SpaceX IPO Caps Nasdaq Weighting as Yield Un-Inversion Signals Curve Normal

SpaceX IPO纳指权重受限，收益率曲线倒挂结束释放正常化信号 收益率曲线正常化和5%的初始债券收益率反映出经济健康而非迫在眉睫的衰退，尽管高利率对更广泛的房地产活动构成了抑制。 主持人Michael Batnick与Ben Carlson深入分析了核心市场动态，包括SpaceX提交S-1文件的财务影响、30年期国债收益率走高，以及收益率曲线从倒挂转向正常化的转变。他们剖析了消费者情绪中的心理脱节现象，探讨了Jeff Bezos关于免除收入处于后50%人群所得税的提议，并将人工智能的迅速普及与加密货币动能的减弱进行了对比。节目最后还探讨了住房人口结构与房屋翻新趋势，并穿插了轻松的个人趣闻和媒体评价。 SpaceX 的 S-1 文件披露其总营收为 187 亿美元，净亏损 49 亿美元；Starlink 的 ARPU 从 99 美元下滑至 66 美元，主要是由于快速向低价位家庭与移动网络市场扩张所致。 (5:26) 针对即将到来的超级 IPO 浪潮，Nasdaq 100 启用了修改后的流通股上限规则，将低流通股股票的指数权重上限限制为其流通股数的 3 倍，以防范被动指数基金承受极端失真风险。 (12:41) 收益率曲线结束倒挂反映了基准经济增长与通胀的良性回归，并非必然的衰退信号；虽然历史上加息周期中股市整体大多收涨，但几乎每次都会伴随至少 10% 的回调。 (17:39) 原油价格在飙升至每桶 120 美元后回落至 96 美元附近，打破了市场一度看涨至 200 美元的恐慌预测，展现了资本市场吸收地缘政治冲击的自我调节能力。 (24:47)

Ben Carlson and Michael Batnick argue that the recent surge in global bond yields represents a healthy normalization rather than an economic crisis, while analyzing how looming mega-IPOs, rapid AI deployment, and persistent consumer pessimism are reshaping market expectations. Rate Normalization Replaces Yield Curve Panic (17:39) Energy investor John Arnold recently warned of a neglected 'fire alarm' as 30-year government bond yields surged vertically across the US, UK, France, and Japan. While the un-inversion of the yield curve has historically preceded economic recessions under Campbell Harvey's framework, Carlson rejects the panic, characterizing the move as a long-overdue normalization. Long-term yields are naturally rising to compensate for inflation, volatility, and stronger baseline economic growth, supported by research from Warren Pies projecting 18% forward S&P 500 sales growth over 24 months, roughly aligning with 6% annualized nominal GDP growth. Although 7% mortgage rates continue to burden consumers, the hosts note that starting Treasury yields near 5% historically predict solid forward returns for fixed-income portfolios. Net equity performance during sustained rising rate regimes since 1950 has also remained positive overall. However, Batnick cautions that nearly every historical rising-rate cycle involved an equity correction of at least 10%, though Carlson notes that equities may have already absorbed the brunt of that shock during the 2022–2023 rate adjustment. Mega-IPO Supply and Valuation Pressures (5:26) Financial analyst Paul Kedrosky warned that an impending wave of trillion-dollar-plus IPOs—including SpaceX, OpenAI, and Anthropic—threatens to overwhelm market liquidity by forcing passive funds to clear massive portfolio space. SpaceX’s filed S-1 reports a $4.9 billion net loss on $18.7 billion in consolidated revenue, supporting an implied valuation between $1.75 trillion and $1.8 trillion. While skeptics highlight that Tesla generates five times more revenue and dismiss the valuation as exit liquidity, supporters anticipate rapid future growth across global satellite coverage and AI integrations. Addressing scrutiny over Starlink’s blended ARPU falling from $99 to $66 over three years, Batnick references analysis by Om Malik showing that the metric was diluted not by weakness, but by rapid mass-market residential expansion away from initial high-margin tiers like aviation ($12,500–$25,000 monthly) and maritime ($250–$5,000 monthly). Furthermore, the Nasdaq 100’s revised 15-day fast-track rules curb low-float distortions by capping an entrant's index weight at three times its publicly available float, ensuring a $30 billion float would be capped at a $90 billion index weighting rather than the firm's total multi-trillion valuation. Persistent Pessimism Amidst Asset Wealth Divergence (27:31) Despite low unemployment and solid output, the University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment Index dropped to historic lows, sinking below levels seen during the 2008 financial crisis and 1970s stagflation. Citing Annie Lowrey’s reporting in *The Atlantic*, Carlson attributes this disconnect to high cumulative inflation, poor housing affordability, and algorithmic doom-scrolling, which entrench a 'perma-cession' mindset where consumers feel their personal finances are sound but view the overall economy as failing. This psychological fracture coincides with acute wealth visibility. Total US household holdings in stocks and mutual funds stand at $58 trillion, outstripping $48 trillion in real estate. While roughly two-thirds of Americans own homes and stocks, those without asset ownership face constant digital exposure to accumulated wealth. Discussing tax reform, Jeff Bezos endorsed eliminating federal income taxes for the bottom 50% of earners, who contribute roughly 3% of federal income tax receipts; however, Batnick and Carlson point out that such policies risk codifying class warfare and creating an onerous benefit cliff at the 51st percentile. Accelerating AI Deployment Versus Crypto Stagnation (36:24) Technology analyst Benedict Evans reports that OpenAI has scaled to 900 million weekly active users with only 5% currently paying, demonstrating that broader enterprise and consumer adoption remains in its infancy. While cryptocurrency long promised to run invisibly in the background of everyday commerce, AI has achieved that integration across major tech ecosystems while absorbing the engineering talent that once fueled the crypto sector. In contrast, crypto's consumer adoption has stalled amid executive turnover, regulatory delays for tokenized securities, and prominent divestments like Mark Cuban's. Countering mainstream technological pessimism, Jeff Bezos argues that generative AI will drive worker productivity higher, generating substantial economic growth, lower consumer prices, and widespread labor shortages rather than mass structural unemployment. Nevertheless, the hosts observe near-term friction in AI adoption, particularly the rapid proliferation of automated, synthetic marketing emails that damage professional correspondence norms. While higher baseline yields and generative AI present structural long-term productivity drivers, financial markets face short-term friction from mega-IPO supply absorption, persistent consumer sentiment distortions, and inevitable equity volatility within a rising-rate regime.

Ben Carlson 与 Michael Batnick 在本期节目中指出，全球长期国债收益率攀升与收益率曲线解倒挂实为健康的正常化过程，而非必然预示衰退。他们同时剖析了万亿美元超级 IPO 的被动配置吸水效应、大众悲观情绪与实际财富数据的割裂，以及人工智能对加密货币创新地位的全面替代。 利率“火警”与收益率曲线正常化 (17:39) 针对能源投资人 John Arnold 警告美、英、法、日 30 年期国债收益率垂直拉升是“被忽视的火警”，Ben Carlson 反驳了收益率曲线解倒挂必然触发衰退的传统观点。他认为，短端利率回落叠加长端利率抬升属于健康的曲线正常化，反映出市场对长期名义增长与通胀中枢的重新定价，而非预示经济崩溃；Warren Pies 的测算也显示标普 500 指数未来 24 个月预期销售增长达 18%，对应约 6% 的名义 GDP 年化增速。Michael Batnick 则指出，市场参与者并未忽视风险，而是对利率变动的急促速度深感担忧。 尽管 7% 的房贷利率重创信贷需求，但约 5% 的国债初始收益率显著增厚了固收资产的远期确定性回报。回顾 1950 年以来的持续升息环境，美股虽多数录得正回报，但除 1994 年外每次均出现至少 10% 的回撤。高盛数据显示，标普 500 回报与 10 年期美债绝对收益率档位并无直接相关性，资产重定价的速度与斜率远比利率绝对高低关键。 超级IPO浪潮与SpaceX指数机制 (5:26) 科技分析师 Paul Kedrosky 预测 SpaceX、OpenAI 和 Anthropic 等万亿美元巨头的上市潮将向二级市场倾泻海量股权供给，迫使被动基金抽离现有持仓以腾挪资金，但 Ben 认为全球财富体量足以消化新增流动性。针对 SpaceX 提交的 S-1 文件，Axios 报道指出其 187 亿美元营收对应 49 亿美元净亏损，而约 1.75 万亿至 1.8 万亿美元的估值引来质疑。然而 Om Malik 分析显示，Starlink 每用户平均收入（ARPU）三年内从 99 美元降至 66 美元，主因是高客单价的企业客户结构被海量大众住宅与手机直连用户稀释，并不代表基本面恶化。 针对超大规模发行，纳斯达克 100 指数设立了 15 天快速纳入通道，但同时将样本权重上限锁定为自由流通市值的 3 倍。若 SpaceX 公开流通盘仅为 300 亿美元，其在指数内的计价上限为 900 亿美元，从而在被动基金建仓 4% 至 5% 权重的过程中平抑极端挤压风险。 情绪指标失灵与贫富能见度的撕裂 (27:31) 密歇根大学消费者信心指数跌破 2008 年金融危机与 1970 年代滞胀期低位，Annie Lowrey 在《大西洋月刊》将其概括为公众抗拒承认境况好转的“永久衰退感”。社交媒体在后疫情时期将通胀痛感无限放大，导致宏观民调与微观现实脱节：公众在宏观层面极度悲观，但在微观层面却对自身财务状况表达出满意。 美国家庭持有股票与基金总值高达 58 万亿美元，超过房地产的 48 万亿美元。虽然约三分之二的美国家庭持有房产和证券，但数字媒体无死角展现暴富现象，令无资产群体产生强烈的边缘化落差。Jeff Bezos 在 CNBC 支持免除底层 50% 人口所得税的方案引发争议；虽然该群体仅贡献约 3% 的联邦税收，但彻底豁免所得税不仅可能在法理上加剧阶层标签，更会在第 51 百分位数设立阻碍阶层流动的“福利断崖”。 生成式AI普及与加密货币的失焦 (36:24) Benedict Evans 最新研究指出 OpenAI 周活跃用户已突破 9 亿大关，但付费转化率仅约 5%，反映出商业变现仍处于最初期。与加密货币历经多年仍未能实现“无缝嵌入日常生活”相比，生成式 AI 已无摩擦植入各类软硬件底层，并全面吸纳全球顶尖工程人才；伴随 Mark Cuban 减持比特币及监管阻滞，加密货币在消费级场景的主导窗口正在迅速关闭。 Bezos 坚信 AI 将推动企业效率呈现爆发式增长，从而对商品和服务带来通缩效应，并催生大量新增需求导致用工荒，而非普遍失业。与技术演化同步，传播介质也在重构：Meta 旗下竖屏 Reels 的单一业务营收已反超 Netflix 整体流媒体收入，促使内容巨头全面转向竖屏分发。 房屋修缮繁荣的虚实与人口学逻辑 (40:40) 市场常将高锁死房贷利率推导为住宅翻修热潮，Michael 指出这纯属“分母陷阱”：翻修占建筑业比重上升仅因新房开工暴跌。Home Depot、Lowe's 及 Whirlpool 财报均显示实际修缮开支年增仅 2% 左右，家电出货严重受挫。尽管部分机构因美国大部分住宅楼龄超 55 年而抄底从高点暴跌 65% 的建材零售商 Floor & Decor，但短期交易量依然处于冰封期。 从中长期看，人口结构正在酝酿更确定的换代需求。Redfin 数据显示，66% 的婴儿潮一代在当前居所居住超 15 年，40% 的业主居住超 20 年。随着老龄业主在未来 15 至 20 年内离场，年轻买家为迎合现代居住审美将不得不进行深度翻新，长周期住宅改造需求有望在利率实质松动后逐步释放。 本期讨论表明，资产端资产价格与被动资金的刚性流动，同社会端蔓延的情绪低谷形成了深刻对立。投资者面临的核心未决问题在于：长端利率曲线迅速陡峭化是否最终会传导至股市诱发至少 10% 的结构性回撤，以及衰退预期何时才能脱离网络算法驱动的焦虑放大器。

## Background 本期视频由 YouTube 频道 The Compound 于 2026 年 6 月 13 日发布，属于播客栏目《Animal Spirits》的第 466 期。节目简介显示，主持人 Michael Batnick 与 Ben Carlson 在本期探讨了 SpaceX 的 IPO 与指数被动接盘争议、长端美债收益率攀升、地缘政治与油价定价、彻底失真的消费者信心指数、贝佐斯免税倡议、AI 与加密货币的命运分化、全美房屋老化催生的翻新潮，以及生活育儿与影视书单推荐等丰富话题。 ## TL;DR 两位主持人首先深入剖析了 SpaceX 上市招股书背后的估值争议，以及纳斯达克 100 指数快速纳入机制可能引发的被动买盘博弈；随后针对市场对长端美债收益率上升的恐慌，指出曲线解除倒挂本质上是向名义增长环境的合理正常化，无需盲目悲观。节目还探讨了密歇根消费者信心指数在社交媒体负面情绪放大下的失真现象，以及加密货币因缺乏杀手级消费场景而将风口彻底让渡给生成式 AI 的现实。最后，两人结合美国家庭房屋老龄化的客观数据，论证了家装翻新产业链长达数十年的结构性刚需，并分享了减肥神药、体检抗衰与轻松的生活趣事。 ## Atmosphere & style 整期节目洋溢着轻松幽默且极具默契的“老友畅聊”氛围，两位主持人把严肃的宏观金融、资本运作与日常育儿、老派父母的搞笑习惯无缝编织在一起。Michael 坦率真性情、经常自嘲与吐槽，而 Ben 则以冷静克制的历史数据和常识视角适时制衡，两人插科打诨的斗嘴令人忍俊不禁。听感既充实接地气又毫无学术说教的沉重感，宛如坐在阳光明媚的后院里听两位资深老手一边喝着可乐，一边用老爹式的豁达智慧消解市场的狂热与焦虑。 ## Bulletin - [06:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoOlz07Y8mk&t=400s) SpaceX 提交 S-1 招股书，合并营收约 187 亿美元但净亏损达 49 亿美元；纳斯达克 100 指数破例修改规则拟在上市 15 天后将其火速纳入，并设立了上限为流通市值 3 倍的修正权重规则。 - [17:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoOlz07Y8mk&t=1067s) 美债收益率曲线解除倒挂引发衰退担忧，但主持人认为这属于告别非正常低息环境的“利率正常化”，只要 10 年期美债收益率未持续有效突破 5%，无需过度恐慌。 - [27:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoOlz07Y8mk&t=1651s) 密歇根大学消费者信心指数跌至 1950 年创设以来的历史最低水平，但美国家庭股票基金资产与房产总值分别高达 58 万亿与 48 万亿美元，宏观悲观情绪与微观个人资产状况出现极度撕裂。 - [53:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoOlz07Y8mk&t=3226s) 礼来三靶点减肥药 Retatrutide 三期临床试验展现惊人疗效，在 12mg 剂量下受试者 80 周内平均减重 28.3%（约 70 磅），减重效果已逼近传统外科减重手术。 ## Key takeaways - [05:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoOlz07Y8mk&t=326s) 针对万亿级超级 IPO 扎堆上市可能抽血二级市场的担忧，主持人认为市场流动性具有自我调节机制，将此类里程碑视为见顶信号往往是过度解读。 - [08:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoOlz07Y8mk&t=537s) Starlink 的 ARPU 从 99 美元滑落至 66 美元并非需求崩溃，而是其客户结构正从高单价的海运与航空 B 端客户向海量普通消费级用户下沉的必然结果。 - [12:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoOlz07Y8mk&t=758s) 纳斯达克 100 破例为 SpaceX 设立 15 天快速纳入条款引发了为内部人提供散户接盘流动性的争议，但极低的可流通筹码与强制被动买盘可能在短期催生剧烈轧空式暴涨。 - [15:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoOlz07Y8mk&t=938s) 历史颠覆性案例（如 Netflix、Amazon、Google）表明，传统巨头在股价崩盘初期其每股营收往往仍在增长，当期稳健财报往往具有欺骗性，使 AI 时代的价值陷阱极难甄别。 - [17:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoOlz07Y8mk&t=1067s) 收益率曲线解除倒挂是长端利率匹配久期风险与名义 GDP 增长的健康回归，过去 15 年的极度低息环境本属反常，现代市场波动速度加快并不代表系统正在崩溃。 - [21:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoOlz07Y8mk&t=1285s) 10 年期美债初始收益率是未来年化长期回报的可靠锚点，目前约 5% 的无风险票息对收益型投资者极具吸引力，历史数据显示股市在加息周期大多能消化利率成本并取得正收益。 - [24:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoOlz07Y8mk&t=1487s) 原油价格在冲突爆发暴涨突破 120 美元后迅速回落，而股市和加密货币在当时反应迟钝，印证了金融市场的庞大集体智慧往往在危机第一天就给出了冷静且正确的定价。 - [27:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoOlz07Y8mk&t=1651s) 社交媒体的信息茧房与全天候负面放大效应彻底搞垮了密歇根消费者信心指数，受访者自身收支良好却坚信国家经济处于崩溃边缘，使其彻底丧失了宏观晴雨表的功能。 - [32:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoOlz07Y8mk&t=1932s) 贝佐斯免除收入后 50% 人群个税的提议虽然在税收端仅损失 3%，但会在第 51 百分位人群形成剧烈的边际断崖效应，并在体制上法定化纳税人与受益者的阶级撕裂。 - [36:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoOlz07Y8mk&t=2184s) 加密货币兜售多年的“无感后台基础设施”愿景至今未在大众消费端落地，而生成式 AI 正在以惊人速度被整合进软硬件，且全球最顶级的人才储备正全面转向 AI 阵营。 - [38:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoOlz07Y8mk&t=2338s) 面对 AI 泡沫论，主持人认为当下资本炒作虽有泡沫，但商业化落地仍处于第一局上半；同时贝佐斯关于 AI 驱动通缩并最终催生新需求引发劳动力短缺的乐观视角极具说服力。 - [43:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoOlz07Y8mk&t=2605s) 全美住宅绝大多数房龄已超 55 年，且三分之二的婴儿潮一代留守原址超过 15 年；在超低房贷利率锁定和代际置业交接的推动下，老旧房屋翻新将迎来长达 15 到 20 年的超级需求周期。 - [46:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoOlz07Y8mk&t=2767s) 便利性胜过视听体验：Meta 仅凭 Reels 单一竖屏视频业务所创造的营收就超越了 Netflix 全公司，印证了科技巨头内部单一超级业务线具备单挑独立上市巨头的惊人实力。 - [49:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoOlz07Y8mk&t=2968s) 好莱坞长篇历史巨著“老爹书”销量大幅萎缩，且《曼达洛人与古古》票房虽平稳但缺乏内容突破，反映出数字碎片化时代受众耐心的瓦解以及经典 IP 价值被流水线过度榨干的困局。 ## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoOlz07Y8mk&t=0s) Cullen Capital 赞助与 DIVP 收益策略 节目开场由 Cullen Capital 赞助播出，重点介绍了其旗下推出的主动型 ETF 产品 DIVP（Cullen Enhanced Equity Income ETF）。绝大多数传统的收益型策略往往迫使投资者在当期收益率与长期资本增值之间做出非此即彼的妥协；许多备兑看涨期权策略会在整个投资组合上全额卖出看涨期权，从而锁死了每个月的上行收益空间。 DIVP 采取了截然不同的运作思路： - 策略性地仅对持仓中约 20% 至 40% 的标的覆盖期权； - 剩余 60% 至 80% 的投资组合完全保留资本增值的全额上涨空间； - 区别于在宽基指数上机械覆盖，DIVP 将该策略集中运用于精选的高质量、大盘价值型优质股票组合上。 --- ### [00:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoOlz07Y8mk&t=44s) 尼克斯狂热：体育狂热与金钱的博弈 节目正式开始，Ben Carlson 调侃搭档 Michael Batnick 最近两个月的衣着，指出 Michael 身上 90% 的行头都换成了纽约尼克斯队（New York Knicks）的周边，俨然成了不可救药的铁杆死忠粉。Michael 感慨万千，几乎热泪盈眶地坦言，自己从七八岁起就跟着父亲一起去现场看球，这份情结已深植骨髓。尽管体育赛事常常被戏谑为纯粹的“时间黑洞”与精神折磨——日常充满了无休止的痛苦与沮丧，唯有极偶尔的胜利才点缀着片刻欣喜——但正是这种狂热构成了父子间、朋友间最牢固的情感纽带。 Ben 随即把话题引向个人财务决策的灵魂拷问：作为拥有季票的忠实观众，如果有人出巨资买断你的总决赛门票，你会如何抉择？Michael 详尽拆解了季票持有者的账本： - **季票原价阶梯**：第一轮面值仅 $350，次轮升至 $580，分区决赛 $750，而打入总决赛面值则为 $1,350； - **二级市场溢价**：无论是官方转售平台 Ticketmaster，还是第三方票务平台 TickPick，二手票价早已炒成天文数字。 Michael 透露他们已经在玩“做波段”式的套利：此前对阵克利夫兰骑士队（Cavs）的第 5 场（虽然后续骑士被横扫而未能开打），他们曾以约 $2,200 卖掉原本的好位置，转而在 200 层的看台区以 $900 买入更靠后的座次，不仅能进场看球，还净赚 $1,000 的“观赛补贴”。而面对总决赛第 4 场，合伙持票的朋友未跟他详细确认便以高达 $4,400 的高价直接把票挂售出去了。Michael 哭笑不得地表示，如果球队面临 0-3 落后，这绝对是载入史册的神级抛售，但如果战况胶着，他就不得不承受再次高价买票进场的巨大焦虑。他甚至已经未雨绸缪地抢购了去圣安东尼奥（乃至备选俄克拉荷马城）的客场第 5 战门票。 --- ### [05:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoOlz07Y8mk&t=326s) 超级 IPO 浪潮：资金面抽血危机还是伪命题？ 话题转向资本市场备受瞩目的 IPO 动态。知名科技投资人 Paul Kedrosky 近期撰文抛出一个犀利观点：随着 OpenAI、Anthropic 以及 SpaceX 等估值均有望达到甚至超越万亿美元的超级巨无霸在数月内扎堆上市，市场将面临严峻的“数学算术题”。如此巨量的增量股权供给必须有接盘资金，其主要来源势必是对现有股票持仓的被动减持与抽血；更关键的是，这类巨头一旦按特殊机制火速纳入各大基准指数，被动指数基金将被迫巨额买入，这极有可能成为整个市场见顶的标志。 对于这种“资金从哪来”的顶背离担忧，Ben 表现得十分不屑。他指出，过去十年来市场上总有悲观论调在问“钱从哪里来”，但现实是社会财富总量处于历史高点，“钱从来都会自己找到出路”。将某个象征性的里程碑事件直接武断定性为周期顶点，是典型的“聪明反被聪明误”。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 超级 IPO 供给冲击与被动投资逻辑 accDescr: 展示超大型科技独角兽上市后对二级市场资金分配和指数再平衡的传导机制 subgraph MegaIPOs["万亿级超级 IPO 供给潮"] A["OpenAI / Anthropic / SpaceX 扎堆上市"] end subgraph MarketImpact["流动性与资金挪移 (Kedrosky 观点)"] B["股权供给暴增: 资金池面临分流"] C["存量资产再平衡: 减持现有持仓以腾出头寸"] end subgraph PassiveFlows["指数被动配置机制"] D["快速纳入核心指数 (S&P 500 / 纳指等)"] E["指数基金被迫机械化建仓买入"] end A --> B B --> C A --> D D --> E ``` --- ### [06:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoOlz07Y8mk&t=400s) SpaceX S-1 文件初窥：估值争议与两极分化的叙事 随着 SpaceX 递交 S-1 招股书，市场的聚光灯对准了其复杂的商业现实与财务指标。媒体头条迅速盯上了 Starlink（星链）每用户平均收入（ARPU）出现下滑的现象。Ben 与 Michael 探讨了当代互联网信息消费的病态——绝大多数人只看骇人听闻的标题，鲜有人真正沉下心去精读几十页的报告与历史脉络。Ben 援引知名科技博主 Om Malik（著有《Broadband Bandits》）对星链 ARPU 异动的专业拆解，批判了快餐式的媒体解读。 Axios 披露的这组财务数据随即在节目中被重点审视： - **巨额亏损**：SpaceX 录得约 $187 亿的合并营收，但净亏损高达 $49 亿； - **对比标尺**：标普 500 指数中有整整 200 家公司的年度营收高于 SpaceX；同属马斯克旗下的特斯拉（Tesla），其年销售额足足是 SpaceX 的 5 倍之多。 Ben 指出，SpaceX 的 IPO 必将催生两套截然相反、却各自极具说服力的市场叙事： 1. **冷酷空头叙事**：一家一年净亏损近 50 亿美元、营收规模不如半数传统 500 强企业的公司，凭什么配得上 $1.8 万亿美元的估值？这分明是资本击鼓传花的出逃流动性陷阱； 2. **狂热多头叙事**：太空基建、全球卫星通信网络与 AI 算力在轨延伸等具有无法估量的指数级增长空间，短期利润亏损根本无足轻重。 Michael 与 Ben 一针见血地评价道，尽管在资深投资人眼里，单拿“估值太高”说事显得极其懒惰，但对大众投资者和各大财经媒体而言，“摆出刺眼的估值数字”永远听起来无比专业且难以反驳。这两派势力的激烈交锋，注定将贯穿 SpaceX 的上市之路。 ### [08:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoOlz07Y8mk&t=537s) Starlink ARPU 暴跌的真相：用户结构的大幅转变 讨论紧接上一部分关于 SpaceX 财务指标的争议展开。市场上充斥着针对其亏损和巨额估值的惊呼，但 Michael Batnick 和 Ben Carlson 指出，很多只看表面数字的人根本没有深入研究业务底层逻辑，就如同许多脱离实际、只会死板引用历史数字的宏观分析师一样懒惰。在“这简直是 2 万亿美元的史上最蠢笑话”与“它正在彻底改变世界”这两个极端光谱之间，Ben 坦言自己更偏向后者，尽管他打趣说自己采取了“大急流城式对冲”（Grand Rapids hedging）——即看好其颠覆性但目前并不打算直接下注买入股票。 科技博主 Om Malik 的深度剖析揭示了 Starlink（星链）看似惊悚的 ARPU（每用户平均收入）下滑的真实原因。Starlink 本质上是部署在太空中的卫星宽带，为此前极难接入互联网的偏远地区提供全球连接。Ben 笑称，只要它能彻底改善机舱内的 Wi-Fi 体验，对自己来说就完全值了。Starlink 早期高昂的 ARPU 是由高价值的 B 端客户撑起的： - **海运终端（Maritime）**：油轮、货轮、海上石油钻井平台每月支付 250 至 5,000 美元，且在公海上毫无其他替代方案。 - **航空终端（Aviation）**：商用客机终端每月的费用高达 12,500 至 25,000 美元。 - **消费级住宅用户（Consumer Residential）**：当下用户爆发式增长的主力，收费最低，且在北美以外的海外市场对价格极其敏感。 - **直连手机业务（Direct to Cell）**：通过与各大电信运营商合作推出的卫星直连手机服务，每位用户贡献的订阅收入仅为一小部分。 正是这种从少数极高端商用客户向海量普通消费者的结构转变，导致 Starlink 的整体 ARPU 在三年内从 99 美元滑落至 66 美元。这并非需求崩溃，而是业务大规模向大众市场下沉的必然结果。 ### [11:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoOlz07Y8mk&t=662s) 高估值 IPO 的前车之鉴与马斯克商业帝国的整合 谈及 SpaceX 上市后的走势，Ben 提出了与 Airbnb 相似的担忧。Airbnb 上市时估值过高，导致其股价在上市后长期横盘整理；同理，Snowflake 上市时市销率（P/S）甚至飙升到了惊人的 100 倍。从历史概率来看，以极高估值买入并持有三年，通常很难获得亮眼的回报。尽管 SpaceX 拥有改变世界的潜能，但当下市场绝大多数交易者根本不在乎三年后的终值折现（DCF），他们只关注未来三周的短期博弈与暴炒。 两人随后探讨了埃隆·马斯克旗下企业的终局形态。目前 SpaceX 旗下已深度整合了 xAI（Grok）等业务，并且据传还在尝试收购 Cursor 代码编辑器（Michael 强调 Cursor 本身并非马斯克创立的公司），加之社交平台 X（原 Twitter），外界普遍好奇特斯拉（Tesla）何时会与这些私营资产彻底合并。Ben 认为，最终将所有公司归拢到同一个庞大集团框架之下，正是马斯克版图的终极宿命。 ### [12:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoOlz07Y8mk&t=758s) 纳斯达克 100 指数的“快速纳入”特例与指数基金接盘争议 SpaceX 上市方案中最具争议的核心，在于纳斯达克 100 指数（Nasdaq 100）破例修改规则，为其量身打造了极速纳入条款。以往新股通常需要经历 3 至 6 个月的所谓“成熟期”（Seasoning period）考验，而新规则允许 SpaceX 在上市仅 15 天后便被纳入指数。这引发了市场的强烈质疑，批评者怒斥这是利用被动指数基金为内部人提供“散户接盘流动性”（Passive exit / Retail liquidity）。 不过，Michael 指出纳斯达克在规则设计上也设立了保护机制： - **低自由流通量（Low Float）**：马斯克及早期核心层持有的大部分股份受到严格控制，并不在公开市场自由流通，公司本身也不打算超量发行新股。 - **三倍流通市值上限**：纳斯达克吸取了以往高内部持股比例 IPO 暴跌的教训，不直接采用其 1.75 万亿美元的全部估值，而是采用了修正市值权重计算，将其在指数中的计入权重上限严格限制为“实际流通市值的 3 倍”。 - **被动买盘与供需失衡**：即使有权重上限，一旦被纳入纳斯达克 100 指数，被动基金预计仍需被迫买入约 4% 至 5% 的仓位（对应的强制买盘预计达数百亿美元甚至更高）。 一边是极度饥渴且庞大的买方群体（包含强制建仓的被动指数资金），另一边是极小的可流通筹码供应，这种金融工程设计极可能引发上市初期的暴涨。两人调侃，如果市值被短期炒到 2.9 万亿美元，市场舆论绝对会彻底疯狂。此外，尽管内部人士在上市首日不得抛售，但本次 IPO 据悉将前所未有地向散户投资者分配极高比例的认购份额。 ### [15:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoOlz07Y8mk&t=938s) AI 颠覆浪潮与价值陷阱：从历史巨头衰落看选股难度 随后话题转向投资机构 Sparkline Capital 创始人 Kai Wu（吴凯）近期撰写的一篇关于“AI 颠覆、护城河与价值陷阱”的研究白皮书。这篇论文深刻揭示了主动选股的残酷与难度。Kai Wu 在文中复盘了商业史上经典的颠覆案例： - **Netflix 颠覆 Blockbuster（百视达）** - **Amazon 颠覆 Borders 连锁书店与 RadioShack** - **Google 颠覆老牌报业巨头 McClatchy** ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 颠覆者与被颠覆企业对比 accDescr: 展示四组颠覆者与被颠覆传统企业的对应关系 subgraph Disruptors ["新兴颠覆力量"] N["Netflix"] A1["Amazon"] A2["Amazon"] G["Google"] end subgraph Victims ["被颠覆传统巨头"] B1["Blockbuster (百视达)"] B2["Borders (连锁书店)"] R["RadioShack (数码零售)"] M["McClatchy (报业出版)"] end N --> B1 A1 --> B2 A2 --> R G --> M ``` 白皮书中最令人不寒而栗的发现是：在这些传统巨头股价断崖式下跌的早期，它们的**每股营收（Revenue per share）往往仍在走平甚至继续增长**。表面上看，它们当期的财报和盈利依然稳健，这极具欺骗性。市场往往早于基本面数年开始定价它们的终局（Terminal Value），直接把它们视作下一个“RadioShack”。Michael 和 Ben 感慨，当下的很多传统软件公司正面临同样的困境：当期业绩看似毫无问题，但随着 AI 的冲击，谁是真正的护城河、谁是致命的“价值陷阱”，在当前时点极难分辨，这也是当下选股极其困难的根源。 期间 Michael 还讲了一段童年趣事：他小时候在纽约和朋友看电影《来到美国》（*Coming to America*）时，街角有一家 RadioShack 门店，由于该店在转角两面墙上各挂了一块招牌，朋友俯瞰镜头时十分困惑地问：“真奇怪，为什么同一个街角要开两家 RadioShack？”引得 Ben 忍俊不禁。 笑谈过后，Ben 将话题引入下一主题：他在上一期节目中曾对利率前景表达了深切担忧，而著名能源对冲基金经理、传奇投资者 John Arnold 近期在 Patrick O'Shaughnessy 的播客中发表的深刻见解，恰好进一步剖析了这一关键宏观问题。 ### [17:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoOlz07Y8mk&t=1067s) 收益率曲线解除倒挂：是火警警报还是回归正常？ 一位非常聪明的业内人士近日发出警告，称债券市场上“火警警报正在狂响，但所有人都在视而不见”，并附上了来自彭博的图表——英国、法国、美国、日本等主要经济体的 30 年期国债收益率几乎全线垂直飙升。针对这种市场焦虑，一位听众给 Ben Carlson 发来邮件提问：许多人注意到美债收益率曲线已经不再倒挂，然而历史上经济衰退往往不是在曲线倒挂时发生，而是在解除倒挂（uninversion）时到来；如今衰退并未如期而至，Campbell Harvey 著名的收益率曲线衰退预测指标是否迎来了历史上的第一次失效？ Ben 对这种悲观情绪直接浇了一盆冷水。他回顾道，当初短端利率高于长端利率发生倒挂时，全市场都在惊呼经济衰退近在眼前，而他们当时就曾提醒大家不必盲目恐慌，因为那只是美联储激进加息人为推高短端利率的结果。如今短端利率回落、长端利率回升，收益率曲线解除倒挂，这根本不是什么灾难先兆，而是利率结构的“正常化”（normalization）。考虑到长期债券承担着远高于短期债券的波动性、利率变动和通胀风险，长端收益率理应高于短端。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Yield Curve Normalization Dynamics accDescr: 解释美债收益率曲线从倒挂走向正常化的市场逻辑与分歧 subgraph Shift["利率形态转变"] A["前期倒挂：联储加息推高短端"] --> B["曲线正常化：短端回落 / 长端抬升"] end subgraph CompetingViews["市场解读分歧"] B --> C["悲观派：解除倒挂即衰退警报"] B --> D["客观派：长端匹配久期风险与经济增长"] end subgraph MacroOutlook["宏观与基本面预期"] D --> E["前瞻销售额与名义 GDP 强劲增长"] D --> F["告别过去15年超低利率的非正常状态"] end ``` 长端利率的走高可能反映出债券市场对高增长、高通胀环境的重新定价。Ben 引用了 Warren Pies 的数据指出，标普 500 指数未来 24 个月的前瞻销售额增速预计达 18%，从历史上看这对应着 12.4% 的名义 GDP 增长（年化约 6%）。过去 15 年极度低息的环境本就反常，市场如今正在寻找新的均衡点。 Michael Batnick 对此表示赞同，并吐槽所谓“所有人都在忽视警报”的说法并不准确，现实中大家反而对利率上升感到过度焦虑。不过，Michael 认为市场的真正担忧不在于健康的利差本身，而在于“利率直线加速上扬的速度”；人们害怕这趟列车停不下来，一路失控冲向 6% 甚至 7%。Ben 则斩钉截铁地打赌绝不可能发生，两人甚至开玩笑引用经典喜剧台词斗嘴： - “时间戳记下来，双重盖章，三重盖章，绝对不可能发生。”（Ben） - “得了吧，你可不能在双重盖章上再加个三重盖章。”（Michael） Ben 强调，现代市场的一切都在加速发生——通胀从 0 飙升到 9、油价从 50 美元崩到负 37 美元、房贷利率瞬间从 3% 窜到 8%，这种惊人的转变速度让投资者无所适从，但“变化剧烈并不代表系统正在崩溃”，大家必须学会适应这种市场新节奏。 --- ### [21:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoOlz07Y8mk&t=1285s) 利率上行的双刃剑：高票息红利与历史回撤阵痛 利率上升自然是一把双刃剑。弊端显而易见，借贷成本剧增，房贷利率再次逼近 7%，对购房者和实体经济造成明显压制；但硬币的另一面却格外诱人。Ben 提到上周他们制作的“Exhibit A 每周一图”，历史数据清晰地表明：10 年期美债的初始收益率是未来年化长期回报极佳的预测指标。现在优质债券能提供大约 5% 的无风险票息，这对收益型投资者而言是极大的利好。 谈到图表，Michael 特别致谢了幕后功臣，盛赞负责图表视觉呈现的“Chart Ken”Mat 极具才华，同时高度评价了 Exhibit A 的创始 CTO 兼系统架构师 Eric，称 Eric 是“大佬背后的大佬”（the guy behind the guy），正是他搭建的底层系统画布才让 Mat 能够尽情挥毫泼墨。 为了验证若利率长期维持在高位会发生什么，Ben 梳理了 1950 年以来历次 10 年期美债收益率持续上升周期中，标普 500 指数的全收益表现与最大回撤： | 历史情境分析 | 标普 500 历史表现特征 | 核心启示与市场反应 | |:--- |:--- |:--- | | **持续升息周期总回报** | 绝大多数时期股市整体录得正收益 | 长期来看经济增长和企业盈利能够消化利率压力 | | **周期内最大回撤** | 除 1994 年外，每次均经历至少 10% 以上回调 | 部分周期伴随极深回撤，Michael 戏称“除了跌 40% 确实没啥好担心的” | | **高盛收益率分档统计** | 0-2%、2-3% 直至 8%+ 各区间标普中位数回报并无显著规律 | 单纯看收益率落在哪个绝对区间毫无预测价值，速度与方向才是关键 | 面对惨烈的历史回撤数据，Michael 调侃道这些图表非但没让人安心，反而像在说“除了股市暴跌 40% 以外一切安好”。不过 Ben 指出，这轮利率跃升周期其实早在 2025 年左右就已经完成，过去很长一段时间市场都处于区间震荡（range-bound）之中。 在技术层面，Ben 提出过去大概有五次 10 年期国债收益率冲触及 5% 关口，随后都引来恐慌并迅速回落，因此在他看到收益率真正站稳并“持续突破 5%”之前，不会轻易拉响警报。Michael 随即形象地用网络模因打比方：就像摇滚老炮 Iggy Pop 和女星 Jennifer Aniston 脸对脸的经典对比梗一样，当利率从底部一路狂飙至 5% 时面目狰狞犹如 Iggy Pop，而当利率从高位缓缓回落至 5% 时却如同 Jennifer Aniston 般令人赏心悦目——“你从哪个方向来、往哪个方向去，体验完全不同”。 --- ### [24:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoOlz07Y8mk&t=1487s) 原油与地缘政治博弈：为什么市场从一开始就看对了？ 话题随后延伸到大宗商品与地缘政治局势的定价反馈。原油价格此时已回落至每桶 96 美元左右，与早前地缘冲突刚爆发时的恐慌情绪形成鲜明对比。 Ben 回忆起他们此前在迈阿密参加 Future Proof 活动晚宴时的情景：当时整个餐桌就像玩传话游戏一样，所有人都在紧张地议论油价暴涨。那一刻油价盘后狂飙约 20%，直接冲破 120 美元大关。彼时华尔街各路极具声望的原油分析师言之凿凿地宣称，油价“必然且别无选择地”会突破每桶 200 美元。然而事实证明，那个恐慌弥漫的夜晚几乎就是本轮油价的最高点。 - “分析师们当时都说油价必冲 200 美元，绝无其他可能，但它就是没有发生。”（Ben） - 市场是否从一开始就对这笔地缘政治账算得很清楚？两人的结论是肯定的。 Michael 回顾了自己在晚宴现场与知名科技分析师 Dan Ives 一起紧盯手机看盘的细节。当时外面风声鹤唳，但他和 Dan Ives 惊讶地发现，比特币价格几乎走平，标普 500 期货仅微跌一块一毛左右。金融市场在面对重大地缘冲突冲击时的反应不仅没有崩盘，甚至表现得异常迟钝。当时他们两人面面相觑，连连感叹“这完全不合逻辑，讲不通啊”；但事后回头看，市场庞大的集体智慧早已提前穿透了恐慌表象，从第一天起就准确地给出了冷静的风险定价。 ### [25:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoOlz07Y8mk&t=1558s) 市场的超前智慧与直接指数化投资 在回顾市场近期面对地缘冲突与突发消息的反应时，迈克尔·巴特尼克（Michael Batnick）与本·卡尔森（Ben Carlson）感慨道，市场最不可思议的地方在于它几乎能立刻做出正确的权衡，而不会陷入过度反应。“市场通常比绝大多数聪明人都要聪明”是一条屡试不爽的投资真理，尽管这一事实往往让人难以打心底接受。 转向本周的投资顾问话题，迈克尔开玩笑称麦克风似乎把自己的脑子搞短路了，连“话题”（topics）这个词都卡了壳。本期“投资者行为”板块虽然在提纲中略显空白，但迈克尔借机推荐了他在播客节目《Talking Wealth》中与布伦特·苏利文（Brent Sullivan）的对话。苏利文在 Substack 上对直接指数化（Direct Indexing）与税收损失收割（Tax-loss Harvesting）的底层税收机制，以及多空策略（Long-Short Strategies）在财富管理工具箱中的应用有极其透彻的分析。《华尔街日报》和彭博社近几个月也相继大篇幅报道了税收管理策略的兴起，两人一致认为，这类策略已在财富管理行业占据越来越核心的地位，未来讨论只会越来越多。 ### [27:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoOlz07Y8mk&t=1651s) 彻底失效的消费者信心指数与“永久性衰退”情绪 密歇根大学消费者信心指数跌破了自 1950 年该指标创立以来的历史最低点，甚至低于 1980 年恶性通胀底部和 2008 年次贷危机时期的读数。针对这一荒谬现象，《大西洋月刊》（The Atlantic）作者安妮·洛瑞（Annie Lowrey）撰文探讨了为何“情绪衰退”（vibecession）已经演变为“永久性衰退”（perma-recession）的感觉。文中一针见血地指出：“人们不再相信经济会好转，甚至不再愿意承认自己其实过得不错。这种根深蒂固的悲观情绪，可能比真正的经济衰退更难治愈。” 两人就这种情绪为何彻底失真展开了激烈交锋。迈克尔认为 20 世纪 70 年代的恶性通胀破坏力极大，当前的高通胀与生活成本攀升固然让大家感到难受；但本坚信核心推手是互联网与社交媒体。在社交媒体的全天候负面放大镜下，人类的心智毫无招架之力，负面情绪被数倍放大并永久固化。哪怕数据在方向上反映出宏观层面的普遍不满，在微观现实中，绝大多数人对自身财务现状的评价其实远好于他们对国家整体经济的悲观预期。无论未来指标是否偶有反弹，作为衡量经济真实热度的温度计，密歇根消费者信心指数在本质上已经“彻底报废”。 - **密歇根大学消费者信心指数**：跌至 1950 年创设以来的历史最低水平，甚至打破了 1980 年与 2008 年金融海啸时期的低点。 - **年轻一代的认知偏差**：社交网络上甚至出现年轻网民认真发问“2008 年真的比现在更糟吗”，折射出缺乏真实经济危机记忆的群体对当下处境的认知扭曲。 - **微观与宏观的撕裂**：绝大多数受访者自身收支状况良好，却坚信国家正在走向深渊，负面新闻与网络算法彻底固化了“国家要完”的思维定势。 ### [31:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoOlz07Y8mk&t=1870s) 58万亿资产繁荣与无处不在的“剥夺感” 美国居民家庭持有的企业股票与共同基金总规模目前已飙升至 58 万亿美元，大幅甩开了价值 48 万亿美元的房地产资产。2020 年代以来罕见的“房市与股市齐飞”，固然让广大资产所有者身家暴涨，却也酿成了全社会心理失衡的根源。在信息完全透明的互联网时代，资产暴涨被无限推到人们眼前，任何未能及时“上车”的人都会产生强烈的挫败感。 颇具讽刺意味的是，美国约有三分之二的人口拥有房产，同样有近三分之二的人口持有股票。现实中许多在社交网络上声嘶力竭抱怨经济崩溃的人，本身就是这波资产暴涨的获利者。他们借着为无资产阶层鸣不平的名义彼此攻讦，本质上更像是一种网络“道德标榜”（virtue signaling）。 - **美国家庭金融资产分布**：股票与基金持有总额达到 58 万亿美元，全美房产总值约 48 万亿美元。 - **资产渗透率**：美国全社会有约三分之二的人口持有股票，约三分之二的人口拥有自住房产，但资产集中度导致未能充分享受红利的人群被剥夺感极强。 ### [32:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoOlz07Y8mk&t=1932s) 贝佐斯的“底层半数免税”提议及其社会撕裂隐忧 亚马逊创始人杰夫·贝佐斯（Jeff Bezos）在社交媒体上公开呼吁，应直接免除美国收入后 50% 人群的所有个人所得税。贝佐斯在 CNBC 专访中阐述其逻辑：底层一半的收入人群所贡献的税收仅占全美个税总额的 3% 左右，但每一分钱对他们个人的生计都至关重要；“把钱放进老百姓口袋最好的方式，就是一开始就别收走它”。 迈克尔与本承认这一倡议在纯理论和理想状态下非常动人——“到底什么样的怪物才会反对给穷人减税？”然而在现实政治与社会层面，这种做法潜藏着巨大的隐患与阶级对立风险： ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 贝佐斯免税提议的影响机制 accDescr: 展示贝佐斯提出的底层半数免税在理论优势与现实社会撕裂风险之间的冲突 subgraph 提议核心 A["贝佐斯提议: 免除底层50%人群个税"] --> B["税收端影响微弱: 仅占个税收入3%"] A --> C["个人端改善显著: 直接提升底层可支配收入"] end subgraph 衍生现实隐忧 C --> D["边际断崖效应: 收入第51百分位人群产生强烈不公感"] B --> E["阶层制度法定化: 制度性确立纳税人与非纳税人界限"] D --> F["阶级对抗加剧: 强化'我们对抗他们'的仇恨情绪"] E --> F end ``` 如果从法律制度上正式将国民划分为“纳税贡献者”与“纯受益群体”，极易在全社会催生一种制度化的种姓断层，激化“我们与他们”（us versus them）的阶级仇恨。此外，该方案会带来严重的边际断崖效应——刚刚脱离底层 50%、处于第 51 百分位边缘的打工人群，会因微小的收入差异而被迫全额纳税，从而引发强烈的不公平感。两位主持人感叹，尽管舆论总在争吵是否该对富人加税，但现实中各阶层的税负似乎只会被想方设法地持续推低。 ### [34:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoOlz07Y8mk&t=2068s) 钻研“兔子洞”与让人尴尬的 AI 邮件 讨论首先从日常的网络探索习惯切入。Michael 和 Ben 调侃道，现在很多人常挂在嘴边的“我顺着这个话题钻了很久的兔子洞（went down a rabbit hole）”，其实 90% 都是在瞎扯——他们根本没有做深入研究，不过是在 Claude 上聊了 20 分钟罢了。借着提到 Claude，Michael 愤怒地分享了一件刚发生在他们团队收件箱里的奇葩事。一位全球知名、图书销量数以百万册计的畅销书作家，竟然给 Ben 发来了一封彻头彻尾由 AI 生成的邮件。 信中的措辞极其生硬虚伪，充斥着一眼就能看穿的机器味道。Ben 当时就看出端倪，但还是抱着试探的心态回复了，结果对方又回了一封百分之百由 AI 代写的回复。这让 Michael 忍不住连连爆粗口（“You got to be fucking kidding me... you freaking weirdo”），直呼这种行为简直匪夷所思——一个顶尖作者居然连一封私人往来邮件都懒得自己敲键盘，彻底丧失了正常人的社交体统。Ben 也深有同感，自打自己的新书发布后，他每天至少会收到两三封类似的推广合作邮件，发信人直接抓取亚马逊上的图书摘要让 AI 重新洗一遍，再以居高临下的口吻说“你这本书解释得真不错，要不要合作 PR”，这种邮件他几乎是秒删。两人达成一致：把 AI 当成提升效率的工具无可厚非，但如果用它来伪造人际交流，只会让人觉得极其油腻尴尬（cringe），这种信件未来绝不配得到任何真正人类的回应。 ### [36:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoOlz07Y8mk&t=2184s) 谷歌新一代助理 Spark 与加密货币错失的时代 随后话题转向了 AI 行业的新突破。科技博主 Ben Thompson 最近针对谷歌最新展示的技术（代号为 Spark 的全能 AI 助理）撰写了深度分析。Michael 的一位朋友在体验后甚至激动地发短信惊呼：“兄弟，它真的来了！我们一直在等待的那个让人大呼‘我的天（holy shit moment）’的质变时刻就是现在。”虽然 Michael 还没亲自上手试驾，但他指出，眼下超大规模云服务商（hyperscalers）正在以惊人的速度将 AI 悄无声息地整合进所有软硬件产品中。 这一幕恰恰引发了对加密货币（crypto）的辛酸反思： - **曾经的承诺落空**：加密行业过去多年一直向大众兜售同一个愿景——未来你甚至意识不到自己在用底层区块链，它会作为通用基础设施隐藏在所有企业的后台。然而现实中这一设想并未发生，反倒是 AI 率先实现了这种“无感且深度渗透”的普及。 - **大众消费级场景的缺失**：马克·库班（Mark Cuban）上周透露自己卖掉了比特币，彻底放弃离场。尽管有人搬出稳定币或其与 AI 结合的前景，但客观事实是加密货币从未真正迎来那个引爆全民日常生活的“杀手级产品”。 - **行业降温与监管压力**：根据 Sheil Bahlol 的推文，Robinhood 的加密业务首席运营官（COO）在营收增速放缓之际宣布离职，同时美国证券交易委员会（SEC）推迟了允许美股代币化版本的计划，对该领域无疑是一记重击。 - **人才资源的彻底转移**：最为致命的是全球顶级人才的流动。过去几年聪明的大脑蜂拥进入 Web3，而如今所有精锐力量都在义无反顾地投身 AI。驱动技术革新的是人才，失去了顶尖创造者的涌入，加密货币几乎可以说已经错失了属于它的黄金时代。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 技术范式演进与人才迁移路径 accDescr: 描绘顶级技术人才与通用技术渗透从区块链愿景向生成式AI落地的现实转移 subgraph Crypto["加密货币愿景 (Crypto)"] C1["承诺：后台静默运行"] --> C2["现实：缺乏C端刚需场景"] C2 --> C3["行业降温/高管离职"] end subgraph AI["生成式人工智能 (AI)"] A1["顶级研发人才全面涌入"] --> A2["谷歌 Spark 等助手落地"] A2 --> A3["深度整合进全线消费产品"] end C3 -. "人才大迁徙".-> A1 ``` ### [38:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoOlz07Y8mk&t=2338s) 泡沫论、第一局上半与贝佐斯的乐观主义 知名分析师 Benedict Evans 在最新的半年度演讲中披露，OpenAI 目前每周拥有超过 9 亿活跃用户，但其中付费用户的比例仅仅只有 5%。Michael 和 Ben 借此重申了与 Gavin Baker 讨论过的核心矛盾：一方面，从资本支出和部分概念炒作来看，市场当然存在巨大的泡沫（“How could it not be a bubble?”），股价也许已经提前透支了一切预期；但另一方面，借用加密圈最爱用的一句话——我们真的处于这场变革的“极早期（we're so early）”，整个 AI 基础建设与商业化落地才刚刚走到“第一局上半（top of the first inning）”。 针对技术可能引发的社会灾难论，两人讨论了杰夫·贝佐斯（Jeff Bezos）在 CNBC 专访中提出的反向观点。针对普遍担忧的技术导致大规模失业，贝佐斯反其道而行之： - **生产力爆发式增长**：AI 将极大释放个人生产力，让社会整体财富水平提升，人们的消费欲望随之扩张。 - **通缩与劳动力短缺并存**：AI 会推动商品与服务的大幅通缩，但催生的全新商业形态和就业岗位将远超以往，最终不仅不会造成永久失业，反而可能引发新一轮的“劳动力短缺”。 Ben 认为，面对听众经常抱怨播客散布 AI 悲观主义（AI doom），贝佐斯这种从经济扩张逻辑出发的乐观主义视角非常具有说服力，也令人耳目一新。 ### [40:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoOlz07Y8mk&t=2440s) 抄底地板股：押注老龄化住房的翻新浪潮 聊到房地产板块时，Michael 略带自嘲地坦白自己违背了“不再选股”的誓言，刚刚买入了一只新股票——Floor & Decor（地板与装饰材料零售商）。尽管他深知选股是一件愚蠢且容易亏钱的差事，但为了给节目带来一手谈资，同时也为了保持投资激情，他还是忍不住下了手。 这笔交易的背景和投资逻辑十分鲜明： - **惨烈的技术面**：Floor & Decor 的股价处于一条堪称教科书级别的完美下行通道中，从高点回撤幅度高达 65%，走势极为疲软。 - **灵感来源**：Michael 是跟随着知名 Substack 财经博主 Alex Morris 的长期跟踪分析买入的，他还打趣称如果这笔投资亏了，“那责任全在 Alex 身上，怪不到我头上”。 - **左侧布局的紧迫感**：借鉴近期英特尔等周期的变化速度，当市场风向骤变时，资产价格往往会以极快速度反弹 40%，根本不会给场外犹豫的资金从容上车的机会，因此必须在至暗时刻提前潜伏。 - **核心基本面逻辑——全美房屋老龄化与存量改造**：Ben 一针见血地指出，这是在押注“房屋翻新潮（home renovation boom）”。高利率环境下业主被低息房贷锁定而不愿搬家换房。与此同时，《华尔街日报》的数据显示，美国绝大部分现有住宅的房龄都在 55 年甚至更久。无论是在 Michael 居住的城镇还是全美各地，这些老房子每次发生流转或继续居住，都需要进行大规模的地面重铺与装修改造。尽管当前整个家装与房地产产业链正处于惨烈的“冰河期”甚至堪比大萧条，但这一庞大的存量维护需求迟早会迎来周期反转。 ### [43:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoOlz07Y8mk&t=2605s) 翻修热潮假象与婴儿潮一代的住房改造刚需 两人首先讨论了房屋建筑与家装相关股票的低迷处境。迈克尔·巴特尼克（Michael Batnick）感叹，当前房地产市场的情况简直不能更糟，除非这种萧条期延续得比市场预期的还要长。本·卡尔森（Ben Carlson）提到阿波罗首席经济学家托斯滕·斯洛克（Torsten Slok）的一张图表，该图宣称“利率越高，翻修越多（Higher rates, more renovations）”，认为锁定的超低房贷利率迫使房主留守原址，从而推动了翻修支出的激增。迈克尔随即指出这张图完全是“扯淡（bunk）”。本一语道破其统计学陷阱：由于整体建筑支出大幅萎缩（分母变小），才显得翻修支出的占比相对升高。迈克尔让 Claude 拆解了这组数据，发现所谓的房屋改良支出每年仅微增 2%，基本陷于停滞。从 Floor & Decor、Mohawk、宣伟（Sherwin-Williams）、劳氏（Lowe's）、家得宝（Home Depot）、威廉姆斯-索诺玛（Williams-Sonoma）到 Restoration Hardware，各大零售商的财报数据出奇一致，连卖洗碗机的惠而浦（Whirlpool）业绩都被无情摧毁，整个家装市场死气沉沉。 面对迈克尔的质疑，本阐述了自己看好家装翻修概念的长期投资逻辑。他认为这绝非一两年的短期反弹，而是一个长达 15 到 20 年的超级趋势。Redfin 的数据显示，约三分之二的婴儿潮一代（Baby Boomers）在现住房中住了 15 年以上，约 40% 的人更是居住了 20 年以上。这批房屋极度老化，而看着 HGTV 家装真人秀长大的年轻一代接盘侠绝不会将就——他们需要敲掉墙壁做开放式厨房、换上全新台面、铺设现代地板、彻底改造卧室以满足娱乐社交需求。尽管婴儿潮一代可能认为“20 年前装修过就够用了”，但代际交接必然会引爆一场规模浩大的翻新改造潮。 - **Torsten Slok 翻修图表的统计陷阱**：翻修占建筑支出的比例虚高，根本原因是总建筑支出（分母）大幅下跌，而非翻修总额（分子）真正爆发。 - **家装产业链上市公司业绩全面承压**：Floor & Decor、Mohawk、宣伟、劳氏、家得宝、威廉姆斯-索诺玛、RH 及惠而浦业绩均表现疲软。 - **Redfin 房屋居住时长数据**：约 2/3 的婴儿潮房主在同一栋房里住了 15 年以上；约 40% 居住了 20 年以上。 --- ### [46:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoOlz07Y8mk&t=2767s) 竖屏流媒体时代的崛起与 Meta Reels 的恐怖吸金力 迈克尔聊到了马修·贝洛尼（Matthew Belloni）的一期播客，主题是“竖屏流媒体（Vertical Streaming）”。虽然单手横过来看视频只是极其轻微的动作，但从人体工学和日常习惯来看，横屏依然存在摩擦力，人们更习惯竖握手机。为了迎合这一习惯，不仅 TikTok 和 Instagram Reels 大行其道，连 Netflix 等巨头也在重金布局竖屏内容。播客中透露了一个震撼的数据，迈克尔随后用 Claude 进行验证并生成了对比图表：仅 Meta 旗下的 Reels 这一项新兴功能，其单独产生的收入就已经超越了整个 Netflix 公司的总营收。 本对此深感震惊，并指出这也是为什么他一直不认同“美股科技巨头集中度过高必然脆弱”的唱衰论调。科技巨头内部孕育的单一业务线本身就是参天大树：比如苹果仅靠 AirPods 的营收就堪比独立巨型企业；Meta 仅凭 Reels 就匹敌流媒体霸主；谷歌旗下的 YouTube 和 YouTube TV 同样能独当一面。两人调侃道，虽然用竖屏看长篇叙事视频在观感上远不如横屏，但消费者的选择证明了“便利性击败一切体验”。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Meta Reels 与单体流媒体业务对比 accDescr: 展示 Meta 内部单一子业务 Reels 在营收上超越独立巨头 Netflix 的对比架构 subgraph TechGiants["科技巨头内部超级业务线"] Reels["Meta: Reels 竖屏视频业务"] AirPods["Apple: AirPods 耳机业务"] YT["Alphabet: YouTube / YouTube TV"] end subgraph Standalone["独立巨头对比标杆"] NFLX["Netflix 整体年度营业收入"] end Reels -.->|"营收规模单挑超越"| NFLX ``` --- ### [47:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoOlz07Y8mk&t=2856s) 《曼达洛人与古古》院线票房与好莱坞 IP 的枯竭 在刚刚过去的四天小长假里，迈克尔带着孩子们去 IMAX 影院观看了《曼达洛人与古古》（The Mandalorian & Grogu）。原本担心坐在第七排前排会昂着脖子酸痛，实际观影体验尚可。影片全球票房斩获 1.6 亿美元，表现平稳，孩子们看得很尽兴。马修·贝洛尼给出的数据显示，该片约 70% 的电影票都是在下午 5 点之前售出的，说明观众群体高度集中在家庭和儿童。 然而作为成年观众，迈克尔对该片感到索然无味。乔恩·费儒（Jon Favreau）执导的这部电影距离上一部《星球大战》正传院线片已时隔七年，但端出来的成果却毫无剧情推进，甚至让他在影院睡着了一次。他感叹漫威好歹在巅峰之后完成了阶段性收尾，而迪士尼却还在疯狂压榨星战 IP，“就像要从牙膏皮里挤出最后一点牙膏一样”。这部作品缺乏非看不可的意义，完全沦为了流水线工业品。 - **《曼达洛人与古古》票房与受众**：全球首映收获约 1.6 亿美元；下午 5 点前出票占比约 70%，以亲子和少儿客群为主。 - **星战院线真空期**：距离上一部《星球大战》院线大片上映已有七年之久。 --- ### [49:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoOlz07Y8mk&t=2968s) “老爹书”滞销、手写歌单与顽固的老派父母 迈克尔将话题引向图书市场的“老爹书（Dad books）”现象——即以二战或历史名人为题材的厚重传记。传记作家罗恩·切尔诺（Ron Chernow）在 2025 年父亲节前出版的马克·吐温最新传记，至今精装本仅卖出 11.9 万册；相比之下，他 2017 年出版的《尤利西斯·格兰特传》当年售出了 38.1 万册。本一针见血地指出：现在的读者已经没有耐心去读多达 900 页、连传主三表舅都要详尽交代的鸿篇巨著了。 提到送礼，迈克尔表示自己很不擅长挑礼物，但他最近在刷 Instagram Reels 时被算法推送并买下了一本“回忆录问答书”。这本书列满了子女平时不好意思或从未问过父母的深度人生问题，由老父亲亲手填写后再回赠给子女留作纪念，以免日后空留遗憾。本对此深有同感，他分享了自己半年前与即将年满 80 岁的老父亲的一场严肃谈话。本要求父亲把所有银行账户、密码、保险、房贷等重要信息统一整理出来，结果这位老派作风的父亲拿出的竟然是一张密密麻麻的手写信纸。 本还分享了老父亲让人忍俊不禁的日常琐事：上周全家一起打牌喝啤酒，老父亲走出来拿着一张纸，对着智能音箱念道：“Alexa，播放披头士的《A Hard Day's Night》。”原来他把自己想听的歌名一条条抄在纸上充当“纸质播放列表”，每放完一首就手忙脚乱地命令音箱播下一首；当本提出教他创建数字歌单时，父亲却断然拒绝。迈克尔随之附和，自己的叔叔也完全是同一个路子：即便拥有 iPhone，兜里也永远揣着一本实体袖珍周历本（Week at a Glance），以前甚至每天都要把股票投资组合打印在纸上看。老一辈人对旧习惯的执着，在数字时代显得既滑稽又温情。 ### [52:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoOlz07Y8mk&t=3164s) 健怡可乐与零度可乐之争 迈克尔·巴特尼克（Michael Batnick）向本·卡尔森（Ben Carlson）抛出了一个关于软饮料市场的小话题——健怡可乐（Diet Coke）与零度可乐（Coke Zero）之间正在爆发的“冰冷内战”。迈克尔表示自己平时其实不太爱喝苏打水，一个月大概也就喝三罐健怡可乐左右，而且他从未尝试过 Coke Zero。 本·卡尔森听到后大为震惊，直呼“天哪”。本坦言自己过去在健怡可乐和无糖百事（Diet Pepsi）之间来回切换，但自从喝了零度系列（Coke Zero 和 Pepsi Zero）之后，就再也回不去了。他极力向迈克尔推荐零度可乐，称其风味与含糖的原版可乐极其接近，口感明显优于传统的健怡系列，现在自己几乎只喝零度饮料。市场数据也验证了这种消费偏好的转变：在2025年前9个月里，Diet Coke 的销售额仅增长了 1.3%，而 Coke Zero 则大幅增长了 4.8%。迈克尔的好奇心被彻底勾起，表示自己一定要买来尝尝。 ### [53:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoOlz07Y8mk&t=3226s) 礼来重磅减肥药 Retatrutide 与迈克尔的“生物学年龄”体检 话题随后转到了医药健康领域的重大突破。礼来公司（Eli Lilly）旗下的新一代三靶点减肥药 Retatrutide 刚公布了三期肥胖症临床试验结果，数据令人叹为观止：在接受 12 毫克剂量的受试者中，80 周内平均减重幅度高达 28.3%，平均减重约 70 磅（约 31.8 公斤）；其中有 45% 的患者减重比例达到了 30% 以上。两位主持人惊叹，这种疗效已经完全迈入了过去只有“减重手术”（Bariatric Surgery）才能达到的范畴，甚至意味着现代医学可能正在彻底解决人类的肥胖难题，对改善心血管健康和削减医疗开支具有巨大价值。 从健康话题延伸，迈克尔坦白自己一直是个“死亡疑病症患者”（hypochondriac about death）。因为母亲很早就去世了，他脑海里总有一种自己也会英年早逝的阴影。为了排解这种焦虑，他在某个 Substack 专栏上发现了一家名为 Function Health 的健康监测公司，自掏腰包花了大约 1400 到 1500 美元去做全面体检。他抽了足足 12 管血（虽然过程很难受），进行了多达 96 项血液检查及早期癌症筛查。检测结果给迈克尔带来了意外之喜：报告测算出的“生物学年龄”（Biological age）竟然只有 30.8 岁。本忍不住拿迈克尔打趣，说如果把他体内 30 岁的生物钟与他的发际线结合起来平均一下，差不多正好符合他目前的实际年龄。 - **Retatrutide 三期数据亮点**：80周、12mg 剂量下平均减重 28.3%（约 70 磅），45% 受试者减重超 30%。 - **迈克尔的 Function Health 体检项目**：花费 1400-1500 美元，抽取 12 管血，检测 96 项生化指标及早期癌症/心脏标志物；测得生物学年龄为 30.8 岁（虽然背部自嘲已经 75 岁），仅有 4 项属于可通过饮食改善的边缘偏高指标。 ### [56:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoOlz07Y8mk&t=3401s) 影视推荐：比尔·劳伦斯剧集、独立恐怖片与温馨新片 进入节目的推荐环节（Recommendations），迈克尔采纳了本之前的建议，收听了哈里森·福特（Harrison Ford）做客的播客访谈，并意外得知这位巨星的母亲是犹太人。听完播客后，迈克尔找出了由哈里森·福特参演的 Apple TV+ 喜剧《诊疗中》（Shrinking）第二季作为做家务和处理邮件时的“背景剧”（background show）。迈克尔提出了一个独到见解：编剧兼制作人比尔·劳伦斯（Bill Lawrence）简直就是“喜剧界的泰勒·谢里丹（Taylor Sheridan）”，高产且风格鲜明——他一手打造了《诊疗中》、《坏猴子》（Bad Monkey，文斯·沃恩主演）、《足球教练》（Ted Lasso）以及经典美剧《实习医生风云》（Scrubs）。虽然每部不见得是传世神作，但观感都非常轻松舒服。 随后迈克尔提及了一部票房黑马独立恐怖片《Obsession》（票房已破亿美元），但他和不看恐怖片的本都未亲自观看。接着迈克尔聊到电影市场近期的复苏行情，他长期持有的一只美股——IMAX 传出了可能面临收购要约的新闻，很多朋友来问他是否套现，但他打算按兵不动，坐等潜在的竞价战。 本则分享了自己周末和妻子在 Netflix 上观看的影片《巧怪之辈》（Remarkably Bright Creatures，改编自同名畅销小说）。本对这部电影赞不绝口，称它是一部少见的、极其纯粹且温馨的“甜美电影”（sweet movie），没有任何讽刺或多余的说教意图，甚至看得人眼眶湿润。他特别称赞了老牌影后莎莉·菲尔德（Sally Field）宝刀不老的演技，以及比尔·普尔曼之子刘易斯·普尔曼（Lewis Pullman，曾出演《壮志凌云：独行侠》及《化学课》）极具辨识度和塑造力的表演。 ### [01:00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoOlz07Y8mk&t=3600s) 尾声：对市场回调的“老爹式”调侃 节目临近尾声，两人感叹眼下阳光明媚，股市也没有出现天塌下来的迹象。迈克尔笑称有人评价自己的心态就像典型的老父亲——每次市场上演回调（Correction），自己总会像雨过天晴后走到屋外伸个懒腰的父亲那样感叹一句：“啊，我们确实需要来这么一场雨降降温。”虽然市场刚走出回调不久，但他觉得之前区区 9% 的跌幅根本算不上什么。最后，主持人们念出播客互动邮箱，并与听众道别。 ## Notable quotes > [05:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoOlz07Y8mk&t=326s) 钱从来都会自己找到出路 — Ben Carlson > [08:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoOlz07Y8mk&t=537s) 大急流城式对冲 — Ben Carlson > [17:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoOlz07Y8mk&t=1067s) 时间戳记下来，双重盖章，三重盖章，绝对不可能发生。 — Ben Carlson > [17:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoOlz07Y8mk&t=1067s) 得了吧，你可不能在双重盖章上再加个三重盖章。 — Michael Batnick > [17:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoOlz07Y8mk&t=1067s) 变化剧烈并不代表系统正在崩溃 — Ben Carlson > [21:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoOlz07Y8mk&t=1285s) 除了跌 40% 确实没啥好担心的 — Michael Batnick > [21:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoOlz07Y8mk&t=1285s) 你从哪个方向来、往哪个方向去，体验完全不同 — Michael Batnick > [24:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoOlz07Y8mk&t=1487s) 分析师们当时都说油价必冲 200 美元，绝无其他可能，但它就是没有发生。 — Ben Carlson > [24:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoOlz07Y8mk&t=1487s) 这完全不合逻辑，讲不通啊 — Michael Batnick > [27:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoOlz07Y8mk&t=1651s) 人们不再相信经济会好转，甚至不再愿意承认自己其实过得不错。这种根深蒂固的悲观情绪，可能比真正的经济衰退更难治愈。 — Annie Lowrey > [32:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoOlz07Y8mk&t=1932s) 把钱放进老百姓口袋最好的方式，就是一开始就别收走它 — Jeff Bezos > [36:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoOlz07Y8mk&t=2184s) 兄弟，它真的来了！我们一直在等待的那个让人大呼‘我的天’的质变时刻就是现在。 — Michael Batnick 友人 > [46:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoOlz07Y8mk&t=2767s) 便利性击败一切体验 — Ben Carlson > [47:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoOlz07Y8mk&t=2856s) 就像要从牙膏皮里挤出最后一点牙膏一样 — Michael Batnick ## Mentioned Cullen Capital, DIVP, New York Knicks, Michael Batnick, Ben Carlson, Ticketmaster, TickPick, Paul Kedrosky, OpenAI, Anthropic, SpaceX, Starlink, Om Malik, Axios, Tesla, Elon Musk, Airbnb, Snowflake, xAI, Grok, Cursor, X, Nasdaq 100, Sparkline Capital, Kai Wu, Netflix, Blockbuster, Amazon, Borders, RadioShack, Google, McClatchy, John Arnold, Patrick O'Shaughnessy, Campbell Harvey, Warren Pies, Goldman Sachs, Dan Ives, Brent Sullivan, Annie Lowrey, The Atlantic, Jeff Bezos, CNBC, Claude, Ben Thompson, Spark, Mark Cuban, Robinhood, Sheil Bahlol, SEC, Benedict Evans, Gavin Baker, Floor & Decor, Alex Morris, Torsten Slok, Mohawk, Sherwin-Williams, Lowe's, Home Depot, Williams-Sonoma, Restoration Hardware, Whirlpool, Redfin, HGTV, Matthew Belloni, Meta Reels, TikTok, AirPods, YouTube, The Mandalorian & Grogu, Jon Favreau, Ron Chernow, Mark Twain, Diet Coke, Coke Zero, Pepsi Zero, Eli Lilly, Retatrutide, Function Health, Bill Lawrence, Taylor Sheridan, Harrison Ford, Shrinking, Bad Monkey, Ted Lasso, Scrubs, IMAX, Remarkably Bright Creatures, Sally Field, Lewis Pullman ## Video description On episode 466 of Animal Spirits, Michael Batnick and Ben Carlson discuss: the SpaceX IPO, index fund bagholders, the pros and cons of rising bond yields, the markets got the war right, how consumer sentiment broke, the Bezos tax plan, AI optimism, did crypto miss its moment, the coming renovation boom, dad books and more. This episode is sponsored by Cullen Capital. To learn more about DIVP, visit https://www.cullenfunds.com/US/A/ETF/DIVP/ ► 00:00 - Cullen Capital Ad ► 00:44 - Intro ► 05:26 - Stock Market ► 26:17 - Investor Behavior ► 27:31 - The Economy ► 34:44 - AI ► 36:57 - Crypto ► 38:57 - Back to AI ► 40:40 - Real Estate ► 46:07 - Entertainment ► 56:37 - Recommendations 👕 Check out The Compound shop: https://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. Michael Batnick and Ben Carlson are employees of Ritholtz Wealth Management and may maintain positions in the securities discussed in this video. All opinions expressed by them are solely their own opinion and do not reflect the opinion of Ritholtz Wealth Management. See our disclosures here: https://ritholtzwealth.com/podcast-youtube-disclosures/ The Compound Media, Incorporated, an affiliate of Ritholtz Wealth Management, receives payment from various entities for advertisements in affiliated podcasts, blogs and emails. Inclusion of such advertisements does not constitute or imply endorsement, sponsorship or recommendation thereof, or any affiliation therewith, by the Content Creator or by Ritholtz Wealth Management or any of its employees. For additional advertisement disclaimers see here https://ritholtzwealth.com/advertising-disclaimers. #thecompound #investing #stockmarket [Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoOlz07Y8mk)

[5:26] Ben Carlson: 钱从来都会自己找到出路 [8:57] Ben Carlson: 大急流城式对冲 [17:47] Ben Carlson: 时间戳记下来，双重盖章，三重盖章，绝对不可能发生。 [17:47] Michael Batnick: 得了吧，你可不能在双重盖章上再加个三重盖章。 [17:47] Ben Carlson: 变化剧烈并不代表系统正在崩溃 [21:25] Michael Batnick: 除了跌 40% 确实没啥好担心的 [21:25] Michael Batnick: 你从哪个方向来、往哪个方向去，体验完全不同 [24:47] Ben Carlson: 分析师们当时都说油价必冲 200 美元，绝无其他可能，但它就是没有发生。 [24:47] Michael Batnick: 这完全不合逻辑，讲不通啊 [27:31] Annie Lowrey: 人们不再相信经济会好转，甚至不再愿意承认自己其实过得不错。这种根深蒂固的悲观情绪，可能比真正的经济衰退更难治愈。 [32:12] Jeff Bezos: 把钱放进老百姓口袋最好的方式，就是一开始就别收走它 [36:24] Michael Batnick 友人: 兄弟，它真的来了！我们一直在等待的那个让人大呼‘我的天’的质变时刻就是现在。 [46:07] Ben Carlson: 便利性击败一切体验 [47:36] Michael Batnick: 就像要从牙膏皮里挤出最后一点牙膏一样

[0:00] Ben Carlson: Sports are constant misery punctuated, if you're lucky, by a little bit of happiness. [0:00] Michael Batnick: If we are down three-nothing, it will be the greatest sale of all time. I'll give him a big fat wet kiss. [17:39] John Arnold: fire alarm is going off and everyone is ignoring it [17:39] Michael Batnick: You can't triple stamp a double stamp! [27:31] People have stopped believing that the economy can be good and have lost the willingness to admit that they are doing well. That pessimism might be harder to fix than an actual downturn. [27:31] Annie Lowrey: The Vibe-Session Is Over. The Perma-Cession Is Here [32:11] Jeff Bezos: The important part is zeroing out taxes on the bottom half. Best way to put money in someone's pocket is to not take it out in the first place. [36:24] Benedict Evans: Everyone is Already Using It [34:34] Hey, you did a good job explaining this [47:38] squeezing the last bit of that toothpaste tube [49:28] Alexa, play Beatles' A Hard Day's Night [56:37] Michael Batnick: the Taylor Sheridan of TV comedies [59:40] Ah, we needed that [59:40] 9% is nothing

[0:04] Welcome to Animal Spirits brought to you [0:06] by Collyn Capital and DIVP. Most income [0:09] strategies make you choose between yield [0:10] and growth. The Collyn Enhanced Equity [0:12] Income ETF, DIVP, doesn't. Unlike [0:15] strategies that write calls on the [0:16] entire portfolio and cap your upside [0:18] every month, DIVP strategically covers [0:20] only 20 to 40% of the portfolio holdings [0:23] at any given time, meaning 60 to 80% of [0:26] the portfolio retains full upside [0:28] potential. And rather than applying that [0:30] to a broad index exposure, we do it on a [0:32] concentrated portfolio of high-quality [0:34] large-cap value-oriented stocks. [0:36] Value-driven, income-focused, built for [0:39] the long term, this is DIVP, and this is [0:41] how we think about income differently. [0:44] Welcome to [music] Animal Spirits with [0:46] Michael and Ben. If you've been [0:47] following the show for the past 2 [0:48] months, you know that Michael is a [0:51] [music] kind of Knicks fan based on his [0:53] attire. [0:54] Would you say 90% of your clothing these [0:56] days is Knicks-related? [0:58] It's [music] got to be close, right? [1:00] Yeah. Congratulations to you. It's got [1:02] to feel great. You're you're a die-hard [1:04] You're not just like a casual fan. [1:05] You're a die-hard fan. [1:07] So, I have a personal finance question [1:08] for you. You're a Knicks season ticket [1:09] holder and have been for how long? I'm [1:11] almost crying just thinking about the [1:12] Knicks. It's been so [1:15] [ __ ] long. My dad started taking me [1:18] to games when I was probably my kids' [1:19] age, around 7 or 8. [1:22] And as much as sports can be an absolute [1:26] waste of time, and and it's it's [1:29] sometimes I'm envious of like Chris, [1:31] who literally has not a care in the [1:34] world about what's going on. Right? It's [1:36] it's a giant um [1:39] giant time commitment. [1:42] But the [1:43] >> a mental it's a mental commitment, too. [1:44] You're like, why am I so mad about this? [1:46] Why am I so mad about this? [1:47] >> Sports. Sport Sports are constant misery [1:51] punctuated, if you're lucky, by a little [1:54] bit of happiness. Yes. That's what being [1:56] a sports fan is. [1:58] But the bonds that it builds between [2:02] um parents and children, [2:04] between friends, [2:06] it's like [2:07] >> [laughter] [2:07] >> I was about to say it's all I have, but [2:11] that's what my dad and I talk about. [2:13] Yeah, me too. My dad and I that's it's [2:15] it's the same thing. And and I yes. So [2:17] Michigan's won two national [2:18] championships this decade. It's been a [2:19] long time between those two and I got to [2:21] do it with my kids that made it even [2:22] sweeter. So here's my question to you. [2:24] You're a Knicks season ticket holder. [2:25] Okay, I want to bring this back to [2:26] finance. [2:27] So you be and the greatest thing is you [2:29] have an anticipatory wait for those [2:30] series to go like So this week you're [2:31] just on cloud nine all week. You don't [2:33] have to worry about the games for a [2:34] little bit. It's great. [2:36] So you you will get the you guys won't [2:38] be the home team, right? Either way. [2:41] Correct. Okay, so you'll you'll have [2:42] game three in New York. [2:45] How much money would someone have to [2:46] give you to take those tickets from you? [2:47] Would be enough money where you'd go, [2:49] "No. [2:50] Okay, fine. I have to take it." If [2:51] someone said, "Michael, I'm going to pay [2:52] for your mudroom [2:53] for your tickets." [2:54] >> you asked. I'm glad you asked. [2:56] So one of the benefits of being a Knicks [2:58] season ticket holder is I am able to get [3:01] season season ticket prices. [3:03] Tickets are a fortune. Right. An [3:05] absolute fortune. So for round one, my [3:08] face value was 350, [3:11] then it went to 580, then 750, and the [3:15] finals are 1350. [3:17] Um if you were to buy off Ticketmaster, [3:20] which is like the primary secondary [3:21] market, [3:23] it is obviously a lot higher than that. [3:25] And the secondary market like [3:27] if you're on Tickpick, forget about it. [3:29] It's bananas. [3:31] So one of the nice things is I now have [3:32] flexibility. So for example, [3:35] we sold game five. [3:37] Now there is no game five for the Cavs [3:40] series, right? Cuz we swept them. [3:42] But we sold my tickets for [3:44] I can't remember. $2,200, something like [3:46] that. [3:48] And we bought [3:49] tickets in the section 200 or 100. We [3:52] bought section 200 like the second bowl [3:55] for 900 or whatever it was. So, we got [3:58] paid a thousand we would have gotten [3:59] paid a thousand dollars. [4:00] >> trade up for a nicer seat. [4:01] >> Yeah. So, you're going to be sitting by [4:02] Chalamet. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, [4:04] no. No, you're you're missing it. [4:06] We would have traded down. So, we would [4:08] have paid we would have gotten we would [4:10] have gotten paid a thousand dollars to [4:11] go to the game. [4:11] >> Okay, I got you. I got you. [4:13] >> All right. So, for the finals [4:16] I My friend texted me um we sold our [4:19] tickets for game four [4:21] for $4,400. [4:23] Okay. And I said to him, "Wait, whoa, [4:25] whoa, timeout. What do we What are we [4:27] doing here?" And he said, "We spoke [4:29] about this." I don't remember speaking [4:30] about this, but fine. Um [4:32] So, if we are down three nothing, it [4:34] will be the greatest sale of all time. [4:36] I'll give him a big fat wet kiss. [4:38] >> All right. But assuming we're not down [4:39] three nothing, now I'm a little now I'm [4:40] getting a little bit nervous. Right. [4:42] Because we have to buy back in. I'm not [4:43] missing any games for the finals. We [4:44] have to buy back in. Of course. So, what [4:46] would I What would I sell to [4:48] Well, there's I guess there's your [4:49] answer. Although, I didn't hit the sell [4:50] button. He did. Okay. So, I'm not sure I [4:53] I would not have sold them. I'm actually [4:54] >> We know your friends are mad. [4:56] 4,400. [4:58] Um So, I will be traveling. I'm going to [5:02] I think I'm going to game five assuming [5:03] that we're not down, you know, [5:05] assuming that it's not a sweep. If we're [5:06] down three one, I'll still probably go. [5:08] So, I bought tickets for San Antonio. [5:10] Might be premature. I think San Antonio [5:11] is going to win, but I'll buy tickets [5:12] for Oklahoma City if if that's the case. [5:14] All right. In any event, in any event, [5:16] um it's a It's been a long, long time. [5:19] And uh [5:20] I'm feeling good. Yeah. That It's a [5:22] great feeling. [5:24] It's a wonderful feeling. [5:24] >> It's a great feeling. [5:25] All right. Let's talk IPOs. [5:27] All right. From Paul Paul Kedrosky wrote [5:29] about IPOs. [5:31] He talked about So, it's Open AI, [5:33] Anthropic, SpaceX. These are going to be [5:35] massive companies. Each of them probably [5:37] trillion dollars at least. That's pretty [5:39] fair to say. [5:40] I'd be shocked if the AI companies [5:42] weren't a trillion, right? [5:43] Yeah, oh, yeah, yeah. Okay. [5:45] Um he says people aren't focused on the [5:46] right things. That much new equity [5:48] supply hitting in a few months creates a [5:49] math problem. The money has to come from [5:51] somewhere. Most of it will come from [5:52] existing holdings. Passive funds will be [5:54] forced buyers once these names join the [5:56] indexes, which will happen much faster [5:57] than usual given the exchange. So, he's [5:59] saying like, what if this is this is a [6:02] thing. And I there's going to be a lot [6:03] of stories about this. Like, okay, this [6:05] is going to mark the top. Yeah, this is [6:06] going to mark the top. [6:08] The funny thing is is I'm not worried [6:10] about where the money will come from. [6:12] Peo- people keep worrying about that all [6:13] decade about like, where's the money [6:14] going to come from for this? Where's the [6:15] money going to come The money always [6:16] just comes from. People have money. [6:18] People have more wealth than ever today. [6:20] The money will be there. I'm not worried [6:21] about the money. [6:23] I'm also not I I just don't think it's [6:25] cute enough to say a headline thing like [6:28] this will be it. I know that's that's [6:29] usually how it works historically. [6:32] I just don't think I think that's a [6:33] little too cute. [6:34] Yeah, I agree. [6:36] Um, [6:37] where will the money come from? You also [6:39] have to think about [6:41] So, there's a lot of smoke around the [6:42] SpaceX S-1, which was which was filed [6:45] last week. [6:46] Um, [6:48] their average revenue per user is coming [6:50] down on Starlink. That was a headline. [6:53] You know, I love and hate the internet. [6:56] I [6:58] I uh I hate it because [7:01] the headlines get all the attention. [7:03] Nobody reads anything for the most part [7:04] anymore. [7:05] I love it because there are still people [7:07] that do the work. [7:08] So, [7:10] Om Malik, [7:11] somebody who I only recently discovered. [7:13] He's been writing about the internet for [7:15] for decades. Um, that's the broad broa- [7:18] broadband bandits book that I'm reading. [7:21] So, he wrote about the ARPU crash. [7:24] >> literally one of the first bloggers ever [7:25] in history. So, it's kind of funny that [7:26] you just discovered him. Uh yeah, I'm a [7:28] little bit late to that. [7:29] So, [7:31] uh there's a lot about the numbers. [7:33] Right? Obviously, like what's going on [7:35] with with uh with SpaceX, which is Can I [7:38] can I read you some of the numbers from [7:39] Axios real quick while you find while [7:41] you [7:41] So this is from Axios. Uh SpaceX is [7:44] wildly unprofitable reporting a $4.9 [7:45] billion net loss on $18.7 billion in [7:49] consolidated revenue. For context, 200 [7:51] companies in the S&P had more revenue [7:52] last year than SpaceX. This includes [7:54] Tesla whose sales were five times [7:56] higher. [7:57] Okay, so that it if you look just at the [7:59] surface level numbers, the thing I love [8:00] about the SpaceX is that [8:02] the two narratives are so compelling. [8:04] One of them is going to be this is a [8:06] wildly over like $1.8 trillion company. [8:08] You're kidding me. They don't make any [8:10] money. And the other one is going to be [8:11] no dummy, it's cuz they're going to have [8:13] huge growth in the future and AI and all [8:15] this stuff like and both of them are [8:16] going to sound reasonable. They're both [8:18] going to make sense. [8:20] Yeah, but the the valuation part is [8:22] always the lazy argument. So it's a [8:24] spectrum, right? Of [8:27] exit liquidity. This is you guys are [8:29] sheep. This is the dumbest [ __ ] ever [8:30] >> the valuation always sounds smart. [8:32] That's the thing. [8:33] No, it doesn't. [8:34] >> No, when you when you look at the [8:35] numbers you cuz you [8:36] >> You you think people that cite valuation [8:37] sound smart? [8:38] >> No, I'm saying they sound smart. I'm not [8:40] saying it is smart. No, I don't I don't [8:42] think so. Not I mean not to me. Not [8:43] anymore. We've been doing this a long [8:44] time. That sounds lazy. [8:46] >> To a lot of people though the valuation [8:48] is like you can't argue with the [8:49] numbers. The numbers are the numbers. [8:50] >> Okay, true. I would agree with I would [8:51] agree with that. I think people you're [8:52] right. The the headlines and the average [8:55] casual investor will gravitate towards [8:57] the headline numbers, the money losing [8:59] numbers. [8:59] >> There's going to be a lot of [9:00] throwing your throwing your hands up for [9:01] this like oh my gosh, you kidding me? [9:03] There's going to be a lot of that. [9:04] >> But that's the it's the same stuff with [9:05] the macro people [9:07] that have no understanding of what's [9:09] actually happening. They just cite [9:10] historical numbers. [9:11] >> Right. Lazy. Okay, so on a spectrum of [9:14] >> You're right. That's that's not doing [9:15] the work. Just looking at the numbers at [9:16] face value is not doing the work. [9:18] Correct. So on the spectrum of dumbest [9:20] [ __ ] ever [9:21] $2 trillion lol which I I get, you know, [9:23] it is a lot of money. [9:25] It's an ungodly amount of money. Um [9:26] versus changing the world, I'm like [9:29] closer to changing the world than Now, [9:32] I'm not like I'm probably like, you [9:34] know, [9:35] I'm I'm Grand Rapids hedging this a [9:36] little bit. I'm not all the way there [9:38] cuz I'm not buying the stock, but we'll [9:39] talk about it in a second. But on the on [9:41] the ARPU crash, so getting back to what [9:43] Om wrote, [9:44] the customer mix explains it. [9:46] Maritime terminals, [9:48] so Starlink is basically broadband in [9:51] space. There are satellites floating in [9:53] space that are connecting [9:57] difficult areas, previously difficult [9:59] areas to connect to the internet, okay? [10:00] It's a huge global unlock, obviously. [10:03] Listen, if it just makes me Wi-Fi better [10:05] on planes, that's good enough for me. [10:07] That's all I want. [10:08] >> All right, so maritime terminals, which [10:10] are shipping vessels, oil rigs, they pay [10:12] between $250 and $5,000 a month and have [10:15] no alternative. [10:16] Aviation is even richer. A commercial [10:19] aircraft terminal runs $12,500 to [10:22] $25,000 per month. These customers [10:25] anchored Starlink's early ARPU. [10:28] Consumer residential is where the growth [10:30] is now. It is the lowest paying tier and [10:34] outside North America, increasingly [10:36] price sensitive. Add satellite to mobile [10:39] users via carrier partnerships at a [10:41] fraction of direct subscription revenue [10:43] and the mix explains the slide from $99 [10:46] to $66 in 3 years. Maritime and aviation [10:49] growth is still being paid well, [10:50] consumer growth fast and pays less each [10:52] year. Thank you, person on the internet, [10:55] Om Malik, for looking past just the [10:57] headlines and giving us [10:59] the actual story. [11:02] So, I guess my my Grand Rapids hedging [11:04] would be like, could this also be an [11:05] Airbnb story where the valuation at IPO [11:08] is so high the stock just doesn't do a [11:09] lot for a while? Like, I'm sure there's [11:11] there's going to be a massive pop on day [11:12] one, I'm sure, but if if you're like [11:14] shorting this, you're probably not going [11:16] to be happy, but if you're going super [11:17] duper long, you're probably not happy [11:18] either. What if that's the the hedge [11:20] there? Like, Airbnb stock has just gone [11:21] nowhere since it went public because [11:23] everyone says the valuation is way too [11:24] high. Yeah. So, same thing with Snow- [11:27] with Snowflake. [11:28] If you go public at a 100 times [11:31] price-to-sales ratio. [11:33] And if you are buying and holding the [11:35] stock for 3 years, of course I can't see [11:37] the future, [11:39] but probability, historic probability [11:41] says [11:43] that's probably not an awesome idea. [11:45] Might doesn't have 100% Might SpaceX be [11:48] the one that delivers [11:50] uh world-changing results? Yeah. But I I [11:52] think most people most people don't give [11:55] a [ __ ] about 3 years from now. They care [11:57] about the next 3 weeks. Right? Like [11:59] they're really not [12:00] >> Terminal value DCF calculations on this? [12:01] Right. Right. [12:02] >> So how long until how long until all his [12:04] companies are under one umbrella, [12:05] though? That's that's the end game here, [12:07] right? [12:07] >> Well, they are. Everything except for [12:09] Tesla. [12:09] >> That's what I mean. Te- It's going to be [12:10] all together. Tesla's going to merge [12:11] with these companies. It's going to be [12:12] one company. That's That's the end game, [12:13] right? [12:13] >> So [12:14] SpaceX owns [12:17] uh [12:18] XAI, [12:19] which is Grok, [12:21] and they're I think trying to buy [12:23] Cursor, which is not an Elon Musk [12:25] company, for the record. Um but how Oh, [12:27] oh, Twitter. [12:29] x.com. [12:30] How long before Tesla gets absorbed? Who [12:32] knows? But here's here's where I think [12:35] >> just so you know. [12:36] Okay. [12:37] >> to me, forever. [12:38] Here is where a lot of the [12:41] um [12:42] scrutiny falls. It's with the Nasdaq 100 [12:46] rejiggering the rules for fast entry. [12:49] So previously, a company needed to be I [12:52] think the term they used was seasoned. [12:54] Um whatever that means. I don't think [12:56] that there was like an x number of days [12:58] or anything like that. I think it was 3 [12:59] to 6 months. They're going to get into [13:01] the index in 15 days. [13:04] And this underlies the [13:06] the thing that people are excited about. [13:09] Because and credit to Nasdaq, so yes, [13:11] they changed the rules for fast [13:12] inclusion, which people are like, "Ah, [13:14] THIS IS A [ __ ] PASSIVE EXIT retail [13:16] liquidity." Okay. [13:18] But they also protected investors. [13:20] Because what they did was so SpaceX is [13:24] not going to be selling or issuing [13:27] a lot of new stock. But it's low float. [13:30] >> It is going So a lot of it is not going [13:32] to be publicly traded. Elon Musk's [13:35] portion, for example, [13:36] is not going to be publicly traded, [13:38] okay? Or not going to be available. He [13:40] controls it. So what Nasdaq did was they [13:41] said, "We've been burned once before [13:43] with a similar IPO where it was a lot of [13:45] insider shares being held. [13:47] Um we're not going to give you the [13:49] benefit of the doubt of your full $1.75 [13:51] trillion valuation. What we're going to [13:52] do [13:53] is we're going to do a modified [13:56] market cap, which is not unusual. [13:58] We're going to allow you to have three [14:00] times your float inside of the index. [14:03] And that's what we're capping it there. [14:04] So if they float, I'm making this up, if [14:07] they float um [14:09] $30 billion worth of stock, [14:12] then the index will hold 90 billion. The [14:14] market cap in the index will be 90 [14:16] billion. [14:17] Right. So the actual number is close [14:18] Right. I think the actual number is [14:19] closer to to uh [14:21] 150 on the low [14:22] >> to be a lot of people going, "Oh, the [14:24] bag holders are going to the index fund [14:25] people." That there's going to be a lot [14:27] of that. [14:27] The So there will be a lot of There will [14:30] be a lot of stock that has to be bought [14:31] inside of the indexes. That is true. So [14:33] if the Nasdaq 100, we're looking at like [14:34] 4 to 5%. I mean obviously it's a you [14:36] know, it's a range. Um so that's a lot [14:38] of buying. And with a float that small, [14:41] the number of buyers is a If you can't [14:44] see me, I'm holding up my arms, a [14:45] gigantic circle of buyers, pool of [14:47] buyers that want the stock, [14:49] and the pool of supply is much smaller. [14:52] Right. So the valuation does not matter [14:55] in the short term, [14:57] but could you imagine if it goes up to [14:58] 2.9 trillion because of the way they [14:59] financially engineer this? People going [15:01] to lose their [ __ ] minds. [15:04] Yes. There's also There's also like [15:05] weird [15:07] cliff divesting [15:09] the unlocking up of the shares [15:12] where insiders can sell. But insiders [15:14] are not selling at the open. [15:15] This is They are They are diluting the [15:18] shareholders. What's interesting is that [15:19] they're giving a disproportionate amount [15:21] to retail investors. [15:24] Which is a numbers are still being [15:25] finalized, but [15:27] Anyway, it's certainly certainly [15:28] certainly captured everybody's attention [15:31] as you would as you would expect it to [15:32] do. It's a big deal. And maybe this will [15:33] be the first level thinking again. Like [15:34] this this really will be it, right? I'm [15:36] waiting for that to happen. [15:38] Come back. I don't know. All right. Kai [15:39] Wu, who was on The Compound and Friends [15:41] a couple weeks ago, [15:43] writes these long What will you call [15:44] them? White papers? Is that fair enough [15:45] to say? [15:47] Mhm. I I I pulled a little bit He talked [15:48] He had an AI disruption paper [15:50] and he talked about moats and value [15:52] traps. I just wanted to pull out one [15:53] thing here that I thought was [15:54] interesting just to show how hard stock [15:56] picking is. [15:57] So, he shows the biggest disruptors of [15:59] all time. He showed how Netflix [16:00] disrupted Blockbuster, Amazon disrupted [16:02] Borders, Amazon disrupted RadioShack as [16:04] well, and then Google disrupted [16:05] McClatchy, which I didn't get. [16:06] McClatchy, is that Is it encyclopedias? [16:09] Is that what it is? [16:09] >> Yeah, I [16:11] Was that Encyclopedia Britannica, the [16:13] owners? I can't remember. It's a [16:14] newspaper. [16:14] >> So, he's got a great chart and he's [16:15] showing the returns of each. And it [16:17] They're both going in opposite [16:18] directions, right? Where they These [16:19] other ones are just trying to fall like [16:20] a you know, fall off a cliff. [16:22] But he also shows the the stock prices [16:24] of these disrupted companies. So, [16:26] Blockbuster, Borders, RadioShack, and [16:27] McClatchy. And [16:29] it's funny because this as the stock [16:31] price is dropping, the revenue per share [16:33] is either holding still or going up [16:34] still as these things are getting [16:36] disrupted. And that McClatchy McClatchy [16:38] has newspapers. Okay. It says right [16:40] there on the chart. Yeah, that's wild. [16:42] And that's what's going to make this [16:43] stuff so hard about the software [16:44] companies is like you look at the [16:45] results right now and you go, [16:47] "These companies are fine. They're [16:49] reporting great earnings." [16:51] And then they This could happen. That's [16:53] what's going to make this so hard, and [16:54] that's why stock picking is difficult. [16:56] Yeah. Because the market is the market [16:58] is obviously pricing in [17:00] um [17:01] the market is saying the terminal value [17:03] is is RadioShack. Yeah. [17:06] So, we So, every time I see RadioShack, [17:08] I think that I had a friend in [17:09] elementary school, [17:10] and I think we were watching the movie [17:11] Coming to America, something like that [17:12] in New York, and there was a RadioShack [17:14] on a corner, right? So, that on each [17:15] side each corner, there's a Radio Shack [17:17] sign, right? Radio Shack on one side, [17:19] Radio Shack on the other. And they show [17:20] it overhead. And my friend goes, [17:22] totally serious, [17:23] "That's really weird. Why are there two [17:24] Radio Shacks in the same corner?" [17:27] Cuz each sign, you know, didn't get it. [17:29] Anyway. I don't get it. [17:32] It was a a store on the corner. So each [17:34] each corner had had its own sign. [17:36] >> [laughter] [17:36] >> Got it. Got it. Got it. All right. [17:39] Last week I talked about interest rate [17:40] concerns, okay? [17:42] John Arnold, [17:43] very smart, one of the best maybe the [17:45] best energy investor of all time. He's [17:46] on Patrick's O'Shaughnessy's podcast [17:47] recently. Very smart guy. [17:49] He said a fire alarm is going off and [17:50] everyone is ignoring it. And he shows [17:52] long-term bond yields. I think this is a [17:53] Bloomberg chart of United Kingdom, [17:55] France, United States, Japan, and all [17:57] these long-term bonds, 30-year bonds, [17:59] are going vertical. [18:01] Right? We talked about this a lot. [18:02] People are very concerned with this. [18:04] All right. I want to talk about that [18:06] worry, that fire alarm fire, with this [18:07] email we got. "Hi Ben. I've noticed that [18:10] the yield curve is no longer inverted. I [18:12] haven't heard anyone talking about this. [18:13] It has been observed that [18:15] occur not when the yield curve inverts, [18:17] but when it uninverts. Looks like that [18:18] hasn't happened this time. Harvey's [18:20] recessionary indicator has experienced [18:22] its first exception. What are your [18:23] thoughts?" [18:24] And this is what I want to point out. [18:25] When the yield curve was inverted, [18:26] short-term yields were higher than [18:27] long-term yields, people were screaming, [18:29] "This is going to be a recession." [18:31] Cuz this indicator has always done that. [18:33] You and I said, "Wait a minute. This is [18:35] just the Fed jacking up short-term [18:36] rates. It doesn't have to be that." [18:38] Right? We were we kind of saying, "Let's [18:39] pump the brakes on that a little bit." [18:41] Now, what we've seen is a normalization. [18:43] Short-term yields have come down, [18:44] long-term yields have gone back up. [18:46] That's a normal yield curve. This is [18:48] normalization. [18:50] This is not a reason to freak out, [18:51] people. [18:53] Okay? I'm throwing cold water on this [18:55] all day long. This is a normal state of [18:57] affairs. Long-term yields should be [18:59] higher than short-term yields when [19:00] you're accounting for risk. Because [19:02] there's way more risk in a long-term [19:04] bond than a short-term bond in terms of [19:05] volatility and interest rate changes and [19:07] inflation. [19:08] And maybe, just maybe, the bond market [19:11] is saying, "I think we're in a higher [19:13] growth and inflationary environment. [19:15] Listen to this from Warren Pies, another [19:17] fellow T cat person. [19:19] S&P 500 forward sales growth is [19:21] projected at 18% over the next 24 [19:22] months. Historically, this corresponds [19:24] to 12.4% nominal GDP growth, [19:27] 6% annualized. Something to consider as [19:29] yields and the Fed look for new [19:30] equilibrium. So, he's saying, [19:32] we're probably going to have higher [19:33] economic growth. [19:34] And what if what if the bond market is [19:36] just telling us, [19:38] you know what? That period the last 15 [19:40] years were not normal for interest [19:41] rates. We're trying to normalize here [19:42] for higher growth and higher inflation [19:44] than we had in 2010s. [19:48] Thoughts? [19:51] That makes more sense to me than the [19:52] alarm situation. [19:53] Yeah, totally. I also think it's weird [19:55] that everyone the the everyone is [19:56] ignoring it. I know it's just a tweet [19:57] and he doesn't mean it literally, but I [19:58] feel like a lot of people are doing the [19:59] opposite. I think there's actually um an [20:02] overwhelming amount of worry relative to [20:05] the potential outcomes about rising [20:07] rates. What I would say though is the [20:09] the the part of the worry that I think [20:11] is valid [20:12] is [20:14] it's not the spread between short-term [20:16] and long-term, which are [20:18] which are healthy and normal. [20:19] It's the speed at which these lines are [20:22] all accelerating. [20:24] Like I think people are worried like, [20:26] what if this doesn't slow down? [20:28] It doesn't have Nothing has to happen, [20:29] okay? Cuz I I was I was about to say it [20:30] has to slow down. It doesn't. [20:33] Um [20:34] if the long end keeps going up and we're [20:37] at [20:38] I don't know where the line is, 6%, 7%, [20:41] I'm going to start to get nervous. Like [20:43] I I would very much like for this to [20:44] slow down. Yeah. We're not going to get [20:46] there. It's not going to happen. [20:48] I don't think so, either. [20:48] >> Time stamp. Double stamp. Triple stamp. [20:49] Not going to happen. It would have We [20:51] would have to be way higher growth. And [20:52] the thing is [20:53] here's the problem with this Here's the [20:55] psychology behind this, though. [20:56] >> You You can't triple stamp a double [20:57] stamp. Come on. Here Here's the [20:58] psychology behind this, though. [20:59] Everything is happening faster. So, when [21:01] we have these moves, that's what freaks [21:03] everyone out cuz people are not used to [21:04] it. When inflation went from zero to [21:07] nine, it freaked everyone out because it [21:08] happened fast. When oil went from [21:11] $50 a barrel to negative $37 a barrel, [21:13] everyone freaked out. When mortgage [21:14] rates went from three to eight in This [21:16] is just the markets now. People are [21:18] going to have to get used to things [21:19] happening faster. And just because they [21:21] happen fast doesn't mean something is [21:23] breaking. This is just how markets work [21:24] now. [21:25] You might be right. Okay. All right, [21:27] here's the here's the positive side. I [21:29] think there there's pros and cons to [21:31] rising rates cuz obviously [21:32] rising rates are not good for every like [21:34] borrowing mortgage rates are back near [21:35] 7%. [21:37] I don't think that's a good thing. Okay? [21:39] Here's the positive behind this. [21:41] Exhibit A chart of the week from last [21:43] week. Bond yields are historically [21:45] linked with higher forward returns. So [21:46] we're looking at the 10-year starting [21:48] yield, we've talked about this before, [21:49] versus the forward annualized return. [21:51] And guess what? The starting yield is a [21:53] pretty good predictor of future returns [21:54] for bonds. So we're getting probably 5% [21:57] now on high-quality bonds. That's great. [22:00] That You're right. That That's pretty [22:01] >> other side of the coin and it's a it's a [22:03] really shiny side of the coin. Hey, we [22:05] give a ton of love to Chart Ken Mat for [22:08] making and designing these charts as he [22:11] is has earned every ounce of praise. [22:13] That kid is incredible. So is Eric, [22:17] founding CTO, architect of Exhibit A. Uh [22:21] so I just wanted to give Eric some love [22:23] >> guy behind the guy. [22:24] He he built the architecture that allows [22:26] Mat to paint. So he's the uh he made the [22:29] canvas and Mat is the painter. So here's [22:31] the potential So let's say you're right [22:33] that we do have a sustained rising [22:35] rates. So I look I looked at this like [22:37] what happens if we get a sustained [22:38] rising rates? And this is the 10-year [22:39] going back to 1950. [22:41] And I looked at the total return for the [22:43] S&P over that timeframe versus the [22:44] drawdown. [22:46] And now the total return actually is [22:47] pretty comforting. Like most of the time [22:48] stocks are up in these rising rate [22:50] cycles. This is every time the 10-year [22:51] had a sustained rise. [22:53] And [22:54] >> What is this Oh, one more Okay, got it. [22:56] Got it. Got it. [22:56] >> Okay, yep. And that also shows the [22:59] drawdown. And there was there was a [23:01] correction in every single one of these [23:03] of 10% except for one time and that was [23:04] 1994. And so every time this happened [23:06] and some of these are pretty big. [23:07] >> is this Yeah, is this supposed to make [23:09] me feel better? This looks really bad. [23:10] Um [23:12] but the thing is we're not in a [23:13] sustained [23:13] >> That's like there's nothing to worry [23:14] about except for the 40% declines in [23:16] stock prices. [23:17] >> Well, short-term hiccup. But the thing [23:19] is is this really a Didn't we already [23:20] have the sustained rising rates? Yeah. I [23:23] feel like now we've been range-bound [23:24] forever. [23:25] Right? So the thing is is this another [23:27] To have a sustained rising rates like [23:29] like you said, we have to see 6 or 7% [23:31] for that to be another cycle up. We [23:32] already had the one cycle up. [23:34] Okay, yeah, you're right. So I think we [23:36] already had it in 2025. This is another [23:38] thing. From Goldman Sachs, median annual [23:40] S&P 500 total return based on nominal [23:42] 10-year Treasury yield. And they break [23:43] it down by 0 to 2%, 2 to 3, 3 to 4, all [23:46] these different ranges, just 1% all the [23:48] way up to 8 plus. [23:49] And there's no discerning There's [23:50] nothing to learn here. [23:52] But [23:52] >> Well, yeah, when you present the data [23:54] this way. I don't love this chart. Okay. [23:56] >> Cuz I do think that the the the [23:57] direction and the speed of the of the of [23:59] the [24:00] 10-year matters a lot. [24:01] I agree with you. Just knowing where [24:03] what bucket you fall into to doesn't [24:05] tell you anything. [24:07] But I really do think there's something [24:08] to the to the speed. [24:09] >> know we can't do technical analysis on [24:10] interest rate charts. Is that the thing? [24:12] Like we can't do that, right? [24:14] Well, no, you can. It's supply and [24:15] demand. [24:15] >> can [24:16] I want to see like every time we've hit [24:18] 5% that's been a higher range [24:21] essentially and they've rates have come [24:22] right back down. People freak out, then [24:23] we come down. It's happened like five [24:24] times. I just want to see a sustained [24:26] breakout above 5% before I start to [24:27] worry. Deal? You know, yes. You know the [24:30] meme where it's the musician who looks [24:32] at Jennifer Aniston? Is that Is that [24:34] Iggy Pop? I can't remember. Yes. Is that [24:36] who that is? Yeah, okay. So it's it's [24:38] uh like the five-year on the way up [24:41] Yeah, yeah. is him and the five-year on [24:42] the five 5% of the way down is her. [24:44] Right. Yes. So it it matters where [24:46] you're coming and where you're going [24:47] from. [24:47] >> So last week we Last week we talked [24:49] about I just want to talk about oil [24:50] prices real quick cuz this in this this [24:52] whole geopolitical situation cuz oil is [24:54] back to down to like $96 a barrel. [24:56] I think the high was actually when you [24:58] and I were at that dinner in Miami [25:00] for Future Proof. [25:02] I remember people everyone around the [25:03] dinner table was like a game of [25:04] telephone was talking about oil prices [25:05] spiking super duper high. They got to [25:07] like $120 a barrel. They were up like [25:09] 20% after hours or whatever. Remember [25:11] that? I think that was the high. I [25:12] remember very well. [25:14] So [25:16] I I think this is another [25:18] game of really smart people because you [25:20] listen to all the oil analysts and [25:21] they're like [25:23] $200 a barrel. It has to. It has to. [25:25] There's There's no [25:26] situa- There's no situation where that [25:28] doesn't happen. [25:29] And then it just didn't happen. [25:31] Did the market get it right on debt from [25:32] from jump? [25:34] Kind of. [25:34] >> From the jump. Because I I've told the [25:37] story, you know, couple of months ago [25:38] when it happened, but we were at dinner [25:40] and me and Dan Ives were [25:43] looking at our phones [25:44] and I said to him [25:46] Bitcoin's flat, S&P's down like a buck [25:48] 10 or something like that. [25:50] The market didn't really react [25:52] uh the way that we thought it would and [25:53] it continued to under react. We were [25:54] like, "This doesn't make sense. This [25:56] doesn't make sense." And he eventually [25:57] we're like, "Okay, this does make [25:58] sense." But the market was right [26:00] immediately not over reacting. It's It's [26:02] It's wild. Yes. The The good lesson is [26:04] always like the market is usually [26:05] smarter than smart people, which is hard [26:07] to wrap your head around. You Usually is [26:09] the caveat there. We've done this about [26:11] a thousand times, but it is usually the [26:13] facts. Okay. [26:15] What's your talking oil plug here? [26:17] >> [clears throat] [26:17] >> Um I did an awesome This is like a [26:21] random, but as we get into investor [26:22] behavior, which is actually shockingly [26:25] blank this week. This has been one of [26:27] the most popular [26:29] uh [26:33] What's that big fat text called? Topics. [26:35] Geez Louise, my brain. [26:38] You know, something about this [26:39] microphone breaks the brain. [26:41] Investor behavior is one of our most [26:42] popular most most most packed jam-packed [26:46] categories of the show and nothing in [26:47] here is [26:47] >> Street Journal's got to get a profile [26:49] interviewing traders how what they're [26:50] thinking about right now. That's what [26:52] they got to do. [26:53] Anyway, in here [26:55] I put [26:56] uh [26:57] Brent Sullivan [26:58] who has a great Substack on a lot of the [27:00] mechanics of tax treatment for cost [27:04] indexing and particularly long short [27:06] strategies which are becoming a bigger [27:08] and bigger [27:10] um [27:10] part of the advisor toolkit. [27:12] On Talking Wealth, him and I had a great [27:14] conversation. So, if you're an advisor [27:15] and you want to check that out, I cannot [27:17] recommend the show enough. [27:18] >> in the Wall Street Journal on that last [27:20] week. Bloomberg had a thing on tax loss [27:22] harvesting a couple months ago. This is [27:24] something that [27:25] >> I'm surprised it took so long. Yeah, [27:26] it's it's getting big in the wealth [27:27] management space and it's going to be [27:29] something you're going to be hearing [27:30] about more and more. [27:31] As we talk about it. Okay. [27:33] Uh let's talk about broken sentiment. [27:34] So, University of Michigan consumer [27:36] sentiment index [27:38] at all-time lows since this index [27:40] started in 1950. [27:43] The lowest this has ever been. [27:46] Yeah, it's kind of stupid, huh? [27:47] >> Okay. [27:48] We've been talking about this for a [27:49] while. I feel like we're maybe we're a [27:50] broken record here. The Atlantic had [27:51] this piece. The vibe session is over. [27:53] The perma-session is here. Why Americans [27:55] are so unhappy by Annie Lowrey. [27:57] Now, she's trying to get to the bottom [27:59] of this. Like why why are why is [28:00] sentiment so low? There's no way you [28:02] could objectively look at this. I [28:03] someone on Twitter last week was a young [28:05] person. I couldn't tell if they were, [28:06] you know, engagement farming or what, [28:07] but they said [28:09] um [28:10] was 2008 really worse than this economy? [28:12] And it again, that's probably rage [28:14] baiting and engagement baiting. [28:16] Um [28:17] Uh But I I think there are some young [28:19] people who like truly think this is a [28:21] terrible terribly economy and they have [28:23] yet to see what an actual bad economy [28:24] is. [28:25] Um so, here's here's a quote from this [28:27] article. People have stopped believing [28:28] that the economy can be good and have [28:29] lost the willingness to admit that they [28:31] are doing well. That pessimism might be [28:33] harder to fix than an actual downturn. [28:34] And she goes through like why is this? [28:36] Housing costs and inflation and higher [28:38] cost of living and [28:39] all the stuff that you and I have been [28:41] talking about forever. But this is this [28:42] boils down to one thing and it's the [28:44] internet. [28:45] This is just [28:46] >> No, no, no, no, no, and inflation. [28:48] We've had inflation in the past and it's [28:51] the '70s inflation. My god, I did a [28:53] whole chapter in my book on [28:54] >> Yeah, but the '70s inflation destroyed [28:55] the country, too. [28:57] And it's worse sentiment now than it was [28:59] back then. The The [29:00] >> Yeah, I mean, but but but but but to but [29:02] to but to but to just say it's the [29:03] internet to just say it's the internet [29:06] is come on, that's not that's not just [29:07] the internet. [29:08] >> Okay, it's the internet and it's COVID. [29:10] And then sprinkle a little inflation on [29:11] top of that, but that that's It didn't [29:13] It almost didn't matter what it was. But [29:16] I I think everything is just amplified [29:18] these days and we had no chance. [29:21] Humanity had stood no chance against [29:23] social media. None. We had no chance [29:25] >> whether you want to blame COVID or [29:26] inflation, [29:28] this line broke permanently after that. [29:31] So, the internet wasn't created in 2020 [29:33] or COVID. [29:33] >> if if bad stuff that happened in the [29:35] past would have happened in the social [29:36] media era, that's what would have [29:38] amplified it. Okay, it didn't matter [29:40] what it was. It was something bad always [29:42] does happen. Social media made [29:44] everyone's sentiment worse and now [29:46] sentiment is a broken reading for all of [29:48] history. It's never coming back. [29:50] Not that not that it's not going to [29:51] spike in the future, but as a reliable [29:53] indicator of how people are actually [29:54] feeling about the economy, it's useless. [29:57] You can't use it anymore. [29:59] Well, but it for the stock market for [30:00] sure and for real life, too. But it does [30:03] have political like this this is a [30:04] direct line to the to the political [30:06] landscape. [30:06] >> it's political politics is you think [30:08] that it matters for and that's why we're [30:10] going to have We're People are like, are [30:11] politics just going to go back to normal [30:13] eventually? Like will we not have this [30:15] like craziness of the extremes? [30:17] No, I think it's going to get weirder [30:18] and Could you say that even though it [30:21] being lower than it was in [30:24] the bottom in '80 and the bottom in [30:25] 2008, even though that's stupid, [30:28] right? Because this met this this metric [30:29] is objectively broken even the way that [30:31] they collect this stuff. We've been over [30:32] this 100 times. [30:33] I still think it's directionally it's [30:34] right. Like people the mood of the [30:36] country is not awesome. [30:39] At the macro level. At the micro level, [30:40] things are fine and not for everybody, [30:42] believe me, I'm not suggesting that they [30:43] are. But I think like the average person [30:45] feels way better about their situation, [30:47] and this is always true, than how the [30:49] the country is doing. That's not like a [30:50] That's not like an insight that I just [30:52] made up. [30:52] >> Yes. And my point is, because we are [30:53] just inundated with negativity at all [30:55] times, that whole thing of the country [30:57] is going to hell is never going to [30:59] change. That's always going to be [31:00] something now. [31:01] >> Yeah. And also, people like us just give [31:03] this this sort of stuff too much too [31:04] much oxygen. [31:06] Potentially. [31:07] But it's obvious it's it's a thing, [31:08] obviously. Right? [31:10] Um all right. US household ownership of [31:13] corporate stocks and mutual funds now [31:14] totals $58 trillion, [31:17] which far exceeds real estate assets [31:18] totaling $48 trillion. And this is part [31:19] of the [31:21] This is like part of [31:23] part you know, one of the key [31:24] ingredients of the pie of of discontent [31:27] is all this wealth is in people's faces. [31:30] And if you don't have a piece of it, [31:32] it feels really shitty. [31:34] I also think that that the what we [31:36] experienced in the 2020s with [31:39] simultaneous booms in housing prices and [31:42] stock prices, we're never going to have [31:44] that again. [31:45] Okay? So, people are going to look at [31:46] that. If they missed the boat and go, [31:48] "Oh my god." [31:49] Here's the thing though. [31:51] Two-thirds of the country own stocks. [31:52] Two-thirds of the country own homes. [31:55] Most people have financial assets. I [31:57] know it's skewed. I know it's skewed. [31:59] >> it is. You're right, it is funny. A lot [32:01] of the people that are like yelling at [32:02] each other about how bad things are have [32:03] benefited. And they're yelling about how [32:05] bad it is for people that don't have [32:06] part of it. It's like this weird It's [32:08] weird virtue signaling. Yeah. [32:09] >> All all over all over the internet. All [32:11] right. Um Jeff Bezos calls for zero [32:13] income taxes on bottom half of earners. [32:15] Uh I didn't I didn't read this or listen [32:18] to the interview. Did you? [32:19] I listened to a CNBC interview, yes. [32:21] Okay. What did you [32:23] >> All right. So, um [32:26] somebody tweeted [32:27] >> were running wild with this one. Okay. [32:29] Somebody said it's great that Jeff Bezos [32:30] thinks this way because too many people [32:31] who don't make money [32:34] because too many people who don't make [32:35] money think that giving money to the [32:37] government will solve a lot of their [32:38] problems. They think these government [32:40] programs are the answer and it's clearly [32:41] not. I would agree with that. Um Jeff [32:43] Bezos quote tweeted and said, "Thank [32:45] you. The important part is zeroing out [32:46] taxes on the bottom half." [32:48] Best way to put someone Best way to put [32:50] money in someone's pocket is to not take [32:52] it out in the first place. Bottom half [32:54] is only 3% of total tax revenue, but [32:57] it's very meaningful to that person. [32:59] Zero it out. My thoughts on this are [33:01] this is a very, very complicated [33:03] topic. [33:04] Um and there's obviously very strong [33:06] feelings from coming from every angle [33:08] here. [33:09] Um I think that it's a really [33:11] potentially [33:12] scary thing and slippery slope to divide [33:16] the country like that. [33:18] Between I think about how bad the class [33:19] warfare will get [33:21] if we if the country allows a certain [33:24] portion of the population and I'm not [33:26] talking about people getting this as [33:27] Mike could give a [ __ ] about that, but [33:29] it if it's like the us versus them and [33:31] you really create like a caste system [33:33] of haves and have nots like formally. [33:35] Now yeah, I think it's I think it'd be [33:37] phenomenal like in a vacuum Right. I [33:39] agree. [33:39] >> to not have people pay taxes that don't [33:41] contribute a damn thing. Like I in a [33:43] vacuum in an ideal world, yes. Who says [33:46] no to that? Who says no? What type of [33:48] monster says no to that? [33:49] But I think it has real big societal [33:52] ramifications that people much [33:54] more thoughtful about this topic need to [33:56] spend a long time thinking about. [33:58] Yes. I This is a colleague of mine. And [34:00] you go, "Well, I'm in the 51st [34:01] percentile [34:03] and I'm having to pay now? [34:04] I moved out of the bottom and now I'm [34:06] now I'm paying if you're close." [34:07] >> True. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. So you're [34:09] right. It's it's [34:12] There's got to be a There's got to be a [34:13] There's got to be a better system. [34:15] It's never going to happen though [34:16] because we just keep Everyone keeps [34:18] saying taxes have to go higher and all [34:19] they do is keep going lower. Peop- They [34:20] keep finding different ways to take [34:22] taxes away from people. So I think we're [34:23] just going to keep testing how many [34:24] taxes tax rates we can take down lower [34:27] and see what happens. [34:28] That seems to be my only This is [34:30] This is a true rabbit hole that I care [34:32] not to go down. You know what? Speaking [34:34] of that, when people say I went down a [34:35] rabbit hole, no you didn't. You spent 20 [34:36] minutes on Claude. [34:37] True. [34:39] Right? Like there's some people There's [34:40] some people that genuinely [34:42] go down rabbit holes, but uh I'm going [34:44] to say 90% of people are full of [ __ ] [34:45] Rabbit holes are easier now. [34:46] >> Speaking of Claude, this is This is [34:49] [ __ ] unbelievable. [34:51] So, Ben got an email from a famous [34:53] author. [34:54] And in our inbox, I'm like, "This is so [34:56] weird. Who writes this way?" Like it was [34:58] just [34:59] There was a line in there that was [35:01] I'm not even sure it was like I thought [35:02] it was like a too cheesy to be AI. [35:04] >> Yeah. But Ben's like, "This is obviously [35:05] AI. I'll write back, whatever." So, Ben [35:07] responded, and the person responded with [35:09] what was clearly an AI response. [35:12] And I said to myself, "You got to be [35:14] [ __ ] Excuse me for the F-bombs. You [35:16] got to be kidding me." [35:17] This is This is a very well-known person [35:18] who's sold millions of copies of books. [35:20] And the thing is [35:20] >> This This is This is how you behave, you [35:23] I'm about [snorts] to use the F-bomb [35:23] again. You freaking weirdo. You think [35:26] this is normal behavior? So, I Are you a [35:28] human being? [35:29] >> So, since my book was released, I [35:30] probably get two or three AI AI emails a [35:33] day from like people who want to promote [35:36] the book, and I can tell because they [35:38] they stole the the summary from Amazon, [35:41] and it like re-summarized the book to [35:43] me. "Hey, you did a good job explaining [35:44] this." And then it says, "Would you like [35:45] to join our PR department and help [35:47] promote your book?" And I get two or [35:48] three of them a day, and I can't tell [35:50] you how quickly I delete an email that I [35:51] know was written by AI. [35:53] And I can't believe that successful [35:54] people I get it, you want to be more [35:56] proficient and productive and have an AI [35:59] agent help you, but that is so cringe [36:02] when I see an AI email from someone. I [36:04] can't I I immediately delete it. [36:07] It's It's unbelievable. I hope that's [36:08] just something that happens in the [36:09] future with people [36:11] where they go, "No, we're not going to [36:12] give you the light of day [36:14] for this." Like you can sign off using [36:15] AI somehow, like yes or no this work, [36:17] but like an actual personal email to [36:19] someone using AI is no way. Sorry. It's [36:22] unbelievable. Um [36:24] So, Ben Thompson wrote about So, Google [36:27] had a big [36:28] demonstration of their new capabilities. [36:30] It's called Spark. [36:32] And it's basically like the AI assistant [36:33] that's that's that's coming. [36:35] Um [36:37] So, [36:38] Ben Thompson wrote a lot about this. And [36:41] uh a friend of mine actually [36:43] was texting me the yesterday. He's like, [36:44] "Dude, it's here. Like everything that [36:46] we've been like waiting for to like the [36:48] really like [36:49] holy [36:51] FN crap moment. Like that's what this [36:53] is." I haven't used it yet. So, I'm I'm [36:55] excited to [36:56] take it for a drive. But, [36:59] this is what crypto was supposed to be. [37:01] Right. Where it was like [37:04] And I don't mean the promise of a [37:04] different future per se. I mean [37:05] specifically like oh, the the you won't [37:08] even know that you're using crypto. [37:11] It's just going to be [37:12] in the background and all the companies [37:14] are going to start to use it. [37:16] This is what [37:18] Google is now going to be pushing and a [37:20] lot of these [37:21] uh hyper scalers going to be they're [37:22] just going to be integrating AI more and [37:24] more into their products. [37:24] >> to that though Without us even knowing [37:26] it. And what's so funny? What are you [37:27] laughing at? [37:28] I don't know. Don't we have Duncan We [37:29] have Duncan being cute? Duncan's trying [37:30] to guess who the author was. [37:31] Uh Uh [37:32] >> [laughter] [37:32] >> Uh so, [37:34] is did crypto like miss its moment? Is [37:36] what I want to ask. Cuz I there was a [37:37] story last week about Mark Cuban who's [37:38] like, "I sold my Bitcoin. Like I'm done [37:40] with this." Like do you do you think [37:41] that AI has just sucked all the oxygen [37:43] out of the room and crypto had its [37:45] moment to like really get a consumer use [37:47] case? And I know you people say stable [37:49] coins and maybe that will be integrated [37:50] with AI. But, crypto never had its [37:52] thing. It's like, "Oh my gosh, this is [37:53] the thing." Yeah. And it never happened. [37:56] Did it miss its moment? [37:58] It's easy to say yes. I don't know [37:59] enough about what's happening in the [38:00] crypto economy to say like yes, it's [38:01] dead forever. But, the short answer is [38:03] yes. [38:04] Um Sheil Bahlol tweeted, "Robinhood's [38:07] crypto COO is stepping down." [38:09] Uh that's a big signal as their crypto [38:11] revenue growth slows. This is a a a gut [38:14] punch or at least a jab. SEC delays plan [38:17] allowing for crypto versions of US [38:18] stocks. So, is crypto dead and buried [38:21] forever? I you know, I'm not going to [38:22] say that. I have no idea. I wouldn't say [38:23] that, but it's it missed it like AI has [38:25] the [38:27] If you But but the thing is [38:29] AI is sucking up all of the talent in [38:32] the world. [38:32] >> That's what I'm That's what I'm That's [38:33] what I'm saying. Remember before it was [38:34] like everyone's going to work in crypto? [38:35] Now all those people are going to go to [38:36] AI. [38:37] And that's what drives innovation. It's [38:40] the talent that builds it. Right. And [38:42] who is going into crypto now? Like [38:44] nobody. [38:45] If you were going to If If you're of [38:46] that mind and of that spirit, you're [38:48] going where the next thing is and it's [38:51] clearly not crypto. Right. That's what [38:53] I'm That's what I'm thinking. [38:55] Who knows? [38:58] Oh, so Benedict Evans has his I think he [39:01] does it every 6 months. He updates his [39:02] presentation and this one of course was [39:04] on AI. [39:05] This was interesting. We talked about [39:06] this last week. He said everyone is [39:07] already using this is the title of the [39:08] presentation. He says OpenAI reports 900 [39:11] million plus weekly users. But only 5% [39:14] of them are paying. [39:17] Which is kind of nuts. [39:18] We were talking about this last week [39:19] with with Gavin Baker said like [39:21] There is There is an obvious natural [39:23] disconnect between [39:25] the numbers are eye-popping [39:27] and it's got to be a bubble. Of course [39:28] it's a bubble. How could it not be a [39:29] bubble? Of course it's a bubble. [39:32] But like what the the we're so early to [39:34] steal another thing from crypto. [39:36] It really it really is [39:39] the top of the first inning for this AI [39:41] buildout. [39:42] Now, the stocks might be in a bubble, [39:44] right? And it might be that we [39:45] discounted everything. Okay, fine. I [39:47] don't know. We'll find out. But in terms [39:49] of AI adoption [39:51] we really are so early. [39:54] Yeah, and the use case obvious is [39:55] obvious once you start using it. Um so [39:57] you talked about the Bezos interview on [39:59] CNBC. One thing he said he he said [40:02] I'm taking the other side of the labor [40:03] disruption. He said he thinks AI is [40:05] going to make people so much more [40:06] productive. The productivity is going to [40:07] go through the roof. People are going to [40:09] have more money. He said AI is going to [40:11] lead to deflation and labor shortages. [40:13] He said we're going to have more desire [40:15] for things in the future because of AI [40:17] and it's going to create more businesses [40:18] and more jobs than ever. He's taking the [40:20] positive spin on AI. Which is actually [40:22] kind of refreshing to hear. Someone last [40:24] week commented us and said, "I'm sick of [40:26] all the AI doom from you guys." And I [40:28] think we've been pretty fair about it [40:29] all. Doom. [40:30] >> But I know. But [40:33] Bezos says, "No, no, no, it's going to [40:34] lead to job shortages cuz people are [40:36] going to be more more productive and [40:37] richer." [40:39] Very plausible. [40:41] I hope so. [40:43] All right, real estate, what do you got? [40:45] Um all right, Ben. [40:49] Uh [40:50] I bought a stock. [40:52] This is definitely not financial advice. [40:55] Um [40:58] People like when Josh and I talk about [41:00] stocks and what are your thoughts, so as [41:01] much as I would [41:02] >> this is financial advice? Has anyone [41:04] ever said that before? [41:05] >> [laughter] [41:07] >> Uh this guy. [41:09] As much as part of me would like to [41:11] never pick stocks again because it's [41:13] stupid and it's a waste of time and I [41:14] don't make money and blah blah blah [41:15] blah, I I love it. [41:18] Keeps me keeps me young, Ben. [41:20] Um [41:21] and it's it's great for the content. All [41:22] right, so whatever, I'm picking stocks [41:23] again. Um What'd you buy? So I bought [41:26] Floor & Decor. [41:28] Floor & Decor is [41:31] a looks like an uh an incredibly [41:33] beautiful, perfectly [41:36] perfect downtrend. The stock sucks. [41:39] Floor & Decor, get Do they have one by [41:41] you? There's like I think there's like [41:42] 500 stores in the country. [41:43] >> it sounds like a place my mom shops at. [41:45] Okay. So it's uh they do they do [41:48] flooring, obviously, and other home [41:51] improvement stuff, okay? [41:54] So they compete directly with Home Depot [41:55] and Lowe's. Matter of fact, I think they [41:56] sell more flooring. [41:58] So I How is this even on my radar? So [42:00] Alex Morris, who I follow, [42:02] wonderful writer, Substacker, this has [42:05] been He's been on this beat for a long [42:06] time and I followed him right into this [42:08] stock. It's in a 65% drawdown. So he So [42:11] he gave me financial advice. So, if any [42:12] if this doesn't work out, [42:14] that's on him, not me. [42:16] So, anyway, um [42:18] you know how we were talking about like [42:19] how fast things change? [42:22] And part of the lessons, at least from [42:24] recent history, [42:26] is that stocks just don't let you in. [42:29] Like by the When the story changes, like [42:30] look at Intel or or any of these. Like, [42:33] it's like, "Wait, what just happened? [42:34] Why is the stock up 40%? Oh, I can't buy [42:35] it now." That's how it works, okay? So, [42:37] I am very confident that at some point [42:40] in time [42:41] there will be a changing of the housing [42:43] cycle, and I don't want to miss it, [42:44] okay? So, this is the stock that I'm [42:47] betting on. And will I sell in the 3 [42:48] months when I get bored and I don't make [42:49] money? Yeah, probably. I'll probably [42:50] sell [42:51] >> is This is your way to bet on the home [42:52] renovation boom. [42:54] Yeah. People not moving. Yeah. So, [42:56] anyhow, that's a long setup, but I [42:58] thought this was interesting. So, the [42:59] Wall Street Journal has um [43:02] a piece showing the age of America's [43:04] homes. [43:05] And most of the homes are 55 years are [43:09] old or older. [43:10] A lot of the houses in my town, I'm sure [43:12] in every town, [43:14] when they sell, there is a lot of work [43:16] that needs to be done. And Floor & Decor [43:19] and all these other housing stocks are [43:20] in an absolute ice age. This is a great [43:23] depression. This is a great recession [43:25] for these housing stocks. [43:27] The [43:29] the [43:30] the news cannot possibly be any worse [43:32] unless it just goes on longer than even [43:34] the market is suggesting, which [43:35] obviously is happening, right? Like, who [43:37] who knows? All right. So, I saw a chart [43:40] from Torsten Slok, [43:42] who we mention all the time, [43:44] and it says, "Higher rates, more [43:46] renovations." [43:47] "Locked-in mortgage rates are keeping [43:49] homeowners in place [43:51] and driving a surge in renovation [43:53] spending. See chart below." [43:57] See chart below. [43:59] This chart is bunk. [44:01] I I actually thought about this. So, [44:02] wait, let me see if I can guess. Go [44:03] ahead. So, the reason this is bunk cuz [44:05] it's renovations as a percentage of [44:07] construction spending. Is it because [44:08] construction spending is falling? Is [44:10] that why? [44:10] Yeah, the denominator. Right. Nailed it. [44:13] Okay, that's what I thought. [44:14] >> So, so Claude decoded this for me. [44:17] And if you look at improvements, [44:21] uh now this is this is a little bit [44:24] dated the the data, but it's it's it's [44:26] growing like 2% a year. It's barely [44:29] growing. [44:30] It's barely growing. And if you look at [44:32] if you look at the comps of all these [44:33] companies, Floor & Decor, Mohawk, [44:36] uh Sherwin, Lowe's, Home Depot, [44:38] Williams-Sonoma, Restoration, they're [44:40] all saying the same thing. We know the [44:41] housing market is an absolute [ __ ] show, [44:42] okay? It is terrible. Um Whirlpool that [44:46] sells uh [44:48] dishwashers and whatever, annihilated. [44:50] There is nothing happening. [44:52] There is nothing happening. So, [44:55] high so locked-in mortgage are keeping [44:57] homeowners in a place of driving a surge [44:58] of innovation spending? [44:59] Yeah, I suppose if you're looking at a [45:01] denominator as a percentage, Okay, so [45:03] you're what's your thesis here then? [45:04] You're trying to get ahead of this? [45:07] Yeah. Okay. Yeah, that's [45:09] >> cuz here's here's a So, I think this is [45:10] actually like not like a one or two-year [45:12] trend. I think this is like a 15-year or [45:14] 20-year trend because Redfin has the [45:16] data that shows like 2/3 of all baby [45:18] boomers have lived in their homes for 15 [45:19] years or longer and something like 40% [45:21] have lived in their house for 20 years [45:23] or more. [45:24] A lot of those houses going to need a [45:26] ton of renovation to meet the standards [45:28] of young people who grew up on HDTV. [45:30] Okay? I think that's going to be a big [45:32] huge thing for baby boomers who just [45:33] said, "You know what? I don't need I'm I [45:35] don't need to renovate. I'm fine with [45:36] it." We did renovation 20 years ago. We [45:38] don't need to renovate again. [45:40] And young people who come in to buy [45:41] those houses are going to go, "Nope, we [45:42] need to gut this, new this, new [45:44] countertops, new flooring, [45:46] updated bedroom, open up for [45:47] entertaining, all that stuff." That's [45:49] going to be a 20-year trend. But does it [45:51] is it just dribs and drabs or is it like [45:53] this you know, that's the that's the [45:55] thing. [45:55] >> Well, [45:56] higher rates are [45:58] is killing housing. [46:00] Uh obviously. So, [46:03] I hope you're right, Ben. I hope rates [46:04] come down. [46:06] Floor and decor. All right. You're [46:07] bottom fishing. Um, how about this? [46:11] Uh, I was listening to Matt Bellany, [46:14] um, and he had a podcast on vertical [46:18] vertical streaming because everybody [46:20] holds their phone like this and even [46:22] though it's a minor inconvenience to do [46:23] this, [46:24] it's an inconvenience, right? This isn't [46:25] natural. [46:27] So, uh, Netflix is getting in on it. [46:29] Like all these companies are spending [46:30] big to compete because also like reels [46:34] and TikTok, this is how this is how [46:36] people watch it. [46:39] They said this on the pod. I had Claude [46:41] confirm and make a chart. [46:43] Reels alone, [46:45] Meta's reels is doing more revenue. Now, [46:48] they just This is a new product. Reels [46:51] is doing more revenue than Netflix. [46:54] Jeez. [46:56] Just reels. [46:58] This is why the concentration argument [47:00] about the big tech companies is [47:01] false flat for me. [47:03] You you always talk about the business [47:05] lines of Apple. Apple does more revenue [47:06] in AirPods than it does you know, you [47:08] always talk about that. Like if you [47:09] break down inside these companies for [47:12] Instagram and you said just reels and [47:14] then YouTube for Google and all YouTube [47:15] TV and all these things like they're [47:16] those are individual businesses of [47:18] themselves. This is that's that's pretty [47:19] crazy. [47:21] The funny thing is is that's obviously [47:22] not a good way to watch [47:25] something vertically. It's way better to [47:27] watch it horizontally, but people don't [47:29] care. It's convenience. [47:32] Right? [47:34] It's not the best way to watch [47:34] something. [47:36] >> Um, [47:38] we had a four-day week [47:40] weekend as did I'm guessing most of all [47:43] the country. I don't know why we were [47:44] off on Friday. [47:45] Um, and the weather sucked. [47:47] The sun finally came out on Monday [47:49] afternoon, but it was a complete washout [47:51] here. [47:52] Uh, I took the boys to see [47:55] the Mandalore Mando Grogu. [47:58] Um [48:00] I sat in the like seventh row of the [48:03] IMAX theater. [48:04] >> People like the TV show, right? I [48:05] remember I watched one episode and like [48:06] I'm not going to watch Star Wars show, [48:07] sorry. But people like the TV show, [48:08] >> It was good. Yeah, I think I think [48:09] people are into it. Um but sitting up [48:11] front in IMAX wasn't as bad as I thought [48:13] it was. It was it was an good [48:14] experience. [48:15] >> neck straight up. No, no. I I was afraid [48:17] of that. No, it was it was not bad. Um [48:20] The movie was The movie was So, it did [48:22] good business. I think it did 160 [48:24] million globally. Not terrible. Um [48:28] And it was it was totally watchable. [48:30] Kids loved it. [48:32] Uh Matt Belloni had a stat like [48:35] I think it was like 70% of all tickets [48:37] were sold before 5:00 p.m. It was like a [48:39] heavy a heavy kids audience. [48:43] Now, I don't watch Mando, so I don't [48:44] know if this is an extension of the [48:45] show. I'm guessing it is. [48:47] It just was like, why, you know? [48:49] Like it was just [48:50] >> That's what I was going to say. Why do [48:51] we need this? Yeah, it was The movie was [48:53] like fine. It was watchable. It was I [48:54] didn't fall asleep. Actually, I did [48:56] once. [48:57] But um it just didn't move the plot [48:59] forward. Like this is the best they got. [49:00] It's been seven years. Jon Favreau, it's [49:04] been seven years since we've had a Star [49:05] Wars movie. [49:06] And this was it. It was just like [49:09] It just felt like like like Marvel did [49:10] the [ __ ] and got it out of the system. [49:11] Like it's over. We're not doing these [49:12] movies anymore. [49:14] But uh I guess we're still doing them. [49:15] It was kind of depressing. [49:17] Disney's going to squeeze the last bit [49:18] of that toothpaste tube for as long as [49:20] they can. [49:21] Yeah. [49:23] Yes, they are, Ben. Um [49:27] Okay. [49:28] Uh [49:29] Nobody's buying dad books, Ben. [49:31] What is that? A dad book is like World [49:33] War [49:34] II biographies? [49:34] >> So, [49:36] Charnow's most recent biography of Mark [49:38] Twain, [49:40] uh which was published in time for [49:41] Father's Day 2025, has sold 119,000 [49:44] hardcover copies to date. [49:47] Ulysses, which I read in 2017, sold [49:49] 381,000. [49:51] >> Speaking of dad books. So, wait, they [49:54] they need him it's because these [49:55] biographies are too long. No one has [49:56] time to read 900 pages on someone's [49:58] third cousin. Sorry. [50:00] >> Nobody. Too much. Um [50:03] I always struggle I'm not a big gift [50:06] giver. I'm not I'm I'm a bad gift giver [50:08] I'm not a big gift giver but I love you [50:09] know I love giving gifts. I just don't [50:10] know how to do a great [50:11] >> As an anti-birthday guy, I'm obviously [50:13] not good at it. Okay. [50:15] So in a period of of being unlocked from [50:20] this brick on Instagram, speaking of dad [50:22] books. [50:24] I bought my dad a book. [50:27] Um [50:30] And this is Reels, right? Like this is [50:32] this is Reels monetization. I bought my [50:34] dad a book where it's like the first [50:35] time you did this like like the [ __ ] [50:37] that I don't know that I would love to [50:39] know when he's not here one day [50:40] hopefully far into the future. [50:42] And he'll he'll be able to fill it out [50:43] and give it to me. So it's like all [50:45] these things all these things that you [50:46] never asked your parents essentially, [50:47] right? Yeah, so it's like that but it's [50:49] just done for you and my dad just has to [50:50] fill it out. So I'm excited. Yeah. And a [50:53] lot of stuff you just literally never [50:54] asked before. Yeah. And it's good for [50:56] your kids, too. And things that are like [50:58] you know uncomfortable that you probably [51:00] would have regret not asking not having [51:02] asked before you know when it's too [51:03] late. [51:04] Yes. You know I had an uncomfortable my [51:05] con- conversation with my dad about 6 [51:07] months ago and I said, "Give me all your [51:09] stuff." My dad's going to be 80 next [51:10] year. I said, "Give me all your stuff. [51:11] Everything. I need to know where your [51:13] accounts are. I need to know your [51:14] passwords. I need to know your [51:15] insurance. I need to know mortgage [51:17] stuff. I need everything. Put it in one [51:18] place for me. If something happens to [51:20] you, I need that. I'm going you know I I [51:23] don't want to have to like go digging [51:24] and looking for stuff." [51:25] Did he do it? He did it. And [51:28] he's an old school guy. He um he handed [51:30] it to me handwritten [51:31] on a piece of paper. Not not [51:34] I went home [51:35] >> You're bad. I keep giving my dad crap on [51:37] the show. I went home last week and [51:38] we're we we we're a big card playing [51:40] family. We love playing cards. My kids [51:41] all play cards. So we're playing cards. [51:42] We like listening to music and playing [51:43] cards. Having a beer. [51:45] And uh my dad comes out with a sheet of [51:47] paper with stuff written on it. And he [51:49] says, "Alexa, play Beatles Hard Day's [51:51] Night." He wrote out his playlist. [51:54] And he's after every song is over, he'd [51:56] tell Alexa to play the next song. I [51:57] said, "Dad, can I show you how to create [52:00] a playlist?" [52:01] >> awesome. That's so cool. [52:01] >> no, no, I don't want to do I'm just [52:03] going to I have my playlist here. I'm [52:04] going to All right." So, every song he'd [52:05] have to tell Alexa what to play. [52:08] My uncle is cut from the same cloth. [52:11] He still uses [52:13] and I think it's a joke at this point, [52:14] but like he would do it even if it [52:16] wasn't a joke. [52:17] He uses week at a glance. [52:20] Which is the physical [52:22] calendar. [52:24] It's like a pocket-size calendar. Oh, [52:26] yes. Right. [52:26] >> It's always in his pocket. Right. [52:28] >> That's how he and he has an iPhone. But [52:30] he literally uses week at a glance. [52:33] That's funny. And I know he used to [52:35] print out his portfolio every single [52:36] day. And you know, old Some people are [52:39] just uh [52:41] stuck in their ways. [52:42] >> hard. That's right, Ben. Um all right, I [52:44] wanted to ask you about this. So, I this [52:45] article is not for me, but it's for you. [52:48] The ice-cold civil war between Diet Coke [52:50] and Coke Zero drinkers. Mhm. [52:53] So, [52:55] I I'm not a huge Diet Coke drinker. I [52:57] try not to drink a ton of soda, but I [52:58] drink it more than I would you know, I [52:59] probably have [53:01] three cans a month. [53:02] Ish. Ebbs and flows. Sometimes I drink [53:05] it, sometimes I don't. [53:06] I've never had Coke Zero. [53:08] Oh my gosh. It's [53:10] it's I used to be a Diet Coke, Diet [53:11] Pepsi drinker. I go back and forth. [53:13] Coke Zero and Pepsi Zero are so much [53:15] better than Diet Coke, Diet Pepsi. [53:18] In what way? [53:19] They the flavor. It it tastes close to [53:21] the regular versions. It's so much [53:23] better. I can't It's hard to explain. [53:26] It's It's I can see why the growth is [53:28] happening in those those zero drinks. [53:29] They It take It take tastes a lot [53:30] better. So, Diet Coke sales increased by [53:33] just not 1.3% [53:36] in the first 9 months of 2025. Coke Zero [53:38] grew by 4.8% in the same time period. [53:40] I'm a big zero guy. I love it. [53:42] Mhm. It's all I drink now. It's a zero [53:44] stuff. I'll try it. It's good. [53:46] >> You've My interest is piqued. Um all [53:48] right, Retatrutide. I don't know if I'm [53:50] saying that right, but that's the new [53:52] [ __ ] the new hot [ __ ] from Eli Lilly. [53:55] Phase three obesity trial just came in [53:57] just came out and the results are [53:58] genuinely insane. [54:00] 28.3% body weight loss on 12 mg over 80 [54:03] weeks. I don't know how much 12 mg is. [54:05] 70 lb on average. [54:08] 70 lb. [54:09] Man, people are heavy. [54:12] 45% of patients had 30% weight loss. [54:15] This is bariatric surgery territory. [54:17] Unreal. [54:18] >> We've We've solved weight loss. What [54:19] does this mean for the health of this [54:21] country? It's We've literally got [54:22] doctors should be handing this out to [54:24] every patient who has a BMI over X or a [54:28] Like the the [54:29] savings on heart disease and [54:33] it's unbelievable. So I Yeah, I I [54:35] suggest that yeah, like yeah, they [54:36] should do it. I I literally know nothing [54:37] about medicine. Uh I'm the last person [54:39] that should be giving medical advice. [54:41] I have um [54:45] I am like a hypochondriac about death [54:48] because my mom died young. I think about [54:50] death a lot and I just think that I'm [54:51] going to die young, which is not the [54:53] greatest feeling in the world. [54:55] So I did a blood test. [55:00] Um [55:01] there's a company called Function Health [55:03] that I found through somebody's Substack [55:05] that I that I like. [55:07] Uh I said, "You know what? This is [55:08] probably overdue for me." [55:11] So I got like 96 different blood tests. [55:15] Um and I signed up for like the cancer [55:17] or the pre-cancer screening, the heart [55:18] stuff. And it's not cheap. It's like It [55:20] was like 14 or 1500 bucks. Um certainly [55:23] cheaper than than than dying or I Right? [55:25] Like there's no amount of money I [55:26] wouldn't pay to know that to know that [55:28] I'm either [55:29] whatever, on the right track or not or [55:30] if I need to course correct. [55:32] I hate giving blood. [55:34] Not a fan. It was 12 vials. [55:36] Not fun. [55:38] Do you get like squeamish about it? Not [55:40] really. I just don't like it. But it was [55:41] it was it was over fairly quickly. [55:43] Anyhow, um [55:45] so I got the results and my biological [55:47] age, Ben, would you like to take a [55:48] guess? [55:51] 40? [55:53] 30.8. [55:55] Okay. [55:57] My Now, my my my biological back age is [55:59] 75. True. But 30.8 made me feel pretty [56:03] pretty good. [56:04] There was like there was four things [56:05] that were like on the upper range of [56:08] borderline [56:09] like borderline out of out of range. Uh [56:12] and it was like [56:12] >> is like okay. And it was like diet [56:14] stuff, stuff that you control. But uh [56:16] but I shouldn't spike the football just [56:17] yet. In fact, I probably shouldn't even [56:19] be mentioning this because I haven't [56:20] gotten the results for like the [56:20] pre-cancer stuff, [56:22] which is the stuff that is especially [56:23] like prevalent in my family. [56:25] And you have to do this like once a year [56:26] now? [56:27] It's a good question. That I don't know. [56:30] Okay. So if you take your internal clock [56:32] versus your hairline, average it out, [56:34] you're right where you should be. [56:37] Right? [56:38] That was a that was a positive surprise. [56:39] I feel pretty good about that. [56:41] All right, recommendations. Ben, I took [56:43] your advice and I listened to the [56:44] Harrison Ford podcast, which [56:46] uh [56:47] speaking of genetics, his mother was [56:48] Jewish. I had no idea. One of us. [56:51] Um [56:52] great pod. [56:53] You know what kind of annoys me? Not [56:55] kind of it annoys me. For whatever [56:57] reason on Spotify, there was no video [56:59] for this and it's not [57:01] there's some [57:02] Are they on Netflix? [57:04] Oh, maybe that I don't know. That's a [57:05] good question. I don't know. I saw I saw [57:06] there's there's a video version on [57:07] YouTube. Okay. [57:10] So [57:11] What I do? [57:12] It's great. So I after listening to the [57:14] podcast, I was like, you know what? I [57:15] watched the first season of Shrinking. [57:16] It was a show I liked, I didn't love. [57:18] I'm going to I need it as a background [57:19] show. [57:20] And I realized, maybe I already made [57:21] this observation, Bill Lawrence is the [57:22] Taylor Sheridan of comedies. So he's got [57:25] he's got Shrinking, Bad Monkey, [57:28] Rooster, Ted Lasso, [57:30] he did the Scrubs remake. Wait, which [57:32] was that? things. [57:33] >> Which was which was Bad Monkey? The [57:34] Vince Vaughn one. [57:36] Oh, I didn't watch that. No, none of [57:38] them are great. They're all good though. [57:40] Yeah. Like we There's no comedies [57:41] anymore, so it's nice to just have It's [57:43] a background show. You don't have to [57:44] like pay attention to every scene. [57:46] So, I put it on the background while I'm [57:47] doing stuff at night, emails, and [57:49] catching up on stuff. [57:50] Um [57:52] It is a good background show. [57:53] Uh oh, Obsession [57:57] which is a hardcore Michael movie. I [57:58] haven't seen it yet. [57:59] You might have heard about this. Ben, [58:00] have you heard about this yet? [58:02] No. It's one of those indie horror [58:04] movies. It's on fire. [58:06] Okay. I think it passed 100 million at [58:08] the box office, so it's going to. [58:11] Movies are movie [58:12] What, you haven't seen it? I know I saw [58:14] a trailer for it. I'm not going to watch [58:15] I don't watch horror movies, you know [58:16] that. I know you don't. I think I did [58:18] take you [58:19] I go ahead. [58:20] Movies are having a moment. [58:22] So much so that one of the stocks [58:25] that I've owned for a long for a long [58:27] time in Michael years [58:29] is uh is IMAX. [58:31] There was reports that IMAX's uh [58:34] might be getting some some offers. I got [58:36] a lot of congratulations. Are you going [58:37] to sell it? Are you going to wait? I'm [58:38] not selling it. [58:40] Wait for the bidding war? Okay. [58:41] Uh I actually took your recommendation [58:43] for a movie. My wife and I watched [58:44] Remarkably Bright Creatures this weekend [58:46] on Netflix. That's a Ben Carson movie. [58:48] What if It's so nice to have just a [58:50] sweet movie. That's the best way I can [58:52] describe it. It was sweet. It had like [58:53] no ulterior motives, no like cynicism, [58:57] just like a nice movie like and it was [58:58] kind of surprising cuz it was good all [59:00] the way. [59:02] I don't I feel like I got a little like [59:03] whoa, a little choked up maybe. Uh Sally [59:05] Field still has it. Like I haven't seen [59:07] her in something in forever. She still [59:09] got it. And I love Bill Pullman's son. I [59:11] love him. He's He was in Top Gun: [59:12] Maverick. He was in the show with Brie [59:14] Larson on Apple. Uh I think he's going [59:16] to be a great character actor. He's [59:18] >> Yeah. He looks different in everything [59:19] he does. He's like I Sally Field like [59:21] still has it. [59:23] Um Yeah, it's just it's just a nice It's [59:24] just a It's a movie. Just classic. [59:26] >> That's a nice That's it's a nice movie. [59:27] Like didn't have any like yeah, any [59:30] other agendas besides just being a nice [59:32] sweet movie. I really liked it. It was [59:33] pretty good one for Netflix. [59:35] Really good for Netflix, yeah. [59:37] Um [59:40] All right, I believe that's it. [59:44] Sun is shining. That's good. [59:47] The sky hasn't been falling for a while [59:48] as far as the markets go. [59:50] Someone said that I'm like the dad when [59:52] I say like whenever we do get a [59:53] correction [59:54] I'm going to I'm going to walk out like [59:56] when after it rains and say "Ah, we [59:57] needed that." [59:58] That's going to be me after a [59:59] correction. We just came out of a [60:00] correction, but I agree we do need one. [60:03] I'm with you, bud. 9% is nothing. [60:05] All right. [60:07] Animal spirits [60:08] at the compound news.com [60:10] right. [60:11] Did I get that right? Personally almost [60:12] personal responses. [60:13] >> [music] [60:14] >> See you next time. [60:19] >> [music]