S&P 500 Outperforms Valuations as Earnings Surpass Price Gains

标普500指数盈利增幅超越股价涨幅，表现跑赢估值扩张 在过去一年中，标普500指数成分股企业32%的加速盈利增长跑赢了股价回报，使估值趋于稳定，并终结了市场的“体感衰退”。 主持人 Michael Batnick 和 Ben Carlson 宣告“体感衰退”（vibecession）的终结，指出强劲的现实消费者行为以及包括稳健的盈利增长和扩大的利润率在内的坚实经济基本面。他们分析了近期小盘股的飙升、散户投资者持续的“逢低买入”行为，以及三星在AI驱动下创纪录的盈利丰收与市场集中度隐忧。此外，他们还探讨了汽车贷款债务上升和博彩热潮等消费者支出趋势，评估了预测市场动态，讨论了代际财务观念，并在最后分享了娱乐和啤酒行业的新闻。 Ben Carlson 实际上宣告了“体感衰退”的终结，认为情绪调查已经失效，而现实中的消费者行为正展现出乐观与热情的回归。 (1:05) 年轻分析师往往具有分析优势，因为他们能客观评估最新的市场数据，而不会被过去市场崩盘带来的悲观偏见所束缚。 (6:12) 近期标普500指数的上涨得到了基本面盈利增长和利润率扩张的支撑，而非投机性的估值倍数扩张。 (6:12) 与大众直觉不同，美股长期总回报率仍接近历史百分位均值，而非处于历史极端水平，这为后续增长留出了空间。 (12:02) 在约三分之二个股广泛参与的支撑下，小盘股在今年上半年创下了自2006年以来相对大盘股的最强超额表现。 (13:21)

Hosts Ben Carlson and Michael Batnick argue that the economic "vibecession" has ended, pointing to corporate earnings strength, broadening market participation, and strong consumer spending, even as certain sectors face margin pressure and excessive consumer debt loads. Fundamental Drivers Supporting the Bullish Equity Case (6:12) Examining Matt Topley and Matt Cerminaro's analysis, Carlson emphasizes that strong underlying corporate fundamentals counter persistent market pessimism. Over the trailing 12 months, S&P 500 earnings rose 32%, outpacing the index's 22% price return and keeping valuations stable despite the market climbing an annualized 24% since October 2022. Profit margins have consistently hit fresh peaks despite elevated inflation, tariffs, and supply chain friction. Meanwhile, Bespoke Investment Group data shows that 5-year, 10-year, and 20-year S&P 500 total returns sit near the 59th, 78th, and 54th historical percentiles respectively, suggesting long-term returns are not stretched to historical extremes. Market Breadth Shifts and Retail Dip-Buying Dynamics (13:21) Market concentration has started to ease as small-cap equities outpaced large caps by over 12% in the first half of the year, marking the widest spread since 2005–2006. An analysis across Russell index constituents showed positive performance across roughly two-thirds of small caps rather than gains being confined to AI-adjacent firms. Concurrently, data from Citadel Securities indicates retail investors have served as the market's primary structural bid, buying dips during pullbacks at roughly 3.5 times the historical daily average. Sherwood Securities data reflects a -0.54 correlation between S&P 500 daily price returns and retail net purchases on Robinhood, with brokerage data showing individual traders actively rotated away from Magnificent Seven megacaps on 85% of trading days since 2022. Capital Deployment Across Private Markets and Semiconductor Volatility (44:33) Institutional and private allocations show pronounced divergences across asset classes. PitchBook data reveals private equity deployments into software reached $23 billion in 2025, accounting for 25% to 50% of new PE and VC investments—more than double its share from 15 years prior. Carlson cautions that firms face holding leveraged software assets on their balance sheets without easy exits. In private credit, institutional clients committed over $16 billion to North American direct lending funds in Q2, recording the second-highest quarterly total for closed-end private credit in four years. In public markets, short-term semiconductor momentum cracked despite Samsung projecting single-year net profits exceeding its prior 40 years combined, leading to rapid pullbacks in leveraged chip products such as the 2x RAM ETF. Consumer Spending Pressures, Auto Debt, and Retail Disparities (49:56) Signs of financial strain and behavioral shifts are increasingly visible across households. According to Bloomberg data, average monthly car payments reached a record $777, with average amounts financed surpassing $44,000, down payments falling 10% year-over-year, and over 20% of new car buyers committing to monthly payments exceeding $1,000. In consumer entertainment, gambling losses are projected to reach $250 billion this year, up over 60% since 2019. An NBER study also found an implicit annual transfer of $9.2 billion from lower-income households earning under $150,000 to affluent households, driven by uniform merchant pricing subsidizing interchange fees (roughly 1.9%) for credit card rewards programs. While corporate earnings, broadening market breadth, and heavy consumer spending provide support for the bull case, unresolved questions remain around whether lower-income households can sustain heavy auto loan obligations, inflation pressures, and volatile momentum rotations in private equity and technology.

Ben Carlson 与 Michael Batnick 在本期节目中指出，尽管宏观担忧持续存在，但企业盈利增长、估值健康以及市场参与度扩大会聚成强劲的看多理由；同时，私人信贷与半导体等领域的资本轮动，叠加汽车贷款和博彩等消费者行为，勾勒出当前经济繁荣与微观压力并存的复杂图景。 美股看多逻辑与历史收益分位 (6:12) 主持人援引分析师 Matt 的观点，提出美股当前具备多项常被忽视的利好支撑。过去 12 个月内，标普 500 指数成分股盈利增长达到 32%，显著超越其 22% 的价格涨幅，且盈利加速正在大盘、中盘及小盘股全面铺开。由于盈利增速与股价反弹同步，远期估值并未大幅扩张；自 2022 年 10 月熊市低点以来，标普 500 指数实现了 24% 的年化回报，企业利润率在关税、高能源成本及通胀压力下仍创出新高。同时，七大科技巨头（Magnificent Seven）在指数中的权重有所回落，显示出涨势扩散的健康格局。 针对“未来收益被提前透支”的看空格调，Bespoke 投资集团的历史分位数据显示，标普 500 当前总收益水平远非极端：5 年期收益率处于历史第 59 百分位，10 年期处于第 78 百分位，20 年期则受金融危机拖累仅处第 54 百分位。此外，罗素 2000 小盘股今年上半年跑赢大盘股逾 12%，创 2006 年以来最大半年度超额收益，全市场约 66% 的小盘股年内录得正回报，表明市场广度正在拓宽。 科技巨头体量、芯片波动与散户买盘 (15:42) 德意志银行报告显示，截至 2026 年中，美股占全球公开股票市值的约一半（约 167 万亿美元），而美股七大巨头的总体量已相当于英、法、德等七大主要国家股市的总和。然而，AI 硬件板块近期显现高度波动：三星电子因生成式 AI 硬件需求暴增，单年净利润预计超过此前涉足半导体业务 40 年的总和，但随后股价大幅回落 7%；美光科技与西部数据等硬件标的亦出现大幅回撤，显示资金正由重资产半导体流向软件板块。 Citadel 证券数据显示，散户投资者已成为市场坚实的逢低买入主力，2026 年中其资金部署规模达到前一年日均水平的近 4 倍。当标普 500 指数收跌时，散户净买入量飙升至历史日均水平的 3.5 倍。值得注意的是，自 2022 年以来的 85% 交易日中，散户并未无脑抱团七大科技巨头，而是积极轮动至其他标的，散户净买入与指数日收益率呈现出 -0.54 的强负相关性。 一级市场分化与金融中介套利 (35:56) 在非公开市场，机构与散户的行为出现显著分歧。北美面向机构的直接借贷基金在第二季度募资超 160 亿美元，创下四年来封闭式私人信贷基金第二高的季度募资额。机构投资者利用长期资本优势锁定收益，而不少零售投资者则因未能充分理解封闭式产品长达 10 年的流动性锁定期而遭遇错配。与此同时，私募股权投资正加速涌入软件领域，PitchBook 数据显示 2025 年软件类交易额达 230 亿美元，占新部署资本的 25% 至 50%，远高于 15 年前的水平。 在日常金融生态中，补贴与投机行为正在被重新审视。美国国家经济研究局（NBER）报告揭示，信用卡刷卡手续费（平均约 1.9%）主要由收取统一零售价格的商家承担，这导致习惯使用现金和借记卡的低收入群体每年间接向享受丰厚积分奖励的高收入群体转移高达 92 亿美元财富。此外，博彩与预测市场的兴起引发了操纵疑虑，例如交易员通过虚增 Spotify 歌曲播放量操纵 Kalshi 预测合约以谋求超额赔付，使这类旨在反映真实概率的市场面临偏离定价本质的风险。 消费分化：车贷重压与饮品结构调整 (49:56) 美国消费者日常开支展现出矛盾的韧性与压力。彭博社数据显示，美国平均每月汽车还贷金额达创纪录的 777 美元，较 2019 年底的 575 美元跳涨逾 200 美元；平均融资额超过 44,000 美元，超过 20% 的新车买家背负了每月超过 1,000 美元的还贷负担，且超过四分之一的购车贷款期限长达 7 年及以上，反映出消费者即便面对贴纸冲击仍热衷于大排量 SUV 和皮卡的支出惯性。 在消费品领域，星座品牌（Constellation Brands）市值从 500 亿美元高点缩水至 22 亿美元，其持有莫德罗（Modelo）与科罗纳（Corona）在美国的销售权益，受拉美裔消费者支出收缩、关税预期以及年轻群体减少酒精摄入等因素冲击显著。与之形成对比的是，拥有科罗纳全球权益的百威英博（AB InBev）在 2025 年实现了 8.3% 的全球营收增长，凸显出美国家庭预算受压背景下消费品市场的局部疲软。 本期节目整体传达出对美股盈利基本面和市场广度的积极态度，但同时也强调了高额车贷、博彩盛行以及二级市场杠杆芯片波动所暗藏的微观脆弱性，两位主持人计划在后续节目中继续讨论制衡看多逻辑的潜在看空风险。

## Background 本期内容由 YouTube 频道 The Compound 于 2026 年 7 月 13 日发布，是其旗下播客节目《Animal Spirits》的第 472 期。节目由 Michael Batnick 与 Ben Carlson 共同主持，官方简介指出本期重点探讨了“氛围衰退”的终结、经验与专业的区别、看多与看空市场的理由、小盘股走势、市场集中度、三星利润神话、散户买盘力量、旧金山高生活成本、全美博彩热潮以及汽车月供飙升等广泛议题。 ## TL;DR 节目围绕年轻分析师 Matt 提出的“看多市场的十大理由”展开，重点剖析了标普 500 指数企业 32% 的强劲利润增长如何跑赢股价涨幅，并探讨了小盘股超额收益、科技七巨头动量放缓以及散户成为大盘“结构性买盘”的底层逻辑。随后，主持人针对全美 2500 亿美元的博彩狂潮、预测市场中的数据套利与刷榜乱象、以及私募股权在软件领域的隐患进行了尖锐反思。最后，两人结合旧金山高薪群体的“哭穷”现象与美国不断攀升的车贷中位数，深入反思了当代家庭的育儿焦虑，并分享了摆脱死板“Excel 表格人生”的个人财务进阶观与假期趣事。 ## Atmosphere & style 整期节目洋溢着轻松幽默且极具美式脱口秀色彩的双人对谈氛围，两位搭档在严谨的数据图表分析与接地气的生活互损之间无缝切换。从独立日后院放烟花的尴尬险情、达美乐披萨的救赎，到严肃审视华尔街策略师的营销本质，谈话节奏张弛有度、充满机智的自嘲与辛辣讽刺。听感上既像是两位资深金融专业人士在壁炉边进行的深刻宏观复盘，又像是一场关于中年育儿、消费心理与代际青春记忆的真挚围炉夜话。 ## Bulletin - [07:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaQJYk-1vtY&t=443s) 美股底层基本面表现强劲，标普 500 指数成分股过去 12 个月整体盈利同比暴增 32%，跑赢同期约 22% 的股价总回报，推翻了市场纯靠估值泡沫推动的看空论点。 - [20:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaQJYk-1vtY&t=1251s) 散户已成为美股坚实的结构性买盘，标普 500 下跌日净买入额达平时的 3.5 倍，但其持仓正从科技七巨头撤出，转向追逐其他高弹性标的。 - [32:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaQJYk-1vtY&t=1971s) 全美消费者 2024 年博彩亏损预计攀升至 2500 亿美元，创历史新高并较 2019 年激增超 60%，伴随体育博彩合法化各州信用卡违约率同步上升。 - [49:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaQJYk-1vtY&t=2996s) 美国汽车信贷严重承压，月供中位数升至创纪录的 777 美元，超过五分之一的新车买家月供突破 1000 美元，但消费者依然坚持购买昂贵的大型 SUV 与皮卡。 ## Key takeaways - [01:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaQJYk-1vtY&t=65s) 现实中“氛围衰退（Vibecession）”已经结束，摆脱疫情阴霾与通胀压力的普通大众正在迎来庆祝与狂欢的盛夏，这与失灵的情绪调查及极端悲观的线上论调形成鲜明反差。 - [12:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaQJYk-1vtY&t=720s) 标普 500 指数 5 年期回报率仅处于历史第 59 个百分位，远期估值并未大幅虚高，市场整体表现远没有悲观者想象的那么狂暴或过热。 - [13:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaQJYk-1vtY&t=799s) 上半年小盘股跑赢大盘超 12%，创 2005 年以来最大利差，但在利率居高不下的宏观环境下，其驱动逻辑缺乏传统叙事支撑，涨势呈现全市场广泛分散特征。 - [16:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaQJYk-1vtY&t=962s) 美股“七巨头”的总市值已与除美股外的全球排名前七国家（法国、中国、韩国、加拿大、英国、中国台湾和日本）的上市公司总和旗鼓相当，突显出美股庞大的绝对体量。 - [17:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaQJYk-1vtY&t=1054s) 市场往往存在定价滞后，三星电子单年利润即便预期将超越过去 40 年半导体业务累计利润总和，股价也是在近一年才集中兑现超额涨幅，近期更因利好出尽而大幅回调。 - [19:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaQJYk-1vtY&t=1153s) 资金正显而易见地从估值高企的 AI 硬件半导体板块（如三星、美光、西部数据）撤出，轮动回部分前期被消化的软件股与中盘股。 - [24:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaQJYk-1vtY&t=1481s) 贝森宾德的研究显示，自 1971 年以来若只持有市值排名第一的单只股票，年化复合回报率仍达 11.3%，这在很大程度上被苹果打破均值回归周期的超级表现所改写。 - [27:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaQJYk-1vtY&t=1650s) 旧金山科技新贵在拥有高额家庭年薪（36 万美元以上）的情况下依然大倒苦水，掩盖了教师、消防员等基层工作者在严重供需失衡的天价房产市场中被彻底边缘化的困境。 - [38:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaQJYk-1vtY&t=2332s) 预测市场存在严苛的零和博弈属性与抽水成本，除了被当作纯娱乐消费的散户，普通玩家终将被机构做市商清洗出局；此外，虚假刷榜等操纵行为也让其日益从“真理机器”沦为“谎言机器”。 - [46:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaQJYk-1vtY&t=2809s) 私募信贷出现两极分化，零售散户因缺乏锁定 10 年的视野在回撤中流出，而大型机构投资者二季度以超 160 亿美元的规模大举抄底封闭式直接借贷基金。 - [48:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaQJYk-1vtY&t=2898s) 统一结账定价机制导致每年约 92 亿美元通过信用卡刷卡手续费由低收入（现金/借记卡）群体转移补贴给高收入信用卡用户。 - [54:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaQJYk-1vtY&t=3271s) 个人理财应当追求“毕业”，随着收入增长摆脱刻板的 Excel 财务模型束缚，合理健康的消费膨胀是努力赚钱改善生活质量的应有之义。 - [58:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaQJYk-1vtY&t=3490s) 流媒体热播剧在第一季与第二季之间流失了 30% 到 70% 的观众，多数迷你剧因资本追逐强行续订导致口碑与播放量大幅滑坡。 - [01:02:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaQJYk-1vtY&t=3745s) 星座品牌（STZ）因过半业务依赖受移民政策和通胀承压的在美拉美裔群体而市值腰斩，与百威英博在海外市场强劲的全球销量形成了鲜明分化。 ## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaQJYk-1vtY&t=4s) 赞助商插播：Pacer 国际专利领袖 ETF 本期节目由 Pacer ETFs 赞助播出。传统的广泛国际基准指数往往过度偏向金融和基础材料板块，而这类板块鲜少能带来投资者所期待的高增长，甚至可能拉低整体投资组合的表现。Pacer 旗下的纳斯达克国际专利领袖 ETF（代码：PATN）旨在捕捉国际版纳斯达克 100 指数的创新活力。该 ETF 专门锁定 100 家拥有最具价值专利组合的非美公司，完全打破了单纯以市值大小进行配置的传统思维，转而以“创新实力”作为筛选国际市场资产的核心视角。其投资策略旨在捕捉国际增长、分散行业敞口，并获取由海外创新催生的超额收益 Alpha。 - 欲了解更多详情，请访问 paceretfs.com。投资前需仔细研阅基金招募说明书中的投资目标、风险、费用及各项开支。市场有风险，投资需谨慎，PATN 由 Pacer Financial 分销。 --- ### [01:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaQJYk-1vtY&t=65s) “氛围衰退”正式终结与现实中的狂欢盛夏 节目开场，Ben Carlson 带着极具仪式感的口吻向搭档 Michael Batnick 正式宣告：“氛围衰退（Vibecession）彻底结束了！”Ben 明确指出，这种情绪拐点并不会体现在官方的情绪调查数据中，因为目前的各种情绪调查“早就失灵了，根本无法再被信任”。在他看来，眼下的现实氛围正让人隐隐嗅到 1920 年代“咆哮的二十年代（Roaring 20s）”的气息。那段历史之所以繁荣，不仅是因为消费信贷的普及与新产品的井喷，更因为人们在熬过了一战、西班牙大流感与经济萧条等一连串痛苦岁月后，集体极度渴望找到任何理由来宣泄和狂欢。 Ben 观察到，现实世界正在迎来一个“充满庆祝的盛夏”。从纽约尼克斯队（New York Knicks）球迷在街头的狂喜庆祝，到世界杯赛事期间大批外国游客涌入美国各大城市所引发的街头欢呼，人们脸上重新挂满了笑容。甚至连刚过去的独立日假期，都让人觉得多了一份“格外浓烈”的喜庆。Ben 特别强调，必须把那些“整天泡在网上（too online）”的人排除在外——这类末日论者（doomers）和对政治极度魔怔的人在现实中永远不会快乐，也不可能满足；但在真实世界里，普通人都在渴望庆祝，因此“氛围衰退已经寿终正寝”。 --- ### [02:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaQJYk-1vtY&t=173s) 独立日后院趣事：爆竹发射器、千元炸弹箱与达美乐披萨的救赎 谈到独立日周末的庆祝，Michael 分享了自己极具“美式爱国主义”色彩的假日经历。他在自家后院招待朋友看烟花，有位朋友带来了一把能射出烟花的“玩具枪”。身为犹太人的 Michael 一开始还颇为抗拒，但在看了朋友发的示范视频、感觉像升级版罗马烛光（Roman candle）后，他最终“硬着头皮（sacked up）”扣动扳机亲自体验了一把，直呼过瘾。 这引发了两人对当今民用烟花巨大杀伤力的吐槽。Ben 难以置信如今竟然能合法将威力如此巨大的烟花卖给个人，“只要出一点纰漏，整张脸就得被炸飞”。Ben 带着儿子去烟花帐篷时，店员甚至向他推销价值 900 美元名为“Kaboom Box”的巨型烟花箱，声称“一点着，你脚下的地面都会震颤”。Ben 当场婉拒，表示绝不在居民区尝试这种危险操作。 不仅如此，Michael 的派对还遭遇了突发状况：预订的外卖在客人进门前五分钟彻底送丢。情急之下，他决定再给达美乐披萨（Domino's）一次机会。这次他尝试了薄脆底（thin crust），结果大为惊艳，评价其直接把以往那种厚重黏牙的面团底甩出几条街。Ben 对此深表赞同，调侃薄脆披萨的妙处就在于“吃上十片都觉得自己还能继续战斗”。两人还就听众邮件里关于“手抛面团（hand tossed）”与达美乐近年来把竞争对手必胜客（百胜餐饮 Yum Brands 旗下）打得落花流水的八卦开起了玩笑，在一连串幽默的俗语口误中确认了周末的狂欢基调。 --- ### [05:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaQJYk-1vtY&t=355s) 经验 vs 专业：图表小子 Matt 的 10 个看多理由 在确认了现实世界重归乐观之后，讨论自然切入到了金融市场。团队里被称为“图表小子”的年轻分析师 Matt Cerminaro 近期发表了一篇题为《看多的10个理由》（10 Reasons to be Bullish）的重磅博文。Ben 借此探讨了投资大师迈克尔·莫布森（Michael Mauboussin）曾剖析过的一个深刻命题：“经验（Experience）”与“专业（Expertise）”之间的分野。 在 Ben 看来，在市场上摸爬滚打了几十年的资深老人，往往因为经历过太多次惨烈熊市和崩盘创伤，年纪越大反而越容易沦为永久看空者（perma-bear）——“就像健身房更衣室里那些一丝不挂溜达的 70 岁老头一样，对一切事物都极度悲观”。而二十多岁、年轻无畏的 Matt 恰恰没有这种心理包袱。Michael 也感叹，他们两人自 2015 年共事以来的大部分时间里，都一直在心惊胆战地“等待市场另一只鞋子掉下来”，生怕牛市戛然而止；而 Matt 则完全相反，满脑子都是“什么鞋子？股票本来就是要上涨的！” --- ### [07:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaQJYk-1vtY&t=443s) 数据说话：企业盈利增速以 32% 碾压股价涨幅 Matt 的核心优势在于用扎实的数据图表说话，他的许多图表都发布在 Exhibit A 平台上。Ben 透露自己每月也会为 Exhibit A 的顾问订阅者撰写宏观与市场报告。Ben 提到自己近期在比尔·西蒙斯（Bill Simmons）的播客中听到了知名编剧/导演泰勒·谢里丹（Taylor Sheridan）的访谈，谢里丹阐述过一个经典影视创作原则：“如果能用摄像机镜头画面展现出来，就绝不要让角色通过台词去解释。”在财经领域，图表正是这种“只展现，不说教（Show, don't tell）”的最佳武器。 在 Matt 列出的所有看多论据中，最令 Ben 感到震惊的是一张关于标普 500 指数“过去 12 个月总回报率”与“过去 12 个月企业盈利增速”的对比图： - **盈利增速**：标普 500 指数成分股过去 12 个月的整体盈利（Earnings）同比飙升了 **32%**。 - **股价回报**：标普 500 指数同期的总回报率（Market return）约为 **22%**。 这意味着企业基本面的盈利增长速度以整整 10 个百分点的巨大优势跑赢了股票价格的上涨，底层利润正处于加速扩张的强劲势头中，充分证伪了当下牛市仅仅是由无基之弹或估值虚高所堆砌的论调。 ### [08:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaQJYk-1vtY&t=531s) 估值、盈利增长与持续扩张的利润率 本·卡尔森（Ben Carlson）指出，当前不仅标普 500 指数（S&P 500）在大幅走高，标普中盘 400（S&P 400）和标普小盘 600（S&P 600）等中盘与小盘股指数同样涨势迅猛。按远期预期来看，企业盈利的增速甚至超过了市场本身的涨幅，这导致标普 500 指数的估值倍数反而有所回落，这一现象令人感到不可思议。迈克尔·巴特尼克（Michael Batnick）补充道，他当天早上刚在 Slack 里分享了一项数据：自 2022 年 10 月熊市见底以来，标普 500 指数的年化收益率高达 24%。但在如此惊人的涨幅之下，市场估值并没有大幅攀升，完全是因为基本面跟上了股价上涨的步伐。 本接着列举了另一个支持看涨的坚实论据：尽管过去几年里充斥着关税政策、地缘冲突、高能源价格、供应链中断以及居高不下的通胀，企业的利润率却依然在持续上行。随着人工智能（AI）技术的铺开，本完全看不到利润率逆转下行的理由。迈克尔提出质疑，认为利润率见顶回落的显而易见路径在于云服务巨头（Hyperscalers）削减资本开支，因为眼下相当一部分收益正来自于这些巨额支出；不过本澄清说，资本支出关系的是营收端，而从成本和生产效率层面看，随着技术进步，大盘整体的利润率理应继续改善。迈克尔半开玩笑地以“竞争加剧”来反驳，但两人也承认过去 15 年里所谓的竞争并未真正打压这些科技龙头的高利润率。与此同时，“七巨头”（Magnificent 7）在标普指数中的权重正在显著回落，因为其他股票正在跑赢，这种市场集中度的下降对整体市场而言是一个非常健康的积极信号。 随后迈克尔提到了泰勒·谢里丹（Taylor Sheridan）的访谈轶事。外界总好奇谢里丹如何能以惊人的高产写出《黄石》（Yellowstone）、《金斯敦市长》（Mayor of Kingstown）、《塔尔萨之王》（Tulsa King）和《特种部队：母狮》（Lioness）等一部又一部爆款剧集。谢里丹的回答极其纯粹：“点子其实很容易，关键是我待在我的农场里，把门锁死，不写完绝不出来。”迈克尔借此称赞了他们 Exhibit A 平台分析师 Matt 的执行力与勤奋——Matt 不仅源源不断产出高质量图表，前一周还自发给平台上数百位订阅用户一一邮寄了亲笔签名的《Risk of Reward》书籍，印证了这种不浮躁、埋头干实事的态度。 ### [12:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaQJYk-1vtY&t=720s) 历史回报分位数：市场真的涨过头了吗？ 在反思看跌逻辑时，迈克尔认为目前市场上最有力的看跌观点无非是“近期回报率实在太好了”——既然此前已经提前透支了大量的未来涨幅，随后的远期收益自然得被拉低。但针对这一悲观论调，本搬出了 Bespoke 的一份权威统计，用历史回报的百分位排名（Percentile Rank）打破了大家的固有直觉。 统计展示了标普 500 指数在不同时间跨度下的历史百分位表现，实际数据远比直觉更为温和： - **5 年期回报率**：仅处于历史第 **59 个百分位**。尽管这里包含了 2022 年大熊市拖累的因素，但这说明中周期表现其实相当接近历史中位数。 - **10 年期回报率**：处于历史第 **78 个百分位**，大多数人原本会猜测它在 90% 以上。 - **20 年期回报率**：包含了 2008 年全球金融危机（GFC）的极值影响，目前仅位于第 **54 个百分位**。 两人一致认为，大众总潜意识里觉得当下的美股牛市已经狂暴到了前所未有的顶峰，但真实数据表明，眼下的收益位次并没有许多人想象的那么离谱和过热。 ### [13:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaQJYk-1vtY&t=799s) 小盘股的史诗级跑赢与无法解释的背离 根据 Matt 从 Exhibit A 整理的统计，小盘股录得自 2005 年以来跑赢大盘股的最大超额收益利差，上一次上半年小盘股出现如此大幅度的跑赢还要追溯到 2006 年和 2018 年，今年上半年小盘股超额收益超过了 12%。两人坦言，很难为这一轮小盘股的爆发找到一个无可辩驳的核心驱动逻辑。 迈克尔回顾了与策略师 Belski 的探讨，起初以为是板块偏好引发的变动。然而当迈克尔把标普 500 按照十分位数拆解时，发现依旧是市值最大的巨头领跑，第 6 到第 10 分位数的个股并没起色，标普等权重指数表现也平平无奇；但偏偏更靠后端的罗素 2000 指数（Russell 2000）却在全面爆发。迈克尔随后提到，他将 YCharts 上的罗素 1000 持仓与年初至今表现导入 AI 工具 Claude 分析驱动力，结果发现这并非单一行业集中爆发：除了生物医药、半导体和小盘 AI 相关股表现抢眼外，全市场有将近三分之二的个股年内都在上涨，涨势极其宽泛。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 小盘股上涨之谜分析框架 accDescr: 探讨驱动小盘股大涨的传统宏观叙事与实际市场背离分析 subgraph 传统宏观叙事["传统宏观逻辑假设"] A["资本成本下行（降息预期）"] B["实体经济全面跑赢华尔街"] C["小盘股属于低估值补涨/资金轮动"] end subgraph 实际市场背离["现实盘面矛盾"] D["利率居高不下，未见实质宽松"] E["大盘等权重指数并未同步走强"] F["涨势极度分散（涵盖生物科技、半导体等，近 2/3 个股上涨）"] end subgraph 最终结论["核心争论与反思"] G["市场往往具备超前定价能力"] H["AI 下一阶段受益者叙事？（迈克尔反驳：牵强附会）"] end A -.-> D B -.-> E C -.-> F D --> G E --> G F --> G G --> H ``` 从传统市场叙事来看，小盘股通常在“资本成本下降”或“实体经济表现强于金融华尔街”的环境下表现最好，但当下利率居高不下，这一逻辑显然不成立。本猜测是否是资金流（Flows）驱动，资金在大型股过贵后寻找价值洼地；或者市场在提前布局 AI 技术赋能的下一批潜在受益中小企业。但迈克尔对此果断反驳，认为中小企业靠 AI 获益的预期根本不足以支撑这么大规模的买盘，这种解释纯属“强行找理由”。 ### [16:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaQJYk-1vtY&t=962s) 全球市场集中度对比与七巨头的体量 在谈及美股被诟病已久的“市场集中度过高”问题时，本展示了一张极具视觉冲击力的全球指数权重图。数据显示，在权衡前十大个股在基准指数中的占比时，美股的集中度居然处于全球较低水平。 - 全球范围内，仅有**印度**和**日本**的前十大股票集中度低于美国； - 在其余绝大多数国家，指数高度依赖少数头部企业，有十几个国家的前十大个股占据了全市场近 **99% 至 100%** 的份额。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 全球市值规模与集中度对比 accDescr: 展现美股七巨头与全球其他主要国家股市体量的极度悬殊 subgraph 美股科技七巨头["美股七巨头 (Mag 7)"] M7["Tesla, Meta, Amazon,<br/>Microsoft, Alphabet, Apple, Nvidia"] end subgraph 相当体量的国家集群["等量级国家群 (MSCI ACWI)"] C7["法国 + 中国 + 韩国 +<br/>加拿大 + 英国 + 台湾 + 日本"] end M7 <-->|"总市值体量近乎等同"| C7 ``` 迈克尔指出，这种图表在一定程度上掩盖了绝对规模的巨大差异：美国的体量是极其恐怖的。在 MSCI 全球指数中，美股“七巨头”（特斯拉、Meta、亚马逊、微软、Alphabet、苹果、英伟达）的总市值，竟与排名其后的七大国家市场（法国、中国、韩国、加拿大、英国、中国台湾和日本）的所有上市公司总和旗鼓相当。德意志银行（Deutsche Bank）出具的“America 250”研报显示，美国独占了全球公开股票市场近一半的市值（截至 6 月 30 日全球总市值约为 167 万亿美元）；若将七巨头单挑出来作为一个“国家”，它的总市值仅次于剥离七巨头之后的美国本土，稳居世界第二，将中国和日本等传统经济大国远甩在身后。 ### [17:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaQJYk-1vtY&t=1054s) 三星单年利润神话与市场的后知后觉 谈及近期 AI 产业链的惊人动态，本分享了社交媒体上披露的三星电子（Samsung）内部会议传闻：三星今年的单年利润，将直接超过其自 40 年前涉足半导体业务以来的**历史累计利润总和**。 这一消息让迈克尔大为震惊（“Oh my god”）。但本指出，金融市场的定价常常充满令人费解的滞后： - 在过去一年里，三星股价涨幅超过 **400%**； - 但拉长至过去五年，其累计涨幅仅有 **300%** 左右，意味着过去五年的全部超额回报，几乎都在过去这短短一年内被集中兑现。 在 ChatGPT 问世的 2023、2024 至 2025 年间，市场明明很早就看到了生成式 AI 爆发的势头，三星的股价甚至还一度回调，直到最近一年才彻底起飞。迈克尔不解地发问：“为什么市场反应如此迟钝，直到现在才意识到全球存储芯片（Memory）会出现严重短缺？”本坦承这超出了自己的知识盲区。市场总有无法看透的盲点，即使在昨夜三星刚刚下跌了 7%，这种剧烈波动依然折射出投资者此前严重的错估与低估。迈克尔最后提醒，如果市场上有所谓的专家或财富顾问声称自己对这类行情早就了如指掌、无所不知，那往往本身就是一个巨大的危险信号。 ### [19:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaQJYk-1vtY&t=1153s) 芯片与硬件股回调：从 AI 硬件转向软件的资金轮动 市场上没有任何人能够洞悉一切，即便是对冲基金经理如果声称自己全知全能，那也纯属扯淡。财报季的最新走势印证了这种不确定性：三星（Samsung）股价大跌 7%，美光科技（Micron）在盘前下挫约 6%，累计回撤幅度已达 25%。面对这一幕，迈克尔与本不禁感叹所有利好此前早已被市场“完全定价（all priced in）”。与此同时，西部数据（Western Digital）的走势更为惨烈，自高点以来的回撤幅度已深达 34%。 两人调侃起迈克尔此前对美光可能出现 30% 大幅回撤的预言。迈克尔澄清自己并非在唱空或盼着它跌，只是一切都在情理之中。录音期间迈克尔身后隐约传来吸尘器的轰鸣声，他不得不临时关上房门以隔绝噪音，本则打趣让他假装什么都没发生。关于这一波下跌究竟是否意味着这批硬件龙头的见顶，迈克尔坦言没人能打包票，但可以确信的是，资金正显而易见地从估值高企的 AI 硬件股中撤出，重新轮动回部分软件股。本补充道，这其实是他们数周以来反复强调过最容易做出的判断——这些暴涨的硬件股迟早会迎来惨烈的调整，这算不上什么冒险的预言。随后两人还聊起海滩度假时与朋友谈到“大脑突然宕机断片”的窘境，迈克尔笑称每次镜头一开、麦克风亮起，自己一期播客里至少得经历五次词穷断电的瞬间。 - 三星电子单日下跌 7%，美光科技盘前跌约 6%，自高点累计回撤达到 25%。 - 西部数据盘中跌幅自高点至低谷达 34%。 - 市场资金呈现出明显的风格轮动特征，从前期涨幅过大的 AI 硬件端流向估值有所消化的软件板块。 --- ### [20:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaQJYk-1vtY&t=1251s) 散户成为市场“结构性买盘”与七巨头的动量退潮 散户投资者已经演变成当前美股最为坚实的“结构性买盘（structural bid）”。援引自 Citadel Securities 的最新研报，散户正以破纪录的惊人节奏向股市注入流动性。6 月份有望创下该机构有数据记录以来的最强买入月份，单日平均买入量几乎达到去年的四倍。更为夸张的是散户的逢低吸纳（buy the dip）倾向：上半年在标普 500 指数下跌的日子里，散户的单日净买入额达到了平均水平的近 3.5 倍，创下了历史数据中的逢低抄底意愿之最；即便在市场强劲反弹的大涨日，他们的买入体量依然保持在日常平均水平的近 1.5 倍。中途两人还就观众邮件特别澄清了对冲基金 Citadel 与做市商 Citadel Securities 之间的区别。 面对如此汹涌的散户买盘，本最初直觉地认为这是因为散户对“科技七巨头（Magnificent 7）”的狂热信仰，以为散户正疯狂加仓今年表现落后的这些明星龙头。然而研报接下来的图表迅速推翻了他的直觉假设：数据显示，散户在过去一周对七巨头的兴趣已跌至 2022 年以来的极低分位，在过去近 85% 的交易日里散户对七巨头的关注度都高于眼下。这说明七巨头的回调并非因为机构抛售而散户盲目接盘，而是散户本身也已移情别恋。散户本质上是彻头彻尾的“动量追逐者”，当七巨头的回报节奏放缓，他们便迅速抽身去其他赛道寻找更高的动量。 本还举了苹果公司的戏剧性表现：前几周苹果宣布将把成本上涨转嫁给消费者时，股价一度大跌 6%，本原以为市场会因为提价利好净利润而将股价推高 5%，不料先是一阵量化算法主导的抛盘暴跌，随后仅用了三个交易日便又收复失地并刷新历史新高。此外，来自 Sherwood News 的卢卡·卡瓦（Luke Kawa）整理的数据表明，今年以来标普 500 指数单日涨跌幅与 Robinhood 上个股净买入额之间的相关系数竟高达 -0.54，展现了散户极致的“越跌越买、大涨收手”逆向操作特征。面对华尔街唱衰者“这绝没有好下场”的指责，迈克尔表示金融危机来临时最残酷的绝非股市下跌本身，而是普通人失去工作、丧失了持续投资与储蓄的能力。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 散户投资者的行为特征与市场轮动机制 accDescr: 展示散户从大盘下跌中越跌越买，到抛弃回报放缓的科技七巨头、转而追逐其他高动量资产的闭环机制。 subgraph Market_Behavior["市场买盘机制"] A["标普 500 下跌日"] -->|"3.5倍日均买盘逢低抄底"| B["散户结构性买盘"] C["标普 500 上涨日"] -->|"1.5倍日均买盘持续流入"| B B --> D["Robinhood 净买入与标普呈 -0.54 负相关"] end subgraph Asset_Rotation["个股与板块偏好"] D --> E{"科技七巨头动量放缓?"} E -->|"是"| F["大幅削减七巨头关注度 (处于2022年来后15%分位)"] E -->|"寻找新动量"| G["轮动追逐其他高弹性标的"] end ``` --- ### [24:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaQJYk-1vtY&t=1481s) 贝森宾德的新研究：只买标普 500 最大市值股票会怎样？ 著名学者亨德里克·贝森宾德（Hendrik Bessembinder，常被称为 Hank）发布了一篇关于“无为投资组合（do-nothing portfolio）”的全新研究报告。迈克尔借机自嘲，透露自己的中间名就是亨利（Henry），并爆料自己童年时期两大难以启齿的“最黑暗秘密”：一个是觉得在 1992 年代“亨利”听起来像老头子的名字，另一个则是自己天生有一只异常突出的巨大脚趾；本则笑着附和称那确实不是普通的大，而是具有压倒性统治力的长。 撇开关于名字的打趣，贝森宾德在该论文中探讨了在标普 500 指数中买入股票并长期持有不进行再平衡的表现。迈克尔最感兴趣的则是论文对不同规模组合的历史回测——贝森宾德分别测试了包含 500 只、300 只、100 只、10 只股票，乃至于“仅仅只买入全市场市值最大的一只股票”的策略表现，时间跨度追溯至 1971 年。从历史长河来看，真正坐上过第一大市值王座的公司屈指可数，大致仅有 IBM、AT&T、埃克森美孚（Exxon）、通用电气（GE）、苹果（Apple）以及微软（Microsoft）等寥寥数家。其中通用电气在 1994 至 1999 年的疯狂牛市尤为惊人，连续数年的年化回报率分别达到了 45%、40%、51%、41% 和 68%，也无怪乎日后跌得粉身碎骨。 通常的直觉和历史经验（例如 Ned Davis Research 在 2016 年左右发布的研究图表）都表明，由于“树木不可能长到天上”以及均值回归的必然规律，长期只持有市值第一大龙头股的表现会大幅落后于大盘基准。然而贝森宾德的最新数据显示，自 1971 年以来只持有第一大股票的年化平均复合回报率依然高达 11.3%，虽然略逊于标普 500 指数同期的约 12% 至 12.5%，但绝非灾难性的惨败。本与迈克尔一致认为，这在很大程度上是因为苹果公司在过去十余年里打破了传统的均值回归定律，苹果长期霸榜并持续创造惊人回报，彻底改写并拔高了整个历史数据序列的平均表现。 - 贝森宾德测试了 1971 年以来每年仅持有标普 500 市值排名第一名股票的投资策略。 - 历史上登顶第一大市值的公司主要包括 IBM、AT&T、埃克森美孚、通用电气、微软和苹果。 - 通用电气在 1994 至 1999 年期间，连续五年录得超过 40% 的年化涨幅（45%、40%、51%、41%、68%）。 - 仅持有第一大股票策略的历史年化收益率为 11.3%，稍逊于标普 500 指数的约 12%–12.5%。 --- ### [27:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaQJYk-1vtY&t=1650s) 旧金山高薪科技族“喊穷”：年入 36 万美元仍不够花？ 迈克尔在节目中表达了对近期媒体风向的强烈厌恶，直言这种不断迎合、纵容富裕阶层无病呻吟的报道必须彻底停止。他强调，社会上确实有大量普通民众在严峻的通胀与经济压力下苦苦挣扎，他们完全有资格抱怨生活成本高昂，但旧金山那些拿着顶级薪资的科技行业从业人员绝不属于此列。 媒体频繁撰文渲染旧金山生活成本如何失控，甚至声称“如今在旧金山连 18 万美元的科技行业年薪都活不下去了”，并把矛头指向 OpenAI、Anthropic 等生成式人工智能巨头带来的新贵财富正在挤压普通人。报道中采访了一位年仅 27 岁、年薪达 18 万美元的年轻女职员，而她的伴侣年收入同样高达 18.5 万美元，两人家庭年收入合计超过 36.5 万美元。然而报道却借此大吐苦水，宣称即便是双六位数的高薪在如今的旧金山也早已捉襟见肘。迈克尔对此嗤之以鼻，怒斥这纯属矫情造作（"Boo freaking who"），并严正指出，公众和媒体真正应当同情和关注的，是那些拿着微薄报酬却维系着城市运转的教师、消防员以及警察等一线基层劳动者。 ### [28:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaQJYk-1vtY&t=1695s) 旧金山的贫富差距与天价房产 迈克尔·巴特尼克（Michael Batnick）和本·卡尔森（Ben Carlson）就旧金山日益恶化的生活成本和极端贫富差距展开了热烈讨论。迈克尔直言，媒体总在报道那些拿着六位数薪水、却抱怨自己不如“AI 新贵”富有的普通科技从业者，这种试图让中产偏上或富人阶层获得同情的叙事令人厌烦。本深表赞同，指出真正需要同情的是那些维持城市运转的基层劳动者——比如消防员、教师和服务业从业者，却几乎没有媒体为他们发声。科技从业者完全可以选择远程办公，或者搬去西雅图、奥斯汀等生活成本更合理的城市，毕竟他们的收入已经远超绝大多数普通美国人。 旧金山的房地产供需失衡已经达到了令人咋舌的地步。迈克尔援引了 Altos Research 创始人迈克·西蒙森（Mike Simonson）公布的数据：仅在今年 6 月，旧金山就有 44 套房产的最终成交价高出挂牌要价至少 100 万美元以上。在以往的房地产周期中，加价 100 万美元抢房几乎是不可想象的，但如今市场上庞大的科技资本与极度匮乏的住房供应形成了严重错配。本甚至幽默地搬出了 80 年代经典美剧《浪漫满屋》（Full House）作为对比：剧中男主角丹尼·坦纳（Danny Tanner）作为一名早间节目主持人，能够在旧金山拥有一栋气派的坡上联排别墅，但在现实中他是靠着拉来乔伊叔叔（Uncle Joey）和杰西叔叔（Uncle Jesse）一大家子合租顶楼才能勉强维持开销；而在今天的旧金山，二十几岁年薪 40 万美元的年轻人还在哭穷，普通打工人更是根本无法立足。 - 房产溢价数据：2024 年 6 月，旧金山共有 44 笔住宅成交价高出最终挂牌要价 100 万美元以上。 - 居住现状：旧金山住房供应严重短缺，富余资金极度集中，导致基础服务人员（教师、消防员等）的生活空间被严重挤压。 ### [30:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaQJYk-1vtY&t=1854s) AI 自主推荐播客与“AI 废话”的进化 迈克尔分享了一封引人深思的听众来信。该听众将自己使用的记账软件接入了一款 AI 工具，使得 AI 能够直接查看其股票账户的持仓。这位听众在纠结投资组合、试图说服自己参与 SpaceX 等私人市场投资或 IPO 时，随口询问 AI 有没有哪档播客能让自己“听起来更聪明”，AI 果断推荐了《Animal Spirits》。更戏剧性的是，整封来信（包括邮件主题行）都是由该 AI 亲自操刀撰写，目标就是精准抓住两位主播的眼球，促成开信阅读。这名听众戏称 AI 不仅摸清了自己的财务状况，还开始全盘接管自己的对外通信与生活。 两人对 AI 生成文本的进化速度感慨不已。本分享了自己使用 Anthropic 的大语言模型 Claude 做研究的亲身经历：当他在调研小型股时，Claude 在分析报告结尾竟然主动将结论与本自己在个人博客《A Wealth of Common Sense》中以往写过的观点关联起来，这种带有“讨好”意味的个性化表现让人既惊叹又微妙。针对外界普遍抱怨网络上充斥着空洞的“AI 废料”（AI slop），本认为公众很快就无法轻易识别出机器与人类的写作差异了；迈克尔则笑称自己仍然有信心一眼识破，并提议可以做一档名为“谁是 AI”（Spot the AI）的游戏节目，从五篇文章中揪出机器写作的痕迹。 ### [32:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaQJYk-1vtY&t=1971s) 全美 2500 亿博彩狂潮：繁荣象征还是绝望深渊？ 节目随后转向了近期全美盛行的博彩热潮。经济研究员乔伊·波利塔诺（Joey Politano）在文章中披露，全美民众今年在各类博彩中的损失预计将接近 2500 亿美元，创下历史新高，较 2019 年激增超过 60%，而且这一惊人数字尚未计入预测市场（Prediction Markets）和加密货币领域的非官方下注。面对“究竟什么才能遏制这股博彩狂潮”的疑问，迈克尔给出了一个逆向思考：唯有严重的经济衰退才能给狂热降温。他认为，从宏观角度来看，这恰恰是当前经济强劲、居民手头闲钱充裕的健康信号；只有当衰退来临、人们失去工作时，非理性投机才会退潮，暴露出那些真正的“赌徒”。 然而，这股狂潮背后的阴暗面同样不容忽视。数据显示，在各州将体育博彩合法化之后的几年里，信用卡违约率均出现了明显的抬升。本直言，虽然在庞大的宏观经济体量中，2500 亿美元或轻微上升的违约率看似微不足道，但现实中因此倾家荡产、人生被彻底摧毁的悲剧却层出不穷，尤其是在智能手机让下注变得轻而易举之后。迈克尔坦言，如果能打个响指彻底消除博彩广告和赌瘾悲剧，他会毫不犹豫地去做。本则悲观地预测，除非未来出台全面的全国禁赌令，否则博彩损失金额“永远不会再变低”，随着平台越来越便捷、渠道越来越丰富，下注规模只会一路走高。 - 经济损失规模：全美消费者今年预计因博彩损失约 2500 亿美元，较 2019 年水平激增超 60%。 - 负面效应延伸：伴随全美各州体育博彩合法化普及，居民信用卡逾期与违约率呈现同步攀升态势。 ### [35:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaQJYk-1vtY&t=2147s) 预测市场的民间“鲨客”：车库里的击败华尔街者 在博彩与预测市场的交汇处，也诞生了一批被称为“鲨客”（Sharps）的顶尖聪明交易者。迈克尔提到了彭博社播客《Odd Lots》以及《纽约时报》关于预测市场平台 Polymarket 和 Kalshi 的深度报道。这些平台上的高胜率赢家并不是典型的华尔街金融精英，而是一批发现预测市场常识漏洞并善于利用模型的普通人。 其中最典型的代表是一位化名为“哈尔王子”（Prince Hal）的交易者。他原本是一名生活拮据的好莱坞编剧专业毕业生，后来转行成为全职交易员，在预测市场上深耕了约十年之久。令人震惊的是，他在自家车库里仅凭简单的 Excel 表格建立了一套通胀预测模型，其长期预测准确度竟然持续跑赢各大华尔街主流投行，累计斩获了高达 370 万美元的终生利润。哈尔王子讽刺地表示：“我和大银行在做同样的事，这更多反映了当前市场的荒谬，而不是我有多聪明——他们居然击败不了一个在车库里用 Excel 的戏剧系学生。”一位审阅其模型与交易记录的顶尖华尔街对冲基金宏观经济学家在接受采访时坦言自己彻底“目瞪口呆”，甚至惊呼这位民间高手简直就像现代的“诺查丹马斯”（Nostradamus）。本与迈克尔对这位民间奇才如何仅靠自建模型就拆解掉华尔街的通胀预期感到由衷惊叹。 ### [37:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaQJYk-1vtY&t=2238s) 华尔街策略师为何预测不准：营销专家与数据极客的分歧 两位主持人探讨了一位量化交易者的经历。该交易者直接致电美国劳工统计局（BLS），摸清了通货膨胀数据的底层计算逻辑，并据此构建了一套几乎精准复刻官方统计的模型。在他看来，通胀数据反映的是已经发生的既成事实，油价等核心数据早已公开透明，只要对少数未公开数据稍作合理估测，就能得到极其接近的数值。他非常纳闷：华尔街各大机构资源雄厚，为什么做出的通胀预测却往往相去甚远？ 对此，迈克尔与本指出，华尔街的宏观策略师本质上并不是“躲在地下室埋头算数的量化极客（Quants）”，而更接近于“公关与营销人员”。他们的核心职责是频繁亮相于 CNBC 和彭博电视（Bloomberg），制造话题、登上新闻头条，预测结果具有广泛的区间波动反而更具传播效应。他们并非缺乏建模能力，而是缺乏追求极致精确的利益诉求。通胀预测的本质不是去推算无法预知的未来，而是对已经发生并体现在市场价格中的数据进行倒推还原。 ### [38:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaQJYk-1vtY&t=2332s) 预测市场的零和困境与“娱乐性亏损” 节目进一步深入到以 Kalshi 等为代表的预测市场（Prediction Markets）。主持人认为，这类平台绝不可能彻底颠覆世界，核心原因在于其严苛的“零和博弈”属性。正如扑克桌上的散户一旦被清洗出局，游戏就难以为继；当普通玩家意识到自己不过是在被职业高手收割时，就会像当年许多人退出主动选股转投指数基金一样，选择远离市场。如果在十年或二十年后，普通人坐在沙发上用手机下注，结果对手全是顶尖专业机构（如做市商 Susquehanna 等在另一侧精准接盘），散户迟早会枯竭。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 预测市场的流动性收缩循环 accDescr: 展示散户因持续亏损退出导致市场仅剩专业做市商互相博弈的恶性循环 subgraph S1["散户参与阶段"] A["散户涌入预测市场"] B["专业机构与做市商介入定价"] A --> B end subgraph S2["挤出效应"] C["散户持续输钱 / 承担抽水成本"] D["散户退场，流动性萎缩"] B --> C C --> D end subgraph S3["最终格局"] E["市场仅剩专业机构互搏"] D --> E E -.->|"仅剩将亏损视作娱乐消费的用户"| A end ``` 针对预测市场未来是否真的会走向枯竭，迈克尔提出了唯一的反例：人们是否会将这笔支出彻底归类为“娱乐消费预算”。如果玩家心态是每年拿出 1,000 美元纯粹为了找乐子，亏光也无所谓，这门生意就能存续。迈克尔分享了自己的切身经历：他在 FanDuel 应用中的累计下注显示，平均每下注 1 美元就会净亏损 7 美分，这本质上就是在向庄家支付抽水（Vig）。他感叹道，如果未来十年自己累计下注 100 万美元，最终净亏掉 7 万美元，这种纯粹的消费就很难再带来乐趣。 - 统计数据显示，18 至 40 岁的男性群体中，有约 40% 的人参与过某种形式的博彩，且实际比例很可能更高。 - 政治选举类预测市场能够长期提供超额收益（Alpha），原因在于选民往往出于情感倾向下注自己“希望谁赢”，而非客观评估“谁更有可能赢”，从而形成了持久的情绪溢价。 ### [42:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaQJYk-1vtY&t=2551s) 预测市场沦为虚假机器：Spotify 刷榜与监管边界 金融时报（FT）近期披露的一则荒诞事件引发了热议：Spotify 紧急删除了 Malcolm Todd 的单曲《Earrings》超过 50 万次的异常播放量，原因是有交易员在预测市场 Kalshi 上开设巨额赌注，押注该歌曲会登顶榜首，随后雇佣大量机器人（Bots）循环播放刷量。正如专栏作家马特·莱文（Matt Levine）所犀利指出的： > “预测市场原本被视为‘真理机器’，因为它们激励人们探寻真相并为此下注；但它们如今正日益沦为‘谎言机器’，因为它们同样在激励人们提前下注、随后通过扭曲现实来令赌局变现。预测市场不仅让人去寻找哪首歌最火，更让‘把另一首歌刷成最火’成为一门暴利生意。” 据估算，花 1 美元就能刷上百次播放，有操盘手投入数千美元操纵榜单，在预测市场上撬动了超过 10,000% 的惊人回报。针对此类非传统内幕交易与操纵，彭博社的乔·威森塔尔（Joe Weisenthal）提出了一种反向思考：除了公职人员利用特权内幕交易必须“直接送进监狱”外，纳税人真的希望联邦政府调动有限的司法资源，去严查别人在 Spotify 歌曲排名上的赌局纠纷吗？对于下注流行歌曲榜单的投机客而言，这纯粹属于“买者自负”的嗜赌行为。 ### [44:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaQJYk-1vtY&t=2676s) 私募股权的软件投资隐患与市场即时跳水 根据彭博社和 PitchBook 的最新报告，另类资产管理机构账面上的软件投资规模难以准确估算，但普遍已达数千亿美元级别；仅在 2025 年，与软件相关的私募股权（PE）交易规模就达到了 230 亿美元。更惊人的是，流入软件行业的资金比例已从过去的 25% 飙升至目前私募股权和风险投资（VC）新增资金的半壁江山，相比 15 年前翻了一倍以上。 过去专注于工厂、重工等硬资产的私募股权巨头，近年来为了追赶风险投资的超额回报，大举转型扎堆科技与软件领域。本与迈克尔指出，私募股权投资无法像二级市场那样随时止损切断亏损标的，必须长期承受账面贬值，未来十年软件 PE 领域很可能会集中爆出一批极其难看的回报数据。 在节目录制当天的美股早盘（周二上午 9:50），AI 与半导体权重股遭遇全面惨烈抛售： - 闪迪（SanDisk）暴跌 9% - 应用材料（Applied Materials / AMAT）暴跌 10% - 西部数据（Western Digital）下跌 8% - 英特尔（Intel）下跌 7% - AMD 下跌 7% - 美光科技（Micron）下跌 6.5% 迈克尔回顾了 Roundhill 发行的 ETF：此前推出的 DRAM（内存概念 ETF）取得了爆发式成功，随后顺势推出的双倍做多杠杆 ETF（代码 RAM）。然而在短短八九个交易日内，该双倍杠杆产品就惨遭腰斩。散户此前追逐杠杆的高歌猛进，在顺周期逆转后迅速演变成杠杆杀跌的反噬风暴。 ### [46:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaQJYk-1vtY&t=2809s) 私募信贷资金分化：散户撤离与机构入场 Michael 和 Ben 围绕 DRAM（或相关 ETF）迅速下跌 26% 展开对话，指出尽管迟早会有买家入场抄底，但究竟是在当前点位企稳还是再跌 15% 仍未可知。 随后话题转向近几周热度有所降温的私募信贷（Private Credit）资金流出问题。虽然财富管理渠道（零售/散户）呈现资金净流出态势，但大型机构投资者却在加速涌入。面向机构客户的北美直接借贷基金（Direct Lending Funds）在第二季度募集了至少 160 亿美元；在截至 6 月 25 日的三个月内，这类具有固定生命周期且仅募资一次的封闭式基金创下了四年来第二强劲的季度募资表现。零售散户落荒而逃，而大型长线资金大举建仓，这印证了私募信贷的核心痛点：散户往往没有做好将资金锁定 10 年的长期准备，缺乏长线持有视野，而机构投资者则能利用当下的估值扰动捕捉长期机遇。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 私募信贷市场分化走势 accDescr: 展示零售散户流出与机构投资者大举加仓私募信贷基金的流动路径 subgraph 零售端["财富管理渠道 (散户)"] A["流动性预期落差"] --> B["资金流出 / 止损撤离"] end subgraph 机构端["机构投资者渠道"] C["长期资金视野 (10年期)"] --> D["封闭式直贷基金"] D --> E["二季度吸金超 160 亿美元"] end B -. 市场扰动产生入场良机.-> D ``` --- ### [48:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaQJYk-1vtY&t=2898s) 信用卡返利机制的隐形财富转移 Ben 提及美国国家经济研究局（NBER）发布的一份引人注目的研究报告，解答了此前关于“0% 利息及高额信用卡返现究竟由谁买单”的疑问。报告指出，每次消费者刷信用卡时，商家平均需要支付交易金额约 1.9% 的刷卡手续费（Interchange Fee），这笔费用绝大部分被银行用于补贴持卡人的刷卡奖励与返利积分。 由于绝大多数商家对所有付款方式实行统一定价，导致使用现金或借记卡支付的消费者，在商品价格已被手续费推高约 2% 的情况下，无法享受任何返现优惠，从而在实质上补贴了高收益信用卡用户的奖励。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 信用卡返利补贴机制 accDescr: 解释商家如何统一定价并导致现金借记卡用户补贴信用卡用户 A["商家统一定价<br>(整体加价 ~2%)"] --> B["现金/借记卡消费者<br>(无返现，承受溢价)"] A --> C["信用卡消费者<br>(获得 2%~3% 返现)"] B -- "每年约 92 亿美元转移" --> C ``` - **反向财富转移规模**：由于信用卡使用率与收入水平正相关，该支付体系导致每年约有 92 亿美元从年收入低于 15 万美元的家庭转移至年收入超过 15 万美元的家庭。 - **商家双轨定价争议**：Michael 指出一些披萨店等小商家已开始实行双轨定价（如现金 8.50 美元，刷卡 9.15 美元），并认为这种情况在当地愈发普遍；Ben 则认为按统一定价进行隐性补贴的现象依然占据主流。 --- ### [49:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaQJYk-1vtY&t=2996s) 汽车月供飙升与消费降级缺失 根据彭博社和 Edmunds 的最新统计数据，美国汽车月供中位数达到创纪录的 777 美元（两人笑谈基本等于 780 美元），整体汽车信贷承受力严重承压。 - **超长贷款期限**：超过四分之一的美国购车者申请了 7 年（84 个月）或更长时间的车贷。 - **贷款与首付失衡**：平均贷款额度创下超过 4.4 万美元的历史新高，而平均首付金额却比去年同期下降了 10%。 - **千元月供与负资产风险**：第二季度有超过五分之一的新车买家签署了每月 1000 美元以上的车贷协议，直接导致车主陷入“资不抵债（车辆价值低于未偿贷款）”甚至违约的风险急剧升高。 - **历史对比**：AI 分析 Edmunds 数据显示，2019 年底平均汽车月供约为 575 美元，短短几年内月均支出增加了 200 多美元。 Ben 指出，这一趋势既受价格通胀影响，也受消费选择驱动。如果消费者放弃大型 SUV 和皮卡，转而选择凯美瑞（Camry）或雅阁（Accord）等传统轿车，月供会大幅下降（Ben 顺带提到自己的起亚 Telluride 混动车型油耗表现极佳）。然而现实情况是，即便面临极大的“标价冲击（Sticker Shock）”，买家依然坚持购买大车，没有任何人改变消费行为或主动降级替代，展现出一种典型的牛市消费惯性。 --- ### [52:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaQJYk-1vtY&t=3120s) 育儿焦虑：普通工薪阶层的代际悲观与阶层认知 Michael 念了一封探讨普通家庭孩子未来前景的听众来信。该听众焦虑地指出，未来大部分孩子步入社会后并非顶尖的 AI 工程师或外科医生，而是从事教师、护士、零售员工或消防员等普通大众岗位。三十年后，这些普通工薪阶层很可能会彻底买不起房、去不起迪士尼度假、买不起新车，甚至吃不起 Chipotle；父母希望下一代生活过得比自己更好的愿望似乎难以实现。 Ben 回应称，每个家长都会有下一代生活水平不如自己的噩梦般担忧，但历史数据表明大多数孩子的实际生活状况依然优于上一代，过分焦虑几十年后难以预测的未来并无益处。 Michael 则认为，以往从事教师职业的人本就不会期待每年去迪士尼度假，这种“生活方式不可企及”从过去到现在一直存在。Ben 举了身边一位当小学教师兼橄榄球教练的高中好友的例子：妻子是校长，全家深知选择教育行业就意味着相对收入不高，买不起频繁的度假旅行，因此当十几岁的孩子提出物资需求时，这位朋友会坦率要求孩子去打工赚钱。两位主持人总结道，如今这种差距感之所以被极大放大，是因为社交媒体无孔不入地将别人的奢华度假生活“强行塞到眼前”，带来了空前的心理冲击。 --- ### [54:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaQJYk-1vtY&t=3271s) 个人财务的“进阶”：摆脱刻板理财公式与早期低谷回忆 Michael 查看了上周节目的网友评论。一位网友讽刺道：“快进六个月，Michael 会说‘我的路虎揽胜因为发动机故障灯已经在修车厂修了三个月了’”，引发二人大笑；另一位评论者则在讨论租车问题时评价：“这两个人做了大量极其糟糕的财务决策，他们的收入肯定严重过剩（Overpaid）。” 针对网友的批评，Ben 与 Michael 提出了“个人理财毕业论（Personal Finance Graduation）”： - 随着收入的增长，个人的目标不应是一辈子死板遵循理财专家的苛刻教条。 - 做出一些在理财顾问眼中“糟糕”、若复利 30 年会浪费资金的非理性消费，恰恰是努力赚钱的意义所在；适度而合理的“消费膨胀（Lifestyle Creep）”并不是坏事，反而是一种理应追求的生活进阶。 为了说明这种视角的转变，Michael 分享了自己 25 岁时的一段极端低谷经历。他在大学时期被退学两次，除了打全职工作外无处可去，因此在 19 岁左右曾攒下了大约 3 万美元的“巨款”，一度产生自己极其富有的错觉。然而到了 25 岁，他处于既失业又无法被雇用的绝境。2009 年金融危机期间，他甚至每月自己倒贴 400 美元租工位去打推销人寿保险的冷萃电话（Cold Call），但业务几乎无法展开，银行账户逐渐走向归零。在长达一年的时间里，因为母亲病重垂危与财务断崖的双重打击，他的眼皮因极端心理压力而持续抽搐抽动。直到后来重获一份起薪极低、几乎白手起家的新工作，才逐步扭转命运走出阴霾。 ### [56:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaQJYk-1vtY&t=3401s) 告别“Excel表格人生”：个人财务理念的转变 迈克尔·巴特尼克（Michael Batnick）分享了自己个人财务观的演变。早年间他收入微薄，不得不精打细算、记录每一笔开销、严格按照预算过日子。而如今走过了那个阶段，他感叹这种解脱感非常棒，并认为每个人都应该努力争取不再一辈子受困于“Excel表格式的财务决策”。 谈及租车等被传统理财观点视为次优的消费行为，迈克尔坦言自己早已不再为了把表格里的数字最大化而做选择。他并不在乎当下的流动净资产到底有多少，一方面是因为对未来的挣钱潜力保持乐观，另一方面是他已经41岁了，“这可能是我人生中最好的几年，我选择把钱花出去”。 本·卡尔森（Ben Carlson）对此表示认同，指出人在二十几岁时确实必须当那个拿着表格过日子的人。本回忆起刚结婚时不得不找妻子严肃谈话，告诉她不能每周都跟朋友去吃 P. F. Chang's（华裔连锁餐厅），因为当时的预算根本承受不起；这一经历也倒逼他意识到必须赚更多钱，而不是一辈子扣扣搜搜地省钱。迈克尔随即调侃道，另一种极端是常春藤盟校毕业直接去投行工作的23岁年轻人，年薪11万美元，根本不需要做任何表格精算。 ### [58:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaQJYk-1vtY&t=3490s) 流媒体痛点：Netflix热播剧观众流失与续订困局 卢卡斯·肖（Lucas Shaw）披露的数据显示，Netflix 排名前列的热播剧集在第一季与第二季之间流失了 30% 到 70% 的观众，平台高管们正绞尽脑汁寻找原因。例如，《怒呛人生》（*Beef*）第二季的受众暴跌了 70%，而《夜班特工》（*The Night Agent*）第二季观众也缩水了 50%。 本指出，现在绝大多数剧集其实“只应该拍一季”。许多如今被拉长成电视剧的内容在过去原本是一部电影，强行拍续季往往纯粹是为了捞钱，导致品质断崖式下跌。迈克尔对此表示赞同，他提到自己正在追看迷你剧《恐怖角》（*Cape Fear*），看得很过瘾，但完全不想看到它出第二季。本补充认为，即便是泰勒·谢里丹（Taylor Sheridan）的爆款《黄石》（*Yellowstone*），编剧最初也只规划了三季，被硬生生拉长后，第四季就变得烂尾了。 两人还顺带讨论了 Netflix 的商业现状与股价表现： - Netflix 股价当前较历史高点仍处于 42% 到 50% 左右的回撤区间。 - 尽管股价走势低迷，Netflix 仍然占据了流媒体播放量前列剧集的半壁江山，是绝对的流媒体霸主。 - 迈克尔透露自己上周逆势加仓了 Netflix，本则指出历史经验表明，每次 Netflix 下跌 50% 至 60%，事后看都是极佳的买入机会。 ### [01:00:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaQJYk-1vtY&t=3637s) 电影类型评分分布与电视端 Instagram 广告 麦克斯·卡迪（Max Cardi）在推特上分享了一张电影评分直方图/分布图，展示了不同电影类型的口碑特征。迈克尔和本分析指出，恐怖片的分布呈现明显的“肥尾”（Fat Tails），一星和五星的极端评价特别多；这是因为恐怖片制作成本极低，片方疯狂海投试错、充斥着大量粗制滥造的垃圾烂片，但只要碰巧压中一部爆款就能大赚特赚。相比之下，纪录片、战争片和体育题材电影的评分分布更加收敛，整体品控相对稳定，烂片率远低于恐怖片。 随后迈克尔提到一个让他感到震惊的电视广告：Instagram 居然上线了电视端应用，鼓励用户在电视大屏幕上刷 Reels 短视频。迈克尔惊呼自己立刻拒绝了这种诱惑，直言 Instagram 简直是“这个星球上最强效的麻醉毒品”，让人沉迷无法自拔；而本则表示自己完全对 Instagram 免疫，每周大概只看一次，至今依然是个坚定的 Twitter 用户。 ### [01:02:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaQJYk-1vtY&t=3745s) 啤酒行业的分化：Constellation Brands 与百威英博的冰火两重天 迈克尔和本重点剖析了旗下拥有摩德罗（Modelo）、科罗纳（Corona）以及太平洋（Pacífico）美国业务的星座品牌（Constellation Brands，股票代码：STZ）。该公司经营状况堪忧，市值已从几年前的 500 亿美元高点腰斩至 220 亿美元左右，其 91% 的销售额来自于啤酒业务。 本起初猜测年轻一代饮酒减少、转向大麻软糖等替代品是长期诱因，但迈克尔指出这一疲软现象具有高度的地域特殊性： - **全球与美国的分离所有权**：在海外市场，Corona 和 Pacífico 的品牌所有权归百威英博（Anheuser-Busch InBev）所有，其全球业务表现极其亮眼（2025年营收增长 8.3%，在30个市场实现销量增长），带动其股价持续走高。 - **美国本土的结构性困境**：迈克尔援引 AI 工具 Claude 的分析指出，星座品牌在美受挫的根源不在于品牌本身，而在于消费者结构。其美国业务约 50% 依赖拉美裔（Hispanic）消费者；受移民政策收紧担忧和经济通胀压力的双重打击，该群体大幅削减了社交聚会频率和单次购物支出。叠加进口关税以及小瓶装（7盎司的“Ponies”矮瓶啤酒）难以力挽狂澜，导致其与百威英博的海外强劲表现形成了鲜明反差。 本最后开玩笑调侃道，如果全美能多喝点酒，大家或许会快乐得多，连生育率低下的问题都能顺便迎刃而解，并顺势引用了杰里·宋飞（Jerry Seinfeld）关于人群外貌的脱口秀段子作为佐证。 ### [01:05:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaQJYk-1vtY&t=3947s) 影视推荐：新片《戏剧》与令人窒息的“尴尬美学” 迈克尔·巴特尼克（Michael Batnick）开启了推荐环节，透露他和妻子周末观看了本·卡尔森（Ben Carlson）之前力荐的新片《戏剧》（*The Drama*）。该片由赞达亚（Zendaya）和罗伯特·帕丁森（Robert Pattinson）主演，迈克尔在观影前只了解核心设定：四位好友聚在一起共进晚餐或小酌，席间每个人都要坦白自己一生中做过的最糟糕的一件事，并且剧情中途会有一个重大反转。尽管迈克尔认可影片的构思极具创意、切入点非常吸引人，但他坦言自己无法信服剧情的核心设定。他的妻子甚至批评他“吹毛求疵”，但他始终无法接受赞达亚饰演的角色会做出那件极度可怕的事，认为如果这桩恶劣行径发生在罗伯特·帕丁森的角色身上会合理得多。迈克尔直言片方让赞达亚来承担这个剧情反转纯粹是为了追求“震撼效应”，因为从她的外貌、举止和言谈举止来看，根本让人无法信服。 本·卡尔森对此大笑，调侃迈克尔“放轻松点，好好享受电影就行，别太紧绷”。迈克尔则进一步分析，这部作品属于近年来兴起的一种主打“令人坐立不安”的电影流派，而这恰好是本非常钟爱的风格。影片结尾的婚礼戏码尴尬程度拉满，堪称他很长一段时间以来看过的最让人脚趾扣地的场景。这场戏也引发了两位主持人的自我审视，开始思考如果换作自己，能说出的“人生最坏的一件事”会是什么。两人都坦言虽然自己过去做过不少浑事，但绝对找不出电影里那种突破底线的恶劣事件；本更直截了当地表示，哪怕喝下再多杯葡萄酒，这种级别的事情也必须直接带进棺材里，绝不可能在聚会上坦白。 - **电影核心设定**：四位朋友在聚餐喝酒时互相分享自己人生中做过最邪恶、最糟糕的秘密。 - **选角争议**：迈克尔认为赞达亚饰演该负面反转角色缺乏说服力，更像是追求戏剧反差与震惊效应；罗伯特·帕丁森出演会合理得多。 - **影片风格**：典型的新型尴尬美学（Cringe/Uncomfortable cinema），片尾的婚礼桥段被评为极度坐立难安。 --- ### [01:07:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaQJYk-1vtY&t=4062s) 青春电影与代际时间差：《年少轻狂》、《超级坏》与时代共鸣 本·卡尔森分享了他最近重温理查德·林克莱特经典青春片《年少轻狂》（*Dazed and Confused*）的感触。他在大学二年级住校时，室友最爱的电影就是这部片子；每次去派对狂欢后醉醺醺地踉跄爬回宿舍，他们就会把披萨卷（pizza rolls）扔进烤箱，一边吃一边放着《年少轻狂》直到睡死过去，因此这部电影承载了他大量的青春记忆。本在重温时意识到，电影背景设定在 1976 年美国建国两百周年（Bicentennial），而影片实际上是在 1993 年上映的，两者相隔 17 年。他算了笔时间账：1976 年到 1993 年的跨度，正好等同于 2009 年到现在的距离。也就是说，如果在今天拍摄一部对标《年少轻狂》的怀旧青春片，讲的已经是 2009 年高中生的生活了。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 青春电影时代跨度对比 accDescr: 对比《年少轻狂》与现代青春电影的时间距离 subgraph Classic ["经典跨度（17年）"] A["1976年 高中故事<br>（建国两百周年）"] -->|1993年上映| B["《年少轻狂》<br>（Dazed and Confused）"] end subgraph Modern ["对等现代跨度（17年）"] C["2007-2009年 高中故事<br>（千禧代青春）"] -->|等同于当下时代| D["《超级坏》<br>（Superbad）"] end ``` 本把这个时间对比发在推特（X）上后引发了热烈反响，许多网友纷纷留言指出：2007 年上映的《超级坏》（*Superbad*）其实就是属于千禧一代的《年少轻狂》，两者同样围绕学年结束的疯狂与告别展开。本和迈克尔对此深表赞同，本回忆起当年自己在高中高年级时与朋友在影院观看《超级坏》的震撼，认为那部电影在那个年龄段上映堪称绝妙契合。迈克尔则提到《美国派》（*American Pie*）上映于他高二升高三的夏天，对于当时的他同样带来了无法复制的情感冲击。随后迈克尔感叹道，最近有人在 Instagram 上发了《美国派》全体演员的近照对比，让他瞬间感受到了岁月的无情，借用电影《婚礼傲客》（*Wedding Crashers*）中文斯·沃恩与欧文·威尔逊坐在纪念堂台阶上的台词打趣道：“回头看我们当时算什么？几个毛头小子罢了”，而现在的他们早已步入人生的中年阶段。 - **时间跨度计算**：1976 年至 1993 年（17 年）= 2009 年至当下（约 15–17 年）。 - **青春片代际映射**：70 年代的高中时代由 90 年代的《年少轻狂》定格；2000 年代的高中生活则由《超级坏》精准代言。 - **情怀节点**：迈克尔经历《美国派》（1999 年），本经历《超级坏》（2007 年），均在高中毕业季前后迎来了属于自己的代际青春图腾。 --- ### [01:09:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaQJYk-1vtY&t=4183s) 独立日烟花插曲：从中年轻狂到“朝云彩咆哮”的中年父亲 聊到“承认自己变老”的话题，本·卡尔森分享了今年七月四日美国独立日假期期间发生的一件亲身经历。当晚他们全家在湖畔度假，后院延伸到湖边，家里生了营火烤棉花糖，一群幼小的孩子们在院子里挥舞着仙女棒冷烟花（sparklers），等待天黑后正式的烟火表演。此时，隔壁邻居家里来了一群二十来岁、正上大学年纪的年轻人，在喝了酒之后决定在湖边放冲天炮（bottle rockets）。然而这些大学男生为了图刺激，并未把冲天炮插在瓶子里发射，而是用手直接抓着引线点燃，试图让烟花在手中升空。 结果这些年轻人屡屡失手，点燃的冲天炮掉在地上四处乱窜爆开，甚至为了远离他们自己的大部队，逐渐挪到了本家后院幼童玩耍的区域附近。看到这一幕，本这边的客人们全都感到神经紧绷与极其不适。出于户主和家长的责任，本最终不得不走上前去当面干涉：“嘿哥们，你们能不能换个地方放？我们这儿有一群小孩子。”尽管对方辩解“我们只是想让它往上飞”，但看到他们手上几乎要原地爆炸的烟花，本依然坚决要求他们挪移。醉酒的年轻人最终道歉离开，但本 12 岁的女儿却觉得父亲当面斥责“大学酷哥”的举动让她难堪到了极点（mortified）。 迈克尔对此坚定支持本的决定，笑称：“你必须站出来，这就是成年人的代价，有时你不得不去充当那个恶人。”平时迈克尔总拿本不爱惹麻烦的温和性格开玩笑，这次特地为他果断出面护卫孩子安全点赞。本则自嘲自己彻底变成了《辛普森一家》里那个“指着云彩发脾气咆哮的古板老头”（Old Man Yells at Cloud）。随后本还爆料，迈克尔假期里也发了一张在自家庭院放罗马烛光烟花（Roman candle）的照片，距离自己的游艇只有两英尺远，结果点燃后效果极其微弱平淡，被本戏称为“相当反高潮”。 --- ### [01:12:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaQJYk-1vtY&t=4334s) 节目尾声与下周预告 在欢乐的互损与假期的趣事分享后，两位主持人为本期节目收尾。本期第 472 期节目主要围绕看多市场的十大理由展开，本预告下一期节目两人将切换视角，专门盘点“看空市场的十大理由”（10 reasons to be bearish），呈现硬币的另一面。迈克尔再次公布了节目的互动邮箱（animalspirits@thecompoundnews.com），并向全体听众表达了感谢——包括那些在评论区留言批评他们做出愚蠢个人财务决策的挑剔听众。两人表示会对听众的私人来信予以回复，并在片尾欢快的背景音乐中向观众告别。 ## Notable quotes > [01:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaQJYk-1vtY&t=65s) 氛围衰退（Vibecession）彻底结束了！ — Ben Carlson > [07:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaQJYk-1vtY&t=443s) 如果能用摄像机镜头画面展现出来，就绝不要让角色通过台词去解释。 — Taylor Sheridan > [08:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaQJYk-1vtY&t=531s) 点子其实很容易，关键是我待在我的农场里，把门锁死，不写完绝不出来。 — Taylor Sheridan > [35:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaQJYk-1vtY&t=2147s) 我和大银行在做同样的事，这更多反映了当前市场的荒谬，而不是我有多聪明——他们居然击败不了一个在车库里用 Excel 的戏剧系学生。 — 哈尔王子 (Prince Hal) > [42:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaQJYk-1vtY&t=2551s) 预测市场原本被视为‘真理机器’，因为它们激励人们探寻真相并为此下注；但它们如今正日益沦为‘谎言机器’，因为它们同样在激励人们提前下注、随后通过扭曲现实来令赌局变现。预测市场不仅让人去寻找哪首歌最火，更让‘把另一首歌刷成最火’成为一门暴利生意。 — Matt Levine > [54:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaQJYk-1vtY&t=3271s) 快进六个月，Michael 会说‘我的路虎揽胜因为发动机故障灯已经在修车厂修了三个月了’ — 网友评论 > [54:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaQJYk-1vtY&t=3271s) 这两个人做了大量极其糟糕的财务决策，他们的收入肯定严重过剩（Overpaid）。 — 网友评论 > [56:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaQJYk-1vtY&t=3401s) 这可能是我人生中最好的几年，我选择把钱花出去 — Michael Batnick > [01:05:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaQJYk-1vtY&t=3947s) 放轻松点，好好享受电影就行，别太紧绷 — Ben Carlson > [01:07:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaQJYk-1vtY&t=4062s) 回头看我们当时算什么？几个毛头小子罢了 — Vince Vaughn > [01:09:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaQJYk-1vtY&t=4183s) 嘿哥们，你们能不能换个地方放？我们这儿有一群小孩子。 — Ben Carlson > [01:09:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaQJYk-1vtY&t=4183s) 你必须站出来，这就是成年人的代价，有时你不得不去充当那个恶人。 — Michael Batnick ## Mentioned Pacer ETFs, Michael Batnick, Ben Carlson, Matt Cerminaro, Michael Mauboussin, Taylor Sheridan, Bill Simmons, Bespoke, Belski, Claude, YCharts, Citadel Securities, Citadel, Luke Kawa, Sherwood News, Hendrik Bessembinder, Ned Davis Research, Mike Simonson, Altos Research, Joey Politano, 哈尔王子 (Prince Hal), Matt Levine, Joe Weisenthal, Malcolm Todd, Lucas Shaw, Max Cardi, Jerry Seinfeld, 赞达亚 (Zendaya), 罗伯特·帕丁森 (Robert Pattinson), 理查德·林克莱特 (Richard Linklater), 文斯·沃恩 (Vince Vaughn), 欧文·威尔逊 (Owen Wilson), S&P 500, S&P 400, S&P 600, Russell 2000, Russell 1000, MSCI ACWI, Exhibit A, Domino's, Yum Brands, Tesla, Meta, Amazon, Microsoft, Alphabet, Apple, Nvidia, Samsung, Micron, Western Digital, Robinhood, OpenAI, Anthropic, SpaceX, Polymarket, Kalshi, FanDuel, Spotify, SanDisk, Applied Materials, Intel, AMD, Roundhill, Edmunds, Netflix, Constellation Brands, Anheuser-Busch InBev, 黄石 (Yellowstone), 金斯敦市长 (Mayor of Kingstown), 塔尔萨之王 (Tulsa King), 特种部队：母狮 (Lioness), 浪漫满屋 (Full House), 怒呛人生 (Beef), 夜班特工 (The Night Agent), 恐怖角 (Cape Fear), 戏剧 (The Drama), 年少轻狂 (Dazed and Confused), 超级坏 (Superbad), 美国派 (American Pie), 婚礼傲客 (Wedding Crashers), 辛普森一家 (The Simpsons) ## Video description On episode 472 of Animal Spirits, Michael Batnick and Ben Carlson discuss: why the vibecession is over, experience vs. expertise, reasons to be bullish, reasons to be bearish, small caps are on fire, market concentration, Samsung's ridiculous profits, retail investors are moving markets, owning the biggest stock, it's expensive to live in San Francisco, the gambling boom, why car payments are rising and more. This episode is sponsored by Pacer ETFs. Learn more at https://www.paceretfs.com/ ► 00:00 - Pacer ETFs Ad ► 01:05 - Stock Market ► 20:51 - Investor Behavior ► 27:29 - The Economy ► 32:47 - Prediction Markets ► 44:33 - Private Markets ► 48:15 - Personal Finance ► 58:08 - Entertainment ► 1:02:19 - Random ► 1:05:44 - Recommendations 👕 Check out The Compound shop: https://idontshop.com 🎙️Listen to our podcasts: TCAF: https://podcasts.thecompoundnews.com/show/TCAF/ Animal Spirits: https://podcasts.thecompoundnews.com/show/animalspirits/ Ask The Compound: https://podcasts.thecompoundnews.com/show/ATC/ The Compound Newsletter: https://www.thecompoundnews.com/subscribe Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-compound-media/ Instagram: https://instagram.com/thecompoundnews Twitter: https://twitter.com/thecompoundnews Tik Tok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thecompoundnews Investing involves the risk of loss. This podcast is for informational purposes only and should not be or regarded as personalized investment advice or relied upon for investment decisions. Michael Batnick and Ben Carlson are employees of Ritholtz Wealth Management and may maintain positions in the securities discussed in this video. All opinions expressed by them are solely their own opinion and do not reflect the opinion of Ritholtz Wealth Management. See our disclosures here: https://ritholtzwealth.com/podcast-youtube-disclosures/ The Compound Media, Incorporated, an affiliate of Ritholtz Wealth Management, receives payment from various entities for advertisements in affiliated podcasts, blogs and emails. Inclusion of such advertisements does not constitute or imply endorsement, sponsorship or recommendation thereof, or any affiliation therewith, by the Content Creator or by Ritholtz Wealth Management or any of its employees. For additional advertisement disclaimers see here https://ritholtzwealth.com/advertising-disclaimers. Pacer ETFs Disclosure: Before investing you should carefully consider the Fund’s investment objectives, risks, charges, and expenses. This and other information is in the prospectus. A copy may be obtained by visiting www.paceretfs.com. Please read the prospectus carefully before investing. All investing is subject to risk, including the possible loss of principal. Pacer ETFs are distributed by Pacer Financial. #thecompound #investing #stockmarket [Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaQJYk-1vtY)

[1:05] Ben Carlson: 氛围衰退（Vibecession）彻底结束了！ [7:23] Taylor Sheridan: 如果能用摄像机镜头画面展现出来，就绝不要让角色通过台词去解释。 [8:51] Taylor Sheridan: 点子其实很容易，关键是我待在我的农场里，把门锁死，不写完绝不出来。 [35:47] 哈尔王子 (Prince Hal): 我和大银行在做同样的事，这更多反映了当前市场的荒谬，而不是我有多聪明——他们居然击败不了一个在车库里用 Excel 的戏剧系学生。 [42:31] Matt Levine: 预测市场原本被视为‘真理机器’，因为它们激励人们探寻真相并为此下注；但它们如今正日益沦为‘谎言机器’，因为它们同样在激励人们提前下注、随后通过扭曲现实来令赌局变现。预测市场不仅让人去寻找哪首歌最火，更让‘把另一首歌刷成最火’成为一门暴利生意。 [54:31] 网友评论: 快进六个月，Michael 会说‘我的路虎揽胜因为发动机故障灯已经在修车厂修了三个月了’ [54:31] 网友评论: 这两个人做了大量极其糟糕的财务决策，他们的收入肯定严重过剩（Overpaid）。 [56:41] Michael Batnick: 这可能是我人生中最好的几年，我选择把钱花出去 [65:47] Ben Carlson: 放轻松点，好好享受电影就行，别太紧绷 [67:42] Vince Vaughn: 回头看我们当时算什么？几个毛头小子罢了 [69:43] Ben Carlson: 嘿哥们，你们能不能换个地方放？我们这儿有一群小孩子。 [69:43] Michael Batnick: 你必须站出来，这就是成年人的代价，有时你不得不去充当那个恶人。

[6:07] Ben Carlson: when you turn 70, you walk around the locker room naked and you're permanently bearish about everything [1:05] Michael Batnick: I'm Jewish. I don't want to shoot these [17:34] Michael Batnick: Why was the market so slow to understand that there would be a memory shortage? Everyone was behind on this. [20:51] Ben Carlson: Sure, when there's a financial crisis, it's going to be painful, but it's not going to be painful because people buy stocks and then they keep going down... The painful part is going to be people losing their jobs and not having savings to invest. [27:29] Ben Carlson: Boo freaking hoo. I feel sorry for the teachers and the firefighters and the police officers and the service workers... If you're a tech person making six figures, I'm sorry you're not as rich as the AI people. Deal with it. [52:00] Michael Batnick: I was 25 years old, unemployed, and unemployable... My eye was twitching for a year because I was so stressed... And now I'm on the other side of that and it's awesome. Everybody should strive for that to not have to make spreadsheet financial decisions for their entire life.

[0:04] This episode is sponsored by Pacer ETFs. [0:07] Internationally broad-based indexes lean [0:08] heavily toward financials and materials [0:10] which rarely drive the growth investors [0:12] expect and could drag down overall [0:13] portfolio performance. The PAC or NASDAQ [0:16] international patent leaders ETF ticker [0:18] PATN pretty good seeks to access [0:21] international NASDAQ 100 innovation. [0:24] Specifically, PATN targets the 100 non- [0:27] US companies with the most valuable [0:29] patent portfolios, effectively filtering [0:31] international exposure through the lens [0:33] of innovation rather than market [0:34] capitalization alone. The strategy aims [0:37] to capture international growth, [0:38] diversified sector exposure, and access [0:40] to the alpha generated by international [0:42] innovation. Learn more at pacerfs.com. [0:44] Before investing, you should carefully [0:46] consider the fund's investment [0:47] objectives, risks, charges, and [0:49] expenses. This and other information is [0:51] in the perspectus. A copy may be [0:53] obtained by visiting www.paceretfs.com. [0:56] Please read the perspectus carefully [0:57] before investing. All investing is [0:59] subject to risk, including the possible [1:00] loss of principle. Pacer ETFs are [1:02] distributed by Pacer Financial. [1:05] >> Welcome to Animal Spirits [music] with [1:07] Michael and Ben. Michael, I'm officially [1:08] declaring it. The vibe session is over. [1:10] >> Okay. [1:11] >> Okay. [1:11] >> Now, it's not going to show up in the [1:12] sentiment surveys because, as we've [1:14] talked about, sentiment surveys are [1:15] broken. You can't trust those anymore. [1:18] But I just get this sense [music] [1:19] and this this is very eerily reminiscent [1:22] of the the Roaring 20s. The reason the [1:25] one of the reasons the Roaring 20s [1:26] happened was not just cuz there was all [1:28] these new consumer products. It was and [1:31] consumer credit and it was people lived [1:33] through a horrible period of time, [1:35] right? You had World War I, then you had [1:37] the Spanish flu pandemic and you had the [1:39] depression and all these things and and [1:40] people were just looking for a reason to [1:42] celebrate. And it seems like this summer [1:44] is a summer of celebration. And I think [1:47] the the Knicks thing kind of started it [1:48] and you saw all the people, you were [1:50] part of this, you saw all the people who [1:51] were just like, "Oh, thank God we get to [1:53] celebrate something, right? It was just [1:55] people want to celebrate something." The [1:57] World Cup is a huge celebration. It's [2:00] not just Americans. It's all these [2:02] people from other countries coming over [2:03] here and you see these huge crowds of [2:05] people in these American cities going [2:07] nuts doing celebration. Everyone has a [2:10] smile on their face, cheering loudly. I [2:12] I think the the the Fourth of July felt [2:16] a little extra. What was what do they [2:17] call it? The semiquincentennial, [2:20] which is the weirdest name ever. [2:22] >> Ben, you missed um Obsession. [2:24] >> Obsession and back rooms. [2:26] >> Okay. Yeah, you're celebrating movies [2:28] being back again cuz cuz you're not [2:29] celebrating the World Cup, but it just [2:31] seems like out in the world there [2:33] obviously there are there are still [2:34] doomer people who are too online who are [2:36] never going to be happy. And we're never [2:38] going to get that out of the system. If [2:39] you're too online, you're just you're [2:41] not and you're too political, you're [2:42] never going to be happy again. So, take [2:44] those people out of the equation. People [2:46] in the real world want something to [2:48] celebrate, and I'm saying it now. It's [2:51] over. The vibe session is done. [2:53] >> Love it. [2:54] >> Right. [2:54] >> Uh rest in peace. I, you know, I had a [2:55] very American patriotic weekend myself. [2:58] Um I had some people over for for the [3:01] fireworks. You could see them from from [3:02] my backyard. And uh a friend of mine [3:07] brought over [3:10] like a how do I describe it? A gun that [3:13] shoots fireworks, I suppose. Sure, [3:15] there's a name for it. And I'm like, [3:17] dude, I'm What do you do? I'm Jewish. I [3:18] don't want to shoot these. [3:19] >> You sent me the You sent me the video. [3:20] It looked to me like a souped-up Roman [3:22] candle. [3:23] >> Okay, sure. Um anyway, I got my Roman [3:26] candle on. I I sacked up and I let it [3:30] rip. That was fun. And then what? [3:34] >> I still can't believe the size of the [3:36] fireworks that they sell to individual [3:37] people now [3:39] >> where all you need is one little thing [3:40] to go wrong and this thing blows your [3:42] face off. I can't believe that these [3:43] that they give these to people. I went [3:45] to this fireworks tent with my son and [3:47] we could in our neighborhood we could [3:49] only do sparklers. They like they [3:51] outlawed fireworks. Those people were [3:52] getting too crazy with them. Like sorry [3:53] we're not doing anymore by houses. [3:55] >> And the guy goes hey you want to buy a [3:56] kaboom box? [3:58] >> I'm a kaboom box. He points he points [4:00] over and this thing it was like I don't [4:01] know $900 or something. It was this huge [4:03] box of all these fireworks and he's like [4:05] if you light that thing the ground [4:07] underneath your feet will shake. I'm [4:08] like you know what I'm [laughter] good. [4:11] Appreciate that. I'm going to let [4:12] someone else do the kaboom box. [4:14] >> The thing the the Roman candle shooter. [4:16] It was no big deal. I scanned the QR [4:17] code and I saw somebody doing on [4:18] YouTube. I'm like oh this is I could I [4:20] think I could do this. And then [4:22] uh as we were preparing for the party, I [4:24] ordered um we ordered food that never [4:28] showed up, [4:30] delivery just didn't make it. So I'm [4:32] like, "Oh great, people are be over in 5 [4:33] minutes. You know what? Let's give [4:36] Dominoes one more shot. Let's give [4:39] Dominoes one more shot. It's July 4th. [4:41] Gosh dang it. Let's give it one more [4:42] shot." What I did this time, I got the [4:46] thin crust. [4:47] And I got to tell you, 10 out of 10. [4:51] Well, not quite 10 out of 10, but [4:53] compared to the the doughy the doughy [4:55] pie, that was that truly was not really [4:57] that awesome. Trying to be kind. The [5:00] thin crust dominoes that rips. That's [5:02] edible. [5:03] >> The beauty of the thin crust is so let's [5:05] say you're you eat the hand toss. You [5:06] probably have three pieces. Let's say [5:08] for [5:08] >> Oh, hold on. Hang on. Somebody emailed [5:09] us to get the hand toss. He said that's [5:11] a little bit extra, but it's way better. [5:12] What's [5:13] >> But thin crust, you can eat 10 pieces [5:15] and feel like you can keep going. What's [5:17] a hand tossed Domino's pizza? [5:19] >> I thought that was just a regular pizza. [5:22] >> Either way, did you know, do I have this [5:24] later in the dock? Did you know that uh [5:28] Yum Brands sold pizza? Apparently, [5:31] Domino's Pizza has been ringing their [5:34] bell, [5:36] cleaning their clock. Somebody emailed [5:38] us that. I'm butchering all sorts of [5:40] phrases. Is ringing their bell a phrase? [5:43] >> No. [5:44] >> There's a phrase I'm looking for. [5:47] I don't know. [5:47] >> You can say you got your bell rung. That [5:50] >> That was it. That was it. Anyway, I hope [5:52] everybody else had a bell ringing of a [5:54] weekend. [5:55] >> All right. But don't don't you get the [5:56] sense that the vibes are changing? [5:57] People are happier out in the real [5:59] world. Again, not online. The online [6:00] people are never going to be happy. The [6:02] people who make everything political, [6:03] they're never going to be happy. [6:04] >> I'm having a great time. [6:06] >> Yeah. People in the real world seem [6:07] happier to me and want to celebrate [6:08] stuff. And it's a great thing. All [6:10] right. Speaking of celebration, chart [6:12] kid Matt had this blog last week, 10 [6:14] reasons to be bullish. Now, Matt is a [6:18] younger fellow, right? He's 20, mid20s, [6:20] mid to late 20s, right? I think there's [6:24] this difference between, and Michael [6:25] Mobson, I remember, did a post on this [6:27] once, the difference between expertise [6:28] and experience, [6:30] right? And I feel like people with a lot [6:32] of experience in the markets, if you're [6:33] an old gay-haired guy right now, you [6:35] have to be bearish about everything. [6:37] That's just that's what happens when you [6:39] get older, I guess. when you get older, [6:40] you turn 70, you walk around the locker [6:42] room at the gym naked and you're per [6:44] permanently bearish about everything. [6:46] Okay, that's just what happens. But Matt [6:49] being younger, I feel like allows him to [6:51] not see the world through that lens. And [6:53] he's he says, "Here's 10 good reasons [6:56] based on the data to be bullish." No one [6:57] is saying this right now. No one is [6:59] saying you should be bullish. Correct. [7:00] I'm very few people. [7:02] >> Very few people. You know what? cuz you [7:03] and I, we've been working together since [7:06] 2015. [7:09] And I think for much of that entire [7:11] time, we were waiting for the other shoe [7:13] to drop in the market because that's [7:15] just what it was, right? [7:16] >> Lower returns. This is the end, all [7:18] these things. [7:19] >> And Matt and Matt's like, I don't even [7:20] know what shoes are. What are you [7:21] talking about? Stocks go up. [7:23] >> So, he he did this in charts, which he's [7:25] prone to doing, and I I think his charts [7:27] are worth going through. And I I pulled [7:29] out some of my favorites. This is this [7:31] is the most surprising one to me. So he [7:32] looks at 12-month total return for the [7:34] S&P versus 10 12-month earnings growth. [7:36] And he the a lot of these charts are on [7:38] exhibit A. Remember, if you're an [7:39] adviser, you can take for a spin. Also [7:42] coming out today, recorded this Tuesday [7:44] morning. Uh another economic and market [7:47] update from me, yours truly. Having fun [7:50] writing these. [7:51] >> All right. [7:51] >> Wait. So if you're if you if you're an [7:53] exhibit A adviser subscriber, Ben ghost [7:57] writes a monthly report every month. [7:59] >> Not even ghostwriting. My name's on [8:00] there. Oh, [8:01] >> ghost writing would be like if I was [8:04] [laughter] [8:04] you couldn't imagine. But here's here's [8:06] the here's the reason that I want to and [8:07] I I heard Taylor Sheridan on Bill [8:09] Simmons recently [8:10] >> and he talked about Bill Simmons asked [8:11] him like how do you what do you do [8:13] differently when you make a movie or a [8:15] TV show that someone else doesn't? And [8:16] he said when I first started don't have [8:19] the characters in the movie tell them [8:21] tell you something in dialogue if you [8:23] can show it with a camera. And that's [8:25] charts to me. That's why I think it's [8:28] helpful and that's why I included so [8:29] many charts in my book. I it I would [8:32] rather show you than tell you. Anyway, [8:35] good interview. Uh earnings growth over [8:38] the last 12 months has been higher than [8:40] stock market returns by quite a wide [8:42] margin. Earnings earnings are up 32%. [8:44] The market itself is up 22%. That's [8:46] pretty nuts. earnings themselves are [8:48] accelerating and it's it's going up for [8:51] not only the S&P which is going up [8:53] considerably midcaps as well small caps [8:56] so S&P 400 S&P 600 forward that means [9:00] obviously we take a leap there earnings [9:03] is growing higher than the market [9:04] valuations are falling for the S&P 500 [9:08] which is kind of insane to think about I [9:10] just posted on Slack this morning since [9:12] the bottom in 2022 [9:14] of the bare market lows the S&P 500 was [9:16] up 24% annualized [clears throat] [9:19] >> 24% per year since 20 October 2022. And [9:23] in that time, valuations really aren't [9:25] up that much because fundamentals have [9:28] kept up. All right, here's another one. [9:31] Profit margins continue to rise in the [9:33] face of everything that's going on this [9:35] decade. Tariffs, war, higher energy [9:39] prices, supply chain issues, higher [9:41] inflation, margins just continue to go [9:44] higher. And I with AI coming, I don't [9:47] why would this go be lower. [9:51] I don't see why this has to why this has [9:53] to stop. [9:55] >> Um well, the obvious way it stops is if [9:57] the hyperscalers pull back because all [9:59] of the not all a lot of the earnings are [10:01] coming from their spending. [10:04] >> Well, that that's the earning part. I'm [10:06] talking about the margin part. [10:09] >> As technology improves, why would [10:11] margins go lower? [10:14] Um, [10:15] >> I think margins improved for the rest of [10:16] the S&P [10:18] technology stocks, [10:19] >> I guess. Competition. [10:23] >> Okay, maybe that hasn't worked in the [10:25] last 15 years. No. [10:26] >> Uh, the mag 7 weight in the S&P has is [10:28] dropping considerably because the mag 7 [10:31] is underperforming by a wide margin. I [10:33] think this is good news that this is [10:35] happening. Concentration is is getting [10:38] lower. [10:38] >> It is great. Can I say one more? So [10:40] these are all these are all wonderful [10:41] charts from Matt. Uh you mentioned the [10:44] Terless Sheridan interview. One of the [10:46] things that he said because everybody's [10:48] like how the hell are you making all [10:49] these shows? It doesn't seem possible [10:51] that you are pumping out this volume [10:55] right between Landman and Yellowstone [10:58] and all the spin-offs and Lioness and [11:01] Madison whatever and you know mayor of [11:03] Kingtown and what's it Tulsa King and [11:06] I'm sure there's a few others that I'm [11:07] thinking of and he said something along [11:10] the lines of ideas are easy but I just [11:13] I'm on my ranch I lock my door and I [11:15] don't come out until I'm done. [11:19] >> Right? effort. [11:20] >> Yeah. And he was saying that like I [11:21] probably don't work as hard as some [11:23] other people do, but no one messes with [11:25] me. [11:25] >> So, know what know what Chartkit did [11:27] last week and he said, "Man, it feels [11:28] good to send these out." He sent a copy [11:32] of uh Risk of Reward to all several [11:36] hundred subscribers that are on the [11:38] Exhibit A platform. And he was jacked up [11:40] to do it. [11:42] >> Signed copies, too. [11:43] >> The little things go the long way. [11:45] >> Yeah. Anyway, obviously there are plenty [11:48] of other [11:50] uh counterbalances to what Matt posted [11:52] about being bullish. There there's [11:53] plenty of other stuff you could and and [11:54] we you've heard it though. Everyone [11:56] knows what the bearish arguments are, I [11:58] think. [12:00] >> Yeah. Um All right. This is an awesome [12:02] chart from the [12:02] >> Wait, sorry. And maybe the most bearish [12:04] one is just the returns have been so [12:07] good. I think that's the most bearish [12:08] thing you could say [12:10] is that we've pulled forward a lot. [12:13] >> Ah, [12:14] >> right. It's priced. It's returns have to [12:16] be lower because they've been higher. [12:18] >> Okay, [12:18] >> that's the that's the only thing I could [12:19] say. [12:20] >> But not as high as you might have [12:21] thought. [12:23] >> So, Bespoke has a chart showing the S&P [12:28] returns [12:30] on a percentile rank basis for one year, [12:33] 2 year, 5 year, 10 year, 20 year. [12:36] And over the last 5 years, [12:39] we're in the 59th percentile. [12:41] Not nearly as high as I would have [12:43] thought. [12:44] Now, there's 2022 in there, which I [12:46] think, you know, I keep saying that we [12:47] forget about, but once [12:48] >> that one falls off, it's going to go up [12:50] a lot higher. [12:50] >> Okay. 10 years, [12:53] 78th percentile, [12:55] probably lower than I would have [12:57] guessed. Sure. I would have guessed 90th [13:00] and 20 years. [13:03] Now, we have the GFC in here, so once [13:07] this rolls off, it's going to shoot up. [13:09] But 54th percentile, [13:11] >> but you're right. These are still lower [13:12] than most people would assume, [13:14] >> right? [13:15] >> That's fair. That's pretty good. [13:19] Um, how about this? Another one from [13:21] exhibit A, Matt. Small caps had since [13:24] 2005, small caps had their biggest [13:27] spread over large caps in that time and [13:29] by a wide wide margin. The last time we [13:31] had a small caps outperforming this much [13:34] in the first six months of the year, [13:35] 2018, you'd have to go back to like 2006 [13:38] before this happened, small caps [13:40] outperformed by 12%. [13:42] I still don't have an awesome answer as [13:44] to why this is happening. We were [13:46] talking with Bellski that it's not just [13:49] like a market cap thing. It's got to be [13:51] a sector thing. I think that's where [13:52] I've landed, although I don't have [13:53] really evidence there. Um because if you [13:56] look at the S&P 500 and you break it [13:59] down by decile and you look at year-to- [14:00] date returns, [14:02] the mega cap are winning. And it's not [14:05] like buckets 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 are doing [14:07] well. They're not. [14:10] So the larger stocks in the S&P 500 are [14:12] outperforming. The equal weight is not [14:14] really outperforming and yet the Russell [14:15] 2000 is outperforming by a wide margin. [14:17] >> So I I told you last week I put this in [14:19] I took all the Russell 1000 holdings [14:22] from Y charts and year-to- date returns [14:24] and I put it into Claude and I said [14:26] where is where are these returns coming [14:27] from? And it wasn't one sector one. It [14:30] was biotech and of course there's like [14:33] the semis and AI part of the small cap [14:36] where it's it's happening but it's all [14:39] over the place. Like I said it's like [14:40] twothirds of the returns twothirds of [14:43] the names are up year to date. It's it's [14:45] a w it's a lot of small caps. Well, then [14:48] then also on the narrative part of it, I [14:51] think conventional wisdom says that [14:53] small caps tend to do better when the [14:56] cost of capital is coming down, which is [14:59] not even close to happening, [15:01] >> right? [15:01] >> When Main Street is outperforming Wall [15:03] Street, I don't know if that's really [15:04] Maybe I just made that up. [15:05] >> So, how about this? Is it is it is it is [15:06] it a flows thing? Do we if money just [15:09] finally flowing in there to where they [15:10] find some value? [15:12] >> I don't think [15:12] >> I don't have a good answer either. [15:15] Um, all right. Uh, [15:19] getting back to the large stuff. [15:24] >> Although I think when there when you [15:25] don't know a good answer about the [15:26] market [15:27] >> flows [15:28] >> the market, but the market is usually [15:30] right about these like it's this is the [15:31] market getting getting ahead of [15:32] something. Could it also be an AI thing [15:35] where people are going, you know what, [15:36] we're going to go to the we're trying to [15:38] look forward to the where the next [15:39] winners from AI are going to come from. [15:41] >> No. [15:42] >> You don't think that's it? [15:42] >> No. You don't think that smaller [15:44] companies are going to benefit from AI? [15:48] That's that's not the what you just [15:50] said. They may benefit from AI, but you [15:52] think enough investors are like saying [15:55] we're going to buy small caps because [15:56] they No, I don't think so. That's that's [15:57] you're reaching for trust. [15:59] >> All right. I I am reaching out because I [16:01] don't know. [16:02] >> Um, so is a chart showing equity market [16:05] concentration. We've spoken about this a [16:06] lot that the US But this is an [16:08] incredible visual. The US is actually at [16:11] the lower end. So the top 10 companies [16:15] as a share of the index, [16:19] India and Japan are smaller than us. [16:21] Everything else is more concentrated [16:23] significantly. So [16:26] >> again, it's not even close in most [16:28] cases. It there's a handful of [16:29] countries. It looks like I don't know a [16:31] dozen countries where the top 10 make up [16:34] almost 100%. Probably 99%. I guess the [16:37] the the the massive difference that sort [16:40] of makes that chart totally garbage or [16:43] perhaps useless is the size. [16:47] >> Yes. [16:48] >> So seven US companies have a similar [16:51] weight to the next seven biggest [16:52] countries in the MSCI country world [16:54] combined. Tesla, Meta, Amazon, [16:56] Microsoft, Apple, Philip, Bet, Apple, [16:57] Nvidia are as big as France, China, [16:59] Korea, Canada, UK, Taiwan, and Japan. [17:02] >> That look at this next one from uh [17:04] Deutsche Bank. They had this America 2 [17:07] 250 report and they show that the US [17:10] accounts for half of the world's public [17:11] market capitalization, but they also [17:12] show the Mag 7 on here. And yeah, the [17:14] Mag 7 would be as a country the second [17:18] biggest to the US if you just stripped [17:20] out the Mag 7, way ahead of China, way [17:23] ahead of Japan. Uh total world market [17:26] cap, I don't know, I think this is [17:27] through June 30th, $167 trillion. [17:31] >> Kind of a lot of money. Uh, okay. This [17:34] is a crazy stat on AI stuff. Uh, someone [17:37] flagged this. I saw this on Twitter. Uh, [17:40] Samsung had had a big meeting, internal [17:43] meeting, and somehow the quotes leaked [17:45] or something or they put out to a press [17:47] conference. This year's profit for [17:48] Samsung will exceed the cumulative [17:49] profit generated over the past 40 years [17:52] since we entered the semiconductor [17:53] business. [17:53] >> Oh my god. [17:55] >> One year of profits is more than the 40 [17:57] years previously combined. Uh, it's kind [18:00] of funny talking about the market [18:02] knowing and not knowing things. So, over [18:03] the past year, Samsung is up over 400%. [18:07] In the past 5 years, the company is only [18:09] up 300%. [18:13] Okay? So, all of that return has [18:16] essentially come in the last year. So, [18:18] you had you had a few years there where [18:22] Chat TPT came out and then you had AI [18:24] stuff going on in 2023, 2024, 2025. [18:28] It dipped a little bit and then it took [18:30] off. [18:32] >> Why was the market so slow to understand [18:34] that there would be a memory shortage? [18:37] >> Can't answer that. [18:40] >> This seems like one of those things [18:41] where the market really was everyone was [18:44] behind on this. [18:48] Was it Was it just people thought like [18:50] there's no way this is going to happen [18:51] this quickly? There's no way. [18:54] >> Yeah. I out of my uh out of my depth. [18:57] Um, Samsung, [18:59] >> there's a lot of stuff we don't know [18:59] today. [19:00] >> Yeah. Yeah. Well, [19:01] >> markets make it markets do that to [19:02] people. [19:03] >> Can't know everything. Samsung fell 7% [19:05] last night. [19:05] >> Hang on. If that's a huge red flag, [19:08] though, if you are talking to someone in [19:10] the that a a pundit, a wealth manager, a [19:13] hedge fund manager, if they know [19:14] everything, [19:15] >> they're full of [ __ ] [19:17] >> No one knows everything when it comes to [19:18] the markets. [19:19] >> Yes. Um, so Samsung reported 7 uh I'm [19:21] sorry, the stock the stock is down 7%. [19:24] Micron pre-market down 6% or so. Um, [19:28] Micron is in a 25% draw down. It was [19:31] >> all priced in. [19:32] >> Uh, Western Digital looks significantly [19:35] worse. [19:36] >> Wait, you've been you've been [19:37] championing this 30% Micron draw down [19:39] saying it was going to happen. [19:40] >> I'm not rooting for it. I've just um [19:44] uh let's see. [19:47] Sand, not Sandis, Western Dig. [19:52] Uh, [19:53] >> you got a backing going on there or [19:54] something? [19:54] >> I do. [19:55] >> Okay, [19:56] >> I'll close my door. [19:57] >> Let's just pretend it's not happening. [19:59] >> Western Dig down 34% at the open. Peak [20:02] to trough or trough current prices from [20:05] peak. One sec. Anyway, is is was that is [20:08] this the top for these names? Who the [20:10] hell knows? But, um, money is definitely [20:13] rotating out of the AI names and back [20:14] into some of the software names. [20:16] >> But that was the easiest call to make [20:17] that we've been saying for a few weeks. [20:18] Eventually, these stocks are going to [20:19] get slaughtered. Of course. Yeah, that [20:20] was that was that was not a brave I [20:22] don't think I was going out on a limb. [20:23] >> Didn't go out on a limb on that one. [20:25] >> Hey, out on a limb. You got that one. [20:26] >> Boom. You know, somebody emailed us. Um [20:31] I was talking with a friend actually at [20:32] the beach over the weekend about how [20:35] sometimes your brain breaks. He was [20:36] looking for a phrase and he said, "Dude, [20:38] I give him like the the Leo gift." I [20:40] said, "This happens to me five times a [20:42] show on on the podcast. I can't, you [20:44] know, once the once the camera's [20:45] recording, the mic is on, you know, [20:48] lights get bright." Yep. Um, all right. [20:50] I can't find the email. Who cares? Let's [20:51] keep let's keep it moving. Retail has [20:54] become the structural bid. This is from [20:55] Citadel. Retail investors are deploying [20:57] capital at a record pace. June is on [20:58] track to become the strongest month in [21:00] our history with daily purchases running [21:02] nearly four times last year's average. [21:04] There's another one showing that retail [21:05] investors are buying the dip heavily, [21:07] aggressively. Retail investors purchased [21:09] nearly three and a half times the [21:10] average daily amount on S&P 500. Down [21:13] days during the first half of 2026, the [21:16] strongest buy the dip behavior in our [21:17] data set. Unbelievable. Even on rallies, [21:20] they continue to buy nearly one and a [21:21] half times the daily average. [21:23] >> Wow. [21:24] By the way, someone from Citadel emailed [21:26] me said, "Hey, [21:28] >> Citadel is the hedge fund. Citadel [21:29] Securities is the market maker. There's [21:31] a difference." [21:32] >> We know. [21:33] >> Okay. [21:35] >> We know that. You know that. [21:36] >> I know. Yeah. Apparently, I didn't [21:38] didn't say it. Called them Citadel [21:40] instead of Citadel Securities. [21:41] >> Okay. Um Well, I believe this comes from [21:42] Citadel Securities. [21:43] >> Setting the record straight. It says [21:46] well says Scott Rubner Rubner. [21:50] >> Yeah. [21:50] >> But then the sources said those [21:51] securities. All right. [21:52] >> Those are really good. Those are really [21:53] good reports that they put out. I like [21:55] um you know what I thought um you know [21:58] when this happens speaking of like not [22:01] knowing everything when you think [22:03] something where you're reading something [22:04] you're like oh that's because of this. [22:06] And then you scroll down and then like [22:07] immediately you get refuted [22:09] >> right? [22:09] >> That happened to me with these charts. [22:11] >> Okay. So I thought uh well yeah the Mag [22:15] 7 like the favorite retail names have [22:18] been underperforming for all year. They [22:20] just they just keep doubling down and [22:22] you know putting more more and more and [22:24] more and more on Mag 7. Literally by the [22:26] next chart retail investors in the past [22:28] week showed less interest in mag 7 [22:30] stocks and on roughly 85% of trading [22:32] days since 2022 [22:35] >> rotation. [22:36] >> So they have they have no interest [22:38] >> right? So [22:39] >> my first my instinct were was completely [22:40] wrong. So part of the reason 7 is [22:43] selling off is obvious. People are not [22:44] interested as much anymore. [22:46] >> And people are not interested. The [22:47] question is, are they not interested for [22:48] the right reasons? [22:51] >> I don't know. They're not interested [22:53] because they're not performing. How's [22:54] that? [22:54] >> Yeah. [22:57] >> Um [23:00] it's all momentum play, right? The [23:01] returns slowed, so they went and found [23:04] momentum elsewhere. The market is [23:06] interesting how like sometimes it will [23:08] and I'm using like Apple in this case. [23:10] Last week or two weeks ago I said on the [23:12] show when Apple fell 6% after that it [23:14] was going to pass through price [23:15] increases. I thought I was like huh I [23:17] would thought it would be the stock [23:19] would rally 5% on the day because [23:21] they're obviously taking some to the [23:22] bottom line, right? They're going to [23:23] like they're going to raise more than [23:25] they need to and is that going to slow [23:27] people down from buying Apple? I highly [23:28] doubt it. Stock fell 6% and the next [23:31] three sessions it's back at an alltime [23:33] high. [23:34] Oh, okay. So, that that was an algo [23:37] driven selloff then, [23:38] >> I suppose. [23:40] Uh, here's another good one. Um, from [23:43] Luca at Sherard Securities. Just [23:46] kidding. Just Sherwood. Um, the [23:48] correlation between the daily change in [23:50] the S&P 500 and net purchases of single [23:51] stocks and Robin Hood is negative0.54 [23:54] this so far this year. A testament to [23:56] the eagerness to buy dips and dial down [23:58] purchases during big updates. So, I [24:02] guess Robin and you know probably routes [24:04] a lot of their orders through security [24:06] through Citadel Securities, but [24:07] >> the finger waggers will say this is [24:08] going to end badly. Just wait. [24:10] >> You know what people have uh pucker up [24:13] buttercup? Remember that guy? That email [24:15] that came in years ago to us? [24:17] >> Oh, yeah. Yep. [24:18] >> Pucker up buttercup. Um yeah, people [24:21] have been saying this forever. [24:23] >> Yeah. And I and I I will take the other [24:26] side of this. Sure. Sure, when there's a [24:27] financial crisis, it's going to be [24:28] painful, but it's not going to be [24:30] painful because people buy stocks and [24:32] then they keep going down. Like, that's [24:34] not going to be the painful part. The [24:35] painful part is going to be people [24:36] people losing their jobs. [24:37] >> Yeah. [24:37] >> And not having savings to to invest. [24:39] That's going to be the painful part. [24:40] >> Yeah. [24:41] >> All right. Hendrickk Besson Binder, new [24:44] new uh new report already. [24:45] >> You know, I saw I saw somebody you were [24:47] about to say it. I saw somebody refer to [24:48] him as Hank. [24:49] >> Hank Bessbinder. Okay. All right. I like [24:51] it. [24:52] >> Do you know you know Henry's my middle [24:53] name? Did you know that? [24:54] >> I did not know that. And growing up, I [24:56] was embarrassed about two things. [24:59] Well, more than two things, but two [25:00] things. [25:00] >> Badnick. [25:01] >> I was embarrassed about my my middle [25:03] name, Henry. Not a kid's name. And I [25:06] have a And I have a large big toe. That [25:08] embarrassed me when I was a kid. Now you [25:10] know my deepest darkest secrets, Ben. [25:12] >> You do have a freakishly large big toe, [25:14] don't you? [25:14] >> You've seen my big toe. [25:15] >> Yeah. [25:16] >> I mean, I wouldn't say it's freakish. [25:17] It's dominant. [25:18] >> Yeah. It's long. Uh [laughter] [25:22] I like Henry as a name. That That's a [25:24] good name. [25:25] >> Well, it's it came around in 1992. Henry [25:27] was not, you know, Henry was [25:28] embarrassing. [25:29] >> So, he has a paper on do nothing port. [25:33] He he looked at like the S&P 500 and if [25:35] you just bought these 500 stocks and let [25:36] them go and didn't rebalance and he he's [25:39] saying like a lot of the just buy and [25:41] hold portfolios work better. Anyway, [25:42] that wasn't the interesting part of his [25:44] paper to me. The interesting part of his [25:45] paper with me, he looked at different [25:47] size portfolios. He looked at like 500 [25:49] stocks, 300, 100, 10, and then one. and [25:52] he looked at what if you just bought the [25:53] biggest stock every year in the S&P 500 [25:56] going back to 1971. It's not that many [25:58] stocks. IBM for a long time, AT&T there [26:01] for a little bit, Exxon, GE for a very [26:04] long time, and then Apple, Microsoft a [26:06] little bit. So, it's like seven names or [26:08] something. And by the way, look at G's [26:11] run from 94 to 99. [26:14] It was up 45% per year or more. 40% or [26:18] more per year every single year. up 45, [26:20] up 40, up 51, up 41, up 68 [26:24] >> in consecutive years. Unbelievable. No [26:27] wonder this thing crashed. [26:29] >> But it's kind of crazy if you look at it [26:31] because the idea is I've seen studies [26:33] before that say like, hey, if you buy [26:35] the biggest 10 names or something, [26:36] you're going to underperform. [26:38] The average return for just buying the [26:40] biggest name is 11.3% per year. I think [26:43] the I think it slightly underperforms [26:45] the S&P which was I don't know 12% per [26:47] year or something like that or 12.5 but [26:50] um it's not like the returns are [26:52] terrible. So, I saw this stat [26:55] back in probably 2016 for the first [26:57] time, I'm guessing, and uh this was a [27:01] Ned Davis chart and it showed that if [27:05] you only owned the largest stock, you [27:07] significantly underperformed the index, [27:10] which does make intuitive sense, right? [27:12] Like trees don't grow to the sky, mean [27:14] inversion, etc. So, there was there used [27:16] to be a big gap. [27:17] >> Yeah. I wonder if Apple being doing so [27:19] well has changed this. [27:21] >> Apple broke the data series. [27:23] >> I think so because Apple's done so well, [27:25] >> you're right, that it's I think it's [27:26] kind of increased the average. [27:28] >> Yeah. [27:28] >> Anyway, I I I thought that was that was [27:30] interesting. All right, here's something [27:32] that I'm sick of. I want I just want it [27:33] to stop like forever. I want to stop [27:36] pandering to people who are doing well [27:37] off complaining about their financial [27:38] situation. There are people who [27:41] legitimately have a gripe against the [27:42] economy, against how much things cost, [27:45] but not these people in San Francisco. [27:47] even $180,000 tech salaries are no [27:50] longer enough. Okay? And they talk about [27:52] how OpenAI and Anthropic and all these [27:54] the rich AI money coming in is hurting [27:57] people and they they interview people [27:58] and they talk about this this 27year-old [28:00] who is earning $180,000 [28:03] and her partner earns $185,000 [28:06] and it says these days even those six [28:07] figure salaries are no longer enough in [28:09] San Francisco. Boo freaking who. I feel [28:11] sorry for the teachers and the [28:13] firefighters and the police officers and [28:15] the service workers. those people. How [28:17] do those people survive in place like [28:18] San Francisco? [28:19] >> Right? [28:19] >> If you're a tech person and you make six [28:22] figure salary, I'm sorry you're not as [28:23] rich as the AI people. I'm sorry. [28:26] >> Deal with it. I'm not going to feel [28:28] sorry for you because you're I'm sick of [28:31] these these stories about that are [28:33] trying to make upper middle class or [28:35] rich people feel bad about their [28:37] situation and allow them to complain. Am [28:40] I being too harsh? [28:42] >> No. [28:44] >> I I get it. They're saying, "Hey, a lot [28:46] of people are gonna have to these people [28:47] are gonna have to move to Seattle or [28:48] Austin or somewhere else, and [28:51] there's a huge concentration of wealth [28:53] in San Francisco. They don't build [28:54] enough housing." I get it. It's got to [28:56] be super annoying. [28:58] You work in technology. You can work [28:59] remotely. [29:00] >> Yeah, [29:01] >> you make you make way more money than [29:04] the vast majority of Americans. [29:06] >> Well, I guess I'm empathetic to that, [29:09] but also nobody's writing an article [29:11] about the firefighters and the teachers. [29:13] >> You're right. [29:13] >> That's what I'm saying. We should. [29:14] >> You're right. [29:15] >> Those are people that deserve sympathy. [29:18] >> You're right. Um, San Francisco is a [29:21] weird place. Uh, especially right now. [29:24] Now, I haven't been to San Francisco in [29:26] like 30 years. Not 30 years. I went when [29:28] I was 17, so I can't really comment on [29:29] what goes on there or what doesn't. But [29:31] from this from this uh aspect alone in [29:34] June, so Mike Simonson tweeted this in [29:38] June. 44 transactions in San Francisco [29:41] closed at at least $1 million above the [29:43] final ask price. So they show this he [29:45] shows this data series going back to [29:47] 2024 and obviously this you know 44 it's [29:50] not a gigantic number but this used to [29:52] never happen. Why would a house go over [29:54] a million dollars above the asking price [29:56] and now there is literally just not [29:58] enough homes to uh to house all these [30:02] people and there's way too much money. [30:03] There's a huge imbalance here. So, how [30:05] do the how do the firefighters and the [30:07] teachers um survive? Don't know. Matter [30:12] of fact, [30:12] >> how how would Danny Tanner survive? What [30:14] was he in was he a he worked in a [30:16] morning show for Full House? He had that [30:17] great house on the hill in Full House. [30:20] There's no way that But listen, Danny [30:23] Tanner took on roommates. Uncle Joey [30:25] lived there. Uncle Jesse lived there. [30:27] Uncle Jesse's family lived in the in the [30:29] top floor of their house. They made do [30:31] in San Francisco, [30:34] right? [30:35] >> I don't think I don't think you can make [30:36] do anymore. [30:37] >> No, I I I get the frustration, but there [30:40] I'm just saying there's other people who [30:42] deserve more sympathy than tech workers [30:45] making $400,000 a year. [30:48] >> Yeah. [30:48] >> In their 20s. In their 20s. [30:51] Move somewhere else. [30:52] >> Um [30:52] >> that's that's the thing. [30:54] >> All right. This I thought was a [30:56] moderately interesting email. Hey guys, [30:58] weird little AI story, but I think [31:00] you'll appreciate it. I connected my [31:01] budgeting app to an AI tool, which meant [31:03] it had eyes of my brokerage account, [31:05] most likely judging my position sizing [31:06] more than I'd like. I was in the middle [31:08] of overthinking some portfolio moves and [31:09] asked it for a podcast that could make [31:10] me sound smarter as I convince myself to [31:12] buy SpaceX or the IPO. It said animal [31:14] spirits. Rude that an AI knows me better [31:16] than I know myself, but it was right. [31:17] And now I haven't missed an episode [31:19] since. That's a genuinely useful AI uh [31:21] use case, if a slightly humbling one. [31:23] Also, I had AI write this entire email, [31:25] including the subject line, with the [31:27] explicit goal of getting you to click [31:28] it. So, really, the AI recommended your [31:30] podcast to me, then turned around and [31:31] wrote an ad copy to get your attention. [31:33] Did it work? It's basically running my [31:34] financial life and my correspondence to [31:36] this point. Send help. Um, this did not [31:39] sound like AI. [31:42] >> Yeah. But do you think do you think you [31:43] don't think this is a person who went [31:44] and changed a few things for AI or not? [31:46] >> Probably not. Uh, well, I don't know. [31:48] Maybe maybe could have, but the point is [31:50] that you're able to have all of these [31:55] tools go through your scent box, learn [31:58] how you write, [32:00] >> and this is this is just it. I was using [32:04] Claude the other day for some sort of [32:05] research piece, and then at the very [32:08] end, I think it was when I was [32:09] researching small caps or something, it [32:12] said, tying back into what you've been [32:14] writing on a wealth of common sense. And [32:16] I didn't even, you know, it just it tied [32:17] it back into my stuff and it was but it [32:19] was pandering to me. [32:20] >> Yeah. Right. [32:21] >> Well, you know how a conversation was [32:23] like we're tired of this AI slop. It's [32:25] so obvious when it's written by AI. [32:26] >> Yeah. [32:27] >> It's not going to be obvious anymore, [32:28] which is I guess I have mixed thoughts [32:30] on that. Um, all right. Uh, [32:34] >> I don't know. I I still feel like I'm [32:36] going to be able to I'm going to be one [32:37] of those people that can spot it. [32:39] >> Were you able to spot this one? [32:41] >> That sounds like a good game show. Like [32:43] spot the AI. [32:44] >> Yeah. Yeah. [32:45] >> Give me five pieces of writing and I'll [32:46] tell you which one the AI produced. [32:49] >> All right. People are gambling. Let's [32:51] talk about it. [32:52] >> Okay. Uh Joey Pulitano wrote this for [32:56] the argument. Uh Americans are set to [32:58] lose nearly $250 billion gambling this [33:00] year. A record high up more than 60% [33:02] since 2019. And that's before counting [33:04] unofficial betting via prediction [33:06] markets or crypto. Can anything anything [33:08] stop America's gambling boom? [33:09] >> Yes. A recession. Can I zag here? [33:12] [snorts] [33:12] >> Okay. Um, this is a sign of uh this is a [33:17] sign of good times. This is a sign of a [33:20] really healthy economy. [33:22] >> Yeah, you're right. People have money to [33:23] blow. [33:24] >> Yeah. Now, I understand that there is [33:26] obviously uh an element of um [33:30] hopelessness in here that there are [33:32] obviously a cohort of these betterers [33:34] that are doing it because they see no [33:37] light at the end of the tunnel and right [33:39] like obviously there's a group of people [33:40] that [33:41] >> you find out who the real degenerates [33:42] are in a recession because they're still [33:44] gambling, [33:45] >> right? [33:45] >> Right. They're not using it as [33:46] entertainment for side money. But he's [33:48] saying that Americans are set to lose [33:50] nearly $250 billion in gambling, a [33:52] record high at more than 60% since 2019. [33:54] Um, what a sign of progress. [33:58] Now, you might hate it, and I certainly [34:00] don't, you know, I'm not, [34:01] >> but he's showing credit delinquency [34:04] soarses in the years after gaining [34:05] access to legalized sports betting. [34:07] >> Okay, so this is this is this is the the [34:10] dark part that I was just talking about. [34:12] Whoa, I just messed up the dot. This is [34:13] the dark part of it. So it is [34:17] it's these these are these are small [34:19] numbers [34:20] >> right in the relative scheme of the [34:23] whole economy right $250 billion is a [34:26] drop in the bucket [34:27] >> so the change in the credit [34:28] delinquencies it's like what is that [34:30] half a percent [34:31] >> like what I I I'm is it 10% of gamblers [34:34] are problematic or 5% it's you're right [34:36] it's a it's probably a small number but [34:38] there are there are people who are [34:39] getting their lives ruined and it's [34:40] easier you and I have heard stories [34:42] people have their lives ruined by [34:44] gambling [34:45] just because it's easier to do and [34:47] that's unfortunate. But you're it's it's [34:49] also a small number of people. [34:50] >> Yeah. So I if I could set my fingers and [34:52] and make the [ __ ] go away, I would. [34:55] >> Yes, I agree. Right. There's no real use [34:57] for it besides [clears throat] [34:58] advertising for podcast. [34:59] >> Yeah. The human stories of people losing [35:00] their lives is beyond beyond beyond [35:02] tragic. Um [35:04] >> okay. So that's true, but it's also true [35:05] that I think that you you don't have [35:07] $250 billion worth of gambling in [35:09] anything other than a pretty healthy [35:10] economy. [35:12] I will take the other side of this and [35:13] say that number is never going lower [35:15] again. Ever unless we have a prohibition [35:17] on gambling that that number is as low [35:19] as it's ever going to be and it's only [35:20] going to get higher because we're going [35:21] to keep making it easier and having more [35:23] platforms to gamble and that number is [35:24] never going lower. [35:26] >> Um yeah, you might be right. I'm not [35:28] like calling a top war. I I have no [35:29] idea. It'll dip. I think it'll dip [35:32] during the next serious recession as [35:34] people lose their jobs. [35:37] But maybe maybe it gets really dark and [35:38] then people really start gambling. [35:39] That's what if people decide like I need [35:41] to do something. I'm going to keep [35:42] gambling. I don't [35:45] >> um Well, you know why? You know the why [35:47] they're not going to do that? Because I [35:49] think people are smart enough to [35:50] understand in general that the more you [35:54] gamble, the more you lose. So, there was [35:56] an episode on uh the Odd Dots podcast. [36:00] There was a an article in the Times [36:03] written by Adamiscoco [36:06] and he was talking about the sharps. [36:10] That's what they're called. Sharks with [36:11] a P. These are like the intelligent [36:14] betterers on these platforms, Poly [36:16] Market and Kalashi that are actually [36:19] winning a lot of money and making [36:21] >> I thought I thought these guys were very [36:22] interesting. The guys who are doing this [36:24] and they're just kind of they're not [36:26] like Wall Street people. They're just [36:28] kind of regular people who have figured [36:29] out that there are still some common [36:32] sense loopholes in the prediction [36:33] markets and they know where they are. [36:35] >> So, Prince Hal, a struggling [36:38] screenwriter turned full-time trader, [36:40] has been trading for about a decade. He [36:42] showed me how he builds inflation [36:44] forecasting models that consistently [36:45] outperform major financial institutions [36:47] to the tune of $3.7 million in lifetime [36:50] profits. He said, "Me and the banks are [36:52] doing the same thing. I think it says [36:54] more about the market than it does about [36:56] me. They can't beat an acting major in a [36:58] garage with Excel. Um, the author said [37:02] he asked a macroeconomist who forecast [37:04] inflation for a prominent Wall Street [37:06] hedge fund to review Prince House trades [37:07] and methodology and he said, quote, "I'm [37:09] actually dumbfounded." He told me, "This [37:11] guy might literally be nostalgic." [37:13] >> So, him, this guy explaining how he [37:15] built his inflation model, I thought was [37:16] fascinating. He talked about how, [37:18] listen, inflation is stuff that's the [37:21] inflation number has already happened. [37:23] So he says, "I got on the phone with BLS [37:25] and I figured out how they calculate [37:26] this stuff and I created a model which [37:28] just looks and he said listen gas prices [37:30] are kind of known. There's a lot of [37:31] prices that are known. The other stuff [37:32] you have to make some some guesses and [37:34] estimates but he's like I don't [37:35] understand why the Wall Street people [37:38] don't do this." And the reason is and I [37:40] thought about this. He's like how are [37:41] these Wall Street people so bad at [37:42] forecasting and I just literally built [37:44] the same model that BLS uses and I'm [37:46] really really close. Why don't they do [37:47] this? And you want to know why? Because [37:49] most of the strategists on Wall Street [37:51] are not quants like this guy. They're [37:52] not in the basement running numbers. [37:54] They're marketers. That's it. [37:57] They don't want they don't care how [37:59] accurate they are. They want to have a [38:01] wide range of results, right? [38:05] You don't think that's fair? [38:06] >> They want to have a wide range of [38:08] results. What do you mean? [38:09] >> Well, you you want to be in the [38:10] headlines. No one. I I mean obviously if [38:12] you if you have a I I'm saying like the [38:15] reason that they don't have more [38:16] sophisticated models like this is [38:18] because the most of the strategists [38:20] again they're going on CNBC and they're [38:21] going on Bloomberg and they're they're [38:23] marketing people. They're not want [38:25] people. [38:26] >> Uh [38:27] >> for the most part. [38:29] Anyway, I I thought his whole story was [38:31] really interesting. [38:32] >> Yeah, me too. It was uh What does that [38:35] What does that say about the way things [38:36] are done? Is it is it group think? Is [38:37] it? I'm not sure exactly what it is, [38:40] >> but but what you said that his point was [38:43] I'm not trying to forecast something [38:44] that I think is going to happen. That's [38:46] obviously extremely difficult. I'm [38:48] trying to model something that happened, [38:50] >> right? It already happened. The prices [38:51] have already changed. [38:52] >> Uh but I I thought their point the whole [38:54] thing about prediction markets though [38:55] and they were like, "Listen, we don't [38:56] think that this is something that's [38:57] going to like totally revolutionize and [38:59] change the world because it's zero sum." [39:02] And that's the thing. What happens when [39:04] the the suckers leave the poker table? [39:07] How do you keep finding enough suckers [39:08] to keep coming in? [39:10] >> Well, so this is the thing. Um, [39:13] there are a lot of suckers, [39:15] but don't you eventually sort of run out [39:17] of people? So, they were saying like [39:19] this this happened in in poker and what [39:22] was the other one that they used? The [39:23] other example that they used uh [39:25] >> fantasy football and yeah, the same [39:27] thing. Yeah. [39:28] >> Yeah. Like there's there's the the [39:29] sharks are waiting and eventually the [39:32] minnows just say I'm not going near the [39:33] sharks anymore. This is what happened in [39:36] the fund industry when people went [39:37] passive, they left. We're not going to [39:39] try to pick active managing or we're [39:41] just going to buy index funds. [39:43] >> Yeah. [39:44] >> And the people who are left competing [39:46] are the pros. [39:47] >> Yeah. I'm so curious to fast forward. I [39:49] don't know how long it takes for that to [39:50] happen. Is it is it in 10 years? Is it [39:51] in 20 years? Where people are like, I [39:53] don't gamble on couch. What are you What [39:57] are you the biggest [ __ ] on the planet? [39:59] All you're doing is going against [40:01] professionals [40:03] >> that. So, do they have to change the way [40:05] they do they have to become like do they [40:07] have to take the other side of some of [40:08] these bets somehow? [40:12] >> Well, they Susuana and these market [40:13] makers, they're taking the other side of [40:15] every bet at the right price. [40:18] Um, here's an interesting story. [40:20] >> Wait, so so we keep saying this. So, [40:22] what would why would we be wrong on [40:24] this? What would cause us to be wrong [40:26] >> on which [40:27] >> that the that there the eventually this [40:29] kind of runs out and peters out for [40:31] these predictive markets? [40:33] >> Okay, here's how. If people bucket this [40:37] as entertainment spending money. If they [40:41] say, "Uh, yeah, I lose 3% a year or or [40:46] I'm making that up. whatever it is. Uh I [40:48] have I have uh $1,000 a year that I use [40:51] for entertainment purposes and that's [40:53] just what I lose every year and I have a [40:55] great time doing it. [40:57] >> Yeah, like people who trade options and [40:59] stock trade or Yeah. or fun. [41:01] >> But I' I've mentioned this before about [41:02] my own gambling habits. Somebody emailed [41:04] me and it's like, "Hey, I this is fun. [41:06] I'm just getting into it." I'm like, "Oh [41:07] boy." Uh but they're like asking for [41:09] safety, you know, tips and whatever. [41:12] I don't really have a great answer here, [41:14] but for me personally, my my FanDuel app [41:19] now shows my cumulative losses and I [41:21] lose I've lost seven cents on every [41:23] dollar. That's where I'm at today. [41:26] But guess what? [41:28] I've made [41:29] >> You're essentially paying the vig. [41:31] That's your That's your losses. [41:32] >> Yeah. And it's and I I love gambling, [41:35] but if I do a million dollars worth of [41:37] bets [41:39] over the next 10 years, do I am I [41:41] comfortable losing $70,000? [41:44] I mean, it's not that much fun, right? [41:46] >> You know, so, you know, I don't know [41:48] where the line is. Um, [41:53] all right. Well, it's already probably [41:55] bigger than we would have thought if you [41:56] would asked us 5 years ago, so maybe [41:58] we'll continue to be wrong on this. Um, [42:01] they said like 40% of of men between [42:04] ages whatever 18 and 40 [42:07] have gambled. I think that's probably [42:08] light. [42:09] >> And it'll obviously spike around [42:11] political events. That stuff will still [42:12] continue to be. But [42:13] >> that part was interesting to me. One of [42:15] the reasons why they're why they're [42:17] consistently able to make money on [42:18] elections is there's an emotional [42:19] element to elections like there isn't [42:21] with inflation. [42:23] >> People are betting on who they want to [42:24] win, not who they think will win. [42:26] >> So maybe there's some persistent uh [42:28] alpha there. But if enough money comes [42:29] in. All right, whatever. Uh, this story [42:31] was interesting. Spotify deletes stream [42:33] of chart topping song after suspicious [42:36] couchy bets. [42:38] So, the platform removed more than [42:40] 500,000 streams of Malcolm Todd track [42:42] earrings on concerned traders propelled [42:45] it to number one. That was a FT story. [42:47] So, um, look at this chart. [42:49] >> So, they had bots. They had bots playing [42:51] the song over and over again. So I think [42:53] it cost Matt Living was wr writing about [42:55] it like it takes a dollar to to play a [42:58] song a 100 times or whatever it is. [43:01] So somebody did this enough times, [43:05] spent enough money to do this and bet on [43:07] this to be the number one song and made [43:09] like a 10,000% return or something like [43:11] that. [43:12] Weird [ __ ] is happening. So Matt wrote, [43:14] "Prediction markets are truth machines [43:16] in the sense that they give people [43:18] incentives to figure out what is true [43:19] and bet on it. But they are also [43:22] obviously and increasingly falsehood [43:24] machines in the sense that they give [43:26] people incentives to make bets and then [43:27] distort reality to make those bets pay [43:29] off. Because of prediction markets, it [43:31] is now lucrative to figure out what song [43:33] will be the most popular, but it is even [43:35] more lucrative to make a different song [43:36] look most popular. Prediction markets [43:38] can make it harder to know what is [43:39] true." Joe had a good point. Um [43:43] I thought an interesting point. So I [43:45] think most people are like anything [43:47] inside trading related should be [43:49] punished and and criminalized and [43:50] prosecuted. [43:52] >> And I think we generally agree [43:53] especially if you are in a position of [43:54] if you're an elected official straight [43:56] to jail. [43:57] >> But for everything else Joe's point was [44:00] like sort of who gives a [ __ ] in the [44:03] sense that you really want government [44:04] resources being allocated to this of all [44:06] things. [44:08] >> True. Well, I guess the counter to that [44:10] would be the people who give a [ __ ] are [44:12] the ones who bet on Olivia Rodrigo and [44:14] go, "Hey, wait a minute. I got screwed. [44:16] I was going to get a payoff on my bet [44:17] and now some jerk did his Spotify thing [44:20] and he won." So that you're you're [44:22] taking advantage. [44:23] >> You're gambling. You're gambling. This [44:24] is gambling. [44:25] >> All right, that's fair. That's true. If [44:27] you bet on which Spotify song is going [44:29] to be number one with your money, [44:30] >> it's hard to have, right? Do we really [44:31] want We got uh government resources [44:33] there. Um buyer, be aware. Okay, two [44:36] interesting nuggets of private markets. [44:37] Uh this from Bloomberg. The total amount [44:39] of money in software investments held on [44:40] the books of alternative asset managers [44:42] is difficult to assess, but by some [44:44] measures could be in the hundreds of [44:46] billions of dollars. In 2025, the value [44:48] of software related private equity [44:49] transactions reached $23 billion [44:52] according to a recent report by [44:54] Pitchbook. So check this out. Um money [44:57] flowing into the software sector has [44:59] gone from uh [45:03] from around 25% to half of new private [45:06] equity and venture capital. More than [45:07] double that share from 15 years ago. [45:10] There's going to be some really really [45:12] bad numbers over the next decade that we [45:16] find out about. It's kind of funny to [45:18] think that private equity used to just [45:19] be more [45:21] hard asset kind of businesses and now in [45:24] the past 15 years looks like they've [45:25] just made a huge huge push into tech to [45:27] try to keep up with VC. I guess uh [45:30] you're right. The whole industry has [45:31] kind of been transformed. [45:34] >> Is that wild? [45:36] >> And you can't just cut your losers short [45:40] when you're in private equity. [45:42] You have to deal with it for a long [45:43] time. [45:46] Um, all right. So, let's do a market [45:48] check. It's 9:50 [45:52] Tuesday morning, [45:55] and the AI names are [46:00] getting smoked. SanDisk down nine, [46:04] AAT down 10, [46:07] uh, Western Dig down eight, Intel 7, [46:09] AMD7, Micron 6 and a half. [46:14] Um, [46:15] >> yeah, that's what happens with momentum [46:16] names. [46:16] >> A couple of weeks ago, Josh and I were [46:19] talking about Round Hill launched DRAM, [46:23] which is obviously, you know, explosive [46:25] explosive success. Credit to them. Then [46:28] they launched RAM, this is the business, [46:30] which is the double XX lever, which has [46:33] now been cut in half and one, two, [46:35] three, four, five, six, seven, eight, is [46:38] that nine trading days? Um, but there's [46:40] options on RAM. [46:45] So, we spoke about leverage a couple of [46:46] weeks ago. We're on the other side of it [46:48] now. So, [46:49] >> okay. Yeah. So, that that that ETF is [46:51] down a quick 26%. [46:54] >> Which one? [46:55] >> DRAM. [46:56] >> Uh, DRM. Um, [46:58] uh, buyers will step in, but [47:02] is it right now or is it 15% lower? [47:06] We'll find out. Um, okay. Uh, [47:10] one more. [47:11] So, we've spoken not as much in recent [47:14] weeks. Some of the noise has died down [47:18] um about the private credit credit [47:21] outflows. [47:23] Well, [47:24] that was mostly on the wealth channel. [47:27] Large institutional investors are diving [47:30] in. Uh, North American direct lending [47:33] funds that seek to attract institutional [47:35] clients raised at least $16 billion in [47:37] the second quarter. [47:40] Uh, [47:41] the three months ending in June 25th, [47:44] this was the second strongest quarter in [47:46] four years for fundraising by such [47:48] close-end funds which raise money from [47:49] investors only once and have a finite [47:51] life. Isn't that interesting? [47:53] So, retail is is running out and large [47:57] money is diving in. [48:00] I guess it makes sense that yeah, if you [48:02] have a longer time horizon and you see [48:04] some disruption here, hey, we're going [48:06] to hold for the long haul. [48:09] That's the big that's the biggest [48:10] problem is is people who didn't hold [48:13] these things didn't know that you had to [48:14] hold these things for 10 years or [48:15] whatever. [48:18] All right, really cool report in the [48:21] National Bureau of Economic Research, [48:22] Ember. Uh we talked about a couple weeks [48:25] ago, I talked about the 0% credit cards. [48:26] I said, "How is this possible? Who's [48:28] paying for this? They kind of have an [48:29] answer. Every time a consumer swepts a [48:31] credit card, the merchant pays an [48:32] interchange fee, typically 1.9% of the [48:35] transaction value. That's the average, [48:37] most of which funds the rewards that [48:38] card holders receive. Because merchants [48:41] generally charge the same prices [48:42] regardless of how consumers pay, [48:44] consumers who use cash or debit cards [48:46] effectively help finance the rewards [48:48] enjoyed by credit card users. So the [48:50] idea is if you're if a merchant is [48:53] paying 2% more for this fee, everything [48:55] goes up by 2%. Right? So, if you're [48:58] paying in cash or you're using a debit [49:00] card, you're not getting that 2 to 3% [49:02] back on your rewards. You're the one [49:03] who's paying this. You're paying higher [49:05] prices because of it. You are the one [49:08] who is subsidizing the rewards. [49:11] >> And they [49:11] >> and sometimes, I mean, often times a [49:14] pizza spot will be like 850 cash, 915 [49:18] credit card, [49:19] >> right? That that's pretty rare. So, they [49:21] say because credit card usage rises with [49:23] income, the system generates an [49:25] estimated $9.2 2 billion in annual [49:27] transfer from households earning less [49:29] than 150,000 to those earning more. [49:33] >> Yeah. Wait a minute. I think what that's [49:36] becoming standard around here. Standard [49:38] might be a stretch, but I feel like I [49:39] see that all the time. That's not [49:40] uncommon. [49:42] >> Yeah, maybe. [49:44] >> No. Well, you and I live in different [49:45] places. [49:46] >> Okay, that [laughter] that's true. Uh [49:49] but that you're right. We we said it's [49:51] it's these people it's subsidi it's [49:53] getting subsidized and that's [49:54] effectively what's happening [49:55] >> right [49:56] >> all right from Bloomberg US car payments [49:57] hit a record 770 [50:00] sorry [50:01] 777 [50:03] I can't say this $777 [50:06] >> that is tough [50:07] >> yeah [laughter] [50:09] okay how about we call it 780 uh with [50:11] more than a quarter of US car buyers [50:13] taking out loans of seven years or more [50:15] the average amount financed reached an [50:17] all-time high of more than $44,000 [50:20] average down payment fell 10% from a [50:21] year ago. U more than a fifth of new car [50:24] buyers signed up for monthly car [50:25] payments of $1,000 or more in the second [50:27] quarter, leading more to owe leading [50:30] people many to owe more on their car [50:32] than it's worth and others default on [50:34] the loans. Uh I had Claude come up with [50:36] this for me. They took Edmond's numbers [50:38] and so in 2019 at the end of 2019, the [50:41] average car payment was $575 [50:44] or something. So, it's up $200 a month [50:49] since in this decade alone. [50:52] And I I I keep kind of asking this, but [50:55] how much of this is [50:58] the type of car you drive versus people [51:00] just paying more? It's obviously a [51:01] little bit of both. But if everyone we [51:03] snapped our fingers and tomorrow [51:04] everyone said they gave up their trucks [51:06] and they gave up their SUVs, they're [51:08] huge gas guzzlers. Although they don't [51:10] guzzle as much gas anymore. My Telly [51:12] ride gets amazing [51:14] uh gas mileage because it's hybrid. [51:16] Anyway, they gave those up and everyone [51:18] bought a sedan. Everyone buys a Camry or [51:20] an Accord. How much do those how much do [51:22] those monthly payments go down? [51:24] >> A lot. [51:24] >> A lot. Right. [51:25] >> Yeah. [51:25] >> So, a lot of this is consumer choice. [51:27] And the point of the article was no one [51:30] is changing their behavior despite this [51:32] despite the fact that there's huge [51:34] sticker shock. And I said when I bought [51:35] a new SUV recently, I had massive [51:38] sticker shock. like, oh my gosh, I can't [51:39] believe how expensive these car payments [51:41] are, but no one is doing anything about [51:44] it. And that, to your point, maybe is [51:47] that just bull market behavior? No one [51:48] is no one's no one's reigning things in [51:50] yet, [51:53] right? No one's pulling back. No one's [51:55] making substitutions. [51:57] Great point. [52:00] I found I found the email uh that I [52:03] wanted to read before. [52:06] So speaking about like teachers and [52:08] firefighters, somebody said um [52:13] I keep thinking about my future children [52:14] entering the workforce 20 to 40 years [52:16] from now. Not the future AI engineers, [52:18] surgeons or high- income earners, normal [52:20] jobs, the common man jobs, teachers, [52:21] nurses, retail workers, bankers, [52:23] firefighters. What does sense of [52:26] achievement look like for them in 30 [52:27] years? Priced out of homes, Disney [52:29] vacations, new cars, Chipotle. [52:32] What if our kids grow up and turn out to [52:34] be common, and most will? The goal in [52:36] having children is to hopefully prepare [52:37] them with a life better than mine. And [52:39] I'm not sure that's true anymore. Easy [52:41] to accomplish. This is the sad thought [52:42] in my opinion. Um, [52:48] thoughts. [52:53] That's every parent's worst nightmare, [52:54] obviously, that their children will will [52:56] be worse off than they are, but the data [52:59] shows most kids are better off than [53:01] their parents. [53:03] I understand the the worry, but I think [53:05] thinking that far out into the future, [53:06] we I we have no idea what's going to [53:07] happen. [53:08] >> Yeah, I think that's that's probably the [53:09] right take. And also, um [53:12] I don't think that people that went into [53:15] teaching 15 years ago were like, I'm [53:17] going to go on a Disney vacation and [53:19] another vacation a year and in 15 years [53:23] I won't be able to afford it because of [53:24] inflation. Like those things were never [53:27] really attainable. And don't give me the [53:28] 50s, whatever. like, yeah, things are [53:30] more expensive. I get it. But so, yeah, [53:33] I I don't know. [53:33] >> So, I have I have a friend recently who [53:35] I hung out with from high school, and [53:37] he's he's an elementary school teacher. [53:39] His wife is a principal. He says, "We [53:42] don't make a lot of money." Like, he [53:43] said, "I would love to take my kids on [53:45] more vacations. We can't afford it. If [53:47] my kids want something, and they're his [53:49] kids are teenagers now. They're older. I [53:51] tell them to get a job." He admits we we [53:53] don't because we're teachers. This is [53:54] the life we chose. He's a teacher and a [53:56] football coach. He doesn't make a lot of [53:58] money relatively speaking, right? He's [54:01] I'd love to take more vacations. He's I [54:03] can't we can't afford it. [54:06] So like he understands this this trade. [54:08] You're right. Unfortunately, everyone [54:10] can't do that. And that's just the [54:12] system we live in. [54:15] >> Yeah. I just I think it's it's more [54:17] pronounced today, but it's not that's [54:18] not [54:20] that's always been the case. [54:21] >> What's more pronounced today is that you [54:23] just see the other people taking the [54:24] vacations and you didn't see that [54:26] before. Yeah, [54:27] >> it's just shoved down your throat. All [54:30] right, [54:31] I I got I I went through the comments [54:33] last week. I haven't done this in a [54:34] while, but I I pulled out a couple of [54:35] them. One of them was, "Fast forward six [54:36] months. Michael says, "My Range Rover [54:38] has been in the shop for over three [54:39] months over this check engine light." Um [54:41] that's a If I could bet on Kelli, I'd [54:43] put money on that. Um here's another [54:45] one. I think this this guy was talking [54:47] about leasing cars, I don't know, but he [54:48] says, "These guys make tons of poor [54:49] financial decisions. They must be [54:50] overpaid." Uh [54:53] probably. I think that there is [54:56] something of a personal finance [54:58] graduation that when you make more [55:01] money, you should make decisions that [55:02] personal finance experts would say [55:04] that's a bad decision [55:06] from the personal finance perspective. [55:08] That's that should be your goal in life [55:10] to do something that people personal [55:12] finance people say that's a bad idea [55:14] because if you compounded it over 30 [55:15] years, right? I think that that should [55:18] be your goal in life to have lifestyle [55:20] creep. It's not a bad thing. That's a [55:22] good thing. [55:25] It's a great thing, [55:26] >> right? [55:27] >> I was I was [55:29] >> You spend money on that? What do you [55:30] You're That's That's insane. You're [55:32] wasting money. That should be your goal [55:34] in life. [55:34] >> I was 25 years old, unemployed, and [55:37] unemployable. [55:39] I had worked the previous six years [55:42] full-time because I was kicked out of [55:44] college twice and I had nothing else to [55:46] do except for work. So, I had I had a [55:48] Kush bank account. I don't know how much [55:50] it was. Let's say I had $30,000. I felt [55:53] rich when I was like 19, right? That I [55:54] mean that I had all the money in the [55:56] world. Um, no prospects, but I had a [55:59] decent amount of money for a kid. And [56:01] then I was uh cold calling, trying to [56:05] get people to buy life insurance [56:06] policies. Not really. I stopped cold [56:07] calling. I just went to work in 2009 cuz [56:10] I had nowhere else to be. Where else was [56:12] I going to go? I was paying $400 a month [56:14] in rent for this job for my office. [56:17] Swear to God. And the money was going to [56:19] zero. My bank account was was going to [56:21] zero and my eye was twitching for a year [56:24] because I was so stressed. My mom was [56:26] dying. That was part of the part of the [56:27] stress. But there was a lot of financial [56:29] emotional stress and things were really [56:30] not good for me financially. And then I [56:33] get a job and I was making uh no money [56:36] when I started for the first couple of [56:38] years because we were starting from [56:41] nothing. And I had to be smart with my [56:43] money and I had to budget and count [56:47] every dollar and blah blah blah blah [56:48] blah. [56:51] And now I'm on the other side of that [56:53] and it's awesome. Everybody should [56:56] strive for that to not have to make [56:59] spreadsheet financial decisions for [57:00] their entire life. And is rent is [57:02] renting a car a suboptimal financial [57:04] decision? Yeah, but I am not up [57:07] optimizing for my spreadsheet anymore. [57:08] And I think a lot of people would be um [57:13] surprised at some of the financial [57:14] decisions I make because I'm not I am [57:17] not uh optimizing for like the biggest [57:19] number. I don't I really don't care [57:20] about what my liquid net worth is [57:22] because a I'm optimistic about my future [57:23] earnings potential. But I'm 41 years old [57:26] and these are like probably going to be [57:27] some of the best years of my life. I'm [57:29] spending money. That's what I choose to [57:31] do. [57:31] >> Right. When you're in your 20s, you do [57:33] have to to be the spreadsheet person. I [57:35] was too. I was you have to be. [57:36] everybody. [57:37] >> When my wife and I first got married, I [57:38] had to have a conversation with her [57:39] because she was going out every week [57:40] with her friends like PF Chains like we [57:42] can't afford this. [57:42] >> Actually, you know what the other the [57:44] other side of of my experience is the [57:46] Ivy League investment banker kids [57:48] >> who don't have to make any spreadsheet [57:50] decisions and they're when they're 23 [57:52] years old cuz they're making $110,000 a [57:54] year, [57:54] >> right? I was not that person either. But [57:56] I thought to myself when I gave had that [57:58] talk with my wife about like, hey, [57:59] you're going out to eat too much. I [58:00] thought like, man, I gota I can't do I [58:02] have to make more money. I can't do this [58:05] in penny pinch my whole life. Yeah, you [58:07] do it in your 20s and then you hopefully [58:08] graduate. [58:10] Anyway, um all right, Lucas Shaw, great [58:12] stat here. Netflix top shows have been [58:14] losing 30 to 70% of their audience [58:16] between seasons one and twos. Executives [58:18] are trying to figure out why. Um we talk [58:20] about this a lot. So they talk about how [58:22] um season two of Beef suffered a 70% [58:25] drop. The Night Agent shed 50% of its [58:27] audience for the second season. [58:28] >> I like the second season of Beef. Did [58:30] you watch it? Yeah, it was I I thought [58:32] it was just okay. [58:33] >> Not as good as the first, but I liked [58:34] it. [58:34] >> But they show all these different shows. [58:36] Four seasons is one of them, too, which [58:37] I like the second season, too. But, [58:39] >> um, most shows these days should be one [58:42] season. [58:44] >> And I actually am more excited when I [58:46] find out something is a miniseries, and [58:47] it's not going to be more than like most [58:48] shows aren't good enough because most [58:51] shows today would have been movies in [58:53] the past and when they go to the second [58:55] season, they're doing it for a money [58:56] grab or they they just shouldn't be two [58:58] season shows. I think it's hard for the [59:01] for the Netflixes of the world though to [59:03] just continue to pop out one season [59:06] shows because when you have a hit [59:07] obviously you're going to make more of [59:08] it. No, [59:10] >> of course. Yeah, you got to keep trying. [59:11] Uh and obviously there's just more shows [59:14] today. This was a crazy one though. Um [59:17] Lucas says betting against Netflix has [59:18] long been a fool's ear and he talked [59:19] about why the stock price is is so bad [59:22] and it it is in a 50% draw down stillish [59:26] which is kind of crazy. So 42% draw down [59:28] from the highs. Netflix still accounts [59:30] for half the of the most watched shows [59:33] on streaming. So it's still a massive [59:36] massive winner in streaming and the [59:38] stock doesn't care. [59:39] >> I bought more on Netflix last week. It's [59:41] probably a poor decision. The stock [59:42] looks is not acting very well. [59:45] It this is an interesting an interesting [59:46] story though. [59:47] >> Yeah, but every every time Netflix has [59:48] fallen 50 60% it's been a wonderful [59:51] buying opportunity. [59:53] Um [59:54] >> that is true. Um, but yeah, you're [59:58] right. Most seasons are not worth [59:59] continuing. Like I I'm I know I'm saying [60:03] this every week. Are you watching [60:04] Capefar? I love that show. [60:06] >> No, I'm not into I didn't get probably I [60:08] probably will eventually. [60:08] >> I'm having a rip roaring good time. I [60:10] don't want to see a second season, [60:13] >> right? It' be too much because guess [60:14] what? That was originally a movie. [60:17] They're stretching out. [60:18] >> For most shows, one season's enough [60:20] except for Taylor Sheridan [60:24] for the most part. [60:24] >> I don't know about that. I don't know [60:25] about that. I mean, Yellowstone went [60:27] down quickly, but that that was a [60:28] three-season show. [60:29] >> Well, but he said he said on the [60:30] interview why it went down. Like they [60:31] wrote they voted for three seasons and [60:33] then they stretched it and yeah, four [60:34] was garbage. Um All right. This is a [60:37] good chart. Uh Max Cardi tweeted this. [60:39] >> Somebody made a um is this like a [60:42] histogram? I don't know. Like a [60:44] >> distribution of [60:46] >> Yeah. of chart [60:48] >> for every film by genre. And the [60:51] takeaway is horror is up top. very Fat [60:54] Tales [60:56] because there's a lot of really, really, [60:59] really bad horror movies, [61:00] >> right? There's way more people that hate [61:02] and way more people that like. There's a [61:03] lot of ones and a lot of fives. [61:05] >> Yeah. I don't even think it's taste per [61:06] se. It's just there's genuine garbage, [61:09] >> which makes sense because there's so [61:10] many of them. [61:11] >> Yeah. And it it cost very little to make [61:13] them. Whereas, um, documentaries for the [61:17] most part are generally pretty high [61:19] quality. Same thing with like sport [61:22] movies, right? Right. There's not like a [61:23] ton of like garbage sports movies. Like [61:25] they're both they're generally pretty [61:26] okay. [61:26] >> That makes sense. [61:27] >> So that has a a tighter distribution. Uh [61:30] documentaries war tighter distribution. [61:33] Animation. Animation has [61:35] >> But you talk about the the movies this [61:36] year. Obsession. What was the other one [61:37] called? Back rooms or whatever. [61:39] >> There's so many. They're throwing stuff [61:40] against the wall hoping something [61:41] sticks. And when it sticks, it really [61:43] works. [61:44] >> Um I saw this on my TV and I I just [61:47] couldn't believe it. I mean, of course, [61:48] I could believe it, but [61:50] Instagram is now on TV. That was a [61:53] sponsored ad that popped up on my on my [61:56] TV and I just said, "Nope." [61:59] >> So, you can scroll through the reels on [62:01] your TV. [62:03] >> It is so I know I've mentioned this many [62:05] times. I I am so addicted. Everyone is [62:08] so addicted to Instagram. [62:10] >> Never have. [62:11] >> It is the most powerful narcotic on the [62:12] planet. [62:13] >> I check it like once a week maybe. I [62:15] don't know why Instagram never did it [62:17] for me. I'm still Twitter guy. [62:20] >> You got to get you got to get involved. [62:21] I'm just kidding. Don't. It's terrible. [62:23] >> Um, all right. This was interesting. Um, [62:25] so Star So Constellation Brands, ticker [62:27] is STZ. Sure, there's an origin there, [62:30] but Constellation Brands um is doing [62:33] terribly. And a part a large part of [62:36] this is the GLP1 story. I think shifting [62:38] habits. So beer is is 91% of their [62:42] sales. [62:43] >> I don't think it's OMIC quite yet. I [62:44] think this is just young people. I [62:47] there's a lot of young people not [62:48] drinking as much and having fun and [62:50] people having more gummies and that I [62:52] think that's it's been a longer term [62:54] trend than that. [62:55] >> Okay. Uh the market cap peaked a couple [62:58] years ago at 50 billion. It's now 22 [63:00] >> and they they're the ones who own Medela [63:02] and Corona and such, right? [63:04] >> Sierra Nevada [63:06] and yeah, Pacifica Corona. But you know [63:08] what's interesting? Only in the United [63:10] States. [63:13] So ABN inBev Anheiser Bush [63:17] um owns it globally. [63:21] Isn't that weird? [63:24] >> Say that again. [63:27] >> Um [63:29] owns what globally? [63:31] >> Pacificico. [63:34] >> Oh, so you're saying the only dropping [63:35] off in the United States? I think that's [63:37] something that we've learned in the [63:38] World Cup from people coming here. Like [63:40] Scotland drank Boston out of beer or [63:42] something. Um, we can teach the [63:44] Europeans about consumerism and [63:47] Europeans can teach us about the joys of [63:49] partying and drinking. [63:50] >> Yes. So anyway, Annheiser Bush, the [63:51] stock is rocking because globally people [63:54] are drinking. So So [63:56] uh, what's [63:57] >> just in the US that people are not fun [63:59] anymore? [64:00] >> So what's driving [64:02] what's driving the sales at [64:04] constellation brands to the extent that [64:05] anything is is something called ponies. [64:07] You know about ponies, Ben? [64:08] >> No. [64:09] >> Okay. The name pony dates back to the [64:11] 19th century according to Molson Kors [64:13] and is commonly used as a synonym for [64:15] small. So ponies are like the 7 beers. [64:19] Um [64:22] like these little tiny things [64:25] [laughter] [64:27] >> everything everything in moderation. [64:28] Anyway, so I asked I was talking to [64:30] Claude I said so just so I understand [64:32] Corona is growing around the world but [64:34] struggling in the US. So outside the US [64:37] which is Annheiser Bush revenue grew [64:39] 8.3% in 2025 [64:43] uh with volume growth in 30 markets. [64:44] >> You're right Annheiser Bush stock looks [64:46] great [64:48] >> but in America it's not doing well. And [64:51] this is pretty depressing but this is [64:52] what Claude said. The reason isn't the [64:55] brand it's the customer. Constellation's [64:57] US business is heavily dependent on [64:58] Hispanic consumers, about half its [65:00] sales, who have pulled back on spending [65:02] amid immigration policy concerns and [65:04] economic pressure. Fewer social [65:06] gatherings, fewer store trips, less [65:07] spent per trip. Add tariffs on the [65:09] imported product in a generally soft US [65:11] beer market and the US version of Corona [65:12] is fighting uphill while the global [65:14] version is putting up some of the best [65:15] numbers in the industry. [65:18] >> Very interesting. [65:21] >> Yeah, [65:23] >> we keep saying it. We'd be happier as a [65:25] nation if we just drank more. Fertility [65:27] rate would increase, right? People were, [65:29] how do you how do we fix a fertility [65:30] problem? Alcohol. That's how you fix it. [65:33] [laughter] [65:35] That was a Jerry Seinfeld bit about how [65:38] there 90% of the population is ugly. And [65:40] they said, "How how are people [65:41] procreating and getting married?" He [65:42] said, "Alcohol." [65:43] >> Yeah, I think I think we could use a [65:45] little bit more lubrication. [65:47] >> There you go. Let's do recommendations. [65:49] All right. Uh my wife and I watched the [65:52] drama this weekend. I believe you were [65:53] the one who recommended it originally. [65:55] Zenaia, Robert Patson, and I all I knew [65:58] is the premise of the movie. Four [66:00] friends are having dinner or drinks and [66:02] they each share the worst thing they've [66:03] ever done in their life. That's the only [66:04] thing I knew. [66:05] >> Don't spoil it. [66:06] >> Okay, I'm not going to I'm not I won't [66:08] spoil it. The only thing I will say, and [66:09] I told my wife this, that's the only [66:11] thing I know. I I know that there's a [66:12] twist coming and that's it. Um I thought [66:15] it was a a really creative movie. I [66:18] thought the premise was really good. I [66:21] don't [66:22] >> Come on, man. Just just have a good [66:23] time. [66:23] >> I'm No, my wife said I was being too [66:25] nitpicky. I don't buy that Zenaia was [66:28] the one who had did this thing. There's [66:30] no [66:31] >> It's a movie [66:32] >> there. I know, but it would have been [66:34] way more believable if it was Robert [66:35] Patson and not her. And I know why they [66:37] did it. She was more of the shock value. [66:39] But I I didn't for a second believe that [66:41] she did this. Not for a second. There's [66:43] no way you can believe that she this [66:45] person [66:46] >> take this stick out of your butt [66:47] >> that looks and sounds like this. There's [66:48] no way. No way. It just wasn't [66:51] believable. Having said that, this is a [66:53] new genre of movies, and I know why you [66:55] like them. It's uncomfortable. The [66:57] wedding scene at the end was so [66:58] uncomfortable. It was like the most [67:00] uncomfortable scene I've seen in a long [67:02] time. And that's that's a genre of [67:04] movies now. So, I it was really well [67:06] done. It was really creative. That was [67:08] my biggest nitpick is that I didn't buy [67:09] for a second that she's the one who did [67:11] this terrible would have done this [67:12] terrible thing. [67:13] >> Okay. [67:14] >> But the premise was and I thought about [67:15] like what would I say if what's the [67:17] worst thing I've ever done? [67:19] Um, I still got to think about it more. [67:23] >> Oh, me too. Credit to me. I've I've done [67:25] many probably not awesome things. I [67:28] don't [67:28] >> Yeah, I couldn't come up with something [67:29] that like, oh my gosh, like the things [67:30] that they said on this movie. [67:35] >> Guess what? If [67:36] >> we'll do we'll we'll do that reveal next [67:37] week. [67:37] >> I think I would have taken that one to [67:38] the grave. I don't care how many glasses [67:40] of wine I've had. I'd probably take [67:42] that. All right. I did this tweet the [67:43] other day. I I rewatched Days and [67:44] Confuser once in a while. When I was in [67:46] college, my sophomore year, I lived in [67:48] the dorm still and one of my friends, [67:50] Days and Confused, was his favorite [67:51] movie and we'd go out to a party and [67:53] then sometimes we'd stumble back from [67:55] the party and we'd put pizza rolls in [67:57] the oven in the dorm. We bring pizza [67:58] rolls back up and we put Days and [67:59] Confuse on it until we passed out. It [68:01] was like and I I love that movie. I [68:03] watch it all the time. Um, I realized as [68:05] I was re-watching it this time, first of [68:06] all, they they talk about the [68:07] bsentennial in the movie cuz it took [68:09] place in 1976. It was supposed to, but [68:11] this movie was released in 1993. [68:14] Okay. So I thought I did the math and I [68:16] said if days and confused come if that [68:18] happened today it would be a movie in [68:21] 2009. So 1976 to 1993 is the same as [68:24] 2009 till today. [68:26] >> H [68:26] >> and I put the tweet on it went kind of [68:28] viral and a bunch of people said yeah [68:31] that's super bad. Super bad is our days [68:34] and confused because it's the end of [68:36] school. And I kind of thought like wow [68:38] super bad is the 2000's days and [68:40] confused. That's a really good analogy. [68:42] I do think that Super Bad is like [68:46] the movie that I saw [68:49] that was just the best at the time. Like [68:51] where I was I guess I was in high [68:53] school. I was a was I a senior or [68:54] junior. Um [68:57] and it was just perfect. It was [68:59] absolutely perfect to be a senior in [69:01] high school seeing that movie on screen [69:03] with your friends for the first time. [69:05] the most. [69:06] >> So, American Pie came out the summer of [69:08] my junior senior of high school and that [69:11] the movie hit differently because of [69:12] when it came out of course [69:13] >> and when I saw it. [69:14] >> But yeah, I like the idea of Super Bad [69:16] being The Days and Confuse of Today. [69:17] >> Somebody sent me um something on [69:20] Instagram, a picture of all the all the [69:23] actors in American Pie and it made me [69:26] feel old. And you know what, Ben? We are [69:28] not that young anymore. [69:30] >> Yeah, we grew up with them. We're old. [69:31] >> Wait, I got I have a story for you then. [69:33] when Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson are uh [69:35] on the steps of the monument like [69:38] what are we going to say looking back? [69:39] Uh we're just a couple of kids and Owen [69:41] Wilson's [snorts] like we're not that [69:42] >> kids anymore. [69:43] >> I I have a about being old. I got I got [69:45] one story I'll share. Uh so we're at our [69:48] lake and we're having it's Fourth of [69:50] July night, right? We're the kids are [69:51] doing sparklers in the backyard. We have [69:52] friends over and little kids running [69:53] around. We're doing sparklers and we're [69:55] roasting marshmallows on the fire and [69:56] waiting for it to get dark enough for [69:57] the actual fireworks to come. And we [69:59] have this backyard that kind of runs up [70:01] the lake. And we have neighbors uh that [70:03] kind of share the backyard area, right? [70:05] And they decide some of the guys that [70:07] they're their kids are older, like [70:08] college age, right? They decided we're [70:10] going to light some fireworks off before [70:12] the show, right? So they're doing bottle [70:13] rockets and they moved the bottle [70:16] rockets away from their group cuz they [70:17] didn't want to light fireworks then. But [70:18] they they came over very close to us, [70:21] right? They they went away from their [70:22] group, they came to us. And it's these [70:23] college kids who have been drinking and [70:26] they're not lighting bottle rockets out [70:27] of a out a bottle, which is why they're [70:29] called bottle rockets. They're holding [70:30] them with their hand and lighting the [70:32] bottle rock and let it go over their [70:33] hand. But as they're doing this, they're [70:36] they're dropping them and they're, you [70:38] know, falling and and the bottle rockets [70:39] going everywhere and they're they're [70:41] right next to us and we have little kids [70:42] running around with sparklers and these [70:44] guys are cracking up because it's [70:45] hilarious. At how old are we? [70:48] >> 20s. You know, I probably would have [70:50] been doing it back then, too. But [70:52] they're and and finally like everyone in [70:54] our group is getting very uncomfortable [70:55] because these bottle these kids are like [70:57] dropping these bottle rockets and not if [70:59] you hold a bottle rocket wrong and it [71:00] goes the wrong way. It's you know so I [71:03] finally it's it's my house. I have to [71:05] say something. I said hey guys uh can [71:07] you do that somewhere else? We have [71:08] little kids here. And they go, "Well, [71:09] we're trying to have the bottle rockets [71:11] go up, you know." And I feel like such [71:13] an old man because in my 20s I would [71:14] have been doing this too, right? But [71:15] they're holding and the bottle rockets [71:16] like blowing up on them almost, right? [71:19] And uh they go, "Yeah, sorry. We were [71:21] trying and I'm like, "Yeah, you know, [71:22] you're you're holding them. You're going [71:24] to shoot one in the wrong way and you [71:25] know, someone's going to whatever. It's [71:27] there's kids." So, they they leave and [71:29] my daughter is just mortified. My [71:31] 12-year-old is mortified that I said [71:32] something. And um that's being an adult. [71:35] You be the bad guy sometimes. [71:37] >> Good for you. [71:37] >> Right. Am I a jerk for saying something? [71:40] >> Definitely not. [71:41] >> Usually, you give me crap for not saying [71:42] anything when I crawled up my window. [71:44] >> Yeah. [laughter] [71:46] >> You did the right thing. [71:47] >> So, yeah. I mean, my my daughter was has [71:49] never been more embarrassed of me that I [71:50] said something to the the college bros [71:51] about holding bottle rockets and [71:53] lighting them around little kids. [71:54] >> You had to. [71:55] >> Yeah. Middle-aged guy. I yelling at the [71:58] cloud. [71:59] >> All right. Uh [72:01] >> and then you sent me a picture of you [72:02] sending off a a Roman candle two feet [72:05] from your boat just v, you know, [72:09] >> it was sort of anticlimatic. It wasn't [72:12] kind of cool. Yeah. [72:14] >> All right. Uh, [72:17] animal spirits. [72:18] >> Next week we'll do 10 10 reasons to be [72:20] bearish. [72:20] >> Okay, animals out. [72:22] >> Animal spirits at the compoundnews.com. [72:24] [music] [72:24] >> Thank you for listening. [72:26] >> Even the people commenting on us making [72:27] stupid financial decisions. [music] Uh, [72:29] personal emails, personal responses. [72:31] We'll see you next time. [72:34] [music] [72:42] [music]