Why the Pentagon Is Hiring Wall Street Bankers

Support for the show comes from VCX, the public ticker for private tech.

The US stock market started history's greatest wave of wealth creation.

From factory workers in Detroit to farmers in Omaha,

anyone could own a piece of the great American companies.

But today, our most innovative companies are saying private longer,

which means every day Americans are missing out until now.

Introducing VCX, a public ticker for private tech.

Visit GetVCX.com for more info.

That's GetVCX.com.

Carefully consider the investment materials before investing,

including objectives, risk, charges, and expenses.

This is another information to be found in the funds

perspective at GetVCX.com.

This is a paid sponsorship.

Support for the show comes from hosting.

You might dream about launching the next big thing one day,

but with hosting, you can turn that one day into day one.

Hosting is an all-in-one platform that brings everything into one place.

Your domain, website, email marketing,

AI tools, and AI agents.

And you can go live in minutes, not weeks.

Go to hosting.com slash The ProfG

to bring your idea online for under $3 a month.

Plus get an extra 20% off with promo code The ProfG.

That's less than the price of a cup of coffee per month.

That is hosting.com slash The ProfG.

promo code The ProfG for an extra 20% off.

Oh, hey.

Sorry.

Love to chat, but I'm busy shopping all the way back some more at Walmart.

Grab a word?

Cancel that.

I got to grab these big savings on the Walmart app online and in store,

like right now.

See who?

No, Unaveil.

The only thing I want to see are the prices just lowered on tech home

and all my must-haves.

Wait, you want to shop Walmart with me?

All righty.

I think I can fit you in.

Today's number four.

That's how many Oscar nominations Timothy Chalamet has received.

However, he has still never won.

Today's other number is 100,000.

That's how many ballerinas celebrated on Sunday night.

I'll be honest, guys.

Money markets, metal.

If money is evil, then that building is hell.

Show them, sir!

Welcome to Profty Markets.

I'm Adelson.

It is March 17th.

Let's check in on yesterday's market vitals.

The major indices climbed as Trump called on other nations to help secure traffic through

the street of Hormuz.

Oil prices declined on that news.

The yield on tenure treasuries also fell and the dollar dropped the most in more than

a month.

Okay.

What else is happening?

The Pentagon is seeking unusual hires, specifically Wall Street bankers.

The Defense Department is recruiting investment bankers for a new 30-person economic defense

unit.

The team would be tasked with identifying strategic investment opportunities and deploying

as much as $200 billion over the next three years.

And the money would be directed towards sectors considered vital to national security,

including mineral extraction, drones and energy.

According to the government's presentation, the goal is to prevent China from gaining

military superiority to lure top talent.

The Pentagon is offering high salaries, access to foreign contacts and the chance to manage

quote, more capital than most investors deploy in their entire careers.

Here to discuss this is the journalist who broke this story.

Liz Hoffman, 74's business and finance editor and host of compound interest.

Liz, welcome back to Profty Markets.

Tell us, what do we know about this new investment banking recruiting operation that Trump has

initiated here?

What is interesting of striking to you about it?

Yeah.

I mean, through the military budget, through these trade deals that the Trump administration

has been striking with foreign countries, and with a bunch of other things that they're

working on to kind of as the Treasury Secretary calls it, can monetize the national balance sheet.

The Trump administration is going to end up with a couple hundred billion dollars, maybe

more than a trillion dollars, kind of to invest and has a lot of ideas kind of about its priorities,

but it's challenge is going to be finding things to buy and invest in.

And it's one thing to say, we'll just take 10% stake in Intel, a pretty well-known company,

pretty important to national security.

But there's a long tail of things that they're going to want to go after and finding those

deals is what Wall Street investment bankers do for a living.

They are explicitly hiring what in Wall Street is called coverage bankers, and every industry

has them.

So you might be a coverage banker covering industrial companies or energy companies or retailers.

And there are coverage bankers for private equity firms.

Their clients are the black stones and kick hours and carl aisles of the world.

And their job is to know what these guys own, what they might be willing to sell, and then

to try to find the money to put those deals together.

So that's the unit that's being put together here.

And as you correctly know, it is the Pentagon correctly dangles.

This is a jaw-dropping amount of money and could be a very fun playground for Wall Street

investment bankers.

And judging by kind of the inbound that I received saying, who do I call to get this job?

It is a fairly juicy opportunity, I think.

And so what is actually the point of this?

It's for the US government to continue to buy up stakes in private company.

I mean, is that essentially what is happening here?

I think so.

I mean, we published what we know.

So I've been calling around and not gotten a lot more detail.

But I think that's the idea.

I mean, the government through the Defense Department and the Department of Commerce probably

have stakes in 12 or 15 private companies right now.

And they are a way to ensure domestic supply of really important things.

They can be a way to provide financing that for whatever reason the private sector won't.

There's sort of early stage mining things that are pretty hard to finance that the government

might say, yeah, we'll do that.

And then they are obviously politically, I think the Donald Trump really likes doing deals.

And huge parts of the government have kind of retrofitted themselves and huge parts of

the corporate world too, have kind of retrofitted themselves around satisfying that impulse.

What do you make of the crossover here that was seeing between the public sector and

the private sector, which is usually the kind of thing that people are worried that a socialist

or a communist would be responsible for this idea that we will go in and seize the means.

We will buy up stakes in private companies.

Now we own the private company.

Now we control it.

We're going to have golden shares in US steel to give government more control.

And now the plan is to deploy 200 billion dollars, pay these bankers huge amounts of money

to essentially, I don't think I'm saying this incorrectly, give the US government control

of critical infrastructure and private companies that have historically been owned by the private

sector.

I should say sadly I did not see an employment term sheet for this job.

I guess it's actually probably not going to pay them huge sums of money, and again,

I'm not a lawyer.

This is not legal advice.

But I do think that if you go into government for a term or service, you can sell a lot

of your stock at a tax deferred basis, which is very attractive to these people.

And then the other thing they're dangling is you will make connections in government

that you can then turn around and go back to the private sector and monetize.

So my guess is that this is probably not hugely expensive for the taxpayer on the personnel

side.

I mean, the concern you have in this situation, if you go back, what was this, 15 years

to the Obama administration, there was a deal that they did to the Department of Energy.

They let money to a company called Salindra, it's a green energy company, and it fell

down.

And it became just an albatross around the neck of the Obama administration.

And the lesson out of that, which is sort of a textbook lesson, which is that you don't

want government picking winners and losers because, hey, it's not very good at it.

And even if it is good at it, to whom does that benefit accrued, it's not clear that

if they buy, by the way, they're up on their stake in Intel, but I'm not getting a check

as a taxpayer, I don't know, right?

And so you have to think about what you're trying to solve for.

And so generally, the places where you might be able to justify it sort of in a more academic

setting is things that, for whatever reason, the market just isn't willing to finance.

No, the government has lots of ways to help that happen anyway.

Think about like no one would build missile systems if the Pentagon didn't have a huge

contract to buy them, right?

They, you know, the government spends money in ways that make things financeable.

So I don't know.

You know, when I talked to some folks about this, I said it as this interesting to you.

And the answer is, yeah, it sounds fun, but you do have to worry about adverse selection.

And the other thing I would note is that private equity firms are sitting on an epic, historic

backlog of companies that they have been unable to sell, like something like three or four

trillion dollars worth of stuff sitting in their portfolios because the IPO market has been

sluggish.

The particular kinds of M&A have been sluggish.

And they are desperate to offload this to somebody and you'd have to worry a little bit

if you're the Pentagon that you become the dumb money here and bringing in people who

speak that language should probably help with that, I guess.

Right.

And ultimately, those investments, I mean, you mentioned that the taxpayers probably aren't

paying the salaries of the bankers, but if we're deploying 200 billion dollars of capital

from the treasury and that's taxpayers' money, or at least that's going to be funded by

deficit spending, that's what's going to fund the investments in these companies ultimately

is that right?

It certainly is.

And I guess on the front end, it's not totally clear to me where the money is coming

from.

Perhaps the NDA, the military authorization, the appropriations to fund the U.S. military

may have some money for this.

The Trump administration looks at these trade deals they're doing with Japan and Korea

and Taiwan and saying, what's another couple hundred billion dollars that will likely get funneled

through commerce and not the defense department.

I don't really know.

I mean, I don't think the ideal outcome here is to have a profitable, kind of constantly

fundraising, self-sustaining, private equity firm inside the Pentagon.

Right.

But the other thing I should know, by the way, is that, you know, the undersecretary of

the Pentagon came from private equities, the former CEO of a co-founder of Cerberus.

And there has been this really interesting tension actually inside the Pentagon between

sort of two warring factions in finance and on Wall Street and one is private equity.

And one is sort of Silicon Valley venture, which has been playing a huge role in the defense

department and procurement.

And actually, since you've very graciously mentioned, we do have a new podcast and our

episode coming out Tuesday is with the partnered injury said, Horowitz, who's been running

their kind of America first investments.

And we talked a lot about why venture capital, which has this kind of very capital-like

code DNA.

Like, why is it playing in these, like, bombs and drones, really heavy, capex businesses.

And so there's a little bit of tension inside the Pentagon about this.

And I think that their requests specifically for private equity Wall Street are really

died in the Wall Street finance guys is probably telling to deputy undersecretary

fineberg's sort of personal experience.

Well, it does seem that if you're in the investing game, if you're in Silicon Valley

and then you learn that we're going to see $200 billion in capital inflows basically overnight

because of what Trump has decided to do, you probably should get to investing in these

companies.

I mean, $50 billion invested in defense tech in the whole of last year.

Now we've got $200 billion in the pipeline coming from the government alone.

You have to think that this is a great time to be a defense tech company.

And then on top of that, something that I also just wanted to bring up to you and see

what you see what you make of it.

Trump's sons, Don Jr. and Eric, they recently invested in a drone company whose customers

are one of its largest customers is the Pentagon.

This company called Powerus, which they're now working on taking public.

I read this headline, I already read this news that you reported here that we're now planning

to have $200 billion deployed at the direction of Trump that's going to go into defense companies,

into defense tech companies, specifically drone companies.

And it makes me think, well, is this money just going to go into the pockets of his sons?

I do not have a good answer for you on that.

And I do not know what level of outrage that would spark my guess is some for some period

of time.

And then everything else, it would be just sort of into the ether.

Yeah.

It's interesting.

We had a story a couple of months ago, actually, my colleague Rachel Jones with this great

story about companies, sort of particularly looking to go public via SPACs and twist themselves

into basically show a little leg for the Trump administration trying, in fact, to get the

government to buy five or 10% of their company.

The other thing you got to wonder is like, a lot of these stakes are just kind of being

given, right?

It's not totally clear what the economics are.

And the Intel state, this was money that had already been authorized to be granted mostly

or lent, mostly granted to Intel under the chips act in the Biden administration and,

you know, Trump's our commerce secretary, Howard, let Nick came along and say, well, what

are we getting for that?

And we got 10% of the company.

So, you know, stocks up, you know, and that actually I think is sort of a textbook example

of something.

I was a little skeptical of that on the way in, but it seems to have marshaled private

money followed, right?

You know, a government money is good when it sort of sets a floor under something and encourages

the private sector to take the first steps and then kind of do its due diligence, which

obviously the market does on Intel every day.

So.

Do you think this is the first step on the path towards the sovereign wealth fund in America?

I do.

And, you know, my personal view is that we don't need one like countries that have sovereign

wealth funds.

They have them because they don't have all of the things that we have, which is like a

really thriving private sector and a lot of very dynamic price discovery and what they

do have is like a lot of oil.

And usually a big pile of money that they can rely on versus a giant pile of debt.

Correct.

Correct.

And it doesn't usually end that well because they tend to entrench, you know, strong man

and other other things.

But I do think that if you look at, again, you've got money coming in from trade deals.

We'll see how real that is, but the Japanese seem serious about it.

I think there's a meeting this week between the US and South Korean officials, kind of hammer

that one out.

You have a lot of money coming in on trade deals.

You've got whatever they get to keep on the tariffs.

You got whatever they raise by taking Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac public, you know, there's

talk of privatizing the postal service.

Like, I don't know exactly, but there are these national assets and Treasury Secretary

Scott Besson has talked about monetizing the asset side of the national balance sheet.

I don't know if this ends with a selling with Grand Canyon or naming rights to Mount

Rushmore or whatever, but you can start to see these piles of money.

There's a $10 billion fee, apparently coming to the US government from the TikTok deal,

um, story in the Wall Street Journal the other day.

So you start to put these things together and it's a trillion dollars, which is the size

of the largest sovereign wealth fund in the world, which depending on the day is either

I think Saudi Arabia or Norway.

So I don't know, again, I don't think that we need one because those exist generally

to do things that the market does pretty efficiently here, but Donald Trump obviously wants one.

And so you're starting to see the pieces get put together, whether it gets like organized

in some, some cohesive fashion, I don't know, it made up being a bit of a tug of war

between the Defense Department and commerce and some various other, other agencies.

Yeah, it seems like you like the sound of it and that's really what I'm not to say.

That doesn't really operate in principle.

Okay, let's hear from the 74's business finance editor and host of compound interest.

Liz, thank you very much.

Thanks, I had always pleasure.

After the break, the Trump administration collects their TikTok bag.

And for even more markets insights, you can subscribe to my weekly newsletter Simply Put

at simplyput.proffgmedia.com.

Support for the show comes from SoFi.

To stay ahead in this economy, your number one priority should be staying on top of your finances.

With inflation and market shifts, you can't afford to be passive.

You need to be proactive about where every dollar is going.

And part of that is having a bank that actually works for you and are SoFi.

SoFi Plus is a premium membership, a smart way to get more for your money.

SoFi Plus is packed with benefits and unlock a thousand or more in annual value with qualifying

activities.

Values including a competitive APR on savings and investment match for your IRA and access

to one-on-one sessions with SoFi Wealth Financial Planners.

You can get started for $10 a month and if you join SoFi Plus between now and April 15th,

you'll have a chance to win over $75,000 in cash.

SoFi is also giving 20 individuals a thousand dollars in cash prizes and 50 winners

free SoFi Plus memberships for a year.

Head to SoFi.com slash Scotchy to enter.

Stars and conditions apply to learn more about SoFi Plus.

Head to SoFi.com slash SoFi hyphen Plus.

This episode is brought to you by Indeed.

Stop waiting around for the perfect candidate.

Instead, use Indeed Sponsored Jobs to find the right people with the right skills fast.

It's a simple way to make sure your listing is the first candidate to see.

According to Indeed Data,

Sponsored Jobs have four times more applicants than non-sponsored jobs.

So go build your dream team today.

With Indeed, get a $75 sponsor job credit at Indeed.com slash podcast,

Terms and Conditions Apply.

We're back with Property Markets.

The Trump administration is set to collect one of the largest MNA fees in history,

The government will reportedly pocket $10 billion for brokering the TikTok deal.

That fee will be paid by the investors who took control of TikTok's US operations,

including Oracle, MGX, and Silver Lake.

The group has already put $2.5 billion into the US Treasury when the deal closed in January.

Further payments will follow until the total hits $10 billion to put that into perspective.

The biggest MNA fee ever disclosed went to Bank of America for advising Norfolk Southern

on its sale to Union Pacific last year. The total fee for that transaction was $130 million.

So, here to break down what this $10 billion fee means for deal-making under Trump

were joined by Miriam Gottfried, Wall Street Journal reporter who broke this story.

Miriam, let's get right into this. Right off the bat, the number is astounding,

especially if TikTok has valued at $14 billion, around 70% of the deal size. That's the broker fee.

Have we ever seen anything like this before?

I would say it's pretty much unprecedented. I hate to say it's the biggest ever because

I'm not a deal historian, but it's certainly among the biggest efforts, all but unprecedented.

This is strange that we're there asking for money to be paid for brokering the deal

as the government, right? Is that something that is new as well?

It's certainly not something that I've heard of before, but you have to remember that the

government that Congress effectively banned TikTok in the US. So, the situation was this app

is going to go dark unless a sale to a US investor group happens. It was a unique situation to

begin with that needed the government's help to facilitate a transaction. It needed government

approval. The government had to say this deal passes muster and satisfies our security concerns

and will prevent the app from going dark.

The way you describe that, that makes sense. It's the government's job to decide whether it's

secure, whether the deal makes sense, whether it's figured out all of its national security concerns.

But then it almost sounds like they're getting paid to say yes.

Yeah, I mean, and that's what we don't know, right? I'm not a security expert.

I didn't dig into the TikTok algorithm. I don't know the level of the plan that was put in place.

But it's sort of like, oh, we got this really valuable app here. You guys want this valuable app.

How much would it be worth for you to make this happen, you know, for us to let this happen?

It gives you that feeling that sort of, you know, this investor group needed the government.

And so it was sort of a price that had to be paid, right, which sounds concerning at least to me.

It also seems concerning the fact that the company has been valued at around

$14 billion or at least that's what Jenny Vance told us.

Right, but analysts have said that that valuation is significantly lower than what it should have been.

So that's something to keep in mind.

Right. That's the part that seems to be suspicious, which is,

I wonder if the valuation was so low. I mean, the valuation makes no sense to me.

This is a company that's worth $300 billion. We don't know what the revenue of TikTok

U.S. actually is, but I've heard that it's

suddenly higher than $10 billion, maybe close to $20 billion.

If you're valuing this company at $14 billion, that just makes no sense at all when you compare it

to other social media platforms. So I wonder if the valuation was artificially suppressed.

And then maybe there's $10 billion as the price you pay to get in at such a ridiculous

valuation. I mean, is that also what they're paying for?

It's hard to say. I mean, for sure, it seems like $10 billion is the price that you pay to get this,

to make this happen. The question is, is the real valuation $10 billion plus $14 billion?

Maybe that's what the real valuation is, or maybe it's even higher than that.

I guess we'll find out how much the company is worth when the IPO it, which is soon to happen,

probably. I'm guessing. And I think that we'll never know what the true valuation should have

been at that point in time, unless we get access to the financials and can maybe put an appropriate

multiple on it. Just before we let you go, I want to discuss this truth social post that Trump

put out over the weekend. President Trump is reshaping the media, has a list of things that are

gone, PBS, defunded, NPR, defunded, Jim Acosta out at CNM, end of the reforms, a new ownership for

CNM. Apparently that means that, you know, this is this deal is all said and done free speech on

X and then also TikTok saved. I just wanted to get your reactions. What do you make of this post

and what does it say about the media landscape under Trump going forward?

Well, I mean, I would say that, you know, Trump has done a lot to make a point to Americans

that he saved TikTok. That this was, you know, he wanted to, he decided that he loved the app

during the run up to this past election because he had a lot of his supporters were very active

on it. He garnered a lot of support from young people on TikTok. And so I think he basically

developed a special place in his heart for TikTok and he knows that Americans love it.

So he wanted to use it to score political points. The ability to save it

was something that he wanted to, you know, show that he had done. And I think that he's trying to,

you know, continue to reinforce that probably as we head toward the midterms.

Yeah, all right. Miriam Gottfried, Wall Street Journal reporter. Miriam, really appreciate your time.

My pleasure. Well, everyone's talking about the Oscars right now, but there was another very

significant live event that took place this weekend as well that was arguably more significant

than the Oscars. And that was, of course, Profty Markets live from South by Southwest. Yes,

Profty Markets went live in Texas our third ever live taping of the show. Everyone's dying

to know what happened, how it went down, who we were wearing, many are even calling it the Oscars

of business. I think that's generous, but it's not entirely wrong. Jokes aside, I thought we

would end here with a detour from the news cycle and a quick reflection on this live show at South

by Southwest, which was genuinely so much fun for us. As I've said before, when you're putting out

this many episodes, as we're doing, and when we're analyzing our performance and we're

tracking the downloads, sometimes I get so caught up in the numbers that I forget that you guys,

the audience are actually real. They're actually real people listening to the show. And I know

that sounds strange, but this is one of the weird things about building on the internet, especially

building a media company on the internet. You technically know that you're interacting with other

people, but you don't necessarily feel that. It doesn't always feel, well, real. And so that was

what I loved about South by. I actually got to meet all of you guys and interact with you,

and indeed see that you're all real. And I just love how this show brings all these different

types of people together, which is what we saw. I mean, we met with people who work in finance,

people who work in tech, people who work in law. We met with college professors, college students,

start-up founders, even high schoolers, all kinds of people. But there were a few things that I

noticed that seems to bring us all together that we all had in common. And one was that we were all

very intellectually curious, which I wasn't particularly surprised by, too. Everyone was a little

bit nerdy, including myself. And three, and this is the thing that struck me most. Three,

everyone at this event was incredibly ambitious. No matter who you talk to, no matter where they

worked, everyone seemed to have their shit together for lack of a better term, or at the very

least they were getting their shit together. And everyone was making their next move.

Their next move to progress in some way as an employee or as a boss or even as a parent. We had

a lot of those discussions, too. This was clearly a group of highly ambitious people.

And this ambition that I felt in the room was honestly infectious. I mean, it made me want to work

harder. It made me want to make the show even better, because I could see what kinds of people

were making this show for. And what I learned, or I guess re-land, is that the bar is actually quite high.

So thank you for coming to the show. And as we close here, here is to being more ambitious.

We've got a lot more ideas we're working on. You might have seen we're also launching on

Substack now. I will be doing a live stream on that platform tomorrow. So if you want to watch

that, go subscribe to ProfG Plus at profgmedia.com slash subscribe. And we're also going to be having

many more live events in the future, including a ProfG markets tour, which I am very excited about.

And I will be telling you more about that very soon.

Okay, that's it for today. This episode was produced by Claire Miller and Alison Weiss,

edited by Joel Patterson, and engineered by Benjamin Spencer. A video editor is Brad Williams.

Our research team is Dan Shalan, Isabella Kinsel, Chris Snowdon, Hugh and Mia Silverio.

And our social producer is Jake McPherson. Thank you for listening to ProfG markets from ProfGmedia.

If you like what you heard, give us a follow. I'm Ed Elson. I will see you tomorrow.

We all want to know what makes people tick? How will they make decisions?

Handle feedback and work as a team. The predictive index behavioral assessment reveals how

employees actually think, work and thrive. Like how Marcus fits in a role with structure,

and Margot's strength is collaborating with others. Because when we understand each other,

work just works. Take the behavioral assessment today at try.predictivindex.com.