저자: Kevin · 외국인
요약 보기
연준·트럼프·데이비드 색스가 경기침체를 막기 위해 금리를 계속 내려 주식시장 랠리를 유지하려 한다는 진단. 미국 고용시장은 ADP 기준 실질 감소 추세로 취약하지만 주식자산효과가 고용을 떠받치는 구조이며, 그 붕괴 전까지는 단기 강세 환경으로 봄. 연준의 월 400억 달러 규모 단기국채 매입(사실상 QE)이 시장을 지지. 반면 오픈AI 무료사용자 수익성(인당 연 2달러 수준)과 범용 챗봇 4.7% 마진 등을 근거로 AI 과대평가 우려 제기, 니치 특화 기업(팔란티어, 유아이패스)이 유리하다고 언급. 엔비디아의 인텔 우회 및 중국 H200 수출 이슈도 언급.
다듬은 글
Well, the Federal Reserve and the White House together are now saying the quiet part out loud. This is Mr. Myin, the shill who also still works with the White House, which is very odd to have somebody working in the administration, also working at the Federal Reserve. Now, I like him, so don't take me don't get me wrong by me calling him a shill, but let's be real, he's there to, you know, tell you exactly what's on Trump's mind.
We saw Donald Trump's Truth Social post yesterday arguing that inflation will take care of itself and we just need to keep lowering rates because we don't want to kill the rally. Myin and Sachs both add fuel to this fire. And so they're saying the quiet part out loud. But what does Myron say about recession?
Let's start here. This is about a one minute clip. Uh this is uh oh it was about a one minute clip piece that I wanted to show. Myron talks about specifically recession and what the White House and the Fed's job is when it comes to recession. So, we're going to jump to that segment if I can find it here.
Okay, here we go. Uh, it is about 2 minutes into the segment and let's listen to this and we'll springboard from there after about a minute of myin and I think it's somewhat problematic if you see those data coming out and you don't adjust your policy prescriptions in a dovish direction. What does that say about the reactiveness of policy to the economy?
It, you know, I think it looks very, it reflects very poorly upon the institution. At the end of that speech at Colombia, you nodded to the fact that uh recessions are inevitable. Fed's job is to kind of forstall them as much as as they can. Policy makers jobs are that I'm I'm very curious when you look at the labor market in particular, the rise that we've seen in the unemployment rate, that's kind of rise we've seen customarily before recessions.
How do you assess the the risk of there being a recession here in the near term when you look at the labor market for instance? By the way, I love the quote right there and I think that's a really important quote that you want to think about. You said at the end of your speech that the job of the Fed is to forstall a recession.
Mind you, that aligns exactly with Donald Trump. Why kill the rally now? And it aligns perfectly with what David Sachs is saying of, "Oh, AI is actually creating jobs. It's not destroying jobs." The whole narrative is to make sure that we can keep pumping stocks and that's actually bullish in the short term because it's exactly what's happening.
You've got Oracle CDS is coming down. So, you've got some fear finally coming out of that Oracle uh you know credit default swap market suggesting maybe we're starting to see some calming. Hopefully that continues. My bet and and the course member live streams which you can join mbke.com uh and get lifetime access for my bet is that we just continue to slow schlog until January 9th.
That's what we said this morning. We're like, hey, there's no reason the slow schlog doesn't continue. And when you've got now members of the Fed, Dave Sachs, and Trump all pushing for why kill the rally, keep bailing out the market, just kick the can down the road of recession. You don't really have bearish near-term catalysts, obviously, until the labor market actually rolls off a cliff, but that hasn't started yet.
Let's listen to Byron here, though. I don't see a recession in the near- term in part because we are adjusting our policy rate uh by lowering it, which is appropriate. In other words, no recession because we're cutting. So, we got to keep going. Okay. uh you know my view as I've as I've described is that a v a a variety of shocks that hit the economy you know including changes to the population growth rate due to changes in the border policy have pushed what we call the neutral rate down and that policy needs to adjust downward to reflect that downward shift in neutral if we don't adjust policy down then I think that we do run risks of rising recess of rising recessions I
this is essentially saying if we now stay uh you know frozen at this interest rate then we start increasing ing the risk of a recession. So, what's that quiet part? The quiet part is, hey, let's do whatever we can to keep the economy propped up, which again, bullish short-term, but at some point the price gets paid.
Now, we'll talk about open AI in just a moment, especially following up on David Sax's jobs argument, but let's listen to a little bit more of Myron here. Don't think it's too late to prevent that. And so I think it's important that we keep on adjusting our policy rate down, but at the moment it's not my base case in part because I think that we ultimately will end up adjust continuing to adjust interest rates down.
What else? Ultimately will end up. So in other words, Myron's base case is hey you might have people at the Fed who say ah we don't need to cut right now. But his base case turns into oh no I'm not really worried about it because we'll just keep cutting. This is why I think by certainly by 2032, this is my belief, uh we'll see interest rates back at probably the lower bound zero, whether there's a shock or recession or we just see inflation turn into outright deflation.
But there's a lot for us to break down here. So David Sachs, so we've got Donald Trump obviously, why, you know, with his truth social post, why kill the rally? Just keep cutting rates. Inflation will take care of itself. Meer say we need to forstall a recession as long as possible. let's just keep cutting so that you know we can kick that can down the road even though we know recessions eventually will happen.
Okay, it wouldn't surprise me at all that people in the Trump administration believe, hey, if we could just kick the can of recession down to like 2029, let's do that because why have the blood on our hands? On one hand, you kind of can't blame it, but on the other hand, you also can't help but look and say like, hm, do we like not that we trusted the data before, but how much can we really trust some of the blatant rigging that's happening right now in the data?
For example, missing CPI. I mean, how much of the CPI report was missing and all of a sudden we're supposed to believe that we're cheering this incredible CPI report and how much of the jobs data was missing? Anyway, this is where, you know, Powell is, I think, right to say, remember the pace we're on.
If they're telling us 40k jobs created, which we just had a weekly data set yesterday that came out from ADP that said we're growing at about 11,500 jobs uh per week, which is roughly align with a little over 40,000, then we're actually at -20K. So we're actually shrinking and Powell made it very clear in his last presser that that would be quote well below the break even level.
And so in other words, the labor market side is deteriorating. But how does that then reconcile with this sort of like no no no man keep breathing life into the bubble from David Sachs? Because David Saxs, you know, says AI job loss hoax exposed. And this is very classic Twitter X. This is like people leave me these comments because Kevin, why can't you just do your videos in like 2 minutes?
Why are your videos always so long? You know, this is like that same like loser mentality that just wants to scroll on X and like get their little zingers or whatever and you lose all the perspective. Uh, which I think is very important. So, let me show you in a summarried way how you could break this down.
So, David Sax says, according to a new study from Vanguard, occupations most exposed to AI are outperforming the rest of the labor market in terms of job growth and real wages. So, [clears throat] let's just take this at face value for a moment. First of all, I wouldn't call this a study. This is more of a report.
I'm actually going to show you the report in just a moment. But let's just take this at face value and say, okay, occupations most exposed to AI more jobs. Okay, so we simplify that. So first of all, what are occupations uh exposed or or you know with with AI exposure? There are going to be things in uh according to at least the Philly Fed, there are going to be things uh like middle management, upper management, uh accounting, customer service, uh lawyer work, you know, basically anything in in the finance space, and they've got a whole sheet of this, which I think is very interesting.
Look at this. You have to look at this AI exposure piece right here. And they take the top 30% of these rankings and say those are going to be the most exposed. office clerks, customer service secretaries, frontline supervisors, accountants, auditors, receptionists, uh sales representatives, uh lawyers are in here, HR, market research, uh you know, computer systems managers, analysts, whatever, insurance, compliance, of course.
Okay, so but there's something that all of these have in common when it comes to jobs. And so Dave Saxs references this piece right here. He argues that see look we actually have more jobs being created after the GPT moment than before. And basically what Vanguard did is in their report they analyzed okay well what was the job trend between 2015 and 2019.
That is a 5-year period they're calling the precoid trend. 15 16 17 18 19 5-year period. Postcoid they're only measuring from the second quarter of 2023. So the GPT moment to the second quarter of 2025. So you know through call it June 30th of 2025. And so what we did is we looked at the S&P 500, not even the NASDAQ.
It'd be even nastier if you did this with the NASDAQ. This is just the S&P 500. And I think this is really important because if it is true, which we'll believe it, that there's job growth occurring in the AI exposed sectors, you got to ask yourself anything that's been labeled AI, like even loser companies like C3 AI, just because it has the ticker symbol AI, they've been doing really well.
Well, I don't know. I haven't looked at the C3 AI stock, but anything labeling AI has gone through at least some period of a boom over the last few years. And the boom in stock market wealth in my opinion creates and enables the opportunity to hire which I evidence this by looking at how rapidly the market has grown compared to precoid.
So look at this in the 5 years precoid you had a 59% growth in the S&P 500 over those 5 years. So you know what is that on average like 10 10 11ish% or whatever compounded who cares right? But look at this. In the two years from the GPT moment, the S&P 500 is up 52%. So, you've actually had the market accelerate or or move what is that two and a half times faster.
So, we've generated wealth in the stock market two and a half times faster starting at that uh AI moment than in the pre-COVID market. And so, in my opinion, what a surprise. companies that would potentially have AI exposure see their stock wealth go up and therefore they hire more. I don't necessarily think that you can argue that AI is creating jobs.
I think logically that's a fallacy and I don't think that nuance you could really get from David Sax's post. Now the Philly Fed actually gives a little bit of nuance. See the Philly Fed here they go in to say this. It's also they don't mention the stock market either. That's my opinion. My opinion is the stock market has a lot to do with the hiring.
And if the stock market goes into a weaker period, that's when you actually see the hiring cliff. That's why we haven't seen the massive layoffs yet because the stock market keeps getting pumped up. So, it's kind of circular, right? Stock market pumped up, hiring stays up, stock market pump up, hiring stays up.
It's circular until something breaks, which is good. That's bullish in the near term, right? It just does mean the risks are growing. And we'll talk about those risks with OpenAI in just a moment. But take a look at this. It's [clears throat] helpful to keep in mind that AI exposure does not necessarily mean susceptibility to job loss.
As we discussed earlier, there are several factors that will determine the labor market outcomes by occupation, such as expertise requirements or the ability to substitute workers uh with AI. They make the argument that if you can fully substitute a worker with AI, you're definitely going to see job loss.
There's no question of that. But if it's more of a productivity enhancer, great. Then you're not going to see job loss in those sectors, fine. I that's why I personally throw in the stock market. And I say that's probably the biggest guide for the labor market. This, by the way, is the citation for that.
So they say that, which is also an irony that kind of leads us into the open AI piece, but watch this. They say that highly exposed AI sectors experienced increases in employment and wages following GPT's instru which AI could directly substitute human labor saw declines. That's per one particular study.
Okay, fine. This again could be because of the stock market, but somebody hasn't done a study on that. That's just sort of my like I'm trying to understand or rationalize like why could this be? Hm. Stock market wealth effect could be a really good reason. I think we could probably all agree on that.
But this is very interesting because they do then you like beg this question that if AI only kills jobs when it's good enough to do the full job, then is the current level of AI overhyped, right? Because if it's only killing some jobs because it's not good enough to kill more jobs, then have we overhyped Sam Oldman?
And that's where things get really interesting. I wrote a few things down. You can get this for free over at the Meet Kevin app. So, I'll show you this. I wrote a few things down about OpenAI uh and their desire to to start running ads. And I thought this was interesting because I see that is really risky.
If you run ads, you might kill user trust. And the thing is they realized that as well. But what was remarkable to me was that Open AAI expects to make, take a look at this, OpenAI expects to make $2 per year from free users. $2 per year. That's it. You know what is that per month? Two divided by 30.
That's six uh wait, hold on, sorry. uh $2 divided by 12 16 se 16 to 17 cents uh per user per month on um uh on on uh you know non-paying users. And I find this really remarkable because it means that your $200 a month client who might have been an early AI adopter probably really propped up the AI uh you know initial revenue projections.
And I wouldn't be surprised if now you're seeing OpenAI panic a little bit because you're not seeing those $200 a month users anymore. So now they're like, "All right, let's start making projections assuming that we're going to make $2 per user off non-paying users via ads." But then the question is, what happens when LLMs are essentially ubiquitous?
Now the ads are everywhere. That revenue per user could actually decline. In fact, if we look at their projections, they projected uh this summer that they would make around $110 billion in revenue from non-paying users through 2030. Problem with this is when we did the math on this, 110 billion divided by the next 5 years suggests that on average per year, if you assume 700 million users, they're forecasting $31 a year.
So on in one breath, they're expecting roughly $31 per year from a user on average every year for the next 5 years, which is crazy because that would be 31 31 31 31 and 31. But now insiders are actually saying they're actually thinking they're only going to end up getting $2 a year and then maybe $4 a year, $6 a year, $7 a year, all the way up to $15 a year by 2030.
So to me that makes me nervous that the projections are way way off and I don't think any of us really needed more uh sort of like oh Sam Alman is scam altman insight but that is a little nerve-wracking. Another thing that was a little nerve-wracking but I think we kind of knew this already is the information did this really interesting report where they they looked at these Hong Kong IPOs that are coming up.
Uh, and so because they're going public, they broke open their financials for uh, their LLMs. And they looked at the Miniax IPO coming up in in Hong Kong, they said the company's got just 15 months of cash left and that there are two different margin profiles that these companies have. And this I thought was really fascinating.
So they make the argument that on general chatbot crap, which is the vast majority of yapping that people do with chat bots, the general chatbot stuff, these companies are making about a 4.7% gross margin, which is like almost at grocery store levels of horrible margins. You know, grocery stores are famous for having like, you know, 2% net margins, so like, you know, nominal gross margins as well.
Uh 4.7% gross is pretty bad. That's that's like a grocery store level margin. And it makes sense because it's like, you know, there's you you want to go buy your box of cereal at Publix, Wind Dixie, Ralph's, Vans, Albertson's, you know, whatever. There's there are no margins in these businesses because nobody cares.
It's the same thing as an LLM. You can almost say that an LLM is literally like a grocery store. Like, who's got the circular for the cheapest grapes this week? That's where we're going to go buy the grapes. I Yeah, I used to do that back in like 2009. would be like, "Who's got the cheapest grapes?" But anyway, it's like there's no brand loyalty.
Who freaking cares? So, where can you get the cheapest outcome? So, the LLM side, 4.7% gross margin on that Hong Kong side. Very interesting insight because it really suggests there's no pricing power there. But we already knew that. This is why Google is basically just including these in Workspace, right, for for their Workspace users.
Now, in specific software solutions, they indicate that gross margins are 69%. And so to me that was great because it indicates that companies like Palanteer that do niche down, they can keep cranking money. But companies that don't niche down and they try to appeal to everybody, especially free users, which in my opinion are the worst, there's no money to be made there.
And that's actually a really big problem. See, GPT wants everybody. They're I think they're assuming that they're either going to make $31 a month from all these free users if you use 700 million as an example or they're assuming that their revenue or their user growth is going to double or triple or something and that's how they're going to try to make sense of this $110 billion forecast of revenue from free users over the next 5 years which is cookie dookie in my opinion.
uh as you saw with the math that we did, it it it doesn't line up, right? There's a huge problem in that math. And I think the big lesson to take away is if you want to make money in AI, you niche again, whether that's Palunteer or who knows, a lot of people are buying our reinvest AI product. We're also ending our fund raise.
I can't I honestly I cannot wait to end our fund raise at the end of this month. Part of the reason for that is I look at this I go why are we selling shares for this AI company at a real estate company valuation. We need to stop b I feel like I shouldn't say this but I feel like I'm giving away shares right it's like diluting that's not good.
So it's like we're ending the fund raise uh at the uh the the end of the year because we're like we have such a niche product you know people were responding to me in my live stream. They're like oh this this is this yes like that makes sense. And the pitch is, you know, every real estate agent or real estate agents who want to pay 2, 300, 400, 500 bucks, whatever it is, depending on how many clients they put into our app, can automatically send deals and automatically value them based on our custom MLS on interior pictures and our valuation, like actual real valuations in my opinion, based on what the condition of the property actually is, not just some stupid estimate, right?
That's really valuable for an agent to instantaneously send that to their clients. We think those customers will pay us three to 500 bucks a month. Now, if you do that, it's very Palunteer modelesque where the lesson is niching down is what makes the money, not the general allpurpose customer app. Uh anyway, that this is not like a solicitation.
I'm not saying, you know, go buy the reinvest AI or go invest in house hack. I'm just saying as an example, Palanteer or you could even look at a company like UiPath. Uipath is an interesting one because they're they're basically doing Palunteer's uh you know integration of AI in it's different obviously they're they're different services.
I don't want to conflate them as the same at all. But in finance, compliance and healthcare, which I think is one of the best niches for AI. In fact, if you look at uh this uh Philly Fed piece that we saw, a lot of what we saw in the Philly Fed piece was that the biggest uh you know uh disruption that could happen from AI exposed jobs would be in places like compliance.
Let me see where that list was. Compliance. Yeah, here. Compliance officers. they had one of the highest ratings for potential AI exposure and I totally agree with that. Uh so I think UiPath and Palanteer to some extent are opportunists in this sort of region again high margin and this is where that GPT issue becomes a problem.
So how does this all like how do we tile this together? On one hand you have my saying hey you know we got to keep the Ponzi going. We have to forstall a recession. and it's going to happen one day, but let's kick it down the road to another administration. Trump's like, "Don't kill the rally. We need the wealth to stay propped up." In fairness, the wealth staying propped up probablys up the hiring, which sort of defeats, in my opinion, David Sachs argument because it means that the inverse is also going to be true.
If we go into a down market, the job market rolls over and then it's even worse because of AI. In which case, then David Sachs post will look foolish because he didn't account for the wealth effect. But that's okay. Hey, that's why we're making the video. So, when you then combine that with knowing that Sam Alman's got this $1.4 trillion peg under the AI market, it makes sense why companies like Nvidia, which in my opinion have a fair value at $300, are selling for a discount.
They're selling at a discount, you know, almost half of a discount here. You're at 188 to their fair value based on current growth estimates. The market is discounting how much of a weight Sam Olman has in this market. So, broadly, I see all of that as short to medium-term bullish. Certainly bullish between now and January 9th because that's when we start getting our new catalyst jobs and CPI.
As much as we'll be able to trust those on the 9th and the 13th, I don't see much in the way of catalysts or like some kind of shoe dropping if you will over the next few weeks. But really over the next six months, what you want is the job market to stay propped up. Like in spite of what Trump is saying, you kind of want him to be right.
You want the stock market to stay propped up so businesses start hiring again. Get that engine going again while the plane has altitude, so to speak. It's like you lost an engine of the labor market and you're gliding. And Trump's like, "Light the freaking engine again." And it's like, "Well, well, yeah.
Uh, light the engine because like if we get it lit over the next six months, great. We start hiring again, great. we can keep flying. This is not wrong. Uh but I don't think that, you know, making the argument that, oh, inflation will take care of itself is a very valuable one because the lessons of the 70s told us that was a mistake.
See, Trump in his truth social post, he makes this argument that oh well, you know, inflation will take care of itself and if it doesn't, we'll just raise rates then. That's what they tried to do in the 70s. That didn't work in the 70s because as soon as you say we don't care about inflation, inflation expectations self-fulfill and you actually create the very inflation you're trying to fight.
So Donald Trump's messaging on inflation is actually dangerous for inflation. But that's okay. He doesn't really care about the long term. He just cares really about the next 3 years and then he'll be out of office. So that's where I think there's kind of this like if there's a bubble, you've got Myin, Sachs, and Trump who are basically paid and financially incentivized.
Mind you, I think them and all their cronies will do anything, whether it's cheat, rig the data, steal, or or whatever, rig whatever they need to to make as much money as possible for them and their cronies. That's fine. I mean, I don't I I don't I'm not condoning it. I'm just saying we we understand what's going on.
I think really what it is is if there's a bubble, they're just sticking a straw into it and blowing it up even bigger. And the biggest danger I think starts at the commoditized side. And that's where I got really interested in in the Nvidia Intel piece. You know, Nvidia just halted uh pro, you know, their their work with Intel's 18A process.
That's their supposedly like revolutionary uh you know new fab process for advanced chips. And I think Nvidia only invested $5 billion into Intel to shill to Trump so they could sell to China. Well, what a surprise. What a surprise. They look look at this. What a surprise. Nvidia invests $5 billion into Intel to shield to Trump and says, "Oh yeah, yeah, we'll try them out for chips.
Hey, by the way, can we sell to China? Takes months to get that. Now all of a sudden, yeah, okay, we'll let you sell, you know, Blackwells or or whatever. Uh, you know, H200's uh to to uh China, which are so not Blackwells, but H200s to China, which are even more powerful than the H20s they used to sell.
So, Nvidia got a big W there, right? What a surprise that right after Nvidia gets this big W from the White House to sell to China. Uh yeah, you know what? We're not actually going to use Intel. [sighs] Nvidia gets what they want and then they stop pretending. So now this creates two potential scenarios.
It either means that Intel sucks and Nvidia's like, "Yeah, no, this ain't going to fly. We don't want to put our name on this." Or it means that Nvidia, and this is the evil thought, Nvidia has TSM's supply chain so on lock that they'd rather try to make Intel look bad to try to scare other people not to use Intel.
And then they have to use TSM. But TSM is so unlock with Nvidia, it then strengthens Nvidia's moat because they have the lock on supply with TSM. You know, if everybody thought Intel had endless supply and was equally good or better than Taiwan Semi, chip prices might plummet. So, Nvidia played some really serious 4D chess.
If you think about it, like, hats off to that Jensen guy. He just played Trump hardcore. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Intel's great. Yeah. We'll manufacture. Yeah. Yeah. Hey, can we sell to China? No. No. No. No. I put five bill into Intel. You know, it's still going well over here. Can we sell to China? Okay, fine.
and sell in China. Cool. All right, cool. Thanks. Selling to China. Selling to China. We're done with Intel. You know, I don't know, you know, call call me jaded. And so I want to be very clear about this where I sit on the Bear Bull scale because you know I I there are always going to be people who will read a video title and and then they don't listen to the context or the nuance of a video because I get it like it's hard because oh my gosh you have to sit there and play a 20-minute video.
But it's so and it's so much easier to just scroll on a vertical feed or whatever and get the dopamine hit. But I don't think you get perspective. And I hope that when you watch the these longer form videos, you're like, actually, I you can make your own thoughts and and educated opinions around it all.
But I think really they recognize that the only reason the labor market isn't falling off a cliff is because they're propping up the market. So do whatever we can to keep propping up the market. The Fed already started money printing. We're doing $40 billion a month of POMO, probably 26 to 52- week bills.
Uh we are doing some tomo as needed. That's those are the temporary operations. Those are more overnight whereas POMO is again 26 week to 52 week. That's basically stimulus getting injected into the market. Uh you know and then obviously uh you have the MBS rollover which is also just going right back into uh the the POMO permanent market operations for the 26 to 52 week period.
It's essentially QE. So all angles, Fed, Myron, Trump, Sachs, they'll all lie to your face and say it's okay because they have to do that to keep the labor market up via the market, which again, bullish short-term, but it doesn't change that big. It's kind of like there's a big anvil hanging over our head and like somebody's cutting the string and and and like Trump and Sachs are the bullies that are just like pushing the guy who's cutting this the string.
They keep pushing him like no stay back. Stay back and they keep pushing him back. Eventually the anvil is going to fall. Anyway, yes ju just finish this off to be very clear. Yes, the reinvest AI uh we're going to start activating this uh this month. So, if you bought the AI product, uh you'll be getting access to it uh this month.
Happy Christmas Eve, obviously, everyone. You could get the AI product. You can learn more about what the app has and features now. But most important is this this valuation AI. Once we combine that with what we have now already in our trained AI, this product I think will be immensely valuable and I'm very excited about it.
And that's why, you know, if you click on the invest in in in the company, you house hack reinvest same company. That's why I want to end this. Uh, but I told everybody that like I don't I'm not going to rug poll and just end it tomorrow. So that's why I'm like mentioning in every video not to shill it, but more just to say like I'm being clear here.
We want to end this. Paying 5% plus upside because of the convertible offering is too much. You know, real estate back, invest with credit card, AC wires, no fees, whatever, no ten, you know, we do all that real estate back. Okay, you get it. It's not a solicitation. There's risk with every investment.
You get it. 5% yield paid monthly through conversion. Whatever. This ends D's 31. And I'm looking forward to that because then that means we can really like focus on AI next year, grow the company, and uh and it's way less dilutive to existing shareholders. Why why why fundra? We can fund raise by selling the actual product or the service, which we are, and people keep buying it.
And that's why we've you you know we've gone positive on our RARI invest or our AI investments which we're excited about. So anyway, uh Samuel writes, "I just submitted an a for $50,000. I'm really happy." Well, thank you for doing that. And you just donated $2 for You donated $2 to tell me you just sent us 50 grand.
You're a nice person. Merry Christmas to you, too. Um somebody says, "What's the risk? We get our money back." No, the risk is you get zero back. That's the nature with any investment, right? Uh, so, so like I I I'm not trying to shill anybody to invest. The only reason I say these in almost every video is because I don't want this fundraiser to close and then people send me emails going, "But Kevin, you did the tell." Like, "Yeah, I did like in every possible freaking way." Uh, so somebody here says, "I worked at Tesla for 12 years, Lucid for almost six." Uh, what what what's your what are you referencing?
somebody. Oh, uh, oh, you guys are chatting about such. What I will say, a quick little note, I do think Tesla has a really big resistance level here at all-time highs, right? Uh, if it can break through this, great. And I think that the time for Tesla to break through is now because you're everything's, you know, we're on a a relatively bullish slow schlo up trajectory now.
Uh, but uh but but there are definitely some downside risks at these uh valuations. Kevin, I'm trying to invest and reinvest. What's the difference between accredited investor and nonacredited? If you're accredited, I I I would say use the accredited portal. Uh but there they're very small differences.
You if you read or just put it into AI. Okay, here there's an AI use for you. Take the perspectus for the regggd put it into AI. Take the reggga a one put it into AI and say what's the difference there. There, you know, but read yourself. I don't want to give you a summary of the differences because I think they're relatively minor.
Uh but but you know I can't replace you actually reading these documents. Otherwise the SEC is going to kick my ass. Although Trump I feel like is killing the regulators off by a slow bleed. But I actually think that's bad. But we don't have to get political. You know I I thought the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was actually doing a good thing.
Uh so the gutting of that is a little disappointing. And I I wonder you know what what bubbles we create when when there's less of a government restriction. But then again, you know, who knows? I in fairness to be a little biased, I'm invested in Netflix and uh I kind of want them to buy Warner Brothers.
You know, I think they're a behemoth. Uh and and they're cheap. Uh you know, the stock's been on a on a near-term downtrend. I think they're cheap. So, um anyho, that's my take. Uh I appreciate y'all being here and uh we'll see you all soon. Thanks so much. Goodbye and uh .
Comments 0