Connect with us

Business

‘We are going to destroy jobs faster than we can replace them’: The CEO whose 80% stock plunge personified the dotcom bubble on AI’s impact

Published

on



Former Cisco Systems CEO John Chambers learned all about technology’s volatile highs and lows as a veteran of the internet’s early boom days during the late 1990s and the ensuing meltdown that followed the mania.

And now he is seeing potential signs of the cycle repeating with another transformative technology as a whirlwind of investments and excitement about artificial intelligence has propelled the stock market to new highs.

Chambers took a similarly meteoric ride in his early days running Cisco, which had a market value of about $15 billion in 1995, when networking equipment suddenly became must-have components for the buildup of the internet. The feverish demand briefly turned the firm into the world’s most valuable company — worth $550 billion in March 2000 — before the investment bubble burst. The crash caused Cisco’s stock price to plunge more than 80% during a period that Chambers still recalls as the worst of his career.

Cisco bounced back to deliver consistent financial growth to help establish Chambers as one of Silicon Valley’s most respected leaders before he stepped down as CEO in 2015, but company’s stock price has never approached the peak it reached a quarter century ago.

While remaining Cisco’s chairman emeritus, Chambers is now as fascinated by the AI’s transformative powers as he once was by the internet revolution. Only this time he is advising CEOs as a venture capitalist investing in AI startups rather than running a company himself. Chambers, 76, recently discussed the promise and perils of the AI boom with The Associated Press. The interview has been edited for clarity.

Q: Does the current AI mania remind you of the internet boom of the 1990s?

A: Absolutely. There are a lot of parallels but there are also some spectacular differences. AI is moving at five times the speed and will produce three times the outcomes of the internet age. In the internet age, a startup would develop products for two years and then in year three, they would take that out into the market. Today, AI startups develop the product in a month and sometimes in a week, and then they bring it to market in one or two quarters.

In the internet age, there was an irrational exuberance on a really large scale. In this AI one, there is a lot of tremendous optimism that does indicate a future bubble for certain companies. Is there going to be train wreck? Yes, for those that aren’t able to translate the technology into a sustainable competitive advantage, how are you going to generate revenue after all the money you poured into it?

Q: Do you think AI is going to eliminate a lot of jobs?

A: It happened with the internet. The problem this time is that if I am right about AI moving at five times the speed of the internet, we are going to destroy jobs faster than we can replace them. Will we be able to replace them over time? Yes, but there is going to be a drought while we have to re-educate lots of people.

Q: Does that worry you?

A: Big time!

Q: What do we need to be doing to be prepared for this upheaval?

A: We need to change education. Entry-level jobs, both white and blue collar, are going to disappear fast. We are creating more productivity, but we have to create more jobs as well. If companies start making more money, they are either going to increase the dividend or invest in new areas. Hopefully, the majority will invest in new areas to create new jobs.

You will see successful companies expand and grow dramatically, but you are probably going to see 50% of the Fortune 500 companies disappear and 50% of the executives of the Fortune 500 disappear. They won’t have the skills to adjust to this new innovation economy driven by AI because they were trained in silos they were trained to move at the speed of a five-year cycle as opposed to a 12-month cycle.

Q: Do you think this is one of the most uncertain times you have ever seen?

A: It’s the most uncertain time on a global basis, ever. I would argue that this is the new normal. With the speed the market is moving at now, you have to be able to reinvent yourself, which most CEOs and business leaders don’t know how to do, especially with AI.

Q: What’s your view of how Big Tech has been working with President Donald Trump during his second term in office?

A: Let’s be realistic. Silicon Valley moved right, there shouldn’t be any doubt. They did it for economic reasons. And practicality, they did it for their shareholders but also regulation was getting out of control. They weren’t able to grow and China was plainly beating us.

Q: How worried are you about China?

A: I think China has full intention to win at the U.S.’s expense. In China, there are no rules, there is no intellectual property, there are no issues about misusing the power. They intend to blow past militarily, economically, and in every other way. I do not view them as a partner, I view them as a serious competitor on all fronts and someone I don’t trust. I think over time people are going to recognize it’s in the U.S.’s best interest and it’s in China’s best interest for us to get along. So go out 10 years, and that’s the most likely outcome. But I think the next five years are going to be really bumpy and dangerous. We should have no illusions that they intend to crush us.

Fortune Global Forum returns Oct. 26–27, 2025 in Riyadh. CEOs and global leaders will gather for a dynamic, invitation-only event shaping the future of business. Apply for an invitation.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Trump slams Fed’s third-straight rate cut as ‘too small,’ saying he wishes it was twice as large

Published

on



The Federal Reserve reduced its key interest rate by a quarter-point for the third time in a row Wednesday but signaled that it may leave rates unchanged in the coming months.

The cut decreased the Fed’s rate to about 3.6%, the lowest it has been in nearly three years. Lower rates from the Fed can bring down borrowing costs for mortgages, auto loans, and credit cards over time, though market forces can also affect those rates.

Chair Jerome Powell suggested at a news conference that after six rate cuts in the past two years, the central bank can step back and see how hiring and inflation develop. In a set of quarterly economic projections, Fed officials signaled they expect to lower rates just once next year.

Fed officials “will carefully evaluate the incoming data,” Powell said, adding that the Fed is “well positioned to wait to see how the economy evolves.”

The chair also said that the Fed’s key rate was close to a level that neither restricts nor stimulates the economy, a significant shift from earlier this year, when he described the rate as high enough to slow the economy and quell inflation. With rates closer to a more neutral level, the bar for further rate cuts is likely higher that it was this fall.

“We believe the labor market will have to noticeably weaken to warrant another rate cut soon,” Ryan Sweet, global chief economist at Oxford Economics, said.

Three Fed officials dissented from the move, the most dissents in six years and a sign of deep divisions on a committee that traditionally works by consensus. Two officials voted to keep the Fed’s rate unchanged: Jeffrey Schmid, president of the Kansas City Fed, and Austan Goolsbee, president of the Chicago Fed. Stephen Miran, whom Trump appointed in September, voted for a half point cut.

December’s meeting could usher in a more contentious period for the Fed. Officials are split between those who support reducing rates to bolster hiring and those who’d prefer to keep rates unchanged because inflation remains above the central bank’s 2% target. Unless inflation shows clear signs of coming fully under control, or unemployment worsens, those divisions will likely remain.

“What you see is some people feel we should stop here and we’re in the right place and should wait, and some people think we should cut more next year,” Powell said.

A stark sign of the Fed’s divisions was the wide range of cuts that the 19 members of the Fed’s rate-setting committee penciled in for 2026. Seven projected no cuts next year, while eight forecast that the central bank would implement two or more reductions. Four supported just one. Only 12 out of 19 members vote on rate decisions.

President Donald Trump on Wednesday criticized the cut as too small, and said he would have preferred “at least double.” Trump could name a new Fed chair as soon as later this month to replace Powell when his term ends in May. Trump’s new chair is likely to push for sharper rate cuts than many officials will support.

Stocks jumped in response to the Fed’s move, in part because some Wall Street investors expected Powell to be more forceful in shutting down the possibility of future cuts. The broad S&P 500 stock index rose 0.7% and closed near an all-time high reached in October.

Powell was also optimistic about the economy’s growth next year, and said that consumer spending remains resilient while companies are still investing in artificial intelligence infrastructure. He also suggested growing worker efficiency could contribute to faster growth without more inflation.

Still, Powell said the committee reduced borrowing costs out of concern that the job market is even weaker than it appears. While government data shows that the economy has added just 40,000 jobs a month since April, Powell said that figure could be revised lower by as much as 60,000, which would mean employers have actually been shedding an average of 20,000 jobs a month since the spring.

“It’s a labor market that seems to have significant downside risks,” Powell told reporters. “People care about that. That’s their jobs.”

The Fed met against the backdrop of elevated inflation that has frustrated many Americans, with prices higher for groceries, rents, and utilities. Consumer prices have jumped 25% in the five years since COVID.

“We hear loud and clear how people are experiencing really high costs,” Powell said Wednesday. “A lot of that isn’t the current rate of inflation, a lot of that is e mbedded high costs due to higher inflations in 2022-2023.”

Powell said inflation could move higher early next year, as more companies pass tariff costs to consumers as they reset prices to start the year. Inflation should decline after that, he added, but it’s not guaranteed.

“We just came off an experience where inflation turned out to be much more persistent than anyone expected,” he said, referring to the spike in 2022. “Is that going to happen now? That’s the risk.”

The Fed’s policy meeting took place as the Trump administration moves toward picking a new Fed chair to replace Powell when his term finishes in May. Trump’s nominee is likely to push for sharper rate cuts than many officials may support.

Trump has hinted that he will likely pick Kevin Hassett, his top economic adviser. But on Wednesday, Trump said he would meet with Kevin Warsh, a former Fed governor who has also been on the short list to replace Powell.

Trump added that he wants someone who will lower interest rates. “Our rates should be the lowest rates in the world,” he said.

A government report last week showed that overall and core prices rose 2.8% in September from a year earlier, according to the Fed’s preferred measure. That is far below the spikes in inflation three years ago but still painful for many households after the big run-up since 2020.

Adding to the Fed’s challenges, job gains have slowed sharply this year and the unemployment rate has risen for three straight months to 4.4%. While that is still a low rate historically, it is the highest in four years. Layoffs are also muted, so far, as part of what many economists call a “low hire, low fire” job market.

The Fed typically keeps its key rate elevated to combat inflation, while it often reduces borrowing costs when unemployment worsens to spur more spending and hiring.

Powell will preside over only three more Fed meetings before he steps down. On Wednesday, he was asked about his legacy.

“I really want to turn this job over to whoever replaces me with the economy in really good shape,” he said. “I want inflation to be under control, coming back down to 2%, and I want the labor market to be strong.”

___

Associated Press Writers Collin Binkley and Alex Veiga in Los Angeles contributed to this report.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Coca-Cola names 30-year veteran Henrique Braun as new CEO

Published

on



Coca-Cola said Wednesday that its chief operating officer will become its next CEO in the first quarter of 2026.

The Atlanta beverage giant said its board elected Henrique Braun as CEO effective March 31. James Quincey, Coke’s current chairman and CEO, will transition to executive chairman of the company.

Braun, 57, has worked at Coca-Cola for three decades. Prior to assuming the COO role earlier this year, he led operations in Brazil, Latin America, Greater China and South Korea. He has held positions overseeing Coke’s supply chain, new business development, marketing, innovation, general management and bottling operations.

Braun was born in California and raised in Brazil. He holds a bachelor’s degree in agricultural engineering from the University Federal of Rio de Janeiro, a master of science degree from Michigan State University and an MBA from Georgia State University.

David Weinberg, Coca-Cola’s lead independent director, called Quincey, 60, a “transformative leader” who will continue to remain active in the business.

During Quincey’s nine years as CEO, Coke added more than 10 additional billion-dollar brands, including BodyArmor and Fairlife. He also brought Coke into the alcoholic drink market with Topo Chico Hard Seltzer, which went on sale in 2021.

In 2020, Quincey led a restructuring that reduced Coke’s brands by half and laid off thousands of employees. Quincey said Coke wanted to streamline its structure and focus its investments on fast-growing products like its Simply and Minute Maid juices.

But as Quincey steps down as CEO, Coke is facing numerous challenges, including tepid demand for its products in the U.S. and Europe and increasing customer scrutiny of its ingredients. This summer, after a nudge from President Donald Trump, Coke said it would release a version of its trademark Cola with cane sugar instead of high-fructose corn syrup.

Weinberg said the board is confident that Braun will build on the company’s strengths and seek out growth opportunities globally.

Coke shares were flat in after-market trading.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Warner Bros. merger fight draws fire across U.S. political divide

Published

on



The battle for Warner Bros. Discovery Inc. has already lit a fire in Hollywood, with unions decrying the potential job losses, theaters sounding an alarm about the future of film releases and actors worrying about free speech. 

Now, the debate over which company will end up owning Warner Bros. — Netflix Inc. or Paramount Skydance Corp. — is carving up the country along political lines.

In Republican circles, it’s become fashionable to root against Netflix. Paramount is run by David Ellison, who has close ties to the White House and whose bid for Warner Bros. is backed by Jared Kushner, son-in-law of President Donald Trump. Some prominent Democrats, on the other hand, are voicing objections to the Paramount bid, crying foul over the $24 billion that’s coming from Middle East sources.

President Trump added drama on Wednesday when he said that any deal for Warner Bros. should include the sale of its CNN cable news network.

“It should be guaranteed that CNN is part of it or sold separately,” he said. The network is run by “a very dishonest group of people.”

Warner Bros. and Paramount declined to comment. Netflix didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Few mergers in recent memory have been as polarizing at the battle for Warner Bros., which combines the glamour of Hollywood, the influence of TV news, foreign intrigue tied to Middle Eastern funds and the specter of White House favoritism.

Trump’s comment triggered even more uncertainty. He had previously raised antitrust concerns about Netflix buying Warner Bros.

After a months-long auction, Warner Bros. agreed last week to sell its studios and streaming business, including HBO, to Netflix for $27.75 a share. Under the Netflix deal, Warner Bros. would move forward with its plan to spin off its cable networks, including CNN and TNT, into a separate company called Discovery Global.

Paramount, which kicked off the sale process by making several unsolicited offers for the company, responded on Dec. 8 by launching a $30-a-share hostile tender offer for all of Warner Bros., including the cable networks.

Paramount released a letter to shareholders on Wednesday reiterating that its offer is superior and more likely to win approval in Washington. 

Ellison has spoken publicly about having a good relationship with the Trump administration. His father Larry Ellison, the cofounder of Oracle Corp. and world’s second-richest person, is a Trump ally. 

Still, Trump hasn’t fully endorsed Paramount’s bid. He bashed the company on Monday over a 60 Minutes interview with Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, who has become a vocal critic of the president. He also said that neither Netflix nor Paramount “are particularly great friends of mine.” 

Other politicians have been much clearer about who they’re rooting against in the bidding war.

In November, Republican Congressman Darrell Issa of California wrote a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi asking whether a Netflix deal with Warner Bros. would give the streaming leader too much market power.

“Netflix is already the dominant streaming platform in the United States and permitting it to absorb a major competitor raises antitrust concerns that could result in a harm to consumers,” Issa wrote.

Democratic Representatives Sam Liccardo of California and Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts sent a letter to Warner Bros. CEO David Zaslav on Wednesday raising concerns about the participation of foreign investors in Paramount’s bid, which includes backing from sovereign wealth funds in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Abu Dhabi. 

“These investors, by virtue of their financial position or contractual rights, could obtain influence — direct or indirect — over business decisions that bear upon editorial independence, content moderation, distribution priorities, or the stewardship of Americans’ private data,” the lawmakers wrote. 

Like many in Hollywood, Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts would prefer no sale at all. She called Paramount’s offer a “five-alarm antitrust fire” on Monday after previously branding Netflix’s bid as an “anti-monopoly nightmare.”

Within the pro-Trump MAGA-verse, influencers and media commentators called on Trump to block a Netflix-Warner Bros. deal. Conservative commentator Laura Loomer zeroed in on Netflix’s ties to former President Barack Obama and his wife Michelle. They signed a deal with the company in 2018.

“If Netflix is allowed to buy Warner Bros. and Trump’s administration doesn’t kill off the merger, CNN will be transformed into the Obama News Network, featuring shows hosted by Michelle Obama @MichelleObama where she lectures Americans about how racist and sexist we are,” Loomer wrote on X

Right-wing podcaster Benny Johnson said combining Netflix with Warner Bros.’ streaming and studios asset would be “the most dangerous media consolidation in American history” and deliver “a monopoly on children’s entertainment” to “the Democrat super-donors that run Netflix.”

Former US Representative Matt Gaetz, who was previously nominated for attorney general by Trump before withdrawing, wrote “TRUMP MUST STOP THIS!” in a post on X shortly after the Netflix deal was announced.

“The most massive content distributor lashing to a massive content producer / catalog will create a homogenized, woke nightmare for the media landscape,” he wrote.

For Hollywood, much of the focus has been on how each deal would impact an industry already facing job losses, production cuts and the threat of artificial intelligence. 

With Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos previously deeming the experience of going to a movie theater to be “outdated,” some in the industry are concerned his company’s takeover of Warner Bros.’s streaming business would spell disaster for theater chains and film production. 

Michael O’Leary, CEO of movie theater trade group Cinema United, said in a statement last week that the Netflix deal “poses an unprecedented threat to the global exhibition business.”

“Netflix’s stated business model does not support theatrical exhibition,” he wrote. “In fact, it is the opposite.”

The Producer’s Guild of America urged protection for producers’ livelihoods and theatrical distribution. 

“Our legacy studios are more than content libraries – within their vaults are the character and culture of our nation,” the guild said.

Actress Jane Fonda spoke out against the Netflix deal last week calling it “an alarming escalation of the consolidation that threatens the entire entertainment industry, the democratic public it serves and the First Amendment itself.”

Other creatives commented on how the consolidation might affect consumers. In a skit from Morning Brew’s YouTube Channel Good Work, a movie viewer starts to stream a film at home, only to be barraged by a series of studio logos that include Netflix, Warner Bros., Paramount, HBO, Pixar and the Saudi Arabia Public Investment Fund. The viewer quickly gets bored before grabbing the remote.

“Let’s turn this off,” he says. 



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.