Bloomberg's Balchunas Says ETF Fee Cuts Floor Near 17 Basis Points

彭博分析师 Balchunas：ETF 降费下限接近 17 个基点 资产管理机构正通过推出高费率的主动型和杠杆型产品来弥补零费率核心指数基金，这类产品目前已占新上市 ETF 的大部分。 该小组分析了现代 ETF 生态系统与市场动态，观察到投资者如何将廉价的核心指数基金与高费率的投机性“调味”产品（如 2 倍单只股票杠杆 ETF 和主题基金）结合使用。他们探讨了比特币作为硬资产对冲工具的作用、大型科技股的市场集中度，以及可能让 SpaceX 等超级 IPO 快速纳入主要指数的潜在规则变更。此外，他们还审视了政治预测市场 ETF 等新兴趋势，以及为何长期来看宽基市场指数基金的表现依然优于复杂的细分利基策略。 比特币作为对冲法币贬值与外汇管制的硬资产，对饱受通胀压力的年轻一代极具吸引力；现货比特币 ETF 的推出促成了“隐形 IPO”，早期持有者套现离场的同时由机构买家承接了筹码供给。 (5:33) 即使大盘指数屡创新高，个股收益离散度仍出现罕见分化，验证了市值加权指数的有效性；而系统性再平衡机制往往因被迫削减赢家仓位而削弱长期复利增长。 (19:06) SpaceX 与 Anthropic 等超级独角兽的潜在巨额上市引发了纳斯达克 100 指数规则修改的争议，拟推行的快速纳入机制旨在为早期创投退出提供自动化的被动资金流动性支持。 (37:29) ETF 竞争格局正从超低费率的价格战转向高费率的“辣酱”细分产品，多数投资者开始采纳“核心加探索”策略，即将 80% 资产锁定于低成本指数，其余 20% 投入高风险主题及杠杆工具。 (43:43)

Bloomberg Intelligence senior ETF analyst Eric Balchunas and hosts Michael Batnick and Downtown Josh Brown argue that investing has entered an era of ultra-cheap core exposure, leading investors to balance low-cost broad index funds with speculative, high-fee specialized vehicles. The Core-and-Explore Portfolio Architecture (44:27) The panel observes that the multi-decade price war in broad asset indexing has essentially reached its floor, with staple market-cap funds charging under 5 basis points. Asset-weighted industry ETF expense ratios have bottomed near 17 basis points and are edging higher not because broad market exposure is growing costlier, but because investors are actively pairing their core holdings with niche, higher-fee trading vehicles. Proliferation of High-Fee 'Hot Sauce' Products (50:37) To build sustainable profit margins against low-cost giants like Vanguard and BlackRock, asset managers have turned to launching hundreds of specialized products, including single-stock leverage, buffered funds, and narrow thematic strategies. Because an ETF charging roughly 100 basis points can reach profitability with approximately $30 million in assets, issuers maintain wide arrays of niche offerings. Balchunas highlights outlier successes like GraniteShares' 2x Long NVIDIA ETF (NVDL), which reached $5 billion in assets, and Roundhill's concentrated semiconductor memory ETF (DRAM), which traded $250 million on its debut session and crossed $2 billion to $3 billion in assets. Passive Dominance and Market Concentration Realities (19:06) Despite active ETFs outnumbering passive ETFs in total fund count, low-cost index trackers still capture approximately 90% of total asset dollars. The panel addresses concerns over market concentration in the Magnificent Seven—which represents roughly 35% of the S&P 500—by pointing out that these corporate giants back their valuations with earnings growth and operate like corporate venture funds, having acquired more than 850 companies over their operational histories. Balchunas references Hendrik Bessembinder's research showing that just 4% of equities create all net market wealth, illustrating why broad, market-cap-weighted funds naturally outperform systematic rebalancing or equal-weighted approaches over the long run. Structural Indexing Clashes Around Mega IPOs (37:29) Upcoming mega-cap initial public offerings, such as SpaceX and OpenAI, pose unique distribution challenges. Michael Batnick highlights proposed Nasdaq rule revisions that would shorten the required seasoning period to just 15 trading days for qualifying mega-cap debuts. While index purists argue this compromises standard discipline, Balchunas contends that firms of this scale bypass standard mid-cap public growth and warrant expedited inclusion, which concurrently provides the institutional passive liquidity necessary for early venture investors to exit without crashing secondary markets. Frontier Wrappers: Prediction Markets and Direct Indexing (66:52) The discussion covers how the ETF wrapper continues to standardize non-traditional trading strategies, with firms such as Roundhill, Bitwise, and GraniteShares filing for political and macro prediction market funds linked to future election cycles. The hosts argue that financially incentivized contracts offer clearer signals than conventional polling. Conversely, Balchunas dismisses custom direct indexing as a major threat to ETFs, dubbing it 'the Segway of asset management' due to tax-loss harvesting depletion and structural complexity, leaving it confined to roughly 1.2% of total fund assets. While the democratization of low-cost beta has lowered the structural barrier for retail and institutional allocators, it leaves unresolved whether the surge in highly leveraged single-stock and niche thematic ETFs creates excessive downside risk when underlying volatility spikes.

彭博行业研究资深ETF分析师Eric Balchunas与主持人指出，现代金融工具的发展已促成核心市场配置成本趋近于零的“投资者乌托邦”，但整个行业并未停止扩张，而是分化为超低费率被动基准与高费率战术性“辣酱”产品共存的二元格局。 核心配置零费率化与宽基指数优势 (44:27) 普通投资者如今能在免交易佣金且费率低于5个基点（0.05%）的环境下配置全球核心资产，道富旗下的SPYM甚至将费率降至2个基点。尽管全行业资产加权平均费率因特殊产品涌现而在17个基点附近企稳，但廉价宽基Beta的基石地位已不可撼动。根据Hendrik Bessembinder的研究，历史上仅4%的股票创造了股市全部净财富，大部分个股长期表现甚至不及短期国债；市值加权指数自动让赢家自由复合增长，自1990年以来其累计表现领先等权重指数约1000个百分点。 针对直投指数（Direct Indexing）曾被视作ETF颠覆者的观点，Balchunas将其比喻为交通领域的“平衡车（Segway）”——虽然构想宏大，但由于数千个持仓头寸的管理复杂度过高且税收亏损收割收益具有时效递减性，其实际市场份额仅占基金总资产的1.2%左右（约1万亿美元），无法对低费率、高流动性的标准化ETF构成实质威胁。 “辣酱”产品军备竞赛与主动ETF分化 (56:21) 在基础指数费率战见底后，资产管理机构转向发行高费率的主动型与主题型ETF。目前主动型ETF在存量产品数量上已正式超过被动型ETF，尽管后者仍占据整个行业约90%的沉淀资金。Balchunas提出了“Beta调整费率分界线”理论：传统公募基金收取90个基点却紧随基准指数的“隐形指数化”模式已被市场彻底淘汰，正如Michael Batnick所言，投资者拒绝为“薯片包装袋里的空气”付费；取而代之的是“80%廉价核心底仓加20%高波动辣酱”的杠铃式配置结构。 由于高费率小众产品只需约3000万美元资产即可实现盈亏平衡，发行商纷纷采用“乱枪打鸟”策略押注爆款。例如Roundhill推出的半导体内存ETF（DRAM）利用互换合约重仓美光、SK海力士和三星，首日成交量即达2.5亿美元并迅速积累超30亿美元资产；香港上市的2倍SK海力士ETF在韩国散户追捧下一年内扩张至占据当地ETF市场8%的份额。然而，这类战术性资金缺乏投顾管理资金（RIA AUM）的黏性，一旦行情逆转或机构调仓，可能重演类似ARK基金或DXJ规模从峰值断崖式缩水的脆弱性局面。 独角兽IPO扩容与指数快速纳入争议 (37:29) 面对估值预计达1万亿至2万亿美元的SpaceX以及Anthropic等超级科技独角兽的潜在上市，市场正迎来前所未有的资产供给消化挑战。若SpaceX以万亿美元级别估值公开发行10%至15%的流通股，二级市场需一口气吸收1000亿至2000亿美元的股票筹码。此类上市的首要目的不再是传统意义上的初创融资，而是为持有超过十年的早期风险资本提供退出流动性。 纳斯达克拟修改传统规则，计划在SpaceX上市15个交易日内即破例将其快速纳入纳斯达克100指数。指数纯粹主义者认为取消常规观察期损害了编制规则的严谨性，但Balchunas认为这反映了独角兽跳过中小盘直接以巨头形态上市的新常态。快速纳入指数能直接激活追踪该基准的被动ETF自动配置机制，利用被动指数的买盘深度为巨额持股套现提供支撑，同时也引发了贝莱德、道富及景顺等资产管理机构围绕科技指数产品线展开的新一轮发行与流动性争夺。 ETF封装机制的延伸与结构性风险警示 (73:20) Balchunas将ETF定义为“伟大的标准化工具”，其核心能力在于将各类摩擦成本高昂的策略打包为标准证券代码。在加密资产领域，现货比特币ETF的落地被视作一场“无声的IPO”，让持有数轮熊市的早期极客能够将流动性平稳转让给机构配置者；在预测市场领域，Roundhill与Bitwise等机构递交的2028年美国大选及国会选举预测合约ETF，试图将传统券商账户直接接入真实资金博弈形成的宏观信号，从而绕开传统民调偏差以及选战概念股与实际政策脱节的选股难题。 但讨论同时警示了工具结构本身的潜在缺陷。与直接持有物理金条、资金流向稳定的黄金ETF（GLD）截然不同，原油ETF（如USO）依赖滚动期货合约，在特定市场结构下每年可能因展期成本造成高达30%的结构性损耗。类似地，过往押注实体商场消亡的做空零售ETF（EMPTY）由于日度再平衡复利损耗最终归零，反而是顺应科技演进的沃尔玛等传统巨头推动了宽基零售指数（XRT）与S&P 500的长期跑赢，印证了盲目押注单一破局者远不如依靠宽基指数自动筛选长期赢家稳健。 本期节目展现了现代指数化体系为公众带来的资产配置红利，但伴随被动投资成为主流，行业通过杠杆、主题衍生品与指数快速纳入机制不断向高风险地带试探。当万亿美元体量的未上市资产可以直接借由规则调整对接被动指数的自动化买盘，自动化资本流向是否会反噬市场真实的价值发现功能，仍是低费率乌托邦时代留给资本市场的核心未决问题。

## Background 本期播客由财经频道 The Compound 于 2026 年 5 月 13 日发布在 YouTube 平台。节目由 Michael Batnick 和 Downtown Josh Brown 共同主持，并邀请了彭博高级 ETF 分析师 Eric Balchunas 做客，围绕比特币投资心理与新书调研、当前美股市场异象、SpaceX 潜在巨型 IPO、预测市场 ETF 以及主动与被动基金的演进格局展开深入探讨。 ## TL;DR 节目首先剖析了美股大盘创新高与个股惨遭血洗并存的极端离散现象，强调了市值加权指数任由赢家奔跑以实现复利的根本逻辑。随后，嘉宾与主持人们探讨了比特币极具分化的心理机制，并详细梳理了 ETF 市场从费率归零的“低费率乌托邦”（如 VOO、VTI）走向高费率“辣酱型”产品（如单股双倍杠杆、特定主题衍生品）的双轨发展趋势。此外，对话还深入拆解了 SpaceX 破例火速纳入纳指100的博弈、预测市场 ETF 终结宏观猜谜的潜力，以及直接指数化为何像平衡车一样难以颠覆传统 ETF。 ## Atmosphere & style 整场对话在火药味十足的 NBA 季后赛球迷互损与硬核资管分析之间丝滑切换，氛围欢快、机智且极具信息密度。三位老友化学反应绝佳，接连抛出“薯片与包装袋空气”、“投资婚姻与外围辣酱”、“Segway 平衡车”等精妙绝伦的比喻，将复杂的金融制度变局解构得生动透彻。听众既能享受到熟稔老友间毫无包袱的互相调侃，又能获得顶级业内人士剥离华尔街营销话术后的真实市场洞见。 ## Bulletin - [19:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI0-sKsEC2A&t=1146s) 美股市场呈现出极端的内部离散度：标普 500 指数屡创新高的同时，2 月曾在 8 个交易日内出现 115 只成分股单日暴跌超 7%，且科技龙头财报前后的收益离散度创下历史新高。 - [47:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI0-sKsEC2A&t=2821s) 全美 ETF 年净流入正迈向 2 万亿美元大关，但全市场资产业权平均费率在 17 个基点见底反弹，主要由费率高达 70 至 100 个基点的单股杠杆、缓冲型及主动型“辣酱”ETF 爆发所驱动。 - [37:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI0-sKsEC2A&t=2254s) 传闻 SpaceX 筹备 1 万亿至 2 万亿美元估值的超级 IPO，纳斯达克拟破例允许其在挂牌后 15 天内火速纳入纳斯达克 100 指数，以此引导被动资金承接早期风投的退出流动性。 - [01:06:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI0-sKsEC2A&t=4015s) 华尔街正加速将预测市场 ETF 化，Roundhill 等机构已向 SEC 申报挂钩 2028 年大选结果等事件的单一标的 ETF，以消除宏观经济学家二阶猜测的“宏观占星术”。 - [01:19:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI0-sKsEC2A&t=4775s) 被誉为“ETF杀手”的直接指数化（Direct Indexing）规模约 1 万亿美元，仅占基金总资产 1.2% 左右，因费用昂贵、持仓复杂而未能撼动低费率标准化 ETF 的主导地位。 ## Key takeaways - [05:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI0-sKsEC2A&t=333s) 比特币不仅是投机工具或“怨气持币者”防踏空的配置，在法币恶性贬值和外汇管制的国家更承担了抗审查的人权与储值刚需。 - [21:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI0-sKsEC2A&t=1268s) 美股历史上全部净财富创造仅源自约 4% 的顶尖赢家，机械式的再平衡机制（如 ARK）往往会打断赢家的超级复利，而集中持仓让赢家奔跑（如 Baron）长期表现更优。 - [24:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI0-sKsEC2A&t=1445s) 美股科技七巨头并非单一业务公司，而是旗下合计收购了 850 家企业的巨型多元化复合体，其集中度在实质上具备高度内生分散性。 - [27:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI0-sKsEC2A&t=1622s) 当下的科技牛市并非 1990 年代末互联网泡沫重演；纳斯达克 100 当年单日波动超 1% 的天数超百天，而如今价格上涨背后有扎实的现金流与盈利支撑。 - [29:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI0-sKsEC2A&t=1750s) 财经自媒体与唱空者的商业模式依赖于永恒看空，但长期持续看空的投资者所付出的机会成本是天文数字。 - [44:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI0-sKsEC2A&t=2664s) 先锋领航（Vanguard）发起的费率战将宽基管理费打压至 5 个基点以下，终结了传统经纪商垄断，塑造了属于大众的“投资者乌托邦”。 - [54:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI0-sKsEC2A&t=3297s) 成熟投资者的典型配置演进为“婚姻与外遇”的双轨制：约 80% 的资产沉淀于极低费率的宽基底仓，20% 配置高弹性、高波动的“辣酱”产品以满足投机需求。 - [56:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI0-sKsEC2A&t=3381s) 根据“Beta 调整费率界线”模型，基础 Beta 已经近乎免费，主动管理型 ETF 唯有具备极高的主动份额或极端策略，其高昂的管理费才具备商业合理性。 - [01:00:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI0-sKsEC2A&t=3616s) 单股 2 倍杠杆 ETF 在亚洲等地引发博彩式狂热，如 2 倍做多 SK 海力士 ETF 在香港挂牌不到一年便蹿升为当地第四大 ETF，占据全韩 ETF 市场近 8% 资金。 - [01:05:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI0-sKsEC2A&t=3908s) 主题型 ETF 的爆发性资金往往是易碎的“海市蜃楼”，而像先锋领航 VOO 这样由 401(k) 和智能投顾定投驱动的核心宽基，以每天约 12.5 亿美元的惊人速度机械膨胀。 - [01:10:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI0-sKsEC2A&t=4238s) ETF 作为金融底层管道具有终极标准化功能，能将预测市场复杂的衍生品与结算机制打包为受监管的股票代码，大幅降低散户与机构参与的摩擦。 - [01:14:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI0-sKsEC2A&t=4444s) 回顾当年做空传统实体零售 ETF 最终归零的教训，老牌企业具备吸收并整合新技术的能力，押注单一颠覆者往往不如长期持有标普 500 指数本身。 - [01:16:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI0-sKsEC2A&t=4565s) 大宗商品 ETF 结构分化严重：实物黄金 ETF 长期持有属性坚固，而像美国原油基金（USO）这种依赖期货展期的产品单年展期损耗可达 30%，普通投资者极易踩坑。 - [01:18:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI0-sKsEC2A&t=4733s) 在大体量资金配置下，低成本纯 Beta 领域的竞争极其残酷，道富将标普 500 指数产品费率降至 2 个基点，仅凭 1 个基点的微弱优势便引发了资金抛物线式净流入。 ## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI0-sKsEC2A&t=0s) 尼克斯对决 76 人：季后赛垃圾话与恩比德风波 节目在 Michael Batnick、Downtown Josh Brown 与嘉宾 Eric Balchunas 的火热互损中开场。焦点迅速落在了当时正如火如荼的 NBA 季后赛——纽约尼克斯对阵费城 76 人。Michael 一上来就抓着 Eric 前几天发的一条推文不放，调侃 Eric 竟然抱怨“尼克斯球迷骚扰 76 人球迷”，直呼这简直不可理喻，毕竟费城球迷向来以全美最彪悍、最具攻击性著称。Eric 则为家乡球迷辩解，称篮球迷不像橄榄球迷那样疯狂嗜酒，情绪还没到失控地步，而且乔尔·恩比德（Joel Embiid）公开喊话让纽约球迷“别来费城”，这种挑衅反而像是在举牌招揽对手球迷。 随着系列赛移师费城主场，球票转售价格出现跳水，下层看台票价已跌破 400 美元，最低入场门票更是降到了 200 美元以下。Michael 和 Josh 都准备亲赴客场看球，Michael 更是毫不留情地预言这可能会成为“76 人队史季后赛最惨痛的主场惨败之一”。他直戳 76 人的痛处：轮换阵容极度匮乏，几乎没有板凳深度，泰雷斯·马克西（Tyrese Maxey）不得不场场硬撑 45 分钟，打到第三节就因体力透支只能勉强干拔三分。Michael 甚至尖锐地指出，恩比德在防守端形同虚设，进攻端又让球权停滞，76 人在他缺阵时整体运转反而更加流畅。 ### [02:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI0-sKsEC2A&t=131s) 击溃绿军宿敌与老球迷的回忆 面对尼克斯球迷的连环嘲讽，Eric 坦然表示就算系列赛输给尼克斯他也毫无怨言，因为 76 人在上一轮抢七大战中踩着波士顿凯尔特人晋级，终结了绿军长达十年的统治，犹如“斩杀了盘踞多年的恶龙”。谈到对凯尔特人的厌恶，几人迅速达成共识。Josh 回忆起自己年轻时在纽约看球的黄金岁月：90 年代末他在布鲁克林的一个屋顶派对上见证拉里·约翰逊（Larry Johnson）打出传奇的“四分打”，还有阿兰·休斯顿（Allan Houston）绝杀热火、拉特雷尔·斯普雷维尔（Latrell Sprewell）带队杀入总决赛对决马刺的激情岁月。 随后几人点评起两队的球员生态。马克西与新秀展现出的拼劲与防守韧性赢得了大家的尊重，但双方在角色球员上互不相让：从安德烈·德拉蒙德（Andre Drummond）、凯利·乌布雷（Kelly Oubre Jr.）的场上存在感，聊到尼克斯球员约什·哈特（Josh Hart）那种让客队球迷咬牙切齿却让主队球迷爱不释手的拼抢风格。话题甚至延伸到被淘汰的杰伦·布朗（Jaylen Brown）在直播中的低情商发言。Michael 更是自信放话，即便尼克斯主力 OG·阿奴诺比（OG Anunoby）伤停无法出战，尼克斯也必将拿下系列赛。 ### [05:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI0-sKsEC2A&t=333s) 新书揭秘：“怨气买币”与比特币的双面叙事 火热的体育斗嘴告一段落后，话题转向了 Eric Balchunas 即将于 11 月 1 日出版的比特币新书。Eric 透露，书中收录了 Michael 的多段精彩语录，甚至直接在书里将 Michael 定性为一名典型的“怨气持币者”（spite coiner）。Michael 对这一称号欣然接受，直言自己当初入场完全不是因为信仰，而是纯粹的出于嫉妒和预防心理——“我太讨厌它了，以至于我必须拥有它，以防万一”。Michael 当年甚至放出狠话：“如果这玩意儿涨到 10 万美元而我没上车，我会直接跑到时代广场，往自己身上浇满汽油然后点燃火柴。”这句过激又真实的自白被 Eric 原封不动地写进了书里。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 比特币持有者的心理分化 accDescr: 展示因暴富神话催生的怨气买币与全球基本面需求两种截然不同的持有动机 subgraph Speculation ["投资与投机心态"] A["好家伙（Goodfellas）暴富神话<br/>年化 60% 收益嘲弄 9-to-5 上班族"] --> B["怨气持币者（Spite Coiner）<br/>因害怕踏空与嫉妒心理被迫配置"] B --> C["迪拜泳池派对奢靡叙事"] end subgraph RealWorld ["现实世界与基本面权衡"] D["独裁恶性通胀与外汇审查国家"] --> E["人权保护与资产储值工具<br/>极高的人均持有率"] F["传统金融客观审视<br/>缺乏现金流 vs 黄金 5000 年历史"] --> G["双面叙事（Both Sides of the Coin）"] end Speculation -.-> G RealWorld -.-> G ``` 两人的讨论随后切入比特币更深层的社会心理学现象。Michael 用经典黑帮电影《好家伙》（Goodfellas）中的亨利·希尔（Henry Hill）来类比币圈群体：当币圈玩家享受着年化 60% 的暴力拉升时，他们会居高临下地把每天朝九晚五打卡上班、追求年化 10% 收益的普通人视为“傻瓜”。迪拜甚至聚集了成千上万靠比特币实现财务自由、整天拍泳池派对视频炫耀的年轻人。 但 Eric 指出，新书《硬币的两面》（Both Sides of the Coin）并不想沦为极端布道者的狂欢或传统怀疑派的批判，而是呈现平衡的客观视角： - **全球持有规模**：全美约有数千万用户以某种形式持有比特币，全球持币人口在数千万至上亿量级。 - **人权与刚需**：调研发现，人均比特币持有率最高的地区往往是本国法币被独裁政权严重贬值、外汇面临严苛管制的国家，许多人权倡导者视其为至关重要的抗审查金融工具。 - **估值硬伤**：客观上比特币依然缺乏内生现金流支撑，且无法忽视拥有 5000 年共识沉淀的实物黄金所带来的竞争压力。 ### [08:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI0-sKsEC2A&t=481s) 比特币的持有与“狂热黑粉”的三大根源 对话从 Eric Balchunas 是否亲自持有比特币展开。Eric 坦言自己允许购买比特币，但内部需要提交报备表格；他持有一点点，但仓位很轻，仅仅是将它当作资产组合里的“辣酱”（hot sauce）来调味，仓位大约在 1% 到 2% 左右。主持人 Josh Brown 和 Michael Batnick 随即转向讨论那些对比特币极度厌恶的人群。虽然有人提到政治因素——例如看到特朗普家族涉足加密货币后产生反感情绪，或者像 Elizabeth Warren 这样的政客——但大家一致认为政治立场的摇摆会随着选票争夺而“来得快去得也快”。 真正值得深究的是专业投资圈里的坚固黑粉（比如 Paul Krugman 或传统老牌机构人士）。Josh 总结了这些人讨厌比特币的三大核心心理机制，并从轻到重倒序拆解： 1. **错失恐惧与嫉妒（“我踏空了”）**：看到别人发财而自己没上车的人性弱点； 2. **凭空暴富的彩票心理（“凭什么他们能赚”）**：觉得比特币就像庞氏骗局或彩票，早期买入者根本没有付出与之相称的劳动或贡献； 3. **认知与生存环境的局限（“我们为什么需要这个东西？”）**：排名第一的深层原因在于，许多生活在发达国家的投资人从未经历过海外恶性通胀、本国法币贬值归零或被迫连夜逃离祖国的绝境，因此完全无法理解抗审查与硬通胀对冲的现实需求。 ### [10:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI0-sKsEC2A&t=602s) 经历毁灭性回撤的“先知”还是“疯子”？ 谈到早期持有者究竟是凭实力还是纯属走运，Eric 提出反对意见：那些早期囤币并暴富的 OG（元老）们，实际上熬过了多次高达 70% 甚至 80% 的毁灭性暴跌。在长达一年的时间里看着资产近乎归零，无异于一种精神折磨。很多元老级持币者现在大约 35 岁，可能要买房或成家，选择在现货 ETF 获批后逐步套现（业内称之为一种面向散户和机构的“无声 IPO”），这种收益是他们靠承受极端回撤“应得的”。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 比特币持有者的极端回撤心理循环 accDescr: 展示投资者经历多次70%至80%崩跌时，从心理崩溃到幸存套现的历程 subgraph CrashPhase ["极端回撤期"] A["资产大幅缩水 70%-80%"] --> B["心理防线崩溃<br/>产生'一切全完了'的绝望感"] end subgraph SurvivalPhase ["分化与幸存"] B --> C{"是否割肉离场？"} C -- "离场" --> D["沦为踏空者 / 转化为黑粉"] C -- "坚守 (仅少数极端心理承受者)" --> E["熬过漫长寒冬"] end subgraph PayoffPhase ["价值兑现"] E --> F["资产反弹数十倍至百倍"] F --> G["现货 ETF 上市<br/>无声 IPO 获利兑现"] end ``` Josh 尖锐地反驳：如果一个人把 1000 美元滚到 400 万美元，随后眼睁睁看着它暴跌到 40 万美元却无动于衷，最终再涨到 1000 万美元，这究竟算“远见卓识”（visionary）还是纯粹的“疯子”？Eric 引述播客《Bitcoin Matrix》中嘉宾 American HODL 的暴论：能够承受这种崩盘的人，心理特质上基本属于“真正的精神变态”（true psychopaths），但这恰恰让他们在精神上做好了迎接未来极端货币变革的准备。 ### [12:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI0-sKsEC2A&t=734s) 抗回撤资产、反假清高与“去中心化奇迹” Eric 分享了自己撰写比特币新书开篇的真实心路：他最初对比特币毫不在意，觉得就像匹克球（pickleball）一样只是别人的小众爱好；但他之所以开始对其产生敬意，是因为“它激怒了正确的人”。他极其反感金融体系里那些自命不凡、高高在上的“大祭司”（high priests）和假清高派（holier-than-thou），而比特币恰恰具有同时把各路假清高者惹毛的独特能力。 此外，历史数据展现了惊人的韧性：比特币历史上挺过了大约 8 次超过 50% 的断崖式回撤。回顾金融史，能经受住多次腰斩并重新创出新高的，只有苹果、亚马逊、伯克希尔·哈撒韦或佛罗里达房地产这类极具韧性的硬核资产；相反，郁金香泡沫和菲比小熊（Beanie Babies）崩盘一次就彻底消亡。这使得比特币与大多数归零的 NFT 及山寨币划清了界限。 - **比特币与其他加密资产的本质区别**：多数山寨币像是试图优化金融结算轨道的微型科技初创企业，而比特币则是富人用来对抗通胀的硬资产（如顶级艺术品、黄金或核心地产）的“平民化、便利化版本”。 - **去中心化激励体系**：全球数以万计互不相识、甚至互不喜欢的节点，在没有单一领袖的情况下自律运行了 17 年，这套激励与博弈机制堪称工程奇迹。 ### [15:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI0-sKsEC2A&t=912s) 隐性通胀税、代际认知差与正式开场 深入到货币政策层面，Eric 指出政客永远不可能靠削减福利或平衡预算来竞选，加税空间也极其有限；最隐蔽的掠夺手段就是通过无休止地超发货币制造通胀，以此向全民征收隐形税。比特币和黄金一样，凭借有限的供应上限，赋予了普通人一层对抗政府货币稀释的防御盾牌。 这种对抗货币贬值的属性直接导致了代际认知的巨大鸿沟： - **婴儿潮一代（Boomers）**：在几十年的美股长牛中积累了巨额财富，股票本身就是极其优良的通胀对冲工具，因此他们觉得“完全没有买比特币的必要”； - **年轻一代**：眼睁睁看着纽约等大城市的生活成本飞涨，总觉得制度在暗中剥削自己却无能为力，因而更容易倒向去中心化资产或激进思潮。 在经历了一番热火朝天的深度辩论后，主持人猛然发觉这已经是节目有史以来耗时最长的一次“冷开场”（Cold Open），全场在掌声与欢笑中正式切入由 Invesco 赞助的节目片头。 ### [17:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI0-sKsEC2A&t=1020s) 赞助商片花与重磅嘉宾 Eric Balchunis 登场 节目开场由赞助商 Invesco 插播片花，介绍了帮助投资者打破投资组合过度集中的策略，包括等权重配置、中盘股敞口以及针对动量、低波动和质量因子的微调策略。片花结束后，主播 Michael Batnick 和 Downtown Josh Brown 与嘉宾展开了轻松的闲聊与互动。他们从纽约尼克斯队（New York Knicks）和比特币的话题切入，随后正式向观众隆重介绍了返场常客 Eric Balchunis。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: Eric Balchunis 跨界行程与双重专业背景 accDescr: 展示 Eric Balchunis 从马德里 Vanguard 会议到拉斯维加斯比特币大会的巨大反差，以及他在 ETF 分析与投资书籍方面的专业背景。 subgraph Trip["跨界行程：冷热交替"] V["马德里 Vanguard 大会<br/>（被动投资传统殿堂）"] --> B["拉斯维加斯 Bitcoin 大会<br/>（加密狂热浪潮）"] end subgraph Identity["专业背景与出版物"] A["Bloomberg Intelligence<br/>高级 ETF 分析师"] P["播客《Trillions》联合主播"] BK["《The Bogle Effect》作者"] end ``` Eric 是彭博行业研究（Bloomberg Intelligence）的高级 ETF 分析师，深耕交易型开放式指数基金领域多年，不仅与人共同主持播客《Trillions》，还著有探讨先锋领航创始人约翰·博格深远影响的传记《The Bogle Effect》（博格效应）。两人打趣 Eric 变得越来越帅、皮肤晒得黝黑且发型梳理得一丝不苟，看起来颇具“欧洲范儿”。Eric 坦言自己刚从巴黎和马德里回来，甚至直接从马德里的 Vanguard 活动无缝衔接到拉斯维加斯的比特币大会。Josh 形象地将这种巨大反差形容为刚蒸完桑拿立刻跳进冰水池（Sauna cold plunge），像是在不同星球间光速穿梭。 ### [19:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI0-sKsEC2A&t=1146s) 诡异的市场现状：指数创新高与个股惨遭血洗并存 话题迅速转入当下的市场状态。Michael Batnick 指出，早前在 2 月份时，他们就曾发现市场行为极其反常：大量个股正在遭遇血洗被彻底炸飞，而基准指数却双双创出历史新高。这不仅是市值加权指数（如 S&P 500）的一枝独秀，就连等权重指数当时也同样刷新了历史高点。数据显示，在 2 月的一个连续 8 个交易日周期内，竟有 115 只股票单日跌幅至少达 7%，意味着标普 500 指数中有将近四分之一的成分股在单日内出现崩盘式下跌，而整体市场却在历史顶点盘旋。 这种极度撕裂的走势一直延续到了 5 月。就在录制节目的前一天，美股大盘上涨 1.4%，但盘面上却有大量股票暴跌，部分下跌 10%，甚至有股票跌超 20%。团队制作的数据图表显示，当天有 20 只个股跌幅超过 5%。历史上，这种个股集中暴跌通常只会出现在熊市阶段（平均对应市场回撤达 21% 的深度回调中），而眼下美股显然身处牛市。Michael 总结道，这是市值加权偏差、人工智能（AI）浪潮冲击以及财报季效应共同交织出的异象，这种“怪异的破事”今年以来始终在上演。 - **2 月异象数据**：在滚动的 8 个交易日内，标普 500 指数中有 115 只成分股单日暴跌至少 7%，相当于指数内近四分之一的股票遭遇单日爆破，但指数本身位于历史新高。 - **5 月前日异象**：大盘全天大涨 1.4%，却同时有 20 只股票单日重挫超 5%，部分个股跌幅达 10% 至 20%。 - **历史对比**：同等密度的个股大跌通常伴随平均 21% 的市场深度回撤（熊市），与当下的牛市新高格局形成鲜明背离。 ### [21:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI0-sKsEC2A&t=1268s) 指数投资的逻辑、再平衡的陷阱与集中持仓的威力 面对这种市场撕裂，Eric Balchunis 直言“这就是为什么指数投资称霸的原因”。选择指数化投资，投资者就无需为每天哪只股票崩盘而担惊受怕，最终整个指数的净结果是上涨的。他提到了著名的 Bessembinder 学术研究——历史上仅有 4% 的股票创造了股市全部的净财富，而半数股票甚至跑不赢无风险的短期国债。因此，市场上本就有大量平庸的股票，真正驱动收益的永远只是极少数赢家。虽然等权重配置有时能捕捉中小盘或国际市场的均值回归，但在长期战略上，市值加权让赢家无限扩张才符合复利本质。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 主动管理中的再平衡与任由赢家奔跑对比 accDescr: 对比 ARK 的纪律性再平衡机制与 Baron 集中持仓让特斯拉奔跑的最终收益差异。 subgraph ARK["ARK Invest（纪律性再平衡）"] direction TB A1["重仓赢家股价大涨<br/>（特斯拉 / 英伟达 / 比特币）"] --> A2["触发纪律性止盈<br/>（仓位控制在 11%-12%）"] A2 --> A3["获利资金被迫分流至<br/>跌势中的小型生物科技股"] A3 --> A4["打断赢家复利进程<br/>长期落后于 QQQ"] end subgraph Baron["Baron Partners Fund（任由赢家奔跑）"] direction TB B1["重仓特斯拉大涨"] --> B2["不强制均摊/不止盈<br/>任由仓位膨胀至 50%"] B2 --> B3["彻底享受超级复利"] B3 --> B4["10年大赚 750%<br/>极少数跑赢 QQQ 的主动基金"] end ``` 谈及个股挑选与投资纪律，Eric 举了一个极具冲击力的对比案例：Cathie Wood 的 ARK 与 Ron Baron 的 Baron Partners Fund。ARK 具备极佳的选股眼光，早早就抓住了英伟达（Nvidia）、比特币（Bitcoin）和特斯拉（Tesla），这些品种的涨幅甚至达到数倍至数十倍。然而，ARK 采取类似等权重的纪律性再平衡机制（将单一持仓通常压在 11% 至 12% 左右），一旦特斯拉暴涨，便被动获利了结，把资金转投给跌幅较大、缺乏动能的小型生物科技股。这在逻辑上看似“锁定利润、控制风险”，实则如同“把钱从赢家手里夺走，去补贴不灵的输家”，硬生生打断了超级复利的进程（"interrupting the compounding"）。相比之下，Ron Baron 顶住持仓集中度风险，任由特斯拉在组合中的权重膨胀至 50%，最终录得 10 年 750% 的回报，成为市场上极少数能够彻底跑赢纳指 100（QQQ）的主动权益经理。 - **Bessembinder 研究结论**：美股历史上全部净财富创造仅源自约 4% 的头部股票，绝大部分股票的长期回报无法匹敌美国国债。 - **ARK 与 Baron 的胜负手**：Ron Baron 的基金通过不加限制地让特斯拉仓位自然飙升至最高 50%，实现了 10 年 750% 的涨幅，成为击败 QQQ 的主动管理标杆；而 ARK 的机制化再平衡削弱了英伟达、比特币和特斯拉等核心资产的长期回报爆发力。 - **等权重指数的长期劣势**：自 1990 年代以来，标普等权重指数虽然阶段性领跑，但在累计回报上比市值加权指数落后了约 1000 个百分点。 ### [24:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI0-sKsEC2A&t=1445s) “壮丽七雄”并非过度集中，而是巨型复合体 针对市场普遍担忧的“美股广度不足、七巨头（Magnificent Seven）占标普 500 权重超 35% 过于集中”的悲观论调，讨论给出了完全不同的视角。虽然同一批行业龙头主导市场长达 15 年实属罕见，但外界往往陷入了过度分析的“中智陷阱”（Midwit overthinking），甚至把自己折腾进“贫民窟”。 深入拆解企业实体会发现，所谓的“七巨头”绝非传统的单一业务公司，而是一群庞大无比的多元化企业联合体： 1. **庞大的收购帝国**：七巨头旗下合计收购了 850 家公司，囊括了如 Whole Foods、米高梅（MGM）等大型实体资产。 2. **拆分级巨无霸**：仅谷歌（Alphabet）历史上就完成了多达 270 笔收购；如果将旗下的 YouTube 单独分拆上市，其体量能稳居全美前 20 大上市公司之列。 3. **跨国横向比较**：与全球许多主要国家的单一支柱产业市场相比，美股整体市场的集中度其实远称不上极度畸形。 Eric 强调，许多面对市场时自作聪明的人，远不如坚信“美股资产很棒”的普通老百姓或者看透规律的投资“绝地武士”（Jedi）。商学院和 CFA 考试往往教会人们高频操作与复杂分析，却忽略了最关键的一门功课——“耐心的训练”与“无为的艺术”（The art of doing nothing）。只要真正买到并拿住几家伟大的资产，不轻易去打扰复利的自我实现，投资其实并没有想象中那么复杂。 ### [26:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI0-sKsEC2A&t=1560s) 巨头并购史与反垄断：从 GE 到科技巨兽 科技巨头如今的统治力引发了关于并购与自主研发的深度探讨。Josh Brown 指出，人们常常只看到 Instagram 拥有数十亿用户，却容易忽略它是在被吸入 Meta（Facebook）的庞大生态漩涡、借助其强大导流后才取得今天的体量；正如 Google 的搜索排名权重推动了 YouTube 成为全球最大的视频平台一样，这些产品在诞生二三十年后能独霸一方，并非历史的必然。由于监管长期未严格执行反垄断法，投资者不得不去投资这些“由众多公司拼合而成的巨无霸集合体”。不过，他也强调，不能因此抹杀巨头自身的研发能力，这些平台绝非单纯靠买买买，它们确实亲手打造了极其硬核的底层产品。 Michael Batnick 回顾了上一代标普 500 指数的龙头标杆通用电气（GE）。在大约二十年前 GE 称霸市场期间，它总共收购了 70 家公司，本质上也是一个庞大的企业联合体（conglomerate）。然而对比之下，当今的科技巨头收购数量往往高达 270 家以上，其网络效应和资产扩张速度早已超越了传统工业时代的极限。 --- ### [27:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI0-sKsEC2A&t=1622s) AI 撕裂科技股：创纪录的财报收益离散度与“泡沫”之辩 当前市场的一大核心特征是人工智能（AI）正在扭曲一切估值逻辑，制造出极端的超级赢家与超级输家，指数内部特别是科技板块展现出剧烈的离散度（dispersion）。巴克莱衍生品研究（Barclays Derivative Research）结合彭博的数据显示，大型科技股在财报发布前后的收益离散度急剧飙升，近期创下历史最高纪录。在个股层面，市场分化极其狂暴： - Datadog 在发布财报后单日暴涨逾 30%； - Fortinet 财报后单日大涨 21%； - 软件板块迎来强劲买盘，而未能兑现预期的股票则直接被砸向深渊。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: AI引发的科技股剧烈离散 accDescr: 展示财报发布后科技股在AI浪潮下赢家暴涨与输家暴跌的极端分化走势 AI["生成式 AI 资本开支与商业化落地"] subgraph Winners["超级赢家 (Monster Bid)"] W1["Datadog (单日涨幅 >30%)"] W2["Fortinet (单日涨幅 21%)"] end subgraph Losers["未能兑现预期的标的"] L1["业绩不及预期软件股 (直接遭抛售踩踏)"] end AI --> Winners AI --> Losers ``` 针对市场上关于“当前行情是否重演 1990 年代互联网泡沫”的狂热争论，Michael 试图平息恐慌情绪。他给出了自己对“泡沫”的严格定义：即“股票当下的价格，在未来任何基本面情境下都无法被合理解释”。从这个标准来看，当今市场并非泡沫，许多看似高昂的股价背后其实有扎扎实实的强劲盈利在支撑，即便利润增速未来可能放缓，价格的上涨依然是在对真金白银的收益做出反馈。 为了佐证这一观点，Michael 援引了市场研究机构关于纳斯达克 100 指数日波动幅度的统计数据： - 年初至今，纳斯达克 100 仅有 17 个交易日的涨跌幅达到或超过正负 1%； - 在 2000 年，单日波动达到或超过 1% 的交易日高达 103 天； - 1999 年为 69 天，1998 年也有 62 天。 数据证明，当下市场根本没有出现 1990 年代末那种全市场丧失理智、不问估值的盲目狂热；不过 Josh 随即打趣补充道，如果专门去统计费城半导体指数（SOX），其疯狂程度恐怕已经不输 1999 年。 --- ### [29:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI0-sKsEC2A&t=1750s) 唱空者的流量生意与真正的避险哲学 面对估值高位，Eric Balchunas 分享了团队先前的研究：当前科技龙头虽然被大幅拉伸，但尚不及 1990 年代末“四骑士”（思科、微软、英特尔、戴尔）那般夸张。然而最大的困境在于，早在标普指数上涨 200% 之前，市场上就充斥着高估值的警告。Eric 认为，如果投资者真的对股票估值感到焦虑，正确的做法绝非每天在场外祈祷大崩盘发生，或者幻想自己成为“大空头先生（Mr. Big Short）”，而是应当务实地增持现金、配置硬资产，或者买入看跌期权以做防守，在享受股市上行红利的同时为下行做好准备。 Josh 揭穿了财经自媒体与唱空者的商业变现机制：很多在 Substack 上兜售付费通讯的人，其核心商业模式就是“必须不断预言顶部”；一旦市场继续上涨打脸，他们不仅不认错，反而会变得愈发极端和消极。Josh 讽刺道，金融界真该发明一种类似棒球打击率的追踪系统，让这些天天上电视喊暴跌的专家的胜率打在公屏上，“哪怕你只有 0.07% 的打击率”。听信那些连续预测 20 次顶部全部落空的人，所带来的机会成本是天文数字。 --- ### [30:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI0-sKsEC2A&t=1842s) 狂飙的 ETF 盛世与分裂的市场情绪 尽管媒体头条、专栏作家与宏观经济学家充斥着“一切都要完蛋”的末日预言，但真正的广大买入持有者（Buy-and-Holders）和先锋领航信徒（Vanguardians）却毫无所动。资金正以空前的速度涌入低成本 Beta 产品： - **资金流入（Flows）**：去年全美 ETF 净流入达创纪录的 1.5 万亿美元，今年正迈向 2 万亿美元的大关； - **成交量（Volume）**：去年 ETF 总成交量达 65 万亿美元（超越前纪录 20%），今年预计将冲上 90 万亿美元； - **新产品发行（Launches）**：去年新成立 1,100 只 ETF（平均每个工作日推出 4 只），今年正迈向 1,200 只发行规模。 Josh 和 Eric 回忆起 2015 年在 Inside ETFs 峰会篝火旁端着饮料的调侃——当时 Smart Beta 风头正劲，大家戏称“我们需要一个新因子”，而如今这个庞大的指数行业已然全面演进。散户与财务顾问用真金白银铸造了历史级的 ETF 盛世，头条新闻制造的悲观情绪与底层投资者的实际买盘之间出现了诡异的巨大脱节。 --- ### [32:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI0-sKsEC2A&t=1938s) 空头的至暗噩梦：当所有的“崩盘催化剂”逐一落空 Josh 勾勒了一个会让长期唱空者彻底抓狂甚至陷入“存在主义危机”的现实路径： - 中东地缘冲突逐渐平息，油价既未崩盘也未暴涨，稳定维持在 70 至 80 美元区间； - 所谓私人信贷（Private Credit）和私募股权（Private Equity）的暴雷预言全部落空，没有任何明星基金清零； - 全年企业财报盈利持续强劲扩张； - SpaceX 与 OpenAI 成功登陆公开市场IPO，不仅没有拖垮纳斯达克，反而平稳融入市场。 如果空头眼中的每颗“核弹”最终都被证明是哑弹，他们将退无可退。Josh 犀利地指出，那些在社交平台上天天散播末日论的人，很可能私下里个人账户全都重仓着先锋标普 500 ETF（VOO）。某大型三家指数提供商之一的资深批发商曾向他透露，许多赫赫有名的宏观对冲基金经理，虽然公开言论激进，但私底下全都在低调配置宽基指数组合作为底仓。 这完美印证了摩根·豪泽尔（Morgan Housel）的名言：“保持悲观和怀疑显得你很有深度、很有责任心；而保持乐观则看起来鲁莽且天真”。Josh 感叹， Fundstrat 的 Tom Lee 常常因为永恒看多而遭受嘲讽，但拉长时间维度来看，哪怕他的具体目标点位偶有偏差，那些跟随其看多大方向的投资者所赚到的钱，远非任何空头所能比拟。然而随着大盘创下历史新高，为了给 SpaceX 这种体量的超级独角兽纳入指数腾出流动性空间，被动指数的底层编制正在发生不可思议的变化。 ### [35:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI0-sKsEC2A&t=2128s) 万亿级超级 IPO 预期与“见顶诗意” Michael Batnick 与 Downtown Josh Brown 讨论起 SpaceX 与 Anthropic 等巨头潜在的超级 IPO。市场传闻 SpaceX 的上市估值可能达到 1 万亿至 2 万亿美元；如果按常规发售 10% 到 15% 的股份计算，公开募资规模将高达 1,000 亿至 2,000 亿美元。不过嘉宾们指出，SpaceX 在一级私募市场已经募集了巨额资金，其实未必需要在二级市场融这么多钱。私有阶段庞杂的股东架构催生了极其复杂的生态——无数投资人通过层层嵌套的特殊目的载体（SPV）间接持股，宛如套娃一般，许多自以为是股东的人在法律意义上甚至并非真正直接持股。Josh 调侃道，如果埃隆·马斯克（Elon Musk）带着超过万亿美元市值的超级 IPO 登场，而上市首日恰好是纳斯达克当年上涨行情的“最后一天”，那在金融市场上将极具戏剧性的宿命感：“这太诗意了（It's poetic）。” 谈及许多人警告指数基金投资者根本不知道“即将面临什么灾难”，Eric Balchunas 和主持人们表示其实被动投资人内心非常清楚。真正的指数投资者早就做好了心理准备，明白市场必然会有回调与震荡。2022 年整个美股市场表现惨烈，但此后便全面反弹。Eric 搬出大师约翰·博格（John Bogle）和沃伦·巴菲特（Warren Buffett），形容他们是投资界“尤达大师（Yoda）”级别的领袖，其给普通人的箴言极其朴素：买入美国股票资产并耐心持有，如果承受不了 50% 的资产回撤，打从一开始就不该涉足股市。 - **潜在估值与募资**：传闻 SpaceX 上市估值约 1 万亿至 2 万亿美元，若流通股占比 10%~15%，募资额或达 1,000 亿至 2,000 亿美元。 - **股权结构复杂性**：十余年私募融资累积了海量通过 SPV（特殊目的载体）持股的间接投资者。 - **大师核心原则**：博格与巴菲特的长期被动持股哲学，强调无法承受 50% 账面回撤者不宜配置股票。 --- ### [37:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI0-sKsEC2A&t=2254s) SpaceX 特殊入指争议：纳斯达克破例开绿灯 话题转入指数编制委员会层面的内部博弈。围绕 SpaceX 的指数纳入规则，ETF 行业专家戴夫·纳迪格（Dave Nadig）与 Eric 展开了激烈探讨。纳迪格对于纳斯达克拟专门为 SpaceX 修改指数规则的做法持强烈反对态度；而 Eric 则相对宽容。Eric 认为，当年的特斯拉（Tesla）上市后首日虽有反复，但第一年涨幅高达约 60%，成熟大公司上市并不代表后续没有资本增值空间。过去的许多老企业经历过微小盘、中盘到大盘的漫长成长轨迹，指数原有的筛选规则针对的是那种渐进模式；如今的巨无霸横空出世，就像勒布朗·詹姆斯（LeBron James）跳过大学直接进入 NBA 打球一样，规则本身确实应当适应现实。 对于普通听众而言，核心争议在于传闻纳斯达克曾与 SpaceX 沟通甚至进行内部投票：如果 SpaceX 选择在纳斯达克交易所挂牌上市，指数编制方将在其上市后仅仅 15 天内就将其火速破格纳入纳斯达克 100 指数（Nasdaq-100）。这在传统指数规则中极不寻常，通常新股需要满足更长的交易时间和流动性沉淀。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: SpaceX火速纳入纳斯达克100指数动因 accDescr: 展示SpaceX从挂牌上市到快速纳入指数对各利益相关方的驱动链条 subgraph Listing["挂牌与指数规则"] A["SpaceX 选择在纳斯达克挂牌上市"] --> B["纳斯达克破例修改规则<br/>上市后15天内火速纳入 Nasdaq-100"] end subgraph InstitutionalDemand["机构产品层"] B --> C["贝莱德 / 道富等竞相申报<br/>纳指100 ETF 产品"] C --> D["渠道分销商无需单投私募标的<br/>直接通过标准ETF向客户兜售SpaceX敞口"] end subgraph LiquidityNeeds["一级市场退出"] B --> E["引入万亿级被动指数资金配置池"] E --> F["为潜伏10年以上的上千早期VC/机构<br/>提供充裕退出流动性，防止踩踏崩盘"] end ``` --- ### [39:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI0-sKsEC2A&t=2378s) 纳指 ETF 诸侯纷争与 Invesco 制度变局 Josh 提出一个近期的反常现象：Michael 和他注意到，贝莱德（BlackRock / iShares）和道富（State Street）等巨头最近居然纷纷开始申报推出各自版本的纳斯达克 100 指数 ETF，打破了此前景顺（Invesco）凭借 QQQ 长期垄断该指数核心敞口的局面。 Eric 拆解了背后的关键脉络与内部猜想。过去，老牌旗舰 QQQ（前身为 PowerShares 旗下产品）采用的是单位投资信托（Unit Investment Trust, UIT）结构。这种结构强制计提一部分费用用于市场营销（类似传统基金的 12b-1 费用），比如赞助全美大学体育协会（NCAA）男篮“最终四强（Final Four）”等长期大型营销活动。然而在大约五六个月前，Invesco 通过投票将 QQQ 转换为了开放式基金（Open-End Fund）结构。转换后，强制营销预算取消，Invesco 能够保留更多营收，但纳斯达克方面或因产品推广力度的潜在下降而产生不满。几乎与此同时，纳斯达克不仅宣布了为 SpaceX 开辟 15 天火速纳入通道的规则改动，iShares 和道富也随即提交了各自的纳指 100 基金申请。这一系列事件的时间点高度重合，引发了业内对交易所、指数编制机构与各大资产管理巨头之间利益重新划分的广泛猜测。 - **信托结构重组**：Invesco 将 QQQ 从单位投资信托（UIT）转为开放式管理投资公司，移除了法定强制营销经费。 - **独家红利消退**：巨头贝莱德（iShares）和道富火速报备自家的纳指 100 ETF，打破原有的垄断平衡。 - **敞口分销诉求**：华尔街主流资管巨头希望旗下销售渠道能够合法拥有 SpaceX 敞口，但又不愿意像罗恩·巴伦（Ron Baron）那样直接把未上市高估值标的硬塞进传统公募基金中，将纳指 ETF 作为载体成了最完美的解法。 --- ### [41:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI0-sKsEC2A&t=2491s) 一级风投退出流动性与马斯克情绪溢价 探讨进一步深入到 SpaceX 为何如此迫切需要在最短时间内被纳入主流基准指数。Eric 和主持人们指出，关键在于“退出流动性（Exit Liquidity）”。SpaceX 这类公司在私募阶段存续时间极长、体量极庞大，已经完全跳出了传统创业公司生命周期。对于持有其股份超过十年的上千家机构投资者和风投基金而言，其投资者需要结算分红并收回本金。 如果上市后缺乏万亿级别指数基金和被动 ETF 资金池的强制买盘承接，一旦早期投资人蜂拥套现离场，极易造成股价单边暴跌 50% 甚至腰斩。正因它不是一家常规企业，纳斯达克给予它非同寻常的“特批入指”待遇在逻辑上有其商业合理性。然而，指数本身代表着严格客观的量化规则体系，一旦人为打破先例，必然会遭遇市场强烈的道德和制度反弹。此外，由于掌门人是埃隆·马斯克，现实中任何针对 SpaceX 指数纳入的讨论，往往不可避免地混杂了市场参与者对马斯克个人或政治立场的强烈喜好与偏见。 --- ### [43:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI0-sKsEC2A&t=2626s) 从“枯燥的费率战”到“加点辣酱”的被动变革 Josh 回忆道，在 2014 年到 2019/2020 年前后，Eric 的 ETF 跟踪报道在某种程度上显得相当平淡——当时整个资产管理行业完全陷入了白热化的“费率归零竞赛（Race to Zero）”。市场上缺乏令人眼前一亮的新发产品，满屏皆是朴素单调的宽基被动指数基金，被动管理以摧枯拉朽之势席卷一切。 Eric 对此欣然承认，但也给出了独特的视角：在他看来，先锋领航（Vanguard）当年发起的低费率战争极具“朋克摇滚（Punk Rock）”精神，其以颠覆性的姿态残酷碾压了华尔街传统的高收费中介。然而，当宽基核心配置的基本盘被低费率彻底锁定之后，市场终于走出了漫长而无聊的同质化竞争周期，资金开始寻求差异化、高弹性的边缘配置——行业正式迎来了属于各种特色主题与主动策略的“热辣酱料（Hot Sauce）”时代。 ### [44:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI0-sKsEC2A&t=2664s) 投资者的乌托邦与零门槛投资时代 华尔街对 ETF 这种指数化工具的崛起曾感到极度紧张，因为这是一场彻头彻尾的颠覆。嘉宾 Eric Balchunas 指出，早期的 ETF 运动甚至带有一种类似“朋克摇滚”（punk rock）的叛逆与对抗精神。ETF 之间的持续费率战，最终塑造了当今的“投资者乌托邦”（Investor Utopia）。普通投资者现在已经身处有史以来最好的投资时代：几乎所有核心资产类别的管理费都被打压到 5 个基点（0.05%）以下，交易免佣金，甚至无需起床，躺在床上点几下手机就能在数秒内买下全球资产。相比之下，加密货币圈热炒的“资产代币化”（tokenization）试图宣扬的优势早已失去吸引力，因为市场敞口（market exposure）在现有的 ETF 体系下不仅早已完美解决，而且接近免费。 然而，今天的许多年轻投资者已对此习以为常，甚至有些麻木，忘记了过去进入市场的门槛有多高。Josh Brown 分享了他 18 岁时第一次买股票的尴尬经历：当时他给父亲在美林证券（Merrill Lynch）长岛亨廷顿分部的经纪人 Jerry 打电话下单。对方态度极其轻蔑，一边漫不经心地推杆练高尔夫，一边夹着无绳电话嘲讽地问他到底想买什么。Josh 报了一只别人推荐的不知名石油股代码，随后股价从 13 美元一路暴跌到 8 美元。这次交易体验极其屈辱，以至于他根本不敢再打电话去问亏损原因。正因如此，Josh 完全认同打破这种经纪人垄断、让年轻一代不再感到羞辱和受阻的投资工具才是真正的“朋克摇滚”。 ### [47:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI0-sKsEC2A&t=2821s) 音乐节闲聊与费率见底反弹的信号 在讨论热烈之余，话题短暂拐向了音乐和金融行业聚会。主持人调侃 Eric Balchunas 总是把 ETF 比作各种音乐，却从未参加过他们在每年劳动节后举办的 Future Proof 金融嘉年华。Eric 解释称劳动节刚过是孩子开学的特殊时间，很难脱身，并提及他们早期举办的各类活动与迈阿密分会场。Josh 则如数家珍地盘点起 Future Proof 邀请过的经典乐队阵容，包括 Bush、Blues Traveler、Sugar Ray 的 Mark McGrath、Better Than Ezra 与 Tonic 组成的摇滚组合（被 Josh 戏称为“X世代游艇摇滚”），以及 Third Eye Blind 等。 回到专业话题后，大家聚焦到全市场 ETF 费率的走势图。数据显示，过去数十年一路下坠的资产业权 ETF 平均管理费率已经在 17 个基点（0.17%）附近筑成了局部底部，并开始缓慢掉头向上。华尔街曾将费率持续下跌视为海平面上升般的末日图景，而如今费率之所以反弹，是因为海量高费率的“新型刺激产品”正在涌向市场： - 所谓“赌徒特供”（degen）的高波动、高杠杆“辣酱”ETF，管理费普遍在 1.00% 左右； - 缓冲型 ETF（Buffer ETFs / 结构性保护产品），费率大约在 90 个基点（0.90%）； - 传统的主动管理型 ETF（Legacy Active），管理费一般在 30 至 40 个基点之间。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: ETF费率结构与底部反弹驱动因素 accDescr: 展示以低费率核心资产为底座、高费率主动与杠杆产品推动综合费率见底反弹的结构 subgraph Core["核心底层配置（费率触底至 5 bps 以下）"] LowFee["宽基被动指数 ETF<br/>标普500 / 纳指100 / 全球市场"] end subgraph HotSauce["高费率外围'辣酱'产品（拉高综合费率至 17 bps+）"] Active["传统主动管理型 ETF<br/>30 - 40 bps"] Buffer["缓冲型 / 结构保护 ETF<br/>~90 bps"] Degen["超高波动/单股2X'赌徒' ETF<br/>~100 bps (1.00%)"] end LowFee --> HotSauce ``` ### [50:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI0-sKsEC2A&t=3037s) “辣酱军备竞赛”与单股杠杆基金的造富逻辑 去年市场涌现了多达 1,100 只新设立的 ETF，它们绝非廉价的 5 基点宽基产品，而是费率高达 70 到 100 基点的主动或杠杆产品，Eric 将其形容为一场“辣酱军备竞赛”（hot sauce arms race）。虽然目前大约有 45 只两倍做多（2X）单股 ETF，总资产仅约 400 亿美元，平均每只规模仅有 1 亿美元左右，但发行商的策略是“向墙上狂扔意大利面”（fire up the spaghetti cannon）：只要蒙对了一只爆款，整个商业模型就彻底打通。例如 GraniteShares 推出的 2X 苹果或英伟达杠杆基金（如 2X NVDA），资产规模狂揽近 50 亿美元，仅凭这一只产品每年就能带来 5,000 万美元的真金白银管理费收入。 由于高费率（1% 费率的产品大约只要达到 3,000 万美元资产即可实现盈亏平衡），并且这类 ETF 的维持运营成本极低，只要不归零就能一直存续下去。更为关键的是，这些产品绝大多数只做多那些身处高景气赛道的美国科技成长股（如量子计算 2X 等，波动率高达标普 500 的 20 倍，堪称 ETF 界的“魔鬼辣椒”）。发行方只要在早期吸引哪怕一点点种子资金，剩下的资产膨胀完全可以借助标的资产本身的凶猛涨幅来实现。 要在这种市场中杀出重围，发行商要么具备极其极致的工业化流水线发行动能，要么必须拥有敏锐的市场嗅觉和“造潮者”（taste maker）的直觉。典型代表是 Tuttle Capital Management 的 Matt Tuttle——他坦诚自己本质上就是个激进的交易员，只做自己想交易的产品；以及敏锐捕捉细分科技行情的 Roundhill Investments。例如 Roundhill 围绕 DRAM 内存半导体供应链推出的主题基金（聚焦美光 Micron、SK海力士 SK Hynix 和三星电子 Samsung 等），资产规模火速突破 20 亿美元，堪称踩准热点行情的教科书级神作。 ### [53:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI0-sKsEC2A&t=3200s) 存储芯片荒与狂暴的主题 ETF 问世 三星（Samsung）、SK 海力士（SK Hynix）与美光（Micron）三家巨头掌控了全球约 95% 的内存芯片产能，而当下轰轰烈烈的 AI 数据中心建设对高带宽内存（HBM）有着极度饥渴的实际需求。然而在 ETF 市场上，投资者此前根本找不到能一网打尽这三家巨头的标的——买韩国国家 ETF 充其量只能包揽三星和 SK 海力士两家。聪明的发行商（Roundhill）敏锐捕捉到了这一痛点，迅速打包推出了一款产品，将美光也纳入其中，并且为了规避严格的持仓分散化法规限制，巧妙通过互换合约（Swaps）等衍生品手段拉高权重，让这三家巨头直接占据了组合 65% 至 67% 的权重。 这种激进的集中度迎来了不可思议的市场买盘。Eric Balchunas 坦言自己当时有些打瞌睡、没太在意，结果首日成交额竟飙到 2.5 亿美元；到了发行一个月左右，单日交易量甚至超越了雪佛龙（Chevron）这种传统蓝筹巨头，资产规模一举破获 30 亿美元，堪称主题类 ETF（Theme ETF）史上最炸裂的亮相。Josh 和 Michael 调侃发行商敏锐的嗅觉，提到 Will Hershey 当年极早占坑了代码“META”，迫使扎克伯格（Mark Zuckerberg）后来不得不掏钱买走代码；而 Tuttle Capital 也曾留着一只名为“SPCX”的空壳 SPAC ETF，宁可让其半死不活地挂着也不清盘，直到近期突然更换代码，极大概率意味着有人为了埃隆·马斯克（Elon Musk）未来的 SpaceX IPO 花钱买下了这个珍贵代号。 - 内存三巨头（三星、SK 海力士、美光）包揽全球约 95% 产能，AI 基础设施对 HBM 需求极其迫切。 - Roundhill 突破分散化限制，利用互换协议（Swaps）让组合 65%~67% 押注于三家存储巨头。 - 该主题 ETF 首日成交额突破 2.5 亿美元，一个月内资产规模暴增至 30 亿美元，流动性比肩万亿蓝筹。 ### [54:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI0-sKsEC2A&t=3297s) 核心与卫星：ETF 投资的“辣酱理论”与婚姻隐喻 Eric Balchunas 提出了一个形象的资产配置画像：当下投资者不再盲目迷信评级机构所谓的“五星级主动选股经理”，而是选择与低成本宽基指数“喜结连理”。大家把大部分资金托付给 Vanguard 的 VOO（标普 500 ETF）和 BND（全市场债券 ETF），摆出一副“我已经名花有主、未来 50 年都要白头偕老”的稳妥姿态。然而人性本贪新鲜，在安稳的婚姻之外，大家总按捺不住想在顶层偷腥、玩点刺激的投机冲动——这就是所谓的“辣酱”（Hot Sauce）。Josh 戏称这群搞高风险边缘 ETF 的发行商简直就是“ETF 界的 Ashley Madison”（婚外情网站）。 这种心理精准映射了当下的资产流动格局。Michael 质问为什么大家非要站队搞对立部落？其实普通投资者的真实行为非常诚实：大约 80% 的资金沉淀在极度廉价、税率高效的核心市值加权宽基中，而剩下的 20% 拿来玩“核心与探索”（Core and Explore）策略，尽情去买那些不在指数里、天马行空的“辣酱”品种。资金流向明确印证了这一双轨制——大众既要低费率的佛系底仓，又想要狂暴拉升的肾上腺素刺激。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 核心与辣酱投资组合架构 accDescr: 展示投资者将80%资产投入低费率宽基指数、20%投入高弹性辣酱资产的双层分配结构 subgraph CorePortfolio ["核心底仓 (约80% 资金) - 终身婚姻"] Vanguard["低费率指数 (VOO / BND)"] TaxEff["极低管理费 + 高税收效率 + 严格盯住 Beta"] end subgraph HotSaucePortfolio ["卫星辣酱 (约20% 资金) - 投机激情"] ActivePick["高主动份额选股 / 杠杆 ETF"] Thematic["AI存储巨头 / 单一股票2倍等极端主题"] FeeInsensitive["对管理费极不敏感 (寻找超额弹性)"] end Investor["典型投资者资产配置"] --> CorePortfolio Investor --> HotSaucePortfolio ``` ### [56:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI0-sKsEC2A&t=3381s) 主动型 ETF 爆发与“薯片理论”：Beta 调整费率界线 谈及主动投资的卷土重来，数据呈现出一个颠覆认知的现状：当前市场上主动型 ETF 的**产品数量**已经全面反超被动指数 ETF。虽然从管理总规模（AUM）来看，主动型产品在资产端仅占据约 10% 的份额，但发行市场早已被其淹没。究其根本，是因为在被动指数领域，先锋领航（Vanguard）与贝莱德（BlackRock）构建了坚不可摧的低费率壁垒，“比赛早已结束”，任何小机构去硬碰硬打费率战都只有死路一条，只能扎堆去主动管理领域寻找生存空间。 Eric 兴奋地展示了他的核心研究成果——被称为他个人“$E=mc^2$”的“Beta 调整费率界线”（Beta-adjusted fee demarcation line）。其核心逻辑在于：Vanguard 已经把基准 Beta 的价格打到了近乎免费，因此资产管理机构绝对不能再为普通的 Beta 收取溢价。如果你画一条横轴为主动份额（Active Share）、纵轴为费率的 45 度分界线，所有成功吸金的产品都必须落在线的上方——即“你的策略偏离基准越剧烈、越不可替代，你才能收越贵的管理费”。 ``` 费率 (Expense Ratio) ^ | [成功区 / 辣酱产品] | 高费率必须对应高主动份额 (如极端主题、对冲衍生) | / | / <-- 45° 分界线 (Beta 调整费率界线) | / | [投顾安全区] / | 低费率+微调Beta (DFA/Capital Group) | / | / [失血淘汰区 / 伪主动] | / 收取 90bps 却只跑出基准走势 +----------------------------------------------------> 主动份额 (Active Share) ``` 对于这一模型，Josh 补充了投资顾问（RIA）与散户的心理分层：投顾们喜欢守在低费率、微调 Beta 的稳健区间（如 DFA、Capital Group、摩根大通），因为“职业风险低”（Less career risk），对客户极易解释；而真正买那些极度偏离基准、昂贵产品的，全是不看回测模型的纯散户和激进玩家。Eric 抛出了一个精辟绝伦的比喻：**“就像买一袋薯片，你只能为里面的薯片收钱，绝对不能给包装袋里的空气收钱。”**如果一只 ETF 主动份额极低、基本全是基准空气（Beta），却敢收 90 个基点的管理费，在当下的 ETF 生态中注定会被淘汰出局；相反，只要产品做到足够纯粹、足够极端（辣酱够辣），定价再高也不会有人在乎。 ### [01:00:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI0-sKsEC2A&t=3616s) 泡沫行为学：SK 海力士 2 倍杠杆狂潮 如果说资产估值是泡沫的温度计，那么投资者的疯狂行为就是泡沫的活化石。Todd Sohn 的图表揭示了当下一股极其非理性的狂热——追踪单只股票的 2 倍杠杆 ETF 扎堆申请报批，而最令人瞠目的焦点正是韩国半导体巨头 SK 海力士。 尽管许多普通美股散户甚至还没搞清楚 SK 海力士的代码怎么拼，其衍生品交易已经在亚洲掀起海啸。彭博分析师 Rebecca 即将发布的研报披露：在博彩和日内高频交易文化极度盛行的韩国，一款在香港挂牌的“2 倍做多 SK 海力士 ETF”在推出不到一年的时间里，不仅体量惊人，而且直接蹿升为当地第四大 ETF，单个标的狂揽该国整个 ETF 市场 8% 的资金份额。Eric 感叹，这夸张程度无异于美国市场刚上市一只“2 倍特斯拉 ETF”，转眼间规模就膨胀到与全市场宽基 VTI 平起平坐。面对这种单日动辄能将资金规模斩半的极端波动玩具，市场展现出的却是不管不顾的盲目贪婪与极度亢奋。 ### [01:02:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI0-sKsEC2A&t=3734s) 个股暴跌的玩笑与资产幻觉：RIA 与 ETF 的规模脆弱性 对话由迈克尔·巴特尼克（Michael Batnick）分享的一笔惨痛个股投资切入。他透露自己个人持有的 Shake Shack（快餐连锁品牌）当天暴跌了 35%。乔什·布朗（Josh Brown）调侃他是不是把这当成了对冲工具，巴特尼克打趣回应，这纯粹是“对冲我陷入极度营养不良的风险”。玩笑过后，话题迅速引向资本管理中最残酷的现实：任何单一资产都有可能随时腰斩，而这种波动性揭示了注册投资顾问公司（RIA）与交易所交易基金（ETF）在资产管理规模（AUM）性质上的根本鸿沟。 乔什·布朗指出，一家管理规模达 100 亿美元的 RIA 机构，即使给出的投资建议再糟糕，其资产规模也很难在短短一周内被腰斩至 50 亿美元；然而对于一只规模百亿的 ETF 而言，这不过是某个大型机构配置者敲下键盘、决定将资金转移至另一只基金的功夫。乔什提到前一天刚与一位掌管大型资产管理公司的朋友交谈，对方旗下一只大热 ETF 沉淀了海量资金，但这位创始人却清醒地告诫首席财务官（CFO）：“在测算未来现金流时，直接把这笔规模砍掉 50% 来看，就当我们只有一半的资产。”因为这种短期的爆发性流入极可能是浮华的“海市蜃楼（Mirage）”，绝不能等同于 RIA 顾问逐个客户、建立深度信任积累起来的黏性资金。 埃里克·巴尔丘纳斯（Eric Balchunas）对此深表赞同，并列举了 WisdomTree 的 DXJ（日本对冲股票基金）以及凯瑟琳·伍德（Cathie Wood）的 ARK 系列基金等典型案例。这些产品曾在特定时期成为市场的“当月风味（Flavor of the Month）”，资产规模迅速从零飙升至两三百亿美元，随后又遭遇断崖式赎回坠落回大约 70 亿美元。埃里克幽默地借用名句总结道：“在 ETF 行业，‘爱过然后失去，最终守住 70 亿美元’，总好过‘从未被爱过而永远湮没无闻’。”但乔什锐评道，如果是一家传统投资管理公司从 300 亿缩水到 70 亿，那就无异于撞上了冰山的泰坦尼克号。埃里克表示，这正是 RIA 顾问与产品发行商的差异所在——顾问深谙客户的心理防线与情绪波动，而基金管理机构往往只是敏锐地嗅探市场热点、打造产品以满足需求，甚至直接绕开顾问向零售散户铺货。 - **Shake Shack (SHAK) 闪崩**：巴特尼克借自己账户中暴跌 35% 的个股，说明单一资产和行业主题波动之剧烈。 - **资金黏性对比**：RIA 依靠信任关系建立客户基础，赎回平缓；ETF 依靠流动性与风格配置，容易遭遇机构一键调仓带来的规模断崖。 - **明星基金周期案例**：DXJ 与 ARK 均经历过“从零到数百亿、再退潮至数十亿”的剧烈资金潮汐。 --- ### [01:05:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI0-sKsEC2A&t=3908s) 无情的吸金巨兽：VOO 与 VTI 的被动投资乌托邦 在探讨完投机性主题资金的脆弱性之后，埃里克将视线拉回 ETF 市场的基本盘与中流砥柱。尽管市场热点频繁轮换，但资金流向数据展示了一个不可动摇的现实：绝大多数真实的增量资本几乎全部流向了极度廉价的核心宽基指数基金，例如领航（Vanguard）旗下的 VOO（标普 500 ETF）和 VTI（全市场股票 ETF），以及 SPYM、GLD 等老牌核心标的。 埃里克公布了一组震撼的统计数据：领航的旗舰基金 VOO 几乎以每天约 12.5 亿美元的速度在膨胀，哪怕市场波动也无法阻挡这一脚步。在这 12.5 亿美元中，每日净资金流入高达约 7.5 亿至 8 亿美元，其余部分则由底层资产升值驱动。在短短一年时间内，VOO 的总规模便从约 5600 亿美元一路狂飙突破至 9000 亿美元以上，年均吸金规模高达 1500 亿美元左右。这笔庞大的资金洪流主要来自 401(k) 养老金计划的定期定投及滚动转存（Rollover）、目标日期基金（Target Date Funds）、智能投顾（Robo-advisors），以及那群对市场波动毫无情绪波澜、奉行机械化定投的“领航信徒（Vanguardians）”。 三人就 VOO 与 VTI 的优劣展开了一番趣味辨析。两者费率均为极其低廉的 3 个基点（0.03%），在实际持有体验上近乎免费。埃里克指出，VTI 涵盖了全市场小盘股，在行为金融学层面对投资者可能更为友好，因为一旦小盘股或价值风格迎来轮动爆发，投资者不会产生踏空焦虑；而巴菲特在十年前致伯克希尔股东信中推荐的则是纯正的标普 500（VOO）。乔什对此一针见血地评价道，这种细微差异对普通人而言“根本无人关心，三年之后两者收益轨迹几乎毫无区别”。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 核心宽基 ETF 资金生态流向图 accDescr: 展示养老金、定投信徒和智能投顾的资金如何汇聚并推升 VOO 等巨型基金规模。 subgraph CapitalSources["持续性资本来源"] A["401(k) 退休账户与 Rollover"] B["目标日期基金与智能投顾自动再平衡"] C["无情绪波动的领航信徒 (Vanguardians) 定投"] end subgraph MegaFlow["被动核心流动池 (VOO / VTI)"] D["每日净资金流入: 约 7.5亿 - 8亿美元"] E["底层资产自然增值: 约 4.5亿 - 5亿美元"] end subgraph ScaleMilestone["年化资产规模裂变"] F["年吸金约 1500 亿美元"] G["资产规模从 5600 亿跃升突破 9000 亿美元"] end A --> D B --> D C --> D D --> F E --> G F --> G ``` --- ### [01:06:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI0-sKsEC2A&t=4015s) 预测市场 ETF：终结“宏观占星术”的金融衍生新品 巴特尼克将对话引向了一个前沿的新兴构想：预测市场 ETF（Prediction Market ETFs）。他设想，如果 Kalshi 或 Polymarket 等合规预测平台的合约具备充足的流动性（例如单个合约流动性达到 1000 万美元），便可以创设出专门收割概率溢价的量化策略 ETF。例如，一只 ETF 可以自动打包买入所有发生概率超过 85%（即合约价格高于 85 美分）的“Yes”合约——根据大数法则，这类事件实际落地的胜率通常在 88% 左右，即使扣除滑点，也能轻松获取年化 10% 至 12% 的确定性套利收益；或者针对体育赛事，专门以 95 美分的价格扫货 NFL 强队获胜的确定性高概率合约，锁定稳健的低风险收益。 埃里克证实，华尔街已经在付诸行动。虽然体育博彩相关的 ETF 面临较重的法律诉讼与立法监管壁垒，但围绕政治选举的预测市场 ETF 已经在申报审批轨道上。Roundhill、Bitwise 以及 GraniteShares 等知名机构已向 SEC 提交了申请，原定生效期就在近期（尽管可能略有推迟）。首批规划的产品将直接挂钩 2028 年美国大选：设立针对共和党或民主党赢得 2028 年总统、参议院及众议院控制权的单一结果 ETF。 面对乔什“为什么投资者不直接去 Kalshi 上交易”的质疑，埃里克与乔什总结了 ETF 封装的核心优势： 1. **金融底层管道与便利性**：散户和机构投资者的钱已经在嘉信理财（Schwab）或富达（Fidelity）等传统券商账户中，他们极度抗拒转移资金去全新平台； 2. **制度信任与代码文化**：投资者信任受 SEC 监管的 ETF 架构，喜欢通过股票代码（Ticker）一键交易。 3. **到期处置机制成熟**：当大选尘埃落定，ETF 既可以进行清算（Termination Event），也可以选择展期至下一轮大选周期，类似于市场上现有的 BulletShares 目标到期日债券 ETF。 最后，乔什高度赞赏了预测市场 ETF 的深层逻辑：它彻底打破了金融分析师的“宏观玄学”与“投资占星术”。乔什尖锐地回顾道，每逢大选或美联储决议，分析师总会抛出各种因果预测，比如特朗普 2016 年竞选时高喊“尽情钻探吧（Drill, baby, drill）”，无数资金便跟风买入传统能源股；然而在特朗普整个第一任期内，能源板块反而是全美表现最差的板块。过去依靠“特朗普概念篮子”或“希拉里概念篮子”来进行行业轮动押注宛如占星术，而预测市场 ETF 则将投机纯粹化——它剥离了复杂的二阶因果猜测，让投资者直接对事件本身进行买定离手。展望未来，此类架构还将迅速扩展至核心 CPI 通胀数据、美联储利率决议等宏观经济事件的直接对赌。 ### [01:10:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI0-sKsEC2A&t=4238s) 预测市场与 ETF 的结合：从狂欢恶搞到宏观经济新基准 讨论首先从预测市场（Prediction Markets）潜在的“荒诞季节”切入。发行商们迟早会推出各种千奇百怪的标的，比如拿名流八卦开赌——“蒂莫西·柴勒梅德（Timothée Chalamet）是否会与凯莉·詹娜（Kylie Jenner）分手”，或是关于泰勒·斯威夫特（Taylor Swift）的私人八卦。但退一步来看，在这些娱乐化噱头之下，预测市场具有带来巨大全球经济效率的潜力。传统的民意调查与宏观经济问卷如今“彻底失灵”，而基于“群体智慧”且有真金白银下注的市场，能够为经济数据带来真正的清晰度。无论是押注“特斯拉本季度能否交付 50 万辆车”，还是下注“未来 12 个月内美国是否会陷入经济衰退”，预测市场都将彻底终结华尔街经济学家们漫无边际的宏观猜谜游戏。 Polymarket 之所以声名鹊起，核心就在于传统政治民调完全失准，而真实下注的预测市场却更敏锐地捕捉到了现实动向。当预测市场与 ETF 这一架构“联姻”时，其想象空间是无限的。尽管人们怀疑普通散户是否真的会在投资组合中常规配置预测市场工具，但在宏观对冲与事件投机领域，它能提供极具吸引力的纯粹风险敞口。当然，这类产品的成败完全取决于流动性——目前很多平台 88% 的交易量仍集中在体育博彩上。嘉信理财（Charles Schwab）高管在被问及是否会引入预测市场时明确表示，他们绝不会碰体育博彩，但如果涉及宏观经济指标的预测市场，他们认为对投资者确实存在价值，内部显然已经开启了相关研讨。与传统机构的谨慎不同，盈透证券（Interactive Brokers）创始人托马斯·彼得菲（Thomas Peterffy）则对预测市场抱有“极其狂热的看多态度”。 ETF 本质上是金融资产的“终极标准化工具（The Great Standardizer）”。它抹平了交易摩擦、合规门槛与操作繁琐度，把任何复杂的衍生品逻辑打包成普通投资者最熟悉的股票代码（Ticker），实现“万物皆可股权化（Equitize everything）”。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 预测市场与传统工具及ETF化链路对比 accDescr: 展示从传统问卷调查到预测市场，再通过ETF形态降低摩擦、引入流动性的演进路径。 subgraph Problem["传统预测机制痛点"] A["传统民调与宏观调查问卷失灵"] B["经济学家宏观猜谜游戏"] end subgraph PredMarket["预测市场核心价值"] C["真金白银驱动的群体智慧"] D["纯粹事件对冲<br/>（如衰退概率、交付量）"] end subgraph ETFPackaging["ETF 标准化赋能"] E["消解衍生品操作门槛与摩擦"] F["一键下单与股票级定价透明度"] G["引入主流财富管理资金池"] end Problem --> PredMarket PredMarket --> ETFPackaging ``` - **市场认知差异**：嘉信理财（Charles Schwab）表态排斥占预测市场 88% 份额的纯体育博彩，但对其宏观经济价值保持开放；盈透证券（Interactive Brokers）创始人托马斯·彼得菲（Thomas Peterffy）则全面押注预测市场。 - **ETF 的核心封装价值**：消除多账户切换与复杂的衍生品结算流程，将预测事件转化成具有即时透明流动性的场内交易工具。 --- ### [01:14:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI0-sKsEC2A&t=4444s) 闪电问答：“商场之死”对当下 AI 恐慌的启示 进入快问快答环节，话题转向如何通过当年轰动一时的“线下商场之死（Death of the Mall Trade）”来看待当下的“AI 毁灭传统软件/企业恐慌”。多年前，市场的共识交易是做多亚马逊（Amazon），同时做空代表传统实体零售的零售业指数 ETF（XRT）。当时甚至专门成立了做空实体零售的 ETF“EMTY”，以及做多线上、做空线下的多空策略 ETF“CLIX”。然而十年过去，反向做空实体店的 EMTY 最终跌到了零（每日再平衡的损耗更是雪上加霜），CLIX 也表现惨淡；相反，包含大量传统零售商的标普零售 ETF（XRT）收益远超这两只对冲基金形态的 ETF。更具讽刺意味的是，表现最好、把 XRT 远远甩在身后的，是标普 500 指数 ETF（VOO）。 这一历史教训对当前被“AI 颠覆论”笼罩的市场有着巨大的启示：老牌巨头并不是任人宰割的傻瓜，优秀企业的管理层会迅速适应并整合新技术。正如沃尔玛（Walmart）等传统巨头最终成功转型线上一样，全美前 20 大电商平台中，有 15 家其实是塔吉特（Target）等老牌“旧经济”巨头演变而来的。对于 AI 浪潮中的赢家与输家之争，历史证明押注单一所谓的“颠覆者”或做空“被颠覆者”往往容易两头落空，最安全、最终通吃的赢家依然是标普 500 指数本身——市值加权机制会自动将成功拥抱 AI 的企业权重推至顶峰，淘汰落伍者。 - **历史交易惨败案例**：做空实体零售的 ETF“EMTY”以归零告终，做多电商/做空实体的“CLIX”大幅跑输大盘。 - **全美前 20 大电商格局**：多达 15 家其实由传统旧经济企业（如 Target、Walmart）主导，老牌企业展现出极强的科技吸收力。 - **指数投资逻辑**：标普 500 指数（VOO）通过市值加权自然沉淀胜出者，构成了对抗科技颠覆恐慌的最优防御。 --- ### [01:16:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI0-sKsEC2A&t=4565s) 大宗商品 ETF 避坑指南：黄金与原油的不同命运 针对近期剧烈波动的黄金与原油，大宗商品 ETF 展现出完全不同的资金行为。黄金 ETF（如 GLD 和 IAU）在去年资金流入位列前十，属于投资者的压箱底核心资产。实物黄金 ETF 底层锚定实物金砖，没有任何复杂的期货展期损耗，散户与机构配置非常安心；近期黄金与白银的上涨更像是一波基于 FOMO（错失恐惧）的交易型资金推动，随后出现了一定获利了结。 谈及原油时，言辞则变得极为严肃，直接将著名的美国原油基金（USO）称为“披着羊皮的狼”，并在评级体系中将其列为“限制级（Rated R）”。由于 USO 必须不断在期货合约间进行展期，在期货升水（Contango）的年份，单年展期成本（Roll Cost）可能吞噬高达 30% 的收益——投资者即便精准判断了油价大方向，持有 USO 也可能蒙受巨额亏损。如果投资者想表达对油价走势的观点，更稳妥的选择是直接买入能源股票 ETF（如 XLE）。彭博行业研究（BI）的分析师还特别偏好炼油厂 ETF（如 CRAK），逻辑在于一旦霍尔木兹海峡发生封锁等地缘冲突，未受阻隔的外部原油往往需要更复杂的提炼工序，炼油利润反而会暴涨。这类通过权益类资产表达商品观点的工具，彻底规避了衍生品展期带来的暗坑。 - **实物黄金 ETF 优势**：GLD 与 IAU 持有实物现货，无期货展期摩擦，长线配置属性坚固。 - **USO 的展期黑洞**：期货展期成本单年可达 30%，若无专业日内交易能力，盲目长线持有 USO 极易本金大幅受损。 - **权益替代工具**：XLE（能源行业 ETF）以及 CRAK（炼油厂 ETF）被视为规避衍生品结构陷阱的高效替代品。 --- ### [01:17:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI0-sKsEC2A&t=4673s) 全球资金流向与标普 500 霸权：SPYM/SPLG 的“复仇之路” 关于国际股票市场的配置情况，尽管过去 18 个月非美市场阶段性表现出色，但美国投资者的资金回流力度依然平平。美国投资者对非美资产的周期性反弹早已见怪不怪——这种反弹往往像一部“微电影”，仅仅持续半年左右，随后纳斯达克 100（QQQ）就会如巨型巴士般再次碾压一切。虽然安硕核心海外发展市场 ETF（IEFA）等捕获了部分资金，但整体体量无法与美股本土核心资产相提并论。 年内净流入排名前五的 ETF 依然被美股宽基垄断，前三名由先锋领航的标普 500 指数 ETF（VOO）、先锋全股市 ETF（VTI）以及道富旗下的低费率标普产品占据，仅有先锋领航全球除美 ETF（VXUS）勉强跻身靠后位置。更有趣的看点在于代号为 SPLG（或称 SPYM，即 SPDR Portfolio S&P 500 ETF）的强势崛起。它是初代标普 500 ETF（SPY）的低管理费“亲生后代”。当年先锋的 VOO 凭借极低费率夺走了全球最大 ETF 的王冠，道富环球投资（State Street）为了复仇，将这款低费率的“复仇者”推向市场，直接迎头痛击 VOO，成为近年资金流争夺战中极具戏剧性的一幕。 - **年初至今流入前列名单**：VOO、SPLG / SPYM、VTI、VXUS。 - **国际市场配置惰性**：海外市场短期跑赢难以打破美国投资者的心理惯性，“非美反弹不过是六个月的短命电影”。 - **道富“复仇之子”**：SPYM / SPLG 作为 SPY 的超低费率版本，被道富专门用来正面抗衡抢夺其规模王座的 VOO。 ### [01:18:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI0-sKsEC2A&t=4733s) 费率内卷与低成本贝塔的残酷竞争 三人谈到了指数基金领域近乎疯狂的费率价格战。道富环球（State Street）将其旗下的低成本标普500指数产品费率直接削减至仅 2 个基点（0.02%），并调整了追踪指数，随即迎来了井喷式的资金流入。埃里克·巴尔丘纳斯（Eric Balchunas）惊叹道，今年有段时间该基金的资金净流入甚至超过了先锋领航的旗舰基金 VOO；尽管总资产规模仍有差距，但其资产增长曲线呈现出惊人的“抛物线走势”，道富对此显然欣喜若狂。 迈克尔·巴特尼克（Michael Batnick）指出，当大型机构或高净值账户配置 5 亿甚至 10 亿美元时，哪怕仅仅 1 个基点的费率差异也是一笔巨款。巴尔丘纳斯对此深表赞同：如果底层资产本质完全相同，投资者筛选产品的第一反应就是直接按费率由低到高排序。这就是低成本纯贝塔（Cheap Beta）领域竞争的残酷所在——仅凭 1 个基点的微弱差距就能引发资金的剧烈迁徙，也正因如此，普通的基金经理根本无法在此立足，谁也不想踏入这种白热化的血腥战场。 - **核心产品动态**：道富将标普500低费率指数产品的费率降至惊人的 2 个基点（2 bps）。 - **资金流向异动**：该产品的资金流入速度一度跑赢巨无霸 VOO，资产规模呈抛物线式直线上升。 - **市场博弈本质**：在大体量资金配置下，1 个基点（0.01%）具有决定性分量，导致低成本核心宽基成为只有极少数巨头玩得起的“绞肉机”赛道。 --- ### [01:19:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI0-sKsEC2A&t=4775s) 直接指数化与定制指数：为何没有成为“ETF杀手” 讨论随后转向了定制指数与直接指数化（Custom & Direct Indexing）。几年前该概念大火时，ETF 行业内部曾弥漫着焦虑，担忧投资者会大举转向直接指数化并蚕食 ETF 的份额。然而巴尔丘纳斯与主持人从一开始就对此持极度怀疑态度。巴尔丘纳斯解释称，投资大趋势永远是奔向“便宜与简单”（Cheap and Simple），而直接指数化却恰恰相反，它“不仅更昂贵，而且更复杂”。虽然直接指数化具备所谓的税收亏损收割（Tax-loss harvesting）优势，但这种税务红利随着时间推移终会耗尽；对于绝大多数人而言，与其在账户里管理成百上千只股票的繁琐明细，他们宁愿持有清爽的一篮子资产。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 直接指数化与ETF的市场发展对比 accDescr: 解释直接指数化受限与ETF持续占领主导地位的核心驱动因素 subgraph DirectIndexing["直接指数化 (Direct Indexing)"] D1["定位：定制化、税务优化"] D2["痛点：费率更贵、持仓复杂(数千行明细)"] D3["受众：仅限少数高净值客户与特定投顾"] D1 --> D2 --> D3 end subgraph ETF["低成本 ETF (Core ETFs)"] E1["定位：标准化核心资产"] E2["优势：极致廉价(如2 bps)、高度极简"] E3["结果：吸纳绝大多数公募与散户增量资金"] E1 --> E2 --> E3 end subgraph MarketReality["市场现状对比"] R1["直接指数化体量：约1万亿美元 (~1.2% 基金总资产)"] R2["市场评价：类似平衡车(Segway)——虽有用但远低于狂热预期"] end D3 --> R1 E3 --> R1 R1 --> R2 ``` 乔什·布朗（Josh Brown）提出了一个绝妙的比喻：直接指数化就像是当年轰动一时的电动平衡车 Segway。当年 Segway 问世时，比尔·盖茨等一众大佬将其吹捧为将彻底颠覆城市交通系统的革命性发明，结果如今它最常见的用途只是商场保安巡逻和游客城市观光。巴尔丘纳斯大笑附和，指出直接指数化也是如此——它确实有其专门的细分受众（例如投顾服务的部分高净值客户），但行业当初的宣传泡沫实在吹得太大。据巴特尼克估计，目前直接指数化管理规模接近 1 万亿美元，巴尔丘纳斯指出这仅仅相当于整个基金市场资产的 1.2% 左右，未来即便有所增长，顶多也就占到 2% 至 3%。 --- ### [01:22:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI0-sKsEC2A&t=4926s) 闪电问答与季后赛闲聊：尼克斯对阵76人 在闪电问答的最后，三人将话题转到了激烈的 NBA 季后赛，围绕纽约尼克斯与费城 76 人的系列赛展开了球迷之间互不相让的调侃与押注： - **杰伦·布伦森（Jalen Brunson）得分大小盘**：盘口设在 26.5 分，巴尔丘纳斯果断押了“Under（低于）”。 - **保罗·乔治（Paul George）得分大小盘**：盘口设在 16.5 分，大家押了“Over（高于）”。大家调侃保罗·乔治虽然得分偶有起伏，但他清楚自己在队内扮演第三或第四进攻选择的角色，跳投技术极其柔顺平稳。 - **盘口赔率与胜负悬念**：尼克斯当前为 -105，76 人为 -115。布朗表示对于主场作战的球队而言，这就是一场不折不扣的“生死战（Must-win）”，一旦输球赛季大概率就此结束。 - **阵容深度与角色球员的决定性差异**：尼克斯球迷布朗分析道，76 人的致命伤在于缺乏板凳深度。相比之下，尼克斯替补席上的迈尔斯·麦克布莱德（Miles McBride）即便作为第七人，也能出战 25 到 40 分钟，并且总能在最致命的时刻命中底角三分引爆全场。而 76 人的泰雷斯·马克西（Tyrese Maxey）虽然天赋异禀、未来不可限量，但由于登场时间被过度压榨，导致第四节体能耗尽、无法维持高强度防守。 --- ### [01:24:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI0-sKsEC2A&t=5044s) 尾声与新书预告：《硬币的两面》 节目临近尾声，布朗向巴尔丘纳斯询问了他关于比特币的新书进展。巴尔丘纳斯透露，这本名为《硬币的两面》（*Both Sides of the Coin*）的新书预计将于当年 10 月底或 11 月初正式出版。 书中采访并引用了约 40 位业内人士的观点，其中迈克尔·巴特尼克也贡献了精彩的引言。布朗开玩笑地问巴尔丘纳斯是不是把自己的联系方式给删了，巴尔丘纳斯笑着回应称，布朗和巴里·里霍兹（Barry Ritholtz）当年早就在自己的约翰·博格尔（John Bogle）传记中占据了核心位置，这次轮到巴特尼克登场。 布朗代表听众对巴尔丘纳斯表达了由衷的感谢，盛赞他在资产管理和 ETF 领域展现出的“百科全书般的惊人学识”，并热情相约在秋季新书正式发售时邀请他再次返场做客。在节目的最后，布朗向所有收听和收看《The Compound and Friends》的忠实观众致谢，并呼吁大家在 Spotify、Apple Podcasts 和 YouTube 上留下好评，在轻松欢快的告别声与背景音乐中为本期播客画上了圆满的句号。 ## Notable quotes > [05:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI0-sKsEC2A&t=333s) 如果这玩意儿涨到 10 万美元而我没上车，我会直接跑到时代广场，往自己身上浇满汽油然后点燃火柴。 — Michael Batnick > [21:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI0-sKsEC2A&t=1268s) 这就是为什么指数投资称霸的原因。 — Eric Balchunas > [35:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI0-sKsEC2A&t=2128s) 如果埃隆·马斯克带着超过万亿美元市值的超级 IPO 登场，而上市首日恰好是纳斯达克当年上涨行情的最后一天，那在金融市场上将极具戏剧性的宿命感：这太诗意了。 — Downtown Josh Brown > [32:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI0-sKsEC2A&t=1938s) 保持悲观和怀疑显得你很有深度、很有责任心；而保持乐观则看起来鲁莽且天真。 — Downtown Josh Brown > [56:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI0-sKsEC2A&t=3381s) 就像买一袋薯片，你只能为里面的薯片收钱，绝对不能给包装袋里的空气收钱。 — Eric Balchunas > [01:02:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI0-sKsEC2A&t=3734s) 在测算未来现金流时，直接把这笔规模砍掉 50% 来看，就当我们只有一半的资产。 — Downtown Josh Brown > [01:02:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI0-sKsEC2A&t=3734s) 在 ETF 行业，‘爱过然后失去，最终守住 70 亿美元’，总好过‘从未被爱过而永远湮没无闻’。 — Eric Balchunas > [01:02:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI0-sKsEC2A&t=3734s) 这纯粹是对冲我陷入极度营养不良的风险。 — Michael Batnick ## Mentioned Michael Batnick, Downtown Josh Brown, Eric Balchunas, Invesco, Joel Embiid, Tyrese Maxey, OG Anunoby, Larry Johnson, Allan Houston, Latrell Sprewell, Josh Hart, Jaylen Brown, Paul Krugman, Elizabeth Warren, American HODL, John Bogle, Warren Buffett, Cathie Wood, Ron Baron, Baron Partners Fund, ARK Invest, Dave Nadig, Elon Musk, Matt Tuttle, Will Hershey, Todd Sohn, Thomas Peterffy, Jalen Brunson, Paul George, Miles McBride, Barry Ritholtz, Vanguard, BlackRock, State Street, QQQ, VOO, VTI, BND, SPY, SPLG, SPYM, GLD, IAU, USO, XLE, CRAK, EMTY, CLIX, XRT, VXUS, IEFA, DXJ, SpaceX, Anthropic, OpenAI, Datadog, Fortinet, Tesla, Nvidia, Apple, Amazon, Google, Meta, Samsung, SK Hynix, Micron, Shake Shack, Kalshi, Polymarket, Charles Schwab, Fidelity, Interactive Brokers, Tuttle Capital Management, Roundhill Investments, GraniteShares, Bitwise, Both Sides of the Coin, The Bogle Effect, Trillions ## Video description On episode 241 of The Compound and Friends, Michael Batnick and Downtown Josh Brown are joined by returning guest Eric Balchunas to discuss the current ETF landscape, Bitcoin investing, market trends, investor behavior, prediction market ETFs, the SpaceX IPO, and much more. Eric shares insights from his Bitcoin book research, how ETFs have evolved over time, why investors are looking for more “hot sauce” in their portfolios, and what the next wave of active, passive, and thematic funds could look like. This episode is sponsored by Invesco. Visit ⁠https://www.invesco.com to learn more. ►00:00 - Cold Open (Hot Open?) The Knicks and Bitcoin ►17:34 - Intro ►19:06 - State of The Markets ►27:02 - Tech Dispersion ►35:13 - SpaceX, Anthropic, and Mega IPOs ►39:35 - New Nasdaq 100 Funds ►43:43 - ETFs, Then and Now, Active vs. Passive ►01:00:16 - Investor Behavior ►01:06:52 - Prediction Market ETFs ►01:14:00 - Lighting Round ►01:19:31 - Custom and Direct Indexing 👕 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. #TheCompoundAndFriends #EricBalchunas #ETFs #Bitcoin #Investing [Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI0-sKsEC2A)

[5:33] Michael Batnick: 如果这玩意儿涨到 10 万美元而我没上车，我会直接跑到时代广场，往自己身上浇满汽油然后点燃火柴。 [21:08] Eric Balchunas: 这就是为什么指数投资称霸的原因。 [35:28] Downtown Josh Brown: 如果埃隆·马斯克带着超过万亿美元市值的超级 IPO 登场，而上市首日恰好是纳斯达克当年上涨行情的最后一天，那在金融市场上将极具戏剧性的宿命感：这太诗意了。 [32:18] Downtown Josh Brown: 保持悲观和怀疑显得你很有深度、很有责任心；而保持乐观则看起来鲁莽且天真。 [56:21] Eric Balchunas: 就像买一袋薯片，你只能为里面的薯片收钱，绝对不能给包装袋里的空气收钱。 [62:14] Downtown Josh Brown: 在测算未来现金流时，直接把这笔规模砍掉 50% 来看，就当我们只有一半的资产。 [62:14] Eric Balchunas: 在 ETF 行业，‘爱过然后失去，最终守住 70 亿美元’，总好过‘从未被爱过而永远湮没无闻’。 [62:14] Michael Batnick: 这纯粹是对冲我陷入极度营养不良的风险。

[5:33] Michael Batnick: If this thing goes to $100,000 and I'm not in it... I'm going to go into Times Square, pour gasoline on myself, and light a match. [22:07] When you have a real winner, don't mess with success... systematic rebalancing is interrupting the compounding. [32:18] Kyle: Don't tell me what you think, show me your portfolio. [44:27] Market exposure is solved. It's free. [44:27] How you like me now, Jerry? [47:05] This was the scariest chart on Wall Street because it's like it's sort of like the rising sea levels. When's this going to stop? [53:00] It's the best debut by a mile. [55:01] 80% goes to cheap, something active or passive, and 20% goes to the hot sauce. [56:21] Eric Balchunas: You cannot charge for beta. [63:06] Eric Balchunas: It's better to have loved and lost and be at 7 billion than to have never loved at all and be in oblivion. [66:52] Downtown Josh Brown: You had people buying oil stocks for Trump's first term 'cause he was on the campaign trail saying things like 'drill baby drill'... Didn’t mean anything. Oil was the worst performing sector in America. [79:35] Eric Balchunas: Direct indexing is the Segway... It was supposed to revolutionize transportation. It's used by mall cops and city tours.

[0:00] Hey, what's going on, man? How are you? [0:01] Team win. [0:02] >> Oh, dude. [0:03] >> Dude, don't even get me started. Don't [0:05] get me started. I saw what you posted [0:07] the other day and deleted. [0:09] >> Which one? [0:10] >> I saw the tweet. [0:11] >> What did you [0:12] >> about Nick's fans harassing Sixers fans? [0:14] As if [0:15] >> Oh, no, I didn't delete that. [0:16] >> Oh, you didn't? [0:17] >> No, no, I left that one up. [0:18] >> Hold on. As if you are not the most [0:21] aggressive fan base in the entire United [0:25] States. [0:25] >> Well, that's why you should [0:27] >> literally. [0:28] >> I know. I double, [0:29] >> but it's different sports. Basketball [0:30] fans are not as psychotic. [0:31] >> They're not as psychotic. [0:32] >> And they're not as drunk. [0:33] >> No, [0:34] you probably can get away with it. [0:36] >> And then beat asked for it. [0:38] >> If he shut his mouth and didn't say [0:41] anything. [0:41] >> Oh man, I I get it. Everybody I went to [0:44] a Knicks game with my kid uh 3 months [0:46] ago [0:47] >> and like everybody boos Embiid [0:49] constantly. He's hated. [0:50] >> No, he loves it. [0:51] >> Oh, he Oh, he likes it. [0:52] >> He loves it. He's a great villain, [0:53] >> but I'm saying he's hated here. Yeah. [0:54] >> Oh, yeah. He loves it. He loves being [0:56] >> It's also the long-standing thing with [0:57] Cat. That's like seven years old [0:59] already. [0:59] >> But he said New Yorkers don't come to [1:00] Philly. It's like dude, literally you're [1:02] you're holding up a say please come. [1:05] Anyway, Josh and I are going. Josh is [1:07] taking Nugget. [1:08] >> Tickets are plummeting like a stone. [1:11] >> Are they [1:11] >> cracking hard? [1:12] >> Yeah, I might go. [1:13] >> Lower bowl is now below 400. [1:15] >> Really? [1:16] >> And you can get in for below 200. [1:17] >> This might be the worst This might be [1:19] the worst Sixers home loss in postseason [1:22] history. What's about to happen? [1:23] >> Well, I will say there is [1:25] >> I don't love you saying that. Yeah, [1:27] >> I said might be. Now will be. [1:28] >> Pride cometh might fall. Be careful. [1:30] >> Seriously, [1:31] >> might be. [1:31] >> And you know the [1:32] >> What are they going to do? They can't [1:33] run. [1:33] >> It's not about us. It's about you. [1:35] >> I know. But at the end of the day, [1:36] >> dude, [1:37] >> don't end the day. It's about you. You [1:39] have no bench. [1:40] >> Listen, [1:40] >> Eric. They can't play Maxi 45 minutes to [1:44] the point where by the third quarter, [1:46] he's settling for for pull-up threes cuz [1:48] he can't even make it. [1:51] >> What was I thinking? [1:53] >> I don't know cuz we only have seven [1:54] guys. [1:54] >> You gave him away. [1:55] >> Eight with Embiid. You gave him away. By [1:57] the way, yesterday I said to my friends, [1:59] I'm happy. I mean, I'm sorry. I want him [2:01] be to play. I wasn't happy that he would [2:03] miss the game. You're clearly better [2:04] without him. The offense is not [2:06] stagnant. He's a corpse on defense. You [2:08] guys are better without him. It's not [2:10] I'm not kidding. [2:11] >> Let me just say one thing. [2:12] >> Go ahead. [2:12] >> I'm okay if we lose. You know why? Cuz [2:14] we beat the Celtics. F them. [2:17] >> The Celtics [2:19] have owned us for 10 years. Yeah. [2:21] >> This was like defeating the Dragon. [2:23] >> It was a great win. Th this is like [2:24] >> and game seven in their in their [2:25] backyard. [2:26] >> Oh, we beat him three times in TD and it [2:29] was glorious and the and it felt good. I [2:32] was like, we're going to win this game. [2:33] I don't have that feeling with the [2:34] Knicks. I'm like, I think they're going [2:35] to [2:35] >> I am actually happy that you guys beat [2:36] the Celtics. [2:37] >> Me, too. [2:38] >> But if you were playing the Celtics, I [2:39] would become a Knicks fan. Like, you [2:40] would you have no idea. I hate the [2:42] Celtics. Knicks are my second favorite [2:44] team. [2:45] >> Really? [2:45] >> But f you for now. [laughter] [2:47] >> He's been in he's been in New York long [2:48] enough for [2:49] >> Yeah. Know I was here in the late 90s [2:50] for Larry Johnson's four-point play. I [2:53] was on a rooftop in Brooklyn at a party [2:55] in my early 20s and Allen Houston [2:58] hitting the dropper against Miami. [2:59] >> Miami. You guys, you guys. [3:01] >> I was there for that Latrrell Spreewell [3:02] run where they lost to San That was so [3:04] fun. [3:04] >> Great run. The Sixers are very likable [3:06] except Embiid. Like Edgecom and Maxi are [3:08] very likable and Maxi is incredible. [3:11] >> And you know what? You got you're going [3:12] to have them for like that's your that's [3:14] your core now for years hopefully [3:17] >> for years to come. And those are those [3:18] are great players. [3:19] >> I agree. Um, Edgecomb, his energy, he's [3:23] really good at guarding. Brunson's going [3:24] to score anyway, but I thought Edgecom [3:25] did a good job. He gets over screens and [3:27] he gets back on Brunson. [3:28] >> He did great. He did great. [3:28] >> He's good. [3:29] >> But like, go to the game. [3:30] >> One of your dumbass bench players messed [3:33] with Edgecomb at the end of the game. [3:35] Did you see that? [3:36] >> Yeah. [3:37] >> Yeah, I saw the chirping. [3:38] >> This is This is Remember Pritchard said [3:40] he wasn't worried about him being [3:41] >> I saw him tripping. I don't know who. [3:43] >> Sometimes this stuff can actually change [3:44] the complexion of a series. Dude, you [3:46] have five players barely [3:48] >> and UB is not a player. [3:50] >> Andre Drummond is not a player. [3:51] >> I love it. Like the more prideful you [3:52] are, like I'm telling you, New York, [3:54] >> you don't have the ponies. Eric, Uber is [3:56] annoying, too. [3:58] >> You uh [3:58] >> Oh, man. Is that an unlikable player? [4:01] [laughter] [4:01] >> I mean, he's good. [4:02] >> You know who I don't like is Josh Hart. [4:04] He's always [4:05] >> Yeah. [4:06] >> Every play he's got that [4:08] >> It's like I want to punch him so bad. [4:11] >> Yeah. [4:12] >> And I like Villainova. My dad went [4:13] there. I grew up a villainova fan, but I [4:15] >> Josh Hart was on your team. [4:17] >> I like Mel. [4:17] >> If Josh was on your team, you would wait [4:20] outside the building for autographs. [4:21] >> Probably. [4:22] >> Okay. Come on. [4:24] >> No. Isn't sports the best? [4:26] >> It is. It is. And you still have the [4:28] Eagles and we still have the Giants. So, [4:30] like I feel like it's only it's only [4:32] fair. [4:32] >> It all balances out. [4:33] >> Yeah. [4:34] >> In the end, except for Jets fans. [4:36] >> All right. No Sixers No Sixers hate on [4:39] today's podcast. [laughter] [4:41] >> No Sixers hate. [4:41] >> Oh, no. Plenty of Sixers hate. [4:43] I don't hate this. I hate I hate Miami. [4:45] I don't hate [4:46] >> If you were our first round matchup, I'd [4:48] be more touchy, but we beat the Celtics. [4:50] >> Yeah. No, it's great. It's [4:51] >> We sent Jaylen Brown home and then he [4:52] went on the next day on the live stream [4:54] and was just so um uh what's the word? [4:58] Petty. [4:58] >> So petty. He said, "My favorite season [5:00] ever is the one is the one where my [5:02] teammate best friend, not best friend, [5:04] tore his Achilles and didn't play." [5:06] >> I know. He's unbelievable. [5:08] >> I don't like him. [5:09] >> He's He's gone. [5:10] >> Yeah. Oh, so good. Anyway, [5:13] but this is if we beat you. [5:16] >> You're not beating us. [5:17] >> What? [laughter] [5:19] >> If what happens? [5:20] >> We were 7.5 and more underdogs against [5:24] the Celtics every game. One game we were [5:25] 12. [5:26] >> How about this? [5:26] >> And they were up 3-1. [5:27] >> I don't even think I don't even think [5:28] Anobi is going to get back in the series [5:30] and we're still going to win. [5:31] >> Okay. [5:31] >> It's our best player. I don't even think [5:32] he's going to play. [5:33] >> When's your book coming out? [5:35] >> November 1st. [5:36] >> Okay. Why is it [5:37] >> Your quotes are so good, by the way. Are [5:38] they? I I I He has Everybody who reads [5:41] it is going to identify with you. [5:43] >> Okay. [5:43] >> And there's one section where I refer to [5:45] you as a spite coiner. [5:46] >> Yeah. Totally. [5:46] >> I love that. [5:47] >> Totally. [5:47] >> Cuz there are other there are other [5:48] spike coiners. And it's a fine place to [5:50] be. I'm a spite coiner. He's more he's [5:53] more [5:54] >> I hated it so much that I needed to own [5:56] it. [5:56] >> I know. Just in case. And it worked. [5:58] >> I it [5:59] >> Thank you. [6:00] >> You're not alone. [6:00] >> Yeah. [6:01] >> Well, Michael, but was early. [6:03] >> I'm very petty. Yeah. [6:04] >> He said, "If this thing goes to $100,000 [6:07] >> and I'm not in it, I'm going to be pitch [6:10] black." [6:10] >> Well, no. The quote was, "I'm going to [6:11] go into Time Square, pour gasoline on [6:13] myself, and light a match." [6:14] >> I said, "Okay." Yes. That was a lot. [6:16] >> That's in the book. [6:16] >> I stand by it. [laughter] [6:18] >> Oh, you have another one that's in [6:20] there, which is like the good fellas. [6:21] It's so good [6:22] >> cuz he's like he's comparing Bitcoiners [6:24] to like Henry Hill. [6:26] >> Yeah. [6:26] >> He's like, "Look at all those people [6:27] going to their 9 to5." [6:28] >> Yeah. Yeah. [6:29] >> I want to get 60% a year. So, he's like [6:31] So, he I get it. Like who doesn't who [6:34] wants to get 10% a year when you get 60 [6:35] a year? [6:36] >> Those jobs are for suckers. [6:37] >> Yeah, those jobs are for suckers. [6:39] >> Do you know how and do you know how many [6:41] of these people there are? Like in Dubai [6:43] alone, [6:45] >> there could be thousands of people who [6:47] just they're in Bitcoin big enough that [6:50] they never have to work again and [6:52] they're filming themselves like sitting [6:54] by the pool in Dubai for the rest of [6:56] their lives until they die of a drug [6:58] overdose. But there are so many of [7:00] those. But yeah, a lot of people. [7:02] >> Yeah, there's a there's I think the I [7:04] want to say 50 million people worldwide [7:07] own at least some Bitcoin. [7:08] >> That's crazy. [7:09] >> And I think in the U 30 million is in [7:11] that number. Might be actually might be [7:12] 50 150 maybe 50 million in the US. [7:15] Something like that. Don't quote me, but [7:16] it's it's in the tens of millions. It's [7:18] more individuals than I thought that own [7:20] Bitcoin in some form in the US. And in [7:24] globally, what was interesting to me in [7:26] the research was the per capita [7:27] ownership of Bitcoin is the highest in [7:30] these countries where the dictators have [7:31] like driven the currency into the [7:32] ground. You it's all censored and the [7:36] human rights people I talked to love it. [7:38] So there are some of these interesting [7:39] counterpoints to the sort of reputation [7:41] that some people have for it that we're [7:43] I try to expose a little bit in the [7:45] book, but there's also the lack of cash [7:47] flows and I think you have to [7:48] acknowledge that. [7:50] >> And then the gold thing. Gold's been [7:51] around for 5,000 years. It's not going [7:52] away. [7:53] >> So we the book is called both sides of [7:55] the coin. Like we want to give people [7:57] both sides because all the books are [7:59] either written by hardcore evangelists [8:01] >> or people who hate it [8:02] >> or the journalists making fun of said [8:04] evangelists. [8:05] >> Do you do you own Bitcoin? Are you [8:06] allowed to? [8:07] >> We are allowed to buy it. Yeah. But it [8:09] through we have to put it like a form in [8:11] stuff. [8:11] >> Do you own it? [8:12] >> A little bit but not much. I'm like the [8:13] kind of person who would be like um [8:16] using it as hot sauce. [8:17] >> Most people one to two%. If you think [8:19] about the the anti like the rapidly [8:22] anti- Bitcoin, [8:23] >> which I think is very small. [8:25] >> Yeah. [8:25] >> Okay. It's like Elizabeth Warren and [8:27] five other people. [8:27] >> It got bigger with Trump. I think uh [8:29] some people see the Trump family getting [8:31] involved and they're like, "Okay, now [8:32] now I don't like it." Cuz like Cuz I But [8:35] let's Do you want to include them or [8:36] not? [8:36] >> Uh were we talking haters before that? [8:38] >> Yeah. Just Yeah. Cuz that'll come and [8:41] that'll come and go. [8:41] >> That'll come and go. cuz if Democrats [8:44] decide they're going to court the the [8:46] crypto vote, then that'll that'll change [8:48] go away. [8:49] >> But just from [8:50] >> the Paul Krugmans of the world, [8:51] >> I I would just say from like a [8:53] professional investor standpoint, [8:55] >> the hardcore haters, right? [8:57] >> Yeah. [8:58] >> Or like the OC kid. [8:59] >> The three reasons. [9:00] >> Yeah, that guy. [9:01] >> Yeah. He just hates it. Like, so I [9:05] >> Hold on. The three reasons whether they [9:08] admit it or not, working backwards from [9:10] the least severe to the mo So number [9:13] three would be I missed it. [9:15] >> Yes. [9:16] >> Okay. So we all acknowledge it's like [9:18] human nature. Number two um would be it [9:23] seems like it's a lottery ticket and it [9:25] seems like a lot of people made a lot of [9:26] money and [9:27] >> noon [9:29] Ponzi lottery. [9:29] >> Fine, but like they didn't do anything [9:31] to deserve it. So there's a lot of that, [9:33] right? [9:34] >> And then number one is like [9:36] >> I don't understand why do we need this? [9:39] >> Yeah. everything. And that first [9:42] category of people that I'm talking [9:43] about, they've never lived overseas. [9:46] They've never lived in a country where [9:47] the currency went to zero. Yeah. [9:48] >> They've never had to flee somewhere in [9:51] the middle of the night. [9:52] >> So, they really don't understand that [9:54] aspect of it. But you got to give it to [9:55] them on the other two points. [9:58] >> It is lotteryesque. [9:59] >> Some people were just faster to buy [10:01] lottery tickets. [10:02] >> Yeah. Well, well, I would the only thing [10:03] I say to that is those people who hold [10:06] it uh survived, you know, like multiple [10:08] 70% draw downs. [10:09] >> So, they learned what they did on [10:11] >> That's like getting tortured for like a [10:13] year. [10:13] >> Yeah. [10:14] >> Uh it's it's so that's why when the ETFs [10:16] came out, there's a thing called a [10:17] silent IPO. A lot of individuals sold [10:19] and ETFs and corporations bought in the [10:21] past year. That's sort of what caused [10:22] the draw down. And some people call that [10:24] a silent IPO. So some of these OGs that [10:26] had like a lot of money probably they're [10:27] like 35 now and they maybe they're have [10:30] a partner maybe they're getting a [10:31] mortgage like so they're like cashing [10:32] out a little bit I have no problem with [10:33] that that's just like getting early in [10:35] Facebook or something like you earned it [10:37] cuz [10:37] >> to survive those draw downs they earned [10:39] it when that's your whole asset by the [10:41] way a lot of them aren't in anything [10:42] else they [10:42] >> and they survive that. [10:44] >> Yeah. [10:44] >> Now one one other aspect of this a lot [10:47] of them are saying things like [10:49] >> I I was a visionary. It's like, well, [10:52] you risked $1,000 and turned it into $10 [10:54] million. Were you really a visionary or [10:56] you just risked $1,000? [10:58] >> It's a good question. Again, when [11:01] something's going down like 70 and I [11:03] think it went down 80% at one point, you [11:05] immediately get your your psych your [11:07] psyche gets weird. You think it's bad [11:09] and it's awful and it's it's going away. [11:12] So, to not think that, it is a little [11:14] bit visionary because you have to see [11:15] through that darkness. That's not easy. [11:17] >> I agree with that. I mean, even in 2008, [11:19] stocks went down 37%. Most people [11:21] thought it's over. [11:21] >> But let me ask you this. [11:22] >> It's also 37%. [11:24] >> If you turned a,000 to 10 million, [11:26] >> but the,000 was4 million and then down [11:28] to $400,000 and then you voted up to 10 [11:31] million, [11:32] >> you deserve a lot of part credit. A lot [11:36] of credit, but also, do you get credit [11:38] for just being insane? No offense, [11:40] [laughter] [11:40] >> cuz that's insane. [11:41] >> Well, there there was this guy, [11:42] >> but respectfully insane. insane to watch [11:45] 4 million turn into 400,000 and not do [11:47] anything the whole way down. [11:49] >> Yeah. [11:49] >> There was a podcast this guy I I don't [11:51] even know him but it was a good podcast [11:52] called the Bitcoin Matrix. This guy [11:54] American Hodal was on it and he was he [11:56] said he thought that surviving those [11:59] draw downs. Uh only true psychopaths [12:02] could actually do that and it was like [12:03] preparing them for something greater in [12:05] the future when Bitcoin becomes like a [12:07] huge currency. Well, [12:08] >> I know there's some [12:09] >> interesting takes on my laptop, but hold [12:12] on one second on on on this [12:14] >> back to the the book opens with I didn't [12:19] really care about Bitcoin. It was like [12:20] off in the distance for other people [12:22] like pickle ball, but I did like it [12:25] pissed off the right people. I thought [12:28] the high priest types [12:29] >> were all like angry about it. Like they [12:31] didn't they weren't they didn't just [12:32] ignore it. They were like angry and I [12:33] was like [12:33] >> Whose quote was that? [12:34] >> That's my quote. I'm saying that like it [12:36] just [12:37] >> uh Jamie Diamond [12:40] >> you're anti-establishment a [12:42] >> I'm anti- high priest. [12:43] >> Yeah. [12:44] >> I don't mind the establishment. I don't [12:45] like these people who are like I know. I [12:47] don't like holier than thou and Bitcoin [12:49] has a special ability [12:50] >> to piss off holier holier than thou [12:53] people [12:53] >> on both sides. [12:54] >> The other thing is it survived again [12:56] about eight 50% draw downs. And if you [12:59] look at the things that have survived [13:01] multiple 50% draw downs, it's like [13:03] Apple, Amazon, uh, Berkshire, uh, [13:06] Florida real estate. I mean, all the [13:08] best [ __ ] has come back from multiple [13:10] beatd downs. [13:12] >> Tulip Bulbs went down and never came [13:14] back. Beanie Babies down once. They [13:16] can't even handle one punch, let alone [13:17] five. So, those two things made me [13:19] respect it. Um, and they still do. [13:22] However, it would be tough for me to say [13:24] like, I'm going to put all my money in [13:25] Bitcoin. That just doesn't make sense to [13:27] me. I'm a big guy. I'm into cash flows. [13:29] I like stocks. [13:31] >> I just don't know why both isn't an [13:32] answer. A lot of people are one or the [13:33] other. [13:34] >> I'm a both guy. [13:34] >> Yeah. [13:35] >> Not everything survived. Like NFTTS did [13:38] not survive. [13:40] >> NFT NFTs went [13:41] >> and a lot of cryptos didn't. [13:45] >> Yeah. Cryptos are different of NFTs and [13:48] most of them are worth nothing. [13:49] >> Yes. I think Bitcoin it's special [13:52] compared to the other ones. I think the [13:54] other ones are more like little [13:54] businesses trying to solve like [13:55] financial rails and uh become better [13:58] tech for uh infrastructure. I think [14:01] Bitcoin's more like a um you know how [14:04] rich people like to have hard assets to [14:06] hedge against inflation like um art and [14:08] like real estate. [14:09] >> Yeah. [14:10] >> To me, Bitcoin is in a way a very [14:12] convenient dem democratized version of [14:15] that. It's something you can own easily [14:17] that the government cannot debase. So [14:19] that that is sort of I think the value [14:21] it has. But there is a lot of belief in [14:23] it. You know, there is some faith [14:25] involved in all this. But I will say [14:27] when you dig into how the whole network [14:29] was made up and I mean there was a lot [14:31] of people that came before that the [14:33] influences were in it just like the ETF. [14:35] The ETF was built off a lot of [14:36] influences. But the idea of making [14:38] something that is like completely [14:40] decentralized like the computer the [14:42] nodes don't even know each other or like [14:44] each other like it doesn't matter and it [14:46] just goes on and on without a leader for [14:48] 17 years. That that's not easy. So the [14:51] incentive system in the actual [14:53] decentralization is pretty incredible. [14:55] Let alone so it's it's I think it's more [14:58] interesting when you dig into it. [14:59] >> So that part that part lands like oh [15:01] Bitcoin has no purpose. Well first off [15:03] aside like the debasement stuff but it [15:05] works. It just does what it does. It [15:07] survives. It's just kind of cool to have [15:09] something that is worth value that is [15:11] outside of the governments because one [15:12] of the chapters we have is on inflation [15:15] and monetary policy and we don't go like [15:17] full tin foil hat but we do say look if [15:20] you're a politician I don't think any of [15:22] them are ever going to run on like um [15:25] taking back entitlements. Um you can't [15:27] tax that much. Like it's hard to um [15:31] balance the budget. I don't think it'll [15:32] ever happen. I mean Doge couldn't do it [15:34] right. So, they're going to keep um [15:37] increasing money the money uh supply in [15:40] order to tax people in a way that they [15:42] can't see, which is inflation. It's an [15:44] easy way to tax people. This gives you [15:46] some degree of a protection from that. [15:49] Not that it's also used as a currency. [15:51] >> Some degree is doing a lot of work here. [15:52] >> Well, this is also what gold's cases. [15:54] So, gold and Bitcoin have a similar case [15:56] in terms of having something that is [15:58] finite or scarce that can't be debased. [16:00] But I think the reason that the the [16:02] third group you mentioned, if you're a [16:04] boomer and you've made a ton of money in [16:06] stocks and they've done great for you, a [16:08] little bit of inflation doesn't bother [16:09] you. In fact, stocks are an inflation [16:10] hedge. So you're like, I don't see the [16:12] purpose in it. I think for younger [16:14] people who do feel like there's [16:16] something out there that's just like [16:18] stealing from them. They can't quite put [16:19] their finger on it. This is, I think, [16:20] part of why a socialist in New York City [16:23] prices go up. Let's start the This is [16:25] the longest cold open in the history of [16:26] the show. Well done. [16:29] >> Yeah. Sorry. [16:31] [applause] All right. What a cold open [16:33] though. Very cold and very hot, [16:36] >> ladies and gentlemen. [16:38] >> Well, did you have Yeah. [applause] [16:41] [music] [16:48] [music] [16:52] >> Today's show is brought to you by [16:54] Invesco. Is it time to take your [music] [16:56] equity portfolio off autopilot? Relying [16:58] solely on traditional market benchmarks [17:00] may not give your portfolio all of the [17:02] lift it needs. Invesco can help you take [17:04] control [music] with strategies that [17:06] offer a different approach. Whether [17:07] you're looking for an equal weight [17:08] approach or midcap exposure that can [17:10] balance growth and stability, Invesco [17:12] offers funds designed [music] to help [17:13] you break your concentration. Want to [17:15] fine-tune your approach? Explore our [17:16] strategies targeting momentum, low [17:18] volatility, quality, and more. Visit [17:20] invesco.com to learn more. Invesco, [17:22] [music] [17:22] let's rethink possibility. Before [17:24] investing, consider the fund's [17:25] investment objectives, risks, charges, [17:27] and expenses. Visit invesco.com for a [17:30] perspectus containing [music] this [17:31] information. Read it carefully before [17:32] investing. Invesco Distributors, Inc. [17:36] >> You want to do more Bitcoin? [17:38] >> No, no. Whatever you want. We have We [17:39] have a lot of you want to hear about the [17:41] Knicks a little more. [17:42] >> The Knicks? Don't you wish you for the [17:46] next? [17:47] >> All right, ladies and gentlemen, welcome [17:49] to the compound and friends. [17:52] Pete guest, [cheering and applause] fan [17:54] favorite, returning champion, Eric [17:58] Balchunis in the house. Eric is senior [18:00] ETF. Give it up. Let's go. [18:04] All right, guys. Eric is a senior ETF [18:06] analyst at Bloomberg Intelligence [18:07] covering the exchange traded fund [18:10] industry. He is the author of the Bogle [18:12] Effect, a biography examining John [18:15] Bogle's lasting influence on investing [18:18] and co-hosts the Trillions podcast which [18:21] explores [music] the ETF landscape. Eric [18:23] is back. So happy to have you. You [18:26] excited? [18:27] >> Yeah, this is my favorite podcast. It's [18:29] >> fired up. [18:31] It looks great. [laughter] You [18:32] >> keep getting more handsome. [18:33] >> No, he's tan. He grew his hair out. It's [18:35] combed. [18:36] >> Were you just in Europe? Where were you? [18:37] >> Uh he looks European. And I couldn't [18:39] >> Paris and Madrid. [18:40] >> Yeah, it rubbed off on me, I guess. [18:42] Well, I I went from Madrid to I went [18:44] from a Vanguard event in Madrid to a [18:47] Bitcoin event in Vegas, which is [18:49] probably the biggest [laughter] [18:51] I wouldn't recommend it. It's too much. [18:52] Too much too soon. You need a middle [18:54] ground there. [18:55] >> That's like almost you left. You are [18:57] planet hopping, right? It's like two [19:00] sauna. Uh sauna cold plunge. [19:02] >> That's light light speed right there. [19:03] >> Yeah. Plaid. [19:04] >> Uh where do you want to start? [19:07] >> All right. And we're going to do a lot [19:08] of ETF stuff today. We have the expert [19:10] in the house. But I want to talk markets [19:11] for a second because [19:13] we showed a chart earlier in the year. [19:15] It was February. We said this is like [19:17] some weird [ __ ] You don't see what's [19:20] happening today very often. So back and [19:23] and that continues through it's now May. [19:25] So several months later back in February [19:28] before the war, the market was acting [19:31] weird. You had stocks that were getting [19:34] blown up all over the place. And yet the [19:38] index was at an all-time high. And part [19:39] of this is a market cap weighted story. [19:42] But it wasn't just the S&P that was at [19:43] an all-time high. You also had the equal [19:45] weight at an all-time high with stocks [19:46] getting blown up all over the place. So [19:48] we shared this chart in February. John, [19:50] chart on, please. We showed when 115 [19:54] stocks [19:56] fell at least 7% in a single session [19:59] across a rolling 8-day period. So [20:00] basically a quarter of the index [20:02] full-blower blew up in a single day. And [20:05] yet the market was at an all-time high. [20:06] Okay, this was back in February. I said [20:08] to Chart Kid yesterday, "Hey, I think [20:10] something weird is happening again [20:11] today." The market was up 1.4% [20:16] and yet I'm scrolling down the screen. I [20:17] see a lot of stocks down a lot. Like a [20:20] lot. There was a couple that were down [20:21] 20, a bunch of stocks that were down 10. [20:23] So again, he shared a chart. He made a [20:26] chart. We had 20 stocks yesterday that [20:29] were down 5% at the same time the index [20:33] gained 1.4%. 4%. And similar to the [20:36] chart that we just showed, John, go back [20:37] and go forward. So, go back, please. [20:39] Similar to the chart that we just [20:41] showed, this type of price action [20:43] normally happens in a bare market. Chart [20:46] forward. And here, of course, obviously, [20:48] we're not in a bare market. So, when [20:50] this happens, on average, the market is [20:51] in a 21% draw down. So, this is a [20:54] combination of it. The cap waiting is [20:55] throwing things off. AI is throwing [20:58] things off and of course it is earning [20:59] season, but some weird [ __ ] is happening [21:01] again in the market and it's been [21:03] happening all year. [21:04] >> Would you like to explain the market? [21:07] >> Well, how could this how could this be? [21:08] >> Well, first of all, this is why indexing [21:10] rules. [21:11] >> You don't have to worry about any of [21:12] this. It's just going to work out and [21:13] the net result of the index is up. [21:15] That's great. Um, at at the Vanguard [21:18] event I was at, there was a reminder of [21:19] that Bessonbinder study where 4% of the [21:22] stocks create all the wealth. I mean, if [21:25] half the stocks can't even keep up with [21:26] treasuries, there's something similar [21:28] here. A lot of stocks just aren't that [21:30] good, you know, and you have a couple [21:31] that just drive the market. [21:33] >> Um, this is why it is important arguably [21:36] to market cap weight if you do index. [21:38] Equal weighty can be good at times [21:39] though. You know, if you think there's [21:40] going to be I feel like every fourth [21:42] year the little guys have to catch up, [21:44] international has to catch up. [21:46] >> Tactically, equal weight, but [21:48] strategically market cap weight. [21:49] >> Yeah. I mean, we I just did a note today [21:51] looking at um ARC and if ARC had just [21:55] let their winners run, Nvidia, Bitcoin, [21:58] Tesla. [21:58] >> That was good stuff. [21:59] >> It would have been the greatest act of [22:00] managing performance ever. [22:02] >> Uh but they have a discipline [22:04] rebalancing like equal waiting and the [22:06] equal weight index. [22:07] >> So, they're cutting their winners. [22:09] >> You compared her to Baron. [22:10] >> Baron didn't. Baron let Tesla take over [22:12] the whole fund. So, Tesla was a 50% [22:14] waiting at one point. Yeah. [22:16] >> But Baron's up 750% in 10 years. The [22:18] only active manager that we found that [22:20] has beaten the Q's. That's how hard it [22:23] is. [22:23] >> And he did it just by letting and Kathy [22:26] had Nvidia and Bitcoin too, by the way. [22:28] Those were up 5x Tesla. So she had the [22:32] best a good eye and she was in an ETF [22:33] because Baron got no flows because they [22:35] were did all in a mutual fund. So Kathy [22:37] had the good eye to have be in an ETF [22:39] and have those picks. But the [22:40] rebalancing I think held her back from [22:42] like just totally exploding. Uh [22:45] interesting tale in rebalancing being [22:47] absolutely critical. Uh coupling stock [22:51] picking. I mean you you got to know like [22:53] when you have a real winner, don't mess [22:55] with success. You know what I mean? It's [22:56] like [22:57] >> ARC systematic when we traded Jimmy [22:59] Butler. Why would you trade Jimmy [23:00] Butler? It makes no sense. [23:02] >> It's Harris over me. [23:03] >> Hold on. But is Arc systematically [23:05] rebalancing or it's their own kind of [23:08] internal time to rebalance? question. [23:09] So, so I from what I know they have a [23:12] lot of they have like 35 stocks, right? [23:15] They may like that small biotox biotech [23:17] stock, you know, a lot too. So, if Tesla [23:20] does well, you take your profits to keep [23:21] it at 11%, 12%. Then you can buy a [23:24] little more of that other stock you like [23:26] that went down. [23:27] >> Yeah. [23:27] >> But the problem is just like equaling, [23:29] you end up funneling money to stuff that [23:31] isn't doing that well and taking it away [23:33] from the stuff that's just going to keep [23:35] winning and winning. And that's why [23:36] equal weighted underperformed market cap [23:38] weighted since 90 uh by about a thousand [23:41] percentage points even though it has [23:42] good runs. And it's logical. If you told [23:45] somebody this, you're like, makes a lot [23:46] of sense. Let's take profits because you [23:47] don't know what's going to happen in the [23:48] future. But it's almost like it it's [23:51] counterintuitive to just like let this [23:54] thing just like take over. [23:55] >> It's interrupting the compounding. [23:57] >> Yes. [23:57] >> Um the thing is though, we're in a [24:00] fairly rare period where we have the [24:02] same market leaders for like the 15th [24:04] consecutive. [24:05] >> Yeah. This is unusual. [24:05] >> Well, this is another point that we [24:07] brought up with the MAG 7 being 35% of [24:09] the index cuz like is it concentrated? [24:12] >> I think that they they don't really it [24:14] doesn't seem like they enforce antitrust [24:16] laws anymore. [24:17] >> They No, they they did they did try [24:19] under Biden but it didn't work. [24:20] >> Well, cuz we we looked inside, you know, [24:22] the Mag 7 has acquired 850 companies. [24:26] >> Wow. [24:26] >> And [laughter] [24:28] and some of these are massive, right? [24:29] like MGM and and uh Whole Foods and like [24:32] Google. We look YouTube would be like [24:33] the 20th biggest stock if they spun it [24:35] out and that's one of 270 acquisitions [24:37] by Google. So if you look at the mag 7 [24:40] is 70 companies, you chill out a little [24:42] more. Plus America isn't even that [24:44] concentrated versus other markets. So a [24:47] lot of what we do on our team is um [24:49] because there's so much like hysteria [24:51] and hyper um what's the word I'm looking [24:53] for? Um [24:55] >> hyperbolics. [24:56] >> Hyperbole. hyperbole out there and [24:58] histrionics [24:59] >> that we're trying to like make everybody [25:01] just calm down because you can midwit [25:04] overthink this. Yeah, [25:05] >> you could just midwit yourself into the [25:07] poor house. [25:08] >> Whereas the Jedi and the Dum Dum are [25:10] like, "Hey, US stocks are good. [25:12] >> It it's just not complicated." Same [25:14] thing with Bitcoin. These guys are like, [25:15] "Oh, is it going?" I was like, "Look, if [25:17] you really believe in it, you like it." [25:18] >> All right. Well, buy the book. Geez. [25:20] Well, no, but it's a really [25:22] >> But it might just own a couple good [25:23] things. In fact, most of the people who [25:25] go to like the business schools and the [25:27] CFA, they really should incorporate like [25:30] patience trainings and like just time [25:32] and how to like let time pass because I [25:35] think half the battle here is just not [25:36] messing with it. The art of doing [25:38] nothing, which is the last chapter on [25:40] the Bogle effect. There's another plug [25:41] for you. It's [laughter] but it's a [25:43] really important point that you make. [25:44] And back to the thing with like um you [25:48] know Facebook bought Instagram and and [25:50] Google bought YouTube and people people [25:52] in the antitrust side will say well if [25:55] if those companies had grown up to be [25:57] their own thing you know X would be [26:00] worth it. But then you have to remind [26:01] yourself oh wait a minute the reason why [26:04] Instagram has billions of users is [26:06] because it got sucked into the Facebook [26:09] vortex and then all these people were [26:11] pushed to it. Obviously, Google search [26:14] rankings have helped YouTube become the [26:15] largest video uh platform. It wasn't a [26:18] guarantee that they were going to own [26:19] that spot uh I don't know 20 some odd [26:23] years after the thing was formed. So, we [26:25] don't enforce antitrust. We are forced [26:28] to invest in companies that are [26:29] themselves collections of companies, but [26:32] we shouldn't pretend like they didn't [26:35] create these monsters themselves. It [26:37] wasn't like they were just allowed to [26:38] buy things. They built them. These were [26:41] built products. [26:42] >> Absolutely. But I look back uh I was the [26:45] last market leader GE I pretty sure. [26:47] Anyway, I look back at the last time [26:48] this the number one stock I think it was [26:50] G was like the number one stock in the [26:51] S&P, [26:53] >> right? Is that right? Yeah. In like [26:55] basically about 20 years ago and GE all [26:58] told acquired 70 companies. [27:00] >> Yeah. Also a conglomerate. [27:01] >> Yeah. But not 270. [27:02] >> Right. [27:03] >> Yeah. I see. [27:04] >> So one one of the reason why this is [27:06] happening is because obviously AI is is [27:08] distorting everything. Yeah. creating [27:10] mega winners and mega losers. There's so [27:12] much dispersion within the index right [27:15] now, especially within tech. John, throw [27:17] this up. This is from uh Barclay's [27:20] Derivative Research Sources, Bloomberg. [27:22] Average big tech dispersion. So, they're [27:24] showing that big tech earnings [27:25] dispersion has surged around recent [27:28] announcements with Q1 2026 standing out [27:31] as the highest on record. Uh Data Dog [27:33] yesterday or today was up like 30 [27:34] something% [27:35] >> today. [27:35] >> Today? Yeah. [27:36] >> Um the software names are catching a [27:38] monster bid. uh for for net 21% today up [27:41] after earnings. Um and then you can find [27:44] one that's absolutely crunched. So it's [27:46] all over the map. [27:48] >> Uh lastly, in terms of the calming down [27:50] the hysteria, which I know you love to [27:51] do, so do I. Um there is a lot of talk [27:54] about a bubble. Is this a bubble? Is [27:56] this like the '90s? We were talking [27:57] about this yesterday. To me, I know like [27:59] listen, I I throw on the word bubble [28:01] like casually, but if you're actually [28:02] debating it, to me, the the meaning of [28:05] the word bubble is prices today for [28:08] which you cannot possibly plausibly [28:11] justify at any fundamental future state. [28:16] And that's just not where we are today [28:17] in my opinion. I think that the the [28:19] prices for a lot of these companies, [28:21] even though the price seems to make [28:22] sense, see seems to be egregious, look [28:24] what the earnings are doing. And maybe [28:25] the earnings are temporary, but the [28:26] price is responding to the earnings. So, [28:28] last thing, Eric, and then you can go. [28:30] Um, the somebody made this chart, Blueic [28:32] Market Insight, [28:33] >> leave after this. He said, [28:34] >> Bluecerturic Market Insights has a chart [28:36] of the NASDAQ 100 showing the annual [28:38] count of a daily plus or minus 1% move. [28:41] And there are 17 updates in the NASDAQ [28:44] 100 so far year to date. And in 2000, [28:48] there was 103. And in 1999, there was [28:52] 69. And the year before that there was [28:54] 62. We are not seeing anywhere near the [28:58] type of euphoric price action, [28:59] indiscriminate buying that we saw in the [29:00] late. [29:01] >> I'd love to see you rerun this, but just [29:02] with the socks. [29:04] >> Yeah, the socks are gone mental. [29:05] >> The socks would look like 1999. Sorry. [29:07] It definitely would. [29:08] >> Yeah. [29:08] >> Right. [29:10] >> Yeah. I mean, um, guy on our team who he [29:13] left, but he did a a study and found [29:15] that they weren't quite as uh stretched [29:18] as the four horsemen in in the late 90s. [29:21] Um, and but they're they're stretched. [29:24] So the problem is people were saying [29:25] this 200% ago too. So like when do you [29:28] pull the trigger? My thesis is if you [29:31] are that nervous about equity valuations [29:33] and you think like instead of calling a [29:35] top and like rooting for like chaos, [29:37] just buy more cash or buy hard assets or [29:41] uh maybe you could even buy like put [29:44] options. Like I think it's there's a way [29:45] to be optimistic stocks and be ready for [29:48] the fall versus being the Mr. Big Short [29:50] Guy. I think that's where I would go. [29:52] But [29:53] >> depends on what you if you're selling a [29:54] newsletter, you need to [laughter] [29:56] seriously your job is this is my [29:58] substack [29:59] >> and I need to call the top and then when [30:02] it goes against me, I need to get [30:04] increasingly negative. [laughter] [30:05] >> Yeah. [30:06] >> Oh, no. I see it. I see it. And the [30:08] >> the problem with that is somebody should [30:10] invent a service that keeps track of [30:12] them like batting averages. I mean, and [30:14] then when they go on TV, it says, "Oh, [30:16] I'm batting, you know, uh 0.07%." [30:19] It's just like, you know, the [30:21] opportunity cost of listening to [30:24] somebody who's had 20 top calls that are [30:26] wrong is astronomical. But here's the [30:28] thing. I don't think anybody's listening [30:30] anymore. I even see the headlines and [30:32] the columnists and the economists. It's [30:36] especially heavy under Trump cuz a lot [30:38] of stuff makes everyone like, "Oh my [30:40] god, everything's going to hell." But [30:42] like the VU people, uh, IVV, even [30:46] Spider, like all of the cheap beta [30:47] people are unfased. Uh, ETFs took in a [30:50] record amount of money last year, and [30:52] they're about to break that record again [30:54] this year. [30:55] >> What are what are those records? [30:57] >> Okay, so there's three major records: [30:59] flows, volume, and launches. Last year [31:03] saw 1.5 trillion in flows, 1,100 [31:07] launches. That's four a day. I know. [31:09] >> Job security. Oh my god. [laughter] [31:12] 1100 ETFs launched last year. [31:13] >> Yeah. [snorts] [31:15] >> I remember once we were at a uh we were [31:17] at inside ETFs. We were outside at like [31:19] [laughter] Yeah. We were outside one of [31:21] those fire pit and smart beta was all [31:22] the rage and and you leaned back kind of [31:23] took your sip your drink. It's like we [31:25] need a new factor. [laughter] [31:27] >> I I did say that. 2015. [31:29] >> Turns out I invented it. We'll talk [31:31] about it in a little while. [31:32] >> So volume was 65 trillion last year. All [31:35] those were 20% over the old record. This [31:37] year they're headed for two trillion. [31:40] 90 trillion in volume [snorts] which is [31:43] and about 1,200 launches. [31:45] >> So everybody's happy who's like retail [31:48] advisers. They seem to be not I wish [31:51] there was a way to measure the sentiment [31:54] from people who are buying holders, the [31:55] Vanguardians of the world versus the [31:57] headlines. The gap is so wide right now [32:00] it's weird. So I don't know what to say. [32:03] Like I think you're right. You get more [32:05] clicks and more attention if you're like [32:07] oh man it's time to worry. But we've on [32:10] our team, we keep throwing these [32:11] headlines in the chat like, "Oh, here we [32:12] go again." And the market goes up 20% [32:14] after that. So, it's just difficult [32:17] because nobody knows the future. [32:18] >> You I do. You want to know what's going [32:20] to send people into a rage? [laughter] [32:22] I'll tell you the future right now. Go [32:23] ahead. I'm not going to tell you what [32:24] like what what it's going to mean for [32:25] prices. But here's what's going to [32:26] happen. This is really going to send [32:29] people off the deep end. the people who [32:31] have been naysaying the bull market not [32:34] even for 10 years like for 10 months [32:37] this is going to really piss them off [32:39] when this Iranian thing fizzles out [32:42] without some sort of catastrophe price [32:44] of oil probably doesn't hover back down [32:46] to 60 but maybe just sticks around 70s [32:49] 80s okay no major conflration no real [32:53] ceasefire just it just kind of is okay [32:56] that's an outcome that the bears don't [32:58] love then we don't get a private credit [33:00] blow up. We don't get a private equity [33:03] blow up. We don't get like one of these [33:04] major funds like literally going to [33:06] zero. So that doesn't happen. So you get [33:09] gas prices come down, no private equity [33:12] blow up, earnings continue to grow [33:14] throughout the rest of the year, and [33:16] then SpaceX comes public, doesn't blow a [33:18] hole in the side of the NASDAQ, open AI [33:21] comes public, doesn't destroy everybody [33:23] who invests in it. And if you're bearish [33:26] throughout all of this and every one of [33:28] these things represents the reason for [33:31] the next bare market, right, and none of [33:33] them plays out for you, [33:34] >> that's a [33:35] >> like where are we going next? I want one [33:38] of [33:38] >> the next pandemic. Like what are you [33:40] even going to say? [laughter] [33:43] >> I have to think there's a they have to [33:45] be having internal existential crisis. [33:48] >> But I also have this other theory that [33:49] the people saying that literally are [33:51] long vu. Like I think everybody's long [33:53] vu but because you have to get clicks [33:56] and there's all this noise. [33:58] >> Um I don't know. I wish you could see [34:00] people's holdings when they when they [34:03] write like I wish at the bottom it told [34:05] you like exactly what their portfolio [34:06] is. [34:07] >> Kyle has a great line. He said don't [34:08] tell me what you think. Show me your [34:09] portfolio. [34:10] >> Yeah. [34:10] >> A uh [34:11] >> so there's a lot of noise out there. [34:12] a wholesaler for one of the big three [34:15] index providers who shall remain [34:17] nameless um a million years ago once [34:21] told me about all the macro hedge fund [34:24] masters who had index portfolios set up [34:28] like very quietly now they also owned a [34:32] ton of their own hedge funds so it's not [34:34] like they weren't also eating their own [34:35] cooking [34:36] >> but I I do agree with you there is some [34:38] element of like [34:40] >> it feels too good to be through. I'm not [34:42] selling, but just in case, let me tweet [34:45] some negative [ __ ] out just to like make [34:47] it look like I'm not like an insane um [34:50] wildeyed bull. [34:51] >> Yeah. Wasn't Was it Morgan Howell who [34:53] was like being skeptical and negative [34:56] looks like you care? [34:57] >> Yeah. [34:57] >> Whereas being optimistic looks [34:59] >> reckless reckless [35:00] >> and naive, [35:01] >> especially in hindsight if something bad [35:02] does happen. [35:03] >> But and Tom Lee gets a lot of crap for [35:06] this because he'sable. [35:08] Yeah. But directionally, you would have [35:11] made a lot more money listening to him [35:12] even if his price targets weren't hit. [35:15] >> Yeah. [35:15] >> At the risk of embarrassing ourselves, [35:17] we are at all time highs and we're being [35:18] very uh positive and very negative to [35:20] the bears. You know, understandably so. [35:22] There is some weird [ __ ] happening with [35:23] at the index level to make room for [35:25] SpaceX. What's going on? Because I don't [35:27] know that the market can survive a [35:28] trillion dollar IPO at this point. Can [35:30] it? [35:30] >> It's not a trillion dollars though money [35:33] they raise. [35:33] >> How much money does it need to raise [35:34] between that and anthropic? [35:37] How much money will it like when it [35:38] enters the market? [35:39] >> Looking to raise what are they saying [35:40] I'm making. Is it 100 billion? What are [35:41] they looking at? [35:41] >> Well, I heard they was going to IPO at 1 [35:43] to2 trillion. [35:44] >> So, how much are they selling? [35:46] >> I don't know. [35:46] >> Well, figure figure 10 to 15%. [35:48] >> All right. So, 100 to 200 billion. [35:50] >> You think there's not a [35:52] >> Oh my god. The stock market, what is it? [35:53] 80 trillion or something. What's the [35:55] size of [35:55] >> I think there's 100 billion for I think [35:57] there's a I don't think they're raising [35:59] that much because they've raised so much [36:00] money in the private market. [36:02] >> They have so many shareholders. They [36:04] have a lot of people who think they're [36:05] shareholders but aren't. Yeah. Which is [36:07] a whole other interesting thing that's [36:08] going to happen uh with all the SPVS and [36:11] all the the Russian doll like like how [36:14] many versions of this SPV is testing on [36:16] someone else's balance sheet. But like I [36:19] I feel like I feel like it's so obvious [36:22] that that should be the market top [36:25] >> that it probably won't be. It should be. [36:27] It's poetic. If you get a trillion and [36:30] change dollar IPO from Elon Musk and [36:32] that is the last day the NASDAQ goes up [36:35] for the year, it would make perfect [36:37] sense to me. [36:37] >> Yeah. The other thing is a lot of people [36:40] who are out there saying all these index [36:41] fund investors, they don't know what's [36:43] coming. And I'm like, yeah, we do [36:45] honestly. [36:45] >> Yeah. 2% sleeve in SpaceX. [36:47] >> Well, not even the SpaceX just in [36:49] general. It's like, dude, we understand [36:52] what corrections are. Like we have a [36:54] diversified portfolio. like things go [36:57] down. It doesn't mean it's not good long [37:01] term. Like it can go down for a whole [37:02] year. 2022 was awful and everything's up [37:06] after that. Generally speaking, I think [37:08] again I come back back to Bogle and [37:10] Buffett a lot and both of them are like, [37:12] you know, just buy US stocks and just [37:13] wait. Like it's not complicated. And [37:15] those are the two like masters, right? [37:17] You can trust them. They're like on like [37:19] Yoda level of markets. They're not like [37:21] slinging anything cheap. And they would [37:23] say the same thing and they know it's [37:25] tough to time but they would say look if [37:26] you can't handle a 50% draw down don't [37:29] be in stocks. [37:29] >> But what's going on at the committee [37:30] level with with with uh with these [37:32] names. [37:33] >> What do you mean [37:33] >> with SpaceX? [37:34] >> Yeah. So SpaceX is well so Dave [ __ ] who [37:37] you know well uh he we had a not a [37:41] debate but we had a discussion on [37:42] >> I know him so well I call him Dave Nod. [37:44] >> [ __ ] Yeah. [37:45] >> That's how well that's how well I know. [37:47] >> You say nodding. I say [ __ ] Let's call [37:48] the whole thing off. [37:49] >> Fair. [laughter] [37:52] Anyway, um he'll love this. Okay, so [37:54] anyway, he doesn't like that NASDAQ's [37:55] going to change the index to let it in. [37:57] I'm a little more liberal on this front [37:59] because as an investor, I kind of want [38:02] exposure. Tesla went up, I think, 60% in [38:05] the first year, even though it went down [38:06] a couple days after the IPO. Like, [38:08] things can still go up after it IPOs, [38:10] but so what if it goes down? The other [38:12] thing is a lot of IPOs back in the day [38:14] would have time to grow as small caps, [38:16] midcaps, large caps. So, the index rules [38:18] made sense. If you're coming in as it's [38:21] like LeBron going right to the Lakers or [38:23] I mean the the Cavs skipping college. If [38:25] you're coming in that big and good, you [38:28] could argue that that you skipped a lot [38:30] of the growing that you would the rules [38:32] were made for. So I don't know. It's [38:34] complicated. I would just say, you know, [38:37] investing be careful. And [38:38] >> for the listener, just the controversy [38:40] that you're describing, SpaceX got some [38:44] sort of a guarantee by the index [38:46] provider. How how did this whole thing [38:47] go down? I think it had a vote and it [38:49] said like yeah NASDAQ is NASDAQ. Yeah. [38:51] >> So NASDAQ said to SpaceX if you go [38:54] public on our exchange we'll include you [38:56] in the deal like that. [38:58] >> It was again it's something like this. [39:00] They had a vote that they're going to [39:03] change the rules to let NASDAQ in. I [39:04] mean the SpaceX in I think it's 15 days [39:06] after the IPO. [39:07] >> Now why is it so important to SpaceX to [39:09] be included in the index that quickly? [39:11] Well, again, there's the liquidity. [39:13] >> Well, because right around that time, [39:15] Black Rockck and State Street both filed [39:17] for their own version of the Q's. [39:19] >> So, the thesis, this is a thesis, we [39:21] can't prove it, but [39:22] >> the idea is that a lot of the asset [39:24] managers have a lot of demand for [39:26] SpaceX, but they don't want to go like [39:28] Ron Baron and like just shove it in one [39:30] of their funds. That's not their style. [39:32] But if it's in the cues and they have [39:34] Q's products, then they can have their [39:35] wholesalers have SpaceX somewhere. [39:37] >> Can I ask you a tangential question to [39:39] that? Michael and I noticed this and I [39:41] >> I didn't bother clauding it, so you'll [39:43] be my claude. Why all of a sudden are [39:46] there these competing NASDAQ uh 100 [39:49] funds coming out? Was there some sort of [39:51] moratorium on them being able to [39:53] >> There's a lot of theories here. We get [39:55] into some real like [39:57] >> what are the theories? [39:58] >> Okay, one theory is that when [40:00] >> let's back up. So Invesco [40:03] >> owns [40:04] the triple Q. Yeah. [40:05] >> It used to be Power Shares. [40:07] >> Yeah. where Invesco power shares or [40:10] >> power Invesco had a vote that turned it [40:13] into an open-end fund. [40:15] >> Okay. [40:15] >> And by doing that, there's no more [40:16] forced marketing dollars [40:19] >> and there's some people think that might [40:21] have upset NASDAQ because it it means [40:23] that the cues aren't going to be [40:24] marketed as much because when you're an [40:26] open-end fund and it's better for [40:27] Invesco because they get more revenue. [40:30] Uh unit trust has earmarked money for [40:32] marketing like a 12b1 fee. Open-end ETFs [40:35] don't. And a couple of the early ETFs [40:36] like the Q's and SPY are earmarked as [40:39] unit. They're unit trust. They have it [40:41] earmarked for marketing. [40:42] >> There's a guaranteed amount of money to [40:44] the final four. Yes. Right. [40:45] >> So if they go to an open-end fund that [40:47] goes away. So there's that happen. [40:50] >> When do they make that change? [40:51] >> That was 6 months ago, five months ago. [40:53] >> Didn't invest break even on the cues or [40:55] something like that? [40:56] >> I don't know. [40:56] >> Like NASDAQ got most of the economics of [40:59] that. Okay. Famously. [41:00] >> Yeah. So then I I did not know if there [41:04] was some special exclusive contract, but [41:06] all I know is Eyesshares followed for [41:08] accused product and then State Street [41:10] did. This all happened around when [41:12] NASDAQ also said we're going to let [41:13] SpaceX in SpaceX in within 15 days. So [41:16] I'm not sure which of these dots are [41:18] connected or if they're just uh [41:20] coincidental, but something's up, you [41:23] know. So clearly I think the cues is [41:25] going to be how maybe some of the big [41:27] ETF providers are able to say we have [41:28] SpaceX too because listen the thing with [41:32] private credit and private equity. [41:33] Private credit came out nobody really [41:35] cared but private equity is sexy. SpaceX [41:38] is sexy. People know this company and [41:40] they know Open AI. They know Neurolink. [41:42] They want some of this and these [41:44] companies aren't going public anymore so [41:47] they can't get them in small caps [41:48] really. And so the private equity area [41:51] is pretty soughta and [41:52] >> the venturebacked venturebacked private [41:55] equity [41:55] >> and going to space and doing all this [41:57] stuff is is everybody sees it a growth [42:00] as a growth industry. So I don't blame [42:02] people for wanting SpaceX exposure like [42:05] it's pretty natural to me. Um but the [42:08] thing is at some point all the people in [42:10] early are looking to exit get their [42:12] money and does that cause the price to [42:14] go down and retail? That's why SpaceX [42:16] cares what index they're in. Because if [42:19] you're not in an index, you're not going [42:21] to have the liquidity for a thousand [42:24] shareholders to exit inside of the first [42:26] year. And when I say a thousand [42:27] shareholders, I don't mean retail. I [42:30] mean funds that have been investing in [42:32] SpaceX for 10 years. And that's sort of [42:34] the point of the IPO. They could raise [42:37] money privately indefinitely, I assume. [42:39] >> Yeah. [42:39] >> Okay. So, the actual point of the IPO is [42:42] exit liquidity. Yeah. for people that [42:44] have been in this thing forever. It took [42:46] a huge swing. [42:47] >> Yes, they've made money. It wasn't [42:49] guaranteed that they would make money [42:51] and now they want to take a profit. They [42:53] have they have their own investors and [42:54] their own funds. That's the purpose of [42:57] this going public. Now, [42:59] >> I the other thing that I think [43:01] >> is that it's important to them what [43:02] index they're in because they don't want [43:04] to have something that drops in half [43:06] because everybody's trying to sell [43:08] that's been, you know, it's a longived [43:10] asset. Most companies aren't private for [43:13] this long and don't get this big. [43:15] >> It's totally unusual. [43:17] >> It's totally So, it should have an [43:18] unusual index inclusion situation. [43:20] >> I'm more okay with it. I I understand [43:22] other people's push back on it because [43:25] indexes are all about rules and if you [43:27] change the rules, it's people get [43:29] touchy. [43:29] >> There's also people that just flat out [43:30] don't like him or don't trust him. [43:32] >> That's the thing when it comes to Elon [43:34] or the administration, you have to say [43:36] like, uh, do you have to sort of do some [43:38] math? Does this person just hate Elon? [43:41] >> Yes. [43:42] >> And you have to do like calculus. It [43:43] sucks. I hate to have to do that, but [43:45] it's a good point. [43:46] >> So, Eric, for from 2014 to 2019, 20, [43:51] whatever. Your your coverage was sort of [43:53] boring. Not that you were doing anything [43:55] wrong. I just mean the the industry was [43:56] boring. It was the race to zero. [43:59] >> Yeah. [43:59] >> There was no new launches. [44:01] >> It was It was all No, it was all about [44:03] passive. It was just It was exhaustingly [44:05] boring. [44:06] >> And hot sauce entered the chat. [44:08] exhaustively boring. [44:09] >> It was. Well, [44:10] >> weren't you bored in 2017? [44:12] >> The the reason I liked it is I always [44:14] saw Vanguard and the sort of uh push for [44:16] cheaper the fee wars as punk rock. It [44:20] was something that came in and it was so [44:22] brutal and it kind of made everyone on [44:24] Wall Street a little nervous and I I I [44:27] thought that was interesting. It was a [44:28] huge disruption. So, there was confl [44:30] conflict and uh some punk rock in that [44:33] whole movement. [44:33] >> Duncan and I didn't think that your [44:35] podcast was nearly as boring as Michael [44:37] did. not his podcast, not his podcast, [44:39] his coverage. So [44:40] >> the the other thing is that fee war [44:42] created what is now investor utopia. [44:45] >> Uh we have just arrived at the mo the [44:47] greatest time to ever be investor. [44:51] >> You can get everything for under five [44:52] bits. It's done. That's why this [44:55] tokenization stuff I'm like [44:56] >> market exposure is solved. It's free. [44:58] >> Yeah. I'm like easy. You're going to I [45:00] can I don't have to get out of bed. I [45:02] used to say you can just roll out of bed [45:04] and grab your phone. You can grab your [45:05] phone in bed. type in this and own [45:08] anything in the world for like under [45:09] five bips in a second commission free. [45:13] >> We're so jaded. Nobody cares. [45:14] >> I know. But that's that's amazing. [45:16] >> I agree. I agree. [45:17] >> People People have to sometimes remember [45:19] how that took a long time to get to [45:22] people that never called a bro called a [45:24] broker on the phone. [45:24] >> How much how much did it cost to buy a [45:26] mutual fund back in the day? The the the [45:28] transaction fee. [45:29] >> So, I don't think I've ever told this [45:30] story here before and it only takes 10 [45:32] seconds to tell. The first time I ever [45:33] bought a stock ever, ever. I was 18 and [45:38] I called my dad's broker and his name [45:40] was Jerry and he was at Meil Lynch in [45:42] like Huntington, Long Island and uh just [45:46] mocking me the entire time like oh yeah [45:49] you want to buy what what do you want to [45:51] buy? Like and I don't even blame him [45:53] like looking back in hindsight. I don't [45:55] blame him. I totally get it. It's like [45:57] oh I got to take this call my client's [46:00] son hang on hang on a sec guys. I could [46:02] almost picture the golf putter in his [46:05] hand as as you know the cordless phone [46:07] on uh in between his chin and his [46:09] shoulder. So I for whatever reason I [46:12] gave him some ticker symbol of some [46:13] stupid oil stock somebody told me to [46:15] buy. The whole experience was so [46:17] humiliating and I knew it at the time. I [46:19] was old enough to know that I was being [46:22] mocked, right? Most people even aren't. [46:24] And then of course the stock goes down [46:27] five points. It was like 13. It went to [46:29] eight. I was so humiliated by the [46:32] purchase, I was afraid to call him and [46:34] ask him why it was down. And like that [46:37] stuck with me. So, I'm with you. Anytime [46:39] I see somebody creating ways for people [46:42] to not have to go through that and be [46:44] able to invest, I do think it's punk [46:46] rock. I do think it's cool. And we [46:48] probably take for granted how much [46:50] easier it is today for an 18-year-old to [46:53] put their first trade in and not feel [46:54] like a totaling [ __ ] versus even 25 [46:58] years ago or maybe even 15 years ago. [47:01] >> How you like me now, Jerry? [47:02] >> So [laughter] yeah. [47:03] >> By the way, speaking of punk rock, [47:05] >> Jerry's probably a fan of the show now. [47:06] >> Speaking of punk rock, you make the best [47:08] metaphors with music with ETFs. Have you [47:10] not been to a concert at Future Proof? [47:13] >> Is it? [47:13] >> No. I Well, okay. I [47:15] >> think we haven't seen you. First of all, [47:16] the future proof, you tend to have it [47:18] right after Labor Day. [47:20] >> Yeah. [47:20] >> It's like the first one for you. [47:22] >> Well, it's the first week of school. [47:23] >> I have two young kids. It's just a It's [47:25] a weird time. I got to go out there. It [47:27] looks great. And you have the one in [47:28] Miami that competes with Vet. I'm not [47:30] sure that's [47:31] >> two weeks after Labor Day this year. [47:32] >> But I went to the first one when it was [47:34] called what? [47:35] >> F. No, no, [47:36] >> no, no. It wasn't called Future Proof. [47:38] >> No, don't even. [47:39] >> This was like when Pearl Jam was called [47:40] on a Friday. No, Radio Head was called [47:43] Radio Head was called on a Friday. [47:44] >> You're taking a wealth stack. different [47:45] event. [47:46] >> That was not this. [47:47] >> Yeah, it was close. [47:48] >> Uh [47:49] >> it wasn't close cuz I was on stage. Like [47:52] what were the similarities? [laughter] [47:54] >> It was the same core group. [47:56] >> We're outside now. [47:57] >> Yeah. I don't think so. [47:58] >> Uh in the words of what Nick [48:00] >> We invented that one, too. So whatever. [48:02] >> In the words of Nikki Santoro, I'm over [48:03] here now. [48:04] >> Okay. [laughter] [48:05] >> Um All right. Hot sauce. So the [48:08] >> Yeah, they got a lot more interesting [48:09] for sure. [48:10] >> The fees have bottomed. [48:11] >> Yeah. Squirmed that. He didn't even [48:12] confirm that he's going to come to a [48:13] future. [48:14] >> He's not Kelly. It's like the It's like [48:16] the 15th. [48:17] >> No, but the concerts, dude. The The [48:19] music. [48:19] >> Yeah, I know. Who'd you get last year? [48:21] It was like somebody pretty good. [48:22] >> We had Bush Better. Okay. In Miami, we [48:25] had Better Than What was the name of the [48:27] band? [48:27] >> Never had Better than Ezra. Oh, we Ezra [48:29] Ray. We have So, it it's like a combin. [48:32] It's Mark McGrath from Sugar Ray. [48:34] >> Oh, perfect. [48:34] >> With the guys from Better Than Ezra and [48:36] Tonic [48:37] >> and they're called uh [48:39] >> I call that Gen X Yacht Rock. [48:40] >> Oh, perfect. You would have loved it. [48:42] You need to get Hoody next time and to [48:44] the West. [48:45] >> We had Blues Traveler and Bush and it [48:46] was so we had Third Eye Blind. We had uh [48:49] we've had some amazing [48:51] >> Listen, tell me was Bush closed with [48:53] Comedown [48:55] >> or was it the My Brother in LA song? [48:57] >> He was so he opened with Everything's [49:00] End. [49:00] >> Okay. [49:01] >> Uh five bangers. [49:03] >> Come down was probably the closer. [49:04] >> It's a good song. [49:05] >> And I think they did Glister in like two [49:06] songs before. It was a great closer. [49:08] >> No, Machine Head was the opener. [49:10] >> Oh, they open with Machine Head. You're [49:11] right. [49:12] >> This is the first strum on the guitar [49:13] with Oh my god, [49:14] >> you got to come. All right. Uh, so fees [49:16] have bottomed. [49:17] >> Chart five, please. [49:19] >> FE the active the asset weighted ETF [49:21] expense ratio has made a in my opinion a [49:24] well permanence is tough because there's [49:26] so much money coming into the the free [49:27] the free ETFs, but whatever. It's made a [49:29] local bottom because there's new hot [49:31] [ __ ] Like things are things are [49:33] thinging. [49:34] >> The average fee bottom that is now [49:35] lifting off the bottom slowly. Yeah, [49:37] this was the scariest chart on Wall [49:39] Street because it's like it's sort of [49:41] like the rising sea levels. When's this [49:42] going to stop? Are we in trouble? 17 [49:44] bips looks like it's where it's [49:46] bottomed. And the reason it's going up [49:47] is you do have a a good chunk of money [49:50] going into the the genen hot sauce. That [49:53] all charges 1%. The buffers, they all [49:55] charge 90 bips and then legacy active is [49:58] charging 30 to 40. [50:00] >> Go into the Oh, the den. [50:02] >> Den, [50:03] >> he said den like it's French. [50:05] >> Den. Do you say degen? [50:07] >> I say degen. I've never heard I've never [50:08] heard. [50:10] >> It's degenerate. But everyone say [50:11] >> it's degenerate. Yeah, but I'm saying [50:13] Okay. [50:14] >> He said [50:15] >> No, I said degener. [50:16] >> Yeah, they say gasoline. [50:17] >> That's literally part of the word [50:18] degenerate. [50:19] >> Yeah. No, you're right. [50:21] >> Listen, do you say potato? [50:22] >> You ever see other [laughter] You ever [50:23] see other Simpsons when Mo is making fun [50:26] of Homer for saying, "Oh, your garage." [50:29] He's [laughter] [50:30] What do you call it? A car hole. [50:35] Oh, that's good. [50:36] >> That's good. [50:37] >> So, the 1100 ETFs that launched last [50:40] year, a lot of them are nowhere near a [50:43] five basis point. Like they [50:45] >> these are 70 basis point active things. [50:48] >> It's the I call it the hot sauce arms [50:50] race. [50:50] >> Yes. [50:51] >> Because a lot of them will not make it. [50:54] In fact, uh Aan on my team did a good [50:56] study of like so many are launching. [50:59] There's like 452x stock ETFs now, but [51:02] there's only like 40 billion. So, it's [51:03] like a 100 million or something per ETF. [51:05] On average, there's three billion per [51:07] ETF. So, in other words, it's flooded [51:09] with supply, but you only need one hit [51:11] to make it. So, like uh Granite Shares [51:13] launched 2X Nvidia. It's got like 5 [51:14] billion. That makes that person 50 [51:16] million a year in in revenue. So, you [51:19] just need one. So, they're going to, as [51:20] Ben Johnson put it, you know, fire up [51:22] the spaghetti cannon and just go crazy. [51:24] >> What does it cost to keep these almost [51:26] dead ETFs alive? very little, right? [51:29] >> Very little. But they I would say around [51:31] at 1% maybe 30 million you need to have [51:34] a break even point [51:35] >> which means they can all basically trade [51:38] forever. [51:39] >> Here's what's also brilliant. Most of [51:40] them are long. So a lot of these guys [51:42] came with quantum computing 2x and I was [51:44] like, "Oh, are these going to sell?" [51:45] First of all, there was enough interest [51:47] cuz they go up a lot. The volatility on [51:49] some of these is like 20x the S&P. I [51:51] mean, it's f it's like the ghost pepper [51:54] of like hot sauce. Anyway, they pick US [51:57] stocks that are in growthy areas. So, [52:00] you get a little bit of flows. Then the [52:02] market appreciation gives you assets, [52:04] too. So, you're profitable. You only [52:06] need a little bit of flows and then the [52:09] market appreciation, you're set. So, [52:11] >> I was I was talking to the guys that [52:12] launched I was talking to the guys that [52:14] launched. Uh, I guess the skill [snorts] [52:17] is either a being so efficient that you [52:20] can launch a ton of [ __ ] or b be a [52:24] really highly attuned almost like a [52:29] taste maker [52:30] >> or or not a taste maker. [52:32] >> I know what you're saying. Somebody that [52:33] just like sees, oh, everyone's going to [52:36] be [52:36] >> you got to skate to where the ETF is [52:38] going. [52:38] >> Yeah. They used to have these people at [52:39] big brands. They'd have like somebody [52:41] who just knows what the cool things are. [52:43] You have to have a good ear to the [52:44] ground for what and and Tuttle is a good [52:46] example. Yeah. [52:47] >> He says he is kind of a degen trader. [52:50] He'll admit it. And he makes products [52:51] that he would like to trade. [52:53] >> So I don't know if someone who's like [52:55] from the legacy asset management could [52:56] do this. Well, you kind of have to be [52:58] one of those people. I think [53:00] >> the Round Hill guys are great at this. [53:01] >> They're great at the DRAM thing. They [53:04] just broke two billion. [53:05] >> That's it. By the way, this is an insane [53:07] story though. [53:08] >> Brilliant. [53:09] >> Tell the story. So the memory trade [53:12] which is these three memory stocks [53:15] Micron SK Highix and Sam Samsung [53:18] >> SanDisk [53:20] Samsung right [53:21] >> they control 95% of the memory and these [53:23] AI data centers are desperate for high [53:25] bandwidth memory so obviously there's [53:27] demand [53:27] >> but you couldn't get all three in an ETF [53:30] you could get two of them in the South [53:31] Korea ETF so people started buying that [53:34] round noticed and was like wait why [53:35] don't we do one and throw Micron in [53:37] there and we'll jack up the waitings [53:39] using swaps to because you the [53:41] diversific diversification rules make it [53:43] tricky. So they give you like 67 65% of [53:46] the portfolio is just those three [53:47] companies and it's the only one that [53:49] gives you all three at that waiting and [53:52] it came out and I I was a little like [53:54] asleep at the wheel. I was shocked. It [53:55] traded 250 million the first day. I'm [53:57] like what? These are crazy numbers. Now [54:00] yesterday it traded like more than [54:01] Chevron. Like it's trading like in the [54:03] billions in a month and it's got three [54:06] billion in assets. This is insane for a [54:09] theme ETF. It's the It's the best debut [54:11] by a mile. [54:12] >> But these are the guys that did Meta so [54:15] so early that Zuckerberg had to buy the [54:17] ticker. [54:18] >> Yeah. Which by the way we've had Will [54:20] Hershey on the show. [54:21] >> Do you hear that with Tuttle had the uh [54:23] spa ETF? [54:24] >> Okay. [54:24] >> That he never closed. The ticker was [54:26] SPCX. [54:27] >> So they wanted for SpaceX. [54:28] >> So he Well, this back ETF was like [54:30] living in oblivion. Yeah. [54:32] >> But instead of closing it, he let it [54:33] hang around just in case. And it just [54:35] changed tickers to something else. which [54:37] which I I can't prove it, but that would [54:39] indicate that they did buy it for [54:41] SpaceX. [54:41] >> Oh, interesting. [54:42] >> So, that's a whole So, I I think the [54:43] issuers are out there reserving tickers [54:45] for private companies. [54:46] >> I was going to say, if I buy that ETF [54:48] right now, will I get SpaceX? [54:49] >> No, no, not at all. You'll get a a [54:51] really like beat up SP. [54:53] >> You'll get a not available uh message on [54:55] your on your brokerage account because [54:57] can't do it. But hot sauce, we have a [55:01] thesis that, you know, a lot of the [55:03] portfolios have gotten pretty um people [55:05] have stopped dating fivestar managers [55:08] and they've gotten married to like VU [55:09] and BND and they're like, I love this [55:12] portfolio. I am off the market and I'm [55:14] going to I'm going to be with this for [55:15] 50 years, but they want to have a little [55:18] speculative fund on the top. [55:19] >> Still want to have a fling. [55:20] >> They want to have their flings. [55:22] >> Couldn't agree more. [55:23] >> So, people have the fund account. They [55:25] have trading and they went wild and [55:26] crazy there. So I think the hot [55:28] >> Ashley Madison of ETF issuers. [55:30] >> Oh god, [55:31] >> he can't tell you these people are in [55:34] his coverage universe. [55:36] >> I agree with that. I agree with that. [55:38] People are you know what? Cuz you asked [55:40] the question, you asked this question [55:41] earlier about Bitcoin. Why can't people [55:43] just be both? I have always said this. [55:46] Why can't someone say with 80% of my [55:49] money I want a lowcost tax efficient [55:52] index market cap weighted portfolio and [55:55] then with 20% I want a core and explore [55:58] and I want to do other stuff that's not [56:00] representative within the index and why [56:03] do I have to be part of a tribe [56:05] >> and most people they don't even they're [56:06] not even [56:08] >> most people are not even burdened with [56:10] that question they just do whatever they [56:12] want who's paying attention [56:13] >> the flows would tell you that's what [56:14] people are doing 80% goes to cheap [56:17] something active or passive and 20% goes [56:20] to the hot sauce and [56:21] >> give me a chart sex John [56:22] >> by the way [56:23] >> this is yours so this is this [56:26] illustrates this point I think pretty [56:27] well what you're saying what you're [56:29] saying here is [56:30] >> well this is [56:31] >> this number right [56:32] >> this is the fact number of funds [56:34] >> there's more active ETFs than passive [56:36] ones now okay [56:37] >> look at that [56:37] >> that is crazy this is not dollars this [56:40] is number of funds [56:41] >> number of funds [56:41] >> but what's crazy about this is [56:44] >> there was literally no market for active [56:47] ETFs [56:48] >> as recently as 10 11 years ago. [56:51] >> Yeah, look at the gap. [56:52] >> I know. So, by by the way, that white [56:55] line is only 10% asset share. [56:58] >> So, there's obviously this huge flooding [56:59] of active products because try competing [57:02] with the other line. [57:04] >> What are you going to do? Like fight [57:05] Vanguard and Black Rockck. You can't [57:06] make it. It's too brutal. [57:07] >> Game's over. [57:08] >> So, that's where you have to launch. But [57:11] the one, Do you have the chart that has [57:13] the beta adjusted fee demarcation line? [57:16] By the way, if Okay, [laughter] listen [57:18] to me. Listen. No, no. [57:19] >> This is my E= MC². [57:22] >> All right. Walk us walk us through this. [57:25] >> I need a catchy moniker for this. So, if [57:27] you have something better than B, [57:28] >> I got you covered. This is terrible. [57:30] >> Okay. [57:31] >> Why did active equity stock pickers [57:33] finally make it in ETFs? Cuz that was a [57:36] big thing. They could never break [57:37] through. [57:38] >> Nah, [57:39] >> Kathy. Yes. Well, Kathy's Kathy was one [57:42] example, but now you got DFA, you've got [57:45] Capital Group, JP Morgan. Why are they [57:46] all [57:47] >> She proved that it could work. I'm [57:49] telling you, it's her. [57:50] >> Yeah, but there's another thesis here, [57:52] which is this. [57:53] >> Okay. [57:54] >> If you look at active share and expense [57:56] ratio, and you draw a 45° angle, a line, [58:00] and you look at the most successful [58:02] products and you look at where products [58:04] see outflows, the if you're above that, [58:08] you're you're in the mix. You can get [58:09] money. If you're below that, it's very [58:11] difficult. Why? Because Vanguard made [58:14] beta free. [58:15] >> So, you cannot charge for beta. [58:16] >> Stop. This is saying the more active you [58:19] are, [58:20] >> the more you can charge. [58:21] >> The more you can charge that logic. [58:23] >> Yeah. Because people have no fee [58:24] sensitivity in hot sauce. [58:26] >> But once you get into the core, people [58:28] are very fee sensitive. [58:29] >> Wait, but could isn't a better way to [58:31] say this though? [58:31] >> Go ahead. Cheap or shiny? [58:33] >> No, I think it's retail uh advisor. [58:37] Yeah, but I think even an adviser if [58:39] they're [58:39] >> Stop. I go got to go off mic for a [58:41] second. [58:42] >> This is where the advisers live. Uh, [58:45] sorry. This is where the advisers live. [58:48] >> Very inactive. Therefore, [58:51] >> therefore, the adviserss can explain to [58:53] their clients. Yeah. [58:54] >> Like what the fund is going to do, what [58:56] it mimics. [58:57] >> Yeah. [58:57] >> Okay. The adviserss don't live here. [59:00] >> Yeah. [59:00] >> They don't want that level of active. [59:02] >> You're right. [59:03] >> Okay. You know who buys this [ __ ] you [59:06] know, buys this [ __ ] People that really [59:08] do want something that deviates from the [59:10] market because they're not baking it [59:12] into um a back test for a financial [59:15] plan. [59:16] >> Yeah. I mean, [59:16] >> am I crazy? [59:17] >> I I agree with you. Okay. [59:19] >> And DFA rules and Capital Group's very [59:23] good at that, too. [59:24] >> I would call that like it's low it has [59:26] less career risk. Yes. If you're low, [59:28] that's what I'm trying to say. [59:30] >> Explain yourself. You're not doing that. [59:32] Yeah. But back in the day, all those [59:34] tickers would be in the lower right hand [59:37] corner [59:37] >> cuz they'd be mutual funds. [59:39] >> Yes. [59:39] >> Uh [59:40] >> and you wouldn't buy them. [59:42] >> So if if if DFAC was over on the lower [59:44] right hand corner, you wouldn't buy it [59:46] cuz you're like, why am I buying beta [59:47] for 90 bips? [59:48] >> Too expensive and too close to the [59:50] benchmark. [59:50] >> Yes. 100%. [59:51] >> So So here's my metaphor. It's like a [59:53] bag of potato chips. Just charge me for [59:56] the chips, not the air. [59:57] >> Oh, that's good. That's very good. that [59:59] if you do that you can make it in this [60:02] world as a non-BA person. So your [60:04] message is this is really important. [60:06] Your message is if you're going to [60:08] launch an active ETF be very active and [60:12] then you don't have to explain why it's [60:14] priced where it's priced. [60:15] >> That's why the half the launches are [60:17] wild and crazy. [60:18] >> All right. So [laughter] earlier I said [60:21] what I think a bubble is. Yeah. [60:22] >> But there is another part of a bubble [60:24] which is the behavior. Right. the way [60:26] that investors are behaving. And right [60:28] now, our boy Todd Stone has a chart that [60:31] shows here comes the 2x high funds. [60:34] >> Let's do it. [60:34] >> We're looking at the one-year percent [60:36] change. [60:36] >> I've been waiting on this for a minute [60:38] >> of the Bloomberg of flows into some of [60:41] these ETFs. Um, and I thought it was [60:45] kidding, by the way. Multiple ETFs [60:46] literally have filed for the 2X. And [60:47] most of our listeners don't even know [60:48] who SKHEX is. It's a South Korean memory [60:52] stock. It's basically that and Samsung [60:54] or 50% of that index. But the flows, the [60:56] one-year flows are completely off the [60:57] charts, completely insane. And this is [61:00] this is this is uh euphoric behavior. [61:02] >> Yeah. Well, that's the price. There [61:04] haven't been any launched. They're dying [61:06] to get those launched. However, [61:08] >> however, [61:09] >> just filed. [61:09] >> Those are just filings. [61:10] >> Okay. So, after [61:11] >> all the other stuff he has there is the [61:13] percent performance. [61:14] >> We don't have flows. Believe me, it will [61:16] be a hit. But I've got a great data [61:18] point for you. We have a note coming out [61:19] on this this week from uh Rebecca in [61:21] Asia. the SKH highix. There's a 2x [61:24] version in Hong Kong. It's so popular [61:27] because especially in South Korea where [61:28] the the den per capita is like through [61:30] the roof. Certain Asian countries love [61:32] to gamble. [61:34] >> This ETF is the fourth biggest in the [61:36] country already. [61:38] >> It's 8% of the whole ETF market. [61:42] >> XSK Highix is the biggest ETF. [61:44] >> The fourth biggest. [61:45] >> Fourth biggest, [61:45] >> but it's it's it's just it it's not even [61:48] a year old. [61:50] >> Think about that. That's that would be [61:51] the equivalent of launching 2x Tesla [61:53] here and all of a sudden it's as big as [61:55] VTI. [61:56] >> But can I ask you but can I can I ask [61:59] >> the the percentage [62:01] of the waiting of that market of this [62:03] one ticker is [62:04] >> But can I ask you an obvious question? [62:06] Can't that get can't the dollar amount [62:08] in that fund get cut in half in one day? [62:11] >> Yeah. If there's a 50% draw down [62:13] >> I Okay, I own a stock. [62:14] >> Wait, if it gets cut in half, where does [62:15] the money go? [62:17] >> It goes somewhere else. [laughter] But [62:18] no, but I'm just making the point. I own [62:20] a I own a stock called Shake Shack. It [62:22] fell 35% [clears throat] [62:24] today. [62:25] >> Wait a minute. [laughter] [62:27] >> Well, you mean in your index or you have [62:28] a picker? [62:29] >> No, I I own it personally. It's not I [62:32] don't own it like professionally. I It's [62:34] my personal home. [62:35] >> Is it a hedge? [62:35] >> Yeah, it's right. It's a hedge. [62:37] [laughter] It's a hedge against me being [62:39] dangerously uh malnourished. [62:40] >> There's a New York City ETF that Athan [62:42] might buy to hedge his rent. [62:44] >> So that stock fell 30. I don't think it [62:47] closed down 35%. But my point is could [62:49] happen that could happen to any stock at [62:52] any time. That ETF will lose half of the [62:55] dollars in there [62:56] >> and South Korea will be it'll be the [62:58] country will go into a great depression. [62:59] >> That's part of the fun. [63:00] >> But I'm just making the point. Oh, you [63:03] know what? You know what else I was [63:04] thinking about? I wanted to ask you [63:06] >> there's a difference between an RAIA [63:09] getting to 10 billion versus an ETF [63:12] getting to 10 billion. [63:13] >> Oh yeah. the because the RAIA even if [63:16] they're giving horrible advice, it does [63:19] not have the potential to go to 5 [63:20] billion. An ETF that could happen in a [63:23] week. One allocator says, "You know [63:25] what? We're switching from this fund to [63:27] that fund." [63:27] >> Yeah. [63:28] >> It's not these things are not [63:29] equivalent. Eric, I was talking to a [63:30] friend of mine yesterday who runs a big [63:32] giant asset management company and one [63:34] of their popular ETFs has a ton of money [63:37] in it and he said to the CFO just model [63:41] it at 50% less like for cash flow [63:44] purposes just pretend it's pretend we're [63:46] at half [63:47] >> because it's a mirage. It's not like aum [63:49] like oh we raised this money uh client [63:52] by client. [63:53] >> This happened with DXJ and Arc. These [63:55] were flavor of the months for a while. [63:56] Yeah, [63:57] >> they went from nothing to I don't know, [63:59] let's just say 20 30 billion, but then [64:01] down to like seven. Now people are like, [64:04] "Oh my god, it's a failure." I would say [64:06] no. Just draw the line from nothingness [64:08] to 7 billion and you're fine. It is. [64:11] It's sort of like it's better to have [64:12] love and lost and be at 7 billion than [64:15] to have never loved at all and be in [64:16] oblivion. So some of these products come [64:18] out and [64:19] >> But finish that thought. Wait, finish [64:20] that thought though. an investment firm [64:23] that goes from 30 billion to 7 billion. [64:27] >> Yeah. [64:27] >> It's like the Titanic. [64:29] >> Yeah. [64:29] >> That's the difference between ETF AUM. [64:33] >> 100%. You guys are in a different boat. [64:35] And that's why I agree that I've always [64:37] thought this like the advisers [64:39] understand psychology and emotions that [64:40] like the asset managers really don't. [64:42] They're just putting products out. [64:44] You're supposed to use them as you see [64:46] fit. [64:47] >> Um they're just fulfilling demand in the [64:49] marketplace. Some of these are used by [64:50] direct retail though. they don't need to [64:51] worry about you like like a lot of these [64:54] are direct retail they're bypassing you [64:56] >> but you guys have different needs but [64:59] you're very well represented in the ETF [65:01] flows that's why VTI and VU and SPYM and [65:06] GLD like a lot of those are like [65:08] >> in fact most of the flows goes to this [65:10] stuff I mean it's just we've what else [65:11] can you say like okay you know VU is [65:13] great like it took it in it takes in VU [65:16] grows at 1.25 25 billion a day. [65:19] >> Isn't that crazy? [65:20] >> Almost no matter what. [65:21] >> Where do you think Where do you think [65:22] that money's coming from? Is it [65:23] [laughter] Is it coming from uh 401k [65:25] rollovers? Like part of it. [65:27] >> Okay. It's coming from uh target date [65:29] funds. It's coming from just [65:31] Vanguardians who feel no nothing. You [65:33] know, they are just [65:34] >> advisers. Robo 1.25 billion a day into [65:37] just that one fund. It's so much money. [65:38] >> It's about 800 million a day. The other [65:40] part is asset growth because it it went [65:43] from like 600 no 560 billion to like 900 [65:47] billion in a year. Like it's grown more [65:50] than a billion a day in the past year. [65:53] But the flows are have never been seen. [65:56] 750 million a day is crazy. That's just [65:58] in flows even if it goes down. So it [66:01] takes in uh I don't know 150 billion a [66:04] year. [66:05] >> This year it could it could be a little [66:06] higher. [66:07] >> It's really remarkable. [66:08] >> It's crazy. Yeah. But it's such a if [66:11] there's a perfect ETF, it might be that [66:13] you could say VTI, but then with VTI, [66:16] you get small caps. Uh Bogle tended to [66:19] lean a little. [66:19] >> That's the same thing. Who cares? [66:20] >> Well, the the reason [66:22] >> are they the same price [66:23] >> in Buffett's. [66:24] >> Are they both what are they three basis [66:26] points? [66:26] >> Yeah, they're both free. [66:28] >> Okay. [66:28] >> VTI get VTI is a little better for [66:31] behavioral because if small caps have a [66:33] good run or value, you don't have to [66:35] worry about it. You own it, [66:36] >> right? But for people who can stand like [66:38] a little small cap like regime change [66:40] for a minute, uh Buff Buffett would [66:43] probably recommend VU because in his [66:45] letter to Berkshire investors like 10 [66:47] years ago, he said just buy the S&P. [66:49] >> This is three years. Nobody cares. It's [66:51] the exact same. [66:52] >> Yeah, it doesn't matter really at the [66:53] end of the day. I mean [66:55] >> all I want to ask you about the [66:57] prediction market ETFs. [66:58] >> Yeah. [66:58] >> So I think that if there is enough [67:01] liquidity, this is not my idea, but I [67:04] think it's a good one. [67:05] Um, let's say that there's enough [67:07] liquidity on some of these exchanges [67:09] where let's say that there's contracts [67:10] that have $10 million of liquidity, [67:12] whatever the number is, and there's an [67:13] ETF that buys up every single Yes. for [67:18] anything trading over 85. Because if [67:20] something's over 85 cents, it probably [67:22] happens not 15% of the time, but let's [67:24] say 12% of the time, all right, great. [67:26] That's a 12% annual turn. Even if [67:27] there's some slippage, 10%. And then you [67:30] could get more aggressive, say, "No, no, [67:32] I only want to buy things that that have [67:33] a 70% outcome." And then you could slice [67:35] it up and say, "I want to do that, but [67:37] only for sports." And then you could [67:38] say, "I only want to buy the the the [67:40] guarantees. So I want to buy the 95 [67:43] cents NFL favorites, and I will make my [67:45] four and a half% return or whatever it [67:46] is." Like, I think all that's coming. [67:50] The sports is an interesting one because [67:52] there's some leg um lawsuits and [67:54] legislative issue with sports. Uh, but [67:56] the political stuff is the first one [67:58] they're trying to get past. [67:59] >> So, how is that going to work? [68:00] >> Well, they're [68:01] >> wait an ETF that incorporates bets from [68:05] the prediction market around politics. [68:07] >> Yeah. So, the ones that are slated, they [68:09] actually had effective data Monday, but [68:10] we think they'll probably be pushed back [68:12] a little bit. I think [68:13] >> who's who's launching? [68:13] >> Round, Bitwise, and Granite Shares. [68:16] Okay. So the first ones that are were [68:17] slated again we don't know if they'll [68:19] launch are Republican win in 2828 [68:24] Republican or Democrat win in 2028 one's [68:27] president one's Senate one's house [68:30] >> why can't I just do that on Koshi like a [68:31] normal person [68:32] >> because the ETF is in your brokerage [68:34] account [68:35] >> so [68:36] >> and and it's a little more trusting [68:37] ability to do this account is the thing [68:39] >> yeah that the people said the same thing [68:42] about crypto you could have gotten [68:43] crypto easily people like ETFs cuz [68:45] they're liquid They're trustworthy. They [68:47] do what they say they're going to do. [68:48] >> People like tickers. [68:49] >> They like tickers. They're in the [68:50] brokerage account. [68:51] >> It's just it's better in the plumbing. [68:54] >> People that don't want to move money [68:56] >> that too. [68:56] >> Like it's already my money's at Schwab. [68:58] I just want to do this. [68:59] >> So if it if it goes so whichever outcome [69:01] does the ETF just get liquidated after [69:04] that? [69:04] >> It'll either roll over to the next one [69:06] >> or liquidate like a termination event. [69:08] >> We have things like that. We have things [69:09] like that already, right? The bullet [69:11] shares uh that are the bond maturity. [69:14] >> Okay. Good one. [69:15] >> So we have so we have structure [69:18] >> the the reason and I want to get your [69:20] take on this. It's interesting to me [69:22] that say you know when the there's a [69:25] presidential election or the Fed and all [69:28] the analysts come out and say oh if [69:30] Trump wins or Warren wins this is going [69:32] to happen and then like half the time it [69:34] doesn't happen like the opposite happens [69:37] >> every time. [69:39] >> Basically. [69:40] >> Yeah. [69:41] >> These eliminate that. I love that [69:44] >> you just get to bet on the macro event. [69:46] There's no like guesswork. [69:47] >> You want my take? That's what everyone [69:49] wants and I think it's you're so right. [69:53] You you had people buying oil stocks for [69:55] Trump's first term cuz he was on the he [69:58] was on the campaign trail saying that [70:00] things like drill baby drill. [70:01] >> Yeah. [70:01] >> Didn't [ __ ] mean anything. Oil was [70:03] the worst performing sector in America. [70:04] >> Energy crushed under Trump. [70:06] >> So even if it makes no sense. So if you [70:08] are allocating like oh this is my Trump [70:10] basket and then this is my Hillary [70:13] basket. [70:14] >> It's it's almost it's astrology. [70:17] >> It is. [70:17] >> Whereas this is like do you think Trump [70:19] wins or do you think he loses and if you [70:21] think he wins how much are you willing [70:22] to risk [70:23] >> or or how much do you want to make? [70:25] Here's what you'll have to that's what [70:27] everyone wants. [70:28] >> Now now imagine we could do economic [70:30] releases like CPI Fed. I think all the [70:35] economic stuff is will be prediction [70:36] marketed, but then we're gonna get into [70:38] some weird stuff, you know, like some of [70:40] these issuers are gonna launch some like [70:42] it's gonna turn into silly season. [70:43] >> Hold on. Before the silly season though, [70:44] >> Shalom breaks up with Jenner. [70:46] >> Yeah. What's the name of Taylor Swift [70:47] before the silly season? I I think that [70:50] there can be global economic [70:52] efficiencies created on these platforms. [70:54] >> And hear me out. [70:55] >> The wisdom of the crowd, [70:57] >> surveys are totally broken. [70:59] >> Totally. [71:00] >> Totally broken. They do not work. if [71:02] there are legitimate economic data [71:04] points, things that can bring money to [71:06] put to have some clarity there. Um, and [71:09] not that this is going to move move uh [71:11] the economy, but like will Tesla deliver [71:13] 500,000 car units or something like [71:15] that, but if you could do that at things [71:16] that matter, [71:17] >> Yeah. [71:18] >> I think that we can have some better [71:19] clarity to what's actually happening in [71:20] the in the economy. [71:21] >> Yeah. It it it'll I mean, honestly, that [71:24] this macro guesswork game, so much of it [71:27] will be irrelevant. [71:28] >> Show me the numbers. Show me the market. [71:29] Yeah, you could just bet like will there [71:31] be a recession in 12 months and like if [71:34] you are worried instead of like hedging [71:36] with something so you don't you could [71:37] just use that. I mean some people would [71:39] argue like the options market allows [71:40] some of this you can just buy a put [71:41] option [71:42] >> but now it's so clear who do you trust [71:43] now or the economists? [71:44] >> Yeah I mean and I think polyarket really [71:47] was born out of the fact that the [71:48] political polls were really bad and poly [71:50] market had a better read on like what [71:52] was happening. So I think people are [71:54] more open to these being like a real [71:56] market but it is interesting. It's a [71:59] whole new world. And the thing with poly [72:01] market though and these prediction [72:03] markets is it's endless possibilities. [72:05] Once the ETF and that marries, it's [72:08] going to be again ETFs are never a dull [72:11] moment, man. [72:11] >> It's a wild wild. [laughter] [72:12] >> It's like I don't know what's going to [72:14] happen, but I do think some of these [72:16] will be bigger hits than people think. [72:19] >> Will we be in a place in a couple years [72:20] where people are literally using these [72:22] in their portfolio and it's completely [72:24] like seen as legitimate? Not sure. [72:26] >> I don't think so. But I do think for [72:28] people who are like hedging the market [72:30] or speculating, these could come in [72:32] handy because you can eliminate. [72:34] >> Yeah. The question of whether or not [72:36] they'll come in handy is going to be a [72:38] function of the amount of liquidity. [72:40] Like if there's enough people that are [72:42] willing to make these bets, which I'm [72:43] not sure about. It seems like right now [72:45] there might be for some things and not [72:47] for others. [72:48] >> That's a lot of sports. [72:49] >> So we had the CEO. We had the CEO Schwab [72:52] on stage and [72:53] >> we asked him like would you rule out [72:55] ever having prediction markets? He said [72:57] no [72:58] >> but he said like it's 88% sports betting [73:00] or whatever [73:01] >> and they don't want to be in sports [73:03] betting. [73:03] >> Yeah. [73:03] >> But he did say we think that there might [73:06] be investor value [73:08] >> to having economic [73:10] >> um prediction marketab [73:14] >> so you know so you know they're having [73:15] meetings about it. [73:16] >> They're not dismissing it out of hand. [73:18] Now is Schwab going to be the first [73:20] mover? No, [73:21] >> Thomas Pedy at Interactive is they don't [73:22] need to be. [73:23] >> Pedro is psychotically bullish on the [73:25] prediction market. Yeah. Psychotically [73:26] bullish. [73:27] >> Yeah. I I'm leaving a little room for I [73:30] don't know. But I I would say that the [73:33] other objection we already addressed. [73:35] Why do you need an ETF? And I think we [73:37] addressed that. So I think again ETFs [73:39] are the great standardizer. Uh they take [73:41] everything that's frictiony or out there [73:43] and they just bring it right to you in a [73:44] format you're comfortable with. [73:45] >> It's a package that people It's like I [73:47] don't have to do this myself. Yeah, [73:49] >> this is like this expresses my view with [73:51] one trade [73:52] >> pricing transparency with the equity [73:54] market. So everything trades like an [73:55] they basically equitize everything and [73:57] that's what's happening here. So it's [73:59] interesting. I've that's definitely [74:01] taken more of my mind share lately [74:03] thinking about what how this will play [74:04] out. [74:04] >> Eric, can we do a little lightning round [74:05] before we let you go? [74:06] >> Sure. Okay. Uh what the death of the [74:09] mall trade can tell us about the AI [74:11] freakout. [74:12] >> Yeah. Um I don't know if you have the [74:13] chart, but um remember the [74:15] >> We had it. It wasn't great. We threw it [74:16] out. [74:16] >> Okay. [74:17] >> I'm just kidding, John. [laughter] [74:19] Um, remember the death of the mall? You [74:21] were supposed to go long Amazon and [74:23] short XRP. [74:23] >> A lot of malls did die. [74:25] >> Yeah. But a lot of companies are not [74:28] idiots. They figured out how to like [74:29] sell stuff on the internet like Walmart. [74:32] And so if you look 10 years later, XRT [74:35] outperformed Clicks and Empty, which [74:36] were two ETFs that literally did the [74:38] death of the ball trade. [74:39] >> What's empty? [74:41] >> Empty is shorting brick and mortar. [74:42] >> I don't remember that. [74:43] >> Get out of here. That that existed. [74:44] Yeah. [74:45] >> And ironically went to zero. Yeah. [74:48] [laughter] Well, the daily rebalancing [74:50] probably was part of that corrosion. [74:52] >> Okay. [74:53] >> Clicks was going long online short brick [74:55] and mortar [74:56] >> and that didn't work either. [74:58] >> It underperfor. So XRT beat both of them [75:00] by a lot. [75:01] >> But then guess what beat XRT by a lot. [75:03] VU. So here's my point. This whole thing [75:06] of like AI, everyone freaks out. Who's [75:09] the winners and losers? I'm like these [75:11] companies are [75:11] >> probably the S&P 500 is the winner. [75:13] >> That's the winner because you know why? [75:14] These companies are not dumb. They're [75:16] run by smart people. They're gonna [75:17] incorporate AI. [75:19] >> Some will. [75:19] >> Yeah. There's a couple that, you know, [75:21] might not make it, but over time that [75:24] that online internet commerce ended up [75:28] floating up into the VU. [75:29] >> Like it ultimately gets rewarded in that [75:31] market cap weighted situation. [75:33] >> I know you listen to every episode of [75:34] the show. We had a guest on last week [75:36] who is structurally like going to be [75:39] long for the next 30 years, some of [75:41] these software companies. And that was [75:43] his comment. He said, "Of the top 20 [75:45] e-commerce companies in America, how [75:48] many of them do you think were new [75:50] economy post internet and how many do [75:52] you think were old economy?" And I think [75:55] 15 of the 20 largest e-commerce websites [75:57] are run by companies like Target. [76:00] >> Yeah. [76:00] >> Like like 15 of 20. [76:02] >> So that's what you're ask. [76:05] >> Yeah. Okay. It's a great point. I want [76:06] to ask you about uh I want to ask you [76:11] about what was I was I going to ask you? [76:13] Oh. Um, I'm curious what your thoughts [76:17] are about, [76:19] uh, gold, oil, ETFs. They sort of had [76:23] had a great O, uh, gold had a great year [76:25] last year. Oil had a good start to the [76:28] year, um, leading up into the [76:29] hostilities and now it seems like it's [76:31] no man land. No man's land. When you [76:34] show us the trillion half dollars coming [76:37] into ETFs, a lot of it active. Are these [76:41] ETFs still attract uh the the [76:43] commodities still attracting their fair [76:45] share? Are they less popular than they [76:46] used to be? Like where where do those [76:48] things stand these days? [76:50] >> GLD was a top tener last year. Uh it [76:52] definitely sees flows. People love GLD [76:54] and IU. Those are [76:55] >> there's no weird stuff [76:57] >> staples. [76:57] >> Yeah, you're not rolling futures there. [76:59] So, people do like those. Gold seemed to [77:01] be a trading thing. I I don't know if [77:02] people were just all of a sudden [77:03] allocating. It seemed like there was a [77:04] lot of FOMO. Same with silver. And then [77:06] some came off. Uh, so I think gold [77:10] >> still don't have a great oil ETF. [77:12] >> Don't mess with oil. Um, USO is a wolf [77:15] in sheep's clothing. It's why we [77:17] invented the traffic light system. [77:18] Basically, it rolls futures and so some [77:20] years you could have roll cost of 30%. [77:22] So you can get the call right but like [77:24] lose a lot of money. Um, be careful. So [77:27] I would look at that as like a rated R [77:28] movie. USO [77:30] >> investors use GDL for that instead. [77:33] >> Yeah, I would use XLE. We have Vince [77:35] Piaza who's works in BI. likes crack [77:37] because crack is refiners and if the [77:39] straight of Hormuz was closed, you got [77:41] to get oil from other places where it's [77:43] not as it needs more refining. So [77:45] there's this kind of like long equity [77:46] plays around oil that I think makes [77:48] sense because there's no weird [77:49] derivative action. Be very careful. If [77:51] you're going to use USO, just trade it. [77:53] >> Are US investors allocating to [77:55] international ETFs to the extent that [77:58] you would expect them to be given how [78:00] well those markets have finally started [78:02] to do over the last 18 months? not as [78:04] well as they have done but a little [78:06] better than normal because I think a lot [78:08] of investors have seen this movie before [78:11] you know international comes back it has [78:13] like a good six months it's a short film [78:14] really and then all of a sudden the cues [78:16] is like that bus meme [78:18] >> and they got to see more but there has [78:20] been some movement to like Epha IFA a [78:23] little bit but not a ton most of the [78:25] money if I look at flows like year to [78:27] date I'll give you the top five is VU [78:29] spym VTI and then VXUS S is [78:33] international. [78:34] >> SPYM. [78:34] >> Spy M. Hm. [78:35] >> Oh, SpyM. By the way, you'll love this. [78:37] >> It's the cheaper spy. [78:39] >> Yes. It's a It's the offspring of SPY [78:42] that is basically been programmed to [78:44] avenge [78:45] >> IMG. [78:46] >> No, it's it's because VU knocked off SPY [78:49] as the biggest ETF in the world. And you [78:51] know, State Street was like, and I took [78:53] that personally. [78:53] >> Yeah. [78:54] >> So, so they basically lowered SPY MVP to [78:56] two bips [78:58] >> and they changed the index. [78:59] >> It's getting inflows. [79:00] >> Oh my god. Yeah. At one point in this [79:02] year, it had more than VU. I've never [79:04] seen VU more not more money in it. More [79:07] inflows. [79:07] >> More inflows. [79:08] >> Okay. [79:08] >> But the asset chart is like this. It's [79:10] parabolic. [79:11] >> State Street's like State Street's like, [79:13] "Oh, yeah." [79:14] >> Yeah. [79:15] >> Well, you know, if you're allocating 500 [79:16] million, a billion, a basis point, No, [79:18] basis point matters, [79:19] >> guys. That's what I'm saying. Like a lot [79:20] of people, if it's the same thing, [79:21] they'll just sort by fee, [79:22] >> right? [79:23] >> So, the power of one basis point when it [79:25] comes to cheap beta, that's why you [79:26] don't want any part of cheap beta. Like, [79:28] imagine competing there. how brutal that [79:30] is. Yeah, that's why that white line [79:32] goes straight up because who can who [79:34] wants to deal with that? [79:35] >> All right, more in the lightning round. [79:36] Are you surprised or maybe you're not [79:38] surprised [79:40] >> by the almost complete non- effect of [79:44] the popularity of custom and direct [79:46] indexing on flows to ETFs because this [79:50] was a thing people in the ETF land were [79:52] worried about like a couple years ago. [79:53] >> You were never worried, not me. You were [79:55] not worried about Thank you for [79:56] acknowledging that. All right. But but [79:58] like [79:58] >> I was skeptical before it was cool. [80:00] >> I was also skeptical ESG before it was [80:02] cool. [80:02] >> How did you know that custom and direct [80:04] indexing would not have an impact on the [80:07] size of the ETF market? [80:09] >> Simple. Everything seems to be going [80:12] towards cheap and simple. These were [80:14] going towards they're more expensive and [80:17] they're more complicated. [80:18] >> Right? [80:18] >> Then they also they're active in a way. [80:21] Uh so forget the active passive. I used [80:23] to say cheap simple passive but active [80:25] is more embrace. So, I cut I killed the [80:27] passive. But the idea that you would [80:30] want to go from like one light item to [80:32] like 4,000, I get the tax advantage, but [80:35] that does run out. And I think just in [80:36] general, people like simplicity. I do [80:39] think there's a niche uh purpose for [80:42] them for high net worth. [80:43] >> It's pretty big. The custom indexing is [80:45] pretty big. [80:45] >> Yeah. But what's pretty big to you? [80:47] >> I think it's the money is not coming out [80:49] of ETFs only into [80:51] >> It's not affects. But how big is the [80:52] custom index in the world? Do we know? [80:54] >> I was never bearish. Totally. I was [80:56] bearish versus the hype. [80:57] >> I'm going to guess I'm going to guess [80:58] it's uh I'm going to guess it's close to [81:00] a trillion. [81:01] >> Yeah. Let's say it's a trillion, right? [81:02] So, that would be like 1.2% of all fund [81:06] assets. [81:06] >> Wow. Yeah. [81:07] >> So, I said it would be lower than, you [81:09] know, maybe 2 or 3% tops. Yeah. So, I'm [81:12] even saying it will grow a little. [81:14] >> I just find it to be like very [81:15] specialty. To to me it was [81:16] >> it's for advisors [81:17] >> to direct indexing. Um what the hell is [81:20] that thing called where you ride around [81:22] um [81:23] >> Vespa? [81:24] >> No, wait. You stand up on it. [81:25] >> Oh. [81:28] Um, what is this? It's called a segway. [81:30] >> Segue. So, direct indexing is the segue [81:33] on the segway. I was wrong. [81:34] >> Yeah. It was supposed to revolutionize [81:36] transportation. It's used by mall cops. [81:38] >> You were bullish on the segway. [81:39] >> I was [laughter] [81:40] Bill Gates was I mean, didn't all these [81:42] big [81:42] >> Everybody was. There were people that [81:44] saw the prototype [81:46] >> and they said this is going to [81:47] [laughter] force entire cities to [81:50] redesign themselves [81:52] >> and then it didn't. That's direct [81:54] indexing. [81:54] >> That's hilarious. [81:55] >> But it is used by mall cops and city [81:56] tours, so it does have some use. [81:59] >> Okay. [81:59] >> Ben and I were segueing around DC the [82:01] other day. It's great. I love it. [82:02] >> Yeah. No, like like I said, it's it [82:04] exists, but the hype was way too much. [82:06] >> All right. Last last but not least, uh [82:09] Jaylen Brunson. [82:11] >> Uh under or over 26 and a half points [82:13] tonight. [82:14] >> Uh tomorrow night. [82:15] >> Tomorrow night. Under. [82:16] >> Well, this will be air. [82:17] >> We're going to grind you. [82:18] >> Are you going? Come come to the game. [82:20] Paul. Yeah, we're going. Paul Paul [82:22] George over under 16 and a half [82:26] >> over. [82:27] >> He better or else you're not even [82:28] >> He's going to shut the bed tomorrow. He [82:29] was hot last night. At least in the [82:31] first half. [82:31] >> He's good because he knows he's the [82:33] third fourth option. He's like really He [82:35] I thought he was going to be bad. I I [82:37] underrated his ability to [82:39] >> uh uh [82:40] >> he's got a smooth jump shot. [82:41] >> Barry Nick's - 105. 76 was - 115. [82:46] >> You're a fan. You can't bet. [82:48] >> Well, this [82:50] is kind of a must win. We're at home [82:52] >> kind of. [82:52] >> If we don't win this, it's probably [82:54] over. [82:55] >> Uh, listen. [laughter] [82:57] >> It'd be well. [82:58] >> You hate that I say probably. You want [82:59] me You want me to just like die now, [83:01] don't you? [83:01] >> No, dude. I'm not I'm not a cocky Nick [83:04] Knicks fan. You guys just don't have the [83:05] guys. You're You don't have the bench. [83:06] So, [83:07] >> you you you know, you have this guy [83:08] McBride. He's like your seventh guy [83:11] >> at the [83:11] >> He'd play 25 minutes for you. [83:13] >> I I know, but that's what I'm saying. [83:14] >> No, 40 minutes for you. [83:15] >> This effing guy. [83:17] >> Yeah. [83:17] >> At the worst time, he hits like a shot. [83:20] He could do that. Yeah. [83:21] >> And and you have [83:22] >> hit a corner a corner three anytime [83:24] anytime he does that the crowd gets so [83:26] hyped. [83:27] >> So you have that extra guy that seventh [83:30] man in him that is we don't have and [83:32] that could be the edge. But keep in mind [83:36] I think Tyrese Maxi has underwhelmed. [83:39] He's better than he's playing. [83:40] >> Still so young that he's going to be [83:41] great. [83:42] >> He looks like he's going to be great. [83:43] >> No great. [83:44] >> They can't use him for that many minutes [83:46] though and wonder why he can't play [83:48] defense in the fourth quarter. [83:49] >> Yeah. I don't think the NBA teams came [83:50] out yet, but he'll be third team, I [83:52] think. [83:53] >> Like I said, we beat the hated Celtics. [83:56] >> You did [83:56] >> for America. [83:57] >> Yeah. [83:58] >> And we exercised the big demon. [83:59] >> We heard all that. Eric, ladies and Hey, [84:02] Jeff. [84:02] >> I feel fine. It's okay if we lose. [84:04] >> Did you have fun on the show today? [84:05] >> I did. Always. [84:07] >> All right. What's the name of your [84:08] Bitcoin book? Both sides of the coin. [84:10] >> Yeah. [84:10] >> All right. Are we promoting that yet or [84:12] it's too early? [84:13] >> Um, [84:13] >> the pre-order is available. [84:14] >> You can pre- No, not yet. [84:16] >> Okay. When is it coming out? um late [84:18] October, early November. [84:18] >> Come back and talk about it. [84:19] >> I would. Yeah, Mike is in the boat. [84:22] Okay. [84:22] >> I quoted about 40 people and Mike is [84:25] >> Mike's quotes are the best. [84:26] >> Would you lose my phone number? [84:28] >> I I [84:29] >> I wouldn't want to be in it. [84:30] >> I quote Well, you were on the top of the [84:32] Bogle book. I I go around the horn when [84:34] it comes to your shop. [84:35] >> I have nothing. I honestly [84:36] >> Barry was all over Bogle, too. [84:37] >> I know less about Bitcoin. I know [84:39] absolutely nothing. So, [84:40] >> I said I like Michael because of the [84:41] spike pointer. [84:42] >> All right. Well, the audience [84:44] appreciates it's unbelievable your [84:46] encyclopedic knowledge about asset [84:49] management, ETFs. You really I mean it's [84:51] really a pleasure to have you here. So, [84:53] I want to say thank you on behalf of the [84:55] audience for coming by. We will have you [84:57] back this fall when the book comes out. [84:59] Uh we want to thank all of you out there [85:00] in Compound Land, all the pounders. [85:02] Thank you guys so much for listening, [85:04] for watching. [85:06] If you want to leave a review on [85:08] Spotify, Apple, YouTube, today would be [85:10] a good day to do that. What do you guys [85:12] think? John Duncan. Yeah. [85:14] >> Perfect day. [85:14] >> Perfect day. Go ahead and do that. Our [85:17] special thanks to Eric Bunes. Guys, [85:19] we'll talk to you soon. Thanks again for [85:20] watching. Thank you for listening [85:22] tonight. [music] [85:28] [music]