Batnick and Carlson See Housing Stagnation as AI Floods Markets

Batnick与Carlson：AI涌入市场之际房地产将陷入停滞 人口结构变化以及婴儿潮一代老龄化带来的库存增加将限制房地产增长，而人工智能的快速普及正在加剧市场集中度。 Michael Batnick与Ben Carlson探讨了关键的市场与经济动态，包括软件板块下挫与半导体激增等行业轮动，以及房地产市场的人口结构前景。他们讨论了劳动力市场的矛盾信号，将年轻群体严峻的求职经历与稳健的劳动参与率数据进行了对比。主持人还审视了AI领域的风险投资、比特币与软件股之间的紧密关联，以及Nike股价长期表现不佳背后的战略失误。最后，他们探讨了生活方式通胀和退休规划等个人理财话题，并对娱乐及二战历史进行了轻松讨论。 Ritholtz Wealth Management已将扩充内部税务团队列为优先事项，以满足客户对税后收益及税务阿尔法（tax alpha）的需求。 (0:45) IRS计划缩减全职员工规模及针对高收入人群的审计能力，预计将导致整体税收征收出现大幅净损失。 (4:55) 养成持续进行公开写作的习惯，可作为促进职业发展和客户沟通的有效机制。 (10:22) 股票市场在地缘政治冲击后表现出强大韧性，发达和新兴国际市场均录得显著反弹。 (14:46) 随着半导体板块相对于软件板块的权重扩大，科技行业内部的集中度发生了巨大转变。 (77:42)

Michael Batnick and Ben Carlson argue that resilient consumer spending and corporate earnings continue to overpower geopolitical alarmism, even as structural shifts accelerated by artificial intelligence and demographics disrupt tech sectors, entry-level employment, and long-term asset expectations. Equity Resilience and Structural Sector Reratings (14:46) Despite geopolitical shocks, global equity markets rebounded past pre-invasion levels, with international developed equities rising roughly 8% and emerging markets gaining 12% to 13% year-to-date, while crude oil avoided projected surges to $200 per barrel. Internally, public equities are undergoing major structural reratings. Data from Duality Research shows software's weighting within the technology sector fell from 54% in January 2020 to a record low of 25%, overtaken by semiconductors. Over a five-year horizon, the VanEck Semiconductor ETF (SMH) surged approximately 260%, while the iShares Expanded Tech-Software Sector ETF (IGV) rose just 6%. Broader market compositions have altered alongside tech: energy has contracted from nearly 30% of the S&P 500 in 1980 to roughly 4% today, while IT consulting firms face 50% to 70% declines amid fears of AI automation. Meanwhile, traditional macro relationships have loosened, with gold decoupling from real interest rates to trade primarily on physical supply-and-demand dynamics. AI Capital Concentration and Early-Career Labor Strains (44:11) Venture capital funding set a new record in Q1 2026, with global AI investment reaching $242 billion—up from $16 billion in Q1 2024—dominated by mega-rounds for OpenAI and Anthropic. Startups operating natively in AI are demonstrating unprecedented revenue efficiency per employee, with Cursor generating $6.1 million and Lovable producing $3.4 million in annual recurring revenue per employee, compared to legacy enterprise SaaS benchmarks like Salesforce at $540,000. Batnick highlights that this productivity risks concentrating wealth among a narrow cohort of tech founders while heightening operational and cyber vulnerabilities. Concurrently, early-career job seekers face growing headwinds. Listener correspondence and research by Adam Ozimek and Nathan Goldschlag highlight declining tech internships and falling labor force participation among non-college 22-to-25-year-olds. Carlson notes that automated, AI-assisted job applications have permanently inflated applicant volumes, while bargaining power has shifted decisively away from workers back to capital. Consumer Spending Defies Depressed Survey Sentiment (59:38) A pronounced divergence persists between public sentiment surveys and actual economic activity. While the University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment Index fell to an all-time low, the hosts argue survey response rates have collapsed from 90% historically, impairing data reliability. In contrast, Bank of America card data showed household debit and credit card spending rose 4.3% year-over-year, marking the strongest card spending growth since early 2023. Corporate earnings commentary reinforces this resilience. Executives at Walmart, Dick's Sporting Goods, and Levi Strauss reported strong consumer demand and an absence of trading down despite price increases. Additionally, Carlson notes that U.S. prime-age labor force participation (ages 25–54) sits near highs last recorded in 1999, while the 60% to 65% of households invested in stocks demonstrate implicit long-term optimism about the economic outlook. Demographic Shifts Alter Housing and Retirement Horizons (50:07) Demographic transitions are poised to reshape real estate and retirement planning. Citing Calculated Risk's Bill McBride, the hosts examine how Baby Boomer home sales through 2040 will intersect with the passing of peak Millennial home-buying age cohorts, likely keeping home price appreciation muted or tracking baseline inflation. This trend coincides with an intensifying regional divide: while California, the Midwest, and the Northeast experience low days-on-market, Sunbelt markets have slowed to an average of roughly 70 days to pending. Retirement planning faces similar recalculations. Citing analysis by Dan Hletko, Carlson highlights that while actuarial life tables project 25 to 30 years of retirement for a 60-year-old, typical individuals have only 12 to 15 healthy years before physical limitations constrain active spending and travel. Batnick cautions that despite front-loading expenditures, escalating late-life assisted-living and nursing costs—averaging around $100,000 per year—can rapidly deplete accumulated wealth. The hosts conclude that while headline equity resilience and steady consumer spending keep markets buoyant, long-term investors face mounting structural cross-currents: AI disruption is compressing software valuations and entry-level career security, demographic waves threaten real estate appreciation, and administrative cuts to the IRS leave an estimated $643 billion in uncollected revenue as planning shifts toward after-tax efficiency.

Michael Batnick 与 Ben Carlson 指出，尽管地缘冲突与经济悲观情绪蔓延，全球风险资产与美国底层消费仍展现出超预期的韧性。两位主持人认为，市场正在经历由人工智能引发的深层结构重估，而传统情绪调查与劳动力、房地产及退休规划的实际数据之间存在显著脱节。 宏观资产韧性与科技板块结构性分流 (14:46) 在地缘冲突爆发后，全球资产并未出现警报派所预言的原油暴涨至200美元或股市崩溃。年内标普500指数微涨约1%，新兴市场与海外成熟市场分别反弹12%至13%和近8%。但在指数平稳的表象下，科技板块内部正在经历剧烈的大洗牌。Duality Research 数据显示，软件板块在标普500科技板块中的权重从2020年1月的54%腰斩至创纪录的25%，半导体权重则大幅反超软件。过去五年中，半导体ETF（SMH）累计飙升约260%，而软件ETF（IGV）仅上涨约6%，Snowflake 等明星软件股半年内跌幅近60%。 Batnick 认为，软件股在巨量抛售下砸出次低点往往提供短线反弹机会，但他与 Carlson 一致提醒，鉴于AI正在根本性重构软件与IT咨询服务（埃森哲等咨询公司跌幅达50%至70%），盲目左侧抄底存在长期沦为“死钱”的结构性风险。与此同时，黄金走势也彻底脱离了与实际利率的历史负相关规律，转变为由实物供需主导的避险资产。 AI创投狂潮、极致人效与青年就业困境 (32:19) a16z 统计显示，2026年第一季度全球风投资金创历史新高，其中 AI 领域单季融资达2420亿美元，较2024年一季度的160亿美元爆发式增长。全美企业对付费AI工具的采用率已达50%，且原生AI初创企业展现出惊人的人效比：Cursor 与 Lovable 的全职员工人均年经常性收入（ARR）分别达到610万美元和340万美元，远超传统软件龙头 Salesforce（54万美元）。Batnick 警告，这种极致效率将导致财富向极少数创始人空前集中，并激化社会对AI领袖的敌意与网络安全风险。 然而，资本狂潮与青年就业体感形成残酷反差。尽管美国25至54岁黄金年龄段劳动力参与率处于1999年以来的历史高位，但计算机专业毕业生的对口就业与实习转化率据听众反馈从近100%骤降至约25%。研究表明，大量22至25岁非大学学历青年已彻底放弃求职，这种隐形退出并未被官方失业率充分统计。求职者利用AI工具批量投递简历导致单岗位申请量激增，劳资天平已全面倒向资本方，年轻毕业生不得不暂时转入零售和餐饮等服务业过渡。 真实消费韧性与情绪调查指标的系统性脱节 (59:38) 密歇根大学消费者信心指数此前创下历史新低，但 Batnick 与 Carlson 质疑此类传统民调在当下的代表性，强调宏观经济调查的回复率已从历史上的90%大幅衰退，导致口头情绪数据产生严重偏差。与之形成鲜明对比的是美国银行（BofA）追踪的实际交易数据：美国家庭信用卡与借记卡消费同比攀升4.3%，创下2023年初以来的最强劲增长。 零售巨头的财报电话会进一步印证了实体消费的健康度。沃尔玛CFO明确表示消费开支依然稳固，迪克体育用品强调其消费者未出现向下消费降级的迹象，李维斯管理层也指出提价并未抑制购买需求。Carlson 补充指出，约60%至65%的美国家庭持有股票，居民持续留在金融市场投资的客观行为本身，就构成了对长期经济前景的隐性信任，直接证伪了调查中展现的极端悲观情绪。 人口周期制约房市与消费龙头的战略误区 (50:07) 在房地产领域，两位主持人探讨了 Calculated Risk 分析师 Bill McBride 的人口学研判。McBride 预测，由于婴儿潮一代将在未来数年至2040年间加速抛售房产，而千禧一代的核心置业峰值正在逐步过去，边际供增需减将导致全美房价在未来十年陷入长期滞胀，涨幅若能跟上通胀已属理想。同时，全美楼市呈现显著的地域分化：加州、中西部及东北部房屋周转迅速，而阳光地带房源的挂牌周期长达约70天。 在企业投资维度，Batnick 借耐克（Nike）的长期落后警示投资者不可迷信“逢低买入蓝筹”。耐克近五年股价重挫66%，十年回报（-16%）大幅跑输标普500指数近300%的涨幅。尽管耐克仍是广受欢迎的国民品牌，但其战略性削减亚马逊等主流批发渠道、孤注一掷推进直营（DTC）的决策造成了渠道失控与竞品蚕食，印证了强势产品品牌并不天然等于优质投资标的。 财富复利拐点、开支曲线与健康退休现实 (62:19) 围绕个人财富管理，节目探讨了贯穿全生命周期的财务规律。听众反馈显示，100万美元净资产是一个关键心理转折点：在此规模下，工薪职场的微薄年终奖在牛市中25%的资产增值（即25万美元）面前显得微不足道，投资复利开始全面超越纯粹的体力劳动。与此同时，Carlson 与 Batnick 认同“开支曲线”的不可逆性，指出随着年龄增长，子女抚育、房产维护与税负等刚性成本呈现阶梯式上升，家庭开支无法通过个人节俭完全抵消。 针对晚年退休规划，Dan Hletko 的精算数据揭示了传统财务模型的盲区：尽管60岁人群的人均预期寿命可达84至87岁，但身体健康且适宜长途旅行的“黄金活力窗口”通常仅剩12至15年。高端养老机构每年高达10万美元的花销更会在临终阶段迅速消耗毕生积蓄。Carlson 建议退休人员应在身体健康的前期阶段主动加大消费享受人生，而非为缺乏健康保证的长寿预期过度压抑生活品质。 本期节目展现了宏观宏大叙事与微观个体体感之间的深刻断层。主持人提醒投资者，应对噪音的方式并非盲目跟随地缘焦虑或情绪调查，而是紧扣资本流向、真实企业现金流与人效跃升；然而，随着AI技术对传统就业结构的持续冲击以及高估值科技生态对公共流动性的抽吸，这一轮结构性牛市未来能否平稳化解初级劳动力失衡与企业战略转型阵痛，仍是有待观察的核心挑战。

## Background 本期内容由 YouTube 频道 The Compound（创作者为 Michael Batnick 和 Ben Carlson）于 2026 年 4 月 15 日发布。节目简介指出，在第 460 期《Animal Spirits》中，两位主持人围绕报税日、写作的复利效应、能源与科技板块的结构轮动、令人困惑的就业市场、代际财富争论、AI 不确定性、比特币与软件股走势以及耐克（Nike）的跌落等话题展开了全面探讨。 ## TL;DR 节目首先从报税季痛点与税务规划的“税收 Alpha”切入，随后深入剖析了美股在宏观地缘震荡下的韧性，重点对比了半导体对软件股的份额侵蚀以及能源与科技板块的四十年演变。两人探讨了由 AI 冲击与数据失真共同导致的青年就业困境，借《华尔街日报》数据打破婴儿潮与千禧一代的财富迷思，并揭示了 AI 初创公司惊人的人均创收效率与潜藏的社会反弹风险。此外，他们还复盘了美国房地产受人口老龄化压制的十年大顶趋势、耐克因 DTC 战略失误酿成的业绩崩盘，以及民调悲观与实际刷卡消费创新高之间的剧烈脱节。最后，节目结合退休健康余命、好莱坞选角秘史与多巴胺心理机制，落脚于长期投资必须学会在迷雾中航行的核心常识。 ## Atmosphere & style 整期对话充满典型的老友斗嘴与美式幽默，在轻松惬意的闲聊、生活琐事吐槽（如落叶机轰鸣、坏掉的热水器）与极其扎实的数据图表分析之间无缝切换。Michael 情绪外放、直觉敏锐且擅长自嘲，Ben 则稳健理性、善于从宏观历史周期中泼冷水并拉回客观视角。收听过程既有如置身纽约办公室茶水间的松弛感，又能在嬉笑怒骂中抽丝剥茧，直击资本市场与现代生活最尖锐的底层现实。 ## Bulletin - [17:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeJxk81ppEM&t=1062s) 美股科技板块内部结构发生历史性逆转：软件股在科技板块的权重从 2020 年的 54% 暴跌至 25% 历史低位，半导体与芯片全面占据主导地位。 - [44:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeJxk81ppEM&t=2654s) 2026 年第一季度 AI 初创企业融资金额飙升至 2,420 亿美元，同时新兴 AI 工具展现出极致人效，Cursor 人均 ARR 达到惊人的 610 万美元，远超传统 SaaS 巨头。 - [31:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeJxk81ppEM&t=1882s) 美国就业市场展现矛盾态势：25 至 54 岁黄金年龄劳动力参与率逼近 1999 年历史高位，但初级白领及高校毕业生因 AI 冲击与招聘放缓面临严峻断层与隐性失业。 - [54:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeJxk81ppEM&t=3273s) 耐克因过早推行全直营化（DTC）战略遭遇反噬，近 5 年股价暴跌 66%，跑输同期标普 500 大盘逾 140 个百分点，超额阿尔法几乎被彻底抹平。 ## Key takeaways - [00:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeJxk81ppEM&t=4s) 财富管理行业从单纯追逐公开市场的 Alpha 转向重视税务规划，获取确定性更高的“税收 Alpha（Tax Alpha）”。 - [06:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeJxk81ppEM&t=377s) IRS 人员缩减导致高收入人群审计率大跌 39%，尽管节省 460 亿美元联邦开支，却可能带来高达 6,430 亿美元的税收流失。 - [14:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeJxk81ppEM&t=888s) 地缘政治冲击下美股与全球主要市场展现出惊人韧性，长期投资与不被恐慌驱使的策略再次胜出。 - [19:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeJxk81ppEM&t=1184s) 暴跌 50% 至 70% 的软件股虽迎来“二次恐慌抛售”后的交易性反弹，但在 AI 结构性颠覆下极易沦为 1 至 2 年的“死钱”。 - [22:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeJxk81ppEM&t=1341s) 40 年宏观周期轮动：标普 500 中能源板块权重已从 1980 年的近 30% 萎缩至约 4%，而科技股则长期领跑市场。 - [26:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeJxk81ppEM&t=1607s) 随着家庭生命周期的发展，房产税、育儿与教育构成了不可避免的刚性“开销曲线”，应将重点预算倾斜于具有长期记忆价值的家庭度假。 - [31:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeJxk81ppEM&t=1882s) 官方青年失业率因未受过高等教育年轻人放弃求职（退出劳动力人口）而失真，掩盖了毕业生高学历低就与白领初级岗位枯竭的现实。 - [39:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeJxk81ppEM&t=2358s) 历史数据显示千禧一代在经通胀调整后的家庭中位收入与净资产上已超越同龄时期的婴儿潮一代，年轻一代对未来的恐惧是每代人必经的“成年礼”。 - [44:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeJxk81ppEM&t=2654s) AI 初创公司的人均创收效率远超传统软件企业，这种高度集中的财富创造如果缺乏社会回馈机制，可能引发前所未有的公众敌意。 - [47:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeJxk81ppEM&t=2846s) 二级市场中韩国 SK Telecom 凭借 2023 年对 Anthropic 的 1 亿美元投资狂赚至逾 20 亿美元，驱动其股价年内飙升 75%。 - [50:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeJxk81ppEM&t=3005s) 美国房地产面临婴儿潮一代抛售和千禧一代置业潮结束的双重夹击，未来十年房价或难以大幅跑赢通胀，且铁锈地带与阳光地带去化速度极端分化。 - [54:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeJxk81ppEM&t=3273s) 耐克全直营化战略失败给投资者敲响警钟：市场绝不会因为一家蓝筹企业昔日的辉煌就保证其股价能够简单反弹。 - [58:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeJxk81ppEM&t=3482s) AI 跨平台投研正遭遇平台数据围墙和 API 封锁，商业壁垒与专有数据护城河反而更加坚固。 - [59:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeJxk81ppEM&t=3578s) 密歇根消费者信心指数跌至极低点，但美银美林信用卡消费创 2023 年以来新高，分析经济应“看其真实行动，而非其口头抱怨”。 - [01:01:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeJxk81ppEM&t=3668s) 退休规划中真正的“健康优质岁月”往往只有退休后的 12 至 15 年，个人应在身体健康期间大胆前置体验式消费，而非将资金全部死守至高额的养老院护理阶段。 - [01:10:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeJxk81ppEM&t=4245s) 神经心理学表明人类在追求目标时的多巴胺分泌远高于达成目标后，登顶旷世成就后往往容易陷入抑郁与空虚，必须持续设定新的前行路径。 ## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeJxk81ppEM&t=4s) 赞助商信息与报税季开场：税收 Alpha 的重要性 节目伊始是由高盛资产管理（Goldman Sachs Asset Management）赞助播出的 Active ETF 广告（GPIQ，旨在提供持续的每月收益而不牺牲资本增值）。随后，Michael Batnick 与 Ben Carlson 正式开启本期讨论。录制当天正值 4 月 15 日税收日（Tax Day），也是一年中大众最不喜欢的时期之一。税收会抽走市场流动性，通常对股市表现不太友好。 两人谈到在 Ritholtz Wealth Management（RWM）过去几年做出的最佳决策之一，就是建立了专门的税务团队。每个人都必须报税，税收是无法回避的刚需。Ben 调侃道：“除非你娶了一位会计师，否则没人会真的爱上自己的会计师。”但 Michael 笑称自己深爱团队的税务负责人 Bill Sweet，甚至电话挂断时会罕见地对他说“我也爱你”，Ben 随即吃醋表示 Michael 从来不对自己这么说。 Ben 指出，过去 10 到 15 年间，伴随指数基金革命的兴起，财富管理行业发生了根本性的观念转变：人们不再盲目执着于在公开市场中寻找纯粹的阿尔法收益（Alpha）——尽管仍有大量资金与智慧在为此努力——而是意识到可以通过税务规划来掌握“税收 Alpha（Tax Alpha）”。因为税后回报是可以切实掌控的，把税务团队内置化（in-house）能够为客户创造极大的价值。Michael 透露，出于对同行的尊重，他们在报税截止日前没有打扰大家，但目前客户需求远超团队负荷，RWM 正急需招聘 Registered Agents（EA）以及 CPA。 - 招聘渠道：有意加入 RWM 税务团队的人员可发送邮件至 hiring@ritholtzwealth.com。 - 业务趋势：财富顾问越来越关注“税后实际回报”，使得内部专职会计师和税务规划成为标配服务。 --- ### [03:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeJxk81ppEM&t=190s) Ben 的税务乌龙：密歇根州的离谱留置权与中年感悟 Ben 分享了一桩令人哭笑不得的税务经历。密歇根州税务部门此前给他发信，声称他欠了 3,000 美元税款。会计师 Bill Sweet 接手后查验证明材料，发现州政府弄错了，并回信附上证据进行申诉。然而州政府依然不断来信催款，甚至发出了“最后通牒（Final Notice）”，威胁若不交钱就执行留置权（Lien）。在他们再次致电并被告知“已经处理妥当、不必担心”之后，密歇根州税务局却在上一周正式对 Ben 下达了留置权扣款令。Bill Sweet 无奈推测，背后的原因很可能是催收部门和税务核算部门之间根本互不通气，基层人手严重不足。 随后气氛转为轻松日常的斗嘴。Michael 戴着 YCharts 送的一顶写着“There he is”的时髦蓝色帽子亮相。谈到即将前往华盛顿特区出差且气温将高达 90 华氏度时，Michael 忍不住抱怨天气太热，遭到长居寒冷地带的 Ben 嘲讽“忍着点，生活要是不抱怨两句，那还叫生活吗？” 这番抱怨让 Michael 意识到自己已经步入中年，标志就是他正沉迷于一部二战巨著——马克斯·黑斯廷斯（Max Hastings）的《地狱：1939-1945世界大战》（*Inferno: The World at War, 1939 to 1945*）。与传统宏大叙事不同，该书侧重于前线士兵和平民百姓的自下而上的真实视角。Ben 则笑称自己在大学时期就读了 10 本二战书籍，平生最爱之作就是《兄弟连》（*Band of Brothers*）的原著。两人感叹，读完战争的残酷历史，才深刻体会到生活在当今现代社会的幸运，抱怨天气太热属实是“身在福中不知福”。 --- ### [06:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeJxk81ppEM&t=377s) IRS 人手削减与“他们抓不到我”的新报税心态 Michael 引用了《华尔街日报》的一篇报道，指出如今美国纳税人普遍流行一种全新心态——“国税局抓不到我（The IRS isn't going to catch me）”。官方数据显示，去年针对年收入超过 1000 万美元人群的税务审计量下降了 9%，今年预计还将进一步大跌 39%。 IRS 的全职员工数量在 2006 至 2010 年间约有 9 万人，后来虽经历波动与微幅反弹，但目前已缩减到 7 万人左右，并且规模还在继续缩减。两人对比指出，一方面美国总人口在增长、富裕阶层的税务架构越来越复杂；另一方面尽管 AI 被认为是提高税务处理效率的绝佳工具，但人手缺口依然造成了巨大的制度性漏洞。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: IRS 削减人手带来的收支失衡示意图 accDescr: 展示削减 IRS 员工所节省的开支与随之流失的税收收入之间的巨大悬殊对比 subgraph Cost["开支端（成本削减）"] A["IRS 员工规模缩减至约 7 万人"] A --> B["未来 10 年削减联邦开支约 460 亿美元"] end subgraph Revenue["收入端（税款流失）"] A --> C["富豪审计率与稽查力度大跌 39%"] C --> D["预计税收收入损失达 6,430 亿美元"] end Cost -.->|净损失近 6,000 亿美元| Revenue ``` - **开支与税收缺口**：人手精简预计在未来十年为联邦政府节省约 460 亿美元开支，但因此造成的税收流失估计高达 6,430 亿美元，得不偿失。 - **履约比例**：IRS 数据显示，纳税人群体在自主申报时平均缴纳了应纳税款的 85% 左右，由于税法错综复杂，极难做到完美征收。 - **工作日常斗嘴**：聊到一半时，Ben 吐槽 Michael 手机从不关提示音、开会时“叮叮”响个不停；Michael 随即反驳称对方是无理取闹，并互相揭短彼此口头禅（Michael 被指出常挂在嘴边的词是“directionally”而非“ostensibly”）。 - **执法与审计区别**：2025 年 IRS 通过直接执法行动（Enforcement）收回了 1,000 亿美元。执法行动更像是系统核对后直接寄信催缴补税，而审计（Audit）则是全面且漫长的人工深度查账。 ### [09:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeJxk81ppEM&t=592s) 报税日的烦恼与赞美的开场 对话从报税季的日常痛点切入。迈克尔·巴特尼克（Michael Batnick）和本·卡尔森（Ben Carlson）谈到，尽管许多人在面对国税局（IRS）时抱有侥幸心理，觉得不会被查，但税务执法规模依然高达千亿美元。迈克尔感叹，自己每年都会收到一封国税局说“这里有点出入”的信件，幸好有专业税务师帮忙处理；要是没有专业人士支持，普通人只能在电话那头苦等三个小时，最后国税局接线员还可能根本解决不了问题。 随后，迈克尔想对本表达一番赞赏，却在措辞上纠结起来。他觉得“给你送花（give you your flowers）”听起来很别扭，“摸摸你的头（pat on the head）”又显得很不尊重，“给你拥抱”或“表示敬意”也都不太对劲。正当迈克尔酝酿情感时，本却在低头打字，原来是他妻子发来了短信。迈克尔忍不住调侃这种被当场打断的尴尬：“这简直是现世报。” ### [11:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeJxk81ppEM&t=661s) 坚持写作的复利与行业理念的变迁 迈克尔提到《巴伦周刊》（Barron's）为本撰写的个人专题报道，列出了本令人惊叹的创作履历：十余年间撰写了至少 3,660 篇博客文章、联合主持了超过 765 期播客，并将于 5 月出版个人第五本书《Risk and Reward: How to Handle Market Volatility and Build Long-Term Wealth》。迈克尔直言，本就是“越练习就越厉害”的典范，他持续输出高质量内容的速度让团队里的分析师（Chart Kid）惊叹不已，甚至在短时间内就能写完客户信。 本坦言自己高中和大学时非常讨厌写论文，最初开通博客只是为了学习：“我意识到自己懂得太少，想要在职业上更进一步就必须学得更多。”他原本以为六个月后没人看就会放弃，没想到享受上了这种学习机制，如今写作已成为第二本能。两人回忆起 2013 年本在乔什·布朗（Josh Brown）的网站上发表《一名机构投资者的自白》（Confessions of an Institutional Investor），痛斥当时财富管理行业充斥着消极情绪、盲目追逐另类资产以及脱离客户目标的决策。十多年过去，行业已大步转向以目标为导向（goals-based）的理财模式，听众也因长期受到理性投资理念的熏陶，在市场大跌时不再盲目恐慌，而是学会了平稳渡过熊市。 - 《巴伦周刊》统计本·卡尔森十余年产出：3,660+ 篇博文、765+ 期播客，即将于 5 月推出第 5 本书《Risk and Reward》。 - 本早期推崇并启发其投资理念的金融作家包括查利·埃利斯（Charlie Ellis）、威廉·伯恩斯坦（Bill Bernstein）与杰森·茨威格（Jason Zweig）。 - 财富管理行业十年来的重要进步：从单纯被市场崩盘与衰退情绪牵着鼻子走，转变为以投资人实际财务目标为核心的理性规划。 ### [14:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeJxk81ppEM&t=888s) 地缘动荡中的市场韧性与《宋飞正传》式博弈 谈及近期的宏观与地缘政治局势，美股开盘点位已高于地缘冲突/入侵爆发时的水平。迈克尔指出，尽管现实中的冲突令人痛心，但从资本市场的棱镜来看，市场又一次做出了理性定价：它没有坐以待毙，而坚持长期投资、不被恐慌情绪左右的人再次成了赢家。本补充道，标普 500 指数年初至今上涨约 1%，新兴市场更是大涨 12% 至 13%，EAFE（欧美远东成熟市场指数）也涨了近 8%。 本给出了他的“显而易见队长（Captain Obvious）”式观察：原本市场叫嚣的每桶 200 美元油价并未出现，原油价格似乎只想维持稳定，而股市也根本不想暴跌，反而执意走高。如果市场未来真要迎来一场“大清算”，诱因恐怕不是地缘战争，更可能是来自 AI 领域泡沫的破裂，或者是 SpaceX、OpenAI 巨额 IPO 上市抽干市场流动性。为了讽刺当前霍尔木兹海峡的地缘对峙，本还引用了经典美剧《宋飞正传》（Seinfeld）的桥段：乔治·康斯坦扎发现女友要甩自己，克莱默便怂恿他先下手为强；如今美方封锁海峡的姿态就像在对对手喊：“别以为是你要封锁，是我先甩了你！” ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 市场冲击与资产分化路径 accDescr: 展示地缘政治冲击下大宗商品、广泛股票市场与科技行业内部的走势分化。 subgraph Macro["宏观地缘与广泛市场表现"] direction TB Geo["地缘政治冲击 / 局势紧张"] --> Oil["原油价格：拒绝飙升至 $200，趋向平稳"] Geo --> BroadMarket["股票市场：坚韧反弹，拒绝深度下跌"] BroadMarket --> Equities["年初至今表现：标普 ~1% / EAFE ~8% / 新兴市场 12-13%"] end subgraph TechShift["科技板块内部结构大洗牌"] direction TB Semis["半导体板块 (Semis)<br/>市值占比飙升，超越软件"] Software["软件板块 (Software)<br/>科技板块权重从 54% 暴跌至 25%"] Cloud["个股剧烈波动<br/>如 Snowflake 六个月内从 $280 跌至 $120"] end Macro -.-> TechShift ``` ### [17:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeJxk81ppEM&t=1062s) 半导体崛起与软件股的“暴跌与绝地反击” 聚焦到具体行业，美股市场呈现出极度分化的剧烈波动。前一天被市场一致看衰、甚至被迈克尔形容为“看起来根本无法投资”的软件板块迎来了年内最强劲的反弹，甲骨文（Oracle）在前一日暴涨 15% 之后，当日继续冲高 8%。与此同时，半导体板块强势领跑，英特尔（Intel）在先前惨遭 50% 的大幅回撤后又像火箭般急速飙升创出新高。 根据 Duality Research 的数据，科技板块内部正在经历历史性的结构重组：软件在科技板块中的权重已从 2020 年 1 月的 54% 断崖式下滑至当前的约 25%，创历史新低；硬件占比基本持平，而侵蚀掉的份额全被芯片与半导体大口吞食。软件股的惨烈回撤不仅限于赛富时（Salesforce）、Workday 和 Adobe 等行业巨头，云计算明星股 Snowflake 更是从半年前（2025 年 11 月）的 280 美元腰斩至 120 美元。面对如此剧烈的风格切换与 AI 受益者的复杂博弈，本直言这些选股难题属于自己的“太难归类栏（too hard pile）”，普通投资者试图精准押注谁赢谁输简直是不可能的任务。 - 甲骨文（Oracle）连续两天强势反弹，前一日大涨 15%，次日再涨 8%。 - 科技行业内部权重逆转：软件占科技行业板块的比重从 2020 年 1 月的 54% 骤降至历史低点 25%，半导体成为科技板块的主导力量。 - Snowflake 股价经历剧烈杀估值：半年时间里直接从每股 280 美元重挫至 120 美元。 ### [19:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeJxk81ppEM&t=1184s) 软件股的“第二次恐慌抛售”：到底是交易机会还是价值陷阱？ Ben Carlson 和 Michael Batnick 展开了对软件板块的博弈讨论。Ben 直言自己绝不碰这类股票，并指出 Michael 和 Josh 最近总在软件股里搞短线交易。Michael 坦承，自己在 2 月底到 3 月初的反弹中确实小赚了一笔，随后果断卖出。回顾软件行业 ETF（IGV）的走势，该基金曾一路下挫至 76 美元低点，虽然随后有所反弹，但紧接着再次向下砸破前低，伴随着巨大的抛售量。在技术分析中，通常当股价跌出新低时，市场会弥漫“还会跌更多”的恐慌情绪。但往往正是这种“第二次恐慌抛售”（second puke）——即所有持筹者在绝望中不惜一切代价夺路而逃（"literally get me out at any price"）——才孕育出真正的底部。如果不考虑底层基本面以及 AI 究竟会对该行业造成何种长期冲击，单从筹码博弈的角度来看，既然两次暴跌后都没卖，市场上还能剩下多少砸盘力量？ ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 软件板块抛售与底部形成逻辑 accDescr: 展示软件股从初次下跌、反弹到二次恐慌抛售并引发技术性筹码出清的过程。 subgraph PriceAction ["价格走势"] A["IGV 探底 76 美元"] --> B["阶段性技术反弹"] B --> C["跌破前低二次探底"] end subgraph Psychology ["市场心态与筹码结构"] C --> D["巨量恐慌抛售<br/>'不计代价出逃'"] D --> E{"是否还有抛压？"} E -->|无剩余抛压| F["技术性可交易反弹<br/>20% 至 30%"] E -->|基本面受损| G["沦为1-2年‘死钱’<br/>AI 逻辑持续压制"] end ``` Ben 提醒说，区分“这是一次交易”（trade）还是“一笔投资”（investment）至关重要。这些暴跌的软件标的即便有反弹，未来一到两年内也很可能沦为“死钱”（dead money）。尽管在本轮市场周期中，许多暴跌 50%、60% 甚至 70% 的股票最终都成功爬了回来，诱惑着投资者去“抄底”，但这次由于 AI 带来的结构性颠覆，去“AI 输家垃圾桶”里淘宝的难度要远高于以往。Michael 赞同这一观点，认为行业板块遭遇如此沉重的打击往往有其根本原因，AI 就是那个强有力的理由。他联想到耐克（Nike）等个股的教训：投资者总觉得“跌成这样必须买了”，但市场极少错得那么离谱，他在耐克上也犯过错误，庆幸自己跑得快没有加深损失。软件股未来可能有 20% 到 30% 的报复性反弹，但接下来的几年绝不会平坦。 - 软件行业基准 ETF（IGV）在抛售潮中一度砸至 76 美元低点。 - 软件板块的深度回调在个股层面普遍达到 50% 至 70% 的跌幅。 --- ### [22:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeJxk81ppEM&t=1341s) 美股宏观逻辑的切换：从黄金脱锚到科技与能源的 40 年大轮动 谈及大盘当前的韧性，Michael 提到 Todd Sohn 分享的资金流向图表：近期资金正大量涌入半导体和泛科技板块，市场原以为投资者已经厌倦了“七巨头”（Magnificent Seven），但科技股再度卷土重来。标普 500 指数距离历史新高仅差 1.5% 左右，如果纳斯达克 100 指数（QQQ）找回动能、AI 叙事再度转向，标普甚至可能在年内再涨 15%。以亚马逊（Amazon）为例，其在最近四五个交易日内的爆发式上涨令人瞠目。市场参与者普遍认为，AI 的驱动力最终战胜了地缘政治的扰动。 紧接着，两人分析了《华尔街日报》报道的几组宏观与板块结构的大变局。以往黄金价格与实际利率呈负相关（因为黄金不产生收益，实际利率走低有利于黄金），但俄乌冲突后这一传统宏观关联被打破，金价走势彻底由供需主导。与此同时，能源股与科技股在标普 500 指数中的权重变迁更是令人惊叹： | 年份 / 周期 | 能源板块权重 | 科技板块权重 | 历史背景与特征 | |:--- |:--- |:--- |:--- | | **1970 年代 - 1980 年** | 约 25% ~ 30% | 极低比例 | 石油危机主导，能源占据指数主导地位 | | **1996 年** | 约 9% | 约 9% | 两大板块历史性地处于完全相同的权重交汇点 | | **2020 年** | 约 2.5% | 高速扩张 | 负油价危机爆发，能源股权重坠入历史谷底 | | **当前（2024 年）** | 约 4% | 极高比例（领跑市场） | 经历 40-50 年的结构性再估值，能源股恐难以再重返 10% 以上 | 与此同时，AI 引发的重估浪潮正在蔓延至咨询行业。埃森哲（Accenture）、博思艾伦（Booz Allen Hamilton）以及高德纳（Gartner）等咨询及调研机构股价已从高位重挫 50% 至 70%；如果麦肯锡（McKinsey）是一家上市企业，其估值大概率也会遭遇同样的腰斩。最后，对比半导体 ETF（SMH）与软件 ETF（IGV）过去五年的表现，差距悬殊：尽管 IGV 重仓微软（Microsoft）、甲骨文（Oracle）和 Palantir 等巨头，其过去五年累计收益仅有微不足道的 6%（非年化）；而 SMH 的同期累计涨幅高达约 260%，硬件和芯片对软件行业形成了近乎吞噬性的优势。 - 黑石（Blackstone）等另类资产管理机构股价近期在低点放量反弹，市场对私募信贷（private credit）风险的焦虑暂时让位于情绪修复。 --- ### [26:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeJxk81ppEM&t=1607s) 从落叶机噪音到“开销曲线”：为人父母后的必然通胀 在转向讨论经济话题时，演播室外突然传来了落叶机（leaf blower）的巨大轰鸣声。Ben 调侃道，如果有不发出噪音的静音电动落叶机，播客主播们不知愿意为此掏多少钱。但他紧接着承认，作为人到中年的典型“郊区老爹”，自己特别享受使用落叶机的快感，经常在车库里吹吹浮尘、把人行道上的木屑吹得干干净净，为此没少被孩子们嘲笑。 这引发了关于中年开销与“生活方式蔓延”（lifestyle creep）的读者反馈讨论。一位听众在来信中提出，应该用“开销曲线”（the expense curve）来取代“生活方式蔓延”这个带有负面暗示的词汇。因为“生活方式蔓延”暗示人们是出于虚荣或自愿主动去购买奢华商品，但现实生活中随着年龄增长，存在大量根本无法逃避的结构性刚性开销步进（inflationary cost step-ups）： - 不断上涨的房产税（property taxes）与房屋基础维护（如落叶机等 Capex 资本性支出）。 - 孩子们长大后的饮食消费激增、体育活动与课外兴趣班费用。 - 迫在眉睫的大学学费（college tuition）。 即使家庭竭力维持固定的消费水平，也根本无法跳出这条上扬的“开销曲线”。Michael 完全认同这套逻辑，并大方表示自己赞成适度的生活方式升级：多赚钱的目的本就是为了提升生活品质，花钱买好东西天经地义。他顺带打趣 Ben “言行合一”，爆料 Ben 最近在租用 Airbnb 上花了一大笔令人印象深刻的开支。Ben 则笑着分享了自家的金钱观：妻子平素极度极简，在衣服、包包和鞋子上开销极少（甚至他自己在衣橱上的花销都比妻子多），但早在四年前妻子就明确立下了家庭预算的唯一重点——“全力保障度假开支”（prioritize vacations）。两人一致认同，把钱投资在与家人共同出游的宝贵回忆上，才是金钱最具价值的归宿。 ### [29:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeJxk81ppEM&t=1761s) 假期记忆与强劲的消费者支出态势 本段对话由家庭度假的价值切入，Ben Carlson 提到自己打算给好友 Michael Antonelli 发短信聊聊这个话题：回想童年时虽然全家出游的次数屈指可数，但那些大型度假至今仍是家人之间经常重温的珍贵记忆。他坚信对于自己的孩子们而言，未来能长久留存的绝不是生日或圣诞节收到的玩具与礼物，而是全家出行的点点滴滴。Michael Batnick 对此深表赞同，直言物质带来的快感转瞬即逝，而旅行的记忆却历久弥新。 随后话题转回宏观经济与消费者韧性。根据财报电话会议实录的摘录，一线零售巨头的表态与当前媒体弥漫的悲观论调形成了鲜明反差： - **沃尔玛（Walmart）CFO** 表示，相较于新闻头条充斥的危言耸听，他们对消费者的态度更为乐观；消费者展现出了极强的韧性，实际财务健康度明显好于大众预期。 - **迪克体育用品（Dick's Sporting Goods）** 透露，消费者健康状况极佳，不仅对体育运动充满执念，而且完全没有出现从高端商品向中端甚至平价商品“降级消费”（trade down）的迹象。 - **李维斯（Levi Strauss）CFO** 则指出，公司密切监控了提价对消费者的影响，但截至目前，价格上涨并未对产品需求造成任何冲击。 从平价商超到专业运动装备再到服装巨头，大范围的消费数据均证实了终端需求的稳固。Ben Carlson 结合自身经历佐证，他们全家连续四年在春假去往同一地点度假，今年景区的拥挤程度远超以往，到处都是愿意花钱的人。不过他也忍不住感叹，带着三个孩子下馆子，哪怕只点了简单的炸鸡柳（chicken fingers）和通心粉芝士（mac and cheese），账单的起步价也越来越夸张，但消费者似乎对此逆来顺受，依然选择买单。 --- ### [31:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeJxk81ppEM&t=1882s) 扑朔迷离的就业市场：黄金年龄高参与率与青年就业隐忧 谈及当下的美国就业市场，Ben 认为最贴切的形容词就是“令人困惑”。上周提到失业率依然较低时，不少听众批评失业率数据容易被粉饰；Ben 于是换用更客观的 25 至 54 岁“黄金年龄段”（Prime-age）劳动力参与率来衡量——该指标剔除了退休人群的干扰，目前已经无限逼近 1999 年的历史最高水平，且远高于 2010 年代的大部分时期。然而，强劲的宏观数据与普通人的真实体感之间撕开了一条巨大的鸿沟，双方都能拿出大量数据与见闻来佐证各自的观点。 Michael Batnick 指出，近期 16 至 24 岁的年轻群体失业率曾出现反弹迹象，而来自听众的反馈更描绘出一幅严峻的现实图景。一位负责招聘大学应届生的听众在来信中写道，自己完全赞同 Michael 关于 AI 正在重创初级岗位的判断，其母校计算机系的教授透露，以往几乎人人都能拿到实习和全职 Offer，如今应届生能顺利落地的比例骤降至仅约四分之一，“整个年龄段的就业氛围极其惨烈”。 媒体人 Derek Thompson 近期的一期播客探讨了经济学家 Adam Ozimek 和 Nathan Goldschlag 发表的研究报告《AI 与青年就业：解开谜团需用对指标》（*AI and young adult jobs: The real mystery starts by using the right measures*）。该报告指出，官方失业率仅将“正在积极找工作”的人计入分母，但在过去一年中，22 至 25 岁未受过大学教育的年轻人大量放弃了寻找工作。这些成为“气馁工作者”（discouraged workers）的年轻人直接退出了劳动力群体，反而让官方公布的失业率看起来依然健康，掩盖了青年就业率持续下滑的恶化趋势。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 青年就业统计盲区与真实生存现状 accDescr: 流程图展示了初级白领岗位短缺如何导致青年失业率数据失真及下沉就业。 subgraph MacroShock["宏观现实与冲击"] A["高校毕业生与青年求职者"] --> B["初级白领/科技岗位缩减<br>(企业招聘放缓 + AI替代效应)"] end subgraph SplitPaths["青年劳动者的现实分流"] B --> C["高学历低就 (Underemployment)<br>从事调酒、餐饮、零售打零工"] B --> D["气馁工作者 (Discouraged Workers)<br>屡屡碰壁后彻底放弃求职"] end subgraph StatisticalDistortion["官方宏观统计的扭曲呈现"] C --> E["统计为'充分就业'<br>隐藏学历与技能错配问题"] D --> F["退出劳动力人口<br>不计入失业率分母"] E --> G["官方青年失业率维持虚假平稳<br>真实就业痛感与体感极差"] F --> G end ``` --- ### [33:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeJxk81ppEM&t=2039s) 周期常态化还是AI冲击？从次贷危机到当下的不确定性恐慌 针对青年就业走弱的图表，Ben 提出了质疑。他指出该图表的时间跨度仅仅始于 2021 年，而 2021 至 2022 年是众人有生之年见过的最火爆就业市场——当时“跳槽者”与“留任者”之间的薪资涨幅差距达到历史极值。如今随着经济周期的冷却，劳资博弈的主动权已经从普通劳动者重新交还给资方，因此很难单凭这两年的放缓就断定全是 AI 造成的。 Michael 则认为这两种力量正在叠加共振：一方面经济确实刚刚告别过热与“超额就业”（over-employment）阶段，另一方面 AI 带来的替代恐慌以及真实的企业顾虑，确实让雇主在吸纳初级员工时变得极其迟缓与谨慎。 Ben 结合自身在 2008 年大衰退（GFC）后步入职场的亲身经历做了对比。他直言经历过真正尸横遍野的劳动力市场后，很难认同现在的情况已经比当年更糟。在次贷危机爆发后，年轻人面对的社会现实是“有份糊口的工作就该谢天谢地，敢开口提加薪就直接走人”。然而两人都承认，当下的特殊折磨在于极高维度的“不确定性”——次贷危机后大家虽然痛苦，但心里清楚熬过周期终会复苏；而面对 AI 浪潮，没有人知道行业悬崖何时见底，未知的深渊让大众的心理防线更为脆弱。 --- ### [35:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeJxk81ppEM&t=2158s) 简历投递内卷、求职中介与高学历低就现象 巨大的就业焦虑催生了一批荒诞的衍生现象。市面上有文章大肆渲染“焦虑的父母花费高达 5 万美元帮孩子找工作”。虽然 Michael 认为花数万美元纯属极端案例（类似于富豪行贿百万送子女进名校的丑闻），但普通家庭花费 3000 到 5000 美元聘请专业求职导师（Job Coach）的现象已屡见不鲜。Ben 对此直言不讳：“省省这笔钱吧，动用你身边的社交人脉去引荐才是正道，指望花钱请职业导师根本解决不了问题。” 在求职端，每个初级岗位收到的平均申请量已创下历史新高。Ben 剖析指出，这一数据的暴增不可逆转，主要源于投递门槛的急剧归零： - 就像 2000 年代中后期 CareerBuilder 等招聘网站兴起前，求职者必须打印简历寄信或去官网填写，流程繁琐限制了申请量； - 如今申请者可以用 ChatGPT 在几秒钟内生成求职信与量身定制的简历； - 未来几年，求职者甚至会派遣自己的 AI Agent 全天候无差别地向所有开放岗位海投，申请人数绝不可能再跌回去。 另一封听众来信直接挑战了德意志银行经济学家 Torsten Sløk 认为“AI 尚未对年轻毕业生就业产生明显负面影响”的论点。该听众指出，许多大学毕业生之所以没有被列入失业救济名单，是因为他们为了生存不得不去餐厅当服务员、在零售店打杂或当调酒师（bartender）。这位来信者本人历经整整一年的漫长求职才勉强找到一份与专业稍微沾边的工作，自嘲手握本科学历完全是“高学历低就”（overqualified）。更有大量毕业于名校商业分析或金融专业的优秀学生，因为在白领求职市场全面碰壁，为了交房租和维持生计，只能被迫在酒吧里调酒度日。这种严重的隐性失业与错配，被看似平稳的官方就业数据完全抹平了。 ### [38:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeJxk81ppEM&t=2280s) 入门级就业市场与 AI 带来的职场断层 迈克尔·巴特尼克（Michael Batnick）与本·卡尔森（Ben Carlson）就年轻一代当前的处境展开了讨论。两人回顾了 2008 年金融危机时的情景，指出年轻人在恶劣经济环境中挣扎并不是什么新鲜事。本倾向于保持乐观，认为年轻人最终会找到出路、渡过难关；但迈克尔对此持非常悲观的态度。迈克尔直言，在人工智能能够以极低成本完成基础工作的当下，企业根本没有动力像过去那样招聘大量初级（Entry-level）员工。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: AI对企业层级结构与晋升路径的冲击 accDescr: 展示了传统晋升阶梯如何在入门岗位被AI替代后面临断层危机 subgraph Traditional["传统企业人才梯队"] T1["入门级员工（基层执行）"] --> T2["中层骨干（经验积累）"] T2 --> T3["管理与核心层（35岁中坚）"] end subgraph Modern["AI 时代的人才断层隐患"] M1["AI 取代入门员工<br>（极低成本，极致效率）"] -.->|晋升梯队出现断裂| M2["缺少经受锻炼的中层"] M2 -.->|未来无人接班| M3["未来的 35 岁业务骨干缺失？"] end ``` 本反驳称，如果企业不招募基础员工，未来谁来填补中层员工的空缺？当这批人到了 35 岁，公司由谁来接班？但迈克尔指出，现实中企业的招聘决策往往是短视的，管理者不会考虑“这些员工 35 岁时公司该怎么办”这类长远问题。尽管转型期注定充满颠簸，本依然寄希望于未来几年婴儿潮一代（Baby Boomers）的大规模退休能够腾出职位空间，在劳动力市场上形成缓冲。 --- ### [39:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeJxk81ppEM&t=2358s) 千禧一代 vs 婴儿潮一代：《华尔街日报》的数据真相与代际争论 节目随后切入《华尔街日报》（The Wall Street Journal）发布的一篇重磅报道——《千禧一代还是婴儿潮一代过得更艰难？》。迈克尔坦言自己讨厌这种具有撕裂感的话题，认为它就像在酒吧里争论“乔丹与勒布朗谁更伟大”一样，永远没有标准答案，只是徒增社会对立；而本则认为这类代际对比极具探讨趣味。文章用多项经通胀调整后的扎实数据，颠覆了不少传统认知： - **收入对比**：在 25 至 34 岁以及 35 岁等同年龄段对比中，经通胀调整后，千禧一代的家庭收入中位数实际上略高于当年的婴儿潮一代。 - **住房负担能力**：根据家庭收入中位数和抵押贷款利率综合衡量的住房可负担性数据显示，在 1970 年代末至 1980 年代初（婴儿潮一代置业时期），买房负担比今天高得多；整个 80 年代和 90 年代的大部分时间里，买房难度也与今天持平甚至更严峻。婴儿潮一代常拿当年高达 18% 的房贷利率作为“当年更苦”的凭证，虽然本指出他们后来享受了利率一路下行的再融资红利，而且迈克尔补充称千禧一代如今买的房子品质远比当年更好。 - **家庭净资产**：在相同年龄段下，千禧一代的平均家庭净资产已明显超过当年的婴儿潮一代。 本分享了一份 1983 年《Money》杂志的封面报道，当时标题同样在哀叹“婴儿潮一代能否过得像其父母一样好？”，直指那一代人深感在就业、住房和养老上被时代亏欠。本强调，每一代年轻人在步入社会时都会经历这种恐慌，当下的 AI 危机只是年轻一代必经的“成年礼（Rite of passage）”；唯独 1990 年代的 X 世代（Gen X）例外——他们身处史上最好的十年，却在《现实的创痛》（*Reality Bites*）和《搏击俱乐部》（*Fight Club*）等流行文化中无病呻吟地“装作很惨”。 --- ### [41:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeJxk81ppEM&t=2518s) 生活不易的本质：个人家庭记忆与代际红利之辩 尽管数据显示千禧一代在某些经济指标上占优，本依然断言婴儿潮一代是历史上过得最轻松的一代，迈克尔对此强烈反对。迈克尔搬出父母那一代极高的离婚率进行反驳，本戏谑称那是因为“日子太好过了才瞎折腾”，但迈克尔严肃地分享了自己的家庭经历：他的父亲大学牙医学院刚毕业、年仅二十出头就开始抚养三个年幼的孩子，同时由于祖父在杂货店推购物车、祖母没有工作，父亲还要独自支撑大萧条与二战一代的祖父母的生活开销，沉重的经济压力最终导致家庭破裂。迈克尔认为，每个时代的生活从不容易，后人往往凭借事后诸葛亮的心态（Hindsight bias）人为推高评判门槛，轻视了前辈当年承受的巨大压力。 本则从宏观经济与结构成本角度坚持自己的看法：父辈上大学时每学期学费仅需 50 美元，找工作和买房也相对容易，如今困扰年轻人的核心负担在当年确实更为宽松。不过本也承认，婴儿潮一代作为极其庞大的人口群体，其旺盛的消费力和投资推动了股市走出 70 年代的泥潭，奠定了今天繁荣的基石。 --- ### [44:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeJxk81ppEM&t=2654s) AI 创投风暴与史无前例的人均创收效率 话题随后转向炙手可热的科技投资领域。根据风险投资机构 Andreessen Horowitz（a16z）的数据，2026 年第一季度成为了风投史上规模最大的一个季度，其融资曲线犹如疫情时期的失业率图表一样直接冲破天际。AI 公司在 2026 年第一季度的融资金额达到了惊人的 2,420 亿美元，而 2024 年第一季度这一数字仅为 160 亿美元。尽管 OpenAI、Anthropic 等头部公司的天价融资解决了风投资金（Dry powder）闲置的问题，迈克尔却担忧资本极度集中在超级大轮次和巨型基金中，大量毫无造血能力的 AI 追风项目最终将彻底归零。 随后两人引用了 Ramp 首席经济学家编制的 AI 指数，以及风投机构 Redpoint 的行业报告，展示了企业端对 AI 采纳的爆发式增长以及极其惊人的人均创收（ARR per full-time employee）数据： | 公司 / 指标 | 人均年经常性收入（ARR / 全职员工） | |:--- |:--- | | **Cursor** | 610 万美元 | | **Lovable** | 340 万美元 | | **OpenAI** | 150 万美元 | | **Anthropic** | 120 万美元 | | **Salesforce**（传统 SaaS 对比） | 54 万美元 | | **Datadog**（传统 SaaS 对比） | 51 万美元 | 探讨中两人插话提及，Ramp 的企业订阅数据显示已有 50% 的美国企业付费使用 AI 大模型，且 Anthropic 的增长斜率几乎垂直，在企业端甚至有在数月内反超 OpenAI 的势头；他们还顺带回忆起此前市场对 DeepSeek 的恐慌情绪如今已成过眼云烟，迈克尔更提到自己近期买入英伟达（NVIDIA）的交易。面对 Cursor 等初创公司展现出的极致人效，迈克尔最后严肃指出，AI 带来的这种极致效率将引发严重的贫富分化：极少数人凭借极少的员工就能创造巨额财富，如果这些新晋的 AI 科技新贵不效仿洛克菲勒（Rockefeller）大举修建图书馆、回馈社会，公众对这一阶层的反弹与敌意将达到前所未有的程度。 ### [47:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeJxk81ppEM&t=2846s) AI 引发的社会反弹、地缘政治与 Anthropic 的投资暴赚 针对 AI 巨头及其领导者，公众情绪正变得极其微妙且充满敌意。两人谈到，随着这些科技新贵变得极其富有，他们似乎必须为全人类做些真正的回报才能平息民愤。以 OpenAI 为例，Sam Altman 的住宅在过去短短几周内竟遭遇了两次袭击。Michael 强调，虽然绝不是在说 Altman "罪有应得"，但不可否认的是，这些公司向外界传递的信息在民间正变得 "极其、极其不受欢迎"。与此同时，安全层面的隐患更加令人心惊：Anthropic 最近研发出了一套能自主寻找网络安全漏洞的新程序，短短时间内就找出了数以百万计的漏洞，这意味着该系统如果有恶意，几乎可以瞬间黑进所有网络。Ben 感叹，按照这个势头发展下去，未来迟早会有某件事彻底 "脱轨失控"（go off the rails）。 更严峻的是，AI 议题必将政治化，甚至会成为下届美国总统大选的核心议题。当被问及 "大家是否信任政府能够出面保护我们" 时，两人斩钉截铁地表示完全不信，因为现有的官僚体系根本连现在发生的一半真相都理解不了。此外，在二级市场上，微软的表现经常被视作 OpenAI 的公开代理指标，但另一则关于 Anthropic 的投资案例令人咋舌：韩国电信巨头 SK Telecom 早在 2023 年就向 Anthropic 投资了 1 亿美元，如今伴随着最新一轮估值，这笔股权已暴涨至超过 20 亿美元，推动 SK Telecom 的股价年内暴涨 75%，走出了近乎垂直拉升的罕见行情。 - Sam Altman 位于加州的住所近期两度遭到恶意攻击。 - Anthropic 开发的自动化安全工具探测出数以百万计的底层漏洞，凸显 AI 武器化的失控风险。 - 韩国 SK Telecom 在 2023 年以 1 亿美元入股 Anthropic，目前该笔股权估值已突破 20 亿美元，带动其股价年内上涨 75%。 --- ### [49:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeJxk81ppEM&t=2953s) 比特币与软件股的脱钩迷局 Michael 透露自己在刚过去的周五重新买入了比特币，此前他已经很久没有操作过加密货币了。回顾今年 2 月中旬至下旬那场激烈的 SaaS 概念股暴跌，当时市场上流传着大量走势对比图，戏谑地声称 "原来比特币一直以来不过就是一只 SaaS 软件股"，两者的关联度近乎一比一神同步。 然而，这种紧密联动的走势最近出现了分化破裂。团队制作的对比图显示，比特币在关键技术位找到了坚实支撑并开始企稳反弹，而软件股板块则一路跌破支撑形态（尽管近两天略有技术性抽头）。Ben 评价道，这种现象就像过去大家总喜欢对比黄金与房地产一样——两条曲线在长达数年里看起来亦步亦趋、严丝合缝，但最终总会因基本面逻辑的异化而彻底分道扬镳。至于比特币此番反弹能否反向带动传统软件股回暖，目前仍是个未知数。 --- ### [50:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeJxk81ppEM&t=3005s) 房地产的十年大顶：婴儿潮世代退场与人口断层 讨论转向房地产市场，Ben 引用了其推崇的 Calculated Risk 房地产分析师 Bill McBride 的最新人口学报告。此前在《Ask Those Compound》节目中，Nick Maggiulli 曾提问未来十年房产和私募类投资（如私募信贷）哪一个回报更差，Ben 认为答案显而易见是房地产。根据 McBride 的研判，未来几年内（并将持续至 2040 年左右），婴儿潮一代（Baby Boomers）将掀起一波集中抛售房产的狂潮。虽然这些老旧房屋普遍需要翻新，但多数占据着绝佳地理位置；伴随而来的还有针对老年退休社区建设的大幅提速。 人口年龄金字塔显示，目前美国人口最庞大的两个群体分别处于 20 多岁中段和 30 多岁中段。处于 30 多岁后半段的千禧一代大多已经完成了置业流程，这意味着未来十年的新增购房需求将显著减弱，而二手房挂牌供给却会因老人离世或迁入养老院而大幅增加。供给扩张撞上需求空窗期，外加此前疫情期间透支的大量购房红利，房价在相当长一段时间内可能陷入停滞。Michael 直言："现在到底还有谁在看好房价上涨？" 他认为房子归根结底只是昂贵的居住消费品，根本谈不上真正的投资回报率；未来十年房价如果能勉强跑赢通胀，就已经算是一场大胜。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Housing Demographics Headwind accDescr: Chart illustrating how demographic shifts lead to stagnant housing prices over the next decade. subgraph Supply["供给端 (Supply Surge)"] A["婴儿潮一代老龄化<br>(持续至2040年)"] --> B["集中抛售旧房/搬入退休社区"] B --> C["核心地段二手房挂牌量大增"] end subgraph Demand["需求端 (Demand Drop)"] D["千禧一代主力大多度过置业潮"] --> E["20-30岁新增刚需买盘放缓"] end C --> F["供需反转：价格承压滞涨"] E --> F F --> G["投资回报低迷<br>(仅能勉强跑赢通胀)"] ``` --- ### [51:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeJxk81ppEM&t=3107s) 8000 美元的热水器与二战工伤视角 聊到维护房屋的昂贵成本，Michael 分享了一个令人哭笑不得的生活琐事：他家里的热水供应最近断断续续，洗澡水总是温吞吞的。因为他习惯性拖延维修，家里每天都是孩子们先洗上滚烫的头道热水，轮到他洗时水温便已半凉不热。在联系了一位迟迟不回复的水暖工后，他大概率需要自掏 8000 美元去更换一台全新的 Navien 壁挂式无水箱热水器，这让他感叹在家里洗上一个热腾腾的澡代价极其高昂。Ben 笑称，如果是换作自己妻子，遇到没热水早就大发雷霆了。 为了让自己在这个糟糕的支出前保持心态平和，Michael 搬出了他最近正在读的一本二战历史书里的冷门统计数据：在整个第二次世界大战期间，美军前线共有约 1.7 万名士兵因战截肢；然而在后方工厂紧锣密鼓地备战与军工狂飙赶工的过程中，竟有超过 10 万名美国产业工人因工伤失去了肢体。Michael 自嘲说，一想到当年十万人为了制造军械在后方牺牲了手脚，自己如今只是在家洗两趟温水澡、多花几千块钱换个热水器，简直不值一提。 --- ### [53:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeJxk81ppEM&t=3188s) 房产市场的极端分化：铁锈地带秒空与阳光地带滞销 房产专家 Lance Lambert 的最新图表揭示了美国房地产彻底打破以往 "铁板一块" 的刻板印象，呈现出严重的区域大分化（Bifurcation）。借用电影《遇见波莉》（Along Came Polly）中菲利普·塞默·霍夫曼在画廊里的经典台词 "Dude, we got to go. I just sharted" 互相打趣之后，两人深入分析了全美各地区进入春季销售季的成交周期。 数据显示，在加州、纽约州以及整个中西部（Midwest）地区，房屋挂牌后转为待定（Pending）的中位天数极短，房源几乎是被购房者瞬间秒杀。然而，此前在疫情期间被资金疯狂热炒的南部与东南部阳光地带（Sun Belt），行情却急转直下，大量房屋平均挂牌 70 多天仍无人问津。Ben 认为，阳光地带作为周期性极强的投机重灾区，率先暴跌进入深度调整阶段，但长远来看，该区域也极有可能最先触底反弹完成出清。 - 纽约、加州及中西部：由于长期库存短缺，开春以来的去化速度极快。 - 阳光地带（佛罗里达、德克萨斯等）：新房库存累积加上炒作降温，挂牌待定时间被大幅拉长至 70 天以上。 --- ### [54:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeJxk81ppEM&t=3273s) 巨星陨落：耐克财报暴雷与 DTC 战略的大败局 Michael 调出耐克（Nike）刚公布的季度财报，其灾难性的财务数据令人瞠目结舌。耐克单季营收名义同比持平，剔除汇率影响后实际下滑 3%；直营业务（Nike Direct）下挫 7%，其中数字渠道（Nike Digital）暴跌 9%，线下实体自营店下滑 5%，毛利率同步下滑了 130 个基点。 将时间轴拉长，耐克的投资表现堪称惨剧：过去 5 年耐克股价暴跌 66%，而同期标普 500 大盘却上涨了 76%；过去 10 年耐克累计下跌 16%，而标普 500 则狂飙近 300%。追溯至 1993 年以来的长周期，耐克曾经战胜大盘的全部超额阿尔法几乎已被全部抹平。Michael 讲述了身边朋友的一个典型散户错觉——其朋友总以为伟大的蓝筹股在暴跌后必然会反弹，甚至扬言 "它们向来如此"。Michael 当场泼了冷水，指出市场并不会按历史剧本简单重复，迪士尼、联合航空以及现在的耐克都是典型反例。 两人复盘耐克的核心败因：耐克依然是全球首屈一指的运动鞋巨头，日常随处可见有人穿着，品牌形象并未彻底崩塌，但它作为一门投资却极度糟糕。耐克前几年押注全渠道转型，做出了全面撤出亚马逊、执意推行 "全直营化（DTC）" 的傲慢战略决策。这一战略不仅严重削弱了分销网络，还将大量货架与市场份额拱手让给了 Hoka、On（昂跑）等新兴竞品，最终酿成了不可逆的溃败。 - 本季业绩：自营业务下滑 7%，线上直销暴跌 9%，毛利率萎缩 130 个基点。 - 相对收益惨败：过去 5 年跑输大盘超过 140 个百分点（-66% vs +76%）；过去 10 年跑输大盘逾 300 个百分点（-16% vs +300%）。 - 战略致命伤：过早切断与亚马逊等传统渠道的批发分销纽带，DTC 战略遭遇严重反噬并流失市场份额。 ### [56:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeJxk81ppEM&t=3398s) AI 投研与数据围墙：从 Quarter 集成 Claude 到平台的 API 限制 Ben 聊起了投研音频与财报应用 Quarter 最近集成 Claude 后的震撼体验。用户可以直接向模型提问关于任何公司、电话会事件、发言高管或财务指标的细节，AI 不仅能秒级响应，还会聪明地追问：“您希望我梳理所有提及衰退的公司，还是仅限知名龙头企业？”这种交互让 Ben 感慨万千。他回忆起读过的巴菲特传记：在那个信息极度匮乏的年代，年轻的巴菲特为了调研，不得不在周末亲自敲开 GEICO 办公室的大门跟 CEO 面谈；投资者想要一份财报，必须给上市公司写信寄信，等待邮寄送来厚厚的一大叠纸质年报。如今，知识工作者动动手指就能让 AI 筛选、提炼出所有信息。但 Ben 指出，这恰恰解释了为什么当今做投资比以往任何时候都难——当所有人都能瞬间知晓所有信息，“钓鱼”式的简单超额收益便荡然无存。 针对市场上热议的“软件公司末日论”，Michael 则提出了一个相反视角的现实阻碍：数据围墙与平台封锁。纽约尼克斯队（New York Knicks）季后赛即将开打，球票价格暴涨。Michael 打算和朋友去麦迪逊广场花园看球，想了解目前二级市场（如 StubHub 或 Ticketmaster）首轮比赛 100 区下层看台的最底价是多少。当他尝试让 Claude 去抓取时，Claude 却直接被拦在门外——票务平台不仅没有开放 API，还设置了 JavaScript 渲染等重重反爬限制。Michael 认为，市场普遍高估了 AI 无缝整合与跨平台抓取的便捷性；平台出于商业利益，绝不会轻易让外部 AI 随意挖掘自己的核心市场数据。另一个生动的例子是推特长文（Twitter/X）：Michael 曾想让 Claude 总结一篇关于 Claude 内部最新代号/模型的技术帖，结果发现 X 彻底屏蔽了 Claude 与 ChatGPT 的抓取，逼迫用户只能使用马斯克旗下的 Grok。“护城河”与商业壁垒不仅没有消失，反而在 AI 时代变得更加严密。 --- ### [59:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeJxk81ppEM&t=3578s) 情绪与行为的脱节：密歇根调查暴跌与刷卡消费新高 讨论转向了宏观调查数据。密歇根大学消费者信心指数（University of Michigan consumer sentiment index）跌至历史新低，并再次印证了“COVID 疫情彻底打破了一切固有规律”的论调。Michael 指出，除了信心低迷，民意调查本身的有效性也在崩溃：过去调查的响应率曾高达 90%（甚至在 2013 年前后依然可观），如今已陷入长期衰退，几乎没有人愿意接听电话或完成问卷。 然而，调查中流露的悲观情绪与美国消费者的实际行为形成了极其剧烈的反差： ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 消费者情绪调查与实际消费行为的背离 accDescr: 图表对比了消费者在情绪问卷中的悲观态度与在实际刷卡消费、股市资产配置中的乐观行动 subgraph Surveys["民调口径（口头表达）"] A["密歇根大学消费者信心指数<br/>跌至历史极值，极度悲观"] B["调查问卷响应率持续走低<br/>样本代表性严重受损"] end subgraph Actions["真实行动（钱包投票）"] C["美银美林家庭卡消费<br/>同比上涨 4.3%（创2023初以来新高）"] D["全美 60%~65% 家庭持有股票<br/>用真金白银押注长期繁荣"] end Surveys -.->|"严重背离（听其言，观其行）"| Actions ``` 根据美国银行（Bank of America）统计的每户家庭信用卡与借记卡总支出数据，该项支出同比上涨了 4.3%，创下 2023 年初以来的最强增速。尽管油价上涨在一定程度上推高了账单总额并加剧了人们口头上的焦虑，但民众的消费意愿依旧凶猛。Ben 强调，做分析必须“听其言，更要观其行（Watch what they do, not what they say）”：目前全美约有 60% 至 65% 的家庭直接或间接持有股票。只要大家还愿意将真金白银留在股市里，本质上就是对未来经济持乐观态度，这与问卷里所抱怨的糟糕经济感受形成了根本性的断层。 --- ### [01:01:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeJxk81ppEM&t=3668s) 资产跃升的心理门槛与“健康余命”的退休规划 关于上期播客提到“100 万美元是最难受的存款金额”，一位听众发来邮件展开探讨。听众表示，对于拥有一份不错但非顶尖薪水的普通打工人而言，辛苦干一年，年终可能只拿 3,000 美元的奖金；但在股市大年，拥有 100 万美元资产组合的人仅靠投资就能实现 25 万美元的增值，这一年的资本回报甚至远超其全年的劳动薪水。这种“资金还没多到能彻底退休，但资产回报的量级已完全压倒劳动力回报”的状态，会给心理带来极大冲击。这种现代退休模式也彻底打破了上一代人工作到特定年龄、按部就班领固定养老金（Pension）的旧范式，突显了靠储蓄和复利留在市场里的核心价值。 紧接着，两人探讨了另一篇关于老龄化与健康的流行 Substack 文章。作者 Dan Headlet 援引英国统计数据指出：一名 60 岁的男性平均预期寿命约为 84 岁，女性约为 87 岁。退休计算器往往据此建议大家准备 25 到 30 年的退休金，却忽略了这些晚年岁月并非全是“健康岁月”。数据显示，对一个 60 岁的人而言，身体机能出现实质性限制、阻碍旅行与正常活动前的优质时光平均只有 12 到 15 年： - **60 岁退休的健康基线**：真正能自由坐长途飞机、随心散步旅游的黄金退休期大约只有 12 年； - **前置消费理论**：在身体尚健的退休前十几年内，应当大胆增加体验式消费（Frontload your spending），而非把钱死守到行动不便的耄耋之年； - **昂贵的养老现实**：高端老年护理中心（Senior living facility）价格极其昂贵，动辄每年 10 万美元起步。Michael 回忆起祖父当年住在环境极度压抑阴暗的廉价养老院中的悲凉经历；Ben 则提到祖母在 90 多岁住进养老院后，高昂的护理费用迅速吞噬掉了她一生的全部积蓄。 两人打趣称，未来这代人养老可能得依赖机器人。Michael 开玩笑说自己临终时身边必须是个真人，不能让毫无温度的机器陪伴；Ben 则调侃到时候机器人身上会不会直接带有一个一键安乐死或者自毁断电的物理开关。 --- ### [01:04:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeJxk81ppEM&t=3873s) 院线票房的合家欢复苏：PG 级电影领跑 话题最后转入娱乐产业与院线表现。数据显示，北美电影票房同比增长了 26%。媒体 Puck 旗下的文化记者 Scott Mendelson 撰文探讨：“合家欢电影在院线的全面复苏是否成真？” - **排片结构显著倾斜**：今年北美确定大规模公映的 PG 级（辅导级/阖家皆宜）电影多达 26 部，相较于 2024 年的 18 部大幅提升； - **代表作品密集上映**：包括《超能特工狗》（*Hoppers*）、《超级马力欧》（*Mario* 相关续作/衍生作）、《Goat》以及《挽救计划》（*Project Hail Mary*）等； - **合家欢撑起半边天**：在好莱坞屡屡因盲目深挖老套情怀 IP（Legacy sequels）而折戟沉沙的背景下，真正面向全家共同观影的内容正成为扛起影院现金流的绝对主力。 ### [01:05:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeJxk81ppEM&t=3902s) 好莱坞续集疲劳与南方的“Coke”称呼趣谈 好莱坞流水线上的 IP 翻拍与衍生作品正面临严重的审美疲劳。从《创：战纪》（Tron）续集、布鲁斯·斯普林斯汀（Bruce Springsteen）传记片，到迪士尼的《白雪公主》（Snow White）真人版，以及新一部《真人快打》（Mortal Kombat），大银幕上充斥着堆砌的情怀产物。迈克尔直言新曝光的《宇宙巨人希曼》（Masters of the Universe）造型“看起来糟透了”，而本·卡尔森则补充说即将推出的《海洋奇缘》（Moana）真人版同样令人失望。不过迈克尔认为，这类项目通常是两年前就已经立项在制作管道中的存量，现在的电影制片厂或许终于开始清醒，意识到观众到底想看什么、不想看什么，影视行业有望迎来真正的转机。 随后话题切入到不同地域的生活俚语。在德克萨斯州及美国整个南方地区，人们几乎从不说“pop”，有时说“soda”，但最通用的统称居然是“Coke”（可乐）。迈克尔分享了一个让人捧腹的典型对话段子：当你在路上开车问妻子“到了下个镇子要不要停下来买罐可乐（Coke）？”妻子回答“好啊，那你帮我拿一罐无糖乐百氏（Diet Dr Pepper）”。本对这种将一切碳酸饮料统称为可乐的南方习惯感到无法理解，笑称这正是自己坚决只说“pop”的原因。 --- ### [01:06:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeJxk81ppEM&t=3961s) 好莱坞秘史：好戏与错过的“平行宇宙”选角 迈克尔分享了一部聚焦弗朗西斯·福特·科波拉（Francis Ford Coppola）、史蒂芬·斯皮尔伯格（Steven Spielberg）与乔治·卢卡斯（George Lucas）的好莱坞幕后书籍《好莱坞最后的王者》（The Last Kings of Hollywood），其中揭秘了大量著名电影鲜为人知的选角秘辛与拍摄危机。在《星球大战》（Star Wars）最初拍摄时，剧组内部简直把它当成一场笑话。当时尚未成名的哈里森·福特（Harrison Ford）更像是个木匠兼零工——迈克尔形容他宛如《好莱坞往事》里布拉德·皮特饰演的替身演员，光着膀子修房子、修篱笆。拍摄现场所有演员都在嘲笑卢卡斯，因为现场道具杂乱粗糙，没人知道最终成片会是什么样子。 更令人惊叹的是那些差点成真的选角方案，完全勾勒出了一个不可思议的好莱坞“平行宇宙”： - **汉·索罗（Han Solo）**：制片方当年最初属意的人选竟然是阿尔·帕西诺（Al Pacino）。 - **卢克·天行者（Luke Skywalker）**：剧组曾试镜克里斯托弗·沃肯（Christopher Walken）来出演马克·哈米尔（Mark Hamill）的角色。本甚至吐槽道：“要是换成沃肯演，这电影还能更好看点，哈米尔当年演得太灾难了。” - **印第安纳·琼斯（Indiana Jones）**：汤姆·塞立克（Tom Selleck）原本已经拿下该角色，但因受制于经典美剧《夏威夷神探》（Magnum, P.I.）的独家合同限制，只能无奈放弃。 - **《现代启示录》（Apocalypse Now）主角**：哈威·凯特尔（Harvey Keitel）最初饰演马丁·辛（Martin Sheen）的角色，在实地拍摄了一个月后，科波拉觉得整体感觉完全不对，毅然将其换掉。 - **《绝地战警》（Bad Boys）**：在知名经纪公司 CAA 的相关传记中提到，该片最初筹备时的主演意向竟然是约翰·贝鲁西（John Belushi）与达纳·卡维（Dana Carvey）这对奇特组合。 --- ### [01:08:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeJxk81ppEM&t=4122s) 流媒体追剧指南与近期观影红黑榜 在流媒体影视推荐方面，迈克尔高度赞扬了刚刚完结的七集剧集《D.T.F. 圣路易斯》（D.T.F. St. Louis），称其保持了 HBO 一贯无可比拟的制作质感。本·卡尔森在刚过去的春假期间彻底给大脑放了假，除了看几场 NCAA 大学篮球“最终四强”（Final Four）之外，完全没追剧，只读了几本轻松的沙滩消遣书。 本唯一尝试看的一部片子是犯罪题材电影《犯罪 101》（Crime 101），但长达 2 小时 20 分钟的片长让他极其沮丧。他直言没有任何动作犯罪电影应该拍得这么冗长，整部片子极力模仿经典名作《盗火线》（Heat），但效果乏善可陈。迈克尔也完全认同该片水准不高。 对于流媒体平台的近况，两人还提到了 Hulu 的剧集《失落之城》（Paradise）第二季，本原本并不抱太高期望，但意外发现第二季彻底颠覆了前作的风格，质量超出预期。此外，迈克尔还提到了近期看过的《28年后：白骨神庙》（Bone Temple），虽然整部作品血腥野蛮、极其残暴，而且延续了上一部荒诞怪异的结尾，但作为低成本恐怖动作片，其完成度却超乎想象。 --- ### [01:10:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeJxk81ppEM&t=4245s) 成功后的虚空：多巴胺悬崖与成就的悲剧性 迈克尔分享了一条发人深省的推文：“一个男人生命中最危险的一年，往往是他终于得到他想要的一切之后的那一年。”（"The most dangerous year of a man's life is the one right after he finally gets what he wanted."）在科波拉和斯皮尔伯格的传记中，清晰记录了他们在分别拍出《教父》（The Godfather）、《大白鲨》（Jaws）和《星球大战》（Star Wars）这些登上职业生涯顶峰的旷世巨作之后，无一例外地陷入了严重的抑郁状态。 本·卡尔森解释了背后的生理与心理学机制： - **登顶后的迷茫**：当你站在了行业的最高峰，心中只剩下“我已经登顶了，接下来还能做什么？”的幻灭感。 - **多巴胺的断崖**：正如贾森·茨威格（Jason Zweig）在《专注意识与财富》（Your Money and Your Brain）一书中所分析的，人类在期待和追求目标的过程中，大脑神经元兴奋放电；而一旦真正拿到想要的东西，大脑反而不再分泌那种刺激感，甚至没有任何如释重负的快感，只会平淡地觉得“我得到了，理所当然该这样”，接着便陷入空虚。 - **度假效应的隐喻**：这与人们对待度假的心态如出一辙——翘首以盼准备假期的过程，往往比真正身处度假目的地时更令人兴奋。 追求成长是人生的本能，而得到心仪之物后的心理落差则是人性固有的悲剧之一，唯一的解法就是必须迅速设定下一个目标并继续前行。 --- ### [01:12:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeJxk81ppEM&t=4332s) 尾盘突袭：全员回船与永远走不出的迷雾 节目录制的尾声，迈克尔快速查看了即时美股盘面：当天市场全线反弹，纳斯达克指数上涨超过 1%，黄金价格也继续走高。迈克尔打趣地喊出节目标题口号：“全员回船！”（"Everybody back in the boat!"） 不过本立刻理性地泼了冷水：金融市场的日常本就是情绪的过山车，明天随时可能冒出一个新事件导致行情全面逆转，后天又可能发生意外再次反转甚至“双重反转”。正如本所总结的，“我们永远不会走出这片森林，我们永远都在迷雾之中，但这正是股票市场的乐趣所在。” 节目最后，迈克尔公布了听众互动邮箱（animalspirits@thecompoundnews.com），并为 Ritholtz Wealth Management 的税务团队招聘发布了引才信息，在轻松幽默的气氛中结束了本期播客。 ## Notable quotes > [03:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeJxk81ppEM&t=190s) 生活要是不抱怨两句，那还叫生活吗？ — Ben Carlson > [06:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeJxk81ppEM&t=377s) 国税局抓不到我（The IRS isn't going to catch me） — Michael Batnick > [11:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeJxk81ppEM&t=661s) 我意识到自己懂得太少，想要在职业上更进一步就必须学得更多。 — Ben Carlson > [19:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeJxk81ppEM&t=1184s) literally get me out at any price（不惜一切代价让我离场） — Michael Batnick > [35:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeJxk81ppEM&t=2158s) 省省这笔钱吧，动用你身边的社交人脉去引荐才是正道，指望花钱请职业导师根本解决不了问题。 — Ben Carlson > [39:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeJxk81ppEM&t=2358s) 当下的 AI 危机只是年轻一代必经的‘成年礼’。 — Ben Carlson > [50:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeJxk81ppEM&t=3005s) 现在到底还有谁在看好房价上涨？ — Michael Batnick > [59:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeJxk81ppEM&t=3578s) 听其言，更要观其行（Watch what they do, not what they say）。 — Ben Carlson > [01:10:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeJxk81ppEM&t=4245s) 一个男人生命中最危险的一年，往往是他终于得到他想要的一切之后的那一年。 — Michael Batnick > [01:12:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeJxk81ppEM&t=4332s) 全员回船！（Everybody back in the boat!） — Michael Batnick > [01:12:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeJxk81ppEM&t=4332s) 我们永远不会走出这片森林，我们永远都在迷雾之中，但这正是股票市场的乐趣所在。 — Ben Carlson ## Mentioned Michael Batnick, Ben Carlson, Bill Sweet, Josh Brown, Max Hastings, Sam Altman, Lance Lambert, Scott Mendelson, Francis Ford Coppola, Steven Spielberg, George Lucas, Harrison Ford, Al Pacino, Christopher Walken, Tom Selleck, Jason Zweig, Ritholtz Wealth Management, Goldman Sachs Asset Management, IRS (美国国税局), The Wall Street Journal, Barron's, Oracle, Intel, Salesforce, Snowflake, Amazon, Nike, Walmart, Dick's Sporting Goods, Levi Strauss, Andreessen Horowitz (a16z), OpenAI, Anthropic, Cursor, Lovable, SK Telecom, NVIDIA, Quarter, Bank of America, Puck, HBO, Hulu, Risk and Reward: How to Handle Market Volatility and Build Long-Term Wealth, Inferno: The World at War, 1939 to 1945, Band of Brothers, Seinfeld, The Last Kings of Hollywood, Star Wars, The Godfather, Jaws, D.T.F. St. Louis, Crime 101 ## Video description On episode 460 of Animal Spirits, Michael Batnick and Ben Carlson discuss: Tax Day, the benefits of writing, energy vs. tech, a confusing labor market, a rite of passage for younger generations, millennials vs. boomers, AI uncertainty, Bitcoin vs. software stocks, the downfall of Nike and more. This episode is sponsored by Goldman Sachs. To learn more, visit https://am.gs.com/en-gb/advisors/products/active-etfs ► 00:00 - Goldman Sachs Ad ► 00:45 - Intro ► 14:46 - Stock Market ► 26:47 - The Economy ► 44:11 - AI ► 49:10 - Crypto ► 50:04 - Real Estate ► 54:30 - Great Quarter Guys ► 59:34 - Surveys ► 1:01:08 - Personal Finance ► 1:04:33 - Entertainment ► 1:05:57 - 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 Goldman Sachs Asset Management Disclosure: Investors can lose money by investing in the Funds. ALPS Distributors, Inc. is the distributor of the Goldman Sachs ETF Funds. Investors should consider a Fund's objective, risks, and charges and expenses before investing. Call 800-526-7384 to obtain a copy of the prospectus. Read carefully. 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. #thecompound #investing #stockmarket [Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeJxk81ppEM)

[3:10] Ben Carlson: 生活要是不抱怨两句，那还叫生活吗？ [6:17] Michael Batnick: 国税局抓不到我（The IRS isn't going to catch me） [11:01] Ben Carlson: 我意识到自己懂得太少，想要在职业上更进一步就必须学得更多。 [19:44] Michael Batnick: literally get me out at any price（不惜一切代价让我离场） [35:58] Ben Carlson: 省省这笔钱吧，动用你身边的社交人脉去引荐才是正道，指望花钱请职业导师根本解决不了问题。 [39:18] Ben Carlson: 当下的 AI 危机只是年轻一代必经的‘成年礼’。 [50:05] Michael Batnick: 现在到底还有谁在看好房价上涨？ [59:38] Ben Carlson: 听其言，更要观其行（Watch what they do, not what they say）。 [70:45] Michael Batnick: 一个男人生命中最危险的一年，往往是他终于得到他想要的一切之后的那一年。 [72:12] Michael Batnick: 全员回船！（Everybody back in the boat!） [72:12] Ben Carlson: 我们永远不会走出这片森林，我们永远都在迷雾之中，但这正是股票市场的乐趣所在。

[0:45] Ben Carlson: I think most wealth management clients have realized I can actually control the tax. I would rather have tax alpha because I can control that piece of it [76:47] Listener Email: Lifestyle creep implies you are voluntarily spending more money on an inflated lifestyle, but as you get older, there are non-inflationary cost step-ups embedded in everyday life that you cannot escape... property taxes, kids consuming more as they get older, activities, capex products, college tuition. So even if you try to keep your lifestyle spending fixed, there's no way to escape the expense curve. [32:19] Even if it's not fully in the data yet, the vibes are grim for that age cohort. [32:19] The problem with the unemployment rate is it only counts someone as unemployed if they were actually looking for work... non-college young adults aged 22 to 25 have disproportionately given up. [32:19] We went from the literal hottest labor market we will ever see in our lifetime in 2021–2022 to today where things are slowing down. [32:19] The upper hand has gone from labor back to capital... business owners have the hand right now. [38:23] Michael Batnick: This is like going to a bar and arguing about Jordan versus LeBron... there's never going to be an answer, but it's fun to argue about. [38:23] Ben Carlson: Boomers had it way easier than any generation in history. I'll die on that hill. [38:23] Michael Batnick: Life was hard and it always is hard... life was never easy. [47:24] Ben Carlson: something's going to go off the rails here at some point. [62:19] Michael Batnick: I want to die with a human by my side [65:57] The most dangerous year of a man's life is the one right after he finally gets what he wanted. [72:12] Michael Batnick: Everyone back in the boat!

[0:04] Today's show is brought to you by [0:06] Goldman Sachs Asset Management. Serving [0:08] financial adviserss and their clients [0:09] isn't just our business, it's our [0:10] expertise. Goldman Sachs Active ETF, [0:13] GPIQ, is intentionally designed with the [0:16] aim of delivering consistent monthly [0:18] income without sacrificing capital [0:19] growth. Active ETFs from Goldman Sachs, [0:21] not just active, relentless. Find out [0:24] more at am.gs.com/reentless. [0:28] Investors can lose money by investing in [0:29] the funds. Alps Distributors, Inc. is a [0:32] distributor of the Goldman Sachs ETF [0:33] funds. Investors should consider a [0:35] fund's objectives, risks, and charges, [0:36] and expenses before investing. Call [0:39] 8005267384 [0:41] to obtain a copy of the Persectus. Read [0:43] carefully. [0:45] Welcome to Animal Spirits with Michael [0:47] and Ben. It is everybody's least [0:49] favorite week of the year. It's tax [0:51] week, April 15th. there's a drain on uh [0:56] liquidity usually not great for the [0:59] stock market but you know not always [1:02] obviously and one of the best things [1:06] that one of the best decisions we've [1:08] made at redalt wealth management over [1:10] the years is adding a tax team it has [1:14] been um an incredible [1:18] uh incredible addition incredible [1:20] service for clients and it makes sense [1:22] like everybody has to do their their [1:23] taxes It's not optional. Not an option. [1:26] You got to file him. No offense. I don't [1:28] think anybody is. Well, that's not true. [1:31] You might be married to an accountant. I [1:32] was about to say nobody's in love with [1:33] their accountant. But for the most part, [1:34] it's like, you know, sort of a funible. [1:36] >> I love Bill. I'll say [1:38] >> Well, I I love Bill Sweet, too. I really [1:39] do. You know, fun fact, Bill is the only [1:42] man that I say, not all the time, but I [1:45] say I love you, too. Like when I hang up [1:46] the phone. [1:48] >> Here is You don't say it to me. Here's [1:50] one of the things I think the big [1:51] realizations of the past 10 or 15 years [1:53] that people have made. I think the [1:55] transition has gone because of the index [1:56] fund revolution. The transition has gone [1:58] from finding alpha in the markets which [2:01] people still do. There's still plenty of [2:02] money and brain power that goes towards [2:04] that. But I think most wealth management [2:05] clients have realized I can actually [2:07] control the tax. I would rather have tax [2:09] alpha because I can control that piece [2:10] of it. And so I think that's [2:13] change. So if your advisor is focusing [2:16] on after tax um outcomes, which [2:19] increasingly advisers are, then it makes [2:21] great sense to have the accountant [2:23] in-house. So [2:25] I held off until the after after tax [2:28] season out of respect for everybody [2:29] who's who's in the business. But we need [2:32] enrolled agents and we need CPAs. We [2:35] need to grow our team um because there [2:39] is more demand from our clients than [2:42] supply of ours from the tax team. So, [2:45] Bill Arts and his squad worked [2:47] relentlessly, [2:49] relentlessly [2:50] over the last couple of months coming up [2:53] to the deadline. Um but the demand is [2:56] not slowing down. So, if you want to [2:59] work on the team, please reach out to [3:02] hiring reitholswealth.com. [3:04] If you want to reach out to bed and [3:06] directly, that's fine, too. You know [3:07] where to find us. Um, and we look [3:09] forward to hearing from you. [3:10] >> Can I tell an annoying tax story real [3:11] quick? [3:12] >> Sure. [3:13] >> So, back and forth on some tax things. [3:15] Every once in a while, something slips [3:17] through the cracks. The state of [3:18] Michigan sent me a letter. Bill Sweet [3:19] says, "You know what, Ben, hand it to [3:20] me. I'll He's my accountant. He takes [3:22] care of it." He sends them a letter. We [3:23] get on the phone with them because he [3:24] keeps sending me letters about this [3:26] thing. Hey, you owe us $3,000 for [3:28] something. Okay. Bill says, "No, no, [3:31] you're wrong. We don't look it. Here's [3:32] the paperwork to prove it. You're wrong. [3:35] They send me this thing." He said, [3:36] "Final notice. If you don't pay this [3:37] money, we're putting a lean on you." A [3:39] >> tax Ben replied, "It's our final notice. [3:42] Stop sending this. [3:44] >> We We sent more letters. We sent We got [3:45] on the phone with someone. Don't worry [3:47] about it. It's taken care of." Guess [3:48] what they did last week? Put a lean on [3:50] me. [3:50] >> Shut up. [3:51] >> For $3,000. [3:54] Uh, Bill Sweet says, "Don't worry, Ben. [3:56] We're taking care of this." [3:57] >> Hold the line, Ben. [3:59] >> He says, "I think that I think that the [4:00] collectors don't talk to the tax [4:02] people." Um, anyway, there's not enough [4:05] people working in the taxes for the [4:06] state of Michigan either, I guess. [4:07] >> All right. Well, that's a great segue. [4:09] Oh, by the way, thank you to Y Charts [4:12] for this snazzy looking hat. [4:14] >> I like it. [4:15] >> For listeners, they got me a blue hat. [4:17] Says, "There he is. Very nice. Fits [4:20] well. Love it. Thank you." [4:22] >> I bet you get some smiles when you wear [4:23] that out in the streets. I've first [4:25] time. [4:25] >> All right, let's see. [4:27] >> Uh, you know what? This is coming to DC. [4:30] >> All right, [4:30] >> we're going for a walk tomorrow. It's be [4:32] like 90 in DC. What in the world? [4:36] >> Suck it up. [4:37] >> Okay. [4:38] >> I don't complain about I live in cold [4:40] weather most of the time. I do not [4:41] complain about hot weather. [4:43] >> I do. [4:44] >> All right. So, we were in Florida last [4:45] week and it got to like the mid 80s one [4:47] day. Oh, it's so hot. No, you're not [4:49] going to hear me complain about it. I [4:51] love the hot weather. You know, if [4:53] you're not complaining, are you even [4:54] living? All right, Ben, I've officially [4:55] I've officially reached middle-ag status [4:59] because [5:00] >> I've been telling you this for years. [5:02] >> Uh, I'm listening to an audio book. [5:04] Phenomenal. My first foray in earnest, I [5:08] might add, into World War II. There's a [5:13] book by Max Hastings called Inferno: The [5:16] World at War, 1939 to 1945. And it is a [5:21] uh it's like from the lens of the the [5:24] the people. So from the civilians, from [5:28] the fighters, it's it's much less like [5:30] top down. Of course, there's top down [5:31] stuff, but it's a bottom-up story of of [5:33] the war. And it's it's wonderful. [5:35] >> Somehow I got into my World War II phase [5:38] was in college. I read 10 books on World [5:39] War II in college. I don't know how well [5:41] >> that dude that's weird. That is very [5:43] weird. [5:43] >> Now, when I visited Europe, okay, fine. [5:47] And my my favorite book of all time, [5:49] even though most people just know it as [5:50] a series, is Band of Brothers. Read the [5:52] read the book. It's it's the it's my [5:54] favorite book I've ever read. [5:55] >> Okay. Well, maybe book. [5:57] >> But anyway, I I only brought this up to [5:59] say that uh we we we we are we are lucky [6:02] so everybody who's living right now [6:04] >> that that we weren't living, you know, [6:06] back then or really any other time in [6:08] modern in preodern human history, things [6:11] weren't great. So, forgive me for [6:13] complaining about the heat, but uh hey, [6:15] we got used to good life. Okay. Uh, [6:17] there was an article in the Wall Street [6:18] Journal, America's new tax mantra, the [6:21] IRS isn't going to catch me. Probably [6:24] true. Um, audits of people with at least [6:27] $10 million in income dropped 9% last [6:29] year and they are on track to decline [6:32] another 39% this year. [6:35] Few charts in here. there's still so uh [6:39] we we had like 90,000 employees at the [6:41] IRS full-time mind you from 06 to I [6:46] don't know 2010 and then there was like [6:48] a uh you know a dip and a little bit of [6:50] a rally into uh I guess [6:53] the I don't know what this ramp up is [6:55] but it's still it's still 70,000 people [6:57] and guess what [6:59] it's going lower [7:02] >> I feel like like taxes tax is in like [7:05] the bullseye sweet spot of AI high [7:07] efficiency, is it not? [7:08] >> But think about the you'd think so. [7:11] Think about the fact that they we have [7:12] fewer people working at the IRS in 2006. [7:14] And how many more people are in this [7:15] country now? [7:16] >> The population has grown. [7:18] >> And how many more people have more [7:21] complex tax structures? [7:22] >> Yes. [7:23] >> Right. Like a lot of of uh a lot of [7:27] things going on on people's tax returns. [7:29] All right. The IRS workforce reduction [7:31] so far would cut an estimated $46 [7:33] billion in federal spending over the [7:34] next decade. [7:36] um which seems like an outrageous [7:37] number, but I guess you know 70,000 [7:40] people working annually. [7:41] >> But what's the de decrease in tax [7:44] revenue from that way? [7:46] >> They estimate $643 billion. [7:49] >> Okay, so you save $40 billion for the [7:51] employees, but you lose out on [7:54] >> Okay, there he is. All right. [7:56] >> Uh All right. And so the IRS says [7:59] taxpayers as a group pay 85% of what [8:02] they owe as they file returns. Um, which [8:05] to to which I say, "Yeah, good enough." [8:10] >> The problem is the tax code is so [8:12] complex that you're never going to have [8:14] it be perfect. Obviously, [8:17] >> if you if you and I if you and I went to [8:18] couples counseling, I would tell the [8:21] therapist the first meeting, you know [8:22] what he he never he never silences his [8:24] notifications ever. He always has dings [8:27] going off. That's you. Is that fair? [8:30] >> It's actually not. It's it's it's fair [8:32] or not fair. Like most of the times cuz [8:34] we do a lot of pilots but most of the [8:36] times actually my do not disturb is on. [8:40] >> Duncan come on Michael has the most [8:42] dings out of anyone. [8:43] >> I mean you know first of all Josh does [8:45] but you don't notice when they're not [8:46] digging. Listen you your credibility is [8:49] out the window after you declared my [8:52] word that I've said six times in 2025. [8:54] You have no you have no leg to stand on. [8:55] Mister [8:57] >> hang on. Someone said that someone said [8:59] Michael's word isn't ostensibly. It's [9:01] directionally. Yeah, that watch for [9:03] directionally. [9:03] >> That word I use. [9:04] >> Okay. [9:05] >> Guilty is charged. [9:06] >> Um, direct revenue from IRS enforcement [9:10] actions. Check this out. Um, all [9:13] enforcements $100 billion in 2025. Now, [9:17] what's an enforcement? That's like, hey, [9:20] we caught you and pay up. [9:21] >> Yeah, like the letter that I got [9:22] probably [9:25] like you you were supposed to pay this [9:27] tax, you didn't pay it. Pay up. [9:30] >> Okay. And then and then an audit. I [9:31] don't know. I don't know how they define [9:32] an audit. Is an audit just like a random [9:35] we're going to pick people above. [9:38] >> It's like we're going to bend you over [9:40] and give you a full body cavity search. [9:41] That's an audit. [9:43] >> But I guess how do they differentiate? [9:45] What's an enforcement? Like they caught [9:46] you without doing an audit. [9:48] >> Yeah. Enforcement is like a letter. Hey. [9:50] >> Oh, like like Yeah. Okay. Got it. [9:51] Understand? [9:52] >> That's what I'm saying. Yeah. [9:52] >> Um so anyway, it says that like people [9:54] are being, you know, cowboys about not [9:56] being caught, but still hundred billion [9:58] dollars worth of enforcements. [10:00] The thing is this stuff, the people who [10:02] like try to just skirt by this like I [10:04] again I get I don't know one letter a [10:05] year, hey this thing is different and [10:07] and we have tax people take help take [10:09] care of that for me. Like if you didn't [10:11] have tax people, what do you do? You [10:13] just wait on the phone for three hours [10:14] to talk to an IRS agent and they still [10:16] don't answer your question. [10:17] >> Yeah. [10:19] >> Um All right, Ben, I want to give you um [10:22] I want to give you [10:24] I don't like the word flowers. I know [10:26] that's like a thing. Is that like the [10:27] thing that people say like give that [10:28] person their flowers? That feels weird. [10:30] I feel like I can't say that. [10:31] >> I want to give you some A pat on the [10:34] head sounds disrespectful. [10:35] >> I want to acknowledge you. I love you. [10:38] >> Okay. [10:38] >> I want to give you a hug. What do I say? [10:40] >> I want to give you some uh some respect. [10:42] That sounds too formal. [10:44] >> What are you typing? [10:46] >> Sorry, my dude wasn't on. [10:50] >> Oh man, this guy. [10:51] >> My wife just texted me. [10:54] >> Unbelievable. [10:55] All right. Um [10:56] >> that's karma. [10:57] >> All right. Well, Ben, you deserve a ton [11:01] of admiration because I I read the the [11:05] Baron's profile that they did of you, [11:07] and they wrote, "In just over a decade, [11:10] he has written at least 3,660 [11:14] blog posts, co-hosted more than 765 [11:18] podcast, and in May is publishing his [11:21] fifth book, Risk of Reward: How to [11:23] Handle Market Volatility and Build [11:24] Long-Term Wealth." Um, [11:28] so two things that two things that I [11:30] want to mention [11:33] you are like the exact uh embodiment of [11:37] the more the more you practice the [11:39] better you get. [11:41] >> Fair. I was a terrible writer when I [11:43] first started. [11:44] >> Your ability to write [11:48] consistently highquality things [11:52] like that. I just gave a pretty weak [11:55] snap. Um is amazing. And Chart Kid was [11:59] blown away. Like he was he was telling [12:01] me like, "Oh my god, I can't believe how [12:02] fast Ben did blah blah blah for like the [12:04] chart report that we're doing for [12:05] adviserss." Um and I said, "Well, yeah, [12:07] like he's he's incredible. He's got his [12:11] muscles, his writing muscles are bulging [12:13] out of his face." So, credit to you. [12:16] >> I again, I never liked writing before I [12:18] started the blog. I like in college and [12:21] high school I wouldn't enjoy writing [12:22] papers but I viewed writing as a way of [12:25] learning because I realized I did not [12:26] know enough. I needed to learn more if I [12:28] was going to enhance my career. And that [12:30] was one of the reasons I started writing [12:31] and it just and I thought I'll give it [12:34] up after 6 months when no one is reading [12:36] it and that'll be that and I'll I'll [12:37] have this thing to like whatever show my [12:39] kids someday or something. And then I [12:40] just enjoyed the learning process so [12:42] much and now it's just part of my [12:44] routine. So yeah, it's it's it's very [12:47] >> it's like second nature now. bet. If I [12:49] stab for a year, it'd be harder to pick [12:51] back up. I'm sure [12:52] >> when I tell you uh to write something or [12:54] when I ask you to write something for [12:55] like a client letter and you do it in an [12:57] hour, I'm just I'm always blown away. [12:58] So, all right. They they they asked you, [13:00] you wrote about getting started at [13:01] Ritles in 2015 by criticizing the [13:03] industry. What was wrong then and now? [13:05] And you responded it just felt like [13:06] everyone and everything was negative. [13:08] People were coming up with reasons to [13:10] not invest and to change their [13:11] investment plans. a lot has actually [13:13] improved because I think one of the big [13:15] things that was that people were making [13:16] decisions that weren't really tied to [13:18] their goals. They were freaking out [13:20] about what happened in the markets with [13:22] the crashes and the recessions. A lot of [13:23] wealth management has changed and gone [13:25] towards a goals-based idea of investing [13:26] money. That's one of the positives that [13:28] that we've seen. And I remember reading [13:30] this um when you posted this on Josh's [13:33] site. you reached out to Josh and you [13:36] were disgruntled with the state of of [13:38] the industry, specifically the corner [13:40] that you were in with all the alts and [13:41] and the returns, you know, the lacking [13:43] whatever. Um, and you wrote Confessions [13:45] of an Institutional Investor in 2013. [13:48] So, for people for newer listeners, for [13:51] people that just discovered Ben, you [13:52] know, in post postco, [13:55] he's been banging this drum for a long [13:59] long time. You've been consistently [14:02] fighting the good fight and champion [14:04] championing better outcomes for [14:05] investors for a long time. [14:07] >> I'm not taking credit for because [14:08] there's a lot of people who came before [14:10] me who I read them after the fact like [14:12] oh this person's been saying the same [14:13] thing I've been saying. But [14:13] >> who who you think like Charlie Ellis, [14:15] Bill Bernstein. [14:16] >> Yeah. Jason Zwag. Those are people that [14:18] those are the those are the three of [14:19] them that I grew up like idolizing and [14:21] their writing in words and [14:24] >> uh but I do think that this decade you [14:27] can see I think the behavior has [14:28] improved for the better like all the [14:30] people who have been espousing these [14:31] messages over time have I I think a lot [14:33] of it is and you and I hear this all the [14:35] time um hey I I made it through this [14:38] bare market because I listened to you [14:40] guys or I read what you wrote or [14:41] whatever and I would have freaked out in [14:42] the past but I didn't anymore. That [14:44] that's to me that stuff is really cool [14:45] to hear. That's the best. And all right, [14:48] here's another one. Ben, we made it [14:50] through. Uh, the market just opened and [14:55] we are higher than when the invasion [14:58] began. [15:00] And [15:01] um, you know, [15:03] >> that's pretty [15:04] >> the market was right. The market was [15:06] right and we sided with the market. So I [15:09] guess we were right. But the market did [15:12] not whistle past the graveyard. the [15:15] burden of proof was in fact on you. [15:18] It's now earning season and on the you [15:22] know obviously not to minimize what [15:23] happened. It's it's horrific and all [15:24] that sort of stuff is is obviously true. [15:26] But through the prism of the market the [15:28] market got it right and if you stayed [15:30] the course and you didn't let the market [15:32] dictate your um outcomes then you [15:36] survived another one and you're now a [15:38] better investor for it. [15:38] >> So the S&P is up 1% on the year or so. [15:41] Emerging markets are up 12 or 13%. EPHA [15:44] is up almost 8%. Right? There was a lot [15:46] of give back, but then it came rushing [15:49] all the way back. Here's here's my [15:51] general feeling about this market [15:52] environment. Oil prices did not want to [15:55] go higher. Like the the $200 a barrel [15:58] that that all the oils have been [16:00] screaming about like and stock prices [16:02] did not want to go lower. That's that's [16:05] my uh Captain Obvious take for what's [16:08] what's been transpired. Like why aren't [16:09] oil prices way high? Why aren't stock [16:11] prices way lower? They didn't want to go [16:12] that they didn't want to go that way. [16:14] That's that's my only explanation. [16:17] Oil prices want to remain stable. Stock [16:20] prices want to go higher. Not always. [16:22] That's what it felt like in this [16:24] particular cycle to me. [16:28] Don't you feel like the reckoning has to [16:29] come from AI? Like if there's going to [16:32] be a reckoning [16:34] that everyone's waiting for, it's not [16:35] going to be a war. [16:39] You would think that [16:40] >> the reckoning. [16:41] >> Yeah. Yeah. You would think that the [16:42] bull market ends whenever it will um be [16:47] because something with AI. Maybe it's [16:50] maybe it's the uh the SpaceX and open AI [16:53] IPOs like that would certainly suck a [16:56] lot of liquidity out of the system. Who [16:58] who knows? But it's just whatever. It's [16:59] if it's not one thing, it'll be [17:00] something else. [17:02] >> Yes. I I just think like people are [17:04] looking for like the thing to do it. [17:06] Everyone I think a lot of people [17:08] immediately said this is not it. This is [17:10] not the thing. And maybe this lasts [17:11] longer. I don't know. Who knows? Um I [17:14] can I do a quick Seinfeld reference [17:15] though. What's going on? The you're not [17:17] a Seinfeld person, but George Castanza [17:20] knew his girlfriend was going to break [17:21] up with him. He's like, "What am I [17:22] supposed to do? I have no hand in this [17:23] situation. She's going to break up with [17:24] me. I can feel it." So Kramer said, "No, [17:26] no, you break up with her." And George [17:28] says, "I'm breaking up with you." Okay, [17:31] that's us blocking the straight of [17:32] Hormuz. No, no, you're not going to [17:34] block it. I'm blocking it. I'm breaking [17:37] up with you. That's my geopolitical [17:40] analysis. That's all I got. [17:42] >> Not bad. Um, man, the market is just so [17:46] interesting. Uh, obviously it's what we [17:48] love. It's our passion, Ben. Um, [17:53] Oracle is up was up 15% yesterday. It's [17:56] up another 8% today. Everybody threw in [17:59] the towel on on uh on semis uh on [18:03] software, excuse me. I said it was [18:05] looking uninvestable yesterday. Biggest [18:07] bounce of the year. [18:08] >> Can you explain to me? Here's another [18:09] one. Explain to me why Intel fell like [18:12] 30% and now is just taking off like a [18:15] rocket ship. [18:16] >> I don't I don't follow Intel. [18:17] >> This thing was in a 50% draw down and it [18:20] came screaming back all the way higher [18:22] back to new highs. [18:23] >> Well, all of these the the [18:25] semiconductors are on fire. They are now [18:29] a larger slice of the S&P 500 than [18:33] software, which is kind of amazing. [18:35] >> I got this chart on here. This is this [18:37] is from Duality Research. Okay, so today [18:41] software makes up about 25% of the [18:43] technology sector. A record low weight. [18:45] Not that long ago, on January 2020, it [18:48] was 54%. [18:49] And you can see semiconductors have [18:51] eaten into it. Hardware is basically the [18:52] same. So this is so that's a that's an [18:56] enormous this is just in the tech sector [18:59] went from 54% to 25% software did holy [19:03] cow [19:03] >> I know we spent a lot of time talking [19:05] about this but the move in the software [19:06] names really is amazing and not just the [19:09] megas like not just Salesforce and and [19:12] and workday which we spent a lot and [19:14] Adobe which we spent a lot of time [19:15] talking about but like a name like [19:16] snowflake [19:18] snowflake was at $280 in November [19:23] uh of 2025 [19:26] which is 6 months ago. [19:29] It went from 280 to 120. [19:34] 280 to 120 in 6 months. [19:36] >> There's a lot of stuff that's in my too [19:37] hard pile. Sorting through stuff like [19:40] this, the AI winners and losers and [19:41] trying to pick like no way. I I would [19:44] not want to try to do that. I know you [19:46] and Josh have been dabbling like in [19:48] software and trying to short-term [19:50] trades. I want nothing to do with it. [19:51] >> I made I made a lot of money. Well, a [19:54] decent amount of money. All right. A [19:55] little bit of money in the in the [19:57] February the early February the late [19:58] February early March bounce and then I [19:59] sold. Credit to me and then again. But [20:02] if you I guess this is [20:04] at the at the risk of sounding totally [20:06] ridiculous. [20:08] >> Like the software. [20:10] So software went to as low as IGV went [20:13] to $76. [20:16] It bounced. It fell. It undercut let [20:19] though. And that was like the highest [20:20] volume obviously like when you make a [20:22] new low it's like oh no like we're going [20:23] so much lower and not always not always [20:27] but oftentimes that is how bottoms [20:29] happen where it's like the second puke [20:31] where it's like literally get me out at [20:33] any price and if you were bottom fishing [20:35] and you didn't sell the second puke you [20:38] have to ask yourself like who is left to [20:41] sell so completely disconnected from the [20:43] fundamentals what AI might or might not [20:44] do to this group like if you didn't puke [20:48] on the second rollover. [20:51] There's no there's no more sellers left. [20:53] So, it's not to say that that they're [20:54] going to recapture a quarter of the [20:56] bounce, half the half the half the loss. [20:58] I mean, who who knows? [20:59] >> These names these names these names [21:01] could be dead money for a year or two. [21:02] There they could be tradable bounces and [21:04] stuff, but [21:05] >> but this is when you really need to [21:06] determine is this a trade or an [21:07] investment. [21:08] >> Correct. [21:08] >> Because you and I always say like [21:10] listen, the market's not stupid, but the [21:12] market has puked up names 50 60 70% in [21:15] this cycle and they have come back. Like [21:16] that has happened. So you could say like [21:18] maybe it made sense at the time, but so [21:20] that's what people are trying to grapple [21:21] with now is like gosh, these stocks are [21:22] down 60%. Why wouldn't I go hand over [21:25] fist on this? I think this is this time [21:28] feels different to me that trying to [21:30] pick an AI loser bin is way harder. [21:33] >> I agree. This is very difficult. But [21:35] most of the time, I don't I I don't know [21:37] that I could say for well I would bet [21:40] that most of the time when industry [21:42] groups get rocked like this, [21:45] there's a damn good reason. And guess [21:47] what? AI is a damn good reason. Now 60% [21:50] too much. Who of course who knows? [21:52] >> But like in the individual stock level, [21:54] there's so many examples of like Nike is [21:57] a great one of oh like uh this has got [22:00] to be a buy, this got to be a buy. And [22:01] like it just the market usually doesn't [22:03] get it that bad. I made that I made that [22:05] mistake. Luckily, I I got out quick [22:07] enough and didn't compound my mistake. [22:10] >> The market usually doesn't get it that [22:11] that that wrong. [22:13] So, maybe software's bounces 20%, maybe [22:16] bounces 30%. Who knows? But, um going to [22:19] be an interesting couple of years. [22:20] That's for sure. [22:21] >> All right. What are your uh take? [22:23] >> All right. So, anyway, so I I I said a [22:25] few minutes ago like just how [22:26] fascinating the market is. [22:29] >> There were I saw a chart from Todd Zone [22:31] this morning. there were more flows into [22:32] semis and into tech like in general and [22:36] people were done with the with the MAG [22:37] 7. [22:39] Could you imagine? I mean, of course, [22:41] like you could imagine it's happening [22:42] right now. The MAG 7 comes back and the [22:44] market's up another 15% on the year. [22:46] Could easily see that happening. [22:50] >> It's possible. [22:51] >> So, we are now the S&P is I don't know [22:54] percent and a half, maybe even less from [22:57] a new alltime high. And if the Q's get [23:00] their mojo back for whatever reason, [23:03] like the narrative shifts on AI, um [23:07] maybe, you know, for whatever reason, it [23:08] doesn't matter. But like look at the [23:09] move in Amazon. [23:12] Insane move over the last four or five [23:14] sessions. [23:18] That's the bull case. Yes, that that and [23:21] I think this is what most market [23:22] participants were thinking. AI is going [23:23] to matter more than geopolitics. And [23:25] that seems to be what's what's winning [23:27] out right now. Uh the Wall Street [23:29] Journal, you got a cool thing in here [23:30] about how sometimes things change. It's [23:33] like gold prices versus real interest [23:35] rates. And the idea was that they tend [23:38] to follow each other, but it's inverted. [23:41] Sover. [23:42] >> Yeah. So if real rates are lower, that's [23:45] good for gold because gold doesn't have [23:46] doesn't pay any dividend. [23:47] >> It's not an income producing asset, [23:48] right? [23:49] >> And it completely changed after the [23:51] after the war in Ukraine and now it's [23:52] just a supply and demand thing. And that [23:54] that macro thing went away. I thought [23:57] this was a good lead into the Wall [24:00] Street Journal had a thing about energy [24:01] stocks. Energy stocks are having a [24:03] moment and they show the percentage of [24:04] energy and tech tech and the S&P and [24:07] they were both at the exact same spot in [24:09] 1996 which is insane to think about. [24:11] Energy and tech had the same waiting was [24:12] like 9%. 9% tech waiting in 1996. [24:16] Unbelievable, right? [24:18] >> I'd say [24:19] >> in the 1970s energy made up a quarter of [24:22] the index according to Carlile. I think [24:24] it was close to 30% in 1980. Today it's [24:27] like 4%. It got as low as I think 2 and [24:30] a half% or something in 2020 when oil [24:32] went negative. [24:35] Um [24:37] that's an that's a 40-year rerating [24:40] 50-year rerating in sectors. [24:44] I don't think it ever goes back comes [24:45] close to going back. Like energy never [24:48] gets above 10% again. [24:50] >> That'd be weird. Oh, it never gets above [24:52] 10% maybe. I mean 30. Forget about it. [24:55] So, I found another AI rerating. Can't [24:57] remember where I filed this, but the [24:59] consulting firms, Accenture, Booze [25:01] Allen, Gartner, they're all down 50 to [25:04] 70%. [25:05] >> Yeah. I mean, those are that that's it. [25:08] >> So, Mckenzie is a public company, if [25:09] Mackenzie was a public company, it would [25:11] be down the same as these companies, [25:12] right? [25:12] >> Yeah, [25:15] that's it. Um, [25:17] >> so wait, so I looked at the I also [25:18] looked at the SMH, which is a [25:21] semiconductor ETF, versus IGV. This is [25:23] over the past five years. [25:26] IGV in the past five years is up a total [25:28] a grand total in five years of 6%. Not [25:32] annualized total [25:33] >> IGV. [25:34] >> Yes. [25:35] >> And the biggest name says like Microsoft [25:38] is the biggest name in there. Is Meta an [25:40] IGV? [25:42] >> No. No way. [25:42] >> Oracle. Oracle and Palanteer are [25:45] >> so yeah 5% or 6% in in five years. [25:49] >> You know what else is you know what else [25:50] is bouncing bigly? [25:51] >> Yeah, you're right. Microsoft is in [25:52] there in pound. [25:53] >> No, I know. Microsoft's the biggest [25:54] name, [25:54] >> but SMH is a semiconductor. That's up [25:56] like 260%. [25:58] So, it it just again it totally consumed [26:01] it. [26:02] >> Um I did I did sell the lows in [26:04] Blackstone, by the way. Happens. The [26:07] actual lows the alternative asset [26:09] managers are bouncing pretty [26:10] aggressively too. [26:12] >> Okay. So, we've moved on because we can [26:14] only worry about one risk at a time. [26:15] Private credit ris worries are have [26:17] subsided. [26:18] >> I don't know for now. Well, I don't I I [26:21] don't No, the separate things. Private [26:23] credit worries have not subsided, but [26:24] the equity is bouncing. Not not, you [26:26] know, separate things. [26:27] >> But don't you think investors [26:28] eventually, unless there's more [26:29] headlines, event investors are going to [26:31] get bored of that story, [26:32] >> cuz it's it's a slowm moving story. It's [26:35] not something that happens in private [26:36] markets, things don't blow up overnight [26:38] typically. [26:39] >> Yeah, [26:39] >> it's a slow move, especially in credit [26:41] like that. [26:44] >> Um, where are we going next? [26:47] >> Economy. [26:48] Let's talk about the economy. All right. [26:51] >> How much how much would pod How much [26:53] would podcasters pay for a silent leaf [26:56] blower? [26:57] >> Like an EV leaf. Do they have electric [26:59] leaf blowers that don't make noise? [27:00] >> This is loud, isn't it? [27:02] >> It's pretty loud. [27:05] Boy, do I I love a good Asag dad. I love [27:07] a good leaf. My kids always make fun of [27:09] me because I'm constantly blowing dust [27:11] out of the garage and and getting the [27:14] wood chips off the sidewalk. It's a [27:15] great feeling. [27:17] It is great. Um, [27:20] leaf blowers, not something you thought [27:22] that you would be spending money on when [27:24] you were younger. So, I'm skipping ahead [27:25] in the doc. Somebody had somebody had a [27:27] good response on uh [27:30] my rejecting of the title lifestyle [27:34] creep. [27:35] >> Okay. [27:36] >> Somebody said, uh, man, we've got a lot [27:39] of them docked this week. My bad. We've [27:40] been moving slowly here. Um, [27:43] very nonchalant podcast we've got today. [27:45] You know what I mean? [27:46] >> Good word. [27:47] >> Uh, okay. All right. Uh, this person [27:51] says lifestyle creep should be referred [27:53] to as the expense curve. Not bad. [27:55] >> That's not bad. [27:56] >> He said, "Lifefestyle creep implies you [27:58] are voluntarily spending more money on [28:00] an inflated lifestyle, but as you get [28:01] older, there are not inflationary cost [28:04] step-ups embedded in everyday life that [28:05] you cannot escape. Property taxes, kids [28:08] consume more as they get older. kids [28:09] aren't playing sports, participate in [28:10] more activities, capex products come up, [28:12] leaf blowers, uh, college tuition. So, [28:16] even if you try to keep your lifestyle [28:18] spending fixed, there's no way to escape [28:19] the expense curve. [28:20] >> That's true. I also believe that you [28:22] should allow lifestyle creep into your [28:24] life. If you make more money, you should [28:26] prioritize spending it on nicer things. [28:28] I'm totally okay with that. [28:30] >> Um, and Ben is not just talking the [28:32] talk. He told me how much money he spent [28:35] on his Airbnb and I was very impressed. [28:40] >> I told my wife next year we're not [28:41] spending as much. [28:44] >> Um, wow, Ben. Very loose with the purse [28:47] strings. I know. I love it. No, you're [28:48] you're 100% right. Like that is what the [28:49] money is for. [28:50] >> My wife My wife told me my wife told me [28:53] four years ago, here's the one thing in [28:55] our budget I want to prioritize. Cuz my [28:56] wife, she doesn't spend a lot of money [28:57] on clothes or purses or shoes. Like I [28:59] probably spend more on my wardrobe than [29:02] my wife does. She's like very [29:03] minimalistic in that sense. Um she said [29:05] I want to prioritize vacations. That's [29:07] the that's the thing I want to do with [29:09] our was that's like the carve out for my [29:11] piece of the pie or whatever. That's [29:12] what I want. So that's what we [29:14] prioritized. [29:15] >> That's the number one thing. [29:18] >> Yeah, it is. [29:19] >> The me the memories come with you [29:21] forever [29:22] >> and your kids more importantly. [29:23] >> I think we got we got to text our friend [29:25] Michael Antonelli about this. I we talk [29:27] about the the vacations, the big [29:30] vacations we went on when I was a kid, [29:31] and there weren't as many. We talk about [29:33] them all the time still. I'm sure my [29:35] kids will remember these vacations more [29:37] than anything else they got for their [29:38] birthdays or Christmas or whatever it [29:39] is. Any toys, any whatever. [29:41] >> No doubt [29:42] >> the memories of that stuff go away [29:43] immediately. [29:44] >> All right, so back to the economy. Um, [29:48] a couple of quotes from the transcript, [29:51] which is phenomenal. [29:55] highly recommend. [29:56] >> They're really good about just pulling [29:57] out the little paragraphs you need to [29:59] Yeah. [30:00] >> Um, okay. So, Walmart CFO, I would start [30:04] with the fact that I am probably more [30:05] constructive on the consumer than what [30:07] one would glean from reading the [30:08] headlines of news publications. There [30:11] are a lot of alarmist headlines about [30:12] the impact uh on the consumer, but the [30:15] consumer continues to be very resilient. [30:16] I think the consumer has shown [30:18] resiliency and probably is a little [30:19] healthier than what one would Okay, [30:21] >> that's interesting coming from Walmart. [30:22] >> Yeah. Um Dick Sporting Goods, our [30:25] consumer is very very healthy. So in [30:28] addition to everything I said about the [30:29] sport and culture coming together, the [30:30] consumer is obsessed with sport. Um we [30:33] haven't seen trade downs from best to [30:35] better and better to good. And one more [30:37] Levi Strauss, CFO, we continue to [30:39] closely monitor the consumer response to [30:42] pricing actions and to date we have not [30:44] seen an impact on demand. [30:48] >> That's a pretty wide assortment there. [30:50] Yeah, [30:50] >> I anecdotally, you can't Everywhere in [30:54] spring break was busier. We've been [30:55] going to the same place for four years. [30:57] Everywhere was busier than we've seen [30:58] it. More people spending money. [31:01] Boy, trying to get out of a restaurant [31:03] with a with three kids in a meal on the [31:08] the ceiling keeps ra getting or the [31:10] floor keeps going higher [31:11] >> for the price. [31:13] >> Yeah. [31:13] >> Yeah. [31:14] >> Right. It's like, wow, this is what I [31:16] spent on a meal with cuz the kids got [31:18] chicken fingers and mac and cheese. [31:20] This is life now. People don't care. All [31:22] right, let's talk about the labor market [31:23] because I think the way that the best [31:25] way to describe the labor market right [31:26] now is confusing. I there's if you're [31:29] trying to make a hard stand on the labor [31:31] market right now, I think you're crazy. [31:33] So, last week we talked about the [31:34] unemployment rate. People said, "Ben, [31:36] stop using the unemployment rate. It can [31:37] be fudged. It can." So, I said, "All [31:38] right, fine. US labor force [31:41] participation rate prime ages 25 to 54 [31:43] because you want to take out the people [31:44] who are older because they're retiring [31:46] is near the all-time highs of 1999. It's [31:50] within a stones throw and it was way way [31:51] lower through much of the 2010s. So you [31:55] say the labor force participation. Now [31:56] this is again the people who are in the [31:58] labor force actively seeking a job or [32:00] want a job have one but a lot of other [32:03] people poked holes in this theory. [32:05] Right. I feel like there's a lot of data [32:07] and anecdotes that could support either [32:10] side of the equation. Fair. You've got [32:12] some in here. [32:14] >> I do think this is interesting. I I had [32:16] uh the unemployment rate from 16 to 24 [32:18] year olds. And remember we were talking [32:19] about this going higher like back in the [32:21] summer fall and we just stopped talking [32:23] about it. Well, because it started going [32:25] lower again and I was like, hm. So, we [32:27] got a few emails. One person said, I [32:28] fully agree with Michael on the labor [32:30] market impact based on AI. I've been [32:32] hiring some junior folks straight out of [32:33] college within a few years of graduating [32:35] and it is absolutely grim out there. [32:37] Talking to an old professor of mine in [32:38] computer science, what used to be almost [32:41] every student getting internships and [32:42] post-graduation jobs has dropped down to [32:44] around a quarter of students. Even if [32:46] it's not fully in the data yet, the [32:48] vibes are grim for that age cohort. And [32:50] it definitely seems like that is only [32:51] going to continue getting darker. A [32:53] listener sent us Derek Thompson did a [32:55] podcast about this. Um [32:58] >> I listened to it recently [32:59] >> and I found they referenced a report by [33:02] Adam Ozik and Nathan Goldlog called AI [33:06] and young adult jobs. The real mystery [33:07] start by using the right measures. So [33:10] they said the unemployment rate only [33:13] counts someone as unemployed if they [33:15] were actually looking for work. The [33:17] problem with this becomes obvious when [33:19] glancing at the labor force [33:20] participation rate, which shows how many [33:22] people are either working or looking for [33:24] work. The labor force includes both as a [33:27] share of the total given population. [33:28] Over the last year, non-ol young adults [33:31] aged 22 to 25 have disproportionately [33:34] given up looking for work. These [33:37] discouraged workers won't count as [33:38] unemployed, which means that the [33:40] unemployment rate is lower than if it [33:42] did count them. A misleading sign of the [33:44] labor market health. So look at this [33:46] chart. Young worker employment rate. It [33:49] shows uh 26 and up. Young college [33:52] college and young non-ol. And the young [33:54] non-ol it's not crashing but it's it's [33:57] certainly heading in the wrong [33:58] direction. It's not great. [33:59] >> Here's my problem with this chart. It [34:01] only goes back to 2021. And the number [34:03] today is way higher than it was. Not way [34:05] higher. The the axis is very low here. I [34:08] think it's really hard to make [34:09] comparisons this decade about the labor [34:11] market because we went from the literal [34:13] hottest labor market we will ever see in [34:14] our lifetime in 2021 2022 to today where [34:18] things are slowing down and I think [34:20] trying to figure out what is AI and what [34:22] is that because remember the we had the [34:24] the wage growth for people who changed [34:26] jobs versus didn't change jobs and the [34:28] gap between the two is about as large as [34:29] I've ever seen it. people who were [34:31] changing jobs were getting huge raises [34:34] and that's not happening anymore and [34:36] it's the the upper hand has gone from [34:39] the labor back to capital right the [34:40] business owners have the hand right now [34:42] and I I just I [34:45] >> how about how about both how about both [34:47] we are coming off the hottest labor [34:49] market ever more than more than full [34:51] employment over employment that's true [34:55] and it's also true that probably even [34:56] absent that the AI fears and and the [34:59] data would show and the anecdotes and [35:01] the vibes would feel I think [35:02] >> that people are slower to hire young [35:03] people. [35:04] >> And the reason the vibes are so bad [35:05] right now is because of the uncertainty. [35:06] Obviously, I don't want to sound [35:08] insensitive, but I've seen a terrible [35:10] labor market for young people. I lived [35:12] it. [35:12] >> That's true. [35:12] >> After after the GFC, that was a real [35:15] crisis, but and back then people kind of [35:17] told us, you should be happy you have a [35:19] job. You want to raise, get out of here, [35:22] >> you know, like [35:23] >> yeah, [35:24] >> that was the kind of the mentality back [35:25] then because that was a real bad labor [35:27] market. Now the hard part is the [35:29] uncertainty is so much higher and I [35:30] that's the part I get why the vibes are [35:32] so bad but the the actual thing itself [35:34] is not as close to as bad as it was back [35:36] then. No get out of here. [35:37] >> Yeah, true. But also like I don't want [35:40] to minim I don't want to like hindsight [35:42] we we we you could say that things were [35:44] probably going to get better post GFC [35:46] but like right now it just feels like [35:48] we're we haven't even seen how bad it's [35:51] going to get. [35:52] >> Yeah, you're right. That's that's the [35:54] concern. Are we falling off a cliff [35:55] here? Um, [35:58] look at this. Average number of [36:00] applications per entry-le job. So, there [36:02] was a stupid article. Anxious parents [36:04] are spending upwards of $50,000 to land [36:05] their kid a job. No, they're not. I [36:08] mean, at that that's like that's like [36:10] saying um [36:13] my brain just broke. I was about to use [36:15] a bad analogy. Whatever. On the on the [36:17] fringe, there is a parent or dumb idiots [36:19] that are doing this. Those are the same [36:21] people that are spending a million [36:22] dollars on their kids to get into [36:23] college. But there are but there are [36:25] legitimate like job coaches for younger [36:27] people that you know parents are [36:28] spending $3,000, $5,000, [36:31] >> whatever. Anyhow, the point is that the [36:34] average number of applications per [36:35] entry- level job is so much [36:38] historically. [36:38] >> Save your money. Just talk to people in [36:40] your network. That's how you get your [36:41] kids a job, not by spending money on a [36:44] life coach, [36:44] >> right? Um all right, not to belab the [36:46] point, but one last email. Um [36:49] >> hang on. Don't you? So that it shows the [36:50] average number of applications per entry [36:52] level job is way higher. Isn't that just [36:54] because it's easier than ever to do? You [36:56] can have you can have chat GBT write you [36:58] up a cover letter and a resume and don't [37:01] you think this is this number is never [37:02] going back down? [37:03] >> Yeah. [37:04] >> It's [37:05] >> you're going to have your AI agent [37:06] applying for every single job they can [37:08] for you [37:09] >> in the years ahead. It was just like [37:10] when when the when the careerbuilder.com [37:13] came out in the mid 2000s, late 2000s [37:16] and you could apply to a job online. You [37:17] could you couldn't do that before. It [37:19] was way hard. It was way harder to find [37:21] a job because now more people could [37:22] apply to jobs easier instead of like [37:24] going to a company website and writing a [37:26] letter and sending a resume. It got [37:27] easier. So this is this number is never [37:29] going back down. [37:29] >> That's that's right. We got an email [37:31] that corroborates what those guys were [37:33] saying about uh the labor force [37:35] participation rate. So I have a take on [37:37] Torson's belief that AI is not impacting [37:38] the recent grad unemployment. Um these [37:40] recent grads aren't hitting the [37:41] unemployment rate because they're just [37:42] picking up jobs at restaurants, retail, [37:44] etc. just to make ends meet. I luckily [37:46] finally got a job after a year. It's not [37:48] the best, but it's adjacent to what I [37:49] want to do, but I'm definitely [37:51] overqualified with my degree and such. I [37:53] can give you stories of friends, people [37:54] I graduated with just taking a job, [37:56] bartending so they can pay their bills. [37:57] Meanwhile, they have business analytics [37:58] or finance degrees from good schools and [38:00] we're good students. I'm a data guy, but [38:01] I don't think the impact is on the data [38:03] yet. [38:04] >> Um, again, this this is what happened in [38:06] 2008, too. This is not a new story. I'm [38:08] just I don't want to again don't be [38:10] insensitive. This this has happened [38:11] before. [38:13] Mhm. [38:16] It has. Uh, I think young people are [38:19] going to be okay. Maybe I'm in the [38:20] minority. I think I think it's going to [38:21] be all right. I think people are going [38:22] to figure this out. [38:23] >> I don't [38:24] >> You don't All right. You don't think [38:25] young people are going to be okay? [38:28] >> I don't I don't know, man. I not to be [38:30] so so grim, but like why would [38:33] why would you hire as many entry-level [38:35] employees as you have in the past when [38:37] literally the AI can do it for you at a [38:40] fraction of the price? [38:42] Who's going to be the middle employee [38:43] eventually? Eventually, I think [38:44] companies are going to realize like [38:46] who's who's next in line? We need [38:47] someone to step in here who takes a [38:49] lower wage, too. [38:53] >> But businesses don't business don't [38:54] think that way. [38:56] >> Business don't think, well, what happens [38:57] when these people are 35? Like, who's [38:58] going to be the 35year-olds here? That's [39:00] not how they hire. [39:02] >> Okay, you're right. The transition [39:03] period may be bumpy. I think eventually [39:05] business [39:06] >> No, no, no. It's going to be bumpy. I [39:08] just hope it's not as bad as people [39:09] think. [39:10] Fair. And there's going to be a ton of [39:12] baby boomers retiring in the years [39:13] ahead, too. That's the There's something [39:16] has to give there. [39:18] All right. Speaking of baby boomers, the [39:20] Wall Street Journal had a piece. You you [39:23] you hate these topics. The generational [39:25] warfare. Did millennials or boomers have [39:27] it harder? We went searching for the [39:28] answer. So, there's some really good [39:29] charts in here. [39:29] >> You know why? Cuz all of this stuff I'm [39:31] just bring I'm about bringing people [39:32] together. This is divisive and I don't [39:34] like it. Like, there's enough there's [39:35] enough divide in this country. But th [39:37] this is like going to a bar and arguing [39:38] about Jordan versus LeBron. There's [39:40] never going to there's never going to be [39:42] an answer, but it's fun to argue about. [39:44] >> Not for me. It's not. [39:45] >> Okay. [39:46] >> Jordan is the best and that's it. It's [39:47] settled [39:48] >> obviously. So they looked at the to [39:50] median total income by age group, [39:52] boomers and millennials and 25 to 34, [39:55] 35, and millennials are higher. Not and [39:57] this is inflation adjusted. Uh not like [40:02] noticeably higher, but it's it's it's [40:04] higher. This one is going to make people [40:06] mad. How affordable was a house? So they [40:08] look at inflationadjusted median price [40:10] of a new home in 2025 [40:13] based affordability is based on median [40:15] household income and mortgage rates. [40:17] They're saying in the late 70s early 80s [40:19] it was more way more expensive for [40:20] boomers to buy a home than it is for [40:21] millennials today. [40:24] And for much of the 80s and 90s it was [40:27] as high as it is today or higher. [40:30] This is surprising right? this boomers [40:31] would say, "See, told you we paid 18% [40:34] mortgages. It was harder for us." I [40:36] still don't quite believe it because [40:37] they could refinance all the way down. [40:39] And um [40:40] >> the houses are so much nicer today that [40:42] that millennials are buying. [40:44] >> They are. Yes, [40:46] it's I agree. Then they also show [40:49] average household net worth. Now, some [40:50] people would say, "Hey, I'm I'm not an [40:51] average person. I'm a medium person." [40:52] But they did average. And millennials [40:54] average net worth now exceeds baby [40:56] boomers at similar ages. It's by a [40:58] decent amount, too. [41:01] Um, and someone shared this with us a [41:03] long time ago. This is from money in and [41:06] it mentioned this in the Wall Street [41:07] Journal article. The baby boomers, can [41:09] they ever live as well their as their [41:11] parents? Their prospects for job, [41:12] housing, and having children in [41:13] retirement. And it's basically saying [41:14] like baby boomers are screwed. And this [41:16] is in 1983. [41:17] >> Yeah. Well, [41:18] >> this is really did feel screwed. [41:20] >> This is my point that I just feel like [41:22] every gener every young generation goes [41:23] through something like this. And I know [41:25] now seems scarier than ever because of [41:27] AI, but this is this is a right of [41:30] passage for younger generations. [41:31] Everyone has it. Except maybe Gen X. No [41:34] one cares about them. Let's be honest. [41:37] They Gen X pretended to have a hard time [41:39] in the 90s even though it was the [41:40] greatest decade ever, [41:42] right? Reality Bites and Fight Club and [41:45] all that stuff. Like, come on, get out [41:46] of here. 90s were great. Best decade [41:48] ever. Gen X trying to They were trying [41:51] to [41:53] What's the opposite of oral farming? I [41:54] don't know. Okay. [41:55] >> Uh All right. Uh [41:58] >> but let's be honest. Boomer's headed way [42:01] easier. It's just It's true. They had [42:02] the They're the easiest generation of [42:03] all time. It's not even close. I'll die [42:06] on that hill. [42:09] I know you don't want to make a [42:10] pronouncement, but it's true. Boomers [42:11] had it way easier than any generation in [42:13] history. [42:13] >> Then how come the divorce rate amongst [42:15] our parents, mine included, was so much [42:17] higher? [42:19] >> Cuz when life gets easy, you try to make [42:20] make a [42:22] >> I just reject that. I think I think life [42:23] is just constantly not easy. I think [42:25] it's nonsense. [42:27] >> Yeah. [42:27] >> Our parents had it so easy [42:29] >> on a relative basis. [42:30] >> Taking care of their of their World War [42:32] II depression parents. My dad So, okay, [42:35] my parents got divorced obviously, but [42:37] my father had to um pay for three young [42:40] kids, which he couldn't afford on top of [42:42] paying for his parents to make ends meet [42:44] because his mom didn't work and his dad [42:46] was pushing carts in a grocery store. [42:49] and it didn't do great things for my [42:52] family and that is a very not unique [42:55] story like life was hard and it always [42:59] is hard that's I guess the basic point [43:01] life was never easy [43:02] >> fair I guess I'm thinking economically [43:06] like the over like [43:07] >> but also think okay but think about it [43:08] fine go back to our parents how my my my [43:12] parents were [43:14] in their young 20s like my dad had [43:16] probably just graduated dental school [43:18] when they started having babies [43:21] and the pressure of being a child [43:23] yourself, raising babies and wasn't [43:27] easy. [43:27] >> I guess the thing is like [43:31] my dad paid $50 a semester for college. [43:33] Finding a house was easy. Finding a job [43:36] was relative. These kind of thing that [43:38] young people worry about today. I think [43:40] that was stuff was easier for boomers. [43:41] >> I think the we moved the goalpost bigly [43:43] with the benefit of hindsight. [43:46] I don't think anybody felt that life was [43:48] so easy back then. I mean, it's just [43:49] nonsense. Come on. [43:50] >> You could also say that the boomers [43:52] being such a large cohort were one of [43:53] the one of the reasons that we're doing [43:55] so well today. Like their spending and [43:57] their like the boomers charged the stock [43:59] market. Like they were the ones who like [44:01] brought it out of the doldrums of the [44:03] 70s essentially by getting into anyway. [44:06] >> Anyway, I love my parents so I will die [44:08] on that hill. [44:10] >> Oh, that's going out on a limb for a [44:12] take. [44:14] All right, let's talk about venture [44:15] capital. So, um, actually artificial [44:18] intelligence. So, Q1, this is from A16Z. [44:21] Q1 2026 was the largest venture quarter [44:25] ever by a lot. This is like the charts [44:27] from COVID, the unemployment charts that [44:29] just broke everything forever. So, this [44:32] is obviously OpenAI, Anthropic, OpenAI [44:34] did their $190 trillion round or [44:37] whatever it was. Yeah, it's all [44:39] >> um and when you look at like AI [44:42] companies in terms of their fundraising, [44:45] again, a broken chart. Q1 was $242 [44:48] billion. Q1 2024 was 16 billion. [44:53] >> So, did AI save venture capital because [44:55] it was all these unfunded commitments [44:57] that they were waiting on. And [44:58] >> I but but it's it's so concentrated in [45:01] these mega rounds or the mega funds. [45:02] Like, think about how many think about [45:04] how much money is being led on FI right [45:05] now. all these AI companies [45:06] that are just straight up zeros. [45:08] >> True. But just all the dry powder people [45:10] were sitting on it finally got it out of [45:12] there and invested. [45:14] >> So RAMP, who's the the economist at [45:17] Ramp? I can't remember his name. Forgive [45:18] me. We had him on the show. [45:19] >> Ara. [45:20] >> Okay, so ARA has a chart showing uh the [45:25] RAMP AI index. Anthropic sees its [45:27] largest monthly increase to date, up [45:29] 6.3%. They're showing the share of US [45:31] businesses with paid subscriptions to AI [45:33] models and it's at 50%. Obviously, it's [45:35] going way higher. Anthropic is going [45:37] vertical. Um, [45:39] >> and it's going to pass open AI within [45:41] months. [45:42] >> They're showing [45:43] >> not sooner. [45:44] >> So, the So, Redpoint did a did a deck on [45:46] this about software and AI and they have [45:49] a chart called AI is enabling [45:51] unprecedented efficiency and they show [45:54] the AR [45:56] divided by the full-time employees. Hang [45:58] on. Back to that ARS chart here. So they [46:01] have Openropic, Google, XAI, and [46:04] Deepseek on here. Do you remember the [46:05] Deepseek freakout? [46:06] >> I do. [46:07] >> That that was that is obviously a [46:09] distant memory at this point. [46:10] >> Matter of fact, Nvidia is Nvidia still [46:13] not recover from the deepseek. Nvidia is [46:16] right at pre-deseek levels. [46:18] >> No. [46:20] Are you sure? [46:20] >> Oh, I'm positive. [46:22] >> Okay, [46:24] that doesn't sound right to me. [46:25] >> I bought Nvidia on Friday. I think it's [46:26] the first time I ever owned Nvidia. [46:28] Probably not. Maybe. I can't remember. [46:29] But I think [46:29] >> No, we both bought Nvidia in the [46:31] Liberation Day. [46:31] >> Oh. Oh, that's right. I made a ton of [46:32] money on Nvidia. How could I forget that [46:35] was Yeah, that's right. Um, [46:39] but what I wanted to highlight was [46:43] just got lost. Um, [46:46] >> you were talking about the [46:47] unprecedented. [46:48] >> So, a company called Cursor has $6.1 [46:51] million in AR per full-time employee. [46:53] Lovable is 3.4 million. I'm not familiar [46:55] with these companies works. Uh, OpenAI [46:57] is 1.5 million and anthropic is 1.2 [46:59] million. Salesforce 540 grand. Data dog [47:03] 51 uh 510 grand. [47:05] >> This is the inequality stuff I was [47:07] talking about. If you can create a [47:08] company this efficient and the money [47:10] goes into the hands of so few people, [47:15] they're going to I mean the the AI [47:17] people who are going to create so much [47:18] wealth for themselves, they better start [47:21] building libraries and they better be [47:22] they better turn into Rockefellers or [47:24] they they're already some of the most [47:26] hated people on the planet. It feels [47:27] like they're going to have to do [47:28] something to really give back to [47:30] humanity for this because they're going [47:31] to get so rich. [47:32] >> Well, people are angry. Uh Sam Alman's [47:34] house has been attacked twice, I think, [47:36] in the last couple of weeks. Not great, [47:39] but you know, not not, you know, I'm not [47:41] trying to like suggest that he deserved [47:43] it or anything. Uh but the message that [47:46] they are putting out into the world is [47:47] obviously deeply deeply deeply [47:49] unpopular. [47:50] >> Well, and so you saw that anthropic news [47:53] that they created this and medical wrote [47:55] a piece about it yesterday. They created [47:56] this new new program that could [47:58] essentially look for holes in cyber [48:01] security and they said they found [48:03] millions of them. Like we could we could [48:04] go and and hack every this system could [48:07] go in and hack everything right now if [48:08] it wanted to. [48:10] We're going to have something go off the [48:11] rails. Something's going to go off the [48:12] rails here at some point. [48:15] >> And unfortunately, this is going to [48:17] become a political issue because it [48:18] can't not. And like this is going to be [48:21] the this is going to be the political [48:22] issue for the next presidential [48:24] election. AI is going to be the issue. [48:26] >> We're going through a big recession. [48:27] >> Does anybody trust government to step in [48:29] and and protect us? [48:30] >> No way. There's no way they understand [48:32] half of what's going on right now. [48:33] >> So, we've spoken a lot about what [48:37] Microsoft's performance [48:39] in a negative way is a is a straightup [48:42] reflection of, you know, a public proxy [48:44] for Open AI. [48:47] Somebody emailed us. I'm sure you are [48:49] aware of this already. I was not aware. [48:52] Um, but in case you're not, in 2023, the [48:54] South Korean firm SK Telecom invested [48:57] $100 million in Anthropic. Today, that [48:59] stake is worth over $2 billion in the [49:01] latest round. And look at this stock. [49:03] >> Holy smokes. [49:04] >> Going vertical. [49:05] >> Okay, interesting. [49:09] That's not bad. It's up 75% year to [49:12] date. [49:13] >> Uh, I thought this was notable. I uh I [49:15] bought Bitcoin on Friday. Haven't bought [49:17] it in a while. [49:19] um it broke. So in in late February when [49:23] the [49:26] SAS crash really started to happen or [49:27] midFebruary whenever it was there was a [49:30] lot of charts showing actually it turns [49:31] out that Bitcoin was just software all [49:32] along. Remember they were like one for [49:34] one. [49:34] >> Yeah. [49:35] >> And no longer. So Matt made two charts. [49:38] One showing like Bitcoin finding [49:40] support. The other one showing software [49:41] breaking down. Now software since you [49:43] know bounced for the last two days. But [49:44] look at the bottom chart. like they [49:47] they've they were tracking damn closely [49:49] and I don't know if Bitcoin is going to [49:50] lead software higher. Hopefully, I [49:52] suppose, but [49:53] >> it is kind of crazy how close these [49:55] charts look though. And that's like the [49:56] gold versus real estate chart. It it [49:58] looks great for a while and eventually [49:59] it'll break somehow. One will go up and [50:01] it'll the relationship will change, but [50:03] for now it's pretty darn close. [50:04] >> Yeah. [50:05] >> All right. Uh [50:07] Bill McBride, my favorite real estate [50:09] analyst. [50:11] Uh sorry, Logan. [50:13] Logan's number two. uh at calculated [50:16] risk has a piece about housing [50:17] demographics and he kind of pours some [50:19] cold water a couple weeks ago Nick Mulli [50:21] was on ask compound and he asked what's [50:22] going to be worse returns for the rest [50:23] of the decade housing market or private [50:26] investments like private credit private [50:28] and I think housing would be the easy [50:29] one there obviously it's hard because [50:31] both use leverage and cooking returns [50:33] whatever so here's what Bill says my [50:35] sense is there will be a pickup in [50:36] boomers selling their homes in a few [50:38] years and lasting until 2040 or so these [50:40] homes will be older and most will need [50:41] updating you and I have talked about [50:42] this but many of these homes will in [50:44] prime locations. We should also see a [50:45] pick up in retirement community [50:46] construction during that time period. [50:48] And he shows this chart that says like [50:50] that boomer selling. So he says that the [50:52] biggest two cohorts are in their 20 like [50:55] mid20s and mid30s. So he's saying the [50:59] second circle which is the mid30s [51:01] suggests less home buying demand in the [51:02] next decade and more existing supply. [51:05] There are other factors this likely hold [51:07] down housing prices. We saying the fact [51:08] that boomers are getting older and [51:10] likely selling and a big cohort of [51:12] millennials are now kind of through that [51:14] home buying age in a lot of ways means [51:18] housing prices for a while at least [51:20] could be just kind of stagnant which [51:22] would make sense with the amount of pull [51:24] forward we had. [51:25] >> Yeah. Who's bullish on housing prices? [51:28] I'm not. [51:30] >> That's a good point. I don't think I [51:31] haven't heard many bullish cases for [51:33] housing recently [51:35] >> in terms of return on your investment. I [51:37] mean, not not to open that can of worms, [51:39] but there is no return on your [51:40] investment. It's where you live and it's [51:41] damn expensive. [51:43] >> Yes. Keeping up with in if housing [51:44] prices keep up with inflation for the [51:46] rest of the decade, I think that'd be a [51:47] win. [51:47] >> I haven't had hot water. My hot water [51:50] like es and flows. Remember I told you [51:51] I'm like the type person that's just [51:52] like it's I I I'm slow to like fix [51:54] things. [51:55] >> Still having problems with hot water. [51:57] >> Well, here's the thing. The kids get the [51:58] fresh shower and they get the hot water [52:01] >> and it's not like cold, but it's not [52:02] hot. And uh I did call plumber. He [52:07] didn't respond. I I will I will get this [52:08] fixed. But I'm But it's going to I'm [52:10] probably going to need a new Navian, [52:11] which is like $8,000 [52:13] >> to have to have the for the privilege of [52:15] having hot water. [52:16] >> Got to have a hot shower. [52:19] My wife runs it really hot. Like she [52:20] would be mad, extremely mad at me if I [52:22] was doing what you're doing. [52:24] >> One of the one of the things in that [52:26] World War II book is um and this is [52:30] going to be and I'm very consciously [52:32] saying the word directionally right here [52:33] if it's not 100% accurate. [52:36] 17,000 US soldiers lost limbs during the [52:38] war. [52:40] A 100 th000 100,000 [52:43] Americans lost limbs in factories [52:46] preparing for the war. [52:48] >> Wow. Because there was such a big ramp [52:49] up. [52:50] >> 100,000 people, factory workers lost [52:52] limbs. So I could take lukewarm water. [52:54] You know what I mean? [52:55] >> Okay. That this book has really put [52:57] things in perspective for you, huh? [52:59] >> I have great perspective. I'm I'm always [53:01] enjoying life, but this is Yeah, this is [53:02] a this is a big one. Okay. [53:06] >> Uh, all right. Um, what else on housing [53:08] Ben? Oh, this is a good one. Lance [53:10] Lambert, the current housing market [53:12] bifurcation. So, we talk about this all [53:13] the time that housing is discussed as [53:16] this monolithic thing [53:17] >> and it obviously isn't. It's very [53:19] regional. Check this out. So, Lance [53:21] Lambert has a chart. [53:27] >> Did that get created on long camp? [53:30] >> You know what's so funny? I literally [53:32] was watching it this week. [53:34] And I thought I had the exact same [53:36] thought because Philip Seymour Hoffman, [53:38] they're at an art gallery and he goes, [53:40] "Dude, we got to go. I just charted." [53:42] >> That might be the first time I've ever [53:43] heard it. [53:44] >> Yeah. I I had the same thought like, [53:45] "Did he did they invent it?" [53:48] So there the chart shows the median days [53:51] to pending in February at the onset of [53:54] spring across the country and in [53:58] California, in New York, in the Midwest, [54:01] Ben, uh, homes are selling really quick. [54:04] But in the Sunb Belt, [54:06] they're just not at all. 70 days, [54:13] >> I think eventually people are gonna I [54:14] think it's going to turn and like they [54:15] they've gone into like the correction [54:18] phase earlier than the rest of the [54:19] country and they're going to be the [54:20] first ones out of it. [54:22] Don't you think the Southeast [54:26] Sunb Belt, whatever. [54:27] >> Um, could be. I don't know. [54:31] >> Okay. All right. You talked about Nike [54:33] here. [54:33] >> Oh, this is this just blew my face off. [54:35] So, found this in transcript. Um, [54:39] for this quarter, revenues were flat on [54:42] a reported basis and down 3% on a [54:44] currency neutral basis. Nike Direct was [54:47] down 7% with Nike Digital declining 9% [54:49] and Nike stores declining 5%. Holy [54:52] Gross margins declined 130 basis points. [54:55] Um, my god. So, all right. Last 5 years, [54:58] Nike is down 66%, the market is up 76%. [55:02] Last 10 years, Nike is down 16%. The [55:04] market is up 300% almost down 16% versus [55:07] the market up 300. Nike going back to [55:09] 1993 has lost its edge compared to the [55:12] market. Obviously, at one point in time, [55:13] Nike was, you know, trouncing the [55:14] market. So, I I had a friend over, we [55:17] were talking recently about um I don't [55:19] know the stock market came up and he was [55:21] saying that like he you know the things [55:22] that he bought. He's like I knew they [55:23] were going to bounce. They always do. [55:25] And I couldn't help myself. I said, [55:26] "Well, not always." [55:29] Like, listen, do the do the great [55:32] companies usually bounce when they're [55:34] selling off, you know, whatever. And I [55:37] was like, "Sometimes." Like, he's like, [55:39] "I learned my lesson." I said, "No, but [55:40] you you're learning the lesson for this [55:42] market environment. It doesn't always [55:43] work this And and even now like [55:45] >> you could have said about Nike and [55:46] there's a lot of stocks we can point to [55:47] that [55:48] >> Nike [55:49] >> United. I mean there's a million of [55:50] them. Yeah. Disney's a great one. [55:51] >> I don't view Nike as a brand that has [55:54] been totally tarnished either. It see I [55:56] still feel like I see I wear a lot of [55:57] Nike still. My kids like maybe that's [55:59] just anecdotally. It doesn't seem to me [56:01] like it's a tarnished brand that people [56:02] don't wear anymore. [56:03] >> No, it's it's such a good point. I feel [56:04] like it's it's a shitty investment and [56:07] the company is legitimately not doing [56:08] great. Obviously, stores are down 5%, [56:10] but like [56:11] >> it's still the premier brand in footwear [56:15] >> and in athletic retail, but from an [56:18] investment point of view, it sucks. [56:19] >> it sounds like and it and it is it did [56:22] it did and is losing market share. [56:23] >> Yeah, it does sound like their big thing [56:25] was they said, "We're just going to sell [56:26] direct. We're not going to sell on [56:27] Amazon." [56:28] >> Horrible mistake. And now they huge [56:30] mistake and now it's compounded. Yeah, [56:31] >> horrible mistake. [56:34] >> Um, all right. Did I put this in here? [56:36] >> Quarterclaw integration. Yeah, I did [56:38] because I think it's interesting. So, [56:40] Quarter said that they've they've [56:42] integrated Claude and they said what it [56:44] is you can ask any question about any [56:46] company, any event, any speaker, any [56:47] metric and get answered pretty quick. [56:49] And it's funny, I was going through this [56:51] the other day. I I was asking about like [56:53] recession comments and it was like, [56:54] would you like me to break this down by [56:56] all companies or just companies that are [56:57] wellknown? It like the prompts back to [56:59] you are so amazing. And it just got me [57:02] thinking, you and I have read all the [57:03] Buffet books probably. He had those [57:04] stories where he would go to the Geico [57:07] CEO's. He'd knocked on Geico offices on [57:10] the weekend and he sat down with the CEO [57:11] to talk about the company and he used to [57:13] have to you used to have to send away to [57:15] get quarterly reports from companies. [57:16] Like they wouldn't just have them out [57:17] there. You'd have to ask a company, they [57:19] would send it to you in the mail, this [57:20] huge thick thing. And now people have [57:23] the ability to answer any question and [57:25] and parse this data and it's just there [57:27] and it's it's not like you even have [57:29] have to like go digging for stuff [57:30] anymore. It's just you can ask for it [57:32] and it'll give it to you. [57:34] >> It's amazing. [57:35] >> It really is kind of amazing. And this [57:38] just shows also why investing is harder [57:39] than ever. [57:40] >> Yeah. [57:40] >> Like it was it was kind of fish and [57:42] >> everyone everyone knows everything but [57:44] like that's a great point for knowledge [57:45] workers. AI is uh [57:47] >> AI is incredible. I mean obviously a hot [57:50] take it works. Um but you know what's [57:52] interesting it there they're I so on on [57:54] the demise of software um the so the [57:58] playoffs start on Saturday and prices [58:01] for Nick's tickets has went up a ton and [58:04] last year like so I split tickets with [58:07] my friend we go together uh to the [58:09] playoffs and [58:11] we were very pleasantly surprised about [58:14] the prices for last year like they were [58:17] reasonable and this year they're a lot [58:19] higher and we were thinking about like, [58:20] "Hey, should we just like sell one game, [58:22] one round?" Um, because well, certainly [58:25] for the Raptors, we were very confident [58:26] that we were going to like Hawks will be [58:28] a little bit harder. Who cares? Be that [58:30] doesn't maude [58:33] and I said, "What is the cheapest ticket [58:37] on Stub Upper Ticket Master in the lower [58:40] bowl in the 100 section at Madison [58:42] Square Garden for for round one or [58:44] Saturday and it couldn't get in. There's [58:46] no there's no API allowed to access it. [58:50] it's like in JavaScript or a different [58:51] sort of thing. So I think a lot of [58:53] people are just overestimating like the [58:55] ease with which these things can [58:57] integrate and operate, [58:58] >> right? Because they don't they don't [58:59] want the AI to help you parse through [59:01] that market. [59:01] >> Correct. Another great example of that [59:03] is um so there are people that write [59:06] like basically blog posts on Twitter, [59:08] >> right? [59:08] >> And I I was curious to read one, but I [59:10] didn't really feel like spending the [59:11] time. So I asked Claude to summarize it [59:13] for me. This was about like um what's [59:15] going with Mythos, the the the new [59:17] Claude thing. And I I don't have time [59:19] for that. And I needed it summarized cuz [59:20] I would understand 90% of what I'm [59:22] reading, right? [59:23] >> Yeah. [59:24] >> Not surprisingly, Twitter blocks Claude [59:28] >> blocks chat [59:29] >> because you have to use Grock. [59:30] >> It doesn't It doesn't block Grock. So, I [59:32] went a Grock and Grock works. [59:34] >> Interesting. Yeah, that makes sense. [59:36] Barriers to entry are going to make it [59:37] harder in a lot of ways. [59:38] >> Um, all right. Let's just do some survey [59:39] stuff real quick. Index. So, University [59:41] of Michigan consumer sentiment hit an [59:43] all-time low and look at CO [59:47] broke everything. Yep. [59:49] >> Forever. Forever and ever. It just broke [59:52] everything. Um [59:55] the response rates, it didn't break [59:58] that. That was in secular decline, but [59:59] nobody responds to these surveys [60:00] anymore. [60:02] And uh [60:03] >> crazy that it used to be 90% response [60:05] rate. [60:05] >> Yeah. And not long ago in 2013. Now, on [60:08] the flip side of consumer sentiment or [60:11] consumer survey sentiment, I should say [60:12] to be precise, Zakardi shared a chart of [60:15] Bank of America total credit card and [60:17] total credit and debit card spending per [60:19] household. It rose 4.3% year-over-year, [60:23] marking the strongest growth since early [60:25] 2023. Now, is some of this gas prices? [60:27] Yeah, probably not a small amount of [60:30] this and and maybe, you know, fueling [60:32] the frustration, but people are still [60:34] spending. I was thinking about this in [60:36] terms of the sentiment readings being so [60:38] bad and the watch what they do not what [60:40] they say. So the the number is something [60:42] like 60 to 65% of all households own [60:45] stocks, right? By that metric alone, [60:48] people have some optimism about the [60:50] future regardless of what they say about [60:51] the economy, what's going to happen [60:53] going like so that's the disconnect [60:54] between these surveys. If people still [60:56] hold stocks, they're optimistic about [60:57] the future. [60:59] >> That's my t that's my read and surveys. [61:02] >> That's a good point. Like you ask [61:03] somebody like are you optimistic? No. [61:05] How much stocks do you own? It's like a [61:07] complete like well then [61:10] >> Yeah. Exactly. All right. Uh, good email [61:13] about the millionaire thing. Um, we [61:15] talked about a million is the worst [61:18] worst amount of money last week. Um, for [61:20] those of us in decent paying jobs but [61:22] not elite jobs, maybe we have a great [61:24] year at work, but then they throw us an [61:25] extra $3,000 bonus or something. But if [61:27] the market has a great year and someone [61:28] with a million dollars could see [61:29] $250,000 gains, more than their salary. [61:32] So, you don't have enough money to [61:33] retire, but you're still at a point [61:34] where your investments matter more than [61:35] your labor. It's just a different [61:36] mindset as all. Um, and maybe it's also [61:39] more common than it used to be. With [61:40] prior generations, you worked to some [61:42] specific date and collected a pension. [61:44] Uh, that's a fair point, but I think [61:47] that also just shows how important the [61:49] markets are to people, [61:52] right? Like if if if you can make that [61:54] much money in the markets by compounding [61:55] and saving and investing, like that's [61:57] why you save and invest. [61:58] >> Mhm. [61:59] >> Because the payout is is much better. [62:01] That's that's like a good thing for it. [62:03] >> Mhm. [62:03] >> You don't want to touch that money. All [62:05] right. One more thing we talked about [62:06] last week. We talked about I I said I [62:08] saw these old people in Florida. They [62:10] were kind of crouched over and and I got [62:12] a lot of response from that from people [62:13] about like you know you're right a that [62:15] that that's a big mindset change is like [62:16] health is wealth right like you enjoy [62:19] while you can. So this guy Dan uh Hlet [62:23] someone sent us a bunch of people sent [62:24] us this uh this substack. He says in the [62:27] UK a 60-y old man can expect to live on [62:29] average around 84. A six-y old woman to [62:31] around 87. Those are the headline [62:32] numbers, the ones that make retirement [62:34] planning calculators that have you [62:35] prepare for 25 to 30 years. But those [62:37] numbers don't tell you that most of [62:38] those later years aren't healthy years. [62:40] He says the data shows from someone [62:41] who's 60 today, you're looking at [62:43] roughly 12 to 15 more years before [62:45] health limitations start to intrude in [62:46] meaningful ways. So his number, his [62:48] baseline is you have 12 good years in [62:50] retirement if you retire at 60 before [62:52] your health starts to potentially make [62:54] it harder for you. You don't want to [62:55] travel anymore. You don't want to sit on [62:56] a plane. You don't want to go for those [62:58] walks on a tour or something. Um, and [63:00] again, these are average numbers. [63:02] Obviously, my parents are both My dad is [63:03] turning 80 soon. He looks like he's [63:04] still like 55. [63:06] >> Uh, he still goes on walks all the time [63:08] and and like my parents are both in good [63:10] health. But this for the average is this [63:12] is I think this is probably not a bad [63:14] way to look at it. You want to frontload [63:17] your spending in retirement because [63:19] that's when you can enjoy it. [63:21] The counterpoint is, and I agree with [63:23] you, [63:24] >> the legitimate counterpoint is like uh [63:27] senior living facilities [63:29] that you're going to want are [63:30] >> ridiculously expensive. [63:31] >> A fortune. [63:33] >> Yeah. Oh, yeah. I remember my my [63:34] grandmother when she moved into one in [63:36] her 90s, it basically sucked up all of [63:38] her savings. It was gone, [63:40] >> right? And uh [63:43] yeah, so there's like obviously levels, [63:46] there's tears. So my grandfather, [63:47] Sergeant Batnik, rest in peace, died in [63:49] one of the shitty ones. And it was [63:52] horrible. It was the most depressing [63:54] place in the world. [63:56] >> Yeah. Not fun places to go. [63:57] Alternatively, at that point, the kids [64:00] can take care of you, [64:02] >> right? [64:04] >> Um what do you mean? [64:05] >> Sorry. Sorry, kids. You're you're paying [64:07] for my senior living. [64:08] >> Oh, [64:08] >> I paid for your whole life. You you pick [64:10] up the tab now. Uh assuming that your [64:14] kids have the money. It's like a it's [64:16] you know it's like a hundred grand a [64:18] year. [64:18] >> By the time we're by the time we're that [64:20] age though, we're going to have robots [64:21] to take care of us. We're not going to [64:24] have to go to a senior living center. [64:25] We're going to have two robots taking [64:26] care of us. [64:27] >> I want to die with a human by my side. [64:29] >> Okay. Well, couldn't like if you wanted [64:31] to, could you tell the robot to kill you [64:32] or think there's going to be an onoff [64:33] switch? Like, hey, I'm I'm done. [64:35] Strangle me. [64:36] >> Um Ben, the uh box office is up 26% [64:39] year-over-year. Scott Mendelson at Puck [64:41] wrote an article. Is a family-friendly [64:43] box office revival for real? There are [64:45] 26 PG-rated movies slated for wide [64:48] release this year up from 18 to 2024. [64:51] Uh this year we had Hoppers, Mario, [64:53] Goat, Hail Mary. Like there's a lot of [64:55] lot of winners. [64:56] >> Family stuff is carrying this year. [64:58] >> Lot of winners. So he said studios tend [65:00] to suffer when they default to legacy [65:02] IP, Tron sequel, Springsteen biopics, [65:04] the Snow White remake. By the way, I [65:05] think that is done. [65:08] I hope. I know there's still like a lot [65:09] of garbage that's like, you know, we're [65:10] still working our way through. Like [65:11] there's another Mortal Kombat coming [65:12] out. By the way, Mass of the Universe, I [65:14] don't know if I said this last week, the [65:15] He-Man looks horrendous, but [65:17] >> Well, they're already doing a live [65:18] action Moana, which looks terrible. [65:20] >> I know, but I but yeah, but that was [65:22] like in the hopper. Like they they they [65:23] didn't, you know, snap their fingers. [65:24] They made that two years ago. I think [65:26] that there's like a hopefully like a sea [65:29] change in terms of studios being wise to [65:31] like giving the audience what they want [65:32] and they don't want. [65:33] >> I hope so. I hope so. [65:35] >> Uh this made me laugh. [65:36] >> Fun roller coaster though. Great roller [65:38] coaster. This made me laugh. In Texas or [65:39] the South in general, we'll say soda [65:41] sometimes, but never pop. Never. [65:43] Usually, we say Coke as an all-inclusive [65:45] name, which can lead to conversations [65:46] that go like this. Me driving, hey, you [65:49] want to pull over and get a Coke at the [65:50] next town? Wife, sure. What do you want? [65:52] Uh, wife, do die, Dr. Pepper. [65:55] >> That doesn't make sense to me. That's [65:56] why That's why I say pop. Yes. The Coke [65:58] thing. That That's a southern thing, [65:59] right? They call everything a Coke. [66:01] >> Um, all right, Ben. Uh, some [66:03] recommendations. I [66:05] listened to [66:09] What was the name of this book? Um, [66:13] a book about Spielberg, Copala. So, [66:16] really Copala was the guy and then [66:18] Spielberg and Lucas. Um, and the book [66:21] was called, [66:23] >> wasn't it like the three kings or [66:24] something like that? [66:24] >> Yeah, something like that. Was that what [66:26] it was called? Three kings? [66:27] >> I don't know. [66:28] >> That does sound familiar. Whatever. It [66:29] doesn't matter. Well, actually, it [66:30] doesn't matter what it's called in case [66:31] somebody wants to read it. Um, the last [66:33] kings of Hollywood. [66:34] >> Ah, there you go. [66:36] And there were some really, you know, [66:39] how I love this stuff, like the the [66:40] could have been for movies. [66:42] >> Yes. [66:43] >> So, check this out. [66:45] Um, first of all, [66:48] Star Wars was a joke at the time to the [66:51] point where like Harrison Ford was an [66:53] architect. That's being very generous. [66:55] He was like a carpenter. He was like [66:57] Brad Pitt and Once Upon a Time in [66:58] Hollywood, [66:59] >> right? [66:59] >> You know what I mean? like the handsome [67:00] guy with the shirt off like doing like [67:03] you know fixing houses and stuff, [67:05] building fences and whatever. [67:07] Um Harrison Ford and the cast on Star [67:11] Wars like the original one were like [67:14] laughing and mocking him because he had [67:15] no idea what he was doing. They they did [67:16] they didn't obviously when you're making [67:18] movie you don't know what the final [67:20] >> screen is going to look like. So it was [67:22] just a complete debacle of a production. [67:24] They wanted Han Solo to be played by [67:27] Alpuccino. [67:29] >> That would have been weird. [67:30] >> Could you imagine? [67:31] >> Here's another very, very weird one. [67:33] >> They wanted Christopher Walkin from the [67:35] Mark Hamill role. [67:39] >> That would have improved the movie. My [67:41] my one Star Wars take is that Mark [67:43] Hamill was awful. [67:44] >> He ruined the movie. [67:45] >> He was terrible. Um, this is widely [67:48] known. I knew this. Tom Celich was cast [67:50] as Indiana Jones, but then he had to do [67:53] um what was that? Uh the [67:57] what was the Tom Coll in the 70s, 80s, I [67:59] guess. [68:00] >> Magnum PI. [68:01] >> Yeah, that one. He he was in Contracting [68:03] Magnum PI. Good Paul. Uh last anecdote I [68:06] thought was interesting. Harvey Keitel. [68:08] He played the Martin Sheen character in [68:10] uh um my brain really is breaking in [68:14] Apocalypse Now. They shot him for a [68:17] month. [68:19] and Copel was like, "This this isn't [68:21] working." So, [68:21] >> I feel like you would read a whole book [68:23] about this. You could have been cast in [68:25] a movie and didn't. [68:26] >> It's great. Well, this the the movie [68:28] about the book about uh creative artists [68:30] had a lot of this stuff. [68:31] >> Yeah. [68:32] >> The craziest one was Belushi and Carvey [68:35] in Bad Boys. [68:37] >> Yeah, I I did listen to that book. You [68:40] >> I don't think that would have worked. Um [68:42] All right. Uh DTF St. Louis ended. Gota [68:45] I I I love that show. That was freaking [68:47] awesome. [68:48] >> Okay, I got to pick stuff back up cuz I [68:49] I essentially unplugged for a whole [68:51] week. We didn't watch any shows. The [68:52] only I watched was college basketball a [68:54] little bit. Final Four. Uh, and spring [68:56] break we unplugged. I didn't watch any [68:58] shows. I didn't watch any movies. I only [68:59] read like beach books. I didn't really [69:02] The only thing I watched was the Crime [69:04] 101 that you recommended or not [69:05] recommended, but you said you didn't [69:06] like it. I was really bummed out when I [69:09] turned it on. It was 2 hours and 20 [69:10] minutes. Like, no action crime movie [69:12] should be that long. [69:13] >> Did you finish it? [69:15] >> I I'm almost there. It's It's just It's [69:17] trying to be Heat. And even Heat was [69:18] probably too long. It's [69:19] >> It's just not It's just not that good, [69:20] right? Like at all. [69:22] >> Yeah, I try. I don't know. It's just too [69:23] much. So So you think I So I'm three [69:25] episodes into the DTF show. Keep going [69:27] with it. It ends well. [69:28] >> It's only seven. I loved it. Um it's [69:30] just the quality of HBO that we've all [69:33] come to know and love. [69:34] >> Yeah, [69:35] >> it's unmatched. I will say [69:36] >> screw this up, Paramount. [69:37] >> Yeah. Somebody somebody recommended uh [69:39] recently to finish or to jump back into [69:42] Paradise season 2 because I was sort of [69:44] like, eh. So, I I'm I'm halfway through [69:46] it and I will say credit to Hulu. Like, [69:49] it's it's not HBO at all, but like it's [69:51] pretty good. [69:52] >> And it's a totally different show in [69:53] season 2. It's completely different. [69:55] >> Oh, did you finish it? [69:56] >> No, we watched a few episodes, but it's [69:58] good. It's good. Yeah, it is good. I'm [70:00] I'm surprised. It's better than I [70:01] thought it would be. [70:02] >> All right. I forgot to mention a few [70:03] weeks back that I watched Bone Temple. [70:07] >> Holy Was that movie awesome? [70:10] >> Okay. Like it obviously it's not it's [70:12] not a it's not a you movie but like [70:14] those movies have no business being as [70:16] good as they are the [70:17] >> other than 28 years later or not cuz the [70:19] ending of that was just hilariously bad. [70:21] >> So Oh you thought so? [70:24] >> You don't remember the ending of that [70:25] movie was just very [70:27] >> like the the the literal last scene [70:29] where those wild boys came on. [70:31] >> Yes. [70:31] >> So that was the that was how that was [70:33] how this this one followed those crazy [70:36] guys. So it was just it was just Yeah. [70:37] It was [70:38] >> it was awesome. very gnarly and grizzly [70:40] and extremely violent. It was it was [70:43] great. Uh [70:45] lastly, um [70:49] this is a bummer of a way to end it, but [70:51] to end the episode, but I saw a tweet, [70:53] the most dangerous year of a man's life [70:54] is the one right after he finally gets [70:56] what he wanted. [70:58] And uh in the book in the Spielberg [71:00] Copala book, each of them were like [71:04] pretty depressed after after uh Jaws and [71:08] Star Wars and um Godfather. [71:11] >> I can see that because it's like I've [71:13] climbed the mountain. Now what? [71:15] >> Right. [71:15] >> I've I've the peak of my profession. [71:19] Now, [71:19] >> so life is so life is I guess it's [71:21] always you know growth and and uh once [71:24] you get what you want there's like an [71:26] obvious chemical let down. [71:28] >> Well in your money and your brain Jason [71:29] Zwag says that the anticipation is a [71:32] your everything's firing off in your [71:34] brain and then when you get it it's like [71:35] a you're nothing in your brain nothing [71:37] hits anymore like you get it and you go [71:39] there's like there's no like relief [71:41] there's no it's just oh I got what I [71:43] wanted of course I did [71:44] >> right [71:44] >> and you move on. [71:45] >> Same thing with vacations. I mean, [71:46] obviously vacations are great, but it's [71:48] at least as much fun looking forward to [71:51] it [71:52] >> than getting what you want. So, uh, [71:55] that's it. That's one of the, you know, [71:56] one of the tragedies of being a human [71:58] being. I suppose getting what you want [72:00] is not as as good as it should be. [72:02] >> Yeah. You got to move on to something [72:03] else. [72:04] >> Yeah. [72:06] >> All right. [72:07] >> Okay. Uh, nope. No. Uh, that's it. No. [72:12] >> Give me a stock market check real quick. [72:14] It's right back. [72:15] >> Stocks are up. [72:16] >> Uh, everybody back in the boat. [72:19] >> Up more than Yeah. NASDAQ's up more than [72:20] a percent. Gold is up again. [72:21] >> Everybody back in the boat. Are not far [72:24] away. [72:26] >> All right. But let's be honest, [72:27] something's going to happen tomorrow and [72:28] then it'll reverse and then something [72:29] happen the next day and that'll go [72:30] reverse again and double reverse and [72:33] >> this is our life. [72:33] >> We're never out of the woods. We're [72:35] always in the woods. It's uh it's fun. [72:38] The stock market is fun. Okay. Um, [72:40] animal spirits at the compoundnews.com [72:42] hiringholdswealth.com. [72:44] We want to hear from you if you are [72:45] interested in joining the tax team. Hope [72:47] everybody is uh enjoying life. We'll see [72:50] you next time.