PIMCO CIO Ivascyn Warns AI Disruption Will Drive Corporate Credit Losses

PIMCO首席投资官Ivascyn警告：AI颠覆将引发企业信贷损失 无论美国整体经济韧性如何，债务水平攀升、高收益率以及AI的快速应用都将推高违约率并加剧企业重组。 Dan Ivascyn概述了PIMCO未来3至5年的宏观经济框架，强调地缘政治摩擦、去全球化和沉重的债务负担标志着其与以往低收益率机制的结构性转变。尽管地缘政治不确定性加剧且信贷损失周期即将走向常态化，但在AI基础设施、国防以及电网现代化巨额资本支出的支撑下，美国基础经济面依然保持韧性。在这种环境下，固定收益重新具备了收益率的可预测性，使高质量债券和结构化数字信贷成为相比高估值、高估值倍数股票更具吸引力的创收替代品。 PIMCO坚持以团队为核心、注重流程与纪律性执行的投资理念，通过各细分领域的微小优势持续复利，而非依赖单一明星人物进行宏观押注。 (8:00) PIMCO发布题为《破裂与韧性》的3至5年长期展望，指出地缘冲突、贸易保护主义、民粹主义及国家产业政策正逐渐压倒传统教科书式的经济效率，成为主导经济走向的关键力量。 (18:43) 未来五年全球资本开支迎巨量增长，预计AI基础设施建设将吸纳7.6万亿美元，电网升级与能源转型需2.6万亿美元，国防重整也将耗资2.4万亿美元。 (30:12) AI基础设施庞大的资本需求促使科技巨头大规模通过发债及股权融资，主动型固收经理得以协商获得6%至8%且具备更强条款保护的优质收益率。 (32:18) 当前美股股权风险溢价接近于零，加之后疫情期流动性消退、宽松契约与AI对传统商业模式的冲击，信贷损失周期正逐步显现，固定收益资产正重新提供实质收益与下行对冲保护。 (42:15)

PIMCO Group CIO Dan Ivascyn argues that global markets are entering a secular era of geopolitical rupture and an impending credit loss cycle, even as resilient economic fundamentals and massive capital expenditures keep baseline growth intact. In this environment, restored fixed-income yields offer predictable, equity-like returns with structural protection that overextended risk assets and loose private credit lack. Secular Realignment and Multi-Trillion Capital Spending (18:43) PIMCO has updated its secular economic framework from 'The Fragmentation Era' to 'Rupture and Resilience,' reflecting a structural break where geopolitics, protectionism, and domestic populism actively overrule classic economic textbook efficiency. Active conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East, intensifying trade frictions, and political polarization challenge the post-World War II international order. Yet, despite these macro anxieties, Ivascyn emphasizes that the underlying U.S. economy remains resilient, underpinned by healthy consumer balance sheets from home equity gains, sustained labor strength, and emerging productivity improvements. This domestic resilience is further reinforced by an enormous wave of capital expenditure that acts as an economic stimulus. PIMCO forecasts three primary secular spending drivers over the next five years: $7.6 trillion globally in artificial intelligence infrastructure, $2.6 trillion in energy transition and grid modernization, and $2.4 trillion in defense and security commitments. While this combined capital investment supports sustained economic momentum, Ivascyn cautions that near-term resource constraints and physical supply bottlenecks introduce upside risks to inflation. Resetting Bond Yields Outperform Stretched Equity Math (45:40) The post-GFC regime of near-zero interest rates—where core bonds yielded an annualized ~2.5% nominal and virtually zero in real terms—has fundamentally ended. High-quality fixed income now offers baseline yields of 7% to 8%. Because historical data shows a ~95% correlation between starting yield and five-year forward returns, fixed income currently provides cash-flow predictability that contrasts sharply with the uncertainty of non-dividend tech growth stocks. Simultaneously, the U.S. Equity Risk Premium sits near zero, with Shiller CAPE valuations at levels that have historically led to muted or negative 5- to 10-year forward real returns. The massive capital needs of AI hyperscalers have also forced cash-rich tech giants into the debt markets—including Nvidia issuing $20–$30 billion in debt, Oracle raising $20 billion in debt, and Google executing a $10 billion equity offering. Senior lenders like PIMCO are now able to secure high-quality digital infrastructure debt yielding 6% to 8% (a 200 basis point spread pickup over standard investment-grade bonds) with protective contractual terms, as well as high-yield infrastructure allocations yielding 9% to 15% as equity alternatives. The Emerging Private Credit Loss Cycle (47:23) Ivascyn warns that a credit loss cycle is arriving, particularly across leveraged loans and private debt, though it will manifest as a structural normalization rather than a sudden wave of systemic defaults. During the post-GFC and COVID eras, record capital inflows and aggressive lender competition encouraged loose covenants and allowed managers to kick the can by issuing Payment-in-Kind (PIK) notes and extending maturities without acknowledging losses. That dynamic is now reversing. Post-COVID lending vintages that featured tight spreads and minimal covenants are poised to see realized credit losses migrate from near-zero to mid-single digits (4% to 5%). Earning a net 4% to 5% after credit losses on risky private debt is uncompelling when risk-free sovereign debt yields roughly 4.5%. Furthermore, because most leveraged loans carry floating interest rates, borrowers face sustained high interest expenses precisely as AI threatens to disrupt the revenues of debt-laden, 'old economy' software, legal, and business services. AI Labor Disruption and Energy Tail Risks (60:58) While artificial intelligence investments promise long-term disinflation via substantial economy-wide productivity gains, the transitional costs will be unevenly distributed. Ivascyn notes that these corporate productivity gains will largely stem from human labor displacement, uniquely threatening middle-income white-collar professionals. This labor friction could elevate precautionary household savings, dampen consumer spending, and spark political or regulatory backlash against technology companies. In the financial sector itself, institutional asset managers are shifting talent away from traditional entry-level financial analysts focused on manual spreadsheets toward tech-fluent professionals who deploy automated systems. For the immediate macro horizon, Ivascyn maintains a constructive base-case outlook on U.S. economic growth through year-end, identifying an Iranian geopolitical energy disruption through the Strait of Hormuz as the primary near-term tail risk that could derail stability. PIMCO concludes that while investors face heightened geopolitical ruptures and an overdue credit loss cycle in subordinated debt, hunkering down in cash is an overly defensive error given resilient underlying growth. Instead, navigating this cycle requires pivoting into high-quality senior credit, capturing restored baseline yields, and structuring defensive covenants that can withstand corporate distress independent of broader economic performance.

PIMCO集团首席投资官Dan Ivascyn指出，全球正步入以地缘政治摩擦与人工智能颠覆为特征的结构性破裂期，尽管宏观经济仍具韧性，但企业信贷领域正迎来真实的资本损失周期；投资者应借助当前重置的固定收益初始收益率构建高质量组合，而非过度承担低质量信贷或高估值权益资产的风险。 “破裂与韧性”的长期宏观新范式 (18:43) PIMCO将其为期3至5年的长期展望主题从去年的“碎片化时代”升级为“破裂与韧性”。Ivascyn解释称，战后数十年奉行的经济效率与全球化逻辑已让位于地缘政治与国内民粹主义，关税等政策的推行打破了传统经济学常识。俄乌武装冲突、中东战局、大国战略竞争以及各国极端政治力量的抬头，使战后规则体系面临结构性冲击。然而，全球宏观的不确定性与美国国内经济的韧性形成鲜明对比。受多年房价升值支撑的中高收入阶层资产负债表依然稳固，劳动力市场保持坚挺，加之科技资本开支逐步转化为生产力，美国经济基准面未现衰退迹象。因此，Ivascyn认为固定收益投资者不应一味防守退回现金，而应依托高质量资产捕捉具有吸引力的收益。 数万亿美元资本开支重塑债券融资 (30:12) 全球正迎来庞大的长期资本开支浪潮。PIMCO预测，未来5年全球AI基础设施投资将达7.6万亿美元（相当于日本与法国GDP之和），能源网络现代化将吸纳2.6万亿美元，国防与重整军备需要2.4万亿美元，供应链重构与各类转型开支亦需约1.4万亿美元。大规模实物投资短期内构成了强劲的财政与企业层面刺激，但也因原材料与能源争夺带来了通胀上行摩擦。在融资端，过去现金流充沛且极少发债的科技巨头集体涌入公开与私人债券市场，包括Nvidia发行200亿至300亿美元债务、Google开展100亿美元股权融资、Oracle宣布各200亿美元的股债融资方案，以及PIMCO与Blue Owl联合为Meta的Hyperion超大规模数据中心提供高级贷款支持。Ivascyn指出，巨大融资规模使主动型债券管理人多年来首次重获谈判筹码，能够在争取严格投资者保护条款的同时，在优质科技资产中锁定6%至8%的投资级收益率，或在次级数字基建中获取9%至15%的合同票息。 信贷损失周期回归与AI的双重冲击 (47:23) 针对私募信贷与杠杆贷款市场，Ivascyn明确提出“信贷损失周期已经来临”，但这并非伴随全面违约潮的崩塌，而是向历史常态的理性回归。金融危机后及疫情期间的极度宽松与财政补贴让市场习惯了极低的违约率，管理人通过到期展期和实物支付（PIK）等手段不断推迟问题暴露。然而，伴随疫情后激进发行周期遗留的宽松信贷契约，过去接近零损失的信贷资产违约损失预计将迁徙至4%至5%的中等个位数区间。在无风险的美国国债收益率接近4.5%的背景下，扣除违约损失后仅剩4%至5%净回报的低质私募信贷吸引力显著下降。雪上加霜的是，AI技术正直接破坏传统软件、法律和金融服务等高杠杆老牌企业的护城河与现金流。Ivascyn警告，由于近年发放的大多数杠杆贷款采用浮动利率，AI对企业收入端的侵蚀与持续高企的基准利率叠加，将引发与宏观经济强弱无关的独立信贷违约损失。 固收收益率确定性与权益溢价归零 (42:15) 在资产配置层面，债券市场的底层逻辑已发生根本性逆转。金融危机后十余年间，剔除约2%的通胀后核心债券年化实际回报仅约2.5%；而如今的高质量固定收益资产可提供7%至8%的名义收益率。Ivascyn强调，历史数据显示债券投资组合的初始收益率与未来5年年化回报率之间存在约95%的高相关性，具备极强的现金流可预测性。相比之下，以席勒周期调整市盈率（CAPE）衡量的美国股票风险溢价（ERP）已接近于零，处于接近互联网泡沫前夕的历史极值水平。尽管科技巨头强劲的盈利增长持续挑战静态估值模型，但自19世纪末以来的数据表明，在极高估值入场往往对应着疲软甚至负值的5至10年远期实际回报，优质债券资产正在跨周期配置中重新占据竞争优势。 PIMCO对年内宏观基准情形维持建设性预期，但将伊朗局势及霍尔木兹海峡石油供应受阻的能源冲击列为最大尾部风险；中长期来看，AI技术在推动生产率提升和长期反通胀的同时，对白领职场的劳动力替代摩擦及潜在政治反弹仍是悬而未决的宏观挑战。

## Background 本期视频由 YouTube 财经频道 The Compound 于 2026 年 7 月 13 日发布。节目中，主持人 Michael Batnick 和 Downtown Josh Brown 邀请到 PIMCO（品浩）集团首席投资官 Dan Ivascyn 展开深度对谈。根据官方简介，对话围绕 PIMCO 最新的长期展望报告《破裂与韧性》（Rupture and Resilience），剖析了地缘不确定性、关税、逆全球化、AI 基础设施支出与攀升的债务水平如何重塑全球经济并带来深远的投资契机。 ## TL;DR Dan Ivascyn 指出，当前全球秩序虽从单纯追求效率转向政治凌驾于经济的“破裂”格局，但美国强劲的中产阶级资产负债表与技术投资让经济展现出极强韧性，绝非躲入绝对安全资产的“极端防御”时刻。伴随科技巨头因万亿级 AI 基建与能源转型重返债市借贷，主动型固收机构重新夺回合同条款的主导权，得以在构筑下行防火墙的同时锁定丰厚利差。面对美股股权风险溢价近乎归零的高估值现状，高质量债券极具吸引力的初始收益率提供了显著的远期确定性。同时他也预警信贷损失周期正渐进式回归常态，AI 的生产力飞跃将在中长期抑制通胀的同时剧烈颠覆白领就业与传统企业护城河，投资者必须保持审慎的信贷承销纪律。 ## Atmosphere & style 整场节目在轻松惬意的体育迷闲聊与高密度的机构投研硬核碰撞之间切换自如。从开场调侃尼克斯与凯尔特人的世仇对决，到探讨万亿美元 AI 基建信贷结构与美联储沟通机制，两位主持人的敏锐追问与 Dan 深居一线的专业务实相得益彰。不同于华尔街债券圈常见的悲观末日论调，Dan 展现出罕见、沉稳且极富建设性的专业风貌，使得长达一小时的宏观固收长谈既严密深刻，又充满了华尔街老友围坐切磋的融洽与通透。 ## Bulletin - [18:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8qCzkIqIhY&t=1090s) PIMCO 最新长期展望报告将全球宏观主题从“碎片化”升级为“破裂与韧性”，指出全球正脱离二战后以经济效率驱动的规则体系，民粹主义与保护主义使关税等对抗性产业政策成为两党共识。 - [30:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8qCzkIqIhY&t=1812s) 未来数年四大超级资本开支支柱将拉动近 14 万亿美元投资，包括 7.6 万亿美元 AI 基础设施、2.6 万亿美元能源与电网改造、2.4 万亿美元国防军工及 1.4 万亿美元供应链重塑。 - [32:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8qCzkIqIhY&t=1935s) AI 基础设施融资需求爆发改变了债市供求格局，超大规模科技巨头密集发售股债，主动型机构重新掌握交易条款主导权，并能获得显著高于普通投资级企业的利差溢价。 - [47:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8qCzkIqIhY&t=2843s) 信用债市场在经历了十余年无衰退的黄金期后，信贷损失周期正逐步逼近；AI 技术对传统专业服务与软件企业的结构性颠覆，可能导致违约损失率逐步向中个位数常态回归。 - [42:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8qCzkIqIhY&t=2537s) 经周期调整的美股股权风险溢价已接近归零，估值水位逼近 2000 年互联网泡沫顶峰；而固收资产起始收益率与未来五年回报率呈现高达 95% 的相关性，配置性价比显著抬升。 ## Key takeaways - [15:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8qCzkIqIhY&t=918s) PIMCO 坚持 40 余年的“长期展望论坛”（Secular Forum）旨在阻隔日常高频噪音，专注于未来 3 至 5 年的结构性大趋势研判。 - [15:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8qCzkIqIhY&t=918s) 固收与权益投资思维存在本质差异：权益可博取倍数级暴利，而债权人最理想的结果仅仅是收回本金，因而必须更严格地评估下行风险与资本保障。 - [18:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8qCzkIqIhY&t=1090s) 全球秩序正从追求“经济效率最大化”转向由政治、国家安全与民粹利益主导，市场摩擦与高波动性为主动配置管理者提供了击败被动指数的超额收益空间。 - [27:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8qCzkIqIhY&t=1661s) 当前宏观环境与次贷危机前夕不同，得益于居民资产负债表健康、房产升值缓冲及科技资本开支，目前绝非躲入极端防御资产的时机，而应在高质量资产中拥抱“韧性”。 - [30:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8qCzkIqIhY&t=1812s) 四大资本开支洪流（AI 基建、能源转型、国防军工、制造业回流）为经济注入类似刺激计划的动能，但短期内争夺电力与原材料可能引发局部成本错配与通胀噪音。 - [32:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8qCzkIqIhY&t=1935s) 超大规模科技企业从疯狂股票回购转向大规模举债，单一数据中心百亿美元级的融资需求让机构得以挑拣项目，并设置严密的排他抵押物与保护性契约条款。 - [38:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8qCzkIqIhY&t=2286s) 固定收益参与 AI 基础设施主要分为两类：一是享受比基础科技巨头高出约 200 个基点利差的高流动性优质债权，二是收益率达 9% 至 15% 的高息股权替代型债权。 - [42:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8qCzkIqIhY&t=2537s) 历史数据表明，当股市以极低股权风险溢价和极高席勒市盈比起步时，未来 5 至 10 年的远期实际回报往往较为平庸；而高质量债券能提供高确定性的初始票息收益。 - [45:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8qCzkIqIhY&t=2740s) 债券起始收益率与未来五年的远期回报率存在约 95% 的极高相关性，这构成了固定收益投资穿越周期最重要的确定性锚点。 - [49:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8qCzkIqIhY&t=2984s) 过去数年私募基金通过展期和实物支付（PIK）“把易拉罐往前踢”，但无法掩盖企业底层现金流恶化的现实，低评级信贷正迎来向历史平均违约率靠拢的均值回归。 - [52:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8qCzkIqIhY&t=3127s) AI 颠覆正在冲击咨询、法律、软件等旧经济服务业护城河，这种结构性破坏独立于宏观经济周期之外，加剧了浮动利率借款企业的付息压力。 - [54:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8qCzkIqIhY&t=3288s) 美联储现行的过度沟通与点阵图充斥着市场噪音，市场其实具备根据地缘事件与经济数据迅速自主定价的能力，政策制定者更应转向规则导向与极简沟通。 - [59:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8qCzkIqIhY&t=3592s) AI 带来的生产力繁荣是一柄双刃剑：宏观上通过降低企业成本带来中长期去通胀力量，微观上却引发白领阶层劳动力阵痛与预防性储蓄上升，埋下监管反弹的隐患。 - [01:03:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8qCzkIqIhY&t=3832s) 科技行业的裁员潮正在重塑企业最优技能结构，传统制作 Excel 表格和跑贴现现金流（DCF）模型的基础分析师需求下降，技术赋能的复合型人才正逐步打破传统资历层级。 ## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8qCzkIqIhY&t=0s) 录制前闲聊：NBA 季后赛与体育迷的执念 录制正式开始前，主持人和嘉宾围坐闲聊。Michael Batnick 忍不住倒起了纽约尼克斯队（New York Knicks）多年来的苦水。作为尼克斯的铁杆球迷，他直言球队“烂了太久了”，一路走来充斥着各种灾难性的人事和选秀错误——从菲尔·杰克逊（Phil Jackson）的管理期，到更早的伊塞亚·托马斯（Isiah Thomas）、迈克·德安东尼（Mike D'Antoni）、赫伯·威廉姆斯（Herb Williams）以及迈克·伍德森（Mike Woodson）执教时代。他提到了安东尼·兰多夫（Anthony Randolph），那个身高 6 尺 11 寸、从金州勇士转会来时年仅 25 岁却始终未能兑现天赋的“明日之星”，还有安德烈亚·巴尼亚尼（Andrea Bargnani）等一系列过气球员，“这么多年全是痛苦”。 Dan Ivascyn 笑着接过了话茬，透露自己其实是波士顿凯尔特人队（Boston Celtics）的死忠拥趸，并且从 2013 年起就一直持有凯尔特人的季票。大家回忆起 2013 年左右的绿军阵容——当时皮尔斯（Paul Pierce）时代的辉煌刚落幕，球队大换血重建，手里囤了一堆选秀权，后来戈登·海沃德（Gordon Hayward）与凯里·欧文（Kyrie Irving）相继加盟。提到海沃德在绿军揭幕战中腿部严重骨折的惨剧，现场主持人心有余悸，感叹那是唯一一次看着非自家球队球员受重伤而难过落泪的恐怖画面。 - Michael Batnick 吐槽尼克斯队多年来的荒唐运作，列举了安东尼·兰多夫与安德烈亚·巴尼亚尼等失败引援案例。 - Dan Ivascyn 自曝从 2013 年开始持有凯尔特人季票，见证了球队通过选秀权积累与重建重回巅峰的历程。 - 众人回忆起戈登·海沃德在凯尔特人揭幕战脚踝脱臼骨折的可怕伤病，称其为最令人心碎的赛场瞬间之一。 ### [01:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8qCzkIqIhY&t=118s) 体育偏好与品格：支持“硬骨头”逆境城市 Josh Brown 探寻 Dan Ivascyn 作为凯尔特人球迷是否憎恨尼克斯，指出绿军对尼克斯的敌意远不像红袜对洋基那样势不两立。Dan 坦承自己支持球队有一套特殊的逻辑：只要不是波士顿的球队，他往往会优先支持那些生活环境更艰苦、天气恶劣、自带硬汉与弱势（underdog）气质的城市球队，例如底特律、克利夫兰或布法罗。 提到布法罗比尔队（Buffalo Bills）时，Dan 笑着加了一个例外限制——在橄榄球领域，PIMCO 在固定收益界的竞争对手之一（暗指 DoubleLine 的 Jeffrey Gundlach）恰好是比尔队的狂热粉丝，不过 PIMCO 内部的基金经理团队里也有好几位来自布法罗的同事，因此过去五年大家也一直在暗中为比尔队加油。 - Dan Ivascyn 倾向于支持底特律、克利夫兰、布法罗等气候恶劣、民风坚韧的蓝领与“弱势”城市。 - 提到对布法罗比尔队的支持时，Dan 幽默打趣固收领域的知名竞争对手 Jeffrey Gundlach 同样是该队球迷。 ### [03:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8qCzkIqIhY&t=181s) 演播室调试：专注交易台的 CIO 与南加州生活 现场工作人员在调整灯光时，主持人调侃 Dan 是位“极重要的大人物”，并透露节目组多年来一直想请他做客，但 Dan 周围仿佛被筑起了一道“护城河”，极难接受媒体邀约。Josh Brown 称赞 Dan 长期坚守在交易台一线而非四处抛头露面当网红高管，“不追求成为公司的代言脸孔，而是全心专注为投资人赚取回报”，这种作风在当下华尔街尤为难得。Dan 谦虚表示 PIMCO 拥有一支强大的团队，内部有许多擅长向外界传递观点的同事，自己则更习惯盯紧交易与投资。 话锋转到两家机构的渊源。Josh 提到，由于 PIMCO 早年（约 2016 年）收购了位于拉霍亚（La Jolla）的小型市政债投资机构 Gurtin Municipal Bond Management，他们顺理成章成为了 PIMCO 的客户；收购发生后 PIMCO 迅速跟进对接，确保了原有投资服务的无缝延续。Dan 强调，PIMCO 对市政债团队给予了高度自治，由 Dave Hammer 领导，仅在需要信用研究支持的环节进行深度协同。随后两人聊起南加州的生活与通勤，Dan 透露自己 1998 年就搬到了纽波特海滩（Newport Beach），抚养两个女儿，尽管作为波士顿人嘴上常装作不喜欢加州的好天气，但内心里非常享受当地的环境。Josh 也借机力邀他参加在亨廷顿海滩举办的 Future Proof 财富管理大会。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: PIMCO Municipal Integration Flow accDescr: Diagram showing how PIMCO integrated Gurtin Municipal Bond Management with autonomy while maintaining credit support. subgraph Gurtin["拉霍亚市政债团队（原 Gurtin）"] A["Dave Hammer 统领团队"] B["保持独立投资决策与运营"] end subgraph Integration["PIMCO 集团赋能与支持"] C["信用研究深度协同 (Credit Research)"] D["交易台与宏观框架支持"] end subgraph Clients["客户体验"] E["原有财富管理客户平稳过渡"] end Gurtin --> Integration Integration --> E ``` - PIMCO 约在 2016 年收购位于加州拉霍亚的 Gurtin Municipal Bond Management，成功保留其原有市政债团队与客户基础。 - 市政债业务由 Dave Hammer 主管，PIMCO 集团主要在信用分析领域提供投研支持，其余运营高度自治。 - Dan Ivascyn 于 1998 年加入 PIMCO 并定居纽波特海滩。 ### [06:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8qCzkIqIhY&t=360s) 赞助商插播与开场介绍 伴随着片头音乐，节目插播了赞助商 VanEck 的实物资产 ETF（RAAX）宣传。解说指出，在当前人工智能爆发的浪潮中，每一项技术突破背后都需要庞大的物理供应链支持——激增的电力需求、原材料与基础设施建设，叠加巨额财政支出的宏观环境，历史表明黄金和稀缺资产往往表现优异。VanEck 的 RAAX 作为主动管理型 ETF，覆盖黄金、大宗商品、自然资源股票与基础设施板块，旨在应对宏观周期的切换。 广告结束后，Josh Brown 正式宣布本期特别节目的开场，隆重介绍了作为重磅首访嘉宾的 Dan Ivascyn：Dan 是 PIMCO（品浩）的集团首席投资官（Group CIO）兼董事总经理，常驻加州纽波特海滩；他担任公司旗舰收益策略（Income）、信用对冲基金与抵押贷款机会策略的首席基金经理，同时参与管理全回报策略（Total Return）。Dan 是 PIMCO 执行委员会与投资委员会的核心成员，曾荣膺 Morningstar 2013 年度最佳固收基金经理，并于 2019 年入选固定收益分析师协会（FIASI）名人堂。 - 赞助商 VanEck 强调 AI 基建落地伴随巨大的物理供应链与能源需求，凸显抗通胀实物资产（RAAX ETF）的配置价值。 - 嘉宾 Dan Ivascyn 拥有顶级固收投资履历：PIMCO 集团 CIO，统领 Income 及 Total Return 等核心策略，荣获晨星最佳经理并入选名人堂。 ### [08:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8qCzkIqIhY&t=499s) 接棒传奇：从“债券之王”转向团队协作与投研传承 Josh Brown 将话题切入 Dan 的接班历程。他提到自己最早认识 Dan 是在 2017 年《华尔街日报》对 Dan 的人物专访中。当时 PIMCO 刚经历了一段动荡的过渡期，Dan 走向台前标志着公司风格的重大转变——从过去围绕单一明星人物打造“债券之王”（Bond King）的高调曝光，转向更聚焦产品、投资组合以及团队协作。 Dan 对此表示认同，但他澄清这主要是对外沟通偏好的差异，并不代表投资哲学的彻底颠覆。比尔·格罗斯（Bill Gross）和穆罕默德·埃尔-埃利安（Mohamed El-Erian）虽然具备鲜明的个人魅力并热衷于面向公众，但 PIMCO 长期以来的底色始终是集体投研与流程驱动。对于当年的平稳过渡，Dan 认为关键在于坚守核心投资原则，同时让更多团队成员参与发声，而非刻意塑造个人英雄主义。 - Josh 回顾 2017 年《华尔街日报》专访，认为 Dan 的接任标志着 PIMCO 摆脱了打造下一个“债券之王”的明星化路线。 - Dan 指出接班后 PIMCO 的核心投资哲学并未发生根本性改变，转变更多体现在强调团队分工与去个人崇拜。 ### [09:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8qCzkIqIhY&t=557s) 领导层交接与 PIMCO 的决策机制演进 回顾 Bill Gross 离开 PIMCO 时的动荡时期，Dan Ivascyn 指出媒体上的戏剧性炒作远多于真实的投资运作现实。当这样一位举足轻重的创始人离职时，留任团队确实承受着维持出色业绩的巨大压力；但从日常投资流程来看，变化并没有外界想象的那么剧烈。无论过去还是现在，PIMCO 的底层逻辑始终是打造团队体系、依靠规范流程以及通过大量细分交易（small trades）积累胜率。 随着时间推移，投资环境变得更加全球化、技术驱动且高度依赖量化数据，交易决策相比以往更加技术化和精准。但就核心投资哲学与决策架构而言，依然继承了老一辈投资人留下的基石。Josh Brown 提到，《华尔街日报》曾在一篇记录 Dan Ivascyn 上任首年扭转资金流出颓势的报道中，称他为“最适合未来 PIMCO 的首席投资官（CIO）”，并指出他上任后的一大显著转变是更加依赖各个投资组合经理（PM）的专业判断，而不是由单一领袖自上而下做出宏观押注后强行分派执行。 Dan 认同这一观察，但他强调投资风格的调整很大程度上源于“顺应市场所赋予的机会”： - **次贷危机前后**：市场存在明确的大型主题交易（big trade），例如次贷危机爆发后有大量被抛售的超廉价资产，只要有魄力敢于重仓买入与美国房地产相关的打折资产，就能斩获丰厚回报。 - **危机后的低波动期**：随着市场步入漫长的低利率、低波动环境，并受到极度宽松的货币与财政政策支撑，宏观层面的“好球（fat pitches）”寥寥无几（除 2020 年疫情暴跌短暂出现过）。在缺乏单一巨大博弈机会的环境下，团队必须靠精耕细作，在各个细分领域寻找无数小额盈利点以积少成多。 --- ### [12:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8qCzkIqIhY&t=727s) 从零利率折磨到高票息时代的回归 在疫情前长达十余年的低利率甚至负利率周期中，固定收益投资面临着极其痛苦的处境。在欧洲，债券收益率一度深跌至负区间；即便在美国，不仅没有安全边际，甚至连 Bill Gross 等人都曾公开称债券市场存在巨大泡沫。 Dan Ivascyn 与主持人回顾了那段“持有债券令人抓狂”的岁月： - **过去的算术陷阱**：在过去 10 到 15 年间，高质量债券的名义年化回报率仅约 2.5%。一旦扣除 2% 左右的通胀率，实际净回报基本归零。 - **今天的算术优势**：与风险投资（VC）或成长型股票不同，债券的确定性在于只要给予足够的时间，投资者终究能够拿到票息收益（earn your yield）。如今在更高的起始收益率基础上，若团队能通过资产配置、复杂结构化品种发掘超额收益，整体固收的投资胜率与数学模型已大幅改善。 Michael Batnick 引用电影《学警出更》（Happy Gilmore）中 Shooter McGavin 的台词“打高尔夫球必须球落在哪就从哪打（play the ball as it lies）”，坦言在疫情爆发前，包括他自己在内的许多人都深信利率将长期维持低位——彼时人们认定即便利率稍有抬头，婴儿潮一代手中数十万亿美元的养老储蓄也会迅速涌入压低收益率。Dan 证实，疫情前 PIMCO 内部的主流预期也是“全球储蓄过剩（global savings glut）”与持续的去通胀压力。各国央行多年苦苦追求 2% 通胀目标而不得，维持低利率环境在当时显得合情合理。 然而，疫情彻底打破了原有的宏观范式。正如主持人们打趣道：制造通胀的办法其实非常粗暴——直接把整个经济系统关停、让四分之一的工人待在家里，然后持续给所有人邮寄现金支票，多到人们甚至花不完。万亿美元级别的直接财政刺激，叠以前所未有的极度宽松货币政策，彻底终结了低通胀时代。 --- ### [15:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8qCzkIqIhY&t=918s) 跨越四十载的“长期展望论坛”（Secular Forum） 虽然投资环境与领导风格有所变迁，但 PIMCO 坚持了 40 多年的核心制度——“长期展望论坛”（Secular Forum）始终未变。Dan 形象地将其比作加入 PIMCO 的“成人礼（rite of passage）”。他回忆自己入职前那个夏天受邀前来观摩，原本以为只是在一旁学习，结果刚进场就被硬塞了一个麦克风要求发言（当时整个公司只有约 25 人）。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: PIMCO 长期展望论坛（Secular Forum）运作机制 accDescr: 展示 Secular Forum 如何通过阻隔短期噪音、邀请跨界专家及校准固收风险视角来确立中长期宏观投资指引。 subgraph Inputs["多元输入与跨界视点"] A["外部客座专家<br>（如 AI 领军学者/产业精英）"] B["资深与青年投资人<br>全员研究报告与观点碰撞"] end subgraph Process["Secular Forum 核心流程"] C["阻隔日常高频噪音<br>（摒弃短线净值波动干扰）"] D["锁定 3-5 年长期趋势<br>（剖析通胀、财政、技术突破）"] end subgraph Mandate["固收视角校准"] E["债权思维 vs 股权思维<br>（审视本金安全与破产下行风险）"] F["制定全公司长期投资组合战略"] end A --> C B --> C C --> D D --> E E --> F ``` 如今该论坛已发展成为盛大的全员内部研讨会。为了营造凝聚力，公司还会组织吃冰淇淋聚会，甚至由来自纽约办事处的员工组成 PIMCO 乐队远赴纽波特海滩（Newport Beach）总部演出助兴。但其严肃的核心目的几十年如一日：**远离市场短期噪音**。在当今信息泛滥、投资人往往因每日净值波动而患得患失的环境下，抽离出来审视未来 3 到 5 年影响经济与资产的长期大趋势比以往任何时候都更加关键。 为了打破认知茧房，PIMCO 在论坛中广泛引入外部顶尖智囊与各领域专家。针对近两年的 AI 浪潮，PIMCO 在正式论坛周之外特别举办了一系列聚焦人工智能的系列讲座： - **听取技术狂热与保持警惕**：Dan 透露自己平时最常听科技类播客以弥补知识盲区，但他清醒地认识到技术圈往往弥漫着单向看多的声音。 - **固收投资与权益投资的本质差异**：风险投资人或股权买家可以畅想 AI 带来 5 倍、10 倍的暴利；但作为固定收益借贷方，投资人最大的上限仅仅是“按时拿回本金（at best you get par back）”。因此，PIMCO 必须用审慎甚至偏悲观的审视眼光，优先评估为 AI 基础设施提供资本支持时的下行风险与资本保障（return of capital）。 ### [18:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8qCzkIqIhY&t=1090s) 从“碎片化”到“破裂”：PIMCO 长期展望的措辞升级 在固收投资中，控制下行风险与追求资本回报同样重要。正如 Dan Ivascyn 所强调的，尽管宏观趋势的影响极其深远，但在债券投资组合中，“哪怕你判断对了宏观大势，只要犯了几个微小的持仓错误，它们就会像手榴弹一样轰然引爆”。辛苦赚取的一点点超额收益，可能瞬间就会因半个百分点的亏损而付诸东流。在谈及 PIMCO 最新的长期展望（Secular Outlook）时，主持人 Josh Brown 敏锐地指出，去年的主题还是相对温和的“碎片化时代”（The Fragmentation Era），而今年却直接升级为“破裂与韧性”（Rupture and Resilience）。Josh 调侃道，很庆幸在“破裂”后面还带了个“韧性”给人一丝安慰，但从“碎片化”到“破裂”，措辞上显然发生了剧烈升级。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 长期宏观环境演变逻辑图 accDescr: 展示从效率至上的全球化时代向政治主导与多重破裂新格局的演变 subgraph Past["昔日秩序：全球化与效率驱动"] direction TB A["全球经济效率最大化"] --> B["政治逻辑契合经济增长"] B --> C["温和的碎片化趋势"] end subgraph Present["剧变催化：破裂时代来临"] direction TB D["多重外部冲击：疫情 / 俄乌冲突 / 中东战事"] E["民粹主义抬头与贫富分化加剧"] F["中国制造与供应链重塑"] G["AI 等前沿技术的颠覆性浪潮"] end subgraph Impact["市场影响：政治凌驾于经济"] direction TB H["地缘与关税政策常态化"] I["金融资产高估值与不确定性并存"] J["主动管理获得阿尔法空间"] end Past --> Present Present --> Impact ``` Dan Ivascyn 解释了背后的根本逻辑转变。在过去相当长的时间里，全球政客的核心诉求是创造优异的经济成果，政策制定主要锚定全球经济效率与全球化红利。然而，经历 COVID 冲击后，一系列结构性震荡接踵而至：政治层面的民粹主义抬头、中低收入阶层意识到过去数十年并未真正享受繁荣、中国经济庞大的出口体量引发全球供应链摩擦，以及 AI 带来的未知数。更关键的是，政治考量开始凌驾于传统经济理性之上，关税政策便是最典型的注脚——正如政界所言，哪怕“教科书上都说关税是有害的”，但出于纯粹的政治动机，政府依然会推行关税。 - **词义递进**：从去年的“碎片化”（Fragmentation）升级为今年的“破裂”（Rupture），反映出全球体系失序程度的根本性加深。 - **政策驱动力转向**：跨国决策逻辑从追求“全球经济效率”（Global Economic Efficiency）转向被民粹政治、国家安全与选民利益所左右。 --- ### [20:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8qCzkIqIhY&t=1230s) 极化世界与万亿 AI 投资潮下的波动性 回顾过去的 12 个月，地缘与政治层面的现实愈发严峻。乌克兰的武装冲突持续且面临升级风险，中东爆发直接战事，叠加主要大国间的贸易紧张局势，使得全球局势剑拔弩张。与此同时，政治极端化席卷多国：无论是美国还是英国，选举中温和中间派近乎消失，往往演变为不同极化立场的正面对决。Dan 指出，投资者面对的是当前处于高位的金融资产估值，以及绝大多数市场参与者从未经历过的宏观不确定性。但这种未知并不全是负面的，AI 领域的爆炸式投资正是另一大变量——预计未来将有近 10 万亿美元涌入相关基础设施与技术研发。 作为主动型资产管理机构，PIMCO 对这种动荡持有相对乐观的战术态度。Dan 坦言，正是市场中出现的这些巨大摩擦、分歧与剧烈波动，才为主动管理者击败被动指数提供了丰厚的阿尔法土壤。但他也警示道：“任何时候当资产价格大幅晃荡时，如果你站错了交易方向，同样会迅速亏大钱。” - **地缘与政治震荡点**：乌克兰战火延宕、中东战争、全球大选中的极端民粹主义交锋，全球政治“真正的中间派（true middle）”几乎消亡。 - **AI 投资体量**：市场预期围绕 AI 与相关基础设施的资本支出规模将达到近 10 万亿美元。 - **主动投资机遇**：市场摩擦与高波动性为主动配置提供了优于被动投资的获利契机，但对组合风险控制的要求极高。 --- ### [22:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8qCzkIqIhY&t=1335s) 二战后规则体系破裂与旧经济模式瓦解 Josh Brown 与 Dan 深入探讨了“破裂”的具体内涵。这种破裂首先体现在二战后建立的国际规则体系的松动与瓦解，包括北约（NATO）等传统全球基石机构所面临的信任考验，并逐步传导至金融工具与货币体系。其次，破裂还体现在颠覆性新技术对旧经济体系运行方式的重塑。Dan 幽默地分享了自己的亲身经历：过去人们报税都得专程去找会计师，而现在公司里的年轻人正在教他如何利用 AI 工具，“只需轻点几下鼠标，很多流程就能搞定”。这种技术颠覆感让人联想到 90 年代末至 2000 年代初的互联网泡沫时代，但在当前其对工作模式与商业格局的冲击速度更快、更深刻。 针对 Mark Carney（马克·卡尼）此前在公开场合提及的“全球正脱离二战后基于规则的体制”，Josh 提问这究竟是不可逆的逆全球化“单行道”，还是某种周期性反复。Dan 认为，其中许多核心趋势在短期内极难逆转。尽管美国政治具有每四年轮换一次的周期特征，不同党派在执政理念上有所差异，但强大的长期趋势已不可阻挡。最直接的例证便是关税：尽管特朗普首个任期加征关税时两党内部均有微词，但拜登政府上台后并未撤销这些关税。这表明政界已经达成共识——过去的自由贸易并没有让所有人受益，必须采取更具对抗性的产业政策与贸易壁垒来保护本土受损群体。 - **技术对日常范式的颠覆**：AI 技术使得传统依赖专业人士（如会计师报税）的旧经济业务模式在短时间内被重构。 - **关税政策的不可逆性**：拜登政府完整保留了特朗普时期的关税框架，印证了保护主义产业政策已经从“党派偏好”演变为两党共识的长期趋势。 - **地缘突发性**：类似中东局势的突然爆发表明，长期的地缘隐患随时可能以无序、剧烈的方式释放，且爆发频率远超以往。 --- ### [26:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8qCzkIqIhY&t=1618s) 宏观视角的割裂：全球动荡与美国经济韧性 在探讨全球局势的最后，Michael Batnick 提出了一个鲜明的悖论：从宏观大局（Zoom out）来看，世界显得极其可怕，地缘战争不断、海峡局势紧张、地缘政治充满火药味；但如果把镜头拉近（Zoom in）到美国本土经济，画面却截然不同。面对接连不断的关税冲击、高通胀、高利率以及 AI 带来的未知数，由美国消费者驱动的本土经济却展现出了令人惊叹的韧性，始终稳步向前。Michael 由此向 Dan 抛出核心疑问：在管理实际资产组合时，投资者应当如何在遍布裂痕的全球宏观乱局与强劲韧性的美国本土经济之间，找到合理的认知平衡与配置支点。 ### [27:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8qCzkIqIhY&t=1661s) 拒绝极度防御：在不确定性中拥抱韧性与经济增长 Dan Ivascyn 回顾了 PIMCO 历史上对宏观周期的研判，并将当前的经济环境与 2000 年代中期的次贷危机前夕进行了深刻对比。在 2005 至 2006 年间，银行体系内极其激进的信贷承销标准让 PIMCO 不安，当时团队明确预判“这种模式若持续下去，衰退必将降临”，于是迅速采取了极其审慎且深度的防御姿态。然而反观当下，尽管局部领域仍存在繁荣与过热的杂音，经济整体却展现出异乎寻常的韧性。不仅中高收入阶层的消费者资产负债表十分健康、就业市场表现强劲，全美接近半数家庭拥有的房产价值在过去数年间也持续攀升，形成了坚厚的财富缓冲。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 投资心态转变逻辑图 accDescr: 对比次贷危机前夕的极度防御与当前在资本开支驱动下的韧性配置策略 subgraph Mid2000s["2000年代中期：极度防御周期"] A["激进承销与银行坏账"] --> B["预判必然走向衰退"] B --> C["被动收缩，全面规避风险"] end subgraph PresentDay["当前周期：兼顾增长与韧性"] D["强劲中产负债表与房产增值"] --> E["科技资本开支与生产力萌芽"] E --> F["维持乐观增长预期"] F --> G["配置高质量风险资产<br/>兼具收益补偿与下行保护"] end ``` 更重要的是，技术资本开支正在逐步发酵，尽管近期的生产力数据存在统计噪音，但技术对美国整体经济效率的正向提振已现端倪。Dan 指出，哪怕存在唐纳德·特朗普（Donald Trump）提倡的关税政策所带来的市场摩擦与不确定性，整体宏观基本面依然偏向积极乐观。这在根本上颠覆了固收投资的布局逻辑：如果投资者沉浸在“随着时间推移必然衰退”的悲观假设中，将投资组合完全锁死在最安全、收益微薄的避险资产中，实际上并未实现组合的最优配置。Josh Brown 顺势总结称“现在绝不是极度防御的时候”，Dan 明确表示赞同，强调当下的主题是“韧性”（Resilience）——通过在全球市场中捕捉高质量资产的配置机会，既能分享如同高风险资产般的增长红利，又能在意外衰退降临时提供坚实的下行保护。 - **历史对照**：2000 年代中期面临银行体系激进承销风险时，PIMCO 选择全面避险；当前周期则由充沛的居民财富与强劲基本面所支撑。 - **核心驱动**：房产升值红利惠及接近半数美国家庭，叠加中高收入群体的稳健就业，构筑了牢固的消费底座。 - **策略主张**：反对躲入绝对安全资产的“极端防御”，提倡在高质量风险资产中寻找能承受摩擦并提供收益缓冲的“韧性资产”。 --- ### [30:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8qCzkIqIhY&t=1812s) 重塑全球经济的四大超级资本开支支柱 对话切入 PIMCO 展望报告中的核心图表，深入探讨了未来数年支撑全球 GDP 增长与产业重构的四股宏观资金洪流。这四大驱动力不仅展现了旧有秩序裂变后的新格局，更带来了规模极其庞大的资本注入。从宏观经济视角来看，如此巨额的资本开支一旦维持下去，将成为拉动投资主体所在经济体的强心剂，甚至形成类似于经济刺激计划的提振效应。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 全球四大资本开支支柱及其等价经济体 accDescr: 展示未来五年内四项关键资本投入规模及其对应的国家GDP体量 subgraph Drivers["四大资本开支支柱"] direction TB D1["AI 基础设施<br/>$7.6 万亿美元"] --- E1["约等于 日本 + 法国 GDP 总和"] D2["能源转型与电网改造<br/>$2.6 万亿美元"] --- E2["约等于 意大利 GDP"] D3["国防军工支出<br/>$2.4 万亿美元"] --- E3["约等于 加拿大 GDP"] D4["制造业回流与供应链重构<br/>$1.4 万亿美元"] --- E4["约等于 荷兰 GDP"] end ``` 然而，繁荣背后并非毫无隐忧。Dan 提醒投资者必须警惕短期的“时间错配”风险：尽管科技投资中长期内有望改善生产效率并抑制通胀，但眼下为了落地这些庞大项目，全行业必须争夺极其匮乏的原材料、电力与供应链资源，这种供需错配很有可能在局部引发成本上涨。PIMCO 的基准预期是，只要地缘局势（例如伊朗方向）趋向稳定，通胀总体将维持在当前水平并逐步回落，但材料争夺战带来的不确定性依然要求投资机构在盯紧机会的同时保持审慎监控。 - **AI 基础设施（AI Infrastructure）**：未来 5 年预计投入 7.6 万亿美元，资金规模相当于日本与法国两个经济体的 GDP 总和。 - **能源与电网升级（Energy & Grid Modernization）**：预计投入 2.6 万亿美元，体量直逼意大利整体 GDP。 - **国防军工开支（Defense Spending）**：涵盖北约（NATO）及其他盟国在内的军事重整，预计达 2.4 万亿美元，相当于加拿大一年的经济总量。 - **制造业回流与供应链重构（Reshoring & Supply Chain）**：分散海外制造、本土再工业化支出达 1.4 万亿美元，等同于荷兰的经济规模。 --- ### [32:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8qCzkIqIhY&t=1935s) 超大规模科技巨头回归债市：条款主导权的历史性反转 资本开支的暴增彻底扭转了债券市场的资金供求关系。此前多年，坐拥庞大现金流的超大规模科技企业（Hyperscalers）几乎无需涉足债市，甚至账上沉淀着数千亿美元仅用于回购股票。如今这一局面已彻底打破：谷歌（Alphabet/Google）进行了自 2001 年以来罕见的百亿美元级股权融资，甲骨文（Oracle）宣布计划筹集各 200 亿美元的股权与债务，甚至现金储备充沛的英伟达（NVIDIA）也在时隔数年后进入债券市场发债 200 亿至 300 亿美元以锁定长期资本。此外，PIMCO 更是直接参与了 Meta 位于路易斯安那州的高性能数据中心（Hyperion data center）的大型债权融资，该交易的股权部分由蓝猫资本（Blue Owl Capital）持有。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 科技债权融资供求与议价权转变机制 accDescr: 展示科技巨头从手握现金到大规模借贷，以及放贷机构从争夺项目到主导交易条款的过程 subgraph Shift["融资生态格局转变"] A["昔日科技巨头：<br/>现金充裕、疯狂回购股票、极少发债"] -->|AI基础设施资金缺口| B["今日科技巨头：<br/>密集发售股债（英伟达、谷歌、甲骨文、Meta）"] C["以往私募信贷市场：<br/>资金泛滥、机构竞价、借款人占优"] -->|融资体量突破数百亿美元| D["当前超级融资市场：<br/>资本需求远超单一机构容量，市场共同分食"] end subgraph Advantage["主动管理机构红利"] B & D --> E["主导合同条款制定权<br/>（设置排他抵押物与下行保护）"] E --> F["获得显著高于普通投资级/垃圾债的利差溢价"] end ``` 这种资本需求的爆炸性增长，打破了近年来私募信贷（Private Credit）领域盲目抢项目的泡沫态势。以前由于发行量稀缺，借款人掌握主导权而无需让步；而如今数据中心动辄 200 亿至 400 亿美元的单一项目规模，使得“资本需求远远超出了大家兜里的资金总量”，形成了“人人皆有饭吃”的卖方市场。债券投资者面对的是“最好情况只拿回本金与票息，但企业尚在摸索如何通过 AI 变现”的非对称风险，因此必须依靠极强的承销能力来构筑防火墙。 PIMCO 管道中目前堆积着 10 到 20 笔此类巨额项目，这使得他们能够挑拣标的，并在交易文件中施加严密的保护性条款，防止后续借款人稀释抵押物或恶意重组。Dan 引用了沃伦·巴菲特（Warren Buffett）与查理·芒格（Charlie Munger）的名言——“你定价格，我定条款”（You make the price, I'll set the terms），并笑称在理想状态下自己更希望“价格和条款全都要”。在面对 AI 技术漫长演进的不确定性时，依靠规模优势深度参与合同条款的设计，成了在大规模数据中心建设浪潮中锁定丰厚利差同时阻绝下行风险的关键护城河。 - **巨头借贷热潮**：超大规模科技公司不再仅靠留存收益支撑扩张，英伟达、谷歌、甲骨文及 Meta 等集中启动数百亿美元级别的股债发行。 - **数据中心基建落地**：PIMCO 联合 Blue Owl 操盘 Meta 在路易斯安那州的数据中心项目，实证资本开支正以超预期速度向下推进，地方电力与政治博弈正成为新的落地摩擦点。 - **议价优势转移**：超大型融资需求稀释了私募信贷领域的非理性竞价，主动型机构重新掌握交易条款（Covenants）的主导权，得以构筑高于普通投资级（IG）或杠杆贷款的安全垫。 ### [36:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8qCzkIqIhY&t=2205s) 数据中心抵押品风险与跨团队审贷视角 在评估当前狂热的数字基础设施时，Dan Ivascyn 强调，PIMCO 作为一家大型多策略管理机构，最大的优势在于能够协同各个专业团队的力量。例如，其房地产投资团队能够深入剖析开发超大规模数据中心的实体风险与施工周期，而专注于基础设施及传统资产抵押借贷（Asset-Backed Lending）的专业团队，则对复杂的底层融资合同结构有着极其深刻的理解。 这些合同表面上可能看起来抵押品非常坚实，但借贷投资的核心在于：一旦违约发生，你是否真正拥有合法追索并快速变现该抵押品的能力？历史经验表明，当借款人被迫去行使抵押权接管资产时，这类专用设备的实际残值往往远低于最初的模型预估。 正是由于这种潜在的结构性陷阱，Dan 指出，尽管 PIMCO 坚信自身有能力在严密的结构设计下为投资者挖掘超额收益，但他们绝对不会在此类风险敞口上建立“疯狂的超额配置”（wildly overweight）。投资团队的目标是以克制的头寸获取丰厚回报，而不是过度押注。 Michael Batnick 和 Josh Brown 补充提醒道，广大终端投资者的股票账户中通常已经重仓持有英伟达、微软等科技巨头，甚至可以说他们已经在这场 AI 浪潮中“全押”（all in）了。Dan 随后进一步分析了宏观层面的相关性风险：AI 基础设施建设与能源基础设施投资高度绑定，因为驱动和冷却庞大的算力中心需要海量的电力支持。当市场上需要通过债务和股权筹集高达 10 万亿美元的天量资本时，这两种资产之间的共振风险必须被纳入考量。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 数据中心信贷与宏观风险链条 accDescr: 展示从AI算力需求到跨资产风险共振的信贷分析逻辑 subgraph Fund["PIMCO 跨团队风控分析"] RE["房地产团队: 物理开发周期与选址风险"] ABL["ABS/基础设施团队: 合同执行力与抵押品残值"] end subgraph Macro["宏观资本流动"] Demand["10万亿美元级 AI 与能源基建投资"] Corr["高相关性: 算力扩张必须由电力电网支撑"] end Fund --> Corr Macro --> Corr Corr --> Decision["风控策略: 严控敞口占比，拒绝非理性重仓"] ``` --- ### [38:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8qCzkIqIhY&t=2286s) 固收视角的 AI 基建投资：低风险利差与高息股权替代 针对 Josh Brown 提出的核心疑问——权益投资者投资 AI 能博取类似早期 CoreWeave 那样估值从 1000 万美元飙升数百倍的暴利，那固定收益投资者参与 AI 云和数据中心融资的逻辑究竟是什么？Dan Ivascyn 将债权视角的投资机遇拆分为两大截然不同的资产池： 1. **第一类：安全、流动、真正投资级（Investment Grade）的优质债权** - **风险特征**：经过严格的优先级结构设计后，其底层终极信用风险几乎等同于 Meta（Meta Platforms）。与许多缺乏护城河的新兴科技公司相比，Meta 业务多元、自由现金流充沛且拥有极深的护城河，属于无可争议的高质量投资级主体。 - **利差补偿（Spread Pickup）**：通过复杂的结构性融资安排，投资者在承担类似 Meta 违约风险的前提下，能够获得比 Meta 本身普通无担保企业债高出整整 200 个基点（2%）的信用利差，最终实现 6%、7% 乃至 8% 级别的收益率。 - **高流动性优势**：以市场上备受瞩目的 Meta 数据中心相关交易（如 Beignet 交易）为例，由于规模庞大且有顶级科技巨头的保驾护航，该债券已成为全市场流动性最佳的品种之一，允许机构在市场风格突变时迅速变现离场。这种配置让投资人能在不涉足垃圾债（High Yield）的前提下，赚取堪比高收益债的利差。 2. **第二类：进取型、高票息的“股权替代品”（Equity Alternative）** - **收益水平**：针对生态系统中较高风险环节的债务融资，其评级相对较低，但回报率被推升至 9%～15% 区间。 - **对标标的**：PIMCO 并不将这类资产与传统无风险国债对比，而是直接将其对标纳斯达克高成长股或高股息股票。 - **锁定现金流优势**：在二级市场成长股或风投中，投资者完全依赖未来以更高的估值将筹码转手给下一个买家；而在高收益基建债权中，投资人享有高达 10%～12% 的硬性票息（Coupon），“一旦拿到了这个票息，任何人都无法将其夺走”。 Dan 严肃告诫称，长期的牛市和 AI 狂热容易制造出一种“虚假的安全感”（illusion of safety），使人误以为未经历过资本损失周期的资产天然没有风险。因此，投资机构必须保持清醒，坚决将高收益级基建借贷划入“高风险资产池”审视，不可混淆资产边界。 --- ### [42:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8qCzkIqIhY&t=2537s) 消失的股权风险溢价与资产周期的巨变 在讨论转向宏观估值时，Michael Batnick 引用 PIMCO 研报中的图表指出：经周期调整后，美国股市的股权风险溢价（Equity Risk Premium, ERP）已经跌至几乎归零的极端水平。 Dan 坦言，如果采用罗伯特·席勒（Robert Shiller）的周期调整市盈率（CAPE Ratio）或调整后盈利收益率与美债收益率进行比对，当前美股相较于债券而言，处于数十年罕见的极端昂贵状态，其估值水位直逼 2000 年互联网泡沫（Dot-com Bubble）破裂前的疯狂阶段。虽然 Dan 强调这绝不意味着股市即将发生崩盘，也不能被当作短期做空交易的择时信号，但历史长周期的规律不容忽视： - **历史统计规律**：自 19 世纪末（1800 年代后期）以来的全部历史数据表明，当股市以如此极端的初始估值起步时，随后 5 到 10 年维度的年化远期实际回报往往“非常糟糕”（not great），甚至明显跑输无风险起步收益率。 - **“这次不一样”的辩护**：市场多头通常反驳称，只要以大型科技巨头为首的企业能够长期维持两位数的利润高增长和不可思议的净利润率扩张，后验视角的估值乘数自然会消化到合理水平——就像 2015 年市场同样惊呼席勒市盈率过高，而科技巨头随后却不断改写盈利天花板一样。 - **固收资产的相对确定性**：过去 15 年是债券投资者饱受折磨的漫长熊市，扣除通胀后几乎毫无实际回报，而股票则持续稳步上扬。然而，估值钟摆的扭转让未来 5 到 10 年的资产天平发生倾斜。在高质量固定收益领域，投资者拥有极其明确的起步确定性：只要买入并持有像彭博美国综合债券指数（Bloomberg US Aggregate Index）这样看似枯燥的优质组合，投资者就能直接锁定当前极具吸引力的初始票息收益，为穿越不确定的宏观周期构筑第一道坚实防线。 ### [45:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8qCzkIqIhY&t=2740s) 起始收益率与未来回报：固收投资的确定性锚点 在固定收益投资领域，起始收益率（starting yield）与未来几年的实际总回报之间存在极高的关联性。Josh Brown 指出，债券组合的起始收益率与未来五年的年化远期回报率之间有着约 95% 的极高相关性，这几乎是一个“可以按表对时”的铁律。Michael Batnick 为听众进一步拆解了这一逻辑：如果投资组合建仓时的收益率为 7%，投资者就不该不切实际地期待获得 11% 的回报，也不必过度担忧跌到 3%；在正常情况下，最终的年化平均回报大致就在 7% 附近。主动管理策略可能会通过交易增厚部分收益，但如果不考虑主动超额收益，起始票息基本上就决定了基准回报。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 起始收益率与远期回报逻辑 accDescr: 展示从起始收益率、现金流到最终债券回报的确定性映射关系 subgraph Yield["起始收益率定调"] A["组合起始 Yield (如 7%)"] --> B["高相关性映射 (~95%)"] end subgraph Return["5 年远期回报"] B --> C["基础年化回报 (~7%)"] C --> D["主动交易增厚 / 违约波动"] end ``` Dan Ivascyn 回顾道，几年前指数收益率仅有 2% 时，未来的回报上限早已被锁定；而当收益率急剧重定价时，市场便会承受如同 2022 年那样的猛烈冲击。与股票市场可能经历漫长阴跌或剧烈重估不同，债券围绕现金流波动。Dan 直言自己非常庆幸没有去从事风险投资（VC）行业，因为那完全不符合他与 PIMCO 团队的思维定式。他们习惯于依靠切实的现金流进行测算与预测，而像目前市场热炒的某些 AI 投资，投资者为那些可能“永远不会派发股息”的标的支付极高估值，这种不可预测性对习惯了精算确定性的固定收益经理而言是完全不同的思维模式。 --- ### [47:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8qCzkIqIhY&t=2843s) 信贷损失周期启动：从“无痛时代”到均值回归 谈及固定收益市场的核心风险，Josh Brown 询问 Dan 如何定义其报告中指出的“信贷损失周期（Credit Loss Cycle）正在逼近”。这究竟意味着一场大规模违约潮的爆发，还是一场漫长的展期（maturity extensions）与实物支付（payment-in-kind / PIK）博弈？Dan 明确表示，这更偏向于向历史常态的“渐进式回归”，而非骤然失控的崩溃，但这需要极其细致的认知。 在 2008 年全球金融危机之后，信用债市场经历了一段非常反常的“黄金时期”。由于长年没有严重的经济衰退，即便发生疫情也被空前的流动性迅速“熨平”，投资于低评级、投机级信贷（包括中端市场直接贷款 Direct Lending 与银团贷款）的投资者习惯了全额赚取票息而几乎无需承担违约本金损失。然而在 80 年代、90 年代和 2000 年代，信用投资历来是有周期的：赚取数年丰厚收益后，必然要在一个损失周期中吐回部分利润。过去十年这种“只赚不亏”的单向市，让大量投资者产生了认知偏差。 - **2022年的错觉**：由于当年爆发的是单纯的利率风险而非信用衰退，政府债券因久期而暴跌，而多数中端市场贷款是浮动利率资产，反而交出了 9% 到 11% 的高回报。 - **私募市场的流动性幻觉**：私募信贷缺乏公开市场的每日盯市机制，波动率表现得比可交易高收益债更低，进一步诱使投资者对底层风险丧失警惕。 --- ### [49:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8qCzkIqIhY&t=2984s) “拖延与掩盖”的局限与 AI 带来的实质性破坏 Dan 强调，之所以不会出现集中性的大规模违约潮，是因为整体经济增长依然具有韧性，信贷损失将呈现“稳定涓滴（steady stream）”的状态。过去几年中，海量资金涌入低评级信贷，基金经理们有足够的充裕资金去“把易拉罐往前踢”（kick the can forward）——当借款企业无力支付利息时，债权人宁愿接受 PIK（实物支付利息，即打欠条或发行更多债券）或直接展期债务，也不愿走入破产法庭去“从石头里榨血”。私募股权赞助人（PE Sponsors）无法变现资产时，也倾向于延期等待。 然而，企业无法按期支付现金利息本身就是长期偿债能力的“金丝雀预警”。更关键的转折点在于，当前的人工智能技术颠覆正在瞄准旧经济体系： - **传统护城河失效**：以往被视为现金流稳健、拥有深厚护城河的服务业、法律咨询、软件开发以及金融服务等行业，如今正首当其冲面临 AI 的持续冲击。 - **生产力与颠覆的悖论**：AI 在宏观经济层面的生产力越强，对具体微观企业的破坏性就越大。这种结构性冲击导致的信贷损失，在很大程度上将独立于宏观经济的景气度而存在。 --- ### [52:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8qCzkIqIhY&t=3127s) 浮动利率重负与利差风险收益失衡 如果技术颠覆叠加经济负面增长冲击——尤其是滞胀风险，信用债的前景将急剧恶化。在 2022 年表现亮眼的贷款绝大多数是浮动利率债务。如果短端基准利率无法快速下行甚至因通胀黏性被迫维持高位，这些借款企业就必须在承受业务被 AI 颠覆的同时，背负沉重的付息成本。 在后疫情时期的放贷狂潮中，激烈的市场份额争夺导致承销标准大幅下降（bad vintages），信用利差极度收窄且缺乏严格的保护性条款（covenants）。那些习惯了损失率接近于零的资产类别，其未来的违约损失率极有可能向中个位数（mid-single digits）攀升。过去在基准利率仅有 1% 到 2% 时，无杠杆 8% 的名义回报极具诱惑力；但在扣除潜在违约损失后，实际净回报可能缩水至 4% 到 5%。在当前美国国债乃至澳大利亚国债都能提供 4.5% 左右无风险收益的背景下，承担低评级信用风险的性价比例已经大不如前。 --- ### [53:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8qCzkIqIhY&t=3233s) “破裂与韧性”：美联储政策风格与过度透明度之争 话题转向 PIMCO 长期展望报告《破裂与韧性（Rupture and Resilience）》中的另一面——破裂的宏观政策环境。Josh Brown 提到了可能任命的新美联储主席人选以及传统标准的动摇，并援引当天早晨《华尔街日报》关于凯文·沃什（Kevin Warsh）的报道：沃什主张美联储应该停止“向市场事无巨细地解释一切”。在过去几十年中，央行坚信公开透明与前瞻指引，美联储官员甚至像在进行长达十年的“播客巡回演出”一样频繁发声。Josh 询问 Dan，固定收益市场深受政府干预之苦，他作为专业投资者，究竟是支持这种极度透明度，还是认为政策沟通已经过载。Dan 在回应时首先厘清，这需要将 PIMCO 的机构观点与他个人的专业视角区分开来。 ### [54:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8qCzkIqIhY&t=3288s) 美联储过度沟通的烦恼：从格林斯潘的谜语到无休止的点阵图 谈话转向了美联储官员频繁公开发言的现象。主持人 Josh Brown 直截了当地表示，他希望美联储官员们能够“闭嘴”。他怀念格林斯潘时代的沟通风格——格林斯潘一年露面一次，讲话如同《爱丽丝梦游仙境》里的毛毛虫一样充满玄机，甚至直言“如果你听懂了我说的话，那我一定是说错了”。然而，在那种极少沟通的模式下，资本市场依然运行得井井有条。Josh 质问，伯南克时期向过度透明化的大转向如今已经过去了四任主席，为什么现在的官员们每次调整利率甚至按兵不动时，都还要开一场如同赢得 NBA 总冠军般的盛大新闻发布会？ PIMCO 首席投资官 Dan Ivascyn 对此表示赞同。尽管 PIMCO 内部拥有美联储前副主席理查德·克拉里达（Richard Clarida）这样经常发表精彩演讲的重量级人物，但作为市场一线从业者，Dan 认为官员们的密集演讲虽然“有趣”，但对于市场理解美联储政策意图而言根本不是必需品。尤其是所谓的利率预测点阵图（Dot Plot），虽然在预测未来一两个月的情绪上有一定参考价值，但在展望数个季度乃至一年以上时，一方面宣称自己“依赖数据（Data Dependent）”，另一方面又硬塞出一份毫无准确度可言的 12 个月前瞻，充斥着无意义的市场噪音。 - **格林斯潘名言回溯**：“如果你听懂了我说的话，那我一定是说错了（If you understood what I said, I made a mistake）。” - **点阵图的局限**：对一两个月内的政策窗口尚可，但拉长至几个季度甚至一年以上时，与“数据依赖”的官方表态自相矛盾。 - **市场噪音**：过度的媒体解读与官员零散表态反而削弱了货币政策的清晰度。 --- ### [56:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8qCzkIqIhY&t=3388s) 言简意赅与事件驱动：市场并不需要漫长的演说 Dan Ivascyn 进一步指出，在很多时候，美联储只需寥寥数语就能引导市场预期，甚至完全不需要开口。市场能够根据真实事件极其迅速地自行重新定价。例如，今年 1、2 月份债券市场大幅反弹，市场沉浸在 AI 技术的长期通缩叙事中；但当中东霍尔木兹海峡局势升级、伊朗相关冲突爆发时，炸弹刚一落地，在没有任何美联储官员发表讲话的情况下，利率曲线前端收益率就自发走高，市场瞬间消化了通胀反弹、降息延后的现实。 类似的现象也体现在政治动态和社交媒体消息上。例如特朗普在任时期，仅仅在社交平台上推特一条关于贸易协议进展顺利的消息，股市就应声大涨；一旦传出谈判破裂，资产立即遭到抛售，债券市场近期也在经历类似的脉冲式反应。Dan 强调，美联储如果真有必要干预预期，精练、定向的一两句话就足以奏效；而冗长的讨论、铺天盖地的发言，边际效用正在急剧递减。 --- ### [57:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8qCzkIqIhY&t=3472s) 凯文·沃什的“反行动主义”哲学与美联储未来的独立性 讨论随后聚焦到前美联储理事凯文·沃什（Kevin Warsh）可能重掌美联储的潜在构想上。Josh 指出，沃什并不是单纯的鹰派或鸽派，而是一个彻头彻尾的“反行动主义者（Anti-activist）”，其核心理念是“美联储管得太多了，应该少干点事”。沃什去年在斯坦福大学的一场会议上曾公开发表尖锐评论：“如果你在某件事上并不擅长，你就应该少做。美联储的预测能力一塌糊涂，如果我来做点阵图也同样不会完美，那我干脆就不做预测。” Dan Ivascyn 对 PIMCO 近期的研究报告做了解读，认为由沃什领导的美联储在市场关心的核心领域——联邦基金利率、政策框架以及资产负债表——将保持充分的独立性。在理想情况下，沃什或许倾向于更大幅度地缩减资产负债表，但美联储是一个委员会而非主席个人的一言堂。当前通胀依然处于高位，资产负债表已压缩至可控区间，因此基准预期仍然是“谋定而后动，不轻易掀起风浪”。Dan 观察到，即便是鲍威尔治下的美联储，骨子里也带有鸽派倾斜，渴望抢在通胀真正大幅改善前回落利率；而沃什风格的美联储若上台，本质上最大的差异在于**规则导向（Rules-based）**与更为极简、直接的政策沟通，甚至可能开完会只说一句“利率不变，回头见”便离席。 --- ### [59:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8qCzkIqIhY&t=3592s) AI 的双刃剑：生产力繁荣与白领失业的阵痛 谈话进入深层次议题——AI 对经济结构与人类社会的深远影响。Josh 提问，PIMCO 预测了未来数万亿美元的数据中心基础设施支出，并深度参与其中，但这种技术繁荣究竟会将经济引向何方？对实体经济与普通大众而言是半杯水满（乐观）还是半杯水空（悲观）？ Dan Ivascyn 坦言，资本市场往往存在一个残酷的现实：“对金融市场有利的事，对某些经济阶层却可能是沉重打击。”正如当年的全球化虽然推高了全球整体经济增速，却给抗风险能力最差的低收入群体带来了巨大的不稳定。从资本市场的宏观视角来看，AI 短期内会因抢购材料、能源争夺带来建设期的通胀噪音；但在中长期，AI 将成为颠覆性的生产力引擎，大幅削减商品与服务的提供成本。 然而，正如 Josh 插话指出的——“那些被砍掉的成本，正是普通人的工资。”Dan 沉重地承认了这一点。AI 带来的生产力释放将以中产阶级专业岗位（白领阶层）的大规模劳动力流转为代价，白领失业率可能攀升，人们将面临长久未见的不确定性。这种恐慌情绪会推高预防性储蓄（Precautionary Savings），抑制消费需求，从而在中长期对通胀形成抑制，从纯金融角度对股票和债券都有利，但它埋下了极大的社会动荡隐患。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: AI Economic Transmission Mechanism accDescr: 描述AI技术从投资建设到劳动力冲击、宏观经济反应及潜在社会反弹的演进路径 subgraph Phase1["短期建设与供给端"] A["大规模数据中心与能源资本开支"] --> B["短期原材料与电力通胀噪音"] end subgraph Phase2["中期生产力与劳动力市场"] A --> C["全要素生产力大幅提升"] C --> D["企业服务与产品供给成本下降"] D --> E["白领中产岗位替代与劳动力阵痛"] end subgraph Phase3["宏观金融与社会反弹"] E --> F["预防性储蓄上升 / 消费需求放缓"] F --> G["中长期通缩力量 (Disinflation)"] G --> H["利好股债金融资产"] E --> I["政治撕裂 / 监管反弹与社会阻力"] end ``` - **劳动力替代阶层**：不同于以往工业革命冲击蓝领，此次直接冲击中等收入专业技术群体与白领阶层（White Collar Unemployment）。 - **宏观微观错位**：宏观上形成反通胀环境、降低债务压力并利好金融资产；微观上引发雇员重训困难、收入断崖与消费紧缩。 - **潜在社会阻力**：过快的技术替代无法在教科书般理想的“迅速转岗”下完成，极易引发强烈的政治不确定性、监管反弹（Regulatory Backlash）与公众对科技巨头的敌意。 - **斯坦福毕业典礼插曲**：Josh 分享了此前 Google CEO 桑达尔·皮查伊（Sundar Pichai）在斯坦福大学毕业典礼致辞时遭遇数百名学生离场抗议的事件。尽管后来证实抗议起因是政府防务合同而非抗议 AI 本身，但 Josh 认为，这种对科技巨头的抗拒情绪预示着未来社会对待 AI 颠覆浪潮的敏感基调。 ### [01:03:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8qCzkIqIhY&t=3832s) 科技行业裁员潮、AI 的真实影响与宏观经济展望 Josh Brown 抛出了一个极为矛盾且值得深思的现象：在纳斯达克经历 30 年来最强劲牛市的同时，科技行业的裁员节奏却在持续加速。今年科技行业累计裁员已达 15 万人，虽然该体量尚不足以根本性扭转全美的整体就业数据，但仅上个月就有 4 万人失去工作。业界对此众说纷纭：科技巨头坚称这是因为 AI 投资带来了极高的 ROI 和生产力飞跃，企业因此变得精简高效；而投资更多 AI 项目的风投机构（VC）则反驳称，这不过是管理层借 AI 之名，去清理此前在宽松周期中过度膨胀的员工队伍。Josh 由此发问：这种裁员趋势是否会在下半年加速，并从硅谷蔓延到更广泛的传统行业？ Dan Ivascyn 在回应宏观风险时首先指出，对今年余下时间而言，PIMCO 最大的担忧其实是伊朗地缘局势引发的经典能源危机。如果霍尔木兹海峡局势失控导致石油物理断供与失衡，那将对整体经济造成严重的负面冲击。但只要伊朗局势得到控制——即使局势没有绝对的明朗，只要海峡的原油能够持续流淌、不确定性有所下降——PIMCO 对年底前的经济整体基调相当乐观。 至于 AI 对劳动力市场的冲击，Dan 认为这绝对是未来几个季度乃至未来几年的核心议题，尽管它短期内可能不会造成剧烈的直接宏观经济波动。以 PIMCO 自身未来三到五年的规划为例，企业面临的并不是大规模清洗老员工，而是“最优技能结构”的剧烈演化。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 劳动力技能结构转型示意 accDescr: 展示从传统金融分析向科技与年轻一代赋能的结构性转变 subgraph OLD["传统技能模型"] A["传统财务背景 / 表格制作"] B["DCF 折现现金流分析师"] end subgraph NEW["AI 驱动的新技能模型"] C["科技复合型人才"] D["精通 AI 工具的年轻一代"] end OLD -->|"需求相对减少"| TRANS["技能结构演进 (Optimal Mix)"] NEW -->|"杠杆化赋能"| TRANS TRANS --> E["重塑资历层级与人才组织决策"] ``` - **劳动力迭代细节**：传统负责制作 Excel 电子表格、跑贴现现金流（DCF）模型的基础分析师需求正在下降，而技术团队正在利用前沿工具放大这部分产出。 - **权力与思维重构**：企业需要赋能对新技术理解最为深刻的年轻一代，甚至在内部资历（Seniority）认知和团队搭建逻辑上打破老一代从业者的固有思维。虽然按传统经济周期标准衡量 AI 的发展速度已经极快，但这仍将是一个长达数年的结构性演进。 --- ### [01:06:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8qCzkIqIhY&t=4013s) 乐观债券人、体育闲聊与播客尾声 面对 Dan Ivascyn 建设性且偏乐观的研判，Michael Batnick 和 Josh Brown 打趣道，Dan 展现出了罕见于债券投资经理的建设性态度（“Most bond guys are not that constructive”）。Dan 笑称自己平时绝不可能被扣上“过分乐观”（Pollyanna）的帽子，甚至调侃由于主持人戴着纽约尼克斯队（Knicks）的帽子，作为波士顿凯尔特人队（Celtics）终身死忠粉的他，按理说现在心情应该更低落才对。 现场随即转向了一阵轻松惬意的体育闲聊。Josh 询问 Dan 对尼克斯当家球星 Jalen Brunson 的看法，Dan 笑着打趣说 Brunson 曾是维拉诺瓦大学（Villanova）的球员，自己过去挺喜欢他，也不得不承认他是一位以“正确方式打球”的伟大球员。Dan 还分享了自己周六晚上的趣事：他向别人祝贺了佐治亚在 NCAA 棒球锦标赛中的胜利，还提到了哈特福德捕鲸人队（Hartford Whalers）赢球的陈年老梗。 在节目的最后，两位主持人向 Dan Ivascyn 以及 PIMCO 团队致以由衷的敬意，并向听众指引了获取更多 PIMCO 深度观点的官方网站渠道（pimco.com）。Josh 半开玩笑地询问 Dan 是否很快会开创自己的播客节目，Dan 笑着果断婉拒：“不，大概率不会。”节目在一片欢声笑语中正式画上句号。 ## Notable quotes > [18:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8qCzkIqIhY&t=1090s) 哪怕你判断对了宏观大势，只要犯了几个微小的持仓错误，它们就会像手榴弹一样轰然引爆 — Dan Ivascyn > [20:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8qCzkIqIhY&t=1230s) 任何时候当资产价格大幅晃荡时，如果你站错了交易方向，同样会迅速亏大钱。 — Dan Ivascyn > [27:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8qCzkIqIhY&t=1661s) 现在绝不是极度防御的时候 — Josh Brown > [32:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8qCzkIqIhY&t=1935s) 你定价格，我定条款 — Dan Ivascyn > [38:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8qCzkIqIhY&t=2286s) 一旦拿到了这个票息，任何人都无法将其夺走 — Dan Ivascyn > [54:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8qCzkIqIhY&t=3288s) 如果你听懂了我说的话，那我一定是说错了 — Josh Brown > [57:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8qCzkIqIhY&t=3472s) 如果你在某件事上并不擅长，你就应该少做。美联储的预测能力一塌糊涂，如果我来做点阵图也同样不会完美，那我干脆就不做预测。 — Kevin Warsh > [59:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8qCzkIqIhY&t=3592s) 对金融市场有利的事，对某些经济阶层却可能是沉重打击。 — Dan Ivascyn > [59:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8qCzkIqIhY&t=3592s) 那些被砍掉的成本，正是普通人的工资。 — Josh Brown ## Mentioned Michael Batnick, Josh Brown, Dan Ivascyn, Bill Gross, Mohamed El-Erian, Dave Hammer, Richard Clarida, Kevin Warsh, Mark Carney, Robert Shiller, Warren Buffett, Charlie Munger, Sundar Pichai, Jalen Brunson, PIMCO, VanEck, Ritholtz Wealth Management, Gurtin Municipal Bond Management, DoubleLine, Blue Owl Capital, Alphabet / Google, Oracle, NVIDIA, Meta Platforms, CoreWeave, The Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg US Aggregate Index, NATO, Federal Reserve, New York Knicks, Boston Celtics, Buffalo Bills ## Video description On this special episode of The Compound and Friends, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Michael Batnick⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ and ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Downtown Josh Brown⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ sit down with ⁠Dan Ivascyn⁠, Group Chief Investment Officer at PIMCO, for a wide-ranging conversation on markets, bonds, AI, and the forces reshaping the global economy. They discuss PIMCO’s latest secular outlook, “Rupture and Resilience,” and explains why geopolitical uncertainty, tariffs, deglobalization, AI infrastructure spending, and rising debt levels are creating both risks and opportunities for investors. This episode is sponsored by VanEck. Learn more about RAAX at ⁠https://www.vaneck.com/RAAXCompound/overview ►00:00 - Cold Open ►06:57 - Intro / PIMCO ►15:17 - What is The Secular Forum ►18:43 - “Rupture and Resilience” ►29:40 - Not the time for “wildly defensive “ ►37:57 - AI Infrastructure ►42:15 - Valuations ►47:23 - Fixed Income ►53:53 - The New Fed Chair ►59:49 - Impact of AI 👕 Check out The Compound shop: https://www.idontshop.com 🎙️Listen to our podcasts: TCAF: https://podcasts.thecompoundnews.com/show/TCAF/ Animal Spirits: https://podcasts.thecompoundnews.com/show/animalspirits/ Ask The Compound: https://podcasts.thecompoundnews.com/show/ATC/ The Compound Newsletter: https://www.thecompoundnews.com/subscribe Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-compound-media/ Instagram: https://instagram.com/thecompoundnews Twitter: https://twitter.com/thecompoundnews Tik Tok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thecompoundnews Investing involves the risk of loss. This podcast is for informational purposes only and should not be or regarded as personalized investment advice or relied upon for investment decisions. Josh Brown and Michael Batnick are employees of Ritholtz Wealth Management and may maintain positions in the securities discussed in this video. All opinions expressed by them are solely their own opinion and do not reflect the opinion of Ritholtz Wealth Management. See our disclosures here: https://ritholtzwealth.com/podcast-youtube-disclosures/ The Compound Media, Incorporated, an affiliate of Ritholtz Wealth Management, receives payment from various entities for advertisements in affiliated podcasts, blogs and emails. Inclusion of such advertisements does not constitute or imply endorsement, sponsorship or recommendation thereof, or any affiliation therewith, by the Content Creator or by Ritholtz Wealth Management or any of its employees. For additional advertisement disclaimers see here https://ritholtzwealth.com/advertising-disclaimers. #thecompound #investing #stockmarket #stocks [Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8qCzkIqIhY)

[18:10] Dan Ivascyn: 哪怕你判断对了宏观大势，只要犯了几个微小的持仓错误，它们就会像手榴弹一样轰然引爆 [20:30] Dan Ivascyn: 任何时候当资产价格大幅晃荡时，如果你站错了交易方向，同样会迅速亏大钱。 [27:41] Josh Brown: 现在绝不是极度防御的时候 [32:15] Dan Ivascyn: 你定价格，我定条款 [38:06] Dan Ivascyn: 一旦拿到了这个票息，任何人都无法将其夺走 [54:48] Josh Brown: 如果你听懂了我说的话，那我一定是说错了 [57:52] Kevin Warsh: 如果你在某件事上并不擅长，你就应该少做。美联储的预测能力一塌糊涂，如果我来做点阵图也同样不会完美，那我干脆就不做预测。 [59:52] Dan Ivascyn: 对金融市场有利的事，对某些经济阶层却可能是沉重打击。 [59:52] Josh Brown: 那些被砍掉的成本，正是普通人的工资。

[8:00] Dan Ivascyn: Bill Gross had a big personality... but for him, behind the scenes, it was all about building teams, process, and lots of small trades. From that perspective, things haven't changed nearly as much as people may have thought. [13:00] Dan Ivascyn: Turns out all they had to do to create inflation was mail everyone checks until they literally couldn't find places to spend it, turn the economy off, and tell a quarter of the workers they could stay home. [42:15] Dan Ivascyn: When you look at these starting valuations and then you look at subsequent returns over a 5 or a 10 year period... historically, it's not great. [51:06] Dan Ivascyn: You have this very, very unique situation where the more productive AI is at the economy level, the more disruptive it's going to be... You're going to see higher realized losses than we've seen in quite some time, and those losses are going to be somewhat independent of the strength of the economy.

[0:00] One of the things that I haven't really [0:01] discussed because I think it's obvious [0:03] to me but maybe not everybody is we've [0:06] been so bad for so long like it's been [0:10] so long and so many horrendous errors [0:13] from I mean I was say Phil Jackson but [0:15] way before that uh Isaiah and Danton and [0:19] Herb Williams and Mike Woodson and just [0:22] so much garbage and are you a big [0:24] basketball fan or not really? [0:25] >> I am. No, I'm I'm uh [0:27] >> Do you remember this guy Anthony [0:28] Randolph? Uh [0:29] >> he was like a skinny 611 kid from that [0:32] like never came to fruition. He was we [0:34] got him when he was like 25 from Golden [0:35] State and he was gonna be the next guy. [0:37] Like there's just so much so many years [0:40] of just misery. Barnyani [0:44] uh just all these washed up guys. [0:46] >> Michael's really big Knicks fan. [0:47] >> No, I know. And I'm a big Celtic fan. So [0:48] I've had I've had season tickets uh to [0:50] the Celtics since [0:52] >> I want say 2013. Okay. [0:54] >> We were pretty bad back then if you [0:55] remember. But uh same deal. Stock stocks [0:57] and draft picks. was the the squad when [0:59] you when you got in there? [1:01] >> Oh, god. We were uh I don't remember. [1:05] >> 2013 Celtics. [1:06] >> It was almost It was almost [1:07] >> I was say after Walker Well, Pierce was [1:09] still there. [1:10] >> Yeah, it was almost nobody. We had [1:13] Pierce when what did they [1:15] >> end in 08? So, he was already he would [1:17] have he would have had like two years [1:18] left. We had cleaned house pretty much. [1:20] It was just a lot of [1:20] >> young Brown. I don't remember who was [1:22] there. Um [1:25] the Utah kid that we got we had we had [1:28] the Kyrie rolled through. Haywood rolled [1:30] through. [1:30] >> Yeah. Yeah. [1:31] >> Um injured [1:33] >> gruesome. I I that's the only time I've [1:35] ever seen a sports injury that I cried [1:36] at. That wasn't like one of my guys cuz [1:38] that was opening night [1:40] >> of Hayward and Kyrie and it was just so [1:42] devastating. [1:43] >> What? He broke his leg on the court. [1:44] >> His ankle just went like this. [1:45] >> Yeah, it was that was ugly. [1:47] >> Really hard to watch. [1:49] >> But I was looking forward to Nick [1:50] Celtics. I thought I thought we were [1:52] going to have that series. [1:53] >> I can't believe you guys you lost game [1:54] seven at home, right? [1:58] >> Um, as a as a Celtics fan though, you [2:00] don't you don't begrudge the Knicks. [2:03] >> It's not the same as Yankees, Red Sox. [2:05] >> You can speak freely, [2:07] >> you know. It's It hurts. It hurts by the [2:09] end though. [2:09] >> It hurts. It hurts. Now part Agnes is [2:12] laughing. Uh, no, no, no. Right from the [2:14] beginning, I I tend to I tend to [2:16] >> You're a hater. [2:17] >> Well, the way I look at it. Yeah. Yeah. [2:20] If it's not Boston, it's usually the [2:22] cities that are tougher to live in. Bad [2:26] weather, you know, we [2:28] sort of how I sequentially, you know, [2:29] root for team [2:30] >> like underdog. You like underdog cities. [2:32] >> Exactly. [2:33] >> You root for Detroit. [2:34] >> Detroit. Cleveland. [2:35] >> Yeah. [2:36] >> Okay. [2:36] >> Buffalo with one caveat. [2:37] >> We mangle Cleveland. [2:38] >> What's the c What's the caveat? [2:40] >> Well, in football, one of uh one of the [2:41] fixed income rivals of ours uh really [2:43] likes the Bills. [2:44] >> Oh, Jeffrey. [2:45] >> Yeah. Yeah. Understood. But no, we have [2:48] a we actually have a few guys on the [2:49] team that uh PM team that are from [2:51] Buffalo. So Buffalo's another one that [2:53] uh [2:53] >> I've been rooting for them hard the last [2:54] five years. Yeah. Brutal. [2:56] >> I don't think you have to worry about [2:57] them ever winning. Uh how we doing? [3:01] >> All right. Light light Dan beautifully. [3:03] This is a very important man. [3:04] >> I was telling Dan he he doesn't know [3:05] this, but we've been trying to get him [3:06] for years. [3:07] >> Yeah, we really have. Um there's a [3:09] fortress around you. [3:10] >> Yeah. [3:10] >> They don't let you They don't let you do [3:12] a lot of stuff. [3:13] >> No, I I tend to stay on the floor. A [3:15] trade floor. But you don't do a lot of [3:16] media at all. [3:17] >> We like we like that about you actually. [3:19] We admire that about you and we're going [3:21] to we're going to talk about um we're [3:23] going to talk about that a little bit [3:25] later on. But like [3:27] uh not focused as much being the face of [3:30] the firm but more focused on the returns [3:33] of the firm I think is like extremely [3:35] admirable. So [3:36] >> yeah, thank you. Appreciate that. And we [3:38] have a lot you know again we have a big [3:39] team so we have a lot of folks as you [3:41] know you speak to to us a lot. I know [3:44] >> that are good at uh the messaging. [3:45] >> So, we became PIMCO clients by accident. [3:47] You guys acquired um a little municipal [3:50] bond shop in La Hoya. [3:52] >> Uh what was [3:53] >> Gen Oh, Girtton was the original name. [3:55] Yeah. [3:55] >> And uh no, no issues with the [3:58] transition. [3:59] >> That was a while ago. It was probably [4:00] 2016. [4:01] >> But the Pimco guys called us immediately [4:03] and said, "You haven't done business [4:04] with us yet, but we're going to we're [4:07] going to continue, you know, what what [4:09] we've been doing for you." And uh it [4:11] worked. [4:11] >> Yeah. Know, we appreciate that. We um we [4:14] leave them um to themselves. They they [4:17] do a great job. Uh Dave Hammer oversees [4:19] the team. So, you know, we we've [4:21] integrated in areas where uh it's [4:22] helpful on the credit side in [4:24] particular, but [4:25] >> they got a nice nice office down uh [4:27] further south. Newport's [4:29] >> a great place, too. It's just different. [4:31] >> Yeah. So, I think [4:32] >> why where are they? [4:33] >> They're down right where they were [4:35] before. I think I think they shifted uh [4:36] uh office location, but they were right [4:38] down near uh near uh La Hoya. [4:40] >> How long have you been in Newport for? [4:41] Uh, well, Pipco's been there from uh [4:44] since the very beginning. What about [4:44] you? Late 70s, early 80s. I got there in [4:47] 98. [4:47] >> Oh, wow. [4:48] >> So, I pretend to dislike it. I pretend [4:50] to uh [4:51] >> Yeah, it's terrible. [4:51] >> You're a good Boston fan. You can't you [4:53] can't like it too much, but the weather [4:54] the weather's phenomenal. I I have two [4:55] young young girls and uh it's just nice, [4:58] you know. [4:58] >> We have somebody in Manhattan Beach, so [4:59] I try and get there once a year if I [5:01] can. But it's it's best best part of the [5:04] country. [5:04] >> Manhattan Beach is great. The issue is [5:06] just traffic. Yeah. So with no traffic, [5:08] Newport to Manhattan Beach is 30 35 [5:10] minutes. With traffic, it could be, you [5:12] know, you could have a 2hour. [5:14] >> So, you know, we we do this future proof [5:15] festival in your backyard [5:17] >> in um in uh Huntington Beach [5:20] >> and uh last year we had 5,000 people, [5:23] >> mostly wealth management, you know, [5:25] professionals. [5:26] >> You guys are definitely [5:27] >> Well, I'd like to do that one. I think [5:28] we had uh we I thought we tried maybe [5:30] this past year and I I had a conflict or [5:32] something came up, but that's uh that's [5:34] a great event. [laughter] So, [5:35] >> yeah. I don't I never know if it's if it [5:37] was me or or if we get double booked, [5:39] but uh it looks like a real real [5:41] >> We'll figure we'll figure it out. We [5:42] would absolutely love to have you there. [5:43] And it's uh and it's nearby. [5:46] >> It's the Combine AND BRING SPECIAL WITH [5:47] DAN IVERSON. [5:58] [music] [6:00] This podcast is brought to you by Van. [6:03] You've heard a lot about AI and [music] [6:04] what it means for markets, but behind [6:06] every tech breakthrough, there's a [6:08] physical supply chain that has to be [6:10] built first. This means more energy, [6:13] more raw materials, and more [6:15] infrastructure. On top of that, [music] [6:16] the fiscal spending required to finance [6:19] this buildout is the kind of environment [6:21] [music] where gold and scarce assets [6:23] have historically done well. RA [music] [6:27] AX RAX. The VANC real assets ETF is [6:31] built for [music] these market [6:33] conditions. It's an actively managed [6:35] one-stop shop for real assets, [music] [6:38] including gold, commodities, natural [6:40] resource equities, and infrastructure [6:42] that adjusts as macro conditions change. [6:46] Head over to van.com/ [6:48] [music] ax compound to learn more. [6:51] That's vanac.com/raxcompound. [6:57] Oh my god. Is this a Nicole? It's a [7:00] special. [7:02] All right, ladies and gentlemen, welcome [7:04] to the greatest investing podcast in the [7:05] world. My name is Downtown Josh Brown. [7:10] My guest today is Bewilder. What's going [7:12] on in his headphones? [7:16] I pro I promise the show gets more [7:17] serious in two seconds. All right. I [7:19] promise. [7:20] All right, you guys. We have a special [7:23] edition of the show today. I'm super [7:24] [music] excited to welcome a first time [7:26] guest, somebody that we have wanted to [7:28] have on the show for a very long time. [7:30] [music] [7:31] [applause] He doesn't like us very much, [7:33] so it took a while, but he's here. Dan [7:36] Iverson is the group chief investment [7:39] officer and a managing director in [7:41] [music] the Newport Beach office at [7:43] PIMCO. [7:45] Dan is the lead portfolio manager for [7:47] the firm's income, credit hedge fund, [7:49] and mortgage [music] opportunistic [7:51] strategies and is also a portfolio [7:53] manager for total return strategies. [7:56] He's a member of PIMCO's executive [7:57] committee and a member of the investment [8:00] committee. Morning Star named Dan fixed [8:03] income fund manager of the year for 2013 [8:06] and he was inducted into the fixed [8:08] income analyst society hall of fame in [8:11] 2019. That's quite a buildup. Thank [8:14] [applause] you. Appreciate it. Great. [8:15] >> Congratulations on all that. [8:17] >> Thank you. Congratulations for the [8:18] Knicks as well, by the way. [8:19] >> So, we're going to talk current events, [8:21] but I got to go back first. [8:23] >> The first time I had ever heard of you [8:25] was during your succession. Um, and the [8:28] Wall Street Journal wrote a really nice [8:30] piece about you in 2017, and I think you [8:33] sort of came in at the end of a [8:34] tumultuous time, which we don't have to [8:35] get into. Um, but you seemed like kind [8:39] of a a big pivot for the firm where it [8:42] was going to be much more focused on the [8:44] products and the portfolios and a little [8:46] bit less about FaceTime for Dan and [8:50] creating a new Bond King. Would you say [8:52] that's sort of accurate? [8:53] >> Yeah, I think the the second part for [8:55] sure. Um, and and it's it's really, you [8:58] know, the fact that we have a team. A [8:59] lot of a lot of folks like to get out [9:00] there and and share what we're what [9:02] we're thinking we're doing. um slightly [9:04] different set of preferences. Um what's [9:07] you know what what what what though [9:09] wasn't required at the time was a major [9:11] change in investment philosophy. [9:13] >> Yeah. [9:13] >> Bill uh Muhammad but but certainly Bill [9:15] Gross had a big personality. He liked to [9:17] share views. He would do it in a very [9:18] direct way behind the scenes. Um for him [9:22] it was all about building teams process [9:24] lots of small trades. Um so so from that [9:26] perspective things haven't changed [9:28] nearly as much as uh people may have [9:30] thought. I think the tumult was more of [9:32] a media story than it was like a an [9:35] investing story. But [9:37] >> yeah, we provided a lot of lot of ammo [9:39] there for uh you know for for the media [9:41] to you know if if if uh you looking back [9:44] then we would have tried to do things a [9:45] little bit uh differently a little [9:47] smoother but um [9:48] >> other than the pressure to perform [9:50] anytime you have a change you know with [9:52] with with someone you know of a bill's [9:53] caliber exiting the firm a lot of [9:55] pressure on us but um from a process [9:57] perspective [9:59] >> not a lot has changed other than the [10:00] fact that markets have become more [10:02] global the tech stuff matters the [10:04] numbers matter a little bit more there [10:05] more numbers out there to crunch. So, [10:07] >> you know, things have become a bit more [10:09] technical, maybe more precise at least, [10:11] uh, you know, in terms of the way the [10:13] way you make decisions, but [10:15] philosophically, the the emphasis on the [10:16] team, the stuff that we structures we [10:18] use to make decisions haven't changed as [10:20] much as people would um, maybe have [10:22] expected. And again, it's a tribute to [10:24] Bill and folks that are around a lot [10:25] longer than I will. [10:26] >> No question. Shout shout to Bill of [10:28] course Muhammad in the journal article [10:31] that chronicled your first year or or so [10:34] at the helm. Um you were able to stop [10:37] outflows. You you uh and it mentions the [10:40] team as well. Um somebody called you the [10:43] perfect CIO for the PIMCO we think of in [10:45] the future which was present about 9 [10:47] years ago and uh you've certainly [10:50] accomplished a lot. And then I thought [10:52] this was interesting. Um, in another [10:55] departure from the previous era, Mr. [10:57] Iverson relies more heavily on the [10:58] expertise of individual portfolio [11:00] managers to find profitable trades. So, [11:03] it became less about making the big [11:05] firmwide call and then delegating other [11:08] people and it seems like it was much [11:10] more of uh a group effort. Would you say [11:12] that's accurate? I [11:13] >> I think that's right. And I think you [11:15] also have to take what the market gives [11:16] you. So, you know, years leading up to [11:18] the financial crisis, there was a big [11:20] trade to do. Yeah. Coming out of the [11:21] financial crisis, there was a big trade [11:23] to do. Lots of cheap uh paper you could [11:25] make a bold call, go out there and find [11:27] anything housing related you could buy [11:29] and and you know, produce great [11:30] outcomes. You know, as as you progressed [11:33] um further away from the global [11:35] financial crisis, yields were low, [11:37] volatility was low, lots of support from [11:40] monetary policy agents, the fiscal side. [11:43] So in some sense you almost needed a lot [11:45] of small things to go well and then [11:48] >> you know at times there is a big trade. [11:49] So we're you know we want to be on the [11:51] on the lookout for the big trade. Uh [11:53] they're just harder to find. [11:54] >> They don't come every they don't come [11:55] every right I would say post the great [11:57] financial crisis you had the co moment [12:00] was probably an opportunity for big [12:01] trades but not a ton of like uh fat [12:05] pitches coming in from a macro [12:06] perspective. [12:07] >> Correct. Okay. And not only were bonds [12:09] not cheap, but uh there were voices [12:12] calling them a bubble. I think Bill [12:14] Gross was called them a bubble for a [12:15] while. Um there was very little [12:17] opportunity. Bonds were you had to have [12:19] them because you can't be all in on [12:20] equities, but it was like a huge it was [12:22] annoying. [12:23] >> Well, yes, it was uh annoying and tough [12:27] um to operate. Uh if you're in Europe, [12:29] again, you negative yields. So, you [12:31] know, again, we try to you know, we [12:33] market in this industry and you try to [12:34] put on a positive tone. Inflation was [12:37] low. Yeah. [12:38] >> Um but you had no value, you know. So [12:40] you took a a low inflation rate, [12:41] subtracted that small rate from starting [12:44] bond yields, you ended up with a [12:45] negative number. And we've had 10 or 15 [12:47] years, I I don't know, I don't have the [12:49] the math or the numbers in front of me, [12:50] but last 10 or 15 years, high quality [12:53] bonds have generated returns of about 2 [12:54] and a half%. Yeah. [12:56] >> Take away, you know, twoish% inflation. [12:59] >> Nothing there. Um the math is much more [13:01] favorable today. And you know unlike [13:04] growth equity investing VC you know with [13:08] a little bit of time you typically earn [13:10] your yield and then if we do our jobs [13:12] properly and generate some additional [13:14] return some thoughtful asset allocating [13:16] expand the opportunity set a little more [13:18] complexity you know the the math works [13:20] out better today. [13:21] >> Obviously with with investing in life [13:23] you have to play the ball as it lies. I [13:25] believe shooter McGavin said that to [13:26] happy. Um, prior to the inflationary [13:30] environment, there was a lot of people, [13:32] um, I think I was one of them who [13:33] thought that yields, we were just in a [13:36] new universe where inflation, uh, [13:39] interest rates were going to stay low [13:41] and anytime they crept up, there was [13:42] just this title wave of boomers with [13:44] trillions of dollars that was waiting to [13:47] come in and bring yields lowered by the [13:49] bonds. Um, and that dynamic has [13:51] obviously shifted dramatically. we can't [13:53] play in an alternate universe. But was [13:55] that your operating assumption that [13:57] yields were going to stay low for the [13:58] for foreseeable future? [13:59] >> Yeah, pre precoid um that was the [14:02] general thinking uh at at PIMCO as well. [14:05] Global savings glut um tremendous [14:09] disinflationary pressure or put more [14:10] simplistically, you know, central [14:12] bankers had been trying to create [14:13] inflation for a long time [14:14] unsuccessfully. So it was reasonable and [14:18] rational to think that if inflation [14:20] didn't pick up that you're going to be [14:22] in this relatively low yielding [14:24] environment. Again, a lot has changed. [14:26] Co I think was the starting point. And [14:27] now uh [14:28] >> turns out all they had to do to create [14:30] inflation was uh mail everyone checks [14:33] >> uh until they literally couldn't find [14:35] places to spend it. [14:36] >> Turn the economy off [14:37] >> and uh and tell a quarter of the workers [14:39] they could stay home. [14:40] >> That's kind of all you had to do. So [14:42] >> yeah. And it's funny. I was down at a at [14:44] a event that um was looking at you know [14:48] the inflation process, monetary policy [14:50] decisions and balance sheets and things [14:52] and you know for much more of an [14:53] academic perspective but uh when you [14:55] look at what was different that last [14:58] cycle it amounted to trillions of direct [15:01] stimulus and there's always been [15:02] stimulus when when economy is slow but [15:04] this time [15:05] >> checks came to us and right [15:07] >> you're invited or encouraged to uh to [15:10] spend them and I think that had a lot to [15:11] do with uh what we're going through uh [15:13] plus they got a tremendous amount of [15:14] monetary policy accommodation at the [15:16] same uh same time. [15:18] >> One of the things that one of the areas [15:20] of continuity uh under your leadership [15:22] is that PIMCO has continued the secular [15:24] forum and the firm has been doing this [15:27] for over 40 years. So I wanted to just [15:29] ask you quickly for the audience that [15:31] maybe isn't familiar, what is the [15:32] secular forum and what is the meaning of [15:34] it to the portfolio managers at PIMCO? [15:37] Yeah. So, it's it's important and um [15:39] we've been doing it as long as the [15:41] firm's been around. Um it's a bit of a [15:43] right of passage. I uh I remember I had [15:45] come out the summer before I started at [15:47] at PIMCO to observe the secular forum. [15:50] Uh that was a trick. Um got there and [15:53] they threw a microphone in front of me. [15:54] Now, there was only about 25 of us at [15:56] the time. [15:56] >> First the first time you were in the [15:57] >> first time I was in there supposedly, [15:58] you know, watching the the process. [16:00] >> You were like, "Wait, wait, wait. I'm [16:01] not even in Skull and [laughter] Bones. [16:02] I'm not ready. I'm not ready to [16:04] conduct." [16:05] >> Wasn't ready. Um but that was an [16:07] important part of the process and you [16:09] know all young people had to go through [16:11] and contribute to presentations or to [16:13] present. So I think it was bigger than [16:15] just trying to get to the right [16:17] investment answer. Even today we treat [16:19] it like an internal conference. So we [16:21] bring people out. We have you know ice [16:23] cream socials. We actually had a pimco [16:25] band um led by New Yorkers here that [16:28] came out and joined some folks uh out in [16:30] uh in Newport Beach just just for a [16:32] little bit of fun. But you know the [16:34] whole idea uh and again um I think this [16:37] is even more important uh today was to [16:39] get away from the noise as as we all [16:41] know um you know we get measured over [16:44] two short periods of time there's a [16:46] fascination on you know what what UNAV [16:48] did today and you know even back then [16:50] you know 30 or so years ago when I [16:51] joined the firm uh there's just a lot of [16:54] noise so I think stepping back away from [16:55] the noise and looking at trends and [16:57] themes that would impact economies or [16:59] markets uh was pretty important today I [17:01] think it's critical just the information [17:04] flow is unbelievable. Um, [17:07] >> so you guys but you guys bring in [17:08] outside voices too. It's not it's not an [17:10] insular thing. You'll bring in thought [17:12] leaders and experts, subject matter [17:14] experts to talk to the group. I would [17:16] imagine you're having a lot of AI people [17:19] coming in these days to just educate [17:21] everybody. [17:22] >> We did and actually this year um [17:25] realizing you can't get to all of it in [17:27] the week where we conduct the actual [17:28] forum. We had a secular speaker series [17:31] which was comprised of almost all AI [17:33] folks, [17:34] >> right? [17:34] >> You tend to get the bullish AI message. [17:36] You know, I people ask me, you know, [17:38] what podcast do I like? I like sports [17:40] and I like uh our industry, but I try to [17:42] spend the bulk of my time listening to [17:44] all the tech stuff because that's the [17:45] area where [17:47] I have the least amount of feel. [17:49] >> Yeah. [17:50] >> Um but it's very very important. And [17:51] then we're trying to get a bit more of a [17:53] um you know, a bearish or cautionary [17:56] message. you know, when you're lending [17:57] against AI investments and at best you [17:59] get par back hopefully. [18:01] >> Yeah. [18:01] >> Unlike uh you know, some of these [18:03] private AI companies where you're [18:04] talking about, you know, five 10 times [18:05] multiples tripling money. [18:07] >> It's a different conversation. You guys [18:08] are worried about return of capital as [18:10] much as you're worried about return on [18:12] capital. [18:13] >> Correct. And and and of course the there [18:15] there are huge macro implications here, [18:17] but um even if you get the macro right [18:19] and you make a few mistakes in a bond [18:20] portfolio, um you know, they're like [18:23] grenades going off. you know, you can [18:24] you could quickly lose, you know, half a [18:26] percent here, half a percent there, and [18:27] uh you know, you work hard to to to to [18:30] generate that incremental. [18:31] >> We're going to we're going to we're [18:32] going to talk about that that uh we're [18:34] going to talk about that secular theme [18:35] and what the um and what the [18:38] implications might be for fixed income. [18:40] Uh but in this particular [18:43] uh outlook, well, last year the outlook [18:46] was the fragmentation era. This year [18:48] it's called rupture and resilience. I [18:51] like that you saved us with the [18:52] resilience part after the rupture part. [18:55] Um, but it is a meaningful escalation in [18:57] language from fragmentation to rupture. [19:00] So, uh, why don't you talk us through [19:02] what's changed between last year and [19:04] this year as far as that outlook and [19:07] what you mean when you say rupture and [19:09] resilience? [19:09] >> Sure. and and and we've talked about [19:10] this for for the last few years, but um [19:13] and in the in the general thought, at [19:15] least when you look at the geopolitical [19:16] stuff, is that um for a while it was [19:19] safe to assume, you know, you're a [19:21] politician, you generate good economic [19:23] outcomes, everything's fine, you get [19:25] reelected and, you know, most policy was [19:27] based on, [19:29] you know, global economic efficiency, [19:32] the whole globalization trend. Uh and [19:34] then we had the COVID shock. Um and now [19:36] we have, you know, a series of shocks. [19:38] um populism within politics uh the [19:41] realization that significant parts of [19:44] the economy middle- inome lower income [19:46] households uh haven't done so well the [19:47] last few decades uh China um sort of [19:52] snuck up on the world quite large quite [19:54] impactful both in terms of trying to [19:56] grow its own economy but creating [19:58] disruption all around the globe by [20:00] exporting cheap products AI related [20:03] uncertainty uh we're just at a point [20:05] where um something did change a few [20:07] years ago know uh politics began in some [20:10] sense dominating traditional economic [20:12] decisions like tariffs as an example. [20:14] Tariffs aren't there just out of you [20:17] know purely economic fairness or or or [20:18] efficiency. They're as Trump has said [20:21] you know the textbooks say tariffs are [20:22] bad. We're doing them anyway because [20:25] there's a political reason to do them. [20:27] Correct. Maybe not necessarily a purely [20:29] economic reason. [20:30] >> Absolutely right. That [20:31] >> and there's a lot of that going around. [20:32] >> Absolutely right. So that that was the [20:33] that that sort of set the stage in in [20:35] something we've talked about. But when [20:37] you look at the last 12 months in [20:39] particular, um you have outright armed [20:42] conflict now still in the Ukraine uh [20:44] with a risk of of escalation [20:47] uh actual war in the Middle East [20:50] alongside the type of direct trade [20:52] tensions, geopolitical tensions, extreme [20:55] uh political uncertainty within this [20:58] country. Uh you look over at the UK, [21:01] similar dynamic. You look at elections [21:03] all around the world now, you tend to [21:04] have um candidates from extreme [21:08] perspectives typically battling out for [21:10] control of countries. Uh there is very [21:14] little true middle nowadays. So, you [21:16] know, our our point with the piece is [21:17] that, you know, you're starting with uh [21:20] financial market valuations that are [21:21] high. you've had, you know, pretty good [21:23] performance the last few years, yet [21:26] you're dealing with a type of [21:28] uncertainty now that um most investors [21:30] haven't had to deal with to the same [21:32] degree. So, be real careful about being [21:35] surprised. Uh and some of the surprises [21:37] could be very good ones. AI again um [21:41] incredible um investment in this [21:43] technology. People are making these [21:44] investments because you know they think [21:46] that by making those investments things [21:49] will change. So um even just the tech [21:52] trends alone you know the almost $10 [21:55] trillion of anticipated uh investment uh [21:58] are creating just massive uncertainty [22:00] and I think that's great you know as an [22:01] active asset manager it's better to have [22:03] this type of uncertainty these types of [22:05] frictions in markets to generate returns [22:08] relative to passive alternatives but um [22:11] anytime things move around a lot you can [22:12] you can lose money too if you're on the [22:13] wrong side of the trade. So, [22:15] >> so by rupture you mean like a rupture of [22:17] the existing world order and some of the [22:21] I guess people have talked about this [22:23] like in terms of uh NATO and like just [22:26] some of the things that we've come to [22:28] believe are like part of the bedrock of [22:30] the the global order. All of a sudden [22:33] there seem to be bigger shifts than [22:35] we're accustomed to. [22:36] >> And then that has implications further [22:38] on down until you get to like financial [22:40] instruments, currencies. [22:42] >> Uh okay. [22:43] >> Yeah. Yeah, and that's the macro point. [22:44] And then, you know, I I and and and [22:45] that's usually enough to create a a lot [22:47] of uncertainty. Yet, you have now with [22:49] this, [22:51] >> you know, highly innovative new [22:53] technology that just arrived on the [22:55] scene. Um, massive potential disruption [22:58] to old economy business models, the way [23:00] that we conduct work. Um, you know, we [23:02] used to go out to get an accountant to [23:04] do our taxes. I'm I'm learning. you [23:06] know, the young kids are teaching me how [23:07] to do this in the organization, but I [23:09] actually think that with a little [23:10] training, you know, that's something you [23:11] can do with a few clicks of the button [23:12] and you can go on through different [23:14] areas, you know, where we um have gotten [23:16] used to things happening a certain way [23:18] where all of a sudden a few years from [23:20] now it could be completely different. [23:21] Um, so yeah, it's it's it's, you know, [23:23] geopolitics while also seeing these [23:26] trends that we haven't seen in a very [23:28] very long time. I guess the internet in [23:30] the early late 90s early 2000s comes [23:32] close but even there you know it feels [23:35] like um the disruptive um aspects of [23:38] this new technology can be you know [23:40] quite impactful for uh markets. So yeah, [23:43] geopolitics, traditional monetary policy [23:45] uncertainties, high debt levels, you [23:47] know, all these are going to be sources [23:48] of volatility. And then despite all [23:50] that, we still have this other source of [23:53] uncertainty that again it's it's moving [23:56] fast and it's and and it's going to [23:58] matter. We just don't quite know exactly [24:00] how it's going to matter just yet. [24:01] Staying on geopolitics, you quoted Mark [24:03] Carney who very memorably I guess that [24:05] was a few months ago at the UN perhaps [24:09] he was addressing the world and [24:12] um talking about the rupture itself and [24:14] a transition away from the post World [24:16] War II rules-based regime. I wanted to [24:19] ask, do you actually believe that we're [24:21] at the point of no return on [24:23] globalization and that like things can [24:26] never go back to the way they were or do [24:29] you think that maybe some of this is [24:31] cyclical and not secular? [24:33] >> Uh well, we so we think many of these [24:37] themes and trends will be hard to [24:38] reverse anytime soon. Now politics in [24:41] our country of course um at least you [24:44] know the you know the president changes [24:46] every four years and we've already seen [24:48] um [24:48] >> so far [24:49] >> so far so far good point uh so we've [24:52] already seen now um this is the second [24:54] term of Trump with Biden and between [24:57] when Biden got elected there was a [24:59] partial reversal in in some of the Trump [25:02] trends and we have an election coming up [25:03] in uh little over a couple of years and [25:06] you very well could see um if you had a [25:09] Democratic a more traditional [25:11] administration [25:13] uh embracing certain global institutions [25:15] and looking to reverse some of which has [25:17] been done. It's the nature of our [25:18] politics. But with that said, you know, [25:21] we think it may be bumpy. You may see a [25:23] situation where um different [25:24] administrations or depending on who [25:26] controls Congress may move in um a [25:29] different direction or look to try to, [25:31] you know, get back to where we were a [25:33] few years ago. but all in the midst of [25:36] very very powerful and accelerating [25:38] secular themes that it would be very [25:40] very hard to reverse. Probably a good [25:41] example would be tariffs. Um you know [25:44] Trump uh put tariffs on during his first [25:46] administration. [25:48] The Democrats weren't super supportive [25:50] of that. Many Republicans weren't super [25:52] supportive of that. He left um the [25:54] tariffs didn't get reversed. [25:55] >> Yeah. I think just an example of how [25:57] from a political perspective today [25:59] people realize that um trade isn't [26:02] helping all segments of the economy in [26:05] that um tariff policy and if it's not [26:07] tariffs some type of more aggressive [26:11] industrial policy or policy towards our [26:13] adversaries is warranted. So it may take [26:16] a slightly different form, but this idea [26:17] of dealing with conflict, addressing the [26:19] China problem, um trying to come up with [26:22] some creative ways to ensure that those [26:24] that have been left behind by [26:25] globalization, you know, see a shot for [26:28] their incomes to go up. Some of these [26:29] are themes that are again going to be [26:31] hard to reverse and are unpredictable in [26:33] nature. They can be orderly or at times [26:36] uh represent more disorderly change like [26:38] we've seen all of a sudden uh in the [26:40] Middle East this year. tensions [snorts] [26:42] had existed there for quite some time. [26:43] In the absence of armed conflict, u the [26:46] economy and markets performance this [26:47] year would likely have been quite [26:49] different. So you you're not sure when [26:51] these things are going to erupt. You [26:52] just know that they're likely to erupt [26:54] with more frequency than what we [26:57] remember from uh from the old days. [26:58] >> So Dan, the more you zoom out um and [27:01] take a big picture view, the scarier [27:03] things get at the global level. People [27:05] are always fighting. There's always [27:07] uncertainty. [27:08] Um, and the more you zoom in, the more [27:11] the picture gets a little bit less [27:12] horrific. So, how do you think about the [27:15] juxtaposition between global uncertainty [27:19] um what's going on with the strait and [27:22] the juxtaposition of that between our [27:24] economy [27:25] >> which has proven to be remarkably [27:27] resilient [27:28] >> and the consumer that powers the economy [27:31] despite the tariffs and the inflation [27:34] and the AI uncertainty and everything [27:36] that that has been thrown at us. Our [27:38] economy just continues to chug along. [27:40] And when you're making investment [27:41] decisions, there's this push and pull [27:43] between the fears and whatever might or [27:47] might not happen versus what is [27:48] happening today. And what is happening [27:50] today has been a continued um remarkable [27:53] push through all of these dangers. [27:56] >> Absolutely. And and and I and I look [27:58] back at, you know, some of PIMCO PIMCO's [28:01] views. We may talk about this later. You [28:02] know, back in the mid200s, you know, [28:04] aggressive underwriting concerns, [28:05] developing the banking system. We were [28:07] worried. We thought, wait a minute, you [28:09] know, if you know, if this continues, [28:11] we're going to have a recession. Um, and [28:13] we and we began to get really, really [28:15] concerned and really, really defensive. [28:16] You flip forward today and yeah, you [28:18] there may be some excesses in certain [28:19] areas and you know, yes, there's [28:21] uncertainty, but our economy has been [28:24] incredibly strong. Um, we have a real [28:26] real strong at least middle and upper [28:29] income consumer. Home prices have gone [28:31] up for many many years. Most people or [28:34] you know, close to half the people, you [28:35] know, in this country own homes. uh the [28:38] consumer balance sheet solid, you know, [28:40] many years of, you know, real, you know, [28:42] good um labor market performance for [28:46] middle and upper income cohort groups. [28:48] And now this technology through capital [28:50] investment through and the productivity [28:52] numbers are noisy, but we get the sense [28:54] that um you're already beginning to see [28:56] um the positive effect of productivity [28:59] on the US economy. So despite [29:01] uncertainty, despite Trump tariffs that [29:03] in a narrow sense, you know, could lead [29:05] to, um, you know, some some additional [29:07] frictions in the markets, we're fairly [29:09] optimistic [29:11] um, and that does change the way you [29:12] think about investing. When you're [29:14] really pessimistic about growth, when [29:15] you see lots of problems that just just [29:18] the passage of time are eventually going [29:20] to lead to a slowdown, um, you have a [29:23] very different approach. So the bottom [29:24] line today is that you want to be [29:26] cognizant of the uncertainty but also [29:29] optimistic about growth. As a fixed [29:32] income investor, that means um you're [29:34] probably not optimizing portfolios if [29:37] you're getting wildly defensive and just [29:40] hunker down in the absolute safest [29:42] stuff. [29:42] >> Now is not the time for wildly [29:44] defensive. [29:44] >> No, not not in our opinion. I think it's [29:46] time for resilience. And it's a great [29:48] word everyone in our industry who [29:49] disagrees with resilience. It's it's uh [29:51] you know but I think the idea is [29:53] >> be up in quality or take advantage of [29:55] this exciting global opportunity set of [29:58] higher quality risks that can actually [30:01] generate similar returns to the real [30:03] risky stuff if we continue to grow like [30:06] we expect but will provide some downside [30:09] protection if you end up having [30:11] recession. [30:12] >> Let's talk about these Dan. Give me [30:13] chart four please. This is from your uh [30:16] presentation. You're talking about I [30:17] don't know if you're calling these like [30:18] the four drivers, but I'll say these are [30:20] like the four biggest drivers I guess of [30:24] global GDP growth or spending or so [30:27] you're you're highlighting AI [30:29] infrastructure is $7.6 trillion over the [30:32] next 5 years and you say that is the GDP [30:35] equivalent of the economies of Japan and [30:37] France. Then you've got energy and grid [30:40] I guess modernization or reinvestment. [30:43] um 2.6 trillion about the size of [30:46] Italy's economy. You've got defense [30:48] spending um NATO plus whatever else. Uh [30:53] 2.4 trillion which is about the size of [30:55] Canada's economy. And then finally [30:57] reshoring and supply chain I I guess [31:00] like uh less manufacturing overseas, [31:03] more here. Okay. 1.4 trillion about the [31:06] size of the Netherlands. So add those [31:09] four things up. [31:11] It obviously does seem like along with [31:13] the the rupture of the way things used [31:16] to be, there's a ton of opportunity [31:18] given how much money is going to go [31:20] pouring into these things. So talk a [31:21] little bit about why that's important [31:23] for uh PIMCO and for your investors. [31:26] >> Yeah, so it's important um just from a [31:28] macroeconomic perspective. As long as [31:30] that type of capital investment can be [31:32] maintained, it's going to create um a [31:34] lot of positive momentum for economies [31:36] making those investments. Uh [31:38] >> it's got to be bullish. I mean to have [31:40] to have that much investment. [31:41] >> It's a lot of stimulant. [31:43] >> Yeah, it is. It is. And uh and and and [31:45] by the way, that bears watching as well. [31:47] Um you know, over the short term, you [31:48] know, all of these investments can be [31:50] great for the economy. It could lead to [31:51] better productivity, lower inflation, [31:54] but um there very well could be a timing [31:56] mismatch. And that's why again I think [31:57] it's important to note that, you know, [31:59] although our base case is that [32:01] inflation, if we if we get the situation [32:03] in Iran stabilized, inflation probably [32:06] stays at this level and trends lower. [32:08] There's some uncertainty. um just given [32:09] the massive amount of materials you got [32:11] to go find uh to make these investments. [32:13] But generally speaking, positive and [32:15] then from a fixed income opportunity [32:18] perspective, [32:19] you know, people need to raise money. Um [32:22] for a while, you know, these large [32:23] hyperscalers, these big tech firms were [32:25] generating so much cash flow, they never [32:27] had to come to the bond market. Today, [32:29] >> Nvidia, [32:30] >> Nvidia came today. they don't even need [32:32] the money and they're coming uh today [32:33] which again is a a pretty uh strong [32:36] forward indicator that even Nvidia [32:38] generating the most cash flow of all is [32:40] still um looking to lock in I I saw it [32:43] take down 30 20 30 billion [32:45] >> so this is this is a key part of the [32:47] story as you mentioned all of these [32:49] hyperscalers were producing more money [32:50] they didn't know what to do with it just [32:52] sitting on hundreds of billions of [32:53] dollars buying back stock so it's that's [32:56] no longer the case Google did an equity [32:58] offering for the first time I think [32:59] since 2001 recently uh they raised $10 [33:02] billion. Oracle announced earlier in the [33:04] year in the last call that they were [33:06] going to do $20 billion of equity, [33:07] another $20 billion of debt. Nvidia, to [33:09] your point, uh first time since 2021 [33:11] they're raising $20 billion. You guys [33:13] actually were a big part of the [33:15] financing uh Meta's Hyperion [33:18] data center, right? Is that in [33:20] Louisiana? You guys worked. So, was that [33:22] with Blue Owl? [33:23] >> Blue Owls was in the equity on that [33:24] trade. Correct. [33:25] >> Okay. So you obviously have a a a great [33:28] lens into what's happening with the [33:30] buildout and where this is going for the [33:32] next 10 years. So what is your view on [33:33] the data center buildout? [33:34] >> Yeah. So look at the um the buildout's [33:36] going to continue and it's going to [33:37] accelerate and um [33:38] >> it's going to accelerate [33:40] >> from here from from here. Now, now [33:42] again, you're going to have you're going [33:43] to get a you're you're going to you're [33:45] you're you're seeing even over the [33:46] course of the last few months in a [33:48] signal like like we're seeing um from [33:50] Nvidia today that you know capital [33:53] investment targets have just gone higher [33:56] and we would expect them to remain [33:58] higher even going a bit higher from [34:00] here. Frictions are going to increase. [34:02] You're even seeing at the local [34:03] political level um some push back and [34:05] that bears watching as well. So it it it [34:08] may be bumpy in terms of actual [34:09] implementation but the bottom line to [34:11] keep it simple um for a long time um [34:14] there was very little issuance uh during [34:17] co lots of companies were able to term [34:19] out their debt sort of everyone's been [34:21] why why are high yield spreads and IG [34:22] spreads so tight well there hasn't been [34:24] a tremendous growth of issuance [34:26] >> no new products [34:27] >> until no new product until recently and [34:30] this is concentrated within the tech [34:32] space that's great u for an active [34:35] manager in that for the first time in a [34:37] long time. You know, there's all this [34:38] froth in private credit. People falling [34:40] all all over themselves to do deals. You [34:42] know, those that were borrowing didn't [34:43] have to give on terms because there are [34:45] plenty of people out there raising money [34:46] to to give them [34:48] >> Oh, this is competition for private [34:50] credit investors. [34:51] >> Well, it's so big now that um that that [34:54] the capital needs are so large relative [34:56] to the amount of money we all have. [34:58] >> So, everybody can eat. [34:59] >> We everyone can eat and we can go out [35:01] there and actually drive drive terms. [35:03] Now, that doesn't mean you like every [35:04] deal because again, this dynamic that if [35:06] I'm if I'm a bond uh investor, at best I [35:09] get my coupon and I get par back. And [35:10] these companies, although they're um [35:12] doing great things, they're going to [35:13] lead to, you know, better productivity, [35:15] all of them haven't figured out how to [35:16] make money yet. So, uh it's a great [35:18] opportunity because for the first time, [35:20] we can look at 10, 15, 20 deals, and [35:23] that's probably what we have in our [35:24] pipeline today. Some of which are on the [35:26] order of 20, 30, $40 billion in size. [35:29] Those are great deals where you can come [35:31] in, you can do very precise [35:34] underwriting. You can look to create [35:36] structures that insulate [35:38] our shareholders from some of those [35:40] longerterm AI related risks and end up [35:43] with a spread um on the deals we like at [35:46] a significant uh pickup to your typical [35:49] investment grade bond or your typical [35:52] lower quality below investment grade [35:54] type bond. Now, you got to be careful [35:56] and sometimes it may say IG on it. We [35:58] don't quite believe uh the rating [36:00] agencies in that it's uh investment [36:02] grade, but you get enough spread cushion [36:04] where you can compare it to some type of [36:06] lower quality bank loan where you don't [36:08] get good protective terms in the deal. [36:11] Um all this stuff, you know, we read [36:12] about all the time where wait a minute, [36:13] I thought I was senior and then ended up [36:15] because I had bad docs, you know, [36:16] someone was able to, you know, lend lend [36:18] and and take away my collateral. Here [36:20] you you have a lot of ability to [36:22] negotiate and find value. I think Munger [36:25] or Buffett, I can't remember which one [36:26] said this. You'd make the price, I'll [36:28] set the terms, [36:29] >> and it sounds like you would rather be [36:30] on the term setting side than the [36:31] pricing side [36:32] >> or both. Uh both. Yeah. Yeah. Ideally, [36:34] but uh I I think in this environment, [36:36] the terms matter a lot just given given [36:38] the uncertainty, given the complexity. [36:40] So, we think that if we have a chance to [36:42] help drive terms that we're a large [36:45] enough firm, we have perspectives from [36:47] our real estate group on the risks of [36:50] developing a data center. Uh we have [36:51] folks on the infrastructure team or the [36:53] old asset back lending team that [36:54] understand the nature of those types of [36:56] contracts and how in theory it may sound [36:58] like you have good collateral but you [37:00] better make sure you have the ability to [37:01] go get it and realize on it and then [37:04] when you have to go get it the price is [37:05] a lot lower on that collateral than you [37:07] tend to think. So that's an environment [37:09] where we should be able to add good [37:11] value for investors. But one we don't [37:14] want to be wildly overweight this risk. [37:15] It's it's a sector where we want to [37:17] generate attractive return not own too [37:20] much of it. And your your your investors [37:22] own equities too, correct? And they're [37:24] already probably all in. [37:25] >> Yeah. And that's a great point. And then [37:26] I was going to mention the correlation [37:27] piece. So when you looked at that chart [37:29] over there, um you know you know you saw [37:30] okay well there's AI investment and then [37:32] there's energy investment. Well they're [37:34] they're related because you know you got [37:36] to figure a way to keep the data centers [37:37] or the or the manufacturing [37:39] >> facilities on. So when you start looking [37:41] at portfolios, it's it's pretty [37:43] important to think about how that risk [37:46] may move together and realize that [37:49] you're not going to quite know for sure, [37:50] which gets back to this idea that um [37:53] anytime you got to raise $10 trillion in [37:55] in a market, yeah, there's great [37:56] opportunity. There's also a lot of risk, [37:58] especially if you own. So I want to ask [37:59] you from from the perspective of an end [38:01] investor. So not you guys as the [38:03] portfolio manager but your clients. [38:06] >> I understand the benefits of investing [38:09] in AI infrastructure on the equity side. [38:12] I might invest in something at $10 [38:16] million valuation that turns into [38:17] coreweave. I totally understand that [38:19] part. What's the pitch to invest in [38:22] digital infrastructure or AI cloud data [38:26] centers from a fixed income investor [38:29] standpoint? Why is that attractive? Are [38:31] are the yields so much higher or is the [38:33] risk mispriced in some way where it's [38:35] way less risky than people assume or [38:37] what would be your your answer to that [38:38] question? [38:39] >> You know, I'll give I'll I'll break it [38:41] into two two two reasons. I mean, we we [38:43] could we could talk a lot about um all [38:45] all the nuance in the market, but the [38:47] first would be that you can structure [38:49] safe risk, [38:50] >> true investment grade type risk. [38:52] >> That's my favorite type of risk. [38:54] >> Yeah, it it's it's a it's easier. Safe [38:56] risk, you know, but but but lower [38:58] yielding. Again, you're in the [38:59] investment grade space nowadays. [39:01] >> Still have the give or take. [39:02] >> Yeah. you're looking at, you know, you [39:03] know, 6, seven, 8% type returns [39:06] in a asset that if structured properly [39:10] at the end of the day have credit risk [39:12] that looks a lot like Meta. And Meta [39:15] again is a much better tech firm than [39:18] others in this space because they're [39:19] more diversified. They're generating [39:21] more cash flow. They're in popular [39:22] indices. So, you can take advantage of [39:25] owning MetaRisk, a company that we do [39:28] think is solid investment grade, [39:30] >> generates tons of cash flow. uh pro very [39:33] sticky business model probably going to [39:34] be around for a long time. [39:35] >> Right. Exactly. And and you can do that [39:37] at um a spread pickup to their [39:40] underlying credit of two percentage [39:42] points as an example. So now you're [39:44] talking about getting the same type of [39:46] yield you' get on typically a very high [39:48] risk investment for something that's a [39:50] bit more complex. Happens to be quite [39:53] liquid as well. So if investors change [39:55] their mind, they can sell out of it very [39:56] very quickly. In fact, that bond in [39:58] question is one of the most liquid bonds [40:00] out there in the market. [40:01] >> Is that the meta data center? [40:02] >> That'll be the the beignet deal or that [40:04] that Yeah, that that that data center [40:06] deal. U just given its size and given [40:07] the sponsorship out there, that's um a [40:11] uh very very liquid instrument. So that [40:12] that would be one, you know, a a a high [40:14] quality way to generate [40:18] much higher incremental return. So [40:20] instead of owning a high yield bond [40:21] fund, I can own this type of risk that's [40:23] investment grade, get the same type of [40:25] spread. the other bucket and there is [40:27] this entire other part of the ecosystem [40:29] which is risky um lending um within this [40:34] space there we think investors and and [40:37] and we'll look at that risk as a equity [40:39] alternative so we'll compare it to a [40:41] NASDAQ stock or we'll compare it to a [40:44] dividend producing equity investment and [40:46] say yeah it doesn't have the same type [40:47] of safeguards we still got to be careful [40:49] about concentrations but we can go out [40:52] there and you know target deals that are [40:54] well structured but lower quality. And [40:57] now we're looking at 9 10 11 12 13 14 [41:01] 15% type returns. So you compare that to [41:04] historical risky stock returns. It looks [41:07] pretty good. I think it's very very [41:09] important though for investors um within [41:13] PIMCO and elsewhere to put it in the [41:15] risky bucket though. I think the problem [41:17] is when you have a lot of AI euphoria [41:19] going on, when you've had a period where [41:21] we haven't had, you know, a loss cycle [41:23] in a long time, um you you you can [41:26] create the illusion of safety just [41:28] because those types of assets haven't [41:30] moved around a lot in the past. [41:31] >> Nothing bad has happened yet. Therefore, [41:33] I [41:34] >> it's all okay. Yeah. And of course, you [41:35] do get the current coupon. So, you know, [41:37] again, unlike a a AI stock or VC stock [41:41] or some of the names that are out there [41:42] that are doing real well, they're, you [41:44] know, you buy it and then you hope you [41:45] can sell it to someone at a higher price [41:47] in the future on some of the riskier [41:49] areas of this market. Um, a lot of times [41:51] you are getting a 10% yield or 12% [41:54] coupon that creates some stability [41:56] because once I get that get that coupon, [41:59] you can't take it away from me either. [42:00] So, you know, we do think that as um a [42:04] form of maybe equity replacement or as [42:06] an alternative to equities at these very [42:08] high valuations, [42:10] you can carefully move into some of [42:12] these areas of the market in the higher [42:14] yielding, riskier space and generate [42:17] good value. [42:17] >> Let's let's stay on that equity high [42:19] valuations. Uh Dan, can I have chart [42:21] six? The equity risk premium in the US [42:24] is basically zero. That's by your your [42:26] own data. Yeah. Um but you're not [42:29] calling for any kind of like imminent [42:31] equity correction or bare market. Um but [42:35] sort of like is that imply is that [42:36] implied uh when you think about today [42:39] like how much do you care about equity [42:40] risk premium would be the way I would I [42:42] would phrase that question. [42:43] >> Yeah. So first of all we picked a chart. [42:45] Um as you know there's you know 10 [42:46] different ways we could have essentially [42:48] communicated the same the same. [42:49] >> What are we looking at here? [42:50] >> Just well I don't even know which one [42:52] this is here. Uh this is probably a this [42:53] is a a Schiller um a Schiller you know [42:57] PE that's just um being being graphed [42:59] here [42:59] >> showing forward returns below the 0% [43:01] line. [43:02] >> Yeah. Basically what this says what this [43:03] says is if if you smooth earnings or if [43:06] if you you know adjust earnings and then [43:10] compare what you have to pay for stocks [43:13] based on this assumption. uh they're [43:15] very very expensive and they're near the [43:17] most expensive they've been uh relative [43:19] to bonds in many many years now. Again, [43:22] you can look back at the last time this [43:24] stuff got real expensive and you'll [43:25] notice, you know, it's expensive today. [43:26] It can get a little bit more expensive [43:28] that those were the years leading up to [43:30] uh the internet bubble bursting. So, I I [43:32] say this in and it'll sound more [43:33] alarmous than I intend, but [laughter] [43:36] and and one way one way you poke hole in [43:38] these in these charts is you say, "Okay, [43:39] well, yes, under these types of [43:41] longerterm valuation metrics, um [43:43] equities look expensive, but if these [43:45] tech companies are leading equity [43:47] markets and their earnings growth is is [43:49] is is, you know, double digits for the [43:52] next few years, you can justify these [43:53] values. You [43:54] >> have to adjust by the earnings growth [43:55] and as it comes in, it makes the [43:57] multiple look more reasonable." In [43:59] hindsight, [43:59] >> you know, we were talking about the the [44:01] Schiller cape ratio, screaming about it [44:03] literally in 2015. People were getting [44:05] alarmed. So, I'm not making a prediction [44:07] on returns, but by traditional metrics, [44:10] valuations have looked stretched [44:11] forever. And these tech giants have have [44:13] just continued to rewrite [44:15] >> and margins just keep growing. Yeah. [44:16] >> What what we thought was possible. [44:18] >> Correct. And that's why these types of [44:19] relationships aren't great as a trading [44:21] signal to say, okay, all of a sudden [44:22] short the market. And then they also get [44:24] into concentration type risks where for [44:27] the average investor you, you know, [44:29] you're getting to a point now where [44:30] because the tech stuff's gone up so [44:32] much, you need to go out there and find [44:33] diversification and, you know, you can [44:35] shift around these metrics depending on [44:38] what what equities you're looking at. [44:39] But I think the bottom line is when you [44:42] look at these starting valuations and [44:43] then you look at subsequent returns over [44:45] a five or a 10 year period and you go [44:47] all the way back to like the late late [44:49] 1800s, [44:50] >> not great. [44:50] >> Not great. and in fact um quite negative [44:54] uh relative to the starting point for [44:57] yields but again this time could be [45:00] different. It does feel a little bit [45:02] different but I think the point is that [45:04] you know it's been a bad period for [45:06] bonds. They've generated almost no [45:07] return after inflation for 15 years. [45:10] stocks have just steadily gone higher [45:11] and and in in theory, you know, you get [45:14] to a point where and we strongly believe [45:16] that valuations have shifted to a point [45:19] where the next 5 to 10 years are [45:22] probably going to be different. And on [45:23] the fixed income side, you earn your [45:25] yield. You don't know what it is after [45:26] inflation. You don't know what it is if [45:28] it's in a different currency. But in [45:30] high quality bonds, it's it's fairly [45:32] simple in that you start with a yield, a [45:35] boring index. I say it respectfully, but [45:37] it's not super exciting. the, you know, [45:38] the the the Bloomberg aggregate index [45:40] and you're at near a 5% type return. You [45:43] buy a bunch of other high quality, you [45:44] know, paper, give up some liquidity, [45:46] you're at a seven or eight% yield. [45:49] >> 95ish% correlation between starting [45:51] yield and 5year forward returns in [45:53] >> almost set your watch by it. Set your [45:55] watch by it. [45:55] >> So, let's explain that for the audience. [45:57] >> Starting So, the correlation between the [45:59] starting yield and what you end up [46:01] returning over a given period of time. [46:03] So if the starting yield of a portfolio [46:05] is 7%, you should not be expecting 11% [46:08] returns or 3% returns. It's going to [46:11] look hopefully if things go well closer [46:13] to that seven on an average annual [46:15] >> basis. That's right. Then you you know [46:16] it could go up or down based on you know [46:19] trading strategies along the way [46:21] hopefully it it's a little bit higher [46:23] than that. But simplistically if you [46:24] don't want to give any benefit to you [46:27] know the active piece that's what you [46:29] earn. So going back a few years ago when [46:31] yields on that index were 2%. [46:33] >> We right what you expect [46:34] >> and we ended up with two we ended up [46:36] with uh now 22 is bad cuz it can all [46:38] happen at once just like stocks. You [46:39] people show me that chart. What does it [46:40] mean? Well it could mean that equities [46:42] just disappoint slowly. [46:44] >> Yeah. [46:44] >> Or they repric massively and then they [46:46] look cheap again. You know that we don't [46:48] know. And bonds bounce around as well. [46:50] But you know what I do for a living [46:54] I I say it time and time again when our [46:55] clients come in. It's it's it's I'm glad [46:57] I'm glad I don't do the VC stuff. It's [46:58] just not the way that myself and others [47:00] at Pimco are are are wired to the same [47:03] degree in that we like the cash flow [47:04] piece. We like to forecast based on cash [47:07] flows. They create a predictability to [47:09] what we do. You guys talking about, you [47:11] know, again, uh, you know, the the AI [47:13] investments and, you know, where [47:15] someone's going to pay for something [47:16] that's not going to have a dividend, you [47:18] know, maybe ever. That that that's [47:20] tough. It's unpredictable, I guess, [47:21] because [47:21] >> it's a whole different it's a whole [47:22] different mentality on the part of the [47:24] the PM. Um, can we talk about can we [47:27] talk about fixed income? Uh, you say the [47:29] credit loss cycle is upon us. Um, define [47:33] what you mean by that. Are you talking [47:35] about like a wave of defaults or are you [47:38] talking about sort of a slow grind of [47:40] maturity extensions, payment in kind uh, [47:44] negotiations? It like is it it's a blow [47:47] up or it's just sort of a return to [47:49] normal and it's glacial and nothing to [47:52] be alarmed about? How do you see it? [47:54] >> Yes. So I I think the return to normal [47:56] parts of Yes. Um and and and this does [48:00] require a little bit of um a little bit [48:03] of nuance, but um we coming out of the [48:06] global financial crisis, [48:08] you know, it's been a very very unique [48:10] period in that you've typically and [48:12] investors have grown grown used to [48:15] earning almost your entire yield when [48:17] you invest in risky credit, below [48:19] investment grade credit. [48:20] >> No, no recessions. [48:21] >> No recessions. Then co came, [48:23] >> they papered it over. No losses in [48:24] papered it over. So So you you look at [48:26] the stats and and you can see that if [48:28] you looked at the same type of risky [48:29] credit. By the way, midmarket direct [48:30] lending is risky lending. [48:32] [clears throat] [48:32] >> It is. [48:33] >> It's performed very well, but it's [48:34] risky. [48:35] >> Not irresponsible. Uh bank loans, you [48:37] know, broadly syndicated bank loans, you [48:40] know, risky lending performed [48:42] exceptionally well back in the 80s and [48:44] the 90s and the 2000s. You know, you [48:46] would earn a lot of yield, then you'd [48:47] have some type of loss cycle. you'd give [48:50] a lot of it back, then you'd earn money [48:52] for a few years, you'd give it back. [48:53] It's been one way, [48:54] >> but Dan, sorry to cut you off, but I [48:55] think one of the problems or one of the [48:57] things that lulled investors recently [48:58] into complacency is those bonds [49:01] performed in 2022 because there was no [49:03] recession and their plain vanilla bonds [49:05] and they don't investors in general [49:07] don't really understand that it was all [49:09] interest risk. And so, as interest rates [49:11] went up, their government bonds got [49:12] destroyed. And these risky corporate [49:14] loans to middle market companies [49:16] returned 9 to 11%. And so it further [49:19] made those those coupons much more [49:21] enticing. [49:21] >> Absolutely right. And then and then you [49:24] the market conventions different if they [49:25] were the private version of those [49:27] investments. So you even had you know [49:29] less volatility than what you had um at [49:33] least briefly in the tradable high yield [49:36] bond market. So all true and what we're [49:38] getting at here is so so we don't expect [49:39] a wave because we expect economic growth [49:41] to hold up. Um I said this the other day [49:43] offset it [49:44] >> a a steady stream but um a couple of [49:47] points. One um given how much money was [49:50] pouring into the lower quality credit [49:53] markets um it was easy for a while to [49:57] just kick the can forward pick interest [50:00] where you know a company you know was [50:02] struggling to make their [50:04] >> we can't pay you back but we'll give you [50:05] more bonds. [50:06] >> We'll give you an IOU. We'll pay you [50:07] later when we when we can. Um or we'll [50:09] extend the maturity. So when you have [50:11] inflows coming in as a portfolio [50:12] manager, you're feeling more generous to [50:16] allow a company to do something like [50:17] that versus take them to court and try [50:20] to take blood from a stone. [50:21] >> Correct. And when you have a more [50:23] traditional predictable economy where [50:27] you know work as we know it isn't being [50:29] disrupted. So you had you had the [50:31] liquidity piece, money pouring in, easy [50:34] to extend. Private equity we can't [50:35] realize on the investment. We could [50:37] wait. We'll extend our debt. someone [50:38] will give us an extension um or they [50:41] won't make us pay our interest for a [50:43] while. That dynamic has existed over the [50:45] last few years. Now, losses have actual [50:48] actual losses have steadily gone higher, [50:50] but the prediction in terms of future [50:53] losses and usually when you're allowing [50:54] a company or when a company can't meet [50:56] their current interest payment, that's a [50:58] good um or bad signal in terms of their [51:01] ability to it's a canary [51:02] >> afford that over over the long run. So, [51:04] that's one piece. The piece we wanted to [51:06] highlight this year though that has Um [51:08] Ben, the real change is that AI [51:11] disruptions here. All this AI investment [51:14] is looking to feast on old economy [51:17] businesses. Uh businesses that had the [51:20] so-called boats, they had attractive [51:22] current cash flows. They did so much of [51:24] what we're used to them doing services [51:28] software lawyers [51:30] financial services software all of these [51:32] all of these areas of the market that [51:34] are likely to be disrupted and disrupted [51:37] with increasing frequency and I think [51:40] the point we want to make is that that [51:41] time has arrived you're going to be [51:43] you're going to see [51:44] >> higher realized losses than we've seen [51:47] in quite some time and those losses are [51:49] going to be somewhat independent of the [51:51] strength of the economy you have this [51:53] very very unique situation where the [51:55] more productive AI is at the economic [51:59] economy level, the more disruptive it's [52:01] going to be. It's almost necessary, you [52:02] know, [52:04] it like almost has to be that way. [52:06] >> So, so that's what you're going to have. [52:07] And then I want to be careful too [52:08] because it always comes across as overly [52:11] alarmist if left there. We think it's a [52:13] steady stream of losses now, not a wave. [52:17] If you combine this AI disruption with a [52:19] negative growth shock to the economy, [52:21] especially if it's stagflationary or or [52:23] put more simplistically, you know, this [52:25] is a a risky macro setup in that almost [52:28] all of that debt that we talked about [52:30] that did so well in 2022 is floating [52:32] rate. um if you don't get that short [52:35] rate down or if that short interest rate [52:37] or the you know the policy rate uh has [52:39] to go higher now you have companies that [52:41] are facing AI disruption they already [52:43] have a lot of debt [52:44] >> and higher cost [52:45] >> and and and and higher cost to service [52:46] that debt. So um any type of [52:51] growth shock with inflation remaining [52:53] elevated would be [clears throat] a far [52:56] worse scenario for credit. We're not [52:58] forecasting that. So the point we are [53:00] simply you know trying to make here is [53:02] that what used to be a unlevered 8% [53:04] return with very few realized losses [53:08] especially given how aggressive lending [53:10] got coming out of the co period you know [53:12] those were really bad vintages where [53:13] spreads were super tight and because of [53:16] this battle for market share you just [53:18] weren't getting good protective terms on [53:20] your debt so those types of segments of [53:23] the economy that were used to having [53:25] losses close to zero are likely going to [53:28] have a period where those losses is end [53:29] up migrating up to the mid- single [53:31] digits. So that old 8% type return that [53:34] you were getting back when high quality [53:36] bonds were returning one or two is [53:38] probably going to be four or 5% for a [53:40] while. Problem with four or 5% today is [53:42] I can buy an Australian government bond. [53:43] I get that too, but I could buy, you [53:45] know, you know, finally I could buy a [53:46] treasury bond at four and a half. [53:47] >> Yeah. Well, you your piece we started [53:50] the show with with the rupture. [53:51] [clears throat] [53:51] >> Um what was the other side of the [53:53] rupture? Something better. [53:54] >> Resilience. Resilience. So, one area of [53:57] rupture, we have a new Fed share. Pretty [53:59] unconventional by traditional standards. [54:01] And one of the reasons why um fixed [54:04] income has been so challenging is all of [54:06] the government intervention in the fixed [54:08] income market. Some of it needed, some [54:10] of it, you know, you could argue was was [54:12] well was very excessive. Um there was an [54:15] article in the journal this morning, [54:16] Kevin Walsh, uh Nicko said he wants the [54:20] Fed to stop explaining everything. For [54:21] decades, the central bank believed [54:22] talking openly. All right, we we [54:24] understand. Um, are you a fan of the [54:27] overwhelming amount of transparency? The [54:30] fact that these Fed officials, these [54:32] governors have been basically on a [54:34] podcast tour for the for the last decade [54:36] or so. Do you like that level of [54:38] transparency? Like what's your thoughts [54:40] on on policy today? [54:41] >> That's great. So, I like to I you know [54:43] differentiate when I have a when I'm [54:45] reflecting a PIMCO view versus a [54:47] personal view. So, this is an area where [54:48] we have a little bit of difference of [54:49] opinion. Of course, we have Rich Clara, [54:50] the former vice chair of the Fed. He's [54:52] done his share of speeches and things, [54:55] >> great speeches. [54:56] >> Let me just say this. Uh, no, I don't [54:58] look I think I think [55:00] don't care, I guess, would be the first [55:02] point. In the sense in the sense that [55:04] don't care about whether they speak or [55:06] not. [55:06] >> As a market practitioner, I think that a [55:08] lot of the speaking that's gone on is [55:11] interesting, but not essential for the [55:15] markets to have a good sense of what I [55:18] fed. [55:18] >> Crowd loves what you're saying. So, [55:20] >> you want them to shut up. I I because [55:22] because I'm from the old school. I liked [55:25] Greenspan. He would come out once a year [55:28] and speak in riddles like the [55:30] caterpillar from Alice in Wonderland. [55:32] Nobody had any idea what he said. It was [55:33] by design. He said, "If you understood [55:35] what I said, I made a mistake." And we [55:38] were somehow able to manage capital [55:41] markets no problem. [55:43] >> I understood the hard pivot toward [55:46] overcommunication in the Bernani years. [55:48] It's already four Fed chairs ago. Why [55:51] are we still doing press conferences [55:52] like they just won the NBA finals [55:55] >> every time they they go up or down or [55:57] nothing? It makes no sense to me. [55:58] >> Well, is speaking on Wednesday, so [56:00] >> yeah. Well, they're they're they're long [56:03] and um and then, you know, even dots and [56:06] things are the individual views, which [56:09] again, you know, views usually tend to [56:11] be pretty good around policy when you're [56:12] looking forward a month or two, but when [56:14] you're looking forward several quarters [56:16] and you have [56:17] >> we're data dependent, but here's our [56:18] 12-month outlook. what what are we [56:20] doing? [56:21] >> Yeah. So, I think I think it's I think [56:22] it's a lot of noise and I think the [56:23] markets will be just fine with more [56:26] standard and targeted communication. The [56:28] other point is, you know, when we hear [56:29] about Feds behind curves, ahead of [56:31] curves [56:32] >> with just a few words, you can control [56:36] market expectations and sometimes you [56:38] don't need any words at all. For [56:39] example, we started this year um January [56:42] and February, we had bonds um rallying. [56:45] There was this mindset. I think it over [56:47] the long run it's a reasonable mindset [56:48] that all this AI technology is gonna put [56:51] downward pressure on prices inflationary [56:54] >> and then you had the war break out in [56:56] Iran. It didn't take a single Fed speech [56:59] to get the front end of the yield curve [57:01] to go higher because now people knew [57:02] inflation was higher in that [57:04] >> right [57:05] >> um it was less likely that you're going [57:06] to [57:06] >> stop talking about insurance cuts when [57:08] the bomb started dropping uh in and [57:10] around the straight of Hormuz. We all [57:12] understood it immediately. We didn't [57:13] need a speech. [57:14] >> Correct. and and then you know you see [57:15] it with um with stocks uh Trump [57:18] administration um Trump himself tweets [57:21] about the potential for a deal stocks [57:24] rally news comes out that a deal is not [57:26] going to get done they sell off by the [57:28] way bonds were moving in the the same [57:29] direction more recently so you know we [57:32] do think also that a Fed [57:35] has the ability to influence market [57:38] expectations if they feel it's necessary [57:40] with just a few targeted words and that [57:43] by the time here beyond the occasional [57:46] speech or the occasional comment into [57:48] massive discussions. We just think [57:51] they're just rapidly diminishing. [57:52] >> Marsh is seen as an anti-activist [57:55] like a do less. [57:56] >> I think that's that it's it's not he's a [57:58] hawk, he's a dove. It's not about that. [58:00] It's I don't think the Fed needs to be [58:01] doing all that. Like the Fed might be [58:03] doing too many things all the time. [58:05] >> Well, this is a quote that he gave uh [58:06] last year at a stage three conference. [58:07] He said, "If you're not very good at [58:09] something, you should do less of it. [58:10] These forecasts have been abysmal." and [58:12] he said, "My dots wouldn't be perfect [58:13] either, so I just wouldn't give them." [58:16] >> Yeah. So, we and we talked about this in [58:17] our in our recent piece. We think, you [58:18] know, a worse Fed will be sufficiently [58:20] independent in the areas that matter to [58:22] the markets, which are funds, policy, [58:24] and balance sheet. There's still some [58:26] uncertainty. We think in a perfect [58:28] world, um, you know, a WSH Fed would [58:31] like to get the balance sheet down quite [58:33] a bit. Uh, but I think that this is a [58:36] Fed that again, it's a committee, not a [58:38] chair decision. And I think there is the [58:40] appreciation that with inflation [58:42] elevated with the balance sheet down to [58:44] a manageable level that um it probably [58:47] makes sense in the base case just to [58:50] wait and see. Don't rock the boat too [58:52] much. That's our best sense of um this [58:55] Fed. Even the Powell Fed has been [58:57] dovishly inclined looking to get rates [58:59] down ahead of inflation um starting the [59:02] year with at least the hope of getting [59:04] that funds rate down further. So, we do [59:07] think that this is a a a Fed that would [59:10] like to have the opportunity to get [59:12] rates lower even before inflation makes [59:16] meaningful progress towards their [59:18] target. But we don't think that's super [59:20] different than Powell other than your [59:22] point and that I I we do think the WSRed [59:24] from a philosophical perspective wants [59:26] to be a bit more rules-based, a bit [59:30] clearer or more [59:32] straightforward in their in their uh [59:34] communication. He's going to come out [59:35] once and say, "No change. See you [59:37] later." [59:37] >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It'll be interesting. [59:39] It'll be It'll be interesting. [59:40] >> I think I think some something tells me [59:42] the financial media would be able to [59:44] even take that sentence and do three [59:46] hours of content about it. So, how like [59:48] which syllable did he emphasize most? [59:51] All right. Putting that aside, here's [59:52] where I want to end. You talked about AI [59:55] being this massive opportunity. You're [59:57] forecasting trillions more in spending [60:00] on data centers. You actually think it [60:02] accelerates. you guys are funding these [60:04] deals. I think um our audience would [60:07] love to hear from you your perspective [60:10] on the way in which this could end up [60:12] being disinflationary and what impact [60:15] you think it might have on not just the [60:17] the overall economy but the people that [60:20] are in the economy. Are you glass half [60:23] full? You glass half empty? Like just [60:26] what's your perspective on where all [60:28] this is headed? and and you can tell us [60:31] your personal one as well as your [60:32] professional one if you want to. [60:34] >> Well, yeah, and it depends on market [60:36] practitioner. Nobody's listening. Yeah, [60:38] I know. But I mean I think there's a [60:39] markets view and all too often I think [60:41] this is that you know what's good for [60:43] markets [60:45] is not so good for segments of the [60:46] economy and those tend to be the lower [60:48] income cohort groups which is a [60:50] challenge. We saw with globalization on [60:52] paper it made a lot of sense. It [60:53] probably did lead to higher global [60:54] growth, but it also created instability [60:58] for those that have the least economic [61:00] flexibility. And we're still dealing [61:02] with this today. So, you know, our [61:04] general view despite the uncertainty is [61:06] that, you know, AI could lead to, you [61:07] know, some inflationary noise the next [61:09] few years if as you go out there to find [61:11] materials to to to build this stuff and [61:13] and to power this stuff. Um, over the [61:16] next several years though, we do think [61:18] that AI could be a gamecher on the [61:21] productivity side. bring the costs for [61:23] providing goods and services down and [61:26] down quite [61:27] >> those costs are people's salaries [61:28] >> and unfortunately I was going to get to [61:29] that. So again from the standpoint of [61:31] where the inflation rate may go um it's [61:34] probably positive. It could even be [61:36] positive for our debt picture. We didn't [61:39] spend much time talking about we talked [61:40] about all the corporate investment but [61:41] we're still spending way too much money [61:43] uh right [61:44] >> you know at at at you know at the [61:45] government. see that changing this [61:47] [laughter] not we'll come next time [61:49] we'll come back we'll talk we'll cover [61:50] we'll cover that but we do think you [61:52] know um unfortunately um we we do think [61:55] it's going to lead to some displacement [61:58] of workers that uh particularly the [62:01] middle income professional cohort group [62:03] could um see more uncertainty than [62:06] they've experienced in quite some time [62:09] >> white collar unemployment [62:11] >> agree and that could lead to higher [62:12] precautionary savings a little bit less [62:14] consumption which can have a moderating [62:15] ating impact on inflation and be good [62:17] for the markets as a whole, both stocks [62:20] and bonds, but it can also lead to more [62:23] political uncertainty, the risk of [62:24] regulatory backlash, and a lot of [62:27] tension. So, we do think that it's hard [62:29] to accomplish all of this in a neat and [62:32] clean way where you can retrain folks [62:34] fast enough to not create some [62:37] frictions, some unpredictability, and [62:39] perhaps even, you know, a pretty big [62:42] reaction against um what is perceived to [62:45] be a technology in companies that are [62:47] creating this disruption. So, it's [62:49] likely to be bumpy. uh so so high level [62:51] macro and financial market in impact [62:54] we're fairly constructive while [62:58] realizing that we got a lot of [62:59] uncertainty and again when I take my [63:01] investment hat off and look at the [63:03] potential you know disruption that yeah [63:05] on a textbook basis ultimately it's [63:07] probably fine you end up retrading folks [63:09] uh it's good for the economy as a whole [63:11] um we just worry that um there going to [63:13] be real timing issues here [63:14] >> so so the CEO of Google giving the [63:17] commencement remarks at Stanford this [63:19] and and they showed video on social [63:21] media of hundreds of students walking [63:24] out and I said, "Oh, this this is [63:26] probably about like uh AI. They don't [63:29] want to hear the AI CEO and chief, you [63:32] know, talk about." Turns out it wasn't. [63:34] It's uh it's it it was about like uh uh [63:37] Google's contracts with the government [63:39] and [63:40] >> you know, all all the causes we're not [63:42] going to [63:42] >> got booted out a couple weeks ago. [63:44] >> Yes. But so so I I was I was wrong with [63:46] that assumption, but I do think the [63:49] general direction of this stuff, I think [63:51] it's going to be an issue in the [63:52] midterms, especially in states where [63:54] there's a lot of data center [63:56] construction happening. But putting that [63:58] part of it aside, um we had 150,000 [64:01] layoffs [64:03] >> uh in tech this year, [64:04] >> which is not big enough to have shifted [64:07] like the national employment numbers, [64:09] but uh and 40,000 of those were last [64:12] month. So, the pace of layoffs within [64:15] tech is actually rising in the biggest [64:18] bull market for the NASDAQ in 30 years. [64:20] I thought I thought that was [64:21] interesting. [64:22] >> Um, a lot of people are saying this is [64:24] AI, including the companies themselves. [64:26] Look how efficient we're becoming thanks [64:28] to the ROI from our AI investments. The [64:31] venture capitalists who were backing [64:32] more AI investments are saying, "No, [64:35] this is just CEOs with bloated um [64:38] workforces using AI as an excuse to do [64:40] something they would have already done." [64:42] Do you guys have a strong point of view [64:43] about whether or not we're going to see [64:45] that accelerating in the second half of [64:47] this year and will it spill over from [64:50] tech into some more main street [64:52] industries? [64:53] >> Yes. Our our biggest concern um for the [64:55] remainder of the year was the Iranian [64:57] situation just [65:00] classic energy shock and that if we [65:01] didn't get that addressed, you know, you [65:03] start seeing more more um more more [65:06] imbalances on the physical side that [65:07] that that would really um be the [65:10] negative for the economy. Um, we think [65:11] if you get the Iranian situation under [65:14] control, defined as not perfect clarity, [65:16] but just, you know, more oil flowing, [65:18] you know, through the straight, less [65:20] uncertainty there, where uh where we're [65:22] pretty bullish on um on on the economy [65:25] going into year end. [65:27] >> What you're describing absolutely um we [65:30] think will be a key theme. next several [65:32] quarters, certainly the next few years, [65:35] we think it probably [65:37] won't have as big of a direct economic [65:41] impact, but it's going to be a ongoing [65:43] theme. When we look at our business and [65:44] we look to plan ahead three, four, five [65:46] years, it's not so much that we're [65:48] looking to make major changes in the [65:50] work uh workforce. It's just the [65:51] acknowledgement that the type of skill [65:53] set that's optimal is going to evolve. [65:56] So where you may have had you, you know, [65:59] 200, you know, new folks coming in more [66:01] with more traditional finance [66:02] backgrounds, [66:03] >> spreadsheet, discounted cash flow [66:05] analysis people, probably need less of [66:07] them. [66:07] >> Absolutely. Right. And you're going to [66:08] end up with with folks in the tech [66:09] groups looking to leverage um the the [66:11] the folks that have those skills. So I [66:15] don't we don't know what the ratio will [66:17] be necessarily, but um it's that type of [66:20] dynamic. And again um you know what's [66:23] important is empowering you know the [66:24] younger generations that understand this [66:25] tech the best. So there's even a just a [66:27] a shift in mindset in terms of um [66:31] seniority and in in in in in who you who [66:34] you surround yourselves with realizing [66:35] that that optimal mix is likely to be [66:38] different than what folks like myself [66:40] that have been doing it for a long time [66:42] would would naturally think is the case. [66:43] So uh but we do think it's it's it will [66:45] move it's moving fast by typical [66:48] economic standards. But you know we [66:50] definitely think this is going to be a a [66:52] multi-year theme. [66:53] >> He sounds bullish on balance. He sounds [66:55] like constructive, right? [66:56] >> Yeah. Most most bond guys are not that [66:58] as as uh constructive as yours. That's [67:00] impressive. [laughter] [67:01] And I'm not accused of being optimistic [67:03] all that. [67:04] >> You know, sound polyiana. [67:05] >> I'm sure there's some of the Knicks hat [67:07] on, too. As a lifelong Celtic fan, I [67:09] should be down right now. [67:10] >> Oh, you have your share. Stop it. [67:12] >> Is there anything you'd like to say [67:13] positively about Jaylen Brunson before [67:15] we let you go? [67:16] >> Yeah, he's a Villainova guy. I used to I [67:17] used to like him. [laughter] [67:19] No, he's a great player to love. He's a [67:22] great player to love this guy. He's a [67:25] great player and uh and uh he he plays [67:28] uh [67:28] >> plays the right way. So, it's it's been [67:30] uh I agree exciting. I uh it's funny. [67:32] Saturday night, I sent around a uh [67:34] >> I congratulated I think it was Georgia [67:36] for uh a win in the NCA baseball [67:38] tournament and then I I mentioned that [67:40] Harford Whalers won uh the cup this [67:43] >> you could do except the next but it's [67:45] all good. I think we let some folks out [67:46] early for the parade for that. [67:48] >> Daniel Iverson, this has been such a [67:49] pleasure for us. Um, we we uh were huge [67:52] fans and admirers of yours and and of uh [67:55] PIMCO as well. And I wanted to let [67:58] people know where, Agnes, where can [68:00] people go for more insights from Pimco [68:02] and the team? Is it pimco.com? Okay. And [68:06] is Dan going to start a podcast anytime [68:07] soon? [68:09] >> No, probably not. All right. [68:10] >> Well, you guys are going to do it do it [68:11] uh incredibly well. Really an honor to [68:13] be here with you guys today. It was a [68:14] lot of fun. Thank you guys. [68:15] >> All right. In hour two. No, I'm just [68:16] kidding. All right. Dan Iverson, ladies [68:18] and gentlemen, thank you so much for [68:19] joining us, guys. Thank you for [68:20] watching. Thank you for listening. We'll [68:22] talk to you soon. [music]