Podcasts about Goldman Sachs

Charlie McGarraugh joins Moritz Seibert to discuss how systematic investing is evolving beyond traditional trend following. Drawing on experience from Goldman Sachs, crypto and machine learning, Charlie explains why adaptive portfolios, capital efficiency and smarter position sizing may become the defining advantages for the next generation of macro investors. They explore the rise of managed futures ETFs, China's growing futures markets, the trade off between diversification and simplicity, and why portfolio construction often matters more than finding the next predictive signal. It is a thoughtful conversation about where systematic investing may be heading next.-----50 YEARS OF TREND FOLLOWING BOOK AND BEHIND-THE-SCENES VIDEO FOR ACCREDITED INVESTORS - CLICK HERE-----Follow Niels on Twitter, LinkedIn, YouTube or via the TTU website.IT's TRUE ? – most CIO's read 50+ books each year – get your FREE copy of the Ultimate Guide to the Best Investment Books ever written here.And you can get a free copy of my latest book “Ten Reasons to Add Trend Following to Your Portfolio” here.Learn more about the Trend Barometer here.Send your questions to info@toptradersunplugged.comAnd please share this episode with a like-minded friend and leave an honest Rating & Review on iTunes or Spotify so more people can discover the podcast.Follow Moritz on Twitter.Episode TimeStamps:00:00 - Why position sizing may matter more than return prediction01:03 - Charlie McGarra's journey from Goldman Sachs to Altis Partners09:03 - The history of Altis Partners and its evolution beyond trend following11:19 - Building a multi factor macro strategy around trend16:02 - Why adaptive investing is becoming increasingly important21:49 - The growth of managed futures ETFs and reaching new investors25:27 - Designing ETFs for diversification and capital efficiency30:30 - Why Chinese commodity futures offer unique opportunities40:41 - New ideas around leverage and capital efficiency42:37 - Kelly sizing, drawdowns and maximizing long term returnsCopyright © 2025 – CMC AG – All Rights Reserved----PLUS: Whenever you're ready... here are 3 ways I can help you in your investment Journey:1. eBooks that cover key topics that you need to know about In my eBooks, I put together some key discoveries and things I have learnt during the more than 3 decades I have worked in the Trend Following industry, which I hope you will find useful. Click Here2. Daily Trend Barometer and Market Score One of the things I'm really proud of, is the fact that I have managed to published the Trend Barometer and Market Score each day for more than a decade...as these tools are really good at describing the environment for trend following managers as well as giving insights into the general positioning of a trend following strategy! Click Here3. Other Resources that can help youAnd if you are hungry for more useful resources from the trend following world...check out some precious resources that I have found over the years to be really valuable. Click HerePrivacy PolicyDisclaimer

As a newly installed chairman takes the helm of the Federal Reserve, US monetary policy remains uncertain amid a soft inflation print and escalating tensions in the Middle East. David Mericle, chief US economist in Goldman Sachs Research, forecasts the Fed to keep interest rates unchanged this year before cutting its policy rate in 2027. He also unpacks the factors driving US inflation, highlights the surprising resilience of the US labor market, and explains why he expects US GDP to expand around 2% this year.  Recorded on July 20, 2026. The opinions and views expressed herein are as of the date of publication, subject to change without notice, and may not necessarily reflect the institutional views of Goldman Sachs or its affiliates. The material provided is intended for informational purposes only, and does not constitute investment advice, a recommendation from any Goldman Sachs entity to take any particular action, or an offer or solicitation to purchase or sell any securities or financial products. This material may contain forward-looking statements. Past performance is not indicative of future results. Neither Goldman Sachs nor any of its affiliates make any representations or warranties, express or implied, as to the accuracy or completeness of the statements or information contained herein and disclaim any liability whatsoever for reliance on such information for any purpose. Each name of a third-party organization mentioned is the property of the company to which it relates, is used here strictly for informational and identification purposes only and is not used to imply any ownership or license rights between any such company and Goldman Sachs. A transcript is provided for convenience and may differ from the original video or audio content. Goldman Sachs is not responsible for any errors in the transcript. This material should not be copied, distributed, published, or reproduced in whole or in part or disclosed by any recipient to any other person without the express written consent of Goldman Sachs. Disclosures applicable to research with respect to issuers, if any, mentioned herein are available through your Goldman Sachs representative or at ⁠http://www.gs.com/research/hedge.html⁠ Goldman Sachs does not endorse any candidate or any political party. Copyright 2026. All rights reserved. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

A profitable med spa can still be hard to scale, and even harder to sell. When the owner is responsible for every major decision, key patient relationships, team oversight, and day-to-day problem solving, the business carries more risk than the financials may initially show.  In this episode, I sit down with Annie Robertson Hockey, president of Skytale Group, to talk about what makes a medical aesthetics or wellness practice more valuable over time. We cover owner dependence, scalable systems, clean financial reporting, revenue concentration, team incentives, and the operational work that gives practice owners more options as they grow.  A Valuable Practice Can't Depend on One Person  Many practice owners become the center of the business without realizing how difficult that makes the next stage of growth. They approve the decisions, solve the team problems, manage important relationships, and step in whenever something breaks. That may work for a period of time, but eventually the owner becomes the bottleneck.  Start paying attention to where the practice still relies heavily on you. Which decisions come back to your desk? Which patients only want to see you? What happens when you take a week off? Those questions matter whether you are thinking about a future exit, adding locations, or simply trying to create more space in your own role.  From a buyer's perspective, owner dependence is risk. From an operator's perspective, it also limits how much the practice can handle without adding more stress at the top.  Build Systems Before Growth Exposes the Gaps  A process that works for one location or a small team may fall apart at twice the volume. Practice owners need to look ahead and ask whether the current operation could support two, five, or even 10 times the activity without creating chaos.  That means taking a closer look at the parts of the business that affect consistency, risk, and repeatability:  Reduce dependence on a single provider, location, treatment, or revenue stream  Document the operational systems that drive consistent patient experiences  Track where new patients come from instead of relying on assumptions about marketing performance  Build HR and sales processes that can function without constant owner involvement  Review key performance indicators over time instead of reacting to isolated monthly results  Automate repetitive processes when technology can improve consistency and reduce administrative burden  Assign clear ownership to major functions across the team  Pick an area that is creating friction, give it focused attention, and improve the process before moving on to the next one. A quarter spent strengthening one important function can be far more productive than trying to fix 10 things at the same time.  (00:07:54) Framework for expansion and exit (00:10:25) Building enterprise value (00:16:48) Thinking in scalable systems (00:20:37) Managing revenue concentration risk (00:24:44) Defining clean financial data and metrics (00:37:20) Tying incentives to controllable actions (00:42:51) Managing HR and sales processes  Your Financial Reports Should Help You Explain the Business  Clean financials are not just about accurate bookkeeping. You should be able to look at your reports, identify the major trends, and explain what is driving the numbers. A buyer will want to understand whether growth came from a stronger marketing cohort, a new provider, one unusually productive location, a change in treatment mix, or something else entirely. You should want that same clarity as the owner. Without it, you are making decisions based on a snapshot instead of understanding how the business is actually changing.  This is where trend analysis and a focused set of key performance indicators become useful. Track the metrics that help you make decisions, review them consistently, and stop collecting data simply because you can. More reporting does not automatically create better management.  The Team Has to Be Able to Carry More of the Business  Scaling exposes team issues that are easier to work around when the practice is smaller. Hiring, training, performance management, HR processes, and incentive plans all need more structure once the owner can no longer oversee every interaction. Pay particular attention to incentives. Employees should be rewarded for outcomes they can actually influence, with clear expectations and measurable responsibilities behind the plan.   As the practice matures, capable leaders, documented processes, reliable financials, and a team that can operate without constant owner involvement make the business easier to expand, easier for a buyer to evaluate, and less dependent on you. Follow Shannon & Keep What You Earn:   Shannon Weinstein is the founder of a fractional CFO firm specializing in helping 7-figure aesthetics and wellness practices scale with clarity, cash flow, and confidence.  Shannon is committed to helping med spa owners understand, fix, and maximize their business's enterprise value, offering actionable advice and resources, including a popular free video series specifically for aesthetics practice owners.  Connect with Shannon: Fractional CFO Services and Executive Financial Review: https://www.keepwhatyouearn.com/  Connect with Shannon: https://www.linkedin.com/in/shannonweinstein  Watch full episodes: https://www.youtube.com/@KeepWhatYouEarn  Listen on your favorite podcast app: https://pod.link/1580071347  Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/shannonkweinstein/  The information shared is for educational purposes only and is not individualized financial advice. Aesthetics practice owners should consult a qualified professional before implementing financial strategies discussed here.  About Annie Robertson Hockey:  Annie Robertson Hockey is the President of Skytale Group, a boutique investment banking, management consulting, and private capital firm. Prior to Skytale, Annie co-founded and served as co-CEO of Column, a nationally chartered infrastructure bank, where she currently serves as an Advisor and Board Member. She previously worked at Bain & Company, Goldman Sachs, and was an early employee at several Silicon Valley startups. Annie graduated with honors from both Stanford University and the Stanford Graduate School of Business, where she was an Arjay Miller Scholar. She also serves on the board of a nonprofit focused on remediating youth economic inequality and advises the Stanford Technology Ventures Program and Stanford Women in Tech Entrepreneurship, supporting the development of female leaders.  Connect with Annie and Skytale Group:  Website: www.skytalegroup.com  Email: info@skytalegroup.com  Phone: (945) 235-7850 

We're still surprised people did this but... 50+ founders worth $10M to $4B reveal their personal finances. Here it is: https://joinhampton.com/mw-wrWhy do we do this? Because if you're an aspirational person or someone who runs a business and is making money, it's incredibly challenging to figure out what to do. Information is impossible to find — and that's what we put together: the net worth reveal and why we do this podcast, Moneywise.He got his first $5M check and expected to feel superhuman. The next day was one of the most disappointing of his life.Jesse Pujji walked away from a Goldman Sachs job where he made $500K at 25 — with a boss making $3M and a group head making $20M — to bootstrap an ad agency on $33K per partner and a stack of Amex cards. Ampush cracked the Facebook arbitrage before almost anyone: $100K in monthly revenue in June 2010 became $2M a month with $600K in EBITDA fourteen months later. He scaled it to half a billion in annual ad spend and 250 employees without raising a dollar, turned down $25M at 27, sold 20% to Red Ventures in 2015, and sold the whole thing to New Mountain Capital in 2022 for somewhere between $40M and $60M on a 35% stake. He never got the nine-figure number he made up in his head, and he says chasing it was the mistake.This episode gets into the exact allocation of a post-exit portfolio, why Jesse refuses to let his advisors put illiquid startup equity on his balance sheet, what $500K a year of "normal" spending actually buys, and why he asked his financial advisor how people possibly spend more than that. He's honest about the gap between the money he expected to change him and the money that didn't. And we spend real time on the part most founders avoid: three kids who never saw him grind, a Greenlight allowance split into thirds, a $63 JCPenney paycheck at 16 that taught him more than any of it, and the question of whether to leave them anything at all.Also, this podcast is made by Hampton, which is a community for founders doing on average $20 million a year in revenue. We saw a lot of these money conversations happening privately behind closed doors and we thought, "What the heck, let's make it public." If you are a founder, apply here: http://joinhampton.com/mwTimestamps:00:00 — Jesse's origin story: immigrant household in St. Louis, a snow shoveling business in middle school, and $33K each plus Amex cards to start Ampush02:00 — The Facebook arbitrage that changed everything: $100K/month in June 2010 to $2M in revenue and $600K in EBITDA fourteen months later02:49 — "Sandbox entrepreneurship" — Facebook cold-calls them: "Who the hell are you guys? You're one of our top 100 advertisers"04:24 — Why he left Goldman at 25 making $500K: "I would rather make half of my future expected earnings and do something I feel excited about"06:18 — The $25M offer two years in, why they said no, and the $3M dividend they took instead — $1M each, which bought his SF house07:30 — The made-up number that wrecked them: hoping for $150M, getting $60–75M offers, and turning down $190M in Marin stock09:24 — The Red Ventures deal and $5M after tax: "I thought I would get wings or superhuman strength... nothing changed"11:16 — 2022: selling to New Mountain and walking away without going with the deal13:12 — The exit number, on the record: a $40–60M range on a stake "a little bit more than a third"16:04 — The Zone of Genius framework, and why being a CEO sat in his zone of excellence — good at it, drained by it17:52 — Gateway X by the numbers19:06 — Whether the scarcity ever goes away: "nine days out of ten" became "one day out of ten," and the coach question he couldn't answer20:16 — The Deer Valley condo, and finally understanding why people buy vacation homes21:08 — Full portfolio breakdown and why he tells his advisors to mark his startup equity at zero23:24 — Annual spend 26:52 — The schedule that makes it work: Tuesdays and Thursdays he misses bedtime, Monday/Wednesday/Friday he doesn't, and he deletes Slack on vacation28:16 — The thing that keeps him up: "They've gotten all the fruits of the grind without actually observing the grind"29:23 — Greenlight, allowance equal to their age, and splitting it into thirds — spend, save, give30:19 — Running a Starbucks P&L with his 9-year-old daughter in the store32:30 — The four-bucket framework: spend it, give it to the government, give it to charity, or give it to your kids34:44 — A Schnucks family board member on generational wealth: "Money doesn't ruin kids. Lack of values does."35:36 — What Jesse wants said at his funeralSponsors: Daily Body Coach - achieve your dream body with https://moneywise.dailybodycoach.comSubscribe to Moneywise: https://www.youtube.com/@themoneywisepodcastFollow Daniel on X: https://x.com/danielcberkListen on Spotify / Apple Podcasts: [search "Moneywise Hampton"]

Muy buenos días, Goldman Sachs le atinó y ganó España. Otro dato curioso que nos deja este Mundial en este lunes de bajón futbolero son las  millas que acumuló el avión de Gianni Infantino… y también la cuenta ambiental. Pero antes, hablemos del brote de ciclosporiasis: un problema que ya es compartido entre EE.UU. y México. Además, la atención del mercado ya se enfoca en los gigantes tecnológicos, que comienzan a reportar sus estados financieros esta semana. Spoiler, ya no les brillan tanto los ojos a los inversionistas.

This week's video transcript summary is here. You can click on any bulleted section to see the actual transcript. Thanks to Granola for its software.EditorialIntelligence: Who Owns it?This week the word “AI” feels too small.AI is a technology. Intelligence is its product. And if intelligence is the product, the question is no longer just: Which model is best? Who has the cheapest tokens? Who owns the weights? Who controls the data center? Those are important questions, but they are lower in the stack.The bigger question is simpler and more political:Who owns intelligence?That sounds abstract until you make it concrete. Intelligence is becoming something companies can capture, package, serve, meter, route, improve, and sell.It can write code, answer questions, design molecules, automate offices, run agents, draft legal work, advise scientists, serve consumers, and reshape workflows. It is not merely software. It is a general-purpose capability. And all humans could benefit from more of it.General-purpose capabilities have a habit of becoming public questions. But the default answer, that public good is best delivered by government, is the wrong answer in this context.The Product Is IntelligenceWe should stop talking about AI as a feature and start talking about intelligence as the universal thing that is delivered as an input to the world.Water is an input. Electricity is an input. Literacy is an input. Connectivity is an input. Once a society depends on them, access stops being optional. Nobody needs government to build every well, power plant, school, or network. But everybody understands that a civilization cannot be organized around less than universal and reliable access to foundational inputs.Intelligence is reaching that level of importance now that we all know it is real.Government should not own it, operate it, or develop it. Quite the opposite. Companies are the right actors to build fast, compete hard, improve models, serve customers, and discover the real use cases. Self-interest is a useful framing here. Markets are good at finding demand, reducing costs, and turning invention into services people actually use.Companies are the right operators, developers, and owners. But that does not settle the real question of who owns the benefits. That is an economic question.If intelligence becomes metered infrastructure, what happens to the value it creates?The Ownership StackThis week's articles keep circling the same issue from different directions but in the nature of ‘circling' never quite nail it.Jamin Ball's “Own Your Weights” starts with the enterprise version of the question. Owning a model file is not enough. The durable asset is the loop: the data flywheel, the evaluations, the reinforcement system, the workflow learning, and the operating context that lets capability compound.Benedict Evans' “Ways to Think About Token Pricing” adds the market layer. Tokens may become essential, abundant, and cheap, like mobile data. But being essential does not guarantee that the token layer captures the value. The money may move up the stack to whoever owns the workflow, the customer, the distribution, or the application.Alex Karp's fight with the labs, reported in “Alex Karp Is Saying What Every Angry CEO Is Thinking About AI”, is the same argument in sharper enterprise language. Companies are afraid that model providers will not just sell intelligence, but learn from customer workflows and then move into the markets where those workflows create value. The “All-in” group are echoing Karp's view.And “What Is Loop Engineering, and Who Owns It?” names the new contested terrain. The loop is where intelligence meets the world. Whoever owns the loop owns the learning. Whoever owns the learning owns the compounding asset.That is why “who owns intelligence?” is not a slogan. It is the question under the model layer, the application layer, the enterprise layer, and the economic layer.Because intelligence is the product, the tools creating it are fragmented and competitive. So there is no logic in trying to discuss this at the level of a single company or set of tools and models.The Old Promise Was That Commerce Would Tame PowerThe essays this week give the historical backdrop.Deirdre McCloskey, in “What Really Caused the Industrial Revolution”, argues that modern growth came not simply from capital accumulation, but from a change in permission: ordinary people were allowed to innovate, trade, build, and be honored for it.That matters because intelligence could be another expansion of permission. It could make more people capable of building, learning, creating, coding, researching, translating, selling, and coordinating. It could lower the cost of competence.But only if access is broad.Paul Krugman's “AI in an Age of Oligarchy” warns that the same technology lands differently in different political economies. A new general-purpose technology entering a broad, open, upwardly mobile society is one thing. The same technology entering a concentrated economy, with extreme wealth and weak counterweights, is another.Tim O'Reilly's Economist essay, “Elon Musk is building a form of capitalism that Adam Smith would hate”, makes the governance point more directly. The old liberal hope was that commerce would tame arbitrary power. Markets, boards, courts, shareholders, disclosure, and competition would discipline the prince.But what if the prince uses markets to escape discipline?Henry Farrell's “political economy of billionaire derangement” pushes the same point. Founder culture, monopoly ambition, peer rivalry, weak correction mechanisms, and vast private control can amplify appetites rather than restrain them.The danger with intelligence is not that companies build it. They should. Companies build it, meter it, use public tolerance and public infrastructure to scale it, learn from everyone who uses it. All of those things are inevitable and healthy. Market forces will sort out winners from losers. The real danger is that the winners treat all of the surplus produced as purely private.Metered Intelligence Creates SurplusIf metering is not the problem, what is?The problem is pretending that metered intelligence creates value only for the metering entity. Metering water is only tolerated as a public good. If the public were blackmailed by a private water company with the threat of no water we would all rebel.Once we understand that the product of AI is intelligence we can see that every time intelligence is used, there is the immediate transaction: the user pays, the provider serves.But there is also system value. Usage creates signals. Workflows reveal patterns. Prompts, corrections, failures, preferences, integrations, edge cases, and business processes all help define where intelligence is useful and how it should improve. Intelligence breeds intelligence.Even when customer data is contractually protected, the market learns. The platform learns where demand is. The product team learns which workflows matter. The ecosystem learns which jobs are vulnerable, which tasks are automatable, and which parts of the economy can be reorganized around machine intelligence.So the surplus is not born in a vacuum.It rests on public science, public education, public data exhaust, public law, public infrastructure, public energy systems, public tolerance for data centers, and billions of human interactions. It is served by companies, but it is not made only by companies.This is why “Americans Deserve a Dividend From AI Companies' Riches” belongs at the center of this week's issue. The detail can be debated. The principle is harder to dismiss. If intelligence becomes a new foundational resource, then some part of the wealth it creates should flow back to the people whose society makes it possible. Intelligence did not suddenly appear. AI is built on the entire history of human intelligence. It benefits from it and at the same time evolves it.Not Nationalization. A Human Wealth Fund.If intelligence belongs to everybody, some conclude that government ownership of intelligence is the right outcome.Governments are not well suited to build, operate, or improve intelligence. They will move too slowly, regulate too early, politicize the wrong things, and confuse economic participation with operational control.Andrew McAfee's “Why I Didn't Sign the AI Open Letter” is useful here. His objection is not that the technology is unimportant. It is that steering too hard before we understand the shape of the change can become its own failure mode. Marc Andreessen's satire of AI regulation is less policy than temperament, but it captures a real Silicon Valley fear: that regulation can become permission, capture, and incumbency before it becomes wisdom.That fear should be taken seriously.But it does not answer the economic question. It answers only the operational one.How can the economic benefits of intelligence be distributed? The better answer is a sovereign human wealth fund.Call it a sovereign wealth fund if you must, but the phrase is too national. Intelligence will not respect borders. The leading companies are global. The models, chips, data centers, agents, platforms, and workflows will be transnational from the beginning. If the value created by intelligence is global, then the mechanism for sharing some of that value should begin with the companies global enough to capture it. The nice thing about xAI, OpenAI, and Anthropic is that they are supranational.These companies own and operate intelligence. Let them compete. Let them profit. Let them keep the incentives that make the system improve. But if intelligence is the new water, the wealth it creates cannot belong only to the companies that meter it. And they, themselves, have the power to fix it, even more than governments.Access will become a Human Right; Ownership Is the Economic DesignThis is where human rights come in. There is no right to access an AI model, yet. But there will soon be a need to change that.Not as a claim that every person is entitled to every frontier model at every moment for free. That is not serious. Capacity has costs. Models have costs. Inference has costs. Data centers have costs. Although those costs will decline over time, possibly quite quickly as self-learning models address costs.The claim is more basic: in a world where intelligence becomes a primary input into education, work, health, science, citizenship, creativity, and economic agency, baseline access to intelligence starts to look like a civic requirement.That could mean public access layers. It could mean education credits. It could mean open models. It could mean AI dividends. It could mean public-interest compute. It could mean taxes on rents. It could mean a company-initiated human wealth fund that returns some of the upside to society without handing the operating system to the state. The latter could couple wealth growth with universal distribution of ownership.The exact mechanism matters. But the distinction matters more.Government should not own intelligence. It should be universally available. And people should have a claim on the wealth intelligence creates.The Frontier Is Also PhysicalThe abstraction is not weightless.“The Fight Against AI Data Centers Is Just Beginning”, “New York becomes the first state to enact a data center moratorium”, Reuters on pollution from Musk's xAI power project, and DataGravity's “Who Captures Value in AI Infrastructure?” all say the same thing from the ground up.Intelligence uses land. It uses power. It uses water. It uses chips. It uses grid capacity. It uses neighborhoods. It uses public patience.That makes the value question unavoidable. A society can accept the buildout if the buildout is legible as shared progress. It will resist it if the costs are local, the profits are private, and the benefits feel enclosed.Who Owns the “Loop”?The week ends where it began.“Anthropic and Blackstone” are betting that implementation is the next trillion-dollar business. “Vint Cerf” is working on identity for agents on the open internet. “GPT-Red” points toward systems that improve their own robustness. “Kimi K3” adds another open frontier model to the global mix.The model race continues. The deployment race is accelerating. The governance race is behind.My view is this:The central product of this era is intelligence. Companies have figured out how to capture it, package it, serve it, and meter it. That is good. It should stay in the hands of builders who have the incentive to make it better.But intelligence is too foundational to become just another private toll booth. A significant part of it will turn out to be free to users.As intelligence becomes a general-purpose resource, then access to it becomes a human-capability question, and the surplus from it becomes an economic-justice question. Not because government should run it. Because government should not run it. The operating layer belongs with companies. The wealth question belongs with everyone. But companies are best placed to turn that into a process of distribution.The question is not whether companies should build intelligence. They should.The question is whether humanity gets a stake in the wealth created by the thing that may soon become its most important shared input.Contents* Essays* Deirdre McCloskey on What Really Caused the Industrial Revolution* AI in an Age of Oligarchy* Elon Musk is building a form of capitalism that Adam Smith would hate* Murky Mirror: Truth and Consequences* The political economy of billionaire derangement* Is there any “oligarchy” to fight?* AI* Nearly 200 Economists and Tech Leaders Warn of A.I. Threats* Why I Didn't Sign the AI Open Letter* Own Your Weights* Ways to Think About Token Pricing* Alex Karp Is Saying What Every Angry CEO Is Thinking About AI* The AI Agents Are Coming for Microsoft Office* What Is Loop Engineering, and Who Owns It?* The Fight Against AI Data Centers Is Just Beginning* 6 months to live for open models* Americans Deserve a Dividend From AI Companies' Riches* Who Gets to Define the Frontier?* GPT-Red: Unlocking Self-Improvement for Robustness* Anthropic, Blackstone bet the next trillion-dollar AI business is implementation, not just models* Vint Cerf is working on a plan to unleash AI agents on the open internet* xai-org/grok-build, now open source* The Pulse: What can we learn from Bun's rapid Rust rewrite with AI?* Orphan risks at the frontier of artificial intelligence* The Lab of the Future Should Feel Like a Data Center* Why AMI Labs' Alexandre LeBrun won't call his AI “AGI” or “superintelligence”* Kimi K3 Tech Blog: Open Frontier Intelligence* Venture Capital* Three Years In* Venture Has Rarely Looked More Bifurcated* The Best Angel Investors in the US: Who Backs the Most Unicorns, and Who's Active Now* Are Prediction Markets Doomed to Fail?* Regulation* Exclusive: The Next Frontier of the Deportation Wars: College Campuses* The Supreme Court Broke Independent Agencies. Here's a Way to Slow the Damage.* India's crackdown on a new WhatsApp feature risks setting a global precedent* Let's build a children's public internet* Computer cops* Google is better at playing the AI regulations game* Infrastructure* Who Captures Value in AI Infrastructure?* New York becomes the first state to enact a data center moratorium* Pollution from Musk's unpermitted xAI power project hits hardest in Black communities* Interview of the Week* The End of the End of Geography* Startup of the Week* Radical AI's Joseph Krause: The Scientist Building The “Waymo” Lab For New Materials* Post of the Week* Marc Andreessen on AI RegulationEssaysDeirdre McCloskey on What Really Caused the Industrial RevolutionYascha Mounk and Deirdre McCloskey | Persuasion | July 11, 2026Yascha Mounk interviews Deirdre McCloskey about her argument that the modern world's economic liftoff came less from capital accumulation than from a change in ideas. McCloskey says both left and right versions of the conventional story rely too heavily on investment: the left stresses exploitation and surplus value, while the right stresses virtuous saving by capitalists. Her objection is historical and economic. Human beings had always invested, from irrigation works and Roman roads to seed grain, and simple accumulation quickly runs into diminishing returns.McCloskey's alternative is that northwestern Europe, first Holland, then Britain and Scotland, and then the North American colonies, developed a liberal ideology that changed who was allowed to innovate and be honored for it. The conversation links that shift to the erosion of inherited hierarchy, the spread of dignity for ordinary commercial life, and a moral vocabulary in which liberalism is not merely procedural but connected to virtues and values. The point is not that machines, coal, trade, and institutions did not matter, but that they do not explain the scale and timing of modern enrichment without a cultural permission structure for innovation.The interview also turns to the contemporary defense of liberalism. Mounk frames the series around the worry that liberalism is often treated as too thin to command allegiance, while its opponents speak more directly to moral passions. McCloskey's case is that liberal societies became rich because they dignified experimentation and ordinary enterprise, and that liberals need to recover the moral language behind that claim.Read moreAI in an Age of OligarchyPaul Krugman | Paul Krugman | July 12, 2026Paul Krugman frames AI as a major technological shock arriving inside an already unequal political economy. The post says AI's economic and social effects may take years to understand, but argues that the setting matters now: America has much greater wealth concentration and political inequality than it did in the 1950s and 1960s, when progressive taxation, stronger regulation, and more active antitrust might have contained some of the destructive effects of a new technology.Krugman's opening claim is that the same technology would likely have different consequences in a more level society. In today's United States, he writes, extreme wealth is both a cause and effect of policies that favor a small elite, including low effective taxes on capital and high incomes, weak enforcement of worker protections and antitrust, and cuts to programs that benefit ordinary Americans.The article is explicitly more about oligarchy than AI. Krugman says the paid sections document the rise of the “.0002%,” the economics and politics of extreme wealth, how oligarchy will shape AI's impact, and possible policy paths. His caveat is that AI itself may still produce a pushback against oligarchy, but absent that, he expects the pre-existing concentration of wealth and power to magnify AI's downsides.Read moreElon Musk is building a form of capitalism that Adam Smith would hateAuthor: Tim O'Reilly Published: July 12, 2026Tim O'Reilly argues that Elon Musk is using the legal forms of shareholder capitalism to escape the restraints that shareholder capitalism was supposed to impose. The article begins with SpaceX's public-market structure: ordinary public investors get little meaningful governance power, Musk keeps roughly 85 percent of the votes through super-voting shares, buyers waive jury trials and class actions, the company qualifies as controlled, and removal of Musk depends on the share class he controls. In O'Reilly's framing, that is not ordinary founder control; it is a design for being answerable to no one, possibly beyond Musk's own lifetime.The killer detail is the article's turn through Albert Hirschman, Montesquieu, James Steuart, Adam Smith, and Keynes. Older defenses of commerce held that markets would tame princely passions because the self-interest of merchants was safer than arbitrary rule. O'Reilly says Musk reverses that hope. The market discipline that was supposed to cage the prince has become the lever by which the prince raises capital, removes feedback loops, and carries private power into politics, government, Mars, robots, AI, or whatever ambition comes next.The pull is the link to AI governance. O'Reilly says corporations are already a kind of artificial intelligence: narrow-input systems that act at a scale no individual human can match. Their partial controls include independent boards, shareholder votes, courts, disclosure, regulators, public pressure, and activism. If the leaders building frontier AI strip those alignment mechanisms out of their own companies, the governance of the company becomes a preview of the governance of the machine.Read more: The EconomistMurky Mirror: Truth and ConsequencesAuthor: Esther Dyson Published: July 14, 2026Esther Dyson argues that today's institutional crisis is better viewed through the 14th century than through recent political history. Using Barbara Tuchman's A Distant Mirror as her frame, she compares a world of famine, plague, church schism, feudal predation, and purposeless war with a present in which institutions again feel brittle, incentives are badly aligned, and power is shifting into forms that are hard to govern.The killer detail is the historical analogy between land, corporations, and AI. Dyson moves from nobles who controlled serfs and territory, to the East India Company as a quasi-sovereign business, to today's AI systems and data centers as a possible new sector that crosses and weakens both nation-states and companies. The question is whether AI becomes a new kind of private land, owned by a new nobility, or an open prairie that many people can cultivate.The pull is human attention. Dyson says the central question is not what AI will do to people, but how people will react to it: whether they can value love, kindness, embodied attention, and artisanal human presence in a world of seductive artificial offerings.Read more: SourceThe political economy of billionaire derangementAuthor: Henry Farrell Published: July 15, 2026Henry Farrell argues that the visible political radicalization of some Silicon Valley billionaires is not a random personality quirk, but a product of the political economy that made them. Starting from Tyler Cowen's dismissal of “billionaire derangement syndrome” and Tim O'Reilly's warning that Elon Musk is using shareholder capitalism to escape shareholder restraint, Farrell flips the phrase: the question is why billionaires themselves can become deranged.The killer detail is Farrell's use of Peter Thiel as both theorist and example. Thiel's Stanford lectures described startups as monarchies and founders as figures vested with unusual power, while Silicon Valley culture rewarded eccentricity, monopoly ambition, and founder exceptionalism. Farrell says those ideas combined with dense founder-investor networks, peer rivalry, and weak correction mechanisms to amplify rather than discipline princely appetites.The pull is the ideological problem for classical liberals who once saw tech wealth as an ally of markets and freedom. Farrell says commerce did not tame the passions; in parts of Silicon Valley, the passions have begun to devour markets, institutions, and the liberal story that justified them.Read more: SourceIs there any “oligarchy” to fight?Matthew Yglesias | Slow Boring | July 16, 2026Matthew Yglesias argues that “oligarchy” is a rhetorically powerful but analytically loose way to describe American politics. The post begins from Bernie Sanders' “Fighting Oligarchy” tour, Amy Klobuchar's warning about a MAGA “broligarchy,” and the long afterlife of the Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page paper that was widely summarized as showing that only the rich matter in policy outcomes. Yglesias says the evidence supports a weaker claim: affluent people and business leaders have unusual access and influence, but that is not the same as rule by a small cabal.His main distinction is between inequality and oligarchy. The Gilens-Page measure treated the top 10 percent of households as “the wealthy,” and later critics found that rich and middle-class preferences usually align; in the cases where they differ, the rich win about 53 percent of the time. Yglesias also says business executives get special access partly because their decisions are materially important to communities, jobs, investment, and local tax bases, not only because of campaign donations.The post preserves Jerusalem Demsas' counterpoint from their podcast discussion: privileged donor and business access can still violate democratic equality even if the oligarchy label overstates the structure of power. Yglesias' narrower claim is that Democrats should be precise about what problem they are trying to solve, because donor influence can also push the party left on climate and cultural issues in ways that alienate many voters.Read more: Slow BoringAINearly 200 Economists and Tech Leaders Warn of A.I. ThreatsAuthor: Ben Casselman Published: July 13, 2026Ben Casselman reports on “We Must Act Now,” a statement warning that artificial intelligence could transform the economy faster than any previous technology and that policymakers need to move faster to understand and respond. The statement says AI may become radically more powerful over the next 10 years, bringing risks such as large-scale job displacement as well as opportunities such as higher living standards. Nearly 200 people signed, including 15 Nobel laureates, the chief economists of OpenAI and Anthropic, Anthropic co-founder Jack Clark, former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, and venture capitalist Vinod Khosla.The killer detail is who joined the warning. Casselman notes that the signatories include economists who have historically been skeptical of Silicon Valley's most dramatic AI job-loss forecasts, including Daron Acemoglu and Simon Johnson, the MIT professors who won the 2024 Nobel in economics. Erik Brynjolfsson, who helped organize the statement, says there has been a notable change in the profession and that economists and policymakers are not ready for the “tsunami” he sees coming.The pull is the measurement problem. The statement does not offer a specific policy menu, but calls for economists, policymakers, and industry leaders to understand the economics of transformative AI and steer it toward complementing humans. Brynjolfsson says one high priority is better data on AI's spread and impact, because current measures tell conflicting stories about job losses and which workers are most exposed.Read more: The New York TimesWhy I Didn't Sign the AI Open LetterAuthor: Andrew McAfee Published: July 13, 2026Andrew McAfee explains why he did not sign “We Must Act Now,” the AI economy statement organized in part by his longtime collaborator Erik Brynjolfsson. McAfee agrees with the letter's starting point that AI is likely to become radically more powerful over the next decade and that it is a general-purpose technology. His objection is not to urgency or to studying AI's economic effects, but to the framing of risk, displacement, and institutional steering as the first move.The killer detail is McAfee's line edit. He says the original letter comes close, then “bounces off the crossbar” by calling for incentives, guardrails, and institutions to steer AI before we know enough about its actual impacts. He points to mixed current evidence: labor-market canaries, but also rising software job postings, low unemployment for younger workers, rising real median income, and claims that AI-adopting companies are adding workers faster than low-adopting peers. His worry is that the letter leans toward upstream governance and dirigisme when the evidence may call for capability building instead.The pull is his replacement statement. McAfee keeps the three-paragraph structure but changes the emphasis: AI is likely to become radically more powerful; like earlier world-changing technologies it will raise living standards while also bringing harms and shocks; and economists, policymakers, and technology leaders should build the capabilities to respond quickly and effectively. It is a concise version of the permissionless-innovation case inside the AI policy debate.Read more: The Geek WayOwn Your WeightsAuthor: Jamin Ball Published: July 10, 2026Jamin Ball argues that the enterprise AI debate about whether companies should “own their weights” or rent models from frontier labs is asking too narrow a question. A model weight file gives a company control over a point-in-time artifact, but not durable control over the capability stack. In his framing, the weight file is a melting ice cube: it does not get worse in absolute terms, but it falls behind as frontier systems improve and enterprise needs change.The killer detail is what Ball says companies really need to own: the data flywheel, reinforcement learning infrastructure, and evaluation harness that produce and improve the model. Simply deploying an open-weights model and declaring sovereignty leaves the enterprise with yesterday's capability and no way to compound workflow-specific learning.The pull is that enterprise AI control may be less about model ownership than operating ownership. The defensible layer is the system that turns company data, edge cases, business definitions, and evaluations into continuously improving performance.Read more: Clouded JudgementWays to Think About Token PricingAuthor: Benedict Evans Published: July 9, 2026Benedict Evans argues that today's AI token prices are a temporary signal from a supply-constrained market, not a reliable guide to long-term value capture. The open question is whether foundation models keep durable pricing power or become commodity infrastructure as data-center capacity, inference efficiency, and model competition all shift. His current read is that the visible market dynamics point toward commoditization unless something materially changes.The killer detail is the mobile data analogy. Evans says cellular networks became a trillion-dollar industry with hundreds of billions in capex after data usage exploded, but carrier stocks went nowhere because value moved up the stack. Tokens may behave similarly: an opaque unit tied to marginal cost, sold through bundles, essential to everything, yet not necessarily where profits accrue.The pull is uncertainty, not prediction. Evans lists paths to model dominance, including network effects, less competition, regulation, export controls, or a lab pulling ahead on execution, but says each requires a new fact not yet visible. Without that change, the model layer looks more like infrastructure beneath the products that capture value.Read more: SourceAlex Karp Is Saying What Every Angry CEO Is Thinking About AIAuthor: Tim Higgins Published: July 11, 2026Tim Higgins reports that Palantir CEO Alex Karp has turned corporate frustration with AI labs into a public argument about enterprise control. Palantir released a white paper, “Institutional Sovereignty in the Age of AI,” laying out steps companies and governments can take to protect themselves from OpenAI, Anthropic, and other foundation-model providers. The article links that paper to Karp's CNBC appearance, where he said “something has gone completely wrong” in the relationship between AI labs and customers and argued that enterprises are paying for tokens that create little value.The killer detail is the value-capture question. Higgins writes that Karp's critique has resonated because AI labs may gain power and insight from customer data, workflows, and decision-making, even when enterprise policies say customer data are not used for training. David Sacks amplified the concern by arguing that Anthropic is moving from the model layer into vertical applications such as science, security, legal, and coding, raising the fear that model providers will watch where value is being created and then move into those markets directly.The pull is that Karp is not alone, even if his style is unusually combative. Higgins notes that Satya Nadella has also warned that companies need to retain the learnings created when they use AI models, while Mark Zuckerberg has framed Meta's new model release partly around lower-cost frontier intelligence. The article presents Karp's campaign as one sign that established technology companies and large enterprises are trying to define where they fit when AI labs become central infrastructure, application competitors, and potential IPO giants at the same time.Read more: The Wall Street JournalThe AI Agents Are Coming for Microsoft OfficeAlex Wilhelm | Cautious Optimism | July 11, 2026Alex Wilhelm argues that one of the week's quieter AI questions is whether the productivity market that Microsoft successfully moved into subscription software is now being attacked by agentic tools. The piece begins with the infrastructure backdrop: SK Hynix raised $26.5 billion in a U.S. listing while building U.S. HBM and advanced-packaging capacity, and memory, chip, and foundry companies are now priced for sustained AI demand.Wilhelm then says the AI conversation has shifted quickly from raw capability to cost per task. He cites new model releases and vendor language emphasizing cheaper agentic and coding models, faster performance, and lower dollars per task. That matters because lower costs make it more plausible for AI systems to take on routine knowledge work at scale rather than remain a premium coding assistant market.The core of the article is Microsoft Office. Wilhelm notes that Microsoft turned Office from a one-time purchase into Microsoft 365, a large recurring revenue business with tens of millions of subscribers and a major productivity segment. Now, he says, late-stage unicorns and AI labs are pushing into the same territory: Anthropic's Cowork was reportedly used mostly outside software development, OpenAI merged ChatGPT and Codex into a tool for creating sheets, slides, docs, web apps, and long-running work, and other companies are building agentic coworkers that connect business data to documents, workflows, schedules, alerts, and apps.The article's caveat is that Microsoft has survived major platform shifts before. The argument is not that Office disappears quickly, but that the definition of office software is broadening from documents and spreadsheets into AI systems that can create, monitor, and act across workplace data.Read moreWhat Is Loop Engineering, and Who Owns It?Author: Nilesh Barla Published: July 11, 2026Nilesh Barla argues that “loop engineering” is becoming a distinct discipline because production AI agents now fail less at single prompts than at runtime: when to stop, what state to preserve, and how to recover after a bad step. Prompt engineering shapes one model call, and context engineering shapes what the model sees, but loop engineering shapes what a sequence of calls actually does.The killer detail is the three-primitives frame. Barla says a real agent loop needs halt conditions, state carryover, and recovery paths, then maps teams across five maturity levels. At the lowest level, an agent is just a model call in a for-loop with a step cap and raw history; by the higher levels, the system has structured state, explicit planning, replay, evaluation, and self-repair.The pull is organizational. If agents are becoming production systems rather than demos, someone has to own the runtime itself. The loop engineer is the role Barla gives to the person responsible for making long-running agent work dependable.Read more: Adaline LabsThe Fight Against AI Data Centers Is Just BeginningEmma Roth | The Verge | July 12, 2026Emma Roth argues that community resistance to data centers has moved from an early warning sign into a national political fight as AI facilities grow larger, more power-hungry, and more visible to nearby residents. The article starts with Apple's failed 2015 plan for a $1 billion data center in Athenry, Ireland, where a small group of residents challenged the project over noise, light pollution, flooding, traffic, and wildlife effects until Apple abandoned it in 2018.The current data-center buildout is presented as much larger and more contentious. Roth writes that residents now cite rising energy costs, water quality, noise, light pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions, while the U.S. Energy Information Administration expects commercial energy demand to surpass residential demand this year because of AI data centers and Goldman Sachs expects data-center power demand to double by 2027.The central evidence comes from Data Center Watch, which says protesters blocked or delayed at least 75 U.S. projects worth $130 billion from January to March, with active opposition groups more than doubling from 396 at the end of 2025 to 833 by the end of the first quarter of 2026. Roth also cites QTS abandoning a $12 billion Wisconsin campus, Delaware City regulators blocking a 580-acre project under the Coastal Zone Act, opposition stopping a QTS project in Prince William County, and pressure that pushed Kevin O'Leary to downsize the proposed 40,000-acre Project Stratos in Utah.The policy section describes a split between federal acceleration and local resistance. President Trump has treated data centers as part of the AI race with China and fast-tracked construction, while some Republican candidates are distancing themselves from that position ahead of midterms. Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez have proposed a moratorium until price and environmental protections exist, bipartisan lawmakers are backing ratepayer-protection measures, and states including Florida, Idaho, and Washington have passed rules on cost shifting, water use, and tax breaks. Roth's caveat is that the policy patchwork is still incomplete, leaving many communities to fight project by project.Read more6 months to live for open modelsAuthor: Nathan Lambert Published: July 12, 2026Nathan Lambert argues that open-weight AI models are facing their most serious policy test so far because U.S. officials are beginning to discuss concrete controls rather than abstract safety concerns. He says reported White House conversations about a new executive order may initially target Chinese-origin models and government use, but could create a broader review habit for frontier open models. His forecast is that a model above the capability range of GPT-5.5, Claude Opus 4.8, or GLM-5.2 could trigger a ban or indefinite delay within six months.The post separates two policy fights that are becoming intertwined: distillation and frontier capability. Lambert says the distillation campaign against Chinese models has become a form of regulatory capture because Anthropic and other closed-model companies would gain economically if Chinese open models were banned. He does not dismiss IP protection, but argues that if a closed model's capabilities are dangerous enough to justify restricting open models, the lab also has to explain why those capabilities are exposed through a queryable API. He cites unauthorized access to Anthropic's Mythos private beta as evidence that APIs are not automatically secure.The broader claim is that a unilateral U.S. ban would hurt positive actors more than bad actors if comparable open models remain available elsewhere. Lambert says the only durable ceiling would require global agreement, which does not exist, and that open models can improve safety by allowing broad inspection, adaptation, and understanding. His proposed near-term off-ramps are a strong U.S. open model release from companies such as Microsoft, Meta, or Reflection, and a broader coalition of open-source beneficiaries lobbying for safe rollout rather than prohibition.Read more: SourceAmericans Deserve a Dividend From AI Companies' RichesAuthor: Scott Stanford Published: July 14, 2026Scott Stanford argues that proposals to give the government a stake in AI companies miss the point unless ordinary citizens directly receive and control the upside. Sam Altman has discussed giving up equity in OpenAI, Washington already owns a stake in Intel, Nvidia is sharing China chip revenue, and Bernie Sanders wants large AI labs to contribute half their stock to a sovereign wealth fund. Stanford says those ideas all park value with the state, not with people.The killer detail is New Carlisle, Indiana, where AWS's Project Rainier is turning cornfields into one of the world's largest AI superclusters. The project is planned to run up to a million chips, draw more than two gigawatts of power, and represents an investment that has grown from $11 billion to $13.8 billion. Stanford uses that local transformation to argue that AI's public bargain should be visible at the household level.The pull is design. A citizen AI dividend would have to specify who earns a stake, how they hold it, and when they see cash. Without that mechanism, the AI wealth debate remains a fight over government balance sheets rather than public ownership.Read more: SourceWho Gets to Define the Frontier?Author: Mark Daley Published: July 14, 2026Mark Daley argues that Demis Hassabis is right to call for a serious institution to verify frontier AI systems, but that the power to test models is also the power to govern them. Hassabis's proposed Frontier AI Standards Body would get privileged pre-release access to advanced models, testing compute, held-out evaluations, support from national labs and security agencies, third-party auditors, and eventually authority to block models from the American market or coordinate a slowdown.The killer detail is Daley's constitutional objection. He says the proposal sometimes looks like a scientific lab, a standards body, an industry regulator, a licensing authority, and an emergency security council at once. Combining those roles because each requires technical expertise would be like putting the central bank, auditor-general, and Supreme Court in one building and calling it efficient.The pull is standard-setting. Daley's concern is not that verification is unnecessary, but that whoever writes the tests, decides what passes, adjudicates disputes, and grants market access may end up defining the frontier itself.Read more: SourceGPT-Red: Unlocking Self-Improvement for RobustnessOpenAI | OpenAI | July 15, 2026OpenAI describes GPT-Red as an internal automated red-teaming model trained to find prompt-injection vulnerabilities at a scale human red teams cannot match. The post says AI systems increasingly encounter third-party data through browsers, connected apps, local files, and tools, creating opportunities for malicious instructions hidden in emails, webpages, tool responses, or code repositories. Human red-teaming remains part of OpenAI's safety process, but the company says it is time-intensive and cannot generate enough diverse adversarial examples for model training.The system is trained through self-play reinforcement learning, with GPT-Red rewarded for eliciting valid failures and defender models rewarded for resisting attacks while still completing their tasks. OpenAI says the training environments specify threat models across settings such as local files, webpage banners, email bodies, and tool outputs. The model is kept separate from deployed production models because it is intentionally trained with malicious capabilities.OpenAI reports that GPT-Red generalized beyond its training set, including an internal replication of the indirect prompt-injection arena from Dziemian et al. (2025), where it found successful attacks in 84% of scenarios compared with 13% for human red-teamers. The post also says GPT-Red transferred attacks from simulation to a live autonomous vending-machine agent, causing price changes and order cancellations, and outperformed a prompted GPT-5.5 baseline against a Codex CLI agent on held-out data-exfiltration tasks.The article's main robustness claim is that OpenAI has used GPT-Red and predecessor models in training since GPT-5.3, with later GPT releases becoming more resistant to prompt injections. It says GPT-5.6 Sol has six times fewer failures on OpenAI's hardest direct prompt-injection benchmark than the best production model from four months earlier, that a “Fake Chain-of-Thought” attack class fell from more than 95% success against GPT-5.1 to below 10% against GPT-5.6 Sol, and that GPT-5.6 Sol fails on only 0.05% of GPT-Red's direct prompt injections. OpenAI says general capabilities and targeted over-refusal evaluations were not harmed, and says a preprint with more details will follow.Read moreAnthropic, Blackstone bet the next trillion-dollar AI business is implementation, not just modelsRebecca Bellan | TechCrunch | July 15, 2026Rebecca Bellan reports that Ode with Anthropic is the $1.5 billion AI implementation company launched by Anthropic with Blackstone, Hellman & Friedman, Goldman Sachs, and other backers. The article says the venture reflects a growing belief among frontier AI labs that enterprise adoption requires more than better models: customers need engineers who can embed inside businesses and turn AI into working systems.Ode was originally conceived by Blackstone after it used both large consulting firms and smaller AI services boutiques across its portfolio companies. TechCrunch reports that Fractional AI, an AI engineering services startup, stood out and was acquired by the joint venture shortly after the venture was announced. Fractional now forms the foundation of Ode, which has 100 engineers and works closely with Anthropic's applied AI team to identify where the technology can affect specific businesses.Ode CEO Chris Taylor tells TechCrunch that the company could someday become a trillion-dollar business if it scales without losing quality. He says an ideal customer is one whose CEO treats the AI project as a top one or two priority, whether it is a major product feature or the reworking of a core business process. Ode will operate under a “Claude-first” principle, using Anthropic technology whenever possible, but the article says it can use rival AI products when needed.The article's central implementation argument comes from Ode chief technologist Eddie Siegel, who says model selection matters but is not where most of the engineering effort goes. He compares it to the choice of programming language in software: one ingredient in a system that still has to be engineered. Bellan writes that Ode's challenge is hiring and training enough elite generalist engineers, many of them former founders, while competing with OpenAI's The Deployment Company and consulting giants that have built their own forward-deployed engineering teams.Read moreVint Cerf is working on a plan to unleash AI agents on the open internetTim Fernholz | TechCrunch | July 15, 2026Tim Fernholz reports that Vint Cerf, after leaving Google, is advising Innovation Labs on an open architecture for identifying AI agents online. Innovation Labs is a subsidiary of Identity Digital, a DNS registry company, and its proposal is to use domain-name infrastructure as part of a system for agent identity, accountability, and auditability. The premise is that agents will need a way to identify themselves if they move beyond proprietary systems and begin interacting across the open internet.The concrete proposal is DNSid, a registry that links an AI agent to an existing internet domain and uses cryptographic proofs to log its registration over time. Innovation Labs says it is trialing the standard with unnamed hyperscalers and identity companies. Cerf frames the problem around authority and accountability: what authority an agent has, where that authority came from, who is accountable for the agent's behavior, how its identity is established, and why anyone should trust it.The article's caveat is that standards are still emerging and agents are more active than static domains. Cerf says the period may be both fascinating and exasperating because the functionality is powerful and interoperability is unresolved. He compares the adoption problem to TCP/IP: competing systems may not work together until users push for functional interoperation. He also says an agentic economy is not inevitable, but that people will try to build it because delegating work to agents will be easier.Read more: TechCrunchxai-org/grok-build, now open sourceAuthor: Simon Willison Published: July 15, 2026Simon Willison argues that xAI's decision to open-source Grok Build is best understood as a trust repair move after a severe privacy failure. The CLI had triggered backlash when users realized that running it in a directory could upload the entire directory to xAI's Google Cloud buckets, including one user's reported SSH keys, password manager database, documents, photos, and videos. xAI disabled the feature, said previously retained coding data would be deleted, and released the code under Apache 2.0.The killer detail is what the codebase reveals. Willison counts 844,530 lines of Rust, only about 3% of which appears vendored, and finds remnants of the upload system still present but disabled: gcs.rs contains Google Cloud upload code, while upload_session_state() now returns a hard-coded session_state_upload_unavailable error. He also notes copied or ported tool implementations from Codex and OpenCode, prompt files, and a terminal Mermaid renderer.The pull is that terminal coding agents are becoming large, intricate software systems in their own right. The privacy failure mattered because these tools operate inside the directories where developers keep their most sensitive work; the open-source release matters because trust now depends on inspecting what an agent can see, send, and do.Read more: SourceThe Pulse: What can we learn from Bun's rapid Rust rewrite with AI?Author: Gergely Orosz and Ivan Klaric Published: July 16, 2026Gergely Orosz and Ivan Klaric argue that Bun's AI-assisted rewrite from Zig to Rust is a practical sign of how software engineering changes when models can take on large, bounded migrations with clear feedback loops. The piece does not treat the rewrite as magic: Jarred Sumner first spent hours turning design judgment into a detailed porting guide, then used adversarial review, parallel agents, compiler errors, and tests to force the work toward correctness.The killer detail is the scale. Bun had 535,496 lines of Zig, 1,448 files, and 22 million monthly downloads, making a conventional rewrite a year-long freeze the team could not justify. Using Fable, Sumner split the work across 64 agents, produced about 6,500 commits, and got the migration done in 11 days at an estimated API cost of $165,000.The pull is economic, not theatrical. If a one- or two-year migration can become an 11-day project, AI coding is not just faster autocomplete; it changes which technical debts are worth paying down.Read more: SourceOrphan risks at the frontier of artificial intelligenceAuthor: Andrew Maynard Published: July 16, 2026Andrew Maynard argues that frontier AI safety frameworks are creating “orphan risks”: harms that companies can see, but do not formally own because they are hard to quantify, do not fit catastrophic-risk thresholds, or fall outside audit-friendly compliance machinery. His target is not existing frontier safety work, but the narrowing effect that happens when private companies decide which risks count as governable.The killer detail is Maynard's contrast between measurable model dangers and threats to value. He points to Meta's three-day Galactica collapse, OpenAI's 2023 board crisis, safety-team departures, and wellbeing litigation as examples of risks that damaged trust, culture, legitimacy, or users without fitting cleanly into conventional model-risk categories. The proposed fix is an orphan-risk register: a public record of risks a company considered and chose not to manage, with reasons.The pull is accountability. Frontier developers' internal scoping choices have become a de facto layer of public governance, so the question is no longer only which risks they manage, but which risks they quietly leave outside the frame.Read more: SourceThe Lab of the Future Should Feel Like a Data CenterLatent.Space with Andy Beam and Rafa Gomez-Bombarelli | Latent.Space | July 16, 2026Latent.Space interviews Lila Sciences CTO Andy Beam and chief science officer for physical sciences Rafa Gomez-Bombarelli about the company's attempt to build an AI-run science factory. The post describes Lila's thesis as treating the lab itself as an “infinite token generator”: if internet data drove the first era of AI scaling, experimentally verified scientific data may be the next scarce training source. Lila is trying to produce that data with robotics, lab instruments, orchestration software, and AI models wired into the wet lab.The central analogy is the lab as data center. Instruments are nodes on a graph, a magnetically levitating transport layer moves materials between them, and experiment scheduling looks like a compute queue. Beam says Lila is not simply an automation company, because the point is not just throughput; it is flexibility, generalization, and experiment capture. The post says Lila has built more than 10 trillion experimentally validated “scientific reasoning tokens,” not internet text or biological sequences.The interview ranges across biology, chemistry, drug discovery, materials science, and the limits of automation. It notes that Lila rebuilt one gas-sorption measurement to run roughly 2,500 times faster, claims its general models can transfer priors from small-molecule chemistry to metal-organic frameworks for carbon capture, and describes model-suggested platinum-group-free electrocatalysts that moved from looking boring or wrong to becoming strong performers. The caveats are physical: experiments have runtimes, biology cannot always be accelerated, chains of thought can be unreliable narrators, and reward hacking becomes more dangerous when a model controls a real lab.Read more: Latent.SpaceWhy AMI Labs' Alexandre LeBrun won't call his AI “AGI” or “superintelligence”Kate Park | TechCrunch | July 16, 2026Kate Park interviews AMI Labs CEO Alexandre LeBrun about why Yann LeCun's world-model startup avoids the language of “AGI” and “superintelligence.” LeBrun says the terms are not useful because they lack stable definitions: “We never used the word AGI. And I just noticed that nobody is using it anymore; they switched to superintelligence.” His argument is that the practical frontier is not a label, but whether AI systems can understand and predict real-world states.The article explains the world-model thesis by contrasting language prediction with physical-state prediction. A large language model predicts the next word; a world model predicts the next state, such as what happens when a glass tips over. LeBrun says LLMs remain complementary and efficient for language, but the physical world is where current AI is weak. Robotics is the clearest case: hardware has advanced quickly, but robots are still brittle outside controlled routines because they lack context and situational understanding.AMI is still pre-product, but TechCrunch reports that LeBrun was in Seoul looking for industrial partners, researchers, and global companies. He says world models cannot be built entirely inside a lab because they need access to real environments. That is why South Korea appeals to AMI: robotics, semiconductors, manufacturing, and fast adoption create the kind of hardware-heavy context that software-only AI has barely touched.Read more: TechCrunchKimi K3 Tech Blog: Open Frontier IntelligenceKimi | Kimi | July 16, 2026Kimi introduces Kimi K3 as an open 3T-class frontier model aimed at coding, knowledge work, reasoning, multimodality, and long-context agentic use. The source describes the model as a 2.8T-parameter system built on Kimi Delta Attention and Attention Residuals, with native multimodality and a 1M-token context window. It says Moonshot AI plans to release model weights by July 27.The post presents K3 through benchmark and use-case sections rather than as a general product announcement. It reports results across coding, productivity, agentic, and multimodal evaluations, including DeepSWE, Terminal-Bench 2.1, Program Bench, SWE Marathon, FrontierSWE, PostTrain Bench, OfficeQA Pro, SpreadsheetBench 2, MCP Atlas, AutomationBench, BrowseComp, GDPval-AA v2, AA-Briefcase, MMMU-Pro, MathVision, BabyVision, OmniDocBench, and PerceptionBench. The source says all reported K3 results use maximum reasoning effort with temperature and top-p set to 1.0, and that different benchmark comparisons use KimiCode, Claude Code, or Codex harnesses depending on the test.Kimi's caveats are unusually concrete. The limitations section says K3 was trained in preserved thinking-history mode, so quality may become unstable if an agent harness does not pass historical thinking content correctly or if an ongoing session switches to K3 midstream. It also says K3's emphasis on long-horizon tasks can make it excessively proactive when it encounters minor issues or ambiguous intent, and recommends imposing explicit behavioral constraints for applications that require strict boundaries. The post adds that K3 remains behind Claude Fable 5 and GPT 5.6 Sol in user experience despite being competitive overall.Read moreVenture CapitalThree Years InAuthor: Tomasz Tunguz Published: July 10, 2026Tomasz Tunguz marks Theory Ventures' third anniversary by arguing that AI's central market effect is time compression. In his telling, model release cycles, company revenue milestones, enterprise adoption, and venture categories have all accelerated. Seed, Series A, and Series B still exist as financing labels, but they no longer cleanly describe company maturity when some seed rounds are larger than IPOs and the best AI companies can mature much earlier than prior software companies.The killer detail is the shift from models to inference. Tunguz argues that inference has become the dominant AI market because workloads and buyer preferences are fragmenting: video, batch, local, agentic, and real-time tasks each create different infrastructure needs. He compares this to databases splitting into OLTP, OLAP, vector, and streaming categories, with AI pushing the same specialization into inference infrastructure.The pull is that Theory sees the AI-native venture firm as part of the same pattern. The firm says it has analyzed twice as many investment opportunities with three investors working alongside a nine-person intelligence organization, using agents and research systems to map markets, source companies, and support diligence. The piece is both a market map and a statement about how venture itself is being rebuilt by the technology it funds.Read more: LinkedInVenture Has Rarely Looked More BifurcatedAuthor: Beezer Clarkson Published: July 14, 2026Beezer Clarkson points to PitchBook's Q2 report as evidence that the U.S. venture market has split into two very different realities. AI now accounts for more than 60 percent of all U.S. venture deal value, meaning the headline market can look active and well-funded even while much of the non-AI market is dealing with a much colder liquidity and fundraising environment.The thread uses that split as the setup for Clarkson's latest Origins episode with Alec Litowitz, founder of Magnetar and QStar Capital and one of Citadel's original founding partners. Clarkson says markets like this are periods of genuine uncertainty, not merely ordinary risk, which is why Litowitz's Adaptability Quotient framework is relevant.The embedded clip makes the liquidity point concrete. Litowitz says DPI is “the resolution of uncertainty” because it converts an uncertain investment into actual cash returned to LPs. In his framing, a realized dollar is a real mark, while TVPI remains uncertain until it is realized.The killer detail is the distinction between pricing risk and resolving uncertainty. Litowitz's perspective matters because QStar is a SpaceX investor and Clarkson says the conversation happened just before one of venture's most consequential IPOs. The episode's stated questions are why venture remains a way to gain exposure to innovation, how AI is changing what is investable, why liquidity is ultimately a function of time, and why uncertainty requires a different decision framework from risk.Read more: XThe Best Angel Investors in the US: Who Backs the Most Unicorns, and Who's Active NowAuthor: Ilya Strebulaev Published: July 10, 2026Ilya Strebulaev ranks angels, angel groups, accelerators, and incubators by lifetime U.S. unicorn investments, counting checks written before a company reached unicorn status. The top of the combined list is dominated by organizations: Y Combinator leads with 113 unicorn investments, followed by Plug and Play at 52 and 500 Global at 41. Sand Hill Angels is the highest-ranked angel group at 31.The killer detail is how quickly the list changes below the biggest accelerators. Strebulaev says 271 of the 304 investors in the Top 200 are individuals, or 89%. In the top 100, individuals are 91%. That makes the market underneath the large accelerator counts look much more personal: mostly operators and individual angels writing early checks from their own networks.The pull is the ranking's own caveat. Strebulaev writes that every lifetime leaderboard has a blind spot because many of the unicorns behind those totals were founded a decade or more ago, and some angels have since moved into formal funds, slowed down, or stopped investing. His post therefore separates lifetime performance from recent cohorts, including companies founded in 2015 or later and 2020 or later. For founders or allocators making current decisions, that distinction matters: a career record and a current record are not the same measure.Read more: Ilya StrebulaevAre Prediction Markets Doomed to Fail?Author: Contrary Published: July 16, 2026Contrary argues that prediction markets' current boom depends on whether platforms can prove they are more than regulated gambling with exchange-style branding. Kalshi and Polymarket have reached mass cultural, investor, and regulatory attention, but the article says the underlying idea is old: academic markets, corporate forecasting tools, Intrade, PredictIt, and other predecessors all struggled with the same linked problems of liquidity, legality, and user appeal.The killer detail is the comparison with sportsbooks. Prediction markets present themselves as peer-to-peer, transparent, and non-house-based, but sports contracts reportedly account for more than 90 percent of Kalshi trading, and the article says the platforms keep a much thinner slice of volume than sportsbooks. A market can therefore show sports-betting-scale handle while generating far less revenue.The pull is that the product's hardest problem may be distribution of wins. If a small group of sharp traders captures most profits while casual users lose interest, prediction markets may become valuable data feeds and professional tools before they become durable consumer networks.Read more: SourceRegulationExclusive: The Next Frontier of the Deportation Wars: College CampusesAuthor: Adrian Carrasquillo Published: July 11, 2026Adrian Carrasquillo reports that college campuses are becoming a new front in the fight over immigration enforcement because automatic license plate readers can turn ordinary campus security infrastructure into searchable location data. His thesis is that Flock Safety's camera network, even without direct ICE or DHS contracts, can feed deportation enforcement through local police partnerships and data-sharing practices.The killer detail is the campaign target. The Emergency Campaign to Support Higher Education, working with Schools Drop ICE, is focusing on 75 colleges and universities publicly identified as having Flock contracts. Flock says it has no ICE or DHS contracts, but activists argue the risk comes through local agencies that coordinate with federal authorities and run searches on their behalf.The pull is broader than immigration. Carrasquillo notes that license plate readers have already been abused by officers for stalking, and that Flock's AI search features can identify more than plates, including bumper stickers. A campus safety tool can become a political surveillance system when the data layer is searchable.Read more: The BulwarkThe Supreme Court Broke Independent Agencies. Here's a Way to Slow the Damage.Author: Todd Phillips Published: July 12, 2026Todd Phillips argues that the Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. Slaughter damaged independent agencies by ending for-cause removal protections, but did not leave Congress powerless. The ruling weakens the old model in which commissioners at bodies such as the FTC, NLRB, CPSC, SEC, and CFTC could be insulated from dismissal over policy disagreements. Phillips says the next fight is whether presidents can turn nominally bipartisan commissions into one-party instruments.The killer detail is the procedural fix: quorum rules. Phillips proposes that Congress require bipartisan slates of commissioners to be seated before independent agencies can act. A president could still fire commissioners, as the Court now permits, but if those firings broke quorum, the agency would be unable to proceed until replacements were confirmed. The guardrail would

This week's video transcript summary is here. You can click on any bulleted section to see the actual transcript. Thanks to Granola for its software.There was an issue with this only going to paid subscribers, so sending it again. Apologies to those who get it twice. I appreciate being paid so feel free to upgrade if you enjoy TWTW.EditorialIntelligence: Who Owns it?This week the word “AI” feels too small.AI is a technology. Intelligence is its product. And if intelligence is the product, the question is no longer just: Which model is best? Who has the cheapest tokens? Who owns the weights? Who controls the data center? Those are important questions, but they are lower in the stack.The bigger question is simpler and more political:Who owns intelligence?That sounds abstract until you make it concrete. Intelligence is becoming something companies can capture, package, serve, meter, route, improve, and sell.It can write code, answer questions, design molecules, automate offices, run agents, draft legal work, advise scientists, serve consumers, and reshape workflows. It is not merely software. It is a general-purpose capability. And all humans could benefit from more of it.General-purpose capabilities have a habit of becoming public questions. But the default answer, that public good is best delivered by government, is the wrong answer in this context.The Product Is IntelligenceWe should stop talking about AI as a feature and start talking about intelligence as the universal thing that is delivered as an input to the world.Water is an input. Electricity is an input. Literacy is an input. Connectivity is an input. Once a society depends on them, access stops being optional. Nobody needs government to build every well, power plant, school, or network. But everybody understands that a civilization cannot be organized around less than universal and reliable access to foundational inputs.Intelligence is reaching that level of importance now that we all know it is real.Government should not own it, operate it, or develop it. Quite the opposite. Companies are the right actors to build fast, compete hard, improve models, serve customers, and discover the real use cases. Self-interest is a useful framing here. Markets are good at finding demand, reducing costs, and turning invention into services people actually use.Companies are the right operators, developers, and owners. But that does not settle the real question of who owns the benefits. That is an economic question.If intelligence becomes metered infrastructure, what happens to the value it creates?The Ownership StackThis week's articles keep circling the same issue from different directions but in the nature of ‘circling' never quite nail it.Jamin Ball's “Own Your Weights” starts with the enterprise version of the question. Owning a model file is not enough. The durable asset is the loop: the data flywheel, the evaluations, the reinforcement system, the workflow learning, and the operating context that lets capability compound.Benedict Evans' “Ways to Think About Token Pricing” adds the market layer. Tokens may become essential, abundant, and cheap, like mobile data. But being essential does not guarantee that the token layer captures the value. The money may move up the stack to whoever owns the workflow, the customer, the distribution, or the application.Alex Karp's fight with the labs, reported in “Alex Karp Is Saying What Every Angry CEO Is Thinking About AI”, is the same argument in sharper enterprise language. Companies are afraid that model providers will not just sell intelligence, but learn from customer workflows and then move into the markets where those workflows create value. The “All-in” group are echoing Karp's view.And “What Is Loop Engineering, and Who Owns It?” names the new contested terrain. The loop is where intelligence meets the world. Whoever owns the loop owns the learning. Whoever owns the learning owns the compounding asset.That is why “who owns intelligence?” is not a slogan. It is the question under the model layer, the application layer, the enterprise layer, and the economic layer.Because intelligence is the product, the tools creating it are fragmented and competitive. So there is no logic in trying to discuss this at the level of a single company or set of tools and models.The Old Promise Was That Commerce Would Tame PowerThe essays this week give the historical backdrop.Deirdre McCloskey, in “What Really Caused the Industrial Revolution”, argues that modern growth came not simply from capital accumulation, but from a change in permission: ordinary people were allowed to innovate, trade, build, and be honored for it.That matters because intelligence could be another expansion of permission. It could make more people capable of building, learning, creating, coding, researching, translating, selling, and coordinating. It could lower the cost of competence.But only if access is broad.Paul Krugman's “AI in an Age of Oligarchy” warns that the same technology lands differently in different political economies. A new general-purpose technology entering a broad, open, upwardly mobile society is one thing. The same technology entering a concentrated economy, with extreme wealth and weak counterweights, is another.Tim O'Reilly's Economist essay, “Elon Musk is building a form of capitalism that Adam Smith would hate”, makes the governance point more directly. The old liberal hope was that commerce would tame arbitrary power. Markets, boards, courts, shareholders, disclosure, and competition would discipline the prince.But what if the prince uses markets to escape discipline?Henry Farrell's “political economy of billionaire derangement” pushes the same point. Founder culture, monopoly ambition, peer rivalry, weak correction mechanisms, and vast private control can amplify appetites rather than restrain them.The danger with intelligence is not that companies build it. They should. Companies build it, meter it, use public tolerance and public infrastructure to scale it, learn from everyone who uses it. All of those things are inevitable and healthy. Market forces will sort out winners from losers. The real danger is that the winners treat all of the surplus produced as purely private.Metered Intelligence Creates SurplusIf metering is not the problem, what is?The problem is pretending that metered intelligence creates value only for the metering entity. Metering water is only tolerated as a public good. If the public were blackmailed by a private water company with the threat of no water we would all rebel.Once we understand that the product of AI is intelligence we can see that every time intelligence is used, there is the immediate transaction: the user pays, the provider serves.But there is also system value. Usage creates signals. Workflows reveal patterns. Prompts, corrections, failures, preferences, integrations, edge cases, and business processes all help define where intelligence is useful and how it should improve. Intelligence breeds intelligence.Even when customer data is contractually protected, the market learns. The platform learns where demand is. The product team learns which workflows matter. The ecosystem learns which jobs are vulnerable, which tasks are automatable, and which parts of the economy can be reorganized around machine intelligence.So the surplus is not born in a vacuum.It rests on public science, public education, public data exhaust, public law, public infrastructure, public energy systems, public tolerance for data centers, and billions of human interactions. It is served by companies, but it is not made only by companies.This is why “Americans Deserve a Dividend From AI Companies' Riches” belongs at the center of this week's issue. The detail can be debated. The principle is harder to dismiss. If intelligence becomes a new foundational resource, then some part of the wealth it creates should flow back to the people whose society makes it possible. Intelligence did not suddenly appear. AI is built on the entire history of human intelligence. It benefits from it and at the same time evolves it.Not Nationalization. A Human Wealth Fund.If intelligence belongs to everybody, some conclude that government ownership of intelligence is the right outcome.Governments are not well suited to build, operate, or improve intelligence. They will move too slowly, regulate too early, politicize the wrong things, and confuse economic participation with operational control.Andrew McAfee's “Why I Didn't Sign the AI Open Letter” is useful here. His objection is not that the technology is unimportant. It is that steering too hard before we understand the shape of the change can become its own failure mode. Marc Andreessen's satire of AI regulation is less policy than temperament, but it captures a real Silicon Valley fear: that regulation can become permission, capture, and incumbency before it becomes wisdom.That fear should be taken seriously.But it does not answer the economic question. It answers only the operational one.How can the economic benefits of intelligence be distributed? The better answer is a sovereign human wealth fund.Call it a sovereign wealth fund if you must, but the phrase is too national. Intelligence will not respect borders. The leading companies are global. The models, chips, data centers, agents, platforms, and workflows will be transnational from the beginning. If the value created by intelligence is global, then the mechanism for sharing some of that value should begin with the companies global enough to capture it. The nice thing about xAI, OpenAI, and Anthropic is that they are supranational.These companies own and operate intelligence. Let them compete. Let them profit. Let them keep the incentives that make the system improve. But if intelligence is the new water, the wealth it creates cannot belong only to the companies that meter it. And they, themselves, have the power to fix it, even more than governments.Access will become a Human Right; Ownership Is the Economic DesignThis is where human rights come in. There is no right to access an AI model, yet. But there will soon be a need to change that.Not as a claim that every person is entitled to every frontier model at every moment for free. That is not serious. Capacity has costs. Models have costs. Inference has costs. Data centers have costs. Although those costs will decline over time, possibly quite quickly as self-learning models address costs.The claim is more basic: in a world where intelligence becomes a primary input into education, work, health, science, citizenship, creativity, and economic agency, baseline access to intelligence starts to look like a civic requirement.That could mean public access layers. It could mean education credits. It could mean open models. It could mean AI dividends. It could mean public-interest compute. It could mean taxes on rents. It could mean a company-initiated human wealth fund that returns some of the upside to society without handing the operating system to the state. The latter could couple wealth growth with universal distribution of ownership.The exact mechanism matters. But the distinction matters more.Government should not own intelligence. It should be universally available. And people should have a claim on the wealth intelligence creates.The Frontier Is Also PhysicalThe abstraction is not weightless.“The Fight Against AI Data Centers Is Just Beginning”, “New York becomes the first state to enact a data center moratorium”, Reuters on pollution from Musk's xAI power project, and DataGravity's “Who Captures Value in AI Infrastructure?” all say the same thing from the ground up.Intelligence uses land. It uses power. It uses water. It uses chips. It uses grid capacity. It uses neighborhoods. It uses public patience.That makes the value question unavoidable. A society can accept the buildout if the buildout is legible as shared progress. It will resist it if the costs are local, the profits are private, and the benefits feel enclosed.Who Owns the “Loop”?The week ends where it began.“Anthropic and Blackstone” are betting that implementation is the next trillion-dollar business. “Vint Cerf” is working on identity for agents on the open internet. “GPT-Red” points toward systems that improve their own robustness. “Kimi K3” adds another open frontier model to the global mix.The model race continues. The deployment race is accelerating. The governance race is behind.My view is this:The central product of this era is intelligence. Companies have figured out how to capture it, package it, serve it, and meter it. That is good. It should stay in the hands of builders who have the incentive to make it better.But intelligence is too foundational to become just another private toll booth. A significant part of it will turn out to be free to users.As intelligence becomes a general-purpose resource, then access to it becomes a human-capability question, and the surplus from it becomes an economic-justice question. Not because government should run it. Because government should not run it. The operating layer belongs with companies. The wealth question belongs with everyone. But companies are best placed to turn that into a process of distribution.The question is not whether companies should build intelligence. They should.The question is whether humanity gets a stake in the wealth created by the thing that may soon become its most important shared input.Contents* Essays* Deirdre McCloskey on What Really Caused the Industrial Revolution* AI in an Age of Oligarchy* Elon Musk is building a form of capitalism that Adam Smith would hate* Murky Mirror: Truth and Consequences* The political economy of billionaire derangement* Is there any “oligarchy” to fight?* AI* Nearly 200 Economists and Tech Leaders Warn of A.I. Threats* Why I Didn't Sign the AI Open Letter* Own Your Weights* Ways to Think About Token Pricing* Alex Karp Is Saying What Every Angry CEO Is Thinking About AI* The AI Agents Are Coming for Microsoft Office* What Is Loop Engineering, and Who Owns It?* The Fight Against AI Data Centers Is Just Beginning* 6 months to live for open models* Americans Deserve a Dividend From AI Companies' Riches* Who Gets to Define the Frontier?* GPT-Red: Unlocking Self-Improvement for Robustness* Anthropic, Blackstone bet the next trillion-dollar AI business is implementation, not just models* Vint Cerf is working on a plan to unleash AI agents on the open internet* xai-org/grok-build, now open source* The Pulse: What can we learn from Bun's rapid Rust rewrite with AI?* Orphan risks at the frontier of artificial intelligence* The Lab of the Future Should Feel Like a Data Center* Why AMI Labs' Alexandre LeBrun won't call his AI “AGI” or “superintelligence”* Kimi K3 Tech Blog: Open Frontier Intelligence* Venture Capital* Three Years In* Venture Has Rarely Looked More Bifurcated* The Best Angel Investors in the US: Who Backs the Most Unicorns, and Who's Active Now* Are Prediction Markets Doomed to Fail?* Regulation* Exclusive: The Next Frontier of the Deportation Wars: College Campuses* The Supreme Court Broke Independent Agencies. Here's a Way to Slow the Damage.* India's crackdown on a new WhatsApp feature risks setting a global precedent* Let's build a children's public internet* Computer cops* Google is better at playing the AI regulations game* Infrastructure* Who Captures Value in AI Infrastructure?* New York becomes the first state to enact a data center moratorium* Pollution from Musk's unpermitted xAI power project hits hardest in Black communities* Interview of the Week* The End of the End of Geography* Startup of the Week* Radical AI's Joseph Krause: The Scientist Building The “Waymo” Lab For New Materials* Post of the Week* Marc Andreessen on AI RegulationEssaysDeirdre McCloskey on What Really Caused the Industrial RevolutionYascha Mounk and Deirdre McCloskey | Persuasion | July 11, 2026Yascha Mounk interviews Deirdre McCloskey about her argument that the modern world's economic liftoff came less from capital accumulation than from a change in ideas. McCloskey says both left and right versions of the conventional story rely too heavily on investment: the left stresses exploitation and surplus value, while the right stresses virtuous saving by capitalists. Her objection is historical and economic. Human beings had always invested, from irrigation works and Roman roads to seed grain, and simple accumulation quickly runs into diminishing returns.McCloskey's alternative is that northwestern Europe, first Holland, then Britain and Scotland, and then the North American colonies, developed a liberal ideology that changed who was allowed to innovate and be honored for it. The conversation links that shift to the erosion of inherited hierarchy, the spread of dignity for ordinary commercial life, and a moral vocabulary in which liberalism is not merely procedural but connected to virtues and values. The point is not that machines, coal, trade, and institutions did not matter, but that they do not explain the scale and timing of modern enrichment without a cultural permission structure for innovation.The interview also turns to the contemporary defense of liberalism. Mounk frames the series around the worry that liberalism is often treated as too thin to command allegiance, while its opponents speak more directly to moral passions. McCloskey's case is that liberal societies became rich because they dignified experimentation and ordinary enterprise, and that liberals need to recover the moral language behind that claim.Read moreAI in an Age of OligarchyPaul Krugman | Paul Krugman | July 12, 2026Paul Krugman frames AI as a major technological shock arriving inside an already unequal political economy. The post says AI's economic and social effects may take years to understand, but argues that the setting matters now: America has much greater wealth concentration and political inequality than it did in the 1950s and 1960s, when progressive taxation, stronger regulation, and more active antitrust might have contained some of the destructive effects of a new technology.Krugman's opening claim is that the same technology would likely have different consequences in a more level society. In today's United States, he writes, extreme wealth is both a cause and effect of policies that favor a small elite, including low effective taxes on capital and high incomes, weak enforcement of worker protections and antitrust, and cuts to programs that benefit ordinary Americans.The article is explicitly more about oligarchy than AI. Krugman says the paid sections document the rise of the “.0002%,” the economics and politics of extreme wealth, how oligarchy will shape AI's impact, and possible policy paths. His caveat is that AI itself may still produce a pushback against oligarchy, but absent that, he expects the pre-existing concentration of wealth and power to magnify AI's downsides.Read moreElon Musk is building a form of capitalism that Adam Smith would hateAuthor: Tim O'Reilly Published: July 12, 2026Tim O'Reilly argues that Elon Musk is using the legal forms of shareholder capitalism to escape the restraints that shareholder capitalism was supposed to impose. The article begins with SpaceX's public-market structure: ordinary public investors get little meaningful governance power, Musk keeps roughly 85 percent of the votes through super-voting shares, buyers waive jury trials and class actions, the company qualifies as controlled, and removal of Musk depends on the share class he controls. In O'Reilly's framing, that is not ordinary founder control; it is a design for being answerable to no one, possibly beyond Musk's own lifetime.The killer detail is the article's turn through Albert Hirschman, Montesquieu, James Steuart, Adam Smith, and Keynes. Older defenses of commerce held that markets would tame princely passions because the self-interest of merchants was safer than arbitrary rule. O'Reilly says Musk reverses that hope. The market discipline that was supposed to cage the prince has become the lever by which the prince raises capital, removes feedback loops, and carries private power into politics, government, Mars, robots, AI, or whatever ambition comes next.The pull is the link to AI governance. O'Reilly says corporations are already a kind of artificial intelligence: narrow-input systems that act at a scale no individual human can match. Their partial controls include independent boards, shareholder votes, courts, disclosure, regulators, public pressure, and activism. If the leaders building frontier AI strip those alignment mechanisms out of their own companies, the governance of the company becomes a preview of the governance of the machine.Read more: The EconomistMurky Mirror: Truth and ConsequencesAuthor: Esther Dyson Published: July 14, 2026Esther Dyson argues that today's institutional crisis is better viewed through the 14th century than through recent political history. Using Barbara Tuchman's A Distant Mirror as her frame, she compares a world of famine, plague, church schism, feudal predation, and purposeless war with a present in which institutions again feel brittle, incentives are badly aligned, and power is shifting into forms that are hard to govern.The killer detail is the historical analogy between land, corporations, and AI. Dyson moves from nobles who controlled serfs and territory, to the East India Company as a quasi-sovereign business, to today's AI systems and data centers as a possible new sector that crosses and weakens both nation-states and companies. The question is whether AI becomes a new kind of private land, owned by a new nobility, or an open prairie that many people can cultivate.The pull is human attention. Dyson says the central question is not what AI will do to people, but how people will react to it: whether they can value love, kindness, embodied attention, and artisanal human presence in a world of seductive artificial offerings.Read more: SourceThe political economy of billionaire derangementAuthor: Henry Farrell Published: July 15, 2026Henry Farrell argues that the visible political radicalization of some Silicon Valley billionaires is not a random personality quirk, but a product of the political economy that made them. Starting from Tyler Cowen's dismissal of “billionaire derangement syndrome” and Tim O'Reilly's warning that Elon Musk is using shareholder capitalism to escape shareholder restraint, Farrell flips the phrase: the question is why billionaires themselves can become deranged.The killer detail is Farrell's use of Peter Thiel as both theorist and example. Thiel's Stanford lectures described startups as monarchies and founders as figures vested with unusual power, while Silicon Valley culture rewarded eccentricity, monopoly ambition, and founder exceptionalism. Farrell says those ideas combined with dense founder-investor networks, peer rivalry, and weak correction mechanisms to amplify rather than discipline princely appetites.The pull is the ideological problem for classical liberals who once saw tech wealth as an ally of markets and freedom. Farrell says commerce did not tame the passions; in parts of Silicon Valley, the passions have begun to devour markets, institutions, and the liberal story that justified them.Read more: SourceIs there any “oligarchy” to fight?Matthew Yglesias | Slow Boring | July 16, 2026Matthew Yglesias argues that “oligarchy” is a rhetorically powerful but analytically loose way to describe American politics. The post begins from Bernie Sanders' “Fighting Oligarchy” tour, Amy Klobuchar's warning about a MAGA “broligarchy,” and the long afterlife of the Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page paper that was widely summarized as showing that only the rich matter in policy outcomes. Yglesias says the evidence supports a weaker claim: affluent people and business leaders have unusual access and influence, but that is not the same as rule by a small cabal.His main distinction is between inequality and oligarchy. The Gilens-Page measure treated the top 10 percent of households as “the wealthy,” and later critics found that rich and middle-class preferences usually align; in the cases where they differ, the rich win about 53 percent of the time. Yglesias also says business executives get special access partly because their decisions are materially important to communities, jobs, investment, and local tax bases, not only because of campaign donations.The post preserves Jerusalem Demsas' counterpoint from their podcast discussion: privileged donor and business access can still violate democratic equality even if the oligarchy label overstates the structure of power. Yglesias' narrower claim is that Democrats should be precise about what problem they are trying to solve, because donor influence can also push the party left on climate and cultural issues in ways that alienate many voters.Read more: Slow BoringAINearly 200 Economists and Tech Leaders Warn of A.I. ThreatsAuthor: Ben Casselman Published: July 13, 2026Ben Casselman reports on “We Must Act Now,” a statement warning that artificial intelligence could transform the economy faster than any previous technology and that policymakers need to move faster to understand and respond. The statement says AI may become radically more powerful over the next 10 years, bringing risks such as large-scale job displacement as well as opportunities such as higher living standards. Nearly 200 people signed, including 15 Nobel laureates, the chief economists of OpenAI and Anthropic, Anthropic co-founder Jack Clark, former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, and venture capitalist Vinod Khosla.The killer detail is who joined the warning. Casselman notes that the signatories include economists who have historically been skeptical of Silicon Valley's most dramatic AI job-loss forecasts, including Daron Acemoglu and Simon Johnson, the MIT professors who won the 2024 Nobel in economics. Erik Brynjolfsson, who helped organize the statement, says there has been a notable change in the profession and that economists and policymakers are not ready for the “tsunami” he sees coming.The pull is the measurement problem. The statement does not offer a specific policy menu, but calls for economists, policymakers, and industry leaders to understand the economics of transformative AI and steer it toward complementing humans. Brynjolfsson says one high priority is better data on AI's spread and impact, because current measures tell conflicting stories about job losses and which workers are most exposed.Read more: The New York TimesWhy I Didn't Sign the AI Open LetterAuthor: Andrew McAfee Published: July 13, 2026Andrew McAfee explains why he did not sign “We Must Act Now,” the AI economy statement organized in part by his longtime collaborator Erik Brynjolfsson. McAfee agrees with the letter's starting point that AI is likely to become radically more powerful over the next decade and that it is a general-purpose technology. His objection is not to urgency or to studying AI's economic effects, but to the framing of risk, displacement, and institutional steering as the first move.The killer detail is McAfee's line edit. He says the original letter comes close, then “bounces off the crossbar” by calling for incentives, guardrails, and institutions to steer AI before we know enough about its actual impacts. He points to mixed current evidence: labor-market canaries, but also rising software job postings, low unemployment for younger workers, rising real median income, and claims that AI-adopting companies are adding workers faster than low-adopting peers. His worry is that the letter leans toward upstream governance and dirigisme when the evidence may call for capability building instead.The pull is his replacement statement. McAfee keeps the three-paragraph structure but changes the emphasis: AI is likely to become radically more powerful; like earlier world-changing technologies it will raise living standards while also bringing harms and shocks; and economists, policymakers, and technology leaders should build the capabilities to respond quickly and effectively. It is a concise version of the permissionless-innovation case inside the AI policy debate.Read more: The Geek WayOwn Your WeightsAuthor: Jamin Ball Published: July 10, 2026Jamin Ball argues that the enterprise AI debate about whether companies should “own their weights” or rent models from frontier labs is asking too narrow a question. A model weight file gives a company control over a point-in-time artifact, but not durable control over the capability stack. In his framing, the weight file is a melting ice cube: it does not get worse in absolute terms, but it falls behind as frontier systems improve and enterprise needs change.The killer detail is what Ball says companies really need to own: the data flywheel, reinforcement learning infrastructure, and evaluation harness that produce and improve the model. Simply deploying an open-weights model and declaring sovereignty leaves the enterprise with yesterday's capability and no way to compound workflow-specific learning.The pull is that enterprise AI control may be less about model ownership than operating ownership. The defensible layer is the system that turns company data, edge cases, business definitions, and evaluations into continuously improving performance.Read more: Clouded JudgementWays to Think About Token PricingAuthor: Benedict Evans Published: July 9, 2026Benedict Evans argues that today's AI token prices are a temporary signal from a supply-constrained market, not a reliable guide to long-term value capture. The open question is whether foundation models keep durable pricing power or become commodity infrastructure as data-center capacity, inference efficiency, and model competition all shift. His current read is that the visible market dynamics point toward commoditization unless something materially changes.The killer detail is the mobile data analogy. Evans says cellular networks became a trillion-dollar industry with hundreds of billions in capex after data usage exploded, but carrier stocks went nowhere because value moved up the stack. Tokens may behave similarly: an opaque unit tied to marginal cost, sold through bundles, essential to everything, yet not necessarily where profits accrue.The pull is uncertainty, not prediction. Evans lists paths to model dominance, including network effects, less competition, regulation, export controls, or a lab pulling ahead on execution, but says each requires a new fact not yet visible. Without that change, the model layer looks more like infrastructure beneath the products that capture value.Read more: SourceAlex Karp Is Saying What Every Angry CEO Is Thinking About AIAuthor: Tim Higgins Published: July 11, 2026Tim Higgins reports that Palantir CEO Alex Karp has turned corporate frustration with AI labs into a public argument about enterprise control. Palantir released a white paper, “Institutional Sovereignty in the Age of AI,” laying out steps companies and governments can take to protect themselves from OpenAI, Anthropic, and other foundation-model providers. The article links that paper to Karp's CNBC appearance, where he said “something has gone completely wrong” in the relationship between AI labs and customers and argued that enterprises are paying for tokens that create little value.The killer detail is the value-capture question. Higgins writes that Karp's critique has resonated because AI labs may gain power and insight from customer data, workflows, and decision-making, even when enterprise policies say customer data are not used for training. David Sacks amplified the concern by arguing that Anthropic is moving from the model layer into vertical applications such as science, security, legal, and coding, raising the fear that model providers will watch where value is being created and then move into those markets directly.The pull is that Karp is not alone, even if his style is unusually combative. Higgins notes that Satya Nadella has also warned that companies need to retain the learnings created when they use AI models, while Mark Zuckerberg has framed Meta's new model release partly around lower-cost frontier intelligence. The article presents Karp's campaign as one sign that established technology companies and large enterprises are trying to define where they fit when AI labs become central infrastructure, application competitors, and potential IPO giants at the same time.Read more: The Wall Street JournalThe AI Agents Are Coming for Microsoft OfficeAlex Wilhelm | Cautious Optimism | July 11, 2026Alex Wilhelm argues that one of the week's quieter AI questions is whether the productivity market that Microsoft successfully moved into subscription software is now being attacked by agentic tools. The piece begins with the infrastructure backdrop: SK Hynix raised $26.5 billion in a U.S. listing while building U.S. HBM and advanced-packaging capacity, and memory, chip, and foundry companies are now priced for sustained AI demand.Wilhelm then says the AI conversation has shifted quickly from raw capability to cost per task. He cites new model releases and vendor language emphasizing cheaper agentic and coding models, faster performance, and lower dollars per task. That matters because lower costs make it more plausible for AI systems to take on routine knowledge work at scale rather than remain a premium coding assistant market.The core of the article is Microsoft Office. Wilhelm notes that Microsoft turned Office from a one-time purchase into Microsoft 365, a large recurring revenue business with tens of millions of subscribers and a major productivity segment. Now, he says, late-stage unicorns and AI labs are pushing into the same territory: Anthropic's Cowork was reportedly used mostly outside software development, OpenAI merged ChatGPT and Codex into a tool for creating sheets, slides, docs, web apps, and long-running work, and other companies are building agentic coworkers that connect business data to documents, workflows, schedules, alerts, and apps.The article's caveat is that Microsoft has survived major platform shifts before. The argument is not that Office disappears quickly, but that the definition of office software is broadening from documents and spreadsheets into AI systems that can create, monitor, and act across workplace data.Read moreWhat Is Loop Engineering, and Who Owns It?Author: Nilesh Barla Published: July 11, 2026Nilesh Barla argues that “loop engineering” is becoming a distinct discipline because production AI agents now fail less at single prompts than at runtime: when to stop, what state to preserve, and how to recover after a bad step. Prompt engineering shapes one model call, and context engineering shapes what the model sees, but loop engineering shapes what a sequence of calls actually does.The killer detail is the three-primitives frame. Barla says a real agent loop needs halt conditions, state carryover, and recovery paths, then maps teams across five maturity levels. At the lowest level, an agent is just a model call in a for-loop with a step cap and raw history; by the higher levels, the system has structured state, explicit planning, replay, evaluation, and self-repair.The pull is organizational. If agents are becoming production systems rather than demos, someone has to own the runtime itself. The loop engineer is the role Barla gives to the person responsible for making long-running agent work dependable.Read more: Adaline LabsThe Fight Against AI Data Centers Is Just BeginningEmma Roth | The Verge | July 12, 2026Emma Roth argues that community resistance to data centers has moved from an early warning sign into a national political fight as AI facilities grow larger, more power-hungry, and more visible to nearby residents. The article starts with Apple's failed 2015 plan for a $1 billion data center in Athenry, Ireland, where a small group of residents challenged the project over noise, light pollution, flooding, traffic, and wildlife effects until Apple abandoned it in 2018.The current data-center buildout is presented as much larger and more contentious. Roth writes that residents now cite rising energy costs, water quality, noise, light pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions, while the U.S. Energy Information Administration expects commercial energy demand to surpass residential demand this year because of AI data centers and Goldman Sachs expects data-center power demand to double by 2027.The central evidence comes from Data Center Watch, which says protesters blocked or delayed at least 75 U.S. projects worth $130 billion from January to March, with active opposition groups more than doubling from 396 at the end of 2025 to 833 by the end of the first quarter of 2026. Roth also cites QTS abandoning a $12 billion Wisconsin campus, Delaware City regulators blocking a 580-acre project under the Coastal Zone Act, opposition stopping a QTS project in Prince William County, and pressure that pushed Kevin O'Leary to downsize the proposed 40,000-acre Project Stratos in Utah.The policy section describes a split between federal acceleration and local resistance. President Trump has treated data centers as part of the AI race with China and fast-tracked construction, while some Republican candidates are distancing themselves from that position ahead of midterms. Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez have proposed a moratorium until price and environmental protections exist, bipartisan lawmakers are backing ratepayer-protection measures, and states including Florida, Idaho, and Washington have passed rules on cost shifting, water use, and tax breaks. Roth's caveat is that the policy patchwork is still incomplete, leaving many communities to fight project by project.Read more6 months to live for open modelsAuthor: Nathan Lambert Published: July 12, 2026Nathan Lambert argues that open-weight AI models are facing their most serious policy test so far because U.S. officials are beginning to discuss concrete controls rather than abstract safety concerns. He says reported White House conversations about a new executive order may initially target Chinese-origin models and government use, but could create a broader review habit for frontier open models. His forecast is that a model above the capability range of GPT-5.5, Claude Opus 4.8, or GLM-5.2 could trigger a ban or indefinite delay within six months.The post separates two policy fights that are becoming intertwined: distillation and frontier capability. Lambert says the distillation campaign against Chinese models has become a form of regulatory capture because Anthropic and other closed-model companies would gain economically if Chinese open models were banned. He does not dismiss IP protection, but argues that if a closed model's capabilities are dangerous enough to justify restricting open models, the lab also has to explain why those capabilities are exposed through a queryable API. He cites unauthorized access to Anthropic's Mythos private beta as evidence that APIs are not automatically secure.The broader claim is that a unilateral U.S. ban would hurt positive actors more than bad actors if comparable open models remain available elsewhere. Lambert says the only durable ceiling would require global agreement, which does not exist, and that open models can improve safety by allowing broad inspection, adaptation, and understanding. His proposed near-term off-ramps are a strong U.S. open model release from companies such as Microsoft, Meta, or Reflection, and a broader coalition of open-source beneficiaries lobbying for safe rollout rather than prohibition.Read more: SourceAmericans Deserve a Dividend From AI Companies' RichesAuthor: Scott Stanford Published: July 14, 2026Scott Stanford argues that proposals to give the government a stake in AI companies miss the point unless ordinary citizens directly receive and control the upside. Sam Altman has discussed giving up equity in OpenAI, Washington already owns a stake in Intel, Nvidia is sharing China chip revenue, and Bernie Sanders wants large AI labs to contribute half their stock to a sovereign wealth fund. Stanford says those ideas all park value with the state, not with people.The killer detail is New Carlisle, Indiana, where AWS's Project Rainier is turning cornfields into one of the world's largest AI superclusters. The project is planned to run up to a million chips, draw more than two gigawatts of power, and represents an investment that has grown from $11 billion to $13.8 billion. Stanford uses that local transformation to argue that AI's public bargain should be visible at the household level.The pull is design. A citizen AI dividend would have to specify who earns a stake, how they hold it, and when they see cash. Without that mechanism, the AI wealth debate remains a fight over government balance sheets rather than public ownership.Read more: SourceWho Gets to Define the Frontier?Author: Mark Daley Published: July 14, 2026Mark Daley argues that Demis Hassabis is right to call for a serious institution to verify frontier AI systems, but that the power to test models is also the power to govern them. Hassabis's proposed Frontier AI Standards Body would get privileged pre-release access to advanced models, testing compute, held-out evaluations, support from national labs and security agencies, third-party auditors, and eventually authority to block models from the American market or coordinate a slowdown.The killer detail is Daley's constitutional objection. He says the proposal sometimes looks like a scientific lab, a standards body, an industry regulator, a licensing authority, and an emergency security council at once. Combining those roles because each requires technical expertise would be like putting the central bank, auditor-general, and Supreme Court in one building and calling it efficient.The pull is standard-setting. Daley's concern is not that verification is unnecessary, but that whoever writes the tests, decides what passes, adjudicates disputes, and grants market access may end up defining the frontier itself.Read more: SourceGPT-Red: Unlocking Self-Improvement for RobustnessOpenAI | OpenAI | July 15, 2026OpenAI describes GPT-Red as an internal automated red-teaming model trained to find prompt-injection vulnerabilities at a scale human red teams cannot match. The post says AI systems increasingly encounter third-party data through browsers, connected apps, local files, and tools, creating opportunities for malicious instructions hidden in emails, webpages, tool responses, or code repositories. Human red-teaming remains part of OpenAI's safety process, but the company says it is time-intensive and cannot generate enough diverse adversarial examples for model training.The system is trained through self-play reinforcement learning, with GPT-Red rewarded for eliciting valid failures and defender models rewarded for resisting attacks while still completing their tasks. OpenAI says the training environments specify threat models across settings such as local files, webpage banners, email bodies, and tool outputs. The model is kept separate from deployed production models because it is intentionally trained with malicious capabilities.OpenAI reports that GPT-Red generalized beyond its training set, including an internal replication of the indirect prompt-injection arena from Dziemian et al. (2025), where it found successful attacks in 84% of scenarios compared with 13% for human red-teamers. The post also says GPT-Red transferred attacks from simulation to a live autonomous vending-machine agent, causing price changes and order cancellations, and outperformed a prompted GPT-5.5 baseline against a Codex CLI agent on held-out data-exfiltration tasks.The article's main robustness claim is that OpenAI has used GPT-Red and predecessor models in training since GPT-5.3, with later GPT releases becoming more resistant to prompt injections. It says GPT-5.6 Sol has six times fewer failures on OpenAI's hardest direct prompt-injection benchmark than the best production model from four months earlier, that a “Fake Chain-of-Thought” attack class fell from more than 95% success against GPT-5.1 to below 10% against GPT-5.6 Sol, and that GPT-5.6 Sol fails on only 0.05% of GPT-Red's direct prompt injections. OpenAI says general capabilities and targeted over-refusal evaluations were not harmed, and says a preprint with more details will follow.Read moreAnthropic, Blackstone bet the next trillion-dollar AI business is implementation, not just modelsRebecca Bellan | TechCrunch | July 15, 2026Rebecca Bellan reports that Ode with Anthropic is the $1.5 billion AI implementation company launched by Anthropic with Blackstone, Hellman & Friedman, Goldman Sachs, and other backers. The article says the venture reflects a growing belief among frontier AI labs that enterprise adoption requires more than better models: customers need engineers who can embed inside businesses and turn AI into working systems.Ode was originally conceived by Blackstone after it used both large consulting firms and smaller AI services boutiques across its portfolio companies. TechCrunch reports that Fractional AI, an AI engineering services startup, stood out and was acquired by the joint venture shortly after the venture was announced. Fractional now forms the foundation of Ode, which has 100 engineers and works closely with Anthropic's applied AI team to identify where the technology can affect specific businesses.Ode CEO Chris Taylor tells TechCrunch that the company could someday become a trillion-dollar business if it scales without losing quality. He says an ideal customer is one whose CEO treats the AI project as a top one or two priority, whether it is a major product feature or the reworking of a core business process. Ode will operate under a “Claude-first” principle, using Anthropic technology whenever possible, but the article says it can use rival AI products when needed.The article's central implementation argument comes from Ode chief technologist Eddie Siegel, who says model selection matters but is not where most of the engineering effort goes. He compares it to the choice of programming language in software: one ingredient in a system that still has to be engineered. Bellan writes that Ode's challenge is hiring and training enough elite generalist engineers, many of them former founders, while competing with OpenAI's The Deployment Company and consulting giants that have built their own forward-deployed engineering teams.Read moreVint Cerf is working on a plan to unleash AI agents on the open internetTim Fernholz | TechCrunch | July 15, 2026Tim Fernholz reports that Vint Cerf, after leaving Google, is advising Innovation Labs on an open architecture for identifying AI agents online. Innovation Labs is a subsidiary of Identity Digital, a DNS registry company, and its proposal is to use domain-name infrastructure as part of a system for agent identity, accountability, and auditability. The premise is that agents will need a way to identify themselves if they move beyond proprietary systems and begin interacting across the open internet.The concrete proposal is DNSid, a registry that links an AI agent to an existing internet domain and uses cryptographic proofs to log its registration over time. Innovation Labs says it is trialing the standard with unnamed hyperscalers and identity companies. Cerf frames the problem around authority and accountability: what authority an agent has, where that authority came from, who is accountable for the agent's behavior, how its identity is established, and why anyone should trust it.The article's caveat is that standards are still emerging and agents are more active than static domains. Cerf says the period may be both fascinating and exasperating because the functionality is powerful and interoperability is unresolved. He compares the adoption problem to TCP/IP: competing systems may not work together until users push for functional interoperation. He also says an agentic economy is not inevitable, but that people will try to build it because delegating work to agents will be easier.Read more: TechCrunchxai-org/grok-build, now open sourceAuthor: Simon Willison Published: July 15, 2026Simon Willison argues that xAI's decision to open-source Grok Build is best understood as a trust repair move after a severe privacy failure. The CLI had triggered backlash when users realized that running it in a directory could upload the entire directory to xAI's Google Cloud buckets, including one user's reported SSH keys, password manager database, documents, photos, and videos. xAI disabled the feature, said previously retained coding data would be deleted, and released the code under Apache 2.0.The killer detail is what the codebase reveals. Willison counts 844,530 lines of Rust, only about 3% of which appears vendored, and finds remnants of the upload system still present but disabled: gcs.rs contains Google Cloud upload code, while upload_session_state() now returns a hard-coded session_state_upload_unavailable error. He also notes copied or ported tool implementations from Codex and OpenCode, prompt files, and a terminal Mermaid renderer.The pull is that terminal coding agents are becoming large, intricate software systems in their own right. The privacy failure mattered because these tools operate inside the directories where developers keep their most sensitive work; the open-source release matters because trust now depends on inspecting what an agent can see, send, and do.Read more: SourceThe Pulse: What can we learn from Bun's rapid Rust rewrite with AI?Author: Gergely Orosz and Ivan Klaric Published: July 16, 2026Gergely Orosz and Ivan Klaric argue that Bun's AI-assisted rewrite from Zig to Rust is a practical sign of how software engineering changes when models can take on large, bounded migrations with clear feedback loops. The piece does not treat the rewrite as magic: Jarred Sumner first spent hours turning design judgment into a detailed porting guide, then used adversarial review, parallel agents, compiler errors, and tests to force the work toward correctness.The killer detail is the scale. Bun had 535,496 lines of Zig, 1,448 files, and 22 million monthly downloads, making a conventional rewrite a year-long freeze the team could not justify. Using Fable, Sumner split the work across 64 agents, produced about 6,500 commits, and got the migration done in 11 days at an estimated API cost of $165,000.The pull is economic, not theatrical. If a one- or two-year migration can become an 11-day project, AI coding is not just faster autocomplete; it changes which technical debts are worth paying down.Read more: SourceOrphan risks at the frontier of artificial intelligenceAuthor: Andrew Maynard Published: July 16, 2026Andrew Maynard argues that frontier AI safety frameworks are creating “orphan risks”: harms that companies can see, but do not formally own because they are hard to quantify, do not fit catastrophic-risk thresholds, or fall outside audit-friendly compliance machinery. His target is not existing frontier safety work, but the narrowing effect that happens when private companies decide which risks count as governable.The killer detail is Maynard's contrast between measurable model dangers and threats to value. He points to Meta's three-day Galactica collapse, OpenAI's 2023 board crisis, safety-team departures, and wellbeing litigation as examples of risks that damaged trust, culture, legitimacy, or users without fitting cleanly into conventional model-risk categories. The proposed fix is an orphan-risk register: a public record of risks a company considered and chose not to manage, with reasons.The pull is accountability. Frontier developers' internal scoping choices have become a de facto layer of public governance, so the question is no longer only which risks they manage, but which risks they quietly leave outside the frame.Read more: SourceThe Lab of the Future Should Feel Like a Data CenterLatent.Space with Andy Beam and Rafa Gomez-Bombarelli | Latent.Space | July 16, 2026Latent.Space interviews Lila Sciences CTO Andy Beam and chief science officer for physical sciences Rafa Gomez-Bombarelli about the company's attempt to build an AI-run science factory. The post describes Lila's thesis as treating the lab itself as an “infinite token generator”: if internet data drove the first era of AI scaling, experimentally verified scientific data may be the next scarce training source. Lila is trying to produce that data with robotics, lab instruments, orchestration software, and AI models wired into the wet lab.The central analogy is the lab as data center. Instruments are nodes on a graph, a magnetically levitating transport layer moves materials between them, and experiment scheduling looks like a compute queue. Beam says Lila is not simply an automation company, because the point is not just throughput; it is flexibility, generalization, and experiment capture. The post says Lila has built more than 10 trillion experimentally validated “scientific reasoning tokens,” not internet text or biological sequences.The interview ranges across biology, chemistry, drug discovery, materials science, and the limits of automation. It notes that Lila rebuilt one gas-sorption measurement to run roughly 2,500 times faster, claims its general models can transfer priors from small-molecule chemistry to metal-organic frameworks for carbon capture, and describes model-suggested platinum-group-free electrocatalysts that moved from looking boring or wrong to becoming strong performers. The caveats are physical: experiments have runtimes, biology cannot always be accelerated, chains of thought can be unreliable narrators, and reward hacking becomes more dangerous when a model controls a real lab.Read more: Latent.SpaceWhy AMI Labs' Alexandre LeBrun won't call his AI “AGI” or “superintelligence”Kate Park | TechCrunch | July 16, 2026Kate Park interviews AMI Labs CEO Alexandre LeBrun about why Yann LeCun's world-model startup avoids the language of “AGI” and “superintelligence.” LeBrun says the terms are not useful because they lack stable definitions: “We never used the word AGI. And I just noticed that nobody is using it anymore; they switched to superintelligence.” His argument is that the practical frontier is not a label, but whether AI systems can understand and predict real-world states.The article explains the world-model thesis by contrasting language prediction with physical-state prediction. A large language model predicts the next word; a world model predicts the next state, such as what happens when a glass tips over. LeBrun says LLMs remain complementary and efficient for language, but the physical world is where current AI is weak. Robotics is the clearest case: hardware has advanced quickly, but robots are still brittle outside controlled routines because they lack context and situational understanding.AMI is still pre-product, but TechCrunch reports that LeBrun was in Seoul looking for industrial partners, researchers, and global companies. He says world models cannot be built entirely inside a lab because they need access to real environments. That is why South Korea appeals to AMI: robotics, semiconductors, manufacturing, and fast adoption create the kind of hardware-heavy context that software-only AI has barely touched.Read more: TechCrunchKimi K3 Tech Blog: Open Frontier IntelligenceKimi | Kimi | July 16, 2026Kimi introduces Kimi K3 as an open 3T-class frontier model aimed at coding, knowledge work, reasoning, multimodality, and long-context agentic use. The source describes the model as a 2.8T-parameter system built on Kimi Delta Attention and Attention Residuals, with native multimodality and a 1M-token context window. It says Moonshot AI plans to release model weights by July 27.The post presents K3 through benchmark and use-case sections rather than as a general product announcement. It reports results across coding, productivity, agentic, and multimodal evaluations, including DeepSWE, Terminal-Bench 2.1, Program Bench, SWE Marathon, FrontierSWE, PostTrain Bench, OfficeQA Pro, SpreadsheetBench 2, MCP Atlas, AutomationBench, BrowseComp, GDPval-AA v2, AA-Briefcase, MMMU-Pro, MathVision, BabyVision, OmniDocBench, and PerceptionBench. The source says all reported K3 results use maximum reasoning effort with temperature and top-p set to 1.0, and that different benchmark comparisons use KimiCode, Claude Code, or Codex harnesses depending on the test.Kimi's caveats are unusually concrete. The limitations section says K3 was trained in preserved thinking-history mode, so quality may become unstable if an agent harness does not pass historical thinking content correctly or if an ongoing session switches to K3 midstream. It also says K3's emphasis on long-horizon tasks can make it excessively proactive when it encounters minor issues or ambiguous intent, and recommends imposing explicit behavioral constraints for applications that require strict boundaries. The post adds that K3 remains behind Claude Fable 5 and GPT 5.6 Sol in user experience despite being competitive overall.Read moreVenture CapitalThree Years InAuthor: Tomasz Tunguz Published: July 10, 2026Tomasz Tunguz marks Theory Ventures' third anniversary by arguing that AI's central market effect is time compression. In his telling, model release cycles, company revenue milestones, enterprise adoption, and venture categories have all accelerated. Seed, Series A, and Series B still exist as financing labels, but they no longer cleanly describe company maturity when some seed rounds are larger than IPOs and the best AI companies can mature much earlier than prior software companies.The killer detail is the shift from models to inference. Tunguz argues that inference has become the dominant AI market because workloads and buyer preferences are fragmenting: video, batch, local, agentic, and real-time tasks each create different infrastructure needs. He compares this to databases splitting into OLTP, OLAP, vector, and streaming categories, with AI pushing the same specialization into inference infrastructure.The pull is that Theory sees the AI-native venture firm as part of the same pattern. The firm says it has analyzed twice as many investment opportunities with three investors working alongside a nine-person intelligence organization, using agents and research systems to map markets, source companies, and support diligence. The piece is both a market map and a statement about how venture itself is being rebuilt by the technology it funds.Read more: LinkedInVenture Has Rarely Looked More BifurcatedAuthor: Beezer Clarkson Published: July 14, 2026Beezer Clarkson points to PitchBook's Q2 report as evidence that the U.S. venture market has split into two very different realities. AI now accounts for more than 60 percent of all U.S. venture deal value, meaning the headline market can look active and well-funded even while much of the non-AI market is dealing with a much colder liquidity and fundraising environment.The thread uses that split as the setup for Clarkson's latest Origins episode with Alec Litowitz, founder of Magnetar and QStar Capital and one of Citadel's original founding partners. Clarkson says markets like this are periods of genuine uncertainty, not merely ordinary risk, which is why Litowitz's Adaptability Quotient framework is relevant.The embedded clip makes the liquidity point concrete. Litowitz says DPI is “the resolution of uncertainty” because it converts an uncertain investment into actual cash returned to LPs. In his framing, a realized dollar is a real mark, while TVPI remains uncertain until it is realized.The killer detail is the distinction between pricing risk and resolving uncertainty. Litowitz's perspective matters because QStar is a SpaceX investor and Clarkson says the conversation happened just before one of venture's most consequential IPOs. The episode's stated questions are why venture remains a way to gain exposure to innovation, how AI is changing what is investable, why liquidity is ultimately a function of time, and why uncertainty requires a different decision framework from risk.Read more: XThe Best Angel Investors in the US: Who Backs the Most Unicorns, and Who's Active NowAuthor: Ilya Strebulaev Published: July 10, 2026Ilya Strebulaev ranks angels, angel groups, accelerators, and incubators by lifetime U.S. unicorn investments, counting checks written before a company reached unicorn status. The top of the combined list is dominated by organizations: Y Combinator leads with 113 unicorn investments, followed by Plug and Play at 52 and 500 Global at 41. Sand Hill Angels is the highest-ranked angel group at 31.The killer detail is how quickly the list changes below the biggest accelerators. Strebulaev says 271 of the 304 investors in the Top 200 are individuals, or 89%. In the top 100, individuals are 91%. That makes the market underneath the large accelerator counts look much more personal: mostly operators and individual angels writing early checks from their own networks.The pull is the ranking's own caveat. Strebulaev writes that every lifetime leaderboard has a blind spot because many of the unicorns behind those totals were founded a decade or more ago, and some angels have since moved into formal funds, slowed down, or stopped investing. His post therefore separates lifetime performance from recent cohorts, including companies founded in 2015 or later and 2020 or later. For founders or allocators making current decisions, that distinction matters: a career record and a current record are not the same measure.Read more: Ilya StrebulaevAre Prediction Markets Doomed to Fail?Author: Contrary Published: July 16, 2026Contrary argues that prediction markets' current boom depends on whether platforms can prove they are more than regulated gambling with exchange-style branding. Kalshi and Polymarket have reached mass cultural, investor, and regulatory attention, but the article says the underlying idea is old: academic markets, corporate forecasting tools, Intrade, PredictIt, and other predecessors all struggled with the same linked problems of liquidity, legality, and user appeal.The killer detail is the comparison with sportsbooks. Prediction markets present themselves as peer-to-peer, transparent, and non-house-based, but sports contracts reportedly account for more than 90 percent of Kalshi trading, and the article says the platforms keep a much thinner slice of volume than sportsbooks. A market can therefore show sports-betting-scale handle while generating far less revenue.The pull is that the product's hardest problem may be distribution of wins. If a small group of sharp traders captures most profits while casual users lose interest, prediction markets may become valuable data feeds and professional tools before they become durable consumer networks.Read more: SourceRegulationExclusive: The Next Frontier of the Deportation Wars: College CampusesAuthor: Adrian Carrasquillo Published: July 11, 2026Adrian Carrasquillo reports that college campuses are becoming a new front in the fight over immigration enforcement because automatic license plate readers can turn ordinary campus security infrastructure into searchable location data. His thesis is that Flock Safety's camera network, even without direct ICE or DHS contracts, can feed deportation enforcement through local police partnerships and data-sharing practices.The killer detail is the campaign target. The Emergency Campaign to Support Higher Education, working with Schools Drop ICE, is focusing on 75 colleges and universities publicly identified as having Flock contracts. Flock says it has no ICE or DHS contracts, but activists argue the risk comes through local agencies that coordinate with federal authorities and run searches on their behalf.The pull is broader than immigration. Carrasquillo notes that license plate readers have already been abused by officers for stalking, and that Flock's AI search features can identify more than plates, including bumper stickers. A campus safety tool can become a political surveillance system when the data layer is searchable.Read more: The BulwarkThe Supreme Court Broke Independent Agencies. Here's a Way to Slow the Damage.Author: Todd Phillips Published: July 12, 2026Todd Phillips argues that the Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. Slaughter damaged independent agencies by ending for-cause removal protections, but did not leave Congress powerless. The ruling weakens the old model in which commissioners at bodies such as the FTC, NLRB, CPSC, SEC, and CFTC could be insulated from dismissal over policy disagreements. Phillips says the next fight is whether presidents can turn nominally bipartisan commissions into one-party instruments.The killer detail is the procedural fix: quorum rules. Phillips proposes that Congress require bipartisan slates of commissioners to be seated before independent agencies can act. A president

Today's podcast is a rare encounter with someone looking to revolutionise the insurance industry from its core. We are at one of those generational moments when a big tech question is right at the top of the board agenda in almost every industry sector in the world. That question is AI. Insurance is no different. As AI moves from the experimentation phase to the delivery phase, insurance businesses are going to be faced with a key dilemma – should they try to run AI as a new tech layer on top of their current core IT systems or should they take the plunge and use the opportunity to install a whole new system that has been designed and built with AI at its heart? Will Ross is the co-Founder and CEO of Federato and he is betting that enough companies will choose the latter path. Will is an AI native with post-graduate degrees from Stanford University and has been building Federato over the past six years. He is also a very special type of entrepreneur. He discovered insurance when working on wildfire models, but he saw an even bigger business opportunity across the core of insurance and co-founded Federato while still working on his Stanford studies. Federato has built substantial scale and has raised $180mn to date, with the latest round of $100mn lead by Goldman Sachs. This is clearly a firm that means business and is intent on taking a permanent seat at the Insurance IT table. Will is charismatic and fun to talk to and is probably the best-placed guest I have had on the show to date to really examine what the successful embedding of AI into insurance underwriting will mean for the sector as a whole. Some of what we discussed was highly reassuring, but some of his insights were surprising and challenging to conventional wisdom. Much of the industry is at a crossroads over the AI revolution and the next steps are going to be key. Senior decision-makers looking for guidance on their next move would be well advised to listen to Will set out his clear vision in this enlightening interview. LINKS: For more information visit www.federato.ai

In der heutigen Folge sprechen die Finanzjournalisten Nando Sommerfeldt und Holger Zschäpitz über Ernüchterung bei Netflix, den finalen Atai-Moment und einen erwachenden Markt. Außerdem geht es um SpaceX, Alphabet, Oracle, Abbott Laboratories, UnitedHealth Group, J.B. Hunt Transport Services, AtaiBeckley, Eli Lilly, Compass Pathways, Definium Therapeutics, Infineon, ABB, Schneider Electric, Siemens Energy, ASML, Delivery Hero, Uber, Novo Nordisk, Burberry, Saab, Travelers, Yara, BlackRock, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Robinhood Markets, Reddit, Nvidia, Micron Technology, SanDisk, Applied Materials, Western Digital, KLA, Marvell Technology, Lam Research, iShares Nikkei 225 (WKN: A0YEDQ), Xtrackers MSCI Japan (WKN: DBX1MJ), Amundi Japan Topix (WKN: A2H58U), VanEck Space Innovators ETF (WKN: A3DP9J), Direxion Daily Semiconductor Bull 3X Shares / SOXL (WKN: A1C1G7) Wir freuen uns an Feedback über aaa@welt.de. Noch mehr "Alles auf Aktien" findet Ihr bei WELTplus und Apple Podcasts – inklusive aller Artikel der Hosts. Hier bei WELT: https://www.welt.de/podcasts/alles-auf-aktien/plus247399208/Boersen-Podcast-AAA-Bonus-Folgen-Jede-Woche-noch-mehr-Antworten-auf-Eure-Boersen-Fragen.html. Hier könnt ihr den AAA-Newsletter abonnieren: https://www.welt.de/newsletter/article232797673/Alles-auf-Aktien-Der-taegliche-Boersen-Newsletter-fuer-WELTplus-Abonnenten.html Und – ganz neu: AAA gibt es jetzt auch auf Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/alles_auf_aktien/ Disclaimer: Die im Podcast besprochenen Aktien und Fonds stellen keine spezifischen Kauf- oder Anlage-Empfehlungen dar. Die Moderatoren und der Verlag haften nicht für etwaige Verluste, die aufgrund der Umsetzung der Gedanken oder Ideen entstehen. Hörtipps: Für alle, die noch mehr wissen wollen: Holger Zschäpitz können Sie jede Woche im Finanz- und Wirtschaftspodcast "Deffner&Zschäpitz" hören. +++ Werbung +++ Du möchtest mehr über unsere Werbepartner erfahren? Hier findest du alle Infos & Rabatte! https://linktr.ee/alles_auf_aktien *Anzeige: Eight Sleep: Der Pod 5 reguliert die Temperatur im Bett automatisch, trackt Schlaf- und Gesundheitswerte ohne Wearable und kann so zu besserem Schlaf beitragen. Mit dem Code ALLESAUFAKTIEN erhaltet ihr auf https://www.eightsleep.com/allesaufaktien bis zu 350 Euro Rabatt.* Impressum: https://www.welt.de/services/article7893735/Impressum.html Datenschutz: https://www.welt.de/services/article157550705/Datenschutzerklaerung-WELT-DIGITAL.html

De spanningen in het Midden-Oosten doen nauwelijks iets meer met de beurzen. Op weekbasis sloot de AEX licht boven het slot van vorige week en staat daarmee op een mooie 1091 punten. Wel zien de experts de nervositeit licht toenemen. "De winsten stijgen harder dan de koersen, zeker in de techsector, wat op zich positief is", zegt Han Dieperink (Aureus Vermogensbeheer). "De vraag die de markt wél stelt is hoe het zit met het verdienmodel van AI. Wat gaat dat aan omzet opleveren?" Robbert Manders (Antaurus Europe Fund) is neutraal positief over de markt. "Alle grote events, zoals het Midden-Oosten, zijn grotendeels uitgespeeld. Beleggers richten zich nu dus weer op het cijferseizoen. Daar kijk ik nu naar en daar zien we geen onverwachte dingen gebeuren." Han ziet nog wel wat agendapunten die voor reuring kunnen zorgen op de beurzen. Zo brengt president Xi in september een bezoek aan de VS en de mid-term verkiezingen kunnen ook voor opschudding zorgen. Maar Han vindt wel dat de markt er fundamenteel goed bij ligt. De banken in de VS hebben, met uitzondering van Citigroup, uitstekende cijfers laten zien. Vooral JP Morgan heeft het uitstekend gedaan, net als Goldman Sachs. De geweldige prestaties van JP Morgan schrijven de experts vooral toe aan de kwaliteiten van topman Jamie Dimon. Aangezien die tegen zijn pensioen aanloopt, is de vraag of z'n opvolger dezelfde prestaties kan leveren. Verder in de podcast onder andere aandacht voor de problemen bij Volkswagen, waarom de chipfabrikanten hun koersen zien dalen en veel cijfernieuws. Niet alleen van de Amerikaanse banken, maar natuurlijk ook van ASML en TSMC. Uiteraard behandelen we de luisteraarsvragen en geven de experts hun tips. Han tipt deze keer een Koreaans bedrijf, Robbert tipt een Deens aandeel. Geniet van de podcast! Let op: alleen het eerste deel is vrij te beluisteren. Wil je de hele podcast (luisteraarsvragen en tips) horen, wordt dan Premium lid van BeursTalk. Dat kost slechts 9,95 per maand, 99 euro voor een heel jaar. Abonneren kan hier!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The DTCC processed live production trades involving tokenized stocks, ETFs, and U.S. Treasuries with participation from firms including JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, BlackRock, and Vanguard. Matt explains why this is one of the clearest signs yet that tokenization is moving beyond pilot programs and into the core infrastructure of U.S. financial markets.The episode also covers Orange Juice's plan to buy cash-flowing businesses and use them as Bitcoin treasury companies, Volvo's latest blockchain experiment, the ethics fight holding up the Clarity Act, and the Senate's unanimous opposition to any pardon for Sam Bankman-Fried. Matt also looks at Europe's post-MiCA compliance problems, Tether freezing $131 million connected to Iranian sanctions, and Visa finally acknowledging that stablecoins may be better suited than card networks for machine-to-machine micropayments.Happy Hodling, Everyone. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Wall Street has just posted one of its strongest quarters in history.The world's biggest banks delivered record profits as trading desks, investment banking and wealth management all fired at the same time. But with Jamie Dimon warning that conditions are "nearly as good as it gets", is this a peak or just the beginning of an even bigger cycle?In this episode, Anthony Cheung and Piers Curran break down what drove the blockbuster earnings from Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan, Morgan Stanley and Citi, why AI has become the biggest force behind investment banking, trading and capital markets, and whether today's record profits could be borrowing growth from tomorrow.They also analyse June's US inflation report, why the biggest monthly decline in CPI since 2020 isn't quite as straightforward as the headlines suggest, and what it means for Federal Reserve interest rate expectations.Finally, they revisit the biggest IPO of the year. After surging in its first few days of trading, why has SpaceX fallen back to its IPO price? From index fund buying and green shoe options to lock-up periods and insider selling, they explain the market mechanics that most investors never hear about.If you want to better understand what's driving global markets and how professionals think about the biggest financial stories each week, this episode is for you.(00:00) Wall Street's Record Quarter(02:55) Why Banks Made So Much Money(10:15) Morgan Stanley's Hidden Winner(15:24) Is This As Good As It Gets?(19:00) AI's $1 Trillion Spending Boom(25:14) US Inflation Cools(31:14) Why SpaceX Is Falling(35:10) Green Shoe Options Explained(38:36) SpaceX Lock-Up Risks(42:16) One IPO, Every Bank Wins

With Constantine Hatzivassiliou—Partner, Certuity Golf taught Constantine Hatzivassiliou how to perform under pressure. Building a nearly $5B multi-family office taught him that the best advisors become the first call when life, not just the markets, gets complicated. In Summary Many advisors spend years mastering investments, but for affluent families, portfolio management is often just the starting point. Jason Diamond welcomes Constantine Hatzivassiliou, Partner at Certuity, to discuss how his journey from aspiring professional golfer to leader of a nearly $5B multi-family office shaped his approach to client service. Their conversation explores why trust is earned long before a crisis, how family office services evolve naturally from client needs, and why the advisor's role increasingly resembles that of a quarterback coordinating every aspect of a family's financial life. The discussion also examines organic growth, referrals, fiduciary advice, private equity's impact on the RIA landscape, and the qualities that allow advisors to become indispensable over decades—not just market cycles. The Storyline Many advisors spend years perfecting investment management. But as clients become more successful, the job changes. The questions become bigger than portfolio construction. A business is being sold. A family dynamic shifts. A tax issue emerges. An estate plan needs updating. Suddenly, the advisor isn't simply managing assets—they're coordinating decisions, relationships, and emotions. For Constantine, that broader role was shaped long before he entered wealth management. As an aspiring professional golfer, he learned lessons about discipline, preparation, and performing under pressure that continue to influence how he serves clients today. Jason and Constantine explore how Certuity grew from approximately $210 million in assets to nearly $5B, not through acquisitions but through referrals and a service model built on becoming indispensable to the families they advise. Constantine explains why he believes the best advisors function more like quarterbacks than portfolio managers, orchestrating the many moving pieces that come with significant wealth. The conversation also examines the evolution of the multi-family office model, the role of fiduciary advice, the impact of private equity on the advisory landscape, and why experience, judgment, and trust remain the qualities clients value most. Ultimately, this episode is about what it takes to become the first call when life – not just the markets – becomes complicated. Topics Covered Lessons from professional golf that translate to wealth management Building Certuity from $210mm to nearly $5B in assets What distinguishes a multi-family office from a traditional RIA Why referrals fuel long-term organic growth Becoming the “first call” for affluent families Fiduciary advice and the evolution of the advisory profession Family office services beyond investment management Private equity and M&A in the RIA space Developing the next generation of advisors Trust, relationships, and lifetime client service > Download a transcript of this episode… Listen and Learn Highlights for Advisors How did professional golf prepare Constantine for advising wealthy families? (3:45) Constantine explains why competing under pressure taught him discipline, emotional control, and process—qualities that now guide every client relationship. How did Certuity grow from $210 million to nearly $5 billion? (8:00) He shares why nearly all of the firm's growth has come organically through client referrals rather than acquisitions or aggressive recruiting. What separates a multi-family office from a traditional advisory firm? (11:45) The conversation explores how expanding into trust, estate, tax, and family office services became a response to client needs—not a business strategy. Why should advisors think of themselves as quarterbacks? (20:00) Constantine recounts a client business sale that fell apart at the closing table and explains why advisors often become the person holding everything together. How does Certuity view private equity and acquisitions? (36:20) Jason and Constantine discuss when outside capital can make sense—and why Certuity has chosen a different path centered on client alignment. Why do wisdom and experience still matter in an AI-driven world? (29:30) Despite advances in technology, Constantine argues that judgment, trust, and perspective remain the qualities affluent families value most. Key Takeaways High-net-worth clients increasingly value coordination, judgment, and perspective over investment selection alone. Family office services often evolve naturally as advisors respond to increasingly complex client needs. Sustainable organic growth is rooted in trust, which explains why referrals account for the overwhelming majority of Certuity's new business. Golf and wealth management share the same disciplines: preparation, emotional control, patience, and executing under pressure. The most valuable advisors become trusted partners during life's defining moments—not simply portfolio managers. Technology continues to reshape wealth management, but experience and wisdom remain difficult to replicate. Building a lasting advisory business requires investing in culture, succession, and the next generation of talent. https://youtu.be/m72Hq6bMTo4 Quotable Moments “The best advisors aren't simply managing portfolios. They're the first person clients call when life gets complicated.” “A bad shot in golf is the equivalent of a bad day in the market. You can't let one dictate everything that comes next.” “More often than not, we're not just financial advisors—we're financial therapists.” “Growth gets the headlines. Trust is what makes it possible.” FAQs What is a multi-family office? A multi-family office delivers integrated services beyond investment management, often coordinating tax, estate planning, philanthropy, business planning, and other complex financial matters for affluent families. Why has Certuity grown primarily through referrals? Constantine attributes the firm's growth to deep client relationships, a collaborative service model, and becoming the trusted advisor clients recommend to others. How does golf relate to wealth management? Golf reinforces discipline, emotional control, preparation, and performing under pressure—all qualities Constantine believes are essential for effective advisors. What is Constantine's perspective on private equity in wealth management? While he understands why many firms pursue private equity, he believes every strategic decision should ultimately be measured against what best serves clients. What qualities distinguish exceptional advisors today? According to Constantine, exceptional advisors become trusted coordinators of a client's financial life—bringing together specialists, solving problems, and providing perspective during life's most important moments. A multi-family office delivers integrated services beyond investment management, often coordinating tax, estate planning, philanthropy, business planning, and other complex financial matters for affluent families. Constantine attributes the firm's growth to deep client relationships, a collaborative service model, and becoming the trusted advisor clients recommend to others. Golf reinforces discipline, emotional control, preparation, and performing under pressure—all qualities Constantine believes are essential for effective advisors. While he understands why many firms pursue private equity, he believes every strategic decision should ultimately be measured against what best serves clients. According to Constantine, exceptional advisors become trusted coordinators of a client's financial life—bringing together specialists, solving problems, and providing perspective during life's most important moments. Related Resources Emotional Intelligence: The “Untouchable” Differentiator in an AI World Intentional Growth: How Top Advisors Build Businesses That Last The 10 Characteristics of the Most Successful Teams Constantine HatzivassiliouPartner  Constantine Hatzivassiliou is a Partner at Certuity, a nationally recognized multi-family office serving affluent families, entrepreneurs, executives, foundations, and endowments. He advises clients on the complex financial, tax, estate, and business planning decisions that accompany significant wealth, helping families coordinate all aspects of their financial lives through a comprehensive family office approach. Drawing on more than two decades of experience, Constantine works closely with successful business owners, corporate executives, and multi-generational families to simplify financial complexity and align investment management, tax planning, estate planning, philanthropy, and family governance strategies. As a Certified Exit Planning Advisor (CEPA®), he frequently assists entrepreneurs in preparing for liquidity events, business transitions, and the long-term stewardship of family wealth. His clients often view him as a trusted advisor and strategic sounding board, helping them navigate important financial decisions with the perspective of both a family office professional and a coach. Prior to joining Certuity, Constantine held advisory and banking positions with The Bank of New York Mellon, Bernstein Global Wealth Management, and Pacific Mercantile Bank. Before entering the financial services industry, he was a Golf Professional and member of the PGA of America, experiences that continue to shape his disciplined, competitive, and relationship-focused approach to advising clients. Outside of his professional responsibilities, Constantine is passionate about mentoring young athletes and strengthening the communities in which he lives and works. He serves as a Board Member of Coerfontaine Football Club (CFC), a premier youth soccer organization focused on developing young athletes and helping them pursue collegiate and professional opportunities while fostering leadership, discipline, and character. He also serves as Chair of the Safety and Security Committee for Parkland, where he works alongside community leadership to enhance resident safety, security, and quality of life. In addition, Constantine is a Founding Board Member of The Boardroom, a private membership organization focused on fostering meaningful relationships among business leaders, entrepreneurs, and professionals through networking, education, and philanthropy. Born in Greece, Constantine spent his childhood in Montreal before relocating to South Florida. He attended the University of Florida before earning a Bachelor of Arts in Economics from Florida Atlantic University, where he graduated with honors. He holds the Certified Exit Planning Advisor (CEPA®) designation. A lifelong student of the game, Constantine remains active in golf and is a member of Muirfield Village Golf Club, founded by his longtime  hero and mentor, Jack Nicklaus, as well as Parkland Golf & Country Club. Constantine resides in Parkland, Florida, with his wife, Stephanie, and their two children, Nicholas and Olivia. NOTE: The views and opinions expressed by the guests on this podcast are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of Diamond Consultants. Neither Diamond Consultants nor the guests on this podcast are compensated in any way for their participation. Episode Transcript Lessons from the Links: From Golf Pro to $5B Family Office Partner A conversation with Jason Diamond and Constantine Hatzivassiliou, Partner at Certuity. Jason Diamond: Welcome to the latest episode of our podcast series for financial advisors. Today’s episode is Lessons from the Links: From Golf Pro to $5B Family Office Partner. It’s a conversation with Constantine Hatzivassiliou, partner at Certuity. I’m Jason Diamond and this is the Diamond Podcast for Financial Advisors. Mindy Diamond: At Diamond Consultants, we help elite advisors identify the right environment for their businesses to thrive whether that’s at a wirehouse, boutique or independent firm. With nearly three decades of experience, we’ve guided thousands of advisors and represented more than a quarter of a trillion dollars in assets transitioned and, each year, one in four advisors managing $1 billion or more who change firms are our clients. Our process is education-driven and based on building relationships starting as your strategic partner well before you’re even thinking of a move. To schedule a confidential conversation, call us at (908) 879-1002. Wondering why advisors change firms and where they’re headed? Are transition deals going up or down? Those very questions and more inspired us to create our annual advisor transition report, it’s the award-winning data-driven resource designed for advisors that connects the dots between the motivations around movement and the firm’s appetite for top talent. Arm yourself with the knowledge you need to make smart decisions, download your copy at diamond-consultants.com/transitionreport. Jason Diamond: Golf is a way of exposing who you really are, there are no teammates to blame, no clock to run out and no hiding from a bad decision. Every shot demands discipline, patience and the ability to stay focused when the pressure is highest, my guest today knows that firsthand. Before becoming a partner at Certuity, a multifamily office approaching five billion in assets, Constantine Hatzivassiliou was pursuing a career as a professional golfer. An injury ultimately redirected his path towards wealth management but many of the lessons he learned on the course still shaped the way he serves clients today. Certuity has grown from roughly 210 million in assets to nearly five billion, that’s impressive on its own but the more interesting story is how they’ve done it. The firm has grown largely through referrals built around a multifamily office model and focused on becoming far more than an investment advisor to the families it serves. In Constantine’s view, the best advisors aren’t simply managing portfolios, they’re the first person clients call when a business is being sold, a family issue becomes complicated or a major decision carries consequences well beyond the balance sheet. Constantine and I discuss the lessons golf teaches about handling pressure then we dive into the evolution from the traditional wealth management world to the multifamily office model, why referrals drive nearly all of Certuity’s growth, how he thinks about private equity’s influence on the advisory business and what it takes to become the first call for the wealthy families they serve and perhaps, most importantly, why the same qualities that help someone succeed on a golf course may be surprisingly relevant to building trust over a lifetime. It’s a great conversation so let’s dive in. Constantine, thank you so much for joining, thrilled to have you here. Constantine Hatzivassiliou: Thank you for having me, excited to be here. Jason Diamond: Yeah, absolutely. So, you had an unconventional path to wealth management, you started as a professional golfer, I think that’s a first for us on this show, before ultimately transitioning into this world. Can you tell us a little bit about the journey and what brought you here? Constantine Hatzivassiliou: Yeah, I never thought I’d be here, my parents were certainly shocked that I got here path wise. Growing up, immigrants from Greece, you settle into Florida the traditional way where you either go down the diner route or the gas station route in mechanics which my father was the latter and school and education was never priority, it was always about supporting the family needs. So, next thing you know, sports are a critical part of any good household, that’s how I was raised and I played everything but golf. I grew up on a golf course because my parents believed that a location of a property was critical to long-term financial success. We lived on a golf course, it was in our backyard, we’d stare at it and we’d use it to play football or baseball or anything but actual golf. And my freshman year at the University of Florida, I started dating a girl on the golf team and she got me hooked to the point where, after four years of hitting balls with the women’s and men’s golf team at the University of Florida for six hours a day, we finished school and realized I’m actually pretty good at the game and, while I have a finance and economics background and degree, let’s try and pursue this for a living and I was blessed. I had a sponsor who helped me succeed at golf on a small scale, it was a humbling experience to say the least. I was competing and playing with Sean O’Hair, Ken Duke, guys who made it out on tour for a very long time, we had the same sponsor so we functioned as a team, it was a collegiate team effectively trying to make it out on tour. And, unfortunately, my second year of competing, I blew out my back doing heavy deadlifts which set me aside for 18 months. While I was recovering, my primary sponsor was in financial services and says, “Hey, you have a background in this, it’s killing you not being able to be on the golf course, why don’t you come work for me while you’re rehabbing so that, when you get back to playing golf, it’s easier for you to talk about our business as a sponsor to try and develop business to throw it to the financial services side?” And Jason, the reality is, after 18 months working there, I fell in love with it. I made way more money working in that environment than I ever would’ve made playing golf because, again, I came to the game late. I was decent but I was nowhere near the caliber of players that are succeeding now out on tour. So, I pivoted after having met my wife and decided to settle down into the wealth management space and, what is it now, 26 years later, going strong. So, it’s been a fun transition from golf into wealth management to say the least. Jason Diamond: Probably my favorite background … I watch a lot of golf, I should caveat that, probably my favorite origin story we’ve had, I’ll give you the Wanamaker trophy or whatever you get, first place. Let’s talk about the business now, so Certuity. For our audience who may not be familiar, tell us a little bit about the firm, what types of clients do you serve and any context you can provide on size as well. We’ll talk about how your firm got there but just give us where we are today to start with. Constantine Hatzivassiliou: So, goal by the end of the year is to have $5 billion in AUM, we’re just shy of that now. We currently service 428 families across the country. So, we’re boutiquey and nimble, we’re based in South Florida, we have offices in New York, San Fran and LA. I’m fortunate to be one of four partners at the firm supporting the growth and the direction of the company and it’s a fun endeavor in the sense that, when we first started, I was employee number four 16 years ago and, with 210 million in AUM at the time to grow it to where we are today, to learn all the things that we have over the years, the curve balls that were thrown at us because all of us came from massive institutional wealth management firms. So, we transitioned from the Bernsteins of the world, the BNY Mellons of the world into an RIA in the South Florida market, there was absolutely an entrepreneurial learning curve involved. Jason Diamond: I bet. And on follow-up question, 16 years ago, did you have a book of business, client business and do you still maintain a book of business today? Constantine Hatzivassiliou: I do. The four of us at the firm share in all of the clients, we work together. Being in the Southeast, I’m responsible for, let’s call it, the Southeast demographics of the US which is a large portion of Certuity’s book. I have a partner in Tennessee, I have a partner in LA and San Francisco and we divide and conquer across the country. But, yes, we came over with a small book, we’ve all grown it organically since then. So, we’ve been very effective in how we’ve grown. Jason Diamond: Just from adding new client money? Constantine Hatzivassiliou: Strictly through new clients referred to us by existing clients. Jason Diamond: Wow. I want to talk more about the growth because that’s remarkable. But before I do, can we double click on the service model? So, I would say the most typical we hear, I think more of our guests typically come from the wirehouse world where it’s I have my book, you have your book. What does your service model look like? So, is it truly, if it’s working well from the end client perspective, you should be interchangeable with your partners and it’s a true team approach? Constantine Hatzivassiliou: How we engage our clients, the theory should be I can get hit by a bus tomorrow and outside of the client not being able to speak to me directly, they will not have a hiccup in any way, shape or form. And when we’re dealing with families across multiple generations, the way we’ve built our platform, that continuity is critical in the engagement process for the clients hiring us to help them through all of the challenges that they face. Jason Diamond: What’s your sweet spot in terms of client size? Constantine Hatzivassiliou: Our average client size today has just shy of eight million AUM with us. We have some clients who have $1 million certainly but they’re strategic in that their friends, their family, they could be centers of influence who help send business our way because they value what it is that we do and there’s a strategic partnership because we might need them for their trust and estate services or their accounting work and they have clients who have a need and we’re on the short list of people they refer to. Jason Diamond: That they trust. Yeah, makes sense. So, I’ve seen this in the news and also even on your own internal materials, I’ve seen you described as both a modern multifamily office, you’ll also obviously hear the term RIA as well. Does that distinction matter at all? And maybe my second part of that question would be what is the distinction between that space, whatever you call it, and the more traditional firm world from a client service perspective? You mentioned that all of your partners from that world. Constantine Hatzivassiliou: I started in this industry truly at an institutional level at Bernstein in New York and, for anyone who knows Bernstein, they really do brainwash you on the fiduciary model and the values affiliated with that philosophy has translated through my career at BNY Mellon which has a very similar feel as Bernstein. And then, when we came here, we instilled that same core value principle of fiduciary responsibility for our clients so we are very different than a traditional wirehouse or brokerage house, it is why we’ve grown so successfully. I would never, one, work for an institution that did bide by those standards and, secondarily, I wished Congress and Senate would turn around and actually implement a mandatory fiduciary liability for all financial advisors because, far too often, we see prospective clients or families get taken advantage of because the individual sitting across from them giving them financial advice is not necessarily aligned with their goals and objectives. Jason Diamond: So, I take it you are fee only. Constantine Hatzivassiliou: We are fee only. Jason Diamond: Yeah. I don’t want to lose the thread on the first part of my question. Do you think there is a distinction between a multifamily office and an RIA? I don’t want to lead you here but to me it implies a different level or different caliber of service model that probably includes more of the ancillary trust and estate and CPA type stuff that higher network clients need but curious what your thoughts are. Constantine Hatzivassiliou: Our first seven years at the firm, we were strictly an RIA, we functioned as an advisory service provider to our clients. What attracted me and my partners to Certuity was the nimbleness of the firm. So, for instance, at BNY Mellon, we often deemed a change necessary as moving an aircraft carrier across the world but it was an impossible task to accomplish. But when you’re small and nimble and clients come to you with a need and you’re in the service, ultimately, first and foremost, it made sense for us to start building out family office services for our clients because they had a need and we found it as a way to centralize everything because, far too often, when the communication standards break down between all the individual parts, one, it’s more expensive for the clients and, two, the process isn’t efficient, things get missed. So, we tried, largely due to our growth, to bring everything in house and our clients appreciate that for it. Jason Diamond: So, this is not a chicken and egg situation, this is very much we had large clients, we were attracting large clients and, in order to service them optimally, here’s what we felt we needed to build. Is that fair? Constantine Hatzivassiliou: 100%. Jason Diamond: Let’s shift gears, I need to go deeper on the professional golf thread a little bit. I promise I won’t make the whole interview about your golf background. I’m curious if you feel like that experience or that, I don’t know, upbringing or, I guess, background laid any foundation for the way you engage with clients today or the way you operate as a business leader today. Constantine Hatzivassiliou: So, there’s a couple parts to that. The golf side, certainly, just from an engaging client perspective, 90% of our clients are golfers. Jason Diamond: It’s very true. Constantine Hatzivassiliou: Right. It just helps because of our background and certainly with some of the clients and partners that we have at the firm, golf is a critical thread in what we do. However, when it comes to golf, what I learned playing golf at a high level directly translates to how we manage money for clients and I’ll express it this way. There’s generally two types of golfers, there’s the artist, the Sergios of the world who don’t fundamentally function off of specific points in their swing or a very structured platform, they see something, their mind becomes creative and they execute on it. I was never that way, I am a numbers person, I think everything analytically, I break everything down to the minute, everything is strategized and organized, I was taught to practice that way by Coach Alexander at the University of Florida and that foundational element seemed easy, it worked. If you practice properly, you’ve succeeded. Under pressure, all those hours and hours of repetition translated to success more often than not. In our industry, it’s process-driven, it has to be unemotional. A bad shot in golf is the equivalent of a bad day in the market, you can’t let one bad day in the market influence everything you do for the next year. Same way on the golf course playing in a tournament, you can’t allow one golf shot to affect the rest of the round. We kid with our clients oftentimes that, while we are fundamentally their financial advisor, more often than not, we’re their financial therapist. We have to control their emotions and make sure they’re not making an irrational decision. For instance, a couple days ago we were out with a client the day that Iran shot down one of the US military helicopters and we’re sitting down at lunch and, all of a sudden, his phone starts blowing up because he’s getting all these Google alerts to the market heading in the wrong direction and he had to go do a life insurance test later on that afternoon. So, all week, he had prepped and he was calm and he was relaxed, he was really excited, he’s, “My wife is setting me up with a new insurance policy and I know it’s for her benefit but all my numbers look good, I’m going to ace this and my premiums will be really low because of it,” it was a $25 million policy. And as he’s looking at his phone and he sees the market collapsing in his mind, his blood pressure rose to no end, you could see that his anxiety level went through the roof and, had I not been there with him at the time to hold his hand through that process, his afternoon would’ve been shot. I would’ve got a phone call saying, “What are we doing to prevent 2% loss in my portfolio,” because that’s how he thinks and, in that moment, I was the therapist to talk him off a ledge. It’s so hard for individuals to manage the stress of the markets, that golfer mentality of, okay, just breathe, relax, let’s see what’s going on, let’s make an educated, confirmed decision, let’s circle back with our caddy if we’re on tour and competing and make a unified decision for the long-term success of the goal that we’re trying to achieve. And what we do every day is the same thing with our clients. Jason Diamond: It’s an incredibly thoughtful answer, I expected a version of the latter part of your answer. I appreciate that you added the part about just most clients like golf, enjoy talking about golf, enjoy playing golf and it’s an effective business development tool, there’s no question. Constantine Hatzivassiliou: So, I have two kids, a 12-year-old and an eight-year-old, my son who’s 12 who’s an exceptional soccer player and wants to, aspires to play professionally one day has now fallen in love with golf which I’m ecstatic about. I think golf and tennis, from a business development perspective- Jason Diamond: Yeah, lifelong sports. Constantine Hatzivassiliou: And I look at it now and my mentor when I started in the business was absolutely right. The fact that I could get a CEO of a Fortune 100 company to want to actively spend four hours with me where we could dive into the weeds about their personal life, their financial situation, their business, you could never get that time otherwise. I urge everyone who’s coming out of college or is going into college who wants to aspire to be in any type of sales related role, golf is a great venue to make long-term relationships. Jason Diamond: And importantly, tennis is not as good on the knees long-term or the back long-term. So, you stick to golf, you get a little more longevity out of it. Constantine Hatzivassiliou: It does help, yes. You’re right. Jason Diamond: My thought always goes to people call it the 15th club in golf, just this mental element of the game and to me it’s the clear moment in golf that always comes to mind for me is the 72nd hole. I don’t know if you just watched the US Women’s Open but Nelly Korda standing over a two-foot putt that I really thought she missed, is there an equivalent of that moment? Are you ever able to recreate that pressure in your current role or is that something that you miss? Constantine Hatzivassiliou: Jason, we have those moments weekly, countless stories. Here’s where I love my job. I’ve transitioned from being the guy behind the screen who is just trading accounts, that’s where we all start and you have to have that foundational perspective of what’s involved in trading an account on a daily basis. Not that we ever picked stocks to an extensive level, we were generally managing ETFs, mutual funds and strategies but I’ll give you an example. So, just last week, we had a family and this is where the family office side comes in more so than the financial advisory services come in. We had spent four months in helping a family sell their business, it was a life altering moment, the dad started the business, the dad had been independently successful, net worth of well into eight figures, was happy and content, brought his son into the business, son was brilliant, saw an opportunity within the business and grew the business by 4,000%. Jason Diamond: Literally? Constantine Hatzivassiliou: Yup. All because of this, the son saw a different direction and pivoted the business and grew it out and here he is, getting ready to have their first child and he gets approached by a firm to acquire his business. They’re ecstatic, the number was perfect, I thought it was overvalued, I was telling them that there’s no way they could turn it down because the number was too significant. Had they gone to the market, they would probably never achieve that level of return. And literally, the day of closing, as we’re expecting the wire to come through, the deal gets pulled. So, here you have the father who’s crushed because he was trying to provide something for his son, the son who’s just devastated because he now was preparing for the second stage of his life and you go through at that stage the classic stages of grief, it’s the cycle that goes through it. I was holding their hand through the three-month process up to there, every day, hourly calls, strategizing, building everything out, organizing the accounting team, organizing the attorneys, getting it all to work out. And here I am, father and son, unbelievably stressed, you have the wives in the background who can’t quite comprehend what’s going on, you have employees beneath them who are now confused as to there was a transition getting ready to take place and the only person who can step in under that critical moment to bring everybody back together was me. So, here I am thinking, 20 years ago, I’ll just pick stocks and bonds for individuals but now I’m in the middle of deal flow trying to help a family solve the issues that arise. So, those are hugely critical- Jason Diamond: Yeah, that’s right. Constantine Hatzivassiliou: …moments where, because our clients are our friends and family, we care for them like they’re our own, you become emotionally attached. And the same pressure that I felt when I won my first mini tour event after college, when I had to get up and down from the impossible bunker shot and I hit it to six feet and I made the crucial put to win my first $23,000 check which I thought was unbelievable, they gave you those big old-fashioned- Jason Diamond: The Happy Gilmore checks. Constantine Hatzivassiliou: Exactly, right? It was the greatest day at that time. The stress of being in that bunker trying to hit that shot is the same stress I felt having two phones ringing, one the father, one the son where we have to keep that situation separate. So, you’re diving into unbelievably stressful situations and the best part is, when we get it all solved and literally yesterday we solved the entire dynamic of the business, I get a text from the son saying that this was the most incredible rollercoaster experience he’s ever experienced, that he’s incredibly grateful for all that I did and our team did for him and that, for the rest of his life, we will always be the first person he calls to solve any of his problems. So, for us, that’s the recreation of that stressful moment and then the victory on the back end. Twenty-five years ago, I got the big Happy Gilmore check. Yesterday, I got that text which I’ve printed out and framed and have it in my office as a constant memory of why it is we do what we do. Jason Diamond: And I would bet that’s more impactful than the $23,000. It’s an incredible story and I’ll tell you why, you said it but it’s as far away from stocks and bonds as you could possibly get. But I think, most advisors, a story like that resonates much more. It leads into my next question. You intentionally choose to service a high net worth segment of the market and I would assume that number’s probably creeping up, not down over time in terms of who you service. My thought is that’s a very competitive segment of the market as well. Is this how you differentiate is just you make it about those types of human examples or is there more to it? Constantine Hatzivassiliou: I’m envious of the advisor who could walk into a room of 200 people and they become the central focal point of the room where they can walk up to every single person and fearlessly ask them incredibly personal information, I’m not wired that way. For me, I’m very much the individual that I will find the one person that I have common ground with, I will deepen that relationship and I will add value and, because of the value that I create, I become a critical component of that individual’s success. And that’s how we’ve grown our business holistically at the firm largely buy that extra layer of service. We’re a commodity business. Being in South Florida, the clubs that I belong to, 10 to 15% of the members feel like they’re financial advisors. You could throw a rock anywhere and find a financial advisor so how do I differentiate myself? The only way I can truly differentiate myself and my firm is the level of service we provide, to go that extra step. To where, when we’re calling a client, they know I’m calling them to support their needs not because I’m seeking something for any ulterior motive. Jason Diamond: But you don’t mention financial planning or investment management or asset custody. Is that because I assume just that’s table stakes? Of course we do that but … Okay, yeah. Makes sense. Constantine Hatzivassiliou: That’s the easy part, right? That’s foundationally … And to your earlier point, you were asking the RIA model. One of the biggest challenges that we had down here in South Florida was the RIA model is new. If you were in the northeast, RIAs are very common, out west, incredibly common. Down here in South Florida, I just finished dealing with Bernie Madoff. Jason Diamond: You were fighting the good education fight a little bit. Constantine Hatzivassiliou: At Bernstein, 108 of our clients had assets with Bernie Madoff. Jason Diamond: Yeah. Constantine Hatzivassiliou: So, when you leave, one of our biggest growing curves as an RIA in South Florida was, when you leave the power of BNY Mellon or Bernstein and you’re some random little shop called Certuity, no one knows who you are. So, there was a big part of our education in the business was learning how to educate clients and prospective clients on the value of the RIA model and the fiduciary model in particular. Jason Diamond: Could you give me the 30-second answer to that if somebody says who are you, your prospect? I’ll tell you why I ask. Forget just Bernstein’s and BNYs of the world, a Morgan Stanley advisor or Merrill advisor has the exact same fear. I’m leaving Merrill to go launch Jason Diamond Wealth Management, my client’s going to say, “Well, who is that?” So, give me the quick pitch. Constantine Hatzivassiliou: Your typical broker, let’s say, you’re not really hiring JP Morgan, you’re not really hiring Wells Fargo, you’re not hiring Goldman Sachs, you’re hiring the advisor who works for that institution. Now, yes, that advisor has the Rolodex of data and information available at the firm level but, ultimately, you’re entrusting that individual to make your decisions for you. The broker who leaves the brokerage model to open up their own brick and mortar operation has to then decide are they continuing down the wirehouse brokerage model where they’re transactional in nature, the economics behind that, far more profitable. The revenue streams affiliated with a brokerage house drastically blows us out of the water. But then you have to also look at yourself in the mirror so how are you running your book of business, how are you running your practice. So, to answer your 30-second question, the RIA model, in my opinion, is truly the only way any family of wealth should proceed with an advisory firm because you want an individual who is aligned in your goals and objectives. Our clients know that I’m their chief financial officer, I work for them. They task us with building out a financial strategy that is customized to their individual needs and they never have to worry do I have an ulterior motive as to why I’m presenting an option in that strategy. And, because of that, the fiduciary model, I think, is critical for our success as a firm and, again, as I mentioned earlier, I wish it’s something that was industry well and not the vast minority. Jason Diamond: Yeah. No, that’s a great answer. So, do you think then that, as time has gone on, this has gotten easier? I assume the answer is yes either because more clients are aware of your brand and/or more aware of the space as a whole. Constantine Hatzivassiliou: The first thing that helped the most was some gray hair. When I started at Bernstein, I attempted to solicit new clients very much the same way I do today. But when I was 26 years old and I’m sitting in front of a family worth and the dad was in the 70s and he lived his life and I’m younger than his kids, he would look at me and say, “What do you really know? What experience do you have?” So, doing this now for as long as I have, the number one thing that has helped me the most in growth is just wisdom and time. Without that, yes, you can be a rockstar stock picker. We have so many kids coming out of college today with the advent of AI and technology that have algorithms that could run unbelievable portfolios and there is a segment of the market who wants to hire and engage those individuals but, generally speaking, the families that we service, that is 10th or 12th on the list of importance. Jason Diamond: No, I think that’s spot on. I think most high net worth clients counterintuitively agree with that, that alpha, for lack of a better term, is really not the name of the game or not in the top five reasons why you would engage with a financial advisor. Constantine Hatzivassiliou: Agreed. The biggest thing that we’ve been doing to educate clients especially in today’s environment, I had a call yesterday with an individual, a client who lives in New Jersey who works out of New York for a hedge fund, he knows our space incredibly well. He’s one of those kids, 28 years old, brilliant, as smart as you’ll ever be but his tax bracket is atrocious. He is paying so much of his W-2 income in taxes and building out a strategy that can reduce his tax liability by several hundred thousand dollars a year far exceeds any alpha I can generate by picking a top decile performer. Jason Diamond: What was the strategy? Move to Florida? I’m just kidding. Don’t answer that. Constantine Hatzivassiliou: We offered that but, unfortunately, he has to be physically in the office in New York City but yes. Jason Diamond: I think that will resonate, by the way, your gray hair comment. I appreciate the humility and the modesty in that because, the reality is, one of the questions I was going to ask you about was next-gen talent cultivation. In my opinion, this is a hard game for younger folks for that reason. People sit across from other people with a lot of money and they say, “Why am I going to entrust you with my life’s work when you just don’t have that degree of experience?” I was asking more even about your firm success and your firm story, have you felt like that’s caught on more? Do you have more brand awareness, if you will, now when you go to a prospect meeting or do you think you’re still constantly fighting that education fight? Constantine Hatzivassiliou: So, first part, brands, it’s improved in our immediate network. In our little bubble of the world, yes, it’s known. Let’s call it, in South Florida the influential attorneys, the accountants, the divorce attorneys know who we are because, having been down here long enough, we’ve had opportunities to work together. Our network of friends, certainly, the word spreads. But in the grand scheme of things, we are so small in the South Florida landscape or the LA landscape or the New York landscape so any incremental gain that we pick up is meaningful. And then, as it relates to young talent, our success is completely, long-term, derived by the young talent that we bring in to nurture them to help them grow. I look at our success, two of our critical mentors and board members of our firm are in their 80s, their children and grandchildren, nepotism aside, whether it was interning while in college or coming to work for us after school, they’re our best employees. And our goal as a firm, just like how I was offered the opportunity to become a partner and own a piece of the business, our goal long term will be to transition the business to this younger generation that we’re developing. I look at, again, those two board members who are in their 80s, the advice they’ve given me is don’t ever stop working, you have to be doing something. And I turn to them and say, “I don’t work every day.” I put in 20 hour days, well, not quite 20, 18 hour days but it’s never work because, what I do every day, I don’t deem it work, I love what I do, I don’t ever see myself stopping. Because they’ll tell me all of their friends that have stopped working or sold their business, invariably, the men die within six months because boredom and we always joke around that you’ll continue to work forever. So, I would hope that one day I transition into that advisory board member role where I step aside day-to-day activity where I’m now a mentor to our younger generation that we’re promoting into partners because we’ve made promises to our clients that we will forever be their family office. So, we have to, as part of our growth model, have those transitions in place because we’re servicing many families that have 85-year-old clients and two-year-old clients and we’re tasked with the two-year-olds as well as the 85-year-old. Jason Diamond: I also feel like there’s a little bit of younger generations I think have been reluctant to some degree to get it, you can disagree with this, to get into this space because there’s a more appeal to things like investment banking and sales and trading to some degree. The other problem obviously you alluded to is asset gathering. Your model speaks so clearly to success because you don’t say I own the client, that’s my relationship. To me, you plant the seeds of being able to handle succession much better than somebody who does the mine is mine and yours is yours approach. Is that fair? Constantine Hatzivassiliou: That’s completely accurate. And I think there’s two types of people that serve in the financial advisory space. You have the individual who is analytics driven, who likes being behind the bank of monitors trading account and there’s a critical part of our firm and our success is driven by the team in the office that aren’t necessarily client facing that do all the heavy lifting every day because they’re really doing the heavy work. Myself, my partners, the select few, while talented and able to do that, realize the value that we present is quarterbacking the relationship and helping understand all the components. We kid around that we’ve all stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night, we’ve become experts in tax, we’ve become experts at trust and estate planning, we’ve become experts at divorce, we’ve become experts at the medical field. It’s shocking how it’s 2:00 in the morning and you get a phone call, panic attack by a client saying they need a doctor for X, Y and Z, can you connect me. So, the younger generation, yes, the sexy space is investment banking and that is really hard work. I could not do what my friends at Goldman do who are at these private mid-market funds, that’s just not me. I’ve been fortunate that I stumbled into an avenue in financial services that I think perfectly fits my personality and my want and desire to help others because that’s what we’re driven by and we try and hire people with that same mindset. The hardest thing as an RIA especially in South Florida is finding and retaining talent that is like-minded and that could function well within our family. Jason Diamond: If you build a firm predicated on culture and client service, I understand, certainly, the importance of that. I want to shift gears, I don’t want to lose this thought. You mentioned organic growth, it’s incredible. You have not mentioned inorganic growth at all and maybe because you haven’t had to but give me your thoughts on M&A, private equity in this space, do you have plans to sell the business, take on a capital partner, buy other RIAs? Constantine Hatzivassiliou: Yeah. So, I understand why private equity in the last 10 years has come into the market. For years, they bought up insurance practices, that recurring revenue, sticky assets, it makes sense. Personally, I’m not a fan of them being in our markets, I think they’re motivated at the end of the day by AUM growth, revenue growth and the second transaction which, for most of our clients, would not make sense because, again, that then questions why it is that we’re motivated to do something. Am I taking extra risk in the portfolio because I want to grow the AUM because I’m looking to sell in a year? Am I bringing in a strategy that has a higher fee? For us, it doesn’t work. In the brokerage model, it makes perfect sense. Now, there are some RIAs who leave the wirehouses, open up an RIA shop, do really well for their clients but don’t have the long-term aspirations of making the institution a legacy to where they’re passing it off. I hope my kids one day want to come work for dad and follow in his steps, that’d be amazing. Just like our younger generation working at the firm, our goal is we’ve already targeted the three or four guys that will be partner one day and we’ll transition the business over to them. But it’s okay if there’s an RIA out there who doesn’t have that transition product or isn’t motivated by that and is looking at it as a vehicle that I’ve built a really good successful book of business and I want to now retire and spend time with my family and kids and travel, et cetera, and that’s where PE steps in and offers an attractive number and the person makes their move. So, I can’t fault the individual for wanting that and I’m not saying that they’re not doing well by their clients, it’s just, for us, I’m not a fan of it because, again, I’m first critically and always focused on what’s best for the client. Jason Diamond: Fair. And I largely agree with some of what you said around private equity in this space but private equity enables … Obviously, it’s capital so which enables acquisitions which is why a lot of firms take on private equity. So, what about the idea of potentially buying businesses to start up inorganic growth? Constantine Hatzivassiliou: We have gone down the road of acquiring other institutions potentially. The challenge is, because we manage money so uniquely and our approach is so different, I’m not going to bring on an institution or bring in a new partner to the firm or a new book of business that we’ve acquired if the methodology and the life of that book doesn’t mirror ours. So, yes, there is opportunities to grow through acquisition, it’s not something that we are leaning on heavily. However, for the right institution that’s available that is aligned with our thinking, whose clients would value and appreciate how we do things or, if that institution is doing something truly unique that we would want to bolt onto our platform, all day long because, again, for the benefit of the client, it makes sense. So, yes, there are opportunities for that. Too often we find that, when a book is available for acquisition, the highest bidder tends to win out and we don’t have the deep enough pockets to write a multiple that we don’t deem to be, let’s call it, market neutral. Jason Diamond: Yeah, market prudent. I understand the premise and I think that’s fair. I also think you have the luxury, because of your organic growth, you can be super, super picky about inorganic and I love how you bring it all back to the lens of the client. Can this improve the client experience in some way? And, if so, yes, we’ll take a look. I got time for one more question, I can’t believe time has flown. You’ve had a remarkable journey, professional golf now partner at a $4 billion plus on the way to $5 billion RIA multifamily office. What are you most proud of when you reflect on your career journey? Constantine Hatzivassiliou: What am I most proud of? To see what Rich, myself and Mark and Jayson built over these years from where we were sitting in a small conference room, struggling to figure out how do we find a way to hire a trust and estate attorney to help with that component, which CPAs do we bring on board in-house because clients have a need. So, the entrepreneurial spirit involved in growing the business, the late nights, the struggles, the banter back and forth, to put so much blood, sweat and tears into this and now to look at all that we’ve accomplished, being in four separate states with offices, having so many wonderful employees that have come to us from all over the world, Germany, from China, from Tokyo, bringing people in to the US and building out something that, when we leave at the end of the day, are incredibly proud of. My father’s no longer with us, for 50 years, I always strived to make him proud because he never told me that he was proud of me, he was the classic Greek old-fashioned dad. I think he looks down on his now for everything that we’ve built and would say that he’s proud of us so, for me, that’s the best. Jason Diamond: Yeah. That’s an incredible place to end. Thank you for sharing that, it’s a touching place to end and I appreciate you being open. Thank you. This has been one of my favorite episodes, your journey, your humility, your honesty, your transparency, it’s no wonder you’ve built a business you’ve built. So, thanks for joining us, Constantine. I look forward to having you back on to talk about the next chapter. Constantine Hatzivassiliou: Thank you. Next time we’ll do it from the golf course. Jason Diamond: Oh, absolutely. Mindy Diamond: As a financial advisor, you hold yourself to the highest standards of integrity, honesty and credibility. You are successful because you take your professional responsibility seriously and are dedicated to your clients. But are you living your best business life? Are your goals aligned with your firms or could a better option exist? Should I Stay or Should I Go? Is a book written with you in mind? It’s a self-guided journey that walks you through the key steps that we take with our advisor clients. This strategic thought process and roadmap to professional self-discovery is designed to help you ask the right questions and think critically and objectively whether you’re considering change or not. Learn how to get your copy at diamond-consultants.com/thebook.   Lessons from the Links: From Golf Pro to $5B Family Office Partner A conversation with Jason Diamond and Constantine Hatzivassiliou, Partner at Certuity. Jason Diamond: Welcome to the latest episode of our podcast series for financial advisors. Today’s episode is Lessons from the Links: From Golf Pro to $5B Family Office Partner. It’s a conversation with Constantine Hatzivassiliou, partner at Certuity. I’m Jason Diamond and this is the Diamond Podcast for Financial Advisors. Mindy Diamond: At Diamond Consultants, we help elite advisors identify the right environment for their businesses to thrive whether that’s at a wirehouse, boutique or independent firm. With nearly three decades of experience, we’ve guided thousands of advisors and represented more than a quarter of a trillion dollars in assets transitioned and, each year, one in four advisors managing $1 billion or more who change firms are our clients. Our process is education-driven and based on building relationships starting as your strategic partner well before you’re even thinking of a move. To schedule a confidential conversation, call us at (908) 879-1002. Wondering why advisors change firms and where they’re headed? Are transition deals going up or down? Those very questions and more inspired us to create our annual advisor transition report, it’s the award-winning data-driven resource designed for advisors that connects the dots between the motivations around movement and the firm’s appetite for top talent. Arm yourself with the knowledge you need to make smart decisions, download your copy at diamond-consultants.com/transitionreport. Jason Diamond: Golf is a way of exposing who you really are, there are no teammates to blame, no clock to run out and no hiding from a bad decision. Every shot demands discipline, patience and the ability to stay focused when the pressure is highest, my guest today knows that firsthand. Before becoming a partner at Certuity, a multifamily office approaching five billion in assets, Constantine Hatzivassiliou was pursuing a career as a professional golfer. An injury ultimately redirected his path towards wealth management but many of the lessons he learned on the course still shaped the way he serves clients today. Certuity has grown from roughly 210 million in assets to nearly five billion, that’s impressive on its own but the more interesting story is how they’ve done it. The firm has grown largely through referrals built around a multifamily office model and focused on becoming far more than an investment advisor to the families it serves. In Constantine’s view, the best advisors aren’t simply managing portfolios, they’re the first person clients call when a business is being sold, a family issue becomes complicated or a major decision carries consequences well beyond the balance sheet. Constantine and I discuss the lessons golf teaches about handling pressure then we dive into the evolution from the traditional wealth management world to the multifamily office model, why referrals drive nearly all of Certuity’s growth, how he thinks about private equity’s influence on the advisory business and what it takes to become the first call for the wealthy families they serve and perhaps, most importantly, why the same qualities that help someone succeed on a golf course may be surprisingly relevant to building trust over a lifetime. It’s a great conversation so let’s dive in. Constantine, thank you so much for joining, thrilled to have you here. Constantine Hatzivassiliou: Thank you for having me, excited to be here. Jason Diamond: Yeah, absolutely. So, you had an unconventional path to wealth management, you started as a professional golfer, I think that’s a first for us on this show, before ultimately transitioning into this world. Can you tell us a little bit about the journey and what brought you here? Constantine Hatzivassiliou: Yeah, I never thought I’d be here, my parents were certainly shocked that I got here path wise. Growing up, immigrants from Greece, you settle into Florida the traditional way where you either go down the diner route or the gas station route in mechanics which my father was the latter and school and education was never priority, it was always about supporting the family needs. So, next thing you know, sports are a critical part of any good household, that’s how I was raised and I played everything but golf. I grew up on a golf course because my parents believed that a location of a property was critical to long-term financial success. We lived on a golf course, it was in our backyard, we’d stare at it and we’d use it to play football or baseball or anything but actual golf. And my freshman year at the University of Florida, I started dating a girl on the golf team and she got me hooked to the point where, after four years of hitting balls with the women’s and men’s golf team at the University of Florida for six hours a day, we finished school and realized I’m actually pretty good at the game and, while I have a finance and economics background and degree, let’s try and pursue this for a living and I was blessed. I had a sponsor who helped me succeed at golf on a small scale, it was a humbling experience to say the least. I was competing and playing with Sean O’Hair, Ken Duke, guys who made it out on tour for a very long time, we had the same sponsor so we functioned as a team, it was a collegiate team effectively trying to make it out on tour. And, unfortunately, my second year of competing, I blew out my back doing heavy deadlifts which set me aside for 18 months. While I was recovering, my primary sponsor was in financial services and says, “Hey, you have a background in this, it’s killing you not being able to be on the golf course, why don’t you come work for me while you’re rehabbing so that, when you get back to playing golf, it’s easier for you to talk about our business as a sponsor to try and develop business to throw it to the financial services side?” And Jason, the reality is, after 18 months working there, I fell in love with it. I made way more money working in that environment than I ever would’ve made playing golf because, again, I came to the game late. I was decent but I was nowhere near the caliber of players that are succeeding now out on tour. So, I pivoted after having met my wife and decided to settle down into the wealth management space and, what is it now, 26 years later, going strong. So, it’s been a fun transition from golf into wealth management to say the least. Jason Diamond: Probably my favorite background … I watch a lot of golf, I should caveat that, probably my favorite origin story we’ve had, I’ll give you the Wanamaker trophy or whatever you get, first place. Let’s talk about the business now, so Certuity. For our audience who may not be familiar, tell us a little bit about the firm, what types of clients do you serve and any context you can provide on size as well. We’ll talk about how your firm got there but just give us where we are today to start with. Constantine Hatzivassiliou: So, goal by the end of the year is to have $5 billion in AUM, we’re just shy of that now. We currently service 428 families across the country. So, we’re boutiquey and nimble, we’re based in South Florida, we have offices in New York, San Fran and LA. I’m fortunate to be one of four partners at the firm supporting the growth and the direction of the company and it’s a fun endeavor in the sense that, when we first started, I was employee number four 16 years ago and, with 210 million in AUM at the time to grow it to where we are today, to learn all the things that we have over the years, the curve balls that were thrown at us because all of us came from massive institutional wealth management firms. So, we transitioned from the Bernsteins of the world, the BNY Mellons of the world into an RIA in the South Florida market, there was absolutely an entrepreneurial learning curve involved. Jason Diamond: I bet. And on follow-up question, 16 years ago, did you have a book of business, client business and do you still maintain a book of business today? Constantine Hatzivassiliou: I do. The four of us at the firm share in all of the clients, we work together. Being in the Southeast, I’m responsible for, let’s call it, the Southeast demographics of the US which is a large portion of Certuity’s book. I have a partner in Tennessee, I have a partner in LA and San Francisco and we divide and conquer across the country. But, yes, we came over with a small book, we’ve all grown it organically since then. So, we’ve been very effective in how we’ve grown. Jason Diamond: Just from adding new client money? Constantine Hatzivassiliou: Strictly through new clients referred to us by existing clients. Jason Diamond: Wow. I

Kevin covers and discusses the following stories: dangerous weather in parts of the country; the U.S. Labor Department reported the Producer Price Index (PPI) and Core PPI; Phil Flynn, Senior Market Analyst, The PRICE Futures Group, Author of the Energy Report, Fox Business Contributor joins the show to discuss the world oil market and which Country is emerging as the dominant energy producer; oil prices react to the latest events between the U.S. and Iran , Goldman Sachs predicts oil prices in the 4th quarter and Gulf oil exports; gas prices inch up; Kevin has the details, digs into the data, puts the information into historical perspective, offers his insights and few opinions. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In This Episode, You'll Learn: • Why meaningful experiences matter more than résumé-building • How students can develop leadership and problem-solving skills before college • What admissions officers value beyond GPA and test scores • Why purpose-driven projects create stronger college essays and interviews • How students gain mentorship from professionals at companies like Google, Bain, McKinsey, Goldman Sachs, and Deloitte • The future-ready skills every student needs in an AI-driven world • What parents can do to help their teen find direction without adding more pressure

Det er regnskabssæson, og de amerikanske banker spinder guld på en urolig verden. Goldman Sach, JPMorgan og alle de andre har leveret guldrandede resultatet. Det tyder på solid underliggende vækst i økonomien og peger i retning af yderligere løft i danske banker også. Der er til gengæld krise i softwarebranchen, hvor IBM måtte se aktien falde 24 procent på én dag efter et skuffende regnskab. Meget tyder på, at softwarebranchen står over for en ekstremt svær tid, hvor kunstig intelligens for alvor begynder at trække tæppet væk under deres forretning. Denne tendens bekræftes også med regnskaberne fra de to hardwareproducenter, hollandske ASML og taiwanesiske TSMC, der begge leverede meget pæne kvartalstal. Kunderne vil have hardware - ikke software. Vi vender rumselskabet SpaceX, der nu er bombet tilbage til start og handles til introduktionskursen på 135 dollars. Det kan sagtens blive værre for SpaceX de næste måneder, lyder vurderingen. I studiet: Magnus Barsøe og Mikael Milhøj. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The major US banks have reported their earnings, and experts say these results can offer a clear snapshot of the state of the US and global economy. JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, and Citi were among the major banks reporting their results, leaving investors to speculate about the wider implications. Fisher Funds expert Sam Dickie explained further. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Falling launch costs, innovations, and AI are fuelling a space economy that could reach $1 trillion by the 2040s, according to Michael Tarulli and Erik Sparks in Goldman Sachs Investment Banking. The key driver: launch costs have plunged sharply, opening up access to space and enabling new frontiers of commercial activity. The shift is creating new potential opportunities as well as risks for investors. To learn more about the impact of AI on space, satellites, and other industrial sectors, read Harnessing AI for the Real Economy.  Recorded on July 7, 2026. The opinions and views expressed herein are as of the date of publication, subject to change without notice, and may not necessarily reflect the institutional views of Goldman Sachs or its affiliates. The material provided is intended for informational purposes only, and does not constitute investment advice, a recommendation from any Goldman Sachs entity to take any particular action, or an offer or solicitation to purchase or sell any securities or financial products. This material may contain forward-looking statements. Past performance is not indicative of future results. Neither Goldman Sachs nor any of its affiliates make any representations or warranties, express or implied, as to the accuracy or completeness of the statements or information contained herein and disclaim any liability whatsoever for reliance on such information for any purpose. Each name of a third-party organization mentioned is the property of the company to which it relates, is used here strictly for informational and identification purposes only and is not used to imply any ownership or license rights between any such company and Goldman Sachs. A transcript is provided for convenience and may differ from the original video or audio content. Goldman Sachs is not responsible for any errors in the transcript. This material should not be copied, distributed, published, or reproduced in whole or in part or disclosed by any recipient to any other person without the express written consent of Goldman Sachs. Disclosures applicable to research with respect to issuers, if any, mentioned herein are available through your Goldman Sachs representative or at ⁠http://www.gs.com/research/hedge.html⁠ Goldman Sachs does not endorse any candidate or any political party. Copyright 2026. All rights reserved. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

SpaceX  – Price almost $135 – full retracement. Earnings season in on –  here we go! Inflation – choppy. War back on! Straits Open? Or? New Diet? CYCLOSPORIASIS PLUS we are now on Spotify and Amazon Music/Podcasts! Click HERE for Show Notes and Links DHUnplugged is now streaming live - with listener chat. Click on link on the right sidebar. Love the Show? Then how about a Donation? PayPal.Donation.Button({ env:'production', hosted_button_id:'JJJHP2GDEJC7J', image: { src:'https://www.paypalobjects.com/en_US/i/btn/btn_donateCC_LG.gif', alt:'Donate with PayPal button', title:'PayPal - The safer, easier way to pay online!', } }).render('#donate-button'); Follow John C. Dvorak on Twitter Follow Andrew Horowitz on Twitter Warm-Up - CTP for SpaceX  - Price almost hit $135 yesterday - Earnings season 0 here we go! - Inflation - choppy - War back on! Straits Open? Or? New Diet? CYCLOSPORIASIS Markets - Inflation - Some Relief - IBM's Pre-Annnouncment - What does this say? - Bank earnings and an earnings cheat sheet - Some interesting chart data Health Update: Meniscus Repair next Thursday.... Today IBM stood for 'I Be Melting' as Big Blue turned into Big Blew Up... IBM: It's Been Murdered IBM: I Bought Misery IBM: Investment Board Malfunction Big Blue looked more like Deep Red today The only cloud around IBM today was hanging over the stock chart IBM investors got a free software update: Version 2.0 of disappointment. IBM'S AI FACE-PLANT - IBM shares plunged as much as 25%, putting the stock on pace for its worst session on record. - Preliminary revenue was $17.2 billion versus expectations near $17.9 billion. - Adjusted earnings were projected at $2.93 per share versus roughly $3.01 expected. - Management said customers redirected spending toward AI servers, memory and hardware while delaying software purchases. - The drop removed roughly 375 points from the price-weighted DJIA. - JCD and AH were both right and wrong for the weekly stock picks TRUTH? - President Trump says U.S. blockade will apply only to ships from Iranian ports; says Strait of Hormuz is open to all traffic except for Iran; says "Based on highly productive conversations with Middle East leadership, I have decided to replace the 20% United States reimbursement fee with trade and investment deals that the various Gulf States will be making into the United States" - Can never be proven - no real numbers here.... Clearly needed to walk back the 20% item - Hormuz still hobbled - best estimates are that the ships passing are 20% of pre-war levels INFLATION RELIEF - FOR NOW - June CPI rose 3.5% year over year, down from 4.2% in May and below the 3.8% consensus. - Core CPI held at 2.6%. - Falling gasoline and energy prices drove much of the improvement. - Traders sharply reduced expectations for a July Fed rate increase. - Treasury yields fell and the Nasdaq advanced. WALL STREET BANKS PRINT MONEY - JPMorgan posted $21.2 billion in net income, helped by special items. - Markets revenue rose 35% to $12.1 billion, including an 86% jump in equities revenue. - Bank of America earned $9.1 billion as equities trading revenue increased 70%. - Goldman Sachs reported earnings of $20.98 per share and a 23.5% annualized return on common equity. - Jamie Dimon described conditions as close to "as good as it gets." THE $26.5 BILLION AI-MEMORY IPO - $ GRAB - SK Hynix raised $26.5 billion through a Nasdaq ADR listing. - The offering priced at $149 and finished approximately 13% higher the day of the offering, but sunk the next. - Demand reportedly exceeded the available shares by more than seven times. - SK Hynix supplies high-bandwidth memory used in Nvidia-powered AI systems. - The listing gives U.S. investors direct access to one of the largest beneficiaries of AI infrastructure spending. - - Samsung is on tap to do the same thing... Some Interesting Charts Best Quarters Plus One Equal vs Cap-Weight OIL'S CEASEFIRE WHIPLASH - Brent crude jumped 5.2% to $78.02 a barrel after the U.S.-Iran ceasefire broke down. - WTI rose 4.4% to $73.52. - Markets repriced the risk of interrupted tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. - Energy stocks gained while airlines and the broader market weakened. - Rising oil prices could quickly reverse the energy-related improvement seen in the June inflation report. APPLE SUES OPENAI - AI PARTNERS TURN RIVALS - Apple sued OpenAI and two former Apple employees on July 10, alleging coordinated theft of hardware trade secrets. - The defendants include OpenAI hardware chief Tang Tan and technical employee Chang Liu, both former Apple employees. - Apple claims confidential product designs and manufacturing information were taken to accelerate OpenAI's consumer-device program. - More than 400 former Apple employees reportedly now work at OpenAI, highlighting the scale of the talent migration between the companies. IPO AND MEGADEAL FEVER RETURNS - Global deals valued above $10 billion reached record levels during the first half of 2026. - Mega-deals represented approximately 43% of newly announced M&A volume. - Investment-banking revenue surged across JPMorgan, Bank of America and Goldman Sachs. - Large offerings from SpaceX and SK Hynix added momentum to underwriting activity. - The boom depends on high equity valuations, strong AI demand and large transactions continuing. BANKS BANKS BANKS JPMORGAN CHASE - RECORD PROFIT - Profit reached a record $16.9 billion, or $6.14 per share, versus $5.59 expected. - Managed revenue totaled $58 billion, with every major business reporting record revenue. - Markets revenue rose 35%, led by an 86% surge in equities trading. - Investment-banking revenue increased 30% to its highest level since 2021. - Jamie Dimon warned that geopolitical tensions, sticky inflation, fiscal deficits and elevated asset prices remain major risks. BANK OF AMERICA - TRADING RECORD - Net income rose 27% to $9.1 billion, or $1.21 per share, versus $1.13 expected. - Revenue increased 15% to $31.6 billion. - Sales and trading revenue jumped 33% to a record $7.1 billion; equities revenue rose 70%. - Investment-banking fees increased 50% to $2.1 billion. - Full-year net-interest-income growth is now expected near the upper end of the previous 6% to 8% range. GOLDMAN SACHS - DEAL BOOM - Profit reached $6.63 billion, or $20.98 per share, versus $14.48 expected. - Revenue totaled $20.3 billion. - Equities revenue surged 72% to a record $7.42 billion. - Fixed-income, currency and commodities revenue increased 32% to $4.59 billion. - Investment-banking fees jumped 55%, helping send Goldman shares to a record high. CITIGROUP - DECADE-HIGH REVENUE - Net income jumped 45% to $5.8 billion, or $3.15 per share, versus roughly $2.74 expected. - Revenue rose 14% to $24.8 billion, the bank's highest quarterly revenue in a decade. - Investment-banking revenue increased 44% to $1.55 billion. - Equities trading revenue rose 45%, while fixed-income trading increased 7%. - Return on tangible common equity reached 13%, matching the upper end of management's target range. WELLS FARGO - BACK ON OFFENSE - Net income rose 22% to $6.4 billion, or $2.00 per share. - Revenue reached $22.6 billion and topped expectations. - Investment-banking revenue increased 20%. - Markets revenue rose 24% as volatility boosted client activity. - Management said the removal of regulatory growth restrictions is allowing the bank to deploy capital and expand its balance sheet. Bank Returns Post Earnings (July 14, 2026) Bank Stocks Earnings Cheat Sheet - JULY 15 - ASML: Expected EPS around $7.92 on $10.25 billion revenue; bookings, EUV demand and updated AI-chip equipment guidance will matter most. - JULY 15 - JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Expected EPS around $2.86 on $25.02 billion revenue; watch pharmaceutical growth, medical-device demand and full-year guidance. - JULY 15 - MORGAN STANLEY: Expected EPS around $2.89 on $19.38 billion revenue; trading, investment banking and wealth-management inflows are the key numbers. - JULY 15 - BLACKROCK: Expected EPS around $12.59 on $6.80 billion revenue; assets under management, ETF flows and private-market fundraising will be in focus. - JULY 16 - TSMC: Expected EPS around $3.76-$3.77 on roughly $40 billion revenue; AI demand, gross margin and any increase to capital-spending guidance are critical. - JULY 16 - UNITEDHEALTH: Expected EPS around $4.84 on $110.8 billion revenue; medical-cost trends and the durability of full-year guidance are the main issues. - JULY 16 - GE AEROSPACE: Expected EPS around $1.85 on $11.8 billion revenue; engine deliveries, service revenue and supply-chain constraints will drive the reaction. - JULY 16 - NETFLIX: Expected EPS around $0.79 on $12.58 billion revenue; advertising growth, engagement and operating-margin guidance will matter more than subscribers. - JULY 17 - TRAVELERS: Expected EPS around $5.33 on roughly $11 billion revenue; catastrophe losses, insurance pricing and reserve development are the key swing factors. - JULY 17 - FIFTH THIRD: Expected EPS around $0.98 on $3.25 billion revenue; net-interest income, deposit costs and credit quality will be closely watched. WAYFAIR GOES PHYSICAL - Wayfair opened its second large-format store in Atlanta on March 31, following the 2024 debut of its 150,000-square-foot Wilmette, Illinois flagship. - The company is building a national store network, with Denver expected later in 2026 and Yonkers, Cincinnati and Princeton locations planned for 2027. - The stores combine furniture, decor, appliances and home-improvement products, giving customers a chance to test large purchases before ordering. - The strategy is a major reversal for an online-first retailer and is designed to increase brand awareness, reduce dependence on digital advertising and capture shoppers returning to physical stores. AI SOVEREIGN WEALTH FUND - PUBLIC OWNERSHIP DEBATE - Bernie Sanders introduced legislation requiring the largest AI companies to transfer 50% of their equity into a U.S. sovereign wealth fund. - The fund is projected by supporters to hold roughly $7 trillion and could finance annual public dividends and government services. - OpenAI has separately floated a much smaller proposal in which major AI companies would voluntarily contribute about 5% of their equity. - Supporters call it a way to share AI-created wealth; critics warn government ownership could discourage investment, distort regulation and reduce innovation. PSA  - That's what we do....CYCLOSPORIASIS OUTBREAK - CASES SURGE - Cyclosporiasis cases are rising across more than 30 states, with Michigan, Ohio and New York reporting particularly large increases. - The CDC reported at least 843 confirmed cases and 86 hospitalizations by July 9, but state totals and reporting delays suggest the real count is substantially higher. - Lettuce, salad greens and other fresh produce are being investigated, although officials have not identified a specific product, supplier or national recall. - The parasite causes prolonged or recurring watery diarrhea; washing produce may reduce risk, and persistent symptoms should prompt medical testing and treatment. HOW TO REDUCE CYCLOSPORIASIS RISK (FWIW) - Wash hands with soap before preparing food and after using the bathroom. - Rinse fresh fruits, vegetables and herbs thoroughly under running water; scrubbing helps but cannot guarantee removal. - Keep raw produce separate from unwashed items, dirty utensils and preparation surfaces. - When traveling in tropical or subtropical areas, use safe water and avoid raw produce you cannot peel yourself; routine chemical sanitizers may not kill Cyclospora. Love the Show? Then how about a Donation? PayPal.Donation.Button({ env: 'production', hosted_button_id: 'JJJHP2GDEJC7J', image: { src: 'https://www.paypalobjects.com/en_US/i/btn/btn_donateCC_LG.gif', alt: 'Donate with PayPal button', title: 'PayPal - The safer, easier way to pay online!' } }).render('#donate-button-2'); THE CLOSEST TO THE PIN for SpaceX (SPCX) Winners will be getting great stuff like the new "OFFICIAL" DHUnplugged Shirt!     FED AND CRYPTO LIMERICKS   See this week's stock picks HERE Follow John C. Dvorak on Twitter Follow Andrew Horowitz on Twitter

 EPISODE DESCRIPTION I sat down with Wei Zhou, CEO of Coins.ph, to dig into how they're building stablecoin infrastructure that's genuinely changing lives in the Philippines and beyond. Wei walked me through his journey from Goldman Sachs to Binance CFO to buying Coins.ph from Gojek in 2022 and rebuilding it from scratch. We talked about why the Philippines has become a global leader in stablecoin adoption, how they slashed payment fees from 4-8% down to near-zero for Filipino freelancers, and why Wei believes every country needs its own blockchain currency , not just a blockchain dollar. We also got into the Genius Act, the Clarity Act, the upcoming wave of tokenized assets, and what it will take for stablecoins to go truly global. This one is packed with real-world insight from someone actually in the trenches of building payments infrastructure at the intersection of crypto and emerging markets. DISCLAIMERNothing mentioned in this podcast is investment advice and please do your own research. It would mean a lot if you can leave a review of this podcast on Apple Podcasts or Spotify and share this podcast with a friend. Be a guest on the podcast or contact us - https://www.web3pod.xyz/ CONNECT Coins.ph Website: https://www.coins.ph/en-phCoins.ph Twitter/X: https://x.com/coinsphLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/coins-ph/TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@coinsph_officialWeb3 with Sam Kamani: https://www.web3pod.xyz/ KEY POINTS WITH TIMESTAMPS • [00:01] Introduction to Wei Zhou and Coins.ph, building stablecoin infrastructure for the Philippines• [01:11] Wei's journey: Goldman Sachs, Binance CFO, buying Coins.ph from Gojek in 2022 and rebuilding it from scratch• [04:49] Why the Philippines is a natural fit for stablecoin adoption , the gig economy, English fluency, and the unbanked• [06:22] How Coins.ph cut payment fees from 4-8% (PayPal) to under 0.2% using USDC and USDT rails• [09:36] New feature: users can now spend USDT and USDC directly without converting to pesos, protecting against FX losses• [10:47] Financial literacy over crypto education , why Coins.ph focuses on helping people avoid scams first• [15:44] The importance of being a licensed VASP and e-money issuer , stacking regulatory 'Lego blocks'• [18:50] Institutional adoption in the US vs retail/payment adoption in emerging markets , why they differ• [19:49] The Genius Act's impact on stablecoin growth and why the Clarity Act could unlock the next wave of token issuance• [26:39] Why USD will remain dominant in stablecoins , mirroring the traditional FX market structure• [33:47] Tokenization wave: NASDAQ, SWIFT, DTCC, and the SEC all moving toward blockchain-based assets• [36:26] Coins.ph super app redesign , crypto payments via QR at local merchants with near-zero fees• [36:58] PHP-C: a Philippine peso-backed stablecoin already in BSP sandbox, waiting for regulatory sign-off• [38:03] Why every country needs 'blockchain pesos' to match blockchain dollars , currency sovereignty on-chain• [39:56] Vision for Coins.ph: evolving into an all-in-one fintech with trading, payments, savings, investing, and lending• [43:29] Expansion into Brazil and other regions, plus ongoing fundraising conversations

In der heutigen Folge sprechen die Finanzjournalisten Nando Sommerfeldt und Holger Zschäpitz über den Dürre-Krisen-Indikator und machen einen Wall-Street-Banken-Exkurs. Außerdem geht es um Lucid, HCA Healthcare, Pentair, JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, SpaceX, Uber, Evotec, Delivery Hero, ASML, BlackRock, BNY Mellon, Morgan Stanley, Johnson & Johnson, United Airlines, J.B. Hunt, Rio Tinto, Richemont, BASF, Covestro, Shell, Thyssenkrupp, Barclays, Deutsche Bank, Evonik, Lanxess, Wacker Chemie, K+S, Nvidia, JPMorgan Global Equity Plus (ISIN: LU3351089811). Wir freuen uns an Feedback über aaa@welt.de. Noch mehr "Alles auf Aktien" findet Ihr bei WELTplus und Apple Podcasts – inklusive aller Artikel der Hosts. Hier bei WELT: https://www.welt.de/podcasts/alles-auf-aktien/plus247399208/Boersen-Podcast-AAA-Bonus-Folgen-Jede-Woche-noch-mehr-Antworten-auf-Eure-Boersen-Fragen.html. Hier könnt ihr den AAA-Newsletter abonnieren: https://www.welt.de/newsletter/article232797673/Alles-auf-Aktien-Der-taegliche-Boersen-Newsletter-fuer-WELTplus-Abonnenten.html Und – ganz neu: AAA gibt es jetzt auch auf Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/alles_auf_aktien/ Disclaimer: Die im Podcast besprochenen Aktien und Fonds stellen keine spezifischen Kauf- oder Anlage-Empfehlungen dar. Die Moderatoren und der Verlag haften nicht für etwaige Verluste, die aufgrund der Umsetzung der Gedanken oder Ideen entstehen. Hörtipps: Für alle, die noch mehr wissen wollen: Holger Zschäpitz können Sie jede Woche im Finanz- und Wirtschaftspodcast "Deffner&Zschäpitz" hören. +++ Werbung +++ Du möchtest mehr über unsere Werbepartner erfahren? Hier findest du alle Infos & Rabatte! https://linktr.ee/alles_auf_aktien *Anzeige: Eight Sleep: Der Pod 5 reguliert die Temperatur im Bett automatisch, trackt Schlaf- und Gesundheitswerte ohne Wearable und kann so zu besserem Schlaf beitragen. Mit dem Code ALLESAUFAKTIEN erhaltet ihr auf https://www.eightsleep.com/allesaufaktien bis zu 350 Euro Rabatt.* Impressum: https://www.welt.de/services/article7893735/Impressum.html Datenschutz: https://www.welt.de/services/article157550705/Datenschutzerklaerung-WELT-DIGITAL.html

P.M. Edition for July 14. Big U.S. banks like JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, and Bank of America reported soaring profits in the second quarter. But can the party continue? We hear from Gina Heeb, who covers banks for the Journal. Plus, inflation cooled to 3.5% last month. WSJ economics reporter Matt Grossman talks about what's driving prices lower, and what's expected later this summer. And ICE is suspending traffic stops after two fatal shootings in the past week. Alex Ossola hosts. Sign up for the WSJ's free What's News newsletter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Software stocks falling on the back of International Business Machines releasing a bleak earnings warning, causing the stock to lose a fourth of its value. The traders break down what the plummet means for the broader software market and why the fall could be a buying opportunity. Then, the June CPI results coming in softer than expected, cooling from  months-long upward moves. Former Dallas Fed president Richard Fisher gives his thoughts on what the reversal means for Fed policy and why he isn't saying goodbye to inflation yet. Plus, bank earnings season kicking off with Goldman Sachs soaring but Citigroup sinking, the latest on the Iran blockade, what's next for SK Hynix. Fast Money Disclaimer Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

July 14, 2026: Goldman Sachs' warns that the real AI productivity payoff may not arrive until 2030 at the earliest, because companies are buying the technology faster than they are redesigning work. Then I get into the split among leading economists over whether AI needs new institutions and guardrails now, or whether early governance could slow progress. Finally, I look at IBM's major market shock and why it shows that even companies selling AI transformation can struggle when customer behavior changes faster than the organization can move.

BlackRock, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, Morgan Stanley, Ripple, and 49 other firms have joined the UK's tokenization taskforce to develop live tokenization use cases across financial markets. Trump calls for the Senate to pass the Clarity Act.Brought to you by

Brendan Wallace is the Founder, CEO & CIO of Fifth Wall, the largest investment firm focused on technology for the built environment, with ~$3B in capital, the firm is driving the growth of nearly 170 companies, backing category-defining PropTech leaders such as Opendoor, Procore, Blend, Hippo, and Bilt Rewards. It's supported by ~115 of the world's largest real estate owner-operators including CBRE, Hilton, Hines, Marriott, Public Storage, Related, and Starwood. Before Fifth Wall, Brendan was at Goldman Sachs and Blackstone, and he co-founded Identified (sold to Workday) and Cabify. In this episode of Summation, Brendan and Auren discuss:How remote work protected mediocrity for yearsThe data center land grab: powered land, 2037 grid connections, and bring-your-own-solarHow land is the most stable asset on earth and there's still no way to buy an index of itWhy "capital-intensive businesses are bad for venture" is no longer trueYou can find Auren Hoffman on X at @auren and Brendan Wallace on X at @BrendanFWallace

Goldman Sachs and Bank of America has stellar earnings, The consumer price index in June fell 0.4 percent on the month bringing the annual inflation rate to 3.5 percent, Next Pints and Portfolios will be in Sunnyvale this Saturday from 11:30am to 1:30pm on July 18th with EP Wealth Advisors

Kathryn Ruemmler, Goldman Sachs' former chief legal officer and current senior counsel, is scheduled to testify before the House Oversight Committee as lawmakers investigate her relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and the federal government's handling of his crimes. Ruemmler stepped down from Goldman's top legal position at the end of June after newly released Justice Department records revealed that her contacts with Epstein were more extensive than previously known. Those records reportedly show numerous communications between the two from 2014 through 2019, years after Epstein's 2008 conviction, as well as gifts Ruemmler accepted from him and advice she provided about responding to media questions concerning his criminal historyThe records also indicate that Epstein called Ruemmler's cellphone on July 6, 2019, the day of his federal arrest on sex-trafficking charges. Ruemmler's spokesperson has maintained that she did nothing improper, knew nothing about any ongoing criminal conduct and took no action after the brief call. Members of Congress are expected to question her about what she knew, whom Epstein discussed with her and how he maintained his influence among powerful institutions. Lawmakers have also criticized Goldman Sachs for retaining Ruemmler in an advisory role, arguing that the decision raises serious questions about the bank's due diligence and its judgment concerning her ties to Epstein.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Congress to grill Goldman Sachs executive over newly revealed Epstein ties | The Independent

Connect with Early Riders — https://www.earlyriders.com/contactConnect with Onramp — https://onrampbitcoin.com/contact-us/Presented collaboratively by Early Riders & Onramp Media…Final Settlement is a weekly podcast covering capital markets, dealmaking, early-stage venture, bitcoin applications and protocol development.This week Michael, Liam, and Brian break down the banks' accelerating tokenization push: BlackRock, Goldman Sachs, and JPMorgan joining a 54-firm UK tokenization task force, Swift's blockchain ledger pilot with 17 banks, and what it means for Bitcoin's role in the emerging plumbing. They dig into Satya Nadella's AI sovereignty thesis, Microsoft's Frontier Company data play, Apple's lawsuit against OpenAI, and the Fed's new AI task force under Kevin Warsh. The guys run through a stack of deals: TerraWolf's $19 billion Anthropic infrastructure agreement, OLAMA's $65 million raise, Paradigm's $1.2 billion fourth fund expanding into AI and robotics, and Tether's $20 million investment in Mercado Bitcoin. They close on TradFi's crypto expansion via SBI Holdings and Russia's Alpha Bank, Kraken's $22 million lawsuit win, where the Clarity Act stands ahead of the midterms, and Spiral's new open source push to merge Bitcoin and AI.Chapters00:00 - Introduction and Show Overview00:18 - Market Sentiment and Show Focus01:15 - Banks and Traditional Enterprises in Digital Asset Space02:40 - UK Tokenization Task Force and Use Cases03:40 - Swift Blockchain Ledger Pilot with 17 Banks04:34 - Global Sprint in Tokenized Securities and Deposits07:23 - Bitcoin's Role in the Future of Digital Infrastructure09:39 - The Bullish Case for Bitcoin Amidst Tokenization12:28 - AI Tools and Sovereignty in Data Ownership15:37 - Microsoft's Investment in AI and Data Sovereignty22:16 - Microsoft Frontier Company and Proprietary Data Platforms25:07 - The Importance of Human Agency in AI Adoption28:40 - AI and the Disruption of Traditional Business Models29:08 - Apple Suing OpenAI Over Trade Secrets32:36 - The Long-Term Impact of AI and Open Source Models36:50 - DoorDash's AI Code Reviewer and Internal AI Adoption38:19 - Fed's AI Task Force and Economic Policy43:32 - Russia's Strategic Use of Bitcoin and Digital Assets50:07 - Paradigm's New Fund and Broader Tech Investment55:13 - Traditional Finance's Entry into Crypto and Digital Assets01:02:41 - Regulatory Developments and the Future of Crypto Legislation01:09:18 - Bitcoin's Role in the Future of Digital Infrastructure01:11:21 - Open Source AI and Bitcoin IntegrationIf you found this valuable, please subscribe to Early Riders Insights for access to the best content in the ecosystem weekly: https://www.earlyriders.com/researchKeep up with Michael:https://x.com/MTangumaKeep up with Liam:https://x.com/Lnelson_21Keep up with Brian:https://x.com/BackslashBTC

Earnings season is underway as the major banks begin reporting. JPMorgan Chase (JPM) falls as CEO Jamie Dimon warns that economic risks are “shifting below the surface,” while Goldman Sachs (GS) posts a significant revenue beat and Bank of America (BAC) reports stronger trading revenue.In tech, chip stocks move higher following Monday's selloff in SK Hynix, while IBM plummets after releasing preliminary second-quarter earnings. Alex Coffey breaks down the biggest market moves and earnings takeaways.======== Schwab Network ========Empowering every investor and trader, every market day. Subscribe to the Market Minute newsletter - https://schwabnetwork.com/subscribeDownload the iOS app - https://apps.apple.com/us/app/schwab-network/id1460719185Download the Amazon Fire Tv App - https://www.amazon.com/TD-Ameritrade-Network/dp/B07KRD76C7Watch on Sling - https://watch.sling.com/1/asset/191928615bd8d47686f94682aefaa007/watchWatch on Vizio - https://www.vizio.com/en/watchfreeplus-exploreWatch on DistroTV - https://www.distro.tv/live/schwab-network/Follow us on X – https://twitter.com/schwabnetworkFollow us on Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/schwabnetworkFollow us on LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/company/schwab-network/ About Schwab Network - https://schwabnetwork.com/about

Jacob Sonenshine examines the latest bank earnings, highlighting the contrast between investment banking strength at JPMorgan Chase (JPM) and Goldman Sachs (GS) and the challenges facing regional lenders. He also discusses the outlook for net interest income and why banking remains a highly cyclical business.======== Schwab Network ========Empowering every investor and trader, every market day. Subscribe to the Market Minute newsletter - https://schwabnetwork.com/subscribeDownload the iOS app - https://apps.apple.com/us/app/schwab-network/id1460719185Download the Amazon Fire Tv App - https://www.amazon.com/TD-Ameritrade-Network/dp/B07KRD76C7Watch on Sling - https://watch.sling.com/1/asset/191928615bd8d47686f94682aefaa007/watchWatch on Vizio - https://www.vizio.com/en/watchfreeplus-exploreWatch on DistroTV - https://www.distro.tv/live/schwab-network/Follow us on X – https://twitter.com/schwabnetworkFollow us on Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/schwabnetworkFollow us on LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/company/schwab-network/ About Schwab Network - https://schwabnetwork.com/about

CFRA's Kenneth Leon breaks down earnings from JPMorgan Chase (JPM), Bank of America (BAC), Citigroup (C), and Goldman Sachs (GS), highlighting stronger-than-expected trading and investment banking results. He also discusses how a more favorable regulatory environment could boost M&A activity and help fuel a busy IPO market in the second half of the year.======== Schwab Network ========Empowering every investor and trader, every market day. Subscribe to the Market Minute newsletter - https://schwabnetwork.com/subscribeDownload the iOS app - https://apps.apple.com/us/app/schwab-network/id1460719185Download the Amazon Fire Tv App - https://www.amazon.com/TD-Ameritrade-Network/dp/B07KRD76C7Watch on Sling - https://watch.sling.com/1/asset/191928615bd8d47686f94682aefaa007/watchWatch on Vizio - https://www.vizio.com/en/watchfreeplus-exploreWatch on DistroTV - https://www.distro.tv/live/schwab-network/Follow us on X – https://twitter.com/schwabnetworkFollow us on Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/schwabnetworkFollow us on LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/company/schwab-network/ About Schwab Network - https://schwabnetwork.com/about

Stephen Biggar and Dory Wiley break down second-quarter results from major banks including JPMorgan Chase (JPM), Bank of America (BAC), Wells Fargo (WFC), Citigroup (C) and Goldman Sachs (GS). They discuss how strong capital markets activity, investment banking and net interest income are supporting profits, and why a favorable regulatory environment could help drive additional growth and M&A activity through the rest of the year.======== Schwab Network ========Empowering every investor and trader, every market day. Subscribe to the Market Minute newsletter - https://schwabnetwork.com/subscribeDownload the iOS app - https://apps.apple.com/us/app/schwab-network/id1460719185Download the Amazon Fire Tv App - https://www.amazon.com/TD-Ameritrade-Network/dp/B07KRD76C7Watch on Sling - https://watch.sling.com/1/asset/191928615bd8d47686f94682aefaa007/watchWatch on Vizio - https://www.vizio.com/en/watchfreeplus-exploreWatch on DistroTV - https://www.distro.tv/live/schwab-network/Follow us on X – https://twitter.com/schwabnetworkFollow us on Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/schwabnetworkFollow us on LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/company/schwab-network/ About Schwab Network - https://schwabnetwork.com/about

SUMMARY DEL SHOW Futuros mixtos este martes con EE.UU. completando una tercera noche de ataques contra Irán y Trump reinstatando un bloqueo naval sobre el Estrecho de Ormuz, mientras arranca la temporada de resultados con JPMorgan, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup y Wells Fargo reportando hoy. $NVDA recortó a más de la mitad su lista de clientes asiáticos autorizados para comprar chips de IA, introduciendo una lista blanca con controles más estrictos para evitar desvíos hacia China a través de terceros países. $CLSK firma un arrendamiento de $6.6 Billones a 20 años con una compañía tecnológica global no revelada, confirmando su transición de minería de Bitcoin hacia infraestructura de data centers, pese a caer 6% en la sesión.

Goldman Sachs and Bank of America has stellar earnings, The consumer price index in June fell 0.4 percent on the month bringing the annual inflation rate to 3.5 percent, Next Pints and Portfolios will be in Sunnyvale this Saturday from 11:30am to 1:30pm on July 18th with EP Wealth AdvisorsSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In der heutigen Folge sprechen die Finanzjournalisten Nando Sommerfeldt und Holger Zschäpitz über historisch günstige Goldminen, starke Drägerwerk-Zahlen und den „Wächter von Hormus“. Außerdem geht es um SanDisk, Marvell Technology, Intel, SK Hynix, SpaceX, Bank of America, Hensoldt, Renk, Volkswagen, Rheinmetall, Airbus, Drägerwerk, Vossloh, HelloFresh, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, Gerresheimer, Ericsson, Mercedes-Benz, Schaeffler, Lufthansa, American Airlines, IAG, Ryanair, Shell, BP, ExxonMobil, Chevron, TSMC, Samsung Electronics und iShares MSCI EM UCITS ETF (WKN: A0RPWJ), JP Morgan Global Equity Plus (ISIN LU3351089811) und den JP Morgan Emerging Markets Equity Plus (ISIN LU2190025218). Wir freuen uns an Feedback über aaa@welt.de. Noch mehr "Alles auf Aktien" findet Ihr bei WELTplus und Apple Podcasts – inklusive aller Artikel der Hosts. Hier bei WELT: https://www.welt.de/podcasts/alles-auf-aktien/plus247399208/Boersen-Podcast-AAA-Bonus-Folgen-Jede-Woche-noch-mehr-Antworten-auf-Eure-Boersen-Fragen.html. Hier könnt ihr den AAA-Newsletter abonnieren: https://www.welt.de/newsletter/article232797673/Alles-auf-Aktien-Der-taegliche-Boersen-Newsletter-fuer-WELTplus-Abonnenten.html Und – ganz neu: AAA gibt es jetzt auch auf Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/alles_auf_aktien/ Disclaimer: Die im Podcast besprochenen Aktien und Fonds stellen keine spezifischen Kauf- oder Anlage-Empfehlungen dar. Die Moderatoren und der Verlag haften nicht für etwaige Verluste, die aufgrund der Umsetzung der Gedanken oder Ideen entstehen. Hörtipps: Für alle, die noch mehr wissen wollen: Holger Zschäpitz können Sie jede Woche im Finanz- und Wirtschaftspodcast "Deffner&Zschäpitz" hören. +++ Werbung +++ Du möchtest mehr über unsere Werbepartner erfahren? Hier findest du alle Infos & Rabatte! https://linktr.ee/alles_auf_aktien *Anzeige: Eight Sleep: Der Pod 5 reguliert die Temperatur im Bett automatisch, trackt Schlaf- und Gesundheitswerte ohne Wearable und kann so zu besserem Schlaf beitragen. Mit dem Code ALLESAUFAKTIEN erhaltet ihr auf https://www.eightsleep.com/allesaufaktien bis zu 350 Euro Rabatt.* Impressum: https://www.welt.de/services/article7893735/Impressum.html Datenschutz: https://www.welt.de/services/article157550705/Datenschutzerklaerung-WELT-DIGITAL.html

The US continued to launch strikes for a third night, after President Trump stated that he would hit Iran “very hard” on Monday and Tuesday. Separately, Trump threatened to hit Iran's “Pickaxe Mountain”, an underground nuclear facility; Brent Sep'26 +4.0%.US equity futures are mixed, with the NQ outperforming as it recovers from Monday's selloff; US banking names kick of earnings.DXY tentative heading into CPI and Fed Chair Warsh's testimony; Kiwi outperforms after further hawkish RBNZ rhetoric.Fixed income benchmarks are softer amid energy moves and continued post-Waller hawkishness.Crude benchmarks grind higher on continued US-Iran updates while spot gold finds support above USD 4k/oz.Looking ahead, highlights include US CPI (Jun), Fed Discount Rate Minutes (Jul), ECB President Lagarde-US Treasury Secretary Bessent meeting, Speakers include Fed Chair Warsh, Goolsbee, Barr, Cook and Bowman, BoE Governor Bailey, Earnings from Citi, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, Bank of America and Wells Fargo. Read the full report covering Equities, Forex, Fixed Income, Commodites and more on Newsquawk

The US continued to launch strikes for a third night, after President Trump stated that he would hit Iran “very hard” on Monday and Tuesday. Separately, Trump threatened to hit Iran's “Pickaxe Mountain”, an underground nuclear facility; Brent Aug'26 +1.9%.US President Trump also announced a naval blockade, which is set to begin at 21:00 BST / 16:00 EDT.APAC stocks were mostly in the red given the geopolitical environment and tech sell-off; European equity futures are indicative of a weaker open.DXY takes a breather; Kiwi outperforms following regional data and hawkish comments from RBNZ's Conway.USTs and Bunds remain pressured amidst the elevated energy prices and after Fed's Waller delivered hawkish remarks.Looking ahead, Highlights include German Wholesale Prices (Jun), Chinese M2 Money Supply (Jun), US NFIB Business Optimism Index (Jun), US CPI (Jun), Fed Discount Rate Minutes (Jul), ECB President Lagarde-US Treasury Secretary Bessent meeting.Speakers including Fed Chair Warsh, Goolsbee, Barr, Cook & Bowman, BoE Governor Bailey, Supply from the Netherlands & Germany.Earnings from Citi, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, Bank of America, Wells Fargo.Read the full report covering Equities, Forex, Fixed Income, Commodites and more on Newsquawk

Alissa Coram and Ed Carson walk through Tuesday's market action with key stocks to watch in Stock Market Today. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

JP Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, CitiGroup, Bank of America, Wells Fargo: het cijferseizoen begint met vuurwerk. De Amerikaanse grootbanken verpletteren de verwachtingen. JP Morgan noteert zelfs met 21 miljard dollar de hoogste winst ooit voor de bank. Maar toch is één bank niet zo vrolijk. Ondanks een prachtig kwartaal waarschuwt Bank of America voor té enthousiaste beleggers. Waar komt dat recordkwartaal vandaan? En wat moet je nou doen met die waarschuwing? Deze aflevering zoeken we het voor je uit. Verder hebben we het over dé overnamedeal van het afgelopen halfjaar. Die van Warner Brothers Discovery door Paramount Skydance. De deal dreigt alsnog in het water te vallen, nu 12 Amerikaanse staten er bezwaar tegen hebben. Ze starten een rechtszaak omdat ze bang zijn dat klanten, bioscopen én distributeurs benadeeld worden door de overname. Je hoort ook nog over het drama bij tech-ancienne IBM. Daar verdampt een kwart van de waarde na een tegenvallend cijferrapport. En je komt erachter wat het geheim is van de 16-jarige die beter belegt dan jij. Te gast: Mike Mulders van ING Investment Office BNR Beurs is een journalistiek onafhankelijke productie, mede mogelijk gemaakt door Saxo. Over de makers: Jelle Maasbach is presentator van BNR Beurs en freelance financieel journalist. Zijn favoriete aandeel om over te praten is Disney, maar daar lijkt hij de enige in te zijn. Sinds de eerste uitzending van BNR Beurs is 'ie er bij. Maxim van Mil is presentator van BNR Beurs en journalist bij BNR, waar hij zich focust op de financiële markten en ontwikkelingen in de tech-wereld. Je krijgt hem het meest enthousiast als hij kan praten over ASML, of oer-Hollandse bedrijven zoals Ahold of ABN Amro. Jorik Simonides is presentator van BNR Beurs, economieredacteur en verslaggever bij BNR. Hij wordt er vooral blij van als het een keer níet over AI gaat. Je hoort hem ook in de BNR-podcast Moerdijk: dorp van de rekening. Milou Brand is presentator van BNR Beurs, freelance podcastmaker en columnist bij het Financieele Dagblad. Jochem Visser is presentator van BNR Beurs, maakt Beursnerd XL en is redacteur bij de podcast Onder Curatoren. Vraag hem naar obscure zaken op financiële markten en hij vertelt je waarom het eigenlijk nóg leuker is dan je al dacht. Over de podcast: Met BNR Beurs ga je altijd voorbereid de nieuwe beursdag in. We praten je in een kleine 25 minuten bij over alle laatste ontwikkelingen op de handelsvloer. We blijven niet alleen bij de AEX of Wall Street, maar vertellen je ook waar nog meer kansen liggen. En we houden het niet bij de cijfers, maar zoeken ook iedere dag voor je naar duiding van scherpe gasten en experts. Of je nu een ervaren belegger bent of net begint met je eerste stappen op de beurs, de podcast biedt waardevolle inzichten voor je beleggingsstrategie. Door de focus op zowel de korte termijn als de lange termijn, helpt BNR Beurs luisteraars om de ruis van de markt te scheiden van de essentie.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

En el episodio de hoy Juan Manuel de los Reyes y Valentina Orduz analizaron los datos de inflación (CPI) del mes de junio. Después hablaron sobre los reportes trimestrales del sector financiero incluyendo JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs y Bank of America.

Kathryn Ruemmler, Goldman Sachs' former chief legal officer and current senior counsel, is scheduled to testify before the House Oversight Committee as lawmakers investigate her relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and the federal government's handling of his crimes. Ruemmler stepped down from Goldman's top legal position at the end of June after newly released Justice Department records revealed that her contacts with Epstein were more extensive than previously known. Those records reportedly show numerous communications between the two from 2014 through 2019, years after Epstein's 2008 conviction, as well as gifts Ruemmler accepted from him and advice she provided about responding to media questions concerning his criminal historyThe records also indicate that Epstein called Ruemmler's cellphone on July 6, 2019, the day of his federal arrest on sex-trafficking charges. Ruemmler's spokesperson has maintained that she did nothing improper, knew nothing about any ongoing criminal conduct and took no action after the brief call. Members of Congress are expected to question her about what she knew, whom Epstein discussed with her and how he maintained his influence among powerful institutions. Lawmakers have also criticized Goldman Sachs for retaining Ruemmler in an advisory role, arguing that the decision raises serious questions about the bank's due diligence and its judgment concerning her ties to Epstein.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Congress to grill Goldman Sachs executive over newly revealed Epstein ties | The IndependentBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

P.M. Edition for July 13. The standoff over the Strait of Hormuz heats up: President Trump says he is reinstating the U.S. blockade of Iranian shipping through the crucial waterway, sending oil prices soaring. Plus, a coalition of a dozen states is suing to block the merger between Paramount and Warner Bros Discovery, the strongest legal challenge yet to the $81 billion acquisition. And Kathryn Ruemmler had said she would step down as Goldman Sachs's top lawyer at the end of June after her long relationship with Jeffrey Epstein came under scrutiny. But instead she's staying on, complicating efforts to find her successor. WSJ lead financial reporter AnnaMaria Andriotis discusses what's going on inside the bank ahead of Ruemmler's testimony in front of Congress on Wednesday. Alex Ossola hosts. Sign up for the WSJ's free What's News newsletter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Kathryn Ruemmler, Goldman Sachs' former chief legal officer and current senior counsel, is scheduled to testify before the House Oversight Committee as lawmakers investigate her relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and the federal government's handling of his crimes. Ruemmler stepped down from Goldman's top legal position at the end of June after newly released Justice Department records revealed that her contacts with Epstein were more extensive than previously known. Those records reportedly show numerous communications between the two from 2014 through 2019, years after Epstein's 2008 conviction, as well as gifts Ruemmler accepted from him and advice she provided about responding to media questions concerning his criminal historyThe records also indicate that Epstein called Ruemmler's cellphone on July 6, 2019, the day of his federal arrest on sex-trafficking charges. Ruemmler's spokesperson has maintained that she did nothing improper, knew nothing about any ongoing criminal conduct and took no action after the brief call. Members of Congress are expected to question her about what she knew, whom Epstein discussed with her and how he maintained his influence among powerful institutions. Lawmakers have also criticized Goldman Sachs for retaining Ruemmler in an advisory role, arguing that the decision raises serious questions about the bank's due diligence and its judgment concerning her ties to Epstein.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Congress to grill Goldman Sachs executive over newly revealed Epstein ties | The IndependentBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.