CoreWeave Slump Tests AI Boom as Bond Yields Spike to 15%

CoreWeave重挫且债券收益率飙升至15%，考验AI繁荣 CoreWeave的债务压力反映出信贷市场正在约束投机性硬件支出，属于健康现象，而非对更广泛AI扩张的系统性威胁。 迈克尔·巴特尼克（Michael Batnick）与本·卡尔森（Ben Carlson）探讨了CoreWeave的债务压力究竟代表着整个AI建设周期的早期预警信号，还是多轮技术周期中局部的暂时受阻。在表现坚挺的整体指数之下，他们分析了市场内部的显著分化：高估值动量股大幅回调，而整体估值则在平稳盈利支撑下出现压缩。对话进一步延伸至宏观与房地产领域，回顾了粘性通胀、庞大的数据中心基建支出，以及多州日益加剧的房产税抵制风潮。最后，两人转向流行文化与行业趋势，探讨了私募股权讨论、流媒体盈利能力、实景动作特技与CGI的对比，以及马克·扎克伯格在Meta的长期执行力。 CoreWeave自IPO后高点重挫60%，其债券收益率跃升至近15%，引发了争论：AI基建债务究竟只是局部的信贷调节阀，还是类似于早期次贷危机的先行预警信号。 (5:20) 尽管盘面下出现剧烈轮动，上半年排名前25的动量领涨股单周平均暴跌19%，但标普500市值加权指数和等权重指数今年迄今仍上涨13%。 (20:04) 与历史水平相比，科技股估值已普遍压缩，导致非必需消费品、必需消费品、医疗保健和工业等行业的远期市盈率均高于科技板块。 (24:19) 全美超过24个州出现了限制或取消住宅房产税的民间提案，这引发了市政预算风险以及令人联想起加州第13号提案的住房库存冻结局面。 (43:53)

Following a hotter-than-expected CPI print that triggered sharp equity rotations and bond market shifts, Michael Batnick and Ben Carlson debate whether underlying market volatility and debt pressures in AI infrastructure signal a systemic crisis or routine consolidation. Surface Stability Versus Divergence Underneath (0:40) The broader market experienced its first sharp sell-off after an 80-day streak without a 1% decline, sparked by higher-than-expected CPI data. While the benchmark index pulled back only 2%, internal divergence was stark: an equal-weighted NASDAQ 100 trailed the equal-weighted S&P 500 by 4.5 percentage points in a single week—its worst relative showing since November 2020—while consumer staples posted their best week of outperformance against tech in 24 years. Furthermore, the first half of the year's top 25 performers fell an average of 19% over the same five-day span. The Debate Over Market Carnage and Drawdowns (20:04) Carlson and Batnick disagree on whether beneath-the-surface losses constitute a genuine bloodbath. Carlson argues that headline indices remain healthy, noting both cap-weighted and equal-weighted S&P 500 benchmarks were up roughly 13% on the year, and that severe corrections in names like Western Digital (down 50% from highs, yet doubled year-to-date) merely reflect poor timing by late momentum buyers. Research from Portfolio Autopsy underscores that steep drops are standard: among 343 surviving S&P 500 firms since 1999, 92% have suffered at least a 50% drawdown, and 85% fell worse than the broader index's peak-to-trough drop of roughly 56%. Batnick counters that account-level pain is acute for retail investors whose capital concentrated heavily into high-flying leaders. CoreWeave and Debt Governors on AI Speculation (5:20) Fragility within artificial intelligence infrastructure surfaced through neo-cloud provider CoreWeave, whose bond yields surged to around 15% after heavy public and private debt issuance collided with market skepticism. Carlson considers whether CoreWeave acts as an early credit warning akin to subprime lenders in 2007 or a minor player (assigning only about a 15% probability to it being a systemic canary), noting that fixed-income discipline can serve as a beneficial governor preventing equity manias from overheating. Rather than a single catastrophic crash modeled on 19th-century railway manias, Carlson and Batnick anticipate rolling sequences of mini-booms and mini-busts across the AI ecosystem. Retail Dip-Buying Resiliency and Wealth Inflows (11:10) Despite CoreWeave sliding 60% from post-IPO highs, retail investors executed record five-day net purchases, reflecting deeply conditioned dip-buying behavior. Carlson argues post-pandemic retail risk appetite remains fundamentally elevated and expects investors to buy throughout downturns, drawing comparisons to retail dip-buying throughout the 2000–2002 dot-com unwinding. This activity is supported by massive liquidity: Charles Schwab reported $190 billion in quarterly net new assets—up 38% year-over-year—with clients moving almost $4 trillion in cash monthly, and 70% of new retail households coming from Millennial and Gen Z demographics unbothered by standard corrections. Macro Valuation Compression and Infrastructure Bottlenecks (24:19) Countering assumptions of market mania, technology sector forward price-to-earnings multiples trade below their 10-year historical average, while non-tech sectors like staples, healthcare, and industrials trade higher. Schroders data reveals equity multiples have compressed globally because corporate earnings growth outpaced price gains. Meanwhile, the physical footprint of artificial intelligence is creating real-world friction: commercial land surveys and contractor workforces in regions like Utah are almost entirely monopolized by massive data center construction, raising risks of unprecedented capital misallocation if enterprise software demand fails to match capex commitments. The hosts leave open whether surging corporate debt costs and capital-intensive data center builds will prompt a wider reckoning across tech, or whether broad earnings power and retail dip-buying will continue to absorb rotational sell-offs.

Michael Batnick与Ben Carlson围绕近期市场回调展开辩论：Batnick认为高通胀读数、AI基础设施的高额债务及个股暴跌揭示了表象之下的严重抛售；Carlson则主张大盘基本面依然稳健，当前的动荡属于周期性消化与投机过热后的正常回踩。 宏观数据拐点与AI叙事的迅速反转 (0:40) 在经历近80天未出现单日1%以上回调的平静期后，一份高于预期的CPI通胀数据触发了大盘激进抛售。然而，债券市场的反应打破了常规逻辑：基准收益率并未进一步飙升，反而因投资者对经济周期尾部硬着陆的担忧而大幅下挫。Carlson对比了《纽约时报》相隔十余天的报道，指出媒体叙事从“高利率完全无法遏制AI繁荣”瞬间切换至“AI企业借贷链条浮现薄弱环节”，展现出市场情绪的剧烈摇摆。 两位主持人援引James Carville关于债券市场主导全球格局的名言，指出信贷市场终将决定股票周期走势。Carlson将当前的债券动态与2022年10月标普500指数在恶劣通胀数据发布后见底反弹的历史进行类比，预计债券市场最终也会通过恶劣通胀读数将所有负面预期彻底定价。与此同时，有关通胀根源的争论仍在持续，Carlson引用Bespoke与Duality Research的数据强调能源仅占CPI篮子的3.2%，却驱动了9月通胀增幅的30%以上；Batnick则反驳称CPI已连续66个月高于美联储目标，通胀属于长期结构性问题而非单纯的能源异动。 CoreWeave债务压力与多周期AI泡沫论 (5:20) 估值约380亿美元的AI算力新星CoreWeave陷入困境，其通过举债数百亿美元采购Nvidia GPU并回租给科技巨头的循环融资模式引发了偿债担忧，其债券收益率一度被推高至约15%。Carlson借用电影《洛奇4》中打伤对手的桥段，探讨CoreWeave是否会像次贷危机初期的American Home Mortgage一样成为系统性脆弱的先兆。不过Carlson认为CoreWeave在整个AI生态中体量有限，成为真正“煤矿金丝雀”的概率仅为15%左右，且固定收益市场的审慎定价反而能充当防止AI过度杠杆化的健康阀门。 针对AI周期的走向，Carlson质疑了市场常借19世纪铁路狂热所作的“单一大崩盘”论调，指出19世纪铁路狂热实质上由三次繁荣与萧条交替构成。他预计AI基础设施更可能呈现波浪式的滚动繁荣与迷你萧条。Batnick对此表示赞同，指出市场此前已经消化了DeepSeek冲击、夏季科技股抛售以及当前针对AI债务与利润率担忧的三轮微型周期。尽管CoreWeave自上市后高点回落60%，但Sherwood的数据显示散户5日净买入比例创下历史极值，反映出过去十余年市场形成的“逢跌买入”心理定势依然顽固。 表面稳健与水下屠杀的分歧及历史回撤常态 (20:04) 在指数仅自高点下跌2%的表象下，内部市场结构展现出巨大分歧：彭博数据显示等权重纳斯达克100指数单周落后等权重标普500指数4.5个百分点，创2020年11月以来最差相对表现；同时必需消费品板块录得24年来对科技股的最大单周超额收益。Batnick指出，上半年涨幅排名前25的个股单周平均暴跌19%，将这种轮动称为“水下屠杀”。Carlson则反驳称，所谓屠杀只是暴露了买入时机的劣势：Western Digital虽然自高位腰斩，但年内涨幅仍达100%，SanDisk、Micron和Seagate年内涨幅分别近500%、200%和140%，且标普500指数市值加权与等权重版本年内均上涨13%。 Carlson援引南加州大学（USC）学生制作的“Portfolio Autopsy”研究，该项目追踪了1999年存续至今的343家标普500成分股。数据显示，21世纪以来标普500指数最大回撤为-55%至-56%，但高达85%的存活公司经历过超过指数谷底的跌幅，92%的公司至少一次损失过半市值。即使是当今的蓝筹龙头，历史上也承受过极端崩跌：JPMorgan Chase曾暴跌74%，Microsoft最大回撤达70%，Cisco和Nvidia的跌幅更曾达到90%。这一证据表明个股遭受剧烈回撤是长期持股过程中的常规现象。 估值收缩、市场演进与资本开支风险 (24:19) 尽管市场聚焦于AI热潮，但估值倍数并未出现非理性飙升。Duality Research数据显示，非必需消费品、必需消费品、医疗保健及工业板块的预期市盈率均高于科技板块。Schroders对全球多地市场的分解研究表明，全球范围内的估值倍数均出现收缩，原因在于企业盈利增速跑赢了股价涨幅；若标普500指数市盈率维持不变，仅凭盈利增长年内即可推动指数上涨30%至35%。两位主持人认为，缺乏过高估值倍数的市场反而降低了类似1999年互联网泡沫破裂的极端风险。 在微观产业层面，犹他州土地测量员的现场反馈证实，大量基建与熟练电工资源正从住宅与商业地产全面向大型数据中心倾斜。由于各大科技巨头同步展开数千亿美元的基础设施投资，若终端企业应用落地不及预期，这可能演变成历史性的资本错配灾难。此外，Anthropic员工对2030年名义GDP增速中位数给出17%的超高预期，与现实世界中传统银行如JPMorgan和Citigroup迅速封杀第三方AI资金转移Agent以保护自身存贷息差的做法形成鲜明反差，凸显出硅谷乌托邦愿景与现有经济体制摩擦之间的巨大脱节。 财富分化、代际博弈与消费防御性 (43:53) 资本市场的积累加剧了财富两极分化与阶层博弈。美国多州正掀起婴儿潮一代削减甚至废除房产税的立法浪潮，佐治亚州、印第安纳州和怀俄明州已出台数十亿美元的减税方案。Carlson指出，在全美约40%房产无房贷负债的背景下，取消房产税将剥夺地方道路与警力的核心资金来源，迫使俄亥俄州等地区需将销售税大幅提高至17%来填补亏空，从而把市政税负转嫁给无房年轻租客。这种代际分化在科技企业尝试推行SpaceX股权赠送或设立公益基金以平息“反对数据中心”抗议的举措中同样可见。 与此同时，高净值人群展现出极强的抗通胀消费韧性。各大航空公司对忠诚度计划大幅贬值，美联航将1000美元奖励的消费门槛从以往的1万至1.5万美元提升至约3.2万美元，高端休息室依然排起百人长队，证明企业正通过抬高奢华服务价格来针对富裕阶层转移成本。相比之下，媒体巨头在经历行业洗牌后增长见顶，Netflix虽确立流媒体主导地位并削减成本，但面临YouTube的流量蚕食及好莱坞高层频繁动荡，其2020年代以来的股价表现仍大幅落后于标普500指数达50个百分点，折射出单一龙头企业在面对宏观与行业演变时的增长局限。 本期节目展现了宏观指数与微观资产表现的剧烈分化：虽然科技巨头的超强盈利增长和普遍的估值收缩抑制了整体系统性泡沫的膨胀，但数据中心重资产开支的投资回报率以及AI借贷链条的稳健性仍未经过完整周期检验。市场究竟正在经历局部过度投机后的健康再平衡，抑或正滑向更大规模的资本错配危机，仍取决于企业终端需求能否支撑当下的巨额债务扩张。

[11:10] Ben Carlson: I don't think people in the market have totally reckoned with the fact that risk appetite in this decade is completely different than it was last decade. [9:49] Michael Batnick: ZIRP is far worse in general for everything than a normal cost of capital. [29:36] Michael Batnick: The business cycle is the only thing that matters.

[0:04] Today's episode is sponsored by Wisdom [0:07] Tree. Higher yields deserve attention. [0:09] So does the duration risk you're taking [0:10] to earn them. USFR, the Wisdom Tree [0:13] floating rate treasury fund offers [0:14] treasury income with minimal duration [0:16] exposure through floating rate notes [0:18] that reset weekly. Learn more at [0:19] wisdomtree.com/usfr. [0:22] Investing involves risk principal loss [0:24] as possible. Before investing, carefully [0:26] consider a fund's investment objectives, [0:27] risks, charges, and expenses along with [0:29] other information containing the [0:31] perspectus available at wisdomree.com/ [0:33] us. Read it carefully. [0:40] Welcome to [music] Animal Spurs with [0:42] Michael and Ben. Last week, we finally [0:45] had an exciting week in [music] the [0:48] stock market. It has been relatively [0:51] boring. I forgot what the data point [0:53] was, but there was like 80 days between [0:55] 1% corrections, which is abnormal. [0:58] Longest streak since X. And uh last week [1:04] a match was lit. And I was thinking [1:07] about this on it was Tuesday night. So [1:08] Tuesday morning, we got the high uh [1:11] inflation report for consumer prices and [1:15] the market decided to use that as an [1:17] excuse finally to do some selling. Uh [1:19] and it was pretty bad. It was a pretty [1:20] bad day in the stock market and I'm I'm [1:22] I'm at home. I don't know if I was lying [1:25] in bed wherever I was, but Robin's [1:27] talking about some nonsense. Something [1:28] that is well not nonsense to her in [1:30] fairness. Uh but isn't it my point is [1:32] this. Isn't it funny when there is a [1:36] pretty serious day in the stock market [1:40] and nobody cares? [1:43] >> Civilians you're talking about that [1:44] don't pay attention to this stuff. [1:46] >> Yeah. [clears throat] Yeah. What a [1:47] luxury. [1:49] And they're probably better off for it [1:50] in some ways. Some ways they're not [1:52] because it is this is the most exciting [1:53] game in town. It is [1:54] >> No, no, no, hold on. To be clear, 100 [1:57] million% better off because here we are [2:01] uh uh worrying, heming and hawing at his [2:04] I mean we we we do this all the time. [2:06] This is part of the job. Part of the job [2:07] is to worry. I [2:09] >> It is kind of funny though that you say [2:10] something happened to the stock market. [2:11] It was literally a 2% draw down. Now I [2:14] know that under the surface it was a lot [2:16] worse. We're going to get into that, but [2:17] it was there was a 2% fall in the stock. [2:19] >> If that's literally if that's if that's [2:21] the the [2:23] >> if that's the stance you're going to [2:25] take, we're going to fight. This is [2:26] going to be a fighting episode. [2:28] >> I'm not [2:30] everything doesn't matter, Ben. You [2:31] know, this is a show for entertainment [2:33] purposes. This is a show where we talk [2:35] about the stock market. If nothing [2:36] matters, why do people listen? [2:38] >> All right, listen. [2:39] >> We're here to talk about it. [2:40] >> Tell me if this matters. [2:41] >> I will talk. I will do my part. Go [2:43] ahead, Ben. All right, so the from the [2:45] same publication, this these headlines [2:47] headlines are two weeks apart, maybe [2:49] even 10 days. Two weeks ago, we talked [2:52] about this story in the New York Times. [2:53] High interest rates aren't slowing the [2:55] AI boom. That's a problem for the Fed. [2:57] That was two weeks ago. Last week, same [2:59] publication, different headline. Weak [3:02] links start to show in AI borrowing. [3:05] >> Are you trying to tell me that the stock [3:07] market is open every day and things [3:09] change week to week? [3:10] >> I think [3:11] >> Holy I think it's hilarious how [3:14] quickly this narrative changed. It was [3:17] it it just felt like it flipped [3:18] immediately to hey there's nothing the [3:21] Fed can do. And we credit to us at the [3:23] time we said come on that's ridiculous. [3:25] You can't say that. You can't say that [3:27] the debt market is not because obviously [3:29] I think what we've learned is that the [3:31] bond market kind of controls everything. [3:34] The like do the whole James Carville [3:36] quote about how he wanted to be [3:37] reincarnated as the bond market has been [3:39] used adnauseium. [3:41] it. It's right. So, here's [3:43] >> But we were surprised though in the [3:45] prior three episodes, we were surprised [3:49] that the tenure was going up and up and [3:52] up and the market seemed to not care [3:54] until Tuesday. And it wasn't I don't [3:57] think it was random. It was we had a hot [3:59] inflation print and everybody sort of [4:02] thought even though the bond market [4:03] didn't, right? Because ironically [4:06] uh yields came down as people said, [4:08] "Holy this is actually getting [4:11] kind of serious. The inflation is not [4:13] going away. It's not just fuel prices [4:16] and we might be closer to the end of [4:18] this business cycle and rates came down [4:22] very hard [4:23] >> on a hot inflation print, which is [4:25] interesting. [4:26] >> So I mentioned this to you and Josh in [4:28] October of 2022 when inflation was [4:30] really hot and the stock market was down [4:31] 20ome%. There was a really bad inflation [4:34] print and people go, "Oh, no, it's not [4:36] coming down." [4:37] >> And the stock market crashed 2% [4:38] pre-market. By the end of the day, it [4:40] was up 2%. That was literally the [4:42] bottom. The market bottomed on bad [4:44] inflation news. [4:45] >> That same thing is going to happen in [4:47] the bond market. I don't know if last [4:48] week was it, but that's what's going to [4:50] happen is we're going to get a bad [4:51] inflation print. People are going to go, [4:52] "Oh, see this is it." And and the bad [4:54] news is all going to be priced into the [4:56] bond market. That's going to happen. [4:58] >> It is. That is a good point. And it's [5:00] very funny how that works. We were [5:02] waiting [5:03] for [5:05] the breadth in the stock market was [5:07] terrible and yet the index was at a high [5:10] and interest rates were going up every [5:12] day and what was going to break it and [5:14] we needed bad news to put it in a [5:16] bottom. [5:17] >> So [5:17] >> or a top in in rates and a bottom in [5:19] stocks potentially. [5:20] >> So a few weeks ago a few weeks ago you [5:22] showed me the picture you have of Drago [5:24] and Rocky and I I mentioned I showed [5:26] Rocky four to my kids finally which is [5:28] it's funny. I think I saw Rocky 4 before [5:30] I saw the other ones. So, going from [5:32] Rocky 4 to Rocky 1 was actually very [5:34] hard to do. [5:35] >> Impossible. Rocky one is is quite slow. [5:38] >> It's very slow until the very end. But [5:40] the the great part of the movie that [5:42] makes the hair on your arm stand up is [5:44] when he gets him and in the corner he [5:46] says he's cut. Like it's like he's a he [5:48] is actually a man. I cut him. His hair [5:51] goes down from up to down and Rocky's [5:53] like, "Okay, I can do that." Right. It's [5:54] it's one of the best parts of the movie. [5:57] is coreweave [5:59] the cut part of the AI trade like oh my [6:01] gosh we cut AI because it it's always [6:05] hard to find these like canary in the [6:06] coal mine but in the in the subprime [6:08] mortgage crisis there was this small [6:10] mortgage company I can't remember the [6:11] exact name it was American finance [6:14] mortgage or American mortgage something [6:15] and a lot of people point to that and [6:17] pointed at the time that like this [6:18] little mortgage company going under was [6:20] that was the thing that that really got [6:22] the ball rolling and this this was the [6:24] canary in the coal mine for the subprime [6:26] everything else going wrong. So my [6:28] question to you is, is Cororeweave, a $ [6:32] 38 billion company, enough to be a [6:34] canary in the coal mine for the [6:36] potential problems with AI? [6:37] >> Oh yeah. Oh yeah. I I think the size of [6:40] the company is irrelevant. So for people [6:42] that don't know exactly like what what [6:44] is this core company that people keep [6:45] talking about, it is one of these [6:48] they're called a Neo cloud computing [6:50] company. Now I've been on record Neo- [6:54] anything. I don't know what it means. [6:57] uh neoeconomic neo this post neo I I [7:00] don't I just those are for the [7:02] intellectuals I don't I don't understand [7:03] it but what core what corweave and the [7:07] the companies like it essentially do is [7:11] they don't build the data centers per se [7:15] there's like the private financing [7:17] company meta whatever and they fill [7:21] these data centers with chips from [7:24] Nvidia [7:26] They lease them out to the hyperscalist, [7:29] whoever else is is buying all of this. [7:31] And then there's also a software layer [7:32] in between. Okay. And of course, [7:35] Coreweave is heavily [7:37] >> pretty good. Actually, I'll get I'll [7:38] give you credit for that. That sound [7:39] like you halfway knew what you're [7:40] talking about. [7:41] >> 40%. [7:43] Coreweave is heavily intertwined with [7:46] Nvidia. Nvidia is is an owner of them. [7:49] They benefit. They are at the center of [7:52] the alleged circular financing. So the [7:55] problem this is a company that just went [7:58] public too. This is not like this is a [8:00] relatively new company. So if you've [8:01] never heard of them it's okay. [8:02] >> So and the problem last week especially [8:06] is that there is a lot of borrowing [8:10] going on to finance the purchases of [8:14] these chips that are in the tens of [8:17] billions of dollars. That's how much [8:18] money they're spending. And there's all [8:19] sorts of different debt combination of [8:22] public, private, secured, unsecured. see [8:24] blah blah blah blah blah and the rates [8:26] are going vertical and the bond prices [8:28] are crashing and investors say hm uhoh. [8:33] So is that enough to be the canary in [8:36] the coal mine? [8:37] >> Absolututely. Now is it going to is this [8:40] the end of the story? I mean literally [8:42] who knows [8:43] >> right? So so the big thing was Bloomberg [8:45] had this chart that their bond because [8:47] the prices were crashing on the bonds [8:49] their yields went up to 15%. Which is [8:51] obviously a very high number. Now, so, [8:53] so if I'm both sides of this, the other [8:56] side of this would be, well, they're a [8:58] pimple on the butt of Nvidia. Couldn't [9:00] Jensen Wang wave this company away and [9:02] say, "We're going to, we got you. Don't [9:03] worry. [9:04] >> We got you." Yes. [9:04] >> Right. That's the So, that's the one [9:06] thing. But I do think if I'm looking at [9:09] this another way, not caning the coal [9:11] mine, is it possible that the market is [9:14] going to save us from a blowoff top [9:16] bubble again? Like the fact that these [9:18] companies now have debt as part of them, [9:20] the bond market is the ultimate judge [9:23] here. You can't [9:24] >> I'm so glad you said that, Ben. [9:27] >> Right. Can't the bond market put another [9:30] like ceiling on this stuff to make it [9:32] not get so crazy? If the bond market is [9:34] going to be the thing that says, "No, [9:35] no, no. Sorry. We're not going nuts [9:36] here." To me, I think this is actually [9:38] good news that the bond market is now [9:40] involved. Because if it's just private [9:42] transactions in the equity markets and [9:44] stuff like that, stuff can go wild. But [9:46] if it's the No. [9:49] >> Are you saying that the cost of capital [9:51] matters that when people are not being [9:53] priced for risk assets like in a ZERP [9:55] environment that in that behavior can [9:57] get really really really really sloppy [9:59] and that when there is a governor on [10:01] investor appetite for risk that the the [10:05] markets are functioning in a more [10:07] healthy manner. I think that's what [10:09] you're saying. If I'm reading between [10:11] the lines, Ben, I think that's what [10:13] you're saying. [10:14] >> Do you think that Cororeweave, if had [10:16] happened in a ZERP environment, would [10:17] have still priced much lower than what [10:19] they are today? That their bond yields [10:21] would probably be still pretty high even [10:22] in a Zer environment. [10:23] >> No. Okay. So, final answer to the [10:27] question that you raised last week. [10:29] Zer is [10:30] >> you brought it back around. [10:32] Zerb is far worse [10:36] in general for everything than a normal [10:40] cost of capital. [10:41] >> Okay. But you have to you have to [10:42] answer. [10:43] >> You have to define though. I'm saying [10:44] for households it was way better. Maybe [10:47] for the markets higher rates. [10:49] >> Stop it. I will not allow this. I will [10:51] not allow the gold. [10:52] >> There's a difference between corporates [10:53] corporations and household balance [10:55] sheets. [10:56] >> You're saying [10:58] I was talking about consumers. [11:00] >> No, you weren't. Stop. Yes, I was. I [11:02] talked about borrowing. Daniel Duncan, [11:04] replay my thing. I said last week I was [11:06] talking about borrowing [11:08] >> housing market. [11:10] >> All right. Um, how about that? All [11:12] right. Interesting interesting uh [11:14] aftermath of the core weave route, which [11:16] is just this just happens every single [11:17] time. Of course, investors took the [11:21] opportunity [11:23] when they see a popular stock falling [11:26] 70%. I don't know how much the stock [11:27] fell. By God, they're buying. [11:29] >> It's down. It's down [clears throat] [11:29] 60%. The funny thing is if you look at [11:31] the core chart, it's it is down 60% from [11:34] the highs, but that high was reached [11:36] immediately after the IPO. Like it went [11:38] crazy. [snorts] This thing IPOed at 40. [11:40] And again, this is [11:42] >> it's like a year it went to 180. So it [11:44] went from 40 to 180 immediately. But if [11:47] you look at the chart from the last [11:48] year, it's really it's kind of all over [11:50] the place. It's not nearly as bad as [11:51] some of the other charts out there [11:52] actually. [11:54] >> It's bad. [11:57] >> Okay. So, [11:58] >> so, uh, anyway, um, uh, so Sherwood has [12:02] this chart that shows the 5-day net [12:05] purchases as a percentage of the max. [12:07] Meaning like investors have never bought [12:11] this much shares over a 5day period as [12:15] they did last week. [12:19] >> This is not just a core like they did [12:20] this with with Dicks. Remember when [12:21] Dicks got killed? Anytime there is a [12:24] stock that falls 20% of the day, 40% of [12:27] five days, people are just on it like a [12:30] fly on [12:32] >> I don't think people in the market have [12:34] totally reckoned with the fact that risk [12:36] appetite in this decade is completely [12:38] different than it was last decade. We [12:40] the pandemic flipped a switch in [12:42] people's brains and like the appetite [12:45] for risk is is totally different. And [12:47] it's funny because uh Maggie Mayar has [12:50] this book called Bull. It's one of the [12:52] great financial market history books [12:53] that no one ever talks about. It's about [12:54] the 1980 to 2000 bull market. And she [12:58] talks about how after the dotcom bubble [13:01] crashed. It it burst and crashed and the [13:03] NASDAQ fell 80%. [13:06] Investors didn't go away. They kept [13:08] buying through the it wasn't really [13:10] until the GFC that people were really [13:11] turned off to the stock market. And I [13:14] think even if we get a crash this time, [13:16] that's what's going to happen. People [13:17] are going to continue to buy all the way [13:19] down. It's not like people I don't think [13:21] a crash if we get one is going to turn [13:23] people away. [13:24] >> I totally agree. [13:26] >> I I don't think that you can turn that [13:27] risk appetite off immediately. And I [13:29] also have another idea on the crash [13:30] thing. So everyone has tried to put this [13:33] AI thing into context of history, right? [13:36] And the railway bubble is the example [13:38] everyone keeps going back to. Listen, we [13:39] got this infrastructure. It was [13:41] wonderful. We still had to have a crash. [13:43] What people don't know is that there [13:45] were probably three different booms and [13:46] busts in the railways in the 1800s. It [13:49] wasn't just one time. And I think [13:50] everyone right now thinks this is going [13:52] to be one time. We're going to have one [13:54] big boom and one big bust and that's it. [13:57] I think it's more likely we have a I [14:00] think we have several booms and several [14:02] busts as far as AI goes. And you're not [14:04] going to get that one huge blowoff top [14:07] or crash that brings the system down. I [14:09] think it's going to be more we're going [14:10] to get a boom and a mini bust and a mini [14:13] boom and a mini. I think that's how this [14:14] is going to play out. I agree with you [14:16] and I would I would argue that we've had [14:18] three. We had deepseek [14:21] which was very fast. We had situational [14:24] awareness over the summer and this is [14:27] our third episode [14:29] >> of AI plus. Um, and I totally agree with [14:35] your point that investors, it's it's [14:37] going to take a lot more than this for [14:39] risk appetite to change because it's [14:41] been years [14:43] of muscle memory of take risk, get [14:47] rewarded. Take risk, get rewarded. [14:50] Obviously, there are plenty of counter [14:52] examples, but in general, [14:54] >> and when things get crushed, I go in and [14:56] buy because I'm going to be rewarded [14:58] later on. [14:59] Um, all right. Listen to this. Schwab [15:02] reported last week [15:05] they attracted $190 [15:07] billion in net new assets up 38% over [15:13] last year. [15:14] You know, we talk about how much money [15:17] how the amount of money that is in the [15:20] market is having a massive impact on the [15:22] market and every other risk asset. [15:25] Right. [15:26] >> Right. [15:28] Clients are actively and intentionally [15:30] conducting their day-to-day financial [15:32] lives with us month in month out. Moving [15:34] nearly four trillion in cash every [15:38] month. [15:40] 4 trillion in cash every month. I mean [15:44] we see this on in our firm. All of the [15:46] cashiering activity, right? Money coming [15:48] in, money coming out. $4 trillion in [15:52] cash every month. And lastly, [15:55] approximately [15:55] >> just for Schwab. [15:56] >> Just for Schwab, [15:58] 70% of new to firm retail households are [16:02] Gen Z and millennials. [16:05] And it's going to take a lot to scare [16:06] these people to scare them proper where [16:08] they're like, "Nope, I've touched the [16:11] stove 17 times and I like it's not it's [16:14] not going to be once or twice." [16:15] >> It's also kind of funny. You wouldn't [16:16] associate Charles Schwab with being a [16:19] place for like new investors to go, [16:21] >> right? I think that to me that is like [16:24] mature new investors, newish investors, [16:27] right, that have gone from another [16:28] discount brokerage to Schwab. Now, [16:31] >> um I thought this is a good take from [16:33] Joe and this is the right one. [16:38] Almost always when we're having these [16:39] conversations, not and not just you and [16:41] I, but like just market participants, we [16:43] are guessing, we are estimating why [16:46] stocks are doing what they're doing, [16:48] sectors, individual stocks, bonds, [16:50] whatever. Like there's no official [16:53] score, right? It's not like, oh, the [16:54] Knicks beat the 76ers 117 to 99. Can you [16:59] imagine if that's right? It is. We're [17:01] just guessing. But last week, we found [17:04] out that all of the blowoff top in [17:09] interest rates, how much of it is fiscal [17:11] irresponsibility, how much of it is is [17:14] uh the government versus AI? It was all [17:18] AI. at least 90% of it. I'm making that [17:21] up. I don't know how much [17:22] >> I never believed the fiscal stuff, as [17:23] you know. It's funny. I I'm I'm [17:25] questioning this a little bit, but [17:26] someone tweeted out a few weeks ago. [17:28] Isn't it funny that the whole point of [17:31] working in the markets is trying to [17:32] figure out what other people think? [17:34] Like, we're all just trying to figure [17:35] out what everyone thinks, [17:36] >> and that's why we try to fit these [17:37] narratives. But so, to Joe's point, do [17:40] you believe then that a lot of the yield [17:42] increase really was crowding out that it [17:45] was all this money going into other [17:47] forms of debt? So therefore, government [17:50] bonds rose. Is that what you're saying [17:52] or not? [17:54] >> No. But but but maybe [laughter] no [17:58] where I was going with this was that the [18:00] AI trade and the amount of money that [18:04] they were borrowing. Actually, yes, [18:05] maybe. Maybe that is what I'm saying. [18:07] >> I think that's that's kind of what I my [18:09] leap I make. [18:10] >> Yes. But I thought it was the turn that [18:12] the borrowing is going to be over. [18:16] economy weakening, money coming down. [18:20] >> So my my kind of final answer on [18:21] Cororeweave like 15% chance this could [18:25] be a canary in the coal mine because I [18:26] think with the hyperscalers they don't [18:29] they're like get out cororeweave [18:32] really like they're the hyperscalers [18:34] aren't going to be impacted because [18:35] cororeweave's debt is trading at higher [18:37] multiples or higher yields. That's what [18:39] I think. [18:42] There's no way this is it. Sorry that [18:43] that that's my final answer. The [18:46] Cororeweave is a small company. In the [18:48] in the grand scheme of AI, Cororeweave [18:50] is nothing. It's a drop in the ocean. [18:51] >> Yeah, but you just opened the show [18:52] saying the mortgage company that went [18:54] under was nothing. [18:56] >> I don't think the I don't think the size [18:58] of the company matters to whether or not [19:00] this is like the real [19:01] >> I I'm saying [19:03] my take is that there's going to be a [19:05] Canary eventually. This is not it. [19:08] >> Okay. Well, [19:08] >> and by the way, I'm wearing a nice nice [19:09] canary yellow sweater today. So, um I'm [19:12] doing my best. [19:13] >> You look good. Um All right. All right. [19:14] So anyway, so last week from Jessica [19:16] Menton, an equal weight version of the [19:18] NASDAQ 100 trailed the S&P equal weight [19:21] by 4 and a half percentage points. It's [19:24] largest weekly underperformance since [19:27] November 2020. [19:29] Mike Zakardi shows that consumer staple [19:31] stocks, which are under pressure from [19:32] rising rates, outperformed staples by [19:35] the best week in 24 years. So it was [19:39] >> staples versus staples. Staples versus [19:41] tech. [19:41] >> Staples versus tech. My bad. So, it was [19:43] definitely a week for the stock market [19:46] for sure. [19:49] >> Okay. [19:50] I I think the whole blood bath under the [19:53] surface thing, if you say that, you're [19:54] telling on yourself for when you bought [19:56] stocks. So, let's look at semis for [19:59] example. Sandis, Mike, [20:00] >> fine. You're telling on yourself for not [20:02] being a stock market guy. [20:03] >> No, go ahead. [20:04] >> I'm saying you're telling on yourself [20:05] for when you bought risky stocks. For [20:07] everyone who could keep saying like, oh, [20:08] sure, the index is 2% off the highs, but [20:10] look under the surface. Allow me to [20:12] present my case to the jury. Go ahead. [20:14] >> Okay. So, if you look at Western [20:15] Digital, Seagate Technology, Micron [20:17] Sandis, the semiconductor stocks, [20:18] they're all down anywhere from 25 to [20:21] 50%. Right? Western Digital is down 50% [20:23] even after a bounce yesterday. Year to [20:25] date, these companies are still up. [20:27] Sandisk is still up almost 500%. Micron [20:29] is up 200%. Seagate is up 140%. And [20:33] Western Digital has doubled. So, those [20:36] comp if you're saying, "Oh, blood bath [20:37] under the surface, you're measuring from [20:39] a high. you're anchoring to a high point [20:41] and you probably bought around the high [20:43] and if you're saying these stocks are [20:45] getting killed, it's because you haven't [20:46] been in them all year. That's the [20:48] problem. Okay, so listen to this from [20:50] >> Yeah, but that's but you're just making [20:51] that up. That's total nonsense. [20:52] >> No, but this is this is from duality [20:54] research cuz I showed this. If you look [20:55] at um emerging markets, EHA, midcaps, [20:59] small caps, S&P 500, all up roughly 9 to [21:02] 15% for the year. Totally different [21:04] markets, all very good returns. Duality [21:08] Research sent me this. The guy from [21:09] daily research said cap weighted index [21:11] is up 13% this year. Equal weight is up [21:13] 13%. The average stock in the S&P is up [21:16] 15%. The median stock is up 8% this [21:19] year. The whole blood bath under the [21:20] surface is I'm a degenerate person who's [21:23] invested in these momentum stocks at the [21:24] wrong time. You're telling on yourself [21:26] if you say there's a blood bath in the [21:28] market right now about when you bought [21:30] stocks. All the other stats show that [21:32] the market this year is fine. [21:34] >> No, the index stats show that. How many [21:38] stock do you know how many stocks are in [21:39] a 20% draw down [21:41] >> from all-time highs? The median stock [21:42] this year is up 8%. [21:44] >> Okay, but guess what? People look at [21:47] their their account and they say, "I had [21:51] this much money and now I have this much [21:53] money." [21:54] >> I'm sorry. You can't use the word like [21:55] blood bath or carnage unless something [21:58] really this is to me this is this is [22:00] normal. This is perfectly normal. This [22:02] should happen in [22:03] >> Well, there are I mean it is you're [22:05] right. There are normal blood baths, but [22:07] that was not a convincing case. The 25 [22:10] best stocks of the first half of the [22:13] year [22:15] last week fell 19% on average [22:19] >> because how much were they up though [22:20] heading into that? That's [22:22] >> true. But just because the stock is up a [22:24] lot. Yes. You're you're giving proper [22:26] context. [22:28] >> So I see the list here from from [22:29] Bespoke. Look, these stocks were all up [22:32] over 150%. [22:33] >> Yeah, but it's but Okay, fine. But if we [22:36] showed consumer staple stocks or retail [22:40] or discretionary stocks, it's not just [22:43] these. There are a lot of stocks that [22:45] are in smitherines factually speaking. [22:48] And also fine, the average stock is up [22:50] whatever year to date. Yeah, it's been a [22:51] decent year. [22:53] >> So I I just think we've had so many [22:54] stocks that have had massive years and [22:57] they should have had a draw down because [22:58] you can't have returns that high without [23:00] experiencing a 20% draw down a week. [23:02] That's the way it works actually. So [23:04] that is true. [23:04] >> This is this is interesting. So a [23:06] college kid sent this to me. He he goes [23:08] to USC. He has this uh website called [23:12] Portfolio Autopsy [23:14] >> and he looked [23:15] >> like I like it. I like it. [23:16] >> So he was talking about this stuff and [23:17] he looked at there's 343 companies that [23:21] were existed in 1999 in the S&P that are [23:23] still around today. So he took all the [23:25] data on these companies and he said how [23:27] what's their worst draw down since 1999. [23:31] This is really interesting. 92% of [23:33] today's S&P 500 companies have lost at [23:35] least half of their value at least once. [23:38] So the worst draw down this this century [23:41] for the S&P is like negative 55 56%. [23:45] 85% of companies that still exist fell [23:48] further than that at some point. [23:50] >> This is a great chart. [23:52] >> Isn't that really really good? Like look [23:53] at these companies that have fallen 89. [23:56] It's kind of hard to believe that you [23:57] don't think about it now but JP Morgan [23:59] fell 74%. [24:02] Microsoft's peak to trough draw down was [24:03] 70%. Cisco fell 90%. Nvidia fell 90% at [24:07] one point. Um, and he's got this all [24:09] these tools where you can kind of input [24:10] a stock and see what it has done. Like [24:12] take take your pick. Uh, really cool. [24:15] So, we'll link to that in the show [24:16] notes, but I thought it was kind of [24:17] apppropo of what we're talking about [24:19] here. [24:19] >> Yep. Uh, all right. Does this another [24:22] thing we've been talking about the [24:24] compressing [24:26] price to earnings ratio. Does this make [24:29] you feel better about the state of [24:32] affairs? [24:33] >> It does. I I This is another We're not [24:37] going crazy. So, another duality [24:38] research one. He shows the forward PE [24:40] ratios for all the different sectors [24:42] right now. Consumer discretionary, [24:44] consumer staples, healthcare, and [24:46] industrials are all more expensive on a [24:48] forward PE basis than technology. [24:51] That's pretty wild. In a huge giant [24:53] innovation bubble boom. Uh, exhibit A, [24:57] Matt, Matt's chart of the week showed [25:00] the 10-year average for PE ratio versus [25:04] the current. And it's funny, the S&P is [25:07] right on the 10-year average, but [25:09] technology is trading below the 10-year [25:11] average right now after a massive [25:14] 10-year gain. The the NASDAQ is up, I [25:17] think, 19% per year, something like [25:19] that. [25:20] That's pretty wild. [25:21] >> Here's why it's got to make you feel [25:23] good. Imagine these charts were a [25:25] reverse. [25:27] They were going up and to the right. [25:29] Could you imagine how much worse the [25:31] sentiment would be if we people were [25:34] pointed to how high the valuations were [25:37] if if the tech if technology was trading [25:39] at 41 times forward earnings. It would [25:42] be it would be nothing but 1999 [25:44] comparisons. [25:46] >> Right. And now of course the only thing [25:47] you can hang your hat on if you're a [25:48] valuation bearer is well that just means [25:51] the market doesn't trust the earnings. [25:52] >> Yeah. But I would much rather have the [25:55] market not trust the earnings and have [25:57] valuations falling than valuations going [25:58] crazy and the market not trust the [26:00] earnings. Like you don't want both of [26:01] those. Look at this one. This is from uh [26:03] Schroers. They did this for all of it. [26:04] They did the US, UK, Europe, XUK, Japan, [26:07] and EM. And they showed the [26:09] decomposition of returns. So it's [26:11] earnings versus dividends versus [26:14] multiples. And across the world now [26:16] everywhere, this is even bigger in the [26:18] EM than it is here. valuations have [26:20] fallen this year because earnings growth [26:22] has been so strong. [26:24] Like Chart Kid, Matt was telling us, if [26:26] the market would have just matched [26:27] earnings, if valuations wouldn't have [26:29] fallen, the S&P would be up more than [26:30] 30% this year, right? 30 35% or [26:32] something. [26:34] >> I think this is this is good news to me [26:36] that that people really aren't [26:39] taking the bait to go nuts. [26:41] >> I agree. I agree. [26:43] And that does that doesn't mean that the [26:45] market can't fall a lot because [26:48] valuations were very reasonable heading [26:49] into 2008. [26:51] >> By the way, speaking of that, there's a [26:52] lot of 27 bears out there. Paul Tudtor [26:54] Jones, who's always bearish. Well, not [26:57] always bearish, but publicly always [26:58] bearish. Who said this? Oh, Jim Kmer had [27:00] a good had a good tweet. He said, [27:02] "Billionaires are always bearish. Just [27:04] pay him no mind." [27:06] >> It's true. The anytime you get a [27:08] white-haired person who's been a [27:09] legendary investor, they're bearish. [27:11] Always. Well, I guess they've got more [27:13] to lose than us. [27:15] >> I We talked about this. It's a [27:17] personality thing. To be a hedge fund [27:18] manager, you have to be bearish almost [27:20] at all times. Like you're because you're [27:21] a risk manager. It's a personality [27:23] thing. All right. Um I have a friend who [27:25] Matt who um has a bunch of Airbnbs and [27:29] he said he was cleaning out an Airbnb [27:31] last week and he found an old paper from [27:33] 1960 [27:34] 1960 [27:36] and it he found the the Wall Street part [27:38] of it and he sent it to me and he said, [27:40] "Check this I found this old paper from [27:42] 1960 and it shows the standard and pores [27:44] 500 and it shows the companies that make [27:46] them up. 425 industrial stocks, 50 [27:50] utilities, 25 railroad stocks. That was [27:53] the S&P 500 in 1960. Is that not crazy? [27:57] >> Wow. [27:58] >> That's th that's and that's kind of how [28:00] it was until like the 80s essentially. [28:03] So Jason Zwag had I I I thought that was [28:05] a good leadup into this Jason Zwag [28:07] piece. the Wall Street Journal, he wrote [28:09] about how the stock market has changed [28:10] over time. So, he talked about first how [28:13] trading used to be way more expensive, [28:14] right? A brokerage account, you could [28:15] have been paying 2% for fees to trade a [28:17] stock. Um, funds you could pay up to 5 [28:21] to 8% upfront to buy a mutual fund, [28:22] which is just insane to me that that [28:24] existed. [28:26] Here, here's a dollar. Now, you got now [28:29] you have 92 cents just to buy this fund. [28:31] Um, I think this is probably the biggest [28:33] one. You wrote a piece a long time ago [28:35] where you plotted like legendary [28:37] investors when they were born and after [28:40] a certain point like there's no new good [28:42] legendary investors essentially, right? [28:44] We haven't had another like who's the [28:46] next Buffett. Every time they're on the [28:47] cover it never happens. [28:48] >> You know, you know what's funny? I [28:49] believe like the last famous investor [28:54] uh was like maybe Einhorn or Aman or [28:58] Asus and they were born were they born [29:01] in the 60s, [29:02] >> right? I don't or yeah, [29:05] >> maybe you could say, well, they've gone [29:06] into VC, whatever. But I think this is [29:08] the reason why you have no like new [29:09] legendary hedge fund investors. He says [29:11] until the Securities Exchange Commission [29:13] imposed, uh, the playing field was [29:15] tilted until reggd in 2000. And I think [29:17] if you read a lot of like the more money [29:19] than God books, like Michael Steinhart [29:21] and stuff, a lot of the stuff they did [29:23] >> would be illegal today. [29:24] >> Mhm. [29:25] >> And like if you read about Jesse [29:26] Livermore, [29:27] >> Yeah. they were getting the first phone [29:28] call. [29:29] >> Yes. They were getting the first phone [29:30] call. Jesse Livermore after the SEC was [29:31] invented in 1934, none of his tactics [29:33] worked anymore. [29:34] >> Yeah. [29:35] >> Right. So [29:36] >> the the playing field is leveled. There [29:38] are no legends anymore. [29:40] >> So he makes Jason makes the point that [29:42] like one of the reasons stock returns [29:44] had to be so much higher in the past is [29:46] because [29:48] it like you had to be compensated for [29:50] all these other risks like the fees were [29:52] really high and there was like the left [29:53] tail event in the Great Depression, all [29:54] these things. and he's saying,"Well, [29:56] what if returns aren't as good going [29:58] forward because you don't have to worry [29:59] about as many risks as we did in the [30:00] past?" And my counter to that would be [30:04] fees are so much lower today that on a [30:06] net basis, you're probably going to get [30:08] the same thing even if returns on a [30:09] gross basis are lower than they were in [30:11] the past. [30:11] >> I feel like you've been writing about [30:12] this for like 10 years. And all of this [30:17] sort of meta stuff pales in comparison [30:20] to what the business cycle is. [30:24] >> Yeah, you're right. That's it. That's [30:25] the only thing that matters. Like if 10 [30:26] years ago we we knew what would happen [30:29] with the hyperscalers, who who gives a [30:31] about how much it cost to trade a [30:33] stock. If the biggest companies are [30:35] growing their earnings at 25% a year for [30:38] 15 straight years, guess what? The [30:40] returns are going to be good. [30:41] >> But the point the point is also like you [30:43] have to ride those waves though when [30:45] they happen and not keep trading in and [30:47] out and getting out of the way. [30:50] Uh yeah. Anyway, interesting stuff. All [30:52] right. I want to just show the chart of [30:54] Open Door because I think it's important [30:55] to talk about the lottery tickets that [30:57] didn't hit for people. So, Open Door [30:59] went crazy and was up like six times in [31:02] a matter of two or three months. And [31:04] people are saying it's going to go to [31:06] $20 a share, $30 a share, $50 a share, [31:09] $100 a share. This company is going to [31:10] be even like the insiders at the [31:11] company. [31:12] >> Wait, hold on. No, no, no. Say why. [31:14] >> The reason why this happened is because [31:16] there was a hedge fund manager named [31:18] Eric Jackson. and Eric Jackson actually [31:22] on compounded friends a couple of years [31:23] ago. Uh and I I don't think this was the [31:26] first place that he he laid out his [31:27] bullish bullish case, but he was bullish [31:29] on a company called Carvana. [31:31] And Carvana 10x 20x whatever. [31:35] >> Yeah, it was it was down like 95% then [31:37] went up like a ton. It was a huge huge [31:39] gain. [31:40] >> So So he he called the shot, Babe Ruthed [31:42] it, it worked. And then he tried to do [31:44] the same thing for Open Door and he took [31:47] the stock. I mean, I really do think [31:49] he's not I think no no opinions. He [31:52] single-handedly sent the stock [31:55] from 50 cents, whatever it was trading [31:57] at. A bunch of people followed him in. [31:59] The stock went up to $11, [32:01] >> right? From under a dollar to 11, and [32:03] now it's crashed all the way back down [32:04] to two. Yeah. [32:05] >> And I think it's important to talk about [32:07] these kind of lottery ticket stocks that [32:09] don't hit because I think there's a lot [32:11] of survivorship bias talking about the [32:12] stocks that do work and we don't spend [32:14] enough time talking about the ones that [32:15] don't. Anyway, all right. Elon Musk [32:18] announced yesterday, this is his tweet. [32:20] Next year, I will give one of my SpaceX [32:22] shares to every kid in America. This [32:24] will be the first of many. [32:27] I think the rich people in the world [32:30] because there's going to be so much [32:31] wealth created from AI and there already [32:33] has been. [32:35] They're going to have to do stuff like [32:36] this to to avoid the pitchforks, right? [32:40] >> Yes. lot of politics [32:43] >> and not a lot of no posturing like [32:45] public posturing. [32:46] >> Yes. But so Anthropic I think announced [32:49] that they're going to create some sort [32:50] of public fund. [32:52] They're going to have to do these [32:53] companies are going to have to do this [32:55] especially if they if they start really [32:57] taking jobs and ruining things. And [32:59] there's already a lot of people who [33:00] really hate technology. I was driving [33:01] through uh a rural part of Michigan [33:04] yesterday and I went to my son's [33:05] football game, which we'll talk about [33:06] later, and I I saw all of these signs [33:09] that had the red circle with the cross [33:12] in it saying no data centers. All these [33:14] people, all the the political signs in [33:16] their in their yard were saying no data [33:17] centers. [33:19] Like the the technology people who have [33:21] a lot of money are going to have to do [33:22] stuff like this. There's going to have [33:24] to be some sort of like listen, we're [33:25] going to be we're going to be willing to [33:26] give blank percent of our profits to [33:29] some UBI, right? There's going to have [33:32] this is going to have to happen. [33:34] >> They are peeing into the ocean. [33:36] [laughter] [33:37] >> It's true. You're right. Part of it [33:39] could just be like does this is this [33:41] really going to move the needle? But I I [33:43] think getting people involved in the [33:44] stock market who are not involved is a [33:46] is a good first step. I agree with you [33:48] that this is not going to do anything, [33:52] but I think it's a good first step to [33:54] get more people involved in the markets. [33:56] How's that? [33:57] >> Sure. [33:58] >> All right. Um, I want to talk about [33:59] inflation real quick because I think we [34:02] have to also when we talk about the fact [34:04] that AI was really impacting interest [34:06] rates. I I think a lot of people are [34:08] assuming that AI is the biggest reason [34:10] for inflation too. And that's certainly [34:12] not the case. I still would make the [34:14] contention that without the war [34:16] inflation would be a lot lower than it [34:17] is. [34:19] >> So here's another dual reality research [34:20] one leaning on them heavily today. So [34:22] the composition of they show the [34:24] composition of the weight in the CPI [34:26] calculation versus the contribution to [34:29] the CPI CPI index in September. So [34:32] energy makes up just 3.2% of the weight [34:34] in the CPI but it accounted for more [34:36] than 30% of the increase in inflation in [34:40] the latest reading. [34:42] So, I'm sorry. This is this is still an [34:44] energy thing. [34:46] >> Energy prices are so much higher. Look [34:47] at this chart. How could you say that [34:48] this the if you took the war away [34:52] that this wouldn't [34:54] >> All right. Well, decrease inflation. You [34:56] can't take it away. [34:59] >> We There's There's been 66 [35:03] consecutive months where CPI is above [35:06] 2%. [35:08] 66. [35:10] Sure. Is the war making it worse? [35:12] >> Above 2% that's not saying much. If you [35:15] said above 3% then then you mean [35:16] something. Above 2% that's saying [35:17] nothing. [35:18] >> Fine. Well, I'm I'm using bespoke chart, [35:20] but whatever. Dude, it's been it's been [35:22] inflation's a problem. It's not just [35:23] because of the war. [35:25] >> Okay. Uh what's your inflation anecdote? [35:27] I have one, too. [35:29] >> Oh. Uh [35:31] I pulled a Ben Carlson yesterday. [35:33] >> I don't know what that means. Explain. [35:37] >> Bit I I was a coward. [35:40] >> [laughter] [35:43] >> I would not call you cowardly because [35:44] you played you played football at a real [35:46] level which is that takes that takes uh [35:48] courage. Um but when it comes to like [35:51] confront you're a confrontational [35:52] coward, [35:54] >> a Midwesterner. [35:55] >> Yes. Fine. Same thing. [35:58] >> Whereas you New Yorkers, you enjoy confr [36:01] confrontation. You you seek it out. You [36:03] love you New Yorkers I've learned from [36:06] you and Josh and Barry like you you're [36:08] happier when you can confront someone [36:09] about something. [36:11] >> Well, no. I like playful confrontation [36:12] with friends. Like we you know we like [36:14] we like to argue. [36:16] >> Um all right. So I got a I got a skirt [36:18] steak yesterday. One piece of skirt [36:21] steak. [36:23] Uh was $29. [36:27] And I walked down. I'm like, "Wait, what [36:29] the That seems like that's crazy." you [36:32] know, like [36:33] >> how many how many pounds are we talking [36:35] here? Half pound. [36:35] >> So, it was it was it was $40 a pound. [36:40] >> So, I asked Claude, "What in the world? [36:42] $40 for a pound of skirt steak?" And I'm [36:45] so I'm pretty sure the guy just punched [36:47] it in wrong. [36:48] >> Oh, [36:49] >> but I go there a lot and I I just kept [36:51] walking. [36:51] >> Okay, that's that sounds like a lot. [36:53] Okay. [36:53] >> So, that's not inflation. That's just a [36:55] fat finger. But but beef is going up [36:58] like everything else. So, occasionally I [37:01] will bookmark something and then then I [37:02] don't know once every six months I go [37:04] through my bookmarks and I try to clean [37:05] them up a little bit. I don't want to [37:05] have too many bookmarks. So, last year [37:08] the Wall Street Journal had this piece, [37:09] the best men's winter boots for staying [37:11] warm in style. And I I I'm a big [37:13] [laughter] fan of [37:15] Just go [snorts] with me here. I'm a I I [37:18] like leather boots with a nice jean in [37:20] the winter in the fall, right? A nice [37:21] pair of leather boots. I think it's I [37:23] think it's a great look if you wear them [37:24] enough and they form to your feet. It's [37:25] really really comfortable to it. Just [37:26] takes a while. So they had the and I I [37:28] must have done this. It was January of [37:30] 2026. So this is less than a year ago. [37:33] And I and I bookmarked this and I said, [37:35] "Oh, let's take a look at some of these. [37:36] Maybe I'll take a look." And so [37:37] Wolverine is a local Michigan company [37:39] based in Rockford, Michigan, just north [37:40] of us here. So they had these boots, the [37:42] 1,000mi plane toe original boot. And I [37:44] thought, "This looks pretty nice boot, [37:46] you know, so I'm going I'll look at it [37:47] again." And so when the Wall Street [37:48] Journal story ran, it said these things [37:49] were $385. This is again 9 months ago. [37:54] Now, that's pretty that's that's that's [37:55] pretty high price for me for a pair of [37:57] shoes. I I don't like to pay that much [37:58] money. I'm like, I kind of like these. [38:00] You know, you wear them forever, [38:00] basically. So, I clicked on it and the [38:03] price now 10 months later went from 3.85 [38:06] to 425. [38:07] >> You should have locked them in. [38:08] >> 10% increase. How does that happen? [38:12] >> So, I asked Chad and said, [38:13] >> uh, it's the war, Ben. [38:14] >> Margin presser. Margin pressure. Uh, my [38:16] my, if I'm giving fashion [38:19] recommendations here, Thursday Boot [38:20] Company is probably my favorite one. [38:21] Those are like $199. [38:24] I've had a lot of luck with that [38:25] company. But I couldn't believe 10% [38:26] increase in 9 months for a pair of [38:28] boots. That's insane. [38:29] >> I actually do, this will surprise you. I [38:31] have one pair of leather boots. [38:36] >> I don't think I've ever seen you wear [38:37] leather boots before. [38:38] >> Can't remember where I got them from. [38:39] They were not cheap. Probably $424 if I [38:43] had to guess. Uh they're so [38:44] uncomfortable. First of all, what I mean [38:47] >> to wear them you you have to wear them [38:48] in a lot. [38:48] >> Yeah. Where am I wearing them? Let's be [38:50] honest. Okay. [38:51] >> But uh no, they're they're [38:53] >> like a good pair of boots walking around [38:54] New York in the winter. [38:55] >> I would I mean they're snazzy, but I'm [38:58] not a snazzy dressing guy. Number one. [39:00] Number two, they're just not [39:01] comfortable. [39:03] >> Okay. Um so there there was a chart [39:05] going around last week where they asked [39:07] anthropic employees, "What do you think [39:08] the future is going to look like?" And [39:11] it said, "What do you think GDP will be [39:13] in 2030?" Did you see what they said the [39:14] answer is? [39:15] >> Nope. The median guess for what do you [39:18] think GDP growth will be nominally in [39:20] 2030? What do you think they said? [39:22] >> 7%. [39:23] >> Add 10 to it. [39:25] >> Stop. [39:25] >> 17 17%. That was the median one. So I [39:29] think that So obviously tech people I I [39:34] talked about this before. They can help [39:36] create the future. They cannot help [39:37] predict the future because I think tech [39:39] people don't understand the real world [39:41] in a lot of ways. So, there was another [39:43] story in the FT last week saying AI [39:45] agents could cost banks $500 billion by [39:47] winning better savings rate. We've [39:48] talked about this. Agentic AI is going [39:50] to go they're going to take your money [39:51] that was sitting earning nothing. It's [39:52] going to be put into something that [39:53] earns cash. Now, all these all these [39:56] stories come out this week. JP Morgan [39:57] blocks outside AI agents. Um, Cityroup, [40:00] Bank of America blocks restricts AI [40:03] agents from accessing accounts. I don't [40:05] think a lot of the tech people when they [40:07] make their prognostications about the [40:09] future have thought about the real world [40:10] barriers to entry and how people how [40:13] things can be just shut off and I think [40:16] that is that is one of the things that [40:18] they don't think through when they try [40:19] to predict what's going to happen in the [40:20] future and why they have been mostly [40:21] wrong even though they they create the [40:23] future with the technology they can't [40:25] predict how that technology is going to [40:26] be used [40:28] >> the 17% wow [40:30] >> do you but do you think that this is a [40:32] case of the banks will have to fall in [40:34] because consumers will demand it. Or is [40:36] it the case that the banks still hold [40:38] all the power? Cuz I think the banks [40:39] still hold [40:39] >> don't fall in line. They can do whatever [40:41] they want. [40:41] >> That's what I like remember when there [40:43] was this idea that fintech was going to [40:44] take down JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs [40:47] and it just it never happened. No. [40:49] >> Didn't Shamath say that Visa and [40:51] Mastercard were I don't want to put [40:52] words in his mouth and said that they [40:54] were going to zero, but he was uh quite [40:56] bearish on companies that are now at [40:58] ultimat. So, speaking of this, there was [41:00] another good story in the Atlantic about [41:01] AI jobs and how there's going to be like [41:04] new jobs created by AI that no one even [41:06] thinks about. And they talked about how [41:08] there's a huge demand in the Bay Area [41:11] for engineers and applied scientists and [41:13] machine learning and all this stuff that [41:14] you would think for AI. But there's also [41:16] demand for Pilates instructors, massage [41:18] therapists and therapists. Like think [41:20] about we talked about how what do they [41:22] call it? Sudden wealth syndrome and [41:23] people are miserable. I didn't think [41:26] about this. That's not if you're a [41:28] therapist in the years ahead with how [41:30] miserable technology is going to make [41:31] people feel. That is a job that's always [41:34] going to be in demand. [41:36] Someone to listen to you about your [41:37] problems. And for many rich people, [41:39] they're going to be madeup problems. I [41:41] that you can Can you imagine the [41:42] practice you could create by moving to [41:43] Silicon Valley right now in dealing with [41:45] these? [41:46] >> You're not going to need to talk to a [41:48] human therapist. [41:51] >> You think PE that they're going to [41:52] supply an AI? I I I think people are [41:54] still going to want to talk to a [41:56] therapist. [41:56] >> I'm I'm kidding. God, I hope not. [41:59] >> All right, good um good email here. Why [42:01] don't you read this one? Did you read [42:02] this data center one? I'm someone who's [42:05] on the ground floor. [42:06] >> I'm a land surveyor. I am one of the [42:08] guys laying out all these new data [42:09] centers. I live in Utah. Uh these are [42:12] bigger than any building you can [42:13] imagine. These projects are so big with [42:16] such big budgets. They have electricians [42:18] working 6 10 to 12 hour shifts a week [42:20] and are poaching talent from other [42:22] projects across the state. 5 years ago [42:25] all my work was building housing uh [42:28] strip malls and warehouses. Now it's all [42:29] data centers and upgrading the [42:30] infrastructure for data centers. Do you [42:32] guys think we are building too many data [42:33] centers for what actually will be used? [42:35] As someone seeing it firsthand, they [42:36] just can't imagine they will ever see [42:38] any ROI. Well, I have no idea. But this [42:41] this is good for the chart we talked [42:43] about last week saying that this stuff [42:45] is crowding out building elsewhere. [42:47] Obviously it is. [42:48] >> Yeah. [42:50] >> Uh I still like to fall back on the idea [42:52] that I don't think I know that these [42:55] tech CEOs can make mistakes. I I don't [42:59] think that they're they would put this [43:00] much money into something that's not [43:01] going to eventually pay off. [43:03] >> I agree. I uh if I had to like just [43:05] bottom line it now. Don't don't give me [43:08] the Mark Zuckerberg metaverse stuff. [43:10] Yeah, we know they're not infallible. [43:12] Obviously, they're people. They heard [43:14] like everybody else. Um, is this the [43:16] biggest How about this? [43:18] >> If they're wrong, [43:20] >> this could go down as the biggest [43:22] misallocation of capital [43:24] >> it will [43:24] >> in the history of the planet. And [43:26] >> this is not this is not just one [43:28] company. This is all of them doing this [43:31] together. So, you're right. If this if [43:32] this is a crash and burn, if Ed Zitron [43:34] is right, he's not right. But if he's [43:36] right, this you're right. This is the [43:38] biggest blunder in in corporate American [43:40] history. And like there there was never [43:42] because every one of these companies is [43:44] doing it. They're all doing it together. [43:47] That's what actually gives me more. [43:51] >> It's going to be okay. All right, let's [43:53] talk real estate. [43:55] >> The [snorts] baby boomers don't want to [43:56] pay property taxes. Did you read this [43:57] piece for political? [43:59] >> Uh I did not read this piece for [44:00] Politico, but I reject whatever you're [44:02] about to say. Go ahead. I don't believe [44:04] this is a real story. [44:05] >> Okay. I know you don't like the [44:07] generational warfare, you know, kind of [44:09] thing, but this this is a real story. [44:10] So, this guy, Ray Warner, 72, Akan [44:13] resident, Cleveland Browns fan, says, [44:15] "I'm old. I paid my home off. Why should [44:17] I pay a property tax?" Okay, that's how [44:19] they start the p the the story out. And [44:21] obviously on social media, people people [44:23] were really upset about this. Of course, [44:25] >> respectfully, Ray Warner, off [44:27] >> entitled baby boomers, right? Guess [44:29] what? Just because your kids aren't in [44:31] school anymore doesn't mean you have to [44:32] pay. like you still have roads, you [44:33] still firefighters, you still have [44:35] police. [44:36] >> I think if this actually took hold then [44:39] and young people said, "Well, screw you. [44:40] I'm not paying your social security [44:42] anymore." Like I think the whole social [44:43] construct I think this is actually a big [44:45] deal. So listen to this. You say this is [44:47] not a story at all. It's just a you know [44:49] rage bait. In the last two years alone, [44:51] plans to substantially reduce or [44:52] altogether repeal property taxes have [44:54] emerged in more than two dozen states. [44:55] Georgia, Indiana, and Wyoming have [44:57] already sliced residents tax bills by [44:58] billions of dollars. Ronda Santis in [45:01] Florida, Greg Abbott in Texas have both [45:03] competed to lower property taxes the [45:05] most. Okay, so this is this is something [45:07] that is going trying to go through the [45:08] legislature. And I guess in Ohio it [45:10] tried to. It didn't pass because the [45:12] governor said we can't fill this hole. [45:16] Like if we take out these property [45:17] taxes, we're going to have to increase [45:18] sales tax to like 17%. You know what [45:21] happens if you take property taxes down [45:22] on the people who own homes? The people [45:25] who don't own homes, the less wealthy, [45:26] pay more in taxes. Can you imagine your [45:30] landlord has to pay less in property [45:31] taxes. So now you are footing like [45:34] they're saving money but you as a renter [45:36] are now footing the bill by paying more [45:37] taxes. [45:38] >> Disgusting. [45:39] >> Property taxes are actually a really [45:41] good system and you should probably pay [45:43] higher taxes on the land. Guess what? I [45:45] understand like hey I bought my house [45:46] for $150,000 30 years ago. Now my [45:49] property taxes are so much higher. But I [45:51] think a lot of this is psychological [45:53] because there's something like 40% of [45:54] all homes have been paid off free and [45:56] clear. no mortgage, you don't think [45:58] about the val what you're paying in [46:00] property taxes, especially if it's in [46:01] escrow and it's part of your monthly [46:02] payment. But now, if your mortgage is [46:04] paid off and the only thing you're [46:05] paying is the property taxes, that's [46:06] like a psychological hit. [46:08] >> Yeah. [46:08] >> But guess what? If you can't afford it, [46:11] sell your house. You have equity. I [46:13] don't feel sorry for you. [46:14] >> Die. [46:16] >> I'm sorry. This is just these are just [46:19] >> I understand humans are bad people. [46:20] These are bad people. But this is you're [46:22] you talk about how this is just oh this [46:24] is just but this politicians are talking [46:27] like they're going to their [46:28] constituents. Guess guess who votes? Old [46:30] people. They're trying to appease these [46:32] people. And guess what? When California [46:35] did this and California put the ceiling [46:36] on their property taxes, Prop Six or [46:38] whatever it's called, Prop 13 or Prop [46:40] something, it's a it was a disaster for [46:42] the housing market because no one wanted [46:43] to move because they locked in lower [46:45] property taxes. [46:46] >> All right, I will uh unreject my [46:48] rejection or reject my rejection. I [46:50] think you're probably right. I think [46:51] this is this this story might have legs. [46:52] >> This is potentially a disaster [46:54] >> if this if this kind of stuff happens. [46:56] >> I don't like it. [46:57] >> We don't need to cover that here. That [46:59] that'll be for somebody else. [47:01] >> Okay. [47:02] >> All right. And more things that'll make [47:04] people mad. Ben, go ahead. [47:07] >> All right. Here's a tweet. This is from [47:09] some Reddit post, I guess, and it talks [47:11] about a person who's been on the buy [47:13] side for 10 plus years. They they work [47:15] at private equity. uh mid30s, $4 million [47:19] net worth, said it stinks because my net [47:22] worth is only going to be increasing by [47:23] $300 to $400,000 a year. Um, and I'm [47:27] only going to retire with an 8 figure [47:29] net worth in New York City. Is it even [47:31] worth it? And it was like, why should I [47:33] continue to do this if that's what I'm [47:34] looking for? An 8 figure net worth in [47:36] retirement? [47:38] >> And it seems, how about this? [47:42] >> I think this is like a Chinese state [47:45] post. [47:47] It's this could be debate. It could be. [47:49] >> I'm not kidding. I I I don't I don't [47:51] believe I know that there's a lot of [47:52] out-ofouch [47:55] >> There's no way almost no way. 90% chance [47:59] that this is just like uh whatever [48:02] state, Russia, China, whoever just with [48:05] us. [48:05] >> I I hope so. I mean, there there's got [48:07] to be people in on the coast in San [48:09] Francisco, New York City who have these [48:11] kind of feelings. [48:12] >> No way, dude. No. No way. Yeah, my net [48:15] worth is my net worth is only going up [48:18] between $300 to $400,000 a year. [48:20] >> I honestly think this is fake. I really [48:22] think that this is just to uh tear apart [48:25] our society. [48:26] >> I hope because I think I I think that [48:28] there are a lot of rich people who [48:30] probably need a reality check about what [48:32] what it actually means. Like remember [48:33] the show the reality show when she first [48:35] became I don't remember what it was [48:37] called but Paris Hilton and Nicole [48:38] Richie went and like did regular people [48:40] stuff. [48:40] >> Yeah. But dude, it's such a small these [48:43] people that that are like the fake [48:45] people on Succession, whatever. It's [48:48] such a tiny tiny tiny [48:50] >> You're right. [48:51] >> portion of the population. And you think [48:52] they're going on Reddit to uh empathize [48:56] like to get like, "Hey, is anybody else [48:58] feeling this way? Anybody?" Like, no [49:00] way. [49:01] >> But that's why they have Reddits for the [49:03] That's why they have these subreddits so [49:04] these maniacs can talk to each other. [49:06] >> Who's going on this? These people aren't [49:08] on Reddit. [49:09] >> All right. I I I I hope you're right. [49:12] Most of the stuff on internet is fake. [49:13] You're probably right about that. [49:17] >> Uh, [49:19] all right. So, Shil Manote tweeted, [49:22] "United now requires $32,000 of spend to [49:27] make $1,000 in terms of like their [49:30] rewards, I suppose. It used to only be [49:32] 10 to 15K." And companies are getting [49:34] wise. This is the same that Disney [49:36] is doing. Everybody is is waking up to [49:39] the fact that [49:41] tax the rich, inflate the rich, like [49:43] what are they going to do? They could [49:44] there's there's there's no limit to how [49:47] much money these people could spend. And [49:49] if it's on vacation rewards to the moon, [49:52] >> I saw another picture last week about I [49:54] can't remember what airport it was, but [49:55] an airport where there was 100 people [49:57] waiting in line to get into the the [49:58] lounge, premier lounge. They should [49:59] definitely increase the prices for these [50:01] things. Why, you're right. Why keep [50:03] giving rich people such great benefits [50:05] on credit cards when [50:06] >> no sympathy for this. Uh so I went to [50:09] actually speaking of this I was at [50:13] the sphere over the weekend to see [50:14] Metallica which was a 15 out of 10. It [50:17] it was I had a great time. Unbelievable. [50:21] Um and during the morning because I [50:25] can't hang anymore. I need I need to [50:26] hydrate with an IV drip like we did in [50:28] California. [50:29] >> You sent me a picture. Where did you [50:30] find it? Did someone come to you or did [50:32] you have to go to them? [50:32] >> No, it's in the win. [50:34] >> Well, they have that at the win. [50:35] >> Yeah. Yeah. There's like a there's there [50:36] so they have a spa there. [50:38] >> Okay. [50:38] >> And it's it's part it's part it's just [50:40] there. It exists. Not cheap. Um but the [50:44] point is this. [50:45] >> Oh yeah. How much are we talking here? [50:46] >> I don't want to say [50:48] >> $200. [50:49] >> So I it was 250. [laughter] [50:54] >> Okay. So I I asked I said, "Hey, uh" and [50:58] I wanted to take a shitz after. By the [51:00] way, a lot of sauna emails [51:01] >> a ton. [51:03] >> People have saunas in their house when [51:05] you all live in mansions. [51:06] >> There was a guy who sent us a picture of [51:08] a sauna and he's like, "Hey, don't put [51:09] it outside. You don't know." Like, how [51:10] do you have a sauna in your house? [51:12] Doesn't Isn't that a risk? Someone else [51:14] >> think about it that way. Yeah. [51:15] >> Someone also sent us the thing that said [51:17] there what did it 7 million people who [51:18] live in Finland and three and a half [51:20] million of them have a sauna or [51:21] something. Like he was saying, "Hey, in [51:22] Finland." A lot of people who said like, [51:24] "Michael, yes. Do the sauna. Get it." [51:26] >> Yeah. Well, okay. So, I wanted to uh to [51:29] enjoy one. [51:30] >> Wait, so did it did the did the did it [51:31] make you feel better or not getting the [51:33] IV? Did it work? And [51:34] >> did it make me feel worse? [51:36] >> Okay. [51:37] >> Uh 150 bucks to use the sauna [51:41] >> at a hotel. You have to pay to use a [51:44] sauna. [laughter] [51:45] >> Well, it was part of like, you know, you [51:46] had to like enter the Yeah. the [51:48] whatever. I I mean, that's where I drew [51:49] the line. Come on. [51:50] >> Nuts. [51:53] I did see two unusual things on my way [51:54] out of the uh [51:57] wherever it was the spy area. [51:59] Uh I saw one person on a treadmill with [52:03] a physical book, which is bizarre for [52:05] for several reasons, but first thoughts [52:08] were first of all, don't don't your [52:10] hands sweat as you're turning the pages? [52:11] Doesn't everything get sweaty? And then [52:13] how are you reading and walking? I would [52:15] walk right off. No, [52:16] >> I see this at times at my gym in my I [52:19] have a pretty hard stance on this. It's [52:20] okay to listen to something when you're [52:22] working out, but I I draw the line at [52:23] reading like if you're going to work [52:24] out, then work out. [52:25] >> That's what an audio book is for. [52:27] >> Yes. You don't you don't I see this all [52:29] the time with people reading. [52:30] >> I also saw a guy I also saw a guy doing [52:32] this. He was like running backwards. Not [52:35] running backwards, jogging backwards on [52:36] the treble. I wonder what he was [52:37] training for. [laughter] [52:39] >> You ever do that? [52:40] >> He was training for the movie Tenant. [52:43] >> Still haven't seen. Yeah, it's [52:44] >> a backward. [52:45] >> Actually, actually, actually, I uh Well, [52:47] who cares? I fell asleep watching it. [52:49] Okay. [52:50] Uh, all right. Let's talk about [52:52] streaming for a second. So, Netflix, a [52:54] stock that I have been dead wrong on, [52:56] took a 20% loss, uh, is, and this is, [53:00] this is a great [53:02] learning, teachable moment for how the [53:05] stock market works. Netflix is is the [53:08] winner. [53:10] >> They want they won streaming, [53:13] >> but so the the financials are great. [53:17] They're making billions of dollars in [53:19] profits a quarter. Their margins are [53:21] healthy. Business is good, [53:24] >> right? The growth is slower than it was, [53:25] but they're still growing. That's the [53:27] thing. They're still growing. [53:28] >> But that but that's the thing. But [53:29] they're not growing nearly fast enough. [53:32] And YouTube is eating their lunch. So [53:36] last week they laid off a thousand [53:39] people. [53:41] And often times when that happens, the [53:44] stock market likes it, right? They're [53:45] being disciplined. But the but the [53:47] financials aren't the problem. So the [53:49] stock market the stock barely reacted [53:51] and then Matt Bellan reported broke the [53:54] news at Puck that uh they lost their [53:57] head of content. So uh she Bella Bajaria [54:02] spearheaded the company's $20 billion [54:04] content budget. She launched [54:06] Bridgetgerton, Squid Game, the WWE and [54:09] the NFL. Um [54:12] and uh the stock reports tonight but [54:14] Hollywood in general. I mean, not [54:16] breaking news here, has a major major [54:18] problem. Look at this chart that Bellan [54:20] shared. [54:22] Uh he's looking at the share of senior [54:26] executives [54:27] gone within two years of the [54:29] appointment. And this is a carousel. At [54:33] max, it's 30% or gone within two years. [54:36] >> They can't all be stupid. [54:39] >> Jeez. So, you've talked about the stock [54:41] market being so hard. So this decade, [54:43] just the 2020s, the S&P 500 is [54:45] outperforming Netflix by about 50%. [54:49] And you're right, and this is this was [54:51] the decade that we pulled forward. [54:52] Everyone got streaming, right? It made [54:54] more sense. Everyone was at home more. [54:56] Netflix one, that's why I'm so hesitant [54:59] about the Paramount thing because if [55:01] Paramount Paramount's goal is to be like [55:03] Netflix, [55:04] if that's where your goal is, you're [55:06] going to even if you get there, you're [55:08] going to fail. [55:10] Well, they need they need the studios to [55:14] continue to perform. And when I say [55:16] continue to perform, I mean just [55:17] perform. [55:18] >> But don't you think this is why Netflix [55:19] has to go into like the money they [55:21] didn't spend on buying Warner Brothers? [55:22] They have to get more into the NFL. They [55:24] have to get more into the NBA. They have [55:25] to get more into live events like [55:27] >> live. And it's funny because Sandos was [55:29] I think he was well not I think he was [55:30] wrong. People don't want to go to the [55:32] movie theater. They don't want to watch [55:32] everything from home. No, they don't. [55:34] No, they do not. Matter of fact, I [55:36] texted Robin. [55:39] I said, "Hey, what is on what is this uh [55:42] Thursday dinner on your calendar?" And [55:45] her response was, because I thought she [55:47] knew where I was going with this, her [55:49] response was, "I already looked for [55:52] tickets and I couldn't find." And the [55:54] tickets that she's talking about [55:56] >> is the movie. [55:58] >> Yeah. So, she's never in the history of [56:01] our relationship done that. This movie [56:04] is going to be mass. So, I'm going to [56:05] we're going to say it tomorrow. This [56:07] movie is going to be massive. I feel [56:08] like the expectations are too high [56:10] >> for what? For performance or for [56:12] >> everyone everyone I've heard who's seen [56:13] it is like the expectations have set the [56:15] bar way too high. [56:16] >> Uhhuh. Yeah. [56:17] >> I think I'm going to make my personality [56:18] I haven't seen it yet. I'm going to be [56:19] the one who says I don't like it just to [56:21] be that that guy. [laughter] [56:23] >> Like you know the guy in like Twitter [56:24] says Beatles the Beatles are overrated. [56:26] I'm going to be that guy for this movie. [56:27] I'm sure it's going to be great. [56:28] >> Well, I can't wait. [56:29] >> So, one of the things Netflix did was [56:30] created they were the first one to say [56:32] here's the top 10 movies on our people [56:34] are watching and streaming on our site. [56:36] So all the other platforms finally did [56:38] this. Have you ever looked at some of [56:39] the top 10 movies on the other plat like [56:41] Peacock or [56:42] >> Peacock is the worst top 10. Very It's [56:44] very bad. [56:44] >> Do you ever look at these and go, "What [56:46] is the matter with you people? What is [56:48] wrong with you?" Like these are the [56:50] people that are voting for politicians [56:52] in my country. Like [56:54] >> you're watching this. Obviously art is [56:56] subjective, but you look at them and [56:57] just go, "What is wrong with these [56:59] people?" I do that a lot, especially on [57:01] like the Prime has some weird ones. All [57:03] right, one more thing about streaming. [57:05] So Ari Emanuel was on with Ben Thompson [57:07] last week on certy and it was really [57:10] really good and they were talk he was [57:12] talking about how AI is going they were [57:13] talking about how AI is going to change [57:15] Hollywood and I think this is one of the [57:16] things that technology is going to take [57:17] from us. So I've been watching more '9s [57:19] movies action movies with my son. So [57:21] last week we watched Cliffhanger we [57:23] watched Terminator 2 and Speed you know [57:25] in recent months. [57:26] >> Cliffhanger is a pretty grown-up movie. [57:28] >> Yeah it is. He enjoyed it. He's like I'm [57:30] not going to like this and then he was [57:31] in right away right when the lady they [57:33] he drops right at the beginning. But one [57:34] of the things like the special effects [57:36] obviously were not as good back then but [57:37] a lot of the special effects used real [57:39] things and I think this is what we're [57:42] losing with new movies. So Ari Emanuel [57:44] talked about how AI in the future you're [57:46] going to have to do the makeup for an [57:48] actress once and then she won't have to [57:49] do her makeup again because they'll just [57:51] use the face or or you know like it he's [57:53] like it's going to save so much time AI [57:56] from making changes and editing. But I [57:58] think that's what made 90s action movies [58:00] so good is that they had to do a lot of [58:01] real stuff that if you watch Terminator [58:03] 2, these are real. These aren't CGI [58:06] action fake stuff for the green screen. [58:07] It was actually stuff that they blew up. [58:10] >> Wait, Robert Patrick really was a metal [58:12] guy that got blown in half. [58:14] >> But I'm saying if if I know it's fake [58:16] and they can go way more over the top, [58:18] it makes like when is the last good [58:20] action movie we've had in this like in [58:21] the last 10 years. There have not been [58:22] very very many good action movies [58:24] because it's all fake. That's why 90s [58:28] action movies are better. [58:30] >> Which was a ret, [58:32] >> right? Which were both remakes of old [58:33] movies. [58:34] >> You're right. You're right. [58:36] >> Anyway, that's that that's a that's what [58:39] we we we're losing with technologies. [58:41] Some things we gain, some things we [58:42] lose. Um, all right. So, we've talked, [58:45] by the way, we talked about saunas [58:47] before. I guess the actual number from [58:48] someone was 5.7 million people in [58:51] Finland, 3.3 million saunas in the [58:53] country. I guess that's really cold [58:55] there. So, are you going to get one or [58:56] not? [58:56] >> Well, also I think I think uh don't [58:59] saunas hail from Finland. Is that where [59:01] they were invented? [59:03] >> According to um Frozen, yes, the movie. [59:06] >> Okay. Uh am I going to get a sauna? I [59:09] hope so. I want one. [59:10] >> Okay. [59:11] >> Not I mean not after the beating I took [59:12] uh [59:13] >> in a black Jesus Christ. I feel like I'm [59:16] being punished for something. You know, [59:18] I'm a I'm a great loser. I view it as [59:20] like entertainment. I expect to lose, [59:22] but that was uh not entertaining. It was [59:23] torture. All right, keep going. [59:26] >> Okay. Um, so we've talked a lot about [59:28] travel sports on here and obviously [59:31] you're getting the game because you said [59:32] Kobe had a try out a couple weeks ago [59:34] you didn't want to talk about with your [59:35] wife, right? So there's a one unintended [59:38] consequence of travel sports that I [59:39] never thought through. So for me [59:42] personally, you mentioned football was [59:43] the ultimate sport growing up. I I never [59:46] had a teacher that like changed my life, [59:50] but the coaches I had in high school, [59:51] like I still think about stuff they said [59:53] to this day. Football taught me [59:54] discipline, teamwork, patience, hard [59:57] work, all these things. [59:58] >> Fashion. [60:00] >> Yeah. But like I I started lifting [60:02] weights because I was so small because [60:03] of football. And I still use that stuff [60:04] to this day. So like football changed my [60:05] life in a lot of way. I love football. [60:07] It's like the locker room. I still the [60:09] butterflies I would get before a [60:11] football game is like an emotion I can't [60:12] explain. I've never had it again and [60:14] never will. Um so anyway, my luckily my [60:17] son wanted to play football. So they [60:19] start early at our school, third and [60:20] fourth grade tackle. And yesterday he [60:22] got to go play at the big house again. [60:23] He did last year and they did it this [60:24] year. It was such a cool experience. But [60:26] one of the things I didn't anticipate [60:28] about football, remember when all the [60:29] concussion stuff started happening and [60:31] you thought like, oh, and I I thought [60:32] especially with millennial parents being [60:34] a little more riskaverse, like what if [60:36] no one plays football anymore? What if [60:37] they don't let their kids play because [60:38] of safety issues? Now, we've had plenty [60:40] of parents who said that to us like, I'm [60:42] not letting my kid play. Personal [60:44] decision. I get it. I thought there was [60:46] going to be a lot of that. No, no, no. [60:47] It's the opposite. There's more kids [60:49] than ever playing football. You want to [60:51] know why? Because these other travel [60:53] sports are so competitive. Soccer is [60:55] really competitive. Basketball is super [60:57] competitive. Football, everyone makes a [61:00] team. [61:01] >> There's 11 spots on offense, 11 spots on [61:03] defense and special teams. More kids can [61:05] play. So, we had four fifth and sixth [61:08] grade teams at our school this year. [61:09] Four of them. We had two third and [61:11] fourth grade teams. The seventh grade [61:12] team had more kids they knew what to do [61:14] with. and all these other teams we play. [61:16] One of the teams in third and fourth [61:17] grade, we played three of their teams [61:19] because they have five teams. So, [61:21] football is actually a beneficiary of [61:24] Travelsworth because football is the [61:25] only one they still do at school. [61:28] Isn't that in interesting? I never [61:29] thought that would have happened. [61:31] >> What was the Will Smith CTE movie? [61:36] >> Oh, yeah. I never actually watched it. [61:38] >> Uh oh, Concussion. I never saw it there. [61:41] But but people there was there were some [61:44] takes that age very poorly that like [61:45] football was [61:46] >> Yes. [61:48] Like it's crazy. Football might actually [61:50] be back. Like it's I I can't believe how [61:52] many young kids are wanting to play [61:54] football. [61:54] >> It's great. All right. Recommendations. [61:57] What do you got? [61:58] >> Uh so I forgot to finish the thread last [62:00] week that I had. I was talking about how [62:02] I am a surface level watcher. And the [62:05] reason why I brought it up was because I [62:07] saw a movie last week uh Hokum with Adam [62:10] Scott and the director of Hokum, what's [62:13] his name? Um is uh [62:17] >> wait, is that another horror movie? [62:19] >> Yes, of course. Damen McCarthy directed [62:22] a movie that I really enjoyed a couple [62:23] years ago called Oddity. So I was [62:25] psyched to see this movie [62:27] and uh I had to listen to a podcast to [62:30] explain to me what happened in Hok. [62:33] And it was not super complicated. It was [62:35] not like 3D chess. I just, you know, I [62:38] was playing block blast or something, [62:39] lost the plot, and god damn it, what was [62:41] this movie about? But it was okay. [62:43] >> So my my son is going to be a horror [62:45] person like you. So we went last to [62:47] >> Well, we went to a um horror walk in the [62:50] woods and it's like it's like uh really [62:53] scary. They try to jump scare you and [62:54] these people have all this makeup on and [62:56] blood and they're carrying hatchets and [62:58] stuff. [63:00] >> That's I can't do that. That's too much [63:01] for me. So I it doesn't I it doesn't [63:03] impact me at all. Like it doesn't scare [63:04] me. It doesn't I was kind of laughing. [63:06] My son loved it. He's like I want can we [63:08] watch a horror movie with jump scares? [63:10] So I'm like fine. Let me find something [63:11] that you can watch. So we did Five [63:13] Nights at Freddy's where like the [63:14] carnival guys come to life and stuff. [63:18] Man, I I don't know. The the horror it's [63:22] it's trading at a 50p cape ratio right [63:24] now. Hor the horror genre. It's just too [63:26] much. Too many of them. Don't you agree? [63:29] >> Hard hard. No, I don't I don't agree. [63:32] >> Okay. Um, any more for you? [63:35] >> Uh, did you listen to Jud Appattow with [63:38] uh with Sean Fenny? [63:40] >> No, I did not about the Nor McDonald. [63:43] >> Yes. [63:44] >> Okay. When does that come out? Cuz I [63:46] can't wait. [63:46] >> It's out. It's out. It's great. I didn't [63:48] finish it, but uh the the interview was [63:50] great. I miss I miss Shot Appetite. I [63:51] feel like he disappeared from our lives [63:53] no fault of his own. Obviously, the [63:55] comedy floor fell out from under him and [63:57] everybody else, which stinks. He [63:59] probably ran out of ideas, too. Not not [64:00] ran out of ideas, but like he did a lot. [64:03] >> He was still trying to get movies made [64:05] >> and it wasn't happening. Okay, I can't [64:07] wait for the norm, doc. Uh, okay. So, [64:10] Total Ben movie here. I watched Tony, [64:13] uh, which is the movie about Anthony [64:15] Bourdain, and it's a fictionalized [64:16] version of Anthony Bourdain getting into [64:18] cooking when he was a young guy. And I [64:20] actually just listened to Kitchen [64:21] Confidential this year. So, it's this is [64:23] still pretty freshman. So, a lot of the [64:24] stories from the book they used in the [64:26] movie, but it's a fictionalized version [64:27] of him going and working at a place in [64:29] the in the summer and it so it's got [64:30] restaurant stuff. It's a coming of age [64:32] movie. It's a party movie. Like, perfect [64:34] Ben movie. And it's got three of my [64:36] favorite young actors. So, it's got the [64:37] guy who played the young kid in the [64:39] holdovers, which is another one of my [64:41] favorite coming of age movies. You [64:42] didn't like very much. [64:43] >> No, I enjoyed it. [64:44] >> It's got the girl Mave from Task who was [64:47] also played in Kota. She was the lead in [64:49] Kota. I don't know what her name is. [64:50] She's She's in this, too. Very good. And [64:52] it's got the guy from uh Tuner in White [64:56] Lotus that we just watched. So all three [64:57] of them are in it. Antonio Banderas is [64:58] in it. [64:59] >> Task Task was awesome. [65:00] >> Yeah. Uh so this movie, it's great. It's [65:03] got everything you want from a Ben [65:04] movie. 7.5. Loved it. Like just a good [65:08] time. It was like 70s, it's it's another [65:10] thing that like when you have a movie [65:11] that goes back in time with no cell [65:13] phones, it's just better. Life was just [65:15] better. Anyway, uh I was going to watch [65:18] The Social Reckoning, but I thought why [65:19] would I watch this movie? I'm just going [65:21] to watch The Social Network again. Like, [65:23] there's no reason to watch Social [65:24] Reckoning. So, I watched it again and I [65:26] know that we we litigated this at the [65:28] time, but I still can't believe So, I [65:30] read The Accidental Billionaires in 2009 [65:32] when it came out. That's the book that [65:33] Social Network is based on. Ben Mez [65:35] wrote it. So, he's a guy who writes [65:37] sensationalized non-fiction. [65:39] >> So, I'd say 60% of his book is true, 40% [65:42] is totally sensationalized. And he [65:44] relied heavily on like Edward Eduardo [65:46] and the Winklevi for the book. And Mark [65:48] Zuckerberg didn't talk to him. But a lot [65:50] of the book actually is deposition of [65:51] what happened. Like he used actual [65:53] depositions to like talk about the [65:54] courtroom scene. So the stuff with the [65:55] girls that was all made up, right? [65:58] And then the the movie is more [66:00] sensationalized version of the book. But [66:01] I still can't believe that a $2 trillion [66:04] company was started like this. I still [66:07] can't like when I read the book and this [66:09] was three years before Facebook went [66:11] under. I kind of wrote Mark Zuckerberg [66:13] off and I I I probably have [66:14] underestimated Facebook and Meta since [66:16] then because of it because like god this [66:18] guy is such a weasel. [66:19] >> Well, because also we were when we were [66:21] how we were 27 when that movie came out. [66:23] We're like oh he's just a kid. [66:25] >> Yes. But the fact that he has taken this [66:28] and that he like that there was this [66:29] thing that he kind of stole the idea but [66:31] actually he stole the idea and he made [66:33] it a million times better than you [66:35] possibly could have thought. the fact [66:36] that it actually worked. And I guess the [66:39] [snorts] one like lesson from the book [66:40] and the movie is that that guy will do [66:43] anything like that. That's why every [66:45] four years he like changes his politics [66:46] to suit whoever the president is because [66:48] this guy will do anything to make this [66:50] succeed. I think that's like the big [66:52] lesson from the from the movie and the [66:53] book that I totally like my whole [66:55] thinking was I hate this guy. He's such [66:57] a weasel. And obviously it was again [66:59] sensationalized, but it's it's the book [67:02] is probably worth revisiting just to [67:04] hear like the point of view from the [67:06] other guys who got [67:07] >> you mean the movie. [67:09] >> Well, it was based on a book. [67:11] >> Oh, I'm not okay. [67:13] >> Book. [snorts] [67:13] >> Listen to it. Anyway, [67:15] >> I'm listening to uh like a Rolling [67:16] Stone. [67:17] >> I don't know. [67:17] >> The Yan Winner book, [67:20] the creator of Rolling Stone, the [67:22] magazine. [67:22] >> Oh, okay. All right. Good. [67:25] >> Very good. [67:26] >> Okay. I listened to your Keith McN book, [67:28] the restaurant one. I guess I'm into [67:29] restaurant stuff. My favorite one was [67:31] when he said that they mixed up the [67:32] $2,500 bottle of wine with a $10 bottle [67:34] of wine [laughter] and the people at the [67:36] table didn't know it. [67:37] >> Yeah, that was good. [67:38] >> Great story. All right. [67:41] You said you were going to fight me [67:42] today. I don't think we really fought. [67:44] >> Well, just on the It's It's It's just a [67:47] flesh wound. [67:48] >> Duncan, give us a poll. Ask the Ask the [67:50] audience who is right. Carnage under the [67:52] surface or nothing to worry about. [67:55] Duncan's got carnage under the surface. [67:56] He owns like all the craziest AI stocks [67:58] there are. He's getting smoked. [68:01] [laughter] [68:03] Sorry, Duncan. [68:05] >> All right. Uh, personal emails, personal [68:07] responses. Ask the No, what's it? What [68:09] is it? Animal Spirits at the [68:10] compoundnews.com. [68:12] Uh, thanks to Duncan and everyone on the [68:13] production team as always. Watch us on [68:15] YouTube. Listen to us. Leave a review. [68:17] What else? [68:19] >> Broadway tickets are sold out. [68:20] >> That's right. That was fast. Thank you [68:22] everybody. Cannot wait to see you guys. [68:24] It'll be fun. All right, see you next [68:25] time. [68:31] [music] [68:37] >> [music]