WARNING: Trump JUST Said the Quiet Part Outloud.

Well, the Federal Reserve and the White

House together are now saying the quiet

part out loud. This is Mr. Myin, the

shill who also still works with the

White House, which is very odd to have

somebody working in the administration,

also working at the Federal Reserve.

Now, I like him, so don't take me don't

get me wrong by me calling him a shill,

but let's be real, he's there to, you

know, tell you exactly what's on Trump's

mind. We saw Donald Trump's Truth Social

post yesterday arguing that inflation

will take care of itself and we just

need to keep lowering rates because we

don't want to kill the rally. Myin and

Sachs both add fuel to this fire. And so

they're saying the quiet part out loud.

But what does Myron say about recession?

Let's start here. This is about a one

minute clip. Uh this is uh oh it was

about a one minute clip piece that I

wanted to show. Myron talks about

specifically recession and what the

White House and the Fed's job is when it

comes to recession. So, we're going to

jump to that segment if I can find it

here. Okay, here we go. Uh, it is about

2 minutes into the segment and let's

listen to this and we'll springboard

from there after about a minute of myin

>> and I think it's somewhat problematic if

you see those data coming out and you

don't adjust your policy prescriptions

in a dovish direction. What does that

say about the reactiveness of policy to

the economy? It, you know, I think it

looks very, it reflects very poorly upon

the institution.

>> At the end of that speech at Colombia,

you nodded to the fact that uh

recessions are inevitable. Fed's job is

to kind of forstall them as much as as

they can. Policy makers jobs are that

I'm I'm very curious when you look at

the labor market in particular, the rise

that we've seen in the unemployment

rate, that's kind of rise we've seen

customarily before recessions. How do

you assess the the risk of there being a

recession here in the near term when you

look at the labor market for instance?

By the way, I love the quote right there

and I think that's a really important

quote that you want to think about. You

said at the end of your speech that the

job of the Fed is to forstall a

recession. Mind you, that aligns exactly

with Donald Trump. Why kill the rally

now? And it aligns perfectly with what

David Sachs is saying of, "Oh, AI is

actually creating jobs. It's not

destroying jobs." The whole narrative is

to make sure that we can keep pumping

stocks and that's actually bullish in

the short term because it's exactly

what's happening. You've got Oracle CDS

is coming down. So, you've got some fear

finally coming out of that Oracle uh you

know credit default swap market

suggesting maybe we're starting to see

some calming. Hopefully that continues.

My bet and what we've been talking about

in the alpha report and the course

member live streams which you can join

mbke.com uh and get lifetime access for

my bet is that we just continue to slow

schlog until January 9th. That's what we

said this morning. We're like, hey,

there's no reason the slow schlog

doesn't continue. And when you've got

now members of the Fed, Dave Sachs, and

Trump all pushing for why kill the

rally, keep bailing out the market, just

kick the can down the road of recession.

You don't really have bearish near-term

catalysts, obviously, until the labor

market actually rolls off a cliff, but

that hasn't started yet. Let's listen to

Byron here, though.

>> I don't see a recession in the near-

term in part because we are adjusting

our policy rate uh by lowering it, which

is appropriate.

>> In other words, no recession because

we're cutting. So, we got to keep going.

Okay. uh you know my view as I've as

I've described is that a v a a variety

of shocks that hit the economy you know

including changes to the population

growth rate due to changes in the border

policy have pushed what we call the

neutral rate down and that policy needs

to adjust downward to reflect that

downward shift in neutral if we don't

adjust policy down then I think that we

do run risks of rising recess of rising

recessions I

>> this is essentially saying if we now

stay uh you know frozen at this interest

rate then we start increasing ing the

risk of a recession. So, what's that

quiet part? The quiet part is, hey,

let's do whatever we can to keep the

economy propped up, which again, bullish

short-term, but at some point the price

gets paid. Now, we'll talk about open AI

in just a moment, especially following

up on David Sax's jobs argument, but

let's listen to a little bit more of

Myron here.

>> Don't think it's too late to prevent

that. And so I think it's important that

we keep on adjusting our policy rate

down, but at the moment it's not my base

case in part because I think that we

ultimately will end up adjust continuing

to adjust interest rates down.

>> What else?

>> Ultimately will end up. So in other

words, Myron's base case is hey you

might have people at the Fed who say ah

we don't need to cut right now. But his

base case turns into oh no I'm not

really worried about it because we'll

just keep cutting. This is why I think

by certainly by 2032, this is my belief,

uh we'll see interest rates back at

probably the lower bound zero, whether

there's a shock or recession or we just

see inflation turn into outright

deflation. But there's a lot for us to

break down here. So David Sachs, so

we've got Donald Trump obviously, why,

you know, with his truth social post,

why kill the rally? Just keep cutting

rates. Inflation will take care of

itself. Meer say we need to forstall a

recession as long as possible. let's

just keep cutting so that you know we

can kick that can down the road even

though we know recessions eventually

will happen. Okay, it wouldn't surprise

me at all that people in the Trump

administration believe, hey, if we could

just kick the can of recession down to

like 2029, let's do that because why

have the blood on our hands? On one

hand, you kind of can't blame it, but on

the other hand, you also can't help but

look and say like, hm, do we like not

that we trusted the data before, but how

much can we really trust some of the

blatant rigging that's happening right

now in the data? For example, missing

CPI. I mean, how much of the CPI report

was missing and all of a sudden we're

supposed to believe that we're cheering

this incredible CPI report and how much

of the jobs data was missing? Anyway,

this is where, you know, Powell is, I

think, right to say, remember the pace

we're on. If they're telling us 40k jobs

created, which we just had a weekly data

set yesterday that came out from ADP

that said we're growing at about 11,500

jobs uh per week, which is roughly align

with a little over 40,000, then we're

actually at -20K. So we're actually

shrinking and Powell made it very clear

in his last presser that that would be

quote well below the break even level.

And so in other words, the labor market

side is deteriorating. But how does that

then reconcile with this sort of like no

no no man keep breathing life into the

bubble from David Sachs? Because David

Saxs, you know, says AI job loss hoax

exposed. And this is very classic

Twitter X. This is like people leave me

these comments because Kevin, why can't

you just do your videos in like 2

minutes? Why are your videos always so

long? You know, this is like that same

like loser mentality that just wants to

scroll on X and like get their little

zingers or whatever and you lose all the

perspective. Uh, which I think is very

important. So, let me show you in a

summarried way how you could break this

down. So, David Sax says, according to a

new study from Vanguard, occupations

most exposed to AI are outperforming the

rest of the labor market in terms of job

growth and real wages. So,

[clears throat] let's just take this at

face value for a moment. First of all, I

wouldn't call this a study. This is more

of a report. I'm actually going to show

you the report in just a moment. But

let's just take this at face value and

say, okay, occupations most exposed to

AI more jobs. Okay, so we simplify that.

So first of all, what are occupations uh

exposed or or you know with with AI

exposure? There are going to be things

in uh according to at least the Philly

Fed, there are going to be things uh

like middle management, upper

management, uh accounting, customer

service, uh lawyer work, you know,

basically anything in in the finance

space, and they've got a whole sheet of

this, which I think is very interesting.

Look at this. You have to look at this

AI exposure piece right here. And they

take the top 30% of these rankings and

say those are going to be the most

exposed. office clerks, customer service

secretaries, frontline supervisors,

accountants, auditors, receptionists, uh

sales representatives, uh lawyers are in

here, HR, market research, uh you know,

computer systems managers, analysts,

whatever, insurance, compliance, of

course. Okay, so but there's something

that all of these have in common when it

comes to jobs. And so Dave Saxs

references this piece right here. He

argues that see look we actually have

more jobs being created after the GPT

moment than before. And basically what

Vanguard did is in their report they

analyzed okay well what was the job

trend between 2015

and 2019. That is a 5-year period

they're calling the precoid trend. 15 16

17 18 19 5-year period. Postcoid they're

only measuring from the second quarter

of 2023. So the GPT moment to the second

quarter of 2025.

So you know through call it June 30th of

2025. And so what we did is we looked at

the S&P 500, not even the NASDAQ. It'd

be even nastier if you did this with the

NASDAQ. This is just the S&P 500. And I

think this is really important because

if it is true, which we'll believe it,

that there's job growth occurring in the

AI exposed sectors, you got to ask

yourself anything that's been labeled

AI, like even loser companies like C3

AI, just because it has the ticker

symbol AI, they've been doing really

well. Well, I don't know. I haven't

looked at the C3 AI stock, but anything

labeling AI has gone through at least

some period of a boom over the last few

years. And the boom in stock market

wealth in my opinion creates and enables

the opportunity to hire

which I evidence this by looking at how

rapidly the market has grown compared to

precoid. So look at this in the 5 years

precoid you had a 59% growth in the S&P

500 over those 5 years. So you know what

is that on average like 10 10 11ish% or

whatever compounded who cares right? But

look at this. In the two years from the

GPT moment, the S&P 500 is up 52%.

So, you've actually had the market

accelerate or or move what is that two

and a half times faster. So, we've

generated wealth in the stock market two

and a half times faster

starting at that uh AI moment than in

the pre-COVID market. And so, in my

opinion, what a surprise. companies that

would potentially have AI exposure see

their stock wealth go up and therefore

they hire more. I don't necessarily

think that you can argue that AI is

creating jobs. I think logically that's

a fallacy and I don't think that nuance

you could really get from David Sax's

post. Now the Philly Fed actually gives

a little bit of nuance. See the Philly

Fed here they go in to say this. It's

also they don't mention the stock market

either. That's my opinion. My opinion is

the stock market has a lot to do with

the hiring. And if the stock market goes

into a weaker period, that's when you

actually see the hiring cliff. That's

why we haven't seen the massive layoffs

yet because the stock market keeps

getting pumped up. So, it's kind of

circular, right? Stock market pumped up,

hiring stays up, stock market pump up,

hiring stays up. It's circular until

something breaks, which is good. That's

bullish in the near term, right? It just

does mean the risks are growing. And

we'll talk about those risks with OpenAI

in just a moment. But take a look at

this. It's [clears throat] helpful to

keep in mind that AI exposure does not

necessarily mean susceptibility to job

loss. As we discussed earlier, there are

several factors that will determine the

labor market outcomes by occupation,

such as expertise requirements or the

ability to substitute workers uh with

AI. They make the argument that if you

can fully substitute a worker with AI,

you're definitely going to see job loss.

There's no question of that. But if it's

more of a productivity enhancer, great.

Then you're not going to see job loss in

those sectors, fine. I that's why I

personally throw in the stock market.

And I say that's probably the biggest

guide for the labor market. This, by the

way, is the citation for that. So they

say that, which is also an irony that

kind of leads us into the open AI piece,

but watch this. They say that highly

exposed AI sectors experienced increases

in employment and wages following GPT's

instru

which AI could directly substitute human

labor saw declines. That's per one

particular study. Okay, fine. This again

could be because of the stock market,

but somebody hasn't done a study on

that. That's just sort of my like I'm

trying to understand or rationalize like

why could this be? Hm. Stock market

wealth effect could be a really good

reason. I think we could probably all

agree on that. But this is very

interesting because they do then you

like beg this question that if AI only

kills jobs when it's good enough to do

the full job, then is the current level

of AI overhyped, right? Because if it's

only killing some jobs because it's not

good enough to kill more jobs, then have

we overhyped Sam Oldman? And that's

where things get really interesting. I

wrote a few things down. You can get

this for free over at the Meet Kevin

app. So, I'll show you this. I wrote a

few things down about OpenAI uh and

their desire to to start running ads.

And I thought this was interesting

because I see that is really risky. If

you run ads, you might kill user trust.

And the thing is they realized that as

well. But what was remarkable to me was

that Open AAI expects to make, take a

look at this, OpenAI expects to make $2

per year from free users. $2 per year.

That's it. You know what is that per

month? Two divided by 30. That's six uh

wait, hold on, sorry. uh $2 divided by

12 16 se 16 to 17 cents uh per user per

month on um uh on on uh you know

non-paying users. And I find this really

remarkable because it means that your

$200 a month client who might have been

an early AI adopter probably really

propped up the AI uh you know initial

revenue projections. And I wouldn't be

surprised if now you're seeing OpenAI

panic a little bit because you're not

seeing those $200 a month users anymore.

So now they're like, "All right, let's

start making projections assuming that

we're going to make $2 per user off

non-paying users via ads." But then the

question is, what happens when LLMs are

essentially ubiquitous? Now the ads are

everywhere. That revenue per user could

actually decline. In fact, if we look at

their projections, they projected uh

this summer that they would make around

$110 billion in revenue from non-paying

users through 2030.

Problem with this is when we did the

math on this, 110 billion divided by the

next 5 years suggests that on average

per year, if you assume 700 million

users, they're forecasting $31 a year.

So on in one breath, they're expecting

roughly $31 per year from a user on

average every year for the next 5 years,

which is crazy because that would be 31

31 31 31 and 31. But now insiders are

actually saying they're actually

thinking they're only going to end up

getting $2 a year and then maybe $4 a

year, $6 a year, $7 a year, all the way

up to $15 a year by 2030. So to me that

makes me nervous that the projections

are way way off and I don't think any of

us really needed more uh sort of like oh

Sam Alman is scam altman insight but

that is a little nerve-wracking. Another

thing that was a little nerve-wracking

but I think we kind of knew this already

is the information did this really

interesting report where they they

looked at these Hong Kong IPOs that are

coming up. Uh, and so because they're

going public, they broke open their

financials for uh, their LLMs. And they

looked at the Miniax IPO coming up in in

Hong Kong, they said the company's got

just 15 months of cash left and that

there are two different margin profiles

that these companies have. And this I

thought was really fascinating. So they

make the argument that on general

chatbot crap, which is the vast majority

of yapping that people do with chat

bots, the general chatbot stuff, these

companies are making about a 4.7% gross

margin, which is like almost at grocery

store levels of horrible margins. You

know, grocery stores are famous for

having like, you know, 2% net margins,

so like, you know, nominal gross margins

as well. Uh 4.7% gross is pretty bad.

That's that's like a grocery store level

margin. And it makes sense because it's

like, you know, there's you you want to

go buy your box of cereal at Publix,

Wind Dixie, Ralph's, Vans, Albertson's,

you know, whatever. There's there are no

margins in these businesses because

nobody cares. It's the same thing as an

LLM. You can almost say that an LLM is

literally like a grocery store. Like,

who's got the circular for the cheapest

grapes this week? That's where we're

going to go buy the grapes. I Yeah, I

used to do that back in like 2009. would

be like, "Who's got the cheapest

grapes?" But anyway, it's like there's

no brand loyalty. Who freaking cares?

So, where can you get the cheapest

outcome? So, the LLM side, 4.7% gross

margin on that Hong Kong side. Very

interesting insight because it really

suggests there's no pricing power there.

But we already knew that. This is why

Google is basically just including these

in Workspace, right, for for their

Workspace users. Now, in specific

software solutions, they indicate that

gross margins are 69%.

And so to me that was great because it

indicates that companies like Palanteer

that do niche down, they can keep

cranking money. But companies that don't

niche down and they try to appeal to

everybody, especially free users, which

in my opinion are the worst, there's no

money to be made there. And that's

actually a really big problem. See, GPT

wants everybody. They're I think they're

assuming that they're either going to

make $31 a month from all these free

users if you use 700 million as an

example or they're assuming that their

revenue or their user growth is going to

double or triple or something and that's

how they're going to try to make sense

of this $110 billion forecast of revenue

from free users over the next 5 years

which is cookie dookie in my opinion. uh

as you saw with the math that we did, it

it it doesn't line up, right? There's a

huge problem in that math. And I think

the big lesson to take away is if you

want to make money in AI, you niche

again, whether that's Palunteer or who

knows, a lot of people are buying our

reinvest AI product. We're also ending

our fund raise. I can't I honestly I

cannot wait to end our fund raise at the

end of this month. Part of the reason

for that is I look at this I go why are

we selling shares for this AI company at

a real estate company valuation. We need

to stop b I feel like I shouldn't say

this but I feel like I'm giving away

shares right it's like diluting that's

not good. So it's like we're ending the

fund raise uh at the uh the the end of

the year because we're like we have such

a niche product you know people were

responding to me in my live stream.

They're like oh this this is this yes

like that makes sense. And the pitch is,

you know, every real estate agent or

real estate agents who want to pay 2,

300, 400, 500 bucks, whatever it is,

depending on how many clients they put

into our app, can automatically send

deals and automatically value them based

on our custom MLS on interior pictures

and our valuation, like actual real

valuations in my opinion, based on what

the condition of the property actually

is, not just some stupid estimate,

right? That's really valuable for an

agent to instantaneously send that to

their clients. We think those customers

will pay us three to 500 bucks a month.

Now, if you do that, it's very Palunteer

modelesque where the lesson is niching

down is what makes the money, not the

general allpurpose customer app. Uh

anyway, that this is not like a

solicitation. I'm not saying, you know,

go buy the reinvest AI or go invest in

house hack. I'm just saying as an

example, Palanteer or you could even

look at a company like UiPath. Uipath is

an interesting one because they're

they're basically doing Palunteer's uh

you know integration of AI in it's

different obviously they're they're

different services. I don't want to

conflate them as the same at all. But in

finance, compliance and healthcare,

which I think is one of the best niches

for AI. In fact, if you look at uh this

uh Philly Fed piece that we saw, a lot

of what we saw in the Philly Fed piece

was that the biggest uh you know uh

disruption that could happen from AI

exposed jobs would be in places like

compliance. Let me see where that list

was. Compliance. Yeah, here. Compliance

officers. they had one of the highest

ratings for potential AI exposure and I

totally agree with that. Uh so I think

UiPath and Palanteer to some extent are

opportunists in this sort of region

again high margin and this is where that

GPT issue becomes a problem. So how does

this all like how do we tile this

together? On one hand you have my saying

hey you know we got to keep the Ponzi

going. We have to forstall a recession.

and it's going to happen one day, but

let's kick it down the road to another

administration. Trump's like, "Don't

kill the rally. We need the wealth to

stay propped up." In fairness, the

wealth staying propped up probablys up

the hiring, which sort of defeats, in my

opinion, David Sachs argument because it

means that the inverse is also going to

be true. If we go into a down market,

the job market rolls over and then it's

even worse because of AI. In which case,

then David Sachs post will look foolish

because he didn't account for the wealth

effect. But that's okay. Hey, that's why

we're making the video. So, when you

then combine that with knowing that Sam

Alman's got this $1.4 trillion peg under

the AI market, it makes sense why

companies like Nvidia, which in my

opinion have a fair value at $300, are

selling for a discount. They're selling

at a discount, you know, almost half of

a discount here. You're at 188 to their

fair value based on current growth

estimates. The market is discounting how

much of a weight Sam Olman has in this

market.

So, broadly, I see all of that as short

to medium-term bullish. Certainly

bullish between now and January 9th

because that's when we start getting our

new catalyst jobs and CPI. As much as

we'll be able to trust those on the 9th

and the 13th, I don't see much in the

way of catalysts or like some kind of

shoe dropping if you will over the next

few weeks. But really over the next six

months, what you want is the job market

to stay propped up. Like in spite of

what Trump is saying, you kind of want

him to be right. You want the stock

market to stay propped up so businesses

start hiring again. Get that engine

going again while the plane has

altitude, so to speak. It's like you

lost an engine of the labor market and

you're gliding. And Trump's like, "Light

the freaking engine again." And it's

like, "Well, well, yeah. Uh, light the

engine because like if we get it lit

over the next six months, great. We

start hiring again, great. we can keep

flying. This is not wrong. Uh but I

don't think that, you know, making the

argument that, oh, inflation will take

care of itself is a very valuable one

because the lessons of the 70s told us

that was a mistake. See, Trump in his

truth social post, he makes this

argument that oh well, you know,

inflation will take care of itself and

if it doesn't, we'll just raise rates

then. That's what they tried to do in

the 70s. That didn't work in the 70s

because as soon as you say we don't care

about inflation, inflation expectations

self-fulfill and you actually create the

very inflation you're trying to fight.

So Donald Trump's messaging on inflation

is actually dangerous for inflation. But

that's okay. He doesn't really care

about the long term. He just cares

really about the next 3 years and then

he'll be out of office.

So that's where I think there's kind of

this like if there's a bubble, you've

got Myin, Sachs, and Trump who are

basically paid and financially

incentivized. Mind you, I think them and

all their cronies will do anything,

whether it's cheat, rig the data, steal,

or or whatever, rig whatever they need

to to make as much money as possible for

them and their cronies. That's fine. I

mean, I don't I I don't I'm not

condoning it. I'm just saying we we

understand what's going on. I think

really what it is is if there's a

bubble, they're just sticking a straw

into it and blowing it up even bigger.

And the biggest danger I think starts at

the commoditized side. And that's where

I got really interested in in the Nvidia

Intel piece. You know, Nvidia just

halted uh pro, you know, their their

work with Intel's 18A process. That's

their supposedly like revolutionary uh

you know new fab process for advanced

chips. And I think Nvidia only invested

$5 billion into Intel to shill to Trump

so they could sell to China. Well, what

a surprise. What a surprise. They look

look at this. What a surprise.

Nvidia invests $5 billion into Intel to

shield to Trump and says, "Oh yeah,

yeah, we'll try them out for chips. Hey,

by the way, can we sell to China? Takes

months to get that. Now all of a sudden,

yeah, okay, we'll let you sell, you

know, Blackwells or or whatever. Uh, you

know, H200's

uh to to uh China, which are so not

Blackwells, but H200s to China, which

are even more powerful than the H20s

they used to sell. So, Nvidia got a big

W there, right? What a surprise that

right after Nvidia gets this big W from

the White House to sell to China. Uh

yeah, you know what? We're not actually

going to use Intel. [sighs]

Nvidia gets what they want and then they

stop pretending. So now this creates two

potential scenarios. It either means

that Intel sucks and Nvidia's like,

"Yeah, no, this ain't going to fly. We

don't want to put our name on this." Or

it means that Nvidia, and this is the

evil thought, Nvidia has TSM's supply

chain so on lock that they'd rather try

to make Intel look bad to try to scare

other people not to use Intel.

And then they have to use TSM. But TSM

is so unlock with Nvidia, it then

strengthens Nvidia's moat because they

have the lock on supply with TSM. You

know, if everybody thought Intel had

endless supply and was equally good or

better than Taiwan Semi, chip prices

might plummet. So, Nvidia played some

really serious 4D chess. If you think

about it, like, hats off to that Jensen

guy. He just played Trump hardcore.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Intel's great. Yeah.

We'll manufacture. Yeah. Yeah. Hey, can

we sell to China? No. No. No. No. I put

five bill into Intel. You know, it's

still going well over here. Can we sell

to China? Okay, fine. and sell in China.

Cool. All right, cool. Thanks. Selling

to China. Selling to China. We're done

with Intel. [laughter] You know, I don't

know, you know, call call me jaded. And

so I want to be very clear about this

where I sit on the Bear Bull scale

because you know I I there are always

going to be people who will read a video

title and and then they don't listen to

the context or the nuance of a video

because I get it like it's hard because

oh my gosh you have to sit there and

play a 20-minute video. But it's so and

it's so much easier to just scroll on a

vertical feed or whatever and get the

dopamine hit. But I don't think you get

perspective. And I hope that when you

watch the these longer form videos,

you're like, actually, I you can make

your own thoughts and and educated

opinions around it all. But I think

really they recognize that the only

reason the labor market isn't falling

off a cliff is because they're propping

up the market. So do whatever we can to

keep propping up the market. The Fed

already started money printing. We're

doing $40 billion a month of POMO,

probably 26 to 52- week bills. Uh we are

doing some tomo as needed. That's those

are the temporary operations. Those are

more overnight whereas POMO is again 26

week to 52 week. That's basically

stimulus getting injected into the

market. Uh you know and then obviously

uh you have the MBS rollover which is

also just going right back into uh the

the POMO permanent market operations for

the 26 to 52 week period. It's

essentially QE. So all angles, Fed,

Myron, Trump, Sachs, they'll all lie to

your face and say it's okay because they

have to do that to keep the labor market

up via the market, which again, bullish

short-term, but it doesn't change that

big. It's kind of like there's a big

anvil hanging over our head and like

somebody's cutting the string and and

and like Trump and Sachs are the bullies

that are just like pushing the guy who's

cutting this the string. They keep

pushing him like no stay back. Stay back

and they keep pushing him back.

Eventually the anvil is going to fall.

Anyway, yes ju just finish this off to

be very clear. Yes, the reinvest AI uh

we're going to start activating this uh

this month. So, if you bought the AI

product, uh you'll be getting access to

it uh this month. Happy Christmas Eve,

obviously, everyone. You could get the

AI product. You can learn more about

what the app has and features now. But

most important is this this valuation

AI. Once we combine that with what we

have now already in our trained AI, this

product I think will be immensely

valuable and I'm very excited about it.

And that's why, you know, if you click

on the invest in in in the company, you

house hack reinvest same company. That's

why I want to end this. Uh, but I told

everybody that like I don't I'm not

going to rug poll and just end it

tomorrow. So that's why I'm like

mentioning in every video not to shill

it, but more just to say like I'm being

clear here. We want to end this. Paying

5% plus upside because of the

convertible offering is too much. You

know, real estate back, invest with

credit card, AC wires, no fees,

whatever, no ten, you know, we do all

that real estate back. Okay, you get it.

It's not a solicitation. There's risk

with every investment. You get it. 5%

yield paid monthly through conversion.

Whatever. This ends D's 31. And I'm

looking forward to that because then

that means we can really like focus on

AI next year, grow the company, and uh

and it's way less dilutive to existing

shareholders. Why why why fundra? We can

fund raise by selling the actual product

or the service, which we are, and people

keep buying it. And that's why we've you

you know we've gone positive on our RARI

invest or our AI investments which we're

excited about. So anyway, uh Samuel

writes, "I just submitted an a for

$50,000. I'm really happy." Well, thank

you for doing that. And you just donated

$2 for You donated $2 to tell me you

just sent us 50 grand. You're a nice

person. Merry Christmas to you, too. Um

somebody says, "What's the risk? We get

our money back." No, the risk is you get

zero back. That's the nature with any

investment, right? Uh, so, so like I I

I'm not trying to shill anybody to

invest. The only reason I say these in

almost every video is because I don't

want this fundraiser to close and then

people send me emails going, "But Kevin,

you did the tell." Like, "Yeah, I did

[laughter] like in every possible

freaking way." Uh, so somebody here

says, "I worked at Tesla for 12 years,

Lucid for almost six." Uh, what what

what's your what are you referencing?

somebody. Oh, uh, oh, you guys are

chatting about such. What I will say, a

quick little note, I do think Tesla has

a really big resistance level here at

all-time highs, right? Uh, if it can

break through this, great. And I think

that the time for Tesla to break through

is now because you're everything's, you

know, we're on a a relatively bullish

slow schlo up trajectory now. Uh, but uh

but but there are definitely some

downside risks at these uh valuations.

Kevin, I'm trying to invest and

reinvest. What's the difference between

accredited investor and nonacredited? If

you're accredited, I I I would say use

the accredited portal. Uh but there

they're very small differences. You if

you read or just put it into AI. Okay,

here there's an AI use for you. Take the

perspectus for the regggd put it into

AI. Take the reggga a one put it into AI

and say what's the difference there.

There, you know, but read yourself. I

don't want to give you a summary of the

differences because I think they're

relatively minor. Uh but but you know I

can't replace you actually reading these

documents. Otherwise the SEC is going to

kick my ass. Although Trump I feel like

is killing the regulators off by a slow

bleed. But I actually think that's bad.

But we don't have to get political. You

know I I thought the Consumer Financial

Protection Bureau was actually doing a

good thing. Uh so the gutting of that is

a little disappointing. And I I wonder

you know what what bubbles we create

when when there's less of a government

restriction. But then again, you know,

who knows? I in fairness to be a little

biased, I'm invested in Netflix and uh I

kind of want them to buy Warner

Brothers. You know, I think they're a

behemoth. Uh and and they're cheap. Uh

you know, the stock's been on a on a

near-term downtrend. I think they're

cheap. So, [music] um anyho, that's my

take. Uh I appreciate y'all being here

and uh we'll see you all soon. Thanks so

much. Goodbye and uh good luck.

>> Why not advertise these things that you

told us here? I feel like nobody else

knows about this. We'll we'll try a

little advertising and see how it goes.

>> Congratulations, man. You have [music]

done so much. People love you. People

look up to you.

>> Kevin Praath there, financial analyst

and YouTuber. Meet Kevin. Always great

to get your take.