Glass House ($GLAS) podcast mentions

Per Ticker.id: 1 Glass House ($GLAS) mention across 1 podcast (30 days) — timestamped, verifiable quotes, updated 2026-09-14.

1. A long time ago. So this company Glass House—

   Vincent Daniel · The Real Eisman Playbook · The Big Short Partners Reunite: Rates, AI, Gold and Two Stock Picks | The Real Eisman Playbook Ep 75 · 2026-09-14

2. These guys basically bought a huge vegetable glass house and gutted it.

   Porter Collins · The Real Eisman Playbook · The Big Short Partners Reunite: Rates, AI, Gold and Two Stock Picks | The Real Eisman Playbook Ep 75 · 2026-09-14

3. Glass houses, buddy. This is natural We're going with the flow here, baby.

   Filippo · THIS CAR POD! with Doug DeMuro & Friends! · Hennessey Blackbird Goes Analog! Dodge Goes Insane? Porsche Flip-Flops EV Again! · 2026-08-07

4. You slowly erode a system. How would you do it? Slowly pollute the water, slowly degrade the utilities. Um, yeah, and but I would have to read the manual because it's unique to different things. That— yeah, I almost hate giving the playbook away, you know, because I'd already have— if I were against us, I'd already have people working there. I would already know how to bring down the major utilities because I have one guy on the inside feeding me the meals. Feed me the access if I need it as well, you know. So it's real hard to stop that. We have a very international culture, and, and not all loyalties lie in the same place. So, you know, I hate thinking about what— and I instantly, Sean, go, what, what would I do if I were against us? And I just don't like what the outcome would be. So I'm hoping that our adversaries gradually increment. Um, we have to have a proportionate response. If someone attacks us in cyber, our best deterrence is not in cyber. It's explosive, it's kinetic, it's— you bring the pain. That's the unfortunate reality. We are in the glass house in cyber compared to the rest of the world. You know, I think China might be too because they have such centralized control. We may be the two biggest glass houses. You know, if you're— if North Korea hacks us and we think, you know, we're going tit for tat by hacking back, they're in a mud hut throwing rocks at a glass house, and we're in a glass house throwing rocks at a mud hut. It's stupid. It's not the right domain to fight the conflict in. And I think unfortunately that's the reality. We have to— if somebody starts hacking our utilities, we have to respond very quickly and violently to that.

   Kevin Mandia · The Shawn Ryan Show · #328 Kevin Mandia - The Man Who Exposed China's Military Hackers · 2026-08-06

5. Yeah, it's funny, right? Like, it's just, it's very, it's a very hard thing to wrap your head around. But it's like so many of the criticisms that are out there, it really is people in glass houses. I mean, I had a really good chat to a friend the other day and he was, you know, talking about how it's all made up. And it's like, well, have you— do you know what a bond is? Point— can you point to this bond? Yeah. Is the bond in the room with us right now? It's a completely made-up legal contract. It's an agreement that's only as good as how well it can be enforced. It doesn't exist in the real tangible universe. Even the gold bugs are like, well, I've got a gold ETF, and that's real, and it's physical and touchable. You can't touch your ETF. Have you gone to the vault? Have you looked at— have you done an audit of the gold? Like, no. It's trust me, bro all the way down. And this is— society and civilization has gone a long way with all of that. And it's kind of what's kind of cool about this and Bitcoin is that just like we're just— we're removing the human element as best as possible. And rather than putting your faith in a human institution, which has got all of the great, great— these are great things in the absence of anything better. But it's like the question is this: what do you think is more immutable?? The laws of mathematics and thermodynamics or a bunch of hairless apes, scared, greedy, fearful people? Like, yes, it means that it's completely robust and bulletproof in every conceivable possible way. You know, you didn't mention quantum. That's a whole other discussion we can go down as well. But it's probably—

   Chris Hill · Motley Fool Money · Mailbag, incl: Is AI a risk to bitcoin? July 26, 2026 · 2026-07-25

6. The Peter Schiff Show. Earlier today, Kevin Warsh testified for the first time as Fed Chairman before Congress. Today he was before the House of Representatives. Tomorrow morning he'll be before the United States Senate. Before I get into talking about the hearing, and I'm going to spend most of today's podcast discussing this. I want to, uh, focus attention on some economic data that was introduced or released earlier this morning before the testimony began, and that was the inflation data for June. And the markets, I suppose, were concerned prior to the release that maybe we wouldn't get the good news on inflation that investors had been hoping for because we had a sell-off in the bond market yesterday. In fact, the yield on the 10-year Treasury got up to 4.62, I believe was the high, and on the 30-year we got to about 5.11. So these were new highs for this leg of the move up in bond yields, uh, and down in bond prices. And I think this is just the beginning of a much bigger move that's coming. Also, we had about a $100 an ounce sell-off in gold yesterday. Gold traded back below $4,000 an ounce, although it didn't close below $4,000. But I believe one of the reasons that gold sold off sharply yesterday was the anticipation of today's inflation report that may not have come in as good as had been hoped. But also, I think traders were trying to price in some type of hawkish statements coming from Warsh during the congressional testimony. So I think they wanted to sell gold into, uh, these, these news events. But again, This still mixes the bigger picture that inflation is good for gold. It's not bad for gold. But in recent years, and I've highlighted it on this podcast how ridiculous this is, but the markets react to stronger-than-inflation news as a sign that the Fed has to fight harder to win the battle against inflation.. And gold ends up being collateral damage in that inflation fight because it means the Fed's going to have to hike rates or not cut rates or whatever the markets expect. It means the Fed will be tighter than what it might otherwise have been if the inflation numbers were lower. But all of this misses the bigger picture that the Fed has already lost the inflation battle. That's what all these hotter than expected inflation numbers show. And so the fact that inflation keeps coming out worse than expected is not bearish for gold because it means the Fed's going to have to fight harder to beat it. It's bullish for gold because it means the Fed can't fight hard enough to beat it and that inflation already won. In fact, I think inflation has been above the Fed's 2% target for almost 6 years. If the Fed had the intention or the wherewithal, uh, to bring inflation down to 2%, it would have already done it. The fact that it's been talking about it for 6 years yet has not achieved this objective, despite constantly predicting that inflation will be back at 2%, in 2 years. And again, I went over in prior podcasts that this prediction is not based on any concrete evidence. The Fed just predicts that inflation will be back to 2% because that's their target. And so they just predict that they're, they're going to achieve their target, and they come up with a 2-year time frame just randomly out of the blue. So it's all just hope, but it never happens. And the reason that inflation is not back below 2% is because the Fed can't bring it down to 2% without doing a lot of other things that it doesn't want to do. And we've been focusing on the fact that Kevin Warsh has said that inflation is a choice. And again, that came up in today's, uh, hearing. But it is a choice that Kevin Warsh is going to make. In fact, he's already made that choice. He's just not letting the public know that he's made the choice. He's just BSing them with the rhetoric. But anyway, let me get to the inflation numbers that came out this morning. So the expectation for inflation in June headline was for -0.1, and that would be a big improvement over the +0.5 from the prior month. We actually got -0.4, so a much bigger drop in the— in the, uh, May CPI than had been expected. Year over year, in the prior month, we were at 4.2% year-over-year CPI increase. Because of the lower increase, or the drop in June, the year-over-year increase is now just 3.5%. So that's a big drop from the prior month, and it's lower than the 3.8 that had been expected. Good news there, right, on lower inflation. And the core, ex-food and energy, was unchanged on the month versus the expected rise of 0.2, which was what we had in the prior month. And the year-over-year core went from 2.9 in May to 2.6 in June. So the markets immediately celebrated. Bond yields fell, bonds rose, and gold spiked $100 an ounce. Now, first of all, it's not even really good news on inflation because the main driver of the 0.4% drop was the oil price decline. Oil was down about 30% in, uh, May. Why? Well, because supposedly the war with Iran was over. We had the MOU, we had the ceasefire, so oil prices went down 30%. Well, now the ceasefire is off, the war is back on, And oil prices, which are now back up at $80 a barrel as of right now— oil prices are up 20% so far in July. So July is only half over. It's possible that the entire drop in oil prices that we enjoy in, uh, May— or in June, rather— because the war was off are going to be taken away in July because the war is back on. So why even celebrate what really amounts to a meaningless number? What's more important is that we're way above 2% and we're not going to get anywhere near 2% no matter what the Fed does. And of course, what's more problematic is that these are the government numbers, the official government measures of inflation, which maybe capture half of the actual price increases that Americans are, are forced to endure. Now, gold gave up about half of its $100 gain, uh, by the end of the day. I think gold ended up closing up about $50 on the day. We closed just above $4,050. Silver up about $1. Closing at 58.58. It got clobbered a couple of bucks yesterday. But I think the most significant action was in the bond market because the bond market lost almost the entire gain by the end of the day. The yield on the 30-year Treasury was back up to 5.1 and the 10-year is back to 5— 4.59. So almost the high watermarks Despite this better than expected inflation number. Now, one of the reasons there could be some nervousness surrounding tomorrow's release of the PPI— we're going to get that tomorrow morning before we get day 2 up on Capitol Hill. And the, the producer prices have been coming in a lot hotter than consumer prices. Of course, the producer prices are also going to benefit from the drop in oil prices that we had last month, which is pretty much being undone this month. So again, I don't know why the markets would pay attention to such backward-looking data that is really irrelevant, but that's what they do, uh, and this is how these algorithms are programmed and they trade off the numbers. I just think that people should take advantage of any of these moves In fact, when people believe that inflation, higher inflation, is bad for gold, when in fact gold is an inflation hedge, and the more inflation we have, the more you need to hedge yourself, should take advantage of this misguided idea that higher inflation is somehow bad for gold because it means the Fed has to fight harder to bring inflation down. What it really proves is that the Fed can't bring inflation down. It doesn't have the wherewithal or the ability to do it because of all the other problems that would be exposed if the Fed were to do that. And that kind of brings me to the discussion of today's hearing before Congress. And what's the most frustrating part, of course, about the entire, uh, hearing is that they're there to discuss inflation and nobody except maybe Walsh— but he doesn't want to let the cat out of the bag— but the entire discussion centers around a term that nobody properly defines. Everybody acts as if inflation is rising prices, and it's not. I've talked about it on this podcast many times. Inflation is an expansion of the supply of money and credit. That is what is being inflated. You can't inflate a price, you inflate money supply, because inflate means to expand. And if you're going to have a discussion about inflation but you're misdefining what the term means, then your whole discussion is meaningless. Because prices go up, prices go down. Inflation is a whole different problem that causes the general price level to be higher than what it otherwise would have been absent the inflation. It doesn't even mean that prices go up. It can simply mean that inflation prevented prices from going down. Now, again, the government tries to tell us that prices going down would be horrible. How would it be horrible, especially when so many people are suffering from high prices? Look how much food prices have gone up over the past several years. Would it be such a disaster if they came down? Of course not. I mean, why do they have to keep going up? If the problem is food prices are too high, having a target of, well, let's have them go up another 2% a year, that doesn't solve the problem of prices being too high. That makes them higher. What would solve the problem is if prices actually came down, and that would solve a lot of problems. Consumers want the price of everything to go down, yet according to the government, that would be a disaster. The government is there to make sure that prices don't go down, to save us from the pain of being able to buy stuff for less, right? This is what the government is selling us on. So that's the biggest problem, is a misunderstanding of the term. But then the other thing that really frustrates me always about these hearings is that you've got all these congressmen and women, right? That are upset about inflation and they're asking the Fed, what are you going to do about it? What's your plan? How are you going to stop this inflation? Meanwhile, they are part of the reason that we have inflation. It takes two to do the inflation tango. Congress has to spend money it doesn't have. It has to have deficits. And then the Fed monetizes those deficits, and the Fed artificially suppresses interest rates in large part to make it possible for the government to finance those deficits without having a crowding-out effect on private credit and pushing up interest rates. So it is the Congress, and of course the president because he's signing on to all this spending, and the Fed. It's a combination of monetary and fiscal policy working hand in glove. That is why there is inflation. Yet the very congressmen and women that are voting for the deficit spending that is ultimately the source of the Fed— of the inflation that the Fed creates— they're, they're yelling at the Fed. As if they have nothing to do with it. They need to look in the mirror and recognize their own responsibility. And then, of course, the Fed, Fed chairs, they always deny their responsibility. They want to blame tariffs. They want to blame the war. They want to come up with all kinds of excuses about, about where inflation is coming from. The cause of inflation is right there in that hearing. It is being caused by all the representatives and the Fed. They're there discussing a problem that they've created, and they're pretending that there's some exogenous solution. And, and then when, uh, Warsh talks about how, oh, we're going to do things differently, we're going to solve the problem without actually getting into what would need to be done to solve the problem, which is why they're not going to solve the problem. Anyway, we got a quick commercial break, so stick around. As soon as we come back, I'm going to get into, uh, the hearing and the Q&A. Talk to any manufacturer in this country right now and you'll hear the same thing. The pressure is coming from every direction— rising energy costs, a tight labor market, supply chains that are still fragile, and cyber threats that get worse every quarter. This isn't one problem you can solve and move on. Rockwell Automation just put out their 11th annual State of Smart Manufacturing report. They surveyed over 1,500 decision makers across 17 countries, and what they found is exactly what you'd expect if you've been paying attention. 90% of manufacturers say digital transformation isn't optional anymore. It's the price of staying competitive. But here's where it gets interesting. Only 43% of the data these companies collect is actually being used. The rest just sits there. That's enormous value left on the table. And nearly half of them, 46%, were hit by a cyber incident in just the past year. As factories get more connected, that risk lands directly on the balance sheet. If you run a manufacturing business or you invest in one, this report is worth your time. Download it for free at rok.auto/sosm. That's rok.auto/sosm. All right. So the first thing that Chair Warsh said that really caught my attention was when he talked about how many people work at the Federal Reserve. I mean, I never really thought about how many people work there. I had no idea it was 23,000. The Federal Reserve employs 23,000 people. What the hell do these 23,000 people do? Why do we need 23,000 people to set interest rates? I mean, we— I mean, you know, one person should be able to do it. You know, there's what, there's 13 members of the FOMC that vote. I don't know where all these people are coming from. First of all, The Fed shouldn't even be involved in setting interest rates. The free market should do that. So we don't really need any employees, but 23,000 people at the Fed? I mean, talk about inflation, right? We've had an inflation in the number of people who work at the Fed. When the Federal Reserve first opened its doors for business, it was November 2nd, 1914. I looked this up. I mean, I knew that the Federal Reserve Act was passed in 1913. Like, you know, like this, the income tax, right? Was a horrible year for America. It was a twofer because we got the income tax and the Federal Reserve during the same year. So, you know, 1913 is probably the worst year in, in, in US history as far as bad legislation. But I looked it up, we— the Fed didn't start its operations until the following year, right? Because they had to set it up. Once the Federal Reserve Act authorized the creation of the Fed, they had to set it up. So they opened for business November 2nd, 1914. On that day, they had 40 employees. That's it. So 40 people were able to do the entire job that the Federal Reserve was created to perform. Here we are over 100 years later, and it doesn't take 40 people, it takes 23,000 people to do the job. This shows you, in and of itself, is a reason to get rid of the entire institution. Because 100 years ago, or more than 100 years ago, in 1914, they didn't have any computers. I mean, they didn't have any of the labor-saving devices that we have today. I mean, they didn't even have carbon paper, I don't think. I mean, they had, they had a typewriter. They didn't have photocopy machines. I mean, what did they have back then? You know, yet with the technology that was available in 1914, it only took 40 people to run the Federal Reserve. If that was the case, we should just need one now. The problem is the Federal Reserve is doing so many things that it was not created to do. That's why there's 23,000 people there. We're wasting all this money. We're wasting all the human resources. In fact, one of the things that maybe AI can do— I would like to abolish the Fed. But if we're not going to abolish it, why not just automate the entire thing? Why not just have an AI agent do all the monetary policy? Just program it up, fire all 23,000 people, and just let, you know, Claude, you know, or xAI do the whole thing, right? We'd save a fortune. You know, my dad used to joke that we could replace the entire FOMC with a bunch of parrots. Because they really don't do much, right? Cut interest rates, expand credit, you know, print money, right? There's not that much that they could actually do, uh, so we could train some parrots, uh, to do the job. But anyway, so I thought that initially stuck out, uh, that there were 23,000 people. Fed's got to be one of the biggest employers in the country, 23,000 people. Anyway, so one of the, I think, important admissions that Warsh made. And this is something that, you know, I was not a Monday morning quarterback here. I was criticizing this policy in real time as the mistakes were being made, not just here in the US, but in Europe, in Japan. Warsh admitted with, in hindsight, you know, that a key mistake that the Fed made was that it attempted to raise the inflation rate. They were trying to get a little bit more inflation, and that, that was the reason that we ended up with a lot more inflation, and that, that was a dangerous policy to deliberately try to raise the inflation rate, which is what I was saying for years. That it shouldn't be that 2% is a target. 2% should be the ceiling, which again is where the 2% number came from. It was introduced in New Zealand, the first central bank to have an inflation ceiling of 2%. How that ever became a target, I don't know. It didn't mean that infla— if inflation was 1%, you had to work to get it to 2%. It meant that as long as it was under 2%, it was okay. 1% was better than 1.5% because you were further beneath the ceiling. But as the inflation rate got close to 2%, if it got to 1.8%, 1.9%, that would mean you'd have to act because if you didn't act, it might get above 2%. But the way we were conducting monetary policy, the way the ECB was conducting monetary policy, if we were at 1.8%, that wasn't enough, that the central bank had to tweak the rate up to 2%, which was ridiculous. If you're at 1.8%, why not leave well enough alone? Hey, we're pretty close to 2%, why risk going over 2%? And in fact, we even made it worse in the US, and I criticized this real time when we got a little bit above 2%. The Fed came up with an asinine approach called inflation averaging and said, we now have to make up for all the years of being below 2%. We now need to run above 2% for a little bit to average the inflation down, which at the time I said was complete nonsense. And Kevin Walsh now agrees with that. Why should we have to tell Americans, look, because you got lucky for a few years, and your prices only went up by 1.8% a year. Or not lucky, you got gypped, right? You, you didn't get the 2% inflation that we promised you. You got ripped off and your cost of living only went up 1.8%. So now we're going to get you even. Now we're going to, we're going to make sure you get 2.2% inflation for a while so you can get the 2% average that you're hoping for, right? That, that's effectively what they were saying. But I said real time, okay, if they're gonna target an average rate of inflation of 2%, what are they gonna do when inflation is way above 2% and now it requires inflation below 2% to bring the average down? I said, are they gonna target an inflation rate below 2%? No. What did they do with inflation averaging? They tossed it. As soon as it became inconvenient, they abandoned the whole concept, which means, and this is what I said at the time, the real goal was to enable more inflation. So they made up this BS that they had to average inflation up, but the minute the shoe was on the other foot and they needed to average inflation down, forget about it. Oh, we don't wanna average inflation anymore. We just wanna bring it down to 2%. No matter how many years it's above 2%, and no matter how far above 2% it is. Meaning if it's at 10% for 3, 4, 5 years in a row, our goal is not to try to average it down. We just wanna bring future inflation to 2%. So the minute you get way above 2% trend, I mean, you're never gonna get back down, which shows that the whole policy is nonsense. And of course, there's all sorts of reasons, and I've gone over that over time. That the 2% target is all a bunch of BS. It was all about justifying inflation, and the only time the Fed ever had a 2% target was when they were below it, so they can use it as an excuse to have higher inflation. We never had a 2% target when it was 4 or 5 or 6%. The Fed invented it. Now, of course, they made that bed, and now they gotta lie in it, uh, which they can't. Now, another thing that Warsh talked about was regime change at the Fed. Now he's, he's using this word, right? Not, not me, right? He's talking about regime change, meaning that he's the new regime. Well, you know, the regime change at the Fed is about as legitimate as the regime change in Iran because nothing has changed. I don't care how different people think Warsh is or how much of a difference he wants to create by putting distance between himself and his predecessors, although he had nothing but kind words to say for Alan Greenspan, who recently passed away. And I mentioned that, uh, in a past, uh, uh, podcast. But no matter how much he wants to say that there's been regime change, it's the same regime. Nothing has changed. Now, Warsh is trying to pretend that things have changed because he's hoping that that will make his job easier, that somehow pretending that he's going to succeed, uh, where Powell failed, uh, that somehow that's going to placate the markets, that maybe we're going to get lower bond yields or a stronger dollar just based on the fact that he's saying that he's different, even though what he's doing proves that he's exactly the same. But the only way that regime change at the Fed would actually work to lower inflation is if we also got regime change in Congress and at the White House. And we're not getting that. Again, Congress is demanding lower inflation while at the same time running massive deficits that are producing the inflation. You can't have it both ways. You can't run massive deficits and then complain about inflation because the inflation is what's necessary to finance those deficits. Now, of course, that is why Congress helped redefine inflation so they can do that, so they can promote and vote for these big spending bills to pretend that you get not something for nothing and then rail against inflation because the public doesn't understand that the deficit spending is the cause of inflation because it results in the expansion of the money supply. Because if the Congress isn't taking the money from you in taxes, it has to get the money somewhere. It gets it from the Fed. The Fed expands the money supply. The Fed creates inflation to cover the spending. And so inflation is your tax. And on multiple occasions, Warsh referred to inflation as a tax. That is why it's a tax. It pays for government spending. So they can't have their cake and eat it too, although that's what they try to do by lying about what inflation is. So because there's been no regime change, inflation's not going to change. It's going to continue to get worse just like it has in the past. Uh, we, we aren't going to go anywhere near 2% inflation. I don't care how many times Uh, Warsh wants to say that he will deliver price stability. He will deliver it. It isn't going to happen. And in fact, he doesn't even know how to define price stability because he came up with his own definition of price stability. And what he said, uh, was that price stability is when prices go up by an amount that's not too large that people worry about it, that they talk about it, that they complain about it. That's the definition of price stability? No, it's not. Price stability means stable prices. I mean, look up stable in the dictionary. What does it say? Stable means the same, they remain the same. Price stability is not prices that rise just not enough for you to complain about it. And the problem is Americans become— begin to accept inflation as the way of life, as like the cost of capitalism. So just because Americans get used to and accept high inflation and so they don't complain about it anymore, that doesn't mean that, you know, the Fed's got a green light to keep creating it. No, price stability means prices that remain stable. It doesn't mean prices going up, just not so much that you're worried about it. Whether you're worried about it or not. And of course, as I said earlier, sometimes inflation stops prices from going down, and that is a bad thing. A lot of people don't realize that prices would have gone down. They're robbed of that benefit that they never even realized they were going to get. Inflation— the government steals the benefit of falling prices right out from under us, so we don't even realize that the cost of living would have been lower because the government created inflation that prevented prices from going down, which would have meant our standard of living would have gone up. Anyway, I got another commercial break, and I'm going to keep on talking about this and a couple more topics on the other side of the break, uh, so stick around. I've been in the investment business my entire life. One of the most common mistakes that I see is when people treat life insurance like an investment. That's the wrong way to think about it. Life insurance exists to protect the people who depend on you financially if you are not around to do it yourself. That's why term is the right answer for most people. It gives you the biggest death benefit for the smallest premium, and that frees up the rest of your money to make actual investments. Investments that will perform a lot better than the cash value sitting inside a whole life policy, which inflation is going to chew through anyway. And the longer you wait, the more it costs. So the rational move is to handle it now while it's cheap and while you don't need it. That's where Ethos comes in. The whole process is online. You can get a quote in seconds and apply in just minutes. You can get up to $3 million in coverage, and some policies start as low as $30 a month. Ethos makes getting life insurance fast and easy, 100% online. You can get a quote in seconds, Apply in minutes and get same-day coverage. There's no medical exam, just answer a few simple health questions. Take 10 minutes to get covered today with life insurance through Ethos. Get your free quote at ethos.com/gold. That's ethos.com/gold. Application times and rates may vary. All right, I am discussing day one of, uh, the Kevin Warsh, uh, congressional testimony. Day two with the U.S. Senate tomorrow. I'm kind of going over some of the key points. And by the way, I'm just scrolling through my X page because in real time, as I'm listening to this testimony, I'm like firing off posts. Now, some of the posts I put on after the fact because I'm trying to space them out a bit. But another reason why, if you're not following me on X, you should follow me. And I write all these posts myself. I don't have somebody else doing it for me. This— these are my thoughts. As they come to mind, and I'm putting them out there. I'm less than 10,000 followers from 1.6 million now. Like I said, I'm adding about 100,000 followers a month. So the pace at which I'm gaining followers has been picking up, which I take it as a good sign. More people are listening to me. So if you're not a follower on X, make sure and follow me and then repost my stuff every time I post something. Repost it, like it, comment on it, because that will draw more attention to it and more people will get to know the truth, because the truth is coming from me. There's so many lies coming from so many other sources. It's good to get the truth. Okay, so another thing. Okay, so again, I'm reading just from my own posts to remind, you know, remind myself of what I want to discuss here. Uh, so again, very frustrating that Warsh is not holding the members of Congress accountable for their role in creating inflation. And probably that's because when you live in a glass house, you don't throw stones, right? So why should Warsh accuse Congress of creating inflation when they can turn around and do the same thing? So everybody pretends that neither of the other party is responsible. Meanwhile, they both share responsibility. But this is a bunch of theater for the public. Although one of the things that the Democrats tried to do, and, you know, Walsh didn't want any part of it, and he was, you know, very easily sidestepping this. And the Democrats had valid points here. I agreed with all the points they made. They were just making them in the wrong form, but they were trying to get Warsh to condemn Donald Trump for his grifting, for the $2.2 billion that he made ripping off the public and exploiting the presidency for his own personal gain. I mean, Donald Trump and the Trump family could not have made anywhere near $2 billion last year other than Trump being president. It was the fact that he was president that gave him the popularity to dump all these meme coins and to make all this money and to generate all the hype and hysteria surrounding not only the meme coins, but, you know, his stocks and all that. And there's a lot of other dealings. There's a lot of articles that have now been written really exposing what the Trumps have done. And the Republicans look like complete hypocrites because they criticize the Bidens, yet they're looking the other way when the Trumps out-Biden the Bidens by a wide margin. But you had the congressman trying to get Walsh to condemn the president, which he's not going to do. Trump just appointed the guy. He's not going to start picking a fight with him. It was the wrong place to bring this stuff up. But the points were valid. And also the conflicts of interest with, you know, Trump regulating. In fact, you know, the court threw out the settlement that Trump made with himself, which I criticized the day I read about it. You know, Trump sued the IRS for, I don't know, $10 billion because a subcontractor, not even the IRS itself, a subcontractor leaked some information from his tax return. And, and so sues for $10 billion. What the IRS did to Trump was nothing compared to what they did to me, because in my case, it was the IRS itself that leaked information, and they leaked information about a grand jury investigation, a criminal investigation about me that was supposed to be top secret. That was leaked. And caused me real damage. Trump didn't get any damage from that leak. Where was he damaged? I mean, he didn't have any damages. I had actual damages. My whole business was destroyed because the IRS leaked confidential grand jury information to the media. Yet when I file a lawsuit, that gets thrown out of court. I get nothing. I mean, I filed an appeal, but who knows, I might lose that. But I had real damages caused by an actual IRS leak. Trump doesn't have any damages, but then he negotiates the settlement with himself. He runs the IRS, and so he gets this sweetheart deal where his entire family now can't be audited, can't be fined, is totally forgiven for any past offense that they may have had with respect to taxes. You know, all their businesses that they're related enterprises, the whole family, the kids, the IRS can't touch them, right? Who knows what they've done? I'm sure they've done a lot. That's why they did this. But the court correctly threw out this settlement by saying there was no adversary party. You can't settle something with yourself. Donald Trump was in charge of the IRS. He negotiated a deal with himself. And so of course he came out with a great thing, but this didn't even come up really in the hearing. But I had— this was a news story that came out this week that the court threw this thing out. Um, but anyway, so I digress. Let me get back, uh, to, to the hearing. Now, a comment that Warsh made that I thought was ridiculous, and I, you know, he's supposedly a smart guy, and he is a smart guy. I'm not saying he's not smart, but, but clearly he, he maybe he doesn't completely understand monetary policy. Which again, is part of the criteria for being Fed chairman, right? You've got to, you know, they give you a test on economics and only the people who fail the test are considered as candidates to be at the Fed or to be the chair of the Fed. But Warsh said that he prefers using interest rates as a monetary policy tool than the Fed's balance sheet. And I don't like either, and I especially don't like the balance sheet. So I would agree with, with Warsh there that, you know, the Fed should not be using its balance sheet at all. It should reverse all the quantitative easing. But he said the reason that he prefers interest rates is because he says that doesn't favor one class over another. Of course it does. I mean, first of all, yes, QE obviously favors the class who owns the assets that the Fed is buying, right? So if the Fed is using its balance sheet to bail somebody out by buying up some toxic asset that they own, right, they're obviously benefiting. But artificially low interest rates also have clear winners and losers. Who wins from low interest rates? Debtors. The debtors win. Who loses? The creditors, they lose. So it absolutely does pit one interest against another. It favors the debtor relative to the saver, especially wealthy leveraged debtors who have borrowed to accumulate assets. They really win because it makes it cheaper for them to borrow, and then inflation wipes out the value of what they owe. So they're winners. The losers are the savers, which tend to be more of the middle class. And even if middle class don't have a lot of savings anymore because taxes and inflation have pretty much wiped it out, they still have, uh, pensions, annuities, cash value in an insurance policy. They have a lot of saving vehicles. That get harmed by inflation. Look, I sit through a lot of conversations, interviews, client calls, strategy sessions, research discussions, a lot. And here's what I've noticed: the moment you stop paying attention to take a note, you miss something every time because you can't do both. And then that insight or that number or that line of reasoning that was actually worth remembering, it's gone. That's the problem that Plaud AI solves. Plaud, spelled P-L-A-U-D, is a hardware and software system built around one idea: capture the conversation completely so you can be fully present in it. The device records, the AI transcribes, and then it does something genuinely useful. It generates a structured summary—key points, decisions, action items—not just a raw transcript dump, but actual structure. You can search past conversations, ask questions about what was said, pull up a meeting from 3 months ago, and find exactly what you need in seconds. I do a lot of recorded content— this show, interviews, research sessions. The last thing I want to do is manage notes while I'm trying to have an actual conversation. Plaud handles that with just one click, whether it's in person, over the phone, or on Zoom. It captures it, transcribes it, and organizes it, And the Ask Plaud feature allows me to go back to a conversation from weeks ago and just ask a question like, what did we decide about X? And then I have my answer. That's not a small thing. That's a searchable knowledge base of every important conversation you've had. If you're running a business, managing a team, doing research, or just trying to stay on top of more information than any normal human can retain, this is the tool you need. Try it for your next meeting. Go to plaud.ai/gold. And use code GOLD for 10% off. That's plaud.ai/gold. Plaud.ai/gold. One thing I love about summer is how easy everything feels. The days are a little more relaxed, and I find myself reaching for the same comfortable go-anywhere pieces again and again. That's exactly why I keep going back to Quince. They're 100% European linen pants and shirts, start at just $34, and in the summer, that's about all I want to wear. It's breathable, and you can throw it on without thinking thinking twice. The tees are soft enough to live in all day, and the lightweight cotton sweaters earn their keep when the nights start to cool off. Everything is priced 50 to 80% less than what you'd find at similar brands. Quince works directly with ethical factories and cuts out the middlemen, so you're getting premium materials without the markup. And it goes well beyond clothing, from home to travel to the everyday essentials, with the same logic running underneath all of it. The other night on the show, I wore their organic cotton stretch poplin shirt, and the cat lit up. It's a great looking shirt. Just ask the comment section. Make your summer wardrobe easier. Head to quince.com/gold for free shipping on your order and 365-day returns. Now available in Canada too. That's quince.com/gold for free shipping and 365-day returns. Quince.com/gold. When was the last time you actually went to bed before midnight without your phone lighting up your face like a campfire? Because nothing pairs worse with trying to fall asleep than having a full breakdown of the latest news cycle running on a loop in your head. Here's the thing. Stress and screen time raise your core body temperature, and a body that is too warm cannot get into deep sleep. You are not tired because the news is exhausting. You are tired because your body never actually recovered. That's where Chili Pad 2.0 comes in. It's a water-based mattress topper that controls your bed temperature anywhere from 55 to 150 degrees Fahrenheit. 15° all night long. You don't need a new mattress, it just fits over what you already have. And the water part matters. A fan just moves hot air around, while ChiliPad pumps actively chilled water through the topper to pull heat right out of your body. I'll be honest with you, the late nights, the stress, the constant cycle of markets and headlines, it follows you into bed. Once I got the sleep environment under control and the temperature dialed in properly, it really made a big difference. Visit www.sleep.me/gold to get up to $255 off your Chili Pad 2.0 with code GOLD. That's www.sleep.me/gold. Free shipping, free returns, and a 30-night trial so you can test it out, dream big, and wake up better. The headlines will still be there in the morning. You might as well wake up ready for them. But also, who benefits from artificially low interest rates? The government, the federal government. The government is the biggest debtor of them all. So the government wins, but the savers, the people who bought government bonds, the people who loan money to the government, they're losing, right? They're getting a lower return. And you know who owns a lot of those government bonds? Insurance companies own those government bonds, and that means they have to charge higher premiums to Americans who are buying fire insurance, life insurance, uh, car insurance. Because they're not getting as high a yield on their bonds, they have to charge higher premiums to their customers. So that's another way that the middle class suffers from artificially low interest rates, and the government benefits and other debtors from the ability to borrow. So I, you know, I don't know if, if Warsh actually believes this. This is a very simple point. Does he not understand that there are two parties to a loan? There's the lender and there's the borrower, and that if you advantage one, you disadvantage the other. Does he not get, uh, the distinction there? I don't know, but that's what he said. And I was actually surprised that he made a comment that was that incompetent. Now, another point that I wish he would have made more clear had to do with Black workers. And, you know, whenever there's one of these hearings, inevitably you get an African-American representative typically. Asking the Fed chairman, what are you going to do specifically to help African Americans? And in this case, it was African American workers who, uh, this representative claimed were disproportionately impacted by rising unemployment, uh, or inflation, whatever it was. But she kept saying, what are you going to do specifically to help African Americans. Now, Walsh just ignored her question, which probably upset her, which is why she asked it a couple of times. But I wish he would have just had the courage to be more candid and actually reply and say, you know something, Congresswoman, there's nothing we could do. I understand you're concerned about the plight of Black workers. But the Fed can't do anything about it. Like, we can change interest rates, but how does that affect a Black worker versus a white worker or a Hispanic worker? I mean, they're all the same, right? We have, you know, a couple of levers, right? Print money, don't print money, cut rates, raise rates. There's no, you know, lever that we can pull for African Americans. There is no specific policy that can be targeted. Why not just tell her that? Why not just level with her and say, look, you know, this is not the place where he's afraid. He's afraid to speak up. You know, nobody wants to criticize anybody for asking these ridiculous questions. But even better, what I would love to see Kevin Walsh do is say, you know what, Congresswoman, I appreciate that you're concerned. About Black workers and, you know, the problems that they're facing. Why don't you do something about it legislatively? Why don't you start repealing a lot of the laws that Congress has passed over the decades that are disadvantaging African American workers? They are being disproportionately impacted by all the war on poverty, Great Society welfare programs starting from the 1960s. And all of the laws, the anti-discrimination laws that have been passed have backfired. Everything the government has done to help African Americans has backfired and harmed them. It's got nothing to do with the Fed. Yeah, I mean, the Fed harms everybody, right? They're an equal opportunity harmer. Their bad monetary policy and their inflation, sure. And you can say, well, if Blacks are disproportionately poor and middle class, then maybe they disproportionately suffer from inflation, which may be true. But there's no way that the Fed can target that relief to the African Americans. They could just paint with one big brush. But if Congress actually repealed a lot of these laws that, you know, maybe they were well-intentioned, I'll give them that they had well intentions. But, you know, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. And in this case, it's the African Americans who are in hell as a result of that well-intentioned legislation. Now, in many cases, it wasn't well-intentioned. The actual purpose of the legislation was to trap African Americans in poverty to secure their votes so that they can hold out an escape from poverty, you know, kind of as bribes, or to get African Americans to depend on government handouts so that they'll keep voting for the people who are writing the checks that they're cashing, right? The government breaking your leg so that you'll rely on them for a crutch. So in many cases, again, it isn't good intentions, it's evil intentions. But in some cases, yeah, I'm sure there are members of Congress who are foolish enough to actually think that these programs are going to help. Well, they don't help, they hurt. That's why, you know, conservatives and libertarians are opposed to them. Now, they could also be opposed to them for constitutional and moral reasons, but they're also opposed to them because they know they don't work. They, they understand the unintended consequences that the left completely ignores. So Walsh would have had an opportunity to shove that in her face, uh, but you know, he doesn't want to do that anyway. Um, I'm going to talk more about, uh, the congressional testimony on my second podcast later this week because then we're going to have, the, uh, the Senate version, and we'll have the full market reaction, uh, to, to what's been said. You know how two people can be the same age but one just seems to have more energy, better sleep, and recovers faster? That difference usually has less to do with your actual age and more to do with what's happening underneath the surface. That's why I'm excited to share the True Age Test from True Diagnostic. It's an at-home test that looks at markers on your DNA using epigenetics to determine your biological age, not just how many birthdays you've had. What makes the TrueAge test so interesting is that it doesn't stop at a single age number. You get your biological age, your pace of aging, and a breakdown of how 11 key organ systems are aging, including your heart, brain, lungs, and liver. You also get 75 plus longevity biomarkers translated into clear, easy-to-understand insights around things like metabolic health and immune function. So instead of just getting raw data, you actually get a more complete picture of how your body is functioning day to day. And here's the important part. They don't just give you data, they give you personalized recommendations based on your results. Things like sleep, nutrition, exercise, supplements, and lifestyle changes so you have a clear roadmap for improving your health over time. The process itself is very simple. It's just an at-home finger prick. You send it back in the prepaid kit, and in about 2 to 3 weeks, you get your full report online. So if you're serious about longevity or even just curious whether your body is aging faster or slower than your actual age, this is one of the easiest ways to find out. Right now, go to trudiagnostic.com and use code GOLD20 for 20% off your entire order. That's trudiagnostic.com. Diagnostic.com, code GOLD20 for 20% off.

   Peter Schiff · The Peter Schiff Show Podcast · AI Cash Cows Just Became Cash Vacuums... This Breaks the Bond Market · 2026-07-15

7. That's the plan. Well, do you live in a glass house? Because that really affects whether or not you should throw stones.

   John Coogan · TBPN · Hollywood Chases Internet Horror, Love Island Prediction Markets, Phoebe Gates Affiliate Drama, 𝕏 Timeline Reactions & More · 2026-07-10

8. The market bottomed at the end of the first quarter and has staged a very powerful rally. The S&P was up 15% and NASDAQ was up 23%. However, this week the market started to correct. Micron reported and their numbers were incredibly powerful. Accenture reported last week and it was quite disastrous. It looks like SpaceX is going to be a very volatile stock, but the new capital intensity of the hyperscalers combined with a lack of moats has destroyed the momentum in these stocks. It looks like this week the market started to really worry about these arguments. So much for the rally. Hi, this is Steve Eisman, and welcome to another edition of The Weekly Wrap. This is for the week ending Friday, June 26th, but recorded on Thursday night, June 25th. Before we start, we want to let everyone know we will not, not be dropping a Wrap for July 3rd as we will be traveling. We want to wish everyone a wonderful holiday weekend in advance. One more note before we start the Wrap. If you're a premium subscriber or you've been thinking about joining, we have some important news. We're moving your subscriptions to The Real Iseman Playbook Premium over to Substack. Same subscription, same price, and same great content— the bonus episodes, the deep dives, just plain more, just on a better platform that makes it easier for you to access everything in one place. If you're already a premium subscriber, you'll be hearing from us directly with everything you need to make the transition seamlessly and at no additional cost. If you are a paid subscriber, you keep your membership and We are giving you a bonus month for making the transition with us. And if you've been on the fence about joining, now is a great time. Head to our Substack at realeismanplaybook.substack.com to sign up. More details coming soon. Also, I want to flag this past Wednesday, June 24th, on premium, we dropped an interview with the head of investor relations at Glass House Brands, a cannabis company who stock I own. We move this episode up because a lot has changed in the world of cannabis over the past few months, all for the better, and we explore it all. Also, the company just announced it will be listed on the New York Stock Exchange because of the rescheduling of medical cannabis to Class 3. The ticker GLAS will begin trading June 30th. As I said, I own this stock and this is not meant as a recommendation. Now we are releasing my personal portfolio lecture this coming Wednesday, July 1st. I will disclose my personal portfolio, why I own what I own, and how I think about investing. This deep dive is for informational and educational purposes only. I'm also flagging the July 8th premium episode, which will be a deep dive with Kathleen Kelly and Nancy O'Flynn of Queen Anne's Gate Capital about the impact of the war on oil and commodities. They think oil prices will be dropping due to oversupply. Hope you tune in. Now let's get into this week's wrap. On this week's wrap, we explore the following: 1, the war in Iran. 2, Accenture's disastrous quarter, what it means. 3, good news for GE Vernova. 4, volatility in SpaceX's stock price. 5, bad news at Google. 6, good news for Micron. 7, bad news for Nike. 8, the tech leadership rollover, which we discussed in the June 12th weekly wrap and review of the second quarter. And 9, some thoughts about Alan Greenspan. And 10, one mailbag. Let's get started. The US and Iran signed an MOU last Friday. This week, Vice President Vance led a team of negotiators to iron out the details. I'm sure the markets will trade every headline for weeks. Next up, Accenture reported last week and it was quite disastrous. Now Accenture is a large management consulting company. Originally it was called Arthur Andersen Consulting. They spun off in 2001, narrowly avoiding the collapse of its parent company during the Enron scandal. The fear about this sector is that AI will reduce the need for consulting services. Accenture's results did absolutely nothing to alleviate those fears. Revenue was up a paltry 3%. Bookings declined, declined 3% as several contracts have shifted to fiscal '27, or so management says. What seems to be happening is that companies are spending more on AI and they are somewhat hiring Accenture to help them, but they are cutting back on everything else so that net-net overall results for Accenture remain weak. Simultaneously, the company announced 3 acquisitions in one day. That looks like buying stuff to hide weakness. The stock was down 18% on Friday and is down over 50% this year. Ugly. GE Vernova received some good news on Monday. Chevron announced that it has signed a 20-year power purchase agreement with Microsoft to develop a power facility in West Texas. That will supply electricity to a Microsoft data center. A majority of the facility's power generation will come from GEV's turbines and electrical infrastructure. This deal is another example of GEV's bundled offering of turbines and electrification equipment. GEV remains, in my view, one of the better AI power stories. Moving on. It looks like SpaceX is going to be a very volatile stock. On its opening day, Friday, June 12th, it climbed 19% from the IPO price. On Monday of last week, it increased another 20%, and on Tuesday of last week, another 5%. Since then, it has basically gone straight down. On Wednesday of last week, it was down 5%. On Thursday of last week, it was down 4%. And on Monday of this week, it was down 16%. Tuesday and Wednesday, stock did almost nothing. After all this movement, the stock is now only 14.5% higher than its IPO price. By the way, the stock was down 16% on Monday because the company announced a $20 billion bond sale, which supports our thesis that SpaceX has become a very capital-intensive business. The bond issue in size was increased to $25 billion. There was some bad news from Google on Monday that drives home some negative aspects to the hyperscaler story, which I'll discuss in a few minutes. These negative changes to the hyperscaler story were partially driven home on Monday when it was reported that two Google senior officers left to go to OpenAI and Anthropic. Google's co-head of its Gemini AI models left to go to OpenAI, and a senior engineer in Google's DeepMind left to go to Anthropic. Good news from Micron. Micron reported and their numbers were incredibly powerful. Because of the growth in AI data centers, there is a shortage of every kind of semiconductor. Prices have soared. Micron beat on both revenue and earnings, but that statement does not even begin to capture what is happening here. The company reported EPS for the quarter of $25.11, which was a— get this— 1,215% year-over-year increase. Company posted revenue of $41.5 billion, a— get this— 345% year-over-year increase. Prior to the earnings report, Micron was up 267%. The 2027 PE, however, is only 8.7 times, as the increase in earnings has more than kept up with the stock price. One more point: on the conference call, management stated that they believe that chip supply will remain constrained past 2027. Moving on, there was some news on Nike this week. Nike has been a turnaround story for 2 years that has not turned around. On Monday, June 22nd, we hosted 3 consumer analysts from Evercore, one of whom, Michael Benetti, covers Nike. And on Tuesday, Michael downgraded Nike from buy to hold because there is just no evidence that the turnaround is taking hold. Quite the opposite, actually. Now let's discuss the second quarter. Normally, I would discuss the results of the second quarter in early July, but because I will be traveling, by the time I get back, that will be stale. So I'm going to do it now. I'm putting on the screen a table that shows the second quarter and year-to-date performance of the S&P 500, NASDAQ, and all 11 sectors of the S&P. The data is as of Wednesday, June 24th. For you audio listeners who cannot see the screen, let me give you a few key stats for the second quarter. The market bottomed at the end of the first quarter and has staged a very powerful rally. As of last Friday, the S&P was up 15% and NASDAQ was up 23% for the second quarter alone. However, this week the market, especially NASDAQ, started to correct. The result is that by the end of this Wednesday, The S&P was up 13% and NASDAQ was up 18% for the quarter. Let me just point out that Micron's results reported Wednesday night did trigger something of a tech rally on Thursday. Well, not exactly a rally. Micron was up over 15% on Thursday. However, and perhaps more importantly, the rally on Thursday was confined largely to chips and power-related companies like GE Vernova. The hyperscalers Amazon, Meta, Oracle, Google, and Microsoft were all down on Thursday. Apple will also was down as it raised prices on its MacBook and iPad because of higher memory chip prices. Net-net, NASDAQ was down on Thursday. So much for the rally. This supports our thesis that investors are willing to play scarcity, but the new capital intensity of the hyperscalers combined with a lack of moats has destroyed the momentum in these stocks. One more point. The capital intensity would not be so bad if they were large moats. Then investors could feel comfortable handing over capital for the sake of protected franchises. But combination of capital intensity with no moats is potentially a race to the bottom. It implies future price wars. It implies low returns on capital. Given the trillions being spent, capital intensity with no moats is just plain scary. Now, we have been discussing AI and tech for months now, and the story story, as I just pointed out, has really begun to change. I reviewed the arguments at length in last week's wrap and just now a bit too. But I think the two central points of contention are the following. First, AI hyperscalers have become very, very capital-intensive businesses, and there is no end in sight for how much capital they will need. Second, and perhaps more importantly, as I said before, there don't seem to be any moats for AI creators. Users seem to migrate from one to the other at will. Trillions are being spent for LLM models and agentic AI apps that have no moats and in some cases no non-competes for senior engineers. If engineers can switch companies at will, product differentiation becomes almost impossible. It looks like this week the market started to really worry about these arguments. Hi, Steve Eisman here. Summer always changes how I get dressed. I want pieces that feel lighter and more breathable. Things that are easy but still put together. That's why I keep coming back to Quince. They focus on high-quality essentials that feel and look amazing. Think breathable linen and soft organic cotton. Well-made basics but without the luxury markup. It's that rare balance where everything feels elevated but still effortless. Everything at Quince is priced 50 to 80% less than similar brands. They work directly with ethical factories and cut out the middlemen. So you're paying for quality not brand markup. Recently, I bought a gorgeous blue linen shirt and a super comfortable terrycloth sweatshirt, and I'm wearing that right now, and I love them both. Elevate your summer wardrobe. Go to quince.com/icebend for free shipping on your order and 365-day returns. Now available in Canada too. That's quince.com/icebend, Q-U-I-N-C-E dot com slash icebend for free shipping and 365-day returns. quince.com/icebend. I'm Glynn Washington, host of Snap Judgment, the award-winning storytelling podcast from KQED. Every week, Snap deals a new card, like the San Francisco girl selling weed brownies after school who uncovers a secret, or the Oakland man who invented the wave and never got his credit, or even the actual Lake Merritt Monster.

   Steve Eisman · The Real Eisman Playbook · The Q2 2026 Report Card: Who Won, Who Lost, and Why | The Weekly Wrap · 2026-06-26

9. Totally. I mean I think that like we, you know, we've lived through a couple cycles where like the amount of money you raise and who you raise it from is like a really important vanity metric. I've raised a lot of money from a top tier investor. So like you know, I'm, I'm in a glass house throwing stones here. But, but I do think that like the, you know, the, that's actually not really a great like proxy for if you're going to build a successful business or not.

   Speaker B · Summation with Auren Hoffman · Facet CEO Anders Jones on the biggest heist in finance, how advisors really sell permission, and the great boomer wealth transfer · 2026-06-23

10. Why good? I can't complain. I mean, buying the TVs, two televisions was seamless. The guy showed, they put it up. Can't complain. My simple question to start the discussion is Best Buy's earnings have been flat for years. Why? On Premium Wednesday, June 24, we will post an interview with the management of Glass House Brands, a cannabis company. The reclassification by the Trump administration of medical cannabis from a Schedule 1 to a Schedule 3 drug will improve growth and earnings. I own the stock. And on Wednesday, July 1, I will share my long positions in my personal portfolio and how I think about managing my investments. This is for educational purposes only and is not a recommendation.

    Steve Eisman · The Real Eisman Playbook · The Real State of the American Consumer w/ Three Evercore Analysts | The Real Eisman Playbook Ep 65 · 2026-06-22

11. Sponsored Jobs President Trump announced that a deal had been reached with Iran and would be signed Friday. As a result, futures soared and the market experienced a strong rally. On Monday, Fox is buying Roku, the streaming company. The market was not amused by this deal. There was some really bad news for Anthropic over the weekend. This effectively shuts down Fable 5 and Mythos 5 completely, which are Anthropic's latest and most sophisticated models, and hurts the future of Anthropic. Over the past few months, the negative arguments about AI have sharpened, so let's explore them. Hi, this is Steve Eisman and this is another edition of the Weekly Wrap. This is a shortened week because of Juneteenth. This wrap is for the week ending Thursday, June 18, but recorded Wednesday night, June 17. On this week's Wrap, we will discuss the war in Iran, the SpaceX IPO, private credit news, bad news for Anthropic, a summary of the bull case and bear case for AI mailbags and oh, by the way, a little bit about the Fed before we get to the Wrap. On Premium Wednesday, June 24, we will post an interview with the management of Glass House Brands, a cannabis company. The reclassification by the Trump administration of medical cannabis from a Schedule 1 to a Schedule 3 drug will improve growth and earnings. I own the stock and on Wednesday, July 1, I will share my long positions in my personal portfolio and how I think about managing my investments. This is for educational purposes only and is not a recommendation. Now let's go to the war in Iran. On Sunday, President Trump announced that a deal had been reached with Iran and would be signed for Friday. As a result, futures soared and the market experienced a strong rally. On Monday, oil prices declined by 5% and the 10 year yield fell back below 4.5%. But let's not get too carried away. This is not a treaty and it is not a peace agreement. What it is is a memorandum of understanding to negotiate the terms of a broader agreement over the next 60 days. All the hard issues like Iran's possession of nuclear fuel are to be negotiated. The only tangible benefit of this MOU is that the Strait of Hormuz will supposedly be opened for the 60 days. Moving on, Kevin Warsh presided over his first Fed meeting. The Fed kept rates unchanged and made it clear that there would be no cutting of interest rates, but raising rates is now a possibility. This happened on Wednesday. The market did not like it. On Friday of last week, SpaceX went public. I've spoken about SpaceX many times now. I'm sure there will be a lot more to say. The IPO jumped 19% on its first day of trading. Frankly that's not particularly impressive. But it did go up another 20% on Monday and another 5% on Tuesday. The stock now has a market cap of 2.5 trillion and is now valued at well over 100 times trailing annual revenue. The IPOs of Anthropic and OpenAI are up next in the fall. Home builders have had a bit of a run of late. As I've said before, home builders stocks are always sensitive to interest rates. There is no way to get away from that. The combination of some M and A by Berkshire hathaway and the 10 year getting back below 4.5% has caused the group to rally. Take the stock. I've recommended Meritage. I recommended it in the low 70s in January. The war and higher rates caused it to decline to $62. It's now 74 and valued at 1.0 times tangible book value. Recent MA transactions have taken place at 1.25 to 1.3 times tangible book value. In private credit news, BlackRock capped redemptions from its HPS corporate lending fund at 5% after investors sought to pull 13% of their shares and that is higher than the 9.3% they sought to redeem in the first quarter. There was some really bad news for Anthropic over the weekend. If you will recall a few months ago Anthropic tried to limit the usage of its models by the Department of defense. The DoD was not amused and classified Anthropic as a supply chain risk Things have now escalated. The US Government issued an Export Control Directive to suspend all access to Fable 5 and Mythos 5 to foreign nationals, even Anthropic's own employees. This effectively shuts down Fable 5 and Mythos 5 completely, which are Anthropic's latest and most sophisticated models. Apparently the government was made aware of a method to quote unquote jailbreak or bypass security restrictions on Fable 5 and Mythos 5, which are intended to limit a customer's ability to abuse the product for hacking or other potential harms. The lesson here is that it's not a great business strategy to go to war with the United States government. Now, how did the US Government magically become aware of a jailbreak methodology? Because Amazon told them. And why would Amazon snitch? Maybe because they invest in OpenAI. We are now at a 6th grade cafeteria level of snitching with monstrous impact and consequences. The development of AI is packed, packed with fascinating twists and turns every week until now. The Trump administration has taken a very regulatory light approach to AI. This shutdown is very heavy handed and hurts the future of Anthropic. Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick's announcement seemed to come out of nowhere and suggested more than a hint of panic, if only to be a fly on the wall when Amazon alerted the Trump administration about the risks embedded in Anthropic's most sophisticated products. Now, we've been discussing AI for many, many months. The story is constantly evolving and sometimes not for the better. We will be exploring these arguments for the foreseeable future and in fact I have Todd Sohn, the chartist specialist from strategus on the pod on June 29 some of his stock charts show stress in certain key AI stocks. For now, relying on the work I have done and the amazing interviews with the experts we have had on the pod. Here is my snapshot where we stand on the bear to bull curve. On the positive side, there is no sign that AI Capex is weakening. Quite the opposite actually. Every major company that reports still UPS its AI Capex and Nvidia is the bellwether of the group. Its 1Q26 revenue growth was an incredible 85%, which is an acceleration from the 65% growth a few quarters ago. As long as Nvidia's revenue growth remains elevated. This story is not over, however, and it's a big however. Over the past few months the negative arguments about AI have sharpened. So let's explore them. 1. Capital intensity Google announced that it was raising $80 billion since upsized to $85 billion in new capital, all from equity. Historically, software has been a non capital intensive business. The last time Google raised equity for the company was June 2005. Why is it doing so? Because the table stakes of participating in AI keep increasing. In 2025, Google spent 80 billion on AI capex, which it funded mostly from its enormous cash flow plus a bit of debt. In 2026, Google will be spending 180 to 190 billion on AI capex. And that is just too much for its cash flow. There are also stories that Meta and Microsoft will be doing similar transactions soon. Oracle increased its capital raising plans by 20 billion recently. This all goes to show that certain non capital intensive large software companies have now become capital intensive hardware companies. This is a sea change. Before, the hyperscalers were funding their capex, their AI capex via a combination of cash flow and debt. Now. Now shareholders are being asked to foot the bill. Number two, are there any moats? There's a big one. Last year the hyperscalers spent $400 billion on AI capex. This year it will be close to 1 trillion. Let's assume for the sake of argument that AI and AI agents are in fact transformative technologies. And yet there seems to be little difference between them. One week Gemini is on top and the next it's anthropic, and the next it's OpenAI. Despite the money being spent, there seems to be little differentiation. No moats. Trillions are being spent for what looks increasingly like a commodity. Number three, and speaking of the commoditization of AI, last week an article appeared in the Wall street journal stating that OpenAI is considering lowering the prices it charges customers. The company is considering cutting what it charges for tokens. This is pretty astonishing news. Trillions are being spent for a product with no moats and prices are already being cut. Number four, token pricing. The cost to use an LLM or an agentic AI app is measured in tokens, which is roughly equivalent to a word, one token per word, more or less. And Agentic AI is a much heavier user of tokens than LLMs. Until this year, companies like Anthropic and OpenAI charged a subscription for their LLMs and Agentic AI apps. Those subscription prices were much, much lower than the actual cost of the tokens. Hook them with the cheap stuff and raise prices. Later this year, Anthropic and OpenAI changed the pricing to a token usage methodology, which is a much higher pricing methodology. Microsoft moved to a similar pricing for its GitHub copilot on June 1 there is already pushback. Uber went through its entire AI budget for the year in four months. Reddit boards are filled with complaints about the new pricing systems. It's possible possible that customers will start using AI less as they become more cost conscious. Stay tuned. Number five Return on Investment roi. Despite all the hype, there is still no evidence or very little evidence that the ROI for using AI justifies the trillions that are being spent. And number six, power constraints. Even the bulls admit that this is a risk. AI data centers are physically enormous and have insatiable needs for energy and water. Communities are starting to push back. I'm getting the impression that the level of AI data center construction is slower than the bulls are hoping for. This risk bears tracking. The AI story has definitely changed because of the capital intensity. That's what's new. That means, I believe, that for investors who remain bullish, they may shy away from the capital intensive hyperscalers and focus more on power generation, semiconductors and tech equipment companies like Arista and Cisco. However, if companies start backing away because of the increase in token pricing or power constraints really start to bite, all bets are off. This is an evolving story that seems to change by the week. One analogy that I now found helpful is to look at airlines versus the airline suppliers. Airlines are a notoriously bad business. It's very capital intensive and no airline has any pricing power. However, companies like Transdigm that supply parts and services to airlines are great businesses. Just compare the 10 year charts of American Airlines and Transdigm and you get the point. It's possible that the hyperscalers and large AI players are becoming like airlines while their suppliers are becoming like Transdigm. Something to think about. Hi, Steve Eisman here. Summer always changes how I get dressed. I want pieces that feel lighter and more breathable. Things that are easy but still put together. That's why I keep coming back to Quince. They focus on high quality essentials that feel and look amazing. Think breathable linen and soft organic cotton. Well made basics but without the luxury markup. It's that rare balance where everything feels elevated but still effortless. Everything at Quint's is priced 50 to 80% less in similar brands. They work directly with ethical factories and cut out the middlemen. So you're paying for quality, not brand markup. Recently I bought a gorgeous blue linen shirt and a super comfortable terry cloth sweatshirt and I'm wearing that right now. And and I love them both. Elevate your summer wardrobe. Go to quints.comizman for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns now available in Canada too. That's quince.comeisman Q U I N C E.comeisman for free shipping and 365 day returns. Quints.comeisman hi, Steve Eisman here. If you're like me, you love rewards and you've heard me talk about BILT as the loyalty program that lets you earn points on rent wherever you live. And they just leveled up even more. As of 2026, homeowners can also earn up to 1.25 times points on their mortgage payments. This is thanks to Build's three new credit cards, the Palladium card, the Obsidian card and the Blue card. All three turn your housing payments, rent or mortgage into flexible rewards so you can choose the card that fits your lifestyle without missing out on points and exclusive benefits. Build points can be redeemed at top airlines and hotels, Amazon.com purchases, future rent payments and more. Buildpoints have also been ranked by top publications as the industry's most valuable point currency. Your housing payment is already your biggest expense. Make it your most rewarding. Find the car that fits your lifestyle and apply today@joinbuilt.com that's joinbuilt.comeisman and make sure to use our URL so they know we sent you. Terms and limitations apply subject to approval and eligibility. BILT cards are issued by column NA member FDIC pursuant to license from MasterCard International Incorporated. Moving on, There was some very intriguing news about Fiserv, the payments company. Fiserv is a payments company that has been around for a long time. Institutional investors owned it for years as a steady eddy play on payments. However, the company has been losing market share for years and that culminated in a dramatic drop in the stock in May of last year. The company admitted that it had been over earning and that the game was up. Management was fired and a new CEO, Mike Lyons was brought in. Lyons was a senior executive at PNC Bank. He has been trying to turn the company around but not very successfully. He reset earnings expectations for no growth in 2025 and slightly negative growth in 2026. The 2026 P E is six times, so clearly the market does not believe in the turnaround. This Monday morning Fiserv announced that Lions was leaving fiserv to become, get this, the CEO of Truist Bank. Leaving in the midst of a turnaround is not very nice and the Stock was down 11% on the news. I'll just reflag my views on the payment space. It's a brutal space where competition is intense and the only impregnable franchises are Visa and MasterCard. Full disclosure, I own Visa. In other news, Fox is buying Roku, the streaming company, and a large deal that values Roku at 22 billion. Fox has little streaming presence, so this is a way for Fox to jumpstart its business in streaming. As Roku reaches 100 million households worldwide. The market was not amused by this deal. Fox's stock price declined by 15%. Why? Because Fox has a 2026 P E of 10 times and it is valuing Roku at a 2026 PE of 57 times. Good luck. And now for the Mailbag. Our first question is from Moritz who asks quote question so if you're already more than 60% in broad equity ETFs but worried about inflation and longer term, a recession, what are the alternatives? Not bonds given inflation, not cash for sure. Real estate, gold, utility stocks. There are not a lot of places to hide in a world of inflation that might also lead to a recession. That world existed in the 1970s and the market was flat. Bonds are obviously not a good investment. Utilities aren't either, as they are partially dividend plays. Gold is definitely an asset class that attracts investors in an inflationary world. But of late, gold has not acted according to that thesis. It's been flat when inflation fears have climbed and I'm not sure why. In terms of what sectors in the market that might do well, I'd look at traditional energy and health care. Our second question is from Time Management Investing. Who asks? Suing addiction models is a slippery slope. Should TV manufacturers be held liable? Netflix, where do you draw the line between personal and parental responsibility versus outsourcing responsibility? Great question. Before answering it, I want to flag what's been happening on our premium service this past Wednesday, June 17, we posted an interview with with law professor Ben Zapersky of Fordham Law School. We discuss the addiction cases that have been lodged against social media companies. Professor Zapersky discussed the legal theories that underlie these cases and which cases he thinks are strongest. I think the point of these social media addiction cases is that the social media companies are being accused of intentionally addicting consumers via their algorithms and are causing harm. I don't think Netflix operates under an addiction model. However, I'd also point out in the recent California case, I believe that the level of damages was lower than expected because the jury did think that the plaintiff bore some personal responsibility. And our final mailbag is from Griot who asks. Greetings from Italy Greetings. Right back to you. Soon I'll start my first investment portfolio. Wish me luck. Good luck. By the way, do you think there is any usefulness in investing in European assets, stocks, bonds, end quote? I have no opinion about European bonds. However, my opinion about European stocks is to generally stay away. I think that Europe is overregulated and its economies are slow growing. Germany, the largest economy in Europe, has barely grown its GDP in years. Tech is where the action is and tech is relatively small in Europe. In the US infotech is 38% of the S&P 500. And if you add in stocks like Google and Amazon, which are not technically infotech but are certainly tech related, you get to 50%. In Europe, tech is only 18% of the euro stocks index. Now, for viewers who are watching, I am putting on the screen two tables that show the largest five companies in Europe and in the us. The first thing to notice is that no European company has a market cap above 1 trillion. ASML at 750 billion is getting there. But only ASML of the five is a tech company. After ASML is Roach with a market cap of 330 billion, which is a pharma company, then LVMH 295 billion and a consumer discretionary luxury company, then Novartis at 290 billion and a pharma company. And number five is Nestle at 260 billion and a consumer stakeholder Naples Food Company. By contrast, the market cap of the top five stocks in the US range from 2.7 trillion to 5.1 trillion. And all five Nvidia, Google, Apple, Microsoft and Amazon are in infotech or tech related. Investing in large cap in Europe means not much tech exposure. I like chocolate as much as anyone, so Nestle sounds like a good company, but it's hardly a compelling investment story. You might think that investing in Europe is a hedge to the US but I don't think it really is. Europe is heavily dependent on the US economy. If there is a recession in the US, hiding in Europe will not help. Last Monday, June 15, we posted an interview with Tom Gallagher, the life insurance analyst at Evercore. We discussed the impact of private equity and private credit on the life insurance sector. These are illiquid and opaque investments and we looked at the real risks and the size of those risks. So check it out. This coming Monday, June 22nd, we will post an interview with three consumer analysts from Evercore who cover the entire gamut of consumer stocks from restaurants to department stores to the big retailers like Walmart. We examined the health of the consumer at the upper, middle and low end and how the various companies they cover are doing in this environment. So tune in. Be sure to check out our website, realizementplaybook.com thanks for joining. And that's the wrap. This podcast is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice. The host and guests may hold positions in stocks discussed opinions expressed are their own and not recommendations. Please do your own due diligence and consult a licensed financial advisor before making any investment decisions.

    Steve Eisman · The Real Eisman Playbook · Anthropic Gets Shut Down By the Government and the AI Story Gets More Complicated | The Weekly Wrap · 2026-06-18

12. Well, I think I've answered what I think about whether she got ruled. Hegseth is doing exactly what Trump wants him to do. That's why he's still standing. You know, I mean, it was crazy what Trump said about Joe Kent's wife. It was deeply wrong. You know, I responded to this last week in an interview with the Hodge twins and my right wing detractors like the neocons clipped it to just me ripping on Trump and his marital history as though I just decided to take a gratuitous shot at Trump. It's not what happened. He is in Glass House. He is in no position to criticize anyone's marital decisions. And that's on top of the point that what he said is morally wrong. You don't criticize a man whose wife has been killed in service of your administration. Trump 1.0, who served honorably the mother of his children for four years, later finding love again and finding a stepmom for his two little ones. That's disgusting. Who would do that? That's a disgusting comment Trump made. And I was asked to respond to it, and that was the response I gave, and I stand by every word. Pete. Look, if you want to go through the marriages of the Trump administration, which one should be scrutinized? Like, I believe Pete is in love with his wife right now and that he has a good marriage. But, you know, as I said when I was defending Pete from that bullshit rape charge that was used to try to sink his nomination. Don't marry Pete. But it shouldn't be a disqualifier for this role. But it's fine for Trump because Pete does what he says. And Joe Kent's decision to remarry somebody four years after his wife had passed had been killed in a war that Trump sent her to, that somehow is something we're supposed to hold against him. Why? Because he was mildly and respectfully critical of the Iran war. He handled that in an honorable way. And I understand people are critical of him because they say, you should have just quit. You were in service of the president. You don't detract from the commander in chief. And I accept those criticisms as valid and in good faith. I don't agree with them in this case, but I don't take them away from the detractors. However, there's absolutely no basis to criticize his marital decisions. So, I mean, I agree with the question. The premise of the question is that is there a double standard depending on whether you do Trump's bidding? And the answer is absolutely there is, 100%.

    Speaker B · The Shawn Ryan Show · #309 Megyn Kelly - "I Now Have to Worry About Getting Shot Because of My Opinion" · 2026-06-01

13. Nobody in politics in the last 30 years is not part of the problem is in a glass house.

    Rahm Emanuel · GZERO World with Ian Bremmer · Rahm Emanuel on Trump's Iran war “of choice” and midterm implications · 2026-03-27

14. You know, we recognize some kind of category like a house or a tree, and we recognize it in many different forms in many different contexts. I think animals certainly do that, babies certainly do that. But then we start to extend our conceptualization of these things so a house can become even more abstracted. And we have things like, you know, the house of commons or, you know, glass houses we think about in our idioms, or trees being, you know, the tree of life, and all of those kinds of metaphorical extensions of these basic categories. So I really think of it as. As a spectrum. And I think, you know, humans have obviously taken conceptualizations and abstractions much further than any other species. But I'm not going to say that we're the only ones.

    Melanie Mitchell · Many Minds · Seven metaphors for AI · 2026-02-26