RA

Robert Armstrong

Things Robert Says on Podcasts

US financial commentator for the Financial Times and author of the Unhedged newsletter, covering markets, the Federal Reserve, inflation and Treasury yields. Co-hosts the Unhedged podcast with Katie Martin. Appears as a guest on Prof G Markets with Ed Elson to discuss Fed decisions and market outlooks.

Where to Find Them

Robert Armstrong hosts Unhedged and hosts FT News Briefing . They have also been a guest on Prof G Markets (22 times) , Prof G Media (7 times) , The Prof G Pod with Scott Galloway , The Compound and Friends and Big Take .

Recently: “Nvidia shares down as Huang affair scandal deepens” on Unhedged (November 2026); “Scandal At Nvidia: Is This The End For Jensen Huang?” on Prof G Media (November 2026); “Scandal At Nvidia: Is This The End For Jensen Huang?” on Prof G Markets (November 2026); “Taking stock of tumbling stocks” on Unhedged (November 2026); “Why the slowdown in Wall Street deals?” on Unhedged (October 2026); “How much is Anthropic really worth?” on Unhedged (October 2026).

What They Said

“There were 47 local ballot initiatives about data centers. The data centers lost 46 of them. People do not feel good about this technology. Rightly or wrongly, or in between, the people have spoken. Right now we're frightened about this technology. We don't want it in our neighborhood.” — Robert Armstrong, Prof G Markets

Ed Elson asked whether the recent market sell-off partly reflected the midterms acting as a referendum on data centers. Armstrong gives his tally of the local votes and reads it as public fear of the technology.

Prof G Markets · 2026-11-10 Permalink → Listen →
Prof G Markets Around 22:48 into the episode
Speaker 4

…place, dear in the headlights. There has been some moves in the market towards diversification. That's a good sign. Some sectors have moved up that are far from AI. People are hedging their bets, but we don't know what's going on. And until we do know what's going on, this is the world we live in.

Speaker 1

…data centers. And Texas is where we were going to build all of these data centers. And so that's our problem. Sell like crazy. But then this week they say, actually, maybe not. Maybe we overdid it. I mean, is that what's happening or is it something more fundamental that was maybe pre-existing?

Speaker 4

The answer to both of your questions is yes. So starting with your last question, is there fundamental, something fundamental pre-existing? Yes. Risk appetite in markets has gone down. You can see that in, as we may have discussed before, you can see that in investors moving back to the safety of treasury somewhat over the last month, since about the beginning of October. So in the background running, we have a change in risk appetite. That's point number one. Point number two, I think you're quite right about those local results. You know, it was at 40, there were 47 local ballot initiatives about data centers. The data centers lost 46 of them. People do not feel good about this technology. Rightly or wrongly, or in between, the people have spoken, right? Right now, we're frightened about this technology. We don't want it in our neighborhood. That is an issue. But this is one of the interesting things about markets in general, Ed, is that we are taught back in finance school that markets instantly assimilate all the available information into a set of prices that…

Speaker 1

Right.

Speaker 4

Whatever the answer is, we're not contesting it. It's not uncertain. It's Democrats. It's Republicans. It's done. The uncertainty has disappeared. Hooray. And then you can sort of see the market starting to go through the details and be like, well, shit, life ain't so simple. So for this to take…

Speaker 1

Well, this probably segues us quite well into what's happened with Jensen Huang?, because this is another example of we've just been dumped a whole load of news that isn't totally clear what it even means or what the implications actually are. Like, oh, he was having an affair, like, okay, like…

Speaker names come from our own diarization. The position is estimated from where the line sits in the episode.
“Maybe Mark Zuckerberg could survive something like this. Maybe Sam Altman, maybe Dario Amodei, maybe Jensen Huang could survive something like this. But other than maybe less than five or six guys in the world, you're fired already. And that's precisely the problem. The question I'm asking myself is: because he knows he's one of those guys, is he more likely to make this astonishingly stupid mistake?” — Robert Armstrong, Prof G Markets

Armstrong had asked how many employees anywhere could survive the disclosure of an affair with a suspected Chinese agent, and Ed Elson said most would be fired instantly. Armstrong floats the idea that the immunity of 'imperial' CEOs itself breeds this kind of misjudgment.

Prof G Markets · 2026-11-10 Permalink → Listen →
Prof G Markets Around 26:50 into the episode
Speaker 4

…power. And it's like, I want to ask you a question, Ed, right now. How many employees of any company in the world from CEO on down would have survived this disclosure even to this point in time? Let's count them. So, like, clearly, the CEOs of most companies would have been fired instantly, right?

Speaker 1

Yes.

Speaker 4

You know, so who could survive? Like, maybe Mark Zuckerberg could survive something like this. Maybe Saul Maltman, maybe Dario Amadei, maybe Jensen Huang? could survive something like this. But like, other than maybe less than five or six guys in the world, you're fired already, right? Okay. And that's precisely the problem. The question I'm asking myself is: because he knows he's one of those guys, is he more likely to make this astonishingly stupid mistake? Like, does being an, you know, I'm saying this in slightly humorous ways, but this is a serious question. Like, the culture of the imperial CEO, might it make that CEO less trustworthy?

Speaker 1

I think, in addition, the Imperial CEO who has been handsomely rewarded for sweet talking the president on the phone every other week. And so, if you, I mean, this is part of the problem with the Trump culture of cronyism, which is that, I mean, if you give these individuals these huge amounts of…

Speaker 4

agonizing to think about it. And on the corporate side, it's like, was it, you know, does NVIDIA have a successor? What was their hit by a bus plan with this guy? And if you've got in as important a guy as Mr. Wang walking around the world, you better have a hit by the bus plan. And if the answer…

Speaker 1

he's completely compromised any faith and trust that he may or may not have earned over the past several years. Certainly, he's not credible. Yeah.

Speaker names come from our own diarization. The position is estimated from where the line sits in the episode.
“We are still laboring under, all of us, the single great uncertainty, which is what is the return on investment on these immense investments being made in AI. Nobody really knows the answer. And anybody who does tell you they know the answer is trying to sell you something. If the revenue and profit eventually appears, all the stuff we're worrying about now, the circular financing and the anxiety and the valuations and Jensen Huang's love affairs, will slip into memory and we will be okay. If, on the other hand, the money doesn't materialize, nothing will save us.” — Robert Armstrong, Prof G Markets

Ed Elson asked what the market's wild swings, a sharp sell-off one week and a rally the next, are telling us. Armstrong says it all comes down to one unanswered question about AI returns, which makes the Nvidia scandal a side issue.

Prof G Markets · 2026-11-10 Permalink → Listen →
Prof G Markets Around 21:28 into the episode
Speaker 4

Last Thursday was scary.

Speaker 1

Yeah. But now it seems maybe not. I mean, what do you think? What are investors? What are the markets telling us?

Speaker 4

We are still laboring under, all of us, the single great uncertainty, which is what is the return on investment on these immense investments being made in AI. This involves the most important companies in the market. Nobody really knows the answer. And anybody who does tell you they know the answer is trying to sell you something. So as we've said, I think we've talked about together before. If the revenue and profit eventually appears, all the stuff we're worrying about now and the circular financing and the anxiety and the valuations and, you know, Jensen Huang? love affairs and everything else will slip into memory and we will be okay. If, on the other hand, the money doesn't realize, nothing will save us, right? But we don't have the information and it is very normal for a market operating under a very large uncertainty like that to vacillate like the one we are living in right now. That's point number one. Point number two, as I've said a tiresomely infinite number of times on your show, the longer-term trend on the market is sideways. We're stalled since May. Right. And so again, About like you'd expect. We don't know what's going on. We're kind of frozen in place, dear in the headlights. There has been some moves in the market towards diversification. That's a good sign. Some sectors have moved up that are far from AI. People are hedging…

Speaker 1

What was that sell-off last week? Because it seemed to be a reaction to the election. My takeaway is we had essentially a referendum on data centers. Americans said we don't like them. A lot of these data center proposals lost. And I think a lot of investors are thinking, oh, so the data center…

Speaker 4

The answer to both of your questions is yes. So starting with your last question, is there fundamental, something fundamental pre-existing? Yes. Risk appetite in markets has gone down. You can see that in, as we may have discussed before, you can see that in investors moving back to the safety of…

Speaker 1

Right.

Speaker names come from our own diarization. The position is estimated from where the line sits in the episode.

Collections They Appear In