Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.
Speaker 2: I want to welcome now our Bloomberg Radio and YouTube
Speaker 2: audiences as we bring in our big guests this hour.
Speaker 2: My co anchor for The Clothes Remain Boss It joins
Speaker 2: us now as we sit down for an exclusive conversation
Speaker 2: with Jim Chainos, President and founder of Chinos and Company. Jim,
Speaker 2: welcome back.
Speaker 3: Oh good to be back. Thank you for having me.
Speaker 2: You are a born skeptic. Some might even say cynek.
Speaker 2: You've built your career on questioning conventional wisdom, what people,
Speaker 2: what companies say. So when it comes to expectations for
Speaker 2: trumpnomics and the market under Donald Trump, what is the
Speaker 2: crowd perhaps getting wrong?
Speaker 4: What are they not seeing?
Speaker 3: Well? I think that and I've been posting that.
Speaker 5: I think the budget cuts are going to be a
Speaker 5: lot harder than people think. I mean, we're going after
Speaker 5: kind of the low hanging fruit both practically and politically
Speaker 5: right now, like the USAID stuff. But this is is
Speaker 5: outrageous as some of the things that the Doche Committee
Speaker 5: is finding, and I agree that some of them are
Speaker 5: are pretty silly. I think that materially we're not really
Speaker 5: going to be able to do a lot until you
Speaker 5: get to kind of more serious items like medicare, medicaid, defense,
Speaker 5: the third reil.
Speaker 3: And yeah, the.
Speaker 5: Hot ticket third rail type stuff, and that's going to
Speaker 5: be much much tougher. And so I think we're still
Speaker 5: in the early parts of sort of political theater on Trumpanomics.
Speaker 3: And then of course we have the whole separate issue.
Speaker 2: Of tariffs, and that gets me to the next question.
Speaker 2: I mean, you look at Trump's policies overall, they're both
Speaker 2: populist and as you've described them, standard republican, but so
Speaker 2: far he's chosen to focus on trade war over say,
Speaker 2: cutting taxes. So what does this tell you about Trumpanomics
Speaker 2: in this second go round rather than the first attempt.
Speaker 5: Yeah, so, I mean, he obviously came right out of
Speaker 5: the gate with the tariffs over this past weekend that
Speaker 5: have been walked back temporarily, so it appears they're serious there.
Speaker 5: We'll see the fact that Mexico and Canada kind of
Speaker 5: agreed to do things that they had.
Speaker 3: Already agreed to do. I mean, Mexico had.
Speaker 5: Ten to fifteen thousand troops on its border going back
Speaker 5: to twenty seventeen, and a promise they made to Trump
Speaker 5: the first go around and reiterated with Biden. So again,
Speaker 5: how much is political theater, how much is real? We'll
Speaker 5: have to see China. The China tariffs I think obviously
Speaker 5: are a lot more serious and are worth watching.
Speaker 4: What's the economic risk?
Speaker 5: Well, the economic risk, I mean there's a couple of
Speaker 5: problems with the message, which is, well, we charge enough tariffs,
Speaker 5: we really can eliminate things like the income tax and
Speaker 5: a lot of other sort of broad promises. And the
Speaker 5: fact of the matter is, I mean tariffs I think
Speaker 5: brought in about eighty billion dollars last year, and so
Speaker 5: you know, in order for tariffs to replace the income tax,
Speaker 5: which is about two trillion of our four trillion revenues,
Speaker 5: you gotta have a lot of tariffs.
Speaker 3: So I don't think we're looking at that.
Speaker 5: I think the question is is this being used as
Speaker 5: a national security cudgel as well as an economic cudgel
Speaker 5: or is it strictly economics. Because they really believe they
Speaker 5: can raise a lot of money with tariffs, the numbers
Speaker 5: just kind of don't pencil out.
Speaker 4: I am curious.
Speaker 1: So when we talk about the potential overhang of this,
Speaker 1: I mean, I know, in fairness to the Trump administration.
Speaker 1: It's only been a couple of weeks here, but the
Speaker 1: idea that now Mexico and Canada have won a one
Speaker 1: month reprieve, at least for investors and economic watchers, that's
Speaker 1: another month of uncertainty. Do you think we'll get more
Speaker 1: of a concrete policy, meaning an actual resolution of some
Speaker 1: form or another that will at least provide some certainty to.
Speaker 4: The market with it the market likes it or not,
Speaker 4: that's all another conversation.
Speaker 3: Yeah, well, I.
Speaker 5: Think drama's part of the message remained. I mean, it
Speaker 5: wasn't the first administration. I don't see a whole lot
Speaker 5: different changing in this. I mean, the one thing you
Speaker 5: might might at least point out in the past administration
Speaker 5: for good or bad, I didn't have to, you know,
Speaker 5: check my my x feed first thing in the morning
Speaker 5: to see what was coming out of the White House overnight.
Speaker 5: And so you know, we're back to we're back to
Speaker 5: a much more volatile set of political you know, political
Speaker 5: pronouncements and streams and walk backs, and it's a little
Speaker 5: more uncertainty.
Speaker 1: Well, how much confidence do you have in the people
Speaker 1: around Trump? Because Trump himself, you know, he's just sort
Speaker 1: of this four text but there are some relatively competent
Speaker 1: people around him, including the Treasury Secretary, who you have
Speaker 1: some familiary with back when you were running Kinecolty Strange.
Speaker 1: He was one of your first analytics out there.
Speaker 4: He was my first So you liked him, then, do
Speaker 4: you still like him out I.
Speaker 3: Like Scott Passid an awful lot.
Speaker 5: We don't show the same politics, but he's a man
Speaker 5: of real character, and I think he was probably the
Speaker 5: best man for the job given the political arena. So
Speaker 5: I'm hoping he does well. I think he you know,
Speaker 5: he will do well, hopefully, and I know he has
Speaker 5: the country's best interest at heart.
Speaker 2: And you did see him, but you didn't actually get
Speaker 2: to talk to him about what he's doing right now.
Speaker 5: Well, I was able to see him and congratulate him
Speaker 5: after he got the nods, so he's got his hands full.
Speaker 2: You've described the last few years as the golden age
Speaker 2: of fraud, funny accounting, questionable behavior on the parts of
Speaker 2: investors of companies. How would you describe where we are now?
Speaker 2: Given that the lines between government and business are pretty
Speaker 2: much blurred, more intertwined than ever. You've got Elon Musk
Speaker 2: running dog, You've got the president selling his own meme coin.
Speaker 2: You've got regulators perhaps taking their hands off the wheel completely.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I'm hard pressed to think that we're going to
Speaker 5: see less of it in the near term. It sure
Speaker 5: seems like we're going to see more of it. Look,
Speaker 5: this is a cycle the likes of which I've never seen.
Speaker 5: And the willingness of people to believe things that just
Speaker 5: simply aren't true never stops to ceases to amaze me,
Speaker 5: particularly as a cycle carries on. And the willingness of
Speaker 5: management teams now to project way into the future and
Speaker 5: make all kinds of claims and promises I think is
Speaker 5: also sort of unprecedented. It's always been there, but it's
Speaker 5: greater now.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 5: I've always said that bull markets place a premium on
Speaker 5: promises and bear markets discount reality. And right now there's
Speaker 5: lots of companies making lots of promises.
Speaker 1: Lots of promises, but what is the reality? And I mean,
Speaker 1: and to Scarlett's point, you have some conflicts of interest
Speaker 1: in some of the folks who are I don't know
Speaker 1: if they're in charge. I mean they would say they're
Speaker 1: not in charge, but certainly sort of leading the charge
Speaker 1: in sort of trying to sort of root out whatever
Speaker 1: they think could potentially be bogging.
Speaker 4: Us down here.
Speaker 1: If you're not a friend of Elon Musk or a
Speaker 1: friend of Trump, and you're running a company or an
Speaker 1: investment fund, should.
Speaker 4: You be worried?
Speaker 1: Yeah?
Speaker 3: I mean, I don't know.
Speaker 5: I don't know how personal it's all going to get
Speaker 5: to companies and individuals. But but I am concerned that
Speaker 5: we have this whole new new structure set up with
Speaker 5: people that are basically going in again. And if you
Speaker 5: read the President's executive order setting up the DOGE Committee,
Speaker 5: which was an existing committee, the US Digital Services Committee,
Speaker 5: it has no budgetary authority or even recommendations. It's it's
Speaker 5: set up as a technology in software consulting organizations. So
Speaker 5: obviously the bally Wick has expanded to be something much
Speaker 5: greater than that.
Speaker 3: And the question will be, you.
Speaker 5: Know, well, at some point a federal judge somewhere say
Speaker 5: wait a minute, you know this is you're going beyond
Speaker 5: your your purview, beyond your legal.
Speaker 1: Does it undermine faith though in the system. I mean,
Speaker 1: particularly when I see people rooting around in the treasury system.
Speaker 1: I mean, we can talk about USAID and some of
Speaker 1: these other things, but the Treasury.
Speaker 4: I mean, we're talking about the background.
Speaker 2: Of our.
Speaker 3: Structure.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I mean we'll see, and we'll see to the
Speaker 5: extent when it goes beyond just you know, aerobic studies
Speaker 5: about shrimp and USAID and gets into social security and
Speaker 5: Medicare payments and things like that.
Speaker 3: They're really serious.
Speaker 5: And then I think you're going to see you're going
Speaker 5: to if there's any pushback, it's going to be pretty serious.
Speaker 2: I want to shift to our conversation now to the
Speaker 2: tariffs on China, which you said are going to be
Speaker 2: much more serious. The US began imposing an additional ten
Speaker 2: percent tariff on Chinese goods, and Beijing's response was targeted
Speaker 2: tariffs on about eighty products, which hardly seems like a
Speaker 2: proportional response.
Speaker 4: What does this reveal?
Speaker 2: Does this indicate that China has more to lose from
Speaker 2: a trade war with the US than the other way around.
Speaker 5: I mean, the argument for the administration is that they
Speaker 5: do right, that China has much more to lose. They're
Speaker 5: much more export driven country. We'll we'll have to see.
Speaker 5: I mean, I think China probably feels it was proportional,
Speaker 5: and we don't know what discussions are going on behind
Speaker 5: the scenes, So I think again, wait and see, but
Speaker 5: I think that ten percent isn't going to do it,
Speaker 5: by the way, I mean, getting back to our early
Speaker 5: conversation about the amount of tariffs you need to raise
Speaker 5: serious revenues. You know, you would have to raise them
Speaker 5: substantially on both China and EU, and we haven't seen
Speaker 5: that yet. So we'll have to see what exactly comes
Speaker 5: within thirty days sixty days.
Speaker 3: Does it escalate or does it cool off?
Speaker 5: And it was an early campaign promise that he's delivered
Speaker 5: on and now he's moved on to something else.
Speaker 2: But at the same time, this comes at a precarious
Speaker 2: time for China's economy. You've been warning for a long
Speaker 2: time about China's debt bubble and his broken economic model.
Speaker 2: What does the imposition of turfs now an additional ten percent,
Speaker 2: but you know, perhaps going even higher mean for that
Speaker 2: long term.
Speaker 3: To be fine. Yeah, it doesn't.
Speaker 5: It doesn't help it, that's for sure, because I mean,
Speaker 5: China saw fewer reliance on net exports after twenty ten
Speaker 5: when we first put out our warning, and it's growing again.
Speaker 5: And part of that is due to the fact that
Speaker 5: the investment driven model that we've been crying wolf about forever,
Speaker 5: albeit correctly, is losing its impetus to continue to grow,
Speaker 5: and the banking system is still bloated. And we've seen
Speaker 5: now problems in the residential real estate area completely trickle
Speaker 5: down into the actual developers. So they've got a model
Speaker 5: that really now is facing kind of a crossroads with
Speaker 5: what they're going to do, and the US putting on
Speaker 5: major tariffs to one of their few thriving parts of
Speaker 5: the engine, the export manufacturing area isn't going to help,
Speaker 5: all right.
Speaker 2: A moment of reckoning them perhaps for China, Jim. We
Speaker 2: look at the market. It's now three months after the election.
Speaker 2: The S and P five hundred is up about four percent,
Speaker 2: just about a percent shy of as record high. Isn't
Speaker 2: it still just a big long trade right now? How
Speaker 2: significantly different is the market under Trump than it was
Speaker 2: under Biden?
Speaker 3: Well, I mean it did pretty well.
Speaker 5: It did pretty well under Trump Trump first go round too,
Speaker 5: So it's done pretty well under both administrations. And historically
Speaker 5: the equity markets have done better under democratic administrations than
Speaker 5: republic administrations.
Speaker 3: Everyone kind of forgets that, but it's.
Speaker 5: Hard pressed to see if you just look at the
Speaker 5: continuity of the last eight or nine years, or even
Speaker 5: going further back where where the elections were, because I mean,
Speaker 5: really they've the market's done pretty well under all administrations.
Speaker 2: And because it's done so well, there's little institutional appetite
Speaker 2: for short selling. And just over a year ago you
Speaker 2: converted her hedge fund into a family office and an
Speaker 2: advisory Because of that, we recently saw activists short seller
Speaker 2: Nate Anderson quit as well, shutting down Hindenberg Research. Is
Speaker 2: the traditional short selling strategy just dead now?
Speaker 3: Well?
Speaker 5: I mean, so there's two different models there that you've referenced,
Speaker 5: the sort of traditional model that we employed for better
Speaker 5: part of forty years, which was just simply putting on
Speaker 5: short positions hedged or unhedged for our clients who were
Speaker 5: looking for that exposure. And then there's the short activist model,
Speaker 5: which people like Nate and others have perfected or really
Speaker 5: done well with. And so I think it's almost two
Speaker 5: different questions. There is virtually very little appetite for a
Speaker 5: short oriented fund product.
Speaker 3: Even if it's hedged.
Speaker 5: Now.
Speaker 3: A lot of that is the advent.
Speaker 5: Of the so called pod shops, the multimanager shops, which
Speaker 5: have done a pretty good job of delivering returns with
Speaker 5: very little net exposure, which is what the long short
Speaker 5: industry did for years and years and years. That changed
Speaker 5: the long short industry morphed into basically mostly long on
Speaker 5: the hedge fund side. But I think that I think
Speaker 5: there's always always a market for insurance, as I've said,
Speaker 5: and remember that good fundamental short.
Speaker 3: Positions allow you to be more long.
Speaker 5: That's always been the point that they allow you to
Speaker 5: finance your lungs.
Speaker 3: So for us, it was passive, right.
Speaker 5: We we bought the indices and had our short portfolio.
Speaker 5: And by the way, I mean Bloomberg has a wonderful
Speaker 5: short index and it's in the terminal, the Goldman Sachs
Speaker 5: Most Shorted Index. It's rebalanced monthly. If you looked at
Speaker 5: that since the Game Stop episode where everybody has basically
Speaker 5: said short selling is dead, you know, there's the risks
Speaker 5: are too high, and you simply shorted that index, bought
Speaker 5: bought the S and P or a related passive index
Speaker 5: rebalanced monthly. That return has been spectacular, and so so
Speaker 5: there's still alpha on the short side.
Speaker 3: It's just nobody thinks it's there anymore.
Speaker 1: That's on a more of an index level. What about
Speaker 1: on an individual.
Speaker 3: Well, no, that index is actually individual.
Speaker 5: Stocks, the most shorted stocks. It's a representative portfolio of
Speaker 5: very dicey companies, a lot of which we were short.
Speaker 1: Well what's the risk out there? I mean we talk
Speaker 1: about I mean, we've sort.
Speaker 4: Of written all these headlines about the demise, and.
Speaker 1: I know it's not completely you know, we talk about
Speaker 1: I mean short bias funds down like seventy percent since
Speaker 1: the financial crisis. But even activist campaigns, I thought last
Speaker 1: year was like a record low despite all the headlines
Speaker 1: that we got out all of these companies like Starboard
Speaker 1: and a few others, it was a record low year
Speaker 1: for activist campaigns. Is that a reflection of market dynamics
Speaker 1: or is that more reflection of public and political dynamics.
Speaker 3: Well, I think it's both. I mean, I remember, I
Speaker 3: mean the market.
Speaker 5: Prices are people's you know, facts, people's opinions based on facts,
Speaker 5: and so you know, people have gotten much more bullish
Speaker 5: over general political level, level of regulation, the promises that
Speaker 5: companies made. It we talked about earlier. So I mean
Speaker 5: these are all part of a bullmarket. I mean, it's
Speaker 5: just it's just the cycle has lasted a lot longer
Speaker 5: than a lot of people were thought, including me, But
Speaker 5: I think that that can change too. And and so
Speaker 5: the problem is is that price levels and the and
Speaker 5: where we are in that part of the cycle don't
Speaker 5: give you a good sense of timing. They do give
Speaker 5: you a good sense of how much risk you're taking
Speaker 5: should the timing change.
Speaker 1: It feels like there's a lot of risk in this
Speaker 1: market right now. When you look at public market valuations,
Speaker 1: whether on an index level or an individual stock level,
Speaker 1: valuations are high. You look in technology, you go deeper
Speaker 1: into AI, the valuations are even higher.
Speaker 4: Can you make a case there is a bubble out there?
Speaker 5: And the speculation is there remain not quite as where it
Speaker 5: was in twenty twenty one, which is the most speculative
Speaker 5: market I've.
Speaker 3: Seen, but it's getting back there.
Speaker 5: I mean the speculation and meme coins and again or
Speaker 5: just people are floating these.
Speaker 4: So you did not buy the Malania coin as much.
Speaker 5: As I didn't buy the un round coin that was
Speaker 5: floated yesterday.
Speaker 3: By the way, So yeah, so there you go.
Speaker 5: So I think that that, yeah, these are all signs
Speaker 5: and what we haven't seen yet which we saw in
Speaker 5: twenty twenty But I suspect we will see soon. Is
Speaker 5: a lot of issuance. As I've always said that Wall
Speaker 5: Street has a printing press too, just like the fat
Speaker 5: and once that printing press goes and everybody gets filled,
Speaker 5: generally you end up with some heavier weather, as we
Speaker 5: did in twenty twenty two.
Speaker 3: I haven't seen it yet. I suspect we will.
Speaker 2: I want to get your thoughts on deep Seek, the
Speaker 2: revelation of deep Seek and it's technological breakthrough a cheaper,
Speaker 2: more efficient AI model. Does it help answer the question
Speaker 2: of whether we're in an AI bubble?
Speaker 5: Well, what I pointed out when it came out, and
Speaker 5: I know nothing about LM models or any of that,
Speaker 5: which one is better is it underscores the risks of
Speaker 5: disruptive technology. And that is, when you are betting on
Speaker 5: disruptive technology, you have to always consider the risk that
Speaker 5: that technology will be disrupted itself by a better mouse trap.
Speaker 3: The kid in the garage.
Speaker 5: You know, we can talk about all of the possible risks,
Speaker 5: and that's something coming out of left field that I think,
Speaker 5: you know, can change the argument. So I think that's
Speaker 5: what deep Seek underscored was that wait a minute, maybe
Speaker 5: there's a way to.
Speaker 3: Do AI with less cap x, less chips.
Speaker 5: You know, cheaper, and nobody had kind of really considered
Speaker 5: that until Deep Seek. Now I don't know that deep
Speaker 5: seac it dethrones the other models. It's beyond my pay grade,
Speaker 5: but it does underscore the risks of paying multiples of
Speaker 5: revenue that are historically considered you.
Speaker 3: Know, egregious.
Speaker 5: And now we have companies routinely trading at twenty thirty
Speaker 5: forty times revenues. Yeah, so that gives you an idea
Speaker 5: of the risk those in those businesses.
Speaker 2: I look at Palinger and how well it's done, and
Speaker 2: it's talk about untamed organic growth. So at least when
Speaker 2: it comes to big tech and AI, this threat of
Speaker 2: disruptive technology, do you see any evidence that institutional investors
Speaker 2: maybe have an appetite to start hedging or looking to
Speaker 2: protect against them those positions.
Speaker 5: Well, they should by seeing it yet, but they should.
Speaker 5: And as I said, and the other thing I'll just
Speaker 5: mention about disruptive technology is in the up phase of it,
Speaker 5: as we saw in the late nineties when the Internet,
Speaker 5: which was certainly a disruptive technology. Everything is a positive
Speaker 5: The Internet will affect all things positively, and in fact,
Speaker 5: what we found and what I and my clients made
Speaker 5: a lot of money on from two thousand and twenty
Speaker 5: ten was how many businesses got unfortunately disrupted by the Internet,
Speaker 5: how many businesses went away. And I suspect that's going
Speaker 5: to be the same thing in AI that not a
Speaker 5: lot of people are talking about yet. I mean, AI
Speaker 5: is a very revolutionary technology and will be benefiting lots
Speaker 5: of things and hopefully humanity, but by definition it will
Speaker 5: put a lot of business models out of business.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and it's already We're always starting to hear talk
Speaker 1: about that. I was interested in how so many people
Speaker 1: were dismissive of deep Seek and its founders. I know
Speaker 1: there are a lot of questions about exactly what they
Speaker 1: did and how they paid for but we saw that
Speaker 1: same dismissiveness back during the computer era when that was
Speaker 1: coming up, and of course during the dot com bubble
Speaker 1: what led up to the dot com bubble. A lot
Speaker 1: of the giants today, I mean people scoffed that Jeff
Speaker 1: Bezos and Amazon. People scoffed at what Apple and Steve
Speaker 1: Jobs were doing.
Speaker 5: Right, And again those companies had had.
Speaker 3: Big valuations in the up part of the cycle.
Speaker 5: But what everybody forgets about Amazon, for example, is the
Speaker 5: two ninety plus percent declines that had you two, three
Speaker 5: and seven eight along the way, and for me to
Speaker 5: tell investors, well, that's fine, but by the way, when
Speaker 5: you're down ninety five percent, tell me if you're still
Speaker 5: holding and adding to the position number one.
Speaker 3: Number two.
Speaker 5: We then forget about the America onlines, the yahoos, the
Speaker 5: ask jeeves, the businesses that I.
Speaker 4: Remember them, I still mock them to this day.
Speaker 1: But do we also forget about I mean then wrong,
Speaker 1: the world comms and all that, because how am I
Speaker 1: supposed to believe that at all of these companies that
Speaker 1: are trying to sell their AI product and giving numbers
Speaker 1: as to what they're selling are on the output out,
Speaker 1: particularly because we don't have a.
Speaker 4: Jim Chanos out there rattling the cages.
Speaker 3: Maybe I'm still.
Speaker 5: Trying occasionally, Yeah, but look, you underscore an important part
Speaker 5: that fundamental short sellers play, whether fund managers are activists,
Speaker 5: and that is there's still the only ones incentivized real
Speaker 5: time other than journalists to point this stuff out.
Speaker 2: As we wrap up our conversation here, if investors are
Speaker 2: indeed less sensitive to valuations, and that certainly seems to
Speaker 2: be the case over the last couple of years, and
Speaker 2: passive funds are driving a lot of the price action
Speaker 2: the inflos there, what is the impact on the health
Speaker 2: of markets overall? And I mean, I guess you could
Speaker 2: expand that to capitalism.
Speaker 5: Yeah, So I've had this discussion with my friend Mike Green,
Speaker 5: who's been talking about this now for for years, about
Speaker 5: passivity and the impact on markets, and will it just
Speaker 5: simply lead to more disruptive events, meaning everyone going one
Speaker 5: side of the boat but then going to the other
Speaker 5: side of the boat, so flows become much much more important.
Speaker 5: I mean, I certainly have hope that's not the case, inextremists,
Speaker 5: it's certainly happening now, because the fact of the matter
Speaker 5: is is that if we can't differentiate valuations, if it's
Speaker 5: all just a matter of flows, then an important part
Speaker 5: of capitalism and signaling mechanism and capitalism is broke.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 5: You don't want to be sending a lot of money
Speaker 5: to the enrons and world commes and pharrnosis of the world,
Speaker 5: you know, you want to.
Speaker 3: Be sending it to the amazons.
Speaker 5: And so we hope that the market starts differentiating these
Speaker 5: beyond your simple flows and narratives and positioning and all
Speaker 5: the things that everybody watches now like a hawk day
Speaker 5: to day and hour to hour, because if not, we
Speaker 5: got a bigger problem with capitalism.
Speaker 2: Final question to you, what's the single biggest risk you
Speaker 2: see in next six to twelve months.
Speaker 5: Something that I don't see probably, I mean definition, it's
Speaker 5: the stuffy exactly. I mean, look, I think the political
Speaker 5: theater is going to get ratcheted up. It seems that
Speaker 5: way that we're heading to kind of an issue where
Speaker 5: Congress is going to have to say, well, I'm just
Speaker 5: going to abrogate my entire responsibility to the executive branch.
Speaker 3: So I suspect, I suspect.
Speaker 5: Day to day it'll be politics, but the real risks
Speaker 5: will be something like deep seek that comes out of
Speaker 5: left field, that changes people's thinking, and you know, by definition,
Speaker 5: we don't know what that is, all right.
Speaker 2: Causing a complete rethink, a complete reset, perhaps some investor expectations. Jim,
Speaker 2: thank you so much for joining us today. A real
Speaker 2: pleasure speaking with you. Jim Chanos is president and founder
Speaker 2: of Chaos and Company, and I want to thank my
Speaker 2: colleague remained Bossic as well,