Leave a comment

Looking for the full version? Become a Prof G+ subscriber for unlimited, ad-free access to all our videos, including exclusive content only available on Substack.

Subscribe now

Read more

Read more

Half a million years ago, in southern Africa, a human ancestor fixed a sharpened stone to a wooden shaft, creating the world’s first weapons system: the composite spear. Warfare and technology have been siblings ever since. But technological superiority doesn’t guarantee victory. See: the Afghan Mujahideen against the Soviets, or the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong against the U.S. Throughout history, weaker forces have defeated stronger ones by eschewing conventional combat in favor of asymmetrical warfare. One famous term for it was coined by the Spanish irregulars who harassed Napoleon’s occupying army: guerrilla, or “little war.” Put another way, don’t fight on your enemy’s terms.

David vs. Goliath

This week, the Air Force withdrew a dozen B-1 bombers from a base in the U.K. after British authorities foiled an Iranian plot that threatened U.S. military operations. According to David Dunn, a professor of international politics at the University of Birmingham, the unprecedented withdrawal reveals the vulnerability of American military installations abroad and represents a setback for the U.S. in its war with Iran. “Fairford is normally the place during a crisis where America sends bombers to beef up America’s military capability,” Dunn told Time.

Rather than relying on bombers or other conventional means, Iran forced the withdrawal with a drone threat. Furthermore, Iranian operators aren’t even military, as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has become adept at deploying violence-as-a-service — an asymmetrical tactic that involves hiring untrained, on-demand combatants who, like gig workers, are cheap and disposable. Meanwhile, closer to the front, the asymmetrical drone war has depleted the high-tech U.S. interceptor arsenal, catalyzed a $95 billion multiyear munitions replenishment request from the Trump administration, and rendered an American victory a mathematical impossibility. “The interceptor math doesn’t even touch the strategic heart of the Iran War: Iran’s control over the global economic artery that is the Strait of Hormuz,” wrote national security journalist Spencer Ackerman. “The math merely shows how overwhelmingly far the U.S. is from being able to force the Strait of Hormuz open and keep it that way.” Math is a modern warrior’s most important skill, but I’m getting ahead of myself.

Second-Mover Advantage

Ukraine’s four-year war against Russia is a case study in asymmetrical warfare. Ukraine is now the world’s leading drone innovator, shifting the enemy casualty ratio from 2:1 at the war’s start to 8:1 in the first half of this year. Russian casualties are around 30,000 per month, exceeding the 27,000 recruits it takes in each month. A hard truth for Americans: In war, strength isn’t what you can afford to spend … but what you’re willing to lose.

Last week, I spoke with historian Timothy Snyder, who’d just returned from Ukraine. On the front lines, Ukraine is winning, he explained, but over its cities, Russia is exploiting an interceptor shortage (our fault) to extract a terrible price on Ukraine’s economy and society. “The Ukrainians innovate, the Russians copy,” Snyder told me. “Everything the Ukrainians do, the Russians are able to do a few months later — but at scale.” In business this is called the second-mover advantage. Netscape commercialized the web browser; Microsoft scaled it. Diners Club introduced the credit card; Visa turned it into a financial empire. MySpace pioneered social networking; Facebook perfected it. And Apple is the ultimate second mouse. Asymmetry gives an army a lead, not a moat. David wins round one with a new slingshot; but in the second, Goliath has a factory in Yelabuga manufacturing thousands of slingshots at a lower unit cost.

Ferguson’s Law

In his 1961 farewell address, President Dwight D. Eisenhower famously warned that the influence of America’s growing “military-industrial complex” endangered our liberties and democracy. He also highlighted the connection between debt and national security, although few Americans remember that part of the speech. “As we peer into society’s future, we — you and I, and our government — must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow,” Ike said. “We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage.” Spoiler alert: We didn’t listen.

In recent years, interest payments on the debt — the fastest-growing part of the federal budget — have exceeded defense spending. In a 2025 paper, historian Sir Niall Ferguson proposed “Ferguson’s Law,” named not for himself but Adam Ferguson, an 18th century Scottish philosopher. Ferguson’s Law states that any great power that spends more on debt service than defense risks ceasing to be a great power. “The debt burden draws scarce resources towards itself, reducing the amount available for national security, and leaving the power increasingly vulnerable to military challenge,” Niall Ferguson wrote. Sovereign debt crises have been the last chapter of empires from ancient Rome and the French monarchy to the Ottoman and British empires and the Soviet Union. America is exceptional, but it’s not exempt from history. Countries typically are not conquered; they go broke.

This isn’t news to Congress, or shouldn’t be. In 2010, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen called the debt the “most significant threat to national security.” We tend to think of Social Security and Medicare as political third rails that can turn the mention of reform into an electoral wipeout. Defense cuts are another one, but not because voters are likely to punish elected officials. It’s worse — our leaders are afraid of looking unmanly. The performative stupidity of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has conflated math with weakness. Mullen, who commanded more warriors than Hegseth ever will, did the math. He argued that defense cuts “need to be on the table,” reminding us that the defense budget going back to the 1930s has gone up and down on a “fairly regular basis.” In short, we’ve forgotten how to make the hard tradeoffs, because, as Mullen put it, “we haven’t had to do the analysis” for far too long.

Cuts

The key national security metric isn’t the debt, it’s the fiscal gap — how much we need to raise taxes and/or cut spending every year, as a share of GDP, so the debt stops outpacing the economy and interest payments stop eating a growing share of the budget. The Treasury estimates the fiscal gap is 4.7% of GDP. Defense spending in fiscal year 2026 totaled approximately $1 trillion: $838 billion in defense appropriations and an additional $150 billion from the One Big Beautiful Bill. Closing the fiscal gap through spending cuts alone would mean permanently cutting every non-interest dollar the government spends (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the Pentagon, etc.) by 21%. A responsible president would tell the Pentagon to find $200 billion a year in cuts. The current president asked Congress to boost Pentagon spending by 45%, to $1.5 trillion, more than the U.S. spent at the peak of World War II, adjusted for inflation.

Cutting $200 billion would mean doing three things simultaneously: killing programs that don’t work, shrinking the size of the military, and reducing operational scope. The good news? We’ve done it before. The Pentagon reduced defense spending by 30% between 1988 and 1997, because we were no longer fighting the Cold War. In 2024 the Congressional Budget Office mapped out options for cutting roughly $100 billion a year, including shrinking the active-duty force by 18%, retiring carriers and fighter squadrons, and asking allies to carry a greater share of the security burden. One budget watchdog’s list of cuts to underperforming weapons systems, many of which come in over budget, would trim about $40 billion a year from current spending. Anduril co-founder Palmer Luckey told CNBC in February that disrupting the cost-plus procurement model of defense contractors and adopting a product mindset could bring the total defense budget below “$500 billion while maintaining required capabilities, if efficiency improves.” The issue isn’t a scarcity of options but political will.

Also, in warfare, the enemy gets a vote. As Snyder told me, the relentless cycle of drone and interceptor innovation means “the Ukrainians and the Russians are creating the only two modern armed forces in the world.” Getting our fiscal house in order is the necessity; modernizing our military — replacing $90 million fighter jets with $30,000 drones — is the opportunity.

Saving Private Ryans

At least 22 U.S. servicemembers have died in the Iran war. Casualty figures are difficult to verify, partly because the Trump administration is allergic to the truth, and partly because the American public doesn’t have the stomach for it. Saving Private Ryan (great movie) fictionalized one man’s rescue, but the impulse behind it was real. After the five Sullivan brothers were killed in the Battle of Guadalcanal in 1942, the military began separating siblings and pulling surviving sons out of combat. Sergeant Fritz Niland, the real-life Ryan, was sent home from Normandy after the Army believed three of his brothers had been killed. Nobody had to storm a French village to get him. A chaplain filed the paperwork. Our ally, the Soviet Union, gave a mother who lost nine sons a medal. Our adversaries have a bias toward sacrificing the lives of their soldiers, whereas the trend for the U.S. military is a bias toward safety. Since 1980, accidents, suicide, and homicide have killed 7x as many active-duty troops as enemy fire.

We’ll sacrifice 800,000 Americans to opioids in the name of shareholder value, but sending a B-2 bomber and its two-person crew on a mission likely to result in their deaths is akin to playing baseball with a Fabergé egg. Put another way: Every president is capable of greenlighting a trillion-dollar weapons system, but no president wants to be LBJ, who presided over casualty counts exceeding 500 killed per week during the height of the Vietnam War.

Valuing life is a hallmark of a great society. But because we’ve combined that with regulatory capture by defense firms, the U.S. has built the most expensive glass jaw in history. The silver lining of these current conflicts? They present America with a historic opportunity: to build a more lethal fighting force while cutting defense spending by a trillion dollars. Embracing asymmetrical warfare with political will should result in a superweapon: a robust balance sheet.

Life is so rich,

P.S. This week I spoke about the state of free speech in America with Greg Lukianoff, president and CEO of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. Prof G+ paid subscribers can catch the conversation here.

Your closet could use more Prof G. Shop the merch: merch.profgmedia.com

Leave a comment

Looking for the full version? Become a Prof G+ subscriber for unlimited, ad-free access to all our videos, including exclusive content only available on Substack.

Subscribe now

Read more

Cal Newport is a Professor of Computer Science at Georgetown University and New York Times bestselling author of eight books.

Leave a comment

Looking for the full version? Become a Prof G+ subscriber for unlimited, ad-free access to all our videos, including exclusive content only available on Substack.

Subscribe now

Read more

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth made a trip to San Diego this week to welcome home the USS Abraham Lincoln, working out with Marines in a clip that went viral. The visit comes after Hegseth dismissed reports of food shortages and crew fatigue during the Iran war deployment as “completely misrepresented.” Could this election’s October surprise be military action in Iran?

Iowa Democratic candidate Rob Sand heads into the final stretch of the governor’s race with a double-digit lead: a new poll has him a…

Read more

He explains why cities struggle to help their most vulnerable residents, the difficult questions around involuntary mental health treatment, and how community can help people rebuild their lives. Plus, what the reactions to Daniel Penny and Luigi Mangione reveal about Americans’ growing sense of abandonment—and the line between protecting others and taking justice into your own hands.

Check out more of Anand’s work at this newsletter, The Ink.

Read more

John Foley is the head of the Lex Column at the Financial Times. Ronan Farrow is a Pulitzer-winning journalist at the New Yorker.

Vote for Simply Put at the Signal Awards here

Leave a comment

Looking for the full version? Become a Prof G+ subscriber for unlimited, ad-free access to all our videos, including exclusive content only available on Substack.

Subscribe now

Read more

Jack Raines explores the surveillance economy, from AI glasses and viral videos to police camera networks. What happens when someone else trades away your privacy – and who benefits when everyday life becomes content and data? Writer and economic commentator Kyla Scanlon joins him to discuss the tradeoffs between privacy, convenience, and safety, and whether AI is solving the problems people actually need help with.

Have a question or a topic you’d like us to cover? Text or leave us a voicemail at (201) 472-3656.

Leave a comment

Looking for the full version? Become a Prof G+ subscriber for unlimited, ad-free access to all our videos, including exclusive content only available on Substack.

Subscribe now

Read more

Trump is teasing a “midterm surprise” that he says could make history — hinting that OMB Director and Project 2025 architect Russell Vought is behind a major announcement coming in the next few weeks. This comes as 42% of Trump’s 2024 Latino voters now say they’re disappointed or regret their vote. Aaron breaks down what the surprise might be, what the Latino voter shift means for the final stretch, and his concerns about the possibilities of AI generated content impacting the election.

France is in its third week of escalating student protests over the state of public schools. Yesterday’s demonstrations were among the most violent yet — the Prime Minister has suspended high school classes for the rest of the week, and police have fired tear gas and water cannons at students blockading schools. Any takeaways for American politics?

The first of four Maine Senate debates in just ten days took place last night. Republican Senator Susan Collins and Democrat Troy Jackson went head to head on immigration, tariffs, and rising fuel costs. Aaron scores the debate and previews what he thinks might happen in November.

Abdul El-Sayed is now distancing himself from Hasan Piker after campaigning with the controversial streamer throughout the primary — reportedly calling Piker directly and warning that his rhetoric was costing votes, asking him to tone it down. Smart move or too late?

New leaked audio from a Paxton fundraiser has the Republican Senate nominee blaming the Iran war and rising gas prices for his campaign struggles — telling donors that affordability is “by far our biggest problem” and admitting “I don’t make the decisions.” Is Paxton already playing the blame game?

And finally: Christian YouTuber Gabe Poirot went viral on Fox News for describing his 18 days in heaven during a coma after a 2021 skateboard crash, including his experience meeting Jesus. Aaron and Jess react.

Plus, questions from the audience.

Leave a comment

Join us next Wednesday at 12pm ET for the next edition of Raging Perspective.

Subscribe now

John Mowrey is the Chief Investment Officer at NFJ Investment Group. Robert Armstrong is the U.S. financial commentator for the Financial Times and author of the Unhedged newsletter.

Vote for Simply Put at the Signal Awards here

Leave a comment

Looking for the full version? Become a Prof G+ subscriber for unlimited, ad-free access to all our videos, including exclusive content only available on Substack.

Subscribe now

Read more

Trump’s MAGA Inc. Super PAC has now agreed to pay for the repurposed Trump campaign ads that have been airing nationwide, which had been marked as paid for with taxpayer money — more than $10 million worth of ads on cable and network TV since September. Is this a rare admission of defeat, or damage control?

The main Democratic Senate Super PAC has been ramping up Epstein-related attack ads, with AdImpact counting 69 Epstein ads this cycle worth more than $36.6 million. N…

Read more

Monica de Bolle is a Senior Fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. Kathryn Anne Edwards is a labor economist and host of the Optimist Economy Podcast.

Vote for Prof G Markets at the Signal Awards here

Leave a comment

Looking for the full version? Become a Prof G+ subscriber for unlimited, ad-free access to all our videos, including exclusive content only available on Substack.

Subscribe now

Read more

The Iran war just reached British soil. The U.S. has abruptly pulled all B-1 bombers from a UK air base after commanders received urgent intelligence about an Iran-backed plot against the facility. British police had already arrested five men in vans near the base — later released on bail but still under investigation — and a dual British-Ira…

Read more

Want to be featured in a future episode? Send a voice recording to officehours@profgmedia.com, or drop your question in the r/ScottGalloway subreddit.

Plus, you can now call or text Scott a question at our new Office Hours hotline: ‪(201) 472-3656‬

Leave a comment

Looking for the full version? Become a Prof G+ subscriber for unlimited, ad-free access to all our videos, including exclusive content only available on Substack.

Subscribe now

Read more

We know polling errors are unpredictable, October surprises happen, and even without those, the Senate is far from a sure thing.

But the odds are that Hakeem Jeffries will be the new Speaker of the House in January, and with a functional majority behind him.

If voters reject the Republicans in November, it will be in part because they are crying out for Congress to take some action: this is a group of people with a 16% approval rating (it fell to a jaw-dropping 10% in April), and just had its least productive session since at least 1973.

And while current House leadership should be held accountable for that, less than a third of Americans have approved of Congress for decades. There were around as many Democrats presiding over the House as Republicans over those years.

Whatever happens in November, the Democrats have a big opportunity to get something done for a public that is desperate for that to happen.

The next question is what? And the good news for Democrats is that the Wall Street Journal just laid out a complete agenda for the left on three major economic items: healthcare, taxes, and affordability.

They come from a survey that the Journal conducted last week, and it’s the single most important policy document for Democrats to hold on to through 2028.

Today, we’re exploring that agenda, and the Democrats who want to do it justice.

Programming note: Raging Perspective is back on Wednesday. Join Jessica and Aaron Parnas live at 12PM for an unscripted, unfiltered, unedited conversation about the issues defining this era. And as always, we’re also taking your questions! Ask away in the comments section below.

Healthcare: Voters want better coverage, lower prices, and Medicare for All

Republicans kicked 13 million people off Medicaid in their “Big, Beautiful Bill” last year, and that was just the tip of the iceberg.

Tightened eligibility and enrollment requirements, messing with states’ taxes and payments, and lower Obamacare subsidies were also major parts of the package.

Undoing those policies is key to most Democratic candidates’ pledges this cycle. Just about all the major candidates are all campaigning on undoing Medicaid cuts, and some want to repeal the bill altogether.

Some candidates are targeting specific parts of our broken healthcare system. Sherrod Brown, for example, is focused on drug prices. In a campaign stop in July, Brown compared drug prices in Ohio to nearby Canada: “You pay more than that same drug, the same dose, the same maker of the drug does overseas in another country.” He wants comprehensive reform of that system.

As the Journal’s poll reveals, that’s something Americans want too: around nine-in-ten voters want to ban surprise medical bills, require health insurers to cover doctor-prescribed medicines and services, and impose caps on drug prices.

Trump’s “TrumpRX” drug discounting website gets positive marks from voters – three quarters say they want a service like that – but Americans want to go further.

Nearly six-in-ten say they want Medicare for All, a sweeping health policy reform that Democrats are increasingly embracing. Maine’s Troy Jackson, Michigan’s Abdul El-Sayed, and Minnesota’s Peggy Flanagan are at the top of the heap this cycle, and it’s bound to be a hot issue in the 2028 primaries.

Taxes: Higher taxes for the wealthy were surprisingly popular

It’s been more of the same on taxes during Trump’s second term: an extension of the 2017 tax cuts that disproportionately benefited the wealthy (not just us saying it: Trump’s tax law was “skewed to the rich, expensive, and failed to deliver on its promises, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities).

Democrats have been clear-eyed on this topic. James Talarico told attendees at a rally in August that it was “time to repeal the Big Ugly Bill’s tax breaks for the top 1%;” he is running on a fairer tax system that would impose higher taxes on large corporations, including when they announce stock buybacks, and on billionaire tax loopholes.

There is surprisingly broad support for going after billionaires in the Journal’s poll: 73% of voters said they wanted higher taxes on people making over $1 million, and 61% wanted a new tax on Americans with a net worth above $1 billion (that idea will be tested in a California ballot measure this November).

And yes, even taxing people’s second homes is broadly popular: 59% said they’d like to see a tax on “luxury properties” when they’re used as a vacation or second home.

Affordability: Voters want help on housing, interest rates and child care

Then there’s housing, which remains the biggest hidden issue in this election.

Republicans made some progress towards increasing housing supply with their 21st Century Road to Housing Act (you’ll recall that this was the bill enacted with bipartisan support in the Senate, only for Trump to call off a signing ceremony because they wouldn’t pass his “SAVE America” Act with it).

That bill aims to increase housing supply by reducing regulatory barriers, modernizing housing programs, and expanding access to housing. All good things, and something the Democrats can point to as Republicans try to paint their opponents as the “party of no.”

Democratic candidates are making the case on day-to-day affordability issues, led by gas and groceries. Josh Turek in Iowa is a great example. He’s telling voters he’s “laser-focused on costs, corruption, kitchen table issues;” Mary Peltola wants to focus on these costs plus Alaska’s already-expensive utility bills.

That certainly makes sense for their campaigns.

Voters, again, are receptive to an even bigger range of reforms: restricting institutional investors from buying up homes, capping child care costs, limiting rent increases, and raising the minimum wage to $20.

And a quick note on what’s not working: $5,000 checks. Yes, the “populist” idea that Trump floated at his national convention this summer is not even vaguely popular with voters. Only 23% agreed with the idea at all.

That’s voters’ agenda for Democrats. This January, they’ve got a chance to enact it.

Leave a comment

If you’re not a Prof G+ subscriber yet and want access to these weekly deep dives, make sure to subscribe below for all of Prof G Media’s exclusive content, plus livestreams and ad-free pods.

Subscribe now

Read more

$30,000

That’s how much the world’s most elite sheepdogs sold for at auction on a farm in England.

1. Anthropic’s prospectus shows a $42 billion loss, and OpenAI shelves a model over safety concerns

2. Higher rates are pressuring stocks and making bonds attractive again

3. Apple’s new CEO is cutting managers and shipping new products faster

Anthropic’s Prospectus Shows a $42 Billion Loss Ahead of the Biggest IPO Ever

Anthropic’s IPO prospectus leaked last week, and the numbers are staggering. According to Reuters, the company brought in $4.6 billion in revenue last year, up 1,088% from 2024. It also lost $42 billion. About $34 billion of that loss is a non-cash accounting charge tied to financing that can convert into shares. Without that charge, Anthropic still spent more than $8 billion running the business, about 60% more than SpaceX lost the year before its IPO.

Subscribe now

Anthropic spent $7.3 billion on compute and infrastructure in 2025, up 190% year over year. Capital expenditures are expected only to accelerate: Anthropic estimates it will spend $518 billion on cloud, compute, and infrastructure in the coming years.

Anthropic faces a host of challenges, from unprecedented operating costs to dangerous and unpredictable autonomous agents. The risk section of its S-1, as reported by Reuters, is more than double how many pages are used to describe what the company actually does.

Still, Anthropic is expected to go public at a valuation of $2 trillion in November, making it the most highly valued IPO of all time.

According to NYU professor (and friend of the pod) Aswath Damodaran, Anthropic would need to make $1.2 trillion in annual revenue within 10 years to justify this valuation. Damodaran estimates that the entire current market for AI products and services is roughly $250 billion.

It was also a busy week for Anthropic’s biggest competitor. OpenAI announced it would not release its latest AI model, GPT-6.1 Astra, because of safety concerns. It reportedly showed high levels of deception and was able to evade human oversight.

OpenAI also had its developer day, where it launched Dots, a competitor to Meta’s Muse agent. It is available only on the ChatGPT Pro plan or the Business Premium plan, and the rollout was fraught with awkward moments — including when OpenAI’s CFO, Sarah Friar, accidentally referred to Dots as Muse in a live TV interview.

I’ve said this before: I don’t think we have an AI bubble infecting the whole market. Look at Nvidia’s valuation, which has come down significantly. But we do have an AI lab bubble. There’s too much excitement about Anthropic and OpenAI because they’re new and sexy. But they still haven’t figured out their business models. They’re some of the most unprofitable businesses of all time, and that isn’t priced in.

Economic conditions shape market dynamics. But you know what else matters? Vibes and trust. And right now, the vibes have soured. It’s becoming increasingly clear that people actually dislike AI, and I don’t just mean data centers.

Students and parents are pissed that AI is making us dumber. Gen Alpha’s newest insult is “that’s so AI.”

Tech has become a less popular career choice for young people. In 2022, the most attractive employers for undergrads studying business were Google, Apple, and Microsoft. Last year, they were JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley.

In 2025, 32% of Americans had little to no trust in Big Tech. This year, that number jumped to 41%.

Hollywood has noticed. Four films about tech founders come out this fall, and none of them are flattering.

Bad vibes won’t stop people from using AI. But they will hurt AI companies trying to go public. Anthropic’s numbers don’t support a $2 trillion valuation. They need investor enthusiasm, and the public is moving the other way.

At $2 trillion, Anthropic would be more valuable than Meta and more than twice as valuable as JPMorgan. Its revenue growth has been remarkable, but this valuation doesn’t take into account the risks it faces.

Start with customer concentration.

Higher Rates Are Pressuring Stocks and Creating an Opportunity in Bonds

The third quarter ended last week, and a lot has changed in the markets. While macroeconomic data still looks strong — GDP was revised up to 2.2% growth and the unemployment rate has hovered near its 10-year average — bonds tumbled and stocks had a worse quarter due to concerns about higher rates and AI safety.

On the surface, the stock market looks healthy. The S&P 500 has increased 12% so far in 2026, putting it on pace for its fourth consecutive year of double-digit gains. The rally has become increasingly narrow, however. Close to 60% of S&P 500 companies are in a bear market right now, which means their stock is down 20% or more.

In fact, since July, only five stocks — Microsoft, Meta, Apple, Alphabet, and Nvidia — have contributed 93% of the S&P 500’s gains.

Earnings have stayed strong across sectors: Even excluding the Magnificent 7, the S&P 493 grew earnings 31.8% in Q2 2026, the fastest pace since Q4 2021. But this strength hinges on AI. Goldman Sachs estimates half of earnings growth this year will come from AI investment.

While earnings grew, stocks and bonds came under pressure due to rising interest rates. The 10-year Treasury yield hit 5.3% in the third quarter, its highest level since 2007, and the Fed raised rates for the first time since 2023. When investors can earn 5.3% on a “risk-free” Treasury, they demand a higher return for holding stocks, which means paying less for each dollar of earnings.

Higher yields also mean lower bond prices. Long-term Treasury bonds declined nearly 8% over the course of the quarter, and the Bloomberg US Aggregate Bond Index fell 4%.

Falling bond prices hurt existing investors, but they also create an opportunity. With yields above 5% on maturities of five years and longer, the risk-reward profile of owning bonds looks increasingly attractive. Buy a 10-year Treasury at current levels, and if yields rise another percentage point over the next year, you’d lose about 1.5% after interest. If yields fall a point, you’d make about 13%.

Investors are responding: Flows into bond funds so far this year have already outpaced those of every full year since 2021, according to Morningstar.

The market has shifted. Over the past three weeks, at least six companies have postponed their IPOs: Holtec, Amaero, Aggreko, SB Energy, Bamboo Insurance, and Oura. Most of them blamed “market uncertainty.”

There’s a lesson here for young entrepreneurs and professionals:

I think it’s time to buy bonds. Yields are just too high to ignore.

Apple’s New CEO Starts With Cost Cuts, and a New Smart Home Device

John Ternus is officially one month into his tenure as Apple’s CEO, and he’s starting to shake things up. He’s reportedly planning layoffs to eliminate middle-management roles and speed up the company’s product release schedule.

Ternus is also eyeing a bigger push into the smart home market. There is white space in home electronics, as smart speakers haven’t achieved the kind of mass adoption that other personal electronics have.

Apple’s next device, which is expected to be released in mid-October, is a smart hub designed to recognize household members and show each one personalized information. For example, the device would show each family member their own personal calendar, messages, and notes. It would know to switch to another view when someone else walks up to it. It will also support Siri and FaceTime calls.

Notably, OpenAI’s first device is also a smart home speaker. It is expected to be released sometime in 2027.

Apple shares hit an all-time high in mid-September and have returned 22% year to date.

Apple is great at developing talent, and I’m already impressed with Ternus.

Apple is trading at 38x earnings. Meta is at 27x, and Microsoft and Nvidia at 29x. That’s a ridiculously expensive valuation, and to sustain it, I want to see

1. Google pushed AI into schools — and even students say it’s gone too far

2. Chinese couples are turning wedding videos into epic productions

3. 2026 has been a record year for $100 million listings

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

Looking for the full version? Become a Prof G+ subscriber for unlimited, ad-free access to all our videos, including exclusive content only available on Substack.

Subscribe now

Read more

Leave a comment

Looking for the full version? Become a Prof G+ subscriber for unlimited, ad-free access to all our videos, including exclusive content only available on Substack.

Subscribe now

Read more