federal lobbying by Waymo. He cites a Gallup poll in which agreement that autonomous vehicles improve road safety fell by 12% from the 52% recorded in 2018, despite safety improvements.
- [25:21](https://realalpha.app/v/8uoSVG3P6z0/?t=1521) **Look to sensors and support services.** Chiolan sees potential in LiDAR suppliers because 95% of passenger-car LiDAR sensors are made in China and bills could ban them from civilian use. He also points to vehicle maintenance and servicing, including Hertz’s new business line, and to trucking, where driver compensation and benefits make up about 44% of marginal costs.
- [28:16](https://realalpha.app/v/8uoSVG3P6z0/?t=1696) **Anthropic’s reported loss needs context.** Elson says Anthropic’s $80 billion first-half net loss reflects the accounting treatment of convertible notes whose fair value increased, rather than operating performance alone. He notes first-half revenue growth of 1,300% year over year, but says Q3 growth slowed to less than 50% quarter over quarter after reaching about 150% in Q2.
- [30:46](https://realalpha.app/v/8uoSVG3P6z0/?t=1846) **Future commitments add significant risk.** Elson says Anthropic’s future compute commitments exceed $800 billion and are not yet reflected in the income statement. He cites contracts of $110 billion with Amazon, $115 billion with Google and $161 billion with Broadcom, and says planned capital spending could push the total higher. He argues the business model remains unproven and the company is a risky venture investment, not a safe one.

## Transcript

Prof G Markets, hosted by Ed Elson, with Steve Eisman and Dan Chiolan.

Transcribed by machine (Whisper) from the episode’s audio, so a word may be off here and there. Where the podcast’s audio and the video part ways, some times are a minute or so off.

[0:00](https://realalpha.app/v/8uoSVG3P6z0/?t=0) If money is evil, then that building is hell. The show goes on! The folks in there are questions so soon! Welcome to Prof G Markets. I'm Ed Elson. It is October 28th. Let's check in on yesterday's market vitals. The major indices climbed, with tech rallying for a second day. All eyes will be on Microsoft and Google's earnings tonight. Brent crude was volatile again, but ended the day around $114 per barrel. the yield on 10-year treasuries was stable. Able, ahead of the Federal Reserve's interest rate decision out later today. And finally, Metashares declined nearly 2% following the completion of its $25 billion stock sale.

[0:48](https://realalpha.app/v/8uoSVG3P6z0/?t=48) The sale was part of its plan to raise nearly $100 billion in equity for its AI ambitions. Reportedly, though, the offering was five times oversubscribed. Okay, what else is happening? As we discussed yesterday, Anthropik's highly anticipated S1 is out and investors are still digesting the filing. Today, we wanted to get another opinion about the company's upcoming IPO and some of the questions that have gone unanswered, including its financial feasibility, anthropics governance, and also the state of the AI bubble at large. So here to break it down is one of our favorite guests, Steve Eisman, the legendary Big Short Investor and host of The Real Eisman Playbook.

[1:38](https://realalpha.app/v/8uoSVG3P6z0/?t=98) Steve, great to see you. I'm going to start. General, what did you make of this filing? What jumped out to you? Well, the thing that jumped out to me the most were two things. The first was, there's an awfully long list of future capital commitments that add up to something, I mean, it depends what you include, don't include, $800 to $900 billion. You know, when you're at $800 to $900 billion, what's $100 billion amongst France? It doesn't really matter. her so that's just one thing that that is i don't know if the word is concerning but just just the way these people operate is you know that's just what they do so that's the first thing what i thought was even more interesting was that um the numbers are only through the second quarter now i have heard that they're going to have to put out third quarter numbers before they go public although I'm not 100% sure that's correct.

[2:37](https://realalpha.app/v/8uoSVG3P6z0/?t=157) However, there are reports out there that at least have the revenue for the third quarter as well as the compute and infrastructure cost for the third quarter. And that actually tells a tale because for those of us who have been paying a lot of attention, as we all know, in the first half of this year, token maxing was at its height. And for those viewers who don't know what that is, token maxing is where basically software engineers were ordered by their companies to use AI 24-7. with the costs. But after the first half of the year, people got a lot more cost-conscious. The Chinese open-weight models took more market share. And so what I wanted to see was what happened in third quarter after the token maxing was over. And so if you look at the fourth quarter, first quarter, second quarter, and third quarter, and you look at two statistics, the sequential revenue increase. And then the revenue divided by the compute infrastructure expense. So if you go to the fourth quarter of last year, which was really just before token maxing really took off, revenue growth was 43% and the ratio was 0.69 times, which meant, of course, that revenue was less than compute expense. Okay. First quarter, token maxing takes off. Revenue growth goes from 43%

[4:09](https://realalpha.app/v/8uoSVG3P6z0/?t=249) sequentially to 135% sequentially. And the ratio goes from 0.69 to 1.4. Impressive. And then in the second quarter, which was the height of token maxing, revenue growth jumps again to 147%. And the revenue to compute goes to 2.08 times. Now let's talk about the third

[4:31](https://realalpha.app/v/8uoSVG3P6z0/?t=271) **Steve Eisman:** quarter. Third quarter, token maxing is over. Sequential revenue growth goes from 147% to 45%. And the revenue divided by compute goes from 2.08 to 1.7. That tells you something. That tells

[4:48](https://realalpha.app/v/8uoSVG3P6z0/?t=288) you that the end of token maxing has had an impact. The other thing that I have heard, I haven't been able to confirm it, is that sometime in October, Anthropic cut its prices by about 50% to try and get back a lot more market share. Whether that's going to come out on the roadshow, I don't know. But it certainly would be the data points that I would be focused on the most. Something that was notable looking through the filing is that a lot of those charts that they put up at the top showing you how the business is doing, they do not include Q3 at all. Right. That's why I bring it up. And there has been speculation that that was an intentional decision in order to hide what seems like a reality, which is that the business growth is slowing quite significantly, as you have just explained.

[5:40](https://realalpha.app/v/8uoSVG3P6z0/?t=340) Do you think it was intentional? Only very intentional. That's all. Only very intentional. Very intentional. Yes. Not intentional. Very intentional. I guess this gets to sort of a larger question about this filing, which is like, how much does it actually tell us is really the question that I'm trying to get at. Because you point out the future compute commitments, which for me, that was the most important thing that I read. I'm like, okay, they have narrowed their losses. They're getting to a better place. That's good. Oh, but hold on, $800 billion coming down the line. And in addition to those $800 billion in compute costs that we're going to see at some point, they also say that they're going to significantly increase capital expenditures, which to me tells me they're going to just build data centers, which seems like a massive pivot, a massive change to the business.

[6:37](https://realalpha.app/v/8uoSVG3P6z0/?t=397) I don't know if they're going to build data centers, but they're certainly going to be spending a lot more money either. Maybe they'll rent, you know, and, and, and that'll cost them a ton. I don't know, but it, but clearly I agree with you for what you're saying that,

[6:51](https://realalpha.app/v/8uoSVG3P6z0/?t=411) **Steve Eisman:** that put it this way, when you commit to $800 billion, your expenses are going up.

[6:59](https://realalpha.app/v/8uoSVG3P6z0/?t=419) How much they're going up? We don't know because I'm not the CFO of the company. I don't know how this is all going to play out. I read one report from someone who argued that by next year, they'll be spending $80 to $100 billion in CapEx. So, you know, but I don't even know what that, is that expensed? Or does that go on the balance sheet? You know, it's unclear. But it seems as though eventually that's going to have to show up in the income statement in some way, whether it's through depreciation or whatever it is, it's going to show up. And it's not showing up right now. The way it shows up is at the very bottom of the document as basically like a footnote.

[7:41](https://realalpha.app/v/8uoSVG3P6z0/?t=461) So that's going to be a massive change to the business. And then, as you say, it does seem that the current revenue is a pretty important or current Q3 revenue is a pretty important item that tells you something about the future of this business over the next, you know, near future, over the next 12 months. What I can't tell is, did this S1, did it really tell us much about this company? I think it's very, very backward-looking, because it's giving you a... Snapshot of the company at the height of token maxing, and before Chinese open-weight models really started to take market share. I found a report that said that Anthropoc cut prices by 50% to gain back market share. I don't know if that's true. Let's assume it is.

[8:37](https://realalpha.app/v/8uoSVG3P6z0/?t=517) that's an incredibly important data point before you go public that you just cut prices by it you know this is not uh it's 47th street we know we cut them we cut prices in half you know and we're bragging you know cutting prices in half could be dangerous you know the question then would be okay you cut prices in half how much more market share did you get did your revenue go down did it go did you take so much market share that your revenue went up? I don't know. But, you know, that would seem to me to be the most important question to be asked. I mean, the question for investors, the ultimate question is, do you invest in this thing?

[9:15](https://realalpha.app/v/8uoSVG3P6z0/?t=555) Oh, I have an answer for that. That I can answer you. Tell me. No. You kind of got to the point quickly. I was going to ask you, would you need to know the answers to the questions that you just brought up before investing i assume the answer is yes you would well yes but i think look to me the bigger the the bigger bigger bigger question is it just seems you know that there are no moats around this business i mean if it's the case that they actually did cut prices by 50 that would reinforce the concept that there are no moats and that the only way you're going to gain shares price being in a business where you are committed to spend 800 billion dollars where your entire franchise is just simply based on price is dangerous there is another uh interesting angle uh on this s1 which was the governance structure oh please those is ridiculous i mean what's there to talk about you're you're a shareholder in this company you have no rights Okay. Let's move on. If you want to invest in that company, that's up to you. It's been disclosed. You have no rights. Zero rights. You want to play? Play. If you think that's very important, then you won't play.

[10:40](https://realalpha.app/v/8uoSVG3P6z0/?t=640) Just to clarify for our listeners. There are multiple classes of stock here. You've got the regular voting shares. You've got the regular non-voting shares. Then you have this class T share, which is controlled by what they call the long-term benefit trust. And apparently, this is sort of this committee that gets to choose the board of directors. But most importantly, there is also a class F share, one single class F share, which is controlled by the seven co-founders of the company. And the share, most importantly, carries 50.1% of the vote. How much does that matter when evaluating an investment like this?

[11:18](https://realalpha.app/v/8uoSVG3P6z0/?t=678) Like, you know, beyond if you would like to have a vote, does it tell you something larger about this company and whether it's investable? I don't think so. So, yeah, we could make the same criticism of Meta. And, you know, Meta as a stock generally has done very, very well. But this is what goes on in tech world. They don't like their own shareholders. That's basically what's happening. Founder worship, institutionalized. It's supposed to go public at $2 trillion. That has been the expectation. There has been some debate as to whether that price might be cut. People were talking about $1.5 trillion.

[11:57](https://realalpha.app/v/8uoSVG3P6z0/?t=717) What is your expectation for when this thing goes out? I have no expectations. I have no information on what I read in the papers. Do you have a view on investor sentiment? I mean, one thing that I can't quite figure out myself is, did this filing make investors more or less confident in the business? I think it actually made it more confident because people weren't pointing out that it's only going through the second quarter and what that meant so it's gonna be very interesting to see what sentiment looks like if if and i don't know if this happens they have to drop third quarter numbers in before they go bubble yeah the third quarter numbers could potentially change the game if that happens would you expect that the sentiment will turn quite precipitously i mean it should but you know we're not conducting a group therapy session with the investing world so i don't know how people that's all i want me too i don't know how people are going to react i never know i absolutely don't i love when people you know some people they'll always say it's in the price it's in the price and i always want to say how do you know like who did you ask Did you take a poll?

[13:13](https://realalpha.app/v/8uoSVG3P6z0/?t=793) Like, on basis, do you say that? But people say this all the time. And I always say, I don't know. Just as we start to wrap up here, any other things that you're looking at in AI world, things that you think are especially important that we should keep track of? Well, the other big thing to keep track of, obviously, is the price of CoreWeave's debt. You know, at 15%, I think, although I can't prove it, I think it's prohibitive for them to raise debt at 15% and build AI data centers. but you know if it gets worse then they're really out of business you know they their business model is basically we raise debt we build ai data centers that's it that's the entire business model and if they can't raise debt they can't build ai data centers that's really the now maybe you know NVIDIA will come in and backstop the whole company you know it's certainly possible But barring that, you know, I would be watching the debt markets.

[14:12](https://realalpha.app/v/8uoSVG3P6z0/?t=852) Steve Eisman is the legendary Big Short Investor and host of The Real Eisman Playbook, which is a great podcast. I highly recommend it. Steve, always appreciate your time. Thank you. After the break, the state of play in the autonomous vehicle race. And for even more markets insights, you can subscribe to my weekly newsletter. Simply put, go to edwardelson.substack.com. We'll be right back. badly. And you'll also get to participate in audience Q&A, so bring your best questions. Scott will probably still answer the ones you didn't ask, but that's okay. Get your tickets at PivotTour.com. That's PivotTour.com. We will sell out, so get your tickets. We'll see you in Denver.

[14:56](https://realalpha.app/v/8uoSVG3P6z0/?t=896) Support for the show comes from Gusto. Nobody dreams about payroll tax deadlines, and yet they show up anyway like a walking nightmare you're forced to deal with on a quarterly basis. That is, unless you have Gusto. Gusto is online payroll and benefits software built for small businesses. It's all in one. remote-friendly, and incredibly easy to use. So you can pay, hire, onboard, and support your team from anywhere. Automatic payroll tax filings, simple direct deposits, health benefits, commuter benefits, workers' comp, 401k, you name it. Gusto makes it simple. They have options for nearly every budget. You get unlimited payroll runs for one monthly price, no hidden fees, no surprises.

[15:14](https://realalpha.app/v/8uoSVG3P6z0/?t=914) They've got plenty of built-in automated tools designed to help you save time, like offer letters, onboarding docs, direct deposit, and more. It's quick and simple to switch to Gusto. just transfer your existing data to get up and running fast. Plus, you don't pay a cent until you run your first payroll. Try Gusto today at gusto.com slash markets and get three months free when you run your first payroll. That's three months of free payroll at gusto.com slash markets. One more time, gusto.com slash markets. Are you tired of hearing about business, tech, and finance from the bros? We are the Tiger Sisters, a top business podcast with the Vox media podcast network tiger sisters releases every monday and we decode money power and love and who doesn't love all those things we are the internet's wall street and silicon valley big sisters tune in every monday for late night sister talk meets boardroom strategy check out tiger sisters on youtube spotify or wherever you get your podcasts welcome to the tiger fam we're back with prof g markets earlier this week we discussed the future of tesla and its foray into the lucrative autonomous robotaxi business but while tesla rolls out their robotaxis across

[15:59](https://realalpha.app/v/8uoSVG3P6z0/?t=959) the country they face one major obstacle and that is competition companies like alphabet amazon and Uber are also looking to capitalize on the future of transportation. So we would like to take a moment to attempt to answer the following question. Who is actually winning in autonomous vehicles? And what does the future of autonomous actually look like? Today, we're speaking with our very own research team associate, Dan Shallon, who recently presented on this very topic on our ProfG Plus substack. It was a great presentation. I learned a lot. So that's why I wanted to get into it today dan i see you every day but thank you for joining me on the show i just want to start with a general question which you started with in your presentation which i thought was very helpful which is how big of a problem um our vehicle deaths today? In other words, make the case for us why autonomous is actually a good thing. It's sort of hard to conceptualize just how dangerous driving is because we as Americans do it so often. We spend on average about an hour a day behind the wheel. But every year, 40,000 Americans die in car crashes. Globally, that number is over a million. It's the leading killer of people ages 5 to 29. And I think why those numbers are relevant to autonomous vehicles

[17:21](https://realalpha.app/v/8uoSVG3P6z0/?t=1041) is because 94% of car crashes are due to human error. So really, driving isn't dangerous because cars are dangerous or roads are dangerous. It's because humans are dangerous. So I think that's why autonomous vehicles are a very exciting technology, because it can allow us as Americans, as people around the world, to take something that we need to do every day and make it significantly safer. Looking at the players in this industry, obviously Tesla is getting into RoboTaxi's. The rollout has been, I don't even know what to say about it anymore. It's been, it's taken a while. Who are the actual players in this industry though? And how do they all stack up against each other? Yeah. So I think we can start with Tesla. And to understand Tesla's autonomous business, you really have to split it into two. So the first is the consumer side.

[18:13](https://realalpha.app/v/8uoSVG3P6z0/?t=1093) And that's FSD. That's the software that Tesla sells directly to Tesla owners, which allows Tesla drivers to have the car drive itself under supervision. Currently, about 1.7 million people globally pay for it. But then there's the other side of their autonomous business, which is their robo-taxi business, which is their autonomous ride share business that's in direct competition with Waymo and other players here in America. So here they're doing well. They're scaling very quickly. They have a fully commercial service in six cities. And just last month, they started putting cybercabs on the road, which are their purpose-built autonomous vehicles with no steering wheel.

[18:53](https://realalpha.app/v/8uoSVG3P6z0/?t=1133) So despite the fact that they are moving very quickly, they are very clearly in second place to Waymo. Currently, Waymo does about seven times the amount of miles that Tesla does weekly. They're in 15 American cities. They're doing 500,000 paid rides weekly. So they're very far in the lead. I think there are two others worth mentioning. The first is Zoox, which is owned by Amazon. It's their self-driving startup. They're currently in two American cities, and they have about 100 vehicles. on the road. So they're pretty early stage. And then the last one is Uber, which actually doesn't have any vehicles or technology on its own. But through partnerships with other autonomous vehicle companies like Zoox, like Waymo, it's able to facilitate autonomous rides in five American cities currently. I'm surprised to hear you say that the Tesla rollout has been quick because you say those numbers those waymo numbers which are phenomenal compared to tesla i guess what has been promising about the tesla rollout of their robotaxi specifically in contrast to waymo which on the outside it seems like waymo has been a lot more successful yeah so i think the thing that that tesla has really done well in these past few months is scale up very quickly um for a while

[20:12](https://realalpha.app/v/8uoSVG3P6z0/?t=1212) sort of in typical Elon Musk fashion, we were getting promises about an autonomous service rolling out in Austin and California, when in reality, you'd call a Tesla robo-taxi and there'd actually be a human safety monitor behind the wheel. In the past couple months, they've ditched the safety monitors in six cities, like I said, they're fully commercial, fully autonomous. But the biggest advantage that Tesla has over Waymo is cost. So those Tesla cybercabs cost about $25,000 to produce, whereas Waymo's costs upward of $100,000. They have a sort of much more thorough sensor load in the vehicles that they produce, which makes them more expensive. It makes them harder to build and take longer to build. So Tesla's really ramped up. Now, still, I don't mean that to say that Tesla is in first place in any sense. Tesla is still significantly behind. But just in the past couple of months, they've gone from kind of not existing in terms of their robotaxi service to having something operational. On an international level, who is winning the AV race? It sounds like you believe that the winner currently is Waymo, but Tesla seems to be beginning to catch up. On an international level, US, China, who's winning? Autonomous.

[21:32](https://realalpha.app/v/8uoSVG3P6z0/?t=1292) Yeah, so I think internationally, it's definitely between the U.S. and China. There are, you know, countless companies in China trying to do autonomous driving. I think where China is really winning is in manufacturing because they have the ability to manufacture electric vehicles and autonomous vehicles. at a cost that's much lower than any American company. But in terms of commercialization,

[21:57](https://realalpha.app/v/8uoSVG3P6z0/?t=1317) **Dan Chiolan:** America is definitely in the lead because there's no company in China that's doing as many paid rides as Waymo is.

[22:03](https://realalpha.app/v/8uoSVG3P6z0/?t=1323) So we're sort of very clearly in first place in that aspect. The thing that I think is important to know is most likely we will never see each other's technology. Like America's never going to allow Chinese self-driving companies here in America and China won't allow American self-driving companies in China. The place where the race is really going to play out is in the Middle East and Europe, where those countries can kind of, you know, choose which country to get their autonomous driving technology from. And I think what's interesting so far is in the Middle East and in Europe, they've by and large gone with Chinese companies, whereas, you know, American companies like Waymo or Tesla have not been able to expand internationally.

[22:46](https://realalpha.app/v/8uoSVG3P6z0/?t=1366) Do you think that is a function of Chinese technology being better or maybe it's a geopolitical strategy? I mean, I can't tell if that says something about China's influence on Europe and the Middle East geopolitically. What is your read? I think they already have entered those countries with their electric vehicles and their vehicles in general, which has allowed them to get sort of a foothold in the market there. But I also just think it speaks to American companies' strategy of focusing on the domestic battle first. Waymo does have plans to expand internationally, but they're really focused on rolling out here in America first.

[23:29](https://realalpha.app/v/8uoSVG3P6z0/?t=1409) One of the other obstacles for autonomous has been regulation. What is the regulatory picture in America look like right now? So it's currently very fragmented, and that's because it's all happening at the state level. There's really been no federal framework or action sort of passed by the federal government to guide these companies on how they should be regulated. And that is a very messy process because it means each of these companies needs to go through the painstaking process of lobbying each state individually to be able to test and then to, you know, be able to operate non-commercially and then commercially and then expand from there. And so what that has produced is a pretty large lobbying battle between, you know, drivers unions and unions at the state level and then these robo-taxi companies.

[24:16](https://realalpha.app/v/8uoSVG3P6z0/?t=1456) We've also seen Waymo dramatically ramp up their federal lobbying spend in the past couple of years. years. So I think the political battle is going to continue to play out in America. I do think it's also interesting to note that autonomous vehicles are not sort of insulated from the political backlash that the rest of, you know, AI and autonomous robotics in general have received here in America. We talk about it on the show often. It's the same force that has sort of prevented data center construction in many local communities. So public opinion on AI is souring, and I think we're seeing that reflected in what people think about autonomous vehicles.

[24:54](https://realalpha.app/v/8uoSVG3P6z0/?t=1494) There's a really interesting poll here. Gallup polled Americans in 2018 about whether or not they think that some amount of autonomous vehicles improve road safety overall. And at that time, about 52% of Americans agreed. They were in the same poll last year, and the share of Americans who agreed actually went down by 12%. And that's despite the fact that, you know, in that time, autonomous vehicles went from basically not existing to getting exponentially safer every single year. So it's really, you know, it's impossible to divorce people's sentiment about AI and this technology in general from the technology itself.

[25:33](https://realalpha.app/v/8uoSVG3P6z0/?t=1533) Despite the fact that it is statistically safer, is my understanding. um as we wrap up if you wanted to make bets on autonomous say someone's listening to this they're like oh i want to bet on this thing or invest in this i shouldn't say bet uh how would you do it what are the trades uh or the investments that you would look at it's pretty early days for autonomous vehicles um but as the technology progresses i think there's going to be a couple places you can look for winners um the places where i'm going to be looking is first in the sort of picks and shovels play, which are companies that are actually making the components that go into these vehicles. I think the first opportunity here are going to be companies that make LiDAR sensors. And those are those expensive sensors that are in Waymos and Zoox's and pretty much every autonomous vehicle. And I think the reason why there's an opportunity there is because

[26:25](https://realalpha.app/v/8uoSVG3P6z0/?t=1585) **Dan Chiolan:** currently 95% of passenger car LiDAR sensors, which are in these autonomous vehicles, are made in China. And obviously, that's a huge national security risk. Those Chinese-made sensors are

[26:38](https://realalpha.app/v/8uoSVG3P6z0/?t=1598) already banned for military use. And there's actually bills in Congress that would ban them for civilian use as well. So if that happens, there would be a huge opportunity for American companies to come in and manufacture those sensors. So there's going to be some winners there. The second is going to be in the maintenance and upkeep of autonomous vehicles, right? Because unlike Uber and Lyft, where drivers themselves are maintaining their vehicles, these companies are going to have to maintain thousands of vehicles at scale across the country. You know, they need to charge the vehicles. They need to park them.

[27:11](https://realalpha.app/v/8uoSVG3P6z0/?t=1631) They need to clean them. Currently, there are a few startups that are looking to do this as a service for those companies. But there is an industry here in America that I think is going to see a huge windfall from this need, which is the car rental industry. You know, if you think about car rental companies, they already have these facilities around the country sort of ready to go. And just last week, actually, Hertz announced that they're standing up a new leg of their business to do exactly that, to service autonomous vehicles. So I think we're going to see more car rental companies sort of pivot in that direction as well. And then I think the last winner is going to be the trucking industry. Because if you look at trucking, about 44% of trucking's marginal costs come from driver compensation and benefits. So if you can automate those costs, you know, it's obviously very lucrative. There's currently a company called Aurora that's testing self-driving on American roads.

[28:02](https://realalpha.app/v/8uoSVG3P6z0/?t=1682) And then Tesla also produces a semi-truck, which they say will eventually have full self-driving capabilities, although it doesn't quite yet. Dan Jelan is our research associate at Prof G Media. Really fascinating stuff. Thank you. If you want to watch a replay of the live stream that Dan did on this industry, it's like an hour long, I want to say. It's super in-depth, but it's super informative. You can go to profgmedia.com, click on the Prof G Plus tab. We do a lot of these more in-depth deep dives over on Substack. Dan, thank you. I'll see you tomorrow. Appreciate your time. Thanks for having me, Ed.

[28:28](https://realalpha.app/v/8uoSVG3P6z0/?t=1708) Before we end, let's return to Anthropik's S1 filing, which has polarized a lot of investors. Some look at the revenue growth and they say that the company is incredible. Others look at the net losses and they say it's terrible. The largest IPO in history is bringing out a lot of emotions from investors, which I get. But it also makes me think that maybe this IPO is fundamentally misunderstood. So to end this episode, I would like to do a little bit of myth busting on Anthropic and more specifically on Anthropic's IPO. So. Number one. Yes, the company did rack up an $80 billion net loss in the first half of the year, which sounds bad, but no, that doesn't actually matter. Why? Because those losses were a product of the increase in the fair value of Anthropik's convertible notes. In other words, investors lent Anthropik money, and in return, those investors later received equity. And because of how accounting laws work, Anthropic technically had to write that up as a widening expense. But in reality, it was simply a reflection of how valuable Anthropic had become in a remarkably short period of time. So the $80 billion net loss, that's a red herring. Okay, number two. Yes, Anthropic's

[30:06](https://realalpha.app/v/8uoSVG3P6z0/?t=1806) first half revenue grew 1300% year over year, which is incredible. But no, as Steve points out, it has not kept up that extraordinary growth, not even close. The part that the S1 in many places left out is that revenue growth slowed down significantly in Q3. As Steve said, it was 150% quarter over quarter in Q2, and then less than 50% in Q3. Now, that's not necessarily bad, but it does show that maybe the AI frenzy is beginning to come to an end. And finally, number three, yes, Anthropic did narrow their losses quite significantly. It was more than $2 billion in the first half of last year versus less than $700 million this year. That is good, but no, that trajectory is not going to continue. The most important numbers in the filing came at the end of the document, where we learned that Anthropic has signed more than $800 billion in future compute commitments, none of which are reflected in the current income statement, but all of which eventually will be. That includes an $110 billion contract with Amazon, a $115 billion contract with Google, a $161 billion contract with Broadcom. What it doesn't include, however, are the billions of dollars in capital expenditures, which they are about to

[31:28](https://realalpha.app/v/8uoSVG3P6z0/?t=1888) register probably to build out their own compute. That's not something I believe because I had a hunch about it. I believe that because they literally told us that in the S1. In other words, that $800 billion number is actually probably going to be a lot higher. And as a result, this company's losses are about to explode. Now, did they time this IPO so that we wouldn't have to look at those losses on the income statement? possibly, but that's a theory. It's not a fact. And this segment is specifically devoted to things that we know for sure. The truth about the Anthropic S1 is that the income statement doesn't tell you the full story. It doesn't mean it's a bad company. It doesn't mean they don't have an incredible product. They do. But it does mean that there is still a lot of risk. The business model hasn't been figured out yet. And until it is, we must treat Anthropic with the appropriate level of caution. It's still a highly risky venture bet. Things could still go spectacularly wrong. What it certainly isn't is a proven safe corporate investment, something that it's potentially $2 trillion valuation might suggest. In sum, not much has changed. But whatever picture the profitability is painting right now, all I can tell you is that next year, that picture

[32:45](https://realalpha.app/v/8uoSVG3P6z0/?t=1965) is going to look drastically different. Okay, that's it for today. This episode was produced by Claire Miller and Alison Weiss and engineered by Benjamin Spencer. Our video editor is Brad Williams. Our research team is Dan Chalon, Kristen O'Donoghue and Mia Silverio. And our social producer is Jake McPherson. Thank you for listening to Profit G Markets