Record Layoffs and Massive Profits - Episode 106

Welcome back. A special Thanksgiving edition of the C Suite unfiltered podcast with Mike Andes. How are we doing, sir?

Good. Are you releasing this on Thanksgiving?

You know, maybe I will. Yeah. I'll upload it this week, and then it'll be a little Thanksgiving treat for everyone. So thank you to everyone watching. You can, you know, take us on your phone when you're trying to avoid your family this Thanksgiving and just listen to us say that you have a very important business podcast.

If you release this on Saturday, we could talk about a lot more stuff since that'd be after Black Friday.

That's a good point. That's a good point. But let's go ahead and we'll do a full debrief after. I say we do a full debrief of the Black Friday event because we obviously want it to happen first. Like, we could. We could talk a lot about it, but it hasn't happened yet. So ultimately, I think let's do a full recap versus a preview. Now. I do want to jump in. We are recording in a new place here. We are at the new office. So let's just jump right into that. We have a new office. First question from the people is, is this the new headquarters building?

Nope, that one's still in raw materials, sitting on five acres about a mile away.

So, yeah, like, the county is like the slowest thing in the world. It's crazy. But we're here for four years.

And so in that timeframe, hopefully, goodness, the headquarter building is actually built. We would then fragment probably the median. Co pilot team over there continue having command center here until the end of the four years. And then my hope is we have a second building there that we can move all of command center over to. And then it also be kind of like 2.0 version of like, training facilities, studios, stuff like that down the road. But we'll cross that bridge when we get there.

Yeah.

You know, it's rare that you get to pay for your roof like, four years before it's actually installed. So that's what we've done at the new headquarter building.

Yeah. So for the people outside of Augusta, all the owners in Augusta do know this. This is not the new headquarters building. We're still waiting on that to get built. Don't ask Mike about it, but you graciously signed a lease or rental agreement for this space, which it seems like the team really likes. Do you like the space?

Yeah, it's great. I don't really like the fact that I have my Own office. It kind of just happened to be that way, like, because we needed a space for me to do podcasts. And it's one thing, like, in the past I was out on the floor and I'd go to the studio, but the problem is now the studio requires an operator. It was very difficult to me, like, yeah, here, let's. Let's hop on a call and do a podcast. Right? Whatever. Even this, it's just better if I have a spot where I can just turn and have a video set up. So I try to keep the door open and, you know, still.

Yeah, yeah. No, you're just policy. Yeah. And, well, and you're up there. You are on the second floor. So you're up there in your ivory towers, down. And all this, you know, it's. You know, it's. I don't know. You know, some people would say it's optics. Other people would say it's, you know, it's pretty cool. I don't know. Speak. Speaking of setting up a studio, not to tease anything for the webinar for the Black Friday launch, would the C suite, unfiltered, be moving back house or are we still doing virtual? The people want to know.

Yeah, we should totally. Yeah, we should totally do it in person. Now the setup is. It'll be really good. So maybe, maybe next week. Maybe next week we'll do our maiden voyage back in the studio. Actually. Be good because that'll be the studio where we have Black Friday this weekend, so.

Exactly. Because no one's seen that.

Yeah, yeah, correct.

Like the, The. The build out. Have you used it for any content?

There'll be some content go out this week for co pilot for some feature stuff, but it doesn't show the whole thing. It just shows one corner.

Yeah. And some of the ads that you've been running, but no one's seen the whole. The whole thing.

Yep.

Yep.

No.

Cool. That's awesome. Well, anyways, yeah, New office space. Very exciting. We are expanding at Augusta. Mike is adding jobs, stimulating the local economy. But I want to talk about something different. I was sent a YouTube video recently from a loyal listener and fan, Nick Reed, and he said that we should talk about this on the pod. And it is a YouTube video from Vanessa Wingard. I'm not sure if I'm pronouncing the last name correctly. And it is titled they're firing everyone and they're getting rich from it. And I wanted to talk a little bit of a macroeconomics with you, specifically kind of the Mag 7 and some of these very profitable businesses that are experiencing large corporate layoffs. So the long and short of the video, and I got some notes here, the long and short of the video is that it's kind of a corporate layoffs versus Gen Z work ethic. Is AI taking jobs? Is there a sense of entitlement? Are people under qualified for these overqualified jobs? Like what is your initial reaction to kind of that thought process? Because you hear this brought up a lot. People are like, oh, there's all these layoffs aren't jobs out there. And you'll hear one side of the coin which is like people don't want to work anymore. They don't want to start at the bottom, they don't want to put in the work to get to the high paying job. But then you hear other people making the argument that like AI is taking over jobs. There aren't as many opportunities out there. Like where do you stand on that? Greater conversation?

I think when it comes to like big tech mostly most of what they're seeing now is just they overhire during 2020, 2021 and now they're tightening the belt.

And their revenues are growing, their profits are still growing. And so there is still certainly a need for humans and skilled humans. Now I think the people that should be scared is the people that are not using AI to their advantage or improving their skills more importantly. And those people will be commoditized and I don't think that's a bad thing because the person that's willing to work hard will probably be rewarded just more exponentially than in the past because there'll be an AI enabled. It's not just about AI, it's about in general. Like if you're the type of person that figures out AI and uses tools, you're probably resourceful, you probably work hard, you're probably the type of person that people want to keep hired and pay more money. And so I would not necessarily be worried unless you are the type person that just tries to skate by, do as little as possible. You know the classic a lot of these jobs, if you look at who they're, they're, they're laying off to, it's a lot of remote, it's a lot of people that likely have been skating by doing very little and that's possible to do in those environments. And so I think they're just tightening the belt. And again like they should, this is what they should be doing to for their stakeholders now, should they? Should they also probably be raising prices at this exact Same time, probably not like they're just maximizing profit. They have huge moats. So that's a whole different economic or, you know, moral dilemma. But in terms of like, I think this is a cost cutting measure. This is a reversion back to the mean after 2020 and 2021 where they literally hired anyone with the polls and it was a bit of a joke.

You're muted.

Thank you, sir.

Wanda Lee has to mute now because he's in a very busy environment.

Yes, it was good. That's good. It's lively. It's lively. So to your point, it's more of a strategy change based on previous decisions of bloat and over hiring versus corporate greed, if you will. Like, because that's really what this video gets at. To give you like a direct quote, like I put this in my notes. The takeaway from this video is that Amazon is creating record, record profits, but laying people off equals corporate greed. Like that was my main takeaway. Watching the video, your thoughts on kind of like, well, what's business strategy? Eliminating bloat and waste versus corporate greed. Like where do you draw the line?

Look here, here if you think of you're an executive, you have a whole bunch of people you need to lay off because you know they're not actually driving results. If you went and said that right now, you would get reamed. If you say because of AI and new technologies that we're using, we're becoming much more efficient inside of our team, therefore we're going to be laying people off. You're right. Now, because you're now AI efficient, your stock would go up. You're incentivized to make your stock go up. So what are you going to say when you need to cut late and make layoffs? You're going to say that's because of AI, because it makes you look good. And so it just makes you look tech forward and like we're using these tools and we're like cutting edge and whatever. It's like, no, look, everyone's using ChatGPT to write their emails. But yes, technically if you were able to write twice as many emails, you need half as many people to write emails. So yeah, it's a scapegoat. That's why like unfortunately it's got all this negative publicity in the past year and a half because it's like, oh, it's causing layoffs. Like, no, like people way over hired. The unemployment rate went to the lowest percentage ever. People were hiring anyone and everyone. People had multiple jobs. So now like if you just take people who are remote or trying to like juggle two jobs, now they have one job. Okay, well that just like we just lost a job. It's like, no, like that person was over hired, like over overemployed. So I don't know, there's a lot of measures, but I think right now it is a, for publicly traded companies, it's a smart thing to say. You're laying people off because it cuts costs. And if you say it because it's AI, it tells all of your investors that you're, you're tech forward, you're thinking about AI, you're cost cutting because of these, all these efficiencies. And yeah, it's just, it's like, it's funny. Everyone wants their 401k to go up, but no one wants these, you know, big companies to, to do these things. But it is a trend right now and it's, it's a trend that I think people are hopping on because it's a nice easy way able to lay people off and still look good to the public market.

That's fair. So what would your kind of response be to be to the fact that. And these are some quoted statistics, data, leaked emails, whatever you want from this video that. Well, number one, Amazon in the last month has laid off 14,000 of their last of employees. They had that leaked email that said by 2033 they want to cut 600,000 jobs, not 60, not 6,000. 600,000. So are you saying that's just course correction or you think that they have a strategic plan by 2033 so within the next seven to eight years that AI could theoretically or operational efficiencies could replace 600,000 workers. Like what's the balance there?

I don't know. They've been working robotics for so long to think that like again, is it because AI? No, like they've been working on this for ages. And when they were losing money not too many years ago, no one was crying for them, like, like they're losing money hand over fist. And these investors were pouring money into the business. So yes, now after years of investment, investment in robotics and software and all these things, now they have a moat that's gonna be very difficult for anyone to penetrate. And we're all gonna, we're gonna roast them over their high profits. It's just a function of like they have put that in. And is that, you know, you could definitely argue is like, is that a free market? Is that, should that be allowed to happen? You Definitely have these cases against big tech. But I think that AI is just getting a massive scapegoat because it's such an easy thing for these executives to be able to say I'm laying off because of this. When reality it's like, oh, this was an inefficient workforce, let's get rid of them and say it's because of AI because we know that we don't need them and we will continue to have the same amount of revenues as before.

Yeah, obviously with corporate releases or any executive saying anything, it's going to be inspected with a fine tooth comb or put under a microscope, whatever analogy you want to use. So no answer is good enough. But I do want to point in this video they highlighted a clip from Mark Zuckerberg earlier this year was on Joe Rogan and he said like, and I quote, this is a summary of his long winded quote is AI will replace mid level engineering jobs at Meta. So like, what is your thought to that? Where it's like, okay, we can use it as scapegoat, but he's basically planning moving forward, like there will be mid level, so not entry level, mid level engineering jobs, technical jobs at Meta. Like is that do, do we just take him at his word? Like he is just playing face value. AI is going to take people's jobs at my company or is he just using that as a scapegoat as you're saying?

I think it's going to be like we see in so many industries that the best people will make more money. And so like at the same time that people are complaining about this, there are people getting paid billions, billions of dollars as employees to join Meta and it's like, oh, they're wiping out jobs. No, there's a consolidation of the, the 500 jobs into them hiring one top talent. And so like I again, like, we're not going to change this, we're not going to change technology, we're going to change the way the game is being played to like just be the best at your industry. Like do whatever it takes to learn whatever you're like across the board, like the top 1% in every single category, make all the money, whether it be sports, academics, etc. It's like just focus on that part. Is it fair? No, it's not. Is that, is it going to change? No, probably not. So I think what we're seeing with technology, every single time we see a wave of new technology is it just consolidates to those with the most skills, all of the gains and so in the past you could be a decent engineer, get a four year degree, be entry level and get a decent job, make six figures. That's not going to happen anymore because AI will be better than you because you're a mid level or low end engineer. But you will not be able to replace the highest level of talent that can utilize these resources and do what the output of 500 people is. And that's very possible.

Yeah, I think that's a, that's an interesting point. But what would you say, and the video kind of highlights this, that like people are being laid off, but then their position. Right. Shows up again on Indeed. Or on Monster or whatever, you know, hiring site there is out there. They're like, well, but then it's at a lower wage wage or with less benefits or, you know, like, I was at the company for a certain amount of years, so my benefits package was increasing. You know that they have those incentives baked into tenure. Like, what do you say to those people that have experienced that? And maybe anecdotal evidence that people have experienced, like I was laid off because they said they're replacing my job with remote with tech with AI. And then they see hiring for that job. Are you saying that like 500 are laid off for the one and so those 500 are upset? Like, where do we kind of draw the line of like, okay, is that unfair for corporations to be doing these mass layoffs and then rehiring for less wages, lower compensation, or just hiring one person because of the efficiencies gained? Like, what does that look like from your perspective?

Well, is it fair? No.

But life is not fair. And so this is a function of like, is something right or wrong? We can debate that all we want, but it is what it is. And so, like, I would rather just focus on how do I win inside the current rules of the game. So are the rules messed up? Yes. What are we going to do to solve it though? Are we just not going to make. If we get behind the AI race, like, we have a geopolitical problem. If we get behind on the AI race, we have huge economic structural issues to our country. So this is where the optimist in the short term says, well, let's just, you're not allowed to lay people off. Okay, let's actually play what that looks like. That means people will hire less because it means we can't get rid of you. And so no one was crying when in 2020 and 2021 the opposite was true, which is you couldn't find Anyone. So you just offered them as much money as possible to show up at your place of work. And now the tide has reversed because interest rates have gone up, the economy has slowed down and now it's the opposite, which is, yes, I can lay someone off and then go hire someone else for cheaper. It's called a free market. And so if you're going to get in the way of that, expect there to be down long term consequences. And so the free market says that when Covid happened and we can't find employees, we all jacked up how much we were paying people because we needed, we needed employees. So it's the classic supply and demand. As soon as any sort of legislation starts to adjust those two things, that's when you start to see long term ramifications. And this is what you see in Europe and a lot of stagnation in terms of the economy because they got into the free market and said, oh, you can't hire people or you can't fire people. And they start putting all these guidelines because it makes sense in the short term to protect people. But in the long term, when you start messing with supply and demand, you're going to in the long term have a long term consequences. And again, these are like more economic policy and.

You know, it becomes political unfortunately. But it's just like supply and demand. It's like if there's a bunch of people that have your skill level and you are overpaid, eventually you're going to be let go and this person is going to replace you. And so like, what do I do? That's not fair. I agree. Go get more skills to become worth what your wage is now. So that probably means taking a course on AI. It means probably, how do I do twice as much output now to be able to justify a higher wage that was inflated because of COVID was inflated because all of a sudden there was so much money in the market and everyone was getting paid to stay at home. And so yes, employers had to jack up the rates. Should that have been against the law? Should have been against the law that we have to increase our wages by 50% to attract people at command center. So like, yeah, it's just, it's just supply and demand. It's the free market doing its thing. And I think it is a, a coming back to the mean.

That's fair. But just to like play the devil's advocate, to kind of poke the bear even further though. Why would you say though, like when you look at like the median household income is not Increasing at the same rate of inflation, housing prices. Like, there's so many metrics that I could point to and that this video also points to that like the average worker, the middle class to lower class American is not keeping up with the times when these corporations are making for profits and they're laying people off and then they talk about like, well then the people that need the work will then take the lowest paying job because they have a certain way of life, a certain means of living that this video kind of calls it algorithmic exploitation that now like they are offering these underpriced jobs, if you will, because people just need the work. Like, where's the line there? Because I do see that as a potential problem when you have like these monopolies, these massive companies that are kind of dominating and they set, you know, the supply and demand curve. Sure. But there's also the workers that have to be there and paid a living wage.

Yeah. And I think the part that even these large companies forget is that I think one of the most destabilizing things you can do to a culture of your business is to do mass layoffs. And so.

I think that there are downstream effects for them too. Right. When you, when you think about, yes, let's, let's keep 90% of our workforce, but 10%, we're going to indiscriminately just cut people, just randomly. Like, what's more destabilizing than that as a team member and like, are you really going to have discretionary effort and the thoughts and ideas you come up with in the shower gonna start putting that forward to that company that you could, you feel like you could be cut any moment. So I feel like I would argue this on the flip side. I'm just like, more observation from like a pure free market perspective. But like, if I was in their shoes, I understand the inclination as a CEO where your only metric is the next 4, 5, 10 years of your stock performance to do these things. But in the long term, 50 years, 100 years down the road, does that help the business? I don't think so. I would much rather be like, okay, we have created these efficiencies, we have 5,000 extra people. Where would we put them in order to grow this business to the next level? And if I don't know what that is, then I, I have failed as the leader to allocate resources and I will take the L in the short term, but then I will figure out where to allocate those resources. And if they become so much more efficient, because of AI. Great. That means I won't need to hire any new people, but I'm not going to let, let the current team go. And so that's where I would take like a short term, like hey, like next 12 or 24 months. We're going to grow into this workforce but we're going to make them more efficient at the same time and we're going to keep their same wages. So like whether or not I agree with how they're doing it or not, because like most publicly traded companies are not led by the founder with, with a majority stake. They have like 4 or 5, 6, 7% of the business max. Even if they are a founder, they're only 4 to 10% of the business. And most of them are owned by CEO are being ran by CEOs that have no, no real vest like percentage equity or stakeholder. It's like you get options and you get a piece of the company that are hundreds of millions of dollars on a hundreds of billions of dollar company. And so your vested interest is to optimize the stock performance. And almost every single person that owns shares in that company would like that. They want that because you bought the share so it would go up in value. You don't care also in 10 years. Like the owners of the stock also don't care about what happens in 20 years to Apple. They want this next year to go up 20%. In order for that to happen, we say we will cut people that cost us money at the same time increase revenue immediately, stock go up. Like if you just look at this one metric of like the, the Mag 7, like the fact that they've been able to all increase revenues by 30 to 40% in the past year while reducing cap expenses for the past three years straight of like team members and employees and like expenses. That alone is what leads to the massive delta in profits and their earning per share going up through the roof over the past couple.

And so like why would you not keep doing that? That's such a gravy train. As the CEO, you're making like the packages for their conference crazy because they're increasing margin and increasing revenue. But I do not think that's the right thing for the business in the long term. Like if we were ever in this situation, I would be figuring out, okay, well what do we do with this 10% of our workforce that we quote unquote, don't need? And we're going to use that as a way to grow into it and we will take the short term l Because the long term impact on the team when you start indiscriminately cutting is so negative to their psychology. And again this is short term thing that usually happens in publicly traded companies.

So when does it, and I'm trying to be succinct here, when does it become like a house of cards that you can just say like oh, we laid people off and we increased revenues and we increased margins. Like doesn't like that's the, that's the image in my head. It's like it's like a house of cards. Like when does it become reality that like workers are legitimately losing jobs and more people are becoming unemployed and more people are making less money and the cost of living is increasing. Like it feels like a house of cards to me. Like everything you've explained cool makes sense. When does the facade stop? Because if you're saying these short term gains, these CEOs that are looking for that, that ultimately return to the shareholder, like when does that cycle stop? Or is there someone beats a bubble.

That pops when someone beats them. Right? So like when, when, because of the cut in the team and more importantly the culture, those some team members like hey that that was not cool. I'm going to go start my own thing. I'm going to take all my talent and five of my team members that are super solid and we're going to start our own thing. And they compet. That's why I'm such a big fan of allowing like enterprise to start and begin. Like make it easy for people to start, make it easy for people to scale. Because if you allow the free market to play out and you these, these things are they're doing is bad. I agree. People will not, the best talent will not want to work for them. They will go start their own thing and then they will compete with them and they will beat them in the product and then they'll have to reduce their prices and they won't make as much margin. And so you know, this is the classic like you know five stages of decline for businesses that are these sizes and eventually they hit this because of these sort of short term measures. In my opinion it's a horrible psychological thing to do at mass layoff. Especially when you're growing, if you're cutting and you honestly stand in front of your team like hey, we need to do this because we are losing money. But when you're making record profits, your compensation is going through the roof and every like everyone is making gobs of money to be able to doing that. I Think it's such a, it's the first stage of decline for the business because it'll catch up to in five or 10 years when people are like, I had a great idea that will take this business to the next level. And that you have to remember that like most massive jumps forward for a business come from a team member that has a great idea and they contribute it to the business. And if the employees stop doing that in five or 10 years, like if the technology doesn't improve, if the chip design doesn't improve, if the hardware doesn't improve, the software doesn't improve because there are no more ideas being contributed because no one has discretionary effort that we want to give to the business, they will go do that somewhere else and there will be competition that increases and eventually out competes that business.

Yeah, sorry, I was just looking up a stat there as well to kind of like see if I could correlate. It's almost like. And they're in a direct correlation, so I apologize for like a bad analogy here. But like if you look at like intel and ultimately their share on the market back in the 80s, 90s and the early 2000s and it's decreased over time now, they still own. And if you just look at like CPU market, which I'm not going to even pretend I'm like a, an expert in, but they still, as of Q1, 20, 25, have a 75.6 share of the CPU market now people are starting to dig into that gap, if you will. And so it's like, okay, where do those competitors come from? And you're saying like, well, people that leave intel will start their own businesses. Technically it's kind of yours.

Well, the thing is, no one cares about CPUs now. Like, look at their GP. Look at their GPUs. Right. Like, that's why Nvidia is what it is. Nvidia is today what intel should be.

Right. And that's kind of what I was getting at, but I just don't know as much about it as possible. Yeah, so their GPU market share is less than 1%.

Yeah, like, like intel should be Nvidia and should be amd, but they're not because incumbents get toppled by the fact that they get greedy. They do these layoffs and again, 30, 40 years ago, big company leader in the market, but then they did all this shenanigans that we're seeing right now with other big tech companies. And in 30, 40, 50 years, the likes of Microsoft and Amazon and Google that are doing These things will see those repercussions. But most people don't build a business for the next 50 to 100 years. And why would they? Because they're completely incentivized based on this quarter, this year, my stock comp, this four years and then the team members, even with stock options the way they're built, it's built over vesting periods of like four years. So why would I care anything beyond four years. I just need to pump the stock now. And so this is what leads to massive corrections like we had in 2000, 2001 it was the likes of these companies like so much pumping and pumping and pumping. Eventually it has to give and unfortunately it many times does hurt the middle and lower class. And unfortunately that's just the case because the CEOs during the dot com bubble they were fine, but a lot of jobs were lost in 2008, same thing.

So then let's just go ultra meta macroeconomics. Is the bubble about to pop?

I think there's definitely going to be winners and losers. I think there's a, there's so many billion dollar companies built off the back of AI. I think there will be consolidation. I think that we have massively over emphasized what AI quote unquote is doing in terms of how, how it will not change a lot of elements but what it will do is it will commoditize skills and processes that mid level or lower can have in the past been busy doing like busy work. Gone. And so.

Are we in a bubble?

If you, if you ask Michael Burry. Yes. Have you heard about this with the whole Michael Burry like the big short thing. He's shorting like Alan here and all these guys.

Oh yeah.

But he's also like, he's shown that he doesn't really know technically what they do in terms of like the way that they're doing their finances and their bookkeeping in terms of like the, the longevity of, of a chip. It's not six years like they're still at 100 capacity after that. So all of that to say do I think we're in a bubble? I don't know man, I'm not that smart. Like it could be the next revolution, you know. And I think a lot of times what, what, what, what rebel like revolutions are first masked by a bubble. So like if you look at the dot com bubble, what did it mean? The Internet was bad? Didn't mean the Internet was a bubble. No. Like our whole infrastructure, the whole economy, everything was built in the back of the Internet. But that initial wave of optimism leads to the bubble, and then the bubble pops, and then we consolidate to the few really core good businesses and good products and good teams. And so I think that will happen. I think we're in a bubble of mass euphoria. Huge amounts of valuations, people pumping the stock, using AI as, like, the trending thing. I think it'll pop, and it'll come down by 70, 80% in terms of number of players. And then those players will probably be the greatest groundwork for the future, the next wave of innovation.

Yeah, yeah, fair enough. Now, this is not. Not financial advice, but if you had to predict a pop, or let's say like a. A decrease in. Let's call it. What would we consider bubble popping? 25. Loss 30.

Loss 20. Technically a correct price. 20%. Yeah. Correction. 20 is a recession. I forget what it is. They change it all the time.

Yeah, that's why I was just giving random ranges. Let's say. Let's call 25. Nice, clean, round number. When do you. If you had to predict if. If. This is not saying that you are predicting. If you had to predict when the bubble pops, is it in a quarter next year? Are we 36 months out? Like, where are you at?

If you.

If you just had to put your.

Money on it just for fun, man. I don't think it has a lot to do with AI as much as interest rates.

But we have some steam to pump, like, with. With reducing interest rates. Like, if things get bad, we can reduce interest rates and get steam back in the market, but that's going to risk inflation again, which we can't afford that either. So it's just like a very. I don't know. But this is the thing. There's always something to worry about. There is always, like, for all of eternity. As long as they're in a stock market, as long as there's been an economy, there have been something that is, like, could wipe us all out. But if you listen to every single one of those, you would never invest. You never start a business, you never employ more people, you never use the tools that are at hand because, like, oh, it's a bubble. So I just try to stay on the offense and keep growing, do so conservatively realize that it might pop. But, like, I need to make sure that there's a. I'm not. No one's gonna have to lose their job over a popping of the AI bubble. So that's why I say focus on.

Yeah, fair enough. All right, well, with that, we will pivot. To non financial advice. We'll end the episode.

I will say I'm buying the market. I am buying the market like the same clip that I do every single day. I have this automatic transfer. I buy gold, I buy silver, I buy Berkshire Hathway and I buy the overall market, global and us.

It's just. You're just going in. You're going all in.

No, I'm not all in. No, I'm not. I definitely have a lot of cash on the side.

Treasuries. Fair enough.

Enough.

All right. Any non financial advice for the people to wrap up the pod on this beautiful Thanksgiving?

Well, everyone. Well, now it's Thanksgiving. Everyone needs to sign up for tomorrow.

Yes.

It's going to be probably almost four hours of training. We're giving away tons of stuff. I am betting a lot of money on tomorrow. I guess I'm pretending as if this is record going out Thursday. So yeah, we're betting a lot on this. There's a lot of people. Yeah. It's gonna be great. It's gonna be good. You should sign up. Mikeannies.com BlackFriday Everyone that comes shows up is gonna get a gift worth $597. But there's a whole bunch of other stuff I'm giving away and you gotta show up live. It's gonna be great.

I want to see. Do you have a banner for the webinar somewhere here on your Streamyard account? I don't know. I'm not gonna mess with that.

Oh, no, I don't.

That was actually probably going to be my financial advice as well. Double down on it. Might as well sign up for the webinar. Mikeandys.com Black Friday if you haven't done it already.

We will be in the comments.

Yes, I will be. I'll be hanging out the whole time. It's gonna be awesome. Very excited for it. I will be in the comments. There it is. I love that. There we go. Sign up. That is your non financial advice because you will walk away with some useful information. That's not even a sales pitch. It is fantastic. I've seen the outline of what it's going to look like. I'm very, very, very excited.

It. Yeah. And. And Lee will win the comments. So make sure you be like, hey, I came from. Yes, C Unfiltered. And then, and then next Saturday, next week will be. We should be in, in person, in studio for the, for the show.

Yes, let's do it. I love it.

Awesome.

Well, thank you sir, for your time. Happy Thanksgiving. To everyone, and we will see you at the webinar on Black Friday.