Google Dodges a Breakup, China’s Growing Trade With Africa & Anthropic’s $183B Valuation

Support for the show comes from Gelt.

Don't ignore taxes until it's tax season.

Avoid the stress and get year-round tax strategy with GELT.

GELT is your partner in taxes, proactive, premium, and built-for-business owners, investors, and high-net worth individuals.

With features that include filing and review directly from the platform, a roadmap to track progress, and ongoing expert guidance, their elite CPAs provide personalized tax strategy for both your personal and business taxes.

Get a personalized consultation and 10% off your first year of service when you mention ProfG markets.

Visit joingelt.com slash provg to learn more.

That's joingelt.com slash provg for more information.

I need a job with a steady paycheck.

I need a job that offers health care on day one for me and my kids.

I want a job where I can get certified in technical roles, like robotics or software engineering.

In communities across the country, hourly Amazon employees earn an average of over $23 an hour with opportunities to grow their skills and their paycheck by enrolling in free skills training programs and apprenticeships.

Learn more at AboutAmazon.com.

Tito's handmade vodka is America's favorite vodka for a reason.

From the first legal distillery in Texas, Tito's is six times distilled till it's just right and naturally gluten-free, making it a high-quality spirit that mixes with just about anything.

From the smoothest martinis to the best Bloody Marys.

Tito's is known for giving back, teaming up with non-profits to serve its communities and do good for dogs.

Make your next cocktail with Tito's.

Distilled and bottled by Fifth Generation Inc., Austin, Texas.

40% alcohol by volume.

Savor responsibly.

Today's number, 14.

That is the percentage of Burning Man attendees who are in their 20s, down from a third in 2015.

Meanwhile, in that same period, the over 60 population has doubled.

And in related news, a hot new drug has taken the burner community by storm.

It's called Cialis.

If money is evil, then that building is hell.

Show those up!

Sell, sell!

Welcome to Profit Markets.

I'm Ed Elson.

It is September 4th.

Let's check in on yesterday's market vitals.

The S ⁇ P and the NASDAQ climbed amid a tech rally following the Google antitrust ruling.

More on that in a second.

The Dow was flat.

Meanwhile, Treasury yields fell on weaker than expected job openings data.

Openings fell to their lowest level in 10 months, strengthening bets that the Federal Reserve will cut rates this month.

At the time of this recording, the probability of a cut in September has risen to 96%.

And finally, gold hit yet another record high on ongoing tariff uncertainty.

Okay.

What else is happening?

Google stocks soared 9% yesterday on news that the company has dodged the breakup bullet and will get to keep Google Chrome.

U.S.

District Judge Ahmit Mehta's order follows his ruling last year that Google illegally monopolized the search market for more than a decade as a remedy for that monopolization.

The judge has now ruled that while Google must end its exclusive deals with Apple, Mozilla, Samsung, and others, it can still pay partners for default placement on their products.

We don't really know what that means.

Google will also have to share certain search index and user interaction data with competitors.

But that is about it.

The ruling rejected recommendations from the DOJ, which was great news for Google, also great news for Apple.

The DOJ had requested that Google be broken up, that it stopped Apple the $20 billion a year it spends to remain the default search engine on Apple devices.

Judge Meta rejected those arguments.

He wrote, quote, there are strong reasons not to jolt the system and to allow market forces to do the work.

In sum,

we thought that we were going to have some antitrust enforcement here.

That was at least what we were all expecting.

That was what the market was expecting.

But it appears, no, we're not going to have much enforcement.

The judge has said, essentially, go on and continue as normal.

So to help us make sense of all of this, to help us make sense of the remedy, what kind of precedent it's setting, we're going to bring in former assistant attorney general for the antitrust division of the DOJ, Jonathan Cantor.

I will also remind you that Jonathan was the one who originally brought this lawsuit to Google in the first place.

Jonathan Cantor, thank you very much for joining us again on Profit Markets.

Good to see you.

Good to see you, and it's great to be back.

So Google is up almost 10%.

or it rose almost 10% yesterday because of this ruling.

Just remind us, we've discussed this case before.

We've had you on the podcast and we've talked about antitrust at large, but remind us what the case was and then what the ruling from Judge Mater is now saying.

So there are two separate antitrust cases against Google that we brought at the Department of Justice and we won both of them.

So this particular ruling regarding Judge Meta relates to the search case.

And then the second case, which we're waiting on remedies, relates to ad tech.

And so happy to talk about that separately.

In connection with the search case, the government, along with a whole bunch of state attorneys general, alleged that Google monopolized search, doing things like paying Apple billions of dollars to make sure Apple wouldn't work with any of Google's rivals, to make Google the search default on Safari and iPhones and all sorts of other devices.

Doing the same thing with Android, making it so that if a device manufacturer, a phone manufacturer like Samsung, wanted to have Android in the Android Play Store, they would need to also make Google the search default or use the whole suite of Google products.

Google did the same thing with respect to Chrome and with respect to

third-party browsers and the like.

And so the allegation was that Google did this for roughly 10 years, paid a ton of money each year to lock out competitors and lock itself in, and in the process, secured this massive moat around its business which allowed it to create a monopoly and it used that money that it got from all that search advertising to pay back to its partners like Apple billions of dollars in sharing monopoly profits in order to continue locking in its position.

And so we brought that case.

We did this massive trial.

It took about five years from start to finish.

So the Trump administration, the first Trump administration, started the search case.

When I was overseeing the Department of Justice, we litigated the search case and we won.

And then we handed the reins over to the Trump administration who litigated the remedies, which is the phase we're at right now.

Okay.

So just as an observer of this.

The way I think of you is you kind of revived antitrust.

At least that was what it appeared to be happening when you were in charge of the DOJ.

And I think people on both sides would agree with that.

And so you bring this case against Google.

It's this landmark decision where the judge rules in agreement with you and says, yes, Google is a monopoly, which

to us observers was a very big deal.

And it was also a big deal to the market.

And then suddenly we're discussing the remedies.

And I know that the Department of Justice recommended that perhaps Google be broken up.

Perhaps Chrome should be spun out or sold.

It should be broken away from the company.

You know, this is what we're all expecting.

And then we get the ruling.

And the ruling is basically

nothing.

I mean,

tell me what the ruling is, but my understanding is this ruling basically doesn't really do anything to Google.

Even that exclusive contract with Apple,

they can still keep paying Apple to be

the default browser.

I mean, what has this changed?

Right.

So

this is an incredibly important moment in time, right?

And so we brought a whole host of antitrust cases.

We brought two cases against Google and we won them both with definitive court rulings, including this search case.

We brought a case against Apple and a judge has already agreed with us that it passes the initial legal test as a sound case.

The FTC is litigating cases against Facebook and Amazon.

And then we have additional antitrust cases against the likes of Ticketmaster and others.

Now, this is coming coming at a time, especially in tech, where we've seen no regulation, no legislation.

Nothing has passed.

There's virtually no rules, no guardrails in this country for big tech, whether it's privacy or antitrust or anything else.

They are operating ineffectively in a lawless society.

And so this was the first direct shot on goal that a court had to impose some rules, not extraordinary rules, not rules that are being applied willy-nilly, impose rules after finding that Google, in the court's words, is an illegal monopolist and behaved like one for a period of up to close to 10 years.

And so they had this opportunity.

The DOJ gave it a bold but sensible proposal, which would require their divestiture of Chrome and prohibit, for example, Google from paying companies like Apple billions of dollars a year to be the search default.

The court, notwithstanding its bold statement that Google broke the law, decided to take a much more nuanced and cautious and frankly weak approach to imposing remedies on Google.

So now there are some remedies.

Google, for example, can't pay Apple or others to be the exclusive search default, although it can pay to be a search default, which is very confusing.

And it's not clear how that's going to work mechanically.

Google has to share some information with would-be search competitors.

And the restrictions on exclusivity apply not just to Google search, but to Gemini, its AI chatbot.

So overall, when I think of this is, yes, there are a number of aspects of the remedy that are deficient.

And I think the court got wrong, and I'm happy to talk through those.

But where I really come down is this was an opportunity, a legitimate opportunity based on a finding of law to hold a company accountable and put guardrails in an industry that desperately needs it.

And the court, in the interest of nuance and caution, decided not to do that.

And I think that is a disappointment to many.

I think what is so surprising to me at least is I thought that we had already taken the opportunity.

I mean, that is the way I think the market felt.

And I think that's the way a lot of people felt is that the opportunity had been seized.

And that was when the judge said, yes, this is an illegal monopoly.

And so it is so surprising to be in this situation.

By the way, I remember

a lot of people said that I was being too lenient when I was saying, you know, maybe the most appropriate remedy here would be to get rid of that contract with Apple.

But now we've got Apple up 4%.

The market's basically telling us Apple's still going to be getting paid billions of dollars by Google.

So not even that happened.

And so I guess my question to you is: what happened between the time where the judge said, yes, this is an illegal monopoly and now?

Because it seems that those are totally different places to come down.

And is it,

I don't know what happened.

Did he change his mind?

Was it something to do with the way the Trump's DOJ litigated this?

Like, what happened in that time period?

Yeah.

So, if you read the decision,

what it says is that it appears Google persuaded the judge that the

surge of AI competition from the likes of OpenAI and Perplexity and Anthropic and massive amounts of money coming in made it such that

the court felt it didn't need to restrict Google from paying companies like Apple, because if it did,

OpenAI with backing from Microsoft, Anthropic with backing from, guess what, Google, and Amazon and others would have the money to pay in turn.

Now, the court did something interesting, which I found puzzling, which it said that there are a lot of good reasons why Google should not be able to pay for default placement.

But the court was concerned that if it prohibited payment, it would have a chilling effect on innovation.

And companies like Apple might not use that money to innovate.

We can put a pin in that because Apple spends more money on stock buybacks every year than it does on R D.

But setting that aside,

that little nugget,

the court was concerned that the lack of payments would have a chilling effect.

But it said that it can revisit the remedy.

And so, if the remedy that is in place isn't working and competition isn't improving, it can revisit the remedy and perhaps require a ban on payments in the future.

I personally think the right thing to do would not to be give Google,

the monopolist who was found to have violated the law, the benefit of the doubt.

And if anything, you start more aggressive, especially given the long-standing pattern of anti-competitive behavior and illegal conduct, and then you modulate back.

So

again, that's disappointing.

That was the court's rationale, and it is where it is.

Now that DOJ can appeal that, I actually expect Google is going to appeal both the remedy and the underlying decision, notwithstanding the perception that it worked out well for them.

So we may yet go another few rounds here.

And then the other interesting piece of this is the court has ordered Google and the Department of Justice to go back and propose a new remedy that is consistent with the court's decision.

But reading the decision, it's confusing.

So for example, how can you prohibit exclusives, but then allow Google to pay?

So let's say Google picks the amount of money that's designed to induce exclusivity.

In fact, even if not in terms,

is that illegal or not?

I think there are going to be some challenging questions that the court has invited about what behavior is legal and not.

So it's going to get messy and we're far from done.

How do you address the multiple years in which, as the judge clarified and said, Google was operating in a legal monopoly?

I mean, in other words, the judge is saying times have changed because we're in the age of AI.

But what about all of those years previous where the judge said, yes, this was an illegal monopoly?

Is there a remedy for that?

Well,

that's the issue here, right?

So the remedy is supposed to deny Google the fruits of its violation, and it's supposed to address the monopoly that it has gained and essentially cause the monopoly to cease.

The court declined to do that.

Instead, it felt that the onslaught of competition from AI vendors like the Open AI and Perplexity and others and Anthropic,

plus the relief that it did put in place would be sufficient in the current age to erode Google's monopoly power.

But the thing that concerns me as a former enforcer and somebody who cares about this space deeply is that we need accountability.

Companies who break the law need to understand that it doesn't pay, that if the consequences of breaking the law are less than the consequences of violating the law, then they're going to make the decision to violate the law and they're going to view it as a cost of doing business.

And so, here you had, after generations of lax antitrust enforcement, you have antitrust enforcers who put their

lives on the line,

their professional lives, that is,

and personal lives to litigate this case forcefully.

And when,

now, what message does it send?

Companies are looking at this and they might say, well, if I violate the law, then if it's only a slap on the wrist, then yeah, it'll be painful and it'll be expensive in terms of hiring lawyers, but

it's worth doing if I get billions of dollars or tens of billions of dollars and upside from having a monopoly.

And so I do worry that

in the court's effort to avoid chilling innovation,

it will have the opposite effect, which is promoting future violations because the consequences are not significant enough to create a disincentive to engage in the conduct in the first place.

It almost feels as if this undoes

most of the work that you

and Linacon did

in years previous.

I mean,

at least from a technology perspective, if the precedent now is, yes, we will say that you're a monopoly, but then companies think to themselves, well, I doubt we're even going to get punished for this.

The same thing that happened with Google could happen to us.

Doesn't that kind of undo the work you've done?

Or is that, am I going too far?

How do you feel about this on a personal level?

I'm of mixed minds.

So yes, I am deeply concerned about that.

And that's affect the upshot of what we were just talking about.

On the other hand, I'm not ready to wave the white flag and declare the whole endeavor futile.

We won a major case against Google.

There's a significant precedent.

And the public had the opportunity to see in a published decision what it did to violate the law.

And there are a lot of private lawsuits now that are going to ensue.

We have a second case against Google in Virginia that we won as well relating to ad tech.

And a remedies trial is about to

kick off this month in that proceeding.

And then you have proceedings in Europe and you have private cases.

And so this is going to be, you know, a

longer battle than just one case.

And

I've, you know, when I started doing this work, it was about 15, 20 years ago when the idea of big tech violating the antitrust laws was seen as something that was impossible to prove.

And when I took the job, I was told there's no way we will ever be able to win in court.

And we made it.

you know, significant strides on the law.

I'm disappointed because I felt like we needed more time

to to litigate these cases to their completion, including on remedies, including on appeals.

And so now it's up to the current administration to take

the torch and hopefully they'll continue apace.

But there are going to be ups and downs,

but I think the cause is just too important.

Again, I'm pro-tech.

love tech.

I love innovation.

I want to see more investment.

I want to see us, you know, in the United States be the cradle of innovation and

little startups become great, the next great big U.S.

company.

But in order for that to happen, we need to make sure that the incumbents can't suck up all the oxygen.

And we need to make sure that the technology is safe.

We need to make sure that kids can use it.

We need to make sure that they're not

using their power of manipulation in ways that are harmful to society.

And in the absence of comprehensive legislation being passed by Congress, which the big tech companies are adept at blocking, we need to take the shots we have and make them work.

And so, in that sense, it's disappointing, but it's also not the only shot-on goal we're going to have.

So much more that we could discuss on this.

We're going to have to have you on for a longer segment soon, but we really appreciate your time, Jonathan.

Thank you for joining us.

Thanks for having me.

That was Jonathan Cantor, former Assistant Attorney General of the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice, also one of the great leaders in American antitrust.

It is always an honor to have him on the show.

I'm going to switch gears for a moment, and I'm going to point you to Google stock, which rose 9% on the day, added $234 billion in value.

I will clarify, the real story here isn't the stock.

The real story here is the erosion of antitrust, the consistent deference to big tech that we keep on seeing in the US justice system over and over.

However, having said that, you may remember Google has been our top stock pick this year.

I have said this on the podcast many times that Google is way undervalued when you look at every business from search to Gemini to YouTube, the number one streaming platform to Waymo, the number one autonomous driving platform.

This stock had zero business trading at under 20 times earnings as it had been earlier in the year.

And as I said, it was really only a matter of time.

I think Google is way undervalued right now.

If you're thinking about buying Google, I would argue the time to buy is right now.

It's gotten crushed year to date, down almost 20%.

It's trading at its cheapest levels in a decade, 17 times earnings.

Compare that to the S ⁇ P, which which is trading at like 25, 26.

You know, Google, it's a juggernaut tech company, and yet it's being valued today like it was like a dying industrials company.

Well, here we are, since the time of our time to buy Google episode, the stock is up 45%.

We are now at $230 per share, $2.8 trillion market cap, all-time high for the company.

So yes, this is a loss for antitrust.

It is a loss for, in my view, the rule of law.

But let's be clear, it's a huge win for Google.

And so, if you bought this year, well, then huge win for the investor as well.

After the break, a look at what is happening in China.

If you're enjoying the show so far, give Prof G Markets a follow.

At blinds.com, it's it's not just about window treatments.

It's about you, your style, your space, your way.

Whether you DIY or want the pros to handle it all, you'll have the confidence of knowing it's done right.

From free expert design help to our 100% satisfaction guarantee, everything we do is made to fit your life and your windows.

Because at blinds.com, the only thing we treat better than windows is you.

Visit blinds.com now for up to 50% off with minimum purchase plus a professional measure at no cost.

Rules and restrictions apply.

Hi, everyone.

This is Kara Swisher.

This week on my podcast, On With Kara Swisher, I've got a conversation with former Transportation Secretary and 2020 presidential candidate Pete Budigej.

This was a good one.

We recorded it live and talked about everything from political violence and the Democratic Party's attempts to fix their credibility gap to the Trump administration's authoritarian tendencies.

We also talked about train daddies.

Have a listen.

Nobody's going to just come down and tell us, hey, you just had an authoritarian breakthrough.

It's underway.

And the real question is, does it get consolidated or does it get redirected and disrupted?

And of course, I asked if he was planning to run for president in 2028.

Of course, he is.

You can listen wherever you get your podcasts and on YouTube.

Be sure to subscribe to On With Carraswisher for more.

Today explained Sean Ramisfirm.

A thing about me is I don't drink coffee, but I can handle a matcha every now and then.

Recently, I found myself in New York City at a very cute, straight-out of Tokyo, tiny little matcha shop in Soho.

And there was a line, of course.

And one by one, I watched as almost every person ahead of me broke out their telephones and filmed like a mini documentary while getting their iced matcha lattes.

They were getting all the angles, selfies, regular camera, front-facing camera, peace signs, one with boo, one with the squad.

And I was like, What is going on, you guys?

It's a drink.

And then I read that there was a worldwide matcha shortage.

And then I was really like, what is going on?

And it turns out, laboo boo, matcha, dubai chocolate was going on.

Matcha 24 karat laboo boo, dubai chocolate benson, boom beam.

It's not clocking you that I'm standing on moon beam.

You're ready with me to try the new golden labooboo Dubai chocolate, matcha latte, moon beam ice cream, boba, crumble cookie, and I'm a weekly trip to Japan.

And for anyone who missed it, we're going to explain on the show.

Join us over at Today Explain.

We're back with Profit Markets.

Nigeria, South Africa, and Egypt have emerged as China's top trade destinations with exports jumping by 25% year over year.

Chinese exports to Africa have totaled $122 billion so far in 2025.

They are on pace to top 200 billion for the first time ever.

That is more than double what China sold to Africa just five years ago.

And it's now more than what they are selling to the U.S.

Meanwhile, Washington is moving in the opposite direction.

We've re-imposed tariffs on 30 African countries.

Compare that to China, which has cut tariffs on 19 African countries.

By the way, in the first half of the year, Africa signed $30 billion in construction contracts with China.

That is five times more than last year.

So China and Africa are reforming their alliance, but this isn't just a China-Africa story.

A bigger shift is happening, and that is many alliances all over the world are being formed, especially with China, but especially not with the US.

As we said earlier this year, we are driving the world into each other's arms and we are seeing this everywhere.

The EU just signed its largest ever trade deal with Mercosur.

That's the South American trade bloc that includes Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay.

They've also finalized a deal with Mexico.

They are re-upping their bilateral trade agreement with Switzerland.

India just signed a trade deal with the Eurasian Economic Union.

That includes Belarus, Kazakhstan, Armenia, Kyrgyzstan, and yes, of course, Russia.

They've also signed deals with South Africa and Australia.

They have new accords with Qatar and Saudi Arabia.

Put another way, deals are happening, as we've said.

They're just not happening with us.

And this is all coming at a very precarious time.

As you probably know, Putin is off in China right now, and he's partaking in the Chinese military parade.

So there's a lot to unpack here.

Let's bring in Scott Galloway.

Let's hear what he thinks of all of this.

Scott, good to see you.

Good to see you, Ed.

I want to get your reactions to this China news.

Chinese exports to Africa on pace to top $200 billion for the first time ever.

We're seeing huge trade partnerships between China and Africa.

We're also seeing what's happening with this Chinese military parade, Putin walking along with Xi Jinping next to all of those armaments.

Your reactions to what's happening with China right now, Scott?

Well, in reverse order,

she is about to communicate to Trump and the world that my dick is much bigger than yours, boss.

That

my Bob Mitzvah is going to have, you know, Lady Gaga

and

Justin Timberlake or whoever the hottest people are.

And you have fucking Kid Rock.

I mean, he's about to have a party that doesn't feel sad and depressed because

the bottom line is in China, they can tell people to show up or they'll kill them.

That's probably a bit of an exaggeration.

But

my guess is that military parade is going to get more coverage, more positive coverage.

It'll be a show of strength

versus Trump's military parade was a show of weakness.

The trade with Africa is very simple.

It's us

doing exactly what the Secretary of State and our foreign policy are not supposed to do.

Africa will probably see a lot of people think over the next 20 or 30 years.

I mean, everyone keeps waiting for Africa to happen and it doesn't, but at some point it will.

It's very mineral rich.

Typically, as broadband increases and penetration of these technologies, whether it's AI or cell phone, should give a lot of economies there the opportunity to kind of leapfrog other developing economies.

And what you have is essentially the more trade they do, the more likely they are to align politically, strategically, and militarily

with China.

What you're going to see is China start to open military bases in Africa.

And essentially,

you summed it up perfectly, Ed.

Ever since this tariff nonsense or this war broke out as a means of trying to inspire more dealmaking, it has worked.

Unfortunately, the deals are happening without the U.S.

You summarized it perfectly.

That is exactly what is going on here.

Yeah, seeing it with India, too.

I want to get your reactions to a Truth Social post from Trump yesterday.

I'm just going to read you the full thing.

Quote, the big question to be answered is whether or not President Xi of China will mention the massive amount of support and blood that the USA gave to China in order to help it to secure its freedom from a very unfriendly foreign invader.

Many Americans died in China's quest for victory and glory.

I hope that they are rightfully honored and remembered for their bravery and sacrifice.

May President Xi and the wonderful people of China have a great and lasting day of celebration.

Please give my warmest regards to Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-un as you conspire against the United States of America.

President Donald J.

Trump.

Well, the first half of that was almost, almost sounded presidential.

He sort of look in World War II.

So the history of Asia is basically Japan, which is this soft, democratic, or elegant country now.

But Japan's one of the most warlike cultures in history.

And every 50 or so years, they get whipped up into a frenzy and go into China and kill millions, if not tens of millions of people.

And World War II was, I mean, China wasn't, I don't know if he called him an ally, but he could make that bridge and say, this is a collective victory as you honor World War II,

our mutual sacrifice.

It almost sounded presidential.

And then it feels like Elon showed.

It was a joke.

Well, and then it feels like Elon showed up in a hot topic outfit and said, hey, brother, let's do some K and then let him finish.

And then let him finish the tweet that what?

I mean, this shit isn't even taken seriously.

Owen, give my regards.

It's like.

It's like you're at home watching porn and you're fucking angry because you're vaping and angry because you didn't get invited to the cool party.

And then you start shit posting people in the comments on their Instagram photos because you're not at the cool party.

It's just, yeah, we're in a cacistocracy.

Most people don't know what that means, but it's what it means is a society that puts its village idiots, its morons in charge.

And I always like to move to solutions.

We should be quietly, not via tweets, on the ground, transporting and delivering and training F-15 and their pilots and working with our

incredible ground aircraft and radar technology to take the Ukrainian flamingo long-range missile and basically rally our security forces in coordination with NATO and Europe to take out more and more of Russia's energy infrastructure.

That should be our sole focus right now.

If you want to bring Putin to the table and solve this war and go collect your Nobel Peace Prize, it's very easy.

Ukraine in the last month has damaged, not taken out, but damaged 17%

of Russia's energy infrastructure.

Russia is a gas station with no gas if we take out their energy infrastructure.

Their economy literally collapses.

It doesn't matter how much she likes Putin if their energy infrastructure is taken out.

That should be the sole focus.

America needs to stop

barking and crying and whining and just show up with a big fucking stick.

I remember when he said he'd solve these issues within three days of stepping into office.

Where are we?

Are we seven months in now?

It's unbelievable.

I'm going to let you go,

but I'm excited to see you tonight.

We're going to have dinner.

We are.

It's our big team review.

We like to get together at least once every three or four years to express my appreciation for the good work you've been doing and to highlight how Claire is a substance here and you're just the fucking Kim Kardashian riding bobsled on this Joey Bagadonis podcast.

But you're pretty.

We like having you here.

you bring up the street crowd you're going to help me get into shame margot later because i'll bring a young good-looking guy

uh but anyways you serve your purpose okay all right

say that to the whole company thank you scott see you tonight take care guys

AI startup Anthropic has closed a massive funding round at a $183 billion valuation.

That is nearly triple its $61.5 billion valuation from earlier this year.

The company raised $13 billion in this round, which was well above expectations.

They initially set out to raise $5 billion, but they reportedly generated as much as $25 billion

in investor interest.

Okay.

Anthropic, we all know it.

$183 billion valuation, now the fourth most valuable private company in the world.

If you were to include it among public companies too, it would now be the 87th most valuable company in the world.

More valuable than Verizon, more valuable than BlackRock, more valuable than Unilever and Adobe.

It would be nearly double the value of Starbucks.

It would be more than double the value of Airbnb.

So an absolute behemoth at this point.

And yet...

And you probably know where I'm going with this, and yet you still can't invest.

Why?

Because it still isn't public.

It remains in the hands of private investors.

And this goes back to the same theme we keep talking about.

We talked about it with OpenAI.

We talked about it with SpaceX.

The best companies in the world are not going public because they don't need to.

They don't need the public markets money anymore.

There is more than enough money in the private markets to go round.

The private markets are so flush with cash to the point where when Anthropic goes out and they try to raise $5 billion, seems like a lot of money.

What happens?

They end up raising nearly three times more than that, $13 billion.

That's how much they raise.

By the way, if this had been an IPO, it would have been the biggest IPO in America of the year.

It would have been nine times larger than the next biggest.

The biggest IPO this year in terms of the amount of money that was raised was Core Weave.

And that IPO raised $1.5 billion.

This private round raised 13 billion.

So this is yet another example of the private markets essentially leapfrogging the public markets in terms of capital and investment opportunity and even maybe significance.

I mean, the fact that a private venture round, not even the biggest one of the year, by the way, the fact that that is nine times larger than the biggest IPO of the year,

it's all you really need to know here.

Now, let's quickly check in on the investor list.

Iconic, co-led the round alongside Lightspeed and Fidelity.

Many other institutional investors joining the cap table here.

Blackstone, COTO, Insights, TPG, many, many others.

But the most interesting one on the list, in our view, is the Qatar Investment Authority.

Why is that interesting?

Well, you might remember a few weeks ago, we were talking about how once upon a time, Anthropic had been very anti-Gulf state.

They said they would never raise money from Saudi Arabia.

They said it was dangerous for AI companies to, quote, get in bed with the Middle East.

And as we discussed on that episode, we said that there was a decent chance that they would abandon that principle.

Indeed, they have.

They are now in bed with Qatar.

The Qatari Sovereign Wealth Fund.

is now one of Anthropic's top investors.

Now, to be clear, we don't have an issue with raising money from the Gulf.

Many companies are doing this.

There is simply too much money there.

Again, more money than these startups even know what to do with.

But the about face from Anthropic is striking.

And it is a good reminder, once again, that no matter what these companies say, no matter what their mission statements are, whatever their principles are, whatever they will have you believe, the fact remains, money always wins.

So a lot of Prof G themes coming together in this story, the explosion of private capital, the explosion of Gulf State capital, the decline of the IPO.

But most importantly, what this story tells us is, yeah, AI continues to rip as we all expected.

But still, in too many cases, retail cannot invest.

Okay.

That's it for today.

This episode was produced by Claire Miller, edited by Joel Patterson, and engineered by Benjamin Spencer.

Our associate producer is Alison Weiss.

Our research team is Dan Shallan, Isabella Kinsel, Kristen O'Donoghue, and Mia Silverio.

And our technical director is Drew Burroughs.

Thanks for listening to Prof G Markets.

I'm Ed Elson.

If you liked what you heard, give us a follow and join us tomorrow for our conversation with the one and only Ray Dalio.