S&P 500 Nears Record as Tech Equities and Crypto Suffer Sharp Drawdowns

标普500指数逼近历史新高，科技股与加密资产遭遇大幅回撤 向服务业的结构性转变与财政干预，使经济衰退比历史常态更短暂、更温和且发生频率大幅降低。 在本期《Animal Spirits》节目中，主持人 Michael Batnick 和 Ben Carlson 探讨了大盘韧性与部分成长股、科技股及零售股（如 Nike 和 Netflix）严重回撤之间的显著分化。他们剖析了结构性经济转变，指出得益于积极的政策干预和人口结构变化，现代经济衰退已变得更为温和，同时还分析了婴儿潮一代换购更大住宅背景下的房地产市场动态。此外，讨论还涉及企业对人工智能的应用、门票转售争议以及院线电影票房的复苏。 尽管美股大盘指数接近历史高位，但表面之下分化严重，投机性科技股、加密货币及成长型资产（如 Oracle、以太坊、比特币、Netflix 与存储芯片股）遭遇大幅抛售。 (0:53) 美股大盘广度依然保持稳健，年初至今有 66% 的股票录得正收益，中位数回报率达到 12.6%。 (4:01) 尽管个股波动剧烈，宏观经济指标却呈现出常态化特征：GDP 增长率稳定在 2%–3%，通胀率为 3.5%，10 年期美债收益率约为 4.5%。 (10:14) 散户投资者仍是美股最强的结构性净买家，并正逐步撤出传统“科技七巨头”（Mag 7）寻找更高弹性的 AI 投机标的；同时规模达 530 亿美元的半导体杠杆 ETF 显著加剧了芯片板块的剧烈震荡。 (15:36) 当前市场并未呈现 1999 年式的科技泡沫，半导体相对标普 500 的估值倍数明显收缩，且标普 500 指数中超过 60% 的成分股远期市盈率仍低于 20 倍。 (20:55)

Michael Batnick and Ben Carlson argue that beneath placid headline index levels, the U.S. market is experiencing sharp internal divergence rather than a systemic 1999-style bubble. Supported by steady corporate earnings, resilient labor dynamics, and broad equity participation, the hosts contend that structural macroeconomic shifts continue to confound traditional recessionary playbooks. Equity Market Dispersion and Bubble Skepticism (20:55) While the S&P 500 trades roughly 2% below record highs, Batnick and Carlson observe severe drawdowns in prominent tech, growth, and crypto assets: Oracle, Ethereum, and Netflix have fallen 50% to 60% from their peaks, while DRAM memory names have slid 33%. Despite high-profile slumps, broader market breadth remains healthy. In the Russell 3000, 66% of stocks are positive year-to-date, with a median return of 12.6%. Batnick firmly disputes the narrative that the broader market is trapped in an unsustainable AI bubble. Over 300 S&P 500 companies—accounting for 40% of the index's market capitalization—trade at forward price-to-earnings ratios below 20x. In addition, the forward P/E gap between semiconductor equities and the broader index has contracted to its lowest level of the AI cycle, indicating that multiples are compressing as earnings hit record highs. Retail Inflows and Leveraged ETF Distortion (15:36) Retail investors continue to serve as aggressive buyers of U.S. equities, defying repeated warnings from market critics. Citadel Securities data shows that retail accounts recorded zero net sell days through July, marking the second-strongest retail buying month since January 2020. However, everyday capital is increasingly rotating away from established mega-caps toward higher-volatility growth targets and beaten-down cyclicals. This speculative behavior is amplified by the rapid expansion of leveraged exchange-traded funds, which now hold $198 billion in total assets under management. Leveraged semiconductor ETFs represent $53 billion of this total, with non-semiconductor tech funds holding another $76 billion. Accounting for leverage multipliers, underlying exposure approaches $500 billion, a concentration that Batnick notes will guarantee outsized single-stock price swings going forward. Structural Resilience Defies Traditional Recession Models (26:20) Evaluating historical data from the National Bureau of Economic Research dating to 1857, Carlson highlights that U.S. recessions have become substantially milder, shorter, and less frequent since the late 1970s. This shift is credited to proactive fiscal interventions, modernized monetary policy, and an economic transition from inventory-heavy manufacturing to services and technology. The hosts argue that conventional bearish models have consistently misjudged recent market cycles. The Federal Reserve's balance sheet contracted across 2023 and 2024 alongside aggressive policy rate hikes, yet the economy and equity markets expanded. Citing data from Torsten Sløk, the hosts note that U.S. unemployment has stayed below 5% for a record-tying 57 consecutive months, sustaining broad consumer spending power. Demographic Imbalances in the Housing Market The housing sector exhibits acute generational polarization as Baby Boomers maintain an unprecedented footprint. Data from Merrill Lynch and researcher Kyla Scanlon shows that wealthy retirees are frequently upsizing rather than downsizing. Empty nesters now own 28% of large U.S. homes, compared to just 16% owned by Millennials with children, with Boomers representing 42% of all homebuyers via dominant cash positions. With rising mortgage rates and severe inventory shortages, Pew Research reports that only one in four adults under 40 views purchasing a home as a sound financial investment. Consequently, younger cohorts are increasingly relying on equity markets rather than home equity for long-term wealth creation, or migrating to more affordable Midwestern hubs such as Grand Rapids, Michigan, where Millennial homeownership reaches nearly 70%. Enterprise AI Adoption and Media Disruption Addressing corporate transformation, the hosts emphasize that mainstream consumer AI adoption remains early, with Andreessen Horowitz data indicating only 2% of U.S. households pay for AI subscriptions. An industry insider note highlights that enterprise regulatory review and administrative friction mean broad structural labor disruption remains 12 to 18 months away, even as tech companies have enacted over 800,000 layoffs since 2022. In media, legacy entertainment continues to grapple with costly pivots. Disney spent $129 billion ($182 billion adjusted for inflation) acquiring premium content studios, yet carries an enterprise equity value of approximately $169 billion. Meanwhile, pure-play streaming leader Netflix maintains 30% operating margins and is pacing to eclipse Disney’s overall operating income despite enduring a 50% valuation drawdown. The hosts conclude that while headline equity indices appear stable, shifting demographics, massive leveraged fund flows, and corporate tech realignments are fundamentally redistributing risks. Whether retail dip-buyers and housing-locked younger generations can continue to rely on equity market resilience remains the central open question.

Michael Batnick 与 Ben Carlson 指出，尽管标普500指数接近历史高点且宏观指标处于常态，但个股与行业内部正经历剧烈分化与去杠杆。他们认为，由于估值乘数压缩且宏观就业稳固，当前市场并未陷入1999年式的全面AI泡沫，同时深层的商业模式与财富积累逻辑已发生结构性转变。 市场表面分化与AI泡沫论的反驳 (20:55) 尽管标普500指数距离历史高点仅下跌约2%，且罗素3000指数中66%的成分股年内录得正收益（中位数涨幅为12.6%），底层成长股与科技资产却出现了局部暴跌：甲骨文（Oracle）与以太坊（Ethereum）自高点下跌逾60%，比特币与奈飞（Netflix）下跌50%，动态随机存取内存（DRAM）板块下跌33%。 然而，Michael Batnick坚决反对市场处于1999年式全面AI泡沫的观点。他引述数据指出，标普500指数中超过300家公司（占总市值40%）的预期市盈率低于20倍，且半导体行业与标普500的前瞻市盈率差距已收窄至AI周期以来的最低点。随着企业盈利与利润率创下历史新高，估值乘数正在实际压缩，表明市场已在主动消化盈利增速放缓的预期，而非盲目泡沫化。 散户资本流向与杠杆衍生品的放大效应 (15:36) Citadel Securities的数据显示，散户仍是美股最强劲的结构性买家，7月份在其现金股票平台未出现单日净卖出，创下2020年1月以来第二强劲的散户买入月。散户资金正从传统科技巨头轮动至SpaceX和暴跌的甲骨文等更高风险或跌幅过深的标的。 与此同时，金融工具的杠杆化显著放大了单边波动。全市场杠杆ETF规模已达1980亿美元，其中半导体杠杆ETF达530亿美元（非芯片科技类占760亿美元），经乘数放大后底层市场实际敞口接近5000亿美元，直接导致了芯片与存储股的剧烈震荡。在海外市场，投机杠杆的断裂更为极端：韩国Kospi 30天波动率指数创下历史新高，超过2000年互联网危机与2008年金融危机水平，相关ETF（EWY）暴跌26%，导致大量加杠杆的散户面临75%亏损乃至彻底爆仓的追保清算。 衰退周期重构与就业韧性 (26:20) Ben Carlson引用美国国家经济研究局（NBER）自1857年以来的历史数据指出，过去一个世纪美国平均每20年经历4至5次衰退，但自1970年代和1980年代起，衰退频率、持续时间与严重程度均大幅下降。这主要得益于货币与财政调控手段的进步，以及经济结构从传统制造业和库存周期向服务与高科技产业的转型。 针对网络唱空者将股市上涨归咎于央行扩表的论点，主持人驳斥称，美联储在2023至2024年持续缩表并激进加息，美股依然走出牛市。经济学者Torsten Sløk的数据显示，美国失业率已连续57个月保持在5%以下，并持续低于美联储4.5%的NAIRU估算值。除去疫情特殊时期，美国低失业率已维持近十年，稳固的居民收入构成了经济底色。主持人强调，依赖过去80年传统衰退框架的宏观预测模型正在持续失效。 代际住房断层与股市替代效应 美林证券及相关行业数据显示，美国婴儿潮一代并未在退休后按传统脚本缩小居住规模（downsize），反而倾向于换购更大面积的住宅以容纳儿孙。目前全美大户型住宅中，空巢老人持有28%，而养育子女的千禧一代仅持有16%；婴儿潮一代占据了全美42%的购房交易，凭借雄厚的自有房产净值和全现金竞价优势，严重压缩了年轻一代的住房供给。 皮尤研究中心（Pew Research）数据显示，40岁以下成年人中仅有四分之一认为购房是良好的财务投资。主持人引述经济学者Allison Schrager的观点指出，在当今市场中购房需消耗家庭预算的55%以上，而租房成本约占35%，促使年轻一代将节省下的资金投向权益市场。股市正逐步取代住宅地产，成为新一代群体积累长期财富的主要工具。 传统护城河退潮与文娱消费分化 (18:28) 在消费与文娱领域，传统商业护城河正经历剧烈分化。耐克（Nike）股价自高点下跌75%回落至2014年水平，反映出市场正将其重新定性为增长停滞的成熟消费企业。而在流媒体竞争中，迪士尼历史并购耗资1290亿美元（经通胀调整后为1820亿美元），当前整体市值仅约1690亿美元；反观遭遇50%回撤的奈飞，仍保持30%的营业利润率与两位数营收增长，营业利润走势正逐步反超迪士尼。 与此同时，线下优质体验展现出惊人韧性。克里斯托弗·诺兰的新片录得5000万美元预售票房并刷新IMAX首映纪录，带动院线巨头AMC创下160年历史上最出色的第二季度业绩（北美Q2票房达29.9亿美元，同比增长10.7%）。这表明消费市场并非全面低迷，而是资源与受众正加速向具备不可替代性的头部内容与高端体验汇聚。 本期节目揭示了当前市场的深层现实：宏观经济数据与主要指数虽维持平稳，但在个股层面、杠杆衍生品交易及代际资产配置中，剧烈的分化与去杠杆正在常态化展开。主持人认为，单纯将科技与AI行情贴上全面系统性泡沫的做法缺乏估值与盈利层面的坚实证据，投资者更应关注现代经济周期钝化与企业护城河重塑带来的结构性变局。

## Background 本期节目由 The Compound 频道于 2026 年 7 月 23 日发布在 YouTube 平台上，是《Animal Spirits》播客的第 474 期。根据页面描述，主持人 Michael Batnick 和 Ben Carlson 在本期中深入探讨了特定科技股惨遭血洗的行情、韩国投资者的极端行为、常态化市场环境、“科技七巨头”光环褪去、Nike 失去护城河、现代经济为何衰退减少、婴儿潮一代拒绝降级置换房产、美股与房地产的投资对比、Netflix 的剧烈回调以及院线电影的强势回归等热点话题。 ## TL;DR 节目围绕美股大盘平稳与底层科技个股剧烈回调（如甲骨文、Netflix、以太坊等大跌）的极端分化展开，反驳了市场上泛滥的“全面泡沫论”，指出宏观经济各项核心指标其实正健康回归历史均值。两位主持人深度分析了散户资金流向、半导体高杠杆 ETF 的风险、Nike 护城河瓦解与传统消费品牌的衰退困局，并剖析了现代经济抗衰退能力增强背后的服务型结构与资产负债表韧性。随后，他们探讨了仅 2% 的 AI 付费渗透率现状、StubHub 倒票内幕与 Truth API 的套利乱象，并聚焦婴儿潮一代垄断大户型导致的房市结构性失衡。最后，二人复盘了流媒体残酷的内容“仓鼠跑轮”困局，并就克里斯托弗·诺兰新作《奥德赛》引爆的院线全面复苏还是长期衰退展开了激烈的针锋相对。 ## Atmosphere & style 整期节目洋溢着两位老搭档之间极其松弛、幽默且针锋相对的闲聊质感，从开场玄关装修施工的杂音与邻里奇葩告发，自然无缝切入严肃硬核的宏观与微观金融辩论。Michael 情绪饱满、敢说敢言，以实盘交易者的敏锐视角吐槽个股血流成河与票务乱象；而 Ben 则沉稳客观、偏好宏观均值数据，时不时以“无聊先生”的理性反衬 Michael 的火药味。听众在密集的段子、生活窘事、文化消费推荐与犀利的专业财经洞察之间快速穿梭，既能感受到老友间肆无忌惮的拆台捧哏，又能体会到在狂热与恐慌交织的市场中抽丝剥茧的通透与踏实。 ## Bulletin - [00:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqvxWyYT5jg&t=53s) 尽管标普 500 指数距离历史高点仅微跌 2%，但科技巨头与概念板块经历惨烈去杠杆，甲骨文与奈飞高位腰斩，内存半导体整体下挫 33%。 - [11:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqvxWyYT5jg&t=672s) 美股宏观数据罕见全面回归百年均值（GDP 2%-3%、通胀 3.5%、10年期美债 4.5%），标普 500 逾六成成分股前瞻市盈率低于 20 倍，反驳了全市场存在系统性泡沫的说法。 - [16:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqvxWyYT5jg&t=1005s) 散户资金正加速从科技七巨头转向单股票与杠杆 ETF，目前杠杆 ETF 管理规模逼近 2000 亿美元，撬动近半万亿名义敞口，成为加剧个股双向极端波动的核心力量。 - [45:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqvxWyYT5jg&t=2705s) 美国婴儿潮一代掀起“逆向换大房”风潮，独占全美 28% 的大户型住宅，相比之下千禧一代仅占 16%，导致年轻人买房门槛高筑并将资产重心转向股市。 - [53:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqvxWyYT5jg&t=3225s) 迪士尼在核心 IP 上的历史收购累计成本按现值折算达 1820 亿美元，已反超其当前 1690 亿美元的整体市值，流媒体模式面临变现天花板与内容“仓鼠跑轮”困局。 ## Key takeaways - [00:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqvxWyYT5jg&t=53s) 大盘指数的风平浪静掩盖了个股血洗，甲骨文、以太坊、奈飞较峰值跌超 50%-60%，市场呈现极端分化行情。 - [02:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqvxWyYT5jg&t=151s) 热门科技股两周内回撤 35% 释放了过度拥挤交易的泡沫，重新筑起“担忧之墙”，有利于股市更健康地长线走牛。 - [08:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqvxWyYT5jg&t=533s) 韩国 KOSPI 30 天波动率飙至超越 2000 年与 2008 年的高位，杠杆散户遭集中爆仓，新兴与散户主导市场的去杠杆极其惨烈。 - [11:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqvxWyYT5jg&t=672s) Ben Carlson 提出“正常市场”论：实际 GDP 2%-3%、通胀 3.5%、美债收益率 4.5% 均落回历史长期均值，宏观正经历反常十年后的健康均值回归。 - [13:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqvxWyYT5jg&t=829s) 散户未现系统性恐慌撤退，7 月现金股票平台无单日净卖出，但年轻散户正主动减持微软等成熟巨头，转向更高弹性的成长标的。 - [16:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqvxWyYT5jg&t=1005s) 杠杆 ETF 规模激增至近 2000 亿美元（半导体独占超四分之一），导致大市值科技股单日暴跌 25% 的极端摆动将成为市场新常态。 - [18:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqvxWyYT5jg&t=1134s) Nike 股价自高点下跌 75% 且基本面持续恶化，与 Lululemon、Under Armour 一同面临护城河与文化号召力流失的去泡沫化危机。 - [20:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqvxWyYT5jg&t=1255s) 全市场泡沫论缺乏估值支持：半导体相对大盘的远期市盈率溢价创 AI 浪潮以来新低，市场已充分为科技股盈利见顶定价。 - [28:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqvxWyYT5jg&t=1705s) 美国经济抵御衰退的韧性显著提升，核心在于成熟多元的服务业结构、居民端锁定的极低房贷利率以及资产负债表形成的财富效应。 - [37:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqvxWyYT5jg&t=2242s) 全美拥有 AI 付费订阅的家庭占比仅约 2%，企业端在合规治理与系统集成落地前，大规模白领失业潮短期内不会立即爆发。 - [40:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqvxWyYT5jg&t=2445s) StubHub 丑闻与 Truth API 推出高频付费数据流，暴露出二级票务与金融信息套利中的寻租腐败，削弱公众对市场公平性的信任。 - [45:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqvxWyYT5jg&t=2705s) 美国婴儿潮一代凭借雄厚现金拒绝降级置换并全款“换大房”，将育儿期的千禧一代挤出房市，促使年轻人将股市作为主要财富积累途径。 - [55:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqvxWyYT5jg&t=3305s) 流媒体重资产商业模式陷入困境：迪士尼市值低于 IP 收购总成本，奈飞日均观看时长增速放缓至 1.5%-2% 的内容仓鼠轮困境中。 - [59:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqvxWyYT5jg&t=3599s) 北美院线迎来自 2012 年以来的最强首映潮与 AMC 历史级单季表现，诺兰新片印证了重度视听格式（IMAX/巨幕）对观众的不可替代性。 - [01:04:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqvxWyYT5jg&t=3853s) 关于院线前景分歧依然尖锐：一方认为通胀调整后票房比疫情前低 30% 昭示长期衰退，另一方则强调头部大片回归驱动了同比强劲反弹。 ## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqvxWyYT5jg&t=5s) YCharts 赞助与 AI 工具 "Y" 节目赞助商 YCharts 推出了名为 "Y" 的平台内置 AI 智能体。市场上许多 AI 工具往往沦为理财顾问需要额外管理的标签页，而 "Y" 直接整合在已有工作流中，能够辅助顾问实际执行任务，包括构建客户方案、分析投资组合、对比投资标的以及生成可直接交付给客户的材料。例如，顾问只需上传潜在客户的券商对账单，"Y" 即可完成持仓分析、发现潜在机会、生成图表并起草提案。 - 新客户通过专属链接订阅 YCharts Professional 首期可享 20% 优惠。 --- ### [00:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqvxWyYT5jg&t=53s) 美股大盘微跌 vs 科技股惨烈杀跌 Ben Carlson 与 Michael Batnick 开启了对当前美股市场的复盘。标普 500 指数距离历史高点仅回调了约 2%。Michael 调侃道，市场上通常有 5% 的 pullback（微跌）、10% 的 correction（回调/修正）和 20% 的 bear market（熊市），但 2% 根本称不上调整，充其量只能算是一个“打嗝”（hiccup）或者像“踢到了脚趾”（stubbed toe），顶多让人疼上一秒钟。 然而，大盘指数的风平浪静掩盖了许多明星个股和特定科技板块的惨烈血洗（bloodbath）。Ben 列举了一批高位深幅回撤的资产： - **Oracle（甲骨文）**：较高点跌超 60%； - **以太坊（Ethereum）**：较高点跌超 60%； - **比特币（Bitcoin）**：较高点跌超 50%； - **Netflix（奈飞）**：较高点跌超 50%； - **SpaceX**：较高点跌幅达 40%，回撤速度极快； - **Intel（英特尔）**：较高点跌超 30%； - **DRAM / 内存半导体板块**：整体下挫达 33%。 面对这种惨烈的个股杀跌，Ben 戏称这是选股过程中的“痛苦与狂喜”（agony and ecstasy）——指数安然无恙，个股却血流成河。当被问及作为科技价值投资者会去哪里“抄底”（bottom fishing）时，Michael 透露自己持有 Netflix，并且前一天刚刚加仓，直言外界现在已经迫不及待“往 Netflix 的坟墓上填土了”。 --- ### [02:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqvxWyYT5jg&t=151s) 极端分化行情与“担忧之墙” 在技术创新繁荣期，市场赢家与输家的分化范围达到了前所未有的程度。Michael 指出，2026 年的主题是“资金流向能给它最好待遇的地方”（money goes to where it's treated best）。一旦某家公司的逻辑不成立，就会遭到毁灭性抛售；反之，如果运作良好，就会涨势惊人。 两周内部分热门个股经历 35% 的急剧回撤，让拥挤的内存半导体交易释放了泡沫。Michael 认为这是极好的现象：一段绝佳的上升趋势中，释放过度亢奋的空气、让“担忧之墙”（wall of worry）重新筑起，正是驱动股市未来走得更高的必要条件。既然热门标的在两周内已经回调了 35%，或许市场可以暂时放下所谓的“泡沫论”（bubble talk）。 与此同时，更广谱的底层市场实际上表现强劲： - Ben 分析了全市场指数（以罗素 3000 为代表，目前成分股由于各种缩编大约仅剩 2,500 到 2,600 只，而非名字里的 3,000 只）。 - 美股年初至今有 66%（整整三分之二）的股票处于上涨状态。 - 美股中位数回报率达到 12.6%。 这种多数普通股票表现坚挺、反而是知名科技大厂惨遭屠杀的冰火两重天景象，构成了当下市场最鲜明的对比。 --- ### [05:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqvxWyYT5jg&t=304s) 录制插曲：杂音、次卧玄关（Mudroom）风波与邻里告发 播客背景中不时传来敲击施工声，Ben 调侃 Michael 正在“凭一己之力养活全美的玄关柜工程”，迎来了自家的“Mudroom 2.0”。Michael 解释了翻新的原因：进门只有六级台阶和一个极其狭窄的角落，一家四口进门必须排成单列；家里有孩子的人都知道，杂物（包、网球拍、球鞋）很快就会堆积如山，因此极度需要一个实用的玄关储物空间。 这段施工还引出了一段邻里纠纷。Michael 近期本想践行“对陌生人宽容仁慈”（giving strangers grace）的心态，但一件事情打破了他的平静： - Michael 住在车流极少的尽头路（cul-de-sac）。 - 建筑垃圾箱（dumpster）刚放进他家车道不到两小时，市政检查员（town inspector）就拿着 iPad 赶来对他家拍照取证，显然是邻居举报了他无证施工。 - Michael 怀疑告发者是街区里的一对退休夫妇——此前 Michael 曾将车停在自家这一侧的街边、正好面对他们家车道，对方就曾在他的挡风玻璃上留 Post-it 便签抗议。 - Ben 和 Michael 感慨，退休老人无事可做，往往就会四处插手管邻居闲事。 两人还对比了两代人的童年生活差异：如今的孩子装备极多，随身必备金属保温水杯，家里到处都是水杯；而在他们小时候，根本没有所谓的储物隔间和儿童柜子，甚至初中踢美式橄榄球时，教练还会把“不许喝水”作为体能惩罚，放到今天的网络舆论环境里早就被口诛笔伐了。 --- ### [08:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqvxWyYT5jg&t=533s) 韩国市场的疯狂去杠杆与散户去波动 话题重新切回金融市场的去杠杆现象。Michael 和 Ben 将目光转向了杠杆交易情绪极度狂热的韩国市场。 韩国综合股价指数（KOSPI）的 30 天波动率飙升至历史最高纪录，甚至超过了 2000 年互联网泡沫破裂期以及 2008 年全球金融危机时期的峰值水平。市场上流传着大量关于韩国散户集中被追加保证金（margin call）甚至爆仓强平的数据。 Ben 评价道，美国作为相对成熟的资本市场，投资者行为虽有相似之处，但这种投机狂热在那些新兴或散户占比较高的高贝塔市场中会被无限放大；看到这种剧烈波动十分奇妙，因为“每个人终究都要向市场之神缴纳学费”（everyone has to pay their tuition to the market gods at some point）。 ### [09:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqvxWyYT5jg&t=584s) 韩国股市暴跌与关于“常态”的争论 迈克尔·巴特尼克（Michael Batnick）与本·卡尔森（Ben Carlson）就海外市场与个股波动展开了交锋。谈及韩国市场时，本指出虽然有人在韩国股票上赚得盆满钵满，但也有不少人即便押对了股票，依然被市场狠狠修理。追踪韩国股市的 iShares MSCI South Korea ETF（EWY）下跌了约 26%，而那些加了杠杆的散户损失尤为惨烈，跌幅可能高达 75% 左右。 随后，迈克尔调侃本上一周发的推文是典型的“本·卡尔森风格”。迈克尔指责本上周试图将毫无市场关联的边缘故事强行塞进宏观叙事里，比如将某家大型公司的单日暴跌轻描淡写为“这种事屡见不鲜”。迈克尔反驳道，一家市值 3000 亿美元的软件巨头在单日内暴跌 25% 绝非寻常，历史上几乎难寻先例。本辩解称如今企业的绝对体量本就远大于过去，如果按通胀和相对规模调整，2008 年全球金融危机（GFC）期间类似幅度的下挫大概发生过四次。迈克尔随即反呛，单日蒸发 25% 的 3000 亿巨头绝对是能够撬动市场的大事件，并戏谑本是“无聊先生”（Mr. Boring）。两人还互相拆台，本吐槽迈克尔前一秒还说要学着待人友善，下一秒录完播客就要去冲邻居大吼大叫。 --- ### [11:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqvxWyYT5jg&t=672s) 本·卡尔森的“正常市场”论：被拉回历史均值的数据 本正式提出了自己的核心论点：当前市场正在经历一场“回归常态”（Normalization）。在经历了一个极其反常的十年之后，宏观经济与资本市场的各项关键指标其实都罕见地落在了历史均值附近： - **GDP 增长率**：维持在 2% 至 3% 的稳健区间。 - **通胀率**：回落至 3.5%，恰好契合过去 100 年的历史长期平均水平。 - **10年期美债收益率**：徘徊在 4.5% 左右。 - **美股大盘表现**：开年 6 个月上涨约 11%（虽然有人觉得这是一整年的涨幅，但美股上涨年份的平均年化涨幅实为 21%），年内经历了一次回撤 9% 的标准调整。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Normalization of Market Indicators accDescr: Flowchart illustrating Ben Carlson's thesis of economic normalization across key indicators. subgraph Macro["宏观经济指标均值回归"] GDP["实际 GDP 增速<br/>2% - 3%"] INF["通胀率<br/>3.5%（匹配百年均值）"] YIELD["10年期美债收益率<br/>4.5% 左右"] end subgraph Market["股票市场表现"] SPX["标普 500 半年涨幅<br/>+11%（典型上涨年均值 +21%）"] CORR["年内健康回调<br/>-9%"] end Macro --> State["宏观处于健康平稳状态"] Market --> State State --> View["本的结论：高度正常化的市场年份<br/>迈克尔的视角：微观个股极度动荡刺激"] ``` 本形象地比喻，如果给当前的数据拍一张快照，就像足球世界杯里裁判比划 VAR 电视手势去回看定格画面一样，一切都是标准的平均值水平。不过，缺乏足球常识的迈克尔甚至不知道 VAR 是什么，两人借用《大保龄离奇亡魂》（The Big Lebowski）的名台词“Donny, you're out of your element!”（唐尼，你完全摸不着头脑）互相打趣。迈克尔直言，在“中庸无奇（milk toast）”的宏观切片视角下，这确实像个正常年份；但对于天天盯盘的交易者来说，盘面剧烈分化，根本谈不上“正常”或“无聊”。 聊到快照定格，迈克尔还忍不住吐槽起工作伙伴克里斯（Chris）。克里斯在度假期间不断给迈克尔和乔希·布朗（Josh Brown）发送私人度假照片，把他们当成了“专属 Instagram”。本深有同感地回忆起老式幻灯片时代：以前人们度假回来总爱拉着亲友放幻灯片展示旅行照，而其实当年也根本没人爱看。 --- ### [13:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqvxWyYT5jg&t=829s) 散户投资者转向：告别七巨头与城堡证券的买入数据 话题转向散户投资者的资金流向。《华尔街日报》发表专题报道指出，大众散户对“科技七巨头”（Mag 7）的执念有所降温，资金正流向更新一代的 AI 宠儿与高弹性标的。本月散户有大量资金涌入 SpaceX（通过二级或私募平台），但随后相关溢价标的普遍遭遇重挫，迈克尔估计这笔约 3 亿美元的投机资金至少有三分之一到一半已经割肉离场。与此同时，股价从高点暴跌 60% 的甲骨文（Oracle）却迎来了散户凶猛的“接飞刀”式抄底净流入。 报道中引用了一位年仅 19 岁、位于亚特兰大附近的大学生戴维斯·坎特雷尔（Davis Cantrell）的发言。坎特雷尔投资了大约两年，近期主动减持了持有的微软（Microsoft），转向寻找风险更高、进攻性更强的激进成长股。这位年轻散户直言：“我只是觉得微软和英伟达（Nvidia）已经不再属于那一类（高风险高成长）公司了。”迈克尔与本对此感叹不已：自己在 19 岁时甚至连股市是什么都一无所知，而现在的年轻人已经对巨头估值上限与资金效率有了极其清醒的认知。 城堡证券（Citadel Securities）发布的最新散户交易流数据进一步证实了散户大军的韧性： - 散户投资者依然是美股最强劲的结构性买家。 - 在整个 7 月的散户现金股票交易平台上，未曾出现过任何单日的净卖出。 - 该月成为自 2020 年 1 月以来散户买入额第二强劲的月份，也是城堡证券自有数据集中买入最为激进的一个 7 月。 迈克尔对那些多年来持续唱衰散户、嘲弄散户终将爆仓的冷嘲热讽者（permabears / curmudgeons）表示不屑。那些不断叫嚣着“系好安全带吧，小傻瓜”（Buckle up buttercup）的看空者，过去五到十年一直空仓守着现金，眼睁睁看着这群被他们鄙视的普通散户在一次又一次逢低买入中赚得盆满钵满。 --- ### [16:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqvxWyYT5jg&t=1005s) 杠杆 ETF 狂潮与半导体板块的剧烈震荡 散户资金的另一个爆发点是杠杆 ETF。数据显示，全市场杠杆 ETF 的资产管理规模（AUM）已飙升至 1980 亿美元（约合 2000 亿美元）： - **半导体板块**：单一细分领域占据了 530 亿美元，超过总规模的四分之一。 - **剔除半导体的泛科技板块**：占据 760 亿美元。 - **其他所有行业总和**：仅剩 700 亿美元。 考虑到杠杆放大效应，2000 亿美元的资产规模撬动的实际名义敞口已接近 5000 亿美元（半万亿）。这直接解释了为什么近期半导体及存储芯片概念股会出现如此骇人的双向剧烈摆动。本提到他在录制与彭博行业研究（Bloomberg Intelligence）分析师詹姆斯·塞法特（James Seyffart）的对话时发现，如今有像 Kurv 这样的新兴发行商正在 ETF 领域推行类似风投（VC）的打法——疯狂提交数百只单股票和特定主题杠杆 ETF 申请，“广撒网、看运气”（spray and pray）。随着单股票 ETF 和两倍、三倍杠杆工具的普及，像 3000 亿巨头单日暴跌 25% 的极端异动，未来在市场上只会越来越频繁地发生。 --- ### [18:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqvxWyYT5jg&t=1108s) 耐克护城河失守与狂热消退的教训 节目的尾声切入了一场实体消费品牌的惨烈风暴：耐克（Nike）的护城河正在瓦解。耐克的股价已从历史高位暴跌 75%，几乎一路跌回了 2014 年的水平。本感慨道，自己选股的第一铁律就是“永远不要投资一时狂热的风口概念（fads）”。就像曾经红极一时的健身单车 Peloton 一样，几乎所有健身器械类概念最终都被证明只是一阵风。本顺势调侃起迈克尔：“你上次骑你的 Peloton 是什么时候？”引得迈克尔尴尬作答。 ### [18:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqvxWyYT5jg&t=1134s) 耐克失去光环与传统消费品牌的衰退困局 两人从家用健身器材的耐用度闲聊开来——Ben 提到自己 2020 年 4 月买的 Peloton 动感单车至今运转良好，昨晚还在骑，而 Michael 也不甘示弱地打趣说自己五周前刚上了一节 Peloton 课，“没啥好吹嘘的”。然而，谈到传统运动巨头 Nike 时，气氛立刻沉重起来。Ben 指出，Nike 看起来与那些曾经红极一时的风潮品牌别无二致，零售和服装板块正在经历惨痛的去泡沫化：Lululemon 较高点暴跌 80%，Under Armour 重挫 84%，Gap 跌幅也达 62%（甚至至今仍未收复 2000 年互联网泡沫时期的高位）。 面对 Nike 的处境，Michael 直言“Nike 可能已经彻底不行了（toast）”。即便 Nike 依然是他买运动装备时的绝对首选，完全不考虑 Adidas 等竞品，但这更让他对眼前的股价崩盘感到震惊。Nike 股价已跌至 43 美元附近，虽然技术面上 52 美元处有一个相当诱人的向上跳空缺口（Michael 自嘲是坚信“逢缺口必补”的人），但他极度怀疑这只股票是否还能重回 90 美元上方。两人认为，Nike 甚至正在失去让它长盛不衰的文化号召力（mojo），就像千禧一代成长过程中无比崇拜却走向边缘化的 MTV 或《体育画报》（Sports Illustrated）一样，沦为时代的遗迹。尽管 Nike 绝不会破产消失，但其基本面数据极为难看，资本市场传递出的信号清晰而残酷：曾经的绝对王者已经跌落神坛。 - **服装与运动品牌跌幅数据**： - Lululemon：较高点回撤约 80% - Under Armour：较高点暴跌 84% - Gap：较高点下跌 62%，至今未恢复至 2000 年互联网泡沫的高峰 - Nike：股价跌至 43 美元，上方 52 美元存在待回补缺口 --- ### [20:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqvxWyYT5jg&t=1255s) 狂刷“泡沫”的播客与被估值证伪的泡沫论 推特上一位在 Blockworks 担任数据分析师的听众做了一项有趣的研究：他统计了数百期《Animal Spirits》和《The Compound and Friends》节目中“泡沫（bubble）”一词出现的频次。数据通过 8 周移动平均线展现出来，2022 年到 2025 年左右，节目中极少提到这个词；而到了今年年初，“泡沫”的提及频率呈指数级飙升。Ben 和 Michael 调侃自己是市场情绪的“同步指标（concurrent indicator）”而非领先指标，大家讨论什么，他们就回应什么，但他们更多是在反驳市场上泛滥的泡沫叙事。 Michael 明确澄清，他坚决不认同美股整体处于泡沫之中（标普 500 指数绝不可能跌 70%）。虽然他们不懂芯片光刻技术或微米级制造瓶颈，但他强调那些所谓的行业专家在预测股价走势上也并不灵光。市场普遍看空的论调是“芯片股与科技巨头当前的利润增长不可持续”，但 Michael 反驳称，这根本不是什么独家深刻见解，市场早已将其充分计入定价中——高盛分析师 Peter Callahan 的图表显示，半导体板块相对于标普 500 指数的远期市盈率（Forward P/E）差距正处于 AI 浪潮爆发以来的最低水平；Duality Research 的估值分布图也显示，标普 500 指数中有超过 300 家公司（占比 61%，占总市值 40%）的远期市盈率低于 20 倍。除工业和部分房地产板块外，全市场各大行业的市盈率几乎都在向右下方压缩，这与泡沫破裂前估值狂飙的典型特征背道而驰。即使韩国散户和 Reddit 股民依然热衷于高杠杆投机，这种投机行为也已成为金融市场的新常态，除非遭遇一场持续五年的大熊市和彻底的经济危机将散户本金彻底洗劫一空，否则投机热度绝不会熄灭。 - **估值与市场广度核心数据**： - 高盛（Goldman Sachs）Peter Callahan 图表：半导体板块与标普 500 的远期市盈率溢价收窄至 AI 时代最低位，市场早已在为盈利见顶定价。 - Duality Research 标普 500 前瞻估值分布：超过 300 只成分股（占成份股总数 61%，占总市值 40%）的前瞻市盈率低于 20 倍。 - 行业估值趋势：绝大多数板块前瞻市盈率持续下移收缩，宏观环境却处在创纪录的利润水平和利润率扩张期。 --- ### [26:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqvxWyYT5jg&t=1573s) 为什么现在的经济衰退越来越少了？ 从市场泡沫自然过渡到宏观经济基本面，Ben 抛出了一个看似挑衅实则有严谨数据支持的问题：“为什么我们现在几乎看不到经济衰退了？”根据美国国家经济研究局（NBER）追溯至 1857 年的数据，在过去的一百多年里，美国平均每 20 年就会发生 4 到 5 次经济衰退；然而自 1970 年代末和 1980 年代初以来，这种周期彻底改变——衰退发生的频率大幅降低，持续时间显著缩短，受冲击烈度也变得温和。 很多批评者认为，这是靠政府持续膨胀的财政赤字、疯狂的支出以及宽松货币政策强行兜底的恶果。但 Ben 旗帜鲜明地反驳：如果激进的财政和货币干预真的能够阻止经济陷入毁灭性的深渊，那这一切就是完全值得的，决策层确实比过去更懂得如何平抑经济周期的剧烈震荡。为了拆解这一现象，Michael 借用了著名体育名嘴 Bill Simmons 讨论“勒布朗·詹姆斯为什么才拿了三四个 MVP”的分析框架——必须把时间轴放大，逐年复盘到底是哪一年被“剥夺”了。Ben 毫不犹豫地指出，2022 年在宏观指标上原本无论如何都该发生一次典型衰退；而 Michael 则补充回顾了 2008 年金融危机之后的整个 2010 年代，在那场大萧条以来最严重的创伤之后，家庭、企业和政府的资产负债表整整花费了三到五年的时间才慢慢完成自我修复。 ### [28:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqvxWyYT5jg&t=1705s) 科技巨头如何改变衰退叙事与 2022 年争议 二人回顾了后金融危机（GFC）时期的宏观经济走势。2011 年欧债危机爆发时，几乎所有人都在大肆宣扬“双底衰退（double dip recession）”，但事实上那仍属于金融海啸后的余波，性质更像是 1937 年大萧条后的小波折。随后，移动互联网、云计算和超级云厂商（hyperscalers）全面爆发，正如斯科特·加洛韦（Scott Galloway）在《四巨头》（The Four Horsemen）一书中所描述的那样，大型科技企业不仅拉动了股市走出泥潭，也让投资者财富大幅膨胀。 科技不仅让现代经济运转效率远超以往，甚至重塑了美股与宏观经济的绑定关系——科技股让整个美国经济高度依赖股市，股市的繁荣又反哺各行各业。当话题转向 2022 年时，二人爆发了激烈争论： - 一方坚信，若非 ChatGPT 横空出世掀起 AI 浪潮，2022 年在高通胀与美联储激进加息的重压下“绝对已经陷入衰退”，是 ChatGPT 挽救了美股市值，进而保住了经济底气。 - 另一方则坚决反对这种说法，认为当时在 ChatGPT 上的实际资本支出规模根本不足以力挽狂澜；真正支撑经济不衰退的核心在于**财富效应**以及居民家庭之前锁定了极低房贷利率、资产负债表十分健康。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 经济韧性与衰退防线分析 accDescr: 对比科技驱动说与资产负债表财富效应两种维度的观点架构 subgraph TechHypothesis ["观点一：科技/AI驱动论"] A["ChatGPT 问世与 AI 浪潮"] --> B["美股暴涨 / 市值回升"] B --> C["股市反哺实体经济避免衰退"] end subgraph StructuralHypothesis ["观点二：结构性与资产负债表论"] D["锁定低息房贷 / 资产负债表健康"] --> E["强劲财富效应"] F["就业市场维持强劲 (失业率长年<5%)"] --> G["居民消费底气稳固"] E & G --> H["经济避免全面衰退"] end ``` --- ### [30:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqvxWyYT5jg&t=1818s) 产业结构演变与被打脸的“美联储资产负债表”空头谬论 二人深入探讨了现代经济抗衰退能力更强的深层原因。19 世纪的美国本质上是一个新兴市场，重工业主导着经济形态，厂房设备折旧和库存波动剧烈，繁荣与萧条（booms and busts）交替极度频繁。而今美国已蜕变为成熟且高度多元化的服务型经济体，抵御冲击的弹性大大提升。 谈及总有一小撮极端的悲观空头（doomers）渴望经济崩盘时，二人抨击了近期在社交网络上疯传的图表。该推文声称：“把标普 500 指数除以美联储资产负债表规模，其走势自 2008 年以来基本是一条水平线”，并以此暗示股市全靠央行放水印钱。主持人们一针见血地指出这种数据造假的荒谬之处： - **刻意截断数据**：原帖图表故意把时间截断在 2024 年。实际上，从 2023 年至 2024 年，美联储的资产负债表处于持续**收缩**状态，而美股同期却在强劲繁荣上涨，二者的“强相关”彻底破灭。 - **政策意图被遗忘**：空头们忽视了美联储在 2022 年为了遏制通胀，通过将利率从 0% 暴力拉升至 5% 来试图压制过热经济的事实。整天抱着央行印钞说辞解释股市的人，无非是被市场暴击后心存怨气。 引述托斯滕·斯洛克（Torsten Sløk）的数据：美国失业率低于美联储 4.5% 自然失业率（NAIRU）预估值的状态已创纪录地维持了 57 个月之久；剔除疫情初期因巨额失业救济金造成的特殊扰动，美国失业率低于 5% 的时间实际上已接近整整十年。只要大家保得住饭碗，消费引擎就不会熄火。展望未来 30 年，二人认为尽管经济周期永不消逝，但单纯套用过去 80 年旧剧本的预测者注定会一再错判，未来真正的系统性冲击更可能来自外生性黑天鹅，而非传统意义上的内部周期塌陷。 --- ### [33:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqvxWyYT5jg&t=2005s) 硅谷的 AI 焦虑与被无限放大的“31岁高薪家庭”网络热帖 话题转到科技行业的现实生态。《华盛顿邮报》近期报道了科技界光怪陆离的极端分化：顶尖的 AI 从业者正在赚取“足以买下一支职业球队”的逆天财富，而普通员工则每天活在被裁员的阴影之下。科技公司的高管们对待裁员毫不留情，自 2022 年以来行业累计裁员已达 80 万人；程序员、法务及 HR 被要求必须站在自我改造的第一线，其绩效甚至取决于“你多快能用自动化取代自己的岗位”，宛如《勇敢的心》（Braveheart）里冲在战场第一排顶着滚木与箭雨的炮灰步兵。 报道中引爆网络热议的一个典型个案引发了二人激烈的吐槽与辩论： - **争议案例**：旧金山一名 31 岁的初创公司女员工匿名吐槽，其担任工程主管的丈夫几个月前要求全身心投入成为“AI 原生代（AI native）”，因此要求女方独自承担照顾两岁女儿的全部育儿责任，女方照做后向记者倾诉这种生活“太超现实、太令人沮丧”。该家庭年收入高达 50 万美元，却仍在抱怨买不起湾区的房子。 - **犀利吐槽**：主持人们直言公众和媒体小题大做。夫妻二人年入 50 万美元、有一方为了事业在拼搏期加班加点，这在 90 年代以前完全是普通家庭的生活常态，怎么现在就被拔高成所谓“反乌托邦（dystopia）”的社会悲剧了？甚至开玩笑怀疑该丈夫是不是借口 AI 原生、实际上只是躲在办公桌底下补觉躲避带娃。 - **媒体流量套路**：两人怀疑这完全是记者的流量陷阱——在长达数小时的采访中精心挑选最具争议的碎片拼接成稿，迎合社交媒体的眼球经济。“钥匙儿童（latchkey kids）”时代的孩子们放学回家自己用钥匙开门、看电视、吃微波速冻快餐（TV dinner），父母双职工甚至打多份工养家是常态；如今一个拿着几十万高薪的优渥家庭只因丈夫努力工作就表现得悲痛欲绝，实在脱离了现实常理。 ### [37:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqvxWyYT5jg&t=2242s) AI 普及率与长期技术发展路径 Ben Carlson 和 Michael Batnick 首先感叹了湾区科技从业者的当下处境，认为现在身处科技行业或住在硅谷的人生活状态一定极其诡异。随后，话题转向风险投资机构 a16z 发布的最新图表——全美拥有 AI 付费订阅家庭的比例。Michael 指出，这个数字低得可笑，大约仅有 2%，虽然相比于过去的 0% 已经算大幅增长，但渗透率几乎处于刚刚起步的萌芽阶段。两人针对未来的商业化模式展开讨论：Ben 认为这个渗透率未来必然会攀升至 10%、20% 甚至 30%；而 Michael 则提出疑问，是否大多数普通人根本不会为 AI 付费，而是通过雇主获取企业付费许可，个人端只用免费版，除非各大平台故意将免费版本削弱得难以使用，或者未来 AI 会像流媒体一样被打包销售（比如 Netflix、Hulu 与 OpenAI 的捆绑包）。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: AI Adoption and Market Perception accDescr: Diagram showing the divergence between short-term market noise and long-term AI enterprise adoption. subgraph Sentiment["市场短期情绪"] A["中国开源大模型消息 (Moonshot AI)"] --> B["内存芯片与硬件股遭遇抛售"] B --> C["过度悲观：质疑 2027-2028 年 AI 需求"] end subgraph Reality["长期产业落地"] D["企业端跨越红线与治理流程"] --> E["自动化流程与工作流深度整合"] E --> F["AI 与机器人/3D 打印协同渗透"] end Sentiment -.->|"短视误判"| Reality ``` Michael 强调，很多人在质疑 2027 年和 2028 年是否还会存在充沛的 AI 算力与服务需求，这是一种极度短视的思维。股市的波动往往会把人的认知搞乱，比如最近中国月之暗面（Moonshot AI）发布开源模型的消息，就加剧了内存芯片与硬件股票的抛售狂潮，大家一看到开源低成本就惊慌失措，从而忽视了技术才刚刚起步的宏观图景。Ben 分享了一位从事一线技术工作听众的详细来信：该听众认为在未来 12 到 18 个月内，就业市场整体还不至于恶化得太难看，但一旦跨越行政审批、合规治理和系统整合的门槛并将其商品化，就业端将面临实质性痛苦；同时，这位听众也不认同“AI 会创造海量全新工种”的乐观看法，因为出现新需求时，企业会直接部署更强的 AI、机器人技术或 3D 打印来承接。Ben 总结道，虽然部分科技领袖宣称“50% 的初级白领岗位将被消灭”纯属夸大其词，但无论是技术的大规模颠覆还是新生态的形成，都将需要数年时间来逐步展开。 - a16z 数据：全美仅有约 2% 的家庭拥有 AI 付费订阅服务。 - 听众预判：在各类治理架构、合规流程和软硬件集成被高度商品化前，还有 12 至 18 个月的相对稳定期。 --- ### [40:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqvxWyYT5jg&t=2445s) StubHub 假唱票丑闻与票务倒卖内幕 Michael 谈及一则令他深感大快人心的负面新闻——二手票务平台 StubHub 遭到了媒体曝光。Michael 翻出陈年旧账，回忆自己多年前曾因该平台的恶劣机制遭受损失：当时系统莫名其妙地显示他把同一套票挂牌出售了 7 次，最终因无法交付所有门票而被 StubHub 强行罚款数千美元。据加拿大广播公司（CBC）援引 SEC 监管文件报道，StubHub 首席执行官 Eric Baker 竟然私下经营着一家倒票副业公司，直接在该平台上倒卖价值数百万美元的门票。 这篇调查揭露，这位 CEO 的行为本质上就像是在运营一家对冲基金，一边提供短期过桥融资，一边从源头垄断门票供给，操纵整个二级市场。据行业统计，全球二级转售网站上高达 70% 至 80% 的门票实际上均被专业大黄牛和做市商牢牢控制。Ben 戏谑道，该 CEO 可能会辩解自己是在效仿 Citadel 进行“市场做市并提供流动性”。两人一致谴责主流票务市场已被机器人和黄牛代码彻底蚕食，充斥着毫无效率与透明度的剥削行为；在被问及日常购票替代方案时，Michael 表示目前体验相对最干净、没有乱七八糟隐藏费用的平台是 TickPick。 - 监管披露：StubHub 首席执行官 Eric Baker 涉嫌利用关联私营实体在该平台上倒卖数百万美元门票。 - 市场数据：全球各大转售平台上有 70% 到 80% 的票源被大型黄牛团伙垄断。 --- ### [42:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqvxWyYT5jg&t=2534s) 奇葩违规博彩与 Truth API 的“特权数据流” 随后，节目聊到了体育博彩界发生的一起荒唐违规事件：亚利桑那红雀队（Arizona Cardinals）人事主管 Ryan Gold 因违规参与体育博彩被 NFL 官方处以无限期停赛。该高管利用职务内幕，下注仅 25 美元串关竞猜了本队前五轮选秀的新秀名单，最终命中了高达 73.2 万美元的巨额彩金。Michael 讽刺其为“年度最蠢笨蛋”，直言即便要暗箱操作也该找朋友代投，居然蠢到亲自用个人账户下注被联盟当场抓包。 紧接着，Michael 带来了一条让他感到匪夷所思的资本市场新闻：特朗普媒体与科技集团（Trump Media and Technology Group）正式推出了一项名为“Truth API”的高端数据订阅产品。该服务专门向华尔街对冲基金和量化高频交易机构兜售，订阅机构可以先于普通公众推送信道，最快速度接收到来自前总统唐纳德·特朗普（Donald Trump）等 10 个顶流账号的帖子。Michael 难掩愤怒，直斥此举荒谬至极：“一个可能重返白宫甚至已是国家元首的公众人物，竟然明目张胆地把能引发全球金融市场剧烈波动的言论当成高频数据源卖给华尔街。”Ben 补充道，这种极度金钱化、把政治言论变现为套利工具的捞钱行为（Grift），正在彻底腐蚀公众对金融市场公平性的信心，远比单纯的政府赤字问题更为可怕。 --- ### [45:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqvxWyYT5jg&t=2705s) 婴儿潮一代拒绝降级置换：房市结构性失衡 本段最后聚焦于美国房地产市场的代际分化现象。《华尔街日报》最新报道指出，富裕的年长美国人正在彻底撕毁传统的养老脚本。传统观念认为，房产是人生最大的投资，退休后老人应该卖掉大房子“降级置换”（Downsize）至小户型套现，将大户型释放给成家立业的年轻人。然而实际情况却截然相反——美林证券（Merrill Lynch）一位财务顾问透露，他今年退休的 8 位客户全部选择了“越换越大”（Upsize），过去一年全团队仅有 1 位客户选择了换小房子。 造成这一现象的核心驱动力是财富积累与家庭聚会需求。许多老人直言需要更大的房子来容纳成群结队的孙辈探访，甚至有夫妻直接从 2,500 平方英尺的住宅换到了 5,000 平方英尺的大宅。根据金融科普学者 Kyla Scanlon 发表在《纽约时报》上的数据，目前全美约 28% 的大型住宅（大户型）由空巢老人持有，而真正需要空间、育有子女的千禧一代家庭却仅占 16%。由于婴儿潮一代往往握有雄厚的现金资产，能够在购房竞价中全款支付，使得年轻一代在房产争夺战中被降维打击，牢牢封锁在购房门槛之外。 - 购房主力：婴儿潮一代占到目前全美购房者总数的 42%，为所有代际中占比最高群体。 - 大户型分布失衡：全美空巢老人持有 28% 的大户型住宅，而育有子女的千禧一代仅持有 16%。 ### [46:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqvxWyYT5jg&t=2796s) 战后红利不再：股市是否正取代房产成为年轻人的头号资产？ 谈及年轻一代面临的购房困境，迈克尔·巴特尼克（Michael Batnick）与本·卡尔森（Ben Carlson）探讨了人们愤怒情绪的根源。本指出，二战后中产阶级的崛起本质上是一个“不可复制的经济异常现象”。正如专栏作者凯尔（Kyla Scanlon）在文章中所写，战后那代美国人是历史上唯一被联邦政策直接“端上”入门级住宅生态系统的群体——当时政府兜底所有贷款、大力补贴开发商、建设郊区，并提供极低的房贷利率。如今这种全民一致的政策红利早已不可能重现。 随后，两人引用了经济学家艾莉森·施拉格（Allison Schrager）的观点：对于年轻一代而言，股票市场正逐渐取代房地产，成为个人最核心的财富积累工具，因为房产收益已经跟不上股市的脚步。皮尤研究中心（Pew Research）的数据显示，40岁以下的成年人中，仅有四分之一（25%）认为买房是一项好投资，而这一比例在年长群体中要高得多。本提出一个假设：如果年轻人的传统人生剧本彻底变了——不再咬牙拿出55%的月收入去还房贷，而是选择用35%租房、将其余资金全额投入股市呢？对此迈克尔反驳称，这并不是年轻人的主动观念选择，而是被迫挤出市场的结果；一旦结婚生子，家庭对空间的需求就会爆发，一家人不可能永远挤在650平方英尺（约60平方米）的小公寓里。 面对高昂的购房价位，摆在年轻人面前的出路十分现实：要么依靠婴儿潮一代（Baby Boomers）富裕父母的资金赠予来付首付；要么只能搬迁到生活成本更低的地区。本提到一份全美千禧一代购房比例最高的前20大都会区榜单，密歇根州大急流城（Grand Rapids）以近70%的千禧一代住房拥有率位居全美第一。很多毫无本地渊源的年轻人单纯为了工作和抚养孩子而迁居至此。谈到为何如此严重的住房危机没有演变成一场全国紧急状态，本一针见血地指出，因为美国目前的整体住房自有率仍高达65%，占多数的现有房主已经从中赚得盆满钵满，受困的年轻人终究只是少数派。 - **皮尤研究数据**：40岁以下成年人中仅有 25% 认为买房是优质投资，远低于老一辈比例。 - **全美千禧一代自有住房率榜首**：密歇根州大急流城（Grand Rapids），比例接近 70%。 - **政治层面的阻力**：全美整体住房自有率约为 65%，既得利益群体的财富膨胀导致该问题难以成为政治上的最高优先级。 --- ### [51:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqvxWyYT5jg&t=3090s) “拥有住房的快乐”与家电价格的逆向价格冲击 每当房主向旁人倾诉房屋维修的烦恼时，得到的回复往往是一句调侃式的“这就是拥有住房的快乐（the joys of home ownership）”。本分享了自己过去一个月里密集的修房惨痛经历：他们的现代农场风（modern farmhouse）住宅已建成9年（当时恰逢他的双胞胎孩子出生），原本新房免维护的红利期彻底结束，各种设备开始扎堆损坏。 短短一个月内，本的家里经历了一连串破财事件：车库门无法打开，必须更换整套滚轮与滑轨；花园苗圃遭到鼹鼠侵扰，不得不请专业灭鼠人员往洞里灌一氧化碳；白色的外墙积累污垢，叫了专业团队全屋喷药清洗；孩子们在室内打篮球频繁砸中悬挂式吊灯，导致灯具歪斜必须换新；紧接着洗衣机和烘干机双双罢工，换新的同时还顺便清理了烘干机管道。 令本感到啼笑皆非的是，如今他对昂贵价格的“价格冲击（sticker shock）”完全逆转了——现在真正让他震惊的反而是“某些东西居然没有预想中那么贵”。四年前他为湖边度假屋购置洗烘套装时花费了2,000美元，而上周为家里新换的同一级别洗烘套装单价依然是每台1,000美元、整套2,000美元，在经历严重通胀后价格竟然分文未涨，让他直呼不可思议。 - **9年房龄维护清单**：车库门轨道滑轮更换、地洞充一氧化碳灭鼹鼠、全户外墙清洗、被篮球砸歪的吊灯换新、烘干机排气管道清理。 - **家电通胀特例**：全新洗烘套装总价为 2,000 美元（单台 1,000 美元），与四年前购入的价格完全持平。 --- ### [53:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqvxWyYT5jg&t=3225s) 流媒体大战的幻灭：迪士尼的资产倒挂与奈飞的断崖 话题转向流媒体与娱乐产业巨头的困境。本引用了博客 EconomPic 作者杰克（Jake）整理的一组惊人数据：迪士尼（Disney）在过去多年中累计耗资1,290亿美元收购了漫威（Marvel）、星球大战（Lucasfilm）、皮克斯（Pixar）、ESPN以及福克斯（21st Century Fox）；按今天的通胀调整后，这笔收购总开销高达1,820亿美元。然而具讽刺意味的是，即便算上迪士尼原本拥有的所有经典传统资产与主题公园，当前整个迪士尼公司的市值也仅仅只有1,690亿美元，居然低于其外购IP所花的真金白银。 迈克尔与本不禁感叹，如果能像电影《回到未来》那样坐上布朗博士的德罗宁时光机回到过去，管理层在知晓今天局面的情况下，绝对不会再贸然推出 Disney+。正如他们当年反复强调的那样，流媒体本质上是一个糟糕透顶的商业模式：Paramount、Peacock、Disney 以及 HBO 等传统媒体巨头为了追赶奈飞（Netflix），每年烧掉数亿美元却深陷亏损泥潭。 在这场资本狂欢中，迈克尔形象地将奈飞比作动画片里“冲出悬崖后又跑回来的歪心狼（Wile E. Coyote）”——传统巨头跟着盲目跃出悬崖摔得粉身碎骨，而如今奈飞似乎也最终摔落谷底。目前奈飞和迪士尼的股价均已从历史高点回撤了约50%。尽管奈飞凭借无出其右的技术底座彻底赢得了流媒体大战，但残酷的现实证明，即使成为流媒体领域唯一的赢家，资本市场也正在重新评估这个商业模式脆弱的变现能力与盈利天花板。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 迪士尼巨额收购支出与当前市值倒挂对比 accDescr: 流程图展示迪士尼在多项核心资产上的巨额收购累计花费已超过公司目前的整体市值。 subgraph Acquisitions ["核心资产收购历史花费"] A["漫威 (Marvel) + 皮克斯 (Pixar)"] B["星球大战 (Lucasfilm) + ESPN"] C["21世纪福克斯 (Fox)"] A & B & C --> D["历史累计收购成本: 1,290 亿美元<br/>(按现值计折合 1,820 亿美元)"] end subgraph Valuation ["当前市场价值呈现"] E["包含上述所有顶级 IP<br/>+ 原有迪士尼传统资产/乐园"] E --> F["当前迪士尼整体市值:<br/>仅 1,690 亿美元 (缩水倒挂)"] end ``` ### [55:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqvxWyYT5jg&t=3305s) Netflix 的估值困境：高利润率与“内容仓鼠轮” 流媒体这门生意到底是不是烂生意？从 Netflix 的财务表现来看，答案似乎截然相反。Netflix 的营业利润走出了一条清晰的“右上角”上升曲线：2022 年时迪士尼的营业利润为 120 亿美元，而 Netflix 仅为 60 亿美元，当时迪士尼是它的两倍；然而眼下 Netflix 的营业利润即将反超迪士尼。这一对比极为惊人，因为迪士尼旗下还坐拥吸金能力极强的主题公园业务，而 Netflix 单凭纯流媒体就做到了这一点。目前 Netflix 的营收增速维持在 12% 至 13%，利润率更是高达 30%，财务数据与那些身陷泥潭的传统媒体巨头完全不在一个层级。 然而，Netflix 面临的核心瓶颈在于它本质上依然身处“内容产业”，这是一台永远无法停下的“仓鼠跑轮”（hamster wheel）。平台的日均观看时长增长基本见顶，增速仅有 1.5% 到 2%，它不再是过去那个狂飙猛进的纯成长股。Michael 坦言自己也忍不住“把大脚趾伸了进去”，在 Netflix 上建了仓甚至逢低加仓，目前平均持仓成本在 90 美元左右，而股价已跌至 67 美元，账面亏损达 27% 到 30%。Michael 自嘲自己向来以“止损极快”著称，极少持有亏损达到两位数百分比的股票，甚至这在某种程度上成了他的短板——太拿不住股票。 虽然从历史数据来看，Netflix 自上市以来经历过无数次惊心动魄的雪崩式回撤，但每次都能奇迹般修复并创出新高。这正是选股最折磨人的地方：看历史走势会觉得“每一次暴跌都是千载难逢的买点”，但这一次市场却在质疑“它已经变成了一家增速放缓的传统媒体公司”。如今 Netflix 的估值倍数已经回落到与大盘相当的水平，而当初传统传媒公司争相涌入流媒体正是为了获得 Netflix 那样的高估值倍数，如今讽刺的是，Netflix 反而跌落到了与它们相近的估值泥潭中。 - **Netflix 历史重大回撤记录**：自上市以来，曾先后录得 60%、75%、56%、82%、76% 以及当前约 50% 的剧烈跌幅。 - **财务与运营数据对比**：营业利润追平甚至反超迪士尼（2022 年为 60 亿美元对 120 亿美元）；营业利润率维持在 30%；日均观看时长同比增速放缓至 1.5% - 2%。 --- ### [57:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqvxWyYT5jg&t=3460s) 完结剧集与续季神话：Ted Sarandos 的辩护与抄底逻辑 针对市场上热议的“第二季观看量大幅跳水”问题，联合首席执行官 Ted Sarandos 在财报电话会议上的回应颇具说服力。他指出，Netflix 第二季的观看表现完全在预期区间之内，剧集从第一季到第二季出现下滑是全行业的普遍规律。Netflix 的特殊之处在于其首发阵仗极其庞大：凭借全球覆盖能力、强大的算法分发推荐以及“一次性放出全集”（binge release）的模式，新剧在第一季刚上线就能瞬间触达海量观众；相比之下，其他流媒体平台的剧集刚开播时声量往往很小，需要经过漫长的口碑发酵才能逐步破圈。 这种论点得到了两位主持人的共鸣。传统有线电视和流媒体平台上的爆款作品，如《白莲花度假村》（The White Lotus）、《继承之战》（Succession），在第一季推出时大多默默无闻，直到后期才形成全网热潮；《黄石》（Yellowstone）也是熬到了第三季才真正大红大紫。Ted Sarandos 的这番剖析让投资者对管理层依然抱有信心。Michael 强调，自己面对 Netflix 暴跌时并没有盲目指责“市场是傻子”，他完全理解当下的悲观叙事；但如果在市场上那些血流成河的崩盘个股中挑选一个抄底标的，Netflix 是唯一商业模式真正清晰易懂、值得长线守候的选择，相比之下，Intel 或 SpaceX 这类标的根本让人无从看透。 --- ### [59:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqvxWyYT5jg&t=3599s) IMAX 之争与诺兰新片的票房奇迹 话题转向院线娱乐时，两人因观影体验展开了一番拌嘴。Michael 抱怨自己前一天晚上看了新片，但因为纽约所有 IMAX 影厅的黄金场次一路售罄到八月，导致自己未能看上 IMAX 版本而大为恼火。Ben 则对此嗤之以鼻，讽刺道：“以前大家还用大头显像管电视看电影呢，IMAX 的狂热粉差不多得了，这能有多大区别？真那么好，他们就去多建几座 IMAX 影院啊！”Michael 随即回呛 Ben 的消极态度，直言 IMAX 是重度资产而且造价极其高昂，自己甚至在投资组合中重仓了 IMAX 股票。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 诺兰电影北美首周末票房突破路径 accDescr: 展示克里斯托弗·诺兰历年代表作票房层级以及新片在特殊格式加持下的爆发 subgraph Backlog ["历史代表作首映阶梯"] A["《星际穿越》/《敦刻尔克》/《信条》"] --> B["《奥本海默》"] B --> C["2012《黑暗骑士崛起》"] end subgraph NewRecord ["新片票房爆发点"] C --> D["《奥德赛》: 1.24 亿美元首周票房"] E["限制级 R 级评级<br/>长达 3 小时片长"] -.-> D F["IMAX 独占 24% 票房<br/>PLF 高端巨幕占 45%"] -.-> D G["创纪录 5000 万美元预售额"] -.-> D end ``` 这种热潮直接体现在克里斯托弗·诺兰（Christopher Nolan）执导的新作《奥德赛》（The Odyssey）令人瞠目的票房表现上。该片北美首周末狂揽 1.24 亿美元，打破业内预期： - **历史级首映成绩**：这是诺兰自 2012 年《黑暗骑士崛起》（The Dark Knight Rises）以来最高的开画成绩，远超《星际穿越》（Interstellar）、《敦刻尔克》（Dunkirk）、《信条》（Tenet）以及《奥本海默》（Oppenheimer）。 - **年内与类型片突破**：位列全年开画榜第三（仅次于《玩具总动员》和《超级马力欧兄弟大电影》系列）；考虑到这是一部时长整整 3 小时且为 R 级限制级的影片，这一吸金速度堪称奇迹。 - **IMAX 与高端格式统治力**：诺兰被戏称为“IMAX 的教父”，本片 IMAX 票房占比达到惊人的 24%，所有高端巨幕格式（PLF）合计吃下了 45% 的出票量，提前预售额更是创下了 5000 万美元的历史纪录。 --- ### [01:02:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqvxWyYT5jg&t=3758s) “电影院彻底回来了”：AMC 创纪录季度与未来大片排期 这股观影狂潮让整个院线行业迎来了全面复苏。院线巨头 AMC 的董事长兼首席执行官 Adam Aron 在财报电话会上激动地宣称：“在 AMC 整整 160 年的公司历史上，从未经历过如此强劲的季度。” 相关票房统计充分印证了影院业的强劲回暖： - **季度票房高度**：第二季度北美本土总票房触及 29.9 亿美元，同比增长 10.7%，创下 7 年来最佳 Q2 表现，也是过去 50 年历史上排名第五好的季度（尽管其中包含了通胀与高端票价提升的因素）。 - **头部集中效应**：单季度内有多达 6 部不同的电影实现了 7500 万美元以上的首周末开画佳绩。 - **后续储备弹药充足**：排期表上依然集结了《复仇者联盟：毁灭日》（Avengers: Doomsday）、《蜘蛛侠》（Spider-Man）、《沙丘 3》（Dune 3）、《生化危机》（Resident Evil）以及汤姆·克鲁斯（Tom Cruise）的新作《Digger》等重磅大作。 Michael 得意地回顾起自己过去的判断，提到同行 Sean Russo 曾由衷赞许他“做出了一个极具前瞻性的神准预测”——即坚定看好传统院线绝不会被流媒体彻底消灭。尽管 Ben 质疑 2025 年是不是其实表现较为平淡，但数据证明院线展现出了超乎预期的坚韧生命力。 ### [01:04:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqvxWyYT5jg&t=3853s) 电影票房大辩论：长期衰退还是重回巅峰？ Ben Carlson 与 Michael Batnick 就电影院线行业的命运展开了激烈交锋。Ben 坚持“长期衰退论”（Secular Decline），断言院线行业已经彻底完蛋，未来每年的票房只会一路走低，除非票价翻倍，否则根本无法逆转颓势。他认为人们更愿意留在家里看电影早已成为不可逆的习惯。Michael 则针锋相对，坚信 2026 年的整体票房必定会超过 2025 年。他反驳称观众偏好居家观影早在过去十年就已体现在营收中，并指出之前票房低迷很大程度上是因为大片延期，比如备受瞩目的《迈克尔·杰克逊》（Michael Jackson）传记电影被推迟到了 2026 年上映。 随后两人回顾了此前的打赌：Ben 曾断言音乐人传记片是“死钱”（dead money）没人买单，但该片最终斩获了 10 亿美元的惊人票房，Ben 坦率承认自己在这部传记电影的预测上彻底看走了眼。不过，为了给 Michael “电影全面回归”的乐观论调泼冷水，Ben 搬出了 AI 助手 Claude 整理的通胀调整后数据：在 2014 年至 2019 年间，北美年均票房经通胀调整后基本稳定在 150 亿美元；而今年上半年票房约为 53 亿美元，就算下半年翻倍也仅有 100 亿美元左右，仍比疫情前水平低了 30%。面对 Ben 搬出的宏观历史数据，Michael 直指他“移动了球门柱”——因为双方最初争论的核心仅仅是“2026 年是否会高于 2025 年”。Michael 强调今年票房同比已增长 11%，《沙丘》（Dune）等现象级大片展现了观众走进影院的热情，院线的局部复苏完全值得庆祝。两人还谈到了著名导演克里斯托弗·诺兰（Christopher Nolan），赞赏其敢于大胆尝试的电影制作魄力，即便像《信条》（Tenet）这样争议较大的作品，依然彰显了他对院线体验的极致追求。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 电影院线前景分歧图 accDescr: 展示 Ben 的长期衰退论与 Michael 的周期性反弹论之间的核心观点碰撞。 subgraph Debate["院线行业前景之争"] direction TB subgraph BenView["Ben 的长期衰退论"] B1["居家流媒体观影成为不可逆习惯"] B2["通胀调整后票房比疫情前仍低约 30%"] B3["未来票房将逐年下滑，行业黄金期已过"] end subgraph MichaelView["Michael 的反弹复苏论"] M1["重磅大片延期积压至 2026 年释放"] M2["票房同比迎来 11% 的显著增长"] M3["头部大片与顶级视听体验仍具备强大号召力"] end end BenView -.->|"观点碰撞"| MichaelView ``` - 2014 至 2019 年经通胀调整后的年均票房基准：约 150 亿美元。 - 当前年度前六个月票房约为 53 亿美元，全年预期年化约 100 亿美元。 - 院线票房较疫情前峰值仍存在约 30% 的通胀调整后缺口，但本年度同比增长达 11%。 --- ### [01:08:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqvxWyYT5jg&t=4122s) 餐饮与快消：KFC 闭店潮与 Utz 薯片私有化 两人将目光转向近期消费与餐饮市场的动态。Michael 提到了减重药物 GLP-1 对快餐行业的潜在冲击：肯德基（KFC）在近期面临严峻挑战，在 2025 年 1 月至 3 月 31 日短短一个季度内，就在美国本土关闭了 207 家门店，约占其全美总门店数的 5%。Ben 指出，这不仅反映了健康饮食趋势，也可能是因为 Chick-fil-A 等强劲本土竞争对手夺走了其午餐客流。然而与本土缩水形成鲜明反差的是，KFC 在海外市场表现凶猛，同期在国际上净增了 2,971 家门店。 随后 Michael 提到了知名零食品牌 Utz 薯片（Utz Brands）。该公司的股价此前一路下挫近 70%，如今达成了私有化交易，收购方给出了相当可观的溢价。Ben 表示自己从未听说过这个牌子，推测它可能只在东海岸或纽约一带流行，Michael 则戏称持有该股票的投资者总算等来了一丝安慰。 - KFC 于 2025 年初至 3 月底关闭了 207 家美国本土门店，占本土网络约 5%。 - 同期 KFC 在海外国际市场逆势扩张，净增 2,971 家新餐厅。 - 零食制造商 Utz 在股价自高位下跌 70% 后，以一定溢价达成私有化退市交易。 --- ### [01:09:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqvxWyYT5jg&t=4177s) 尴尬趣闻：停车场的“认错人”时刻 在进入正式推荐前，Ben 分享了一桩发生在他身上的社交尴尬故事。某天他送女儿去参加夏季篮球联赛，停好车走在空旷的停车场里。当时周围只有他和约 100 码外走来的另一位父亲。对方突然极其热情地把手举在空中，隔着大老远冲他大喊："There he is!"（瞧瞧这是谁来了！）。 起初 Ben 以为是哪个熟人家长，眯起眼睛端详半天却根本不认识对方；随后 Ben 心想这会不会是播客的粉丝。然而，当那个男人越走越近、看清 Ben 的正脸后，脸上的笑容瞬间凝固，意识到自己认错人了。令人啼笑皆非的是，对方并没有道歉或出声化解尴尬，而是若无其事地向两边瞄了瞄，装作什么都没发生一样径直从他身边擦肩而过。Michael 听后笑称这反应实在太诡异，如果是正常人至少会打个招呼打个圆场。 --- ### [01:10:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqvxWyYT5jg&t=4220s) 影视推荐：《小黄人》与黑马之作《Obsession》 在影视与文化推荐环节，Ben 聊到了他最近看的几部作品。他首先带孩子们去影院看了最新的《小黄人》（Minions）系列电影，开玩笑说编剧写剧情时肯定处于某种致幻状态，整部片子荒诞离奇，但观影体验十分欢乐，全片仅 90 分钟的紧凑时长更让他深感欣慰，整场下来自己只打了一次瞌睡，女儿也看得津津有味。 紧接着，Ben 强烈推荐了与妻子一同观看的悬疑电影《Obsession》。在看这部片子前，他对剧情的了解仅限于预告片里的简短设定——“一个男生许愿让一个女孩爱上他”。尽管这部电影在各大平台被捧得极高，让他在看之前不得不刻意压低预期以防踩雷，但成片质量却完全折服了他。Ben 评价其节奏极佳、制作精良，很难简单地将其归类为惊悚、悬疑或是恐怖片。更令他惊艳的是，该片出自一位年轻导演之手，整部电影几乎没有大牌明星助阵，全由生面孔挑大梁，唯一的熟脸还是在唱片店饰演父亲、曾担任柯南·奥布莱恩（Conan O'Brien）副手的客串演员（Andy Richter）。Michael 赞同道，确实存在一些品质过硬的神作，它们好到足以抗住任何超高预期的检验，就像《挽救计划》（Project Hail Mary）一样，任何人去看都不会失望。 ### [01:12:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqvxWyYT5jg&t=4324s) 独立新片与导演 Curry Barker 的才华 两人延续了对一部低成本独立新片的探讨。本·卡尔森（Ben Carlson）称赞两位主演的表现都极为亮眼，而迈克尔·巴特尼克（Michael Batnick）则认为女主角的表现甚至远胜男主角，并提到女主演正是凭借这部电影的出色发挥拿下了未来的重要大角色。迈克尔非常欣慰本也喜欢这部电影；本透露自己的妻子同样对它赞不绝口，整部作品在各个细节与视听选择上都透着一种难以言喻的高质感。在常规情况下，类似概念如果交给水平一般的团队，很容易沦为粗制滥造、平平无奇的廉价低分片，但该片却完成得极其成熟扎实。 迈克尔特别提到该片的导演卡里·巴克（Curry Barker）年仅 23 岁左右。本也深表赞同，认为这位年轻导演在叙事与镜头上做出了大量非常富有创造力且大胆的选择，才华横溢。 ### [01:12:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqvxWyYT5jg&t=4362s) 《The Rewatchables》、浪漫喜剧《全民情敌》与爱德华·伯恩斯 本接着聊到了播客与电影推荐。针对迈克尔此前提到最喜欢的播客是 The Ringer 旗下的《The Rewatchables》，本指出该节目上周重温了爱德华·伯恩斯（Edward Burns）自编自导的《爱是一把枪》（*She's the One*），而本周则评析了威尔·史密斯主演的《全民情敌》（*Hitch*）。碰巧本最近正和女儿开启浪漫喜剧刷片马拉松，刚刚重温完《全民情敌》，他由衷感叹这绝对堪称本世纪最好笑的浪漫喜剧电影之一。 迈克尔坦言这两部电影自己都没看过。本随即大方承认自己是爱德华·伯恩斯的超级死忠粉，原以为全世界只有自己一个人看他的片子。伯恩斯的系列电影几乎全是以长岛（Long Island）及其爱尔兰裔家庭生活为蓝本，而迈克尔正好长岛背景深厚，理应会产生共鸣。虽然这类家庭小品算不上影史传世巨作，但它们拍得格外真诚、结构严密且情感饱满，本很高兴发现原来不仅自己，连《The Rewatchables》团队也是伯恩斯的知音。 ### [01:13:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqvxWyYT5jg&t=4405s) 新书推荐：《How to Get Rich in American History》 本郑重推荐了一部他近年来读过最具创意的财经历史类书籍——历史学教授约瑟夫·摩尔（Joseph Moore）撰写的《How to Get Rich in American History》（美国历史致富指南）。这位作者在本的新书出版时曾主动联系过他，上周又做客了梅布·法伯（Meb Faber）的播客节目，彻底激起了本的阅读兴趣。 这本著作系统梳理了数百年来美国人所接受的各类大众财务与理财建议的演变史。书中开头便一针见血地指出：现代人根本没有意识到我们如今所处时代的经济环境有多么优渥，当下正是人类历史上个人实现财富积累最平坦、最友好的时代。相比之下，在 18 世纪及南北战争前的 19 世纪，全美充斥着成百上千种不同的地方与私人银行纸币，货币体系极不稳定，人们压根没有“存钱储蓄”的概念——拿到任何钞票的第一反应必须是在一个月内火速花光，否则这种货币很可能在下个月就直接作废变成废纸。 - 作者约瑟夫·摩尔作为一名大学历史教授，曾亲身尝试并复刻了历史上被发明出来的几乎每一种致富门道，并在书中真诚分享了自己如何以穷酸教授的微薄薪水一步步理财致富。 - 迈克尔对此构思赞不绝口，认为从理财建议的社会演变史切入极具新意，承诺会立刻收听相关播客并阅读此书。 ### [01:14:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqvxWyYT5jg&t=4474s) 足球初体验与错失精彩赛事的“大冤种”感叹 迈克尔分享了自己近期看球的奇特经历：他完整观看了此前某场国家队国际大赛决赛的下半场（口误称作阿根廷对阵西班牙的大决战）。本打趣道他挑了全届赛事里观赏度最平庸的一场比赛来看，但迈克尔却表示自己看得如痴如醉、全程被牢牢钉在电视机前。 迈克尔自嘲感觉自己像个“十足的冤种”（total schmuck），直到看完全场并听了比尔·西蒙斯（Bill Simmons）和克里斯·瑞安（Chris Ryan）的足球赛后复盘播客，才意识到这项运动居然如此扣人心弦，而自己此前竟然错过了整届比赛中那么多惊心动魄的名局。虽然他不确定未来是否会变成铁杆足球迷守着看下一届比赛，但这场比赛确实彻底打破了他对足球的固有偏见。 ### [01:15:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqvxWyYT5jg&t=4535s) 排队追剧《谍影特工》与炸裂全明星阵容 迈克尔分享了上周参加 Fanatics 体育嘉年华（Fanatics Fest）的趣事。为了购买一张纽约尼克斯队（New York Knicks）海报并让全队球星签名，他在队伍中坐着排了极长时间的队。由于杰伦·布伦森（Jalen Brunson）和 OG·阿奴诺比（OG Anunoby）当天未能到场，他还得日后再想办法补齐签名。 在排长队的无聊空档里，迈克尔一口气刷完了谍战剧《谍影特工》（*The Agency*，又译《局中人》美版）第二季。迈克尔回忆道，第一季开局极度惊艳，但中后段却严重烂尾高开低走，就像那张著名的“神作画到最后变蠢驴”的草图表情包（horse to donkey meme），导致他差点放弃第二季。但经朋友极力安利重拾第二季后，他惊叹第二季的品质全方位超越第一季，剧情极其过瘾。 本听到后大呼巧合，透露自己前一天晚上刚刚开播第二季第一集。第一集开场几分钟便展现了令人叹为观止的演员阵容——迈克尔·法斯宾德（Michael Fassbender）、杰弗里·怀特（Jeffrey Wright）、理查·基尔（Richard Gere）以及在美剧《火线》（*The Wire*）中饰演麦克诺蒂的罗利·科奇瑞恩/多米尼克·韦斯特同台亮相，围坐在一起抽着雪茄轻啜烈酒，大银幕级别的全明星演技火力直接拉满。 - 迈克尔与本盛赞杰弗里·怀特的演技一如既往出类拔萃，全剧群戏质感极高。 - 本特别强调该剧的一大优点在于跳出了传统单季单元剧的俗套——它并未在第二季换一套全新独立的故事，而是将第一季的错综暗线与核心人物命运紧密无缝地向下推进与引爆。 ### [01:17:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqvxWyYT5jg&t=4620s) 邮件互动与节目收尾 迈克尔向听众公布了官方互动邮箱 `animalspirits@thecompoundnews.com`，承诺所有发来的私人邮件都会收到两位主持人的亲笔认真回复。 本紧接着表功称自己本周一口气回复了海量听众来信。面对迈克尔过去经常调侃他“未完成回复指标”的吐槽，本开玩笑表示自己本周是被迈克尔的“羞辱疗法”（shamed into it）硬生生逼着疯狂回信。迈克尔笑着对本的辛勤付出表达感谢，随后以经典的标志性口头禅互相致意道别，正式结束了本期播客的录制。 ## Notable quotes > [08:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqvxWyYT5jg&t=533s) everyone has to pay their tuition to the market gods at some point — Ben Carlson > [11:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqvxWyYT5jg&t=672s) Donny, you're out of your element! — Ben Carlson > [13:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqvxWyYT5jg&t=829s) I just don't think Microsoft and Nvidia are in that category anymore. — Davis Cantrell > [13:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqvxWyYT5jg&t=829s) Buckle up buttercup > [18:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqvxWyYT5jg&t=1134s) Nike might be toast — Michael Batnick > [02:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqvxWyYT5jg&t=151s) money goes to where it's treated best — Michael Batnick > [51:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqvxWyYT5jg&t=3090s) the joys of home ownership — Ben Carlson > [01:09:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqvxWyYT5jg&t=4177s) There he is! ## Mentioned YCharts, Michael Batnick, Ben Carlson, Oracle, 以太坊 (Ethereum), 比特币 (Bitcoin), Netflix, SpaceX, Intel, KOSPI, iShares MSCI South Korea ETF (EWY), Citadel Securities, Microsoft, Nvidia, Davis Cantrell, Kurv, James Seyffart, Nike, Peloton, Lululemon, Under Armour, Gap, Peter Callahan, Goldman Sachs, Duality Research, NBER, Bill Simmons, Scott Galloway, ChatGPT, OpenAI, Torsten Sløk, a16z, Moonshot AI (月之暗面), StubHub, Eric Baker, TickPick, Ryan Gold, Arizona Cardinals, Trump Media and Technology Group, Donald Trump, Kyla Scanlon, Allison Schrager, Pew Research, Grand Rapids, Disney, Marvel, Lucasfilm, Pixar, ESPN, 21st Century Fox, Disney+, Ted Sarandos, IMAX, Christopher Nolan, The Odyssey (奥德赛), AMC, Adam Aron, KFC, Chick-fil-A, Utz Brands, Obsession, Curry Barker, Andy Richter, The Rewatchables, Edward Burns, She's the One, Hitch (全民情敌), Joseph Moore, How to Get Rich in American History, Meb Faber, The Agency (谍影特工), Michael Fassbender, Jeffrey Wright, Richard Gere, New York Knicks ## Video description On episode 474 of Animal Spirits, Michael Batnick and Ben Carlson discuss: the bloodbath in certain tech stocks, investor behavior in South Korea, a normal market environment, the Mag 7 shine has worn off, Nike lost its moat, why we don't have recessions anymore, boomers aren't downsizing, stocks vs. housing as an investment, Netflix is crashing, movies are back and more. This episode is sponsored by YCharts. To learn more and get 20% off your initial YCharts Professional subscription to take Y for a spin (new customers only), visit https://go.ycharts.com/animal-spirits ► 00:00 - YCharts Ad ► 00:53 - Intro ► 01:33 - Stock Market ► 13:50 - Investor Behavior ► 26:20 - The Economy ► 33:35 - AI & Tech ► 40:45 - StubHub Controversy ► 42:19 - Prediction Markets & Gambling ► 43:10 - Truth API Explained ► 45:06 - Real Estate ► 51:30 - Joy's of Home Ownership ► 53:45 - Streaming & Entertainment ► 1:08:46 - KFC & Utz ► 1:09:37 - Storytime "There he is!" ► 1:10:20 - Recommendations 👕 Check out The Compound shop: https://www.idontshop.com 🎙️Listen to our podcasts: TCAF: https://podcasts.thecompoundnews.com/show/TCAF/ Animal Spirits: https://podcasts.thecompoundnews.com/show/animalspirits/ Ask The Compound: https://podcasts.thecompoundnews.com/show/ATC/ The Compound Newsletter: https://www.thecompoundnews.com/subscribe Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-compound-media/ Instagram: https://instagram.com/thecompoundnews Twitter: https://twitter.com/thecompoundnews Tik Tok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thecompoundnews Investing involves the risk of loss. This podcast is for informational purposes only and should not be or regarded as personalized investment advice or relied upon for investment decisions. Josh Brown and Michael Batnick are employees of Ritholtz Wealth Management and may maintain positions in the securities discussed in this video. All opinions expressed by them are solely their own opinion and do not reflect the opinion of Ritholtz Wealth Management. See our disclosures here: https://ritholtzwealth.com/podcast-youtube-disclosures/ The Compound Media, Incorporated, an affiliate of Ritholtz Wealth Management, receives payment from various entities for advertisements in affiliated podcasts, blogs and emails. Inclusion of such advertisements does not constitute or imply endorsement, sponsorship or recommendation thereof, or any affiliation therewith, by the Content Creator or by Ritholtz Wealth Management or any of its employees. For additional advertisement disclaimers see here https://ritholtzwealth.com/advertising-disclaimers. #thecompound #investing #stockmarket [Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqvxWyYT5jg)

[8:53] Ben Carlson: everyone has to pay their tuition to the market gods at some point [11:12] Ben Carlson: Donny, you're out of your element! [13:49] Davis Cantrell: I just don't think Microsoft and Nvidia are in that category anymore. [13:49] Buckle up buttercup [18:54] Michael Batnick: Nike might be toast [2:31] Michael Batnick: money goes to where it's treated best [51:30] Ben Carlson: the joys of home ownership [69:37] There he is!

[0:53] Michael Batnick: Money goes to where it's treated best... If it's not working, it's getting destroyed. And if it's working, it's working really, really well. [5:04] Michael Batnick: This is why you don't retire, because otherwise you just get in other people's business all the time. [18:28] Michael Batnick: Nike will be around for the rest of eternity... but the stock market is telling you this company is not what they used to be, and it's not going to be again. [33:25] Michael Batnick: I don't want to live in a world where a 31-year-old making half a million dollars with a 2-year-old is despondent because her husband has to work hard. [40:45] Michael Batnick: StubHub's marketplace for fans is run by a mass scalper. SEC filings reveal CEO Eric Baker runs a side company that resells millions in tickets on StubHub. [43:10] Michael Batnick: This is absolutely mental that the president of the United States is selling his tweets faster... If you think this is good, you're an idiot. [48:42] Michael Batnick: I don't think people are going to say to their spouses... 'we're not going to buy a house because we want to invest in the stock market.'... But people as they age and have families need more space. [53:45] Ben Carlson: Netflix was a coyote that ran over the cliff and then ran back... and now it seems like Netflix ran over their own cliff and hit the ground as well.

[0:05] Today's show is sponsored by Y Charts. [0:07] One promise of AI is that it should help [0:09] advisers save time. But for most, AI has [0:12] just become another tab to manage. [0:14] That's why Y charts built Y, an AI agent [0:16] designed to work directly inside the [0:18] platform. Instead of searching for [0:20] answers and then figuring out the next [0:21] step, advisers can use Y to help [0:23] actually do their work. Why will build [0:25] proposals, analyze portfolios, compare [0:27] investments, and create client ready [0:28] materials. For example, you can upload a [0:31] prospect's brokerage statement and ask [0:32] why to analyze the holdings, identify [0:34] opportunities, build supporting visuals, [0:36] and generate a proposal draft. All [0:38] within the same workflow thousands of [0:39] advisers already trust. You bring the [0:41] investment expertise. Why helps turn [0:43] ideas into action. Click the link in the [0:45] show notes to learn more and get 20% off [0:47] your initial Y charts professional [0:49] subscription to take Y for a spin. [0:51] That's for new customers only. [0:53] Welcome to Animal Spirits with Michael [0:55] and Ben. All right, Michael. The S&P 500 [0:57] as of this recording is down about 2% [0:59] from the all-time highs. [1:01] >> That's obviously nothing. You can't call [1:03] that anything. That's that's it [1:05] happened. [1:06] >> But there are a ton of stocks that are [1:08] like having a blood bath right now. [1:09] We've talked a lot about stocks that [1:10] have been going up, all the [1:12] semiconductors, and I guess some of [1:14] those have come in, but there there's a [1:15] huge blood bath right now. [1:16] >> Can I ask you Yes. [1:18] >> 5% pullback, 10% correction, 20% bare [1:20] market. [1:21] >> Yes. Do we want to give the 2% a name? [1:24] >> Hiccup. [1:25] >> Uh, stubbed toe. It's like when you stub [1:28] your toe. Is that fair? [1:29] >> Yeah. Stinks for a second. [1:31] >> So, I want I want you to go bottom [1:33] fishing with me here. Oracle is more [1:35] than 60% off the highs. I put in the [1:37] crypto here, too, because those are that [1:38] the counts as tech. Ethereum is 60% off [1:40] the highs. Bitcom is 50% off the highs. [1:43] Uh, Netflix 50% off the highs. We're [1:45] going to talk about them a little bit [1:46] later. SpaceX is already 40% off the [1:49] highs. That was really quick. Intel is [1:50] 30% off the highs. If you did the whole [1:53] semiconductor memory space, DRAM is down [1:57] 33%. [2:00] So, [2:01] this is like the agony and ecstasy of [2:04] picking stocks, obviously, that you can [2:06] have this happen while the market is [2:08] really still doing fine. [2:09] >> Mhm. [2:11] >> You're you're a value investor right now [2:13] in the tech space. Where are you [2:14] looking? [2:15] >> Well, I own Netflix. We'll talk more [2:17] about it. Um, I bought more People are p [2:20] people are pouring dirt on Netflix's [2:21] grave. [2:22] >> I bought more Netflix yesterday. We [2:23] could talk more about that later. Uh [2:25] which am I botting fishing for? I think [2:26] there's a lot of opportunities. [2:31] >> I I guess [2:33] it's it's really really interesting that [2:35] in a innovation boom that this still [2:38] happens [2:40] that the this is this has to be the [2:42] biggest during a boom or a bubble or [2:45] whatever you want to call it. Maybe we [2:46] can't call it a bubble anymore. [2:48] uh the range of outcomes for the winners [2:51] and losers has to be never been wider [2:52] than this for for the the space that's [2:55] winning [2:55] >> inside the stock market. [2:58] There is a violent separation. You know [3:00] the phrase money goes to where it's [3:02] treated best. I feel like that is like [3:03] the theme of 2026. If it's not working, [3:06] it's getting destroyed. And if it's [3:09] working, it's working really, really [3:10] well. Now, we saw a lot of the air come [3:12] out of the overly crowded memory trade, [3:16] which I thought I think is fantastic. [3:19] >> Yeah, definitely needed to happen. [3:21] >> You need this. I am nothing is nothing [3:24] is better [3:26] in my opinion than an awesome uptrend [3:30] and letting some of the air out of [3:33] overenthusiasm. [3:35] Never like to see people lose money. Say [3:36] that every time I say a comment like [3:38] this. But you need the wall of worry to [3:41] emerge for stocks to ultimately go [3:43] higher. And the wall is definitely back. [3:45] And the bubble talk. I know we're going [3:47] to talk about bubbles later because [3:47] we've been talking about bubbles a lot [3:48] lately on this podcast. [3:51] Can we maybe put a pin in the bubble [3:54] talk given that these names just had a [3:56] 35% draw down in two weeks? All right, [3:59] listen to the the I think the crazier [4:01] part about it is that so much other [4:03] stuff is doing well. So, I took the [4:04] Russell 2000, Russell 3000, which is the [4:06] total stock market, call it like VTI [4:08] essentially. It's 2600 names now. We [4:11] can't even get to 3,000. We used to be a [4:13] country, you know. We used to be 3,000 [4:15] stocks on the Russell 3000. [4:16] >> The Russell 3000 is 3,000 stocks. [4:20] >> Uh, it's like 2500 now because of the [4:22] the to the whole it's smaller. [4:25] >> Are we sure about that? It's the Russell [4:27] 1000 and the Russell 2000 combined. [4:30] >> 1 plus 2,000. I downloaded the Russell [4:32] 3000 and they gave me 2600 names. Um 66% [4:36] I put I always put this in a call like [4:38] once a week to see like what's going on [4:39] in the stock market. 66% of stocks are [4:41] positive yearto date in the US stock [4:42] market. Median return is 12.6%. [4:46] That's pretty good. [4:48] >> Yeah. [4:48] >> Two-thirds of stocks right are positive. [4:50] That that's a pretty good year. I'm just [4:52] saying it's really surprising that a lot [4:54] of these name brand companies are [4:55] getting slaughtered while this is [4:56] happening to all the rest of the stock [4:58] market. [4:58] >> Mhm. [5:00] It's interesting. [5:01] >> That is interesting. [5:04] >> We got We have to mention the banging in [5:06] the background. Uh Michael, [5:08] >> I hear that [5:09] >> is single-handedly keeping mudrooms open [5:12] for America and getting another new [5:15] mudroom. Do you [5:17] >> It's It's mudroom 2.0. It's running [5:19] back. [5:20] >> Now, I have a question. Did Did you use [5:22] the same construction people that did [5:25] your first mudroom for the second [5:26] mudroom? [5:27] >> Nope. [5:28] >> No. Oh, you weren't happy with it? [5:30] >> M not really. Um, when you walk into my [5:34] house, [5:35] there is a set of stairs about six [5:37] stairs going up and there's like a [5:38] little tiny nook area to the left. So, [5:42] if the four of us walk into the house, [5:45] we have to do a single file. It's a very [5:46] small area. And so, what happens, [5:49] anybody who's listening with kids knows [5:51] that the [ __ ] piles up. the bags, the [5:55] uh tennis rackets, sneakers, whatever it [5:58] is. It's it's so I need a butter room. [6:01] So, I'm cutting, you know, I was do this [6:03] later in the show. I'll do it now. [6:05] You know, my uh that I'm on like a a [6:08] kindness streak. Trying to be trying to [6:10] be a little bit nicer. Trying to breathe [6:12] when I get upset and not yell. [6:16] >> Okay. [6:16] >> Right. [6:18] >> When you have kids, it's that's [6:19] impossible. It really is. I know that [6:21] there are people out there who don't [6:22] yell at their kids, but um [6:25] >> those people are like have no emotion or [6:27] something. [6:27] >> Yeah, I'm not talking about my kids. I [6:28] they they get no they get no they get no [6:30] grace. [6:31] >> I'm talking about strangers because you [6:32] never know. You know, people life is [6:34] hard and you never know what people are [6:34] going through. [6:35] >> Okay. [6:35] >> So, giving strangers a little grace. [6:37] However, [6:38] >> Ben, I live in a culde-sac. [6:41] Not a lot of traffic here. Okay. [6:46] A dumpster went into my driveway [6:49] and not two hours later, the town [6:52] inspector comes through. [6:54] >> Holy cow. [6:56] >> Has an iPad and takes a picture of my [6:59] house. [7:00] >> Does that mean that someone called them [7:02] on you? [7:02] >> Yes. [7:03] >> Whoa. [7:05] >> And I think I know who it is. Ben, now [7:09] >> I feel like these people deserve no [7:10] grace. I kind of want to knock on their [7:11] door. Here's here's how I know. [7:14] >> Here's how I know. I I suspect [7:17] there is a house in my block where I [7:21] parked on my side of the street across [7:24] from their driveway [7:26] and they put a post-it note on my [7:28] windshield asking me not to park there. [7:32] These are the type of people that call [7:34] the town on you. Could you imagine [7:36] calling the town on your neighbor for [7:38] not having permits? And now it's not [7:40] like I'm doing a ton of demolition. I [7:42] mean this noise not notwithstanding this [7:44] is this is going to be this is a quick [7:45] project in and out is this is this a [7:48] couple who is of retirement age and they [7:51] have nothing better to do with their [7:51] time. [7:52] >> What do you think? [7:54] >> Okay. [7:54] >> Yeah. But still why why cause trouble [7:56] for people for no reason at all? [8:00] >> Nothing to do. This is why you don't [8:01] retire because otherwise you just get in [8:03] other people's business all the time. [8:05] >> Um anyway, back to the stock market. [8:08] >> Congrats on your new mud room. [8:10] >> Thank you. [8:11] >> Here's the thing. One more thing on [8:12] this. We when we were growing up, we did [8:15] not have nearly as much stuff as kids [8:17] have today. People did not have the [8:19] lockers and the mudrooms and the spaces [8:22] for kids, like cubby holes for kids. [8:24] That stuff didn't exist when we were [8:26] growing up. [8:26] >> You know why? When we were growing up, [8:28] >> we didn't have stuff. [8:28] >> We didn't have water bottles. What is [8:30] this [ __ ] How many water bottles do [8:32] you have in your house? Kids can't go [8:34] anywhere without a a metal water bottle [8:36] these days. Our football coach when I [8:40] was in middle school used to not let us [8:41] have water as punishment. That guy would [8:44] be like [ __ ] and feathered on the [8:45] internet today. [8:46] >> Yeah, that's that's probably good that [8:47] we don't have those type of [ __ ] in [8:49] the in our [8:51] >> true. All right, where we going next? [8:53] >> Um All right, so anyway, the [8:54] deleveraging we've been talking a lot [8:56] about the the source of um Yeah, people [8:59] are people are having fun here. People [9:01] are going nuts in Korea. The 30-day [9:05] Cosby volatility surges to its highest [9:07] ever, ever, ever. Including the.com bust [9:10] and the great financial crisis. [9:12] >> That's nuts. [9:13] >> There there was some data floating [9:15] around around the number of South [9:16] Koreans that got margin called or [9:18] liquidated or whatever. [9:23] >> There's levels to this, Ben. [9:25] >> I love I love seeing this because it's [9:28] we're a more mature market in a lot of [9:30] ways. And so the behaviors that we see [9:33] here, yes, still happen, but they get [9:34] amplified in other places that are that [9:36] are kind of coming up in the stock [9:37] market world. I I love to see this [9:40] stuff. I don't know why. It's everyone [9:42] has to pay their tuition to the market [9:43] gods at some point. [9:44] >> It's fantastic. [9:44] >> I'm sure there I'm sure there are people [9:46] who got fantastically rich off South [9:48] Korean stocks, but there are probably [9:49] some people who bet on the right socks [9:51] and still got their faces just blown [9:53] off. [9:56] Love to see it. How how bad is South [9:58] Korea doing? So the EWY is a South Korea [10:00] ETF. It's down 26%. [10:03] So people with leverage are have been [10:06] they're down 75% or something right now. [10:09] Good for them. All right. [10:11] >> This is this is such a typically Ben [10:13] Carlson tweet. Go ahead. [10:14] >> All right. I want to make the case. Last [10:16] week you were trying to pigeon hole a [10:18] bunch of stories that had had no bearing [10:20] on the market at all. You're talking [10:21] like IBM and you were you were trying to [10:23] make stories happen. [10:24] >> You know what you said? You said about [10:25] IBM this thing h this sort of thing [10:27] happens all the time. [10:28] >> Yeah. [10:29] >> Do you know that a company with a $300 [10:30] billion market cap falling 25% in a [10:32] single day? [10:33] >> I don't think that's ever happened. [10:35] >> Yeah, but we have bigger companies now. [10:37] So you can't say that because the [10:39] company the size is bigger than that. [10:40] >> So that's inflation adjustation adjusted [10:42] or something. [10:42] >> All right. So inflation adjusted and say [10:44] yeah probably during the GFC it happened [10:45] like four times. [10:47] >> Okay. So [10:49] >> you you just you you want to rewind 10 [10:51] seconds. [10:52] Does the IBM I'm trying to pigeon hole [10:54] stories? Yeah.$300 billion dollar [10:56] software company falling 25% in the day [10:57] is a market moving story. But back to [10:59] you, Mr. Bor. [11:00] >> You just talked about the fact that [11:00] you're trying to be nicer. I don't [11:02] believe you. [11:02] >> Not to you. You're not a stranger. [11:05] >> All right. Uh well, you just said you're [11:07] going to go after this episode, you're [11:08] going to go yell at your neighbors. Uh [11:10] >> I'm not going to yell at my neighbors, [11:11] but they're pushing me. [11:12] >> All right. So, this is the most normal e [11:16] I think we've gone through a period of [11:17] normalization where this has been one of [11:19] the most abnormal decades we've se we've [11:21] ever seen. I think that's pretty fair to [11:23] say. I think we're back to almost a [11:25] normalization [11:26] point because GDP growth is 2 to 3% [11:29] right now. Inflation 3.5% which is right [11:32] on the 100year average 3.5%. The 10-year [11:36] is yielding 4.5%. [11:39] Okay. The US stock market is up 11% 6 [11:42] months into the year. Some people would [11:43] say no, no, no, that's a full year, but [11:45] actually I would say the average up year [11:47] is up 21%. Mhm. [11:49] >> So, this is like the most normal. [11:52] >> Take a snapshot the picture of this [11:53] right now. Right. In the World Cup, they [11:55] do this with a square. I don't know why [11:56] they do this. [11:58] >> What do they do that with? Oh, with the [11:59] cards. [12:00] >> When they do VR, like we're going to go [12:01] for the replay. They draw they draw a [12:03] picture of a TV. [12:04] >> What is VR? [12:06] >> You didn't watch the World Cup. Never [12:07] mind. I'm not going to explain it to [12:08] you. [12:10] >> So, Donnie, you're out of your element. [12:12] >> This is Yeah, you're like a child that [12:14] wanders into the middle of a movie. [12:15] Everything is average right now. [12:17] Everything is kind of normal marketwise. [12:21] >> Now, when you tweet, [12:22] >> is that a fair take? [12:23] >> When you tweet this, are you like [12:24] giggling like you're just trolling the [12:26] internet? [12:28] >> No, because this is facts. I'm saying [12:31] the people who think this is the [12:32] craziest thing ever and that this is [12:34] normal. This is a normal market [12:36] environment [12:37] >> in some ways. [12:38] >> Through the prism of milk toast, if you [12:41] are a snapshot investor, which I don't [12:43] know, I happen to look at a screen [12:44] during the day. I'm crazy like that. [12:47] Then yes, this is a normal market year. [12:50] >> If you look just at the averages of the [12:51] economy and the markets, this is a [12:53] normal year. [12:53] >> Yeah. If you if you if you uh fell [12:56] asleep in January, you know, Chris keeps [12:59] texting me pictures of his vacation. I'm [13:02] not Instagram. Why does he do this? I [13:06] feel like I feel like I'm being a kagon [13:07] and I love him and I'm happy that he's [13:09] happy, but I don't do this to him. [13:12] This is my partner, Chris. He treats me [13:14] and Josh like where his personal [13:15] Instagram? [13:17] Well, [13:17] >> remember back in the day that you people [13:19] you'd get back from vacation and you do [13:21] like the slideshow for people of all [13:22] your pictures and no one cared then [13:24] either. [13:25] >> You're right. Um, all right. Great story [13:28] in the Wall Street Journal. [13:29] >> Anyway, uh, normal year. [13:33] >> Okay, you don't believe me? It's pretty [13:35] normal year. We We had a 9% correction. [13:37] >> I know where you're I know where you're [13:38] coming from, but this is a very exciting [13:40] year. When I hear normal, I think [13:43] boring. I think average, standard, [13:45] typical. Uh, it doesn't feel like that [13:47] to me, but I hear what I hear where [13:48] you're coming from. [13:49] >> All right. Everyday investors are over [13:51] the Mag Seven and into new AI darlings. [13:54] This is your whole thing about money [13:55] going to where it is treated best. [13:58] This is interesting. So, they show net [14:00] flows by individual investors this month [14:01] and a ton of retail money went into [14:03] SpaceX. A lot. And I guess it's all [14:07] gotten slaughtered [14:09] at this point. [14:10] So, do you think most of this sale has [14:12] been people being like, "Okay, I was [14:14] banking on a huge pop." It didn't really [14:16] happen, but they're showing these names [14:18] and I don't know, half of these names [14:19] I've never heard of. And I and it's [14:23] still some mag seven, but it's it's not [14:25] the names that you'd expect to see. [14:26] >> What is And [14:29] DAS? [14:30] >> I don't know. Someone's going to tell us [14:32] in the comments that we're idiots [14:33] because we don't know all the stocks. [14:34] >> Yeah. [14:34] >> Uh it's interesting though. We talked [14:36] about buying the the dip. Oracle down [14:38] 60% has seen a huge inflow of retail [14:40] investors trying to like trying to catch [14:42] that falling knife. Okay, I think they [14:44] put these types of stories in here just [14:46] for me. Davis Cantrell, a college [14:48] student based near Atlanta, has been [14:49] investing for roughly 2 years and [14:51] closely following the biggest AI players [14:53] over that period. Listen, the [14:55] 19-year-old recently trimmed his [14:56] Microsoft holdings. I'm looking for [14:58] aggressive, more high-risisk growth [14:59] stocks, he said. I just don't see [15:01] Microsoft and Nvidia fitting into that [15:02] category anymore. [15:03] >> Neither do I. I totally agree with him. [15:07] Yeah, this guy's got it figured out at [15:09] 19. Yeah, [15:09] >> I didn't know what the stock market was [15:11] at 19 years old. I barely I I really [15:13] didn't. [15:14] >> Um [15:15] >> I just I think I think it's hilarious [15:16] that they asked a 19-year-old what he [15:19] thinks of this market. [15:21] >> And I think it's awesome that we read [15:22] that quote and we're like, "Hey, credit [15:23] to Davis." [15:25] >> It sounds like this was AI. I don't [15:26] know. [15:27] >> Davis, uh no, that's a real guy. [15:30] >> All right, Citadel. I just want to say [15:32] the the $300 million into SpaceX. [15:35] I'm going to guess that half of that [15:36] money is out. Or maybe that's a lot. [15:37] Let's say a third of the money has sold. [15:39] >> I it it had to be fast money. [15:41] >> Yeah. So, right. Yeah. [15:44] >> It is interesting though. This makes [15:46] sense. Citadel Securities had another [15:48] report. Uh they said, "Has retail [15:50] started selling equities?" No. The [15:52] retail remains the strongest structural [15:54] buyer of US equities. [15:55] >> Unbelievable. [15:56] >> We have not seen a single net sell day [15:57] on our retail cash equities platform in [15:59] July. Second strongest month for retail [16:02] buying since January 2020. the strongest [16:04] July in our data set. So people are [16:05] still going in. [16:07] >> I love that this is still happening. [16:10] >> That retail that the everyday investor [16:12] is still buying the dip, still making [16:14] money. [16:15] >> And I hear buckle up bucker buckle but [16:18] buckle up buttercup [ __ ] in the back [16:20] of my head. Just wait. Yeah, okay, fine. [16:22] Just wait. But you've been saying that [16:23] for a long time. Matter of fact, the [16:24] buckle buckle up buttercup. Was that an [16:26] email to us or quote or a story? I can't [16:28] remember. That was four years ago. How [16:30] long have these uh just mean-spirited [16:33] kermagins been mocking retail, [16:36] >> right? Just [16:37] >> five years, 10 years, [16:39] just just wait, they say as they sit in [16:41] cash while uh every day everyday no [16:43] nothing investors get rich. [16:45] >> This is interesting though. They show [16:46] the leveraged ETF assets under [16:48] management and it shows the total and if [16:51] you show they show semiconductors. [16:54] So the total is 198 billion. [16:57] Semiconductors are already one4 one [17:00] quarter of that which is absolutely [17:02] insane because they were basically [17:04] nothing before. So that the growth was [17:06] just so semis is 53 billion tech x semis [17:09] is 76 billion the other ones are 70. So [17:11] this these leverage ETFs it's all [17:13] technology. [17:16] That's pretty insane how quickly this [17:18] new category can form, [17:21] right? It's like building a brand new [17:22] town in a week or something. I did a [17:24] talking wealth episode that's coming out [17:26] next week I believe with James Ciphford [17:29] our friend at Bloomberg. Have you ever [17:31] heard of a company called Corgi [17:35] >> ish? [17:36] >> It's a new people mention it. [17:37] >> It's a new ETF company. [17:39] >> Another one that that is like put [17:41] bringing they're acquiring all the new [17:42] ETFs, right? [17:43] >> No, they're they're filing for hundreds. [17:46] They're just spraying and praying. So, [17:48] they're bringing like a VC style [17:50] playbook to the ETF land, [17:52] >> which is super interesting. [17:54] >> ETFs are [17:58] ETFs are having a moment. [18:00] >> The number of launches is is insane. Um, [18:03] but so we've been we've been talking [18:04] about this a lot. $200 billion when you [18:07] amplify that for the amount of actual [18:08] exposure, it's about half a trillion. [18:10] And that's why you're seeing these wild [18:12] girrations in these uh memory names. [18:15] >> Yeah. when you get so your whole thing [18:17] about IBM being kind of like oh that [18:19] doesn't happen very often that's going [18:20] to happen way more in the future now [18:22] because of these single stock ETFs and [18:24] leverage ETFs [18:26] fair [18:27] >> probably [18:28] >> all right more of a blood bath I can't [18:30] believe that Nike lost its moat so Nike [18:33] is down 75% from the highs I think it's [18:34] at the same price it was at 2014 [18:37] and I'm my my like number one rule of [18:40] thumb for stock picking never invest in [18:43] fads like Pelaton was a fad I I sniff [18:46] that one out pretty like every every [18:48] exercise workout thing is a fad. When's [18:52] the last time you used your Pelaton? 5 [18:54] years ago. [18:55] >> Four years ago. [18:56] >> No, no, no. Uh three years ago. [18:58] >> Okay. I can't believe mine I bought it [19:00] in April of 2020. It's still working. I [19:02] used it last night. Still going strong. [19:04] I'm still [19:05] >> I did do I did do a Pelaton exercise [19:07] class 5 weeks ago. Not to break. [19:09] >> Okay. Good job. But it seemed like Nike [19:12] looks like a lot of these other fads. [19:14] So, Lululemon is down 80%. Under Armour [19:16] is down 84%. Gap is down 62%. It's [19:19] funny. Gap still never recovered its [19:22] price from the dot bubble. [19:23] >> And it never will come back few times. I [19:25] I think I think Nike might be toast. And [19:27] when I say toast, Nike is still [19:31] um my number one brand and there's not [19:33] even anything close. Like whenever I buy [19:35] any sports attire, I I don't buy Adidas. [19:37] I don't I mean I buy, but whatever. [19:39] >> It is for me too. Nike is still my [19:40] number one brand. That maybe that's why [19:41] I'm so shocked by this. It's It seems [19:43] like it's done, [19:44] >> but [19:45] >> based on the stock market, [19:46] >> but [19:48] um I mean the numbers suck. [19:52] >> Like the numbers are not good. Uh [19:55] >> you know, I'm a big gaps get filled guy [19:57] and there was a big juicy gap up at 52 [19:59] that I think probably will get filled, [20:01] but I don't know. Is so Nike's at $43. [20:03] Is the stock ever going to trade at $90 [20:05] ever again? I don't know. I don't think [20:08] so. I don't I don't think that in two or [20:10] three years from now we're going to be [20:12] talking about an amazing [20:15] >> Put the stock price aside. I don't think [20:17] we're going to be talking about how Nike [20:18] regained its mojo. [20:21] >> There there are all these brands from [20:22] our youth that just don't really exist [20:24] anymore. MTV was a huge brand we grew up [20:26] with. Sports Illustrated, [20:27] >> the biggest it feels like Nike is going [20:30] to be put in that dust bin for and it's [20:32] I can't believe it. I really This really [20:34] does shock me. [20:35] >> Well, does it's not going away. Nike [20:37] will be Nike will be around for the rest [20:38] of eternity. But [20:40] >> but the stock market is telling and [20:41] maybe this is like the buy signal of a [20:43] lifetime, but it's it seems like it's [20:44] like, okay, this company is they're not [20:46] what they were used to and it's not not [20:48] going to be again. [20:48] >> The fundamentals of Nike's business [20:50] sucks. It's not doing well, [20:52] >> right? Yeah, they kind of blew it. All [20:55] right, this is kind of cool. Someone [20:57] sent us this uh Zuk Data on Twitter. I [21:00] think he must be an AI guy. Oh, he works [21:03] at data analyst at Black Works. Uh, he [21:05] says, "Are you hearing the word bubble [21:06] everywhere these days? I counted every [21:08] mention of bubble across hundreds of [21:10] episodes from two of my favorite [21:11] investing podcasts. Can you spot the [21:12] trend?" So, he pulled up animal spirits [21:15] and uh, the compounded friends and [21:17] looked at how often that how often we [21:19] say the word bubble and he did some [21:22] graphs in here and there was not much [21:25] mentioned at all 2022 to 2025ish. [21:29] And now to start this year, massive. [21:32] He's doing an 8week rolling mean. I [21:34] wonder how he did this. Um, showing that [21:37] the bubble talk for this show has [21:41] skyrocketed this year. [21:42] >> But you know what? Credit to us. We are [21:44] a reflection of the market commentary [21:47] that's floating around. [21:49] We are for the most we're pushing back [21:52] on the narrative. [21:53] >> Yeah, we're a concurrent indicator [21:54] though. We're not like a leading [21:55] indicator, [21:57] >> right? We're talking about what's going [21:58] what everyone else is talking about. [21:59] >> We talk about what's happening. But I [22:00] think I think it is interesting and [22:01] notable. And I want to I want to clarify [22:03] one one thing about this. When I'm [22:06] saying my opinion is that this is not a [22:09] stock market bubble [22:11] in general, right? Like I don't think [22:13] the S&P 500 is going to fall 70%. [22:16] I can only talk about the stock market. [22:19] I have no idea what's actually happening [22:22] with the supply chain bottlenecks [22:24] and uh there's no compute. Like how what [22:28] what do I know about lithography and [22:32] this and that? I know I know nothing. I [22:34] know as much as you do. Nothing. [22:35] >> Yeah. But the thing is even the people [22:37] who do know that stuff, they're not good [22:39] at predicting what's going to happen in [22:40] the market either. [22:41] >> Well, that's true. I'm just saying all [22:43] I'm just saying to the audience like I [22:45] don't I I know our audience is not [22:47] counting on us to tell them that Micron [22:49] is overestimating demand. Like we we [22:51] can't do that. [22:52] >> But I don't see a bubble in the stock [22:53] market. And if people say, "Well, um, [22:57] uh, the earnings aren't sustainable, and [22:59] that's where the bubble is." [23:01] Hey, dude, the market agrees. The market [23:04] is saying the earnings aren't [23:06] sustainable. You think this is like a a [23:07] great insight, [23:08] >> right? That's why these that's why these [23:09] companies are trading like 12 times [23:10] forward earnings. [23:11] >> So, this chart from Peter Callahan at [23:13] Goldman Charter, the forward PE multiple [23:16] gap between semis and the S&P 500 is at [23:19] the lowest levels of this AI era. So the [23:22] market agrees. It is not contrarian to [23:25] say these earnings aren't sustainable. [23:27] It's not that's not uh going out on a [23:29] limb. Literally that is consensus, [23:31] >> right? So if the market was was valuing [23:33] these things at 50 times forward [23:34] earnings, you' go, okay, this is crazy. [23:36] They're they think these earnings are [23:38] going to continue or continue to grow or [23:39] whatever, but then that's not what the [23:40] market is saying, [23:41] >> right? So uh Duality Research has this [23:44] great chart that we've shared before. [23:45] It's the distribution of forward PE [23:46] ratios. So he shows the percentage of [23:48] S&P 500 companies as well as the [23:51] percentage of the overall market cap [23:53] that trade in various buckets. So for [23:55] example, Alex says that more than 300 [23:57] names, 61% [24:00] or 40% of the total market cap trade for [24:04] a forward P that's under 20 times. [24:08] So, this is the if you've been a if [24:10] you've been a portfolio manager who has [24:13] railed against overpriced tech stocks [24:15] for years, this better be your year. [24:18] >> This is like this is when you pound the [24:20] table on the stock pickers market. [24:21] >> I would hope so. [24:23] >> Right. Because I'm sure there are people [24:24] who have said for years to their [24:26] clients, listen, we can't invest in [24:28] this. Everyone's invested into this [24:29] overconentration, overvaluation, all [24:31] this stuff. This has to be your year. [24:33] Has to. [24:35] He has he also shows a forward P break [24:37] broken broken down by sectors and just [24:39] look at this basically everything is [24:40] going down into the right for the most [24:42] part everything is compressing [24:45] with the exception of I don't know [24:48] industrials are hanging high I suppose [24:49] and real estate but everything for the [24:51] most part forward Ps are coming in this [24:55] charts [24:55] >> this is like the opposite of what [24:56] happens in a bubble [24:57] >> these charts make it if you just showed [24:59] me these charts and didn't tell me what [25:01] was going on in the market I just six [25:03] months ago say oh the market's rolling [25:04] Yeah, [25:05] >> not the market is up double digits this [25:07] year. I'd say, "Oh, the market's [25:08] probably down 12%." [25:09] >> And this is happening with the backdrop [25:11] of all-time high earnings and margins [25:14] and acceleration. Like, this is not a [25:17] bubble. Stop it. It might turn into one. [25:22] That's not what this is. [25:26] Yeah, I I tend to agree that it [25:32] it the the hard thing to square is [25:33] there's bubble-l like behavior in places [25:35] like South Korea and retail investors, [25:37] but that [25:38] >> that will that's all that's never going [25:40] away. [25:41] >> I think that I think that's the new [25:42] normal. [25:43] >> If we have a fiveyear bare market [25:45] coinciding with a recession where people [25:47] just lose it all, [25:50] >> yeah, they'll stop speculating. But [25:53] absent that, [25:54] >> if we have a financial crisis that like [25:56] the stock market falls 40%. The Reddit [25:58] crowd is going to be shorting stocks. [26:01] >> Maybe [26:02] >> you don't think that's going to happen [26:03] or do you think they're just going to [26:04] keep piling in and like they're going to [26:05] go where the momentum is? [26:07] >> I think [26:07] >> you also I don't want to say what I was [26:09] about to say. Keep going. [26:12] >> All right, let's move on from the bubble [26:14] talk. We can't say it enough. I'm gonna [26:16] say it like five more times just to up [26:17] our ranking on this guy's data. Bubble, [26:19] bubble, bubble, bubble. Um, all right. I [26:22] I was thinking about this in relation to [26:23] my normal economic environment and I I [26:25] know you think I'm trolling. I'm just [26:27] I'm just putting out with the data set. [26:29] Why don't we have recessions anymore? [26:32] It feels like now a lot of people I put [26:35] this question out there and I looked at [26:36] the the National Bureau of Economic [26:38] Research has it the data going back to [26:40] 1857. So looked at all these 20-year [26:42] blocks of how many recessions did we [26:43] have and pretty much for a hundred years [26:45] we averaged four to five recessions [26:47] every 20 years. And since the 70s, early [26:51] 80s, that has completely it's flipped. [26:55] The recessions are shorter in months and [26:57] we have they're they're fewer in [26:59] magnitude. We don't have recessions [27:02] anymore. Now, some people say, well, the [27:04] reason we have recessions this decade is [27:06] because fiscal deficits and government [27:09] spending and monetary policy. And I [27:11] would say if that stuff stopped us from [27:14] having recessions anymore, it's worth [27:16] it. [27:18] And I know that's obviously not the only [27:19] reason that we don't have recessions [27:20] anymore. You couldn't you couldn't [27:22] possibly say no that has no impact. Of [27:24] course it does. Policy makers have [27:26] figured out how to manage the economy [27:28] better. And that's a wonderful thing. We [27:30] don't have recessions anymore as much as [27:32] we used to. [27:33] >> You know how uh Bill Simmons will [27:36] sometimes say how does like uh I don't [27:39] know how many MVPs LeBron has, but let's [27:40] just say how does LeBron only have three [27:41] MVPs, right? [27:43] >> And it's like well zoom in. Let's let's [27:46] actually look at it year by year and say [27:48] like which year was he robbed and then [27:52] let's assess it that way. So to answer [27:54] your question, I want to do something [27:55] similar. [27:56] >> Oh, 2022 for sure. That should have been [27:58] a recession. Should have been [28:00] >> totally should have been a recession. [28:01] >> But so so zoom in [28:04] the 2010 postGFC decade. Obviously, we [28:09] were coming out of the worst recession [28:11] since the Great Depression, right? So, [28:17] consumers, balance sheets, governments, [28:20] corporations, everybody was healing and [28:22] it probably took 3 to 5 years after that [28:25] at least. [28:25] >> Yeah. But 2011, everyone and their [28:27] brother said double dip recession. [28:29] Europe, the European debt crisis, this [28:32] is going to drag us into another [28:33] recession. Like that everyone was saying [28:34] that 2011 that was Yeah. But we were to [28:37] me like that was still post GFC that [28:39] gets lumped in with post GFC that was [28:40] not that far removed. There was [28:41] >> Yeah, you're right. That would be like [28:42] 1937 after the Great Depression kind of [28:44] thing, [28:44] >> right? Same thing. And then [28:48] the um mobile cloud hyperscaler [28:54] mag uh uh what was Scott Galloway's [28:57] book? The the four horsemen. Like the [28:59] tech giants dragged us out. And when I [29:02] say us, I mean the stock market and [29:05] making people rich with it. The tech [29:08] giants dragged us out of that. [29:10] >> Yeah. Well, I think technology is [29:11] definitely one of the reasons that we [29:12] don't have as many recessions anymore. [29:15] >> The economy is more efficient than it [29:16] used to be. [29:16] >> The the technology stocks have turned [29:21] have turned the United States of America [29:23] into the stock market and the stock [29:25] market fuels everything. So then we had [29:28] a slowdown, pandemic, obviously fiscal [29:31] stimulus that stopped the recession, [29:34] 2022, inflation, interest rates. We [29:37] genuinely would have had a recession if [29:40] it if it were not for AI. If Chad GBT [29:44] did not come onto the scene, [29:46] >> I don't believe that. [29:47] >> I 100% believe that [29:48] >> that saved the stock market, but there [29:49] wasn't enough spending then to stop a [29:51] recession. No way. [29:52] >> The stock market save the stock market [29:54] saved the economy. I 100% believe that. [29:56] >> No, it was really the wealth effect. [29:58] People had locked in low interest rates. [30:00] They repaired their balance sheets. [30:01] That's why we didn't have a recession. [30:02] There was not enough spending on Chad [30:04] GBT to cause a non-recession then. No [30:06] way. [30:06] >> That's that's a huge part of it. But the [30:08] stock market rebounding because the Chad [30:10] GBT caused the stock market to rebound. [30:12] >> If there was no rebound in the stock [30:13] market, we would be in a way different [30:15] place today than we were in 2020. [30:18] >> Here's the point. It's always something [30:20] now. And a lot of it is policy. Like I [30:22] think we've just the one thing the [30:24] economy is bigger and more mature than [30:25] it was. Like we were emerging market [30:26] back in the 19th century. So of course [30:28] there was more booms and busts. We were [30:30] more of an industrial economy. So it was [30:32] like plant and equipment and [30:34] depreciation and right like that [30:37] inventory and all this stuff. And now [30:38] it's a service- based economy. So that's [30:40] that's a big part of it too. We just we [30:42] we're more diversified. We're more [30:43] dynamic. But policy makers and some [30:46] people hate this. Some people want the [30:49] doomers want a recession. [30:51] >> I don't even want to give those people [30:52] any oxygen. When you say some people, [30:53] it's like yeah, it's a few pundits and [30:55] like less than 1% of the population [30:58] wants everything to blow up. These are [31:00] morons that don't deserve our air time. [31:02] >> I kind of thought we got rid of these [31:04] people, but so I got tagged on this [31:06] tweet a million times. So this guy on [31:08] Twitter says, "If we divide the S&P 500 [31:10] by the Fed's balance, the line is [31:12] basically flat since 2008." [31:14] >> I do too. So many people said, "Hey, can [31:16] you please address this?" And someone [31:17] said, "Hey, this this seems like a blog [31:19] post to me. What this guy what this guy [31:20] is saying seems true." And I can't [31:21] believe people still believe this. I [31:23] just thought I'd address it really [31:24] quick. [31:24] >> Fine. Tweet. [31:28] >> The guy stopped the chart in 2024. And [31:30] if you if you go forward from 2024, the [31:32] the correlation goes away. So the Fed [31:36] the Fed's balance sheet has actually [31:38] contracted since 2024. [31:40] >> Stop. Stop. So the Fed's balance sheet [31:42] has literally contracted since 2024. [31:45] 2023 it contracted too and the stock [31:47] market is booming. I don't I don't I [31:49] think people forget that the Fed [31:50] literally tried to put us in a recession [31:52] in 2022 by taking from 0 to 5%. [31:55] >> Still obsessed with the Fed's balance [31:56] sheet [31:58] and for why the stock market isn't where [32:00] you think it should be. You're an angry [32:02] person and things are not going well and [32:05] I'm sorry. [32:05] >> Yes, [32:06] >> I don't want right except for So here's [32:08] another reason why things remain strong. [32:09] This is from Torson Slack. Unemployment [32:11] has been below the Fed's 4.5% neuro [32:14] estimate for a record tying period. 57 [32:16] months in a row, the unemployment rate [32:18] has been under 5%. And if you take away [32:21] that COVID period, which was kind of [32:24] this fake thing because people lost [32:26] their jobs, yes, but they were being [32:27] paid sometimes more from unemployment [32:29] insurance, like we've had below 5% [32:33] unemployment for almost a decade [32:36] essentially, right? Take away the COVID [32:38] period, which kind of doesn't count. [32:40] That's one of the reasons things have [32:41] remained so strong. [32:42] >> Let me ask you this. [32:43] >> People have jobs and they're going to [32:45] spend if they have a job. [32:46] >> Over the next 30 years, will this trend [32:48] remain in place of fewer recessions? [32:51] >> Yes. We're looking at like and they're [32:53] not going to be economic I mean, sure, [32:55] there's going to be a credit cycle [32:56] eventually, but it's going to be more [32:58] exogenous shocks. It's not going to be [33:01] like [33:02] >> we're not saying no recessions. [33:03] Obviously, there will be recessions. The [33:05] business cycle exists. [33:06] >> Uh immutable force of nature. Um, but [33:10] >> no, but but if you're using the playbook [33:12] from the previous [33:14] >> 80 years, you're gonna be wrong in the [33:16] future. You just are. It's a totally [33:18] different environment now. [33:21] >> Um, all right. More QE assets swap. Get [33:24] get out of here. Uh, [33:25] >> all right. Uh, let's talk about [33:27] technology world. Okay, this is from the [33:29] Washington Post. A bunch of people were [33:30] posting this on social media. I thought [33:31] it was interesting. I it has to be very [33:33] weird to work in the technology industry [33:35] right now because you're seeing certain [33:36] people get like not just life-changing [33:40] amounts of money, but like certain [33:42] individuals are getting like by a sports [33:44] team amounts of money. [33:46] It's like it's insane. And other people [33:49] are every day going into work going, "Oh [33:51] my gosh, when am I going to get because [33:52] the tech industry is not going to [33:54] they're going to be the first ones. [33:55] They're the first line of def they're [33:57] the first line of defense like right [33:58] they're in the what do they call it in [34:00] in like Braveheart? like the people the [34:02] first line, you know, like that. Those [34:04] guys are probably going to get killed. [34:05] They're going to get rolled over by that [34:06] big log thing that rolls really fast, [34:08] you know, and all the arrows. The tech [34:11] CEOs are not going to have any like [34:13] sympathy for their employees. They're if [34:14] they can replace their job with AI, [34:17] they're going to. So, it has to be a [34:19] very weird place to work. Like, you [34:20] could get a life-changing amount of [34:21] money or you could have a job tomorrow. [34:23] So, the Washington Post did this thing. [34:24] I don't have I don't have uh [34:27] I have very few people in my life that [34:30] work in this world. [34:32] >> Yeah. I'm just saying. So they they [34:33] interviewed a bunch of these people. It [34:34] has to be. So they said at tech [34:37] companies, leaders obsessed with winning [34:38] the AI race have tasked their work [34:39] forces of coders, lawyers, and HR [34:41] professionals with becoming the front [34:42] line of the transformation. They're [34:43] being measured by how quickly they can [34:44] automate their own jobs while watching [34:45] their colleagues get pushed out in [34:47] success successive waves of layoffs. Uh [34:50] so they said 800,000 tech workers been [34:51] laid off since 2022. Now, again, a lot [34:53] of that is overhiring, whatever. So, [34:56] they they posted this one thing about [34:57] there's this 31-year-old tech startup [34:59] worker in San Francisco. Didn't want to [35:00] say her name. She said that her um [35:03] engineering manager husband told her a [35:04] few months ago that he needed to focus [35:06] all his energy on becoming AI native and [35:08] requested that she take on almost all [35:09] parenting responsibilities for the [35:11] couple's preschool age daughter. She [35:13] complied. and she talks about how this [35:14] is like surreal and it's weird and and [35:16] they have a combined income of like a [35:17] half a million dollars. So, they're [35:19] doing pretty good, but they're saying [35:20] they can't get a house. And it's funny [35:22] to me that a lot of people on the [35:25] internet were up in arms about this [35:26] like, "Oh, this guy said he's not, you [35:27] know, he's going to focus all his energy [35:28] on his job." Pre990s, [35:31] this was just life. [35:34] I'm sorry, but are you kidding me? [35:39] Dystopia? [35:41] We're talking about a 31-year-old couple [35:44] with a 2-year-old where one of the [35:48] spouses is working hard. [35:52] >> I I [35:53] >> Oh my god. life. [35:54] >> This is a sign of progress in many ways [35:56] though that that this is the way that [35:57] people think now cuz again [35:59] >> she described her experience as surreal. [36:05] >> He better get some uh shares out of this [36:06] or something though from OpenAI. But [36:09] also, I think what if this guy is really [36:11] secretly taking naps under his desk cuz [36:13] he's tired from having a toddler? [36:15] >> I'm throwing that out there. [36:16] >> Can I say one thing? [36:18] >> Are we getting got is this like [36:20] manufactured by the internet? Is this a [36:22] three-hour interview that was put [36:25] together in a way that the author [36:29] editors knew it would go viral? I'm [36:31] pretty sure that's what happened. [36:32] >> That's part of it. [36:33] >> No, that's the whole thing. [36:36] >> That's the whole thing. There's no way [36:37] that this is real, that this person is [36:39] despondent. I I would hope, and maybe [36:42] I'm maybe I'm naive and kidding myself. [36:45] I hope that this person read this [36:46] article and thought this is not what I [36:50] said. I really hope that's what's [36:52] happening here because I don't want to [36:53] live in a world where a 31-year-old [36:55] making half a million dollars with a [36:56] 2-year-old is despondent because her [36:59] husband has to work hard. [37:00] >> I just Yeah, you're right. Again, the [37:02] Mad Men era, the even like the era that [37:04] our parents grew up in, like this the [37:07] one parent working a lot, not being [37:08] around was just normal. That's why they [37:11] called like they had there's a whole [37:12] latch key generation. That was a whole [37:14] thing. Like your parents are working a [37:16] lot. Some parents are working multiple [37:17] jobs. You come home and you let yourself [37:19] in and you watch TV and make yourself a [37:20] TV dinner or something. [37:22] That that was just life before. Maybe a [37:24] sign of progress. Again, I I just think [37:26] if you live in the Bay Area or you you [37:29] are a tech worker, your life is very [37:31] weird right now. It has to be. [37:33] >> Yes. [37:35] >> It has to be a very weird place to work [37:37] and live. [37:38] >> Yes. Um [37:41] chart from A16Z. Share of US household [37:43] with paid AI subscriptions. We've made [37:46] this point a bunch. [37:47] >> It's hilariously low. [37:49] >> We're not the ones that like thought of [37:50] it, but it's it's at zero. It's 2%. I [37:54] mean, it's, you know, it's up it's up [37:55] from zero. So, it's up a lot. [37:58] >> So, households be this number this [38:01] number is going to be 10% 20% 30%. I [38:03] don't know where it stops. [38:04] >> Isn't it just going to be like most [38:06] people will have a paid license through [38:08] their employer and they're the [38:11] individuals will mostly use the free [38:12] service [38:15] >> unless they unless they really make the [38:16] free one so bad that you have to pay to [38:18] get like Don't you think most people are [38:20] never going to pay? [38:22] >> I don't know. I I don't I don't I have [38:23] no idea what people how people are going [38:25] to use AI. I I I don't know. [38:27] >> Well, it'll be a Netflix bundle. You get [38:28] Netflix, Hulu, and Open A. [38:32] >> But when we're like the thesis that I'm [38:34] using in my brain, which I could be way [38:36] off. I have no idea. Um [38:40] when we're talking about like will the [38:43] will the demand continue to be there in [38:45] 27 and 28? Like I think I think people [38:47] are being so shortsighted. [38:50] >> There's a massive runway. You're right. [38:52] >> We're just starting and I think the [38:55] stock market breaks our brains a little [38:57] bit [38:58] >> because we saw the the news last week [38:59] about this new moonshot AI company in [39:02] China, another open- source model that [39:05] further amplified or exacerbated the the [39:07] the memory stock selloff. Oh, it's [39:08] cheap. I think we're just every time [39:10] this happens a stock market, we just [39:11] lose sight of the bigger picture, which [39:13] is that this is just starting. [39:16] >> I think so. We got a good email about [39:18] this. Some guy wrote us a really long [39:19] email saying he's he's on the front line [39:20] of this and I said last week the AI [39:22] doomers are wrong to this point. [39:25] Obviously I don't know what the future [39:26] holds. He says I think we have at least [39:27] another 12 to 18 months of jobs netting [39:29] out to something not ugly. I fear [39:31] however once all these governance [39:32] process and integration steps get [39:33] commoditized we'll see some pain which [39:35] basically means like get over the [39:37] hurdles get through the red tape. I [39:39] don't subscribe to the idea that AI will [39:40] create tons of new jobs we never thought [39:42] of because we'll just point even better [39:44] AI and robotics and 3D printing at those [39:46] two. I do think the same technology will [39:48] invent different offsets and offer a [39:49] better quality of life in the long run. [39:51] Uh I I still subscribe to the idea that [39:54] like just no one knows how this is going [39:55] to work out like like right now there is [39:58] no disruption like widescale disruption. [40:01] >> Well, I'm glad you said that because [40:03] last week you were pretty emphatic like [40:04] the doomers are wrong. It's not we're [40:06] not seeing the data and it's just way [40:08] too early. [40:09] >> It is. But I I think the doomers will [40:11] always be wrong. I think that the the [40:12] tech leaders that say like 50% of all [40:16] entry- level white collar jobs, like [40:17] come on. I just I don't believe that. [40:18] >> I understand. We will we will we will [40:21] continue to draw conclusions that are [40:23] way too early. [40:24] >> Yes. [40:24] >> You and I over the next couple months [40:26] and years. But like this is going to [40:28] take years to play out. [40:30] >> Yes. I I still think my favorite take on [40:33] this was the guy who said like AI is [40:36] going to keep us on the same trajectory [40:37] we've been on. I I still kind of think [40:39] that's probably the baseline I'm [40:40] thinking of. would love it. Um, all [40:42] right. Uh, this made me happy. [40:46] StubHub right in the face. I shared my [40:49] story years and years ago. Um, several [40:52] stories about how upset I was with [40:54] StubHub shenanigans where I allegedly [40:57] listed my same set of tickets seven [40:59] times. They charged me thousands of [41:00] dollars because I couldn't deliver the [41:02] tickets. Like, um, just a garbage [41:05] organization. And it turns out that [41:11] um here's a headline. Let's see. CBC ran [41:15] a story. Um [41:18] StubHub's marketplace for fans is run by [41:20] a mass scalper. SEC filings reveal CEO [41:23] Eric Baker runs a side company that [41:26] resells millions in tickets on StubHub. [41:30] So this guy's basically running a hedge [41:31] fund providing like short-term financing [41:33] and and cornering the marketplace. An [41:35] estimated 70 to 80% of all tickets on [41:37] global resale sites are controlled by [41:39] mass scalpers uh according to a [41:42] >> so wait is this this is it will this guy [41:44] say no I'm like citadel I'm providing [41:45] the liquidity here is that what he would [41:47] is that his defense would be [41:48] >> I don't know I don't know I don't know [41:50] if they [41:51] >> it's al isn't it also the thing that [41:52] these like these these tickets go on [41:54] sale and they're pic they're picked up [41:55] by the bots and the like it's all it all [41:57] does seem very it doesn't seem very [42:00] efficient the way they do things [42:01] obviously [42:02] >> yeah fans [42:03] >> who do you who would you use instead of [42:04] a subup now SeatGeek or some other I [42:06] know there's a million of them. [42:07] >> Uh Tickpick. [42:09] >> Okay. [42:10] >> I think they're the cleanest of the [42:12] bunch as far as as far as I could tell. [42:14] Um this is unbelievable. The NFL [42:16] suspended Cardinals personnel executive [42:18] Ryan Gold after he placed a $25 wager, [42:21] parlaying the result of the team's first [42:22] five draft picks. Uh he was paid out [42:25] $732,000 in winnings. Is this uh the [42:28] boner of the year award? What a dumbass. [42:30] Are you kidding me? [42:32] >> Wow. Okay. You You didn't think you were [42:34] going to get caught? [42:36] >> What a payout. I mean, yes, obvious. [42:40] How one of your friends put the bed in, [42:41] man. How did I wonder how he got caught? [42:43] >> Like, he did he literally put it in [42:45] himself? [42:45] >> I'm assuming it was a friend. I don't [42:47] know. But either way, [42:50] um All right. And other uh truly [42:53] unbelievable news. Here's a headline. [42:59] Trump. Oh, Truth Social to sell Wall [43:02] Street firms the fastest access to [43:05] Trump's post. This is not a political [43:07] podcast. We often don't talk about [43:09] what's going on in in the White House [43:10] cuz I don't care. Um, but this is a [43:13] market story. Uh, so I'm going to talk [43:15] about it. All right. Trump Media and [43:17] Technology Group has unveiled a paid for [43:19] licensed data feed that will give banks [43:22] and trading firms the fastest access to [43:24] posts from influential truth social [43:26] accounts such as President Donald [43:28] Trump's whose posts often move global [43:30] markets the product called Truth API [43:33] will deliver posts from the 10 most [43:35] influential accounts to customers at a [43:37] significantly faster pace than a regular [43:39] push notification on the truth social [43:40] platform. A spokesperson said, "This is [43:43] absolutely mental that the president of [43:45] the United States is selling his tweets [43:48] faster, [43:50] that the market moving tweets. How who [43:53] is happy about this? If you think this [43:55] is good, you're an idiot." [44:00] So I guess all the people that worry [44:02] about the government debt and all these [44:04] other crises, I guess this would be my [44:06] bigger worry is that everything is such [44:08] a financial market now that it it finds [44:10] its way into the our biggest politicians [44:13] and that they say listen [44:14] >> president. [44:20] >> Yeah. The the level of grift is um [44:23] it's not good for faith in our markets [44:26] obviously. [44:26] >> Yeah. No, this is insane behavior. don't [44:28] like it one bit. [44:30] >> No, this is not pushing the country. So, [44:32] you know, I I I re I I think I mentioned [44:34] this before. I didn't finish it, but I [44:35] rewatched the movie Dave about the 1990s [44:38] when when Kevin Klein looks like the [44:40] president, the real president has a [44:41] stroke. They bring him in. Uh it was [44:43] just such a simpler time. And I know [44:44] that politicians were bad back then, [44:46] too, but you you couldn't you literally [44:48] couldn't make a movie like that today [44:49] cuz everyone would go, "What?" Like the [44:52] the funny thing is though, he ran on a [44:54] platform of full employment. And I [44:57] wanted to be like, Dave, if you run on a [44:59] platform of full employment, it's going [45:00] to be high inflation. People are going [45:01] to hate it. Right. Anyway, all right. [45:05] Boomers were supposed to downsize. [45:06] They're buying bigger homes instead. [45:07] Story from the Wall Street Journal. [45:09] Wealthy older Americans are ripping up [45:10] the traditional script for aging. So the [45:12] script is you have to buy a home because [45:14] it's your biggest and best investment. [45:16] And then when you retire, you downsize. [45:18] and then young people will move into [45:19] those homes because boomers don't need [45:21] bigger houses anymore. And they say, [45:22] especially for wealthy people who have a [45:24] lot of money. That's just not the case. [45:26] Uh, eight of the clients for Maril Lynch [45:29] Financial Advisor uh this year retired. [45:31] Every single one of them upsized. Only [45:33] one client has downsized in the past [45:34] year. This guy, this financial advisor [45:36] says the historic retirement play of [45:37] sell your home and buy a smaller one [45:39] just isn't happening. Um, they say the [45:42] new demand for even bigger properties is [45:43] another way boomers dominate the housing [45:45] market. They account for 42% of home [45:46] buyers, the largest share of any [45:47] generation. They're often cash buyers, [45:49] giving them an advantage over younger [45:50] purchase. Now, they they they ask these [45:52] people, "Why are you buying a bigger [45:54] home?" And one woman's like, "Listen, we [45:55] have all these grandchildren and we want [45:56] a bigger home. We" And so, it's like, [45:58] you can't get mad at these people for [45:59] doing what's in their best interest or [46:01] what they want to do, obviously. But [46:03] this seems like a script that was [46:05] something people thought would happen. [46:06] And for a lot of people, it's like, "No, [46:08] I have a lot of wealth. I'm going to [46:08] buy." And they interview this couple [46:10] that went from like a 2500T house to a [46:12] 5,000t house. And again, this is just [46:15] wealthy individuals. Here's something [46:16] from Kyla Scanland. She wrote this in [46:18] the um New York Times. Empty nesters now [46:22] own about 28% of large homes in the US. [46:25] Millennials with children own about 16%. [46:28] So, there is something where the baby [46:30] boomers are holding on to their big [46:31] houses. They're not. They saying, "No, [46:33] no, we like this. We're happy where we [46:35] are." And again, you can't fault them [46:36] for this, but this was a big thing that [46:38] like, no, no, no, this is the next step. [46:39] This is supposed to happen. [46:40] >> Yeah. [46:42] I this is supposed to make me mad. I [46:44] Right. Like this is [46:45] >> obviously does make some people mad. [46:47] >> Yeah. I think listen this is not an [46:49] awesome situation, [46:51] but who are you getting mad at? Like I [46:55] think these [46:55] >> people acting in their own [46:56] self-interest. Like they're [46:57] >> Yeah. [46:59] >> Well, [46:59] >> they want bigger houses for their to [47:01] have their families over and [47:04] Yeah. This is uh [47:06] >> this is what it I made the point last [47:08] week that the middle class rising out of [47:10] the World War II is an economic anomaly. [47:12] It's never happening again. And Kyle put [47:14] in her piece that the post-war [47:15] generation is the only American cohort [47:17] ever handed a starter home ecosystem by [47:19] federal policy where the government [47:20] literally said, "We're going to back all [47:22] the loans. We're going to help the [47:23] builders. We're going to build the [47:24] suburbs. We're going to build houses [47:25] that Americans can afford and we're [47:27] going to give them low mortgages." And [47:29] you know, it's the only time the federal [47:30] government has actually said like, [47:31] "We're we're doing this." and they the [47:33] only reason they could do it is because [47:34] there was so much goodwill coming out of [47:36] the war [47:37] >> that they had to do it. Like you [47:38] couldn't have that type of federal [47:39] program today. No one would agree to it [47:41] even though obviously it seems like it [47:43] would make sense for young people. Um so [47:46] my question is [47:48] and Allison Trager had a piece about how [47:51] like the stock market for younger people [47:53] is starting to take over as like housing [47:55] as your biggest investment because [47:57] housing just doesn't keep up with the [47:59] stock market. [48:00] because of this. What if just this new [48:03] idea takes hold for young for enough [48:05] young people that okay fine the stock [48:08] we've been talking about this the stock [48:09] market is just the thing it's not the [48:10] house anymore [48:12] uh pure research says one in four adults [48:14] younger than 40 say buying a home is a [48:15] good investment one in four older [48:17] generations it's way higher I don't [48:19] think we've thought through what if this [48:21] is the new script for people like the [48:22] new narrative [48:23] >> I don't believe this [48:25] people need houses [48:28] to live [48:30] >> I know but what if enough young people [48:31] say I can't af it doesn't make sense for [48:33] me to spend 55% of my budget on a home [48:37] when I could rent and spend 35% and put [48:40] the rest in the stock market. [48:41] >> Well, they have two options. Why don't [48:43] actually I think they have one option in [48:45] this case. Move. [48:47] >> And I hate that sounds very callous [48:49] because [48:50] >> but a lot of people don't want to do [48:51] that. That's not happening. [48:53] >> Um the other option is what is the other [48:56] option? you if you like there's no a lot [48:59] of suburbs don't have rental homes [49:02] >> and if you are having a family you can't [49:05] live [49:06] >> in a 650 foot apartment [49:09] >> and the funny thing is so someone sent [49:11] us this story um [49:12] >> now hold on hold on one other thing here [49:16] a lot of the population obviously not [49:18] all but a lot of the population is [49:20] getting help from their parents like [49:22] that is that is what's happening when [49:25] people [49:25] >> mad at the baby boomers like People with [49:27] the baby boomers with money are in a lot [49:28] of instances helping their kids. You're [49:30] right. Down paying [49:31] >> and a lot and a lot of baby boomers a [49:33] lot of baby boomers have a lot of money. [49:35] And it sucks for people who don't have a [49:38] parent with money obviously, [49:40] >> right? Okay. I was I was born into a [49:42] family where my parents aren't rich. [49:43] What do I do now? [49:44] >> Yeah, that sucks. [49:46] >> Yeah. But to your point about moving, so [49:49] someone sent us this story. The top 20 [49:52] metros with the largest share of [49:53] millennial homeowners. Number one, Grand [49:54] Rapids, Michigan at nearly 70%. We've [49:57] had a lot of people. We have a lot of [49:59] friends. It used to be like if you if [50:01] you lived in West Michigan, it's because [50:02] you grew up in West Michigan. We have a [50:04] lot of friends now with young kids who [50:06] just moved here from other states and [50:08] we're kind of like, what what's your tie [50:10] to West Michigan? Nothing. We just moved [50:11] here for jobs. We moved here because it [50:13] was a good place to raise a family. So, [50:14] there are people who've just and it it's [50:17] it's a very affordable place compared to [50:19] the coasts. Obviously, housing is a [50:21] little more expensive, but I think [50:22] you're right that unfortunately might [50:24] have to be the case. But I I still think [50:26] I think you're poo pooing this idea of [50:28] the stock market overtaking the housing [50:30] market in terms of like this is your [50:32] biggest investment. [50:33] >> No, I don't think we've thought through [50:34] what happens if that is [50:36] >> takes young people too. [50:38] >> I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is [50:40] I don't think people are going to say to [50:42] their spouses, to each other, we're not [50:44] going to buy a house because we want to [50:47] invest in the stock market. I think home [50:49] ownership has become obviously [50:50] unaffordable and young people have been [50:52] crowded out and therefore have been [50:54] putting their money into the stock [50:55] market. That's obviously what's been [50:56] happening. But people as they age and [50:59] have families need more space. [51:02] >> Yeah. But I I do think it could just be [51:03] the house comes later, stocks earlier, [51:06] house later. [51:06] >> That is what that that is what's [51:07] happening. [51:08] >> Yeah. Okay. Um so every time, [51:09] >> by the way, also this this is this is [51:11] like a borderline national emergency for [51:13] people that are impacted by this. And [51:14] it's not like 10,000. [51:16] >> Yes. But the reason it's not a national [51:17] emergency is because the people who own [51:20] homes have gotten fabulously wealthy [51:22] from it. And the home ownership rate is [51:24] 65% in this country. So it's not a [51:26] national emergency because it's it's a [51:27] minority of people unfortunately, right? [51:29] >> And I feel for them. Every time [51:31] something's happened to your house and [51:32] you tell someone about it, of course, [51:33] the first thing they say is the joy of [51:34] home ownership. I've had many joys of [51:36] home ownership in the last month. So [51:37] this is the people who think that house [51:39] is like always a great investment. This [51:41] is just in the last month for my house. [51:44] Uh garage door wouldn't open. And we had [51:46] to get a whole new set of wheels and [51:48] tracks. And in our h our home we bought [51:51] brand new. We built the house when my [51:53] kids were born in the same month. We my [51:56] wife had twins and the next month we [51:57] moved into a new house. I don't know how [51:59] we did it. Uh so our house is 9 years [52:01] old. So the great thing about having a [52:03] new house is like there's the upkeep and [52:04] maintenance right away is nothing. [52:06] That's that's a wonderful thing about [52:08] having a new house. Like there's nothing [52:09] like oh no this went out but now stuff [52:10] is starting to go out. The garage doors [52:12] went out. Uh we had moles in the garden [52:14] bed. They had all they make these little [52:15] tracks, you know, the moles, little [52:17] jerks. Had to have some guy come. I [52:19] said, "How do how do you how do you kill [52:21] them? How do you get rid of them?" He [52:22] said, "We stuff carbonoxide down the [52:23] hole." Oh, wow. Anyway, um our house is [52:27] white, so we had to have a whole house [52:29] washed, right? They come spray this [52:31] stuff and then they wash the house. Uh [52:34] the light fixture in my house, you know, [52:35] I have a a farmhouse, whatever, modern [52:37] farmhouse. They have those lights that [52:38] kind of hang over like this, you know? [52:40] They look great. I love them. But my [52:42] kids play basketball and the balls are [52:44] constantly hitting these lights. So the [52:45] light is like hanging like this now and [52:47] new light fixtures. Um dryer went out, [52:51] washer went out. Had to get a new washer [52:53] and dryer. Okay. And while they did it, [52:55] hey, why don't we come clean the dryer [52:56] vents, too? This is all in the last [52:57] month for my house. By the way, got a [53:00] new washer and dryer last week. And they [53:02] got it installed yesterday. It was very [53:03] fast. [53:05] I have no more sticker shock for prices [53:06] that are too high. Like, oh my gosh, I [53:08] can't believe how high that price is. My [53:09] new sticker shock is when something is [53:11] actually not as high as I thought it [53:12] would be. [53:13] >> And the cost of a washer and dryer. [53:15] >> We bought it. [53:16] >> We bought Well, we bought a new one, new [53:19] set for our house on the lake four years [53:21] ago. And the price hasn't changed in [53:22] four years for And I think last when we [53:25] bought maybe it was a supply shock [53:26] thing, but I couldn't believe that the [53:28] prices weren't higher than they are. [53:30] >> How much was the washer dryer [53:32] >> for for both the set? They're each [53:34] $1,000, I guess, a piece. 2,000 for the [53:36] total. [53:37] >> Not bad. That's what we paid four years [53:39] ago. I couldn't believe it. I thought it [53:40] would be way higher. Anyway, the joys of [53:43] home ownership. [53:45] All right, let's talk about Netflix. [53:47] Jake, our friend at Economic, who used [53:49] to actually blog at Economic. Don't do [53:50] it anymore. This is almost hard to [53:51] believe. Disney spent $129 billion [53:53] acquiring Marvel, Star Wars, Pixar, [53:55] ESPN, and Fox. 182 billion in today's [53:58] dollars. Throw in all their legacy [54:00] assets, and the entire company's market [54:02] cap is $169 billion. Man, [54:05] >> if they could do a Doc Brown Delorean [54:08] back in time, would they not do Disney [54:10] Plus if they could, Knowing what they [54:11] know now, would they not do Disney Plus? [54:13] >> Oh, yeah. I think they do a lot of [54:14] things differently. But yes, but [54:16] >> we we we said this over we said this at [54:18] the time that [54:20] streaming is a really bad business [54:21] model. All these companies were losing [54:23] hundreds of millions of dollars. [54:24] Peacock, Paramount, Disney, uh HBO [54:28] chasing Netflix. Netflix was a coyote [54:31] that ran over the cliff [54:33] and then ran back and everybody and now [54:35] it seems like Netflix ran over their own [54:37] cliff and hit the ground as well. [54:38] >> Netflix and Disney are both in a 50% [54:40] draw down from the highs right now. And [54:42] Netflix is obviously they're the obvious [54:44] winner of streaming. They're the best [54:46] technology platform. They don't have the [54:48] best [54:50] stuff for sure. [54:51] >> They won. [54:51] >> But they won and they're still down 50. [54:53] And the thing is I think a lot of people [54:55] assume like okay fine they don't get the [54:56] Warner Brothers deal. I think that'll [54:58] help the stock. It hasn't. It hasn't [55:00] really changed it. And is it is this [55:04] just are people just realizing yes, this [55:05] is just a crappy business? It's kind of [55:08] hard to believe. [55:09] >> So [55:11] Netflix's operating income is up into [55:13] the right. In 2022, Disney had $12 [55:17] billion and Netflix was six. So Disney [55:19] was 2x. Netflix is about to pass [55:22] Disney's operating income, which is wild [55:24] because they don't have the parks [55:26] >> and the parks are are wildly profitable. [55:28] streaming. Streaming is not a bad [55:30] business for Netflix. So Netflix is [55:32] growing at 12 to 13%. Now their growth [55:35] is slowing down. Their their margins are [55:38] 30%. So their margins look nothing like [55:40] these media companies. But the problem [55:42] is for Netflix and I own the stock. It's [55:43] it's not a small position for me and I [55:45] bought more of it. The problem is that [55:47] Netflix is still in the content business [55:49] and it's still a hamster wheel business [55:51] and their their daily average views is [55:54] not really growing anymore. I mean, it's [55:55] growing one and a half, two percent. So, [55:57] it's really it's just really hard. [55:58] >> So, people are saying like, "Yeah, it's [55:59] it's it's not a it's not the growth [56:01] story it once was." [56:02] >> Uh I I gotta be honest. I dipped I [56:05] dipped a Michael Batnik big toe in [56:07] Netflix as well, even though I keep uh [56:09] >> so my my average cost is like 90 bucks. [56:11] The stock is 67. I've said this many [56:13] times. It's true. I'm I'm I've been [56:16] really good at taking losses fast. [56:20] Probably to a fault. In fact, not [56:22] probably way definitely to a fault. I [56:24] don't have a lot of like double- digit [56:25] losses. double like uh even 10% losses [56:28] um which cuts both ways. I'm really bad [56:30] at holding on to stocks, right? [56:32] >> But the history of Netflix would tell [56:33] you this is so I looked at [56:37] >> I I don't I don't buy that though. So [56:39] anyway, Netflix is is a stock that I'm [56:40] down 30% or 27%. But I don't buy that [56:43] history says anything. History says [56:44] nothing. History says that it has [56:46] declined and come back. [56:48] >> So this would So yes, so since it went [56:50] public, it's had a 60% draw down, 75%, [56:53] 56, 82, 76, and now 50. So, it's had [56:55] these massive, massive draw downs and it [56:57] still [56:58] >> tells you nothing going forward. [57:00] >> But this is what makes stock picking so [57:02] hard because you look at that and you [57:03] go, "Oh man, every one of those times I [57:05] should have bought and then this time [57:06] you go, yeah, but now this time is [57:08] different because it's actually a media [57:10] company and the growth is slowing. It's [57:12] not a growth play like it was before." [57:14] This is what makes it hard. [57:15] >> Correct. So right now Netflix is trading [57:18] at a market multiple which is kind of [57:20] hard to believe because it is a premium [57:23] brand still growing with awesome [57:26] margins. So if you look at the financial [57:27] profile it doesn't look anything like [57:29] >> and remember [57:29] >> traditional media. [57:30] >> The reason people the reason these other [57:32] companies wanted to get into streaming [57:33] because they said we want the same PE [57:35] Netflix has [57:36] >> correct [57:37] >> but it went the other way and said [57:38] Netflix is now coming down to them. [57:40] >> Yeah. Um anyway, uh I am as a as a [57:44] somebody with a vested interest, but [57:45] even if I didn't, I'm just very curious [57:47] to see how the market values Netflix on [57:50] a go forward basis. Um because right [57:51] now, obviously to say it's pessimistic [57:53] is an understatement. I thought this is [57:54] very interesting. We've been talking [57:56] about the season 1 to season 2 drop off [57:59] and I thought Ted Sarandos made an [58:00] excellent point. So they were they spoke [58:02] about this on the call. Um he said we [58:06] are not seeing any material change in [58:08] our second viewing in our second season [58:10] viewing compared to season one. Our [58:13] second seasons are performing well [58:14] within our bands of expectation. Very [58:16] often we see drop off from season one to [58:18] season two. It's very common in the [58:20] industry. It's even more so with us [58:22] because we launch our shows so big. Our [58:26] global reach, our discovery mechanism [58:27] releasing all at once. This enables us [58:29] to find a very large audience early. Our [58:32] shows tend to start really big while [58:34] most other places their shows start [58:36] pretty small and occasionally grow from [58:38] there. I think that's very valid. Think [58:43] about White Lotus season 1. Like nobody [58:46] I mean obviously it's a brand new show. [58:47] It took a while to discover it. That [58:49] makes sense. [58:49] >> And Succession as well. Like it takes a [58:52] while for these names to find traction. [58:54] Yellowstone didn't hit it big until like [58:56] season 3 I don't think. [58:57] >> And that didn't really happen because of [58:58] the pandemic, right? So I thought as I'm [59:01] reading I'm like I [ __ ] excuse but I [59:03] was no I think it's I think it's valid. [59:05] Um all right let's talk about the [59:06] Odyssey. [59:07] >> I think he's he's the reason that you [59:08] also have kind of faith I I have faith [59:10] in him as an as a leader. [59:12] >> Yeah [59:13] >> right. [59:14] >> Yeah I do. I do. I do. Um I think that [59:17] and by the way this is an example where [59:18] like I'm not staring at the screen [59:20] saying like the market is wrong. Why are [59:21] you selling you idiots? I totally [59:23] understand the story and what's [59:24] happening. I totally understand it. I I [59:26] don't think the like so I'm not pounding [59:27] the table that Netflix will all of a [59:29] sudden like get rated higher, but I [59:30] think that [59:31] >> based out based out of all those [59:32] companies I mentioned at the start of [59:34] this show like where would you buy blood [59:37] in the streets? Netflix is the one to me [59:39] that makes the most sense. [59:40] >> Netflix is the only company that I [59:41] understand right so like as an [59:43] investment I'm going to hang around. I [59:46] couldn't tell you the first thing about [59:48] Intel or SpaceX. Like are there trades [59:51] in there? like we're doing both first [59:54] level thinking and second level [59:55] thinking. [59:56] >> Boom. All right. [59:58] >> Two and a half times thinking. [59:59] >> I'm uh I'm really upset. I saw it last [60:01] night. I'm really annoyed that I didn't [60:03] see it in in the in IMAX, but it sold [60:06] out through August. [60:08] >> It doesn't matter in New York City. [60:10] >> Does it really matter? [60:10] >> Yeah. Yes. [60:11] >> Come on. The people would like you have [60:12] to see it in IMAX because you can see [60:14] the Come on. It's a movie. [60:16] >> You have such a you have you have you [60:17] have weak I'm trying to be nice. You [60:19] have you have a bad attitude here. [60:22] >> I think that the IMX people the IMX [60:24] people need to settle I mean you're [60:25] wearing an IMX hat, but the IMX people [60:27] need to settle down just a little bit. [60:28] Like fine, make more IMX theaters then. [60:30] >> IMAX is my biggest position. [60:33] >> Okay. [60:33] >> What do you mean make more? It's [60:34] expensive. Hold on. So there there was a [60:36] sidebyside video of [60:39] >> We used to watch movies on a tube TV. [60:41] Come on. I get it's better, but like [60:43] can't be that much better. [60:47] >> All right. Um, let's just move on. So, [60:49] uh, The Odyssey did $124 million [60:53] domestic. Um, defying this from Variety. [60:57] Defying expectations set up the Rita [60:59] Spectacle for a long, long journey in [61:00] theaters. The ticket sales are notable [61:02] as Nolan [61:02] >> Wait, did it really defy expectations? I [61:04] thought the expectations for this were [61:05] massive. [61:07] No. These ticket sales are notable as [61:09] Nolan's biggest debut since 2012's The [61:12] Dark Knight Rises, as well as the third [61:14] largest opening of the year following [61:16] Toy Story and Super Mario. They're also [61:19] impressive, not just because The Odyssey [61:20] is a three-hour long movie, but because [61:23] it's rated R, which limits who can buy [61:25] tickets. So, look at this domestic box [61:27] office openings for movies directed by [61:28] Christopher Nolan. [61:30] biggest since Dark Knight Rises, which [61:32] so in between there we've got [61:34] Interstellar, Dunk Kirk, Ten, and [61:35] Oppenheimer. [61:36] >> He really is the He really is the guy [61:37] right now, isn't he? He's like He's the [61:40] >> significantly significantly bigger than [61:42] Oppenheimer. So, this is from IMAX. [61:45] Second biggest domestic weekend ever. [61:47] Um, [61:48] >> it still blows my mind that Oppenheimer [61:50] was as big as it was. [61:53] >> That might be one of his greatest [61:54] accomplishments. [61:56] Christopher Nolans, the [61:58] >> Oppenheimer. If you if you just [61:59] explained that movie, it's unbelievable [62:02] how big it was. [62:04] >> Yeah, it was massive. [62:06] >> It's kind of I mean kind of a boring [62:07] movie in a lot of ways. [62:08] >> He's he's [62:09] >> for regular people. [62:10] >> He's the only one [62:13] >> to use it to to put my Dan Ives hat on. [62:17] >> Um Nolan is the godfather of IMAX. [62:21] He's the only one that can do what he's [62:22] doing right now. So, IMAX had 24% of [62:25] tickets. 45% [62:28] of tickets were were premium format. [62:31] Uh, [62:33] highest pre-sales ever with $50 million. [62:35] All right. So, anyway, needless to say, [62:38] movies are back. Adam Aaron, this [62:41] chairman and CEO of AMC on the call [62:44] said, "In AMC's entire 160 year history, [62:48] there has never been a quarter like this [62:50] one. [62:51] Domestic box office hit 2.99 billion, [62:54] the highest second quarter in seven [62:56] years, fifth best quarter in the past 50 [62:58] years. Obviously, there's an [62:59] inflationary component in here and [63:00] premium tickets. The overall domestic [63:03] box office was up 10.7% year-over-year. [63:06] Six different films had $75 million [63:09] opening weekends or more. And we've [63:11] still got um a bunch on the docket. [63:14] We've got Doomsday, Avengers, we have [63:16] Spider-Man, we have Dune 3, we have [63:18] Resident Evil. [63:20] There's the Tom Cruz movie Digger that I [63:23] think is going to be big. And [63:26] I've made a lot of bad calls. I mean, [63:27] too many to count on this show. Um, but [63:31] this was one of the good ones that I had [63:33] been. So, I was reminded of this by Sean [63:36] Russo, who said, "Michael, you made a [63:38] hell of a call." And I thought I would [63:40] take a second to [63:42] go back in time because Ben, you said, [63:44] "Let's revisit this conversation." So, [63:46] we're going to [63:48] Let's talk the box office. 2025 was only [63:51] 350 million below uh the previous year [63:55] for a kind of underwhelming year. That's [63:58] not so bad. [63:59] >> Really? I thought people said this was [64:00] like a banner year for the for movies. [64:03] >> No, it wasn't. [64:04] >> We had Avatar, we had Zootopia, we had [64:07] >> think so. Sinners and one battle after [64:10] another. Like there was a lot of movies [64:12] people talked about. [64:12] >> No, it was it was it wasn't. But I'm [64:13] telling you it was it was down $350 [64:15] million. [64:16] >> Secular decline. I'm totally selling [64:17] your theory that 2026 will be higher. [64:19] Every year is going to be lower from now [64:21] on. This is it, man. It's over. [64:24] >> 2026 will be higher than 2025. [64:28] >> No way. Sorry, man. It's done. Movies [64:32] are done. I don't think you you've [64:34] realized this yet. They're done. [64:36] Unless they double the ticket prices [64:38] like as a thing it's just it's slow sec [64:41] it's it's not cyclical it's secular [64:44] >> I have more experience than you do on [64:46] this topic [64:47] >> that you're blind you have blinders on [64:50] cuz you go to the all the time [64:51] >> how do I that dude the opposite you have [64:54] no idea because you have never been to [64:56] the movies I go frequently so the [64:58] >> numbers [65:00] you look [65:01] >> people would rather watch a movie at [65:02] home than go to the theater it's true [65:04] it's easy [65:04] >> of course of course that's Of course [65:06] that's true. Um, and that is already [65:09] reflected in the revenue. That's not go [65:11] that's not going to happen in 2026. [65:12] That's been happening, [65:15] right? 2026 is not the year that people [65:17] decide to watch movies at home. That's [65:18] been happening for the last decade. [65:20] >> It's just slowly but surely eating away. [65:22] So, it's going to continue to get worse. [65:25] >> So, I tell you a story about how I took [65:27] Robin to see The Handmaidaid and you're [65:28] like, "What's The Handmaidaid?" By the [65:30] way, The Handmaidaid did $400 million in [65:32] box office. [65:32] >> I still can't believe that. That movie [65:34] was That movie stunk out loud. [65:35] >> All right, I'm I'm almost done patting [65:37] myself on the back. Last one. I'm not an [65:40] idiot in the box office. I understand [65:41] numbers have been down every single [65:42] year. I'm just saying I think 2026 is [65:44] the year that it comes out. One of the [65:45] reasons why it was as bad as it was is [65:47] because some of the movies that were [65:48] supposed to come out in 2025 didn't. The [65:51] Michael Jackson movie, for example, is [65:53] probably going to do decent. That that [65:54] was punted to 2026. [65:56] >> No, though any of those bio biographies [65:58] about musicians now, they're dead money. [66:00] No one cares. I don't think the I think [66:01] the Michael Jackson one is going to make [66:03] money. [66:03] >> All right. Um, if you're hanging your [66:05] hat on Michael Jackson biopic for 2026, [66:08] I'm going to be the winner here on this [66:09] bet. We'll check back in in a year. [66:14] >> Okay, I was wrong about Michael Jackson. [66:15] Can I Can I defend my [66:17] >> Michael Jackson? No, they don't have to [66:18] defend you. Michael Jackson did a [66:20] billion dollars in boxes. By the way, [66:22] honestly, I didn't realize that you were [66:23] going to look bad in this clip. It was [66:24] just about making me look good. But [66:25] someone I'm wrong all the time. This [66:27] just happened to be one of the times [66:28] that I was right. Can I caveat your take [66:29] that movies are back though? Because [66:32] >> why why does it have to be caveed? [66:34] >> Well, because big I got the numbers here [66:35] from my friend Claude. He has a little [66:37] beret on. So, um, if you inflation [66:40] adjust the numbers from 2014 to 2019, [66:43] every year it was essentially $15 [66:45] billion in box office. Okay, inflation [66:47] inflation adjusted this year so far is [66:50] $5.3 billion. So, let's say it stays on [66:53] the same course and we double the first [66:55] 6 months to the last 6 months. So you'd [66:57] be looking at $10 billion in ticket [66:58] sales versus 15 billion pre- pandemic. [67:01] You're still 30% below prepandemic [67:04] levels on an inflation adjusted basis. [67:05] >> Talk about moving the goalposts. I said [67:08] >> I'm saying big movies are back. All [67:10] movies not back. [67:12] >> I said 2026 would be higher than 2025 [67:14] and you're saying it's still below pre [67:15] prepandemic levels. [67:17] >> I mean I of course it is. I'm not saying [67:19] we're all the way back. [67:20] >> Okay. So So we get 5.3 right now. Last [67:22] year it was $9 billion. So, it's it's [67:23] it's on course, but it's basically on [67:25] course to be the same. You're not quite [67:26] there yet. I know Dune and uh the [67:29] Avengers are probably going to help. [67:31] >> Numbers numbers are up 11% [67:33] year-over-year. [67:34] >> Okay, [67:35] >> movies are back. This is great. We We [67:37] celebrate this. [67:38] >> I think it's a little bit of recency, [67:40] but it's not back to I I was saying [67:42] prepandemic levels is never coming back. [67:44] That's true. Okay. I was wrong that it's [67:46] it's going to go down every year. You're [67:47] right. I was wrong about that. [67:50] Um, anyway, [67:51] >> but it's not pre- pandemic numbers are [67:53] that's gone. That's toast. [67:55] >> You can watch I'm you can watch the [67:57] Odyssey at home and have a terrible [67:58] time. [67:59] >> I will be seeing the Odyssey in the [68:00] theater, [68:02] >> but I will see it in a regular theater, [68:03] not the IMAX. I will definitely be [68:05] seeing the Odyssey. My kids are going to [68:06] camp next week. I'm going to see the [68:07] Odyssey. I can't wait. [68:09] >> Okay. Could you please see it on a big [68:10] screen? Just go. Just please see it on a [68:12] big bigger than normal screen. [68:14] >> Our iMac uh seats are not comfortable. I [68:16] would rather be in one of the recliners [68:17] if I'm going to sit in a movie for 3 [68:19] hours. [68:20] >> Um, anyhow, [68:22] congratulations to Christopher Nolan and [68:24] movie fans across the globe. What an [68:27] what an unbelievable movie. [68:29] >> He really is the man. Even I didn't care [68:31] for Tenant at all. And it had in the [68:34] that's his lowest number by far. It just [68:36] didn't work for me, but he still took a [68:37] swing. So, I just I appreciate him as a [68:39] movie maker. Um, okay. Ben, we've been [68:42] talking about GLP1 land a lot on the [68:45] show in the recent weeks. KFC is closing [68:50] 207 US restaurants. I'm sorry. They [68:52] closed 207 restaurants between January [68:55] 2025 and March 31st. That wipes out [68:58] roughly 5%. That's a lot of its domestic [69:00] locations. [69:02] >> I don't know what's going on overseas, [69:04] but they added 2,971 [69:07] internationally. Chick-fil-A's probably [69:10] eating their lunch too, don't you think? [69:13] >> Like that, those kind of things. [69:15] >> Uh, also UTS, OTOS, UTS, this the potato [69:18] chip company. Is it UOTS or UTS? [69:20] >> I have no idea. [69:21] >> Well, they they are going private. The [69:24] stock is down 70% and they were just [69:26] bought for uh nice little premium. So, [69:28] whoever owns or oots the stock, credit [69:30] to you. Nice. [69:31] >> I've never I've never heard of these [69:32] chips. Is this a New York thing? [69:34] >> Maybe maybe it's an East Coast thing. I [69:35] don't know. [69:36] >> Okay, I got a story for I think I told [69:37] him briefly, but I got to tell the whole [69:39] story. So, my daughter plays in a summer [69:40] league basketball tour uh league. So, [69:43] I'm walking into in the parking lot and [69:45] there's two guys in the parking lot, me [69:46] and another dad. And he's probably 100 [69:48] yards away from me and he puts his hand [69:49] in the air and he goes, "There he is." [69:52] Very loudly at me and I'm looking at [69:54] him. [69:54] >> Did you think Did you think it was a [69:55] fan? [69:56] >> I I No, I thought it was another parent. [69:57] And I kind of squinted and I'm like, "I [69:59] don't know this guy." Then then I [70:00] thought, "Maybe he's a fan." And he got [70:02] closer and he realized he didn't know me [70:03] and he goes kind of looked both ways and [70:05] just was like, "Okay." And just kept [70:07] walking. Just nothing. He He thought he [70:09] he thought I was someone else. [70:10] >> He didn't acknowledge it. [70:12] >> No, didn't acknowledge. Just kind of [70:13] looked at me, kind of looked side to [70:15] side, and then kept walking. [70:16] >> That's weird. [70:17] >> Yeah, he he should I was He should have [70:19] said something. All right, let's do [70:21] recommendations. All right, speaking of [70:22] I watched some movies. I went to the [70:24] movie theater this week. I took my kids [70:25] to see Monsters and Minions last week. [70:26] Minions and Monsters. [70:28] Uh, it seems like the people who make [70:30] those movies have to be on some sort of [70:32] drugs the way that they do the plots, [70:34] but they're they're entertaining and [70:35] I've laughed like five times. My kid, my [70:37] daughter Kate loves The Minions. She's [70:39] seen every one of the movies like six [70:41] times. [70:41] >> You should take your you should take [70:42] your kids to Universal Studios. It's [70:44] really good. [70:44] >> I'm sure they would like it. And it was [70:46] only 90 minutes. That was the best part. [70:47] And I barely only dozed off once. Uh, my [70:50] wife and I watched Obsession. And I I [70:52] the only thing I knew about this movie [70:53] is a guy makes a wish that a girl loves [70:57] him. That was in the trailer. That's all [70:58] I knew. And I know this movie got huge, [71:00] supremely high hype. And I And I So my [71:04] expectations were probably like, I got I [71:05] better rain it in cuz the hype is so [71:07] high. [71:08] >> And I I You loved it, right? [71:10] >> I loved it. It was so good. And it's not [71:13] really my I don't know how you even [71:15] describe this movie. A thriller, a [71:17] suspense movie. Not really hor. I don't [71:19] It's hard to even like pigeon hole it, [71:21] but [71:21] >> you know what? You know what? There's [71:22] There's some movies that are so good [71:24] that expectations can't ruin it. like um [71:27] Hail Mary and The Odyssey. There are [71:30] just movies where it's like I'm just [71:31] going to tell you flat out you're going [71:32] to love this movie and I'm not cuz [71:34] sometimes I'm care like I don't want to [71:35] raise the bar too high and then you're [71:36] disappointed. If you don't like this [71:38] movie, you're an idiot. [71:39] >> But here's here's why this is so [71:41] impressive to me. So I know this is like [71:42] a young filmmaker. [71:44] The movie just felt really high quality [71:46] with a bunch of people I've never seen [71:48] act in a movie before. I've never I [71:50] didn't know any There was one guy who [71:52] was Conan O'Brien's right-hand man. He [71:54] was in it for like five minutes. What's [71:55] his name? And [71:56] >> I didn't even know who you're talking [71:56] about. [71:57] >> Uh the dad in the record store, they [71:59] worked. [71:59] >> Oh, [72:00] >> but he was the only actor in the whole [72:02] movie I knew. I knew none of these [72:03] actors and I thought they were I thought [72:04] the two leads were both really really [72:06] good. [72:07] >> I thought she was way better than he [72:08] was, but he was good too. The So the the [72:10] lead actress, she is she has a big role. [72:12] She got a big role as a result of this. [72:13] I'm happy I'm happy you liked it. How [72:15] how great was that movie? [72:17] >> I really my my wife loved it too. It [72:18] just it was just really really well done [72:20] and there was so many things like oh I [72:21] just love the choice and it just it just [72:23] felt like a high quality movie. I can't [72:25] explain it. Like you could make that [72:26] movie be very lowbudget, low quality, [72:28] and be like, h, h, okay, it's kind of [72:30] interesting, but not great. But it was [72:31] just a really good, well done movie. [72:33] >> And that kid, Curry Barker, who directed [72:35] it, I think he's like 23, [72:37] >> right? Yeah. It was just, there was a [72:39] lot of very creative choices. I really [72:41] liked it. Uh, okay. So, you mentioned [72:42] Rewatchables is your favorite podcast. [72:44] They did She's the One last week. They [72:47] actually did Hitch this week, which is [72:48] kind of hilarious because my my daughter [72:49] and I are in a romcom binge and we just [72:50] watched Hitch, which just that's got to [72:53] be one of the funniest romcoms of this [72:54] this century. [72:55] >> I haven't seen either of these. [72:57] >> Okay, I I can So, the Ed Burns I'm a [73:01] huge Ed Burn I thought I was the only Ed [73:02] Burns fan there is. He's made all these [73:04] movies. He makes It's about him and his [73:06] family in Long Island. That's why you [73:07] probably could like it. I don't know [73:08] where in because there's all these [73:10] different places in Long Island, but um [73:13] I I've always really enjoyed his movie. [73:14] They're not great movies. They're just [73:16] they're just well done and they're [73:17] always about family and I so I've always [73:18] really appreciated them. I couldn't I [73:20] didn't realize that there was like an Ed [73:21] Burns fan club out there because I'm a [73:22] member and obviously the watchable is [73:23] too so I enjoyed it. And finally, I have [73:25] a book recommendation. Uh how to get [73:28] rich in American history by Joseph [73:29] Moore. This guy actually sent me a note [73:31] when I my book came out and I I didn't [73:33] know who he was and he was on Meb's [73:35] podcast last week but I listened to it [73:37] and this is the most unique finance book [73:39] I've read in years. [73:40] >> Oh wow. [73:41] >> How to get rich. It's it's a history of [73:43] the financial advice people have gotten [73:44] over the years and it's really [73:47] >> I love that idea. [73:48] >> It's really really well done and it's [73:50] like this stuff that you and his whole [73:51] point at the beginning is like you don't [73:52] realize how good we have it today and [73:54] how he said there's never been a better [73:56] time to get ahead than today. And he [73:59] talked about how like in the 19th [74:00] century and 18th century like preivil [74:03] war days there were so many different [74:05] currencies no one thought about saving [74:07] money. It was you got the money and you [74:09] spent it immediately because that [74:10] currency might be gone in a month. [74:12] >> Yeah. [74:12] >> It's just it's it's really it's a really [74:14] fascinating book and it was he's he's a [74:16] history professor and it was just and he [74:18] talked about how he decided to try every [74:21] to form of getting rich that's ever been [74:22] invented and he talks about how he got [74:24] rich being a broke college professor. [74:26] It's really really good. I love this. [74:28] >> All right. I will I will certainly [74:30] listen. I love this. It's very very cool [74:32] idea. [74:34] >> What do you got? Just the Odyssey. Um, [74:38] so I watched the second half of the [74:41] World Cup finals, Argentina versus [74:44] Spain. [74:44] >> Okay. You picked like the worst game to [74:45] watch. [74:48] >> I had a great time. [74:50] >> Okay. [74:51] >> I thought it was absolutely riveting and [74:55] I feel like a total schmuck because I [74:58] missed the entire thing and it turns out [75:00] >> there so many there were so many good [75:01] games. [75:02] >> It turns out I'm a fan. [75:03] >> Yeah. [75:04] >> I I loved it. I was I was glued to the [75:06] screen. I thought it was I thought it [75:08] was excellent. And the fact that you say [75:09] it was a terrible game. And I know like [75:11] I guess by all accounts it wasn't a [75:13] great wasn't a great game, but uh I [75:16] loved it. Will I watch the next one? I'm [75:19] not sure. But I genuinely felt like an [75:21] idiot. Like I listened to uh uh Simmons [75:25] and Chris Ryan and some other guy, the [75:27] soccer guy, and they were recapping and [75:29] I I really did feel like a schmuck. [75:32] >> It was fun. [75:32] >> I missed the whole thing. [75:33] >> Great sport. I liked it. [75:35] >> One final thing. Um, I was at Fanatics [75:39] Fest last week and I was in line for [75:42] quite a while. I bought a NYX poster and [75:45] had them all sign it. Jayen and OG [75:47] weren't there, so I have to find them, [75:48] track them down at some other point. So, [75:50] I had some time waiting in line, sitting [75:52] down. Anyway, I say that to say that I I [75:55] binge watched uh season two of The [75:56] Agency, [75:58] and I thought season one started out [76:01] awesome and then it petered off for me. [76:02] I didn't really like I thought it would [76:04] I thought it was like the horse meme, [76:05] the horse to donkey meme. So, I was sort [76:08] of iffy on season two and I I watched [76:10] the first two and I thought sort of was [76:11] going to turn it down and then somebody [76:12] told me to pick it back up. So [76:15] fantastic. I thought it was so good. It [76:18] was so much better than season one. I [76:21] thought [76:21] >> this is a very underrated It's funny. [76:23] started season 2 last night and one of [76:25] the very first scenes in the show is [76:27] Michael Fbender, Jeffrey Wright, uh [76:30] Richard Gear, and the guy who plays [76:31] McNoli on the wire all sitting there [76:33] having a drink and a cigar. I'm like, [76:34] "Oh my gosh, look at the firepower in [76:36] that room right now." [76:37] >> Jeffrey Wright is so good in that show. [76:39] The whole cast is great. But [76:40] >> so the thing I like about it is a lot of [76:42] these spy shows, it's like a season, [76:44] this is the whole story, then the next [76:45] season go to a new story, but it's it's [76:46] a continuation of the story from the [76:48] first season. [76:49] >> It was excellent. Truly, truly [76:51] excellent. [76:51] >> I can't wait. I'm one episode in. It's a [76:53] very underrated show. [76:56] >> All right. Uh, that's about it. [76:59] >> Yep. [77:00] >> Okay. Animal Spirits of the [77:02] Compoundnews.com. Personal emails, [77:04] personal responses. Thank you. [77:06] >> I answered a bunch of emails this week. [77:08] I know you don't think I I I uh, you [77:10] know, fulfill my quota, but I did a lot [77:12] of answering emails this week. [77:13] >> Okay. [77:13] >> You shamed me into it. [77:15] >> Thank you for your service. Uh, we'll [77:16] see you next time. [77:19] Heat. [77:25] Heat.