Jordi Visser on Why the "AI Bubble" Comparison Is Financially Illiterate

Welcome, welcome everyone. It's Angelo Robles, and if you're live, we're heading into Christmas. It's December 23rd. This will be my last interview of the year. And how ironic. I really didn't plan it this way, but the person I had on last year that wrapped up our year in 2024 is the same guest that I have on today. And he's one of my favorites, one of my favorite follows in terms of what he's doing. There's certain things we agree on, and certain things I'm probably more of a Debbie Downer that we disagree on. So, I look forward to a conversation today. I keep on changing the title about a hundred times. So, why don't I go with my favorite finance interview of the year, Jordy Fischer on AI, deflation, Bitcoin, and the end of traditional investing. Jordy, it's great to see you. Welcome back to the show.

>> Good to see you, Angelo. Always, uh, always fun to spend time with you.

>> Thank you. And to give the audience some context, years ago, like eight, nine years ago, I first met Jordy back in his hedge fund manager days. He spoke at one of my programs. And actually, this year, Jordy was kind enough, in Palm Beach and New York City, to join my members in live programming. And as always, he was one of the most captivating speakers. Many of you know I would really love to have three hours with Jordy. That's not going to happen. But we're going to make a good run at an hour and 15 minutes. We have a lot to cover, and I promise to live up to that title. So, on that note, on that note, Jordy, let's do it. The 2000. My first category is kind of the 2026 jobs. Come on. You know, I'm a little bit of a downer. Jobs apocalypse and the rise of AI agents. Why don't I start with AI agents? 24/7 could work, 168 hours a week. They don't sleep. They don't take PTO. They don't get into office romances that get me in trouble. And they're relatively incredibly marginal cost relative to humans. I would like to hear your opinion about the job apocalypse, how it's impacting younger people, and how this upcoming year will absolutely be the rise of AI agents.

>> Well, in the first part, uh, I, it's funny you mention it. Everything that I'm doing right now for, um, the preparation of, kind of, the launch of, of my, uh, the paywall for my business, what people want. The number one trend for next year is AI agents. So, completely agree. I think people are underestimating the impact it's going to have. Where I probably disagree, and I do, um, you call it being a doomer, Debbie Downer, whatever. Um, there, there's not going to be significant job losses that I don't agree with. Uh, and there's really a basic reason. I've come to the conclusion, despite the fact that I believe AI, people are underestimating how much it's going to impact the market and the world. I don't believe job losses are going to happen in a big pace. I do believe you're going to see what we saw in New York City. You're going to see anger. You're going to see people vote socialist. You're going to see all kinds of things related to disruption in the labor market. But I do not think at the end of the year, we will have any amount of job losses that are that matter. But I do think AI agents will be coming, and you'll see it in profit margins. But there's just too many businesses and too many jobs that will not have AI run through it. So, when you talk about AI agents, you're not talking about a lot of, uh, jobs in the country. They're not going to cut your hair next year. They're not going to do your nails next year. They're not going to move stuff around. Down the road, we'll have some job losses, but it's not going to happen next year. And some of the jobs you mentioned are blue-collar jobs that require the amazing ability of our human hands. Robotics are coming. We'll get to that a little bit later. But you did keep a little bit away there from what I would define as knowledge work. Again, I believe the audience is basically, Angelo might be right, but that's 10 or 20 years in the future. I disagree with that. You may have purposely kept away from knowledge work. And how about younger people with their college degrees coming out of college? Don't you see them being impacted?

>> I, again, I, I, you say knowledge workers, and we can go through this a hundred ways over. Are you going to call up and deal with a law firm that's a, a robot? Or are you going to deal with a person who hires people and robots? So, this whole disruption, it's not binary. It will take time to get there. Any kind of innovation is a slow-moving adoption process. The thing that people are making the mistake at the Fortune 500 companies see their revenues grow every year at 5 to 6%, sometimes 8 to 9%. We're up in that 8 to 9% time. If no jobs are created, it is significant profit gains. That's what you're going to see. That's what you have seen. At the same time, as the stock market goes higher, people get wealthier and wealthier, and they don't need to work anymore. And you see people drop out of the labor force participation rate. 10 years from now, what I think will have happened between knowledge workers being disrupted, losing the corporate ladder, which is where the anger comes in, and humanoids beginning in about five years to disrupt the labor market, you'll start to get to a point, I agree with Elon Musk, work will become optional, not loss of jobs. He says it'll become optional. You will always need human beings to deal with human beings. It will never be a complete replacement, ever.

>> Okay. I'm always fearful of that word, ever or never. I do disagree with you on that. Uh, for a variety of different purposes. You're selling a perspective that is going to make people feel good. I just don't know. And again, maybe by nature, I tend to be, and you, you hinted at it when I saw you at my event. I do tend to be someone who arguably looks at the negative side and what could go wrong. You are more of an optimist, and I do appreciate that about you. Uh, now, also heard you.

>> Let me ask you a question.

>> Is is a relationship work?

>> Yes.

>> Having a strong relationship, is it work? Okay. Are you going to go date a robot?

>> Well, I'm not going to. But I do, since you bring that up, do I think a lot of men, that 30% of them under the age of 30 have no physical relationship in the last year? And I see how awkward they often are around women. My experiences. I absolutely think that robots will be a part of relationships in the future, moving forward. Yes.

>> But you answered the first part, which is the reason I brought it up, is not just game, it's reality. And every smart person I hear talk about this out of Silicon Valley, who I believe has a deep emotional understanding, there is a connection between humans. So, we will have robots, and we will have digital workers working with human beings. To say that the humans will have no role in the workplace, not only is that never going to happen unless we're traveling around space and there's no jobs whatsoever, but I think it's actually wrong to say that it ever could happen because human beings need to deal with human beings. Robots don't have, and never will. As far as any person that I've seen, including Elon Musk, talk about it, we're not going to have that human connection the same way. So, will they exist? Yes. Will they replace many, many jobs? Absolutely. I just don't believe saying all of them will ever get to that point.

>> I mean, my experience going to Silicon Valley and in the past, in the past having interviewed some very prominent figures, and only last summer did a brief interview with Ray Kurzweil. What I will say is what they say publicly and what they say privately tends to be a little bit more negative on the private side. But I could argue some of them have the God complex. They want to keep on creating. We're in a war with China. Completely agree with that. And when I hear people talk about, let's put the guardrails on, I hear Jeffrey Hinton and others who I have great respect for, but they're so unrealistic in today's world, not understanding that who gets to AGI first, and one day ASI, and the impact that's going to have on military bioweaponry, manufacturing, energy costs coming to nothing. We may have time to get to what happens with energy cost through fusion energy coming down in air zero and robotics in full play. I could argue what's going to be the future of capitalism? It's going to have to change.

>> Yeah. But again, you, you just brought up a bunch of people to defend an argument which they have no knowledge of whatsoever. Those are not the smartest people on understanding human connections. So, if you really think about what you just said, you literally said technology people understand what human beings are going to want. That is not true.

>> Yeah, they're, they're wired a little differently. Uh, I'm, I'm gonna stay, I'm gonna stay on this topic a little bit because I'm gonna press you on it. Uh, you'll agree, I believe broadly speaking, that really energy is going to equate to intelligence. Supposedly, Chat GPT 5.2, and I agree that IQ is not a perfect definition of intelligence, but ballpark about 147. The average human is about 100. Uh, what happens when that becomes Einstein level? When it doubles Einstein? When it has collective intelligence of every human being on Earth, which may be in three to five years? I'm not talking about 10 or 20 years. How is our future going to be positive when, how we look at the firefly is arguably going to be how artificial intelligence looks at us?

>> Well, again, you said an IQ test is not the, the barometer for everything, which I happen to agree with. So, when we get to AGI, which will be a long process, and it'll not happen overnight. It'll be a gradual process. You won't actually feel the, uh, the differences the way that I think people make it out. They hear these things like AGI and they think there's a, a light switch that you just turn on. It all changes. That's not the case. You'll have robo taxis before then. Getting up to Einstein level. Hopefully, we can get to the point where we're creating new things. At this point, we're not there yet. And hopefully, AGI gets there. But there's a lot of people that also don't know how to define it. So, here's the way that I'll just say for everyone listening, the most important thing is not to get into the trying to define it, trying to figure out what it'll be. The next five years are going to be very, very dystopian in many, many ways for businesses, for wealth, for everything. We are going to enter a period beginning next year's, and I, next year, and I think this is the critical point of the way you brought this up, at least the way I'll put it. When AI agents come, when IQ gets up to this level, you've reached a point that if you're not using it at this point, you are falling behind so fast. And your ability to use it is necessary to understand what's going to happen. So, I do think we agree on one point. The wheel is going to be spinning far faster last year than it did the prior three years with Chat GPT because now it's going to be working inside the Fortune 500 company walls. You better figure out exactly what that means for your kids, your grandkids, and everything, because if they're not AI native at this point, they have no chance in the next few years to actually be working in a job unless they go out and spend the time on it and figure out how to use it like you would play the violin.

You stated, I heard it in one of your recent podcasts, and I would broadly agree with you that in three years, we really don't know what the world is going to look like. Uh, yet you have somewhat more of an optimistic view. I may have as well when we look 10 or 15 years out, but I think getting there with job loss, defining the purpose of humans, what could happen with UBI, the rise amount. I supposedly I heard on, uh, one of the podcasts I listened to, PBD, that AOC is in the lead for the 2028 election. They're going to put brakes on AI. It's going to be the rise of socialism. And I understand the uprising of people, young people in New York that are educated, that believe they're underpaid, that think they deserve to live in New York City, meaning really Manhattan, although Brooklyn is probably near every bit as expensive. This is going to be the rise of socialism and how people vote. And it's going to be grave challenges moving forward. I'm trying to find a positive picture, and I may find one years from now. I'm not really seeing one over the next couple years. Why am I wrong?

>> Well, I think you're being dramatic. Um, but I do think all the things you mentioned are trending, uh, that way, not across the entire country. So, whenever we talk, especially about presidents, one of the great things about the way the country was created is there's states you can go to. There's a mass exodus that's happening in California that's been happening. There's a huge, uh, amount of people that continue to go to Texas. California has power issues. Texas is kind of the power capital of the country. We're going through this metamorphosis in terms of beliefs there, which is all driven, in my opinion, by exponential innovation. And just AI is going to accelerate it. So, I'm not going to hide, uh, from the fact that the next three years are going to be, they're going to be brutal. And the reason I said that three years from now, you have no idea, that's an investment theme. I have people call me up and say, hey, I'm making an investment in a data center that'll be here 10 years from now and blah, blah, blah. They're going through the math. And I went, "I'm sorry. You have no idea what three years from now is going to look like. We could have solved power issues. We could have fusion vision that's sitting there in a way to do it. We could be doing things that you have no idea. There is so many changes that are going to happen that are going rapid fire. And again, if you used AI all day, and I'm sure you do, Angelo, based on the way you speak, I'm now probably, I don't even know how to describe it to people. It's all day. Every single hour of the day, I'm using it. I'm using it verbally. I'm using it visually. I'm using it while cooking. I'm using it while listening to music. I'm using it for everything. If you're not using it every day, I don't think you can possibly comprehend the change because you've seen the change from 4 to 4.5 to 5.1 to 5.2. I mean, 5.1 came out in August, and now we're at 5.2. And it's far better than 5.1, which is better than where Gemini was. And I am using Claude, and I am using Grok, and they're all just leapfrogging each other. So, we're going to be in a dystopian world over the course of the next five years. There's absolutely no doubt in my mind. And all the things you mentioned will be trending that way. I just don't think people should worry about this being some end of things. It'll just be what we're going through as it is right now.

Changing directions a little bit, and you brought it up, and we're among the two people in the industry that I know that really teach, quote unquote, I host master classes on AI, primarily focused on family offices. You probably cross over into that, but are a little more focused on hedge fund managers and people in finance. One, I'm a little bit shocked of, relatively for their intelligence, how ignorant they are. I give an example over the Thanksgiving holiday. I have two family members. One of them's at Harvard as a professor, and they have a base understanding of, I think, Chat GPT. They didn't even know what Anthropic was. They barely knew Gemini. They consider it an affront on their intellectual capital to learn more and use it. I've learned very hard for me, Jordy, not to preach anymore. It's not good with my family relationships. So, you mentioned the multimodal capabilities of Chat GPT 5.2. 2 is far above 5.1. I agree. I'm a little bit of a Claude Opus 4.5 kind of guy, but I use all of them. And I do believe Gemini 3 for deep reasoning is almost scarily good. Uh, not that we want to make it a masterclass on utilization of AI and prompting, but give a little bit of your comparison among the various programs, and maybe give an example about how investors could utilize them more.

>> Well, you already gave, I think, a good, you know, description of how I'm going to go through this, which is I think each one of them is actually creating its own vertical expertise to where I use them for different things. Chat GPT is and has been my collaborator. I use it when I'm walking. I use it when I'm speaking. I use it when I'm investigating something medically. Uh, if I want to solve a problem, I start with Chat GPT conversational. If I'm going to do deep research, I use Gemini. If I'm going to make images, I use Nano Banana. Um, if people don't at a minimum play around with Nano Banana, they're out of their mind. I just don't, especially a professor. I don't know how you go through your life without using a tool that is so powerful. And for your kids, for anyone listening, I've done this as an example. Um, if your kid is having trouble with a, a page in a, a text, download the page into it, have it do a visual of it, and see how your kid can understand it better. It'll do it in a couple seconds, and there's a diagram that just makes it easy. I use Anthropic for skills. The most powerful thing I've done because I've done all kinds of custom GPTs, but Claude skills allows me to do since I do a lot of repetitive motions. You watch my weekly videos, I write one Substack already. I'm writing another Substack based on heart rate variability and my success in the Aura ring of getting myself to levels where my biological age is going down. I'm going to take people on that journey for my writing and my skills. I use Claude. All I have to do in there is tell it how to do what I want it to do. I save it, and that's it. And every time I go into that particular thing, I say, use this skill of taking my, you know, the YouTube creator, or take my skill of this. So, if people don't use them for everything in their day-to-day life, and I do mean everything, at work, everything. If the firm doesn't allow you to use it, which is the majority of them, they can't use Claude skills. We're at a point now where if people aren't using them, they've run into a problem. Just one more, two more things. Perplexity, which you didn't mention. I use that extensively for stocks and for, um, staying up on the markets. And then I use Grok for sentiment and weekly trends, which I turn into investable ideas.

>> Excellent. I would say I also love Claude's skills. I think Claude code is incredible. I'm a 60-year-old man. I'm a little bit your senior, Jordy. Uh, and I'm not naturally tech fluid. And after the program where I saw you in September, I made the decision between Bolt.new and Laughable to create a pretty comprehensive app that I actually got up on the App Store. And that was a lot of work. So, I use Laughable.com and I created an app called Billionaire Mastermind, which coincides with a book that I have coming out in the first quarter. I'm telling you, and we may switch over a little bit now to both internal uses of SaaS software as a service to commercial applications and how that may change. In my world of account aggregation, reporting, and utilization of certain services for family offices on investing, I do believe there's a purpose for some of those companies that are AI enabled and SaaS centric. I get it. But I see a world in two years, three years, four years where it's, I'm talking to these programs and it's creating the app custom for me at basically pennies on the dollar. One, what's going to be the impact to hedge funds and financial services firms? This may go back to employees. And how about me investing in SaaS companies? Is that going to be dead in five or seven years?

>> Well, on the first part, um, remember when you, when you create an app in the old world, the only way that's worth anything is if other people want it and will use it. There's two things that we go with that, which is if someone sees it, can they create it themselves? And the answer is yes. So, you have to remember as you take this further, it is impossible for people to understand that you can create anything on the fly now, but you can. And every month it gets faster and faster. So, by definition, that disrupts everything. But the only reason SAS will survive for now and take a long time is the same reason that the mall has survived while, uh, Amazon has taken most of the business. There's a lot of companies with inside malls that stayed for a long time that are not making money. They were hoping they would be able to come back. Their brand would be worth money. But the reality is there are some people who are reluctant to change. And the Fortune 500 companies are only part of the ecosystem of the world. And I try to describe this. If you're Salesforce.com, you're selling software, a client relationship management system. You're going to sell it to the Fortune 500 companies. That's great. But their growth would come from smaller businesses that would eventually get to Fortune 500 companies that would then use it. That's never going to happen again. And the reason it's never going to happen again is because all of the future companies are all AI native. They know how to build their own CRM. They know how to do their own thing. So, growth has been hit as an investment this year. I believe this is the beginning, not just of SAS. Everything that is built on code has become commoditized. Everything that is built on code is the highest waiting in the S&P 500 and is the highest waiting in the MSCI World. It's one of the reasons why the US underperformed internationally this year. People may not realize it, but over the course of the next five years, as the democratization of AI continues, it will be better to be a user of it than it will be selling something that's based on code for the reason that you mentioned. So, I, I agree that SAS is dying, but rather than say it's going out of business, it's just not a growth industry anymore. And the multiples have to come down, the price to sales have to come down, and that's what's happened to Adobe and Salesforce this year. And for family offices out there, again, if I could vibe code, and that's technically what it is. I could talk what I want and then work with the system. Okay, it maybe took me tens of hours, not one or two hours, but I got it done. And it's getting, like Jordy said, easier every day. Related to that, in my opinion, is going from chat to AI doing things. And that goes right into what we spoke about earlier, AI agents. I'm not talking about off-the-shelf. I'm talking about ones with Claude code and other programs that I have a level of control over. And again, I have them working, I already do, in governance issues, in risk management, in finances, in my own portfolio, as well as families I advise, effectively 168 hours a week. I'm not saying it's perfect. I'm not saying it's easy. I'm not saying that you may not need some level of integration with an AI integration engineer. But I will say it feels like every day it's getting better. And this goes to how are you working with the people that you're working with to go from AI chatting to actually doing things.

>> Yeah, I agree with what you're saying. Someone who, um, who made the decision in the summer of last year that I would never again work for anyone. And the amount of people that have now tried to hire me, not just because of my investment background and my ability to, uh, see AI ahead of other people because I spend all my time on it. I have no interest whatsoever of either managing people or working for people. I've managed people since I was 29 years old. I'm, if I'm turning 59. There is zero chance that I ever want to get involved in that, that place again because of how I've been able to grow a business so quickly. The amount of people that need help learning how to use AI, my ability to show it, not only in videos, but to actually come into, uh, asset managers and show them what they can do. At this point, it gets easier and easier for me to do these things. And every person that I met a year ago has done almost nothing to catch up. Nothing. I've never seen people move slower on something moving so fast than what I've witnessed this year. And these are very educated people. The hedge fund industry is filled with people that went to the best universities. They either are not allowed to use it or they refuse to to change and use it. And I think it's been a big mistake. So, I'm in agreement with you on this one, Angelo.

>> Okay. I'm going to, let's build upon this since we have a strong area of agreement. Again, like I said, I've been running all year with me and a dream team level of instructors hosting master classes. I wrote an ebook on AI, which, laughable, Jordy, I've had to update it three times in the last four months. And in reality, I should be updating it every week because things are changing that quickly. Like you, people in the family office world, and you're a little bit more in the investments industry, they're higher IQ, they're successful, and I think their ego, their ignorance, and their fear actually get in the way. Now, I admit I'm a little bombastic. I could be a little bit maybe too over the top for people that find it a little bit offensive. When I went live with, I have a 150-page book, and I'm a real user every day, and I want to give it away for free, and I sent it to 50,000 people in my database. 40 people showed interest. That's it. For my master classes, I have to work hard to get five or seven participants. Now, admittedly, they got to pay or be a member, so it's not free. In other words, I'm not snapping my fingers and they're blowing my door open. They should be because that could really change their world, and even more so moving forward in '26. What are you doing in the hedge fund industry to get people that are looking to participate in your one-on-one, in your consulting? Like you just said, you're finding it maybe a little bit more ignorance, fear, ego than you thought. How are you going to overcome that?

>> Um, well, I've overcome it by focusing on two important, the probably the two most important, Alice, let me change it. The three most important things in any human being's life: money, health, and their kids. So, on all levels, that's where I focus my attention is showing people how to use it for financial empowerment. Um, most of this is coming from traders. Most of this is coming from people that are trying to make money at home and invest. The hedge fund world, they may be lazy. And I would, I wouldn't say they're ignorant. I wouldn't say they don't realize how good it is. I just think they're busy people that don't have the time. Um, it's the reason why when people ask me, I had to make a choice. And I was making a bet. Can I make more money running my own business than I could being a very senior person at a hedge fund? Which might sound ridiculous given the pay packages and stuff that are going around, but the reality is I can make more money doing what I'm doing. And that's the, the part is that there's a lot of people that do want to use it. I think you have a world where maybe it's isolated to, what am I going to use this for type thing? How much do I have to learn to be able to use it? I think people are scared for the stuff that I'm doing. And you've seen my videos. I've been able to grow significantly the amount of people that watch me on a weekly basis. Um, they want to know how I do the things I do. They want to gather the information that I gather. I consume an enormous amount of information, and I, I give it to people in a way that they can invest or they can make money on. That attracts a lot of people. So, it's traders, it's hedge fund people that want my research. And then on the health side, because of some of the stuff I've shown, people want to know how I did what I did. There's five million users of an Aura ring. There's people that are really concerned about their health. They want to learn that. And they know that the way that I'm using it is using AI for three years to figure a way to increase my HRV. For kids, almost everyone has children that they're starting to worry about in the job market. They may, it may not be their youngest, but they're hearing stories from the kids that graduated. They can't get a job, no matter what university they went to. You have to be AI native, and your kids have to feel like they're going to have a future. The silo-based world of schools and majors will not get you anywhere in the future world. And so, they have to learn to be AI native. And so I've spent the time making sure that the videos that I'm releasing are going to be geared towards younger people.

>> And Jordy, completely changing subjects and a subject that we agree on. And I think you're maybe the most articulate explaining why. So I'm going to cue you up. We're currently, as some people would argue, in an AI bubble. And there's elements of what they say on traditional metrics that may look a little bit correct in the short term. They compare it to the dot. And that's where I find it laughable. I could use a harsher word, which I used in one of my subtitles, to what we're doing today. If you could give context to the audience why there may be some elements to have concern about in the short term in the so-called AI bubble, but why it's very, very different than the dot-com crash.

>> Well, the, the first thing is, let's break this down logically and and intelligently as opposed to doing it on X and trying to scare people. Um, Bill Gurley had did an interview with Tim Ferriss last week. It was fantastic. I referenced it on my most recent video. And the part that he said, which I completely agree with, any innovation in the history of innovations leads to speculation. There is no doubt that there are pockets of speculation. I have said this year and will continue to say that quantum computing investing is a, is a bubble at this point. Anything related to, uh, just jumping on nuclear at this point is a bubble. It's not that these things won't be something in the future, but to guess which companies are going to benefit from this or what's going to go on at this stage is too early. And people are just jumping on hope and dreams and making money and momentum was driving it. The second part is, I, I referenced an interview with Jim Chanos, who I have a lot of respect for. I wanted to hear his bearish case. He wasn't even that bearish. So, I, I want to bring it up in just two, two things for people, and then I'll get to the dot comparison. Um, he just said that he thinks Oracle is the most likely to be at risk. I happen to agree with him. Oracle doesn't have the revenues coming in yet. He also said the hyperscalers are fine. They've got tons of money coming in the door. They do. They're spending it too, but they have money coming in. It's a much better place to be if you're spending money that you have or spending money out of revenues. You can keep doing that game a lot longer than if you're Oracle, where everything is based on future revenues. So, his argument was, I think Nvidia is a great company. I think the hyperscalers are fine. I just think the data center math is very risky. And if they don't get revenues in over the next three years, I think they're at risk. I completely agree with him if they don't get revenues in the door. We did, he and I disagree completely that the revenues won't be coming in. I happen to agree with him that I'm not sure all of those companies are going to get the revenues that justify their multiples. Finally, on the dot-com bubble, and this is really important for everyone listening, there logically, the reason that that one gets referenced is because it's the only tech bubble that these people have lived through. And I say these people because people have been saying it all year. This is not an AI bubble or a dot-com bubble. During the dot-com bubble, the telecoms took out an enormous amount of debt to build bandwidth so that your phone and the internet could move faster. They were doing that for startup companies like Google, like Amazon, like all these companies that eventually did get bigger. Those companies were funded by VC funds. So, the second that people realized that there was going to be a gap between when those companies could monetize the revenue, and it didn't happen until we got into the smartphone and the app store. That's the comparison they're making. But this time, it's not the telecom companies that are spending money out of debt. Horrible companies with low margins. They're doing this is being done by the companies that are actually going to use the technology to create the revenues to sell it to the enterprise companies. There is no comparison whatsoever, other than what I said at the beginning, which is all innovations have speculation. It's not a binary situation. There are pockets of speculation. The S&P 500 is up about 17% this year. That doesn't sound bubbish to me. The NASDAQ is up in the 20s. In 1999, it was up 100%. In 1998, it was up close to 100%. You're dealing with something very different than back then.

I mean, I don't want to make it a stock picker show, but I want to pick on a couple of companies if I could get your analysis of them. One of them you already hinted at, and that would be, uh, Nvidia. If you could give a perspective why some people feel it's overvalued, some people feel they manipulate the market, they use creative accounting, and why, again, maybe there's grains of truth to all of that, but why it still isn't a very dominant position.

>> Right. First of all, um, for the argument on why it's not going to be there has more to do with competition and just the fact that we're never going to need all of the chips that they're making, and that there's going to be an oversupply situation. That the chips that they're selling today won't be worth anything in a year, and eventually this whole domino of the accounting side, which is not their issue, but it's other people's issues, will kill the spending, and then they won't need the chips in the future.

>> So, here's the situation with Nvidia. NVIDIA is not just a chip company. It's a software company too. They have a huge edge in the data center side. Uh, I think you got a DJ DGX, or you said you were getting one.

>> You remember that?

>> Yeah. Um, that has not gone over well for them, and I think they're going to have a hard time making, uh, the transition that they were hoping to make. But on the data center side, the government is going to continue to make sure that the US spends money on data centers. We're going to have somewhere between three and $5 trillion for certain over the next five years that will be spent out. Nvidia gets at this point between 35 and 60% of that number. I won't go through the math. The only thing I'll tell you is Nvidia is way too cheap three years from now based on where the revenue estimates are for the street relative to a discounted percentage of the numbers that I gave you. If they only get 15% of the $5 trillion, that's $750 billion. The estimates three years from now are at $415. They are way too cheap relative to where things are. I use that as a gauge for when the market's actually going to be in a bubble. If right now they were pricing three-year revenues at the higher end of what would be likely based on the past three years, that to me would be a bubble. That's what happened in the dot-com bubble with Cisco. It's not happening now.

>> A little bit indirectly to Nvidia, uh, you mentioned Chanos. Chanos spoke at one of my events about 11, 12 years ago at the Yale Club, to be exact, in New York. But there's another person who, probably with the younger audience, is even more famous because he's more bombastic on X and other platforms, the rare times that he posts, and that would be Michael Bur. Uh, I believe you have a unique perspective about his perspective where you may have a little bit more respect for Chanos's perspective and maybe think that Bur, maybe a little bit like the much, much lesser known me, could sometimes be a little bit bombastic in his tweets.

>> I mean, at this point, he's making more than $10 million a year being a Substack news writer. I mean.

>> He's making us jealous on that, Jordy. Again, he, he, he launched his thing. He had over 30,000 subscribers at $400 a year. And trust me, as someone who's in the content business, the easiest way to make money is to just be bearish all the time because there's a lot of angry people out there that want to buy research on this. But if he was really a hedge fund person that really believed in his views, I don't think he'd be doing this. I view Michael Bur, plain and simply, as a tail risk person, which is fine if he's right. One out of 20 times he's going to make money on things that are going the opposite way of what people believe. So, there's nothing wrong with that. There's nothing to go through. He just gets way too many, too much air time because he happened to make money on a trade that everyone I know on Wall Street made money on, plain and simple. I don't know one hedge fund that, that I was at at the time. We made a lot of money on the exact same trade. Betting on mortgages is a mathematical thing. Michael Bur, as far as I can tell, knows nothing about artificial intelligence. He knows, he doesn't listen to any podcasts. He doesn't do any work. He's doing linear math again and calling this a bubble. And that's a different world than the world I live in. You have to understand AI and the demand side.

>> Completely agree. I'm going to bring up another company that would be Tesla. It's impossible not to mention, oh, I don't know, Elon Musk. But I'm going to do it in a little different perspective. You did one of my favorite write-ups of the year comparing about how Wall Street looks at Warren Buffett relative comparison to Elon Musk. If you don't mind, give my audience a synopsis of what you wrote.

>> Yeah, I, I had been walking around Brooklyn and listening to Elon speak, and it was a phenomenal interview. It's still online. It was with an Indian gentleman. I can't remember his name. It was about two hours, but it was, it was, uh, it was a great interview because it got very philosophical about life. It got in depth. You learned a lot about Elon Musk in terms of how much he thinks about things. I'm fascinated by the way he approaches things. But on this particular one, he talked about a future that is so beyond anyone's expectations. Now, I've heard him talk about this before. It's not something new, but to get into what work will look like, to get into, um, you know, universal high income, to get into why he wants to go to Mars, why, uh, he started Tesla, and why the importance of Tesla, XAI, and SpaceX all line together. He talked about what it'll be like when humanoids finally get here and what the world will look like, and how many people are going to have optional, you know, work environments. So, to hear him talk about it, and then I wrote the paper because I just said, he gets no, like, no one listens to this except futurists and tech people. The majority of people I speak with on Wall Street have, they, they shorted Elon Musk a long time ago. And it's very hard for some of the smartest people that have made a ton of money to ever admit they're wrong because they don't have to. It's not just ego. Why would they ever give in? So, they just continue to say it's not real. I got, first time I wrote something was in the summer when I said, we're now beginning with robo taxis, the beginning of embodied AI. Tesla will be the biggest company in the world sometime very soon. And the amount of hate mail that I got saying, "Not you too, we were reading you. You're an Elon Musk fan." And I just said, I don't understand. We are entering the most important time in mankind. We're going to have flying cars. We're going to have autonomous cars. We're going to have humanoids walking down the street. It's going to look like a Star Trek movie. He describes it on there. And I just thought it was ironic that if Warren Buffett spoke and said the same things, people would take it as gospel. But because it's Elon Musk, the richest man on the planet, no one takes him seriously.

>> Completely agree. Uh, back a little bit to kind of the bigger picture question, and we'll get to some macro things that this will segue into. You also have some strong opinions about inflation versus deflation. Jerome Powell, the Fed. I know I'm kind of throwing a little bit of the kitchen sink at you there, and it's a little bit disjointed, but if you could share our audience your perspective about that.

>> Yeah, anyone who's been focused, um, not focused, who's been, I guess, obsessed with inflation should feel embarrassed. I mean, it, there isn't any. We're, we're literally trying to make it up now. Is there inflation for people from 2019 to today? Huge inflation. Prices have not come down. They went higher because of the amount of money we printed. But to talk about it as 3% or 4% or we're going to go into hyperinflation, all of that. We had the inflation. The prices are not coming down. We have a problem that I don't see how it'll get fixed in the near term. But from a macro person perspective, to worry about long-term yields going higher on the back of inflation resuming, which is what you brought up with with Powell, uh, the Fed has now spoken. They see the same thing that I've been kind of writing about and talking about all year, which is the most deflationary force the world has ever seen is sitting in front of our face. It will be here in three years. And right now, we have three facts. Wages are going lower. The job market, best case scenario, is slightly negative once we get the revision. So, we have negative jobs. We have wages going down. House prices are coming down. Owner's equivalent rent is coming down at a very, very fast pace. And gas at the pump is below $3 across the country. All of these things are going one direction, which is down. The stock market's going higher. And people are worried about inflation. You cannot have inflation if oil is not going up, if wages are going down, and if house costs are going down. Will it be sticky around 3%? Yeah, I'm sure it will. I wouldn't bet on that, but it's not going to have any impact on the market. So, if you're worried about it from a, this is going to hurt the market next year perspective, that is a, a, uh, a rung on the wall of worry that I would not pay too.

much attention to. And I want to go back a little bit to Tesla, what they're doing in Optimus and the future of humanoid robots. And we're both a fan. I've heard you mention Adam Jonas before on your platform. I love his videos. And he's also one of those to me under the radar people who's at a conservative institution that's very forward-thinking. And I believe he said something that was laughable. How Wall Street believes robotics the way that we're describing it 25 years from now in 2050 is going to be a $5 trillion dollar industry. It's going to be much bigger and Elon has spoken about that as well. Again, Wall Street does appear to be a little bit slow to some technological advancements. They were very wrong multiple years now on Nvidia. Uh, your perspective in terms of if you want to comment on Adam Jonas in general, I recommend my people follow him, that would be one thing, but a little bit about the future of robotics, humanoid robotics, and how, and maybe you do agree that maybe $5 trillion is a decent number in 25 years. I don't see that at all. How could an optimist version of Tesla and other companies like Figure and others not really be Fortune 20 companies in 5 to 7 years?

>> So on Adam Jonas, um, I forget the name of his video, but it's, I think it's "The Robots Are Rising" or something like that, but you can find it if you just type Adam Jonas Morgan Stanley in YouTube, you'll find it. It's, it's a must-watch. It's a documentary. It's about 23 minutes. It's, it's, it's well worth it. Uh, Adam and I have known each other for over a decade. Uh, we didn't overlap together at Morgan Stanley, but I've gotten to know him and really, he was in our office every, probably a couple times every year. So I got to see him go from a car guy, so a car analyst, to a car analyst who covered Tesla and was the only person who was positive on it at a very early age, very early stage. And he decided to really understand how this wasn't really a car company. And he spent the time as a, as a, you know, he's younger than us. He did the work and he's now not a car analyst. He's kind of their AI autonomous person or robotics person. So I love Adam and I think he's one of the more entertaining people and I do agree with you that he's under the radar. If you, if, if you mention Adam Jonas to someone who knows him, you'll get a smirk very quickly because he's highly entertaining. Uh, he always gets a laugh out of people and he's a, he's, he's very smart. In terms of the size of the market, U, I, I don't, I don't know the right way to say to people. I'm so, I, I know I spoke about this in Palm Beach and I, I'm going to reiterate it. When we start getting into what something is worth, um, more than five years from now, I think it's foolish. I think right now you can try to place it. But Elon Musk said some, Elon Musk said something in that interview which I glazed over. He said, "The concept of money will not exist." So if the concept of money does not exist, then the TAM doesn't exist, and that is the fact, and that is something I believe in. So I don't believe in a world where AI is solving all these problems and going down and by the time the humanoids come, it will take longer than five years. It will not be in five years that we will have millions of robots. We don't have the scale for it. We don't have the ability of getting the parts. We don't have the physical side. We've underinvested dramatically in what we need to be able to have those things. Will it be here in 10 years? Yes. Will they be completely everywhere in 15 years? Yes. Once they do and we don't need people anymore the way we did, the concept of what money means gets very, very difficult because the price of things goes down. Housing, housing affordability goes down if there's humanoids to build the houses because there's no more labor that needs for it. If the materials are made by AI, there's no material costs. So the all real estate, which I know I said in September at your event in New York, real estate prices are going to go down because of AI. That's what tokenization is there for. That is what is going to allow people to transact. So I don't know what this money concept is, but I do agree that the way investors are going to view it, at least over the next five years, it is going to be a far, far bigger number than $5 trillion.

>> For sure. And I believe the Adam Jonas video that you referenced, he gives some great visuals. I think it's a street in New York in 1901, horse buggy in like one vehicle and like 10 years later that same street and it's reversed. He also gives the example close to my hometown where I was born, Yonkers, New York is the home of Otis elevators and how that changed the landscape of New York. Not in 10 years like with a horse and buggy compared to cars, but in a couple of decades so radically to give examples about how what we're going through now is equally more so in terms of going to be impactful. Back a little bit to some investment thesis. You mentioned you're a little bit not overly bullish, I guess you could say, on data centers. Uh, but how about the physical infrastructure? Well, partially of data centers. I remember you speaking about Corning and that was an excellent investment play over the last couple of years. But I look at copper, precious metals, commodities, the physical components that are going to be needed to do things in the real world with AI, going back a little bit to what we said earlier. What's your prognosis from an investing perspective on broadly commodities? And if you wanted to single out Corning and other companies, why them moving forward?

>> Yeah. So on the, on the, well, before we get into commodities, let, let me just extend this because, um, the way people think about the needs for commodities has been really isolated to the, the building out of the data centers. And I think everyone has seen how massive these facilities are going to be. They're just massive. So we need a lot of parts. We need a lot of components that go into them. And this really is accelerating right now. One thing I want to make sure people realize, the reason this is not a bubble and the reason this is a necessity, LLMs, which people have heard, large language models, that's all text thinking. That is just taking all of the books, internet, everything in the world, videos, and literally learning from it. So they have all of the knowledge that humans have basically written down or created. But now we're on VLMs, visual language models, that is combining things with the visual and this, the multimodal side that we talked about leading to what humanoids and what cars need is the ability of looking at the world, the physics of it, and go through it. Now the reason that's important to the question of of copper, what people have to understand is the data centers are being built for the LLM and for the VLM, but what we're entering now is we need power. So, we need a lot of power to plug into the data centers to be able to go. So, we're starting to build nuclear plants. We need tons of batteries. We need gas turbines. All of that stuff is why we're having bottlenecks and shortages. And that's going to continue and only accelerate going forward. So, you're going to have that buildout that happens next year. We're going to start to have edge devices. Edge devices are an critical component. You mentioned or we talked about DGX briefly. Every phone, computer, and car that people on this video have in two years will be with AI in it. You will not want to have anything. The Alexa that Angelo has, that I have, will have AI in it. It won't be this garbage that we're using right now. That's not smart. You're going to have all of those things lead into humanoids. So, the thing is, we're going to have a synchronized upgrade to phones, computers, and cars all at the same time. That is a massive hardware buildout that needs tons of things. If you had the, uh, the fortune of watching my videos this year when I pitched Micron continuously throughout the year, which has almost tripled.

>> Yeah. No, that one was was perfect. And again, Corning is a similar thing. Corning makes optical fibers which go into the data center. But Corning also will benefit from the glass that goes on the phones and the computers and the cars. We haven't had a cycle, an upgrade cycle in a long time because the phones haven't gotten better. The computers haven't gotten better. They just get more memory. So, it depends on how much you use them. So, great for coders, not great for people at home. But with AI, everything will be upgraded. Then you'll start getting into the appliances. As uh, Jensen Huang has said, we are basically taking artificial intelligence and we are upgrading the entire industrial world one component at a time. That means we need lots of physical hardware and lots of things. And just remember, all of the militaries of the world need to upgrade as well. We need to get the rare earth, which means we have to do the mining. So the mining needs to happen. So all copper, all silver, all of these things. They're embarking on a bull market which is going to last until AI can solve the problem, and that's going to take years, not months. So you can expect that there's going to be higher prices for commodities going forward. This does not benefit oil in the same way. I'm sure there will be a floor in oil, but the reality is oil is not impacted by this. This is about natural gas and this is about all the other commodities we mentioned. And by the way, some of you in the chat are bringing up some very interesting comments and questions. I hope to have time to get to some of them. If I can't, my apologies. They do weave their way into some of my upcoming questions.

Related Jordy to what you just said. Among the most common themes that you spoke about this year is one that I don't think many people really even know what the acronym even means. If you don't mind, if you could break down PMI, why it's important relating to manufacturing that you just spoke about and indirectly relating to the topic in commodities broadly, manufacturing that I mentioned prior.

>> Yeah, the PMI is a very, um, important signal in the economy. It's a, it's a, it's a leading indicator of what's happening at the manufacturing level. So since 2000, since the great financial crisis, there have been no business cycles. And I, I mean, I hate to like burst people's bubbles, but you might work in an industry where there was a, a business cycle for a period, but we've basically had no business cycles. And a business cycle used to be, you come out of a recession and then you'd get this advancement. They'd cut rates. We'd have a ton of money going into the system on the fiscal side and then you'd have this next investment phase that had gone on. Now, post the great financial crisis, we did see buildings going up in New York and buildings around the country. We had commercial real estate and all of that stuff happening. But we also had 10% unemployment that worked its way down to 3% over the pri, over the next decade. We haven't had a business cycle. We've had inventory restocking cycles. This one is different.

>> This is going to be a massive buildout of data centers, of power needs, of phones, of computers, of cars, of appliances, of everything. And so this will have characteristics of a business cycle. And the manu, the PMI stands for purchasers managing, uh, uh, management in, uh, institute. It gives you the ability or index. It gives you the ability of seeing what's happening from the manufacturing side. How are new orders going? How are shipments going? How is employment going? How is production going? How are exports going? How are imports going? It has a lot of data inside of it. It has been below 50 for the longest time in history.

>> It's been below 50, which means less than 50% of the, uh, the companies, industries that make up the index are below. It's a survey. So, we've been below 50 for the longest stretch in history, and I believe we're going to trade higher. This has huge implications for the way that quant strategies run. Historically, when PMIs have gone higher, rates have gone higher. There's a lot of different components. Small caps typically outperform. Uh, large caps, that hasn't happened for a while. Commodities typically do well. Hardware versus software. All of these trends, if you think about, we've been in a software-dominated world where there's been an underinvestment in anything related to hardware. If I'm right and if there is a PMI, the business cycle which is happening on the hard, hardware buildout side, I believe it has huge implications. And I will say, if Angelo is going to ask me this later, the one risk I do see for next year that is not talked about is the fact that I think there is a legitimate risk that hedge funds, and especially quantitatively driven hedge funds, in terms of the risk side, run into a problem because if we do get a rotation away from growth and into some of these small cap names. The size of Nvidia right now is $5 trillion. The size of the Russell 2000 combined of all 2,000 companies is $3 trillion or $3.2 trillion. We don't have enough liquidity. If people try to get out of some Nvidia, some Microsoft, some of the MAG 7, which so big, and try to move into Russell, you're going to see a massive move in small caps. And I think it'll catch people. It's a liquidity risk.

I'm going to switch over a little bit to a subject that you heard me talk a little bit about in New York. I actually think we're relatively on the same page, but it doesn't sound like it perhaps on the surface initially. You know that I have concerns over our multi-trillion deficit and our $39 trillion debt. I would like to be hopeful that the big beautiful bill, I don't know, maybe it was needed, maybe it was reckless. We could debate that. Uh, we do have to win the AI war versus China. Uh, politicians, one, they want to get elected. Two, they want to get reelected. They want to stay in power and they want to benefit themselves. And probably Trump is pretty good at all three of those things. Henceforth, where do you stand on the fact that we have huge debt? Uh, you're familiar obviously with Ray Dalio, his cycle of debt. I heard him a couple of times on Tom Billou and other platforms. There's elements I disagree with the endgame with Dalio. He's another one who spoke at some of my past events in the past as well. My instincts are you somewhat disagree as well with his end conclusion. You don't appear to be as concerned about our debt. Doesn't that worry you?

>> Not for a single minute.

>> Why? Again, if I ask everyone why does debt matter, they have to go into history and give me some, some situation of where one country stops investing with the other or does XYZ. This country's, and I said this in Palm Beach, I'll say it again. The household net worth of the United States of America is $190 trillion. That is the net worth. Why does $39 trillion matter when the net worth of the country, which is created by investors overseas investing money in the companies over here, not count? I don't understand. There should be some relationship in all balance sheets. Do I think it would be better if the government did have this? Yes. But if I said to everyone, including Ray Dalio, hey, if we get to the point that we go from $20 trillion of debt to $40 trillion of debt, what do you think will happen to inflation? Oh, inflation's going to go much higher. We just got the CPI print. It's below 3%. All of the things that people would predict that would happen with the debt we've had. Yes, we did have one episodic period where inflation went higher for two years after they shoved $8 trillion into the system in money supply via helicopter. I get it. It doesn't matter. We are in a deflationary spiral at this point that is controlled by the debt to offset it. So the debt is being used for only one reason, and people don't see this, but it's the truth. The debt is being used to keep from a revolution happening within the country. It's being used to prevent having job losses. This is not a, this is not a joke. This is what they talk about. Ray Dalio says we will eventually get there. The reason that it doesn't matter is what is the negative for having debt if nothing happens? Everyone has debt across the planet. China has debt. Japan has debt. Europe has debt. The US has debt. We make up 70% of the global economy. If they wipe off our debt and we wipe off their debt and we all own each other's debt, that's what the world is. Ray Dalio is talking about a world of history. No offense to him. Great. I'm glad he made a lot of money. Does not ring a bell with me whatsoever. And if you've listened to him, he's been saying the same thing for how long now? How many books on this? This has been a repeated story. So if you want to go sit there and play the doom and gloom game and go through it, I believe markets tell you. I'd rather focus on the fact that AI is accelerating at a pace far faster than the debt. The stock market is creating wealth for individuals. There is zero, zero, zero chance in my mind that the debt ends up being a problem. It's more likely to get even bigger than it is to turn into a collapse. So, I'll take $50 trillion five years from now over the fact that this is going to lead to a problem. And I say it with a, a, a belief that some, anything could happen. I just think people are worried about something that if they really sat back and thought about it, if everyone has debt in the world, how is this not a unique problem compared to history?

I'd like to talk a little bit about maybe public market investing. I'm going to, I wrote down some notes of things that I looked at and in the world of AI kind of going horizontal and taking over. So to me, some timeless principles, cash generation, capital allocation mastery, Musk is very good at that. Founder intensity. To me, these are somewhat timeless. Quarter-by-quarter growth, 10-year runways there. Sure. I mean, I'm going to look at them. I just think they're somewhat obsolete in a more AI-centric world. What are certain metrics that you would look at as key and how has that changed from pre-AI 5 years ago to how you're looking at public markets investing now?

>> Well, one, one thing I want to correct you on, um, AI is obviously, and you know this, a, AI is not something new. Um, machine learning started impacting companies and, you know, the hedge fund industry really in 2007, 2008. Um, this is when, when we talk about AI, this is just the next stage of exponential innovation. The reason I feel so confident on the debt situation is because I was hearing this stuff in 2013 as well, and that's when I went to Silicon Valley to figure out why, as a macro person, I was worried about the debt problem. What was different? So, I just want to remind people, when I say these things, this is a 12-year journey for me of focusing on exponential innovation and figuring out how the game ends. Meaning, how does the debt get wiped away? I already have that in my mind. Uh, so I don't need to go through this whole thing. But for the way, other thing I wanted to answer, which is the answer to this question is, what things was I missing in 2013 when I believed the Ray Dalio story, when I believed that Europe would break apart, when I believed these things? What, what was I missing? What I was missing was how could a company like Amazon be a bubble, meaning one company was a bubble. It was trading with an infinity PE. It wasn't making money, and yet the market cap was growing rapidly. And what I started to realize was the one metric of the S&P 500 that has been consistent over time has been profit margins. And this is the number one thing for people to focus on on the market, and it's spreading to other companies. And this is the year you start to see spread across industries. Profit margins matter. Profit margins are the key metric. GDP is a horrible statistic. Profits are a real number. Meaning, you make money, you have expenses, there's accounting that's done on it. GDP is not based for a world of intangibles. It's one of the reasons why when we hear about how big the debt is, we don't know what the GDP is. We have no idea what it is. GDP is a total sum of transactions. I could start to go in the weeds here about how tokenization is going to make GDP go up dramatically the way it's calculated because the velocity of money is going to go through the roof in the course of the next five years, which theoretically would mean GDP goes higher. GDP has been left lower because there's been no velocity of money. And the velocity of money happens because when you buy a phone, you're not paying for all of the things that you used to have to buy on it that if you took them all apart, cost money. So profit margins are the number one thing, Angelo, for people to focus on. They can do it at the industry level. You can do it at the company level. I'll just give you an example. CH Robinson, which is a trucking company, has profit margins started going through the roof. They've incorporated AI into their business in the logistics side. All of a sudden now transport companies, and this is not autonomous driving, this is just them running their business more efficiently by spending the money, putting AI in. A lot of truckers are going out of business right now because of what happened with the tariffs this year. We're going to have public companies that are left that are putting artificial intelligence in. If you want to measure the productivity gains that are happening at the country level, you have to view it through the lens of the companies because that's the best accounting method. And for them, just focus on the Fortune 500 companies and see what's happening with profit margins at the industry level and the individual company levels. If you can go from a low profit margin to a high profit margin like they've done, like McKesson is doing, and some of the, Corning is doing, and some of the other places, you're going to be able to find where AI is impacting their business.

Back a little bit to my prior question, uh, and back a little bit to even Trump. So, we got the big beautiful bill. We gave that a little bit of coverage. Uh, we didn't talk about tariffs. We don't have enough time to cover everything, but there was something that happened this summer, a combination of Trump and team best, David Sachs, that I think is wickedly underrated, may actually prop up the US dollar for decades to come and is going to relate to what you said about tokenization. I think we both agree one of our favorite podcasts this year was Jeremy Aier on Moonshots talking about his company Circle. So this relates to, uh, stable coins, arguably tokenization, the Genius Act, and the impact that could be positively moving forward in today's world.

>> It's going to be very disruptive, but it'll be, um, when combined with AI agents, an event that I don't think people fully grasp the changes that will happen and how quickly they'll happen. Uh, money is obviously the key to all GDP and everything that moves on, but it's the velocity of money and the speed of making decisions once you get into the combination of AI plugging into stable coins. So, stable coins, just some kind of tokenized version of the dollar that is able to be transacted in a way over your phone and instantaneously with very low friction and very low cost. That's going to be a big deal. You're going to start to see the middleman finally be taken out of the financial industry. It'll take a good three to five years, but the Genius Act is going to speed up the process. You're going to have two separate things, and this is why it's going to go slower than what people will think in terms of the disruption. On the one side, you have the true on-chain, and I'm, don't, don't glaze your eyes over for people who don't pay attention to crypto. On-chain just means it's a new thing that's created that immediately is on-chain. So, think of it as an IPO that now has complete recognition of who owns it, the IP around it. It's on the blockchain, which means it's there. The other version is tokenized assets. So, if you own real estate and you want to sell 10% of them, you're going to be able to take that to Larry Fink and to JP Morgan and all the places that are now going to do tokenization, you're going to get it checked. You're going to have it there. It'll be tokenized. It'll be on the chain, but it'll be a real world asset that is now tokenized. All of that stuff is going to lead to, if someone was able to now monetize 10% of their real estate, that 10% of money now goes into their hands. If someone owns Bitcoin, they're going to be able to post that as collateral and get a loan on it instantaneously. That's already happening with companies. All of this stuff is now accelerating. The reason I mentioned the AI side is because once AI plugs into it, the agents are going to make very different decisions than human beings make. Human beings make decisions like your doctor does because based on the salesperson that gives them tickets, they recommend a drug to you. Computers would never do that. Computers would do what's best for you, what your, what your analytics and your DNA says you should do. We're going to get more into that. So, the combination of stable coins and tokenization and AI agents is coming, and it's going to be accelerating next year. It will have implications for the market. I have a variety of investment themes in the public markets that will benefit from this that I think few people have connected the dots on. Uh, but it's going to happen.

Uh, Jordy, we'll go a little rapid fire in the final 10 or 12 minutes. Audience, I promise some Bitcoin questions are coming. Uh, but before we get there, a couple of themes that relate around AI that you hinted at. One of them is energy. Maybe we'll focus on nuclear. And then I would like to go a little bit to biotech.

>> I'm sorry. Which one do you want me to start with?

>> Start with nuclear.

>> Oh, okay. So my nuclear is going to be a part of, of the future. But again, you, my brain only works one way with AI, which is if things are moving so fast, any kind of long-term belief or investment in nuclear when you don't know what we're going to have as solutions that are going to be coming up in the next two years, we could come up with a solution to power that makes every nuclear plant that we're building a ghost, just like Chinese cities. It's very similar to the argument that happened in China. Everyone viewed this, so these are ghost cities. If we're building nuclear plants and let's assume they're not finished, but all of a sudden we have a major advancement in energy over the course of the next three years, we may not need this. Along, Elon Musk threw out something which Google verified as a possibility of these data centers in space. All of these different possibilities, advancements in batteries, which Demis Hassabis has talked about and Demis Hassabis is working on. Uh, all of these things, and that'll segue into biotech in a second. You can't make decisions on 20 years from now. So I think investments in nuclear for public companies and things like that. I think it's very dangerous because it's very speculative. It involves the same thing that people worry about Bitcoin. What if quantum comes and breaks Bitcoin? They should start thinking about every investment they make. What if AI comes and disrupts this investment because it's coming very, very soon to disrupt.

>> Biotech. So biotech is very, uh, is very special to me. I literally live my life. The reason I talked about heart rate variability is because I do believe that you want to stay the same age you are today. You want to slow your aging. Um, HRV is a measurement for biological age, which in the work that I've done and paid attention to and really worked on using a lot of statistics. I wanted to focus on this one for a variety of reasons because it's not just your body, it's also your outlook, your happiness, your breathing, all of that stuff. And so I've tried to focus on it. The reason I bring it up for this is I fully believe in what Demis Hassabis has said related to AI drug discovery. I wrote a long-form paper on what happened with Eli Lilly and the pharmaceuticals back in October. They had a massive rally, historic on many, many levels. And the reason that was important to me is because these companies 100% are going to benefit from what's happening with AI. In the same way that most people don't realize this and forget your views on the vaccine, we went from getting the information from China with Moderna creating the blueprint for a vaccine before one person had died in the United States of America. Most people don't know that story, but the reality is AI allows you to come up with cures for things very quickly. And where we are with getting FDA or getting AI drugs through the system, that process is going to start right now. In fact, Demis Hassabis has said we're very close within weeks to getting the first one through, at least to the level that matters. You're going to be able to cure pretty much every disease over the next five years, according to the people you and I listen to on a regular basis. They're not, none of them are off that page. They're all on the same thing. Whether or not we have the ability to do it in terms of having it, we're going to have the blueprint for it. And so, I think biotech's going to do extremely well.

A little bit from my event in September that you were there for part of it and spoke, and a little bit of Raul Paul, who we both know. I haven't interviewed Raul in a couple of years. I did briefly see him in the Cayman Islands when I spoke at an event there a couple of months ago. He talks about the money printer, inflation, taxes, you're getting 9 or 10%, you're not even really quote unquote keeping pace. So the big picture that effectively I'm getting to in my question is looking at the S&P 500. What happens if 50% of the S&P 500 gets disrupted by AI-native companies in the coming years? Do I stay invested in an index? Do I go for private companies? This goes to the bigger question and I think you would agree. There was an underlying theme at my event. I'm not saying that I agree with it. I'm already rich. I want to preserve money. I may lose a little bit of purchasing power, but I want to be rich tomorrow and in 10 years. I think that's a bad attitude. I do not agree with it. I'm probably more aligned with Raul Paul. But maybe there's a little bit of a balance. How would you balance that?

I, so I'm going to go back to the Ray Dalio thing. When, when you have this much debt, someone is paying for it. And right now, the people who are paying for it are the people who are having a hard time living their life and being able to enjoy it. Uh, we don't have horrible inflation like we did in the 1970s. And we don't have people out of work. The misery index is extremely low. We have three and change percent unemployment and or four and change percent unemployment. And we have three and change percent or two and change percent inflation. So we don't have a bad misery index. The problem is people aren't able to make any money if inflation that is not counted in the way that it probably should be. Home insurance, auto insurance, the, the price of a house to buy as opposed to rent. You're not getting the flexibility that you want. There's a lot of people that are not doing well. And that is the part. Michael Green wrote an article saying the poverty line in the US is not $31,000. It's closer to $140,000. There's a lot of truth in that. Um, and I think that's a better way to look at it is you've taken the level through the debt to higher levels. Uh, the, the poverty line to higher levels if you view the poverty line not just as eating, being able to eat and go through, but actually being able to not live paycheck to paycheck. And most people in the country live paycheck to paycheck. So for Raul Paul's side and where I kind of fit in this whole thing of the, the basement slash what's going to happen. This is why I ended up in the Bitcoin space and and crypto. I do believe that over the next five years, it's going to be very disruptive for the people out there that are looking to diversify their portfolio. The companies and the startup companies that are coming are not going to knock the companies out of business today. I think indexes are your easiest safety point because they're taking the winners of today and they're moving them into the index through the market cap. So, it's momentum based. I still think you should have indices and just not be invest picking stocks. I think it's going to get much harder. But I will say this.

Gold and Bitcoin have to be a very high percent of people's portfolios. If what they're trying to do is outperform inflation, if they're trying to just meet up with inflation, I think stocks and bonds, some, some weighting of it will be fine. But I would rather have gold and Bitcoin as say, depending on how wealthy you are and how old you are and how much money you're trying to make. I think Bitcoin and gold combined should at least be 25% of people's portfolios at this point.

>> Agreed. And that relates to my follow-up question broadly on how billion-dollar family offices are investing. Let's ignore if they have a private company that's doing incredible and they have an edge. Uh, I would say from my experience, which is pretty extensive around the world, most families are under 1% in gold. They are definitely under 1% in Bitcoin and crypto in general, period. They're heavy, broadly, if you look at the math in my experience, in real estate, in private credit, and in often private equity funds. Now, this may get to a deeper question of principal versus agent. I work as an executive. I have an older mindset. I'm not AI-native. I'm protecting my butt. I'm buying big blue, and I hate that, which sometimes makes me, uh, not a favorite person among executives in the industry. I agree with you on your thesis broadly speaking on crypto, and I would add in gold and silver and other commodities to be 25%. I just don't see it happening. What do you think of the typical billion, three billion, five billion family office portfolio that is under 1% in Bitcoin, under 1% in gold, and heavily in two and 20 structures in private credit, venture capital, and more so private equity?

I mean, so here, here's the thing I'll say. Um, if you take their portfolio and you honestly go through it, there's no way real estate has done well for people right now. I, I don't, maybe maybe they're lucky and they have some portfolio, but this year alone, just this year, stocks are doing very well. International stocks are doing better than the US. Bonds have been horrible for whatever seven years now. When you aggregate the numbers, gold has outperformed pretty much every stock market in the world since the great financial crisis. And with the S&P X dividends, it has outperformed as well. So, gold has been a better investment than stocks. But out of that equation, I said outperformed. The reason it didn't matter for the people that are watching or the people who have less than 1% is because they didn't need to do anything. They were able to make money on other investments in their portfolio along the lines. What I believe will happen the next five years is that gold and Bitcoin will significantly outperform while these other things are kind of spinning their wheels relative to the way people are weighted in them. If inter, if I'm, I'm, I'm pretty sure most people in their stock waitings have the US as a higher weight than they do international. International outperformed this year. It was a bad decision. I think this is going to be a theme going forward. Like I said, I think small caps are going to outperform large caps. People don't have a big weighting in small caps. What I believe is going to happen is that the winners of the past are going to become dead money going forward relative to inflation and relative to a good investment side, while people are going to watch as these other things go higher. So if I'm right about that, you're going to see a scenario that happened and people forget this. MSCI World X the US was pretty much, when you go through over a period, near unchanged for about 15 years since the great financial crisis through the beginning of 2023. If you were invested in that and you were making no money while inflation was going up, you were obviously getting debased at a fast level. The only thing that saved you was you probably had a bigger weighting in the tech stocks in the US. If that's not what's working, which is what I think is going to go forward, I think it's going to be a very challenging time. And the one thing I know about all human beings, Angelo, if they start not making money, they're going to try to find a way to make money. And if they want to make money, the only thing in my opinion that is liquid enough for them to buy and is producing returns will be gold and Bitcoin.

And in my final two questions to wrap us up, when I had you on last year, we were probably 70% focused on Bitcoin and 30% technologies. This time we're about so far 97% AI and other things, but I'll have that ratio be a little bit more broadly Bitcoin in the final two questions. Uh, with all due respect, uh, I've watched you on Pomp and you were very optimistic to a number that we're not going to hit by year end relative to Bitcoin. It has underperformed. I have many friends, as do you, that are OGs in Bitcoin back in 2010 through 13. I'm shocked about how many of them, I don't know if I'm going to use the word lose faith, but they felt it became institutional, the man, the government, and a lot of them, I know, I speak to them. I had one of them on my show two weeks ago. They've moved into Zcash, Monero, and some other platforms. Are you concerned about some of your price targets moving forward on Bitcoin? You appear to be optimistic. Why? What gives you this optimism?

>> Well, I wrote a, I wrote a Substack, um, I guess it was October, that got three million views and it went through kind of what I think happened this year, and you basically described it. So, I thought we'd be probably three times where we are right now in terms of price. So, this year I was wrong in it. And, you know, I'm, I'm not one of those Bitcoin people that gets too up and down with what's happening with it. My belief in it gets back to Ray Dalio. So, when people view Ray Dalio, I view the endgame as being Bitcoin for the reasons that Ray Dalio is talking about. Wealthy people, which are everyone on this call and people that you talk to and the OGs, they're all wealthy. Those are not the reason I'm invested in Bitcoin. The people who got involved, the governments involved, that's an ideological belief. That's not what I believe in Bitcoin. I believe in Bitcoin because I lived in Brazil. I believe I've seen what poor people have to deal with in countries where they actually are poor and they can't get out of it and they're trapped in it. In this country, we call poor $140,000 a year. That's not poor. Poor is an inability to eat. My grandmother taught me about that when I was young when she lived through the Great Depression and was born in 1920. What Bitcoin represents, in my opinion, will always represent is the money leaving the system. For the people you mentioned that have less than 1%, no offense to them, but if they're super wealthy and they're in their 70s, eventually that money will go to their kids. Their kids believe in Bitcoin. There's a demographic side with it. The future is about the digital economy. The people in Brazil that are starting to do what I'm doing, which is compete with American companies because they've now had democratization of AI, which is just starting now. That money that they get, that $100 they get through stable coins, they need to put it into a store of value. And a store of value is Bitcoin. No different than real estate, no different than anything. So, in a year where it's underperformed where I thought it would be significantly and it's down six, seven% year to date right now, uh, I not only believe it'll be up next year, I believe it'll be the best performing asset. Tesla and Bitcoin, the year of Tesla and Bitcoin where no one believes in either of them is my favorite year. So, I believe in it as a, uh, uh, a position in something that I just believe is going to happen, which is a disruption of all fiat assets, and that Bitcoin at the end of the day will be there. And I'll leave it on one thing. I do not have 100% of my money in Bitcoin. I have a higher percent than almost everyone I meet in terms of my percent, but I have fiat assets as well. And I believe that in the future, you want to right now have more Bitcoin than you otherwise would because it's going to be the best performing asset, as it has been for the last 15, 16 years.

And I'll give a closing comment in a minute or two, but I want to again thank Jordy Visser, that's Vis, head of AI Macro Nexus Research for 22V Research and also the founder and chief strategist at Visser Labs. There's many people that I watch, that I read, that I listen to. It's not an exaggeration on my part that Jordy is perhaps at the top. He's very much in my top three. You're up there with Peter D. Mandis and Moonshots to me, Jordy. Those guys are a little bit too optimistic for my take, but we'll maybe save that for a different time. I'm gonna highly recommend to my audience to follow Jordy on all his platforms. I'm going to give him a chance in a second to show ways that you can learn about his Substack and re-reach out. And we're really the very few people in the industry that are actively using AI literally eight or 10 hours a day. In my case, more focused on family office. In Jord's case, more purposed on investing for investors and hedge funds and are actively doing it, not just talking about it, but actually doing things in terms of with AI. I highly recommend even though there's maybe some crossover in the work that Jordy and I does, that's great. I highly recommend that you learn about him, you reach out, and maybe some of his consultative work could be a wonderful fit for you, even if you're a family office. Jordy, if you could share how people could learn more about you.

>> Yeah. Well, my email's on on the screen. That's the easiest way to get me. If, um, 22V is really the place that I've partnered with and, uh, it's not my company, it's somewhere that I give them content that is geared for the institutional community, but that is almost solely AI-focused. It's everything happening. It's where the investments are going to be. I do a lot of research and give names to people. There's a paywall that's going up there. If you don't want to subscribe to them and pay them, uh, there's a paywall that'll be launched on their paywall that's

going to happen in January. That has so much on it on things that I do to try and keep people up to speed. And then the Substack is where I write about AI and crypto. That's free. My YouTube video is free. You can go watch. I do a recap of everything that happened in the week from a macro perspective and AI perspective. Finish it off with crypto.

And for the health people out there that want to uh anti-age and live forever, my second substack will start and that'll be the way that I view book should be. Um in that and just so people hear it, I will post a different sub a different substack every week. Think of it as a chapter in a book uh as opposed to writing a book which I've been asked to do. But it will literally take you through my journey of how I learned about these things. There is so many things in there related to health that I guarantee you you've not read before. This is just something I've been on this journey for well over probably 30 years when I first took my first physical at the age of 28. And I just wanted to keep data. I've kept data. I've been a scientist. If you listen to Peter Aia, I do a lot of things but far far greater. I focus on the immune system, meditation, breathing, nutrition, exercise, and sleep. And every single one of them I have incorporated. I try not to get colds. I will give you literally advice that every doctor should be telling you just like brushing your teeth every day. Something so simple. I'm a gasast that the medical community does not tell people to do this. Uh I will do stuff on that that's related to saline spray. It should be done every single minute. It's all kinds of stuff like that. I'm an insatiable learner and I like to teach people, but I especially like to in this day of AI give people the ability of saying here's the prompt at the end of the Substack. You can go do your own work on it. I just gave you enough and I'll show you how to do that as well.

>> You're the best, Jordy. I'm going to wrap up with a comment and maybe an indirect question you could give a 15-second answer to to help the audience understand the breath of AI and going in the right direction. Uh, one, it's a pleasure to have Jordy as my final guest of the year. Just like last year, maybe we'll make it a tradition. And really more so looking forward to 2026 as I sold family office association a couple of years ago. I kind of retired. Really this past year was my second full year. A little bit like Jordy kind of reinventing myself a little bit in running my private intelligence and strategy community for family offices called SFO continuity and my consulting and my active AI journey has been a blessing. Uh, I feel like I practically have zero competition. I feel like I'm on an island with what I do on AI in the family office world. And it is a little bit lonely since a lot of even my members, even my members that get all my content, my resources, and access to me 24/7. I feel that they're gravely underestimating. Like Eric Schmidt says, AI is actually underhyped. I know to some of you it doesn't feel that way. 2026 would be incredible. I have two 600page handbooks. I'm not exaggerating. Creating a top 1% family office, sovereign risk and disaster preparedness. I have programs upcoming in Miami that I spoke about last night in my live. Jordy mentioned Palm Beach. I'll be four days in Palm Beach again in March. I am going to invite Jordy again. This time I'm going to give him one hour. So hopefully he'll join us and we'll have way more time than he had this past year. And I have lots of master classes and programs to make it an amazing year. Very simply, go to angelor robel.com and join. You should be a member. You should be one of the parts of my private community with incredible families around the world and get access to all that I do and incredible resources to give you an edge.

Jordy, a little bit of a cheating on a final question. We're both very active podcast listeners and viewers. We love Peter D. Mandis and Moonshots, although I think they tend to be a little bit too overly optimistic getting into a little bit of how we debated a little bit early in this interview. On the other hand, I also listen to Diary of the CEO and every AI guy who's like 90 years old that Stephen has on Jeffrey Hinton and others. They're brilliant. I have tremendous respect for them. They basically make me feel like a optimist after I spend three hours listening that we're all doomed. We're going to die basically and everything is coming to an end. Where is a balance? who's under the radar that you're listening to that maybe not as extreme as Moonshots, Alex, Peter, and the guys there, but not as negative as some of the guests that Stephen at Diary of a CEO has on. What am I missing?

>> I So, if they're 90 years old, first of all, they're not they're not involved with today's Frontier models. And I learned a lesson a long time ago. Unless they have the current models and they're going through it, doesn't matter. I I'm very I the balance is very simple and I'll make this five seconds. AI is going to change the world. If I said that about any other innovation, but it happened in a matter of years as opposed to decades, you can see the disruption that's going to happen. There will be more terrorist attacks that are created from AI. There will be all kinds of things. But the world has these all the time. This is no different. So, it's not the end of the world. It's also not going to save the world because human beings will still be ones using the power of this tool to do bad things the same way that good things will happen. I will take the fact that people will live well into their hundreds is one of the benefits that comes from this. I will also believe that we'll have the not need to work where prices are going to come down but there will be violence. There will be things that happen. So I believe it's always a middle ground in life. I don't think there's any free lunches. AI is not going to save the world, but it's also not going to destroy it.

>> Jordy Fischer, everyone. Jordy, appreciate you. Have a wonderful holiday season and wrap up to the year. I look forward to following your content as always in 2026 and hopefully in uh four months to see you in Palm Beach. Thank you for your time, audience. Greatly appreciated. Sorry I cannot get to many of your questions today. Members, you could always reach out to me. I believe Jordy would be open to an introduction to a a family office. So happy to do so if you request of me if you're a member. Thank you all so much for your time everyone. Again, thank you Jordy. Audience, have a great end of the year. Happy holiday season, merry Christmas, happy new year. See you all in 2026. Thank you Jordy.

>> Thanks Angela.