Carlson Exposes Disney Stagnation Under Iger

Carlson揭露Iger治下迪士尼的发展停滞 迪士尼在Bob Iger领导下长达十年的股价停滞和每股收益缩水，证明其精英CEO的声誉只是一个名不副实的神话。 Carlson回顾了他150万美元投资组合的表现，评估了为什么Google在前沿AI模型方面落后于OpenAI和Anthropic，同时解释了为何其稳健的核心业务和合理的估值仍足以支撑继续持有该股票。他逐一分析了Meta、Amazon、ASML、Netflix和Texas Roadhouse等持仓，认为市场的过度反应在这些优质龙头企业中创造了深度价值投资机会。谈到AI更广泛的经济影响，Carlson支持Jensen Huang的沙盒工程框架，而非Andrew Yang的零和裁员论点，坚持认为自动化能提升整体生产力并创造新的经济机会。最后，他在尖锐的“本周失败案例”环节中将矛头指向迪士尼CEO Bob Iger，引用Bob Chapek的揭秘访谈以及十年来停滞不前的盈利表现，将Iger定性为一名自我膨胀、被高估的高管。 在连续数月未推出新Pro模型后，Google已将其生成式AI的领先地位拱手让给OpenAI和Anthropic，但强劲的搜索和云业务增长仍支持在25倍远期市盈率下继续持有该股。 (3:00) ASML通过将中国区的设备营收占比从2023至2024年间的约50%降至14%，并将出货量重新平衡至美国、韩国和台湾，成功缓解了地缘政治出口风险。 (13:46) Texas Roadhouse股价下跌21%是由暂时性的牛肉批发价格通胀所致，管理层正自行消化这一成本以维持客户忠诚度，而非提高菜单价格。 (18:07) 随着Bob Chapek公开发声，迪士尼CEO Bob Iger面临审视，这凸显出迪士尼长达十年的运营停滞——其每股收益已从5.70美元缩水至4.85美元。 (32:20)

Joseph Carlson contends that established mega-cap tech and consumer platforms possess durable valuation and infrastructure moats that outweigh temporary AI model lags or macroeconomic panic, while maintaining that artificial intelligence and automation represent positive-sum economic catalysts. AI Shifts: Google’s Lag and Mega-Cap Defensibility (3:00) Carlson identifies a shift in generative AI, stating Google has lagged behind OpenAI and Anthropic after going seven to eight months without releasing a new pro model following Gemini 3.5 Pro. Despite ChatGPT performing better today in Carlson's assessment, he maintains his $200,000 position because Google trades at a 25 forward P/E, supported by 17% Search revenue growth, Google Cloud revenue climbing 57%, and a cloud backlog exceeding $500 billion. He notes projected nominal EPS drops of 27% stem from one-time equity sales like SpaceX, whereas organic EPS should grow 5% to 6%. Simultaneously, Carlson argues that established distribution giants will capture most monetization from AI. Meta is expanding into enterprise workflows via its Muse technology stack after hiring MongoDB’s active CEO. Amazon trades at 26 times earnings and retains an entrenched moat against AI shopping agents through its logistics network, order tracking, and vetted seller trust. Across the mega-cap tech cohort, including Microsoft at 26 forward P/E, Carlson expects high recurring software distribution and agentic commerce to expand margins. Mispriced Fundamentals Across Value and Growth Holdings (16:25) Examining broader portfolio assets, Carlson highlights businesses being penalized for short-term sentiment rather than broken economics. Netflix saw its trailing P/E compress from 50 in September 2025 to 22 despite a 16% revenue rise, 325 million paid subscribers, and a 2% uptick in engagement. ASML de-risked its geopolitical profile by cutting China revenue exposure from approximately 50% down to 14% while shifting tool shipments to the US, South Korea, and Taiwan. S&P Global trades at 21 forward earnings with ETF licensing assets doubling to $6 trillion. Elsewhere, Texas Roadhouse plunged 21% over the past month due to beef commodity inflation causing a 5% EPS drop, yet restaurant sales, unit counts, and to-go volumes are rising as management absorbs costs to preserve diner loyalty. Duolingo accepted flat paid subscriptions to prioritize habit-forming engagement, reaching a 41% DAU/MAU ratio and 58 million daily users. Uber trades at a 17 forward P/E despite fears of autonomous vehicle competition from Tesla, Waymo, and Zoox, which Carlson believes will be accommodated via a hybrid human-autonomous fulfillment network. Engineering Containment and the Economics of Automation (23:08) Carlson contrasts technological and political perspectives on artificial intelligence, endorsing Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang's assertion that AI safety is a solvable engineering problem. Huang draws an analogy to early web browsers, which mitigated the risks of unvetted software downloads by introducing permission sandboxing; similarly, autonomous agents are being architected in containerized, minimal-privilege environments to prevent unchecked execution. In contrast, Carlson critiques former presidential candidate Andrew Yang's argument that AI adoption is a zero-sum economic trade-off that enriches business owners by destroying opportunities for accountants, lawyers, and junior engineers. While AI tools enable small business owners to review contracts without paying $300 hourly legal rates, Carlson argues workforce automation is positive-sum. Displacing roles at high-output companies frees skilled labor to launch startups or join talent-constrained firms, which Carlson asserts expands aggregate productivity, innovation, and consumer living standards. Boardroom Conflict and Ten-Year Stagnation at Disney (32:20) Carlson critiques Disney CEO Bob Iger following former CEO Bob Chapek's interview detailing early friction and Iger's public reassertion of authority. Carlson characterizes Iger as an ego-driven executive who undermined Chapek's tenure rather than relinquishing operational control. Carlson argues that Iger’s reputation as an exceptional corporate operator is contradicted by Disney's decade-long financial results. Over the past 10 years, Disney's stock price has risen only 14% total, while earnings per share declined from $5.70 a decade ago to $4.85 today. According to Carlson, these figures reflect fundamental operational and franchise mismanagement, particularly within Lucasfilm and Star Wars, rather than a temporary market undervaluation. Carlson concludes that short-term volatility and headline narratives often obscure operational durability across large-scale enterprise, commerce, and media platforms. Unresolved questions remain regarding whether Google can rapidly close its frontier AI model gap against OpenAI and Anthropic, and whether autonomous ride networks will disrupt Uber's marketplace dynamics faster than anticipated.

[3:00] Joseph Carlson: ChatGPT is just way better, way better than Google today. [23:08] Jensen Huang: We hope it's an engineering problem. I believe it's an engineering problem. I know it's an engineering problem... If it's not an engineering problem, it's not solvable. [23:08] Jensen Huang: the modern browser... a browser for agents. [26:36] Andrew Yang: my company took down a job posting for a junior engineer and a junior data analyst, because AI made them less necessary and less relevant. [26:36] Andrew Yang: it's going to be bad for the people that I otherwise would have had to hire, who like otherwise would have had the ability to benefit from the opportunities that I'm creating. [26:36] Co-panelist: bridging the gap of the average Joe, the average Jill. [29:05] Joseph Carlson: Not a chance. They're going to start businesses. They're going to start new companies, new software. They'll use the skills that they learned plus artificial intelligence to spin up new products and services. [32:20] Bob Chapek: a rigidity, a certain hesitancy [32:20] Reporter: Did you see his body language? [32:20] Bob Chapek: essentially reasserting himself into the position of CEO without, A, ever talking to me about it, and B, from what I understand, my understanding, never talking to the board about it. [32:20] Joseph Carlson: Bob Iger is, without a doubt, one of the most ego-driven CEOs in the world. He can't stand the idea of someone else controlling his Disney with his vision. He is obsessive, territorial, conspiring. He undermined Bob Chapek and torpedoed any chance he had at success after being the one that selected Bob Chapek and recommending him. [32:20] Joseph Carlson: one of the most overrated CEOs of all time.

[0:00] Welcome back everyone. Today on the [0:01] Joseph Carlson Show, we'll be looking at [0:02] my $1.5 million portfolio, every single [0:06] holding and what's going on with them. [0:08] We have some big questions around [0:10] Google. They haven't done much this [0:11] year. Meta has taken off recently. We [0:13] also have MasterCard and Amazon and so [0:16] on. We'll be breaking down and looking [0:17] at the situation with each one of them. [0:19] Now, we also have a lot of news to get [0:21] to. For example, Meta apparently just [0:23] hired the CEO of MongoDB. [0:26] Like the active CEO and a day before [0:28] their investor day. I don't know how he [0:30] pulled this off. MongoDB is down like [0:32] 25% on the news. It's crazy. We also [0:35] have Jensen as one of the only sane [0:37] people going on a TV continually talking [0:39] about how AI is not going to destroy us [0:41] all. That's the message he's trying to [0:43] share and Jensen has his work cut out [0:45] for him because while he's doing that, [0:46] we have politicians, ones like Andrew [0:48] Yang, that continue to go on to [0:49] different appearances, different shows, [0:52] and share his gloomy view of the future. [0:54] Well, he talks about how AI is a [0:56] zero-sum game and automation is a [0:58] zero-sum game. And this is one of the [1:00] worst errors that politicians make. It's [1:01] a complete misunderstanding of economics [1:03] and business and I'll be responding to [1:04] it in this episode. And then finally, in [1:06] this week's fail of the week, we have [1:08] Bob Iger. Now, Bob Chapek is the one [1:11] talking here, so there's two Bobs, but [1:13] it's not Bob Chapek that's a fail of the [1:15] week. It's Bob Iger and I believe this [1:16] one is long overdue. So, we have a ton [1:18] to get to in this episode. If you enjoy [1:20] this type of content, make sure that you [1:22] like the video, subscribe to the channel [1:24] so you can follow along because I share [1:26] my portfolio every single week, [1:28] sometimes multiple times a week. And [1:30] I'll be doing so again right now. What [1:31] we're looking at here is real money. [1:33] It's a real portfolio. In early 2019, I [1:36] started tracking this portfolio publicly [1:38] on YouTube and I've continued doing that [1:40] ever since. The portfolio has grown [1:42] substantially. The gains have grown [1:44] substantially. Now, this portfolio is up [1:47] $507,000. [1:49] Now, when you look at the year-to-date [1:50] in 2026, we're not doing great. It's [1:53] down 1.28%. [1:55] About a week ago, it was up like 4%. So, [1:58] it's bouncing around between a little [2:00] bit in the red, a little bit in the [2:01] green. We're trailing the S&P 500 this [2:03] year. [2:04] But, in investing, you're not looking at [2:06] the year-to-date as the ultimate truth. [2:09] That's not the one metric that defines [2:10] how good you're doing. It's your overall [2:13] performance. When we zoom out overall, [2:14] this has had market-beating performance. [2:16] And in fact, it's generated over half a [2:18] million dollars in gains. And a lot of [2:20] these gains were made with much smaller [2:22] dollar amounts invested. I did not start [2:24] with a million dollars. I didn't invest [2:26] in day one with a million dollars. You [2:28] can see in 2017, I had $4,000 in this [2:31] account. I started it just like anyone [2:33] else. Budgeting, putting a couple [2:35] hundred dollars a week into my account. [2:37] In 2021, I had around 300 to 400,000. We [2:40] had the big COVID dip. It went down a [2:42] bit there, but I kept buying stocks [2:44] aggressively. And then in 2023 is really [2:46] where the outperformance began. After [2:48] 2023, this portfolio raced up. The gains [2:51] continued to accumulate, and the [2:52] majority of the gains have been made in [2:54] only the past couple of years. In fact, [2:56] a lot of them have come from a select [2:57] companies that I still hold in my [2:59] portfolio. So, let's go ahead and take a [3:00] look at the top positions. In rank [3:03] number one today, overall, it's Google. [3:06] Now, Meta did jump up above Google for a [3:09] couple days, but Meta's it's going down. [3:11] Meta went down like 4% today and a [3:13] couple percent the last market day. So, [3:16] Meta has given up about $8,000 in gains, [3:18] bumping itself down. But, you can see [3:20] how close these are. With Google, I'm up [3:22] $108,000. [3:24] And a lot of these gains have been made [3:26] in just the past couple of years. When I [3:27] look at Google, there's a a couple [3:29] things that are concerning right now. [3:31] And the biggest concern is that they've [3:33] basically fallen behind in the AI model [3:36] race. [3:37] Google was in the lead in 2026. In fact, [3:40] at the beginning of the year, Google had [3:41] the best model, which was Gemini 3.5 [3:44] Pro. It was excellent. Did a great job [3:47] for the time. [3:48] But, then OpenAI released a couple new [3:50] models. They released recently [3:53] which is incredible. And you have Claude [3:55] just releasing new ones as well, which [3:56] are incredible. I know these models very [3:58] well. I'm always one of the top 1% users [4:01] in these different tools. And so I [4:02] understand the difference in capability [4:04] between the two, and simply put ChatGPT [4:07] is just way better, way better than [4:09] Google today. Uh ChatGPT is so much [4:11] better than Gemini, they're not really [4:13] that close today. So we've had 7, 8 [4:16] months now of Google just going nowhere. [4:19] No new pro model released. They've [4:21] released a couple light models, which [4:22] are fast and nice for simple things, [4:25] summarizing emails, suggested responses, [4:28] stuff like that. But for really in-depth [4:30] work, going out and accomplishing [4:32] things, agentic capabilities, it seems [4:35] like Google has just fallen behind. [4:37] So you may look at this and think, "Wow, [4:38] why am I still holding this $200,000 [4:41] investment? Why don't I take some [4:43] gains?" [4:44] Well, it's because I've seen how quickly [4:45] things can change in the AI race. [4:48] A couple months ago it seemed like Meta [4:50] was not even on on the map. They weren't [4:52] even close. And now Muse seems like it's [4:55] in the lead with its personalized [4:56] agentic capabilities. So things can [4:58] change very quickly. With Google, I [5:00] think you have reason to be patient. [5:02] Let's go ahead and first look at the [5:03] valuation. [5:05] Google today is not trading at a wild [5:08] valuation. We want to look at the [5:09] forward PE. It's at a 25. A 25 forward [5:13] PE is good. It's a healthy PE, but it's [5:17] nothing crazy. Google's not being priced [5:19] with incredible levels of expectation. [5:21] These are good expectations priced in, [5:23] but not great. We're not pricing in a 30 [5:26] to 35 PE ratio. Right now, Apple trades [5:29] at a 35, Google trades at a 25. So I [5:32] look at this and I believe that right [5:34] now, we don't have an enormous amount of [5:36] excess in the stock to begin with. And [5:38] then if we look at what's actually going [5:39] on with Google's business, it doesn't [5:41] look so bad. We have the revenue by [5:43] segment, which over the past couple of [5:45] years, it continues to grow in basically [5:47] every segment. Google search continues [5:49] to grow like crazy, growing 17%. There [5:52] are concerns about search in the future [5:54] with all these agents and assistants. [5:56] That's one part of Google's business [5:57] that is somewhat exposed, but Google has [5:59] a lot of ways of dealing with this. [6:01] Another big aspect of Google is YouTube. [6:03] Google overall is around a $4 trillion [6:05] business, and I believe that YouTube is [6:06] worth around $1 trillion. [6:09] We have YouTube not only showing up with [6:10] its advertising growth, around 12%. [6:13] That's a little slow compared to the [6:15] rest of Google, but this doesn't [6:17] represent all of YouTube because a lot [6:19] of YouTube's growth is in the [6:20] subscription category with all of their [6:22] YouTube Premium memberships. [6:24] Subscriptions is growing around 17%. [6:26] When you combine these together, it's [6:27] 15% revenue growth. The cloud is growing [6:30] like crazy in this light blue. It grew [6:31] 57% [6:33] year-over-year. That's on a trailing [6:34] 12-month basis. The cloud backlog is up [6:37] 374% [6:39] now above half a trillion dollars. [6:41] Google is also growing its top line [6:43] quickly. The revenue growth is estimated [6:45] to be at 23%. So, we still have Google [6:47] growing super fast even at its size, 23% [6:50] revenue growth. Now, one thing that we [6:52] have to pay attention to is it says here [6:54] that the earnings per share will decline [6:56] by 27% next year. Now, while that minus [6:59] 27% analyst estimates is technically [7:01] correct, it's actual real data, that is [7:04] only because they had massive gains in [7:06] equity sales of things like SpaceX this [7:08] past year. When we look at this on an [7:10] organic basis, Google's going to grow [7:12] their EPS next year. Around 5 or 6% is a [7:15] current analyst estimate. So, when I [7:16] look at Google, I'm hesitant to take [7:18] gains today. I'm not quite there yet. If [7:20] the company trades up to a 30 PE ratio, [7:23] then I'll strongly consider it and I'll [7:25] likely trim some of my position, but as [7:27] of right now, I believe it's still a [7:28] hold. Next, we move on to Meta, which [7:30] has had its enormous gain over the past [7:32] 30 days. My position is actually [7:34] increased by around $50,000 [7:36] in Meta in just the past 35 days. [7:39] It was in fact in the green by $20,000 [7:41] yesterday. It's bumped down a little [7:43] bit, but we've had a huge recovery in [7:45] Meta. I still believe today that Meta is [7:47] undervalued. It's currently trading [7:48] today around a 23 forward PE ratio, [7:51] which is not expensive. It's still at a [7:52] discount to Google, and Meta has fast [7:54] revenue growth. It has a really good [7:56] product, which is Muse. And Zuckerberg [7:58] is on a mission. He is not stopping. Now [8:01] Meta is pushing forward into enterprise. [8:04] Mark Zuckerberg somehow snatched the [8:06] MongoDB CEO straight from the company [8:08] like a day before their investor day. [8:10] MongoDB shareholders are not reacting to [8:12] this well. The stock is down 17% on the [8:14] day. Losing your CEO abruptly is not [8:17] good news. And in the role of Meta, he's [8:19] planning on playing a very different [8:21] position from what Meta typically does. [8:23] Betting on a new artificial intelligence [8:25] products and services for its enterprise [8:27] customers. Mark Zuckerberg also posted [8:29] on X saying that Meta enterprise [8:31] platform will use our strength that few [8:34] other companies have. Advanced models, [8:36] leading agents, large-scale [8:38] infrastructure, and years of working [8:40] closely with many businesses. Initially, [8:42] we will focus on bringing our full [8:44] technology stack including Muse agent, [8:46] Meta business agent, Muse API, Muse [8:49] code, and more to businesses and [8:51] developers to help them grow. I believe [8:53] that this is good news, and in fact, I [8:54] think the market's reaction to this [8:56] trading Meta down 4% is misguided [8:59] because there's a lot of upside here for [9:01] Meta. This is all white space, area for [9:04] them to grow into. They don't already [9:06] have a business here. So if they start [9:08] building a direct revenue stream with [9:09] enterprise clients, which I believe they [9:11] can. They have all the tooling to do so, [9:13] then this should cause Meta to open up [9:16] another revenue segment, which is [9:17] something they desperately need. So [9:19] overall, I still believe that Meta is a [9:21] little undervalued. Not as much as it [9:22] was a month ago. I think a lot of those [9:24] gains have been had, but I still see [9:26] upside in the future for this one. I'm [9:27] still holding on to it. Now moving on, [9:29] we get to MasterCard. $190,000 position, [9:32] now $42,000 in the green. I would group [9:34] Visa in with this one. I think that you [9:36] can flip a coin and invest in which one [9:38] you want. They're both such great [9:39] companies. I decided to just pick one of [9:42] them, but I could have I could have [9:43] invested in both of them equally. When I [9:45] look at MasterCard, it trades at a [9:46] reasonable valuation given the economics [9:48] of the company. When you have above a [9:50] 50% profit margin, you deserve to trade [9:52] in the high 25s. Better yet, everything [9:55] about these companies continues to grow. [9:57] We can look at the revenue growth by [9:58] region. MasterCard continues to grow [10:01] everywhere. So, a lot of people are [10:02] concerned that these local payment [10:05] providers or the government will compete [10:06] with MasterCard, but they're growing [10:08] revenue in the United States even though [10:10] this is their most most mature market. [10:13] We also have Europe where they're [10:14] growing twice as fast, 14%. We also have [10:17] the Asia-Pacific area, it's growing 7% [10:20] per year. We have Latin America, the [10:21] Caribbean growing 20% there. We have [10:24] Canada growing 7 and 1/2%. So, every [10:27] single territory they're growing above [10:28] the rate of inflation. I believe in a [10:30] world of agentic commerce, MasterCard [10:32] and Visa will become more valuable, not [10:34] less. So, I'm not touching that holding. [10:36] Now, next up we have Amazon. This is [10:38] holding number four in size, a 12% [10:40] position. It's a $180,000 position, [10:44] $55,000 in the green. Now, a lot of [10:46] people have complained about Amazon [10:47] because the stock really doesn't rocket [10:49] up like a lot of other companies. It's [10:51] been a little bit of a laggard over the [10:53] past 5 years, but if we look at the the [10:55] chart here, it actually doesn't look [10:57] that bad. Amazon is up 50% in the past 5 [11:00] years. The S&P 500 is up around 70%. So, [11:04] we have a little bit of underperformance [11:05] in Amazon over the past 5 years, but if [11:08] you invested in Amazon any time period [11:10] during the dip, which it gave you ample [11:12] time to buy then, then you've [11:14] outperformed the S&P 500. So, unless you [11:17] bought right at the beginning of the [11:18] 5-year period and never bought again, [11:20] you probably have outperformed the S&P [11:22] 500 investing in Amazon. Furthermore, [11:25] when we look at the 10 years, this is [11:27] where it really outperforms the S&P 500. [11:30] Amazon is up 495% [11:33] over the past 10 years. The S&P 500 is [11:35] up around half of that. So, unless you [11:38] invested at the worst time period only, [11:41] only 5 years ago during this plateau of [11:44] the stock price, that is really the only [11:46] time period that you had poor [11:48] performance. The stock has actually done [11:50] well, and it's done so with a low amount [11:52] of risk. Amazon remains one of the most [11:54] powerful diversified companies in the [11:56] world. You're not taking some huge [11:57] gamble by investing in Amazon. You're [12:00] not rolling the dice with this company, [12:02] and I'm very excited for Amazon. Not [12:04] only do I believe that this company is [12:05] well prepared for an agentic commerce [12:07] world. There is some concern that people [12:10] be able to aggregate Amazon. I I think [12:13] that those concerns are are fair. Amazon [12:15] does have some exposure there, but [12:18] they're likely a little bit over [12:19] exaggerated. Amazon is so powerful. [12:21] Their logistics network is crazy. [12:24] You're not going to have shopping agents [12:25] be able to just get customers off of [12:27] Amazon onto other Shopify sellers, and [12:30] it will crush Amazon. I do not see that [12:32] happening. The reason that people use [12:34] Amazon in large part is because of the [12:36] entire experience. The ability to have a [12:38] trusted seller, instant customer [12:40] service, a pipeline of all of your all [12:43] of your purchases, everything in one [12:44] place. All of that is really convenient. [12:47] And even in the case of agentic [12:48] commerce, there's also a reason to [12:50] believe that Amazon could be a winner [12:52] here. Andy Jassy is for sure going to [12:55] make it so that they have these agentic [12:56] abilities built within Amazon. Muse is [12:59] not going to be the only agentic [13:01] shopper. You're going to have other ones [13:03] by both OpenAI, Anthropic. You'll have [13:06] ones by Google. For sure they're going [13:07] to have an agentic shopper, and likely [13:10] Amazon. So, I see all of them playing at [13:12] this game. I don't believe it's going to [13:14] impact Amazon's revenue as much as you [13:16] might believe. At a 26 PE ratio, I still [13:19] again feel that these companies are not [13:21] overvalued. I don't believe that [13:22] Google's overvalued, or Meta, or Amazon. [13:24] Investors are very concerned about these [13:26] companies because of the CapEx spend, [13:28] but you're seeing the returns already. [13:30] You're seeing what they're able to do [13:32] with their customer base, with the tools [13:34] that they're they're creating, with the [13:35] revenue streams that they're growing. [13:36] The companies that own the distribution [13:38] and the massive networks are Google, [13:40] Meta, Mastercard, Amazon, and Microsoft. [13:43] Over time, more and more of the [13:44] economics will shift over to these [13:45] companies. After Amazon, we have ASML as [13:48] my next largest. This one grew into a [13:50] massive position. It's a $126,000 [13:52] position, 93,000 of that being gains. [13:55] ASML has a very, very good future. We [13:57] have the install base management, which [13:58] is a very reliable continual line of [14:00] revenue continuing to grow as they have [14:03] more machines installed. We have the [14:05] geographic mix here. Now, this looks a [14:07] little crazy, but it shows something [14:09] here. When we look at, for example, [14:10] China. When we look at ASML sales in [14:12] China, just China, you can see that in [14:14] around 2023 and 2024, a huge portion, [14:17] around 50% of their total sales were in [14:19] China, which led investors to believe [14:21] that there's a lot of concentrated risk [14:23] here. If there's regulations that [14:25] that concern the ASML investor. Well, [14:28] there has been regulations, the sales [14:29] percentage in China has gone down, more [14:32] of it has gone to places like the United [14:34] States. More of it has gone to South [14:36] Korea. More of it has gone to Taiwan. [14:38] China has made up an increasingly [14:40] smaller portion of the overall mix, [14:42] which de-risks the investment in the [14:44] future. Because if you believe that [14:46] China is risky for ASML, well, it's less [14:49] risky today. It's gone from 50% down to [14:51] 14. So, there's simply less exposure to [14:54] it. So, despite the higher valuation, [14:55] I'm continuing to hold this one. Now, [14:57] next we get to S&P Global. This is [14:59] actually one of the ones that I think is [15:00] a buy today. S&P Global is down big this [15:03] year, primarily off of concerns of the [15:05] SaaS apocalypse, [15:07] all these things that make data easier [15:09] to get. And I believe a lot of this is [15:11] short-sighted. S&P Global now trades at [15:13] a 21 forward P/E, giving you downside [15:15] protection. Yes, the stock can always go [15:18] lower, but it's difficult when the stock [15:19] is trading at a a low valuation already [15:22] with really good economics. We have [15:24] other indicators. For example, the ETF [15:26] assets under management continues to [15:28] grow. This is in trillions, so they had [15:30] $3 trillion in assets under management [15:32] linked to their ETFs. Now they have $6 [15:34] trillion. So more and more assets are [15:36] getting linked to different Dow Jones [15:38] Indice ETFs. There is concern that S&P [15:41] Global will do poorly because when [15:43] interest rates go up less debt is taken [15:45] out, but that's temporary. Companies [15:47] have to issue debt. They have to renew [15:49] it. Otherwise, they're going to just pay [15:51] off all their debt. That's not going to [15:52] happen. So in any case, I believe S&P [15:55] Global is a buy today. Next up we have [15:56] Microsoft. This one is number seven, a [15:59] $109,000 position, 55K in the green so [16:02] far. It's trading at a 26 forward PE [16:04] ratio. These are not expensive numbers. [16:07] There hasn't been many time periods in [16:08] the past where a group of companies this [16:10] powerful with this much distribution, [16:12] growing this quickly, high teens revenue [16:15] growth, have been trading in the mid to [16:18] low 20s PE ratio. I really not seen [16:20] anything like this. These companies will [16:21] get re-rated higher when investors [16:23] become excited about them again. Now the [16:25] next company I believe is the most [16:27] undervalued in my portfolio or very [16:29] close to it today, which is Netflix. [16:32] Netflix has gone down like crazy. [16:35] Netflix is taking punches left and [16:37] right. It's getting beat up by the [16:38] market. Everyone's concerned about it. [16:41] Everyone believes that people are going [16:42] to cancel all their accounts, that [16:43] engagement's going down, that YouTube TV [16:45] is stealing all their viewers, that none [16:47] of their content's good. But when you [16:49] look at the actual numbers, none of that [16:51] is reflected in their actual [16:53] performance. Ted Sarandos, the co-CEO of [16:55] the company, said that engagement is [16:57] actually up 2% year-over-year. He also [16:59] said that people's viewing habits of [17:01] second seasons is improving [17:03] year-over-year, not declining. So [17:05] engagement from season 1 to season 2 is [17:07] actually improved and that many of the [17:09] narratives around this company are just [17:11] false. It just grew 16%, which is fast [17:15] for growth. We have total subscribers [17:16] continuing to to go up. 325 million was [17:19] the last number that they revealed. We [17:22] have Netflix's content budget, which is [17:24] increasing a little bit, but their [17:25] revenue is growing faster, creating [17:27] operating leverage. And meanwhile, the [17:28] valuation on a price-to-earnings [17:30] continues to get crushed. It was in [17:32] September of 2025 trading at a 50 [17:35] trailing PE ratio. Now it's trading at a [17:37] 22. I like YouTube. Who doesn't like [17:40] YouTube? But Netflix is going to be [17:41] fine. People have enough time and money. [17:44] They really do. They have enough time [17:45] and money to have a YouTube Premium [17:47] membership for like 12 or $15 a month, [17:50] whatever that is, and a Netflix [17:52] membership for $8 a month. People can [17:54] afford $20 a month for the biggest [17:57] libraries of entertainment in modern [17:59] history. I think most people will be [18:01] willing to pay for both of those. So, I [18:02] don't see the big panic that a lot of [18:04] people see. I think that Netflix is a [18:06] company that goes through periods of [18:07] really good content, then content that's [18:09] not so good, but they'll have more hit [18:11] shows in the future. They're continuing [18:13] to invest $20 billion a year. Next up, [18:15] we have Costco, holding number nine. I [18:17] haven't done anything with this company [18:18] for a long period of time, and I don't [18:20] plan to. Costco's just going to hang out [18:23] here. The stock is down a little bit, [18:25] but overall it still trades at a high [18:26] valuation. Fundamentally, it's doing [18:28] great. There's really no change here. [18:30] With Moody's, I feel very similar to how [18:31] I do with S&P Global. I think that S&P [18:33] Global is a little bit better deal, but [18:35] I like Moody's. I think it's going to do [18:36] great in the future. Texas Roadhouse is [18:38] another company that I want to highlight [18:40] that I think is a buy today. The stock [18:42] price would make you believe that [18:43] there's something dramatically wrong [18:44] with this stock because it just sold off [18:47] a lot. It went down 21% in the past [18:49] month. So, this one continues to tank. [18:52] Meanwhile, the fundamentals look strong. [18:54] The revenue continues growing. The [18:56] number of restaurants are increasing. [18:57] The average weekly sales, the same store [18:59] sales, are increasing. The to-go [19:01] business is increasing. The reason the [19:03] stock is down is because the earnings [19:05] are not going to be growing over the [19:06] past year. In fact, there's a 5% decline [19:09] in EPS. The reason why is because of [19:11] commodity inflation. Beef prices go up, [19:14] Texas Roadhouse holds their prices the [19:16] same, which means that their net income [19:18] goes down. Their net income is down like [19:20] 16% because of commodity price inflation [19:23] of beef. [19:24] Now, what Texas Roadhouse doesn't do is [19:26] they don't say that beef prices are [19:28] going up, so let's just jack up our [19:29] prices. They don't do that because that [19:32] destroys customer trust. People want [19:34] stable price increases. They want slow [19:36] price increases. They don't want a [19:37] company that immediately bumps up prices [19:39] quickly. So, Texas Roadhouse is playing [19:41] the long game. They'll take a temporary [19:44] hit in EPS growth, but then when beef [19:46] prices go down, their net income goes up [19:49] like crazy. Next we have Duolingo [19:51] holding number 12. It's a 2.2% position, [19:54] $32,000 position, $14,000 in the red. [19:58] Now, I get it, Duolingo hasn't worked [20:00] out so far. Stock's gone down big, and [20:02] part of that is deserved. Their user [20:04] growth slowed down a lot. So, the [20:06] Duolingo team set out to increase their [20:08] user growth, their daily active users. [20:11] They're not focusing as much on paid [20:12] subscribers. So, the paid subscriber [20:15] metric is flattening out a little bit. [20:17] And again, that's because they're [20:18] they're not really focusing on [20:20] monetization, pushing users to the paid [20:22] tier. They're focusing on getting new [20:23] people in, getting them using the app [20:25] daily. And on that, they're looking very [20:27] successful. The daily active divided by [20:29] monthly active user percentage has gone [20:32] up like crazy. It's now 41%. We have [20:34] these user engagement metrics. For [20:36] example, the monthly active users the [20:38] brown line on the top, and then the tan [20:40] one on the bottom is the daily active [20:41] users. Duolingo has 58 million daily [20:44] active users, 140 million monthly active [20:47] users, and they're they're both [20:48] increasing. Both of these have gone up. [20:50] Their daily active users have doubled [20:51] since 2024. This one will take time. A [20:54] lot of people are concerned about this [20:55] more structured courses and learning [20:57] because of AI, but we'll have to see how [20:59] it plays out. So far, they're making a [21:00] lot more course content, and a lot of [21:02] people are joining them. Now, finally we [21:04] get to DoorDash and Uber holding 13 and [21:06] 14. Uber's slightly in the red, DoorDash [21:09] is slightly in the green. Both of them [21:10] are around a $22,000 position, around 3% [21:13] combined. I think Uber's way undervalued [21:16] at this point. It's trading at $68. Now, [21:19] there's no guarantee that this one goes [21:20] up soon. We've seen companies trade at [21:22] undervaluation for long periods of time. [21:25] This one's trading at a 17 forward PE [21:27] ratio, while all the economics look [21:29] really good. The big concern is [21:32] robo-taxis, the cyber cab, the Waymo, [21:35] the Zoox, all these companies competing [21:37] with Uber. It's the first real [21:39] competition that they face. I have the [21:41] belief that this is more than priced [21:43] into the stock. So, even though cyber [21:45] cabs and robo-taxis and all of that will [21:47] eat into some of their market share, [21:48] Uber continues to expand and grow in [21:50] market share in other places. And I [21:52] believe there's also an advantage in [21:53] having a hybrid model, where Uber's both [21:55] going to have their own robo-taxi, and [21:58] they'll have their own human drivers to [22:00] fill in the spaces where robo-taxis [22:02] can't get. Specifically, places where [22:04] they literally don't operate, and places [22:06] where there's excess demand all on a [22:08] short period of time. That makes it very [22:10] attractive to have a hybrid approach. [22:12] One app to open that you know you're [22:14] going to get a driver, whether or not [22:16] it's a robot or human, you're going to [22:18] have someone soon. DoorDash also traded [22:20] down over the past month. There's been [22:21] regulation in New York City passed [22:23] against them and other things. When we [22:24] look at DoorDash, we have the [22:25] contribution margin moving upwards, [22:27] meaning they're making more money per [22:29] order. We have the amount of people on [22:31] their program continuing to climb. So, [22:33] now they have 35 million members under [22:35] DashPass or different related [22:37] memberships. The monthly active users [22:39] continues to go up. The revenue by [22:41] geography is increasing internationally [22:43] and within the United States. We have [22:45] total orders continuing to climb like [22:47] crazy. I like everything I see with this [22:48] company. I'm continuing to hold it. So, [22:50] there's a little look into the [22:51] portfolio. Underneath the surface of [22:53] just the stock prices, these businesses [22:55] are expanding. They're powerful. They're [22:57] gaining customers. They're coming out [22:58] with new products. Their revenue is [22:59] growing very quickly. And overall, their [23:01] earnings per share are growing very [23:03] quickly as well. And at the valuation [23:04] that these companies are trading at, I [23:06] feel very good about the situation [23:08] today. [23:08] Now, moving on, we get into this battle [23:10] between the AI optimists and the AI [23:13] doomers. [23:14] On one side of things, we have Jensen [23:16] Huang, who is an AI optimist. Now, you [23:19] may say that he has every reason to be [23:20] optimistic because he's the leader of a [23:22] big company that makes a lot of money [23:24] from AI. That's true, but you also have [23:26] the CEO of Anthropic and ChatGPT, which [23:29] are not really AI optimists. They come [23:31] off more like AI doomers, even though [23:34] they're leading those companies as well. [23:35] So, even amongst AI companies, there are [23:37] some people that are more optimistic [23:38] than others. [23:39] But, I want to contrast Jensen Huang [23:41] here with Andrew Yang. Andrew Yang is a [23:43] politician, and the reason that I focus [23:45] on Andrew Yang is because he's very [23:47] vocal. He's all over the news. He does [23:49] appearances. And I I don't have anything [23:51] against him. I actually think he's a [23:52] nice guy. I actually like Andrew Yang's [23:55] his personality, but I think that he has [23:57] a lot of things wrong with his takes on [23:59] AI. And I want to go through and [24:01] contrast some of the things that Jensen [24:02] says on this topic and some of the [24:04] things that Andrew says. We'll start off [24:06] here with Jensen. [24:07] >> We hope it's an engineering problem. I [24:09] believe it's an engineering problem. I [24:10] know it's an engineering problem. And we [24:11] all need to hope that's an engineering [24:13] problem. If it's not an engineering [24:14] problem, it's not solvable. Right. And [24:16] so, the fact that all of these companies [24:17] still are advancing the state of the art [24:20] is because they also believe it's [24:21] solvable. [24:22] These are some of the brightest [24:24] engineers in the world. I work with, [24:26] you know, all of them. And And these are [24:28] This is a This is a technically solvable [24:30] problem. And so, the way to think about [24:32] that is if you look at Go back to the [24:34] the days of the internet. You You access [24:37] a website. It downloads application. [24:39] Maybe it's Java application. All of a [24:40] sudden, uh this application comes into [24:43] your PC, has access to files and uh [24:47] resources, and maybe the applications [24:49] and tools, and uh it gets onto your [24:51] network. Well, in the beginning, we had [24:53] all kinds of viruses. [24:55] Um but, we realized that the web browser [24:58] itself has to be a containment system. [25:01] The web browser has to provide that [25:03] application with minimal rights. [25:05] Whatever only the rights it needs in [25:07] order to do its job. And it has access [25:10] basically access to nothing unless the [25:12] browser gives it access. Essentially, [25:15] what we're doing here, we're creating [25:16] basically the modern browser. It's a [25:18] browser for browser for agents. [25:20] >> It's a very good analogy. When the [25:21] internet was first being born, browsers [25:23] would essentially let you download [25:25] anything without any real regard. When [25:27] you download an executable file onto [25:29] your computer, you're basically just [25:31] crossing your fingers that there's not [25:32] malware in it. And since the browser [25:34] didn't do any checks, and we don't know [25:36] if it came from a trusted developer, you [25:38] don't really know what's going on. And [25:39] in most cases, that's where malware and [25:40] viruses spread. That was extremely [25:43] common at the beginning of the internet. [25:45] But the browser is actually one of the [25:46] biggest security devices on your [25:48] computer. The guard between the internet [25:50] and what gets into your computer and [25:52] installed. It gives you all sorts of [25:54] warnings and protections, and that's [25:55] part of the reason you should keep your [25:57] browser up to date. Agents will have [25:59] similar restrictions, similar gates that [26:01] they cannot pass. So, this whole thing [26:03] is just a technical problem. It's new [26:05] technology, so we're facing some of the [26:07] same issues, but this isn't some type of [26:09] unsolvable problem where agents just run [26:11] off and do whatever they want and we [26:14] can't control them. That would be a [26:16] whole different situation, and that's [26:17] not what's going on. [26:19] >> [snorts] [26:19] >> Now, on the other side of things, we [26:20] have the AI pessimist. We have Andrew [26:22] Yang, who just went on the Jubilee, and [26:24] this is the type of thing where it's [26:25] like one person that holds this view [26:27] addresses 20 people that hold the [26:28] opposite view. In this case, Andrew Yang [26:31] is the AI skeptic, and then everyone [26:34] else is the AI optimist. And I want to [26:36] highlight just one interaction here. In [26:38] this clip that I'm about to show, Andrew [26:40] Yang argues that automation is a [26:43] zero-sum game. It's not good because you [26:45] have to lay off people or fire people. [26:47] So, let's go ahead and hear him argue [26:48] this. [26:49] >> firm for, and so you're not having to do [26:52] that, which is good for you, but it's [26:53] also a a a a negative for the, you know, [26:57] accounting firm you were you would have [26:58] hired in a past era, or like the small [27:01] bit You know what I mean? So, it's like [27:02] zero sum. What What's happening is [27:04] you've extracted value, and it's helping [27:06] you, but it's going to, you know, be [27:08] less money for like the lawyer you would [27:10] have paid otherwise. The second thing is [27:13] that as you try and grow, you're going [27:16] to be able to do it with fewer people. [27:18] And I can say this from experience, [27:20] where my company [27:22] took down a job posting for a junior [27:24] engineer and a junior data analyst, [27:26] because AI made them less necessary and [27:28] less relevant. [27:30] >> What he's saying here so far is [27:31] accurate. I don't think he's [27:32] exaggerating. Companies can grow with [27:35] fewer people. So, let's hear him make [27:37] the rest of this point. [27:38] >> So, it's going to be good for me in [27:41] terms of growing the business, but it's [27:43] going to be bad for the people that I [27:45] otherwise would have had to hire, who [27:47] like otherwise would have had [27:50] the ability to benefit from the [27:51] opportunities that I'm creating. So, [27:52] what I was so [laughter] [27:54] >> You can see, when he's trying to make [27:55] this point, she's not buying it, because [27:57] that's not true. Because Andrew Yang [28:00] doesn't hire someone, doesn't [28:02] automatically mean that's bad for them. [28:04] Uh that's that's the leap that he's [28:06] making here, which she's not She's not [28:08] accepting that leap. [28:09] >> Disagree on your first point, because it [28:11] was mainly the people who had high [28:13] income that could afford those services [28:15] in the first place. Lower income people [28:16] could not afford to pay for a lawyer, [28:18] for tax help, to get a certificate from [28:21] They couldn't afford it. So, it's [28:23] bridging the gap of the average Joe, the [28:25] average Jill. [28:26] >> The big people that make all the money [28:28] can still afford legal counsel. They'll [28:30] still have legal counsel. They'll still [28:32] pay lawyers lots of money. But the small [28:34] guy that can't afford legal counsel, can [28:37] now run contracts through ChatGPT, or [28:39] through Claude, or whatever it may be, [28:41] to scan for different things in the [28:43] contract, to summarize them. They're [28:44] very good at that. It can make it so [28:46] that something that is legal jargon is [28:48] very easily understood by someone [28:50] running a small business. So, instead of [28:51] hiring a lawyer that you can't afford to [28:53] begin with to spit pay them $300 an hour [28:56] to look at a contract, now you can do [28:58] that on ChatGPT and that makes small [29:00] businesses close the gap between the [29:03] wealthy individuals, between the people [29:05] that have already won. Now, I think that [29:06] she's right. Uh she has a better part of [29:09] this exchange than Andrew Yang, but the [29:11] part that she misses here that I think [29:12] is the biggest weakness with Andrew's [29:14] argument is that he argued that when a [29:17] company lays off someone, that is a [29:19] zero-sum game. This is a common belief [29:21] from Andrew Yang and many other [29:22] politicians that is totally false. It's [29:24] the idea that automation is a zero-sum [29:27] game and he just said that in this clip. [29:29] He said that if he doesn't have to hire [29:31] developers because now AI can do a lot [29:33] of what they used to do, that means that [29:35] while he makes more money, they are laid [29:37] off, they make less money. [29:39] That's not how that situation works. [29:42] Layoffs through automation are actually [29:44] economically beneficial. It is the exact [29:47] opposite of a zero-sum game. It's a [29:49] non-zero-sum game or a positive-sum [29:51] game. When you look at what happens with [29:53] companies that automate different job [29:54] roles, it works like this. You have a [29:57] company that has 10 required employees, [29:59] but then AI comes along and now they [30:01] only need seven to do the job that [30:03] previously 10 could do. [30:05] That means that they can now automate [30:07] three jobs away. So, the company says, [30:09] "Hey, these three employees, sorry, we [30:11] have to let you go." Those employees are [30:12] then let go. [30:14] That means that the company now has [30:16] seven employees doing the work of [30:18] previously 10. The company is more [30:20] profitable, higher margins, more [30:21] efficient. The company now can pay its [30:23] existing employees more money, can give [30:26] them raises and bonuses. The company can [30:28] now return more money to shareholders. [30:30] The company can now invest more money [30:32] into different companies because it has [30:34] more money because it's not paying for [30:35] those three different employees. [30:37] The company could reinvest and grow new [30:38] product lines, new businesses, could [30:40] sign up for different services. Those [30:42] three employees that they were able to [30:44] lay off while maintaining the same [30:46] productivity is a huge benefit for that [30:49] company. Raises margins, raises [30:51] productivity, makes them wealthier, [30:53] makes them so they can invest more. [30:55] But then you look at the part that he [30:56] argues is a zero-sum game. [30:59] He basically is assuming that these [31:00] three employees that were laid off are [31:02] going to never work again. That's the [31:04] only case where this is a zero-sum game. [31:07] But when people get laid off, they don't [31:08] just sit around and do nothing forever. [31:11] Especially if they were highly [31:13] productive people. Imagine, for example, [31:15] if Microsoft, because of AI, could fire [31:18] 10% of its employee base. So, they lay [31:20] off 10% of their employees. [31:23] Do you think those tens of thousands of [31:25] Microsoft engineers and developers are [31:27] going to sit around and do nothing [31:29] forever? [31:30] Not a chance. They're going to start [31:32] businesses. They're going to start new [31:34] companies, new software. They're They'll [31:36] use the skills that they learned plus [31:37] artificial intelligence to spin up new [31:39] products and services. Many of them will [31:42] get jobs at other companies that need [31:43] talent that now Microsoft freed up and [31:45] made available in the workspace, but [31:47] also many of them will create entirely [31:49] new products. That is a positive-sum [31:52] game. Microsoft in that scenario would [31:54] get the same level of productivity with [31:56] 10% fewer employees. Those 10% of [32:00] employees can now start new companies, [32:01] new services, get hired at different [32:03] companies that need their labor. That [32:05] overall grows the economy. It grows [32:07] productivity. It grows the quality of [32:09] life, the amount of services available. [32:11] It raises competition. The idea that [32:13] automation is a zero-sum game is [32:15] incredibly wrong, and that's what you're [32:17] seeing relayed over and over again. Now, [32:20] moving on, we get to the fail of the [32:21] week, who is Bob Iger. Not to be [32:24] confused with the other Bob that was the [32:26] CEO for short period of time at Disney, [32:28] which is Bob Chapek. And I want to [32:31] highlight this clip. This is from CNBC. [32:33] We have Bob Chapek here, and And [32:35] explains about why he wrote his book and [32:37] what this book contains. [32:39] >> In the book, you you effectively say [32:41] that within days, frankly, of getting [32:43] this job, you believed that he, meaning [32:47] Bob Iger, had chosen you and effectively [32:50] chosen you to fail. [32:52] And I I I [32:54] I couldn't get my head around that. Even [32:57] even to this day [32:58] that idea. [32:59] >> Yeah, I I I mean, that's certainly a [33:01] possibility, but I don't know that you [33:03] even necessarily have to characterize it [33:05] that way. I think he chose me, some time [33:08] passed, and if you watch the first [33:10] interview I did with you guys. [33:13] >> Yeah. [33:13] >> Uh uh there is a uh uh [33:16] >> First interview after getting the [33:17] >> After getting the job, right. We we we [33:19] had I think it you and Bloomberg over to [33:21] the studio, and there was a rigidity, a [33:24] certain hesitancy, and I was called by a [33:27] reporter, and the reporter said, [33:30] "Did you see his body language?" And I'm [33:32] like I was obviously sitting there. I [33:34] didn't want to comment on it. Time that [33:36] I knew that I had a problem was when he [33:39] did the Ben Smith interview with the New [33:41] York Times, essentially reasserting [33:44] himself into the position of CEO without [33:47] A ever talking to me about it, and B, [33:49] from what I understand, my [33:50] understanding, never talking to the [33:52] board about it. [33:53] >> During this time period, 2020, when Bob [33:55] Chapek became the CEO, [33:57] it seemed as though Bob Iger immediately [33:59] regretted stepping down. Like he he [34:01] immediately wished that he was CEO [34:03] again. Bob Iger is, without a doubt, one [34:05] of the most ego-driven CEOs in the [34:07] world. He can't stand the idea of [34:10] someone else controlling his Disney with [34:12] his vision. [34:13] He is obsessive, territorial, [34:16] conspiring. He undermined Bob Chapek and [34:19] torpedoed any chance he had at success [34:21] after being the one that selected Bob [34:23] Chapek and recommending him. [34:25] That is one of the the worst things I [34:27] can I think he can do in business. Bob [34:29] Iger committed it. But not only that, [34:31] Bob Iger, I just believe generally, is [34:33] one of the most overrated CEOs of all [34:35] time. He's written books about how good [34:37] of a job he's done running Disney, [34:39] combining Marvel and Lucasfilm together, [34:42] but look at how well Lucasfilm is doing [34:44] under Disney's control. [34:46] Look at how well Star Wars is doing. [34:48] Then we have Disney itself, the company [34:50] that has likely one of the biggest brand [34:52] recognitions in the world, and the stock [34:55] is completely flat for the past 10 [34:57] years. It's up 14% in a decade. And this [35:01] is Disney under Bob Iger. This is his [35:05] doing. Now, of course, he will blame Bob [35:07] Chapek and his tenure, which was very [35:08] short period of time, but Bob Iger has [35:10] not been able to move this stock at all. [35:12] And he also hasn't been able to move the [35:14] earnings per share. So, this isn't a [35:16] situation where Disney just gets more [35:18] and more undervalued. No, 10 years ago [35:20] Disney produced $5.70 of EPS. Today it [35:23] produces $4.85. [35:26] And frankly, I'm glad that Bob Chapek is [35:28] writing this book. I plan on buying it. [35:30] I think that this side of Bob Iger, his [35:32] narcissism, his ego, his territorial [35:35] control of Disney, and the lack of [35:37] success in the stock itself, all need to [35:39] be exposed. This idea that Bob Iger is [35:41] this incredible CEO needs to come to an [35:43] end. That's it for this episode. Hope [35:45] you enjoyed. See you in the next one.