Welcome back, everyone. Today on the Joseph Carlson Show, we're going to be talking about Palantir. Palantir has had an incredible year. The stock is up 121 percent this year, so it's been a good one for Palantir investors. This has been one of the best stories. It's been riding the AI wave, but unfortunately, this monumental rise in stock price has led the stock to be extremely expensive.
With this being one of the most known popular stocks among social media and retail investors, I think it's good to take a look once in a while at the valuation. So we're going to be taking a look at Palantir, going through the valuation and explaining why I believe this stock is extremely expensive. Now we also have news from Bloomberg that Netflix saw a spike in cancellations after the former CEO Reed Hastings donated millions of dollars to the Kamala campaign. It upset conservatives.
There are protests. We know that a lot of people are posting screenshots of them canceling the service. Now we have some analytics and data to show that this did in fact, Causeway a spike in cancellations. We're going to be going over what this means for Netflix. As a Netflix investor, how do I view this company leaning so liberal, being such a a Democrat liberal company and why it's continually targeted by leading conservatives like Elon Musk?
We have news at Tim Sweeney, the owner of Epic Games, which is the creator of the game Fortnite, is once again unhappy with Google. He's suing Google once again. And this time Samsung as well for good measure, will be looking into those lawsuits. And then finally, we also have a report that Google apparently paid $2.7 billion to bring back a single employee, an AI genius. That's quite the price tag to
pay for one employee. We'll be looking at why Google decided to pay $2.7 billion for this employee. Now, we start off today with the main story, which is Palantir is now an extremely expensive stock. Whether it's overvalued is a different question, but it is very, very expensive. Now, I know anytime you say something like this for a very popular stock, one that there's a lot of social media, one that a lot of people have their money in, there's a an immediate backlash.
People immediately jump to the keyboard. They go down to the comments section in a fury with full of full of anger and hatred towards anyone that criticizes their company. So before you do that, before you race to the comments section to leave a comment that Joseph doesn't know what he's talking about. Joseph is just coping because he miss Palantir. Joseph just doesn't don't like Alex Karp's hair. None of that is true. So just slow down a bit.
None of that is true. I do like Alex Karp's hair. I think it's it's cool. He has great style. He's very eccentric leader. I do think that Palantir is a great company. So it's not true that I have something against Palantir. In fact, I've been very positive about Palantir for a long period of time. So before you jump to judgement and start leaving angry comments, just slow down a bit. Wait until you at least watch this first segment, then leave the angry comments afterwards.
Now, like, like I said, Palantir is one of the most popular stocks among social media and retail investors. And this isn't something that I'm just saying because I, I kind of see it. It's also something that I'm saying because the data supports it. Over 50% of Palantir shares are owned by retail investors. A minority is owned by institutional investors, meaning that it's a lot of individuals buying this company, a lot of individuals, a lot of small funds.
It's not major institutions buying up Palantir, which I think is fine. That's a great thing to have individuals buying shares in a great company. So I don't see any problem with that, but it just shows that this is a really, really popular stock. There's no set answer in valuation. In fact, there's a number of ways to value a company. You can value a company through revenue multiples. You can value it through earnings per share.
You can value it through free cash flow, free cash flow per share share. You can value it through EBITDA or enterprise value. There's all sorts of ways to look at valuation of a company and rather than focus on just one and try to nitpick one way of valuing Palantir, I want to look at it through multiple ways. We can illustrate the price of Palantir by looking at it through multiple lenses. Now the first one we can look at is the free cash flow. This is one that I look at for
every company. Basically what Qualtrum shows here, this free cash flow yield is the yield you're getting when you buy the stock. And this is very similar to the yield that you get from a bond. For example, if you look at a stock and it has a 4% free cash flow yield, that means that if you invest $100 based on their last 12 months of cash flows, they can pay you $4.00 back in a calendar year. So you invest $100, you get $4.00 back per year.
Now hopefully they grow that amount year over year. Bonds can't do that. They just pay you the same amount. Hopefully stocks will grow and they'll pay you $4.00 and $5 and $6 back per year. But this is the current yield, $100 invested. Getting back $4.00 per year means a 4% yield # here right now, not factoring in stock based comp, not factoring in dilution, which is a whole other thing we could factor in. But even leaving that out, has a .81% free cash flow yield based
on the trailing 12 months. Again, if we look at this and we look at the free cash flow # tier generated $700 million of free cash flow. That's a lot of free cash flow. But unfortunately, the market cap is $82 billion. The way you look at the yield is you divide the amount that they generate in cash flows. That's the 700 million divided by the $82 billion market cap. You move the decimals 2 places
and you get that .85%. And that's how we get the free cash flow yield of .84%, a below 1% yield, which is important. If we look at Palantir from this lens, that means that based on the trailing cash flows, if we invested $100, we get back $0.84 per year based on $100 investment. And that is rather low even looking at Palantir compared to comparable companies. Now I realize that Palantir is unlike most companies. It's an AI company, It's led by a great leader. It has a great story.
Palantir is awesome. But there's also a lot of other great companies, a lot of other great similar software companies. And if we compare Palantir to any of them, you may notice a difference here, for example, we look at another company, Crowd Strike. This is one that's just incredible. The growth is monumental. It is growing lockstep every single quarter even after their failed a software update where
they had problems. You can take a look at the revenue, it looks like it's fabricated, but this is real. This is all recurring subscription revenue. So this is virtually the best type of revenue you can get. It's profitable subscription revenue, fast growing cash
flows. If we look at the free cash flow, the customer growth, all of it is growing, lock step more predictable, more reliable than most software companies and the free cash flow is at $1.1 billion, again growing every single quarter of the year lockstep. So this is a fantastic company. And if we look at the free cash
flow yield, it is double. Palantirs As expensive as Crowdstrike is, this company's still at double the yield of Palantir's. So Palantir is far more expensive on a free cash flow basis than Crowdstrike. But we can look at other companies here again, Palantir's at a .84% yield. ServiceNow is at a 1.67, it's over double. We have Palo Alto Network, another great fast growing company at a 2.81% yield. This is about 3 times what Palantir's is. Datadog at 1.74, we have Synopsis at 1.28.
Even Microsoft, which I consider really expensive right now, has over double the free cash flow yield is Palantir.
Viva Systems has three times the yield at 2.86, Adobe's at 2.83, Intuit's at 2.67, Hubspot's at 1.19, Oracle is at 2.44, Snowflake is at 2.23, Roper's at 3.47, Autodesk is at 1.81, at Lassine's at 3.41, Work Day is at 3.34, SAP is at 2.5, and Salesforce has the highest free cash flow yield, meaning based on the cash flows, it is the cheapest company out of every major enterprise software company with a free cash flow
yield of 4.39. So in summary, when we look at the free cash flow yields of every major enterprise company, Palantir has around half the yield of the average, meaning that on average it's around double the price of any other major enterprise company based on its trailing metrics. Now it is true that Palantir may be growing faster and maybe it will grow it's free cash flow way faster than these other companies. Maybe it's all worth it.
I'm not saying it's not. I'm not saying that Palantir can't make it worth it. But what I am saying is a lot is already priced into the stock based on the cash flows. Investors in Palantir are assuming that the stock is roughly twice as valuable as any other comparable stock and software. Now, again, that may be the case, but that's quite the assumption to make. Now again, there's many ways to value a stock. The free cash flow yield's not the only one.
We can also do it based on an earnings per share basis. This is where you take the next four quarters of the annals estimates and then you see the multiple that investors are paying for those next four quarters of earnings. With Palantir, the forward PE is currently 87.8, so it's almost pushing a 94 PE ratio. We can look at other, again, very great companies, ones like Crowdstrike. They have huge total addressable markets. They have all subscription revenue.
They're growing very fast. They have still very fast revenue growth that is faster than Palantir's revenue growth. And this stock is still trading at a lower PE ratio. We have one like ServiceNow at a 53. Again, that's compared to Palantir's 88. We have Cadence Design at A39 4PE. We have Palo Alto Network at a 53.
We have Datadog at a 58, Synopsis at a 34, Microsoft at a 32, Viva at a 34, Adobe at a 25, Intuit Data 32, HubSpot at a 59, Oracle out of 26, Snowflake out of 38, Roper out of 27, Autodesk at a 33, Atlassian at a 48, Work Day at a 35, SAP at a 33 and Salesforce at a 27.8. So once again, we find that Palantir has a multiple on its earnings that are roughly double the average of every major enterprise software company, many of which are growing really fast.
They have free cash flow that's growing quickly. They have very resilient business models, but Palantir's still worth roughly double. Now again, you may say that Palantir so far really shouldn't be judged on an earnings basis or even a free cash flow basis because so far they're just trying to land contracts. They're trying to grow their revenue and grow their reach. They're not super focused on generating profits today, and that may be the case.
That's the case often with software companies that are still in the expansion phase. But there's also ways to value it based on pure revenue, revenue multiples based on the enterprise value to sales. Sales is another word for revenue. If we look at the relative valuation of Palantir compared to other enterprise software companies on an enterprise value to revenue multiple, you'll notice that one sticks out a little bit from the others.
We have here all these companies that we've been looking at, all of these great companies with wide moats, resilient business models, and most of them trade at an enterprise value to sales multiple of around 9.9 times. That is the median across the industry, so just shy of 10 times. Palantir's enterprise value to sales multiple is 27.7. It's over double the median of all of these companies, and in fact, it's far more than anyone even close even crowd strike.
For as expensive this company is, it has an enterprise Value to revenue multiple of 15.3 against Palantir's 27.7. This should paint a stark picture of what's currently being priced into this stock. And you'll notice here that the one that's supposed to be the loser of Palantir, the one that has all the gloomy sentiment right now, is Salesforce, which on almost every metric is currently the cheapest
enterprise stock. But this stark visual should be a reminder of what you're paying for a company. The reason I bring up all of these visuals is just to illustrate that this company is expensive when you base it off of any relative investment. Palantir is expensive on a free cash flow yield basis. Palantir is expensive based on an earnings per share basis, and it's expensive based on a revenue basis. No matter which way you slice it, this company's trading at an extremely rich valuation.
Now, I've been very careful in both the title of this video and in the video itself to use the terms expensive and cheap, not the terms overvalued and undervalued, because a company can be expensive and still be undervalued. We've seen examples of that before where company looks incredibly expensive and it turns out it was still undervalued at the time. That's happened before, and I'm not saying that that can't happen with Palantir.
There is a chance of this company outperforming expectations and turning out to be undervalued. Whether or not a company's truly undervalued or overvalued depends heavily on how much cash they generate in the future. Since we don't perfectly know the future, we don't perfectly know if a company's overvalued or undervalued. But judging whether or not a company's expensive or cheap trading with high expectations or low expectations is based on
history. Now, I don't bring up any of this to attack your stock or to bum you out if you're invested in Palantir, I promise you that's not the goal. In fact, I've been in the same situation before with some of the companies that I own. For example, Costco, Costco's a very expensive stock based on almost all of the metrics. You look at it at a free cash flow yield instead of 1.8%.
It's not nearly as expensive as Palantir, but for a company that's more established the larger chain, it's a company that that's a retail company, 1.8% is very expensive. It also trades at A50 Ford PE ratio which is around double what Walmart and Target trade at. So Costco stands out just like Palantir as being a very expensive company and I still refuse to sell it. So I knowingly hold a very expensive company. When I look at My Portfolio, I look at the companies I hold.
I've held Costco for such a long period of time. It's been such a great stock. It it's just continued to grow, its earnings grow, its cash flows, pay huge dividends. At the same time, I'm so much in the green on this stock that I just don't feel like selling a company that has so many things
going the right direction. So in many ways, I feel very similar with the way that I hold Costco today, that I think the same way many investors in Palantir fill where the stock has done so well, you know, it's trading up to a very rich valuation. But in many cases, you might just choose to hold onto it anyway. And I respect that decision. The one risk of holding a company like Costco or holding one like Palantir, one that's trading at a very high multiple and a rich valuation is there's
no room for mistakes. There's no room for any holes in the armor of these companies. If Costco is to show any real weakness at all, any problems with the business model, any new competitors that are really threatening its business model, this stock would crater. The stock could go down from a 54 PE to a 30, going down 40% in value.
It could go down even further. Costco's currently priced to not have any major challenges or mistakes, and I hold Costco believing that it's not going to have any major challenges or mistakes. I'm extremely confident in the future of the company. I think it's one of the most proven resistant all weather businesses that exist today.
So I'm OK holding the company at a high valuation because I think the chances of something wrong with it, something challenging happening with it are extremely slim. Palantir is currently priced the same way. Palantir is priced in a way where if investors find themselves having any concerns about the future, any changes in forecast for future expected growth, any problems with competition, any negative turn in their story and this stock is going to sink. It is not price for negativity.
Palanter is currently priced to have an extremely prosperous future. We also saw the same thing from Morningstar. They're bullish on the stocks future. They think it has a great future, but they're concerned about the valuation from a valuation standpoint. While our forward-looking estimates testify to our optimism on the name, we remain skeptical of the exuberant valuation at which Palanter is
trading. Even without factoring in the sharp rise in the firm stock price after hours, Palanter remains the most expensive software company in our coverage with an enterprise value sales multiple of around 20 times. Now it's getting closer to 30. We'd caution investors that sky high expectations baked into the firms current valuation. Any small bump on the road can crater the stock price and they're of course correct in that statement.
Any bump in the road can cause a huge problem for Palantir. So overall that was basically it. I thought it'd be good to check in on Palantir as I've been following this company for years and give some updated thoughts on it right now, again, I'm not bearish on the company. I think they're doing a great job. I like their product road map. I like that they're taking over market share. I like Alex Karp is a leader.
I've been impressed by him. So I like this stock a lot fundamentally, but I also think it's good to compare that against what's currently priced in and try to do updated analysis on the risk and reward. And right now, Palantir has shifted into that bracket where I think there's a lot higher risk in valuation than there was just a couple years ago. But I'll continue to follow it along and see how it develops. Now let's go to move on to some news stories here.
The first one is we have an update on the news that I covered a couple weeks ago. If you followed this channel a few weeks ago, I covered news that Netflix had a bit of a controversy, and they do from time to time. But this one was because there's a big headline that this guy, Reed Hastings, the former CEO of Netflix and current chair of the company, he donated, I think it was like 4 or $5,000,000 to Kamala Harris's campaign through some super PAC.
So he has a lot of money. He founded Netflix, he was like the creator of it and he donated some money to his preferred candidate. Now he donated his own money. He didn't use Netflixs balance sheet or Netflixs funds. He used his personal money that he made working at Netflix, but it was his personal money that he donated. So Netflix can't control the donations of their employees. That's not something that you can legally do. Netflix can't say, hey, employees, stop donating to
specific candidates. You just can't do that. But regardless, the affiliation of him being the former creator of Netflix and donating such a large money to the Kamala Harris campaign meant that he was targeted by a boycott from conservatives. I think that's OK to do. You can support whatever business you want, but we didn't really see what happened from that boycott until we got the analytics. And that's what this article shows. It shows an update on what that
boycott really did. The headline is that the Netflix cancellation spiked after Reed Hastings donated to the Kamala Harris campaign. Looking further into this, they say Netflix suffered a surge in cancellations in the days after the Co founder and chairman Reed Hastings endorsed Kamala Harris for president and donated millions to our campaign. The rate of cancellations, or churn in the industry parlance, nearly tripled in the US after his endorsement, according to
the researcher. Antenna, the streaming giant, has the lowest turn in the history. So they're basing this off of the research of Antenna. They have some different ways of getting this data because of course Netflix isn't releasing daily cancellation rates, but I think they can use some other third party stuff like credit cards and PayPal and and different transactions and traffic to different websites to try to determine what the normalized cancellation rate and then if there's any spike.
I think that's how they're getting this data. They say the customers in the US canceled Netflix at a higher rate in July, 2.8% than any month since February. But the five day period after Hastings endorsement was unusual even for July. Hastings, long time Democratic donor endorsed Harris in a post in the social media platform. A day later, Hastings told the information that he had donated $7,000,000. So it was 7 million. That's a that's a lot of money to the Pro Harris super PAC.
Shortly after Hastings endorsement, fans of Donald Trump begin urging people to drop the service. Some posted photos showing that they close their accounts alongside the hashtag cancel Netflix three days after the donation became public. July 26th was the single worst day for Netflix cancellations this year. So this looks bad for Netflix having. Any spike in cancellations is never a good thing, especially when the company is so dependent on their subscriber number.
We've seen this in the past. Netflix is reporting their subscriber number until the beginning of 2025, so they're still going to be reporting it next quarter, which is coming up in just a month. If there is a spike in cancellations and Netflix reports a lower amount of subscribers than expected, that could cause a sell off in the stock. And we've seen this before. They say the spike in cancellations at Netflix lasted
just a few days. And they also note that it wasn't as severe as reaction in 2020 when conservatives asked Netflix to take down the French movie Cuties, which they felt exploited children. So if you remember that whole controversy, that was one of the biggest ones Netflix has ever had. They licensed this movie called Cuties. I haven't watched it, but a lot of people are very upset with it because it it potentially
exploited children. It was a big mess and a lot of people cancelled Netflix, millions of people. Did they say that this is not quite as bad, that this one only lasted a couple of days? It hasn't been as big of a reaction as the French movie Cuties. Now, obviously, I'm an investor in Netflix. I've held this company for some time. I think it's a great investment. It's one that's it's done really well so far. It's recovered.
There's a lot of bullish momentum in Netflix and it is true that a large amount of cancellations, like a million people canceling the service over Reed Hastings donating Democrat could potentially harm the stock.
So I wouldn't be surprised if this next upcoming earnings was a little bit risky for Netflix. We could see a drop after hours if they have disappointing subscriber numbers, but Even so, I'm still not concerned about this stock and any large drop in the stock price, in my opinion, is a buying opportunity. If we look at the data here from Qualtrim, we have one of the KPIs that tracks the total subscribers over time.
This is what it looks like. They say that this controversy so far has not been as bad as the Cuties controversy. So we go back to August or September of 2020. We have the amount of subscribers right here. Netflix had around 195 million subscribers when they had that big controversy and boycott over the Cuties film. Since then, Netflix has gained roughly 75,000,000 subscribers. They're now at 277 million subscribers. That is after that boycott. This is what I mean by Netflix
being inevitable. It's true that a boycott can take down the subscriber number by a couple million or half a million for maybe a quarter or two, but overtime, the dominant streaming player will continue to gain global market share. The company's current path and global growth, in my opinion, is inevitable and the donations of a former CEO are not going to be
enough to change that course. Now, on a side note, Elon Musk continues to go after Netflix by sharing how liberal or Democrat the company is. For example, he says just yesterday on Twitter that donations by Netflix employed could not be more lopsided in favor of the Democrat Party. It's nearly 100% Democrat. And he shares this graphic here, which shows the election contributions in 2024 by major companies. Netflix is nearly 100% to the Democrat side. Then you have other companies
like Alphabet at 89%. You have Twilio at 100%. You have other companies like Blackstone that are mostly conservative, but basically every media company and technology company is mostly Democrat. And this is where, frankly, I don't agree with a lot of these posts and the criticisms focus solely on Netflix. It is true that Netflix is a mostly Democrat or liberal company, but so is every entertainment company.
If you were to cancel Netflix and find your entertainment somewhere else, where else are you going to go? What is the conservative entertainment company that's also a dominant streamer that provides thousands of hours of entertainment? Are you going to go to YouTube? Google's 90% liberal or 90% Democrat based on their donations. Out of the 180,000 employees, there are 160,000 that are Democrat. So YouTube is not some conservative bastion. It's not some conservative place to go.
Are you going to go to Warner Brothers Discovery? It's almost 100% Democrat. Are you going to go to Peacock with NBC? Do you consider that a conservative company? Of course it's not. Companies that are in show business and entertainment are mostly liberal or Democrat. Companies that are in agriculture, oil and gas, trucking, farming, those are mostly conservative. So this mostly just speaks to the industry these companies are in and the headquarters of where
they're located. I also disagree with the caricature painted here that Netflix is just a leftist company making content only for Democrats or liberals. It sure doesn't seem that way with many of the pieces of content they're putting out. They invite on people like Joe Rogan, Bill Burr, Dave Chappelle, Shane Gillis. These are people that I don't think are necessarily right wing, but they're also not extreme leftist by any means. So I think Netflix tries to create content that is consumed
by everyone. It's a global company. They're going to have some content that appeals more to the right, some that appeals more to the left. And I have to believe that this boycott because of this donation will likely be forgotten about in a few months. Now, moving on, we get to the story that Google is once again being sued by Tim Sweeney, the owner of Epic Games, which is the creator of the popular game Fortnite.
He has sued them before. They note that he's actually won the case in the past December, and Epic is now suing them again. The Fortnite game developer has filed a second antitrust lawsuit against Google. And now additionally, Samsung accusing them of illegally conspiring to undermine third party app stores. So they're accusing them of a conspiracy here. That's quite the accusation. Let's take a look at what
Samsung and Google are doing. The lawsuit revolves around Samsung's auto blocker feature, which now comes turned on by default on new Samsung phones. While it's turned on, it automatically keeps users from installing apps unless they come from authorized sources, namely Google and Samsung's app stores. So unless you download something from the Google or or Samsung App Store, it gets blocked by this auto blocker feature. Epic claims that there's no process for any rival store to
become authorized. They have a screenshot here showing if If we zoom in on this it it shows an example of this being blocked. It can't install the app from unknown source. Auto blocker is on to keep your phone safe. You can only install apps from authorized sources. That seems you know, when I first look at this headline, a lot of times what Tim Sweeney complaints about I think is is not realistic. A lot of times he's complaining about stuff where I don't think
he has a serious complaint. But this is one of the cases where I actually agree with him. It's blocking the download of the App Store, but it's also not giving you just a permission. It should be more like Windows 10 or 11 where it says, hey, this is from an unauthorized source. Are you sure you want this developer to be able to make changes to your device? And then you have to OK it.
That's a permission. And it allows you to just one click download the thing and let it make changes to your device. In this case, it looks like it's not only saying hey, you don't have permission for this, but you can't easily give it permission on this screen. And that's the big thing that Tim Sweeney is upset about. Epic claims that it now requires an exceptionally onerous 21 step process to download a third party App Store onto the Samsung phone.
Now I haven't confirmed if it's really 21 steps, but if it was, that seems ridiculous. I would agree with Tim Sweeney there, they say. While saying it's 21 steps seems like an exaggeration, on Epic's own website they claim that you can turn off this auto blocker feature in just four steps. Now in my opinion, either way, that's too many. You shouldn't have to take multiple steps. It shouldn't be a multi step process to download an extra App Store. They say.
Not only does the auto blocker prevent me from installing the new Epic Game Store, but the can't install app pop up no longer tells how to turn auto blocker off. So user wants to download Epic Games apps, they want to download the Epic Game App Store. They go to download it. It says that you can't because of the auto blocker feature. And then you're just left to figure it out yourself. You have to go to Google.
You have to Google how to turn off the auto blocker feature to download Epic Game Store. Then you have to go to Epic Games website and go through four steps. So this does actually feel like Google and Samsung are doing what they can to create as much friction as possible in downloading this other store. Tim Sweeney says this thing is not designed to protect against malware, which would be a completely legitimate purpose. The things designed to prevent
competition. Now I'm reading this headline. I originally didn't believe I'd be agreeing with Tim Sweeney, but in this case, he's right. This isn't some protective measure that Google and Samsung's taking to protect you from viruses or malware. They are doing this to create as much friction as possible, as much confusion and downloading a competitive App Store. And I think that this argument
is going to pill to the judges. If I had a guess right now, I think Epic's going to win this one too. Now, this isn't a headline you see every day. Google paid $2.7 billion to bring back an AI genius who quit in frustration. This is the guy here. I had no clue who he was until I read about this story, but apparently he's so worthwhile to Google that they paid nearly $3
billion to bring him back. They say that at a time when tech companies are paying eye popping sums to hire the best minds in artificial intelligence, Googles deal to rehire Noam Shazier has left others in the dust now again, I didn't know who this was but apparently he's authored a lot of papers on AI. He's someone that's kind of like a thought leader in it. He co-authored a Seminole research paper that kicked off the AI boom.
He quit Google in 2021 to start his own company after the search giant refused to research a chat bot he developed. When that startup character dot AI begin to flounder, his old employer swooped in. Google wrote character a check of around $2.7 billion, according to people with knowledge of the deal. Within Google, Shazir's return is widely viewed as the primary reason the company agreed to pay multibillion dollar licensing fee. So the story goes that this guy worked at Google.
He was one of the main research guys, one of the geniuses behind this. He got frustrated because Google wouldn't let him go his own direction within the company. He starts his own company, character AI, which has trouble. It flounders in their own words and then Google wanting to get his talent back buys the entire company, but mostly just for him. Google really doesn't care that much about character AI or licensing what they created. They just want Shazer back at the company.
Now the article goes further through the story of this guy, how he got frustrated with the company, him coming back to Google and of course him helping to create new AI creations and innovations at Google. But I think overall the biggest point out stress is just the headline of this article. It really puts into picture how much money these companies are willing to spend an invest in AI, $27 billion to get back one
emloyee, one talent. He's not an executive, he's not leading the company, but they need his talent for AI. And it shows that AI research and AI spend is reaching a boiling point. Companies are spending more and more money on AI every single day. And so far, the revenue and profit they've generated from that spend has been questionable. So overtime, we'll get to see if all of this AI spend is really worth it. That's all for this episode. Hope you enjoyed. See you in the next one.