Big Tech Earnings Beat Trumps Bearish Valuations as US Equity Ownership Surge Drives Market Cap Plateau

科技巨头业绩超预期力压看跌估值，美股持股率激增推升市值平台 尽管前瞻估值指标高企，但美国家庭股票参与率上升与企业结构性利润率，为总市值与GDP之比长期维持更高水平提供了合理依据。 Ben Carlson 和 Michael Batnick 分析了市场估值与宏观格局，通过指出大型科技股飙升的盈利、强劲的经营现金流以及国内持股参与率的上升，反驳了 Paul Tudor Jones 的看跌立场。他们探讨了汽油价格冲击、国家债务和房地产市场韧性等经济指标，随后深入讨论了人工智能对劳动力市场的影响、预测市场机制以及散户交易行为。节目最后轻松探讨了电视画质、千禧一代的育儿压力、个人家庭开支、令人苦恼的厨具问题以及历史上的伪造货币阴谋。 保罗·都铎·琼斯（Paul Tudor Jones）警告美股估值处于历史高位（市值与GDP比率达252%），但本和迈克尔认为这反映了交易员固有的看跌偏见；随着美国家庭持股比例从1929年的2%跃升至2024年的55%，这一比率处于更高平台具有结构性合理性。 (0:38) 美股“七巨头”（Mag 7）推动标普500指数在2026年第一季度实现27%的强劲盈利增长，超大规模云厂商在AI基础设施的巨额资本支出占运营现金流的比例预计将在2026年突破90%。 (7:49) 标普500指数自2022年10月熊市低点已翻倍，而长期美债（TLT）仍自2020年高点下跌约40%，固定收益资产经历了11年的“失去的十年”。 (17:43) 综合考虑实际工资增长与汽车燃油效率的双重调整后，当前高油价对消费者的实际经济负担与1990年和2004年相当，并未达到历史极端水平。 (27:23) 美国公众持有的联邦债务达到31.265万亿美元（占GDP逾100%），但鉴于全球金融体系依然深度依赖美债且缺乏可行替代资产，所谓的灾难性崩溃论更接近华尔街的“道德姿态”。 (33:46)

Michael Batnick and Ben Carlson argue that today's elevated equity valuations reflect structural economic changes—most notably expanding retail participation and unprecedented corporate cash generation from Big Tech—rather than an unsustainable bubble. While pushing back against historical valuation alarmism, they highlight emerging risks within private credit software portfolios and retail-heavy speculative markets. Structural Shifts Challenging Historical Valuation Metrics (0:38) Macro investor Paul Tudor Jones warned that the U.S. stock market is critically overextended, noting that the market-capitalization-to-GDP ratio reached 252%—far surpassing the 65% seen in 1929 and 170% at the 2000 tech peak—while forward price-to-earnings ratios around 22 have historically produced negative 10-year forward returns. Carlson and Batnick counter that hedge fund and bond managers carry an innate bearish bias that often misreads secular trends, noting how similar warnings around elevated CAPE ratios in 2014 preceded a decade of roughly 14% annualized equity compounding. Rejecting the premise that Americans are 'over-equitized,' the hosts point out that U.S. household equity ownership rose from 2% in 1929 and 20% in 1987 to 55% in 2024, leading international peers like Canada (50%), Japan (15%), Germany (14%), and India (6%). They argue that as access barriers vanish and equity participation broadens, valuation gauges like the Buffett Indicator logically shift to a permanently higher baseline. Big Tech Earnings Power and Infrastructure CapEx (7:49) Traditional economic theory assumes revenue growth decelerates as corporations achieve massive scale, yet mega-cap tech earnings continue to accelerate. S&P 500 Q1 2026 earnings grew 27% year-over-year—outpacing initial 15% forecasts—powered by Communication Services (+53%) and Tech (+50%). The Magnificent Seven beat earnings-per-share estimates by 61% collectively, led by Alphabet (+90%), Amazon (+70%), and Meta (+56%). Record-high corporate profit margins make valuation comparisons to the 1950s or 1970s, when margins hovered around 5%, fundamentally obsolete. This profitability supports historic capital expenditure. Projected 2026 infrastructure spending among Amazon, Meta, Microsoft, and Alphabet is slated to reach $725 billion, a 77% surge over 2025. Bank of America analyst Mike Saccone projects hyperscaler CapEx will exceed 90% of operating cash flow in 2026, up from less than 25% in 2012. Meta illustrated this dynamic: despite its quarterly CapEx tripling from $6.4 billion in Q1 2024 to $19 billion in Q1 2026, operating cash flow expanded from $19 billion to $32 billion, keeping quarterly free cash flow stable at $12.3 billion. Macroeconomic Sentiment Disconnects and Debt Realities (17:43) Public perception of the macroeconomy remains sharply detached from underlying fundamentals. A recent Gallup/Axios survey found 55% of respondents believe their finances are worsening—a reading higher than during the 2008 financial crisis. Batnick dismisses this sentiment as polarized noise, noting the S&P 500 has gained 100% since its October 2022 lows. Similarly, while nominal retail fuel prices ($4.25 to $5.00 per gallon) irritate consumers, Duality Research data shows that double-adjusting fuel costs for real wage growth and improved vehicle miles-per-gallon aligns current consumer fuel burdens with levels seen in 1990 and 2004. Turning to sovereign debt, U.S. publicly held debt surpassed $31.265 trillion, or 100% of GDP. Citing Steve Eisman's assessment that public outrage over national deficits serves as 'Wall Street's version of virtue signaling,' the hosts argue that doomsday collapse scenarios fail to recognize that the global financial architecture has no viable substitute for U.S. Treasuries. They consider sustained inflation, rather than immediate insolvency, to be the genuine long-term risk. Frictions Across Private Credit and Speculative Markets (43:47) While public equities remain resilient, PitchBook data from Q4 2025 reveals mounting operational stress in Business Development Companies (BDCs). Software loans represent 25% of portfolio value across top BDCs, first-lien yields compressed by roughly 100 basis points, non-accruals expanded in dollar terms, and individual borrowers frequently overlap across multiple funds, raising default contagion risks. Concurrently, labor impacts from artificial intelligence appear more nuanced than early job-apocalypse narratives suggested: historical precedents like VisiCalc and Jevons paradox suggest increased efficiency often sparks latent demand, leading to broader business formation rather than structural net job losses. In speculative retail venues, investigative reporting indicates severe structural imbalances. On Polymarket, 67% of all net trading profits flowed to just 0.1% of accounts, while automated bots extracted $131 million from standard users. Furthermore, Kalshi's defensive PR release highlighted that 75% of its prediction market traders lose money—a statistic the platform claimed compared favorably to higher loss rates in day trading (80%), options (90%), and sports betting (95%). Carlson and Batnick conclude that while robust corporate balance sheets and expanding equity participation invalidate simplistic historical crash comparisons, the market remains fundamentally cyclical. Investors should recognize the resilience of core operating cash flows while maintaining discipline, as corrections inevitably occur and newer risks—such as private software credit exposure and retail speculative disadvantages—continue to develop.

Ben Carlson 与 Michael Batnick 在本期节目中指出，尽管宏观悲观论调与估值见顶警告不断，但在科技巨头强劲的盈利现金流、美国家庭股票持有普及率上升以及劳动生产率提升的支撑下，美股正显现出脱离历史旧框架的结构性韧性。 估值恐慌与宏观交易者的天然做空偏见 (0:38) 传奇对冲基金经理 Paul Tudor Jones 近期引用巴菲特指标发出警告，指出美股市值与 GDP 之比已达到 252%，远超 1929 年的 65%、1987 年的 85% 至 90% 以及 2000 年科技泡沫顶峰的 170%，且标普 500 指数远期市盈率处于 22 倍时历史上 10 年远期回报往往为负。Ben 与 Michael 对此反驳称，对冲基金和债券基金经理往往具有做空偏见，这类警告更多体现了快速交易员的心理特征，而非精确的预测能力。他们回顾 2014 至 2015 年市场围绕 CAPE 估值的悲观论调，指出随后十年美股依然实现了约 14% 的年化复合回报。 针对所谓美国人“过度配置权益资产”的观点，主持人们强调持有企业股权是美国财富创造的核心驱动力。数据显示，2024 年美国家庭股权渗透率达到 55%，加拿大接近 50%，而日本仅为 15%、德国 14%、中国 7%、印度 6%。回顾历史，美国 1929 年仅有 2% 的人口持有股票，1987 年为 20%。随着大众持股比例迈向 60% 甚至更高，市值与 GDP 之比长期维持在高平台完全符合结构性发展逻辑。 科技巨头超大资本支出与强劲现金流支撑 (7:49) 美股大盘科技公司的盈利能力正在颠覆传统经济学规律。标普 500 指数在 2026 年第一季度的盈利同比增长达到 27%，远高于业绩期前预测的 15%，通讯服务（+53%）与科技板块（+50%）领涨。在万亿美元营收体量下，巨头业绩非但没有大幅失速反而逆势提速，“科技七巨头”整体盈利超出预期 61%，其中 Alphabet 超出 90%，Amazon 超出 70%，Meta 超出 56%。亚马逊、Meta、微软与谷歌四大巨头在 AI 基础设施上的资本支出预计将达 7250 亿美元，较 2025 年的 4100 亿美元激增 77%。 以 Meta 为例，其 2026 年第一季度资本开支从 2024 年同期的 64 亿美元飙升至 190 亿美元，但其单季自由现金流却稳定在 123 亿美元（仅微低于两年前的 125 亿美元）。支撑这一开支的是其经营现金流在八个季度内从 190 亿美元激增至 320 亿美元。此外，美国银行分析师 Mike Saccone 的数据显示，超大规模云服务商的资本支出占经营现金流比重在 2012 年尚低于 25%，2025 年已达 70%，预计 2026 年将突破 90%。 市场分化、政府债务与通胀焦虑的现实检验 (17:43) 资产表现呈现剧烈分化：标普 500 指数自 2022 年 10 月熊市低点翻倍（+100%），而追踪 20 年期以上美债的 TLT 过去 11 年总回报陷入负值，较高点回撤约 40%，基准收益率从 2020 年的约 1% 跃升至约 5%。在宏观叙事方面，截至 3 月 31 日，美国公众持有的国债规模达 31.265 万亿美元，占 GDP 比重跨过 100%。对此，主持人们引用 Steve Eisman 的观点指出，大谈赤字危机往往只是华尔街的“道德标榜”，因为全球金融体系仍由美债锚定且目前不存在系统性替代品，过量政府支出的实质风险是持久通胀而非金融崩溃。 面对 Gallup 民调中 55% 美国人认为自身财务状况正在恶化的历史高点，Michael 批评当下民调已被政治极化严重污染，与居民资产负债表并未恶化的实际数据脱节。而对于汽油名义价格达到每加仑 4.25 至 5.00 美元的冲击，Duality Research 数据显示，在综合考虑过去 50 年的实际薪资增长与汽车燃油经济性提升进行双重平减后，消费者的实际油费负担仅与 1990 年和 2004 年的水平相当。 AI对就业的长期冲击与私有信贷潜在隐忧 (37:05) 围绕人工智能替代就业的担忧，主持人们引证历史上的杰文斯悖论（Jevons paradox）反驳末日论：家用意式咖啡机普及并未消灭咖啡馆，反而刺激了咖啡师需求；1979 年 VisiCalc 电子表格软件问世不仅未导致记账员失业，反而使随后 40 年的会计师数量翻了两番。即使在 AI 浪潮下，菲律宾近 200 万外包呼叫中心雇员规模依然连年增长，Stripe Atlas 新企业注册数突破 10 万家。AI 正在显著降低创业门槛、催生潜在新需求，其本质是生产力与业务拓展工具而非净就业毁灭者。 相比之下，私有信贷领域出现初步压力。PitchBook 针对主流上市业务开发公司（BDC）2025 年第四季度的分析显示：软件资产占排名前十 BDC 投资组合公允价值的 25%，易受科技迭代影响；第一留置权贷款收益率因基准利率下调和利差收窄同比缩水约 100 个基点；以美元金额计的不良停息贷款持续增加；同时单一借款人往往重叠出现在五到六家 BDC 账目中，潜在违约具有跨基金传染性。不过主流 BDC 如 Golub Capital 年内仍录得 4.5% 上涨，信贷冲击最终程度仍待观察。 预测市场失真与散户交易生态异化 (46:04) 媒体披露的数据揭示出散户在新兴金融工具中的劣势地位。《华尔街日报》与彭博社报道显示，Polymarket 上 67% 的利润被排名前 0.1% 的极少数账户赚取，不到 2000 个账户掠走了近 5 亿美元利润，且自动化交易机器人套取了 1.31 亿美元收益。Michael 批评该类平台允许就内部信息或非公开决策下注，实质助长了内幕交易。 平台 Kalshi 在应对质疑时辩称其用户亏损率（75%）低于日内交易（80%）、期权（90%）和体育博彩（95%），主持人们直言拿 75% 亏损率作为合规抗辩荒谬至极。与此同时，Robinhood 来自事件合约与加密货币的营收已超越传统资产交易，凸显出散户金融生态投机化倾向。 本期讨论总结认为，当前由超大规模科技基础设施投入和实体生产力支撑的牛市环境极为罕见，市场旧有估值基准已部分失效；但主持人们依然提醒投资者保持清醒，市场周期始终存在，修正与下跌终将到来，应在认清现实的同时审慎享受繁荣。

## Background 本期视频由 YouTube 频道 The Compound（Ritholtz Wealth Management 旗下媒体）于 2026 年 5 月 13 日发布，由主持人迈克尔·巴特尼克（Michael Batnick）与本·卡尔森（Ben Carlson）共同主持。节目简介指出，本期为《Animal Spirits》第 463 期，重点探讨保罗·都铎·琼斯的市场估值预警、全美家庭持股比例、科技巨头令人咋舌的财报、债券市场失去的十年、高油价痛感、政府赤字、AI 与杰文斯悖论以及预测市场的赢家与输家等诸多宏观和生活话题。 ## TL;DR 两位主持人首先复盘了传奇对冲基金经理保罗·都铎·琼斯对美股高估值与过度股权化的警告，反驳了过于悲观的宏观偏见，并指出全美家庭高持股比例以及科技巨头（Mag 7）惊人的盈利扩张支撑了当前牛市。随后，节目拆解了标普指数自低点翻倍与长期美债惨淡表现的极端分化，并结合实际通胀感受分析了油价破 5 美元、真实消费负担与政府债务无解论。围绕前沿科技与资本市场，他们借杰文斯悖论论证了 AI 繁荣对创业与就业的实际拉动而非彻底摧毁，审视了房贷杠杆稳固度与私募信贷风险，并揭露了预测市场上散户大幅亏损、内幕交易与做市商套利的残酷现状。最后，两人还穿插了育儿焦虑、健身器材踩坑、房屋翻修卖币以及近期影视图书的真实推荐与互怼。 ## Atmosphere & style 整场节目充斥着老友茶余饭后式的松弛感与美式幽默，既有严谨硬核的宏观图表拆解，又有毫无包袱的日常自嘲互黑。迈克尔常常情绪饱满、戏剧化地分享生活窘况（如车快没油被儿子催、被全网嘲讽的健身垫、砸墙盖杂物间只能卖加密货币），而本则扮演相对冷静、敏锐且不忘扎心补刀的搭档。在剖析华尔街末日论调与预测市场割韭菜时，两人语调犀利讽刺，而在聊到千禧一代育儿和中年健身焦虑时又极具人情味与代入感，给听众带来既专业透彻又格外解压的收听体验。 ## Bulletin - [04:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVz4Nz4WjE4&t=248s) 美股巴菲特指标已飙升至 252%，但全国家庭持股比例已接近 60%（1929年仅2%），股票资产已成为全社会最普遍的财富沉淀形式，单纯对比历史倍数存在时代局限性。 - [12:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVz4Nz4WjE4&t=734s) 超大规模科技巨头第一季度业绩大幅超预期，科技巨头在 AI 领域的资本开支计划攀升至 7250 亿美元，预计 2026 年其 CapEx 将占经营现金流的 90% 以上。 - [17:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVz4Nz4WjE4&t=1063s) 长期美债（TLT）过去 11 年年化收益率正式转负且较历史高点仍回撤超 40%，而标普 500 指数已较 2022 年秋季低点翻倍。 - [46:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVz4Nz4WjE4&t=2764s) 去中心化预测平台 Polymarket 上 67% 的净利润流入了仅 0.1% 的头部账户手中，做市算法与内幕交易争议凸显了散户面临的严峻信息不对称。 ## Key takeaways - [02:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVz4Nz4WjE4&t=147s) 传奇交易员保罗·都铎·琼斯警告美股过度股权化且远期市盈率过高，但其悲观预测部分源自对冲基金交易员紧盯尾部风险的职业性格本能。 - [04:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVz4Nz4WjE4&t=248s) 美国当前近 60% 的家庭持有股票，股权资产是共享头部企业家成长红利的核心途径，推动总市值对 GDP 比例系统性抬升。 - [09:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVz4Nz4WjE4&t=542s) 科技巨头齐聚营收规模巨大但增速依然迅猛的“反重力象限”，打破了传统经济学中企业体量变大增速必然失速的规律。 - [10:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVz4Nz4WjE4&t=631s) 标普 500 盈利预期同比增幅达 25%，Meta、Alphabet 等巨头在 CapEx 暴增的同时仍能凭借强劲的经营活动现金流维持充沛的自由现金流。 - [17:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVz4Nz4WjE4&t=1063s) TLT 等超长久期国债遭遇‘失去的十一年’，投资者本可通过简单缩短久期至短债或现金来完全规避本次债券暴跌。 - [27:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVz4Nz4WjE4&t=1640s) 原油供应损失规模达到 1973 年以来最高水平，但经名义时薪与汽车燃油经济性双重调整后，真实油价负担并未达到拖垮消费者的程度。 - [29:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVz4Nz4WjE4&t=1745s) 宏观预测者常遵循‘永远只给预测价格、绝不框死到期日’的法则，以此规避时间窗口过期被证伪的风险。 - [33:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVz4Nz4WjE4&t=2026s) 美债公开规模跨越 31 万亿美元，但在全球金融体系缺乏更优储备资产替代品前，赤字的主要现实威胁仍是通胀而非系统崩溃。 - [37:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVz4Nz4WjE4&t=2225s) AI 引发的失业末日论正在降温，如同历史上的电子表格普及与杰文斯悖论，生产力工具降本反而激发了外包与初创企业的海量新需求。 - [41:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVz4Nz4WjE4&t=2519s) 本轮全美房价上涨缺乏 2008 年式的零首付、可调利率贷款（ARM）与提现消费杠杆，低利率锁定与高信用门槛构成了稳固基础。 - [43:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVz4Nz4WjE4&t=2627s) 私募信贷（BDC）虽面临 25% 的软件敞口重叠与利差收窄压力，但二级市场表现抗跌，前期恐慌情绪已被市场提前消化。 - [48:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVz4Nz4WjE4&t=2912s) 预测市场绝非散户金矿，Kalshi 平台亏损率仍高达 75%，针对可被内部知情者知晓的事件开盘极易沦为内幕信息收割工具。 - [52:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVz4Nz4WjE4&t=3126s) 千禧一代父母育儿时长较前代成倍增加，但过度的‘直升机式育儿’也在满意度与健康管理之间带来了普遍的生活压力。 ## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVz4Nz4WjE4&t=0s) 开场赞助与保罗·都铎·琼斯的估值预警 节目开场由 Grayscale 赞助播出。作为全球顶尖的加密资产投资平台，Grayscale 在行业深耕已逾十年，在当前市场环境下致力于提供前瞻研究与投教支持。随后，主持人本·卡尔森（Ben Carlson）与迈克尔·巴特尼克（Michael Batnick）正式切入正题。本首先提起近期投资圈极具关注度的一期播客：传奇宏观对冲基金经理保罗·都铎·琼斯（Paul Tudor Jones, PTJ）做客帕特里克·奥肖内西（Patrick O'Shaughnessy）的《Invest Like the Best》。迈克尔对此深有共鸣，直言琼斯是一个极具个人魅力的人，南方口音让他听起来和蔼可亲、谈吐爽朗，“就像那种你会想和他一起坐在门廊上品威士忌的大叔”。 然而，这期访谈中最引人注目的，是琼斯对当前美股估值与历史周期的严厉警告。奥肖内西随后在社交平台整理分享了琼斯的几个核心论据，引发广泛关注：当前美股总市值占 GDP 的比例（即“巴菲特指标”）已飙升至 252%，而回溯历史，1929 年大崩盘前该指标仅为 65%，1987 年“黑色星期一”前为 85% 至 90%，即便在 2000 年互联网泡沫顶峰也仅为 170%。琼斯指出，自 1970 年以来，重大熊市的均值回归周期大约每 10 年发生一次；如今美国作为整体已经“过度股权化”，个人投资者的股票配置权重创下建国以来的最高纪录。从历史规律来看，如果在标普 500 指数预期市盈率（Forward P/E）高达 22 倍时买入，未来 10 年的年化回报往往为负。 面对这种宏观警告，市场上通常会有两种截然相反的典型反应：一派认为历史铁律不可违，如此极端的估值注定意味着未来糟糕的回报；另一派则对此嗤之以鼻，认为这类对冲基金巨头多年来一直在高呼风险，却屡屡踏空这轮波澜壮阔的牛市。 ### [02:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVz4Nz4WjE4&t=147s) 交易员性格与宏观悲观偏见 本指出，与其去争论琼斯对具体点位或收益率的预测是否准确，他从这期访谈中获得的最大启发，其实是“投资纪律与投资者天生性格的深刻关联”。琼斯在访谈开篇坦率承认，自己早年其实一直对沃伦·巴菲特（Warren Buffett）颇有微词，甚至有点瞧不起长线价值投资模式。他曾经认为巴菲特只不过是运气好、押中了几个点子，并顺应了长期的国运大趋势而已；而琼斯自己的性格根本无法做到那样的长期坚守，因为他骨子里是个“纯粹的交易员与投机客”。 琼斯这种偏执的交易员基因在他对危机的预测中体现得淋漓尽致：在 1987 年美股崩盘后，他曾极度悲观地断言美国即将陷入一场大萧条。本联想到桥水基金创始人瑞·达利欧（Ray Dalio）在 1982 年也曾笃定预言美国经济将走向大萧条，而那一年恰恰拉开了美股历史上最伟大的一轮超级长牛的序幕。许多宏观对冲基金经理和债券经理人一旦登上 CNBC 等财经媒体，往往通篇充斥着空头言论。这并非证明他们的预测水平有多么神准，而是他们的底层性格与风险控制本能所决定的——他们必须时刻紧盯尾部风险，天生对长期做多缺乏安全感。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 宏观交易员的性格驱动与行为模式 accDescr: 展示对冲基金交易员的底层性格如何塑造其投资风格及长期宏观偏见 subgraph Personality["底层心理与认知模型"] P1["天生性格偏好：投机与交易"] P2["对长线持股的不适应性：无法成为巴菲特"] end subgraph HistoricalEchoes["历史重大误判案例"] H1["保罗·都铎·琼斯（1987年）<br/>崩盘后预言经济陷入大萧条"] H2["瑞·达利欧（1982年）<br/>超级大牛市起点预言经济崩溃"] end subgraph MarketBehavior["常态化行为表现"] B1["过度关注均值回归与极端估值风险"] B2["财经媒体常态化唱空（性格驱动而非胜率证明）"] end Personality --> HistoricalEchoes HistoricalEchoes --> MarketBehavior ``` ### [04:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVz4Nz4WjE4&t=248s) “过度股权化”的反思与全国家庭持股比例 迈克尔和本随后就“美国是否过度股权化”展开了热烈探讨。迈克尔回忆道，早在 2014 至 2015 年间，投资圈每天都在激烈争论席勒市盈率（CAPE Ratio）过高以及未来 10 年美股回报必然惨淡的话题。当时知名博主 Jesse Livermore 在 Philosophical Economics 博客上撰写了一篇长达五千字的重磅长文，力陈基于 CAPE 指标断定市场昂贵存在诸多盲区。迈克尔坦言，虽然自己当年也认为“这次不一样”并反驳极端悲观论调，但内心深处确实也曾预期随后的市场收益率会明显走低，没想到过去十余年的年化复合增长率依然高达惊人的 14% 左右。 针对琼斯所谓“美国过度股权化（Over-equitized）”的说辞，迈克尔提出了强烈反驳：美国是全球最富裕的经济体，而这个国家绝大部分财富本就是由股权、由成为优秀企业的股东所创造的。普通民众选择搭上埃隆·马斯克（Elon Musk）等顶尖企业家的财富快车，分享企业成长红利，“这难道不是最理所当然的选择吗？” 本补充了一组由分析师分享的全球家庭股票资产配置数据： - **美国**：持股家庭占比高居全球榜首，达 55%（最新估测已接近 60%）。 - **加拿大**：持股比例紧随其后，接近 50%。 - **欧洲与亚洲其他主要经济体**：日本仅为 15%，德国仅为 14%，中国约为 7%，印度则仅有 6%。 本进一步拆解了“巴菲特指标”为何随时间推移必然大幅上移的历史背景：1929 年美股崩盘时，全美仅有约 2% 的人口拥有股票；1987 年崩盘时，全美持股人口比例也才 20%；而如今这一比例已攀升至近 60%。当全社会有如此高比例的资金源源不断注入资本市场，股市总市值相对 GDP 的比例水涨船高是完全符合逻辑的演进结果，“如果它不上升反而才奇怪”。虽然随着未来市场波动，家庭资产中股票的市值比例会有所回撤，但持股人口普及度只增不减已是大势所趋。随着全球化金融门槛被科技逐步瓦解，中印等新兴市场的权益资产配置比例未来也将持续提升。 ### [07:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVz4Nz4WjE4&t=469s) 超大规模科技巨头（Mag 7）令人瞠目的财报 话题随之转向刚刚披露完毕的科技巨头财报季。迈克尔感叹，空头阵营此前最致命的盲区，在于根本无法预见超大规模科技巨头（Mag 7 / Hyperscalers）在体量如此庞大的情况下，不仅没有遭遇边际增长放缓，反而实现了营收与利润的再度加速增长，“这些数字简直令人瞠目结舌”。 谈及跟踪财报的习惯，迈克尔提到自己上周几乎听完了所有巨头的财报电话会——唯独跳过了微软，笑称“微软的业务架构对我来说实在太复杂了”。两人还饶有兴致地讨论了各自在财报音频平台 Quartr 上的收听偏好：本习惯直接跳过管理层照本宣科的开场白，直奔火药味十足的分析师问答环节（Q&A），因为绝大部分真正有价值的信息和临场反应都隐藏在提问环节中；迈克尔则表示，自己是否听开场白完全取决于 CEO 本人的表达风格。迈克尔最后提到科技分析师埃文·阿姆斯特朗（Evan Armstrong）在 Substack 上制作的一张震撼图表，该图表直观对比了各大科技巨头的年化营收规模与市值的恐怖量级。 ### [09:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVz4Nz4WjE4&t=542s) “本不该存在之象限”与科技巨头的反重力增长 迈克尔·巴特尼克（Michael Batnick）与本·卡尔森（Ben Carlson）探讨了一个展现科技巨头超常增长的图表：横坐标（X轴）是年化营收规模，纵坐标（Y轴）是营收同比增长率。图表中那个聚集着 Meta、微软（Microsoft）、Alphabet、苹果（Apple）和亚马逊（Amazon）的区域被冠以“本不该存在的象限”（the quadrant that shouldn't exist）。按照传统经济学与企业生命周期规律，当一家公司的年营收迈入 800 亿甚至上千亿美元的体量时，受制于巨大的基数与规模体量，根本不可能再维持如此迅猛的百分比增速，然而这几大巨头却持续打破铁律。 两人多年来反复强调一个观点：绝对不能拿今天的科技巨头去生搬硬套 20 世纪 60 年代、70 年代、80 年代甚至 90 年代的老牌企业。哪怕 90 年代互联网泡沫时期看似接近，实际情况也完全不同。由于这些巨头内部业务线繁多且错综复杂——无论是亚马逊、谷歌还是微软，旗下都包裹着庞大多元的增长引擎——这使得试图预测其见顶变得极其困难。本感叹道，每次牛市延续时总有人找借口说“如果当年没发生某事牛市早就结束了”；回想 2017 年斯科特·加洛韦（Scott Galloway）出版畅销书《四巨头》（*The Four*）时，若有人断言那根本不是顶部，且这几家公司在多年后依然能以同样骇人的速度扩张，当时任何理性的人都会认为这绝不可能。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 传统规模法则与巨头反重力象限对比 accDescr: 展现传统经济规律随体量扩大增速放缓，而科技巨头在巨大体量下依然保持高速扩张的矛盾现象。 subgraph Traditional["传统经济学规律"] A["营收规模剧增 (800亿-1000亿+美元)"] --> B["增长动能衰竭 / 增速趋近个位数"] end subgraph UnnaturalQuadrant["'本不该存在的象限'"] C["Meta / 微软 / Alphabet / 苹果 / 亚马逊"] --> D["巨型体量叠加超高同比增速"] end ``` ### [10:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVz4Nz4WjE4&t=631s) 炸裂的财报季：不仅是“啦啦队”，而是客观现实 迈克尔援引沃伦·巴菲特（Warren Buffett）关于盈利繁荣正在全面加速的观察，目前美股远期盈利预期同比增速已高达 25%，令人惊叹。根据 FactSet 的统计数据，标普 500 指数中有七个板块在 2026 年第一季度录得两位数的利润增长，其中通信服务板块以 53% 领跑，信息技术板块达 50%（迈克尔直言通信服务实质上也是科技股），非必需消费品板块增长亦接近 40%。 几大巨头的每股收益（EPS）超预期幅度更是令人咋舌： - **Alphabet**：业绩超出市场预期逾 90% - **亚马逊（Amazon）**：业绩超出市场预期逾 70% - **Meta**：业绩超出市场预期逾 56% - **美股“七巨头”（Mag 7）**：整体盈利比分析师预期高出 61% - **标普 500 指数整体**：过去一周内第一季度的实际盈利增长率预测从 15% 飙升至 27%，创下自 2021 年第四季度以来的最高单季同比增幅。 针对外界可能提出的质疑，本提醒道，2021 年的高增长尚且夹杂着疫情初期的极低基数效应，而如今并没有那种异常低基数的掩护。两人笑称，曾经市场上充斥着“一旦低基数效应消失会怎样”、“等疫情期间居民超额储蓄耗尽又会如何”的唱衰论调，如今这些声音几乎销声匿迹。迈克尔无奈地表示，列出这些真实数据时很难不被当成市场的“狂热啦啦队员”，但他们只是在如实陈述市场发生的事实；如果陈述真相听起来像在喝彩，那他也只能“认罪受罚”。 ### [12:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVz4Nz4WjE4&t=734s) 利润率创新高与 7250 亿美元 AI 资本开支狂潮 面对市场对未来的种种憧憬，迈克尔与本提到日前与金瑞基金（KraneShares）的交流：万一人形机器人就是下一个体量达 5 万亿美元的超级赛道呢？安德森·霍洛维茨（Andreessen Horowitz, a16z）每周发布的图表也显示，企业利润率再次刷新历史新高，并配文“这已不是你祖父时代的股市”。本借此批评那些硬套 20 世纪 50 年代席勒市盈率（CAPE Ratio）的人，指出当年企业利润率仅有 5%，拿计算机时代的巨无霸去比半个世纪前的老工业企业，完全是风马牛不相及。 与盈利繁荣相伴的是前所未见的资本开支（CapEx）。《金融时报》（Financial Times）援引数据指出，大型科技巨头在 AI 领域的开支计划已攀升至惊人的 7250 亿美元。美银（Bank of America）迈克·萨科尼（Mike Saccone）的数据进一步揭示，仅由亚马逊、Meta、微软和谷歌构成的“四大巨头”（Big Four），今年预计投入的资本开支就要比去年的历史纪录（4100 亿美元）再暴增 77%。 以备受市场审视的 Meta 为例： - 财报公布后其股价单日大跌 9%，且毫无反弹迹象，从高点累计回撤已达 24%。 - 在物业、厂房与设备等硬性资本支出上，Meta 在 2024 年第一季度支出仅为 64 亿美元，而仅仅两年后这一数字就暴增至 190 亿美元。 - 尽管多头和空头原本预计激增的 CapEx 会彻底摧毁其自由现金流（FCF），但 Meta 最新季度的 FCF 为 123 亿美元，与此前时期的 125 亿美元几乎持平。 - 之所以能维持充沛的现金流，是因为 Meta 的经营活动现金净额在短短八个季度内从 190 亿美元跨越式暴涨到了 320 亿美元。 ### [15:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVz4Nz4WjE4&t=915s) 芯片狂热、资本支出失控与 Anthropic 的天方夜谭 迈克尔指出，七巨头本身其实并未显露盲目的狂欢迹象，反倒是近期存储与传统芯片股的动向开始令他隐隐担忧。西部数据（Western Digital）、闪迪（SanDisk）和美光（Micron）等股票涨势极其迅猛。虽然这些公司的利润在周期反转下同比暴增 10 倍乃至 50 倍，股价跟随暴涨并非毫无依据，但像美光这种庞大体量的标的每天上涨 8%，交易层面的投机换手已经展现出某种类似“点阵计算股”的狂热气息。 更让人倒吸一口凉气的是超大规模云厂商（Hyperscalers）对待现金流的态度： - 2012 年，超大规模云厂商的资本开支占其经营性现金流的比重尚且不足 25%。 - 这一比例在 2025 年达到了 70%，而到 2026 年预计将突破 90%。 - 巨头们几乎把赚到的每一分经营现金全额倒灌进 AI 基础设施竞赛中，“如同孤注一掷”。 与此同时，《大西洋月刊》（*The Atlantic*）关于 AI 领头羊 Anthropic 的一篇报道更将这种狂热推向顶峰：报道称 Anthropic 当前的营收增速甚至超过了疫情期间的 Zoom、2000 年代初期的谷歌，乃至镀金时代的标准石油（Standard Oil）；文章甚至测算，若保持目前的增长轨迹，到明年年初它就会成为全球吸金能力最强的企业。对此，本和迈克尔当场大笑，本毫不犹豫地表示自己绝对要“押注下盘”（take the under），断言其增速必然会大幅放缓，绝不可能在一年内营收登顶全球。但无论如何，人类商业史上确实从未见过如此体量下的极端爆发力。 ### [17:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVz4Nz4WjE4&t=1063s) 标普自低点翻倍，长债 TLT 却遭遇“失去的十一年” 在感叹完科技狂潮后，两人复盘了整体市场的宏观表现。查理·比莱洛（Charlie Bilello）和马特（Matt）在“Exhibit A”分享的数据显示，标普 500 指数目前已较 2022 年秋季的低点整整翻了一倍（上涨 100%）。本感慨道，回想 2022 年秋季，通胀率高达 8%，全市场都在人心惶惶地讨论“衰退随时降临”甚至“已经陷入衰退”；然而，如果投资者在那个极度恐慌的时刻勇敢入场，如今已经收获了翻倍的收益。 然而，有人欢喜有人忧，债券市场传来的则是彻头彻尾的坏消息： - **TLT（iShares 20年期以上美国国债 ETF）**：过去 11 年的年化回报率正式跌为负数，整整 11 年颗粒无收。 - **历史级回撤**：随着基准利率从当年的接近 0%~1% 一路攀升至如今的 5% 左右，长期美债较 2020 年上半年的历史高点仍深陷超过 40% 的巨额回撤之中。 迈克尔和本调侃道，面对规模达数万亿美元的长期政府债券资产，这或许是“有史以来最容易对冲的一场资产暴跌”——因为投资者所要做的仅仅是把期限缩短，买入短期国债或现金资产即可，无需任何复杂操作。 ### [19:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVz4Nz4WjE4&t=1156s) 债券对冲的教训与破 5 美元的油价冲击 在回顾固定收益市场时，两人感叹如果投资者经历了 40% 的暴跌，而且自 2020 年以来一直死守却不懂得分散债券配置，那确实只能怪自己——在固定收益内部做好对冲本应是显而易见的常识。紧接着，Michael 将话题转到了日常生活中的通胀刺痛感：他第一次切身体会到现在的汽油有多贵。 起因是他开妻子的车出门，并忍不住吐槽妻子车里永远不剩油，每次他坐进驾驶座油表灯几乎都亮着。这次尤其夸张，续航只剩 10 英里，而他还要载着儿子 Kobe 和朋友去上美术课。油表警告灯一路闪烁，甚至弹出“立即靠边停车”的警报，吓得儿子 Kobe 直喊：“爸爸，车子叫你马上靠边！”虽然 Michael 硬撑着安慰说没事，但加满油箱竟然花了他大约 90 美元。他当场给妻子发短信震惊吐槽：“天哪，油价居然涨到了 5 美元一加仑！”他指出，人类的大脑对整数关口极其敏感，如果油价是 4.75 美元，大家可能不会大惊小怪，可一旦跨过 5 美元这个整数心理门槛，冲击感便扑面而来。 ### [20:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVz4Nz4WjE4&t=1228s) “坐火箭上涨，飘羽毛下跌”：能源危机与股市脱节 Ben 表示自己加油便宜不少，大概在每加仑 4.25 美元左右，但他同样察觉到了油价飙升的速度之快。图形显示油价几乎是像“加农炮出膛”一样直线上窜。两人提到了大宗商品市场的一句经典行话：“价格上涨如火箭升空，下跌却慢如羽毛飘落”（rise like a rocket, fall like a feather）。 Ben 抛出一个疑问：即便全美平均油价冲上每加仑 6 美元，美股市场是不是依然毫不在意？虽然 Michael 曾让团队对比标普 500 指数与汽油价格的走势，结果发现两者并没有显著的直接相关性，但当前能源市场的诡异之处在于，它是华尔街“最昭然若揭的风险”。《金融时报》（Financial Times）的一份图表显示，当前原油供应的损失规模已经超越了 1973 年以来的任何一次危机——其严重程度甚至压过了 70 年代末的伊朗伊斯兰革命、阿拉伯石油禁运、两伊战争以及伊拉克入侵科威特。所有地缘政治分析师和能源专家都在大声疾呼能源市场已彻底乱套，但大众与市场却像《王牌大贱谍》（Austin Powers）里那个呆立在压路机前方缓缓被碾压的守卫一样，眼睁睁看着危险逼近却无动于衷。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 历史原油供应中断规模对比 accDescr: 对比1970年代以来的各大原油供应危机与当下的冲击规模 subgraph 历史重大能源冲击 A["1973年 阿拉伯石油禁运"] B["1970年代末 伊朗伊斯兰革命"] C["1980年代 两伊战争"] D["1990年 伊拉克入侵科威特"] end subgraph 当前危机 E["当期原油供应损失 (自1973年以来最大规模)"] end A -. 供应中断规模.- E B -. 供应中断规模.- E C -. 供应中断规模.- E D -. 供应中断规模.- E ``` ### [22:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVz4Nz4WjE4&t=1374s) 晨间新闻的负能量轰炸与逃离社交媒体 Michael 分享了一个清晨的荒诞经历：他的妻子 Robin 翻身时无意中压到了电视遥控器，电视突然打开并播放起主流电视台（第 4 频道或第 7 频道）的本地早间新闻。原本只是背景音，但他一听播报内容瞬间惊呆了——新闻开篇是汽油暴涨，紧接着是市区火灾，然后是另一场大火、有人面部被刺伤、一起谋杀凶案，最后竟然是有人在民宅前门喷涂纳粹标志。一连串充斥着暴力与死亡的负面轰炸让他忍无可忍，立刻关掉了电视。 这也解释了为什么他们几乎彻底放弃了传统电视新闻网，平时只关注财经和经济消息，因为大众新闻充斥着令人抑郁的噱头。不仅如此，Michael 还聊到了对抗手机成瘾的挣扎。他此前买了一个名为“Brick”的硬件锁屏设备，原本是为了在陪孩子时彻底放下手机，结果却演变成早晨躺在床上刷整整一个小时的 Instagram。为了遏制居高不下的屏幕使用时间，他狠心封禁了手机上的 Instagram，甚至破天荒第一次在电脑网页端登录该平台。Ben 戏谑地问他：“你要是戒了 Instagram，以后去哪网购？去哪看那些健身网红的带货？” ### [25:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVz4Nz4WjE4&t=1510s) 健身“网红”之路：古怪器材与 PurePlank 垫子 Michael 坦言自己的确在社交网络上被各种健身器材吸引。上周他在节目中展示的新奇健身器材遭到了同事和网友的无情嘲弄。同事 LaRosa 甚至发信息调侃他：“这绝对是你买过最离谱的垃圾玩意，我刚才一边开车一边放大图片看，差点撞车了！”还有网友留言补刀：“这是我见过最愚蠢的锻炼器械，难道挥拳还需要辅助导轨吗？”Michael 则无奈地辩解说那台器械是有阻力的。 尽管被全网群嘲，正经历“身体容貌焦虑”、感觉自己日渐衰老且腰背酸痛的 Michael 还是抵挡不住诱惑，又下单了一件新装备。由于背部劳损无法再打全场篮球，他必须强化核心力量来护腰，而平板支撑是公认最好的核心训练。但他抱怨传统的平板支撑对手臂和手肘太折磨。于是，他购买了 WWE 传奇摔跤手 Edge 与 Christian 推广的一款专业平板支撑垫（PurePlank）——垫子拥有两英寸厚的特制泡沫缓冲垫、握把以及自带的计时器，能彻底解决压迫手肘骨头的问题。当 Ben 不解地反问“你为什么不直接买个瑜伽垫？你的骨头到底有多敏感？”时，Michael 理直气壮地回击：“瑜伽垫薄得跟纸一样，我的骨头就是天生娇贵！” ### [27:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVz4Nz4WjE4&t=1640s) 汽油痛感的多维度拆解：工资、燃油效率与真实通胀 重新拉回经济话题，Ben 探讨了来自 Duality Research 的深度图表分析：为什么当前的高油价固然让人肉痛，但可能不会彻底拖垮消费者？很多分析只看标称油价，这完全脱离了现实。这篇研究对历史油价进行了三重调整维度考量： - **平均时薪增长（Wages）**：过去 50 年间工人的平均名义时薪大幅增长，相同工时所能购买的燃油量不可同日而语。 - **车辆燃油经济性（Fuel Efficiency）**：现代汽车的平均每加仑行驶里程远高于数十年前，消耗同等体积汽油所能支持的通勤里程更长。 - **双重调整（Double Adjust）**：将燃油开支占工资的比例与车辆燃油效率提升进行复合调整后，真实的出行用油负担其实大幅下降。 Ben 指出，让团队成员 Shawn 计算剔除通胀后的真实油价（基准追溯至 1990 年），当前经通胀调整后的汽油价格水平实际上与 1990 年和 2004 年基本持平。这正如人们抱怨现在的房价远高于 1970 年代一样，如果不考虑通胀，也不考虑现在的房屋面积比以前翻倍、建造质量更好，这种比较就毫无意义。油价上涨确实会引起大众普遍的不满与抱怨，掏更多钱加油也的确令人懊恼，但放眼整体宏观消费，除了极少数极度脆弱的群体，绝大多数消费者依然能够承受这一成本压力。 ### [29:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVz4Nz4WjE4&t=1745s) 宏观预测的铁律：永远给出数字，千万别定日期 本轮经济周期的运行逻辑向来如此：某些意外事件发生并惹恼了大众，但人们最终总能咬牙挺过去，经济大体依然运转良好。《经济学人》（The Economist）最近的封面文章称市场“仍处于梦幻之地”（still in la-la land），并指出当前的油价还不够高。本·卡尔森（Ben Carlson）由此总结出一条宏观预测的黄金法则：如果你是一个宏观经济预测者，永远不要给出确切的截止日期。 许多分析师常常警告称：“如果霍尔木兹海峡（Strait of Hormuz）在某月某日之前无法重新开放，大家就全完了。”但本指出，精明的预言家只会给出价格预测，把时间跨度无限期放宽。一旦设定了具体日期，时间一过大家就会发现什么也没发生；聪明的做法是把时间再往后推一个月，绝对不要把自己绑定在一个死期上。迈克尔·巴特尼克（Michael Batnick）调侃称这绝对是至理名言。 ### [29:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVz4Nz4WjE4&t=1797s) 荒谬的民调：比2008年次贷危机还要糟糕的财务现状？ 迈克尔随后提到了一份由盖洛普（Gallup）和 Axios 联合发布的最新调查，直言这完全是一份“垃圾民调”。该调查显示，认为自身财务状况正在恶化的美国人比例达到了 55%，创下该民调的历史新高。 作为对比，在 2008 年大金融危机（迈克尔戏称其“既伟大又危机重重”）期间，这一比例甚至都没有接近过 50%。迈克尔和本对此感到匪夷所思：难道当下的财务窘境真的比 2008 年系统性崩盘时还要严峻？他们一致认为，这只能说明民意调查机制已经彻底失灵损坏。无论从任何客观经济指标来衡量，如今人们的财务状况都绝不可能比次贷危机时期更糟。 - 盖洛普/Axios 调查中，55% 的美国人表示自身财务状况正在变差，创历史最高纪录。 - 2008 年金融危机最严重时期，该项调查的读数始终低于 50%。 ### [30:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVz4Nz4WjE4&t=1855s) 马斯克的8000亿财富与镀金时代的极端集中 迈克尔念了未来学家彼得·戴曼迪斯（Peter Diamandis）发的一条推文。戴曼迪斯提到，埃隆·马斯克（Elon Musk）的身家刚刚突破了 8000 亿美元，约占美国整体 GDP 的 2.7%。上一个在全美经济中拥有如此庞大财富份额的人，还是 1913 年的约翰·D·洛克菲勒（John D. Rockefeller）。整整过去了一个世纪才有人能与洛克菲勒匹敌——“洛克菲勒拥有石油，而马斯克拥有未来”。迈克尔对此表示，这虽然是极具争议的话题，但马斯克在为自己创造财富的同时也为他人创造了海量财富，这就是资本主义制度的运转机制。然而，马斯克随后在推特上回复了一句“不到 10 万亿决不罢休”（10 trillion or bust），这种高调的挑衅发言让迈克尔感到一言难尽。 本借此抛出了一个历史知识互动。如今全美前 10% 的富层掌握着大约 67%（约三分之二）的社会总财富，贫富差距确实显著。但根据《华尔街简史》（Wall Street: A History）一书记载，在 20 世纪初向“咆哮的二十年代”迈进时，当时全美前 5% 的人口控制了高达 80% 至 90% 的财富。这种财富集中度远远超出了今天的现象，但在那个年代，信息传播并不透明，没有人通过直观的统计图表公开展示这些数据，更何况洛克菲勒当年也不会天天在社交媒体上发推炫耀。 ### [33:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVz4Nz4WjE4&t=2026s) 国债超31万亿与华尔街的“赤字美德绑架” 根据《华尔街日报》的数据，截至 3 月 31 日，美国由公众持有的联邦债务规模达到了 31.265 万亿美元，占 GDP 的比重已超过 100%。本指出，这类图表向来是华尔街用来恐吓公众的最佳素材。 这让两人联想到史蒂夫·艾斯曼（Steve Eisman，电影《大空头》原型之一）此前做客节目时给出的锐评：“赤字就是华尔街版本的美德绑架（virtue signaling）。”名嘴们竞相登上财经电视互相攀比，试图证明自己比别人更仇视赤字，并痛斥那些不顾子孙后代死活的人。然而从来没有人深思过：为何几十年间所有关于债务崩溃的末日预言都从未兑现？本与迈克尔强调，整个地球的金融体系运转基础就是美国国债。除非出现比美债和美元更好、全球资金都抢着涌入的全新替代品，否则这绝不会演变成系统性崩塌。本认为，庞大政府支出所带来的真正最大现实风险始终是通胀，而非金融系统的毁灭性崩盘。 - 截至 3 月 31 日，美国公开持有的联邦债务为 31.265 万亿美元。 - 联邦公开债务占美国 GDP 比重正式跨过 100% 关口。 ### [36:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVz4Nz4WjE4&t=2183s) 曼哈顿的Chipotle价格：通胀正在降温？ 迈克尔顺势带来了一个关于通胀前线的轻松好消息：他当天在曼哈顿中城买了一份 Chipotle 墨西哥卷饼碗，花费为 12.85 美元。本笑着调侃迈克尔与 Chipotle 之间就像处于一种“病态虐恋”——每隔六个月迈克尔就要宣告与其分手，转头又在节目上宣布复合。迈克尔解释称，因为纽约办公室就在旁边，图个方便才去买，而这款餐品此前曾一度突破过 14 美元大关。能看到单价回落到 12.85 美元，足以证实餐饮端确实出现了降价迹象，这无疑是通胀缓解的积极信号。 ### [37:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVz4Nz4WjE4&t=2225s) AI就业末日论的降温：从Nespresso咖啡到VisiCalc电子表格 话题转向科技领域，迈克尔好奇人工智能圈内人士是否终于收到了公关部门的警告。OpenAI 的萨姆·奥特曼（Sam Altman）上周公开发文扭转口风，宣称他们致力于打造增强和提升人类能力的工具，而非取代人类的独立实体，并直言长期来看所谓的“失业末日论”（job doomerism）大概率是错误的。奥特曼描绘的愿景是：努力奋斗的人将获得更充实的工作，而不想拼命的人也能享有体面的繁荣生活。本与迈克尔一致认为，这显然是公关团队介入的结果，勒令高管们闭嘴，不要再散播劳动力市场末日审判的恐慌情绪；本也坦言，相比于 Anthropic 首席执行官达里奥·阿莫代伊（Dario Amodei）的悲观基调，他更倾向于相信奥特曼这种相对乐观的愿景。 迈克尔援引了埃兹拉·克莱恩（Ezra Klein）在《纽约时报》发表的专栏文章《为什么 AI 引发的失业末日可能不会发生》。克莱恩在文中阐述，自动化程度越高，人类反而越看重“人的温度”： * **咖啡制作的演变**：曾经在家冲煮意式浓缩极其繁琐，如今 Nespresso 胶囊咖啡机早已走入千家万户。然而星巴克和街头精品咖啡馆并未关门降价，反而迎来了更多的咖啡师和门店。当咖啡变成唾手可得的大宗商品时，人们对“体验型咖啡消费”的需求反而大幅激增。 * **电子表格的启示**：1979 年，第一款电子表格软件 VisiCalc 在 Apple II 上推出。它能在几分钟内完成过去整个会计团队耗费数天才能算清的数据。当时全社会同样充斥着记账员将大规模失业的恐慌预言。然而在接下来的 40 年里，全美会计师的岗位数量不仅没有萎缩，反而翻了整整四倍。技术工具不但没有消灭岗位，反而极大地扩展了该行业的商业纵深与需求。 ### [038:58] 杰文斯悖论与 AI 对就业和创业的实际影响 探讨 AI 对劳动力市场的冲击时，迈克尔·巴特尼克（Michael Batnick）与本·卡尔森（Ben Carlson）引用了马克西莫夫（Maximoff）的分析。该观点指出，廉价的技术解密释放了潜藏已久的财务智能需求，这一现象正是“杰文斯悖论”（Jevons Paradox）的经典重现——即提高资源使用效率反而会增加其消耗总量。回顾计算机普及的历史，所有大规模采用计算机的行业，其就业增长速度反而远超未采用的行业；计算机虽然消除了特定的细分工序，但由此带来的巨大降本效应催生了海量新需求，整体职业生态随之急剧扩张。“计算机能够接管人类做过的许多工作，但并未让人类失业；生产力能力的跃升，反而让人们意识到有更多未知的事情可以去做。” 尽管有人会反驳“这次情况截然不同”，不可否认眼下确实存在将裁员归咎于 AI 的现象。例如 Coinbase 宣布裁员 14%（约 700 人）时就公开搬出了 AI 的由头，但两人一针见血地指出，加密货币正处于寒冬与熊市周期，此前原本就存在严重的过度招聘，AI 往往只是管理层顺理成章的“遮羞布”。与此同时，积极的现实信号正在涌现：阿波罗全球管理公司的托斯滕·斯洛克（Torsten Slok）指出，受 AI 影响最深重的行业依然在持续招人，菲律宾呼叫中心的从业人数目前已逼近 200 万，自 2016 年以来并在整个 AI 浪潮中连年递增——因为 AI 使得呼叫服务更快更便宜，企业采购量不降反升。 著名科技撰稿人德里克·汤普森（Derek Thompson）也援引 Stripe 创始人帕特里克·科利森（Patrick Collison）的数据指出，Stripe Atlas 的累计注册企业数刚刚突破 10 万大关，初创公司注册量正在激增，AI 初创企业的营收增速更是远超历史常态。现阶段 AI Agent 在催生新企业方面的威力，显然大于其摧毁就业的破坏力。虽然结构性劳动力转移不可避免，但全面恐慌并无必要，因为向 AI 自由提问的大众化能力，使得个人创业与业务拓展的门槛降到了前所未有的低点。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: AI时代的杰文斯悖论效应 accDescr: 展示AI技术通过降低成本，反向激发更大需求并推动创业潮的传导逻辑 subgraph Efficiency["技术效率提升"] A["AI / 自动化工具普及"] --> B["特定任务执行成本骤降"] end subgraph LatentDemand["潜藏需求爆发"] B --> C["企业业务采纳门槛降低"] C --> D["催生更多全新衍生需求与业务形态"] end subgraph RealWorldImpact["市场实际结果"] D --> E["呼叫中心等服务外包用工逆势增长"] D --> F["Stripe Atlas 创业注册量突破10万家"] end ``` - **呼叫中心用工规模**：菲律宾呼叫中心从业人数接近 200 万，自 2016 年至今在 AI 繁荣期内每年持续走高。 - **Stripe Atlas 数据**：全周期企业设立数量达成 100,000 家里程碑，AI 初创团队展示出异于寻常的营收扩张速度。 - **Coinbase 裁员事件**：裁员比例 14%、涉及 700 人，官方虽以 AI 赋能为名，但本质上夹杂着加密寒冬与此前过度扩张的消化。 --- ### [041:59] 楼市泡沫今昔对比：房价涨幅背后的杠杆真相 针对亚历克·斯塔普（Alec Stapp）发布的一张将 2000 年代末房地产泡沫与如今全美房价指数对比的图表，本与迈克尔展开了深度剖析。图表表面上看，当年的房地产大泡沫在如今持续攀升的房价曲线面前显得格外“小巧玲珑”；若将这张图拿给十年前的人看，几乎所有人都会断定当前正在酝酿一场更恐怖的超级泡沫。然而迈克尔直言，脱离债务杠杆仅看名义价格指数是片面且不完整的——2000 年代真正引发金融海啸的根本不是房价每年 15% 的涨幅，而是几乎零首付、零资产审查的超高金融杠杆，以及疯狂加码的房屋净值信用贷款（HELOC）。 当年随处可见拉斯维加斯的脱衣舞娘一人贷款狂买三套公寓、普通投机客囤积七八套房产的癫狂投机景象。反观 2020 年代以来的这轮房价上涨，背后的信用根基有着本质区别。早在 2021 年 4 月撰写的分析中就已阐明：当下购房者几乎都锁定了历史最低水平的 30 年期固定房贷利率，居民信用评分大幅提高，可调利率贷款（ARM）占比极低，根本没有发生疯狂加杠杆的情况。正因为全行业汲取了上一轮次贷危机的惨痛教训，才支撑起这轮没有系统性违约风险的“无杠杆牛市”。 - **2008年次贷危机成因**：零首付、滥发次级房贷、高杠杆 HELOC 提现消费、全民非理性炒房投机。 - **2020年代房产稳固基石**：超低固定按揭利率锁定、借款人高信用评级门槛、极低比例的可调利率按揭（ARM）。 --- ### [043:47] 私募信贷与 BDC 的真实风险暴露 话题随后转向了私募信贷市场。近期 PitchBook 发布了针对头部上市商业发展公司（BDC）所持私募信贷资产的 2025 年第四季度盘点。本与迈克尔调侃道，大众的注意力往往只能容纳一定限度的恐慌，随着资产价格走稳，市场似乎已经渐渐淡忘了私募信贷这个曾经的舆论风暴中心。然而，PitchBook 披露的关键数据却亮起了不少黄灯：软件类资产在排名前十的 BDC 公允价值中占比高达 25%，面对 AI 潜在颠覆，其底层实际风险远比行业分类数字更深；受基准利率下行和利差收紧影响，第一留置权贷款收益率在过去一年收窄了约 100 个基点；尽管停息贷款（Non-accrual）的家数维持平稳，但以美元金额计算的坏账压力正在上升；更危险的是，借款企业在各机构之间高度重叠，同一个名字常常同时出现在五到六家主流 BDC 的资产包中，这意味着单一借款人的爆雷将引发跨机构的连锁反应。 不过，从二级市场的真实反馈来看，情况并未滑向深渊。翻看主流上市 BDC 的年初至今总回报率，高乐普资本（Golub Capital）上涨了 4.5%，即便被视为处于风暴核心的蓝猫资本（Blue Owl Capital）也仅仅微跌 1.2%，战力表现出奇抗跌。迈克尔认为，此前舆论对于私募信贷崩溃的过激炒作消耗了过多精力，很多脆弱的散户与投机盘可能早已在震荡中出清；至于 AI 究竟会不会彻底吞噬这些软件债务人的偿债能力，短期内仍有待观察，但市场的集体恐慌情绪显然已经提前透支并开始降温。 | 风险维度 | PitchBook 2025Q4 核心调研发现 | |:--- |:--- | | **软件敞口与 AI 威胁** | 软件行业占前十大 BDC 资产公允价值的 25%，实际底层重叠暴露更深 | | **贷款收益率收缩** | 第一留置权资产收益率同比下滑约 1 个百分点（受基准降息与利差收窄双重挤压） | | **坏账压力隐现** | 停息挂账（Non-accrual）企业总数持平，但涉及的绝对美元金额正在攀升 | | **资产交叉重叠度** | 部分高风险标的跨 5 至 6 家 BDC 同时借款，违约事件极易引发多机构多米诺骨牌效应 | --- ### [046:04] 预测市场的二八定律：信息不对称与内幕交易争议 预测市场近期成为权威财经媒体关注的焦点，《彭博社》与《华尔街日报》同时展开调查，本戏称这就像当年好莱坞灾难片扎堆上映一样巧合（如《天地大冲撞》撞车《世界末日》，或是《天崩地裂》对决《地火危城》）。两家媒体通过穿透底层账户账目，揭示了该赛道极其残酷的生存现实——对于普通散户而言，预测市场绝非遍地黄金。根据《华尔街日报》援引诺亚·卡尔（Noah Carl）等人的梳理，在去中心化平台 Polymarket 上，高达 67% 的净利润仅仅流入了 0.1% 的头部账户手中，意味着不到 2,000 个核心钱包账户卷走了近 5 亿美元的利润。 迈克尔对此表达了极其强烈的抨击，坚定重申自己的原则：“任何人都不应该被允许对那些可以被提前知晓结果的事件下注。”诸如一场篮球赛谁胜谁负、特斯拉在 2030 年能交付多少辆车、未来将落地多少台人形机器人等真正的未知大事件，由于没有任何人能预知结果，通过群体博弈汇聚共识极具价值；比如押注“GameStop 是否会收购 eBay”，这类无人能确定的题材开盘完全合理。但现实中，预测市场上涌现了大量只有极少数圈内人握有底牌的内幕事件，头部 0.1% 账户的畸高暴利在很大程度上就是明目张胆的内幕交易。本也赞同平台理应为了自身生态的可持续性彻底清理这些作弊行为，因为这种掠夺本质上是在把普通交易者的亏损当成极少数知情者的提款机。当内幕人士凭借信息差肆意收割时，整个预测机制探寻事实真相的初衷就被彻底颠覆了。 ### [48:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVz4Nz4WjE4&t=2912s) 预测市场的赢家与输家：Kalshi 数据背后的残酷现实 Michael Batnick 与 Ben Carlson 讨论了彭博社（Bloomberg）关于 Polymarket 的报道。报道指出，交易机器人（自动化算法/做市商）在平台上通过收割其他普通散户，净赚了 1.31 亿美元。随后，两人谈到了预测市场平台 Kalshi 公关负责人的回应。由于《华尔街日报》（The Wall Street Journal）最初依据公开用户资料进行分析，得出散户亏损惨重的结论，Kalshi 官方以“多数交易者会将资料设为私密”为由进行了抗议，并首次公布了自家平台的完整内部盈亏数据。 然而，Kalshi 的这份“自我证明”却引来了两人的激烈吐槽。Kalshi 宣称该平台交易者的表现优于日内交易（Day Trading）、期权（Options）、体育博彩（Sportsbooks）和期货（Futures）。Michael 讽刺这种公关巡游简直是“在吹嘘吸可卡因比吸快克冰毒更健康”。数据显示，Kalshi 上依然有高达 75% 的交易者处于亏损状态；虽然略好于日内交易的 80% 亏损率、期权交易的 90% 亏损率以及体育博彩的 95% 亏损率，但这绝非值得夸耀的成就。Ben 直言自己热爱博彩，也清楚投机能让人倾家荡产，但预测市场必须清理内部机器人与做市商肆意收割的不规范现象。此外，Sherwood 的 Luke Kowalski 制作的图表显示，Robinhood 在最近一个季度中，从事件合约（Event Contracts）和加密货币中赚取的利润甚至超越了传统业务，凸显了散户投机风向的巨变。 - **各投机渠道亏损比例对比**： - 预测市场（Prediction Markets / Kalshi）：约 75% 亏损 - 日内交易（Day Trading）：约 80% 亏损 - 期权交易（Options）：约 90% 亏损 - 体育博彩（Sportsbooks）：约 95% 亏损 - **做市商与机器人收益**：彭博社指出自动化算法在 Polymarket 上从散户手中卷走 1.31 亿美元。 - **券商趋势**：Robinhood 最新的季度财报显示，事件合约与加密货币交易已成为核心创收支柱。 ### [50:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVz4Nz4WjE4&t=3031s) 电视与电影的品质倒挂：《怒呛人生》与明星下沉 Michael 随后将话题转向娱乐消费，提出了一个疑问：现在的电视剧制作水准是否已经超越了院线电影？他以 Netflix 剧集《怒呛人生》（*Beef*）为例，指出虽然有听众来信批评第二季剧情走向荒诞、“跳鲨”（jump the shark），但荒诞本就是该剧从第一季延续下来的核心基调。从摄影、构图到整体质感，优质剧集的精细程度已经达到了顶尖电影的级别。 反观现在的流媒体电影，尤其是 Netflix 出品的大多数原创电影，Michael 尖锐地批评它们大多是“纯粹的垃圾”（garbage movies），充斥着粗制滥造和“重数量轻质量”的流水线逻辑。Ben 也对此表示认同，并补充说如今电视圈的生态发生了翻天覆地的变化——几乎每部新剧都会邀请好莱坞一线大牌电影明星主演（例如妮可·基德曼不断接拍新剧），甚至许多从未听闻名字的剧集阵容都极其奢华。在谈及《怒呛人生》的观感时，Ben 表示这部剧充满了接二连三发生在普通人身上的倒霉事与冲突，看得人神经紧绷，绝不是一部能让人在沙发上放松身心的剧集，但其制作水平确实无可否认。 ### [52:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVz4Nz4WjE4&t=3126s) 千禧一代为人父母：育儿时间爆炸与老爸的“幸福陷阱” Derek Thompson 针对千禧一代（Millennial）父母的一篇长文引发了两人深入的共鸣与讨论。数据显示，千禧一代父亲投入育儿的时间是婴儿潮一代（Boomer）父亲的整整四倍，呈现出从沉默的一代（Silent Generation）、婴儿潮一代、X 世代到千禧一代育儿时长逐代攀升的鲜明趋势。Ben 指出，虽然育儿参与度提升代表了社会进步，但现代千禧一代过度的“直升机式育儿”（Helicopter Parenting）也给孩子和家长带来了巨大压力。周末的各类青少年体育赛事现场，所有父母聚在一起聊的话题千篇一律都是“为了孩子的活动奔波有多忙碌”。 Michael 坦言自己现在几乎所有业余时间都跟孩子绑在一起，虽然童年时父母离异、自己一周只能见父亲两次，但并不妨碍他和父亲建立极为亲密的关系。谈及育儿对生活的影响，文中一张图表显示：在第一个孩子出生后，父亲的“生活满意度保持在高位”，但“健康状况却断崖式下滑”。Michael 笑着承认自己完全符合这一现状；而家有双胞胎的 Ben 则表示，正是因为三个孩子出生后极度缺乏睡眠，他才被迫痛下决心彻底改变生活习惯和健身状态以维持精力。 对于文章中声称“父亲喜欢育儿胜过看电视”的调查结果，Michael 更是公开反驳直呼“鬼扯”（calling bullshit）。随着大儿子 Kobe 睡得越来越晚（常常熬到晚上 9 点 15 分），留给家长看电视放松的时间被彻底剥夺，等能坐下来时自己早已困得睁不开眼。为了在陪伴孩子与个人娱乐之间寻找平衡，两人开始带着孩子重温 90 年代的老电影——Ben 带着女儿看经典浪漫喜剧《西雅图夜未眠》（*Sleepless in Seattle*），Michael 则带孩子观看了惊悚片《狂野之河》（*The River Wild*），试图在家庭时光中寻找折中方案。 ### [56:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVz4Nz4WjE4&t=3410s) 听众提议设立“Batnick 消费 ETF”（BAT ETF） 节目尾声，Ben 念了一则上周听众留下的趣味评论：听众建议华尔街推出一只代码为“BAT”的“Batnick ETF”，专门追踪 Michael Batnick 日常生活中的大额消费支出。根据该听众的设想，该基金应精准覆盖 Michael 最近频繁遭遇故障或更换的生活用品产业链，观察其收益率是否能跑赢标普 500 指数。 Michael 听后乐不可支，并当场透露了一个尚未公开的家庭计划：自己在刚搬入的新家里正准备打造一个泥房（Mudroom）。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: BAT ETF 模拟投资组合构成 accDescr: 展示根据 Michael Batnick 个人生活开销衍生出的 BAT ETF 成分股行业分布 subgraph ETF["BAT ETF (Batnick 个人生活支出追踪基金)"] direction TB A["家用暖通空调 (HVAC)<br>如 Carrier (开利)"] B["质量堪忧的汽车制造商<br>如 Stellantis、Tata Motors"] C["汽车金融与汽配零售<br>如 Ally Financial、O'Reilly Auto Parts"] D["家电与家居改造 (泥房工程)<br>如 Home Depot、Lowe's、新冰箱"] end ``` ### [57:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVz4Nz4WjE4&t=3443s) 房屋改造、卖加密货币与勒布朗的新梗 Michael 分享了自己家里的装修烦恼：只要一进门，玄关处只有极小的鞋柜格子，根本没有挂衣服的挂钩，全家人一进门就把衣物杂物随手扔在地上，然后直接上楼，导致东西乱成一团、无处安放。为了解决这个问题，他不得不请承包商大兴土木、砸墙动工，硬造出一个玄关杂物间（Mudroom）。为了筹集这笔不小的装修现金，Michael 只好再次卖掉一部分加密货币。他自嘲道，虽然前几周才在节目里说自己又买入了加密货币，但生活所迫需要现金，为了建杂物间也只能忍痛割肉。Ben 开玩笑建议以后应该让 Claude（AI）来专门追踪 Michael 混乱的投资组合变化。 随后，两人聊到了最近网络上火热的一个梗——勒布朗·詹姆斯（LeBron James）在一段视频中说的那句“看看这家伙（Get a load of this guy）”。这一表述迅速成为最新的热门网络模因，Michael 觉得非常生动，认为必须将它加入他们的日常梗图库中。 --- ### [58:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVz4Nz4WjE4&t=3491s) 社交媒体困境与厨房用品大换血 话题随后转向社交平台。Michael 提到他在 Instagram 上圈了 Ben，因为 Ben 出了一本新书，而 Ben 的账号后缀带着“007”。Michael 好奇地问 Ben 是不是个超级“詹姆斯·邦德迷”，Ben 澄清自己完全对邦德不感冒，只是因为高中时代的球衣号码是 7 号，当年注册时为了把“7”塞进用户名才加了“007”。而且 Ben 平时基本不碰 Instagram，甚至根本不知道被圈了。这引发了 Michael 对社交软件的纠结：他非常喜欢刷 Instagram，但如果手机里把 Twitter 和 Instagram 都删了，他又深恐与外界现实脱节、不知道亲朋好友的动态。Ben 则表示自己是个极简主义者，精力只够维持一个社交平台；虽然妻子常在 Instagram 上发搞笑梗图并抱怨他总是不看，但 Ben 并不在乎看别人的“虚假生活”。Michael 试图说服自己，以后每天只在电脑上刷 20 分钟 Instagram 就够了，绝不在手机上安装；Ben 则一语道破现实——“你所谓的 20 分钟很快就会变成 1 小时，然后你又重回原点了”。 紧接着，Michael 谈起生活用品的烦恼，向观众征求厨房用品的推荐： - **粘锅的不粘锅**：家里买的六角防粘锅（Hexclad 之类）完全不灵验，煎鸡蛋依然粘得一塌糊涂，虽然深知涂层可能包含各种化学物质，但做饭体验极其糟糕。 - **大杂烩式的厨房**：家里至今还在用结婚时留下的餐具，刀叉勺子没有一套是对齐的，杯盘碗碟也是拼凑而成，整体宛如灾难，他迫切需要全面扔掉、从头换新。 - **AI 购物助手**：Ben 提到自己在做大件或大宗消费决策时，已经越来越习惯向 AI 咨询（例如提供需求并来回对比优缺点），而他们家之前在住 Airbnb 时体验到一套很好用的餐具，便直接照着买了一套。 --- ### [01:00:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVz4Nz4WjE4&t=3625s) 影视与播客推荐：《Marty Supreme》与好莱坞内幕 在推荐环节，两人对 HBO Max 上上映的电影《Marty Supreme》（关于乒乓球选手的传记电影，蒂莫西·柴勒梅德与格温妮丝·帕特洛主演）展开了激烈争论： - **Ben 的尖锐差评**：Ben 毫不客气地开启“吐槽模式”。他承认该片制作精良、演员阵容豪华、画面极具质感，但整部电影完全“不知所云”。原本以为是一部描绘天才乒乓球选手的热血故事，中途剧情却突兀跳跃——比如浴缸突然砸穿地板砸死人和狗，又或者是点燃加油站等莫名其妙的情节。Ben 直言自己绝不可能再看第二遍，充其量只有在搭乘捷蓝航空（JetBlue）且机上没有任何其他片子可选时才会看。 - **Michael 的截然相反态度**：Michael 觉得电影非常享受，无法理解 Ben 为什么如此苛刻，两人各执己见。 随后，Ben 推荐了在 Audible 上听的畅销书——戴维·麦克威廉姆斯（David McWilliams）撰写的《货币简史》（*The History of Money*），并分享了书中两个鲜为人知的历史轶事： 1. **二战时期的超级假钞计划**：希特勒因亲身经历过魏玛共和国时期的恶性通货膨胀，深知法币系统的脆弱。二战期间，纳粹在集中营日夜印刷假钞，原本计划用飞机向伦敦空投大约 100 亿美元的假钞，试图借此彻底搞垮英国的金融与经济体系（尽管因战局推移该行动未完全落实）。Ben 感叹这在今天根本行不通，因为现在的印钞规模和应对疫情动辄数万亿美元的体量相比，空投纸币完全是沧海一粟。 2. **《绿野仙踪》的隐喻**：书中提到一个广为人知的经济学假说——《绿野仙踪》（*The Wizard of Oz*）在最初创作时，实际上是一部暗讽金本位制缺陷的寓言。 最后，两人聊到了好莱坞娱乐工业题材书籍（关于知名经纪公司 CAA 的传记以及斯皮尔伯格与梦工厂创办过程的《三位国王》）。Ben 感慨读完这些行业内幕让人颇感灰暗，似乎一个人要想爬到权力的绝对顶峰，往往必须踩着别人的肩膀、剥夺本属于他人的利益，必须在道德上变得冷酷甚至成为一个“坏人”；Michael 则认为那是一种身居高位时无可避免的残酷博弈。此外，Michael 提到了新剧《Your Friends and Neighbors》（阿曼达·皮特出演），感叹剧中角色的富豪生活方式虽然距离普通人极其遥远、毫无代入感，但他们面临的情感纠葛与人性困境却又异常真实。 播客在 Michael 对未来市场的警示中结束：眼下的狂欢不可能永远持续，股市早晚会迎来回调与下跌。 ### [01:05:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVz4Nz4WjE4&t=3923s) 尾声与节目收尾 在节目的最后，主持人对正在探讨的推荐内容做出了最后的小结，感慨大家体验过后很可能会惊呼“天哪，这简直太棒了”（"Oh my gosh, this is so amazing."），但也提醒听众保持清醒的心态，凡事“趁着还在的时候好好享受吧”（"enjoy while it lasts"）。 随后片尾音乐渐入，两位主持人与听众依依道别：“好的，我们下期再见，谢谢大家”（"Um, all right. We'll see you next time. Thank you."），伴随着标志性的片尾旋律，本期《Animal Spirits》正式结束。 ## Notable quotes > [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVz4Nz4WjE4&t=0s) 就像那种你会想和他一起坐在门廊上品威士忌的大叔 — Michael Batnick > [09:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVz4Nz4WjE4&t=542s) 本不该存在的象限 — Michael Batnick > [12:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVz4Nz4WjE4&t=734s) 这已不是你祖父时代的股市 — Andreessen Horowitz > [20:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVz4Nz4WjE4&t=1228s) 价格上涨如火箭升空，下跌却慢如羽毛飘落 — Ben Carlson > [25:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVz4Nz4WjE4&t=1510s) 瑜伽垫薄得跟纸一样，我的骨头就是天生娇贵！ — Michael Batnick > [30:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVz4Nz4WjE4&t=1855s) 不到 10 万亿决不罢休 — Elon Musk > [33:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVz4Nz4WjE4&t=2026s) 赤字就是华尔街版本的美德绑架 — Steve Eisman > [38:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVz4Nz4WjE4&t=2338s) 计算机能够接管人类做过的许多工作，但并未让人类失业；生产力能力的跃升，反而让人们意识到有更多未知的事情可以去做。 — Maximoff > [46:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVz4Nz4WjE4&t=2764s) 任何人都不应该被允许对那些可以被提前知晓结果的事件下注。 — Michael Batnick > [48:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVz4Nz4WjE4&t=2912s) 在吹嘘吸可卡因比吸快克冰毒更健康 — Michael Batnick > [57:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVz4Nz4WjE4&t=3443s) 看看这家伙 — LeBron James > [01:05:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVz4Nz4WjE4&t=3923s) 趁着还在的时候好好享受吧 — Ben Carlson ## Mentioned Grayscale, Ben Carlson, Michael Batnick, Paul Tudor Jones, Patrick O'Shaughnessy, Warren Buffett, Ray Dalio, Jesse Livermore, Philosophical Economics, Elon Musk, Quartr, Evan Armstrong, Meta, Microsoft, Alphabet, Apple, Amazon, Scott Galloway, KraneShares, Andreessen Horowitz (a16z), Financial Times, Mike Saccone, Bank of America, Western Digital, SanDisk, Micron, The Atlantic, Anthropic, Charlie Bilello, TLT, PurePlank, Duality Research, The Economist, Gallup, Axios, Peter Diamandis, John D. Rockefeller, Steve Eisman, Wall Street Journal, Chipotle, Sam Altman, OpenAI, Dario Amodei, Ezra Klein, Nespresso, Starbucks, VisiCalc, Jevons Paradox, Coinbase, Torsten Slok, Apollo Global Management, Derek Thompson, Stripe Atlas, Patrick Collison, Alec Stapp, PitchBook, Golub Capital, Blue Owl Capital, Bloomberg, Polymarket, Noah Carl, Kalshi, Robinhood, Luke Kowalski, Sherwood, Beef, Netflix, Nicole Kidman, Sleepless in Seattle, The River Wild, Carrier, Stellantis, Tata Motors, Ally Financial, O'Reilly Auto Parts, Home Depot, Lowe's, LeBron James, Marty Supreme, HBO Max, Timothée Chalamet, Gwyneth Paltrow, David McWilliams, The History of Money, CAA, Your Friends and Neighbors, Amanda Peet ## Video description On episode 463 of Animal Spirits, Michael Batnick and Ben Carlson discuss: Paul Tudor Jones on market valuations, how many people own stocks, mind-boggling numbers from the hyperscalers, a lost decade for bonds, why higher gas prices sting, some macro prediction rules, government debt levels, Jevon's Paradox, prediction market winners and losers and much more This episode is sponsored by Grayscale. Learn more at https://www.grayscale.com ► 00:00 - Grayscale Ad ► 00:38 - Stock Market ► 19:36 - The Economy ► 25:10 - Michael's Fitness ► 27:23 - Gas Prices ► 30:02 - More Economy ► 37:05 - AI ► 42:00 - Real Estate ► 43:47 - Private Markets ► 46:04 - Prediction Markets ► 50:31 - Entertainment ► 52:06 - Millennial Parents ► 56:50 - Random ► 59:20 - Recommendations 👕 Check out The Compound shop: https://www.idontshop.com 🎙️Listen to our podcasts: TCAF: https://podcasts.thecompoundnews.com/show/TCAF/ Animal Spirits: https://podcasts.thecompoundnews.com/show/animalspirits/ Ask The Compound: https://podcasts.thecompoundnews.com/show/ATC/ The Compound Newsletter: https://www.thecompoundnews.com/subscribe Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-compound-media/ Instagram: https://instagram.com/thecompoundnews Twitter: https://twitter.com/thecompoundnews Tik Tok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thecompoundnews Investing involves the risk of loss. This podcast is for informational purposes only and should not be or regarded as personalized investment advice or relied upon for investment decisions. Josh Brown and Michael Batnick are employees of Ritholtz Wealth Management and may maintain positions in the securities discussed in this video. All opinions expressed by them are solely their own opinion and do not reflect the opinion of Ritholtz Wealth Management. See our disclosures here: https://ritholtzwealth.com/podcast-youtube-disclosures/ The Compound Media, Incorporated, an affiliate of Ritholtz Wealth Management, receives payment from various entities for advertisements in affiliated podcasts, blogs and emails. Inclusion of such advertisements does not constitute or imply endorsement, sponsorship or recommendation thereof, or any affiliation therewith, by the Content Creator or by Ritholtz Wealth Management or any of its employees. For additional advertisement disclaimers see here https://ritholtzwealth.com/advertising-disclaimers. #thecompound #investing #stockmarket #stocks [Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVz4Nz4WjE4)

[0:00] Michael Batnick: 就像那种你会想和他一起坐在门廊上品威士忌的大叔 [9:02] Michael Batnick: 本不该存在的象限 [12:14] Andreessen Horowitz: 这已不是你祖父时代的股市 [20:28] Ben Carlson: 价格上涨如火箭升空，下跌却慢如羽毛飘落 [25:10] Michael Batnick: 瑜伽垫薄得跟纸一样，我的骨头就是天生娇贵！ [30:55] Elon Musk: 不到 10 万亿决不罢休 [33:46] Steve Eisman: 赤字就是华尔街版本的美德绑架 [38:58] Maximoff: 计算机能够接管人类做过的许多工作，但并未让人类失业；生产力能力的跃升，反而让人们意识到有更多未知的事情可以去做。 [46:04] Michael Batnick: 任何人都不应该被允许对那些可以被提前知晓结果的事件下注。 [48:32] Michael Batnick: 在吹嘘吸可卡因比吸快克冰毒更健康 [57:23] LeBron James: 看看这家伙 [65:23] Ben Carlson: 趁着还在的时候好好享受吧

[19:33] Michael Batnick: There's something about rounded numbers that get the human brain... No one ever says, 'Oh my gosh, gas is $4.75 a gallon.' It's the round number thing. [27:23] Ben Carlson: Never give a date. Always just keep it open-ended... because the date thing always comes to pass, and then you realize like, 'Oh wait, nothing happened.' [37:05] Why the AI Job Apocalypse Probably Won't Happen [42:00] Why This Is Not Another Housing Bubble [52:06] Michael Batnick: We just did kid shit the entire fucking weekend... It kind of feels a little nuts. [54:20] Michael Batnick: Dads like child care more than watching TV? Really?... I got to be honest, I don't. I love watching TV and I love my kids, but... [29:59] Elon Musk: 10 trillion or bust [64:04] Ben Carlson: It's not always going to be like this. There's going to be a correction. Stocks will go down... But, enjoy it while it lasts.

[0:04] Today's Animal Spirits is brought to you [0:06] by Grayscale. Curious about crypto and [0:08] not sure where to start? Start with [0:10] Grayscale. Grayscale is the world's [0:12] largest crypto-focused investment [0:13] platform and has been in crypto for over [0:15] a decade. That's a long time when you [0:17] consider how early we are in crypto [0:19] adoption. In markets like these, [0:21] education matters more than ever. [0:23] Grayscale provides research, insights, [0:24] and long-term perspective to help [0:26] investors better understand digital [0:28] assets and the evolving crypto [0:29] ecosystem. Whether you're exploring [0:31] crypto for the first time or looking to [0:32] deepen your knowledge, let Grayscale be [0:34] your guide. [0:36] Welcome to Animal Spirits [music] with [0:38] Michael and Ben. Michael, I want to [0:39] start our podcast off by talking about [0:41] another podcast. [0:43] >> [music] [0:43] >> Okay, Paul Tudor Jones was on Invest [0:45] Like the Best with Patrick [0:46] O'Shaughnessy. You listened, I assume? [0:49] Very good. He's He's a very engaging [0:51] person. [0:52] >> [music] [0:52] >> He seems like the kind of guy that you'd [0:53] want to like sit on a porch with and [0:54] have a whiskey. Seems like a great guy. [0:57] Yeah, very like happy, jovial. It's [1:00] something about the Southern accent, I [1:01] think, just makes people sound nicer. [1:04] Anyway, I thought this interview was [1:07] very instructive in how to think about [1:10] the personality of investors, hedge fund [1:12] managers. I want to get into that aside, [1:13] but I want to read you something that [1:14] that Patrick shared on on Twitter that [1:16] was from the interview. [1:18] Uh [1:20] So, he says, "We're 252% of stock market [1:23] cap to GDP now. In 1929, we're 65% in [1:25] 1987, we got to 85 to 90% in 2000, [1:28] 170%." [1:30] Uh he says, "If you think about the [1:33] periodicity of significant bear markets [1:34] since 1970, we get a mean reversion [1:36] about every 10 years." [1:38] Uh he's And he also says, "The [1:40] basically, we're over equitized as a [1:42] country. We have the highest individual [1:44] equity weightings in his in the history [1:46] of the country." Says the problem is [1:47] that if you buy the S&P at the current [1:49] valuation with the 10-year forward [1:50] return is negative when you buy the S&P [1:52] with a P/E of 22, that's what history [1:54] shows. [1:55] Okay? So, he's saying like, "Listen." He [1:57] said, "Valuation matters a lot in the [1:58] stock market's really high and it's [2:00] going to be really hard to make money [2:01] from here with any kind of long-term [2:03] view. Now, if you just pull that out of [2:05] there, there there'd be two ways of [2:06] looking at this. One would be [2:08] oh, this guy's right. If you look at the [2:09] history and there's been charts of this, [2:11] forward PE at 22, 23, whatever it is, [2:14] forward returns are not very good. [2:16] So, you'd say, how could you argue with [2:17] that? [2:19] The other person would say, these hedge [2:20] fund managers have been saying this for [2:22] years and they've been wrong for years. [2:25] Don't listen to them. [2:27] I after listening to this interview, I [2:28] didn't take any of that away from this. [2:30] Here's what I took away from this and [2:32] you can see I want to see if you took [2:34] the same thing. He started the interview [2:35] talking about how he always was kind of [2:38] a Warren Buffett hater. I thought that [2:39] was pretty interesting. I didn't realize [2:40] that. [2:41] He He's like, I I I poo-pooed whatever [2:43] Buffett did. I thought he's just [2:45] thinking and acting for the long term. [2:46] He kind of got lucky. He got a few [2:48] ideas. He just rode the long-term He [2:49] just rode a long-term trend. [2:51] And he said, my personality won't allow [2:53] me to do that. I'm I'm a trader. [2:55] So, I just I don't have that Buffett in [2:57] me. [2:58] And he's talked about how in 1987 he was [3:00] predicting there was going to be a [3:01] depression after the crash. [3:03] And I thought, oh man, that's very [3:04] interesting because Dalio in 1982 [3:06] predicted there was going to be a [3:07] depression in the United States. The [3:09] start of the perhaps the greatest bull [3:10] market of all time. [3:12] And I just thought that [3:14] I think certain personality types are [3:16] more well suited for certain types of [3:18] investment disciplines and that's why [3:20] these kind of predictions like you have [3:22] to take it with a huge grain of salt. [3:23] So, I thought his him explaining his [3:25] personality and the way that he is [3:27] hardwired. Like he has to be a trader. [3:29] He has to be a speculator. [3:31] He He doesn't have the ability to be a [3:33] long-term and that's why he constantly [3:35] is talking down on markets. Like that's [3:38] why a lot of hedge fund managers are. [3:40] Anytime you see a bond manager go on [3:41] CNBC, they talk about how bearish they [3:43] are. It's because it's part of their [3:45] personality. [3:46] It has nothing to do with their [3:47] forecasting abilities. It's all [3:48] personality driven. [3:50] Thoughts? Totally. Yeah, 100%. Then you [3:52] get that out of his like listening to [3:54] him explain his background cuz I've [3:56] never heard many interviews with him? [3:58] Him being bare cuz he'd been bearish for [4:00] a while, I think. He's He's made many [4:01] bearish comments over the years. It [4:02] makes so much more sense when you think [4:04] about it from in those terms. Yeah. [4:06] Um [4:08] It is kind of wild that we're now here [4:09] in 2026 and [4:12] it doesn't happen so much anymore, but [4:14] like in 2015 [4:16] 2014 [4:18] people were talking like [4:20] it was a daily thing how expensive the [4:22] stock market was. I don't think new [4:24] participants realize No. that we used to [4:27] argue about the CAPE ratio [4:29] and why forward 10-year returns for [4:30] stocks were going to be depressed [4:33] in 2014. You remember when Jesse [4:35] Livermore did that whole huge 5,000-word [4:38] epic on Philosophical Economics, which [4:40] if you're if you were in the blog game [4:42] around then, that was those were the [4:43] must-reads. He's talking about that in [4:44] like 2015 about how you the market isn't [4:46] as expensive as you think it is based on [4:48] CAPE. Yeah, that's true. Now, in [4:51] fairness, I was pushing [4:52] I was pushing back against CAPE making [4:54] the point that it is it is different [4:55] this time, but also I didn't I expected [4:58] returns to be lower. I I genuinely did. [5:01] Yeah, we were we were saying temporary [5:02] dislocation. Yeah, I um I I also think [5:06] that I also think that [5:09] the market is obviously not cheap, okay? [5:12] Do with that what you will. Probably not [5:14] going to have have another 14% compound [5:16] annual growth the next decade. Could [5:18] happen, I don't know. What if AI and [5:20] robots keep going? Could certainly could [5:22] happen. But the part that I thought that [5:26] I that I would push back against is like [5:27] the over equitization of America. [5:31] Yes. This is the richest country on the [5:34] planet [5:36] and almost all of the wealth has been [5:38] created [5:40] by equity, by being a business owner. [5:43] Why wouldn't Americans piggyback [5:47] people like Elon Musk who we'll talk [5:49] about later [5:50] and all of these people who made their [5:52] fortunes building businesses. So, look [5:54] at this [5:54] >> Why would we not be over Why would we [5:56] not do that? Look at this chart I just [5:58] put in here. Pak Ardra ski shared this [5:59] today. It's uh he says no country comes [6:01] close to the US in stock ownership and [6:03] it's United States at the highest and [6:05] this is through 2024 so it's higher now, [6:06] I think. United States is by far the [6:08] highest at 55%. Canada's almost 50. You [6:11] go to like India, 6% of the country owns [6:13] stocks. China's 7% and Germany's 14%. [6:16] Japan 15%. [6:18] And here's the thing that I don't get [6:19] too about the [6:21] This is the Buffett indicator, the GDP [6:23] to stock market and GDP. It's so much [6:25] higher now than it was in the past. [6:27] In 1929, 2% of the country owned stocks. [6:29] In 1987, 20% of the country owned [6:32] stocks. Today it's 60%. Of course the [6:35] stock market is going to be higher as a [6:36] percentage of GDP. More people own [6:39] stocks. There's more wealth in the stock [6:40] market. Yes, this this is exactly what [6:42] you would expect. It would be weird if [6:43] it weren't the case. Yes, if more money [6:46] kept pouring in and it wasn't growing it [6:48] so that yes, my question is what you [6:50] look at this country ETF or country and [6:53] ownership thing. [6:54] Uh a lot of people would say well, the [6:56] US is going to come down. But what [6:58] happens when the rest of the world [6:59] catches up? No, the US is not going to [7:01] come down. This is the share of [7:03] household with stock market exposure. [7:05] Yes, this is going to only increase This [7:06] is only I'm saying some people would say [7:08] this is going to come down. It has to. [7:10] It's never been higher. [7:11] >> My my contention [7:13] >> By the way, by the way, I know you're [7:13] not saying that. [7:14] >> Yes. [7:15] It absolutely is not going to come down. [7:17] >> Now, it's a permanently high plateau. [7:19] Yeah, as a percentage of like, you know, [7:21] household exposure, that's a different [7:23] story. [7:24] Right? Because if the market corrects, [7:25] that number will pull back. But in terms [7:27] of the percentage of people owning [7:28] stocks, this number will only go higher. [7:31] Yes. [7:31] >> Which it should go to 100%. I know it [7:33] never will, but that's the goal. And [7:35] more people in other countries as the [7:37] barriers to entry have now been broken [7:39] down are going to continue to There's [7:41] going to be India is in China are not [7:43] going to be under 10% forever. They're [7:44] going to have way more equity investors [7:45] in the future as people gain more wealth [7:47] in those countries. Yeah. [7:49] Um so last week we got we got big seven [7:53] the max seven reported earnings. [7:56] And part of what the bears could not [8:00] foresee. Nobody could have foreseen [8:02] this. I don't think. Is that these [8:04] companies would continue to grow at the [8:07] pace that they've been growing at and [8:09] not just continue [8:11] that it would accelerate. These are [8:13] These are mind-boggling numbers that [8:15] we're looking at right here. [8:16] >> Yeah. [8:17] Um so I listened to all the calls last [8:20] week. Except for I don't think I was I [8:21] think [8:22] uh not Microsoft. I didn't have to [8:24] Microsoft. That one's too complicated [8:25] for me. Um Wait, when you go on quarter [8:28] do you listen Do you still listen to the [8:29] CEO talk or do you go straight to Q&A? [8:32] It's about who the CEO is. [8:33] That's fair. [8:35] Um [8:36] I'm I'm still a Q&A guy. [8:38] Well, I mean that's where the good stuff [8:39] is for the most part. Um all right. So [8:41] anyway, just [8:42] you know, I was talking with you and [8:43] Josh the the the numbers the top line [8:45] numbers [8:47] just defy anything. There's this guy [8:49] Evan Armstrong who has this a sub stack [8:51] called the leverage and he has a chart [8:53] that shows [8:55] um [8:56] on one axis the market cap. [8:59] I'm sorry. The annualized revenue. [9:02] Yeah, the okay. The annualized revenue [9:04] on one [9:05] uh on the X and then the year-over-year [9:08] revenue growth on the Y, okay? Okay. And [9:11] he calls this the quadrant that [9:14] shouldn't exist. [9:17] And it's Meta, Microsoft, Alphabet, [9:19] Apple, and Amazon and it shouldn't exist [9:21] because at that size at 80 billion, 100 [9:25] plus billion, whatever it is, at that [9:27] annual revenue growth, you should not be [9:30] able to grow at the rate with which [9:32] they're growing. Right, the size and the [9:34] scale. [9:35] >> No. So I I know we've been beating this [9:37] this drum for years, years, years, [9:40] years. [9:41] You cannot compare these companies [9:45] to companies in the '70s, like or or the [9:47] '60s or the '80s or the '90s for that [9:49] matter. Maybe the '90s are a little bit [9:51] closer, I suppose, but not really. [9:53] Not really. But if you were to do this, [9:55] the reason the reason why like the [9:56] reason why some of these calls are hard [9:57] to digest is Amazon, for example. [10:00] There's so much going on. There's so [10:01] many different business lines in there. [10:03] And Google as well, and Microsoft, of [10:05] course, forget about it. [10:06] This is the whole Every time the bull [10:09] market keeps going, someone says, [10:11] "Yeah, but if this would have happened, [10:12] then it wouldn't have kept going." This [10:14] is the thing. If you had told me in 2017 [10:16] when Scott Galloway's book, what was it [10:18] called? The Four? The Four. [10:19] Yeah, it was about Amazon, Facebook, [10:22] Microsoft. Yeah, you tell me that wasn't [10:23] the top? Nope, not even close. If you [10:25] would have said, "These companies are [10:26] still growing just as fast now as they [10:28] were then," I would have said, [10:29] "Impossible. It's impossible. They [10:30] can't." [10:31] So, Warren Buffett has had this thing [10:32] where he says, "Earnings boom is really [10:34] accelerating now. Forward estimates are [10:36] now 25% year-over-year. [10:38] And this is [10:40] he's saying like this this is insane. [10:42] So, I look I'm I I look at them and I [10:43] said, "Why is this happening?" Of [10:44] course, the Mag 7 is part of it. [10:47] But so I I looked at This is from [10:48] FactSet. Seven sectors are now reporting [10:50] double-digit earnings growth for Q1 [10:52] 2026, led by communication services, [10:54] 53%, tech, 50%, and communication [10:58] services basically is tech. And then [10:59] consumer discretionary, almost 40%. [11:03] Listen to what they these companies beat [11:05] on their EPS surprises. [11:07] Alphabet beat by over 90%, Amazon by [11:09] over 70%, Meta by over 56%. [11:13] It's absolutely insane. The Mag 7 [11:15] uh was 61% above expectations so far [11:18] with earnings. [11:22] I forget where I pulled this from. [11:24] Uh or maybe you pulled this from [11:26] somewhere. [11:27] During the past week, earnings growth [11:28] for the S&P 500 for the first quarter [11:30] increased to 27% from 15% [11:33] 27% is the actual growth rate for the [11:35] quarter. It will mark the highest [11:36] year-over-year earnings growth rate [11:38] reported by the index since Q4 2021. And [11:41] guess what? [11:41] >> But it included low base effects. Yeah, [11:43] a little bit of a different thing. [11:44] >> Remember remember that was a thing for a [11:45] while? Like once the base effects go [11:46] away. [11:47] Yeah. Remember the other one was [11:50] what happens when the excess savings [11:51] from the pandemic goes away? You don't [11:52] hear that one much anymore, remember? [11:54] And at the risk of just sounding [11:56] um [11:58] insanely bullish. How do you not sound [12:00] like a true How do you say data like [12:01] this and not sound like a cheerleader? [12:02] It's impossible. I know. No, but I don't [12:05] know. I feel like we're telling the [12:06] truth. [12:07] If it sounds like we're being [12:08] cheerleaders, all right, guilty as [12:09] charged, I suppose. I'm telling you [12:11] what's happening in the market. um [12:14] What if we we had a conversation with [12:16] Crane Shares earlier in the week? [12:18] What if robotics is the next thing? Like [12:19] humanoid robots. And maybe that's a pipe [12:21] dream, but maybe it's not. What if [12:22] that's the next $5 trillion market? [12:24] market. [12:26] So Andreessen Horowitz, A16Z has these [12:28] charts of the week now, which is pretty [12:29] cool. And they show the margins. [12:32] And they to your point about the '70s, [12:33] they say not your grandpa's stock [12:34] market. Profit margins at all-time high [12:36] again. [12:37] And Yeah, don't ever show me the cape [12:40] ratio or this that from the '50s when [12:42] profit margins were 5%. [12:45] You are comparing computers and uh [12:49] something else. Something else that I [12:51] Think of something clever. [12:53] So [12:54] Financial Times says they talk about [12:56] Google's numbers and they say big tech's [12:58] AI spending plans rise to $725 [13:01] billion dollars. And they show the CapEx [13:03] just keeps every quarter gets higher and [13:06] higher and it's not coming back. This is [13:08] from Mike Sacardi. [13:09] Uh [13:10] Wait. [13:12] I'm just staring at these numbers. [13:15] I I shared this with you and Josh. Let [13:17] me just pull this up. um Okay, sorry. [13:20] The The one was the big four, which is [13:22] Amazon, Meta, Microsoft, Google are [13:24] together expecting to spend 77% more in [13:27] CapEx than last year, which was a [13:29] record. [13:30] 77% more than the 410 billion they spent [13:33] last year, just these four companies [13:34] alone. [13:36] So, Meta, a company that the the stock [13:38] market is not [13:40] excuse me, super excited about right [13:42] now. I think it fell 9% after earnings [13:44] and there's no bounce. [13:46] So, [13:48] You're a buyer here? [13:50] I'm not. Purchases of Your paper [13:52] account? Nope. Purchases of property, [13:55] plant, and equipment [13:56] um [13:58] was [14:00] $6.4 billion for the quarter [14:03] in 2024, in the first quarter. [14:05] All right, just 2 years ago. [14:09] That is 19 billion. [14:13] So, it went from spending 6.4 billion to [14:16] 19 billion. [14:18] Well, you would expect free cash flow to [14:19] get destroyed, right? Like, cuz that's a [14:21] lot of the part of the narrative Right. [14:23] >> is their free cash flow is eroding [14:25] really quickly. It's all being financed [14:27] by debt. They're not going to be able to [14:28] pay for this. [14:30] Their free cash flow in the first [14:31] quarter [14:32] was 12.5 billion and the most recent [14:34] quarter is 12.3 billion. [14:37] How? [14:37] >> How? [14:39] Well, their net cash provided by [14:41] operating activities went from 19 [14:42] billion to 32 billion in 1 2 3 4 5 in [14:47] eight quarters. [14:48] Wow. [14:49] 19 to 32 [14:52] in eight quarters. And think about how [14:54] long the pandemic How long ago the [14:56] pandemic was? I'm only looking at back [14:57] to 2024. What was What was Facebook [14:59] pre-COVID? [15:02] And the stock mar The stock's in a 24% [15:04] drawdown at the moment. Uh So, [15:06] >> I don't I don't think I don't think the [15:07] market is uh [15:09] the market I I is certainly not [15:11] showing signs of euphoria, at least not [15:13] in the Mag 7. The stuff that's going on [15:15] with the chip names [15:16] is starting to worry me a little bit. [15:19] Yeah, Western Digital, SanDisk, Micron, [15:21] yeah. Now, the the earnings are up. [15:25] I talked with Josh last year uh last [15:26] week on what are your thoughts. [15:28] The earnings are up like 10x, so maybe [15:30] what do you expect the stock to be [15:31] doing? I think in one case, I think San [15:33] Disk the earnings might be up 50x year [15:34] over year. I'm not kidding. Something [15:36] nuts. Um [15:38] so I guess you would expect the stock to [15:39] be, you know, [15:40] going along in concert. Um [15:43] but [15:44] it's a lot of market cap. It's like a [15:46] So if you like Micron it goes up 8% [15:47] every day. There was a lot of There was [15:49] a lot of trading going on. [15:50] >> are up. Those stocks, you know, they're [15:51] like the new comic computing stocks [15:53] seems like. So you mentioned the cash [15:54] flow part. Bank of America via Mike [15:56] Saccone. Hyperscalers CAPEX as a [15:58] percentage of operating cash flow was [16:00] 70% in 2025, expected to be greater than [16:02] 90% in 2026. [16:05] Holy smokes. They are just going for it. [16:08] This is crazy, too. This is from [16:11] uh The Atlantic. [16:12] Hold on a sec. [16:15] CAPEX as a percent of operating cash [16:17] flow. [16:19] That's nuts, correct? So this is below [16:21] 25% in 2012. Now it's going to be 90%. [16:25] This looks like a stock chart. [16:35] Okay. [16:37] I I give him the Zach Alf gift there. [16:39] Duncan. Uh this is another crazy one. So [16:42] the The Atlantic had this piece on [16:44] Anthropic. [16:45] Okay, so they say [16:47] uh Anthropic's revenue is increasing [16:49] faster than Zoom's during the pandemic, [16:51] Google during the early 2000s, and even [16:52] Standard Oil during the Gilded Age. If [16:54] the company's current growth rate were [16:55] to continue, by early next year they [16:57] would be taking in more money than any [16:59] company in the world. [17:01] >> [laughter] [17:03] >> Not not like 10 years out. Not 5 years [17:05] out. Just the current trajectory to next [17:08] year. Their revenue would be higher than [17:10] anyone else. [17:15] I don't know, man. [17:16] No precedent. No. We've never seen this [17:19] before. [17:19] >> Yes, if you're comparing this to [17:21] anything in history [17:22] We've seen high growth. [17:24] We've never seen [17:26] gigantic rapid growth like this. It has [17:29] never happened before. [17:31] It's nuts. All right. Exhibit A Charlie [17:33] >> to I'm going to take the under. I'm [17:34] going to guess that they don't have the [17:35] most revenue in the world a year from [17:36] now. I'm going to guess that the growth [17:37] slows down. [17:38] Uh you know, going all in on them. [17:41] That's probably fair. Maybe we'll be [17:42] wrong. [17:43] Uh exhibit A Charlie, by the way. This [17:45] one surprised me. I did not know this. [17:48] Charlie and Matt sent this out last [17:49] week. [17:50] Exhibit A for advice.com if you want to [17:52] learn more. [17:53] We're now a double from the blows of [17:55] 2022. The S&P 500 is up 100% from the [17:57] lows. [17:59] See, when inflation was at 8% in the [18:02] fall of 2022, and the world seemed like, [18:04] okay, there's a recession is like any [18:06] day now. Or we're already in a [18:08] recession. [18:09] You bought back then, you're up 100% in [18:10] the S&P. [18:13] It's pretty good. [18:15] That's I I didn't think that. [18:20] Should've gone all in. [18:23] All right. [18:23] >> Damn it. [18:23] >> Let's Let's give some bad news. I think [18:25] this is bad news. [18:27] TLT [18:29] the iShares 20-year plus Treasury bond [18:31] long-term government bonds [18:34] uh [18:35] now have a negative return over the past [18:37] 11 years. [18:40] Nowhere for 11 years. [18:42] Still in the a 40% [snorts] [18:44] drawdown from the highs of early 2020, [18:47] mid-2020. [18:49] Cuz rates have gone from essentially 1% [18:51] or something to 5% now or something. [18:56] Was this the easiest crash of all time [18:57] to hedge? [18:59] Of a [19:00] of a pretty substantial asset. This is [19:02] Long-term government bonds are a [19:04] substantial asset. I don't know how many [19:06] trillions of dollars are worth, but it's [19:07] a lot. [19:10] What do you mean was it the easiest [19:10] thing to hedge? [19:12] Cuz all you had to do was go short-term. [19:14] Oh, oh, oh, oh. [19:16] >> It was the easiest hedge of all time [19:17] within fixed income. [19:18] Oh. [19:21] Yeah, and that's fair. I don't think [19:22] that's hindsight bias. I think that's [19:23] fair. I think if you sat through a 40% [19:25] crash in this thing and you've been in [19:26] it since 2020 and didn't diversify your [19:28] bonds, that's your fault. [19:32] Harsh, but fair. I [19:33] I did notice for the first time gasoline [19:35] is is expensive. [19:37] I filled up the tank, my wife's tank. By [19:39] the way, [19:41] I got a bone to pick with my wife. I [19:42] don't know if your wife does this. [19:44] >> [snorts] [19:45] >> There's never any gas in her car. [19:48] Uh [19:49] Okay. Never. [19:51] It's all the light It's somehow [19:52] miraculously the light is always on when [19:54] I go in there. Except this time [19:55] there was only 10 miles left and I had [19:57] to take Kobe and his friend to art. So, [19:59] the [20:01] the uh the gas light was like going on [20:04] and off and Kobe was like, "Daddy, you [20:06] got to pull over. It's saying It's [20:07] saying pull over immediately." And I was [20:08] like, "I think we're going to be okay." [20:10] So, I filled up the tank and I think it [20:11] cost $90 or so. So, look at the text [20:14] message I put in here for my wife. [20:16] Holy [ __ ] gas is $5 a gallon. It [20:18] There's something about rounded numbers [20:21] that get the human brain to [20:22] It you know, [20:24] no one ever says, "Oh my gosh, gas is [20:25] $4.75 a gallon." It's It's the round [20:27] number thing. [20:28] >> I paid way less, relatively. I think [20:30] mine was like $4.25. [20:31] But I noticed the bottom line that [20:34] that happened The feeling that happened [20:35] fast, no? [20:36] Very Look at the price of Look at the [20:38] chart of of of gasoline prices. It It's [20:41] shot up like a cannon. [20:42] And [20:44] it seems like the way that this works is [20:46] that when oil prices rise, they rise [20:47] like What is it? Rise like a rocket, [20:49] fall like a feather? [20:51] Is that kind of how gas prices happen? [20:52] >> I've never heard that before, but I like [20:54] that. [20:55] I mean, I didn't make it up. [20:57] But that's what's happening now. [20:59] And [21:01] it still seems like I mean, we're we're [21:03] probably I don't know. It seems like [21:06] we could get $6 a gallon gas in the [21:08] country on average and the stock market [21:10] still won't care. Is that possible? [21:13] Um, the stock market still won't care? [21:17] Uh. [21:20] It's funny cuz we're in a place [21:22] >> where it seems like every [21:24] $6 is high. I I think I think [21:27] We're I mean we're in a lot of places [21:29] we're getting pretty darn close. [21:31] Oh, you know what? I asked Chart Could [21:33] to uh [21:35] make this for me. [21:37] A chart of uh [21:40] gasoline versus the S&P 500. [21:43] I [21:43] I thought that's not much of a My [21:45] suspicion was there's nothing there. [21:47] Yeah, I'm guessing there's not either. [21:48] Um, we never did gasoline. But here's [21:52] the thing. [21:53] Every single oil analyst, every single [21:55] geopolitical analyst, every single [21:57] investment pundit right now is thinking [22:00] like listen, the energy markets are all [22:01] screwed up and no one is paying [22:03] attention to this. [22:04] But it doesn't this seem like the most [22:05] telegraphed risk we've ever seen like it [22:07] seems like everyone knows about it. [22:09] There's no one that if you're paying [22:10] attention, you know about this. You know [22:13] that energy stuff is screwed. So look at [22:14] the the chart from [22:17] the Financial Times. Scroll down a [22:17] little bit. The loss of oil supplies in [22:19] 2026 is the biggest of them all since [22:21] 1973. Bigger than the Iranian Revolution [22:24] in the late '70s, bigger than the Arab [22:26] oil embargo, bigger than the invasion of [22:27] Kuwait, Iran-Iraq War, all these other [22:30] things that happened in the Middle East. [22:31] This is by far the biggest supply [22:35] And obviously oil is is more [22:37] there's a bigger supply than ever [22:38] because there's more people, but [22:41] uh [22:42] This is the Austin Powers where the guy [22:45] standing in the way of the steamroller. [22:46] Get out of the way. Get out of the way. [22:49] This morning [22:54] I think Robin rolled over onto the [22:55] remote control. [22:58] And the TV turned on and it was [23:02] local news. So I guess before Good [23:04] Morning America, whatever it is. [23:06] Like local news. [23:08] And [23:09] it started with [23:11] um [23:11] gasoline prices, [23:15] fire in the city, [23:18] another fire, [23:20] uh [23:21] uh somebody got stabbed in the face, [23:23] murder, [23:24] and then [23:25] uh [23:26] somebody spray-painted a swastika on [23:29] somebody's front door. I was like, "What [23:31] the [ __ ] is this? Is this for real?" [23:34] And I feel like we've had this [23:35] conversation over the years, like this [23:36] is just what the news is now. [23:38] But this wasn't like it wasn't like [23:39] channel 12. It wasn't like that local [23:41] news. It was like it was [23:43] one of the major networks. It was either [23:44] channel 4 or channel 7. [23:46] And I don't know why I'm talking about [23:48] this, but like this is just what the [23:49] news is. It's unbelievable. [23:51] Literally. [23:52] >> Hang on a sec. [23:53] Gasoline, fire, fire, death, swastika. [23:56] And then I turned it off. I'd had [23:57] enough. [23:59] Sorry. I got a busy day. DoorDash just [24:01] came for me. That's okay. You don't have [24:02] to apologize. No, this is this is why [24:04] I've essentially checked out of news. [24:06] Like I don't really [24:07] I pay attention to financial news, [24:09] economic news. I've checked out of the [24:11] actual news networks. I don't like to [24:13] watch them anymore because it's just [24:14] depressing. [24:15] I mentioned that I have that brick [24:18] thing, right? Where you you lock your [24:20] phone, and I primarily did it cuz I [24:21] don't want to be with my kids on my [24:22] phone. [24:23] Um but I realized like one of the [24:25] problems is in the morning I wake up, [24:27] but I'm now I'm just on Instagram for an [24:28] hour in the in the morning. [24:30] in bed. [24:32] Oh, so you're going from doing one thing [24:33] to another? [24:34] Well, my my my screen time did not did [24:37] not decrease. I'm embarrassed to tell [24:39] you how much time I spent on my screen. [24:40] You know Apple gives you like your [24:42] screen time for the week? [24:43] So I I blocked Instagram. And I have I [24:45] have hardcore mixed thoughts. I feel [24:47] like I'm it's I'm Now, I have it I'm [24:50] still I'm on Twitter and Instagram. I'm [24:52] on Twitter on my on my computer, and [24:54] that's enough. I've never I logged into [24:56] Instagram today on the computer for the [24:57] first time. I never done that before. [24:58] It's I was a mobile only. Desktop and I [25:00] didn't know you could do that even. [25:01] But this is a this is a big step. [25:02] Cutting off Instagram, that's huge. [25:04] Where am I going to shop? How How am I [25:06] going to find my fitness influencer [25:07] stuff? Speaking of that, somebody uh [25:11] I did I did peek into the comment [25:13] section because you guys shared [25:14] something funny. Okay, you had to get [25:16] You had to get roasted for that thing [25:17] last week. [25:18] >> I said, "I wonder what people are saying [25:20] about my [25:22] my fitness." So, [25:24] LaRosa, our colleague, [25:27] um [25:28] said, [25:30] "This has to be the most ridiculous [ __ ] [25:32] you've ever bought, right? I almost [25:33] crashed trying to zoom in for a better [25:34] view while driving." [25:36] >> [laughter] [25:37] >> Um [25:39] somebody wrote, "That was the dumbest [25:41] workout machine I've ever seen." [25:43] And then somebody replied, "I know, lol. [25:45] Can't you just swing your fist without a [25:46] guide?" Now, [laughter] yeah. [25:49] Imagine I'm just doing this. [25:51] There's resistance. There's resistance. [25:54] So, [25:56] my Instagram purchases are obviously [25:57] going to tank, which I [25:59] I don't really love that. That's where I [26:00] get all my [ __ ] [26:02] But I did buy I did buy one more thing, [26:04] Ben. [26:06] One more. My My transition to fitness [26:08] influencer is almost complete. So, I'm [26:10] not feeling great about my body. There I [26:11] said it. Feeling old. [26:13] I'm looking old. [26:15] Don't feel great. [26:18] Body issues, Ben. You know what I [26:19] bought? [26:21] So, my I also bought this for practical [26:23] purposes. You know I have a rickety [26:24] back. My back is like just aching all [26:27] the time. I can't play basketball [26:28] anymore. [26:28] So, I need to strengthen my core. [26:31] Planks are very good for you now. [26:34] Yeah, I do planks. [26:35] >> Yes. Yeah, of course you do. [26:37] The problem with planks, Ben, [26:39] hurts your arms. [26:41] So, I bought You know the wrestler uh [26:43] Edge? [26:44] So, Christian and Edge. Oh, you don't [26:45] know wrestling. [26:47] They have a they they have a mat. So, [26:48] it's like 2 in of foam [26:50] with grips [26:51] and a timer. So, you guess I've been [26:53] doing every day, Ben? Planks. I'm [26:54] getting in shape. And it doesn't hurt [26:57] your arm or elbow at all. [26:59] pureplank.com. Get 20% off. No, you [27:01] can't get any percent off. But it's [27:03] working for me. Why don't you buy a yoga [27:04] mat? [27:07] Yoga mat? Those are this thick. [27:10] Your arms are that sensitive? You can't [27:12] go on the [27:13] I have sensitive I have sensitive bones. [27:16] Okay. [27:18] Got a bridge to sell you. Okay. So, I [27:20] think you put some charts on here from [27:21] Duality Research. Uh why [27:24] >> why gasoline is And part of it is [27:26] percentage of wages, price of gasoline [27:28] hasn't gone that much farther. Average [27:30] cars are more fuel-efficient than they [27:32] were in the past. [27:33] That matters a lot. [27:36] So, he he adjusts for [27:37] >> is great stuff, no? Yeah. Adjusts for [27:38] fuel efficiency. [27:40] Like it's it's much lower. I had Shawn [27:42] do [27:43] >> Whoa, whoa, whoa. He did three [27:43] adjustments. He did three adjustments. [27:46] Fuel efficiency, wages. Okay. [27:48] >> He adjusted for wages. Uh-huh. [27:51] Right? Cuz we're comparing Yeah, guess [27:52] what? Average hourly earnings have gone [27:53] up a lot over the last 50 years. [27:56] He could He adjusted for fuel average [27:57] fuel efficiency. [27:59] And then as a percentage of wages [28:02] adjusted for fuel efficiency. [28:04] The double adjust. That's pretty good. [28:06] So, I had Shawn just give me an [28:07] inflation-adjusted gas price going back [28:10] to 1990. [28:11] And we're essentially today on an [28:14] inflation-adjusted basis where we were [28:15] in 2004 and 1990 for gas prices. Just [28:18] inflation-adjusted. [28:20] Which obviously takes into account [28:22] >> not adjusting for inflation, which is [28:23] obviously and fuel efficiency, [28:27] that's like saying houses cost so much [28:30] more money than they did in the 1970s on [28:32] a nominal basis [28:34] without talking about A, inflation, and [28:36] B, [28:37] houses are a lot bigger and better. [28:39] There's double the square feet. But this [28:42] this is also why [28:45] gas prices will annoy people, and people [28:46] will complain about it. And it's isn't [28:48] more annoying to spend more to fill up [28:50] your car. It sucks. Yeah, it does suck. [28:52] But consumers will probably be okay as a [28:55] whole. Some won't, most will. That [28:57] That's probably where we fall on this, [28:58] right? [29:01] That's right, Ben. That's Listen, this [29:03] is a garbage [29:05] But that's kind of the [29:06] But that's kind of the um the way that [29:08] things have worked for this whole cycle. [29:10] Something happens, it annoys people, but [29:12] people kind of just still push through [29:13] it, and we're okay. [29:15] That's where That's where we landed. Did [29:16] Did you see the economist cover says [29:17] still in la-la land, but oil prices are [29:20] not high enough not yet high enough. [29:22] They're kind of thinking the same way, I [29:23] think. You know what? I thought about [29:25] There's a macro forecasting rule here. [29:27] Cuz people have talked about, "Hey, if [29:28] the Strait of Hormuz is not open by X [29:29] date, [29:31] we're screwed." [29:32] If you're a macro forecaster, never give [29:34] a date. [29:36] Always just keep it open-ended. [29:38] Listen, if the Strait of Hormuz doesn't [29:40] open, energy markets are screwed. Oil is [29:42] going to {dot} {dot} {dot}. Give an Give [29:44] an amount. You have to give an amount. [29:46] Never give a date, cuz the date thing it [29:48] always comes to pass, and then you [29:49] realize like, [29:50] "Oh, wait, nothing happened." [29:52] Push back a month. Don't give a date. [29:55] Something to think about. [29:57] Sage advice, Ben. All right, this is a [29:59] garbage survey. [30:01] Uh the share of Americans who say their [30:03] financial situation is getting worse. [30:06] So, it's at an it's at an all-time high [30:08] as far as uh this poll is concerned. [30:11] Yeah. This is a Gallup poll they've been [30:12] doing. Yes, and Axios did this. [30:15] It's So, right now the reading is 55%. [30:19] And for context, [30:21] during the Great Financial Crisis, which [30:23] was both great [30:25] as well as a crisis, [30:28] that number did not reach quite close to [30:30] 50%. [30:31] So, more people are saying that their [30:33] financial situation is getting worse now [30:36] than in 2008. Or more likely surveys are [30:39] broken, and or more likely this survey [30:41] is complete [ __ ] [30:43] You can't trust them anymore. These [30:44] surveys you can't you can't trust them. [30:46] It's [30:47] there's no way in any [30:50] objective measure [30:51] that people's finances are worse off [30:53] today than they were in the financial [30:54] crisis. [30:55] All right, Ben. I want to I want to read [30:56] a a tweet to you. [30:58] From this guy Peter [31:01] Diamandis, MD. I don't I'm not [31:05] I read his book. He wrote he wrote a [31:06] book like 10 years ago talking about [31:08] like the abundance in the future or [31:09] something. Pretty good. [31:10] >> Okay. Nothing to do with his work. [31:12] He said Elon Musk just crossed $800 [31:15] billion. [31:16] Roughly 2.7% of the entire US GDP. [31:21] The last person to hold that much of the [31:22] American economy [31:24] John D. Rockefeller in 1913. It took a [31:26] century for anyone to match him. [31:27] Rockefeller had oil, Musk has the [31:29] future. Now, that [31:32] obviously this is a lightning rod of a [31:34] tweet, right? Um [31:35] >> Yes. [31:36] that in a vacuum doesn't [31:40] bother me so much. [31:43] Now, say what you will about Elon. He's [31:45] created a lot of wealth for others, [31:47] obviously for himself. But that's what [31:49] we do in this country. Now, [31:51] you know, is it is it crazy? Yeah, it's [31:53] crazy. That's but that's how that's how [31:54] this country works. That's capitalism. [31:56] That's our system. For better and [31:58] certainly for worse. [31:59] Um [32:00] I didn't love his response. [32:02] His response was 10 trillion or bust. [32:05] Oof. [32:05] >> Now, I don't know if he's kidding or [32:06] not, whatever. Um he's obviously [32:09] provocative. [32:10] But [32:11] come on, dude. [32:13] All right. So, I was reading this week, [32:15] don't scroll down. I got a trivia [32:17] question for you. So, today the top 10% [32:19] holds roughly 67% of the total wealth in [32:21] America. [32:23] Obviously very wealth inequality is a [32:25] thing, right? 2/3 of the wealth is held [32:27] by the top 10%. [32:29] I'm reading this book called Wall Street [32:30] a History and they're talking about the [32:31] wealth concentration in the heading into [32:33] the 20th or in the early 20th century, [32:35] like heading into like the Roaring 20s. [32:37] The top 5% of the population back then [32:40] controlled what what level of wealth? [32:44] This is in the early 1900s. [32:47] Um [32:49] When Vanderbilt died and I guess [32:52] When did he die? The late 1800s? [32:55] He there was some crazy stat. [32:58] He had like as much money as uh [33:02] I forget what it was. Whatever, it [33:03] doesn't matter. Um [33:04] >> way way worse. Top 5% controlled 80%? [33:08] 90% of the wealth. [33:11] Crazy how much worse it was back then. [33:12] This this this book says math. [33:15] >> it's it's not wealth inequality. It's [33:16] like [33:18] it's massive wealth inequality between [33:21] not just the haves and the have-nots. [33:23] The people that control this amount of [33:25] money and everybody else. [33:27] Yes, right. And power [33:28] >> Right, it's it's the people with, you [33:30] know, [33:31] whatever. That that number just [33:33] >> 20 billion and up. That number blew me [33:34] away that it was that the it was that [33:37] much worse back then. But thing is no [33:38] one knew about it. There weren't these [33:40] stats that like showed people, [33:42] right? That they [33:43] >> Yeah, Rock- Rockefeller wasn't tweeting. [33:45] Right. All right. Government debt, this [33:47] is from the Wall Street Journal. As of [33:48] March 31st, the country's public debt [33:50] publicly held debt was 31. Look at all [33:53] three decimal points. [33:55] 265 trillion. [33:57] Just over GDP, so it's 100% of GDP now. [34:00] The national debt. [34:02] Um this is the kind of chart you show [34:03] people that you really want to scare [34:05] them, [34:05] right? [34:06] Look at this. [34:08] Uh [34:09] US publicly held debt as a share of GDP. [34:14] Yes. [34:15] So, I pulled this the Steve Eisman [34:18] quote from [34:20] when he was on Teeka with you guys, [34:21] which was what? 6 months ago or so? [34:22] Mhm. Ish. 10 months ago? Sounds about [34:24] right. The deficit [34:26] is Wall Street's version of virtue [34:29] signaling. Mhm. [34:30] >> People get on TV and they're like they [34:32] try to one-up each other. I am against [34:35] the deficit. And then the next guy says, [34:36] "Ah, he's not against the [34:37] >> I'm so I'm so much more against the [34:39] deficit than you [34:40] >> I hate it most. [34:41] >> I hate it more than him. He's nobody. [34:43] Okay. [34:44] >> And and the the nobody ever asks the [34:46] question [34:48] given all the uh [34:50] the agita about around the deficit [34:54] why have none of these predictions ever [34:56] even come close to happening? Yeah. And [34:58] I think what they all miss is that [35:04] the entire like I said to that before, [35:06] the entire financial system of planet [35:08] Earth runs on treasuries. [35:11] I love how we [35:13] >> That's the thing like you don't care you [35:15] don't care about putting all this debt [35:16] on your grandkids. How selfish are you? [35:19] You're leaving them the bill to pay for [35:20] it. [35:21] It's all virtue signaling. I just my [35:23] whole thing is [35:25] I I agree with him that like we run the [35:27] financial system for better or worse. [35:28] Until there is a something better than [35:30] treasuries that people are willing to [35:31] put their money into [35:33] how is this ever going to be a crisis? [35:36] I don't know. Well, I guess maybe it's [35:38] worth worrying about only in the sense [35:39] that if it does if we go over the line [35:43] like this is this is the system itself. [35:46] Right. Like you can't like [35:49] it can't break. [35:52] It cuz it's everything. The whole it's a [35:55] whole kitten caboodle. [35:56] Right. I said that last week, didn't I? [35:58] If a better system comes along that [36:00] >> If if something if there is a better [36:01] alternative to treasuries and the US [36:03] dollar [36:03] >> No, I know. My point is it's worth it's [36:05] worth worrying about even though I don't [36:07] like the hyperbolic constant worrying. [36:09] Seems to be a waste of time. [36:10] >> I I just seem to think that inflation [36:12] remains the biggest risk of all this [36:13] spending. Not like a system-wide crash. [36:16] That's where I fall on it. Like, "Oh my [36:17] gosh." [36:18] The [36:19] everything's going to implode. That I [36:21] just don't see that as being a big [36:22] worry. [36:22] >> Well, I have good news on the inflation [36:24] front at least uh [36:25] here in midtown Manhattan [36:28] I got Chipotle today. It has been a [36:29] minute then. [36:32] 1285. [36:34] I feel like you're in an abusive you're [36:35] in an [36:36] I feel like you're in an abusive [36:36] relationship with Chipotle cuz you you [36:38] like break up once every 6 months and [36:41] then come back and tell us you got back [36:42] together. Uh I I'm I'm basically done [36:46] ordering Chipotle only because I'm just [36:47] not in the city that much. [36:49] You know? I mean there is one right next [36:51] to our office in New York. [36:53] Yeah. So, [36:54] >> Convenience. [36:55] But I remember it broke the $14 [36:57] barrier. [36:58] >> So, you think that they they lowered [36:59] prices at Chipotle? [37:01] I know they did. [37:02] Okay. That's good. [37:04] It is good. [37:05] All right. Do you think that the AI [37:06] people finally got the memo? This is Sam [37:08] Altman tweeting last week. [37:10] We want to build tools to augment and [37:11] elevate people, not entities to replace [37:13] them. [37:14] I think a lot of people going to be [37:15] busier and hopefully more fulfilled than [37:17] ever and job doomerism is likely [37:20] long-term wrong. [37:22] Okay? I'm hopeful for a future where [37:23] people who want to work really hard have [37:25] incredibly fulfilling things to do and [37:26] people who don't want to work hard don't [37:28] have to and can still have an amazing [37:29] life of prosperity. [37:31] PR people finally got to them, right? [37:34] Said, "Hey guys, come on. Stop talking [37:36] about how this is the end of the world. [37:38] Stop talking about labor market [37:39] apocalypse." Not doing them any favors. [37:42] I I Maybe I am what do you call it, a [37:44] Cassandra? I'm a glass half full person. [37:46] I tend to agree with him even if he I [37:48] don't know if he believes this or not. I [37:50] agree with his statements more than I do [37:52] with Dario from Anthropic. [37:54] So do I. [37:55] Um [37:57] so [38:02] Um Ezra Klein [38:05] was writing in the New York Times in an [38:06] op-ed, "Why the AI job apocalypse [38:09] probably won't happen." [38:12] And he said, [38:13] uh the more automation there is, the [38:15] more people value a human's touch. Take [38:17] coffee. It was once a laborious uh it [38:20] was once laborious to make espresso at [38:21] home. Now, Nespresso machines are [38:23] everywhere. [38:25] Has that led to Starbucks closing and [38:26] neighborhood coffee spots dropping their [38:28] prices? Of course not. There are more [38:29] baristas than ever. There are more [38:31] coffee shops than ever. Coffee as a [38:32] commodity led to more demand for coffee [38:34] as an experience. [38:37] He said, uh, [38:39] in 1979, so bear with me. I'm going to [38:41] read for a sec. In 1979, VisiCalc, the [38:44] first electronic spreadsheet, was [38:45] released for the Apple II. It could do [38:47] in minutes what previously took teams of [38:49] accountants days. There were predictions [38:51] of mass unemployment for bookkeepers. [38:53] Instead, the number of accountants [38:55] quadrupled over the next 40 years. The [38:57] spreadsheets didn't replace the [38:58] accountant. Maximoff writes, "It [39:00] unleashed latent demand for financial [39:02] intelligence that had been there all [39:03] along waiting for costs to fall far [39:05] enough to be demystified." So, they talk [39:08] about Jevons paradox and he says this, [39:11] Maximoff thinks, is what AI is likely to [39:14] do even in the industries most exposed [39:16] to disruption. He thinks that in part [39:19] because it happened before. [39:21] Quote, "In every major occupational [39:23] group that adopted computers heavily, [39:25] employment grew faster than in groups [39:28] that did not. [39:29] Computers eliminated specific tasks [39:31] within jobs, but the resultant cost [39:34] reductions created so much new demand [39:37] that the occupations expanded overall. [39:40] Compute And here's Azur's [39:42] uh speaking. Computers can do much that [39:44] humans once did, but they didn't put [39:46] humans out of work. The ability to do [39:48] more made people realize there was more [39:51] to do." [39:53] I agree with this. And someone's going [39:54] to say, "You idiots, this is different." [39:56] It is different. [39:57] >> It It is different. But and also, [40:00] it's confusing because [40:02] for all the reasons we don't need to get [40:04] into about the obvious threats that AI [40:07] poses, [40:08] but there will be layoffs [40:11] um [40:11] that are blamed on AI and [40:13] part of them will legitimately be AI. [40:15] But like we we heard from Coinbase this [40:16] morning. [40:17] Coinbase is cutting [40:20] uh 14% of their their staff. It's 700 [40:21] people. [40:23] And they're citing AI. [40:24] Of course, the stock is, you know, [40:26] crypto's not you know, not not hot right [40:28] now, but [40:29] >> said like yeah, crypto's in a winter. [40:30] We're in a bear market, so it makes [40:31] sense to [40:32] Yeah, and they have obviously [40:33] over-hired. But, yeah, this is [40:36] And there are going to be certain [40:37] industries. I I just I'm [40:39] I'm having a more positive view about [40:40] this [40:41] now probably than I did 6 months ago [40:42] even. Well, here's another one. Uh [40:45] positive positive view. [40:47] Torsten Slok [40:49] he said AI's most exposed industries [40:51] keep hiring. [40:53] Nearly 2 million workers in the [40:54] Philippines now work in call centers. [40:56] Up every year since 2016 and through the [40:57] AI boom. [40:59] Again, this is Jevons paradox in action. [41:01] As AI makes call center work cheaper and [41:03] faster, companies are buying more of it, [41:05] not less. [41:06] Um and then finally, Derek Thompson [41:09] uh [41:11] Patrick Collison, founder of Stripe, [41:12] tweeted Stripe Atlas just hit 100,000 [41:16] all-time incorporations. [41:18] And Derek said Stripe data shows that [41:20] startup incorporations are way up. [41:22] And startups in AI are seeing faster [41:25] growing revenue than is historically [41:26] normal. For now, AI agents are better at [41:29] creating firms [41:31] than destroying jobs. So, I haven't all [41:33] of a sudden gone from worrying about AI [41:34] to not worrying about AI [41:36] cuz I think I I [41:38] I don't think this, I know this. [41:39] Everybody knows this. That there will be [41:40] displacement. Yeah, the worries are [41:41] legitimate in some areas, for sure. [41:43] Yeah. Um but it's it's not black or [41:45] white. [41:46] Yes. And I do agree that like business [41:48] formation is going to explode. [41:50] And it's going to keep exploding. And [41:52] the ability to start your own thing will [41:54] be easier than ever. [41:56] Cuz you can ask all the questions in the [41:57] world that you want. [41:59] Alec Stap Stap put this in. The housing [42:02] bubble in late 2000s is quaint by [42:04] comparison now, okay? Imagine showing [42:07] this to someone 10 years ago and trying [42:08] to convince them that today is not a [42:09] bubble. [42:10] When the last one looks like it's we [42:13] left it in the rearview mirror. [42:14] This is cute, but [42:16] it's like [42:18] this is kind of a dumb chart, no [42:19] offense. Only because or it's not dumb, [42:21] it's incomplete. [42:23] Because it was the leverage, it wasn't [42:24] the prices. [42:28] Wait, what? [42:30] This is showing the national price [42:31] index. Yes. [42:35] And the reason why there was a real [42:36] estate bubble [42:38] in [42:39] the 2000s isn't because real estate [42:41] prices were going up 15% every year. [42:44] It's because prices were going up with [42:45] no equity down or very little equity [42:47] down. [42:48] >> yeah, you're right, [clears throat] it [42:48] was both. It's just it's interesting to [42:50] try to explain to someone how prices [42:52] could be up as much as they are in the [42:53] 2020s without having that stuff happen. [42:56] Without having the leverage, without [42:57] having the home equity line of credit [42:59] crazy and like without the [43:01] it's it's hard to fathom. It would have [43:03] been hard to fathom we could have this [43:05] boom without that stuff, without the [43:06] speculation and people buying eight [43:08] houses and eight condos. Right? And the [43:10] the strippers were buying three condos [43:12] in Las Vegas or whatever. Like that we [43:14] didn't have that this time. Yeah. [43:16] Look, I I found this I'm not trying to [43:18] pat myself on the back here. We've been [43:19] talking about this forever. I wrote why [43:20] this is not another housing bubble in [43:22] April of 2021. What was the TLTR? [43:26] It's just because people locked in low [43:28] rates, people had way higher credit [43:30] scores, and people weren't borrowing [43:31] their faces off and they weren't doing [43:32] the [43:33] uh [43:34] adjustable rate mortgages. Like all the [43:36] bad stuff that we learned our lesson on [43:37] last time we figured out. [43:40] And it's another thing we just kind of [43:41] moved on and and we we dealt with it. [43:45] Um all right, let's do private markets [43:47] real quick. So, [43:49] uh PitchBook did an analysis [43:51] of private credit loans in top public [43:53] BDCs. [43:54] Don't you feel like we moved on from [43:56] this risk in terms of like the [43:57] zeitgeist? [43:58] >> yeah. Well, cuz cuz you know [44:01] you said it best, we can only pay [44:02] attention to so many panics at once. [44:04] Yeah. [44:05] We move on. [44:06] >> Um [44:07] and also prices stabilized, right? Like [44:09] that that helps. [44:10] So, this doesn't sound great. Their [44:12] their Q4 2025 takeaways. [44:15] Key takeaways. [44:16] Software exposure and related AI [44:18] disruption risk is larger than surface [44:20] level number suggests. Uh-oh. [44:22] Software alone accounts for 25% of the [44:24] top 10 BDCs portfolio fair value. And [44:26] the real exposure runs deeper once you [44:27] look past sector levels. Not great. [44:29] First lien yields contracted by roughly [44:32] a point over the past year. Lower base [44:34] rates and tighter cash spreads drove the [44:36] decline. Not great. [44:38] Non-accrual stress is growing in dollar [44:40] terms even as headline counts hold flat. [44:43] Not awesome. And then lastly, borrowers [44:45] overlap is deeper than investors might [44:46] assume. [44:48] Some names appear across five or six [44:49] BDCs simultaneously. Meaning a single [44:52] credit event ripples through multiple [44:53] portfolios at once. Okay. Um all right, [44:55] so not awesome. [44:56] >> Yeah, not awesome stuff. And then I was [44:58] looking at some of the performance of [45:00] the biggest publicly traded BDCs. [45:03] Uh Gallop Capital, Blue Owl, Ares. [45:07] And I'm looking at the total return [45:09] year to date. [45:10] And it's like what are we talking about? [45:13] Uh [45:14] Gallop is up 4.5% [45:17] Blue Owl, like the which is like the eye [45:19] of the storm is down 1.2% [45:22] Yeah, sure. It was down It was down [45:23] worse. [45:24] Um [45:25] it's just it's a lot of energy and I [45:27] understand why. I understand why we [45:29] spent so much time talking about private [45:30] credit. Um it just feels like outsized [45:32] given uh [45:36] It feels unfair and fair in certain [45:37] ways. [45:38] But it's [45:40] it's flat. So, this could be a situation [45:42] where a lot of the weak hands got shaken [45:43] out at the same time. [45:46] Yes, and also [45:47] TBD. Right? Because we don't know what [45:50] AI is going to do to the software in [45:51] these portfolios. So, we shall see. But [45:53] I'm glad [45:54] >> a while. I'm glad that we were were were [45:57] moving on because it it it did feel like [45:59] it's you You getting overdone. [46:02] Um all right, let's do So, survey [46:04] prediction markets, Bloomberg and [46:06] the Wall Street Journal both ran some [46:07] stories on this. [46:08] >> So, I made the I made the joke on [46:09] Twitter that this was like the same [46:11] summer when Deep Impact came out at the [46:12] same time as Armageddon. [46:14] And remember there was Dante's Peak and [46:16] the Volcano movie came out at the same [46:18] time? [46:19] Yeah. I think there was a Mars Red [46:21] Planet one where it's like they got the [46:22] same idea. So, Bloomberg and the Wall [46:24] Street Journal both did independent [46:25] studies of Someone somehow they opened [46:27] up the books and figured out who's [46:29] making money and who's losing money. [46:30] They both did it. Good numbers. [46:32] And the TLDR is not great for people who [46:35] are on these platforms. [46:36] No. [46:37] Shocker. [46:39] Here's a good one. Um on Polymarket [46:42] this uh Noah Colvin tweeted this. On [46:44] Polymarket the Journal found 67% of [46:46] profits [46:47] go to just 0.1% of accounts. [46:51] That means less than 2,000 accounts [46:53] netted a total of nearly half a billion [46:54] dollars. [46:56] I said this uh a couple months ago and I [46:58] will bang the table on this. [47:00] Bang the drum on this. [47:03] You should not be allowed to wager [47:06] on outcomes that can be known in [47:08] advance. For example, [47:11] you can't know who's going to win a [47:13] basketball game. Now, there might be a [47:15] player, if you want to whatever um be [47:18] annoying, there might be a player that's [47:19] like trying to throw the game. But in [47:21] general, just stop. You can't know who's [47:23] going to win the the the a basketball [47:25] game. [47:26] You can't know how many Teslas will be [47:28] delivered in 2030, right? Or how many [47:32] humanoid like things like that in the [47:33] future events, nobody knows. [47:36] But if there are things [47:38] that you can bet on where a small number [47:41] of people might have that information, [47:45] cannot bet on it. Well, so the obviously [47:47] yeah, that 0.1% is obviously is mostly [47:49] insider trading. The thing is [47:50] >> Cannot do it. you would think that they [47:52] would want to get rid of this because [47:53] that's causing people on their platform [47:55] to lose money. That money comes from the [47:56] losers of those bets. [47:58] The fact that the 0.1% accounts for all [48:01] the take on profits, they should want to [48:02] root out that bad behavior, right? They [48:04] should not want that to stay there. [48:06] >> So, [48:07] you said this is what this is what the [48:09] prediction markets are for. Will [48:11] GameStop buy eBay? Great, nobody knows. [48:14] Right. [48:15] >> to wager on that? Get closer to the [48:17] truth cuz there'll be a market. I'm all [48:18] for it. I am all for that stuff. [48:20] >> Ryan Cohen be able to bet on that from [48:22] GameStop? No, he should not be able to [48:23] bet on that. Yeah, I'm I'm Yeah, but but [48:26] even he doesn't know. Now, maybe I guess [48:27] as as it gets closer, but you would [48:29] assume that's reflected in the data. [48:30] Either way, stuff that people can know [48:32] in advance, get rid of it. What is this [48:34] thing What is a What is a part from [48:35] Bloomberg that says that bots netted 131 [48:37] million at the expense of other [48:39] Polymarket users? Is that just [48:40] algorithms that are trading? [48:41] >> It's It's like market makers. Okay. [48:44] So, they're eating [48:44] >> is [48:45] This is hilarious. [48:47] This is really hilarious. The head of [48:50] comms at Kalshi, Wall Street Journal [48:52] came to us with a profitability analysis [48:55] of public's Kalshi profiles, of public [48:57] Kalshi profiles, which was inaccurate [48:59] because the majority of traders keep [49:01] their profiles private. So, we did the [49:03] analysis ourselves and gave it to the [49:04] Wall Street Journal. [49:06] Our analysis showed that Kalshi traders [49:08] win more than they do on day trading, [49:11] options, sports books, and futures. [49:14] Are you [ __ ] kidding me? That's like [49:16] saying cocaine is healthier than crack. [49:19] And like doing a victory lap. [49:21] It's the first time we've given out that [49:22] data. We debated whether or not to give [49:24] it out, but we figured it was better [49:25] than a shotty analysis that showed [49:27] people lose a lot more than they [49:29] actually do. [49:31] So, this is the chart. [49:33] They showed the percentage of traders [49:35] who lose. [49:36] And [49:37] yeah, prediction markets, only 75% lose. [49:42] This is a brutal chart. I didn't see [49:44] that. Only 75% lose, whereas with day [49:47] trading, 80% lose. Are you out of your [49:49] mind? You're bragging about this? You [49:51] have a better chance of making money in [49:54] prediction markets than options. Look at [49:55] these numbers. [49:56] >> not a I'm not a prediction markets [49:57] hater. I love gambling. [49:59] And I I think that like yes, even though [50:01] I hate that it's ruin it ruins lives. [50:03] There's lots of things that ruins lives. [50:04] That's a straw man. I don't want to go [50:05] there. I love gambling, but clean it up. [50:08] Yeah. Clean it up. You can't have the [50:10] inside These numbers [50:11] that options lose money 90% of the time, [50:13] sports books lose money 95% of people [50:16] are on there. And then okay, sign of the [50:18] times. [50:19] Luke Kowalski made a chart at Sherwood [50:21] showing that Robinhood made more money [50:24] on event contracts and cryptocurrencies [50:26] in the most recent quarter. [50:28] Wow. Which says a lot about both [50:30] industries at the moment, obviously. [50:32] Ben, let me ask you a question. Why [50:36] or not why, let me say it this way. [50:38] Are TVs now movies in terms of like [50:40] quality? How come [50:42] Beef is so good [50:44] in terms of production. Now, somebody [50:45] emailed me like Beef went off the rails. [50:47] It it jumped the shark in in in season [50:50] two. I I'm guessing this person didn't [50:51] watch season one because it was the same [50:52] thing. [50:53] Where it was sort of plausible and then [50:54] it just went completely kablooey. Yeah. [50:57] Right? Like I don't know. It's it's [50:58] absurd. That's sort of the point of the [50:59] show. It's an absurd show. [51:01] Um but just the production. Now, you [51:03] might have you might not have liked the [51:04] way that season two ended or season one [51:06] ended, whatever, but that's not the [51:07] point. [51:08] The point is like the gap in quality [51:10] between shows and movies [51:14] is massive and it's it's like backwards. [51:17] Whereas like all of the Netflix movies [51:19] are such garbage. [51:20] Like they're just they're just garbage [51:21] movies. They're crap. They're they're [51:22] not well done and I think they know it. [51:24] It's quantity over quality. Whereas and [51:26] not all TV. A lot of the TV is crap, [51:28] too, but [51:29] it just seems like the quality in TV is [51:31] is better in a lot of cases. [51:32] >> It's also crazy to think that almost [51:34] every show now has a movie star in it. [51:36] There's movie stars in all the shows [51:38] now. There there's shows that are out [51:40] with movie stars that you've never heard [51:41] of these shows before. And you go, [51:42] "Wait, that's on right now? [51:44] And Cole Kibbins in another TV show?" [51:46] It's kind of hard to wrap your mind [51:48] around. Yes, the quality is way better. [51:50] I said we started beef. [51:51] It's It is It's a hard show to watch [51:53] because just things keep happening that [51:55] are bad to people, but it's you want to [51:57] keep watching to see what happens. It's [51:58] like the opposite of Rooster. [52:00] It's like it's not a very It's not a [52:01] very chill show. You don't You don't [52:02] watch it to relax. Yes, I can see why [52:04] you like it though. Um all right, Derek [52:06] Thompson had a good piece on millennial [52:07] parents. [52:09] And they have the numbers here. [52:10] Millennial dads do four times more child [52:12] care than boomer dads did, and it shows [52:13] that every generation does more child [52:16] care per day than the previous. The [52:17] silent generation [52:19] didn't do a whole lot, right? Uh baby [52:21] boomers did a little more, Gen X did a [52:22] little more, and now millennials do [52:23] more. Uh and this is just obviously a [52:26] sign of learning and progress. [52:28] And then it's not It's not like saying [52:29] one generation is better than the other. [52:31] Because I think you could make the claim [52:32] that there was a lot of [52:34] millennial parents who are so helicopter [52:36] that it's bad for their kids. [52:38] Right? But this This is This isn't [52:39] something new. You notice this with all [52:41] the other dads around you, too, right? [52:42] That they are just so much more involved [52:44] than the previous generation was. It's [52:46] It's obvious. [52:48] Um a lot of factors in here. I feel like [52:51] I am with my kids [52:53] all the time. [52:56] Yeah. [52:56] >> All the time. [52:57] I'm home when they get home. [53:00] I'm home when they go to bed. I guess [53:01] that's like normal. Um [53:03] I'm with my kids all the time. It's all [53:04] weekend. And if I sound like I'm [53:06] complaining, [53:07] maybe a little bit. It's a lot. [53:09] It's a lot. [53:11] Um [53:12] I had a I had a fantastic relationship [53:13] with my dad growing up. [53:15] Still do. [53:16] And I never saw him. We didn't live in [53:18] the same house. [53:19] >> [laughter] [53:19] >> I mean, my parents were divorced. So, I [53:20] saw my dad like twice a week. And uh I [53:23] think I probably spoke to him every day. [53:24] I can't remember. I'm you know, we're [53:25] getting old. [53:26] But so I'm not saying that like that was [53:28] good, this is bad, this is good, that [53:28] was bad. Like it's you know, it's it's [53:30] it's uh not black or white. [53:32] But I am I was thinking this weekend [53:33] like [53:34] we just did kid [ __ ] the entire [ __ ] [53:36] weekend. [53:37] Yeah. [53:38] And it's [53:40] it was [53:41] it's I don't know. It doesn't It It kind [53:43] of feels It kind of feels a little nuts. [53:45] It's impossible to go to a kids event of [53:48] some sort, sports or whatever, without [53:49] hearing another parent talk about how [53:50] busy they are with sports for their for [53:52] their kids. Oh, this morning we did this [53:54] and we did this You hear that same [53:55] conversation every thing you go to. [53:59] But [53:59] >> And we're not We We don't [54:02] We're not We don't overdo it with [54:03] activities in the sense of like my kids [54:05] are not doing 19 sports. I don't have [54:08] like superstar athlete kids. Like But [54:10] it's just It is My goodness, is it a [54:12] lot. The Derek said something that I'm [54:14] going to I will take on the bridge with. [54:16] Um [54:16] Oh, did I put this in here? Uh [54:20] So, anyway, this is a chart in here. [54:21] I'll get I'll get back to that in a [54:22] second. Birth of first child. So, [54:24] there's a chart that shows dad's health [54:25] declines. [54:27] Guilty as charged. Um [54:30] Uh but his life satisfaction remains [54:32] high. Look at this health. That's kind [54:34] of wild, right? I mean, this That's been [54:35] my experience, not yours, Ben. You [54:36] bucked the trend, but [54:38] Not that I was a model of health before [54:40] my kids were born, but holy [ __ ] This [54:42] is [54:42] >> When we had twins, I realized that if [54:45] I'm going to have energy to continue [54:46] living my life like I want to, I need to [54:48] change like my health. Because three [54:51] kids and no sleep and like so I made a [54:53] concert- concerted effort to change my [54:55] health when my twins were born. [54:59] >> I mean, I got one of these weights that [55:01] I do this with. [55:02] And [laughter] I do it all day. [55:03] >> Oh, here it is. All right. This chart, [55:04] I'm going to I'm going to call [ __ ] [55:05] on this. Um [55:08] Maybe this doesn't make me sound good, [55:10] but I'm I'm giving you my opinion. Okay. [55:13] Dads like child care more than watching [55:15] TV? [55:18] Really? Like it or [55:19] >> I'm I'm I'm I'm making a face. [55:22] >> [laughter] [55:22] >> Do they really? [55:23] Do they really? [55:24] Cuz I got to be honest, I don't. I love [55:27] watching TV and I love my kids, but [55:31] So, Kobe is not Kobe is now staying up [55:33] until [55:34] I don't know, 9:15. [55:37] Give or take. When the kids used to go [55:38] to bed at 7:00, you had a lot longer to [55:40] just like decompress, right? [55:42] >> So, guess guess what time I go to sleep? [55:44] I'm like sleepy at 9:45. I'm exhausted. [55:48] And with these playoffs, forget about [55:50] it. [55:51] I'm really tired. And I wish I could [55:53] watch more TV, and I know we talk a lot [55:54] about TV, [55:56] but it takes me a lot longer to get [55:57] through a show. And listen, I know it's [55:58] like that's normal, right? Like we don't [55:59] you know, we have to prioritize our kids [56:00] and we do what I do. [56:02] But I like watching TV more than I like [56:04] being with my kids at 9:15 at night. I'd [56:06] rather be watching TV. At a certain [56:07] point. We have figured out how to [56:10] I'm going through the 90s catalog with [56:11] my kids now. And I'm it's like if we're [56:13] going to watch TV, I want to watch TV [56:14] with you. So, this week we watched The [56:16] River Wild with my kids. Oh, uh. [56:18] >> So good. I introduced my daughter Libby [56:20] to She likes rom-coms now. We watched [56:23] Sleepless [56:23] >> a That's a [56:25] River Wild is a tough watch for kids. [56:28] Yeah, [56:29] it wasn't as bad as I thought. But like [56:30] when when when when when when when when [56:31] they when they kidnap when they not [56:33] kidnap when they take the dad and [56:34] they're beating the [ __ ] out of him? Oh, [56:35] yeah. Uh [56:36] Sleepless in Seattle I watched with my [56:38] daughter the other night. Just perfect [56:40] rom-com. Uh [56:42] so anyway, I'm trying to yes, make them [56:44] sit more still and watch with me, too. [56:46] But yeah, [56:47] you're right. Give and take, right? [56:49] There's there's tradeoffs as always. I [56:51] like this comment from last week. We [56:52] need the BAT ETF, BAT. Batnick ETF. [56:55] Invest in all residential HVAC, like [56:57] Carrier, unreliable automakers, [56:59] Stellantis, Tata Motors, auto finance [57:02] Ally, auto parts, What is that? [57:04] O'Reilly. New refrigerators and even [57:07] mudroom components, Home Depot and [57:08] Lowe's. All tracking Michael's major [57:10] consumer purchases. Let's see if it [57:11] outperforms the S&P. [57:12] Well, I haven't said [57:13] >> you track track this? I haven't said it [57:15] yet, Ben, but uh [57:18] getting a mudroom. [57:19] I am getting a mudroom. [57:22] You haven't been to my new house yet. [57:23] contractors and You walk into my house [57:26] and there's like little tiny like [57:27] there's like tiny little cubbies for the [57:28] sneakers and stuff. And there's no like [57:30] hangers so we just throw everything [57:31] down. Then you walk up the stairs. So, [57:34] I don't know where to put everything. [57:35] So, we're getting a mudroom. [57:36] Uh [57:37] I'm selling [57:40] I sold more crypto to I know I said I [57:42] bought more crypto a few weeks ago, [57:43] whatever. I'm I need I need some cash. [57:45] What are you going to do, right? Got to [57:46] buy a mudroom. So. [57:47] >> to like you're like doing you're moving [57:49] walls and stuff. I'm moving walls and [57:50] stuff, yeah. All right, that's fun. [57:53] I think we should have Claude track this [57:55] portfolio for us. All right, a bunch of [57:56] people sent me this. You have the What [57:58] do you call it? This guy, that guy. [58:00] Uh there was there was a LeBron thing [58:02] going on where he said, "Get a load of [58:03] this guy." is a new meme. [58:05] And uh that's when we hadn't added to [58:06] the list. Get a load of this guy. Get a [58:08] load of this guy. Yeah. That's a good [58:09] That's pretty pretty good. [58:11] Ben, I tagged you on Instagram because [58:13] you wrote a new book, and your handle is [58:16] uh Ben Carlson 007, or something 007? [58:21] Is it [58:22] Are you a huge Bond guy? [58:24] No, seven was my number in high school. [58:26] I was just trying to get seven into it. [58:28] So, I'm not a Bond guy at all. And to be [58:30] honest, I I don't I I'm not really on [58:32] Instagram. So, I I didn't even know that [58:33] you tagged me on something. Okay, well, [58:35] I did. Um Okay. Well, I I am I am quite [58:38] torn about this Instagram stuff. I got [58:40] to be honest, because I really love it. [58:42] You're Um [laughter] [58:43] and I but I I'm I'm worried that if I [58:45] don't have Instagram or Twitter on my [58:47] phone, I really am going to lose [58:48] connection with the outside world a [58:49] little bit. See, I just I don't I I only [58:52] have bandwidth [58:52] >> myself. I'm I'm I'm an addict. I only [58:54] have the bandwidth for one social media [58:55] thing. My wife always gets mad at me cuz [58:57] she sends me like funny memes on [58:58] Instagram, but I never check it. And she [59:00] always gets mad at me for not checking. [59:02] Uh like that's how I know what people [59:03] are doing that I care about, you know? [59:05] Like friends and family and stuff. [59:07] >> to be like me. I don't care what my [59:08] friends and family do. That's That's [59:10] fake lives. No, you know what? I think [59:11] but I think I think if I just look at [59:13] Instagram for 20 minutes a day on on the [59:14] computer, that should suffice. I don't [59:15] need it on my phone. [59:16] Okay, 20 minutes for like an hour, and [59:18] then you're back to square one. Yeah, [59:20] yeah. I need some recommendations, [59:21] people. [59:22] I've got I've got a nonstick pan, and [59:26] guess what? Doesn't work. [ __ ] sticks. I [59:29] know there's probably chemicals. I know [59:30] there's like a whole [59:31] you know, people have a lot of feelings. [59:32] I'm sure Duncan could chime in on uh [59:35] the nonstick pans. I got like a the hex [59:37] pan or whatever it's called. And I [59:39] remember when you bought them. [59:40] my eggs are sticking. So [59:43] I also I need a full I need a full [59:45] reboot on my kitchen stuff. I still have [59:49] like plates from my wedding, I suppose. [59:50] But like if you were to look in if you [59:52] were to walk in my house, my kitchen is [59:55] uh [59:56] a disaster in the sense that nothing [59:58] matches. I've just like hodgepodge. I've [60:01] forks and spoons that don't match. I've [60:02] cups that I I need like a I just need [60:04] like to throw everything out and start [60:05] over. We did an Airbnb and we found some [60:07] silverware we really liked. And we we [60:09] bought the silverware cuz it like the [60:11] functionality of it. [60:13] I've been using AI for so much more when [60:14] it comes to shopping. [60:17] Uh would you I want to buy this? Well, [60:18] what about these things? And I Well, how [60:20] about this? And I I have back and forth [60:22] all the time about shopping now about [60:24] big ticket items. [60:25] Um okay, let's do recommendations cuz we [60:27] got to go soon. [60:28] Uh Marty Supreme on HBO Max, I watched [60:31] it. [60:31] I feel bad because I feel like I'm [60:33] constantly a hater of the new movies [60:35] that everyone loves. [60:36] >> you didn't like Marty? [60:38] Come on, dude. [60:39] Listen, it was really well acted. It was [60:42] really well It was like a cinematic. It [60:44] was very visually pleasing. I'm not sure [60:46] what the point of this movie was. I [60:48] thought I'm going to watch a guy who's [60:49] like a ping pong prodigy. [60:50] >> Yeah, true. You're right. It was about [60:51] absolutely nothing. [60:54] What What was the point when like the [60:56] bathtub fell through the floor and then [60:57] they lit the gas station on foot? Like [60:59] weird It was The plot jumps that [61:01] happened in this movie were so bizarre [61:03] and I didn't understand. Like what What [61:06] was the point of like a bathtub fell on [61:07] top of a guy and his dog? Like I don't [61:10] It made It had nothing to do with the [61:11] plot. It was bizarre. The stuff that [61:13] happened in this movie from a plot [61:14] perspective, I was like [61:16] What I didn't I just didn't get the [61:17] choices. It didn't make sense to me. It [61:19] was very high quality. The acting was [61:21] great. I love seeing Gwyneth Paltrow [61:22] again. [61:24] Chalamet was you know, he was he was [61:26] good. I didn't understand what the point [61:28] of this movie was. [61:29] >> my heart, Ben. I can't get behind you on [61:30] this. [61:30] >> I'm sorry. [61:31] I I Are you ever [clears throat] going [61:33] to watch this movie again? One time in [61:34] your life. There's no way. [61:37] It was very high quality. [61:38] >> I will watch it I will watch it if I'm [61:39] on a JetBlue flight and there's nothing [61:41] else to choose from. [61:42] I It's I I had a great time watching it. [61:45] >> It was high quality. I don't understand [61:46] the point of it. [61:47] >> Okay. It's just like one long film. [61:49] >> It's not It's not Train Dreams, the guy [61:51] looking at the sky, missing his family. [61:55] Yeah, that actually has a meaning to it. [61:58] Sure. All right, what else? What else [61:59] did you hate? My My Audible [snorts] [62:01] recently, The History of Money by David [62:03] McWilliams. [62:05] And it's it's an history book that just [62:07] goes through the power of incentives and [62:09] money and how it happened. And there was [62:10] two stories in here. Anytime I I have [62:11] have a a new [62:13] uh [62:15] fiction uh non-fiction book, I just want [62:17] some anecdotes to pull out. There was [62:18] two two of these that I've never heard [62:19] before. Tell me if you've heard these [62:20] before. One, [62:22] during World War II, [62:24] because he lived through Weimar Germany [62:25] in in hyperinflation, Hitler was [62:27] planning on Hitler had counterfeiting [62:30] going on day and night. [62:32] And he was going to drop out of planes [62:34] like $10 billion [62:36] on London and try to try to give them [62:38] hyperinflation. He was going to try to [62:39] wreck the system using money. And [62:41] supposedly it got the war got too far on [62:43] and it never happened, but this was an [62:44] actual thing. They had counterfeiters at [62:47] concentration camps making money that [62:49] they were going to drop in London. And [62:50] the funny thing is if that happened [62:51] today, [62:52] I don't know. You would You would never [62:53] have enough airplanes or currency. [62:56] Do you know how how many trillions of [62:57] dollars we spent in the pandemic? It [62:58] would be impossible to do today. [63:01] Two, [63:02] uh up supposedly there's a theory that [63:04] The Wizard of Oz [63:06] was a movie or a book written about the [63:08] downsides of the gold standard. [63:11] I'd never heard this theory. [63:12] >> that before. Okay, I never knew that. [63:14] Anyway, two anecdotes from that book I [63:15] really like uh [63:16] like most [snorts] history books has a [63:17] lot in there that you know it's probably [63:19] unnecessary but I I I enjoyed that one. [63:22] That's all I got. Oh, one more thing. [63:24] Yeah. I listened to your CAA book and I [63:26] listened to your three kings book, the [63:27] Spielberg one. [63:28] >> listened to the CAA book? How good was [63:29] that? [63:30] Here's the thing that it's those books [63:32] are very interesting with the stories. [63:34] Also kind of depressing that I feel like [63:36] to be in a position of power that big [63:37] you have to kind of be a bad person. [63:40] And I don't know how to reconcile that [63:41] in my brain. [63:41] >> Well, well, not a bad person. You have [63:43] to you have to over over over everybody [63:45] loved him. But you like the the people [63:48] in power you almost always have to step [63:49] on necks to get there. Oh, yeah, yeah, [63:51] yeah, yeah. Take money that could have [63:52] gone to other people and that's the part [63:54] that's kind of it kind of bummed me out. [63:55] >> the did you finish the the Kings book? [63:58] Not yet, but it's [63:59] I never knew the story of DreamWorks [64:00] like that. So it's it's news to me. [64:02] That's great. Um [64:04] all right, last thing I uh [64:06] I saw season I saw episode one of your [64:09] friends and neighbors. [64:12] And [64:14] you know what's interesting about that [64:15] show? I don't I'm not sure how the [64:16] season's going to unfold. Whatever, it's [64:18] a fun show. I I enjoyed it enough. [64:20] I I feel like [64:21] there's like this weird paradox where [64:24] the characters [64:26] are simultaneously [64:29] so unrelatable in terms of the life that [64:33] they live, right? Like the luxuries and [64:35] the way they all look and whatever. Like [64:37] I don't know anybody like that, right? I [64:38] I don't live near people like that. I [64:40] don't know anybody who would be on that [64:42] show. [64:44] And yet the characters feel themselves [64:46] feel very relatable. [64:48] In terms of what's You know what I mean? [64:50] Like just in terms of what's going on [64:52] like what actually matters to their [64:53] life. [64:55] The relationships like it's interesting. [64:57] >> Peet. So I that's [64:59] why I watch the show. I'm still I think [65:01] season two is we're we're we're all [65:02] caught up halfway through the season. I [65:04] like it. Zach Lowe was on the last show. [65:06] Okay, okay. Yeah, I I I heard he's with [65:08] an OG makes a makes an appearance? Yeah, [65:10] there's going to be a players. [65:11] Okay. Um all right. [65:14] Okay, that's about it. We are out of [65:15] time. Animal spirits [65:16] >> [music] [65:16] >> at the compoundnews.com. [65:18] Thank you very much for listening. Hey, [65:19] listen. It's not always going to be like [65:20] this. There's going to be a correction. [65:22] Stocks will go down. It's not always [65:23] going to be like, "Oh my gosh, this is [65:24] so amazing." But, enjoy while it lasts. [65:27] >> [music] [65:27] >> Um, all right. We'll see you next time. [65:28] Thank you. [65:33] >> [music] [65:38] [music]