Batnick, Carlson See Retail Leverage, Hardware Demand Driving Stocks

Batnick与Carlson：散户杠杆与硬件需求正推动股市 FINRA融资债务上升以及1750亿美元的AI基础设施支出，正支撑着涵盖小盘股和硬件供应商的广泛市场涨势，与此同时企业盈利增长也正在向超大盘科技股之外扩散。 联合主持人Michael Batnick和Ben Carlson审视了全球金融市场的现状，指出尽管债务上升、散户加杠杆且市场集中度较高，但广泛的盈利增长和强劲的经济数据表明目前并未出现迫在眉睫的衰退迹象。他们探讨了AI资本支出如何推动硬件供应商和存储芯片制造商的表现胜过软件超大规模企业，同时评估了低收入群体的支出韧性、预测市场动态以及住房市场的转变。随后对话转向围绕房屋改造和汽车租赁的个人理财讨论，最后以怀旧感悟和娱乐推荐作结。 全球杠杆和融资债务正在激增，台湾和韩国的散户投资者背负了高额个人债务，而美国FINRA融资债务同比激增54%。 (2:32) 现代市场杠杆已超出传统融资债务的范畴，进一步延伸至单只股票杠杆ETF、期权、箱式价差和总收益互换。 (4:27) 小盘股正在经历广泛反弹，在强劲的市场广度支撑下，罗素2000指数表现跑赢标普500指数。 (10:01) 随着庞大的AI基础设施支出压缩了自由现金流，定价权已暂时从大型科技超大规模企业转移到底层存储和硬件供应商。 (11:52) 2026年股市正呈现“除七巨头外普涨（everything-ex-Mag 7）”的扩张态势，中盘股、小盘股和价值板块的表现均优于超大盘科技股。 (16:47)

Hosts Michael Batnick and Ben Carlson argue that while leverage and debt are visibly building across global retail and institutional markets, the broader rally is backed by healthy market breadth, resilient consumer balance sheets, and rational valuation multiples rather than an unsustainable bubble. Leverage and Funding Stresses in Global Markets (2:32) Retail speculation is driving equity markets to unprecedented heights internationally and domestically. In Taiwan, extreme borrowing among retail traders has pushed the local stock market to become the fifth largest globally, surpassing India, Canada, and the United Kingdom. In the United States, FINRA margin debt surged 54% year-over-year—a threshold breached only in 2000, 2007, 2021, and 2026. Institutional markets also show strain: Corey Hoffstein and Citadel Securities data revealed one-month equity financing spreads climbing to 138 basis points over SOFR. Debating Bubble Claims and Healthy Market Internals (18:34) Despite mounting leverage, Batnick and Carlson reject the claim that the broader stock market is in an irrational bubble. Batnick defines a bubble as severe speculation paired with impossible-to-achieve valuation expectations, contrasting that with Nvidia trading around 24 times forward earnings. Furthermore, market performance has broadened beyond the Magnificent Seven: year-to-date, the Russell 2000 gained 22.3% compared to the S&P 500's 7.5%, with 67% of small-cap constituents in positive territory and 900 stocks advancing 20% or more. The Hyperscaler Capital Dilemma vs. Memory Hardware (11:52) A critical sector rotation has emerged as Big Tech hyperscalers channel billions into artificial intelligence infrastructure. Free cash flow projections for Amazon, Microsoft, Alphabet, Meta, and Oracle are dropping toward zero over the next 12 months, shifting pricing power toward upstream hardware suppliers. While memory giants such as SanDisk, Western Digital, SK Hynix, Samsung, and Micron gained roughly $500 billion in market cap—directly offsetting a matching loss across Big Tech—hyperscaler valuation multiples have compressed back toward broader market averages. Consumer Balance Sheets and Macro Resilience Macro indicators and household data challenge prevailing narratives of imminent economic exhaustion. While new home sales dropped 7.3% in May toward cycle lows, broad GDP remains above trend, insulated in part by corporate spending on software and data centers. Earnings reports from Paychex and Lowe's confirm steady employment and healthy consumer spending. Additionally, PNC data examining four million households showed lower-income card spending surging vertically without depleting emergency cash buffers, aided by a roughly 300% increase in stock market participation among the bottom 50% of Americans over the decade. Structural Realities of Dollar Dominance and Concentration (22:08) The hosts push back on the dollar debasement narrative, citing data from Michael Cembalest showing the U.S. dollar still commands 89% of global foreign exchange transaction volume, with no viable alternative. Similarly, the apparent rise of gold in foreign exchange reserves reflects price appreciation rather than accumulation; calculated at constant 2009 prices, central banks hold less physical gold than in 2009. Addressing market concentration, they note the top 25 U.S. stocks account for 54% of market cap, breaking traditional advance-decline technical indicators and driving a historically anomalous 108 negative-beta stocks in the largest 1,000 U.S. equities. The hosts conclude that while excessive retail leverage poses localized liquidation risks for individual volatile stocks, the macro environment remains insulated by stable corporate earnings convergence, solid household balance sheets, and substantial capital expenditure.

Michael Batnick与Ben Carlson指出，尽管全球散户融资融券与隐性衍生品杠杆急剧攀升，但本轮美股上涨并非脱离基本面的纯粹投机泡沫，而是得到了小盘股广泛参与、盈利收敛以及强劲AI资本开支的实体支撑。 全球杠杆激增与隐性风险积累 (2:32) 全球权益市场近期受到大量债务与杠杆资金的驱动。在散户端，台湾股市在全球规模排名升至第五位，超越印度、加拿大与英国，甚至出现借贷炒股热潮；韩国也出现类似繁荣。美国方面，FINRA保证金债务同比上涨54%，自1997年以来仅在2000年、2007年、2021年和2026年出现过增幅超50%的情况。此外，单只股票杠杆及反向ETF规模已突破2,000亿美元。 两位主持人对杠杆数据的影响存在分歧。Michael指出，若按股市总市值对保证金债务进行标准化调整，当前水平与历史牛市峰值相符，更多是同步指标而非领先指标。然而Ben认为，传统FINRA数据忽视了藏匿在总收益互换（类似Archegos事件）、期权、期货和箱式价差中的现代杠杆。在机构融资方面，Corey Hoffstein引用的数据显示，1个月股票融资利差一度攀升至SOFR以上138个基点；高杠杆导致Micron Technology等个股出现连续7个交易日振幅超5%的剧烈波动。 市场反弹健康度与泡沫论调辨析 (10:01) 尽管市场集中度居高不下，但行情广度显示出坚实的基本面。年初至今，Russell 2000指数上涨22.3%，大幅跑赢S&P 500指数的7.5%；其中67%的成分股年内实现正收益，中位数回报超过15%，更有900只股票涨幅达到或超过20%。与以往科技巨头单边领跑不同，2026年演变为小型成长股、小型价值股及中盘股均跑赢七巨头（Magnificent 7）的全面行情，七巨头的市值占比与其盈利贡献占比已完全平衡在约38%。 针对市场是否处于泡沫的质疑，两位主持人均予以否认。Michael将真正泡沫定义为“估值极端至无论如何都无法靠业绩消化”，但目前Nvidia远期市盈率约为24倍，市场估值依然理性。Ben提出以Nasdaq 100是否可能暴跌50%作为泡沫判断准则，鉴于当前的业绩基础，他认为发生此类崩盘的概率极低。此外，Micron管理层在财报电话会上透露，原本预计持续至2026年底的供应紧缺现状，现已预计将延续至2027年底。 硬件上游崛起与巨头资本开支两难 (11:52) 科技板块内部正在经历定价权向底层硬件供应商的剧烈转移。以Apple为例，该公司因存储芯片成本暴涨而宣布对Mac、iPad和iPhone全线上调售价，导致其股价单日下跌6%；与此同时，SanDisk、Western Digital、SK Hynix、Samsung和Micron五家存储芯片制造商单日市值激增近5,000亿美元，直接抵消了Apple、Microsoft、Meta、Amazon与Alphabet的等额市值损失。Micron股价在过去一年半内暴涨1,500%，其同期盈利增长达1,400%。 然而，这种上游繁荣给超大规模云服务商（Hyperscalers）带来了现金流压力。Tracy Alloway的图表显示，受巨额AI基础设施投资拖累，Amazon、Microsoft、Alphabet、Meta与Oracle未来12个月的自由现金流预测正在向零逼近。尽管超大规模云厂商的远期估值已被压低至大盘水平，但如果站在3到5年的长期视角，Ben仍倾向于持有科技巨头，因为其商业韧性远胜具备强周期属性的硬件供应链。 底层消费韧性与宏观经济分化 (34:10) 在宏观经济层面，PNC对400万户家庭的刷卡消费研究揭示了反直觉的底层韧性。扣除汽油支出后，低收入群体的刷卡消费在2026年显著提速，高收入与低收入群体之间的消费增速差距从4.5个百分点收窄至1.5个百分点。这一增长得益于退税增加、预扣税减少、稳固的就业以及低收入群体在过去十年中股市参与度激增300%带来的财富效应；更关键的是，低收入家庭的中位数现金储备缓冲天数仍维持在疫情前水平之上。 与此同时，实体经济内部出现了行业对冲现象。5月份美国新屋销售下滑7.3%，逼近周期低点，但整体GDP增长依然高于趋势线。Warren Pies的分析证实，虽然传统住宅固定投资持续停滞，但企业在数据中心、信息设备和软件上的巨额资本开支有效对冲了房地产低迷对GDP的拖累。此外，生成式AI过去12个月创造了1,100亿美元销售额，年化营收突破1,750亿美元；Ramp Economics Lab研究亦显示，高AI采用率企业的员工人数在引入AI后两年内的增长速度比未采用企业高出10.2%。 本期节目认为，尽管全球散户与衍生品杠杆引发了局部个股剧烈震荡，但整体市场估值和更广泛的广度指标并未发出系统性泡沫信号。悬而未决的关键问题在于：科技巨头在自由现金流急剧缩水的情况下，持续数百亿美元的AI基础设施开支究竟能维持多久，以及生成式AI当前的商业化变现速度最终能否兑现这些巨额前期投入。

## Background 本期节目由 YouTube 知名财经频道 The Compound 于 2026 年 7 月 13 日发布，为播客《Animal Spirits》第 471 期。根据官方介绍，主持人迈克尔·巴特尼克（Michael Batnick）与本·卡尔森（Ben Carlson）重点探讨了保证金债务创历史新高、小盘股全面反弹、超大规模云服务商的资本开支困境、美光股价大涨背后的产业链重构、除七巨头以外的万物普涨行情，以及毫无衰退迹象的坚韧经济与披萨消费市场演变等话题。 ## TL;DR 节目围绕当前驱动美股上涨的核心力量展开激烈辨析，重点剖析了保证金债务激增是否预示系统性风暴，并指出当前正经历资金从科技七巨头向小盘股、工业及存储芯片产业链大规模扩散的健康轮动。宏观层面，PNC 银行底层借记卡数据反驳了经济衰退叙事，印证了中低收入群体消费的超预期韧性，同时全球顶层财富膨胀进一步加剧了贫富分化。此外，两人结合数据论证了生成式 AI 带来的切实商业收入与招聘扩张，并在后半程就预测市场护城河、现实世界资产（RWA）代币化以及居家办公对亲子关系的深层心理影响进行了坦诚分享。 ## Atmosphere & style 整期节目兼具硬核研报推演的严谨与多年老友茶话会的诙谐松弛，两位主持人机锋相对、调侃不断。讨论在华尔街微观结构数据、复杂的衍生品逻辑与经典老片吐槽、鸡尾酒喝法、育儿琐事之间自如穿梭，叙事节奏跌宕起伏且充满真实温度。听众既能感受到专业投资人穿透市场噪音时的冷静与清醒，也能在两人毫无保留的自我剖析与夏日生活闲聊中体会到底色十足的人情味与趣味性。 ## Bulletin - [04:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcfsgxdRGWQ&t=248s) 全美 FINRA 保证金债务同比暴增 54%，这是自 1997 年以来第四次突破 50% 增速门槛（前三次分别为 2000 年、2007 年与 2021 年），叠加场外总收益互换与单只个股杠杆 ETF，系统性隐性杠杆正在剧烈放大个股波动。 - [11:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcfsgxdRGWQ&t=665s) 美股正上演“除七巨头外的万物普涨”，罗素 2000 年内累计上涨 22.3% 且近七成成分股收涨；与此同时，科技巨头因巨额 AI 资本开支导致自由现金流承压，市值单日一度与上游存储芯片供应商发生 5000 亿美元的剧烈换仓转移。 - [32:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcfsgxdRGWQ&t=1965s) PNC 基于 400 万美国家庭借记卡数据的分析推翻了 K 型复苏底层恶化的刻板印象，低收入群体的刷卡支出增速正在垂直拉升，与高收入群体的增速差距从 4.5% 崩塌至 1.5%，且储蓄缓冲天数依然保持稳健。 - [43:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcfsgxdRGWQ&t=2602s) 生成式 AI 在过去 12 个月内录得 1100 亿美元实际销售收入，年化运行率突破 1750 亿美元；Ramp 经济学数据显示，深度引入 AI 的企业在两年内员工总人数增速反而比未采用企业高出 10.2%。 ## Key takeaways - [04:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcfsgxdRGWQ&t=248s) 高杠杆加剧单只股票流动性真空风险：FINRA 保证金债务增速过快，加之期权动态对冲、总收益互换（Swaps）等老式报表无法统计的杠杆工具，导致美光科技等个股频频出现单日 5% 以上甚至数天内暴跌 27% 的极端震荡。 - [11:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcfsgxdRGWQ&t=665s) 小盘股迎来扎实的广度扩散支撑：罗素 2000 指数内 67% 的个股年内实现上涨，成分股收益率中位数超 15%，且有 900 只股票累计涨幅突破 20%，并非仅由少数权重股拉动的虚假繁荣。 - [11:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcfsgxdRGWQ&t=713s) 5000 亿美元市值大转移背后的供应链定价权：超大规模云厂商（Hyperscalers）由于军备竞赛式的资本开支吞噬自由现金流，前瞻市盈率被重估至市场平均水平；而处于上游的存储芯片供应商凭借供不应求掌握绝对定价权并迎来业绩暴增。 - [18:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcfsgxdRGWQ&t=1112s) 当前市场并非不可持续的全面泡沫：以英伟达约 24 倍的前瞻市盈率来看估值仍具基本面支撑，且市场正在主动下调科技巨头的估值溢价，只有在纳斯达克 100 指数出现 50% 级别的暴跌时才可将其与互联网泡沫相提并论。 - [22:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcfsgxdRGWQ&t=1327s) 美元霸权与储备货币地位无可替代：美元仍牢牢占据全球外汇交易量的 89%，在主要经济体主权债务普遍攀升的大背景下，加密货币或人民币在规模与流动性上均无法对其构成替代。 - [23:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcfsgxdRGWQ&t=1414s) 美股市场集中度具备坚实的盈利支撑：美股前 25 大成分股市值占比攀升至 54%，但七巨头贡献了标普 38% 的净利润，与 38% 的市值权重完全打平，因此传统的市场集中度焦虑与腾落线（Advance-Decline）指标在当下基本失效。 - [27:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcfsgxdRGWQ&t=1632s) 瑞银“负贝塔”大盘股数量反常激增至 108 只：在指数走高时逆势走低的千亿级大盘股数量创下历史极值，反映出半导体行情、能源股脱钩以及资金在不同板块之间的极端再平衡。 - [29:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcfsgxdRGWQ&t=1773s) 央行“大肆囤金”多为价格上涨造成的市值幻象：剔除 2009 年以来金价翻倍式暴涨的被动膨胀因素后，以固定价格测算的全球央行实际黄金储备吨数甚至少于 2009 年的水平。 - [32:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcfsgxdRGWQ&t=1965s) 宏观实体经济未见衰退信号：Paychex 小企业就业指数回暖，Lowe's 核心高收入客群资产负债表坚挺，结合散户股票变现与退税利好，美国中低阶层的消费动能超预期维持。 - [36:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcfsgxdRGWQ&t=2212s) 底层财富效应与顶层极端集中并行：过去十年美国家庭财富后 50% 人口的股票资产规模激增 300%，但顶层 0.001%（仅约 6 万人）所持有的财富却已达到全人类下半数人口总和的 3 倍。 - [43:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcfsgxdRGWQ&t=2602s) AI 实际收入放量且尚未对宏观就业产生摧毁性冲击：生成式 AI 商业化年化运行率达 1750 亿美元，同时深度采用 AI 的公司初级岗位招聘增速高出同行 12%，表现为效率放大与用人扩充而非大范围裁员。 - [54:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcfsgxdRGWQ&t=3241s) 科技软件资本开支逆势填补冰冻楼市留下的经济缺口：信息设备与软件投资增速同住宅固定投资形成明显剪刀差，强大的科技基建投资支撑了高于长期趋势线的 GDP 表现，打破了“房地产决定宏观经济”的传统定律。 - [59:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcfsgxdRGWQ&t=3541s) 外卖平台普及瓦解传统餐饮护城河：DoorDash 等即时配送工具使炸鸡和各类正餐获得与披萨同等的送达便利，直接导致披萨品类长期以来依靠独占外送渠道所建立的市场份额护城河加速流失。 ## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcfsgxdRGWQ&t=0s) 富兰克林邓普顿赞助与开场趣事：迈阿密风云鸡尾酒的正确喝法 节目以赞助商富兰克林邓普顿（Franklin Templeton）的广告拉开序幕，介绍了其 Retirement Advantage 目标日期基金（Target Date Funds）。与普通将其他基金打包组合的产品不同，该基金拥有灵活的资产下滑轨道（glide path），投资组合管理团队能够根据市场变动主动调控股债配比，从而实现更全面的风险控制与收益捕捉。 在正式进入严肃的金融市场讨论之前，主持人迈克尔·巴特尼克（Michael Batnick）和本·卡尔森（Ben Carlson）分享了一封关于夏季海滩度假的听众来信。听众写道，在海滩度假时，耳边总回响起本在播客里极力安利“迈阿密风云”（Miami Vice，即椰林飘香 Piña Colada 与草莓得其利 Strawberry Daiquiri 的混合鸡尾酒）的声音。但当酒端上来——底部是椰林飘香，顶部是草莓得其利时，这位听众陷入了困惑：这杯酒到底该怎么喝？是应该用吸管先插到底部吸椰林飘香，再慢慢往上吸得其利？还是应该直接搅拌均匀，抑或是干脆不用吸管直接喝？ 本表示自己认真思考过这个问题。佛罗里达州马可岛有一家店甚至能做到左右分层，迈克尔笑称“难道他们在杯子中间插了块纸板隔板”，随后意识到酒吧通常有专门的双口同时注入机器。针对喝法，本坚持不搅拌直接饮用，认为保持分层外观才是精髓，必须配上一块凤梨角，最后浇上一层朗姆浮层（floater）。迈克尔则表示自己信奉“顺其自然”，直接把吸管插进去怎么顺口怎么喝，但如果有人想搅碎混在一起喝也完全合理。随着闲聊结束，迈克尔提到今天备忘录写了整整 48 页，本戏称这期节目将是一部情节跌宕起伏的“昆汀·塔伦蒂诺式电影”。 ### [02:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcfsgxdRGWQ&t=164s) 散户 FOMO 与全球杠杆狂潮：台湾与韩国的投机热潮 主持人将话题切入当前市场最大的潜在风险——杠杆。彭博社近期刊发了一篇题为《错失恐惧症（FOMO）彻底抓住了我：台湾散户深陷债务推高 100% 股市涨势》的专题报道，揭示了亚洲市场尤其是中国台湾和韩国极端狂热的杠杆炒股现象。本借用传奇投机客杰西·利弗莫尔（Jesse Livermore）的名言感叹道：“股市中没有新鲜事，过去发生过的事情未来必然会再次上演。”因为人性千百年来从未改变。 报道中提及一位 26 岁的失业年轻人 Andy Chang，他通过借贷炒股，拥有了价值 6 万美元的台股科技股。他在接受采访时甚至向公众传授投资建议称：“随便买任何股票，你都能赚钱。”这种普遍的狂热情绪席卷了当地市场，杠杆规模几乎呈现垂直式拉升。当地许多券商因融资额度触及内部风控红线，不得不提高抵押品要求并上调贷款利率。值得注意的是，台股目前市值已跃居全球第五大股票市场，体量甚至超越了印度、加拿大和英国，这种与土地面积和人口规模极度不相称的繁荣令人咋舌。 - 报道典型案例：26 岁无业散户 Andy Chang 凭借借款持有 6 万美元科技股，并宣称闭眼买股均能盈利。 - 券商风控警报：多家券商触及贷款上限，正通过增加抵押品要求和提升借贷利率来给狂热降温。 - 市场体量对比：中国台湾股市市值目前已超越印度、加拿大与英国，位列全球第五大股票市场。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 杠杆推动的市场连锁反应机制 accDescr: 展示散户借贷炒股如何通过杠杆推动市场暴涨，并最终引发风控收紧与流动性气泡袋风险。 subgraph RetailInflow["散户杠杆入场"] A["散户FOMO心理与盲目追高"] --> B["传统保证金与消费贷款"] B --> C["资金涌入半导体及科技龙头"] end subgraph MarketExpansion["市场极度膨胀"] C --> D["台股跃居全球第五大股票市场"] D --> E["券商触及借贷限额与风控上限"] end subgraph FragilityRisk["结构性脆弱"] E --> F["强制提高保证金 / 上调利率"] F --> G["流动性气泡袋: 抛售引发连环践踏"] end ``` ### [04:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcfsgxdRGWQ&t=248s) 保证金债务辩论：同步指标还是系统性风暴警报？ 《华尔街日报》随后也发表了题为《万亿美元借贷狂潮将股市推向危险高度》的文章，重点指出了杠杆 ETF、单只个股杠杆 ETF 以及各类主题杠杆产品的爆炸式增长。这引发了迈克尔与本在公司内部研究群里的激烈争论。 本从历史数据角度提出反驳，认为传统的融资融券债务（Margin Debt）本质上是与股市行情的“同步指标”（current indicator），而非“领先指标”（leading indicator）。早在 2015 年金融博客盛行时期，分析师 Jake 就在博客中指出，只要股市创下历史新高，保证金债务自然也会刷新纪录；若将保证金债务占美股总市值的百分比进行标准化，会发现这一比例长期保持相对平稳。因此，单纯看到杠杆绝对值创新高就大呼“狼来了”属于缺乏历史常识。 然而，迈克尔对此坚决反对，他认为 2015 年的逻辑在当下已经严重过时。迈克尔调侃道：“我们早就不在堪萨斯了（时代变了）。”他要求团队制作了美格兰金融业监管局（FINRA）保证金债务的同比变化图表，数据显示当前保证金债务同比激增了 54%。回顾 1997 年以来的历史，全美保证金债务同比增速超过 50% 的情况此前仅发生过三次：分别是 2000 年互联网泡沫顶峰、2007 年次贷危机前夕以及 2021 年投机狂潮。如今 2026 年是第四次出现这种极端增速。 - FINRA 保证金债务数据：同比攀升 54%，而同期股票市场涨幅约为 42%。 - 历史四次极值时期：自 1997 年以来，全美保证金债务同比增速超 50% 的年份仅有 2000 年、2007 年、2021 年以及 2026 年。 - 核心争议点：本坚持认为该指标与市值比例相对稳定；迈克尔则警告异常的加速度预示着系统内部风险正在急剧堆积。 ### [06:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcfsgxdRGWQ&t=400s) 杠杆引发的市场“气泡袋”与隐性衍生品炸弹 面对这一数据，本承认这一比例增速确实需要引起警惕，但他澄清自己的担忧并不是预判市场将迎来“代际顶部”，而是杠杆堆积必然导致市场出现可怕的“气泡袋”（air pockets，即流动性真空引发的断崖式暴跌）。迈克尔赞同并指出，这种异动已经正在发生：美光科技（Micron）在上一交易日收盘下跌 8%，而在早盘一度上涨 1%，甚至在过去七个交易日中有连续数天单日振幅超过 5%。“衍生品的尾巴已经开始倒摇现货这只狗了”，台积电及韩国科技股在杠杆挤压下动辄单日暴跌 10% 甚至 20%，极易引发“抛售引来更多强平抛售”的恶性循环。 迈克尔进一步强调，外界紧盯的 FINRA 保证金债务实际上早已沦为“婴儿潮一代（Boomer）的老派杠杆指标”，现代金融系统中大量隐秘且极具杀伤力的杠杆根本不会呈现在传统公开报表中： 1. **总收益互换（Swaps）**：正如当年 Archegos 家族办公室爆仓惨剧一样，对冲基金通过向投行定制场外互换协议加杠杆，监管机构与普通公众在危机爆发前对其规模毫无感知。 2. **杠杆及单只股票 ETF**：市场中已有约 2000 亿美元的资金沉淀在此类产品中，而这些 ETF 底层也是依赖互换合约运转。 3. **期权与期货合成杠杆**：散户与机构大规模买入深度虚值期权，迫使做市商在现货市场进行大规模动态对冲，从而剧烈放大现货波动。 4. **箱体价差（Box Spreads）与其他合成借贷**：高净值财富管理客户虽然通过此类策略获取低成本流动性，未必全部回流股市（部分用于购房首付或房屋翻新），但整个宏观体系对杠杆的渴求已达到空前水平。 ### [08:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcfsgxdRGWQ&t=516s) 利率与杠杆的悖论：牛市中的投机狂潮 系统中的借贷规模正在攀升，这引起了主持人们的警觉。长期以来市场上有一种流行观点，认为美联储能够通过利率来精确调控人们的金融行为，但实际情况却大相径庭。在强劲的牛市氛围中，投资者的行为与风险偏好往往远比利率本身更重要——除非利率高到某种极端水平。人们对于借钱加杠杆乐此不疲，哪怕借贷成本节节攀升也毫不在意。用主持人的话说：“当你在一天内试图博取 20% 的回报时，谁还在意那点年化利息支出？谁在乎呢？”这种狂热的借贷需求甚至导致经纪商受限于自身资金池而开始提高融资成本。 这种现象在繁荣周期的特定阶段是完全符合逻辑的，因为纸面上的资产价格每天都在刷新纪录。Corey Hoffstein 分享的一张图表（由 Citadel Securities 整理彭博数据编制）直观展现了当前资金面的严峻态势：高集中的头寸布局、买方日益膨胀的杠杆需求，以及受限的资产负债表容量，正导致资金市场显著收紧，一个月股票融资利差一度被推升至高出 SOFR 达 138 个基点的水平。对冲基金通过主经纪商（Prime Brokerage）获得的隐形杠杆甚至无法直接体现在 FINRA 的保证金债务数据中。这种极端的投机行为虽然不至于立刻演变成 1929 年式的全面崩溃，但它极大地加剧了单只股票的波动率风险，随时可能引发类似美光科技（Micron）在短短三天内暴跌 27% 那样的“气穴”（air pockets）。 - 股票融资市场面临流动性压力，一个月期股票融资利差最高达到 SOFR + 138 个基点。 - 主经纪商提供的对冲基金杠杆并不完全计入常规的 FINRA 保证金债务图表中。 - 高杠杆背景下个股暴跌风险加剧，美光科技等标的曾在 3 天内出现 27% 级别的巨大跌幅。 --- ### [11:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcfsgxdRGWQ&t=665s) 小盘股强势扩散：罗素 2000 的全面爆发 与对大型科技股过热的担忧形成鲜明对比的是，美股小盘股迎来了罕见的全面开花。截至周一收盘，罗素 2000 指数年内涨幅已达 22.3%，大幅跑赢同期标普 500 指数 7.5% 的表现。为了探究背后的驱动因素，Ben 将从 YCharts 下载的罗素 2000 成分股数据直接导入 Claude 进行全方位诊断。 分析结果显示，这绝非由少数权重股拉动的虚假繁荣，而是一场扎扎实实的市场广度（market breadth）扩张。在指数涵盖的成分股中，有多达 67% 的个股年内实现上涨，个股回报率中位数超过 15%，甚至有整整 900 只股票录得 20% 以上的累计涨幅。这种大范围的普涨态势证明市场正经历深度的广度扩散，为牛市的健康发展提供了强有力的底层支撑。 - 罗素 2000 年内累计上涨 22.3%，同期标普 500 上涨 7.5%。 - 罗素 2000 指数内 67% 的个股年内取得正收益，个股回报中位数突破 15%。 - 指数中多达 900 只成分股年内涨幅达到或超过 20%。 --- ### [11:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcfsgxdRGWQ&t=713s) 巨头失血与存储芯片狂欢：5000 亿美元的市值大转移 市场上演了一场极富戏剧性的资本大挪移。在上周的某一天，彭博社报道称因内存成本过于高昂，苹果公司（Apple）被迫全面上调 Mac、iPad 以及 iPhone 的售价，导致市场对终端需求的弹性产生担忧，苹果股价单日重挫 6%。同日，分析师 LuKawa 制作的一张图表生动展示了资本板块的剧烈换仓：以闪迪（SanDisk）、西部数据（Western Digital）、SK海力士（SK Hynix）以及三星（Samsung）为代表的存储芯片制造商单日市值合计暴增近 5000 亿美元；而同一时间，苹果、微软、Meta、亚马逊和谷歌五大科技巨头的总市值恰好蒸发了 5000 亿美元，资金流向的交接精准得不可思议。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 内存芯片与科技巨头市值转移示意图 accDescr: 展示超大规模云厂商的资本开支如何转移给存储芯片供应商并影响双方市值。 subgraph Downstream["超大规模巨头 (Hyperscalers)"] A["巨额 AI 基础设施资本开支"] --> B["自由现金流断崖式缩减"] B --> C["科技巨头市值单日蒸发 5000 亿美元<br/>(Apple, MSFT, Meta, AMZN, GOOGL)"] end subgraph Upstream["存储芯片供应商 (Suppliers)"] D["掌握绝对定价权<br/>(供不应求/价格飞涨)"] --> E["业绩爆发式超预期<br/>(如美光单日大涨 16%)"] E --> F["存储巨头市值单日激增 5000 亿美元<br/>(SanDisk, WDC, SK Hynix, Samsung)"] end A --> D ``` 这背后是典型的“波特五力模型”在起作用——上游硬件供应商凭借强大的供给短缺掌握了绝对定价权。同日公布财报的美光科技大涨 16%，直接由超大规模计算中心（hyperscalers）惊人的资本支出（CapEx）所驱动。野村证券（Nomura）的一份图表显示，亚马逊、微软、谷歌、Meta 和甲骨文等巨头的自由现金流预测正经历崩塌式的剧变，预计在未来 12 个月内可能从数千亿美元直接被庞大的资本开支吞噬殆尽，降至接近零的水平。科技巨头们对外坚称“更大的风险在于落后”，但持续以牺牲自身利润和股价为代价为上游供应商“输血”，正在极限考验这些科技巨头 CEO 们的心理承受力以及员工面对股票贬值时的士气。 --- ### [14:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcfsgxdRGWQ&t=867s) 动量策略的逆人性考验与叙事瓦解 面对巨头暴跌与芯片狂飙的分化格局，主持人抛出了一个经典问题：如果现在买入持有三年，该选 Meta、奈飞（Netflix）和微软，还是闪迪、西部数据和美光？从长期直觉来看，多数人仍会毫不犹豫地押注超大规模科技巨头，因为美光在过去一年半内涨幅已达惊人的 1500%，而微软自 2019 年以来甚至跑输了标普 500，且距离高点已回调 35%。然而在 3 到 6 个月的短期动量维度，存储芯片板块却势不可挡。 这恰恰揭示了动量投资（Momentum Investing）极其反人性的一面。散户由于贪婪与恐惧，往往在股票浮盈 20% 时就急于获利了结，绝不可能在 300 美元买入闪迪后，又在其冲到 625 美元时继续追高加仓。而量化动量策略之所以有效，正是因为它剔除了人类的情绪弱点，纯粹依托规则进行无情再平衡。Ben 坦言自己刚刚买入了微软和奈飞并准备“闭眼拿上五年”，但同时也承认对于那些高位狂飙的周期股，普通人唯有依靠机械的规则策略才能克服恐惧参与其中。 回顾本轮周期，市场展现出令人啼笑皆非的“理性”：美光自 2025 年初以来利润增长 1400%，股价同步暴涨 1400%；超大规模巨头由于自由现金流耗尽，前瞻市盈率被重估至市场平均水平。最具讽刺意味的是，在 AI 浪潮爆发之初，主流叙事一致认定这些坐拥海量资金的超大规模巨头将凭借算力垄断天下，没人能撼动谷歌在搜索领域的霸权；而现实却是，在没有外敌能够攻破其护城河的情况下，科技巨头们却通过将数千亿美元自由现金流全部烧向硬件芯片，亲手打破了自己不可战胜的神话。 ### [17:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcfsgxdRGWQ&t=1054s) 全面普涨行情：当所有板块跑赢“七巨头” Michael Batnick 与 Ben Carlson 指出，当前市场正迎来没有人能事先预测到的局面：市场正处于各板块全面跑赢科技“七巨头”（Magnificent Seven）的时期。制作团队的 Matt 提供了一张相对表现图表，直观地呈现了这种趋势。如果将小盘价值股、小盘成长股、中盘成长股、中盘价值股等所有宽基分类与七巨头的表现作比值，可以看到除七巨头以外的所有股票都在跑赢大盘领头羊。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 市场轮动与资金流向结构 accDescr: 展示资金从集中于科技七巨头转向全面普涨的顺周期与中小盘板块 subgraph Leading["轮动领涨板块"] A["小盘股 & 中盘股 (Small / Mid Caps)"] B["交通运输板块 (Transports)"] C["工业制造板块 (Industrials)"] D["区域性银行 (Regional Banks)"] end subgraph MegaCap["估值与权重重估"] E["科技七巨头 (Magnificent 7)"] F["超大规模云服务商 (Hyperscalers)"] end MegaCap -->|"估值去泡沫化 / 权重下调"| Leading ``` Ben 将这种格局称为“除去七巨头的万物普涨”（an everything rally ex-Mag 7），并直言这正是健康牛市应有的模样。Michael 进一步补充，如果抛开杠杆争议等外界噪音，仅从纯粹的技术分析角度来看，交通运输、工业制造、小盘股以及区域性银行都在强势拉升，市场内部结构极其强劲：“如果你只是个纯粹的技术派，对宏观基本面一无所知，光看市场内部走势，你一定会惊呼这简直太看涨了（holy [bleep] is this bullish）。” - **全面普涨的领涨板块**：包括小盘价值、小盘成长、中盘价值、中盘成长、交通运输（Transports）、工业（Industrials）和区域性银行（Regional Banks）。 - **市场特征**：资金从对少数超级权重股的极端依赖，扩散至广泛的顺周期及中小市值板块。 ### [18:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcfsgxdRGWQ&t=1112s) Derek Thompson 之问：这到底算不算泡沫？ 随后两人谈到了此前参与 Derek Thompson 播客节目的经历。Derek 善于梳理市场热点并在最后将他们推上风口浪尖：“别再给多头站台了，跟我说实话，现在究竟是不是泡沫？”两人的答案都是非常坚决的否定——“不是泡沫”。 Michael 拆解了他对泡沫的认知标准。他认为像存储芯片这类周期股跌掉 50% 完全可能发生，而且未来极有可能会发生，但这并不能证明此前存在泡沫。泡沫是一种由投机狂热与基本面估值严重脱节共同构成的特殊产物。在真正的泡沫中，投资者赋予股票的估值倍数处于“无论掷多少次骰子，哪怕掷一千次，也绝不可能靠真实成长追上”的虚幻境地。 反观当下，英伟达（Nvidia）的前瞻市盈率大约在 24 倍左右。这或许偏贵，但绝非疯狂泡影。更为关键的是，市场目前对待超大规模云服务商（Hyperscalers）的态度非常理性，不仅没有过度炒作，反而在主动帮它们挤泡沫、重新下调其权重。Ben 对此表示赞同，并借用经典的学术定义进行总结：“泡沫意味着没有任何合理的未来结果可以支撑当前的价格（no reasonable future outcome can justify current prices）。” 对于泡沫破裂的衡量尺度，Ben 提出了自己的硬指标：纳斯达克 100 指数是否会暴跌 50% 或更多。若仅是下跌 30%，那只是健康的常规熊市；若是下跌 40%，则处于模糊地带；而互联网泡沫时期纳斯达克暴跌了 80%。只有出现 50% 级别的崩塌，才能在历史分类上与互联网泡沫或铁路泡沫相提并论。Ben 认为，当下的基本面和买盘绝不会给市场提供这种跌幅的机会。尽管外界有人质疑超大规模云服务商是在用手头的自由现金流互相循环输送利润，但从美光（Micron）等供应链财报会议来看，高管原本预期需求持续到 2026 年底，现在已经看至 2027 年底，真实需求十分坚挺，巨头们绝不可能突然把整个股市的地毯抽掉（rug the entire stock market）。 ### [22:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcfsgxdRGWQ&t=1327s) 美元地位终结？全球债务与货币去中心化迷思 针对市场上持续升温的“美元贬值与终结论”，主持人借用摩根大通 Michael Cembalest 的最新研报进行了强力反驳。许多末日预言者声称美国债台高筑、赤字失控，因此再也没有人愿意投资美国资产，然而国际清算与主权债务数据却呈现了截然相反的事实。 中国等国家的地方与主权债务压力相比美国只重不轻。Ben 直言，如果有人断言美元即将丧失全球储备货币地位，那请给出真正的替代者。无论是加密货币（Crypto）还是人民币，目前都根本无法承担这一角色。数据显示，美元目前占据了全球外汇交易量（FX transaction volume）的整整 89%，居于无可撼动的霸权地位。 全球各国政府在此轮危机中的表现就像那些超大规模云服务商一样，步调完全一致地在本年代将债务规模推升至不可思议的水平。因此，虽然美国自身确实存在赤字与债务挑战，但其他主要经济体的情况同样严峻，并不存在避风港劣汰的单向流出。Michael 称 Cembalest 这篇研报犹如“摔麦之作”（mic drop），彻底击碎了“罗马正在倒塌”式的债务恐吓叙事。 - **外汇交易占比**：美元在当前全球外汇交易中占据高达 89% 的份额，没有任何替代币种具备接盘可能。 - **全球债务现状**：各大经济体均在同步扩大杠杆，美国的债务问题在全球范围并非个例。 ### [23:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcfsgxdRGWQ&t=1414s) 市场集中度的结构性变革与“失效”的上涨家数指标 谈及市场集中度，Cembalest 的报告揭示了一个反直觉的现象：在全球主要股市中，美国前十大公司的集中度反而处于相对较低的区间。全球仅有日本和印度的前十大公司市值集中度低于美国，而加拿大、英国和法国等成熟市场的股票集中度都远超美股。Ben 回顾自己在 2017 年写下的首篇反驳“美股集中度风险”的博客文章，直言市场集中度本身就是资本主义股市的常态，对集中度的过度焦虑是过去十年里最愚蠢的担忧之一。 | 区域 / 市场 | 前十大股票集中度特征 | |:--- |:--- | | **日本 & 印度** | 全球少数几家前十大股票市值集中度低于美股的市场 | | **美国** | 处于全球集中度区间的低位偏中段，七巨头净利润占比已与市值占比打平 | | **加拿大、英国、法国** | 头部公司在全国指数中的集中度明显高于美股 | Michael 引用彭博 John Authors 的统计数据指出，在 MSCI 全球所有国家指数（MSCI ACWI）中，前 20 大超级巨头的平均市值已经是其余 2,500 只成分股平均市值的 60 倍。这绝非单纯的周期性波动，而是“赢家通吃”规则下的世界性结构变革。高盛的最新研报显示，七巨头的市值占比此前虽然略微超出过净利润占比，但目前两者的缺口已经彻底填平——它们不仅占据标普约 38% 的市值权重，也实打实贡献了指数 38% 的净利润。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 美股头部权重历史演变 accDescr: 展现美股前25大股票在标普指数中的市值集中度从2017年的40%上升至当前的54% subgraph Y2017["2017 年结构"] A["前 25 大成分股\n占比约 40%"] B["其余 475 只股票\n占比约 60%"] end subgraph Current["当前结构"] C["前 25 大成分股\n占比高达 54%"] D["其余 475 只股票\n占比约 46%"] end Y2017 --> Current ``` 此外，随着美光科技市值迈向万亿美元门槛、博通等芯片巨头急剧膨胀，关注焦点已不能仅仅停留在七巨头身上。Matt 的统测表明，美股前 25 大股票的市值权重已经从 2017 年的约 40% 飙升至当前的 54%。这种极高的市值集中度直接导致传统的市场广度指标（Market Breadth）以及腾落线（Advance-Decline Line）在很大程度上失去了原有的指导意义。例如当标普 500 指数大涨 97 个基点时，如果全场只有 140 只成分股上涨，在传统技术派看来属于令人担忧的“弱广度”，但在超级权重股拥有实质盈利支撑的时代，这种背离已经无法像过去那样简单地预示崩盘。 ### [27:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcfsgxdRGWQ&t=1632s) 失真的市场广度与 UBS 负贝塔（Negative Beta）怪象 Kevin Gordon 在社交媒体上发文指出，标普 500 指数已经连续第三天走低，然而市场的涨跌比（Advance-Decline spread）却依然保持为正。Bespoke 对此提供了几张滚动图表，揭示价格走势与市场广度走向相反的持续天数——即指数上涨但过半股票下跌，或者指数下跌而多数成分股上涨。 这种脱节意味着像科技巨头 Mag 7 下跌的同时，市场上其余大部分股票却在上涨；或者在当前环境下，单纯几只庞大的软件股就足以凭借其巨大的体量，在负市场广度下拉升指数，反之亦然。Michael Batnick 与 Ben Carlson 直言，这类历史图表在当下“彻底失效了（busted）”。Bespoke 统计的滚动 50 天、100 天、120 天乃至 200 天周期数据显示，以往的市场历史上从未出现过类似的极端背离，任何对照历史数据的推论都已毫无参考价值。 另一项来自瑞银（UBS）的数据同样印证了当前环境的诡异程度。UBS 追踪了全美市值排名前 1,000 位的公司，并统计对标普 500 指数呈现负贝塔（Negative Beta，即在 252 个交易日内指数上涨时个股反而下跌）的股票数量： - 在 2025 年之前，负贝塔股票数量常年贴近零线，历史上仅有极少数时期出现过约 10 只股票具有负贝塔属性。 - 如今，全美大盘股中呈现负贝塔的股票激增至 **108 只**。 - 这背后包含多重扭曲因素：伊朗局势爆发和平谈判时原油暴跌 9%，拖累能源股与大盘反向背离；同时叠加了半导体行情、AI 热潮以及超大规模云计算厂商（Hyperscalers）交易的剧烈资金再平衡。 --- ### [29:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcfsgxdRGWQ&t=1773s) 央行黄金储备的真相与 Mag 7 盈利收敛 在谈及货币贬值交易时，Michael 展示了他最喜欢的来自 Symbolist 的图表。市场普遍流行一种叙事：近几年黄金之所以持续暴涨，是因为全球央行正在疯狂囤积黄金、提高黄金在其总外汇储备中的占比。然而，这很大程度上只是“价格造成的幻象”： ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 央行黄金储备占比上升机制 accDescr: 解释黄金价格上涨推高资产占比与实际吨数下降的矛盾逻辑 subgraph MarketNarrative["市场流行叙事"] A["金价从 2,000 美元飙升至 5,500 美元"] --> B["外汇储备中黄金市值占比大幅攀升"] B --> C["推导结论：央行正在大肆净买入黄金（误区）"] end subgraph DataReality["底层实际数据"] D["锁定 2009 年 3 月固定金价测算"] --> E["实际持仓吨数并未同比例扩张"] E --> F["当前实际黄金持有量少于 2009 年水平"] end ``` 当金价自 2,000 美元一路飙涨至 5,500 美元时，哪怕央行一颗金条都没买，黄金在外汇储备饼图中的占比也会被动膨胀。若剔除金价自 2009 年 3 月以来的暴涨因素、仅以恒定价格考察物理持仓，央行实际持有的黄金总量甚至比 2009 年还要少。随着黄金随后经历 25% 的回撤、白银较历史高点腰斩 50%，这类以名义价格衡量的储备比例也迎来了剧烈逆转。 转向大盘内部盈利结构，Carson Block 的数据显示 Mag 7 与标普其余 493 只成分股（S&P 493）的盈利增速差距正显著收敛： - **2023 年**：Mag 7 盈利大幅暴增 34%，而 S&P 493 则下滑 3%，形成了极端的两极分化。 - **2025 年**：Mag 7 增长 23%，S&P 493 增长 11%。 - **2027 年预期**：分析师预计 Mag 7 增速降至 19%，而 S&P 493 预计增长 15%，这意味着非巨头股票将实现连续三年两位数的稳健盈利扩张。 针对 Michael 此前“英伟达（NVIDIA）很便宜”的言论，他补充了市场反驳者的合理观点：即便英伟达的远期市盈率只有 24 倍，也不能单纯认为其具有估值溢价空间，因为其体量已经大到难以想象——其市值已经超越了加拿大、英国、法国、德国或意大利整个国家的股市体量，企业规模已逼近市场承载力的物理天花板。随后两人还打趣了日常发音习惯，从总是被错读成“恩维达”的 Nvidia，到发音常被念错的 Chipotle、DRAM 以及 Lowe's。 --- ### [32:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcfsgxdRGWQ&t=1965s) 就业底盘稳固与 PNC 颠覆叙事的低收入消费数据 宏观实体经济层面，Paychex 与 Lowe's 等龙头企业的财报展现出超预期的韧性。Paychex 首席执行官表示，尽管全球宏观挑战重重，但环境整体平稳，未见任何衰退迹象，小企业指数更是出现逆势回升。Lowe's 则描绘了其核心客群的画像：以年收入 10 万美元以上的屋主为主，享受充分就业与薪资增长，坐拥创纪录的房屋净值与银行存款，个人资产负债表极为强健。 最引人注目的是 PNC 的 Brian LeBlanc 基于 400 万美国家庭借记卡和信用卡消费数据发布的一项研究，该报告彻底颠覆了低收入群体陷入消费困境的传统刻板印象： - **消费增速反超**：在扣除汽油支出的刷卡消费同比变动中，高收入与中等收入群体的消费曲线均出现轻微下行，而低收入群体的刷卡支出却呈现垂直拉升。 - **差距急剧缩窄**：高收入群体与低收入群体之间的消费增速剪刀差在 2025 年见顶于 4.5%，随后迅速收窄崩塌至仅剩 1.5%。 - **充裕现金流支撑**：这一趋势并非依靠透支维持。更大的退税额度、更低的预扣税、持续改善的就业增长，以及散户将股票经纪账户中的收益套现转入日常支票账户，共同支撑了 2026 年低收入阶层的消费狂潮。 - **稳固的储蓄缓冲期**：低收入家庭应对突发断粮的“中位数现金储蓄缓冲天数”（Cash Savings Buffer Days）仍处于疫情前正常水平，即便在国际地缘冲突动荡期间其资产负债表也未见恶化。 这表明大众所普遍认同的“K 型复苏导致底层永久恶化”的定势思维，正在被底层硬核资金流向数据无情打破。 ### [36:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcfsgxdRGWQ&t=2212s) K 型复苏与贫富分化：底层财富效应与超级富豪暴增 本·卡尔森（Ben Carlson）与迈克尔·巴特尼克（Michael Batnick）探讨了经济结构的动态变化。迈克尔感叹，社会舆论往往处于一种微妙而尴尬的境地——几乎没有人愿意相信或承认“K 型经济复苏的下半部分群体其实过得还不错”，因为在大多数人的固有观念里，底层的日子天然就该是艰难的。当然，最底层的 10% 按照定义永远处境堪忧，但本指出，近年来的数据呈现出前所未有的亮点：过去十年里，美国财富后 50% 的家庭在股票资产上的持有量激增了约 300%。正是这种过去从未享受过的股市财富效应，切实改善了普通家庭的资产负债表。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 资本繁荣下的财富两极化 accDescr: 展示股市繁荣与财政刺激如何同时带来底层财富效应与极端贫富分化 subgraph Macro["宏观驱动因素"] Fiscal["疫情期财政救济突破历史趋势"] MarketRally["美股多年牛市与科技繁荣"] end subgraph BottomTier["财富后 50% 群体"] StockSurge["股票持仓 10 年暴增 300%"] WealthEffect["首次享受资本市场财富效应"] end subgraph TopTier["超级富豪群体 (超高净值)"] UHNW["净资产超 3000 万美元达 55.6 万人"] Stadium["顶层 6 万人资产超人类半数财富 3 倍"] end Macro --> BottomTier Macro --> TopTier ``` 与底层微弱改善形成鲜明对照的，是顶层财富以惊人速度膨胀。《华尔街日报》报道指出，净资产达到或超过 3,000 万美元的超级富豪人数去年跳增了 14.4%，截至 2025 年底全球已达 556,850 人，创下 2017 年以来的最快增速。而在金字塔顶端的顶端——仅占全球 0.001% 的 6 万人，每人净资产均超过 2.54 亿美元；这群足以坐满一个现代足球场的人，拥有的财富竟然是全人类下半数人口总和的整整三倍。迈克尔对此直呼不可思议：“资本主义很棒，创造财富也很棒，水涨船高也是事实；但资本主义与社交媒体发酵混搭在一起，就调制出了一杯令人作呕的财富不平等毒鸡尾酒。” 针对这种撕裂，本甚至语出惊人，大胆预言在未来十年内，美国有超过 50% 的概率会选出一位社会主义倾向的总统。迈克尔则调侃道，虽然政治运作他不算精通，但有一点他很清楚——竞选公职的开销极度高昂，而渴望社会主义的人偏偏最没有钱。本提到他前一天与当地一位财务顾问共进午餐，两人最大的共识就是当下“游弋在系统里的财富实在太多了”，过去十五年的大放水与牛市催生了难以计数的富豪。面对部分人渴望通过股市暴跌 50% 来抹平贫富差距的心态，两人直言这种幻想极为危险：一旦市场全面崩盘，底层群众的生活只会遭受最毁灭性的打击。 - **底层股票参与度**：本十年美国财富后 50% 人口的股票资产规模激增约 300%。 - **超高净值群体暴增**：全球 3,000 万美元资产以上的超高净值人群达 556,850 人，年增幅 14.4%，为 2017 年以来最快。 - **顶层 0.001% 的垄断**：全球仅约 6 万人资产超 2.54 亿美元，相当于一个足球场的人口拥有全球半数人口财富总和的 3 倍。 --- ### [40:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcfsgxdRGWQ&t=2446s) 免税群体画像与“被动收入”的副业神话 迈克尔援引税收政策中心（Tax Policy Center）针对 2025 年的最新预测数据指出，全美将有高达 40% 的家庭（约 7,600 万个纳税申报单元）无需缴纳任何联邦个人所得税。迈克尔原本以为这是富豪利用税收漏洞避税的结果，但细看数据才发现，免税人群中多达 70% 的年收入低于 7.5 万美元。由于各项税收抵免政策的扩大，低收入与中等偏下阶层的联邦税收负担实际上被大幅削减，退税额也因而节节攀升。 与此同时，两人把目光转向《华尔街日报》一篇引发热议的报道——《别上班了，被动收入才是新的美国梦》。文章大肆描绘各类辞掉朝九晚五全职工作、借力 AI 开发副业、售卖产品或服务追逐“躺赚”的案例。本对此类炒作嗤之以鼻，坚定地为朝九晚五的传统工作正名：“被动收入”这个词本身就是巨大的谎言，做副业或者创业根本不是被动的，它比本职工作更加劳心劳力，甚至应该被称为“极度主动收入”。脚踏实地依靠全职薪水与定投慢慢积累财富，不仅毫无过错，反而是最行之有效的路径。 谈及副业，迈克尔反问本身边是否真有靠副业发财的朋友。本笑着回应，两人共同创立的内容品牌与商业项目其实最早也是从副业做起，但过程中的辛苦常人根本难以想象，完全是在既有本职工作之上疯狂加码。随后两人展开了一段经典的互损：迈克尔嘲讽本今天穿着波点衣服，就像《反斗智多星》（Wayne's World）里加斯（Garth）穿着全套锐步运动服、喝着百事可乐却抱怨“人们为了赚钱真是不择手段”的名场面；本立刻反唇相讥，指出迈克尔头上正戴着一顶醒目的 IMAX 鸭舌帽，更打趣迈克尔这辈子引用最多的电影台词非《反斗智多星》莫属。 - **联邦个税免税规模**：预计 2025 年全美约 40%（7,600 万个税单元）无需缴纳联邦个税。 - **免税收入结构**：该免税人群中，70% 的家庭年收入低于 7.5 万美元。 --- ### [43:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcfsgxdRGWQ&t=2602s) 生成式 AI 收入爆发与就业增长悖论 关于生成式人工智能（Gen AI）到底是一场彻头彻尾的资本泡沫，还是真正的生产力革命，迈克尔与本结合最新数据进行了深入探讨。知名科技评论简报《Exponential View》作者阿齐姆·阿扎尔（Azeem Azhar）测算显示，过去 12 个月中，生成式 AI 产业已经创造了 1,100 亿美元的实际销售收入，其按当前节奏折算的年化营收运行率（run rate）更是已经突破了 1,750 亿美元，且上升斜率极其陡峭。本坦言，虽然科技巨头的超额资本支出天文数字令人麻木，但只要 AI 带来的实际收入图表仍在持续垂直拉升，就证明这绝非空转的纸面游戏，真实的商业落地正在发生。 针对市场上担忧科技巨头资本开支过猛、自由现金流可能被砸干的声音，迈克尔提出了一个关键的思考框架：两三年后再回头看，究竟哪种剧本更有可能？一种是微软的萨提亚·纳德拉（Satya Nadella）和 Alphabet 的桑达尔·皮查伊（Sundar Pichai）等全球最顶尖的商业领袖全都糊涂透顶、盲目把公司开下悬崖；另一种则是他们早有清晰蓝图，而当前科技巨头按普通市场估值倍数交易实际上是一个“世代级的买入良机”。两人一致认为，把世界顶尖高管集体归为“愚蠢狂徒”作为基准假设，显然并不明智。 此外，本还分享了来自 Ramp 经济实验室（Ramp Economics Lab）阿拉克·卡拉齐（Arak Karazi）的一项惊人研究：AI 不仅没有消灭岗位，反而可能成为了“就业催化剂”。数据显示，积极采用 AI 技术的企业在引入该技术后的两年内，员工总人数的增长速度比未采用企业高出 10.2%，其中初级员工（entry-level）的招聘增速更达到了 12%。迈克尔客观地提醒，现在下定论或许为时尚早，那些激进拥抱 AI 的企业往往本就是资金充裕、勇于承担试验风险的行业龙头；但本坚信，至少截至目前，AI 并未在宏观层面展现出摧毁就业的负面冲击，其激发新增工作需求的迹象反倒初步显现。 - **AI 商业化营收表现**：生成式 AI 过去 12 个月实现销售收入 1,100 亿美元，年化运行率（run rate）已逾 1,750 亿美元。 - **AI 对企业招聘的拉动**：深度采用 AI 的企业在落地两年内，员工规模增长率高出同行 10.2%，初级岗位增幅更是高达 12%。 ### [46:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcfsgxdRGWQ&t=2782s) 体育赞助的资本纪律与 AI 的命名日常 当一家公司开始把名字印在体育场馆或球队球衣上时，往往预示着其资本纪律开始亮起红灯。Ben Carlson 提到 Kurt Badenhausen 的爆料：金州勇士队（Golden State Warriors）刚刚签下了一份全新的球衣广告补丁协议。买家是来自 Iren 的“AI Cloud”，这笔赞助费每年竟高达 5000 万美元以上。Ben 感慨道，他实在无法理解这种品牌曝光度的投资回报率到底该怎么算。 两人随后顺带聊起了上期节目谈到的 AI 命名痛点——现在的 AI 工具都太喜欢用正经人名了。一位来自东京的听众分享说，在东京，大家给 ChatGPT 起的昵称叫做“Chappie”。Ben 评价说这个名字“不算太好，但也还行”。 - 勇士队球衣广告赞助商为 Iren 旗下的 AI Cloud，年赞助金额超过 5000 万美元。 - 两位主持人调侃将企业巨款砸在体育赞助上往往是资本纪律松懈的信号。 --- ### [47:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcfsgxdRGWQ&t=2828s) 预测市场与博彩平台的“护城河”之辩 话题转向近期火热的预测市场。Ben 抛出一个核心疑问：像 Kalshi 和 Polymarket 这样的平台到底有什么护城河？据《纽约时报》报道，Mark Zuckerberg 甚至已经指示 Meta 团队着手开发一款独立的预测市场应用程序。面对外部巨头的觊觎，这些初创平台究竟凭什么立足？ Michael Batnick 对此持有不同看法，他认为商业世界里有大量起初被质疑“毫无护城河”却最终极为成功的案例。Ben 则反驳称，嗜赌成瘾的投机赌徒永远会流向待遇最好的地方，谁给的赔率好、开户奖励多，用户就会去哪。但 Michael 现身说法，解释了沉没成本与数据黏性构成的独特护城河：他在 FanDuel、DraftKings 和 Fanatics 都有过尝试，但最终依然牢牢留在 FanDuel，因为他的所有历史战绩都记录在那里。“在经历了不错的 NBA 季后赛胜率之后，我每下注 1 美元的亏损已经缩小到了 7 美分，我不想丢掉这个历史追踪记录。”而 Ben 依然坚持认为，这类纯靠体育博彩推动繁荣的公司缺乏真正的护城河，未来随时可能冒出十几个同类竞争对手。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 预测市场与博彩平台的护城河逻辑分歧 accDescr: 对比 Ben 与 Michael 针对预测市场与博彩平台护城河的不同视角 subgraph BenView["Ben 的怀疑论视角"] B1["驱动核心：体育博彩"] --> B2["用户属性：流动性极强的赌徒"] B2 --> B3["流失风险：追逐更高赔率与注册奖金"] B3 --> B4["结论：缺乏护城河，易被竞品/巨头颠覆"] end subgraph MichaelView["Michael 的黏性视角"] M1["核心资产：个人投注历史与战绩"] --> M2["心理账户：数据追踪与成就感"] M2 --> M3["转换成本：离开平台意味着清空战绩记录"] M3 --> M4["结论：产品体验与历史数据构成天然护城河"] end ``` --- ### [48:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcfsgxdRGWQ&t=2939s) MicroStrategy 的过山车与现实世界资产（RWA）代币化 加密资产领域近期的波动同样引发关注。Michael Saylor 在社交平台上发布了一段严肃声明：“波动性考验着每一种资本结构。微策略（MicroStrategy）的核心战略依然聚焦于比特币、严谨的资本配置、信用质量以及长期价值创造。我们将继续以透明度和决心贯彻执行。”这段宛如公关通稿的发言让 Ben 忍不住调侃这简直像讽刺媒体《洋葱报》（The Onion）写出来的段子。 两人回忆起两年前在一次行业会议上亲眼目睹 CNBC 资深记者 Bob Pisani 现场采访 Michael Saylor 的情景。当时 Bob 的肢体语言写满了抓狂，仿佛在无声呐喊：“是我疯了还是这个世界疯了？”如今，MicroStrategy 的股价从高点遭遇腰斩甚至下跌超 80%，其发行的平价优先证券也出现了 18% 的回撤。不过，Ben 认为如果 MicroStrategy 最终被迫清算并出清手中的比特币，对整个比特币生态反而是件健康的好事。 抛开二级市场的惨烈抛售，底层区块链的基础设施建设却在悄然推进。Apollo 首席经济学家 Torsten Sløk 的数据显示，代币化现实世界资产（RWA）市场规模已增长至近 320 亿美元。两人一致认为，尽管加密行业早期的宏大叙事严重过热，但从虚无中创造出一个规模达 2 万亿美元、吸引机构投资者配置的新资产类别，绝不能简单视作失败。 - MicroStrategy 股价较高点大幅回撤超过 80%，优先证券折价回撤约 18%。 - 全球代币化现实世界资产（RWA）规模接近 320 亿美元，其中代币化美国国债资产约占 150 亿美元，其余覆盖私募信贷、大宗商品和股票等，未来有望迈向 1000 亿美元。 --- ### [52:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcfsgxdRGWQ&t=3125s) 换大房子的幸福感：低利率房贷陷阱与生活品质 在上期《Ask The Compound》节目中，一位听众提问：自己在北卡罗来纳州手握 2.9% 的超低房贷利率，但随着孩子长大，房子已经不够住，换一套更大的房子意味着房贷利率将飙升至 6.5%，自己犹豫不决。当时 Ben 给出的建议是：“如果这能改善你的生活，那就去换。”然而评论区却招致不少批评，有人指责放弃 2.9% 利率去承受更高本金和 6.5% 利率简直愚蠢至极，并援引大量行为经济学研究称“住更大的房子根本无法提高人生的整体幸福感”。 Michael 以自己的亲身经历对这种学术观点进行了强力反驳。他当年同样放弃了 2.9% 的房贷，换成了现在的约 5.5% 利率，每月的还贷金额激增到了令人感到不适的水平。但 Michael 坦言自己完全不后悔：“我这么做是为了我的家庭和生活，为了能住在水边，为了和孩子们创造能铭记一生的回忆。”他指出，个人财务从来都不是冷冰冰的数字公式，只要换房不会导致财务暴雷或生活陷入绝境，住进让自己心情愉悦的居所所带来的正向情绪价值，是那些声称“房子大小与幸福无关”的行为学研究所无法衡量的。 --- ### [54:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcfsgxdRGWQ&t=3241s) 冰冻的楼市与被 AI 撑起的 GDP，以及度假与退休之争 美国宏观经济当下呈现出一个极其反常的背离现象：在房地产市场几乎陷入冰冻和萧条的情况下，整体经济与 GDP 却异常强韧，持续高于长期趋势线。传统经济学常说“房地产就是经济本身”，因为住宅投资通常贡献高达 20% 的商业活动。Schwab 的 Kevin Gordon 指出，5 月份全美新房销售环比重挫 7.3%，逼近周期低点；分析师 Tom Smith 也感叹楼市冻结而 GDP 坚挺的罕见局面。 | 宏观经济维度 | 传统地产周期状态 | 当前由科技驱动的现实 | |:--- |:--- |:--- | | **住宅投资 vs 科技资本支出** | 传统上住宅固定投资占据主导地位 | 信息设备与软件资本支出直线飙升，形成巨大交叉（剪刀差） | | **资本流向与产能激励** | 资本流向居民住房建设与开发 | 资本疯狂涌向 AI 算力中心与基础设施，住宅供应被挤压 | | **GDP 增长拉动力** | 地产链条拉动上下游约 20% 的商业活动 | 科技与 AI 资本开支填补了地产冰冻留下的经济缺口 | 这种脱节的答案正是 AI。正如 3Fourteen Research 的 Warren Pies 所展示的图表，信息设备与软件投资的增长曲线与住宅固定投资形成了剧烈的交叉走势。Ben 感叹道，虽然绝大多数普通大众眼下更希望看到市场上能多建些买得起的住房，而不是更多的数据中心，但现实的资本激励机制却全然走向了相反的方向。 在本段讨论的尾声，两人提及《金融时报》（Financial Times）上发表的一篇题为《你的暑期度假是退休杀手》的观点文章。文章用极其严肃的口吻计算：如果你把原本打算花在全家度假上的 1 万美元省下来，投入市场复利增长 30 年，最终会变成一笔巨款。Michael 怀疑这篇通篇充满英式冷幽默的文章大概率是一篇讽刺小品（satire），但 Ben 显然只是一目十行地扫了一眼，正准备认真探讨用牺牲眼下假期的代价去换取几十年后养老金的得失。 ### [55:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcfsgxdRGWQ&t=3336s) 极度省钱讽刺文与“秃头极大化”的热议 两人首先继续了关于过度理财与牺牲生活体验的讨论。他们提到了一则在网上流传的极端个人理财言论——有人为了追求8%的年化复合回报率而削减全家度假开支，甚至算计给孩子买冰淇淋的钱，声称“现在每天省下的冰淇淋钱，等到他们退休时可能会变成2000美元”。Ben Carlson 和 Michael Batnick 一致认为这绝对是讽刺反串（satire），但悲哀的是，现实中确实有很多人把它当真，宁愿牺牲不可替代的家庭回忆去死板地计算复利。 随后，话题转向了《华尔街日报》最近发表的一篇题为《无需植发、药物或假发：认识这些拥抱光头的男士》（*No Hair Transplants, Pills, or Toupees: Meet the Men Embracing Baldness*）的文章。作为光头形象代表的 Michael 打趣道，自己推行“秃头极大化”（bald-maxing）已经好几年了，这家媒体居然没有采访他来发表高见。两人开玩笑地提到了合伙人 Josh Brown，戏称 Josh 似乎在想办法生发、给自己注射药物，甚至传闻他跑去土耳其给理财顾问做演讲后头发就变了。不过 Michael 坦言，如果有人能把头发重新长回来，他完全支持，绝不会鄙视任何人的选择。 --- ### [56:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcfsgxdRGWQ&t=3406s) 汽车租赁与购买之争：现代车载科技的安全红利 紧接着两人聊到了人们在日常理财中的相互评判。Ben 承认自己虽然不会公开羞辱别人，但非常喜欢在内心评判他人的财务决策。他们谈到每次在节目中讨论“租车（leasing）优于买车（buying）”时，总会有听众在评论区骂他们是笨蛋。 Ben 承认，从纯数字的角度来看，租车确实未必是最省钱的财务决定，但在当下，租车的隐形价值远高于过去。Ben 刚换了一辆新的起亚 Telluride（Kia Telluride），并打趣说 Michael 开的是路虎揽胜（Range Rover），而自己的起亚常被朋友戏称为“穷人版揽胜”（homeless man's Range Rover）。Ben 认为现在租车最大的好处在于车载科技的飞速迭代： - 摄像系统、安全警报、传感器以及半自动驾驶辅助功能（如自适应巡航、车道保持辅助和自动跟车加减速）更新极快。 - 每隔2到3年，新车的安全性能就会实现巨大飞跃，开一辆搭载最新科技的新车能为全家提供极大的安全保障。 - 虽然这些高科技传感器导致碰撞维修费用暴涨（Michael 提到他父亲一次轻微追尾就修了6000美元，Ben 也经历过保险杠传感器损坏花费12000美元的离谱账单，这直接推高了全行业的车险保费），但现代科技对驾驶体验的改善毋庸置疑。 - 抛开理财计算不谈，每三年换一辆拥有“新车气味”的车本身也是一种纯粹的生活乐趣。 --- ### [59:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcfsgxdRGWQ&t=3541s) 达美乐披萨、餐饮市场份额与 DoorDash 效应 Michael 问 Ben 上一次吃达美乐披萨（Domino's Pizza）是什么时候，Ben 笑着透露其实就是昨晚——他的儿子 George 酷爱达美乐，整个夏天每周一都会发短信求爸爸下班顺路带一份达美乐回家，家里办生日派对也必定订达美乐。 然而数据显示，George 的喜好正在成为少数派。Michael 引用《华尔街日报》的数据指出，全美披萨品类的市场份额正在大幅缩水，达美乐的股价走势也相当难看（近期更有高管离职等动荡）。与之形成鲜明对比的是炸鸡类（Chicken）快餐，其市场占有率从2019年的10.5%一路飙升至13.5%，墨西哥餐饮的份额也在微幅上升。尽管 Ben 吐槽图表的 Y 轴截断范围（9.5%到14%）有视觉夸大的“图表微罪”（misdemeanor chart crime），但趋势本身非常明确。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: Fast Food Delivery Shift accDescr: Diagram showing how DoorDash disrupted pizza's historical delivery monopoly. subgraph Past["过去格局"] A["披萨行业"] -->|独占几乎唯一的送餐渠道| B["高市场份额"] end subgraph Present["现代外卖平台崛起"] C["DoorDash / 送餐平台"] --> D["炸鸡 / 墨西哥餐 / 各类美食"] D -->|获得同等配送便利性| E["分流传统外卖需求"] E --> F["披萨品类市场份额下滑"] end ``` Michael 分享了他妻子 Robin 40岁生日派对后的一段惨痛经历：深夜喝完酒后他们心血来潮订了达美乐，结果味道令人大失所望。Ben 分析指出，披萨品类过去之所以份额巨大，是因为在早期餐饮市场中它是**唯一提供外卖配送服务的品类**，而且大众缺乏其他优质选择；随着以 DoorDash 为代表的外卖平台的普及，各种美食都可以即时配送到家，披萨曾经不可替代的配送护城河彻底消失，从而引发了行业性的市场份额流失。 --- ### [01:01:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcfsgxdRGWQ&t=3662s) 怀旧的治愈力量：反思《黑道家族》的名言 两人随后探讨了心理与生活话题。在美剧《黑道家族》（*The Sopranos*）中，托尼·索普拉诺（Tony Soprano）曾有名言称：“‘还记得当年吗’（Remember when）是最低级的对话形式。” Ben 明确反驳了这一观点。他指出托尼·索普拉诺是全世界最不快乐的人之一，天天看心理医生，他的话绝非金科玉律；过度沉溺于怀旧固然烦人，但在适当时刻，追忆往事具有极大的心理治愈力。 Ben 分享了刚刚过去的周末经历：他去了父母位于密歇根密林深处、临河的一座小木屋。那里没有手机信号、没有电视、没有网络，甚至只能走双轨泥土路进出。他和已故弟弟的一群老朋友聚在那里，划皮划艇、喝啤酒、生篝火、玩地掷球（bocce ball），整个周末所有人都在回忆关于他弟弟的往事与欢笑。Ben 感慨道，这是他人生中度过的最美好的“怀旧之日”，将悲伤彻底宣泄出来并重温美好回忆，正是生活的真正意义所在。 --- ### [01:02:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcfsgxdRGWQ&t=3750s) 播客与老片推荐：The Rewatchables 的“地狱来客”系列 最后进入推荐环节。Michael 盛赞比尔·西蒙斯（Bill Simmons）主持的电影播客 *The Rewatchables* 是他心目中“毫无争议的有史以来最好的播客”。该节目近期正在做“地狱来客月”（Hell Month）系列，专门回顾20世纪90年代的经典惊悚老片： - 《地狱房客》（*Pacific Heights*） - 《地狱室友》——《致命白领女》（*Single White Female*） - 《地狱保姆》——《推动摇篮的手》（*The Hand That Rocks the Cradle*） - 《地狱继父》——《禁忌惊魂》（*Domestic Disturbance*） Michael 表示自己特意重温了约翰·特拉沃尔塔（John Travolta）和文斯·沃恩（Vince Vaughn）主演的《禁忌惊魂》。尽管电影本身拍得非常糟糕，但随后收听 *The Rewatchables* 团队对此片的吐槽和解构却极其过瘾。Ben 也赞同道，这档播客最大的魅力就是常常能激起听众去重温那些早已被遗忘的老电影。 ### [01:03:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcfsgxdRGWQ&t=3834s) 经典惊悚片、攀岩纪录片与权游剧集闲聊 两人继续着关于老电影和近期观看节目的推荐与闲聊。Michael 提及经典惊悚片《单身白领女性》（*Single White Female*），回忆当年经常在 TBS 和 TNT 电视台看到布里吉特·芳达（Bridget Fonda）与詹妮弗·杰森·李（Jennifer Jason Leigh）留着同款发型的标志性画面。随后两人又聊到了 1990 年的心理惊悚片《极度阴险》（*Pacific Heights*），由马修·莫迪恩（Matthew Modine）、梅兰尼·格里菲斯（Melanie Griffith）以及迈克尔·基顿（Michael Keaton）主演，Ben 极力推荐 Michael 补看这部电影，称其虽然有些地方显得老派甚至略显粗糙，但观赏性极佳，非常适合作为播客谈资。 接着，Ben 分享了自己在 Max 平台上看到的一部优秀的极限运动纪录片《黑暗巫师》（*The Dark Wizard*）。影片记录了一位无绳独攀（Free Soloing）的先驱人物，后来他又投身于身穿翼装进行低空跳伞/悬挂滑翔的极限运动中。Ben 透露这位先锋最终在挑战中不幸丧生，并感叹这类极限运动员简直“太疯狂了”。 聊到近期追剧时，两人谈起了正在热播的《龙之家族》（House of the Dragon，误称或打趣为《驯龙高手》）。Ben 调侃自己的妻子为了理清剧情四处刷 TikTok 解析视频，还在开播前硬拉着他看了 10 分钟的上季回顾短片。然而新一季第一集刚看了 20 分钟，Ben 就完全迷茫了：“等等，这个人是谁？他是好人还是坏人？”不过 Ben 坦言，这正是自己喜欢这一系列的原因——根本不用费脑子当考据狂去记什么“拜拉席恩家族”的家谱，大脑放空纯粹享受娱乐就好。Michael 也深表同感，称自己看完了回顾后看第一集依旧一头雾水，“哪个孩子是哪个妈生的根本分不清”，但即便毫无头绪，剧情依旧非常抓人好看。 ### [01:05:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcfsgxdRGWQ&t=3954s) 《异形》全系列马拉松与两人的经典偏好之争 Ben 谈到最近因为小说《挽救计划》（*Project Hail Mary*）的缘故，自己的儿子对太空与外星人题材产生了极大兴趣，整天央求看外星人电影。于是 Ben 终于同意让他看了 1979 年由西格妮·韦弗（Sigourney Weaver）主演的影史经典《异形》（*Alien*）。儿子看完后大呼过瘾并追问还有没有后续，Ben 便用 ChatGPT 列出整个系列的时间线和观影顺序，带着儿子把整套《异形》宇宙看了一遍：从《异形》（*Alien*）、《异形2》（*Aliens*）、《异形3》（*Alien 3*）、《异形4：逆种》（*Alien Resurrection*），一路看到前传《普罗米修斯》（*Prometheus*）、《异形：契约》（*Alien: Covenant*）乃至最新上映的《异形：夺命舰》（*Alien: Romulus*）。 在回顾过程中，两人对该系列的巅峰之作展开了经典争论： - **Ben 的观点**：虽然随着年代推移特效技术突飞猛进、动作场面越做越宏大，但没有一部能超越 1979 年雷德利·斯科特（Ridley Scott）执导的第一部。早年间因特效受限而营造的缓慢铺垫（slow burn）与幽闭恐怖感，在如今快节奏的好莱坞已经不可能被复刻。 - **Michael 的反驳**：坚决认为詹姆斯·卡梅隆（James Cameron）执导的第二部《异形2》（*Aliens*）才是全系列无可争议的最佳作品。他指出第一部是悬疑惊悚片，而第二部则是影史顶级的动作大片。 Michael 对 Ben 的儿子毫无畏惧地看完全部电影感到惊讶，特别提到第二部中纽特（Newt）的父母被困在菌毯巢穴墙上、面色惨白如鬼的惊悚一幕。Ben 笑着表示自己的儿子和自己一样，对这类恐怖镜头完全免疫，纯粹当娱乐看，丝毫没有被吓到。Ben 的儿子甚至还顺带看了两部口碑糟糕的《异形大战铁血战士》（*AVP*）。Michael 随之开启毒舌吐槽，称 2006 年前后自己用盗版碟和妻子罗宾（Robin）看《异形大战铁血战士2：惩罚》（*Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem*）时，妻子直接质问他“这到底是什么垃圾玩意儿”，称那是自己看过最烂的电影之一。 Ben 接着把吐槽矛头指向了美剧《熊家餐馆》（*The Bear*），将其类比为电影《宿醉》（*The Hangover*）系列——前两季犹如神作、“捕捉到了闪电般的奇迹”，而后续季度在耗尽创意后纯粹沦为赚钱工具（money grab），水准急转直下近乎看不下去。Ben 自嘲自己现在依然在追第 5 季纯粹是陷入了典型的“沉没成本谬误”（sunk cost fallacy）。 ### [01:09:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcfsgxdRGWQ&t=4141s) 远程办公与现代育儿的距离感反思 在节目尾声，Michael 抛出了一个深藏已久的心理困惑：长期居家办公（WFH）对自己与子女关系带来的微妙异化。虽然 Ben 并非全天候居家，但 Michael 大部分时间都在长岛家中办公（每周仅进城一次或偶尔去贝尔莫办公室）。Michael 坦言，虽然远程办公已实行很久，但他内心深处依然觉得不适应，甚至时不时产生一种“自己好像在偷懒作弊”的荒谬感与孤岛感。 Michael 特别声明自己清楚能在家工作是极大的幸运与恩赐，但这种模式却对亲子相处模式产生了意想不到的负面心理影响。他提到大儿子科比（Kobe）上周六出发去参加为期 7 周的寄宿夏令营（sleepaway camp），前一天晚上分别时，自己的内心竟然毫无波澜，只是淡淡地说了句“行，7周后见”。这种近乎冷淡的反应让他陷入了沉思与自我审视： - **传统一代的亲子界限**：上一代父母每天出门通勤上班，下班回到家后工作彻底切断，能够将 100% 的全部注意力倾注在孩子身上（尽管因为缺席白天的活动导致陪伴总时长较短）。 - **现代全天候在场的悖论**：如今 Michael 每天全天都在家里，形式上与孩子形影不离，但实际投射在孩子身上的专注度“可能只有 8%”。因为随时随地都能见到，陪伴变得理所当然，反倒导致他在精神上处于一种不在场（not present）、不懂得珍惜当下相处时间的麻木状态。 Ben 对此表示高度赞同，指出这种全天候共处确实从根本上重塑了现代亲子关系。Ben 回忆自己的父亲当年从未把一丝工作带回家中，但在那个年代，父母整体上本来就不会花那么多时间围着孩子转，孩子更多是独立放养。Michael 总结道，整天待在孩子身边，内心反而感受到一种奇怪的情感疏离（disconnected），这种陪伴的“质与量”之间的矛盾冲突，成了现代远程办公族父母难以忽视的心灵困境。 ### [01:11:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcfsgxdRGWQ&t=4295s) 代际育儿观念的变迁与夏日独立日假期寄语 在节目的尾声，两人简短探讨了不同世代之间育儿方式的演变。大家普遍意识到，现代人抚养孩子的方式与上一代父母对待自己的方式截然不同；但同样地，祖父母一代抚养父母时也是另一套模式，代际之间的变化始终在发生。这并不意味着过去的模式全盘皆错，或者现在的做法就尽善尽美，单纯只是“时代不同了”。迈克尔·巴特尼克（Michael Batnick）打趣地用标志性的语气以一句“行吧，随便吧（Whatever）”收尾，随后两人向听众致以夏日的问候，并提醒大家可以通过邮箱联系节目组。 随着美国国庆独立日（4th of July）假期的临近，本·卡尔森（Ben Carlson）聊到了夏日时光的飞逝以及家中的近况。他提到自己正在不断提醒自己享受眼下的清净：家里送去夏令营的柯比（Kobe）还有 47 天才会回家，虽然他们非常爱他、他也玩得很开心，但这确实给父母带来了一段宝贵的喘息之机（reprieve）。由于夏天的时光总是溜得飞快，本表示自己正努力珍惜并过好每一天。迈克尔则笑着调侃道，恐怕要不了多久，本又会开始感叹：“你能相信现在居然已经入秋了吗，本？”对此，本坦然自嘲道，自己绝对不会为自己这种“总爱感叹时间过得真快”的性格道歉（“I will not apologize for being a 'can you believe it's that time' guy”）。最后，两位主持人向大家送上独立日假期的祝福，并称赞独立日是仅次于圣诞节的第二大最爱节日，阳光、沙滩与碧水相伴，在轻松惬意的氛围中结束了本期节目。 - **代际育儿讨论**：每一代人的养育方式都大相径庭，谈不上绝对的好坏，本质上是一种随时代演进的代际常态。 - **夏日倒计时与家庭趣事**：本·卡尔森调侃家中孩子还有 47 天结束夏令营归家，父母目前正享受这难得的清静与喘息。 - **节日寄语**：两人互祝独立日（4th of July）快乐，将其评为仅次于圣诞节的最棒节日，期待充分享受阳光与玩水时光。 ## Notable quotes > [02:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcfsgxdRGWQ&t=164s) 股市中没有新鲜事，过去发生过的事情未来必然会再次上演。 — Ben Carlson > [02:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcfsgxdRGWQ&t=164s) 随便买任何股票，你都能赚钱。 — Andy Chang > [04:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcfsgxdRGWQ&t=248s) 我们早就不在堪萨斯了（时代变了）。 — Michael Batnick > [06:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcfsgxdRGWQ&t=400s) 衍生品的尾巴已经开始倒摇现货这只狗了。 — Michael Batnick > [08:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcfsgxdRGWQ&t=516s) 当你在一天内试图博取 20% 的回报时，谁还在意那点年化利息支出？谁在乎呢？ — Michael Batnick > [17:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcfsgxdRGWQ&t=1054s) 如果你只是个纯粹的技术派，对宏观基本面一无所知，光看市场内部走势，你一定会惊呼这简直太看涨了（holy [bleep] is this bullish）。 — Michael Batnick > [18:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcfsgxdRGWQ&t=1112s) 泡沫意味着没有任何合理的未来结果可以支撑当前的价格（no reasonable future outcome can justify current prices）。 — Ben Carlson > [36:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcfsgxdRGWQ&t=2212s) 资本主义很棒，创造财富也很棒，水涨船高也是事实；但资本主义与社交媒体发酵混搭在一起，就调制出了一杯令人作呕的财富不平等毒鸡尾酒。 — Michael Batnick > [40:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcfsgxdRGWQ&t=2446s) ‘被动收入’这个词本身就是巨大的谎言，做副业或者创业根本不是被动的，它比本职工作更加劳心劳力，甚至应该被称为‘极度主动收入’。 — Ben Carlson > [48:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcfsgxdRGWQ&t=2939s) 波动性考验着每一种资本结构。微策略（MicroStrategy）的核心战略依然聚焦于比特币、严谨的资本配置、信用质量以及长期价值创造。我们将继续以透明度和决心贯彻执行。 — Michael Saylor > [52:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcfsgxdRGWQ&t=3125s) 我这么做是为了我的家庭和生活，为了能住在水边，为了和孩子们创造能铭记一生的回忆。 — Michael Batnick > [01:01:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcfsgxdRGWQ&t=3662s) ‘还记得当年吗’（Remember when）是最低级的对话形式。 — Tony Soprano > [01:11:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcfsgxdRGWQ&t=4295s) 我绝对不会为自己这种‘总爱感叹时间过得真快’的性格道歉（I will not apologize for being a 'can you believe it's that time' guy）。 — Ben Carlson ## Mentioned Michael Batnick, Ben Carlson, 富兰克林邓普顿 (Franklin Templeton), 彭博社 (Bloomberg), 华尔街日报 (Wall Street Journal), 金融时报 (Financial Times), FINRA, Andy Chang, Jesse Livermore, Corey Hoffstein, Citadel Securities, 美光科技 (Micron), 苹果 (Apple), 闪迪 (SanDisk), 西部数据 (Western Digital), SK海力士 (SK Hynix), 三星 (Samsung), 微软 (Microsoft), Meta, 亚马逊 (Amazon), 谷歌/Alphabet, 奈飞 (Netflix), 甲骨文 (Oracle), 野村证券 (Nomura), 标普 500, 罗素 2000, 英伟达 (NVIDIA), Derek Thompson, Michael Cembalest, 摩根大通 (JPMorgan), 高盛 (Goldman Sachs), 瑞银 (UBS), John Authors, Kevin Gordon, Carson Block, Paychex, Lowe's, Brian LeBlanc, PNC, 税收政策中心 (Tax Policy Center), Satya Nadella, Sundar Pichai, Azeem Azhar, Ramp, 金州勇士队 (Golden State Warriors), Iren, Mark Zuckerberg, Kalshi, Polymarket, FanDuel, DraftKings, Fanatics, Michael Saylor, Bob Pisani, 微策略 (MicroStrategy), Torsten Sløk, Apollo, 3Fourteen Research, Warren Pies, 起亚 (Kia), 路虎 (Range Rover), 达美乐 (Domino's Pizza), DoorDash, Josh Brown, The Sopranos (黑道家族), Bill Simmons, The Rewatchables, Pacific Heights (极度阴险), Single White Female (单身白领女性), House of the Dragon (龙之家族), Project Hail Mary (挽救计划), Alien (异形), The Bear (熊家餐馆), Wayne's World (反斗智多星) ## Video description On episode 471 of Animal Spirits, Michael Batnick and Ben Carlson discuss: all-time highs in margin debt, the small cap rally, the hyperscaler dilemma, why Micron is up so much, everything is outperforming the Mag 7, concentration is normal, no signs of a recession, rich people everywhere,  the pizza bear market and more. This episode is sponsored by Franklin Templeton. Learn more at franklintempleton.com/advantage ► 00:00 - Franklin Templeton Ad ► 00:55 - Stock Market ► 32:43 - The Economy ► 43:19 - AI ► 47:08 - Prediction Markets ► 48:59 - Crypto ► 52:02 - Real Estate ► 54:56 - Random ► 1:00:57 - Storytime ► 1:02:27 - Recommendations 👕 Check out The Compound shop: https://idontshop.com 🎙️Listen to our podcasts: TCAF: https://podcasts.thecompoundnews.com/show/TCAF/ Animal Spirits: https://podcasts.thecompoundnews.com/show/animalspirits/ Ask The Compound: https://podcasts.thecompoundnews.com/show/ATC/ The Compound Newsletter: https://www.thecompoundnews.com/subscribe Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-compound-media/ Instagram: https://instagram.com/thecompoundnews Twitter: https://twitter.com/thecompoundnews Tik Tok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thecompoundnews Investing involves the risk of loss. This podcast is for informational purposes only and should not be or regarded as personalized investment advice or relied upon for investment decisions. Michael Batnick and Ben Carlson are employees of Ritholtz Wealth Management and may maintain positions in the securities discussed in this video. All opinions expressed by them are solely their own opinion and do not reflect the opinion of Ritholtz Wealth Management. See our disclosures here: https://ritholtzwealth.com/podcast-youtube-disclosures/ The Compound Media, Incorporated, an affiliate of Ritholtz Wealth Management, receives payment from various entities for advertisements in affiliated podcasts, blogs and emails. Inclusion of such advertisements does not constitute or imply endorsement, sponsorship or recommendation thereof, or any affiliation therewith, by the Content Creator or by Ritholtz Wealth Management or any of its employees. For additional advertisement disclaimers see here https://ritholtzwealth.com/advertising-disclaimers. Franklin Templeton Disclosure: Before investing, carefully consider a fund's investment objectives, risks, charges and expenses. You can find this and other information in each prospectus, or summary prospectus, if available, at franklintempleton.com. Please read it carefully. All investments involve risk, including possible loss of principal.  © 2026 Franklin Distributors, LLC. Member FINRA/SIPC. #thecompound #investing #stockmarket [Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcfsgxdRGWQ)

[2:44] Ben Carlson: 股市中没有新鲜事，过去发生过的事情未来必然会再次上演。 [2:44] Andy Chang: 随便买任何股票，你都能赚钱。 [4:08] Michael Batnick: 我们早就不在堪萨斯了（时代变了）。 [6:40] Michael Batnick: 衍生品的尾巴已经开始倒摇现货这只狗了。 [8:36] Michael Batnick: 当你在一天内试图博取 20% 的回报时，谁还在意那点年化利息支出？谁在乎呢？ [17:34] Michael Batnick: 如果你只是个纯粹的技术派，对宏观基本面一无所知，光看市场内部走势，你一定会惊呼这简直太看涨了（holy [bleep] is this bullish）。 [18:32] Ben Carlson: 泡沫意味着没有任何合理的未来结果可以支撑当前的价格（no reasonable future outcome can justify current prices）。 [36:52] Michael Batnick: 资本主义很棒，创造财富也很棒，水涨船高也是事实；但资本主义与社交媒体发酵混搭在一起，就调制出了一杯令人作呕的财富不平等毒鸡尾酒。 [40:46] Ben Carlson: ‘被动收入’这个词本身就是巨大的谎言，做副业或者创业根本不是被动的，它比本职工作更加劳心劳力，甚至应该被称为‘极度主动收入’。 [48:59] Michael Saylor: 波动性考验着每一种资本结构。微策略（MicroStrategy）的核心战略依然聚焦于比特币、严谨的资本配置、信用质量以及长期价值创造。我们将继续以透明度和决心贯彻执行。 [52:05] Michael Batnick: 我这么做是为了我的家庭和生活，为了能住在水边，为了和孩子们创造能铭记一生的回忆。 [61:02] Tony Soprano: ‘还记得当年吗’（Remember when）是最低级的对话形式。 [71:35] Ben Carlson: 我绝对不会为自己这种‘总爱感叹时间过得真快’的性格道歉（I will not apologize for being a 'can you believe it's that time' guy）。

[2:32] Andy Chang: Buy any stock and you will make money [4:27] Ben Carlson: Nobody cares about the annualized interest expense when you're trying to make 20% in a day. Who cares? [22:08] Rome is falling [30:38] Michael Batnick: Anyone in your life who doesn't know how to pronounce Nvidia? I feel like everyone has that person in their life... It's like someone who says Chipotle instead of Chipotle. [32:43] Ben Carlson: The word gainful—sorry to keep picking nits here—that's a word you only hear in front of employment. You never use gainful for anything else besides 'you're gainfully employed.' [37:33] Michael Batnick: One of the really gnarly side effects of capitalism baked with social media is a really nasty cocktail of disgusting wealth inequality... I keep saying it: I think there's a greater than 50% chance we're going to have a socialist president in the next 10 years. [41:48] Ben Carlson: I just want to stand up for the 9-to-5 job. The 9-to-5 job is okay! Passive income is really, really difficult. The word passive shouldn't be in there anywhere—it's active income. It's really hard to do something on the side. [43:22] Michael Batnick: It's possible that Sundar Pichai and Satya and all these people are complete morons. But how dumb do you have to be for that to be your base case? [47:49] Michael Batnick: I have a FanDuel account, and I've dabbled in with Fanatics and DraftKings... whatever I've bet on FanDuel, that's my personal record. So, I want to know what my track record is... So that's the moat, at least for me. That's why I'm not leaving FanDuel. [49:01] Michael Batnick: The tokenized real-world asset market has grown to nearly 32 billion dollars, highlighting increased institutional adoption of blockchain-based infrastructure. [52:05] Ben Carlson: I did this. My mortgage went from 2.9% to where am I now? 5.5%, I think. My mortgage payment is way higher than it was my old house, like an uncomfortable amount higher... but I did this for my family and for my life and to be on the water and to make lifelong memories with my kids. [54:59] Your Summer Holidays Are Retirement Killer [57:21] Ben Carlson: The biggest benefit of leasing today is all the new features you get in these cars. I feel like the features are multiplying in terms of the cameras and the safety and the alerts and the sensors and the self-driving capabilities. Driving a new car is just way safer for you.

[0:04] Think target date funds are all the [0:05] same? Think again. Franklin Templeton's [0:08] retirement advantage target date funds [0:09] feature a flexible glide path and can [0:11] adapt to changing markets by adjusting [0:12] stock and bond weightings at any time. [0:14] And unlike most target date funds, [0:16] retirement advantage funds aren't simply [0:18] bundles of other funds. Franklin [0:19] Templeton's portfolio management team [0:21] has comprehensive oversight of their [0:22] underlying strategies. The result is [0:24] more control to manage risk and [0:26] capitalize on opportunities. Discover [0:28] what makes retirement advantage target [0:29] date funds different and check out the [0:30] awards and ratings they received at [0:32] franklintempleton.com [0:33] /advantage. That's [0:34] franklintempleton.com/advantage. [0:37] Before investing, carefully consider a [0:38] fund's investment objectives, risks, [0:39] charges, and expenses. You can find this [0:41] and other information in each prospectus [0:43] or summary prospectus, if available, at [0:45] franklintempleton.com. Please read it [0:46] carefully. All investments involve risk, [0:48] including possible loss of principal. [0:50] Franklin Distributors LLC, member FINRA, [0:52] SIPC. [0:55] >> Welcome to Animal Spirits with Michael [0:57] and Ben. [music] [0:58] Got an email subject line Miami Vice [1:00] drinking technique and I want to open [1:02] the show as we head into the warm summer [1:05] peak Miami Vice season. Somebody wrote, [1:08] [music] "Hey there, I'm at the shore on [1:09] vacation and I think to myself, what's a [1:11] proper beach drink?" I of course think [1:13] back to the many podcasts where Ben is [1:14] enthusiastically pushing the Miami Vice. [1:17] Uh they bring me a drink that has a [1:18] colada on the top, on the bottom, and [1:20] the daiquiri on the top. So, what is the [1:22] proper way to drink this thing? Am I [1:23] supposed to stir and mix it all [1:24] together? [1:26] Use a straw to go deep and suck the [1:27] colada, then rise up and drink the [1:28] daiquiri? No straw, Ben, what say you? [1:31] >> That's great because I read this one and [1:33] I thought, man, I have to think really [1:35] deeply about this because there's one [1:37] place in Marco Island that does a side [1:39] by side. [1:40] I don't know how I don't know if they [1:41] put a little cardboard divider in there. [1:43] They do the pina colada on one side and [1:45] the and the [1:45] >> It's got to be a a side by side machine, [1:47] no, that pours them both at the same [1:48] time? [1:49] >> Oh, there you go. That That's That makes [1:50] more sense. Uh I don't stir. I just [1:53] >> Yeah, they throw They put [1:53] [clears throat] a piece of cardboard in [1:54] every drink. [1:55] >> [laughter] [1:57] >> Your way probably makes more sense. [1:59] Uh I don't really stir. I just I drink [2:01] as it is. And the best people know how [2:03] to do a swirl or something to kind of [2:05] blend them the right way. Anyone who's [2:07] made a slurpy with multiple flavors [2:09] knows how to do that. [2:10] >> I go just straw in whatever I I play the [2:12] field as it lies like Shuga McGavin [2:14] said. But it's it's it's usually the the [2:17] one and the other. Although, [2:18] I'm not mad if someone wants to stir up. [2:20] Like that's probably that probably works [2:22] just as well. [2:22] >> Yeah, I've never done that, but it [2:23] probably would make sense. But it looks [2:25] prettier if you don't stir it. So that's [2:26] the thing. It's all about the looks. You [2:27] got to have a pineapple on top and [2:29] obviously the floater. [2:31] >> The floater. [2:32] >> All right. We have a ton to get to [2:33] today. I'm I'm excited about the show [2:35] today. We have a million things to talk [2:36] about. [2:37] >> 48 pages in the doc. [2:39] >> Is it? All right. Let's uh let this is [2:41] going to be a Tarantino movie [2:42] essentially. [2:44] All right. Let's talk about leverage. [2:45] This was a story in Bloomberg. FOMO [2:49] really got me. Taiwanese go deep into [2:51] debt to amp 100% stock rally. So there's [2:53] all these stories about South Korea and [2:55] Taiwan. [2:56] And this is the Jesse Livermore quote. [2:57] I'm going to butcher it, but he says, [2:59] "Nothing is new in the stock market. [3:01] Everything that has happened before will [3:03] happen again." And what he means is [3:05] human nature. [3:05] >> nothing There is nothing new under the [3:07] sun. [3:08] >> Right? [3:08] >> I believe was the quote. [3:09] >> Andy Chang, 26, unemployed, and with the [3:11] help of a little borrowed money, the [3:12] proud owner of $60,000 worth of [3:14] Taiwanese tech stocks. And in many ways, [3:16] he speaks for the entire island of 23 [3:18] million people when he does when he [3:19] doles out the following advice, "Buy any [3:21] stock and you will make money." [3:24] Okay? [3:25] Uh they Look at this chart they have in [3:26] here of of stock leverage in Taiwan that [3:29] is just gone absolutely vertical. [3:32] Right? [3:32] Uh [3:34] Many of the island's brokerages have hit [3:36] their internal limits on certain types [3:37] of loans, forcing them to demand more [3:39] collateral and bump up their rates, [3:40] according to people familiar with the [3:41] matter. Like the the brokerages are [3:43] saying like, "Okay, this is this is [3:44] getting a little [3:46] scary here, right? Similar in in South [3:48] Korea. And [3:49] Taiwan is now the fifth largest stock [3:51] market in the world, bigger than India, [3:53] bigger than Canada, bigger than the UK. [3:56] Which is just mind-boggling. I'm sure [3:57] you could do a have Claude do some sort [3:59] of this is the population, this is the [4:01] land mass, this is the all that stuff. [4:03] So, the world that that's in Taiwan and [4:05] South Korea I think is doing something [4:06] similar. [4:08] Then yesterday in the Wall Street [4:10] Journal, the trillion-dollar borrowing [4:11] binge lifting the stock market to risky [4:13] heights. [4:14] And they highlight the fact that there's [4:15] a ton more money in leveraged ETFs, [4:18] which we've talked about before. It just [4:19] keeps going up and up and up cuz now you [4:21] have single stock ETFs, double, triple, [4:23] every new thematic has to have a [4:25] leveraged version. [4:27] Now, my original thing we talked about [4:29] this in the research channel yesterday. [4:30] We had a lively debate. [4:33] And I said, "Listen, if you look at the [4:34] history of the margin debt stuff, it [4:37] just kind of follows the market." [4:39] Jake used to write who was actually [4:41] blogging at Economic. I don't think he [4:42] does anymore. [4:43] Early days of financial blogosphere. He [4:45] said, "Look at if you put a chart of [4:47] margin debt and the stock market, [4:49] they're current indicators, so not [4:50] leading indicators. And if you do it as [4:52] a percentage of the index, it's kind of [4:55] similar over time. And I [4:57] I recreated this data. He wrote this in [5:00] >> This was in 2015. It's we're not in [5:01] Kansas anymore. [5:02] >> 2015, but the point was those [5:05] relationships still hold. [5:07] So, I I updated the data. The market [5:10] goes higher, margin debt goes higher. [5:13] Right? And as a percentage of the market [5:14] cap, it's still very similar. You said, [5:17] "I'm actually kind of worried about [5:19] this." [5:20] >> Yeah, I think this is a dated indicator. [5:23] So, in 2015, people were Jake wrote this [5:26] because it was like non-stop margin debt [5:28] stuff. [5:29] And I agree at the time it made a lot of [5:30] sense to normalize things because at [5:32] that time in 2015, which is a million [5:35] stock market years ago, margin debt, [5:38] traditional margin debt, was the way [5:40] that people levered up their exposure. [5:42] >> Well, the and the point was [5:44] when the market hit its all-time highs, [5:45] so does margin debt. So, people saw [5:46] margin debt hits new highs and people [5:48] go, "Oh, no. What does that mean?" [5:51] >> I am concerned about leverage in the [5:52] system. I'm not concerned to the point [5:54] that I think like, "Oh, no, go to cash." [5:56] But, I think to like not at least be [5:58] aware of what's going on is put it [6:00] bearing your head in the sand. [6:01] So, I had a Chartr can make a chart [6:03] showing what is the what is the [6:05] year-over-year FINRA margin debt change? [6:09] And it's up 54% year-over-year, which [6:13] to Ben's point, well, yeah, the stock [6:14] market's up 42% a year. Like, it makes [6:17] sense directionally that they move [6:18] together and they do. [6:19] The thing is, [6:20] the last [6:22] one This is now the fourth time that [6:24] margin debt since 1997 [clears throat] [6:26] has risen by 50% or more year-over-year. [6:29] And let me tell you the other previous [6:29] times. [6:31] 2000. [6:33] 2007. [6:34] 2021. [6:36] 2026. [6:38] >> All right, we need to have the cover of [6:40] the thumbnail for this YouTube video be [6:42] fire behind us because that is [6:44] >> Yeah. [laughter] [6:46] >> Uh here's the here's where my worry [6:47] would be. My worry would not be like, [6:48] "Oh, gosh, this is a generational top [6:50] because of all this debt." My worry [6:52] would be there's going to be air pockets [6:54] in the market. [6:55] >> Well, we're seeing them. You You saw [6:56] them You saw them last week and even [6:57] yesterday. I think Micron closed down 8% [6:59] and it up the day 1%. You're seeing a [7:01] lot of [7:02] >> Yeah. [7:02] >> You're seeing I think Micron has been up [7:04] or down 5% or more on the day for the [7:06] last seven sessions in a row. The tail [7:09] is starting to wag the dog. This is 100% [7:11] being pushed around by leverage. [7:12] >> So, this is this is why those South [7:13] Korean stocks and Taiwan Taiwanese uh [7:15] Taiwan Semiconductor, [7:17] they can be down 10% in a day easily, [7:19] 20% in a day potentially because of all [7:21] this leverage. That's the worry is that [7:23] you're going to get an air pocket and [7:24] then selling begets selling. That's what [7:26] that's what happens. [7:27] >> So, [7:28] FINRA margin debt [7:31] is boomer margin debt. [7:33] That doesn't show No, seriously. That [7:35] That That is the way that people used to [7:37] lever up their portfolios back in the [7:39] day. [7:40] And there are all sorts of instruments [7:43] that do not show up in the chart. [7:45] So, swaps, for example, that's how uh [7:48] Archegos blew up. Nobody knew cuz this [7:49] is like there's no record of this. [7:52] Um [7:53] Options options and futures. [7:57] These So, I think a lot of these double [8:00] things run on swaps. That's not in the [8:02] system. Now, we saw the chart, what is [8:03] it? $200 billion worth of money in [8:05] there. That's that's not nothing. [8:07] Um box spreads and other synthetic [8:10] lending is not in here. Now, obviously [8:12] that impacts a lot of wealth management [8:13] clients. It's a little bit sort of it's [8:15] a different type of leverage because [8:17] yes, people are levering up their [8:19] portfolios, but it's not to buy more [8:20] stocks. [8:21] >> That's the thing. Not all not all [8:22] leverage is being used. Sometimes it's [8:23] used for a house down payment. Sometimes [8:24] it's used for renovation. It doesn't [8:26] always have to go back into the market. [8:28] >> But to Yes, but to be very clear, let's [8:30] like not mince words. There is a lot of [8:33] demand for leverage. There is a lot of [8:36] borrowing in the system. And yes, it [8:38] does have my attention. I am a little [8:39] bit [8:40] >> worried about it. This is one of the [8:40] reasons though that I've always said on [8:42] this show [8:43] and this doesn't cover it's not a [8:45] blanket statement, but interest rates [8:46] matter way less than people think [8:47] because rates have been going higher and [8:49] people are still borrowing money. [8:52] >> So [8:52] >> from this stuff. So, that that's [8:54] surprising to me that rates keep going [8:55] up and people don't care. And this is [8:57] what happens though in a bull market. [8:59] People are taking more and more and more [9:01] risk. [9:02] >> Nobody cares about Nobody cares about [9:03] the annualized interest expense when [9:06] you're trying to make 20% in a day. Who [9:07] cares? [9:08] So, there is so much demand for [9:11] borrowing [9:12] that then the brokers only have so much [9:14] money that they're willing to loan out. [9:16] And there is a cost to this capital. And [9:17] right now, costs are skyrocketing. [9:19] >> But there's this idea that the Fed can [9:21] control people's behaviors through [9:22] interest rates and it I just don't [9:24] believe it. [9:25] Behavior matters more than rates until [9:27] rates get to a certain point. [9:29] >> Rates matter in the sense that they slow [9:32] down the economy. [9:33] They slow down growth, which eventually, [9:35] not overnight, but definitely hits [9:37] stocks. [9:38] >> Yeah, obviously [9:38] >> going from zero to five, that had a huge [9:40] impact. But not as much But here's the [9:42] thing, I would be more surprised if [9:44] people weren't levering up right now, [9:45] given where given that the way this [9:47] cycle's playing out. Of course this is [9:49] happening. This is a [9:50] boom a huge boom. Of course it's [9:52] happening. [9:53] >> Of course it's happening. Right, I don't [9:54] think I don't think anybody's surprised. [9:55] Like why people take out leverage? Well, [9:57] because these stocks are on paper every [9:58] day. Yeah, and of course it makes sense. [9:59] Um all right, uh [10:01] Corey Hoffstein tweeted this chart from [10:04] uh [10:05] who made this chart? I don't know. It It [10:07] says Bloomberg as compiled by Citadel [10:08] Securities, okay? The combination of [10:10] concentrated positioning, [10:12] growing buy-side leverage demand, and [10:15] constrained balance sheet capacity has [10:16] begun to tighten funding markets, [10:18] pushing a one-month equity financing [10:20] spreads to as high as 138 basis points [10:23] above SOFR. [10:24] Um prime brokerage, like hedge fund [10:26] leverage, does not show up as far as I [10:27] know in FINRA margin debt, the chart [10:29] that we were mentioning. So, yeah, [10:32] people are speculating their [ __ ] [10:34] off. [10:35] And can this will this cause more [10:39] volatility? [10:41] Um [10:41] you know, a um a Micron coming down [10:44] 27% in 3 days? [10:46] >> Single name volatility to me would be [10:48] it's it's the risk of that is way [10:50] bigger. It's it's been it's just it's [10:52] growing. All right, so that that's kind [10:53] of that's obviously something to worry [10:55] about. That That's not a again, it's not [10:56] a 1929 situation [10:59] by any means, but it's You're right, [11:00] it's it's got to be concerning at some [11:01] point that we could see big air pockets [11:03] from that. Um how about this for good [11:05] news? Small caps this year, Russell 2000 [11:07] as of the close on Monday was up 22.3% [11:10] S&P up 7.5% [11:12] This is a huge huge week. So, I took all [11:14] of the Russell 2000 stocks, [11:16] downloaded them from YCharts, uploaded [11:18] that to Claude. I said, "What's going on [11:20] here? Why what's going on with the the [11:22] stocks in Russell 2000?" [11:24] Uh breadth not concentration. 67% of the [11:27] names are up year-to-date. Median return [11:29] is over 15%. 900 stocks in the Russell [11:33] 2000 are up 20% or more this year. [11:35] So this is not just a handful of names [11:37] and obviously with a with a index that [11:39] big [11:41] So this is this is like a this is a big [11:43] time widening out [11:44] of the market. [11:46] Again, I think pretty good news for a [11:47] bull market. [11:49] >> I would agree. I would agree. Um [11:52] >> All right, look at look at this chart [11:53] from LuKawa. He did this last week. [11:56] The day Apple announced in the morning [11:58] on Bloomberg there's a story saying hey [12:00] Apple's raising the prices of [12:01] everything. [12:02] Macs [12:03] iPads, iPhones because memory is too [12:06] expensive now. So they're raising the [12:07] prices [12:08] >> shocked that Apple fell 6% on the day. [12:11] >> Because of that? [12:12] >> Yeah. It's a big ass move. Why? [12:16] Cuz I would I would have thought that [12:18] people think that [12:19] the demand for these products is [12:21] inelastic and who cares what the price [12:22] is, it's not going to impact sales. [12:24] >> Well doesn't it kind of show that maybe [12:25] Apple doesn't have [12:27] as much power as people thought? I don't [12:29] know. [12:29] So he shows on this day last week the [12:32] memory producers [12:34] SanDisk and Western Digital and SK Hynix [12:36] and Samsung gained almost $500 billion [12:39] in market cap. The same day Apple, [12:42] Microsoft, Meta, Amazon and Google lost [12:44] $500 billion in market cap. It looks [12:46] like a very clean transfer. This is a [12:48] beautiful chart that he created here. [12:49] >> It's a great chart. Um hold on a [12:52] not a not so subtle I mean a not this is [12:55] not a footnote to that story. [12:57] That was the same day that Micron [12:59] reported earnings. [13:00] >> Right. Micron was up 16% and they yeah [13:02] they all did well. [13:03] >> would it would it would have been up 16% [13:04] regardless of the Apple announcement. [13:06] >> But why did Micron have such good [13:07] earnings? Because of the cap backs from [13:09] the hyper scalers. My question is how [13:11] long can they let this keep happening? [13:13] >> Who's they? [13:14] >> The hyper scalers saying [13:17] we're going to lose and you're going to [13:18] win and we're we're basically powering [13:20] your win. [13:20] >> This is this is like the Porter's five [13:22] forces [13:23] type stuff. [13:25] The suppliers have all of the pricing [13:26] power right now. What's Apple going to [13:28] do? Make their own memory stuff? [13:32] >> Slow their CapEx eventually. Are Are [13:34] they going to Are they going to all live [13:35] with 30% declines or 40% declines? [13:37] >> Apple's not even the one spending the [13:38] money. [13:40] >> I know. It's So, this other Tracy [13:42] Alloway chart went viral from Nomura [13:45] showing that the hyperscaler free cash [13:46] flow projections is essentially going [13:47] from, I don't know, 700 [13:50] billion to [13:51] effectively zero over the next 12 [13:53] months. And this is Amazon, Microsoft, [13:55] Google, Meta, and Oracle. [13:57] I I just think we're getting to the [13:59] point where we're testing [14:01] like the metal of these the intestinal [14:03] fortitude of these CEOs to stick with [14:04] this. [14:05] They keep saying, "No, we're going to [14:07] We're going to We don't care. The bigger [14:08] risk is backing down." [14:10] I just think it's really interesting if [14:11] they're We're going to power these [14:13] memory producers higher and our stock [14:15] price is going to fall, how long can [14:16] they handle that for? [14:19] From a human perspective. The The [14:22] Don't you think the employees start [14:23] going, "Hey, what Our stock's down 40%? [14:26] This stinks." [14:27] Now, on the other hand, [14:29] you being a stock guy, [14:31] what would you rather have right now? If [14:32] you're buying stocks today for the next, [14:34] call it, 3 years, would you rather own [14:37] Meta, Netflix, and Microsoft or SanDisk, [14:39] Western Digital, and Micron? What would [14:41] you buy today? [14:42] >> It's not even close. [14:44] The hyperscalers. [14:47] >> That would be the the way that I'm sure [14:49] most people would answer. [14:50] >> up Micron's up 1,500% in the last year [14:52] and a half. Justified? [14:54] Microsoft has underperformed the S&P [14:55] since 2019 and it's down 35% from the [14:57] highs. Yeah, this is not This is not a [14:59] hard question. Now, for the next 3 [15:00] months, 6 months, yeah, probably [15:02] probably the memory stocks. [15:03] >> This is why owning a momentum portfolio [15:05] is so hard cuz the momentum should be [15:07] no. You double down on these stocks that [15:09] are continuing to go up. That's why it's [15:10] hard to do. [15:12] It's probably why it works, too, for at [15:13] least a time. Uh I bought Microsoft I [15:15] bought Microsoft yesterday. As a guy who [15:17] keeps retiring from his [15:18] I bought Microsoft and and Netflix and I [15:20] said, "I'm going to close my eyes and [15:22] and look at it again 5 years. [15:23] >> We own uh [15:25] we own SanDisk. We own a lot of these [15:27] stocks in our Porterhouse momentum [15:28] strategy. [15:29] >> Yeah, Western Digital. [15:30] >> And we bought SanDisk at like 300 bucks [15:34] and then a few months later we bought [15:35] more at 625 and I was like, what in the [15:37] what? Uh [15:39] and but that's part of the reason why [15:40] momentum works. It does what the humans [15:41] can never. I would never do that. Are [15:43] you kidding me? If I bought SanDisk at [15:44] 300, I'm selling it at 370. [15:47] If I'm lucky. [15:48] >> Right. [15:49] That That's why to me I have to a few [15:52] people have asked questions about the [15:53] strategy. [15:54] Like, why do you do this if you're like [15:56] a Boglehead person? Like, I will never [15:57] buy these stocks in my life. I need to [15:59] have rules based. As long as it's rules [16:00] based, I can stick with it. But here's [16:02] the thing, I would never be able to put [16:04] my own money into these individual [16:06] stocks and stick with them, but if it's [16:08] a rules-based thing and it's a [16:09] process-based and it's the factory [16:11] you're investing in, and not necessarily [16:12] the companies that you like that to me [16:14] is emotionally easier to invest in. [16:16] >> Yeah, 100%. [16:17] >> Some people can handle the individual [16:18] stocks. I can't. [16:19] >> So I I think that I think that the [16:22] market is acting very rationally, [16:24] as insane as it seems, [16:27] with the memory stocks. [16:29] Micron's earnings since January 2025 are [16:31] up 1,400%. The stock is up 1,400%. [16:36] It's rational. [16:37] The free cash flow projections for these [16:39] hyperscalers going to zero, the [16:41] company's getting re-rated and now [16:42] traded at forward PE the the same as the [16:44] market, rational. Uh everything is out [16:47] >> idea when this started was these [16:49] hyperscalers are spending money and [16:50] they're just going to be the biggest [16:51] monopoly in history. [16:53] >> Yeah. [16:53] >> It's not working out like that. That is [16:55] the surprising outcome. [16:57] >> It's so [16:59] awesome to see [17:01] the narratives changing over the years [17:03] because prior to the AI era, [17:06] the question was [17:09] what can [17:10] unseat Google? [17:13] Like there's not going to be another [17:14] search engine. [17:15] >> Yeah, that's what I'm saying to them. [17:16] >> Google did. They unseated themselves. [17:19] Maybe. [17:20] >> But yes, there's like we were thinking [17:22] like what's which one of these stocks [17:23] would not be in the Mag 7? And in no [17:26] world could we have foreseen a universe [17:28] where their [17:30] $300 billion worth of free cash flow [17:33] goes to zero. [17:34] Nobody could have predicted that. So [17:36] here we are in 2026 where everything is [17:39] outperforming the Mag 7. [17:40] Look at this chart that that Matt made. [17:43] We're looking at small value, small [17:45] growth, mid growth, mid value, [17:46] everything really divided by the Mag 7. [17:49] And everything is outperforming it. To [17:51] me, this is such [17:54] a healthy bull market. [17:56] >> This is an everything rally ex-Mag 7. [17:59] >> And it's everything you want to see. So [18:01] if you step aside from the circus, push [18:04] the leverage conversation to the to the [18:05] back burner for a second, and you say [18:07] well what's rallying? [18:09] Transports, [18:10] industrials, [18:12] small caps, regional banks. If you are [18:16] purely a technician and you don't know [18:18] anything about the fundamental story of [18:20] what's happening, forget everything, [18:22] just look inside the market, you would [18:24] say holy [ __ ] is this bullish. [18:28] >> Right. [18:29] It's crazy. [18:32] >> Um all right, we were [18:34] we were on Derek Thompson's podcast. [18:37] >> Yeah. Derek does a good job of [18:39] synthesizing a lot of the stuff that [18:41] we're talking about, the biggest [18:42] stories. [18:43] And then we talk about it, he holds our [18:45] feet to the fire a little bit, and he [18:46] said at the end like listen, [18:49] stop doing the bull side thing, what do [18:50] you think? [18:51] Right now, is this a bubble? And we both [18:53] had the same answer. [18:56] >> We both said no. He here's here's why. I [18:58] didn't say this to Derek, but I've I've [18:59] said it before, I'll say it again. [19:02] Can [19:03] memory stocks fall 50%? Yes. Will they? [19:07] Yeah, probably, they probably will at [19:09] some point in time. Will that have [19:11] proven it's a bubble? No. [19:14] The way that I think about a bubble [19:16] is there is [19:19] it's a cocktail of of things. You need [19:21] to have all of these things. [19:22] Speculation being the first obvious one. [19:24] Is there speculation? Duh, yes, of [19:26] course there is. [19:27] But to me it's about the fundamental [19:29] valuations. Like there there has to be [19:31] that is the underpinning of a bubble. [19:33] In which the multiples that investors [19:37] are putting on stocks [19:39] there is no there is no universe [19:42] in which the stocks can grow into [19:45] the [19:46] fundament the valuations. Like you roll [19:48] the dice a thousand times and a thousand [19:50] times they fall short. [19:51] When Nvidia is trading at 24 times [19:53] forward earnings [19:56] is that expensive? Yeah, fine. I don't [19:57] whatever. But is it a bubble? Is the [20:00] market in a bubble? Look what the market [20:01] is doing to hype the hyperscalers. [20:04] It's debubbling them. It's saying, "No, [20:05] you're we don't like this. We're going [20:07] to we're going to re we're going to [20:08] reweight you lower." [20:10] So, I do I think that this we we we can [20:12] get to a bubble. [20:14] You know, like we can debate about [20:15] whether we will enter a bubble. [20:17] But are we in a bubble today [20:19] that's going to burst and fall 80% to [20:21] take everything down with it? [20:23] I don't really see it. Even though I [20:24] even though I'm not blind, I see a lot [20:25] of bubbles. [20:25] >> definition was no reasonable future [20:27] outcome can justify current prices. [20:29] That's a bubble. I would think it would [20:30] have to like could we see a situation [20:32] >> the door that's the door academic way of [20:33] saying what I just said. [20:34] >> It is. Yeah, yes. But so my definition [20:36] is will the Nasdaq 100 fall 50% or more? [20:39] To me, that would prove this was a [20:41] bubble. And I don't think that the [20:42] market is going to allow that kind of [20:45] buying opportunity with these stocks in [20:46] this opportunity. [20:48] That's why I think this is not a bubble. [20:49] >> What if the Nasdaq 100 [20:50] fell 50%? [20:52] >> Yes. I think if that happens, that that [20:53] yes, this was a bubble. If the Nasdaq [20:55] falls 30% we get a fair market I don't [20:57] think that constitutes a bubble. No. [20:59] >> What about 40? [21:01] >> 40's gray area. [21:02] I think it's got to be 50 If it If it's [21:03] to be a really like all the bubbles that [21:06] people are putting this in the same [21:07] class as the dot com, the railroad, all [21:09] these things. This has to be 50% if [21:11] that's going to be in that class of [21:12] bubble. [21:13] >> And 50 is like light. [21:15] >> No, but the dot com was 80. [21:16] >> Fell 80, yeah. [21:17] >> Yes. [21:19] So [21:19] >> If if if if it falls 80% um the world [21:22] will look a lot different than it does [21:23] today. [21:24] >> I just seeing I know [21:26] I know you could say, "Hey, listen, [21:27] these earnings numbers are just they're [21:30] they're going to go away because all it [21:31] is is the the hyper scalers taking all [21:33] that free cash flow and it's and it's [21:35] going into earnings of other companies." [21:37] I that's a I think that could be a fair [21:39] argument if you wanted to make it. [21:41] >> Yeah, but they're all saying the same [21:42] thing. And I know they I guess they can [21:44] all change their mind together. But even [21:46] on Micron's call, they said "We thought [21:49] that this is going to go through to the [21:50] end of 2026. Now we see it going through [21:51] the end of 2027." [21:53] >> Right, the demand is there. [21:55] >> Like [21:56] are they [21:57] is are these hyper scalers going to rug [21:59] the entire stock market? [22:02] I don't think so. [22:04] >> I don't either. I'm just saying it could [22:05] happen. [22:06] >> Anything could happen. [22:07] >> Right. Um okay, so remember the whole [22:09] debasement idea and the end of the [22:11] dollar? [22:12] We talked about this Bloomberg story a [22:13] little bit with Alex Morris. He's coming [22:15] from FM Investments going to come on [22:16] soon. Um but Michael Cembalest in his [22:18] latest piece had all these charts. And [22:20] it's funny because people keep saying [22:22] that the dollar's ending and no one [22:23] wants to invest in the US anymore. And [22:25] he's saying, "Look at all the government [22:26] debt data. [22:27] Places like China are worse than us. [22:30] So if you think that the [22:32] the dollar is going away, give me a good [22:35] something that's going to step in. Guess [22:37] what? It's not crypto. [22:39] It's not the renminbi. It's not one of [22:41] these other currencies. What else is [22:42] going to replace the dollar if the [22:43] dollar is going to fall from its status? [22:46] Reserve status. [22:46] >> the thing. [22:47] >> There's nothing. There's no replacement. [22:50] He says it's 89% of FX transaction [22:53] volume right now. [22:54] 89%. [22:57] You may have your problems with the debt [22:59] and the deficits in this country. I get [23:01] it. It's just as bad everywhere else. [23:04] That's the problem. Everyone [23:06] The governments are [23:07] Governments around the world are like [23:08] the hyperscalers. They all went in this [23:10] together this decade. Everyone increased [23:12] their debt by an insane amount. [23:14] >> This was the mic drop. [23:15] This piece. [23:16] >> Right? [23:19] Sorry, it's not happening. You can you [23:20] can scare people with all your [23:22] debasement stuff and dollars and [23:24] deficits and this is the end of the [23:26] world and Rome is falling. [23:28] It's a great story. It's not happening. [23:30] Sorry. [23:32] Try again next time. [23:34] Oh, he had this really good chart in [23:35] here, too, of how the US is the lower [23:37] end of concentration by country. [23:40] So, the only stock markets that have [23:41] lower concentration in their top 10 [23:44] companies than the US is Japan and [23:46] India. Everywhere else has much higher [23:47] concentration. Canada, UK, and France, [23:50] like these their stock markets are all [23:52] more cons more highly concentrated than [23:54] the US. I think this whole concentration [23:56] worry for the last really 10 years or [23:59] so. It really started like 10 years ago. [24:01] I wrote my first blog post in 2017 about [24:03] people worried about stock market [24:04] concentration. I really think it's been [24:06] one of the dumbest [24:08] worries of about risks that we've had. [24:10] This is just the way the stock market [24:11] is. [24:12] >> Um I understood the risk and the worry. [24:15] I think that if you're still worried [24:16] about it, you just have to [24:20] I'm going to another happy the the play [24:22] the field as it lies. [24:23] This is what it is. [24:25] I forget where I pulled this chart, [24:27] but [24:29] the I think this is from John Authors [24:31] actually Bloomberg. Um [24:33] it's global as we've said a million [24:34] times. [24:35] They showed the average market cap of [24:37] the top 20 stocks in the MSCI All [24:39] Country World Index. It's now 60 times [24:42] bigger than the average stock of the [24:43] remaining 2,500 stocks. [24:45] And this doesn't [24:47] this doesn't look like a cyclical or a [24:50] This is like a structural change in the [24:51] index in the world. [24:53] Right? We we all know like the the [24:54] balance accrues to the winners. I So, I [24:56] asked ChartKid [24:58] um to recreate something similar. [25:01] For the past [25:03] 5 years, we've been looking at the Mag 7 [25:06] as a percentage of the market cap. [25:08] And by the way, I saw a chart the You [25:10] know you know uh Goldman Sachs has a [25:11] chart. Mag 7 percentage of earnings, [25:14] percentage of market cap. And they've of [25:16] course they've gone up into the right [25:17] together. [25:18] The market cap has outstripped the [25:20] earnings a little bit. That gap is now [25:22] completely closed. So, they're 38 [25:24] whatever percent of the the index and [25:26] they're 38% of the earnings. All right, [25:27] anyway. So, if we zoom out because now [25:29] there are a lot of gigantic stocks. [25:32] Micron is a trillion-dollar stock. [25:34] Broadcom. Like there are a lot of [25:36] gigantic stocks. It's no longer the Mag [25:38] 7. [25:39] So, I asked Matt to look at the top 25%. [25:41] I'm sorry, the top 25 stocks. [25:45] >> Right. Narrowed in the universe out a [25:46] little bit. [25:47] >> So, look past the Mag 7. Let's go to the [25:48] top 25. [25:51] In 2017, [25:53] for example, [25:55] the top 25 stocks were roughly 40% of [25:58] the market. [26:00] They're now 54%. [26:04] >> And I'm guessing [26:05] there there's [26:07] five of them that are the same, maybe, [26:08] since 2007? [26:13] >> If this were to return to 40%, [26:16] I would think it would have to be [26:17] because they're falling. [26:20] Not because the rest of the world not [26:21] because the the 475 is like growing that [26:24] much. [26:25] >> Right. The concentration usually goes [26:27] down in a big bear market, right? [26:31] >> All right. So, because of the [26:32] concentration, [26:33] all of the breadth [26:36] data is now is is permanently busted. [26:39] There are there is weird things [26:40] happening inside the market [26:42] where this data point like oh this has [26:44] never happened since blah blah blah. [26:45] >> Explain Explain breadth for the the [26:47] civilians out there. [26:48] >> Does not matter anymore. So, the S&P 500 [26:50] was up 97 basis points. [26:53] Only um um 140 stocks were up. That [26:56] would be weak breadth. It's [26:59] It's being led by fewer fewer stocks. [27:00] You want [27:01] >> Right. People may People may look at a [27:02] ratio of advancing stocks to declining [27:04] stocks to know what breadth is. [27:05] >> want You want the advanced decline line [27:07] to keep going up to confirm the rally. [27:10] All right, so for So, [27:12] Kevin Gordon tweeted, "The third [27:14] straight day with the S&P 500 declining, [27:17] yet the advanced decline spread [27:19] remaining positive." [27:21] Bespoke has a couple of charts on this [27:23] showing the rolling number of days with [27:24] price and breadth in opposite direction. [27:27] So, price is up and more than half of [27:29] the index is down. [27:31] >> So, that means that the Mag 7 is down, [27:33] but the rest of the stocks are up [27:34] essentially. [27:35] >> Basically. Or Or at this point, it's not [27:38] just that. It could just be like the [27:39] software names. Because the software [27:41] names are now big enough where they [27:42] could power the index higher with [27:44] negative breadth and vice versa. [27:46] >> Right. So, you're A lot of these [27:47] historical charts [27:49] >> They're busted. [27:50] >> They're going to need a lot of context. [27:51] >> They're busted. They're just busted. So, [27:53] they showed the they showed [27:55] uh rolling 50-day periods, 100-day [27:57] 120-day periods, and 200-day periods. [28:00] And we've never seen anything like what [28:02] is happening now. [28:03] Um so, any like historical data on this [28:07] just is completely useless. [28:09] Another chart that to me really [28:12] epitomizes what sort of weird market [28:13] environment we're in. [28:15] Negative beta. [28:17] This is from UBS. [28:20] They have a chart that shows the largest [28:22] 1,000 US companies by market cap [28:24] and the number of stocks with a negative [28:26] beta to the S&P 500. [28:28] I don't know if this is like 30-day [28:29] periods or whatever they're using. Uh [28:31] oh, here it is, 252-day. [28:34] So, a negative beta means that [28:37] stocks tend to go down when the index [28:39] goes up. That is bizarre. [28:41] >> Right. [28:41] >> And prior to 2025, [28:44] the line There was no line. It it like [28:46] happened like a few times where 10 [28:49] stocks would have this. Like 10. And now [28:52] it's 108. [28:54] All right, so the previous record looked [28:55] to be about 10. I'm just eyeballing it, [28:57] maybe even less. And now it's 108. Now, [28:59] that is a combination of [29:01] the energy stocks and the war in Iran. [29:04] When there was peace talks and crude oil [29:06] fell 9% and energy stocks fell and the [29:08] index went up. There So, there's that [29:10] baked into it. [29:11] And of course, there's all of the [29:12] semiconductor trades. [29:14] The all of the AI stuff, all of the [29:16] hyperscaler stuff. So, the market [29:20] and breadth dynamics look very very off. [29:24] >> have broken a lot of historical [29:25] relationships in terms of economic data, [29:29] economic charts, stock market data. It's [29:31] >> new world. [29:33] We We We uh [29:35] We should have covered this chart [29:36] earlier when we were talking about the [29:37] debasement trade, but this is my [29:39] favorite chart that Symbolis made. [29:41] We've seen a lot of charts showing [29:43] central banks [29:45] gold allocation as a percent of their [29:48] total cash reserves. [29:51] >> Right. People have been saying that's [29:52] the reason gold has been going up for so [29:54] many years cuz of central banks buying [29:55] it. [29:56] >> Exactly. And is that part of the story? [29:59] I I suppose, but looking at this chart [30:01] and I don't know if there's like a a [30:02] start date that's that's moving this, [30:05] but Michael shows the actual gold shares [30:08] of world FX reserves again up into the [30:09] right, but he makes the astute [30:11] observation, [30:12] it's a price thing. Yeah, when gold goes [30:16] from 2,000 to 5,500, of course it's [30:19] going to be a bigger size of the pie. [30:21] But are they actually buying gold [30:24] to the extent that these charts suggest? [30:26] No. So, he shows [30:28] if you assume the actual holdings and no [30:30] change in gold price since March 2009, [30:32] they have less [30:35] than they did in 2009. [30:38] >> Interesting. So, gold right now is in a [30:40] 25% drawdown. So, that means that that [30:42] percentage is obviously gone down cuz [30:44] the price has gone down. Silver's down [30:46] 50% from a total from the high. [30:50] >> Uh pretty wild unwind. Last last thing [30:53] on the on the market stuff and then [30:55] we'll move on. [30:56] Couple of good charts from Carson Block. [30:58] He's showing earnings growth converging [31:00] between the Mag 7 and the S&P 493. [31:03] So, in 2023, the Mag 7 grew 34%. The the [31:07] 493 was down [31:09] 3% of course. That was well documented. [31:12] Right? Like that's all we were talking [31:13] about 2023 because it was the reality [31:15] that the entire market was being led by [31:16] the 493 by the by the Mag 7. That [31:19] persisted in 2025, 23, and 11. [31:22] Um [31:23] but in 2027, [31:25] analysts are expecting 19% growth for [31:27] the Mag 7 and 15% for the 493. Which [31:31] would be a wonderful development. [31:32] >> So, this would be that would be 3 years [31:33] in a row of double-digit earnings growth [31:35] for the 493. [31:37] >> Yeah. [31:37] >> It's pretty good. [31:38] >> Pretty good. All right. One final thing [31:40] on Nvidia's cheap. And I'm going to use [31:42] air quotes on Nvidia's cheap. [31:44] If somebody is listening and they were [31:46] yelling through the screen, Michael, [31:48] stop saying Nvidia's cheap. I don't care [31:51] that it's trading at 24 times forward [31:52] earnings because we've actually we did [31:53] this a couple of months ago, couple of [31:54] weeks ago. [31:55] It can have a premium multiple because [31:57] it's too big. It wouldn't make sense if [31:58] it swallowed the market. That's fair. [32:01] I would accept that rebuttal. So, Nvidia [32:03] has a larger market cap than Canada, [32:07] than the UK, [32:08] than France, than Germany, and then [32:10] Italy. [32:11] So, maybe they were just bumping up [32:12] against the laws of how big a company [32:14] can can realistically get. [32:16] >> Anyone in your life who doesn't know how [32:17] to pronounce Nvidia? [32:19] I feel like everyone has that person in [32:20] their life. [32:21] >> Yeah, a lot of people say Nvidia. Yeah, [32:23] a lot of lot of market professionals say [32:24] Nvidia. [32:25] >> Right. It's like someone who says [32:26] Chipotle instead of Chipotle. [32:28] Everyone has that person in their life [32:29] they just can't get the pronunciation. I [32:30] have those words too. [32:32] >> Yeah, you say we all have them. You say [32:33] DRAM. [32:35] >> Oh. Oh, no, it's DRAM. [32:37] >> It's DRAM. [32:38] >> Okay. [32:39] >> But we all have those things. [32:39] >> very specific use case, but yes. [32:41] >> Yeah. [32:42] Uh all right. Um okay. [32:45] Paychex reported last week. I would [32:47] think that Paychex is a pretty good read [32:49] on the state of the [32:52] um labor market. Would you agree? [32:54] >> Yeah. [32:57] >> This is from the CEO. I would say the [32:59] >> Quote again. [33:00] >> I would say the macro environment, [33:02] despite all the potential challenges [33:03] that we have going on globally around [33:04] us, has been stable, no signs of a [33:06] recession. [33:07] In fact, if you look at our index, the [33:09] last several reports have actually shown [33:10] an increase in index under 50. [33:12] We continue to see good growth. [33:15] Um Lowe's. Our core customer is a [33:17] homeowner. [33:18] >> Wait, there's another one. My mother. [33:20] She says Lowe's. [33:22] >> What? Oh, like like l o l l o l z? [33:25] >> Lowe's, yeah. [33:26] >> Lowe's? I forget to say Lowe's. [33:28] >> She can't she never get Lowe's. [33:29] >> Oh, Lowe's. I thought you meant Lowe's. [33:32] >> is very bad at knowing names. So she she [33:34] thinks it's Lowe's. Anyway. [33:36] >> All right. So Lowe's says that their [33:38] their core customer is a homeowner with [33:40] an average annual with an average [33:42] household income north of $100,000. [33:46] They have gainful employment. They've [33:47] received wage increases. They have [33:48] record equity in their home. They have [33:50] money in the bank. Overall, we describe [33:52] it as a consumer with a really strong [33:53] personal balance sheet. And this [33:54] consumer is resilient. [33:56] >> Yep. You could say that every year for [33:57] the last 5 years. It's funny. The word [33:59] gainful. Sorry to keep picking nits [34:01] here. That's that's a word you only hear [34:03] for employment in front of employment. [34:04] You never use gainful for anything else [34:05] besides your gainfully employed. [34:07] >> Correct. [34:08] >> All right. The next uh thing here, you [34:10] and I both put this in the doc. And so [34:13] >> This is the kind of viral [34:14] >> Uh I yes, this is a viral uh thread by I [34:17] think Matt LeBlanc's brother, Brian [34:18] LeBlanc. [34:19] Uh from PNC. [34:22] He says [34:22] >> LeBlanc? Was that an actor? [34:24] >> Yeah, he's from Friends. Uh so he's So [34:26] he's from PNC, and he says they tracked [34:28] the debit and credit spending trends of [34:30] 4 million households. [34:32] And he says "Long story short, lower [34:33] income spending balance sheets trends [34:35] have been on a tear in 2026. This is a [34:38] total [34:38] narrative buster. Why don't you go [34:40] through some of these?" [34:41] >> Okay. So, he breaks out the lower [34:44] income, middle income, and upper income [34:46] uh the year-over-year change in card [34:49] spending ex-gasoline. [34:52] Right? So, is there some inflation stuff [34:54] going on in here? Of course there is, [34:55] but the shape of the lines is what's [34:58] interesting cuz upper and middle income [35:00] is dipping a little bit and lower is [35:01] straight up into the right. [35:03] Um [35:04] >> And it did for years heading into like [35:05] 2025, and now it's gone vertical. [35:08] >> So, he plots he plots the gap between [35:11] the upper income and the lower income. [35:12] And that peaked in what? 2025 [35:15] or so, and it's gone [35:17] it's collapsed [35:19] pretty dramatically from 4 and 1/2% [35:20] spread down to 1 and 1/2%. He said, [35:23] "Where does this leave us? [35:24] Um I'm encouraged by it. Bigger tax [35:26] refunds, [35:27] lower withholding taxes, improving job [35:30] growth, and people monetizing wealth [35:32] gains by bringing more cash into their [35:34] checking accounts from their brokerages [35:35] brokerages have been more than enough to [35:37] keep spending stable in 2026. [35:40] >> I got to I got to be honest. This the [35:42] data he provided here [35:43] was very surprising to me. [35:50] >> And then he concludes with this. Me, [35:51] too. He said, "Here's where it gets [35:53] interesting. [35:54] We're also not seeing any evidence that [35:56] lower income households are dipping into [35:58] their savings to maintain spending [36:00] patterns. [36:01] If anything, lower income balance sheets [36:03] may have improved through the war with [36:05] Taiwan Iran. This is wild to me. [36:09] Um so, he's looking at [36:12] the cash savings buffer days for lower [36:14] income households. [36:16] And he says it shows the median number [36:17] of days a lower income household in our [36:19] data set can maintain their spending [36:20] trends if their income suddenly stopped [36:23] and still at pre-pre-pandemic levels. [36:26] Um [36:27] He said, "That being said, lower income [36:29] households are burning through their tax [36:30] receipts their tax refunds more rapidly [36:32] than last year. [36:34] Not sure I mean, this is just the data. [36:37] He's not He's not doing like commentary [36:39] or anything like that, but uh [36:40] >> Yeah. [36:41] >> Surprising. [36:43] >> Um I think some people assume when you [36:46] think about the K-shaped economy or [36:47] whatever, people assume that these [36:49] trends are going to be in place forever. [36:52] The economy is dynamic. It's constantly [36:54] It's never the same. [36:56] It's constantly changing. [36:57] >> It feels like a weird position. Nobody [37:00] wants to hear that [37:01] the lower shape of the K is doing well. [37:05] Because almost by definition, how can [37:06] they be? [37:07] >> Right. [37:08] >> And obviously the bottom 10% is never [37:09] doing well by definition. [37:12] But this is, you know, this is [37:13] encouraging. It is what it is. It's good [37:14] stuff. [37:15] >> this I think one of the big reasons is I [37:17] I've showed [37:18] on this show time and again that bottom [37:19] 50% their their increase in equities [37:22] this decade. [37:24] It's like 300% increase in ownership of [37:26] equities. I think that helps. It's It's [37:28] like wealth effect for the for the [37:29] bottom half that they've never had [37:31] before really. [37:33] >> So part of part this next chart shows [37:36] the [37:37] cash held by households. [37:39] And it followed a trend [37:42] of 4.8% [37:44] or followed a a pretty good trend line [37:45] from 2010 to 2020. 20. And then the [37:47] pandemic broke it obviously with fiscal [37:50] policy. [37:52] And I think everybody assumed that this [37:53] gap was going to close that the cash [37:55] held by households would have revert [37:56] back to trend. [37:57] >> Nope. [37:58] >> So part of the story here is [38:01] on the other end of the spectrum, the [38:02] number of ultra-wealthy wealthy [38:04] individuals. We're talking about people [38:05] with a net worth of $30 million. So the [38:07] Journal wrote a piece on this. [38:08] Jumped by 14.4% last year. Obviously the [38:11] stock market, you know, drove all of [38:12] that. [38:13] There's 556,850 [38:16] people worldwide by the end of 2025. [38:19] Fastest pace of growth since 2017. [38:20] Again, it's a stock market story. [38:22] Um [38:25] 60,000 people, the top 0.001% [38:29] of people are each worth at least $254 [38:32] million. [38:33] Uh [38:36] the population that can fit fit in a [38:38] football stadium [38:40] own three times more wealth more wealth [38:43] than half of humanity combined. [38:46] Holy [ __ ] So, one of the one of the one [38:48] of I mean, obviously I mean, obviously [38:51] I think most American listeners, us, [38:54] would agree that capitalism is awesome. [38:57] Wealth creation is awesome. [38:59] A rising tide lifts a lot of boats to [39:02] varying degrees, obviously. [39:04] But, one of the one of the really gnarly [39:07] side effects [39:09] of capitalism [39:10] baked with social media is a really [39:13] nasty cocktail of disgusting wealth [39:15] inequality. [39:17] And I don't think anybody [39:19] would hear what we just said and think [39:21] like, "Yeah, that sounds good. I'm I'm [39:23] for that." [39:24] It sucks. [39:25] >> I I keep saying it. I think there's a [39:26] greater than 50% chance we're going to [39:27] have a socialist president in the next [39:29] 10 years. [39:30] Mark it down. I think I think that's a [39:32] real because this wealth isn't Again, AI [39:35] is going to make it even worse. [39:38] I'm just [39:39] >> I just not knowing anything about I [39:40] don't know anything about how politics [39:42] works other than the fact fact that like [39:43] putting somebody in office is very [39:44] expensive. [39:46] And you know, people that want socialist [39:48] socialism don't have a lot of money. [39:50] >> [laughter] [39:51] >> So. [39:52] >> Uh [39:52] people don't always agree with what they [39:54] uh do with their money. Um one thing I [39:56] So, I had a I had lunch with a local [39:57] financial advisor yesterday. We both [39:58] talked about this. And I said, and we [40:00] kind of talked about how are things [40:01] going in the business? And [40:02] and I made the comment like, "I can't [40:05] believe the number of wealthy people [40:06] that there are that we come into contact [40:08] with." And he said, "Same with me." He's [40:09] like, "There is just so much wealth [40:12] sloshing around right now [40:14] from everything that's happened in this, [40:15] you know, past 15 years or whatever. [40:17] It's [40:19] There's so much money. [40:20] >> Yeah, not weird. I understand it. There [40:22] is like a fantasy of a cohort of the [40:23] population [40:25] that wants us all to come crashing down. [40:27] And I you know, I understand the [40:28] sentiment. Um [40:32] A bear market in equities, a 50% crash [40:35] will certainly fix a lot of the [40:36] inequality. It'll make life terrible for [40:38] everybody, but [40:41] >> Yeah, but it would be it would be worse [40:42] for people on the lower end, of course. [40:43] >> Well, [40:45] um [40:46] Uh all right, somebody sent this to us a [40:47] while ago when we spoke about some some [40:50] tax stuff and whatever. I had it on my [40:51] screen, so I [40:54] thought this was an appropriate time to [40:55] include this. So, in 2025, according to [40:56] the latest Tax Policy Center estimates, [40:59] 40% of households, [41:02] this surprised me. I didn't realize [41:03] I didn't did not know this. Or about 76 [41:05] million tax units will pay no federal [41:08] individual income tax. [41:12] >> That's a lot. That that isn't this just [41:14] Jeff [41:15] Bezos thing where he wants to [41:18] >> Yeah, so um this is also not awesome. [41:21] Um [41:24] There was something in here about like [41:29] Oh, [41:30] um so 70% of those people earn less than [41:33] $75,000. [41:36] So, the Bezos thing, I guess a lot of [41:37] you know, a lot of that is happening [41:38] already. [41:40] >> And that's why the tax refunds are [41:41] getting bigger, right? [41:43] >> I don't know. This like this [41:45] >> I'm I'm out of my element. I'm going to [41:47] get to a quick comment on this story [41:48] from the Wall Street Journal. [41:49] Someone sent this to us. Forget work, [41:50] passive income is the new American [41:52] dream. And they go through all these [41:53] people who've decided like I'm going to [41:54] start a business. [41:56] I'm going to have a side hustle. I'm [41:58] going to create a product. I'm going to [41:59] create a service. AI is going to help [42:00] me. And I I'm sick of the 9-to-5 job. [42:02] And I just want to stand up for the [42:03] 9-to-5 job. The 9-to-5 job is okay. [42:06] Passive income is really, really [42:07] difficult. [42:09] It's It's way more work. And I think [42:10] that's that's honestly where the story [42:12] comes down. [42:13] Like if you do really want to get It's [42:15] It's not as It's The word passive [42:17] shouldn't be in there anywhere. [42:18] It's active income. [42:20] >> Very active. [42:21] >> It's really hard to do something on the [42:22] side. [42:25] Like there's nothing wrong with with [42:26] slowly but surely building wealth [42:27] through a 9-5 job. [42:29] >> Do you know anybody that has a side [42:30] hustle? [42:32] >> Oh, that's a good question. [42:34] I'm sure I do. [42:35] I mean, you and I everything we've done [42:37] was been was started as a side hustle. [42:40] >> Not The Bread. [42:41] >> Yeah. But guess what? It's a lot of [42:43] work. [42:44] That's my point. It's not easy to do [42:46] something on the side. [42:49] It's just more work on top of your job [42:50] you already have. [42:52] >> You're wearing polka dots. You know the [42:53] scene in You probably don't know the [42:55] scene. [42:57] In Wayne's World where Garth says [43:00] It's like people do things just so they [43:01] get paid and that's like really sad and [43:02] he's wearing like [43:03] >> [laughter] [43:03] >> like a He's wearing like a Reebok [43:05] jumpsuit and he's drinking Pepsi and [43:07] it's just [43:07] >> Coming from the guy who's wearing an [43:08] IMAX hat. [43:09] >> Yeah. [43:10] >> Yeah. [43:11] No, it's Yeah, it's true. [43:13] Easily your most quoted movie on the [43:15] show. You've quoted Wayne's World more [43:16] than any movie that we've [43:18] Right? [43:19] >> Without a doubt. [43:21] >> All right. [43:22] Uh artificial intelligence. Now this Is [43:24] this happening? We talked about this [43:25] with Derek a little bit. [43:26] Uh [43:27] there's this subset called the [43:29] Exponential View and they looked at uh [43:31] Azeem Azhar looked at the the gen AI [43:33] economy. He said it's generated $110 [43:35] billion in sales over the past 12 [43:36] months. On annualized basis, that run [43:38] rate exceeds $175 billion. And the He's [43:41] got a great chart in here. It just keeps [43:43] going up. [43:44] And this is like how much money is [43:46] actually being created from all the AI [43:47] spend. [43:48] And it's going up at a pretty fast rate. [43:50] It's funny because [43:51] numbers don't mean anything to me [43:53] anymore. [43:54] Like I look at this number and I go [43:55] >> That's why you have to normalize it to [43:56] the moon and back. [43:58] >> Right. It's [43:59] >> [laughter] [43:59] >> I'm like I don't Is $175 billion a good [44:02] return on all that capital? I don't [44:03] know. [44:05] But I think I think as long as this the [44:07] chart keeps going up then you say okay [44:09] this is something's happening here. He [44:11] he was saying like this is this is great [44:13] news. Like it's finally happening. [44:15] >> Getting back to the conversation earlier [44:16] in the show about the cash flow going to [44:18] zero for these companies. [44:21] Do we think that it's more likely that [44:23] we look back in two to three years and [44:24] say can you believe [44:26] we didn't think that this is going to [44:27] work like these guys were just like [44:28] completely asleep at the wheel they had [44:30] no idea they just drove their business [44:31] off the cliff or [44:33] is it more likely that yeah they [44:35] actually they actually had a plan and [44:38] trading at a market multiple made no [44:39] sense and was a generational buying [44:40] opportunity. [44:41] >> That was my point to Derek that these [44:42] are the biggest best run companies in [44:44] the world. And it could be one of the [44:45] this could be the biggest folly of all [44:47] time and we have egg on our face and [44:48] like you idiots [44:50] they didn't know what they're doing. [44:51] >> Come on it's totally yeah it's possible. [44:55] It's possible that Sundar Pichai and [44:56] Satya and all these people it's possible [44:58] that they're all complete morons. But [45:00] how dumb do you have to be to for that [45:02] to be your base case? [45:03] >> Yes I I don't believe that. [45:05] Uh [45:06] all right. Um from Ramp Economics Lab. I [45:09] love this Substack. Arrak Karazi who [45:11] we've had on the show before actually. [45:13] Uh [45:13] he says is AI actually a job maker? [45:15] Firms that adopt AI grow head count at [45:17] 10.2% [45:20] faster over two years following [45:21] adoption. Entry-level head count grew [45:23] even faster at 12%. And he's got this [45:25] chart here that shows firms with high AI [45:28] adoption [45:30] are seeing growth in the number of [45:31] employees. [45:33] This is a head scratcher to me. [45:35] Now you could say and you've said before [45:36] well this is still early. Come on. [45:40] I think this this is a positive sign [45:43] for what I think is going to happen that [45:44] that's going to AI is going to lead to [45:46] more work. [45:47] >> You could also make the case that this [45:48] is this is still early and the companies [45:50] that are most aggressively leading in [45:51] are best positioned to take these sort [45:54] of risks. [45:57] >> Fair. [45:58] >> You think that AI is going to [46:00] >> It's a I'm just saying it's [46:01] >> create it's possible. I don't know early [46:03] positive sign. [46:05] We we haven't seen any really huge [46:07] negative signs of AI yet, is what I'm [46:09] saying. [46:10] Correct? [46:11] >> Um [46:12] >> Not like not a huge one that like, oh my [46:14] gosh, yes, this is the end. We haven't [46:16] seen that yet. [46:17] >> Correct. [46:17] >> That anecdote hasn't happened yet, even [46:18] early in the data, especially. [46:22] >> Uh all right, um I don't know I'm sure [46:25] there's been work done on this. When a [46:27] company puts their name on a stadium, [46:30] it's usually not a great sign of capital [46:32] discipline. [46:33] So, [46:35] Kurt Badenhausen tweeted, "The Warriors [46:38] signed a new jersey patch deal." Oh, [46:39] it's just a jersey patch. All right, [46:41] never mind. [46:42] Um with AI Cloud from Iren. [46:45] Uh but nevertheless, [46:48] cost more than $50 million a year. [46:52] >> That's a lot. [46:53] I don't know how to [46:55] calculate that recognition. [46:57] >> It is. [46:59] Uh okay, someone I I said last week they [47:01] need better names for AI. They all have [47:03] to use a name. And someone says in [47:04] Tokyo, the nickname for ChatGPT is [47:06] Chappie. [47:07] >> Okay. [47:08] >> It's not bad. Not good, [47:10] but it's not bad. All right, what's the [47:12] moat here for prediction markets? I said [47:13] this last week. Like what what's the [47:14] moat for Kalshi and Polymarket? New York [47:17] Times says Mark Zuckerberg directed Meta [47:18] to create a prediction markets app. [47:21] Uh independent [47:25] >> Well, we discussed this last week. I'm [47:26] on record [47:28] that [47:30] there are a lot of examples of companies [47:31] where you would say, "Well, what's the [47:33] moat?" [47:35] And they've gone on to do incredibly [47:37] well. Now, [47:38] maybe I have one example, [47:40] but still, [snorts] one is one, is it [47:41] not? It's more than zero. [47:43] >> But degenerate gamblers will go wherever [47:45] they're treated best. [47:46] And if they're [47:47] >> why would they be treated better [47:49] anywhere else? The odds are the odds. [47:50] Once you have the customers, why would [47:51] they go somewhere else? Maybe better [47:53] sign-up bonuses, but like, all right. [47:56] >> That's I I just What was the moat for [47:58] FanDuel and DraftKings and NBA or [48:01] whatever? [48:02] >> Well, first of all, why is that the [48:04] criteria for anything? [48:07] But, I'll tell you what the moat is. [48:09] >> Cuz the reason all the growth is [48:10] happening for Kalshi and Polymarket is [48:11] just cuz of sports betting. That's it. [48:13] Sports betting. [48:14] >> Okay. So, I'll tell you what the moat is [48:16] for for these companies. [48:18] For me, I have a FanDuel account, and [48:20] I've dabbled in with Fanatics and [48:23] DraftKings. [48:25] But, I've bet [48:27] whatever I've bet on FanDuel, that's my [48:28] personal record. [48:30] So, I want to know what my track record [48:32] is. [48:33] And I had a pretty good run in the NBA [48:34] playoffs, not to brag. So, I'm back down [48:36] to only 7 cents of losses per every [48:38] dollar spent. [48:39] So, that's the moat, at least for me. [48:41] That's why I'm not leaving FanDuel. [48:45] >> I just I In when it comes to sports [48:46] betting, I just don't see any any moat [48:48] at all, and I feel like these are [48:50] fly-by-night companies. There's going to [48:51] be 12 more of them. [48:53] Maybe I'm wrong. [48:56] >> Uh well, yeah, maybe you're wrong. I [48:58] don't know. I don't really have a strong [48:59] opinion here. Um all right. [49:01] Michael Saylor tweeted, [49:04] "Volatility tests every capital [49:05] structure. [49:07] Strategy remains focused on Bitcoin, [49:09] disciplined capital allocation, credit [49:11] quality, and long-term value creation. [49:13] This is not the onion." He actually [49:14] tweeted this. [49:16] "We appreciate our investors and will [49:17] continue to execute with transparency [49:18] and resolve." [49:19] Um [49:20] So, [49:21] >> You and I saw him speak at a conference [49:23] like 2 years ago. And Bob Pisani was [49:26] interviewing him. [49:28] And [49:28] >> And I Bob's entire body language was I [49:31] And he didn't say this aloud, but was "I [49:32] feel like I'm taking crazy pills." [49:34] >> Yes. [49:35] >> like apoplectic. So, [49:37] I'm going to get into this tonight with [49:38] Josh. What are your thoughts? I don't [49:39] want to say say too much, other than the [49:41] fact that [49:42] strategy is at a 30 with 50% Whatever it [49:45] is. Strategy is getting killed. [49:46] >> It's down 82%. [49:48] >> It is? [49:49] >> 82%. Yes. [49:50] >> Okay. 30 [49:52] 80. okay. Um they issued a preferred [49:55] security that was supposed to trade at [49:56] par. [49:57] It's now in a [49:59] 18% drawdown. Not awesome. They're [50:01] selling Bitcoin for a lot. [50:03] >> Um but what is interesting I keep saying [50:05] this like there are things happening [50:07] with blockchain stuff [50:10] despite the crashes in these companies. [50:12] And by the way, a couple of weeks ago [50:13] when you told me Visa was in a 12% [50:15] drawdown when I mentioned these names, [50:17] MasterCard was in it was at a 52-week [50:18] low. [50:21] >> Okay. [50:22] >> So I think these companies are being [50:24] >> think strategy getting blown out of [50:26] Bitcoin is the best thing that could [50:27] happen for Bitcoin. [50:28] >> Yeah, I would agree. [50:30] I would agree. Um so Torsten Slok [50:32] tweeted, "The tokenized real-world asset [50:34] market has grown to nearly 32 billion [50:37] dollars [50:38] highlighting increased institutional [50:40] adoption of blockchain-based [50:41] infrastructure." $32 billion is not like [50:44] 20 million. That's a real number. [50:46] So he breaks it down by US Treasury [50:48] debt. That's like 15 billion dollars [50:50] worth of tokenized assets. [50:52] Private credit, commodities, stocks, and [50:53] others. [50:54] This is going to be a hundred billion [50:55] dollars. [50:58] >> I guess I'm just thinking of the way [50:59] that how could how AI could save crypto [51:01] somehow and really use the blockchain. [51:03] There's there has to be a way. [51:05] But uh [51:07] I don't know. You said 170 billion for [51:09] AI is not that big but 35 billion for [51:11] crypto is big. [51:13] >> What is 170 billion? I didn't say it's [51:14] not that big. [51:15] >> Yeah, okay. [51:17] All right. I I I still just think that [51:19] with all the fanfare that we heard about [51:21] all the things that crypto was going to [51:23] do, if stablecoins are the thing that's [51:25] going to be a really boring outcome. [51:28] From all the things that this could fix [51:30] this and it could fix this and [51:32] >> What if tokenized [51:33] real real-world assets are a hundred [51:36] billion? [51:37] Is that that's not nothing. [51:38] >> Yeah. [51:40] >> Huh? [51:40] >> It's not I don't know. [51:41] >> No, listen two things can be true. The [51:43] hype was ridiculous. [51:44] >> Yes. [51:45] >> And we've paid way too much attention to [51:47] it. But it was also a new asset class, a [51:49] new vehicle. Like it was exciting. [51:50] >> Wait, the fact that $2 trillion was [51:53] created from thin air is unbelievable. [51:55] >> Is that nothing? Like is that a fail? [51:57] They invented a new asset class that [51:59] people [52:00] institutional investors allocated to. [52:02] Overhyped, sure, but not, you know. [52:05] >> All right. So, we talked last week on [52:08] Ask the Compound. Someone asked, "Hey, I [52:09] live in North Carolina. I've got a 2.9% [52:11] mortgage, but the house is too small for [52:13] my family. The kids are growing. [52:15] Moving into a new one would be a 6.5% [52:17] mortgage." And someone and and I said, [52:19] "You know what? If it's going to make [52:20] your life better, do it." And someone in [52:22] the comments said, "Sorry, but trading a [52:23] 2.9% mortgage for a 6.5% one on a much [52:26] higher loan balance is idiotic move. [52:28] Quality of life is defined by the people [52:29] you're spending your time with, not how [52:31] big of a house you're spending that time [52:32] in. There are numerous academic studies [52:33] that conclude upsizing your home doesn't [52:35] lead to higher overall life [52:36] satisfaction." [52:37] >> Well, I have a perfect I have a perfect [52:38] counterexample. [52:40] >> Yes. I I This is why I think sometimes [52:41] behavioral studies are just flat-out [52:43] wrong. [52:44] You You did this, and I'm sure you're [52:46] much happier. [52:47] >> I did this. My mortgage is when I went [52:50] from 2.9% [52:52] to where am I now? 5.5, I think. [52:56] My mortgage payment is [52:59] way higher than it was my old house, [53:01] like [53:02] an uncomfortable amount higher. [53:04] Um [53:07] but [53:08] I did this for my family and for my life [53:11] and to be on the water and to make [53:13] lifelong memories with my kids. Now, [53:15] obviously obviously there's like a line. [53:17] Like if you can't do it [53:18] >> Yeah, there's diminishing returns at [53:20] some point, and there's [53:21] >> Right, but I'm just saying like if it [53:23] doesn't make financial sense to the [53:24] point where like if this if this blew up [53:26] my life where I wasn't able to do things [53:29] because I was underwater on my mortgage [53:30] payments, obviously that's a that's a [53:32] stupid decision. [53:34] >> said, "Listen, I can't afford it. I just [53:36] don't know if I want to." [53:37] >> Fine. [53:38] Do what you want. Right? Is this This is [53:41] like personal finance 101. [53:42] >> I [53:42] >> I said do it because a house is honestly [53:44] something that will make you happier. It [53:46] will put you in a much better mood if [53:48] you're in a much happier house [53:49] situation. I totally agree with that. [53:51] I think the behavioral studies on this [53:52] are wrong. [53:55] >> I would say it's it depends, but I [53:57] generally agree with you. [54:00] >> Diminishing returns, anyway. [54:01] >> I agree. Um, all right, we've been [54:03] talking about this uh the fact that the [54:06] economy continues to [54:08] be as resilient as it is [54:11] with the housing market in a depression [54:13] is remarkable. [54:14] >> Right, there was this idea that there's [54:16] a line that housing is the economy. [54:19] Guess what? [54:20] Nope. [54:21] >> Kevin Gordon tweeted new home sales fell [54:23] sharply in May down 7.3% and getting [54:25] closer to the cycle lows and uh Tom [54:27] Smith said it is still [54:30] completely insane how GDP has been above [54:31] trend the cycle while the housing [54:32] sector, typically responsible for up to [54:34] 20% of commercial activity, has been [54:36] effectively frozen. Now, it sound like a [54:37] mystery like, "Oh, what's happening?" [54:38] Well, yeah, it's it's all AI. So, [54:42] um [54:42] Warren Pass has a chart showing [54:44] residential fixed investment [54:46] um in raw dollars versus information [54:49] equipment and software and it's just the [54:50] lines have just gone whoop. [54:52] >> Guess what? [54:53] >> Most people would prefer if we built [54:54] more houses than more data centers. [54:56] But that's not where the incentives are [54:58] right now. [54:59] >> Um somebody sent this sent this article [55:01] to us. [55:03] There was an article an opinion piece in [55:05] the FT, Your Summer Holidays Are [55:06] Retirement Killer. [55:07] And basically like if you were to invest [55:10] the money instead of spending it on X, [55:11] Y, and Z. [55:13] And I think this was satire, but I can't [55:15] I'm not 100% positive. [55:18] I think this was like very dry British [55:20] humor. [55:21] Did you read the article? [55:23] >> Okay, I I did kind of skim it. I didn't [55:25] I guess I didn't get that. So, the whole [55:26] the whole idea was yeah, if you just [55:28] take the $10,000 you're going to spend [55:30] on vacation and and grow it over 30 [55:33] years, this is how much you're [55:36] giving up, right? [55:38] >> Yeah, now I'm like 65% [55:40] sure. I'm not you know, I [55:42] I don't know. I don't know who this [55:43] person is. [55:44] But I think we would all agree that if [55:46] you are putting an 8% return [55:48] on your vacation and depriving your [55:50] family of these memories because it [55:52] could be worth whatever. [55:53] >> Yes. This is this is this is this is [55:55] satire. And the thing is some people [55:57] probably would look at this as being [55:59] real. [56:01] >> Um all right, I'm going to get offended. [56:03] >> a day you're spending on ice cream for [56:04] your kids could be $2,000 by the time [56:06] they retire. [56:08] >> The Wall Street Journal had an article [56:09] "No Hair Transplants, Pills, or Toupees: [56:11] Meet the Men Embracing Baldness." I've [56:13] been bald-maxing for years [56:15] and I wasn't asked to opine. [56:16] >> a lot of this. Yeah, someone said [56:17] Michael should have definitely been [56:18] interviewed for this. [56:20] Um [56:23] I I mean these if these solutions are [56:24] coming [56:26] I mean, if you're a bald person and you [56:27] grow your hair back, I'm not going to [56:28] look down on you. [56:30] I think you should I if you can do it, I [56:31] think you I don't I'm more power to you. [56:33] I don't care. [56:33] >> But Josh is regrowing his hair somehow. [56:35] He's in He's injecting himself. Well, I [56:38] I don't know what to [56:39] >> did I heard Josh did a speech for a [56:41] group of advisors in Turkey. [56:43] And then he came back I I don't know [56:44] what happened. But wait, I [56:46] I'm going to I I have one more personal [56:47] finance thing. [56:48] So, it is funny because we a lot of what [56:50] we've been talking about in the last 5 [56:52] or 10 minutes is just judging people on [56:53] their financial decisions. And I and I [56:55] think I'm not one of those persons that [56:57] don't judge people on their financial [56:58] decisions. I love judging people on [56:59] their financial decisions. [57:00] >> Oh, it's great. [57:01] >> Internally, right? It's it's fun. [57:03] >> Yeah, we we don't publicly shame, but [57:05] >> But but we always get people we've [57:06] talked a lot on this show before about [57:08] the benefits of leasing versus buying. [57:10] We've we've run the numbers, we've gone [57:11] through the post, like we've we've [57:12] looked at it. [57:13] And a lot of people every time we talk [57:15] about the fact that you and I lease [57:16] cars, someone will [57:17] comment that we're idiots, right? I get [57:19] it. It's it's like it's not the greatest [57:21] financial decision in the world. [57:23] But I think there is a huge benefit of [57:25] leasing a car today than it way more [57:27] than there was in the past. [57:29] So, I got a new I got my new Telluride. [57:31] And it's funny, you got a a Range Rover [57:34] or Land Rover. I don't I never know the [57:35] difference. [57:36] >> Range. [57:37] >> What's the difference between a Range [57:38] Rover and a Land Rover? [57:39] >> They're different cars. [57:40] >> Okay. [57:41] And I drive like a Kia Telluride or [57:43] whatever. And someone's like, "Hey, I [57:44] had a few people say, 'Hey, looks like a [57:45] Range Rover.'" I told you it's kind of [57:47] I'm a I'm a homeless man's Range Rover. [57:49] Uh but the biggest benefit of leasing [57:51] today is all the new features you get in [57:53] these cars. [57:54] I feel like the features are multiplying [57:56] in terms of the the cameras and the [57:58] safety and the alerts and the sensors [58:02] and the self-driving capabilities. [58:04] Driving a new car is just way safer for [58:06] you. [58:08] >> It's also making it like impossible to [58:11] fix. Like my dad got in a fender bender [58:14] and it's $6,000. [58:16] >> Oh, yeah. That's happened to me before [58:17] cuz all the sensors it was $12,000 for a [58:19] bumper. [58:20] Car insurance, I guess that makes sense [58:21] why it's going higher. But you go on the [58:24] the highway and it's not like Tesla [58:26] self-driving, but it's like adaptive [58:27] cruise where it it keeps you in the lane [58:29] and it it steers for you and it slows [58:31] down if the car in front of you slows [58:32] down and it speeds up if it speeds up. [58:33] And I just think that the amount of [58:35] features that happen in 2 to 3 years is [58:39] kind of insane these days. The [58:40] technology is getting so much better in [58:41] cars. [58:42] >> Yeah. [58:43] >> That's how I justify my terrible [58:45] financial decision to lease. [58:47] >> It's not a terrible financial decision. [58:48] How about What about this? It's fun to [58:50] get a new car every 3 years. [58:52] >> It really honestly, for a week my kids [58:54] are talking about the new car smell is [58:56] so good. My kids were just going and [58:57] sitting in the car in the garage [58:58] sometimes cuz they like the smell so [58:59] much. [59:01] >> When's the last time you had uh [59:02] Domino's? [59:04] >> Pizza? [59:07] Last night. My son gets it every Monday [59:08] night. [laughter] [59:09] It's his favorite pizza in the world. We [59:11] have a Domino's right It's the closest [59:12] pizza by our house. [59:14] Every Monday from him I I will now get [59:15] it It's the in the summer. I'll get a [59:17] text. "Hey, when are you coming home [59:18] from work? Can you get a Domino's on the [59:19] way home?" [59:20] He It's his favorite pizza. But we had a [59:22] birthday party for him and his sister [59:24] and all their friends came over. What [59:25] kind of pizza do we get? Domino's. [59:28] >> Well, turns out that George is alone on [59:31] this one because pizza slice [59:34] keeps shrinking. The journal had a post [59:36] showing that Mexican is going up a [59:38] little bit. This is the market share of [59:39] like these these restaurants. [59:41] Pizza is crashing. If you look at [59:42] Domino's stock, it looks horrible. Stock [59:44] that I owned in the past looks [59:45] horrendous. I think the CFO just [59:47] resigned or I can't remember what's [59:48] happening, but really bad. Chicken [59:50] Chicken is going up into the right. Went [59:52] from 10.5% in 2019 up to 13 and a half [59:55] percent [59:55] >> this chart is a little bit of a [59:56] truncated chart crime. This is like a [59:58] misdemeanor chart crime cuz it's [60:00] it's a very small axis. 9.5 to 14%. But [60:04] you're right, but the trend is [60:06] >> Um [60:07] We had I had a party for Robin's 40th [60:09] birthday. [60:11] Never had a party in my old house. [60:13] We had a bunch of friends over. It was [60:14] very nice. At the end of the night, [60:16] Robin and I had been drinking and I [60:19] said, "You know what? Let's get [60:20] Domino's. [60:22] >> [snorts] [60:22] >> It's been a while." [60:24] It was terrible. [60:25] >> Really? [60:26] >> And I I hate to I really hate to be like [60:28] the food snob guy because I grew up [60:30] eating Domino's and I thought I liked [60:31] it. Or maybe maybe maybe it was just it [60:33] was too late and we got like [60:35] you know [60:35] >> Cuz one of the reasons the stock did so [60:36] well for so many years is cuz they [60:38] improved their quality. Uh it was not it [60:40] was only 4% drawdown. But one of the [60:42] reasons that pizza is losing share is [60:44] just cuz there are so many better [60:46] options out there today. [60:47] Pe- people got more pizza in the past [60:49] cuz there wasn't there wasn't good [60:50] options for eating. [60:52] And pizza was the only one that had [60:53] delivery. Now you can deliver DoorDash [60:55] and you can get other stuff. So that's [60:56] why that's happening. This is a DoorDash [60:57] phenomenon. [60:59] >> Um all right, go ahead. [61:01] >> Okay. [61:02] Um okay. So there's the Tony Soprano [61:04] idea that remember when is the lowest [61:05] form of conversation? [61:07] And I [61:07] >> before and we make fun of Chris cuz he's [61:09] the biggest remember guy. [61:10] >> Yeah, but I I I reject this premise. [61:13] Tony Soprano was one of the least happy [61:15] people alive. [61:16] He had to go to therapist cuz he was so [61:17] unhappy. [61:18] Uh there are I think there are times [61:20] when remember when is a bit There there [61:22] are certain people who do it way too [61:24] much. [61:25] Of course, right? [61:27] One of the people we work with is one of [61:28] them. [61:29] But, I think there are times when it is [61:31] it is useful. So, this past weekend uh [61:34] my parents have a cabin in the middle of [61:36] the woods on a river. It's like there's [61:38] no cell service, there's no TVs, there's [61:40] no technology, there's no internet, [61:41] there's no nothing. It's like in the [61:42] backwoods, [61:44] middle of nowhere, two-track road, [61:46] right? On the river. And you go there [61:48] and you play yard games and you do a [61:50] campfire and you go kayaking on the [61:52] river. And so, I went there with a bunch [61:53] of my brother's friends, kind of like [61:55] everyone wants to keep get together, [61:56] remember my brother. And all we did all [61:58] weekend was drink beer, go kayaking, do [62:00] campfire, play yard games, bocce ball, [62:03] you know, uh [62:04] that kind of stuff and tell stories [62:05] about my brother. [62:07] And I had the best remember when day of [62:08] my life. It was so fun [62:10] telling stories. But, that's the kind of [62:11] stuff where remember when is good for [62:12] you. [62:13] >> I'm a huge remember when guy. I love it. [62:15] >> It was like it was actually like very [62:17] cathartic for me and good to have it and [62:19] like got it out of the system and like [62:21] all we did is tell stories all weekend. [62:23] And it was so much fun. I laughed all [62:24] day. [62:25] >> That's what life's all about, [62:26] remembering the good times, right? [62:27] >> Yes, exactly. [62:29] >> Um [62:30] >> Recommendations. [62:31] >> I want to talk about Rewatchables [62:34] is [62:35] for me unequivocally the best podcast of [62:37] all time. [62:38] So, they're going through Hall Month, [62:40] which is [62:42] 90s nostalgia. So, what is from hell? [62:45] And why am I talking about this? Cuz [62:46] it's my podcast. Um the tenant [62:51] from hell Pacific Heights. [62:54] The roommate from hell [62:56] Single White Female. [62:59] The nanny from hell [63:01] uh [63:05] That was that Oh, uh The Hand That Rocks [63:06] the Cradle. [63:08] Stepdad from hell, Domestic Disturbance. [63:10] All right, so Bill Simmons on [63:11] Rewatchables goes through all these [63:12] movies. I watched all of them. [63:16] Um and I watched Domestic Disturbance, [63:18] which I had I did see when that came [63:20] out. [63:21] That was with Vince Vaughn and Travolta. [63:24] >> Terrible movie. [63:25] >> Terrible movie. [63:26] >> So, I watched the movie, rewatch it. So [63:29] bad. [63:30] So [63:31] So bad. [63:32] >> Mhm. [63:33] >> And then I listened to the podcast, and [63:35] it was amazing. [63:38] >> I do [63:38] >> obviously it's an intentionally bad [63:39] movie, or they did it cuz it was you [63:41] know, it was it was from this, but [63:43] those guys got to get credit. It's a [63:44] very good podcast. [63:45] >> It gives me ideas of movies to rewatch [63:47] as well that I would have never thought [63:48] to rewatch. [63:49] >> So, I don't know that I saw I [63:52] I know I've seen parts of Single White [63:54] Female because I do remember it was [63:55] probably on TBS and TNT all the time [63:57] seeing Bridget Fonda and Jennifer Jason [63:59] Leigh with the same haircut. [64:01] >> Yeah. [64:02] >> But, Pacific Heights, I never saw that [64:04] one. [64:05] Matthew Modine and uh [64:07] Melanie Griffith. [64:08] >> Isn't it a Michael Keaton movie as well? [64:10] >> Michael Keaton, of course. When I saw [64:11] it, yeah. [64:11] >> Okay. So, should I watch that one? I [64:13] think I've never seen it. [64:14] >> Yes. Yes. [64:15] >> All right. [64:15] >> Yeah, it was good. [64:17] Really enjoyable. Terrible movies for [64:18] the most part, but man, great [64:20] podcasting. All right, a couple of a [64:22] couple of uh I don't know, last month [64:24] the other month I I forgot to to mention [64:25] that I watched [64:27] what I thought was a very good doc. Uh [64:28] you ever see The Dark Wizard on Max? [64:31] The Dark Wizard is about um [64:34] like one of the pioneers of [64:38] uh rock wall climbing. What's that thing [64:41] where you Oh, free soloing. [64:42] >> Yeah. [64:42] >> Like just without a rope. And then he [64:43] got into um hang gliding, or like where [64:46] you just you put like the bat wings on. [64:48] And spoiler, he didn't make it, but it [64:49] was a it was very good. [64:51] >> Oh, okay. Those guys are nuts. [64:53] Absolutely nuts. [64:54] >> Do you watch Do you watch uh How to [64:56] Train Your Dragon? [64:57] How to Train Your Dragon? [64:59] >> Oh, yeah. Here's the thing. I was going [65:01] to talk about this. So, [65:02] my wife's like, "Do you want to watch [65:03] She's like I She watches all the TikTok [65:05] videos to know what's going on and like [65:06] this person is this." And she's like, [65:08] "Do you want to watch the the review of [65:10] last season, like the recap?" And so I [65:11] watched it. It was 10 minutes long. And [65:13] then 20 minutes into the first episode, [65:15] I'm like, wait, who's that person? Wait, [65:16] are they good or bad? Is [laughter] that [65:17] But that's why I love Game of Thrones [65:18] cuz I can turn my brain off and just be [65:20] entertained, and I don't have to be one [65:22] of those nerds that knows like, oh, this [65:23] is the House of Baratheon. This is that [65:25] like I don't care about any of that [65:27] stuff. I just like being entertained. [65:29] But I'm constantly confused. Constantly [65:31] confused. [65:32] >> I watched the recap. Season first [65:33] episode was fantastic. So was the [65:35] second. But I saw the recap, too, and I [65:37] was like, wait, that happened? I I don't [65:38] like remember any of this. [65:40] >> Nope. [65:40] >> And even [65:41] 30 minutes through episode 1, I have no [65:44] idea what's happening, honestly. I could [65:45] I couldn't tell you which family I mean, [65:46] sometimes, but like which kid belongs to [65:48] which mom and [65:50] blah blah blah blah blah. I love it. [65:51] Can't tell you anything. I've no idea [65:52] what's happening, but it's great. [65:54] >> All right. So, my son has been really [65:56] big into alien movies. I think it was [65:57] because of Project Hail Mary. So, he's, [65:59] "Dad, give me more alien." We watched a [66:00] bunch of alien movies, and finally I let [66:01] him watch the alien movie, Alien, okay? [66:04] Sigourney Weaver. [66:06] And so he he watched that and absolutely [66:08] loved it. And he goes, "Are there more?" [66:10] And when, you know, he watches it on [66:11] Amazon, it shows the rest of them. He's [66:12] like, "How many of these are there?" So, [66:13] I pulled it up on ChatGPT, and we got [66:15] them in order. [66:16] Right? And so we watched Alien, Aliens, [66:18] Alien 3, Alien Resurrection, [66:21] Prometheus, Covenant, and Romulus. We [66:22] watched them all. And I looked at like I [66:24] didn't I never thought of like, where do [66:25] these movies rank? [66:27] Where When do they happen? Right? I [66:29] never thought I knew Prometheus was the [66:30] prequel. That's about all I knew. [66:32] Um [66:34] and he loved every single one of these [66:35] movies. But it's kind of funny because [66:37] as they got further along you got, the [66:39] alien the technology got better, right? [66:41] Cuz the first one was in 1979. [66:43] The technology gets better and better [66:45] and better, and the action sequences get [66:46] better. [66:47] But none of them come close to touching [66:49] the first movie. Not even close. [66:51] >> No, Aliens is Aliens is the best. [66:54] >> It Alien. [66:56] >> No, Aliens, the James Cameron movie, is [66:58] by far the [66:58] >> one? [66:59] >> Yes. [66:59] >> You think the second one is the best? [67:00] No, the first one is the by far the [67:02] best. [67:03] >> No. [67:03] >> I like the second one the [67:04] >> Alien was great. So, this is this is [67:07] >> Alien was more of a suspense thriller. [67:09] Aliens was a better action movie. [67:11] >> Yeah, so they were very different [67:11] movies. You're right. Alien was like a [67:13] slow burn. [67:14] >> But I think none of them even like the [67:15] fact that they didn't have the [67:17] technology back then made it so you had [67:19] but you would never make the movie Alien [67:21] today cuz it's so much slower and more [67:22] scary. [67:23] >> and Ridley Scott do the second? [67:24] >> No, Ridley Scott did the first one. [67:26] >> Okay. Oh, that's right. [67:27] >> that there was seven of these movies. [67:29] And yeah, my son ate them all up. [67:31] >> I didn't even This This is my favorite [67:32] movie franchise of all time. Did you [67:33] know that? [67:34] >> I think you've mentioned that before. [67:35] So, yeah, we watched them all and [67:37] >> But wait, hold on. I'm surprised because [67:39] the second one is quite scary. [67:41] When Newt's parents are like stuck in [67:44] the wall and they're like white as a [67:46] ghost, [67:47] he wasn't scared? [67:48] >> So, my son has the same thing as me. He [67:49] does not get scared by these movies. [67:51] They don't scare him at all. He finds [67:52] them entertaining. [67:53] Like the it doesn't impact him at all to [67:56] see all this stuff. [67:57] Uh and he also watched the two Alien [67:59] versus Predator movies, which are [68:00] complete garbage. [68:01] >> AVP 2 is the worst movie. The The I So, [68:04] I loved the first one. [68:06] When they're going down the ice but the [68:08] second The second one is uh AVP was it [68:11] Requiem? [68:12] >> Yeah, it just maybe that. [68:15] >> I watched that with Robin back in the [68:16] day, like 2006. [68:19] We're in my bedroom and I'm watching it [68:21] on bootleg and she's like, "What in the [68:23] hell is this garbage?" Terrible movie. [68:25] >> I got one more. [68:26] Um The Bear on FX is like The Hangover. [68:29] I don't know why I'm still watching it. [68:30] Uh it's on season 5 now. Sometimes you [68:33] have lightning in a bottle and you can't [68:35] not recreate it. Like [68:36] The Hangover 2 and The Hangover 3, it [68:38] was the same characters and they tried [68:41] to recreate the magic and it just it [68:42] never happened and you almost wish they [68:44] didn't make them. The Bear season 1 and [68:45] 2 is like one of my favorite two [68:47] television series of all time. [68:49] And season 3, 4, and 5 just got [68:52] progressively worse where they obviously [68:53] ran out of ideas and did a complete [68:55] money grab. [68:56] Uh and the show is almost unwatchable [68:57] now. Why am I watching it? Sunk cost [68:59] fallacy. I don't know. [69:01] >> I have I have one thing before we go. [69:04] So, [69:06] Ben and I Well, actually you don't work [69:07] from home. I work from home. [69:09] And I still it still feels weird that I [69:11] work from home. I mean, I'm in the city [69:13] once a week. [69:14] I go to Bellmore here and there, but I [69:16] really primarily I'm in my house. And it [69:19] still is very bizarre. It's not new, but [69:20] it still feels new. And it still feels [69:22] like I'm like cheating or something. [69:23] Feels like I'm [69:24] >> It's weird cuz you feel like you're on [69:25] an island sometimes. [69:26] >> It's bizarre. It's a bizarre thing. And [69:29] um obviously like I I feel blessed out [69:31] of my mind that I'm able to to do this, [69:33] right? I'm not I'm not everybody's so [69:35] lucky. A lot of people have to go to the [69:35] office and they have jobs where they [69:36] can't work from home. So, um that's just [69:39] a little bit of throat clearing. I feel [69:40] extremely lucky to do this. But it is it [69:43] does do something weird to [69:46] for me for like the father-son or kid [69:49] relationship. [69:51] So, Kobe went to sleepaway camp [69:53] um on Saturday. [69:57] And the night before And like I was just [69:58] like, all right, yeah, I'll see you in 7 [69:59] weeks. [70:00] Um [70:02] and he loves camp and like whatever. [70:04] It's all It's all great stuff. But I [70:06] feel like [70:08] my sort of like whatever about it or [70:09] just like just in general with being [70:10] with him all the time, when when our [70:12] parents came home, [70:15] now [70:16] I guess my dad didn't come home cuz my [70:17] parents were divorced, but [70:20] for for non-broken households, back in [70:22] the day when your parents came home, [70:25] like work was done, right? Like they [70:26] left work [70:28] >> Yes. [70:28] >> and they came home and they gave their [70:30] kids all the attention. [70:32] I feel like I am giving my kids like, I [70:34] don't know, 8% of my attention because [70:36] I'm with them literally all day every [70:38] day. Now, like that you know, they don't [70:40] they're not homeschooled, so but like [70:42] I'm just I'm around all of the time and [70:44] it's like a trade-off. Like so, I'm not [70:45] suggesting that like it's better [70:47] when our parents went to work and came [70:49] home and were with the kids, right? [70:50] Because then they missed a lot. They [70:51] missed like sports and whatever. They [70:52] just weren't able to be around. But it [70:54] is like it is doing some some stuff that [70:56] I don't love. That I do feel like I'm [70:58] like sort of not present taking it for [70:59] granted cuz I'm with him all the time. [71:01] >> It's a completely different It's a It [71:03] changes a relationship in a lot of ways. [71:05] I totally agree. My My dad never once [71:07] brought work home with him. But parents [71:08] didn't spend as much time with their [71:09] kids back then. No parents did. [71:12] It was just kind of known [71:14] that like you weren't spending as much [71:15] time with your parents. You were kind of [71:16] on your own. [71:19] >> Yeah, it's it's just it's weird. [71:22] Like I feel like disconnected but even [71:24] though I'm with him all the time. I [71:25] don't know. It's just it's interesting. [71:27] >> Yeah, I get it. [71:30] Okay, glad you got that off your chest. [71:33] >> Just something I've been thinking about. [71:33] >> I see what you're saying. It The way [71:35] that we parent our kids is totally [71:36] different from the way our parents [71:37] parented us. [71:39] But their parents did the different to [71:40] them too. So it changes. [71:41] >> Yeah, I'm not saying like it's it's all [71:43] bad or it's all good. It's just you [71:44] know, it's different. All right, um [71:46] whatever. Whatever. [71:48] >> [laughter] [71:49] >> As Bedlam likes to say. [71:50] Animal spirits at the Compound News. [71:53] Uh [71:54] Hope everybody is [71:56] enjoying their summer. [71:58] >> Happy 4th of July. [71:59] >> I'm trying to do? I'm trying to remind [72:00] myself getting back to Kobe that he'll [72:02] be home in 47 days. [72:04] We have a reprieve. I love him. He's [72:06] having a great time. It's all good. But [72:07] summer goes so fast. I'm trying to enjoy [72:09] every day. [72:11] >> You're going to be saying, "Can you [72:12] believe it's fall already, Ben?" Before [72:13] you know it. [72:14] >> I have I am I will not apologize for [72:16] being a can you believe it's that time [72:17] guy. [72:18] >> Happy 4th of July to everyone. [72:20] >> [music] [72:20] >> Hell yeah. [72:21] Great holiday. [72:22] >> My it's [72:24] Yeah, behind Christmas is my second [72:25] favorite holiday. I love the 4th of [72:27] July. Can't wait. [72:30] Sun, water, let's do it. [music] All [72:32] right, see you next time. [72:37] >> [music]