Free with a sign-in.
The best 12 min of 34
Anthropic's $800 Billion Problem Is Hiding In The Fine Print
Paul Kedrosky says Anthropic’s compute commitments could reshape its economics, while Robert Armstrong sees AI-market cracks but not a 2008-style crash.
Prof G Markets · Ed Elson
- Paul Kedrosky · Managing Partner, SK Ventures
- Robert Armstrong · US Financial Commentator, Financial Times
The best minutes
- 8:16Anthropic’s future compute costs dwarf its current losses9 min
- 30:11A correction could hit chipmakers harder than hyperscalersPro pick 3 min
Also worth watching
- 2:48Anthropic’s lower operating loss may be an IPO snapshot5 min
- 20:37Bond buying and weaker market breadth point to a turn4 min
- 27:03AI infrastructure financing is headed for consolidation3 min
Skip the opening podcast promos, the market-vitals recap, the SoFi ad and cross-show promotions.
Full analysis · 7 min read
Real Alpha · Nov 7
Paul Kedrosky says $800 billion-plus commitments reshape Anthropic
- Anthropic reported a $693 million first-half operating loss, while disclosed agreements point to more than $800 billion in compute commitments.
- Paul Kedrosky says the loss is backward-looking, as most commitments are non-cancellable and infrastructure spending shifts toward direct builds.
- Track compute efficiency, renewed revenue growth and funding access before treating that loss as a margin signal.
Free with an account
Read the rest of the analysis
6 sections, the 7 other voices it tests Kedrosky against, and what it means for you. Every episode we cut gets one.
Check your inbox
We sent a link to your address. Click it to finish signing up. Not there in a minute? Look in spam.
or
Signed up before? The same buttons sign you in. The episode, its moments and the transcript stay free.
The operating loss captures a favorable snapshot
Anthropic's first-half operating loss was $693 million, down sharply from a year earlier. The host also reported rapid revenue growth, but growth alone says little about what each unit of model use costs.
On its face, the lower loss suggests improving leverage. Yet that reading leaves out costs not yet flowing through the income statement.
Paul Kedrosky, SK Ventures managing partner, said the result was narrower than he expected. He had expected a materially larger loss, but did not present that comparison as a settled forecast.
He also cautioned that IPO preparation can put costs in their best light. That is a warning about context, not an accusation of misconduct.
Stock-based compensation was another warning. Kedrosky said it was material, dilutive, and likely to continue after an IPO.
Public investors may then face buybacks to offset dilution, competing for cash with compute and construction. That makes the operating loss incomplete even before direct infrastructure costs rise.
David Sacks on All-In in October 2026 called Anthropic capital-efficient. He pointed to low cash burn and rising gross margins in the filing.
That contests a simple cash-burning-company story, but does not remove future commitments. The two readings address different periods, current cash conversion and future infrastructure obligations.
Our read
The $693 million figure is a real operating result, not proof of durable profitability. Stock compensation and the infrastructure shift weaken the case for reading it as a margin forecast.
The $800 billion lacks a disclosed payment schedule
Elson added disclosed agreements, including $161 billion with Broadcom and $115 billion with Google, to a total above $800 billion. The total was his calculation from filing disclosures, not a bill reported as currently payable.
The filing gives no schedule for when that spending occurs. Kedrosky said these commitments are future and non-cash, rather than conventional debt.
His point is not that the income statement should book every agreement today. It is that investors need to consider the eventual cash-flow burden.
He said most commitments cannot be cancelled. He described the SpaceX commitment as about $3 billion annually and cancellable on 90 days' notice.
That exception is small beside the disclosed total. The uncertainty is timing, not whether the contracts create obligations.
Steve Eisman on Prof G Markets in October 2026 also said the commitments raise future expenses. Chamath Palihapitiya on All-In in October 2026 proposed raising $200 billion to $250 billion for compute runway through a correction.
Erik Bernhardsson on Unsupervised Learning in October 2026 described GPU financing as leveraged, with resale value cushioning exposure. Those comparisons clarify financing pressure, not Anthropic's specific contract schedule or collateral.
“the preponderance of the commitments are in future, they're massive, and they're all non-cancellable.”
Steve Eisman · Prof G Markets · Oct 28Anthropic’s commitments raise costs while price cuts test its moat
Chamath Palihapitiya · All-In · Oct 17Anthropic should prioritize compute runway over IPO valuation
Erik Bernhardsson · Unsupervised Learning · Oct 28NeoCloud growth depends on debt and GPU resale value
Our read
The agreements are future, non-cash commitments, not conventional debt. Without a disclosed schedule, investors cannot infer when obligations build or how cash demand overlaps.
Going direct trades distribution risk for capital spending
Kedrosky's central concern is that Anthropic is moving from cloud distribution toward more direct infrastructure. Building its own capacity could reduce dependence on rivals that sell its models and compete with them.
But direct control brings upfront capital spending and a continuing maintenance burden. It changes the cost structure instead of making compute free.
Take the marketplace relationship Kedrosky compared with Spotify. Cloud platforms can distribute Anthropic's product while taking a share of sales.
That arrangement pairs customer access with a rival's leverage over distribution. Owning infrastructure could change that balance, but it does not guarantee utilization.
Anthropic's filing says more infrastructure investment will require upfront payments before related compute becomes operational. That timing creates a gap between spending cash and getting usable capacity.
Maintenance means the build is not a one-time bridge to lower costs. Each facility adds a continuing obligation alongside construction expense.
Andy Jassy on a16z Podcast in October 2026 said Amazon expected demand to exceed capacity. He said $220 billion in capital expenditures would still leave meaningful demand unmet.
That supports a case for scarce infrastructure, not a claim about Anthropic's returns. Demand for capacity alone cannot establish attractive economics.
Our read
Direct infrastructure may improve strategic control, but it replaces some distribution dependence with investment and maintenance obligations. Demand for capacity alone cannot establish an attractive return.
Efficiency and renewed growth must arrive together
Kedrosky said Anthropic's reported token-production compute intensity had fallen like 50% or something. He gave the figure loosely as a reported company statistic, not as a forecast.
The hedge matters because the episode provides no full cost series to test. A reported decline in compute intensity matters only if it persists as use grows.
He also cited leaked third-quarter figures suggesting something like 50% revenue growth. For the fourth quarter, he said the company's implied target returned to about 64% or so.
Those estimates are neither confirmed outcomes nor enough to prove the shift will pay. Growth must cover the infrastructure costs that the current income statement has yet to reflect.
Dan Primack on Big Technology Podcast in October 2026 cited rising revenue per compute dollar. That offers a second efficiency signal, but does not settle the economics of infrastructure commitments.
Efficiency must hold after direct investment and maintenance enter the cost base. Otherwise better model economics can still be swamped by the cost of building and operating capacity.
Steve Eisman on Prof G Markets in October 2026 framed price cuts as a share test. Share gains bought with lower prices still need to cover compute and infrastructure costs.
So rising usage is weaker evidence if discounts outrun savings per unit. The useful test is whether efficiency improves while revenue growth returns.
- DPDan Primack · Big Technology Podcast · Oct 26Compute efficiency is central to Anthropic’s path to profit
- Steve Eisman · Prof G Markets · Oct 28Anthropic’s commitments raise costs while price cuts test its moat
Our read
Efficiency is the operating bridge between commitments and margins, while growth supplies the revenue base. Neither measure alone resolves the economics of the transition.
A pullback could punish suppliers more than platforms
Robert Armstrong, the Financial Times US commentator and Unhedged author, read the Treasury rally and weakening market breadth as signs of greater caution. He pointed to small caps, rate-sensitive sectors, and industrial stocks tied to data-center construction.
The stress was already spreading beyond headline indexes before big tech weakened. Armstrong saw a change in market mood, not proof of an imminent crash.
Yet Armstrong did not forecast a 2008-style correction. He said the largest hyperscalers entered the boom with highly profitable businesses.
They could regain free cash flow if they cut infrastructure spending. That makes the risk different from a collapse across every large platform.
Armstrong expected semiconductor companies to lose substantial value if data-center investment contracted. The host, not Armstrong, raised CoreWeave as an example of a company that might fail.
Armstrong's broader point was that infrastructure pain could coexist with stronger platform stocks. Suppliers and platforms therefore face different exposure to the same spending reversal.
Ed Elson on Prof G Markets in November 2026 later argued that hyperscalers' AI buildout depends on capital markets. That complicates the cash-machine defense, though it does not erase differences in profitability.
Armstrong also said a Treasury yield near five percent offers a cushion, not a route to wealth. That cushion matters most if investors are already reassessing risk.
Our read
The likely damage is uneven across the AI supply chain, not necessarily a broad market collapse. Treasury yields and financing access matter alongside demand for chips and cloud capacity.
The IPO price cannot settle the business model
The host cited a reported $2 trillion valuation. Kedrosky offered a lower estimate, conditional on a listing actually happening.
He also conditioned the listing on the United States having a functioning government. The exchange made clear that his estimate was conditional, not a firm price target.
The filing also omitted a full total for contractual compute obligations, named major customers, and a separate training-cost breakdown. Those gaps make it harder to connect capacity commitments with customer durability and model economics.
A headline valuation cannot supply those missing links. Nor can investor demand establish whether the build earns an adequate return.
Dan Primack on Big Technology Podcast in October 2026 said investors may still seek exposure to likely AI winners. That appetite can support a price even when future compute obligations are hard to judge.
Investor demand therefore tests the appetite for risk, not the operating model. A successful listing would not validate the economics by itself.
A listing cannot turn a backward-looking income statement into a forecast. For boards, test whether unit compute costs fall while revenue and funding sustain the build.
Treat a valuation as a market price, not evidence that the transition works. The operating questions remain costs, customer demand, and financing.
Our read
A successful listing would not validate the economics by itself. Investors need disclosures that connect spending commitments, customer demand, and future cash requirements.
What it means for you
- Map the contracts. Track each compute agreement's start date, payment timing, and cancellation terms. Separate disclosed commitments from cash already paid.
- Measure compute efficiency. Track revenue per compute dollar and cost per token alongside operating margins. Treat reported efficiency gains as signals to test, not proof of profitability.
- Test revenue quality. Review growth, customer concentration, and marketplace sales together. Label leaked quarterly figures as unconfirmed.
- Model direct infrastructure. Budget construction and recurring maintenance separately from cloud leases. Test lower utilization against the same commitments.
What to watch
- Whether Anthropic discloses the timing of compute commitments, training costs, and customer concentration.
- Whether compute intensity keeps falling while revenue growth reaccelerates.
- Whether tighter financing affects smaller infrastructure firms before weakness reaches hyperscalers.
Send this to the CFO and product lead setting AI infrastructure budgets.
Watch the minutes where Elson adds up the disclosed compute agreements.
Written by Real Alpha from the episode's transcript and the other moments it links, then checked against the transcript. Quotes are the speaker's exact words.
Minute by minute
A Pro write-up, open to you here. Try Pro free for 7 days
A Pro write-up. The minute by minute is in Real Alpha Pro; the episode, its moments and the transcript stay free.
Read it with Pro, 7 days free- 1:33The filing leaves key costs undisclosed
Ed Elson reports that Anthropic generated $16.3 billion in first-half revenue, up from $1.2 billion a year earlier, and recorded a loss above $80 billion, including a $72 billion non-cash charge. Operating loss was about $700 million. The filing omitted total compute commitments, customer identities, training costs and its listing date.
- 2:48Kedrosky sees few filing surprises
Paul Kedrosky says many of the filing’s notable details had already appeared in reports, so he found few surprises. He expected more customer-concentration data: the filing identifies only customers above 10%, with the largest shown at 11% or 12%, leaving other shares unclear.
- 5:25Narrower losses do not settle profitability
Kedrosky says the $693 million first-half operating loss was below his expectation of about $1.1 billion, though IPO preparations can affect how costs are presented and he expects losses could worsen. He flags material stock-based compensation as a source of dilution that could require buybacks after listing.
- 8:11Kedrosky flags more than $800 billion in compute
Kedrosky says the disclosed Broadcom and Google agreements, at $161 billion and $115 billion, imply more than $800 billion in compute spending over an undisclosed timeline. He says most commitments are non-cancellable and that excluding SpaceX still leaves close to $700 billion. The roughly $3 billion a year for SpaceX can be canceled on 90 days’ notice.
- 10:52Distribution through rivals creates exposure
Kedrosky says Anthropic distributes its models through Microsoft, Google and Amazon, which also compete with it and take a share of marketplace sales. He compares the arrangement to Spotify paying a fixed share while rival music-streaming services could cut off access. He sees this as a structural vulnerability, not just a sales expense.
- 12:00Direct infrastructure will raise capital needs
The S-1 says compute bought through cloud-provider agreements is paid for as it becomes available, while a growing portion of infrastructure investment will require upfront spending and lease obligations. Kedrosky says Anthropic is moving toward building its own capacity to reduce reliance on rivals, bringing both initial build costs and ongoing maintenance capex.
- 14:00Kedrosky says the filing is backward-looking
Kedrosky says the filing reflects an earlier, distributor-heavy model, while direct infrastructure will bring upfront and maintenance capex. He agrees with Elson’s suggestion that Anthropic may be going public while its current operating numbers look relatively good, before the capital-intensive model appears in its statements.
- 16:23Growth and efficiency must improve
Kedrosky says the business needs continued declines in compute per token and a reacceleration in revenue growth. He cites leaked Q3 growth around 50% and Q4 growth implied at about 64%. He expects a valuation of about $1.5 trillion if Anthropic lists, rather than the discussed $2 trillion.
- 20:37Treasury demand signals a mood shift
Robert Armstrong says demand for bonds became striking when stocks weakened, despite recent concerns about US fiscal sustainability and inflation. He notes the 10-year yield fell 19 basis points in one day and argues that inflation-adjusted bond yields of 2% to 3% looked attractive.
- 22:07Equity cracks predated the sell-off
Armstrong says weakness in the market had preceded the recent sell-off: the Nasdaq and S&P 500 had moved sideways since May while small caps, utilities, real estate and industrial names linked to data-center construction struggled. He says the shift has broken the market’s euphoria, but he is not calling for a crash.
- 27:03Armstrong expects AI infrastructure consolidation
Elon Musk says debt markets have largely closed funding to companies without revenue independent of AI data centers, predicting failures and consolidation among 200-plus neoclouds. Armstrong says a broadly financed AI infrastructure boom is likely to undergo restructuring, and that Musk’s fundraising ability could put him among the consolidators.
- 30:11Hyperscalers could cushion an AI downturn
Armstrong argues that cash-rich Alphabet, Amazon, Meta and Microsoft could hold up if spending on data centers slows, while semiconductor companies such as Nvidia and Broadcom could lose substantial value. He does not expect a 2008-style correction, but says some companies may fail. He views a 5% 10-year Treasury yield as a cushion against inflation and rate moves.
Published Oct 27, 2026.
Transcript · 27 min read
Prof G Markets, hosted by Ed Elson, with Paul Kedrosky and Robert Armstrong.
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.
If money is evil, then that building is hell. The show goes on! The folks are never watched the show, show! Welcome to Prof G Markets. I'm Ed Elson. It is October 27th. Let's check in on yesterday's market vitals. The major indices climbed as tech stocks got a boost from Anthropics S1. More on that in a second. The yield on 10-year treasuries was flat ahead of the Federal Reserve's interest rate meeting. On Calci, the odds they'll hold rates steady are at 92%. Brent crude was volatile, peaking above $117 per barrel. As President Trump said, he was deciding whether to make a deal with Iran or, quote, finish it off.
And finally, Brazilian markets sold off after... incumbent President Lula won re-election. Brazil's benchmark index, the Ibovespa, crashed as much as 17%, and its currency saw its sharpest drop in more than two decades. Okay, what else is happening? One of the most anticipated S1s of all time has officially arrived. Anthropic has filed to go public, and we finally got to see the books. In the first six months of the year, Anthropic brought in $16.3 billion in revenue. That is up from $1.2 billion in the same period last year. It reported a loss of more than $80 billion over those six months. However, $72 billion of that loss is a non-cash charge tied to its convertible notes and other fundraising instruments. Its operating loss, which is more important here, came to around $700 million, that is down from $2.1 billion a year ago. While the filing answered many questions about Anthropic's business, it also left out some crucial details. For example, the company did not disclose the total sum of its contractual compute obligations. It also didn't reveal who its biggest customers are. It didn't break out training costs either. And it didn't say when Anthropic will actually be listed. So, lots to get into here. We are breaking this down with Paul Kedrosky,
managing partner at SK Ventures. Paul, great to have you on the show. Lots to get into here.
Read the whole transcript
“there's a lot of work goes on in terms of preparing a company's cost for an IPO.”
because in terms of your sources and uses of cash, it's not all going to be going out the door again for funding compute commitments. You obviously have this very large number that they're going to be having to deal with in future in terms of trying to continue to protect investors, if you will, from future dilution, given how aggressive they are in terms of stock-based compensation.
Credit to them for not giving us a completely bullshit, you know, non-gap adjustment. I remember you and I were speculating, are they going to strip out the training costs? Are they going to say, oh, don't worry about what we have to do in terms of training these things? They didn't do that. They didn't break it out cleanly, but they didn't try to do something non-gap in terms of hiding it. That's exactly right. Yes. They didn't try to say, don't worry, it doesn't exist. It doesn't matter. Yeah, totally true. But, so I was looking for, okay, well, maybe this is going to work. Maybe compute costs are actually like, they're on a path to profitability, which seems, you know, plausible and, to be honest, imminent, given what we saw.
but then i go through the document i want to get your reactions to to what i make of this
“the preponderance of the commitments are in future, they're massive, and they're all non-cancellable.”
future. So what would it working look like in your view? Well, I think it would have to look like, you'd see, for example, one of the statistics they want to tout in the document is the declining compute intensity of token production, that it's been coming down something like, it's fallen like 50% or something like that. And so you want, the business would have to look like collapsing cost in terms of compute intensity of the underlying business. And that's the only way that the margins are supported and could work because otherwise you just simply are
going to eat the business on the basis of the compute costs associated with it. So that has to continue to decline. The more troubling piece is that there's a revenue deceleration underway if you look at the leaked Q3 numbers in the context of everything else. They're now looking at something like 50% revenue growth, but arguing that in Q4 they'll see a spike. It's implied, but back to about 64 percent or so. So you that has to you have to see that reversal in the fortunes of the business. So one is declining compute intensity. One is a reacceleration of growth. And that I'm saying a company coming like this to market needs already to reaccelerate growth just blows the top of my head off. Final question. This is set to go public. The report evaluation is going to be two trillion dollars. There has been some debate as to whether that will actually materialize.
Yeah. One five or so. I keep hearing him. Yeah. What do you think will happen here? Do you think this goes out at $2 trillion, $1.5 trillion? Does it go out at all? What do you think? I think if it goes, it goes at $1.5 or so. But I reserve the right, and this is my longstanding claim, is the U.S. won't have a functioning government for the balance of the year. So who knows what will actually be able to come public and what won't. It's not very helpful, Paul. It's not my fault that we don't have a functioning government. Blame politicians. But nevertheless, $1.5, assuming we have a functioning government, zero if it doesn't.
Paul Kudrowski is Managing Partner at SK Ventures. Paul, always appreciate your time. Thank you. Yeah, thank you. After the break, a chill in the markets. And for even more markets insights, you can subscribe to my weekly newsletter, simply put, at edwardelson.substack.com. Support for the show comes from so far. Here's the thing. Most traditional banks pay almost nothing in interest, so your money ends up just sitting there, twiddling its sums, doing nothing. And if your money's doing nothing, it's not doing its job. You work hard for every dollar, so why not put those dollars to work for you?
That's where SoFi comes in. With the Everything app for smarter money, with SoFi checking and savings, you can easily track your spending and save towards your goals while earning nine times the national average savings rate. You'll get paid up to two days early with direct deposit, and you can access additional FDIC insurance up to 3 million on your deposits through a network of participating banks. You'll pay no account or overdraft fees, and you can also earn a cash bonus when you sign up with eligible direct deposit. it. You also can organize your savings into vaults for the goals that matter most. Small decisions like this can create big momentum over time. You can open your SoFi checking and savings account today. Head to SoFi.com slash PropG Bank to get started. That's SoFi.com slash PropG Bank.
SoFi checking and savings is offered through SoFi Bank N.A. member FDIC. Hi, everyone. I'm Kara Swisher. And I'm Sky Galloway. Twice a week, we get together on Pivot to sort through the biggest stories in tech, business, and politics. And we're taking the show back on the road for a live tour in November. So we'll bring hot takes, I'll bring the insight, and the dick jokes, and Kara will try, keyword is try, to keep me in check. You'll get to see her hit me in person, live. I'll do it. If someone has to do it. We'll cover AI, whatever chaos Washington has cooked up that week, and every billionaire misbehaving.
That's all of them. And you'll also get to participate in audience Q&A, so bring your best questions. Scott will probably answer ones you didn't ask. We also have secret special guests, which you'll enjoy for every city. Get tickets at PivotTour.com. That's PivotTour.com. We are selling out, so don't wait. And we look forward to seeing you. 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. Markets are beginning to feel a chill in the air. The Nasdaq 100 fell nearly 3% on Thursday, its worst day since... June, as worries about how big tech will pay for the AI build-out hit tech stocks. The same fear showed up in the corporate bond market. Corporate bond yield premiums surged to their widest levels since May 2025.
Meanwhile, investors moved back into treasuries, pushing the 10-year yield below 5% for the first time in a month. Now, stocks did rise yesterday, but the S&P and the Nasdaq are coming off of two weeks of losses, with big tech earnings and a Fed meeting still ahead this week. So the question for investors, is winter coming for the markets? Joining us to discuss this, we're speaking with Robert Armstrong, US financial commentator for the Financial Times and author of the Unhedged newsletter. Rob, good to see you. You wrote that last week's, quote, epic treasury rally and the accompanying rout in tech stocks had the feeling of a turning point.
The sudden arrival of winter after a long summer. Very general question that you posed in your piece.
“I'm not calling for a crash, but the euphoria is broken.”
I would argue. It seems that the 10-year is really the crucial thing to look at. And just to be clear for everyone, you know, beginning of the month, we were at 5.3%. And I'm going to take my little victory lap here, which is that on October 5th, I said that this was the end of the sell-off, and my prediction was we're going to see the yield come back down and we'll see bonds rally. That is what's happened. We're now down below 5%.
Yeah, that is a huge move. Just for readers who don't follow the stock market, that's like a 15% move in the stock market would be an equivalent size. This is a shift. Yes, huge shift. And I guess the question is, why is that happening? And it's probably a combination of both things. It's probably that the bond sell-off was overdone. And then at the same time, there is a legitimate concern around the equity markets, specifically around its reliance on AI. It seems that investors are beginning to get jittery. And so in that environment, why would you not lock in decent yields, move into the safer bond markets, which is kind of everything that you would expect from a market that is reacting to a boom and bust cycle.
And so in a lot of ways, it almost seems like, yeah, this is what's supposed to happen. The boom happened, and now investors do this. Yeah, no, it makes sense. And it's supposed to be that when equities get jumpy, bonds do a little bit better. And they have, and that's really nice. And there's more evidence for your claim that this is a flight. There's part of this is a flight to equity trade, which is the staple stocks would have been, which have been like the worst performing stocks in global markets in general, in the U.S. markets. So I'm talking about the people who make paper towels and deodorant and tomato sauce, right?
The real consumer basics, tobacco, whatever. These, you know, this industry, especially in the United States, has been having its struggles just to grow. And so that's one reason it's been doing it. But nobody wants anything to do with these very safe, boring companies. Look at how those performed in the last week or two. Over the whole world, it's like the line just like leaps off the chart all of a sudden. Right? So that's fear at work. When you're starting, like, maybe I'll sell that tech stock and buy Kimberly-Clark. That's fear talking right there, you know? Until Kimberly-Clark pivots to data centers in some way, which I don't think is off the table.
I think perhaps the most...
“This is going to go through a round of restructuring and reconstruction and consolidation. That's just going to happen one way or the other.”
an industrial level but on a financial level is talent seems to be equally great say this is what transpires say we do see that continually that the bond markets are demanding more from these ai data center companies a lot of them can't make good on those payments some of them start to go out of business is that how the stock market enters the correction that everyone has been waiting for for so long? Is this sort of actually the beginning of the end? Not Armageddon, but at least some significant drawdown that constitutes anything close to resembling a real correction.
“even if inflation does go up a little bit and rates don't go up a little bit, you have a little cushion in there.”
And that's exactly what people want right now, it seems. Yeah. Yeah. Well, it's really interesting stuff. Robert Armstrong is U.S. financial commentator for the Financial Times, author of the Unhedged newsletter as well. Rob, as always, we appreciate your time. I appreciate coming on the show. Okay, that's it for today. Thanks for tuning in. And if you liked this episode, please be sure to follow us on Spotify or Apple Podcasts or subscribe to our YouTube channel.
You can also follow us on Instagram, TikTok, and across social media under the handle Prof G Markets. We really appreciate it. Stick around this week. We'll be covering Google and Microsoft's earnings and the next Fed decision. will also be breaking down the markets with the one and only downtown Josh Brown on Friday. Don't miss it. 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 Prof G Markets from Prof G Media.
If you liked what you heard, give us a follow.
