Belski Sees Stock Bull Market Entering Volatile Earnings-Driven Phase

贝尔斯基：股市牛市正步入盈利驱动的震荡期 市场参与度扩大及软件股估值承压表明，尽管面临牛市第四年的波动，市场正向基本面驱动的牛市扩张转型。 在本期节目中，Brian Belski 强调了在市场广度改善支撑下由盈利驱动的牛市扩张，并指出如果剔除未盈利企业，中小型股指数展现出强劲的基本面健康状况。三人分析了 Salesforce 和 ServiceNow 等软件股的估值压缩，以及 YouTube 挑战 Netflix、传统电视网络并购猜测不断的媒体格局变化。最后，Belski 详细介绍了 Humilis Investment Strategies 的快速增长（其资产管理规模正逼近 5 亿美元），同时团队重点指出了受益于数据中心和 AI 硬件需求的、鲜为人知的中小盘股机遇。 从 Russell 2000 等小型股指数中剔除未盈利企业后显示，其股价自由现金流比和盈利稳定性明显优于原始指数数据所反映的水平。 (44:45) 市场广度的改善——标普 500 指数中约有 350 只股票同比上涨——表明这是一轮健康的、由盈利驱动的牛市扩张，而非投机性的市场见顶。 (46:21) 在过去十年中，历史上小型股跑赢大盘的周期通常仅持续 3 到 6 个月。 (50:55) 宏观扭曲将通常在牛市第三年出现的波动推迟至第四年，在这一阶段，企业盈利增速的轻微放缓往往会引发加剧的市场焦虑。 (52:07) 软件股经历了大幅估值压缩，促使分析师将 ServiceNow 和 Salesforce 等 SaaS 龙头的抛售视为罕见的代际买入良机。 (54:06)

Humilis Investment Strategies CIO Brian Belski projects that the S&P 500 will reach 7,000 by 2025 within a multi-decade secular bull market, even as equity returns moderate into a choppier, earnings-driven phase. Earnings Deceleration in a Secular Bull Cycle (16:05) Belski maintains that the equity market remains inside a 25-year secular bull market with seven to ten years of runway remaining, but cautions investors about a "second derivative less positive" dynamic in the near term. As corporate earnings growth decelerates from recent surges near 25% down toward 20%, market participants fixated on short-term revisions frequently trigger pullbacks and guidance cuts. Belski notes that an earnings-driven regime historically produces annual S&P 500 returns between 10% and 12%, a more modest trajectory than the 20% to 25% gains fueled by earlier multiple expansion. In his framework, exogenous macro shocks have shifted typical mid-cycle volatility into Year 4 of the expansion, creating seasonal choppiness even as underlying fundamentals support new all-time highs by year-end. AI Infrastructure Handoff and Hyperscaler CapEx Constraints (18:04) Market leadership within the artificial intelligence trade is transitioning away from mega-cap hyperscalers toward the secondary hardware, component, and thermal management suppliers enabling the physical data center buildout. Although AI token costs have plummeted 90% while usage has multiplied fivefold, high capital expenditure among hyperscalers faces scrutiny over whether companies can sustain spending by depressing free cash flows without eventually tapping capital markets. This rotation has created notable pricing divergences among mega-caps. Belski points to Microsoft as fundamentally mispriced following a 23% to 24% pullback, despite boasting a 34% return on equity, $78 billion in cash, and 25% quarterly earnings growth. Conversely, Josh Brown and Belski express skepticism regarding Meta's capital allocation, citing approximately $80 billion in cumulative metaverse losses and questionable plans to lease excess compute capacity, which leave the stock trading at a subdued multiple of 16 to 18 times forward earnings. Widening Market Breadth and Small-Cap Earnings Acceleration (29:45) Index concentration remains extreme, with the top 25 S&P 500 stocks accounting for over 54% of the index's total market capitalization—rendering the entire U.S. small- and mid-cap (SMID) universe roughly equal in value to Apple alone. Despite this imbalance, Belski highlights that underlying market breadth is expanding rather than narrowing: nearly 350 S&P 500 components are positive year-over-year, and roughly half the index has produced double-digit gains, an environment that rarely coincides with major market tops. Fundamental acceleration is increasingly tilting toward smaller capitalizations. Consensus estimates project forward 12-month earnings growth of approximately 28% for small caps (the S&P 600 index) compared to 23% to 24% for large caps, underpinned by momentum in financials, technology, and industrials. However, the panel notes that historical small-cap outperformance cycles over the past decade have struggled to persist beyond three to six months. Structural Divergence in Banking, Software, and Telecom (31:14) Broader sector dynamics reveal stark fundamental bifurcation. In banking, Belski outlines a market split where global money-center banks leverage immense balance sheets while nimble community institutions (such as Glacier Bancorp) capture commercial market share in rapidly growing migration hubs like Montana and Idaho, leaving mid-tier regional lenders pressured to pursue large-scale consolidations. Meanwhile, enterprise software and legacy telecom face distinct structural tests. John DiFucci of Guggenheim frames the software selloff as an attractive buying window after multiples compressed dramatically—ServiceNow de-rated from a five-year average of 55 times forward earnings to 22.9, while Salesforce dropped from 30 to 11—though the hosts debate whether generative AI poses an enduring threat to seat-based subscription models. In contrast, Josh Brown and Belski view legacy cable operators like Charter Communications as virtually uninvestable, trapped by cord-cutting, heavy debt burdens, and emerging displacement from space-based broadband providers like Starlink. Belski's thesis relies on corporate profitability broadening beyond mega-cap tech into SMID equities, value, and regional financials. However, whether this rotation can establish sustained multi-year outperformance remains constrained by the historical durability of small-cap rallies and the risk that hyperscaler infrastructure spend slows before delivering commercial returns.

华尔街资深策略师布赖恩·贝尔斯基（Brian Belski）坚持其长期框架，认为美股仍处于长达25年的超级牛市中且尚有7至10年空间，重申标普500指数2025年达7000点的预期；但他同时提醒，企业盈利增速放缓（即二阶导数转弱）将导致市场波动加剧，资金正在从估值过高的大型科技巨头扩散至中小型股及AI硬件基础设施供应链。 宏观周期：超级牛市与盈利减速波动 (16:05) 在拥有36年华尔街从业经验的贝尔斯基看来，美股仍处于长期结构性慢牛之中，预计标普500指数将在年底前创出历史新高，并维持2025年7000点的目标点位。他认为始于十余年前的25年超级牛市仍有7至10年的运行窗口，当前并未出现周期终结的信号。 然而，贝尔斯基警告投资者必须警惕“二阶导数转弱”（the second derivative less positive）。随着标普500指数成分股的整体盈利增速从近期的25%自然降温至20%左右，市场由估值扩张转向纯粹的盈利驱动。历史上，盈利驱动型行情的年化回报率通常在10%至12%区间，更为平缓。处于牛市第四年的投资者若对高频数据过度敏感，频繁下调盈利指引，极易在第三季度等季节性淡季引发市场震荡。 市场广度扩展与中小型股基本面反超 (29:45) 针对美股头部过度集中的担忧，讨论指出了当前指数权重的极端扭曲：标普500指数前25只成分股的权重已由1997至2017年间约35%的均值急剧攀升至54%，全美中小型股的总市值规模甚至已被苹果一家公司追平；市值最小的后10%股票中仅有18%跑赢大盘。贝尔斯基预测，指数编制机构未来可能被迫拆分科技行业分类以恢复权重平衡。 但与此同时，底层市场广度正在显著改善。标普500指数中近350只股票同比实现上涨，约半数成分股录得双位数收益。基本面数据显示，剔除罗素2000中无盈利企业后的优质小盘股（SML指数）呈现出强劲的估值修复动能：未来12个月小盘股预期盈利增速达28%，显著高于大盘股的23%至24%，其主要增长动能集中于金融、非必需消费与科技板块。 AI投资重心转移与企业软件重估 (18:04) 主持人乔希·布朗（Josh Brown）与贝尔斯基观察到AI交易正在发生明显的“接力切换”：资金开始由资本开支巨大且自由现金流承压的超大规模云服务商（Hyperscalers），转向为数据中心建设提供物理设施与连接组件的企业，例如安费诺（Amphenol）与提供数据中心温控吊顶设施的Acuity Brands。微软虽手握780亿美元现金并拥有34%的净资产收益率（ROE），但也因软件情绪拖累而出现逾20%的回撤。 企业软件板块则陷入严重的估值压缩（De-rating）。ServiceNow的前瞻市盈率从5年平均的55倍骤降至22.9倍，Salesforce也从30倍回落至11倍。尽管古根海姆分析师约翰·迪富奇（John DiFucci）认为该板块被过度抛售并促成IGV软件ETF反弹11%，但贝尔斯基与迈克尔·巴特尼克（Michael Batnick）仍对生成式AI对传统按席位付费模式的结构性冲击保持警惕。此外，Meta因出租过剩算力引发市场困惑，其在元宇宙领域已累计亏损800亿美元，导致投资者对其核心广告之外的资本配置能力持怀疑态度。 行业重组：区域银行、流媒体与电信困境 (31:14) 在传统行业领域，分化与重组成为核心主题。区域银行呈现两极分化格局：资金中心大行凭借庞大资产负债表扩张，而蒙大拿、爱达荷等高移民流入地的本地社区银行（如Glacier Bancorp）则依托深厚的地缘客群关系蚕食大行业务。处于夹缝中的传统中型银行则面临不得不抱团合并的“超级整合”浪潮。 传媒与电信领域的生存压力更为严峻。流媒体方面，尽管奈飞（Netflix）在观看时长上主导长视频，但YouTube正成为其长期无法击败的内容巨头，业内关于奈飞可能收购NBC环球以获取主题公园与IP的传闻，反映出其增长叙事正向价值股靠拢。而传统有线电视巨头特许通讯（Charter）则被乔希称为“最差股票”，在退订潮（Cord-cutting）、沉重债务以及星链（Starlink）等低轨卫星宽带的夹击下陷入长期衰退，行业唯有等待监管妥协以允许最终合并。 财富管理重构与Humilis模型业务 (72:13) 在结束BMO资本市场长达13年的首席投资策略师生涯后，贝尔斯基创立的投资咨询机构Humilis已运行八个月，管理资产规模（AUM）逼近5亿美元。他阐述了其差异化的商业逻辑：Humilis不与财富顾问争夺终端客户，而是定位为纯粹的模型组合提供商，向注册投资顾问（RIA）和经纪商输出资产配置与个股策略，包括旗舰聚焦组合（美股ETF代码：HIS）及中小盘策略。 贝尔斯基坦言，初创资管机构在拓展机构客户时面临严苛的“三年业绩记录”门槛。同时，全远程协同架构和华尔街分析师转向线上调研的现状，也削弱了传统面对面研判管理层非语言信号的能力。尽管面临企业创始人关于现金流与薪资发放的经营压力，但他对基于基本面分析的逆向选股能力充满信心。 本期节目的核心论述在于：尽管科技巨头巨额资本支出的投资回报率（ROI）及软件定价权面临AI重塑的拷问，且短期盈利减速可能引发震荡，但在宏观基本面韧性与市场广度扩大的支撑下，美股超级牛市依然具备坚实基础。对于投资者而言，未决的关键问题在于超大规模数据中心的算力资本支出何时出现减速拐点，以及高负债的传统电信和中型银行能否在破产或被兼并前完成行业重组。

## Background 本期节目由财经频道 The Compound 于 2026 年 7 月 13 日在 YouTube 平台发布。节目由 Michael Batnick 和 Downtown Josh Brown 主持，邀请了老朋友——Humilis Investment Strategies 创始人、首席执行官兼首席投资官 Brian Belski 重新做客，共同探讨美股下半年走势、AI 交易扩散、科技七巨头（Mag 7）分化、中小盘股与区域银行机遇以及相关软件股的投资逻辑。 ## TL;DR Brian Belski 维持了美股仍处于长达 25 年超级牛市的判断，但提醒投资者警惕盈利增速的“二阶导数转弱”，预警大盘股动能降温将带来更剧烈的颠簸。市场正在经历从前期拥挤的超大规模云巨头向数据中心基础设施供应商、中小盘股（SMID）以及被过度惩罚的传统软件股扩散的健康轮动。对谈深入剖析了 Meta 算力转租争议、甲骨文与 OpenAI 合约风险、Netflix 的估值范式转移以及区域性银行的并购整合路径。此外，Belski 还详细介绍了 Humilis 创业八个月即逼近 5 亿美元管理规模的商业模式，并分享了从体制内机构策略师走向独立创业的真实心路。 ## Atmosphere & style 全片洋溢着老友重逢般的风趣与松弛感，主持人们不断拿 Belski 过去精准预测、佛罗里达惬意生活以及“号称从不看评论区”的轶事插科打诨，现场笑声与犀利吐槽不断。然而在进入核心图表与宏观策略讨论时，氛围瞬间切换为极高密度的华尔街专业拆解，既有对 Capex 逆转与经济周期的冷静推演，又有老派价值发现者的炽热坚守。整场对话既像是在曼哈顿酒吧里的机构老友畅聊，又充盈着深厚从业底蕴带来的洞察力与创业激情。 ## Bulletin - [16:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oYLoGVNYws&t=965s) Brian Belski 提示下半年美股须警惕“二阶导数转弱”，即盈利增速动能放缓，大盘年化回报预计回归到 10% 至 12% 的常态区间，推动资金向被低估的中小盘和传统板块扩散。 - [41:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oYLoGVNYws&t=2498s) 标普 500 前 25 大成分股的权重已飙升至 54% 的历史极值，而全美所有 SMID 中小盘上市公司的总市值之和仅约等于一家苹果公司。 - [29:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oYLoGVNYws&t=1743s) 小盘股基本面预期出现逆转，标普 600 小盘股未来 12 个月的盈利增速预期达约 28%，已明显超越标普 500 大盘股的 23% 至 24%。 - [54:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oYLoGVNYws&t=3250s) 软件板块（IGV）在古根海姆研报提示估值过度超跌后强劲反弹 11%，多头指出传统 SaaS 龙头并未被 AI 颠覆，正迎来估值正常化反弹契机。 - [01:12:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oYLoGVNYws&t=4333s) Brian Belski 创立的 Humilis Investment Strategies 成立八个月管理规模已逼近 5 亿美元，采用模型提供商模式赋能独立投资顾问与机构渠道。 ## Key takeaways - [35:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oYLoGVNYws&t=2115s) 美股仍处于长达 25 年的世俗牛市（Secular Bull Market）通道中，预计当前牛市周期还有 7 到 10 年的续航空间。 - [16:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oYLoGVNYws&t=965s) 下半年美股的核心宏观特征是“市场广度扩散（broadening out）”，资金从过度拥挤的超大盘科技股外溢至价值股、股息成长股与中小型企业。 - [52:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oYLoGVNYws&t=3128s) 当前牛市已进入第四年（Year 4），受此前外部冲击节奏后移影响，本轮行情的震荡与回撤幅度将显著放大，呈现更为颠簸的特征。 - [37:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oYLoGVNYws&t=2220s) AI 实体产业革命尚处于“第二局上半”的极早期阶段，但资本市场的定价周期可能已经走到了第 8 局甚至第 11 局，存在周期错配风险。 - [39:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oYLoGVNYws&t=2388s) 由于单枚代币（Token）成本下降 90% 的同时用量激增 5 倍以上，AI 算力与内存具备物理稀缺性，企业 Capex 已与实际业务提效绑定，空头所断言的系统性崩盘短期难以发生。 - [41:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oYLoGVNYws&t=2498s) 因科技股权重大幅膨胀，指数编制机构未来 2 至 3 年内或将半导体（Semiconductors）从信息技术板块中独立拆解为一级行业。 - [22:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oYLoGVNYws&t=1378s) Meta 的 AI 算力转租（NeoCloud）与元宇宙探索暴露出其资本再配置能力短板，但旗下 Instagram 与 Reels 广告变现护城河依然极其丰沛。 - [46:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oYLoGVNYws&t=2783s) 标普 500 中录得同比上涨的个股数量接近 350 只，健康的普涨格局与历次大顶形成前的领涨广度枯竭完全相反。 - [31:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oYLoGVNYws&t=1874s) 区域性银行正加速分化为“本地人脉型社区行”与通过激进并购扩张的“超级区域行（Super Regionals）”，传统中庸型区域行面临生存夹缝。 - [01:05:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oYLoGVNYws&t=3903s) 传统有线电视巨头深陷“剪线潮”与空基宽带竞争的长期结构性衰退，缺乏反转逻辑，不具备价值投资吸引力。 - [01:08:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oYLoGVNYws&t=4109s) 诸如 Acuity Brands（数据中心布线绝热材料）和安费诺（连接器龙头）等低调冷门标的，成为 AI 物理基础设施建设中真正高确定性的受益者。 - [01:10:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oYLoGVNYws&t=4223s) 真正的逆向投资应当建立在深度的基本面分析之上，而非为了博眼球盲目逆势唱反调。 ## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oYLoGVNYws&t=0s) 回顾精准预判与 Humilis 创立初期的市场观点 节目在轻松的闲聊中开场。主持人 Michael Batnick 和 Downtown Josh Brown 提到，嘉宾 Brian Belski 上次做客节目还是在去年 11 月，距离他正式创立投资管理公司 Humilis Investment Strategies 仅仅过去了三天。Josh 调侃道，一个人能在华尔街拥有如此漫长且成功的职业生涯，总得有几次“蒙对”关键行情，而 Brian 在上次节目中的一系列判断堪称教科书级别的精准预测。制作人 Sean 更是直言 Brian 当时对市场的研判“完全切中要害（nailed it）”。 在回顾去年底的观点时，Brian 当时重申了标普 500 指数到 2025 年将达到 7,000 点的目标点位。更重要的是，他当时坚决反驳了“科技七巨头（Mag 7）处于 AI 泡沫”的流行论调，明确指出七巨头内部的财报反应正在呈现越来越低的相关性，个股分化（dispersion）趋势明显。他当时还准确预言，美股的上涨动能将从超大盘科技股向外扩散，惠及价值股、股息成长股以及中小盘股；同时，他还预见到区域性银行与中型银行之间将掀起兼并重组（M&A）浪潮，并因此极力推崇“杠铃策略（barbell strategy）”。 席间还穿插了一段行业内部的趣味调侃：Brian 每次在 CNBC 等财经节目连线结束时总喜欢说“感谢邀请我们（Thanks for having us）”，结果经常遭到主持人 Scott Wapner 的调侃吐槽。Josh 笑问他是不是故意显得自命不凡，Brian 连忙澄清解释，自己之所以习惯用复数“我们”，是因为他背后站着一整支不可思议的研究团队，他代表的是整个团队的集体智慧，绝非出于傲慢。 ### [01:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oYLoGVNYws&t=110s) 明尼阿波利斯的变化、极端天气与佛罗里达避暑困境 话题随后转向了生活状态与城市变迁。Brian 谈到自己在阵亡将士纪念日周末回了老家明尼苏达州。2019 年他在生活发生变动后搬到了明尼阿波利斯市中心，并在 2020 年亲身经历了震惊全美的“乔治·弗洛伊德事件（George Floyd）”。他感慨道，在那之前居住在明尼阿波利斯市中心是一件非常惬意的事，但那场动荡彻底动摇了整座城市，尤其是最近六到八个月，当地状况依然没有好转，反而越发令人压抑。Josh 也深有同感地回忆起 2023 年巨人队在季后赛击败维京人队时自己前往明尼阿波利斯的经历，直言市中心萧条得让人心情沉重。 Josh 指出，明尼阿波利斯不知不觉间竟然成了全美“文化战争”的风暴中心，街头抗议者长期滞留，民间调查员频繁曝光各类机构，两极对立的气氛日益剑拔弩张。Brian 表示，明尼苏达在政治上向来就有些离经叛道（例如历史上反建制的 Eugene McCarthy，以及职业摔角手出身的前州长 Jesse Ventura），但如今的撕裂已经走得太远，引发了大量居民迁徙逃离。甚至连他去看最热爱的明尼苏达双城队棒球比赛，赛后步行走回自己的公寓时都会感到不安，这促使他决定搬去佛罗里达州那不勒斯（Naples）。 不过，炎炎夏日无论在哪里都不好受。明尼阿波利斯的气温飙升至 105 华氏度（约 40.5 摄氏度），而纽约和佛罗里达同样酷热难耐。此外，佛罗里达那不勒斯的生活也伴随着交通痛点： - 迈尔斯堡机场（Fort Myers）的直飞航班班次极为受限，达美航空飞纽约每天通常只有早晨 7 点和晚上 7 点两趟航班； - 如果要飞往阿拉巴马州以西的城市，乘客几乎都必须在亚特兰大或休斯顿等枢纽转机； - 虽然往东开车 1 小时 45 分钟可以到达航线丰富的劳德代尔堡（Fort Lauderdale）机场，但频繁的长途往返依然非常折腾。 ### [04:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oYLoGVNYws&t=290s) 分布式办公的演进：从全员远程到区域协作枢纽 鉴于跨区域通勤的不便与业务拓展的需要，主持人询问 Brian 在职业规划上是否会考虑将工作重心迁至芝加哥或纽约。Brian 透露，虽然 Humilis 永远会在特拉华州注册、并将总部法定地址保留在佛罗里达州那不勒斯，但他正在按部就班地考虑在纽约设立实体据点。 谈及团队的人才分布时，Brian 表示目前 Humilis 实行完全的远程分布式办公（distributed / work from home），核心员工因人定岗、分散各地：纽约有两人，西雅图有一人，佛罗里达有一人。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 资管机构办公组织架构演进模式 accDescr: 展示从早期全员分布式居家办公向混合区域功能枢纽模式的过渡 subgraph Distributed["全员分布式模式 (Humilis 现状)"] D1["纽约 (2人)"] D2["西雅图 (1人)"] D3["佛罗里达 (总部/1人)"] end subgraph HybridHubs["区域协作枢纽模式 (Ritholtz 经验)"] H1["芝加哥枢纽 (16人)<br/>运营中心/密集事务协作"] H2["夏洛特枢纽<br/>新设分支/区域协同"] H3["远程顾问与分析师<br/>独立客户端沟通/研报撰写"] end Distributed -.->|"随着团队扩张演进"| HybridHubs ``` Josh 分享了 Ritholtz Wealth Management 在组织架构上的相似心路历程。他指出，全员远程在创立之初非常高效，但随着公司规模扩大，团队逐渐意识到办公模式必须因角色和性格而异： - 独立的投资顾问或特定研究员在家办公或使用 WeWork 空间完全没有问题，因为他们主要与客户及研报打交道； - 然而运营人员（Operations）往往需要应对接踵而至、高度连续的繁杂事务流程，缺乏面对面的沟通会显著拉低效率。因此 Ritholtz 在芝加哥建立了一个 16 人的运营枢纽（位于 The Salt Shed 附近），全员每天到岗协作，成效显著； - 此外，他们也即将在夏洛特开设新的区域办公室。Josh 认为这种“核心分布式 + 关键业务设立区域协作枢纽（Hubs）”的混合形态，将是未来资产管理机构的主流方向。 ### [06:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oYLoGVNYws&t=411s) 华尔街的到岗之争与即将到来的“四天现场工作制” Brian 借此回忆起自己初次做客 The Compound 时的趣事。当时他曾发表了一个在当时极具争议性的预测：他断言在接下来的 12 个月内，华尔街全行业都会彻底结束居家办公、重新回到办公室上班。这番言论在 YouTube 评论区引发了轩然大波，网友们因为疫情顾虑和对居家办公的执念将他骂得狗血淋头，以至于从不看网络评论的他，还是被儿子硬拉着去围观了评论区的“惨状”。 Josh 随即抛出了一个全新且大胆的前瞻性判断：他认为大型企业尤其是华尔街金融机构，将率先迎来“四天现场工作制（4-day in-person work week）”。 面对 Michael 的追问，Josh 迅速厘清了概念：这绝不意味着每周只工作四天。事实上，华尔街的从业人员由于时刻需要回复客户邮件和接听电话，实际状态是每周工作七天。Josh 所指的“四天工作制”，是各大机构在实体考勤层面的妥协： - 企业管理层早已对每周五逼迫员工到办公室（尤其是在夏季）感到身心俱疲，这类内部拉锯战耗费了大量管理精力； - 目前各大金融机构的盈利水平处于历史最高阶段，同时在管理上也给予了员工前所未有的自由度； - 随着年轻一代逐渐接掌管理层，大型机构最终会达成共识：只要不是必须当面接待客户的岗位，周五不再强制要求到岗，“只要能按时完成业绩指标，周五大可在办公室之外灵活办公”。 ### [08:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oYLoGVNYws&t=524s) 职场代际差异与分析师文化的演变 对话从世代差异与工作模式的变迁切入。嘉宾指出，不同代际的人工作和学习方式截然不同，尤其是 X 世代必须认识到，千禧一代与 Z 世代在人际交往能力上面临更大的挑战。回溯到 1980 和 1990 年代在华尔街初入行时，从业者必须通过察言观色来识破谎言——通过观察对方提问的角度、回答的内容以及眼神细节来判断真伪。然而在如今的市场上，分析师群体普遍变成了“旅鼠”（lemmings），一旦下调业绩预期就是全行业步调一致地同步下调。这种现象的部分原因在于 2000 年代初纽约州总检察长艾略特·斯皮策（Eliot Spitzer）对华尔街研究部门的监管整顿，彻底改变了行业生态。过去那种与首席执行官（CEO）或首席财务官（CFO）面对面坐下来深聊财务数据的光景已不复存在；如今大家疲于奔命，交流要么通过 Zoom 线上会议草草了事，要么完全依赖电子表格、量化模型以及随大流抄作业。这种转变是潜移默化、温水煮青蛙式的，直到某一天人们猛然发觉整个行业的运转规则已彻底变样。 主持人和嘉宾还探讨了远程办公对心态的冲击。有人坦言至今居家办公时仍有一种“偷懒作弊”的不真实感，总觉得有人会拍自己的肩膀喊着“快滚回现实世界去”，但事实上全员重返办公室的时代大概率再也回不来了。Brian Belski 分享了自己的创业规划：一旦旗下资产规模达到特定目标，他会设立实体办公室，因为紧密、融洽的团队协作在小型组织中不可或缺。不过他也感慨，作为企业创始人，自己每天工作 25 个小时、一周工作 8 天，但他从不苛求员工像自己一样拼命：“即使当年在大机构任职时，我也对下属说：‘千万别学我，请千万不要像我这样拼。’但在这行创业，这就是现实。”当被开玩笑问及要达到多少资产规模才去纽约开办公室时，主持人打趣是否是“一万亿美元”，Brian 笑着附和“但愿如此”。 - **行业监管转折点**：提及斯皮策时代（2000 年代初）针对投行业务与股票研究利益冲突的整顿，终结了传统分析师与企业高管私下密切交流的旧模式。 - **投研生态退化**：实地调研与当面质询被冰冷的线上会议和同质化模型替代，导致卖方分析师观点高度趋同。 --- ### [11:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oYLoGVNYws&t=668s) 赞助商插播：WisdomTree 量子计算基金（WQTM） 节目插入了赞助商 WisdomTree 的推广内容。播报指出，许多人将当前的量子计算与早期的人工智能相提并论——两者同样蕴含巨大潜力，伴随极高不确定性，且都具备从根本上颠覆各行各业运作模式的颠覆性力量。一个值得关注的最新动态是，美国联邦政府近期向数家专注于量子技术的企业注入了投资，为这一前沿领域带来了强劲的政策与资本推力。对于希望布局该赛道的投资者，WisdomTree 推出了量子计算基金（WisdomTree Quantum Computing Fund，股票代码：WQTM），旨在为投资者提供对量子生态创新核心企业的纯粹敞口（pure play exposure）。 --- ### [12:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oYLoGVNYws&t=727s) 嘉宾回归：Brian Belski 的华尔街 36 年与佛罗里达惬意生活 节目正式迎来第 249 期正片，主持人打趣这期节目恰逢美国建国 250 周年纪念节点。主持人首先帮嘉宾澄清了一个长期的传闻——由于 Brian 来自北方明尼苏达州，且长期在加拿大满地可银行（BMO）任职，常被外界误认为是加拿大人；Brian 强调自己是“大写 A 的纯正美国人”，加拿大银行的履历已翻篇。随后主持人隆重介绍了 Brian Belski：他是 Humilis Investment Strategies 的创始人、首席执行官兼首席投资官。该机构是一家基于“坚定信念（conviction）、谦逊包容（humility）与严谨策略（disciplined strategy）”原则设立的独立投资组合咨询顾问机构。Brian 在华尔街打拼已整整 36 年，职业生涯横跨 BMO、Oppenheimer、美林证券（Merrill Lynch）、Piper Jaffray、Dain Bosworth 以及 William O'Neil 等众多顶级机构。 话题随即转向轻松的生活闲聊。主持人调侃 Brian 的肤色晒得比自己还健康，Brian 笑称这源自明尼苏达的爱尔兰和波兰优良基因，但主因是最近几周常驻佛罗里达州那不勒斯（Naples）。他们对比了佛罗里达各地的生活风貌： - **迈阿密（Miami）**：充满狂热的派对氛围，但在派对之外商业竞争极其严肃紧张。 - **西棕榈滩（West Palm Beach）**：如今的气质变得越来越像华尔街的分部，金融商务氛围浓厚。 - **博卡拉顿（Boca Raton）**：偏向安静放松，缺少派对狂欢。 - **那不勒斯（Naples）**：居民状态最松弛、最享受生活。Brian 居住在北那不勒斯，距离市中心第五大道（Fifth Avenue）仅 12 分钟车程，既避开了富人区的喧嚣，又能享受清静。他在美林证券时期就常年在当地丽思卡尔顿酒店开会，加上明尼苏达双城队（Twins）春训基地就在附近的迈尔斯堡（Fort Myers），这片海域成了他在经历人生转折后的精神避风港。 --- ### [16:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oYLoGVNYws&t=965s) 下半年美股展望：警惕“二阶导数转弱”与市场分化轮动 进入硬核股票市场探讨后，主持人请 Brian 概括下半年给机构客户的核心策略总纲。Brian 表示自己大方向上“依然看多”，但必须提醒市场注意一个核心警示信号——“警惕二阶导数转弱”（beware of the second derivative less positive），即盈利增长的加速度正在放缓。 Brian 详细拆解了这一逻辑：过去一段时间美股经历了一轮远超市场预期的企业盈利激增，但任何脱离基本面飞升的走势终究要回归均值。历史统计表明，当市场完全由纯粹的“盈利增长驱动”，而非依赖“估值扩张（multiple expansion）”或“动量抱团（momentum）”时，标普 500 指数的典型年化回报率通常在 10% 到 12% 之间。这相较于过去两年由动量和少数巨头主导的爆发式行情会有显著降温。尽管目前标普 500 指数大盘的大型成分股普遍展现出 20% 至 25% 的高盈利增速，但在接下来的几个月里，指望大型科技股持续维持 25% 的增速是不切实际的。当前市场对每一个微小的数据点都处于极度敏感和近乎神经质的聚焦状态，大盘股盈利动能哪怕出现轻微放缓，都会立刻引发获利盘抛售。 然而，这种大盘股动能的降温并不意味着牛市终结，反而会促成 Brian 一直强调的核心宏观主线——**市场广度扩散（broadening out trade）**与风格正常化（normalization）。资金将从过度拥挤的大盘科技股外溢，流向更多未被充分定价的落后板块。他预警接下来的市场波动将远比多数人预期的更为剧烈和颠簸（choppier）。当下市场情绪极为微妙：一方面看多阵营人满为患，另一方面几乎所有人又在神经紧绷地随时叫喊着“回调即将到来”。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 盈利二阶导数放缓与市场轮动机制 accDescr: 展示大型科技股盈利增速见顶如何导致动量降温，并最终推动资金向全市场扩散轮动。 subgraph GrowthDynamics["盈利动能转换阶段"] A["前期驱动：动量与估值扩张<br/>（标普500大盘股增速 20%-25%）"] B["二阶导数转弱（增速放缓）<br/>微观数据引发敏感抛售"] A --> B end subgraph MarketEvolution["市场演变与轮动"] C["大盘股预期降温<br/>指数年化回报回归正常区间（10%-12%）"] D["市场广度扩散（Broadening Out）<br/>资金轮动至被低估板块"] E["高位剧烈震荡（Choppy Market）<br/>多头拥挤与回调担忧并存"] B --> C B --> D C --> E D --> E end ``` ### [18:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oYLoGVNYws&t=1084s) AI 交易轮动与“七巨头”接力棒的交接 关于市场行情的演进，当前的格局呈现出明显的阶段转换。过去投资者执着于重仓数据中心和超大规模云服务商（Hyperscalers），市场完全由“科技七巨头”（Mag 7）主导；而如今，资金的偏好明显转移到了向数据中心建设销售产品与服务的供应商身上，对拥有云基础设施的巨头本身反而热情减退。尽管部分巨头近期迎来反弹，但从年内高点来看，很多股票已经回撤了 15% 至 25% 不等，甚至在此前数日一直是标普 500 指数年内涨幅的净拖累项。这种市场“接力”（handoff）被认为仍将持续，但过程绝非一条平坦的直线，而会充满颠簸。 Brian Belski 强调，投资者在当前市场中“不必什么都买”，而应该更加精挑细选。他特别看好微软（Microsoft），并对其年内累计下跌 23% 到 24% 的走势感到不解：微软拥有高达 34% 的净资产收益率（ROE）、资产负债表上躺着 780 亿美元现金，且连续多个季度保持着 25% 的稳定盈利增长。然而，由于被贴上了“全球最大软件股”的标签，微软被困在了软件板块低迷的宏观叙事之中。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: AI投资偏好轮动示意图 accDescr: 展示资金从原本追捧的超大规模云服务商向基础设施供应商轮动的过程 subgraph Phase1["前期主线：核心巨头"] A["Hyperscalers / Mag 7 巨头"] B["高额资本开支 / 自由现金流承压"] A --> B end subgraph Phase2["当前轮动：上游供应商"] C["数据中心硬件与服务提供商"] D["承接巨头资本开支 / 业绩爆发"] C --> D end B -.->|"资金流向基础设施供应链"| C ``` --- ### [19:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oYLoGVNYws&t=1172s) 美光财报、“切勿看评论区”与盈利增速放缓的现实 在谈及芯片股与市场短期波动时，现场展开了一段关于心理素质的幽默调侃。Brian 提到自己 6 月份的表现仅仅落后大盘 1%，就被熟人调侃；而就在几天前，美光科技（Micron）从高点迅速回撤了 21%。Brian 回忆自己在美光发布财报当天做客 CNBC 节目《Closing Bell》，当时他直言虽然自己并不持有该股，但“没有任何增长能长期保持线性，当下的行情显然过于夸张”。尽管节目播出后美光股价曾短暂微涨，随后便一路暴跌，但当时评论区却全是指责他看错的声音。Josh Brown 顺势打趣道：“对于一个号称‘从来不看评论区’的人来说，你花在看评论上的时间可真不少。”Brian 则笑着辩解称自己只是“偶尔瞄一眼”，而且是儿子特意提醒他去看的。 回归到基本面探讨，Michael Batnick 询问了关于整体盈利增速放缓的预期。Brian 明确表示，自己并不预测盈利会出现负增长，但如果巨头们的增长率从 25% 放缓至 20%，投资者的心理就会产生巨大的心理落差。当前的难点在于，大量半导体和硬件供应商的强劲业绩，本质上是由超大规模服务商“不惜让自身自由现金流归零”的疯狂资本开支所支撑的。 - **美光波动幅度**：在财报公布后数日内，美光科技股价迅速从阶段高点回撤达 21%。 - **巨头资本开支持续性**：尽管各大科技巨头在公开场合坚称 Capex（资本开支）绝不会减速，但 Brian 坚信放缓是必然规律；巨头若将现金流烧光，就必须回到资本市场通过发债或增发进行融资。 --- ### [21:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oYLoGVNYws&t=1301s) 甲骨文的跌势与 OpenAI 合约谜局 甲骨文（Oracle）近期的走势成为了讨论的焦点问题。该股近期呈现出直线跳水的态势，被主持人戏称为投资组合里的“问题儿童”（problem child）。Josh 回顾了年初的走势，指出当时市场的情绪还非常直接线性：然而随后 OpenAI 首席执行官山姆·奥特曼（Sam Altman）在播客上发表了颇具防守姿态的言论，投资者随即开始怀疑甲骨文此前宣布的那笔据称长达 5 年、总额 3000 亿美元的算力合同究竟能否真正兑现。正是这笔与 OpenAI 的合作，曾推动甲骨文在早先录得逾 30% 的暴涨，而现在的暴跌则是市场对 AI 泡沫破裂与履约风险的极度恐慌所致。 面对质疑，Brian 表示自己仍然坚定选择坚守甲骨文和微软。他分析指出，甲骨文长期以来都被视作科技板块中的典型价值股，估值扎实，并且极早便开始布局 AI 基础设施。虽然市场如今对其公开市场融资及客户集中度表现出过度担忧，但他认为这种惩罚已经过头，属于被市场情绪“不公正地误杀”。 --- ### [22:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oYLoGVNYws&t=1378s) Meta 的“算力出租”困惑与资本配置短板 针对 Meta 宣布计划将其过剩的 AI 算力转型为对外出租的外包云平台（NeoCloud），现场嘉宾一致表示了怀疑与困惑。Josh 质疑道，市场此前天天鼓吹全球算力极度短缺，Meta 此刻声称自己拥有“过剩算力”简直自相矛盾；而市场对该消息的反应也极为剧烈——股价仅仅反弹了一天便回吐了全部涨幅。大家普遍认为，Meta 试图涉足云租赁业务再次暴露出其战略上的“心猿意马”，就像他们之前做智能眼镜、涉足预测市场一样缺乏专注度，甚至称得上是一种“战略挣扎”（flailing）。 | 维度 | Meta 的核心优势（广告与消费端） | Meta 的资本再配置（新项目尝试） | |:--- |:--- |:--- | | **主要业务与动作** | Instagram、Reels 短视频算法驱动、AI 精准广告变现 | 元宇宙（Metaverse）、智能眼镜、算力转租（NeoCloud） | | **实际业务成效** | 打造极度令人上瘾的“数字鸦片”，商业化效率极高，现金流丰沛 | 早期元宇宙业务投入 800 亿美元并亏损 800 亿美元，成效微弱 | | **资本市场评价** | 被公认为全球将 AI 变现为广告收入的最佳范例 | 资本分配能力遭到严重质疑，被认为极不擅长投资新赛道 | 讨论进一步延伸到了 Meta 戏剧性的商业特质：在产品端，Meta 凭借 AI 算法把 Instagram 和 Reels 做成了全球粘性最高、几乎让人无法放下手机的“完美吸金机器”，商业化极为成功；然而，其管理层在将充沛现金流重新投入新业务时的记录却相当糟糕。Brian 透露，自己在 2018 年底至 2021 年公司更名转向元宇宙时就清仓了 Meta，并将资金全部换成了 Alphabet（Google），直言 Meta 当时投入 800 亿美元却打了水漂。不过，Michael 在节目的尾声指出了一个经典的循环现象：每隔 90 天，华尔街都会在财报发布前痛批 Meta 缺乏战略定力、乱花钱，然而只要财报一出，惊人的业绩又会让所有人惊呼“天哪，他们怎么又赚了这么多钱”。 ### [26:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oYLoGVNYws&t=1606s) 质疑 Meta 的 AI 战略与估值诱惑 主持人和嘉宾讨论了 Meta 极具争议的商业模式与管理层决策。讨论指出，虽然 Meta 拥有除谷歌之外全球最出色的广告业务，但市场上每隔 90 天就会出现一次心理周期：刚感叹完“这是世界上最赚钱的生意”，接下来几个月大家又开始发愁马克·扎克伯格（Mark Zuckerberg）会以什么方式把这些巨额自由现金流“一把火烧掉”。回顾过去一年的走势，Meta 与谷歌的表现形成了极其惨烈的反差——Meta 跌幅达 18%，而谷歌却飙升了近 100%。 对于专注于价值投资、喜欢在优质公司因短期运营失误摔跟头时捡便宜的投资者来说，Meta 现在的估值极具吸引力。此前此类策略在耐克（Nike）、星巴克（Starbucks）、奈飞（Netflix）和 Lululemon 身上都屡试不爽，而此时 Meta 的市盈率仅在 16 至 18 倍左右，显得相当便宜。然而，市场对其 AI 业务方向充满怀疑： - **开源大语言模型（Open LLM）**：投入巨资研发，但商业变现路径模糊，市场并不买账。 - **办公生产力工具（Meta at Work）**：几乎没有企业会信任 Meta 并采购其企业级办公软件。 - **自建数据中心并出租算力**：在看到埃隆·马斯克（Elon Musk）的 xAI 受到资本追捧后，Meta 宣布进军数据中心与算力租赁。但亚马逊 AWS 和谷歌 Alphabet 花了整整 15 年才建立起成熟的云业务壁垒，Meta 仓促入局被认为只是为了拉抬股价。 市场对其举动的反应极为反复：Meta 在公布算力中心消息当天大涨 10%，拖累了 CoreWeave 等概念股；但次日 Meta 便回吐了大部分涨幅，CoreWeave 和甲骨文（Oracle）也持续下挫，表明投资者对这套叙事并不信任。 --- ### [29:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oYLoGVNYws&t=1743s) 中小盘股（SMID）的爆发与基本面反转 Brian Belski 展示了他的核心图表，深入剖析中小盘股（SMID，即 Small and Mid-Cap 的合称）正在孕育的重大风格转换。在专业投资组合中，SMID 通常锚定标普 1000 指数（包含标普 400 中盘与标普 600 小盘），而美股大盘全市场则以标普 1500（涵盖 500 大盘、400 中盘与 600 小盘）为参照。数据显示，6 月份中小盘股与此前强势领涨的“科技七巨头”（Magnificent Seven）出现剧烈换手和风格对调，标普等权重指数的表现也明显领先于极度集中的巨头阵营。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 美股大中小盘指数结构图 accDescr: 展示标普1500指数的组成部分以及SMID（标普1000）的对应范围 subgraph S1500["标普综合1500指数 (S&P 1500)"] direction TB SP500["标普500指数 (S&P 500)<br>大盘股 / 科技巨头集中"] subgraph S1000["标普1000指数 (SMID 组合范畴)"] SP400["标普400指数 (S&P 400)<br>中盘股 (Mid-Cap)"] SP600["标普600指数 (S&P 600)<br>小盘股 (Small-Cap / SML)"] end end ``` Brian Belski 强调，投资应当“滑向冰球未来要去的地方，而不是停留在它过去的位置”（引用了冰球名言并引发了一阵关于明尼苏达州和经典冰球电影《野鸭鸣翠柳》Gordon Bombay 与 Hansen 兄弟的幽默打趣）。从底层基本面来看，小盘股（SML）的吸引力极为惊人： - **盈利增长预期**：未来 12 个月（NTM），标普 600 小盘股的盈利增速预期高达约 **28%**，明显跑赢标普 500 大盘股的 **23% 至 24%**。 - **现金流估值修复**：在市现率（Price to Free Cash Flow）和盈利弹性上，小盘股具备巨大的向上重估空间。 - **主力推动板块**：小盘股业绩预期的提升并非依赖降息叙事，而是由金融、非必需消费品（Consumer Discretionary）和中小科技等实质性行业所驱动。 --- ### [31:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oYLoGVNYws&t=1874s) 区域性银行的分化、“超级区域行”与金融板块机会 关于区域性银行（Regional Banks）的投资逻辑，Brian Belski 提出了“两头受益”的核心主题：最顶级的巨头和最本土的小银行将胜出，而卡在中间的传统区域银行处境最为尴尬。 - **本土小银行的优势**：依赖深厚的人际关系网络（“周五晚上一起喝啤酒、打纸牌”）。在蒙大拿、怀俄明、爱达荷等人口和企业因低税负、低用工成本而加速涌入的地区，类似 Glacier Bancorp 这类本地银行正从摩根大通（Chase）手中抢夺业务；东南部地区（如阿拉巴马、佐治亚）的并购整合（如 Pinnacle 收购 Synovus）也在加速落地。 - **“夹心层”与超级区域行（Super Regionals）**：传统区域行规模不及全国性大行，无法做大资本市场业务，又失去了社区人际关系壁垒。像 PNC、公民金融（Citizens Financial，全美房屋净值信贷 HELOC 龙头之一）以及由 SunTrust 与 BB&T 合并而成的 Truist，正在通过激进并购向“超级区域行”演变，专注深耕中型市场借贷（Middle Market Lending）和商业银行业务。Belski 预计未来白宫与监管层会放开并购通道，中西部将出现更多“强强联合”的超级合并。 在银行之外的广义金融领域，嘉宾们评估了多元金融资产的投资价值： - **保险公司**：如尤尼姆（Unum Group）这类基本面扎实的险企展现出较高吸引力。 - **另类资产管理巨头**：尽管逆向思维促使投资者关注黑石（Blackstone），但其负面新闻短期难以消散；而蓝猫（Blue Owl）因赎回压力低于预期（赎回额为 19 亿美元，优于预期的 25 亿美元）出现小幅反弹。 - **交易所与评级机构**：芝商所（CME）、芝加哥期权交易所（CBOE）、纳斯达克（Nasdaq）、洲际交易所（ICE）近期均遭遇大幅下挫，甚至标普全球（S&P Global）和穆迪（Moody's）也出现剧烈回调，为主持人逢低买入 CME 提供了入场时机。 ### [35:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oYLoGVNYws&t=2115s) 交易所板块与强劲的企业财报表现 讨论从金融板块中的交易所和券商股切入。Brian Belski 指出 Charles Schwab 看起来相当有吸引力，而且各大交易所的估值目前非常便宜。Josh Brown 顺势调侃称，这些交易所股票近期的抛售甚至可能和 Kalshi 推出永续预测合约相关的竞争消息有关，但这根本不足以成为其股价暴跌的合理解释。 紧接着，主持人调出第三张图表（Chart 3），聚焦于刚刚过去的财报季。Michael Batnick 强调第一季度财报季在历史上表现异乎寻常的亮眼，甚至可能是美股历史上最佳的财报季之一。Josh 开玩笑说，伴随着纽约尼克斯队（Knicks）和美国男足的表现，这是有史以来“情绪最嗨、最好玩”的一个季度。然而，面对极其强劲的财报数据，市场通常会担忧均值回归（Mean Reversion）——即投资者会怀疑这究竟是透支了未来几个季度的盈利增长，还是市场见顶的信号。 Brian Belski 强调，观察这种长期图表时，应该把目光聚焦在历史性的大顶和大底上。比如在 2020 年市场崩溃时，投资者本应极度看多；而在经历了 2022 年的小幅盈利衰退后，企业利润的复苏步伐其实非常稳健。哪怕分析师预期的盈利高增长未能完全兑现，即使增速只有 30%，其整体增长态势依然扎实。Michael 打趣说，如果分析师低估了增长，标普 500 指数明年可能直接奔向 10,000 点，道琼斯指数则会冲上 75,000 点。Brian 再次重申自己的坚定立场：他依然坚信长达 25 年的长期世俗牛市（Secular Bull Market）仍在进行中，预计当前牛市还有 7 到 10 年的续航空间。 - Charles Schwab 及主流交易所股票被认为估值偏低且具备吸引力。 - 讨论提到 2020 年的触底反弹和 2022 年的企业盈利小幅衰退，凸显当前盈利复苏的坚韧性。 - Brian 维持美股处于 25 年超级世俗牛市的宏观判断，认为后市仍有 7 至 10 年的上行周期。 --- ### [37:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oYLoGVNYws&t=2220s) AI 革命的第 2 局 vs 股市的第 8 局：衰退与 Capex 逆转的隐忧 谈及牛市阶段，Josh Brown 提出了一个关键类比：如果用棒球比赛的局数来衡量，AI 驱动的产业革命很可能才刚刚进行到“第二局上半”（Top of the Second Inning）——人形机器人尚未普及，普通人真正深度使用 AI 的比例极低。但反观金融市场，股市是否已经提前透支、跑到了“第八局”甚至“第十一局”？这与 1999 年的互联网泡沫如出一辙：当时互联网本身才在第一局，但股票市场却已经给到了第十一局的预期。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: AI产业发展与股市预期的脱节风险 accDescr: 对比AI技术周期的早期阶段与资本市场的高预期，展示Capex可能逆转的传导机制 subgraph CycleDisparity["周期错配风险"] A["技术实体经济: 第2局<br>(企业刚开始采纳，渗透率低)"] B["股票市场计价: 第8-11局<br>(估值充分透支未来数年预期)"] end subgraph DownsideChain["潜在风险链条"] C["科技巨头 Capex 扩张放缓/逆转"] D["供应链企业盈利断崖 + 估值乘数杀跌"] E["负财富效应蔓延至终端消费"] end CycleDisparity --> DownsideChain ``` Brian 坦言听起来自己可能有些偏空，但他认为美国未来“在某个时间点”必然会经历一场衰退。他指出，美国自 2001 年以来就没有经历过一场传统意义上因库存过度积压、厂商停止下单而导致的“纯正普通衰退”（Plain Vanilla Recession）。Josh 回顾道，2001 年的本质是科技领域的产能过剩与需求前置——当时全美企业因担忧 Y2K 千年虫危机导致飞机失事等灾难，集中在一瞬间升级了所有设备。这引申出了当前市场的最大空头逻辑：如果当前科技巨头的资本支出（Capex）趋势出现逆转，那些依赖这笔天量支出维持高盈利的公司将会遭遇毁灭性打击（Nuke it），导致企业盈利和估值乘数同时双杀。不仅如此，如果美股大幅回调 20% 到 30%，财富效应逆转，消费者是否还会继续为达美航空的 Delta One 头等舱或 Netflix 的无广告会员买单？ --- ### [39:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oYLoGVNYws&t=2388s) 代币经济学与算力稀缺：多头逻辑为何依然稳固 然而，Josh 随后话锋一转，解释了为什么上述空头情景短期内很难发生。核心原因在于：市场对 AI 的需求增速完全跟得上巨头的扩建速度。尽管单枚代币（Token）的调用成本在过去一段时间骤降了约 90%，但全社会的 Token 使用量却以超过 5 倍的速度爆炸式增长。如今各大企业的 Capex 不再只是盲目的研发实验，而是已经切切实实与企业级收入绑定。 Brian 观察到 Josh 眼神里闪烁的多头光芒，并指出投资的核心法则就是“永远顺应稀缺性交易，永远买入稀缺资源”（Always trade on scarcity, always buy scarcity）。只要算力和内存（Memory）依然保持高度稀缺，且技术革命确实处于第二局，指数未来就将远超当前水平。Josh 补充道，当前的“代币经济学”（Tokenomics）正在被企业合理化重组：虽然每月的 AI 账单十分昂贵，但企业意识到自身必须围绕这项技术重构业务流程，由于提效显著，企业根本无法停止采购和使用。因此，空头所断言的“叠叠乐”（Jenga Tower）积木抽空即崩塌的宿命论，在强劲的实际需求面前站不住脚。 - 过去一段时间单枚 Token 成本下降约 90%，但 Token 使用量暴增 5 倍以上。 - 资本支出与实际的 AI 收入正在实现绑定，使支出具备了持续的商业正当性。 - 内存与算力等核心基础设施的物理稀缺性，构成了支撑市场继续上行的支柱。 --- ### [41:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oYLoGVNYws&t=2498s) 科技板块拆分构想与美股前 25 大权重的历史极值 面对科技股权重的极度膨胀，Brian 作为长期行业策略师表达了担忧：标普 500 指数中的科技股权重是否会在四年内飙升至 50%？若真如此，美股将变得像加拿大等海外市场一样，仅由一两个行业主导整个国家指数。为此，Brian 大胆预测：在未来 2 到 3 年内，标普、罗素（Russell）和 MSCI 等主要指数编制机构，可能会再次对信息技术（Technology）板块进行拆解——就像当年将通信服务独立拆分一样，半导体板块（Semiconductors）当前体量完全有资格自立门户，硬件和软件板块也可能进一步分立。 随后，Josh 展示了美股前 25 大持仓股（Top 25 stocks）的权重走势图。从 1997 年该数据系列开始统计以来的长达 20 年间，前 25 大股票占标普 500 指数的权重一直维持在 35% 左右；然而近年来，这一数字已经从 35% 飙升到了 54%。这意味着仅 25 家公司就占据了整个美国股市一半以上的市值。 | 指标 / 维度 | 历史常态水平（1997 年起约 20 年间） | 当前现状 | |:--- |:--- |:--- | | **标普前 25 大成分股权重** | 约 35%（小幅上下浮动） | 攀升至 54%（占据美股半壁江山） | | **全美中小盘股（SMID）总市值** | 相对分散且体量显著 | 全美所有 SMID 上市公司市值之和仅约等于一家苹果公司（Apple） | - Brian 预计 2-3 年内指数编制机构可能将半导体（Semis）拆分为独立的一级行业部门。 - 当前全美所有公开交易的中小盘股票（SMID cap）总市值加在一起，大致仅相当于一家苹果公司（Apple）的市值。 --- ### [43:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oYLoGVNYws&t=2602s) 中小盘股（SMID）的补涨空间与降息催化 节目进一步分析了标普 500 总回报贡献度（Contribution to Total Return, CTR）过于头重脚轻的现象。过去 15 年来市场的常态往往是：中小盘股每年迎来一轮短暂的报复性反弹，但维持不到一个季度，微软、苹果、Meta 等大型科技巨头便重新发力并抹平中小盘的所有超额收益。 针对投资者“中小盘本轮反弹能否持续超过一个季度”的疑虑，Brian 表达了相对乐观的态度。他认为 6 月份及第二季度中小盘股的表现相当出色，且这种反弹是在 10 年期美债收益率仍处于高位的背景下实现的。如果未来 10 年期美债收益率回落，加之中小盘银行股的强势支撑，中小盘股（SMID）在今年下半年完全有可能持续跑赢大盘，打破过往几个季度即夭折的短命宿命。 ### [44:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oYLoGVNYws&t=2667s) 罗素2000与标普的分化之谜：质量、行业与“买入微软”的波士顿往事 Brian Belski 与 Josh Brown、Michael Batnick 深入探讨了近期小盘股与大盘股的表现脱节。虽然罗素2000指数（Russell 2000）跑赢了大盘指数，但 Brian 尖锐地指出，该指数中充斥着大量根本不赚钱的公司，其涨幅很大程度上是由高贝塔（high beta）和垃圾股投机驱动的“燃料”推高的。如果将这些不盈利的公司剥离出去，只看自由现金流估值（Price to Free Cash Flow）以及盈利的清晰度与稳定性，真正具备基本面的优质中小盘股（SMID）的质量其实远优于罗素2000整体。Josh 对此现象深感困惑：如果罗素2000跑赢大盘，按常理推断，标普500内部也应该是小市值股票领跑，但现实却完全相反——标普内部完全是排名前10%的最大市值股票在驱动涨幅，而罗素2000又狠狠跑赢了标普等权重指数（S&P 500 Equal Weight），这表明市场分化并非单纯的“规模效应”，而是深层次的“行业与基本面差异”。 聊到小盘股经理的困境，Brian 随之分享了一段生动的高光回忆。在1998或1999年他还是个年轻策略师时，曾前往波士顿出差拜访富达（Fidelity）的一位小盘股基金经理。当时对方正处于精神崩溃的边缘，抓狂地喊道：“Belski，我是个小盘股经理，我的业绩跑输得一塌糊涂，我他妈都要去买微软了！”（"I'm a small cap manager. I'm massively underperforming. I'm buying Microsoft."）现场哄堂大笑。Brian 在做手势时还被调侃像电影里的瑞奇·鲍比（Ricky Bobby）一样不知所措（"What do I do with my hands?"）。他感慨道，如今华尔街上的老派经理人几乎已经被消灭殆尽——市场上不仅几乎没有纯粹的价值型基金经理，甚至连小盘股经理和股息增长经理都“全部离场”了。 ### [46:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oYLoGVNYws&t=2783s) 市场广度持续改善：健康的普涨并非见顶信号 随后讨论转向图表展现的市场广度（Broadening）。图表显示，标普500指数中同比上涨的公司数量正在显著增加，这一特征与以往市场大跌或见顶前的“广度收窄”完全相反。Brian 强调，越来越多股票呈现出同比正收益并跑赢平均水平，走出熊市后这种广度扩散依然处于非常早期的健康阶段。Josh 试图总结这一逻辑：“当市场广度不断扩大时，你不会迎来市场大顶。” ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 市场顶部与广度扩散机制对比 accDescr: 对比传统市场见顶前的广度收窄与当前健康的广度扩散机制差异。 subgraph NarrowingTop["传统周期见顶特征"] direction TB A1["指数持续上涨"] --> A2["领涨个股数量急剧萎缩"] A2 --> A3["广度与基本面严重背离"] A3 --> A4["流动性耗尽引发见顶回调"] end subgraph HealthyBroadening["当前健康牛市特征"] direction TB B1["大盘指数稳步推进"] --> B2["近350只个股实现同比正增长"] B2 --> B3["行业与盈利全面扩散"] B3 --> B4["多点开花支撑牛市持续"] end ``` 三人随即就2021年市场见顶的先例展开激烈交锋。Michael 插话提醒大家2021年末正是在广度看似极佳时见顶，但 Brian 与 Josh 迅速反驳指出，2021年那种“每只股票都在飙升”的行情是政府直接向大众发钱催生的非正常极端状态，与眼下的行情不可同日而语。如今这种线性稳健推进的盈利修复才是真正的健康牛市，标普中有近350只股票实现同比上涨，证明“仅仅靠少数几只巨头支撑市场”的悲观论调根本站不住脚。 - 标普500指数中目前有接近350只成分股录得同比正增长。 - 历史上的市场大顶通常伴随着领涨广度的枯竭，当前同比上涨个股增加的趋势与典型崩盘前的走势恰好相反。 ### [47:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oYLoGVNYws&t=2876s) 标普十分位数谜团：为什么底部第十梯队表现最差？ 当展示按市值十分位数（deciles）细分的表现图表时，数据显示标普500指数大约一半的分位区间都实现了两位数的回报率，印证了“投资人在各处都在赚钱”的牛市格局。但 Michael 敏锐地抓出了一个悖论：在标普500按市值排序的第10组（即市值最小的50只股票）中，竟然只有18%的个股跑赢基准，是表现最惨烈的一组。这再次与外部罗素2000跑赢大盘的现实产生冲突。 | 标普500分位区间 | 跑赢基准的个股占比 | 市场特征分析 | |:--- |:--- |:--- | | **前1-4梯队（大市值至超大市值）** | 约 50% 左右 | 巨头与AI供应链龙头驱动，权重主导指数涨幅 | | **第5梯队（中等偏大市值）** | 约 50% | 行业分化均衡，一半跑赢、一半跑输 | | **第10梯队（市值最小的50只成分股）** | 仅约 18% | 充斥非AI类消费、软件、破位个股，劣汰压力极大 | 为了搞清这50只拖后腿的标的到底是什么，大家现场开启了“排雷”排查。Josh 猜测里面可能充斥着未接入 AI 供应链的软件股、承压的非必需消费品、房屋建筑商或陷入停滞的必需消费品。他们细数了近期深陷泥潭的个股，包括 The Trade Desk、Molson Coors、Domino's Pizza、Paramount、Shake Shack 以及 GoDaddy。Josh 还幽默地举例道，美股市场总存在形形色色的怪异孤例，比如曾有一家叫 Dover 的上市公司主营业务居然是做马术马具的（"harnesses for horseback riding"）。大家一致认同，股票市场本就是一个“个股的市场”（market of stocks），标普末尾50只股票表现拉胯几乎是必然的定义——如果它们表现优异，早就被踢到更高级别的梯队了；如果持续恶化，就会被踢出标普500跌入中盘或小盘指数。 ### [50:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oYLoGVNYws&t=3055s) 小盘股的爆发式表现与行业驱动力 转向聚焦小盘股的专题图表（Chart 14）后，图表显示小盘股在2026年上半年打出了一场极具爆发力的翻身仗。Josh 惊呼这种涨幅柱状图拉出的空间令人震撼，小盘股领域已经很多年没有经历过如此狂欢的派对行情。然而质疑随之而来：在过去十年中，小盘股相较于大盘股的超额反弹往往极其短暂，通常最多持续3到6个月就会偃旗息鼓，上一次真正持久的小盘股大牛市甚至要追溯到20世纪90年代。 针对小盘股与标普500的结构差异，Josh 详细梳理了其内在行业权重分布： - **医疗保健（Healthcare）占比约20%**：其中生物医药（Biotech）占据核心，当前呈现出相当强劲的基本面增长预期。 - **金融（Financials）占比约19%**：包含大量直接受益于息差与交易活动的区域性及中小银行。 - **工业（Industrials）占比约15%**：直接承接本土再工业化和基建扩建需求。 - **信息技术（Technology）占比约15%**：软件与专有硬件类公司。 - **非核心板块**：消费品板块在中小盘中占比较小，通信服务（Communication Services）几乎微不足道，原材料（Materials）也仅占极小比例。 这种独特的行业构成，解释了为什么小盘股的走势容易脱离大盘科技巨头的节奏，演化为由生物科技、金融与工业制造主导的结构性行情。 ### [52:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oYLoGVNYws&t=3128s) 牛市第四年的颠簸：波动加剧的周期演进 谈话最后聚焦于本轮牛市周期的寿命与阶段性特征（Chart 15）。Brian 提出，当前长牛周期的“第四年”（Year 4）很可能是整个过程中波动最为剧烈的一年。Josh 询问这是否意味着牛市所剩时间不多，Brian 纠正道，自己眼中的牛市是一个跨度更长、空间更大的长期超级牛市（secular story），因此第四年出现加剧的回撤和波动并不代表牛市终结，而是周期深化的正常调整。 历史统计表明，牛市周期中最具波折和动荡的通常是第三年，但本轮周期由于外部事件被整体推迟了一年。去年的“解放日”（Liberation Day）事件和人为制造的市场异象打乱了原有节奏，而今年市场直面中东战争等地缘冲突的考验，却展现出了极其惊人的韧性。正因前期的消化与滞后，原本属于第三年的洗盘与巨幅震荡被顺延推移至第四年，投资者需对即将到来的大幅颠簸做好充分的心理准备。 ### [053:12] 盈利驱动的市场特征与科技股季节性 Brian Belski 和主持人探讨了由盈利主导的市场动态。Belski 强调，盈利驱动的市场往往比仅靠动量或估值乘数扩张驱动的市场波动更大。核心原因在于投资者对“二阶导数”（变化率的减速）极其敏感：即便一家公司的盈利增速仅从 25% 微降至 23%，管理层在业绩指引上稍有松动，市场就会陷入焦虑。Michael Batnick 指出，一旦预测值从历史高点滑落，投资者往往会立刻设想最坏的情景，担忧下调趋势会无休止地持续下去，这种恐惧本身就足以吓退资金。 不过，大家也谈到夏季通常是美股传统上的淡季，交易节奏趋缓。从历史季节性规律来看，科技公司的盈利表现在第三季度往往也会相对平淡。 --- ### [054:10] SaaS 股真的迎来末日了吗？古根海姆分析师的逆向观点 Josh Brown 抛出了一个核心话题：市场所谓的“SaaS 末日”（SaaS Apocalypse）是否真的存在，还是只是被虚惊一场？他提到了古根海姆证券（Guggenheim）分析师 John DiFucci 近期引发市场轰动的研报。Josh 戏称 DiFucci 几乎凭借一己之力拯救了当周的软件板块。DiFucci 在《巴伦周刊》（Barron's）引用的报告中认为，尽管市场对 AI 颠覆心存疑虑，但眼下正是华尔街利用软件股大幅抛售的历史低估值进行布局的绝佳时机。 DiFucci 提出，传统软件公司至少能够存续，许多甚至能维持合理的增长率，但当前的估值水平却在假设它们会永久走向衰落，这为耐心型投资者创造了职业生涯罕见的机遇。虽然新一轮技术范式的领军者通常不再是上一个周期的霸主，但企业软件具备极强的生命力与客户黏性。随着该研报发布并上调了一批股票评级，软件行业 ETF（IGV）自上周低点反弹了 11%，反弹力度不仅超越了“科技七巨头”（Mag 7），还与同期走弱的半导体及 AI 概念股背道而驰。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 软件股与AI周期的情绪分歧 accDescr: 展现市场从过度担忧AI颠覆软件向估值修复轮动的心理逻辑 subgraph Fear["悲观叙事（SaaS 末日论）"] A["生成式 AI 崛起"] --> B["担忧企业软件被彻底颠覆"] B --> C["多重估值遭遇历史性大幅压缩"] end subgraph Reality["逆向重估逻辑"] D["企业端极高替换壁垒"] --> E["增长企稳而非归零"] E --> F["极端悲观预期纠偏 / 估值修复反弹"] end C -.->|DiFucci 研报催化| F ``` - **估值均值回归现象**：Josh Brown 列举具体估值对比——ServiceNow 的 12 个月远期市盈率降至 22.9 倍（过去 5 年平均为 55 倍）；Salesforce 降至仅 11 倍（过去 5 年平均为 30 倍）。 - **软件股的真实问题**：Belski 与 Josh 讨论认为，这可能根本不是所谓的“AI 摧毁 SaaS”，而是市场终于意识到此前为这些软件公司支付了过高的溢价乘数，当前只是一次估值正常化过程，同时行业内也存在公司过多、亟待整合的现象。 - **资金轮动的心理机制**：Josh 调侃自己是个典型的“资金守恒论者”——每次看到芯片股暴涨，第一反应就是“资金是从哪卖出来的？”；而看到资金蜂拥逃离软件股时，流出的资金自然不会去买区域银行，而是涌入了半导体等流动性好、当下强势的品种。 --- ### [058:38] 奈飞的多空拉锯：内容、现金流与 YouTube 这个“终极恶龙” 话题随后转向 Netflix。Michael 爆料了自己当周啼笑皆非的“神级操作”：他本来持有 Netflix，在股价上涨 5% 时追加买入，第二天股价跌了 3% 又吓得斩仓一半，发誓等再涨 3% 就接回；结果转天反弹他又立刻追回仓位恢复全仓，引发录制现场一阵哄笑。Josh 调侃道：“难道只有我得教你们‘涨了再买、跌了就割’的巴菲特式操盘秘籍吗？” Brian Belski 表示自己坚定持股，并在旗下三四个投资组合中长线持有 Netflix，两个月前甚至将其纳入了价值组合。他分析指出，Netflix 每隔四年左右就会遭遇一次暴跌洗盘，但每次都能以更强的姿态归来。整个流媒体行业的核心就是三个 C——“现金（Cash）、内容（Content）、行业整合（Consolidation）”。随着康卡斯特（Comcast）等传统媒体巨头分拆业务，流媒体行业未来几年将面临更剧烈的并购与重组，而 Netflix 凭借健康的资产负债表将成为行业赢家。 但 Michael 提出了不同维度的担忧： - **历史周期的杠杆已用尽**：2022 年 Netflix 暴跌是因为订户首次负增长，当时管理层有现成的底牌可打（打击密码共享以及推出含广告低价订阅），这两张牌打出后立竿见影。 - **真正的对手不是传统好莱坞**：Michael 认为 Netflix 早就赢了传统流媒体之战，HBO、Apple TV+ 和 Amazon Prime Video 根本构不成致命威胁，但 **YouTube** 才是不可撼动的“终极恶龙”（final dragon），在用户观看时长上具有统治地位，Netflix 很难击败它。 - **并购传闻引发的叙事动摇**：Josh 回顾此前传出 Netflix 参与竞购华纳媒体资产的风波。市场原本认为 Netflix 已经彻底赢下流媒体战争，但它破天荒寻求巨额并购的举动让投资者产生怀疑——“如果你已经赢了，为什么还需要买下别人的版权库？”当 Netflix 最终退出竞购战、避免卷入与资本雄厚方的竞价泥潭后，市场长舒一口气，股价随之触底反弹。 ### [01:02:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oYLoGVNYws&t=3731s) Netflix 估值转变与通信服务板块展望 讨论由 Netflix（奈飞）股价的一轮迅猛反弹及随后的回落切入。对话指出，Netflix 的基本面其实没有发生根本性逆转，这波波动主要受情绪和二阶导数预期驱动：市场突然意识到它失去了华纳（Warner）等内容支持，如今需要正面对抗 Paramount、Warner Bros. Discovery、YouTube 和 Disney 的重重包围，投资者因而开始担忧其未来的增长空间。有观点认为，华尔街或许会期待 Netflix 对 NBCUniversal 展开收购，甚至进军环球影城式的线下主题乐园业务——毕竟主题公园对 Comcast 而言是一门极为赚钱的好生意，且环球影业拥有全球前三的庞大影视版权库，能让 Netflix 深度扩展其品牌价值。 然而，Netflix 过去单纯依靠订户野蛮增长的高光阶段已然落幕。这标志着其投资者结构正在发生深刻质变：从早期的成长型投资者，彻底转向价值型买家以及试图抄底波段交易的群体。这类体量庞大的巨头已不可能被外部收购，只能扮演收购者的角色。与此同时，Brian Belski 强调，通信服务（Communication Services）板块可能会成为今年下半年最令人惊喜的黑马板块。尽管市场上几乎无人看好传统流媒体或处于舆论低谷的 Disney，但类似 Spotify 与 Netflix 这种拥有庞大订阅基数、技术与产品体验极佳的企业，在走势图上呈现出高度相似的共振上行趋势。 针对主持人群体关于 Alphabet 是否会拆分 YouTube 的疑问，嘉宾断然否定，直言 YouTube 是不可动摇的超级现金牛；相比之下，自动驾驶业务 Waymo 反倒更有可能独立剥离并设立专属董事会与资本结构。更聪明的做法是将 Waymo 与坐拥数十亿用户的 Google Maps 进行生态绑定，从而形成强大的消费端闭环。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Netflix 投资者群体与战略演变路径 accDescr: 展示 Netflix 增长阶段的终结及其投资者群体从成长型转向价值型的演化过程 subgraph GrowthStage["高增长时代 (已结束)"] A["订户数量高速暴涨"] --> B["成长型投资者主导估值溢价"] end subgraph ValuationShift["投资逻辑转变"] B --> C["竞争加剧 (面对 Disney / YouTube / Paramount)"] C --> D["估值承压 & 寻找新增曲线 (IP 变现 / 主题乐园 / 并购)"] end subgraph ValueStage["新投资者结构 (当前生态)"] D --> E["价值型投资组合建仓"] D --> F["战术性与波段交易者寻找底部"] end ``` --- ### [01:05:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oYLoGVNYws&t=3903s) 有线电视板块的长期衰退与兼并困境 在审视价值投资的雷区时，话题转向了“全市场最差股票”的讨论。尽管有人戏称 Nike 表现糟糕，但众人迅速将矛头对准了 Charter Communications 等有线电视巨头。虽然 Charter 曾在 Comcast 宣布某些动作时短暂强劲反弹，但短短四天内便回吐了所有涨幅。Brian Belski 明确表示，这类深陷“剪线潮”（Cord-cutting）长期结构性衰退、负债累累的企业在任何价格下都毫无吸引力，绝不可能进入他的价值投资组合。这让他联想起 90 年代初的 Boise Cascade——在缺乏有效运营扭转方案、管理层缺乏突围智慧的情况下，既没有私募股权（PE）愿意充当救世主，也没有任何基本面反转的曙光。 随着超大规模云厂商（Hyperscalers）和科技巨头积极布局卫星网络，若 Starlink 等空基宽带能在未来两年内以具竞争力的价格普及，曾经垄断“最后一公里”的有线电视网络将迎来最后的致命一击。众人回顾了电信与航空业的反垄断监管历史：当年监管层阻止 T-Mobile 收购 Sprint 长达十年，直到意识到若不合并两者都无法生存，最终还是形成了寡头格局；在民航领域，监管阻止了 JetBlue 与 Spirit Airlines 的合并，结果并未保住额外的廉价航空公司，Spirit 陷入困局后其航线与市场份额反而全被 Delta 等头部巨头蚕食。有线电视行业未来可能同样需要经历惨烈的市值毁灭，最终倒逼监管放行，让所有收缩的资产合并进一家由类似 John Malone 掌舵的庞大有线综合体之中。 --- ### [01:08:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oYLoGVNYws&t=4109s) Brian Belski 的中小型股心头好与冷门挖掘 当谈及下半年的具体投资机会时，Brian 坦承自己对中小型股（SMID caps）最为偏爱，因为在该领域投资者能够捕捉生动的主题与产业细分故事。他重点分享了以下标的： - **Acuity Brands (AYI)**：该公司生产用于天花板与建筑顶部夹层之间的专用吊顶材料与瓷砖。数据中心的大量内部线缆正铺设于该区域，而 Acuity 提供的材料能有效维持低温与散热，防止密集走线过热损坏，成为 AI 数据中心建设热潮中隐秘但不可或缺的物理基础设施受益者。 - **F.N.B. Corporation (FNB)**：一家总部位于宾夕法尼亚州西部的中小型区域银行，精准卡位并吃透了近年来美国人口和产业迁移带动的区域红利。 Josh Brown 补充谈到，他在为 CNBC 撰写《市场上最好的股票》（Best Stocks in the Market）专栏时也深有同感：由于必须挖掘技术形态优异但电视财经媒体很少提及的冷门标的，他们经常能顺藤摸瓜发现许多超乎想象、业务极其实用且具备稳定盈利能力的小众上市公司，这也正是深耕中小型股投资最具魅力之处。 ### [01:10:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oYLoGVNYws&t=4223s) 被忽视的数千家美国企业与真正的逆向投资 随着安费诺（Amphenol，股票代码：APH）等标的创下历史新高，讨论聚焦于大盘科技巨头之外隐藏的巨大机会。乔什·布朗（Josh Brown）感慨，像安费诺这样拥有近百年历史、早在 AI 出现前就经历过数次产业转型的老牌连接器与信号设备企业，如今成为了年度表现最亮眼的大赢家之一，证明了“价格之中蕴含着海量信息”。全美约有 3,500 到 3,800 家上市公司，而财经媒体和普通投资者整天翻来覆去讨论的却只有五到十只超大型科技股。 布赖恩·贝尔斯基（Brian Belski）强调，股市本质上是“个股的市场”（a market of stocks）。美国拥有全球最优秀的公司和无数鲜为人知的精彩商业故事，这也是他始终对美国市场保持长期乐观的原因。投资者必须正视大型科技股的现实，但也应当将视野拓展到股息增长、价值投资和中小型股（SMID caps）。他指出，真正的逆向投资绝不是为了标新立异而故意唱反调，而必须有扎实的基本面分析作为支撑。然而，由于市场此前过度聚焦于英伟达（当时已从高点回撤约 18%），绝大多数人已经丧失了发掘冷门优质资产的思考习惯。 - **全美上市企业体量**：美国公开交易的上市公司约有 3,500 至 3,800 家，但市场注意力高度集中在前 5 至 10 只巨头。 - **冷门 AI 硬件赢家**：安费诺（APH）作为拥有百年历史的连接器龙头，在 AI 数据中心驱动下创出历史新高。 - **逆向投资理念**：真正的逆向风格必须依托严密的基本面研究，盲目为反向而反向毫无意义。 --- ### [01:12:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oYLoGVNYws&t=4333s) 创业八个月：Humilis Investment Strategies 的业务模式与产品架构 节目话题转向贝尔斯基自主创立的资产管理公司 Humilis Investment Strategies。乔什提到贝尔斯基在公司成立第三天就曾作客节目，如今创业已满八个月。贝尔斯基详细拆解了 Humilis 的商业模式：他们定位为纯粹的模型投资组合提供商（Model Provider），绝不与自己的渠道客户（券商或独立投资顾问 RIA）争抢终端客户。Humilis 负责输出集中投资组合的研究与调仓指令，由合作顾问在其自身平台上自主执行交易；如果顾问不认同组合中某只个股（例如 2.5% 权重的 Spotify），也可以完全按照自身判断灵活剔除，拥有最终的自由裁量权。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Humilis Investment Strategies 业务架构图 accDescr: 展示 Humilis 作为模型提供商向顾问输出策略以及在美加两地的产品分布 subgraph CoreEngine ["核心角色: 模型提供商 (Model Provider)"] H["Humilis 投研团队"] -->|提供选股与调仓指令| M["顾问端模型组合"] M -->|完全自由裁量权 / 自主执行| A["券商与独立 RIA 顾问"] end subgraph USProducts ["美国市场产品线"] A --> SMA["5 条独立专户策略 (SMA)"] SMA --> USFocus["US Focus (46只重仓股对标标普500 / 对应 ETF: HIS)"] SMA --> USVal["大盘价值 (Large Cap Value)"] SMA --> USDiv["股息增长 (Dividend Growth)"] SMA --> USSmid["中小盘精选 (US Smid)"] SMA --> USAll["全市值精选 (All Cap, 涵盖 S&P 1500 最佳标的)"] end subgraph CANProducts ["加拿大市场产品线"] A --> CAN["3 只北美 ETF + 1 只共同基金 + 3 套美加混合组合"] end ``` 在产品落地方面，Humilis 在加拿大布局了三只北美 ETF、一只共同基金以及三套跨越美加市场的投资组合；在美国本土则主打五条独立管理专户（SMA）策略，涵盖包含 46 只精选重仓股以跑赢标普 500 为目标的“US Focus”（对应美股 ETF 代码：HIS）、大盘价值、股息增长、中小盘（Smid），以及聚合了标普 1500 精华的 All Cap 组合。贝尔斯基透露，创业未满一年，公司管理资产规模（AUM）已逼近 5 亿美元大关。尽管机构募资过程中常遇到潜在资金方口头承诺数亿资金、随后又要求先看“三年业绩记录”的行业惯常阻力，但其依托过去数十年积累的顾问粉丝群体，正在稳扎稳打向前推进。 - **管理规模（AUM）**：成立未满一年，整体受托与模型追踪规模已接近 5 亿美元。 - **旗舰美股 ETF**：US Focus 策略对应的美股 ETF 代码为 `HIS`。 - **核心策略构成**：美国专户涵盖 Focus、Large Cap Value、Dividend Growth、Smid 以及跨标普 1500 的 All Cap。 --- ### [01:14:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oYLoGVNYws&t=4472s) 从华尔街老兵到独立创业者的心路历程 当乔什询问自主创业是否充满乐趣时，贝尔斯基坦陈这种体验“既令人极度兴奋，又让人备受煎熬”。他在蒙特利尔银行资本市场（BMO Capital Markets）担任首席策略师长达 13 年，在此之前已在美国市场担任了 23 年分析师与策略师。体制内的长期任职曾让他受到诸多合规与流程的束缚，而如今终于能够全权掌控自己的事业。他借用电影《勇敢的心》（Braveheart）中那位爱尔兰战士的经典台词来形容这种掌控感：“这是我的岛屿，它是属于我的（Yeah, it's my island. It's mine）。” 然而，创业的代价是巨大的心理负荷。贝尔斯基苦笑着承认，自己常常在凌晨两点惊醒，满脑子都在担忧“下个月能不能按时发出员工薪水”。乔什打趣地提到贝尔斯基的名头集创始人、CEO 与 CIO 于一身，贝尔斯基自嘲道，在这个阶段自己同时还是“首席洗瓶工”（chief bottle washer），什么杂活累活都得亲自上手。尽管创业充满挑战，但得益于默契的初创团队、美加两地平台伙伴的鼎力支持，以及旗下投资策略优异的开局业绩，Humilis 已经走上正轨。两位主持人由衷表达了对老友独立创业的敬佩与祝贺，并在温馨融洽的气氛中结束了本期播客。 ## Notable quotes > [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oYLoGVNYws&t=0s) Thanks for having us — Brian Belski > [08:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oYLoGVNYws&t=524s) 千万别学我，请千万不要像我这样拼。 — Brian Belski > [16:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oYLoGVNYws&t=965s) beware of the second derivative less positive — Brian Belski > [19:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oYLoGVNYws&t=1172s) 没有任何增长能长期保持线性，当下的行情显然过于夸张 — Brian Belski > [19:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oYLoGVNYws&t=1172s) 对于一个号称‘从来不看评论区’的人来说，你花在看评论上的时间可真不少。 — Josh Brown > [39:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oYLoGVNYws&t=2388s) Always trade on scarcity, always buy scarcity — Brian Belski > [44:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oYLoGVNYws&t=2667s) Belski，我是个小盘股经理，我的业绩跑输得一塌糊涂，我他妈都要去买微软了！ — 富达小盘股基金经理 > [46:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oYLoGVNYws&t=2783s) 当市场广度不断扩大时，你不会迎来市场大顶。 — Josh Brown > [58:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oYLoGVNYws&t=3518s) 难道只有我得教你们‘涨了再买、跌了就割’的巴菲特式操盘秘籍吗？ — Josh Brown > [58:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oYLoGVNYws&t=3518s) 如果你已经赢了，为什么还需要买下别人的版权库？ — Josh Brown > [01:14:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oYLoGVNYws&t=4472s) Yeah, it's my island. It's mine — Brian Belski ## Mentioned Brian Belski, Michael Batnick, Downtown Josh Brown, Humilis Investment Strategies, WisdomTree, WisdomTree Quantum Computing Fund (WQTM), Scott Wapner, Eliot Spitzer, Sam Altman, Mark Zuckerberg, John DiFucci, John Malone, BMO Capital Markets, Merrill Lynch, Oppenheimer, Piper Jaffray, Dain Bosworth, William O'Neil, Microsoft, Micron Technology, Oracle, OpenAI, Meta, Alphabet (Google), Amazon AWS, CoreWeave, Glacier Bancorp, PNC, Citizens Financial, Truist, Charles Schwab, CME Group, CBOE, Nasdaq, ICE, S&P Global, Moody's, Blackstone, Blue Owl, Unum Group, ServiceNow, Salesforce, Netflix, YouTube, Comcast, Paramount, Warner Bros. Discovery, Disney, Spotify, Waymo, Charter Communications, Starlink, Acuity Brands (AYI), F.N.B. Corporation (FNB), Amphenol (APH), Nvidia, S&P 500, Russell 2000, S&P 1000, S&P 1500 ## Video description On episode 249 of The Compound and Friends, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Michael Batnick⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ and ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Downtown Josh Brown⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ are joined by returning guest favorite Brian Belski⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, Founder, CEO, and CIO of Humilis Investment Strategies, to discuss the second half outlook for stocks, the AI trade, market broadening, small caps, earnings growth, and where investors should be looking next. They also cover the Mag 7, regional banks, software stocks, Meta, Google, Netflix, and the under-the-radar companies benefiting from the AI buildout. This episode is sponsored by WisdomTree. Learn more about the WisdomTree Quantum Computing Fund at ⁠https://www.wisdomtree.com/us/strategies/quantum-computing ►00:00 - Cold Open ►12:07 - Brian Belski Returns ►16:05 - Stock Market Outlook for the Second Half ►18:04 - The AI Trade and Mag 7 Handoff ►22:55 - Meta, AI Spending, and Data Centers ►29:03 - Small and Mid-Cap Stocks Are Breaking Out ►31:14 - Regional Banks and Financials ►35:25 - What Strong Earnings Mean for Stocks ►37:00 - Is AI Still Early or Already Priced In? ►41:38 - Is the S&P 500 Too Concentrated? ►46:21 - Market Breadth Is Improving ►52:07 - Why This Bull Market Could Get Choppy ►54:06 - Are Software Stocks Finally a Buy? ►58:38 - Netflix, YouTube, and the Streaming Wars ►01:04:56 - The Worst Stock in the Market? ►01:08:29 - Brian’s Favorite Opportunities Right Now ►01:12:13 - Humilis Investment Strategies 👕 Check out The Compound shop: https://www.idontshop.com 🎙️Listen to our podcasts: TCAF: https://podcasts.thecompoundnews.com/show/TCAF/ Animal Spirits: https://podcasts.thecompoundnews.com/show/animalspirits/ Ask The Compound: https://podcasts.thecompoundnews.com/show/ATC/ The Compound Newsletter: https://www.thecompoundnews.com/subscribe Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-compound-media/ Instagram: https://instagram.com/thecompoundnews Twitter: https://twitter.com/thecompoundnews Tik Tok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thecompoundnews Investing involves the risk of loss. This podcast is for informational purposes only and should not be or regarded as personalized investment advice or relied upon for investment decisions. Josh Brown and Michael Batnick are employees of Ritholtz Wealth Management and may maintain positions in the securities discussed in this video. All opinions expressed by them are solely their own opinion and do not reflect the opinion of Ritholtz Wealth Management. See our disclosures here: https://ritholtzwealth.com/podcast-youtube-disclosures/ The Compound Media, Incorporated, an affiliate of Ritholtz Wealth Management, receives payment from various entities for advertisements in affiliated podcasts, blogs and emails. Inclusion of such advertisements does not constitute or imply endorsement, sponsorship or recommendation thereof, or any affiliation therewith, by the Content Creator or by Ritholtz Wealth Management or any of its employees. For additional advertisement disclaimers see here https://ritholtzwealth.com/advertising-disclaimers. #thecompound #investing #stockmarket #stocks [Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oYLoGVNYws)

[0:00] Brian Belski: Thanks for having us [8:44] Brian Belski: 千万别学我，请千万不要像我这样拼。 [16:05] Brian Belski: beware of the second derivative less positive [19:32] Brian Belski: 没有任何增长能长期保持线性，当下的行情显然过于夸张 [19:32] Josh Brown: 对于一个号称‘从来不看评论区’的人来说，你花在看评论上的时间可真不少。 [39:48] Brian Belski: Always trade on scarcity, always buy scarcity [44:27] 富达小盘股基金经理: Belski，我是个小盘股经理，我的业绩跑输得一塌糊涂，我他妈都要去买微软了！ [46:23] Josh Brown: 当市场广度不断扩大时，你不会迎来市场大顶。 [58:38] Josh Brown: 难道只有我得教你们‘涨了再买、跌了就割’的巴菲特式操盘秘籍吗？ [58:38] Josh Brown: 如果你已经赢了，为什么还需要买下别人的版权库？ [74:32] Brian Belski: Yeah, it's my island. It's mine

[45:28] Fidelity Portfolio Manager: Belski, I'm buying Microsoft! [52:07] Brian Belski: Earnings-driven markets are more volatile than momentum, multiple-driven markets. [59:28] Josh Brown: Cowards. You buy after it goes up and you sell after it goes down. Do I have to teach you guys everything? [68:29] Brian Belski: You can be contrarian if the analysis backs it up

[0:00] We're on the record now. [0:00] >> We're on the record now. Okay, we're on [0:02] the record. [0:03] >> So, Brian, yeah. [0:04] >> Um, [0:05] >> the last time we were here was November. [0:07] Feels like a long time ago. [0:08] >> It was three It was It was three days [0:10] after I launched Humalless. [0:12] >> Come on. [0:13] >> Yeah, man. [0:13] >> Yeah. [0:14] >> You guys did a special live thing with [0:16] me. I knew it on uh [0:18] >> Well, you can't you can't have as long [0:20] of a career as you've had without being [0:23] right a few times. You got to get [0:24] something's right. And you have [0:25] >> got to get some things right. [laughter] [0:27] Get a lot of stuff wrong. [0:28] >> So, check this out. So, um, Felski [0:31] calls, [0:32] >> yeah, [0:32] >> reiterated his 2025 S&P target of 7,000, [0:36] but whatever. More importantly, pushes [0:38] back on the AI bubble label on MAG 7, [0:42] >> increasingly uncorrelated earnings [0:44] reactions among the group. Um, you saw [0:47] dispersion there. You expected the [0:49] performance to broaden out beyond mega [0:50] cap into AI into value, dividend growth [0:52] in small and mid. [0:54] >> Great call, Brian. And uh you saw [0:56] regional bank M&A as midsize banks. Uh [1:00] so whatever you favored a barbell. Sean [1:02] said he actually nailed it. [1:04] >> Yeah. [1:04] >> Like he [1:05] >> Well, Sean, Mr. You nailed it, which is [1:08] important. [1:08] >> You really did. That was good stuff. [1:10] >> Thank you. Thank you. [1:11] >> It was good stuff. [1:12] >> It's Do you want to thank Do you want to [1:13] thank anyone? [1:15] [laughter] [1:16] >> You know, every time I say something on [1:18] there's still and I try my best now when [1:20] I'm on the show, I don't say thanks for [1:22] having us. I don't say that anymore [1:23] because I got so much crap from Wapner. [1:25] And [1:25] >> why why boil us? [1:27] >> Well, because it's a thanks for having [1:29] me. [1:29] >> Yeah. Yeah. [1:30] >> Well, no, but but I am a collective of [1:32] all this fantastic team that I have. So, [1:35] I always say thanks for having us. [1:36] >> Oh, thanks for having us. Like, thanks [1:37] for having our [1:38] >> I know you mean it sounds weird. Am I [1:40] But you mean you're a nice guy. You [1:42] don't mean it to be You don't mean to be [1:43] a douche when you say it. It sounds [1:44] >> No, no, I don't mean to be a douche. I [1:45] don't mean to be a douche. Um, so no. [1:48] despite the tan. [1:50] [laughter] [1:51] >> Dude, I had to I went to Minnesota. I [1:53] went to Minnesota the Friday of Memorial [1:55] Day weekend and I'm like [1:58] >> I I had a change of life and I moved [2:00] downtown in 2019. So then I I in 2020 I [2:04] was there for the George Floyd stuff [2:06] >> and then that really shook Minneapolis [2:09] >> and it was fun to live downtown [2:11] Minneapolis before that. And then even [2:12] the last six or eight months things have [2:15] changed there, man. [2:16] >> Are they getting better? [2:17] >> No. [2:18] So, I was there in 2023, I think, when [2:20] the Giants beat the Vikings in the [2:22] playoffs. And it was I I stayed [2:23] downtown, [2:24] >> honestly. [2:25] >> And it was [2:26] >> I I came in here and said, "You're [2:27] welcome for CAT for as [2:31] it was. It was very depressing." [2:32] >> It's depressing. [2:33] >> Yeah, it was tough. [2:34] >> So, I think I got to do something [2:35] different. [2:35] >> Well, Minneapolis sort of became like [2:38] ground zero for the culture wars. Yep. [2:40] >> Like both sides are growing [2:42] increasingly, I don't want to say [2:44] violent, but like aggressive. You have [2:46] people for violence. [2:48] >> You have like citizen journalists [2:50] exposing the daycare centers. You have [2:53] like the all the protesters are still [2:55] out in the streets. It just [2:57] >> if it's just an unexpected place to be [3:00] the ground zero for the culture wars, [3:02] but that's what's [3:03] >> Yeah. But if you So I grew up there and [3:06] I love um history. Hopefully be able to [3:08] talk about one of the books I'm reading [3:10] right now later in the in the broadcast [3:11] here. But um Minnesota has always been a [3:14] place for kind of off-the-wall politics. [3:17] Like Eugene McCarthy, you guys are too [3:19] young to remember. [3:22] >> Jesse Ventura was a pro wrestler and he [3:24] became governor. [3:26] >> Yeah. [3:26] >> Um and so they've always been kind of [3:28] goofy on the political side, but it's [3:30] gone it's gone way too far and there's a [3:33] lot of people leaving Minnesota. I mean [3:35] I part of that was I didn't I think I I [3:38] I love my Twins. I go to the Twins [3:40] games. I'm not feeling great walking [3:41] back to my condo from the Twins game. [3:42] So, I'm like, I'm going to spend more [3:43] time in Florida. Plus, it's 1,000 [3:45] degrees. It's 1,000 degrees everywhere. [3:47] It's It's hot here in New York. It's [3:48] It's 105 in Minnesota. Where would you [3:51] rather be? Naples, Florida, 100° or [3:53] Minneapolis, 100°? Uh, [3:55] >> so Oh, so you're All right. So, you're [3:57] But so, you're going to be in Naples, [3:59] but then you need like a a summer place [4:01] to live. [4:02] >> Yeah, because a couple things. It is [4:04] super hot in Naples. Um, the flights are [4:06] prohibitive. Like when I I'm in Naples [4:08] right now because I need to get out of [4:09] Minneapolis for a little bit and hang [4:10] out. But to fly up here, two Delta [4:14] flights, one at 7 a.m. and one at 7:00 [4:15] p.m., that doesn't work for me. Um and [4:17] so I fly United mostly. Um but um the [4:21] flights are very prohibitive. And if I [4:23] want to go west, anywhere west of [4:25] Alabama, [4:26] >> yeah, [4:27] >> you're connecting through Atlanta or [4:29] through Houston or something. And that [4:30] that's [4:31] >> what what is it? Fort Myers airport or [4:32] >> Fort Myers. So if you think about it, [4:35] it's an hour from my place in North [4:37] Naples. It's an hour and 45 minutes to [4:39] Fort Lauderdale. Fort Lauderdale, great [4:41] airport. So if you think about it, like [4:43] it's going to take me an hour and a half [4:44] to get to New York after this, right? So [4:45] I mean, you think about that on a [4:47] relative basis, [4:48] >> but still every time you got to go to [4:49] Fort Lauderdale. [4:50] >> So professionally, where would it make [4:51] sense for you? Is it Chicago or is it [4:53] like New York? [4:54] >> New York. [4:54] >> Okay. [4:55] >> At some point, I mean, let's, you know, [4:57] baby step. [4:57] >> That's such a that's such a huge deal to [4:59] like set up in New York. Well, [5:02] >> this is an impossible place to live. I [5:03] don't know if you know that. I [5:04] >> I think I think the company's always [5:07] going to be incorporated Delaware [5:08] Corporation and then headquartered in [5:10] Naples, [5:11] >> but you need but you need talent. So, [5:13] where are those people going to be? [5:14] >> All over the place. I mean, we're have a [5:15] distributed everyone works from home. [5:17] >> Okay. [5:17] >> So, I have two people in New York, one [5:19] in Seattle, one in Florida. [5:22] >> Okay. And this is by virtue of these are [5:24] the people that you want and they happen [5:25] to be in those places. [5:26] >> Very much so. [5:26] >> So, we built our firm the same exact [5:28] way. And then somewhere along the line, [5:31] the thing that we realized is that in [5:34] certain capacities, some workers are [5:38] better off uh independent like just work [5:42] from home or in a wei work whatever [5:44] based on their role and their [5:46] personality. [5:47] >> Yeah. And then in some cases it's like [5:48] you know what we actually need to [5:51] cluster a few places where we can get [5:54] multiple people together and we have so [5:56] we have both but we built Chicago's uh [5:59] 16 people. They come in every day and [6:02] the and the roles that they have at the [6:04] firm it actually makes sense for them to [6:06] be in person together. [6:07] >> They're in uh the salt shed uh which is [6:10] do you know what that is [6:11] >> downtown? [6:12] >> Yeah I know the area. It's not too far. [6:13] >> So, but it made sense for based on the [6:16] role uh Chicago is an operations hub for [6:18] us. If you're just a if you're just [6:20] working at all day task after task after [6:23] task and you have very little in-person [6:25] interaction, that's not the same as [6:27] being an adviser and talking to clients. [6:30] Like I feel like um the operations [6:32] people, a lot of them would prefer to be [6:35] together. U so that's like one example. [6:37] And then Charlotte, we started the [6:38] cluster. We we're opening a new office [6:39] in August in uh Charlotte. So, we're [6:42] always going to look like what you [6:43] described for the most part, but then [6:46] we've we're going to have like hubs. [6:48] >> Well, you know what's interesting? [6:49] >> I think that's that's like that's like [6:50] how it's going to go for everyone. I [6:51] think [6:51] >> one of the first times I was on the [6:54] compound um I said something [6:56] controversial, shocking um that I [6:59] believe that everyone's going to go back [7:00] to work in the in the following fiscal [7:03] year. And I got absolutely ripped in the [7:05] comments and I I never read the [7:06] comments. [7:07] >> Why? Because like the health issue. [7:09] >> Yeah. It's just people weren't back to [7:11] we weren't back to work in Wall Street. [7:12] I think we're like 2 or 3 days in. And [7:14] then then it was in I think I said [7:16] within within 12 months we're going to [7:17] be back to work. Everyone's going to be [7:18] back to work. And my son Ashley's the [7:20] one that said, "Dad, you got to look at [7:21] these comments on you on the YouTube." [7:23] >> Never do that. No, [7:24] >> don't do that. [7:25] >> No, don't do that. So anyway, [7:27] >> well, I do think that we're going to get [7:28] some big corporations [7:31] who who kick off the 4-day work week. I [7:34] think it's like inevitable and I think [7:36] it's actually going to surprise people, [7:37] but Wall Street could be one of the [7:39] first areas where they basically say [7:42] unless you're in a clientf facing role [7:44] specifically and need to be in the [7:46] office, we're we're we're not expecting [7:49] you on Fridays. [7:50] >> Wait, hold on. 4 day work week or day or [7:53] in in person 4 week [7:54] >> 4 day inerson work week on Wall Street. [7:56] I think it's coming. [7:57] >> But work on Friday, just not from home. [7:58] I mean, just work four days in the [8:01] office. [8:01] >> Yeah. No, I don't mean don't. I [8:03] shouldn't I shouldn't have phrased the [8:04] way. [8:04] >> I think you're I think you're working 5 [8:06] days. The thing is on Wall Street, [8:08] people are working seven days a week. [8:10] >> Um because nobody ever doesn't answer an [8:12] email or return a call. So, it almost [8:14] doesn't matter. But I I do think [8:17] companies are tired of fighting their [8:19] employees over Fridays, especially in [8:22] the summer. And it's almost pointless [8:24] because all of these companies are more [8:26] profitable than ever and giving their [8:28] employees more um giving their employees [8:31] more latitude than ever. So it's just [8:33] ultimately as the next generation takes [8:36] over eventually someone's going to say, [8:38] "Okay, you know what? Don't worry about [8:40] coming in Fridays. Just make sure you're [8:42] hitting your numbers." [8:44] >> Yeah. I think everybody works different. [8:46] I think some of us, especially Gen Xers, [8:48] have to learn that the next two [8:50] generations, they learn different than [8:52] we did. and they work different than we [8:54] did. [8:54] >> Um, but I do believe that the next two [8:57] generations, the millennials and the Gen [8:59] Z's, they have a harder time with [9:01] interpersonal skills. [9:02] >> Yes. [9:03] >> Um, and you know, when you're growing up [9:06] in the business in the 80s and 90s like [9:08] I did, you had to learn when people were [9:10] lying to you because you could tell by [9:11] the but you could tell by the questions [9:13] they were asking, by the answers they [9:15] were giving and look in their eyes. And [9:18] I think where analysts have all become [9:21] lemmings, no disrespect, and they all [9:24] kind of dropped their earnings all at [9:25] once, right? Or right, they dropped [9:26] their earnings all at once. They're all, [9:28] you know, because of Spitzer in 200. [9:30] Everyone forgets all this stuff. [9:32] >> The the good old fashioned days of [9:33] sitting down with a CFO or CEO and [9:35] talking about their numbers. Nobody I [9:36] don't think that people do that anymore [9:38] or they do it over screens or [9:39] >> Nobody has time to do it. So they do it [9:41] on Zoom. Yeah. or or they don't do it at [9:43] all and they're relying on spreadsheets [9:45] and models and you know looking at what [9:48] other people are doing and I I don't I [9:51] don't know I don't know that we're even [9:54] going to notice this change. I think [9:56] it's just going to be this gradual thing [9:57] and then all of a sudden we'll all [9:59] notice it like but it's I I can't [10:01] imagine it not coming. [10:03] >> I still feel like I'm cheating when I'm [10:05] home and I'm home a lot. I'm home most [10:06] days. I still feel like somebody's gonna [10:08] tap me on the shoulder be like this [10:09] isn't like get back to get back to the [10:10] real world. It's been but this is it. [10:12] It's not going back. [10:13] >> My goal is once I have a certain asset [10:15] level I'm gonna I'll have an office and [10:17] I want people in the office because I [10:18] just think it's you need to collegial [10:20] especially with a smaller group. [10:22] >> But I mean when you own your own [10:24] business I'm working eight days a week. [10:26] >> Yeah. [10:27] >> And right every 25 hours a day doesn't [10:29] matter. [10:30] >> So and I don't expect my people I've [10:32] never expected my people to work like me [10:34] even when I was at big firms. Don't be [10:36] like me. Please don't be like me. But [10:38] it's just the nature of the beast that [10:39] we're in. [10:40] >> Would you set up in New York or you're [10:41] not sure yet? [10:42] >> I probably would if I get the right [10:44] asset number that I'm looking for. [10:46] >> Okay. Which is one trillion? [laughter] [10:48] >> I hope. [10:51] [applause] [10:53] >> Ladies and gentlemen, Miss Nicole. [10:56] Oh. [11:02] >> [music] [11:08] >> Today's episode is sponsored by Wisdom [11:10] Tree. You've probably [music] heard the [11:12] comparisons between quantum computing [11:14] and the early days of AI. Big potential, [11:17] lots of uncertainty, [music] and [11:19] technology that could fundamentally [11:20] change how industries operate. But [11:23] here's something that caught our [11:24] attention. The US [music] government [11:26] recently invested in several quantum [11:28] focused companies, adding momentum [11:31] [music] to this emerging technology. For [11:33] investors interested in the space, [11:35] Wisdom Tree offers the Wisdom [music] [11:37] Tree Quantum Computing Fund, ticker [11:40] WQTM, [11:42] which provides [music] pure play [11:44] exposure to companies that it believes [11:47] are driving innovation across the [11:49] quantum ecosystem. Click the link in the [11:51] show notes [music] to learn more. Before [11:53] investing, carefully consider a fund's [11:55] investment objectives, risks, charges, [11:57] [music] and expenses along with other [11:59] information contained in the [12:00] perspectives available at [12:02] wisdomree.com/investments. [12:04] Read it carefully. [12:08] >> Wow. [12:09] >> 249. [12:10] >> 249 on the 250th birthday of United [12:13] States of America. What do you think [12:14] about that? [12:15] >> I think it's amazing. [12:16] >> Brian, a lot of people think you're [12:17] secretly Canadian. Do we want to clear [12:19] that up today? [12:20] >> I am an American. [music] capital A. [12:23] That's right. [12:24] >> All right. People think that because [12:25] you're from the north. Yep. [12:27] >> And you worked for a Canadian bank for a [12:28] long time. [12:29] >> Yep. I know. [12:30] >> But that that that [music] should go [12:32] away now. That chapter's over. [12:34] >> All right. All right. We're so happy to [12:36] have you back. [12:36] >> Thank you. [12:37] >> You guys are in for a treat. Uh fan [12:39] favorite, uh host favorite, one of one [12:43] of my favorite people on Wall Street, [12:44] and he kills it here every time. We're [12:47] so excited to have him back. Ladies and [12:49] gentlemen, please welcome Brian Bellski. [12:52] Wow, [12:53] thank you so much. Brian is the founder, [12:57] CEO, and CIO of Humilis [music] [12:59] Investment Strategies. Humalis [13:01] Investment Strategies is an independent [13:03] portfolio advisory firm built on the [13:06] principles of conviction, humility, and [13:09] disciplined strategy. [13:12] Brian has held roles at firms including [13:14] Beimo, Oppenheimer and Company, Meil [13:17] Lynch, Piper Jaffrey, Dane Bosworth, and [13:19] William O'Neal. This is his 36th year on [13:24] Wall Street. Unbelievable. [13:27] >> Do we got the shot? All right, [13:29] >> you got the shot. [13:29] >> Hey, dude, thank you for being here. We [13:31] appreciate it. [13:31] >> Thank you so much. [13:32] >> Why are you Why are you tanner than me? [13:34] I'm I'm actively working on my tan. Is [13:36] it just coming natural to you or how how [13:39] are we doing this? [13:40] >> Jeans. Okay. Good jeans. [13:42] >> Those Minneapolis. Yeah. [13:44] >> Minneapolis jeans. Those Irish and [13:45] Polish jeans. Uh, no. I've been spending [13:48] a lot of time in Naples the last couple [13:49] of weeks. It's been hot in Minnesota. [13:51] So, where would you rather be? In Naples [13:53] by the water, by the pool, or in [13:55] Minnesota or [13:56] >> I'm going to Bokeh uh two days. [13:58] >> Yeah. [13:58] >> So, I'll be there for you. I love You [14:01] guys are down there for for a show. [14:02] Yeah. [14:02] >> Was that May when you were there? [14:04] >> Yeah. Uh [14:05] >> March. [14:06] >> March. Yeah. [14:07] >> So, right during the peak. [14:08] >> Oh. When we came to to Naples. Yeah. [14:10] >> February. [14:11] >> February. [14:11] >> Yeah. [14:12] >> Of last year. [14:14] >> I get excited when I when I pull into my [14:16] parking lot of my condo and there's [14:18] three cars in the parking lot. Oh, it's [14:20] fantastic. I can get I live in North [14:22] Naples, so kind of South Bonita, I like [14:24] to call it. I'm not in the bougie part [14:25] of Naples. I can't afford that. But I [14:27] can go downtown in like 12 minutes. [14:29] >> Yeah. Do you go to the Blue Martini? [14:31] >> No. [14:32] >> Why not? Come on. [14:34] >> That's my That's our favorite place. [14:36] >> You took us there. [14:37] >> I did. I [laughter] did. That's my new [14:39] favorite place in the world. [14:41] >> You know the place across from the Cava [14:43] Lounge that you you don't remember? [14:45] [laughter] [14:45] >> I don't remember. [14:46] >> I want to say one thing about about [14:48] Naples that I observed. People there are [14:52] having a lot more fun than in other [14:54] places in Florida. Like Miami is very a [14:59] lot of obviously partying, but away from [15:01] that it's like very serious. A lot of [15:03] business. Y [15:04] >> West Palm now looks more like Wall [15:05] Street than than anywhere else in [15:07] Florida where I where I am in in Bokeh. [15:10] It's not a party atmosphere. It's more [15:12] relaxing. Naples is fun. Like the people [15:15] that I witness that live there at least [15:18] part-time, they seem like they're really [15:19] enjoying life. [15:20] >> You know, I personally fly into Fort [15:22] Myers and when I hit that exit to drive [15:24] by seed to table and then to my house, I [15:27] take this deep breath. It's so relax. [15:29] It's my happy place. I had a change of [15:31] life [15:31] >> six and a half years ago. Um, and um, I [15:35] moved to Naples. I've been going down to [15:37] Naples for 20 plus years and working at [15:38] Meyer Lynch for so long. We used to do [15:41] all activities and big conferences at [15:43] Ritz Carlton property. So, been going [15:45] there and then the Twins play in Fort [15:46] Myers, Minnesota Twins. So, I've been [15:48] going there for a long time. To live [15:49] there is completely different. [15:51] >> And so, tonight when I get home, I'm [15:52] going to walk to the Gulf of America and [15:55] put my feet in the water and just [15:57] breathe. Uh, [15:57] >> this is way too much geography. Can we [15:59] talk stocks? [15:59] >> Yep. [laughter] [16:00] >> What's that main drag called? Fifth [16:02] Avenue. [16:02] >> Yeah, Fifth Avenue. [16:03] >> Yeah. All right. What a what a cool [16:05] place. All right. Uh [16:07] >> we're going to start with first of all [16:09] just a a little bit Michael did the [16:11] recap of all of the calls that you had [16:13] made which turned out remarkably well. [16:16] Where do you think we stand heading into [16:18] the second half in the equities market? [16:20] Like what is the big picture opening [16:23] line you're giving to clients to kind of [16:25] give them a an idea of what you're [16:27] thinking right now? [16:29] >> Well, shocker. We're still bullish, but [16:30] I think the headline would be beware of [16:32] the second derivative less positive. [16:34] >> So tell us what that means. [16:36] >> Well, we've had this amazing earnings [16:38] growth ride, better than everybody [16:40] thought, but what goes up must come [16:42] down. And this don't be don't take this [16:45] for me to be negative because our work [16:47] shows that in an earnings driven market [16:50] um when the market is driven by earnings [16:52] versus multiple expansion or momentum, [16:55] typical returns on an annual basis are [16:57] something like 10 to 12%. [16:59] much less so than what we've seen the [17:01] last couple years which has really been [17:02] more about momentum and peer driven but [17:04] if you're looking at 20 to 25% growth [17:07] for the S&P 500 whatever number you want [17:09] to look at might be different tomorrow [17:11] um are we going to be 25% for the next [17:13] four months probably not I mean it would [17:15] be fantastic don't get me wrong with the [17:17] AI revolution and all of that but the [17:20] chances are earnings are going to slow [17:22] down a little bit for big cap stocks for [17:23] large cap stocks and I think people [17:25] given the fact that we're so innateely [17:28] focused on every little data point. If [17:30] there's any kind of slowdown, people are [17:33] going to sell. But I think that [17:34] ultimately drives what our broader trade [17:37] is, which is the broadening out trade [17:38] and more normalization and all this kind [17:40] of stuff. So, I think it's going to be [17:42] choppier than most people think. I think [17:44] personally, uh, there's too many bulls [17:46] out there. Um, but it's funny because [17:50] you have the bulls, everyone's calling [17:51] for a correction, too. Have a [17:52] correction. [17:53] >> Well, always constant. [17:55] >> It's constant. And so you don't have to [17:57] be a hero to try to time the market. I [17:59] think stocks are higher. How about this? [18:00] Stocks are at all-time highs at year [18:02] end. I think in between there we got [18:03] some fun. This year we had a handoff [18:06] from kind of mag seven centric market [18:09] where people wanted to own the data [18:11] centers and the hyperscalers and now [18:13] they seem to be more uh they seem to be [18:16] more attracted to the companies who are [18:18] selling products and services to the [18:21] data center buildout and they've been [18:23] less excited about owning the [18:25] hyperscalers themselves. I know this [18:28] week there was a nice bounce for a lot [18:29] of the MAX 7, but generally speaking, [18:32] those stocks are mid- teens to mid 20% [18:35] off of their highs. They haven't really [18:38] participated. They've actually been a [18:39] net detractor up until the last couple [18:41] of days from the S&P's year to date. [18:44] >> Oh, I know. [18:44] >> So, we have this handoff. So, the [18:46] question is, it sounds like you think [18:48] the handoff will continue, but the [18:51] choppiness comes in because these things [18:53] don't happen in a straight line. [18:55] >> Yeah. Nothing's linear. And I do think [18:57] that well, first of all, you don't have [19:00] to own everything, right? You don't have [19:01] to own everything. I think that you're [19:04] going to see some [19:07] uh rebalancing back into Microsoft. [19:09] Microsoft's the one that I'm kind of [19:11] focused on. You think 34% return on [19:13] equity, 78 billion on the balance sheet, [19:17] 25% earnings growth, quarter after [19:19] quarter, consistent. So that one to me [19:21] doesn't make sense in terms of being [19:23] down 23 or 24% year-to date. It does [19:26] from a [19:26] >> well and the nar got stuck in the [19:27] narrative. It's the biggest software [19:28] stock in the world. [19:29] >> Yeah. Well well exactly. So like full [19:32] disclosure I was telling you when we [19:33] were walking in people were teasing me [19:34] Bowski underperformed in June by 1%. [19:38] >> Well I don't know Micron I mean if you [19:40] come on if [19:42] >> that's pretty good [19:43] >> right? [19:44] >> Anyway Micron is is now down 21% from [19:47] its high a couple days ago. So you talk [19:50] about [19:50] >> it didn't take long. No. [19:51] >> So you think about we were talking [19:52] earlier about never look at the [19:54] comments, right? So I was on closing [19:57] bell last week um and the day that [20:01] Micron came out with earnings and they [20:02] asked me and I'm like you full [20:04] disclosure I don't own the stock but I [20:06] pulled the nothing's linear for long and [20:08] this this is way overdone. [20:10] >> Stock went up a little bit. It was been [20:12] straight down since then. But if you [20:13] read the comments was wrong. [20:14] >> I mean I you know I don't own the stock. [20:16] I mean so so anyway. Anyway, [20:17] >> for somebody who never reads the [20:18] comments, sounds like you spent a lot of [20:19] time reading the comments. [20:20] >> Glances at the comments. [20:21] >> Well, someone told me again, you got to [20:23] read. It [20:24] >> was your son. It was your son. B, let me [20:25] ask you this. So, you said that um you [20:27] expect earnings to the growth to not be [20:31] as strong. Obviously, you're not [20:32] expecting negative earnings. [20:33] >> No, no, no, no. If if it goes, Michael, [20:34] if it goes from 25 to 20, people are [20:37] going to go, "Whoa." [20:37] >> Right. Right. [20:38] >> Well, let me Okay, so let me put it to [20:40] you this way. The earnings growth is in [20:44] large part being driven by the [20:45] hyperscalers willing to go to zero on [20:47] their free cash flow. Yeah. [20:48] >> Right. Like that is powering a large [20:49] part of the earnings because their spend [20:51] is Micron and AMDs and everybody else's [20:53] earnings. They have been steadfastly [20:56] committed to higher and higher and [20:59] higher spend. So do you think that's [21:01] going to re reverse itself or what where [21:04] do you think it's going to [21:05] >> It has to slow down. It has to slow [21:07] down. It [21:07] >> has to. It has to. [21:08] >> They say it's not. [21:09] >> But yeah, they're telling you now. Okay. [21:10] Well, of course they are [laughter] [21:12] >> because they want to go to the [21:14] marketplace, right? If they're going to [21:15] go to cash flow to zero, they're going [21:16] to have to go and get money in the [21:18] market. Yeah. [21:19] >> Why do you think why do you think [21:21] Oracle's been been [21:22] >> Why raise money though if you were going [21:23] to slow down? So, why would Google be [21:25] selling stock after 15 years of 10 years [21:28] of buybacks if they're not going to [21:30] accelerate spending? What would be the [21:32] reason? [snorts] [21:34] >> I don't know. [21:35] >> Okay. [21:35] >> I I actually don't know. [21:36] >> But you Google one of my favorites, too. [21:38] No matter what, these companies are [21:39] gonna have to slow down. [21:40] >> They have to slow down. [21:41] >> What the hell is happening with Oracle? [21:42] I know we have a lot to discuss in the [21:43] doc, but it's like going straight down. [21:45] >> I know that's another one of my [21:46] >> This is problem child. [21:48] >> This doesn't look like the other ones. [21:50] >> I mean, it's going straight down. [21:51] >> I just Yeah, I I'm still sticking with [21:53] Oracle. I'm sticking with Microsoft. I'm [21:54] sticking with pound. [21:55] >> Do you think Oracle is trading? Because [21:57] I think in the in this in the late [22:00] winter, early spring when everything [22:01] else was going down, it made a lot of [22:03] sense. It was linear. It was wait what [22:05] did Sam Alman just say to on the on that [22:07] podcast? Everybody's antennas went up [22:10] and he was acting very defensive and [22:12] Oracle just said like investors said [22:14] there's no way that 5year $300 billion [22:17] contract is money good. No way. And that [22:19] >> or the open AI business. [22:21] >> Yes. And that announcement was [22:23] responsible for Oracle's 30% gain in [22:26] September 2025 or whatever it was. Y [22:28] >> um so do you think it's still trading on [22:29] AI fears or what the Okay. [22:31] >> I do. I do. So you think about too them [22:34] going out in the public marketplace and [22:36] taking all that money, but you think [22:37] about how Oracle was a value stock in [22:40] tech for a long time and they were early [22:43] adopters into investing in the AI and so [22:46] then then all of a sudden all the [22:48] relationship with OpenAI and the stock [22:50] took off. So I think that's unjustly [22:52] being punished. So I'm sticking with [22:54] Oracle and and Microsoft. I am [22:56] >> what do what do you think about whether [22:58] or not the meta news this week where [23:00] they're now going to be like an [23:01] outsourced uh cloud for other players [23:04] the market rallied the stock and then [23:07] gave almost all of it back to [23:08] >> I'm not a believer I'm not a believer [23:09] >> it is that does that even make sense if [23:12] you're a meta shareholder is that what [23:14] you would want to see them investing in [23:15] >> how is there excess compute I don't [23:17] understand I thought all we hear about [23:18] is shortage [23:19] >> right [23:19] >> they're they're going to start renting [23:21] out their excess [23:21] >> look how fast that game went away [23:23] >> yeah two seconds two seconds [23:25] >> like like 24 hours later people are [23:26] like, "Uh, what is he doing?" [23:29] >> Wait a minute. [laughter] These are the [23:30] same I think the I think um the market [23:33] has said, "Well, wait a minute. Aren't [23:34] these the same guys that were doing like [23:37] sunglasses and stuff a little bit [23:39] prediction markets?" Like they seem very [23:41] just very not focused. [23:42] >> They call it flailing. Yeah. The Meta. [23:45] Now, I don't know [ __ ] and I could be [23:47] totally wrong and they could surprise [23:49] everyone. Meta just the way like I think [23:53] about it, they're the best user of AI on [23:56] earth to generate revenue like [23:59] >> because of the ad spend. [24:00] >> The product is you cannot put your phone [24:02] down anymore. If you're if you're on [24:04] Instagram, [24:05] >> you literally cannot put your phone [24:06] down. It is just [24:08] >> so good at holding people's attention [24:11] >> and getting people to send it to their [24:13] friends and getting people to engage [24:15] with it. They have perfected reels. It [24:19] is completely addictive. Nobody saw me [24:21] on Tik Tok anymore. [24:22] >> And I have a physical device. It's [24:24] called a brick where I literally have to [24:26] stop myself. I have to lock myself out [24:28] of my phone because I am addicted to [24:30] Instagram. I tap on and I tap off and I [24:33] try and leave it tapped off. [24:34] >> Right. So, so that's AI. AI enabled them [24:37] to not only make the world's most [24:39] addictive product, but uh that's not [24:42] nicotine, but also the monetization of [24:44] it. It's perfect. So, they have this [24:46] thing. It's the best in the world and it [24:49] spins off a ton of cash. But I don't [24:51] think people would look at the way that [24:53] they reinvest that cash and say that [24:55] they are any good at that. You seem to [24:57] be really bad at it. Actually, [24:59] >> I have a sorted past with with Meta. I [25:02] um [25:03] >> Say more. [25:04] >> How sorted. [25:06] >> Well, in uh the fourth quarter of 2018, [25:10] I sold the stock. I blew the stock out [25:12] completely. That's when they changed the [25:14] name of the company [25:15] >> to Meta. [25:15] >> To Meta. Was that long ago? [25:17] >> We're going into the metaverse and we [25:19] we're we're going to [25:22] >> push aside WhatsApp and Instagram and [25:26] Facebook and we're still going to own [25:28] it, but we're going to try to go in this [25:29] other direction. I'm like, they don't [25:30] know what they're going to do. And I [25:31] took all my meta position, put it into [25:33] Google. Haven't owned it since. Now he [25:36] doesn't know what he's talking about. [25:37] >> You know what the ROI was on that? They [25:38] spent $80 billion and lost $80 billion. [25:42] It's the most amazing. [25:43] >> See, there you go. So then, so I'm like, [25:45] okay. Then during the vid, they came out [25:48] and said, "Wait a minute. We're going to [25:49] come back. We need to focus on our core [25:51] competencies." [25:52] >> Good idea. [25:53] >> Which are WhatsApp, Instagram, and [25:55] Facebook. Now they're doing this. So, [25:57] >> and now they're going to build the [25:57] NeoCloud. [25:58] >> Yeah. So, I think the pick to click is [26:01] Google. I still think Google. And if you [26:03] look historically except for the you [26:05] know since really historically [26:08] um Google and Meta from a price [26:12] performance basis they're very [26:13] correlated right but I think they're [26:15] going to something that we talked about [26:17] when we were here last we're going to [26:18] have more stock picking more [26:19] differentiation yeah and look at [26:20] communication services in particular [26:22] terrible performing sector year today [26:24] you know AT&T but [26:26] >> Verizon they're crashing [26:27] >> Verizon Netflix [26:29] >> wait one one thing on onet on meta [26:31] before we get off this topic [26:33] It seems to me, and I could be totally [26:35] making this up, that in between every [26:37] quarter, we talk about what a bad job [26:40] Meta is doing and they're doing all this [26:42] [ __ ] and they're not focused. And [26:43] then every 90 days, we say, "Holy [ __ ] [26:46] they made how much money and the stock [26:48] rallies [26:49] >> because they they have the best [26:50] advertising business in the world that's [26:52] not called." [26:53] >> I really feel like every 90 days we're [26:54] like, "Wow, this is the best business in [26:56] the world." And then in between, we [26:57] spent time. [26:57] >> Yeah. How he's going to how is he going [26:58] to light that cash flow on fire this [27:00] month? [27:00] >> Yeah. Maybe. I mean, full disclosure, I [27:03] was looking at this stock hard because [27:05] we've talked about it on the show. You [27:07] were talking about Nike and about how I [27:09] like to buy companies in my value port. [27:13] >> Sorry, Brian. That's Meta on Google over [27:14] the last year. Yeah. [27:15] >> Holy [ __ ] I didn't realize it was that [27:16] bad. This [27:17] >> Yeah. So, this is really [27:18] >> Meta is down. Meta's down 18. Google's [27:20] up 100. [27:20] >> Yeah. Yeah. Since liberate, you're [27:22] right. My god. [27:23] >> Anyway, so in my value portfolio, I love [27:26] to buy companies that operationally have [27:27] tripped. [27:28] >> Nike for a while. Um, bought Starbucks a [27:32] couple years ago. Um, Netflix is in [27:34] there now. Lulu's in there now. I'm [27:36] like, man, try buy what Meta is. It's [27:38] time to buy Meta. [27:39] >> 16 times earnings. [clears throat] [27:40] >> It probably is. It [27:41] >> probably is. But let's see how 16 18. [27:44] How cheap is How cheap is the stock? [27:46] >> It's like 16 17. I think [27:47] >> it got a little Let's be That's too [27:50] cheap. Who car? Nobody likes Facebook. [27:52] >> Yeah. [27:53] >> Everybody knows. [27:54] >> Not No Facebook, no Insta ever. I'm not [27:57] on. [27:58] >> Well, if you if you if you were, you [28:00] would be as addicted as everyone else. [28:01] They're really good at what they do. The [28:03] problem is these initiatives in AI make [28:06] no sense to anyone. They're going to [28:07] build open model LLM. Nobody wants it. [28:10] Okay, fine. Now, we're going to build [28:12] productivity tools for the workplace. Is [28:14] anyone asking for meta at work? Like on [28:17] the planet? No way. Nobody trusts them. [28:20] >> You know what's interesting about this [28:21] though? So yesterday, Meta popped 10%. [28:24] Oh, so so now the new thing is we're [28:26] going to build a data center and rent [28:28] out compute because we saw Elon Musk do [28:31] it with XAI and they got uh appreciated [28:34] like maybe we'll be appreciated as a [28:36] company that could deliver this. It took [28:39] Alphabet and Amazon like 15 years to [28:42] build these businesses. [28:43] >> Yeah, [28:44] >> Meta is going to spin it up to get the [28:46] stock price to go up. [28:47] >> But so listen to this. So Meta was up [28:48] 10% yesterday on the news. Core Wee got [28:51] killed naturally. Meta is giving back a [28:54] lot of the gain today and core reef is [28:55] still going down today [28:57] >> and Oracle is going down [28:59] >> which I mean this [29:00] >> so the market is saying like we don't [29:01] really like any of this. [29:02] >> Yeah. [29:03] >> Anyway, all right. Uh what's this what's [29:05] this chart on Smid? Can we can we move [29:07] to like where uh [29:08] >> Anyway, what's this [ __ ] [29:09] >> No, no, no, no, no. Let's let's get [29:11] >> What are you spitting here on Smid? [29:13] What's Smid stand for? [29:14] >> Let's get into the Bellski charts. Let's [29:16] go. [29:16] >> All right. This is the first one. Smid [29:18] for people who are unfamiliar is small [29:20] and midcap combined. Yeah, [29:22] >> that's how you think about them that [29:23] market. [29:24] >> I do. Okay. [29:25] >> So, the S&P 1500 is the S&P 500, the S&P [29:30] 400 midcap, and the S&P 600 small cap. [29:33] So, we run money called a Smid portfolio [29:36] relative to the S&P 1000. And so, if you [29:39] take a look at the S&P 1000 with respect [29:42] to performance in June was was they they [29:45] flip-flop. They've completely gone off. [29:47] But what's interesting, if you take a [29:49] look at the S&P equal weighted versus [29:53] the Mag 7, same kind of thing. So, our [29:56] call all along has been that you always [29:59] want to go to where you always want to [30:01] skate to where the puck is going. [30:02] Everybody hates. [30:03] >> Wow, you're a genius. [30:05] >> Listen, [30:05] >> good. It's a good It's a good idea. I [30:07] like to skate to where the puck was 10 [30:09] minutes ago and wait for it to come [30:11] back. [30:11] >> Or you can, you know, or you can stick [30:12] handle. [30:13] >> You can stick handle and then get your [30:14] ass kicked cuz you have your head down, [30:16] right? Anyway, um [30:18] >> this is why they think you're Canadian. [30:19] All these hockey analogies. [30:20] >> I know. Minnesota, by the way. [30:22] >> Gordon Bombay. [laughter] [30:24] >> Gordon Bombay. [30:26] >> We're like a Hansen brother. Um who by [30:28] the way are from Minnesota. [30:30] >> H. [30:30] >> Anyway, [30:30] >> believable. [30:31] >> Believable, right? [30:32] >> Yeah. Yeah. Um, so we've said all along [30:35] that that from a fundamental [30:36] perspective, if you take a look at [30:38] earnings growth, price to free cash [30:40] flow, and actually next 12 months [30:43] earnings, you look at the small cap [30:45] market, SML versus the S&P 500. Amazing. [30:47] Amazing. [30:48] >> Is it? [30:48] >> Yes. [30:49] >> What's the What's the expectation for [30:50] small cap? [30:51] >> 28% something like that. [30:53] >> Earnings growth for when? Next 12 [30:54] months. And what is it for large cap? [30:56] >> 23 24 something like that. [30:58] >> Is that small or smid? [31:00] >> Small SML. [31:01] >> Okay. What is what is driving I don't [31:03] mean like the narrative like oh rates [31:04] whatever like literally at the sector [31:06] level where the earnings are financials [31:08] there's a lot of big fin there's a lot [31:10] there's a big financial presence in [31:11] there there's consumer discretionary in [31:13] there tech [31:14] >> so why are regional banks because you [31:15] spoke about this last time they're on [31:16] fire like what's the story [31:18] >> well our theme for financials and [31:20] regional banks has been um in the [31:23] regional bank side of things [31:24] consolidation I really think [31:25] consolidation's coming um and we've had [31:27] some decent consolidation from that but [31:29] the theme is the big and the small the [31:30] really big guys and the really small [31:32] guys are going to benefit. Small guys [31:34] are going to benefit because of the [31:35] relationship side of the business. And [31:37] oh, by the way, the smaller banks in [31:39] regions of the country that are growing [31:41] like let's say Montana or Wyoming or [31:44] Idaho or the South [31:45] >> growing meaning people are moving there. [31:46] >> People are moveing [31:49] there and companies are are moving there [31:51] as well because tax advantages or [31:53] whatever [31:54] >> those companies are winning uh business [31:57] away from the big banks. Okay. So [31:59] whether or not it's Glacier Bankor, [32:01] which we own, is winning business from [32:02] Chase, let's call it in Bosezema, [32:04] Montana, or [snorts] we own this company [32:06] called Senovas that got bought out by [32:07] Pinnacle. They're in the southeast of [32:09] the US, right? So we're moving to the [32:11] southeast, we're moving to Alabama, [32:12] we're moving to Georgia because of cheap [32:14] taxes and all that kind of stuff and [32:16] cheaper to cheaper payrolls. So those [32:19] banks are winning business from the [32:20] really big big guys from a relationship [32:22] standpoint. They're having a beer, [32:23] they're playing curbage on a Friday [32:25] night, all that kind of stuff. where the [32:27] the regional banks don't have the [32:29] capacity to be able to take on the big [32:31] banks and they don't have the [32:32] relationship power to take on the small [32:34] bank. [32:34] >> They're in the middle, but they are [32:35] they're becoming super regionals. [32:37] >> Well, they're going to have more I think [32:38] they're going to become I think they're [32:39] going to have some super combos. They're [32:41] going to see some consolidation that [32:43] >> like PNC is aggressive now. Citizens is [32:46] aggressive. Um [32:47] >> well it's a [clears throat] super [32:48] regional like a a big small bank like [32:50] when true like when two regionals merge [32:53] >> okay [32:53] >> and all of a sudden they start to get [32:55] some of those benefits of scale but [32:58] they're not quite Bank of America. So [33:00] they don't have capital markets business [33:01] let's say but they become powerhouses in [33:04] middle market lending and and commercial [33:06] banking. [33:07] >> So I'm in Citizens Financial. the number [33:09] one heliloc bank I think in the country [33:11] or something like that's their specialty [33:14] and they are a conglomeration of a bunch [33:16] of smaller banks and I I would argue [33:19] it's not really a regional anymore. It's [33:21] like a super regional and I don't you [33:23] don't think that's a sweet spot though [33:24] because they're stuck in the middle. You [33:26] like the smaller and the bigger? [33:27] >> I like the smaller and the bigger just [33:29] from a fundamental perspective. Um the [33:31] scale of the scale of the large ones [33:33] make sense to me. the small ones make [33:35] sense just from the fundamental side of [33:36] things and with if you look at balance [33:37] sheets too and cash flow for that you [33:40] have to you have to kind of roll up your [33:41] sleeves and do um the work to look at [33:44] some of these banks balance sheets to [33:45] make sure to see what their loan quality [33:46] is I think and I don't build strategies [33:49] around consolidation but I think you're [33:50] going to have some super consolidations [33:52] like I'm just throw it out there [33:54] >> the white house is allowing it all of it [33:56] >> truest buys US bank or I mean or they [33:59] combine something like that I I don't [34:02] know I don't know anything but you're [34:03] going to have more Midwest banks [34:04] combined. I really think you are [34:05] >> who is tr T truest is Mnt bought [34:08] America. I I forget. [34:09] >> No, it was Sunrust and um Bank out of [34:12] North Carolina. Um [34:14] >> Okay. Not not not important, but like [34:16] that that's the kind of thing that you [34:18] think we'll see. [34:18] >> Yeah. [34:19] >> Okay. Um away from banks but within [34:22] financials, what else looks good to you [34:24] right now? [34:26] >> Like some insurance companies like Unun [34:28] uh is an is an interesting um company. [34:31] Um, I don't I I want to like Blackstone [34:34] again. I want to go back into there. My [34:36] contrarian hat wants me to go back in [34:37] there, but [34:38] >> the headlines are not going to be good [34:39] for a while. [34:40] >> No, I can't do it. [34:40] >> But but Blue Owl rallied a little bit [34:42] today on less bad than expected. [34:45] >> Like redemptions were 19, I'm instead of [34:47] 25 last quarter, whatever it was. [34:49] >> Well, okay, let's let's think about [34:52] this. Why not just buy Oracle? [34:55] >> What do you mean? Well, [34:57] >> instead of buying a troubled financial [34:58] one [34:59] >> because financials are trading on [35:00] software distress too or perceived. [35:01] Yeah, that makes sense. [35:02] >> Right. [35:03] >> Right. [35:03] >> What about any take on So, I bought CME [35:05] today. These stocks so CME, SIBO, [35:08] >> the NASDAQ, [35:09] >> um ICE, [35:10] >> they're all down huge [35:11] >> and a little bit different a little bit [35:12] away, but S&P and Moody's also got [35:14] crushed, but what do you think about [35:15] like the exchanges? [35:16] >> Um Schwab Schwab looks interesting. I [35:19] like the exchanges. I think they're [35:20] cheap. [35:21] >> I think they sold off. I'm not even [35:22] kidding. On the Koshi perpetual listing [35:25] Yeah. news and fine, it may be they're a [35:28] threat, but are they that big of a [35:29] threat to suddenly start crashing? [35:30] >> No. [35:31] >> Let's uh do this earnings chart. Chart [35:33] three. [35:33] >> Chart three. [35:35] >> The first quarter reporting season was [35:37] historically strong. I'd also point out [35:39] I think this was the best quarter ever [35:41] for the stock market. [35:42] >> Did Did I read that wrong? [35:43] >> No way. [35:44] >> Or one of the best. What did I read? [35:45] >> It was very good. [35:46] >> I read something. Maybe it was the best [35:48] earnings quarter ever. [35:49] >> I think it was earnings. [35:50] >> Okay. All right. So, that's what you're [35:51] showing. You're showing [35:52] >> it was the most fun quarter ever between [35:54] the Knicks and the men's national team. [35:56] >> It really was. The Knicks the Knicks [35:57] really took the vibes over the top. [35:59] >> So when most people look at this chart, [36:01] they say, [clears throat] [36:03] "All right, when does it mean revert?" [36:05] Like when does when do we give all this [36:07] back or how many quarters worth of [36:09] earnings growth are we pulling forward [36:11] to get this result? What do you think [36:13] when you look at a chart like this? [36:16] >> I look at the big I look at the big [36:18] bottoms and tops, right? Right? Look how [36:20] bullish you should have been in in 2020 [36:22] when when the when the bottom fell out [36:24] and then you had a little bit of a you [36:26] had a little recession in 2022, but man, [36:29] earnings came back. But look at how the [36:30] recovery from 2022 it's been pretty [36:33] steady and then I'm you know you could [36:37] see 80%. You could see that you could [36:40] see that number. What if I'm wrong, [36:42] right? What if I'm wrong and you see 30% [36:44] growth? [36:45] >> Yeah. [36:45] >> Then I'm I could be wrong. [36:47] >> What if you underestimate it? Then the [36:48] S&P is 10,000 next year. [36:50] >> Yes. [36:51] >> Yeah. You looking at a Dow 75,000 S&P. [36:54] >> I'm still on board with my 25 year [36:56] secular bull. I'm still on board. I [36:57] think we have 7 to 10 years left. [37:00] >> Let me ask you this. I'm glad you you [37:01] mentioned that. A lot of people think [37:03] about the stock market. We use analogies [37:05] for shorthand. What inning is it? What [37:07] time is it? What if or what do you what [37:10] do you think about this? [37:13] the AI powered revolution, the economy [37:16] that we're coming towards, it can be the [37:18] top of the second inning. We don't have [37:20] robots. We're still very early. [37:22] Basically, nobody's using it. It could [37:24] be the top of the second inning as far [37:25] as this whole thing is concerned. But [37:27] what if the stock market's in the eighth [37:29] inning? And how do we know? And it [37:30] wasn't that too dissimilar in like 99 [37:33] where the it was still early for the [37:35] internet. [37:36] >> I understand what you're saying. [37:37] >> But the stock market had already [37:38] discounted all of it. So the internet [37:40] was in inning one. the stock market was [37:42] in inning 11 [37:46] >> could be because I think so man I'm [37:49] sounding bearish um I think we're going [37:51] to have a recession sounding nuance [37:53] >> whoa whoa whoa what did you just say [37:55] >> I think we're going to have a recession [37:56] at some point [37:56] >> oh cap at some point [laughter] [38:00] >> I thought going to give us more than [38:01] that [38:01] >> think about it so so let's say we're in [38:04] the second or third inning of the [38:06] revolution and market's getting a little [38:09] tippy we haven't had a normal normal [38:11] recession for all intents and purposes [38:13] [snorts] [38:15] since 2001. [38:18] Really? [38:19] >> What do you mean? [38:19] >> Like a normal two [38:21] >> like a run-of-the-mill plain vanilla [38:23] recession? [38:24] >> Yep. [38:24] >> Okay. Are we still capable of having [38:26] that where manufacturers get over their [38:28] skis on inventory, the inventory stops [38:31] selling, all of a sudden they stop [38:32] ordering? No, [38:33] >> it's different. [38:34] >> And we just and we just sort of have [38:35] like a slowdown as that gets worked [38:38] through. [38:38] >> Could we have a Could we [38:39] >> I don't know. Is that what 2001 was [38:41] about? [38:42] >> Well, 2001, [38:44] >> like what you're describing sounds like [38:45] like something that would have happened [38:46] in the 80s. [38:47] >> 2001 had over capacity of technology, [38:49] right? [38:51] >> We had a pull forward. So, everyone had [38:53] machines that they upgraded at the same [38:54] time because they literally thought the [38:56] planes were going to fall out of the [38:58] sky. That's the Y2K effect. [38:59] >> All right. Are we not doing that now? Is [39:00] there too many data? [39:01] >> So, that that's my point. The question [39:03] the question might not might be what [39:06] happens when these capex trends go into [39:08] reverse? What does that do to corporate [39:10] earnings for all the companies that are [39:12] feasting on this spending today? [39:14] >> Nukes it. [39:15] >> Uh yeah, I think and then it hits [39:17] multiples at the same time. [39:18] >> Could be horrible. [39:18] >> And then what is the externality of a [39:20] stock market in reverse? We know what [39:22] the wealth effect is when the stock [39:24] market is hitting highs. What does it [39:26] look like when it's down 20 30%. Is [39:29] everyone paying Delta for the Delta 1? [39:32] Is everyone paying Netflix for the ad [39:35] free experience? Like is is everyone [39:37] still spending the way they were when [39:38] the market was going higher? I So for me [39:42] that seems plausible. That seems like it [39:44] would be the bare case. [39:44] >> So when could that happen? If [39:46] >> as long as the labor market is good, [39:48] they'll keep spending. [39:48] >> But why? But the reason it's not going [39:50] to happen is because [39:53] we are seeing the demand for AI [39:58] rise as quickly as they can build it. I [40:02] don't maybe that stops. The the number [40:05] one thing is uh the cost of a token. The [40:07] cost of a token is declining rapidly [40:10] like 90% over the last which is great [40:12] news. The problem is token usage is like [40:16] growing 5x more quickly. The adoption [40:19] the spend [40:20] >> until the adoption stops. It's hard to [40:23] understand why all of a sudden this [40:25] capex will like stop on a dime. I know [40:27] people think that's how it's going to [40:28] end. Maybe they'll be right. But now [40:31] it's tied to revenue. Now it's companies [40:34] that are like this is AI revenue. So I I [40:38] just I don't know. I feel better about [40:39] it than maybe I did a [40:40] >> Did you just get bullish again? I just [40:41] saw a twinkle in your eye. I [laughter] [40:42] think you well demand demand demand [40:45] demand scarcity scarcity scarcity [40:47] scarcity you never doubt scarcity always [40:49] trade on scarcity always buy scarcity [40:51] and if if there's that demand there and [40:53] there's scarcity for menu or for memory [40:55] and there's that still scarcity on the [40:57] AI if we're still truly second it's [41:00] compute [41:00] >> then then this thing's going a lot [41:02] higher than we are at 10,000 [41:04] >> and the thing is the tokconom the the [41:05] token economics [41:07] are being rationalized right now [41:10] companies are looking at their bills [41:12] And yeah, the bills are expensive, but [41:15] then they're looking at the amount of [41:16] demand and they're saying like, well, we [41:18] we're now like reorganizing ourselves [41:21] around this technology. We can't not buy [41:23] it. We can't not use it because it's [41:27] doing X, it's doing Y, it's doing Z, [41:29] it's doing all these things for So, I [41:31] know like the bears are like any minute [41:33] now, this whole Jenga tower, someone's [41:36] going to pull the wrong piece and the [41:37] whole thing's going to collapse. [41:38] >> I don't believe that for one second. [41:40] Okay. I don't believe that one side you [41:42] say that [41:42] >> I don't the thing that bothers me as as [41:45] being a sector analyst for a long time [41:47] and a strategist that what is what are [41:49] the indices looked like in four years [41:50] are we going to be 50% technology in the [41:52] S&P 500 and then do [41:54] >> we would look more like the rest of the [41:55] world if that happened because most [41:57] countries are dominated by one industry [41:59] >> well look at Canada has got dominated by [42:01] three um but let's take this back I [42:05] actually think within [42:07] two to three years that Russell, S&P, [42:12] Msei are going to break apart the [42:13] technology sector [42:15] >> again. [42:15] >> Again, Yep. [42:16] >> cuz they did it already [42:17] >> into what semis semis could have its own [42:20] maybe they should be their own sector at [42:22] this point. [42:22] >> Hardware, software. Um, [42:24] >> ooh, that would be interesting. If so, [42:27] if software got its own [42:29] >> if software got its own sector, will it [42:31] still be big enough? [42:32] >> It's like 7%. [42:33] >> Will there be enough market cap left in [42:35] in the software sector? [42:36] >> Brian, look at this. So this is the top [42:39] 25 stocks. [42:41] >> Yeah. [42:41] >> All right. So we spent a lot of time [42:43] talking about the mag 7%. It goes it's [42:45] so much bigger than that now. The top 25 [42:47] stocks were 35% of the index when this [42:51] series starts in 1997. And it was like [42:53] around there a little bit higher, a [42:54] little bit lower for the next 20 years. [42:56] It went from 35 to 54. And [42:59] >> 25 stocks are half the US stock market. [43:01] >> I know. [43:02] >> Wild. And if you don't own them, [43:06] >> well, that's that's the thing about [43:07] that's the thing about SMID. Let's go. [43:09] Right. [43:09] >> Right. [43:09] >> The Smid the Smid category, if you take [43:12] a look at all publicly traded companies [43:14] in the US that are SMID, small midcap, [43:16] they add up to the weight of Apple. [43:18] >> Put up a chart, Dan. [43:22] >> Um S&P 500 CTR has been topheavy, which [43:25] is [43:25] >> CTR. Oh, okay. Got it. Contribution to [43:28] total return. [43:29] >> Correct. [43:29] >> Which has worried some investors. So the [43:31] question based on this chart is like can [43:34] you outperform in Smid for longer than a [43:38] quarter like like just uh the the the [43:42] nature of the market over the last 15 [43:43] years has been like all right you'll get [43:45] that annual small cap rally knock [43:48] yourself out have fun and then before [43:50] you know it Meta Apple Microsoft they [43:53] start going up again and erasing all [43:55] that outperformance [43:56] >> this is a nice shot this is a nice shot [43:59] I don't think it's different this time. [44:00] We've had a heck of a June and and [44:03] second quarter for small midcap, but [44:05] this is also at more elevated 10-year [44:07] treasuries. If you get 10-year [44:09] treasuries to go down, then Smith's [44:11] really going to rock it. [44:12] >> Okay. [44:13] >> Um and it's going to be helped a lot by [44:14] the banks. And [44:15] >> so, you can outperform for the rest of [44:17] this year in this Smid trade. I think [44:19] it's possible. [44:20] >> I think you can. The other thing too is [44:21] that if you look at the Russell 2000 [44:24] versus this the SML or the MID, right? [44:27] Russell 2000 outperform both those, but [44:29] the there's a lot of companies in the [44:30] Russell 2000, Josh, that are don't make [44:33] they're not making any money. So, you [44:34] have a lot of fuel in there, a lot of [44:36] beta, and that's where a lot of the [44:37] returns came from. You strip those out. [44:39] That's why I go back to if you take a [44:40] look at price to free cash flow and just [44:42] earnings discernability and consistency [44:43] within the small SML and the mid, it's [44:46] much better than the Russell overall. [44:47] You know what's so interesting about [44:48] what's happening right now? I would [44:51] expect if you know that the Russell 2000 [44:54] is outperforming the large, then you [44:56] would expect looking inside of the S&P [44:58] itself that it would look the sim [45:00] similar that smaller stocks in the S&P [45:01] are outperforming what you just saw. [45:02] It's the exact opposite. It literally is [45:04] the top decile. Forget about the [45:06] hyperscalers. It's Micron and uh is [45:10] Sandis probably. No, it's not top [45:13] probably, [45:13] >> but it's the gigantic stocks in the S&P [45:15] that are driving the index. And yet the [45:18] uh Russell 2000 is kicking the crap out [45:20] of the equal weight S&P. So it's it's [45:22] not a size thing. It's a sector thing. [45:24] >> Could be a sector thing and could be a [45:25] fundamental thing. Oo, right. [45:28] Interesting. You know what just came to [45:30] mind? I remember back when I was a young [45:31] strategist 19989, something like that. [45:34] And I was on a marketing trip to Boston [45:38] and I was visiting one of the portfolio [45:40] managers at Fidelity and he was [45:42] literally having like a breakdown. He's [45:44] like, "Bowski, I gotta small cap manager [45:47] at Fidelity." [45:48] >> This is an audio medium. I don't know if [45:49] you know what we're doing here. [45:50] >> Oh, really? Okay. Okay. Here we go. Uh [45:53] I'm like Ricky Bobby. What do I do with [45:54] my hands? [laughter] [45:56] >> Anyway, um so I'm I'm in Boston. [45:58] >> You're welcome, John. John was about to [46:00] get up from his chair. [46:01] >> Um and uh so he was literally he's like, [46:04] "By what to do. I'm a small cap manager. [46:06] I'm massively underperforming. I'm [46:07] buying Microsoft." [laughter] [46:09] >> Oh my god. Like that was the answer. [46:11] >> Yeah. So, I was talking to some people [46:13] that run small they're completely gone. [46:15] Remember, there's no value managers [46:16] anymore. There's no small cap managers [46:18] anymore. There's no dividend growth [46:19] managers anymore. [46:20] >> Got knocked out of their chair. [46:22] >> They're all gone. [46:23] >> Okay. So, I I like that setup. Let me do [46:25] chart eight. This this is the broadening [46:27] the chart on the right, figure five. The [46:29] number of year-over-year gainers has [46:30] risen, which runs contra to trends [46:34] before prior draw downs. Uh, explain [46:37] explain what you mean by that and and [46:38] why should we take note of that? Well, [46:40] more companies [46:43] um more companies are actually seeing a [46:46] year-over-year price gain and over the [46:49] average. And look at that number [46:50] beginning to go up and especially coming [46:52] out of coming out of the bare market. [46:55] >> Yeah. [46:55] >> It's really interesting and it's still [46:57] still very very early. And so again, um [47:01] >> you're saying this is good. [47:02] >> This is good. [47:02] >> Okay. [47:03] >> This is good. [47:04] >> Okay. You don't have a market top as [47:06] it's broadening. [47:08] >> That's another way to phrase don't have [47:09] a market top as a broad. [47:10] >> So, so long as we see [47:11] >> Oh, we did in 2021. [47:13] >> Silence. So, as long as as long [47:16] >> we literally did. [47:17] >> I know. Asterisk. Um, as long as we see [47:20] that broadening though, it's uh Go [47:21] ahead. [47:22] >> Yeah, but look at [laughter] [47:24] Dude, look at look at the spike though. [47:27] >> Yeah, I know. No, I know. It's crazy. [47:29] Consistent. Very consistent. When it was [47:31] the same thing with that prior earnings [47:32] chart, just chuga chuga chuga chuga [47:35] chug. you see something linear like [47:36] that. [47:37] >> 2021 was was we've never seen anything [47:39] like that. [47:39] >> That was just the government giving [47:40] people money. [47:41] >> Every single stock was up [47:42] year-over-year, right? That's the same [47:44] thing like people saying about [47:45] inflation. They're they're they're [47:46] comparing inflation now to 2021. [47:49] Completely different, right? [47:50] >> 2020 completely. [47:51] >> No, this is healthy. So when people say [47:52] it's only this market, it's just not [47:53] true. You have almost 350 stocks are up [47:56] year over year. [47:56] >> Can I have the next one, Dan? When [47:58] segmented by market cap, about half the [48:01] index has delivered double digit gains. [48:03] This is super bullish to me, too. [48:05] >> Yep. [48:05] >> It means that people are making money [48:07] everywhere. Not in every stock, but all [48:10] over the place. [48:11] >> Per Michael's point, though, look at the [48:13] 10th one. [48:13] >> I know. This is so bizarre. I'm having [48:15] trouble squaring the circle. How is the [48:16] bottom decile the worst performer and [48:20] yet the the small cap stocks are [48:22] winning. It has to be a sector thing cuz [48:24] otherwise you would expect this to look [48:25] opposite. You would expect the smaller [48:27] deciles to be outperforming and they're [48:29] not. Not even close. Well, [48:32] >> go to 10. Go to uh go to chart 10. Many [48:35] market cap segments have a significant [48:37] number of outperforming stocks. That's [48:39] the answer. It's like the AI winners in [48:41] each sector. Uh I don't know what's like [48:44] uh take industrials. You got tons of [48:47] stocks in there that are not going up [48:48] right now. What's so many that are and [48:51] the ones that are all have one major [48:53] thing in common? [48:53] >> AI. [48:54] >> They're they're selling something or [48:56] making something for AI. But this is [48:57] saying the same thing because there's no [48:59] information on this on this chart. It [49:01] basically says that half the stocks in [49:04] every sector in every decileis for the [49:06] most part are outperforming which tells [49:07] you nothing. [49:08] >> But no, but but the point is well which [49:10] are those stocks? [49:10] >> Fine dude but it's it's it's half. So go [49:12] to decileis five. It's literally half. [49:15] Half are outperforming half are [49:15] underperforming. My point is look at bar [49:18] 10. Only 18% of the smallest 50 stocks [49:22] are outperforming. What the hell is in [49:23] that group is? [49:24] >> And I'm sorry I I apologize. because I [49:26] don't know those 50 stock. [49:27] >> It's got to be It's got to be software. [49:29] >> No, it's got to be No, seriously. It's [49:30] got to be into it. [49:31] >> I'm think it could get to the bottom of [49:32] this. [49:33] >> Maybe it could be a home builder. Maybe [49:34] it could be a consumer discretionary [49:36] stock. Maybe it could be a consumer [49:37] staple stock that have not done very [49:39] well. [49:40] >> Yeah, [49:40] >> that's what I'm kind of thinking. I [49:42] don't know. [49:42] >> But there and there's a lot of one-offs. [49:44] There's a lot of weird companies that [49:45] are [49:45] >> a lot of weird companies. [49:46] >> There was a company up until recently [49:47] called Dover. You know what they did? [49:49] >> Yeah, Dover. I owned it when I was at [49:50] Marilyn actually. They made they made [49:54] harnesses for horseback riding. [49:56] >> Yeah, it's a public company making [49:58] making literally literally horse horse [50:01] equipment. Like there are a lot of [50:03] one-off cases. We we shouldn't get [50:05] bogged down in the 18% that are [50:08] outperforming in that last desile. We [50:10] should just think people are making [50:12] money in almost every sector right now [50:14] >> except for these pieces of [ __ ] [50:16] [laughter] [50:17] >> Here we go. the the the trade desk. [50:20] Molson Kors. [50:21] >> These are specific problems. [50:23] >> Hen uh yeah. Uh Domino's. What else is [50:26] name branded here that's getting beat [50:28] up? Oh, Paramount Shake Shack. [50:30] >> GoDaddy. There's a lot of Yeah, a lot of [50:32] I mean [50:33] >> uh whatever. No, there's no theme that I [50:36] could see just eyeballing it. [50:38] >> Stock specific. Isn't that what isn't [50:40] what this is all about anyway? Stock [50:42] market is a market of stocks. That [50:43] >> that's the way that it works. [50:44] >> That's what we're trying to say. And [50:45] then also almost maybe by definition the [50:48] bottom decile in the S&P it's always got [50:50] to be the lousiest performances [50:51] otherwise they wouldn't be in the bottom [50:52] decile. [50:53] >> Well then they get kicked out and they [50:54] go to cap. [50:55] >> Pull up the small cap chart. Uh Daniel [50:57] can I please have chart 14. Small caps [50:59] had an explosive first half of 2026. I [51:02] mean this this not just cuz we changed [51:04] the color to red for that last bar but [51:07] to really make you notice it but you [51:08] would notice it. You could see this [51:09] amount of space. [51:10] >> Wow. [51:11] >> This is a really big deal for this part [51:13] of the market. It's been a very long [51:15] time since they've been able to party [51:17] this hard. Uh I wonder though, is it [51:20] even possible? I mean, you seem to think [51:21] it can it could continue. What's what's [51:25] the longest small cap rally versus large [51:28] caps we've seen in the last 10 years? [51:31] >> How long? 10 years. [51:32] >> Yeah, six months. [51:35] >> Three Three to six months at the most. [51:36] In the last 10 years, no, it's been it's [51:38] really been the '9s. [51:39] >> So, it's a sector thing. It's 20% [51:41] healthcare, [51:43] 19% financials, 15% industrials, and [51:47] then 15% uh technology. [51:50] >> Yep. [51:51] >> There's not a lot of consumer stocks in [51:52] small mid midland. There's not very [51:55] small communication services sector. Um [51:58] healthcare is where the biotechs because [52:00] biotechs have some pretty good growth [52:01] numbers. Um and it's the financials. [52:05] >> I was going to say there are tiny amount [52:06] of materials in there. [52:07] >> Tiny amount of materials. [52:08] >> Yeah. Okay. Can we talk about the bull [52:11] cycle itself? You say [52:13] >> year four of the current bull cycle [52:14] likely to be the most volatile chart 15. [52:18] >> Um [52:20] what do you tell people about [52:22] >> not not it's year four how many more [52:24] years will be left but we know you're we [52:26] know you're thinking about this as a [52:27] much bigger longer secular story. So [52:30] year four if we get more volatility it [52:33] wouldn't surprise you in other words. [52:34] >> No not at all. And I think [52:35] >> what is it about the fourth year? [52:38] Well, [52:40] >> four. [52:41] >> Josh is big into golf these days. [52:43] >> It was really supposed to be three, but [52:46] I think given everything that we saw [52:48] last year with Liberation Day and this [52:50] the goofiness of the market and that was [52:52] kind of manufactured quite frankly. Um, [52:54] >> and um, this year is more kind of we had [52:59] the the the war in the Middle East and [53:01] everything like that, but I think the [53:03] market's been pretty resilient through [53:04] the war. I mean, let's be honest. Um, I [53:07] think if you go back historically, year [53:09] three is usually the most volatile. I [53:10] think we just got to push it ahead one [53:12] year. And the the dominance of earnings, [53:15] right? So again, going back to earnings [53:17] driven markets are more volatile than [53:20] momentum, multiple driven markets. And [53:23] that's why because I do think the second [53:24] derivative is going to freak people out. [53:26] Doesn't matter if you go from 25% [53:28] earnings to 23% earnings, they're still [53:30] gonna guide the guidance. [53:31] >> Still coming off the high. Yep. People [53:33] don't like that. [53:34] >> People don't like that. [53:35] >> Okay. And understandably cuz as the [53:38] estimates come off the high, you start [53:40] to think about worst case scenarios. [53:42] What if they keep going? What if they [53:43] keep what if what if they keep dropping [53:45] and they don't have to? That's [53:47] sufficient to scare people. [53:48] >> Mhm. [53:49] >> All right. I totally get that. [53:50] >> But the summer is pretty typically a [53:52] quiet period for for the stock market. [53:54] >> It is. The other thing too is that is [53:56] that traditionally technology companies [53:59] um seasonality from the earnings [54:01] perspective that third quarter is [54:03] usually a little bit slower too. [54:06] So, who knows? [54:08] >> Okay. Um, [54:10] here's another question. [54:11] >> Yep. [54:12] >> What if there is no SAS apocalypse? What [54:16] if we just What if we just call it off? [54:18] Let me set this up. There's an analyst [54:20] at Guggenheim. Do you know this guy? Did [54:22] you read this? [54:23] >> No. [54:24] >> It's an analyst at Guggenheim who wrote [54:26] I think he saved the sector this week. [54:28] Guggenheim analyst, this is Baron's John [54:30] Defucci [54:31] name. [54:32] >> Yeah, totally. says there uh [snorts] [54:35] where was I? Goo. Okay. Guggenheim [54:38] analyst John Defucci says now is the [54:40] time for Wall Street to take advantage [54:41] of the deep software selloff um despite [54:45] those AI fears. Uh historically low [54:48] valuation. You could write the thing [54:49] yourself. Um, quote, "We believe [54:52] traditional software companies will at [54:53] least persist, if not continue to grow [54:55] at reasonable rates in many instances, [54:58] but they're trading as if they will not, [55:00] making one of the best opportunities for [55:02] patient investors in our careers. We [55:05] view AI's technology paradigm shift. The [55:07] leaders of the new paradigm are [55:09] typically not the leaders of the last [55:10] one. At the same time, there's [55:12] significant staying power in enterprise [55:14] software." He upgrades. What are the [55:17] upgrades? Service Now, uh maybe work I [55:20] want to say workforce. I know there's a [55:22] whole bunch of upgrades that came with [55:23] that. The IGV [55:25] is up 11% off its lows from last week, I [55:29] think, outpacing the bounce in the MAG 7 [55:32] and obviously going in the opposite [55:33] direction as the semi NAI trade, which [55:37] has been negative. Um could this be the [55:40] start of something more meaningful? Are [55:41] we going to bring these stocks back to [55:43] life from the dead? What do you think? [55:46] I hope so. Um, and Oracle's not going in [55:49] our direction [55:49] >> besides Oracle. Which of these do which [55:51] of these do you [55:52] >> I don't know the other ones. I don't own [55:53] service now. I don't own a workday. I I [55:55] worry that the feasibility of of [55:58] Salesforce and Adobe going forward, do [56:00] you need that stuff? The answer is I [56:01] don't think so. [56:02] >> I think Salesforce, Workday, and Service [56:04] Now, in my mind anyway, the three like [56:06] big big big SAS teams that trade [56:08] together. Adobe is a little bit [56:09] different, but same idea. But [56:11] Salesforce, I don't know, man. [56:13] >> Well, here are those discounts. Service [56:14] Now 22.9 times earnings uh expected over [56:18] the next 12 months. [56:18] >> You can get that Microsoft [56:21] reaction. How is that discount? [56:22] >> The 5year average had been [56:25] >> it's a different five years. [56:26] >> The 5-year average had been 55 times. [56:29] Salesforce 11 times forward. The 5-year [56:32] average had been 30 times. So how about [56:35] this? What if this is nothing to do with [56:37] the SAS apocalypse due to AI? It was [56:40] just a reminder to people that they were [56:41] paying too high multiples for these [56:43] businesses and that's the thing that's [56:45] getting normalized. [56:47] >> Well, maybe there's too many of these [56:48] companies, too. [56:50] >> Maybe there's too many of these [56:50] companies and maybe we're going to see [56:51] some consolidation there. [56:53] >> Uh, yes. Oh, [56:56] >> if growth for a decent number of [56:58] software companies starts to stabilize [56:59] and then perhaps accelerate into the end [57:01] of 26 and 27, [57:04] >> Salesforce growth will not accelerate. [57:05] and the AI death nail will not be as [57:07] loud even if it doesn't go away. We [57:10] expect names currently trading as if [57:11] they'll decline into perpetuity to start [57:14] to trade as if they'll at least be [57:16] stagnant if not grow modestly into H. [57:20] That's not going to it's not going to [57:21] end well from a lot of these stocks. [57:23] What about do you think are you hearing [57:26] anything about money maybe maybe some of [57:29] the accelerated downtrends in Microsoft [57:33] because it's easy to trade on Microsoft [57:34] because of liquidity because they're [57:36] chasing chasing uh Micron chasing Intel. [57:39] Don't you think that could be some of [57:40] that? [57:41] >> Totally. Josh is a big money comes out [57:42] of things goes into other things guy. [57:44] >> Oh anytime I see something going up [57:46] >> my first instinct is [57:47] >> where did the money come from? [57:48] >> What did they sell? [57:50] >> That's just the way my mind works. vice [57:52] versa. When I see something selling off, [57:55] where's that money going? I just I know [57:57] it doesn't work that way, but I think [57:58] [laughter] that way. [58:00] No, I understand conceptually the money [58:02] could literally do anything. It could go [58:04] to pay the the plumbing bill. I'm just [58:06] saying I I think that way about uh when [58:10] I see everybody piling out of software. [58:12] Of course, the semis went up. What were [58:14] they going to do? They're going to go [58:15] buy regional banks. [58:17] >> He's right. This in 26 is binary. And [58:19] the best hedge for if you're worried [58:21] about the AI trade, buy software as much [58:23] as you want. [58:25] >> Wait, if Oh, if you're worried, right? [58:27] Because [58:27] >> anytime the AI trade has a hiccup, and [58:29] I'm talking about the narrative, the [58:30] price, whatever, software rallies every [58:32] time. Now, software is rallying less and [58:34] less and falling more each time the [58:35] trade reverses. Yep. [58:37] >> But [58:38] >> what do you do with Netflix now? [58:41] >> I'm in this. I'm in this stock. I My [58:42] average 93. [58:44] >> Let me set this up. This actually [58:45] happened this week. I swear to God, I'm [58:46] not making any of this up. [58:49] Um, all right. I said to Josh and Ben. [58:53] [sighs and snorts] [58:54] Netflix, Netflix, Netflix. Um, [58:58] so Josh and I both own Netflix. [59:01] >> You like to reveal my private slacks? [59:03] >> No, it's mine. It's mine. It's mine. So [59:06] I bought more when it was up 5%. [59:09] >> I sold it the next day. I So a day later [59:11] it fell 3%. I said, I'm taking my other [59:13] half off. [59:13] >> Good trade. [59:14] >> And I'm going to buy it back if if it [59:16] rallies 3% tomorrow. the next day [59:18] playing it like Buffett and I swear to [59:20] God I did. I added more. I said never [59:22] mind I'm selling and I added back and [59:24] now I'm back full position. Let's go. [59:26] It's the bottom. [59:26] >> Do you want to hire Michael as a trader? [59:28] >> Yes. [59:28] >> Listen, I when I'm wrong I admit it and [59:31] I can be wrong every single day. [59:32] >> It's about being [59:34] >> I own it. [59:34] >> What do we do with this thing? [59:35] >> I hold it. [59:36] >> I'm holding it too. [59:37] >> I hold it. [59:38] >> Cowards. You buy after it goes up and [59:40] you sell after it goes down. Do I have [59:41] to teach you guys everything? [laughter] [59:43] >> We own it in three portfolios. Four [59:45] portfolios. We've owned it all the way [59:48] up and all the way down. We added it to [59:49] value two months ago because I think [59:52] >> this stock gets killed every four years. [59:53] >> Yep. [59:54] >> This is just one of those times. It [59:56] always comes back better. [59:58] >> Could that Well, that could that be [60:00] different this time? [60:01] >> Cash, content, and consolidation. Cash, [60:03] content, and consolidation. This is what [60:04] that whole sector is about. And I think [60:06] now given what Comcast is doing, and [60:08] they're going to spin out, I think [60:10] there's going to be more I think there's [60:11] going to be more consolidation the next [60:12] couple years. And Netflix is going to be [60:14] the winner. Netflix. [60:14] >> Oh, wait. It already won. This is this [60:16] is different. The threat this time is [60:18] way different. [60:18] >> They don't think that they won because [60:19] they think this HBO combined with [60:22] Paramount is a more plus sports rights [60:25] is way more formidable than anything [60:27] Netflix is facing. [60:28] >> Netflix won. If you look at the viewing [60:30] time, nothing is close. Um YouTube [60:33] aside, so in 2022 when the stock got [60:36] killed, subscriber growth went negative. [60:38] Yep. and they had a very easy lever to [60:40] pull which was okay let's just make [60:43] people actually pay for their [60:44] subscription [60:45] >> ad support plus password sharing [60:47] >> okay they did that and it worked but now [60:50] is like the dragon like YouTube is the [60:53] final dragon and I don't know how they [60:55] beat YouTube like so I own the stock but [60:58] I think the challenge this time is way [60:59] harder than any previous overhang the [61:02] stock has ever gone through because they [61:04] already did win like they are they did [61:06] win content they like HBO and Apple, [61:09] give me a break. [61:10] >> I don't think they beat Nobody watches [61:11] Amazon. [61:11] >> They're not going to beat YouTube. [61:12] >> But YouTube is the one. [61:13] >> When they when they made the bid for [61:16] Warner, [61:18] >> all of a sudden the narrative around [61:19] Netflix having won the streaming war [61:21] changed to wait, why did they think they [61:24] needed to do that? Cuz it's they're not [61:26] an inquisitive company. There's a [61:28] billion there's a million different uh [61:30] film libraries that have been floating [61:32] around out there. Netflix never bought [61:34] anybody. So now all of a sudden they're [61:36] going to do a a massive one of the [61:38] biggest media deals ever. And I think [61:41] people said, "Why do they even think [61:43] they need to do this, the stock falls, [61:47] then they lose the bidding war or they [61:49] pull out of the bidding war. It just [61:50] gets too intense. Warner's going to win [61:53] anyway cuz Ellison is best friends with [61:54] Trump. Blah blah blah blah blah." So [61:56] they pull out, the stock bounces. [61:59] >> Yep. And everyone says, myself included, [62:02] because I'm another [ __ ] Finally, [62:06] they pulled out of that dumb deal that [62:07] they should never have been involved in [62:09] in the first place. [62:10] >> Stock bottomed, [62:11] >> had a furious rally [62:12] >> and then that whole rally falls apart [62:16] because I talking about second [62:17] derivatives. I think there was a later [62:20] reckoning on the part because nothing [62:22] fundamentally has changed with Netflix [62:23] since then. This is all sentiment. There [62:26] was a later reckoning where people said, [62:28] "Oh [ __ ] they lost Warner. [62:31] Now they're facing Paramount Warner plus [62:35] YouTube plus Disney." And what are they [62:38] and what are they going to do for for [62:40] growth? What are they going to do? I [62:42] think the street will react differently [62:45] when they make a run at NBC Universal, [62:48] which they will. I think the street [62:50] likes the idea of Netflix getting into [62:52] parks. It's a great business for [62:54] Comcast. great business and that film [62:56] library is top three film libraries on [62:59] earth and there's a lot of things that [63:01] Netflix can do to extend those uh brands [63:05] within it. So I actually think the stock [63:07] could rally if they make a bid and it [63:09] looks like they're going to win [63:10] >> but they're not going to grow [63:11] subscribers. So that that phase of the [63:13] life is over and Netflix [63:16] the peacock. [63:17] >> This is a message. This is what happens. [63:19] >> The the the investor base is [63:22] transitioning [63:23] >> from growth to value to people like me [63:25] who buy it and sell it and buy and sell [63:26] it and try to find the bottom. [63:27] >> You're the new investor base. [63:29] >> But that's what's happening. The story [63:30] is changing and it's a new investor base [63:32] and yeah the stock is like cheap but [63:34] because it's not going to grow the way [63:35] in your value portfolio. [63:36] >> Yeah. Okay. [63:37] >> Yeah. I I added that. [63:38] >> Is that where you first bought it or [63:39] transitioned into value? So it's [63:41] Michael's right. [63:42] >> Yeah. [63:42] >> Like that's the process. [63:43] >> No, we own it in our in our tactical our [63:45] focus portfolio and then we also we [63:47] added it a brand new position in our [63:50] value. [63:51] >> One of the other issues with it is too [63:52] big to get bought by anyone else. [63:54] >> Mhm. [63:54] >> Um so it has to be an acquirer. [63:56] >> Anyway, Brian, you don't I know you [63:57] don't care about this. JC would look at [63:59] that false breakdown. Hopefully. [64:01] >> Yeah. See how false it was. [laughter] [64:03] >> I just think I think communication [64:05] services are going to be the surprise [64:07] sector the second half of the year. I [64:09] really do. But which ones? [64:11] [snorts] [64:11] >> Netflix, AT&T. [64:13] >> Nobody likes Disney. [64:14] >> Nobody. Everybody Disney spot. I love [64:17] Spotify. It's a great product, too. [64:19] >> But it's the same thing. It's YouTube. [64:21] >> Spotify and Netflix have a very similar [64:23] chart. They tend to trend in the same [64:26] direction. [64:26] >> They're both great businesses with huge [64:28] subscriber bases. [64:30] >> Do you think Google breaks up and and [64:31] YouTube on its own? Never. [64:33] >> No. Huh. [64:34] >> Why would they do? No. There's a better [64:35] chance that they spin out Whimo. They're [64:37] not going to spin out you uh YouTube. [64:39] >> It's a cash cow. [64:40] >> It's just Whimo. Whimo should have its [64:42] own board of directors, its own CEO, its [64:46] own share, its own capitalization. [64:48] >> But what what they'll do with Whimo, [64:51] which will be really smart, is they'll [64:53] bundle it with Google Maps for the [64:54] consumer. [64:55] >> Oh, I like that. [64:56] >> So that [64:57] >> Yeah. So cuz Google Maps, I'm guessing [64:59] it has a billion users. I don't know. [65:00] >> Let me ask you this, Mr. Bell. [65:03] >> Worst stock in the world. So in your [65:05] value portfolio, would you ever [65:07] >> Nike is the worst stock in the world. [65:09] >> No, it's not Charter Communications. [65:11] >> Oh, [laughter] [65:14] so Charter bounced. [65:17] Charter had a very good bounce the other [65:19] day when Comcast announced that they're [65:20] doing what they're doing and the stock [65:22] gave it all back four days later. And [65:23] this is a stock that is in I mean [65:24] obviously obviously the cord cutting [65:27] it's in a secular decline business, [65:28] >> right? What is the future? What is the [65:30] best possible future for charter? [65:31] >> There's no there's no bottom. So you're [65:33] shaking your head. No, you wouldn't do [65:34] No. No. [65:35] >> Too much debt. Too much secular decline. [65:37] Just no. [65:37] >> No. [65:38] >> At no price. [65:39] >> No price. It reminds me of I'm [65:42] >> This is the worst stock in the world. [65:43] >> It reminds me of Boise Cascade. [65:45] >> Oh, I remember that. [65:46] >> In the early 90s. [65:48] >> What is that? [65:48] >> Oh, it's just a shitty chemical. [65:51] >> Ended up ended up shitty. Yeah. Why does [65:53] it remind you of that? [65:54] >> I just I [65:56] >> What's it going to do? I mean, I I in a [65:59] value portfolio, you can look at Okay. [66:01] debt to equity below one, earnings below [66:03] the mark, a lot of debt, [66:04] >> right? Yeah. That gone. Um, [66:07] >> so there's no PE to the rescue. [66:08] >> Yep. No PE to the rescue. Where can they [66:11] operationally [66:12] turn this thing around and then [66:14] demonstrate operationally that they can [66:16] turn it around? They blow up blow up [66:19] management, come in, say, you know, [66:20] we're going to focus on broadband. We're [66:22] going to do this. We're going to go I [66:24] don't see that coming from them. I don't [66:26] think they're smart enough. I don't [66:26] think they have the right product. I [66:28] don't it's [66:28] >> and the people running these businesses [66:30] >> well the hyperscalers are buying the [66:32] satellite uh providers and all of this [66:35] is going to come from space and if if [66:37] Starlink in two years is offering [66:40] broadband from space at competitive [66:43] prices that's the that's the last nail [66:46] in the coffin for all all the the [66:48] companies that quote unquote used to own [66:49] the last mile. [66:50] >> But know what's interesting about these [66:51] names and not to twist you could twist [66:52] your head head in a pretzel somebody's [66:54] buying these stocks. I mean somebody has [66:55] to own them. I mean, you think about [66:57] this. So, what's going to happen with [67:00] T-Mobile, AT&T, Comcast, and the new new [67:04] Comcast, right? Yeah. [67:05] >> And Verizon, what's going to happen? [67:07] >> Look at AT&T. What the hell just [67:09] happened? [67:09] >> Somebody will eventually let there be [67:12] more mergers, but it could be a real [67:13] there might have to be a lot of damage [67:15] first. [67:16] >> A lot of damage. [67:17] >> T-Mobile was eventually allowed to buy [67:18] Sprint. [67:19] >> Yep. [67:19] >> And the regulators stopped that for a [67:21] decade. And then finally they realized [67:25] either of these companies merge or they [67:26] won't make it and you're gonna end up [67:28] with a duopoly anyway. That's I mean [67:30] that's now [67:31] >> that's where we're going. And maybe [67:32] that's what our airlines going that way [67:34] too. [67:34] >> They sort of have. [67:35] >> It's Delta, United [67:36] >> and you got American and American's a [67:39] great we we own American in our small [67:40] midcap because I think [67:41] >> well they stop. So this is what's funny [67:43] about the airlines. They stopped JetBlue [67:45] from acquiring or merging with Spirit. [67:47] >> Then it went out. [67:48] >> Then Spirit just goes away and you know [67:50] what happens? [67:51] >> Delta. Delta takes all the routes. So [67:54] what did you accomplish [67:55] >> by stopping? I don't even understand the [67:57] logic. [67:58] >> So you don't have an extra airline. That [68:01] didn't that's not what happened. [68:02] >> N [68:02] >> what happened is those routes went to a [68:04] bigger player. Brilliant. Great uh [68:08] practice of uh antitrust law. So, I [68:11] mean, at a certain point, if these if [68:12] these uh cable companies shrink, the [68:16] users shrink, Yeah. I guess they'll all [68:18] be allowed to merge and then somebody [68:20] might want to be the buyer of one big [68:22] fat cable company. That's [68:25] >> maybe [68:25] >> John Malone. [68:26] >> Yeah. All right. [68:27] >> Nobody wants these sucks. [68:28] >> Any stock. All right. So, before we in [68:30] in in conclusion, [68:32] >> in conclusion, [68:33] >> what opportunities did we miss? What [68:35] else are you excited about for the [68:36] second half of the year? What names have [68:38] you been buying lately? Tell us tell us [68:40] what you what you like. [68:41] >> You know the you're not supposed to have [68:43] a favorite child, but I've got one. I [68:45] love the Smid because you can play [68:47] themes and play fun kind of stories. [68:48] Like I own this company called Acuity. [68:52] Acuity [68:53] makes the tiles. Um, [68:55] >> hang on. Michael just bought and sold [68:57] it. [68:57] >> That's true. [laughter] [69:00] >> For data centers. [69:00] >> That's good. Well done. [69:01] >> So they make the on the on the ceiling [69:03] between the ceiling and the top very top [69:05] of the of of the of the building. That's [69:08] where the wires are. Okay. [69:10] >> Oh, okay. [69:11] >> So, the Acuity makes the tiles that keep [69:13] everything cool. So, your wires don't [69:16] >> The wires are in the ceiling. Yeah. And [69:18] Acuity is cooling them. [69:19] >> Yeah. From the tiles. [69:21] >> Oh, okay. Yeah. There's stuff like [69:23] There's a lot of stuff like that. [69:24] >> Cool stuff like that. Just I mean [69:26] thematically or like this this uh we [69:28] bought this um small cap bank in Western [69:32] Pennsylvania called FNB. another [69:34] regional thing that you know takes [69:36] advantage of where people are moving to, [69:38] >> right? Yeah. [69:39] >> Like that. [69:40] >> So, we do this we do this uh column for [69:42] CNBC called the best stocks in the [69:44] market. [69:44] >> I heard of it. [69:46] >> They might have mentioned it a few [69:47] times. [69:48] >> So, but one of the things that I love so [69:50] much about it is it forces me to look at [69:52] names like what you're describing. I [69:54] would never come across because other [69:56] people on TV don't talk about them. [69:58] Their ch their charts look great, which [70:00] is how they end up on my radar. And then [70:03] as part of doing the column, Sean and I [70:06] dive into the story and it's like, "Oh [70:08] [ __ ] there's a company that actually [70:10] makes that." Like, [70:10] >> what was the company that made janitor [70:11] suits or something like that? Custodial [70:13] suits. [70:14] >> Oh, uh, uh, Ventos. Um, there are [70:18] businesses there there are like [70:20] businesses that do things that you're [70:22] like, "That's a public company." [70:23] >> Holy [ __ ] Alltime high. [70:24] >> VTR. [70:25] >> Yeah. Uh, Amphol is one of the biggest [70:28] winners of the year. AP. I would never [70:31] have heard of that if I weren't writing [70:33] it up last summer. It's a like a a [70:36] signals company that had so many lives [70:38] before AI was even invented. I think [70:40] it's like a hundred-y old company. [70:42] >> Wait, hold on. Give me some credit. [70:43] When's the last time first you spoke [70:45] about this this Venus? [70:47] >> A year ago. [70:48] >> Dude, that's all that's not wild. [70:50] >> That's my point of And these are smids. [70:52] >> There is information. There's [70:53] information and price. A lot of it. [70:54] >> So, Michael, how many publicly traded [70:56] companies now in the United States? [70:58] 3,500 3,800. Okay. [70:59] >> So, when we're basically talking about [71:03] five or 10 all the time. [71:04] >> Yeah. [71:04] >> Think about the others. This is where [71:06] right this is like we're talking [71:08] stories. That's how I grew up in this [71:10] business. Stock market is a market of [71:11] stocks is the greatest country in in the [71:13] world. We got the greatest companies in [71:15] the world right here. All these amazing [71:17] stories that that people don't even know [71:20] about. And so, that's where that's what [71:22] I'm excited about still being bullish [71:24] about the United States and bullish [71:25] about the markets. And there's different [71:27] things. But yeah, we have to we have to [71:29] address what's happening in large cap [71:31] land. But we also have to think about, [71:33] you know, dividend growth investing and [71:34] value investing and small cap investing [71:37] because I do want to think differently [71:38] and I want to be positioned where people [71:40] are not. But you're not going to be [71:42] different or contrarian to be an [71:43] [ __ ] You can be a you can be [71:44] contrarian if the analysis backs it up. [71:47] So that's why if you take a look at [71:48] these stories or these companies or [71:50] these themes or the regions that they [71:52] are, I don't think people think like [71:54] that anymore because we're so focused on [71:55] Nvidia. [71:56] >> Yeah. [71:56] >> All the time. Which which is in an 18% [71:59] uh draw down from the tie. Thanks. [72:00] >> So uh I'm my [72:06] fun on the show today. [72:07] >> No, it was terrible. I mean it's [72:09] terrible. Every time I come here it's [72:10] terrible. Fantastic. Thank you so much [72:12] for the support you guys. [72:13] >> How do advisers find you if they want to [72:14] learn? [72:14] >> Yeah. I want to sell you I want to sell [72:16] your I want to sell your stuff now. So [72:19] tell catch yourself up cuz we had you on [72:21] as you launched the new company [72:23] >> day three. It's amazing and it's been 8 [72:25] months. You guys are launching things, [72:28] announcing things. I'm so excited for [72:29] you. Tell the audience if they want your [72:33] research, your products, your asset [72:35] management. How does it all work [72:36] together? [72:37] >> So what we do is is different than [72:38] everybody else. Um we are a model [72:41] provider [72:42] >> to where the puck is going. Exactly. Oh, [72:43] we know. Thank you. Thanks so much. It's [72:45] like whopper gives me [ __ ] about [72:47] humilous humble. Anyway, um so we [72:51] provide a model. We we do not compete [72:53] with our clients. Meaning we don't [72:56] compete with XYZ brokerage firm. We [72:58] provide XYZ brokerage firm or XYZ RAIA [73:01] with our model on the focus portfolio [73:03] >> and they trade it. [73:04] >> And they trade it. [73:04] >> They trade it themselves. You give them [73:06] the buys and sells. Correct. And they [73:07] enact it. [73:08] >> Correct. And if they say [73:09] >> it's a great business, [73:10] >> I don't I don't agree with your two and [73:12] a half percent position in Spotify. I'm [73:13] not gonna buy great. [73:15] >> So they can customize. [73:16] >> They have ultimate discretion. All [73:18] right. [73:18] >> Okay. [73:19] >> And so um we've got great partners in [73:22] Canada where we have three North [73:23] American ETFs and one mutual fund. Um [73:26] and then we have three uh North American [73:29] portfolios in Canada. Basic basically [73:32] they're combined the US and Canada. In [73:34] the US we run five separate SMAs. the US [73:37] focus which is 46 stocks um to beat the [73:40] S&P 500. We also have an ETF under that [73:43] too, ticker symbol HIS and um we have a [73:46] US large cap value. We have a US [73:48] dividend growth uh US Smid and then an [73:52] all cap which is the best of the 1500. [73:55] So the best focused and the best Smid. [73:56] So, it's mostly uh it's mostly models [73:59] and then a couple of ETFs where people [74:02] that are not in the models can [74:03] >> one ETF in the US and three in Canada [74:06] and we'll have more coming uh in the US [74:08] as we continue to grow. We're very [74:10] blessed and fortunate we have I think [74:11] we're going to have we're going to be [74:12] close to 500 million AUM. Um and then [74:15] we've got you know the funny thing about [74:17] running that in under a year. [74:19] >> Yeah. But you know what the funny thing [74:20] is? You always want you're talking to [74:22] these people. I'm going to give you 100 [74:23] million 200 mill. Okay. [74:24] >> Yeah. No, they're not. [74:25] >> Yeah. No, they're not. I mean, come on. [74:26] That's why you wake up at three. [74:27] >> You need three. You need a three-year [74:29] track record. You know what? You know, I [74:30] know. I know. I know. It's a long It's a [74:31] long game. [74:32] >> Chugga chugga chugga chuga. But we I've [74:33] got an amazing team. [74:34] >> But you have fans at brokerage firms and [74:37] at RAAS all over Canada, all over the [74:39] United States and they have been [74:41] waiting. [74:42] >> They've been waiting because [74:43] >> for for the Bellski model. [74:44] >> Yeah. Because I was in I was at [ __ ] for [74:46] 13 years and I was in but I was a [74:48] strategist and analyst in the United [74:49] States for 23 years before I went to [74:51] [ __ ] So they kind of kept me under tight [74:54] um corners at at at Beimo. So we've been [74:57] really excited to be out in the US [74:58] market. [74:59] >> Are you having fun? [75:01] >> Yeah. [75:01] >> Okay. [75:01] >> It's f I mean it's it's [75:03] >> you're build because you're building [75:04] your own thing now. [75:05] >> It's it's it's it's mine. And it's kind [75:07] of like that line from Braveheart when [75:09] the guy the the Irish guy goes, "Yeah, [75:11] it's my island. It's mine." [75:12] >> Yeah. Yeah. [75:13] >> It's um it it's it's part exciting and [75:16] excruciating. And you wake up at 2 [75:18] o'clock in the morning. Am I going to [75:19] make payroll? [75:19] >> You don't have to tell me. Look at me. I [75:21] mean, come on. Um, uh, when you were [75:24] naming, when you were saying my bio, [75:26] CIO, founder, CEO, like I'm chief bottle [75:29] washer, too. You know, [75:30] >> you don't know, you're everything, but [75:31] not forever. [75:32] >> Yeah, it's amazing. And I have a great [75:33] team and we've got some great platform [75:36] partners here in the US and Canada, and [75:38] we're really starting to climb on um on [75:41] the assets and performance is [music] [75:43] helping. So, we're we're rolling. [75:45] >> I'm so proud of you. Thank you. So happy [75:46] for you, [75:47] >> ladies and gentlemen. Brian Bellski. [75:49] Thank you guys so much for listening. [75:50] Thank you for watching. Have an awesome [75:52] weekend. We'll see you soon. [music]