Is the Economy Breaking? Wall Street Vet Robert Wolf on the Brutal Jobs Report

Take the exit, turn right, into the dry-through.

Nope, I'm making dinner tonight.

You don't have time. Josh has practice.

Oh, that's right. I'll just get a salad.

And fries?

No, just the salad.

But salad cancels fries.

Salad only.

Fries.

Salad.

Fries.

Food noise isn't fair, but mochi health is.

The affordable GLP one-source

that puts you on the road to successful weight loss.

Hey, can I get the...

Fries.

Salad.

Sorry.

Learn more at joinmochi.com.

Mochi members have access to licensed physicians

and nutritionists. Results may vary.

Welcome to the Terrapal Mary Show.

Thank you for everyone who is joining live

on this pretty big news day.

I mean, we are into a week of war in the Middle East

and oil prices have surged 20%

as Iran disrupts global shipping

through the straight-up or moose.

It is one of the most critical checkpoints in the world.

At the same time, the US economy has been surprisingly resilient

despite all this turmoil and the rising prices.

Some economists are calling it a Teflon economy.

But today, we woke up to brutal jobs, no numbers.

And we're going to break it all down on the show.

So for me, the question on my mind is

how much can the US economy really absorb

when it's already on pretty shaky grounds?

Stick with us because we're going to get questions from you.

But I've got a very special guts on the show.

So to help us break it all down,

I've got Wall Street Titan, Robert Wolf.

He's the former chairman and CEO of UBS Americas.

And he served as one of, that's an Obama's top economic advisors

during the financial crisis and recovery.

He is not the only politician that Robert has advised.

But we'll get into all of that and more.

Robert has been inside the room during historic moments,

including that pivotal Lehman weekend in 2008.

So he really gets how decisions are actually made.

This, he's going to tell us what powerful people actually say

behind closed doors and what they're thinking when they make decisions

that impact all of our lives.

Robert, thanks for coming on the show.

Long overdue.

I know. Thanks for having me on.

I love your show and I'm glad to be on today.

Although today probably isn't going to be the easiest day

for those who are watching and listening.

I know the text message from you this morning,

brutal jobs report.

I mean, what did you make of these numbers?

Yesterday, I was thinking, well, economists were predicting

as many as 70,000 new jobs.

What happened?

Well, let's just say brutal.

I'm being nice by using that word.

So we were expecting 50 to 70,000.

It came in minus 90,000.

Yeah.

And so much, much different than expected.

Unemployment went up to 4.4%.

One of the biggest things that really no one's talking about

is the labor participation rate.

That's the number of people actually that are looking for jobs

that are currently looking for jobs in the jobs market

went to a low of 62%.

And really, Tara, what that says is people have discouraged.

They're actually stopping looking for jobs.

And so just a brutal day for job seekers.

And we saw unemployment from minorities.

Almost near double what unemployment are for white working Americans.

Yeah, the unemployment rate went up from 4.3% to 4.4%.

So it's just been really slow and sluggish.

Is this a sign that companies are just like,

they feel stalled?

They can't.

They're in a holding pattern.

What are we supposed to make of this?

Because the White House's National Economic Council

have been has it is blaming it on poor weather in parts of the country.

And worker strikes on the West Coast.

There were those nurse strikes.

And just methodological, methodological changes

at the federal agency that actually produces this data.

Do you believe him?

So there's always some cyclicality as we go into year-end with weather.

And we did have strikes in the healthcare space.

But the facts matter.

And so let's just look at reality.

In January, we actually had all of 2025 jobs

revised down by 580,000.

That means in all of 2025, we gained about 180,000 jobs,

which is roughly about 15,000 average workers per month.

That's horrible.

What's even more important is since May of 2025,

we've actually lost jobs.

So this idea that we can only blame it on the weather

or some sort of strike is just total BS.

Wow.

Yeah, President Trump is not really concerned about it either.

We'll get to that too.

He was talking about the oil prices.

We're going to talk about the Iran of it all.

But you know, we keep hearing this phrase.

It's low higher, low fire economy.

What does that actually mean in practice?

Yeah, so that's kind of, I think if you listen to

either a swap box this morning or Fox business,

they kept using that phrase.

Mainly it's kind of, you know, I have used the term

that we're in a job session.

Some people are using this low higher, low fire economy.

What it means is companies are neither hiring,

nor laying off people.

So we're in this just stagnant environment,

which the numbers show roughly, you know,

15,000 a month of jobs.

And I think that what it's telling us is people

are nervous about, you know, geopolitical risk.

They're also now deciding, you know,

how much does AI, artificial intelligence,

impact their productivity, impact their efficiency?

One thing I wanted to bring up is Tara's last week,

Jack Dorsey, who is the founder and CEO of Block,

made an announcement that he was going to reduce head count by 40 percent

from 10,000 to 6,000.

The stock went on fire.

I'm telling you, every executive in the country big and small

is looking at what happened on that announcement.

And so yeah, I think, like I said,

I would call it a job session,

because I think we're going to actually start losing jobs

like we've shown since May of 2025.

Yeah. And the job growth that we have seen

because last, the last jobs report in January

was actually really great for,

over 100,000 jobs, but they were mostly in the health care industry.

And that seems to be where all the job growth is.

Is that sustainable long-term?

It's not sustainable at all.

Actually, health care jobs went down by 30,000 last month,

but that's probably because of the strike.

It's not.

I would say one of the most important sectors we need to look at

is manufacturing.

The president keeps touting all this new CAPX that's coming,

construction and factories.

The truth is we had a manufacturing recession in 2025.

We lost about 100,000 jobs.

And we have not seen that come back.

We're actually have lost manufacturing jobs

back to back months in January, February.

And so, you know, I would just say to myself

that, you know, because of geopolitical risk,

because of the tariff situation that we'll talk about,

you know, I think the tariffs had one of the most major impacts

on the job market in 2025.

You know, I called you and I chatted about it offline,

but I called Liberation Day.

It was more like the Game of Thrones Red Wedding.

I thought it was one of the most unforced errors

I've ever seen at the intersection of public policy and finance.

There's no reason that we do across the board tariffs.

You know, we call use that example,

why we tariffing coffee or bananas

when actually we just import those.

So I think we've made some real mistakes in the past year.

And then I think we've done some smart things as well.

Yeah, it's really ironic that the blue collar industries

that Trump had promised to help seem to have had a really bad month.

I mean, unemployment fell by 12,000 in manufacturing

last month alone, 11,000 in construction,

mining and logging, which includes oil and gas sector.

They cut 2,000 jobs.

What do you make of all this?

Is this because of the tariffs?

I mean, what's going on here?

Well, I think there's a bunch of things.

The tariffs have definitely changed construction, right?

You know, if you look at the supply chain,

if you look at the lumber we get from Canada,

that impacted it.

If you look at the auto sector,

we had a complete reversal of electric cars,

which was supposed to be the boom.

And now it's become for the most part the bust.

And so we've just had a lot of changes, small businesses.

They're impacted the most by tariffs,

because literally they're not sure if they can pass their products

onto the consumer or not.

And this idea that foreign companies and foreign countries

paid for the tariff is just complete nonsense.

I mean, you know I'm on Fox,

and I've been arguing this since April.

The tariff is paid by the importer.

We just show that 92% of the importers are located in the US.

So they're either eating the tariff

or passing it to the consumer.

And so one way or the other,

the US is being hurt by that.

Yeah, the thing that I'm thinking about right now is that

since it does seem that our economy is on

shaky ground with this slower,

hiring rate, how are we going to be able to handle

an external shock like a war-driven oil spike?

Well, let's hope one it's short-lived.

And I mean, listen, you can never predict geopolitical risk.

You can, I would say when it comes to domestic risk,

you can always kind of measure it when it's geopolitical, you can't.

This is, this war is much different because of the energy shock.

And you mentioned the Stradar Moose.

It's not about how much oil output Iran does.

Actually, they only output about 2% of oil production.

So it's not that they're huge.

Maybe it's 3%.

It's that the Stradar Moose actually does about 20% of all shipping.

So the large tankers go through the Stradar Moose.

And so right now, it's pretty much as you mentioned,

it's paralyzed, it's choked off.

And so you can only imagine that 80% of those ships go to Asia,

which is a large amount to China and India.

And so it's not the idea that

where's concerned about only the shipping lanes.

But what happens, Tara, is when you shut down shipping lanes,

then all of a sudden the producers actually start losing their capability to keep storing oil

where actually would be shipped.

And so they stop drilling.

The reason we're seeing this spike is because even you heard this morning,

the Qataris are saying, hey, and I'm not predicting this.

But they said we could see oil go to 130 to 150.

Because we actually have no way to store it.

Now, understand the Qataris and the Iranians have a little more of a relationship

than most of other Middle East countries.

So I'm not sure I would take that at face value.

But with that being said, it's a scary moment if this war is prolonged.

You know, past the possible 60 days that this administration has been talking about.

Would oil, if it were to reach like those numbers, 120, 135, would that trigger a recession?

Well, I would hate to say that energy alone will trigger a recession.

Certainly it will impact spending.

You know, one other thing that President Trump has been most proud about is gas prices.

He has touted that it's under $2 a gallon.

I mean, right now we're seeing the average at 330.

So that has spiked dramatically.

Energy prices in the past month are up 35%.

So there's no question if you look at gas and you look at oil.

And then if you add electricity cost because of AI and data centers,

which is up about 10%, it's definitely going to hit the pocketbook of hardworking Americans

and considering where a consumer driven country, about 70% of our GDP is consumer driven,

then yeah, it's going to impact our spending.

So if you take what's happened in jobs and then you take what's happened in consumer spending

possibilities, yeah, I think you'll start hearing people talk about recession.

My bigger concern, and I'll only put this at a 10% probability, so it's low.

I mean, we could have stagflation, which I've been in finance for 40 plus years I've never seen.

So that's the worst of all possibilities.

Can you explain that for everyone who's never heard that term before?

Yeah, stagflation is like the intersection of a recession and inflation.

It's when inflation is going up in prices.

So whether it's groceries or energy prices, and at the same time,

we have slow growth and low jobs.

And so it is the worst of the two bookends imaginable.

It kind of feels like we're there already.

Am I wrong?

I don't think you can, you know, predict what's happened in a one week period.

You know, this isn't a black swan event, right?

It's a geopolitical event that will end.

So this is, so my view is, listen, if it ends, you know, within the next 60 days,

we can reverse a lot of, you know, these trends that we're seeing.

I don't know about the jobs market, but certainly with respect to energy.

And I know we're going to talk about other cycles we've seen.

But there's a lot of ways to positively impact energy,

whether it's with, you know, strategic reserves or OPEC doing something differently.

So there's other alternatives that I know we'll be discussing.

Yeah, I mean, but hasn't the US really depleted a lot of its own reserves at this point,

because of the war in Ukraine?

Now, we are incredibly energy independent.

We are, we have a record number of 13 million barrels a day of crude oil,

20 million barrels a day if you look at all types of energy that we're producing.

So the US is in a good situation.

The other side of that is energy is a global commodity.

So, you know, although we're the Goliath, you know, Saudi Arabia is, you know,

10 million, Russia is 10 million barrels.

So, you know, we're, we're the largest, but we're just one of many large players.

So, what happens in Russia's impacts us?

Actually, I saw today that the Treasury Secretary approved Russia oil going to India,

even though that there were sanctioned because of what's happening in the Persian Gulf.

So, yeah, you know, we're going to read and see things that we haven't seen, but,

you know, that's what we have to do.

We're going to have to be dynamic as a country.

So, Russia is actually benefiting from all of this.

Russia is absolutely benefiting.

Go figure.

By the way, President Trump was asked about the rising gas prices by CNN's

Dana Bash this morning and he said, quote, that's all right.

It'll be short-term.

It'll go down very quickly.

And then when asked about the straight-of-ermuse, he said he's, quote,

already figured it out, but did not give anymore.

So, let me just make one comment.

And I don't want this to be, you know, I'm not here to tell you where I

agree, disagree with Trump, although, you know, happy to go there as well.

But I am completely opposed of this idea that we're going to put navy ships through the

straight-of-ermuse to actually help, you know, Middle East ships get to Asia.

I think the idea that we would put our military in harm's way to help transport ships that are

mainly going to China makes no sense.

I also don't think that we should be the ones doing political risk insurance as well.

These are, you know, one to two billion dollar types of ships.

So, I'm on the other side of those insights that the president has possibly put forward.

I don't think they'll come to fruition, but I don't think that is the best way to solve this.

Okay, so Jennifer, who is watching us live on Sub-Sac wants to know what you see for interest rates?

Well, listen, I'm probably the other side of where the Fed has been.

I am more concerned about jobs than I am about inflation until this week.

I also have been of the view that in a post-COVID world, I think the Fed being at two to two and a

half percent as their inflation rate is off. I actually think it should have moved in a post-COVID

world where inflation skyrocketed because of literally a black swan event, something that's

happened never before where the entire globe shut down. So, I think it should have moved to three

percent. So, I actually think the Fed should be looking to cut rates. I actually would tell you

they should probably cut three to four times. In 26, I'm at the high end. They cut 75 basis points,

throughout 25. So, I think they felt they did enough. My gut tells me they're going to stay

and do nothing for the foreseeable future, mainly because although jobs feel somewhat stagnant,

we're still low unemployment at 4, 3, 4, 4. And I think that with the possibility of inflation,

producer prices came in a little hotter than expected. My gut tells me they'll probably just stand still.

Yeah. Tyler from Sub-Stack is asking how this affect Trump in the midterms. I think I can

help with that. This can't be great. I mean gas prices, affordability, they are all tied together,

even the perception that, you know, obviously, I think there's a Reuters poll that just came out that

said that, well, then I'll get you the exact figure, how people feel about his handling of the

economy right now. And I think it was in the 30 percent approved, which is underwater. Yeah,

only 35 percent approve of the president's handling of the economy. So it really shows

someone happiness. And then when you couple it with a war, even temporary rising gas prices,

uncertainty, geopolitical shock, I can't imagine the president doing well. And obviously,

there's reporting that his team is scrambling to try to contain the gas.

If I can just add to that one, I think his comments when he's on the stump at affordability is a

hoax is just ridiculous. This is insulting, frankly, I think it's insulting. And I kind of know

that all too well because when I was as a surrogate for President Biden and we tried to make it

like Bidenomics was doing well, you know, that didn't work either. So the Americans are smart.

Americans are smart. They understand, you know, what's really happening because it's pocketbook

issues. And the one thing I'll say is that, you know, Americans feel like the American dream is,

you know, slipping away. I mean, you know, in the last year, we had people take out money from

their 401k at a record rate over four and a half million people withdrew for hardship. Number two,

we have the lowest amount on record of first time buyers for home ownership at 21% of new homes

of homes being bought. And then number three, the average income for new home buyers used to be

about 85,000. It's now 125,000. So people feel like this idea that I'm going to be able to, you know,

afford health care and, you know, afford education and buy a house. It feels like it's slipping away.

And it's been happening. It's not just this administration. It's been happening for a while. And we

need to change that. Yeah, I know. It is, you're not in a great position right now. I do want to go

back, though, to your time during the Obama administration and how you've dealt with oiled

shocks in the past, tied to political crisis, even on Wall Street. And how does this moment feel similar?

I don't think it's similar. So, so during the Obama administration from 2008 to 2016, we had a lot

of oil peaks and oil valleys. My role as an economic advisor to the president really started with

the financial crisis. And, you know, I was one of the executives when I was running UBS at the time

at that too big to fail weekend, Lehman weekend, that led to the global recession. So, 2008 through

2010, we were just dealing with one crisis after another. Then all of a sudden demand surged. And

that also actually coincided with the Arab Spring in the Middle East. And that caused

energy shocks in the system throughout 2011 and 12. And then all of a sudden we had some good

fortune and good luck that fracking proliferated. And all of a sudden we had too much energy.

And in 2015 and 2016 it went the other way where we had so much energy, energy prices was getting

we're getting smoked. You know, the one thing I could say is over that eight year period,

the under President Obama, we went from an energy importer and was only producing, you know,

four to five million barrels a day to becoming the energy independent by 2016,

where we were producing north of 10 million barrels a day. And so, you know, like I said,

we had peaks and valleys. But we definitely had shocks. I mean, you know, if you want to discuss

Libya, that's probably the closest example to today. I don't know if that's something you want to

discuss. Yeah, no, I do want to know how they prevented that from becoming a sustained crisis because

what the prices were at $125 a barrel. And so, let me just start on Libya because I think it

is somewhat similar and somewhat completely different. First, I would say we're it was similar.

And this is hard for me to say, but this is probably one of President Obama's biggest mistakes.

Um, when he alongside with NATO in 2011, led to the ousting of more margadafi,

that caused incredible civil unrest after that. And we're still living with that today.

So one, um, the idea that we, you know, took out a leader, but didn't really understand what

regime change meant and how it would happen and didn't have a good plan for day two.

You know, it feels like some similarities today. So you think it would ultimately a mistake?

Well, it was definitely a mistake with Obama then. Um, it's too, you know, I would say it's too early

to tell whether it's a mistake today. I mean, certainly am I glad that the that the IOTO has gone

the answers. Yes. But let me tell you where it's very different, um, with respect to energy. And

we did see prices search to 125 of battle. So back then, actually similar to Iran, Libya was doing

like 2% of the output. But the other opact nations weren't really, uh, weren't really impacted.

In Saudi, who was the, the Goliath at the time actually helped with excess capacity.

Number two, um, there was no issues with the ship shipping lane. So it was really just

contained to Libya didn't impact any of the Persian Gulf. And then the other thing is we had what

was called, um, at the time, I think we still have it, but the international energy agency,

which is US and Canada and the UK and Japan. And actually they floated 60 million barrels at the

time to help with the capacity. So we were able to absorb that shock by the US working with their

allies, opact actually working together. And so Libya really became this one off very different

today where we're possibly thinking about, you know, the, the, um, inability of 20% of the shipping

lanes, you know, literally being paralyzed. So just a night and day difference.

Yeah, it did have a huge impact. Um, so I guess in a way, even though we are the biggest, um, producer

oil, we are vulnerable today despite the fact, um, you know, that we can, I mean, global commodities

are bigger than any one nation. We have found that, you know, you know, wherever geopolitical risk

hits a commodity, we found that with agriculture during, you know, the beginnings of Ukraine and Russia.

And, you know, we're seeing that obviously today with energy.

Jennifer, um, sorry, excuse me, Doug, on Sub-Sac asks, are you in the camp that Kevin

Warsh will cut rates to play Kate Trump irrespective of the data?

So, um, I'm a fan of Kevin Warsh. Um, I worked with him peripherally when I was running UBS,

and he was at the treasury during the Lehman crisis. Um, I think Kevin is a really smart guy,

and I think he's an independent thinker. I would hope that he's going to stay independent,

and I believe he will. Um, I would say he's a little more of an inflation hawk than, um,

than most, um, people that was, uh, being considered for, uh, the treasury secretary, uh,

federal reserve under, um, President Trump. So it was a, I think, a great pick. I think it was

the right pick, and I hope he stays independent. But let's recall, it's still a vote of 12.

So to really move rates, it's not just Kevin Warsh alone. I mean, you need a majority to vote.

And what do you think of the board right now? I mean, is that something that you think they're

going to be like I said, I think they're going to stay and look at the data. I think there'll be

a few outliers. Um, either they're, you know, one way or the other, but I think for the most part,

um, they're going to look at the data, and the data has been volatile, and I think it probably

forces them to hold off. Again, I'd be on the other side of that.

So political columnist Victoria Guida, she wrote that Trump is lucky to have a Teflon economy,

keeps absorbing shocks, shocks, and um, you agree with that description of a Teflon economy

under President? Well, I would agree he's sometimes the Teflon man, but I would totally disagree

with her statement that we're in this Teflon economy. I would say we're in the K-shaped

economy. I would view it completely different, differently. One, uh, this started during COVID,

where you have the haves and have nots, the haves doing well, the top 10%, the have nots,

the middle income and lower income, doing worse. We're seeing that, um, again, proliferate,

you know, not to the same extent during COVID, but definitely we're feeling it. I use the 401K example.

Right. You know, I say this, uh, you know, part jokingly, but, you know,

Birken bags had their, you know, literally best retail sales ever and work in bags, which is

the Walmart 78 dollar one had their best too. So we can see that the two bookends.

It's a tale of the economies. No, it's true. There's, so it's definitely K-shaped.

You look at housing, you look at groceries, we're seeing that impact.

But here's what I would say. And this is where, hopefully, for your viewers, they,

they understand where I'm getting the stock market is not an economic gauge.

The stock market is not an economic gauge. What about the GDP, though?

It did. Just because I think this is important. And this is why people say how well Trump's doing.

Yeah. 90% of the stock market

is owned by the top 20% wealthiest people, maybe even the top 10% 50% owned by the top one.

The bottom 50% of our country and income own around 1% of the stock market.

So the idea that everyone is benefiting from this stock market and it's a gauge of the economy

is just not accurate. And when I was advising President Obama, I always used to say don't look

at the stock market as a gauge. And by the way, you would never see his comms people show stock

market signs, even though they performed very well. They would really focus on unemployment and

jobs and wages. You were going to mention GDP, I'm sorry. Yeah, I wanted to ask about that because

it did grow 2.2% this year. Should we be looking at that? Well, 2.2% isn't anything to really be

cherry about. I mean, you know, President Trump had an interview with Larry Cudlow on Fox

and he told us it was going to 15%, which is complete nonsense, obviously.

Listen, I think, you know, we need to get it 3, 4% to have the type of growth we need. And hopefully

we do that through wages. And then obviously higher wages than the consumers able to spend more.

I'm a little nervous about growth. I mean, you know, if the jobs market stay stagnant and the

labor participation stay stagnant, and we've had a complete reversal on immigration, which is

a big part of the jobs and growth economy, you know, I'm a little nervous. And certainly,

we saw less than 2% in the fourth quarter. But we could, I don't know if I would blame that on

the shutdown, but it's definitely impacted it. Yeah. What's the single biggest economic risk

Americans should be worried about or paying attention to over the next six months?

I mean, geopolitical is the biggest risk we have right now because geopolitical risk actually

paralyzes companies. Most of the larger companies who hire are global companies.

You know, very few companies are domestic only. And so I think geopolitical risk is front

and center. I also think AI is, you know, certainly, you know, front and center on when it comes to

jobs, when it comes to capital expenditure, when it comes to the stock market. You know, if not,

because if the war wasn't started in the last week, I probably would have said AI.

Yeah. Doug on sub-sac asks, what should investors be watching for if there are any signs that

the Fed is getting inflation worries wrong? You know, they look at PCI more than they look at CPI.

So they look at personal consumption more than they look at the consumer price index.

Personal consumption was a little hot in the last month. CPI wasn't. So my guess is that's why

all of a sudden the futures market had them, you know, holding off versus an interest rate cut.

Listen, inflation's still around 3%, their targets two to and a half.

So I think they're going to struggle, in my opinion, to find the balance between a stagnated

jobs market and inflation that I actually think is low enough to cut rates. But my gut tells me

by their data and by their goal to be at two to and a half, they probably won't.

I know you mentioned that Jack Dorsey cut a bunch of jobs because of AI, but when will we really see

whether or not AI is going to have a lasting impact on employment?

Well, one, we are going to see it because we know that AI is enhancing productivity and efficiency.

We just know that for a fact. I think the impact of AI, we won't know for a few years mainly

because the capital expenditures for AI is so ginormous that it's hard to assess whether these

companies who are talking about spending 200, 300, 400, 500 billion a year actually is going to be

able to continue that. We've already seen some of the companies decided they're going to actually

have to shed employment. They're going to have to slow down CapEx. We see some of this circular

procurement where NVIDIA gives open AI and open AI gives this and it just keeps going in a circle.

Someone's going to catch that hot potato and not want it. So I will tell you there'll be some

winners, but there'll be some losers too. And so everyone's so excited about AI, but my gut tells me

that if you see the shocks like this on energy prices and also they're being forced to start paying

for their own electricity and the CapEx, I think, will start impacting their earnings.

You may see it slowed down a little more than everyone thinks.

Robert, thank you so much for joining the show. We went five minutes over. We had so many questions

from the audience. Everyone wants to know your insight and knowledge about what to expect in this

crazy day. Hopefully, the next report will be better. I mean, that's all we can hope for,

but what do you think? Do you think the next report will improve? Are we going to see more of the

same decline in business? I think with a war that started and with some of the bigger companies

shedding jobs like Morgan Stanley and Oracle, I think there's going to be a nervousness.

I'm a little less enthused right now about the economy, so I'm probably on the other side of that,

but I hope I'm wrong. On that sad note, anything to be excited, anything to look forward to,

anything positive thoughts to leave our audience with. Yeah, I'm excited for my Celtics,

and I think my red socks are going to have a good season, and I would tell everyone,

screw RFK because Dunkin' Donuts is the best coffee. That's a Dunkin' Donuts is good coffee,

actually, hard to come back with. Yeah, I hear that he's going after Dunkin' Donuts. Oh my God.

We were getting some... We really appreciate that. We love what you think to you.

Well, Jennifer Anderson said fantastic guests. Alex Alakron said great guests. Robert Wolf is so

knowledgeable. Everyone is very grateful to have you on the show, so thanks so much. We hope to

have you back soon. Hopefully not only on the doom and gloom days, we don't want you to be...

What did they use to call Alive? Well, she, the bolt-headed messenger of doom.

When you've got better hair, but you know... Thank you. All great about thanks.

All right, talk to you soon. Thanks everybody for tuning in. Of course, you can support the show by

hitting that subscribe button, like, share, comment, tell all your friends about it, and subscribe to

the Red Letter. Close your eyes. Focus. Listen to work getting done with Monday.com.

Relax as AI does the manual work, while your teams are aligned on a single source of truth.

Feel the sensation of an AI work platform. So flexible and intuitive.

It feels like it was built just for you. Notice your limitless...