Connect with us

Business

Want to Understand America? Watch ‘Shark Tank.’

Published

on

Want to Understand America? Watch ‘Shark Tank.’

One day in late June, a panel of investors entertained business ideas from around the country. A kitschy advent calendar. A fancy mini-fridge for drinks. A flashlight that emits beams from multiple angles. A machine that grows mushrooms. Bendable cups. Pet plants (for you, not your cat).

This was the Los Angeles set of “Shark Tank,” the ABC show that for 15 years has turned business negotiation into entertainment. Aspiring entrepreneurs use hustle, gross margins and cringe-worthy pitches to pry money from the so-called Sharks in exchange for a stake in their companies.

On one level, “Shark Tank” is your basic reality TV show. The pitches, which last about 45 minutes, are edited to snappy 12- to 15-minute segments with music scored for suspense over tight shots of bug-eyed, sweaty supplicants. Some founders leave the tank defeated, humiliated or in tears. Others leave triumphant with handshake deals. Stories about overcoming struggle and self-doubt feel calibrated to make you cry.

With a short window to impress the Sharks, contestants make the most of “hello.”

ABC

Advertisement

But if you watch the show as I did — most of its 15 seasons in one year — you might be struck by something else: the way it reflects the shifting contours of the American economy. The show started in August 2009, in the pit of the Great Recession. Over the next decade and a half, 1,275 people pitched their ideas on air. The comfort food and DVDs featured in those first years were replaced by the rise of online direct-to-consumer businesses, the allure of Silicon Valley and its build-at-all-costs mentality, and then the shock of the pandemic and the ingenuity that came out of it.

“Shark Tank” Over the Years

Season 1 (2009-10)

The show premiered against the backdrop of the Great Recession. Small business owners, like Tod Wilson, shared stories of struggle and overcoming adversity.

Season 3 (2012)

The economy was getting better and so was the show. Mark Cuban joined and raised the tempo and the stakes of the negotiations.

Advertisement

Season 4 (2012-2013)

Scrub Daddy, the smiley face sponge, makes its debut. Shark Lori Greiner, also known as the “QVC Queen,” helps turn it into one of the show’s most recognizable products.

Season 5 (2013-14)

This season brought items with a tech spin, like DoorBot. This object became Ring, which Amazon later acquired for more than $1 billion.

Advertisement

Season 6 (2014-15)

The founders of Bombas, the sock company, got a grilling for their high valuation. But the company has since become a huge success.

You can also see the emergence of consumer trends: online dating (the Coffee Meets Bagel app); combining capitalism with social good (Bombas socks); democratizing professional services (Everlywell home medical tests); reimagining personal care products (Dude Wipes). And, of course, the show has featured plenty of minimally useful, niche gimmicks that are destined to collect dust.

“‘Shark Tank’ is not a game show,” said Kevin O’Leary, a cutthroat investor known sarcastically in the tank as Mr. Wonderful. “It’s real life. It’s real investing, real money. And it reflects the real economy.”

Advertisement

It is also real exposure. Perhaps the show’s most important role in the entrepreneurial economy is not the advice or money the Sharks dispense, but to serve as a platform for the most American of business strategies: shameless self-promotion.

That exposure might be even more relevant now. As the show enters its 16th season on Oct. 18, the economy seems good on paper, but feels bad for many Americans, including entrepreneurs. Yes, inflation is starting to ease and interest rates are slowly coming down, but the economy still feels in suspense.

The show has been adjusting over the past few years. The Sharks are less excited about businesses with big valuations and more interested in discovering and funding smaller start-ups, said Barbara Corcoran, founder of the Corcoran Group who got rich selling Manhattan real estate and has appeared as a Shark since the show’s first season. “So there are a lot of low asks, which I really like because I love to get on the ground floor with people,” she told me.

These “mom-and-pa type people,” as Ms. Corcoran calls them, also make for better TV. Where “Shark Tank” is concerned, good TV comes from stoking a belief — some might call it a myth — that anybody with a good idea and some moxie can make it in America. Having difficulty brushing your daughter’s curly hair? A flash of genius provides the solution and you create a hairbrush company! It’s the American dream.

In fact, the Sharks invoked the American dream so often in my interviews with them that it felt like they were trying to make a sale. Mark Cuban, who is leaving the show after this season, put it this way: “The idea that maybe we had a little bit to do with amplifying entrepreneurship and making the American dream stronger, that’s pretty damn cool, you know?”

Advertisement

From Bakeries to Bots

The “Shark Tank” concept grew out of a Japanese show called “Tigers of Money.” It spread to Britain and Canada as “Dragons’ Den,” and in 2009, Mark Burnett, the television producer known for hit shows like “The Apprentice” and “Survivor,” adapted the idea for the United States.

It was, in some ways, exactly the wrong moment for a show about making it in business. “Shark Tank” debuted less than a year after the subprime mortgage crisis devastated the global economy. The investment firm Lehman Brothers had gone belly up and banks were not lending. Retail sales cratered. But the investors chosen as Sharks saw the show as a new way to make money. “It’s ’08, nobody’s buying more clothes and they can’t pay their rent or mortgage,” said Daymond John, the founder of apparel brand FUBU. “I went on the show to diversify my portfolio.”

That first season Mr. John and the other Sharks were pitched by a lot of sole proprietors: a woman opening a plus-size clothing boutique in Houston, a caregiver who created an elephant-shaped medicine dispenser. The money offered was $100,000 here, $50,000 there. Small potatoes.

Every pitch leads to an ask, a dollars-and-percent offer that starts the negotiation with the Sharks.

Advertisement

ABC

The producers and casting department recruited entrepreneurs by looking at local newspapers or relying on word of mouth. Tod Wilson, the first person to pitch in the “tank,” was one of them. He owned a bakery that sold sweet potato pies in Somerset, N.J., and wanted to expand nationwide.

“I had a couple small loans with some local community banks, but nobody was lending any more money,” Mr. Wilson said. On the show, Mr. John and Ms. Corcoran offered him a deal.

By the third season, in 2012, it was time to feel optimistic again. Businesses were making it pleasant to buy stuff online that you usually need to feel and touch — like clothes and eyeglasses. Uber, Airbnb and WeWork, with their outsize valuations, emboldened many companies to think they could hit it big. Instagram and Twitter, along with the ubiquity of Amazon Marketplace, offered new ways to sell goods.

Advertisement

Shark Tank, too, wanted a piece of Silicon Valley.

Producers recruited more ambitious companies through open calls held at Las Vegas convention centers and pitch sessions hosted on college campuses. Sweet potato pies gave way to apps and cloud-based solutions. In episode after episode, viewers saw entrepreneurship as a pathway to financial success and autonomy. The show was growing in popularity, and by Season 6 in 2014, had reached 9.1 million people tuning in per episode.

“The idea that anybody can make it into that top echelon, I think, is an incredibly American mind set,” said Angela Lee, who teaches at Columbia Business School.

In the first season, the average valuation for a company that appeared on the show was $376,000; a decade later, it had ballooned to $2.4 million, according to a database compiled by Halle Tecco, an adjunct professor at Columbia Business School who tracked the first 10 seasons of “Shark Tank.” The average amount the Sharks agreed to invest nearly doubled.

The Sharks didn’t always spot the winners. In 2013, the producers reached out to Jamie Siminoff, a successful serial entrepreneur who was tinkering in his garage with a product he called DoorBot.

Advertisement

Like all the entrepreneurs who appear on the show, Mr. Siminoff walked down a long hallway to the double doors that open up to the awaiting Sharks. But instead of those doors opening, Mr. Siminoff knocked three times, prompting Mr. Cuban to ask, “Who’s there?” After some back and forth, the door opened and Mr. Siminoff said, “Wouldn’t it have been nice to know who was behind the door before you let me in?”

He demonstrated how, with a smartphone and his video doorbell, anyone could see who was standing at their door. He had already sold more than $1 million of the devices through his own website alone.

The ensuing negotiations made for good TV. Four Sharks declined to invest, leaving only Mr. O’Leary. He offered Mr. Siminoff an infusion of cash in return for a percentage of every sale. Mr. Siminoff balked, saying those payments would bleed him of cash when he needed it most. With the suspense soundtrack playing underneath, Mr. Siminoff responded: “Respectfully, Mr. Wonderful, we’re going to decline.”

A year later, Mr. Siminoff renamed his business Ring, and four years after that, Amazon bought it for more than $1 billion.

At the time of his “Shark Tank” appearance, Mr. Siminoff “was actually broke, so I did want to get money,” he told me recently. “I didn’t get money, but I got awareness and credibility, which was amazing. I think if it wasn’t for ‘Shark Tank,’ I don’t think Ring would exist today.”

Advertisement

Mr. Siminoff came back as a guest shark in 2018; all the Sharks stood up and clapped.

The QVC Economy

Companies appearing on “Shark Tank” have reinvented the wheel (though the Smart Tire Company didn’t convince the Sharks it was needed). One contender confidently asserted that he had created a “vortex chamber” that harnesses the Earth’s rotation to create electricity. (The Sharks didn’t get it either. He left empty-handed.) The Sharks were pitched a wakeboard-like device that, when attached to an airplane, would allow people to fly. (No thanks. Too much of a liability risk.)

There are a lot of crazy inventions out there.

There are some pretty mind-numbing ones, too (insurance, enterprise software, energy production) that power the economy. But those kinds of companies are rarely reflected on “Shark Tank” for one simple reason: They don’t make for good TV.

Advertisement

Robert Herjavec, a Shark since the first season, has an expertise in cybersecurity. He likes to tell the story of taking Mr. Burnett out for dinner in the show’s early years and asking why producers weren’t bringing to the sound stage more of the back-end companies he gravitated toward.

As Mr. Herjavec recalls, Mr. Burnett told him, “I don’t know how to say this to you, but what you do is boring. You’re missing the entire point of the show.”

That dinner, Mr. Herjavec says, changed his perspective. “I need to invest in things that the consumer is going to get excited about,” he said.

What people get excited about, it turns out, is merchandise that you might purchase impulsively in the checkout line at TJ Maxx. Or, in Target or on the QVC shopping network, platforms where Lori Greiner, one of the mainstay Sharks, has strong connections. “What is a winning product? What do people want? Those are the basics,” Ms. Greiner said.

“Shark Tank” Over the Years

Season 7 (2015-16)

Simply Fit Board, an exercise board created by a mother-daughter duo, clinched a deal with Shark Lori Greiner. The founders said they did a million dollars in sales in the 24 hours after the show aired.

Advertisement

Season 11 (2019-20)

After 10 years, entrepreneurs recognize the value of “Shark Tank” as a potential marketing platform for their products.

Season 12 (2020-21)

Scores of small businesses closed during the pandemic, but “Shark Tank” celebrated the founders who were able to pivot, like Foam Party Hats.

Season 15 (2023-24)

More first-time entrepreneurs stepped onto the set, making the show feel more like the early seasons.

Advertisement

More than two-thirds of the U.S. economy is driven by consumer spending, and while that includes less tangible things like auto insurance, Ms. Greiner leans into the relatable. She has backed “Shark Tank” companies with some of the biggest sales: Scrub Daddy, the smiley-faced sponge; Simply Fit, the exercise balance board; and the Squatty Potty toilet stool.

Mr. Herjavec learned his lesson. Soon after his dinner with Mr. Burnett, he took an equity stake in what he says is his most memorable investment: Tipsy Elves, a company that makes ugly Christmas sweaters. It has done about $200 million in sales.

What You Don’t See in the Tank

Venture capitalists praise the show for introducing the masses to business concepts like “landed costs” and “scaling.” The show has also helped entrepreneurs find out what their company is worth.

Advertisement

Founders coming from small towns who might not have deep connections to major investors can use “Shark Tank” as a barometer, said Michael Jones, founding partner of Science Inc, a Los Angeles-based investment firm which has poured money into consumer brands like the canned water company Liquid Death and Dollar Shave Club.

“You can get a sense of what terms at least the Sharks think are normal,” he said.

But, venture capitalists are often quick to add, the show does not reveal the nitty-gritty of the negotiation process. The painstaking effort of combing through a company’s financials and ownership structure and analyzing the market sector happens off camera.

During that process, deals agreed to during the taping might be restructured or the founders or Sharks are allowed to walk away. According to an 2023 analysis from Forbes, roughly half of the deals clinched on the show never actually closed.

“They’re a platform to promote entrepreneurship and small businesses,” said Taryn Jones Laeben, founder of early-stage advisory and investment firm IRL Ventures, “more than they are a direct window into the venture capital world.”

Advertisement

Tod Wilson, the pie maker who appeared on the very first episode and received a handshake deal, decided not to go through with the offer. He eventually secured a bank loan. After some ups and downs, he continues to sell in Wegman’s and ShopRite supermarkets as well as online.

He beat the odds. While the show promotes the upside of the American dream, many entrepreneurs face constant challenges to stay in business. Nearly half of all small businesses fail within the first five years.

I don’t think people know how hard it is to be one of the ones that have made it,” Ms. Lee, the Columbia Business School professor, said. “The problem with social media and everything is that we only hear about the success stories.”

Marketing Muscle

Ms. Lee is also the founder of 37 Angels, an early-stage investment firm. She says she has done due diligence on dozens of companies that have appeared on “Shark Tank.” None of them, she says, described the show primarily as way to get funding. It was a way to market their products.

Advertisement

With nearly 4 million viewers, the show has become a cultural phenomenon. Dozens of blogs and podcasts are dedicated to the show and hundreds of memes on social media reference it (“Hello sharks. Today I am seeking $100,000 so I can just vibe for a bit”). Educators like Ms. Lee use episodes as case studies, and educational programs like Junior Achievement use it to teach students about how to start businesses.

Sarah Paiji Yoo, one of the founders of Blueland, which makes sustainable cleaning products, didn’t really need an investment. By the time she appeared on the show in 2019, she had already raised $3 million in venture capital. The funding she got from Mr. O’Leary was about “driving more awareness of our product,” and credibility, she told me later. Her company has now done more than $200 million in sales.

Dave Heath, co-founder of Bombas, the sock retailer, described the show as a “megaphone.” He appeared in 2014, and two months later his company sold $1.2 million worth of socks. Bombas has now surpassed $1.7 billion in lifetime revenue, making it the show’s most successful company.

Reinventing the wheel isn’t necessary to impress the Sharks. But some have tried.

ABC

Advertisement

The possibility of television exposure also piques the interest of traditional retailers. Ann Crady Weiss, the co-founder of Hatch, was scheduled to tape a “Shark Tank” segment with her husband to pitch a baby changing pad that doubled as a scale. Before the filming, she flew out to Target’s headquarters in Minneapolis to meet a buyer.

“I decided to leverage the fact that we were going to be on TV,” Ms. Weiss recounted. “The buyer gave us a shot at Target because of the ‘Shark Tank’ appearance.”

“We turn you into a rock star and you become part of the ‘Shark Tank’ culture and the lore of ‘Shark Tank’,” said Mr. O’Leary. “Your deal becomes legend and stays in syndication for decades. What venture capital can do that?”

On the weekend in June, toward the end of the second day of “Shark Tank” tapings, a young man in a black T-shirt burst through the set’s familiar doors to pitch his restaurant in Queens. He had saved $600,000, which impressed the Sharks, who offered encouragement. At one point, Mr. O’Leary said, “you should be mentoring me.”

Advertisement

Near the end of his time in front of them, Mr. John stood up, walked over and handed him his personal phone number.

“This is what I wanted,” the founder said before walking off.

Advertisement

Business

Commentary: Trump’s ‘weird war’ on wind power will jeopardize our energy future and cost Americans billions

Published

on

Commentary: Trump’s ‘weird war’ on wind power will jeopardize our energy future and cost Americans billions

Trump is shelling out $2 billion of taxpayer money to kill wind power projects, but his hatred for the technology is based on myths

Picking the wildest fantasy promoted by President Trump as a basis for public policy is increasingly challenging — is it his yarn about schoolchildren being secretly abducted from their classrooms and given sex-changing operations? The notion that the vaccines given to children are like “a vat, like a big glass, of stuff pumped into their bodies?”

Here’s one that has disrupted the economics of renewable energy generation and will cost Americans billions of dollars: It’s Trump’s “completely weird war on wind power in the United States,” based on a sheaf of “fact-free arguments.”

That judgment comes from Steven Cohen, a climate policy expert at Columbia University, who points out that wind already accounts for 10.5% of U.S. energy generation, that it’s destined to continue growing — and that most of it is generated today in red states such as Texas, Oklahoma, Iowa and Kansas.

Fifty years from now, people are going to be amazed that we burned these rare, useful hydrocarbons for fuel, when the sun was just sitting up there providing an essentially infinite source of energy.

— Steven Cohen, Columbia University

Advertisement

There is no question that Trump’s weird war against wind is full blown. On the day of his second inauguration, he issued an executive order shutting down all new permits for offshore wind farms and ordered the Interior Department to review existing permits.

A federal judge in Massachusetts blocked the executive order in December, and his orders suspending work on existing offshore wind projects have been halted by other federal judges. The Trump administration has blocked or delayed as many as 165 wind projects on private land, citing “national security” concerns, according to the American Clean Power Assn.

Most recently, Trump has reached agreements with offshore wind firms in which the government will pay them a combined $2 billion to abandon their U.S. projects.

Advertisement

At some level, this crusade resembles Trump’s misguided effort to revive the American coal industry, which is on the glide path to inevitable extinction. In that case, Trump is waging an explicitly partisan and ideological battle. “We’re ending Joe Biden’s war on beautiful, clean coal,” he declared last April.

Trump’s anti-wind program is part of his campaign to dismantle U.S. renewables policy because of its roots in the Biden administration.

Additionally, multiple commentators conjecture that his hostility to wind originated in 2011, when he groused that an offshore wind farm would be visible from one of his golf courses in Scotland. He sued to thwart the “ugly” project, and lost.

But Trump has mustered other arguments against wind, on- and offshore, none of which holds water.

During a cabinet meeting in July 2025, he called wind “a very expensive form of energy.” In fact, on average it’s cheaper than natural gas, coal and nuclear generation. Perhaps more important, the cost has been coming down sharply as technology improves and the sector reaches critical mass: falling to eight cents from 21 cents per kilowatt-hour from 2010 to 2024 for offshore projects, and to 3.4 cents from 11.3 cents for land-based wind farms over the same period.

Advertisement

Trump blamed wind turbines for mass killing whales and birds. Neither assertion is correct.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, a federal agency, says “there are no known links between large whale deaths and ongoing offshore wind activities.”

The Audubon Society reported in January that although wind turbines can present hazards to birds, “developers can effectively manage these risks without significantly increasing project costs.” The biggest risks to birds come from the climate: “Two-thirds of North American birds are at increasing risk of extinction from global temperature rise,” the society reported — a threat that wind power can ameliorate.

Trump spokeswoman Taylor Rogers didn’t respond to my questions about the derivation of his anti-wind stance, but told me by email only that “President Trump has been clear: hard-earned taxpayer dollars shouldn’t be wasted on unreliable and costly wind farms that pose serious threats to our national security. Instead, we should be strengthening and expanding our infrastructure that produces reliable, affordable, and secure energy like natural gas plants.”

That brings us to the recent deals with offshore wind developers. The largest single deal, signed in March, was with the French firm TotalEnergies, which is to receive approximately $1 billion from the federal government to abandon all of its U.S. offshore wind projects and invest instead in oil and gas projects, including a liquefied natural gas export facility in Texas.

Advertisement

In his March 23 announcement of the deal, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum called offshore wind “one of the most expensive, unreliable, environmentally disruptive, and subsidy-dependent schemes ever forced on American ratepayers and taxpayers.”

This is what Huck Finn would call a “stretcher,” given the decades of subsidies spooned out to the oil and gas industry, reaching more than $30 billion a year in federal and state tax credits, indulgent regulation of pollution and low-cost access to federal lands. Indeed, the investment firm Lazard recently reported that renewables, including wind, are a cost-competitive form of generation even without subsidies. (Lazard’s calculation is of the “levelized cost of energy,” meaning the average cost over a generating plant’s lifetime.)

TotalEnergies fell into lockstep with the Interior Department in its own announcement, explaining its willingness to renounce U.S. offshore wind power because “offshore wind developments in the United States, unlike those in Europe, are costly,” echoing the agency’s position that “the development of offshore wind projects is not in the country’s interest.” Never mind that one factor that makes U.S. offshore wind development costly compared with Europe is the Trump administration’s opposition.

The government subsequently reached an agreement to pay the French company Ocean Winds $885 million to walk away from two offshore wind projects, including one in the waters off California. Ocean Winds described the deal as one driven chiefly by economics, but hinted at pressure from the White House.

“We welcome the opportunity to engage constructively with the administration on this agreement and acknowledge the clarity they have provided with this decision and deal,” Michael Brown, the chief executive of Ocean Winds North America, said when the deal was announced last month. “Our priority remains disciplined capital allocation and delivering reliable energy solutions that create long-term value for ratepayers, partners, and shareholders.”

Advertisement

The TotalEnergies deal, which the government has described as a “refund” of money the firm paid for its offshore leades, raised the hackles of congressional Democrats, who assert that it violates the law and constitution in multiple ways.

“We will hold you accountable for this billion-dollar ripoff,” Reps. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee and Jared Huffman (D-San Rafael), ranking member of the House Committee on Natural Resources, warned TotalEnergies CEO Patrick Pouyanné in an April 29 letter.

Among other infirmities Raskin and Huffman alleged, the government’s national security rationale for canceling offshore wind leases looks “fabricated”; the payout violates the statutory formula for compensation for canceled leases; the money is to come from a fund designed only to pay court-ordered judgments and settlements of lawsuits, which don’t exist in this case; and includes a provision preventing the deal from being reviewed by a court.

The last of those provisions would have to be authorized by Congress, the letter states, asking for documents and a response from the company by Wednesday. Committee spokespersons weren’t available to say whether they received a response from TotalEnergies, and the company didn’t respond to my request for comment. I received no response from the Department of the Interior.

The California Energy Commission has opened an investigation into the Ocean Winds deal.

Advertisement

“The Trump Administration is recklessly spending billions of taxpayer dollars on backroom deals that would turn back the clock on innovation” CEC Chair David Hochschild said. “Taxpayer dollars should be used to build a sustainable energy future, not to pay to make projects disappear.”

What’s especially wasteful about Trump’s crusade against wind power is that it’s almost certain to be time-limited.

It’s hardly debatable that renewables such as solar and wind will be our principal sources of energy in the future; holding back the clock achieves nothing but injecting uncertainty into investment decisions that need to be made now, at a time when the price of oil is on the upswing thanks to Trump’s Iran adventure and Europe and China are racing to transition away from fossil fuels, while the U.S. remains becalmed by ideology.

“In the long run, fossil fuels will be used for petrochemicals and not for burning,” Cohen told me. “Fifty years from now, people are going to be amazed that we burned these rare, useful hydrocarbons for fuel, when the sun was just sitting up there providing an essentially infinite source of energy.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

Judge denies move to dismiss State Farm collusion lawsuit

Published

on

Judge denies move to dismiss State Farm collusion lawsuit

A Los Angeles judge has denied a petition by State Farm and other insurers to dismiss two lawsuits accusing them of colluding to drive homeowners onto California’s FAIR Plan.

The lawsuits, which accuse the insurers of violating the state’s antirust and unfair competition laws, were largely upheld in a decision Thursday by Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Samantha Jessner.

The judge struck two less significant claims from the lawsuits filed last year, but allowed the case to proceed against more than a dozen major California insurers, led by State Farm General, the state’s largest.

“This is very good news for our people, our plaintiffs, because we’re going to be able to go ahead now with our antitrust claims in both cases,” said Bob Ruyak, an attorney representing the homeowners.

Advertisement

Sevag Sarkissian, a State Farm spokesperson, said the ruling did not “address the accuracy of the allegations” and that the company looks “forward to presenting our case in court.”

The lawsuits allege the companies financially benefited when policyholders were dropped and moved onto the FAIR Plan, since they financially back the insurer that sells more expensive policies which offer less coverage.

One lawsuit led by Todd and Kimberley Ferrier — whose Pacific Palisades home burned down — seeks to compensate 60 homeowners who experienced fire losses exacerbated by the FAIR Plan’s limited coverage.

The other case is a proposed class action that would compensate policyholders for the higher premiums they paid to the plan.

The case has garnered the attention of the federal Department of Justice, which filed a brief this month disputing an argument made by the insurers to have the case thrown out.

Advertisement

The insurers had alleged that they were shielded from antitrust liability under both California and federal law due to a certain legal doctrine.

While the department took no position on the merits of the collusion allegations, it said it files such briefs “where doing so helps protect competition and consumers, including by encouraging the sound development of the antitrust laws.”

The decision by the department to insert itself in the case followed a March post by President Trump bashing State Farm on social media after a visit to Pacific Palisades by administration officials.

The president called State Farm’s treatment of January 2025 wildfire victims “absolutely horrible” and asked EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin for a list of insurers who “acted swiftly” and those that were “particularly bad.”

Also this month, the California Department of Insurance filed an administrative action against State Farm seeking possible suspension of the carrier’s insurance license, alleging State Farm mishandled January 2025 wildfire claims.

Advertisement

The company acknowledges some claims were mishandled but rejected claims it engaged in a “general practice of mishandling or intentionally underpaying wildfire claims.”

The company says the California’s homeowners insurance market is the most “dysfunctional” in the country, with state regulators contributing to “delays and uncertainty that have contributed to fewer choices and higher costs for consumers.”

Continue Reading

Business

What Trump Gained, and Didn’t, From China

Published

on

What Trump Gained, and Didn’t, From China

Andrew here. With President Trump set to arrive back in Washington on Friday, we’re taking a hard look at what his high-stakes summit in Beijing actually achieved. The TL;DR: It didn’t lead to the “grand bargain” many had anticipated.

While there were optics of cooperation between Trump and Xi Jinping, concrete deals — including on Nvidia chips or tariffs — were few. Trump just said that he rejected a proposal from Xi, China’s leader, to help broker a peace between the U.S. and Iran, leaving the critical Strait of Hormuz effectively shut.

Ultimately, the president is coming home to rising oil prices and a slumping bond market.

President Trump departed Beijing a few hours ago, hailing “fantastic trade deals” struck during his two-day summit.

Still, many analysts and investors appear underwhelmed by a lack of details or breakthroughs on key issues like tariffs, Iran and tech restrictions. The summit seems to have fallen short of already diminished expectations.

Advertisement

For the 17 business leaders who accompanied Trump on the trip, the deal flow also appeared thinner than what was announced on his last presidential trip to China, in 2017.

Here are the highlights so far, Grady McGregor writes.

Nvidia and Citi apparently scored wins. Shares in Nvidia, the chipmaker, hit a record on Thursday on reports that Washington had cleared 10 Chinese companies to buy its H200 semiconductors.

That said, Beijing, which is looking to champion domestic rivals like Huawei, has not signaled it would be open to permitting the sales — an issue echoed on Friday by Jamieson Greer, the U.S. trade representative.

And on the eve of the summit, Beijing approved Citi’s application to operate a securities business in China, ending a yearslong regulatory application process. It is unclear whether the presence of Jane Fraser, the bank’s C.E.O., on the trip played any role in Beijing’s decision. Citi shares gained on Thursday.

Advertisement

Boeing landed an order for 200 aircraft, a deal Trump highlighted in a Fox News interview last night.

But shares in the plane maker fell sharply in premarket trading on Friday: The number was short of analysts’ forecasts of at least 300 planes.

The Board of Trade looks like a go. The Washington-Beijing body would manage trade in sectors such as aviation, energy, medical equipment and agriculture. Greer said it would aim to reduce tariffs on roughly $30 billion worth of goods.

He added that he expected the tariff truce the countries struck last fall in South Korea to be extended.

What’s still unclear:

Advertisement

Major cryptocurrency regulation clears a key hurdle. The Senate Banking Committee passed the Clarity Act, which has been promoted by crypto companies and investors like the venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz. The bill heads to the full Senate, where it faces a less certain fate.

Federal prosecutors will drop criminal charges against India’s richest man. The move to end the case against the businessman Gautam Adani came after one of his lawyers — Robert Giuffra, who is also one of President Trump’s personal lawyers — met with Justice Department officials, The Times reports. (A presentation by Giuffra said that Adani was willing to invest $10 billion in the U.S., though sources told The Times that the withdrawal of charges wasn’t tied to the offer.) A settlement in a parallel case by the S.E.C. was announced Thursday in which Adani agreed to pay $6 million.

Bill Ackman bets big on Microsoft. The billionaire financier said on Friday that he had acquired a major stake in the tech giant and that he believed in the long-term prospects of its productivity software and its spending on A.I. Other hedge fund managers have bet the opposite: TCI, the firm run by Chris Hohn, recently sold off an $8 billion stake in Microsoft.

The high-stakes legal showdown between Elon Musk and OpenAI is finally headed to the nine-person jury.

Over more than seven hours of closing arguments, lawyers for each side sought to paint the other as untrustworthy.

Advertisement

Here are some of the highlights of Thursday’s proceedings.

Can anyone trust Sam Altman? That was again the central attack by Steven Molo, Musk’s lead lawyer, who has argued that Altman, the OpenAI chief, deceived Musk, a fellow founder, about plans to convert the company from nonprofit to for-profit.

Molo told jurors that five witnesses had called Altman a “liar,” and he hammered home his point with a creative metaphor:

Imagine that you’re on a hike, and you come upon one of those wooden bridges that you see on a trail, and it’s over a gorge. There’s a river that’s 100 feet below and it looks a little scary, but a woman standing by the entry to the bridge says, “Don’t worry, the bridge is built on Sam Altman’s version of the truth.” Would you walk across that bridge? I don’t think many people would.

Can jurors trust Musk’s version of events? OpenAI’s lawyers, from the law firm Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, argued that the billionaire knew about the company’s plans for for-profit conversion earlier than he admitted to and that the statute of limitations for his claims had passed.

Referring to Musk’s claim that he hadn’t read most of a 2018 email about OpenAI’s plans to seek outside investment, Sarah Eddy, a lawyer for OpenAI, said:

Advertisement

Here you have one of the most sophisticated businessmen in the history of the world and he claims he didn’t read a four-page summary term sheet.

The outcome of the trial could drastically alter the A.I. landscape. If OpenAI loses, its operations could be disrupted at a time when rivals are gaining steam.

The artificial intelligence boom has been a tale of haves and have-nots. Some companies have benefited mightily, most recently the chip maker Cerebras, whose stock shot up 68 percent in its debut. But many enterprise software providers have been walloped.

One of them was Figma, the design-software maker whose shares have tumbled since it went public last year. But as it reported strong quarterly earnings on Thursday, its C.E.O., Dylan Field, spoke with Michael de la Merced about why he believed his company was poised to survive, and even thrive. Here are our takeaways after the conversation.

Remember the “SaaSpocalypse”? Referring to “software-as-a-service,” it referred to investors’ worries that tools like Anthropic’s Claude Code would devastate the entire category of subscription-based software companies, like Figma.

Figma appears to have dispelled at least some of those worries:

Advertisement

The company’s results held up after an A.I.-related change in pricing. For most of its existence, Figma charged companies per user (known as seat-based pricing). But A.I. agents that can do work once reserved for humans promise to drastically reduce how many “seats” customers need to pay for.

In mid-March, Figma switched to a system in which it charged users for how much A.I. they used past a certain amount. The company said that more than 75 percent of its business users kept using A.I. tools despite the cap.

The result: Shares in Figma are up more than 10 percent in premarket trading since the report.

“Market narratives are market narratives,” Field said to DealBook about the SaaSpocalypse sell-off, playing down the investor concern while pointing out Figma’s strong performance.

“The way we see it, A.I. is going to create more software than ever,” he said. He added, “Design matters.”

Advertisement

But Field remains on guard. Makers of A.I. models have muscled into Figma’s territory, notably Anthropic, which in March introduced Claude Design, a tool seen as a competitor of sorts. (Only three days before, Mike Krieger, a senior Anthropic executive, resigned from Figma’s board; Field reportedly complained about the situation.)

“You have to take a company like Anthropic seriously,” Field told DealBook.

The musical playlist for Thursday’s state dinner in Beijing for President Trump drew big buzz on social media. It contained some Trump favorites, including the Village People hit “Y.M.C.A.”


Every week, we’re asking a leader how he or she uses artificial intelligence. This week, Jeremy Allaire, who leads the stablecoin issuer Circle, told Sarah Kessler that he had built a “C.E.O. prioritizer.” The interview has been condensed and edited for clarity.

How do you personally use A.I. at home or work?

Advertisement

One interesting one is a C.E.O. prioritizer. If there’s a request for me to meet someone or do something, you go to the agent and it interrogates you about it and does background research. Then it assigns a one-to-five score, with one being “Completely ignore it” and five being “This is a highly strategic use of your time.”

Circle wants to be part of the infrastructure that helps A.I. agents spend money. Tell me more about that.

The primary units of work in the economic system are going to be executed by A.I. agents. And increasingly, it’s going to be agents that are operating in teams.

You need an economic system to support that. We need a way for one agent to access and use the services of another agent. For example, you might have research data in a particular domain of biology, and I want to make that available to A.I.s to consume. And it’s going to be 5 cents, 10 cents. Whatever it is, you receive that payment, and the A.I. then can consume that data and use it.

And this transaction would take place via stablecoin and not dollars, because there is less friction and these are tiny transactions?

Advertisement

There’s no payment system in the world except for something like USDC that can conduct a transaction for a fraction of a penny. Or even 5 cents or 10 cents. And it’s all programmable.

You said on your latest earnings call that 85 percent of your employees are using A.I. coding and automation tools. What does that look like?

We’re able to basically go through the entire software life cycle with A.I. agents conducting work. Agents are seeing feature requests, picking them up, coding and submitting the code for review. We have other agents that perform code review. Humans then obviously come in to do subsequent reviews.

What about outside of engineering?

It’s in every single function. If you want to build a creative strategy for a campaign, there’s a whole agentic workflow. If you are creating public communications content — we’re a regulated company, so we have very strict guidelines — there’s an A.I. that will vet all of your content and point out the issues with it.

Advertisement

Deals

  • Investors led by Egon Durban, a C.E.O. of the tech investment firm Silver Lake, have reportedly struck a deal to buy 25 percent of the Las Vegas Raiders at a $9.9 billion valuation. (CNBC)

  • Michael Carr, a longtime top M.&A. banker at Goldman Sachs, died on Tuesday. He was 68. (Bloomberg)

Politics, policy and regulation

Best of the rest

  • Boeing and Toyota are said to have donated $1 million each to fund a reality-TV video series starring the transportation secretary, Sean Duffy. (WSJ)

  • “In a City of Big Dreams, Many Young Adults See a Cloudy Future” (NYT)

We’d like your feedback! Please email thoughts and suggestions to dealbook@nytimes.com.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending