wsj.com All Podcasts
What’s News
SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2025
11/9/2025 6:00:00 AM
Share This Episode
Amazon and Netflix Are Winning: Can Old-School Media Compete?
This week we’re bringing you an episode of our sister podcast WSJ’s Take On the Week, a weekly show focused on the news that’ll move markets in the week to come. In this week's episode, guest host Miriam Gottfried is joined by Michael Nathanson and Robert Fishman, senior media analysts at MoffettNathanson, to break down the potential Paramount Skydance and Warner Discovery merger. Plus, co-host Telis Demos and Miriam discuss the Supreme Court case challenging President Trump’s reciprocal tariffs, how the affordability message is winning elections, and the recent drama in the private credit market.
Further Reading
Warner Discovery Moving Fast on Split or Sale, CEO Says
Supreme Court Appears Skeptical of Trump’s Tariffs
Wall Street Couldn’t Stop Mayor Mamdani. Now It Has to Work With Him.
Private-Credit Earnings Ease Investor Concern Over Asset Class’s Health
Full TranscriptThis transcript was prepared by a transcription service. This version may not be in its final form and may be updated.
Speaker 1: Hey listeners, it's Sunday, November 9th. This is What's News Sunday. And for this week's show, we've got an episode of WSJ's Take On the Week. It's our weekly show focused on the news that'll move markets in the week to come. We thought you'd like this episode on one of the biggest business stories right now. Paramount Skydance's bid to buy Warner Brothers Discovery. It also digs into other media mergers, streaming and tech, mega deals for sports broadcast rights, and plenty more. So, give it a listen. And if you like what you hear, subscribe to WSJ's Take on the Week wherever you're listening to us.
Telis Demos: Welcome back to another episode of WSJ's Take On the Week. I'm Telis Demos.
Miriam Gottfried: And I'm Miriam Gottfried.
Telis Demos: Well, we've got a big episode this week. Our main conversation is about, well, our own business, the media. A lot going on.
Miriam Gottfried: A lot going on, a lot of drama.
Telis Demos: But first, we've got a few hot topics to cover. A lot happening in the news this week and a lot coming up. We've got Donald Trump versus the Supreme Court. We've got Mayor Mamdani. And we've got, as always, especially when you're here, Miriam, private credit.
Miriam Gottfried: One of my favorite topics.
Telis Demos: More to talk about there. All right, Supreme Court. Well, of course, the president, well, the president's lawyers were in court to defend the president's use of a certain tariff power, the IEEPA or IEEPA, which I'm sure all of you know...
Miriam Gottfried: IEEPA.
Telis Demos: IEEPA, which all of you know, of course, stands for the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which is one of the ways that he used to create the reciprocal tariffs.
Miriam Gottfried: Basically, by declaring that we were in a state of emergency and that was what gave him the power under this law to enact these tariffs, which would typically be the role of Congress.
Telis Demos: And so, now it's all the way to the Supreme Court. And it sounded like it didn't go great for the President this past week. The way that our Supreme Court reporters here at the journal described it was that they seemed skeptical that the President is able to use the powers to act as aggressively as he did with terror.
Miriam Gottfried: Yeah, a number of even Trump appointed justices seemed skeptical of this argument, of the government's argument. So, that means it maybe isn't looking good for Trump in this case. And the question is, what does that mean?
Telis Demos: What our reporters have said is that typically when the government is found to have illegally taken money from somebody, the court orders to give it back. Normally, of course, we don't pay too much attention to the intricacies of trade law, but in this case, there's the fiscal question of whether or not the US government would actually have to be ordered to give back, the billions and billions of dollars that had collected in tariffs. And then there's the question for the stock market of whether companies that had been impacted by tariffs will no longer be impacted by tariffs.
Miriam Gottfried: Which has been one of the main narratives this year in the stock market.
Telis Demos: And the huge, really, really the big story in the stock market this year. But that said, even if President Trump does ultimately lose this case, there are other authorities that President Trump can use to impose tariffs. For example, there's section 122. I won't get into the super details of it, but that basically will allow tariffs of up to 15% for 150 days to address trade imbalances, which one of our reporters, Gavin Bade, wrote that that would give time for Trump to devise individualized tariffs for trading partners under a different provision, section 301. So, basically, tariffs wouldn't go away. They might just come back in some other form.
Miriam Gottfried: But tell us, what this all boils down to is more uncertainty for corporate America. I mean, if you're a company that's been subject to these tariffs and now they may or may not be going away, and there may or may not be another set of tariffs that could be put in their place, you really don't know. And what does that mean for your stock price and what does that mean for your ability to plan? I think uncertainty is the enemy here if you are a publicly traded company.
Telis Demos: Yeah. But is it though, because here we are at or near all time highs for the stock market and the companies have been living with this uncertainty for some time. It seems that the market maybe has moved on and that this uncertainty isn't holding people back the way it was.
Miriam Gottfried: I don't know. I think the uncertainty is holding people back, but people don't know whether to react positively or negatively to these particular tariffs being removed. Let's say, things are leaning toward Trump losing this case, this argument. What does that mean? We still don't really know because as you said, there could be another set of tariffs. So, should I sell my stocks? Should I buy stocks?
Telis Demos: That's true.
Miriam Gottfried: I don't really know.
Telis Demos: And of course, there's all other layers of uncertainty that are coming in to focus right now, which is what happened in politics elsewhere, which was we had some elections. We had, of course, the New York City Mayoral race, Zohran Mamdani won. We had a couple of other closely watched races too. We've got the governor's races in New Jersey and Virginia. Democrats took those races and we had Proposition 50 in California past, which means that Democrats are able to redraw some of the congressional maps there and likely pick up some congressional seats in the next time around. So, what does it mean for the market if indeed Democrats are succeeding, maybe going to be strong in these midterms? And what is the message that they have for Americans? What's helping them right now?
Miriam Gottfried: I think the unifying message across all of the candidates who won was affordability. Once again, as our colleagues have written, the economy was front and center as it always is. And inflation, which has been a big thing that we've talked about on this podcast was a big focus, I think, for these candidates. Daily life is unaffordable. That was something that Mamdani drilled home. His campaign platform was all tied to affordability in the city, and that was a winning argument. And of course, that was part of how President Trump got elected by saying, "Biden was responsible for all of the inflation and I can get us out of that."
Telis Demos: Live by the sword, die by the sword-
Miriam Gottfried: Exactly.
Telis Demos: ... for Republicans, right? They've got to be wary of these inflation and cost of living.
Miriam Gottfried: I mean, it just shows that a lot of it isn't really within the control of politicians, probably.
Telis Demos: I was watching the market the day after the New York City Mayor race, and a bunch of banks who are lenders into the New York City rent regulated market. Of course, Mamdani has promised to freeze the rent. Meaning, that he will not allow rent regulated, rent stabilized apartments rents to go up. In theory, of course, that's bad for landlords and bad for their lenders, but the stocks of several of these banks were actually up the next day. And the shares of one of the largest apartment developers, one of the largest apartment real estate investment trusts, which again, has rent regulated properties in New York, their shares were up a little bit too.
Miriam Gottfried: Some drama in the market that I cover in the past couple weeks, the alternative asset managers, also known as the private equity and credit firms. When Blackstone reported earnings, even though it beat earnings, its shares fell because people were really worried about the health of the private credit market and private credit has become a very big business for Blackstone. That narrative seems to have changed throughout the course of the earnings cycle. Over the weeks, as more and more of these lenders started reporting earnings and continued to beat the drums saying that recent bankruptcies tied to first brands and a subprime lender called Tricolor or Tricolor, however you choose to pronounce it, that these bankruptcies were isolated incidents. They didn't really have to do with the thing that we normally call private credit, that their businesses were still healthy, there's no major crisis going on. And as executive by executive continued to repeat this mantra, people seemed to maybe buy it a little bit more. And we saw an improvement in their stock price performance after earnings. By the time Apollo reported, people were cheery about it, although there were other factors in that Apollo report too.
Telis Demos: Yeah. Although Jamie Diamond scared everybody earlier this cycle when he talked about cockroaches in reference to recent corporate bankruptcies that were scaring everybody about what other disasters could lurk. But despite that, we haven't seen a wave of increased defaults for any of these markets yet. Now, maybe there's still things bubbling under the surface, but at some point, does the greed factor kick in for the market and overcome the fear factor that, okay, maybe there are some cockroaches, but maybe that these things won't derail what has ultimately been this huge wave of money coming into the private markets in search of yield and alternative forms of credit and things like that. The AI boom will continue to fuel all of this. And okay, so we have to smoosh a couple of cockroaches and then move on, right?
Miriam Gottfried: Well, and I think there's also this idea that stocks are at all time highs. And our colleague, Spencer Jakob wrote a very well-read column about how a very important metric, the Shiller PE ratio is indicating that stocks are not going to really give us that much over the next few years in terms of returns. So, people are looking for alternatives and there's an argument to be made that maybe private credit could be one of those alternatives. And that's an argument that Apollo made too. So, I think that's an interesting theory. We'll see if that pans out.
Telis Demos: Obviously, another thing powering these alternative asset managers will be the improved deal making environment. We're seeing a lot more M and A lot more deals taking place. People predicted that earlier this year. It finally seems to be landing now. That could be good for these managers too. So, that's, I think, something to really watch with them.
Miriam Gottfried: And speaking of deal making, that relates to our big conversation today, which is about media consolidation, specifically the possible deal between Paramount Skydance and Warner Discovery, and what else might happen to Warner Discovery if that deal doesn't happen.
Telis Demos: Well, I'm glad we're doing this because I know even though I work in the media biz, I lose track of who owns what these days. For example, I learned recently when CBS News was in the news itself, who owns them? Which of the firms owns them?
Miriam Gottfried: Paramount Skydance owns CBS.
Telis Demos: Okay. But then CNN is owned by?
Miriam Gottfried: Warner Discovery.
Telis Demos: Okay, great. So, they could in theory be part of the same company at some point?
Miriam Gottfried: Yeah. I mean, wouldn't that be quite a convergence?
Telis Demos: Well, that's wild stuff.
Miriam Gottfried: And joining us remotely for this episode to talk about that are Michael Nathanson, senior analyst from MoffettNathanson and his colleague, Robert Fishman, also a senior analyst at Moffitt Nathanson. These guys are both longtime media analysts. They've been following this industry forever, and they say that this is potentially the very last stage in the long history of media consolidation.
Telis Demos: Yeah, you recorded this interview earlier this week, and I've been excited to hear it ever since. So, let's get to it.
Miriam Gottfried: That's coming up in a bit. We are here with our guests, Michael Nathanson, senior research analyst and founder of MoffettNathanson and Robert Fishman, senior research analyst, MoffettNathanson. Good to have you guys.
Michael Nathanson: Good to be here.
Robert Fishman: Thanks for having us.
Miriam Gottfried: So, the biggest story in media right now is what's going on at Paramount Skydance. Fresh off the merger that created this company, it's now trying to buy Warner Discovery, which is itself a product of a 2022 merger, and a deal to combine these two companies would create a media behemoth. Robert, what are Paramount Skydance and its CEO, David Ellison, trying to achieve with this merger?
Robert Fishman: I think the timing of when they're trying to do this signals, to me at least, that this was the plan all along. And the reason that they, I think, are pushing forward here is because they need to reach scale and scale in streaming specifically. Most of the media companies are trying to compete with Netflix now, who's already won in terms of the scale war and in terms of profitability. So, when you think about global scale, what I think Warner Brothers Discovery is looking to solve for Paramount is to get them closer to achieve that global scale ambition.
Miriam Gottfried: And that gets to the next question I wanted to ask you, which is the media business is facing a lot of stress right now from a variety of factors. We have the changing economics of streaming, the ongoing decline of the cable ecosystem and the rise of short form video sites like TikTok. What can consolidation and scale, as you said, do to change that?
Robert Fishman: So, in terms of the global scale, really what these media companies need to achieve is having that global subscriber base that allows you to spread all of this investment costs over a much larger base. And so, what they need from the scale, both in the US, if we want to start there, is the ability to better monetize the existing subscribers, both through subscription pricing, but also probably more importantly going forward, advertising. And as these ad dollars are shifting from the traditional linear ecosystem that you alluded to and going towards connected TV and different ways that the viewers are engaging with content today, that allows you to compete better for those ad dollars going forward, especially on a global basis when thinking about how these companies are looking to grow over the next five, 10 years.
Michael Nathanson: Yeah. Miriam, what's been the biggest change the past decade has been the advance of these really large tech companies who have enormous balance sheets, global reach. So, if you think about the people that are now competing with our coverage of media, it's the likes of Amazon, Amazon Prime, of course YouTube at Google, Netflix is a massive company. If you're a traditional media company, you have to get scale, scale of balance sheet, scale of cash flow, scale of cost-cutting. It is a different playing field than what Robert and I encountered when we started our careers 20 years ago. Things have flipped on its head. And in the days where we used to say international businesses and media were Australia, Canada, and the UK, because they spoke English, that's no longer true. And I think our companies, ours being the media companies that we started covering way back when, they've been slow to wake up to the fact that you need global scale in all markets of the world, at all price points, at all content types in order to compete longer term.
Miriam Gottfried: So, we should really start to be thinking about these media companies as competing with the big tech balance sheets in a lot of ways. I mean, that's a pretty high hurdle for them.
Michael Nathanson: I think it's incredibly high hurdle for them. I think as Robert and I talk about all the time, the media company's biggest strengths you'd say right now would be sports contracts that they've tied up for five to seven years. And library, they have great library, they have great IP. And I think Robert and I would agree that they're starting to chip away the tech companies at the sports rights, you're seeing that more and more. The harder part, Robert, has been, the tech company's not been able to build even Netflix, this recurring great library content. Yeah, they have Stranger Things, but that's a one-off. They don't have the IP that Disney or Warner's, Universal, Paramount would have.
Miriam Gottfried: So, it's still really an IP game, yeah for the media companies?
Robert Fishman: Yeah, I was going to go there too. So, in terms of sports, I mean, clearly the tech companies that Michael referenced are all looking at sports as this last critical IP to the traditional media ecosystem. And if they can disrupt that, that's like the next leg in terms of where traditional media has been holding onto as their last real asset to drive incremental advertising and to hold onto affiliate fee dollars as well. But if they lose control exclusively over the sports rights going forward, that's going to have another leg down in terms of the disruption that it's had on the traditional ecosystem. So, if you can bring the critical IP and franchises to the table and monetize that in both a streaming and non-streaming world, that's like the ultimate solution here to compete.
Michael Nathanson: And Miriam, to your first question, I think the market was telling us clearly that Paramount Global on its own and Warner Brothers Discovery on its own with the balance sheets that they had and their assets were not going to be long-term winners in this business.
Miriam Gottfried: So, in a way, it's almost like a race against time for Paramount Skydance to bulk up in some way to get there, it seems like. And Robert, given that we have Paramount Skydance reporting earnings coming up and given everything that's going on, what will investors be focused on in that report? I mean, are they just looking at the big picture or do they care about the actual numbers for the quarter?
Robert Fishman: Well, I think it's clear that the numbers for 3Q specifically are much less important in terms of the overall picture here, especially when thinking about the future of Paramount and what we're going to learn in terms of the plans, that this is really the first unveiling to Wall Street in terms of where they want to go with this. And it'll be interesting to hear how much we hear about consolidation as part of that plan. But even without consolidation, clearly Ellison and the whole Skydance team is thinking about the long term here. You've seen that through a lot of their early investments and they might be head scratching and try to have difficulty in terms of making the math work initially, thinking about the UFC deal as one example. But if they're thinking about this from a completely different perspective about the next, call it five, 10 years and not the next couple of years, I think that's what investors are probably looking for. How can you get returns on some of these initial investments?
Miriam Gottfried: Can you tell us a little bit more about the UFC deal for those who weren't following it?
Robert Fishman: Sure. So, ESPN had the rights to the UFC deal and basically, TKO who owns UFC took that to market and found a plus one bidder that was willing to pay in our perspective much higher than what the market suggested. And so, what it did was really signal to the market that Paramount is going to approach these investments in a very different way. Again, that might mean losing money initially, but I'm sure from Paramount's perspective, that if they can drive incremental subs on a combined basis, that can help offset the upfront losses.
Miriam Gottfried: So, making a splash here at the beginning, we'll see how that works out, I guess. I want to take a step back and zoom out a little bit. And I want to turn to you, Michael, because you've covered media for a really long time and you have been following the ins and outs of these companies for a long time. And they're really part of a long history of big media companies getting together, breaking apart again. And if you look back at history, have media deals, media tie-ups, yielded positive results for shareholders? Have they been a good thing for shareholders?
Michael Nathanson: Yeah. Thanks, Miriam. Thanks for saying that I'm old, but I appreciate that. Before I worked on Wall Street, I worked at a company called Time Warner, and Time Warner was poster child for big media tie-ups. If you remember in that time, these two companies merged, then they bought Turner and AOL, and that's always going to be my exhibit one of why these tie-ups may look great on paper and strategically make sense. They just don't work. So, I don't love seeing these massive tie-ups. I think what we've learned over the years, Robert and I, is that the small tuck-in deals like buying a Pixar, buying a Tubi, which what Fox did, like being strategic and investing in growing categories with entrepreneurial spirits, it's a better use of capital than just trying to find scale through M and A. You end up paying a big premium for businesses that really, at the end of the day, don't live up to the valuations that were paid.
Miriam Gottfried: Robert, what do you think about that? I mean, given that history, should Paramount investors be rooting for this merger? And what about Warner Discovery investors?
Robert Fishman: Well, from Warner Discovery investors, I think you're clearly rooting for these mergers, but from the Paramount side, as Michael was saying that, I was questioning to myself, is this time really going to be different because streaming is this X factor? And clearly from the linear media side, I think to Michael's point, we haven't seen a lot of success stories there. But for streaming, I would raise the question, is this almost a necessity? Again, back to the scale issue, these standalone streaming services can't compete on their own. So, I would argue it's almost a necessity that they have to come together. Let's look at discovery standalone before they merge with Warner Media. Clearly, that has not worked out well back to the Warner Brothers discovery investors, but at the same time, without it, Discovery standalone probably would've been even worse off, to be honest about it. So, if we think about what is a necessity versus where the end payoff is, those two answers might be pretty different.
Miriam Gottfried: Michael, after years of covering media, you now focus on big tech and as we've been talking about, these companies like Amazon and Apple and obviously Netflix are big players in the media game now. We know Netflix, it's a pretty focused company in terms of its strategy. But if I'm Apple or Amazon, what is my goal in media? What am I trying to achieve? And Warner Discovery has said that maybe some of its assets could be of interest to companies like that. What would they be possibly trying to buy?
Michael Nathanson: Okay. If you're Apple, I'm not sure what the answer to that question is. They've been making great content for a while here, but Apple is an enigma. I don't understand why they haven't gotten more aggressive in sports rights, why they haven't looked at other companies to buy when they had a chance. I don't think Apple knows what they want to do when it grows up in media. And their bigger challenge is really trying to build Siri to be next GenAI platform that people love. So, I'd be surprised if Apple broke thesis and went after media. Amazon, it's clear what they're doing, right? Their ad platform is growing like gangbusters, right? And they have basically focused more and more sports on Amazon Prime. They had to start the NFL, now they had the NBA this season. So, I think if you're Amazon, you're like, "Look, this is a way to disrupt the linear world, add premium content and drive ads through our platform. And we have all the first party data. We know what Miriam bought versus Robert. We have all this brand connectivity because we help brands sell more things than Amazon. Let's just find more surface areas to sell more advertising." So, I think their story is really tight and really complete. And I think we think that they're not going away anytime soon.
Miriam Gottfried: And going back to Warner Discovery, if they were truly interested in some of the assets, what assets might they be interested in?
Michael Nathanson: You have all the DC content. You have a great history of DC Comics. So, you could see more Batman, more Superman coming through Amazon globally. CNN, you want to add CNN? Robert, am I missing anything for the Amazon thesis of why Amazon would want to chase these guys?
Robert Fishman: Well, I think it comes down to that very valuable IP. I mean, we didn't touch on HBO, which obviously is one of the crown jewels there. So, HBO and Warner Brothers content, both on the TV side and on the theatrical side, what would be the reason that all of these other companies are going to at least look, right?
Michael Nathanson: Our colleague, Craig Moffett, covers Comcast. He's been a bit doubtful that Brian Roberts will find the regulatory approval necessary to buy these assets, and we'll see if Brian Roberts is able to horse trade to get a deal done. So, I'm not sure that Comcast is really out of this at this point.
Miriam Gottfried: Michael, if you could just tell us why Comcast NBCU might be interested in some of the Warner Discovery assets.
Michael Nathanson: There's a bunch of reasons. One is Peacock, you'd argue 41 million subs, not growing, no global footprint, is under scale, right? So, HBO and Peacock solves a Peacock problem, HBO is global. Universal Studios and Warners and NBC are all contiguous. Between Burbank and Universal City, they share footprint. You would build the most dynamic studio in the world by combining Universal and Warner's. That'd be pretty interesting. You also have all these sports rights one place, right? So, you have the NBA, which now Comcast has, the NHL and baseball. And also now Comcast is spinning at Versant, which is a cable network company, and they can take out a lot of capacity in cable by combining Versant and Warner Discovery's assets.
Miriam Gottfried: Right. Versant is basically all of the Comcast cable networks spun out into one separate company, right?
Michael Nathanson: Everything but Bravo-
Miriam Gottfried: But Bravo, okay.
Michael Nathanson: ... because Bravo works on Peacock. But yeah, to me, that's a much better fit in my view than Paramount.
Miriam Gottfried: So, Michael, let's say, this mega media company, which I'm going to lovingly call Paramount Skydance Warner Discovery, or until it gets a better name, gets created, what would that mean for the competitive landscape? I mean, if I'm Disney right now, for example, am I quaking in my boots at the thought that this could happen?
Michael Nathanson: I don't think you're quaking your boots, because what's going to happen here is that these companies will merge, there'll be more discipline on the types of content they invest in. Yes, they'll be bigger. They'll be afford maybe more expensive things, but at the end of the day, you will lose a competitor, right? Paramount or HBO will be merged into one. You'll lose a competitor. You won't be able to make as many films, because you're going to look to scale back your film investment, right? So, at the end of the day, I would say everyone who's in this industry will be better off by having another competitor, no doubt, scaled, but just less competition for weekends and for new content investments, right? So, I think it's really healthy for the incumbents to have this deal happen.
Miriam Gottfried: We're going to take a quick break and when we come back, we've got one more question. We are back with Michael Nathanson of MoffettNathanson. Michael, I used to cover media for Herd on the Street, so I was following a lot of this stuff. I've been doing it for a long time too, so you're not the only old one. Viacom split into Viacom and CBS, which later merged back together to create Paramount, which then merged with Skydance and now wants to merge with Warner Discovery. A decade from now, will we be talking about why these companies are breaking up again?
Michael Nathanson: Yeah, that was the original Sim, by the way. The breakup of the Viacom into two pieces was one of the dumbest things ever. We all knew it at the time and look how badly the Redstone family has done as investors because of it. But I think we're at the end. That's the sad part for me to truth be told. We're at the end. This is probably the last mega deal we will see. The cable network assets are the problem, not the broadcast asset, the cable networks, but that's going to be pushed off of people's balance sheets. And what's left will be studios, streaming, broadcast in some combination of that. And that's the end of it, Miriam. I go back to my Time Warner start now with the first mega conglomerate here, and I think we're almost done. That asset will no longer exist, sadly enough.
Miriam Gottfried: Wow, end of an era. Well, this has given me a lot to think about. I love talking about media. Maybe it's because I work in the media. Thank you so much for joining us, Michael Nathanson and Robert Fishman of MoffettNathanson.
Michael Nathanson: Our pleasure. Thanks for having us, Miriam.
Telis Demos: By the way, audience wanted to say that if you have a question on a hot news topic, we'd love to hear from you and we can answer your question in a future episode. We've mentioned some comments before on the show that we've seen on social media, so who knows, maybe yours could be next. Drop us an email at takeontheweek@wsj.com, and that's everything you need to know to take on your week. The show is produced by Anthony Bansie, Jessica Fenton and Michael LaValle, with additional support from Janna Herron. Michael LaValle and Jessica Fenton are our sound designers. Michael also wrote our theme music. Jessica Fenton is also our technical manager. Aisha Al-Muslim is our development producer. Chris Zinsli is our deputy editor and Philana Patterson is the head of news audio for The Wall Street Journal. For even more, head to wsj.com. I'm Telis Demos.
Miriam Gottfried: And I'm Miriam Gottfried. Until next time. Should we expect fewer streaming platforms or higher costs?
Robert Fishman: Yes. In 30 seconds or less as my dog's barking, hold on a second. Hold on, hold on. This is a crazy day.
Looking for more episodes? Find them wherever you listen to podcasts.
Subscribe
MORE WAYS TO LISTEN
HOSTED BY
Luke Vargas
Host, WSJ Podcasts, The Wall Street Journal
Alex Ossola
Host/Producer, The Wall Street Journal
SHARE THIS PODCAST
View All Podcasts
Customer Service Privacy Notice Cookie Notice© 2025 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. |
