Individual Economists

Waymo Robotaxi "Snitches" On Two 15-Year-Olds Drinking & Shooting Orbeez Guns In Bay Area

Zero Hedge -

Waymo Robotaxi "Snitches" On Two 15-Year-Olds Drinking & Shooting Orbeez Guns In Bay Area

Two 15-year-old boys were detained in San Mateo Monday afternoon after the Waymo robotaxi they were riding in reported them to police - for drinking alcohol and firing a gel-bead blaster out of the moving car - then pulled itself over so officers could collect them.

Waymo's remote monitors spotted the behavior on the vehicle's interior cameras and called the San Mateo Police Department around 2:10 p.m. with the car's exact location. The company then disabled the vehicle near 20th Avenue and El Camino Real, telling the pair the car was having trouble - a ruse that bought officers time to get into position.

Because the initial report described what looked like a real firearm, police conducted a high-risk stop, approaching with guns drawn and a police dog deployed. No one was hurt. Inside, officers found an Orbeez-style gel blaster - painted over to pass for the real thing - and open alcohol.

The teens cooperated, were detained, and were released to their parents. The case has been forwarded to the San Mateo County District Attorney's office for review of possible charges, including underage drinking, and police say they plan to pull the Waymo's interior video.

"Parents do you know where your teens are? @waymo does!" The department wrote on Facebook: "After calling us and stopping the car, we were able to safely remove both subjects and determined they were shooting Orbeez from the car as they sipped on afternoon libations while being chauffeured around town in the driverless vehicle."

"While there was some ingenuity to this scheme, toy guns, water guns, and BB guns all pose real dangers, especially to an untrained eye... Shooting projectiles at speed can cause real damage. And lest not forget the underage drinking. All bad ideas today for these two. Well, the Waymo might have been the smartest idea yet, because driving impaired would've made this so much worse."

Waymo bars alcohol in its vehicles and doesn't allow unaccompanied minors in its California markets - so the ride was violating the rules before the first bead flew - and company policy notes that support staff "may access live video during a trip" in urgent circumstances.

"Safety is our highest priority at Waymo," a company spokesperson said in a statement after the story broke. "This behavior violates our user agreement, and while these sorts of events are rare, we take them extremely seriously and remain committed to improving road safety and mobility in the cities where we operate."

Online, the reaction split between "snitching" complaints, designated-driver jokes, and the question underneath them: the robotaxi that gets you home safely is also a camera platform that can pull itself over and hand you to the police. For two 15-year-olds, the lesson arrived early - no driver doesn't mean nobody's watching.

Tyler Durden Wed, 07/08/2026 - 17:20

Some College Students Are Testing At The Level Of 10-Year-Olds

Zero Hedge -

Some College Students Are Testing At The Level Of 10-Year-Olds

Via Futurism,

Are you smarter than a 4th grader?

Gone are the days of university freshmen reading classical philosophers like Plato or contemporary pedagogues like Ta-Nehisi Coates. These days, incoming college students are lucky if they can get through Judy Blume’s “Tales of a Fourth Grade Nothing.”

According to a new “Survey of Adult Skills” conducted by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development - a forum for 38 high-income, predominantly Western countries - a not insignificant number of adult students enrolled in higher education are now reading and doing math at a level which, in a more functional society, would be alarming for a middle schooler.

The survey, first spotted by the Economist, tested around 160,000 people of all ages, across all 38 member states. It found that across all OECD member countries, a full 8 percent of college students are reading at the level of a ten-year-old, if not worse. While countries like Germany and France rang in at under 5 percent, countries like Poland, Israel, and the United States blew the curve at 21, 20, and 14 percent, respectively.

The numbers aren’t much better when it comes to math.

Across OECD countries, 9 percent of college students do math at or below a ten-year-old level. In Italy, the US, and Slovakia, that figure jumps to over 15 percent — only outdone by Israel, where roughly 21 percent of college students were underachieving at the same low benchmark.

It seems there are numerous compounding explanations for these test results: pandemic-era learning gaps leading to lower levels of preparation, declining college enrollment forcing schools to lower admissions standards, and lower levels of public funding for education, to name a few.

The results also coincide with the explosion of large language models like ChatGPT, which by many accounts have carved out a new floor for academic failure in both K-12 and college-level education.

While there’s no denying how complicated the issue is, there is evidence that removing technology from classrooms altogether could offer an immediate boost.

In one classroom in Minneapolis, for example, a literature and English teacher banned phones and laptops, requiring all coursework to be done on pencil and paper.

As the school-year started in September, just 46 percent of the students involved said they felt confident about their reading skills. A few months later in February, that number stood at 95 percent.

Though it’s just one classroom, something is clearly off the rails in the education systems of the richest countries of the world — and the longer it goes unaddressed, the more students will be pushed into the world with the reading skills of 4th graders.

Tyler Durden Wed, 07/08/2026 - 17:00

Contrary To Popular Belief, Platner Has All The Leverage

Zero Hedge -

Contrary To Popular Belief, Platner Has All The Leverage

Graham Platner is supposed to be finished. The Democratic nominee for Senate in Maine faces a rape allegation, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have pulled their endorsements, and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has told him they won't spend any money on his campaign if he stays on the ballot. He has until Monday to withdraw before Maine law locks Democrats into running him in November, whether they like it or not.

By every conventional measure, Platner should be packing his bags.

Instead, he is negotiating. Platner has reportedly told the Maine Democratic Party that any replacement must match his own ideological commitments, a demand that has left party strategists sputtering. So far, Rep. Valli Geiger (D-Rockland) says Platner is urging her to try and take his place on the ballot. Dan Pfeiffer, once a senior adviser to Barack Obama, wrote on his Substack that continuing the race is not an option for Platner and predicted a "zombie campaign marching on to certain defeat with no support and no resources." Chris Cillizza was blunter on X, telling Platner he has "zero leverage."

Pfeiffer and Cillizza are wrong, and the reason exposes something uncomfortable about the position Democrats have put themselves in.

Platner does not have to withdraw, and the reason he holds most of the cards is simple: the party has nothing it can offer him to leave quietly. The traditional exit ramp for a troubled nominee involves some quiet exchange, a future appointment, a promise of support down the road, and a graceful landing somewhere else. None of that works for Platner because dropping out after winning the nomination, with his baggage, makes him too damaged.

His campaign has also functioned as a vehicle for the Democratic Socialists of America, an organization working methodically to take over the Democratic Party from the inside rather than build a third option outside it.

The other detail Pfeiffer and Cillizza skip past is that Platner won his primary fair and square, and voters knew what they were getting. The Nazi tattoo, the self-described communism, the sexting with multiple women, his old presence on a site associated with child predators, a credible accusation that he abused a former girlfriend: all of it was public before the primary.

When the first abuse allegation surfaced during the campaign, Democratic officials rallied around him, and his campaign posted its best single fundraising day of the race. Sanders campaigned with him at "Fight Oligarchy" rallies. Rep. Ro Khanna flew to Portland to stand beside him. The New York Times even sat on a rape accusation against Platner despite believing the allegation was credible. None of that was a secret to the people now demanding his exit. What changed was the polling.

Democrats spent months rationalizing their support for a candidate they now describe in private as a liability, largely because he looked like their best shot at unseating Sen. Susan Collins, a race the party repeatedly said was central to retaking the Senate majority. For Platner, as long as the numbers held, concerns about his character were excused. Now that the race has tightened, the establishment wants him gone, and it is dressing up a polling problem as a moral awakening.

The Maine Democratic Party is even starting to develop a process to replace Platner, if he withdraws.

"While the Platner campaign remains focused on distracting from the job of defeating Susan Collins in November with false accusations against us, the Maine Democratic Party remains hyper focused on developing a representative, transparent and inclusive process to select a new nominee when he chooses to withdraw from the race," Devon Murphy-Anderson, Executive Director of the Maine Democratic Party, said in a statement. "While we may be frustrated with Graham Platner's continued efforts to manipulate this process, we are so thankful for his supporters and all of their efforts to defeat Susan Collins - they are a vital part of our Party and deserve to participate in an open process to select Platner's replacement."

But, Platner understands the mechanics of his own situation better than his critics do. He has every reason to believe he can either insist on the candidate of his choice to replace him (he’s reportedly urging Maine State Representative Valli Geiger, (D-Rockland) to take his place, but there’s no guarantee the party will back her) or stay in and carry on by simply denying the allegations, and his DSA-aligned supporters are already framing the pressure campaign as a hit job

If Platner drops out, his political career ends with him.

He knows that.

If he stays, national Democrats face an unpleasant choice: abandon a Senate seat they have spent a year calling essential, or hold their noses and back a nominee they cannot control and increasingly cannot defend.

Maine primary voters already absorbed most of what is now scandalizing Washington, and forcing Platner off the ballot risks convincing his base that the accusations are simply the latest excuse from a party establishment that never wanted him in the first place. Platner's defiance is a clear sign that he knows he has all the leverage here, and the establishment must decide what to do about it.

Tyler Durden Wed, 07/08/2026 - 16:40

Socialism Is Targeting The Foundations That Made America Great

Zero Hedge -

Socialism Is Targeting The Foundations That Made America Great

Authored by Victor Davis Hanson via The Epoch Times,

This is a lightly edited transcript of a July 6 segment of the Victor Davis Hanson: In His Own Words podcast.

One question that came up constantly during this 250th anniversary Fourth of July celebration was whether we were gonna make it another 250 years, 500 years. We could be longer than the Roman Republic. Longer than the Roman Empire.

Democratic Socialists of America march in downtown Berkeley, Calif., on Aug. 5, 2018. Amy Osborne/AFP/Getty Images

And to answer that question, you have to know what allowed us to get this far, and for those who don't like us, what they would like to do to stop us.

And it turns out that the reasons that we survived 250 years and the reasons that we might survive another 250 years are precisely the areas where our critics would wish us to fail, or who are actively trying to see that we fail.

Take the first one, our Constitution. What's brilliant about the American Constitution is its federalism.

It outlines all the duties and prerogatives of the federal government, and then it says anything that is not relegated to the federal government is up to the states, and that's the majority of human experiences. It doesn't mean the states can fight one another or pass laws against one another or pass laws against the federal government.

The federal government has ultimate authority, but this federalism means that if California wants to tax 13.3 percent and Florida wants to tax 0 percent, then maybe 300,000 people a year will go to Florida and still enjoy the American experience, and vice versa.

You can go to any state in the country and what it really means is you're having 50 separate experiments.

You're all united by the federal government and the checks and balances of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. But you have 50 different interpretations of them based on local and regional concerns, and that gives Americans a lot of choice, and that means when you're disaffected and you're angry at your lot in life, you have 49 other choices, and it's been a wonderful way of easing tensions.

The second is that we have been the beneficiary of legal immigration. We take more immigrants than any place in the world, and people have remarked that as we speak, the people who created Google, for example, or Elon Musk, were all legal immigrants, and they came to the United States because this is the only place in the world where you would have a free market economy, a protection of private wealth, and an encouragement of the population to be successful and to take risk.

And it's impossible to envision a Silicon Valley in the Muslim Middle East. It just wouldn't happen. Wouldn't happen. You couldn't have a Harvard or Yale or Princeton in today's China. They wouldn't allow free speech. You wouldn't have most of our American institutions in any other place.

And that means we get all of these legal immigrants, and they enrich our country if they come in diverse fashion, in numbers that can be assimilated legally with some knowledge of our country and preferably with English language fluency.

The other third reason is we were very lucky naturally. Once the United States, whether you like it or not, embraced Manifest Destiny and decided we were not going to be a continent of warring states as was Europe, 30 or 40 individual nations, but one uniform state in North America, then it was richly endowed for all of us.

We had mining, we had gold, we had silver, we had iron ore, we had almost... We even have rare minerals, rare earth minerals we have not fully tapped. We have oil, we have coal, we have hydroelectric. We have the richest energy nation in the world. We're pumping more oil and gas than any other country in the history of the universe.

We have plentiful timber. We have plentiful farmland. We're the largest farming producing country by the value of our exports and our domestic produce in the world. We have two huge coastlines, not to count the Gulf of America.

In other words, we're protected from the insanity that goes on in Latin America, Africa, Europe, and Asia, and we always have been.

So, the sheer size of the American continent, its role in American history as a frontier, its role as a safety valve where people could head West, young men, if they were disaffected by events on the East Coast, and they could make a fortune or make a livelihood farming or in timber or in minerals or in energy, you name it.

There's a fourth reason that we're very successful, and that is we have a free market, private property economy. We're not a socialist, we're not a communist country.

In other words, people flock to the United States from countries where there is no economic opportunity. It either is statism controlled by the state or it's crony capitalist, and that's why we have the most billionaires in the world.

China has more people than we do, four times more people. Russia has twice, three times the territory, but we have more people in the affluent class.

And finally, we have a middle class. Our middle class is the largest in the world. We're not a pyramidal society of a few rich people on top that use their wealth for special dispensations or to affect the government or a mass of poor who are subsidized and always demanding entitlements.

Free middle class. Now, those are our strengths.

So if you wanted to hurt the United States or to ensure that it would not last 250 years, what would you do to stop that? Well, the first thing that I would do is I would start questioning the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. So, what do we see now from, for example, the left?

They're always attacking the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms. They want to pack the court. They want to get rid of the filibuster. It is in the Constitution, the Electoral College. They want to ban or destroy the Electoral College.

They want to bring in two new states specifically, not one conservative and one liberal like the old Alaska-Hawaii compromise, but two liberal new states, Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C., and get four senators.

Anytime you see anyone that wants to alter the system like that, you know that they don't have the best interest of the United States because the system has worked for 250 years in most of these cases.

The second thing is you would want to, as I said earlier, you would want to say, we don't want legal-only immigration. We want anybody to come in. So we have 30 million illegal immigrants right now. Ten to 12 million came in under Joe Biden. We have no idea who they are. You walk across the border.

Is he a criminal? I don't know. Is he Albert Einstein? I don't know. Does he have COVID-19? I don't know. We were vaccinating in a mandatory fashion Americans in 2020 while people were flooding across in 2020, '21, '22, flooding across the border without border security.

And today, even though legal immigration has been the bulwark of what we've seen, we are getting immigrants who even come in legally and have nothing but hostile attitudes toward their generous host.

If you also wanted to damage the United States, then you would look at what I just talked about, natural resources. You would say no mining. We're in a problem right now with rare earths. We're short. They're critical to our economy. China has a monopoly, but we have some of the most abundant rare earth minerals in the world and we've been prohibited from using them.

We have the richest deposits of oil. Until recently, we did not develop them all. We did not develop coal in the proper way.

Our farming sector, the best and most efficient in the world, is under attack by environmentalists who want to cut off the water here in California.

I'm speaking from the richest agricultural county in the United States, Fresno County, and yet it needs water that has been sent out on the San Joaquin River into the ocean.

If you also wanted to destroy the United States or see it not last too much longer, you would kind of assault the middle class.

You would look at the United States as a binary, a Marxist binary. It is comprised not by class but by race. So, 70 percent, 65 percent are white oppressors. They are mostly white male, to be more particular, or more sensational, white male Christian heterosexuals, or the white race, or whatever we call these silly terms.

They are the exploiter, victimizer, and everybody on the other side is the victimized or oppressed. This is the binary that the Democratic Socialists of America and like-minded people use to alienate and divide the country, and it's worked very well.

But in between those two racial binaries is a class system in which the middle class still is the largest class and was the exact form, shape of a class system that the founders thought would be essential to republican government.

And then finally, of course, one of our greatest strengths is we have institutionalized a free market private property economy. Do away with that, and we go the way of the old Soviet Union or Cuba or Venezuela.

And what do we see now? We have people in the Democratic Socialists of America that want to confiscate property, get the means of production, take over tenant-landlord relationships, and absorb the private sector into the state.

If that happens, we will be impoverished.

So, we can make it another 250 years if we do what we did the last 250 years. But if we let people destroy those strengths that I enumerated, then we won't last another 50 years.

Tyler Durden Wed, 07/08/2026 - 16:20

After Tonight's Strikes, Trump Threatens "Much Worse" Bombing If Iran Doesn't Stop Attacks

Zero Hedge -

After Tonight's Strikes, Trump Threatens "Much Worse" Bombing If Iran Doesn't Stop Attacks Summary
  • Trump threatens "it will get much worse" after Wednesday night US attack wave commences along Iran's coast.
  • Trump tells NATO summit that Iran wants to assassinate him: "on every single one of their list."
  • Iran threatens to reclose the Strait of Hormuz and suspended final talks with the US.
  • The US earlier revoked an Iranian oil waiver & now signals readiness to restore a maritime blockade.
  • Trump said the ceasefire is over and warned of fresh US strikes on Iran, probably "tonight".
  • Oil jumps above $80 as fears of renewed conflict & return to Hormuz Strait closure intensifies.
//--> //--> Strait of Hormuz traffic returns to normal by August 31?
Yes 19% · No 82%
View full market & trade on Polymarket

*  *  *

Trump Threatens "Much Worse" Bombing If Iran Doesn't Stop Attacks

Following the earlier (threatened) strikes. President Trump has taken to his Truth Social account to explain to Iran what happens next:

"This is in retribution for yesterday’s bombing of ships by Iran. If it happens again, it will get much worse!"

His post also included the following image of an alleged explosion in Chabahar (though it is unclear if this is a current photo)...

We suspect this will only serve to further bolster whatever group is actually attacking the tankers.

Another US Strike Wave On Iran Commences

After 11pm Tehran time, there are fresh reports of explosions across multiple locations along Iran's coast, coming from several regional sources:

  • Explosions heard in Bandar Abbas and Sirik in the south of the country
  • Explosions heard in several areas of Hormozgan, Al Jazeera reports;
  • Air defenses activated on Sirik Island
  • Explosions reported in Bandar Abbas, Iran, Jerusalem post reports

This has come within hours of Iran having announced the suspension of talks on a final settlement with the United States. Also, President Trump earlier during the NATO summit warned that more US strikes would be forthcoming tonight - it appears he's making good on this threat. "I'll give a little warning: We're going to hit them hard tonight," he told reporters just before his meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Reports of IRGC base targeted & struck:

More images emerging from the nighttime raids:

Like last night, Iran's military is expected to respond, after the following warning: Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister says recent actions by US won't stay without response, IRIB reports. Below is confirmation that the attacks are indeed underway:

  • The US has informed Tel Aviv that it will launch powerful strikes against Iran tonight, Al Arabiya reports citing an Israeli source
  • Iranian opposition sources report that maritime industries, shipyards, and the Revolutionary Guards' naval base in Bandar Abbas were attacked, report Kan News
  • Wednesday's strikes were broader in scope than the strikes the day before, targeting IRGC coastal radars, anti-ship missile sites and air defense systems, Axios' Ravid reports citing a senior US official

Trump Tells NATO Summit Iranians Want To Assassinate Him

President Trump while giving a closing address at the end of the NATO summit in Ankara repeatedly claimed that Iran was plotting to assassinate him, saying he was "on every single one of their list." He claimed: "They want to take out the US Leader. I'm on every single one of their list. So far, I've had a bit of luck, but maybe it won't last. They're evil and sick people, and we must get rid of this cancer."

He suggested that it's time to "finish the job" and yet at other times while fielding questions from reporters shied away from laying out anything that sounds like regime change. Instead he opted to again talk about how the US can never allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. He again stressed that "lunatics" can never have a nuclear weapon.

On the claimed assassination plot, it's unclear whether he has something specific in mind, in terms of a recent statement from the Iranian government. He could be referencing media reports from earlier this week quoting mourners and speakers at Khamenei's funeral. For example the following was in a Tuesday Reuters report:

As they passed under a bridge, mourners hurled stones at a billboard hung from above ​showing U.S. President Donald Trump with a bullet aimed at his head.

"The U.S. killed our father," it read. "We won't let you go!"

As demonstrators set fire ​to U.S. and British flags, women in black chadors held aloft red placards with the English words "KILL TRUMP" in black letters.

Others held ⁠aloft posters with the faces of Trump, Vice President JD Vance, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth or Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, each depicted in the crosshairs of a ​gunsight, with the words "There will be blood".

Ahead of more potential renewed strikes on Iran tonight, CENTCOM is saying its forces are at the ready:

Iran Threatens To Reclose Strait, as US Military 'Ready' to Restart Blockade

Iran has once again threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, according to state broadcaster Press TV on Wednesday, citing an Iranian official. Iran is of course planning strait only under its own arrangements, or a protocol involving collection of fees and utilizing a designated route close to its coast, "as per the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding (MoU)."

The Iranian official further warned the military stands ready to "strike at least twice the number of targets hit" in response to any strikes by the United States. "The developments of the past 48 hours show Iran won't back down from managing the Hormuz," the source noted.

  • "The U.S. military stands ready to restart the blockade of ships to and from Iranian ports if ordered to do so, a U.S. official tells Fox News", Fox's Friden reports.
  • "Iran suspends talks on a final settlement with the United States", TASS reports citing an Iranian source.

"Any threat will receive a powerful response," the official was quoted in Press TV as saying, and warned further that the Islamic Republic's armed forces do "not distinguish between the United States and its partners in the region." The official warned Trump that the US "will gain nothing" from making such threats.

"He (Trump) will certainly lose both the Strait of Hormuz and the negotiations over a final agreement," said the source. "The choice is now his." Meanwhile...

OIL EXTENDS GAINS, BRENT CRUDE RISES ABOVE $80 A BARREL

And WTI...

Trump: "Probably Hit Iran Tonight"

After earlier saying from the NATO summit in Ankara that the Iran ceasefire is "over" - and amid fears of renewal of full-scale war given that Tehran has launched drone and missile attacks on nearby American allies Kuwait and Bahrain once again, President Trump said on Wednesday that he would "probably hit Iran tonight".

He issued the major threat and warning during a press conference at the NATO summit: "I'll give a little warning: We're going to hit them hard tonight," he told reporters just before his meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. He later lambasted Iran for "killing soldiers, killing people for 47 years," and that because of that, the US has "a score to settle." He added: "We may just do it without a deal." He also sought to once again explain his view that it's not about regime change, but about the nuclear issue.

Geopolitical news source DropSite is pushing back against some of Trump's newest claims, particularly that Iranians security services gunned down "54,000 protesters" during the January economic protests, commenting:

Trump today claimed Iran’s revolutionary regime killed 54,000 protesters at the start of the year, inflating the 40,000 figure he repeated through much of the US-Israeli war to justify and build support for U.S. action. There is no evidence for either figure.

HRANA, which has received U.S. funding, documented about 7,000 deaths, including many Iranian security and police. Iran puts the death toll just above 3,100 and says rioters killed civilians during protests that were overtaken by Israel- and U.S.-backed armed elements. Scores of videos from the January 2026 riots show armed men destroying mosques and government buildings and carrying out vigilante killings of security personnel.

Meanwhile, it's not a war, Trump has repeated... but what's next and what is the ultimate endgame here? Is there a coherent strategy yet? Trump further on Wednesday, while speaking alongside Zelensky and fielding questions, floated that "if we have to we will take out higher level targets" - and that "we may take over Kharg Island". He again admitted the Iran deal may not stick, after the US "knocked out 28 boats last night". He further warned that US forces will probably take out more boats tonight.

  • TRUMP, ON ATTACKS TONIGHT: NOT A THING IRAN CAN DO ABOUT IT
  • TRUMP:WOULD HATE TO STRIKE DESALINATION PLANTS, BUT MAY HAVE TO
  • TRUMP: WE MAY PUT DOWN THE BLOCKADE ON IRAN
  • TRUMP: BLOCKADE WOULD ONLY APPLY TO IRAN
Trump on Ceasefire, MoU Deal: "I think it's over; they're scum."

Brent crude futures jumped more than 6% in London after President Trump told reporters at a press conference in Ankara that the tentative ceasefire with Iran is over.

"To me, I think it's over. I don't want to deal with them anymore; they're scum," Trump told reporters. 

Trump's remarks came after Iran launched missiles and kamikaze drones at several merchant vessels in the Hormuz chokepoint on Tuesday. This was countered by overnight US strikes, as fears of conflict erupting once more are on the rise.

However, Trump stopped short of saying the U.S. would restart the war and said he would let talks continue if the parties were willing.

Crude Update

In European trade, front-month Brent crude futures jumped 6% to $78.63 a barrel, while West Texas Intermediate rose 6.2% to $74.85 a barrel. Natural gas prices rose as well, with the benchmark Dutch TTF contract up 4.8% to 49.04 euros per megawatt-hour.

Hours before the strikes, the US Treasury revoked a sanctions waiver that had allowed Tehran to sell oil, reversing a key element of the interim deal.

Trump also told reporters that he would continue to let his negotiators talk to Tehran, though he thought "they're wasting their time."

Eroding Confidence in Strait's Reopening

On Tuesday afternoon, the Joint Maritime Information Center upgraded the Hormuz risk rating to "Severe" after three tankers were targeted by Iran. This renewed uncertainty in the critical waterway will only pressure the normalization of vessel flows.

"Every renewed attack on commercial shipping further erodes confidence in the Strait's reopening, making each future recovery more fragile than the last," said Michelle Brouhard, head of policy and geopolitical risk at Kpler. "If every reopening is assumed to be temporary, freight rates remain elevated, insurance costs remain high and fewer vessels are willing to re-enter the Gulf."

Dominic Ellis, UBS equity analyst covering oil and gas, wrote in a note:

The US carried out a new round of strikes against Iran in response to recent Iranian attacks on commercial vessels in the Strait of Hormuz. Iran in turn launched missile and drone attacks on US assets in Kuwait and Bahrain. While this latest escalation does not mean an end to the diplomatic progress made in recent weeks, it underscores the challenges of diplomacy when both sides believe they have the upper hand.

Markets were too quick to buy into the de-escalation narrative in my view, and while there has been evidence of progress and of a rebound in vessel flows via the Strait of Hormuz, the latest developments may lead to more realistic expectations on the return to normalcy and a slightly higher range for oil in the near term.

The likelihood of a spike above $100/b remains low, however, even in the event of further tit-for-tat strikes in the Middle East, given the surprise sustained drop in Chinese crude imports.

Latest Bloomberg data tracking ships transiting the Hormuz chokepoint with transponders on remain elevated, but the number of vessels making the East-West route has fallen dramatically, while West-East remains steady.

Also, note that the oil market's forward curve has shifted into backwardation. This occurs when near-term futures trade at a premium to longer-dated contracts. The shift shows traders are once again willing to pay up for immediate crude supplies.

More Geopolitical Headlines

via Newsquawk...

Iran Commentary

  • Iranian Parliament Speaker Ghalibaf said the US has violated major parts of the MoU, citing US attacks on southern Iran, reinstating oil sanctions and threats of further strikes as MoU violations.
  • Iran's Foreign Ministry states that the US activity overnight has "rendered important and fundamental parts of the Memorandum of Understanding on the End of the War ineffective".
  • Iranian President Pezeshkian said the US, whether as World Cup host or in its foreign policy, manipulates the rules and resorts to deception, and that Iran rejects such tactics.
  • Iran's top joint miliary command said Iran will give a crushing response to America's aggression and terrorist action, and under no circumstances will they allow them to interfere in the affairs of the Strait of Hormuz and its management.
  • Advisor to Iran's Supreme Leader said US President Trump intends to attack again and we are fully prepared.
  • Iran's Foreign Ministry condemns the US Treasury's move to revoke the temporary suspension of sanctions on Iranian oil sales, will take any measure it deems necessary to safeguard its interests and national security. Iran holds the US government responsible for the consequences of the breach of the Memorandum of Understanding.

Overnight Attacks

  • Several explosions have been heard in Bushehr, Iran, according to Mehr news; Mehr's journalist on Kharg Island denies reported of an attack on Kharg, despite some reported of an incident being published. Elsewhere, sirens were reported in Bahrain once again.
  • Renewed explosions sounds heard around Iran's Qeshm and Sirik, Mehr reported.
  • Iran's army said it targeted the Sheikh Isa Base in Bahrain and warns of more attacks if the US repeats strikes on Iran, Mehr reported.
  • Iran's IRGC said that, in response to the US aggression, they hit 85 important US military installations in Port Salman, Bahrain's 5th Maritime Zone and Kuwait's Ali Salem Air Base.
  • Iran's IRGC said they downed a US Mq9 drone in the south of Iran, Press TV reported.
  • Iran fires several anti-ship missiles and drones towards US Navy warships in the Sea of Oman, Fars reported citing the Middle East Spectator.
  • A US official said the strike on Iran was a punitive action, not a proportional response, and that the operation will not end in the short term, CNN reported.

US Commentary

  • US President Trump said the Iran ceasefire is over "I think"; as far as I am concerned, it is a waste of time dealing with Iran. On the MoU, "think it is over". Adds, "I do not want to deal with Iran", they are a "bunch of liars".
  • US President Trump said (on Iran) he will allow US negotiators to continue to talk if they want. But, "I think this is a waste of time".
  • US President Trump said have had some great meetings; attacked very powerfully against Iran last night. Have wasted a lot of time with Iran. Iran does not know what it is doing. Iran shot rockets at the ships, which is why the US shot back. Iran is a "dirty" player, "are scum".
  • US President Trump approved the Iran strike plan and ordered it while in Turkey, a US official tells Axios' Ravid; the official said it is still unclear how long the strikes are going to continue.
  • US Secretary of Defence Hegseth has cancelled his visit to Israel, N12/Ynet report.

Others

  • Turkish President Erdogan said Europe must take more responsibility when it comes to NATO.
  • US President Trump said China is attempting to takeover the Panama Canal, will not let this happen. China has been treating the US right. Big fan of Chinese President Xi.
  • Ukrainian Armed Forces said Kyiv is under missile attack.
  • Israeli fighter jets carried out attacks in Barachit and Beit Yahoun in southern Lebanon.
  • A Pakistani Boeing (BA) plane flying to Karachi has crashed, with sources stating the plane was mistakenly targeted by the US, IRIB reported.
  • Chevron’s (CVX) Yasa Polaris oil tanker, used for CPC shipments, was attacked by drones off Russia’s Black Sea coast, according to sources.
  • Russia’s Gazprom said Ukraine attacked facilities of gas exports to Turkey; supplies not affected.
  • Ukraine's Military said it struck two oil refineries, six tankers, bridges and the Borisoglebsk airfield; AIF-NK oil refinery in Nizhny Kamsk was also damaged.
Tyler Durden Wed, 07/08/2026 - 16:05

Consumer Credit Unexpectedly Shrinks For The First Time Since 2024 As Credit Card Rates Jump

Zero Hedge -

Consumer Credit Unexpectedly Shrinks For The First Time Since 2024 As Credit Card Rates Jump

After two consecutive outsized jumps in consumer credit in the months of March and April, when gas prices surged and inflation resumed its track higher, lifting most prices as a result of the war in Iran, moments ago the Fed published its latest consumer credit (G.19) report for the month of May and it was a doozy: instead of the expected $17.5BN increase, in May total consumer credit unexpectedly shrank for the first time since November 2024.

The move was driven by a notable slowdown in nonrevolving credit, coupled with the biggest drop in revolving (credit card) debt since late 2024. 

Specifically, car and student loans (collectively non-revolving credit), rose by a modest $5.1 billion.

It was unclear what was behind the muted rise: recall that for the first quarter of 2026, student loans surged by $28 billion while auto loans posted a $2.4 billion decline, perhaps due to the very high interest rates on the debt (we will get an update for Q2 next month).

What is interesting, is that while auto loans have barely budged since late 2023, staying around 1.55 trillion for nearly three years, student loans have resumed their ascent, and after a modest decline in late 2023, student loans are once again at all time highs just shy of $1.9 trillion. 

At the same time, revolving credit, which mostly means credit card debt, unexpectedly sharnk by a notable $5.3 billion, following two months of $10BN+ increases.

It will be interesting to see if the paydown of credit card debt reflect in weaker retail sales for the month of June, which we will know when the report comes out in one week's time. 

Finally for those keeping tabs, after a modest decline in the previous two quarter, the average interest rate on credit card accounts assessed interest rose to 22.15%...

... a level last seen three years ago, when the Fed rates was almost 2% higher, which confirms our long-running observation that credit card rates go up but they never go down.

One final observation: after a period of about 6 years when the average amount financed by auto loans was around $25,000 (from 2008 to 2014), this amount has grown dramatically, and in Q1 2026 it hit a new record high of $42,500, the highest on record. Just in case there was confusion what is behind the relentless increase in car prices...

Tyler Durden Wed, 07/08/2026 - 15:44

Brown University Prof Bans Take-Home Exams After Mass-Cheating

Zero Hedge -

Brown University Prof Bans Take-Home Exams After Mass-Cheating

Authored by Jennifer Kabbany via The College Fix,

A Brown University professor says he will no longer allow students to take exams at home after he caught a large chunk of his class cheating on a test.

Economics Professor Roberto Serrano said he allowed students to take a midterm at home, and 40 students, nearly half the class, earned a perfect 100; among the 86 students in the class, the average overall class score was 96, the Chronicle of Higher Education reported July 6.

“I immediately knew that something was fishy. In previous editions of the course, the average grade in the midterm ranged from 65 to 80,” the Ivy League professor said.

He said further review seemed to confirm his suspicions, so he told the class:

“I’m not going to declare it void for now. I’m going to give the class a chance to prove me wrong. If the distribution of grades in the final exam looks roughly similar to the distribution of grades on the midterm, then I’ll count the midterm. If not, I will declare the midterm null and void. Also, the final will be in person.”

Serrano told the Chronicle that, unfortunately, his fears were confirmed.

“Between the midterm in March and the final in May, there was a consistent flow of students dropping the class — many of them had scored 100 on the midterm,” he said.

“Of the 59 students that took the final, 19 of them failed, so they also failed the course. Quite a few showed up, signed the exam, and turned it in blank. The average grade for this final was by far the lowest in the history of this course.”

Underscoring the cheating scandal, Serrano is blind, and has had to overcome numerous hurdles as a student and an academic.

Asked what he thinks of students taking the easy route, Serrano said they’re only selling themselves short.

A culture of effort and hard work should be inherent to learning. I worry many of our students now have the wrong idea, believing that the answer to any question can be obtained with a couple of clicks of the mouse,” he told the Chronicle.

“I tell them that years from now, their grades won’t matter. What will matter is how much they learned and how much stayed in their brain.”

Tyler Durden Wed, 07/08/2026 - 15:20

Coffee Lovers, Take Note: Lavazza Sounds Alarm, Suggest It May Be Time To Stock Up

Zero Hedge -

Coffee Lovers, Take Note: Lavazza Sounds Alarm, Suggest It May Be Time To Stock Up

Following the largest daily surge in Arabica coffee futures since the Dot-Com bubble, the head of Italian coffee giant Lavazza Group warned that prices are unlikely to fall over the next two years.

Giuseppe Lavazza, chairman of the Italian roaster, was quoted by Bloomberg as saying, "The market needs to have stability before it's time to think about a reduction of prices."

Lavazza explained that it will take two harvests and a massive rebuilding phase to replenish inventories and ease supply constraints, making lower prices unlikely over the next two years.

On Monday, Arabica futures in New York posted their biggest jump in 26 years, as worsening weather in Brazil and shrinking exchange-managed stockpiles fueled a rally. The violent move higher was not just weather-driven. A big short squeeze also materialized.

That sent 60-day volatility to the highest since 2014 levels - a period where weather-driven supply shock in Brazil dented global supplies. 

Making matters worse is the El Niño weather phenomenon that will start emerging in the months ahead and will create adverse weather conditions not just for top-grower Brazil but for other agri belts around the world.

"I think we are living in a long-lasting period of instability and uncertainty," Lavazza warned, adding, "Instability is the new constant."

Lavazza noted, "We need a couple of very strong crops from Brazil and Vietnam to rebuild stability. So maybe the first good crop is arriving," but we don't yet have evidence it will be as good as was expected at the end of 2025. 

He added: "The coffee market now shows fundamental changes compared to the past. We are living in an environment we don't know very well."

The takeaway for coffee lovers is simple: stock up.

Tyler Durden Wed, 07/08/2026 - 14:45

Are Flattening Curves And Style Rotations Deceptive Omens?

Zero Hedge -

Are Flattening Curves And Style Rotations Deceptive Omens?

Authored by Michael Lebowitz via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

Bond market pundits often warn that bear yield curve flatteners or inverted yield curves ultimately lead to recessions. Similarly, some equity experts caution that periods of violent back-and-forth rotations among stock sectors and/or style factors are precursors to a market top.  Additionally, the combination of a bearish flattening trend and volatile equity rotations leads some analysts to forecast a recession, with concerning market repercussions.  

The argument we present in this article is that predicting economic or financial market activity is not as simple as following two indicators. Bear flattening trades, inverted yield curves, and frantic style (factor or sector) rotations are not definitive warnings of a market peak. They are extremely informative about where the economy, markets, and investor sentiment stand, but they do not tell investors whether or when the economic or market cycle will turn. Knowing where you are in a cycle is not the same as knowing when it ends. Confusing the two is a common mistake and can be a costly one for investors in late-cycle analysis.

Given that both indicators are currently flashing red, we explore how they can serve as important warnings of pending financial market and economic turbulence, but also as deceptive omens.

What The Yield Curve Tells Us

The shape of the yield curve, or the difference in yields between long and short-term US Treasury securities, indicates the market’s expected path for short rates plus a term premium. In other words, where does the market expect Fed Funds to be in the future, plus how much of a yield premium is the market paying investors to take on the inflation, economic, and oversupply risks of holding Treasury securities?

To help appreciate where the yield curve stands today and how it’s changed recently, we’ve included the graph below.

A notable feature of this long-term graph is that every time the yield curve flattened and inverted, i.e., the 2-year yield rose above the 10-year yield (the blue line fell below 0 on the y-axis), a recession (gray) followed. There is one exception. In 2022, the curve flattened, inverted, and then steepened, yet a recession has not materialized. 

Current Yield Curve Flattening

Recently, the yield curve has been flattening (declining) while bond yields have risen. In bond market parlance, that is called a bear market flattener (higher yields and a flattening yield curve). The table below shows that since late February, when the Iran conflict started, the 2-year note has risen by 76 basis points, the 10-year note by 46 basis points, and the 30-year bond by only 25 basis points. As a result, the 2/10-year yield curve flattened by 30 basis points and the 2/30-year curve by 51 basis points.

A bear flattening is the result of investors raising their collective expectations for higher short-term rates. This can be due to strong economic growth expectations and/or higher prices. At the same time, longer-maturity yields are less responsive, likely due to a subdued long-run growth forecast or a belief that higher inflation is temporary.

The flattening or inversion of the yield curve creates more restrictive financial conditions, acting as a brake on economic activity. An economy that warrants slowing is often one that is late in its economic cycle.

When the long-maturity yield falls below the short-maturity yield, i.e., it inverts, the usual interpretation is that investors expect future rate cuts because policy and/or rates are restrictive enough that the central bank will have to reverse course. However, that definition fails to consider the term premium, the compensation investors demand for holding longer-duration notes and bonds. A curve can flatten or even be inverted because the market expects rate cuts and/or because the term premium has compressed toward zero. Thus, it’s not definitive whether an inverted curve is due to expected rate cuts, well-anchored inflation, or forecasts of an economic downturn.

Equity Rotations

Equity leadership can be a tell of similar concerns, but through a different mechanism. Stocks are claims on future corporate cash flows, and those claims have duration. For instance, growth companies tend to have minimal cash flows or even run losses in the near term, but expectations are for large and growing earnings in the future. Thus, valuations for growth companies are based on distant-future cash flows and, accordingly, have a long duration.

Conversely, value companies generate cash flows that are nearer and more certain and are therefore considered to have shorter durations. When short-term interest rates rise and uncertainty about the future increases, the present value of distant cash flows is marked down far more than that of near cash flows.

For example, the 1-year present value of $100 at a 5% discount rate is $95.24, and at a 4% discount rate, it’s $96.15. The 1% change in rates impacts the present value by $0.91. Conversely, the 10-year present value of $100 at 5% and 4% is $61.39 and $67.56, respectively, resulting in a difference of $6.17 for the 1% change in rates. Accordingly, valuation multiples of growth companies tend to compress relative to those of value companies.

As we share below, in a hypothetical example, the value of the future cash flows of a value company with more upfront cash flows declines less with a 3% increase in the discount rate than that of a growth firm with more cash flows expected in the distant future.

A growth-to-value rotation is the equity market’s version of the yield curve flattening: both are duration-related repricings driven by the same change in the cost of money.

When Rotations Become Volatile

Typically, equity rotations in a late-cycle market become more volatile. In other words, no style or sector leads or lags for long stretches. These rapid rotations help clue us into a market regime that is becoming contested or changing.

Through the middle of an expansion, the macro picture is often clear with trend growth, accommodative or neutral monetary policy, and a steady discount rate. Because the regime is stable, leadership often remains in place for long periods as investor capital concentrates on the companies that benefit most from prevailing conditions. However, the market regime becomes challenged as changes in the broad economic and market environment are anticipated. Investors start asking questions such as:

  • Is monetary policy changing?

  • Is growth decelerating or reaccelerating?

  • Is inflation sticky or transitory?

As new economic and corporate data feed into the market, the discount rate becomes more sensitive. The market is forced to continually toy with its assumptions, and leadership ping-pongs as a result.

The volatility of style leadership is a proxy for regime uncertainty. The whipsaw action itself, not necessarily which types of stocks lead or lag, is the tell. A market that cannot decide between value and growth is a market that cannot decide what the discount rate will be, which is to say, a market that senses the regime is changing beneath it.

False Signals

There is a complication with what we have presented. The yield curve can be distorted by forces unrelated to the business cycle, such as shifts in the bond term premium, large-scale asset purchases (QE) or their reversal (QT), and significant government bond supply.  Equity rotations are at times heavily influenced by momentum chases and bouts of speculative behavior. Moreover, the rise of passive investment strategies tends to accentuate momentum trends.

When other factors influence the yield curve or the volatility of equity rotations, the “forecast” embedded in the curve and rotations becomes muddied and can falsely signal a market and economic top.

Condition And Timing Indicators

This brings us to the distinction that should govern how the signals are used. There is a difference between a condition indicator and a timing indicator. A condition indicator describes the economic and market landscape. A timing indicator tells you when the next event arrives. Flat curves and unstable leadership are good indicators of conditions, but can make for poor timing indicators.

This concept is like weather forecasting. A falling barometer tells you the atmosphere favors a change in the weather, likely a storm. It does not tell you what day or time the storm will arrive. In fact, despite the drop in barometric pressure, the storm may never form. Reading a barometer as a surefire countdown clock to a storm is an error, no matter how reliably storms and falling pressure correlate.

Summary

If you cannot extract a time frame for an economic and market peak from these signals, then what purpose do they serve?

The answer is that they help us prepare for a widening series of potential outcomes. Today, for instance, with the yield curve flattening and a series of violent rotations, we are maintaining stricter stop-loss levels, paying closer attention to technical analysis, focusing on our SimpleVisor rotation analysis tools, and assessing our risk more frequently.

The signals suggest the regime may be changing, and we should be prepared for that possibility. However, until that becomes more evident, we must take advantage of what the market has to offer. 

Tyler Durden Wed, 07/08/2026 - 14:25

FOMC Minutes Show 'A Few' Fed Members Wanted To Hike In June, 'Majority' Fear Higher Inflation

Zero Hedge -

FOMC Minutes Show 'A Few' Fed Members Wanted To Hike In June, 'Majority' Fear Higher Inflation

Tl;dr: The minutes underscored a more hawkish tone on inflation. UBS traders noted that most participants cited scenarios in which price pressures could remain elevated, including stronger AI-related demand, the ongoing Middle East conflict and tariffs. In those cases, nearly all of those officials said some additional policy tightening would likely be warranted. Fed staff raised their inflation outlook for 2026 and 2027 compared with the April forecast, reflecting the effects of the Middle East war and AI-driven investment, while trimming their GDP growth outlook slightly.

*  *  *

Today's FOMC minutes will be scrutinized for further insight into policymakers' appetite for additional rate hikes and the thinking behind the Committee's hawkish shift at last month's meeting. The minutes are an account of the June 17th meeting and therefore will not reflect subsequent developments, including the softer-than-expected June nonfarm payrolls report or Chair Warsh's appearance at the ECB's Sintra Forum.

Since the last FOMC meeting (June 17th), the dollar has strengthened (on the hawkishness) and gold (and bitcoin) mirrored that with sizable declines. Stocks are flat, bond yields are higher (prices down), and oil remains lower, but accelerating in the last couple of days...

The market's expectations for Fed actions this year have surged back near the highs (up from around 20bps pre-Warsh to around 40bps today)...

And rather interestingly, the initial dramatic flattening of the yield curve on FOMC day has been entirely erased...

As Growth-related macro data has disappointed notably while Inflation-related macro data has remained sticky/high...

So with all that said (and with all eyes watching for confirmation of the hawkish bias), what does the FOMC want us to know about Warsh's first meeting in charge...

FOMC Minutes summary:

Participants generally saw upside risks to price stability as elevated, while downside risks to maximum employment goal had moderated a bit

Inflation

  • The majority of participants commented that most measures of medium- and longer-term inflation expectations remained at levels consistent with the Committee's 2 percent objective.

  • The majority of participants highlighted the possibility that, after several years of inflation above 2 percent, continued elevated inflation rates could begin to affect inflation expectations and wage- and price-setting decisions.

  • A few participants commented that, in light of these developments, there was a case for raising the target range for the federal funds rate, but those participants indicated that they supported maintaining the current target range at this meeting.

  • Most participants remarked on scenarios in which inflationary pressures would dissipate and inflation would soon begin to return to 2 percent. In such scenarios, almost all of these participants noted that it would likely be appropriate to maintain or eventually lower the target range for the federal funds rate.

    • Most participants, however, also pointed to scenarios in which, in the context of stable labor market conditions, inflation would remain elevated due to strong AI-related demand, the conflict in the Middle East, or the effects of tariffs.

    • In such scenarios, almost all of these participants indicated that some policy firming would likely be warranted to return inflation to 2 percent.

  • Some participants observed that the sharp rise in input costs reported in business surveys raised concerns about the potential for higher energy and commodity costs to pass through more broadly to final goods prices.

  • Several participants noted, however, that firms in their Districts reported that they had been cautious about increasing prices, citing concerns that higher prices could reduce demand or their market shares

  • Several participants noted that the deceleration in housing services prices was likely to continue to be a source of disinflationary pressure.

The Fed appears to now be officially blaming AI for rise in core inflation: 

"Core goods price inflation had risen relative to a year earlier, which the staff judged as largely reflecting the effects of tariffs and AI-related price pressures"

...

Many participants noted that ongoing strong demand for AI infrastructure would likely sustain upward pressure on prices for technology products and electricity..."

...

"Some participants remarked that productivity gains associated with AI adoption would eventually reduce production costs and increase aggregate supply, which should put downward pressure on inflation, though they noted this effect would likely take time to materialize"

...

"Initial public offering activity in the U.S. appeared set to accelerate this year, with the proceeds expected to help fund ongoing investments in AI infrastructure."

Growth

  • Most participants remarked that growth in economic activity that exceeded that of potential output, owing in part to strong AI business investment, could contribute to more persistent inflationary pressures.

  • With respect to household spending, most participants observed that stock market gains and federal income tax refunds sent earlier this year had provided support to consumer spending, particularly among higher-income households.

  • Most participants remarked that growth in economic activity that exceeded that of potential output, owing in part to strong AI business investment, could contribute to more persistent inflationary pressures.

  • Some participants remarked that productivity gains associated with AI adoption would eventually reduce production costs and increase aggregate supply, which should put downward pressure on inflation, though they noted this effect would likely take time to materialize.

Communication

  • A majority of participants remarked that they saw advantages in shortening the statement.

  • Some participants commented that they welcomed the opportunity to review the Committee's communications tools and practices.

  • Most participants emphasized that they preferred not to repeat the language in the previous postmeeting statement that had suggested an easing bias regarding the likely direction of the Committee's future interest rate decisions.

Policy

  • Several participants remarked that they did not see the current policy stance as restrictive, while a few other participants commented that they saw the current policy stance as slightly restrictive.

FX

  • There were no intervention operations in foreign currencies for the System's account during the intermeeting period.

Read the full FOMC Minutes here.

Tyler Durden Wed, 07/08/2026 - 14:05

MiB: Lyft CEO David Risher

The Big Picture -

 

 

This week, I speak with David Risher, CEO of Lyft, about his career path from Microsoft and Amazon to leading the ride-sharing platform. We discuss Lyft’s financial turnaround, cost-cutting measures, and strategies for expanding market share. Plus customer-centric features, the mechanics of ride data, and the decade-long transition toward autonomous vehicle networks.

A transcript of our conversation is below; His current reading is “Apple in China: The Capture of the World’s Greatest Company” by Patrick McGee, and “Good People: A Novel” by Patmeena Sabit.”

You can stream and download our full conversation, including any podcast extras, on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube (video), YouTube (audio), and Bloomberg. All of our earlier podcasts on your favorite pod hosts can be found here.

Be sure to check out our Master’s in Business this weekend with McKeel Hagerty, CEO/Chairman of Hagerty Specialty Insurance. He transformed a family specialty-insurance agency into an enthusiast-driven platform focused on collectible cars, events, valuation data, and auctions. HGTY is now a public company that insures everything from classic cars to boats, trucks, tractors, and military vehicles for over 2.8M collectors.

 

Spotify

 

 

MASTERS IN BUSINESS An Interview with David Risher, CEO of Lyft
Hosted by Barry Ritholtz  ·  Bloomberg Radio

 

ANNOUNCER (00:00:02):  Bloomberg Audio Studios: podcasts, radio, news. This is Masters in Business with Barry Ritholtz on Bloomberg Radio.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:00:16):  This week on the podcast — man, was this a fascinating conversation. David Risher has been CEO of Lyft for the past three years; he’s been on the board for the past five years. What a fascinating discussion about a company that is probably an app on your phone, and you may not be aware of all the different things they do — from bike share, to autonomous vehicles, to fleet management, and everything in between. I thought this was absolutely fascinating, and I think you will also. With no further ado, my conversation with Lyft’s CEO, David Risher.

DAVID RISHER (00:00:55):  Thank you, Barry. I am happy to be here.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:00:56):  I’m thrilled to have you. Before we start talking about your technology background, I gotta roll a little further back: a bachelor’s in comparative literature from Princeton. That doesn’t sound like the sort of career plan for someone who’s gonna work his way through technology companies. What was the original idea?

DAVID RISHER (00:01:16):  So this goes way back, and the funny thing is, it even goes to high school. My mother bought an Apple II computer a million years ago to help her run a small business, and I sort of got into technology that way. I will admit, part of it, I think, is I had terrible handwriting. And so when I used the computer to print out stuff for my high school English teacher, she could finally read what I was writing. It probably gave me a better grade as a result. So I sort of got into computers a little bit as a kid, ended up at Princeton, writing my thesis on a computer — again, this is a million years ago, when that wasn’t normal. And so I found myself just interested in technology, and after going to a consulting firm for a couple years to learn about the business world and going to business school, I found myself as an intern at Microsoft — again, back in 1990 — and the rest is sort of history.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:02:09):  So, Harvard Business School — we know what that typically leads to. I’m curious how the humanities background helped shape the way you think about business, about leadership, about working with people. What was the upside of humanities for you?

DAVID RISHER (00:02:26):  You know what, I really appreciate the question, and I actually think it’s more relevant now than ever. Look, the humanities is all about curiosity and understanding, and maybe even empathy, right? If you read a book, you have to understand — you’re exposed to different people’s perspectives. It’s almost like you’re crawling inside someone else’s brain, particularly if you’re reading fiction. And so, to a certain extent, I think nothing could prepare you better. Now, you have to have an analytical brain. You might also have to be good with numbers in business. But the humanities world — I sort of think of it as this kind of magic vaccination against irrelevance, because that curiosity is always gonna matter. And it certainly helped me through my whole career.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:03:05):  I love that answer. So you intern at Microsoft. You end up beginning your career there, where you helped to launch their first database product, Access. Tell us about that.

DAVID RISHER (00:03:17):  Sure. So Microsoft was famously ahead — or at least getting ahead, let’s say — with the launch of Windows, in word processing, in spreadsheets, of course. And again, this is sort of ancient business history, but it’s a fascinating tale of a technology shift, completely reshuffling the deck away from old companies like WordPerfect and Lotus 1-2-3. We don’t even know who those companies are anymore, because Microsoft took over that space. And it’s really because Windows shifted the platform — we might come back to that idea when we talk about autonomous cars. But they didn’t have a database, and that was sort of the third big product that a lot of companies wanted. I helped develop it; I was the first product manager on it. And really, all that meant is my job was to go around and watch other people use competing products at the time — Paradox, dBase, again, products that don’t even exist anymore — and try to pay attention to what they were doing with these products. How were they using them? Where were they stumbling? That was my first role. And in a sense, it has been one of the most important jobs I ever had, ’cause it’s what sort of taught me about understanding what customers want.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:04:17):  Huh, interesting. And then you founded Microsoft Investor and launched that product. That is so far afield from databases. What led to that transition?

DAVID RISHER (00:04:29):  Okay, so you’re making me realize that there’s a theme of my life I hadn’t really thought of before, which is platform shifts. So when I joined Microsoft, Windows was the product, right? This was the thing that was gonna run software, and of course it became incredibly successful. But then 1995, 1996, 1997 comes around — the internet is here. And Microsoft, like any tech company at the time, had to figure out its internet strategy. And it decided that there were a couple of key products that needed to be available on the World Wide Web. Actually, I think “the information superhighway” literally was the way people talked about it. It’s crazy. So —

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:05:04):  Cliché. It’s amazing.

DAVID RISHER (00:05:05):  So cliché. But there it was — no one even knew how to talk about the thing. So anyway, I had been a little bit interested in personal finance, and a couple of threads came together. Microsoft tried to buy a company called Intuit — still very successful — and was unsuccessful, blocked because of the Justice Department. And so we decided we needed personal finance. And I said, you know what, why don’t we develop this product — a personal finance product — for the internet, not as packaged software.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:05:29):  Huh. Really, really interesting. And then, staying with the theme of platform shifts: employee number 37 at Amazon. That is just an absolutely bonkers number. Senior VP of US retail — when you joined the firm, revenue was $15 million. You helped ramp that up to $4 billion. Obvious question: when you joined Amazon, did you have any idea what the behemoth it would become? Or was it still, hey, we’re hanging on by our fingernails and maybe this’ll work out — or anywhere in between?

DAVID RISHER (00:06:07):  It was sort of both at the same time, and it was almost always gonna be one or the other, right? So I remember — I’ll tell you a little of the story of how I got there. My phone rings one day at Microsoft, and it’s this guy Jeff, and he’s doing a reference check of a woman who used to work, actually, at Microsoft in the personal finance group. So it all kind of connects. And so we get to talking, and one thing leads to another, and he is very precise about the way he’s asking questions. Remember, the company had maybe 10 people at this point. It was very, very small. But he had a big vision. You know, he was gonna be Earth’s biggest bookstore.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:06:42):  At the time — wait, hold on, let me just stop you. When you say “this guy, Jeff” — this isn’t just some guy in HR. Jeff Bezos is calling you to do a background check on a potential hire.

DAVID RISHER (00:06:55):  Exactly.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:06:56):  So go on — Jeff calls.

DAVID RISHER (00:06:58):  So Jeff calls me, and literally, at the time, he was just this guy, Jeff.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:07:02):  “Hey David, some guy named Jeff on the phone. Pretty much a background check for an employee.” So what was that conversation like?

DAVID RISHER (00:07:09):  Well, he had — to take you back then, but in a sense it’s still the Jeff of today — he had a plan, and it was a 25-question plan for the phone call, right? And to this day, the question I remember the most clearly was: “It’s very clear you are a fan of this person — give me an example of a job that she wouldn’t be a good fit for.” And it was such a clever question, because inevitably in background checks, you’re trying to say nice things about the person, right? But this is an invitation to say, well, you know, maybe a very detail-oriented job might not be the best fit. Or maybe something that manages a lot of people. It’s something like this that would give him some sense of where an area to probe more is. Anyway, at the end of that conversation — literally 45 minutes into it — he says, you know, you sound like a good guy. I said, oh, you sound like a good guy as well. And so a couple days later, he and MacKenzie, his wife at the time, and Jen, my wife currently still, and I went out to dinner, got to know each other, and over the course of the next year, got to know each other a little bit better. And then I ended up applying for this job to help Amazon grow beyond just books. That was really the job.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:08:16):  And how’d that work out?

DAVID RISHER (00:08:18):  It worked out pretty well. But you know what, it wasn’t obvious at the time. During the interview, I remember he said — look, if we play our cards right — and as you say, it was a $15.6 million store at the time, so tiny, tiny little thing — he said, if we play our cards right, maybe by the year 2000 — this is in 1996 — we might be a billion-dollar company. Maybe, maybe. But a lot has to go right in order for that to happen. Obviously we got there, and then we got, you know, far beyond. But there were all kinds of people who frankly were sort of rooting for our failure — competitors, Barnes & Noble at the time, a bunch of Wall Street analysts who thought this was just some sort of crazy Ponzi scheme, whatever.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:08:56):  It was, “No one’s gonna buy anything on the internet. What are you guys doing? This is a dumb idea.”

DAVID RISHER (00:09:00):  Totally, totally. Well, and not only that, but also: the costs are gonna be huge. You’re gonna have to build out these distribution centers and warehouses. The internet is unproven technology. All sorts of things that just —

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:09:12):  No one’s giving you a credit card over the internet, correct?

DAVID RISHER (00:09:14):  Correct. Who’s gonna trust you?

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:09:15):  I remember getting an Amazon gift certificate from my college roommate — this was decades ago, right after Amazon formed. And the first time you go through the experience of buying something, it’s like, oh, this makes perfect sense. I don’t have to go to the store, I don’t have to waste time. This is great. I mean, there are certain stores that are fun to browse, but for the mundane sort of stuff, he was just decades ahead of everybody else.

DAVID RISHER (00:09:46):  In that way — and in realizing that it’s really the customer experience and customer obsession that’s gonna drive your continued growth. Because all those things are true. And as he would say, famously, you’re always one click away from competition. So that’s the downside, right? How do you continue to compete in a world where theoretically someone else could start, and someone else could start, and someone else could start — and you don’t have any geographic advantage over them?

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:10:09):  And they kind of owned that space for the longest time. Really, it was only the pandemic, when people were outta things, that forced everybody: all right, now I have a Target account, now I have a Walmart account, now anybody else who could deliver. And what’s been surprising is how they’ve just powered right through. Hasn’t really slowed him down very much.

DAVID RISHER (00:10:27):  That’s right. That’s right.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:10:31):  So you go from Amazon — you kind of tap out a couple of years later. You teach at the University of Washington’s business school; you were elected Professor of the Year in 2004. And then you spend 13 years running Worldreader, a nonprofit dedicated to helping children learn to read in underserved communities. This is yet another pivot — platform shift, right? What was it? Just like, all right, I have my Microsoft stock came in, Amazon recovered from the dot-com implosion, that’s doing fine — I could just do something for fun? What was the thinking behind the shift?

DAVID RISHER (00:11:11):  No, it wasn’t that, actually — it was sort of a different thing. So you asked me a couple questions ago what my career idea was as a kid. Honestly, if I had had to guess, I might have said, you know, maybe I’ll be an English professor someday, or something like that. I’d wanted to teach, and I loved reading. And so this was a way for me to bring together a couple of different things in my life — obviously books and literacy, ’cause that was sort of the passion and focus, but also technology. The thesis of the company was: kids are gonna read using tech. And that’s how it’s gotten to be — millions and millions of kids later are all reading on the platform. It started out with Kindle, a product I know something about because of my Amazon days, and brought sort of technology and reading together. So that was really the focus.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:11:53):  And then what ultimately ended up bringing you back into the corporate sector, after a long time in academia and nonprofits?

DAVID RISHER (00:12:01):  Yeah. So here it was — one day my phone rings, and a guy named Sean Aggarwal is on the other end of the line. Sean and I had worked together many years before, back at Amazon. He was my kind of finance partner. He had subsequently become an investor and then the board chair of Lyft. And he and John and Logan, the co-founders of Lyft, really were looking to do something quite unusual at the board level, which was: bring someone in who is a real customer advocate. So boards — for those of you who haven’t gotten a chance to be exposed to a board — typically are made up of kind of finance people, business strategists, maybe people who’ve built companies before. But often, by the time you get to sort of the board level of a company, you’re pretty far away from the customer. And John and Logan, again to their credit, said, you know what? We need some more customer advocacy right from the top. We need some more support, frankly, for that kind of vibe, as well as someone who’d helped scale a company like Amazon. You know, I also learned a lot about competing at Microsoft, and even at Worldreader — nonprofits, people sort of look at them and think they’re not very much, but it’s very, very difficult to actually scale a nonprofit, because the funding is always tight and so forth. So I think they were looking for someone with a combination of scaling experience but also real customer advocacy. And so I joined the board as a result.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:13:18):  And then eventually, a couple of years later, you get offered the role of CEO. What was that like? How did that come about? Infrequently do board members become CEOs.

DAVID RISHER (00:13:36):  So, funnily enough — and this one I’ll sort of slow the story down again, because it actually was Sean Aggarwal again, same board chair — he calls me up. It happened to be on Valentine’s Day, of all days, so I remember the day, in 2023. And the backstory here is John and Logan, again, the co-founders of Lyft — this is what they had been doing for 15 years nonstop. It was literally their first job outta college: founding this whole new company, withstanding the onslaught of an incredibly competitive environment, an incredibly operationally complex environment, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, for year after year. So at the end of the prior year, they said to the board, you know what, it’s time for us to move on. We’ve sort of done what we need to do. And frankly, the company was going through a bit of a tough time financially and operationally, and I think they realized that they were sort of getting to the end of where they could really help. So the board did what it does — boards do this — they form a special committee, they start to recruit, look around. I wasn’t on the committee; I was sort of watching from the side. But, as they say, then my phone rings one day, and it’s Sean on the phone with John and Logan, and they basically say: you know what we’ve been thinking? As we’ve been looking at external people, frankly, we think we might have the right person to at least apply for the job — let’s be clear, apply for the job — sitting right here, you know, on the board. And I said, what are you talking about? They said, we’re talking about you, David. I said, absolutely not.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:14:56):  Really — your first reaction was, hey, thanks, but no thanks?

DAVID RISHER (00:14:58):  Zero percent chance. I literally said, you should hang up the phone right now, because you’ve got better things to do. There’s just no way. But you know what? As the day wore on, I found myself saying, you know what, this is a really interesting opportunity. How many people get this opportunity? To run a — and I’d never run a public company before. I mean, my God. But at the same time, I had learned some things at Microsoft. I’d learned some things at Amazon. I learned some things at Worldreader. I learned some things in various different ways in my life. And I had a lot of passion for the company, having been on the board — and also a real understanding that as a board member, you really only have so much power and influence. It’s fairly limited. But as a CEO, it’s a different thing. So anyway, one thing led to another. I applied, and went through kind of a harrowing experience, but ended up getting the job.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:15:40):  Huh — really, really fascinating. So, we mentioned earlier: you joined the board in 2021, you’re named CEO in 2023. When you joined the company, they were still reeling from the pandemic and all the factors that drove the company — losing not only money, but also losing market share to their big competitor, Uber. What did you find when you looked under the hood? What surprises were awaiting you as CEO?

DAVID RISHER (00:16:11):  So the first, maybe, meta-observation — and you’re teeing it up — is: gosh, you’re on the board of a company for a couple years, you kind of think you know the company. You don’t really know the company. I mean, if any board members are out there, you think you do, and you probably have a pretty good sense of certain things, but you get in there and everything is 10 times bigger, worse, better — all the things. Then you realize: okay, what did I see? I saw a company that had some real innovative spirit at its core. Remember, Lyft was actually the one that really revolutionized rideshare. So the other guys, they came up with a sort of black-car concept — you know, black car on an app — but it was really Lyft that said, you know what, it can be anyone with a Prius. You know what I mean? Anyone can pick up. So this company had innovated from the early days, but honestly, its innovative spirit had maybe gotten a little the best of it. Tried a few too many things, spread a little too thin, losing share. And its core business, as you say — not priced well, not paying competitively. So a number of different, just basic issues. So what do we do the first, frankly, couple of weeks? Well, first thing is lower prices. We were just priced too high.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:17:15):  Did you do big announcements around that? Because I don’t — 2023 is still kind of a blur to me.

DAVID RISHER (00:17:20):  So we didn’t, and here’s why. In order to withstand a price drop — because it’s a very competitive business and you’re doing a lot of volume — if you drop your price, you gotta make sure you can pay for it. We had to do some other things as well. So, for example, we had to reduce our costs significantly. So we laid off — it was about a third of the company. And yeah, 26%, actually, of the company, now I think about it.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:17:41):  Wow.

DAVID RISHER (00:17:45):  $330 million of savings. That was a very, very significant shock to the company, by the way. We also had to raise driver pay. So we had a lot to pay for.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:17:53):  So wait — you’re simultaneously lowering prices for Lyft riders and yet bumping up pay for drivers. That sounds like that’s gonna cause a big problem for profits.

DAVID RISHER (00:18:03):  So that’s exactly right. So in order to pay for it, you have to figure out how to pay for it. And frankly, our cost structure was just sort of outta control. We were doing too many things. We had too many people — and by the way, those people were all working remotely, which makes it quite difficult to really kind of change the culture to a customer-obsessed culture, which was my other big thing. And by the way, we were also overpaying in stock-based compensation, which was bugging investors. So in the first couple of months, it wasn’t really the time to be bragging. It was the time, frankly, to be saying, okay, we’ve got some things to fix, and let’s really focus on that. So first — call it thirty, sixty, ninety days — it’s fixing some basics, but also reorienting the company back towards its customer-obsessed roots. And I’m still very — I guess I’d say proud of this: the first meeting I had of the day was literally getting my computer and my laptop, and the second meeting, 10 o’clock in the morning, Monday morning, I said, let’s start talking about a product that’s now called Women+ Connect — trying to get women drivers and women riders —

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:19:02):  Such a great idea, especially given the mayhem across the street from you.

DAVID RISHER (00:19:06):  I appreciate you saying that. And it really matters. And this is something the company —

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:19:11):  And I’m sorry to interrupt, please — it’s very visible on the app, that choice, which shows some thoughtfulness. And, oh, there’s this problem — how about we send a woman driver for you, and you don’t have to worry about what you’re hearing about elsewhere. Exactly. It just makes so much sense.

DAVID RISHER (00:19:28):  I really appreciate you saying that. It was an easy decision in that sense. All you have to do is talk to 10 women and say, well, what are you thinking? And they say, well, gosh, particularly late at night, maybe in a new city, maybe I’ve had a long day — it’s just not my jam to be talking to a dude. Right? It’s all right, dudes, you know — like that. But sometimes the easiest ideas are also the most complicated. There are all sorts of potential legal issues, all sorts of operational issues. There are even, to a certain extent, cultural issues of, like, is this gonna be okay? But I was like, you know what? I think it’s gonna be okay. I think it’s gonna be okay. So that was an early decision we made. It came out — that was in April of 2023 — we launched that later that year. And it was really exciting for the company to say, you know what, we can do big things again, and we can start to innovate again on behalf of customers.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:20:09):  Huh — kind of fascinating. Coming up: we continue our conversation with David Risher, CEO of Lyft, discussing the future of rideshare technology. I’m Barry Ritholtz. You’re listening to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:20:21):  I’m Barry Ritholtz. You’re listening to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio. My special guest this week is David Risher. He is the CEO of Lyft, one of North America’s largest and fastest-growing ride-sharing networks. So over the next year or so, you return Lyft to profitability. In the most recent reported quarter — first quarter 2026 — over 28 million active riders, nearly $5 billion in gross bookings, $1.7 billion in revenues, just about $133 million in EBITDA profits. So the combination of restructuring the company, attracting — paying more — drivers, and discounting prices for riders puts you on the right foot. How do you build on that? What’s the next step to maintain that momentum?

DAVID RISHER (00:21:25):  Well, so in some sense, nothing changes, and in some sense, everything changes, okay? So what doesn’t change: customer obsession is still driving profitable growth. That’s just gonna be a theme I go with forever. You know, maybe I’ve drunk a lot of the Jeff Bezos Kool-Aid, but it seems to be working out pretty well. So one other financial metric that has been interesting to watch: when I joined, we were losing about $300 million — consuming about $300 million in cash — over 12 months. We’re now generating about $1.1 billion in cash over 12 months.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:21:53):  Okay. So what that allows you to do is invest in the future. What does that look like?

DAVID RISHER (00:21:58):  Certainly it looks like international expansion. So that’s been one thing we’ve been at for about the last year. Lyft was sort of — I almost say caught a little bit in a US-centric view of the world. And it just doesn’t make sense: once you have a product that scales really well, and is sort of a fixed-cost-based type of thing, you really want it to be around as much of the world as possible, so you can run as much volume through that platform as possible. So we bought a company called FREENOW last year. It’s a European taxi aggregator —

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:22:28):  FREENOW?

DAVID RISHER (00:22:29):  FREENOW. Yeah. It is Europe’s biggest taxi aggregator, which means that if you want a taxi and you’re in a place like Barcelona or London — pick your favorite city; they operate in nine countries — the FREENOW app is gonna be your best way to get it. That gives us a great platform for expansion, even when it comes to autonomous vehicles — we’ll come back to that, I’m sure, in a couple seconds. So that’s one direction of expansion. You think of that as out — overseas. Another dimension is up — upmarket. You just kind of referred to this. So Lyft, again — it sort of started, its tradition was, as kind of a relatively inexpensive, very available rideshare option, but it wasn’t as strong in kind of the black, you know, kind of luxury segment. We bought a company called TBR last year. TBR is a high-end chauffeur company. We also have a very, very good Lyft Black product. In fact, if you’re listening to this, I promise: if you haven’t tried it, give it a try. I think you’ll like it. It’s actually our highest-rated product. You know, a nice black car comes and picks you up. So that’s another area of expansion for us, because that gives us, frankly, more margin to play with, but it also allows us to talk to a segment that we haven’t talked to very much. And then, of course, autonomous vehicles. So these are all nice uses of cash. Once you’re generating cash, you can start to either acquire companies, or you can invest in things that then grow — build sort of the next chapter of growth.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:23:44):  So I appreciate you mentioning the various tiers. There’s this tendency to think of the consumer — especially the American consumer — as one thing, but we both know that’s not true. You get to crunch a whole lot of data. What are you seeing in terms of income, geography, various times of day? Like, what do the metrics tell you about the different flavors of consumers using Lyft?

DAVID RISHER (00:24:11):  Yeah, this is such an interesting issue, and it’s not something I really appreciated. You know, we are gonna do about a billion rides this year, and so, to your point, with a billion rides, you kind of get a sense of how people are spending their time during the day. So I’ll tell you two things that are growing quite quickly. One is party time. And it might be funny to start there, but party time — I should say what that means. What that means is a Thursday night, really Friday night and Saturday night, call it nine and midnight. And it is really interesting — I think this is not just post-COVID, but I think, frankly, a little bit of app fatigue is driving people to say, you know what? Let’s actually get out and spend our lives out in the real world, instead of spending all of our lives on apps. So I think that’s — actually, I’m quite comforted by that. And it’s actually a big part of our sort of overall purpose, which is to serve and connect people. I’m a lot passionate about that. At the same time, commute as well. And I do think this is a certain post-COVID thing, where people were sort of thinking, maybe we’ll just be in our houses the rest of our life, working remotely. It turns out a lot of companies and a lot of people are saying, I wanna get back to work. And I think these things are somewhat connected — and sorry for sounding a little bit like a social psychologist a little bit, but I mean, gosh, I met my wife at Microsoft. A lot of people have really significant life events that happen at work that are not just work, right? And so I think there’s a little bit of that. So anyway, when I look at things like commute hours — and then travel continues to be really strong as well. And this is — look, I’m a million years old now. When I was a kid, the idea of getting on a plane and going overseas — I mean, you might as well say go to the moon. Now, 20- and 30-year-olds are like, yeah, I’ll sort of take a trip overseas, or I’ll go to, you know, whatever — Nashville for the weekend, or something. So anyway, I think these are pretty big, real societal shifts, as people want to kind of be out in the real world.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:25:51):  I’m kind of fascinated by the idea of party time, ’cause pre ride apps, there was always the question: all right, I’ve had two, I guess I’m driving tonight, so I gotta stop here. But if you’re out on party night and you know you’re taking a car home, you are not afraid about having a second or third drink. You can kind of relax a little bit. Getting pulled over is not a problem if you’re in somebody else’s Lyft.

DAVID RISHER (00:26:19):  It’s exactly right. So again, if you zoom out — you know, Wall Street looks at companies like ours quarter by quarter, and it sort of drives you crazy. But if you zoom way, way out, let’s look at that from a different dimension. Now, average car right now: 50,000 bucks. Okay? Average monthly payment: 800 bucks. Insurance will cost you another couple hundred bucks. Gas might cost you another hundred bucks or so, at least now. And then service will cost a little bit more than that. Okay? So that’s plan A. And by the way, if you take on all that responsibility, there’s no texting and there’s no drinking. You know what I mean? Now, plan B: pay 20 bucks getting a Lyft. Someone else does the driving. Text to your heart’s content, drink as much as you want — if that’s your jam. And it’s 20 bucks, not 800 bucks times, you know, plus, plus, plus. So just looking out — again, you’re sort of asking about kind of segments, and sort of, maybe, a little bit, the role of technology in society. I still think we’re actually at the beginning stages of a lot of these changes. And sometimes, again, people who have been around for a while don’t even realize how much the world has changed in that way.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:27:21):  Yeah. Fascinating data point I saw — it was actually a couple of years ago — the number of kids under 19 that haven’t gotten a driver’s license. When I was growing up, you couldn’t wait to get your driver’s license, ’cause that meant freedom. There wasn’t an internet. There were three channels, plus some people started getting cable. Like, it was a very different world back then. That’s right. And now it’s like, yeah, maybe I’ll get a license, maybe I won’t. How do you think about marketing to that demographic?

DAVID RISHER (00:27:51):  Well, so one of the things I learned from Jeff — again, who’s, as you can imagine, quite an influential boss for me — is: build your businesses on things that don’t tend to change. Not things that are sort of ephemeral. So what are some things that aren’t gonna change? Okay — again, people are gonna want to get out, either to the doctor or to go to a bar. So that’s a good bet. People are also gonna want to save money. And so a lot of our focus right now — and you’re gonna start to see a lot of marketing around this — is: save money, check Lyft. Now, I wanna be super clear here. It’s not — if I look at the competitor — that we always have a better price. Of course we try to, but we don’t always; sometimes, you know, all sorts of things happen. But over time, if you check both apps, you’re gonna save some money. And certainly, compared to buying a car of your own and dealing with all the maintenance, you’re gonna save some money. So it’s not the only thing I wanna say, but I actually think it’s an important thing to say — particularly in a world of sort of some economic instability — this is a good way for you to save some money. And frankly, I’m proud of our cost position, and I’m proud of our ability to offer a great price every single day, you know, a billion times a year.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:28:54):  So let’s talk about you versus your competitor. Lyft has always been framed as sort of the underdog to Uber. Is this kind of a Coke and Pepsi story? What are the advantages of being number two? Remember the old — was it Avis? We’re number two, we have to try harder.

DAVID RISHER (00:29:13):  Absolutely. So I like being number two, and it’s maybe a funny thing to say, but I do think it means you try harder. You wake up every single morning and you say, I got one job, which is to, frankly, do a great job for my riders and my drivers, such that maybe over time I can overtake the other guys. I guess the way to think about that is: I think the right number of rideshare companies in most markets is probably two. It’s a capital-intensive business — not because you own the cars, but because you own a lot of server capacity, and it’s quite complicated to figure out pickup and drop-off locations, and customer service — people leave their phones in the car about 8,000 times a week. It’s just all sorts of —

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:29:56):  Especially Friday party night.

DAVID RISHER (00:29:58):  Right — and there you go. It all kind of comes together. There is something to that. And by the way, we have really cool innovation coming out there — we’ll bring your phone back to you automatically. But that’s a separate story. But anyway, so in a funny way, it’s not a bad thing to be in sort of a two-player position, ’cause you really only have one competitor. And frankly, if you spend too much of your time thinking about that one competitor, you’re probably losing the script. Because guess what? There are a lot of rides that people aren’t even taking on rideshare at all. Okay? So, you know, back to this question — we’re a customer-obsessed company, and this is gonna be the thing. This is why we’re growing, you know, mid double digits — 15 to 20% year on year. It’s why we’ve become profitable. It’s why we’re spinning off cash. And I think that is a good place to be. Particularly when I look at the other guys, who I tend to think of, frankly, as more — I’ll call them sort of financially and maybe technologically driven. Maybe — I don’t know exactly how they describe themselves — but I don’t get the customer-obsessed vibe.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:30:52):  Huh — so that’s kind of interesting. Let’s talk about an example where there’s no customer-obsessed vibe. So I use Lyft, I use Uber. It feels like on Uber, the way it measures time is sort of an alternative reality. Hey, we’ll find a driver in three minutes — it takes nine minutes. Hey, the car will be here in 11 minutes — it’s there in 23 minutes. Like, the app is very full of BS. It consistently lies. I’m curious: is it just a logistical issue that everybody has to deal with? Or — and we know a lot about the history and culture of your biggest competitor — is this a culture problem? You know, their history has a lot of bad behavior, a lot of, let’s just call it questionable legality. I wouldn’t go so far as to say fraud, but they did a lot of bad things. Does that show up in how the app behaves? Or is this just, no, Google Maps is tough to work with, this is a logistical challenge?

DAVID RISHER (00:32:00):  No, it is a logistical challenge. But — look, I’m not gonna characterize you; you did a marvelous job characterizing them. Skirting —

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:32:09):  I got nothing — no liability for slander there.

DAVID RISHER (00:32:12):  There we go. Fantastic. Exactly. So Barry’s got a whole second — hold on, well, you were a lawyer, right?

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:32:16):  Yes, that’s correct.

DAVID RISHER (00:32:17):  Oh, there we go.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:32:18):  Okay, but I’m recovered, so —

DAVID RISHER (00:32:20):  It’s not the same. I understand — recovered lawyer — but you did just hear a lawyer very carefully parse his words. Okay, listen, I won’t comment on that. What I will say is: we are very focused — for example, you’re talking about reliability. Oh my goodness. You talk to my team, and they will — they roll their eyes, maybe, would be one way to say it. But the number of times I talk about reliability internally is high, because I am obsessed by saying: if we’re gonna make a promise, we’re gonna meet the promise. And starting in a couple weeks, we’re actually starting to do some more work to actually surface that promise, even a little bit more visibly. We do it today for airport pickups. If we’re more than 10 minutes late for an airport pickup, we pay you up to a hundred bucks, no questions asked.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:32:54):  Really?

DAVID RISHER (00:32:55):  Yep. And we rarely have to do that. Our reliability rate is above 99% for scheduled airport pickups.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:32:58):  Wow.

DAVID RISHER (00:33:00):  So we’re very, very focused on that. You know, I will say — look, at business school, there’s a very famous class which has a weird technical name, but it’s basically about incentives and behavior —

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:33:13):  What’s the name of the class?

DAVID RISHER (00:33:15):  So I was in school a long time ago — I think it’s called CCMO, and I don’t even remember what it stands for anymore. It’s probably called something different today. But it really is about how incentives drive behavior — financial incentives and other incentives, and incentive alignment, and so forth and so on. There is an incentive in the sort of on-demand app world not always to be truthful. Because if you overpromise something, and then you kind of hook a person in — what are they gonna do? If they cancel or whatever, it’s just gonna take them more time. And that is an evil and pernicious problem that is kind of baked into the model. And we just reject it wholeheartedly. Doesn’t mean we never make a mistake. But if your car shows up later than we estimated, it’s because we made a mistake, and we are trying over and over and over and over again to eliminate those — they’re defects — and then start to guarantee it over time.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:34:13):  So you are crunching a lot of numbers; you’re seeing a lot of data in real time. I’m kind of fascinated by the concept of what, at Lyft HQ, the dashboard looks like. What sort of data are you watching constantly? What’s the most surprising set of numbers or charts that come across that?

DAVID RISHER (00:34:34):  Yeah, this is a great question. I mean, so the answer, first — just to validate the premise — is: absolutely, an enormous amount of real-time data. You know, two to three million rides every single day, and now worldwide. So we’re very active, and in fact, we have whole cool maps that show simulations of behavior, particularly around storms and all sorts of crazy times. Anyway, back to your question. Look, there are a couple of metrics that I think might surprise you that we pay as much attention to as we do. And I’ll give you a very specific one, ’cause it kind of helps tell the story. When I joined, about 15% of the time, drivers would cancel on you. Now, this is infuriating.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:35:08):  Really? That high? I mean, every now and then on your competitor I’ll see a cancellation, but typically it’s rush hour. Someone’s stuck on the other side of the city; they’re not gonna make it. So rather than get that ding, they just cancel and find someone by them.

DAVID RISHER (00:35:24):  So in today’s world, it is less than 4.5% on our app. So we’ve brought it down by a factor of —

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:35:31):  Three.

DAVID RISHER (00:35:31):  Yeah, exactly — slightly less than that, actually, but around that. So how have we done that? Well, it’s not just that they’re on the other side of town. It’s maybe we didn’t give them enough information right up front — so, for example, how much they’re gonna make, or what neighborhood they’re gonna drop you off in, maybe. And by “not enough information” — maybe we gave it to ’em, but the font was a little bit too small for them to see it. Right? Or maybe it wasn’t on the screen quite long enough. Or maybe we gave you a ride that we didn’t know was very, very unlikely for you to want, because of your past history or whatever. So now we spend a lot of energy — and we’ve just been grinding away this year, after year, after year, because it’s so infuriating to riders. That’s an example of a sort of specific metric that we’re looking at, you know, by the day.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:36:23):  Huh — really, really interesting. Two kind of related questions to the growth of Lyft. Your last quarter’s earnings call, you said — or maybe it was a previous one — 27% of North American rides are linked to a corporate partnership. Chase, DoorDash, United, Hilton, et cetera. What is that strategy? Is that about customer acquisition? Margin? Like, what goes into those sort of big partnerships?

DAVID RISHER (00:36:51):  Sure. So, you know, as you say, we have tens of millions of people who use our service every quarter — it’s about 50 million a year. And again, this is back to sort of the Amazon philosophy: you gotta compete for those customers, right? You gotta compete because, you know, they have alternatives. And in fact, there’s another company out there that some people know. Okay? So one of the ways you compete is you say, gosh, it’s not just about the ride — it’s about the relationship. And maybe it’s a relationship you already have with another company. So you mentioned United Airlines. United Airlines has now been a partner of ours for about the last six months. It’s been a wonderful partnership already, because the United Airlines MileagePlus program is incredibly well built out. People are very, very loyal to it. What can you do on Lyft? You can now earn miles so that you can take a vacation —

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:37:38):  Same with Hilton Honors.

DAVID RISHER (00:37:39):  And same with Hilton Honors — exactly right there. We’ve been a partner for many, many years. The big innovation on the MileagePlus side is you can actually spend your miles on Lyft as well, which almost feels like free rides, right? That’s right — it’s just like, you get, you know, 200 miles or 500 miles, whatever, for taking an airline trip, and you spend a small segment of those on a Lyft ride. So these partnerships — you sort of asked what the method behind it is — it’s about customer acquisition, for sure, but it’s also about customer retention, you know? ‘Cause if you’re in the United ecosystem, or on the DoorDash side, or Hilton, or Alaska Airlines, or Chase — built primarily here in New York City and other cities where they’re active — and you want to either earn or burn miles or points, we’re a great place to do that.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:38:22):  Really, really kind of interesting. I read an article from Reuters: smaller US markets and college towns have been meaningful growth drivers. Curious why those markets were underpenetrated. What did you guys figure out there?

DAVID RISHER (00:38:37):  So part of it — there has been just a little bit of, you might say, neglect from the rideshare business for a while. And we realized about 18 months ago that a large part of the TAM — just to frame this again, total —

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:38:51):  Addressable market.

DAVID RISHER (00:38:52):  Exactly — is more market. About 160 billion rides a year that people take in their private cars across the United States. 160 billion. And remember, we do a billion; the other guys might do three or four billion — maybe two or three billion. So four billion outta 160 billion. Okay? So there’s a lot of addressable market left for us to go to. And we’ve been in places like New York and San Francisco and Chicago for over a decade right now. But some of these smaller towns — the Indianapolises of the world, the St. Louises of the world — as well as college towns, where basically nobody has a car compared to the population, they just look like good opportunities for us. They’re complicated from a marketplace-management perspective, because anytime you go to a newer geography, you’ve got to first make sure you’ve got enough drivers, ’cause otherwise it takes too long to get picked up. And you’ve gotta make sure you’ve got enough riders, because if not, then drivers won’t make enough money. So it’s quite complex to —

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:39:41):  Invest. There’s a chicken-and-egg problem there.

DAVID RISHER (00:39:43):  It is a chicken-and-egg problem, over and over again. Which, again, is why — back to the earlier part of the conversation — it’s really quite hard at this point to come into the market fresh. You know, you’re not gonna find a lot of folks who want to come into a well-served market. But anyway, so we just started to focus on it, and our data scientists and our marketers really kind of went to town, and it’s been a big source of growth.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:40:03):  Huh. Really, really interesting. Coming up: we continue our conversation with David Risher, CEO of Lyft, discussing the future of transportation technology. I’m Barry Ritholtz. You’re listening to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:40:31):  You are listening to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio. My extra special, fascinating guest is David Risher. He is the CEO of Lyft, and we have been discussing the future of transportation technology. We have to talk about AI; we have to talk about autonomous vehicles. But before we do, I have to ask you two really interesting questions. One is: how do you solve the problem of even sober people leaving their phones in the car when they get out? And suddenly it’s a big pain in the ass — somebody has to come either drop off the phone or whatever. How do you, as a customer-obsessed company, how do you solve that problem?

DAVID RISHER (00:41:16):  I so love this question, because it is an experience every single one of us has had, and it is both infuriating and incredibly stressful. Because all of a sudden you realize, oh my God, my entire life is driving in the wrong direction, and I don’t even know how to contact the company at this point.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:41:30):  Because the number is on your phone —

DAVID RISHER (00:41:33):  And the phone is in the car, and you’re like, I wanna hold my phone to call the phone — but I can’t do that. It’s very, very stressful. So here’s what we’ve done. We’re doing a huge amount of work on this, just to be really customer obsessed. The first thing is automatic detection. So if the phone starts to travel away with a driver after you’ve been dropped off, that immediately, automatically alerts the driver: there’s probably a phone in your backseat. It requires a little bit of work on the rider’s side — we’re still trying to figure out how to get riders to opt into this, because they have to share a little bit more information. But we’re still working on that. But regardless of whether it happens automatically or manually, the second thing is: we’ve got a whole web portal, so you don’t actually have to use your phone. You can — and you don’t have to log in. But really, the big innovation is this — we wanted to have it sort of out of band — so the whole “return the phone” thing becomes almost a separate process. And frankly, in the past, it’s almost felt like a bit of a negotiation with the driver, and nobody liked it. The drivers didn’t like it, ’cause it felt like it was sort of an annoyance. The riders didn’t like it, because they’re like, oh my God, I sort of feel like I’m being held hostage here. A terrible thing. Now it’s a whole automated process. And basically, what we realized is: we should just treat it like any other ride. So it’s basically — the phone is getting a ride back. So what you get to say as a rider is: yes, please bring my phone back. I know exactly how much it’s gonna cost — it’s gonna cost just the exact same amount as if I’d taken a ride to that exact place where the phone is. And the driver gets it in their queue just like they would get any other ride request. And it gets returned to you. Typically — I was just looking at this data, and it changes every single week — but we’re now getting to the point where a large percentage of riders’ phones are being delivered back within an hour, which is the absolute gold standard.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:43:09):  So let’s use technology and cut that: on the app, opt in to avoid leaving your phone in the car, via Bluetooth. Not on each ride — just once, on the app. And then when the ride is over — you’ve arrived and the person gets out — if the phone doesn’t leave the car, right there and then, the driver should lower the window and say, hey, you left your phone in the backseat. And that doesn’t seem like you’re changing or creating new technology. That’s right — you’re just applying existing technology. Why take an hour? Why not take 30 seconds?

DAVID RISHER (00:43:48):  A hundred percent. And this is now where you realize that all technology problems are ultimately human problems. Because in order for that to happen, a person has to have opted in — they’ve gotta click a button. Most people are either skeptical of that, or they’re not paying attention. So now our trick is to try to figure out a way to really encourage people to do that. As you say, you only have to do it once. But that’s gonna be the next big focus.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:44:09):  So let’s stay with that theme before we really move too far away from people and towards technology. You drive for Lyft every six weeks or so, which seems kind of bonkers. What have you learned sitting in that seat that you can’t learn from the executive suite or the boardroom?

DAVID RISHER (00:44:28):  So much. So much. And, you know, I know we’re all busy people — here I am, busy senior executive, CEO of a company. My God, you know what? I got time, right? I got time — I can jump in the car. And here’s why: I learned stuff about being a driver, and I learned something about being a rider, every single time. So I’ll give you an example of each. Very quickly, on the driver’s side, I learned how important a feature is that we’ve developed over years and refined, called Stay Within Area. And there are actually two features next to each other — one’s Stay Within Area, one’s Arrive On Time. Lemme actually focus on Arrive On Time. What that means is: I’ve got a kid to pick up at the end of the day, or I’ve got a date with my wife tonight, or I’ve got a doctor’s appointment at three o’clock in the afternoon. And so I need to figure out a way to organize my life such that my last ride is gonna put me, you know, right where I need to be by a certain time. If I look at the gig economy, one of the real gifts of the gig economy is it allows you to integrate your work into your life in new ways. Again, I don’t have to call my boss and tell ’em I’m gonna be late today. I don’t have to do anything like that. But sometimes I do have other things in my life. Maybe it’s another job; maybe it’s an obligation with my parents — or whatever it might be. So anyway, that’s a feature. It worked pretty well when I started. It works very well now — and in part, it’s because I give a lot of feedback to the team on how to make that better and how important it is to get that exactly right. And then on the rider’s side — I mean, every time I take a rider in the car, of course I ask them why they chose us versus the other guys. Sometimes it’s because they say, oh, Chase Sapphire Reserve — I’m a Chase Sapphire Reserve cardholder, and you guys have a relationship with them. That’s great. That gives me a little bit of data of how important that is.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:46:03):  That’s a points relationship.

DAVID RISHER (00:46:05):  It’s a points relationship — and you get all sorts of — you get $10 every single month to use as Lyft credit. And look, I can look at the data just like anyone else and realize the number of people who are using that. But there’s just no substitute for hearing somebody, you know, go off about how much they love that card, and how important that partnership is to them. That’s a generic example. And then a specific example involved a woman that I gave a ride to — this is now about almost two years ago, but it’s still really, you know, kind of resonates with me — where she would wake up every single morning, and depending on what the price was of getting from her home to her job — because the prices would bounce around a lot — she would either take a Lyft, or maybe take the other guys, or drive herself, or stay home. And it was a source of stress and concern to her every single day. She would literally wake up an hour, you know, before she had to leave, just to sort of check prices. And it just made me realize how much surge pricing is customer hostile.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:46:59):  Nobody likes it. Nobody likes it. It starts to drizzle a little bit, and suddenly it’s a $30 surcharge. And I know people are infuriated by it.

DAVID RISHER (00:47:07):  And they should be. And here’s the problem. This is the difference between — you know, if you’re an economist, you love this, right? It’s, oh, supply-demand balancing in real time — it’s just unbelievable. Like a perfect science experiment. And if you’re a real person, it just bugs the crap outta you. So it really drove home to me how frustrating this was. And it was literally a Friday morning where this woman had donuts, and she was bringing them in to see a coworker for his birthday. And she’s like, I can’t work from home today — I’m so glad that Lyft was reasonably priced. So that’s what’s led us to take about $50 million a year out of surge pricing. We’ve really tried to get rid of it as much as we can — can’t completely eliminate it — and also introduce a product called Price Lock that allows you to lock in a price on a route.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:47:47):  So tell us a little bit about Price Lock. What does that do? I’m not familiar with that aspect of the app.

DAVID RISHER (00:47:54):  Yep. So it’s really meant for people who commute the same route every day, and they don’t want the route to go from 20 to 30 to 40 bucks ’cause, you know, say it rained. And by the way, to be very clear, there are good reasons for surge pricing, right? It’s a very good way for us to encourage drivers to drive when there’s more demand than their supply. But because it’s very frustrating for riders, we wanna give people a way to kind of opt out of it. So for a given route — you know, from point A to point B — if you wanna lock in a price, we basically say, here’s the average price over the course of a month. If you wanna lock in, I think it costs $4.99 a month per route. That’s all it takes. And it’s been super popular for people who just want to get that outta their lives.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:48:28):  Huh. Really, really kind of interesting. So let’s talk a little bit about autonomous driving. I was in San Francisco last month — Waymos everywhere. Tell us a little bit about what Lyft wants to do with autonomous vehicles. Are these just shiny objects, or are these the future?

DAVID RISHER (00:48:48):  They’re the future. They’re the future. It will take a long time for this future to come; it will be very unevenly distributed. But they are the future. And the basic reason why is: they are a reliable product, and they’re a safe product —

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:49:01):  Safer than human drivers.

DAVID RISHER (00:49:04):  They are, substantially. And it’s because they not only know the policies, but they follow the policies. You know, they tend to follow the rules, and they don’t get distracted. So, not to say some crazy thing won’t happen one time out of a million, but 99.999% of the time, they’ll do the thing that you expect a car to do — which is keep its rider safe. So, okay — so that is coming. So now, as a business person, you have a choice to make, right? You can either embrace this, or you can sort of not. And the thing is, in a sense it’s a choice, but in another sense it’s not, because you’ve seen Kodak and, whatever, Polaroid —

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:49:40):  Who, by the way — Kodak invented the digital camera, but didn’t want to cannibalize their own film business. And how did that work out?

DAVID RISHER (00:49:46):  Not exactly — not so well. And then, on the other hand, you look at maybe a company like Netflix, that invented the DVD-by-mail business to sort of set Blockbuster aside, but did such a good job surfing from that to streaming, and now to original content, right? They’re a great company in so many ways, but they were relentless, fearless about cannibalizing their own business to get to the next thing. So that’s the shift that we’re right in the early, early, early days of. It will be another platform shift. But we’re in a very fortunate position, and here’s why. You know, we have millions of riders. We have millions of — billions, billions of data points about pickup and drop-off location and pricing and so forth and so on. And we have a whole subsidiary called Flexdrive that does fleet management, which I can come back to in a couple of seconds. But these are gonna be some of the building blocks of the self-driving — or, I really should say, hybrid — network of the future. ‘Cause that’s the last thing I’ll say, just as sort of intro: self-driving cars are gonna come little by little by little. Human drivers are gonna be around for a long, long, long time. There are not enough self-driving cars in any given market to satisfy peak demand on, you know, Friday afternoon at five o’clock rush hour, or what have you.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:51:01):  So this is not a three-, four-, five-year transition. This is a 10-to-20-year transition. Is that about right?

DAVID RISHER (00:51:07):  Think about it as a decade transition. Yeah. And even, again, the word “transition,” I think, is maybe not quite right, because the economics of an expensive car don’t really lend themselves to having a whole bunch of them sitting around at two in the morning, empty. You really, I think, want a hybrid network for a long, long time — for human reasons, too, right? You might want someone to help you with your luggage, or maybe even someone to ask you how your day was. But the economics of it make it such that it’s much more likely this will be a hybrid network for at least a decade or, you know, more.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:51:37):  So that kind of raises an interesting question: what exactly is Lyft? We know it’s a ride-hailing company; it’s also a transportation market-clearing mechanism. It’s a consumer brand, and it’s also a logistics platform. Like, where is the future growth coming from?

DAVID RISHER (00:51:56):  I mean, you know, a little — all of the above, right? So, as you say, the thing people know Lyft the most for are, you know, human-driven cars picking you up and dropping you off. And as we were just saying, that will become a mix of human-driven and, you know, frankly, robot-driven cars. What you may not know is Lyft also runs the bike share system here in New York City.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:52:15):  Citi Bikes are run by Lyft? I did not know that.

DAVID RISHER (00:52:18):  That’s exactly right. So we run Citi Bike, we run the program in San Francisco, we run the program in Chicago, we run the program in Boston, we’re in Portland, Oregon. And then we also supply the technology and the bikes in London, in Barcelona, in Madrid — you know, many, many countries around the world. This may seem like sort of a small thing, but if you’ve been to a city like New York or London, you’ll know that cities are very, very aware that they want sort of multimodal transportation. So that’s gonna be, you know, a big part of our future as well. And then, look — someday, who knows, maybe boats, maybe vertical-takeoff aircraft. Who knows? But I will tell you that our real focus right now — and we will always be — this is our sort of purpose: serving and connecting. I want people to be out and about, and connect with each other in any possible way we can. That’s really what I want.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:53:05):  So you mentioned London. What are the plans for Baidu robotaxis in London? Is this gonna be a pilot program that could potentially scale up dramatically, like the Waymos in San Francisco?

DAVID RISHER (00:53:21):  That’s right. So again, let’s think about the self-driving car world for a couple of minutes. The technology is being developed worldwide. It’s being developed in the United States — Waymo, of course, is the leader, really the worldwide leader. Zoox, which is owned by Amazon, is much, much smaller, but, you know, trying very hard to come up behind Waymo. And then there’ll be, you know, many others, including maybe Nvidia, and companies that aren’t even really in the space now but will wanna sell their technology to different OEMs — to different, you know, car manufacturers. There’s also technology coming out of China. Baidu is sort of the Google — you think of it as kind of the Alphabet — of China. And there are many, many others. There’s a company called WeRide, there’s a company called Pony, there’s a company called Momenta, there’s a company called Geely. I was just in China a couple of weeks ago, looking at the incredible just growth of technology there — both, again, kind of hardware and software type technology. Okay? So that’s all background. It’s gonna be deployed worldwide. And in the United States, Chinese technology is not super welcome, for obvious reasons. But Europe is taking maybe a little bit of a more sort of economical approach, where they’re kind of looking at different technology providers and saying, let’s experiment. So in London, we’re partners with Baidu. Baidu has a very, very highly regarded self-driving platform, and we’re just in the early days of rolling it out there. It’s called an RT6 car. This is sort of behind-the-scenes stuff — it literally is just rolling off boats right now, and it’ll be commercialized next year.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:54:48):  So I’m looking at the current crop of autonomous vehicles, which are essentially converted traditional cars. But do you really need that front driver’s seat? Can you change up the internal layout? Like, what are autonomous vehicles gonna look like — not in 2060, but in a couple of years?

DAVID RISHER (00:55:11):  So again, it’s such an interesting time to be in this industry, and it’s exactly as you’re saying — like, do you really need a steering wheel? Do you really need, you know, an accelerator and brakes? Zoox, as I say — they’re an Amazon subsidiary — they would say you absolutely don’t. And they have a purpose-built vehicle that doesn’t have either one of those things. Now, for regulatory reasons, for human-acceptance reasons and so forth, for manufacturing reasons, that’s gonna be slower to roll out, because you can’t rely on, you know, the big OEMs to produce a car like that. That’s — it’s its own vehicle. So I think what you’re gonna see over the next three to five years is an enormous amount of new innovation in the car space. It won’t just be, you know, there won’t be a driver. It’ll be — you’ll have seats that face each other. You know, you’ll have seats that completely recline, ’cause you’ve got more space in there. You’ll have different luggage configurations. You’ll have — you know, some of them will feel more like, you know, party buses. Some of them may be, you know, corporate shuttles that just don’t have drivers. A lot of new stuff is gonna come in the next couple of years, step by step, because, again, you know, hardware is hard. It takes a long time to build it out. But, you know, you look five years out, and I think you’re gonna see a lot of cars that look pretty different from what you see today.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:56:16):  I’m unfamiliar with Zoox and Amazon’s relationship with them. But if I recall correctly, Amazon was an early investor — took a big chunk of Rivian. That’s right. And all of the electric Amazon delivery vehicles you see are essentially the Rivian platform repurposed for commercial use. Is Zoox plus Rivian the direction Amazon is going? And do you guys — does Lyft, whose CEO has a relationship with Jeff, have a relationship with Amazon?

DAVID RISHER (00:56:49):  We do have a relationship with Amazon. Of course, we’re huge consumers of AWS, which is Andy’s — the current CEO’s — kind of pride and joy. And for sure we’ll end up using — look, everyone is gonna end up partnering with everyone. That’s the interesting space we’re in right now: if you’re in the business of developing a self-driving car, it’s billions of dollars of R&D — billions of dollars. And so you want as many customers as possible. And then, if you’re in our business — in the business of moving people around and connecting people — you wanna have multiple suppliers of that technology, so you’re not beholden to anyone. Some of that is just being, you know, a smart business person. But some of it also is: technology goes through its own, you know, fits and starts. Look at what happens with the airline business when, all of a sudden, you know, Boeing has a problem with one of its units. You know, they stop manufacturing those for a time, or they’re grounded. So I don’t wanna overdramatize, but, you know, anytime new technology comes out, you’re gonna find some of that happens as well. So all of us are kind of in multiple — you know, let’s say maybe polyamorous relationships might be one way to —

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:57:53):  Well, don’t you have to be? You can’t lock into platform dependency too early — otherwise you end up owning Betamax, and what good is that? And I know half our audience has no idea what the hell that —

DAVID RISHER (00:58:05):  Is. There we go. An old —

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:58:06):  School reference, yeah, right. But I mean, when you commit one way — so let’s talk a little more about the autonomous ride hailing. What are the big concerns? Is it safety? Is it regulation? Is it winning the consumer’s trust? What are the economics of managing a fleet like that?

DAVID RISHER (00:58:25):  Again, so many interesting questions here. Let’s start with the customer side of things, right? So the first order of business has to be building customer trust and adoption for this new technology. Because, you know, it’s a car that drives itself, which is magical, but also can be a bit intimidating or, you know, even scary for people who haven’t seen the technology. Lyft obviously has a lot of value to add right there, because it’s a brand that people already trust; they understand you’ll be able to opt in or opt out of getting it. I was just in Atlanta a couple of weeks ago, where we have an experiment — a small deployment — with a company called May Mobility, which is also in the self-driving car space. They’re Toyota Siennas. They pull up to you, and all of a sudden you get in — it’s kind of a whole different type of experience from what you’ve probably experienced in the past. But because it’s got Lyft behind it, right on the door already, people sort of say, okay, great — I kind of understand this company and know something about it. Okay, that’s great. So then you kind of have to work yourself down the stack. There are all sorts of technology problems that you have to solve as you integrate, you know, their platform and us. And then someone’s gotta manage these cars. And this is worth talking about for a couple seconds. In traditional rideshare, the driver is responsible for their own car, right? They put gas in it, or they charge it up if it’s electric; they keep it clean; hopefully they keep it maintained, and so forth. But in the self-driving space, at least for the next three to five years, most of the car owners are gonna be professional fleet owners. You know, they’re gonna buy 20, 50, a hundred, 500, and are gonna kind of manage these as a fleet. And that means that they’ve gotta be, again, charged and maintained and cleaned — but they have to be done kind of at a professional level. That’s the sort of stage we’re in. We’ve had a subsidiary for many years called Flexdrive. We actually own about 10,000 cars on the Lyft platform for drivers who don’t wanna drive their own car. And we are responsible for maintenance and keeping them cleaned and so forth and so on. So we actually bring a lot to that as well. And I think that’s one of the reasons why we like the economic profile of self-driving cars. They don’t have insurance as high, for example, as personally driven cars. But also, we like the economics of our fleet-management subsidiary, and think we can service these at an industry-leading rate, and therefore, hopefully, make more money on the asset than anybody else.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (01:00:32):  Is there still gonna be a future for people who — today, you would think of owner-drivers — who just wanna own autonomous vehicles and lease ’em out, or send them out into the Lyft network? Like, I’m crunching the numbers in my head as we’re speaking, and I’m like, oh, that could be a 10, 12% return on investment. Not bad when bond yields are 4%, three and a half percent.

DAVID RISHER (01:00:56):  A hundred percent. I mean, there will be a time where, you know, if you fast-forward, you know, five years or whatever, maybe more, many people — individual owners — have cars that can drive themselves. And then there’s a question, to your point, of, you know, can  you put that on the network? The answer is: absolutely, you’ll be able to put it on the Lyft network, and it’ll come back again cleaned and charged, because of the fleet-management side of things.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (01:01:14):  Huh — that sounds really, really interesting. You know, it’s funny, ’cause when the ride apps first came out, there was a little bit of a lag before people got comfortable. What do you mean, I’m getting into a stranger’s car? I imagine we’re gonna go through the same thing — what do you mean, I’m getting into a car with no driver? It feels like the transitions are happening faster and faster. Same sort of question: this isn’t a 10-, 20-year thing; this is a couple of years before people — forget people under 30, who adapt so rapidly — the middle part of that age bell curve, the 30-to-60s, they’re gonna adapt to this pretty quickly over the next couple of years. How do you think about the different segments of consumer when it comes to autonomous driving?

DAVID RISHER (01:02:04):  Yeah. You know, I think, as you’re suggesting, younger people do tend to take up new technology, you know, pretty quickly. But in this case, I do believe that many people, after they’ve had a couple of rides and realize that it feels very safe and reliable, I think they’ll flip from skeptic to kind of fans, you know, pretty quickly. Now, I will say policymakers, you know, they have their own, you know, issues — and some of that can be very local. So you may find some cities that just say, we just don’t want ’em on our streets for a period of time. You may find, conversely, other cities that say, bring them, ’cause we wanna feel like a city of the future. So I think there are gonna be some policy issues. There are also some infrastructure issues. Remember that, you know, AVs also tend to be EVs. EVs require charging; charging requires infrastructure. And not every city’s gonna have the amount of, you know, electrical power. I mean, this is kind of a side issue, but if you listen to, you know, Jensen, for example, at Nvidia, talk about what could end up holding the United States back from its next big leap — a lot of it comes down to power infrastructure in this country, right? So anyway, there are many different kind of bits and pieces, all the way from consumer adoption to physical infrastructure to policy and so forth. But I think, again, over the next three to five years, I think you’re gonna see a real shift — mostly because consumers are gonna try them and like them, and then they’re gonna be saying, hey, you know, faster, please.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (01:03:17):  So here’s the crazy thing about AVs that I’m still kind of shocked about: it relies on visual, on lidar, on radar, and all these other technologies, but there isn’t a whole lot of infrastructure built into the roadway grid. Wouldn’t be that difficult to create a series of RF devices that are specifically geared for autonomous vehicles — that, like, every now and then, if you’re letting the car drive yourself and there’s an exit or a merge — like, it’s not great with those sort of things today, because there’s no real infrastructure. It’s relying on a technology not built for autonomous driving. Is there any sort of motion towards, hey, let’s everybody that’s doing autonomous come up with a set of standards and have the government implement this into the highway system?

DAVID RISHER (01:04:16):  I mean, the short answer is no today — and long-term, for sure. And the reason no today, frankly, is, again, you know, anytime you see these platform shifts, you always have competition for sort of who gets to own the platform, right? And individual companies all have a huge incentive to say, you know, I wanna do it my way. ‘Cause if my way becomes the standard, then everyone else kind of follows along me, and I get to sort of set the standard. Over time, though, you tend to see that those things — that doesn’t become a long-term competitive advantage, typically — particularly for this sort of infrastructure. And so I would fully expect, over time, just in the same way that you can start to see charging networks kind of harmonize, that you’ll see some sort of, you know, kind of federal level. But we’re years before that.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (01:04:59):  Right. We did see that sort of standardization take place in a lot of other technologies. And suddenly you’re not competing on a standard; you’re competing on highest quality, lowest price, et cetera.

DAVID RISHER (01:05:08):  That’s exactly right.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (01:05:10):  But you would think that if the cars literally knew exactly where the road was, it would be even that much safer.

DAVID RISHER (01:05:19):  You would think. But I would say, right now, the technology is evolving so quickly at the car level, and really, the safety is very, very, very impressive. And of course, look — I know, you know, tomorrow morning you’re gonna open up, you know, a newspaper or an app, and you’re gonna read about some strange thing that happened, you know, in some strange part of the world, with a self-driving car. And I’m gonna tell you that that is gonna happen — and that’s, you know, one in a million, as opposed to, you know, one in hundreds, which happen every single day with human drivers.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (01:05:49):  Yeah — those are the clickbait headlines, not the statistically significant practice. All right, so last question before I get to my favorite questions I ask all my guests. When it comes to transportation technology, what are we not discussing as a society, as a government, as consumers, that we really should be? What is kind of getting overlooked in this rush to new technology? It could even be something that you guys are focused on, but a lot of people don’t realize — oh no, this is really significant, and the public hasn’t quite grokked this yet.

DAVID RISHER (01:06:24):  You know, I’m gonna come back to the basic role that technology plays in people’s lives, to help them live their absolute best lives. I’ll tell you something that I’m a lot passionate about personally. And that is: as people live longer lives, one of the things that is very predictive of their quality of life is how much time they’re spending with other people, out and about, socializing.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (01:06:44):  Socializing.

DAVID RISHER (01:06:45):  Exactly. Very, very highly predictive of a healthy, long life. And as we as a country are getting older — which we are, demographically — that is gonna be an enormous shift, where you have so many more people in their sixties, seventies, even eighties, who wanna live healthy, vibrant lives. And so one of the things I’m really quite proud of with Lyft is, you know, Lyft Silver — a particular product line that we’ve developed over the last year that’s really focused on, you know, helping older folks get out. The apps are easier to use, the cars are easier to get into, the driver’s a little bit more experienced. I think that sort of intersection between societal trend and the type of work we do in transportation is really quite deep. And, you know, maybe just as important, ultimately, is, you know, all of our conversation around medicine and so forth and so on is: keeping people out and about. And I know — here in Oura Ring world, where I am as well — or maybe you’re not, I don’t know.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (01:07:37):  I am — my wife wanted to get one, so we got a pair. And she got bored being told she’s stressed all the time and stopped wearing it. So now I’m wearing it. So we both — we each have one, and I’m the only one who still wears it. How funny.

DAVID RISHER (01:07:48):  Okay — actually, my wife and I did the same. She said, I get a little tired of seeing, you know, that it’s telling me exactly I’m stressed or I’m not sleeping well. But at least for me, it’s a sort of nice nudge to get good sleep, and, frankly, to kind of keep an active life. And so I see this space — the transportation piece — as somewhat similar. Like, I want technology that kind of helps me live my best life. And I think transportation plays a big role there.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (01:08:07):  All right, so let’s jump to our speed round — our favorite questions. Starting with: tell us about your mentors who helped shape your career.

DAVID RISHER (01:08:16):  Oh gosh, I love this question, ’cause I think it’s so important for us to remember that we all stand on other people’s shoulders. I’ll list a few. Of course, I worked for Jeff Bezos a lot — I’ve mentioned him. But I wanna mention other people. First big boss: a guy named Todd Nielsen. Todd really taught me the power of a great story, and also the importance of really listening to and watching customers closely. So he taught me two big things there. And then a guy named Peter Spiro — he was the board chair at Worldreader for many years. He and I sort of knew each other back in the Microsoft days, but he was the board chair for the nonprofit I ran. So focused on the team, so focused on the team — you’re only as good as your team. Really learned a ton about management and leadership from Peter.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (01:08:57):  Huh — really interesting. Let’s talk about books. What are some of your favorites, and what are you reading currently?

DAVID RISHER (01:09:02):  Oh man. I just finished a book called Good People. So I tend to read some fiction and some nonfiction. I’m currently reading a book called Apple in China — all about Apple’s entrance into China, and ultimately the importance that China has, and, frankly, the power that China now has, over Apple. And then Good People is a fictional book about an Afghan family from Afghanistan that moves to the United States, and is either a model family or terrible people. And it’s very, very hard to know which — the book sort of flips back and forth. Remember when I said that books kind of teach empathy and sort of different perspectives? This one does a good job of that.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (01:09:42):  Huh, really interesting. What about streaming? You listen to any podcasts, or Netflix, Amazon, whatever? What keeps you entertained?

DAVID RISHER (01:09:50):  I do. I am a podcast guy. I have to say, though, I’m kind of traditional when it comes to podcasts. I listen to The Daily from The New York Times pretty regularly. And I think most of it is because I have so many things in my life that are sort of — there’s so much content that comes at you that’s sort of superficial. And at least with The Daily, I feel like I get to go a little deeper on a subject. You know, it tends to be a kind of half-an-hour deep dive on a particular thing. And I do feel — particularly, I also read The New York Times; I know it’s sort of traditional in that way. So if I’ve read an article, and then I kind of hear a podcast on the same topic, I do feel like I’ve actually gotten maybe a little bit smarter about something, you know, beyond the surface.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (01:10:28):  Let me just push back ever so slightly, please, on how The Daily has evolved. Because when it first came out — and I was a regular listener — I don’t want anybody telling me about the story that’s in the paper that I can read. They used to kind of do the background: hey, how did you start investigating this? What led to this? Tell us some interesting stuff that didn’t make it into the article. It was really inside baseball, and that stuff is kind of fascinating. Now, whenever I check it out, it’s the person — I don’t wanna say reading the story, but it feels like they’ve left a lot of that, you know, behind-the-scenes stuff back three years ago. It’s still — it’s become one of the biggest podcasts in the world. It’s giant.

DAVID RISHER (01:11:13):  Yeah. Yeah. That’s interesting.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (01:11:15):  Anything else? Anything else you listen to or watch?

DAVID RISHER (01:11:19):  I mean, you know — mindless TV I love, but I’m not gonna embarrass myself and tell you all that sort of stuff. Yeah, we’ll stick with The Daily on this one.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (01:11:27):  We are in the golden age of mindless TV, for sure. And it’s not — you know, if you are watching The Crown, or Landman, or 3 Body Problem — there’s so many fascinating shows out there. It’s not like garbage time like it was when I was a kid.

DAVID RISHER (01:11:43):  You are right about that. And I will say that my wife and I became obsessed with The Pitt, as many people are. It is funny — and it almost makes you feel like, you know, I’m, like, halfway to being an ER doc myself. By the way, you are not — so don’t think that that’s true. But what is hilarious is my wife’s tolerance for some of the gory stuff is a little lower than mine. So she watches The Pitt with her hand kind of half in front of her face the whole time.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (01:12:04):  My wife — we watched the first couple episodes. She’s like, this is just too much. It’s like — you wanna relax? And it’s very serious. I just kind of tense out.

DAVID RISHER (01:12:11):  Yeah. But it’s a great cast, and it’s a great set of stories, for sure.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (01:12:16):  Final two questions. What sort of advice would you give to a recent college grad interested in a career in either technology or business?

DAVID RISHER (01:12:25):  So my advice here tends to be — it’s always sort of the same. And here’s how it goes. There’s so much temptation when you’re picking your job early on to pick something that sort of seems like it’s gonna be good on your resume, or maybe it’s gonna make you a lot of money — whatever it is. This is sort of the temptation, ’cause it’s so sort of in the air, maybe now more than ever, because of social media. And, oh man — the people that I see succeed are really the ones that say: yes, I have an economic reality; I have to sort of do better than that. But once the economic reality has been met, it is all about: pick something you think you’re really gonna love and are gonna be good at. And I say that like — you have to be a bit introspective of this. You know, maybe you love, you know, selling. Okay, great — so take a sales job. Maybe you love listening to customers — great, take maybe a marketing job. Maybe — but I’m trying to make this sound maybe a little bit more interesting than “follow your passions,” ’cause that’s so trite. But there is something to it: really kind of being introspective about what you think you’re gonna just jump outta bed every morning and love doing tends to be a much more powerful predictor of long-term success than people who try to optimize for that short-term, sort of get-rich-quick type of thing — and then find themselves later realizing, shoot, this isn’t really my thing. It’s somebody else’s thing.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (01:13:39):  Really, really good answer. And our final question: what do you know about the world of consumer-facing technology and apps today that would’ve been useful to know 25, 30 years ago, when you were first getting started?

DAVID RISHER (01:13:53):  Wow. Okay. That’s also a really interesting question. You know, I think I’ve probably gone through a similar arc to other people, where in the nineties — maybe even early two-thousands — I was sort of a universal techno-optimist. I probably was in the camp that said technology is such a powerful force for the good. And you see me try to, you know, harness it with Worldreader, specifically — of course, trying to take technology and get people reading. In that case, it did work. We’ve gotten, you know, over 22 million people reading. So that’s awesome. But, oh man, it is hard not to see some of the just terrible costs we’ve paid as a society. And so I think — maybe more of a mindset than a particular thing — of just: be really aware that technology is so powerful, and, man, with great power comes great responsibility. And I’m just a big believer that our best leaders now — and I’m not necessarily putting myself in the category — are being really thoughtful about, you know, the good of technology, but also really trying to avoid some of the problems.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (01:14:53):  Good, good answer. David, thank you for being so generous with your time. This has been absolutely fascinating. We have been speaking with David Risher. He is the CEO of Lyft, one of North America’s largest ride-sharing networks. If you enjoy this conversation, well, be sure and check out any of the 639 we’ve done over the past 12 years. You can find those at iTunes, Spotify, YouTube, Bloomberg — wherever you find your favorite podcasts. I would be remiss if I did not thank the crack team that helps me put these conversations together each week: Alexis Noriega is my video and podcast producer, Sean Russo is my researcher, Anna Luke is my producer. I’m Barry Ritholtz. You’ve been listening to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio.

 

 

~~~

 

 

 

The post MiB: Lyft CEO David Risher appeared first on The Big Picture.

Bezos' Blue Origin Seeks $10 Billion In First-Ever Outside Funding Round

Zero Hedge -

Bezos' Blue Origin Seeks $10 Billion In First-Ever Outside Funding Round

Fresh off Elon Musk's SpaceX IPO, it appears that, for the first time, Blue Origin is preparing to raise outside capital in a deal that would value Jeff Bezos' rocket company at about $130 billion.

Andrew Ross Sorkin, financial columnist for The New York Times and a co-anchor of CNBC's Squawk Box, wrote in a DealBook report, "I've got a scoop on Blue Origin closing in on a big fund-raising round, which is expected to value Jeff Bezos' spaceflight company at about $130 billion."

"It would be the first time that outside investors buy a piece of Blue Origin in its 25-year history," Sorkin said.

Blue Origin is seeking $10 billion in a new funding round, with Coatue Management expected to lead with a $4 billion commitment. Bezos is preparing to contribute $2 billion, while the remaining $4 billion is expected to come from outside investors.

The fundraising would give Blue Origin a $130 billion valuation as it ramps up spending and tries to narrow the gap with SpaceX - yet that gap remains massive in terms of launch capacity.

In recent days, NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman said investigators have found that a "potential engine issue" was the cause of the catastrophic Blue Origin New Glenn rocket explosion that damaged part of a launch pad at Cape Canaveral on May 28.

Blue Origin has relied heavily on Bezos' personal wealth for years, including proceeds from Amazon stock sales. Bringing in outside money will accelerate spending and allow for more competition in America's space race, which the Trump administration has said is necessary to create a robust space industry.

Musk's SpaceX went public last month and raised $85 billion. SpaceX is now valued at nearly $2 trillion, despite a pullback in shares, currently trading around $150 in the premarket session.

A flurry of Wall Street analysts are turning incredibly bullish on SpaceX, with 12-month price targets ranging from Raymond James' $800 to Arete Research's $401 and Morgan Stanley's $300. That's because SpaceX has a launch moat that will be maintained for years - its launch capacity surpasses not just Bezos' rocket company, but entire nation states such as China and Russia combined. Read the report.

Tyler Durden Wed, 07/08/2026 - 13:45

The Great Migration: What The Dow-To-Gold Ratio Is Telling Us

Zero Hedge -

The Great Migration: What The Dow-To-Gold Ratio Is Telling Us

Authored by Bryan Lutz, Editor at Dollarcollapse.com,

It takes about 13 ounces of gold to buy the Dow Jones Industrial Average. The Dow-to-gold ratio prices the entire American stock market. And it does it in the one currency no central bank can print. Over the past century, it tells the same story.

It measures when the US stock market is overvalued… when it’s promising too much.

And there are a lot of promises that don’t look as good as they should these days.

A bond pays only if the issuer stays solvent.

A dollar holds its value only if the people who print it show restraint.

Yet, tangible wealth answers to no one. An ounce of gold is worth an ounce of gold whether a single counterparty keeps their word, which is what makes gold an honest denominator in the Dow-to-Gold ratio.

The ratio goes up, and it comes down. During the great manias of the twentieth century, paper looked invincible: 18 ounces to buy the Dow in 1929, 28 in 1966, 41 at the top of the dot-com boom in 2000. Then the tide went out, bubbles popped and the markets turned to commodities over equities.

As the ratio goes down, eventually it hits a bottom.

The same Dow cost almost nothing in metal, barely 2 ounces in 1932 and close to a single ounce in 1980. So, greed priced the top. Fear, and sound money, priced the bottom.

A century in one line:

Every peak in paper has been repriced in gold.

Each top marked a moment the market trusted claims more than the things behind them, and each was followed by a long migration back toward metal that ran for years, not months.

Here is where we correct the record. The move off the 2000 top has been anything but tidy. The ratio fell to roughly 6 by 2011, then the long everything-rally, cheap money layered on cheap money, hauled it back above 19 by 2021. The 2026 equity melt-up has lifted it again, to about 13, even with gold sitting near record highs.

The same story, up close:

However, the long-term trend since 2000 points down. The path has been a bit of a switchback. Anyone waiting for a clean glide toward gold got a decade of reversals instead, which is why we distrust anyone selling a date for gold.

Gold’s historic floor sits between 1 and 2 ounces. From 13, most of that move is still ahead, whenever the switchback resolves. In my opinion, this is not the time to wager a standard 60/40 portfolio as a wager that the denominator stays at or around 13. Stocks, and bonds are unlikely promise-keepers, and believing the dollar behind them holds is just as risky. The denominator is not sitting still. Every deficit the Treasury runs and every dollar the Fed prints wears down the promises the old 60/40 portfolio depends on. For most of the past forty years, it paid anyway. This time it will not.

“All roads, in other words, lead to trouble of some sort, which makes year-ahead asset allocation pretty easy: you just own everything that protects you regardless of which road gets traveled.”

~ John Rubino, The Money Bubble

After twenty-five years, the score still reads the same. Paper is expensive, and gold is patient.

Tyler Durden Wed, 07/08/2026 - 13:25

Stellar 10Y Auction Stops Through, With 3rd Highest Foreign Demand On Record

Zero Hedge -

Stellar 10Y Auction Stops Through, With 3rd Highest Foreign Demand On Record

Following yesterday's stellar 3Y auction, moments ago - with yields surging to the highest level since mid-May - the Treasury completed the sale of $39BN in a 9 Year 10 Month reopening of 10Y cusip QQ7, in what was another spectacular auction.

The note sale, which priced just after 1pm ET, stopped at a high yield of 4.580%, up from last month's 4.538%, and stopped through the When Issued 4.586% by 0.6bps, the biggest stop through since Sept '25.

The bid to cover rose to 2.593 from 2.565, which was the highest BtC also since last September, and obviously well above the six-auction average of 2.46.

The internals were also some of the best on record: foreign buyers (i.e., indirects) were awarded 81.5% of the auction, up from 78.21% in June and the 3rd highest on record.

And with Directs sliding to 10.73%, the lowest since April 25, Dealers were left holding just 7.8%, down from 9.5% in June and the lowest since January.

Overall, this was an extremely strong auction, perhaps the best 10Y of 2026, and with yields surging today, it shows that not only retail traders, but bond investors are also willing to buy the dips. 

Tyler Durden Wed, 07/08/2026 - 13:24

Russia Bans Diesel Exports, Assuring Even Higher Prices

Zero Hedge -

Russia Bans Diesel Exports, Assuring Even Higher Prices

As was widely speculated in recent days, Russia banned exports of diesel in order to avoid domestic shortages after a flurry of attacks by Ukrainian drones on the nation’s refineries.

“Today we introduced ban on exports of diesel,” Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Novak said at the government’s meeting with President Vladimir Putin.

The decision will further squeeze global fuel markets, which are already under pressure due to the supply disruption caused by the Iran war. Russia's decision means that the recent surge in the diesel margins to record highs, which have completely disconnected with oil prices, are set to rise even more. 

Last year, Russia accounted for about 11% of global supplies of diesel, according to data compiled by Bloomberg from analytics firm Vortexa.

The logical corollary is what the DOE reported earlier today, namely that US product exports - which include diesel and other refined products - surged to a record high.

Exports of the fuel were previously banned only for traders and other sellers in Russia that don’t make their own fuel.

The diesel ban comes on top of existing restrictions on most shipments of gasoline and jet fuel. Russia has been struggling to ensure domestic oil-product supplies and to contain prices at the pump after drone attacks damaged several refineries. 

Ukraine’s intensified strikes pushed Russia’s crude-processing rates to multi-year lows. Many regions have been forced to impose some degree of fuel rationing because of the disruptions. 

Even before the ban, Russia’s diesel and gasoil exports were dropping significantly. During the first three weeks of June, its exports of diesel and gasoil averaged about 490,000 barrels a day, only slightly more than half of what the nation shipped to foreign markets in 2025, according to data compiled by Bloomberg from Vortexa.

Tyler Durden Wed, 07/08/2026 - 13:10

George Soros Angers Hamptons Residents After Massive Land Purchase

Zero Hedge -

George Soros Angers Hamptons Residents After Massive Land Purchase

Authored by Luis Cornelio via Headline USA,

George Soros has long used his billions to influence politics, but now his family appears to be using that wealth to reshape its own backyard through a massive land grab in the Hamptons.

The Soros family has purchased 18 plots of land on Shelter Island, a Hamptons community, angering residents who are concerned that the billionaire’s presence in the area will trigger rising costs.

Soros’s shopping spree, reported by the New York Post on July 2, makes him and his sons, Alex and Gregory Soros, the largest private landowners on the approximately 8,000-acre island.

According to the Post, the massive purchases are not the first time the Soros family has angered residents. In 2020, Gregory snatched a 22-acre property on a quiet street.

However, the quiet atmosphere turned into chaos when construction trucks began arriving to build one of the island’s largest swimming pools.

Local plumbers and maids are required to sign non-disclosure agreements before being allowed to work on the Soroses’ properties, residents alleged.

Surveillance cameras have reportedly been installed on local streets, raising privacy concerns among residents of the island, which is only accessible by boat.

At one point, the Soros family reportedly purchased multiple homes along a single road and sought approval from local officials to install a fence to block access from other residents.

However, Shelter Island resident Steve Lenox is concerned that Soros will soon get his way.

“We can’t keep up with the lawyers that these millionaires have and they seem to build whatever they want,” Lenox told the Shelter Island Town Board during a meeting on June 29, according to the Post.

“That’s what’s ruining the island.”

Another resident, Mike Gaynor, echoed those concerns during the meeting, pointing to other communities that became unaffordable at the arrival of millionaires.

According to the Post, residents first noticed the Soros family’s presence on the island when the family installed a deer fence around one of its properties, allegedly in violation of local zoning rules.

Tyler Durden Wed, 07/08/2026 - 12:55

FOMC Minutes Preview: Scrutiny For Hawkish Bias

Zero Hedge -

FOMC Minutes Preview: Scrutiny For Hawkish Bias

Today's FOMC minutes will be scrutinized for further insight into policymakers' appetite for additional rate hikes and the thinking behind the Committee's hawkish shift at last month's meeting. The minutes are an account of the June 17th meeting and therefore will not reflect subsequent developments, including the softer-than-expected June nonfarm payrolls report or Chair Warsh's appearance at the ECB's Sintra Forum.

Nonetheless, as Newsquawk writes in its FOMC Minutes preview, the June meeting, Warsh's first as Fed Chair, marked a significant shift under his leadership. The Committee unanimously overhauled the policy statement, removing all forward guidance and placing greater emphasis on its commitment to price stability. While the statement changes were unanimous among voting members, it will be interesting to see whether non voting participants also supported the removal of forward guidance and the stronger inflation-focused language.

On forward guidance, Waller spoke about the tool on July 6th - after the FOMC. He noted that it can speed the impact of monetary policy, calling it a valuable tool. However, it can be a hindrance if it is too strong or rigid, and also problematic when policy makers expect different economic outcomes all with a significant probability of occurring, adding in some cases, it is best not to use it at all. We will be looking to see the views among the whole FOMC around the use of forward guidance.

Anecdotally, Rabobank wrote that "Fed's Waller has joined new Chair Warsh in wanting to shake up Fed communications to do so less: ahead of the FOMC minutes today, one wonders if they could just be a truncated, "We talked about stuff," leaving analysts to... well, analyze, rather than being spoon-fed."

Traders will also be watching for any discussion surrounding the broader policy reviews announced by Warsh. During the FOMC press conference, he revealed plans to establish five task forces covering Fed communications, the balance sheet, data sources, productivity and jobs, and the Fed's inflation framework. While the reviews are not expected to conclude until year-end, the minutes may provide an early indication of how policymakers view these topics, although it may still be too early for any meaningful discussion. As this is the first set of minutes under Chair Warsh, there is also some scope for changes to the presentation or structure of the document, given the broader changes already made to the FOMC statement.

Meeting Recap

  • Kevin Warsh's debut as Fed Chair delivered a clear hawkish shift. While the Committee left rates unchanged at 3.50-3.75%, as widely expected, the policy statement was significantly revised, removing all forward guidance and reaffirming the Fed's commitment to restoring price stability.

  • The statement reiterated that inflation remains elevated but updated its description to reference supply shocks affecting specific sectors, including energy. The Committee also upgraded its assessment of the labour market, noting that job gains were keeping pace with workforce growth rather than remaining subdued. Economic activity continued to be described as expanding at a solid pace despite uncertainty surrounding the Middle East, while policymakers added new language highlighting strong productivity growth and capital investment.

  • Regarding the Summary of Economic Projections, inflation forecasts were revised higher, GDP growth projections for 2026 were trimmed modestly, and the unemployment rate was revised lower. Warsh did not submit his own forecasts due to his distaste for forward guidance, but he made it clear he is focused on price stability.

  • The dot plot shifted materially, representing a hawkish shift. The median 2026 projection rose to 3.8% from 3.4%, implying one 25bp rate hike compared with March's median projection for one rate cut. The 2027 median increased to 3.6% from 3.1%, while the 2028 projection rose to 3.4% from 3.1%. The distribution of projections was equally notable: nine participants now expect at least one rate hike this year (one sees three hikes, five see two hikes and three see one hike), compared with none in March. Meanwhile, eight participants now expect rates to remain unchanged through year-end (previously seven), while only one still projects a rate cut (previously seven).

  • Following the meeting, analysts broadly concluded that the statement, economic projections and Warsh's press conference reinforced the view that policymakers are placing greater emphasis on inflation risks than labour market concerns.

  • Since then, Warsh has reiterated many of those themes during his appearance at the ECB's Sintra Forum. He again rejected the use of forward guidance, stressed that interest rates should remain the Fed's primary policy tool and reaffirmed the Committee's commitment to price stability. He acknowledged that inflation expectations had eased during his first month as Chair but maintained that inflation running above the Fed's 2% target remains unacceptable.

  • On the balance sheet, he again avoided providing specific guidance, reiterating only that he favors a smaller balance sheet and that the newly established review committees will inform future discussions.

  • Although subsequent data will not feature in these minutes, it is worth adding that the softer June payrolls report has led markets to pare some of the hawkish repricing seen after the June meeting. Money markets now fully price one 25bp rate hike by December rather than October, meaning traders will be assessing the minutes against a policy outlook that has evolved modestly since the meeting took place.

Tyler Durden Wed, 07/08/2026 - 12:25

Southern Poverty Law Center Pleads Not Guilty To Federal Fraud Charges

Zero Hedge -

Southern Poverty Law Center Pleads Not Guilty To Federal Fraud Charges

Authored by Matthew Vadum via The Epoch Times,

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) on July 7 entered not guilty pleas again to 11 criminal counts alleging it defrauded donors by sending millions of dollars to informants who infiltrated white supremacist and so-called hate groups that it publicly opposed.

The fresh arraignment of the nonprofit organization under a new superseding indictment took place via videoconference before Montgomery, Alabama-based U.S. Magistrate Judge Kelly F. Pate.

The charges, announced on April 21 by FBI Director Kash Patel and acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche, sparked political backlash amid growing questions about the group, which the federal government had previously used to track extremist groups with its “Hate Map” and other online resources.

The original indictment by a federal grand jury charged the SPLC with wire fraud, making false statements to a federally insured bank, and conspiracy to commit money laundering.

The group was alleged to have surreptitiously transferred more than $3 million in donated funds to leaders and organizers of racist groups, including the Ku Klux Klan, the Aryan Nation, and the National Alliance, between 2014 and 2023.

The government said the SPLC sent donations to bank accounts of fake entities that had names such as “Rare Books Warehouse” and “Tech Writers Group.” The accounts were then used to funnel money to alleged informants in the racist groups that it claimed to strongly oppose.

One of the informants allegedly helped to organize the “Unite the Right” protest in 2017 in Charlottesville, Virginia, that turned deadly.

SPLC interim president and CEO Bryan Fair appeared in person on May 7 to plead not guilty to the same charges on behalf of the group.

On July 7, an attorney for the organization appeared by videoconference to enter 11 not guilty pleas to the superseding indictment issued last month that added more details and specifics. The new charging document did not add new charges.

The original indictment alleged $3 million in donor funds was funneled to individuals associated with extremist groups, but the new indictment increases the figure to $4.1 million.

The new indictment provides additional details such as a claim that funds were used by recipients for buying materials for cross burnings and Ku Klux Klan robes and hoods.

The SPLC has filed a motion to dismiss the indictment for vindictive prosecution. The group claims it is being targeted by the Trump administration for political reasons. It is unclear when the court will rule on the motion.

The SPLC is known for its successful fundraising campaigns. According to its most recent publicly available IRS filing, it had gross receipts in tax year 2023 of $339.3 million and assets of $822.2 million.

The FBI severed its relationship with the SPLC in October 2025 after conservatives criticized the group for including slain conservative activist Charlie Kirk’s organization on its list of hate groups. The FBI had previously used SPLC intelligence on domestic extremist groups.

Patel said the organization has turned into a “partisan smear machine” instead of a civil rights advocate.

“Their so-called ‘hate map’ has been used to defame mainstream Americans and even inspired violence,” he said at the time, without elaborating.

The SPLC’s Hate Map lists almost 1,400 groups, including Kirk’s Turning Point USA, categorizing it as an “antigovernment” group.

Critics have long said the Montgomery-based SPLC unfairly labels conservatives as racist as a matter of policy, treats opposition to illegal or legal immigration, open borders, and multiculturalism as hate, and political expression of those views as hate speech.

The Alliance Defending Freedom, a legal organization that defends religious freedom and free speech, says the SPLC “did good work decades ago fighting segregation in the South,” but has since it has become a “far-left activist organization that attacks anyone who disagrees with its narrow political agenda.” Targets have included conservative, libertarian, anti-tax, immigration reductionist, and other groups.

In a statement issued in May, the SPLC called the charges against them “provably wrong” and “based on inaccurate facts and a misapplication of law.” The nonprofit said its informant program has been successful at preventing threats and attacks, stopping criminal activity, and gathering information used to dismantle hate groups.

“There is no question that the information the SPLC shared with law enforcement saved lives,” the statement reads.

It also stated that it was no stranger to legal threats and would continue its mission “no matter what.”

The Epoch Times reached out to the SPLC for comment. No reply was received by publication time.

Tyler Durden Wed, 07/08/2026 - 12:05

63 Million Barrels Of Iranian Oil Stuck At Sea After US Pulls Iran Sanction Waiver

Zero Hedge -

63 Million Barrels Of Iranian Oil Stuck At Sea After US Pulls Iran Sanction Waiver

Tehran's oil export troubled just got worse. 

One week after we reported that Iran was already struggling to sell its crude to buyers in Asia (including China, which appears to now prefer UAE exports instead), overnight the US rescinded the sanctions waiver that allowed Tehran to sell its oil without penalties, making sales of Iranian crude to international buyers even more challenging. 

The Iranian attacks on three commercial vessels in the Strait of Hormuz on Tuesday prompted immediate US reaction with the USmilitary striking multiple targets in Iran and the Treasury canceling the waiver on Iran’s oil sales that was supposed to be in place until August 21.

Iran’s oil sales could be constrained again even before they resume, OilPrice reports. Since the memorandum of understanding was signed in mid-June, Iran has rushed to load cargoes from its key export sites at Kharg Island, and move its tankers out of the Gulf as soon as possible, after weeks of virtually no exports because of the U.S. blockade that began in mid-April.

The surge in Iranian shipments out of the Gulf and into waters near the Malacca and Singapore Straits gave Iran a lifeline to boost its exports that had suffered from the U.S. blockade.

China has remained Iran’s key customer as other buyers are reluctant to commit to purchases. But in recent weeks, we learned that even Chinese purchases of Iran oil have slowed dramatically, and now that the US has ended the waiver and sanctions are in place again, buyers in India that were considering potential purchases have likely backed out. 

Additionally, one could go so far as to argue Iranian oil in tankers is once again subject to US seizure.

Iran is thus left with millions of barrels of crude oil on tankers moving or idling in a large area from the Persian Gulf to the Strait of Malacca. Most of the laden tankers do not broadcast destination or broadcast they are for orders, according to vessel-tracking data compiled by Bloomberg.

Currently, as many as 63 million barrels of Iranian oil are either in transit or idling in tankers, per Bloomberg’s estimates based on data from Vortexa, which also notes that oil on floating storage in the Gulf has more than doubled in the past week to over 41 million barrels.

“Iran managed to ship out 60 million barrels of crude oil since the US Navy blockade paused in mid-June 2026,” TankerTrackers.com said late on Tuesday, after the U.S.-Iran tensions escalated again.

“If the blockade were to resume now due to escalating tensions, Iran would be stuck with ~50 million barrels of crude oil and refined products.”

Tyler Durden Wed, 07/08/2026 - 11:45

Trump Greenlights Patriot Missile Production In Ukraine, Praises Deep Strikes Into Russia

Zero Hedge -

Trump Greenlights Patriot Missile Production In Ukraine, Praises Deep Strikes Into Russia

President Trump just prior to entering the Oval Office vowed to quickly achieve peace in the Russia-Ukraine war, which is currently in its fifth year. The MAGA base got energized by Trump's earlier repeat statements that he'd bring peace to major global flashpoints and hotspots, but instead of anti-interventionism he started a new war of choice in the Middle East, and is now tripling down on military support to Kiev.

While in Turkey for the annual NATO summit, President Trump commented on the issue of Ukrainian drone strikes deep into Russian territory on its oil refineries and defense manufacturing facilities, which has unleashed a fuel crisis in various parts of Russia and especially Crimea.

"It's an escalation but it’s also an escalation that can help lead to an end [of the war]," the US President told the NATO summit.

via AFP

After heaping lavish praise on Ukraine forces for supposedly turning the tide of battle and momentum in Kiev's favor, Trump also said, "We have a lot of pressure on President Putin. I don’t think he likes what’s going on." He added: "But I talked to President Putin a lot. He wants to end the war."

The Wall Street Journal comments in the wake of Trump's remarks:

President Trump said he supported Ukraine striking targets deep inside Russian territory, calling it an escalation that could help end the war.

...In a marked contrast to past meetings between the two leaders, Trump opened his press conference with President Volodymyr Zelensky by offering warm words and fresh promises of military cooperation with Ukraine, providing a major boon for Kyiv and its supporters in Europe. Trump praised Ukraine’s bravery, signaled he would consider granting Kyiv a license to produce U.S. Patriot missile interceptors and said he would consider travel to Kyiv at the right time in peace talks.

On this, Trump said Washington would give Ukraine "the right to make Patriots" - after Zelensky has for at least six months been relentless in requesting this, framing it as urgent and for the protection of cities and civilians.

"We’ll show them how to do it," Trump stated, describing the system as "very complex" - though he also said the Ukrainians would "figure out the complexity quickly."

Trump continued by saying that American defense firms are already building "four plants" and claimed that "all of our companies will be able to do this in two to three months."

However, there have notoriously been immense backlogs when it comes to Patriot production, and there's said to be great global demand among US allies, especially given depletions which have come as a result of the Iran war.

It's hard to know of this is just more bluster - and what will actually materialize as far as this promises - but Moscow will only see this as another US step up the escalation ladder. Earlier this week, Kremlin spokesman Dmitri Peskov said the Ukraine conflict is no longer just a "special military operation" but a real war, because Kiev is backed by Berlin, Paris, The Hague, Oslo, and Washington - complete with Western weapons, satellites, and infrastructure helping direct strikes.

"In these conditions, we must be clear-eyed: the Kiev regime is capable of anything," Peskov said in an interview.

Tyler Durden Wed, 07/08/2026 - 11:05

Pages