The Stock Market Is Overvalued, Here's What I'm Doing Now

Welcome back, everyone, today on the Joseph Carlson Show. As our portfolios gain in value, making tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of gains. In fact, in my portfolio, just this year, I'm up a combined $100,000 plus between the passive income portfolio and the story fund. Now, the passive income portfolio and the story fund are performing at different rates. They're both compounding steadily, creating gains, and there'll be more compounding in the future. But of course, I'm not the only one making gains. The overall markets are going up this year, with the S&P 500 up 13.4%. That's a really good year, far above average, showing that we're still in a massive bull market. The concerns about the tariffs have been erased. They've been replaced by investor enthusiasm. We saw the swing in live time. We saw investors move from being very depressed and very concerned about their portfolio to now incredible levels of optimism. And that optimism has concentrated even greater into the big tech companies, the Magnificent 7. Those companies are doing particularly well, driving the QQQ up to 17.4% gains year to date. This is a strong year. Having the markets go up 13 to 17% is very notable. While the market continues to go up, and companies get more expensive, today I'll be highlighting five companies that remain cheap. These are companies that have not kept up with this rally. They've been left behind, and I believe undeservedly so. So I'll be highlighting five companies that are still buys in today's market and haven't been swept up in this bullishness. Now, of course, we have a lot of other news to get to. The credit market is becoming concerning for many investors, particularly ones like Howard Marks, citing that investors are making poor deals, leading to increased risk in the credit market. We'll be looking at that. EA Electronic Arts is going private in a $55 billion LBO. That's a leveraged buyout. This is the biggest one ever, and it's done primarily by Saudi Arabia's public investment fund. We'll be going over this news and what it means for the future of these companies, what it means for the video game industry and microtransactions. We have President Trump implementing his favorite tool, which is tariffs. And this is a renewed threat on the movie industry, saying that any movie made outside of the United States will be faced with a 100% tariff. What does that mean? How would a tariff even work for movies? Now, finally, we have our fail of the week, which is a woman that's made a business out of charging people to help name their baby. In this case, she charges $30,000, 30 grand to name your baby. Now, she's not the fail of the week, but her customers are. We'll explain why in this episode. Now, we start things off today by looking at five companies that are still a great deal in this market. When you have these returns, like the S&P 500 surging up 13% year to date, the QQQ going up 17% year to date, investors not only get more confident, but they become even more bullish. Investors start buying more, and that's what causes stock prices to become inflated. That's what causes big bear markets to happen in the future. This rally is twofold. It's not only that companies are growing their earnings, but it's also the case that multiples have been expanding, meaning that many companies are becoming more expensive today than they have been over the past year or even the past couple of years. We can look at this visually illustrated with this chart. The blue line on this chart is the S&P 500's price-to-earnings ratio on a forward-looking basis. So, this is with analyst estimates of the future. What you can see is that, generally speaking, since 2008, the S&P 500 has become far more expensive. Now, I believe that part of the reason is justified. In fact, it was the case that in 2008, things were just cheap because the economy was in shambles. Investors were really concerned. As investors started to buy back up equities and businesses, and things started to recover, the economy grew, equities became a little bit more expensive. It's also the case that equities today generate higher margins, more profits than they did even 10 years ago. The companies that are successful today, the ones that are the best companies, are higher quality companies deserving of a higher multiple. We've seen that happen over the past decade. We've seen companies go from the range of a 12 forward P.E. ratio, a 14 forward P.E. ratio, now up into the 20s. But what we see more recently is what I consider a bit more concerning. We know that after 2020, we raced into 2021 with a lot of exuberance and optimism. The S&P 500 as a whole went up into the low 20s P.E. ratio. The S&P 500 since 2021, into 2022, even into early 2023, fell dramatically. Many of the top companies fell even more. Microsoft went to $220 per share. Now it's above $500. Apple went down close to $100 per share. Meta went down to $80 per share. Now it's at $750. Netflix went from $750 per share down to below $200 per share. Now it's up to $1,200 per share, 6x-ing the return from the very lows in 2022. In fact, that entire pink column that you can see there highlights this epic sell-off that happened as a result of excess valuations. In fact, valuations are very important in investing. It's one of the most important indicators of returns. It's not just good enough to buy high-quality companies. We need to make sure that most of our buys happen at attractive valuations, that we're entering into these companies when they offer us good deals. That's where investors get the really good returns. That's where you get things like Netflix going from $200 to $12. Microsoft going from $220 to $500. Spotify going from a $20 billion market cap to a $100 billion market cap. You buy during times where multiples have compressed. What we see overall in this chart is that blue line went from a 23 Ford PE ratio all the way down to a 16. The S&P 500 was selling at a deal. Investors that bought during those time periods were dramatically rewarded for every share they bought. But now we just follow what's happened. It's been great to see a recovery. I've seen many of my stocks go up incredibly fast since 2022. Obviously for me, the biggest winner has been Netflix. That was one of my top positions, and having it go up that dramatically from the lows was a massive turnaround. But it wasn't the only winner. Many companies that I own, whether it was Microsoft or Apple or Google, many of them spurred up from 2022 into present day. Now to around a 22 to 23 price to earnings ratio on a Ford basis. And we're back at the place of all time high territory. Back to where prices were in 2021. We have another chart that breaks this down not just by the indice, but now we have the Magnificent 7. The Mag 7 trades at a much more elevated price to earnings than the rest of the market. From a 22 to around a 31 price to earnings ratio. It's not the most expensive it's ever been, but it's in the higher category. Now I'm not of the opinion that you should try to time the market. That just because valuations are high, you should sell your investments. But I am of the opinion that you should become more cautious when everyone else is super bullish. When everyone else is making a lot of money in seemingly every company. I still hold my investments. I'm still buying stocks, but I'm doing so very cautiously and deliberately. And I'm focusing my buys on companies that I still think are at very reasonable valuations. And I'll highlight five of them I believe are worth strong consideration. Two of them are in my portfolio. Three of them are not. The first one is a company that's in my financial category. This is one that's had a recent sell-off. It's S&P Global. And I own this one across both portfolios. The stock price is now below $500 per share. When we look at some of the metrics here, it trades at a 27 Ford PE, 25 based off of 2026's earnings, and the free cash flow yield is a healthy 3.6%. Even adjusting for the stock-based comp, which it's not that much because it's a highly efficient business, it's still at a 3.4% yield. We can put this in perspective looking at the historical valuation of this company. Here's the trailing price to earnings of the company. Now, obviously, if you could have bought it in 2022, that would have been the cheapest point to buy it. But that's the case for nearly every company. Today, at a trailing 37 PE ratio, this is one of the lowest valuations this company has traded at. And it's true that it can continue to go down in valuation, but the company has also become stronger over these years. S&P Global is a tremendously powerful, diversified, wide-moat company. They're growing revenue steadily, 10 to 11% per year. Their earnings per share are growing to the peak in 2021, despite not having the same active market to participate in. This shows the strength of this company overall. The free cash flow continues to grow near all-time highs. In the most recent quarters, they're generating in excess of $5 billion in free cash flow. They're projecting for that to go up over time as well. And despite that, the stock is in the red year to date. It's completely given up all of its gains. It did so because another company called Faxet, which sells market data, did not do well. While this one is not a complete steal, it's not one of the cheapest companies in the market. It represents a diversified, high-quality company that's trading at a reasonable price that hasn't followed with the surge in enthusiasm that the rest of the market has this year. And I believe this is a good entry price. Now, the next stock that's in my portfolio is one that I've been beating the drum on for a while now, and I'll mention it again. This is one that I still believe is a buy, which is Amazon. Now, I have a big position in Amazon, $134,000 with $41,000 in the green. I bought a lot of the company in 2022 when there's the big sell-off. I've gone over Amazon's bull case extensively, highlighting five points of why I think this one will be a secular compounder in the future that investors will regret not owning if they don't already own it. But in this case, I want to highlight Amazon just in terms of the valuation. When we look at the company overall, it's made no gains in 2025. Nothing. Amazon is completely flat from the beginning of the year. On a five-year basis, over the past five years, this company's only up 40%. If we look at just the past five years, Amazon's revenue has gone from $347 billion to $670 billion. The revenue has doubled while the five-year return has only been 40%. AWS has gone from $50 billion in customer commitments to $195 billion. So AWS's contractual revenue has 4x-ed over the past five years, and again, the stock is up 40%. There's been a lot of other notable advancements in this company. We can take a look back in 2019 and 2020. The free cash flow was higher then than it is today, but Amazon has proven that it has the ability to have explosive growth in their free cash flow, going from minus $30 billion to plus $48 billion in a single year. That is a $70 billion free cash flow swing in a time period of 12 to 15 months. And we can see that explosive nature in the earnings per share, in the net income of the company. In 2022, the earnings per share were $1 per share. Now they're nearing $7 per share. This is an incredible company. Meanwhile, the price-to-earnings ratio of the company has continually declined. Now it's near the cheapest it's ever been at a mid-30s PE ratio. Amazon is another stock that has not been caught up in this bull market, and it's worthy of looking at. Now, finally, we move on to one that I don't own. This one's Adobe. Adobe's a company that a lot of investors, including me, have been concerned about, primarily because of the competitive landscape. First of all, we have stuff like Google's Gemini Nano Banana. A silly name, but an incredibly powerful image editing tool. You can basically just type in anything, hit enter, and this image editing tool will do it for you. It'll change the fruits in a bowl, and it will make it look real. Well, if you have this power just by text prompts in Google, why do you need Adobe's Photoshop? We also have other competitors that have caused investors' concern. Ones like Canva. Canva's web browser-based, while Adobe's still primarily desktop-based. Meaning that Canva has that nice feel of just opening up a website and being able to easily manipulate different things on the page. In fact, Canva's incredibly user-friendly. It's very easy to learn. It's very intuitive. They can make updates really quick with Canva. And this has caused rapid user adoption. Canva's growth has been exponential, going from 100 million users in 2021 to now 170 million users. And it's difficult to believe that part of these users weren't previously Adobe Photoshop users. So we see these metrics of other companies that are competitors to Adobe growing so quickly in the area of video and photo editing. We compare that to Adobe, and it causes concern. Add on to that that Adobe has this cloud above it of being a company that seems a little older or outdated, a little stodgy. Even their billing practices of annual lock-ins with monthly billing seems a little out of date. People don't generally like it. So when we're looking at Adobe, we're looking at a hated stock, a company that is out of favor. Nobody wants to own it. And we can see that in the share price. Adobe's down 18% year-to-date. In the past five years, it's down 26%. When we look at the fundamentals of the company, that tells a different story. From 2014, 2015 onwards, it's grown at this steady, gradual clip. Every single year, Adobe just continues to grow its revenue at a decent pace, around 10 to 11%. In fact, even looking at this in the past couple of years, on a quarterly basis, so this isn't the trailing 12 months, we're just looking at a quarterly basis, it grew at 10.72%. This is incredibly resilient and consistent revenue growth by this company, with seemingly no end in sight. The profitability of the company is increasing significantly. In fact, it's grown its earnings at a rapid pace because the stock price is so cheap, while management obliterates their share count. Management has indicated that they're loving this deal on their own stock. They love it and they can't get enough of it. They're buying back their own stock hand over fist. They reduced the share count by 4% year-over-year last quarter. When you reduce the share count that fast, you grow the earnings per share, you grow the free cash flow per share, you grow every per share metric. So Adobe's using this sell-off as an opportunity to buy back aggressively. If we look at the increases in their share buybacks, we can see this just over the past 10 years. This is the total amount that they're repurchasing in common stock, going from about $5 billion a year, $8 billion a year, now up to repurchasing $12 billion of stock per year. They're buying back stock every single day as much as they can. As the valuation falls, Adobe buys back more. The P.E. ratio has been cut from a 40 trailing P.E. now to a 22. The free cash flow yield has gone from a 2.87 now to a 6. The price to sales of the company have gone from an 11.26 down to a 7. And while there's many risks to every investment, Adobe is actually showing that many of the so-called risks for this company are actually a benefit. In fact, one of the things that investors are concerned about is a declining customer base due to competitors like Figma and Canva and Gemini's Nano Banana is not really showing up in any of these metrics. Again, Adobe themselves has said that they have a strong customer base and expanding user segments. Adobe serves a diverse and growing customer base. A growing customer base, spanning business professionals, consumers, creative and marketing professionals, small businesses, and large enterprises. Strategic focus on enabling the next generation of creators and business pros through accessible price points. PLG Motion expands the total addressable market. So Adobe themselves are saying our customer base isn't shrinking. In fact, it's doing just the opposite. We're getting into more segments and we're getting more customers. At a 15 PE ratio and a 6% free cash flow yield, this company is uniquely cheap in an expensive market. Most companies of this type of caliber, you're having a tough time finding them below a 30 PE ratio. And here, Adobe is trading at roughly half the price. Next up, we have a company that's not one I typically talk about. This one's named Constellation Software. This is a traditional compounding machine that many investors have gravitated to over the years. And it's going through a sell-off. Constellation is down 17% year to date. Over the past five years, it's up 150%. That's still market beating of both the S&P 500 and QQQ. Then we have over the past 10 years, a staggering 560% return. The business model of Constellation Software is highly unique. They basically are a capital allocator driven by just a couple people that acquire these small, highly niche software companies. And then they let them operate under their guidance where they implement best practices and standards across the board. You can look at some graphics that just show the sheer volume of companies that they have. And it's incredible. There's thousands of these small software companies that they have control over and implement best practices for. And they've perfected a recipe of doing this consistently and repeatedly. And there's a lot to like about this company. For example, there's consistent revenue growth of around 16%. It's one of the faster growing companies in the market. It's consistently profitable and consistently growing its free cash flow. The free cash flow per share also grows near 20% year over year. In a market where everything is going up, Constellation Softwares is not one of those companies. And it's one worth looking at. Finally, we get to another company that's been a compounding machine for a long period of time. This one routinely shows up on the super investor charts. It's a company that many investors in the compounding circles talk about because of the niche focus of this company The company is called Copart. Copart's stock price is down 20% year to date. So massive underperformance from the index this year. Over the past five years, the stock is also underperformed because of this recent sell-off. The stock has gone from a recent price of $63 per share, now down to $44. So a huge sell-off. But over the past decade, it paints another picture. The stock is up nearly 1000% over the past 10 years, showing that this sell-off is more of a recent event. Now Copart is another very niche business. They have a global online auction platform for salvaged, used, or damaged vehicles. So they basically own a lot of land. They take care of a lot of salvaged vehicles. They have bidding on it. They have service fees attached to it. They have all these other revenue streams associated with it, like logistics and storage and title work. And they are the biggest in this category by far. They leverage their huge network effects with insure relationships to secure constant supply of inventory. So this company has carved out a nice area where it can continually grow its earnings and its cash flows. And the valuation has plummeted from its normally 35 to 40 trailing P.E. ratio down to the territory where it's getting close to where it was in 2022. Another little nice part of this company, one little gem in it, is that they're so good at all this auctioning, all this title work, that they've actually invested in and created their own unique software. It's proprietary. And it's basically how to run this entire company. This software is an investment that other companies would have to make to even compete with Copart. They've been investing in it for years. They've designed it specifically for the business that they run, where no other plug and play software will really be adequate. So it's another bit of a moat on top of an already significant moat. If you're looking for a high quality company to potentially jump into when it's down 20% year to date, this is one to do so with. Now that we've looked at five companies worthy of buying today, we can take a look at the macro picture. The Wall Street Journal just had a report out today that the credit market is humming and it's causing some Wall Street veterans, even ones like Howard Marks, to become nervous about this market. They say that investors are gobbling up corporate debt like it's going out of style, even though the rewards, by some measures, are lower than they've been in decades. The frothy mood has some on Wall Street worried that the market is priced for perfection and ripe for a fall. They say that that is why any bad news is touching a nerve and raising the question of whether something more profound is ailing American borrowers. Two sudden bankruptcies in the auto world, a subprime lender and a part supplier, have triggered those conversations among bond investors and analysts. So right now, things are going so good in the debt market. People are flush with cash, they're buying debt, and they're not really looking as close at the terms. Similar to what we've been talking about, investors start to become a little bit more relaxed when stocks go up and things seem like they're good and they make worse deals. So we have two sudden bankruptcies making investors rethink all of these things that they're purchasing. They say so far there's been no sign of a wider fallout and each of those situations had unique characteristics that don't point to a broader trend. But combined with other challenges such as persistent inflation, rising defaults on hot Wall Street segments known as private credit, it is enough to give long-time traders a pause. There's been a very positive investment environment for a long time, with a large amount of money and a lot of optimism. This is from Howard Marks. Now, Howard Marks loves this next sentence. It's a phrase that he's used over and over and over again. If you followed him for years, you'll know that he's used it for years. He says, quote, the worst loans are made at the best of times. And he'll also say inversely, the best loans are made at the worst of times. High-yield bond analysts at Barclay compared the current situation with valuation so high and signs of stress emerging to being in a Star Wars garbage shoot with Princess Leia and Han Solo. Quote, the walls are compressing on all sides. Ultimately, the fate of this market could depend on the direction of the economy. Some investors note that the current benign environment could continue if inflation pressures ease and if there's no further deterioration in the labor market. So basically, these bad loans and these bad investments can work out still to a positive if things go really well with the economy. And there is reason to believe that things may just go well with the economy. The economist, Jeremy Siegel, believes that things are going to continue to go well with this economy. And yesterday, strong, strong economic data, I think that both on the trade deficit going down and on the durable goods report. And I think all forecasters have now raised their GDP estimates for the third quarter. So with tame inflation, stronger real growth, these are all good signs for the stock market. He says inflation is tame, that inflation continues to stay relatively low. And now we're actually getting GDP revised upwards. Investors and analysts are expecting higher GDP, not lower, which is exactly what we need for this good scenario to play out, for these loans to not go belly up. Now, while Jeremy Siegel believes that things are better than they look, inflation is actually under control and GDP is going higher. We have people like Michael Sennenfeld talking about how the ultra rich are actually pulling back. They're pulling away from risk asset, like stocks and real estate. But for the first time, cash is coming up a little, fixed income is coming up a little. So a little bit of a shift, maybe a little bit of caution. As the market goes up, the ultra rich sell, they take their gains and they try to preserve their capital. He also notes that this is a different type of investing strategy than people trying to earn money and compound wealth. They're looking to preserve wealth first and foremost and grow it secondly. So the growth part is less important than preserving what they have. That's a good rule. If you can keep what you have, you'll do pretty well. While we shoot for returns of maybe 10 to 15% per year, they may be shooting for returns of three to 7% per year, just enough to beat out inflation and preserve their wealth. Now, moving on, we can get to some news here. The big headline of the day is that EA Electric Arts is officially going private. The video game makers said it would go private in a $55 billion deal with a group of investors, including Saudi Arabia's public investment fund, private equity firm, Silver Lake, and Jared Kushner's investment firm, Affinity Partners. So you have a bit of a hodgepodge there of big time investors. The biggest one is Saudi Arabia's public investment fund. If you haven't been keeping track, Saudi Arabia has been trying to take specific assets from the United States for a long period of time. They did so with golf. They started Live Golf, which competes with the PGA Tour. They used immense amounts of wealth and huge offers to buy out many of the top golf players that compete in their league, transferring a lot of the attention away from the PGA Tour. And it seems like they still have strong ambitions in games and in sports. Saudi Arabia is the one that's leading this purchase. And this deal represents the largest leverage buyout of all time. Now, a leverage buyout just means that they're using a ton of debt in order to complete this transaction. My history of just looking at leverage buyouts, immediately my thoughts go negative. Whenever I see LBO, a leverage buyout, I just immediately believe this is bad news. We had the leverage buyout of Caesars Entertainment in Vegas. It simply took on too much debt. And even though Caesars in Vegas was profitable, they couldn't service all the debt. The debt amplified the risk in the deal, causing Caesars to go bankrupt. We have other examples like Toys R Us. That was another company that probably could exist today without the leverage buyout nature. The leverage, again, amplified the risk, causing the company to go bankrupt. You have J.Crew and Chrysler and so many other examples. And although there are examples of it working out okay, there's some examples of it doing well, there's many examples of this type of thing not working. Another problem I see with this deal is the video game industry already has a scourge. It's already plagued by one thing, which is microtransactions, where when you pay $50 to buy a game or $30 or $80 to buy a game, you're not done buying it. Once you get into the game, you have to keep buying the game to be able to continue enjoying the game. And that is through microtransactions. You buy the game once and then you have season passes, you have skins, you have new unlocks and weapons and vehicles or whatever it may be. In some cases, to even be able to compete in the game, to be able to play it to its fullest extent, you have to keep dishing up money in more and more microtransactions. And these companies do this, of course, to generate more revenue. They generate more revenue because the video game industry is a very difficult industry to begin with. Now think of that type of problem of microtransactions while having increased leverage on these companies. If you believe that microtransactions were a problem that existed in the video game industry, especially with EA games, before the LBO, you better believe that problem is going to become dramatically worse after this leverage buyout. The heavy debt load that happens from these buyouts will put further pressure on these companies to monetize and monetize. They'll need billions of additional revenue every single year to just cover the interest payments alone, not just to get to where they were before, but just to make up the difference. So I don't consider this good news. I don't think it's good news for the video game industry. Maybe I'll be proven wrong. Hopefully I'll be proven wrong. But right now I don't like this development. Now, next up, we have news that President Trump is renewing one of his threats. And this time it's another tariff, another big number, 100% tariffs against any movie made outside of the United States. He says, quote, our movie making business has been stolen from the United States of America by other companies, just like stealing candy from a baby. Trump hasn't provided specific details on this tariff. He's just argued that foreign countries have undermined the U.S. film industry by tax incentives to get Hollywood production to shoot overseas. Now, we don't know how this would even work. For example, if Netflix makes a movie out of South Korea with the South Korean production company, does that fall under the tariff? Is it only a movie that's filmed both within the United States and outside? So there's a lot that we don't know from this news. So far, Netflix seems to be shrugging it off until we get further details. Now, moving on, we finally get to the fail of the week. In this case, it's an article here. This is the headline of the article. Meet the San Francisco woman that charges $30,000 to name your baby. Now we get into some backstory here of how she actually made this into a business. Humphrey didn't set out to build a luxury baby naming enterprise. When she started posting online a decade ago about her baby naming obsession, she was just hoping for a distraction from one of her life's bleakest periods. The 37 year old Humphrey now has 100,000 combined followers on TikTok and Instagram. And an ever expanding portfolio of more than 500 children's names that she helped select. Her best book naming service costs up to $30,000. Now it highlights that finding the perfect name for a baby can often feel like high stakes exercise in baby branding. So they're starting to act like babies are companies. It's like a startup tech company or some company you're starting and you need to brand that baby for success. Humphrey is one of a dozen or so professional baby naming consultants nationwide whose full-time job is to guide expectant parents along their naming journey. See the way that you can term anything however you want. You can brand anything however you want. It's not just giving a baby a name. Now it's a baby branding and your baby naming journey. She's also believed to be the only one in the Bay Area where affluence and an innovative ethos makes it one of the niche industry's top markets. For some moneyed parents, choosing a name is no different than selecting a kitchen backsplash. It's personal, yes, but best outsourced to a pro. Humphrey's clientele tends to span everyone from high-profile celebrities to anonymously rich regardless of the intricacies of their naming needs. This is real. I'm not making up these sentences, I promise you. This is not satire. It literally said, regardless of the intricacies of their naming needs. Now to give a child a name, it's intricate. You have to have an intricate experience doing so. If you just want an email with some personalized baby name recommendations, that's $200. Need something far more in-depth? Any higher end services which start at $10,000 amount to VIP treatment. Add-on features include baby name branding campaigns, a genealogical investigation designed to figure out old family names and even think tank to discuss the top naming options. As Humphrey notes on her official website, the only limits are your own imagination. Now when I look at articles like this, I don't use the term grift that often. In fact, if you look at my previous history, I rarely use the term grift and I personally believe it's one of the most overused words online today. People calling everything where anybody makes any money a grift. But in this case, I think that it accurately defines what's going on here. This feels a lot like a grift. Having a branding campaign for a baby, charging $30,000 for VIP services to brainstorm and think tank a baby, labeling it as your baby naming journey, saying that it's like picking out a backsplash for your home. This is the level that we've got to. And this is the problem that many rich people face. When people get a certain amount of wealth, when they get up into the upper echelons of wealth, they start to distance themselves from doing anything themselves to the point where they just take an executive role in every part of their life. In every single part of their life. When it comes to spending time with your family. Well, you can't just spend time with your family when you travel on vacations. You have to have an assistant that makes the itinerary for you. You have to have helpers that take care of your children for you while on vacation. So no longer are you spending time with your family. Now you have assistants and executives planning your vacations and taking care of your kids while you go off and spend time by yourself. They don't mow their yards. They have yard care takers to do that. They don't clean their dishes. They have cleaning services to do that. They don't cook their food. They have cooks to do that for them. When you get that wealthy, you get into the rhythm of just paying someone else to do everything for you. And we're seeing that trend continue until we get to the point of people actually paying thirty thousand dollars to have someone else think of names for your baby. This literally is the least amount of work possible, but yet they'll pay to do it. So the fail of the week is not Taylor Humphrey. After all, she's just taking advantage of this extreme desire of wealthy people to outsource every part of their life to someone else, to have everyone else decide every aspect of what they're doing. The fail of the week is the customers, the ones paying thirty thousand dollars to have someone else pick out a name for your child. In fact, I would go as far to say that if you're paying someone else thirty thousand dollars to pick out the name of your own child, that is not only a failure, it's dishonorable. You're bringing dishonor to your family line. You and your spouse should be picking out the name of your baby, not a consultant, not a PR firm, not a branding expert. So the customers of this business are the failure of the week. That's going to be it for this episode. See you in the next one.