Podcasts about Benchmark

As operating expenses rise, dental practices must keenly understand their financial standing. A guest joins this episode to discuss strategic planning around patient cost consciousness and staff salary trends from the new How Does Your Practice Compare? Report. Tune in to learn how leveraging data based on practice size and specialty can help practices identify growth opportunities.    LINKS How Does Your Practice Compare? Report Podcast Video cainwatters.com Submit a Question Facebook | YouTube | Instagram

In a time of market volatility, inflation concerns, and growing financial pressure across higher education, how can colleges and universities ensure their endowments remain both resilient and mission-aligned? In this episode, AGB's David Bass speaks with Kyle Adams of Cerity Partners about the evolving role of the outsourced chief investment officer (OCIO) model and what boards and investment committees should expect from their investment partners today. Together, they discuss how institutions of all sizes can strengthen decision-making, navigate uncertainty, and position their endowments to support long-term priorities. Opinions expressed in AGB podcasts are those of the speakers and not necessarily those of the organizations that employ them or of AGB. Disclosures Please read important disclosures here. Cerity Partners OCIO LLC ("Cerity Partners OCIO" or "CP OCIO") is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Cerity Partners LLC (together with its affiliates, "Cerity Partners"). Views expressed are as of the date recorded unless otherwise indicated. Client data is as of February 28, 2026. The NACUBO-Commonfund Study of Endowments, which is available for purchase, provides an annual analysis of endowment investment returns, asset allocations, and governance policies and practices at hundreds of U.S. higher education institutions and affiliated foundations. Cerity Partners OCIO is a corporate partner member of NACUBO and sponsors certain NACUBO events. Certain CP OCIO clients may have participated in the study. NACUBO data is as of June 30, 2025. Cerulli Associates provides market intelligence and strategic business for the financial industry.  The Cerulli US Outsourced Chief Investment Officer Function 2025 Report, which is available for purchase, explores the evolving OCIO landscape, including market sizing, forces of growth, demand and needs across client segments, use of OCIO search consultants, and the various challenges facing providers. "CapEx" refers to Capital Expenditures. "Fed" refers to the Federal Reserve. "RFP" refers to Request for Proposal.

Patrick Moorhead and Daniel Newman cover Daniel's acquisition of Enterprise Technology Research, IBM's historic $15 billion single-day commitment spanning quantum and open-source security, Anthropic's Claude Opus 4.8, and the heaviest single earnings night of the season featuring Dell, Marvell, Salesforce, Synopsys, Snowflake, HP, and Micron crossing $1 trillion in market cap. The handpicked topics for this week are: Anthropic Releases Claude Opus 4.8: Six Weeks After 4.7 Anthropic dropped Opus 4.8 just six weeks after 4.7, claiming it surpasses GPT-5.5 and Gemini 3.1 Pro on agentic coding, knowledge work, and computer use. Benchmark improvements across the board: agentic coding up from 64.3% to 69.2%, knowledge work from 1753 to 1890, agentic computer use from 82.8% to 83.4%. Three new features ship alongside it: Dynamic Workflows for multi-subagent orchestration inside Claude Code, Effort Control for managing token spend, and mid-task system messages via the API. Fast mode is now 2.5x faster and 3x cheaper. Pat's honest take: what it says on paper is good, particularly on tool triggering and citation precision, but he has lost significant trust in the company and is watching closely. (The Decode)   IBM Commits $10 Billion to Quantum: The Largest Single Quantum Bet in History IBM announced a $10 billion commitment over five years targeting a large-scale fault-tolerant quantum computer by 2029, landing the same day as the $5 billion Project Lightwell announcement for a single-day IBM strategic commitment of $15 billion. Pat has been calling 2029 to 2031 as the realistic commercial quantum window and calls this the strongest single corporate financial signal yet that the timeline is real. Daniel's framing: IBM wants to be the NVIDIA of quantum, and with a $10 billion commitment, it's sending a flare to the entire industry that pure-play quantum companies cannot compete at this balance sheet level. (The Decode)   IBM and Red Hat Launch Project Lightwell: $5B to Secure Open-Source Software IBM and Red Hat committed $5 billion and a global force of 20,000 engineers to secure open-source software for enterprises through frontier agentic AI, anchored by 11 of the largest US and Canadian banks including Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Mastercard, and Visa. Pat's read: this is the productization answer to Anthropic Mythos. Mythos found the vulnerabilities. Lightwell is the industrial-scale patching and validation layer enterprises can actually buy on a subscription. Daniel adds that IBM is flexing its engineering talent base as a premium strategic asset, a direct counter to the narrative that AI replaces engineers. (The Decode)   Anthropic Project Glasswing: 23,000 Vulnerabilities Found Across 1,000 OSS Projects Anthropic's Claude Mythos scanned more than 1,000 widely deployed open-source projects and surfaced approximately 23,000 candidate vulnerabilities, with 1,094 confirmed as critical severity. The Cyber Verification Program now gates the strongest cyber-capable Claude variant behind vetted defenders only. While the tool creates real value, the surface of attack will likely grow as fast as any tool built to defend it. (The Decode)   Anthropic in Talks to Run Claude on Microsoft Maia 200 CNBC and The Information reported Microsoft is in active negotiations to supply Anthropic with its custom Maia 200 inference chip, which would make Anthropic the only frontier lab simultaneously running production workloads on four distinct silicon stacks: NVIDIA, AWS Trainium, Google TPU, and Microsoft Maia. Pat's context: Maia 200 delivers 30% better tokens per dollar than the latest Azure fleet per Satya Nadella, and this deal would be Maia's first major external deployment. Daniel's read: what can be built will be sold right now, and Anthropic chasing every available compute source is simply the structural reality of growing at 80x when you planned for 10x. (The Decode)   The Flip: Is AI CapEx Too Expensive to Earn Its Return? Pat takes the affirmative. With $725 billion in hyperscaler CapEx tracking for 2026, likely $1 trillion next year, memory has become the choke point making it even more expensive, and open-source models have closed enough of the quality gap for most enterprise tasks that the premium of frontier APIs is increasingly hard to justify. A recent Signal65 white paper shows on-prem payback at 18 months. Daniel's counter: Dell just booked $24 billion in AI orders in a single quarter. Agentforce crossed $1 billion ARR at 169% growth. NVIDIA guided to $91 billion. Only 20% of enterprises are using AI and only 2% of consumers. Both hosts admitted off the flip their notes looked nearly identical. (The Flip)   Micron Crosses $1 Trillion Market Cap Micron became the 12th US company ever to cross $1 trillion in market cap, surging 19% on May 26th as UBS raised its price target to $1,625, implying a $1.8 trillion market cap. Samsung's Q1 memory ASP jumped 146% year over year. DRAM spot prices spiked 55 to 60% quarter over quarter. Daniel has been pounding this call since sub-$100 and calls it a cycle elongated beyond anything seen in the 27 prior memory cycles, driven by HBM capacity reallocation away from consumer DRAM creating structural shortage. (Bulls and Bears)   Dell Technologies Q1 FY27: The Biggest Enterprise AI Infrastructure Print of 2026 Record $43.8 billion revenue, up 88% year over year, crushing the $35.7 billion consensus by $8 billion. AI-optimized servers at $16.1 billion, up 757% year over year. $24.4 billion in AI orders booked in a single quarter. FY27 AI server revenue guide raised from $50 billion to $60 billion. Non-GAAP EPS of $4.86 beat the $2.96 consensus by 64%. Stock up 18% after hours. Pat's framing: Dell was very clear about what they were going to do. Rack engineering, sales, and service. The basics. And they executed the basics at an extraordinary level while building a special relationship with NVIDIA who views Dell as a market maker for both enterprise and NeoCloud. Daniel's add: play nice and win. Michael Dell navigated the political landscape brilliantly and pulled the entire Dell brand along with him. (Bulls and Bears)   Marvell Technology Q1 FY27: Record Revenue, Data Center at 76% of Mix Record $2.418 billion revenue, up 28% year over year. Data center at $1.833 billion, up 27% year over year, now 76% of total revenue. Q2 guide of $2.7 billion at midpoint accelerates growth to 35% year over year. Operating cash flow a record $638.8 million. Daniel went on TV and said it's "written in the stars," arguing the market had misunderstood this one for too long by conflating its custom AI ASIC story with the full breadth of its connectivity and networking portfolio. Pat's closing: the shorts are eating it now and the custom AI ASIC versus merchant GPU debate is finally settling into the right answer, which is both in lockstep. (Bulls and Bears)   Salesforce Q1 FY27: Agentforce Crosses $1 Billion ARR Revenue $11.13 billion, up 13% year over year. Non-GAAP EPS of $3.88 crushed the $3.12 consensus by 24%. Agentforce ARR crossed $1 billion, up 169% year over year, with 28.6 trillion tokens processed, up 152% quarter over quarter. 50% of Agentforce bookings came from existing customers expanding. Daniel flagged the $25 billion accelerated buyback funded by new debt as an interesting signal worth watching. Pat's bottom line: it's not perfect, but certainly no "SaaSpocalypse" in those numbers. (Bulls and Bears)   Synopsys Q2 FY26: First Full Quarter With Ansys Integrated Revenue $2.276 billion, up 42% year over year, beating consensus. Non-GAAP EPS of $3.35 beat $3.15. FY26 guide raised to $9.665 billion midpoint. Daniel's framing: every chip runs through Synopsys tools, and the Ansys addition makes it the full-stack co-design platform Jensen Huang keeps talking about. Synopsys is not just the pick and shovel of current AI silicon. It is the pick and shovel of quantum, robotics, and space as well. (Bulls and Bears)   Snowflake Q1 FY27: Strongest Sequential Dollar Growth in Company History Product revenue $1.33 billion, up 34% year over year, the strongest sequential dollar growth in Snowflake history. Net revenue retention 126%. FY27 product revenue guide raised to $5.84 billion. Natoma acquisition announced for secure agentic enterprise connectivity. New $6 billion multi-year AWS commitment. Daniel's closing: proprietary unique data is the real moat of the agentic era, and that data has to live somewhere. It is going to go to platforms like Snowflake. (Bulls and Bears)   HP Inc. Q2 FY26: Eight Straight Quarters of Growth With AI PCs at 44% of Shipments Revenue $14.4 billion, up 9% year over year, the company marks its eighth consecutive quarter of top-line growth. Non-GAAP EPS of $0.86 beat the prior guide. Personal Systems at $10.2 billion, up 13%, with 30% operating profit growth. AI PCs jumped from 35% to 44% of shipments quarter over quarter, with HP guiding to 60 to 70% next fiscal year. FY26 EPS guide raised. Pat's note: they still need a permanent CEO, which would help investors sleep better at night. Daniel's add: the real explosive moment for device companies comes when AI moves to the edge and enterprises shift from expensive frontier model consumption to on-device inference. (Bulls and Bears)   Everpure Q1 FY27: Record Revenue, Rebrand Complete Record revenue of $1.1 billion, up 35% year over year. Product revenue $577 million, up 55%. Subscription ARR at $2 billion. FY27 guide raised to $4.41 to $4.51 billion. Pure Storage officially completed its rebrand to Everpure. Daniel's emerging thesis: the agentic era has focused enormous attention on memory and compute, but after the inference runs, the data has to sit somewhere. Storage has not seen its full inflection yet and Everpure is well positioned when that wave arrives. (Bulls and Bears)   The Decode Anthropic Releases Claude Opus 4.8 May 28  https://techcrunch.com/2026/05/28/anthropic-releases-opus-4-8-with-new-dynamic-workflow-tool/ IBM Commits $10B Over Five Years to Quantum Computing the Same Day as $5B Project Lightwell, Bringing IBM's One-Day AI https://www.barrons.com/articles/ibm-stock-quantum-computing-aafbb1eb IBM + Red Hat Announce Project Lightwell  https://newsroom.ibm.com/2026-05-28-ibm-and-red-hat-commit-5-billion-to-redefine-the-future-of-open-source-in-the-ai-era Anthropic Project Glasswing / Claude Mythos Finds 23,000 Potential Vulnerabilities Across 1,000+ Open-Source Projects https://www.securityweek.com/anthropic-mythos-detected-23000-potential-vulnerabilities-across-1000-oss-projects/ Anthropic Negotiating to Run Claude on Microsoft's Maia 200 AI Chips  https://www.cnbc.com/2026/05/21/anthropic-microsoft-maia-200-ai-chip.html OpenAI + Anthropic Walk Back the AI Jobs Apocalypse Ahead of IPOs https://finance.yahoo.com/sectors/technology/articles/ai-chiefs-walk-back-job-193605798.html https://x.com/RiskCentre/status/2059397756016611668 The Flip Is AI Capex Becoming Too Expensive to Earn Its Return — and Will the Result Be a Forced Shift to Open-Source and Smaller Use-Case-Specific Models, or a Continued $725B+ Hyperscaler Buildout That Vindicates the Capex on Productivity Gains? FOR:  The shift is to open-source + smaller use-case-specific models with better token economics, not away from AI https://x.com/danielnewmanUV/status/2059822712122400975 DeepSeek 75% permanent price cut + Anthropic Claude Code restriction reversal https://www.buildfastwithai.com/blogs/ai-news-today-may-26-2026 $190B Microsoft capex + $725B+ aggregate hyperscaler capex with no analog ROI yet  https://www.buildfastwithai.com/blogs/ai-news-today-may-26-2026   AGAINST:  Salesforce Agentforce ARR crossed $1B this quarter on 28.6T tokens processed  https://www.stocktitan.net/sec-filings/CRM/8-k-salesforce-inc-reports-material-event-3b8ead2852bb.html Lenovo +105% AI revenue, +84% Q4; Dell $43B AI backlog: the AI infrastructure flywheel is converting capex to revenue today https://investor.marvell.com/news-events/press-releases/detail/1023/marvell-technology-inc-reports-first-quarter-of-fiscal-year-2027-financial-results NVIDIA $91B Q2 guide + $1T Blackwell+Vera Rubin CY25-CY27 reaffirmed  https://www.cnbc.com/2026/05/20/were-raising-our-price-target-on-nvidia-after-another-knockout-quarter-and-guide-.html DeepSeek + Chinese price war is a Chinese export-controls story, not a US economic ceiling story https://www.cnbc.com/2026/05/21/anthropic-microsoft-maia-200-ai-chip.html   Bulls & Bears Micron (NASDAQ: MU) Crosses $1 TRILLION Market Cap for the First Time https://www.cnbc.com/2026/05/26/micron-stock-trillion-market-cap.html Dell Technologies Q1 FY27 ACTUALS  https://www.cnbc.com/2026/05/28/dell-q1-earnings-report-2027.html Marvell Technology Q1 FY27 ACTUALS https://investor.marvell.com/news-events/press-releases/detail/1023/marvell-technology-inc-reports-first-quarter-of-fiscal-year-2027-financial-results Salesforce CRM Q1 FY27 ACTUALS  https://investor.salesforce.com/financials/quarterly-results/ Synopsys SNPS Q2 FY26 ACTUALS https://investor.synopsys.com/events-and-presentations/events/event-details/2026/Q2-Fiscal-Year-2026-Earnings/default.aspx Snowflake SNOW Q1 FY27 ACTUALS  https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20260527027931/en/Snowflake-Reports-Financial-Results-for-the-First-Quarter-of-Fiscal-2027 HP Inc. HPQ Q2 FY26 ACTUALS https://finance.yahoo.com/markets/stocks/articles/hp-q2-earnings-call-highlights-230459161.html Everpure (NYSE: P, formerly Pure Storage) Q1 FY27 ACTUALS  https://investor.salesforce.com/financials/quarterly-results/ Synopsys SNPS Q2 FY26 ACTUALS https://investor.synopsys.com/events-and-presentations/events/event-details/2026/Q2-Fiscal-Year-2026-Earnings/default.aspx Snowflake SNOW Q1 FY27 ACTUALS  https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20260527027931/en/Snowflake-Reports-Financial-Results-for-the-First-Quarter-of-Fiscal-2027 HP Inc. HPQ Q2 FY26 ACTUALS  https://finance.yahoo.com/markets/stocks/articles/hp-q2-earnings-call-highlights-230459161.html Everpure (NYSE: P, formerly Pure Storage) Q1 FY27 ACTUALS https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/everpure-announces-first-quarter-fiscal-2027-financial-results-302783502.html

Charles Chang, Founder of Unified Technologies Group (UTG), joins Brendon Dennewill to challenge the way most organizations think about growth, arguing that the real bottleneck is never technology, it's the absence of documented processes, operational leadership, and a culture of prevention. Drawing on his experience in healthcare IT and multi-company ownership, Charles shares how his team is already deploying AI agents to replace repetitive workflows, using a "sandbox-first" rollout approach to avoid costly mistakes. If you're a RevOps leader trying to figure out where AI actually fits in your organization, and how to move fast without creating chaos, this conversation delivers a practical, security-conscious roadmap.WHAT YOU'LL LEARNWhy technology always comes last in the scaling orderThe hiring decision that separates scaling companies from stagnant onesWhat a "bookkeeper agent" looks like in a real businessHow to use Delegate and Elevate to identify AI opportunitiesThe sandbox-first rule for rolling out AI safelyWhen SMBs are actually outpacing enterprise on AI adoptionWhy visionaries need operational leaders to survive growthRESOURCES MENTIONEDEOS (Entrepreneurial Operating System) Delegate and Elevate (EOS Tool) Kolbe A IndexEOS Rocks / Quarterly Meeting CadenceAI Sandbox TestingLLMs (Large Language Models)Is your business ready to scale? Take the Growth Readiness Score to find out. In 5 minutes, you'll see: Benchmark data showing how you stack up to other organizationsA clear view of your operational maturity Whether your business is ready to scale (and what to do next if it's not)Let's ConnectSubscribe to the RevOps Champions NewsletterLinkedInYouTubeExplore the show at revopschampions.com. Ready to unite your teams with RevOps strategies that eliminate costly silos and drive growth? Let's talk!

Are you ready for the New Standard? Show Notes: Run Time: 1:25:36 We're back at it, and oh so happy to be here! After last week's long-awaited return to voting, we're excited to announce an upcoming schedule! For the first time in over a year!  Tuesday, June 2nd: Episode #319 - Writers' Room: A non-Vengeance Friction story Tuesday, June 9th: Episode #320 - Writers' Room: Cosmic Tales: An intense space opera story Tuesday, June 16th: Episode #321 - Writers' Room: The Rise of the Sixth Sun Tuesday, June 23rd: Editor's Note #90 Tuesday, June 30th: Episode #322 - Writers' Room: Rambler calling in a debt pulls a character out of a different fight A thrilling June to look forward to! Then, we get right to it, and the Benchmark stories unfold quickly and relatively smoothly. We have some ideas of what happens (or at least where it goes) in advance, but we discover and create a lot on the air, as well! We very happy to be back in the swing of things. Join us next week for Episode #319, which is a Friction story that's not part of the Vengeance event! Get your questions in here! And don't forget to check out our Patreon!

Most banks and credit unions say growth is the top priority heading into 2026. At the same time, fintechs are winning the relationships that drive future deposits, payments, and engagement. In this episode, Lee Wetherington from Jack Henry joins me to break down the findings from their 2026 Strategic Benchmark Study and explain why many financial institutions still struggle to act on signals already sitting in their own data. We discuss silent attrition, payment flow analytics, Gen Z deposit growth, AI investment priorities, and why payments have become the control point in the customer relationship. This conversation is not just about technology. It's about how the game of banking is changing. This episode is sponsored by Jack Henry®. At Jack Henry, we believe the world is a better place with community and regional banks and credit unions. For 50 years, we've put financial institutions at the center of our modernization. We're here to help you innovate faster, differentiate strategically, and compete successfully – with one goal in mind: to improve the financial health of the people you serve. To learn more about the findings discussed in today's episode, download the full Strategy Benchmark study here: https://discover.jackhenry.com/strategy-benchmark-study-2026 Subscribe to Banking Transformed for new episodes published multiple times weekly. #BankingTransformed #Banking #DigitalBanking #Fintech #AIinBanking #Payments #BankStrategy #CustomerExperience #FutureOfBanking #GenZBanking

  On today's episode we talk about the latest release from one of kiteboarding's longest-running models, the CORE XRX. We hear from team riders Shahar Tsabasy and Hendrik Van Der Ems, and also catch up with Mike MacDonald and Philip Schinnagel on what the XR range means to CORE.   Core XRX:   https://ridecore.com/us/kite/kites/xr-x   Fantasy:   https://portraitkite.com/videos/fantasy-updates-may-2026/   Road To Pro (Japan):   https://portraitkite.com/videos/road2pro-season-2-japan-ep1/   WOO:   https://www.woosports.com/en   Portrait:   https://portraitkite.com     https://www.fantasykite.com   Follow us:   https://www.instagram.com/portraitkite/   https://www.instagram.com/kitesurf365/  

Doomben Cup Day takes centre stage in Queensland this weekend, with racing also at Sandown Hillside, Royal Randwick and Murray Bridge. We've got all the key plays covered across the country, all in this week's SULTS' SPECS.Other segments included in this week's episode:The Sultan's SupperPack Ya Nags2 UNITSOutro: Solitaire - I Like LoveOur South Australian set is powered by Dare to Dream, a racehorse ownership initiative giving you the chance to own a share in a racehorse with reputable trainers at an affordable price.Head to daretodream.com.au for more information.Imagine what you could be buying instead. For free and confidential support, call 1800 858 858 or visit gamblinghelponline.org.au.

For episode 731 of the BlockHash Podcast, host Brandon Zemp is joined by Sumsub at Bitcoin 2026 in Las Vegas. Tailored to your risk appetite, market demands, and use cases, Sumsub is powered by adaptive AI intelligence to support global scale while keeping your business compliant and future-ready.

Steve Domin, Founder & CEO of Duffel, the company rebuilding the infrastructure layer of the global travel industry.Duffel is taking on one of the most complex and outdated sectors, creating modern, developer-first APIs for flights, hotels, and more. Backed by investors including Index Ventures and Benchmark, the company has raised over $50M to transform how travel is bought and sold.Steve shares the journey of building Duffel from scratch, including: Why the travel industry is fundamentally broken  The insight that led to Duffel's API-first approach  Building deep supply-side integrations with airlines and incumbents  Navigating COVID when travel demand dropped to zero  The painful reality of scaling, resetting, and rebuilding product-market fit  Where long-term defensibility comes from in complex infrastructure businesses We also explore: What makes companies like GoCardless “talent factories”  How AI is changing how modern engineering teams are built  The future of smaller, highly efficient companies  Steve's view on the next generation of AI-native products This is a masterclass in persistence, infrastructure thinking, and building through uncertainty.

Stellen Sie sich vor, Sie übernehmen die Leitung eines Projekts, das die Geografie eines ganzen Landes neu definiert. Ein Projekt, das über drei Jahrzehnte dauert, 127 Kilometer Neubaustrecke umfasst und den längsten Eisenbahntunnel Österreichs hervorbringt. In dieser Episode begrüßt Johann Strasser einen Mann, der genau diese visionäre Reise angeführt hat: Dr. Schneider. Er begleitete die Koralmbahn von der ersten Machbarkeitsstudie 1991 bis zur historischen Erstbefahrung mit 250 km/h. Sie erhalten einen Blick hinter die Kulissen eines 5,9-Milliarden-Euro-Giganten, der heute als internationaler Benchmark für Kostenstabilität und technisches Projektmanagement gilt. Das erwartet Sie in der Folge: - Management durch alle Stürme: Wie führt man ein Team über einen Zeitraum, in dem 15 Bundeskanzler und 18 Verkehrsminister im Amt waren, ohne den Fokus zu verlieren? - Der „Gänsehaut-Moment“: Dr. Schneider beschreibt das emotionale Erlebnis, nach 20 Jahren Bauzeit das erste Mal im Führerstand durch den 33 Kilometer langen Koralm-Tunnel zu rasen. - Krisenmanagement unter Tage: Erfahren Sie, wie das Team reagierte, als die Tunnelbohrmaschine in der Labantal-Störzone stecken blieb und massive Umplanungen nötig wurden. - Wertebasierte Führung: Warum „technische Redlichkeit“, Vertrauen und das Vertrauen auf das eigene Bauchgefühl die wahren Schlüssel zum Erfolg waren. Kurz: Es erwartet Sie ein Gespräch über Durchhaltevermögen, Ingenieurskunst und die Leidenschaft für ein Projekt, das Generationen verbindet. Jetzt reinhören!

When ride-hailing app Uber listed on the New York Stock Exchange in May 2019, it reset the scales for all venture capitalists. In one of the all-time largest initial public offerings in the United States, the company raised $8.1 billion on a $82 billion valuation.  Early backers like venture fund Benchmark, Google Ventures and Lowercase Capital held stakes worth over $12 billion at the time of the float. But the numbers for that deal — one of the best of the last era of startups — now look quaint.  That's because the valuation of just three startups, SpaceX, OpenAI and Anthropic, have exploded over the last year. Elon's space giant is now tipped to go public at a valuation of over $1.5 trillion as soon as June following its merger with xAI in February, which valued the combined business at $1.25 trillion. OpenAI and Anthropic are now valued at $852 billion and $380 billion respectively, with Anthropic reportedly in talks to at least match its archrival's valuation in a new fundraise. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

AGENDA: 00:05:11 — Anthropic freezes secondary sales, requiring board approval for all transfers. 00:10:45 — Why Anthropic is buying capacity from Elon Musk. 00:15:35 — Anthropic's massive $200B revenue commit to Google. 00:18:55 — Goldman Sachs predicts a 24x surge in token consumption driven by agents. 00:31:05 — Will AI labs eat the app layer? The threat to Legal and CX verticals.  00:37:55 — SaaS public markets: HubSpot tanks 18% while Monday.com finds its footing. 00:42:40 — Growth theft: How Clay is commoditizing ZoomInfo's data business. 00:46:25 — Cerebras prices IPO at $150–$160 with a $48B market cap. 00:52:15 — Real Venture Capital: Celebrating the early bets by Foundation and Benchmark. 00:58:30 — Ramp's valuation vs. the Chapter 7 collapse of e-commerce card Parker. 01:06:20 — Success and Sacrifice: Is mental health the price of building a $20B company?  

Markets climb and investors turn their attention to the next major AI IPO: Cerebras. Eric Vishria of Benchmark and a Cerebras board member joins to discuss why the company's debut matters for markets and what it could mean for the broader AI ecosystem. Keith Lerner of Truist explains what it means for the Dow to reclaim 50,000 and whether momentum can continue. Our Angelica Peebles reports on a key Alzheimer's trial from Biogen and what it could mean for biotech and drug development. Our Eamon Javers reports from China on the latest developments surrounding President Trump's meetings while Michael Froman of the Council on Foreign Relations analyzes what the U.S. may have gained and the implications for Taiwan and global trade. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

The Federal Budget has landed, and two of Australia's biggest investing sacred cows — negative gearing and capital gains tax — are in the firing line. Bryce and Ren unpack what the changes mean for property, shares, startups and long-term investors, before reviewing the community portfolio, debating Catapult, Berkshire and TSMC, adding Bitcoin to the mix, and closing with a practical 101 on gearing.In this episode: 00:00 The Budget Winners and Losers01:49 Negative Gearing and Capital Gains Tax Changes Explained07:41 What the Budget Means for Investors and Startups15:48 Community Portfolio Update: Beating the Benchmark?17:32 Investment Committee: Should Catapult be Sold?25:30 Reece Pitches Bitcoin for the Portfolio31:17 Community Question: Gearing and Leverage 10140:20 Geared ETFs, Risk and the Efficient FrontierETFs & stocks mentioned: DHHF (ASX: DHHF), Caterpillar (NYSE: CAT), Alphabet (NASDAQ: GOOGL), Telix Pharmaceuticals (ASX: TLX), Catapult Group International (ASX: CAT), Spotify (NYSE: SPOT), Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE: BRK.B), Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (NYSE: TSM), Axon Enterprise (NASDAQ: AXON), Bitcoin (BTC), Coinbase (NASDAQ: COIN), iShares Bitcoin Trust (NASDAQ: IBIT), Global X 21Shares Bitcoin ETF (ASX: EBTC), Betashares Australia 200 ETF (ASX: A200), Betashares Nasdaq 100 ETF (ASX: NDQ), Betashares Wealth Builder Diversified All Growth Geared ETF (ASX: GHHF), Betashares Wealth Builder Australia 200 Geared ETF (ASX: G200), Betashares Wealth Builder Nasdaq 100 Geared ETF (ASX: GNDQ), Betashares Geared Australian Equity Fund (ASX: GEAR), Betashares Geared US Equity Fund (ASX: GGUS), Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA), Nvidia (NASDAQ: NVDA)———Want to get involved in the podcast? Record a voice note or send us a messageAnd come and join the conversation in the Equity Mates Facebook Discussion Group.———Want more Equity Mates? Across books, podcasts, video and email, however you want to learn about investing – we've got you covered.Keep up with the news moving markets with our daily newsletter and podcast (Apple | Spotify)We're particularly excited to share our latest show: Basis PointsListen to the podcast (Apple | Spotify)Watch on YouTubeRead the monthly email———Looking for some of our favourite research tools?Download our free Basics of ETF handbookOr our free 4-step stock checklistFind company information on TIKRResearch reports from Good ResearchTrack your portfolio with Sharesight———In the spirit of reconciliation, Equity Mates Media and the hosts of Equity Mates Investing acknowledge the Traditional Custodians of country throughout Australia and their connections to land, sea and community. We pay our respects to their elders past and present and extend that respect to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people today.———Equity Mates Investing is a product of Equity Mates Media. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, Donna and Tom welcome Jay Strother, president & CEO of the International Warehouse Logistics Association (IWLA), and J.C. Capron, director of strategic initiatives for IWLA, to discuss a groundbreaking research initiative that will quantify the economic and workforce impact of 3PL warehouses across North America. Jay and J.C. explain how IWLA serves its diverse membership, from household names like UPS and FedEx to multi-generational family-owned operations, through education, advocacy, and industry-leading resources like their popular podcast. The conversation centers on the ongoing 3PL Warehouse Impact Study, a collaborative effort with Penn State Smeal's Center for Supply Chain Research designed to provide credible, aggregate data that tells the industry's story with authority. Takeaways: IWLA's mission to support 3PL warehouse operators through education, advocacy, and research The importance of the 3PL Warehouse Impact Study in benchmarking industry contributions How the Warehouse Advocacy Fund supports critical industry initiatives Why participation from companies of all sizes matters for credible, protected data Stay connected with CSCR on LinkedIn (Center for Supply Chain Research) and Instagram (@pennstatesupplychain), and be sure to follow us on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you are tuning into Unpacked: Insights hosted by the Penn State Smeal Center for Supply Chain Research™. Thank you for joining us!  Visit our website: https://www.smeal.psu.edu/cscr  Guest Bios: Jay Strother serves as president & CEO of the International Warehouse Logistics Association (IWLA), a position he has held since 2023. Strother joined IWLA in 2011 as vice president and executive director of IWLA Canada before assuming his current role. Strother brings decades of association management, communications, and marketing experience to the position. Prior to IWLA, Strother held senior roles at SmithBucklin and the Association of Legal Administrators, where he oversaw editorial, advertising, and design functions and helped shape the association's digital presence. He also served as director of communications at the United States Junior Chamber of Commerce early in his career. He holds a bachelor's degree with honors in English and communications from the University of Tulsa.   Jay Capron (J.C.) serves as the director of strategic initiatives for the International Warehouse Logistics Association (IWLA) where he provides leadership in advocacy, marketing and communications, and strategic planning to advance the association's growth initiatives. Capron brings more than 20 years of experience as a professional broadcaster in the radio industry, along with extensive leadership experience in the manufacturing and nonprofit sectors. Prior to joining IWLA, Capron served as director of communications and government affairs for ND Paper, the U.S. subsidiary of Nine Dragons, one of the world's largest containerboard manufacturers. In this role, he developed and strengthened relationships with key government stakeholders while leading the execution of a comprehensive strategic communications program.

Joanna Stern was the Wall Street Journal technology journalist for 12 years. She's an Emmy award winner for her documentary E-Ternal, and recently started her own company New Things, with added advice from ChatGPT! Over the years at WSJ, I relied on Joanna's reviews of technology for many purchases (and things I avoided) reflecting her keen and brutal assessments. I also had fun working with her on some of her video assessments of health technologies. Her book I AM NOT A ROBOT is both hilarious and highly informative. It is a terrific primer for those who are not fully grounded in AI getting into the history of AI and right up to date with generative AI's progress.To get a sense for why AI thought she was the next Tina Fey, check out the back cover! No surprise she got me laughing hard throughout the conversation, no less while reading the book.Here is a short YouTube video she posted on her All In AI year of 2025, referred to during the podcast. Much of her testing of >100 AI products related to medicine and health care, which is what we especially got into during our conversation. She has 3 major rules in her assessment of AI: (1) Ruthless testing; (2) Benchmark vs human; and (3) Costs, which include “compute cost” that we discussed. Here are some of the things we covered:* AI of her blood work* AI of mammogram and breast ultrasound, and overall experience as a person with increased risk of breast cancer* AI at the dentist (and ”Dentist Deep Clean”)* Assessment of Dr. GPT* Bill Gates on health AI* Her AI Trainer (Chris)* Waymo vs Uber* Her AI Therapist (Ash)* Nothing Bot Sex (her 2 digital lovers)* Impact on her children (including 6 F*****g Hamsters, the robodog Sirius)A big thanks to Ground Truths subscribers from every US state and 212 countries. Your subscription to these free essays and podcasts makes my work in putting them together worthwhile. If you're not a subscriber, please join!If you found this interesting PLEASE share it!Paid subscriptions are voluntary and all proceeds from them go to support Scripps Research. They do allow for posting comments and questions, which I do my best to respond to. Please don't hesitate to post comments and give me feedback. Let me know topics that you would like to see covered.Many thanks to those who have contributed—they have greatly helped fund our summer internship programs for the past two years. It enabled us to accept and support a record number of 51 summer interns coming in 2026! These are high school, college and medical students selected from thousands of applicants. We couldn't do this expanded program without the funds coming in through Ground Truths.Thank you Tara Parker-Pope, MPH, Tracy Paeschke, MD, FACC, Chip Hughes, Bob Fleischman, Gretchen Faucett, and >400 others for tuning into my live video with Joanna Stern! Join me for my next live video in the app. Get full access to Ground Truths at erictopol.substack.com/subscribe

Benchmark crude oil prices rose on Monday as US President Donald Trump rejected Iran's latest counterproposal to find an end to the war in the Middle East. The continued closure of the Strait of Hormuz is leaving its mark on economies around the world, with India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi calling for reduced fuel use and Chinese inflation gauges ticking up higher than expected. Also in this edition: French President Emmanuel Macron announces more than €1 billion in investment in Kenya.

In this episode of DriveTime, Mike DeWitt, president and managing director, FORVIA HELLA, explains that the combination of HELLA with Faurecia under the FORVIA umbrella represents a strategic evolution that brings together two highly regarded Tier 1 suppliers with complementary strengths in innovation, engineering and quality.

How should organizations interpret AI benchmarks – and where do they fall short when moving from pilots to real‑world deployment?     In this episode of EPRI Current, host Samantha Gilman is joined by Jaime Sevilla, Director of Epoch AI, and Apurba Sakti, EPRI Principal Technical Leader for AI, for a deep dive into AI benchmarking and responsible adoption. The conversation explores why strong benchmark scores don't always translate into operational readiness, the limitations of generic leaderboards, and why domain‑ and workflow-specific evaluations are critical – especially in high-consequence sectors like energy. The discussion highlights how organizations can move beyond demonstrations toward continuous, evidence‑based evaluation to ensure AI systems are reliable, transparent, and fit for real‑world use.       For more information and episodes visit EPRI.com.     If you enjoy this podcast, please subscribe and share! And please consider leaving a review and rating on Apple Podcasts/iTunes.    Follow EPRI: LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/company/epri/  Twitter https://twitter.com/EPRINews    EPRI Current examines key issues and new R&D impacting the energy transition. Each episode features insights from EPRI, the world's preeminent independent, non-profit energy research and development organization, and from other energy industry leaders. We also discuss how innovative technologies are shaping the global energy future. Learn more at www.epri.com 

【Lawsnote 聊聊】首位從英國連線的法律 AI 研究員來了 ✨ 本集我們邀請了擁有跨國研究經歷，從台灣出發、走過荷蘭、目前任職於英國 RAI Institute 擔任法律人工智慧研究員的特別來賓——Serene Chi。Serene 的研究領域橫跨法律、環境、醫學與人工智慧，我們將聊聊她如何走上研究員的職涯道路，並從第一線視角分享國際法律圈擁抱 Legal AI 的真實樣貌、Harvey AI 與 Legora 為什麼備受看好，以及法律 AI 評量與治理框架背後的關鍵思考!

Become a member of AIAP to participate in these discussions: https://forms.aiap.net/forms/createaccount Is social media really the best place to find your next big architecture client? In this episode of A Photographer's Life, members of the Association of Independent Architectural Photographers (AIAP) pull back the curtain on their most effective business tool: Email Marketing. While everyone else is chasing "likes," top-tier pros are seeing 30%+ open rates and landing consistent contracts through curated, high-value email campaigns. In this episode, we dive into: • The "Social Media Trap": Why awareness doesn't always equal hires. • Lead Generation Secrets: How to use LinkedIn, SMPS rosters, and tools like Hunter.io and LeadLeaper to find the right decision-makers. •Targeting the Right Hierarchy: Should you be emailing Marketing Directors, Partners, or Project Architects? •Technical Success: Why you must use a reputable service (like Mailchimp or Benchmark) to avoid the dreaded spam folder. •The Long Game: How one campaign can fuel your business for months. Whether you're a seasoned pro or just starting to build your firm's contact list, this discussion offers a roadmap to making your marketing as precise as your photography. This podcast is Copyright 2026, The Association of Independent Architectural Photographers™, All Rights Reserved. This content may not be used in full or in part without the written consent of the AIAP. Don't forget to like the video and subscribe to the channel. #ArchitecturalPhotography #PhotographyBusiness #EmailMarketing #AIAP #PhotographyTips #CreativeEntrepreneur #MarketingForPhotographers

Listen to today's podcast... A friend of mine, had been promoted over the years, rewarded for her achievements and was a solid employee.  During a major corporate transition she was given a new department that needed a lot of help in restructuring.  She worked hard through long days, with little progress. And the results were devastating for her health to the point where she had to leave. What could have been different?  Her supervisors should have seen that the new role was unrealistic for one person to handle. They should have noticed the excessive overtime. They should have spotted the impact it was having on her health. And they should have worked with her before she felt that she had no choice but to leave, or feel like a failure. We know that engaged employees help our companies to be more creative, productive and successful. Disengaged or stressed out employees cost our companies in job turnover, disability and lowered productivity.  Yet, some employers still look at their employees as being a commodity. Ensuring that your teams work in a healthy environment is a priority. Take One Action Today To Build Your #Resiliency!      Here are today's Tips For Building Resiliency and Celebrating the start of Mental Health Week: Start a conversation. What are the sources of stress within your teams-personally and professionally? If you are not sure – ASK!  What impact is it having? Benchmark this information. How much is this costing in absenteeism, turnover, lowered productivity, healthcare costs? Decide what programs would help reduce this impact on the individual and the company Looking for Tips To Promote Mental Health Week In Your Workplace? Visit worksmartlivesmart.com under the resources and courses tab for my Top 10 Tips. #mentalhealth #hr

"If you chase two rabbits, you won't catch either." Most shooters and athletes fail because they try to improve everything at once. Today I discuss building "Benchmark Battery." It's a simple, rotating system for building strong performance over the long haul.

Java und Performance in einem Satz? Für viele klingt das immer noch wie ein Widerspruch. Dann kommt eine Challenge daher, bei der eine Milliarde Zeilen Wetterdaten verarbeitet werden sollen, und plötzlich wird aus Stammtischwissen ein echter Engineering-Nerdfight. Genau darum geht es in dieser Episode. Wir tauchen tief in die One Billion Row Challenge ein und schauen uns an, wie eine vermeintlich einfache Aufgabe zum internationalen Performance-Contest wurde.Wir sprechen darüber, warum Gunnar Morling diese Challenge gestartet hat, wie aus einer naiven Lösung mit fast fünf Minuten Laufzeit optimierte Implementierungen mit rund 1,5 Sekunden wurden und welche Rolle dabei Java, GraalVM, Memory Mapping, Unsafe, SIMD, Branchless Coding, Hashmaps, Cache-Lines und Integer-Arithmetik spielen. Außerdem schauen wir auf die Kritik an der Challenge, etwa RAM-Disk, Dataset-Overfitting und CPU-spezifische Optimierungen, und wir werfen einen Blick auf alternative Umsetzungen in C, Go, PHP, SQL, DuckDB, ClickHouse, AWK und sogar auf GPU-Ansätze.Wenn du Performance-Optimierung nicht nur als Buzzword, sondern als Mischung aus Hardware-Verständnis, Datenstrukturen, Compiler-Wissen und Community-Lernen sehen willst, bist du hier genau richtig. Und ganz nebenbei klären wir auch noch, ob Java wirklich langsam ist oder ob dieser Mythos endlich in Rente darf.Bonus: AWK schafft es in elf Zeilen. Nicht schnell, aber stilvoll.Unsere aktuellen Werbepartner findest du auf https://engineeringkiosk.dev/partnersDas schnelle Feedback zur Episode:

At Marketecture Live, Peter Birsinger, Founder & CEO, Podscribe, with Matthew Drengler, Head of Partnerships, Podscribe, breaks down the current state of audio measurement and what the data really shows about podcast and streaming performance. From conversion benchmarks to ad formats and incrementality, this session reveals how brands can measure, optimize, and scale audio advertising like any other digital channel. Takeaways Audio is fully measurable today with real-time dashboards, attribution, and incrementality Podcast ads often outperform streaming audio in conversion efficiency Host-read ads deliver stronger performance and lower acquisition costs Buying individual shows drives better engagement, but programmatic can balance cost Earlier ad placement in episodes leads to higher conversion rates Longer ads tend to perform better due to storytelling and host trust Frequency caps are critical to avoid diminishing returns Incrementality is key to understanding true performance beyond attribution Chapters 00:00 Introduction to audio measurement and Podscribe 01:03 Audio is now a fully measurable digital channel 04:12 Podcast industry growth and market opportunity 06:19 Benchmark data on conversion rates and performance 08:14 Why host-read ads perform best 09:20 Single show vs. programmatic buying strategies 11:13 Best ad placement within podcast episodes 12:46 Why longer ads drive better results 15:04 Frequency caps and diminishing returns 17:10 Attribution vs. incrementality explained 20:25 Audience reach and overlap in audio channels Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Great private Capital Reset is upon us. Markets are volatile and driving new economic imperatives. Are VC funds still VC funds, even if they raise billions per fund? What happened to the rest of the market? What is driving VC investments? What do Limited Partners think? What is on their minds? This and more, in episode 76 of Tech Deciphered. Navigation: Intro The State of the Reset: The Hangover from the Party? LP Fatigue and VC Differentiation What Really Matters: Performance.. Returns The Mega Fund Question The Case for Smaller… Rightsized Funds What Comes Next? Conclusion Our co-hosts: Bertrand Schmitt, Entrepreneur in Residence at Red River West, co-founder of App Annie / Data.ai, business angel, advisor to startups and VC funds, @bschmitt Nuno Goncalves Pedro, Investor, Managing Partner, Founder at Chamaeleon, @ngpedro Our show: Tech DECIPHERED brings you the Entrepreneur and Investor views on Big Tech, VC and Start-up news, opinion pieces and research. We decipher their meaning, and add inside knowledge and context. Being nerds, we also discuss the latest gadgets and pop culture news Subscribe To Our Podcast Bertrand Introduction Welcome to episode 76 of Tech Deciphered. This episode will be about the great private capital reset. As you know, or you have probably heard, there is significant structural transformation in the world of venture capital, and we are probably witnessing a fundamental reset of the private capital stack. We got a huge bubble in 2020, 2021. Fueled by near-zero interest rates. We got inflated fund size, compressed due diligence, and now a generation of zombie funds and zombie startups. Now that rates have normalized, exits have not been as much as expected. LP patience is a warning sign, and I guess the industry is being forced to confront an uncomfortable truth: most VC funds raised since 2017 might not return what their LPs expected. You know, how do we start?   Nuno This is going to be a relatively nuanced episode. Obviously, there is going to be a lot of haves and have-nots, both in terms of VC funds, also in terms of startups. And so I want to start with that. This is going to be more nuanced than all transformational and disruptive.   Bertrand It’s not the end. It’s not the end.   Nuno State of the Reset: The Hangover from the Party? It’s not the end. There’s still huge mega funds that are raising more and more. It’s clear that the music has stopped, right? So if we’re playing the game of chairs, the music has stopped. Around ’22, ’23, we started seeing the first signals that funds had raised way too much money. Firms collectively raised around $669 billion globally in 2021 alone. If we fast forward now to last year, 2025, depending on the sources, we did some internal analysis at Chameleon. We came up with $75.6 billion was raised last year by 493 funds, right? So That’s a significant drop, right, in terms of fundraising. Other sources would say a little bit more. There’s a little bit of a discussion around how much did the top 30 funds capture. If you believe some of the stats out there, they would say that actually top 30 funds captured 75% of all capital raised last year. We did again some internal analysis at Chameleon, and the conclusion we came to, it was closer to 50 to 55%. So not as dramatic as some of the sources out there, but still pretty dramatic. There’s a lot of capital concentration on the top funds. Again, the top 30 funds would’ve raised 50 to 55% of capital or up to 75% according to other sources. So definitely a tremendous amount of concentration. There was a lot more fragmentation in terms of capital raised if we’re looking at the years from 2010, 2011, all the way through 2021. So 2021 would’ve been sort of the peak of non-concentration if you look at that. And that again, now we are getting more and more concentration. There’s more and more of this arbitrage around, I’ll give money to the top funds, I will not give money to the smaller funds, or I’ll give less money to the smaller funds. There’s a little bit of a movement around concentration. We’ll talk about it later and what that means. Are mega funds really better? Are the small funds still the way to go? We’ll talk a lot about that later in today’s episode. There seems to be a little bit of a bifurcation. We could say it’s either bifurcation around top-tier VCs or larger VC funds versus smaller VC funds. My perspective is the bifurcation that we’re seeing right now is more of a bifurcation between funds that are no longer just stepped into the VC space, but they’re actually becoming more and more private equity firms with full asset management range from early stage all the way to late stage. Think of it almost like a private equity hedge fund, quasi, versus classic VC funds. And I think what we’re seeing is the Andreessen Horowitzes, the a16zs of the world, the NEAs, the Sequoia Capitals, just to name a few, becoming more and more broad asset class managers across private equity, whereas you have more classic VC happening in earlier stages. And so that’s the real bifurcation that I think is actually happening.   Bertrand And maybe not really hedge fund, because they are always still long-only funds. So there is no hedging happening, at least as far as I know.   Nuno Well, some of these guys have become RIAs, like A16z has become an RIA, so they can do secondaries.   Bertrand That’s true. Yeah.   Nuno And they can also sell stuff, etc. So I don’t know how aggressive they’re going to be in terms of secondaries and selling and actually doing other kinds of services you can do if you’re an RIA. But it’s not, I think, out of the realm of possibility that they would sort of acquire and sell stock more rapidly. In that way, to your point, Bertrand, maybe they actually become beyond just long guys, right?   Bertrand Yes. Another trend I have seen is some of the larger VC funds seems to have no problem investing in multiple competitors. This was not possible before. I mean, if you’re a VC fund, you had some sort of duty not to invest in the competitors, but now some invest OpenAI, Anthropic at the same time. Do you see that as part of this evolution?   Nuno For sure. And I think there’s a lot of people like the ostrich putting their heads below the ground and it’s like, “Eh, no, no, nothing to see here.” But that does constitute a conflict of interest. And if I’m a startup raising, this assumption that you will not invest in one of my competitors is no longer there, certainly for the mega funds, because of that notion of deployment of capital. Now, some funds will still hide under the notion, actually formally from a fund perspective, we’re not investing in competitors. It just happens that different types of our funds are investing in competitors. Like maybe my growth fund is investing in a competitor to my early stage fund, right? But our funds are relatively independent. So I think there’s a little bit of hide and seek that will go on if you talk to some of the fund managers. Well, they say, well, we’re not investing out of the same fund into these competitors. But between you and I, as we know, a lot of these partnerships actually do a lot of stuff together at the general partnership level. So are there really actual Chinese walls between the funds? Well, it really depends on the partnership. And to be honest, most of the partnerships don’t have very significant Chinese walls between the funds, right? The managing general partners sometimes actually occupy investment committee roles across different funds. So I think the conflict of interest is there. So that’s why I say there’s a little bit of ostrich behavior. Put your head behind the ground or below the ground and just pretend nothing is happening. Just sharing maybe a couple of interesting stats. Global fund closings for 2025, according to our numbers at Chameleon, 1,098 closed. In 2025. Closed is when you start deploying capital, right? Whereas— so it’s not closed down, it’s closed like we start deploying capital. And that number, 1,098, is dramatically down from 1,600 in 2024. And it’s actually the lowest number of closings that we saw since 2014. So again, this is bad, right? It means there’s less funds doing fund closings and deploying capital in the market than since 2014 and dramatically below the 2024 numbers, right? Where we already saw some market readjustments. The number of active VC firms in the US that did 2+ deals, which is not a huge bar, has dropped 38% back to numbers in 2023. So we don’t have numbers that are a little bit more up to date, but basically in 2023, those numbers are already dramatically dropped. So there’s less and less active funds. So there’s funds that might be in the market, but they’re not actually deploying that much capital, not doing that many investment. They’re sort of either zombie funds or relatively passive funds that have passed their investment period. For those listening to us, the investment period for a VC fund is normally between the first 3 to 5 years of the fund, which is when you build your portfolio, when you can invest in new companies. After that time period, everything that you do up to normally what would be year 10 is follow-ons. You put more money into the companies that you’re already invested in, that you already constructed portfolio with during those 3 to 5 years.   Bertrand Yeah, that’s a pretty scary change. And obviously, I guess we’ll come to it, but the time it takes to fully liquidate investments is getting longer and longer. In the old days, we used to talk about VC funds having a 10-year life, maybe a +1/+1 in terms of extension of the fund life. But it looks like it’s taking 16 to 18 years actually to get full liquidity from a fund investment.   Nuno LP Fatigue and VC Differentiation And I think that’s the scariest piece. I mean, just to share some numbers, we in venture capital talk about vintages, right? Which year did your fund start in? Normally when you did your first close onto the fund, as we were saying before, close is when you get all your investors at that moment in time to come in and you do your first close so the next fund starts running. 2018 vintage funds, right? This is now almost 7 years ago. So you should start having— actually 8 years ago almost at this point in time. You should start already getting distributions or you start getting cash back if you’re a limited partner and investor in those funds, you should start getting cash back. Half of all 2018 vintage funds have returned $0 to their LPs. So they’ve had no distributions to their LPs. 2020 vintage, which was a very hot vintage, only 42% have begun any distribution. So 58% have distributed $0, right? 2021, only 25% have done any distributions. Now, I happen to have a 2018 vintage fund and a 2021 fund. My 2018 fund has already distributed over 3x net of fees in distributions, and my 2021 fund’s already over 10% distributed back in distribution. So we’re very proud of that. But in general, the numbers are awful. There’s no liquidity back to LPs. And to your point, that’s kind of a big deal because some of these funds have been going on for 7, 8 years, and where’s the liquidity going to come from? On the other hand, if you look at TVPI, so DPI is distributions to paid-ins cash on cash. But if you look at TVPI, which is total value to paid-in, which also includes the book value or the value that you’re marking it on your books, basically the paper value as we call it for the company, even on that, the median 2017 fund, so 2017 vintage fund has a TVPI, total value to paid-in, of only around 1.76x, which is well below what should be, which is sort of the 2 to 3x benchmark of a really good performing fund. So the median funds are doing very, very poorly overall. So if you add that to the fact of what’s happening and distributions are taking a long time, back to your point, Bertrand, it’s taking like— this should be a 10-year asset class, maybe 11, 12 years, and now it’s looking a little bit like a 15, to 18-year asset class, which is not what most limited partners sign up for. Part of this dynamic, I think, is that we’ve had tremendously overvalued private companies over the last few years, right? Secondly, these companies have just stayed private longer. And I was having a discussion recently with a friend of mine, it’s like, hey, what’s this thing about companies are staying private much longer? Is there some dynamic around secondaries? And the reality is there is a dynamic around secondaries, right? Because if I’m a very large fund and I can get away with doing secondaries on my portfolio, I will get liquidity at some point, right? But someone else is stuck with private stock, which hopefully will IPO, but who knows, right? And so there’s this funny dynamic right now of because of secondaries, because of a couple of other things that are happening in the market, actually a lot of these startups are staying private for tremendous amounts of times, and some of them will IPO and they’ll be huge deals. Some of them might not and might not warrant the latest private valuations that they’ve exercised. And so there’s this tremendous noise that we’re seeing in the mid to late funnel of privately held companies where some are just waiting to be public. Some of them might not be able to go public at anything that is an up round versus private valuations that they’ve had in previous moments and in previous rounds.   Bertrand And obviously the 2 to 3x returns that funds are targeting, and obviously more 3x than 2x, I mean, that was good and nice if it’s a 10-year fund, but if it’s the same 3x for 15 to 18 years, it’s not at all the same rate of return annualized. So it’s a really, really, really big issue if you keep the return the same, but you extend the duration of the fund. Concerning going IPO, there is a lot of complexity going public, the IPO process itself, but also after that when you’re a public company. It changed how you can run the business. Some would argue that we have had an issue with more companies delisting than companies listing on the public market. So I think there might be also separate issues about the efficiency of the public market and maybe a need for change. We went very strongly in one direction for the public market, have post and run, but was it really ultimately the right thing to do? I’m actually not so sure.   Nuno Yeah, I mean, just to be clear, this is anecdotal, but when we tell prospective LPs at Chameleon about our returns, the last few funds, 2018, 2021, the first reaction is, “You must be lying, right? Surely you can’t have distributions already for 2021,” et cetera, et cetera. So clearly there’s almost a state of disbelief right now from limited partners. And liquidity does matter. So clearly you have to move forward. So how did we get to this point where we had this bubble 2021 all around that time space and now things don’t look so good. Well, the macro conditions have changed dramatically. I mean, rates when they were near zero, safer assets yield nothing or yield nothing. So basically you had to push capital into longer duration risk assets like venture capital. And so you had to push it. So the opportunity cost of capital also has fundamentally shifted. Obviously a 3x VC return in 15 years over 10 actually competes very poorly against 5% annual credit returns over several years. So there’s been a readjustment of stuff. And then the public equities in particular, the tech public equities have had a lot of volatility, but some of them have done extremely well, right? Chipsets, things like NVIDIA, the Amazons of the world, Alphabets, et cetera, et cetera. They’ve done very, very well. So why would I invest in a long-term illiquid asset that takes now longer to give me money back, and in some case doesn’t give me back, if I can invest just in public equities, and a variety of other things. The venture debt costs have increased dramatically. The burn rates that were sustainable back in the day with sort of the addition of venture debt, private credit, et cetera, now are overblown at this moment in time. At the end of the day, there’s been a lot of movements also overall in the pipeline in terms of valuations, et cetera, et cetera. Now, I would put a grain of salt into all the numbers I just told you. There still is a little bit of the haves and have-nots in startup land. Certainly in early stage where if you’re a hot AI company, you can get away with raising a Series C or $480 million. This is actually a true story. Series C, right? Not Series C, a $480 million at $4 billion pre-money valuation. Whereas if you are maybe in a space that’s less hot, you’ll have more difficulty in raising money at this point in time, might not be able to even raise a Series C, right? So there’s a little bit of the haves and have-nots happening on the VC side in early stage that has been really amplified by the macro regime and where we’re at, which is actively zero-rate era is done and now the new regime is quite different. And so I can get better returns by doing something else.   Bertrand Kind of makes sense. I mean, if you have some ways the SaaSpocalypse in the public market because there is that fear that AI is going to completely change the game for especially for the more typical software companies. Good luck raising private money to quote unquote just build traditional software companies. You cannot expect a warm embrace from the private market if the public markets are completely destroying that category. I’m not saying that this is there forever, uh, things might change over time, but for sure what’s happening on the public markets always have a very strong impact on the private market.   Nuno Indeed. So what’s happening in this relationship between limited partners and VCs, the general partners? Again, limited partners are the people that give venture capital firms and venture capital funds their capital to actually deploy. And they are a variety of different players, right? Could be endowments, like university endowments, pension funds, family offices, very high net worth individuals, fund of funds, et cetera, et cetera. I mean, in particular, if you look at the institutional investors, the endowments, the pension funds, the fund of funds, they have allocations that they do to different asset classes typically. And the feedback that we’ve received from the market is they are increasingly frustrated with what’s happening in terms of distributions. They’re not getting capital back. It’s like, I gave you capital 8 years ago, 9 years ago, 2017, 2018 vintages, and I’m not getting any capital back. So what the hell’s happening? On paper, it looks maybe the fund’s doing okay or it’s doing great in some cases, but where’s my money? And so that creates a little bit of wait-and-see kind of game on portfolio allocation. As we’re thinking through their re-ups, putting more capital into funds that they’re already actually put capital or putting in capital into new slots, into new fund managers that they want to put money into. They’re like, well, let’s wait and see. I want to get my money back or get some money back first before I redeploy it. Again, this is a little bit the haves and have-nots because we’ve seen, for example, a couple of top-end LPs in terms of returns that have a little bit the opposite problem, right? Because they are into funds that are performing extremely well. They actually are over that period and they want to actually redeploy. But to be honest, the average in the industry right now is a wait-and-see game. It’s like, I want to wait and see, which leads to what can only be characterized— I was hearing someone the other day, one of the top advisors in the LP community, saying this is the worst fundraising environment ever for venture capital. Not the last 20 years, 30 years, like ever, right? Since this became an asset class more institutionally in the late ’60s, early ’70s, Pulse Robo 2 as it was created, this is the worst fundraising environment ever. Oh, wow.   Bertrand And concerning TVPI, let’s not forget that typically it’s not mark-to-market. So the metrics in terms of TVPI, correct me if I’m wrong, you know, but the metrics in TVPI are based on typically the last fundraise. So if the valuation went down but there was no additional fundraise, we wouldn’t know by looking at the TVPI metrics. It will only be updated if there is a new Financing, equity financing, or an exit.   Nuno Yeah, normally most funds act like that. Some funds are a little bit more aggressive and do do mark-to-market, but normally funds would be conservative and say, hey, I’m being conservative, it’s whatever is the last known valuation of the company. And if there wasn’t a priced round, it’s a little bit more obscure than that, right, Bertrand? Because it might actually be the company has raised money on a note, or either convertible note or a SAFE note, and that wouldn’t count as a priced round. So I would say actually, even if it was a cap that’s below with a significant discount, I won’t recognize the assets as a down round. I won’t recognize the asset with a lower valuation because formally it wasn’t a price round. So it’s on the one hand conservative, on the other hand, it’s only relating to price rounds or exits to your point. So it’s sort of, you can be like, hmm, well, we opt to do that because we think it’s actually the most conservative route. Mark-to-market is extremely difficult to do. And who would do the mark-to-market for you, right? It’s like it’s some valuation firm, et cetera.   Bertrand I’m not saying a mark-to-market is easy, but I’m not sure I would call using the last valuation something conservative in the context that most startups will fail. So it’s not clear.   Nuno Well, in some cases it is, some cases it’s not, right? Depends on the startup situation, to be honest. Yeah, yeah.   Bertrand But yeah, at least that’s how it’s done. So for instance, to evaluate the impact of the SaaS apocalypse, it’s tough to know. We will have on the private market. I mean, we will see that in a few quarters. Because if companies still exist in that environment, if they still do additional truly price rounds after that, that’s when I will start to know.   Nuno I mean, just to share a little bit more data, like VC fund close time stretched to 15 months. Basically, it’s just taking a long time to raise money. It’s taking a long time to do your first close, get your fund running. When entrepreneurs complain to me that their fundraising is difficult, I always say, you have no clue how difficult it is compared to ours. First-time funds have collapsed. We had some numbers that only 77 first-time funds actually closed. I assume this is in 2025 versus 215 in 2023. So that’s a huge number. We did some internal analysis on our side and we did some analysis that emerging fund managers, emerging fund managers are normally people that are in their first one or two funds. Basically emerging fund managers gained some ground until 2017. Reaching by then a slice that was 63.7% of all capital raised in 2017. But since then, the capital deployed to emerging managers has been largely reduced to actually 24.2%, right? So it’s gone from 63.7% in 2017 to 24.2%. So this has been a culling of sorts on emerging managers and almost like a slaughterhouse of emerging managers. Compared to previous situations, which is obviously incredibly concerning if you’re an emerging manager starting your VC firm, et cetera, et cetera. So really tremendously problematic for those. We think capital’s not leaving VC. I think we see a lot of the institutionals saying— there’s some numbers as high as 33% of institutional investors plan to invest more in venture in the next 12 months. So I don’t think capital’s leaving VC. I think it’s really concentrating. We’ll come back to the concentration issue later in the episode. And part of that concentration comes from a topic that has been widely spoken in venture capital recently, which is differentiation. How do you differentiate in venture capital if you’re talking to a limited partner, right? How does my firm differentiate versus the firm next to mine? And that’s incredibly, incredibly challenging. Bertrand, what are your thoughts on that?   Bertrand Differentiation is always a question. I mean, if you’re an entrepreneur, Typically, you think fully about the best possible partner for your stage and for your type of business model. You want a VC who understands fully your business model, because if they don’t, then it’s going to be troubled down the line. But that’s true that another piece of the puzzle is that the best VCs help you get more visibility in terms of achieving potential customer deals, in terms of attracting the best talent. And that’s where VCs’ brand names can help. If you can say you have backing by some of the top, most visible names in the industry, and usually these are the mega funds because others have trouble to be as visible, then they have some sort of unfair advantage compared to others. So I can see that there is some level of concentration happening naturally, especially in the later stage from Series B onwards.   Nuno What Really Matters: Performance… Returns Yeah, I mean, we did some analysis internally about What are the top funds that invested in the top performing companies in early stage, Series C, Series A? And we looked at it by size of fund and the top performing normally are funds below $100 million, but in some cases very closely followed by funds between $100 and $500 million. And actually funds above $500 million, so $500 million to $1 billion and then $1 billion and above are actually tremendously underperforming. So this notion of the industry that says, well, the mega funds still see The top investments early on, because they still deploy in Series C and Series A opportunistically, in some cases even spray and pray if they have their own incubation and acceleration programs, is not true. Actually, we verified that over the last 12 to 13 years. It is not 12 to 13 years in vintage, right? So up to a 2021 vintage fund. So we went basically 12, 13 years back from there. And it’s not true. Actually, the most performing are 0 to 100 and then 100 to 500. And as I said, there’s 100 to 500 in a couple of years actually are a little bit better. Than the $0 to $100 million ones. So that’s the first thing that’s a conclusion. And actually, that’s not shocking. If we remember back in the day, Kleiner Perkins used to raise funds up to $600 million, Benchmark raised their $425 million funds. It seems like the sweet spot for a VC fund would be around $500 million at the top end, like maximum. And now somehow people are saying, well, I’m raising a $3 billion VC fund. It’s like, well, it can’t be a VC fund. The return profile is totally different, right? You can’t deploy that capital just based on early stage investing. And by the way, you’re not seeing the guys at early stage, all that you’re seeing, you’re going to make your returns in mid to late stage, right? Back to what we said at the beginning of the episode. So there’s a little bit of the haves and have-nots there. The big guys are raising more and more money, but they’re no longer venture capital. And I think limited partners that are a little bit more evolved, that are a little bit more conscious of this, that have been in the market longer, are realizing that shift. So it’s like if they want to have the alpha of venture capital, they need to deploy to the sub-$100 million funds or the sub-$500 million funds, right? That’s where they need to actually focus their VC capital. They can still deploy to mega funds, but they’re deploying to a different asset class. They’re deploying to a private equity, mid to late stage asset class, which looks maybe a little bit more like a growth fund or something like that. The second part of differentiation is the honest truth is most VC funds are like, I have proprietary network access, right? I’m ex-Stripe or I’m ex-Google or I’m ex-Facebook or whatever, and I have access to that. I mean, we know proprietary networks from that standpoint are no longer true. The whole thing that created Silicon Valley back in the ’70s of what I used to call the country club deals where there were a few people coming out of the big companies, the Fairchilds of the world, later on the Intels of the world, et cetera, et cetera, that made some money along the way that sort of bootstrapped their next companies, were well-known quantity to the existing VCs and raised money relatively easy on ideas, that doesn’t work anymore. Someone was telling me the other day one interesting thing that I wasn’t quite aware of, a lot of it had to do with the NDAs. I don’t know if you knew this, Bertrand, but like the fact that in California, it was sort of the Silicon Valley community sort of imposed this, we don’t sign NDAs thing and Boston continued signing it. And this whole NDA enforcement issue and non-compete, actually not the NDA thing, but more strongly that California did not enforce non-competes. I could leave Fairchild and start a company that magically was doing something that could be considered competitive to Fairchild. And that was sort of part of the acceleration actually of venture capital in California versus, for example, Boston, which was sort of hand in hand at the beginning.   Bertrand Yeah, I mean, I’m a big, big believer in California success coming from not enforcing or banning non-compete agreements. I think it’s a key part of the game. If you lock people into not doing something similar in the next 6 months to 24 months. And the industry has always been moving fast. So this is a significant time where you are blocked to do something very similar. I think it was really an issue. So I think it’s a key part of the game and it has been there. I don’t know how it started, but I think that non-enforcement of non-compete has been a key part of the success of California. I’m actually pleased to say that Washington State is going in the same direction. They are just signing a non-compete ban. And you might remember that at the federal level, I think in 2024, there was also a ban that was put in place to ban non-compete, but this has been reversed by the courts. So this is not there anymore. So that’s why we see a state like Washington State putting their own ban, and we might see more state by state moving in that direction. I think it was not helping at all, this non-compete. I mean, there is obviously stuff that needs to be done, like you cannot steal secrets, you cannot steal IP.   Nuno Yeah.   Bertrand Even stealing employees, there should be some restraints. We need to find the right balance, but you have to be careful there. That was key for the success of California, and I’m glad to see that this is a trend that’s going to go beyond California. And I hope most states will have a ban on non-compete.   Nuno Maybe just to close on the differentiation process, two things. One, I think there’s this notion When you talk to some LPs, that seems to be a little bit ingrained, some LPs that prefer specialized funds. We’ve also done some significant analysis internally and have talked to a couple of datasets other than our own, or people that own datasets other than our own, and the feedback has actually been not so fast. Actually, generalist funds over time cannot perform specialist funds. There seems to be a little bit of a sweet spot around generalist funds. We like to call ourselves multi-specialized at Chameleon, but ultimately from the perspective of specialized versus Generalist funds, the picture’s not as clear as specialized funds outperform generalists or generalists outperform specialized. We’ve seen there are pockets where actually generalists outperform specialized, in other pockets where specialized of a certain size can outperform generalists. So that’s one topic on differentiation that is a little bit broader. And then the final topic on differentiation, it’s really an industry that hasn’t innovated dramatically on where it creates the most value, which is really the picking stage, right? So it’s having great deal flow, very optimal, productive, efficient due diligence with very few resources and the ability to then get into those deals. That’s where most of the value is created. And then hopefully liquidating the asset if there’s an opportunity to do so at the right time, either through secondary trade sales or an IPO or something else. And what we’ve seen is the industry has innovated very little. I mean, the only thing I could point out in terms of core innovation at the top of the funnel has been the creation of the mega funds, the well-known funds, right? Like a16z, Union Square Ventures, et cetera, et cetera. But there needs to be more innovation on that cycle. And that’s why we certainly at Chameleon believe that the future is to have quant and AI-native VC firms that develop their own tooling, their own platforms. We have Mantis in our case that allow you to have this unfair advantage in how you source deals and how you do due diligence, how you get into the deals, et cetera, and how you take it to the next level. And we think that’s the beginning of the next stage is that the industry becomes more tech-enabled, shockingly enough, an industry that has made all its returns on tech or almost all of its returns on tech. That we need to be more tech-enabled ourselves. But I think the writing is on the wall there, and that will be a source of differentiation certainly over the next 3 to 5 years.   Bertrand One thing the industry has innovated somewhat and maybe could innovate even more is providing liquidity beyond trade sale and an IPO, because it’s clear that if VCs want more liquidity without waiting 18 years, you need that liquidity at different stage, not just when it’s time to do an exit, a full exit for the business. And for employees as well. I mean, it’s one thing to stay for a company for 4 years, which is your typical vesting. Maybe you extend that to 6 years, to 8 years, you have a great time at the company. But to think that maybe you have to stick around for 15 to 20 years in order to get liquidity on your stock options. I mean, that’s too much to ask for most people. I mean, people have a life, they have other things to do, other plans, they might want to move, they come at a different stage of life. So you need to provide them liquidity. The new game is we are not going to exit until 15 to 20 years, else it’s truly unfair. It’s not just unfair, but people will say, you know what, I’m going to go across the street, go work for Amazon or Google. I will have RSUs at best regularly that are liquid, and why bother? I mean, we need to find pathways to liquidity for both investors but also employees. There has been a change in that direction, but I think we need more of this change, and maybe not just reserved for the absolute biggest, most successful companies like OpenAI or SpaceX, but also us as well. Hopefully we can find a way.   Nuno Well, now we have these AI companies that actually grow so fast that they will IPO in one year. Now, isn’t that what’s going to happen? They raise They raised $500 million in Series C or $1.4 billion in Series C, and they’re going to IPO in 2 years. No? Is that not the new reality? I’m being facetious.   Bertrand At the same time, I mean, there are rumors that some of them are going to IPO this year. I mean, we talk about OpenAI, about Anthropic. I mean, OpenAI is quite old, but Anthropic is a relatively new business, quote unquote. So I think it’s a good time.   Nuno The Mega Fund Question So maybe it will be true after all. Moving to the next section, are mega funds still venture capital, Bertrand? Are they still venture capital funds?   Bertrand Yeah, I guess venture capital is a term that can encompass from small to very big funds. I truly don’t know. I mean, once you reach a growth stage, are you truly a VC fund? I don’t know. I think some of these definitions are kind of arbitrary from my perspective. What is clear is that you as a business need different providers of capital. And as we just discussed, you as a business, probably need to keep going and stay private for longer. One reason being, again, there is a tremendous cost to being a public company. There are some true strategic disadvantages. And at the same time, just practically, I mean, you need to get bigger and bigger in order to have a chance of a successful IPO. So you cannot just go IPO at a $500 million valuation. I mean, that’s like committing suicide, at least in the US market on NASDAQ. So my point is, you truly have no choice. You need to extend and If you need to extend, then you need to have capital providers that are there at later stage and therefore have more money. Is it still true venture capital? Is it true venture? I don’t know. At some point, it makes sense that from the startups to the capital providers, everyone adjusts to a reality where the life cycle is getting longer.   Nuno We don’t think it is. We don’t think mega funds are venture capital. We have actually some data that shows that they’re not in terms of actual returns. The alphas you can generate, the IRR that you can generate is actually not comparable. We did some analysis again with some of our datasets and from 2012 to 2022, so that’s the datasets that we used so that we had actual distributions and stuff we could take into account and so on and so forth. And looking at IRR, just to share some numbers in terms of IRR over those 10 years on sub-$100 million funds versus above $1 billion funds, the differences are incredibly stark. And this is true for global and US IRR, right? So just to quote some numbers in terms of average, sub-$100 million funds, global IRR of 22.9%, US IRR of 21.6% versus above $1 billion, 9.1% and 9.0%. Median IRR, if we just looked at median, 7.3% and 16.6% for sub-$100 million funds, 7.5% and 8.1% above $1 billion. Top quartile IRR, sub-$100 million, 31% versus 30.4% US IRR. And then above $1 billion funds, 14.7%, 15.5%. So it’s very clear if you sort of cut this in different ways, averages, medians, top quartiles, et cetera, over all these years that sub-$100 million funds are in a very different asset class than above $1 billion funds. They’re in different alpha that you can generate and so on and so forth. Now to the point you made, Bertrand, I don’t fully disagree with the point you made of the bigger funds should become bigger. I just think they’re becoming different things. Now, again, some of these funds will hide under the facts like, well, wait a second, we have all these assets under management, but they’re over different funds. Sequoia, we’re still raising small early-stage funds, $500, $600 million funds. And then we have larger funds for growth, et cetera, et cetera. Andreessen Horowitz, a little bit less clear what they’re actually doing. We heard that they’ve raised $15 billion across funds. I’m not sure if that’s the exact number at the end of the day. But the point is, if I’m a multi-asset class manager, like early growth, et cetera, et cetera, then it still applies what Nunu is saying. I’m still going after the $500 million, $600 million early-stage funds. Well, not so fast, right? Because you still have all this capital with managing general partners that are maybe across funds for which their incentives in particular, both carry and management fees are coming from the larger funds. Et cetera, et cetera. So there’s necessarily conflicts of interest. In many cases, the funds are just straight up big, right? And so they are above a billion. And so I don’t think a lot of these guys are in early-stage investing anymore, right? It may appear that they are, but I don’t think that’s where the returns necessarily are going to come from. And so if you are a limited partner, if you’re looking at your asset class allocation, again, you’re absolutely free to put money into mega funds because that’s the kind of asset class you want to play in. In terms of a blended private equity asset class that has a little bit of growth, a little bit of whatever, or actually a lot of growth, a lot of late stage, and maybe a little bit of early stage. And I want something that’s a little bit more blended, right? But if I still want the alpha venture capital, I need to deploy to funds that are early stage, right? And that’s like up to $100 million, up to $500 million. I think that’s my two cents on that topic. We see crossover things coming around, like guys who do both public and private markets. Again, that starts feeling a bit like a hedge fund. A lot of these funds have also become RAs, as we discussed earlier. So I feel the writing’s on the wall. The mega funds are going more and more after either some mechanism of edging or a mechanism that’s a little bit more blended in terms of private equity than classic venture capital.   Bertrand Yes, I think a few things. One, if you’re an LP, I can imagine that dealing with multiple $100 million funds might be more difficult. You, you need to know the partners, you need to have some background, uh, visibility. You need potentially to change regularly of VC investments. So I can see some level of simplicity if you just focus on the bigger ones, especially if you have a lot of assets you have to put to work. Another piece of the puzzle, I would guess that the bigger funds are able to return money faster because they are at later stage of the cycle. So instead of that 15 to 18 years, maybe they are more in a 5 to 10 year range, while the smaller funds being there more early might be the one who are taking longer to deliver. So I can see that Yes, there is an IRR picture, but there is also time to liquidity that is not the same. So that can probably also influence. And in terms of crossover PE hybrid model, I mean, for sure we have seen some of the public equity investors doing crossover, meaning going into private equity firms like Coatue, like Tiger Global and others. And for companies that are preparing for IPO, there is a lot of value to work with these firms because they have very good visibility and understanding of the public markets. And their presence in the cap table is also a sign of quality, typically for public market investors. So there is a lot of value and logic for them to be there on both sides of the puzzle. But again, the fact that firms keep delaying IPOs, that the market is not so much startup-friendly, makes this model a bit more difficult. But personally, I think there is value there.   Nuno Yeah, I think on the mega fund, just so that I’m not boo-booing everything, I mean, but there’s definitely angles in terms of the asset class that make a lot of sense. And there’s the scalability of the model. The ability to go after Series B, Series C, as well as mid-stage, as well as late-stage, even secondaries over time, to your point, in some cases even public equities. And that level of skill I think matters. We’ve also seen, as we’ve known, we won’t mention any brands, but people will know who they are, that late-stage hedge funds and investors, even if they’ve done okay-ish in growth in private equity, don’t necessarily do well in venture. So it’s clearly a very different asset class, right? So once you start getting venture teams together, The returns are not quite the same. Actually, sometimes they’re not even quite the same as the growth investments. So clearly they’re very good at the growth side, but not so good in early stage. But definitely there is a case for it. The Case for Smaller…Rightsized Funds But if we switch gears maybe to the small, or I would call right-sized funds, maybe just to quote a couple of numbers and then open up the discussion. Small funds do seem to outperform larger funds. There’s a lot of data in the market that shows some of that dynamic outperformance frequency. All the Very historical numbers from Cambridge Associates from 1981 to 2010. 19 out of 30 vintages were won by sub-$150 million funds. We did our own analysis as I was sharing before. Funds between $0 and $100 won most years between around 2010 and 2021. And the years that they didn’t outperform in terms of investing in the top-performing companies in early-stage Series C, Series A, they were outperformed by the $100 to $500 million funds. The $500 to $1 billion funds and $1 billion or above were never even in the same league in terms of performance, of having identified those top performers in terms of quantity over those early-stage investments. Top 10 funds by vintage, 2004 to 2006, 2016 numbers. Top 10 funds, 73% were sub-$100 million. 2004 to 2016, top 10 funds by vintage, 73% of those were sub-$100 million. So there seems to be a little bit of a case that actually smaller funds, sub-$100 million, sub-$500 million in some cases, are outperforming the larger funds over time. Now, these funds are complex in and of itself. The positive of it is small fund GPs like myself, we are deeply invested in our own funds. We’re not there to just make management fee monies. I mean, we’re not making $1 million, $2 million a year in management fees of salary ourselves, like some of the larger funds. So we are there to really get the carry and be less focused on management fees. And so I think there’s a little bit of alignment around that and really taking that kind of perspective on portfolio construction and liquidation, being also more aggressive on the individual time that we spend with our startups. On the negative side, obviously a lot of these smaller funds, not the case of Chameleon, but others out there are single GPs, very little teams or very small teams. And so it’s sometimes difficult to actually do a lot for portfolio companies as well. And this is where the mega funds, for example, a16z notably would say, hey, we have 600+ people that can support you, right? On market development, business development, communications, talent recruiting, all this stuff. Question mark whether that’s the right way to do it in terms of operating model, if technology is not a better way of supplying that value back to your portfolio companies, or if there’s no better way of doing it. But still, that’s one of the appeals of actually dealing with a larger mega fund if you’re a startup, right? That they will have the resources, also the financial resources to put more capital in you. But also, again, if there’s entrepreneurs listening to this right now, and hopefully there are, it’s a two-edged sword, right? Because if you have Andreessen Horowitz putting money in you, or NEA, or General Catalyst, or whatever, putting money in you on a Series C and then not doubling down on the Series A or the Series B, there will be questions, right? Because like they have the capital, they have other funds, so why the hell are they not putting more money in? Um, so, so it’s a little bit of a two-edged sword.   Bertrand Yeah, I think that one is a pretty big one. And on top of it, as we discussed, some of these big firms have multiple funds managed technically by different teams. So you might have convinced the early-stage teams, they have investors, they’re happy, but you don’t convince the growth-stage firm. As you say, it might raise questions because people might think that there is some communication between the early-stage team and the growth-stage team. So why the heck are they not deciding to invest? And as we also discussed, even worse possible situation, what happens if the growth-stage team has invested in your competitor? It’s even more trouble. So I think trying to understand how firms behave, what’s the reputation of the firm, what’s the reputation of the partner you are working with, I mean, can have tremendous importance and impact. When it’s time for you to work with a firm.   Nuno Indeed. I mean, at the end of the day, we still believe that the smaller fund— we at Chameleon discuss the notion that our limit should be $500 million per fund, right? And that’s the logic of it. We think that model is the model that works well in venture capital. We do recognize, as I said before, why mega funds keep raising more and more money, right? It becomes a harm’s race at that end of the market. As I said, probably a slightly different asset class, or if not a significantly different asset class as well. So seeing a little bit both sides of the market, I mean, we often compete with the mega funds, but honestly, a lot of the mega funds are kind to us and they let us in. And this whole notion of elbows out, we haven’t felt it that much in the market. And people see our value at the table. And in many cases, I, I do see the larger funds more and more seeing the value of smaller funds coming in on the same rounds and even in some cases co-leading early stage rounds like Series C. So it’s not like elbows are out everywhere across the board. So I don’t mean to say this is like an all-out war between small funds and big funds and the small funds need to win or the big funds need to win. I think actually there’s a lot of potential for coexistence. My point is more that the asset classes and the returns are quite different over time, and that’s how I would think through it. And if you’re an entrepreneur, you should think about that as well, right? What are the implications of taking money from certain funds versus others in terms of the expected returns, expected time allocated to you? For example, if you’re not doing very well as a as a company, right? Will the big funds spend the same amount of energy on you if you’re not doing great and all of that? So it’s a little bit sort of a beware, open your eyes, both for limited partners and for startups. What do you actually want, right? What do you want from your VC firm if you’re a startup? And what do you want from your VC firm if you’re an LP?   Bertrand I must say, as an entrepreneur, uh, a board member, I have seen some situations where the bigger funds are actually trying sometimes to elbow out the existing investors. Like, uh, we have that much money to put to work, we cannot do less. And you’re like, yeah, but I don’t need that much money. And then they’re like, okay, just don’t let your existing investors do their pro rata. I don’t think it’s great because an entrepreneur, if your investors, your VCs, trusted you earlier stage when it’s more risky, and when it’s becoming less risky, you don’t give them the right to their pro rata because you have to let this big guy come in. That’s not great. Or even if there is not this pro rata issue, when an investor tries to put more money to work than it’s really necessary, it’s also not a good idea as an entrepreneur to take more capital than you could use. It will dilute you more, it will set higher expectations in terms of valuation, it will push you to use that capital faster than maybe would be reasonable. So I think that’s something you want to be careful with the bigger funds. So don’t talk to funds that are in some ways beyond your stage and try to make it work in that context. Or don’t accept to have your strategy change dramatically for no good reason by funds that just want to put too much money to work in your business. And that for me is surprising because it should also be in their best interest not to invest in businesses that are not ready to accept that much capital. But as we have seen, there were in the past some funds that believe that capital is a moat. Was a good idea. So hopefully, I guess we’re a bit behind that. But yeah, I would say entrepreneurs, be careful, find partners that are the right partners for you at your current stage. Sometimes some big names look great, but at the same time, if it comes with a lot of issues, from too much capital to also taking the risk that these partners don’t understand the stage of the business you are in or your industry, Just be careful. There is a lot of value to have firms that are very focused on your stage, on your industry, are finely attuned to that situation.   Nuno What Comes Next? Maybe to end in terms of sections, what comes next? And maybe we can come up with some predictions that are a little bit provocative on what’s going to happen to the market. You, if you’re listening to us, feel free to interact with us on LinkedIn, on X. If you have our email address, shoot us an email as well. We’d love to hear from you if you think these are the right predictions or if we’re totally off. Maybe I’ll throw in the first one, Bertrand, and we’ll go one by one. So we’ll each put one at the table and see where we head. My first one is that we’ll have a huge culling of VC investors. We had this rapid expansion of the VC asset class with arguably at least tens of thousands of firms globally, maybe even over 10,000 in the US. I think we’ll have a culling and the culling will continue and we’ll have several firms sort of getting eliminated over the next couple of years that will have either because they’re having tremendous difficulty doing their first close in their next fund, or the returns are not there, or it’s a firm that has done 3, 4 funds, but for some reason the returns have just gone out of whack in the last few years during the bull years. And so therefore, actually they can’t justify to raise more funds out there. So I predict there will be a significant elimination of active firms in the next at least 2 to 3 years. So maybe by 2028, and we’ll be below, I don’t know, 30% of number of active firms that we are today. The other side of it is I do think if we look beyond that, 2029, 2030, and so on, we’ll have the reemergence of not micro funds, but nano funds where people will start deploying capital very, very early and writing small angel checks, but doing it in a way that it’s sort of not this cottage industry that we’ve had of angel investors. So I think angel investment will be disrupted by people that will use more and more of the AI toolification out there to actually manage their portfolios of 10, 15, 5K investments in a way that is a lot more professional, creating sort of an advent of nano funds.   Bertrand Yeah, makes sense. On my side, in terms of prediction, I think there is a possibility that the mega fund model keeps expanding and looks more similar over time to some PE models. So do we have the top 10 VC firms that look more like a Blackstone than a Kleiner Perkins or Sequoia used to be? That for me will be an interesting question and development. I think that there is some possibility that it keeps going in that direction. A lot of incentives are pushing things that way.   Nuno My next prediction is that DPI, distributions to paid-in cash on cash, just cash back, will become essential for limited partners. I think TVPI, total value to paid-in, that also has in there, as we just said, paper valuations. There’s a lot of disbelief now around the TVPI metric if there isn’t distributions going alongside it. For those who, again, don’t know what TVPI is, it’s total value paid in, but it also includes DPI. So it’s cash on cash component plus a remaining valuation to paid in, an RVPI. And the problem is the RVPI really, in reality, it’s that kind of on-paper valuation that never gets attributed. I think LPs, they’ve seen the writing on the wall and they’re like, dude, just show me your DPI numbers. I don’t care about TVPI. Some LPs will still ask about TVPI just to make sure that the rest is sort of looking in order. Like, show me the money, show me the cash. Actually, it’s not money, show me the cash, right? I want money back.   Bertrand But that’s an issue. I mean, if you’re supposed to raise financing every 3 or 4 years, good luck getting DPI to show for that. So you need to be at least on your third fund in order to be able to show DPI, I guess.   Nuno I mean, my corollary to that, Bertrand, is if you allow me just to have a corollary kind of prediction, is that we’ll see certainly for funds like $50 million and above, $100 million, $200 million, et cetera, even increased concentration, right? I really need to have anchors that believe in me over time. And we might start having, again, the advent— we had it some decades ago, the advent of cap table kind of VCs, right? Like Sutter Hill Ventures, right? Where they’re not really raising funds anymore. And so we might have the advent of that, that we’ll have structures that are created that have more permanent capital allocated to them, or at the very least more concentrated capital by very few players.   Bertrand Interesting. Me on my side, as I shared before, I believe secondaries are, are important and here to stay. Um, in the past, some could argue, is it a distress signal or something? I, I don’t think it’s true anymore. In a world where your average startup might take 15 to 18 years to exit through M&A or IPO, we need to have other options. For funds, for employees, they cannot be expected to stick around for so long and have no liquidity. I mean, it’s just pure madness. It’s just bad alignment at some point to do that. So I think secondaries are becoming the third liquidity pathway for VCs, for employees, and it should be more and more a key part of the game, a key infrastructure in the VC/startups tech industry.   Nuno I mean, on specialized versus generalist funds, I believe we’ll continue seeing the coexistence of those two models where the specialized funds will in many pockets actually outperform generalist funds, but where we’ll continue seeing that the large franchises, the tier one franchises will likely be generalist funds. I mean, we just saw it in the cycle. The AI cycle went upon us. We had a 2021 fund. We could easily adapt and go into AI and figure out that AI was growing very fast. I mean, if you have an ultra-specialized fund and that’s your remit and that’s the only thing you can invest on, very difficult to change even during our investment period. I will put a caveat on that. We don’t call, for example, ourselves at Chameleon generalist. We call ourselves multi-specialized because our scoring models for the verticals that we track are specialized within Mantis. Because the partnership is specialized, we all focus on different areas. And because we have the Kin network that allows us to tap into that level of expertise, Again, I think the world will be specialized coexistence. Some pockets specialized will do very well, certainly on the smaller fund size, but the big franchises will likely look a little bit more generalist. And as I said, multi-specialized from our perspective is the future. We’ll start seeing more and more funds that are multi-specialized like ourselves. Do you want to talk about AI and how it’ll distort the metrics? No.   Bertrand Yes. I think AI is an exciting moment in the tech industry. It feels in some ways that the same way we had a big distortion coming with COVID and work from home in 2020, 2021. 2021, where suddenly everyone and their mother will build a SaaS company or invest in a SaaS company. AI feels a bit of the same. I mean, to be clear, I truly believe it’s deserved. I mean, we are facing a dramatic shift in how computing is being done in terms of value you can get from software. So at the same time, AI will probably distort this matrix for a long time. We clearly see a split where investments are going, in what startups are being created. So I think, yeah, we will see some distortion. And we know that maybe 50% of all deal value is going to AI in 2025. We have seen single rounds reaching 40 billion, like to OpenAI. We have seen, as you discussed, some seed stage investment of 400 million. So AI investing and AI startups are definitely a beast on their own. And will distort VC metrics for a long time. And we might need two sets of metrics in parallel, you know, AI versus everything else. So that would be an interesting bifurcation in the industry in some ways. I would say it’s fair to separate AI versus non-AI. We reach a point where it’s two different beasts.   Nuno Conclusion So in conclusion, AI has changed the world and it’s changing VC as well, as we discussed earlier in the episode. We have a tremendous momentous occasion for the asset class where venture capital is really bifurcating into very large funds, which no longer are in venture capital or seemingly may be distributed between different asset classes, and the smaller funds, sub-$500 million and sub-$100 million, that keep having the better returns, but also with much smaller scale. We’re seeing a culling of the industry where the industry is definitely getting smaller and smaller and more concentrated at both ends, number of VC firms, as well as a number of limited partners per fund and the interest that some of these limited partners have of being more and more concentrated in their own portfolio allocations. And last but not the least, the discussion around specialized versus generalist, where it seems like there’s some clear winners on some asset classes, on some sizes, in some industries, but on others, there’s other kinds of winners. And so maybe the future is multi-specialized, as I framed at the end. Thank you so much for listening. If you want to check us out and if you want to comment, feel free to send us messages on X, LinkedIn, to both myself and Bertrand, as well as send us an email. Thank you so much, Bertrand.   Bertrand Thank you, Nuno.

We are moving to normalizing streaming as the benchmark for popularity. But that only works if everyone streams. And they do not. Let's talk about what really counts. UNPOPULAR OPINION: Stop Using Streaming as a Benchmark for Popularity (2026) - Discussion ROCKFILE Podcast 974 #streaming #discussion #rockfile  ~ You can subscribe to my podcasts on Podbean, Spotify, Apple Podcasts, iTunes, Amazon Music/Audible, Google Podcasts, YouTube, iHeart Radio, Pandora, TuneIn, Alexa, Player FM, Samsung, Podchaser, Stitcher, Boomplay, Overcast, Pocket Cast, Castro, Castbox, Podfriend, Goodpods, Deezer and more. ~ -Social Media Group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/rockfilesroom -Official Website: https://therockfile.com/ -YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@rockfile -Interview Archive: https://therockfile.com/Interviews/  ~ Music from #Uppbeat https://uppbeat.io/t/anteros/rock-steady License code: DFMTD1XH0Q6HN7UC  ~

Every Thursday, Pantha Politix Podcast brings you real talk for the real world. Join Seven Da Pantha, Monster Elicit, P7, and Dyce Dylli for honest, engaging, and entertaining  takes on topics relevant to Hip-Hop culture without pulling punches to protect "relationships". The frontline for real talk in podcasting, Pantha Politix Podcast might just change your perspective on what you see --and what you think you know.Follow the squad on IG, Facebook, or TikTok, stream us wherever you listen to podcasts or watch us on YouTube! https://linktree.com/PanthaPolitixPod Gravitas OUT NOWhttps://sevendapantha.bandcamp.com/album/gravitas-da-album-2  Book Of The Monster Vol. 1 OUT NOW: https://monsterelicit.bandcamp.com/album/book-of-the-monster-volume-one  Son Of The Morning OUT NOWhttps://mojobarnes.bandcamp.com/album/son-of-the-morning-2  

Thomas J S Durant, Seung Joo Lee, Sarah N Dudgeon, Elizabeth Knight, Brent Nelson, H Patrick Young, Lucila Ohno-Machado, Wade L Schulz. Quantum Machine Learning and Data Re-Uploading: Evaluation on Benchmark and Laboratory Medicine Data Sets. Clinical Chemistry, Volume 72, Issue 4, April 2026, Pages 451–460. https://doi.org/10.1093/clinchem/hvaf192

Today's show is sponsored by Huion, makers of the Huion Kamvas 22 (Gen 3) — go to https://bit.ly/41pXyI7 or https://comiclabshop.com and use the code COMICLAB5 to unlock an exclusive 5% discount! (Valid 4/6/2026 - 6/14/2026) The Kamvas 22 (Gen 3) is the New 22" Benchmark. A powerful yet accessible 21.5'' pen display featuring a 2.5K QHD 90Hz screen, PenTech 4.0, and Canvas Glass 2.0. Designed for smooth, precise, and true-to-life creation, it redefines what an entry-level display can deliver — professional performance without the premium price. The platforms we trusted to grow our audience have pulled the rug out from under us, and it's time to take that control back. Brad and Dave explore how creators are reclaiming their power by ditching platform dependence, rebuilding direct connections through newsletters, webrings, and other community tools. TODAY'S SHOW Reclaiming Our Power — How Web 1.0 strategies are helping creative pros take back their publishing Huion sponsorship — https://comiclabshop.com See ComicLab LIVE at the National Cartoonists Society Conference and Reuben Awards in Columbus, Ohio, Aug. 6-8 ComicLab Confab (609) DRY - ELB-0 How to fill in story gaps between books Adapting books into comics Dr. Reginald Wigglesby You get great rewards when you join the ComicLab Community on Patreon$2 — Early access to episodes$5 — Submit a question for possible use on the show AND get the exclusive ProTips podcast. Plus $2-tier rewards.If you'd like a one-on-one consultation about your comic, book it now!Brad Guigar is the creator of Evil Inc and the author of The Webcomics Handbook. He is available for personal consultations. Dave Kellett is the creator of Sheldon and Drive. He is the co-director of the comics documentary, Stripped.

A lot of high-performers know how to win, but far fewer know how to use failure well. And when life gets uncomfortable, the instinct is often to avoid it, rush past it, or pretend it didn't mean anything.My guest today, Leanda Cave, is a four-time world champion triathlete who's lived through elite success, personal setbacks, major transition, and a powerful season of self-discovery beyond sport.In this episode, you'll hear how failure can become one of the greatest forces for growth, why awareness changes everything, and how to redefine high performance in a way that actually serves your life long term.We talk about setbacks, discomfort, relationships, identity, longevity, purpose, and what it looks like to keep evolving when your next chapter asks something different from you.Why being growth ready means being prepared to failHow failure can become a gateway instead of a stopping pointThe difference between winning the race and winning the journeyWhy comfort can quietly block growthLearning through relationships, patterns, and self-awarenessThe role of awareness in transformationReframing high performance as longevityHealth as a long-term leadership strategyPurpose, philanthropy, and life after elite sportBuilding a meaningful next chapter beyond one identity or laneLinks and resources mentionedInstagram: @leandacaveInstagram: @leandacavecoachingBest BuddiesTEDx talk: Failure Is the Force That Shapes YouLeanda website: www.leandacave.comSend us Fan MailSupport the showConnect with Steve MellorStay connected and keep growing with Steve:LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/steve-mellor-cc/Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/coachstevemellorBook Steve to speak at your next event → www.stevemellorspeaks.comSupport the GrowthReady Podcast by leaving a 5-star rating → Apple Podcasts - https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/growthready-podcast/id1406082163Connect with GrowthReadyJoin the community and keep your growth journey going:LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/company/wearegrowthready/Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/growthreadypodcast/Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/growthreadywithcoachstevemellorOfficial Website - https://growthready.com/----This podcast was produced on Riverside and released via ...

Are financial advisor fees really worth it—or are you paying more than you should? Lance Roberts & Jon Penn break down the true value behind advisory fees and what investors should expect in return. It's not just about investment performance. A good advisor delivers portfolio construction, risk management, tax efficiency, and long-term financial planning—all designed to help you build and protect wealth. Also in this episode, Lance and Jon offer tax tips for the day before Taxes are due... Key topics include: 0:00 - INTRO 1:13 - Iran Negotiations = More Market Volatility 6:17 - Markets Rally Towards Previous Highs 8:16 - Is the Correction Over? 11:19 - Lance is Back; Thanks to Jon 13:10 - Why Pay an Advisor? 18:24 - You Don't Have to Beat a Benchmark 19:24 - Driving in Houston & Managing Risk 22:34 - Why You Need an Advisor 28:43 - Use the Right Tool 31:55 - Why We Don't Sleep (so that YOU can) 34:07 - The Truth About Paying a Fee 39:07 - The Value in Starting Young(er) 43:42 - Last Minute Tips for Tax Day (tomorrow) ------- Do you enjoy our content? Rate us on Google: https://bit.ly/4b9JtEo ------- Watch Today's Full Video on our YouTube Channel: https://youtube.com/live/5IaUfLHtiyg ------- Watch our previous show, "The S&P 500 Rally: What Comes Next?," https://youtube.com/live/ylJqaK248pk ------- The latest installment of our new feature, Before the Bell, "Buy Signal Is Back - But Don't Chase" is here: https://youtu.be/lM6tkRDoRe8 ------- Articles Mentioned in Today's Show: "S&P 500 Outlook: The 8.2% Rally & What Comes Next." https://realinvestmentadvice.com/resources/blog/sp-500-outlook-the-8-2-rally-what-comes-next/ "Oil Shock: Will The Fed Intervene" https://realinvestmentadvice.com/resources/blog/oil-shock-will-the-fed-intervene-part-2/ "The South Park Investment Curse" https://realinvestmentadvice.com/resources/blog/lets-knock-on-wood/ ------- Download Lance's Latest e-book, "Laws of Money & Wealth:"https://realinvestmentadvice.com/ria-e-guide-library/ -------- SUBSCRIBE to The Real Investment Show here: http://www.youtube.com/c/TheRealInvestmentShow -------- Visit our Site: https://www.realinvestmentadvice.com Contact Us: 1-855-RIA-PLAN -------- Subscribe to SimpleVisor: https://www.simplevisor.com/register-new -------- Connect with us on social: https://twitter.com/RealInvAdvice https://twitter.com/LanceRoberts https://www.facebook.com/RealInvestmentAdvice/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/realinvestmentadvice/ #StockMarket #Investing #SP500 #MarketOutlook #TechnicalAnalysis #FinancialAdvice #AdvisorFees #WealthManagement #InvestingStrategy #PersonalFinance

Our Seema Mody breaks down strength in Oracle and the broader software space. Julian Emanuel of Evercore ISI joins explains what the latest developments mean for markets and how investors should be thinking about positioning. Helima Croft of RBC Capital Markets explains whether the U.S. is more insulated than other regions and what the next move in crude could be. In financials Jason Goldberg of Barclays analyzes Goldman's earnings and what it could signal for the broader banking sector. Benchmark's Cody Acree weighs whether Intel's recent run marks a real turnaround even amid ongoing geopolitical noise. Mizuho's Jared Holz breaks down trends in pharma dealmaking. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Most career advice gets one thing wrong: it always tells you to follow your passion. In this episode of Technoventure, Bill Gurley, recent Author of Runnin' Down a Dream, General Partner at Benchmark and investor in companies like Uber and Zillow shares a more actionable framework: follow your fascination. Drawing from decades in venture capital and insights from his new book, Gurley explains how curiosity, not convention, drives long-term success. Key insights include: Why fascination is a stronger signal than passion How over-structured career paths lead to disengagement The role of peer networks in accelerating growth Why non-linear careers produce better outcomes How AI is reshaping opportunity and speculation cycles

Concerns grow over AI's cyber security risks with the Fed Chair and Treasury Secretary meeting with bank executives. Legendary investor Bill Gurley lays out his thoughts on the rapidly changing landscape. Then CoreWeave inking yet another deal with a major AI player, this time Anthropic. We look at the bull and bear cases for the stock. And a new treatment from Revolution Medicines targets one of the deadliest forms of cancer, pancreatic.   Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Today's show is sponsored by Huion, makers of the Huion Kamvas 22 (Gen 3) — go to https://bit.ly/41pXyI7 or https://comiclabshop.com and use the code COMICLAB5 to unlock an exclusive 5% discount! (Valid 4/6/2026 - 6/14/2026) The Kamvas 22 (Gen 3) is the New 22" Benchmark. A powerful yet accessible 21.5'' pen display featuring a 2.5K QHD 90Hz screen, PenTech 4.0, and Canvas Glass 2.0. Designed for smooth, precise, and true-to-life creation, it redefines what an entry-level display can deliver — professional performance without the premium price. TODAY'S SHOW How to do a two-page splash page Get your discounted Huion Kamvas 22 (Gen 3) at comiclabshop.com - COMICLAB5 UPDATE: Got a comment for ComicLab? Dial the ComicLab Confab! ‪(609) 379-3520‬... that's (609) DRY ELB-0 NCS in Columbus, Ohio, Aug 6-8 USPS fuel surcharge goes into effect April 26th and ends (maybe?) Jan. 17, 2027 (NOTE: This will not affect Media Mail pricing) Editorial cartoonists on social media What's the deal with Susan MacTaggart? Introducing Dr. Reginald Wigglesby Splash Pages Brad and Dave take a deep dive into splash pages — what they are, how they've traditionally been used, and how they function differently in print versus webcomics. They discuss classic first-page splash images as attention-grabbing devices, as well as the practical reality that they can help creators hit deadlines. Dave shares how he uses splash pages sparingly in Drive to give big moments room to breathe, while Brad explains how he uses them consistently at the start of chapters in Evil Inc, both as storytelling tools and promotional assets. The conversation also explores why two-page splash spreads can struggle online — especially on mobile — and reinforces a key principle: a graphic novel page is not the same as a webcomic update, and each must be designed with its medium in mind. ComicLab Confab (Listener Calls) The guys remind listeners about the ComicLab Confab — their voicemail line where creators can call in with questions, comments, or hot takes. It's an easy, low-pressure way for the community to participate in the show and potentially have their thoughts featured on-air. If you've got something to say about comics, business, or creative life, you can dial ‪(609) 379-3520 — that's (609) DRY-ELB-0. National Cartoonists Society — Columbus, Ohio Brad and Dave highlight the upcoming National Cartoonists Society event in Columbus, Ohio (Aug. 6–8), encouraging cartoonists to attend. They emphasize the value of in-person networking, camaraderie, and professional development that comes from gathering with other working cartoonists — something that can be hard to replicate online. https://nationalcartoonists.com/registration-now-open-80th-reuben-awards-ncs-conference/ USPS Fuel Surcharge Update A practical business note: the USPS fuel surcharge goes into effect April 26 and is expected to run (possibly) through January 17, 2027. This will impact many shipping rates for creators who sell physical goods, though Media Mail remains unaffected. For cartoonists running Kickstarters, online stores, or Patreon rewards, this is a reminder to factor rising shipping costs into pricing and planning. https://about.usps.com/newsroom/national-releases/2026/0325-usps-announces-transportation-related-time-limited-price-change.htm Editorial Cartoonists on Social Media The conversation touches on how editorial cartoonists are navigating social media — including the challenges of visibility, audience building, and platform changes. Brad and Dave reflect on how shifting algorithms and audience behavior can affect political and commentary-based comics, and what that means for creators trying to get their work seen. What's the Deal with Susan MacTaggart? In a classic ComicLab aside, Brad and Dave riff on the mysterious (and confusing) name “Susan MacTaggart,” using it as an example of how something presented without context can create intrigue — or just bewilderment. It ties back humorously to their broader discussions about clarity, audience expectations, and grabbing attention. Introducing Dr. Reginald Wigglesby The episode also features the introduction of Dr. Reginald Wigglesby — a comedic bit that adds to the show's ongoing tradition of playful world-building and running gags. It's a reminder that even in a craft-focused podcast, humor and character bits are part of what makes ComicLab feel like hanging out with friends. You get great rewards when you join the ComicLab Community on Patreon$2 — Early access to episodes$5 — Submit a question for possible use on the show AND get the exclusive ProTips podcast. Plus $2-tier rewards.If you'd like a one-on-one consultation about your comic, book it now!Brad Guigar is the creator of Evil Inc and the author of The Webcomics Handbook. He is available for personal consultations. Dave Kellett is the creator of Sheldon and Drive. He is the co-director of the comics documentary, Stripped.

How confident are you that your content is working? Not your output but the strategy behind it, the processes that support it, and the team set up to deliver it. Most B2B content teams are moving too fast to stop and take stock. It's easy to keep investing in tactics that aren't building on the right foundations. In this episode of The Content 10x Podcast, host Amy Woods introduces our brand new B2B Content Operations Benchmark - a free assessment for B2B content and marketing teams that replaces the original Content 10x Repurposing Effectiveness Scorecard, which launched over three years ago. Amy walks through what's changed, why the original scorecard needed a complete rebuild, and what the new benchmark covers. She also makes the case for why benchmarks and assessments are often underused content formats in B2B and why building one could be one of the smartest content investments your team makes. Listen to find out: Why we retired the original Content 10x Repurposing Effectiveness Scorecard after over three years, and what made it the right time to rebuild How the B2B Content Operations Benchmark goes further than the original, and why the scope had to expand What each of the three benchmark categories covers - Content Strategy & Planning, Content Operations & Technology, and Team Capability & Culture - and the personalized report that is shared with participants Why a structured diagnostic can be one of the most useful things a B2B content team can create - especially when making the case for resources or change Ways that you can repurpose a benchmark/scorecard and how they can power a content engine A preview of the upcoming 7-episode content strategy series covering connecting content to revenue, competitor analysis, core messaging, channels and formats, distribution and repurposing, and measurement and KPIs Important links & mentions: Take the free B2B Content Operations Benchmark: https://www.content10x.com/benchmark Blog post about this episode: https://www.content10x.com/353 Amy on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/amywoods2/ Content 10x: https://www.content10x.com/ Amy's book: www.content10x.com/book (Content 10x: More Content, Less Time, Maximum Results) Amy Woods is the CEO and founder of Content 10x, a content agency that provides specialist content strategy, creation and repurposing support to B2B organizations. She's also a best-selling author, hosts two content marketing podcasts (The Content 10x Podcast and B2B Content Strategist), and speaks on stages all over the world about the power of content marketing. Join thousands of business owners, content creators and marketers and get the latest content marketing tips and advice delivered straight to your inbox every week: https://www.content10x.com/newsletter

Target's decline: A conversation on leadership drift, relationship capital, employee experience, and the warning signs that a brand is losing customer trust. Summary: In this episode, Denise Thompson and John DiJulius unpack why Target's recent struggles are bigger than retail headlines. John argues that what happened at Target is not mainly about controversy or pricing. It is about leadership, culture, diluted brand clarity, and a declining frontline experience. The conversation explores how great brands build relationship capital, why employee experience always shows up in customer experience, why discounts cannot repair emotional trust, and what leaders should monitor before decline becomes visible in revenue. Key Takeaways: Target's problem is deeper than headlines. John frames it as a leadership and culture issue, not just a retail or controversy issue. Relationship capital takes years to build and can be drained by inconsistency. Customers give trusted brands grace at first, but repeated poor experiences change the story. Frontline is the bottom line. Investment in customer-facing employees matters more than most executive teams act like it does. EX = CX. Employee experience will always show up in the customer experience. Operational training is not enough. Great brands also teach service aptitude: listening, empathy, rapport, recovery, and standards that are actionable and observable. Price cuts are a bandage, not a cure. Promotions may create short-term movement, but they do not rebuild emotional trust. Leaders need better early warning signals. Complaints, repeat visits, referrals, average ticket, and customer count tell a truer story than vanity metrics alone. Links: The DiJulius Group Methdology: https://thedijuliusgroup.com/x-commandment-methodology/ Company Service Aptitude Test:  https://thedijuliusgroup.com/c-sat-forms/individual-c-sat/ Schedule a Complimentary Call with one of our advisors:  tdg.click/claudia Ask John!  Submit your questions for John, to be aired on future episode:  tdg.click/ask Customer Experience Executive Academy: https://thedijuliusgroup.com/project/cx-executive-academy/ Experience Revolution Membership:  https://thedijuliusgroup.com/membership/ Books:  https://thedijuliusgroup.com/shop/ Contacts:  Lindsey@thedijuliusgroup.com , Claudia@thedijuliusgroup.com If you want to learn how world-class organizations build cultures customers cannot live without, explore The Experience Revolution Membership. Inside the membership you'll gain access to livestream workshops, practical frameworks, and proven strategies used by organizations around the world. Learn more at https://thedijuliusgroup.com/membership/ Chapters: 00:00 Introduction to Customer Service Revolution Podcast 01:10 Personal Activities and Springtime Outdoors 02:41 Target's Story: Beyond Retail to Leadership 03:36 Starbucks and Brand Transition Strategies 04:14 Target's Loyalty and Experience Challenges 04:57 What Made Target a Favorite Brand 05:43 When Did Target Start to Lose Its Edge? 06:52 The Power of Brand Clarity and Leadership Vision 07:16 Amazon's Customer-Centric Model as a Benchmark 08:21 Target's Identity Crisis and Political Stances 09:31 The Risks of Taking Political or Social Stances 10:52 Overconfidence and Rapid Growth Risks 14:30 The Lag Effect in Customer Experience 16:31 Target's Cost-Cutting and Culture Impact 18:56 Genuine Frontline Investment in Training 22:29 Turning Employee Culture into Customer Experience 24:19 Employees' Belief in the Brand and Customer Perception 27:31 Target's Discount Strategies and Emotional Connection 29:54 The Dangers of Conditional Brand Commitments 32:08 The Relationship Economy and Loyalty Building 33:02 Starting Small to Improve Customer Relationships 34:53 Early Warning Signs for Organizational Culture Issues 38:25 Questions for Leadership and Brand Clarity 42:01 Revisiting Leadership Mindset and Organizational Culture Subscribe We talk about topics like this each week; be sure to subscribe wherever you listen to podcasts so you don't miss an episode.

Did you like the episode? Send me a text and let me know!! Maker Schedules for Solo Founders: How to Scale Without BurnoutAre you a solo founder frantically laying down train tracks while the train is speeding right behind you? In this episode, we tear up generic "hustle culture" to build a customized, energy-driven time management engine specifically for the solopreneur. Learn how to ditch the busywork, protect your deep creative focus, and scale your business without breaking yourself in the process.

Nike shares get crushed on weaker-than-expected sales outlook amid revenue struggles in China. The Mag 7 rallying for a second day after a rough first quarter, but Benchmark is bullish on name in particular.  Plus, with gold on pace for its first positive week in five, Tim Seymour says the rally will continue if one particular condition is met. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Jay Kreps is the co-founder and CEO of Confluent, the company built around Apache Kafka — the open-source data streaming platform he originally built while at LinkedIn. In this conversation, Jay shares his full journey: how Confluent grew from a scrappy group of engineers with no go-to-market experience into a publicly traded enterprise software company. He makes the case that the difference between what a company can do, and what it must do, is one of the most underrated building levers; illustrated through his years spent pushing Confluent towards a cloud product, in the face of widespread opposition. In this episode, we discuss: Why moving from software engineer to CEO requires almost an entirely new skillset The product marketing pyramid Jay built to explain Kafka to the world How Confluent bludgeoned its way to a cloud-first business when the early product was “embarrassing” The critical difference between what a company can do and what it must do What keeps scaling companies from becoming "Chipotle” References: Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com/ Apache Kafka: https://kafka.apache.org/ Benchmark: https://www.benchmark.com/ Confluent: https://www.confluent.io/ Jun Rao: https://www.linkedin.com/in/junrao LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/ McKinsey & Company: https://www.mckinsey.com/ MySpace: https://www.myspace.com/ Neha Narkhede: https://www.linkedin.com/in/nehanarkhede Oracle: https://www.oracle.com/ Red Hat: https://www.redhat.com/ Snowflake: https://www.snowflake.com/ Where to find Jay: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jaykreps/ Twitter/X: https://x.com/jaykreps Where to find Brett: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/brett-berson-9986094/ Twitter/X: https://twitter.com/brettberson Where to find First Round Capital: Website: https://firstround.com/ First Round Review: https://review.firstround.com/ Twitter/X: https://twitter.com/firstround YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@FirstRoundCapital This podcast on all platforms: https://review.firstround.com/podcast Timestamps: 01:18 Making the leap from engineer to CEO 03:33 The 80% rule: what a CEO actually needs to know 04:54 Scaling different business disciplines 09:31 How Confluent's story began in LinkedIn 12:13 The growing need for scalable data tech 13:37 What the early Kafka product looked like 16:38 Kafka's underwhelming open-source launch 18:38 The blog post that accelerated Kafka's adoption 20:16 Why so many marketing messages fail 28:08 The decision to build Confluent 34:24 Planning to fundraise before building the product 39:19 Confluent's early years: Tough product decisions 47:07 The underrated growth lever question for companies 55:46 Why founder optimism is an overrated trait 1:00:29 What should founders give up as they scale? 1:02:47 Why people become trapped in a failure mindset 1:08:33 The Chipotle problem: Losing excellence at scale

The final stretch of the school year can feel heavy, especially if you're not sure the year turned out the way you hoped. In this episode, I offer a Quarter 4 pep talk and a mindset shift to help you finish strong. I talk about redefining what success looks like, embracing seasons of survival when needed, and focusing on small moments that still make a BIG impact with students. I also give you permission to stop doing time-draining tasks, try something new in your classroom, and bring a little more fun into these final weeks!➡️ Show Notes: https://itsnotrocketscienceclassroom.com/episode227Resources Mentioned:Be a guest on the podcast!  Apply here.Ecosystem in a BottleEnd of year project packsReviewing for standardized testsBiology scope and sequencePrime Times Bell RingersSend me a DM on Instagram: @its.not.rocket.scienceSend me an email: rebecca@itsnotrocketscienceclassroom.com  Follow, rate, and review on Apple Podcasts.Follow, rate, and comment on Spotify.Related Episodes and Blog Posts:Episodes 12, Combating Senioritis Part 1: Getting Students Outside and Changing Up LectureEpisode 13, Combating Senioritis Part 2: Using Student-Centered ActivitiesEpisode 14, Combating Senioritis Part 3: Saving the Best for LastEpisode 15, Teaching Seniors, AP Biology, and MORE with Diana PriceEpisode 18, What to Do After End of Year Testing with StudentsEpisode 72, Review Strategies for EOC, Benchmark, and AP ExamsEpisode 165, How Naming What Matters Most Can Change the Rest of Your School YearEpisode 218, 3 Things to Stop Doing This Semester Episode 220, Biology Scope and Sequence: How and Why I Teach Biology the Way That I DoEpisode 226, What to Do When You've Lost Your Spark in Teaching 

Throughout most of my career, the S&P 500 has been an appropriate bogey to assess manager performance. More than that, it's the most widely used benchmark in the capital markets. But today, it doesn't represent the broad-based, diversified exposure to the U.S. economy that most participants take for granted when investing passively or measuring manager skill. This WTT, When the Benchmark Becomes a Bet, considers the evidence, implications, and challenges posed by the current composition of the S&P 500. Read Ted's blog here.   Editing and post-production work for this episode was provided by The Podcast Consultant (⁠https://thepodcastconsultant.com⁠)

In episode 333 of the Glass and Out Podcast we had the honour of being joined by the greatest hockey coach of all time, Scotty Bowman. As a head coach, Bowman led the Montreal Canadians, Pittsburgh Penguins and Detroit Red Wings to a combined 9 Stanley Cups. He also captured another five cups in front office roles. He is the NHL's all-time wins leader, with a total of 1,467 between the regular season and playoffs and was twice awarded the Jack Adams trophy as the NHL's Coach of the Year. But above all else, Scotty Bowman is the ultimate student of the game. He was able to adapt to new rules, new generations of players, the introduction of Europeans to the NHL, and eventually, the influx of Russians that arrived with the collapse of the Soviet Union. He saw drastically different versions of the game from the rough and tumble 70's to the high flying 80's and the dead puck era in the 90's. At 92, his memory, as you are about to hear, is simply remarkable and there is no doubt that ability helped him gain a competitive advantage from behind the bench based on his ability to recall the slightest detail and nuance within a game. Listen as he shares a lesson in hockey history, practice tips from the legend Dick Irvin, and the how he views the current state of today's game. Watch on YouTube: https://youtu.be/HNY5McdMjUU Secure your TCS Live ticket: https://thecoachessitelive.com/ Download the TCS app: https://www.thecoachessite.com/app Learn more about our presenting sponsors: Benchmark: benchmarkgoals.com Biosteel: BioSteelTeams.com/Glassandout Hudl: hudl.com/tcs

Bill Gurley is a venture capitalist, general partner at Benchmark, and a former Wall Street analyst. How do you find work you actually enjoy? So many people warn about the jobs they hate and the dreams they never chased. But turning passion into a career is harder than it sounds. So how do you reinvent yourself and build a life where work feels meaningful instead of miserable? Expect to learn why most people end up having careers they regret, how to build a framework for regret minimisation, what people do that achieve success in their dream career, how to know when you're plateauing versus when you're just bored, what great mentors actually do that books and podcasts can't, if someone can learn to love the grind or if it is something that's innate, how you know if you're in the wrong field versus just in the hard phase of the right field and much more… Sponsors: See discounts for all the products I use and recommend: ⁠https://chriswillx.com/deals⁠ New pricing since recording: Function is now just $365, plus get $25 off at https://functionhealth.com/modernwisdom Get up to $350 off the Pod 5 at https://eightsleep.com/modernwisdom Get 35% off your first subscription on the best supplements from Momentous at https://livemomentous.com/modernwisdom Get up to 20% off the leading longevity and cellular health supplement at https://timeline.com/modernwisdom Extra Stuff: Get my free reading list of 100 books to read before you die: ⁠https://chriswillx.com/books⁠ Try my productivity energy drink Neutonic: ⁠https://neutonic.com/modernwisdom⁠ Episodes You Might Enjoy: #577 - David Goggins - This Is How To Master Your Life: ⁠https://tinyurl.com/43hv6y59⁠ #712 - Dr Jordan Peterson - How To Destroy Your Negative Beliefs: ⁠https://tinyurl.com/2rtz7avf⁠ #700 - Dr Andrew Huberman - The Secret Tools To Hack Your Brain: ⁠https://tinyurl.com/3ccn5vkp⁠ - Get In Touch: Instagram: ⁠https://www.instagram.com/chriswillx⁠ Twitter: ⁠https://www.twitter.com/chriswillx⁠ YouTube: ⁠https://www.youtube.com/modernwisdompodcast⁠ Email: ⁠https://chriswillx.com/contact⁠ - Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

While Anthropic and the Pentagon fought, OpenAI swooped in to secure a big deal. But at what cost? And while it seemed like the entire AI news world was wrapped up in the Anthropic-Trump-OpenAI drama, the rest of big tech went nuts. Microsoft teased something agentic, Claude actually shipped it, and Perplexity dropped probably its most important product to date. This week's theme apparently: drama and agents. We'll get you caught up on all of the AI News That Matters.

Career regret is more common than most professionals admit. In Bill Gurley's survey, 7 out of 10 people said they would restart their careers if given the chance, revealing widespread dissatisfaction with their chosen paths. After decades of working alongside successful founders, Bill distilled what actually leads to meaningful, energizing work into his book  Running Down a Dream, offering a clear path to designing a career you don't want to escape from. Now on Spotify video! In this episode, Bill reveals how to build your dream job and shares what top professionals do differently to create careers that bring both success and fulfillment. In this episode, Hala and Bill will discuss: (00:00) Introduction (02:17) The Career Regret Crisis (06:57) Designing Your Own Career Path (12:53) How Curiosity Over Passion Drives Success (22:10) Bill's Journey From Engineering to Venture Capital (28:45) Mastering Career Fundamentals for Growth (41:34) The Power of Mentors and Peers in Career Development (52:10) Dot-Com Crash Lessons and the AI Wave (54:20) Unit Economics and Business Fundamentals (1:06:39) Smart ROI Decisions for Entrepreneurs (1:16:47) Making Tough Calls in Leadership (1:21:34) Traits of Extraordinary Founders Bill Gurley is a renowned Silicon Valley venture capitalist and general partner at Benchmark, known for early, pivotal investments in companies like Uber, Zillow, and Grubhub. With over 20 years at Benchmark, he is recognized as a top tech investor and the author of the influential blog Above the Crowd. In his new book, Running Down a Dream, Bill breaks down the components of balancing joy with success and identifies the key principles of career fulfillment. Sponsored By: Indeed - Get a $75 sponsored job credit to boost your job's visibility at⁠ Indeed.com/profiting⁠ Shopify - Start your $1/month trial at⁠ Shopify.com/profiting⁠. Spectrum Business - Keep your business connected seamlessly. Visit ⁠https://spectrum.com/Business⁠ to learn more. Northwest Registered Agent - Build your brand and get your complete business identity at⁠ northwestregisteredagent.com/paidyap⁠ Framer - Publish beautiful and production-ready websites. Go to⁠ Framer.com/profiting⁠ and get 30% off their Framer Pro annual plan. Quo - Run your business communications the smart way. Try Quo for free, plus get 20% off your first 6 months when you go to⁠ quo.com/profiting⁠ Working Genius - Discover your natural gifts and thrive at work. Go to⁠ workinggenius.com⁠ and get 20% off with code PROFITING Experian - Manage and cancel your unwanted subscriptions and reduce your bills. See ⁠experian.com⁠ for details. Huel -  Get all the daily nutrients you need with Huel. Grab Huel today and get 15% OFF with my code PROFITING at⁠ huel.com/PROFITING⁠.  Resources Mentioned: Bill's Book, Running Down A Dream: ⁠bit.ly/BGDream⁠  Bill's X (Twitter): ⁠x.com/bgurley⁠  Bill's Website: ⁠abovethecrowd.com⁠  Designing Your Life by Bill Burnett: ⁠bit.ly/BB-DYL⁠  One Up On Wall Street by Peter Lynch: ⁠bit.ly/PL-OUOWS⁠  Innovator's Dilemma by Clayton Christensen: ⁠bit.ly/CC-ID⁠  Greenlights by Matthew McConaughey: ⁠bit.ly/MM-GL⁠  Active Deals -⁠ youngandprofiting.com/deals⁠  Key YAP Links Reviews -⁠ ratethispodcast.com/yap⁠ YouTube -⁠ youtube.com/c/YoungandProfiting⁠ Newsletter - ⁠youngandprofiting.co/newsletter⁠  LinkedIn -⁠ linkedin.com/in/htaha/⁠ Instagram -⁠ instagram.com/yapwithhala/⁠ Social + Podcast Services:⁠ yapmedia.com⁠ Transcripts -⁠ youngandprofiting.com/episodes-new⁠  Entrepreneurship, Entrepreneurship Podcast, Business, Business Podcast, Self Improvement, Self-Improvement, Personal Development, Starting a Business, Strategy, Investing, Sales, Selling, Psychology, Productivity, Entrepreneurs, AI, Artificial Intelligence, Marketing, Negotiation, Side Hustle, Startup, Mental Health, Career, Leadership, Mindset, Growth Mindset, Business Ideas, Growth Hacks, Workplace, Career Podcast