history

About a year ago, Nvidia (NVDA 0.86%) was facing one of its biggest moments ever. The artificial intelligence (AI) chip giant was launching its new Blackwell architecture, a system that was being met with “insane” demand as CEO Jensen Huang told CNBC at the time. The company announced Blackwell in March 2024 and the fourth quarter of the year was the first to include Blackwell revenue.

Blackwell was to be the first release of a new routine for Nvidia: launching chip or entire platform updates on an annual basis. Since that time, this new architecture has helped Nvidia’s earnings roar higher, with Blackwell data center revenue climbing 17% in the most recent quarter from the previous one. In the report, Huang said, “The AI race is on, and Blackwell is the platform at its center.” Meanwhile, Nvidia stock has reflected all of this, advancing 40% so far this year.

Now, it’s logical to wonder where Nvidia will be as this story progresses, for example, 24 months after the Blackwell launch. Here’s what history says.

Image source: Nvidia.

Nvidia’s path in AI

First, though, let’s consider Nvidia’s path in the AI market so far. The company has always been a graphics processing unit (GPU) powerhouse, but in its earlier days, it mainly sold these high-performance chips to the gaming market. As it became clear that their uses could be much broader, Nvidia developed the CUDA parallel computing platform to make that happen — and then, as the potential of AI emerged, Nvidia didn’t hesitate to put its focus on this exciting market.

That proved to be a fantastic move as it helped Nvidia secure the top spot in the AI chip market — and the quality and speed of its GPUs has kept it there. All of this has resulted in several quarters of double- and triple-digit revenue growth as well as high profitability on sales — gross margin has generally surpassed 70% in recent times.

To keep this leadership going, Nvidia committed to ongoing innovation, with the promise of updating its chips once a year. The company kicked this off with the launch of Blackwell about a year ago, then released update Blackwell Ultra a few months ago. Next up on the agenda is the Vera Rubin system, set for release late next year.

From platform to platform

All of these platforms operate together seamlessly, so customers don’t have to wait for a specific one and instead can get in on Nvidia’s current system and easily move forward with the latest innovations when needed. Still, as mentioned earlier, demand from big tech customers for the latest systems has been great — they want to win in the AI race and to do so aim to get their hands on the best tools as soon as possible.

So, where will Nvidia be 24 months after the Blackwell launch? The clues so far suggest revenue will continue to climb in the double-digits — and Wall Street’s average estimates call for a 33% increase in revenue next year from this year’s levels. And as Rubin is released, demand is likely to increase for that system as customers’ interest in gaining access to the latest AI technology continues.

But what about Nvidia’s stock price? History offers some clues. Prior to this time, Nvidia’s major recent releases happened every two years. We can look back to the launch of the Ampere platform on May 14, 2020, and the release of Hopper on Sept. 20, 2022. And each time, over the next 24 months, Nvidia stock soared in the triple digits. It climbed 120% in the two years following the Ampere release and more than 700% following the release of Hopper.

NVDA data by YCharts

What history says

History shows Nvidia stock is on track for a triple-digit gain two years after the Blackwell launch. If we use the starting point as the first quarter of Blackwell revenue — this quarter ended on Jan. 26, 2025 — we can see the stock has climbed about 30% so far. But Nvidia still has plenty of time to post more Blackwell sales and potentially see its shares advance in the triple-digits from their level earlier this year through the first month of the 2027 calendar year.

To illustrate, a 100% gain from early 2025 levels would bring the stock price to $284, and that would result in $6.9 trillion in market cap by the start of 2027. This fits into a scenario I wrote about recently, predicting Nvidia will reach $10 trillion in market value by the end of the decade.

Of course, it’s impossible to guarantee this outcome — any negative geopolitical or economic news, or even an unexpected problem like a decline in tech spending could hurt Nvidia’s revenue and stock performance. But, if these potential risks don’t materialize, history could be right — and Nvidia stock may find itself significantly higher 24 months after the Blackwell launch.

Shohei Ohtani has done next to nothing in the National League Championship Series. The Dodgers could sweep their way into the World Series on Friday, with Ohtani as a footnote in the NLCS story, but baseball’s best player has a flair for the dramatic.

Bring on the latest Babe Ruth comparison!

Baseball’s contemporary two-way superstar can do something Friday that baseball’s original two-way superstar never did.

Ruth started three postseason games as a pitcher, never hitting a home run in those games. Ohtani starts his second postseason game as a pitcher Friday, looking for his first postseason home run as a pitcher.

He could hit a home run and be the winning pitcher Friday, because why not?

“I feel like Shohei is a superhero character,” Dodgers infielder Miguel Rojas said.

In the division series, Ohtani had one hit in 18 at-bats, with nine strikeouts. After the Dodgers clinched, this was catcher Will Smith: “He didn’t do much this series. I expect next series for him to come out and hit like five homers. That’s just who he is.”

In this series, Ohtani has two hits in 11 at-bats, with five strikeouts. Over the NLDS and NLCS, he is batting .103 with no home runs, and he has struck out in 48% of his at-bats.

He has not hit five home runs in this series, as Smith had optimistically anticipated.

“I’m hoping he will tomorrow,” Smith said Thursday.

If a player has a rough week or two in June and changes up his routine, you might hear about it for a couple of minutes on the pregame show. Ohtani had a rough week or two in October and decided to take batting practice on the field instead of in the indoor cages Wednesday, and it became MAJOR BREAKING INTERNATIONAL NEWS.

Not just for fans, the ones that have made his jersey baseball’s best seller, and the ones set to flock to the grand opening of a Tokyo pop-up gallery Friday, featuring vinyl albums that pay homage to the walk-up songs and anthems of Ohtani and other major league stars.

Ohtani’s teammates came out to watch that rare outdoor batting practice. The sound guys cranked up an extra dose of Michael Bublé. And, because it was Ohtani, he hit a ball off the roof of the right-field pavilion.

So, no, the Dodgers aren’t worried. And, no, Dodgers manager Dave Roberts isn’t about to move Ohtani down in the lineup.

“Obviously, Shohei’s not performing the way he would like or we expect,” Roberts said. “But I just know how big of a part he is to this thing.

“We’ve got a long way to go. But I just like the work he’s putting in. And I’ll bet on him all day long.”

Dodgers star Shohei Ohtani runs the bases on a leadoff triple against the Brewers in the first inning of Game 3 of the NLCS on Thursday.

(Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)

For Ohtani’s hitting, pitching has been his kryptonite this season. In his 15 starts, including the one in the NLDS, he is batting .207, and he has struck out in 43% of his at-bats.

“I don’t necessarily think that the pitching has affected my hitting performance,” Ohtani said Wednesday. “Just on the pitching side, as long as I control what I can control, I feel pretty good about putting up results. On the hitting side, just the stance, the mechanics, that’s something that I do. It’s a constant work in progress.”

There was some progress Thursday, when Ohtani tripled to lead off the first inning. On the next pitch, Mookie Betts doubled him home.

“It’s kind of like the Bulls playing without Michael Jordan sometimes,” Betts told TBS after the game. “So we get him going and then it’s really going to be hard to beat. You see what happens immediately. As soon as he gets a hit, good things happen. But he’s going to be there.

“He’s going to be there when the time is right. We all trust and believe in Shohei.”

Before the NLCS, Roberts was blunt about Ohtani’s offensive struggles.

“We’re not gonna win the World Series with that sort of performance,” Roberts said.

That sort of performance has continued, and the Dodgers are undefeated since then. That makes it easier to believe in Ohtani, and in what he might deliver on Friday.

“I’m expecting nothing short of incredible,” infielder Max Muncy said.

“All in all, I’m expecting Shohei to pitch a great game, and whatever he does offensively is just kind of icing on the cake at that point. It’s a tough thing to pitch and hit in the same game, especially in a postseason game. He’s going to be fine.”

The Ruth comparison only goes so far. When he pitched in the postseason, he was primarily a pitcher, twice batting ninth. He made 145 pitches in his first postseason start, a 14-inning complete-game victory.

That is about all we can say Ohtani will not do. The Dodgers are so deep that, Roberts’ fear notwithstanding, they could win the World Series with a slumping Ohtani. They did that last year, in fact.

However, with one mighty swing, Friday’s storyline could be less about what he did not do and more about what Ruth could not do. Champagne showers are in the forecast.

Past visits by top leaders to Yasukuni, which honours convicted war criminals, have angered Japan’s neighbours.

The new leader of Japan’s governing party, Sanae Takaichi, has decided not to visit a controversial World War II shrine in Tokyo, as uncertainty remains over whether she will be appointed prime minister ahead of a visit by United States President Donald Trump before the end of the month.

Takaichi, 64, seen as an arch-conservative from the right of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), has previously visited the Yasukuni Shrine, including as a government minister.

However, Takaichi opted on Friday to send an offering, and reports said she was likely to refrain from visiting in order not to antagonise the country’s neighbours whom Imperial Japan had occupied and committed atrocities against in the first half of the 20th century.

Past visits by top leaders to Yasukuni, which honours convicted war criminals, have angered China and South Korea. The last visit by a Japanese premier was in 2013 by the late Shinzo Abe, Takaichi’s mentor.

Takaichi’s decision not to visit the shrine came as Japan’s former Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama, best known for making a statement apologising for atrocities Japan committed in Asia over the course of World War II, died aged 101.

Murayama, in office from 1994 to 1996, issued the 1995 “Murayama statement” on the 50th anniversary of Japan’s unconditional surrender.

Murayama died on Friday at a hospital in his hometown, Oita, in southwestern Japan, according to a statement from Mizuho Fukushima, head of Japan’s Social Democratic Party (SDP).

Hiroyuki Takano, secretary-general of the SDP in Oita, told the AFP news agency he had been informed that Murayama died of old age.

Political wrangling

Takaichi became LDP leader on October 4, but her aim to become Japan’s first female prime minister was derailed after the LDP’s coalition partner of 26 years, the Komeito party, pulled the plug on their alliance last week.

The LDP is now in talks about forming a different alliance, boosting Takaichi’s chances of becoming premier in a parliamentary vote that local media reports said will likely happen on Tuesday.

The clock is ticking for Takaichi to become Japan’s fifth prime minister in as many years with Trump’s impending visit.

Details of Washington and Tokyo’s trade deal remain unresolved and Trump – who had warm relations with Abe in his first term – wants Japan to stop Russian energy imports and boost defence spending.

Komeito said that the LDP has failed to tighten rules on party funding following a damaging slush fund scandal involving dodgy payments of millions of dollars.

The LDP this week began talks on forming a new coalition with the Japan Innovation Party instead.

The two parties would be two seats short of a majority but the alliance would still likely ensure that Takaichi succeeds in becoming premier.

A spanner in the works could be if opposition parties agreed on a rival candidate but talks earlier this week appeared to make little headway.

More talks were due to take place on Friday.

The Milwaukee Brewers have no chance.

Neither will the Seattle Mariners or Toronto Blue Jays.

The clear truth emerged from the Dodger Stadium shadows late Thursday amid a downtown-shaking roar of delight and disbelief.

This is ridiculous. This is simply ridiculous, how well the Dodgers are playing, how close the history books are beckoning, and how an ordinary summer has been followed with unbelievable days of the extraordinary.

The Dodgers are not going to lose another game this October. Write it down, bet it up, no major league baseball team has ever played this well in the postseason, ever, ever, ever.

With their 3-1 victory over the Brewers Thursday in Game 3 of the National League Championship Series, the Dodgers take a three-games-to-none lead with a sweep likely in the next 24 hours and coronation coming in the next two weeks.

The Dodgers are going to win this NLCS and follow it with a four-game whitewash of the World Series because, well, you tell me.

How is anybody going to beat them?

Match their aces-flush rotation? Nope. Equal their hot closer and revived bullpen? Sorry. Better than their deep lineup? Nobody is even close.

The Dodgers are more than halfway to finishing the most dominant postseason in baseball history, it’s all there in the numbers.

The only team to go undefeated through the playoffs since the divisional era began was the 1976 Cincinnati Reds. But the Big Machine only had to win seven games. Since the playoffs were expanded and the test became tougher, the greatest October streaks have belonged to the 2005 Chicago White Sox and 1999 New York Yankees, both of whom went 11-1.

These Dodgers were forced into that early wild-card series, so if they end this postseason without another loss, they will finish 13-1.

The last time a team in this town had such a dominating postseason was the champion 2001 Lakers, who went 15-1 in the postseason with only one stumble against Philadelphia on the night Allen Iverson famously stepped over Tyronn Lue.

Those Lakers were legendary. These Dodgers will be soon.

They are currently 8-1 in the playoffs and have won 23 of their previous 29 games and again, who’s going to beat them?

Start with that rotation. Tyler Glasnow followed gems by Blake Snell and Yoshinobu Yamamoto Thursday by twirling 5 ⅔ innings of swing and miss, holding the Brewers to one run with eight strikeouts, and in three games the Brewers have scored two runs in 22 ⅔ innings against Dodger starters.

And perhaps their best pitcher hasn’t even taken the mound yet, that being Friday’s starter Shohei Ohtani.

Now for their deep lineup. Ohtani is still mired in a career-worst slump, but his one hit Thursday was a leadoff triple that led to him scoring the first run, and seemingly everybody else chipped in. Mookie Betts had the first RBI, Tommy Edman knocked in Will Smith with the go-ahead run in the sixth, a hustling Freddie Freeman scored on a wild pickoff attempt, and on and on..

Finish with their bullpen, which is actually finishing. Taking over for Glasnow with a runner on first and two out in the sixth Thursday, Alex Vesia, Blake Treinen, Anthony Banda and Roki Sasaki shut the Brewers down the rest of the way, and their regular-season weakness has become their strength.

Incidentally, Sasaki’s ninth-inning shutdown was aided by a brilliant in-the-hole putout by shortstop Betts, and that’s just one more way the Dodgers can beat you.

All this, and as Thursday confirmed, they have arguably the best home-field advantage in baseball.

No place is bigger. No place draws more fans. And no place is louder, from the bleacher-rattling roar to the cover-your-ears sound system.

“This place has an aura about it,” Max Muncy said of Dodger Stadium. “It’s the biggest capacity in baseball. Everybody talks about it when you come here. The lights seem a little brighter. The music seems a little louder — that might actually be because it is a little louder.”

Yeah, fans, you might hate the otherworldly stadium volume, but the players like it.

“That’s part of the perks of being at Dodger Stadium, we have that sound system,” said Muncy. “It sounds silly to say something like a sound system could be an advantage. But it really is. When the speakers in the center field are cranking and the crowd is going absolutely nuts and you feel the field shaking beneath your feet, it’s a really big advantage. And that’s something we’ve always had here.”

The stadium rose to the occasion Thursday as it always does this time of year, filling up despite the weird mid-afternoon starting time, constantly standing and screaming by the game’s end.

“When we’ve had those big moments, there’s arguably no place that can get louder than Dodger Stadium, especially in the postseason,” Muncy said. “When you have 56, 57,000 people screaming all at the same time in a big moment, it’s pretty wild. That’s an advantage that we’ve always had here, and the guys love it.”

There’s a lot to love.

Hello and happy Thursday. It’s me, California columnist Anita Chabria, filling in for your usual host, Washington bureau chief Michael Wilner.

Andrea Grossman was a kid when her mother pulled her out of school to join the 1969 Moratorium to End the War in Vietnam, a nationwide day of peaceful protest. They held hands while her mom walked in a knit suit and ladylike shoes, joining more than 2 million people nationwide.

Grossman, now one of the organizers of the Beverly Hills segment of the “No Kings” marches being held in more than 2,000 cities this weekend, remembers that opponents of that long-ago protest threw stinky rat poison on the lawns in Exposition Park so participants couldn’t sit on the grass. But protesters were not deterred.

“It made it all the more rebellious of us to be there,” Grossman told me. “It made us more insistent that we had to be there.”

Today, that rat poison is being metaphorically hurled by MAGA leaders such as House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), in the form of noxious allegations that the No Kings marches are “Hate America” rallies staged for a “rabid base” of criminal agitators.

“It’s all the pro-Hamas wing and the antifa people, they’re all coming out,” Johnson said on Fox News.

Of course, that is dumb and false. It would be all too easy to write off comments such as Johnson’s as partisan jibber-jabber, but his insidious words are the kind of poison that seeps into the soil and shouldn’t be ignored.

Participants in the Moratorium to End the War in Vietnam demonstrate in 1969 at Golden Gate Park in San Francisco.

(Clay Geerdes / Getty Images)

The ‘enemy within’

Johnson isn’t the only Republican working overtime to smear everyday folks such as Grossman. Talk about organized campaigns — Trumpites are all going after No Kings with the same script.

House Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-Minn.) said: “These guys are playing to the most radical, small, and violent base in the country. You’ll see them on Saturday on the Mall. They just do not love this country.”

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy has parroted similar messaging, and Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.), diving into old, antisemitic conspiracies, described the events as “a Soros paid-for protest,” adding that the National Guard would probably need to be activated.

U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi added her two cents, apparently confusing printed signs, the kind that say, a union or organizations such as Planned Parenthood or the ACLU, might have made up, with evidence of diabolical terrorist networks.

“You’re seeing people out there with thousands of signs that all match,” Bondi told Fox News. “They are organized and someone is funding it. We are going to get to the funding of antifa, we’re going to get to the root of antifa and we are going to find and charge all of those people who are causing this chaos.”

Note to Bondi: Matching signs are not a conspiracy. Just ask Kinko’s.

But in her defense, it was a mere two weeks ago when President Trump addressed the leaders of the U.S. military at Quantico, Va. There, he warned that the use of military troops on American protesters was about to become reality, if he has any say in it.

“This is going to be a big thing for the people in this room, because it’s the enemy from within, and we have to handle it before it gets out of control,” Trump said.

That came on the heels of his executive order declaring antifa — a general descriptor for anyone who opposes fascism — as a terrorist organization.

So to recap: The president declares “antifa” a terrorist organization, warns military brass that they must be ready to defeat internal enemies, then MAGA Republicans begin to falsely claim No Kings rallies are full of “antifa.”

Andrea Grossman, second from left, with other activists in 2024 discussing efforts to protect a Beverly Hills abortion clinic.

(Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times)

Bad journalism

Grossman calls the idea that she is anti-American “preposterous.”

“We wouldn’t be out there spending our time and energy if we weren’t desperately worried for our country. Of course we love America,” she said.

Here’s where I eat my own: Media are failing miserably and unforgivably in covering this issue — this terrifying march to turn peaceful protest into a criminal offense. We shouldn’t be asking Grossman whether she hates America. We should be pushing Johnson and his ilk to defend his attack on people like her.

“We can both recognize that it’s ridiculous and also that it’s pretty sinister,” Leah Greenberg told me.

She’s the co-executive director of Indivisible, the organization behind the No Kings effort, and she’ll be at the D.C. event — the one Johnson specifically condemned. At the first No Kings rally in Philadelphia, her husband led more than 1,000 people in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, some real anti-American stuff.

“We have to see what is currently happening here, not only as Republicans desperately grasping for a message, but also of them creating a permission structure to, you know, invite a broader crackdown on peaceful dissent,” Greenberg warned.

I asked Grossman whether she felt personally at risk by taking on this organizing role at such a fraught moment, even in Beverly Hills, that hotbed of radicalism. At first, she said she didn’t. But when I asked her why not, she paused for a bit.

“We have to put ourselves out there and it takes risk sometimes,” she finally said. “I mean, I don’t consider myself a freedom fighter by any means. I consider myself a woman of a certain age, you know, who has to stand up and be loud and noisy.”

In her regular life, Grossman runs one of the preeminent literary salons in Los Angeles, drawing authors and luminaries including Rob Reiner, Rep. Jasmine Crockett and legal podcaster Joyce Vance. She was also one of the “abortion yentas” who last year fought a losing battle to protect a controversial abortion clinic in the neighborhood. So she knows risk and doesn’t shy away from it.

But this moment is different, because it’s not normal for a president to declare protests to be terrorism, or for legislators to deem them un-American. It is not normal to fear that the military will be used to silence us.

Which is why No Kings is so crucial to this moment.

It is a movement that seeks to draw the most normal, the most average, the most mild of people to highlight just how abnormal this government is. No flags are going to be burned (though that is a protected 1st Amendment right, no matter what Trump says). No Molotov cocktails will be tossed. Hamas is not invited.

Greenberg said that “anybody with eyes” can see who comes to a No Kings rally.

“You see veterans, you see members of faith communities. You see federal workers, dedicated public servants. You see parents and grandparents and kids all coming together in this joyous and defiant opposition,” she said.

Those are exactly the types that turned out in June, when somewhere between 3 million and 6 million people marched in what felt like a cross between a fall school carnival and a Fourth of July parade. People sauntered, they sat, they sang. But most of all, they showed up.

“If we’re going to be afraid and not say anything, then [they] win,” Grossman said. “The only way to stand up to oppression is to get out there in huge, great numbers.”

So like her mom, she’ll march and she’ll ignore the poison — and much to the dismay of MAGA, I suspect millions of others just like her will too.

What else you should be reading:

The must-read: Justices lean toward rejecting race in redistricting, likely boosting GOP in 2026
The what happened: Mike Johnson’s nightmare: Kevin Kiley is unhappy with the speaker and has nothing to lose
The L.A. Times special: USC finds itself in funding battle between Trump and Newsom over the campus’ future

P.S. This is another bit of propaganda from the Department of Homeland Security. “Remigrate” is a term often embraced by the far right that alludes to the forced deportation of immigrants, legal or not, especially those who are not of European origin.

Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Victoria’s Secret called game.

WNBA player Angel Reese and Olympic gymnast Suni Lee walked the 2025 edition of the Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show on Wednesday, becoming the first major athletes to hit the runway at the lingerie and loungewear brand’s signature event.

Reese, a forward for the Chicago Sky, was part of the high-profile “Wings Reveal” lineup, with the two-time All-Star debuting two looks at the event. The first was a pink floral lingerie set paired with a feathered stole, while the second featured the brand’s iconic angel wings. She is the first professional athlete to walk the show.

“It was destined for me,” Reese reportedly said in an interview before the show kicked off. “This is already for me. I’m so happy to be sitting in this room with so many amazing models and women. The team that put this all together has been amazing. I’m so excited.”

Angel Reese debuted two looks at the 2025 Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show.

(Evan Agostini / Invision / Associated Press)

The 2025 Victoria Secret’s Fashion Show may have marked her professional modeling debut, but Reese has long been a fashion icon. She’s known for her sharp arrival looks as much as her rebounding prowess among women’s basketball fans and she even served as a member of the 2025 Met Gala’s host committee. Reese capped off her standout college career, which included an NCAA championship title with Louisiana State University in 2023, by declaring for the WNBA draft in a 2024 Vogue interview and has since graced that magazine’s cover.

Two-time Olympian Lee, meanwhile, made her fashion show debut as part of the segment dedicated to VS’ Pink line, sporting short shorts and a pink hoodie adorned with miniature wings. She hit the runway while four members of the K-pop group Twice were performing live.

Suni Lee makes her Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show debut.

(Dimitrios Kambouris / Getty Images for Victoria’s Secret)

“Stepping into something like the Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show felt like a dream outside of my comfort zone … But that’s exactly why I said yes,” Lee told Marie Claire in an interview before the show where she described her runway look as “sporty meets glam in the best way.”

Lee, of course, was part of the “Golden Girls” squad alongside Simone Biles that brought home the team gold at the 2024 Paris Olympics. Among her six Olympic medals is also the all-around gold from the 2020 Games in Tokyo, which were held in 2021 due to pandemic restrictions. The Minnesota native also competed as part of Auburn University’s gymnastics team.

In this podcast, Motley Fool analyst Jason Moser and contributors Travis Hoium and Jon Quast discuss:

• How 2025 compares to 1999 and 2007.
• What they wish they had known in the past.
• Energy’s role in AI.

To catch full episodes of all The Motley Fool’s free podcasts, check out our podcast center. When you’re ready to invest, check out this top 10 list of stocks to buy.

A full transcript is below.

This podcast was recorded on Oct. 10, 2025.

Travis Hoium: How does the market in 2025 fit into the history of the stock market? Motley Fool Money starts now.

Welcome to Motley Fool Money. I’m Travis Hoium joined today by Jon Quast and Jason Moser, and I think this is an important time in the market. Take a step back and look at a little bit of context in history. There are these decade long trends that we typically go through, and it seems like we’re either at the beginning or end of one of those with artificial intelligence and all of the companies that are going crazy right now. I want to get your guys’ thoughts on where we are. We all see the potential of artificial intelligence, but the Internet was a massive opportunity in 1999. Mobile was a huge opportunity in 2007. That didn’t stop the crashes that ensued. What historic parallels, Jason do you see in the market today that investors can learn from?

Jason Moser: Yeah well, I love this idea. I think there are a lot of parallels we can draw here. There are some similarities and I think there are some differences as well. You go back to for example, the buildout of the Internet back in 1999, the .com crash that ensued. I mean, there’s a lot of similarities from then to what’s going on today. There’s massive infrastructure buildout. It’s the foundation for what looks to be a new era of technology. It’s also accompanied by a lot of speculation in the markets. We’re seeing that in the form of a lot of nosebleed valuations. I mean, I’m not saying they’re all nosebleed valuations, but there is some data that shows that AI first companies today that are coming to market, are getting 20-40% premium valuations over their non AI driven types of companies. Then you’re also seeing some of the most speculative names are garnering valuations in the neighborhood of 200 times sales.

Travis Hoium: Some of them have gone parabolic just in the past few.

Jason Moser: Yeah, absolutely. I understand the enthusiasm, but there was an interesting interview with Orlando Bravo the other day on TV. He heads up the firm Toma Bravo which they specialize in SAS software and stuff like that. The question that was posed as it’s been posed to most of us is, are we in a bubble? He answered simply yes. I mean, you can’t have companies that are working on $50 million in annualized recurring revenue value to $10 billion, that just doesn’t work. It’s not sustainable. At some point, we will see that shift. But I do think there are some differences too. I mean, primarily, you look at the physical restraints of what was being built out back in 1999, that was laying all that optic cable. Physically difficult to do, but a little bit different than really the restraint today. Now we’re talking about power. We’re trying to figure out how to get the electricity, the power to really make all of this stuff run. I think funding is a little bit more realistic this time around just because so much of it is coming from the hyperscalers. Let’s put OpenAI aside here and look at the other companies, your Amazons, your Alphabets, your NVIDIAs of the world that are helping to fund a lot of this. When you have businesses that are that big with more reliable cash flows, I think the funding side of it seems to be a little bit less speculative than it was back then.

Travis Hoium: Do you think that has changed over the past, even the past few weeks with things like guaranteeing revenue? I think, you know, India did that with CR weave. You’re seeing more variable interest entities or they’re going by different names now, but it’s basically doing some of these financings off balance sheet. That’s what ultimately got Enron in trouble. That isn’t necessarily a parallel that we want to go down, but it’s one of those things where there are these small red flags that you can look throughout history and go, Okay, when you start to see this happen, you should perk up a little bit.

Jason Moser: I think you need to be asking the questions. I think it’s no accident that this week we really saw a lot of those maps circulating around that were showing the intertwinenss of all of these. It’s just a handful of companies that are really dictating the space and you want to put some numbers around it. I mean, this is what really makes me nervous. I think you look at Morgan Stanley research. They say that OpenAI itself, they make up more than $300 billion of this something like $880 billion total future contract value that’s tied to the spending with Microsoft, Oracle, and CR weave, among others. You think about that in the context of the fact that OpenAI, I mean, they just generated basically $13 billion annualized at the midpoint of 2025, and they’re losing money still hand over fist. Where that capital ultimately comes from I think, is a question that investors really need to be focused in on. It’s not to say that OpenAI won’t continue to grow, but that is a big Delta that they’re going to have to figure out a way to shore up.

Travis Hoium: Jon, how do you think about this in a more historical context? What things are you trying to learn from history that could maybe apply today?

Jon Quast: Well, I think historically, whenever you see something new and exciting, investors are wanting in on that and they’re not wanting to miss out. I’d say that applies to both retail investors and private equity investors. You can see that in a couple of fronts here that there are some companies, I think, that are preying on that, taking advantage of that, knowing that investors are willing to pay up for the excitement, the admission to the theme park. You look at the public markets, for example, look at special purpose acquisition companies.

Travis Hoium: These are SPACs. This is what was really popular in 2020 and 2021.

Jon Quast: Yeah, right before we had major, major pullback in so many of the companies out there. These are companies that don’t even have a business. They’re saying, give us money so we can go buy a business. Many of them came forward in 2020, 2021. There’s been a couple of years of a lull but now this year, we have 161 that have gone and filed so far this year, and the years not even over yet. That’s as much as basically the last three years combined. I’m not saying that they’re all bad opportunities. I’m not even saying that most, but I’m saying somewhere in there, the data is saying, yeah, somebody is taking advantage of a situation where investors are very excited and they’re willing to pay for a lottery ticket, essentially. The same thing in the private equity space, you look at the AI private companies out there starting to do perhaps some questionable things, maybe counting some one time deals as part of the calculation in their annual recurring revenue and doing that so that they can boost their valuations, and that increases the amount of funding that they’re able to get from these private investors. We would think that private investors are a little bit smarter than that. But again, I mean, we all have human psychology, and we don’t want to miss out on something that is truly transformative in artificial intelligence.

Travis Hoium: Jason, you brought up those images that are going around. There’s one from the FT, there’s one from Bloomberg, just show this web around OpenAI. One of the things that I think I learned in the 2008, 2009, downfall of the market and the recession that ensued was things just got really, really complicated when a lot of things didn’t need to be complicated. We started with mortgages, mortgage is a fairly straightforward financial instrument, but then you start turning it into 48 different products that you’re cutting into different pieces, and nobody knows where the risk is or who’s holding the risk. That’s what I get concerned about right now is, if AI is such a no brainer and it’s such a high return on investment, then why do we need all this complicated these complicated financial structures? Again, it’s just raising red flags to me. Let me put it this way because I think what we’re trying to do today is take a little bit of our knowledge and pass it on to everybody who’s listening. If you are going to go back, Jason, I’ll start with you, if you were going to go back and talk to yourself in 1999 or 2007, what would you tell yourself that you could maybe implement as an investor?

Jason Moser: Wow, yeah. I like that question a lot. I think if I look back to 1999, while I was investing at the time, I wasn’t a member of the Motley Fools. I think, first and foremost, and I’m being dead serious here, I would have told myself to get a subscription to the Motley Fool because from an educational perspective alone, I think that style of thinking, that style of investing and taking that longer term view is just invaluable. I’d also say, wow, it’s tempting. Steer clear of speculation. I think you’re right. One of the big problems back in 2007/8 was just how ununderstandable that web of financial instruments ultimately became. I think that was a result of greed primarily. But I also look at today and you’re talking about these special interest entities and whatnot. Money isn’t limitless and so I think they start to make it a little bit more complicated when they need to figure out ways to raise more money. That becomes a little bit more concerning as well. I’d say, for me, I’d steer clear speculation. These were stretches of time when some of the great businesses of our time went on sale. Stay focused on owning those high quality businesses, leave the speculating to those who think they probably know what they’re doing and maybe don’t necessarily actually know.

Travis Hoium: Jon, what do you think?

Jon Quast: So 1999, I wasn’t an investor yet, and so it didn’t really start for me until around the great recession.

Travis Hoium: You weren’t investing, but do you remember feeling the.com bubble and crash? Because I think that is an interesting until you actually have money in the market, it is kind of ah, this thing happens, but it doesn’t really affect me.

Jon Quast: Well, I would say absolutely not. I mean, just where we were in our little corner of North Carolina back in those days, I mean, man, we had dial up Internet. I mean, we weren’t even all that aware of what was going on. For me, the great recession was where I really began to take investing seriously. What I tell myself, besides what Jason already said was, I wish that I had just held on to my original vintage of stocks that I invested in. I know it’s 20 years later now, but I look at some of the ones that I had at the time. Buffalo Wild Wings, which is no longer publicly traded, but if I’d just held onto Buffalo Wild Wings from the time I invested until the time that it went private, it was a 10 bagger or more, and I sold after it doubled. I owned Marvel back before Disney acquired it and sold around the time of the announcement. I wish I had just held onto Disney all that time. McDonald’s was one of the first stocks I ever bought. Yeah, maybe that’s not the flashiest thing, but it’s up over 1,000% with dividends. I know some of the listeners are saying, hey, well, that’s 20 years ago, but let me tell you something. For me, it’s 20 minutes. I just started investing. Time goes by so fast. At the time you say, invest for three years, invest for five years. How could you ever? Twenty years is a heartbeat. Man, I wish I could just go back and say, hang on. Don’t try to get cute. Don’t try to buy and sell, trade, all this. Just buy and hold.

Travis Hoium: Yeah, Jon, the lessons that I have learned more than anything is not selling to give you an idea of what I owned in those days that I sold Chipotle, Apple, these are Las Vegas Sands. I remember buying for $2 a share. I think that was a 20 bagger over the next couple of years that I sold too early. Yeah, owning those companies that aren’t going anywhere that can survive any downturn, I would also say start paying attention to balance sheets. Because if companies are going to not survive, it’s not going to be the revenue drops a little bit. It’s going to be because there’s more risk on the balance sheet than they can handle. Something to keep in mind. When we come back, we are going to talk more about this buildout and where there could be opportunities you’re listening to Motley Fool money.

Come back to Motley Fool Money. One of the big topics of the AI buildout has been energy, and this has gotten a lot more attention over the past couple of months. Every hyperscalar, every Neo Cloud is looking for basically as much energy as they can get. Some of them have made deals with Bitcoin miners. I think that’s an interesting play here. Bitcoin Miners spent a lot of time building out the energy they need to run their mining equipment. Now we’re moving that to AI. Jon, where are the opportunities for investors in energy or at least what should we be keeping an eye at?

Jon Quast: Well, I think that nuclear power is big trend and I know that people have been hearing about it. I just think it’s going to be a lot of emphasis put there and even the emphasis that we put there isn’t going to be enough. You look at what OpenAI is reportedly wanting. They’re reportedly wanting 250 gigawatts of electricity by 2033, just for running their AI data centers. That’s just one company. President Trump earlier this year, signed an executive order to quadruple the country’s nuclear power. It will add basically 300 gigawatts of nuclear power. You look at that,250 is what OpenAI wants. We’re saying, we’ll add 300 gigawatts of nuclear power. Basically, they’ll take all of that.

Jason Moser: Doesn’t seem like a lot of wiggle room there, Jon.

Jon Quast: Exactly. Here’s the thing. The order is by 2050 to have that much extra power. President Trump is saying, we’re going to add 300 gigawatts. Give us 25 years. OpenAI is like, we need it now and so does every other company that’s doing what OpenAI is doing. I just think we’re going to have a heyday for nuclear, but even if we do, it’s still not going to be enough.

Travis Hoium: I want to put some numbers to this. The EIA, Energy Information Administration, which is a phenomenal source for energy information because they pull all the prices, all the capacity production, all that stuff. Between 2024 and 2028 in the US, there is a planned about 200 gigawatts of additions. About half of that, over half of that is solar, so an intermittent energy source. You have to consider that the capacity factor of solar, meaning the amount of time that it produces energy on an average day is about 20, 25% of the time. We’re not anywhere near hitting those numbers in what is planned, and power plants don’t go up. Even a solar plant, which can be built relatively quickly, you’re still talking many months, in some cases, years. All that said, Jason, where are you looking for opportunities today?

Jason Moser: It definitely feels like we’re going to need all we can get. It’s all hands on deck. I think the key is going to be focusing on every resource available. I think in regard to AI specifically and the capabilities that it’s driving, I think the overwhelming demand is going to be on those reliable or firm energy sources. The stuff that’s on 24/7 that’s easily distributable. Renewables are one thing. But I think for AI specific stuff, we’re going to be looking at nuclear, natural gas and hydro electric primarily. We saw Google earlier in the year made a deal to provide some early stage capital for elemental power to prepare some nuclear sites here in the US. I think those were those small modular reactors. The other thing to think about longer term and I’m talking about longer term, Travis, but think a decade out. There was an interview with Jeff Bezos this week that I was pretty, I was fascinated by because I actually could totally see this happening. He was talking about data centers in space. Essentially.

Travis Hoium: It sounds crazy.

Jason Moser: It sounds crazy. It does. It sounds like. But if you think about it, they’re already trying. They’re already in the process of trying to figure out how to make this work. Now, that solves two key problems. You get the limitless resource of solar up in space and you’ve solved your.

Travis Hoium: Suddenly, that becomes a base source of energy as opposed to variable.

Jason Moser: You solve your cooling problems as well. It knocks out you kill two birds with one stone, so to speak. I think that’s pretty interesting to think about just further out. Just keep an eye on that. I don’t think that’s high in the sky stuff. I think that’s actually pretty legit. Beyond that, I looked to other companies in the value chain that enable SMRT usage and monitoring. The company I’ve talked about before called Itron that does that. They help their customers safely and securely monitor that critical infrastructure and power and water. You can look beyond the providers and look to those value chain adders as well.

Travis Hoium: Do you think that the rise in electricity prices which again, is getting more attention this year, I’ve noticed it with my electricity bill Jason, is that a pending problem in the US because if AI is what’s raising the costs for the average person, seems like an issue.

Jason Moser: Consumers will not like it. I can guarantee you that. I mean, I noticed the power bill difference when the winter hits here in Northern Virginia, and it basically doubles. If we see things going beyond just your typical seasonality, I think that’s going to be a real problem.

Travis Hoium: Yeah, that’s something to keep an eye on because regulators do play a pretty big role in this, who’s gonna get the electricity? What are people paying? That’s not just an economics process, although the economics could help with justifying some of these investments too, something else to keep in mind is that, you know, energy costs are important, and if prices are going up, people are gonna put more money into the ground. When we come back, we’re going to see how well Jason and Jon know their history of investing you’re listening to Motley Fool money.

Welcome back to Motley Fool Money. I want to know how well Jason and Jon know their market history. I’m going to ask you guys a few questions and see who knows the answer. Jon, I’ll have you go first here. What was the date of the 1987 crash? As a bonus, how much did the Dow Jones Industrial average drop on that day?

Jon Quast: Oh, and I assume that you’re wanting more than the year 1987, yeah?

Travis Hoium: Yeah, I would like you can give me the day of the week. Any information is.

Jon Quast: Well, it was on a Monday.

Travis Hoium: What color was this Monday, Jon.

Jon Quast: Well, there we go. A very black Monday. I would think it’s in October, but I don’t remember.

Travis Hoium: Jason, do you know the date?

Jason Moser: I actually do know this one. It’s October 19th.

Travis Hoium: 1987 and how much did the Dow drop?

Jason Moser: Do we have a little wiggle room here? I know it was 20%. It was a little bit more than 20%, but I don’t think it was 25%. It was somewhere in the middle between 20 and 25%.

Travis Hoium: Oh, that’s good. Jon. Do you have an answer.

Jon Quast: I was going to say 12.

Travis Hoium: Okay, 22.6% drop for the Dow Jones Industrial average. But the other thing that’s interesting with that historically is the Dow was what really got all the attention back then. It was not the S&P 500. We don’t talk much about the Dow anymore, but it was those 30 stocks. That’s what was reported on the nightly news. That’s the numbers that everybody knew is, what was the Dow doing?

Jason Moser: Yeah, and it’s interesting to think about the difference between the Dow and the S&P. We talk about, they definitely tried to modernize the Dow to a degree. It’s a little bit more up to speed now. But there’s also that difference between the stock price weighted index, the Dow Jones.

Travis Hoium: Do you want to explain that? Because that is a really weird thing about the Dow.

Jason Moser: Yeah, essentially, I mean, you’re just looking at one index and the Dow where it’s basically measured by the value of the stock price itself.

Travis Hoium: The number, so if you have $100 stock, it has a 10X weighting of a stock that has a $10 stock.

Jason Moser: Whereas the S&P, it’s market capitalization weighted. You’re actually talking about how heavy the whole company is. Stock price can be a function of anything. I mean, stock splits and whatnot can change it. It is just interesting to see that difference there and how that ultimately plays out in the way those indices perform.

Travis Hoium: Yeah, and back then that was a big reason that a lot of stocks typically were kept with stock splits and things like that, between somewhere around $30 and $100 per share. We get 100, you would expect a stock split to come. We don’t really think about that anymore because we have fractional shares and all that kind. That stuff didn’t exist.

Jason Moser: Yeah, I think didn’t memory serves, I think when Apple joined the Dow and didn’t it actually split its stock in order to be able to facilitate that membership? I feel like that might have happened.

Travis Hoium: That is a historical question I do not have the answer to. Speaking of big tech though, and maybe I’m giving things away here, what was the most valuable company in the world on January 1st, 2000? Jason, I’ll have you go first here. This is .com bubo. Lots of options.

Jason Moser: There are a lot of options. Was it global crossing? I don’t know. Honestly, just I feel like that’s a Jon.

Jon Quast: I would guess Cisco.

Travis Hoium: That would have been my guess. Cisco was the most valuable company in the world for a short period of time, but that was in March of 2000 at the turn of the century to the millennium, it was Microsoft. That was really most valuable company in the world. Interesting, parallel to where we are today, Microsoft was the most valuable company in the world. That is still one of the most valuable companies in the world. But if you would have invested in Microsoft at the beginning of 2000 and held it for the next 15 years, you would have basically the same amount of money.

Jason Moser: I was going to say the Balmer years didn’t treat shareholders very well.

Travis Hoium: Yeah, and so there’s a couple of things. I mean, their business actually did fine during the 2000, but the end of the ’90s, early 2000s, the price that you were paying was extremely high, and so multiple compression, meaning the price to earnings multiple or the price to sales multiple was going down over that period of time. Instead of multiples being a tailwind, like they’ve been for a lot of stocks over the past couple of years, it was a headwind for Microsoft. Again, just something to think about as we think about the market today. Pets.com gets a lot of attention in the .com bubble. Do you know when pets.com IPOed, and what its highest market cap was before falling apart. Jon, I will have you go first. When was the IPO, and what’s the highest market cap?

Jon Quast: Oh, how should I know? I mean, you want more than the year.

Travis Hoium: Actually, you might not get the year.

Jon Quast: I know. I mean, I feel like this is a high bar. I’m gonna go with June 12th, 1995, and I’ll say peak valuation was 50 billion.

Travis Hoium: See, Jason, I’ll give you a guess here, but these numbers surprise me.

Jason Moser: Yeah, the IPO, I don’t know, so I’m just going to guess March 1997, valuation wise, I know given the valuations that we see today, you would want to say something like 50 billion or I get that. But I think actually it was really especially at that time. This was even big at that time. I think it was something like 450 million, $500 million.

Travis Hoium: Wow. You guys are both way off for the timing. Their IPO was February of 2000. Way later than I would have guessed. But, Jason, you’re almost exactly right. $400 million was their top market what I think is interesting about that is, that is the name that we all remember from the .com bubble. But it wasn’t all that big of a company.

Jason Moser: No. Well, I mean, at the time it was. I mean, consider.

Travis Hoium: But you’re looking at I think today’s prices, that would be still less than billion dollar.

Jon Quast: I literally 100 times more than that.

Jason Moser: They had obviously a very short lived campaign as a publicly traded company. But yeah, I mean, that was like the quintessential Internet stock. I mean, just advertising at the Yin Yang, found a clever brand with that little sock puppet puppy, and they were just selling stuff on the Internet, like, this is the way we do it and just making no money in the process. But it’s interesting how we gave Amazon so much leeway to build out that concept, and yet your pets.coms of the world just never really stood a chance.

Travis Hoium: The lesson that I take from that one because you’re right. Amazon has become, obviously a household name everywhere. But if you would have just waited. If you would have just said, I’m not going to invest. The Internet, I think, is a huge thing. But 1999 I’m just going to say, you know what? I’m going to let things play out a little bit and you just waited even till 2002, 2003, 2004, 2008, when you knew who the winners were, that was actually a great time to invest in even a company like Amazon.

Jason Moser: That’s a really good lesson.

Travis Hoium: This one’s fun. OpenAI has 800 million weekly active users. How many users did AOL have at its peak? Then I have a follow up, Jason. Users. How many subscribers? That’s the, basically households. We were sending disks around, in those days.

Jason Moser: That’s the thing, OpenAI, 800 million weekly some odd user, 20 million paying subscribers. They got to figure out a way to short that up. AOL, I have no idea. Households,125 million.

Travis Hoium: John?[laughs]

Jon Quast: Well, I want to change my answer now. I was going to go with eight million. Here’s why. You had other companies. You had Juno, you had NetZero. You had all those. The trend started, but then eventually we switched off of those things. I was going to say eight million.

Jason Moser: John, I could be spectacularly off.

Travis Hoium: John, you’re actually pretty close, 25 million was their peak. But here’s the follow up. When did AOL shut down its dial up service?

Jon Quast: I think I know this one. It was earlier this year.

Travis Hoium: Jason do you want to?

Jason Moser: I was going to say, you would think they did this 15 years ago. It just happened, like John said, very recently. I think sometime within the last year, they actually stopped the whole thing.

Travis Hoium: It was last week.

Jon Quast: I would love to know the guy who was still using it two weeks ago.

Travis Hoium: Who was shocked that their Internet was shut down.

Jason Moser: Not one person.

Travis Hoium: I got a couple of quick ones here. At its peak, how much was invested annually in the USTelecom buildout? The thing that I wanted to bring in here is we talk about the .com bubble bursting. But in the late ’90s, there was really two bubbles. There was the Internet bubble, so the companies that was a valuation bubble, and there was basically an investment bubble where telecoms were investing a lot of money in building out the fiber that Jason mentioned earlier. But what was the actual number that they were putting in the ground? This is just in the US. What is your guess, Jason? Annual number, annual peak.

Jason Moser: One hundred billion dollars.

Travis Hoium: John.

Jon Quast: Did you say million or billion?

Jason Moser: Billion.

Jon Quast: Man, I was going with 10 billion.

Jason Moser: Again, it could be spectacularly off.

Travis Hoium: Jason, you’re about right, 118 billion in 2000. I believe we’ve only passed that number in two years since then. Interesting that the telecom buildout was basically hockey stick growth rate, and then it just plateaued. The other one that we’re not going to get to that is a similar is Apple in 2007, sold 1.4 million iPhones. 2015, that got up to 231 million, and then essentially plateaued. The question, for all these businesses is, when do you hit that plateau? Because that’s when you could potentially run into problems. Here’s the one I wanted to end on quickly. From January 1st, 2000 to March 2000, how much did the QQQ NASDAQ-100 rise? Then my follow up is, how much did it fall over the next six months, John? How much did it go up in those first three months? How much did it go down in the next six?

Jon Quast: I’m going to guess for going up, I’m going to guess it went up 15% during those three months. Then I believe there was a 50% drawdown from there.

Travis Hoium: Jason?

Jason Moser: I was going to say 20% for the first one. Then for the next six months, from that point, I think it fell.

Travis Hoium: From March to September.

Jason Moser: March to September, I would say it fell probably a good 60%.

Travis Hoium: Up 18% in those first, a little less than three months. Then over the next six months, fell 71%. Up an escalator out of window is the way that we quit this. Well, hopefully that was good context for people because I think we can always learn from history whether things repeat or not, they typically rhyme. I think that’s how the saying goes. When we come back, we will get to the stocks that are on our radar. You’re listening to Motley Fool Money.

As always, people on the program may have interest in the stocks they talk about and the Motley Fool may have formal recommendations for or against, so don’t buy or sell stocks based solely on what you hear. All personal finance content follows Motley Fool editorial standards and is not approved by advertisers. Advertisements are sponsored content and provided for informational purposes only. To see our full advertising disclosure, please check out our show notes. One company I want to bring into the discussion, we’ve high level, talked about history and AI. But Google had some interesting announcements. OpenAI is obviously getting all the attention, but Google Gemini Enterprise was announced this week. Jason, what did you take away from that?

Jason Moser: A few things, I think. I use both Gemini and ChatGPT interchangeably. Probably use Gemini a little bit more. I wasn’t terribly surprised to see the announcement because this is an arms race. I think it speaks to Google’s ability to respond to market forces and competition. I think, also the real advantage that it has, and it’s already massive user base and the powerful business model, not to mention just customer mind share. I think ChatGPT absolutely is doing a great job on customer mind share, but going back to earlier in the show, when we were talking about 800 million some odd weekly users, only 20 million really of those are subscribers. I think that is just a big hurdle for a company like ChatGPT to overcome. The reason why Google doesn’t have to worry about it so much is because they’ve got a business that’s funded by this powerful advertising model, not to mention it’s growing Cloud business, as well. Now, when you look at Google in this space, they’re a total package. What’s that? They call it a full stack player?

Travis Hoium: A few of the things they announced, it pulls Gemini into applications. This goes into GCP, Google Cloud Platform. That is actually a profitable business. I think that’s something, as investors, we should highlight. OpenAI is losing money. They’re not public yet, but this is a huge growth business for Google and for Alphabet, and it is now profitable, as well. I think the idea here is, this is going to be an enterprise play along with, hey, you know what? If Gemini as a consumer app wins great.

Jason Moser: Well, I think this shows a couple of things. This technology at its core is totally replicable. Basically, all they need is the resources and the time to be able to do it. I think the thing that’s not necessarily replicable is the power under the hood, so to speak, with what Google has built through the decades. ChatGPT is just not there yet. It’s not to say they can’t get there. Don’t get me wrong, but I’m just saying that it’s a much younger company that still has a lot to prove. From that perspective, again, I look at something like a Google today, and I think, wow, they’re doing a lot of really neat stuff. I think ChatGPT is doing a lot of really neat stuff, too. I think we’re going to see at some point, OpenAI is going to have to resort to some sort of an ad supported model in order to be able to continue generating that revenue, or they’re just going to have to come up with a way to grow that subscriber number, which is just so small today compared to what Google has just on an ongoing basis.

Travis Hoium: The 800 pound gorilla in the room that we always continue to overlook. Let’s get to this accident on our radar. John, I’m going to have you go first. What is on your radar this week?

Jon Quast: On my radar right now is a company called Rubrik that is ticker symbol RBRK. This is a small cybersecurity company. But what I like about this is that it’s not trying to prevent attacks. Its business model is assuming an attack has already taken place, and it’s going to get your business back up and running in a fraction of the time. You think about that. That’s really an interesting counter positioning, when it comes to maybe what your CrowdStrikes of the world are trying to do. That’s really interesting. It trades at about 15 times its sales. You look at its annual recurring revenue. It’s up 36%. That’s a good growth. Gross margin has jumped to about 80%. Those two things right there signal to me that I don’t think it looks terribly overvalued. It does generate positive free cash flow, despite being a young business. It has a net cash position. It’s adding new customers at a good pace. But with only 2,500 spending 100,000 a year, I think there’s plenty of room to grow that. Net dollar retention is over 120%, so its existing customers are spending more over time. I really like its co-founder and CEO, Bipul Sinha. He really values this mentality of basically innovate or cease to be a business. That could make things a little bit volatile, but I think it’s going to also potentially make it a key innovator here in the cybersecurity space. It’s definitely on my radar and one I’m watching.

Travis Hoium: Dan, what do you think about Rubrik?

Dan Caplinger: I do like the company, John, but I have a question about what they call themselves. They call themselves a zero trust data security and zero trust doesn’t exactly make me feel good.[laughs].

Jon Quast: That’s an unfortunate way to talk about it in the trade.

Travis Hoium: Jason, what is on your radar?

Jason Moser: Something we’ve been doing here on the website recently with the analyst team, it’s something we’re calling the Analyst Stream, and a couple of days a week, we’re taking a topic of the day and all just offering our spin on it. Today, Friday, we’ve got safety stock pitches for folks. A stock that I recently purchased from my own portfolio with safety in mind is Waste Management. Ticker is WM. As the old saying goes, your trash is my treasure, and we certainly produce a lot of trash here, but weights management, they own or operate the largest network of landfills in the US and Canada with 262 sites, making it the top dog. They also benefit from a growing recycling segment, renewable energy segment, and healthcare solutions business, too. Because you remember they just acquired Stericycle last year, I think, given the nature of the market there, trash is pretty reliable. I think holding onto this one for a decade or longer makes a lot of sense for investors.

Travis Hoium: Dan, what do you think about investing in garbage?

Dan Caplinger: Garbage isn’t going anywhere, gang. We’re not going to stop making it. It’s going to be something that we’re going to have to deal with forever.

Jason Moser: As the kids say, Dan, it true.

Travis Hoium: Dan, Rubrik or Waste Management, which one is going on your watches?

Dan Caplinger: Like I said, garbage ain’t going anywhere. We’re going to go Waste Management. I like that dividend, too.

Travis Hoium: We are out of time this week. Thank you for listening to Motley Fool Money. We’ll see you here tomorrow.

Madagascar’s parliament has voted to impeach embattled President Andry Rajoelina just hours after he fled the country in the wake of an elite army unit appearing to turn against him and seize power following weeks of deadly Gen Z protests.

The vote on Tuesday afternoon came as Rajoelina moved to dissolve parliament via a decree posted on social media earlier in the day, but which the opposition rejected.

“I have decided to dissolve the National Assembly, in accordance with the Constitution,” Rajoelina posted on X on Tuesday. “This choice is necessary to restore order within our Nation and strengthen democracy. The People must be heard again. Make way for the youth.”

The protests, which initially erupted over power and water shortages, have evolved into the most serious crisis the country and Rajoelina’s government has faced in years. “I was forced to find a safe place to protect my life,” Rajoleina, who did not disclose his location, said in a 26-minute-long live broadcast on Monday after a top army unit, known widely as CAPSAT, reportedly seized the state broadcaster. The same unit announced on Tuesday afternoon that it was “in charge” as parliament concluded the impeachment proceedings.

Rajoleina has not responded to the impeachment and has not renounced his title as head of state. Opposition parties initiated the impeachment vote on charges that Rajoelina “abandoned” his post.

There’s no clear leader in the country.

Madagascar has a long history of political crises and uprisings. Rajoelina’s own apparent exit from the country appeared to be an eerie replay of protests in 2009 that led to the collapse of a previous government, and his ascent to power. However, his government has been accused of corruption and of managing a stagnant economy.

Here’s what to know about how the protests unfolded and the army unit that has turned against the president:

What led to the protests?

Hundreds of angry protesters, led by a young movement called “Gen Z Madagascar,” began taking to the streets of the capital Antananarivo on September 25, with protests over the weekend recording the largest number of demonstrators in the three weeks of unrest.

What began as anger about persistent water and power cuts that leave businesses and homes without electricity or running water for more than 12 hours quickly escalated into frustrations with general governance.

Protesters decried widespread poverty, high costs of living, and state corruption that they say has seen business elites benefit from close contacts in government. Demonstrators began calling for the end of Rajoelina’s 15-year-old government, and for a “free, egalitarian and united society”.

Although Rajoelina sacked his prime minister and attempted a government reshuffle, protesters were not satisfied, culminating in the CAPSAT backing protesters on Saturday in what the president called an “attempt to seize power”. The unit, in a statement, said it refused “orders to shoot” demonstrators.

Some 80 percent of the country’s 31 million people lived in extreme poverty by 2022, according to the World Bank, largely due to political instability and severe climate disasters affecting food supplies. Only a third of the population has access to electricity, according to the International Monetary Fund, with the state-owned energy company, Jirama, accused of corruption and mismanagement.

Angry demonstrators blocked roads with burning tyres and rocks, and reportedly attacked public buildings, transport infrastructure, and private shops. In response, security officials responded with “violent force” according to the United Nations, with reports noting police fired rubber bullets, stun grenades, and tear gas. At least 22 people have died and dozens of others are injured, the UN said in a statement last week, although the government disputed those figures.

Rajoelina ignored calls for his resignation and accused protesters calling for his exit of wanting to “destroy our country.” His attempts to quell the anger by dissolving the government and appointing army General Ruphin Fortunat Zafisambo as the new prime minister on October 6, as well as inviting protesters for talks, were rejected by the demonstrators, who accused the government of ruling “with weapons”.

Who led the protests?

Young protesters, led by the “Gen Z Madagascar” group, started the demonstrations in late September, following similar youth-led uprisings witnessed in the past year in countries like Nepal, Morocco, Kenya, and Bangladesh.

In Madagascar, protesters say they’re demanding an end to 16 years of “inaction” by Rajoelina’s government, and have promised that they will not be silenced.

“They didn’t want to hear us in the streets,” a statement on the Gen Z Madagascar website reads. “Today, thanks to digital technology and the voice of Generation Z, we will make our voices heard at the table of power on the opposition side. To put an end to 16 years of inaction, let’s demand transparency, accountability, and deep reforms.”

The movement highlighted three demands from the government: the immediate resignation of Rajoelina and his government, the dismantling of the Senate, the electoral commission, and the constitutional court, as well as the prosecution of “the businessman close to the president”, referring to Rajoelina’s adviser and businessman, Maminiaina Ravatomanga.

It warned Rajoelina would be dragged to the International Court of Human Rights on various charges ranging from repression to embezzlement if the demands are not met.

The Gen Z Madagascar’s emblem, a flag featuring a pirate skull and crossbones wearing a distinctive Madagascan hat, is a reference to the Japanese comic series, One Piece, which follows a young pirate banding with others to fight an authoritarian government. The flag has become a hallmark of youth-led protests globally. It was raised by Indonesian protesters to show discontent in the run-up to the nation’s independence day in August, as well as by youth protesters who overthrew the Nepal government in September.

Who is President Rajoelina, and where is he?

President Rajoelina’s location is currently unknown. There is speculation that he was flown out of the country on a French military plane, according to French broadcaster RFI, but France has not commented. Madagascar is a former French colony, and Rojoelina is reported to have French citizenship – an issue which has angered some over the years.

In his Facebook statement on Monday evening, the president called for dialogue “to find a way out of this situation” and urged Madagascans to respect the constitution. He did not reveal his location and did not state his resignation.

The move to dissolve the parliament from exile further escalated the crisis and caused confusion, but opposition groups rejected it and voted for the president’s impeachment.

“The legal basis for this is unclear at the moment,” Kenya-based analyst Rose Mumunya told Al Jazeera. “Is he still the president? Legally, he is, but now that the army has announced they are taking over [security institutions], the legality of his decision to dissolve parliament is not really clear,” she said.

The 51-year-old first came to power in 2009 as the leader of a transitional government following a bloodless coup against the former president, Ravalomanana. As an opposition member and mayor of Antananarivo, Rajoelina led weeks of violent protests starting from January 2009 against Ravalomanana, whom he criticised for “restricting freedom” in the country.

Some 130 people died in the crisis. Rabalomanana fled to South Africa in March 2009 following a military coup. Rajoelina’s announcement as leader was ironically backed by CAPSAT. The international community criticised the military intervention and sanctioned Madagascar for years.

Rajoelina was elected in 2019 and re-elected in disputed 2023 polls that were boycotted by the opposition. His government, while popular at first, faced accusations of corruption, increasing repression and rights violations, analysts say. Fired Prime Minister Christian Ntsay and businessman Maminiaina Ravatomanga, were among prominent figures widely criticised in the country. Both arrived in Mauritius on a private flight on Sunday, authorities there said.

What’s CAPSAT, the army unit accused of a coup?

CAPSAT, or the Corps d’administration des personnels et des services administratifs et techniques, is an elite unit based in Soanierana district on the outskirts of Antananarivo. The group’s leader, Colonel Michael Randrianirina announed on Tuesday the unit was “in charge.”

While Rajoelina had influential backers in other important army units, analyst Mumunya noted he has not able to gain such support with CAPSAT.

The unit first appeared to mutiny after members joined thousands of protesters in Antananarivo on Saturday and called for Rajoelina’s resignation. Demonstrators hailed armed CAPSAT members packed in trucks and waving Madagascan flags. There were reports of CAPSAT teams clashing with pro-Rajoelina security forces.

A representative of the contingent said in a video statement on Saturday that “from now on, all orders of the Malagasy army, whether land, air, or navy, will originate from CAPSAT headquarters.” The unit urged all security forces to refuse “orders to shoot” and to stand with protesters.

On the same day, CAPSAT installed a new chief of defense staff, General Demosthene Pikulas, at a ceremony at the army headquarters. Armed Forces Minister Manantsoa Deramasinjaka Rakotoarivelo endorsed the move at the ceremony, saying, “I give him my blessing.”

On Sunday, CAPSAT Colonel Randrianirina told reporters that his unit’s actions did not amount to a coup. “We answered the people’s calls, but it wasn’t a coup d’etat,” he said, speaking at a gathering on Sunday outside the Antananarivo city hall, where large crowds gathered to pray for victims of the violence. One CAPSAT soldier was reportedly killed in a clash with other security units on Saturday.

Madagascar’s military has intervened in politics in several crises since 1960, when the country gained independence from France. Analyst Mumunya said CAPSAT leaders were carefully avoiding an outright coup declaration to avoid international backlash, as in the 2009 revolt. The move by the opposition to impeachment the president would legalise the takeover while the army holds the fort to ensure there’s no counter coup, she said.

“It’s a bit of push and pull between Rajoelina and the army … but the balance of power is not in Rajoelina’s favour,” Mumunya said. “There are likely ongoing negotiations between the political opposition, business elite and security forces to install a new civilian government that will appeal to the youth,” she added.

“So has his government effectively collapsed? I think we can probably conclude that,” she said.

The High Court, where Rajoelina has supporters, analysts say, will likely scrutinise and confirm whether the president can dissolve the parliament from an unknown location, or whether his impeachment can hold.

House Speaker Mike Johnson says that he will not negotiate with Democrats until they drop healthcare demands.

Speaker of the United States House of Representatives Mike Johnson has said that the current government shutdown could become the longest in history, as an impasse between the Democrats and Republicans drags on with no end in sight.

Speaking to reporters on Monday, Johnson, a Republican, said that he would not negotiate with Democratic lawmakers until they suspended policy demands related to healthcare, a dispute at the core of the shutdown.

“We’re barreling toward one of the longest shutdowns in American history,” said Johnson, who leads Republican lawmakers in the House.

The administration of President Donald Trump has used the shutdown, now in its 13th day, as a pretext for pushing forward a series of cuts and layoffs to government services and agencies, although its legal authority to do so remains in dispute.

Trump has plainly stated that such cuts will target his political rivals, saying last week that he would reduce “Democrat programmes” if the party refused to drop its demands on healthcare subsidies.

Recent polls have shown that US voters blame Democrats, Republicans, and Trump himself in roughly equal measure for the shutdown.

Democrats have called for an extension of subsidies under the Affordable Care Act that millions of people in the US rely on to buy healthcare plans.

Republicans have said that the issue can be addressed after the government is reopened, but Democrats have expressed doubt that the Republicans will honour that pledge.

Earlier this year, Republican lawmakers passed a huge tax and spending bill that is set to result in the loss of healthcare access for more than 15 million people.

While government shutdowns have become a routine occurrence in US politics in recent years, they can disrupt or reduce access to key services and force employees to work without pay for uncertain periods of time.

The US military said over the weekend that it would use unspent funds originally set aside for research and development to ensure that military personnel continue to receive pay.

The mass layoffs pushed by the Trump administration are a relatively new addition to shutdowns. Vice President JD Vance has warned that more “painful” cuts are ahead, even as government employee unions launch legal challenges against the terminations.

China has accused the United States of “double standards” after US President Donald Trump threatened to impose an additional 100 percent tariff on Chinese goods in response to Beijing’s curbs on exports of rare earth minerals.

China says its export control measures announced last week were in response to the US restrictions on its entities and targeting of Beijing’s maritime, logistics and shipbuilding industries.

Trump’s tariff threats, which come weeks ahead of the likely meeting between the US president and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping, have the potential to reignite a trade war months after Washington lowered the China tariffs from 125 to 30 percent.

The actions by the world’s two largest economies threaten to ignite a new trade war, adding further uncertainty to global trade. So what’s the recent history of US trade measures against China, and will the two countries be able to resolve their differences?

Why did China tighten export controls on rare earths?

On October 9, China expanded export controls to cover 12 out of 17 rare-earth metals and certain refining equipment, effective December 1, after accusing Washington of harming China’s interests and undermining “the atmosphere of bilateral economic and trade talks”.

China also placed restrictions on the export of specialist technological equipment used to refine rare-earth metals on Thursday.

Beijing justified its measures, accusing Washington of imposing a series of trade curbs on Chinese entities despite the two sides being engaged in trade talks, with the last one taking place in Madrid, Spain last month.

Foreign companies now need Beijing’s approval to export products containing Chinese rare earths, and must disclose their intended use. China said the heightened restrictions come as a result of national security interests.

China has a near monopoly over rare earths, critical for the manufacture of technology such as electric cars, smartphones, semiconductors and weapons.

The US is a major consumer of Chinese rare earths, which are crucial for the US defence industry.

At the end of this month, Trump and Xi are expected to meet in South Korea, and experts speculate that Beijing’s move was to gain bargaining advantage in trade negotiations with Washington.

China’s tightening of restrictions on rare earths is “pre-meeting choreography” before Trump’s meeting with Xi, Kristin Vekasi, the Mansfield chair of Japan and Indo-Pacific Affairs at the University of Montana, told Al Jazeera.

How did Trump respond?

On October 10, Trump announced the imposition of a 100 percent tariff on China, effective from November 1.

“Based on the fact that China has taken this unprecedented position … the United States of America will impose a Tariff of 100 percent on China, over and above any Tariff that they are currently paying,” Trump wrote in a post on his Truth Social platform.

He added that this would come into effect on November 1 or before that. Trump added that the US would also impose export controls on “any and all critical software”.

Earlier on October 10, Trump accused China of “trade hostility” and even said he might scrap his meeting with Xi. It is unclear at this point whether the meeting will take place.

“What the United States has is we have a lot of leverage, and my hope, and I know the president’s hope, is that we don’t have to use that leverage,” US Vice President JD Vance told Fox News on Sunday.

How did China respond to that?

China deemed the US retaliation a “double standard”, according to remarks by the Chinese Ministry of Commerce spokesperson on Sunday.

China said that Washington had “overstretched the concept of national security, abused export control measures” and “adopted discriminatory practices against China”.

“We are living in an era of deeper intertwining of security and economic policies. Both the US and China have expanded their conceptions of national security, encompassing a range of economic activities,” Manoj Kewalramani, chairperson of the Indo-Pacific Studies Programme at the Takshashila Institution in Bangalore, India, told Al Jazeera.

“Both have also weaponised economic interdependence with each other and third parties. There are, in other words, no saints in this game.”

Kewalramani said that China started expanding the idea of “national security” much earlier than others, especially with its “comprehensive national security concept” introduced in 2014.

Through this, China began to include many different areas, such as economics, technology, and society, under the term “national security”. This shows that China was ahead of other countries in broadening what counts as a national security issue.

China threatened additional measures if Trump went ahead with his pledge.

“Willful threats of high tariffs are not the right way to get along with China. China’s position on the trade war is consistent: we do not want it, but we are not afraid of it,” the Chinese Commerce Ministry spokesperson said in a statement.

“Should the US persist in its course, China will resolutely take corresponding measures to safeguard its legitimate rights and interests,” the statement said.

What trade measures has the US taken against China in recent history?

2025: Trump unleashes tariff war

A month after taking office for his second term, Trump signed an executive order imposing a 10 percent tariff on all imports from China, citing a trade deficit in favour of China. In this order, he also imposed tariffs on Mexico and Canada. China levied countermeasures, imposing duties on US products in retaliation.

In March, the US president doubled the tariff on all Chinese products to 20 percent as of March 4. China imposed a 15 percent tariff on a range of US farm exports in retaliation; these took effect on March 10.

Trump announced his “reciprocal tariffs,” imposing a 34 percent tariff on Chinese products. China retaliated, also announcing a 34 percent tariff on US products. This was the first time China announced export controls on rare earths.

Hours after the reciprocal tariffs went into effect, Trump paused them for all his tariff targets except China. The US and China continued to hike tit-for-tat levies on each other.

Trump slapped 145 percent tariffs on Chinese imports, prompting China to hit back with 125 percent tariffs. Washington and Beijing later cut tariffs to 30 percent and 10 percent, respectively, in May, then agreed to a 90-day truce in August for trade talks. The truce has been extended twice.

December 2024: The microchip controls are tightened

In December 2024, Trump’s predecessor, former US President Joe Biden, tightened controls on the sale of microchips first introduced on October 2022.

Under the new controls, 140 companies from China, Japan, South Korea and Singapore were added to a list of restricted entities. The US also banned more advanced chip-making equipment to certain countries. Even products manufactured abroad with US technology were restricted.

April 2024: Biden signs the TikTok ban

Biden signed a bill into law that would ban TikTok unless it was sold to a non-Chinese buyer within a year. The US government alleged that TikTok’s Chinese parent company ByteDance was linked to the Chinese government, making the app a threat to national security.

ByteDance sued the US federal government over this bill in May 2024.

In September this year, Trump announced that a deal was finalised to find a new owner of TikTok.

October 2023: Biden introduces more restrictions on chips

In October 2023, Biden restricted US exports of advanced computer chips, especially those made by Nvidia, to China and other countries.

The goal of this measure was to limit China’s access to “advanced semiconductors that could fuel breakthroughs in artificial intelligence and sophisticated computers that are critical to [Chinese] military applications,” Gina Raimondo, who was secretary of the US Department of Commerce during the Biden administration, told reporters.

Prior to this, Biden signed an executive order in August 2023, creating a programme that limits US investments in certain high-tech areas, including semiconductors, quantum computing, and artificial intelligence, in countries deemed to be a security risk, like China.

October 2022: Biden restricts Chinese access to semiconductors

Biden restricted China’s access to US semiconductors in October 2022. The rules further expanded restrictions on chipmaking tools to include industries that support the semiconductor supply chain, blocking both access to American expertise and the essential components used in manufacturing the tools that produce microchips.

Semiconductors are used in the manufacturing of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies. The US government placed these restrictions back then to limit China’s ability to acquire the ability to produce semiconductors and advance in the technological race.

The restrictions made it compulsory for entities within China to apply for licences to acquire American semiconductors. Analysis by the US-based Carnegie Endowment for International Peace described these licences as “hard to get” back then.

Recently, some US lawmakers are calling for even more restrictions, warning that China could quickly reverse-engineer advanced semiconductor technologies on its own, outpace the US in the sector, and gain a military edge.

May 2020: Trump cracks down on Huawei

In May 2020, the US Bureau of Industry and Security intensified rules to stop Huawei, the Chinese tech giant, from using American technology and software to design and make semiconductors in other countries.

The new rules said that semiconductors are designed for Huawei using US technology or equipment, anywhere in the world, would need US government approval before being sent to Huawei.

May 2019: Trump bans Huawei

Trump signed an executive order blocking Chinese telecommunications companies like Huawei from selling equipment in the US. The Shenzhen-based Huawei is the world’s largest provider of 5G networks, according to analysis by the New York City-based think tank the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

Under this order, Huawei and 114 related entities were added to a list that requires US companies to get special permission (a licence) before selling certain technologies to them.

The rationale behind this order was the allegation that Huawei threatened US national security, had stolen intellectual property and could commit cyber espionage. Some US lawmakers alleged that the Chinese government was using Huawei to spy on Americans. The US did not publicise any evidence to back these allegations.

Other Western countries had also cooperated with the US.

March 2018: Trump imposes tariffs on China

During his first administration, Trump imposed sweeping 25 percent tariffs on Chinese goods worth as much as $60bn. In June of 2018, Trump announced more tariffs.

China retaliated by imposing tariffs on US products. Beijing deemed Trump’s trade policies “trade bullyism practices”, according to an official white paper, as reported by Xinhua news agency.

In September 2018, Trump issued another round of 10 percent tariffs on Chinese products, which were hiked to 25 percent in May 2019.

During the Obama administration (2009-2017)

In 2011, during US President Barack Obama’s tenure, the US-China trade deficit reached an all-time high of $295.5bn, up from $273.1bn in the previous year.

In March 2012, the US, European Union, and Japan formally complained to China at the World Trade Organization (WTO) about China’s limits on selling rare earth metals to other countries. This move was deemed “rash and unfair” by China.

In its ruling, the world trade body said China’s export restraints were breaching the WTO rules.

In 2014, the US indicted five Chinese nationals with alleged ties to China’s People’s Liberation Army. They were charged with stealing trade technology from American companies.

What’s next for the US-China trade war?

Trump and Xi are expected to meet in South Korea on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), which is set to begin on October 31.

But the latest trade dispute has clouded the Xi-Trump meeting.

On Sunday, Trump posted on his Truth Social platform, downplaying the threat: “Don’t worry about China, it will all be fine! Highly respected President Xi just had a bad moment. He doesn’t want Depression for his country, and neither do I. The U.S.A. wants to help China, not hurt it!!!”

In an interview with Fox Business Network on Monday, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said, “President Trump said that the tariffs would not go into effect until November 1. He will be meeting with [Communist] Party Chair Xi in [South] Korea. I believe that meeting will still be on.”

When it comes to which of the two players is more affected by the trade war, Kewalramani said that he thinks “what matters is who is willing to bear greater pain, endure greater cost”.

“This is the crucial question. I would wager that Beijing is probably better placed because Washington has alienated allies and partners with its policies since January. But then, China’s growing export controls are not simply aimed at the US. They impact every country. So Beijing has not also endeared itself to anyone,” Kewalramani said, pointing out how Trump’s tariffs and China’s rare earth restrictions target multiple countries.

“The ones affected the most are countries caught in the midst of great power competition.”

On Sunday, US VP Vance told Fox News about China: “If they respond in a highly aggressive manner, I guarantee you, the president of the United States has far more cards than the People’s Republic of China.”

Kewalramani said that so far, Beijing has been more organised, prepared and strategic than the US in its policies.

“That said, it has overreached with the latest round of export controls. US policy, meanwhile, has lacked strategic coherence. The US still is the dominant global power and has several cards to play. What matters, however, is whether it can get its house in order.”

SACRAMENTO — Sen. Alex Padilla apparently dreams of becoming California’s next governor. He’s thinking hard about entering the race to succeed Gov. Gavin Newsom. And Katie Porter may have just opened the starting gate for him.

Porter has been regarded as the early front-runner. But she tripped and stumbled badly during a contentious, unprofessional and rude performance in a recent routine TV interview that went viral.

We don’t know the extent of her injury. But it was certainly enough to make Padilla’s decision a lot easier. If he really deep down covets the job of governor, the time seems ripe to apply for it.

Padilla wouldn’t need to vacate the Senate merely to run. He’d have what’s called a “free ride”: He doesn’t face reelection next year because his Senate term runs through 2028.

But a Senate seat is gold plated. No term limits — a job often for life. It offers prestige and power, with sway over a global array of issues.

Why would Padilla trade that to become the governor whose state is plagued by homelessness, wildfires and unaffordable living for millions?

For starters, it’s not much fun these days to be in the toothless Senate minority as a Democrat.

The California governor has immense power over spending and taxes, the appointment of positions ranging from local fair board members to state Supreme Court justices and the fate of hundreds of bills passed each year by the Legislature.

You lead the most populous state and the world’s fourth-largest economy.

The office provides an automatic launching pad for anyone with presidential aspirations, such as the termed-out present occupant.

Anyway, Padilla, 52, is a proud native Californian, raised in the San Fernando Valley with strong ties to the state.

And he’s immensely qualified to be governor, having served well in local, state and federal branches of government: Los Angeles City Council, state Senate, California secretary of State and the U.S. Senate.

There has been speculation for weeks about his entering the gubernatorial race. And in a recent New York Times interview, he acknowledged: “I am weighing it.”

“Look, California is home,” he said. “I love California. I miss California when I’m in Washington. And there’s a lot of important work to do there. … I’m just trying to think through: Where can I be most impactful.”

How long will he think? “The race is not until next year,” he said. “So that decision will come.”

It should come much sooner than next year in order to be elected governor in this far-flung state with its vast socio-economic and geographic diversity.

Former Democratic Rep. Porter from Orange County has been beating him and every announced candidate in the polls — although not by enough to loudly boast about.

In a September poll by Emerson College, 36% of surveyed voters said they were undecided about whom to support. Of the rest, 16% favored Porter and just 7% Padilla.

In an August survey by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies, 38% were undecided. Porter led with 17%. The nearest Democrat at 9% was Xavier Becerra, former secretary of U.S. Health and Human Services, state attorney general and 12-term congressman. Padilla wasn’t listed.

Why Porter? She gained renown during congressional hearings while grilling corporate executives and using a white board. But mainly, I suspect, voters got to know her when she ran statewide for the U.S. Senate last year. She didn’t survive the primary, but her name familiarity did.

By contrast, Padilla has never had a tough top-of-the-ticket statewide race. He was appointed by Newsom to the Senate in 2021 to fill the vacancy created by Kamala Harris’ election as vice president.

Democratic strategist Garry South says it would be “risky” for Padilla to announce his candidacy unless he immediately became the front-runner. That’s because he’d need that status to attract the hefty campaign donations required to introduce himself to voters.

“Unlike the governor, a California senator is not really that well known,” the strategist says. “And he hasn’t been a senator that long. I don’t think voters have a sense of him. In order to improve his [poll] numbers, he’s going to have to spend a lot of money. If he were an instant frontrunner, the money would flow. But if he jumps in with only half the votes [of

the frontrunner], there’s no reason for money to flow.

“And the longer he waits, the less time he has to raise the money.”

Porter may have eased the way for Padilla.

The UC Irvine law professor came unglued when CBS Sacramento reporter Julie Watts asked what she’d tell California’s 6 million Donald Trump voters in order to win their needed support for governor. Porter reacted like a normal irritated person rather than a seasoned politician.

She tersely dismissed the question’s premise and replied that the GOP votes wouldn’t be needed.

When the interviewer persisted, Porter lost her cool. “I don’t want to keep doing this. I’m going to call it,” she said, threatening to walk out. But she didn’t.

It was raw meat for her campaign opponents and they immediately pounced.

Former state Controller Betty Yee called on Porter to “leave this race” because she’s “a weak, self-destructive candidate unfit to lead California.”

Veteran Democratic consultant Gale Kaufman, who’s not involved in the contest, says the TV flub “hurts her a lot because it goes to likability.”

If Padilla really longs for the job, he can stop dreaming and take advantage of a golden opportunity.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: California tightens leash on puppy sales with new laws signed by Newsom
Wut?: Inside tech billionaire Peter Thiel’s off-the-record lectures about the antichrist
The L.A. Times Special: At Trump’s Justice Department, partisan pugnacity where honor, integrity should be

Until next week,
George Skelton

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Ford (F -0.65%) impressed investors when it reported that U.S. unit sales jumped 8.2% year over year in the third quarter (ended Sept. 30). Key models are doing very well, like the F-Series pickup trucks, Mustang Mach-E, Expedition, and Bronco. The momentum is partly why shares have done well this year, rising 15% (as of Oct.10).

But can this auto stock beat the market for buy-and-hold investors? History provides a clear answer.

Image source: Getty Images.

Investors shouldn’t expect outsized long-term returns from Ford

In the past 10- and 20-year periods, Ford shares have generated total returns of 33% and 150%, respectively. These gains failed to exceed that of the S&P 500 index. And it’s not even close.

The disappointing performance likely won’t reverse course as we look to the next 10 or 20 years. Low growth, weak margins, huge capital expenditures, and cyclicality describe Ford’s business. It’s not controversial to say that this isn’t a high-quality company.

Ford shares might always trade at a cheap valuation

Ford’s valuation is dirt cheap. The market is offering the stock at a forward price-to-earnings ratio of 9, which makes the dividend yield hefty at 5.26%. This might look like a compelling opportunity.

However, there’s no reason to assume that the market will expand Ford’s valuation in the years ahead. Fast growth, wide margins, capital-light business models, and durable demand trends are traits that investors reward. Ford just doesn’t fit the bill.

AN ANCIENT Roman ship downed by a storm has been found centuries later at a holiday hotspot – and there’s even treasure on board.

The 2,000-year-old discovery was made mere metres from a popular beachfront – and baffled researchers claim the ship is still in great condition.

6

6

The archaeological sensation was unearthed along the Dalmatian Coast in Croatia this month, almost two millennia after it sunk.

Its timbers even “look like they were just carved”, according to the gobsmacked research team.

Divers suspected there might be a wreck at the Roman port of Barbir after discovering an antique plank with a metal nail in 2020.

Five years later, the entire 42-foot vessel has now been revealed, along with a haul of ancient coins.

One of them even included the ancient Roman emperor, Trajan.

The incredible shipwreck lies in the village of Sukošan just a few miles south of Zadar, one of Croatia’s biggest tourist destinations.

The International Centre for Underwater Archaeology, which led the excavation, said the ship was likely lost in a storm.

Director Mladen Pešić said: “As the evidence shows us, the ship was docked in the harbour.

“It was found just in front of the pier, so we suppose that due to the bad weather the ropes could be broken and the ship might have hit the shore.”

He added: “Broken stern elements give us evidence of this, since this beam that belongs to the keel was split like it hit a hard surface.

“The ship was probably in such bad condition that the owners decided to leave it on the bottom of the harbour.”

Radiocarbon analysis dates the ship to the first or second century AD – roughly the period of Trajan’s reign.

And though the ship was damaged enough to sink, it is in surprisingly good condition for its age.

Dr Pešić said: “The preserved ship was almost 13 meters in length and 3.5m in width.

“Many different elements were preserved – keel, planks, frames, ceilings, and many elements of the ship’s upper construction.”

He continued: “It is quite well preserved; some of the planks and frames look like they were just carved.”

The construction of the vessel suggests it was built to carry heavy loads over medium-to-long distances.

6

6

And the artefacts found on board point to the same conclusion.

Dr Pešić said there were many shards of “pottery, glass, and other archaeological material” that could be connected with ship and the port.

“Most interesting are two complete jugs that were part of the ship’s equipment,” he explained.

“As we found many olive pits on it, we suppose that at the moment of sinking, the ship was transporting olives for further processing or for sale.”

The ship will now be preserved in-situ, being covered with a protective geotextile membrane and reburied in the sand.

But a recreation of the ship is planned for public display.

Dr Pešić said: “The plan is to make a 1:10 scale reconstruction of the existing ship construction in order to make a predictive model of ship how it looked in Roman times.”

Excavation of the ship was the work of a multinational team, including experts from Croatia, France, Poland, Germany, and the UK.

6

6