| Account | Shares | Price | Value | % of acct | Cost/sh | Gain $ | Gain % | Target |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 401K | 11 | $264.39 | $2,908 | 0.12% | $251.74 | $139 | +5.0% | — |
In short: Referenced only — raised as an open question ("How will it impact bigger companies, ones like Salesforce?") and not placed on the map.
5:42All of these type of things are going to change. And the question is, how does this impact all these different companies? How does it impact companies like Door Dash or Uber or Booking Holdings or Open Table? How is this going to impact doing different tasks like your taxes, filing out your taxes with Inuit Turbo Tax? How will it impact bigger companies, ones like Salesforce that work with sales teams? This is going to impact how everything is sold and everything is purchased.
In short: Same illustration (−37.6%, then +57% off the lows — the biggest rebound of the four), plus the chart of Salesforce's price against analysts' targets: "When the stock price starts moving up, analysts increase their price targets. When the stock moves down, the price targets follow it." No rating.
In short: Named by the host as part of the "SaaS apocalypse bucket" rotation (sell semis, buy Salesforce, ServiceNow, Thomson Reuters). Niles does not rate the names; his answer is market-wide: "Between now and midterms, I'm very negative on the market overall, which means I don't want to be involved in anything."
19:20Maybe I'm going to buy a little bit of Salesforce, ServiceNow, Thomson Reuters. What do you think of that trade? Buying the, let's call it the SaaS apocalypse bucket, because you think AI is going to slow down a bit because Dario said so. — Well, so I just want to be clear about this. Between now and midterms, I'm very negative on the market overall, which means I don't want to be involved in anything. Now, I have long positions.
In short: Enterprise software is "likely safer" — too ingrained to abandon, and integrating Claude/Anthropic is a good thing; the sector likely trades up together.
In short: Her example against "software is dead" — "No, no, far from it." People will build their own CRMs ("I've done it many times"), but "a big portion of what you're paying for when you have like Salesforce, for example, is other people are going to maintain this thing for you and other people are going to… accept some degree of liability… as soon as you're doing something that's large where the input cost of the software is no longer material to the business outcome, then these customers are not going anywhere." (A business argument; no position disclosed.)
Salesforce sells customer-management software by subscription. The fear is that AI lets anyone build their own version for free. Wilde agrees people will — she has done it herself — but says big companies don't really pay Salesforce for the code.
They pay for someone else to keep it running and to take responsibility if it breaks. For a large company the subscription cost is tiny compared with those headaches, so "these customers are not going anywhere."
In short: Named twice as precedent rather than as a pick. First as the sentiment-reversal comp for Adobe's Thursday print — "could it have a big bump like Salesforce?" — and then as the capital-allocation playbook Lululemon could copy: "this is the game that Salesforce eventually did. They took out leverage to buy back their own shares." No view on Salesforce shares in this episode.
6:42It makes it so that the company can buy back its own shares at increasingly attractive prices. This is the game that Salesforce eventually did. They took out leverage to buy back their own shares. When we look at the share count over time, we can see that Lululemon could arguably do the same thing. They're already reducing the share count by over 5% per year, which is very big.
In short: January's fear that AI coding tools would quickly replace corporate software at a fraction of the cost "hasn't happened, and isn't likely to happen" — AI is great at writing code but poor at continuously maintaining and updating software. With two strong earnings reports since the panic, a recovery in software stocks is under way and could continue as investors accept that AI disruption takes far longer than assumed.
Back in January investors panicked that AI would gut the big business-software companies: if AI can write code cheaply, why pay Salesforce every year when you could have an AI build you something similar? The stocks were sold off hard on that fear.
This article says that fear was wrong, and gives a specific reason rather than a hand-wave. Writing a first version of some code is the part AI is genuinely good at. Keeping software running, patched, updated and adapted year after year — which is most of what enterprise software actually is — is the part AI is bad at. With a couple of strong earnings reports since the panic, software shares are recovering, and the article thinks that recovery can continue as more investors work out that this disruption, if it comes at all, will take years rather than quarters.
In short: Cited as evidence rather than as a call: "Salesforce last week where the stock was up over 20% in reaction that they obviously had that deal with Anthropic which helped a lot" — one of the prints that "marked the bottom in software to some degree." On strategy he generalises rather than endorses: "all the software companies are trying to lean into it. It's just how are you doing it" — and the concrete change is billing, "switching from just a fee-based license to usage based per token as well as outcome-based."
Salesforce sells customer-relationship software to businesses. Niles cites it as evidence rather than as a recommendation: its 20%+ jump on an Anthropic partnership was one of the prints that suggested software had bottomed after a brutal stretch of AI-disruption fear.
Asked whether "leaning into AI" is the right response, he declines to single Salesforce out — every software company is trying to do that, and the question is execution. But he does describe the one concrete change that matters, which is how software gets billed.
The old model charged per employee with access — a "seat licence." That breaks when the work is done by software agents rather than people, because the customer needs fewer seats. Salesforce is shifting to charging by usage (per token of AI consumed) and by outcome (a share of the money saved or productivity gained). That is a much more variable, negotiated revenue stream than the predictable subscription investors have been paying up for — which is the real reason software multiples have been under pressure.
38:19are you doing it and managing through it? And part of it is you're going to need to have the billing models changed, right? You're not going to charge a seat license anymore. And Salesforce, that's one of the things they're doing, right? They're switching from just a fee-based license to usage based per token as well as outcome-based around how much money does it save you the corporation, or productivity improvements or whatever.
In short: A sold holding now ~20% above his exit; "I'm happy Salesforce is doing well. I hope that it continues to recover and goes to $300."
In short: Paired with Adobe in Harrington's un-investable bucket: "Salesforce and Adobe — those are impossible, to me at least those are impossible to put a valuation on right now because the AI disruption is so overwhelming." The contrast case is DocuSign, whose network, security and pipeline integrations she says a model cannot replicate.
Salesforce sells the software companies use to track customers and sales. Harrington lumps it with Adobe in the un-investable bucket — not because she has a view on this quarter, but because she cannot put a number on what the business earns five years out when AI is rewriting what "software you pay per seat for" is worth.
The contrast with DocuSign is the whole point: DocuSign's moat is plumbing and trust that a language model cannot replicate; Salesforce's and Adobe's value has more to do with capabilities a model may increasingly supply. When you cannot value something, the honest position is to stand aside — which is what she does.
In short: A former employer. The de-rating was "somewhat rational" — a recalibration from a decade of double-digit growth to high-single/low-double digits, "not actually pricing that AI was going to disrupt the entire business." At 5–15% growth "it's really hard to dream the dream"; low-to-moderate grower with some left-tail risk, and less likely than infra to blow up numbers near term.
Salesforce (another former employer) is the standard-bearer for "application software" — the finished business programs companies buy, as opposed to the plumbing underneath. Its collapse was widely read as the market pricing in AI destroying its business. Keller thinks that's mostly wrong.
What actually happened, in his telling, is a recalibration. For a decade these companies grew at double digits and were valued at a premium to everything else. Now they grow at maybe 5–15%, and at that rate the old valuation tricks — multiples of revenue, adjusted earnings — stop working and "it's really hard to dream the dream." So the de-rating was "somewhat rational": these are now low-to-moderate growers with a bit of tail risk, and the bounce off the bottom makes sense too. That's a stance about the multiple, not a verdict that AI leaves the business intact.
4:50And once you get into that five to 15% growth area, it's really hard to trade on revenue multiples and non-GAAP EPS and it's really hard to dream the dream. So I think with the Salesforce, Workday, obviously we've seen an acquisition potentially of Workday, but I think the initial crash was kind of coming back down to earth and it wasn't actually pricing that AI was going to disrupt the entire business.
In short: "Salesforce crushed earnings" — and the reason matters more than the beat. Alongside solid results and guidance came "a deal with Anthropic, in which they also first invested in May of 2023. The stock was up 23% in reaction the next day. This seemed to be a strong counterpoint to the SaaS-pocalypse worries." The mechanism: "this strategic alliance with Anthropic allows users to execute actions natively inside Claude without needing to open traditional software screens." And the business-model consequence: "Salesforce also seemed to be changing how they charge customers, with fees more related to customer use and benefits to their business rather than per user" — the seat-count fear answered by re-pricing to consumption. Sits inside the wider case that agents will hit software tools 10 to 100 times more often than humans.
Salesforce sells the software companies use to track their customers — the definitive record of who bought what and who is being sold to. It was the single most obvious victim of the theory that AI would make business software unnecessary, and its shares had been priced accordingly.
Two things this week reversed that. The first was simply good results and guidance. The second was a partnership with Anthropic that lets someone working inside Claude actually perform Salesforce actions — updating a record, moving a deal along — without opening Salesforce at all. On the old theory, that should be terrifying: the AI has replaced the screen. In practice it is the opposite, because the underlying record still lives in Salesforce and is now being read and written to far more often. As Dan Niles puts it, AI agents will access software tools ten to a hundred times more often than humans do.
Salesforce is also changing how it charges to match: away from a fee per human user and toward fees tied to how much the customer actually uses the system and what it is worth to them. That directly disarms the fear that AI shrinks headcount and therefore shrinks seat licences.
The shares rose 23% the next day. Singh's framing: "a strong counterpoint to the SaaS-pocalypse worries."
Full passage: premium transcript (PDF).
In short: Up ~22% on the print — "a really good quarter" organically (~8–9% ex-Informatica, not the headline 11%; EPS helped by Anthropic equity gains). The real story is levered buybacks: diluted shares cut ~15% in a year (962M→~821M) funded by ~$25B of debt at ~5% — his worked math turns $12.50 of unlevered EPS into ~$13.16, and the fixed interest shrinks relative to a growing business. "Smart financial engineering… hats off to Salesforce." Not owned (sold to fund Meta); glad it's up.
Salesforce jumped about 22% after earnings. Carlson's point is that the good news is mostly real but smaller than the headlines: part of the revenue growth came from buying Informatica, and most of the earnings "beat" came from the rising value of Salesforce's stake in Anthropic, not from selling more software.
What impressed him was the buyback. Salesforce borrowed about $25 billion and used it to buy back roughly 15% of its own shares in a year. Borrowing costs it about $1 billion a year in interest, which lowers total profit — but because the profit is now split among far fewer shares, each remaining share earns more (about $13.16 instead of $12.50 in his example). And while the interest bill stays fixed, the business keeps growing, so the trade gets better over time. The downside is a weaker balance sheet and less room for acquisitions. He calls it smart financial engineering — though he still prefers Meta, which he sold Salesforce to buy.
In short: SaaSpocalypse pushback — the leading indicators turn before the revenue does. Marc Benioff called the SaaSpocalypse "nonsense" and "for once, the numbers gave him a decent case," but App Economy is explicit that current revenue "isn't reaccelerating yet": revenue +11% to $11.35B ($30M beat) including $456M from Informatica — strip that and organic growth was only about 6% Y/Y. What did move are the forward indicators: cRPO +14% Y/Y in constant currency to $33.5B, up from +13% (though "Salesforce does not disclose how much of that growth is attributable to Informatica"), net new annual order value at its fastest pace in four years, and attrition near record lows. Also: operating margin 20.5% GAAP / 34.1% non-GAAP, free cash flow +81% to $1.1B, and non-GAAP EPS of $5.90 that included $2.53 from gains on strategic investments — ex that windfall, ~$3.37 ($0.10 beat). The new segmentation shows where growth sits: Agentforce Apps ~+8% versus Data 360, Headless Platform and Other +21% (a bucket that now includes Informatica). AI metrics got more useful after a quarter of "tokens, records, and Agentic Work Units" — Agentforce ARR exceeded $1.5B, Agentforce + Data 360 reached nearly $3.9B, +210% Y/Y, Agentic Work Units +97% Q/Q, and bookings for Agentforce One Edition and Agentforce for Apps more than doubled sequentially — with one caveat: "Salesforce expanded its definition of Agentforce ARR this quarter to include Slackbot and Headless 360, making the sequential jump from $1.2 billion less clean than it appears." Claudeforce makes Headless 360 real: an expanded partnership with Anthropic under which "Claude can now access Salesforce customer data and execute Salesforce workflows directly from its own interface" — "the concern has been that Salesforce could become the data layer behind someone else's agent. Increasingly, that appears to be the strategy rather than the risk… The interface can change. Salesforce needs to make sure the meter keeps running." The reacceleration test: FY27 revenue guidance raised $200M to $46.1–$46.4B, but the raise "deserves some unpacking" — it includes $200M from the pending Contentful and Fin acquisitions against a $100M FX headwind, so "the actual improvement to the organic outlook is only about $100M." Q3 revenue is guided +11%–12% including slightly more than four points from Informatica, with cRPO ~14% cc the main KPI to watch. Takeaway: "Salesforce hasn't reached organic reacceleration yet. What has changed is that the leading indicators are finally pointing toward it… The SaaSpocalypse debate isn't settled. But Salesforce finally has more than AI usage statistics to fight back." A disclosed author holding.
Salesforce sells the software companies use to track customers, sales and service. The fear hanging over it — nicknamed the "SaaSpocalypse" — is that AI will make this kind of software less valuable, because businesses pay Salesforce per employee seat, and AI agents may mean fewer employees clicking through screens.
Its CEO called that fear nonsense. The numbers half-support him. Revenue grew 11%, but $456 million of that came from Informatica, a company Salesforce bought — take the acquisition out and the underlying business grew only about 6%. That is not a reacceleration; it is the same slow growth that caused the worry.
What did improve are the forward measures, which is why the stock rose. The key one is cRPO — current remaining performance obligations, meaning contracted revenue Salesforce has already signed and will collect over the next twelve months. Because it is booked before it is billed, cRPO turns before revenue does. It grew 14%, up from 13%, while new orders grew at their fastest rate in four years and customer losses stayed near record lows. So the pipeline is filling faster than the revenue line reflects. The caveat is that Salesforce won't say how much of the cRPO improvement is also Informatica.
Its AI business is finally being reported in money rather than in usage statistics: Agentforce, its AI-agent product, passed $1.5 billion of annual recurring revenue. But watch the footnote — Salesforce widened the definition of that metric this quarter to include two more products, so the jump from $1.2 billion is not a like-for-like comparison. Whenever a number improves in the same quarter its definition changes, the improvement has to be treated as unproven.
The strategically interesting move is Claudeforce, an expanded deal with Anthropic. Claude can now reach into Salesforce's data and run Salesforce's workflows from Claude's own chat window — no Salesforce screen involved. That is the exact thing investors feared: Salesforce reduced to plumbing behind someone else's assistant. Management's answer is to embrace it. If the customer's data, permissions and business rules still live in Salesforce, then whoever's agent is asking, Salesforce still gets paid for the work. The author's summary is the sharpest line in the issue: "the interface can change. Salesforce needs to make sure the meter keeps running."
One last adjustment worth copying: reported earnings of $5.90 per share included $2.53 from gains on investments — market moves on a portfolio, not profit from selling software. The real figure is about $3.37. Similarly, the raised annual forecast is $200 million higher, but $200 million of it comes from two pending acquisitions and $100 million is lost to currency, so the genuine improvement is roughly $100 million. The author owns the stock and stops short of calling the turn: the leading indicators point toward reacceleration, but it hasn't happened yet. Analysis, not a recommendation.
In short: Guest: the legacy marketing-cloud architecture — a CRM core with an acquired marketing cloud bolted on as separate silos, adding latency between CRM, LLM and third-party data before activation, and "notorious" for leaning on leased third-party data.
In short: Carried forward from Ep 70: "as for the software SaaSpocalypse, companies that have not invested in their products, I think, are in big trouble. That applies to some public companies. In our recent interview with Dan Ives and Gil Luria, Gil stated quite openly that he thought that Salesforce was in trouble. He also argued that the software companies owned by private equity are in deep trouble as private equity has been milking those companies as opposed to investing in them."
Carried over from the Ives/Luria interview and endorsed here: "companies that have not invested in their products, I think, are in big trouble. That applies to some public companies" — with Salesforce named as the example. The mechanism is that corporate technology budgets have to fund AI spending by cancelling something else, and the first cancellations are the products customers feel they aren't getting value from.
He extends the same logic to software owned by buyout firms, which is where he expects the real damage: private equity "has been milking those companies as opposed to investing in them."
8:46Demanding regulation based on a false narrative would be a very disturbing way to create moes. As for the software SAS apocalypse, companies that have not invested in their products, I think we're in big trouble. That applies to some public companies. In our recent interview with Dan Ies and Gillura, Gil stated quite openly that he thought that Salesforce was in trouble.
In short: Luria's named loser: "Salesforce is in the category of software that they're trying to cut… because Salesforce has not been adding value to them in years and it keeps charging them more and more for that less value every year. That's a bad business that's been declining, regardless of AI." The mechanism is the AI budget squeeze — "there's a crowding out of products that didn't make their customers happy." Eisman singled this out in his closing as the most interesting call of the episode.
Salesforce sells the software companies use to track customers and sales. Luria's case against it doesn't need AI to work: "Salesforce has not been adding value to them in years and it keeps charging them more and more for that less value every year. That's a bad business that's been declining, regardless of AI."
What AI adds is a forcing event. Company technology budgets are not growing fast enough to cover the new AI spending, so chief information officers have to fund it by cancelling something. The first things cut are the products people don't feel they're getting value from — and Salesforce, on this reading, is on that list. Eisman singled this out in his closing as the sharpest call of the episode.
35:38Salesforce is in the category of software that they're trying to cut. Really? Yes. Why? Because Salesforce has not been adding value to them in years and it keeps charging them more and more for that less value every year. That's a bad business that's been declining. regardless of AI. And then you have Microsoft that has accelerating growth right now because they're actually executing very well where AI is a tailwind not only to the Azure business but to the office business and the infrastructure software business.
In short: Brown's SAS-apocalypse "poster child" (with Adobe) — a name that drew genuine business-model concern in the indiscriminate software selloff; but his broader point is the market is now stratifying software rather than hating it all.
In short: Santoli: up ~5% in the same software-name bounce.
In short: One of the software names "fears about AI continue to haunt" — down 18% in Q2.
13:18In consulting, Gartner and Accenture were down 18% and 35% respectively. In communication services, the sector was up 7% for the quarter, but much of that performance was just from Google being up 20%. There were quite a few losers. Netflix seems to have completely lost its mojo, down 25%. I suppose Netflix's growth story no longer seems that powerful.
In short: Buying the agent layer — acquiring Fin (formerly Intercom) for $3.6B to bolt a leading AI customer-service agent (30,000+ customers, $400M+ ARR) onto Agentforce ($1.2B ARR, +205% Y/Y but with skeptics). Its 5th acquisition of the year; the cheapest deal of the wave with the clearest near-term payoff. Risk: integration / "buying more software to fix software."
Salesforce sells software businesses use to manage customers. Its big bet now is "Agentforce" — AI agents that do work automatically — but investors doubt the flashy marketing matches what the product actually does. So Salesforce bought Fin (formerly Intercom) for $3.6 billion: a proven AI agent that already handles customer-support questions for 30,000+ companies and brings in over $400 million a year.
The logic the article highlights: customer support is the cleanest place for AI to prove itself — huge volume, an obvious payoff (fewer human agents), and easy-to-measure results. By bolting a working agent onto its stack, Salesforce is buying the "agent layer" — the part that actually does the task — rather than just talking about it. It was the cheapest of the week's three deals and the one with the clearest near-term return; the catch is that mashing another product into an already-sprawling software suite is the hard part.
In short: Buyback case study — "not advocating a buy": ~$55B repurchased over three years (incl. a March $25B debt-funded accelerated buyback — ~103M shares at once) and the market ignored it. Shows how out-of-favor software is as funds sell it to crowd into semiconductors ("one of the most crowded trades of all time").
Salesforce makes the customer-management software businesses use to track sales and clients. Singh isn't recommending it — he's using it to make a point. The company has bought back about $55 billion of its own stock in three years (including a huge $25 billion, debt-funded "accelerated" buyback in March that retired ~103 million shares at once), which normally lifts a share price — yet the stock has gone nowhere.
His takeaway: software is deeply out of favor. Investors are so afraid AI will erode these businesses that they're selling software to pile into semiconductor stocks instead — "one of the most crowded trades of all time." Even tens of billions in buybacks can't move a stock the market has decided to ignore.
Full passage: premium transcript (PDF).
In short: Emblem of software under pressure — AI is only ~1-2% of its ~$40B sales, with budget/seat headwinds and "headless"/relegated-to-a-database risk. Whale Rock sold ~all application software and entered the year net short it.
Salesforce is the emblem of his bearish view on application software (the business programs companies buy, like CRM — customer-relationship-management tools). AI is only ~1-2% of its ~$40 billion in sales, so even if its AI products work, they're a tiny drop in a huge bucket and will take years to matter.
The headwinds stack up: customers would rather spend on faster-payback AI tokens, which squeezes software budgets; these vendors have lost the ability to keep raising prices; and AI-driven job cuts hurt "seat-based" pricing (charging per user). The scary scenario is software going "headless" — AI agents bypassing the human screen and working straight in the data — which risks relegating Salesforce to just being a database. Whale Rock sold nearly all its application software and entered the year betting against it (net short).
45:20But it's hard because if you're a company like Salesforce, you've got 40 billion in sales and now you you might have 500 of ARR 700 of AR of AI. So you've got this huge base. Now maybe this starts to work but it takes a while. And in software there's the rule of 40 which is your growth rate plus your operating margin. And if you've got a 20% growth rate and 20% that's good.
In short: The seat-based dilemma — "the penalty box." Q rev +13% (just ~9% organic ex-Informatica) to $11.1B ($70M beat), non-GAAP EPS +50% to $3.88 ($0.75 beat), but cRPO +14% to $33.6B missed $34B+. A $25B debt-funded accelerated buyback (largest ever) cut operating/FCF growth guide to 4-5% (from 9-10%). New 2-bucket disclosure hides Marketing/Commerce + Tableau softness. Agentforce ARR $1.2B (+205%) real but small; Headless 360 lets external agents (incl. Anthropic's Claude Code) reach Salesforce data — but pricing is unclear ("value abstraction" risk). Until cRPO re-accelerates and Headless 360 has a pricing model, it may stay in the penalty box.
Salesforce is the big "CRM" (customer-relationship-management) software company — sales, service, and marketing tools sold mostly as seats: you pay per user, per year. That's the problem in the AI era. If AI agents do work that humans used to do, companies may need fewer seats — so the core pricing model is exactly the kind AI threatens. App Economy calls this "the penalty box": the stock has already halved from its peak, and the latest print didn't break it out.
The numbers tell the squeeze. Revenue grew 13%, but a chunk of that is the Informatica acquisition; strip it out and organic growth was only ~9%. "cRPO" (current remaining performance obligations — basically contracted revenue due in the next year, a leading indicator of growth) missed expectations. To support the stock, Salesforce announced its largest-ever buyback ($25 billion, funded with debt) — but borrowing to buy back shares forced it to cut its cash-flow growth guidance to 4-5%. And a new, vaguer two-bucket way of reporting revenue conveniently hides softness in its Marketing, Commerce, and Tableau lines.
The most interesting risk is "Headless 360." Salesforce is letting outside AI agents (like Anthropic's Claude Code) reach into Salesforce data. Anthropic is a big customer and usage reportedly jumped 5x. Sounds great — but the pricing is unclear, and the danger ("value abstraction") is that Salesforce ends up as just the boring data warehouse behind someone else's smart agent, while that other company captures the value the AI creates. Until contracted revenue (cRPO) speeds back up and Headless 360 has a real pricing model, App Economy keeps it cautious.
In short: "Less predictable" — could rerate higher, but AI "is targeted more specifically" as a threat; he keeps his portfolio out of this bucket.
19:50We have Salesforce, Adobe, Intuit, Autodesk and generic SaaS and AI wrappers. Now, with Salesforce, Adobe, Intuit, and Autodesk, again, I don't know for sure if these companies will do poorly, and that's not what I'm saying here. They could have a big resurgence. They could rerate higher, but I just believe that they're far less predictable than the companies above.
In short: "Adobe and CRM employ maybe 100,000 people" — hundreds of thousands of AI-driven job losses coming from names like these.
16:52I mean, Adobe and CRM employ maybe 100,000 people, right? So, we're going to have hundreds we're going to have hundreds of thousands of job losses that come from artificial intelligence. And so, whenever Wall Street starts to change the narrative in a short period of time, they've gone from oh, private credit risk is idiosyncratic to all of a sudden there's all these we've gone from two spots and first brands to 17 spots.
In short: Cole — "SaaS destruction" group. Named in the SaaS cohort getting crushed as former quality-growth darlings.
17:28apploving — constellations — constellation software in Canada open text is another you know kind of out there so I say that because that world is getting crushed — and those were the former darling quality growth stories and the only place that really hasn't underperformed is the big cap tech or what we call internally the hyperscalers okay now what do we liken this to and this will be to Bill's point this will be what my presentation's on tomorrow in effect I think we think of the hyperscalers like the telecoms of the late 90s. So in
Nothing matches this filter.
Verbatim excerpts from the public transcripts (auto-pulled at each mention's timestamp, lightly cleaned). Timestamps link into the video; "source page" opens that commentator's full analysis at this row. Click a mention's header line to expand it (one open at a time). For personal study — not investment advice.