Welcome back, everyone. Today on the Joseph Carlson
Show, David Einhorn, the legendary billionaire investor
himself, has given a pretty scary warning about artificial
intelligence. Now, it's not a warning about
the powers of AI or what it might do to society, but rather
a warning about the return these companies are getting when they
spend hundreds of billions of dollars on CapEx.
That's right. David Einhorn believes that
there's going to be, quote, tremendous levels of capital
destruction. We're going to be taking a look
at his remarks, why he's so concerned about it and how we
can think about it. We also have in terms of his
remarks, Tom Lee giving his thoughts on the AI build out,
what he believes the returns will be, what he believes is the
immediate impact of these companies and why some AI
companies are trading down. So he'll be looking at his
comments as well as Jensen Wong's as the CEO of NVIDIA.
Of course, he has something to say about this as well.
He gives specific examples about the returns of spend on AI and
how he sees it playing out. So we going over all these
commentators, investors and CEOs to see what we can make about
the return on AI spend. If the hundreds of billions of
dollars these companies are using to build out this CapEx
are going to get investors a good return.
Of course, we have a lot of other news to get to.
Costco just reported earnings. This is one of my larger better
investments that I've made. I've owned the stock for years.
Costco stock is down a couple percent after the earnings, but
should investors be concerned? I'll be going over the earnings
showing you my thoughts on it. We have news of a fresh
potential scam. You know, Taya Lopez, that guy,
remember him that this is my garage guy.
Well, apparently he owns RadioShack and Pier One and he's
been accused of a lot of things. We'll be taking a look at that
report. And then finally, we have a a
new advertisement from Duolingo showing off some of the changes
they're making to chess. Duolingo is pushing full steam
ahead in chess. I'll share some thoughts on that
as well. So as always, we've got a lot to
get to in this episode, a ton to cover.
And we kick things off today by talking about this stark warning
from David Einhorn. Now, if you're not familiar with
David Einhorn, he's this legendary investor and
billionaire hedge fund manager of Green Light Capital.
He became most notable from his short of Lehman Brothers.
So while everything was going on with the big financial collapse,
there's only a few investors that really anticipated that
beforehand. These were investors that could
determine that things were going to go South.
You have, of course, Michael Bury, you have Mark Baum, you
have all these bigwig investors that knew things were going to
go South and they bet against the big banks.
Well, David Einhorn was one of them.
He correctly anticipated that Lehman Brothers was going to go
belly up. He saw all the money they were
spending, all the promises they were making.
He looked at the actual financials and he identified
that things weren't what they seemed, that there is far more
risk in the situation that investors could ever comprehend.
And he made a fortune and his name at least a more notable
name from that big event. So you get a lot of credibility
when you make a big bet against something like that.
And it goes. So right after Green Light
Capital made a fortune betting against Lehman Brothers, David
Einhorn has consistently given caution where other investors
are bullish. So you see the similarities
here. Investors are really amped up
about AI. We're all excited about it.
We see the future. Many of us are super bullish on
these companies like Google and Meta and Microsoft and NVIDIA.
We're all looking at all the possibilities.
And David Einhorn here sees it very similar to 2008.
He's looking at it where everyone else is bullish,
everyone else is making money, and he's looking with a bit more
skepticism. And so he's ringing this warning
once again, and it causes a bit of concern for investors.
Bloomberg reports that the hedge fund manager David Einhorn
cautioned that the unprecedented amount of spending on artificial
intelligence infrastructure may destroy vast amounts of capital,
even if the technology itself proves transformative.
So that's the distinction here. He's not bearish on AI itself.
He's not saying the artificial intelligence isn't incredible or
transformative. He's simply saying that it may
not give the best returns. The Green Light Capital founder
said the trillion dollar build out by companies overall such as
Apple Meta Open AI is so extreme that the eventual returns are
highly uncertain. While he expects AI will
ultimately surpass today's bullish forecast, he questioned
whether, quote, spending, and this is the important part,
quote, spending a trillion dollars a year or 500 billion a
year will deliver good outcomes for the firm's making those
investments. So he's basically just saying,
we're spending so much money, how can you actually do analysis
of whether or not we're going to get a good return here?
Quote, The numbers that are being thrown around are so
extreme that it's really, really hard to understand them.
I'm sure it's not 0, but there's a reasonable chance that a
tremendous amount of capital destruction is going to come
through this cycle. There you have the big line.
These numbers are extreme, really, really extreme.
You can't understand them. And there's a reasonable chance
that a tremendous amount of capital destruction is going to
come through this cycle. Now, this comes directly after
Sam Altman himself said he wants to spend trillion dollars on
this problem open AI. Sam Altman said he wants to
spend trillions of dollars on infrastructure over the not
distant future. So in the very near future, he's
he's talking about numbers of trillions.
While Meta's Mark Zuckerberg has also talked about spending
hundreds of billions of dollars in data centers.
In February, Apple said it would plan 500 billion domestically
over the next four years. We had Zuckerberg just at the
meeting with Trump saying he's going to spend $600 billion.
It's hard to grasp the the gravity of these numbers.
Then you also have Amazon, which is one of the biggest spenders,
spending just untold fortunes on data centers, building out this
capacity. So we have the CE OS very
excited about this. They're very excited to invest
all this CapEx. They have a place to put all
their excess returns, but what do we get out of this?
What is the expected return? As investors, we need to know
the ROI we're going to get before we make an investment.
So David Einhorn made a couple things clear.
He's aware of the technology and he's not debating whether or not
the technology is amazing. So people saying look what AI
can do, it can do this and that. He's aware of that.
He's only saying that these tremendous numbers have to have
an ROI, and what we don't see right now is clarity with that
ROI. And he's very skeptical.
He believes like many of the cases in the past, like building
out telecom or Internet infrastructure, lots of
companies actually had poor returns in the past.
And there's many cases also where technology can be amazing,
it can be innovative, it can it can revolutionize the world, but
it doesn't make for a good investment.
We can look at airlines as an example of that.
So it's not always a case where you have incredible technology
always leading to incredible investments.
In some cases it can be just the opposite.
And this is what David Einhorn's particularly concerned about
now, given his context, he is one of those people that often
has this skeptic bent. He's also looking at things
through a little bit of a a pushback.
He's never just taking the narrative for what it's sold to
be. And so he has a history of
making these type of contrarian calls in the past, no doubt
about it. But I don't think that should
discredit the points that he's making.
And overall, his discussion on this panel restating these
concerns has started this debate all over again of whether or not
we're going to get a good return from all this AI CapEx.
Now, of course, we have Fundstrats, Tom Lee, who
believes that this is a super cycle.
It's worthy of being invested in.
But he does share some similar concerns that that doesn't mean
every single company today is a good buy as long as it's an AI
company. A.
Period where there is a super cycle and exponential growth
opportunities within AI, but it doesn't mean every company that
has elevated valuation today deserves to actually have the
capital and that and and that company may not even reinvest
that capital properly to be a survivor.
So I agree there is going to eventually be a shake out, but I
think valuations strangely enough are actually pretty
reasonable today compared to 1998 because you know, 1998 was
that lift off point before that final 18 month surge.
And I I'd say the best benchmark is NVIDIA trades at 26 times
forward earnings. Cisco at that same exact moment
was at 60 times and Cisco's PE peaked at 210 times forward
earnings. So NVIDIA to me is still a
bargain at 26 times. It's cheaper than Costco and
Walmart, which are close to 50 times forward earnings.
He accurately points out that many of the AI leaders like
NVIDIA are at a cheaper PE ratio than the more stodgy retail
companies that have been around forever, like Costco and
Walmart. He also points out correctly,
that NVIDIA today trades at a much cheaper valuation than any
of the companies precedingthe.com bubble that
were blown up. So if you're trying to make
comparisons to this epic collapse, we're having terrible
returns for the next 10 years. Comparing it to the.com bubble,
the situations are just not the same.
The valuations are vastly different between companies now
and when they were in the.com bubble.
In fact, you still have companies like Meta and Google
at mid 20s PE ratios. That's not even a high PE ratio
even historically speaking for great companies.
So there's many forward-looking AI companies investing heavily
in CapEx that are still trading at reasonable valuations.
And I don't believe that David Einhorn here was saying that
we're in the.com bubble. He didn't say that anywhere, to
be fair to him. But I do believe this gives us a
bit more safety. He says that a lot of this CapEx
may be wasted. Well, a lot of it's being priced
today as being wasted. These companies aren't being
priced to have exponentially high returns.
They're being priced 20 to 25 PE ratios, which is very good PE
ratios for high margin sustainable business models.
So I, I see what he's saying here.
I agree to some extent with David Einhorn.
I think there is going to be a lot of wasted capital in the
future, but investors are pricing that in to some degree.
We don't see the same exuberance in this market that we saw
anywhere in 2021 or even 2000. It's far different by the math
in both of those situations. Now in terms of return that
we're getting on all this AI CapEx spend, this is also
something that I think mathematically can be pointed
out that we are getting return already on AI spend and nobody
really says it better than Jensen.
Jensen argues that we're already at $100 billion plus of AI
revenue across these various tech companies and that other
industries, in fact other trillion dollar industries, are
going to be moving to AI revenue.
You can't do tick tock without AI.
Correct? You can't do YouTube short
without AI. You can't you know you can't do
any of the stuff without AI. The the amazing things that that
meta's doing for for you know, customized content, personalized
content. You can't do that without AI.
It's all of that stuff used to be humans, you know, doing
content a priori, creating for choices that are then selected
by a recommender engine, and now it's infinite number of choices
generated by an AI, right? Jensen argues that the
transition to AI revenue has already started.
And you can see it in these big tech companies.
Many of the products that they have today, from advertising to
algorithms, are now all AI driven.
They are in part AI revenue. So a lot of people are viewing
this as we're building out all this AI infrastructure and we
have to wait to see the return. But Jensen is saying you don't
have to wait. We're already seeing it.
Look at the revenue growth growth of Google, look at the
revenue growth of Amazon, look at the revenue growth of Meta
and Microsoft, and so on. These companies are enhancing
their core business models from online retail to advertising all
their algorithms. TikTok has made their algorithm
better through artificial intelligence.
That's what's driving usage engagement.
More views, more money, more ads, more optimized ads and so
on through artificial intelligence.
And he's saying that it's going to work its way through the big
tech companies to the rest of the world to overtime $10
trillion of revenue. So while I agree with the
concerns of David Einhorn, I agree with the skepticism,
especially when these massive numbers are being thrown around.
In some cases, I believe that these numbers are a bit of
marketing from the CEO's. They're trying to one up each
other and say that they're spending more and more.
We'll see how it really manifests over time.
Nothing's guaranteed, but I tend to find myself agreeing more
with Jensen here. I believe the transition to
revenue through AI has already taken place, and you can see it
in virtually every single digital product.
You use everything. Look at any digital product you
use and it will have some type of AI application.
Even call Trim, which I've built, has dozens of AI
applications. We summarize the news.
We we look at all the articles. We judge it based on what's the
most notable. We display the most notable
news. AI summarize, this is an AI
feature. Now.
Are we able to directly track the revenue from that one
feature implemented? Not directly, because it just
makes the product a little bit better overall.
And every single company is doing the same thing, infusing
their products with enhancements, engagement and
tooling with artificial intelligence.
Big tech companies that are spending the most in investment
like Microsoft, Amazon, and Google are the ones that are
creating all this tooling. They're the backbone of all of
this. They're hosting all these
websites, they're doing all the processing power for this AI.
Nvidia's selling them a very important ingredient of that
tooling. So I'm much more inclined to
invest in this technology. I do not see it as a flavor of
the month. I don't see it as something to
be left behind on. I think the AI is very real and
investors are going to be very hurt if they try to avoid it.
Now, let's go ahead and get to some news.
First of all, we have Costco just recently reporting their
earnings report. And as I noted here, Qualtrum
gives us a nice summary of the most important news of the day.
We have here that Costco reported their earnings.
It says that revenue was $86.16 billion and earnings per share
was $5.87, both of which topped estimates.
So they be on the revenue and the earnings per share.
They said the membership fee was up 14%, which is incredible.
That's that's membership fees. That's a growth in the
membership business, up 14%. The share slipped 1% after hours
yesterday because they missed their company comps with 6.4%
adjusted. Now the comps are basically the
same store sales. Whether or not it goes slightly
above estimates or below estimates causes the stock to go
up or down. In this case, they missed
estimates on their comps ever so slightly.
The stock is down. In my opinion this is very short
term stuff. Costco has missed these comps.
They've beat their comps many times throughout history.
What matters here is the overall growth of the company.
So we have their overall a decent earnings.
It looks like they came rather in line.
If I look at my equity stake in Costco, we can take a look at it
here. It's in the consumer category.
It's a $79,000 position, $45,000 in the green.
Now, I've held Costco for years and years.
I bought the first share of it at the tail end of 2017.
So this has been just a massive winner, a stock that's gone up
and up, and the fundamentals continue to improve.
So I've done well in Costco, but I'm not buying it today because
of the higher PE ratio. In fact, I've pointed this out a
few times, but there's a chart here that shows the historical
valuation of a company, and I think it's one of the best
charts in Qualtrim. You can easily look at the past
five years, for example, we have Costco here, and this is where I
last bought Costco, right about there.
So I bought it right there and the trailing PE ratio at the
time was a trailing PE of like 40.
Right now the trailing PE is 55. So it's far more expensive today
than my last buy. What have I done in between now
and then? I've simply just held the
company. That's what I do in my companies
that I really love, get a little bit overvalued.
If they get a little overvalued, I don't sell.
I just hold and Costco pays these massive special dividends.
These dividends are just incredible.
In this case, I reinvest these dividends into different
companies. So I'll show you an example of
one other special dividends. Here's their normal dividend.
They pay about $1.30 every quarter and then all of a sudden
they paid $15 per share in a single quarter.
To me, that was a couple $1000 in a single dividend.
I took that money and instead of reinvesting it back into Costco,
I bought more Google. I'll buy more whatever company
I'm buying at the time outside of Costco, which I think is a
little bit overvalued. O this is the case for these Tye
of companies, and these are the judgment calls investors have to
make. When a company becomes at a
point where you consider it slightly overvalued, like I do
with Costco, you have to make the judgement call of whether to
hold or whether to sell. And I'm very resistant to sell
in most cases. I like just holding on to it,
letting the fundamentals catch up a little bit, and then it
resumes its growth and share price.
So that's what I've done with this company.
Now, looking specifically at this past quarter, I just want
to highlight the excellence of Costco.
Even though the stock has been flat most of the year, the
company's performance has not been flat.
In fact, it's rapidly bringing down the valuation while growing
organically. If we look at the revenue, for
example, the revenue is up 8%. But this kind of masks the real
organic growth of the most profitable part of Costco.
When we look at Costco's warehouses, another 2 1/2
percent increase. So they went from 905 to 914,
incredible growth in their warehouses.
We look at the card holders. These are the people paying
Costco. We have right here it increasing
by over a million, about 1,000,000 1/2 from 142.8 to
145.2. So we have a nice gradual
increase in the membership. They're literally gaining
millions of members every single quarter.
What company does this for like 20 years gains consistently
millions of new members. These are paid members every
single quarter. What I see from Costco is a
company that just marches bigger and bigger every single quarter.
Every single quarter there's new warehouses.
Every quarter there's a million more members.
Every quarter, they're growing that active membership revenue.
Every quarter, they're keeping the retention rate.
It's just hard to not like this company.
And I'm aware of the valuation. I know that you can make these
comparisons like NVIDIA being cheaper, but frankly, I think
that investors are a little bit more certain about the future of
Costco over the next 20 years than any rapidly evolving tech
company. I think that's just the
difference. People know you're going to want
your groceries, you're going to want milk, you're going to want
your water, you're going to want your your meats and produce.
You're going to want all of that a very nice, convenient place to
get it. You're going to want value in
the future. And while NVIDIA may be cheaper
on APE ratio today, there are reasons for that.
Nvidia's far more reliant on rapid technological advancement,
more reliant on having extremely skilled developers and engineers
constantly building stuff. Nvidia's competing with many
great companies in China and across the United States, like
AMD. Costco doesn't have to deal with
all those rapidly evolving changes.
Costco's disruption risk, rapid technological advancement,
things that could really hurt the business seem much fewer
than a company like NVIDIA. So I think part of the elevated
valuation is not an assumption that Costco will grow faster,
but an assumption that Costco will grow more consistently,
more predictably for longer. And I believe part of that is
justified. Now it's going to move on.
We have other news here. This came as a bit of a surprise
for a lot of different reasons. We have here from the New York
Post that the owners of RadioShack and Pier One Imports
were accused by the SEC of operating a 112,000,100 and $12
million Ponzi scheme. Now, this headline's a mouthful
and there's a lot of surprises in it.
Right off the bat, I'm surprised by a couple of things.
First and foremost, that RadioShack is still a thing.
Is that really still a thing? I haven't seen a RadioShack in a
long time. That's where you go to get
batteries that are twice as expensive as they are on Amazon.
That's where you go if you aren't aware.
If you're like part of human society that's not aware that
Amazon exists. I'm convinced those are the only
people using RadioShack. But anyway, apparently
RadioShack is still a thing and now it's turned into a big Ponzi
scheme. Let's go ahead and read some of
this. It says a pair of flashy
e-commerce entrepreneurs who brought who bought bankrupt
retail giants including Pier One Imports, RadioShack Madila's
Sporting goods have been accused of running a $112 million Ponzi
scheme. According to the new lawsuit,
the US Securities and Exchange Commission accused Alex Mayer
and Tai Lopez. Tai Lopez, this guy, I haven't
thought about him since. Here I am in my garage.
Remember the guy that's in his garage and he has all the nice
cars? He has the books in his garage
because that's totally normal to keep a big library of books
right in your garage. You know, here he is stepping
out of a what looks like a private plane.
According to the federal Southern District of Florida
filing obtained by The Post, Lopez is also social media
influencer who has written several self help books,
including his 67 steps on how to become wealthy that incorporate
teachings of powerful and famous people like Bill Gates, Charlie
Munger, Peter Drucker, Gandhi and my personal mentors.
So he's name dropping a lot of names there.
But I can't bash that book. I have not read it.
Now, these two guys, apparently they made, quote, material
misrepresentations to hundreds of investors about the brand's
performance between 2020 and 2022, including claims that the
companies were on fire, the SEC alleged.
Material misrepresentations, I believe is just a legal, nice
way of saying that they lied. They completely misrepresented
how the companies were doing. Now, in terms of disclosures, if
you have investors, the purpose of a disclosure is to show how
the company's doing, to be truthful about it.
You can use some interpretation, but you can't lie.
The SEC saying that they, they said the companies are on fire
is signifying that they're doing great, right?
That's, that's everybody's interpretation.
That is the most straightforward, reasonable
interpretation that if I say a company's on fire, I think it's
doing great. So let's see what the companies
were actually doing contrary to these representations.
While some of the Rev retailer brands generated revenue, none
generated any profits, the lawsuit said.
So these companies that were on fire, maybe they meant it in the
the terms that they were literally like on fire, like
they're burning and they're in desperate help.
Maybe they were saying it's like they're on fire, a fire that
needs to be put out, right? Like I'm putting out a lot of
fires. Maybe that was the case here
because none of these companies made any money.
We don't have here, whether or not they were growing rapidly,
whether they're trending towards profits.
But if you're saying that your company's on fire and it's just
losing money, that may not be the most accurate way to
describe it. Consequently, in order to pay
interest, dividends, maturing note payments, defendants
resorted to using a combination of loans from outside lenders,
merchant cash advances, money raised from new and existing
investors. That's a problem there, money
raised from new and existing investors and transferred from
their other portfolio of companies to cover obligations.
So this is a common theme in Ponzi schemes.
And again, I don't know if this one actually is, but a common
theme is that you're you're portraying things to your
investors that aren't true. You're basically just lying to
your current group of investors. You're seeing things are going
better than they actually are when they're expecting to get
paid certain amount of money or when they withdraw money.
You have to come up with that money, but your companies aren't
generating any profits. So to come up with it, you have
to dig deep. You have to find different ways
to come up with that money that doesn't really exist.
And in many cases, you're just giving back the same money that
the people put in. But instead of saying it's the
same money, you're saying this is the return on your
investment. It's highly misleading.
And usually this is how it all ends.
This is how it typically Ponzi schemes end.
The agency also accused them of taking $16.1 million for
personal use. So they're they're using this as
their personal Piggy Bank. That's a big no no.
That's generally frowned upon. Taking investors money and just
using it for whatever you want and then also returning back
their money from new investors raises a lot of red flags.
So I'm not surprised to see Taya Lopez back in the news, but I am
a little surprised to see it this way.
I'd completely forgotten about this guy.
And I'm even more surprised to see RadioShack back in the news
as well. But there you have it, we have
RadioShack and Tai Lopez. No surprises here.
Now moving on, we have more news about Duolingo.
This is my most recent investment.
I outline my thesis for the company, why?
I believe it's actually a decent company.
It's growing quickly, it's high margin, has great cost
structure. It has a lot of users.
It's a company that trades at a relatively low market cap and we
have it here back at $321.00 per share.
Now this is a stock that it's up 2 1/2% today, and that's normal.
It's up and down to to three percent, 4%, even 5% on a daily
basis with literally no news. It is one of the most volatile
stocks that I own in terms of the stock price trading, but the
company itself is rather stable. The revenue continues to grow,
the users continue to grow, and I like it fundamentally.
When I look at Duolingo, there's been a lot said about this
company and this investment when it's actually been relatively
tame overall. It had initially a massive surge
in stock price, then the stock price dropped, and now it's come
back up kind of to where it was right now.
I'm down around 8% on this position.
Now when we look at what Duolingo's currently doing, I
just want to outline the marketing prowess of this
company, how good their marketing actually is in their
social media, and their ability to cross sell within their
platform. Here's a new advertisement they
just released on their new development of the CHESS program
within Duolingo. Another win for Oscar.
But hey, we all have to start somewhere.
Experience my genius. Become a chess master.
One lesson at a time. New to the game?
I'll show you the basic moves. Giddy up?
Already a king of the board? I'll teach you advanced tactics.
Fork, baby, fork. I've.
Right there they outline that this is for new players, the
chess and Duolingo is it starts you off at a new player.
In fact, it asks you for how advanced you are when you're
starting off. But it will teach you right from
the beginning. If you've never played chess, if
you even don't know how the pieces work or what they're
called or what they're worth, it'll teach you all these
strategies from the beginning. But he also highlights there
that it's also for advanced players.
They do have courses for advanced tactics within chess.
So this isn't something where they're just treating it lightly
for introductory players. They're trying to address the
entire market of chess, from beginner to advanced.
We've got thousands of puzzles ready for a real match.
Don't worry, I'll go easy on you.
Whoopsie, I won. This is another thing when
you're playing against Oscar and the AI, he will talk to you as
you're playing. He'll kind of rib you as you're
playing and make these little remarks as you take pieces or he
loses pieces. It makes it a bit more
interactive. But this is where Duolingo Chess
is today. And now we get to the direction
it's headed. You says smart and talented
Oscar, what will you think of mixed?
Oh, you know me. I've got some big, big plans.
Scintillating new animations. The first thing there he
mentions new animations. Now again, if you're an advanced
chess player that's been playing chess for years on chess.com or
one of these other bigwigs, smart chess competitors, you're
going to look at that in scoff. What's the big deal about
animations? They are a big deal.
Making the game more fun, more entertaining, making you laugh a
little bit when you're playing it is a pretty big deal.
And that's what Duolingo excels at.
They're going to make the game a bit more engaging, just a bit
better of an experience than a lot of the other competitors.
And they do this through consistent AB testing.
So the animations while you're playing, I believe it's just
going to be 1 aspect of it. Track your ELO progress.
ELO is a ranking of how good you are at chess.
It's an overall ranking of your skill level, and you can see
your skill level going up over time to see if you're
progressing. This is another thing they're
implementing. They already have ELO, but now
you're going to be able to track your progress.
Undo those pesky stalemates and finish the match with a proper
boom. Oh, and there's one more thing.
Soon you'll be able to play against other learners.
Go for the win. I believe this is a first time
for Duolingo, the first time they've introduced anything
where you have player versus player experiences.
So far everything has been kind of a solo experience.
Even though you have rankings and like ladders of your
progression, you never directly interact with other players or
other speakers when you're learning a language.
But now you're going to be able to play directly against other
players of similar the same skill level to see if you can
move up against them. Maybe I've taught him too well.
Just a reminder, chess has over 500 million players worldwide.
It is one of the most popular games ever made.
It takes a lifetime to learn how to actually get good at it.
So it's one of these games that's widely popular, takes
forever to learn. It's the perfect type of
vertical for Duolingo to go into.
That's why they selected it and I believe why they're going into
it so much. When we look at the growth of
this company, the daily active users is the most important
metric by far. This has been growing overtime
steadily, now at 47.7 million and they already have over
1,000,000 on chess alone. So I believe this represents a
pretty meaningful growth path for the company.
I'm excited to see what happens and as you have player versus
player ladder rankings, social media, I believe it's going to
garner a lot more interest from pros that want to climb the
ladder on Duolingo. And I could see this a lot more
on social media. This is going to be an
interesting one to see how it transforms over the next three
years, if it is a good investment or if it's not, if
the Bears are really correct on this one or if they're wrong.
But either way, as of now, I'm still invested.
That's going to be it for this episode.
Enjoy your weekend and see you in the next one.