Batnick and Carlson Point to Earnings Growth in S&P 500 Rally

Batnick与Carlson：标普500指数涨势受盈利增长支撑 当前股市的反弹从根本上是由盈利增长和估值压缩所支撑，而非零利率或不可持续的科技股集中度。 主持人Ben Carlson与Michael Batnick分析了当前股市的非凡强势，指出市场广度正在扩大、估值出现压缩，且底层企业盈利表现强劲。他们驳斥了社交媒体上关于Z世代“财务虚无主义”和体育博彩习惯的说法，同时审视了包括货币市场基金中3万亿美元存量资金以及处于历史高位的TIPS收益率等实时经济数据。除市场基本面外，本期节目还探讨了人工智能资本支出之争、通过401(k)进行退休储蓄的机制、房地产市场动态、体育俱乐部股权投资中的私募市场风险，以及来自赌场的个人轶事。 当前股市已正式步入历史性牛市区间，标普500指数在2020年代的年化回报率达到15.7%，且自2009年3月的低点以来累计上涨近1500%。 (1:04) 尽管有人认为科技股估值过高，但得益于爆发式的企业盈利增长，自2025年初以来，科技股的远期市盈率（P/E）已从29降至22。 (1:04) 主持人反驳了有关Z世代“财务虚无主义”的论调，指出如今年轻一代在同龄阶段退休账户中所持有的财富实际上多于以往各世代。 (4:37) 单变量看空理由——例如归咎于2010年代的低利率或2020年代的高额政府赤字——无法合理解释全球各大经济体普遍出现的股市强势表现。 (17:55) 尽管货币市场基金中的3万亿美元数额看似庞大，但现金目前仅占标普500总市值的11%，远低于18%的历史平均水平。 (21:28)

Hosts Ben Carlson and Michael Batnick argue that the U.S. equity market has entered one of history's strongest bull runs, driven by broadening fundamentals rather than narrow speculation. At the same time, they examine emerging vulnerabilities, from unsustainable capital expenditures in artificial intelligence to the creeping financialization of consumer betting. Broadening Strength Beyond the Tech Giants (1:04) Ben Carlson asserts that the current market has entered historic bull territory, outperforming past regimes with a 15.7% annualized return in the 2020s and roughly a 1,500% total return (17% annualized) on the Vanguard Total Stock Market index since the March 2009 low. Rejecting the critique that the rally relies solely on mega-cap tech, the hosts highlight that mid-caps, small caps, equal-weighted indexes, and European equities have simultaneously hit all-time highs. Furthermore, median earnings growth across the S&P 500 excluding hyperscalers stands around 14%. Valuations have also displayed unusual resilience during this ascent. Carlson cites Duality Research data showing that between January 2025 and the present, tech equities rose 65% to 70% while their forward price-to-earnings multiple fell from 29 to 22 due to rapid earnings generation. While Michael Batnick notes a paradoxical risk—that corporate earnings may simply be too strong to sustain—he rejects single-variable bear arguments, such as deficit spending or zero rates, pointing out that countries like China have borrowed heavily while seeing the MSCI China index gain only 2% in the 2020s. The ROI Dilemma in Artificial Intelligence (38:12) Addressing the economic trajectory of artificial intelligence, Carlson cites an observation by technologist Alex Eiss: technologists have accurately forecasted the rapid climb in AI capabilities, but economists have proven equally right about its muted near-term productivity impact. The hosts view the ultimate outcome landing somewhere between an outright economic boom and a hard landing. Batnick highlights venture capitalist Paul Kedrosky's bear case as the most credible critique of the sector. Rather than disputing AI's technical utility, Kedrosky focuses on capital allocation, emphasizing that the current infrastructure buildout represents the largest and fastest capital expenditure surge as a share of GDP in history. With major hyperscalers taking on substantial off-balance-sheet lease obligations, Batnick questions whether near-term return on investment can justify this scale of spending without achieving full artificial general intelligence. Gen Z Wealth Realities and Financial Nihilism (4:37) The hosts dismantle viral narratives claiming younger generations are trapped in financial despair and relying heavily on sports gambling. Examining a Betterment survey cited by Dan Egan, Batnick notes that while headlines asserted 26% of Gen Z treats sports betting as an investment strategy, only 11% report using it as an explicit high-risk strategy, while 36% do not bet at all and 23% keep betting strictly segregated as entertainment spending. Carlson challenges excessive pessimism, contending that social media feeds amplify unrealistic lifestyle comparisons and monetize youth grievances about homeownership. Although elevated mortgage rates present a clear challenge, Americans under 40 hold more assets in 401(k)s, IRAs, and taxable brokerages than older cohorts did at the same age. Carlson and Batnick advocate viewing home rental as a rational financial model, where fixed rent frees capital to capture compounding gains in broad equity indexes. Speculative Creep and Institutionalized Gambling (43:17) The hosts express sharp concern over the erosion of boundaries between investing and speculative gambling, focusing on a recent regulatory filing to launch 32 individual ETFs tracking NHL teams via CME futures contracts. Batnick calls for a strict separation between long-term retirement savings and speculative gambling, arguing that integrating gambling mechanics into retail brokerage accounts strips away the friction that keeps households from risking essential capital. Carlson draws historical parallels between speculative retail products and the American appetite for frontier lawlessness, referencing Bryan Burrough's *The Gunfighters*. They observe similar behavioral psychology in casino table games, where high-margin side wagers and multi-leg parlays lure bettors despite poor odds. In contrast, Benna's 401(k) system—which now shelters $10 trillion across the United States—succeeded precisely by automating low-friction, systematic index investing. While broad-based earnings and widespread index participation continue to support equity valuations against historical headwinds, the sustainability of the cycle hinges on whether massive infrastructure investments in AI can deliver measurable economic productivity before corporate capital budgets face exhaustion.

本期节目中，Ben Carlson 与 Michael Batnick 探讨了由企业真实盈利推动的历史性美股大牛市，剖析了聚焦于资本支出与投资回报率脱节的 AI 核心看空逻辑，并驳斥了社交媒体上过度渲染的年轻一代“财务虚无主义”。 大牛市特征与基本面盈利支撑 (1:04) Ben Carlson 认为当前美股已步入可与 1980 和 1990 年代媲美的历史性大牛市：标普 500 指数在 2010 年代的年化回报率为 13.4%，而在 2020 年代迄今达到 15.7%；自 2009 年 3 月低点以来，先锋全股票市场指数累计上涨近 1,500%，年化收益率达 17%。与此前市场批评反弹仅由少数科技巨头驱动不同，近期标普 500 等权重指数、中小型股及欧洲市场均创下历史新高，且在标普 500 成分股中剔除超大规模科技企业后，公司中位收益增长率仍维持在约 14%。 Duality Research 的数据显示，自 2025 年 1 月以来，科技板块虽然累计涨幅达 65% 至 70%，但由于盈利激增，其预期市盈率反而从 29 倍压缩至 22 倍。针对将牛市简单归因于低利率或财政赤字的单一变量论点，Ben 以中国为例反驳，指出中国赤字规模庞大但 MSCI 中国指数在 2020 年代仅累计上涨 2%。此外，目前货币市场基金中的 3 万亿美元现金仅占标普 500 总市值的 11%，显著低于 1990 年以来 18% 的历史均值；而 TIPS（通胀保值国债）真实收益率已从 2021 年的 -1.76% 升至 3% 以上，显示资产负债表与固定收益环境已经大幅重塑。 解构年轻世代的财务虚无与财富现实 (4:37) 社交媒体上充斥着针对年轻人的悲观叙事，宣称高房价导致 20 多岁群体陷入“财务虚无主义”，并被迫依赖体育博彩进行资产积累。针对“26% 的 Z 世代将体育博彩视作长期投资策略”的网络头条，Michael 引述 Betterment 的原始调查指出，实际数据远没有煽动性：36% 的年轻人完全不参与博彩，23% 将其严格归为娱乐预算，15% 偶尔尝试借此加速财务目标，14% 偶尔投入零钱，仅有 11% 明确将其作为高风险投资策略。 在资产积累层面，40 岁以下人群目前在 401(k)、IRA 和经纪账户中持有的资金规模实际上超过了同龄阶段的历史先辈。全美 401(k) 总资产已达 10 万亿美元，仅富达投资就拥有超过 60 万个百万元以上的 401(k) 账户。针对高房价带来的置业压力，主持人引用相关分析指出“租房生活”的财务可行性：租金是一个人每月住房支出的上限，而房贷仅是持有成本的下限，租房者将首付及维护资金持续投入低费率宽基指数基金，同样能够实现长期的可观财富增长。 资本支出与回报错配：AI最强空头论据 (38:12) 对于当前 AI 产业的巨大分歧，Ben 引用技术专家 Alex Eiss 的观点指出，过去三年技术专家准确预见了 AI 模型能力的突飞猛进，而经济学家也同样准确地指出了其近期对全要素生产率的实际提升较为有限。Michael 重点推介了风险投资人 Paul Kedrosky 提出的“最佳 AI 看空逻辑”：该论点并不否认 AI 的实用性，而是聚焦于资本开支指标——当前 AI 算力与基础设施建设正在经历占 GDP 比重最高、速度最快的一轮资本支出浪潮，但若技术无法迅速演进为极高阶的通用人工智能（AGI），短期的投资回报率（ROI）根本无法支撑科技巨头如此激进的资本开支。 目前包括 Google、Meta、Microsoft、Oracle、Amazon 及 Nvidia 在内的超大规模科技公司承担了庞大的表外租赁协议与资本承诺。尽管 Anthropic 的年化营运收入已达到 65 亿美元，展现出超越传统巨头的吸金速度，半导体上游如 SanDisk 单周出现 35% 的估值修复，但下游巨额资本开支能否转化为健康的可持续现金流，依然是机构投资者最为担忧且最难测算的谜题。 投机产品化、散户思维与损失厌恶心理 (33:08) 关于金融市场的有效性，Michael 与 Ben 援引 Burton Malkiel 的经典论述强调，资产价格客观上永远是不精准的，核心在于没有人能确切预知其偏高还是偏低。过去 15 年间，单纯买入并持有大型科技龙头的散户，整体业绩大幅跑赢了依赖复杂算法与卫星数据的专业对冲基金。然而，金融工程正呈现出危险的投机化倾向，例如监管文件披露有发行方计划针对 32 支 NHL 冰球球队通过 CME 期货推出单队 ETF。主持人强烈呼吁长期储蓄应与赌博严格隔离，券商账户中摩擦力的消除将显著增加散户意外耗尽退休积蓄的风险。 在行为心理学方面，Ben 分享了在赌场经历大幅亏损后通过追加筹码打至回本的经历，借此剖析了投资中的“损失厌恶”机制：当某项资产从 300 涨至 500 再回撤到 400 时，投资者即便获利仍会感到懊恼；而当资产从 300 暴跌至 200 再反弹至 300 时，投资者仅仅因为“打平”便会产生极度的胜利快感。现代赌场与金融产品正是通过推广胜率极低的高赔率连本带利下注（Parlay）和投机性结构，利用了投资者渴望瞬间扭亏的非理性心理。 总体而言，主持人认为当前美股在强劲利润增长与估值合理压缩的支撑下展现出极高韧性，并未出现单一变量引发的崩盘迹象。尽管 AI 资本开支的回报周期与高估值风险依然悬而未决，但对普通投资者而言，真正的危险往往在于被社交媒体的虚无情绪裹挟，误将高摩擦的金融投机当作资产积累的常规途径。

## Background 本期节目由 YouTube 财经频道 The Compound 于 2026 年 8 月 19 日发布。节目为《Animal Spirits》播客第 478 期，由 Michael Batnick 与 Ben Carlson 共同主持，官方简介聚焦于美股史上最伟大的牛市之一、年轻人群体为何沉迷赌博与金融虚无主义、关于人工智能前景与回报的最佳空头论点、3 万亿美元货基资金格局，以及租房买房之争和赌场二十一点心理学等话题。 ## TL;DR 两位主持人首先梳理数据，论证美股已正式步入历史顶级的超级大牛市，并结合最新调查击碎了媒体将年轻人过度投机刻意包装成“金融虚无主义”的悲情叙事；在产业探讨中，他们深度剖析了风险投资家 Paul Kedrosky 提出的扎实 AI 熊市论据，指出史无前例的天量资本支出正将科技巨头推向非博出 AGI 难以回本的悬崖边缘；此外，节目还批判了华尔街将冰球联盟球队 ETF 化等过度金融化乱象，肯定了 401(k) 制度对普通人积累财富的历史性贡献；最后，Ben 借自己在印第安纳赌场绝境翻盘的亲身经历生动阐述了“保本即赢”的投资心理错觉，并以轻松的影视杂谈为节目收尾。 ## Atmosphere & style 全片节奏欢快流畅，充满两位老友插科打诨式的默契与幽默自嘲，将晦涩的宏观金融图表与极具生活气息的个人轶事自然熔于一炉。对话在痛斥流行偏见的犀利吐槽、推演资本开支泡沫时的理性沉着，以及复盘赌场心路历程与怀旧动作片时的捧腹大笑之间自如切换。整场对谈既不失专业投资者的洞察深度，又带有浓厚的客厅闲聊氛围，向听众传递出一种看透市场杂音后的清醒乐观与松弛感。 ## Bulletin - [01:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rx1SjD11yQ&t=64s) 美股迈入历史级牛市，自 2009 年低点以来先锋全市场指数累计涨幅近 1500%，科技板块在股价累计上涨 65%-70% 的同时，远期市盈率反而由 29 倍降至 22 倍，体现出实际盈利爆发跑赢股价扩张。 - [09:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rx1SjD11yQ&t=580s) Betterment 真实调查击碎了“全员金融虚无主义”叙事：36% 的 Z 世代完全不参与体育博彩，23% 仅作纯娱乐资金，真正将其视作高风险投资策略运作的仅占 11%。 - [21:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rx1SjD11yQ&t=1286s) 散户货基规模虽达创纪录的 3 万亿美元，但占标普 500 市值比例仅约 11%，远低于 1990 年以来 18% 的历史均值与 2009 年的 61%，更多反映了债市回撤后散户采取的“现金+股票”杠铃策略。 - [38:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rx1SjD11yQ&t=2292s) 风险投资人 Paul Kedrosky 提出最具说服力的 AI 看空论点：AI 资本开支持续创下占 GDP 比例与推进速度的历史新高，若不能及时兑现为通用人工智能（AGI）级别的神级回报，天量投入将难以维持。 ## Key takeaways - [01:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rx1SjD11yQ&t=64s) 美股 2020 年代以来年化收益率达 15.7%，正逼近 80 年代与 90 年代的黄金牛市，且上涨广度已由科技巨头扩散至中盘股、小盘股及海外市场。 - [03:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rx1SjD11yQ&t=190s) 当前空头面临因“企业盈利表现过好”而担忧不可持续的滑稽逻辑，而股市往往在持续攀爬“忧虑之墙”中前行。 - [05:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rx1SjD11yQ&t=307s) 社交媒体过分迎合对年轻一代的同情与剥夺感叙事，掩盖了年轻人更早拥有便捷低费率投资工具、同龄净资产历史占优的财务起跑优势。 - [12:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rx1SjD11yQ&t=733s) 年轻群体面对的核心痛点在于错过了 3% 房贷利率窗口的房地产上车门槛，而非广泛金融资产积累的失败。 - [20:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rx1SjD11yQ&t=1247s) 剔除大型超大规模云服务商后，标普 500 指数的中位数盈利增速仍保持在 14% 左右，证伪了市场仅由少数 AI 泡沫支撑的质疑。 - [23:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rx1SjD11yQ&t=1384s) 通胀保值国债（TIPS）长期实际收益率高达 3%，但投资者在股市年化 20% 的大牛市氛围下对无风险固定收益普遍缺乏兴趣。 - [28:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rx1SjD11yQ&t=1687s) 股市对长端美债收益率攀升展现出荷马·辛普森般的抗揍韧性，高利率已被当前强劲的基本面全面吸收。 - [31:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rx1SjD11yQ&t=1918s) “市场永远是对的”核心在于投资者极难预知市场何时犯错，伯顿·麦基尔指出价格永远是错的，但无人能提前确知其过高还是过低。 - [36:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rx1SjD11yQ&t=2181s) 过去 15 年是“第一层思维”完胜复杂金融模型的时期，买入并持有头部科技公司的简单策略持续击溃了专业机构的量化模型。 - [40:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rx1SjD11yQ&t=2445s) AI 初创企业展现出惊人的商业化扩张速度，例如 Anthropic 的 ARR 达 65 亿美元左右，规模正逼近甚至反超达美航空等传统重资产巨头。 - [43:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rx1SjD11yQ&t=2600s) 挂钩 32 支 NHL 冰球队伍等博彩类 ETF 的申报显示了金融产品泛滥与博彩化的危险倾向，投资经纪账户与纯赌博账户亟需严格物理隔离。 - [47:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rx1SjD11yQ&t=2826s) 针对高房价压力，“租房并将结余资金全额定投低成本指数基金”正成为新一代年轻人理性且流行的资产积累方案。 - [48:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rx1SjD11yQ&t=2938s) 401(k) 计划是填补传统养老金溃退的重大制度成功，全美沉淀资金超 10 万亿美元并带动居民持股率达 65%，但仍需探索覆盖小微企业员工的普惠方案。 - [55:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rx1SjD11yQ&t=3351s) 超级富豪的财富地位并非高枕无忧，房贷机构爆雷、利率对冲失误以及私募信贷黑洞显示出精英阶层流动性风险同样严峻。 - [59:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rx1SjD11yQ&t=3555s) 赌场二十一点“先亏后保本”带来的欣喜感暴露出散户投资的心理错觉：追求极端情绪波动的多巴胺往往阻碍了稳健复利策略的执行。 ## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rx1SjD11yQ&t=0s) YCharts 赞助与顾问工作流 节目开篇照例由赞助商 YCharts 带来推广。对于财务顾问而言，日常业务中最艰难的部分往往不是搭建投资组合本身，而是如何向新客户清晰、通俗地传达这些投资决策。YCharts 的核心价值就在于将复杂的投资逻辑和组合疑问转化为可直接交付给客户的洞察方案。根据统计，使用 YCharts 的顾问在提案制作、标的研究和客户沟通准备等方面，平均每月能节省约 20 个小时。 随着内置 AI 工具的上线，顾问们可以更快地提炼核心要点、追踪组合变动及其背后原因，从而大幅减少深挖原始数据的时间成本。无论是对比投资组合、进行策略压力测试，还是在沟通中实时解答客户的刁钻问题，该平台都致力于帮顾问穿透市场杂音，将财务数据转化为实际业务成果。 ### [01:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rx1SjD11yQ&t=64s) 论证史上最伟大的牛市之一 节目正式开场，Ben Carlson 兴致高昂地向搭档 Michael Batnick 宣称，他已准备好在陪审团面前正式为当前市场定调：美股如今正正式迈入“有史以来最伟大的牛市之一”，其强劲势头已经开始比肩 20 世纪 80 年代与 90 年代的黄金岁月。Ben 拿出一连串数据作为佐证：在 2010 年代，标普 500 指数的年化收益率为 13.4%，其间仅经历过几次跌幅在 19% 左右的微幅调整；而进入 2020 年代以来，年化收益率更进一步攀升到了 15.7%，正在逼近 80 年代的 17% 以及 90 年代的 18%。 如果将本轮牛市的起点锚定在 2009 年的金融危机底部，先锋全市场指数（VTI）迄今的累计涨幅已接近惊人的 1500%，年化回报率高达 17%。Ben 强调，过去市场总有人挑刺，称这是一轮“充满保留意见的牛市”，批评其仅靠标普 500 支撑、缺乏广泛广度、过度集中于美股“七巨头”（Magnificent 7）。然而过去 24 个月里，牛市展现出了全新的面貌：标普 500、等权重标普指数、欧洲股市、中盘股、小盘股均在近期创下历史新高，新兴市场也紧随其后。最令人不可思议的奇观在于估值与基本面的背离：根据 Duality Research 的图表，自 2025 年 1 月以来，科技板块累计上涨了 65% 至 70%，但其远期市盈率（Forward P/E）却从 29 倍逆势回落到了 22 倍，说明利润率和实际盈利的爆发速度彻底跑赢了股价涨幅。 - **2010 年代标普 500 年化收益率**：13.4% - **2020 年代至今标普 500 年化收益率**：15.7%（对标 1980 年代的约 17% 与 1990 年代的约 18%） - **自 2009 年低点累计表现**：先锋全市场股票指数累计上涨近 1500%，年化收益率 17% - **科技板块估值变化**：板块股价累计上涨约 65%-70% 的同时，远期市盈率由 29 倍降至 22 倍 ### [03:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rx1SjD11yQ&t=190s) 令人啼笑皆非的空头论据与年轻一代的错失恐慌 面对 Ben 连珠炮般的论证，Michael 调侃这一连串逻辑就像是个“俄罗斯套娃”（二人还顺带自嘲了上周把套娃口误说成“彩蛋娃娃”的糗事）。Michael 虽轻微挑刺表示“恶性熊市的谷底究竟算不算新牛市的真正开端尚存争议”，但他完全赞同美股身处史诗级牛市的判断，甚至认为三年前就可以下这个结论。在他看来，即便市场已经从低点飙涨了 1500%，股市前方依旧有一面“忧虑之墙”可供攀爬（wall of worry to climb）。 有意思的是，眼下看空者的核心论据之一居然是“企业盈利实在太好了”。Michael 指出，市场如今充斥着对盈利难以持续的担忧，认为当前的超额利润全是一次性、不可持久的“假象”，这种因为业绩好到难以置信而引发的恐慌显得既滑稽又真实。看着这轮波澜壮阔的涨幅，Michael 不禁产生了一个念头：这种牛市或许正是年轻一代普遍感到焦虑与被剥夺的催化剂。如今 26、28 岁左右的年轻人看着飙涨的房价和飞升的股市，心想“我错过了房地产，我又错过了股票，未来还有什么能留给我？”当现实资产显得高不可攀时，年轻人转向高风险的体育串关投注（Parlays）也就成了某种必然选择。 ### [05:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rx1SjD11yQ&t=307s) 对年轻一代的“过度同情”与社交媒体迎合话术 Ben 对当下对年轻一代的无底线同情提出了尖锐反驳。他直言社会如今对年轻人群体戴着“天鹅绒手套”过分呵护、小心翼翼，动辄就是“可怜的年轻人”：”醒醒吧，咬牙挺过去（Suck it up）！没有人能在一夜之间暴富，也没人一出校门就能获得梦想中的神仙工作。“在 Ben 看来，当代年轻人的真正问题在于“懂得太多”——过去的人初入职场时根本不敢奢望 30 岁前大富大贵，而如今的年轻人在社交网络上充斥着 27 岁就大获成功的同龄人样本，产生了一种“那个成功者本该是我”的虚妄预期，从而背负了过高的心理落差。 Michael 赞同 Ben 的看法，并进一步揭露了背后的内容传播机制：在当下的社交媒体上，讨好年轻人是最稳赚不赔的流量密码。只要对年轻人兜售“你们被上一代人彻底毁了”、“你们要替国家偿还庞大债务”、“你们永远买不起房子，全怪婴儿潮一代”，或者大谈男性孤独流行病，就能轻松收割海量关注。不可否认这其中确实包含一部分现实困境，青年阶段在历史上任何时期都从来没有轻松过，但如今这种现象被内容策略无底线地放大成了一种全民性的悲情表演。 ### [07:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rx1SjD11yQ&t=420s) 调查风波：“金融虚无主义”还是纯粹的赌徒心态？ 这场讨论的导火索是彭博社报道的 Betterment 最新调查数据。该在线调查涵盖了 1 万名散户投资者，结果显示：在 1997 年至 2007 年间出生的 Z 世代受访者中，竟有高达 26% 的人声称自己“将体育博彩视为个人长期财务规划中深思熟虑、持续进行的重要组成部分”。相比之下，千禧一代的这一比例为 14%，而 X 世代仅为 6%。社交网络随即掀起轩然大波，许多评论家将此作为“金融虚无主义”彻底吞噬年轻一代的铁证，认为年轻人认定常规路径毫无希望，才将赌博包装成翻身捷径。 Ben 痛斥这种将赌徒包装成悲剧英雄的叙事就像经典的网络梗图：“穿西装的维尼熊是金融虚无主义，而脱去西装的本质就是烂赌鬼（degenerate gambler）”。社会不该为赌博恶习寻找高大上的借口，而且 Ben 极度怀疑这个调查数据的真实性，根本不相信会有四分之一的年轻人认真地把体育赌博当成严肃的理财计划。Michael 则补充道，社交媒体的算法机制决定了人们根本不会去细读调查原文，哪怕数据写的是 11%，舆论的狂欢与声讨也不会有任何区别。更重要的是，年轻人展现出投机天性再正常不过——如果自己在 25 岁时手机里装着 Robinhood，大概也会沉迷其中；但人终究会变老、会背痛、会开始注重饮食养生，最终从投机狂热中清醒过来。没有任何理由相信当这批年轻人步入中年前期时，还会组建由“60% 股票、30% 债券外加 10% 冰球博彩 ETF”构成的离谱投资组合。 ### [09:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rx1SjD11yQ&t=580s) 调查数据击碎叙事：Z 世代真的都在“体育博彩拯救财务”吗？ 围绕年轻一代与投机文化的讨论，往往充斥着居高临下的道德说教与耸人听闻的标题党。在社交网络上，“人人都在赌博”与“年轻一代彻底完了”这两个情绪爆发点交织在一起，演变成挑动公众愤怒的巨大引流工具。然而，来自数字化理财平台 Betterment（由老朋友 Dan Egan 负责团队研究）的真实调查数据呈现出了截然不同的现实面貌：在探讨体育博彩如何融入财务目标时，有 36% 的 Z 世代根本不参与体育投注，但这绝不可能成为抓人眼球的爆款标题。在参与博彩的人群中，15% 的人将其作为加速实现财务目标的工具，14% 的人仅偶尔挪用少量资金，23% 的人将赌资严格作为独立的“娱乐资金”（Fun Money）对待——这种做法甚至可以说是相当理性的财务规划。真正将体育博彩当作高风险投资策略运作的，仅占 11%（约十分之一）。 这些中规中矩的数据无法吸引流量，主流财经媒体便倾向于放大极端的个案。彭博社就曾采访过一位 32 岁、名叫罗伯特（Robert）的男子，对方宣称体育博彩不仅是爱好，自己更是“比博彩市场更聪明”，甚至声称当年全靠押注 NHL 卡罗莱纳飓风队（Carolina Hurricanes）赢下了一整趟奢华度假的开销。Michael 调侃道，这让人想起电影《婚礼傲客》（*Wedding Crashers*）里的经典桥段——32 岁已经不再是可以把胡闹当做年轻稚气的年纪了，靠押注某支球队赢来度假固然听起来疯狂，但同样可能因为这支球队输个精光而泡汤。媒体紧抓这种孤例并试图得出“年轻人为了翻身必须去赌球”的结论，完全脱离了宏观现实：今天的年轻人其实在财务起跑线上远胜前辈，他们更早、更广泛地拥有 IRA 个人退休账户、401(k) 以及 Robinhood 等免佣金交易账户；至于线上赌博的增加，纯粹是因为移动互联时代的参与门槛降低了，而上一代人年轻时根本没有这些随手可得的工具。 - **Betterment 关于 Z 世代体育博彩的调查分布**： - **36%**：完全不参与任何体育博彩。 - **23%**：将资金单列为纯娱乐用途（Fun money）。 - **15%**：试图利用博彩收益来加速达成某项财务目标。 - **14%**：仅偶尔重定向部分零散资金用于投注。 - **11%**：真正将其作为高风险投资策略执行。 --- ### [12:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rx1SjD11yQ&t=733s) 荒谬的财富预期与代际危机：从《上班一条虫》到 2008 金融海啸 媒体和金融机构经常制造荒腔走板的调研来误导大众。例如此前 Empower 发布的一项代际财富调查，询问各世代“何为财务成功”以及所需的最低年薪与净资产，结果得出的数字居然高达 60 万美元年薪和 1000 万美元净资产。Michael 直斥这类调查纯属具有严重抽样偏差的“垃圾数据”，除了制造焦虑和在社交媒体上进行道德姿态表演（Virtue signaling）外毫无意义。Ben 借此反思指出，每一代人在迈入社会时都会经历“青年危机”（Quarter-life crisis）。他每年重温经典职场喜剧《上班一条虫》（*Office Space*）时都能看到，当年坐在格子间里的 X 世代同样对自己的人生处境深感痛苦与绝望；Z 世代并非特例，他们只是在互联网放大下更早爆发了这种困惑。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 面对代际困境的心态转变模型 accDescr: 展示从抱怨宏观环境到聚焦个人可控行动的心态进化路径 subgraph Trap["消耗型怪圈"] A["遭遇外部困境: 金融危机 / 高房价 / 就业寒冬"] --> B["陷入群体怨怼: 抱怨婴儿潮一代与宏观经济"] end subgraph Pivot["转折点（Ramit Sethi 原则）"] B --> C["允许情绪发泄: 宣泄 10 分钟"] C --> D["抽离群体盲从: '你能掌控什么？'"] end subgraph Action["建设性行动"] D --> E["稳步积累金融资产（股市 / 指数基金）"] E --> F["聚焦个人技能提升与收入增长"] end ``` 这种代际困境在 2008 年大衰退期间同样深植人心。Ben 回忆自己当年刚步入职场时向老板提出加薪请求，换来的却是近乎嘲弄的笑声：“你在开玩笑吗？现在这种环境下没人能加薪。”当时他一度陷入“外部宏观经济彻底毁了我们这代人”的受害者思维，直到读了理财作家 Ramit Sethi（《我教你变成有钱人》作者）在 2009 年写的一篇博文才如梦初醒：**你可以花 10 分钟为糟糕的宏观经济痛哭抱怨，但发泄完之后，你必须聚焦于自身能掌控的事情。** 停留在归咎婴儿潮一代、归咎经济大势或归咎高房价的怨声载道中毫无意义。抛开情绪宣泄，40 岁以下的年轻人无论在收入水平、股市持有金额还是同龄净资产积累上，其实都超越了历史同期的水准。唯一真正让年轻人遭遇硬性打击的合理痛点只有房地产——由于人生阶段原因错过了前几年 3% 的超低房贷利率和合理房价窗口的人，确实被硬生生挡在了上车门槛之外，但这并非他们自身的过错，就像《心灵捕手》（*Good Will Hunting*）中那句经典的救赎台词一样：“这不是你的错。” --- ### [14:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rx1SjD11yQ&t=883s) 社交媒体的失真滤镜与大牛市下的“悲观主义”怪圈 在审视当下年轻人的生活状态时，存在着截然相反的两重视角。一边是充斥着极端戾气与虚荣表演的社交网络，它扭曲了所有群体的真实面貌；另一边则是现实生活中的观察。Michael 提到，在他们公司（Ritholtz 财富管理）全美各地工作的 20 多位 30 岁以下年轻员工，虽然没有一个人年薪达到离谱的 60 万美元，但他们工作积极、生活幸福。过度沉迷于网络言论往往会带来巨大的心理落差。Ben 分析称，当今社会极其富有的人口基数大幅增加，不仅催生出因为父母过分优秀而注定“阶层向下流动”并感到痛苦的富二代群体，更催生出海量靠社交平台暴富的网红。 这正是当下与 2008 年金融危机最大的不同： - **2008 年的集体共患难**：危机席卷所有阶层，年长者股票期权作废、房产断供、遭遇失业，年轻人面临就业冰河期，所有人处于“同甘共苦”的同一种生命波长上，社会上几乎不存在靠短视频一夜暴富的年轻新贵。 - **当下的浮躁与脱节**：现在的年轻人看着同龄网红赚快钱，再看自己辛辛苦苦在 401(k) 账户里攒了 5 年，好不容易从 2 万美元滚到 4.5 万美元，心理落差油然而生：“这能有什么用？” 但这忽视了复利和人生的规律。人生有其独特的节律与季节，绝大多数财富积累都不是一蹴而就的，社交网络上极速暴富的神话绝不能当作通用的人生策略。由于尽早掌握了股票市场的知识和便捷的低成本投资工具，这一代年轻人终将凭借金融资产成为历史上最富有的世代之一。 具有讽刺意味的是，这种焦虑与怀疑情绪甚至弥漫在整个金融市场中。正如播客开头讨论的那样，当下明明正处于人类历史上最强劲的超级大牛市之一，但市场讨论却总被末日论者（Doomers）带入悲观的怪圈——人们总是急于寻找“牛市不作数”的借口。正如在 2010 年代，空头们整整十年都在坚称“大牛市的唯一原因就是零利率、美联储超发货币和量化宽松（QE）”，永远在为上涨罗织苛刻的免责声明。 ### [18:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rx1SjD11yQ&t=1097s) 牛市的历史修正主义与赤字神话的破灭 迈克尔·巴特尼克（Michael Batnick）与本·卡尔森（Ben Carlson）回顾了 2010 年代初期的市场情绪。迈克尔指出，现在人们回顾历史时总有一种“后见之明”的修正主义倾向——就像看篮球技术统计来事后评判球员一样。现实是，在 2010 年甚至 2011 年，根本没有人认为那是一轮牛市；即便标普 500 指数在 2009 年大幅反弹了约 37%，市场上充斥的依然是对“二次探底衰退”（double-dip recession）的恐慌，直到 2013 年大家才真正开始谈论新的牛市。 谈及驱动牛市的叙事，本提到 2010 年代人们归咎于“零利率政策”（ZIRP），而到了 2020 年代，空头和怀疑论者又将一切上涨归结为“政府支出、债务膨胀与巨额财政赤字”。然而，这种单一变量的逻辑根本站不住脚： - 欧洲在 2010 年代曾实行负利率，但其股市并未出现暴涨。 - 加拿大的财政赤字规模庞大，而中国目前的借贷规模占 GDP 的比重同样比肩甚至超过美国。 - 尽管中国借贷激增，本年代迄今 MSCI 中国指数（MSCI China）表现几乎停滞不前，2020 年代以来的累计涨幅仅有 2% 左右。 迈克尔调侃道，总有人坚信存在类似“光明会”的幕后黑手在拉动经济杠杆让股市上涨，如果只要拉下拉杆股市就能飙升，那政策制定者早就一直拉着不放了。 --- ### [20:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rx1SjD11yQ&t=1247s) 标普 500 中位数盈利增速：剔除巨头后的真实增长 讨论随后转向《华尔街日报》（Wall Street Journal）援引美国银行（Bank of America）的一张图表。该数据显示，剔除大型云服务提供商（Hyperscalers）和一次性异常值后，标普 500 指数的**中位数盈利增速（median earnings growth）**目前维持在约 14% 的水平。 这一增速不仅远高于正常水平，更是创下了自 2023 年以来的新高。迈克尔赞同这是一张极具参考价值的图表，因为它过滤掉了少数科技巨头过度集中带来的失真，粉碎了“市场全靠 Anthropic 和 OpenAI 这类估值上调在硬撑”的质疑，展示了美股整体基本面依然非常强劲。不过本也提示，这也可能意味着当前的盈利扩张正在逼近周期性增长的顶点。 --- ### [21:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rx1SjD11yQ&t=1286s) 3万亿美元货基资金是场外增量还是“分母幻觉”？ 针对市场热议的“货基规模创纪录”现象，本提到他们在《TCAF》播客上讨论过：即便股市大牛市如火如荼、债券锁定利率极具吸引力，大量资金依然沉淀在货币市场基金中未曾离开。有听众发邮件提醒他们注意“分母效应”，本对此表示完全认同——单纯看绝对值容易误导： ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 货币市场基金占标普500市值比例对比 accDescr: 对比2009年、历史平均与当前货币市场基金规模占标普500总市值的百分比 subgraph Historical["历史极值与常态"] A["2009年极端高位<br/>61%（分子激增+分母暴跌）"] B["1990年至今历史平均<br/>18%"] end subgraph Current["当前现状"] C["当前比例<br/>仅约 11%（约3万亿美元）"] end Historical --> Current ``` - **分母与占比对比**：零售投资者在货币市场中确实屯留了高达 3 万亿美元的现金，但按其占标普 500 总市值的比例来看仅约为 **11%**，远低于 1990 年以来的历史平均水平（**18%**）。相比之下，2009 年金融危机底部时，货基占比曾高达惊人的 **61%**。 - **“现金即债券”的杠铃配置**：散户投资者在经历了此前债券市场高达 18% 的惨痛回撤后被彻底“烫伤”，心理阴影犹存。许多人干脆选择用无波动风险的现金完全替代传统的债券配置，即使收益率下滑，也宁愿坚守“现金 + 股票”的杠铃式资产组合，拒绝再次承受固收资产的净值波动。 --- ### [23:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rx1SjD11yQ&t=1384s) 3% 实际收益率无人问津与牛市盲区 本指出通胀预期下的一个奇特反差：市场人人都担忧通胀粘性，认为世界已经从 2% 通胀迈入 3% 通胀的新常态，政府开支列车也毫不停歇；然而由威廉·伯恩斯坦（William Bernstein）等投资专家推崇的**通胀保值国债（TIPS）**，当前 20 年或 30 年期的实际收益率（Real Yield）高达 **3%**（即通胀率之上的净收益 3%），市场却对其冷眼旁观。 回顾历史： - 2010 年 TIPS 收益率跌破 2%，2011 年跌破 1%。 - 2021 年 5 年期 TIPS 收益率一度录得 **-1.76%** 的极端负收益率，意味着当时买家是在实质倒贴借钱给政府。 - 如今政府债券提供 3% 的无风险实际回报，按历史标准堪称极佳的买入机会，但大众只看名义收益率，并未表现出兴趣。 在史蒂夫·艾斯曼（Steve Eisman）近期的播客中，来自 Strategas 的杰森·特伦纳特（Jason Trennert）与托德·索恩（Todd Sohn）探讨过“债券收益率究竟要达到多高才能吸引投资者抛售股票”。许多人原以为 4.5% 或 5% 就足够引发资产转移，但实际门槛远高于此。在美股年化 20% 的大牛市氛围下，普通散户对 4%、5% 或 6% 的无风险收益根本不屑一顾。本感叹，唯有在牛市落幕、潮水退去后，人们才会马后炮式地惊呼：“当时有那么高的无风险国债收益率，我们为什么没重仓？” --- ### [25:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rx1SjD11yQ&t=1534s) 摩根·豪泽尔加盟与二手书断舍离 节目最后迎来一则重磅宣布：长期挚友、《金钱心理学》（*The Psychology of Money*）作者**摩根·豪泽尔（Morgan Housel）**正式加盟 The Compound 平台，并同步开启同名播客频道。 两人展开了一段关于图书与表达技巧的轻松闲聊： - **畅销书对比**：迈克尔推测《金钱心理学》很可能已经成为金融/个人理财与行为心理学领域史上销量第一的著作。本提出本杰明·格雷厄姆（Benjamin Graham）自 1940 年代畅销至今的《聪明的投资者》（*The Intelligent Investor*）或许在总销量上仍居榜首，但迈克尔打趣认为摩根的单本销量完全有实力一较高下。 - **写作与演讲的差异**：本称赞摩根是极少数兼具顶尖写作与演讲天赋的“独角兽”（另一位是德里克·汤普森 Derek Thompson）。迈克尔随后调侃两人的表达能力：自评是“C- 级写手 + B 级演说者”，而本则是“A 级写手 + C++ 级演说者”，两人平均下来综合水平刚好落在大学 GPA 3.2~3.3 的“中上等生”区间。 - **清空实体书**：迈克尔透露自己近期狠心处理掉了几乎所有的藏书，甚至在车道旁堆满了等待搬运收走的 U-Haul 纸箱。本表示不解，认为满墙的书架是最好的家庭装饰，迈克尔无奈解释道：“我的房子太小了，家里根本摆不下那么多书架。” ### [27:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rx1SjD11yQ&t=1646s) 实体书籍的舍弃与向电子阅读的转变 对谈在一阵轻松的生活闲聊中开场。Michael 提到自己家里实在腾不出多余空间来存放书籍，虽然他很喜欢看着书架上的书，但它们如今更像是一堆占地方的家具。他坦言自己不可能永远留着它们，最终清理出了足足 11 箱书；除了一些有作者亲笔签名的珍藏本被留下来外，其余的全部打包送走，交由一家收书公司处理。他感叹自己人生中“囤积实体书的阶段”已经彻底结束了。Ben 对此深有共鸣，表示自己现在买书几乎只用 Audible 听有声书或在 Kindle 上读电子书，即便偶尔有人寄纸质书给他，绝大多数阅读也早已完全数字化。 ### [28:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rx1SjD11yQ&t=1687s) 美债收益率狂飙：股市为何如同“抗揍的拳手”？ 随后，话题切回宏观市场。Ben 提醒大家注意牛市面临的一个潜在风险——债券收益率正在持续走高，尤其是长端美债收益率的抬升最为棘手。对此，Michael 提出了略带调侃的反驳，认为在狂热的牛市中，风险“在真正爆发前往往都不被当作风险”，毕竟当下股市给投资者带来的回报过于丰厚，几乎没有人在意债券收益率。然而 Ben 强调，不仅是美国，全球债券收益率都在飙升，这绝对是一个不容忽视的隐患。 Michael 进一步分析指出，从目前的表现来看，美股市场已经完全消化了更高的利率环境。标普与中位数股票均处于历史高位，投资者已经适应了高息状态；除非 30 年期美债收益率突然从 5% 暴拉至 6%，市场才可能剧烈动摇，而如果是缓慢攀升，界限究竟在哪里仍未可知。Ben 打了一个极其形象的比方：现在的股市就像《辛普森一家》（The Simpsons）里的荷马·辛普森打拳击一样，不管对手打过来多少记重拳，他都能全盘硬抗下来，直到对手筋疲力尽，股市偶尔还会还手反击继续冲高。如果四年前有人预测房贷利率会长期保持在 6%、债券收益率达到 5%、30 年期美债收益率创下阶段新高且不断上行，几乎所有人都会断言美股必崩无疑，但现实却是股市对此毫不在意。 ### [29:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rx1SjD11yQ&t=1786s) 半导体狂潮下的相亲市场与投资心态的“末日偏见” 《华尔街日报》（The Wall Street Journal）近期的一篇报道引发了两人的浓厚兴趣：由于拿到了高达六位数的丰厚年终奖金以及诱人的股票期权，三星（Samsung）和 SK海力士（SK Hynix）的芯片工程师瞬间成为了韩国相亲市场上最炙手可热的黄金单身汉。Ben 开玩笑说这完全可以拍成一部真人秀，Michael 则戏称这节目应该叫《SK海力士的娇妻们》（The Real Housewives of SK Hynix）。报道中一位接受采访的女性甚至悔恨地表示，自己曾和一名 SK海力士的员工约会了整整三年，但她“人生最大的遗憾居然是当时没有买他们公司的股票”。 聊到芯片股的狂飙，Michael 敏锐地指出，播客录制了 30 分钟，他们甚至都还没来得及提 AI 内存芯片概念股的强劲反弹——例如 SanDisk 仅在上周就飙涨了 35%。然而无论媒体还是他们自己，本能上总是热衷于追逐坏消息，对好消息反而一笔带过。从一个潜在风险跳到下一个风险是人类难以改变的忧虑天性。两人探讨道，很多人内心深处似乎都存在一种“渴望重启（reset）”的微妙心理，而 2020 年的疫情正是一道巨大的分水岭，将人们的认知彻底切分为“疫情前”与“疫情后”，打乱了大众的心理预期。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 芯片牛市对现实生活与市场情绪的溢出效应 accDescr: 展示芯片公司高额奖金对社会相亲市场的改变，以及投资者面对牛市暴涨却往往聚焦负面情绪的心态分化。 subgraph Industry["半导体产业爆发"] A["AI内存芯片暴涨<br/>(SanDisk单周+35%)"] --> B["巨额奖金与股票期权<br/>(三星/SK海力士员工)"] end subgraph Culture["社会现实溢出"] B --> C["韩国婚恋相亲市场顶流"] C --> D["前女友最大遗憾:<br/>'当年没买SK股票'"] end subgraph Psychology["投资者心理矛盾"] A -.-> E["对亮眼利好视而不见"] E --> F["深陷负面风险偏执与衰退渴望"] end ``` ### [31:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rx1SjD11yQ&t=1918s) 衰退心态与听众来信：市场真的“永远是对的”吗？ 沿着对负面情绪的讨论，Ben 剖析了如果未来真的爆发经济衰退，大众的心理反应可能会极度分化。消费者的悲观情绪固然可能跌入历史冰点，但在社会底层，可能会有 20% 到 30% 的人群甚至对衰退拍手称快——他们会抱着一种“反正我的生活本来就很糟，现在你们这些有钱人也终于遭殃了”的报复性心态。谈话间，Michael 收到了一条短信提醒：摇滚乐队绿洲（Oasis）的经典名曲《Don't Look Back in Anger》将于 9 月 9 日在 IMAX 影院上映，两人随即愉快地回忆起不久前在 Future Proof 活动现场观看演出的超绝氛围。 随后，他们念了一封针对他们此前观点的听众来信。来信者质疑道：“你们常说‘市场永远是对的’，但如果市场永远正确，那就根本不存在买入机会了，所以这个论调是不准确的。请不要把大家吓得只敢去买指数基金。” Michael 对此做出了深入拆解： - **市场价格永远在变**：“市场永远是对的”并不是说当前价格是客观真理，因为明后天的价格还在剧烈变动，尤其在充满不确定性与恐慌时更是如此。 - **认知的核心壁垒**：这句话的真正核心在于——“你极难知道市场何时是错的（it's hard to know when the market's wrong）”。如果一个投资者连这一点都无法认同，那在投资认知上就是极其愚蠢的。 Ben 随即引述了先锋领航集团（Vanguard）名宿伯顿·麦基尔（Burton Malkiel）早年做客 Barry Ritholtz 播客时的经典论断：人们常误以为“市场有效”意味着价格完全正确，但麦基尔指出“价格从来就不是对的，事实上价格永远都是错的；但真正正确的是，没有人能确切知道价格究竟是过高还是过低”。正因为无法明确断定市场错在哪里，战胜市场才变得异常艰难。 ### [34:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rx1SjD11yQ&t=2073s) 散户击溃专业机构：科技股时代的叙事撕裂 Michael 分享了他最近与一位普通朋友乘车出行时的谈话。这位朋友在过去 15 年的投资中赚得盆满钵满，他的心态代表了很大一部分极为成功的普通散户。Michael 指出，现在不仅底层普通人渴望某种经济出清，大批专业基金经理也迫切希望这种由极少数巨头科技股主导一切的时代赶紧终结，因为散户只需 10 年前买入 Google（Alphabet）等五只科技股并死死拿住，就能在长期业绩上将这群天天研究报表的专业人士打得体无完肤。 对于持仓大赚的散户而言，任何关于宏观估值过高或市场环境特殊的善意提醒，在他们耳中听起来都像是专业人士因跑输而产生的嫉妒与说教。Michael 强调，自己绝不是在摆资格指责对方，更不是为了制造恐慌来强迫散户买入指数基金或雇佣理财顾问。他由衷地鼓励每个人用自己舒服的方式去投资，无论最终能否跑赢大盘，最重要的是始终把钱留在市场之中。 ### [36:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rx1SjD11yQ&t=2181s) 散户与专业机构的博弈：过去15年简单思维为何击败了复杂模型 Michael Batnick 与 Ben Carlson 探讨了散户投资者与专业机构之间的动态关系。Michael 强调，自己的投资准则始终是为未来储蓄，至于能否跑赢市场、交易是否更聪明其实并不重要。但在何种市场环境下，普通散户（即所谓的“无知投资者”）会输给专业机构？答案显然是熊市——在逢低买入策略失效的环境中，懂风险控制的投资者即便面临大盘下跌 30%，自己也仅亏损 30%，而盲目加杠杆的散户（例如持有三倍做多纳斯达克 ETF 的人）可能会被重创 80%。 Ben 补充指出，如果市场风格发生巨变，价值股、红利股或国际股票长期走强，而科技股持续受挫，那才是“巴菲特信徒们”梦寐以求并能击败散户的时刻。随后他们提到了社交平台上的讨论：散户想要跑赢大盘确实不易，但对于不替别人打理资金的普通人来说，能否战胜指数根本没那么重要。过去 15 年市场呈现出极度讽刺的现象——机构投资者纷纷败下阵来，想要跑赢市场，你根本不需要高精尖的卫星图像数据、复杂的量化算法或精致的 Excel 财务模型，只需要买入人尽皆知的大科技巨头即可。Ben 直言，这正是长久以来“第一层思维”（First-level thinking）主导并获胜的市场。 - **散户在极端市场中的脆弱点**：当逢低买入失效、高杠杆工具崩盘时，普通追涨者可能面临高达 70% 至 80% 的毁灭性亏损。 - **“第一层思维”的胜利**：过去 15 年的牛市让复杂的专业机构策略相形见绌，买入知名科技大盘股反而成了最有效的阿尔法收益来源。 --- ### [38:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rx1SjD11yQ&t=2292s) 人工智能的宏大辩论：能力跃升、巨额投入与 AGI 看涨期权 关于 AI 的多空争论，正如前几年市场争论经济究竟会“硬着陆”还是“软着陆”一样胶着。Ben 引用了分析人士的观察：过去三年里，技术专家对 AI 能力飞速提升的预测基本成真，如今大语言模型的实际能力远超 ChatGPT 刚问世时大部分人的想象；但经济学家关于其对实体经济拉动有限的论断同样得到了验证。这种两面性导致 AI 处于一种既让人惊叹又难见颠覆性经济回报的微妙中间地带。 随后，两人深入探讨了风投家 Paul Kedrosky 在播客中提出的空头论据。Ben 和 Michael 一致认为，Kedrosky 提出了目前市场上最扎实、最有说服力的 AI 看空观点。他既非无脑看空，也不是盲目恐慌的末日论者，而是指出了一个不可回避的核心矛盾：当前 AI 领域的资本支出（Capex）不仅占 GDP 的比例达到历史之最，且投入速度更是史无前例。如果终端投资回报率（ROI）无法及时兑现，这种天量投资便无法维持。按照 Kedrosky 的逻辑，除非这项投资最终演变成面向通用人工智能（AGI）的“神级”看涨期权，否则这必然是一个巨大的泡沫。面对如此激进的下注，Michael 感叹连自己都很难判断科技巨头的投资能否回本，只能将其归入巴菲特所说的“太难理解之列”（Too hard pile）。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: AI投资回报争议逻辑图 accDescr: 展示巨额资本支出与潜在产出之间的分歧走向 subgraph Inputs ["资本开支端 (Capex)"] A["历史最高速度与规模的投资"] B["表外租赁与借贷扩张"] end subgraph Tension ["现实瓶颈与争议"] C{"投资回报率 (ROI) 是否兑现？"} end subgraph Divergence ["可能结果"] D["乐观情景：兑现 AGI<br/>成为万能神级看涨期权"] E["悲观情景：资本开支泡沫破裂<br/>科技巨头承压"] end A --> C B --> C C -- "是" --> D C -- "否" --> E ``` - **Paul Kedrosky 的核心空头论点**：人类历史上从未出现过规模如此庞大、推进如此迅猛的资本开支，在缺乏相应商业回报支撑的情况下，巨额支出很难长期维系。 - **投资者的两难境地**：即便顶级空头在逻辑上极度严密，现实中也很难直接做空这类拥有巨大势能的科技巨头，多数人最终只能在多空之间摇摆对冲。 --- ### [40:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rx1SjD11yQ&t=2445s) 隐性债务隐忧与 Anthropic 的天量营收跑道 讨论进一步转向了科技巨头的资产负债表与实际现金流压力。《华尔街日报》近期的报道揭示了一个潜在风险：科技巨头当前 3 万亿美元级别的开支远比表面数字更加惊人。以 Google、Meta、微软、甲骨文、亚马逊和英伟达为代表的超大规模计算提供商（Hyperscalers），账面上积累了庞大且尚未生效的表外数据中心租赁合约。科技巨头的自由现金流已被大幅消耗，甚至不得不进入债务融资和增发股票的新阶段。 然而，AI 的爆发并非空中楼阁，商业化变现也在以惊人的速度上演。Anthropic 的年化营收运行率（ARR）已被报道达到约 65 亿美元。如果将其年化营收与众多标普成分股过去 12 个月的总收入对比，这家里程碑式的人工智能独角兽已超越了辉瑞制药、思科、康菲石油以及英特尔，甚至领先 Uber 100 亿美元、领先可口可乐 150 亿美元、领先奈飞 170 亿至 180 亿美元，正逼近甲骨文和达美航空。Michael 借此调侃道，这更反衬出航空业作为商业模式有多么薄弱——达美航空辛辛苦苦赚来的庞大营收规模，竟然快被一家成立仅几年的 AI 初创公司赶超。 | 公司名称 | 相对营收表现对比（估算） | 讨论要点 | |:--- |:--- |:--- | | **Anthropic** | 年化营收运行率（ARR）约 65 亿美元 | 成立数年的初创公司，变现规模与增速极度惊人 | | **Netflix** | 落后 Anthropic 约 170~180 亿美元区间对比 | 流媒体巨头的年度体量已被 AI 新星急速迫近 | | **Coca-Cola** | 落后 Anthropic 约 150 亿美元区间对比 | 传统消费品现金流巨头的规模参照物 | | **Uber** | 落后 Anthropic 约 100 亿美元对比 | 平台型科技公司的营收规模被迅速赶超 | | **Delta Air Lines** | 勉强领先 Anthropic | 传统重资产航司利润微薄，凸显不同行业的商业模式差异 | --- ### [43:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rx1SjD11yQ&t=2600s) 赌博产品金融化：将 NHL 球队装进 ETF 的闹剧 节目的最后部分转向了金融产品泛滥与博彩化的危险趋势。紧随上周与 CFRA 分析师 Todd Sohn 关于预测市场 ETF 化的讨论，Jeffrey Ptak 透露市场中出现了一项极其奇葩的申请案：某机构正式提交注册申请，计划发行 32 只分别挂钩北美职业冰球联盟（NHL）各支球队的独立 ETF。这些 ETF 将通过芝加哥商业交易所（CME）的期货合约来追踪球队指数。 对此，Michael 与 Ben 表达了强烈的反感与鄙夷。他们认为，将纯粹的体育博彩与投资经纪账户混在一起极其危险。Ben 呼吁金融系统必须坚持“政教分离”原则： > “把你的赌博留在 FanDuel 或 DraftKings 账户里……它必须与 Charles Schwab 和 Robinhood 账户彻底分开。” Michael 尖锐指出，一旦界限被打破，缺乏摩擦成本的投资者很容易在冲动之下清空自己的退休金和证券账户，把养老钱源源不断地倒进体育博彩输钱的无底洞中。他们希望这些荒谬的金融投机产品在市场上直接碰壁、无人问津，但又无奈地承认，面对华尔街无休止的“向墙上扔烂泥”式产品创新与监管部门的缺位，这种将所有事物都金融化、博彩化的恶劣风潮短期内根本看不到停歇的迹象。 ### [45:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rx1SjD11yQ&t=2730s) 西部片与金融的狂野边界 Michael 与 Ben 由金融投资的“狂野西部”现象展开话题，探讨了监管界限与投资者风险承担的问题。Ben 分享了他上周长途自驾时的经历，表示长途开车是听有声书的最佳方式，能够一口气听完一整本。他听了布莱恩·伯勒（Bryan Burrough）撰写的《枪手们》（*The Gunfighters*），书中详细讲述了怀亚特·厄普（Wyatt Earp）、比利小子（Billy the Kid）以及狂野比尔·希科克（Wild Bill Hickok）等西部传奇人物的真实历史。 书中第一章解释了为什么西部题材在 20 世纪 50 年代通过影视剧大规模爆发，并且在美国人中历久弥新：核心在于“自由”的象征——人们在荒野中独立面对一切，没有法律、没有规则、也没有政府监管，没人会伸手来帮你。Ben 顺势打趣称，这与如今那些五花八门、狂野发展的 ETF 如出一辙，投资者若想“去摸滚烫的炉子”，就得承担被烫伤的后果。 --- ### [47:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rx1SjD11yQ&t=2826s) 租房主义 vs 购房执念 针对当下年轻群体对高企房价的愤怒情绪，两人探讨了彭博社（Bloomberg）一篇关于租房生活的文章。该作者多年来一直选择租房，曾先后在布鲁克林和迈阿密租住。他提出租房带来的最大好处是极大的灵活性以及固定的居住开销上限。租金几乎是每月的最高居住成本（除了租客保险和微小维修），而房贷月供仅仅是养房成本的最低下限，房屋维护、税费和各项突发支出才是无底洞。 这位作者选择将所有本该用于买房首付和房屋维护的资金，全额投入低成本、宽基指数基金中。Michael 与 Ben 认为，虽然老一辈或者许多渴望买房的年轻人难以接受这种方式，但这种“租房并将结余资金全部投入股市”的心态，将在新一代年轻人中变得空前普遍。不过 Ben 也指出这伴随着心理考验：如果本该用于买房的首付投进股市，结果市场大跌 20% 且三年不回本，投资者很可能会感到崩溃。此外，两人顺带提及了市场普遍存在的“负面偏见”：很多人此前都在唱衰 SpaceX 的股权解禁，猜测其估值会不会跌破 100，却没有人谈论它在解禁期间直接从 100 强劲反弹到 150。“交易员 Ben”也得意地表示自己借此迅速斩获了 20% 的收益。 --- ### [48:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rx1SjD11yQ&t=2938s) 401(k) 之父的新储蓄计划与退休金的成功 彭博社发表了一篇关于被誉为“401(k) 之父”的特德·本纳（Ted Benna）的专题报道。文章配图中，Benna 正抱着爱猫 Leo 坐在他位于宾夕法尼亚州“泽西海岸”（Jersey Shore, PA）的农场里。两人调侃这个地名十分奇特。Benna 在采访中表示，401(k) 最初是利用了一个税法漏洞，但税收漏洞往往更偏向富人阶层，因此他认为该制度不成比例地让富人获益，并正致力于提出更加公平的新储蓄方案。 然而，Ben 和 Michael 坚决认为 401(k) 是一次极其耀眼的制度成功。在 1970 年代末 401(k) 刚诞生时，美国私营部门仅有 38% 的工人享有承诺终身收入的传统养老金（pension），根本不存在所谓的“人人都有养老金”的黄金时代。随着工会和传统养老金的不可逆衰落，若没有 401(k) 填补真空，普通家庭的退休保障将沦落为只剩额度极小的 IRA。 - 如今美国居民股票市场参与率达到 65%，若没有 401(k) 的普及绝不可能实现。 - 全美 401(k) 计划中沉淀的资金总量已突破 10 万亿美元。 - 仅在富达投资（Fidelity），余额超过 100 万美元的 401(k) 账户就超过 60 万个。 - Ben 提出自己的愿景：目前全美仍有约 40% 的雇员（主要在小微企业）无法享受 401(k)，政府应建立类似于联邦节俭储蓄计划（TSP）的通用养老金体系，向所有有工薪收入的公民开放。 --- ### [51:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rx1SjD11yQ&t=3097s) 航空普及、社会抱怨与脱口秀鄙视链 彭博社的数据显示，如今乘坐飞机出行的美国人比例达到了历史峰值。回溯至 1970 年代，过去 12 个月内坐过飞机的美国人仅占约 25%，如今已接近 50%；而一生中坐过飞机的比例也从当年的 50% 跃升至近 80% 到 90%。Michael 提到自己 6 岁的孩子坐过的航班次数，甚至超过了他自己 25 岁之前坐过的总和。不仅出行频率翻倍，经通胀调整后，自 1990 年代初以来，美国国内航班的机票成本实际腰斩了一半。 两人感叹，大众在社交媒体上对飞机延误或机上 Wi-Fi 的种种抱怨，恰恰是技术进步与生活优渥的最好证明——引用乔纳森·海特（Jonathan Haidt）和路易·C·K（Louis C.K.）的经典名言，正是因为生活条件空前优越，“一切都很棒，但人人都在抱怨”。最后，Michael 谈到了喜剧演员塞巴斯蒂安·马尼斯卡尔科（Sebastian Maniscalco）在琼斯海滩的巡演，调侃其受众特别热衷于模仿他的舞台动作。Michael 犀利评价：“塞巴斯蒂安是那种专门给其实并不怎么喜欢喜剧的人准备的脱口秀演员，就像那些觉得橄榄园（Olive Garden）就是正宗绝顶意大利菜的人一样。”Ben 闻言大笑并试图为自己辩解，称自己很早就关注了他，更喜欢他“早期的作品”。 ### [54:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rx1SjD11yQ&t=3285s) 喜剧演员的保鲜期：为什么成名后很难继续好笑 Michael Batnick 与 Ben Carlson 从家庭生活聊到了喜剧艺术的残酷本质。Ben 提起自己在 2007 年凯文·哈特（Kevin Hart）尚未大红大紫时，曾和妻子一起看过他的脱口秀现场，那是他这辈子看过最搞笑的演出之一；然而如今他觉得哈特“一点都不好笑了”。在 Ben 看来，“成功会改变一个人，成功会让你变得没那么好笑”。Michael 对喜剧演员这一职业深表同情，认为让人发笑是世界上最困难的事情之一。 Ben 进一步分析指出，喜剧演员的巅峰期其实非常有限。例如威尔·法瑞尔（Will Ferrell）在 Netflix 上线的最新节目反响平平、迅速淡出视线，大家都在质疑“威尔·法瑞尔怎么不好笑了”。但要知道，他曾有长达 12 年的时间稳坐全美最搞笑喜剧人之列，没有人能永远维持那种高强度的幽默创作。不过两人也承认仍有少数例外，比如路易·C·K（Louis C.K.），他在无线电城音乐厅（Radio City Music Hall）的专场依然惊艳，凭借扎实的段子写作功底屹立不倒。 --- ### [55:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rx1SjD11yQ&t=3351s) 陷入困境的超级富豪与体育俱乐部炒作风气 话题转向近期频频“爆雷”的亿万富豪们。此前他们讨论过 Guggenheim 掌门人、道奇队（Dodgers）及湖人队（Lakers）前少数股东卷入私募信贷（Private Credit）和保险业务纠纷的风波。Michael 质疑 NBA 最初为何会通过这类买家的资质审查，Ben 则直言 NBA 根本不可能具备查清此类私募股权暗账的尽职调查能力——在私募股权和私募信贷领域，隐瞒账目漏洞实在太容易了。 针对该富豪买下湖人队股份仅一年便被迫转手套现，Ben 提出了一个针对职业体育联盟的激进构想： - **设立至少 5 年的强制持有期**：Ben 呼吁联盟禁止将 NBA 球队当成短期金融资产来炒作。“如果有人每两年靠转手 NBA 球队套现 10 亿美元，粉丝体验会变成什么样？如果这完全沦为纯粹的金融资产而忽视球迷感受，我可不想生活在这样的联盟里。” - **短期暴利的诱惑**：Michael 补充指出，当其他资本看到有人能在 18 个月内狂赚 25 亿美元时，必定会引来各路热钱跟风炒作；而即便迪士尼（Disney）股价十年原地踏步，其 CEO 鲍勃·艾格（Bob Iger）依然有充裕资金参与竞购湖人队份额。 随后两人聊到了菲尼克斯太阳队（Phoenix Suns）老板马特·伊什比亚（Matt Ishbia）。他在密歇根州创办了全美最大的房贷发放机构之一（UWM），近期却因押注降息失败、利率对冲失误而不得不寻求橡树资本（Oaktree）的注资救助，其公司股价已暴跌 85%。加上房贷市场几乎陷入停滞，伊什比亚在商业和球队运营上均面临重压。Michael 调侃道，看看太阳队换来布拉德利·比尔（Bradley Beal）和凯文·杜兰特（KD）的糟糕运作，他能在房贷公司做出烂交易也就不令人意外了。这生动说明了一个事实：超级富豪阶层的流动性远超公众想象，哪怕是前 1% 甚至 0.1% 的精英，其财富与地位也绝非高枕无忧。 --- ### [59:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rx1SjD11yQ&t=3555s) 印第安纳赌场的二十一点逆转记与“回本”的心理错觉 Ben 分享了自己上周前往印第安纳州南部（拉里·伯德的故乡弗伦奇利克 French Lick）参加 FPA Crossroads 金融会议的趣事。晚上 10 点他发现度假村内附设赌场，原本打算在房间看 Netflix 休息的他，最终在 Michael 的怂恿下独自下场小试身手。 由此两人延伸出了投资心理学中极具讽刺意味的“心理感受悖论”： ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 投资浮动与心理幸福感对比 accDescr: 对比股价大涨后回撤与先跌后回本带来的截然相反的心态 subgraph CaseA ["情境 A：先盈后亏（实际盈利 +100）"] A1["买入价：$300"] --> A2["暴涨至：$500"] A2 --> A3["回撤至：$400"] A3 --> A4["心理状态：痛苦沮丧"] end subgraph CaseB ["情境 B：先亏后平（实际盈利 $0）"] B1["买入价：$300"] --> B2["暴跌至：$200"] B2 --> B3["反弹回：$300"] B3 --> B4["心理状态：欣喜若狂（宛如股神）"] end ``` Michael 笑着说自己对 Netflix 股票就是这种感觉：目前只跌了 15%，却觉得自己是“世界上最聪明的投资人”。 Ben 的二十一点（Blackjack）实战完美复刻了这种心理过程： - **首轮溃败**：他在 15 美元的低注桌坐下（拉斯维加斯如今普遍起注 25 美元），严格按照数学最优策略出牌，结果惨遭“寡妇制造者”庄家无情通杀，10 分钟内筹码输个精光，而邻座乱打的人却频出 Blackjack。 - **逆风翻盘**：不甘心的 Ben 忍痛支付了 12 美元的高额 ATM 手续费再次取款，换了一张赌桌后手气大顺，最终不仅赢回了全部本金，还实现“完美保本”。 - **兴奋感巅峰**：虽然最终一分没赚，但这种绝处逢生的过程让他仿佛踩着入场 BGM、穿过舞台干冰走出来一般亢奋，甚至和旁边素不相识的老大爷激动击掌。 --- ### [01:01:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rx1SjD11yQ&t=3702s) 串关赌注（Parlays）泛滥与体育博彩的误区 在赌桌上，Ben 发现了一个令他惊讶的现象：几乎每位赌客都在二十一点主注上方的小圆圈里押 5 美元的“三张牌扑克”边注（Side Bet）。如果闲家手牌与庄家明牌凑成顺子、同花或三条，赔率可达 9:1 或 10:1，若是特定同花色大牌甚至能拿到上百倍赔率。Ben 看着庄家持续收割这笔毫无胜算的“智商税”，感叹如今高赔率连串投注（Parlay）的博彩机制无孔不入。 Michael 坦言随着 NFL 新赛季临近，自己也在极力克制下注 Parlay 的冲动，但这种高赔率实在太诱人。他分享了自己近两个赛季屡战屡败却依然抱有希望的“低风险串关策略”： - **买低点位（Buy Points）构造高概率事件**：不追求 1 赔 4.5（+450）的高赔率，而是将多个极大概率事件拼凑成 1:1（Even Money）的平赔盘。 - **具体下注示例**：例如将杰伦·赫茨（Jalen Hurts）冲球超过 25 码、传球超过 125 码，以及老鹰对阵牛仔总得分超过 31 分串在一起。 Ben 总结道，博彩者追求的本质上是博取暴利的刺激感，因此市面上那些主打“高胜率、稳健策略”的体育博彩类 ETF 注定很难吸引散户，因为它们彻底剥离了让赌徒多巴胺狂飙的核心吸引力。 ### [01:03:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rx1SjD11yQ&t=3814s) 赌博的心理快感与高频做市商 Michael Batnick 与 Ben Carlson 就博彩的本质展开讨论。两人一致认为，赌博的核心乐趣全在于那种跌宕起伏的极端情绪体验——正如他们所形容的，那是伴随着大喜与大悲的“狂喜与剧痛”（ecstasy and agony）。如果在 ETF 这种包装产品里搞所谓量化下注，只为了去吃热门盘口每年稳拿 8% 的收益，那就完全失去了赌博本该有的乐趣。Michael 甚至打趣自嘲道，自己其实挺享受输钱的过程，因为输赢难料才刺激，而四平八稳地赚个 8%“超级无趣”。 不过，这种理性的套利游戏普通散户不愿碰，顶尖的量化做市机构却在悄然进场。Ben 指出，像 Jane Street 这样的华尔街自营交易巨头正在、也确实会去做这种生意，利用算法和概率优势吃掉每一个微小的高胜率收益。 --- ### [01:04:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rx1SjD11yQ&t=3846s) 经典动作片回味：让-克洛德·范·达姆与《血点》 进入节目的影视推荐环节，Michael 聊起了自己重温 1988 年经典动作电影《血点》（*Bloodsport*）的感受。他回忆道，这部电影几乎是他人生中重看次数第二多的电影，仅次于《肖申克的救赎》（*The Shawshank Redemption*）。在 1992 年到 1997 年期间，USA 电视网每周都会轮番播放这部片子，他当年几乎周周都在看。 然而，在时隔至少 25 年后再次观看，Michael 震惊地发现，让-克洛德·范·达姆（Jean-Claude Van Damme）在片中贡献了“有史以来最烂的表演”，每一个镜头都糟糕透顶且宛如一条过。但神奇的是，这丝毫没有削弱影片的观赏魅力——伴随着那句经典的格斗呼号“Kumite! Kumite!”和主角眼睛撒入石灰盲打的桥段，整部电影依然“劲爆十足”（slaps hard）。Ben 也随之共鸣，盘点了范·达姆当年的《雄心》（*Lionheart*）、《突然死亡》（*Sudden Death*）、《双重冲击》（*Double Impact*）和《时空特警》（*Timecop*）等代表作。两人感叹，范·达姆是典型只能诞生并走红于 20 世纪 90 年代的动作明星，要是放到今天，这种缺乏演技的风格除非以戏仿或讽刺形式出现，否则根本无法立足。 - Michael 提到 1992 年他父亲曾带他去电影院看范·达姆与道夫·龙格尔（Dolph Lundgren）主演的《再造战士》（*Universal Soldier*），至今仍对开场龙格尔用耳朵做项链的画面记忆犹新。 - Michael 本想带孩子们去看恐龙题材电影《橡树街的尽头》（*The End of Oak Street*），但妻子 Robin 查阅内容分级后发现不适合儿童，当场坚决否决。 --- ### [01:06:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rx1SjD11yQ&t=3983s) 新片速评：《橡树街的尽头》与《请帖》 Michael 随后分享了自己独自观看《橡树街的尽头》（*The End of Oak Street*）的观影体验。影片由伊万·麦克格雷格（Ewan McGregor）与安妮·海瑟薇（Anne Hathaway）主演，讲述了 1982 年的一家四口被一道闪电意外传送回侏罗纪时代、陷入恐龙包围的冒险故事。Michael 称赞其设定虽然极其荒诞、宛如 90 年代直供 USA 电视网的 B 级片脑洞，但拍出来的效果相当精彩扎实，属于一部非常过瘾的老派科幻娱乐片。 接着，Ben 分享了在 Michael 和多位听众力荐下观看的喜剧新片《请帖》（*The Invite*）。该片讲述了两对夫妻在一个夜晚发生的故事。Ben 极力称赞全片四位主演的化学反应：爱德华·诺顿（Edward Norton）很好地扮演了严肃冷幽默的“正常人”（straight man）；佩内洛普·克鲁兹（Penélope Cruz）魅力依旧；而塞斯·罗根（Seth Rogen）与奥利维亚·王尔德（Olivia Wilde）饰演的夫妻互掐更是生动刻画了现实中已婚伴侣的吵架常态。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 《请帖》四人卡司角色动态结构 accDescr: 展现塞斯·罗根与奥利维亚·王尔德的争吵，以及爱德华·诺顿与佩内洛普·克鲁兹的角色配合 subgraph RogenCouple["互掐夫妻组合"] A["塞斯·罗根<br/>(Seth Rogen)"] <-->|"真实还原已婚夫妻争吵"| B["奥利维亚·王尔德<br/>(Olivia Wilde)"] end subgraph NortonCouple["对照夫妻组合"] C["爱德华·诺顿<br/>(Edward Norton)<br/>冷面正经人"] --- D["佩内洛普·克鲁兹<br/>(Penélope Cruz)<br/>冻龄风采依旧"] end RogenCouple <==>|"单一夜晚的冲突与爆笑互动"| NortonCouple ``` 讨论延伸到了好莱坞女星的“不老神话”。他们惊叹于佩内洛普·克鲁兹、萨尔玛·海耶克（Salma Hayek）、詹妮弗·安妮斯顿（Jennifer Aniston）和詹妮弗·洛佩兹（Jennifer Lopez）等人，三十多年过去容貌几乎没有岁月痕迹，尽管背后离不开饮食自律、健身以及现代医美的加持。此外，关于塞斯·罗根多年来无论演什么都像是在演他自己的现象，两人一致认为他在《请帖》中的表现极具突破性，贡献了十几次让人捧腹大笑的爆笑场面，甚至完全配得上一座表演奖项。 - 两人感叹 2026 年是近年难得一见的电影大年，涌现出了《奥德赛》（*The Odyssey*）、《执念》（*Obsession*）、《请帖》（*The Invite*）等高水准佳作，整体质量明显压过平淡且口碑虚高的 2025 年。 --- ### [01:09:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rx1SjD11yQ&t=4171s) 市场走势笑谈与节目收尾 在节目行将结束之际，两位主持人聊回了股市现状。在持续的牛市狂欢中，Michael 打趣称市场现在或许真需要来一次回调来“提提神”，因为他们总在苦苦寻找负面风险点，但现实似乎是股市势头难以阻挡。甚至连 Ben 都不得不感慨，按目前的架势看，标普 500 指数似乎又要迎来一个涨幅达 20% 的大年。Michael 随即开玩笑补刀称，如果下周二或周三市场突然暴跌 7%，那罪魁祸首肯定就是 Ben 的这张乌鸦嘴。 最后，主持人向制作团队的 John、Duncan、Daniel 表达了感谢，并宣传了摩根·豪泽尔（Morgan Housel）的新播客《金钱心理学》（*Psychology of Money*），在一贯轻松幽默的氛围中与听众道别。 ## Notable quotes > [05:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rx1SjD11yQ&t=307s) 醒醒吧，咬牙挺过去（Suck it up）！没有人能在一夜之间暴富，也没人一出校门就能获得梦想中的神仙工作。 — Ben Carlson > [07:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rx1SjD11yQ&t=420s) 穿西装的维尼熊是金融虚无主义，而脱去西装的本质就是烂赌鬼（degenerate gambler）。 — Ben Carlson > [12:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rx1SjD11yQ&t=733s) 你可以花 10 分钟为糟糕的宏观经济痛哭抱怨，但发泄完之后，你必须聚焦于自身能掌控的事情。 — Ramit Sethi > [12:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rx1SjD11yQ&t=733s) 这不是你的错。 — Ben Carlson > [25:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rx1SjD11yQ&t=1534s) 我的房子太小了，家里根本摆不下那么多书架。 — Michael Batnick > [31:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rx1SjD11yQ&t=1918s) 价格从来就不是对的，事实上价格永远都是错的；但真正正确的是，没有人能确切知道价格究竟是过高还是过低。 — Burton Malkiel > [43:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rx1SjD11yQ&t=2600s) 把你的赌博留在 FanDuel 或 DraftKings 账户里……它必须与 Charles Schwab 和 Robinhood 账户彻底分开。 — Ben Carlson > [51:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rx1SjD11yQ&t=3097s) 塞巴斯蒂安是那种专门给其实并不怎么喜欢喜剧的人准备的脱口秀演员，就像那些觉得橄榄园（Olive Garden）就是正宗绝顶意大利菜的人一样。 — Michael Batnick > [54:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rx1SjD11yQ&t=3285s) 成功会改变一个人，成功会让你变得没那么好笑。 — Ben Carlson > [55:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rx1SjD11yQ&t=3351s) 如果有人每两年靠转手 NBA 球队套现 10 亿美元，粉丝体验会变成什么样？如果这完全沦为纯粹的金融资产而忽视球迷感受，我可不想生活在这样的联盟里。 — Ben Carlson ## Mentioned Michael Batnick, Ben Carlson, Morgan Housel, Ted Benna, Paul Kedrosky, Dan Egan, Steve Eisman, Jason Trennert, Todd Sohn, Jeffrey Ptak, Burton Malkiel, Ramit Sethi, Matt Ishbia, Bob Iger, Sebastian Maniscalco, Kevin Hart, Will Ferrell, Louis C.K., Jean-Claude Van Damme, Seth Rogen, Olivia Wilde, Edward Norton, Penélope Cruz, Anne Hathaway, Ewan McGregor, YCharts, The Compound, Betterment, Fidelity, Robinhood, Charles Schwab, FanDuel, DraftKings, Jane Street, OpenAI, Anthropic, Samsung, SK Hynix, Netflix, Google, Meta, Microsoft, Oracle, Amazon, Nvidia, Uber, Coca-Cola, Delta Air Lines, Pfizer, Cisco, ConocoPhillips, Intel, SpaceX, Oaktree, Guggenheim, UWM, Carolina Hurricanes, Phoenix Suns, Los Angeles Lakers, Los Angeles Dodgers, 金钱心理学, 聪明的投资者, 上班一条虫, 婚礼傲客, 心灵捕手, 枪手们, 血点, 请帖, 橡树街的尽头 ## Video description On episode 478 of Animal Spirits, Michael Batnick and Ben Carlson discuss: one of the greatest bull markets of all time, falling valuations, why young people gamble, financial nihilism, the next recession, $3 trillion in money markets, when bond yields compete with stocks, debating AI outcomes, NHL ETFs, renting vs. buying, rich sports owners in trouble, breaking even at the blackjack table and more. This episode is sponsored by YCharts. To start a free trial and get 20% off your initial YCharts Professional subscription (new customers only) visit https://go.ycharts.com/animal-spirits ► 00:00 - YCharts Ad ► 01:04 - Stock Market ► 30:57 - The Economy ► 38:12 - AI ► 43:17 - Gambling ► 47:02 - Real Estate ► 48:58 - Retirement ► 51:37 - Travel ► 55:47 - Random ► 59:11 - Storytime ► 1:04:01 - Recommendations 👕 Check out The Compound shop: https://idontshop.com 🎙️Listen to our podcasts: TCAF: https://podcasts.thecompoundnews.com/show/TCAF/ Animal Spirits: https://podcasts.thecompoundnews.com/show/animalspirits/ Ask The Compound: https://podcasts.thecompoundnews.com/show/ATC/ The Compound Newsletter: https://www.thecompoundnews.com/subscribe Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-compound-media/ Instagram: https://instagram.com/thecompoundnews Twitter: https://twitter.com/thecompoundnews Tik Tok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thecompoundnews Investing involves the risk of loss. This podcast is for informational purposes only and should not be or regarded as personalized investment advice or relied upon for investment decisions. Michael Batnick and Ben Carlson are employees of Ritholtz Wealth Management and may maintain positions in the securities discussed in this video. All opinions expressed by them are solely their own opinion and do not reflect the opinion of Ritholtz Wealth Management. See our disclosures here: https://ritholtzwealth.com/podcast-youtube-disclosures/ The Compound Media, Incorporated, an affiliate of Ritholtz Wealth Management, receives payment from various entities for advertisements in affiliated podcasts, blogs and emails. Inclusion of such advertisements does not constitute or imply endorsement, sponsorship or recommendation thereof, or any affiliation therewith, by the Content Creator or by Ritholtz Wealth Management or any of its employees. For additional advertisement disclaimers see here https://ritholtzwealth.com/advertising-disclaimers. #thecompound #investing #stockmarket [Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rx1SjD11yQ)

[5:07] Ben Carlson: 醒醒吧，咬牙挺过去（Suck it up）！没有人能在一夜之间暴富，也没人一出校门就能获得梦想中的神仙工作。 [7:00] Ben Carlson: 穿西装的维尼熊是金融虚无主义，而脱去西装的本质就是烂赌鬼（degenerate gambler）。 [12:13] Ramit Sethi: 你可以花 10 分钟为糟糕的宏观经济痛哭抱怨，但发泄完之后，你必须聚焦于自身能掌控的事情。 [12:13] Ben Carlson: 这不是你的错。 [25:34] Michael Batnick: 我的房子太小了，家里根本摆不下那么多书架。 [31:58] Burton Malkiel: 价格从来就不是对的，事实上价格永远都是错的；但真正正确的是，没有人能确切知道价格究竟是过高还是过低。 [43:20] Ben Carlson: 把你的赌博留在 FanDuel 或 DraftKings 账户里……它必须与 Charles Schwab 和 Robinhood 账户彻底分开。 [51:37] Michael Batnick: 塞巴斯蒂安是那种专门给其实并不怎么喜欢喜剧的人准备的脱口秀演员，就像那些觉得橄榄园（Olive Garden）就是正宗绝顶意大利菜的人一样。 [54:45] Ben Carlson: 成功会改变一个人，成功会让你变得没那么好笑。 [55:51] Ben Carlson: 如果有人每两年靠转手 NBA 球队套现 10 亿美元，粉丝体验会变成什么样？如果这完全沦为纯粹的金融资产而忽视球迷感受，我可不想生活在这样的联盟里。

[1:04] Michael Batnick: rushing nesting egg doll of arguments [33:28] Burton Malkiel: Prices are always wrong. What's right is that nobody knows for sure whether they're too high or too low. [29:46] Ben Carlson: The Real Housewives of SK Hynix [51:40] Michael Batnick: Everything is amazing and nobody is happy. [53:30] Michael Batnick: the comedian for people who don't really like comedy [64:06] Michael Batnick: single worst acting performance of all time [64:06] Michael Batnick: it still slaps hard

[0:04] Today's animal spirits is brought to you [0:06] by Y Charts. If you're a financial [0:08] adviser, you already know the hardest [0:09] part of the job isn't building the [0:11] portfolio. It's communicating those [0:13] investment decisions to new clients in a [0:15] way that they understand. Y Charts helps [0:17] advisers turn investment decisions and [0:19] complex portfolio questions into client [0:22] ready insights. On average, advisers [0:24] using Y Charts save around 20 hours a [0:26] month across proposals, research, and [0:28] client prep. And now with built-in AI [0:30] tools, advisers can quickly surface key [0:33] takeaways, understand what changed and [0:35] why, and spend less time digging through [0:37] data. Whether you're comparing [0:39] portfolios, stress testing strategies, [0:42] or answering tough client questions in [0:44] real time, Y Charts helps cut through [0:46] the noise and clearly translate [0:48] financial data to your book of business. [0:50] Learn more at ycharts.com or click the [0:52] link in the show notes to start a free [0:53] trial and get 20% off your initial Y [0:56] Charts professional subscription. New [0:58] customers only. [1:04] >> Welcome to Animal Spirits [music] with [1:05] Michael and Ben. Michael, I'm ready to [1:06] call it. This is officially one of the [1:09] greatest bull markets of all time. [1:10] [music] [1:11] We're there. We're We're entering 1980s, [1:15] 1990s territory. Allow me to make my [1:17] case in front of the jury here. Okay. [1:20] [music] 2010's S&P 500 was up 13.4% per [1:24] year annual basis. Not bad. handful of [1:26] like minor bare markets, right? We had a [1:29] few like 19% in change ones. 2020s 15.7% [1:33] per year. [1:35] I think the 80s was like 17 and the '90s [1:37] was 18, something like that, maybe [1:38] flip-flops. So, a little higher from the [1:41] lows in 2009, the S&P 500 is up almost [1:44] 1500% or sorry, this is the Vanguard [1:46] total stock market index. Do you see now [1:48] that they have the Vanguard Morning Star [1:50] total stock market index? [1:52] That's a new thing. [1:53] >> Oh, that is interesting. Okay. Yeah, [1:55] Morning Star branded it. VTI is up [1:57] almost 1500% in total. 17% annualized [2:00] return since the bottom in 2009, which [2:03] is when I think the bull market started. [2:05] Some people disagree with me. I don't [2:06] care. That's when it started. Uh this [2:10] year, and I think the the bull market, [2:12] this has been a caveed bull market the [2:13] entire way. It's only the S&P. Nowhere [2:16] else is nothing else is keeping up. Uh [2:19] it's just concentration. It's all mag 7 [2:21] blah blah blah. Well, the last 24 months [2:23] or so, the bull market has entered a [2:25] totally new territory. So, we in the [2:27] last week have hit new all-time highs in [2:28] the S&P, the equal weight, Europe, uh, [2:32] midcaps, small caps, emerging markets [2:34] are basically there. Valuations are [2:37] falling, profit margins are rising. This [2:40] is the craziest one to me. Tech stocks [2:43] are up 65% since January 2025. And I [2:46] pulled this duality research chart. In [2:48] that time the forward PE again that's [2:50] this sector is up 65%. In that time the [2:53] forward PE has gone from 29 to 22 while [2:57] the stocks have risen almost 70%. [3:01] This is like we're a we're a stones [3:04] throw away from this being one of the [3:05] great bull markets ever. [3:07] Thoughts? Am I right? Am I wrong? [3:10] >> So many thoughts. Ben, that was that was [3:12] a rushing nesting egg doll of arguments. [3:15] A lot to unpack there. Nailed it. An [3:17] [clears throat] egg doll. Yeah. [3:19] [laughter] [3:19] >> Is that what it's called? Oh, a nesting [3:21] doll. I said egg doll last week. [3:23] Remember? [3:25] >> All right. First of all, let me just [3:26] nitpick a little bit. [3:28] >> I don't think the I don't think the [3:30] bottom of a disgusting bare market is [3:33] the beginning of a bull market. [3:36] >> A lot of people nitpick with that. I [3:37] disagree. Keep going. [3:38] >> Okay, fine. Whatever. We can move on for [3:40] now. Uh [3:44] we've been in one of the greatest bull [3:45] markets of all time, right? I I know you [3:47] you obviously you know that we didn't [3:48] just enter one, right? Like it's you [3:50] could have said this three years ago and [3:51] I would have said, "Yeah, this is one of [3:53] the greatest bull markets of all time." [3:55] >> Uh [3:57] and I still think there's a wall of wire [3:59] to climb. How about that? Despite the [4:02] 1500% rise off the bottom, I still think [4:05] people not okay. I don't think I know [4:08] that people are worried that earnings [4:11] are too high, which sounds hilarious. [4:14] >> Yes. [4:16] >> But honestly, that is part of the bare [4:18] case is that the earnings are too good. [4:21] >> Yes. It's all fake. It's all fake. They [4:23] don't count. [4:24] >> Just just too good. Which could that [4:27] could turn out to be right. [4:28] >> Right. Yeah. You're right. not fake, but [4:30] like they're they're not going to last. [4:31] That's [4:32] >> they're temporary, which is a funny [4:33] worry, but it's a legitimate concern [4:35] nonetheless. And another thought that I [4:37] had as you're talking about this as as [4:39] I'm staring at this chart, I think this [4:42] partly fuels the conernnation among [4:44] young people. It's like, [4:48] okay, I missed the housing market. I [4:50] miss the stock market. What's next? And [4:53] I think that's valid. If I'm 26, 28 [4:57] years old and I feel like everything is [5:00] just out too out of reach, I look at the [5:03] stock market, I look at the housing [5:04] market, I say, "Yeah, parlays. Let's go. [5:06] I get it." [5:07] >> Okay, I wanted to get into this in a [5:09] minute. Um, I think way too much kid [5:11] gloves for young people these days. I'm [5:13] sorry. I We've given plenty of sympathy, [5:16] empathy, whatever the word is for people [5:17] in the housing market. I think we're [5:19] we're way too like tiptoeing around [5:22] young people. Oh, boohoo. Young people, [5:24] you know what? Suck it up. [5:26] >> This will be a popular take. [5:27] >> Suck it up. You don't get to get rich [5:29] overnight. You don't get to have your [5:30] dream job right away. I think the [5:32] problem with young people is that they [5:33] know too much. Like when when I came up, [5:36] no one expected to get their dream job [5:38] right away. No one expected to be rich [5:39] by age 30 right away. I think that's the [5:42] young people live in a a day and age [5:43] where they see other young people who [5:45] are wildly successful and they go, "That [5:46] should be me. At 27, I should be wildly [5:49] successful." And I think that's I think [5:51] the expectations for young people are [5:52] way too high. And I think that we are [5:55] all being a little too like, oh boohoo [5:58] young people, I'm so sorry. I feel like [5:59] there's way too much virtue signaling [6:01] with young people right now. You know [6:02] what? No young generation has ever had [6:04] it easy. It's true. Is they've never had [6:07] Okay, that's what I'm feeling these [6:09] days. I got more to say on that. [6:10] >> Wait, I think I think you're right. And [6:12] I also think that nobody looks bad by [6:17] pandering to the young people. [6:18] >> Oh, of course. [6:20] It's a great It's a great strategy these [6:21] days. If you want to get good on social [6:23] media, you tell young people, "Hey, [6:25] listen. [6:26] >> Screwed. [6:26] >> You're screwed. You're paying all the [6:28] interest on the debt. You're never going [6:29] to buy a house. [6:31] >> Yeah. You you pandered to the male. [6:33] >> Blame the baby boomers." [6:34] >> Epidemic of loneliness and a lot of [6:37] pandering going on. And listen, there's [6:40] more than a kernel of truth, right? [6:42] Like, [6:42] >> yes, I agree. Yes. [6:43] >> In many ways, young people do have it [6:44] hard. Harder than previous generations. [6:47] It's always been hard to be a young [6:48] person. [6:49] And but now there's a but now there's a [6:51] content strategy [6:53] around that audience which which [6:55] amplifies the out of it. [6:57] >> Well, here let's let's get into this now [6:58] if we're going to do this now. [6:59] >> Go ahead. [7:00] >> I think a lot of this came on because [7:02] there was this survey in Bloomberg that [7:04] went kind of nuts on social media. [7:06] >> Hang on. Correct the record. Better [7:08] survey. [7:09] >> Yes, sorry. Betterman survey in reported [7:12] it. Yeah. [7:12] >> Yes. [7:13] 26% of Gen Z investors born between 97 [7:16] and 2007 said they treat sports betting [7:18] as a deliberate ongoing component of [7:20] their financial plans, according to an [7:22] online survey of 10,000 retail [7:24] investors. Uh that's compared with 14% [7:26] of millennials, 6% of Gen X blah blah [7:28] blah. And they had this chart and it it [7:30] it makes it look like [7:32] everyone in Gen Z is has given up in [7:35] this financial nihilism has taken hold [7:37] and they've decided the only way to get [7:38] ahead is for me to gamble. And this to [7:41] me is the Winnie the Poo meme. And it's [7:43] degenerate gambler on the top and [7:45] financial nihilism on the bottom. We're [7:47] giving people a free past because [7:49] they're degenerate gamblers or because [7:50] they want to gamble. And I also don't [7:53] believe these numbers. I there's no way [7:54] these numbers are correct. No way in [7:57] hell the There's no way this many people [7:59] assume that sports gambling is part of [8:02] their financial plan. That's just not [8:03] There's no way. [8:05] >> I have a few thoughts here. Number one, [8:07] this is like just ties into our theme [8:09] about how social media is just breaking [8:11] everything. [8:12] >> Yes. [8:12] >> I don't think anybody actually read the [8:13] survey. Number one, [8:15] >> no. [8:15] >> But this this chart, this tweet could [8:18] have said anything. It could have said [8:20] anything about people blurring the lines [8:23] between investing and gambling and [8:26] people would have gone nuts. It could [8:28] have said 11% and people would have had [8:30] the same reaction. [8:32] So, I I I don't know that I disbelieve [8:35] the numbers, but I don't think it [8:36] matters. Guess what? These are young [8:38] people. When I if I was 25 years old and [8:41] I had Robin Hood, I'd be doing the same [8:44] thing. And guess what happens to young [8:45] people? They turn into us. Their backs [8:47] start to hurt. They eat cottage cheese [8:49] with pineapples. That's what happens. [8:51] And they snap out of it. They're not [8:53] going to I don't think that 40-year-olds [8:55] in 15 years I don't think that 25 year [8:56] olds today when they're our age are [8:59] going to have uh uh 60% stocks, 30% [9:04] bonds, 10% uh NHL ETFs, which we'll talk [9:08] about later. I just don't believe it. [9:10] >> How many people who are 25 have a [9:12] long-term financial strategy in the [9:14] first place? [9:15] >> Yeah. What do you what long-term [9:18] strategy? 25. [9:21] Come on. I I would love to know [9:23] >> extrapolation going on [9:24] >> how many Gen Z people they had to locate [9:27] to actually answer this survey. [9:28] >> So there's there's two well there was a [9:30] yeah there was a thousand people [9:31] surveyed. I don't know how many of them [9:32] were Gen Z, but there's two things in [9:34] here that really get to the crux of the [9:37] matter. One is it's this is um this [9:40] appeals to people in our world that love [9:43] to wag their finger. [9:45] >> I get it. [9:46] >> See, everyone is gambling. It's [9:48] >> I get that. And then there's the [9:49] crossover of young people are screwed. [9:52] And that is a big ven diagram of of rage [9:55] bait, right? Like this this tweet was [9:57] like where we're chimpanzees in the cage [10:00] >> screaming about this. [10:01] >> So you pulled up the actual survey from [10:02] Betterment, which is a friend old friend [10:04] of the show, Dan Egan. [10:05] >> Oh yeah. Oh, credit to me. I went to the [10:06] source. How about that? [10:07] >> So they said where sports betting fits [10:10] into financial goals for Gen Z, 36% [10:13] don't participate. That's not a [10:14] headline, right? Nobody wants to read [10:16] that. So 36% of Gen Z people just don't [10:19] bet. 15% used it to accelerate a goal. [10:23] All right. Uh 14% occasionally [10:26] redirected funds. Also very not headliny [10:29] at all. Nobody is going to kick click [10:30] that. Uh 23% kept funds separate as fund [10:35] money. Again, nobody's clicking that. [10:37] That's not very interesting. That sounds [10:38] nord dare I say that sounds responsible. [10:41] and 11% [10:43] 11% so one in 10 have it as a [10:46] high-risisk strategy investment strategy [10:48] you know these numbers I I don't know I [10:50] I don't find them unbelievable [10:53] anything there that you say that there's [10:54] no way that's true [10:55] >> no this is not nearly as bad but then [10:57] Bloomberg talks to this 32-year-old dude [11:00] who says um it's not just a hobby for me [11:03] I'm smarter than the gambling markets [11:04] and he said this year he made he said he [11:06] booked a whole vacation thanks to the [11:08] Carolina Hurricanes which sounds insane [11:10] to say out loud so you find these [11:11] anecdotes and you you latch on to them [11:13] and you go see everyone feels like they [11:15] have to do this have to gamble on sports [11:18] just to get ahead. The thing is young [11:21] people are so far a so much further [11:22] ahead financially than previous [11:24] generations just because it's so much [11:26] easier. So people doing everything now [11:29] >> they're much more advanced than we were. [11:30] >> More young people have IAS. More young [11:31] people have 401ks. More young people [11:33] have Robin Hood accounts. More young [11:35] people also gamble online because guess [11:37] what? It's easier. We didn't have access [11:39] to this stuff. So, no one talked about [11:41] it or did it. [11:42] >> Uh, no offense to Robert. He's 32. [11:45] There's like the scene in Wedding [11:46] Crashers when they're sitting on the [11:47] steps of the Washington Monument or [11:49] maybe it's in Jeff. [laughter] I can't [11:49] remember. Come on, we were young. Couple [11:51] of kids. And I think Owen Wilson says, [11:53] "Not that young. Robert, you're not that [11:55] young. You're 32 years old. Snap out of [11:56] it." Robert says, "I booked a whole [11:58] vacation thanks to the Carolina [11:59] Hurricanes this year." Which sounds [12:00] insane to say out loud. It's not that [12:02] insane to say out loud. Uh, a little bit [12:04] insane, but guess what? You could also [12:06] not book a vacation because of the [12:08] Hurricanes. you're 32 years old. [12:11] >> True. That you should be saving in a [12:12] different way. But so there's there was [12:14] this other survey done by empower that a [12:16] lot of people point to and they asked [12:18] they asked every generation what do you [12:20] need for a minimum net worth to be what [12:22] does financial success look like to you [12:23] and what's a minimum salary? [12:24] >> This is garbage. We've been through this [12:25] before. This is [clears throat] the [12:27] salary is like $600,000 and the the net [12:30] worth is like $10 million. [laughter] [12:31] >> And everyone's like, "See, look at [12:33] Jenzie." And I just This is like the [12:35] sampling bias survey. like I I don't [12:38] believe a lot of these numbers and I [12:40] feel like they're they are used to I [12:42] still don't understand the term [12:42] gaslighting. I'm still trying to learn [12:44] that one. Um it feels like gaslighting [12:45] to me or virtual signal or whatever. Um [12:48] it's funny because I do an annual [12:50] rewatch of the office space and I put it [12:51] on again the other night and I'm [12:53] watching this and it's Gen X who is [12:56] completely just miserable with her [12:58] situation in life and being in a cubicle [13:00] and it just every generation goes [13:03] through this like quarter life crisis, [13:04] whatever you want to call it. I think [13:06] Gen Z is just going through it earlier [13:08] than most. And I had one of these [13:10] moments in the great financial crisis. I [13:12] remember I asked my boss for a raise and [13:14] they kind of they laughed at me almost [13:16] like are you kidding me? No one's [13:17] getting a raise right now. And I was [13:19] reading um Reat I will teach you be [13:21] rich. He was the first blog I ever [13:22] started reading like 2006 and I remember [13:25] in 2009 cuz I I got caught up in the [13:28] listen we're all screwed because the [13:29] great venture credit like for through no [13:31] fault of our own we're screwed. The job [13:32] market stinks. No one's, you know, it's [13:34] hard to ask for a raise. It's hard to [13:36] get a new job. And I remember Rammit [13:38] wrote a post about like, okay, listen, [13:40] you can complain about the macroeconomy [13:41] for 10 minutes and then what are you [13:43] going to do about your own situation? [13:45] And that's kind of like you need someone [13:47] to shake you out of it and go stop [13:49] getting into the herd over there who [13:51] complains about it's all the economy's [13:52] fault and it's all the boomer's fault [13:54] and it's all the housing market's fault [13:55] and all these things. Okay, fine. Get it [13:57] out of your system. Now, what are you [13:58] going to do for yourself that you can [14:00] control to get out of the situation? And [14:02] that's that's kind of where I am with [14:03] young people. Like, okay, fine. Get it [14:05] out of your system. We've we've seen [14:06] these things before, but Gen Z really is [14:09] better off in terms of income, in terms [14:11] of stock market dollars, in terms of [14:13] wealth by age. Like, if you look at all [14:14] the numbers of under 40, these people [14:16] have more money in the stock market than [14:17] ever before. [14:19] And they just have more money in [14:21] everything than ever before. And again, [14:24] I do think the the biggest gripe about [14:26] housing, I totally am in on board with [14:28] that. If you missed the housing boat by [14:30] five years because of you just weren't [14:32] at the place in life to buy one and you [14:34] missed 3% mortgage rates and much lower [14:36] prices, there's you it's not your fault. [14:40] That's the Robin Williams and Goodwill [14:42] Hunting. [14:43] >> I have two I have two different lenses [14:45] through which I see [14:47] >> and experience young people. Number one [14:49] is this nonsense and social media which [14:52] paints a distorted picture of of [14:54] everything, right? Young people, old [14:56] people, unhappy people, happy people. AI [14:59] people, everybody's warped image. So, [15:02] let me just dis let me just put that to [15:04] the side because that's not real life, [15:05] >> right? [15:06] >> And then I have the people that we work [15:07] with, which is also a I suppose a I [15:10] don't know if that's um a small sample [15:12] of people. Well, I do not know it's a [15:13] small sample of people. How many people [15:14] How many young people do we have working [15:16] for us under 30? I'm going to guess not [15:18] 20. We have like [15:20] >> Yeah, 20 25 probably. [15:22] >> All over the country, not making [15:24] $600,000. [15:26] And by all accounts, these seem to be [15:27] very happy people. I don't know that [15:29] they're like representative of the [15:30] entire population of young people, but I [15:33] just I just uh I think that a lot of [15:36] this is warped by social media. [15:39] >> If you're too if you're too online, then [15:40] yes, I agree. I I also do think that [15:43] there's going to be something whether [15:44] it's happening now or in the future [15:45] where there are just so many more I keep [15:48] harping on this. There's so many more [15:49] rich people that there are bound to be [15:51] unhappy children who are almost like [15:54] downwardly mobile through no fault of [15:56] their own because their parents are so [15:57] successful and rich that they're going [15:59] to be miserable because they're probably [16:00] not going to be as successful as their [16:02] parents [16:03] >> or they're true [16:04] >> they're going to inherit [clears throat] [16:04] mommy and daddy's money and it's like [16:06] they're not they're never going to be [16:07] happy because of that. That that's going [16:09] to be a a big thing for a small segment [16:12] of the population. The other big thing [16:16] is that in 2008 [16:19] when I was coming out of college, [16:21] obviously not a great time, but [16:24] um there were no young rich people for [16:26] the most part. [16:27] >> No, no, that's [16:29] >> it wasn't a thing. There's no there's no [16:31] influencers. That wasn't a job. But [16:33] that's why the 2008 crisis was so [16:35] different because everyone felt like [16:37] they were in the same boat because there [16:39] was older people who got in trouble who [16:41] lost their uh stock options who got [16:43] crushed in the stock market who lost [16:44] their house potentially who lost a job [16:46] and also young people who were so [16:48] everyone was dealing this at this [16:49] everyone was on the same wavelength and [16:51] now there's a different wavelength [16:52] because some young people would say [16:54] listen okay great I put 20 grand into my [16:57] 401k in the past 5 years and now it's [16:59] worth 45 grand what good does that do me [17:02] And I I I understand that. But you also [17:05] have to be patient as a young person and [17:07] know that like most people don't get [17:08] rich overnight. And the stories that [17:10] you're seeing, that's not normal. That [17:12] shouldn't be a strategy. [17:14] >> Life has seasons. And like every young [17:17] person before them, they will age out of [17:19] this season of their life and into [17:21] whatever is next. [17:22] >> Yes. And I I still do feel like as a [17:25] whole, young people are going to be [17:27] richer because they're some of them [17:29] boxed out of the housing market. I [17:30] really do think that's that's a thing [17:32] and it may still make them unhappier, [17:34] but I think that this is they're going [17:36] to be one of the wealthiest generations [17:38] ever at a younger age than most because [17:40] they know more about the stock market [17:42] and they have access to it. Um, see this [17:44] is what this is what the world does to [17:46] us these days. We start out talking [17:47] about how this is one of the greatest [17:48] bull markets of all time and then we [17:50] have to bring it we have to bring it [17:51] down. [17:55] Everything is a caveat. Speaking of [17:57] which, so in the 2010s, the big caveat [18:00] was the only reason that we have a bull [18:01] market, and I'm speaking in and like [18:03] doomers here probably. The only reason [18:06] >> you're speaking in what? I didn't hear [18:07] that. [18:07] >> Uh doomers. [18:08] >> Doomers. [18:09] >> The only reason there's a bull market is [18:11] because interest rates are at zero and [18:13] the Fed's monetary policy and QE. That's [18:14] the only reason we have a a bull market, [18:16] right? That was a 2010. [18:17] >> That was 2010 to 200 Well, not even 2010 [18:21] because in 2010, See, here's the thing, [18:23] Ben. Getting back to my earlier point. [18:24] In 2010, nobody was talking about a bull [18:26] market. [18:27] >> No way. [18:27] >> This is this is all revisionist history, [18:30] >> right? It's like it's like looking at [18:31] basketball stats and saying, uh, this [18:33] person was the best. No. [18:36] >> If you if you saw it, you would say, no, [18:38] no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Yes, the S&P [18:41] 500 was up 37% in 2009 or whatever the [18:44] number was, that wasn't a bull market. [18:46] We were there in 2011. We were still [18:48] talking about double dip recession. That [18:50] wasn't a bull market. The only time we [18:52] even started talking about a new bull [18:53] market was 2013. [18:55] >> Yeah, but that a secular bull market can [18:57] only be defined in hindsight. It can't [19:00] be defined in the moment. [19:00] >> Fine. I know there's nuance here, but I [19:03] know you were there. We were not talking [19:05] about a bull market. [19:06] >> Of course, no one. Uh, yes, I agree. So, [19:09] that was the thing in the 2010s is 0% [19:11] rates. And now in the 2020s, it's [19:13] anytime you show someone there's a bull [19:14] market, they go, "Oh, yeah. Well, [19:15] government spending, government debt, [19:17] deficits. That's the only reason for the [19:19] bull market." And obviously that's [19:21] that's a big part of it that that money [19:23] does drop to the bottom line. But here's [19:24] the thing. Uh because in the 2010s the [19:27] question was okay fine. Europe has [19:29] negative rates. Why aren't stocks going [19:31] crazy there? In the 2020s it's remember [19:34] we showed this data from Michael Seles [19:36] before. Canada has a or not Canada has a [19:38] bigger deficit than the US. China is now [19:41] borrowing as much or more as a share of [19:43] GDP than the US. Look at what Chinese [19:46] stocks have done this decade. And I [19:47] didn't really realize it was this bad. [19:49] MSEI China has done literally nothing [19:52] this decade. It's up 2% in total in the [19:54] 2020s. [19:56] >> I hear your point. You can't compare [19:57] Chinese stocks to US stocks. [19:59] >> I get it. [19:59] >> We are we are a capitalist society and [20:01] they uh sort of are not. [20:03] >> It's kind of crazy when you think and [20:05] obviously a debt goes to different [20:06] things. Um my point is as you know you [20:10] can't just pick one variable like that [20:11] and you and you go okay if you just pull [20:13] this lever things go up. It it does it [20:15] doesn't work like that. [20:15] >> Of course. Right. I think there's people [20:18] who actually think this is true though, [20:20] that the Illuminati is pulling the lever [20:21] and making the stock market go up. And [20:23] if it was that easy, they would just [20:24] keep pulling the lever, [20:26] >> right? [20:26] >> Well, keep uh what's keep that chicken [20:30] jerry from? [20:32] Is that a blooper on the internet? [20:36] >> Uh gota got to plead ignorance here. I [20:38] don't know what that one is. [20:40] >> Yeah. Yeah, it was a weatherman who went [20:42] viral. [20:43] >> Okay. [20:43] >> All right. Anyway, moving on. Um, [20:47] well, you can't have a bull market [20:48] without this chart from the Wall Street [20:50] Journal via Bank of America. The median [20:52] earnings growth for the S&P 500. So, [20:55] strip out the one time like the [20:57] hyperscalers, the median earnings growth [20:59] is about 14%. Which is the highest it's [21:02] been in a long time, which gets back, I [21:04] mean, at least since 2023, like way way [21:05] way higher than normal. Gets back to the [21:08] earlier point. Um, this could be peak [21:11] growth. like we [21:13] >> this is a good chart though this because [21:15] you're right this takes away the the [21:17] extremes and the concentration and the [21:19] hey this is all just a markup from [21:21] anthropic and open AI that does this [21:22] it's not not real this is a good chart [21:26] >> very good chart um all right on uh on [21:28] TAF we were talking about how much money [21:31] is still in money market funds despite [21:32] the raging bull market despite higher [21:34] interest rates on bonds that you can [21:36] lock in despite despite money market [21:38] rates coming down like the money is not [21:40] moving out and somebody rightly said, [21:42] "Guys, you always talk about money [21:44] market funds. You never talk about how [21:45] big the the denominator is." And I would [21:47] say, I said, "Actually, not true. Not [21:49] true. Last on on on Thursday, I omitted [21:52] the fact that the market is so much [21:54] bigger." But we've we've shared this [21:56] chart a million times in the past. Um, [21:57] so credit to this person for sending us [21:59] the email. You have to make the [22:01] adjustment because we were saying like, [22:02] "Oh my god, $3 trillion. That's money on [22:05] the sidelines." Whatever. It's it's it's [22:07] 11% of the S&P 500 market cap, which is [22:10] below the 18% average since 1990. [22:13] >> So, I don't know that I've seen this [22:14] chart before going this far back. I [22:16] assume chart could help you with this. [22:17] That is bananas that it was that money [22:20] market funds were 61% of the stock [22:23] market 2009. [22:24] >> Yeah, I think that was just a pure [22:25] denominator collapse. [22:27] >> Well, of course, but that but being that [22:29] high. [22:30] >> Yeah, it's nuts [22:31] >> because it was half of that in the dot [22:33] bubble or whatever. So, I think what's [22:35] so this this is a Wall Street Journal [22:36] article. It said there's $3 trillion in [22:38] retail money sitting in in money [22:40] markets. And I really do think that this [22:43] that cash is a bond allocation now. I [22:45] think so many people got fed up with [22:47] bonds because you lost 18% of your money [22:50] in a or whatever that people said, you [22:51] know what, fine. Cash is my bond [22:53] allocation and even if I get lower rates [22:55] and lower yields, I'm going to have a [22:57] barbell portfolio and I'm not going to [22:59] get I'm not going to get hit in bonds [23:01] again. Um, which is interesting because [23:04] I think you and I something we may have [23:06] been wrong about or we were leaning that [23:08] we thought once rates get to a certain [23:10] level that it's going to be competition [23:13] for other stuff, right? So, if you look [23:16] at tips right now because everyone's [23:19] worried about inflation, right? Correct. [23:21] People think inflation is going to be [23:22] higher. We're in a 3% world, not a 2% [23:24] world. Inflation is sticky. Government [23:26] spending is obviously not slowing down. [23:28] Nothing stops this train. [23:30] So, how are you getting 3% in a TIPS [23:33] yield for a 20 or 30-year bond plus [23:36] inflation? So, you get a real 3% for [23:39] bond. Like, that's a pretty darn good [23:41] deal. And uh William Bernstein wrote a [23:43] piece on this. He's a big tips guy. He [23:45] always writes about this in a lot of his [23:47] books. [23:48] He's saying by 2010 yields for tips had [23:50] fallen below 2%. By 2011, below 1%. In [23:53] 2021, the 5-year tips yield fell to [23:56] negative 1.76%. [23:58] You had a negative yield. you were [24:00] literally paying the government in a [24:01] real basis to buy these tips. Now you [24:04] can get 3% in tips. And he's saying this [24:07] is like a massive massive buying [24:09] opportunity. Like you can get 3% real in [24:13] a government bond. Holy crap. And no one [24:16] cares. No one wants this stuff. [24:18] >> I understand it. [24:20] >> Yeah. Nobody cares. People think in [24:21] nominal terms. So on they also they also [24:24] and people also [24:26] have been they just the scars are still [24:28] fresh. Their hands still hurts from [24:31] touching the oven. They don't want [24:32] volatility in their fixed income. [24:34] >> So on Steve Eisen's podcast this this [24:36] past week he had uh Jason Tenner from [24:39] Strategus. Well you had you had Todd S [24:42] from Strategus last week too, right? [24:43] >> We did have Todd Zone. [24:45] >> So they asked what's the level of [24:47] interest rate for bonds that would get [24:49] people to sell some stocks and they all [24:50] agreed. I thought it was like four 4 and [24:53] a.5%. Which probably you you and I [24:54] probably would have said, "Yeah, back up [24:56] the truck. People are going to be and [24:58] they said it's actually way higher." And [25:00] this is just total bull market mindset [25:02] that if you're getting 20% a year in the [25:04] stock market, what do you care if you [25:06] can get four or five or 6% in the bond [25:09] market? [25:09] >> Yeah, it sounds the same thing, right? [25:10] >> It's it's the only [25:11] >> 5% 3% same thing. [25:13] >> You say it after after the fact. [25:15] Whenever this thing ends, someone's [25:17] going to look at bonds and go, "Why [25:18] didn't all these idiots put their money [25:20] into five-year treasuries? Are you [25:21] kidding me?" Because they were yielding. [25:23] What? You know, and that's the only [25:24] thing you know after the fact in the [25:27] mean. Yeah. No one's going to say, [25:28] "Yeah, I'm going to lock in 5%." [25:29] Awesome. Maybe some retirees. Most [25:32] people aren't going to do that. I forgot [25:34] to mention exciting news. [25:36] Our longtime friend Morgan Hel has [25:38] joined the compound. [25:40] Morgan has a podcast called The [25:42] Psychology of Money. name of his [25:46] best-selling book and I do mean [25:47] bestselling got to be the it has to be [25:50] the number one selling book in the [25:51] history of finance. No, [25:53] >> if we call it like a personal finance [25:54] behavioral psychology book probably. [25:56] Yes. [25:57] >> Well, I don't even know what number two [25:58] is. Is the intelligent investor than [26:00] number two. [26:00] >> That that it has to be an intelligent [26:01] investor. That thing that's been on sale [26:02] since the 1940s and it's still like a [26:04] >> I bet you Morgan sold more than the [26:06] intelligent investor. [26:09] >> I don't know. It's just been out maybe. [26:11] Anyway, Morgan is uh an incredible [26:15] person, incredible author, speaker. He's [26:17] one of the few. Not too many people can [26:20] can write and speak. Very difficult. I [26:23] would say I'm probably below average at [26:25] both. I could do both. I could do both. [26:27] >> Two different muscles. You're right. Two [26:28] different muscles. [26:29] >> Not well, but I could do both. [26:30] >> There are some really good writers who [26:31] if you hear them speak like, "Oh gosh." [26:34] Yes. You and I are both like uh [26:36] >> No, you're a great You're a great [26:37] writer. You're an A writer, C++ speaker. [26:41] I would say I'm a I'm a I'm a C minus [26:43] writer and a B speaker. [26:46] >> That's fair. Average it out more B's. [26:48] >> Yeah. Uh I would say Derek is another [26:50] unicorn. Derek Thompson. Aa [26:53] >> Hey, listen. I graduated college with [26:54] like a 3.3 grade point average. I think [26:56] that's where we are. 32 33. [26:59] >> Okay. [26:59] >> If we average it out. [27:00] >> Wait, I have one more thing to say. Oh, [27:01] speaking of books, [27:03] I got rid of almost all my books. [27:06] >> Okay. You sent this you sent a picture [27:08] of you sitting in your driveway with a [27:09] bunch of U-Haul boxes. [27:12] >> So, they're being picked up. [27:15] >> It looks like we haven't picked up yet. [27:16] Um, [27:17] >> why would you do this? Because a [27:18] bookshelf just looks so nice. There's [27:21] something about a bookshelf with all [27:22] these book. Why did you do that? [27:24] >> I have no I can't fit a bookshelf in my [27:26] house. [27:26] >> Oh, you have no room for it? [27:28] >> Nope. I uh listen, I I enjoyed looking [27:31] at it, but it's sort of a piece of [27:33] furniture. I wish I could keep my books. [27:34] I can't keep them forever. I have 11 [27:36] boxes. What? There was taking up too [27:38] much space. I'm never reading these [27:39] books again. [27:40] >> So, you give them to the library or [27:41] what? [27:41] >> I kept the ones that are signed, [27:44] but they I don't know. Some book company [27:45] picked them up. [27:47] >> Okay. [27:48] >> Felt like uh that season of my life of [27:51] hoarding my books [27:53] is over. I wish I had space for a [27:54] bookshelf, but I don't. [27:55] >> Well, it's funny. Almost every new book [27:56] I buy now is either on Audible or [27:58] Kindle. So, I don't I people send me [28:00] books still, but most of the books I [28:02] have now I I'm I'm consuming in [28:04] electronic form. [28:05] There you go. [28:07] >> All right, let's talk about a bull [28:08] market story here. Oh, wait. There's one [28:10] more bond chart. Just yes or no. [28:12] >> Just real quick, another risk to the [28:15] bull market. Bond rates just continue to [28:17] march higher. The especially at the long [28:20] end, which is like the worsening part. [28:21] >> Yeah, but what we just talked about [28:23] shows that it's not a risk until it is [28:26] like no one the in a bull market no one [28:29] >> that's nonsense. It's not a risk until [28:31] it is. I mean, isn't that literally [28:33] that's true? We just we we just had this [28:35] conversation. No one no one cares about [28:37] bond yields right now when the stock [28:38] market is giving you so much. [28:40] >> It's a potential risk. [28:42] >> Okay. [28:42] >> And it's not just in the US. Global bond [28:45] yields are screaming higher. [28:48] >> And I think for the most part the stock [28:50] market, not for the most part, the stock [28:51] market has absorbed higher rates. Stock [28:53] market is at alltime highs. [28:54] >> Of course it has. [28:55] >> The median stock is at an all-time high. [28:56] We are now used to this. Um, if the [29:00] 30-year goes from if it lurches from [29:02] five to six, the stock market will [29:04] buckle, but if it's a steady march [29:06] higher, I don't know where the line is, [29:08] but something to keep an eye on. [29:10] >> The stock market really has been like a [29:11] boxer that just absorbs punches, like [29:14] takes takes like a million punches. [29:16] Remember in The Simpsons where Homer, [29:17] his whole thing was like people would [29:19] punch him until they fell over. Um, and [29:21] he just took the punches and then [29:22] finally the that's the stock market. So [29:25] everything it's been thrown at them, it [29:26] t it and then every once in a while it [29:27] punches back and and goes up. But I if [29:30] you would have told me four years ago, [29:32] hey, mortgage rates are going to be at [29:33] 6% forever and bond yields are going to [29:35] be at 5% and you're going to get the [29:36] highest 30-year bond yield and keeps [29:39] going higher. I would have said, man, [29:40] that that can't be good for the stock [29:41] market, right? Stocks don't care. It's [29:46] crazy. All right, great bull market [29:47] story here from the Wall Street Journal. [29:49] The dating scene that's suddenly [29:50] dominated by chip nerds thanks to mid6ig [29:53] bonuses. engineers at Samsung and SKH [29:55] Heinix are the hottest bachos in South [29:57] Korea. See, they should make a reality [29:59] show about this. And they interview all [30:01] these people. Um, and they talk to this [30:04] guy who works at Samsung and he gets he [30:05] said like everyone there is getting six [30:07] figure bonuses. Um, and he says that [30:10] like there's more romantic interest for [30:12] him and his co-workers because they're [30:14] they got stock options. [30:15] >> The real housewives of SKH Highix. I [30:18] love it. [30:18] >> That's a great bull market story though, [30:20] right? [30:20] >> Yeah, it's good. It makes I think they [30:22] said the average, you know, I'm sure [30:24] they get stock options, too. And they [30:26] they interviewed one one woman who said, [30:28] "I dated a guy who worked at SKHEX and [30:31] for three years, and my biggest regret [30:32] is that I didn't buy the stock." [30:34] >> It's 30 minutes of the show. We haven't [30:36] even mentioned the rebound in the AI [30:40] memory names in particular. [30:41] >> Oh my gosh, they came roaring back [30:42] immediately. Right. [30:43] >> San Disc was up 35% last week. But see, [30:45] this is the point. And we're part of the [30:46] problem too, Ben. We love talking about [30:49] the bad news. And the good news is ah [30:51] cares. [30:53] >> That's because it's we move on, right? [30:55] One risk, [30:56] >> one week, next week, other risk. [30:58] >> Uh yeah, [31:00] >> I'm thinking about this as as we [31:03] continue to hop on potential bad news [31:06] because that's what we do. We worry. So [31:07] this is as good as it gets. Humans are [31:09] never going to change. But I do think [31:12] that there's like some weird like I have [31:14] no evidence of this. there's some weird [31:17] thing going on where people want to go [31:19] back [31:22] and I think part of that is certainly co [31:24] but like people want to reset and I [31:27] think I don't know I don't know if I [31:29] don't know how to articulate that [31:32] >> so the way like so you're talking about [31:34] uh the way [31:35] >> inflation prices and stuff and okay [31:38] >> but I don't even I don't I don't even [31:39] know that [31:40] >> human condition [31:40] >> yeah I don't even know that that's like [31:41] a 2026 story [31:44] >> I think it's like a forever sort of [31:45] thing. [31:45] >> I do think in a lot of ways though 2020 [31:48] is a huge line of demarcation [31:50] >> for sure. [31:51] >> There was a before CO and there's an [31:52] after CO and I think that is that has [31:55] screwed with a lot of people. I do agree [31:56] with that. [31:58] >> All right, somebody emailed us. [31:59] >> So wait, hang on. Getting back to this [32:00] recession thing. I I I keep thinking [32:03] through like what is the reaction [32:05] function going to be? And I think that [32:06] the sentiment could be so so [32:08] overwhelmingly negative like we've never [32:10] seen before. that that's pretty easy to [32:12] say that consumer sentiment will just [32:13] drop to lowest levels we've ever seen [32:14] it. But what if some people actually are [32:16] happier that we're in a recession and [32:18] it's kind of like you know what I've [32:19] been suffering now they're suffering too [32:22] and what if there are there is a certain [32:24] 20% of the population 30% whatever the [32:26] number is who kind of go you know what I [32:28] don't mind this I don't mind a recession [32:31] my life hasn't been very good anyway [32:32] >> oh yeah yeah [32:34] >> there's going to be a lot of that where [32:35] some people are going to be happy when [32:36] we have the next recession [32:39] >> that's going to be that's going to be an [32:40] emotion uh [32:42] >> my just got a text message [32:45] Oasis: Don't look back in Anger is out [32:48] now in cinemas and IMAX September 9th. [32:51] >> I was thinking about that the other day [32:52] since we're almost time for Future Proof [32:55] again. Uh one of my best concert [32:57] experiences experiences I've ever had in [32:59] terms of just the vibes. Vibes were off [33:01] the chart of that concert. It was [33:02] amazing. [33:03] >> That was so much fun. [33:04] >> I loved it. [33:04] >> One of the best nights of my life. [33:06] >> That was great. All right. What's the [33:07] email here? [33:08] >> Okay. [33:12] Markets. Okay. You say markets are [33:14] always right. Many times if markets are [33:16] always right, there would be no buying [33:17] opportunities. Therefore, this popular [33:18] statement isn't accurate. Don't scare [33:20] the people to into always indexing. [33:21] Believe [33:23] um [33:26] all right, a lot to unpack here. [33:28] My operating premise is that the market [33:31] is always right. And now I know that's [33:33] not true. Obviously, the market is not [33:36] always right because guess what? The [33:38] price changes tomorrow and the day [33:40] after. And sometimes the price changes [33:42] so fast that the market can't always be [33:44] right. And especially when there's [33:45] uncertainty and and confusion. I guess [33:48] the point that I'm making is um it's [33:51] hard to know when the market's wrong. [33:53] And if you think that that's [33:54] controversial, you're an idiot. That [33:57] should be like that should be like the [34:00] fundamental premise for any investor is [34:03] that it's hard to know when the market's [34:06] wrong. [34:07] >> Okay. So that that's a really good [34:08] segue. So Burton Melkiel was on Barry's [34:10] podcast a number of years ago right when [34:12] Barry started Masters in Business and I [34:13] had this quote um and he says uh people [34:17] think that market efficiency means the [34:19] price is perfectly right. That's wrong. [34:20] He said the price is never right and in [34:23] fact prices are always wrong. What's [34:24] right is that nobody knows for sure [34:26] whether they're too high or too low. [34:27] It's not that the prices are always [34:28] right. It's that it's never clear that [34:29] they are wrong. The market is very very [34:31] difficult to beat. I think that makes [34:32] more sense to me. [34:33] >> Okay. Um so that's also I was thinking [34:36] about this. I was I was uh in a car ride [34:38] with a friend and he was we were talking [34:41] about the stock market and um [34:45] he sounded like every retail investor [34:48] and I don't mean that pjoratively at [34:50] all. Okay. He sounds like every retail [34:53] investor who's done extraordinarily well [34:55] over the last 15 years. And I know Ben, [34:58] you said there's some people that want a [34:59] recession. There's a lot of professional [35:01] investors who want this era of the best [35:05] and most well-known companies beating [35:06] everything. People want need that era to [35:09] end. They need it to end, [35:10] >> right? This idiot just bought five tech [35:12] stocks and he's killing me. I can't [35:13] believe this. [35:14] >> So my friend and let's just call my [35:16] friend the average investor who bought [35:19] Google 10 years ago and just held it. [35:21] And when I say just extraordinarily hard [35:23] to do, I didn't do it. So I'm not [35:24] putting them down. Has beaten the [35:27] And there's so many investors like that [35:28] that have beaten the absolute living [35:31] out of quote professional [35:33] investors, [35:34] >> right? [35:34] >> Okay. And there's nothing that I could [35:37] do to assu to to to convince him [35:43] that this is [35:44] >> You were just about to use a big word [35:45] there and you stopped yourself. [35:46] >> Assuage. [35:46] >> Yes. [35:47] >> Was I was I was I about to use it right? [35:49] I was like 50/50. [35:50] >> Yeah. Keep going. [35:51] >> Okay. there's nothing I could say to [35:53] convince him that this has been a really [35:55] um good market environment. And I think [35:59] what he hears is and I'm like, dude, I'm [36:01] not like wagging my finger at you and [36:03] saying that like I could like I'm a [36:05] better investor trading than you are. [36:06] That's not what I'm saying. And I'm [36:07] definitely not trying to scare people [36:08] into investing in index funds and [36:11] needing to hire a financial adviser. [36:12] That's not my that's like not my stick. [36:14] I would I would encourage people to [36:16] invest however they invest. And it [36:18] doesn't matter if you beat the market. [36:19] Just put your money in the market what [36:21] you can afford to save for your future. [36:23] That's like my whole MMO Ben is save for [36:26] the future. Whether you beat the market, [36:28] whether you're I'm smart or better [36:29] trading, it does doesn't matter. But it [36:31] is an interesting thing because I do [36:33] think I was thinking about this. Well, [36:36] in what environment can the retail [36:38] investor lose to us? Can we say I I know [36:41] for a fact that I will be the the [36:43] average quote no nothing investor and it [36:46] would have to be in a bare market where [36:47] buying a dip no longer works [36:50] because I know that if I'm investing in [36:53] a bare market I'm not going to get blown [36:55] up. If the market's down 30% I can be [36:57] down 30%. If the market's down 30% I [36:59] won't be down 70%. [37:01] >> Right? The guy in the leverage the three [37:02] times leveraged NASDAQ fund is going to [37:04] be down 80%. I also think that just a a [37:08] different market environment and maybe [37:10] these don't exist anymore but value [37:12] stocks work, dividend stocks work, [37:13] international stocks work and those [37:15] things are working but if they like [37:17] really worked as tech stocks got smoked [37:19] for a long period of time that's the [37:20] period that's the time where [37:22] >> so that's that's the environment that [37:23] all the Buffett acolytes are dying for. [37:25] >> Yeah, [37:26] >> I don't care. I like we don't we don't [37:28] need that. Um so anyway, we also was on [37:32] this beat this week. He tweeted, "What [37:34] is true is that an individual trader [37:35] going up against pros will have a hard [37:36] time outperforming the index, but un I [37:39] don't know what the going up against [37:40] pros part means in there, but anyway, um [37:42] he said, "But unless you were managing [37:43] other people's money, I've never [37:44] understood why this is a particularly [37:46] important thing to care about." But even [37:48] on this point, the story over the last [37:49] 15 years is that to beat the market, all [37:52] you had to do was buy the big names that [37:54] every Joemo has heard of. No need for [37:57] any satellite imagery, data, [37:59] sophisticated algorithms, or complicated [38:01] Excel models. [38:03] It's been a very interesting 15-year [38:05] period where the professionals have [38:06] gotten smoked. [38:07] >> Yeah. It's been the first level thinking [38:09] market for a long long time. [38:11] >> For a long, long time. [38:12] >> Yeah. Good point. Um, all right. Let's [38:15] talk about AI. So, AI feels to me like [38:17] the debate has shifted to the remember [38:19] the hard landing soft landing debate we [38:20] had about the economy. It just kept [38:22] going and going and going. Alex Eis had [38:24] a good good tweet here. If you look at [38:26] the last three years of AI progress, [38:27] technologists have largely been right [38:29] about the massive increase in [38:30] capabilities, right? That's probably [38:31] better than anyone. The the things that [38:33] AI can do is probably better than anyone [38:34] could have possibly imagined when Chad [38:36] GBT came out at this point. Like, oh my [38:37] gosh. [38:38] >> Yeah. [38:38] >> And the economists have largely been [38:40] right about the economic impact. I don't [38:42] expect that to change. This is the one. [38:44] I think he's I think this is the right [38:45] take. [38:47] >> That the capabilities of this are going [38:49] to keep getting better and better and [38:51] better and it might not have the [38:53] earthshattering impact that people [38:56] think. And that's going to be it's we're [38:58] somewhere in between the hard landing [39:00] and the soft landing. [39:02] And everyone's kind of like, wait, I'm [39:04] kind of right and I'm kind of wrong. [39:05] >> Can I That's where we've been. [39:06] >> Can I pile on your Grand Rapids hedge? [39:08] >> Mhm. [39:09] >> I was thinking about the Paul Kadski [39:13] Canos interview [39:14] >> and Paul Kadraski has been making the [39:16] case for a while now that this is a [39:19] massive bubble. [39:20] >> He has the I listen to that, too. He He [39:22] makes the best bear take that there is. [39:24] Yeah, it was good cuz he's not like he's [39:26] not like uh this is all nonsense. He's [39:28] like well obviously it's real otherwise [39:29] there wouldn't be this level of [39:30] investment. [39:30] >> He he's not just a doomer either. He [39:32] literally works he's a VC. Okay. And [39:34] part of it I think I I worry that like [39:37] wait is it just stickick that he's just [39:38] the AI bear guy and he keeps doubling [39:40] down. But his bare case it's the best [39:42] bare case that there is by far. [39:43] >> So how do you sum up his bear case? [39:46] He's his bare case is that just listen [39:49] there's there's never been this amount [39:51] of spending before on something like [39:52] this and the ROI is just not going to be [39:54] there in time. [39:55] >> Right? Is that fair? [39:57] >> It's and it's not just that it's the [40:00] biggest spending as a percentage of GDP [40:02] in history. It's that it happened faster [40:03] than any time in history and you just [40:06] there's too much other spending that has [40:09] to go on in the future. And if you just [40:10] look at these like an actual investment [40:12] unless we get unless we turn technology [40:14] into a god. He's and he's saying like [40:16] the only way I'm wrong is if this is [40:17] actually a call option on AGI. [40:20] >> So my takeaway was you know what this is [40:22] just I put this in a too hard pile. [40:24] >> Now I know as people ho as people [40:26] talking about there's a financial [40:27] podcast we should probably have strong [40:28] opinions on is this a bubble? Is it not [40:30] a bubble? I don't know. I listened to [40:32] that I was like I just I don't know how [40:34] could I how could I know how could I [40:36] know if if if Google and and Microsoft [40:40] and Amazon are going to get a high [40:41] enough return on their investment. How [40:42] the hell could I know? [40:45] >> Yes, I totally agree. You come away from [40:47] listening that you go, "Oh man." But [40:48] even he asked him at the end, "How are [40:50] you like betting it? Are you putting a [40:52] big short on this?" And he was kind of [40:53] like, "Not really. I can't really force [40:56] myself to put it. I'm not in reinvesting [40:58] or something." But yes, I I totally [41:03] agree. I I'm hedging this one. I'm [41:05] totally on the fence. We We said before, [41:07] we told Derek like, "No, this isn't a [41:09] bubble." And I lean that way, but I'm [41:11] not 100% on that. How could you? [41:14] >> I mean, all the all the signs are there. [41:16] >> Yeah, but [41:17] >> Paul makes a very good So that on the [41:19] big technology podcast, it's worth a [41:21] listen. He makes a very good bare case. [41:23] Very good bear case. Uh here's here's [41:26] another part of it. Wall Street Journal, [41:27] why the $3 trillion in spending is [41:29] higher than it seems. And they show all [41:31] this offbalance sheet stuff for all the [41:34] big hyperscalers. And then they break it [41:36] down and it's mostly Google and Meta and [41:38] Microsoft and Oracle and Amazon and [41:40] Nvidia have these massive offbalance [41:43] sheet leases that have not started yet. [41:46] And obviously if the Wall Street Journal [41:48] has it, the market knows this. But this [41:51] is another thing like hey actually this [41:53] amount of spending and what they're what [41:55] they're committing to this is even [41:57] bigger than the numbers that we see at [41:59] face value. And it's it's go it's going [42:02] through the cash free cash flow levels [42:05] down to okay, we're we're into borrowing [42:07] territory now. And Google, you know, has [42:09] has even issued equity. So that's kind [42:11] of the thing here. [42:14] Uh all right. Well, it's certainly real. [42:16] Anthropic's revenue run rate is up to [42:18] $65 billion. [42:20] And Sean make this chart comparing the [42:24] AR of Enthropic to the trail and [42:25] 12-month revenue of various companies. [42:28] and it's done more revenue than Fizer, [42:31] Cisco, Kico Phillips, Intel, [42:36] $10 billion ahead of Uber, $15 billion [42:39] ahead of CocaCola. I don't know why I [42:42] just said it like that. And uh $18 [42:46] billion, $17 billion ahead of Netflix. [42:49] Holy mackerel. And it's right behind and [42:51] it's probably about to pass Oracle and [42:53] Delta. [42:54] >> See, I'm not impressed because they How [42:56] can Delta be ahead of them? show us how [42:58] bad of an doesn't it show how bad of a [43:00] business airlines are that Delta has a [43:03] higher revenue run rate than all these [43:04] companies. [43:05] >> Yeah, [43:06] >> it's kind of funny to think about [43:07] >> it's so much smaller. [43:08] >> Uh but yeah, you're right. And this is a [43:10] company that was founded year a couple [43:12] years ago, a few years ago, and they're [43:15] already earning more money in revenue [43:17] than all these. Yeah. So, that part is [43:19] real. [43:20] >> Um All right. Last week with Todd Zone, [43:23] we were talking about the explosion in [43:25] the ETF marketplace and what's coming [43:28] wrapping prediction markets inside of [43:30] ETFs. And then there was a filing from a [43:32] company, I don't know who this is, uh, [43:34] but Jeffrey Protect tweeted, "Wild, wild [43:36] stuff, filing to register 32 ETFs tied [43:39] to each NHL franchise. [43:42] Each ETF will invest in futures [43:44] contracts tied to the CME FSPI index for [43:46] the team concerned." All right, [43:47] whatever. Um, I hate I hate this. [43:49] Obviously, I hate this. [43:51] >> It's It's kind of funny that the NHL is [43:53] the first one to do this and not the NFL [43:54] or the NBA. [43:56] Uh but yes, obviously this is it's also [44:00] crazy that there is an actual futures [44:02] contract created in the CE for this. [44:04] Like this is it sounds halfway [44:08] legitimate, but [44:09] >> keep gambling out of your bro brokerage [44:11] accounts. You should not be able to [44:13] coingle your [44:16] retirement funds. I agree with you. [44:18] >> Your retirement account with [44:22] >> sports your fan. That's why yes, I like [44:24] the separation of church and state here. [44:26] You should keep your gambling in your [44:27] FanDuel account or your DraftKings [44:29] account or whatever it is. Like that [44:30] should be separate from your Charles [44:31] Schwab and your Robin Hood account [44:33] >> because you know why you could so easily [44:36] drain your brokerage account [44:40] and just shovel that money into the hole [44:43] that is sports betting losses. [44:47] This is it. [44:47] >> It needs to be there needs to be a [44:49] little bit of separate. There needs to [44:50] be a little bit of friction to slow [44:52] people down from making bad decisions. [44:54] >> But this will kind of test our our like [44:56] do we actually believe these gambling [44:58] numbers? Like how much money are these [44:59] ETFs going to get? [45:02] >> Will they actually have enough traction? [45:03] I [45:03] >> I I don't think so. [45:05] >> So the hope is that they just fall flat [45:07] on their face and they never get enough [45:08] money to matter. [45:10] >> That's the hope. But [45:11] >> obviously this stuff is not slowing down [45:13] ever. You talked to Todd about this. [45:15] Like this this is just there. There [45:17] going to be so much crap thrown against [45:19] the wall. [45:19] >> It hasn't started yet. [45:20] >> No. So much crap. [45:22] >> All right. Um [45:23] >> so when when do we start regulating this [45:25] stuff though? We just don't care. [45:27] >> Well, you and I care. I don't think the [45:29] regulators care. [45:30] >> All right. I guess it is kind of a wild [45:32] wild west and it's like, hey, if you [45:33] want to touch the hot stove, [45:34] >> you know what? I I I guess I am a little [45:36] bit sympathetic to the the where's the [45:38] line argument. Although maybe that's [45:40] like a maybe that's a a strong straw man [45:42] type of attitude. [45:46] I don't know where the line is. [45:49] I don't It's funny. I was going to talk [45:51] about this later, but you asked last [45:53] week like why is why is why are westerns [45:56] as a genre? Why why are westerns a movie [45:58] genre? And so I started listening to [46:00] this book. I had a long drive last week. [46:02] So I I listened to a bunch of audio [46:03] books which is a great way to pass the [46:05] time on a drive. I know podcasts are, [46:07] but listening, you can listen to an [46:08] entire audio book on a on a long drive. [46:10] It's a great way to pass the time. So, I [46:12] was listening to this book called The [46:13] Gunfighters by Brian Burroughs, and it's [46:15] this book about Wide Herp and Billy the [46:18] Kid and Wild Bill Hickok and all these [46:21] people that are in the western western [46:22] movies you've seen, and you're kind of [46:23] like, wait a minute, that was a real [46:24] person. So, it's about like the the [46:26] actual history behind them. In the first [46:28] chapter, the author explains that in the [46:30] 50s is when western like people kind of [46:33] started researching this stuff and it [46:34] really came in a big way. the TV shows [46:35] and the movies in the 50s and he said he [46:38] kind of said like why why were westerns [46:40] so popular and he said the reason is [46:41] that western so popular especially in [46:43] America is the freedom component and [46:46] you're on your own and there's no laws [46:48] and there's no regulations and there's [46:50] no rules and he said that's why [46:51] Americans love westerns because you have [46:54] that element of freedom and you're on [46:56] your own and no one's there to help you [46:59] and that's that's why ETFs are also wild [47:01] wild west [47:02] >> checks out good analogy well done It's [47:04] good. [47:06] >> All right. So, we talked before about [47:08] yes, young people being really angry [47:09] about the housing market. Makes sense. [47:11] Um, there was this guy uh writing in [47:14] Bloomberg who wrote his own situation [47:17] and he says he's been a renter over the [47:20] years and he says, "I love renting. It [47:22] gives me flexibility. It gives me a [47:24] fixed overhead." He said he's rented in [47:26] Brooklyn. He's rented in Miami. Um, he [47:29] says, "I love knowing that my rent is [47:31] basically the maximum I'll pay in [47:32] housing costs aside from some middle [47:33] minimal expenses like renters's [47:35] insurance and small repairs that aren't [47:36] covered by a landlord. A mortgage [47:38] payment, however, is the only one of the [47:39] costs of a homeowner must pay to [47:40] maintain a home." And then he basically [47:43] says, um, all the money that I would [47:45] have spent on home ownership, I've gone [47:47] into lowcost broad-based index funds. [47:49] And he's okay with this. And I know a [47:51] lot of young people aren't. [47:52] >> A lot of people, no, a lot of people, [47:53] but a lot of people have done that. [47:55] I think but I think this attitude is [47:57] going to start becoming more and more [47:58] pervasive for a larger segment of the [48:00] population of young people than than has [48:02] ever happened before. [48:03] >> Fine, I'll just put it in my brokerage [48:05] account [48:07] because what if you put your down [48:08] payment in and then the market falls [48:11] 20%, doesn't recover for three years and [48:13] you're like my down payment. [48:17] >> True. But I I think some of some of this [48:18] money is just maybe never going into a [48:20] home where Yeah, you're right. They buy [48:21] when they're 40 or something. I just [48:23] thought it was a good it was a good like [48:26] there are pros to being a renter. [48:28] >> Yeah. Yeah. Um Ben, getting back to the [48:31] negativity bias that we spoke about [48:33] earlier, [48:35] SpaceX, a lot of talk about what's going [48:38] to happen during the unlock. Is it going [48:40] to fall below 100? Is anybody talking [48:42] about the fact that it just bounced from [48:44] 100 to buck 50 during the unlock? [48:47] >> Yeah, you're right. Everyone was kicking [48:49] it while it was down, too. [48:50] >> Nobody cares about good news. [48:52] Hey, I do. I I I got into SpaceX for a [48:55] quick little uh 20% gain. [48:57] >> Love it. Good for you, [48:59] >> Trader Ben. [49:01] >> All right, so there's an article in the [49:02] in the in Bloomberg, the father of the [49:04] 401k has a new savings plan, and my big [49:09] takeaway from this, there's a picture of [49:11] him with a cat on his lap. Yeah. [49:13] >> And it says [49:14] >> Ted Bennett is the guy. had Benna with [49:16] his cat Leo on his farm in Jersey Shore, [49:21] Pennsylvania. [49:25] >> That's a new one. [49:26] >> There's a Jersey Shore, Pennsylvania. [49:30] >> That's new to me, too. So, he talks [49:33] about like, hey, listen, I So, he he [49:35] basically got the 401k because it was [49:37] this tax loophole, which of course, what [49:39] do you what do you think of tax [49:40] loopholes? Who is it going to benefit? [49:41] rich. He said, "The 401k has has really [49:45] benefited rich people more than other [49:46] people. I want to make it more [49:47] equitable." I actually think the 401k [49:50] has been a resounding success. And I [49:52] know a lot of people would disagree with [49:53] this. Here's the numbers from this uh [49:56] article. [49:56] >> What is to disagree with? [50:00] >> It's been a home run. [50:02] >> So, he's saying it as So, here's the [50:04] thing. when he started this in the late [50:05] 1970s, the 401k plan when it first got [50:07] hatched, 38% of US private sector [50:10] workers, many of them in unionized [50:12] industries had pensions that promised [50:13] income for life. It wasn't there was [50:15] never this time that everyone had a [50:16] pension. And now we have we would not [50:19] have 65% stock market ownership in the [50:22] US without a 401k. It simply that [50:24] wouldn't be the case. [50:25] >> There's 10 trillion dollars in 401ks. [50:29] >> Ted, take a bow. [50:31] >> Yes. It was a a way bigger success than [50:34] we ever could have realized or hoped for [50:36] because guess what? Those unions were [50:38] going away and those pensions were going [50:40] away either way. So, if we would have [50:41] had all the pensions go away and the [50:43] 401k wasn't there to fill the void, it [50:45] would have been 10 times worse. Then [50:48] people would have gone, "What the what? [50:49] There's nothing. Just an IRA. That's [50:52] it." Just at Fidelity alone, [50:54] there are 600,000 accounts that are [50:57] worth a million that have a million [50:58] dollars or more. And think about what [51:00] that number is going to be in 10 years [51:02] and 20 years. [51:03] >> Yeah. Yes. I I I would still love it if [51:07] we could open up the 401k for everyone. [51:10] And the government said, "Listen, if you [51:11] have it, if you earn a paycheck, you can [51:14] invest in the government's form of the [51:16] thrift savings plan because there are [51:17] still like 40% of workers don't have [51:19] access to a 401k because they work for a [51:21] small business that doesn't have one or [51:22] their employer doesn't give it. So they [51:23] I would love to see a 401k for everyone. [51:26] That would be the Ben Carlson campaign [51:28] promise. Everyone gets a 401k. If you [51:30] want it, you can have it. [51:31] >> I do love that he's not resting on his [51:32] laurels and he wants to improve because [51:34] there's it's not it's not perfect to [51:35] your point. There's always room for [51:36] improvement. [51:37] >> But yeah, Ted, take a bow. [51:40] >> Uh, this is interesting from Bloomberg. [51:44] More Americans now fly than ever before. [51:45] So, they went back to the 1970s and they [51:47] looked at people have flown in the last [51:48] 12 months or flown ever. And both of [51:51] these have essentially doubled from, I [51:54] don't know, flown in the last 12 months [51:55] is like 25% of people in the 1970s. And [51:58] now it's closer to 50% and flown ever [52:01] was 50% in the 1970s and now it's closer [52:03] to 80 or 90%. [52:06] >> My six-year-old [52:08] has been on more flights than I was in [52:12] my entire [52:14] life prior to age I don't know 25. [52:18] >> That makes sense to me. I didn't really [52:19] start going on planes as much until I [52:21] mean I'd fly to Florida to see my [52:22] grandparents occasionally, but the whole [52:23] thing of people driving for spring break [52:26] is not as big of a thing as it used to [52:27] be. That used to be like everyone would [52:29] just get in their car for 20 hours from [52:30] where I'm from and drive to Florida [52:32] >> and we would lay on the floor of a van [52:34] with no seat belt on and sleep. This is [52:37] another good one from this report [52:38] though. Uh the co on an [52:40] inflationadjusted basis from the early [52:43] 1990s, the cost of a domestic flight has [52:45] essentially been cut in half. That's [52:48] pretty crazy. [52:49] This is and just the so average fairs [52:51] from Chicago just for inflation is in [52:53] half in the past 30 or 40 years. [52:56] >> I really do believe this. I know this is [52:57] not uh this is not a a new insight. [53:00] We've spoken about this on the past. I [53:01] think I think it was Jonathan hate that [53:04] came up with this but I can't remember [53:05] who. All this complaining that we do is [53:07] a huge sign of progress and luxury. Like [53:09] >> it is. I totally agree with that. [53:11] >> Yeah. [53:13] >> Yes. the the fact that we have time to [53:15] complain about the Wi-Fi on the plane [53:16] and the all this stuff, it it's a sign [53:19] of progress. It's a good thing. [53:22] >> So, Louis did a bit about complaining [53:23] about Wi-Fi on the airplane. [53:25] >> Yeah. Everything is great and everything [53:28] is amazing and everyone is miserable or [53:29] something. [53:30] >> Sebastian Moscalico came through Jones [53:32] Beach and I was thinking about this. [53:35] >> You went to see him? [53:36] >> I did not. [53:37] >> Oh, okay. [53:38] >> Um [53:38] >> I've been to see him a few times. He's [53:39] great. He's great. [53:40] >> Okay. So, you might you might not like [53:42] this take. Okay. [laughter] [53:44] Hit me. [53:45] >> First of all, I've noticed people that [53:46] go see Sebastian Manusc [53:50] imitating him. They love doing his bits. [53:53] Like [53:53] >> Oh, yeah. I can see that. [53:54] >> Like no other comedian I've I've seen. [53:57] They just love doing his bits. [54:00] >> Yeah. Yep. I can see that. [54:01] >> All right. Here's my take. Sebastian, [54:04] and this is not a knock on him per se. [54:06] Sebastian Metako is the comedian for [54:09] people that don't really like comedy. [54:12] the same way that people think that [54:14] Olive Garden is great Italian food. [54:17] >> That's actually that's a pretty fair [54:18] take because [54:19] >> because he he appeals to everyone like [54:23] he's he's funny. I mean obviously he's [54:24] funny. He's a professional comedian but [54:26] >> Yes. And and I to be fair I I discovered [54:29] him very early on and like his early [54:31] stuff a lot better if [laughter] if I'm [54:32] playing that card. [54:35] [gasps] [54:37] >> That was a great walk back. [laughter] [54:38] I'm more afraid of his early his early [54:40] stuff. [54:43] That's great. [54:43] >> Name three name three of his comedy [54:45] albums [54:45] >> because you know like my dad my dad I [54:47] was like dad I I get it. [54:49] >> Yeah. Yeah. But he's very animated and I [54:52] mean they do SNL novels. Yeah. So yeah [54:55] that's that's a that's a that's a good [54:57] take. That's fair. Uh no I my wife and I [55:00] saw Kevin Hart in like 2007 [55:04] before he really took off and it was [55:05] honestly one of the funniest comedy [55:07] shows I have ever been to. And now I [55:09] think the guy is not funny at all, like [55:11] at all. And because success changes you. [55:14] Success makes you not as funny anymore. [55:16] >> I'm I'm very sympathetic to comedians. I [55:18] think it's the hardest thing in the [55:19] world or one of the hardest things to [55:20] like make [55:22] >> people laugh. [55:24] >> Oh yes. It's Yes. And it's you have a [55:26] finite amount of time though. Think [55:27] about it. People I've seen this cuz Will [55:30] Frell had a new Netflix show that came [55:31] and went and everyone is going, "What? [55:33] Will Ferrell's not funny anymore? What [55:34] happened?" Like he was one of the [55:35] funniest people alive for like 12 years [55:39] and it just you can't keep that pace up [55:42] forever. [55:42] >> Louis is still funny. [55:44] >> I saw his special at Radio City last [55:46] year and it was incredible. [55:48] >> Yeah, there's some people that still [55:48] have it that are just really good at [55:50] joke writing. All right, let's talk [55:51] about rich guys in trouble. We talked a [55:53] couple weeks ago about the guy who owns [55:54] the who owns the Dodgers and apparently [55:56] used to own the Lakers being in trouble [55:58] because he he he ran Guggenheim and [56:00] there was some private credit stuff [56:01] going on and insurance company stuff. [56:03] feeling [56:04] >> the al those are the allegations. [56:07] >> Are you surprised that they let this guy [56:09] buy the Lakers in the first place? [56:12] >> Well, I don't know. Um I have no idea [56:13] what the vetting process looks like. How [56:15] would they how would they have uncovered [56:16] this? He was a very very very rich guy. [56:18] >> I guess that's true. Like how what kind [56:21] of due diligence does the NBA have that [56:24] would even know this stuff? But that's [56:25] why I think this private equity, private [56:26] credit stuff, [56:28] >> it's really really easy to hide stuff if [56:30] you need to. Yeah, [56:30] >> obviously this guy did. [56:32] >> So maybe maybe this is the next risk. [56:34] Who knows? [56:35] >> I can't believe that he bought the [56:36] Lakers and sold them a year later. [56:38] >> All right. So I I would love to [56:40] institute a new rule. I don't know how [56:42] it would be enforceable because if this [56:44] guy has to sell for either financial and [56:47] or legal reasons, okay, but maybe that [56:51] aside, [56:54] you can't buy and if you buy a team, [56:56] there has to be a minimum five year [56:57] holding period because think about a [57:00] world where people are flipping NBA [57:03] franchises for a billion dollars because [57:05] that's the value increases by a billion [57:07] dollars every two years. What is that [57:08] going to do for the fan experience? If [57:10] it is purely purely a financial asset [57:13] and there's little consideration to the [57:16] experience of the fans, what is that [57:18] going to do to the league? I don't want [57:20] to live in that league. [57:22] >> Well, this seems like a pretty [57:23] extenduating circumstances to me. [57:25] >> I agree. Uh, and most of these are like [57:28] usually not assets you buy for I mean [57:31] obviously it helps that the value goes [57:32] up but a lot of time [57:33] >> Yeah. But I'm saying but but if people [57:35] not if people with money will see this [57:38] saw this and said, "Holy this guy [57:41] just made $2.5 billion in 18 months, [57:45] >> right? [57:46] >> Let's do it." [57:49] >> There's just so many rich guys now, [57:50] though. It's crazy. [57:52] Like, think of how quickly they were [57:55] able to find a buyer. It's also kind of [57:56] crazy. Disney stock has gone nowhere for [57:58] 10 years. Bob Iger's buying the Lakers. [58:01] >> I don't know how much money he's [58:03] investing. [58:04] >> Okay. Well, well, got a lot. Uh, so Matt [58:07] Ishbia, who a big name in Michigan, not [58:09] a lot of people, he owns the Phoenix [58:10] Suns. He created one of the biggest [58:13] mortgage developers in the country. um [58:16] they kind of needed a rescue from oak [58:18] tree of all places because they made a [58:20] bet that didn't work out and they tried [58:21] to hedge some and I I think it's just a [58:24] good reminder that even really really [58:26] rich guys there's a there's there's they [58:29] can stumble and like there's there's [58:31] nothing that makes you stay there [58:32] forever and actually the ranks of really [58:35] rich people changes way more often than [58:37] people think. There's been studies on [58:38] this that like people who are in the top [58:40] 1% or the top 5% can also find [58:42] themselves like it it changes. [58:44] Obviously, it's easier to keep money [58:45] than it was in the past, but this stuff [58:47] is not guaranteed to anyone to stay [58:49] where it is. [58:50] >> Yeah, I saw a good a funny joke about [58:53] how poorly managed the Suns are. It's no [58:56] wonder he made a few bad trades with his [58:58] mortgage company [58:59] >> between Bradley Beal and KD and [59:03] >> Yeah. So, the stock's down 85%. I think [59:05] they put some rate hedges on assuming [59:07] rates would fall. Like, of course, [59:09] there's been no housing activity, right? [59:11] And so, it kind of makes sense that the [59:13] stock would be down so much. All right, [59:15] story time. So, I did a speech last week [59:18] at the FBA Crossroads down in southern [59:20] Indiana, French Lick, home of Larry [59:22] Bird, and uh the resort I was staying [59:24] at. A lot of great finance people there. [59:26] It was it was a fun conference. Um but I [59:29] got down there and realized, oh, this [59:31] place has a casino in it. And I it was [59:32] like 10 o'clock at night, and I thought, [59:34] you know what? I could put on like a [59:34] Netflix show or something and just kind [59:36] of relax, but man, there's a casino. I [59:38] texted you. I said, "I have to go to the [59:39] casino, don't I?" I'm by myself. You [59:40] said, "Yes, you have to go to the [59:41] casino." So, [59:42] >> um, this is kind of obvious, but this [59:44] this relates to stock trading as well. [59:46] If you own a stock and it goes from 300 [59:49] to 500 and then it falls back to 400, [59:52] you've made a nice gain in that stock, [59:54] but you're kind of miserable. If you own [59:56] a stock and it goes from 300 to 200 back [59:59] to 300, you're a you're you're floating [60:02] on cloud9 because you ca came all the [60:04] way back even though you made less of a [60:05] gain. [60:05] >> That's how I feel about Netflix. I'm [60:06] only down 15%. I feel like the smartest [60:08] man alive. [60:09] >> So I I went down I went to the ATM. I [60:12] got a few hundred bucks out. I put it [60:13] down and they they had like $15 tables [60:15] which is funny. Seems low by the [60:17] standards of today. Usually you can't [60:18] find anything lower than 25 if me and [60:20] you go to Vegas. And um I'm playing the [60:24] right way, of course, and my money's [60:26] gone immediately. I lose every hand. The [60:28] guy next to me is getting a blackjack [60:29] every other hand. He's winning [60:30] everything. And I'm playing by the books [60:32] and I just I lose and I'm gone 10 [60:34] minutes in and I play the right way and [60:36] my whole I'm g I'm done. And the the [60:39] dealer was just a widowmaker. So I said, [60:41] I can't let that be the No, I can't do [60:43] that. So I go and get another get some [60:45] more money at the ATM and pay like $12 [60:47] for an ATM fee. I guess we're all just [60:49] cool with this. the fact that you pay [60:51] the fee and you pay the 90mm fee. That's [60:53] cool. Uh, and I come back and I go to a [60:57] different table with a different dealer [60:58] and uh, all I do is win and I come all [61:01] the way back and I make up all the money [61:03] I lost and that's just that and all I [61:06] think all I did at the end was break [61:07] even essentially. But that's a great [61:10] feeling as opposed to the other way. [61:12] It's the the one where the guy is in the [61:13] bus and he's looking at one side it's [61:14] sunny, one side it's the mountain. That [61:17] was me with Blackjack [61:18] >> and in your head you've got the Ben [61:20] Carlson from from uh Milan entrance [61:24] music playing. [snorts] [61:26] >> You're walking through the smoke [61:27] machines. [61:28] >> Yes. You feel great. And it's even one [61:30] of those times when there's no greater [61:31] feeling than when everyone at a table is [61:33] winning and even like everyone there was [61:34] by themselves and some old guy next to [61:36] me even like gave me a fist bump at one [61:37] point like hey nice nice you know when [61:40] you're you're really feeling it. [61:41] >> Great feeling. [61:42] >> One more thing parlays are just [61:44] everywhere now. So I sit down at this [61:46] table and I see all these people doing [61:47] these other side bets. So you have your [61:49] little circle where you put your bet, [61:50] right? And above the circle there's [61:51] these little number threes and I see [61:55] every everyone at this table's putting [61:56] little money down on these like five [61:58] bucks. And I said the guy next to me he [62:00] he won one and it was like 9 to1 payout [62:02] and I'm like what is that? I I've never [62:03] seen this before. Maybe I'm just naive. [62:06] And he's like oh it's a kind of like a [62:08] it's a really high odds you can if your [62:10] card like a three card poker hand. So if [62:12] you get like a straight or a flush with [62:14] the dealer's card, you or if you get [62:16] three of a kind, you win like nine or 10 [62:19] to one. [62:19] >> Or if the top two if the if the first [62:21] two cards are like queen of hearts, it's [62:23] like 100 to one or whatever. [62:25] >> But the every the dealer's just [62:28] funneling money from these people every [62:30] once in It's crazy that these parlays [62:32] are everywhere and people everyone is [62:34] betting them almost every time. I [62:36] couldn't believe it. [62:39] Anyway, wanted to give an odds [62:41] odds odds lesson to these people. [62:43] >> You know, I'm telling myself as we get [62:44] ready for the NFL season that I'm going [62:46] to cut it out with the parlays, [62:48] but they're just so enticing. [62:50] >> You still bet the parlays, huh? [62:55] >> I am I am a [62:58] So, what I my strategy for betting, [62:59] which has not worked the last two [63:01] seasons, but I feel like it might work [63:02] this season. [63:04] [snorts] [63:05] I like buy points. So, I'll do Jaylen [63:08] Herz over 25 rushing yards. Jaylen Herz [63:11] 125 yards passing over under Cowboys [63:15] Eagles uh 31 points. And that'll be like [63:17] even money. So, I'm not doing like I [63:20] don't do like the plus 450 part. [63:22] >> Okay. You're doing things that are high [63:23] probability. Yeah. See, this is why I [63:25] think that these ETFs on sports gambling [63:27] are not going to work because you if you [63:29] just did a high probability sports [63:31] gambling ETF, you you get away the [63:34] feeling that you get from gambling. [63:36] That's the whole point of gambling [63:37] >> 100%. [63:38] >> Like the ecstasy and the agony and like [63:40] if you do it in the ETF that yay I'm [63:42] clipping 8% a year because I'm I'm [63:44] betting taking all the high favorites or [63:46] something. Like what is the fun in that? [63:48] That takes away the fun in gambling. [63:49] >> Well, you and I aren't going to do that [63:51] cuz I enjoy I enjoy actually I enjoy [63:54] losing money because that's fun. Making [63:55] 8% super not fun. [63:57] >> Right. Of course. [63:58] >> But Jane Street will do that. They they [64:01] are doing that, [64:01] >> right? Probably. [64:04] >> Um [64:04] >> All right. recommendations. [64:06] >> Okay. Uh, all right. I rewatched Blood [64:09] Sport. Now, I'm pretty sure that Blood [64:13] Sport is my number two [64:17] most rewatched movie of all time. I [64:20] think [64:20] >> it was always on USA all the time. I [64:22] watch it on USA all the time, too. It [64:24] >> was always on. [64:25] >> One is Shaw Shank. I think two is Blood [64:27] Sport. It's It was It was always on from [64:32] I don't know [64:34] 1992 to 1997. It was on every single [64:39] week and I think I might have watched it [64:40] every single week, but I haven't seen it [64:42] literally in Ben. I haven't seen this [64:45] movie in 25 years at least. [64:48] >> Yeah, it's probably been a while for me [64:49] too [64:49] >> because you've seen it a million times. [64:51] You know, it was it was it was still [64:53] fresh in my brain. But I don't think I [64:55] realized. In fact, I definitely didn't [64:57] realize that that might be the single [64:59] worst acting performance of all time by [65:01] [snorts] one JeanClaude Vanam. [65:04] Holy mackerel was he terrible. And guess [65:06] what? Didn't matter. The movie still [65:08] slaps hard. Fight to survive. Kumate. [65:12] Kumate. [65:13] >> When he gets his stuff in his eyes and [65:15] he blinks really hard. [65:17] >> Unbelievable. I think everything had to [65:18] be one take. It was the worst acting [65:20] I've ever seen. But it's on Prime and [65:21] it's incredible. [65:22] >> So, you've probably seen Lion Hart, too. [65:24] >> Oh, yeah. I mean, Sudden Death, uh, [65:27] what's the two of them? Double Double [65:29] Dragon, [65:30] >> Time Cop. Yeah, he was an actual star [65:32] for a while there. [65:33] >> I know. [65:34] >> Vanam. Vanam would not make it. He would [65:35] have to be satire to be to make it [65:37] today. He could have only come up in the [65:39] 1990s. [65:40] >> Correct. I tried to take my kids to see [65:42] the End of Oak Street, which is a [65:43] dinosaur movie. And Robin looked it up [65:46] and she said, "Absolutely not." I said, [65:47] "It's a dinosaur movie." She goes, she [65:49] read the description. Is it appropriate? [65:51] No. There's whatever. Like Robin, it [65:54] it's a freak. All right, whatever. I [65:55] wasn't gonna win that. [65:56] >> Pretty scary. [65:57] >> My dad I So I sing about Vanam. I saw [66:00] Universal Soldier with my dad in the [66:01] theater. [66:02] >> What year was that? 90 [66:05] I know this is a different time, but uh [66:08] Universal Soldier was 1992. [66:13] Remember in the in the first scene when [66:15] when Do Lungren has the ears on the [66:18] necklace? [66:20] >> I don't remember that one very much. [66:21] >> Okay. [66:23] Uh, anyway, I did see The End of Oak [66:25] Street. That was that was a fun ass [66:27] movie. [66:28] >> Was it good? [66:28] >> Yeah, really good. [66:30] >> Okay. I It looks great. I The preview [66:31] looks awesome. [66:32] >> It's like an old school sci-fi movie [66:34] that was actually good. It's like a It's [66:35] like a made for USA movie. So, the [66:38] premise is um uh Yuan, not Yuan [66:42] McGregor. It [66:43] >> is McGregor, isn't it? [66:44] >> It is. Okay. I also get him and uh Ethan [66:46] Hawk confused. [66:47] >> Okay. Yeah. Yuan McGregor. [66:48] >> All right. a McGregor, uh, Anne [66:51] Hathaway, [66:52] >> who did everything this year [66:53] >> and Right. And they're two kids. [66:57] The story is based in 1982. There's a [66:59] flash of lightning and all of a sudden [67:00] they're in the they're in the Jurassic [67:02] era and they're surrounded by dinosaurs. [67:04] The dumbest premise of all time, a [67:06] straight to USA movie, circum 1992. [67:08] Guess what? It worked. [67:10] >> It worked. Um, [67:12] and I Oh, you saw the invite. [67:15] >> Okay, so I watched the invite with my [67:16] wife and you recommended this to me. And [67:18] I a b I had a handful of people who [67:20] emailed us and said this is a Ben movie. [67:21] You have to watch it. Uh I love this [67:23] movie. It was so I mean listen the the [67:27] premise is obviously a little absurd and [67:28] over the top but I just thought it's [67:31] it's a one night movie. [67:33] >> It's I thought all four actors in the in [67:35] the movie were great. I thought like the [67:37] fighting between [67:39] uh Seth Rogan and who is he married to [67:42] in the movie? What's her name? It's [67:44] >> Liv Wild. [67:44] >> Liv Wild. I thought it like the the [67:46] fighting of them was perfect for a [67:48] married couple. Um I just I Ed Norton [67:52] was like very great as like the straight [67:53] man and man Penel Cruz has still got it [67:56] after all these years. [67:57] >> She looked great. [67:57] >> Uh [67:58] >> I it's weird that there's so many of [68:00] these actresses from the 90s who can't [68:02] age. Penelopey Cruz and Salahek and [68:04] Jennifer Aniston and JLo and like how do [68:07] you explain over 35 years that these [68:09] people just don't age? I know it's diet [68:11] and exercise and Botox, [68:13] >> plastic surgery, and [68:15] >> it's crazy though, but I Penelopey Cruz [68:16] is great. Is it weird for me to say that [68:18] I think Seth Rogan, who literally plays [68:20] the same character in every movie he's [68:22] in, he plays some version of himself and [68:24] he's never he has zero acting range at [68:26] all. Is it weird for me to think that [68:27] Seth Rogan could win an award for this [68:29] movie? [68:29] >> He was great. [68:30] >> I thought he was absolutely excellent in [68:32] this movie. [68:32] >> All right, so I as I told you, I [68:34] unfortunately saw this in a very crowded [68:36] theater by myself. I wish I was with my [68:38] wife or a friend because there's a few [68:40] like very hard laugh out loud scenes. [68:44] >> Yes, I I I laughed a dozen times in this [68:46] movie. Like actual laughed. It It's [68:48] really really funny. Um but I I thought [68:51] Seth Rogan was who again who's who plays [68:53] himself in every single movie. [68:55] >> He was excellent in this movie. I [68:56] thought he was really really good. It's [68:58] a great movie. What a great year for [68:59] movies though. [69:00] >> You were right about this. I thought [69:01] 2025 was some decent movies that were a [69:04] little overrated. I think 2026 is just a [69:06] great year for movies. [69:08] >> Last year I was right. It was it was it [69:10] was uh Sinners and One Battle like Yeah, [69:14] good. But this this slate is so much [69:16] better in my opinion. I 2026 has knocked [69:19] it out of the park. [69:20] >> Yes. Between The Odyssey and Obsession [69:22] and The Invite and like there's just [69:23] been so many good movies. Uh yeah, I [69:26] love it. [69:28] >> Um [69:31] >> All right. [69:32] >> Again, [69:32] >> what's that? We need a We need a [69:34] correction to kind of spruce things up a [69:35] little bit. We're We're searching for [69:37] negative stuff here, but we need some [69:39] like We need a correction. [69:42] I don't think it's going to happen. [69:42] We're going to have another 20% up. [69:44] >> You don't think it's going to happen? [69:45] >> I don't know. We [laughter] [69:46] >> Wow, man. [69:47] >> I mean, we're going to have another 20% [69:49] up year in the stock market, it appears. [69:51] >> Okay. All right. Um, if the market is [69:54] down 7% next Tuesday or Wednesday, I [69:57] suppose, [69:58] >> it's all fault. [69:59] >> All right. Animal Spirits at the [70:00] compounds.com. Thank you everybody for [70:02] listening. Thank you to John and Duncan [70:04] and Daniel and the entire production [70:07] team. Remember, check out Morgan's new [70:08] podcast, Psychology of Money with Morgan [70:10] Hel. And we will see you next time. [70:18] [music] [70:24] >> [music]