AI Spending Drives US Economy as Hype Disappointment Risks Recession

AI支出驱动美国经济，炒作若落空恐引衰退 美国经济增长依赖人工智能资本支出，若企业落地应用不及高预期，经济扩张恐面临衰退风险。 主持人 Michael Batnick 与 Ben Carlson 剖析了近期的宏观经济趋势，探讨了 AI 资本支出如何支撑美国经济，以及散户日内交易者和赌徒是否在面对难以战胜的数学概率。他们探讨了当前房地产衰退的结束、私募股权丑闻及掠夺性消费类应用，随后展开了对娱乐和流行文化的广泛讨论。在整个对话中，他们分析了住房库存动态、科技股反弹与媒体消费趋势，并分享了各自的影视推荐。 像 Situational Awareness 这样破产的高杠杆基金往往无需承担太多后果，因其亏损的投资者很快又会争相支持同一批创始人未来的新项目。 (19:47) 尽管绝大多数人遭受了净财务亏损，年轻男性群体中依然普遍存在散户日内交易文化。 (25:10) 预测市场的定价与实际胜率吻合得相当好，但下注者仍表现出持续的“冷门偏好”（投机冷门事件）。 (25:10) 用于交易非上市科技股的复杂特殊目的机构（SPV）结构可能会隐匿二级市场交易，从而剥夺早期散户投资者应得的预期回报。 (35:48) 美国日常大麻使用人数首次正式超过日常饮酒人数，反映出社交与休闲习惯的转变。 (39:50)

Ben Carlson and Michael Batnick argue that massive Big Tech capital spending on artificial intelligence and resilient corporate earnings continue to propel a 'teflon' stock market to new highs. However, they caution that individual retail participants face severe financial and psychological pitfalls when confusing long-term equity investing with speculative day trading and gamified platforms. Hyperscaler Capex as the Macro Engine (2:06) Carlson and Batnick observe that the S&P 500 has continuously shrugged off macro risks, logging 26 all-time highs year-to-date. Batnick attributes this momentum primarily to an unprecedented surge in capital expenditures by tech hyperscalers—Amazon, Alphabet, Meta, Oracle, and Microsoft. Rolling three-year forward capex estimates for these firms surged from $500 billion in late 2022 to over $3 trillion, with AI infrastructure spending representing approximately 2.8% of U.S. GDP according to Columbia Business School research. This corporate outlay has anchored corporate profitability, with Bank of America data showing Q2 S&P 500 earnings per share grew 30% year-over-year when excluding non-repeatable investment markups. However, Batnick warns that vertical capex growth cannot scale indefinitely. Both hosts emphasize that because AI investment carries such a large portion of the broader economic expansion, any narrative disappointment or spending contraction in AI represents the most probable catalyst for an eventual recession. Valuation Disconnects and Crash Forecasts (11:49) Beneath benchmark records, market breadth reveals acute divergence. Although the small-cap Russell 2000 gained 22% and the S&P 500 Equal Weight rose 16% year-to-date, only 45% of individual S&P 500 stocks have outperformed the cap-weighted benchmark (+14%), with outperformance concentrated in cyclical energy (86%) and materials (64%) sectors. Globally, the MSCI Emerging Markets Index trades at a record discount of 9.9 times forward earnings compared to 20 times for the S&P 500, despite Taiwan and South Korea representing 46% of the EM index and technology comprising 41%, alongside a 250% earnings growth projection for South Korea in 2026. Addressing perpetual market bears, the hosts dismiss Michael Burry's warning of an imminent '1987-type fall.' They highlight Burry’s history of premature crash warnings, such as tweeting 'Sell' in January 2023 before the market doubled, and calling a passive investing bubble in 2019. While rejecting single-day 22% crash predictions, Carlson notes that modern algorithmic trading and rapid information flow do increase the probability of sudden, sharp 'air pocket' drawdowns of 7% to 12%. Retail Day Trading and Gamified Speculation (25:10) Examining retail trading behavior, the hosts review a survey showing 25% of men aged 18 to 29 claim to trade stocks daily, with two-thirds of those daily traders reporting feelings of failure. Citing research by Michael Mauboussin and Dan Callahan, Batnick notes that cumulative U.S. gambling losses from 1929 to 2025 reached $3.9 trillion nominal ($5.8 trillion inflation-adjusted). Despite 39% of sports bettors claiming profitability, over 95% lose money over time against standard 4.5% house rakes and long-shot bias, with day traders experiencing similar wealth destruction and behavioral loss aversion. Carlson and Batnick contrast the stigma placed on retail options traders against venture-backed hedge funds, noting that the founder of the blown-up Situational Awareness fund received fresh capital commitments within days of massive losses. The hosts link this speculative mindset to unregulated or gamified platforms: opaque Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs) for private SpaceX shares that prematurely liquidated an investor's $17,000 stake for just $45,000 instead of an expected $300,000, and live-auction apps like Whatnot, where gamified bidding led an accountant to lose nearly $1.4 million in four months. Household Wealth Effects and Housing Freezes (43:33) Reviewing domestic consumer balance sheets, Carlson and Batnick dispute the claim that declining labor force participation among workers aged 55 and older indicates economic despair. Citing Bank of America data, they point to a pronounced wealth effect: average 401(k) balances jumped from roughly $100,000 in 2023 to over $160,000, which along with rising home equity has facilitated voluntary early retirements. Concurrently, the U.S. housing market displays a historical anomaly. While frozen transaction activity since Q1 2022 mirrors previous multi-year housing downturns, the Case-Shiller National Home Price Index actually rose nearly 12% over the same timeframe. The hosts attribute this resilience to a structural supply-demand mismatch, as approximately 70 million peak-age millennials compete for scarce inventory while older homeowners remain unwilling to relinquish low-rate mortgages. While aggressive corporate AI investment and broad asset appreciation continue to shield the macro economy from recessionary pressures, the hosts conclude that market participants remain vulnerable when they abandon long-term compounding in favor of daily speculative trading, illiquid pre-IPO structures, or gamified platforms.

Ben Carlson 与 Michael Batnick 在本期节目中指出，美股在科技巨头数万亿美元 AI 基础设施资本支出和强劲盈利支撑下展现出罕见的抗跌韧性，但宏观经济的高度依赖也使其成为未来潜在衰退的最大单点风险；与此同时，日内交易与投机活动在数学概率上面临不可逾越的劣势，普通散户在高频博弈中普遍蒙受财务挫败，长期资产复利才是改善家庭财务状况的根本依托。 科技巨头资本开支驱动宏观与潜在风险 (2:06) 主持人指出，标普500指数自1950年以来已记录约1379次历史新高（占所有交易日的7%），今年年内已录得26次新高，明显超出1990年后的平均节奏。支撑美股持续消化高利率、通胀及地缘冲突等利空的核心力量在于人工智能投资潮。亚马逊、Alphabet、Meta、甲骨文和微软等科技巨头（Hyperscalers）的三年滚动前瞻资本支出预期已从2022年底的5000亿美元激增至逾3万亿美元。哥伦比亚大学学者研究测算，当前 AI 基础设施支出占美国 GDP 的比例已达约2.8%，其相对规模已超越19世纪的铁路扩建浪潮。 企业盈利数据同样打破了衰退预期，美国银行 Savita Subramanian 的数据显示，标普500指数第二季度每股收益在剔除私人股权一次性估值变动后仍录得30%的同比增长。然而，Michael Batnick 提出警示，当前这种垂直向上的资本开支曲线难以永远维系至4万亿或7万亿美元。由于目前 AI 投资几乎承载了整个宏观增长引擎，主持人认为一旦科技巨头削减或放缓资本开支，市场估值将同步承压，AI 预期的落空也被视为触发下一次经济衰退概率最高的诱因（主持人评估概率达80%）。 新兴市场结构性蜕变与深幅估值折价 (11:49) 彭博数据显示，MSCI新兴市场指数在经历回调后前瞻市盈率仅为9.9倍，较标普500指数的20倍出现创纪录的估值折价，尽管该指数年内总回报率已达20%至27%。Ben Carlson 强调，新兴市场指数的底层资产已发生深刻演变：五年前指数以传统银行、原材料和能源行业为主，而当前中国市场占20%、印度占12%，中国台湾与韩国合计权重已达约46%，整体科技板块占比高达41%。台积电、三星和 SK海力士等芯片巨头的崛起，使新兴市场实质上变成了估值仅为美股一半的全球 AI 核心标的。 从跨国盈利预测来看，MSCI全球指数（ACWI）预计2026年盈利增长约25%，而韩国股市同期预期盈利增长率高达250%。主持人指出，市场清醒地认识到250%的井喷式增长不可持续，正是这一非理性预期压低了其估值乘数。与此同时，韩国个人投资者的股市参与率从2010年代的不足10%跃升至28%，但韩国家庭资产中房地产占比依然高达77%，现金占9%，股债仅占3.6%。随着年轻一代重新调整资产结构，全球资本向股票资产的再配置仍具巨大长期潜力。 日内交易的数学困局与机构风险双重标准 (25:10) 彭博一项针对年轻散户的调查显示，18至29岁年轻男性中有25%声称自己每天交易股票，但其中三分之二明确表示感到自己是“失败者”。Michael Mauboussin 与 Dan Callahan 在《市场中的群体智慧》论文中披露，1929年至2025年间美国博彩者累计损失了3.9万亿美元名义资金（通胀调整后达5.8万亿美元）。尽管博彩调查中有39%的受访者声称盈利、28%自称盈亏平衡，但庄家平均约4.5%的抽水（VIG）形成了难以逾越的门槛，导致超过95%的长期博彩者注定亏损，日内交易个股或期权同样因频繁换手和损失厌恶心理导致账户枯竭。 两位主持人进一步对比了资本市场对不同阶层的双重标准：散户在 Robinhood 上动用杠杆亏光数千美元会被斥为无可救药的赌徒；而风投宠儿或高杠杆对冲基金（如近期大幅亏损的 Situational Awareness）烧毁数以亿计的客户资产后，却仍被赞誉为“大胆的冒险家”，爆仓后一周内就能重新吸引红杉资本等机构追加新资金。此外，围绕 SpaceX 盘外股权的嵌套式特殊目的载体（SPV）纠纷使投资者本金遭遇折价清算，以及类似 Whatnot 平台利用实时拍卖诱使个体产生数百万美元债务，均揭示了高频投机和缺乏流动性保护的场外衍生品对普通人的财富侵蚀。 财富效应促成提前退休与房市反常特征 (43:33) 针对美国55岁及以上人群劳动参与率下降的现象，美国银行的研究明确反驳了“经济困境迫使年长者脱离就业”的悲观叙事，指出核心动力源于巨大的资产财富效应。得益于美股长牛和房地产升值，美国员工401(k)养老账户平均余额已从2023年的约10万美元大幅跃升至超过16万美元，使大量老龄劳动者拥有了提前退休的财务底气。主持人认为，只要资产配置没有完全压注于高波动股票，即便遭遇30%级别的常规熊市调整，这批退休人群仍具备充足的安全垫。 在房地产方面，自2022年第一季度启动的“房地产衰退”打破了传统认知。Connor Sen 的分析指出，历史上多轮长达数年的房地产周期通常伴随房价崩跌，但本轮周期中，尽管借贷成本高企导致交易量深度冻结，全美 Case-Shiller 房价指数自2022年初以来却逆势上涨了近12%。其背后的根本症结在于约7000万处于置业黄金期的千禧一代面临不可调和的结构性供应匮乏，叠加老一代房主因锁定超低抵押贷款利率而拒绝售房，令房地产市场陷入了“交易量萎靡与价格坚挺并存”的特殊僵局。 本期节目核心论点表明，美国宏观经济与资本市场的强势主要由科技巨头的 AI 基础设施开支和深层的居民资产财富效应所支撑，但高度集中的科技资本支出也构成了最直接的系统性风险。对于个体投资者而言，频繁的日内博弈在数学概率上基本等同于承担高额抽水的赌博，抵御市场情绪噪声并通过宽基资产享受复利增长，依然是应对不确定性唯一可靠的财富路径。

## Background 本期内容由频道 The Compound 于 2026 年 8 月 12 日发布在 YouTube 平台上，为播客节目《Animal Spirits》的第 477 期。节目由 Michael Batnick 和 Ben Carlson 主持，核心探讨了美股再创新高、AI 成为主导宏观的核心叙事、新兴市场极端估值折价、日内交易与博彩心理、房地产周期以及相关的文化与文娱话题。 ## TL;DR 节目深入剖析了标普 500 指数在科技巨头数万亿美元资本开支驱动下的“特氟龙”韧性，并探讨了当 AI 成为主导宏观与防范衰退核心引擎时的潜在集中度风险。主持人对比了新兴市场蜕变为高集中度 AI 供应链后的历史性估值折价，分析了预测市场与日内交易中散户面临的行为金融学困局，以及 SpaceX 股权转让与直播竞拍中的掠夺性陷阱。此外，他们还讨论了高利率下全美房价顽挺的供需失衡背景，并分享了迪士尼财报、职场趣事与多部影视佳作。 ## Atmosphere & style 整期节目散发着轻松幽默且极具默契的美式金融脱口秀氛围，两位老搭档在严谨的数据图表分析与插科打诨的相互吐槽之间自如切换。从调侃彼此的穿搭走神、生活乌龙，到深刻剖析华尔街冷酷的人脉生态与赌徒心理，对话既有硬核的宏观投资洞见，又充满市井生活的真实质感。长达 80 多分钟的节目如同一场纽约金融圈老友在酒吧或咖啡馆里的畅聊，节奏张弛有度，听感愉悦且信息密度极高。 ## Bulletin - [03:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFZitoZky5M&t=210s) 五大超大规模云服务商（Hyperscalers）未来12个月滚动的3年资本支出预期总额已突破3万亿美元，相较2022年底的5000亿美元呈垂直式暴增，成为支撑美股无视宏观利空的根本动能。 - [11:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFZitoZky5M&t=707s) MSCI新兴市场指数前瞻市盈率仅为9.9倍，相对标普500的20倍出现历史级折价；由于台韩半导体产业链占比极高且科技行业权重达41%，新兴市场本质上已转变为高集中度的AI纯概念标的。 - [05:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFZitoZky5M&t=300s) 美银数据显示美股Q2实际营运利润同比激增30%，但大盘广度明显分化，年初至今仅45%的标普500成分股跑赢指数，主动选股型经理陷入低权重板块轮动的困局。 - [45:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFZitoZky5M&t=2753s) 哥伦比亚大学商学院研究指出，AI基础设施投资占美国GDP比重已达2.8%，其对宏观经济的缓冲作用显著，若无AI资本开支，高利率下的美国经济极可能已滑入衰退。 ## Key takeaways - [00:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFZitoZky5M&t=4s) 自1950年以来标普500指数累计创下约1379次历史新高，创新高交易日占比约7%，且今年已达26次，体现出强烈的顺周期红利聚集特征。 - [01:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFZitoZky5M&t=105s) 市场展现出忽略地缘战争与高利率的“特氟龙”体质，底层核心逻辑在于科技巨头由充裕现金流驱动的AI基础设施开支，而非投机泡沫。 - [05:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFZitoZky5M&t=300s) 巨额AI资本支出不可能无限增长，市场未来的持续性取决于这些前置基础设施能否顺利实现投资回报率（ROI）交接棒。 - [14:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFZitoZky5M&t=871s) 韩国散户股市参与率由不足10%激增至28%，而在其高达77%家庭资产集中于房地产、仅3.6%在股债的背景下，海外居民资产向权益市场迁移具有长期跑道。 - [16:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFZitoZky5M&t=979s) Michael Burry预警1987年式崩盘，尽管精确复刻概率极低，但现代算法交易与信息极速扩散极易引发流动性抽离的单日“气袋（Air Pocket）”闪崩风险。 - [22:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFZitoZky5M&t=1339s) 金融市场对高杠杆爆仓存在双重标准：散户被斥为堕落赌徒且彻底出局，而华尔街与硅谷的年轻操盘手即使亏损巨资仍能凭借顶级人脉获得再注资。 - [29:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFZitoZky5M&t=1748s) 博彩与日内交易多数属于负和游戏，Kalshi预测市场虽然在定价上贴合真实胜率，但散户强烈的“冷门偏好”与过度自信导致95%以上的长期参与者以亏损收场。 - [35:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFZitoZky5M&t=2146s) 针对SpaceX等明星未上市公司的pre-IPO二级股权市场乱象频发，机构通过离岸设立多层SPV套娃结构向散户募资，存在擅自清算变现等严重暴雷隐患。 - [43:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFZitoZky5M&t=2615s) 55岁以上人群劳动参与率下降并非就业恶化，而是股市屡创新高与房产增值产生的财富效应促使婴儿潮一代选择提前退休。 - [45:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFZitoZky5M&t=2753s) AI资本支出既是抵御当前高利率经济下行的缓冲器，其预期落空或开支退潮也将成为引发下一轮经济衰退的最大潜在导火索。 - [57:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFZitoZky5M&t=3470s) 尽管自2022年起美国房地产行业因高利率陷入长期衰退，但受制于37-39岁置业刚需群体庞大与供应严重短缺，Case-Shiller全美房价指数在此期间反而累计上涨近12%。 - [59:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFZitoZky5M&t=3590s) 迪士尼依托《玩具总动员》等顶尖IP与提价后的主题乐园展现出强大的品牌护城河，但流媒体整合割裂等执行痛点导致其股价与品牌价值长期脱节。 ## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFZitoZky5M&t=4s) 赞助商致辞与开场：标普 500 指数的历史新高竞猜 节目由 DWS 旗下的 Xtrackers 赞助播出，介绍了其涵盖人工智能、关键技术、半导体以及绿色能源等前沿领域的创新主题 ETF 阵容。进入正题后，Ben Carlson 给搭档 Michael Batnick 出了一个即兴测验：“自 1950 年以来，标普 500 指数一共创下了多少次历史新高？”Michael 随口猜测是 1468 次，而实际数字大约是 1379 次。Ben 对 Michael 如此接近真实答案感到十分惊讶，甚至怀疑他是不是“随口瞎蒙”出来的，Michael 则得意地表示为自己的直觉感到自豪。 Ben 进一步解释，自 1950 年以来的所有交易日中，创新高的日子大约占了总交易日的 7%。就在上周，美股再次刷新了历史纪录。根据 Exhibit A 的图表统计，今年迄今为止标普 500 指数已经创下了 26 次历史新高，而自 1990 年以来一整年的平均新高次数大约为 21 次。Ben 指出，美股目前的节奏显然已经超前，但这个平均值受到好年景与坏年景的严重拉扯——例如在 2000 年至 2012 年期间，图表上充斥着无数个“0”，几乎没有出现过任何历史新高，因此当市场处于顺境时，投资者必须懂得把握当下的红利。 ### [01:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFZitoZky5M&t=105s) “特氟龙”市场：为什么利空消息全被 AI 叙事击溃？ Ben 提出疑问：在面对各种令人担忧的新闻头条——伊朗战争阴影、汽油价格上涨等宏观利空的情况下，股市依然一路高歌猛进，这让很多人始料未及；难道现在真的是“AI 压倒一切”（AI trumps everything），无论头条扔出什么炸弹，都完全由 AI 决定吗？Michael 斩钉截铁地表示赞同：“Ben，你说得对，AI 是唯一重要的东西。” Michael 回顾了过去几年市场展现出的“特氟龙”（刀枪不入）体质：从百年一遇的新冠疫情到百年一遇的恶性通胀，随后美联储激进加息把利率推高，房地产市场彻底冻结，硅谷银行（Silicon Valley Bank）破产倒闭，以及关税摩擦、双重地缘战争等。两人还调侃道，之前市场曾短暂恐慌过日元套利交易平仓（Yen carry trade unwind，甚至只折腾了一天）、中国恒大集团危机、远程办公引发的商业地产崩盘论，以及私人信贷暴跌风险等，但最终这些都没有掀起大风浪。Michael 认为，除了极具韧性的美国消费者撑起宏观基本面之外，股市能忽略一切杂音的根本引擎，就是 AI 投资浪潮以及科技巨头资本支出（CapEx）的持续指数级扩张。 ### [03:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFZitoZky5M&t=210s) 3 万亿美元资本支出风暴与巨头的长期赌注 Michael 引用了 Hyperscaler Farmer 基于彭博一致预期的滚动图表。该数据显示，包括亚马逊（Amazon）、谷歌（Google）、Meta、甲骨文（Oracle）以及微软（Microsoft）在内的五大超大规模云服务商（Hyperscalers），其未来 12 个月滚动的 3 年资本支出总和已经突破了 3 万亿美元。而在 2022 年底 AI 浪潮爆发之初，这一数字仅为 5000 亿美元左右。如今这条支出曲线几乎呈现 90 度垂直上升。 Ben 指出，过去市场常常指责这些科技巨头目光短浅，只知道把现金流用于股票回购；然而现在，这群全球最庞大的商业帝国却几乎把所有资源全数砸回长期研发与基础设施项目中。尽管这些超大型基础设施目前尚未展现出完全对等的商业回报，而且公众对数据中心的抵触情绪也日益加重，但这些企业巨头敢于倾尽资金押注未来的长期举动，依然是商业史上罕见的奇观。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 科技巨头资本支出激增走势 accDescr: 展示超大规模服务商从2022年至今的资本支出规模激增趋势 subgraph CapExGrowth["五大超大规模云服务商 3 年资本支出总额"] A["2022年12月：约 5000 亿美元"] --> B["AI 浪潮启动与数据中心建设"] B --> C["彭博一致预期：垂直飙升"] C --> D["当前 3 年滚动总和：突破 3 万亿美元"] end ``` ### [05:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFZitoZky5M&t=300s) 繁荣背后的隐忧与惊人的利润增长 Michael 指出这种垂直暴增背后潜藏的必然危险：资本支出不可能永远以这种速度攀升，无法从 3 万亿无止境涨到 4 万亿甚至 7 万亿，它终将触碰上限。本轮周期的优势在于行情由现金流充裕的巨头驱动，而非缺乏盈利基础的投机空壳公司；但也正因为超大规模服务商贡献了整个市场绝大部分的盈利增长动力，一旦它们的开支踩刹车，市场势必会随之剧烈回撤。Ben 探讨了未来是否可能顺利实现“交接棒”（handoff），即这些前置投资转化为切实的投资回报率（ROI），回流到科技巨头的钱袋中。Ben 强调，如果现在下注做空这一趋势，本质上是在赌全球最顶尖的 7 到 10 家科技公司的 CEO 们完全不知道自己在干什么，而考虑到他们过去 15 到 20 年彻底重塑美股的辉煌履历，投资者理应给予他们基本的信任。 随后 Michael 援引了美银（Bank of America）Savita Subramanian 的最新数据：标普 500 指数第二季度每股收益（EPS）正以同比 30% 的惊人速度增长。为了避免误解，两人特别澄清，这一数据已经剔除了亚马逊、Alphabet 持有的 OpenAI、Anthropic 以及 SpaceX 等非上市公司股权估值上调所带来的账面浮盈。如果把这些一次性估值增益算进去，EPS 增速甚至高达 50%。 - **标普 500 指数 Q2 真实营运利润增速**：剔除未上市投资账面增值后，同比增速依然达 30%。 - **历史对比视角**：Ed Yardeni 的图表显示，大盘、中盘、小盘指数的远期营运 EPS 呈现全面右上角突破的垂直形态。Ben 感慨，如果在 2021 年告诉别人，未来在面临 5% 的基准利率和 9% 的峰值通胀下，标普 500 仍能保持每年 16% 的复合年化收益且企业营运利润直冲云霄，当时绝对没有任何人会相信。 - **关于术语的幽默插曲**：谈到指数图表时，Michael 称自己是坚定的“indexes 派”而不是发音偏英式的“indices 派”，Ben 戏称：“如果你带着长岛口音，你肯定只会说 indexes。” ### [09:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFZitoZky5M&t=559s) 市场广度的悖论与选股者的困局 小盘股近期涨势凶猛，罗素 2000 指数按年化计算已上涨了 22%，等权重标普 500 指数上涨了 16%，而标准市值加权标普 500 指数涨幅为 14%。虽然等权重指数略微缩小了与头部科技巨头的差距并保持跑赢态势，但整体市场广度却呈现出极其反常的景象：年初至今，标普 500 指数中仅有 45% 的成分股跑赢了指数本身。从行业细分来看，跑赢的板块分布极不均衡——86% 的能源股、64% 的原材料股、近 60% 的科技股以及 60% 的工业股跑赢了基准。 这种格局让所谓“选股者的牛市”沦为悖论。尽管小盘股和其他非权重板块正在补涨接力，但对于主动型选股经理而言，这依然是极具挑战的一年。现实中除了专注能源领域的基金，极少有投资人会在组合中重仓能源、工业或原材料这些低权重板块。这就导致了一个典型现象：纸面上看起来只要选对股票就能轻松战胜市场，但由于大部分人重仓的股票并未跑赢标普，多数主动型管理人的实际业绩依然落后。 对话中还发生了一段爆笑的插曲：Michael 走神时随口附和数据“大概有一半吧”，立刻被 Ben 抓包吐槽“我刚说了是 45%，图表上蓝线画得清清楚楚”。Michael 赶紧辩解称自己刚刚收到了一个极其重要的短信，稍后会向大家解释。Ben 则严肃表示自己录播客时一律开启勿扰模式，哪怕老婆抱怨“有紧急情况怎么办”，他也坚持“录播客期间没有任何事情能算作紧急情况”。随后两人话锋一转，开始互相打趣当天的着装：Michael 夸赞 Ben 穿三粒扣 Polo 衫英俊，调侃 Ben 前两周还笑话自己解开两颗扣子，顺便追问他到底解开了哪颗；Ben 则反击调侃 Michael 身穿紧绷的街霸春丽（Chun-Li）T 恤，打趣 Instagram 依旧是 Michael 的私人穿搭顾问。 - 罗素 2000 指数小盘股年化上涨 22%。 - 等权重标普 500 指数上涨 16%，市值加权标普 500 指数上涨 14%。 - 标普 500 成分股中仅有 45% 在年初至今跑赢大盘。 - 行业跑赢比例：能源板块 86%、原材料板块 64%、科技板块近 60%、工业板块 60%。 --- ### [11:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFZitoZky5M&t=707s) 历史级折价：新兴市场蜕变为“纯正 AI 概念” 根据彭博社的数据，在 6 月下旬从历史高位回落之后，MSCI 新兴市场指数的前瞻市盈率（Forward P/E）仅为 9.9 倍，而标普 500 指数的前瞻市盈率高达 20 倍。新兴市场股票相对标普 500 的估值折价已经达到了历史极端水平。令人震惊的是，在这一历史性折价的背后，新兴市场过去两年的实际表现一直领先美股：今年新兴市场涨幅约在 20% 到 27% 之间，不仅去年大幅跑赢，今年同样强势。 造成这种局面的根本原因在于新兴市场的底层构成已经彻底被半导体产业链重构。如今，中国台湾与韩国合计已占据整个新兴市场指数约 45% 至 46% 的权重（中国大陆约占 20%，印度占 12%），科技行业占比高达 41%。曾经由银行、能源、原材料和工业主导的“旧经济”新兴市场，如今实质上变成了一个极为集中的 AI 纯概念标的。这就引发了一个值得深思的投资抉择：如果未来 5 年 AI 浪潮延续，投资者究竟是愿意以 10 倍前瞻 PE 买入由台积电（TSMC）、三星（Samsung）和 SK 海力士（SK Hynix）等芯片巨头构成的新兴市场，还是愿意以 20 倍 PE 去买美股的超大规模云服务商（Hyperscalers）和纳斯达克？ 五年前如果有人提出“买新兴市场做纯正科技配置”，会被所有人当成疯子，但今天这已成为切实的配置议题。半导体制造企业估值之所以偏低，很大程度上是因为芯片行业具有强烈的周期性，其盈利被市场视作“半永久性”而非稳定增长。韩国 2026 年的预期盈利增长率高达 250%（相比之下，MSCI 全球指数约在 25%），这种难以长期维持的周期爆发性正是其估值受压制的关键原因。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 新兴市场权重与行业结构演变 accDescr: 展示新兴市场指数由传统资源向AI半导体产业链的转型及高集中度特征 subgraph EM_Weight["MSCI 新兴市场核心权重"] TW_KR["中国台湾 + 韩国 (45-46%)"] CN["中国大陆 (~20%)"] IN["印度 (~12%)"] end subgraph EM_Sector["行业与标的属性"] Tech["科技板块占 41%"] Semis["台积电 / 三星 / SK海力士"] end TW_KR --> Tech Tech --> Semis Semis --> Value["前瞻 PE 仅约 9.9 倍<br/>对标标普 500 的 20 倍 PE"] ``` - MSCI 新兴市场指数前瞻市盈率为 9.9 倍，标普 500 为 20 倍，折价幅度创历史新高。 - 新兴市场科技行业权重达到 41%，台韩两地权重合计达 45%-46%，中国大陆占 20%，印度占 12%。 - 韩国 2026 年预期盈利增长率高达 250%，而全球指数（ACWI）仅为约 25%。 --- ### [14:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFZitoZky5M&t=871s) 韩国散户大军崛起与极端资产配置倾斜 Meb Faber 在 The Idea Farm 中分享了霸菱（Barings）的一项重磅研究，揭示了韩国散户投资者参与股市的爆炸式增长。在整个 2010 年代乃至 2020 年之前，韩国股市的散户参与率一直处于 10% 以下的极低水平，但如今这一比例已经迅速翻倍有余，跃升至 28%。这一现象虽然在节奏上与美国疫情期间散户涌入股市的态势颇为相似，但韩国居民的底层资产负债表却与成熟市场大相径庭。 韩国普通家庭的资产结构呈现出不可思议的单一性：高达 77% 的家庭资产被死死套牢在房地产中，9% 为现金，而配置在股票和债券上的流动性金融资产仅仅占可怜的 3.6%。Ben 指出，国际市场远未意识到海外年轻一代涌入资本市场的资金浪潮有多么庞大。对于韩国、中国台湾乃至更广泛的新兴市场而言，这无异于他们本土的“互联网泡沫时刻”——正如当年美股互联网泡沫推动美国居民股市参与率从 30% 飙升至 60% 一样，这些国家庞大的人口与年轻财富正迎来将房地产配置向权益资产迁移的长期跑道。 - 韩国散户股市参与率由 2010 年代的不足 10% 飙升至目前的 28%。 - 韩国居民家庭资产构成：房地产占 77%，现金占 9%，股票与债券合计仅占 3.6%。 --- ### [16:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFZitoZky5M&t=979s) Michael Burry 的 1987 崩盘论与流动性“气袋” 传奇空头、《大空头》原型 Michael Burry 再次发布了惊悚的唱空言论。CNBC 报道称，Burry 在其 Substack 上表示美股正接近一个重大顶部，很可能会出现类似 1987 年崩盘式的断崖下跌。面对市场上反复出现的“崩盘预警”，Ben 和 Michael 并不想落入“嘲讽 Burry 又猜错了”的常规套路，而是探讨了这种极值行情的形成机理。精准预测单日暴跌 22% 的 1987 年式股灾在现实中几乎是不可能的；当年保罗·都铎·琼斯（Paul Tudor Jones）据传是通过将 1929 年的 K 线走势图与 1987 年行情强行重叠对比做出了神准预测，这种在如今看来常被专业人士耻笑的图表比对把戏，当年恰好撞上了大运。 尽管 Ben 完全不相信市场会按 1987 年的剧本崩盘，但他指出当下市场结构蕴藏着巨大的“气袋（Air Pocket）”闪崩风险。在以算法高频交易和即时信息流动为特征的现代市场中，一旦发生极端黑天鹅事件，由于重定价速度远超以往，出现单日下挫 7%、8%、10% 甚至 12% 的概率反而比过去更高，就像疫情暴发初期美股频繁熔断的经历一样。当本轮行情最终见顶时，调整极有可能是迅猛而剧烈的，其破坏力就在于下跌速度而非具体形态。Michael 则对这种单日极度暴跌持怀疑态度，强调没有重大突发灾难事件的驱动，闪崩不会凭空发生。与此同时，Burry 在文中依然傲慢地宣称：“做空并不适合所有人。我必须做空，但大多数人不应该做空。” - Michael Burry 警告美股接近重大顶部，面临 1987 年式的暴跌风险。 - 1987 年 10 月黑色星期一美股单日跌幅达 22%。 - 市场微观结构与信息光速传播导致流动性抽离造成的“气袋（Air Pocket）”单日暴跌（7% 至 12%）概率显著增加。 ### [18:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFZitoZky5M&t=1134s) 迈克尔·伯里的悲观宿命与对标 LTCM 的市场回撤预警 迈克尔·巴特尼克（Michael Batnick）与本·卡尔森（Ben Carlson）从投资性格切入展开讨论。本自认天生是“半杯水偏满”的乐观主义者，而知名空头迈克尔·伯里（Michael Burry）则是典型的“半杯水偏空”悲观派，看空几乎深植于他的骨髓。本回顾了标普 500 指数的走势，提到 2023 年 1 月伯里曾在社交媒体上极其简短地发了一个推文“Sell”（卖出），结果自该时点以来，标普 500 指数几乎实现翻倍。这再次印证了部分投资者在性格或心理机制上天生不适合做长期的股票多头持有者。本指出，伯里早在 2019 年就声称被动投资存在巨大泡沫且即将破裂，而自己当时专门写过长篇博文反驳这种将指数基金视作泡沫的荒谬论调。即便屡次踏空，名声在外的伯里依然能过得很好。 随后，迈克尔抛出一个耐人寻味的类比：当下由利奥波德·阿申布伦纳（Léopold Aschenbrenner）的“态势感知”（Situational Awareness）引发的对冲基金回撤爆仓事件，是否会成为类似 1998 年长期资本管理公司（LTCM）那样的标志性前奏？1998 年，由顶尖量化与数学奇才运作、靠固定收益套利“捡钢镚”并极度依赖高杠杆的 LTCM 轰然倒闭；彼时标普 500 指数在俄罗斯债务违约与货币危机的冲击下经历了一轮暴跌约 19% 的严厉回调，但那次危机发生后的两年，美股才迎来最终的历史大顶。迈克尔好奇如今这场 AI 领域神童基金的受挫，究竟只是历史的巧合，还是下一轮全面崩解前提前两到三年奏响的序曲。 --- ### [21:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFZitoZky5M&t=1262s) 喜剧桥段“富人与穷人的相似之处”及其金融隐喻 话题转向知名喜剧演员亚当·卡罗拉（Adam Carolla）的经典段子《富人与穷人》（Rich Man, Poor Man）。杰瑞·宋飞（Jerry Seinfeld）曾盛赞这是他听过的前五大喜剧素材之一。卡罗拉在该段子中调侃称，社会两极的极富与极贫人群往往共享许多奇妙的共同点，而夹在中间的中产阶级却完全无法体会： - **户外淋浴**：富人是在泳池边的私人更衣凉亭冲凉，穷人则是直接在院子里拉根花园水管冲洗； - **直呼法官名字**：富人是因为在高尔夫球场上和法官谈笑风生，穷人则是因为五周内被法官连审了五次； - **院子里摆着冰箱**：富人家里配有顶级豪华的户外厨房，穷人家门前草坪上则扔着一台废弃破旧的大家电； - **开绝版汽车品牌**：富人收藏的是早已停产的珍稀定制老爷车，穷人开的则是经营不善倒闭破产的杂牌旧车； - **被警察护送出体育馆**：富人坐着警车开道享受特权护送，穷人则是闹事后被安保与警察当场架出赛场。 这段幽默的社会观察立刻触发了本的“金融大脑”。《华尔街日报》专栏作家斯潘塞·雅各布（Spencer Jakab）曾写过一句令本赞叹不已的妙语：“你大概既没有那么有钱，也没有那么硬的门脉，能让一个 24 岁的毛头小伙把你的积蓄一把火烧光。”这完美对应了富豪资本家与普通赌徒之间的相似与荒谬。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 散户赌徒与机构巨富的高杠杆爆仓路径对比 accDescr: 展现资金体量不同但在高杠杆爆仓行为上极其相似的逻辑闭环 subgraph Retail ["Robinhood 散户"] A["本金 $5,000 加 5 倍杠杆"] --> B["爆仓与追加保证金"] B --> C["被定性为'堕落赌徒'"] C --> D["彻底出局 / 无二次机会"] end subgraph Elite ["科技新贵与机构基金"] E["管理数十亿巨资押注 AI"] --> F["净值雪崩与近乎穿仓"] F --> G["被美化为'敢冒风险的探险家'"] G --> H["资本争抢注资 / 获得二次机会"] end ``` --- ### [22:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFZitoZky5M&t=1339s) 态势感知爆仓后的“资本溺爱”与人脉游戏 本将卡罗拉的富人穷人理论延伸到华尔街投资生态：如果一个散户在 Robinhood 账户里拿 5,000 美元开 5 倍杠杆炒股，最后被强制平仓扫地出门，所有人都会鄙夷地骂他是“无可救药的堕落赌徒”（degenerate）；但如果有基金经理拿着亿万富豪的资金同样激进加杠杆爆仓，公众和业界却会赞美他是“具有魄力的风险承担者”（risk taker）。更不公平的差距在于：普通散户爆仓后万劫不复，连翻身的机会都没有；而华尔街的精英即便把投资人的钱烧成灰烬，依然能轻松获得第二次机会。 据彭博社报道，就在这位 20 多岁的 AI 神童对冲基金刚刚经历近乎爆仓的动荡后仅一周，各路投资者不仅没有问责，反而蜂拥而至挤破门槛，争抢着要给他注入更多资金，尽管他本人声称目前尚不接受新资金。红杉资本（Sequoia）的一位人士甚至公开背书，断言他未来很长一段时间都会是硅谷的核心人物。迈克尔则刻薄地嘲弄道，这位神童或许是金融界的本·西蒙斯（Ben Simmons，指空有极高天赋却始终无法兑现上限的 NBA 球星）。 两人随后剖析了背后的灰色现实：华尔街与硅谷的狂热追捧并非完全出于对其投资能力的信任，很大程度上是对其顶级人脉的押注。该基金经理不仅曾就职于 OpenAI，其妻子更是 Anthropic 首席执行官达里奥·阿莫代伊（Dario Amodei）的幕僚长（Chief of Staff）。对于风险投资人而言，哪怕在他掌管的基金里亏掉几千万，只要能借此搭上 Anthropic 最顶层的人脉关系网，这笔买卖就算划算。 --- ### [25:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFZitoZky5M&t=1513s) 频繁日内交易者的心理溃败与博彩本质 迈克尔引述了彭博社的一则新闻标题：《每日炒股的年轻男性普遍觉得自己是个失败者》（Young men who trade stocks daily feel like failures）。数据显示，在 18 至 29 岁的受访男性中，竟然有四分之一声称自己每天都在做日内股票交易。迈克尔和本对此数据深表怀疑，直言现实中真正每天做交易的比例能有 5% 至 10% 就已经很高了。不过，对于调查中“三分之二的日内交易者自认是人生失败者”的结论，两人一致认同其真实性。 本幽默地指出，这种“失败感”大概率是动态轮转的：任何一个节点，可能正好有三分之一的人因为偶遇好运赚了钱而自我感觉良好，剩下三分之二亏钱的人则沮丧懊悔；过段时间运气逆转，两拨人又调换位置。研究进一步对比了日常股票交易与赌博： - **长期投资 vs 赌场投机**：股票市场本质是长期创造真实财富的正和博弈，但若被当作日内赌场来玩，高频交易的散户必然会被交易摩擦与市场噪音洗劫出局； - **体育博彩**：体育博彩是彻头彻尾的负和游戏（negative-sum game）。迈克尔现身说法，直言参与得越多，亏损就必然越惨重； - **期权交易的诱惑**：年轻人之所以对高杠杆期权交易趋之若鹜，并非认为庄家不存在，而是痴迷于那种非对称的“暴利或归零”的大喜大悲刺激感。 --- ### [27:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFZitoZky5M&t=1643s) 全美博彩业历史亏损数据与群体智慧报告 迈克尔提到自己在推特上看到的一篇讨论，随后向 Claude 询问了人类在赌博中究竟输了多少钱。巧合的是，知名投资研究专家迈克尔·莫布森（Michael Mauboussin）与丹·卡拉汉（Dan Callahan）当天下午便联合发布了重磅研究报告《市场中的群体智慧：预测市场、博彩与股市中的群体行为》（The Wisdom of Crowds in Markets: Crowd Behavior in Prediction, Betting, and Stock Markets）。 该报告统计显示： - 从 1929 年至 2025 年间，美国赌徒累计名义亏损达 **3.9 万亿美元**； - 换算成当前的实际美元价值，这一累计亏损额高达 **5.8 万亿美元**。 本对此庞大数字感到震撼，但迈克尔理性分析指出，若将这 5.8 万亿美元分摊到近百年的时间跨度内，并对比美国历年庞大的 GDP 和个人可支配收入总量，每年的博彩损失大概只占可支配收入的不到 1%，其实质就像是一项长期的娱乐消费支出。 尽管博彩和投机存在巨大的负面效应，迈克尔与本均强调自己依然是坚定的“群体智慧”（Wisdom of the Crowds）信徒。迈克尔直言：“别光用嘴告诉我你心里想什么，或者你觉得别人在想什么；拿真金白银下注（Put some money on the line）。”一旦有了真金白银的利益绑定，市场得出的定价往往远比传统民意调查或出口民调（exit polls）精准得多。他们认为，这类预测市场不仅能更准确地预判政治与社会事件走向，未来甚至有望带来更广泛的经济效益，从而提升全社会资源配置的运行效率。 ### [29:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFZitoZky5M&t=1748s) 预测市场与博彩真相：Kalshi 定价精准与散户的盲目乐观 谈到预测市场与博彩行为，大家必须承认其本质大多就是单纯的赌博，目前市场上约 80% 的资金流动依然集中在体育博彩。然而，Kalshi（预测市场平台）的数据图表却展现出了惊人的有效性：平台上合约的价格与实际获胜概率几乎呈现一比一的精准对应。这说明由交易者真金白银博弈出来的市场赔率极其准确。不过市场也存在明显的“冷门偏好”（long shot bias）——定价 90 美分的确定性结果，其实际胜率往往比预期更高，因为散户大多不愿押注利润微薄的高确定性事件；相反，大家更热衷于以 10 美分或 20 美分博取非对称的高倍赔率，而这也正是大部分资金惨遭亏损的重灾区。 在抽水（VIG / Rake）机制上，常规的拉斯维加斯类博彩抽水基准通常在 4.5% 左右。Michael Batnick 坦言自己的 FanDuel 账户平均每下注 1 美元就会亏损 7 美分，手气好时降到 5 美分，手气差时能亏到 9 美分。针对是否会出现“佣金价格战”导致抽水下降，两人的结论是否定的，因为赌徒们对这种抽水早已心知肚明且欣然接受。最荒谬的现象来自相关问卷调查：39% 的受访投注者坚称自己赢多输少，28% 的人声称自己打平，而现实中 95% 以上的体育博彩者长期来看都是亏损的。Michael 辛辣地吐槽道，一旦扣除这 4% 到 5% 的入场抽水，赌徒在起跑线上就背负了相当于对冲基金“2 and 20”（2% 管理费 + 20% 业绩提成）的极高门槛费，能赢钱纯属天方夜谭。 - Kalshi 平台的合约价格几乎完全贴合实际胜率，印证了市场自发定价的高效性。 - 散户普遍偏好 10~20 美分的低价长尾标的，承受了绝大部分亏损，而 90 美分的高概率事件反而胜率被低估。 - 调查中 67% 的人自认盈利或保本，但行业真实数据显示 95% 以上的长期参与者均以亏损收场。 ### [31:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFZitoZky5M&t=1903s) 日内交易的诱惑与短期暴利幻觉 博彩对绝大多数人来说不过是一项高成本的娱乐活动。Michael 认为，人群中大约 96% 的人是花钱买消遣，他们清楚自己大概率会输钱，但享受下注带来的刺激感；仅有 2% 的人是职业玩家，另外 2% 则是不幸染上赌瘾、摧毁生活的成瘾者。Ben Carlson 补充道，行为金融学中的“损失厌恶”（loss aversion）决定了痛苦的感知强烈程度是快乐的两倍，日内交易也是完全相同的逻辑——交易越频繁，亏损累积越多，心理折磨就越深。 有趣的是，尽管深知各种统计学规律，Ben 还是忍不住调侃自己“又想重出江湖做日内交易了”。他上周在纽约办公室听到研究分析师 Sean 与 Matt（Chart Kid）全天都在热火朝天地争论选股，当时全市场都在坐等某资产跌到 100 美元再买。Ben 凭着凯恩斯选美理论的直觉直接现价进场，三天之内暴涨 20% 后立刻获利了结；更巧的是，他三周前几乎精准抄底了微软（Microsoft），当时微软刚经历了 35% 的大幅回撤，而随后微软单日飙升 15%，短短两周内涨幅逼近 40%，距离历史新高仅一步之遥。面对 Ben 的得意洋洋，Michael 毫不客气地拆台，称 Ben 根本没有赌徒基因，只是运气爆棚，并提醒年轻交易者：短期暴利往往是市场神明向新手收取的“高昂学费”的前奏。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 散户博彩与交易心理分类 accDescr: 展示参与交易与博彩的三大类人群占比及其核心心态 subgraph UserGroup["博彩与日内交易人群画像"] A["96% 娱乐型散户<br/>心甘情愿花钱买刺激<br/>终受损失厌恶折磨"] B["2% 职业投机客<br/>依靠严格纪律与定价优势<br/>长期极度稀缺"] C["2% 病态成瘾者<br/>失控加仓带来财务毁灭"] end ``` ### [34:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFZitoZky5M&t=2076s) 市场的必经学费与极端的稳健投资者 谈及许多初入市场的年轻人沉迷于日内交易，两人感叹这几乎是每个人必经的心理阶段。大家刚进股市时，都会误以为自己发现了财富密码，满脑子都是“老子马上要发财了”，直到被市场反复毒打后才痛苦领悟到交易的艰难。Ben 分享了一个理财顾问的真实例子：有位顾问面对满腔热血、想赚快钱的潜在客户直接拒绝签约，直言对方“还没准备好过枯燥的定投生活”，并劝他“回市场里自己瞎折腾五年，把想赌的瘾全发泄完，到时候再来找我”。 Michael 借此调侃 Ben 简直是投资界的“奇葩个例”——绝大多数人在年轻时都会疯狂炒短线，而 Ben 在 2005 年人生第一次开户买入的资产，居然是一只毫无波澜的目标日期基金（Target Date Fund）。Ben 笑着承认自己的第一笔投资确实是目标日期基金，虽然很久之前就换成了其他配置，但这种天生就甘于枯燥、拒绝追涨杀跌的定力，在狂热的市场中实属罕见。 ### [35:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFZitoZky5M&t=2146s) SpaceX 投资暴雷：SPV 股权的“俄罗斯套娃”骗局 随着未上市公司估值暴涨，二级股权转让市场乱象丛生。话题转向了围绕 SpaceX 展开的 pre-IPO 投资黑幕。由于散户和普通投资者无法直接获得 SpaceX 的一级市场原始股，大量中介机构通过设立 SPV（Special Purpose Vehicle，特殊目的载体）来承接早期员工或既有机构抛售的老股，然后再向外部散户募集资金。这种操作在层层转包下演变成了荒唐的“俄罗斯套娃”（Russian nesting dolls）结构——一个 SPV 嵌套另一个 SPV，底层的投资人甚至根本无法证明自己是否真正拥有标的公司的股票敞口。 《华尔街日报》最近曝光了一起典型的暴雷惨剧。一名散户在 2020 年向此类 SPV 投入了 1.7 万美元，原本指望这笔投资能在 SpaceX 上市时膨胀到 30 万美元，作为子女的大学教育基金。然而，背后的投资机构却在 2024 年擅自以 4.5 万美元将这笔股权强行清算并套现。虽然账面实现了盈利，但与预期的巨额财富相比无异于毁灭性打击。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: SpaceX pre-IPO SPV 套娃欺诈架构 accDescr: 展示从 SpaceX 原始股权到离岸机构、壳公司及底层受害散户的层层嵌套链路 subgraph Underlying["原始标的"] SX["SpaceX 早期原始股 / 老股"] end subgraph OffshoreLayer["海外离岸层"] CT["巴哈马离岸机构<br/>'Capital Truth'"] end subgraph ResaleLayer["中介转售层"] LS["新泽西包装机构<br/>'Late Stage'"] end subgraph RetailInvestors["终端散户"] Victim["受害投资者<br/>（投入 $17,000，以为 IPO 变 $300,000）"] end SX -->|"拆分注入 SPV"| CT CT -->|"二次包装转售利益"| LS LS -->|"向公众募资认购"| Victim LS -.->|"2024 年擅自清算变现 $45,000"| Victim ``` 法庭文件和律师调查揭露，位于巴哈马的一家名为“Capital Truth”的离岸私人投资公司收购了一部分持有 SpaceX 股份的 SPV 份额，随后将其重新打包并转售给了一家位于新泽西的名为“Late Stage”的公司。Michael 讽刺道，一家注册在避税天堂巴哈马、名字偏偏叫“资本真相”（Capital Truth）的离岸公司，加上新泽西的壳公司转手，几乎把所有可疑的危险信号集齐了。然而不知情的普通散户根本无从辨别，在 SpaceX 估值飙升期间，受害者甚至还在不断收到亲友们“你投了太空股票要发大财”的祝贺短信，殊不知早已身陷被机构肆意宰割的骗局。 ### [38:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFZitoZky5M&t=2304s) 华尔街之狼与真实人性的残酷 谈及某些骗局和高调犯罪，迈克尔·巴特尼克（Michael Batnick）和本·卡尔森（Ben Carlson）感叹行骗者在得手后总是忍不住四处吹嘘，甚至专门出去吃大餐庆祝，行径极其恶劣，理应把牢底坐穿。迈克尔提到亚马逊（Amazon）推出了一部关于“真实华尔街之狼”的三集纪录片，拍得非常出色。 本直言自己根本没看，因为他极其厌恶乔丹·贝尔福特（Jordan Belfort）这个人，认为他是一个彻头彻尾的败类（scumbag），甚至不愿给他贡献任何注意力。迈克尔赞同这种感受，指出好莱坞电影《华尔街之狼》虽然并未彻底将他美化成好人，但几乎没有展现他犯下的罪行以及受害者的惨状，让人看后倍感不适。更令人发指的是，贝尔福特至今仍在大谈自己的“救赎故事”与强势回归，毫无悔改之意。片中揭露了一个冰冷的细节：电影中由乔纳·希尔（Jonah Hill）饰演的原型人物（贝尔福特当年的挚友），其女儿不幸因白血病去世，而贝尔福特连一条慰问短信都没有发过，人品之恶劣可见一斑。 --- ### [39:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFZitoZky5M&t=2390s) 酒吧放弃年轻人：大麻时代与社交疏离 两人转向《华尔街日报》报道的消费新现象：酒吧正在放弃年轻人。在费城的一家名为 Trestle Inn 的酒吧里，周五晚举办了一场向流行巨星 Prince 致敬的主题舞会，客人们画着紫色眼影、随着《Let's Go Crazy》和《1999》跳舞狂欢并大喝威士忌酸酒（Whiskey Sour），但现场几乎所有人都年过半百。酒吧老板直言，年轻一代如今喝酒越来越少，这类早场派对反而是吸引有消费能力的 X 世代（Gen X）进门的新招。 本提到德里克·汤普森（Derek Thompson）在播客《Plain English》中引用的数据：美国大麻的日均使用人数在历史上首次超过了酒精，这一趋势非常疯狂。迈克尔则以亲身经历痛陈大麻的危害，称自己年轻时是个不折不扣的大麻瘾君子（pothead），并直言大麻几乎毁掉了他的人生。他形容大麻如同埃隆·马斯克（Elon Musk）所说的“反向咖啡”（coffee in reverse），是一种彻底消磨斗志的减速剂（demotivator），让人成天瘫在家里打电子游戏。 本和迈克尔进一步探讨了大麻对社会心理的深层影响： - **焦虑与反社交的代偿**：大麻已成为当下的“反社交药物”（antisocial drug），契合了人们日益加重的焦虑感与足不出户的需求。许多人以为戒酒有益健康，实则是用心理健康的负面代价替代了酒精的生理损害。 - **现代使用形态的转变**：当今许多人使用低剂量大麻软糖（gummies）主要是为了辅助睡眠，而非像过去那样终日吞云吐雾，但每天使用的人数仍高达数千万，体量惊人。 - **呼吁走出家门重拾现实社交**：作为内向者的本坦言，适度饮酒在大学时期曾帮助他克服社交障碍。两人澄清并非鼓励年轻人闭门酗酒，而是呼吁他们走入实体酒吧、接触真实世界并与人面对面交流，尽管在纽约、芝加哥等大城市街头，年轻人的夜生活依然随处可见。 --- ### [43:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFZitoZky5M&t=2615s) 婴儿潮一代提前退休与财富效应爆发 围绕经济指标与劳动力市场的讨论中，针对市场上将 55 岁以上人群劳动参与率（labor force participation rate）大幅下滑视为负面信号的论调，美国银行（Bank of America）给出了截然相反的乐观解释：这不是人们对就业失去希望，而是战后婴儿潮与高龄劳动者因财富暴增而选择提前退休（early retirement）。 迈克尔和本分析指出，股市繁荣和资产增值从根本上重塑了美国人的财务状况： - **三重资产增值推动退休潮**：伴随房价大幅上涨、股票投资组合屡创新高，以及个人企业估值倍增，大批年长员工底气十足地选择“套现离场”。 - **401(k) 账户规模激增**：根据美国银行提供的数据，其客户的平均 401(k) 账户余额已攀升至 16 万多美元，而这一数字在 2023 年仅为约 10 万美元，股市带来的财富效应立竿见影。 - **对未来衰退情绪的辩论**：本提出疑问，若下一次经济衰退带来长达 15 个月、跌幅达 30% 的熊市且伴随严重失业，公众情绪是否会像遭遇恶性通胀一样彻底崩溃。迈克尔对此反驳称，市场刚刚才经历过长达 15 个月的熊市考验；更重要的是，那些因资产超出预期而有资格提前退休的人，绝不可能将 100% 的资金暴露在股票风险中，其资产配置早已进行了防御性分散。 --- ### [45:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFZitoZky5M&t=2753s) 没有 AI，美国经济早已陷入衰退？ 谈及彭博社（Bloomberg）的一篇深度评论，迈克尔与本探讨了“若没有人工智能热潮，美国是否已陷入经济衰退”的宏观命题。哥伦比亚大学商学院的一位教授研究指出，AI 基础设施投资目前已占美国 GDP 的约 2.8%，其规模甚至超过了历史上的铁路投资狂潮，且未来还将继续攀升；在当前高利率环境下，若无 AI 的庞大资本开支刺激，宏观经济数据早已滑入负增长区间。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: AI 与宏观经济的关系逻辑 accDescr: 展示 AI 基础设施投资对经济的缓冲作用及未来衰退潜在动因的双刃剑效应。 subgraph CurrentBuffer["当前周期：经济缓冲"] A["高利率宏观环境"] --> B["AI 资本开支刺激<br>(占 GDP 约 2.8%)"] B --> C["抵消宏观下行压力<br>避免即刻陷入衰退"] end subgraph FutureRisk["未来推演：泡沫风险"] C -.-> D["预期落空 / 投资放缓"] D --> E["下一次衰退的核心导火索<br>(潜在概率达 80%)"] end ``` 针对“拿掉 AI 经济就会坍塌”的简单假设，本提出了经典的资金置换视角：资本并不会凭空消失，若没有 AI，这笔庞大资金自然会流向其他经济领域。迈克尔用纽约尼克斯队的球星杰伦·布伦森（Jalen Brunson）打比方：如果布伦森缺阵，球队每场原本拿到的 27 分绝不会直接凭空蒸发，而是会由其他队友分担，尽管球队实力确实会受到削弱。 不过，迈克尔依然倾向于认为，在没有 AI 周期救场的情况下，美国因高利率陷入衰退的概率依然大于 50%。与此同时，本更是语出惊人地断言，如果要为“下一场经济衰退的诱因”开出赔率，AI 泡沫破裂或资本开支退潮将是高达 80% 概率的最大诱因。科技巨头的公关团队也敏锐地嗅到了舆论转向的风险，马克·扎克伯格（Mark Zuckerberg）等人已开始加紧公关动作。 ### [47:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFZitoZky5M&t=2873s) 扎克伯格的人设转型与对“积极 AI 未来”的宣传 讨论由马克·扎克伯格（Mark Zuckerberg）早年的一本传记展开。Ben 回忆自己大概在 2007 或 2008 年读过一本讲述年轻创业者的书（如《The Accidental Billionaires》），当时扎克伯格还没像现在这样彻底融入时代潮流中心。Ben 直言当年看完书后觉得扎克伯格“太像个混蛋（slimeball）了”，尤其是他在大学时期的所作所为，甚至因此多年来一直低估了他。Michael 则开玩笑打趣道：“别拿一个人大学时期的表现来评判他的人品。” 撇开当年的恩怨不谈，Ben 承认扎克伯格展现出极其强大的变色龙特质——无论当下流行什么，他都能随风而变、顺势重塑自我。扎克伯格近期发布了一篇探讨积极 AI 未来的文章，试图在外界对 AI 负面情绪不断攀升的时刻引导公众聚焦积极面。扎克伯格在文中表达了对目前 AI 领域普遍充斥的悲观论调的不解：如果有人真觉得 AI 会摧毁大多数就业、让人类失去价值，那为什么还要抢着去创造这样的未来？他进而展望了 Meta 设想的未来愿景：每个人都将拥有 24/7 全天候理解你、为你工作的个人智能体（Agent），每个人都能拥有全学科 PhD 级别的专属导师与私教，而且这些工具应当以免费或低廉的价格向大众开放。 Ben 指出，这种人人可用的平价模式背后潜藏着商业悖论：如果大众工具免费或极其廉价，是不是只能指望极度依赖的高频重度用户（头部 5%）支付昂贵的 Token 费用，从而补贴其他所有人？Michael 对此并不认同，他指出像 ChatGPT 的付费版一个月只要 20 美元，差不多就相当于一份 Netflix 订阅，对大众而言本就不贵，更不用说本身就存在免费版本。两人一致认为，各大科技公司的公关团队如今都意识到必须大打“积极牌”，但可能已经为时过晚，大众的防备与负面印象已经成型。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: AI 普及模式与商业化冲突 accDescr: 展示扎克伯格倡导的低门槛 AI 普及愿景与其商业模式的可持续性争议 subgraph Vision["扎克伯格的 AI 愿景"] V1["全天候个人智能体"] V2["全学科博士级家教"] V3["免费或平价向大众开放"] end subgraph Dilemma["商业化现实疑问"] D1{"如何平衡成本？"} D2["极高算力与 Token 消耗"] D3["依赖前 5% 重度用户溢价补贴大众？"] end subgraph Counter["Michael 的反驳"] C1["已有免费版本可用"] C2["订阅费 20 美元/月（类比 Netflix 级别支出）"] end Vision --> D1 D1 --> D2 D2 --> D3 D1 -.-> Counter ``` --- ### [50:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFZitoZky5M&t=3048s) 喜剧俱乐部里的英伟达员工：大众对 AI 的脱节认知 Ben 分享了他们近期在纽约西村（West Village）著名的喜剧俱乐部 Comedy Cellar 的一次经历。两人和同事 Chris 坐在绝佳的观赏位，台上单口喜剧演员照例拿第一排观众“开刀”互动。当演员询问坐在前排、正喝得微醺的一位二十来岁年轻人的职业时，对方回答：“我在英伟达（NVIDIA）工作。” 单口喜剧演员立刻接茬反问：“那是干嘛的？卖电视的吗？”整个场子里只有 Ben 和 Michael 两个金融从业者笑出了声，其他观众完全没反应过来。那个小伙子喝得有些迷糊，正沉浸在庆祝自己丰厚的股票期权（Stock Options）的喜悦中。当女演员继续追问时，小伙子解释说是做“AI”的，演员恍然大悟补了一句“哦，数据中心啊”，台下观众随即发出了些许嘘声与反感情绪。 这个小插曲让 Ben 产生深刻的感触：英伟达明明已经是一家市值数万亿美元、全球顶尖并支撑起整场 AI 浪潮的巨头，但在寻常百姓、甚至纽约的流行文化场域中，普通大众对它依然一无所知，甚至对 AI 和数据中心带有一种下意识的排斥。这说明从技术热潮走向全民常识，依然有很长的路要走。Michael 则调侃 Ben 不必借由脱口秀现场的包袱来宏大叙事、过度解读市场。 --- ### [52:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFZitoZky5M&t=3176s) 投资者的查账频率：极简长线主义与自满的赌徒心态 聊到听众反馈，许多人表示虽然每周听节目，但现实中根本懒得频繁看盘，完全将市场动态追踪“外包”给了两位主播。话题随即转向“你究竟多久查看一次自己的投资组合余额？” Ben 透露自己是极端的低频查看者。他基本上每六个月才会手动更新一次记录家庭账户的 Excel 表格。而且他立了一条规矩：只在牛市更新，熊市绝对不看，因为不看就不用承受账面缩水的痛苦。在平日里，除了偶尔瞄一眼自己的“波特豪斯策略”（Porterhouse strategy）账户外，他大概一整个季度才会看一次全盘数字。Michael 听后笑称 Ben 简直是个“婴儿潮一代（Boomer）”，明明公司内部就拥有一流的财富管理与账户技术平台，却执着于用电子表格手动敲数字。 当 Ben 询问 Michael 的查账频率时，Michael 坦白自己看盘极为频繁：“每天看一次？那都是新手级别的频次，我一天看无数次，频率远超应有水平。”Michael 解释称自己热衷于选股，所以无法自拔地频繁盯盘。为了自嘲，Michael 还讲了个老笑话：一对夫妇去赌场打 21 点，分开玩之后碰头。妻子说自己输了 200 美元，丈夫大发雷霆：“你怎么能输 200 美元！”妻子反问丈夫输了多少，丈夫说：“我输了 1,000 美元。”妻子质问凭什么他输 1,000 美元反过来怪自己输 200，丈夫理直气壮地说：“因为我知道怎么赌！” - Ben 的持仓查看习惯： - 每 6 个月手动更新一次 Excel 汇总表格 - 仅在牛市更新，熊市刻意回避看盘 - 约每 3 个月才整体核对一次资产 - Michael 的持仓查看习惯： - 一天查看多次，远高于健康理财建议的标准 - 频繁操作主动选股账户，享受短线交易的过程 --- ### [55:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFZitoZky5M&t=3345s) 直播电商的掠夺式赌局：WhatNot 破产惨案 话题进一步延伸到了具有赌博色彩的消费现象。Michael 援引《华尔街日报》（Wall Street Journal）的一篇重磅报道，标题为《有人在这个直播购物软件上出价，直到倾家荡产》（The Live Shopping App Where Some People Bid Until They’re Broke），直斥某些新兴平台的机制具有极强的“掠夺性”。 报道的主人公是一位 45 岁的会计师肖恩·哈丁（Sean Harding）。他在重燃童年收集棒球卡的爱好后，下载了一款名为 WhatNot 的直播拍卖购物 App。在短短四个月内，这名会计师便滑向深渊，花光了自己所有的个人积蓄、掏空了个人贷款、向朋友四处借钱，最后甚至开始盗刷雇主公司的信用卡，累计砸进去将近 140 万美元。 当他的妻子发现这笔触目惊心的巨债账单后，果断向法院提出了离婚申请。哈丁在自白中无奈道：“我每次都骗自己说，只要再来一次我就把它们全卖了回本，但向右滑动出价实在太容易了。”Michael 感叹这种结合了实时互动、盲盒抽卡与拍卖机制的直播应用，精准利用了人性的上瘾弱点，一步步将普通人拖入财务破产的深渊。 ### [56:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFZitoZky5M&t=3402s) 掠夺性竞拍骗局与个人责任 Michael Batnick 和 Ben Carlson 继续深入讨论前文提及的竞拍网站陷阱。在这类平台上，玩家偶尔可能因为倒计时刚好归零，仅仅花 11 美元就拍下一台 iMac 电脑。平台大肆宣传这些极少数的异常案例，以此作为诱饵吸引用户源源不断地投入资金。然而，绝大多数用户根本一无所获。当被问及受害者把钱都花在什么上面时，Michael 直言他们买到的只是“点击次数”，实质上一无所有。用户本质上是在赌博，妄图以两折的骨折价买入商品然后倒卖牟利，可一旦没有拍中，所有的投入便彻底打了水漂。 Ben 表达了极大的反感，直呼这种模式恶心至极。尽管他自认是一名坚定的资本主义者，乐见企业和个人通过正当途径赚钱，但这纯粹是令人作呕的掠夺行为，甚至“应该直接被定为非法”。虽然挪用公款、透支公司信用卡或向朋友借钱来参与这种竞拍的人必然存在严重的个人责任问题——即便不在这里翻车，迟早也会在别处暴雷——但这种商业模式本质上就是彻头彻尾的掠夺性设计。 --- ### [57:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFZitoZky5M&t=3470s) 房地产衰退：房价不跌反涨的历史规律 话题转向了房地产市场。Connor Sen 创办了名为《The Housing Frame》的 Substack 专栏，并在首篇文章中提出了一个引人注目的观点：“房地产衰退已经结束”。从 2022 年第一季度算起，美国房地产行业陷入衰退已有近四年之久。Connor Sen 对比了历史上漫长的地产衰退期： - **1979 年至 1982 年**：美联储通过持续四年的紧缩货币政策重创经济； - **1988 年至 1991 年**：储贷危机叠加海湾战争； - **2006 年至 2011 年**：次贷危机引发的大衰退（持续了整整六年）。 大约四年前，建商开始缩减开支，公寓开发停滞，在疫情期间最为火热的区域，挂牌出售的房源数量激增。如今，市场出现了一些企稳复苏的迹象。Michael 和 Ben 指出，对于从事房贷或房地产经纪的人来说，过去几年无疑是极其残酷的。但令人震惊的是，尽管处于行业衰退之中，Case-Shiller 全美房价指数自 2022 年第一季度以来居然累计上涨了近 12%。虽然扣除通胀后的实际涨幅微乎其微，但名义房价依然顽挺。 很多人往往将 2008 年的大衰退作为基准，误以为房地产衰退就意味着房价崩盘。但历史表明，即便在 1979 至 1982 年的紧缩期，房价也是上涨的。当下的供需失衡已成为不可逆转的结构性难题：37 至 39 岁之间面临成家置业的庞大人群需求旺盛，而持有优质资产的婴儿潮一代根本不愿卖房。再加上房屋供应短缺的问题迟迟无法解决，建造足够的房屋耗时过长，年轻一代面临的购房困境短期内根本无解。 --- ### [59:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFZitoZky5M&t=3590s) 财报解读：SpaceX 的狂想与迪士尼的品牌护城河 进入财报讨论环节（Great Quarter Guys），两人首先聊到了 SpaceX 以及埃隆·马斯克（Elon Musk）近期的惊人言论。马斯克宣称，如果在月球上建造质量加速器，并实现太阳能和散热器生产，人类向太空发射智能载荷的规模可以达到地球经济的 1,000 倍甚至 100 万倍。Ben 坦言马斯克是个矛盾体：科技界人士常告诫“永远不要做空马斯克”，毕竟他打造了电动车巨头，造出了能垂直起降回收的火箭；但他画过的大饼和未兑现的承诺也数不胜数，比如当年承诺的地下超级高铁（Hyperloop）。Michael 则表示自己虽然不是马斯克的狂热粉丝，但非常欣赏这种敢于突破常理、推动世界前行的极致企业家精神。 随后，他们分析了迪士尼（Disney）的财报表现，揭示了强劲品牌与疲软股价之间的巨大反差： - **玩具总动员（Toy Story）**：每年全球零售额高达 10 亿美元，累计为迪士尼创造了约 160 亿美元的总收入。 - **主题乐园业务**：体验与乐园部门营收同比增长 11%，总营收增长 7%。即便门票价格一涨再涨，游客依然络绎不绝，增速创下近年来新高。 - **股价与品牌脱节**：迪士尼拥有无可匹敌的品牌护城河与跨代影响力，但其股票表现却持续低迷，令人费解。 两人还吐槽了流媒体整合的低效。迪士尼本季度宣称实现了 Hulu 与 Disney+ 应用整合的重要里程碑，允许独立订户与捆绑订户关联账户。但现实中，跨平台的观看进度依然无法同步，如果在 Hulu 上看《熊家餐馆》（The Bear），换到 Disney+ 上根本无法无缝续播。此外，ESPN、ESPN 2 和 ABC 上的 ESPN 迎来了自 2016 年以来收视率最高的第三季度，NBA 总决赛以及可能的重大赛事转播对此贡献显著。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 迪士尼品牌变现与流媒体痛点 accDescr: 展现迪士尼在衍生品、主题乐园与流媒体整合方面的对比关系 subgraph CashCows ["核心变现引擎"] A["玩具总动员 IP<br/>全球年零售 10 亿美元 / 累计收入 160 亿美元"] B["乐园与体验业务<br/>营收增长 11% / 提价驱动"] end subgraph StreamingIssues ["流媒体与用户体验"] C["Hulu 与 Disney+ 整合"] --> D["观看进度不同步<br/>用户体验割裂"] end CashCows --> E["强大品牌护城河 vs 表现平平的股价"] StreamingIssues --> E ``` --- ### [01:04:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFZitoZky5M&t=3878s) 流行影视杂谈：《龙之家族》、蜘蛛侠版权与演员争议 话题自然延伸到当下的热门影视剧。Ben 提到自己看完了《熊家餐馆》后半段，虽然觉得后两季有些画蛇添足，但最后三集收尾尚可。Michael 则刚看完《龙之家族》（House of the Dragon）季终集，并收听了 The Ringer 旗下的《House of R》播客节目（由 Chris Ryan、Joanna Robinson 和 Mallory Rubin 主持）。他调侃自己看这部剧就像个傻子一样，完全理不清人物和复杂的家族关系谱，甚至听完专家分析依然一头雾水，看这剧简直需要随身配一张流程图，不过作为爆米花娱乐大片观感依然十分过瘾。 最后，听众就他们此前对《蜘蛛侠》系列的吐槽发来大量反馈。针对为何好莱坞不能停手别再拍蜘蛛侠的抱怨，Ben 解释了背后的商业逻辑：索尼影业必须持续制作上映蜘蛛侠电影，否则其影视改编版权将自动收回到漫威手中。因此无论观众是否看腻了三代同堂的冷饭，索尼都不会停下翻拍的脚步。在此背景下，Michael 抛出了自己的“暴鸣观点”（Hot take）：赞达亚（Zendaya）虽是当下好莱坞最炙手可热的当红女星，但在《沙丘》（Dune）等一系列作品中的表现却让他毫无波澜，其塑造的角色始终无法打动他。 ### [01:05:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFZitoZky5M&t=3935s) 好莱坞明星与大卫·O·拉塞尔新片风波 对话在对赞达亚（Zendaya）的犀利点评中展开。迈克尔·巴特尼克（Michael Batnick）提出一个颇具争议的观点，认为赞达亚被高估了，甚至在某些大制作中宛如透明人，根本无法推动剧情发展，就像在《沙丘》（Dune）中可有可无一样。本·卡尔森（Ben Carlson）对此提出反驳，认为她演技过硬，并拿出戏剧类作品与网球题材电影《挑战者》（Challengers）作为证明，表示赞达亚在里面的表现堪称绝妙；迈克尔也承认她在这些中小型制作中确实出彩，但建议她别再接《蜘蛛侠》（Spider-Man）或大史诗片了，那种大片里她根本无从发挥。迈克尔顺带还调侃汤姆·赫兰德（Tom Holland）同样被名声过誉。 话题随后转向《Variety》杂志的一则爆料：由大卫·O·拉塞尔（David O. Russell）执导的传记片《麦登》（Madden）将放弃全美院线大范围上映。影片聚焦传奇美式橄榄球教练及解说员约翰·麦登（John Madden），主演阵容极其豪华，包括尼古拉斯·凯奇（Nicolas Cage）、克里斯蒂安·贝尔（Christian Bale）、凯瑟琳·哈恩（Kathryn Hahn）、约翰·穆拉尼（John Mulaney）、西耶娜·米勒（Sienna Miller）以及肖恩·吉利斯（Shane Gillis）。然而，如此强大的卡司居然直接被降级处理，迈克尔与本不禁怀疑这部电影是否彻底搞砸了。本直言不讳地指出，光看预告片就像一部直接走流媒体的粗制滥造之作，尼古拉斯·凯奇来演约翰·麦登简直不可思议，怎么看都不对味。两人顺便回顾了导演过往的履历：《阿姆斯特丹》（Amsterdam）票房惨败，《美国骗局》（American Hustle）令人失望，唯独布莱德利·库珀主演的《乌云背后的幸福线》（Silver Linings Playbook）算得上一部好作品。 --- ### [01:07:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFZitoZky5M&t=4033s) 票房复苏与 IMAX 扩张悖论 两人随后讨论了截至 8 月 9 日的年度票房表现。根据安德鲁·卡迪（Andrew Cardi）分享的数据，当前的年内票房创下了疫情以来的最高纪录。迈克尔和乔希（Josh Brown）前一天刚在播客《The Compound and Friends》（TCAF）上采访了 IMAX 首席执行官理查德·葛尔方（Rich Gelfond）。 本立刻追问为什么 IMAX 不趁着势头多建一些新影院。迈克尔坦言在采访中没能追问到底，但葛尔方给出的回应依然是老调重弹：建造成本极其昂贵，而且许多合作方不愿冒风险进行巨额资本投资。迈克尔感到难以理解：既然当下院线表现如此红火、IMAX 如此成功，为什么不大步扩张？本则客观地指出，影院行业存在巨大的不确定性，今年的火爆可能不可复制，无法保证未来的年份依然能保持这种赚钱效应。 --- ### [01:07:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFZitoZky5M&t=4078s) 迈克尔的尴尬生活轶事：口误与丢进水里的绿灯 迈克尔聊起了最近发生的两件令人啼笑皆非的生活琐事。第一件发生在走向火车站的炎热早晨，迈克尔拎着沉重的提包汗流浃背，便走进星巴克期望能碰上熟人载自己一程。刚好一位熟识的邻居开车停在店外，并示意问他是否要搭便车。原本脑子里想说一句酷炫的答复，脱口而出的却是：“行啊，给我装上马鞍吧（Yeah, saddle me）。”对方听完愣在原地，迈克尔自己也瞬间大脑死机。上了车后，邻居立刻毫不留情地当面质问：“嘿，你刚才是不是说了‘给我装上马鞍’？”迈克尔只能极度尴尬地解释是自己脑子短路了。这让他联想起电影《寻找伴郎》（I Love You, Man）里保罗·路德（Paul Rudd）对杰森·席格尔（Jason Segel）各种不知所云的舌头打结与空气乐器表演。 第二件轶事则关乎执行力。上周节目中两人曾讨论过，本做事雷厉风行、有点强迫症倾向，而迈克尔则习惯拖延。为了带孩子看夜间游动的鱼，迈克尔买了一盏专用的水下诱鱼绿灯，然而包裹在后院一扔就是整整三周，直到妻子罗宾（Robin）三番五次催促，他才下定决心动手安装。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 迈克尔安装水下诱鱼绿灯的乌龙过程 accDescr: 展示了迈克尔从拖延三周到涂凡士林润滑，再到因忘记解开线圈而导致灯具沉底的滑稽全过程。 subgraph Preparation["准备阶段"] A["绿灯包裹在后院闲置三周"] --> B["被妻子催促后着手处理"] B --> C["外壳涂满凡士林防海草附着"] end subgraph Mishap["乌龙事故"] C --> D["通上电源直接扔进深水"] D --> E{"是否提前展开电线？"} E -- 否 --> F["线圈没放开，整根线直接扯脱沉入水底"] end subgraph Aftermath["收场结局"] F --> G["遭妻子痛骂: '你是我见过最蠢的人'"] G --> H["本调侃: '带上水肺潜水装备下去捞吧'"] end ``` 迈克尔听说涂满凡士林可以防止长水草并保持亮度，于是把灯糊了一层厚厚的凡士林。插上电后他潇洒地将灯扔进水里，却致命地忘记把缠绕成捆的电线解开。重物落水瞬间连带着插头直接被扯落入水底，气得罗宾直呼他是“这辈子见过最蠢的人”。面对本让他“穿上潜水服下去捞”的调侃，迈克尔只能无奈考虑重新买一个。 --- ### [01:10:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFZitoZky5M&t=4253s) 吹口哨公害与疫情后重温正装 随后迈克尔忍不住吐槽起生活中的公共公害——公众场合吹口哨的人。两人对此高度共鸣：迈克尔觉得这种行为极度烦人，本也痛陈健身房更衣室里总有一个人从头到尾不停吹口哨。他们一致认为，独自一人时怎么吹都行，但在别人身边吹口哨是极不礼貌的行为；更尴尬的是，这种事情很难开口制止，因为一旦开口要求别人“别吹了”，自己反而像个小气挑刺的混蛋。 节目的观众来信环节提到，本在疫情最严重时曾发誓“再也不戴领带”，听众好奇随着后疫情时代着装规范的松绑，本是否打破了这个誓言。本坦承就在上个周末，他被迫戴上了疫情以来的第一条领带。 - **麦基诺岛大酒店（Grand Hotel, Mackinac Island）**：位于密歇根州上下半岛之间的小岛上，需乘坐轮渡前往。该酒店自 19 世纪经营至今，仿佛《午夜巴黎》（Midnight in Paris）里的时间胶囊。 - **严格的正装传统**：酒店维持着古老的规矩，晚上 6:30 之后凡在大厅走动的男宾必须穿西装外套；而在主餐厅用餐时，男士必须严格佩戴西装外套加领带，女士也必须盛装出席。 - **对现代着装的反思**：本原本讨厌束缚，但亲身体验后感触颇深。他感叹如今人们普遍变成了“邋遢一族”（a nation of slobs），随便穿着睡衣就出门坐飞机。大家重新盛装打扮、庄重出席晚宴的氛围让他感受到了久违的仪式感与美好。 在进入最后的推荐环节前，迈克尔预告了自己对“西部片”这一电影类型的困惑。起因是他看了父亲推荐的西部片《老亨利》（Old Henry），虽然没能全部看完，但由此引发了他对西部片概念的深度思索与疑惑。 ### [01:14:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFZitoZky5M&t=4444s) 电影探讨：西部片的本质与被忽视的拉尔夫·费因斯新片 Michael 和 Ben 就电影类型展开讨论。Michael 提出，西部片严格来说并不算纯粹的电影类型（Genre），它不像恐怖片那样具有明确的功能属性，因为西部片里可以包容喜剧、剧情甚至恐怖等各种元素；它本质上是一种“设定”（Setting）或时代背景（Time piece）。之所以这种设定长盛不衰，是因为在那个荒蛮法外的世界里充满叛匪与法外之徒，没有任何既定规则约束，具有天然的戏剧张力。 聊到电影，Michael 分享了他前几天独自在家翻找流媒体时的一个意外发现。他刷到了一部名为《归来》（*The Return*）的电影，由顶级演技派拉尔夫·费因斯（Ralph Fiennes）主演。Michael 当场念了一段剧情梗概：奥德修斯在特洛伊战争 20 年后历尽沧桑、面目全非地冲上海岸，回到故土伊萨卡，发现一切物是人非，妻子珀涅罗珀在自己家中如同囚犯般被狂热的求婚者围困，儿子也命悬一线。 Michael 震惊地表示，像拉尔夫·费因斯这样殿堂级的演员拍摄了这部荷马史诗改编作品，烂番茄口碑相当不错，但最终全球票房仅有区区 350 万美元；反观克里斯托弗·诺兰（Christopher Nolan）随手一部大体量史诗就能狂揽 10 亿美元。两人感叹小体量严肃题材院线命运的惨淡，Ben 询问 Michael 是否真去看了，Michael 坦言在得知这种巨大的反差后，自己甚至提不起兴致去点开它了。 --- ### [01:16:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFZitoZky5M&t=4567s) Michael 的近期片单：肯尼·基纪录片、黑帮剧与80年代经典 Michael 接着分享了几个切实体验过的影视推荐： * **《散弹枪伴我行》（*She Rides Shotgun*）**：一部节奏粗粝、脏乱感十足的犯罪逃亡电影，讲述一名刑满释放的囚徒带着女儿亡命天涯。Michael 称其为绝佳的“飞机片”（适合乘机打发时间），Ben 也表示自己很欣赏主演埃哲顿（Edgerton）。 * **肯尼·基纪录片《听听肯尼·基》（*Listening to Kenny G*，Max 平台）**：这部由 HBO 出品的纪录片幽默感拉满。Michael 提到，很多人童年家庭聚餐时背景音乐永远放着肯尼·基，大众常因为其萨克斯风格略带老套庸俗而将其当作调侃对象，但纪录片展现出他本人非常玩得起、完全懂得自我解嘲，且音乐造诣极高。Michael 还惊讶地发现这位顶着标志性卷发的萨克斯大师其实是个来自西雅图的犹太人。 * **黑帮剧集《西区帮》（*The Westies*，MGM+ 平台）**：J·K·西蒙斯（J.K. Simmons）领衔主演爱尔兰黑帮头目，与黑帮大佬高蒂（John Gotti）等势力正面对决。Ben 开玩笑吐槽自己订阅了世界上所有主流流媒体，绝不可能为了这一部剧去“自降身价”单独开通边缘的 MGM+ 会员，Michael 则反驳说不少听众也发邮件力挺这部剧。 * **《威猛奇兵》（*To Live and Die in L.A.*，1985）**：威廉·弗莱德金执导的 80 年代警匪经典。Michael 坦承自己几年前曾发表过偏激言论，当时以《壮志凌云》（*Top Gun*）为例，抨击 80 年代电影整体就是粗制滥造的垃圾，远比不上 90 年代经得起时间考验的现代质感（如《终结者2》再过 50 年看依然封神）。但如今他逐渐改变了看法，开始将 80 年代电影视为带有特定复古印记的时间胶囊，虽然横向对比各项类型他依旧认为 90 年代全面胜出，但他对 80 年代电影的审美宽容度已大大提升。 --- ### [01:19:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFZitoZky5M&t=4793s) Ben 的书影清单：《天才雷普利》原著与夏日剧集 轮到 Ben 分享时，他推荐了一部 Hulu 上的剧集《Furious》（涉及连环杀手、人口贩运、家庭虐待以及警方与 FBI 侦办等多线叙事，由《无耻之徒》主演艾米·罗森倾力出演，Ben 评价其制作极具水准）。 随后，Ben 将话题引向他最爱的 90 年代经典之一——《天才雷普利》（*The Talented Mr. Ripley*）： * **电影的夏日质感**：Ben 称该片是他夏季必刷的保留剧目，那种瞬间被带入意大利海滨小镇的度假氛围无与伦比。他打趣道，如果可以挑选任意一个电影角色互换一整天的人生，裘德·洛（Jude Law）饰演的迪基（Dickie Greenleaf）绝对是首选：身处如画的南欧风光，穿着考究得体，过着闲适奢华的放逐生活。 * **重读帕特里夏·海史密斯原著**：在看完了马特·达蒙主演的电影以及 Netflix 最新黑白限定剧《雷普利》（*Ripley*）之后，Ben 终于找来了帕特里夏·海史密斯（Patricia Highsmith）创作的系列原著小说。他惊叹于这本半个多世纪前出版的作品居然完全没有过时感，褪去现代科技外壳后，其心理描写与剧情张力仿佛就写于当下。他表示 Netflix 版剧集在情节上其实比电影版更贴合原著，自己计划把整套系列小说读完。 --- ### [01:21:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFZitoZky5M&t=4915s) 尾声：泰勒·谢里丹的《母狮》与破纪录时长 在节目收尾前，Michael 激动地追加了最后的强力推荐——泰勒·谢里丹（Taylor Sheridan）主导的特工谍战剧《特别行动：母狮》（*Special Ops: Lioness*）。该剧前两集上线后戏剧张力直接拉满，Michael 赞叹谢里丹再次击中了观众的高潮点，尽管 Ben 对套路化的 CIA/FBI 谍战题材并不算十分感冒。 最后，两位主持人向听众致谢，感谢制作团队以及 Duncan 在幕后的支持。他们打趣道，本期节目准备了整整 45 页的大纲资料，毫无疑问创下了播客开播以来的历史最长单集纪录。两人互道告别，相约下期节目再见。 ## Notable quotes > [01:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFZitoZky5M&t=105s) Ben，你说得对，AI 是唯一重要的东西。 — Michael Batnick > [09:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFZitoZky5M&t=559s) 录播客期间没有任何事情能算作紧急情况。 — Ben Carlson > [16:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFZitoZky5M&t=979s) 做空并不适合所有人。我必须做空，但大多数人不应该做空。 — Michael Burry > [21:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFZitoZky5M&t=1262s) 你大概既没有那么有钱，也没有那么硬的门脉，能让一个 24 岁的毛头小伙把你的积蓄一把火烧光。 — Spencer Jakab > [27:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFZitoZky5M&t=1643s) 别光用嘴告诉我你心里想什么，或者你觉得别人在想什么；拿真金白银下注。 — Michael Batnick > [34:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFZitoZky5M&t=2076s) 回市场里自己瞎折腾五年，把想赌的瘾全发泄完，到时候再来找我。 — Ben Carlson > [55:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFZitoZky5M&t=3345s) 我每次都骗自己说，只要再来一次我就把它们全卖了回本，但向右滑动出价实在太容易了。 — Sean Harding > [52:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFZitoZky5M&t=3176s) 你怎么能输 200 美元！ — Michael Batnick > [52:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFZitoZky5M&t=3176s) 因为我知道怎么赌！ — Michael Batnick > [01:07:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFZitoZky5M&t=4078s) 行啊，给我装上马鞍吧。 — Michael Batnick ## Mentioned Xtrackers, DWS, 标普 500 指数 (S&P 500), 罗素 2000 指数 (Russell 2000), MSCI 新兴市场指数, 亚马逊 (Amazon), 谷歌 (Google / Alphabet), Meta, 甲骨文 (Oracle), 微软 (Microsoft), 英伟达 (NVIDIA), 台积电 (TSMC), 三星 (Samsung), SK海力士 (SK Hynix), OpenAI, Anthropic, SpaceX, 硅谷银行 (Silicon Valley Bank), 中国恒大集团, 美银 (Bank of America), Savita Subramanian, Ed Yardeni, Meb Faber, 霸菱 (Barings), Michael Burry, Paul Tudor Jones, 长期资本管理公司 (LTCM), Léopold Aschenbrenner, Adam Carolla, Jerry Seinfeld, Spencer Jakab, Robinhood, 红杉资本 (Sequoia), Michael Mauboussin, Dan Callahan, Kalshi, FanDuel, WhatNot, Jordan Belfort, Derek Thompson, Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, Connor Sen, Case-Shiller 全美房价指数, 迪士尼 (Disney), Hulu, Disney+, ESPN, Zendaya, David O. Russell, Nicolas Cage, Christian Bale, John Madden, IMAX, Rich Gelfond, Ralph Fiennes, Kenny G, J.K. Simmons, William Friedkin, Patricia Highsmith, Taylor Sheridan ## Video description On episode 477 of Animal Spirits, Michael Batnick and Ben Carlson discuss: new all-time highs in the stock market, AI is the only thing that matters, emerging markets are cheap, 1987 crash calls, things rich people and poor people have in common, day trading is hard, how often you should check your portfolio, early retirement, housing market recessions and much more. This episode is sponsored by Xtrackers by DWS. Find out more at ⁠http://xtrackers.com/ ► 00:00 - Xtrackers by DWS Ad ► 00:45 - Stock Market ► 21:00 - Investor Behavior ► 39:49 - The Economy ► 45:53 - AI ► 55:41 - Gambling ► 57:50 - Real Estate ► 59:50 - Great Quarter Guys ► 1:04:38 - Entertainment ► 1:13:20 - Recommendations 👕 Check out The Compound shop: https://idontshop.com 🎙️Listen to our podcasts: TCAF: https://podcasts.thecompoundnews.com/show/TCAF/ Animal Spirits: https://podcasts.thecompoundnews.com/show/animalspirits/ Ask The Compound: https://podcasts.thecompoundnews.com/show/ATC/ The Compound Newsletter: https://www.thecompoundnews.com/subscribe Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-compound-media/ Instagram: https://instagram.com/thecompoundnews Twitter: https://twitter.com/thecompoundnews Tik Tok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thecompoundnews Investing involves the risk of loss. This podcast is for informational purposes only and should not be or regarded as personalized investment advice or relied upon for investment decisions. Michael Batnick and Ben Carlson are employees of Ritholtz Wealth Management and may maintain positions in the securities discussed in this video. All opinions expressed by them are solely their own opinion and do not reflect the opinion of Ritholtz Wealth Management. See our disclosures here: https://ritholtzwealth.com/podcast-youtube-disclosures/ The Compound Media, Incorporated, an affiliate of Ritholtz Wealth Management, receives payment from various entities for advertisements in affiliated podcasts, blogs and emails. Inclusion of such advertisements does not constitute or imply endorsement, sponsorship or recommendation thereof, or any affiliation therewith, by the Content Creator or by Ritholtz Wealth Management or any of its employees. For additional advertisement disclaimers see here https://ritholtzwealth.com/advertising-disclaimers. Xtrackers by DWS Disclosure: Investing involves risk, including possible loss of principal. Stocks may decline in value. Bond investments are subject to interest-rate, credit, liquidity and market risks to varying degrees. When interest rates rise, bond prices generally fall. Foreign investing involves greater and different risks than investing in US companies, including currency fluctuations, less liquidity, less developed or less efficient trading markets, lack of comprehensive company information, political instability and differing auditing and legal standards. Emerging markets tend to be more volatile and less liquid than the markets of more mature economies, and generally have less diverse and less mature economic structures and less stable political systems than those of developed countries. Funds investing in a single industry, country or in a limited geographic region generally are more volatile than more diversified funds.  Performance of a fund may diverge from that of an underlying index due to operating expenses, transaction costs, cash flows, use of sampling strategies or operational inefficiencies. There are additional risks associated with investing in high-yield bonds, aggressive growth stocks, non-diversified/concentrated funds and small- and mid-cap stocks which are more fully explained in the prospectuses, as applicable. An investment in any fund should be considered only as a supplement to a complete investment program for those investors willing to accept the risks associated with that fund. Please read the applicable prospectus for more information.  The brand DWS represents DWS Group GmbH & Co. KGaA and any of its subsidiaries such as DWS Distributors, Inc., which offers investment products, or DWS Investment Management Americas, Inc. and RREEF America L.L.C., which offer advisory services. Xtrackers ETFs ("ETFs") are managed by DBX Advisors LLC (the "Adviser"), and distributed by ALPS Distributors, Inc. (“ALPS”). The Adviser is a subsidiary of DWS Group GmbH & Co. KGaA, and is not affiliated with ALPS. Copyright © 2026 DWS Group GmbH & Co. KGaA. All rights reserved. 111191-1 (08/26) DBX007483 (08/27) #thecompound #investing #stockmarket [Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFZitoZky5M)

[1:45] Michael Batnick: Ben，你说得对，AI 是唯一重要的东西。 [9:19] Ben Carlson: 录播客期间没有任何事情能算作紧急情况。 [16:19] Michael Burry: 做空并不适合所有人。我必须做空，但大多数人不应该做空。 [21:02] Spencer Jakab: 你大概既没有那么有钱，也没有那么硬的门脉，能让一个 24 岁的毛头小伙把你的积蓄一把火烧光。 [27:23] Michael Batnick: 别光用嘴告诉我你心里想什么，或者你觉得别人在想什么；拿真金白银下注。 [34:36] Ben Carlson: 回市场里自己瞎折腾五年，把想赌的瘾全发泄完，到时候再来找我。 [55:45] Sean Harding: 我每次都骗自己说，只要再来一次我就把它们全卖了回本，但向右滑动出价实在太容易了。 [52:56] Michael Batnick: 你怎么能输 200 美元！ [52:56] Michael Batnick: 因为我知道怎么赌！ [67:58] Michael Batnick: 行啊，给我装上马鞍吧。

[21:02] You probably aren't rich or well-connected enough to have a 24-year-old incinerate your savings. [25:10] The stock market is a place to build wealth over the long term, but you could treat it like a casino. [35:48] You can't trust a company based in New Jersey or the Bahamas called Capital Truth. Who can you trust? The more often you look, the more pain you're going to have. Michael Batnick: Yeah, but I know how to gamble! [55:45] Sean Harding: one more time that I'd sell it all and make all my money back [62:44] Michael Batnick: they're watching a different show [62:44] Michael Batnick: Am I just the biggest dumbass in the world? I cannot follow this show for the life of me. [64:38] Michael Batnick: don't do anything... they just stand there [66:12] Ben Carlson: straight to streaming video movie [68:00] Michael Batnick: Yeah, saddle me! [68:00] Robin: You're the dumbest person I've ever met in my life. [68:00] Ben Carlson: whistle in your own head [71:40] Ben Carlson: We're a nation of slobs now... Everyone wears PJs everywhere. [81:55] Michael Batnick: Holy shit, what a show! Unbelievable... Taylor Sheridan knocked it out of the park.

[0:04] Today's show is brought to you by [0:06] X-Trackers by DWS. Imagine harnessing [0:08] the power of global transformation, [0:10] investing in artificial intelligence, [0:11] critical technology, semiconductors, and [0:13] green energy. With X-Tracker innovative [0:15] thematic lineup, you can gain access to [0:17] the ETFs that target these [0:18] transformational sectors. It's more than [0:20] investing. It's aligning with the [0:22] innovations that are shaping tomorrow. [0:24] Whether you're a seasoned investor or [0:25] just starting out, XTRES makes exploring [0:27] new opportunities seamless. Find out how [0:29] at xtrackers.com. Together we grow. All [0:32] investments involve risk, including loss [0:34] of principle. Information on the fund's [0:35] investment objectives, risk factors, [0:37] charges, and expenses can be found in [0:38] the funds perspectus at xractors.com. [0:41] Read it carefully before investing. [0:42] Distributed by Elps Distributors, Inc. [0:45] Welcome to Animal Spirits with Michael [0:47] and Ben. Michael, how many new all-time [0:49] highs has the S&P 500 hit since 1950? [0:52] What's your guess? Ballpark it. [0:55] >> 1468. [0:57] It's like 1,379. [1:00] You're pretty close. [1:01] >> Holy [ __ ] [1:02] >> Did you just pull that out of your ass? [1:04] >> Not bad. I'm very proud of myself. [1:05] >> More or less. Okay. So, I think that's [1:08] like 7% of all trading days. [1:11] Say this because last week we hit [1:12] alltime highs again. You and I talked [1:14] about this a little bit. Uh some charts [1:16] from exhibit A here that show when this [1:18] happens. [1:20] 26 new alltime highs so far this year. [1:22] The average since 1990 is about 21. [1:25] We're a little ahead of schedule here, [1:26] but the average is obviously skewed and [1:28] varied and in the good years, there's a [1:30] lot of them because there's been plenty [1:31] of years where there wasn't any. Look at [1:34] those. Look at that 2000 to 2012 range. [1:38] A lot of zeros, a lot of nothing. So, [1:40] you have to take this when you can in [1:42] the good times. Uh [1:45] I think that this many all-time highs [1:47] given all of the headlines would have [1:49] surprised a lot of people. war in Iran, [1:51] higher gas prices, all this stuff people [1:53] are worried about, right? And the stock [1:55] market continues to move higher. [1:58] Is it all AI still? Is this is this the [2:00] thing that just AI trumps everything? It [2:02] doesn't matter what the headlines throw [2:04] at us, it it all determined by AI. [2:06] >> Ben, you're right. AI is the only thing [2:08] that matters. We've spoken recently [2:11] about how this market is teflon. started [2:13] with the global pandemic and [2:17] uh once in a 100redyear storm of [2:20] inflation [2:22] and then we had the Fed jack up interest [2:25] rates. [2:27] The housing market is frozen. Uh Silicon [2:31] Valley bank went under [2:33] tariffs. Liberation day. [2:36] >> Two wars. [2:36] >> The war. Two wars. Uh [2:38] >> remember the yen carry trade unwind? [2:40] That was a thing like a day. Whatever. [2:42] Who cares? But yes, it's it's one thing [2:44] >> ever in China. Remember that when we had [2:46] to worry about that, pretend to care [2:47] about that? [2:48] >> Ever Grand in China? It's one thing. [2:50] >> Commercial real estate crisis was going [2:51] to happen. There was going to be a [2:52] commercial real estate crisis because [2:53] everyone worked remotely. [2:54] >> Private credit crash. [2:56] >> Yep. Private credit stack. Inflation [2:58] fears. [2:58] >> I re I the the reason why none of this [3:01] has mattered [3:03] uh really and truly, I do believe it's [3:04] the AI trade. I mean, I don't think I'm [3:06] going out on a limb there. So, look at [3:08] this chart. [3:10] Uh well actually you know what the [3:13] consumer part of it is also a a big part [3:16] of the story. The fact that the consumer [3:18] has been able to be resilient through [3:19] all of this is remarkable. But through [3:21] the lens of the stock market what [3:22] matters obviously is is uh is the AI [3:26] trade and the continued expansion of [3:30] capex numbers. This is wild. Look at [3:33] this chart from hyperscaler farmer uh or [3:36] hypers scale farmer. Bloomer consensus [3:38] on a rolling basis now surpassed $3 [3:40] trillion. So we're looking at the [3:42] three-year sum on a rolling 12-month [3:44] forward basis for Amazon, Google, Metal, [3:46] Meta, Oracle, and Microsoft. And in [3:49] December 2022 when this thing started, [3:51] it was at it was at $500 billion. And [3:54] it's gone up and up and up and up. And [3:56] now it's going vertical. And we're [3:58] looking at $3 trillion over the next [4:00] three years, I suppose. Is that what [4:01] we're looking at here? That's amazing. I [4:04] think one of these things these [4:05] companies don't get enough credit for is [4:07] the fact that for years it was kind of [4:09] like uh all these companies are too [4:11] short-term in nature and they just care [4:12] about share buybacks and [4:15] and now look at these companies are [4:17] investing everything they have [4:19] essentially into back into long-term [4:23] projects. [4:25] These things are not really paying out [4:26] yet. And I think they deserve credit for [4:29] saying, "All right, fine. We're going to [4:31] we're going to think long think and act [4:32] for the long term. [4:34] >> And people still hate it because people [4:35] hate data centers. And we'll get into [4:37] that later. But this is this is just [4:40] there's never been anything like this [4:42] before where the biggest companies just [4:43] said, "All right, we're changing [4:44] everything. We're getting rid of all of [4:46] our money. Take it. [4:47] >> See you later. [4:48] >> Hope this works." [4:50] >> You mentioned at the start of the show [4:51] all the alltime highs that were [4:52] enjoying. I I mean, I hope you're [4:54] enjoying them. I sure am. Um [4:57] and uh it won't last forever as we know. [5:00] So what could be on the other side of [5:02] this? I think this is this is the [5:03] obvious danger is this line is now such [5:07] a gigant I mean it's it's going [5:09] absolutely vertical and it can't [5:11] continue to do this forever. It's not [5:13] going to go from 3 trillion to 4 [5:14] trillion to 7 trillion. Like at some [5:16] point there's an upper limit. [5:18] And uh what's awesome about this cycle [5:23] is that you're not relying on these fly [5:26] by night companies that have no earnings [5:28] or anything like that. [5:31] But the hyperscalers are powering a lot [5:33] of the earnings growth that we're seeing [5:35] because they're the ones doing the [5:36] spending. And if and when they slow [5:38] down, [5:40] the market's going to come come down [5:41] with it. [5:42] >> But yes, [5:44] >> do you think do you think we could see a [5:45] handoff? But that's some this is what [5:48] we've been talking about for three [5:49] years. I feel like like eventually but [5:52] the thing is eventually there's going to [5:53] be an ROI in this for them. That's the [5:55] hope. That's the handoff, [5:58] right? Is the ROI coming [6:00] >> coming back coming back to their [6:01] pockets? [6:02] >> You always give these corporate CEOs [6:04] more credit than me saying like, listen, [6:06] these are not dumb people. They're not [6:08] doing this like for their own ego or [6:10] something. They're doing this because [6:12] they think it's going to give them a [6:13] return on capital at some point. I do [6:16] believe that. [6:17] >> And I I guess if you're [6:19] >> and I believe they believe I believe [6:20] they believe that. [6:22] >> Yes. And if you're betting against that, [6:23] you're betting against like seven to 10 [6:25] of the biggest and best companies that [6:27] have ever been created that they have no [6:29] idea what they're doing. And it's [6:30] possible that they don't, but I I think [6:32] you have to give them the benefit of the [6:34] doubt for everything that they've done [6:35] in the past 15 to 20 years in terms of [6:38] transforming the stock market and their [6:39] companies. [6:40] >> Let me give you a data point. This is [6:42] from Sevilla, Bank of America. S&P 500 [6:46] Q2 EPS is on pace to growth 30% [6:48] year-over-year [6:49] and that excludes [6:52] the investment markups from Amazon and [6:55] Alphabet all of their private shares. So [6:57] real life earnings. [6:59] >> So wait, explain that to people because [7:00] people don't I don't think everyone [7:01] realizes a lot of some of the earnings [7:03] growth has been because these companies [7:05] own a share of anthropic and open AI and [7:07] they've been jacked up [7:08] >> and SpaceX [7:09] >> in valuations in SpaceX. Right. [7:10] >> Correct. So that is showing up in in [7:12] their earnings. But if you back that [7:14] out, cuz obviously that's not [7:15] repeatable. If you back that out, it's [7:17] still on pace to grow 30% [7:19] year-over-year. I mean, if you include [7:21] the gains, which are one time, and you [7:22] shouldn't, it's up 50%. But again, back [7:24] them out. 30% year-over-year growth. I [7:28] can't believe the market's at an [7:29] all-time high. What a shocker. Look at [7:30] this chart from Yard Denny looking at [7:32] the uh So, we had Edard Denny on the [7:34] podcast last week. Wall Street legend, [7:35] been in the business forever. He has a [7:37] chart that shows [7:38] >> he's got some if if you type in Ed Yard [7:40] or Yardeni research charts, he's got a [7:42] ton of wonderful charts. [7:44] >> Yeah, [7:44] >> I I've been using his bull and bare [7:45] market tables for years. [7:47] >> So, he's got one on uh a side-by-side [7:50] chart of the indexes, large, mid, and [7:52] small, as well as the forward operating. [7:54] >> You're an index, not an indices guy. [7:56] >> I'm an index guy. What I say, the [7:57] indexes. The indexes. I don't do [7:59] indices. [8:00] >> Okay. [8:01] >> Nope. I know it's tomato. [8:03] >> If you have if you have a British if you [8:04] have a British accent, you say indices. [8:05] Sure. Um, if [8:07] >> you have a long island accent, yeah, you [8:08] say indexes [8:09] >> with the operating earnings per share up [8:12] and to the right at an all-time high. [8:16] >> And this is the kind of thing if you [8:17] looked at this and thought it was a [8:18] stock, like a momentum stock, you'd say, [8:20] I'm buying the breakout here. [8:22] >> I'm doing technical analysis on operate [8:24] earnings. Big time flag. But look, it it [8:30] kind of defies logic. How is this [8:31] possible? Imagine showing this to [8:33] someone 5 years ago. pre-hat GBT, hey, [8:36] by 2026, operating mar operating profits [8:39] are going to go absolutely vertical. [8:41] What would they have said was happening? [8:44] You couldn't have predicted something [8:45] like this. There's there was no way in [8:47] 2021 you would have said this is coming. [8:51] We're going to have 5% rates. We're [8:53] going to at some point have 9% inflation [8:55] and S&P 500 is going to be up 16% per [8:58] year and operating profits are going to [8:59] go through the roof. What would have had [9:01] to happen? I have there's no logical [9:03] scenario back then you could have come [9:05] up with for this. [9:06] >> Correct. [9:08] >> All right. This is interesting. From [9:10] Duality Research, we think we share a [9:11] chart from them like every once a week. [9:13] Great substack. This year alone on a [9:16] year-to-ate basis, again, we always [9:17] record this usually pre-market on [9:19] Tuesdays. Uh the Russell 2000 is up 22% [9:23] per year. That's small cap stocks. Equal [9:26] weighted S&P 500 is up 16% and the S&P [9:28] itself is up 14%. So, it's closed the [9:31] gap a little bit, but equal weight is [9:32] still outperforming. Yet, only 45% of [9:35] companies are outperforming the S&P 500 [9:37] on a year-to- date basis. It's kind of [9:39] crazy. 86%, he breaks it out by um [9:41] sectors as well. 86% of energy stocks [9:44] are outperforming this year. 64% of [9:46] materials, [9:48] almost 60% of technology and 60% of [9:50] industrials. So, it's I don't know that [9:52] you could necessarily call this like a a [9:55] hands-own pound the table stock pickers [9:57] market even though these other areas of [9:59] the market are now picking up the slack, [10:01] small caps and such. Like if you're a [10:03] stock picker, this is still probably [10:04] kind of a challenging year because it's [10:06] not like energy and industrials and [10:08] materials make up a huge part of the [10:09] index. How many people have a huge [10:11] allocation to those sectors? [10:13] >> Energy investors. [10:15] So, this is going to be one of those [10:17] years where you go, "Oh, if you're a if [10:19] you're an active stock picker, you [10:20] should be doing really well." And you [10:22] might still might not be because not as [10:24] many stocks are outperforming the S&P as [10:25] you think. [10:26] >> I think it's like half right now. [10:31] >> Yeah. Wait, I just said it's 45%. [10:33] >> Right. [10:34] >> Yeah, it's in the chart. See the blue [10:35] line? [10:38] >> In my defense, in my defense, I just got [10:40] a very important text message. So, I [10:43] apologize to you in the audience, but [10:45] I'll share the text message with you [10:46] after and you'll understand. [10:48] >> Okay. In my defense, and I get yelled at [10:50] my wife. I put my phone on do not [10:52] disturb when I'm podcasting. All [10:54] distractions away. My wife goes, "What [10:55] if there's an emergency?" I said, "No, [10:58] no, nothing trumps podcasting for [10:59] emergencies." Okay. [11:02] Have to wait an hour. All right. [11:03] >> Hey, you know what? You know what? You [11:06] look very handsome today. [11:08] >> Uh, thank you. [11:10] >> I like your outfit. You're looking good. [11:12] You've got a three button polo and you [11:14] gave me [ __ ] a couple of weeks ago [11:16] because I had only What did I have [11:18] unbuttoned? The top two buttoned. [11:19] Unbuttoned. [11:20] >> Yeah. [11:21] >> Are you all the way to the top or is [11:22] that one unbuttoned? I can't tell. [11:23] >> No, you do you do one below the top. [11:26] >> That's [11:27] >> How do you wear a shirt like that? It's [11:28] so tight. If if that if I was wearing [11:29] that, I'd be sweating my butt off. I'm a [11:31] sweater. [11:34] >> Yeah, it's it's kind of cool. It does. [11:37] It It works. Thank you. And I like your [11:38] Chun Lee shirt. [11:40] >> Well, thank you. [11:41] >> Definitely. Yeah, Instagram is your [11:44] personal shopper still. I see. [11:46] >> I've had this whole thing for years. [11:47] >> All right. From Bloomberg, uh, after [11:50] pulling back from an all-time high in [11:51] late June, the Msei Emerging Markets [11:53] Index is valued at nine time 9.9 times [11:56] estimated earnings next year, while the [11:57] S&P fetches a multiple of 20. So, it's [11:59] saying that the the emerging market [12:01] stocks now trade at a record discount to [12:03] the S&P 500. This is this is pretty [12:06] insane if you think about it because [12:07] emerging markets have been outperforming [12:09] for the past two years. They [12:11] outperformed by a wide margin last year [12:13] and I guess this year. Okay. EM has come [12:16] back a little bit. What is it up? [12:19] So I mentioned the S&P is up 14. [12:21] Emerging markets are up [12:23] 27% or so this year. No 20% this year. [12:28] Um but they outperformed both of the [12:30] past two years. And obviously the reason [12:32] this is happening is because Taiwan and [12:35] Korea South Korea are now such a big [12:36] part of it. So you look at this, Taiwan [12:38] and South Korea now make up 45 46% of [12:43] the emerging markets index. China is [12:46] another 20%, India is 12. So those are [12:48] the biggest ones. Technology now makes [12:50] up 41%. So obviously you're getting a [12:52] big part of this con like if you think [12:54] the US stock market is concentrated, [12:56] emerging markets are more concerned. But [12:57] it's interesting to think about this as [12:58] a thought exercise. What would you [13:00] rather own for the next 5 years if this [13:03] let's say the AI trade continues? Okay. [13:05] Would you rather own emerging markets [13:07] trading at a 10 times forward earnings [13:09] forward PE or the S&P trading at 20 [13:12] times forward earnings when I thinkmer [13:14] emerging markets at 40% technology and a [13:17] lot of that in South Korea and Taiwan [13:19] and then China. It's more of a pure AI [13:22] play like would you rather own the [13:23] NASDAQ or the emerging markets right now [13:25] I think is a fair question. [13:26] >> It well it is. So, the valuation aspect [13:29] of it is interesting, but I'm glad you [13:30] said that because it's basically saying, [13:32] would you rather own Samsung and SKHEX [13:36] or the hyperscalers [13:38] >> in Taiwan Semi and Yeah. Dang it, I did [13:41] say semi. [13:42] >> You said it in the in the uh ad. You're [13:44] a semi guy. It's okay. [13:46] >> All right. But I I think th this is [13:49] another thing that five years ago you [13:50] go, "What? You're nuts. If I want to [13:52] tech pure play technology, I'm owning [13:53] the United States." Now, it's a this is [13:56] a legitimate question. if you want. And [13:58] obviously the one of the reasons that [13:59] the earnings are cheaper is because [14:00] these are semi stocks that are powering [14:03] >> and the and the earnings are uh [14:05] semi-permanent. [14:07] But um [14:08] >> well guess what? How about this? How [14:10] about this? Both doesn't you know it [14:12] doesn't need to be all or nothing. [14:14] >> But it's just it's crazy how quickly [14:16] this kind of stuff can change [14:17] >> where emerging markets were for years [14:19] were seen as this [14:20] >> it's energy and banks and industrials [14:24] and materials. Yeah. And now it's a it's [14:26] it's a an AI play essentially. [14:28] >> Yeah, it's wild. It really is [14:30] unbelievable. [14:31] >> All right. Uh Meb Faber for the idea [14:33] farm always tra shares these really long [14:35] pieces of research. I always pull good [14:37] stuff out of this is interesting. [14:38] Speaking of South Korea, uh this is from [14:40] bearings. They did this uh they did this [14:42] thing showing retail participation in [14:44] the equity market for South Korea. It [14:47] went from sub 10% through all the 2010s [14:50] into 2020 and now has more than doubled [14:52] to 28%. So retail is is getting into [14:56] like and this is happening very fast. [14:58] But this is [14:58] >> I think this probably looks similar. I [15:00] think this might look similar to our [15:01] markets. [15:03] >> Here's what doesn't look similar though. [15:05] South Korean household asset breakdown. [15:07] 77% is in real estate. [15:11] 9% is in cash. 3.6% is in equities and [15:14] bonds. [15:16] I don't think people are ready for the [15:18] the wave of money coming into stocks [15:20] from younger people in other countries. [15:24] I think there's a huge huge runway for [15:27] other people in these countries to get [15:29] interested in the stock market. [15:31] >> Like this is for [15:33] >> for South Korea this is the dot bubble [15:35] for them in terms of the dot bubble took [15:38] ownership in the stock market from like [15:40] 30% to 60% for the US. This same thing [15:44] is going to happen in places like Taiwan [15:45] and South Korea and maybe China and like [15:48] it that that kind of thing is going to [15:50] happen. [15:52] Look at look this is kind of this is the [15:54] emerging market thing. Why the 4p is at [15:57] a record discount. [15:59] Forecast earnings growth expectations [16:01] for 2026. The all country world index is [16:04] you kind of have to squint but it's it's [16:06] pretty high. It's like 25%. For Korea [16:08] it's 250%. [16:10] 250% expected earnings growth this year [16:12] in 2020. [16:13] >> Probably not sustainable. [16:15] >> Probably not. That's why it trades so [16:17] cheaply. All right. I debated putting [16:20] this in here, but uh Michael Bur made [16:22] another crash call [16:25] and I want to look at this from a couple [16:26] different angles. Not the usual like aha [16:28] Michael Bur is wrong again because he's [16:30] whatever. If you try to predict the [16:32] crash all the time, you're going to be [16:33] wrong. So this is from CNBC. Michael Bur [16:36] bets against rally. we are near a major [16:38] top and a possible 1987 type fall. So he [16:40] wrote this in his substack I guess that [16:43] he thinks uh it's possible for 1987 type [16:46] fall which I think is is essentially [16:48] impossible to predict and I don't I [16:50] think Paul Tudtor Jones predicted the [16:52] original 1987 or said something like [16:54] this could happen. I don't think he said [16:56] it's going to be 22% in a day [16:58] >> but he said we could set up like a major [17:00] top. What did he [17:01] >> This is a true story. I'm like [17:03] >> you read about this in your book. I [17:05] don't remember if I put this in my book [17:06] or not, but I'm 98% sure that I'm not [17:08] making this up. I read this somewhere. [17:10] He used uh he used a chart from 1929 and [17:13] overlaid it with what was happening in [17:15] 1987, [17:17] >> which is kind of hilarious cuz people [17:19] last [17:19] >> 15 years [17:20] >> type of thing that we literally laugh [17:21] at. [17:22] >> Um I suppose it worked for him that one [17:24] time, [17:25] >> right? [17:27] Okay. So, here's [17:30] here's where I'm going to say like I [17:32] kind of agree with Michael Bur in some [17:34] ways. I don't think we're going to see a [17:36] 1987 crash and I think trying to predict [17:38] one of those is just absolutely [17:40] ridiculous. But I do think that the way [17:43] the market is structured now and with [17:45] the speed at which things move, a an air [17:48] pocket situation is way a much higher [17:50] probability event than it was in the [17:52] past. [17:53] And that to me that's like a down seven [17:57] down eight down 10 or down 12% day if [17:59] something really bad happens. We had we [18:01] had that a million times pandemic and [18:04] also during liberation day, didn't we? [18:07] We have we had 10% down days, I believe, [18:08] in the [18:09] >> Well, we had we had backtoback 5% down [18:11] days. But I'm just saying that type of [18:13] like that's the that's where I actually [18:15] agree with him is that when this thing [18:16] does top out it I'm guessing it will be [18:20] swift and it will be fast. And that's [18:22] the part that I agree with him. Not that [18:23] it's going to be a 1987 route. [18:25] >> I don't know that I agree with you. it [18:27] that could happen. But why would you say [18:29] that's going to happen? Because I think [18:30] there needs to be an event. [18:31] >> I'm not saying it's going I'm I'm saying [18:32] it's a higher probability event now than [18:34] it was in the past because of the speed [18:36] at which the market reprices and the [18:38] speed at which information moves today. [18:41] >> Could be um [18:43] >> I mean listen this guy he he keeps [18:46] trying to predict crashes over and over [18:47] again and he he this is interesting. He [18:49] says shorting is not for everyone. I [18:52] must short most should not. His [18:54] personality is obviously I'm a glass se [18:57] full guy. He's obviously a glass seph [18:58] empty guy, [19:02] right? Like I he just I think it's in [19:03] his bones that he has to do this. [19:06] I looked I had Chad I had I took a chart [19:09] of the S&P and said when did Michael Bur [19:11] say sell? Remember all he did was tweet [19:13] it out sell and I I guess it was in the [19:16] beginning of 2023, January 2023. The [19:19] market has doubled since he said that. [19:23] I think we've talked about this. Some [19:25] people just don't have the personality [19:26] or the emotional makeup to be long-term [19:28] equity holders. And he's obviously one [19:29] of them. [19:31] >> Correct. [19:31] >> Guess what? He's still going to be fine. [19:33] >> In 2019, he said there was a bubble in [19:35] passive investing and it was going to [19:37] pop. [19:38] >> Yes. I I wrote a long blog post about [19:39] how people saying that passive investing [19:41] at the bubble. It's it's it's silly. [19:44] What did you did I write this or did you [19:46] What's two to three years away? [19:47] >> So, I was thinking about this. [19:50] Are we going to look back on the unwind [19:54] of situational awareness [19:57] similar to the way that we look on [19:59] long-term capital management? Now, [20:02] long-term capital management, for those [20:03] of you who don't know, was a hedge fund [20:06] run by quantitative mathematical [20:09] geniuses. And they were doing fixed [20:11] income arbitrage. So, they were trying [20:13] to pick up pennies. Um, and they used a [20:16] lot of leverage and the smartest people [20:18] in investing blew up. [20:21] So, not exactly an apples to apples [20:23] comparison, but that happened two two [20:27] years before the ultimate top in the [20:30] stock market. Is this like the uh the [20:34] precursor before the ultimate unwind [20:37] eventually in the future? [20:39] >> I know that sounds too perfect. The [20:40] funny thing is people don't realize in [20:42] 1998 the S&P dropped like 19%. That was [20:45] a real correction. It was and it, you [20:48] know, there was a currency crisis and [20:49] Russia defaulted on its debt and that's [20:51] why that strategy blew up. It almost is [20:54] a little too perfect, but sure. I'll uh [20:58] I'll give you that one. [20:59] >> All right. What's uh [21:02] >> Okay. Did you Did you watch Adam Cora [21:04] Rich Poor Man? [21:05] >> Okay. I did. [21:06] I saw I saw this thing from Seinfeld and [21:09] he said we speaking of situational [21:10] awareness good lead in I saw this thing [21:12] from Seinfeld and he said this is one of [21:14] my top five favorite pieces of comedy [21:16] material I've ever heard and it's rich [21:17] man poor man from Adam Corolla and he [21:20] talks about how he said I'm not middle [21:22] class it's he said there are very there [21:24] are similarities that rich people and [21:26] poor people like very wealthy and very [21:28] poor people have in common and he said [21:30] outdoor showers either have one by your [21:33] pool in the cabana or you use a garden [21:35] hose [21:36] uh you're on a firstname basis with a [21:38] judge. Either you see him at the golf [21:40] course or you've seen him five times in [21:43] 5 weeks or something. Uh what do you [21:46] refrigerator in the yard? The other one [21:47] was like you you drive a car brand that [21:52] is no longer available anymore. And for [21:54] rich people it's like a rare unique car. [21:56] And for poor people it's like a car [21:58] brand that went out of business. [21:59] >> I like the uh the toilet one. I forget [22:01] what it was. [22:02] >> Yeah. He's got he's refrigerator in the [22:04] yard. you have like a high-end kitchen [22:06] or like you have an appliance dumped in [22:07] your front lawn. It's Oh, the other one [22:10] the other one I liked was you get [22:11] escorted out of the stadium by police, [22:13] right? If you're a rich person, escort [22:16] you out of the stadium, which poor [22:17] Anyway, [22:19] I like I this my finance brain always [22:22] does this. This made me think of [22:24] listening to that bit made me think of [22:26] situational awareness. [22:28] Okay, I'm going to tell you why. So [22:30] Spencer Jacob at the Wall Street Journal [22:31] wrote this and I I love this is kind of [22:33] line I wish I would have written. You [22:34] probably aren't rich or well-connected [22:35] enough to have a 24y old incinerate your [22:37] savings. I love it. And you think about [22:40] it. This the rich man poor man is the [22:42] same with billionaire investors or [22:46] degenerates that we make fun of, right? [22:47] Because if a person with $5,000 in their [22:51] Robin Hood account hit turned up the [22:54] dial to five times leverage and they [22:55] blew up all their stock trading and they [22:58] got margin called you'd say, "Oh, that [23:00] person is a degenerate." But if you do [23:02] it with billionaire money, guess what? [23:05] They're a risk taker. No, that's that's [23:07] that's where like wealthy people, [23:09] wealthy investors and degenerates are [23:11] kind of the same. And this is one of the [23:13] reason like the wealthy person though [23:15] the difference is they get a second [23:17] chance. A lot of the degenerate gamblers [23:19] might if they get wiped out they might [23:20] not get a second chance. So this is from [23:22] Bloomberg. Did you like my comparison [23:24] there? Did that make sense? [23:26] >> I'm with you. Yeah. Not bad. [23:27] >> Kind of landed right. Investors clamor [23:29] to bet on AI whiz kids fund after [23:31] situational awareness turnover to [23:33] turmoil. Uh hey they use wonderkind in [23:36] here again. A week after the hedge fund [23:38] blew up nearly blew up. He's already [23:39] getting a request from an investor is [23:41] looking to place more money with the [23:42] artificial intelligence wonder. [23:43] Apparently, he says uh he's not taking [23:45] new money yet. Uh and then this guy from [23:48] Sequoia says, "Our suspicion is that [23:50] he's going to be a fixture in Silicon [23:51] Valley for a long time to come and [23:53] that's why like people are backing this [23:54] guy and trying to give him more money." [23:58] >> Or maybe or maybe he's the Ben Simmons [24:01] of finance. [24:04] >> What never reaches his potential? [24:06] >> Yeah. Just never to return. I mean, [24:08] don't I don't want to get too cute here, [24:10] but isn't the whole thing this guy used [24:12] to work at OpenAI and he's married to [24:14] someone who's very high up at anthropic [24:16] and people are hoping that they just get [24:17] connections through him. Like, hey, if [24:19] he if he if he loses this money, fine, [24:21] but we get the we get the spouse of [24:24] someone who was very high up in [24:26] anthropic. [24:27] >> That's all that matters. [24:30] >> We're all we're speculating here. [24:33] >> Why would somebody invest in him? [24:34] because he's married to Daario's uh [24:37] chief of is it chief of staff? [24:39] >> I think so. [24:40] >> But why would somebody invest with him [24:41] because of that alone? [24:43] >> I don't know. Cuz VC people, they care [24:44] about connections and networking and [24:45] such. [24:49] >> But this was this was really easy to you [24:51] and I talked about last week. Of course, [24:53] people were going to give him more [24:54] money. [24:54] >> Yeah. [24:55] >> Give him a second chance. That was [24:57] obvious. Mhm. [24:59] >> Again, the poor person though who blows [25:01] up their Robin Hood account, they're not [25:02] getting a second chance. [25:04] All right, we got it. We got it. [25:10] >> All right, [25:11] >> it was good. It was good. [25:12] >> You do the next one. [25:13] >> Um, all right. There was a headline in [25:16] Bloomberg. Young men who trade stocks [25:18] daily feel like failures. You don't say. [25:24] >> You don't say. Um, one quarter podcast. [25:28] This is This is one we actually can get [25:30] behind probably. [25:31] >> Yes. One quarter of men aged 18 to 29 [25:34] said they trade stocks daily. All right, [25:36] let's just think about it for a second. [25:38] One out of four men said they trade [25:40] stocks daily. No. [25:43] >> 18 to 29. Yeah, that that seems on the [25:46] high side. [25:46] >> Yeah. What would you guess? What? 10 20? [25:52] >> Yeah. 5% four. Come on. Whatever. Um [25:56] twothirds of them report feeling like [25:58] failures. All right. that part of it I [26:00] believe. [26:02] >> Uh all right. So they look at the shares [26:05] of [26:05] >> the funny thing is though that that that [26:07] twothirds probably changes at any one [26:10] point. Onethird of them feel good [26:12] because they're lucky and they're [26:14] winning. Twothirds of them are losing [26:16] but then it shifts some of anyway keep [26:18] going. [26:18] >> So they compare they compare like stock [26:20] trading and gambling and if you're doing [26:22] it daily yeah you're going to lose [26:24] obviously and if you do it less than [26:26] daily you feel a little bit like less of [26:27] a loser. [26:30] um gambling and in investing. So sports [26:34] betting and and stock market gambling [26:36] are the same thing. [26:38] The stock market is a place to build [26:40] wealth over the long term, but you could [26:43] treat it like a casino. Obviously, [26:46] with sports betting, [26:50] you can't treat it like investing. [26:54] It is a negative sum outcome. The more [26:58] you gamble on sports, take it from me, [27:02] the more money you lose. Matter of fact, [27:05] there's This is actually great timing. [27:07] >> Yeah. But this is why people like [27:08] trading options because it's not that [27:10] you that the house like wins, it's that [27:14] there is a big payoff or a big loss. [27:17] >> And with stocks, [27:18] >> you kidding me? It's so much fun. [27:20] >> Yeah. [27:21] Uh, [27:23] so I was wondering about this after I [27:25] saw the study from I saw Belunas tweet [27:27] this. How much money do people lose [27:29] gambling? I literally I I asked Claude [27:32] that and then later that afternoon, Ben, [27:37] chef's kiss, Mike Moeson, and Dan [27:40] Callahan wrote a published a report [27:44] called the wisdom of crowds in markets, [27:47] crowds behavior in prediction, betting, [27:50] and stock markets. [27:53] Great timing. [27:53] >> Very good. So it turns out that uh [27:58] gamblers in the US and I don't know how [28:00] they calculated this but whatever. [28:01] Gamblers in the US cumulatively [28:04] lost $3.9 trillion [28:09] nominally. [28:10] So $5.8 trillion in in today's dollars [28:13] from 1929 to 2025. [28:17] Sounds like a pretty big number. Now [28:19] >> is that higher or lower than you would [28:20] have thought it'd be? I I've never [28:21] thought about that number really. [28:22] >> I don't know. I have to like how how [28:23] much is that a year? How much is that of [28:25] overall GDP? How much of that is is [28:27] disposable income? Is it less than 1% of [28:29] people's disposable income on average? [28:31] Yeah, probably. It's a giant number, but [28:33] you have to adjust for it. Anyway, some [28:35] of the things that I thought were [28:36] particularly interesting is I am a huge, [28:39] as I think you are, Ben, wisdom of the [28:41] crowds type of person. Don't tell me [28:44] what you think or don't tell me what you [28:45] think other people think. Put some money [28:48] on the line. And when you do that, you [28:50] get a much different outcome, a much [28:51] more accurate outcome, which is why the [28:53] prediction markets do a lot better for [28:57] politics than some of the survey exit [28:58] polls do. So, I think there will be all [29:01] sorts of interesting economic benefits [29:04] from prediction markets that might make [29:06] the economy more efficient, but I'm also [29:08] sympathetic to the fact that it's just [29:09] straight up gambling and 80% of the [29:12] activity is still sports betting. [29:14] Whatever. [29:15] Anyway, I thought this this chart was [29:18] super duper interesting. They show the [29:20] actual win rate versus the contract [29:23] price on Koshi and it is almost one to [29:27] one accurate. [29:30] >> So, it means that they're setting the [29:31] right odds. [29:32] >> The market is setting the right odds. [29:34] >> The market gets it right. Now, there's [29:37] like a long shot bias where um bets that [29:41] are like 90 cents actually win more than [29:44] they should because who wants to bet on [29:46] a 90-cent outcome, [29:47] >> right? [29:48] >> The you're more likely to bet on the [29:49] 10-centent because it's the it's the [29:50] asymmetric payoff. [29:51] >> So, that's where a lot of the losses are [29:53] happening. The people who are betting on [29:54] the 10 and 20. [29:55] >> So, the long shots actually lose a [29:57] little bit less than implied by the [29:59] rates. [30:01] So, uh, anyway, they said that the [30:03] average VIG is like four and a half [30:05] percent, which makes sense. So, me [30:07] >> prediction markets [30:08] >> or for all gambling, [30:12] >> I think for I think they said this is [30:14] for like for Vegas type odds. [30:16] >> Okay, that makes [30:17] >> anyway. So, if that's if that's the rake [30:19] and you know that that's your baseline. [30:21] So, me my FanDuel account and I've [30:24] spoken about this before. I I lose seven [30:26] cents in the dollar. Now, it fluctuates. [30:28] Sometimes I have I have a good streak [30:29] and I get down to like 5 cents. [30:30] Sometimes I'm bad. I'm down to nine [30:32] cents. So, I guess I'm worse than [30:34] average. [30:35] >> So, will we see [30:37] >> will we see a fee war from the gamblers [30:40] where the VIG goes down or is that just [30:42] always going to be the case? [30:44] >> No, I don't think so. I think that's [30:46] just like baked in. [30:48] >> So, they also said [30:49] >> I think I think gamblers are okay with [30:52] it [30:53] >> for the most part. [30:54] >> Yeah. Everybody knows what's up. [30:56] >> Yeah. [30:58] >> This is interesting. So the survey found [31:01] there were so they asked people how how [31:02] do they do with with betting like what [31:04] are you know are they good are they bad [31:06] 39% of bettors claim that they win more [31:10] than they lose and 28% said they break [31:13] even. Hilarious. That self assessment [31:17] contrasts sharply with estimates that [31:20] 95% or more of sports betterers are [31:22] unprofitable over the long run. Yeah, of [31:24] course you're unprofitable over the long [31:25] run because you're four cents in the [31:27] hole when you start. Of [31:30] course. Yeah. That's a huge hurdle rate. [31:32] >> Yeah. So 39% [31:34] >> you're essentially paying like hedge [31:35] fund fees. [31:37] >> Yeah. This like you're paying two and [31:39] 20. [31:39] >> So 40% of people said they win more than [31:41] they lose. Yeah. Sure. [31:43] >> I guess the thoughts on gambling changes [31:45] when you realize that for 80% of the [31:46] people it's probably entertainment, [31:49] >> right? [31:49] >> No, more than that. [31:51] >> You think it's higher than that? [31:52] >> I think it's I think uh let's say I [31:54] think n I'm going to make this up. 96% [31:57] of people are enter are entertaining [31:58] themselves. [31:59] >> The pro the problem though I wrote I did [32:01] a whole chapter on risk and reward about [32:03] day trading and there's all these [32:05] studies about again why it's so [32:06] unprofitable. But it's just the loss [32:08] aversion thing. The fact that losses [32:10] sting twice as bad as gains feel good. [32:12] The more you do these kind of things, [32:14] the more you're going to lose, the more [32:15] painful it's going to be. [32:17] >> Yeah. So most people stop, [32:20] >> right? [32:20] >> So I was going to say 96% of people are [32:22] like me. I love it. But I will never [32:24] stop cuz I entertain myself and this is [32:26] discretionary money that I am happy to [32:29] hand over to FanDuel in exchange for [32:32] entertainment. Although I do think this [32:33] might be my year. We'll see. Uh 2% are [32:38] professionals and 2% are people that get [32:41] unfortunately that ruin their lives [32:43] because they're addicted. [32:45] >> Having said all that, I think I'm going [32:46] to be a trader now because [32:48] >> Go ahead. [32:49] >> I was in New York last week. [32:50] >> Yeah. Get in the game, Ben. Let's go. [32:53] And I I've I've retired from individual [32:56] stock trading like 12 times. And I heard [32:59] Sean and Matt are just back and forth [33:01] all day. Our Sean's our research [33:03] analyst, Matt from Exhibit A, Chart Kid. [33:05] They're talking about which stocks to [33:07] buy and all this stuff and they're [33:08] talking about SpaceX and and the whole [33:10] consensus is everyone is waiting for [33:12] SpaceX to get to 100, right? And this is [33:13] on Wednesday. I said, "You know what? [33:15] It's never going to get there. People [33:16] are I'm going to do the beauty contest [33:17] thing and I'm just going to buy a little [33:19] SpaceX." And I bought it and it [33:21] immediately went up 20%. [33:22] >> Did you sell it? [33:23] >> Like three days and I sold it. [33:24] >> Good for you. At a boy. [33:26] >> And uh I I almost nailed the bottom of [33:29] Microsoft. I bought Microsoft about [33:30] three weeks ago. Like right before it [33:32] was up 15% today. I'm up like 40% in two [33:35] weeks. I'm going to become a day trader. [33:36] >> You get the edge. [33:37] >> No. No. Because then then [33:40] >> No, you either have the gene or you [33:41] don't. You're not a gambler. [33:43] >> No. Well, I I am a gambler though. I [33:46] love playing blackjack. Blackjack. That [33:47] is true. We do things. That is true. [33:49] Yeah, [33:50] >> I I don't but I'm not the whole other [33:53] like options betting and day trading [33:56] that stuff doesn't do anything for me [33:57] because I I know the I know it. I too I [34:00] have too much knowledge there. [34:01] >> You know too much too. Ben, you bet. You [34:04] know what else you were right on? What [34:05] other stock you were right on? Early but [34:07] right. You see Airbnb. [34:09] >> What's it doing now? It's going crazy. [34:12] >> Yeah. [34:13] >> Is it? [34:14] >> Yeah. [34:14] >> Yeah. Yeah. I was I I bought it at the [34:16] IPO. I was way way early. [34:19] way way early. [34:20] >> Here's here's speak Wait, speaking of [34:22] how quickly stocks move, I just want to [34:24] look at in at the beginning of July, [34:26] Microsoft was in a 35% draw down. Now [34:29] it's five or 6% from all-time highs. [34:32] >> It happened. These things these things [34:34] happen so fast today. [34:36] >> All right, so in conclusion, young men [34:38] that are day trading, um yeah, don't do [34:42] it or do it. Get out of your system. [34:44] It's a losers game. It's not fun. I [34:46] mean, it's fun for a little, but [34:47] >> some people just have to pay the tuition [34:49] of the market gods. [34:50] >> Yeah. You know what? I feel like I feel [34:52] like most [34:53] most people go through this. Most I [34:55] don't know if that's maybe that's a [34:56] stretch. Whatever. I certainly did. I [34:58] got it out of my system. This is like [35:00] this is what it is. You you discover the [35:01] market. Holy [ __ ] I'm going to get [35:03] rich. And eventually, hopefully most [35:04] people are like, "All right, man. It's [35:07] harder than I thought." [35:08] >> I talked to a financial adviser once who [35:09] told who told me like he had a client [35:11] come in who he could tell just wasn't he [35:12] goes, "You're not a prospect." He said, [35:14] "You're not ready for me yet. Go back [35:16] out for like five more years and do your [35:18] own thing. You get out of your system, [35:19] then come back to me." Some people [35:21] aren't ready for just like the boring [35:22] stuff right away. They need to have the [35:24] excitement and then they get the boring [35:25] stuff later. [35:26] >> You truly are a one of one. [35:29] You literally opened a brokerage account [35:30] and bought a retirement date fund. Did [35:32] you not? [35:33] >> That's right. My very first purchase was [35:34] a target date fund. [35:36] >> You are really This is like That was [35:38] like 2005 maybe. [35:40] >> And how much are you up on that? Do you [35:41] still hold it? I I traded it for [35:44] something else a long time ago, but [35:46] >> that would have been something. All [35:47] right, we have to talk about SpaceX. So, [35:49] we we spoke about the SPVS over in the [35:53] leadup to the IPO. An SPV is called a [35:56] special purpose vehicle or it stands for [35:57] a special purpose vehicle and there were [35:59] all of these people that wanted to get [36:01] into SpaceX, but you couldn't get [36:02] primary shares from the company. So [36:04] maybe an an existing investor wanted to [36:07] sell a piece of their shares and so you [36:09] were able to to basically free ride or [36:11] not free ride, it was a transaction. You [36:12] were able to get some of their shares [36:13] into this different fund and you would [36:16] you would raise money from people and [36:18] you would buy a piece of their fund and [36:19] then it became like a Russian is it a [36:21] Russian egg doll, right? A Russian [36:24] >> Russian doll. [36:25] >> Russian Why did I say egg doll? [36:26] >> I don't know where the egg thing came [36:27] from. [36:29] >> Shaped like eggs maybe. I don't know. [36:30] >> Russian doll. Russian doll where people [36:33] were then selling pieces of their SPV [36:35] and it became this whole convoluted [36:37] thing where it was scary because like [36:39] you the the investors couldn't even [36:43] prove that they held underlying shares [36:46] that they actually had exposure. And so [36:48] one of the horror stories came to light [36:50] in the Wall Street Journal. [36:52] Um they said that the so they they [36:55] highlighted some poor guy who put [36:57] $17,000 into one of these SPVS in 2020. [37:01] He thought it would be worth $300,000 at [37:03] the IPO. A life-changing amount of [37:04] money. Thought I was going to be able to [37:05] send his kids to college. Turns out that [37:08] the investment company sold it in 2024. [37:13] Uh his stake was worth $45,000. Now a [37:16] good return, but that's not the point. [37:17] If you thought you were that you were [37:18] gonna get $300,000 and you got 45, it's [37:22] it's a catastrophe. [37:24] >> Was the guy who ran the investment [37:26] company your friend who sold your Nicks [37:27] tickets before the finals? Because it [37:28] sounds like the same guy. [37:30] >> Brutal. Um, [37:34] a private offshore [37:37] in in so this from the journal. Um, [37:42] a private offshore investment firm based [37:44] in the Bahamas called Capital Truth [37:46] acquired a portion of an SPV that owned [37:48] pre preIPO SpaceX shares. It then [37:51] appears to have repackaged the interests [37:53] and sold them on to Late Stage according [37:56] to court documents and lawyers. So, Late [37:58] Stage was the company based in New [38:00] Jersey. Huge red flag. No offense to New [38:03] Jersey. [38:04] >> You can't trust a company based in New [38:05] Jersey or the Bahamas called Capital [38:06] Truth. Who can you trust? But the the [38:08] the the horrible thing is like obviously [38:11] these are unsuspecting investors. How [38:12] did they know? [38:13] >> They're getting swindled. [38:15] >> So this person that they profiled [38:18] fielded dozens of congratulatory text [38:21] messages according to the journal from [38:22] friends who knew about a space [38:24] investment. [38:24] >> He was he was bragging to everyone. [38:26] >> Dude, of course. I mean yeah. Duh. [38:28] That's what you do. This is right. Like [38:30] you can't I I wouldn't be able to keep [38:31] that to myself. [38:33] >> O brutal. He went out to dinner to [38:36] celebrate. Um, just absolutely horrible. [38:40] Um, I hope these people go to jail. Uh, [38:43] and speaking of speaking of this, they [38:45] did a real Wolf of Wall Street [38:48] documentary on Amazon, a three-parter, [38:49] and it was great. I thought, did you [38:51] watch it? [38:53] >> I did not. I just [38:56] I'm I hate Jordan Belffort. I hate that [38:59] guy. [38:59] >> What What a [39:00] >> I think he's such a scumbag that I don't [39:01] want to give him any of my attention. [39:04] fair. What a piece of garbage. I mean, [39:05] obviously The Wolf of Wall Street, the [39:07] movie, I don't know that it glamorized [39:10] him, per se. I mean, it I don't think it [39:11] made him look like a good guy, but it [39:12] but they did nothing to talk about the [39:15] crimes that he committed and all of the [39:16] victims. And in this one, [39:18] >> that was why I didn't care for it as [39:20] much as most people. [39:21] >> I couldn't I just felt I felt gross [39:23] watching it. [39:24] >> Yeah. Well, even still, Jordan is [39:26] talking about how he's a redemption [39:28] story and the comeback and no remorse. [39:30] So, one of his one of one of his best [39:33] friends, I think the guy that was uh [39:36] >> who Jonah Hill played, I can't remember [39:38] exactly, [39:39] >> daughter died of leukemia and Jordan [39:42] didn't send like didn't no text message, [39:44] no nothing. Just a world class scumbag. [39:48] >> Yeah, I'm I'm sure it's entertaining [39:50] though. [39:50] >> Um All right. Uh bars are giving up on [39:54] young people. Ben, [39:57] on a recent Friday night, this is also [39:58] the Wall Street Journal. On a recent [40:00] Friday night, Philadelphia's Trestlean [40:01] welcome welcomed the crowd for a prince [40:04] themed dance party. Revelers rocking [40:06] purple eyeshadow and love symbols slurp [40:08] down the whiskey sours and lit up the [40:10] dance floor while a go-go dancer uh [40:12] gyrated to hits like let's go crazy in [40:16] 1999. Almost everyone was over 50. Well, [40:18] obviously. Um so the bar owner said, "We [40:21] realized that the younger generation [40:22] weren't drinking as much and these early [40:23] parties were a way to get older folks in [40:25] the door. [40:27] The bars have a new favorite customer, [40:28] the Gen Xer. [40:31] >> It makes sense. So Derek Thompson on [40:33] Plain English last week had a story [40:35] about how marijuana use on a daily basis [40:38] is now more than alcohol use, probably [40:41] for the first time in history. It's [40:42] pretty crazy. So he should [40:43] >> to me this is a catastrophe. So I was a [40:46] huge huge pthead growing up and it [40:50] literally and now I know I'm an extreme [40:52] example of this, but it literally ruined [40:55] my life. [40:57] Now I have an addict addicted [40:58] personality. I am like I am like uh [41:02] Richard Lewis who is an alcoholic [41:03] drinking champagne. You're like how do [41:06] you even get to that point? So I smoked [41:08] way way way way too much. And I once [41:10] heard Elon Musk describe marijuana as [41:14] coffee in reverse. And that's what it [41:16] is. At least that's what it is for me. [41:18] >> When you're a young when you're a young [41:19] guy you sit you just sit there and play [41:20] video games all day, right? [41:22] >> Yeah. It is it is a demotivator. it like [41:26] so there's some people that are [41:28] functioning ptheads. I get it, right? [41:30] But let's assume that most people are [41:31] not that. The fact that young that [41:33] there's [41:34] 21 [41:36] million people [41:38] Oh, wait, hold on. Is this young people? [41:40] It's a lot of people regard this, but [41:42] every day. [41:43] >> Oh, this Yeah, this is this is everyone. [41:46] Um, and Dererick's point was, yeah, this [41:48] is marijuana actually makes sense for [41:51] this moment because people are more [41:52] anxious and they're using it as an [41:54] anxiety sort of medication, what if you [41:56] call it that, but it's also for people [41:58] who want to stay in and don't want to be [42:00] social. And that's the point like it's [42:02] it is the antisocial drug. And you [42:04] mentioned the demotivator. And obviously [42:06] there's people who just do gummies and [42:08] they use it to help them sleep or [42:09] whatever. And [42:09] >> well, I was I was about to say that in [42:11] fairness. [42:12] >> Yeah. It's not like when we were when we [42:14] were pads and we were just taking bonets [42:16] all day like complete morons, [42:18] >> right? [42:18] >> People are people are like much more [42:20] responsible [42:22] >> today. They're they're taking tiny [42:24] doses. They're taking it to fall asleep. [42:26] It's not like everybody's walking around [42:27] stoned all day, but that is a wild [42:29] number. [42:29] >> Yeah. But but it seems like a lot of [42:30] people have traded the negative physical [42:33] effects of alcohol for the negative [42:37] they're giving up on the they're trading [42:38] it for mental health negative effects. [42:40] That's where we've That's where we've [42:41] gotten. [42:44] Alcohol just does make you more social. [42:46] It just does. I am I am a very [42:48] introverted person. I probably took it [42:49] way too far and like when I went to [42:50] college, but it helped me like be more [42:52] extroverted. [42:53] >> Of course it does. So when when Ben and [42:54] I are pounding the table for young [42:56] people to get out there and drink. Uh I [42:59] don't I'm not saying like, "Hey, listen [43:01] young people [43:01] >> drink." Yeah. We're not saying that. [43:02] >> Yeah. Stay at home and drink a bottle of [43:05] vodka. Obviously, we're not saying that. [43:07] Get out there. Be social. Get a life, go [43:10] have a drink, meet somebody, talk to a [43:12] human being. [43:14] >> And I I do think whenever I go to a big [43:16] city, it seems like young people are [43:17] doing this still. I know that the bars [43:19] are saying it's I don't know where, but [43:21] when you go to New York and Chicago and [43:22] places, there's still young people out [43:23] of the bars, right? [43:26] >> Um, yeah, we were out of we were out of [43:29] the bars last week, we saw young people. [43:31] >> Yeah. [43:33] This is a good [43:35] >> good from Bank of America. It's funny. [43:37] Uh if you talk about the unemployment [43:39] rate today, people will say, "Yeah, but [43:40] what about the labor force participation [43:42] ratio, right? If you look at it like for [43:44] older people, it's it's falling and they [43:46] use that as a sign of this is a bad [43:48] thing." But so the labor force [43:49] participation rate for 55 plus is [43:51] dropping at a massive rate. Like it's [43:54] down a lot in the last year and a half [43:56] or so. And Bank of America says, "No, [43:58] no, no. This is not a bad thing. This is [44:00] not a sign of people who are giving up [44:01] on the workforce. This is a sign of [44:03] people who have a lot more money than [44:04] they thought they would, and they're [44:05] retiring early. My house is worth way [44:08] more. My stock portfolio is worth way [44:09] more. My business is worth way more. I'm [44:12] out. There's a lot of people who are [44:14] retiring early right now. This is a [44:15] that's a massive drop. It's fantastic. [44:18] Here's a companion chart also from Bank [44:20] of America. [44:21] Their average 401k balance is now [44:24] $160ome thousand. It was $100,000 in [44:27] 2023. God knows what it was in 2017. The [44:30] stock market is fundamentally changing [44:32] our country. And hallelujah. [44:36] It is. Now the the thing that people [44:39] would tell you is just wait what happens [44:41] on the I [44:43] >> I do think whenever the next recession [44:46] hits and let's say we get a 30% bare [44:48] market and it lasts for 15 months [44:51] instead of three. I am I'm fascinated to [44:55] see what the reaction is going to be [44:58] like. Will will we get [44:59] >> which reaction the narrative or the [45:01] spending or [45:01] >> the sentiment? like will everything will [45:04] we get the next recession will it kind [45:07] of be like inflation where the sentiment [45:08] turns so so sour cuz we haven't [45:11] experienced it in so long [45:15] like I think the [45:17] >> I don't what are we talking about we [45:18] just did that [45:20] >> did what [45:21] >> we just had a bare market that lasted 15 [45:23] months [45:24] >> yeah we didn't have a recession I think [45:26] the the recession piece and people [45:28] losing their jobs is what's going to [45:29] really [45:31] >> true [45:31] >> tip True, true, true. Yeah. [45:32] >> Well, you know what? Just wait. [45:34] >> I reject that. You know why? If somebody [45:38] has enough money to retire because the [45:41] stock market outkicked its coverage for [45:45] what their expectations were, you think [45:47] they're 100% in stocks? No, dummy. [45:49] >> Right. Exactly. They shouldn't be, [45:52] that's for sure. All right. Uh, opinion [45:56] piece from Bloomberg. We would be in a [45:58] recession without AI. Obviously, this is [46:01] not even like controversial. Virtually [46:04] nothing matters more to markets at [46:05] present than the AI buildout. It's such [46:06] a sudden massive stimulus for the US [46:08] that it has shifted macroeconomic data. [46:10] This professor from Columbia School of [46:12] Business argues that without it, US [46:13] would be in a recession. He estimates AI [46:15] infrastructure investment at roughly [46:16] 2.8% of GDP, larger than the railroad [46:19] boom, and is projected to keep rising. [46:23] Here's the problem with this though, [46:24] when you think about it this way. Like [46:25] if we just took AI out the economy like [46:28] this money would been would have been [46:29] used for something else. [46:31] >> It goes to other places. [46:33] >> Yes. That's [46:34] >> this is like this is like uh okay the [46:39] Knicks maybe this is a bad example but [46:41] just go with me. Jaylen Brunson is not [46:43] playing. If the Knicks score 110 points [46:45] a game and Jaylen scores 27 points a [46:47] game now they're going to score 87 or [46:49] whatever the number is, right? Like all [46:51] right. No, the points go somewhere else. [46:53] >> Yeah. So, the Knicks are the Knicks are [46:56] worse off without Jaylen and the economy [46:58] would be worse off without AI, but it's [47:00] not a it's not a linear decline. Come [47:02] on. [47:03] >> It wouldn't be it wouldn't be a hole. [47:04] Like, take that hole out and then [47:06] there's nothing there. [47:07] >> Okay. And also, in fairness, I I do [47:09] think that there's a a a decent pro I [47:12] would say better than 5050 chance that [47:14] the economy would be in a recession [47:15] without AI. I do think that if it [47:17] weren't for this, given higher interest [47:19] rates and everything else, we'd have I [47:21] don't think we would have been able to [47:22] absorb all of that without the magic of [47:24] this this uh cycle. [47:26] >> And if you listed what will the reason [47:28] be for the next recession, I would put [47:31] AI as like 80% favorites. [47:34] >> Yeah. [47:34] >> Like the odds on it would be you [47:36] wouldn't be able to you wouldn't want to [47:37] take those because AI has to be the the [47:39] reason for the next [47:40] >> All right. [47:41] I think the the PR people are out and [47:44] full force and they're realizing it. So [47:46] Mark Zuckerberg who he's another one [47:49] that I read the book that the social [47:51] network was based on Ben Mezri wrote [47:53] this book I think it's called the young [47:55] young millionaires or something like [47:56] that. It was the book that was and I [47:58] read it before like he really was huge [48:00] in the zeitgeist and popular. So, I read [48:02] this back in I don't know when it came [48:03] out, the mid early 2000, like 2007 [48:06] probably. I read this 2008. [48:08] And he was another one I'm just like, [48:10] "God, he's such a slimeball." And I feel [48:12] like I've kind of underestimated him [48:13] ever since because of what I read about [48:14] him in that book and how he acted in [48:16] college, you know? But one thing that he [48:19] has, [48:19] >> let's not judge people's Let's not judge [48:21] people's character based on how they [48:22] behave in college. [48:23] >> That's fair. Uh well, he did screw over [48:26] Red Water pretty bad. But I I think one [48:29] thing that he's done over time is he is [48:31] just like a a chameleon to whatever is [48:33] going on at the moment, he like he's [48:34] know he knows how to shape shift and do [48:36] what he has to do. So he wrote this [48:37] whole piece about how the future is for [48:39] everyone. The path to a positive AI [48:40] future. So he's trying to say like hey [48:42] all right let's take a step back and [48:44] look at the positives of AI because [48:46] obviously the negativity is is growing. [48:49] Um he says it is surprising that the [48:51] discourse for many developing AI is so [48:53] filled with doom. I do not understand [48:54] why anyone who believes that AI will [48:56] eliminate most jobs in much of [48:57] humanity's relevance would rush to build [48:59] that future. Like he's saying the he's [49:02] saying the right things that should have [49:03] been said from the beginning. And then [49:05] he go he says all right let's talk about [49:07] what AI will do for you in the future [49:08] that will be positive and not focus on [49:10] the negatives. And this isn't like [49:13] groundbreaking stuff but I I I think [49:14] this is probably the stuff that he wants [49:16] to do with with meta. So he says, [49:18] "Everyone have a personal agent that [49:19] understands you, your goals, and [49:20] everything you care about 24/7 work on [49:23] your behalf. [49:24] Uh, everyone have a personalized tutor [49:26] and coach with a PhD in every subject." [49:28] I think that's like a positive thing we [49:30] could say for our children hopefully, [49:32] right? And he says, "Everyone will have [49:33] free or affordable access to these [49:35] tools." Now, this is the part where it [49:37] probably gets kind of tricky for these [49:39] companies. [49:41] If everyone has access to free or [49:43] affordable access, like who's is it just [49:45] going to be the top 5% of people paying [49:47] for all the tokens? Is that like the [49:49] hope that it's going to be the people [49:51] who are so overly reliant and that's [49:53] going to subsidize everyone else? [49:56] >> Why? [49:56] >> There are people who just won't cuz he's [49:58] saying everyone will have free or [49:59] affordable access to these tools. He's [50:02] saying, let's listen, if we want this to [50:03] work and help people, this has got to be [50:05] cheap for the masses. There has to be a [50:07] free option available for people to use [50:09] this. [50:09] >> It is cheap for the masses. First of [50:10] all, there's a free version. And how [50:13] much is chat? 20 bucks a month. [50:16] For the paid version, that's Netflix. [50:17] >> But don't you think there's some people [50:18] who just won't pay for it? [50:20] >> So, [50:20] >> don't you think [50:23] >> there's a free version? [50:24] >> All right. He's saying like we need to [50:26] have a free Anyway, we're worth a read, [50:29] but the PR departments have obviously [50:31] figured out like, guys, we have to spin [50:33] this more positively. And guess what? I [50:34] think it's probably too late for that [50:35] positive spin. [50:37] >> I agree, [50:39] Ben. Duncan tells us it's a Russian [50:41] nesting doll. So, I don't know where egg [50:43] came from, but it's not egg. It's [50:45] nesting. [50:48] >> You give it your best shot. All right. [50:49] So, I I think for probably once or twice [50:53] a year when I come to New York, you do a [50:55] good job of getting us comedy tickets [50:57] and going to the comedy seller. And and [50:59] that's that's my favorite neighborhood. [51:00] The West Village is my favorite [51:01] neighborhood in New York. I love going [51:02] there. I love the bars and restaurants [51:04] and walking around and the vibe and the [51:06] energy. And so, we went to the comedy [51:08] seller. We had, you and Chris and I, we [51:10] had great seats, perfect location up on [51:12] the level ledge a little bit. And as [51:16] most comics do, they they they rip on [51:18] the people in the front row. Like I I [51:20] don't know if I'd want to sit in the [51:21] front row at a lot of com because you [51:22] know you're going to get ripped on [51:24] >> and a lot of people that's their stick [51:25] is, "Hey, where are you from? What do [51:27] you do? Hey, are you two dating? What's [51:28] your story?" [51:30] >> And so there was a guy who was enjoying [51:31] himself in the front row, mid20s [51:33] probably, and one of the comics said, [51:35] "What do you do?" You know, he said, "I [51:36] work for Nvidia. [51:38] And the comic goes without missing a [51:40] beat goes, "What is that? TVs?" And you [51:43] and I are the only ones in the whole [51:44] audience who started laughing because we [51:47] and no one else got you and I are the [51:49] only ones who thought this was funny [51:50] that the guy who works for Nvidia uh who [51:52] was putting a fair number of drinks back [51:54] and enjoying himself to the point where [51:55] the comedians really couldn't understand [51:56] what he was saying. I think he was [51:58] probably celebrating his stock options. [52:00] And the comedian didn't and then then he [52:01] said, "Well, she said, "Wait, what is [52:04] that again?" And he said, "Oh, like AI." [52:06] She said, "Oh, data centers." And then [52:07] she like people started booing kind of [52:09] and [52:10] >> oh really [52:10] >> she was like oh yeah you didn't catch [52:12] that. She was kind of like oh she kind [52:13] of like gave it a negative [52:15] >> but that just got me thinking that okay [52:17] this still has a long way to go if like [52:19] people still don't know the biggest [52:20] company in the world $5 trillion company [52:23] who's helping build AI. Uh we got a long [52:26] way to go. Is that is that a fair [52:28] anecdote? [52:29] >> Uh perhaps I don't know maybe [52:31] >> I know maybe I'm getting too cute. [52:32] >> We're gauging the market by the comedy [52:34] seller. You know, maybe should you and I [52:36] step outside our comfort zone one time [52:37] and sit in the front? [52:39] I don't think I don't think I would [52:40] enjoy it. I have too much anxiety for [52:42] that. [52:42] >> It's a lot, right? Someone did call you [52:45] a a JV wrestling coach once at a [52:48] >> gym teacher. [52:50] >> Oh, gym teacher. Okay, that was a [52:52] >> Hey, uh um [52:56] last week I made a comment about our [52:59] audience being more tuned into the [53:01] market than uh than the than the average [53:03] in than the average citizen. And we got [53:05] a bunch of people saying I actually [53:06] don't really like check the market, my [53:09] portfolio all that much. I listen to you [53:11] guys. And uh I'm sure it's a mixed bag [53:14] of people that listen. Some people are [53:15] watching. We've heard from people that [53:17] say like, "Listen, I outsource my news [53:19] to you and if it's in the news, you guys [53:20] are going to cover it." [53:21] >> Great. I love it. Love to hear it. So, I [53:23] got me the thinking. Uh, [53:26] how often do you check your portfolio, [53:29] the balance of your portfolio? And I [53:32] will set the overunder at [53:35] I will set the overunder at [53:38] uh every two weeks. And I would probably [53:41] say I would probably say the over as [53:45] meaning like less frequently than that. [53:50] >> So every three weeks, every month, [53:53] >> every six months I update a spreadsheet [53:56] that has all of our accounts on it. [53:58] Right. [53:58] >> You are such a boomer. [54:00] >> Retirement accounts. I still [54:02] >> You know, you know we have technology [54:03] for that, right? You know, we're we run [54:05] a RAIA. We could we could we could take [54:07] care of you for that. [54:08] >> I do. I I still update it manually every [54:12] six months, but I don't do it if it's a [54:13] bare I only update it if it's a bull [54:14] market. I do not look at my accounts if [54:16] it's a bare market because I don't want [54:17] to know. I I know what they're they are, [54:19] but I don't So I I'd say like our [54:21] porterhouse strategy, I check that [54:23] occasion, but I feel like for me that's [54:24] more thinking through personal. [54:28] >> Okay. So then [54:30] once every three months. [54:32] >> Holy [54:34] [ __ ] [54:36] Because I know in the back of my I can [54:38] do the math on the back of the envelope. [54:39] I know what it is. I don't need to [54:41] constantly see the number and see it [54:44] moving. [54:45] >> I practice what I preach here, man. [54:47] >> You know, [54:48] >> the more often you look, the more pain [54:49] you're going to have. [54:50] >> And you are better off for it. [54:52] >> How often do you do it? Once a Once a [54:54] week. Once a day. [54:56] >> Once a day. That's it. [55:02] >> Come on. Those are rookie numbers. Uh [55:04] yeah. No. all the time. Way way way way [55:06] more often than I should. I mean, but [55:08] because also I'm picking I'm picking [55:09] stocks. I'm having a good time. I'm [55:11] doing what you're not supposed to be [55:12] doing. [55:13] >> Yeah. Now that I do, but yeah, you only [55:14] pay attention to that one that one part [55:16] of your portfolio when you're picking [55:17] stocks. [55:18] >> You know what I am? The you know the [55:20] story about the the husband and wife are [55:23] at a blackjack table. They're they're [55:25] playing cards and they go off on their [55:26] separate way. And he says, "How'd you [55:28] do?" And she goes, "I lost 200 bucks." [55:31] He goes, " $200? You lo How do you lose [55:33] $200?" And she said, "Well, how much? [55:34] But how did you do? I lost $1,000. You [55:37] lost $1,000. You're yelling at me that I [55:38] lost $200. And he said, "Yeah, but I [55:39] know how to gamble." [55:40] >> Right. [55:42] >> That's my [55:42] >> I like it. [55:43] >> Thank you. [55:45] >> One more thing on the gambling stuff, [55:47] Ben. There was an article again in the [55:50] Wall Street Journal with the headline, [55:54] uh, the live shopping app where some [55:55] people bid until they're broke. You know [55:57] about these things? [55:58] >> No. [55:59] >> This is some real predatory [ __ ] [56:02] All right, here's the lead. Sean Harding [56:04] downloaded WhatNot, a live shopping app [56:06] after rekindling his childhood baseball [56:08] card collecting hobby. Within four [56:10] months, the 45-year-old accountant had [56:12] spent almost 1.4 million from his [56:14] savings, his personal loans, money [56:17] borrowed from a friend, and finally from [56:18] his employer company's credit card. Holy [56:21] [ __ ] [56:21] >> Jeez. when his wife discovered the full [56:23] tally she had filed for a divorce. He [56:25] said, "I just kept telling myself one [56:27] more time that I'd sell it all and make [56:28] all my money back, but it was so easy to [56:30] just swipe right." Oh, this poor [56:32] bastard. Um, [56:34] >> I don't know what this is. [56:35] >> So, this is this is a shopping app where [56:38] you could buy it's like an auction. So, [56:42] it's possible that you buy an iMac [56:44] computer for $11 because you just so [56:47] happen to like whatever the auction runs [56:48] out and like there's all these anomalies [56:50] that they highlight that they advertise. [56:52] You can buy this for this and they hook [56:55] people in. [56:56] >> I mean, this this there's nobody winning [56:59] here. This should this should just be [57:00] illegal. There's [57:01] >> so [57:02] So, what did he spend all his money on [57:04] then? What did he get? [57:05] >> Clicks. Nothing. [57:08] Nothing. He's gambling that he's going [57:10] to be able to buy an item for 80% less [57:12] than it's worth and then resell it. [57:15] >> And if you don't get it, you don't get [57:16] anything. [57:17] >> Nothing. [57:17] >> Wow. [57:20] >> Gross, right? [57:23] >> I mean, [57:23] >> listen, I'm I'm a I'm a capitalist. I [57:26] love companies making people making [57:28] money. This is this is not that. This is [57:31] disgusting. [57:32] But I mean, if this guy did all this and [57:34] he put it on his he borrowed money for a [57:36] friend and he put on his employer credit [57:38] card, he was going to do something like [57:39] this eventually. [57:40] >> Okay. There is obviously the personal [57:42] responsibility angle. Of course. [57:44] >> Yeah. [57:45] >> But this is this is just predatory [57:47] behavior. [57:48] >> It's true. [57:50] That's uh I didn't realize how that's [57:52] how those things work. All right. Connor [57:54] Sen has a new Substack uh called the [57:57] housing frame. We were writing about [57:59] housing and how it relates to the [58:00] economy. He says his first post says, [58:03] "The housing recession is over." And I [58:04] thought this was interesting. He looked [58:05] back at other lengthy housing [58:07] recessions. He said, "Listen, since the [58:08] first quarter of 2022, we've had a [58:10] housing recession. That's almost half a [58:12] decade." He said, "We had one from 1979 [58:14] to 1982 and the Fed nuked the economy [58:16] with tight money for four years. We had [58:17] another one from 1988 to 1991, which was [58:20] a savings and loan crisis and the Gulf [58:21] War and then the Great Recession, of [58:23] course, lasted six years, 2006, 2011." [58:27] Here's the interesting thing, though. So [58:28] he's saying like four years ago, home [58:30] builders pulled back, apartment [58:31] development slumped, number of homes for [58:33] sales surged in places that boomed the [58:34] most during the pandemic, housing [58:35] frenzy. And he's saying he thinks it's [58:37] over. Like we're getting some signs of [58:38] activity. The crazy thing to me is this [58:40] this has absolutely been a housing if [58:42] you worked in the housing industry. This [58:43] has been brutal for you in a loan [58:45] department, as a realtor. Like [58:47] >> this has been rough. The case Schiller [58:49] National Home Price Index is up almost [58:51] 12% since the first quarter of 2022. So [58:54] during a housing recession, housing [58:56] prices still rose almost 12%. Now you [58:58] could say well inflation was up even a [58:59] little more than that. So on a real [59:01] basis but still [59:03] >> this is I but I think this people [59:06] assumed that the great recession housing [59:08] recession like that was the baseline to [59:10] think through housing prices just don't [59:13] fall very often. It just even those [59:15] other ones 1979 to 1982 housing prices [59:18] were up. [59:19] >> Oh wow. [59:20] >> Right. So, like in most housing [59:22] recessions, housing prices still rise [59:25] >> and the supply demand imbalance is is [59:27] permanent. [59:28] There's what 70 million people between [59:31] 37 and 39 years old or something like [59:33] that, [59:34] >> right? [59:34] >> And the boomers just aren't selling [59:35] their houses. [59:37] >> Exactly. [59:38] >> So, this is not this is not going to get [59:39] fixed. It's awful. [59:40] >> And obviously, we're not figuring out [59:42] ways to build more homes either. That it [59:43] just seems like that ship, for whatever [59:45] reason, has sailed. And even if we did [59:47] decide, it would take so long to do. Who [59:50] knows how long it would take to actually [59:51] matter for young people, [59:53] >> right? Let's do some some quarter stuff. [59:55] Um, so SpaceX reported, and here's a [59:58] quote from Elon Musk. If you have a mass [60:00] accelerator on the moon and you have [60:01] solar and radiator production on the [60:03] moon, you can I know this sounds totally [60:05] nuts, but you can probably scale to a [60:07] thousand times the economy of the Earth [60:08] in terms of intelligence launches to [60:09] space. Probably maybe even a million [60:12] times. [60:14] You know the problem with the hard part [60:16] of Elon Musk? Like if you listen to a [60:17] technology person, they'll say, "Hey, [60:19] never bet against Elon Musk. Look what [60:21] he's done. He created this EV company. [60:23] He create he can have rockets that take [60:26] off and land." But he also says so many [60:28] things that just don't come true. So [60:29] it's really hard to know. He's made a [60:32] lot He's made a million promises, right? [60:34] He remember he was going to have that [60:35] Hyperloop thing. I'm going to create [60:37] tunnels underneath cities and we're [60:38] going to go back and forth and it's [60:39] going to be so fast. And there's so many [60:40] things he's promised that haven't [60:41] happened. [60:42] >> Okay. I I love this. [60:44] I am not an Elon Musk uh fanboy, but [60:50] I love this attitude of yeah, we can do [60:54] anything. As crazy as it sounds, this [60:58] insane entrepreneurial spirit to move [61:02] the world forward, advanced technology [61:04] that sounds science fiction and sounds [61:06] totally insane. I love it. I love that [61:09] there's people out there like this that [61:10] are just pushing the boundaries of what [61:11] sounds like something that you would [61:13] giggle at. You know, [61:15] >> it would be cool to have the the view of [61:16] Earth from the moon. Like if you lived [61:18] on the moon, every morning you wake up [61:20] and see the Earth. That's a good view, [61:22] right? [61:23] >> I would. Yeah, it's a great view. [61:25] Beautiful. Uh all right, let's do Disney [61:26] real quick. So, this blew my face off, [61:30] Ben. Toy Story does $1 billion dollar in [61:37] annual global retail sales. [61:40] >> Jeez, [61:41] >> my kids really liked the new movie. I [61:43] didn't see it. My kids loved it. [61:44] >> It was excellent. Uh, they estimate it's [61:49] done $16 billion in income for Disney, [61:52] the Toy Story franchise. [61:54] Um, all right. So, here we go. [61:56] >> Company with a bigger monopoly where the [61:57] stock has stunk more than Disney. Disney [62:00] has a huge monopoly. [62:01] >> What? Oh, in theme parks. [62:02] >> Theme parks and just brand branding. [62:05] Disney has a huge branding monopoly [62:08] >> and the stock stinks. [62:10] >> No, they don't. They don't have a brand [62:11] monopoly. [62:12] >> Well, not mon maybe monopoly is the [62:14] wrong way to say it. They're just their [62:16] the reach of their brand has to be about [62:18] as strong as anyone that there is. And [62:20] the stock stinks. Total revenue grew 7% [62:23] 11% revenue growth at the parks and [62:25] experiences which is kind of nuts [62:26] considering how expensive it is and they [62:30] keep raising prices and people seem to [62:32] keep going. So, and it's accelerating. [62:35] So, they haven't had growth like this in [62:37] a long time at the parks. Um, [62:42] this is confusing. This quarter we [62:44] passed an important milestone in app [62:45] unification allowing Hulu standalone and [62:47] bundle subscribers to link profiles. So, [62:50] this this is like getting really [62:51] annoying um with my own app. How how [62:55] hard is this? I guess it's harder than [62:56] you would think. So, if you log it to [62:58] Hulu and Disney, they don't they don't [62:59] sync with each other. So, if you're [63:01] watching I don't know what's a Hulu show [63:02] right now. Let's say you're watching [63:04] Tires whenever that comes out. Wait, is [63:05] Tires Netflix? Let's say you're watching [63:07] The Bear on Hulu and then you try and [63:08] watch on Disney. They don't they don't [63:10] talk to each other. Crazy [63:12] crazy town. [63:14] >> Oh, you're right. So, that's right. He [63:15] doesn't pick up where you left off on [63:16] one or the other. By the way, I finished [63:17] the bear finally. I didn't mind. The [63:19] last three episodes were actually pretty [63:20] decent. The the last two seasons didn't [63:22] need to happen, but they finished. They [63:24] finished it. Okay. [63:26] >> Did you finish House of the Dragon? [63:29] >> We got one more episode. [63:31] >> Finished it last night. Then I listened [63:32] to House of R with uh the great Chris [63:35] Ryan, Joanna, and Mallerie. And I had [63:38] It's like they're watching a different [63:39] show. And [63:42] >> um [63:43] >> you guys are so into it or what? [63:44] >> No, because I am such a I am because I [63:46] am such a [ __ ] It's It's like I'm [63:48] watching a different show. How about [63:49] that? Not they're watching a different [63:50] show. I'm watching I have no I still [63:52] have no idea what's happening. Am I the [63:54] just the biggest dumbass in the world? I [63:55] cannot follow this show for the life of [63:57] me. [63:58] >> I feel like you need a flowchart for [64:00] every one of those episodes. [64:02] And even [64:03] >> but even hearing them discuss, I'm like, [64:04] "Yeah, I'm still lost." Um, now that [64:07] being said, I I enjoyed the [ __ ] out of [64:08] it. It was great TV. [64:11] >> It's entertaining. Yeah, [64:12] >> great TV. [64:12] >> Just It feels like Game of Thrones kind [64:14] of. [64:14] >> One last thing on Disney. This was the [64:16] most watched Q3 for ESPN, ESPN 2, and [64:21] ESPN on ABC since 2016, [64:25] which is kind of insane. Is that [64:27] >> is that your Knicks or what? [64:31] >> Well, the fi the finals were huge. It [64:33] was only five games, though. Is it also [64:35] Did they have Did they have the World [64:36] Cup? [64:37] >> Uh, that probably was part of it. Didn't [64:39] I thought Fox had the World Cup? [64:41] >> I don't know. [64:43] All right, Ben, we got a lot of emails [64:44] about this. So, you were mentioning [64:46] Spider-Man uh bemoning the fact that [64:48] they just won't stop. So, [64:50] >> a lot of people agreed with me. [64:53] >> There's a lot of other Spider-Man haters [64:55] out there. [64:55] >> I wasn't a huge fan of the last one [64:57] where they brought in Garfield, Toby, [65:00] and Holland. I thought that was not not [65:02] for me. Uh but but basically, Sony has [65:06] to keep making these movies otherwise [65:08] the rights revert back to Marvel. And I [65:10] don't know what the timeline is, but [65:11] they're not they're not they're not [65:12] going to stop. So, get used to it. Um, [65:16] >> by the way, I have my hot take. [65:18] >> Go ahead. [65:20] >> Zenaia is like the biggest actress alive [65:22] right now. She does nothing for me. She [65:26] Every movie she's in, she doesn't do [65:28] anything. Like in in Dune and in [65:32] Odyssey, her character is her characters [65:35] don't do anything. They just stand [65:36] there. Like she doesn't she doesn't move [65:38] the the ball forward at all. Like in the [65:40] Odyssey, she didn't need to be a [65:41] character. [65:44] Why didn't she play a better role in the [65:46] like [65:47] >> Okay, counterpoint. [65:49] >> Hot take. She's overrated. I'm just [65:50] saying. [65:51] >> No, she's not. [65:52] >> Tom Holland is too. Okay. [65:53] >> The drama. Did she do nothing in that [65:55] movie, too? [65:56] >> Okay. I still don't believe her. You're [65:58] right. She was good in the drama. She I [65:59] liked her in the drama and the tenn the [66:01] tennis one. [66:01] >> The tennis tennis. [66:02] >> She was fantastic in that. [66:03] >> But she should stop doing these she [66:05] should stop doing Spider-Man and the [66:06] Odyssey. Like she does nothing in those [66:08] movies. [66:09] >> She should actually keep doing these [66:10] smaller movies. [66:12] I'm a Zenia fan. Uh David Russell's [66:16] Madden is this from Variety is skipping [66:19] a nationwide theatrical release. [66:21] Nicholas Cage stars as uh the legendary [66:24] American football coach and sports [66:25] commentator John Madden opposite [66:27] Christian Bale, Kathern Han, John Mlany, [66:29] Sienna Miller, and Shane Gillis. Holy [66:31] [ __ ] what a cast. But is this movie [66:32] gonna absolutely suck [ __ ] They're [66:34] they're not giving it a release. [66:36] >> Did you see the preview for it? [66:37] >> No. You know, I raw dog these things. I [66:39] mean, whatever. I I know the story here, [66:41] but [66:41] >> it looked like a straight to streaming [66:43] video movie. [66:43] >> Okay. [66:45] >> Nicholas Cage as John Madden. Are we [66:47] kidding? [66:49] >> There's no way that's going to be good. [66:51] >> No way. He doesn't have that. [66:52] >> Time David Russell had a good movie. [66:54] Let's see. Uh oh, you liked American [66:56] Hustle? I hated that movie. Oh, I [66:58] thought it was very disappointing. [67:00] >> Amsterdam Bombed. [67:01] >> I didn't see that one. [67:04] >> Playbook Philadelphia Sports one with [67:06] Bradley Cooper. It's probably [67:07] >> Playbook. Yeah, [67:09] >> that was a good one. Um, [67:13] all right. Year-to- date box office [67:14] through August 9th. Uh, Andrew Cardi [67:16] shared this with us. Uh, highest in [67:20] highest since post pandemic. We had the [67:22] CEO of Rich Gelf on on yesterday on Josh [67:24] and I did on uh on TAFF [67:27] >> for IMAX. Are they Did you ask them why [67:29] they can't build new theaters? [67:31] >> I you know, I didn't press him hard [67:32] enough on that. I should have. He gave [67:34] the same answer that we've heard. It's [67:35] Listen, the truth. It's expensive and a [67:37] lot of people don't want to make the [67:38] investment and you know, etc., etc. [67:41] Things look very good now, but it makes [67:42] no sense to me. [67:45] >> Why? It's just [67:46] >> they're doing so well. You'd think they [67:47] would want to do more, [67:48] >> but I I really don't get it. [67:51] >> It's not It's maybe not repeatable. It's [67:53] not guaranteed. This is a really hot [67:55] year for movies. [67:56] >> All right. [67:58] >> Uh All right, Ben. Um I've got a few [68:01] stories. I know I know it's a longass [68:02] episode, so forgive me. Uh although [68:05] maybe you like maybe you like uh like us [68:08] and like sticking around for the long [68:09] ones. [68:11] You know the you know in uh in uh I love [68:14] you man when Paul Rudd calls uh Jason [68:16] Seagull joining. [68:18] >> Of course [68:18] >> and he just like his brain just breaks. [68:20] >> Yeah. [68:21] >> By the way I saw Rush and Paul Rudd and [68:24] Jason Seagull doing the the [68:29] slap in the bass at the Rush concert was [68:31] just dead on. nothing but people playing [68:33] the air the air instruments. Saw air [68:36] drum, air guitar, air piano. [68:37] >> That movie just makes me makes me smile. [68:39] >> The best. All right. So anyway, I uh I [68:43] was walking to walking to the train [68:46] station. I had a bag in my hand. It was [68:48] heavier than I expected. I was sweating. [68:50] Stopped at Starbucks. I was hoping [68:51] somebody would I would see somebody who [68:53] could give me a ride. Sure enough, guy [68:56] from the neighborhood that I'm friendly [68:57] with pulls up and uh he said I point a [69:02] ride. I said, "Yeah, saddle me." And he [69:05] walks away into Starbucks and I'm like, [69:07] "What the [69:09] saddle me? That's that's like not even [69:12] close to anything." [69:15] He said, "Saddle me." So [69:18] >> sounds like a an innuendo of some sort. [69:20] So, we get in the car and he goes, "Hey, [69:24] did you say saddle me, [69:28] man, is he calls him out on it." [69:30] >> Yeah. So, this guy called me. I'm like, [69:31] I I I don't know. My I don't know, man. [69:33] I don't know what to tell you. I'm my [69:34] brain broke for a second. I got one more [69:36] for you. [69:40] Remember last week on the show, we were [69:42] talking about how you have you are more [69:44] OCDrained where if there's something [69:47] >> something that needs to be done, you [69:48] just get it done. All right. I'm the [69:49] opposite. So, I bought a green light for [69:52] for my backyard. The a green light is [69:55] you you you drop it in the water and it [69:57] lights up and you see all the fish swim [69:58] by and the the kids [70:00] >> we had that in Florida. My son loved it [70:01] cuz the fish would come up at night. We [70:03] could That's when you go fishing at [70:04] night. [70:04] >> It's great. [70:06] >> Yeah. [70:06] >> So, I've had this thing in my backyard. [70:08] Uh it's been in the package for 3 weeks [70:10] and Robin kissed by Could you just What [70:12] do you just just plug it in and put it [70:14] in the water? What are you doing? So, I [70:16] finally got around to it. I lubed it up, [70:20] lthered in Vaseline because apparently [70:22] that keeps it brighter and keeps like [70:23] the seaweed off of it. [70:25] >> Oh, okay. [70:25] >> So, I lubed it up. I plugged it in and I [70:28] threw it into the water. But what I [70:30] didn't do, Ben, was I didn't unravel the [70:32] the wires. So, I plugged it in and I [70:35] threw it in and the wire came out just [70:37] like right to the bottom. And Robin's [70:39] like, "You're the you're the dumbest [70:41] person I've ever met in my life." [70:45] I get another one. [70:47] >> I think I can get it uh eventually. [70:50] >> All right. Put in your scuba gear and go [70:52] get it. [70:53] >> All right. [70:53] >> I got Can I just say one more thing? [70:56] >> And this might not This might sound [70:58] mean-spirited. [70:59] Sorry, I can't help it. It irks me. [71:02] Is whistling the most annoying thing [71:04] ever? People who whistle. [71:08] >> Amen. There's a guy in my gym who [71:10] whistles the entire time he's in the [71:12] locker room. He doesn't stop whistling. [71:14] And [71:15] >> come on. [71:17] >> I feel like if you're by yourself, you [71:18] can whistle. If you're by other people, [71:19] you can't whistle. You just can't do it. [71:22] It's very annoying. [71:24] >> Highly irritating. [71:26] >> Yes. I [71:27] >> It's like It's like you can't really [71:28] tell somebody to stop because it's such [71:29] like a It's like such a [ __ ] thing. [71:31] Like, hey, hey, you mind [71:33] >> you want to tell him to stop. [71:34] >> Hey, do me a favor. Would you could you [71:36] could you knock it off? [71:37] >> Yes. whistle in your own head. I agree. [71:40] Email from a listener. Ben, I had a [71:42] question for you based on something you [71:43] said years ago. It was at the height of [71:44] the pandemic. You said you were never [71:46] going to wear a tie again. Since work [71:48] dress code has changed so much in the [71:49] pandemic, it seemed like a good [71:50] prediction. I'm curious if you kept your [71:51] prediction and also have not worn a tie [71:53] since the pandemic. Great timing. This [71:55] question just came in yesterday. I wore [71:57] my first tie since the pandemic this [71:59] past weekend, but I was forced. [72:01] >> You're great. Where were you? [72:02] >> Okay, so Grand Hotel, Mina Island. This [72:05] is the only My face is not the greatest [72:06] in that picture. This was the only one I [72:07] could find with me and sitting next to [72:09] my brother-in-law on the porch. Grand [72:10] Hotel has been around since the 1800s in [72:12] Macken Island. Mina Island is this [72:14] little island between the upper [72:15] peninsula and the lower peninsula. You [72:16] have to take a ferry to get there. It's [72:18] very touristy. There's a lot of fudge [72:19] and ice cream and shops um restaurants, [72:22] but this hotel has been there since the [72:24] 1800s and they kept it up and it it's [72:26] like a time capsule. Remember in [72:27] Midnight in Paris when Owen Wilson goes [72:29] back in time to like the 1920s? [72:31] >> Never saw it. [72:32] >> Okay. I love that movie. It feels like [72:34] you're going back in time at this place. [72:36] But they have rules still at 6:30. If [72:40] you're walking through the lobby and [72:41] you're staying there, all men have to [72:42] have a sport coat on. Women have to [72:45] look. You You have to And at dinner, [72:46] there's one the main room they have [72:48] dinner. [72:49] >> You have to If you're a man, you have to [72:51] have a sport coat and a tie on. [72:53] >> And women are [72:54] >> Yeah. Huh. [72:55] >> And honestly, at night, the place was [72:58] great. Everyone was dressed up. It felt [73:00] like an actual like event. It was in [73:03] like it and I I thought like we're a [73:05] nation of slobs now. This is one of the [73:07] worst outcomes of the pandemic is that I [73:08] get it. Everyone's more comfortable, but [73:10] we're just in the past people used to [73:12] dress up and go on planes. Now everyone [73:14] is a slob. Everyone wears PJs [73:16] everywhere. Like it felt nice to have [73:18] everyone dressed up again and I liked [73:20] it. So that was my time wearing a tie. [73:23] >> H in a while. [73:25] >> All right. I've got uh I've got a bunch [73:27] in the recommend recommendation section [73:29] this week. [73:30] Let's start with this. I teased this to [73:32] you. I'm confused by the concept of [73:34] westerns as a genre and this hit me. I [73:38] was watching my dad recommended a movie [73:39] that I didn't really care for. Um [73:41] although I didn't finish it, but I think [73:42] I got far enough. [73:43] >> I don't really understand this take. [73:44] Like you don't like westerns? [73:45] >> No, no, no. Although I actually don't [73:47] love westerns if I'm being honest. I [73:49] don't hate them. They're just, you know, [73:50] not in my top 20. What was the name of [73:53] this movie? Uh Old Henry. Did you see [73:56] this? [73:57] >> No. [73:58] >> All right, whatever. It's a western. My [74:00] take is this. I'm not hating on [74:02] westerns. I'm just confused by westerns [74:04] as a concept. Because a western really [74:07] isn't necessarily a genre of movies like [74:10] horror is because there can be a comedy [74:12] western, there could be a drama western, [74:14] there could be a horror, did I say [74:15] horror already? There could be all sorts [74:17] of different type of western. It's a [74:18] setting. [74:19] >> It's a setting. Yeah. [74:21] >> It's a setting as a style of movies, but [74:23] there's not like [74:23] >> I feel like that setting always works [74:26] >> or desert movies. It's just kind of [74:28] interesting when you think about it, [74:30] >> right? It's a time It's a time piece, [74:33] but for some reason it works because [74:34] it's like there's outlaws and there's no [74:36] rules and [74:38] all right [74:42] take, but [74:43] >> we don't have any other period or or or [74:45] um location genres is all just [74:48] >> it. [74:50] >> Um all right, this this is another [74:52] >> I saw this. I was like, wait, so I'm [74:53] scrolling for movies the other night. [74:55] Robin was out uh whatever night it was. [74:57] I was by myself and I'm scrolling and I [75:00] come across a movie called The Return [75:02] with Ray Fines. I'm guessing you've [75:04] never heard of this. [75:05] >> No. [75:06] >> Let me read you the intro or the [75:07] description. Tell me if this sounds a [75:09] bit familiar, Ben. This movie is 2 years [75:11] old. [75:12] After 20 years away, Odysius washes up [75:15] on the shores of Ithaca, hagered and [75:17] unrecognizable. The king finds much has [75:19] changed since he left to fight in the [75:20] Trojan War. His beloved wife Penelopey [75:23] is a prisoner in her own home and [75:24] hounded to choose a new husband. Their [75:26] son faces death at the hands of sudas [75:28] who see him as an obstacle in the [75:29] pursuit of Penelopey in the kingdom. [75:30] Odysius is no longer the mighty. All [75:32] right, you get the point. [75:34] I saw this. I said, "Wow, are youing [75:37] kidding me? Ray Fines, one of the best [75:39] actors ever, did this movie two years [75:42] ago and it grossed $3.5 million and it [75:46] got decent reviews on The Tomatoes." And [75:49] Christopher Nolan comes over the top. [75:52] Billion dollars. Isn't that wild? [75:55] >> Was it any good? [75:57] >> I don't I I don't think I'm gonna watch [75:58] it. [75:59] >> I thought you watch it. It's pretty hard [76:00] to watch after the fact now, right? [76:02] >> Right. But what would be the point? [76:05] >> Yeah, true. [76:07] >> Uh, all right. I do have an actual a few [76:08] actual recommendations. She rides [76:10] Shotgun. Ever hear of this? [76:13] >> No. [76:14] >> This was a It's not really a U movie. [76:16] It's like a It's like It's a great [76:18] airplane movie. It's gritty and it's [76:19] grimy. Um, an ex-convict goes to get his [76:23] daughter, takes her away. They're on the [76:25] lamb. Ben, as you like to say, [76:28] >> I like him. [76:29] >> You do like that guy, right? You're an [76:30] Edgerton guy. Not Joel, the other guy. [76:32] Are they related? [76:34] >> I don't think so. [76:35] >> Okay. Uh, good movie. Um, the Kenny G [76:39] documentary was hilarious. [76:42] It's on Max. It felt similar to the rock [76:45] doc because it's made by the same same [76:47] same group. Um, [76:51] and I never really thought about Kenny G [76:53] before. He's just always been in my life [76:54] as I'm sure he's always been in your [76:55] life as this guy that [76:57] >> put Kenny G on and when we had family [76:59] dinner with my dad lo Kenny G on in the [77:00] background. [77:01] >> Yeah, it was but it's like weird because [77:02] he's like a global phenomenon and you [77:04] spend you probably spend zero time [77:05] thinking about him other than the fact [77:06] like he's sort of a joke and people make [77:08] fun of him and whatever cuz he's cheesy [77:10] and corny and I love that guy. Great [77:13] vibes in on the joke. Uh [77:17] has a beautiful sound. That was awesome. [77:20] >> All the hair. And he's a Jew. Of course [77:21] he's Jewish. I had no idea. His name is [77:24] like uh whatever. He's a Jewish guy from [77:25] Seattle. [77:27] >> I didn't know that either. Okay. [77:29] >> I mean, he he looks [77:30] >> a lot of stuff. I didn't know from your [77:32] recommendation. [77:33] >> He's got the long Ju. Um anyway, I [77:35] enjoyed the [ __ ] out of that. And then [77:36] lastly, actually two more. I'm sorry. [77:38] The Westies. [77:41] The Westies is a is a damn fine show. [77:43] Again, it's on MGM Plus. I spoke with us [77:45] a few weeks ago. JK Simmons is ahead of [77:47] the Irish Mafia, and he's going [77:48] head-to-head with uh with uh My God, my [77:52] brain is breaking. Uh [77:56] uh Gotti, [77:58] >> I have every streaming service on the [77:59] planet. I'm not going to slum it with [78:01] MGM Plus. I appreciate that you like the [78:03] show. I'm not going MGM Plus. Sorry. [78:04] >> Okay. Uh I'm not alone. I'm not alone. [78:07] We got a few emails about it when I [78:08] mentioned it. All right. Last [78:09] >> dozens of you doesn't. [78:11] >> Lastly, Ben, you're going to like this. [78:12] You're going to like this a lot. I [78:15] watched So, instead of watching Instead [78:17] of watching uh The Return with Ray [78:19] Fines, I watched To Live and Die in LA, [78:24] and I'm saying, "Huh, why have I heard [78:25] of this movie before?" They did it on [78:27] the rewatchables a few months ago, and I [78:28] I didn't listen cuz I didn't I missed [78:31] it. And uh it's a classic [78:36] classic '8s movie. [78:39] >> And I thought to myself, hey, you know [78:40] what? [78:40] >> I've actually never seen that one [78:41] either. [78:42] >> You would love it. [78:44] >> Okay, [78:45] >> remember a couple of years ago I said [78:47] the '8s movies don't hold a candle to [78:49] the '9s. In fact, '8s movies are trash. [78:52] And I think I was I used Top Gun as a [78:54] jumping off point for that. Like what a [78:55] silly stupid movie, right? '8s kind of [78:58] like like '8s are like westerns. They're [79:00] their own genre. [79:02] Right? Like it's a complete time [79:03] capsule. 80s movies are different. 90s [79:06] movies are more modern and they hold up. [79:07] Like I think a 90s movie in 50 years [79:09] will still be a Terminator 2 will still [79:11] be an awesome movie. Whereas Top Gun or [79:13] any of these other movies, it's like [79:15] what the hell was happening? [79:17] >> Well, Top Gun, hey, take it easy. [79:19] >> I'm just saying the 80s movies as a [79:21] collective, you'd be like, "This is [79:23] weird." Like, what was happening in the [79:24] 80s? [79:25] >> So, I I'm taking I So, the 80s movies [79:28] have grown on me over the years as I've [79:30] seen more and more of them. I filled in [79:32] my portfolio. [79:32] >> Yeah, I grew up in the 80s, so I love [79:33] them all. [79:34] >> But I'm still say that if you hold them [79:36] next to the 90s, they don't they still [79:37] don't hold the candle. And if you were [79:38] to break it down, not just by like the [79:40] top hundred, but genre by genre, the [79:42] '9s, like across the board is better, [79:43] but I have a I have a better [79:46] appreciation for8s movies than I did a [79:50] couple years ago. [79:51] >> Good. Good for you. All right. I don't [79:53] have as many as you. Furious on Hulu. My [79:56] wife and I love it. Very good. It's got [79:58] a lot of stuff going on. Emmy Rosom is [80:00] really good in it. I know her from [80:01] Shameless, which is a show that was on [80:04] Was it on Showtime or was it HBO? It It [80:07] was on like for like 11 seasons. William [80:09] H. Macy was on it. The Guy from the [80:11] Bear. Yeah. Uh it probably showed on [80:13] five if it was a five season show, it [80:14] would have been awesome, but it it [80:15] stayed on for way too long. But I loved [80:17] that show at the beginning. [80:19] >> It's overstated. It's welcome. uh she's [80:21] really good in it and it's about a [80:23] serial killer, but it's also about uh [80:25] human trafficking and domestic abuse and [80:29] cops and FBI and there's a lot going on [80:32] and I I I'm here for it. I think it's [80:34] very high quality. [80:35] >> So, I watched the first episode because [80:37] I heard uh CR and Andy raving about it [80:41] and it was okay. [80:43] >> I like I like I'm really into it. I I [80:45] like it. I think it's very well done. [80:47] >> Uh and finally, I the talented Mr. [80:49] Ripley is speaking of '90s movies, one [80:51] of my favorite, most rewatchable '90s [80:52] movies. I love re-watching in the [80:54] summer, it's like you transported into [80:55] this place. And I feel like if you were [80:58] to pick a movie character that you could [81:00] trade lives with for like a day, you [81:02] would pick Jude Law on that. He's living [81:03] in this little town in Italy, right? And [81:06] like dresses nice and [81:09] then I watch Ripley on Netflix. But then [81:11] I finally read the the original book by [81:13] Patricia Highmith. I think there's like [81:15] five of them. And I can't believe how [81:17] well the book aged. The book is still It [81:20] felt like it was something that could [81:20] have been written today. Just taking [81:22] away the technology. It It's It was so [81:25] good. [81:26] >> They made a book out of that. [81:27] >> A lot of [81:28] >> Yeah. Weird, huh? [81:29] >> Yeah. That's one of my favorite lines [81:30] ever. [81:32] >> Go ahead. I'm sorry. [81:32] >> They made a book out of that movie. [81:33] Anyway, very well done. I liked it. I'm [81:35] going to read the rest of the books now. [81:37] >> Is Ripley on Netflix worth watching? Was [81:39] it a series on Netflix or what was it [81:40] on? I can't remember. [81:41] >> It's a miniseries. I really liked it. [81:43] And the the series that series is more [81:45] closely aligned to the book than the [81:46] movie is. the movie. They made some [81:47] different choices, which I like the [81:48] choices they made, but it they veered [81:50] away from the book in a lot of ways. [81:52] Anyway, good stuff. All [81:55] >> right, we did it. Oh, wait. One last [81:58] thing. I almost forgot. Uh, Lioness. [82:01] Holy [ __ ] what a show. [82:03] Unbelievable. He's done it again. Taylor [82:05] Sheridan knocked it out of the park. [82:06] >> Okay, I never got it. [82:08] >> Episodes one and two out. So good. Not [82:09] for you. Do you know Do you not like uh [82:12] CIA FB? Well, that the [82:15] type shows. [82:16] >> I feel like a lot of it's been done. [82:19] I'm watching Curious though. It's an FBI [82:21] show. [82:22] >> All right. Email us animal spirits at [82:23] the compoundnews.com. Thanks to the [82:25] production team as always. Duncan's [82:27] making sure we know what a Russian [82:28] nesting doll is. [82:29] >> I think this is our longest episode [82:30] ever. [82:32] >> Possibly. We had 45 pages in the dock. [82:34] Thanks everyone for listening. [82:35] Appreciate it. See you next time.