September 24, 2025 • 53 mins
The Matt Allen Show breaks down three stories that could reshape the stock market, tech investing, and geopolitics. Nvidia’s $100 billion partnership with OpenAI is about securing 10 gigawatts of compute, building the largest AI infrastructure in history, and potentially generating $200 billion in revenue. Trump’s new $100,000 H1B visa fee shocks Silicon Valley, sparking debate between tech leaders like Elon Musk and David Sacks and Trump’s own base, with startups likely to take the hardest hit. Finally, Trump and Xi move closer to a TikTok deal that could determine the future of one of the world’s most valuable social media platforms while testing US and China relations and investor confidence at the same time.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Matt Allen (00:02):
Welcome back to the Matt Allen Show. I'm here with
the legendary Rob. Today, we'rebreaking down three big stories
that impact the stock market,your portfolio, and just
investing all around. We'llcover the two big stories that
are going on right now. One isNVIDIA's investment, a
$100,000,000,000 investment inOpenAI, President Trump's ruling
on H1B, which has caused masschaos in the corporate world,
(00:27):
and TikTok.
President Trump on on Fridayannounced a deal with TikTok
that it impacts a a few fewpublicly traded companies. So we
have a lot to get into today,but let's get into it. Rob,
what's going on, man?
Rob (00:40):
Plunch of everything's going on. Couple things on my
mind. Number one is is that I amnot legendary. Number two, you
owe me a lunch. Number three,bought a new car.
Matt Allen (00:50):
Well, I do owe you a lunch. The Fed voted last
Wednesday to lower interestrates by, by by they cut by 25
points. So I I I predicted two.I was going for the long shot
and they stuck with whateveryone else thought. So I I
(01:10):
will buy you lunch either thistime, this week or next week.
Rob (01:14):
Hey. That'll be the highlight of my week this week.
Matt Allen (01:16):
So let's hear about your car.
Rob (01:19):
Well, I decided on an Audi.
Matt Allen (01:21):
Okay. Which one?
Rob (01:23):
I got an Audi a eight and could not be more happy with my
first foreign car purchase. Imean, that thing rides so
smooth. Highly, highlyrecommended to anybody that's in
the car market.
Matt Allen (01:35):
Did they bring it? Did they drop it off at your
house?
Rob (01:38):
No. I had to go, had to drive to Orlando, Florida to go
pick it up.
Matt Allen (01:41):
Did you go to the Audi dealership?
Rob (01:45):
It was not an Audi dealership. It was another
dealership. And they were their,their customer service was
fantastic. Fields motor carsdown in Orlando treated me one
hundred percent first classcould not be happier. It was
best, best car buying experienceI've ever had.
Matt Allen (02:02):
That's awesome to hear. Wow. Okay. So you went
down to Orlando. How long didyou stay?
Rob (02:07):
Stayed the weekend. Came back Sunday night.
Matt Allen (02:10):
Cause you're from down around there, right?
Rob (02:11):
The Tampa area,
Matt Allen (02:13):
Tampa area, which is basically, I think people forget
how close Orlando and Tampa are.
Rob (02:16):
Yeah. A two hour car ride.
Matt Allen (02:19):
Yeah. Well, anything else going on?
Rob (02:22):
That's it. That's happy to have a car again and not a
rental car and, looking forwardto a lot of stuff happening in
news. So looking forward todiscussing it.
Matt Allen (02:31):
Yeah. For sure. Well, with that being said, I
don't have much going on in mylife besides all this craziness.
So let's get into it.
Rob (02:39):
That was the FSU game this weekend. Did you go to the FSU
game?
Matt Allen (02:41):
Yeah. I did go to FSU game. It it was good. 03:30
kickoff, so it was a earlymorning from a Saturday. It was
good, though.
We had just announced Miami FSU07:30 primetime ABC game. I'm
pretty sure college game day iscoming down regardless.
Rob (02:56):
Imagine so. Top 10 matchup.
Matt Allen (02:58):
Even if FSU were to lose, I think they're gonna come
down this because FSU playsVirginia on Friday, which is a
hey. That is if you have anAlabama team when they were so
good, a Friday game with yourrival looking ahead, that's a
scary matchup.
Rob (03:14):
I agree. I
Matt Allen (03:15):
agree. This is a bunch
Rob (03:17):
of The classic definition of a trap game.
Matt Allen (03:19):
A 100%. So they gotta, I hope they're realizing
that as well because the fansare, do not.
Rob (03:26):
No. Look, they are rabid for October 4 in Tallahassee for
sure. I think
Matt Allen (03:31):
everyone is. Is, any of your family coming up for it?
Rob (03:37):
Maybe. I don't know yet. It's two weeks out. So there's a
lot that happens between now andthen in my life. So start
worrying about that after werecord next week's episode.
Matt Allen (03:47):
All right. That sounds good. All right. Well,
let's get into our big story ofthe day. This week, actually
yesterday, we recorded this showon Tuesday.
This deal was announced Mondaymorning or Monday afternoon.
We've had one of the biggest AIannouncements in the history of
AI. NVIDIA is investing up to$100,000,000,000 in open AI.
This deal is centered onbuilding next generation AI data
(04:10):
centers powered by NVIDIA chipscapable of 10 gigawatts of
compute. And to put that inperspective, Rob, that's four to
5,000,000 GPUs over the nextyears.
Basically, NVIDIA ships in ayear right now. This first phase
will come online in 2026 withtheir new Vera Rubin platform.
And Rob, on electricity side ofthis, it's just absolutely mind
(04:33):
blowing. 10 gigawatts of data.10 gigawatts of power is about a
quarter of all global AI datacenter capacity today.
At the peak, this project willuse as much energy as the
equivalent of powering 80 of TheNetherlands. You know, this
keeps on going into theelectricity crisis that we're
experiencing in this country.
Rob (04:53):
Mhmm.
Matt Allen (04:53):
And then when you look into it, at first glance,
100,000,000,000 sounds likeNvidia's just throwing money
OpenAI, but it's reallystructured into a partnership.
NVIDIA provides the capital.OpenAI builds the
infrastructure, and almost allthat money's gonna flow right
back into NVIDIA in the form ofchip networking and software
sales. On day one, Wall Streetloved it. NVIDIA's stock popped
(05:16):
nearly 4%, which, you know, fora major blue chip stock like
that, that is absolutely huge.
They added $170,000,000,000 inmarket cap instantly. So the
deal was massive, but the realstory is what does this mean for
Nvidia's wallet and OpenAISurvival? And I will just open
up here real quickly. So in myopinion, this is good for
(05:36):
NVIDIA, is this deal locks intheir biggest customer for
years. If you run the math, Iran the math yesterday, I did
some estimates on the low end.
I did include discounts. If yourun the math on 4,500,000 GPUs
at an average of $32,500 apiece,this is lowballing it. You're
(05:57):
looking at $146,000,000,000 justin hardware revenue. You add in
all the networking and software,and you're looking at closer to
$200,000,000,000 in total salestied directly with this
partnership, with margins northof 70%, Nvidia could see
$145,000,000,000 in profitagainst a $100,000,000,000
investment, and that's aflywheel. The more they invest,
(06:17):
the more demand they generate,and that is on the very low end.
Some people are predicting up to$500,000,000,000 And on the end
for OpenAI, this is huge forOpenAI because this deal solves
their biggest problem, which isaccess to GPUs. The shortage of
AI chips have been absolutelybrutal for them. Wait times
peaked at eleven months for theH100s in 2023. It's still taking
(06:41):
about two to three months thisyear. Now OpenAI has guaranteed
access to roughly 900,000 GPUs ayear for five years.
That's 21% of NVIDIA's totalannual output. Nine times the
allocation of all our customerscombined. You know, it's more
than just saving for them. It'sensuring that they can scale
(07:01):
whenever they want to. This willalso allow them to go after more
enterprise customers becausethey can actually handle it.
They have around 700,000,000weekly users. Make around a
billion dollars a year inrevenue, but they spend about a
billion dollars a year, sothey're not making money yet,
but this will allow them to keepon going after customers. So,
Rob, I will throw this questionto you. When you look at the
(07:24):
deal, who's is the biggerwinner? NVIDIA locking in
$200,000,000,000 in sales atminimum, or OpenAI guaranteeing
themselves 10 gigawatts ofcompute and a massive edge in
the AI arms race?
Rob (07:35):
So I would say, and I've gone back and forth on this over
the last twenty four hoursnumerous times, I think they're
both big winners. I think thisis a genius business move by
Nvidia. I think it's a greatentryway into AI. I think they
got it on the cheap by actingand making this deal now. I
think also that this nowensures, as you were saying, a
(07:57):
profit margin for Nvidia overthe life of this deal.
And for OpenAI, I now think itensures their longevity. Right?
So I think this insulates, givesthem some defense against
Google, against Tesla and Elon,against the other bigger players
in the tech world, in the AIspace. So I think they're both
(08:18):
winners. I think for Nvidia, ifyou were to break it down even
one level, you know, in ourfirst episode, we talked about
how their second quarterearnings beat estimation, but
did not pop the stock at allbecause there were no China
sales.
We talked about how Nvidia hasalmost become a geopolitical
business because of security andarms races and all that kind of
(08:42):
stuff. I think this insulatesthem. This move insulates them
from the geopolitical aspect nowthat they have a built in
customer in AI world. So theydon't have to worry about what's
going on between The US andChina and China and Taiwan, and
so it alleviates some of thatpolitical risk. Mean, it's
definitely still there, but forinvestors, I think it alleviates
(09:02):
some of that.
For OpenAI, again, I think it'sa no brainer. There's two
questions in my mind from thepublic policy realm that this
brings up, which I'd love to getinto with you. Number one is at
what point with the electricitythis is going to take does the
backlash start? And two, whatdoes this do to Intel and one of
(09:25):
its bigger shareholders, the USgovernment and how they feel
about it? So I'd love to getinto more of that with you, but,
would love to hear some, somethoughts on, on my reaction.
Matt Allen (09:36):
And so I first believe that I agree. I think
OpenAI is the winner for surebecause they have the number one
commodity, the hottest, thething that they or to have
access to, which is these whichis the GPUs to build out and
just the data center build out,which is just massive. It's what
they need. I TaiwanSemiconductor is also a winner
(10:00):
here, but the problem that goesinto this is, are they gonna be
able to actually fulfill theseorders? That's one thing no
one's talking about.
I think there's also a lot oflosers here. And Elon Musk has
came out and said that this dealis very concerning already.
Obviously, he
Rob (10:14):
But he's a big loser in this deal.
Matt Allen (10:15):
He is. And so, there's a lot of things. Mean,
you you have NVIDIA also has apretty big risk too because you
had some analysts comes out andsay, hey, what if what if
OpenAI, what if these large Legomodels as we know it today are
not gonna be around three yearsfrom now? What if what if we
what if they look different?What if there's another
competitor on the rise?
(10:36):
You know, I'm not saying that'strue, but, you know, NVIDIA is
going all in on OpenAI to thissense. On the other hand, OpenAI
has hedged a lot of their bets.Nvidia is kinda, in my opinion,
doing the opposite. They'rethey're they're all they're
concentrating theirs. So there'sa lot of things that I mean, it
was this this was a bombshelldeal.
Rob (10:58):
I don't think Nvidia could have found a cheaper entry point
into what they just did into theAI space like that. So that's
why I think it's a geniusbusiness move. The real question
is with these data centers andthe electricity it draws, is
that going to impact singlefamily households? Is that going
(11:19):
to impact businesses? Is theregoing to be a political backlash
to people saying, Hey, we don'twant this here because they
can't supply the power.
Is it going to, are our localand state governments going to
put a tremendous tax then onthat power that they're gonna
use so that it's really a morecostly deal? I mean, to me,
that's a fascinating aspect thatnobody's talking about.
Matt Allen (11:39):
Yeah, well, in terms of Nvidia, do think, know, some
people are saying, hey. This isclassic what happened during a
.com bubble of you're basicallyhaving vendor financing through
an investment.
Rob (11:51):
Yeah. It is. But, you know, the .com bubble, I just feel
like the AI revolution is somuch bigger than what was
happening in the .com bubblethat if Nvidia wanted to make
this play, now was the time.
Matt Allen (12:05):
Sure. Do you think do you think that they could've
just do you think they weregonna get the get the that do
you think NVIDIA was going toget the the deal no matter what
without the investment?
Rob (12:18):
So I think they would have, but I don't think it would have
been on as big a scale becauseas you stated, OpenAI has got a
revenue spending issue. So wherethey going to get the capital to
buy all this stuff?
Matt Allen (12:32):
Well, they haven't had a problem to raise capital.
Rob (12:34):
Yeah, but how much capital are you going to raise before
you're diluted too much?
Matt Allen (12:40):
I mean, I I don't think they're personally they're
not even nonprofit.
Rob (12:44):
I wonder if they're gonna always be a nonprofit.
Matt Allen (12:47):
Well, they're not. But, I mean, because because
Microsoft, you know, they weregetting tons of money through
Microsoft. They were gonna findtheir they haven't had a problem
raising capital, in my opinion.
Rob (12:57):
Well, eventually, as people catch up to them, it'd be harder
to raise capital. I guess that'smy point.
Matt Allen (13:03):
Yeah. But it's because how how NVIDIA's doing
this deal is is $10,000,000,000per one gigawatt or so. Right.
Rob (13:13):
But what do you but how do you how do you think it affects
some of the other chip makers?What I'd love to get your your
your take on is Intel. After wetalked about the government
putting $8,000,000,000 intothat, taking a 9.9% stake. I
mean, to me, this
Matt Allen (13:31):
Well, I think it's huge for Intel because Intel's
got a possibility now ofproducing, manufacturing some of
these GPUs that NVIDIA is goingto make, because I don't, I'm
not sure if Taiwan is going beable to make all of them that
they can. So Intel in theirmanufacturing might be able to
get some of this if they're ableto have a facility up and
running. I think the bigquestion mark here really is
(13:52):
AMD's deal with OpenAI becausethey had that deal launched in
July. But in my opinion, think,you know, the way I see it is
NVIDIA's deal with OpenAI isabout training. You know, that's
the heavy lifting when you buildthese data centers.
The GPUs will actually be thereto build like the infrastructure
of it. Where AMD deals is aboutinference. So what does that
(14:15):
mean? So training is like theteaching the model everything it
needs to know. Inference is whenyou actually use it.
So whenever you ask ChatMeet aquestion, that's when AMD's GPUs
come in place. So they're kindatwo different deals, plus AMD's
M1 four fifty chips. They'redesigned with OpenAI to make
inference cheaper and moreefficient. And so I do think
(14:36):
it's two different GPUs, but Ido think it affects AMD in the
longer term because now OpenAIhas a TrueBlue partner, whereas
with AMD, they don't.
Rob (14:46):
Well, do you think though AMD could benefit in that one of
OpenAI's competitors, biggercompetitors, will then run to
them that they won't maybe dobusiness with NVIDIA so they
they could benefit from a aGoogle, Elon type into AMD to to
do something similar. Try toclarify.
Matt Allen (15:05):
If if I'm AMD, I'm trying to replicate this deal on
I don't think they have enoughcash to do as big a deal as
this. I mean, they're thrivingas a company. But if I were
them, I would do a big deal likethis, probably with Elon, maybe
with That's my point. Or may,maybe perplexity, but it's a
(15:27):
little bit, I love perplexity,but a little bit two different
things. So, yeah, I mean, it's,it was, this was a bombshell
announcement for sure.
And then the other thing is thatElon's already calling for that
the government needs to lookinto this.
Rob (15:40):
But he and that's my point. Can we be objective looking into
it now that we own a stake inIntel?
Matt Allen (15:47):
Yeah. But but Intel is gonna benefit no matter what
because they're gonnamanufacture them.
Rob (15:52):
Again, it calls into question why we did this in the
first place, because now asituation like this arises and
can the government be objectiveon whether this is an antitrust
cases because we have aownership stake in Intel. That's
not saying we can or we can't,but it's certainly something
that is not being discussed andis problematic in my opinion.
Matt Allen (16:15):
So are you saying it's antitrust because if NVIDIA
chooses to manufacture withIntel backed?
Rob (16:23):
Well, so right now you basically have NVIDIA partnering
with OpenAI. They're gonna getthat money back. Mean, can make
a sort of trust case with that.But my point is, if this
benefits Intel, or if anythingin the future benefits Intel,
the government just gonnagreenlight anything that
benefits Intel, can they beobjective now? Can the
(16:46):
regulatory schemes be objectivebecause now we have ownership?
I'm asking. I'm not giving myopinion. I don't know the answer
to that. It probably changeseach administration, but it's
something that no one's talkingabout right now.
Matt Allen (16:58):
Yeah, for sure. I mean, think in the short term, I
don't think Intel is gonna beable to get, like, 2026,
obviously, Taiwan is gonnamanufacture those for sure.
Rob (17:12):
Right. My point is, at some
Matt Allen (17:13):
point Yeah, was question,
Rob (17:16):
Is this good for Intel or isn't it? And if that question's
even being asked by regulators,that's a problem.
Matt Allen (17:23):
Yeah. I mean, and and it's obviously good for
anyone who manufactures semis,which they do. So I you're
you're right. But then it alsogets into, in my opinion, like
this kind of manufacturing boomthat we had back in the
industrial era and, you know, inthe cars and stuff. Are they
just gonna see this as anational security issue and we
need to manufacture no matterwhat?
Does that make sense?
Rob (17:43):
Yeah. Yeah.
Matt Allen (17:44):
Like, even if, let's just, I'll get a hypothetical
for you. Let's remove theownership and intel part.
Rob (17:50):
Like, we
Matt Allen (17:51):
can't, we just hypothetically so. And when it
came to this issue as anantitrust, is there a world
where they just say, Hey, maybeit is, maybe it's not, but our
focus is winning the AI armsrace.
Rob (18:03):
So in today's world, yes, I think that plays into it. A
hundred years ago, I'm notcertain, but it doesn't matter.
Matt Allen (18:11):
You don't think back in, back, you know, post world
war two that we tried to wineverything
Rob (18:17):
post world war two. You had, you had talked about the
industrial age, know, round of,of, you know, antitrust stuff,
standard oil, all of that. Sothen I think it would have been
looked at differently. PostWorld War II with a foreign
Matt Allen (18:34):
Yeah. Post World War II.
Rob (18:36):
World War II, I think they would look at it exactly like
you said.
Matt Allen (18:40):
Yeah. And that's what I think we had to look at
the your your answer to intel iskind of how I how I would answer
it. How I'm gonna answer it isthat it's, hey. Look. It's very
unfortunate in my opinion thatwe have the intel equity stake.
I understand what you're saying,that you're absolutely right
that we're not gonna look atanything the way we need to when
(19:00):
it benefits Intel at that stake.But with that being said, I
don't think we've I think we'dlook at it the same way, even if
we didn't have that stake,because of we're trying to win
the AI arms race.
Rob (19:09):
Yeah. I agree with you. The point is we shouldn't have to
ask the first question though,
Matt Allen (19:14):
for sure.
Rob (19:15):
Because government shouldn't be there
Matt Allen (19:17):
for sure.
Rob (19:19):
It's fascinating. All of this now tying together is
fascinating public policy. It'sfascinating, you know, finance
policy. It's really the world ischanging so rapidly these days.
Matt Allen (19:32):
Yeah. I mean, was pretty shocking when this
happened. The stock soared 4%,which is $160,000,000,000 in a
day in a market cap. And peoplesay, oh, they made money off
their investment. I don't knowwhy people are saying that.
That's not how that works. Butif you look at the numbers, I
mean, numbers are just so whenyou lowball it, I mean, I went
(19:54):
as low as you can. Mhmm. Andthere's no way around that
they're that they're gonna make200,000,000,000 in sales.
There's no way around that.
That is a minimum.
Rob (20:02):
Well, I mean, look, if you read a lot of Wall Street
analysts, you know, none of themreally adjusted their price
targets for Nvidia after thedeal was announced.
Matt Allen (20:10):
No, and Nvidia's
Rob (20:12):
Was technology good.
Matt Allen (20:14):
Jensen said, Hey, our numbers are not including
our future projections are notincluding this new deal, which
is wild. And they've what'sinteresting between the .com era
and what Nvidia's done, when itwas kind of especially between,
you know, when OpenAI launched,ChatDuty launched, NVIDIA stock
soared. And it got to the pointwhere you're like, all right, at
(20:35):
what point is this a bubble? I'mnot saying that we're not in a
bubble right now, but in termsof NVIDIA, one thing they did
that we've never seen before isthere's revenue, their profit.
It just kept up.
Rob (20:46):
Right. Every quarter, every quarter it beats estimates.
Matt Allen (20:50):
I mean, it's it's been unbelievable. But when it
and and, you know, and theninteresting, they aren't the
other companies are not seeing,you know, Meta or Netflix is
spending a lot. These othercompanies are not seeing that
type of revenue and profit fromit, from AI stuff, because
they're building out things, Andthat's where people are calling
(21:10):
a bubble, which might be true,but I do believe in the long
term they will. It's just likeone of my biggest pet peeves is
when people still brag about the.com bubble. I'm like, we
might've had a bubble for ayear, but this whole .com thing
pretty worked, you know, itworked out.
You got your apps, you know, andthat's gonna be the same story.
Even we have a bubble in AI,that's gonna be the same story.
(21:31):
But when it comes to when youinvest, know, one of my favorite
analogies is, hey, one of thebest ways to invest in new tech
is to have the gold race. Sowhat does that mean? Well,
everyone went out west to minegold.
And I think one out of 10 peopleactually found gold, but they
said, that's why you say toinvest in the people who sell
(21:51):
the shovels, because the peoplewho sold the shovels sold
shovels to all 10 of those goldminers. They made money no
matter what. And Nvidia isessentially, is the person
selling the shovels.
Rob (22:02):
There are companies still in business today that, that,
came out of the gold rush. LeviStrauss and company, Wells
Fargo, that, that has been anold business saying for longer
than both of us have been alive.You want to sell, you wanted to
sell the picks and shovels, notthe promise of gold.
Matt Allen (22:20):
Sure. And everyone, if you could have predicted the
next Google early on, that'sawesome, but there was a lot of
next Googles. There was a lot ofnext stuff, but it was very
obvious what Google you know,hindsight, it was very obvious
what Google needed to besuccessful, which is data
centers, a different kind ofdata centers and AI, the cloud,
(22:41):
things like that. So that thatreally, I mean
Rob (22:44):
Look. I remember at the dawn of the Internet, Yahoo was
a much bigger name than Google.
Matt Allen (22:48):
For sure. And you had ask Jeeves, you had a lot of
different things. And I will saythis, we're, we are in a
different time where, like,especially these large language
models, Zach, when it, with openAIs, the amount of money they
have, the amount of users theyhave, it's going be hard for
them to not be successful andnot be around for a long time,
in my opinion, or long time asin, know, let's say ten years.
(23:08):
Maybe they're not number one,but I mean, they have to really
mess this up, which we, youknow, when AskJeeves is around,
say, they didn't have thecapital and the users and things
like that ChatDBT has. But itdoesn't mean that like a Gemini,
things like that won't takethem.
That would really hurt, at thecurrent valuation of OpenAI,
that would really hurt it. Butthe long term success of it just
(23:30):
going out of business, I don'tknow. When you have 700,
Chattypd has 700,000,000 weeklyusers. That's unbelievable.
Rob (23:37):
It is unbelievable. And I don't have an argued for, I
think they're going out ofbusiness, but
Matt Allen (23:42):
Well, that's just a risk that Nvidia has now that
they're in
Rob (23:47):
I the think thing this deal ensures OpenAI doesn't go out of
business.
Matt Allen (23:51):
Yeah, for sure. And then I just read an analyst on
Wall Street today saying, Hey,that is a new risk of investing
in Nvidia is that they have alot of their hope and dreams on
now OpenAI.
Rob (24:04):
Well, I'm going to continue to ride that stock out a little
longer.
Matt Allen (24:07):
Yeah. It's it's yeah, it's, it's an awesome
stock to own and, and Nvidia is,is just, you know, it's crazy.
If you look at their story isthat they, they waited from
their founding date for this.Mhmm. I don't know if you know
that.
They so so a lot of if you, youknow, if you Nvidia, whole
business model for the longesttime was you in your Xboxes or
(24:30):
PlayStations, your yourcomputers, some computers, not
all computers, but mainly yourvideo games. Yeah. Gaming
computers. Game gaming computersand your actual, like, you know,
Xbox and PlayStation, but thewhole thing, they kept around so
many people. Jensen convincedthe entire a lot of their
employees to that, Hey, this isgonna happen one day.
Rob (24:51):
Yeah.
Matt Allen (24:51):
And when it does, we're gonna be the ones who can
do it. And boy, was he everright.
Rob (24:56):
It's an incredible CEO story for sure.
Matt Allen (24:59):
For sure. And I think, I think like 80% of now,
Nvidia employees are multi multimillionaires because they stuck
around. Yeah. I think there'slot, you don't see that very
often.
Rob (25:11):
It's a great story. It's it's business done right. It's
what type of company you want towork. I mean, good on them. I
love the deal.
I love the public policyquestions coming out of it. And
so I would call this a classicwin win scenario right now.
Matt Allen (25:26):
For sure. Well, we will keep you guys updated on
this because this is absolutelyhuge. We move on to another
bombshell story that has droppedin the tech industry that's
dealing with public policy.That's one that has caused
corporate chaos in the last Ijust saw Jamie Dimon was just
interviewed and just lashed outabout it. So let's get into it.
President Trump just dropped thebombshell on the tech industry,
(25:48):
raising the cost of an H-1B visaapplication to $100,000 Up until
now, companies paid around$2,500 per worker. Who does this
hit mostly? It's mostly big techbecause Amazon filed over 10,000
H-1B petitions last year.Microsoft, Meta, Apple, Google
were all the thousands. Youknow, and do the math, Rob.
(26:10):
If Amazon wants another 10,000visas this year, that's a
billion dollars in applicationfees alone. Now the
administration does say thatthere are exemptions for
national interest workers, whichI assume is probably gonna be
semiconductor factory workersand a few other things maybe at
Palantir or or defensecompanies, and that current h
(26:31):
one b holders won't be chargedagain. But the reality is
simple. This will shrink thepipeline of foreign stemmed
foreign stemmed talent into TheUnited States, especially from
India and China, which takewhich together make up over 80%
of these visas. And here's mytake.
I'm not worried about companieslike OpenAI or Tesla because
they'll cut the check for thebest talent no matter what. The
real problem here, in myopinion, is small, for small
(26:53):
startups. 100,000 perapplication is just impossible
for them to swallow, and if theycan't afford to compete for
talent, they'll either fallbehind or take the jobs
offshore, and that's theunintended consequence for these
giants. For the next generationof innovators, this can be a
desolence. And now, Rob, I wannaflip this question back to you.
(27:17):
This started in December 2024.That's when Elon Musk and Vivek
Rameswamy, who were alreadypretty close with Trump, came
out saying The US needs moreforeign tech workers. Musk even
reminded everyone that he cameon here as an H1B, and called
engineering talent thefundamental shortage in Silicon
Valley, but then this became aclash. I remember that I was in
(27:39):
with one of my friends, JasonDelgado, we were in Orlando
watching this live. Laura Lueberwent after Trump immediately for
bringing in Saram Khorsand as anAI advisor, who's been a vocal
supporter about getting skilledimmigration.
Then David Sacks and LauraLoomer got into a massive
argument on X. As you know,David Sachs is the White House
(28:00):
AI and crypto czar. I mean, itexposed a massive divide between
Silicon Valley saying, we have apermanent shortage of top tier
engineers versus parts ofTrump's base saying, Hey, H-1B
workers undercut Americanworkers. Trump himself was in
the middle of this, still is,and he's in this bigger than
ever. He flip flopped on thisissue multiple times.
(28:21):
So Rob, this is clearly acollision between Silicon Valley
and Trump's base. Do you agreewith that framing? Do you agree
with what he did? And how do yousee it playing out now that
every corporate CEO has lashedout about it? And then Trump's
base has said, he's not gone farenough.
I mean, it's pretty radical.
Rob (28:38):
For sure. And so what I would say, Matt, is since the
beginning of America, are goingto do what's best for them,
which is they want to make themost money. They want to pay
labor the least amount, and theywant their profits to soar. So
the H-1B visas was a way to dothat, get cheaper labor than
(29:02):
American domestic STEM. I thinkit's an unfair advantage, and
I'll tell you why.
Do you happen to know how much agraduate degree or medical
degree costs in India versus TheUnited States? So the most
(29:23):
expensive degree is a medicaldegree, both here and abroad. In
India, to get a medical degreeis roughly 22,000 American
dollars. So contrast that withhow much it is here in America,
which is, you know, upwards ofhalf a million dollars
sometimes. MBAs are slightlyless in India.
(29:45):
Here, you're talking about 6figures for a graduate degree.
We are at a competitivedisadvantage because of how
cheap India can turn thesegraduates out. And so to me, I
like this policy. It protectsAmerican workers. It puts them
on a level playing field.
(30:05):
You could have, instead ofraising the price, one could
argue that maybe use amathematical formula to say,
hey, if you're bringing amechanical engineer over
mechanical engineers on averagein the state of Utah, make a
110,000, you have to pay thesepeople at least a $110,000 that
there is no advantage to hiringan h one b versus an American
(30:27):
for that job. But, I'm againstSilicon Valley in this one and
with Trump administration, Ithink it was the right thing to
do, protect American jobs.
Matt Allen (30:36):
Do you think with Elon Musk coming out and saying,
Hey, we have a shortage here,it's gonna create even more
shortage, That we're not hiringthe best talent in America
because there's that we shouldbe bringing down the best talent
around the world no matter what.
Rob (30:51):
But why aren't we? Who's to say the best talent isn't in
America right now? Thesecompanies are just trying to
find that much more profitmargin for their shareholders
and their CEOs and board ofdirectors. What I'm saying is, I
think if, again, all of ourdiscussions on all of our
episodes have been aboutworkforce, how to solve the
(31:14):
workforce problem in America.We're not going to solve that if
we can very easily just bring inskilled workers from other
countries.
So something has to happen.There has to be catalysts to get
the American workforce to whereit was a couple of generations
ago. This, I think this is oneof them. I get what Elon and the
rest of CEOs are saying, youknow, But at the same time, if
(31:35):
you wanna look at a macroapproach, this is something that
has to happen to help bolsterthe American workforce.
Matt Allen (31:44):
Well, you know, you have Elon, you have, I think,
Saram, David Sachs, yeah, theyeven think Shamath popular, you
know, four billionaires or closeor at least three of them are
three of them are all came h oneb, all are huge in our society,
especially influence andcreating jobs. So I I mean, do
you think that there was acompromise that could have been
(32:04):
made between everyone?
Rob (32:06):
I think this was the compromise. Right? The extreme
position would have been we'renot doing this anymore. You have
to hire Americans.
Matt Allen (32:12):
But what what if you have a startup though that wants
to bring people over that thenext Elon, but can't, you just
can't afford a 100,000 and thenAmazon doesn't see any value in
this person.
Rob (32:23):
But if you're a startup, why can't you find that? Why
can't you find that talentdomestically?
Matt Allen (32:29):
I mean, I'm not saying you can't, but I mean, we
just, like I just said, I justnamed four of the most
influential people today inbusiness, some of them, and you
know, they came there on that.
Rob (32:41):
And we're still the land of opportunity and those four
embody that. I guess what I'msaying to you is, again, if you
wanna solve macro problems, youhave to have some solutions. And
I think this is one of the Trumpadministration's ways of trying
to bolster the American jobmarket.
Matt Allen (33:00):
Yeah. I mean, because I don't really have an
opinion on this yet. I've goneback and forth for a long time
because I'm one who, you know,if we're educating, for example,
one of the things that I hateis, Hey, we educate people in
the West and then essentiallykick them out. And, you know,
no, I think, you know, we shouldhave a lot easier paths than we
(33:23):
educate you in the West. Andalmost says, Hey, if we educate
you in the West, you know,here's a path to citizenship.
Here's the things like that,because, you know, I don't want
us to help, you know, we're, alot of times in China, we're
seeing this as we've educatedChina's next top talent. They
come here in the West, then theygo and get educated and they go
(33:43):
and work and build companies inChina. We see that all the time.
So I think there's a lot ofimmigration issues, but this is
one that is, it's really gonnaimpact the American companies
who rely on this kind of talent.So, I mean, Amazon has 10,000 or
so of people who went just lastyear.
Rob (34:02):
I guess the greater question is, you know, I would
love to hear from Amazon. Why doyou have 10,000?
Matt Allen (34:09):
Elon Musk said, this is a shortage of the specific
type of workers they need.
Rob (34:15):
Well, I don't ever take anybody at their word. Maybe
he's telling the truth. Maybeit's part truth part is cheaper.
You know, everybody always saysthere's three, three sides,
every story. I guess what I'msaying to you is I think the
reason they did it was tobolster, help both to the
American workforce.
And I think that's from a macrostandpoint, we need some of that
(34:35):
right now. And I'm not sayingthat these people should not be
allowed to come in and work, butthere's gotta be there. There's
gotta be a give and take if it'sif it's become the de facto way
of getting the jobs, then that'salso a problem too. And so
Matt Allen (34:51):
I think the, if I remember correctly, the average
H-1B visa worker at Amazon makes$148,000 a year. We don't have
it. I didn't see any data on howit compares to an American
worker. So I mean, that that'sprobably one of it is cheaper
(35:12):
labor.
Rob (35:14):
It's, it's interesting. It's interesting. And, know, I
guess we'll, we'll see how itplays out. If Trump
administration's going to stickto its guns on this, and this is
going to be the new pathforward. As always, business
will find a way and either adaptor or do something else.
Matt Allen (35:30):
So I go to this. Do do you believe that this is a
negotiation tactic with India?Because we're having a lot of
problems with India right now.
Rob (35:36):
I do not.
Matt Allen (35:37):
Because prime minister Modi's came out harshly
against it.
Rob (35:41):
Yes, he did. And and I've actually read some Indian media
surrounding it. And it's it. Alot of a lot of the media has
been focused on, well, France issoftening this. Australia is is
putting on a big push to to havethem go there.
So it's been interesting to readthe media coming out of India
(36:01):
where it basically says, hey.Well, if America's gonna do
this, you know, talented Indianscan just go other places and
work.
Matt Allen (36:10):
Yeah. I mean, that's, and that's something
that I think a lot of SiliconValley has argued is that we
need to talk talent going toAmerica no matter what.
Rob (36:19):
Right. And again, I want to make sure we're getting the top
talent and it's not just acheaper way of having a
workforce. So, or, Hey, how, howabout this then? If I go to
graduate school to become anengineer, it only costs me
(36:39):
$20,000 I go in India. Then wehave an apples to apples deal.
You know? So if part of theproblem is it's so cheap to get
educated and get these degrees,advanced degrees, other places,
then America should drop thecost of their advanced degrees
so that maybe those graduatesare willing to take less, not
(37:03):
come out with so much studentdebt. There's more to the issue
than just, should we being antiimmigrant or not anti immigrant,
right? There's other problems atplay here, I think. And you
said, Hey, is there a middleground?
I truly believe this. I thinkthis was the middle ground that
they came up with.
Matt Allen (37:24):
Yeah. Do you not think like a $25,000 would have
been?
Rob (37:32):
I don't know. I don't have any of that. I I don't know why
they I assume they focused on a100 because if they're going if
they think somebody's worth thatamount of money, then we should
bring them to this country. Butit's expensive enough to say,
can American talent do this?Because it's gonna be the same
cost.
That's my guess.
Matt Allen (37:50):
I mean, it's it's right. Like, it it is a true
blue, you know, corporationsnow, I mean, are in have lit up
the Trump administration. It'spretty funny. I mean, if you go
look at it, someone who followsa lot of politics, a lot of
finance, you have every CEOoutraged, then you have Trump's
base outraged that he didn't gofar enough. Yeah.
I mean, it's it's
Rob (38:10):
really probably tells you the old line in politics, if
ever everybody's angry, you'redoing the right thing.
Matt Allen (38:17):
Yeah. That's fair. Yes. I mean, that's that's what
you have right now. I think Isaw someone say, hey.
I need you to just kick the kickthe kick the kick the tire on
this one.
Rob (38:29):
You know what? I respect him not doing that. Yeah. It
seems like they do not want tokick the tires, kick the can
down the road or whatever oldcliche you want to do. And
that's great.
That's what we want out of ourelected leaders. Right. Try to
solve problems. They don't haveto be right, but try. Try.
And if it's, if it's notworking, then try something
else.
Matt Allen (38:48):
Well, first, well, that's a good pivot into our,
into our next and our finaltopic, which is we Trump has
sent out an executive order onFriday that said the TikTok deal
with Shinum is done, whichallows pretty much Oracle to
become the major investorshareholder in Oracle. They were
(39:09):
gonna have a significantownership stake. They're gonna
have a significant stake inhosting the cloud, TikTok's
cloud, which they already did,but now they're gonna be in
charge of trying to reinvent theTikTok algorithm, which is this
is where it gets interesting isthat Xi Xiaoping talked to Trump
(39:31):
and then came out and said, Wedon't he didn't say we don't
have a deal, but he kinda did.He did a typical China part on
it. I think the whole issue'sover the algorithm.
Rob, do do you believe Chinawill actually sell TikTok or
divest from TikTok if well, it'snot China. It's ByteDance. Let's
be politically correct here.
Rob (39:50):
It is. And, yes, the whole issue's over the algorithm. What
I read was that Oracle was notgoing to reinvent it, but they
were going to monitor so thatthe American investors were
going to duplicate it. And thenOracle was going to monitor the
algorithm to make sure thatthere was no anti American
sentiment or things along thoselines.
Matt Allen (40:10):
And there's very few people who think that you're
make it duplicate. It's beenvery hard to duplicate.
Rob (40:16):
Right. Look, you know how I feel about it. I wish they would
have just shut it off. To me,shut it off for a month or two.
And then let's see what, whatByteDance and China are willing
to negotiate then.
And Hey, by the way, if it goesaway permanently, I'm okay with
that too. But I'm old. I yell atclouds. And so I get it. I'm in
the minority, But I don't knowhow don't know how Oracle is
(40:40):
going to manage to monitor thealgorithm.
Matt Allen (40:45):
Without just completely divesting, for sure.
Rob (40:47):
Yes. That's the real question.
Matt Allen (40:50):
So I think you have two different debates here is
like one, can they actuallyduplicate it? Two, they
duplicate it, divest it, they'llbe able to monitor it,
obviously. No different thanthey'll have the same problems
that any algorithm has.
Rob (41:05):
And if you can duplicate it, why not just launch an
America, why not call itsomething else, shut off TikTok,
and I'm sure all the users willflood to this new thing that
replicates it. And if
Matt Allen (41:19):
there's part, part of deal is that that showing
them the algorithm is they getByteDance gets licensing fees.
Rob (41:28):
Okay. Basically they can't, the only way they can replicate
it is ByteDance has got to showthem how to do it, what the
algorithm is.
Matt Allen (41:34):
Yeah. And that starts with it. Then, then how
successfully a lot of peopleargue that you're not, even when
you have it, you're not going tosuccessfully duplicate on a day
to day basis. It's like, it'slike when you get a workout plan
from, Hey, this is how ChrisPratt lost a 100 pounds.
Rob (41:50):
Yes. He knows he's trained for you and I.
Matt Allen (41:53):
Yeah, for sure. And so, and they can do it,
duplicate it, then manage it ona day to day basis. And I don't
think they can. Meta struggleswith this every single day. I've
always said this.
I've always given MarkZuckerberg the benefit of doubt
because you have peopleengineers on this algorithm,
thousands of employees, and thealgorithm sometimes goes off on
(42:13):
its own, And Meta's the best inthe world of this. Oracle is
not. Oracle is just a completelydifferent business model for
them.
Rob (42:21):
Well, can tell you this. I can be completely objective
because I don't care aboutTikTok. I've never been on it.
I'd be way okay if it goes away.So objectively though, if you're
an Oracle, now I don't own anyyour Oracle stock, so I can be
objective here also.
You're kind of setting yourselfup for failure because if you
cannot replicate it, if youcannot keep an eye on it and it
(42:45):
starts to shed losers, you know,I think it's like a domino
effect. And then it's going to,again, perception more than
reality. Does it drag down thestock price?
Matt Allen (42:57):
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. For sure. I mean, it could too.
Rob (43:00):
I mean, Oracle could have all their cloud stuff, which is
humming along. You know, theycould be all their other lines
doing great as they are rightnow. But if they don't deliver
on this TikTok thing, does ithurt the valuation of their
company because they can'tdeliver? You know, hey, kudos to
the Ellisons and Oracles fortaking this gamble because they
don't need to. But again, doesit impact me one way or another?
Matt Allen (43:24):
Well, you you, somebody used to be in foreign
policy. Can can you kinda walkthrough the listeners about what
has to happen for Congress toapprove this deal? And I assume
it's gonna have to be, first ofall.
Rob (43:35):
So it's not it's the way I understand. So Congress passed
the law. Remember, legislaturethe legislature passes law,
whether it's a state or federallevel, the executive branch then
in for for lack of a term,enforces the law. They they said
it in. So as long as thepresident says, hey, we've met
the law, then if it'schallenged, it goes to the
(43:57):
judicial branch, which they hadthe final say on whether this
law has been so Congress reallydoesn't have a have a fight, a
opponent.
Matt Allen (44:07):
Are they not going to send it back to Congress?
Rob (44:11):
For what? To redo the law? I mean, you don't, you don't
send it back. You don't, ourgovernment system doesn't work
on say, Congress passes a lawand then it's sent back. They
either have to pass a new lawwith a new definition.
Matt Allen (44:24):
That's what I meant. Like a new law. If yours, okay.
Because if you're an investor,you investing in this without a
new law?
Rob (44:31):
Well, I'm not investing in this period anyways because But
it's no, I as far as I know, aslong as the executive branch
says, Hey, this deal meets theletter of the law, until there's
a legal challenge, which thenthe judicial branch has to
decide on, that's it. Those arethe government Congress, the
(44:55):
legislative branch is prettymuch done at this point. Now
they can come in tomorrow andsay, well, think replicating the
pass a new law that says, wethink replicating the algorithm
is not allowed. You have toinvent one from scratch. Then
this would violate that new lawor no Chinese nationals can get
(45:16):
a licensing fee from this.
Then it violates the new law.But as of right now, as long as
the executive branch says thismeets the law and the judicial
branch have challenged, upholdsthat, that it's the law of the
land.
Matt Allen (45:28):
Yeah. But I'm just thinking from an investment
standpoint is I don't, I don't,it'd be very odd to be able to
invest in this deal if, if they,if there's no, if, if there's a
chance in this deal to getsquashed by the courts or
Congress or by the courts.
Rob (45:46):
Yeah. But I guess isn't that with every deal?
Matt Allen (45:49):
Yeah. But I mean, this one's literally you had
Congress pass a law that saidthis thing's banned.
Rob (45:54):
Right. There, there is definitely risk in this for
sure. But Congress at this pointplays no more, no more role in
it, unless they want to pass anew law.
Matt Allen (46:02):
Okay. And that's what was wondering if they were
going to do or not. That's whatthat's I
Rob (46:05):
guess that was my long winded response to how our
American government functions.The legislative branch doesn't
play a role in this anymore.
Matt Allen (46:13):
Have you seen anyone who say that they might pass a
new law?
Rob (46:16):
No, I haven't seen anything about it. They can barely get a
resolution to continue fundingthe government, let alone a new
law on TikTok or doing anythingelse. You can tell, I'm a great
believer in our federalgovernment.
Matt Allen (46:32):
Well, I think this one, there's broad support
besides you and a few others tokeep TikTok. So I think this
would be a pretty easy pass ifit, if it met national security
standards.
Rob (46:41):
Well, if you don't mind, I'm going to continue to root
against it.
Matt Allen (46:44):
Okay. There we go. Alright. Well, you got anything
else?
Rob (46:48):
I think that's it. What, I guess the one other big what I
would ask you, the one other bigstory of the of the week goes
along kind of with what we'vebeen talking about is because
from supposed oppose a pressurefrom the FCC, Disney slash ABC
canceled the Jimmy Kimmel show.In full disclosure, I've never
(47:11):
seen the Jimmy Kimmel show. I'llnever see the Jimmy Kimmel show.
What are your thoughts on that?
Matt Allen (47:16):
Well, thought it was the SEC chair did come out and
say that he did pressure them.He was very there's few cases in
the Supreme Court in the pastthat have pretty much bandaged
this, ruled this illegal. Ithink AB I think Disney's
setting up a Supreme Court casehere by letting Jimmy Kimmel
come back on. I think they'regoing full on, taking all the
way up to the Supreme Court.Think a rule in favor of Disney,
(47:41):
I think what the Trumpadministration did was
unconstitutional.
I think this is the definition.Even though you had the whole
public airways and stuffagreement, had two Supreme Court
cases that said, even though itis public airways, you can't
pressure even through becausethey're pressuring through
Nexstar right now. In 'eightyseven, it was the ladies Justice
(48:03):
League case, I think that'scalled, is the ones that they
won for the same exact setup.And Why so
Rob (48:13):
don't we double or nothing our lunch bet on whether they
win at the Supreme Court?
Matt Allen (48:18):
Yeah. We we can. I mean, I I think it's I think
it's I I would love to take thatbecause I I I'm very confident
that they will that they wouldwin. Now, wouldn't take the bet
that they're gonna take it allthe way up there because I don't
know if if if Bob Iger andDisney wants another cultural
war.
Rob (48:33):
Well, they lost the last one for sure.
Matt Allen (48:35):
And so I I just don't know because because this
would be right up Trump's alley.Trump, president Trump loves
doing these type of wars. Thisis a publicly traded company.
This is Cracker Barrel thiswould be Cracker Barrel on
steroids if this were to happen.
Rob (48:52):
So do you know back in the seventies and eighties, Congress
had passed a law about whatcould be shown on TV between the
hours of eight and 10PM? It'scalled the I wanna say it was
called something like the FamilyDefense Act or something like
that. Did you know this? Andthen finally, the reason sitcoms
went away is Congress and again,stupidity did away with it. I
(49:18):
want to say in the latenineties.
And ever since then, you know,TV has been trash. But my point
is these are public airwaves,and so therefore, the American
government should have a say ofwhat's goes over what goes over
the airwaves. I'll double downeven more. And I think if they
do take it to the Supreme courtand they lose, I think if you're
streaming services and thingslike that, you, you, you, the
(49:41):
FCC, I think is coming hardcorefor everything from Netflix to
HBO. And I think Hollywood'sgoing be in for a rude
awakening.
Matt Allen (49:52):
Well, first of all, what I would do, what I would
have done first, if I was BobIger, I would just return Kimmel
show to YouTube because he hemay they get around 122,000
views on on the TV when theycrush it on YouTube, millions.
That would have probably pissedoff the administration a lot and
(50:14):
that they could have legallydone that because YouTube's not
public airwaves. And so
Rob (50:18):
there's an argument to be made that they, they flow over
Fiverr, which is regulated andhas fees for the government.
There are some arguments to besaid that everything you and I
do and everybody else that's onthe internet has some sort of
public component to it.
Matt Allen (50:34):
Yeah. But the Supreme Court's pretty much
ruled every time in favor of thecontent. Mean, protect, they
protect.
Rob (50:42):
We've never had a Supreme Court like this.
Matt Allen (50:44):
They protect the first amendment like crazy.
Thank goodness they do, if theydidn't, this, because I really
think two hundred years fromnow, what I worry about, and
this is why I absolutely hate itbecause I mean, this is how you
create propaganda and you createthings that go on there that I
just hate it. So I, and like Isaid, there's a pretty don't
Rob (51:04):
ever see any propaganda in everyday You and I never see any
propaganda in everyday life onTV and every other form of
media.
Matt Allen (51:12):
Yeah, but all that's happening right now is that the
Trump administration is gettingback for what the social media
companies did, but it's twowrongs don't make it right. I
didn't support it in the past.I'm not gonna support it now
just because it's on local TVcable and not in my, where I
purview, where I look, doesn'tmean I'm I think it's, it's not,
(51:34):
it's not a good precedent to setbecause then there, where does
it stop? Is it stop next to ourpodcast?
Rob (51:38):
That was my, that's my point. If this starts, it
doesn't stop.
Matt Allen (51:41):
Exactly. That's why you just can't let it start. So
this should be as you got to nipit in the bud. And thankfully
the courts have usually alwaysdone that for the first
amendment specifically. I mean,even I wrote a paper one time in
college on revenge porn, theyprotected that, which is, which
is when you, you have nudes ofsomeone and you send it out
because you break up and now,like you break up and you use it
(52:02):
against them.
And so the court protected thatas freedom of speech then states
came out and passed laws as thefree word allowed. So it's kind
of interesting. Mean, it's ahuge issue in a lot times
because people are losing jobsand stuff because their their
mad ex boyfriend would send thatacross the airwaves, you know,
and the Supreme Court originallyprotected it for the longest
(52:24):
time. They also let stategovernments come in and make
laws about it.
Rob (52:30):
No, that's awful. Again, back to one of the first things
I said on our podcast, had Y2Khad won, we wouldn't have any of
these issues.
Matt Allen (52:38):
There we go. Hey, one thing we should have brought
up in the, in the beginning ofit is we have survived the we're
still here on earth. Our friend,Michael Fisher, the rapture was
supposed to be today. Don't knowif you've seen that.
Rob (52:54):
I have not seen that. Did not read that in the Bible
today.
Matt Allen (52:58):
Number one trending topic across all social media
for the last three days whereit's hit over billions of views
is that the rapture was supposedto happen today and then
possibly tomorrow. So eitherit's happened and meaning you're
here recording this podcast andthat's probably not good or it's
not happened.
Rob (53:17):
Well, here's the thing. If it happens, I'm perfectly
comfortable with where I'mgoing. So I'm indifferent and
this is the first time hearingabout it. Hey, that should tell
our listeners how much socialmedia I consume.
Matt Allen (53:31):
It was an African president who said he had a
vision.
Rob (53:34):
Okay. All right.
Matt Allen (53:35):
And then it just went viral and then people,
people started, you know, peopleliterally started selling their
clothes and their, and theirstuff.
Rob (53:42):
Well then to our listeners out there, we may or may not see
you next week.
Matt Allen (53:49):
All right. Talk to you later, Rob.
Rob (53:51):
All right. Take care.
Welcome back to the Matt Allen Show. I'm here with
the legendary Rob. Today, we'rebreaking down three big stories
that impact the stock market,your portfolio, and just
investing all around. We'llcover the two big stories that
are going on right now. One isNVIDIA's investment, a
$100,000,000,000 investment inOpenAI, President Trump's ruling
on H1B, which has caused masschaos in the corporate world,
(00:27):
and TikTok.
President Trump on on Fridayannounced a deal with TikTok
that it impacts a a few fewpublicly traded companies. So we
have a lot to get into today,but let's get into it. Rob,
what's going on, man?
Rob (00:40):
Plunch of everything's going on. Couple things on my
mind. Number one is is that I amnot legendary. Number two, you
owe me a lunch. Number three,bought a new car.
Matt Allen (00:50):
Well, I do owe you a lunch. The Fed voted last
Wednesday to lower interestrates by, by by they cut by 25
points. So I I I predicted two.I was going for the long shot
and they stuck with whateveryone else thought. So I I
(01:10):
will buy you lunch either thistime, this week or next week.
Rob (01:14):
Hey. That'll be the highlight of my week this week.
Matt Allen (01:16):
So let's hear about your car.
Rob (01:19):
Well, I decided on an Audi.
Matt Allen (01:21):
Okay. Which one?
Rob (01:23):
I got an Audi a eight and could not be more happy with my
first foreign car purchase. Imean, that thing rides so
smooth. Highly, highlyrecommended to anybody that's in
the car market.
Matt Allen (01:35):
Did they bring it? Did they drop it off at your
house?
Rob (01:38):
No. I had to go, had to drive to Orlando, Florida to go
pick it up.
Matt Allen (01:41):
Did you go to the Audi dealership?
Rob (01:45):
It was not an Audi dealership. It was another
dealership. And they were their,their customer service was
fantastic. Fields motor carsdown in Orlando treated me one
hundred percent first classcould not be happier. It was
best, best car buying experienceI've ever had.
Matt Allen (02:02):
That's awesome to hear. Wow. Okay. So you went
down to Orlando. How long didyou stay?
Rob (02:07):
Stayed the weekend. Came back Sunday night.
Matt Allen (02:10):
Cause you're from down around there, right?
Rob (02:11):
The Tampa area,
Matt Allen (02:13):
Tampa area, which is basically, I think people forget
how close Orlando and Tampa are.
Rob (02:16):
Yeah. A two hour car ride.
Matt Allen (02:19):
Yeah. Well, anything else going on?
Rob (02:22):
That's it. That's happy to have a car again and not a
rental car and, looking forwardto a lot of stuff happening in
news. So looking forward todiscussing it.
Matt Allen (02:31):
Yeah. For sure. Well, with that being said, I
don't have much going on in mylife besides all this craziness.
So let's get into it.
Rob (02:39):
That was the FSU game this weekend. Did you go to the FSU
game?
Matt Allen (02:41):
Yeah. I did go to FSU game. It it was good. 03:30
kickoff, so it was a earlymorning from a Saturday. It was
good, though.
We had just announced Miami FSU07:30 primetime ABC game. I'm
pretty sure college game day iscoming down regardless.
Rob (02:56):
Imagine so. Top 10 matchup.
Matt Allen (02:58):
Even if FSU were to lose, I think they're gonna come
down this because FSU playsVirginia on Friday, which is a
hey. That is if you have anAlabama team when they were so
good, a Friday game with yourrival looking ahead, that's a
scary matchup.
Rob (03:14):
I agree. I
Matt Allen (03:15):
agree. This is a bunch
Rob (03:17):
of The classic definition of a trap game.
Matt Allen (03:19):
A 100%. So they gotta, I hope they're realizing
that as well because the fansare, do not.
Rob (03:26):
No. Look, they are rabid for October 4 in Tallahassee for
sure. I think
Matt Allen (03:31):
everyone is. Is, any of your family coming up for it?
Rob (03:37):
Maybe. I don't know yet. It's two weeks out. So there's a
lot that happens between now andthen in my life. So start
worrying about that after werecord next week's episode.
Matt Allen (03:47):
All right. That sounds good. All right. Well,
let's get into our big story ofthe day. This week, actually
yesterday, we recorded this showon Tuesday.
This deal was announced Mondaymorning or Monday afternoon.
We've had one of the biggest AIannouncements in the history of
AI. NVIDIA is investing up to$100,000,000,000 in open AI.
This deal is centered onbuilding next generation AI data
(04:10):
centers powered by NVIDIA chipscapable of 10 gigawatts of
compute. And to put that inperspective, Rob, that's four to
5,000,000 GPUs over the nextyears.
Basically, NVIDIA ships in ayear right now. This first phase
will come online in 2026 withtheir new Vera Rubin platform.
And Rob, on electricity side ofthis, it's just absolutely mind
(04:33):
blowing. 10 gigawatts of data.10 gigawatts of power is about a
quarter of all global AI datacenter capacity today.
At the peak, this project willuse as much energy as the
equivalent of powering 80 of TheNetherlands. You know, this
keeps on going into theelectricity crisis that we're
experiencing in this country.
Rob (04:53):
Mhmm.
Matt Allen (04:53):
And then when you look into it, at first glance,
100,000,000,000 sounds likeNvidia's just throwing money
OpenAI, but it's reallystructured into a partnership.
NVIDIA provides the capital.OpenAI builds the
infrastructure, and almost allthat money's gonna flow right
back into NVIDIA in the form ofchip networking and software
sales. On day one, Wall Streetloved it. NVIDIA's stock popped
(05:16):
nearly 4%, which, you know, fora major blue chip stock like
that, that is absolutely huge.
They added $170,000,000,000 inmarket cap instantly. So the
deal was massive, but the realstory is what does this mean for
Nvidia's wallet and OpenAISurvival? And I will just open
up here real quickly. So in myopinion, this is good for
(05:36):
NVIDIA, is this deal locks intheir biggest customer for
years. If you run the math, Iran the math yesterday, I did
some estimates on the low end.
I did include discounts. If yourun the math on 4,500,000 GPUs
at an average of $32,500 apiece,this is lowballing it. You're
(05:57):
looking at $146,000,000,000 justin hardware revenue. You add in
all the networking and software,and you're looking at closer to
$200,000,000,000 in total salestied directly with this
partnership, with margins northof 70%, Nvidia could see
$145,000,000,000 in profitagainst a $100,000,000,000
investment, and that's aflywheel. The more they invest,
(06:17):
the more demand they generate,and that is on the very low end.
Some people are predicting up to$500,000,000,000 And on the end
for OpenAI, this is huge forOpenAI because this deal solves
their biggest problem, which isaccess to GPUs. The shortage of
AI chips have been absolutelybrutal for them. Wait times
peaked at eleven months for theH100s in 2023. It's still taking
(06:41):
about two to three months thisyear. Now OpenAI has guaranteed
access to roughly 900,000 GPUs ayear for five years.
That's 21% of NVIDIA's totalannual output. Nine times the
allocation of all our customerscombined. You know, it's more
than just saving for them. It'sensuring that they can scale
(07:01):
whenever they want to. This willalso allow them to go after more
enterprise customers becausethey can actually handle it.
They have around 700,000,000weekly users. Make around a
billion dollars a year inrevenue, but they spend about a
billion dollars a year, sothey're not making money yet,
but this will allow them to keepon going after customers. So,
Rob, I will throw this questionto you. When you look at the
(07:24):
deal, who's is the biggerwinner? NVIDIA locking in
$200,000,000,000 in sales atminimum, or OpenAI guaranteeing
themselves 10 gigawatts ofcompute and a massive edge in
the AI arms race?
Rob (07:35):
So I would say, and I've gone back and forth on this over
the last twenty four hoursnumerous times, I think they're
both big winners. I think thisis a genius business move by
Nvidia. I think it's a greatentryway into AI. I think they
got it on the cheap by actingand making this deal now. I
think also that this nowensures, as you were saying, a
(07:57):
profit margin for Nvidia overthe life of this deal.
And for OpenAI, I now think itensures their longevity. Right?
So I think this insulates, givesthem some defense against
Google, against Tesla and Elon,against the other bigger players
in the tech world, in the AIspace. So I think they're both
(08:18):
winners. I think for Nvidia, ifyou were to break it down even
one level, you know, in ourfirst episode, we talked about
how their second quarterearnings beat estimation, but
did not pop the stock at allbecause there were no China
sales.
We talked about how Nvidia hasalmost become a geopolitical
business because of security andarms races and all that kind of
(08:42):
stuff. I think this insulatesthem. This move insulates them
from the geopolitical aspect nowthat they have a built in
customer in AI world. So theydon't have to worry about what's
going on between The US andChina and China and Taiwan, and
so it alleviates some of thatpolitical risk. Mean, it's
definitely still there, but forinvestors, I think it alleviates
(09:02):
some of that.
For OpenAI, again, I think it'sa no brainer. There's two
questions in my mind from thepublic policy realm that this
brings up, which I'd love to getinto with you. Number one is at
what point with the electricitythis is going to take does the
backlash start? And two, whatdoes this do to Intel and one of
(09:25):
its bigger shareholders, the USgovernment and how they feel
about it? So I'd love to getinto more of that with you, but,
would love to hear some, somethoughts on, on my reaction.
Matt Allen (09:36):
And so I first believe that I agree. I think
OpenAI is the winner for surebecause they have the number one
commodity, the hottest, thething that they or to have
access to, which is these whichis the GPUs to build out and
just the data center build out,which is just massive. It's what
they need. I TaiwanSemiconductor is also a winner
(10:00):
here, but the problem that goesinto this is, are they gonna be
able to actually fulfill theseorders? That's one thing no
one's talking about.
I think there's also a lot oflosers here. And Elon Musk has
came out and said that this dealis very concerning already.
Obviously, he
Rob (10:14):
But he's a big loser in this deal.
Matt Allen (10:15):
He is. And so, there's a lot of things. Mean,
you you have NVIDIA also has apretty big risk too because you
had some analysts comes out andsay, hey, what if what if
OpenAI, what if these large Legomodels as we know it today are
not gonna be around three yearsfrom now? What if what if we
what if they look different?What if there's another
competitor on the rise?
(10:36):
You know, I'm not saying that'strue, but, you know, NVIDIA is
going all in on OpenAI to thissense. On the other hand, OpenAI
has hedged a lot of their bets.Nvidia is kinda, in my opinion,
doing the opposite. They'rethey're they're all they're
concentrating theirs. So there'sa lot of things that I mean, it
was this this was a bombshelldeal.
Rob (10:58):
I don't think Nvidia could have found a cheaper entry point
into what they just did into theAI space like that. So that's
why I think it's a geniusbusiness move. The real question
is with these data centers andthe electricity it draws, is
that going to impact singlefamily households? Is that going
(11:19):
to impact businesses? Is theregoing to be a political backlash
to people saying, Hey, we don'twant this here because they
can't supply the power.
Is it going to, are our localand state governments going to
put a tremendous tax then onthat power that they're gonna
use so that it's really a morecostly deal? I mean, to me,
that's a fascinating aspect thatnobody's talking about.
Matt Allen (11:39):
Yeah, well, in terms of Nvidia, do think, know, some
people are saying, hey. This isclassic what happened during a
.com bubble of you're basicallyhaving vendor financing through
an investment.
Rob (11:51):
Yeah. It is. But, you know, the .com bubble, I just feel
like the AI revolution is somuch bigger than what was
happening in the .com bubblethat if Nvidia wanted to make
this play, now was the time.
Matt Allen (12:05):
Sure. Do you think do you think that they could've
just do you think they weregonna get the get the that do
you think NVIDIA was going toget the the deal no matter what
without the investment?
Rob (12:18):
So I think they would have, but I don't think it would have
been on as big a scale becauseas you stated, OpenAI has got a
revenue spending issue. So wherethey going to get the capital to
buy all this stuff?
Matt Allen (12:32):
Well, they haven't had a problem to raise capital.
Rob (12:34):
Yeah, but how much capital are you going to raise before
you're diluted too much?
Matt Allen (12:40):
I mean, I I don't think they're personally they're
not even nonprofit.
Rob (12:44):
I wonder if they're gonna always be a nonprofit.
Matt Allen (12:47):
Well, they're not. But, I mean, because because
Microsoft, you know, they weregetting tons of money through
Microsoft. They were gonna findtheir they haven't had a problem
raising capital, in my opinion.
Rob (12:57):
Well, eventually, as people catch up to them, it'd be harder
to raise capital. I guess that'smy point.
Matt Allen (13:03):
Yeah. But it's because how how NVIDIA's doing
this deal is is $10,000,000,000per one gigawatt or so. Right.
Rob (13:13):
But what do you but how do you how do you think it affects
some of the other chip makers?What I'd love to get your your
your take on is Intel. After wetalked about the government
putting $8,000,000,000 intothat, taking a 9.9% stake. I
mean, to me, this
Matt Allen (13:31):
Well, I think it's huge for Intel because Intel's
got a possibility now ofproducing, manufacturing some of
these GPUs that NVIDIA is goingto make, because I don't, I'm
not sure if Taiwan is going beable to make all of them that
they can. So Intel in theirmanufacturing might be able to
get some of this if they're ableto have a facility up and
running. I think the bigquestion mark here really is
(13:52):
AMD's deal with OpenAI becausethey had that deal launched in
July. But in my opinion, think,you know, the way I see it is
NVIDIA's deal with OpenAI isabout training. You know, that's
the heavy lifting when you buildthese data centers.
The GPUs will actually be thereto build like the infrastructure
of it. Where AMD deals is aboutinference. So what does that
(14:15):
mean? So training is like theteaching the model everything it
needs to know. Inference is whenyou actually use it.
So whenever you ask ChatMeet aquestion, that's when AMD's GPUs
come in place. So they're kindatwo different deals, plus AMD's
M1 four fifty chips. They'redesigned with OpenAI to make
inference cheaper and moreefficient. And so I do think
(14:36):
it's two different GPUs, but Ido think it affects AMD in the
longer term because now OpenAIhas a TrueBlue partner, whereas
with AMD, they don't.
Rob (14:46):
Well, do you think though AMD could benefit in that one of
OpenAI's competitors, biggercompetitors, will then run to
them that they won't maybe dobusiness with NVIDIA so they
they could benefit from a aGoogle, Elon type into AMD to to
do something similar. Try toclarify.
Matt Allen (15:05):
If if I'm AMD, I'm trying to replicate this deal on
I don't think they have enoughcash to do as big a deal as
this. I mean, they're thrivingas a company. But if I were
them, I would do a big deal likethis, probably with Elon, maybe
with That's my point. Or may,maybe perplexity, but it's a
(15:27):
little bit, I love perplexity,but a little bit two different
things. So, yeah, I mean, it's,it was, this was a bombshell
announcement for sure.
And then the other thing is thatElon's already calling for that
the government needs to lookinto this.
Rob (15:40):
But he and that's my point. Can we be objective looking into
it now that we own a stake inIntel?
Matt Allen (15:47):
Yeah. But but Intel is gonna benefit no matter what
because they're gonnamanufacture them.
Rob (15:52):
Again, it calls into question why we did this in the
first place, because now asituation like this arises and
can the government be objectiveon whether this is an antitrust
cases because we have aownership stake in Intel. That's
not saying we can or we can't,but it's certainly something
that is not being discussed andis problematic in my opinion.
Matt Allen (16:15):
So are you saying it's antitrust because if NVIDIA
chooses to manufacture withIntel backed?
Rob (16:23):
Well, so right now you basically have NVIDIA partnering
with OpenAI. They're gonna getthat money back. Mean, can make
a sort of trust case with that.But my point is, if this
benefits Intel, or if anythingin the future benefits Intel,
the government just gonnagreenlight anything that
benefits Intel, can they beobjective now? Can the
(16:46):
regulatory schemes be objectivebecause now we have ownership?
I'm asking. I'm not giving myopinion. I don't know the answer
to that. It probably changeseach administration, but it's
something that no one's talkingabout right now.
Matt Allen (16:58):
Yeah, for sure. I mean, think in the short term, I
don't think Intel is gonna beable to get, like, 2026,
obviously, Taiwan is gonnamanufacture those for sure.
Rob (17:12):
Right. My point is, at some
Matt Allen (17:13):
point Yeah, was question,
Rob (17:16):
Is this good for Intel or isn't it? And if that question's
even being asked by regulators,that's a problem.
Matt Allen (17:23):
Yeah. I mean, and and it's obviously good for
anyone who manufactures semis,which they do. So I you're
you're right. But then it alsogets into, in my opinion, like
this kind of manufacturing boomthat we had back in the
industrial era and, you know, inthe cars and stuff. Are they
just gonna see this as anational security issue and we
need to manufacture no matterwhat?
Does that make sense?
Rob (17:43):
Yeah. Yeah.
Matt Allen (17:44):
Like, even if, let's just, I'll get a hypothetical
for you. Let's remove theownership and intel part.
Rob (17:50):
Like, we
Matt Allen (17:51):
can't, we just hypothetically so. And when it
came to this issue as anantitrust, is there a world
where they just say, Hey, maybeit is, maybe it's not, but our
focus is winning the AI armsrace.
Rob (18:03):
So in today's world, yes, I think that plays into it. A
hundred years ago, I'm notcertain, but it doesn't matter.
Matt Allen (18:11):
You don't think back in, back, you know, post world
war two that we tried to wineverything
Rob (18:17):
post world war two. You had, you had talked about the
industrial age, know, round of,of, you know, antitrust stuff,
standard oil, all of that. Sothen I think it would have been
looked at differently. PostWorld War II with a foreign
Matt Allen (18:34):
Yeah. Post World War II.
Rob (18:36):
World War II, I think they would look at it exactly like
you said.
Matt Allen (18:40):
Yeah. And that's what I think we had to look at
the your your answer to intel iskind of how I how I would answer
it. How I'm gonna answer it isthat it's, hey. Look. It's very
unfortunate in my opinion thatwe have the intel equity stake.
I understand what you're saying,that you're absolutely right
that we're not gonna look atanything the way we need to when
(19:00):
it benefits Intel at that stake.But with that being said, I
don't think we've I think we'dlook at it the same way, even if
we didn't have that stake,because of we're trying to win
the AI arms race.
Rob (19:09):
Yeah. I agree with you. The point is we shouldn't have to
ask the first question though,
Matt Allen (19:14):
for sure.
Rob (19:15):
Because government shouldn't be there
Matt Allen (19:17):
for sure.
Rob (19:19):
It's fascinating. All of this now tying together is
fascinating public policy. It'sfascinating, you know, finance
policy. It's really the world ischanging so rapidly these days.
Matt Allen (19:32):
Yeah. I mean, was pretty shocking when this
happened. The stock soared 4%,which is $160,000,000,000 in a
day in a market cap. And peoplesay, oh, they made money off
their investment. I don't knowwhy people are saying that.
That's not how that works. Butif you look at the numbers, I
mean, numbers are just so whenyou lowball it, I mean, I went
(19:54):
as low as you can. Mhmm. Andthere's no way around that
they're that they're gonna make200,000,000,000 in sales.
There's no way around that.
That is a minimum.
Rob (20:02):
Well, I mean, look, if you read a lot of Wall Street
analysts, you know, none of themreally adjusted their price
targets for Nvidia after thedeal was announced.
Matt Allen (20:10):
No, and Nvidia's
Rob (20:12):
Was technology good.
Matt Allen (20:14):
Jensen said, Hey, our numbers are not including
our future projections are notincluding this new deal, which
is wild. And they've what'sinteresting between the .com era
and what Nvidia's done, when itwas kind of especially between,
you know, when OpenAI launched,ChatDuty launched, NVIDIA stock
soared. And it got to the pointwhere you're like, all right, at
(20:35):
what point is this a bubble? I'mnot saying that we're not in a
bubble right now, but in termsof NVIDIA, one thing they did
that we've never seen before isthere's revenue, their profit.
It just kept up.
Rob (20:46):
Right. Every quarter, every quarter it beats estimates.
Matt Allen (20:50):
I mean, it's it's been unbelievable. But when it
and and, you know, and theninteresting, they aren't the
other companies are not seeing,you know, Meta or Netflix is
spending a lot. These othercompanies are not seeing that
type of revenue and profit fromit, from AI stuff, because
they're building out things, Andthat's where people are calling
(21:10):
a bubble, which might be true,but I do believe in the long
term they will. It's just likeone of my biggest pet peeves is
when people still brag about the.com bubble. I'm like, we
might've had a bubble for ayear, but this whole .com thing
pretty worked, you know, itworked out.
You got your apps, you know, andthat's gonna be the same story.
Even we have a bubble in AI,that's gonna be the same story.
(21:31):
But when it comes to when youinvest, know, one of my favorite
analogies is, hey, one of thebest ways to invest in new tech
is to have the gold race. Sowhat does that mean? Well,
everyone went out west to minegold.
And I think one out of 10 peopleactually found gold, but they
said, that's why you say toinvest in the people who sell
(21:51):
the shovels, because the peoplewho sold the shovels sold
shovels to all 10 of those goldminers. They made money no
matter what. And Nvidia isessentially, is the person
selling the shovels.
Rob (22:02):
There are companies still in business today that, that,
came out of the gold rush. LeviStrauss and company, Wells
Fargo, that, that has been anold business saying for longer
than both of us have been alive.You want to sell, you wanted to
sell the picks and shovels, notthe promise of gold.
Matt Allen (22:20):
Sure. And everyone, if you could have predicted the
next Google early on, that'sawesome, but there was a lot of
next Googles. There was a lot ofnext stuff, but it was very
obvious what Google you know,hindsight, it was very obvious
what Google needed to besuccessful, which is data
centers, a different kind ofdata centers and AI, the cloud,
(22:41):
things like that. So that thatreally, I mean
Rob (22:44):
Look. I remember at the dawn of the Internet, Yahoo was
a much bigger name than Google.
Matt Allen (22:48):
For sure. And you had ask Jeeves, you had a lot of
different things. And I will saythis, we're, we are in a
different time where, like,especially these large language
models, Zach, when it, with openAIs, the amount of money they
have, the amount of users theyhave, it's going be hard for
them to not be successful andnot be around for a long time,
in my opinion, or long time asin, know, let's say ten years.
(23:08):
Maybe they're not number one,but I mean, they have to really
mess this up, which we, youknow, when AskJeeves is around,
say, they didn't have thecapital and the users and things
like that ChatDBT has. But itdoesn't mean that like a Gemini,
things like that won't takethem.
That would really hurt, at thecurrent valuation of OpenAI,
that would really hurt it. Butthe long term success of it just
(23:30):
going out of business, I don'tknow. When you have 700,
Chattypd has 700,000,000 weeklyusers. That's unbelievable.
Rob (23:37):
It is unbelievable. And I don't have an argued for, I
think they're going out ofbusiness, but
Matt Allen (23:42):
Well, that's just a risk that Nvidia has now that
they're in
Rob (23:47):
I the think thing this deal ensures OpenAI doesn't go out of
business.
Matt Allen (23:51):
Yeah, for sure. And then I just read an analyst on
Wall Street today saying, Hey,that is a new risk of investing
in Nvidia is that they have alot of their hope and dreams on
now OpenAI.
Rob (24:04):
Well, I'm going to continue to ride that stock out a little
longer.
Matt Allen (24:07):
Yeah. It's it's yeah, it's, it's an awesome
stock to own and, and Nvidia is,is just, you know, it's crazy.
If you look at their story isthat they, they waited from
their founding date for this.Mhmm. I don't know if you know
that.
They so so a lot of if you, youknow, if you Nvidia, whole
business model for the longesttime was you in your Xboxes or
(24:30):
PlayStations, your yourcomputers, some computers, not
all computers, but mainly yourvideo games. Yeah. Gaming
computers. Game gaming computersand your actual, like, you know,
Xbox and PlayStation, but thewhole thing, they kept around so
many people. Jensen convincedthe entire a lot of their
employees to that, Hey, this isgonna happen one day.
Rob (24:51):
Yeah.
Matt Allen (24:51):
And when it does, we're gonna be the ones who can
do it. And boy, was he everright.
Rob (24:56):
It's an incredible CEO story for sure.
Matt Allen (24:59):
For sure. And I think, I think like 80% of now,
Nvidia employees are multi multimillionaires because they stuck
around. Yeah. I think there'slot, you don't see that very
often.
Rob (25:11):
It's a great story. It's it's business done right. It's
what type of company you want towork. I mean, good on them. I
love the deal.
I love the public policyquestions coming out of it. And
so I would call this a classicwin win scenario right now.
Matt Allen (25:26):
For sure. Well, we will keep you guys updated on
this because this is absolutelyhuge. We move on to another
bombshell story that has droppedin the tech industry that's
dealing with public policy.That's one that has caused
corporate chaos in the last Ijust saw Jamie Dimon was just
interviewed and just lashed outabout it. So let's get into it.
President Trump just dropped thebombshell on the tech industry,
(25:48):
raising the cost of an H-1B visaapplication to $100,000 Up until
now, companies paid around$2,500 per worker. Who does this
hit mostly? It's mostly big techbecause Amazon filed over 10,000
H-1B petitions last year.Microsoft, Meta, Apple, Google
were all the thousands. Youknow, and do the math, Rob.
(26:10):
If Amazon wants another 10,000visas this year, that's a
billion dollars in applicationfees alone. Now the
administration does say thatthere are exemptions for
national interest workers, whichI assume is probably gonna be
semiconductor factory workersand a few other things maybe at
Palantir or or defensecompanies, and that current h
(26:31):
one b holders won't be chargedagain. But the reality is
simple. This will shrink thepipeline of foreign stemmed
foreign stemmed talent into TheUnited States, especially from
India and China, which takewhich together make up over 80%
of these visas. And here's mytake.
I'm not worried about companieslike OpenAI or Tesla because
they'll cut the check for thebest talent no matter what. The
real problem here, in myopinion, is small, for small
(26:53):
startups. 100,000 perapplication is just impossible
for them to swallow, and if theycan't afford to compete for
talent, they'll either fallbehind or take the jobs
offshore, and that's theunintended consequence for these
giants. For the next generationof innovators, this can be a
desolence. And now, Rob, I wannaflip this question back to you.
(27:17):
This started in December 2024.That's when Elon Musk and Vivek
Rameswamy, who were alreadypretty close with Trump, came
out saying The US needs moreforeign tech workers. Musk even
reminded everyone that he cameon here as an H1B, and called
engineering talent thefundamental shortage in Silicon
Valley, but then this became aclash. I remember that I was in
(27:39):
with one of my friends, JasonDelgado, we were in Orlando
watching this live. Laura Lueberwent after Trump immediately for
bringing in Saram Khorsand as anAI advisor, who's been a vocal
supporter about getting skilledimmigration.
Then David Sacks and LauraLoomer got into a massive
argument on X. As you know,David Sachs is the White House
(28:00):
AI and crypto czar. I mean, itexposed a massive divide between
Silicon Valley saying, we have apermanent shortage of top tier
engineers versus parts ofTrump's base saying, Hey, H-1B
workers undercut Americanworkers. Trump himself was in
the middle of this, still is,and he's in this bigger than
ever. He flip flopped on thisissue multiple times.
(28:21):
So Rob, this is clearly acollision between Silicon Valley
and Trump's base. Do you agreewith that framing? Do you agree
with what he did? And how do yousee it playing out now that
every corporate CEO has lashedout about it? And then Trump's
base has said, he's not gone farenough.
I mean, it's pretty radical.
Rob (28:38):
For sure. And so what I would say, Matt, is since the
beginning of America, are goingto do what's best for them,
which is they want to make themost money. They want to pay
labor the least amount, and theywant their profits to soar. So
the H-1B visas was a way to dothat, get cheaper labor than
(29:02):
American domestic STEM. I thinkit's an unfair advantage, and
I'll tell you why.
Do you happen to know how much agraduate degree or medical
degree costs in India versus TheUnited States? So the most
(29:23):
expensive degree is a medicaldegree, both here and abroad. In
India, to get a medical degreeis roughly 22,000 American
dollars. So contrast that withhow much it is here in America,
which is, you know, upwards ofhalf a million dollars
sometimes. MBAs are slightlyless in India.
(29:45):
Here, you're talking about 6figures for a graduate degree.
We are at a competitivedisadvantage because of how
cheap India can turn thesegraduates out. And so to me, I
like this policy. It protectsAmerican workers. It puts them
on a level playing field.
(30:05):
You could have, instead ofraising the price, one could
argue that maybe use amathematical formula to say,
hey, if you're bringing amechanical engineer over
mechanical engineers on averagein the state of Utah, make a
110,000, you have to pay thesepeople at least a $110,000 that
there is no advantage to hiringan h one b versus an American
(30:27):
for that job. But, I'm againstSilicon Valley in this one and
with Trump administration, Ithink it was the right thing to
do, protect American jobs.
Matt Allen (30:36):
Do you think with Elon Musk coming out and saying,
Hey, we have a shortage here,it's gonna create even more
shortage, That we're not hiringthe best talent in America
because there's that we shouldbe bringing down the best talent
around the world no matter what.
Rob (30:51):
But why aren't we? Who's to say the best talent isn't in
America right now? Thesecompanies are just trying to
find that much more profitmargin for their shareholders
and their CEOs and board ofdirectors. What I'm saying is, I
think if, again, all of ourdiscussions on all of our
episodes have been aboutworkforce, how to solve the
(31:14):
workforce problem in America.We're not going to solve that if
we can very easily just bring inskilled workers from other
countries.
So something has to happen.There has to be catalysts to get
the American workforce to whereit was a couple of generations
ago. This, I think this is oneof them. I get what Elon and the
rest of CEOs are saying, youknow, But at the same time, if
(31:35):
you wanna look at a macroapproach, this is something that
has to happen to help bolsterthe American workforce.
Matt Allen (31:44):
Well, you know, you have Elon, you have, I think,
Saram, David Sachs, yeah, theyeven think Shamath popular, you
know, four billionaires or closeor at least three of them are
three of them are all came h oneb, all are huge in our society,
especially influence andcreating jobs. So I I mean, do
you think that there was acompromise that could have been
(32:04):
made between everyone?
Rob (32:06):
I think this was the compromise. Right? The extreme
position would have been we'renot doing this anymore. You have
to hire Americans.
Matt Allen (32:12):
But what what if you have a startup though that wants
to bring people over that thenext Elon, but can't, you just
can't afford a 100,000 and thenAmazon doesn't see any value in
this person.
Rob (32:23):
But if you're a startup, why can't you find that? Why
can't you find that talentdomestically?
Matt Allen (32:29):
I mean, I'm not saying you can't, but I mean, we
just, like I just said, I justnamed four of the most
influential people today inbusiness, some of them, and you
know, they came there on that.
Rob (32:41):
And we're still the land of opportunity and those four
embody that. I guess what I'msaying to you is, again, if you
wanna solve macro problems, youhave to have some solutions. And
I think this is one of the Trumpadministration's ways of trying
to bolster the American jobmarket.
Matt Allen (33:00):
Yeah. I mean, because I don't really have an
opinion on this yet. I've goneback and forth for a long time
because I'm one who, you know,if we're educating, for example,
one of the things that I hateis, Hey, we educate people in
the West and then essentiallykick them out. And, you know,
no, I think, you know, we shouldhave a lot easier paths than we
(33:23):
educate you in the West. Andalmost says, Hey, if we educate
you in the West, you know,here's a path to citizenship.
Here's the things like that,because, you know, I don't want
us to help, you know, we're, alot of times in China, we're
seeing this as we've educatedChina's next top talent. They
come here in the West, then theygo and get educated and they go
(33:43):
and work and build companies inChina. We see that all the time.
So I think there's a lot ofimmigration issues, but this is
one that is, it's really gonnaimpact the American companies
who rely on this kind of talent.So, I mean, Amazon has 10,000 or
so of people who went just lastyear.
Rob (34:02):
I guess the greater question is, you know, I would
love to hear from Amazon. Why doyou have 10,000?
Matt Allen (34:09):
Elon Musk said, this is a shortage of the specific
type of workers they need.
Rob (34:15):
Well, I don't ever take anybody at their word. Maybe
he's telling the truth. Maybeit's part truth part is cheaper.
You know, everybody always saysthere's three, three sides,
every story. I guess what I'msaying to you is I think the
reason they did it was tobolster, help both to the
American workforce.
And I think that's from a macrostandpoint, we need some of that
(34:35):
right now. And I'm not sayingthat these people should not be
allowed to come in and work, butthere's gotta be there. There's
gotta be a give and take if it'sif it's become the de facto way
of getting the jobs, then that'salso a problem too. And so
Matt Allen (34:51):
I think the, if I remember correctly, the average
H-1B visa worker at Amazon makes$148,000 a year. We don't have
it. I didn't see any data on howit compares to an American
worker. So I mean, that that'sprobably one of it is cheaper
(35:12):
labor.
Rob (35:14):
It's, it's interesting. It's interesting. And, know, I
guess we'll, we'll see how itplays out. If Trump
administration's going to stickto its guns on this, and this is
going to be the new pathforward. As always, business
will find a way and either adaptor or do something else.
Matt Allen (35:30):
So I go to this. Do do you believe that this is a
negotiation tactic with India?Because we're having a lot of
problems with India right now.
Rob (35:36):
I do not.
Matt Allen (35:37):
Because prime minister Modi's came out harshly
against it.
Rob (35:41):
Yes, he did. And and I've actually read some Indian media
surrounding it. And it's it. Alot of a lot of the media has
been focused on, well, France issoftening this. Australia is is
putting on a big push to to havethem go there.
So it's been interesting to readthe media coming out of India
(36:01):
where it basically says, hey.Well, if America's gonna do
this, you know, talented Indianscan just go other places and
work.
Matt Allen (36:10):
Yeah. I mean, that's, and that's something
that I think a lot of SiliconValley has argued is that we
need to talk talent going toAmerica no matter what.
Rob (36:19):
Right. And again, I want to make sure we're getting the top
talent and it's not just acheaper way of having a
workforce. So, or, Hey, how, howabout this then? If I go to
graduate school to become anengineer, it only costs me
(36:39):
$20,000 I go in India. Then wehave an apples to apples deal.
You know? So if part of theproblem is it's so cheap to get
educated and get these degrees,advanced degrees, other places,
then America should drop thecost of their advanced degrees
so that maybe those graduatesare willing to take less, not
(37:03):
come out with so much studentdebt. There's more to the issue
than just, should we being antiimmigrant or not anti immigrant,
right? There's other problems atplay here, I think. And you
said, Hey, is there a middleground?
I truly believe this. I thinkthis was the middle ground that
they came up with.
Matt Allen (37:24):
Yeah. Do you not think like a $25,000 would have
been?
Rob (37:32):
I don't know. I don't have any of that. I I don't know why
they I assume they focused on a100 because if they're going if
they think somebody's worth thatamount of money, then we should
bring them to this country. Butit's expensive enough to say,
can American talent do this?Because it's gonna be the same
cost.
That's my guess.
Matt Allen (37:50):
I mean, it's it's right. Like, it it is a true
blue, you know, corporationsnow, I mean, are in have lit up
the Trump administration. It'spretty funny. I mean, if you go
look at it, someone who followsa lot of politics, a lot of
finance, you have every CEOoutraged, then you have Trump's
base outraged that he didn't gofar enough. Yeah.
I mean, it's it's
Rob (38:10):
really probably tells you the old line in politics, if
ever everybody's angry, you'redoing the right thing.
Matt Allen (38:17):
Yeah. That's fair. Yes. I mean, that's that's what
you have right now. I think Isaw someone say, hey.
I need you to just kick the kickthe kick the kick the tire on
this one.
Rob (38:29):
You know what? I respect him not doing that. Yeah. It
seems like they do not want tokick the tires, kick the can
down the road or whatever oldcliche you want to do. And
that's great.
That's what we want out of ourelected leaders. Right. Try to
solve problems. They don't haveto be right, but try. Try.
And if it's, if it's notworking, then try something
else.
Matt Allen (38:48):
Well, first, well, that's a good pivot into our,
into our next and our finaltopic, which is we Trump has
sent out an executive order onFriday that said the TikTok deal
with Shinum is done, whichallows pretty much Oracle to
become the major investorshareholder in Oracle. They were
(39:09):
gonna have a significantownership stake. They're gonna
have a significant stake inhosting the cloud, TikTok's
cloud, which they already did,but now they're gonna be in
charge of trying to reinvent theTikTok algorithm, which is this
is where it gets interesting isthat Xi Xiaoping talked to Trump
(39:31):
and then came out and said, Wedon't he didn't say we don't
have a deal, but he kinda did.He did a typical China part on
it. I think the whole issue'sover the algorithm.
Rob, do do you believe Chinawill actually sell TikTok or
divest from TikTok if well, it'snot China. It's ByteDance. Let's
be politically correct here.
Rob (39:50):
It is. And, yes, the whole issue's over the algorithm. What
I read was that Oracle was notgoing to reinvent it, but they
were going to monitor so thatthe American investors were
going to duplicate it. And thenOracle was going to monitor the
algorithm to make sure thatthere was no anti American
sentiment or things along thoselines.
Matt Allen (40:10):
And there's very few people who think that you're
make it duplicate. It's beenvery hard to duplicate.
Rob (40:16):
Right. Look, you know how I feel about it. I wish they would
have just shut it off. To me,shut it off for a month or two.
And then let's see what, whatByteDance and China are willing
to negotiate then.
And Hey, by the way, if it goesaway permanently, I'm okay with
that too. But I'm old. I yell atclouds. And so I get it. I'm in
the minority, But I don't knowhow don't know how Oracle is
(40:40):
going to manage to monitor thealgorithm.
Matt Allen (40:45):
Without just completely divesting, for sure.
Rob (40:47):
Yes. That's the real question.
Matt Allen (40:50):
So I think you have two different debates here is
like one, can they actuallyduplicate it? Two, they
duplicate it, divest it, they'llbe able to monitor it,
obviously. No different thanthey'll have the same problems
that any algorithm has.
Rob (41:05):
And if you can duplicate it, why not just launch an
America, why not call itsomething else, shut off TikTok,
and I'm sure all the users willflood to this new thing that
replicates it. And if
Matt Allen (41:19):
there's part, part of deal is that that showing
them the algorithm is they getByteDance gets licensing fees.
Rob (41:28):
Okay. Basically they can't, the only way they can replicate
it is ByteDance has got to showthem how to do it, what the
algorithm is.
Matt Allen (41:34):
Yeah. And that starts with it. Then, then how
successfully a lot of peopleargue that you're not, even when
you have it, you're not going tosuccessfully duplicate on a day
to day basis. It's like, it'slike when you get a workout plan
from, Hey, this is how ChrisPratt lost a 100 pounds.
Rob (41:50):
Yes. He knows he's trained for you and I.
Matt Allen (41:53):
Yeah, for sure. And so, and they can do it,
duplicate it, then manage it ona day to day basis. And I don't
think they can. Meta struggleswith this every single day. I've
always said this.
I've always given MarkZuckerberg the benefit of doubt
because you have peopleengineers on this algorithm,
thousands of employees, and thealgorithm sometimes goes off on
(42:13):
its own, And Meta's the best inthe world of this. Oracle is
not. Oracle is just a completelydifferent business model for
them.
Rob (42:21):
Well, can tell you this. I can be completely objective
because I don't care aboutTikTok. I've never been on it.
I'd be way okay if it goes away.So objectively though, if you're
an Oracle, now I don't own anyyour Oracle stock, so I can be
objective here also.
You're kind of setting yourselfup for failure because if you
cannot replicate it, if youcannot keep an eye on it and it
(42:45):
starts to shed losers, you know,I think it's like a domino
effect. And then it's going to,again, perception more than
reality. Does it drag down thestock price?
Matt Allen (42:57):
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. For sure. I mean, it could too.
Rob (43:00):
I mean, Oracle could have all their cloud stuff, which is
humming along. You know, theycould be all their other lines
doing great as they are rightnow. But if they don't deliver
on this TikTok thing, does ithurt the valuation of their
company because they can'tdeliver? You know, hey, kudos to
the Ellisons and Oracles fortaking this gamble because they
don't need to. But again, doesit impact me one way or another?
Matt Allen (43:24):
Well, you you, somebody used to be in foreign
policy. Can can you kinda walkthrough the listeners about what
has to happen for Congress toapprove this deal? And I assume
it's gonna have to be, first ofall.
Rob (43:35):
So it's not it's the way I understand. So Congress passed
the law. Remember, legislaturethe legislature passes law,
whether it's a state or federallevel, the executive branch then
in for for lack of a term,enforces the law. They they said
it in. So as long as thepresident says, hey, we've met
the law, then if it'schallenged, it goes to the
(43:57):
judicial branch, which they hadthe final say on whether this
law has been so Congress reallydoesn't have a have a fight, a
opponent.
Matt Allen (44:07):
Are they not going to send it back to Congress?
Rob (44:11):
For what? To redo the law? I mean, you don't, you don't
send it back. You don't, ourgovernment system doesn't work
on say, Congress passes a lawand then it's sent back. They
either have to pass a new lawwith a new definition.
Matt Allen (44:24):
That's what I meant. Like a new law. If yours, okay.
Because if you're an investor,you investing in this without a
new law?
Rob (44:31):
Well, I'm not investing in this period anyways because But
it's no, I as far as I know, aslong as the executive branch
says, Hey, this deal meets theletter of the law, until there's
a legal challenge, which thenthe judicial branch has to
decide on, that's it. Those arethe government Congress, the
(44:55):
legislative branch is prettymuch done at this point. Now
they can come in tomorrow andsay, well, think replicating the
pass a new law that says, wethink replicating the algorithm
is not allowed. You have toinvent one from scratch. Then
this would violate that new lawor no Chinese nationals can get
(45:16):
a licensing fee from this.
Then it violates the new law.But as of right now, as long as
the executive branch says thismeets the law and the judicial
branch have challenged, upholdsthat, that it's the law of the
land.
Matt Allen (45:28):
Yeah. But I'm just thinking from an investment
standpoint is I don't, I don't,it'd be very odd to be able to
invest in this deal if, if they,if there's no, if, if there's a
chance in this deal to getsquashed by the courts or
Congress or by the courts.
Rob (45:46):
Yeah. But I guess isn't that with every deal?
Matt Allen (45:49):
Yeah. But I mean, this one's literally you had
Congress pass a law that saidthis thing's banned.
Rob (45:54):
Right. There, there is definitely risk in this for
sure. But Congress at this pointplays no more, no more role in
it, unless they want to pass anew law.
Matt Allen (46:02):
Okay. And that's what was wondering if they were
going to do or not. That's whatthat's I
Rob (46:05):
guess that was my long winded response to how our
American government functions.The legislative branch doesn't
play a role in this anymore.
Matt Allen (46:13):
Have you seen anyone who say that they might pass a
new law?
Rob (46:16):
No, I haven't seen anything about it. They can barely get a
resolution to continue fundingthe government, let alone a new
law on TikTok or doing anythingelse. You can tell, I'm a great
believer in our federalgovernment.
Matt Allen (46:32):
Well, I think this one, there's broad support
besides you and a few others tokeep TikTok. So I think this
would be a pretty easy pass ifit, if it met national security
standards.
Rob (46:41):
Well, if you don't mind, I'm going to continue to root
against it.
Matt Allen (46:44):
Okay. There we go. Alright. Well, you got anything
else?
Rob (46:48):
I think that's it. What, I guess the one other big what I
would ask you, the one other bigstory of the of the week goes
along kind of with what we'vebeen talking about is because
from supposed oppose a pressurefrom the FCC, Disney slash ABC
canceled the Jimmy Kimmel show.In full disclosure, I've never
(47:11):
seen the Jimmy Kimmel show. I'llnever see the Jimmy Kimmel show.
What are your thoughts on that?
Matt Allen (47:16):
Well, thought it was the SEC chair did come out and
say that he did pressure them.He was very there's few cases in
the Supreme Court in the pastthat have pretty much bandaged
this, ruled this illegal. Ithink AB I think Disney's
setting up a Supreme Court casehere by letting Jimmy Kimmel
come back on. I think they'regoing full on, taking all the
way up to the Supreme Court.Think a rule in favor of Disney,
(47:41):
I think what the Trumpadministration did was
unconstitutional.
I think this is the definition.Even though you had the whole
public airways and stuffagreement, had two Supreme Court
cases that said, even though itis public airways, you can't
pressure even through becausethey're pressuring through
Nexstar right now. In 'eightyseven, it was the ladies Justice
(48:03):
League case, I think that'scalled, is the ones that they
won for the same exact setup.And Why so
Rob (48:13):
don't we double or nothing our lunch bet on whether they
win at the Supreme Court?
Matt Allen (48:18):
Yeah. We we can. I mean, I I think it's I think
it's I I would love to take thatbecause I I I'm very confident
that they will that they wouldwin. Now, wouldn't take the bet
that they're gonna take it allthe way up there because I don't
know if if if Bob Iger andDisney wants another cultural
war.
Rob (48:33):
Well, they lost the last one for sure.
Matt Allen (48:35):
And so I I just don't know because because this
would be right up Trump's alley.Trump, president Trump loves
doing these type of wars. Thisis a publicly traded company.
This is Cracker Barrel thiswould be Cracker Barrel on
steroids if this were to happen.
Rob (48:52):
So do you know back in the seventies and eighties, Congress
had passed a law about whatcould be shown on TV between the
hours of eight and 10PM? It'scalled the I wanna say it was
called something like the FamilyDefense Act or something like
that. Did you know this? Andthen finally, the reason sitcoms
went away is Congress and again,stupidity did away with it. I
(49:18):
want to say in the latenineties.
And ever since then, you know,TV has been trash. But my point
is these are public airwaves,and so therefore, the American
government should have a say ofwhat's goes over what goes over
the airwaves. I'll double downeven more. And I think if they
do take it to the Supreme courtand they lose, I think if you're
streaming services and thingslike that, you, you, you, the
(49:41):
FCC, I think is coming hardcorefor everything from Netflix to
HBO. And I think Hollywood'sgoing be in for a rude
awakening.
Matt Allen (49:52):
Well, first of all, what I would do, what I would
have done first, if I was BobIger, I would just return Kimmel
show to YouTube because he hemay they get around 122,000
views on on the TV when theycrush it on YouTube, millions.
That would have probably pissedoff the administration a lot and
(50:14):
that they could have legallydone that because YouTube's not
public airwaves. And so
Rob (50:18):
there's an argument to be made that they, they flow over
Fiverr, which is regulated andhas fees for the government.
There are some arguments to besaid that everything you and I
do and everybody else that's onthe internet has some sort of
public component to it.
Matt Allen (50:34):
Yeah. But the Supreme Court's pretty much
ruled every time in favor of thecontent. Mean, protect, they
protect.
Rob (50:42):
We've never had a Supreme Court like this.
Matt Allen (50:44):
They protect the first amendment like crazy.
Thank goodness they do, if theydidn't, this, because I really
think two hundred years fromnow, what I worry about, and
this is why I absolutely hate itbecause I mean, this is how you
create propaganda and you createthings that go on there that I
just hate it. So I, and like Isaid, there's a pretty don't
Rob (51:04):
ever see any propaganda in everyday You and I never see any
propaganda in everyday life onTV and every other form of
media.
Matt Allen (51:12):
Yeah, but all that's happening right now is that the
Trump administration is gettingback for what the social media
companies did, but it's twowrongs don't make it right. I
didn't support it in the past.I'm not gonna support it now
just because it's on local TVcable and not in my, where I
purview, where I look, doesn'tmean I'm I think it's, it's not,
(51:34):
it's not a good precedent to setbecause then there, where does
it stop? Is it stop next to ourpodcast?
Rob (51:38):
That was my, that's my point. If this starts, it
doesn't stop.
Matt Allen (51:41):
Exactly. That's why you just can't let it start. So
this should be as you got to nipit in the bud. And thankfully
the courts have usually alwaysdone that for the first
amendment specifically. I mean,even I wrote a paper one time in
college on revenge porn, theyprotected that, which is, which
is when you, you have nudes ofsomeone and you send it out
because you break up and now,like you break up and you use it
(52:02):
against them.
And so the court protected thatas freedom of speech then states
came out and passed laws as thefree word allowed. So it's kind
of interesting. Mean, it's ahuge issue in a lot times
because people are losing jobsand stuff because their their
mad ex boyfriend would send thatacross the airwaves, you know,
and the Supreme Court originallyprotected it for the longest
(52:24):
time. They also let stategovernments come in and make
laws about it.
Rob (52:30):
No, that's awful. Again, back to one of the first things
I said on our podcast, had Y2Khad won, we wouldn't have any of
these issues.
Matt Allen (52:38):
There we go. Hey, one thing we should have brought
up in the, in the beginning ofit is we have survived the we're
still here on earth. Our friend,Michael Fisher, the rapture was
supposed to be today. Don't knowif you've seen that.
Rob (52:54):
I have not seen that. Did not read that in the Bible
today.
Matt Allen (52:58):
Number one trending topic across all social media
for the last three days whereit's hit over billions of views
is that the rapture was supposedto happen today and then
possibly tomorrow. So eitherit's happened and meaning you're
here recording this podcast andthat's probably not good or it's
not happened.
Rob (53:17):
Well, here's the thing. If it happens, I'm perfectly
comfortable with where I'mgoing. So I'm indifferent and
this is the first time hearingabout it. Hey, that should tell
our listeners how much socialmedia I consume.
Matt Allen (53:31):
It was an African president who said he had a
vision.
Rob (53:34):
Okay. All right.
Matt Allen (53:35):
And then it just went viral and then people,
people started, you know, peopleliterally started selling their
clothes and their, and theirstuff.
Rob (53:42):
Well then to our listeners out there, we may or may not see
you next week.
Matt Allen (53:49):
All right. Talk to you later, Rob.
Rob (53:51):
All right. Take care.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist
It’s 1996 in rural North Carolina, and an oddball crew makes history when they pull off America’s third largest cash heist. But it’s all downhill from there. Join host Johnny Knoxville as he unspools a wild and woolly tale about a group of regular ‘ol folks who risked it all for a chance at a better life. CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist answers the question: what would you do with 17.3 million dollars? The answer includes diamond rings, mansions, velvet Elvis paintings, plus a run for the border, murder-for-hire-plots, and FBI busts.