Gap CEO: The trade war has not stalled our turnaround
Gap (GAP) CEO Richard Dickson says his turnaround of the retailer remains intact despite trade war headwinds.
"No," Dickson told Yahoo Finance (video above) on whether the trade war has stalled his progress.
Dickson added, "Like any business, we're constantly navigating complexity. And there's a lot of complexities in running a business. And in this case tariffs is a focus. But it's our responsibility to do so without ever compromising the long-term integrity of our strategy."
Gap shares were pounded by about 20% Friday in the wake of its first quarter results.
While the company beat analyst sales and profit forecasts, it warned of a large hit to operating profits this year at the hands of tariffs. Some analysts estimated the impact could be about $0.25 a share for the year.
To navigate the volatile trade backdrop, Gap is lowering its sourcing from China from less than 10% in 2024 to less than 3% exiting the year. By the end of 2026, no single country should account for more than 25%. The company is also doubling its vendor sourcing for American-grown cotton in 2026.
"Overall, Gap is executing very well, delivering top-line consistency at Old Navy and Gap (and management said 2Q is off to a good start), gross margin upside and showing cost discipline. While we expect Gap to be in the penalty box near-term on the Gap brand falling short of market expectations and tariff guidance, we believe risk/reward is especially attractive [on the stock's decline]," Citi retail analyst Paul Lejuez said in a note.
Net sales: +2% year over year to $3.5 billion, vs. $3.42 billion estimate
Comparable sales:
Old Navy: +3% compared to +3% last year, vs. +1.7% estimate
Banana Republic: 0% compared to +1% last year, vs. +1.6% estimate
Gap: +5% compared to +3% last year, vs. +3.25% estimate
Athleta: -8% compared to +5% last year, vs. -1.94% estimate
Gross margin: 41.8% compared to 41.2% last year, vs. 41.6% estimate
Diluted earnings per share: $0.51 vs. $0.45 estimate
Trade war effects: Inventory levels rose 7% from the prior year.
Trend watch: The company's same-store sales have gained for five straight quarters.
Flush with cash: The company's total cash position surged 28% year over year to $2.2 billion.
Warning: If tariffs stay in place at current levels, it could cost Gap $250 million to $300 million this year. Guidance does not include this impact, Gap says. Gap adds it could mitigate about half of the tariff impact — bringing a $100 million to $150 million potential hit to operating income.
Guidance:
2025
Net sales: +1% to +2% (reiteration)
Operating income: +8% to +10% (reiteration)
Q2 2025
Net sales: Flat (consensus: up slightly)
Gross margin: "Similar" to the first quarter rate of 41.8% (consensus: 42.3%)
Brian Sozzi is Yahoo Finance's Executive Editor. Follow Sozzi on X @BrianSozzi, Instagram, and LinkedIn. Tips on stories? Email brian.sozzi@yahoofinance.com.
Click here for all of the latest retail stock news and events to better inform your investing strategy
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Associated Press
25 minutes ago
- Associated Press
BuzzRx® Medical Advisor Dr. Cedric "Jamie" Rutland Joins Mo News Podcast to Discuss the State of American Health
Topics Range From the High Cost of Insurance to the Rise of GLP-1 Weight Loss Drugs PHOENIX, June 2, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- In an eye-opening new podcast episode of Mo News, journalist and podcast host Mosheh Oinounou sits down with Dr. Cedric 'Jamie' Rutland —a triple board certified critical care physician and Medical Advisor for BuzzRx—to unpack some of the most pressing issues in American healthcare today. The discussion spans topics ranging from the crippling cost of insurance to the growing popularity of GLP-1 medications like Ozempic and Wegovy. BuzzRx, a free prescription savings service that allows users to instantly find the lowest price on their medication at pharmacies nationwide, can help users save on a wide variety of prescription medications (like GLP-1s) and help fill in gaps in insurance. With over 91 million Americans reporting they cannot afford quality healthcare if they needed it today, Dr. Rutland and Mosheh explore why the U.S. healthcare system has become so prohibitively expensive—and what patients can do to navigate it. 'A lot of it comes down to a system that prioritizes profit over patient access,' says Dr. Rutland. Between rising hospital costs, pharmaceutical pricing, and complex insurance negotiations, it's the average American who ends up paying the price—literally. Dr. Rutland highlights how patients increasingly delay care, skip prescriptions, or split doses due to costs—even if they have insurance. As a solution, he emphasizes the role BuzzRx plays in helping bridge that affordability gap. 'I tell all my patients about BuzzRx. It's a free prescription savings tool that can help you save up to 80% on your medications,' Rutland explains. 'In fact, the average BuzzRx user saves about $1,100 a year—equivalent to the cost of a new iPhone or multiple car payments.' Additionally, the hot topic of GLP-1 medications, such as Ozempic®, Wegovy®, and Mounjaro®, which have skyrocketed in popularity for their weight-loss benefits, is discussed. Rutland breaks down how these medications work, how much weight patients can expect to lose, and what side effects and risks users should consider. 'GLP-1s are changing lives,' Dr. Rutland notes. 'But they're also expensive—over $1,000 a month in some cases. Even with insurance, cost is often a barrier. That's where services like BuzzRx make a real difference. Since January 2023, BuzzRx users have saved over $4.5 million on semaglutide alone.' Dr. Rutland also shares emerging research on other health benefits tied to GLP-1s, including reduced inflammation and improved sleep apnea outcomes, pointing to a promising future for the class of drugs. 'We're just scratching the surface of what GLP-1 medications can do,' he says. 'The more we learn, the more possibilities we unlock— for potentially treating and preventing numerous diseases.' The episode offers practical advice for patients, from talking to their doctor to exploring medication discounts via the BuzzRx mobile app or website. Listen to the full podcast episode on any major podcast platform or YouTube. Mo News fans have the opportunity for additional savings of up to $5 off their first prescription fill with BuzzRx by visiting About Dr. Cedric 'Jamie' Rutland: Cedric 'Jamie' Rutland, MD, FCCP, is a triple board-certified Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Internal Medicine physician and owner of Rutland Medical Group, a private practice in Newport Beach, CA. Dr. Rutland is also BuzzRx's Medical Advisor as of 2025 and the owner of Medicine Deconstructed Productions, a company that produces medical education for healthcare companies and the general population. He serves as Vice President for the nonprofit organization AHSM, whose mission is to preserve the integrity of online medical information. He is a sought-after speaker, educator, and thought leader, having contributed to numerous medical publications and public health initiatives. He is also the podcast host of " The Health Exchange " and an internationally recognized speaker and educator. Prior to forming his own companies, Dr. Rutland completed his Bachelor of Science from the University of California, Davis, medical school, and Internal Medicine residency from the University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, and completed his fellowship in Pulmonary and Critical Care from the University of Kansas Medical Center. He is also an expert in asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, interstitial lung disease, endobronchial ultrasound, navigational bronchoscopy, and vaping-related lung injury. About Mo News: Mo News is a leading independent news platform and podcast hosted by veteran journalist Mosheh Oinounou. Mo News delivers fact-based reporting and insightful interviews to help audiences make sense of complex issues shaping today's world. Press Contact [email protected] View original content to download multimedia: SOURCE BuzzRx
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Have Trump tariffs guaranteed a stock walloping recession?
You can catch Opening Bid on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts. Nothing lasts forever. And that old adage apparently applies to the once untouchable US credit rating. The US has lost its last triple-A credit rating, thanks to Moody's. Moody's downgraded the US credit rating, blaming large fiscal deficits and rising interest costs. To longtime watchers of the country's fiscal position, the move by Moody's comes as no surprise. Deficits have ballooned amid decades of government overspending. The issue stands to worsen in coming years as baby boomers retire and put pressure on entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare. While somewhat symbolic at this point, the action of Moody's could have negative consequences for the US Treasury market as it calls into question the ability of the country to repay its debts at some point in the future. Yahoo Finance Executive Editor Brian Sozzi welcomes to the Opening Bid mic Brookings Institute vice president and director of economic studies Ben Harris. Harris is one of those aforementioned longtime watchers of the US government debt position. He was also a central player in the presidency of Joe Biden in terms of crafting detailed economic plans for the country. What does Harris think about the Trump administration's handling of the economy? Sozzi and Harris discuss! Welcome to a new episode of the Opening bid podcast. I'm Yahoo Finance executive editor Brian Sai. Like I always say, this is the podcast that will make you a smarter investor, period. And of course, opening bids sponsored by our friends at Vanguard, a great featured guest for this episode, psyched to talk to Ben Harris, uh, vice president and director of Economic studies at the Brookings Ben, so great to see you here, and I should know before we get this going here, uh, the New York Times in 2020 dubbed you quote, the quiet architect of Biden's plan to rescue the economy. So you're coming in here hot, there's a lot to talk about, but before we get into, you know, your thoughts on the economy, what are yourYou know, there's a lot going on with uh the current administration, Trump administration, with tariffs, um, uh, various other trade policies, tax bill, level set from your perspective. What's your sense? Let's start on the tariff front. What's your perspective on what the administration is doing in terms of trade here? So I think what the administration is doing in terms of trade is experimenting. It's seeing how far it can push the US economy. It's seeing how far it can push US consumers and it's seeing how far it can push our trading partners. I don't think it really came in with a hard and fast plan, and this was true in the first Trump administration as well, although the path it has taken is very different. The second time know, when I sort of want to scope the magnitude of the various tariffs, I think the right way to do it is to think about the average tariff charged on US imports. For most of the past 20 years or so, it was around 1.5%. The first Trump administration came in, bumped it up to around 3% through those targeted trade initiatives in the name of national security. And then so it came in with the average tariff rate around 3% because the Biden administration preserved that. And then it went up into like the high 20s. And that was an never seen this before in the history of our country. And then I think I realized it went too far, and then backed off all the tariffs other than China and then eventually backed off the tar, the China tariff somewhat. So right now, I think it's basically experimenting with how far it can go on tariffs. But the experiment hasn't been working well. There's a lot of concerns around inflation. There's a lot of concerns around retaliation. There's a lot of concerns around corporate investment in the US. We can, we can unpack this if you like, but it's clear the Trump administration realized it went too far. Now, as someone that was in the trenches, uh with with President former President Biden, crafting various economic policies, how different is this administration's approach on trade compared to what your teams are working on? Oh, it couldn't have been more different. I mean, the Biden administration on trade effectively adopted the first Trump administration's approach on trade. It maintained a lot of the tariffs that were put in place, um, and didn't change many. Now in terms of things like, um,sanctions policy and uh what's known as economic statecraft. So basically trying to achieve foreign policy aims through economic measures. I think the Biden administration was more aggressive, but in terms of broad-based tariffs, I mean that was not something that the Biden administration wanted to do, know, I think that this the Trump administration has beenFairly aggressive in terms of its authority and right now you're seeing questions of whether or not it can actually levy broad-based tariffs like it has done working its way through the courts. We still don't know if it's legal or not. So it's not just a question of economic policy, but also legal policy. I just don't think the Biden administration was willing, was willing to push on those legal constraints as much as this Trump administration has. So night and day in terms of tariffpolicy. You mentioned at the top and the Trump administration is experimenting here on trade. Do you think it will be an experiment?That will go bad. And I bring this up, well really for a lot of different reasons, but I'm thinking about what Jamie Dimon, of course, JP Morgan's CEOs just said. He said, quote, the recent tariff of impact has yet to been been felt. What, what will the impact be? Oh, this experiment is gonna end very poorly.I mean, or, or the economics profession just should just pack its bags and go home. Because, I mean, we have spent, we economists have spent decades warning against this. We saw this in the 1930s with Smoot Hawley when there was another experiment and it led to a much worse recession than we needed in the the 1920s and 1930s than was necessary. But you've already seen it go badly. I mean, for a bunch of different reasons. So start talking about the negative effects of you get this price boost in inflation. The rule of thumb is, uh, every 1% point increase in the average tariff rate, you get a 0.1% increase in core PC inflation. So right now when we saw the average tariff rate go from around 3% up to uh around uh 16%, you're talking about a 1.3% this point increase in consumers will be paying more. That's a big problem. Second, uh, and we saw this with China, you get these retaliatory tariffs. And in the case of China, it wasn't just retaliatory tariffs, but also lessen access to critical minerals, which is just decimating for certain US industries. And so export market shrink, that's bad for US businesses is also weighed really heavily on consumer sentiment. Right now, surveys of consumer sentiment show we'reAround sort of this recession era like view on the economy, um, it's definitely caused a lot of concern among, among households and spending. um and you lead to this sort of general sense of uncertainty. I think business leaders, I spent a lot of time talking to business leaders, but it also shows up in surveys are basically just standing still in the face of this fantastic uncertainty. So as you see things likeM&A activity is way down. Corporate investment outside the front ring of tariffs is way down. And so overall, this is just a really harmful experiment and it's just unnecessary. It's a little unclear what the end goal is. Is the end goal to push manufacturing back in the United States? If that's the case, there areA lot less problematic ways to do it. You could kind of double down on the Biden administration approach where they use carrots and not sticks, you know, all these subsidies, particularly in the energy sector. But the end goal is kind of unclear. And so that makes it difficult to assess this tariff policy because we don't really know why it's being put in place in the first place. I knew I was talking to you, uh, and a week ago I was talking to the CFO of a Fortune 500 company, didn't want to be named, and I get it, but they said if tariffs go China, go back to 145%, this country will be seeing close to uh in a range of about 20% to 30% inflation. And I made a note because at the time, like, holy cow, I mean, I've never seen anything like that, but from an economist standpoint, is that what we would be looking at here? Because there's no guarantee these 30% tariffs on China stay in place and they don't go back up. Yeah, so it's really different if we're gonna have these high tariffs on one country, even if it's a country that's a massive trading power like China, then if we have them across the board on all countries. And the reason why you saw markets freak out on liberation Day was because there was no release valve. And so for coming in with 30% China, like we have right now. A lot of that impact gets dissipated through what some people call a bank shot. So basically China taking its goods, shipping it to countries like Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, a lot in Southeast Asia. You know, those countries might slap.I don't know, a new logo on the good, just these really incremental changes, and then it can can come into the US at much lower tariff rates. If you're gonna have 50% tariffs on Vietnam and similar tariffs on Cambodia and Laos, there's no release so what we have now is in spirit, but not in scope, a very similar approach to what we saw in the first Trump administration, which are China focused tariffs. And there is this release valve, so the economic impact won't be quite as strong as as we saw in Liberation Day. If we go back to Liberation Day tariffs, a recession is virtually that's why you saw the S&P and other metrics just fall so so quickly. Um, but if we're just focused on China, it means a higher tax rate for consumers, it means, you know, less opportunities for exporting for consumers, um, sorry, less opities for exporting for US uh US businesses, but it isn't nearly as harmful as we saw in in inApril. Is there, if tariffs stay at the levels they are now, is that recession still guaranteed? I mean, uh, you, you're gonna see slower economic activity. Consumers will have less money. There's been a lot of different estimates of the, you know, per household cost of the tariffs. It's probably around a few $1000 for a middle class family that will slow consumption that will push us closer towards stagflation because not only are you getting this slowdown in consumption, but you're also getting the higher prices that are attributed to tariffs, I don't think it's a guaranteed recession, and you see this with the forecasters. A lot of the forecasters were saying post liberation Day, 50%, 60, 70% chance of recession. I think that's receded to around 30 to 40% now, so still precarious but not a guaranteed recession. What is that? What is that first real economic reportban whereYou say, wow, tariffs are really starting to hurt the economy, because right now they, you know, you get a weak consumer sentiment report, it hasn't really shown up in CPI. I would guess agree with Jamie Dimon, investors are perhaps being a little complacent on what's going on here with tariffs. Like, what's the one or two reports that you're, you're gonna be like, wow, OK, inflation is here, and I guess I should have taken this seriously a couple weeks ago. Yeah, that's, that's a great question. So the standard answer would have been, well, we're going to look at the unemployment report, uh, we're gonna see if this starts showing up in labor markets. Our company is laying off workers, you know, then the household would go ahead and start spending less, um, and then we'd also watch consumption closely. This time around, I'm watching business investment much more closely than I usually would if businesses are just failing to invest, that also means they're not gonna want to hire. Uh, that means they'll be very reluctant to raise wages. And so this could be kind of a unique recession that is kicked off by lack of business investment that leads to less consumption, not the other way around. So I'm watching the the investment numbers really closely in the last GDP report when the economy contracted by 0.3%.Um, you did see some evidence of front running on business investment. So businesses want to get ahead of the, the tariffs, so they're purchasing equipment and other things that might get tariffs in advance. I'm really curious to see the next GDP report to see if we're going to see that depressed business investment, because for me that's kind of the thing that kicks off this recession if one's going to happen. And Ben, you know, I, I would love to get your thoughts on this. What has raised, I guess, alarm bells for know, I talked to Walmart CFO right after their earnings, uh, a couple of days ago. So, Brian, we're gonna raise prices, and in some cases might be up double digits. Uh, and now this all might happen starting at the end of May. Uh, what is the impact, I guess, to the low income consumer if the world's largest retailers hiking prices double digits because of tariffs? Yeah, so someone might think I might say, oh, higher prices are the worst outcome and and that that's far from the worst outcome. The worst outcome for the consumer are shortages. And so we've got this economist at Brookings named uh Marta Wasinta, and she does a lot of work on the pharmaceutical industry and what she has pointed out is if we're talking about branded drugs, you might see these price increases, but there's a high enough uh profit margin built in there where there wouldn't be the real concern for tariffs on pharmaceuticals, and this is just one example, are that for the generics, the margins are so low that you might start seeing shortages in in in medicine. I mean, that is, that's a worst case scenario as you can get, uh, and every consumer, um, you know, also either has a worker in their household or, you know, maybe depends on on a worker in some way or so if these tariffs start leading to layoffs, uh, we've been very fortunate in the past 5 or 6 years. We've had very low unemployment coming out of the recession or maybe the past 3 or 4 years. Um, you know, if you see this sort of bleeding into the labor market, that's awful news for consumers as well. All right, hanging with us, uh, Ben, we're gonna go off for a quick break. We'll be back, we'll be right back on opening right. Welcome back to Opening bid sponsored by our friends over at Vanguard, having a great chat here with Ben Harris, VP and director of Economic studies at the Brookings Institution. And Ben, I know I'm gonna get these comments out there on social media, so I'll put this to you now. Is there anything that you like that the Trump administration is doing on the economy? To be fair, I mean, they are moving very quick, uh, a lot of folks don't agree with what they're doing on tariffs. I mean, you're painting a scenario where the economy could get really hit, but is there something in there, you said, OK, you know what, maybe that's all right. Yeah, so let me give you 3 things, because I don't want to come off like a partisan hack here. And uh the first thing that I think that they're doing right, and it manifested in a really ugly way was that they're taking a hard look at government is a lot of inefficiency in the federal government. Now, the right way to go about it would have been to lean into the auditing function. We've got a massive government accountability office. There are there are inspector generals that virtually every agency, uh, Congress should have played a big role in deciding what spending was efficient and what wasn't. So I'm a fan of the Doge effort. They just leaned itto billionaire Alma. They they leaned it to Elon. Let Elon do it. He's fine. He donated a lot of money. Yeah, I mean, like Elon, Elon probably understands the automotive market. He does not understand government service. And so while I think that Doge was a tragedy, I think that the Trump administration rightly identified government waste is something which we should take second thing that I think it's done well is, and we haven't even started talking about the reconciliation bill yet, which is going to be massive going forward for the rest of the year, was that it did put in place a bunch of incentives in the reconciliation package for the corporate sector to start investing now. And it needs that to offset the negative impacts of its uh tariff policies. So the fact that you can now write off investment and investment in uh in structures faster than you could before is good news for the US economy. So I guess cheers for the Trump administration for putting those provisions in. Also on trade policy, I thought that in the first Trump administration, they did a good job of identifying a general strategy for addressing some of the problems in the trading relationship we have with other countries, namely these agency level investigations that take place either atCommerce or US Trade Representative's office that looks at possible trade violations by other countries and then puts in place a reasonable reaction to that trade, uh, you know, misdeed by our partners. And so it took the right approach, the first administration, I think eventually it's going to get back to that because it's going to realize how problematic the tariffs were, but it's going to take a long time to get there. So that was more sort of complimenting the first Trump but you know, there's, there's a lot of problematic things that are going on, including a particular reconciliation bill. I'm happy to talk about that if you like. Well, I want to get to the tax bill or the big beautiful tax bill, as President Trump calls it. I look at some numbers that the Joint Committee on Taxation put out. This, the, the extending the tax cuts alone could cost or cost 3.7%.$1 trillion and I think back to Moody's now cutting the US credit rating. I think back to what uh Ray Dalio, Ray Dalio told me earlier in the year on, you know, his concern about the outlook for treasury as we pile on more debt. Like, Ben, where is this day of reckoning, you know, we, you, you and I, I think are around the same edge. We've been hearing it for the past 20 years or so, is this the moment, is this tax bill create that moment, the day of reckoning for treasuries and the economy and trust in our in our credit? Yeah, I, I don't know if we're gonna have a day of reckoning or a decade of reckoning. And so I don't know if it's gonna happen slowly or if it's gonna happen quickly. It seemed, if you're looking back over the past month that there were times when it might happen quickly, you saw these sort of overnight spikes in the tenure, and I think that what we've done.I mean, I could talk for three hours about problems with our debt markets, but what we've done is we've surrendered to a certain extent control over the US economy to foreign central banks and foreign investors. So we've got this $30 trillion debt market for US Treasury, about a third of that, so $10 trillion are held by foreigners, about half of that are held by foreign investors, uh, official foreign investors like central banks. What we're starting to see hints capital flight from the US. Now, mostly that's been happening in government debt markets. It's been happening to a lesser extent in equities, but basically it's not just that foreign consumers are losing a taste for US goods. I'm less concerned about that. What I'm really concerned about is that foreign investors don't want to put money in the US anymore. What that means is that if we have to rely on American investors to service our that means we're going to have to have a higher interest rate. And so if you start seeing that interest rate creep up towards 5% on the 10 year or even 6% or higher, that means we're crowding out all this other productive investment. People are putting money in treasuries instead of putting money in corporate investment instead of putting money in the stock and that's just awful news for the US over time. And so there's this sort of slow drag on the US economy, which is virtually guaranteed if we're going to take on $4 trillion.06 trillion dollars in debt like we're about to do with this reconciliation package. But the real threat, the real threat is that this could spark some sort offiscal crisis and that could happen if we get to a debt ceiling where you start seeing default on Treasury securities that could happen if we lose, if investors lose faith in the independence of the Fed. That could happen if you see really stark shifts from foreign central banks away from treasuries, like some sort of official proclamation that we're not going to buy US Treasuries anymore. And then other investors don't want to hold them because the market for selling those treasuries goes down. So the real concern is thatThis happens in a matter of weeks rather than in a matter of years, and we get this blow up in the, you know, in the financial markets. Ben, you mentioned, uh, default risk real quick. What's the probability that this country defaults on its debt? Is it way less than 25% or is it crept up higher after this Moody's downgrade? I mean, the stock market took all this in stride, but from my perspective, I, when Moody's downgrades your credit rating, even though it's to be expected, uh, that's a red flag. That's a red flag. It'sYou know, the way that I think about it is that there's a lot of risk in investing in treasuries, but default for US Treasury has not been one of those risks. So investors probability default is being zero. If you buy a US Treasury, there might be inflation risks, there might be currency risks. There are other types of risks, but you're going to get paid on that asset. If we go from a 100% chance of getting paid on your treasury to 99.8% chance of getting paid on Treasury, that is a massive shift. This is no longer a risk-free asset. This is a risky asset in terms of default risk. And umYou know, that just, that just makes our whole fiscal outlook that much worse. We have to pay more for our debt, which then kind of exacerbates our, our debt imbalance. Um, so, you know, you're finally starting to see more and more attention getting paid to this. It has implications for credit card rates as implications for mortgage rates. Um, it is, I think, probably the biggest threat to the US economy in terms of actual the only reason we would default is if there was a political misstep. I mean, we are the richest country on earth and there are plenty of assets to pay the coupon payments and the principal on US debt. It would have to be a deliberate decision by policymakers to default on our debt, and I cannot imagine a worse decision than that one. Leslie, Ben, we always ask our guests in the last few minutes of the podcast for their hot take. And my question for you is this on, on this front, you worked on a lot of different things inside the Biden administration on the economy. What was the one thing that surprised you about the US economy as you crafted a lot of plans and talked to a lot of leaders? Well, that's, that's a great question. Uh, it was a, I mean it was a wild time. I, I got sworn in hours after President Biden was sworn in virtually on a screen just like this. Um, in terms of what surprised me, I think that we were all surprised by the persistence of inflation. Now, there's a debate in economics as far as what caused that inflation.I think any sort of credible analysis has to point to the bulk of that rise in inflation being to this like once in a 100 year supply shock where people were literally not leaving their houses, ships weren't on the water, factories were, weren't running, and that run up in inflation wasLargely but not exclusively attributed to supply shocks. But that surprised me. You know, I think that I wouldn't have been surprised by 34, maybe even 5% inflation. But the fact that we're getting up to 7, 8%, sometimes even higher for the CPI, you know, that, that really surprised me. And, and I think we probably would have recommended different things if I knew that was coming. Um, but, you know, certainly don't expect a once in a 100 year spike in inflation. We should note, uh, myself nor Ben had anything to do with egg price inflation. We'll leave it there. How to get that, how to get that in. Ben, how to get it in? Because I'm gonna get it on X. Uh, Ben Harris, uh, VP and director of Economic studies at the Brookings Institution, uh, big fan of your work. Uh, please do. Let's, uh, let's keep in touch right, that's it for the latest episode of Opening bid. Continue to hit us with all of those likes and thumbs up on all the podcast platforms. Wait, the thumbs up on YouTube, thumbs up on YouTube, and of course, uh opening bids sponsored by our friends at Vanguard. Talk to you soon. For full episodes of Opening Bid, listen on your favorite podcast platform or watch on our website. Yahoo Finance's Opening Bid is produced by Langston Sessoms Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Nvidia rival Groq makes a bold prediction on what's next for AI
Listen and subscribe to Opening Bid on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music, YouTube or wherever you find your favorite podcasts. The next big breakthrough in AI could be one that channels the spirit of famed scientist Albert Einstein. "The problem is that large language models [LLMs] make mistakes. And they're always going to make mistakes, but they're going to make fewer and fewer. At some point, they'll make so few mistakes you can use it in medicine, you can use it in law," Groq founder and CEO Jonathan Ross said on Yahoo Finance's Opening Bid podcast (watch above; listen-only below). This embedded content is not available in your region. Ross said the ability of AI models to invent is among the next wave coming, and it's likely to happen within his lifetime. Currently, LLMs tend to pick the most probable answer to questions, which precludes them from discovering something new. "And if it's the most obvious, it's not going to be good writing. It's not going to be good science. It's not going to invent something for you. It's not going to invent a drug that isn't known. That's what we're working on next. Invention is next," Ross explained. While at Google (GOOG, GOOGL), Ross designed the custom chips that the tech giant would go on to use for training its AI models. Today, Ross has a ground-floor view into how LLMs are likely to continue to evolve in the years ahead. Groq makes what it calls language processing units (LPUs). These LPUs are designed to make large language models run faster and more efficiently than Nvidia's (NVDA) GPUs, which target training LLMs. By making them run faster and more efficiently, Groq's chips can help LLMs on their road to becoming inventive rather than just using reasoning, as ChatGPT and other chatbots do today. Groq's last capital raise came in August 2024, when it raised $640 million from companies including BlackRock (BLK) and Cisco (CSCO). The company's valuation at the time stood at $2.8 billion, a fraction of Nvidia's more than $3 trillion market cap. It currently clocks in at $3.5 billion, according to Yahoo Finance's private markets data. Three times each week, Yahoo Finance Executive Editor Brian Sozzi fields insight-filled conversations and chats with the biggest names in business and markets on Opening Bid. You can find more episodes on our video hub or watch on your preferred streaming service. Brian Sozzi is Yahoo Finance's Executive Editor. Follow Sozzi on X @BrianSozzi, Instagram, and LinkedIn. Tips on stories? Email
