Batnick, Carlson Lock In 5% Yields as Equities Defy Rate Spike

股市顶住利率飙升，Batnick与Carlson锁定5%收益率 美债收益率飙升未能阻挡超大盘股的涨势，因为强劲的经济增长和AI支出为估值提供了缓冲，但如果收益率继续攀升，市场的韧性将面临临界点。 Michael Batnick与Ben Carlson深入分析了为何尽管面临5%的美债收益率、飙升的房贷利率以及低迷的消费者信心，股市仍持续在历史高点附近震荡走高。他们剖析了市场内部广度以及各板块的估值倍数压缩，并解释了为何两位主持人均已开始买入债券ETF以锁定这代人难遇的收益率。此外，对话还探讨了诸如Instinct等自主AI代理如何通过无摩擦取消订阅来颠覆订阅制商业模式，随后审视了私募信贷赎回、住房承受力挑战，以及他们近期最喜爱的书籍、电影和电视节目。 尽管10年期美债收益率冲破5.2%，股市仍展现出韧性，但标普500指数表面的强劲掩盖了内部的分化：年内有40%的成份股下跌，且11个板块中有10个遭遇了估值倍数收缩。 (2:31) 彭博美国综合债券指数（Bloomberg US Aggregate Bond Index）正经历自1976年设立以来最糟糕的10年期实际回报，这是由于近乎为零的初始收益率、激进的加息以及严重的通胀罕见交织所致。 (18:19) 家庭资产负债表呈现出极端分化：消费者信心接近历史低点，但2026年第二季度美国家庭资产超过负债的10倍以上，且经通胀调整后收入超过15万美元的家庭比例接近30%。 (19:41) 能够审查银行对账单并取消订阅的自主个人AI代理的出现，对依赖消费者惯性与定期自动扣款的商业模式构成了威胁。 (33:27)

Ben Carlson and Michael Batnick examine why equities have defied soaring interest rates, arguing that robust macroeconomic growth and strong household balance sheets have offset severe multiple compression, even as both hosts aggressively lock in 5% yields across fixed income. Equities Defying Rate Spikes Amid Narrow Breadth (5:57) Textbook financial theory dictates that rapid yield spikes reduce the present value of future earnings and crush equities. However, with the 10-year Treasury yield climbing from 4% toward 5.2%, the S&P 500 has maintained double-digit year-to-date gains, supported by the Atlanta Fed's GDPNow tracking third-quarter growth at 5% and sustained corporate capex in artificial intelligence. Carlson notes that since the 10-year bottomed below 0.50% in March 2020, the S&P 500 has generated an annualized return of 19%, demonstrating that rising rates do not automatically force market declines. Beneath the headline resilience lies stark internal divergence. While the capitalization-weighted S&P 500 sits near record highs with the VIX around 16, equal-weighted indexes and small caps have dropped considerably. Data from Duality Research reveals that 10 of 11 sectors have experienced double-digit multiple contraction year-to-date, with only consumer staples expanding. Furthermore, over 70% of S&P constituents are at least 10% below their highs, and 21 of 28 stocks making new 52-week lows are concentrated in rate-sensitive bond proxies like utilities, real estate, and staples. Reallocating to Bonds After Historic Drawdowns (13:36) The hosts outline why they are actively shifting taxable capital into fixed-income ETFs, including long-duration instruments like TLT, while leaving their 401(k) equity allocations untouched. Carlson explains that Bloomberg's US Aggregate Bond Index has suffered one of its most severe periods since its 1976 inception, posting rolling five-year annualized nominal returns of -0.3% and the worst 10-year real return on record. This performance resulted from a rare collision of near-zero starting yields, rapid rate hikes, and sudden inflation. Batnick and Carlson emphasize that their purchases are not market-timing calls on interest rates peaking. Instead, 5% benchmark yields offer an asymmetrical risk-reward profile unavailable for over a decade. While short-term cash yields around 4% are low-risk, intermediate and long-term bonds offer a significant capital appreciation kicker if economic growth slows or inflation normalizes. Macroeconomic Sentiment Disconnect and Asset Concentration (19:41) A wide gap has emerged between public perception and actual balance-sheet health. Consumer sentiment has dropped lower than during the 2008 financial crisis or the 2020 pandemic shock, pressured by 7.3% mortgage rates, near-$100 oil, and cumulative inflation. Yet actual capital allocations contradict this gloom: retail single-stock purchases on platforms like Robinhood hover near record highs, while institutional positioning tracked by Goldman Sachs sits near multi-month lows. Carlson cites Cato Institute research showing that the lowest income quintile experienced the largest percentage gains in real income since 1990, while households earning an inflation-adjusted $150,000 or more surged from 5% in 1967 to roughly 30% today. Furthermore, Bank of America data shows total US household assets exceeded liabilities by more than 10 to 1 in the second quarter of 2026. A rising equity wealth effect is directly fueling consumption: JPMorgan found that 20% of top-income earners made net investment withdrawals to fund discretionary spending in early 2026, up from 6.6% in 2015. Autonomous AI Agents Disputing Consumer Inertia (33:27) The hosts transition to the rapid real-world deployment of autonomous, agentic AI assistants such as Instinct. Batnick describes granting full financial access to personal agents that autonomously manage family logistics, purchase items, reconcile overdrafts, and execute complex subscription cancellations across streaming and cable services. Rather than generating text, these agents act directly on software interfaces to remove consumer friction. This trend poses structural threats to traditional business models. Torsten Sløk of Apollo warns that agents automatically sweeping idle checking account balances into high-yield instruments could drain the low-cost deposit bases commercial banks rely on. Concurrently, systematic audits by AI agents threaten companies within Goldman Sachs's 'consumer inertia basket'—businesses like subscription gyms, streaming apps, and print media that rely heavily on forgotten autopay enrollments. The central unresolved dilemma is whether equities can continue to absorb vertical bond-yield expansion. While corporate balance sheets and resilient GDP growth have insulated headline indexes so far, Carlson and Batnick warn that if the 10-year Treasury yield approaches 5.6%, the cost of capital will reach a breaking point that triggers broad-based equity selling.

## Background 本期节目由财经频道 The Compound 于 2026 年 9 月 30 日在 YouTube 平台发布，为主持人迈克尔·巴特尼克（Michael Batnick）与本·卡尔森（Ben Carlson）搭档主持的《Animal Spirits》第 484 期。节目聚焦于利率攀升至 5% 对美股市场的潜在冲击、全市场估值压缩与个股分化，并深入探讨了宏观经济的财富效应、AI 个人智能体对商业模式的重塑、7.3% 房贷利率下的房市冰冻以及创意阶层的生存危机等议题。 ## TL;DR 两位主持人剖析了美股在利率飙升至 5% 以上时表面平静、水下七成个股遭遇回撤的怪诞割裂，指出市场满盘怀疑却毫无恐慌，教科书式的折现估值模型在强劲经济与 AI 资本开支叙事下暂时失效。针对投资级债券创下半世纪以来最差表现的背景，两人拆解了自己止损个股、买入 5% 收益率债券以锁定长期息票的战术配置，并结合摩根大通数据阐明高净值人群正加速提取股市浮盈消费带来的实体财富效应。此外，节目还深度探讨了新兴自主 AI 智能体对依靠消费者惰性扣费公司的降维打击、高利率锁死下的美国楼市困局，以及文化产业大裁员危机与百佳美剧盘点。 ## Atmosphere & style 整期节目氛围轻松诙谐且节奏紧凑，充满了两位熟稔搭档之间针锋相对却默契十足的吐槽与拆台。迈克尔性格积极敏锐、乐于尝鲜新技术并保持偏多头的战术乐观，本则更为冷静务实、带着老练投资人的警惕与生活化的自嘲，两人在高密度宏观图表分析与生活趣事（如飞机被扯靠背、酒店退房倒计时、辅导女儿发短信规矩）之间无缝穿梭。聆听体验如同旁听一场老友间毫无包袱的深度金融沙龙，在犀利解构教条主义市场理论的同时，洋溢着真实生动的人情味与烟火气。 ## Bulletin - [01:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgQFyAYuWeA&t=114s) 美股呈现“满盘皆疑、毫无恐慌”的分化特征，标普500指数虽逼近历史高点，但内部超70%成分股自高点回撤超10%，11个板块中10个正在经历两位数的估值压缩。 - [17:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgQFyAYuWeA&t=1070s) 彭博美国综合债券指数录得自1976年创立以来最差的5年期负回报及10年期实际回报，但5%以上的无风险名义收益率正吸引资金通过低费率ETF锁定厚息与潜在资本利得。 - [19:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgQFyAYuWeA&t=1181s) 美国家庭资产负债比超过10倍，摩根大通数据显示高收入阶层中提取投资收益用于实体消费的比例已飙升至20%，股市财富效应正加速向消费端渗透。 - [30:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgQFyAYuWeA&t=1851s) 具备执行力的个人 AI 智能体（如 Instinct）正在普及，其自动取消无用订阅与优化现金流的功能，正对高盛所定义的“消费者惯性”概念股商业模式构成实质性冲击。 - [39:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgQFyAYuWeA&t=2362s) 在7.3%房贷利率冻结楼市流动性的同时，私募信贷领域赎回压力骤增，Apollo 与摩根士丹利旗下旗舰私募信贷基金的季度赎回申请比例已分别攀升至15%与11%。 ## Key takeaways - [00:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgQFyAYuWeA&t=55s) 显性利空难以轻易砸崩美股：加息与高利率虽然是显而易见的宏观利空，但市场崩盘往往突如其来，过度透明且被充分预期的风险通常不会直接引发断崖式暴跌。 - [04:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgQFyAYuWeA&t=286s) 指数表面繁荣掩盖水下惨烈回撤：标普500虽高位震荡，但70%的成分股已陷入技术性回调，40%年内录得亏损，极少数超级龙头的暴涨大幅掩盖了选股者的困境。 - [07:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgQFyAYuWeA&t=433s) 传统金融学折现理论遭遇现实打脸：自2020年3月10年期美债收益率从0.5%一路飙升至5.2%，标普500指数年化复合收益率却反常地达到19%，展现出极高的逆周期盈利韧性。 - [10:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgQFyAYuWeA&t=636s) 散户极度看多与机构极度防守形成撕裂：Robinhood散户净买入与科技股ETF资金流入均创历史新高，而高盛机构仓位指标却滑入深度负值，传统问卷式情绪指标已彻底失真。 - [17:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgQFyAYuWeA&t=1070s) 配置5%债券重在享受厚息与防守弹性：加仓债券并非为了精准抄底利率，而是在近50年最差的债市周期后，锁定历史罕见的名义无风险回报，并防范未来经济下行风险。 - [19:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgQFyAYuWeA&t=1181s) 居民资产负债表与收入分配明显改善：全美家庭资产达到负债的10倍以上，年收入超15万美元的家庭占比升至近30%，底层群体的实际薪资增长亦支撑了高边际消费倾向。 - [23:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgQFyAYuWeA&t=1398s) 全美房租通胀完全重回常态增长轨道：2026年8月全美中位数租金降至1390美元，精确重合于2017年以来年化2%的长期趋势线，疫情期间的狂暴涨势已彻底退潮。 - [30:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgQFyAYuWeA&t=1851s) AI 智能体打破“消费者遗忘与惯性”收益：随着 AI 自动化接管订阅扣费与跨账户资金归集，类似 Planet Fitness 等极度依赖用户办卡后遗忘取消的商业模型将面临重估瓦解。 - [36:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgQFyAYuWeA&t=2184s) 高利率引发房产与抵押贷款证券（MBS）双向锁死：7.3%的高利率彻底锁死了置换需求，而疫情期间发放的3%超低息房贷资产在二级市场已折价至60美分，套牢了大量固定收益持有者。 - [39:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgQFyAYuWeA&t=2362s) 私募信贷暗潮涌动，季度赎回申请维持高位：尽管未出现轰动性暴雷事件，但 Apollo（15%）与摩根士丹利（11%）的赎回率显示资金正在持续撤离，另类资产管理机构股价整体重挫。 - [42:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgQFyAYuWeA&t=2554s) 创意阶层面临严重裁员潮与内容粗制滥造：全美创意岗位四年流失超20万个，文娱支出结构向现场演出倾斜，影视制作预算的大幅削减导致充斥廉价特效与AI拼凑的低质作品泛滥。 - [57:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgQFyAYuWeA&t=3422s) 美债收益率仍是股票市场的终极天花板：虽然当前股市依靠强劲盈利预期抵抗住了利率飙升，但若10年期国债收益率失控冲向5.6%，估值压缩终将演化为股市的实质性下跌借口。 ## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgQFyAYuWeA&t=4s) 赞助商信息与开场：市场是否有借口大跌？ 节目开篇照常由 YCharts 赞助播出。许多投资顾问目前面临的痛点并非“缺乏数据”，而是数据过于分散在各个工具中——投资组合数据存在一套系统，客户沟通笔记在另一套系统，而风险承受能力调查问卷又散落在别处，导致每次开会前都要打开无数个标签页。YCharts 推出的 Risk and Proposal Manager（风险与提案管理器）旨在打通全局，将业绩、风险指标与客户背景统一在同一视图中，一键式完成从问卷匹配到生成定制提案的闭环。 随后迈克尔·巴特尼克（Michael Batnick）与本·卡尔森（Ben Carlson）切入正题。本抛出了本期核心问题：当前美股市场上到处都是抛售的理由与借口，如果市场真的想借此砸盘，它会照做吗？迈克尔打趣地提醒听众“系好安全带”，因为本期准备的讨论文稿足足有 43 页，节目时长很可能会冲到 1 小时 15 分钟（“40 多页如今成了我们的新中位数”）。本随后快速回顾了历史上的加息与崩盘对照：刺破日本资产泡沫的是央行加息；互联网泡沫破裂期美联储在加息；1929 年大崩盘前美联储在紧缩收水；全球金融危机（GFC）前夕美联储同样在步步紧逼。当下市场最大的显性风险众所周知，市场已经在定价美联储可能把利率维持甚至推升至 4.5% 到 5% 的区间。既然利空如此明朗，股市究竟会不会就此大跌？ 迈克尔的回答斩钉截铁：“不会。因为如果真的要崩，这就未免太显而易见、太容易了（Too easy）。” ### [01:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgQFyAYuWeA&t=114s) 充满怀疑却毫无恐慌：“满盘皆疑，毫无所惧” 迈克尔根据多年的实盘经验指出，市场通常绝不会给投资者如此充裕的时间从容撤离。当下的盘面让他联想起当年的 4 月行情：市场每天只是阴跌一点点，并没有出现 1% 或 2% 的单日暴跌；大家都在等待所谓的“黑天鹅”，纳闷为什么股市没有真正断崖式下跌。他用一句话精准总结当前的市场环境：“市场里充斥着大量的怀疑（Doubt），但基本上是零恐慌（Zero fear）。” 为了佐证“充满怀疑”这一面，迈克尔引用了来自 22V Research（通过 Daily Chartbook 整理）的数据。上周他们曾讨论英伟达（NVIDIA）基于远期收益的市盈率仅为 16 倍，看似成了 AI 行情的标杆。而 22V Research 进一步放眼全局，追踪了一个由 81 家暴露于 AI 资本支出（AI capex）的公司组成的一篮子指数（横跨 12 个细分领域），其平均 EV/EBITDA（类似于市盈率倍数）仅为 15 倍，只是其 2026 年前历史平均水平的 1.14 倍。这意味着，整个 AI 交易板块的估值溢价几乎已被完全挤出。 不仅如此，Duality Research 的财报与估值统计更是惊人：今年美股 11 个板块中，竟然只有必需消费品（Consumer Staples）一个板块实现了估值乘数扩张（Multiple expansion），且涨幅不到 1%；其余 10 个板块全部经历着惨烈的估值压缩（Multiple contraction），可选消费、通信服务（科技股聚集地）、材料、能源乃至标普 500 整体的估值压缩幅度都达到了两位数级别。 而在“毫无恐慌”这一面，证据同样显眼： - 恐慌指数 VIX 依然徘徊在 16 附近的低位。 - 市场技术派分析师 JC Parets 指出，必需消费品和公用事业（Utilities）历来是股市最经典的防御避险资产，当投资者感到害怕时通常会涌入避难。但最新数据显示，必需消费品相对标普 500、公用事业相对标普 500 的相对强弱比率双双砸穿出了多年来的全新低点，“根本没有任何资金在往这些防御板块里躲”。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Market Sentiment Divergence accDescr: Diagram illustrating the current market paradox of widespread doubt versus zero fear. subgraph DoubtSide["满盘怀疑（Doubt）"] D1["AI一篮子股票 EV/EBITDA 仅15倍<br/>溢价几乎出清"] D2["11个板块中10个遭遇两位数估值压缩<br/>仅必需消费微扩不足1%"] D3[">70%成分股较年内高点回撤超10%"] end subgraph FearlessSide["毫无恐慌（Zero Fear）"] F1["恐慌指数 VIX 维持在 16 低位"] F2["传统防御板块（消费品/公用事业）无人问津<br/>相对比率创多年新低"] F3["标普指数距离历史最高位不到 1%"] end MarketParadox["美股当前怪象：指数悬在高位，个股暗流涌动"] DoubtSide --> MarketParadox FearlessSide --> MarketParadox ``` ### [04:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgQFyAYuWeA&t=286s) 表面风平浪静，水下伤亡惨重：个股选手的困境 迈克尔和本随后剖析了这种表面平静与水下惨烈并存的怪诞背离。市场分析师 Jason Goepfert 的数据显示，标普 500 指数距离历史新高始终保持在 1% 的极小区间内震荡，但与此同时，指数内部却有超过 70% 的股票已经自各自高点回撤了至少 10%。在过去 30 年的漫长历史中，这种“指数顶在高位、七成个股陷入回调”的诡异分化，仅仅在互联网泡沫彻底破灭的前夕出现过一次。 不过迈克尔提醒大家“别忙着给空头递刀子”，因为这次有一个至关重要的结构性差异。Duality Research 挖掘创 52 周新低榜单发现，这批创下新低的股票中，有 21 只（总共仅 28 只）集中在公用事业、必需消费品和房地产板块。它们不仅仅是防守型板块，更是对高利率极为敏感、会在利率狂飙时受到剧烈负面冲击的领域。换句话说，水下下跌主要受利率压制驱动，而非企业基本面崩塌。 在节目录制的当天下午，大盘走势依然温和：标普 500 仅微跌 1.4%，纳斯达克跌幅甚至不足 2%，只有罗素 2000 小型股回撤约 8%，等权重指数跌幅在 5% 左右。迈克尔感叹：“如果你是一名选股人（Stock picker），你很可能已经被揍得鼻青脸肿了。” 本随后分享了他基于 YCharts 整理的数据，印证了选股者的极端分裂： - 标普 500 年内整体涨幅仍高达 13%。 - 仅有 35% 的个股跑赢了大盘指数。 - 40% 的成分股（相当于每 10 只股票里就有 4 只）今年其实处于亏损状态。 - 在大盘暴涨的年份里，下跌股票数量竟远超跑赢大盘的股票数量，但全市场有大约 20 只股票暴涨超过 100%，极端的头部集中度粉饰了指数的繁荣。 ### [07:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgQFyAYuWeA&t=433s) 利率垂直拉升 vs 经济繁荣：金融学理论的失灵 面对 10 年期美债收益率从 4% 一路“垂直拉升”至 5.2% 的急剧波动，本探讨了市场拒不下跌的另一套逻辑：如果市场没有因为利率狂飙而崩塌，唯一的合理解释就是投资者相信 AI 与科技超大规模算力商（Hyperscalers）的高额资本支出具有可持续性，坚信这会切实支撑企业盈利，并预期宏观经济将迎来强劲增长。例如，亚特兰大联储的 GDPNow 模型甚至预测第三季度 GDP 增速将达到惊人的 5%。虽然这一模型过去经常修正甚至预测偏差，但“极高的利率反映的是强劲的经济繁荣”这一叙事，足以阻击恐慌抛盘。本自嘲道，无论市场最终怎么走，事后复盘时大家都觉得自己洞若观火——跌了就说“看吧，利率涨得这么疯”，涨了就说“看吧，AI 投入这么猛”。 迈克尔则保持偏战术性的乐观态度。他认为市场真正的崩盘通常是急促且残暴的，绝不会让“狼来了”的口号反复预演，让每个人都有充裕的时间从容清仓离场。他预测，一旦指数水下这轮个股层面的杀估值泥沙俱下阶段结束，市场很可能会在临近年底时迎来一波强劲的轧空暴涨。 节目的最后，本指出了现代金融学理论在当前盘面下的彻底失效。在大学的“金融学 101”课堂上，教科书白纸黑字地写着：无风险利率走高意味着未来现金流折现率上升，因此金融资产的内在现值必然下降，特别是对长久期成长型风险资产更具杀伤力。然而现实却狠狠打了课本一记耳光： - 自 2020 年 3 月（约 3 月 9 日）美债收益率跌破 50 个基点见底以来，利率从 0.5% 一路上冲至 5.2%。 - 在整整长达数年的高强度利率爬坡期内，标普 500 指数的年化复合收益率竟高达 19%。 迈克尔最后意味深长地感叹了一句：“在股票市场里，从来就没有什么金科玉律（No rules）。” ### [09:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgQFyAYuWeA&t=577s) 宏观经济的撕裂现状：价格主导一切 Ben Carlson 提到自己发过的一条引发轰动的推文，内容直指当下美国宏观环境极其诡异、撕裂的并存状态： - 30 年期抵押贷款利率飙升突破 7.3%； - 失业率依然顽强地维持在 4% 的历史低位； - 债券收益率突破 5%，现金收益率也回到了 4%； - 原油价格逼近每桶 100 美元，汽油价格飙到每加仑 5 美元； - 通胀率在 3.5% 左右徘徊； - 美股市场处在历史高点附近； - 密歇根大学消费者信心指数却跌至历史谷底，比 1980 年代、2008 年全球金融危机乃至 COVID-19 爆发初期还要低。 两人指出，市场参与者目前之所以对高通胀、高油价和高房贷利率无动于衷，纯粹是因为美股还在涨，"Price rules everything around me"（价格主导一切）。只要股市开始下跌，原本被大家视若无睹的问题就会立刻变成恐慌的导火索。 --- ### [10:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgQFyAYuWeA&t=636s) 极度分歧的投资者情绪：散户狂欢与机构悲观 Michael Batnick 告诫投资者在面对铺天盖地的观点和研报时务必保持警惕。他列举了当前市场极其分裂的持仓与情绪指标： ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 市场情绪与资金流向背离 accDescr: 散户与科技基金极度看多，而高盛机构仓位指标跌入冰点 subgraph Bullish ["散户与科技资金：极度看多"] A["科技股 ETF 12 个月资金流入"] -->|创历史新高| C["极度做多 / 狂热买入"] B["Robinhood 散户净买入"] -->|接近历史峰值| C end subgraph Bearish ["机构仓位指标：极度悲观"] D["高盛仓位指标"] -->|连续 7 周中有 6 周下滑| E["跌入深度负值区间"] end C -.->|完全撕裂| E ``` - **科技股资金流向（Callum Thomas 数据）**：科技股 ETF 滚动 12 个月的净资金流入走出一条垂直向上的直线，规模不仅刷新历史纪录，甚至比过去周期的高点高出两到三倍。 - **散户加仓（Sherwood / Robinhood 数据）**：Robinhood 散户在 21 天周期内的个股净买入额达到了历史最高峰值的水平，呈现出散户"全员跳入泳池"（everyone in the pool）的亢奋状态。 - **高盛仓位指标（Goldman Positioning Indicator）**：在过去 7 周中有 6 周持续下滑，深陷负值区间，创下 2025 年 6 月以来的最悲观水平。 Ben 认为，这表明传统的问卷型情绪指标已经彻底失效，"应该相信资金流向，而不是问卷调查"（trust the flows, not the sentiment indicators）。Michael 则补充，不能简单归纳为"所有人都在看多或看空"，因为 Robinhood 散户、高盛机构客户与 Schwab 长期指数投资者的行为模式完全不同。 随后 Ben 提到了《大西洋月刊》（The Atlantic）关于美国出现"性萧条"（sex recession）的报道，调侃传统问卷调查的不靠谱：除宗教夫妇外，已婚夫妇的性生活频率全面下降。两人吐槽道，到底有谁会在正经问卷里认真回答自己的宗教信仰和夫妻房事？这类调查样本的平均年龄恐怕都有 68 岁，数据根本没有参考价值。 --- ### [13:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgQFyAYuWeA&t=816s) 为什么在这个时候买入债券？ 针对听众发来的多封邮件询问"上周说买债券到底买了什么"，Ben 和 Michael 详细拆解了各自的债券配置逻辑。Ben 强调，他们加仓债券并不是试图去精准抄底或预测利率走势，纯粹是因为 5% 的名义收益率在资产配置上极具吸引力。 - **投资工具选择**：Ben 在自己的应税经纪账户（Brokerage Account）中通过债券 ETF 买入，而非直接购买单只债券。他指出，虽然可以通过美国政府的 Treasury Direct 网站购买国债，但该网站界面古老过时，操作体验极差；普通投资者直接买入低费率、高流动性的债券 ETF 远比买个券更省心。 - **退休账户不动**：两人均强调，自己 401(k) 养老金账户仍然是 100% 纯股票配置，不会因为短期利率波动做任何择时变动。 - **Michael 的个人调仓**：Michael 同样在经纪账户中大举换仓，止损了浮亏 20% 的 Netflix 以及 Spotify 等个股，仅保留了 IMAX 和极少量 Clear（YOU）的仓位。他将腾出的资金全部配置到了收益率 5% 的债券上，构建了短期、中期债券的组合，甚至在录制本期节目前 30 分钟买入了长久期美债 ETF（TLT）。 两人承认，收益率的上升趋势并没有扭转，买入 TLT 可能会在短期内遭遇"被压路机碾压"的亏损风险。但他们认为，在整个投资生涯中几乎从未见过 5% 的无风险债券收益率；即使利率维持不动，持有到期也能享受厚息；而一旦未来通胀降温、经济增长停滞，长久期债券还将带来巨大的资本利得弹性（kicker）。 --- ### [17:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgQFyAYuWeA&t=1070s) 彭博综合债券指数的至暗时刻 Ben 谈到他们近期与摩根大通（J.P. Morgan）的 Bill Egan 交流时的观点：目前三个月期国库券（T-bills）能够提供 4% 到 5% 的收益，且毫无利率风险，对于很多人而言持有现金就已足够舒服。然而，如果经济出现下行，固定收益债券将具备现金不具备的升值红利。 为了说明当前债券市场的历史极端性，Ben 联合同事调取了彭博综合债券指数（Bloomberg US Aggregate Bond Index，前身为雷曼兄弟综合债券指数）的历史数据： - 该指数始于 1976 年（由雷曼兄弟在 1980 年代初创立，后回溯至 1976 年，是历史上首个投资级债券基准）； - 自 1976 年设立以来，该指数当前录得了**有史以来最差的 5 年期回报率**，回报率竟然为负值，这在过去近 50 年的投资级债券历史上从未发生过。 ### [18:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgQFyAYuWeA&t=1099s) 债市风暴与所谓的“K型分化”迷思 Ben Carlson 继续梳理债券市场的极端行情。他指出，彭博美国综合债券指数（the Agg）的5年年化名义回报率此前约为 -0.3%，而滚动10年名义回报率仅为 1.4%。如果将通胀因素计算在内，这创造了自1976年该指数设立以来最差的10年实际回报率。上世纪80年代虽然通胀更高、加息节奏更迅猛，但当时的初始收益率也高得多；而本轮周期则是极低初始收益率、快速暴力加息与高通胀三者交织，构成了债券市场名副其实的“完美风暴”。不过经历风暴之后，换来的是如今可观的更高收益率。 随后话题转向宏观经济中的“K型经济”。Ben 提到，他上周刚断言过现实中根本没有所谓的“K型”，宏观分析师 Jim Bianco 就给他发私信反驳，并附上了一张“美股指数 vs 消费者信心”的走势图。过去美股暴跌时信心暴跌，股市上涨信心也随之攀升，但如今美股持续走高，消费者信心却一路下挫，走势形似英文字母“K”。Michael Batnick 随即补充道，Jim Bianco 近期立场也已转向看多债券；而对于那张信心走势图，两人一致认为调查问卷体系在疫情后早已失效失真。 - 彭博美国综合债券指数（the Agg）5年年化名义回报率约 -0.3%，10年名义回报率为 1.4%，扣除通胀后创下1976年成立以来最惨烈的10年实际回报。 - 80年代虽有剧烈通胀与快速加息，但当时起跑线上的收益率极高，缓冲了资本损失。 - Jim Bianco 将股市高涨与低迷市场信心的背离称为真正的“K型走势”。 --- ### [19:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgQFyAYuWeA&t=1181s) 收入跃升、财富效应与美国家庭负债表 Ben 引用了卡托研究所（Cato Institute）以及《华尔街日报》关于美国家庭收入与财富的研究。令人惊讶的是，自1990年代以来，按通胀调整后计算，收入增长最快的群体竟然是底层五分之一（lowest fifth）的低收入家庭。从2000年到2015年，美国家庭通胀调整后的中位数收入基本停滞不前，曾引发广泛社会怨气，但近年来却出现了迅猛拉升。Michael 强调，底层人群并不是赚得盆满钵满，但关键在于底层群体的边际消费倾向极高，手头多出来的钱几乎会全部转化为实际消费支出。 更惊人的是高收入群体的扩张：自1967年以来，通胀调整后年收入超过15万美元的家庭占比从当时的 5% 暴增至如今的近 30%，相当于翻了近六倍。好友 Blake Millard 也分享了美国银行（Bank of America）的数据：得益于股市行情的暴涨，美国家庭在2026年第二季度的资产规模已达到了负债的10倍以上。Michael 评论道，大众平时总聚焦于家庭负债，却忽视了资产端的急剧膨胀。 摩根大通（JPMorgan）本周发布的一份题为《更多美国家庭正在通过提取投资财富来支持消费》的报告更佐证了这一观点。数据显示，美股正在成为投资者的提款机，财富效应正加速向实体经济渗透。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 股市收益向实体消费传导机制 accDescr: 展现美股资产增值如何通过高收入人群提取资金转化为实体经济消费支出的传导链条 subgraph AssetGrowth["资产端积累"] A["美股持续走高<br>居民资产/负债比超10倍"] --> B["高净值家庭投资组合浮盈丰厚"] end subgraph Withdrawal["资金提取加速"] B --> C["从投资账户净提取现金<br>占比显著翻倍"] C --> D["高收入阶层提取比例达20%"] end subgraph RealEconomy["实体消费传导"] D --> E["假日旅行与高端消费爆发"] E --> F["财富效应飞轮加速旋转"] end ``` - **高收入家庭占比**：年收入超15万美元的家庭占比从1967年的 5% 跃升至近 30%。 - **家庭资产负债比**：2026年第二季度，美国家庭总资产攀升至负债总额的 10 倍以上。 - **摩根大通提款数据**：2026年2月至4月间，有 8% 的受访者从投资账户中净提款消费，远高于2019年同期的 4% 与2015年的 2.4%。 - **高净值人群提款飙升**：最高收入人群提取投资资金支持消费的比例，从2015年的 6.6% 暴增至当下的 20%；提取的现金占其总支出的比例也从2015年的不足 4% 上升到了 10% 以上。 --- ### [23:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgQFyAYuWeA&t=1398s) 婴儿潮一代退休消费与房租通胀的回归正常 Ben 提出疑问：摩根大通这项提款激增的数据，很大程度上是否只是婴儿潮一代（Baby Boomers）步入退休年龄后按部就班的取款消费？Michael 认可这确实是其中一部分，但两者并不冲突。回顾2010年，遭遇金融危机重创的婴儿潮一代曾感叹房产、股票双双腰斩，根本无望退休；而如今所有持仓资产全面暴涨，他们的实际财务状况远超预期。两人顺势嘲讽了过去那种“婴儿潮一代年满59岁半提取 401(k) 会同时套现砸崩美股”的耸人言论，直斥其荒谬愚蠢。 在通胀层面，能源交易商与慈善家 John Arnold 指出：截至2026年8月，全美房租中位数降至 1390 美元。这一数字几乎与2020年以来维持疫情前年化 2%（2017年以来的常态路径）缓慢增长的预估轨道完全重合。2021年暴涨的房租增速在2022年后彻底断崖式回落，重归正轨。Ben 认为这对被高房价挤出购房市场的年轻租房群体是重大利好，但社交媒体上充斥着对经济好消息的本能排斥；Michael 则感叹，尽管房租回归常态值得欣慰，但过去几年的累计通胀伤痕太深，让人很难轻松去庆祝。 - 2026年8月全美中位数租金为 1390 美元，完全回到了自2017年起年化 2% 的疫情前长期增长轨道。 - 401(k) 可开始免罚金提取的年龄门槛为 59.5 岁。 --- ### [25:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgQFyAYuWeA&t=1554s) AI Agent 自动资金搬家是伪命题，人人都想要“萨曼莎” 两人转向人工智能话题。Ben 曾开玩笑称，听别人分享自己用 AI Agent 做了什么，体验就像听别人聊自己的梦幻橄榄球队（Fantasy Football）一样无聊乏味。然而，德意志银行首席经济学家 Torsten Sløk 最近发表观点称，类似 Muse 这类具备代理能力的 AI 助手未来可自动巡检家庭银行账户，将收益率仅为 0.1% 的全美平均活期存款自动归集划转到 3.3% 至 5% 的高息账户；如果每个家庭都借助 AI Agent 优化现金回报，银行可能丧失赖以放贷的廉价存款基石。 Michael 当即驳斥这种设想极其愚蠢，直言“如果我有头发，我也不会是个秃头”——现实中各大银行只要检测到第三方程序高频探测账户，就会立即切断访问并限制权限。Ben 表示赞同，并坦言自己对 AI 的终极需求其实非常朴素：“从一开始我就说过，我对 AI 唯一的渴望，就是电影《她》（*Her*）里斯嘉丽·约翰逊（Scarlett Johansson）配音的那个私人助理。” Ben 自称不是那种爱尝鲜的第一批测试者，虽然自己一直在试用 Muse，但他打算耐心等待苹果官方推出成熟整合方案。而此时 Michael 忍不住打破自己“不主动分享 AI 体验”的准则，直呼自己过去一周出于直觉深度使用这项技术后的体验极其震撼，必须向听众全盘托出。 ### [27:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgQFyAYuWeA&t=1655s) 对“AI 废料”的争论与 AI 智能体的普及潜力 Michael Batnick 直言不讳地谈到自己对所谓“AI 废料”（AI slop）的看法。他承认人们担心 AI 生成内容会导致人类丧失独特性，但他个人根本不在乎这些所谓的问题。如果有人发来一封用 AI 写的套话邮件，他要么直接删掉，要么就顺手读了，完全不会为此感到困扰。Ben Carlson 对此表示认同，认为劣质的 AI 内容实际上成了自己快速过滤信息的一道屏障——只要一眼看出博客文章是 AI 生成的，直接跳过即可。Ben 反对那些“未来一切内容都会被 AI 垄断、不再有人类创作”的极端论调。Michael 也指出，现实中本来就没有那么多优秀的作者；如果一个人不擅长或不喜欢写作，借助 AI 写出比自己独立写作更好的东西，完全无可厚非。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: AI 智能体普及路径与阻力分析 accDescr: 展示 AI 个人助理从技术能力到用户采纳、市场冲击以及隐私顾虑的全景逻辑。 subgraph Capability["智能体核心功能"] A["多任务全自动执行<br/>（日历、购物、订票、退货）"] B["自动化财务操作<br/>（账户间转账、订阅费用优化）"] end subgraph Impact["市场冲击与阻力"] C["重创依赖用户惯性的公司<br/>（高盛 Consumer Inertia 概念篮子）"] D["安全与隐私顾虑<br/>（高权限银行转账与凭证暴露）"] end Capability --> C Capability --> D ``` 转向 AI 智能体（AI Agents）的话题时，两人对未来的应用程度产生了分歧。Ben Carlson 质疑普通人是否真的需要一个“高管级别”的私人助理来全面接管日常生活；毕竟大多数普通人不需要高频地预订餐厅或规划复杂旅行，智能体可能只局限于小部分极致追求效率的人群。Michael Batnick 则强力反驳这一观点，直言 Ben 经常是技术普及的“晚期接受者”（比如直到最近才开始用 Apple Pay）。Michael 坚信绝大多数人都会用上这类工具，因为智能体的核心价值不是单纯的“助理”，而是替用户完成各种耗费时间的繁琐日常操作。 ### [30:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgQFyAYuWeA&t=1851s) Instinct 体验与打破“消费者惯性” Michael 分享了他这一周深度使用 AI 智能体应用 Instinct 的切身体验。Instinct 类似 Meta 的 Muse，用户只需通过短信发指令，它就能代为完成各类事务。这家初创公司的创始人仅 23 岁，近期刚以 100 亿美元的估值完成 10 亿美元融资，业务正以每天 10% 的速度飞速增长。Michael 和妻子 Robin 已经将各自的 Instinct 账号绑定联动，系统会自动比对两人的日程、互相协同。为了展示其实际执行力，Michael 举了一个订阅管理的事例：他此前订阅了带有广告的 Disney+、Hulu 和 ESPN+ 捆绑套餐，他发短信让 Instinct 将其变更为无广告的 Disney+ 与 Hulu 组合，并询问价格差异；Instinct 并没有扔给他一堆指引让他自己操作，而是直接全自动在后台替他修改并执行了订阅方案。 针对这类工具引发的账户安全性与授权担忧，Ben 表示自己绝不愿将银行凭据交给第三方智能体让它替自己搬砖转账，甚至打趣说“你迟早会被黑客攻击”。但 Michael 透露，Instinct 创始人提到约 40% 的用户在使用三周后就会绑定个人信用卡。Michael 自己已经完全放开权限，让它监控透支并跨账户自动划转补足资金。两人随后讨论了智能体对商业模式的冲击——高盛曾梳理过一份“消费者惯性”（Consumer Inertia）股票篮子，涵盖 Planet Fitness 等依靠会员“办卡却从不来、忘了取消扣费”而盈利的上市公司。随着智能体自动扫描并退订一年内未使用的服务，这些依赖用户懒惰维系收入的企业面临巨大的商业模式瓦解风险。 - Instinct 的发展数据：由 23 岁创始人创办，日增长率约 10%，近期按 100 亿美元估值完成 10 亿美元融资。 - 自动化应用范例：自动优化并切换流媒体组合包、帮孩子购买特定篮球、根据出行建议自动下单钱包防丢定位卡。 - 银行与防欺诈机制：智能体在监控信用卡异常交易时，会主动提醒自己每天仅能核查一次账户，以防止被银行反爬虫风控机制识别为恶意机器人而封禁。 - 商业冲击：以 Planet Fitness 为代表的依赖消费者遗忘和惰性扣费的企业股价遭遇抛售。 ### [35:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgQFyAYuWeA&t=2128s) 硅谷青年孵化与 Kalshi 预测市场引入杠杆 话题转到了硅谷围绕年轻天才的新生态。针对 Instinct 这种由极年轻创始人打造超级独角兽的现象，风险投资机构 Andreessen Horowitz（a16z）出资 3500 万美元，联合其他湾区科技巨头设立了一个为期两年的加速学院，专门招募并孵化 18 至 20 岁打算跳过传统大学教育的年轻天才。Michael 和 Ben 对这种打破传统学历路径、直接资助年轻人创业的孵化项目都表示非常赞赏。 最后，两人提到了预测市场平台 Kalshi 的最新动态。Kalshi 创始人近期提交了一份监管申请，计划在部分长期预测市场（Long-dated prediction markets）上引入杠杆/保证金交易（Margin），该功能不包含体育和文化等类别。其官方解释是“资本效率一直是机构入场的核心瓶颈”，而保证金交易是机构用户最强烈要求的功能。对此，Michael 讽刺道这简直是“我们最不需要的东西”，Ben 同样对在预测市场上加杠杆的操作报以无语的嘲弄。 ### [36:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgQFyAYuWeA&t=2184s) 房地产困境：7.3% 房贷利率、首付补贴与 3% 房贷的受害者 在简短调侃预测市场所谓的“远期预测”到底有多远（可能仅仅是两周后）之后，讨论转向了美国房地产市场的残酷现状。房贷利率飙升至 7.3%，Ben 贴出了一张《辛普森一家》中“他已经死了”（He's already dead）的经典表情包，直言房产市场被彻底摧毁。针对买家何时会彻底认命、决定“去他的，多掏点就多掏点”的心态，Michael 认为这种情况在过去几年已经透支殆尽，现在不是买家愿不愿意接受溢价的问题，而是单纯的“数学算不过来”，购买力已经触及极限。Ben 则试图从股市“总在经济衰退和盈利恶化前见底”的历史规律中寻找房地产的乐观信号，但他坦言当下关于房市的数据是“悲观到底、杯子全空”。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 房贷高企下的市场锁死与政策争议 accDescr: 展示高利率对房市交易的冻结效应以及补贴政策引发的争议循环 subgraph Market ["市场现状"] A["房贷利率升至 7.3%"] --> B["买家算不过账<br/>交易陷入冰冻"] C["旧房业主手握 3% 房贷"] --> D["债券价值缩水约 40%<br/>无人愿意置换挂牌"] end subgraph Debate ["政策争议"] E["提案: 5比1 首付政府配比<br/>(最高补 5 万美元)"] --> F["支持者: 帮助刚需上车"] E --> G["批评者: 纯属补贴需求<br/>未解决房源供给不足"] end ``` 谈到房贷时，Ben 提到了一个发人深省的金融悖论：他在 2020 或 2021 年锁定了 3% 的低息房贷，若按现在的利率粗略估算，该笔贷款所对应的抵押贷款证券（MBS）现值可能只有面值的 60 美分。Ben 抛出疑问：“这笔交易里到底谁赔钱了？”答案是持有该资产的债券投资者承担了巨额账面亏损，而只要借款人不还清贷款，持有者就被彻底套牢。随后，两人讨论了一项参议员提出的新提案：针对首次购房者推行 5:1 的联邦储蓄配比，最高补贴 5 万美元（例如个人存 1 万，政府补 5 万，凑齐 6 万美元首付）。尽管批评声音普遍认为这种做法是“只补贴需求、完全不解决供给短缺的短视行为”，但鉴于美国在增加住房供给上长期毫无作为，Ben 和 Michael 均表示完全支持这种补贴，Ben 甚至调侃还不如直接给所有首次购房者发放 3% 的政府特惠房贷利率。 - 房贷利率最新达到 7.3%，彻底冻结了普通家庭的购房预算。 - 疫情期间办理的 3% 超低息房贷，在当前二级市场估值大约仅剩 60 美分（亏损近 40%）。 - 议员提案：为首次购房者提供 5:1 储蓄配比，自筹 1 万美元可获 5 万美元补贴，最高形成 6 万美元首付基金。 ### [39:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgQFyAYuWeA&t=2362s) 私募信贷赎回潮与高利率对股市的隐性杀伤 两人将目光转向私募市场与私募信贷（Private Credit）。Michael 提到近期与 Hamilton Lane 的高管进行了深入对谈，称赞其观点务实且坦率，毫不回避业内存在的争议。然而，私募信贷领域的资金外流势头丝毫没有减退。尽管媒体极度渴望看到一两起轰动性的大型违约事件，目前虽尚未出现暴雷，但巨额赎回已成定局。Chris O'Shaughnessy 指出的数据显示，Apollo 旗下一只规模达 260 亿美元的旗舰私募信贷基金，本季度要求赎回退出的投资者比例达到了 15%（上一季度高达 17% 左右）；摩根士丹利旗下同类基金的赎回请求比例也达 11%，反映出投资者不再愿意苦等，每个季度都有源源不断的人要求套现离场。 不仅底层资产面临赎回压力，另类资产管理机构自身的公开市场股票也遭遇重创。追踪这一篮子股票的代号为 GPZ，其中的代表性机构股价惨跌：凯雷（Carlyle）从一年前 9 月的 70 美元跌至 40 美元，黑石（Blackstone）等机构同样表现低迷，而蓝猫（Blue Owl）更是深陷泥潭、不断试探新低。最后，两人回顾了节目的核心议题：虽然他们开场时坚定认为市场整体不会轻易崩盘，但这一切的前提都在于利率水平。如果美国 10 年期国债收益率在接下来的交易日冲上 5.6%，整个股市根本无法承受这种估值挤压，美债收益率的大幅上行将成为市场寻找已久的杀跌借口。 - Apollo 规模达 260 亿美元的私募信贷基金连续遭遇大额赎回，要求退出的资金比例达 15%（上季度约 17%）。 - 摩根士丹利私募信贷基金本季度赎回比例达 11%。 - 凯雷（CG）股价从前一年 9 月的高点约 70 美元跌落至 40 美元区间，资管机构股票整体承压。 - 10 年期美债收益率若继续攀升至 5.6%，将构成触发股市实质性调整的关键威胁。 ### [41:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgQFyAYuWeA&t=2482s) 航班趣事：糟糕的机上娱乐与“抓靠背”恶习 在切入正题前，Michael 先向美联航（United Airlines）公开道歉，坦白自己上周错怪了他们，因为他刚刚体验了美国航空（American Airlines），后者的机上电影片单简直匮乏到令人发指。Ben 对此附和，不解航空公司为何不直接与 Paramount+ 等主流流媒体平台全面合作，全舱免费提供流媒体服务。 随后两人吐槽了机舱内最令人厌恶的行为之一：后排乘客起身离开座位时，极力抓扯前排座椅靠背来借力。Michael 愤怒地分享了他在飞行中的真实遭遇，一位乘客起身时动作极其粗暴，猛拽他的椅背，坐下时又拉扯了一次。Michael 差点当场发飙，感叹道：“这怎么可能不知道会对前面的人造成影响？太离谱了。”所幸他最终忍住没起冲突，因为下机后在参加的活动现场居然又碰到了对方，让他直呼“好在刚才没冲动骂人”。 ### [42:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgQFyAYuWeA&t=2554s) 创意阶层的崩塌与廉价 AI 烂片的威胁 闲聊过后，话题转入文化娱乐行业。Ben 引用了 Joey Politano 在其 Substack 专栏发表的关于“创意阶层衰落”（The Fall of the Creative Class）的研究报告。数据揭示了美国现代传媒与创意行业所面临的巨大浩劫：过去四年间，美国创意类岗位减少了超过 20 万个，仅去年一年就流失了 5 万个，裁员规模与冲击程度堪比 2001 年互联网泡沫破裂和 2008 年金融危机时期。受冲击的领域涵盖影视、报纸、杂志、图书出版、广播及电视等，其中平面设计、流媒体和传统报刊的失业情况尤为惨重。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 创意行业就业与文娱支出变迁 accDescr: 展示岗位流失、支出结构演变以及 AI 降低内容品质的恶性循环 subgraph Employment ["就业危机: 4 年流失 20 万岗位"] P1["平面设计 / 纸媒 / 影视 / 广播"] --> P2["规模堪比 2001 与 2008 危机"] end subgraph Spending ["消费支出变迁"] S1["音乐: 实体与流媒体占比极低，主要流向现场演出"] S2["影视: 影院票房占比自疫情断崖式下跌且长期萎缩"] end subgraph Quality ["劣质化风险"] Q1["预算削减与 AI 粗制滥造"] --> Q2["充斥廉价特效与劣质剧本<br/>(如 Deep Water 乱象)"] end Employment --> Spending Spending --> Quality ``` 在消费支出端，格局也发生了翻天覆地的转变。如今消费者在音乐上的花费绝大部分流向了现场演出和演唱会门票，实体专辑几乎绝迹，流媒体订阅贡献的占比也极为有限；而在影视方面，包含有线电视、流媒体、录像租赁和影院门票在内的综合视频支出占消费比重持续走低，电影院票房更是自疫情后出现断崖式下跌，且至今毫无复苏迹象。 这引发了 Ben 对内容质量的深度担忧。他提到，尽管 Michael 之前自称不在乎低劣的“AI 生成垃圾”（AI slop），但随着行业大裁员与成本压缩，影视内容的质感正在肉眼可见地下滑。Ben 吐槽了他看了 Michael 上周推荐的 Aaron Eckhart 与 Ben Kingsley 主演的电影《深水区》（Deep Water）——一架飞机坠入深海、众人与鲨鱼搏斗的灾难片。Ben 直言整部片子就像是用 AI 拼凑出来的产物，充斥着他这辈子见过最差劣的 CGI 特效；而作为老牌戏骨的 Ben Kingsley 在片中仅仅露脸了 4 分钟便草草“英勇牺牲”，让两位主持人感叹这般咖位的知名演员如今竟沦落到出演这种粗制滥造的商业烂片。 - 过去 4 年美国创意行业累计流失超过 200,000 个工作岗位，仅过去 1 年裁减人数就达 50,000。 - 创意行业的就业低谷目前已达到与 2001 年互联网泡沫及 2008 年次贷危机相当的严重程度。 - 院线门票在居民文娱消费支出中的比重长周期阴跌，疫情后更是维持在历史底部无法回升。 ### [45:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgQFyAYuWeA&t=2700s) 线下影院的微光与好莱坞的未来迷局 尽管行业大环境一片萧条，优质的线下观影体验依然展现出独特的生命力。Michael 讲述了自己在奥斯汀出差期间的一段惬意经历：他在结束工作晚宴后，通过 AI 助手搜索附近正在放映《生化危机》（Resident Evil）系列电影的影院，找到了一家名为 Crown & Violet 的精品独立影院。影院不仅环境舒适，还配有品质不错的酒吧。他在观影过程中喝了一杯，影厅内坐满了充满活力的年轻观众，观影氛围极佳。 Michael 提到该片的导演是此前执导了惊悚佳作《野蛮人》（Barbarian）和《武器》（Weapons）的 Zach Cregger，整部电影节奏凌厉、张力十足，让他直呼过瘾。然而，个别作品的亮眼表现无法掩盖好莱坞整体机制的停滞不前。Michael 和 Ben 随后提到了行业教父级人物 Jeffrey Katzenberg 最近在 Matt Belloni 与 Lucas Shaw 的播客节目《The Town》中的深度对话，进一步探讨传统影视工业在流媒体红利见顶与 AI 技术重塑下面临的生存危机与出路。 ### [46:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgQFyAYuWeA&t=2768s) 播客与阅读偏好：虚构小说、回忆录与有声书 话题由 AI 侵入艺术领域的担忧延伸开来。迈克尔·巴特尼克（Michael Batnick）提到，脱口秀演员安东尼·杰塞尔尼克（Anthony Jeselnik）主持的读书俱乐部播客在核心受众中极受欢迎，并且刚刚并入了 The Ringer 播客网络。本·卡尔森（Ben Carlson）对此大加赞赏，坦言自己是个彻底的虚构小说爱好者。本表示，即便很多人早就不读虚构文学，他依然坚持每晚睡前阅读小说；他习惯用耳朵听非虚构类作品，但在飞机上则完全用来看小说，把远离嘈杂打扰的飞行航程当成难得的静心阅读时光。 迈克尔则分享了自己最近出差飞行的顿悟。他坐了一趟清晨 7 点起飞的早班机，凌晨 4 点半就得挣扎起床，而在航程中他发现自己最痴迷的题材其实是自传与回忆录（Memoirs）。他刚听完纽约传奇餐厅经营者基思·麦克纳利（Keith McNally，旗下拥有 Balthazar、Morandi 和 Minetta Tavern 等名店）的自传。两人还顺带吐槽了英语中“餐饮业者（restaurateur）”这个词居然不拼写字母“n”的怪现象。迈克尔强调，回忆录必须足够赤裸坦诚才好看，基思·麦克纳利在书中毫无保留的自我剖析甚至让人替他的亲友捏一把汗。此外，迈克尔在飞机上听了由著名演员鲍勃·奥登科克（Bob Odenkirk）朗读的娱乐业巨头阿里·伊曼纽尔（Ari Emanuel）回忆录，盛赞优秀的配音朗读者对有声书质感至关重要，同时也十分期待西尔维斯特·史泰龙（Sylvester Stallone）近期因坦承饮食失调等过往而引发网络热议的个人自传。 --- ### [48:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgQFyAYuWeA&t=2922s) 院线新片狂潮与带娃重看《复联》的尴尬共鸣 迈克尔兴奋地宣称“80与90年代经典全面回归”，布伦屋与温子仁（Blumhouse & James Wan）联手重启的《女巫布莱尔》（The Blair Witch Project）让他充满期待，而经典小怪物“小魔怪（Gizmo）”也即将重返银幕。展望接下来的秋冬档期，大银幕阵容堪称豪华，迈克尔一口气列出了自己极度期待的片单，包括备受好评的《哥斯拉-1.0》（Godzilla Minus One）后续动态、《泥脸》（Clayface）、《鲸落》（Whalefall，讲述男子被座头鲸吞下的惊悚片）、《我演洛奇》（I Play Rocky）、《沙丘3》（Dune 3）以及《黄金时段》（Prime Time）等。 迈克尔还分享了他带儿子科比（Kobe）和洛根（Logan）去影院看《复仇者联盟4：终局之战》（Avengers: Endgame）重映（Encore）的趣事。洛根在看完《无限战争》后曾因小蜘蛛化灰、可能无法出现在《终局之战》而伤心大哭，迈克尔只能安抚他“看下去就知道了”。影院里座无虚席，当片尾高潮全场观众起立鼓掌时，科比也跟着大家一起用力拍手。迈克尔一方面感动于儿子正在学会捕捉社会群体的共鸣信号、融入集体情绪；但另一方面，作为观众的他内心却十分抗拒这种在电影院鼓掌的举动，并且直言当年就极其反感《终局之战》对粉丝那种赤裸裸的刻意迎合，甚至觉得它像极了后期那几部令人失望的《星球大战》电影。不过，这丝毫没有浇灭他对下一部《复仇者联盟：毁灭日》（Avengers: Doomsday）的强烈期待。 - **家庭规矩插曲**：本提到自己对孩子的一些社交习惯同样有强迫症，比如女儿如果发短信简写“thx”，他一定会严厉纠正：“我们家不缺打出整个‘thanks’的那点时间，绝不准偷懒发 thx。” --- ### [50:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgQFyAYuWeA&t=3052s) 罗伯特·帕丁森与安妮·海瑟薇的高产之年 两人把目光转向好莱坞演员的档期动态，惊讶于罗伯特·帕丁森（Robert Pattinson）与安妮·海瑟薇（Anne Hathaway）两人在接下来的 2026 年竟然各自排满了三到四部大制作，高产程度甚至让迈克尔开玩笑怀疑安妮·海瑟薇是不是“破产急需用钱”。 本提到自己最近陪女儿重温了《暮光之城》（Twilight）全系列，坦言后三四部电影拍得极其粗制滥造，连女儿看到最后都忍不住吐槽剧情烂得离谱。本难以置信当年演这种青春吸血鬼神棍片的男主角，如今竟能脱胎换骨成为好莱坞顶级实力派巨星。今年帕丁森更是手握改编自克里斯·汉森（Chris Hansen）诱捕猎巫节目的《黄金时段》（Prime Time）、《奥德赛》（Odyssey）以及由 A24 出品的《戏剧》（The Drama）等多部重磅作品，演艺势头如日中天。 --- ### [51:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgQFyAYuWeA&t=3112s) 《纽约时报》21世纪百佳美剧盘点与遗珠之争 针对《纽约时报》评选的“21世纪百佳电视剧（Top 100 Shows of the 21st Century）”，两人展开了激烈讨论。虽然不少剧迷因《黑道家族》（The Sopranos）首播于 1999 年而被排除在外而鸣不平，但迈克尔更聚焦于榜单的前十名排位： ``` 《绝命毒师》 -> 《火线》 -> 《广告狂人》 -> 《继承之战》 -> 《伦敦生活》 《权力的游戏》 -> 《副总统》 -> 《我为喜剧狂》 -> 《消愁》 -> 《亚特兰大》 ``` 本·卡尔森对这份前十名榜单提出了自己的犀利见解： - **无冕之王《继承之战》**：本认为《继承之战》（Succession）应当排在第一位。它是榜单中唯一一部让他看完后立刻从头二刷、每季至少看过两遍的剧集。全剧仅有五季，体量精炼绝无注水，几乎吸纳并完善了以往所有伟大剧集的优点；相比之下，《绝命毒师》（Breaking Bad）虽然也是顶级神作，但他除了重温大结局外，完全没有勇气把整部剧重刷一遍。 - **关于《火线》的热门争议**：本抛出了自己的“离经叛道”观点（Hot Take）——尽管他深爱《火线》（The Wire），但他认为该剧的历史地位更接近前十名的守门员，而不是稳居前二。特别是虚构连环杀手的最终季明显失准，拉低了整体水准。 - **严重被低估的遗珠**：本认为《胜利之光》（Friday Night Lights）和《六尺之下》（Six Feet Under）的排名低得离谱，绝对有实力杀入前十。他盛赞《六尺之下》贡献了整个电视史上最不可超越的完美大结局。 迈克尔随后盘点了榜单中遗漏的知名剧集，包括《行尸走肉》（The Walking Dead）、德国科幻神作《暗黑》（Dark）、《硅谷》（Silicon Valley）、《冰血暴》（Fargo）、《明星伙伴》（Entourage）、《黄石》（Yellowstone）、《实习医生格蕾》（Grey's Anatomy）、《大西洋帝国》（Boardwalk Empire）以及《混乱之子》（Sons of Anarchy）。两人尤其为《大西洋帝国》未能入选前一百名感到不可思议，认为这纯粹是一份为了制造争议、吸引流量而编排的挑衅性名单。 --- ### [54:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgQFyAYuWeA&t=3243s) 问诊 Claude 弃剧《十三号星期五》与近期追剧 本分享了一段他与 AI 助手 Claude 之间的幽默对话。他最近试图按顺序补完经典恐怖片《十三号星期五》（Friday the 13th）系列，但在硬着头皮看完前两部、撑到第三部时，发现这些早期电影的成色简直粗糙得令人无法忍受。记忆中杰森（Jason Voorhees）应该是像迈克尔·迈尔斯（Michael Myers）那样身形庞大、刀枪不入的终极杀人魔，但前两部里的形象不仅毫无压迫感，甚至还在挨揍。 于是本向 Claude 诉苦，Claude 不仅一针见血地赞同这些老片确实糟糕，还直白地劝他果断放弃：“赶紧弃坑吧，把整整 12 部全看完了也没人会给你发奖牌。”得到 AI 的心理宽慰后，本心安理得地彻底放弃了这个系列。节目的最后，迈克尔提到上周本曾抱怨现在追完一部剧变得极度漫长，但他自己这周却高效地刷完了几部作品，其中就包括刚刚完结第二季的悬疑谍战剧《秘密入侵/传奇办公室》（The Agency）。 ### [54:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgQFyAYuWeA&t=3291s) 间谍谍战剧与迈克尔·法斯宾德的独特银幕魅力 Ben 对近期热播的几部中情局（CIA）题材及特工剧集大加赞赏，特别是第二季最后两集的节奏与张力被他形容为“彻底杀疯了”（cooking），整部剧的水准直接拉升到了全新维度。他半开玩笑地发问：迈克尔·法斯宾德（Michael Fassbender）是否算得上是“平民版的杰森·伯恩（Jason Bourne）”？对此 Michael 斩钉截铁地表示赞同。Ben 坦言自己最近彻底沉迷于各类特工剧，不仅正在二刷《流人》（Slow Horses），还刚开追了《机构》（The Agency），同时还在亚马逊 Prime 上补《密情》（Patriot）。 两人随后探讨了迈克尔·法斯宾德身上那种独特的疏离气质，争论他究竟更偏向反社会者（sociopath）还是精神变态者（psychopath）。法斯宾德在银幕上极具塑造力：他在大卫·芬奇（David Fincher）执导的《杀手》（The Killer）中饰演冷酷精密的职业杀手，在《普罗米修斯》（Prometheus）中饰演举止怪异的生化机器人，还在多部谍战片中扮演特工，其神经质而克制的演绎让人过目难忘。随后话题跳脱到时尚与人物专访，两人闲聊起《GQ》杂志的明星深度专访，谈及 Zach Baron 最近对布拉德·皮特（Brad Pitt）的重磅长篇专访，调侃大家对这类高质量特写报道依然欲罢不能。 --- ### [55:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgQFyAYuWeA&t=3352s) 影视推荐：从房贷劫持案到中产母亲的自我寻觅 Michael 极力推荐了 MGM+ 平台的剧集《美国人质》（American Hostage）。该剧改编自真实事件，故事内核与金融房贷欺诈密切相关：一名男子因在房贷上遭遇欺诈陷害、走投无路之下铤而走险绑架人质；乔·汉姆（Jon Hamm）在剧中饰演一名电台采访记者，成为劫持者与外界沟通的关键纽带。Michael 直言乔·汉姆在电视剧领域从未失手，从《冰血暴》（Fargo）到《早间新闻》（The Morning Show），电视端的表现极其稳定，因此他特意叮嘱 Ben 千万别为了省钱退订 MGM+ 会员。 Ben 则推荐了 HBO 的全新剧集（由莎朗·豪根 Sharon Horgan 主创及主演）。他们之前都非常喜欢莎朗·豪根的作品《大祸临头》（Catastrophe）和《坏姐妹》（Bad Sisters）。这部单集 30 分钟的喜剧聚焦于一位刚离婚的母亲，面对儿子离家上大学的空巢期，试图重新找寻自我。Ben 评价该剧幽默且真实，豪根的喜剧节奏与编剧水准依然保持在极高水准。 --- ### [57:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgQFyAYuWeA&t=3422s) 财经常规书单力荐与利率对股市的极限施压 Ben 向听众推荐了一本他最近读完的重磅财经著作（探讨普通人致富路径的《Everyday Millionaires》相关作品），并称其为“年度最佳财经书籍”。该书不仅数据详实，适合“数据极客”（data nerds）研读，同时也记录了大量从小生意白手起家的励志创业故事（例如连锁快餐品牌 Portillo's 等商业案例）。不过书中也揭示了一个令人五味杂陈的现实：富人阶层往往能享受到最大额度的税收减免优惠。 随后，两人的话题回归到核心宏观经济与金融市场上。他们共同表达了对当下美债收益率持续攀升的担忧，直言希望利率不要再无休止地上涨——这不仅是为了债券持有者着想，更是为了整个股票市场能够承受得住压力： - **股市承受力疑虑**：Ben 坦言不知道市场在当下的高利率环境下还能支撑多久，利率若以当前的速度继续失控上行，终会打破心理防线。 - **没有绝对的安全防线**：Michael 指出市场上并不存在所谓不可逾越的“沙滩红线”（line in the sand），但当收益率高到某种阈值时，投资者必然会开始集中抛售股票套现。 - **反直觉的市场表现**：如果在 9 个月前预言 10 年期美债收益率将从 4% 一路飙升至 5.3%，绝大多数市场参与者都会斩钉截铁地判定标普 500 指数将大跌 15%，然而现实中股市反倒逆势上涨了 15%，充分展现了当前周期的反常与戏剧性。 --- ### [58:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgQFyAYuWeA&t=3501s) AI 助理的现实争议与节目尾声 节目录制尾声，Michael 催促结束，因为酒店退房时间已到，他打趣说自己马上就要被赶出房间。两人借此由头，顺势回到了上半期探讨的个人 AI 助理话题。Michael 开玩笑抨击 Ben 思想保守、拒绝拥抱未来：“你无视未来，后果自负，先生，你迟早会被时代颠覆。” Ben 则为自己辩护，表示自己从一开始就极为看好个人 AI 助理的前景，甚至从一开始就渴望拥有电影《她》（Her）中斯嘉丽·约翰逊（Scarlett Johansson）配音的那种全能助理；但他之所以保持距离，只是因为技术虽然已经摆在眼前，自己心理上“还没准备好把个人的全部生活掌控权双手奉上”，宁愿先持币观望。最后，主持人向幕后制作团队致谢，并提醒听众发送邮件至 animalspirits@thecompoundnews.com 与他们互动，约定下期再见。 ## Notable quotes > [00:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgQFyAYuWeA&t=4s) 不会。因为如果真的要崩，这就未免太显而易见、太容易了（Too easy）。 — Michael Batnick > [01:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgQFyAYuWeA&t=114s) 市场里充斥着大量的怀疑（Doubt），但基本上是零恐慌（Zero fear）。 — Michael Batnick > [04:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgQFyAYuWeA&t=286s) 如果你是一名选股人（Stock picker），你很可能已经被揍得鼻青脸肿了。 — Michael Batnick > [07:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgQFyAYuWeA&t=433s) 在股票市场里，从来就没有什么金科玉律（No rules）。 — Michael Batnick > [09:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgQFyAYuWeA&t=577s) Price rules everything around me > [10:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgQFyAYuWeA&t=636s) 应该相信资金流向，而不是问卷调查（trust the flows, not the sentiment indicators）。 — Ben Carlson > [25:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgQFyAYuWeA&t=1554s) 如果我有头发，我也不会是个秃头 — Michael Batnick > [25:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgQFyAYuWeA&t=1554s) 从一开始我就说过，我对 AI 唯一的渴望，就是电影《她》（Her）里斯嘉丽·约翰逊（Scarlett Johansson）配音的那个私人助理。 — Ben Carlson > [41:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgQFyAYuWeA&t=2482s) 这怎么可能不知道会对前面的人造成影响？太离谱了。 — Michael Batnick > [48:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgQFyAYuWeA&t=2922s) 我们家不缺打出整个‘thanks’的那点时间，绝不准偷懒发 thx。 — Ben Carlson > [54:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgQFyAYuWeA&t=3243s) 赶紧弃坑吧，把整整 12 部全看完了也没人会给你发奖牌。 — Claude > [58:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgQFyAYuWeA&t=3501s) 你无视未来，后果自负，先生，你迟早会被时代颠覆。 — Michael Batnick ## Mentioned Michael Batnick, Ben Carlson, YCharts, 22V Research, NVIDIA, Duality Research, JC Parets, Jason Goepfert, Robinhood, Goldman Sachs, Jim Bianco, John Arnold, Cato Institute, JPMorgan, Torsten Sløk, Instinct, Andreessen Horowitz (a16z), Kalshi, Hamilton Lane, Apollo, Carlyle, Blackstone, Blue Owl, United Airlines, American Airlines, Joey Politano, Ben Kingsley, Zach Cregger, Jeffrey Katzenberg, Keith McNally, Bob Odenkirk, Ari Emanuel, Sylvester Stallone, Robert Pattinson, Anne Hathaway, Michael Fassbender, Jon Hamm, Sharon Horgan, Claude ## Video description On episode 484 of Animal Spirits, Michael Batnick and Ben Carlson discuss: the stock market has an excuse to sell off, valuations are falling across the board, the cause of the next correction, 5% bond yields, the worst bond market of all-time, incomes are rising, the wealth effect is real, AI personal assistants, the Consumer Inertia basket of stocks, 7% mortgage rates, the fall of the creative class, the 100 best TV shows this century and more. This episode is sponsored by YCharts. Visit https://go.ycharts.com/animal-spirits to get 20% off your initial YCharts Professional subscription, new customers only. ► 00:00 - YCharts Ad ► 00:55 - Stock Market ► 10:35 - Investor Behavior ► 19:00 - The Economy ► 25:51 - AI ► 35:54 - Prediction Markets ► 36:31 - Real Estate ► 39:22 - Private Markets ► 42:34 - Entertainment ► 53:59 - 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=cgQFyAYuWeA)

[0:04] Michael Batnick: 不会。因为如果真的要崩，这就未免太显而易见、太容易了（Too easy）。 [1:54] Michael Batnick: 市场里充斥着大量的怀疑（Doubt），但基本上是零恐慌（Zero fear）。 [4:46] Michael Batnick: 如果你是一名选股人（Stock picker），你很可能已经被揍得鼻青脸肿了。 [7:13] Michael Batnick: 在股票市场里，从来就没有什么金科玉律（No rules）。 [9:37] Price rules everything around me [10:36] Ben Carlson: 应该相信资金流向，而不是问卷调查（trust the flows, not the sentiment indicators）。 [25:54] Michael Batnick: 如果我有头发，我也不会是个秃头 [25:54] Ben Carlson: 从一开始我就说过，我对 AI 唯一的渴望，就是电影《她》（Her）里斯嘉丽·约翰逊（Scarlett Johansson）配音的那个私人助理。 [41:22] Michael Batnick: 这怎么可能不知道会对前面的人造成影响？太离谱了。 [48:42] Ben Carlson: 我们家不缺打出整个‘thanks’的那点时间，绝不准偷懒发 thx。 [54:03] Claude: 赶紧弃坑吧，把整整 12 部全看完了也没人会给你发奖牌。 [58:21] Michael Batnick: 你无视未来，后果自负，先生，你迟早会被时代颠覆。

[0:55] Ben Carlson: The market has an excuse to sell off if it wants it. Will it take it? [0:55] Michael Batnick: a lot of doubt, but basically zero fear. [5:57] Ben Carlson: there are no rules in the stock market. [9:37] Ben Carlson: Price rules everything around me. [10:35] Ben Carlson: You trust the flows, not the sentiment indicators. [18:19] Ben Carlson: literally the perfect storm for a bad bond market [25:53] Michael Batnick: If I had hair, I wouldn't be bald. [36:24] Ben Carlson: Stop, stop, he's already dead! [47:10] Michael Batnick: Like if LeBron James did a memoir, sorry, LeBron, no interest. [48:42] Ben Carlson: No, we're not saving time on thanks. You can write out thanks. Okay. We're not doing the 'thx'. [51:54] Ben Carlson: by far the greatest TV finale of all time, and it's not even close. [54:03] Ben Carlson: nobody's handing out medals for finishing all 12. [54:51] Ben Carlson: the last two episodes of season two were just cooking... it went to another level for me. [57:46] I don't know how much more it could take. [57:46] Michael Batnick: will be disrupted.

[0:04] Today's show is sponsored by Y Charts. [0:06] Most adviserss don't have a data [0:08] problem. The problem is that the data is [0:09] spread across too many tools, portfolio [0:12] data lives in one system, client notes [0:14] in another, and risk questionnaires [0:15] somewhere else. So prepping for a [0:16] meeting means clicking through a million [0:18] tabs. That's why Y charts built risk and [0:20] proposal manager. A single place to [0:22] manage your entire book of business, not [0:23] just portfolios. It organizes clients by [0:25] household, connects to the tools you [0:27] already use, and brings performance, [0:28] risk, and client context together in one [0:30] view. For example, you can send a [0:33] prospect a risk questionnaire, map their [0:35] answers to a risk profile, and turn that [0:36] into a personalized proposal. Once they [0:39] become a client, you can keep managing [0:40] the relationship in the same place, all [0:42] without ever leaving Y Charts. Click the [0:44] link in the show notes to learn more and [0:45] get 20% off your initial Y Charts [0:47] professional subscription, new customers [0:49] only. [0:55] Welcome to Animal Spirits with Michael [0:57] and Ben. Michael, I have a question for [0:59] you. [0:59] >> Go ahead. [1:00] >> The market has an excuse to sell off if [1:02] it wants it. Will it take it? [1:06] >> Well, that's a good question. First of [1:07] all, strap in and stand by. We've This [1:09] is a 43page dock, which is on the longer [1:11] side. So, we're going to go a buck 15. I [1:14] say [1:14] >> feel like 40s are 40s are our new [1:16] median. Now, let me let me run through [1:17] the real quick. Just I'm not comparing [1:19] this to these places, but I'm just I'm [1:21] just showing this. What pricricked the [1:23] Japan bubble? Central bank raised rates. [1:26] Okay,.com bubble. The Fed was raising [1:28] rates. 1929, the Fed tightened. GFC, the [1:31] Fed raised rates into it. Okay, everyone [1:34] knows what the biggest risk is right [1:36] now. And the if the the market is not [1:38] always right, but I think the market is [1:40] expecting pricing in now, the Fed to [1:42] raise rates to like four and a half or [1:44] 5%. If the market wanted to, it could [1:46] use this to sell off. Will it do it? [1:49] >> No. [1:51] >> Too easy. [1:54] >> My experience is that the market usually [1:58] doesn't give you this long to get out. [2:01] It kind of reminds me a little bit of [2:04] April where we're staring at the [2:08] straight being closed and the stock [2:11] market is coming down just a little bit [2:12] every day. It's not really. There's no [2:14] 1% 2% falls. We're like, I thought this [2:16] was the black swan. Why aren't stocks [2:19] falling here? So, it feels like that a [2:21] little bit to me. I think that the way [2:23] that I'm describing the current market [2:25] environments is there's a lot of doubt, [2:27] a lot of doubt, but basically zero fear. [2:31] Let me make the case [2:33] in the doubt column. This chart is from [2:35] 22V research via daily chart book. AI [2:38] valuations. Last week I said if there's [2:40] a poster child for the AI trade, it's [2:42] Nvidia at 16 times earnings, borrowed [2:44] earnings. [2:45] >> Yep. Well, they zoomed out and they they [2:47] have an AI value a basket a curated [2:50] universe of 81 AI capex exposed [2:53] companies spanning 12 market segments [2:56] trades in an average EV to Ebida [3:00] just think of it as like price to [3:02] earnings of of 15 times [3:04] which is 1.14 times their pre2026 [3:09] historical average. So there's no [3:10] premium in the AI trade anymore. Okay. [3:13] So a lot of doubt earnings versus [3:15] valuations from duality research. Only [3:17] one sector consumer staples has seen [3:21] multiple expansion this year. The rest [3:23] this chart is nuts. [3:24] >> Okay. [3:25] >> It's not just tech, it's everything. [3:27] >> The VIX is at 16. [3:29] >> We have explain this again. Duality [3:31] looked at all of the sectors. Okay. [3:33] Well, how many are there? 12 or 13. I [3:34] think they keep adding some. Okay. 11. [3:37] And every single one of them but [3:38] consumer staples has seen a multiple [3:40] contraction this year. Many it's double [3:41] digits. Consumer discretionary double [3:43] digits. Consumer services d [3:45] communication services which is tech [3:46] double digits. Materials double digits. [3:48] The S&P has a whole double digits in [3:50] technology and energy both double [3:51] digits. And consumer staples is up a [3:52] smidge. It's up less than 1%. So it's [3:55] not just like oh wow yeah tech names. [3:57] It's everything. [3:59] >> Yeah. So multiple compression [4:01] everywhere. Doubt. [4:03] Uh here's the no fear side of it. The [4:06] VIX is at 16 despite the sal. We'll get [4:10] to in a second. [4:11] from JC. Well, [4:13] >> sell off. [4:14] >> It's a sell-off from JC. [4:17] >> Consumer staples and utilities are two [4:19] of the most defensive areas of the stock [4:21] market. We would all agree. [4:23] >> Yes. [4:25] >> When investors get scared, they often [4:26] hide in these groups. Nobody's hiding [4:28] there right now. So, he has two charts [4:30] of two ratio charts of consumer staples [4:33] divided by the S&P [4:35] >> to show how one is doing versus the [4:36] other and utilities versus the S&P. and [4:38] they're both at new multi-year lows. [4:41] There is a lot of doubt, but there is no [4:43] fear. Let's talk about the sell-off. We [4:46] are in a very weird market dynamic [4:50] where a lot of stocks are going down and [4:52] yet the index is near an all-time high. [4:55] Jason Gford shows that the S&P has been [4:57] holding within 1% of a new high and yet [5:00] more than 70% of stocks in the index are [5:05] at least 10% below their highs. The only [5:07] other time that's happened of the last [5:09] 30 years is right before the dot bubble [5:12] burst. However, dun. [5:16] >> However, critically, [5:18] don't punt the bears, please. [5:20] Critically, duality research shows [5:23] that the key distinction of the 52- week [5:26] low list [5:28] is that a lot of the deterioration is [5:30] happening in utilities and staples and [5:33] real estate. Obviously, [5:35] not just defensive sectors, but sectors [5:38] that are exposed to higher interest [5:39] rates in a bad way. 21 of the 28 names [5:43] on that new low list came from [5:45] utilities, staples, and real estate. So, [5:47] it is a market that is full of doubt [5:50] and also has very little fear. [5:53] Do you think that's a good way to [5:54] explain it? [5:56] >> Yes. Well, it's funny because the S&P, [5:58] we're recording this a little later than [5:59] usual, Tuesday afternoonish, lunchtime. [6:03] The S&P is down 1.4%. [6:05] Even like small caps are actually [6:06] selling off a little bit. Small caps are [6:07] down 8%. [6:09] >> What's equally? Equates equal over five, [6:10] I think. [6:11] >> Okay. Uh even the NASDAQ is not even [6:13] down 2% yet. So you're right. Like it's [6:15] it's totally a reversal of [6:17] >> Well, hold on, Ben. If you if you are a [6:19] stock picker, and believe it or not, [6:21] there are people that own individual [6:22] stocks. There's a lot of them that are [6:24] getting their headbeats in. [6:25] >> Well, I so I I wrote this after we [6:27] talked last week about Adam Parker's [6:28] piece, which I I read, which was really [6:30] good, that you talked about. So, I I [6:32] decided to look at this using Y charts [6:33] data. So, I have these comp tables and I [6:34] looked at year-to- date the S&P is up [6:37] 13% still year-to date. 35% of stocks [6:41] are outperforming the index, but 40% of [6:44] stocks, four out of every 10 stocks is [6:45] down this year in the S&P. [6:47] >> So, you're right. So, more stocks are [6:49] down this year in a double digit up here [6:51] that are outperforming the index. [6:53] >> And it's and there's like 20 stocks that [6:55] are up 100% or more. So, this is a very [6:58] concentrated market now. So funny. [7:01] >> It's still it's still it's the memory [7:02] names even though they're off their [7:03] highs. [7:03] >> But we've gone through a whole cycle [7:05] this year already. We went through a [7:06] cycle where all the other stuff was [7:07] working in the MAG 7 and the big names [7:09] weren't and now it's come back and [7:10] they've they're working again. It keeps [7:11] going back and forth. I guess the one [7:13] thing I said rising rates are a very [7:16] good reason for the stock market to sell [7:18] off. The only the way that that [7:20] >> No, not rising. Not rising straight up. [7:23] >> Yes. Going vertical. The re So yeah, the [7:25] 10-year went from like 4% to 5.2 in a [7:28] hurry. [7:29] So the way that this doesn't become some [7:31] sort of equity route or at least [7:33] correction from that is well hey dummy [7:35] they're rising because we believe in the [7:37] AI trade. We believe that AI is going to [7:39] continue to spend. Hyperscalers are [7:41] going to continue to spend. That's going [7:42] to continue to help earnings. That's why [7:44] the stock market's not selling off. It's [7:46] because we think economic growth is [7:47] going to be strong. I was going to get [7:48] into this later. They have the Atlanta [7:50] Fed uh GDP now has third quarter GDP [7:54] coming in at 5%. That has not always [7:56] been right. We've shown before that it's [7:58] been wrong in the past, but if it's if [8:01] rates are accelerating because it's [8:02] like, oh my gosh, this is this thing has [8:04] legs. It's an economic boom. That's why [8:07] the stock market won't sell off. That [8:09] would be the reason. Whatever happens, [8:10] we always say this, but it's it's true. [8:12] Whatever way it goes, if the market [8:14] falls 10%, we go, "Oh, of course the [8:16] rates rolls like crazy." If the market [8:18] keeps going up, you go, "Of course AI is [8:20] spending like crazy." It'll be very [8:22] obvious with hindsight. I tend to think [8:24] you're probably more right than than my [8:26] theory. [8:27] >> There's no rules in the stock market, [8:28] but I do think it's a pretty good [8:30] shortorthhand that the market when it [8:33] falls, it generally falls fast. It's [8:36] unusual that everybody is like, "Stock [8:38] market's going to fall, we have time to [8:39] get out. Stock market's going to fall, [8:40] we have time to get out." [8:42] >> It's [8:42] >> speaking Speaking of rules, this is me [8:44] having fun. [8:45] >> So anyway, I I I could be dead wrong, [8:47] but I putting my timely hat on. I would [8:50] not be surprised if we get past this [8:52] this bout of selling underneath the the [8:54] market underneath the indexes and you [8:56] get a rip into the year end. I could be [8:58] very wrong obviously. We'll see. [8:59] >> So the the stock market not having rules [9:01] because if you learned finance 101 like [9:03] when I took finance classes in college a [9:05] higher interest rate should mean lower [9:07] present value for financial assets [9:09] especially long duration risk assets. [9:11] The higher the interest rate the lower [9:12] the present value. Right. That should be [9:14] obvious. [9:15] >> Yeah. [9:15] >> The hurdle rate's higher. [9:16] >> Yeah. Since Treasury yields bottomed in [9:20] March of 2020, they bottomed before the [9:22] stock market did. I think the Treasury [9:23] rate bottomed like March 9th or [9:25] something below 50 basis points. Since [9:28] that date, the S&P 500 was up 19% [9:31] annualized since rates went from.5% [9:34] to 5.2%. [9:36] >> No rules. [9:37] >> This is why there's no rules. This is [9:38] why there's no rules. You're right. [9:40] >> So, I I did this tweet and it kind of [9:42] went a little crazy, but it's weird to [9:43] think about the state that we're in. [9:45] Mortgage rates have shot way up past 7% [9:47] again, right? 7.3% I think we got, but [9:49] the unemployment rate is still at 4%. [9:51] Bond yields are above 5%. Cash yields [9:54] are going back to 4%. Oil is around $100 [9:57] a barrel depending on the date you look [9:58] at it. Gas prices are crazy high, $5 a [10:01] gallon. Inflation is like 3 and a half%. [10:04] Alltime highs in the stock market. [10:05] Alltime lows in consumer sentiment. [10:08] >> We're lower now than we were in the [10:09] 1980s. COVID, the great financial [10:12] crisis. I know. Yeah, [10:13] >> but here's the thing. The things that [10:15] don't matter right now, people would [10:17] start freaking out about that more if [10:18] the stock market were to fall. [10:19] >> Totally great. [10:21] >> It's like people people won't freak out [10:23] about that stuff, at least market people [10:24] like us, because the stock market is [10:26] doing well, [10:27] >> right? That is true. [10:30] >> Price price rules everything around me. [10:34] >> Yes. All right. What do you got? [10:36] >> All right. I want to get on my soap box [10:37] one more time talking about like how [10:40] careful you have to be as a market [10:43] consumer. As somebody who listens to a [10:47] lot of different opinions, [10:49] you have to be careful. Exhibit A. Tech [10:52] funds, tech fund flows are going [10:55] straight up. This is from Callum Thomas. [10:58] We're looking at the rolling 12-month [11:00] net ETF flows of tech stocks and it's [11:02] off the charts. We've never seen [11:03] anything like this. Simultaneously [11:06] we have um [11:08] >> this is very surprising to me [11:10] >> which part [11:11] >> that it's it's it's dwarfed the other [11:13] periods from the cycle by so much. [11:15] >> Yeah. Not even close. [11:16] >> It's like triple the size. [11:18] >> The numbers are bigger but still even if [11:20] you normalize it as a percent it's crazy [11:22] high. We also have near record retail [11:25] buying from Robin Hood. Sherwood has his [11:28] chart showing the Robin Hood Traders net [11:31] 21-day single stock purchases as a [11:34] percentage of the max, meaning the most [11:37] that they've ever done. They're [11:38] anchoring to that. [11:39] >> So, these everyone in the pool. [11:41] >> Everyone in the pool, right? Everyone's [11:42] okay. Uh, antenna up. Everyone [11:45] Everyone's bullish. Oh, yeah. Okay. [11:48] Goldman [11:50] uh they have a positioning indicator. It [11:53] fell for the sixth week in seven, moving [11:56] further into negative territory, the [11:59] most negative since June 2025. [12:02] What do we make of this, Ben? [12:03] >> Well, this is the sentiment indicators [12:05] are completely broken. We can't you [12:06] trust you trust the flows, not the [12:08] sentiment indicators. You can't ask [12:09] people what they want to do or what they [12:11] feel. You have to what are they actually [12:12] doing? So, the flows matter. [12:15] >> I agree. But I do wonder if the [12:16] sentiment indicator is quantitative. I'm [12:18] guessing it mo it's got to be mostly [12:19] quantitative. This is not survey based. [12:21] The point is just be careful with [12:22] surveys. Obviously, it's really hard to [12:26] say everyone is this or that because the [12:28] Robin trader behaves very differently [12:30] than the Goldman institutional investor [12:33] than the Schwab estax investor. These [12:36] are categorically different types of [12:38] people. So, it's really hard to say [12:40] everyone is this or consensus is that. [12:42] Sometimes it's easier than others, but [12:44] right now it's difficult. [12:45] >> So, I was going to put this in the doc, [12:46] but I didn't want to. But the Atlantic [12:48] had this piece where they said that [12:50] there is a sex recession in America. [12:53] Okay, I'm going to bring this back to [12:54] Senate and they show that the only [12:56] people who are still having the same [12:57] amount of sex, this is married couples, [12:58] are religious couples. So it's like [13:00] religious uh attendees, how much sex do [13:03] you have data? Is this is this is this [13:05] on like on the eyew watch? How do they [13:06] how do they get this data? [13:07] >> This was my question. Who in their right [13:10] mind is answering a survey like this? [13:11] What is your religion? Are you having [13:13] sex with your spouse? No one is no one [13:15] in their right mind is answering these [13:17] questions. How can you think [13:18] >> these are weirdos? It's just [13:20] >> in the trash. [13:21] >> Weirdos are not having sex or whatever. [13:23] Like correct. Who is answering these? [13:25] >> Who's answering these? There's no way [13:27] you can [13:27] >> The average age is what? 68. [13:32] >> I I just don't know who is answering [13:34] questions like this. You're right. Um [13:36] all right, let's talk Bonds a little [13:37] bit. Uh let me start with this. Hey [13:39] guys, I listen every week and love the [13:40] show. We we we got 12 or 13 different [13:43] emails like this probably where the [13:45] market is. [13:46] >> You said last week you bought bonds. Can [13:47] you elaborate on that? Did you purchase [13:48] actual bonds or ETFs? What types of [13:51] bonds? All fair questions. And again, a [13:53] bunch of people asked us this. Michael [13:55] and I are totally contraindicators. And [13:57] here's the thing that I will say on this [13:58] bond purchase. [13:58] >> Wait, what do you mean contraindicators? [14:01] >> Because everyone else is getting in the [14:02] pool for taking on risk and we're going [14:04] the other way with a [14:06] >> I think I think a lot of people I think [14:07] a lot of people are turning bullish on [14:09] bonds. [14:10] I don't know, man. Maybe. [14:14] So, here's what I did. I did this in my [14:17] brokerage account, and I've never done [14:18] it in my brokerage account before. My [14:19] 401k is still 100% all stocks. I did [14:21] this in I I I bet an ETF. You can buy [14:24] individual bonds, but it's a pain in the [14:25] butt if you're not like someone who [14:26] knows how this stuff work. You can go to [14:27] Treasury Direct and buy treasuries right [14:29] from the US government, but it's an old [14:31] antiquated website. And I don't know why [14:34] you would try to buy your own bonds when [14:36] you can just buy an ETF. That makes it [14:38] easy. It's low cost. Most of them are [14:41] very liquid. It's just it's it's simple. [14:45] And the thing is we are we are obviously [14:47] early here. You and I are not going to [14:48] like we bought bonds. So that's the top [14:50] of rates. [14:51] >> No, there's definitely not the top, [14:52] >> right? I don't [14:54] >> probably know the top. [14:55] >> I never look at and this is how we think [14:56] about this with our clients, too. I do [14:57] not look at this from a I'm trying to [15:00] time an interest rate market. I think [15:01] rates are going to fall this much by [15:03] this date and like I don't even care if [15:05] rates say where they are. [15:06] >> Same. [15:07] >> Right. So, it's it's it's a riskreward. [15:09] >> I like the yield. [15:10] >> Yes, I like the yield. That's that's the [15:12] thing. Well, speaking of yield, [15:13] >> wait, can I say what I did? [15:14] >> Yes. What did you do? [15:15] >> Because I'm glad that you said that. I [15:18] also am not touching my 401k. I'm 41 [15:21] years old. Um, I don't care really where [15:24] the market goes over the near term. Now, [15:26] if you told me for sure with 100% [15:29] certainty that the market would get [15:30] would fall for 30%, well, then of course [15:32] I would sell all my stocks and put [15:33] everything into bonds. But I'm not I'm [15:36] not buying bonds. I still like stocks. [15:37] Now, if stocks go up, if stocks rip 15% [15:40] into year end and they go up another 25% [15:42] in 2027, might I consider owning some [15:46] bonds? Yeah. If if I think like we're [15:48] really in a bubble, will I own some [15:49] bonds? Sure. Okay, fine. Not that. Uh in [15:52] my brokerage account, like you, Ben, I [15:54] am down to one and a half stocks. I [15:56] still have a pretty full position in [15:58] IMAX and I I own another stock. Doesn't [16:01] even matter which stock. I But I sold [16:03] all of the ones that are embarrassed to [16:04] mention it. What's that? [16:06] >> You embarrassed to mention it? [16:08] >> That doesn't matter. [16:09] >> Well, I just It's a small position. So, [16:11] I No, I I I own Clear. Thicker is you. [16:15] It's a very small position, so it's not [16:16] worth mentioning. [16:17] >> Clear as in like the airport thing. [16:18] >> The airport. The airport thing. [16:20] >> Okay. [16:20] >> Um, so I got rid of I cleaned up. I I I [16:23] I bailed on Netflix. I don't care if [16:24] it's the bottom. I'm down 20% of [16:26] Netflix. I got rid of Spotify. Like all [16:28] the other stocks I took a chance on that [16:29] I had like small losses on except for [16:30] Netflix, which was a 20% loss. Gone. [16:32] Whacked them off. I am very happy owning [16:35] owning my 5% yields. So, I've got a [16:37] mixture of uh short, intermediate, and I [16:40] did take a swing this morning on long, [16:43] which I will probably get run over on. [16:45] It's fine. Um, but yeah, this is not a [16:47] stock market. [16:48] >> So, that's a direct that's a directional [16:49] bet. You're going [16:51] >> So, I bought I bought I bought uh I did [16:53] buy TLT 30 minutes before this uh [16:56] >> Okay. [16:57] >> podcast started. It certain certainly [16:59] feels like a blowoff top and yields, but [17:01] >> but just to be clear for people [17:02] listening again, this is not a bond [17:05] market call to say that rates have [17:07] topped or anything because they they [17:08] haven't. They just haven't like they're [17:10] clearly going up. The trend is higher. [17:13] >> Don't fight the trend. [17:15] >> We just [17:15] >> I guess I am. [17:16] >> In our investing life cycle, we've never [17:17] experienced 5% bond yields before. [17:19] >> I got to do it. I got to do it. It's [17:20] attractive. Okay. [17:21] >> And so we we talked this week, we talked [17:22] to Bill Egan from JP Morgan. He's going [17:23] to be on the talk book in a few weeks. [17:25] and he was like, you know, I'm getting [17:27] 4% on T bills. Why wouldn't I just stay [17:29] there? Like, that's an option for a lot [17:30] of people, too, still. Yeah. [17:32] >> And if the Fed keeps hiking rates, those [17:33] three-month T bills don't have interest [17:35] rate risk and they'll they'll do just [17:36] fine, too. And you got to So, the thing [17:37] is yields abound. [17:39] >> If somebody told you yields abound, if [17:42] somebody told you in 2020 that you can [17:43] get 4% in cash, the response would be [17:45] like, "All right, why would I really do [17:47] much else?" [17:48] >> Right? [17:50] The thing is, bonds give you the kicker. [17:52] If if and when inflation and growth [17:54] stall, if they stall out, bonds are [17:56] going to have a kicker. And let me show [17:57] you. I I did I had Sean and Matt were [17:58] working on me with some uh Bloomberg A [18:00] stuff this week. So the A goes back to [18:02] 1976. It was originally little history [18:04] lesson here. Originally the Layman [18:05] Brothers A. They created it in the early [18:07] 80s. Then they backdated it to the 70s. [18:09] So this they can have a benchmark. No [18:10] one ever had a bond benchmark before. [18:12] Investment grade since 1976. [18:16] This is one of the worst 5-year returns [18:17] ever. It's negative. It's never been [18:19] negative before until this part of the [18:21] cycle. The rolling 10-year nominal [18:23] return. So that was like negative.3% for [18:26] 5year annualized returns. For 10 years, [18:28] it's 1.4%. If you add inflation on top [18:30] of it, this is the worst 10-year real [18:34] return ever for the A right now since [18:37] the inception back in 1976. And the [18:40] reason was even though inflation was [18:41] higher and rates were rising even more [18:43] rapidly in the 80s, yields were a lot [18:45] higher. So, this was literally the [18:47] perfect storm for a bad bond market. Low [18:49] starting yields, rapidly rising rates, [18:52] high inflation. You couldn't ask for a [18:54] worse bond market than we just lived [18:55] through. [18:56] >> Correct. [18:56] >> And on the other side of that is higher [18:58] yields. [19:00] That's our bond take. All right. Uh I [19:02] said last week there is no such thing as [19:04] a K. Jim Biano slid in my DMs and he [19:07] said, "Ben, this is the K." He sent me a [19:09] chart. We talked about sentiment [19:10] earlier. [19:11] >> By the way, Jim Biano turned bullish on [19:13] bonds. [19:14] >> Bonds. I saw that. [19:15] >> Yeah. So he said this is the K. It's the [19:17] stock market versus sentiment. Stock [19:20] market goes up, sentiment goes down. [19:21] It's because I said there's no there's [19:23] no chart that actually looks like the [19:24] letter K. He said no, it's a stock [19:26] market versus sentiment. This is this is [19:28] very bizarre. [19:30] You can see in the past stock market [19:32] crashes, sentiment crashes. Stock market [19:34] goes up, sentiment goes up until [19:37] >> we know the surveys are broken. [19:38] >> Yeah. [19:39] >> Yeah. Co did it. Um here's the strange [19:41] thing about the K. All right. K to [19:43] Institute. Look at this. This is pretty [19:45] surprising. Uh they looked at household [19:49] the growth in income on an on an [19:51] inflation adjusted basis since the [19:53] 1990s. The lowest fifth of so they did [19:57] the lowest fifth median second fifth and [19:59] middle fifth. They're looking at poor [20:01] and middle class households. The lowest [20:02] fifth has seen by far the greatest gains [20:05] in income since 1990. [20:08] Very surprising. Okay. They also looked [20:11] at uh let's see, hang on. Oh, growth in [20:15] growth in wealth too. It's actually been [20:16] pretty strong. Like throughout most of [20:18] the 90s, income gains actually weren't [20:20] that great for most lower and middle [20:22] inome households. They've they've like [20:23] rocketed higher in the past 10 to 20 [20:25] years. The Wall Street Journal has this [20:27] piece. Inflation adjusted median [20:30] household income. Look at this. From [20:31] 2000 to 2015, [20:34] inflation adjusted income went nowhere. [20:36] Remember how mad people were about this? [20:39] Look at how much it's shot up in recent [20:40] years. [20:41] >> This is also an under reportported part [20:44] of the economy. And I'm not I'm [20:47] definitely not saying that the lower [20:48] fifth is like killing it at all because [20:50] they're obviously not. [20:51] >> But on a relative basis, [20:53] >> no, no, no. That's my that's not where [20:54] I'm going. My point is they're still [20:56] spending all their money [20:58] >> and now they have more money to spend. [21:00] >> Right. Listen to this. One more from KO [21:03] Institute. Since 1967, the share of [21:05] households with incomes of 150,000 or [21:07] greater, that's inflation adjusted, [21:09] okay, has more than quintupled. This is [21:12] the craziest thing that look at this [21:15] chart here. The percentage of people [21:17] with $150,000 or more inflation [21:18] adjusted, 1967 was 5% of households. [21:21] Today, it's almost 30%. [21:24] >> Wow. [21:24] >> I don't think we celebrate enough how [21:25] much wealth that we've created and how [21:27] how much better incomes are than they [21:29] were in the past. One more. Blake [21:31] Millard, friend of the show. uh he's on [21:33] a panel with me last last year of future [21:34] proof talking about uh content. [21:37] Surging equity wealth pushed household [21:39] assets above 10 times of liabilities in [21:41] Q2 of 2026. This is from Bank of [21:44] America. This is this is an insane [21:46] chart. Household assets to liabilities [21:48] is now 10 times. [21:51] That's pretty crazy, right? [21:52] >> We spent a lot of time talking about the [21:53] liabilities and not enough talking about [21:55] the assets. to that point. JP Morgan had [21:58] a similar report this week titled more [22:01] US households are supporting spending by [22:05] drawing on investment wealth. So the [22:07] flywheel of stocks stock market gains [22:10] flowing into the real economy which [22:12] we've been discussing is spinning fast. [22:15] >> Okay. I have a question about this. I [22:16] have a question about this report. Give [22:18] the data then I'll then I'll ask my [22:19] question. [22:20] >> Okay. You know I didn't make this [22:21] report, right? [22:22] >> Yes. But I just I have a I have a take [22:24] on it. Okay, 8% of people withdrew money [22:27] from investments on net over February to [22:30] April 2026. That's up from 4% over the [22:34] same period of 2019 and just 2.4% in [22:38] 2015. High-income individuals are much [22:41] more likely to use investments to [22:43] support spending. The share from the top [22:45] income segment rose from 6.6% from [22:49] February to April 2015 to 20%. [22:53] That's unbelievable. So the stock market [22:56] is just a big ass piggy bank for people [22:58] that have been invested for a while. One [23:01] more one more thing and then you could [23:02] ask. They also showed the cash withdrawn [23:05] from investment accounts as a share of [23:06] spending and of course for the top 10%. [23:10] It is so far up and to the right. It [23:12] used to be like less than 4% in 2015 and [23:15] now it is I don't know over 10%. [23:18] >> So I read this report too. This is [23:20] >> Oh, you want to go on vacation? Yeah. [23:22] sell some stocks. [23:22] >> This is showing the wealth effect. Isn't [23:25] this also just baby boomers retiring [23:28] and spending more from their investment [23:29] accounts? [23:31] >> I don't know if it's just that, [23:33] >> but isn't that a big part of it? [23:34] >> Um, of course, it's part of the story. [23:37] >> Okay. I thought All right. I think stats [23:41] like this are going to be skewed by baby [23:42] boomers in the years ahead. [23:43] >> Both of them can be true. [23:44] >> Do you do you doubt the direction of [23:46] this chart is absolutely telling the [23:47] story? Think about how many baby boomers [23:50] are like, think about where baby boomers [23:52] were in 2010 in terms of how they [23:54] prepared they were for retirement and [23:55] going, "My house got killed. My stock [23:58] portfolio got killed. I'm never going to [23:59] be able to retire." And now they're [24:00] looking at, "Oh my gosh, everything I [24:02] own is up. I'm doing way better than I [24:04] possibly could have imagined." [24:06] >> That was a dumb take. Baby boomers [24:08] cashing out their 401k was gonna was [24:10] going to crash the stock market. [24:12] >> Yeah. I've never [24:13] >> Oh, yeah. Because that's how it works. [24:14] people when baby boomers turn six turned [24:17] uh turned whatever the age is uh what is [24:20] the age of withdrawal six for former [24:22] kids is it 69 or 65 69 and a half [24:25] >> 59 and a half you can start [24:27] >> 59 and a2 right [24:29] >> say I'm not a CFP anyway um that they [24:32] were going to just like go to cash [24:34] simultaneously dumb as ever [24:37] >> all right we have a heading for [24:38] inflation here we haven't used it in a [24:40] while so I put something in here just [24:41] because this is inflation based John [24:42] Arnold tweeted [24:44] As of August 2026, the nation national [24:47] median rent sits at 1390, almost exactly [24:49] where it would have been if rent growth [24:51] since 2020 had remained on the slow and [24:53] steady trajectory it had been on pre- [24:54] pandemic, 2% annualized since 2017. So, [24:57] you had this huge enormous spike in 2021 [25:00] in rents and ever since 2022, rent [25:03] growth has completely fallen off and [25:04] it's back on the pre- pandemic trend. [25:08] I'm not sure how many people would [25:09] believe you if you showed them this. [25:12] >> Fine. Yeah. Interesting. [25:13] >> It's good news. Correct. [25:16] >> You don't think rent growth slowing is [25:17] good news for people, especially young [25:19] people who are boxed out of the housing [25:20] market? [25:21] >> It's it's good news. [25:22] >> Come on. I know there's nothing there's [25:24] nothing people on social media hate more [25:26] today than than good economic news. [25:28] Eddie Alamine says that all the time. [25:30] >> Well, yeah. I just [25:32] >> You know that's true. [25:34] >> I know. I know that's true. I'm just [25:35] saying inflation was so horrible that [25:38] it's just difficult to celebrate this. [25:41] But this is the big literally the [25:43] biggest outlay for 90% of households is [25:46] housing. [25:47] >> Yeah. [25:47] >> And for people are renting the fact that [25:49] rent [25:50] >> for people that are renting of of course [25:51] of course it is good news. [25:53] >> All right. Let's talk about So you you [25:54] said you've been I liked your take that [25:56] you don't want to hear what people are [25:57] doing with their like agents or AI or [26:00] like it's like fantasy football. Stop [26:02] telling me what you're doing. I don't [26:03] care. [26:04] >> Right. [26:04] >> I am violating my own rules. [26:07] >> I'm sure you are. But you're you're [26:08] using some of this stuff. I talked about [26:09] playing around with Muse last week. Uh [26:12] so Torson Sllock has a he said Muse and [26:15] similar agentic AI assistants could soon [26:17] sweep household cash automatically into [26:18] accounts paying 3.3 to 5% instead of [26:21] 0.1% on the national average on checking [26:23] accounts if every household used AI [26:25] agents to optimize the return on their [26:27] cash. [26:27] >> Stupid. This is very stupid. [26:28] >> Yes, banks could lose a large share of [26:30] cheap deposits they rely on to make [26:31] loans, which would be a problem. [26:34] >> Here's if I if I had if I had hair, I [26:36] wouldn't be bald. Here's the thing. [26:38] >> First of all, they can't do this. The [26:40] banks will shut them off if you just [26:41] keep pinging their bank account. [26:43] >> Yes, that's a restrict access. [26:45] >> Like, listen, I am I I've said from the [26:47] start, the only thing I want from AI is [26:49] Scarlett Johansson from her as my [26:52] assistant. And it sounds like we're [26:53] really getting close to that or we're [26:55] already there. [26:55] >> We have. [26:56] >> That's all that's all I want. I want the [26:57] assistant. I think it's got to get [26:58] better. I'm I'm not going to be a I'm [27:01] never a first user for these things. So, [27:03] I'm gonna I'm probably going to wait [27:03] till Apple does it to use it a I've been [27:05] toying around with Muse a little bit. [27:07] >> Okay. [27:08] >> Um, but I'm gonna probably I'm going to [27:10] wait till Apple gives me a really good [27:12] one and probably use them just because [27:13] it I think it'll be easier. [27:15] >> I I want to I want to before we get into [27:18] the agents and I've been I've been using [27:20] this using this out of instinct [27:21] over the last week and it's absolutely [27:24] incredible. So, I'm going to violate [27:26] what I said last week about not sharing. [27:28] Sorry, don't care. Uh, it's unbelievable [27:31] and I want the audience to know about [27:32] it. I want to say this before we return [27:35] to the agent stuff. [27:39] I don't know if this is controversial or [27:40] not. I don't give a about AI slop. [27:43] How about that? I don't care. I Here's [27:47] here's my take. I understand why people [27:49] do care about it. I really do. I think [27:52] it's coming from a good place. I think [27:54] that there's worry that we're losing our [27:56] humanity. But can I tell you something? [27:59] I just don't care. I don't get caught up [28:01] in what other people are doing. If you [28:03] want to write me an AI crafted email, [28:04] I'll just delete it. Or or maybe I'll [28:06] read I just I'm just not that bothered [28:08] by it. I feel like AI slop has become [28:10] like the term dour on the internet. Um I [28:14] don't care. [28:14] >> I guess I'm like you or I'm not and I'm [28:17] sure most people are coming around to [28:18] that or will come around to that. I I'm [28:20] like you. I just it for me it's a filter [28:21] to ignore someone. I if if if you wrote [28:24] a blog post using AI and I could tell [28:26] immediately that I'm just not gonna read [28:28] it, [28:28] >> right? [28:28] >> So that it's just a filter for me. [28:30] >> Yeah, you're right. [28:31] >> I guess people are make people are [28:32] making the leap that like there will be [28:34] nothing left other than AI produced [28:37] and I just reject that. It's just [28:39] nonsense. [28:39] >> I do too. And and also there aren't very [28:42] there aren't that many good writers out [28:43] there. So, if people are using ad to [28:45] write better than they could by [28:47] themselves, I don't know. Why wouldn't [28:50] you if you're not a very if you don't [28:51] like writing or you're not very good at [28:52] it. Um, so anyway, I'm bullish on the [28:55] agent thing. [28:56] >> I think it's going to be [28:58] >> but I think but but I love the fact that [29:00] we're getting to the point where we're [29:01] trying to figure out what the next what [29:02] it's going to lead to. And I like [29:04] listen, it's not that hard for people to [29:05] take money they have now and move it. [29:07] It's not hard to do. [29:09] >> Like just having an agent is not going [29:10] to make you much better. I I love the [29:12] fact that people are trying to think [29:13] through what this having an agent will [29:15] do. Here's my here's the thing. I don't [29:17] I think that's totally unanswerable [29:19] right now. How many people are actually [29:21] going to use these to the fullest [29:23] extent? Because like I know people who [29:24] are all like optimized to the hilt love [29:27] these things. How many people actually [29:29] need a personal assistant for their [29:32] life? How many people are like how many [29:33] people have CEO level whatever or seuite [29:36] level lives that are so busy that they [29:38] need this? That's a question I don't [29:40] know the answer to. [29:42] >> I think it's the wrong question. [29:44] >> Okay. [29:44] >> Who says everybody has to use it for it [29:46] to matter? [29:48] >> Well, if it's going to lead to a bank [29:50] run, then everyone has that's what I'm [29:51] saying to have fine. I didn't that [29:53] nonsense. Okay. I think everybody's [29:55] going to use those things. [29:56] >> But I do think the people who do use [29:57] them, they're they are going to get but [29:59] I think after a while you're going to [30:00] go, how many like restaurant [30:02] reservations do I really make? How many [30:03] travel reservations do I really make? [30:05] >> Everybody's going to use these things. [30:06] >> Of course they are. But I I don't know [30:07] if they're going to have the societal [30:09] impact that [30:09] >> God damn it. Let me finish. [30:11] >> All right. [30:11] >> When I say everybody, cuz I'm I've been [30:13] using it all week. You have not. So, let [30:14] me just talk about this. [30:15] >> Oh, all week. Whoa. [30:17] >> Well, since future proof, since I [30:18] downloaded it. [30:19] >> Okay. [30:19] >> And I I cannot go backwards. So, you are [30:22] a late adopter. Admittedly, you just [30:24] discovered Apple Pay. I don't think that [30:26] 100% of the society is going to use [30:28] this. Obviously, when I say everybody, I [30:29] don't mean literally everybody. But, [30:31] Ben, it ising incredible. It is [30:36] absolutely incredible. Don't think of it [30:38] as like, oh, does everybody need an [30:40] assistant? No, not everybody needs an [30:42] assistant. It just does so many things [30:44] for you. So, as an example, and I'm not [30:47] saying that this is the end all be all. [30:48] I'm just sharing with the audience who's [30:49] like, "Wait, what are you guys talking [30:51] about?" So, Instinct is a company that [30:53] is similar to Muse, which you may have [30:54] heard about from Meta. Instinct is, [30:57] what's interesting about Instinct, and [30:59] Patrick just had on the the the founder [31:01] on his podcast, the kid is 23 years old, [31:03] which is totally mind-blowing. They're [31:04] growing 10% a day. They just raised a [31:07] billion dollars at a $10 billion [31:08] valuation. Okay. So, what is it? [31:11] >> If Apple comes out with Sirius [31:12] assistant, that company's nuked [31:13] overnight. [31:14] >> I don't know. Maybe perhaps [31:16] >> if I Okay, keep going. [31:18] >> It is a text messaging platform [31:21] where you text it to do anything. And [31:25] when I say anything, Robin will send me [31:28] like, "Oh, can you get this basketball [31:29] for Kobe? Um, can you go do this? Can [31:32] you do that?" So now Robin and I have [31:35] our instincts synced to each other where [31:38] they're talking to each other. They're [31:40] putting stuff on our calendar. They're [31:41] buying. They're scheduling. They're [31:43] returning. So as a tangible example, I [31:46] said, "Can you help me with my Disney [31:47] subscription? I think right now I pay [31:49] for Disney, Hulu, and ESPN Plus bundle [31:51] with commercials. I just want Hulu and [31:53] Disney, no commercials. What am I paying [31:55] now? What would be the new price? Can [31:56] you execute this for me?" All right. So [31:58] it said on it, I'll pull what you're [32:00] paying now, price out, blah blah blah [32:01] blah. Found it. And I don't need to read [32:05] every text message. The point is it did [32:07] it does things for you. It doesn't just [32:09] tell you what's happening and then makes [32:11] you do it. It does everything for you. [32:13] So there's going to be a lot of concern [32:15] about safety, [32:17] >> how secure these things. [32:18] >> Yeah. I'm simply not ready to give my [32:20] information up to these people. No way. [32:22] I'm not a lot of Okay. Noah said the [32:24] founders [32:25] >> but AI probably goes, "Ha, idiot. I can [32:27] hack into all your stuff anyway. I don't [32:28] need you to give it to me." said after [32:31] after uh 3 weeks 40% of users are [32:34] sharing a personal credit card. So I've [32:36] shared everything. Maybe I'm an [32:37] I don't care. It is doing all of my [32:43] everything. Move money here. Oh, my [32:46] account got overdrawn. Oh, what [32:47] happened? I had to move money from this [32:48] account to this account. It repaid it [32:50] for me. It is just doing everything. [32:52] It's crafting emails. It's [32:53] >> I'm just I'm totally not there yet for [32:55] moving account. I do not want an agent [32:57] that can do go rogue to move from one [32:59] account to another. No way I'm trusting [33:01] that. Maybe I'm in maybe I'm like just [33:03] naive here, but I'm not doing that. No [33:05] way. [33:05] >> Totally fine. I'm not you. You could do [33:07] whatever you want. My point is that this [33:09] thing is going to be adopted in a big [33:11] way. And that is why [33:13] >> I agree. I'm very bullish on these [33:14] things. [33:15] >> It's it's it really is the first thing [33:17] that I've felt in this AI thing that is [33:22] like I can't shut up about. Like Robin [33:25] is getting very sick of me talking about [33:26] it. [33:27] >> There's a there's a Goldman Sachs [33:29] consumer inertia basket [33:31] >> like Planet Fitness. So these stocks are [33:33] getting mauled for good reason. By the [33:35] way, I just cut the cord. I had instinct [33:37] finally and I could have done this, but [33:40] I'm paying for every streaming [33:42] subscription platform, including MGM [33:44] Plus. Why am I paying $175 a month for [33:47] cable? I literally I knew [33:49] >> Did you watch the new John Ham show yet [33:50] on MGM Plus? [33:51] >> No. [33:52] >> Save it for a couple more weeks. I'll [33:53] talk about recommendations. [33:55] >> I never use it. [33:56] >> I never ever ever use it. [33:58] >> So that's the point that the it's going [33:59] to go to go through all of my [34:01] subscriptions and cancel the ones I [34:02] haven't used in the last 12 months or [34:03] whatever it is. So that's why these [34:05] Planet Fitness, New York Times, and all [34:06] these places sold off. I Yeah, I don't [34:09] know what the unintended consequences [34:11] are going to be of these businesses just [34:12] blocking all these agents. I don't know [34:14] if they will want to or does it just [34:17] mean, okay, fine, we're going to double [34:19] our prices. Like I [34:21] >> So I lost. So, this is annoying. I can't [34:24] find my credit cards. Can't find my [34:26] wallet. [34:27] >> See, you do need a personal assistant. [34:29] >> I don't know where it is. I uh So, I'm [34:31] in Texas and I've traveled with my [34:33] passport. And so, it suggested that I [34:38] get a card that goes into your wallet [34:40] where it's like uh find my right, it's [34:42] like a ship card. So, it bought that for [34:44] me. Okay, fine. Um I asked it to monitor [34:47] my credit cards to make sure that [34:49] there's no unusual activity. And it says [34:53] something along the lines of, "I can [34:54] only check your account once a day [34:56] because if I do, it'll feel like it's [34:58] being uh hacked by a bot and will get [35:00] shut off." It's very aware. Anyway, to [35:04] me, this is like, "Holy the future [35:06] is here." And I am incredibly bullish on [35:08] this category. And I don't know if [35:09] Instincts could be the winner or Muse or [35:12] Apple, whatever. I understand the [35:14] concerns, the privacy concerns. I [35:16] totally get it. [35:16] >> How do they How do they make money? I [35:18] don't That's what I don't get. How do [35:19] they make money? [35:19] >> They could charge $5 a month. I don't [35:21] know. Yeah. All right. [35:22] >> Name name that price. I'll pay it. [35:24] >> Uh all right. Side of the times. [35:26] >> You're gonna get hacked. I can't wait. [35:28] Sorry. [35:28] >> That's not very nice. I know. [35:29] >> Side of the side of the times uh of this [35:32] of this this 23 year old kid starting uh [35:34] this company. Andrew and Harowitz [35:38] um is spending $35 million to back [35:40] two-year academy with other Bay Area [35:43] tech giants on board. Basically, if [35:45] you're an 182-year-old [35:47] future genius and you want to skip [35:49] college, they're incubating this type of [35:51] thing. [35:53] >> I don't hate it. [35:55] >> Me either. Love it. Um, all right. We [35:57] don't need to spend time on this. I just [35:58] It's just lol. Um, [36:01] founder of uh Cali, we just submitted a [36:03] regulatory filing to introduce margin on [36:04] the subset of longdated prediction [36:06] markets. Perfect. Just what we need. [36:08] Just what we need. Um, [36:10] >> so it says it would not apply to sports [36:11] culture and a few other categories. He [36:13] he said capital efficiency has been the [36:14] biggest bottleneck for institutions and [36:16] margin is the single most requested [36:18] feature. Whatever, dude. Okay. [36:23] >> Yeah. All right. What would that what [36:24] would those longdated predictions be? [36:26] And I wonder what longdated means to [36:28] them. Like how how long is two weeks [36:30] out? [36:30] >> Right. [36:31] >> Um okay. Uh so last week mortgage rates [36:35] went to like I said 7.3%. I put a [36:38] Simpsons me in here that it's already [36:39] dead. [36:40] >> Um [36:41] >> oh brutal. Absolutely. [36:43] >> At what point do people just say, "You [36:45] know what? Screw it. Let's overpay." I [36:48] feel like [36:49] >> that happened. That that that was 25 and [36:51] 26. [36:53] Now it's that's over. I don't think [36:55] people can afford to overpay anymore. [36:57] We've been overpaying. [36:58] >> Incomes are up. Like I I don't think [37:00] people who've been waiting and waiting [37:02] and waiting will just they'll just say, [37:04] "Fine, I'll overpay and I'll pay too [37:06] much in the monthly and I'll hope to [37:07] refinance later." [37:09] >> I don't think it's a fine. I I think I [37:10] think like at a certain point like [37:12] there's just math and [37:13] >> so we look at all those charts that show [37:14] that show I'm just trying to I'm trying [37:16] to look for the bot I'm trying to look [37:17] for the positive for housing. So like we [37:19] show all those charts that show like the [37:20] stock market bottoms way before [37:21] earnings. It bottoms way before [37:23] recessions like the stock market always [37:24] bottoms before the bad news is gone. Is [37:28] housing [37:29] >> the glass half full take? There's no [37:30] positive news here. [37:31] >> Is housing going to bottom before [37:34] the market like activity is I don't [37:37] know. All right. Here's [37:39] >> there's no there's no the glasses uh [37:42] >> the glass is 100% empty. [37:44] >> Here's a question I was thinking about [37:45] the other day. So, I got a 3% mortgage [37:47] and I can't remember when I refinanced, [37:48] 2020 or 2021. [37:51] If I do back the envelope math on that, [37:53] I'm guessing it would be worth maybe 60 [37:55] cents on the dollar. Who lost money in [37:57] that transaction [37:59] in that bond? Who is the loser of that [38:01] bond? [38:03] >> Whoever's holding it. [38:04] >> Someone like someone lost a lot of money [38:06] on a lot of bonds like that. [38:09] Right. [38:10] >> Well, opportunity costs. Sure. [38:12] >> Well, no. Just the B if you're holding [38:14] that I haven't I have not repaid my [38:16] loan. That loan is still in a basket of [38:18] bonds somewhere. Someone got bent over [38:21] on my 3% mortgage. It's not me. [38:25] >> How about this? [38:26] >> Can't lose money if you don't sell. [38:28] >> So, people always get really mad when [38:29] you see proposals like this. This [38:31] senator, I don't know where he's from. [38:33] He proposed that there is a 5 to1 [38:35] federal match for first-time home buyers [38:36] saving for a down payment up to 50 [38:38] grand. So you I love it. Do it. Who gets [38:41] mad? Whating gets mad about [38:43] this? [38:44] >> Well, I have 12% MORE. YEAH, SHUT UP, [38:48] >> So you save 10 grand, the government [38:50] saves 50 for you. You have $60,000 for [38:52] down payment now. So people say, "Why [38:54] are we always trying to subsidize [38:55] demand?" I guess I would agree. It would [38:57] be a lot better if we somehow subsidize [38:59] supply. [39:00] >> Oh, I know. because demand is [39:02] >> but it doesn't it does it but it also [39:04] doesn't feel like we're ever going to do [39:05] anything about supply. So [39:07] short of that I think yeah I'm I'm [39:08] actually okay with this. I would rather [39:10] them give all first time all new [39:12] first-time home buyers a 3% mortgage [39:14] than this but you're right. I don't A [39:17] lot of people are going to hate this. I [39:18] don't hate it. [39:20] Right. I I don't know. [39:23] Uh let's see. So redemptions are still [39:26] happening in private markets. We we [39:27] haven't talked about private credit. you [39:28] had the Hamilton Lane guy on to talk [39:31] about private markets. [39:32] >> I thought it was great. [39:34] No commentary on their investments or [39:36] anything like that, but like I I found [39:37] them to be engaging, reasonable. Um was [39:41] nodding along with a lot of the [39:42] critiques that we've offered over the [39:44] years. I liked them. Um it's so [39:47] interesting that the outflows continue [39:48] because the bad news has not and you [39:51] know damn well that the media is dying [39:55] for a big default. Dying. Yeah, we [39:58] haven't we haven't had but this was two [40:00] stories. Chris and Chris Chris and [40:01] Shaughnessy highlighted these. Apollo [40:03] captic private credit fund 15% of people [40:05] look to exit. Morgan Stanley had one [40:07] that was 11%. Uh and the Apollo one's a [40:10] pretty big fund like 26 billion in [40:11] assets and it said last quarter it was [40:14] 17% or so. So like these are people are [40:17] still asking like no no no I'm not going [40:18] to hold on and wait. I So people every [40:20] quarter more people keep coming back [40:22] asking for their money. [40:23] >> Well the equity of these companies looks [40:25] terrible. Like I'm looking at Carlile [40:28] was at uh $70 last September. [40:33] That's a year ago. It's now 40. [40:34] Blackstone has I mean all of all of them [40:36] doesn't matter. The the the basket is [40:38] GPZ if you're curious. I don't know why [40:40] you would be, but uh these names are [40:42] getting destroyed. [40:42] >> Blue Owl obviously never came back at [40:44] all. Oh man, they're they're testing new [40:46] lows again. [40:48] >> Yeah. No, it's grim. Listen, I will say [40:49] like even though we open the show like [40:51] with with a pretty emphatic like no, uh [40:54] the market is not going to fall apart. [40:57] Caveat that with like rates because [41:02] if the 10-year [41:04] >> That's what my point was rates. [41:06] >> That's what I said. [41:07] >> If if the 10ear is is 5.6% next week, I [41:11] don't see how the market doesn't crap. [41:13] >> I agree. Rates have come up. So that's [41:15] what I was saying. The rates are the [41:17] thing. That's the excuse for the market [41:18] to sell off. Will it take it? I don't [41:20] know. [41:22] >> Um, oh, I have to uh [41:26] I have to apologize to United for [41:28] throwing them under the bus last week. [41:31] Uh, I flew I flew American. American has [41:34] a terrible movie selection. [41:38] >> Okay. Uh, [41:40] I don't know why they don't just I I [41:41] know some of them have have adopted like [41:43] Paramount Plus or like they should just [41:45] all have the streaming services on there [41:46] and just give them for free. [41:48] >> Great point. You know what's very rude? [41:51] When people get up in an airplane and [41:54] they use the back of your seat to lift [41:56] them up. [41:57] >> That annoys me every single time. Then [42:00] they get back in it pulls you back. I [42:02] hate that. [42:03] >> Yes. [42:03] >> So, I was very close to saying it [42:05] something. [42:06] >> It only happened once, but it was so [42:07] aggressive. Ben, like it was such it [42:10] wasn't like it was just like like and [42:12] like how do you not know that you're [42:13] doing that to the person in front of [42:14] you? It's so bizarre. [42:16] >> I always swear the people who do that [42:18] behind me. [42:19] >> So I I she walked right past me and I [42:22] didn't have time to turn. It was just it [42:24] was just unbelievable. Like and then [42:26] when she sat back down it wasn't as bad. [42:28] But I I saw at the event that I'm at [42:33] >> Glad I didn't say anything. All right, [42:35] let's do some uh let's talk about how [42:38] let's talk about show business. [42:39] >> Joey Politano has a really great [42:42] substack on the the uh fall of the [42:44] creative class. So he says America's [42:46] lost more than two 200,000 creative jobs [42:48] in the last four years, 50k in last year [42:50] alone. Uh one of the worst stretches for [42:53] media employment in modern US history. [42:55] He said it's only similar to 2001 2008. [42:58] Uh so this is movies, newspapers, [43:00] magazines, books, radio, TV, all this [43:01] stuff, right? And then he kind of breaks [43:03] it down by the jobs and a lot of it is [43:06] graphic design and streaming and radio [43:08] and newspap all this stuff like this is [43:10] he had some really good charts. I don't [43:12] know if you've read this piece. So um [43:15] music has a percentage of US consumer [43:17] spending as like it's all ticket sales [43:20] now. People don't buy albums. They spend [43:23] a little bit of money on streaming, but [43:25] it's mostly live events, which is [43:28] probably a good thing for for people's [43:31] well-being, right? But this one is [43:33] interesting. And I've said movies are [43:35] dead. This is he's he shows video as a [43:37] percentage of consumer spending. And [43:39] it's basically buying movies, streaming, [43:41] cable, or movie theater tickets. And [43:44] movie theater tickets as a percentage of [43:46] consumer spending dropped off hugely in [43:48] CO and still has not come back, but it's [43:50] been falling for decades. [43:51] >> Yeah. obviously, but all of these the [43:54] spending on this type of entertainment [43:56] has fallen off of a cliff. You can see [43:59] >> and that's not coming back. I mean, [44:01] >> no. [44:02] >> I uh [44:03] >> So, my my worry here though is how much [44:08] you said you're not you don't care about [44:09] AI slop. This is where you're going to [44:10] start to care about it is if like the [44:12] quality of movies and stuff goes down [44:14] because I watched [44:16] >> that Aaron Eert movie you talked about [44:18] with Ben Kingsley. [44:21] >> And that was that felt like an AI movie [44:23] to me. It was the worst. [44:24] >> Did George watch it? [44:26] >> Of course. He loved it. It was the an [44:27] airplane crashed in the ocean and there [44:29] was sharks. [44:30] >> Kobe said to me the other day, he was, [44:31] "Daddy, we never finished Deep Water." I [44:32] said, "I think we're good." [44:33] >> I mean, it was some of the worst like [44:36] CGI I've ever seen in my life. And I [44:39] that worries me that we're going to get [44:40] more of that. [44:41] >> I know we did this last week, but now [44:43] that you saw it, isn't it just what's [44:46] the word? Bizarre, unfortunate, sad that [44:49] Ben Kingsley has been reduced to this. [44:53] >> It It was very bizarre. [44:54] >> He was He had like a He was only in the [44:56] movie for four minutes. [44:58] >> Yeah, it was [45:00] He died a very heroic death though, [45:04] didn't he? So, I'm in Austin and [45:07] I uh [45:10] had a work dinner last night and I asked [45:13] Instinct, "Is there are there any [45:15] theaters near me playing Resident Evil?" [45:18] I've been very much looking forward to [45:20] this movie. So, there was a theater here [45:23] called Crown Violet. It's fantastic. Uh [45:26] really cool little theater. There's a [45:28] bar there, which I enjoyed. I did enjoy [45:30] a beverage at theater, although I did [45:32] have to use the bathroom, which was [45:33] unfortunate. God, that movie rips. That [45:36] was so much fun. Holy Did you [45:38] >> How many of them have there been? I've [45:40] never seen [45:41] >> Did you see Barbarian? [45:44] >> Yes. That the Justin Long one? [45:46] >> Yeah. So, so Barbarian and Weapons was [45:48] by this director, Zack Kger. Anyway, [45:51] Zack Kger did the Resident Evil movie [45:52] and it was so much fun and there and [45:55] there was a ton of people around me, [45:56] young people having a good time. Awesome [45:58] movie. But the industry is in disarray [46:00] obviously and it's not coming back. [46:02] Jeffrey Kzenberg was talking uh with [46:04] Bellan and and Lucas Shaw on the town [46:06] about this. [46:08] We haven't really even started to see [46:11] like AI integration into the arts. Now [46:14] that is an area of course where AI slot [46:17] becomes very concerning. [46:18] >> Right. Yeah. You're right. That that [46:20] stuff is still coming. [46:23] >> Um [46:25] all right. All right. What does this say [46:26] about the sign of the times that Anthony [46:28] just which I didn't even know that he [46:30] had this has a book club podcast that is [46:34] wildly popular with its audience. They [46:36] just got uh integrated with the ringer. [46:39] >> I love it. I think it's a great idea. [46:42] >> Are you are you a fan? [46:44] >> I went through his I went through his [46:45] list of books and I I [46:47] >> I mean you're you're a perfect mark. [46:48] You're a you're a fiction guy. [46:50] >> I still love reading fiction. I know a [46:51] lot of people don't. It's fiction. I [46:54] still read every single night before I [46:55] go to bed. I'm reading fiction. I listen [46:57] to non-fiction now and I read fiction [46:59] still. I love like when I go on [47:00] airplanes instead of watching movies [47:02] now, I'll just read for the whole [47:03] flight. It's like my one time I have [47:05] like peace and quiet and no one around [47:07] me and I just read like the whole time. [47:09] I love reading. [47:10] >> All right. Well, it's funny you [47:10] mentioned that, Ben, because this was [47:12] the first time on my flight out here. It [47:14] was an early flight, which is so stupid. [47:16] I took the 7:00 flight and I landed here [47:18] at 10:00. I'm like, why did I do that? [47:22] No reason to be up at 4:30 in the [47:23] morning. Anyhow, I listened to and I I [47:25] discovered I learned something about [47:26] myself. Ben, I haven't really thought [47:27] about this. My favorite genre. It's not [47:30] a genre. I love memoirs. [47:34] So, I just finished Keith McN, who is a [47:37] restaurant tour, which is such a stupid [47:39] word. Why is there no N in there? Should [47:41] be restaurant tour. [47:43] >> There's no N really? I didn't know that. [47:44] >> There's no N. It's a restaurant tour. [47:46] Nonsense. Anyway, he owns uh Balthasar [47:49] and Miranda and Manetta Tavern and a [47:51] bunch of and this guy [47:54] is so brutally honest. Of course, it's [47:56] got to be like an honest memo, right? [47:57] Like if LeBron James did a memoir, [47:59] sorry, LeBron, no interest. Um but I [48:02] love when people open up about like the [48:04] and sometimes it's weird when they [48:06] like really share some of the personal [48:08] stuff with [48:09] >> you. What what do their friends and [48:10] family think about this? [48:11] >> Yeah. It's like, did they give [48:12] permission for this? Anyway, great book. [48:15] And I'm also so so I finished that and [48:17] on the flight I listened to Ari [48:18] Emanuel's book which is awesome and the [48:22] narrator matters a ton. Bob Odenkirk is [48:26] reading Ari Emanuel's book which is I [48:29] guess they're longtime friends. Odenkirk [48:31] is awesome. And then lastly, I'm very [48:32] much looking forward to the to the [48:34] Sylvester Stallone book memo I should [48:36] say. [48:36] >> I I watched his interview. He talked [48:38] about how he had like eating disorders [48:40] and [48:40] >> Yeah, that went viral this weekend. All [48:42] right, good news. The 80s and 90s are [48:43] back. So back. We're getting a Blair [48:45] Witch reboot, which is uh Blum and Wong. [48:48] I'm very excited about that. Uh [48:51] Gremlins, I could take it or leave it. [48:52] Gizmo is very cute, but did you see [48:54] this? Gizmo's coming back. [48:58] >> Watch I watch those movies. [48:59] >> I feel like I am now my head I'm on 1.5 [49:01] times speed now that I've got the clock [49:03] ticking for uh room service. But there's [49:05] So I'm going fast. There is Q4, Q3, Q4, [49:09] the the fall and winter are going to be [49:10] freaking awesome for the movie theater. [49:12] At least for me. These are the movies [49:13] that I'm very much looking forward to. [49:14] Godzilla Minus Zero got amazing reviews. [49:17] The first one was one of my favorite [49:18] movies the last five years. Clayface. I [49:21] know it's not for you. Other mommy. [49:23] Whalefall. [49:25] I play Rocky. [49:26] >> Is Whale Fall the one with the whale [49:27] eats the guy? My son talking about that [49:28] since he saw the preview. [49:29] >> George is George's George is you're [49:31] going to take George to the theater for [49:32] that one. Don't deprive him. [49:33] >> Dune 3. Uh you can see everything which [49:36] is the uh Elizabeth movie. Prime Time. [49:39] Can't wait to see that. Varity, which is [49:42] uh my wife and I might see that. And [49:43] then Artificial. All right. I want to [49:44] talk really quickly about Avengers [49:45] Doomsday. I took Kobe and Logan to see [49:49] Encore. And it was so cute. Logan was so [49:52] excited. So, we finished Infinity War. [49:55] He was very upset that Spider-Man wasn't [49:56] going to be in Endgame. And I said, [49:58] "Just just watch." Um, and the theater [50:02] was packed. I think it did 20 something [50:03] million dollars. Like, it it had a good [50:05] good weekend at the box office. Um, and [50:08] people were clapping and I saw Kobe [50:10] clapping and I was like, you know, I [50:12] felt that he was like part of society. [50:13] He's like reading the the cues and [50:16] >> yeah, [50:16] >> clapping along. I hated it. [50:19] >> I hate when people clap at the theater. [50:21] I love that my son did it. I love that [50:22] he had a great time. I hated Endgame and [50:24] I hated it when I saw it. It felt like [50:26] such pandering to the audience. It felt [50:28] like that stupid Star Wars movie. I [50:29] can't remember what the last one was. [50:31] >> I just I just [50:32] >> hated everything about it. And yet I'm [50:34] very and yet I'm I'm very very excited [50:36] for Doomsday. [50:37] >> It is funny. I when my kids do stuff [50:39] like social things that I don't like [50:41] like my daughter will text me thx and [50:43] I'll say don't no we're not saving time [50:45] on thanks. You can write out thanks. [50:46] Okay. We're not doing the thx. All [50:48] right. That's we don't do that in this [50:49] family. Those things. [50:52] Uh by you see you got this Robert Patson [50:55] thing in here. I just have to say [50:56] >> so it it's bizarre. Pisonson and [50:58] Hathaway are both like they each have [51:00] like three or four monster movies in [51:02] 2026. I I asked like is is is Anne [51:04] Hathaway like broke or something like [51:05] what's going on here? It was just like [51:06] >> after the end of Oak Street I thought [51:07] she Yeah, she was in but it's funny [51:09] because my daughter and I have finished [51:10] the Twilight series. I kind of I'm on a [51:13] computer while she's watching it and the [51:15] last I don't know they did five of them [51:16] or four of them and the last three or [51:17] four of them are just awful. Even my [51:19] daughter's like, "Man, this got really [51:21] bad, huh?" I'm like, "Yeah, oh great you [51:22] see it, too." Okay. Just making sure. I [51:25] can't believe that there was that he I'm [51:27] like, "Can you this guy turned out to be [51:28] a huge actor now?" [51:30] >> Who would have thought? So this year [51:31] Odyssey Prime Time and the drama. [51:33] >> Unbelievable. [51:35] >> That's a pretty good year. [51:37] I I can't see him and not think about [51:39] the beggars me now. Every time I see [51:41] him. [51:42] >> What's that from? [51:44] >> From Odyssey. [51:47] Get all these beggars out of here. [51:49] >> Ever seen that one? [51:50] >> Okay. [51:50] >> I can't wait to see prime time. The [51:51] Chris Hansen one. [51:52] >> All right. Um [51:54] maybe. So the New York Times did his [51:57] best 100 shows of the 21st century. And [51:59] the weird thing is is that everyone's [52:00] complaining they didn't include Sopranos [52:01] because it started in 1999. Whatever. I [52:03] have a few minor thoughts. I'm only [52:05] thinking of the top 10 here or so. Okay. [52:07] So, I have some very minor thoughts. I [52:08] think for me, [52:09] >> wait, so read the top 10 for people that [52:11] didn't see it. [52:12] >> Breaking Bad, The Wire, Mad Men, [52:14] Succession, Flea Bag, Game of Thrones, [52:16] VEP, 30 Rock, Kirby Enthusiasm in [52:18] Atlanta. [52:20] Uh, so here's here's where I would take [52:22] Sumbridge. Um, I think Breaking Bad is [52:24] like you if you say Breaking Bad in a [52:25] wire, no one is ever going to argue with [52:27] you. Mhm. [52:28] >> Um, I think Succession is probably my [52:30] number one. It's the only one of those [52:32] shows that I right away went back and w [52:34] I've watched every season at least [52:35] twice. I think I think it's the perfect [52:39] show where it has no fluff, five [52:41] seasons, shorter seasons. I think it [52:43] just perfected everything that came [52:45] before them. Like I've only ever [52:47] rewatched the finale of Breaking Bad. I [52:48] wouldn't I don't think I'd really go [52:49] through and want to rewatch Breaking Bad [52:51] the series. I don't know if that's too [52:52] much. [52:53] >> Maybe the maybe the end last season. Um, [52:56] >> but I Break a Bad is my favorite show [52:58] ever. [52:58] >> Friday Night Lights and Six Feet Under [52:59] are way too low. Those should be in the [53:01] top 10. And I think my one hot take is I [53:05] loved The Wire. I think it's closer to [53:07] 10 than it is to one. [53:10] >> That's my only like take where I diverge [53:12] from the TV people. I think people [53:13] automatically pencil The Wire and if you [53:16] watch the last season where they did the [53:18] fake serial killer, it just wasn't good. [53:20] And that's why it fell flat on me. And 6 [53:23] Feet Under had by far the greatest TV [53:26] finale of all time. And it's not even [53:28] close. [53:29] >> That's where I land. [53:31] >> All right. Notable snubs. Walking Dead, [53:35] Dark, Silicon Valley, Fargo. [53:38] >> Dark Dark is a very good show. [53:41] >> Season one of Dark is one of my favorite [53:42] seasons ever. Uh, Entourage. I mean, [53:44] whatever. Yellowstone, Grace Anatomy, [53:46] Boardwalk Empire, Sons of Anarchy. [53:48] >> Boardwalk Empire is not in the top 100. [53:50] Mm- [53:51] >> I really like that show, too. That was a [53:52] That was a very high quality show. [53:54] >> Um, [53:55] >> okay. [53:56] >> All right. But [53:56] >> this is the kind of list you put [53:57] together just to get the people talking, [53:59] and that's what it did. [54:01] >> Who doesn't love a good list? [54:03] >> Yeah. I just thought this was kind of [54:04] kind of funny. I've been talking about [54:06] like watching Friday the 13th movies. [54:09] So, I told Claude, I've watched the [54:11] first Friday, two Friday the 13th [54:12] movies, and I'm on the third. They're [54:14] unwatchable. [54:15] So, it's like it said, yeah, like they [54:17] suck. That's the consensus. And then at [54:18] the end, it said just bail. Nobody's [54:20] handing up medals for finishing all 12. [54:21] But I said, "Uh, yeah, thank you." I [54:23] wasn't [54:24] >> I was done after I So, I told you I've [54:26] seen some of the more recent ones, but [54:27] the original ones, like I think of Jason [54:29] as like this big hulking Michael Myers [54:32] type creature monster that is like [54:34] impenetrable, but in the first two, it [54:36] was just like a like he was like getting [54:38] beat up almost. It was very bizarre. [54:40] Horrendous movies. Absolute dog [54:42] >> Okay. Uh, you mentioned this one. It [54:44] took you said last week it's taking [54:45] forever to finish shows. I finished some [54:47] shows this week. Uh, I finished The [54:48] Agency. Um, [54:50] >> how good was season two? [54:51] >> That's one of the best. Like the last [54:52] two episodes of that season. Like could [54:54] Fast Bender have been a Could he have [54:56] been a poor man's Jason Bourne? [54:58] >> Hell yeah. [54:58] >> I don't know what it is about CIA shows [55:00] and movies. Like I'm watching a ton. I'm [55:01] watching uh Slow Horses again. Just [55:04] started The Agency. I'm watching The [55:06] Patriot on Amazon. Like I love these CIA [55:08] show. And the last two last two episodes [55:10] of season two were just cooking. I was [55:12] like it went to another level for me. [55:14] And is is Fastbender an actual I don't [55:16] know if it's sociopath or psychopath. I [55:18] always get those two confused because [55:20] he's when he plays like an agent like [55:22] this, he played a robot in the [55:23] Prometheus movie. He played uh he's been [55:25] in a couple CIA [55:27] >> and he was weird in the Fincher. Was he [55:28] killer? [55:29] >> Yeah, he was a kill. He was a serial [55:30] killer in the He was a hired killer. [55:32] He's such a He's so good. [55:34] >> Do you still read GQ? [55:36] >> Of course. [55:37] >> Was he profiled? [55:40] >> Feel like he should have. [55:42] >> I remember. I'll I'll [55:43] >> Oh, uh Brad Pitt was recently profiled [55:45] by uh by Zach Baron. Did you read that [55:47] one? Hey, he's back on the wagon [55:50] again. You couldn't give it up. Uh, [55:52] okay. American Hostage on MGM Plus is [55:55] based on a true story of a guy. It's [55:57] about mortgage fraud. A guy takes a [56:00] hostage because he was getting screwed [56:02] on his mortgage. John Ham. It's based on [56:04] a true story. John Ham plays a radio [56:07] interviewer who the guy who the hostage [56:09] taker is communicating with. [56:11] >> Ham's the best. Wait, should I should I [56:13] start on the plane? Why do you tell me [56:14] to wait? I'm saying I'm saying don't [56:16] cancel MGM Plus. That's what I was [56:18] telling you to wait for because this [56:19] show is good. It's called America. [56:20] >> I'm not No, no, no. I cut the cord. I'm [56:22] not canceling MGM Plus. [56:23] >> Okay. All right. Yeah. [56:24] >> Don't cancel the streamers. They [56:25] >> He's He's had some misses on movies. He [56:27] doesn't miss on TV. He did Fargo. He's [56:30] he I maybe Morning Show, but he when he [56:32] does TV, he's very very good. Um also [56:35] Youth on HBO, brand new show that came [56:37] out. Sharon Han is the one who was in [56:39] our show Catastrophe that we liked. [56:41] >> Love that show. [56:42] >> I I love her. She was in Sisters. That [56:44] was pretty good. [56:45] >> Hogan. [56:47] >> Oh, Hogan or Han? I don't know. I [56:49] thought it was Han. Um, and it's just a [56:51] it's just a short 30-minute show on HBO [56:53] about uh a mom who is divorced and her [56:56] son is going away to college and she's [56:57] trying to like find herself and I think [56:59] I think she's hilarious and I think [57:00] she's great. I I love her stuff. [57:02] >> Finally, I I listened to The Ever [57:04] Millionaire. We talked about it a few [57:05] weeks ago. This is like the finance book [57:07] of the year. It's so good. It's so well [57:10] rearched and it's one of those books [57:12] that it's good for the data nerds. It's [57:14] good for people who want to be inspired [57:16] because some of the people who started [57:17] businesses, you go, "Oh man, that's so [57:18] inspiring, but it's also kind of [57:21] maddening how people who are very rich [57:24] get the biggest tax breaks." So, it's [57:27] it's got something for everyone. Very [57:29] very good book. [57:30] >> Um, all right. I will uh I will order [57:32] it. It's called Everywhere Millionaire. [57:34] >> Yes, I thoroughly enjoyed it. This is [57:35] about the Portillas. It talks about all [57:37] these people who got rich starting [57:38] businesses then just figured it out. [57:41] >> Yeah, we spoke about that article [57:42] yesterday. [57:43] >> Great stories. I really enjoyed this. [57:44] Very good book. [57:46] >> All right. Uh we would like rates to [57:48] stop going up not for our bonds but for [57:50] the stock market. [57:52] >> I don't know how much more it could [57:53] take. [57:53] >> I agree with you that there I don't know [57:54] what the line in the sand is. If rates [57:56] keep going up at the pace they've been [57:57] going up, the stock market has to [57:58] >> there's there's no line in the sand. I [57:59] mean just at some point people will [58:01] start dumping stocks. [58:03] >> Yes. But it's another one of those [58:05] things where if you would have told [58:06] people, listen, the 10 years is going [58:08] from 4% to 5.3% this year in the first [58:12] nine months of the year. What's the [58:14] stock market doing? You'd say the stock [58:15] market is down 15%, not up 15%. [58:19] >> Yeah, [58:19] >> strange times as always. [58:21] >> All right, looks like we're not going [58:23] now 15. I'm getting kicked out. Um, [58:26] animal spirits at the compoundnews.com. [58:28] Personal emails, personal responses. [58:30] Ben, another [58:32] >> text message instinct. Hey, buy me 15 [58:34] more minutes for my hotel room. [58:35] >> Too late for that. Listen, you uh you [58:37] poo poo the future, Ben, at your own [58:39] peril. You will be disrupted, sir. [58:42] >> I told you I've been bullish on personal [58:45] AI assistance from the start. I just [58:47] don't know. [58:49] >> You don't sound bullish. [58:50] >> No, from the very beginning, I said I [58:51] want the Scarlett Johansson and her. [58:53] That's who I want for my That's all I [58:54] want from AI, a personal assist. [58:55] >> It's here, dude. It's here. [58:57] >> I know. But [58:58] >> what do you mean you you don't want it? [58:59] It's here. But I'm not ready to hand [59:02] over my life yet. That's the thing. [59:03] >> You don't want it. You want what you [59:05] can't have. You want what you can't [59:07] give. You're not going to You're not [59:08] doing it. It's here. [59:09] >> I will. I'm just going to wait. That's [59:10] all. I'm very bullish. I'm just going to [59:12] wait. [59:14] >> All right. Animal spirits of the [59:15] compoundnews.com. Personal emails, [59:17] personal responses. Thanks all the [59:18] production team as always. See you next [59:20] time.