David Solomon

Yeah, there's not there's not a definitive marker that says, OK, the structural economics of the world are now going to permanently shift in a different direction.

Everything's at the margin.

Everything's nuanced.

And.

you know, at the moment, we're at a particularly noisy moment.

And I think, you know, one of the things we try to spend a lot of time doing at the firm is thinking about what's noise and what substantively matters.

And I just say, and this doesn't mean I like the noise, a lot of what

you know, we're touching on or talking about is noise more than substance.

Um, but you know, the markets have to absorb that people have to absorb that.

And I'm not sitting here saying I have the answers and I know how it plays out.

I just think that it's, it's, it's more nuanced, it's more longer term.

Um, and the swings because elections, you know, we, we move one way to the other.

The swings are probably shorter than what's required to make these, these long structural changes.

I would frame it a little bit differently just to make a point that these things, when you get one of these super cycles, you know, of tech investment, it can feel frothy and they can run for a long time before ultimately you have a recalibration or a significant pullback.

And the analogy I would draw is that Alan Greenspan talked about irrational exuberance in markets, I believe, in the fall of 1996 when the NASDAQ was at 1,300.

You're now talking about 1999.

The NASDAQ ultimately went to 5,200 in March of 2000, and then it retreated 85% over the next 18 months.

So what I would say is I don't know if we're in 1999 or 1996 or in 2000, but when you have these accelerations, you have massive capital formation around forward growth.

And by the way, I'm a big bull on the technology, the opportunity, et cetera.

At some point, there'll be rebalance and recalibration.