All-In Podcast - Opinions?

Friedberg is usually pretty good (usually), the other three are fine when they’re talking on their subject matter expertise. They each have personality quirks that are primarily ego driven (which makes sense because they probably get a ton of smoke blown up their asses all the time) that make them hard to listen to sometimes. 
 

Over the last year to a year and a half they’ve started using the podcast to shill for their own interests, most notably Sacks trying to position himself for a spot in a future Republican administration. I just skip those grifty sections 

Sacks and Friedberg are interesting. Chamath hit or miss. Jason is worthless.

I’ve listened to a few episodes. Agree wholeheartedly with the point that I would listen to a Friedberg standalone pod.

All four of them deserve full credit for their tremendous career success, but I do find Chamath a bit griftey. Anyone else remember when he was riding high in 2021 pumping shitco SPACs on CNBC? Although I’m sure his firm’s positioning and verbiage were SEC compliant, how many retail investors got shafted listening to him? And how many of those positions does he still hold in size today? From my understanding he’s sold out a fair amount. As a participant in the markets, I 100% understand his incentives, and he was far from the only legitimate party taking advantage of the market paranoia (VCs in Crypto and FTX, the littany of SPAC sponsors, etc). I just find the way he and others went about things pretty gauche, especially the “I care more about the world / I’m on the little guy’s side” attitude he tends to purport on the podcast. 

Listen weekly since late 2022. Order of quality in terms of insights provided & thought provoking ideas goes:

1. Chamath -- lot of really fresh thinking and an incredibly concise, thoughtful speaker. He has his firm do some really interesting analyses as well that he brings over to the pod (i.e. how to contextualize FB's $20-25bl annual metaverse spending vs other major innovations in past few decades). His moral compass is off given his track record in past few decades (FB, SPACs, etc) where he's left other people holding the bag but he's got a keen eye for making money and that's why I care to listen

2. Sacks -- does tend to get a bit too political at times though he does so generally with thoughtfulness that you wouldn't get from most other sources (which are either completely ideologically-driven or a caricature by the MSM on what conservatism actually is). When he does move off politics, his takes are often just as good as Chamath's. Don't have to agree with him but he brings a different perspective

3. Friedberg -- he's definitely a smart guy but often not very articulate and can't cut to the heart of what matters (which is the signature of Chamath among this group). Almost gets too technical on science though it's not super interesting to hear him talk about it and he completely avoids voicing his opinions on politics / geopolitics. I respect neutrality to some extent but he seems like he's always dodging important questions 

...

10000000000000. Jason Calcanis -- maybe the dumbest VC I've ever heard speak. Opinions are super vanilla and what you'd expect from a finance kid who joined the industry 1-2 years ago or are super left ideological takes that ignore practicality. Also interrupts way too much and tries to gaslight the other guests when he gets called out. Convinced the man has as a sub-80 IQ (100 is avg in america) but I suppose someone has to moderate 

To cap this all though -- All-In is an important, differentiated perspective vs. other financial news / analyses sources (WSJ, sell-side, other pods, business focused blogs, etc). That said, it should be ONE of the sources you consume in your diet, not the sole provider. Read a bunch of 'objective' (to the extent possible) sources / stuff that is closer to fact vs. opinion, and listen to All-In alongside it. It's a cool supplement, not the main course

I listen weekly, I think they bring very interesting viewpoints, those you don't hear a lot on other podcasts or media. I also enjoy that they can have discussions, even fiery onces about politicis and stuff but still be cool with one another. Something I rarely see these days.

Jason seems like the definition of someone who got lucky being in the right place at right time and will probably never replicate it. Friedberg is a top G and I would also be interested if he did a solo show. Chamath and Sacks are annoying but clearly playing characters and when they stop doing it long enough to talk about real ideas are actually pretty insightful at times. 

Jason is a clown 

Okay, this post is funny because you point out that you don't like essentially every value point of the podcast.

Jason is a MODERATOR so he isn't supposed to actually engage much in the discussions/debate and is supposed to keep the conservation on the rails. Is he perfect at this? No, clearly.  However, he actually does a quality job at this overall and drags in all of the biggest impact points to their topics of discussion.  This includes things like finance, politics, legal, etc.

Sacks is SUPPOSED to talk about the political, legal, and operational impacts of what is being discussed.

Chamath is the big picture guy who is supposed to take a 30K foot view.

Friedburg is the "science" guy and therefore discusses that.  In reality he talks about a much wider set of topics.

It was good a couple years ago when they started. Then like all good things, people’s heads get big and it deteriorates.

Friedberg’s arc is a recent example.  At last year’s summit he was everyone’s favorite host because he kept his head about him and did his homework before raising his hand.  But then he gets the positive feedback, and it clearly went straight to his head because ever since he’s been a lot less disciplined. 

For me strike 1 was the Twitter situation when they all shilled for Elon, and a much bigger strike 2 was the SIVB matter when they convinced everyone the sky was falling and may have actually caused a bailout of depositors which . . yeah I know a lot of idiots in finance think that was good but it really wasn’t.

I still listen because it’s an efficient rundown of the week’s news.  But I loathe them. 

Sacks gives a very differentiated, thoughtful view. Obviously he is partisan.

Love Friedburg.

Chamath honestly talks out of his ass but does so in an elegant way. I cringe when he talks about HF and PE. PE swinging for 1.5-1.6x returns? Don't think so. I haven't seen social capital returns in the last few years but he talks like he's sequoia. I didn't think his returns were that exceptional when I saw them.

I wish they would have more besties on. Gershner is a genius. Having Ryan Peterson on to explain supply chain bottlenecks in 2021 was awesome.

I'm not a huge fan of Chamath. Has a sense of moral righteousness that I can't stand especially when it comes to firms doing their investors or customers dirty. Meanwhile he was super busy in 2021 tonning it on his SPACs while lighting untold millions (billions?) of retail money on fire in the process.

Sacks is OK. Tries to make everything political. I don't get the Jason hate. I kind of like him as a moderator even though I disagree with his political opinions. Friedberg is decent enough, I guess.

The one thing I don't love about the podcast is how they very subtly talk their book all the time. Offhand remarks are often very far from offhand.

If you are getting tired of Chamath's sanctimonious takes (or the show being too AI & politics focused) "My First Million" with Sam Parr and Shaan Puri is a great alternative. They cover stories more from the founder's perspectives, as opposed to a VC's perspective; nonetheless, whenever I am sick of All-in I tune in to MFM!

Seems like everyone that listens criticizes / shits on them but I think they are overall excellent and compliment each other with their differences. While some of them lack self awareness they are all at least more thoughtful than average