Why Retail is Outperforming (EP. 432)

Summary

---

Animal Spirits Podcast: "Why Retail is Outperforming" (EP. 432)

Date: October 1, 2025
Hosts: Michael Batnick and Ben Carlson

---

Main Theme

This episode centers on the surprising outperformance of retail stocks and the broader U.S. market dynamics in late 2025, exploring the drivers behind robust retail earnings, the "AI boom" powering the market, changing investor behaviors, and housing market trends. Michael and Ben reflect on macroeconomic data, the nature of market bubbles (especially in AI and quantum computing), inequality, and the role retail investors now play in shaping the financial landscape.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Market Leadership & The "AI Boom"

• AI as Market Driver: The hosts repeatedly stress that the artificial intelligence (AI) sector is powering overall market returns, with "AI-related stocks accounting for 75% of S&P 500 returns, 80% of earnings growth, and 90% of capital spending growth since November 2022" ([07:42]).
  • Ben: "It wouldn't have mattered what Biden did or what Trump did. This AI boom is the only thing that has mattered for the past... since November of 2022" ([06:16]).
  • Michael: "'The reason that we've been in such a strong bull market is because earnings have been so strong. Yeah, that's it. Right? I think that's all you need to know.'" ([07:28])
• Is AI a Bubble?
  • Ben posits: "The excess spending levels and the actions taken by the tech companies are a bubble. I don't know how you could define it any other way based on market history" ([08:08]).
  • Michael cautions: "To me, a bubble is like, there's no world in which this doesn't burst... But with like Nvidia... it's trading at, I don't know...35 times forward earnings...I hesitate to say that this is a bubble because it's being supported by fundamentals" ([09:27], [13:02]).
  • The hosts debate whether the "bubble" thesis is either too "obvious" or still has room to play out similar to past cycles (e.g. top heavy markets in the '50s/'60s versus the dot-com bust).

2. Fundamentals vs. Speculation

• Staggering Earnings Growth: S&P 500 and especially MAG7 stocks are backed by real earnings power, unlike previous speculative bubbles ([13:02], [13:40]).
• Leverage: Discussion about rising corporate debt, especially among tech giants - Oracle, Apple ([14:03]), and strong demand for corporate bonds ([14:53]).
• Speculation in Quantum Stocks:
  • Michael: "Bespoke tweeted the four biggest speculative quantum stocks...came into today up an average of 2,750% year over year... They have a combined market cap of 46 billion. That's 371 times revenue for the group. Now this, to me feels like a bubble" ([20:02]).
  • Ben: "Just being up 3,000% in a year. Yeah, that seems like a lot" ([20:48]).

3. Retail & Institutional Flows

• Retail Investors Are (Still) Cautious: Despite the bull market, retail, institutional, and hedge fund investors are net sellers ([21:37]).
• Rise of ETF Speculation: Number of leveraged ETFs and assets under management have doubled/tripled in past few years ([21:50]).
  • Ben: "Howard Lindsay calls this...the degenerate economy now, people who have taken the sports betting, event betting thing to the stock market" ([22:09]).
• Behavioral Change:
  • Investors today are far more sophisticated and cost-sensitive than in prior decades, with index funds and ETFs dominating inflows ([23:59]).
  • Ben: "In today's investing landscape... it seems incredible that investors used to be told index funds are for losers." ([23:59])
  • Michael: "This is the era of retail investors' dominance and it's not gonna last forever, but so long as their favorite names keep going up, party well." ([24:10])

4. Retail Outperformance & Company Examples

• Walmart & Costco Valuations: Have seen dramatic multiple expansion (P/Es up to 50-60x), raising questions about shifting fundamentals or investor narratives ([15:16]).
• Target’s Divergence: Target lags far behind both in stock and execution, noted as possibly more about "management execution" than macro conditions ([17:13]).
• Market Breadth: US market is strong, but other countries (emerging markets) are outperforming this year, contrary to AI bubble expectations ([18:43]).

5. Wealth, Inequality & Housing

• Stock Ownership & Sentiment: The top 10% own 87% of stocks; rising asset prices benefit the wealthy while stagnant housing markets affect the broader middle class ([29:10]).
• Wealth Inequality: The system perpetuates greater gains for the already-wealthy; this is a "feature, not a bug" ([30:24]):
  • Ben: "The fact that it's so much more important now just means the rich will continue to get richer because they have a greater share of the stock market." ([31:17])
• First-time Homebuyers & Loans: A surprising decrease in the share of homebuyers receiving family help with down payments, reflecting that buyers now are those who can truly afford it ([41:09]).
• Adjustable Rate Mortgages: Explanation of why wealthy buyers (and banks) favor ARMs ([32:43]).

6. "Retail Revolution" Reflection

• Robinhood’s Legacy: While there was criticism of Robinhood "gamifying" trading, the hosts agree that increased market participation is a net positive ("more people in the market, the more the better" [30:59]).
• Investing for "Average Returns": The most popular ETFs are low-cost, broadly diversified products—Vanguard’s VOO ETF leads all inflows, suggesting most retail money is boring (but effective) ([24:43]).

7. Broader Economic & International Context

• U.S. Consumers & Resilience: Latest GDP prints and consumer spending figures continue to surprise to the upside ([27:05]).
• International Wealth Comparison: Americans are far wealthier in disposable income than counterparts in the UK (and other developed countries), even after adjusting for healthcare and student loans ([45:51]).
• Private Equity Take: Industry faces slow distributions but is cushioned by dry powder; unlikely to be a "crisis," more a story of lower returns ([43:21], [44:56]).

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Bubbles and AI:
  Ben: “The excess spending levels and the actions taken by the tech companies are a bubble. I don't know how you could define it any other way based on market history… But if so, let's say this is a bubble and I'm right. The fact that the companies who are doing it are having such high fundamental earnings growth, I don't… It's almost like, okay, well, it makes sense.” ([08:08])

• On Wealth Inequality:
  Ben: “The fact that it's so much more important now just means the rich will continue to get richer because they have a greater share of the stock market. We're literally never going to solve wealth inequality. Let's be honest with ourselves.” ([31:17])

• On The Index Fund Revolution:
  Ben: "In today's investing landscape where you can own the entire stock market for 3 basis points in total annual costs, it seems incredible that investors used to be told index funds are for losers." ([23:59])

• On Recent Housing Transactions:
  Michael: "Nobody actually makes money on a house when you say, oh, I bought it for...125 and they sold it for 800. Okay, well how much did they actually pay? Because it's not the sticker price, right?" ([39:40])

• On U.S. Wealth Compared Abroad:
  Ben: "Four in 10 U.S. households had leftover earnings after tax of at least £70,000. In the UK, just 10% of households have that much… The average earner in the poorest state in America, which is Mississippi, is now substantially better off than their British counterpart. It's wild." ([45:53], [46:39])

---

Timestamps of Important Segments

• AI Boom, Market Fundamentals: [06:16] – [09:59]
• Valuations & Bubble Debate: [09:59] – [13:40]
• Corporate Leverage/Bond Issuance: [14:03] – [15:54]
• Retail Outperformance, Walmart/Costco vs Target: [15:54] – [17:44]
• Market Breadth & Emerging Markets: [18:26] – [19:00]
• Quantum Stocks Speculation: [20:02] – [20:53]
• Investor Flows, ETF Mania, Retail Behavior: [21:37] – [24:43]
• Stock/Housing Wealth and Sentiment: [29:10] – [31:31]
• Homebuying Trends and Mortgages: [32:43] – [41:26]
• Private Equity Outlook: [43:01] – [44:56]
• U.S. vs UK Wealth Comparison: [45:09] – [46:53]
• Personal Stories, Humor, and Travel Chat: [33:29] – [35:53], [47:02] – [48:35]
• Podcast Announcements & Recommendations: [48:35] – [52:45]

---

Tone and Character

Conversational, candid, and occasionally self-deprecating, Michael and Ben weave in anecdotes and humor alongside market analysis. They question mainstream narratives, emphasize nuance, and balance optimism and skepticism—expressing humility in what can and can't be "known" in markets. Episodes like this provide both actionable insights for investors and a sense of camaraderie for listeners navigating the ever-shifting investing landscape.

---

Conclusion

This episode dissects why retail is outperforming, linking the conversation to seismic macro trends, bubbles, and the specifics of today’s market leadership. Ultimately, Michael and Ben urge listeners to maintain perspective—questioning easy narratives, acknowledging the era of retail investor strength, and reminding all that “the markets are never that easy.”

---

Transcript

[A]

Today's Animal Spirits is brought to you by Y Charts the Fed recently cut rates for the first time in over a year. Unemployment is ticking up, bond yields are sliding, and those big cash payouts everyone loved? They're already starting to shrink.

[B]

Advisors, your clients are going to have questions about what this all means. Y Charts New Fed Rate Cut Deck helps you answer them with intuitive charts and context. You'll see how lower rates filter through to mortgages, credit cards and household budgets, where bondholders are benefiting as yields fall, and what history shows about stocks when the cutting cycle begins. This is just one of ycharts many free resources designed to help save you prep time and keep you ahead of client questions.

[A]

Download your copy today using the link in the show notes and get 20% off your initial YCharts Professional subscription when you start your free WideCharts trial through animal Spirits. Of course, that's to new customers only.

[B]

Today's Animal Spirits is brought to you by Fabric by Gerber Life. Running a household is a lot, especially with kids. Michael we know this to be true. Maybe you have a plan for the daily chaos, but a lot of people don't have a plan how to protect their family in their financial future. If not, Fabric can help.

[A]

That's right, Ben. Fabric by Gerber Life is term life insurance you can get done today. Made for busy parents like you all online on your schedule. Right from your couch, you could be covered in under 10 minutes with no health exam required. If you've got kids, and especially if you're young and healthy, the time to lock in low rates is now over 1900.

[B]

Five star reviews on Trustpilot with a rating of excellent. I tried it out. I tried the app. It's very easy, very intuitive. It's simple. It's quick. Join the thousands of parents who trust Fabric to help protect their family. Apply in just minutes [e-mail] spirits that's meetfabric.com spirits m et fabric.com spirits policies issued by Western Southern Life Insurance Company not available in certain states. Prices subject to underwriting and health questions. Welcome to Animal Spirits, a show about markets, life and investing. Join Michael Batnik and Ben Carlson as they talk about what they're reading, writing and watching. All opinions expressed by Michael and Ben are solely their own opinion and do not reflect the opinion of Ritholtz Wealth Management. This podcast is for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon for any investment decisions. Clients of Ritholtz Wealth Management may maintain.

[A]

Positions in the securities discussed in this.

[B]

Podcast.

[A]

Welcome to Animal Spirits with Michael and Ben. Ben, how are you? Thank you for bearing with us. This took a minute.

[B]

Yeah, a little technical difficulties, but we're here to go. Ready to go. Let's do it.

[A]

All right. Before we start the show, I'm excited to announce that we're in Charlotte. Okay. We have seven people, eight people there, but we want to go bigger. We were there last week to scope out some new office space and we found a suite unit. Is that the right term? Unit? I don't think so. Space in the south end. I gotta tell you, that city is. It's on fire. I feel like every city that I go to, there's cranes everywhere, especially in the south.

[B]

So how many more people can fit in the new office space then?

[A]

Well, it depends. It depends. We want to hear from you. If you are in Charlotte, in and or around Charlotte, and you want to join the team, whether you're a financial advisor or an ops or something else, we want to hear from you. And we're trying to figure out how much space we need. So don't be shy if you want to join one of the best teams in America. Great people in Charlotte. Great growing rapidly. Great people. Did I mention we have great people Reach out to us [e-mail] or actually and maybe hiringdholtswealth.com.

[B]

All right, are we talking about where you are right now or are we going to say that for later?

[A]

Go ahead.

[B]

Okay, you go ahead. You're somewhere else.

[A]

So I'm in Boston, not to be confused with Austin, a la road trip. Good 90s movie. And I finally got to see the chart room.

[B]

What's the chart room?

[A]

The chart room is where Mr. Johnson of Fidelity used to print out every day different charts, whether it's. Whatever it is, bond stuff, economic stuff, market stuff, and very famous. Been hearing about it for years and finally got to see it. So they have a 15 foot wall with the history of the DAO and then they've got another chart that shows the same type of thing except covers of barons and the economists and different landmarks across the way. And then they've got your quilt that you love and just giant pieces of paper. Really awesome. Lots of fun.

[B]

All right, so when we buy new office space somewhere, we need a chart room.

[A]

We need a chart room. It's cool.

[B]

Yeah, that sounds awesome. That's even better than a mudroom.

[A]

Ben there. This might be early in the show for this, but just real quick. You're very observant. About your, your travel episodes. You're always picking out different people. I got this guy of the week award.

[B]

Travel is great for watching people.

[A]

This does happen on every flight. But it happened to me today where the guy was directly next to me. The person who is boom, on a con, on a phone call as soon as you land. And there can only be one conversation going. Right. Because it's very tight space. So if, if you're not first, you can't. You can't be the second person to be on a phone call. But I was reminded of the curb episode where Larry's at a restaurant and the guy next to him is on a call on Bluetooth and Larry just starts talking to himself. This guy's talking. He's just talking. But. But. Right. It's.

[B]

That should be, that should be rules of etiquette. Like, you don't ever take a. On a call on a flight unless it's a. An emergency. Like, there's, there's always.

[A]

This was not an emergency. This was. This was not an emergency.

[B]

It never is. The. There's like the business people who take a call right up until the takes off, like you have. You never have a phone call that important. You can just text or email. It'll be just. It'll be just fine. I agree. Okay. Back in April, a lot of people were roasting us, saying, hey, for years you guys have been telling me that politics don't matter. Well, look at this. Politics just caused a 20% decline in the stock market. The economy is teetering. All this stuff that was going on at Liberation Day, you guys were wrong.

[A]

Can I just add one caveat to that? I think that politics definitely can matter to the market and the economy over both the short and the long term. But I believe what we were saying is that politics shouldn't influence your investing. So if you are like, that was. And that's a very not subtle detail.

[B]

Yes. But I also think that it, honestly, it. It wouldn't have mattered what Biden did or what Trump did. This AI boom is the only thing that has mattered for the past. Since November of 2022. Right. It. It.

[A]

Yeah, It.

[B]

It wouldn't. It doesn't matter to the stock market or the economy what their policies were, because it's just varying degrees of what was already happening. And, and there was good or good or bad, right or wrong. Whatever they did, it was the AI boom that mattered the most out of anything.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Right. And so this. I, I've used this one before. But John Bogle, in his book don't count on it. Did this thing where he looked at the fundamental changes in the stock market by decade. And Eric Balcunas DM'd me this week, and he said, hey, can you update this chart for me? Some. Someone had mentioned it or something. And look at the. Look at the earnings growth in the past two decades. Almost 11% earnings growth in the 2010s, 9% in the 2020s. And now, of course, the whole thing is in the 2010s. Well, it's just the Fed printing money and the Fed kept rates low. And, well, this ticket, well, it's the government spending money. And it's always something, but it really is. The reason that we've been in such a strong bull market is because earnings have been so strong. Yeah, that's it. Right? I think that's all you need to know.

[A]

It's a whole kit and caboodle.

[B]

Ben, did I put the semblance thing in here or did you?

[A]

I did.

[B]

Okay, because this is the thing I pulled out too. He had a new piece out on he called AI the Blob, which I guess he's kind of in the same. Like, it's the only thing that matters.

[A]

So Michael said, I think this is well understood. But just to Reinforce the point, AI related stocks have accounted for 75% of the S&P 500 returns, 80% of earnings growth, and 90% of capital spending growth since ChatGPT launched in November 2022.

[B]

That's why this is such a hard bubble to handicap. And I think I said it last week. I'm totally comfortable calling this a bubble based on history. I don't know.

[A]

You think it's a bubble today?

[B]

I think the excess spending levels and the actions taken by the tech companies are a bubble. I don't know how you could define it any other way. Based on market history, just the, the. The sheer amount of money pouring into this one sector. If you ever had any market history, you know, this is exactly what happens when new innovation happens and all this excess spending happens. I don't know how you could call it anything else besides a bubble. I don't think that means the outcome is easy to predict or that the. It's easy to handicap. But if so, let's. Let's say this is a bubble and I'm right. The fact that the companies who are doing it are having such high fundamental earnings growth, I don't. It's almost like, okay, well, it makes sense. It's the bubble then, because these companies are so strong and Big and dominant. And that's the part.

[A]

But that's. So I agree with you. The way that this is trending, it obviously feels like a bubble is inevitable. But when you say bubble, that this.

[B]

Is a bubble, I'm not talking about the market, I'm talking about their excess spending levels.

[A]

You can't grab rapids hedge a bubble. It either is or it isn't fair.

[B]

Because the other ones that people keep pointing to are the railway bubble and the dot com bubble. And guess what? The stocks got crushed in both of those situations. Charles Darwin lost 60% of his net worth in the railroad bubble of the 1800s.

[A]

It certainly feels like this is trending towards a bubble. But if you think about valuation, to me, a bubble is like, there's no world in which this doesn't burst. There's no world in which these numbers make sense. But with like Nvidia, let's just say the poster child of this era, it's trading at. I don't know, what is it trading at? 35 times forward earnings, if you look out to 2029. And of course, nobody knows what 2029 earnings is gonna actually be. But is it like 22 times? I'm making. I don't know what it is. I'm making it up.

[B]

You know, someone hit a point to me last week on Twitter. Cause I was tweeting about this. What is a worse scenario? This is a bubble. It pops and the stock market gets hammered hard. Or this isn't a bubble and all the money that they're spending on AI immediately leads to a return on investment and that puts a bunch of people out of work. The paths forward don't see if those are the two paths forward. Which one. Which one is preferable?

[A]

Is there. What's. What's the third path?

[B]

I don't. Because if AI works and there is no bubble, then this is going to be really bad for a lot of people. Right?

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

What's the third. The third path is the muddle through, I guess, where these companies say, hey, we're going to pull back on AI investment because we don't have a big return on it yet. It's a few years down the line and we're just going to focus on our profitable divisions and we're going to write this off for a while or something. Maybe that is not a huge. Maybe that's the middle ground.

[A]

I just had a podcast with Josh and the head of quantitative strategy here at Fidelity. Oh, she was great, by the way. Denise Chisholm. And we were talking about the backdrop. And given that the Fed is cutting, the economy seems to be okay. Labor market will cool, and we all know the story. But the hyperscalers are going to compound their capex spend at 30% annualized, coupled with what Michael Sembalis said. $1.5 trillion in annual defined benefit of defined contribution payments into the stock market every year, annual basis. $1.5 trillion.

[B]

Oh, that's what number is now. Holy cow.

[A]

Yeah. What is the. What is the bear case?

[B]

Well, the. The bear case is the bubble popping. That. That's it.

[A]

I know, but it's so. But it's so obvious. And maybe it. Maybe it does, but I'm just like.

[B]

That'S what I'm having trouble grappling with is the fact that the whole this is a bubble thing seems way too obvious. And the markets are never that easy.

[A]

Yeah, but if they're going to grow their spending by 30% a year now, eventually the burn market will end. Duh. I mean, that's not a very profound thing to say. But like today, I don't know.

[B]

Yeah, I guess if this is a bubble, it still has a long ways to go. That would be like, in terms of what they can actually do.

[A]

Great. Great segue to a tweet from Urian from Fidelity. The great Urine Timmer Yurian said, it's worth remembering that while the top heavy concentration during the late 1990s was quickly reversed in the early 2000s, during the 1950s and 1960s, the market remained top heavy for many years before excessive valuations finally took their toll. In other words, this can take some time. So Urine's chart shows the top 50 versus the bottom 450. And what is that? Oh, percent of market cap. Okay, that's what it's showing.

[B]

This would be way easier to understand if it was a pie chart.

[A]

Yeah, no, look how beautiful this chart is.

[B]

That's. That's a very good chart.

[A]

Yeah, but look at the six. Look at the six and sevens. It took forever.

[B]

Yeah, yeah, you're right. It was a. That was a long cycle. That. That would. That I would put my money on that as opposed to this reversing immediately.

[A]

Here's another. Another great one from Yuri. And I don't know how he does. This guy's a Wizard. It's the Mag 7. And overlaid is the trailing earnings per share as well as the dividends and buybacks in. Is that hundreds of billions? Wait, could it be hundreds of. Yeah, I guess so. And it's just. It's being supported by fundamentals. And of course, predicting when that peaks is good luck. But that's why I hesitate to say that this is a bubble because it's being supported by fundamentals. And it's not only multiple expansion and, and hope and promise and hype.

[B]

And there's a really good corollary here to the economy where like the top 10% are totally powering the economy now and the MAG7 are powering the stock market, which is also powering the economy. And it's a whole circular thing here, right? The top 10% own the stocks. The stocks that are doing well are big and make a ton of money. And it is like one of those things where what, what hits this off its axis.

[A]

All right, so here's what it is. It's leverage. Or here's one possible obvious answer. It's leverage. So Oracle, for example, look at simplest chart of the debt to equity ratio. Oracle is now going to be levered the heck up. Apple has more leverage than I thought. I'm not sure how they're measuring this, but that is one obvious potential candidate for what makes this end. So Bloomberg has an article. In the US public bond markets alone, tech companies have raised about $157 billion this year, up 70% from what they issued in the same period last year. But so what, like, is this, is there this idea that like these companies won't be able to service their debt or roll it over now? I guess eventually there's, there's a tipping point, I guess maybe, I don't know.

[B]

Much like much like US consumers still have a lot of borrowing capacity. These companies, if they really wanted to put their foot on the gas, have a huge capacity to take on more debt if they wanted to.

[A]

So again, from that article, Oracle was able to boost its jumbo bond sale this week to 18 billion from about $15 billion on the back of strong demand. The software company also drew about $88 billion in peak orders with final demand of about 82 billion. Some of the debt isn't due for 40 years, so there's a lot of, lot of demand for the bonds as well. And why not?

[B]

It makes sense. All right, so Bloomberg also had this piece about talking about a bubble. They say it's very pricey. I don't think they quite use bubble. There's, there's a picture of a bubble in the article. So I think, take that for what it's worth. This was interesting to me. They talked about how the rest of the market hasn't really come along yet. But look at the 4 pes for Walmart and Costco. How do you explain this? That their PEs in the whole 2010s were sub 20, sub 30. Now they're both 50 or 60 times earnings. Is this an inflation thing? I don't understand why all of a sudden that we just this decade we repriced these two companies so drastically.

[A]

I don't know but I'm going to guess it's not because investors are dumb. Like there's got to be some sort of reason. Maybe it's the underlying fundamentals of the business are changing. Maybe it's margin expansion. I don't think it's, I don't think Costco and sort of Walmart has reinvented themselves a lot with what they're doing. I don't think it's like an apples to apples comparison. Nevertheless, that's the article.

[B]

Kind of tried to figure out what it is and they didn't really have.

[A]

Okay. Nevertheless I don't want, I don't, I don't want to hand wave this away. This doesn't, this doesn't make sense to me either. I don't know.

[B]

So on the other end I pulled up the like the 20 worst performing stocks in the S and P this year and a lot of names that you know. Lululemon is down 53%, CarMax is down 45. Moderna, which, it almost doesn't seem fair that Moderna developed the vaccine and the stock has just gotten drilled ever since Chipotle's on there and then Target is down 33% this year.

[A]

So I went, I went to Chipotle recently. Yeah, it was busy and the bowl was only like, was under was like $12.50. I might be back.

[B]

Okay, you're back. All right. But so, so I pulled up. So Target is down 33% this year. So I pulled up Target, Walmart and Costco over the last five years. Now maybe this is just an inflation story, but Walmart and Costco have been phenomenal stocks for this decade. Target has gotten smoked.

[A]

Why would that just be an inflation story?

[B]

Because there's like a trade down element to people going to Costco and Walmart as opposed to Target. I don't, I don't believe that.

[A]

I think it's like, I think it's execution. I think Target's management has not done a good job.

[B]

Okay. It's just interesting that it would be like this because you'd think that how far off are their businesses really? But obviously yeah, because you use the Target pickup thing all the time, right? So does my wife.

[A]

All the time.

[B]

All the time, anecdotally. But I've been using the Walmart online stuff way more because it's way cheaper than Amazon.

[A]

So during however long we've been recording, I'm sure some portion of the audience is like, jeez, guys, like, could you be, could you sound any more toppy? And I get it. But I want to point out that the market is responding to all of these events, to the upside, and it's not narrowing, despite all the talk about the top x percent. So Grant Hawk Ridge has a chart showing that global new highs, global new highs are accelerating. And in fact, out of all the countries around the world, the US is not in the top half. I don't think of stock markets this year.

[B]

He said, sorry, go ahead, finish.

[A]

73 days of more new highs than new lows, consecutive, the longest run since May 2020 21. This is an isolated strength. What is this talk about the all country world index?

[B]

So this year this is one of the most surprising things to me. The best performing asset class. If you looked at US Stocks, developed world stocks and emerging markets are by far emerging markets. They're up almost 30% this year. That could be a dollar story. But who would have, who would have pegged in an AI bubble that we're calling this, that emerging markets would be.

[A]

Outperforming Chinese Internet stocks with the AI trade are, are helping that a lot. But yes, you're right, I don't think anybody would have. I didn't. All right, there are, you know, we mentioned this last week, but there are obvious pockets of, of, of crazy behavior. The quantum computing stocks, for example, and I said this with Josh will say with you, I don't think it's crazy to make money. I don't think you're dumb if you're making money. If these stocks are up 1000% and you're making money. Me, that's smart. Call me crazy. It's smart to make money. Now. If the bears thesis comes to fruition and these stocks fall 90%, well then obviously the people that are making money now are not going to look so smart. In hindsight, we'll see. Okay.

[B]

You feel like a smarter person if you're mocking those people, though.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Which is kind of ironic. Before.

[A]

It's kind of ironic the people that are not involved, that are just chirping from the sideline are like, think that they have intellectual superiority than the people that are actually making money. And listen, I, believe me, I get it.

[B]

That's one of the Main reasons people become perma bears because it gives you intellectual superiority.

[A]

So anyway, Bespoke tweeted the four biggest speculative quantum stocks. Ionic Rigetti, Quantum. Well, I don't know what's Q U, B T, Q B S, qbts, whatever. Quantum. They're both quantum. Something came into today. Up an average of 2,750% year over year analyst estimates combined 2025 revenues for these companies will be about $124 million. They have a combined market cap of 46 billion. That's 371 times revenue for the group. Now this, to me feels like a bubble again. Like maybe I feel I shouldn't comment on what a bubble is and isn't because I don't know these names. And Maybe, maybe the $124 million in three years from now is 5 billion. I have no idea. But this seems pretty optimistic.

[B]

Okay, just being up 3,000% in a year. Yeah, that seems like a lot.

[A]

Well, being up 3,000% a year and trading at 370 times revenue, yeah, that seems, that seems, that seems optimistic. Now, one of the, one of the parts that I didn't mention earlier that's really important to like, well, what's the bear case? There's still a wall of worry. It's not like there's investor euphoria. You know, the quantum names notwithstanding, we talk about like s taxes. Report from Schwab. Bank of America has a chart showing that retail, institutional and hedge fund clients were all sellers last week. And if you look at the four week average, they're barely in. People aren't like piling into the market.

[B]

It is weird. Okay, here's, here's the opposite side. I feel like we could do this back and forth thing. So this one from Gungeon on Twitter, she says the Number of leveraged ETFs has doubled over the last three years and assets under management have almost tripled since 2022 alone.

[A]

This is, but to me, this is not proof of anything other than people like to speculate and it's a lot easier for them to do so. Now, it is obviously true that risk appetite increases in a bear market and in a bull market, obviously. But this in and of itself, okay.

[B]

Yeah, people, this is why it's harder to handicap now because there's so many degenerates out there. Howard Lindsay calls this like the degenerate economy. Now, people who have taken the sports betting, event betting thing to the stock market and they're just trading their faces off with leverage ETFs and options and single stock ETFs and all this stuff. And that's just kind of part of the game now. All right, so Jason Zweig wrote a good piece about Jonathan Clements, just a review, and talked about his. Their working relationship and their friendship and all this stuff. And I thought this was an interesting point Jason made on how things have changed and why behavior is better and, and I think why we can separate the fact that there are still some degenerate people from the fact that most people are way more well behaved. So he says he's talking about how different things were in the 90s and 2000s. He said, in today's investing landscape where you can own the entire stock market for 3 basis points in total annual costs, it seems incredible that investors used to be told index funds are for losers. Mutual funds sold by brokers charging commissions of at least 5% outperform funds that don't charge commissions at all. Investments with high annual expenses outperform those with low costs. Newsletters and market timing services can beat the market. You always need more insurance coverage, no matter who you are. High cost annuities are the key to a safe retirement. Paying commissions for financial advice is better than paying an annual or hourly fee. Individual investors are the dumb money. And he said, Jonathan, when he started for the Journal, like those were treated as gospel. And I totally remember coming up in the business and people saying that index funds are for losers. Who wants to be average, right? And I think just the fact that people now know that this is all garbage. Most investors recognize the fact that this stuff like that is if you just take away that stuff, that whole gospel that people can actually. Because the problem is people in the past couldn't really look this stuff up. It was like, hey, I got a guy, he's got a name on the door. He's telling me this is gospel. So it's gospel to me. Now people can look this stuff up and know that's part of the reason that behavior is so much better.

[A]

This is the era of retail investors dominance and it's not gonna last forever, but so long as their favorite names keep going up, party well.

[B]

And the fact that so many people now just decided, I'm gonna buy index funds and ETFs, I'm not gonna try to. Some people still are, obviously, and a lot of those people are beating it. But most people have said, I'm excusing myself from the game, I'm done. I'm not going to pay fees, I'm not going to try to time the.

[A]

Market it depends by age cohort. Because the young people are not saying that.

[B]

Yeah, but they're saying it with 80% of their money. Right. And then 20. There. If you look at the. Just the flows alone, think about it. The most popular ETF is Voo, the Vanguard S P500 ETF. It's bringing in more money than any ETF in history.

[A]

Yep.

[B]

Right. If you look just at the flows, it's. It's not Robin Hood, it's Vanguard.

[A]

It's both, but point taken. All right, so this is fl. This is floating around.

[B]

Vanguard has $7 trillion in assets. Robin Hood has what? I don't know what Robinhood's total is. Yeah.

[A]

I don't know what I'm going to guess. 200 billion.

[B]

I mean, hundreds of billions. Yeah.

[A]

All right, so I saw this floating around Twitter over the weekend. SHIELD Mano tweeted, there is a woman in San Francisco who charges 30k to name your baby. She started at $100, but she was going to. Going to dinner with VCs, and a friend told her to charge more. Nobody blinked. The Bay Area might be the best place in the world for this kind. So I saw this floating around Twitter. Not just. Not just from SHIELD but other people were sharing it as well. So I wanted to read the story to find out what's going on here. And I couldn't read the story because I was locked out of an article. So I googled it, and it turns out. Ben.

[B]

No, no, no. You put it in the chat. GPT say, summarize this for me, and it'll do it.

[A]

Oh, even if there's paywall Sometimes.

[B]

Sometimes. But then it'll go. If it's still paywall, they'll look for it elsewhere.

[A]

Okay, Good stuff.

[B]

That's what I.

[A]

All right. Anyway, Ben, it turns out. So people are like, top, Top. How is the Fed cutting rates? Stop. Guess what. I Googled it. Here's the. Here's the. Here's what came up. Wacky World of baby Names. Guess how much mine costs. Taylor Humphrey can find your baby. Okay. For $30,000. This. This story first came out in October 2023.

[B]

Ah. Okay. So people are reusing the. The rage bait.

[A]

I guess people thought it was fresh. It's not fresh.

[B]

Also, I am very good at. I could do this for less than 30k. I could be a consultant at this. Here's what you do. There is baby name things where you can look at baby name trends by years. So you type whatever name you're looking for, and you try to Find one that's not popular anymore that no one else has. That's how we.

[A]

Oh, so you would set the trend.

[B]

Yeah, but you pick old names. That was our thesis, is you pick old names.

[A]

I feel like Libby is a popular name.

[B]

No, well, yeah, that, I guess that one went against. But yeah, George and Kate were the other ones that, that people don't use anymore. Like if you wanted to go against a grain, you're doing Ashley or Jennifer or one of those like 90s. No one uses any. Yes.

[A]

You know, it didn't occur to me until just now, but George and Kate plus eight. Remember that show? Oh yeah, I'm sure you've gotten that a lot.

[B]

Actually we haven't. But really you're the first one. Yeah.

[A]

Okay. All right. So Heather Long, we got some economic data last week. Wow. Final read on Q2. GDP is 3.8%. Consumption was 2 1/2%. Both goods and services spending was healthy. The US consumer remained a lot stronger than many thought. Even the midst of the stock market sell off and a lot of trade uncertainty. I for one can't believe it. I thought that there was going to be some sort of retrenching. And I'm talking at the aggregate level. I know, you know, at the lower level there certainly is. But I'm surprised that it didn't really seem to slow us down at all. And I wonder, Ben, did the Fed make a mistake? So we were on the case of the housing market is frozen. Seems a little restrictive. Let's loosen it up. Let's get the housing market activity going. It's a third of the economy. But I don't know, maybe I'm second guessing myself. Like should we be cutting into a capex super cycle with inflation potentially re accelerating, is that the right move?

[B]

I think the labor market is the thing that worries them the most. But to your point, I pulled this up from exhibit A was on today. The GDP now for this upcoming quarter is 3.9% again, which you're right, it's kind of insane that growth keeps coming in and I don't know, I still think the. Why should we punish the housing market because Mark Zuckerberg wants to spend a bunch of money on AI? I don't know if I think I'd take the housing market side over Zuckerberg in that scenario.

[A]

All right, when you frame it that way, here's a headline from Bloomberg. Rich people feel pretty good right now. And they showed the Daily Consumer Sentiment Index which we're going to talk about later. I've got questions. They broke it, that break it down to income level and there's just a big gap between people that make over $100,000 and everybody else is really the TLDR makes sense.

[B]

Right. So I saw this, this other chart you put in here that shows how people making 100k or more their, their sentiment essentially tracks the stock market.

[A]

That's a good chart.

[B]

That's a very good chart and that makes a lot of sense. So I, I updated this, I've done this before. The household and housing ownership. So 87%, the top 10% owns 87% of the stock market and then the bottom 90% owns like 55% of the housing market. So the middle class housing is the thing. So the fact that housing is stuck right now and kind of prices, I know prices are still going up a little bit and all time highs in housing prices but it's certainly cooled off obviously and the stock market hasn't. So the fact that the lower and bottom tier housing is their big asset but the top 10% stock market is their big asset. It makes sense why this is the case for sentiment reasons and financial reasons. Right. This is why we're never going to fix inequality though in this country. It's, it's a, it's a feature, not a bug of this system. The fact that the stock market is so important and powerful now for so many more people. Like think about it, 62% of people own stocks in this country. Right. Like I think the stock market is just so much like you couldn't have the Great Depression happen today because back then 2% of households own stocks and it didn't really matter that much. We wouldn't allow it to happen today. We wouldn't let the stock market fall 80%. It would never happen.

[A]

No, no, no. The, the no would not happen. You know, looking back on the period of 2021 and there was a lot of finger pointing at Robinhood, people were upset about game turning the, the investing which would be a long term boring endeavor into and people hate to make confetti. Guess what? God bless Robinhood. Like I, I think that with the benefit of hindsight, where I landed is more people in the market, the more the better. Now caveats abound. Obviously people got wrecked and obviously people are irresponsible. That's nothing with Robin.

[B]

But they brought millions of new investors into the stock market.

[A]

Who, who, who learned that oh, I can make money in the stock market. And again, short term lessons notwithstanding, like whatever, over the long term owning stocks is a Good thing. Getting people in the market is a good thing. Hard stop.

[B]

Yeah, okay, true, but, but, but the fact that it's so much more important now just mean the rich will continue to get richer because they have a greater share of the stock market. So like, well, there's that. We're literally never going to solve wealth inequality. Let's be honest with ourselves.

[A]

Yeah. All right, so somebody emailed us a few weeks back. So we read a tweet that 40% of the mortgages that banks hold are adjustable rates. Somebody said that's nonsense. He said US banks are the single largest entity of holders of mortgages and mortgage backed securities. Around $2 trillion worth of that amount. That is not a fixed rate agency, mbs. The rest is raw mortgage loans that the bank originated and decided to keep. The raw loan on their balance sheet held, quote held for investment as opposed to selling that loan to Fanny and Freddy. So why is almost half of those raw loans held in arms? It's because an ARM loan has about a zero interest rate duration risk for the bank. The bank gets to hold that loan with a yield of full 5% and have a limited duration risk. It's a homer for the bank.

[B]

So they're offloading the other mortgages and holding onto the arms and that's why it's such a big percentage from them.

[A]

Correct.

[B]

And other people own the other mortgages besides banks where arms as a total are like 5 to 10% or something.

[A]

So he, he also said, side note, the people taking out arms today are the rich people. It's not the people that can't afford it. It's the people that say, I'm good, I just need the house. Like I don't.

[B]

Right, right. Yeah, right. I don't need to, I don't need to pay my loan down. I don't care.

[A]

He said this kind of borrower is about, is about a less than 1% chance of default rate. So the banks love holding that rate. So anyway, this guy said he finished with Mike. We need more updates on your selling and buying your house. How was it dealing with agents? Did you pay a buyer's agent fee? Any inspection stories go?

[B]

Yeah. Don't you have to like bring your own lawyer in in New York to buy a house or something? Yeah, we don't do that here.

[A]

No lawyers?

[B]

No, I've never, I've never hired a lawyer for anything in my life. Not once.

[A]

What about the contract?

[B]

That's what realtor's for. Why do I need a lawyer?

[A]

Realtors don't do Contracts, do they?

[B]

Yeah, they do. And then the closing office. I don't have a lawyer for when I buy and sell a house.

[A]

Hey, before I get to this. So I have a decent story, I suppose. What are the rules with. All right, I'm the new guy on the block. How long does the window stay open of me introducing myself? Because eventually it slams shut. Like. And I don't know where the line is, but in my old house, and I was there for six years, there's people that didn't say hi to, for. For. For three months or six months. What? And then it's over. You can't. You can't introduce yourself somebody a year after you've been at the block.

[B]

Yeah, no, you just. You. You. As you drive by him, you wave. That's it.

[A]

So big wave guy. Robin's like, oh, you're a big wave guy.

[B]

Yeah, I want to wave every time, too. You have to. Yeah, yeah, of course. But no, I think you. You put it off for as long as you can. You don't. You don't want to have those conversations unless it's like, forced upon you.

[A]

No, you gotta introduce yourself.

[B]

Nah, never. Okay, now if we did. But it was mostly when we moved in, people coming to us to say hi.

[A]

You know, I got caught in one of these awkward situations. I remember this vividly because it was just so uncomfortable. So I remember in Park Slope, I would. I would strap cobra to my chest and take him to daycare, and there was a dad that we would get there at the same time every day. And, like, maybe I had felt like six months, a year into it. I don't know. It was a long time. Way past the appropriate time of introducing yourself. So I had my Bose headphones on, my noise canceling headphones over the ears once, and I took him off to introduce myself. And I think as soon as I did that, he, like, turned his body half a turn, and so I, like, missed him. And then I just. I'm standing there with my headphones off and waiting to. But he. We missed each other. And it just was. I was very uncomfortable.

[B]

That's very good etiquette, though. Whenever you see. Talk to someone, take your headphones out of your ears. I see people talking with the. Like, I. If I have some in, I'm listening to something in the store and I see something, I immediately take them out.

[A]

Yeah, of course, it's very obnoxious not to.

[B]

Okay, so what was. What was your experience like buying and selling a house?

[A]

Not to bore listeners to death on the buy side, nothing too dramatic. On the sell side, I only got two offers, which is interesting because I had, I had a, a nice house in my neighborhood. Not to brag, and there's just not a lot on the market. But the problem is like interest rates just destroyed demand as, as we know. Obviously. The good news is I only needed one offer to accept, and I accepted it.

[B]

Okay, so let's say your house sat on the market for two to four weeks and it got like, to crunch time where, like, would you have been willing to lower the price pretty aggressively to sell it?

[A]

Yeah, I had to sell it.

[B]

You'd have to buy a new house.

[A]

I'd sell it. All right, so, so here's, here's maybe the, for the financial part of this audience, an interesting story. So originally, so I got very lucky that I sold my Long beach house and my house at the same time. I was going to take all the proceeds and put it into the house and do an interest only loan. Because if I put down, let's say, half the value of the home, I don't. How much more equity do I need in my house? Like, I just, you know, I was attracted by the low interest rate. The guy at bank of America who is phenomenal by the way, if anybody.

[B]

I feel like when you, when you buy a new home and sell another one, that's when you realize that like, oh, this equity, it's good for a down payment for a new place, but other than that, why do I need so much in it, right? What's the point? That's the same feeling I had when I sold my.

[A]

So I was going to get a 5% arm. And he said, hey, listen, I just want to throw this out there because you're getting a jumbo loan for $900, you can do a rate modification, which is effectively a refinance. The difference is I don't have to submit all of the documents, which is a huge pain in the A right, like documents for days. And I don't have to do any closing costs or any taxes. It's just $900 and every 25 basis points. I could do the rate modification as many times as I want for $900. So I said, huh, that does sound attractive. So I'm like, all right, so what is the 30 year, what's the 30 year mortgage rate today? And every day he's like, hey, it's still 6%. But what was moving every day was the closing cost credit they were going to give me. So he would say, all right, it's 6% with $4,000. Next day, 6% with 11,000. Next day, 6 percent with 7,000. So I said, hey, how do I. Why are the closing costs moving around so much? Like, how do I get more of that? He said, well, the maximum amount that we would give you is 2% of the value of the home. I said, Holy shit, 2% of the value of the home. What do I have to do to get that? He said, you have to accept a higher interest rate. Okay, how much? 6.5%. So I said to him, let me ask you a stupid question. Can I do that and then still do the rate modification after my first mortgage payment? He said, yes. I said, really? What? Like, why would the bank allow that? Doesn't make any sense. Because rates are going to come down, right? He's like, yeah. So I said, so why would you do that? Why would the bank allow that? He said, because in the last couple of years, a lot of people that did that thinking rates were to come down, got stuck. So it's not like a guarantee that rates are going to come down. He goes, you're gambling. I think it's a smart gamble. I said, so do I.

[B]

So you're effectively a bond trader right now.

[A]

I'm a bond trader.

[B]

You're trading.

[A]

And I might be the best mortgage backed security trader of all time because I got the 2% against my closing credits. And he called me last week, he said he got good news for you. I was 6.5% now 5.375. Huge.

[B]

Why did it drop so much?

[A]

Interest rates came down, the tenure came down. Pretty, pretty good.

[B]

It's a massive drop though. You timed it pretty good.

[A]

Yeah, so I got very lucky there. But anyway, I'm looking at like the, the documents and the amortization schedule and how much principal I'm going to be paying. I'm sorry, how much interest I'm going to be paying? Nobody makes, nobody actually makes money on a house when you say, oh, I bought it for my parents, bought it for $125 and they sold it for 800. Okay, well how much should they actually pay? Because it's not the sticker price, right?

[B]

The ancillary costs, all that stuff. Yes, I'm convinced no one actually has any idea what the return of their house is because no one keeps track of everything involved in the buying and selling. And you can't tell what you would pay for rent somewhere. And it's an impossible calculation to make.

[A]

No one knows. So this is not a popular thing. To say out loud, but I almost wonder if a lot of people that wanted to buy a house who otherwise invested it in the market and rented are actually in a much better position.

[B]

I made this point to you like a month ago. You don't remember that?

[A]

Yeah, great point. Now, the obvious caveat is that if you outgrew your apartment because you have two kids and you need to be in a house. Horrific, right? Like awful, awful.

[B]

It's a lifestyle choice for most people. That's the thing. It's not an investment.

[A]

Awful, awful, awful. But the people that are not in that situation who were going to buy a house just because they thought that that's like what you do. Not only did they not touch a bullet, but maybe they benefited.

[B]

Yeah. They could be in a better spot. I think so too. All right, Anything else from your home? You're good.

[A]

No, I just want to let the listeners know that maybe there's some oversharing that needs to get edited out. But otherwise. Otherwise video.

[B]

Business Insider had this piece on Nepo home buyers and this is, this is really surprising me. It's a share of buyers with financial help from their family or friends. And it's been going down. Actually, I don't believe that for first time home buyers too, and all buyers, it's been going down for the past five years or so. And then they look at the down, down payments.

[A]

Hang on, where's the data coming from? How could you prove that somebody's getting.

[B]

National association of Realtors has a huge report they do on this.

[A]

But how could, how do they get the data?

[B]

Is it a survey, obviously? Yeah, I think it's a pretty big survey they've been doing for 25 years.

[A]

Well, if true. If true. Wow.

[B]

It's surprising, right? I would have thought for sure this number would have been going way higher. It was higher coming out of the great financial crisis, which, that makes more sense to me. So you know what this tells you? The people who are buying homes are, this is more wealth inequality at work, are doing fine financially and can afford it. Even though it's more expensive, they can afford it. So like the, the profile of the buyer is in a very good place right now.

[A]

It is also weird I mentioned earlier, like intellectual superiority, people saying, oh, you shouldn't buy this. There is a lot of moral superiority going on about this whole topic of conversation around the economy where it's like a race to say, how fast can you say that the bottom 10% are getting left behind?

[B]

Right, right.

[A]

Is it? It is a weird sort of dynamic that's going on.

[B]

Yes. And when have we ever been in an economic environment when the bottom 10% wasn't getting left behind? That's just, that's the way like this economy works, right or wrong.

[A]

Now I think, I think everybody would agree that there is a lot of effed up stuff in this country and in wealth inequality and the fact that people go hungry is like, makes no sense at all. I think everybody would agree with that. But it's just this weird thing how, like when, when discussing how things are pretty good, there's like these people that always feel the need to point out that inflation is hurting the bottom 10%.

[B]

You also have to remember though that not everyone stays in the bottom 10, 20, 30, 50%. People move up and down. Income, wealth stratas. It's not, it's not set in stone forever. It feels like it is, but it's not. All right. Bloomberg had this big piece on private equity. Did you read this?

[A]

Not yet.

[B]

Here's the headline. Some PE firms doomed to fail as High Flying industry loses its way. Now they're saying the fact that distributions have slowed so much is causing a real problem. So they said, I buy that at the current rate, it would take about nine years for customers to collect their money from more than 12,000 companies held by U.S. buyout funds, according to Pitchbook.

[A]

That sounds like a weird data point.

[B]

Well, it's just saying if the distributions continue at the current pace, it would take a very long time for them to get their money back. So that's saying that's making them very reluctant to give more to the firm. So they said private equity funds right now are seeking $3.3 trillion in new fund commitments. And so they're saying, how are they going to get these investors to commit to new funds when their old ones are pinging back so slow? And this is of course why we're moving into RAs.

[A]

And I think we'd all, we don't, we'd all like to solve the puzzle. Wealth management.

[B]

So here's the thing though. They said at mid year, so this is the reason why this is not a crisis or it won't, it won't develop like a crisis. It'll just be a slow moving train. At mid year, the industry was holding about $1.2 trillion for potential deals, almost a quarter of that pledged at least four years ago, making deployment even more urgent. Like they're sitting on such a war chest of capital like that they can keep shoring up these companies if they want to keep them alive.

[A]

And how many distressed funds have been raised that have been able to allocate.

[B]

Right, right. Waiting for the distress to happen, like.

[A]

Fantasize everything burning to the ground. Have you not learned anything? That's not how it works. No, they change. They change the rules.

[B]

Right. People are incentivized to keep things going.

[A]

Yeah, that's not, it doesn't just.

[B]

And that's what, you know, that's what these companies do too, though. What I realized when I was first investing in these things with my old endowment is if the investment fund, if the investment period is seven years, they have this legalese in the, in the fine print that says, hey, we can extend it to 10 years if you guys say yes. And guess what they do? They extend it.

[A]

Legalese is a funny word, right?

[B]

It is. So you're right. That's the point. They change the rules or they have the rules in the fine print that no one reads. So, yeah, it's not. Private equity is going to be lower returns, not, not some crisis that people. You're like, want to see the world burn.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

So every time, I think we mentioned a couple weeks ago about people in America being so much richer than other countries, and every time we do it, someone says, well, it's okay if people in other countries aren't as rich as is Americans because they get free health care and their education is much cheaper and all this other stuff. Well, here is a piece from the Telegraph in the UK and it's called why American Families Are so Much Richer Than Us. And so guess what? They're not. They're. They don't care over there. And this is in the UK, roughly 4 in 10 US households had leftover earnings after tax of at least £70,000 last year in the UK, just 10% of households at that much. Did you know that for percent, instead of using the little squiggly, the circles in the line, they say PC for percent in the uk?

[A]

I did not. But wait, that's interesting.

[B]

Right.

[A]

It's way higher than I would have thought. Four in 10 U.S. households had leftover earnings after tax of at least 70,000.

[B]

Yes. So that's disposable income. And they say the top 10% of disposable income in the US is 153,000 pounds and 71,000 pounds in the UK. The top 5% by income in the UK is 120 grand. So we really are just so much richer than these other countries. Even if you factored in the health care, student loan, other stuff, the disposable income is so much higher in the US than it is in other countries.

[A]

Wow. But are we happier, Ben?

[B]

No, not at all. Look at this chart. That shows the top 10% adjusted for inflation in the US versus the UK.

[A]

All right, so that's the stock market.

[B]

Yeah, that's probably. You're probably right. So they say the average earner in the poorest state in America, which is Mississippi, is now substantially better off than their British counterpart. It's wild.

[A]

Wow.

[B]

Oh, wait. Okay. Oh, you got something.

[A]

I mean, I'm looking at the travel section. Is this true?

[B]

Yeah, I was going to give a travel thing. So I flew back from Calgary last year, my week, my trip at Banff. And after we had the podcast, I went and explored and I was sending you pictures and stuff, and it's one of the most beautiful places I've ever seen. Which, yeah, it's funny because everyone, all the Canadians there from Calgary and the surrounding area in Vancouver and such were saying, like, it's fun. It's really nice to see someone who's never been here before to see it through their eyes because we kind of take it for granted, like everything in life, right? They're like, I was, I was completely blown away by the Canadian Rockies. And Banff was probably one of the most beautiful little towns I've ever seen. And they were like, yeah, we, we kind of take it for granted because we're just so used to it, which makes sense. So it's like an hour and a half trip from Banff to the Calgary airport. So I got. They're way early, way earlier than I should have just to give myself time with, you know, getting my car. So I had two hours to kill in the morning. And I looked up, I looked at the sign and they had this brand new lounge and it said, if you have an American Express, whatever, platinum or gold or whatever one I have, you can get in here. So. All right, I. I don't like the food choices out here for breakfast. I'm going to go see what they got in there. And. First time I've ever set foot in an airport lounge. And I don't care. I'm not going to do it again. Not worth it. I had to wait in line to get in there. The place was full of people. The food wasn't that good. It was it. I would much rather find a corner of the airport away from all people, be by myself, than sit in an airport lounge that's overflowing with people.

[A]

Okay. Not a, not a surprising take, not, not worth it. At all. Not surprising at all. All right.

[B]

It was nice and like, I'm sure people love the free food, but it was overrated experience. It's not worth waiting in the line for.

[A]

All right, one. One more. One more plug. In addition to people from Charlotte hitting us up is we now have a podcast for Talking wealth, which is. Which are episodes for advisors. Heretofore. It had only been on YouTube. Did I use that right?

[B]

I think so. Yep.

[A]

It had only been on YouTube. We are now moving it to the podcast realm, which makes a lot of sense.

[B]

A lot of people ask for this.

[A]

Yeah, it's been. It's been a long time coming.

[B]

At least three people.

[A]

No, no, there's four.

[B]

I'm kidding. Yes.

[A]

I was also kidding.

[B]

Yeah. And we'll be doing more with this channel, I think in the. We've already ramped it up a lot. And so. Yes, take a look. All right. Recommendations.

[A]

So did you read 112263 or did he listen to it?

[B]

Okay, So I read 1120.

[A]

I love that book. Love.

[B]

Okay, you read it. Okay. So we mentioned Stephen King a couple months ago and someone said, okay, instead of reading a horror type movie, read 1122 63. That's a good entrance for Ben into Stephen King. So I read it and I had a 3 1/2 hour flight from Detroit to Calgary both ways. And I didn't watch one movie. I read the book the whole way. Wow. And I just think that the time travel aspect, if you gave people the ability to. I think this is on Total Recall. If you gave people the ability to like plug into an AI and time travel back to like the 50s or 60s or 80s or 90s, how many millions of people would sign up for that today? Like, the way that he describes what it would be, what it was like going from. I think this book started. Took place in 2011 and going back to the 1960s. And his description of it, I thought was really good to think through, like how that experience would be like, and what it. How it would shape you and the differences. And it was just. It's really good. And I thought, man, this would make a killer Netflix show. And I looked it up. It was already a Hulu show. I had no idea with James Franco bombed in like 2016. It had an 8.1 on IMDb. I'm gonna try it out. I never heard that it came out even.

[A]

Oh, me either. So did he finish the book?

[B]

I did. It's very good. I just finished it last night.

[A]

Really good.

[B]

Yeah, I didn't I didn't realize you. Yeah, here's the thing. I'm not gonna listen to non. I'm not gonna listen to fiction on my audible. I'm only gonna read. Listen to nonfiction. That's. It's too weird to listen to someone do the voices and stuff, you know? I don't know. Okay. Friends with Kids. This is a movie from 2011. I must be in the 2011 phase. Not a great movie. It's the kind of movie they don't make anymore. I rewatched it this week on Amazon Prime. Here's the cast. Adam Scott. Jennifer Westfeld wrote and directed it. She's Jon Hamm's ex partner. Maya Rudolph. Chris o', Dowd, who's pretty funny. Chris and Wiig. Jon Hamm. Really good cast. It's like a 2010s kind of movie they don't make anymore.

[A]

Never heard of it.

[B]

They kind of nail the whole dynamic of how your life changes when you have kids. And there's always the one couple who's super duper miserable and not happy with each other anymore because they had kids. I thought the dynamic of having kids. They really sort of nailed that movie. It's like a 6.5.

[A]

Okay, good. Airplane.

[B]

If they got it.

[A]

I got nothing new.

[B]

No movies or. How did you get to Boston?

[A]

Well, the flight is 30 minutes, but I've. I did work on the flight. The last movie I saw in the theater was Weapons. I want to see the PTA movie. It's getting rave reviews.

[B]

But here's the thing, though. I haven't seen it yet. Obviously we. You can't trust film people anymore because every time.

[A]

It's universal.

[B]

I know, but every time Paul Thomas Anderson comes out with a new movie, they say it's the greatest thing ever. Like licorice pizza was stunk out loud. That movie was terrible. Has anyone ever watched it more than once? I would venture to guess. No.

[A]

Sean. Credit to me. I haven't seen it once and I.

[B]

Never will, I'm sure, because. Because Leonardo DiCaprio's in it. I'm sure this new one will be good. But you can't trust film critics anymore because they just say everything is amazing and there's. There's no critic. There are no critical elements to it anymore. Film critics are permeables.

[A]

That's not true.

[B]

It's true. I'll see it when it comes out on streaming. Sorry. I'll wait for it.

[A]

Okay. What else? Anything else?

[B]

Nope. Talking wealth. Email us if you want to work with us in Charlotte. Have fun in Boston. Animalspiritscompoundnews.com thanks to the production team, as always, they're with Michael in house today on the road. Yeah, we had more technical difficulties than ever because the whole production team was there. Thanks, guys. All right, see you next time.