Animal Spirits Podcast - 25 Million New Brokerage Accounts (EP.240)

Episode Date: January 19, 2022

On this week's show we discuss the retail investor takeover of the stock market, ARKK's performance woes, the impact of higher mortgage rates on the housing market, peak Silicon Valley and more. Find complete shownotes on our blogs... Ben Carlson’s A Wealth of Common Sense Michael Batnick’s The Irrelevant Investor Like us on Facebook And feel free to shoot us an email at [e-mail] with any feedback, questions, recommendations, or ideas for future topics of conversation. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Today's Animal Spirits is brought to you by our friends at Y charts. When I first started in the industry, I was a performance analyst. I used to have to calculate a lot of this stuff by hand, the returns and stuff. I didn't have Y charts back in the day. So we're going to talk about ARC today, the hot fund in everyone's mind these days. I looked back, going back to Inception, I think it's 2014 for ARC. I looked at total returns, then you can just click on a simple button on Y charts and annualize them. So this is through February 2021.

ARC was outperforming the NASDAQ100 index, the QQQETA. Wait, how is this news to me? I didn't know that there's an annualized button. If you do the little drop-down, you can do an annualized button. You can add recession bars in there, all this stuff. So I did it. Since inception, Arc is up 23% per year. Wow.

Which sounds awesome until you remember that as of 11 months ago, they're up 40% per year since inception. Wow. That's what a 50% draveled. So we're going to talk about that a little today. I think there's a lot of grave dancing on them. I want to put a little more context on it. I don't think it's as bad as people think, but this chart here that we got with Arc versus QQQ, 11 months ago it was outperforming by 500% in total.

Now it's outperforming by 30%. Wow. That's quite a relative. So, anyway, go to Y charts. If you want to figure this out, Michael might need another tutorial, I guess. Tell them Animal Spirit sent to you and get 20% off on your initial subscription when you sign up. 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. Michael Battenick and Ben Carlson work for Ritt Holt's Wealth Management. All opinions expressed by Michael and Ben or any podcast guests are solely their own opinions and do not reflect the opinion of Ritt Holt's Wealth Management.

This podcast is for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon for investment decisions. Clients of Ritthold's wealth management may maintain positions in the securities discussed in this podcast. Welcome to Animal Spirits with Michael and Ben. Michael, when we first started talking

about the retail takeover of the market, markets in 2020. The whole idea from a lot of people was, well, there's nothing else to do. People are bored. There's no sports. People have to pay attention to something. The stock market is the easy thing here. And when things open back up and people start traveling and doing stuff and you can bet on sports, this stuff will surely subside. Well, that stuff has happened and it still hasn't happened yet. So this is, Wall Street Journal had a article about the takeover retail. They said there was 10 million new brokerage accounts open in 2020. Then in 2021, there was 15 million new brokerage accounts opened up. At a peak in the last year, JPMorgan estimates that the number of

shares traded on individual day from retail investors was 40% on peak days. Most of the time, they said it's like a third of active daily trading volume, which is a huge, huge number for individuals. Usually it's all the professionals carrying the day with everything. Not only as the economy reopened, although to different degrees, depending on where you are, where you work, et cetera, but a lot of the names, obviously, that we've been talking about for the past few months that these traders were feasting on in 2020 and 2021 have collapsed and they didn't disappear. Why? Credit to me. I have been saying that people don't get unaddicted to trading. And I think that these apps and trading in general is very addictive. And investing,

I think if you just start to see a little bit of progress, even though last year made have undone that for people. They said in, this is the Vanda research, Vanda track. I think you've used them before, right? So they said in 2021, retail investors purchased almost $300 billion worth of stocks and exchange traded funds seven times more than the amount in 2019. Wow. And they said that 2020. I bet it's like a hundred times more. I got to be honest, this does surprise me a little bit that it's stayed. We've had the follow through of people. And I think hopefully that's a good, because a lot of people have been worried the whole time saying, well, they're just on Robin Hood and they're addicted and they're playing around. And everything's going up. It was very easy to make

the case that these people would disappear once the Zooms of the world stopped going vertical. They did stop going vertical. They didn't disappear. I'd be curious. I know VandaTrak does this data where they track individual investors and what they're buying, what they're selling. If they're not still trying to buy the dips in growth stocks, which I'm guessing they've moved on, I guess, to different degrees, what are they buying now? Because I have a hard time seeing the average retail investor. And I have this image in my head. I think the stereotype we all do, even understand that they're not all crazed maniacs.

Like, not everybody is buying options and day trading. And that's definitely a broad generalization. But the people that are trading, are they buying energies stocks? Are they buying financial stocks? Like, are they buying these names? I don't know. They were buying ARC as well. You know, is that a 52 week high last week?

Pepsi. What's that? I can't imagine that they're buying Pepsi. No, exactly. They're probably not buying ARC as much either. We've talked about this. I feel like this has kind of reached a crescendo of people dancing on the grave of Kathy Wood. Can I jump in there?

I think that even though it's a very poor taste, I think that some of it, I'm definitely not saying that they asked for it. But in a way, some of it they asked for. Specifically, that commercial in October 2021, three months before they peaked, where they were basically bashing financial advisors for buying plenty of money. old, boring indexes. And we don't need to show the performance then since now. I think you get the idea. It's down almost 50% I guess from the highs in February. Again, this thing was outperforming the NASDAQ, as I said in the lead in by 500% in total since inception. And now it's like 30 in falling

fast. I still think it's impressive. They're up 20, like you say, oh, wow, that's like the meanest of all reversions. There's still up 23% since inception. I think that what we learned is that this is one case where every single financial prognosticator was right. Very unusual. A lot of people were saying at the peak, there's no way with the names that they're trading and these being like smaller and mid-cap names beyond Tesla that they're really known for, there's no way that so much money can go into this stuff without them harming it on the way out and seeing these, they just can't get that big. I think everybody wrote a post like this. I wrote, this is not the way in December 2020 about how easy it is for all of these investors. That was pretty close to

the peak. But anyway, I'm not taking a victory lap because literally every single person, with a substack or WordPress wrote the exact same article that this cannot continue indefinitely. So Jason Zagg wrote one on this too. The numbers are pretty insane. Well, there's two things here. One is that it's not necessarily a tidal weave. Balchunas had a chart showing the daily inflows and outflows. And Valchunas said, Arc with the biggest outflow sets March has seen half a billion out in the past two days. However, it took it about half a billion in three days prior. He said this in and out of flows match with over a billion dollars a day and volume of silver line for Arc shows more of a tug of a war than an exodus, as Balchun is predicted. But then

Jason Zweig shows, these are estimated net flows. It looks by month. And they're heading for the exits. So in this article, Jason told the story about money, weight of returns. And this is inevitable. This is definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely not Kathy Wood's fault or Arc's fault or anybody's fault. This is just what happens with investors. So they're talking about money weight of returns that they kick butt in 16, 17, 18, but the money didn't really start pouring in until 2020. So the assets tripled. This is an ARKK. Those don't surprise me. So he said that in 2016, there's $12 million in assets. 12 million. That's nothing. Even by the end of 2018, it had $1 billion. So the fact that it got to, what, $40 billion or something? And it happened so fast. Again,

you can't blame the portfolio manager for that. But when you get that much money, there's nothing you can do. And I think they've kind of trapped themselves because the right thing they do would probably been to close the fund. But they can't close an ETF, can they? I think you can close an ETF. You can't do that? No. No. Because it's traded secondarily. But even if you could close it, because she's saying that this opportunity set is so big

and they can do 40% per year, like you would have to assume that if the opportunity set is that big, that they could handle all these flows, which they obviously can't. Her style has migrated. Same premise, but they were in medium-sized names. And now they're in the biggest of the big, because when you get to $40 billion, you can't buy tiny names. So the fund assets triple to $6 billion between March and July 2020. from September 2020 through March 2021, Morningstar estimates that investors poured in $13 billion.

And as a result, Simon Lack estimates that ARC investors as a whole have lost money since it launched in 2014, even though the fund gained an average of more than 31% annualized over the past five years. And this is a chef's kiss quote from Simon Lack. He said they called this the unfortunate downside of human behavior, no matter how desperately you change. past performance, you will never catch it. That's pretty spot on. I guess for as crazy as things have been in the market, again, I don't appreciate the people like dancing in the grave. Not a good luck. Their performance has still been awesome. But this is one of the things where there's been so many things happening in the market these last five or six years of this cycle that just

make no sense. Whereas this, when you look historically, this is exactly what happens to every single one of these funds that gets too popular. You would have about that. It's honestly almost nice to see like a historical analogy actually work for once in the last five years. A good lesson is don't be a dick on the way up. And again, I'm not saying that Kathy Wood was a dick, but that commercial was a bit of a jab. It was a heat check. It was. Basically. I remember listening to Tramoth in 2020 or 21. I can't remember. Maybe it was with Patrick. He was on Patrick's podcast or some podcast. And he was like all these stupid value investors. And when you talk like that, you're putting a bull's eye on your back and hard to say that he doesn't deserve.

some of the heat that's being thrown his way. Okay, so you saw the thing by Asloath Demoterant, where he breaks down the market cap of the world stock market. This one is surprising to me. Bro, I think there's different ways to break it down because if you look at like a total stock market index of the world, the U.S. makes up 55% or so, something like that. And I think the way he showed it, it's more like 40% and I think some of it is a lot of these shares overseas don't get traded. But this surprised me. So he said, the United States is worth like, this is as of the end of last year, 2021, $52 trillion for the United States stock market. China is close to $19 or $20 trillion. That's way bigger than I would have anticipated. Even after it getting hit.

Yes. Isn't that kind of surprising to do? It's that big, especially since their performance has been so terrible and they seem to not want their huge tech stocks. They basically crashed them on purpose. I think we got an email recently. Why is China still consider an emerging market, even though they have one of the biggest economies, one of the biggest stock markets? And a lot of that has to do with the political infrastructure, obviously. They seem to not want high stock market returns, whereas we definitely do. They seem to want to put a cap on them for some reason. They don't want their own Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos over there.

Demoderin put four things in here, sort of some lessons or takeaways. I don't remember how we described them, but I wanted to go to them because I thought they were very interesting. He said, more data is not always better than less data. We as investors and analysts are drowning in data, and that data overload is now a more imminent danger than not having enough data. I think this is like the, you know the bell curve meme where it's like the genius, the moron and the overthinker in the middle?

Yeah. I think that's kind of what's going on here. Like how, unless you are like a high frequency trader or Renaissance or whatever, how much do you really need to know about a company before you're just going to start confusing yourself? Or the market or any strategy in general, I guess. To that point, number two, data does not always provide direction. As you work with data, you discover that it's messages. are almost always muddled and that estimates always come with ranges and standard errors.

You know that scene in Princess Bride where the guy is debating like, did you poison the wine? Did you not poison the wine? And he just talks himself into a circle. That's how I was this weekend, by the way, with my fan duel app. Can I tell you what happened? Betting stories are the worst, but just real quick, real quick. I don't mind betting stories as long as it's like a losing story. Those are the best.

It's a losing story. We'll not share any victories. It was a pre-packaged bet. So I opened the app for the 1 o'clock game on Saturday, and I see Mike Evans touched on at any time, Gronk touched on at any time, Brady over 270 passing yards, and Scotty Miller over eight and a half yards. So I said, yeah, I'll throw through. I would love to see how much money those apps make on parley. Throw a few shekels.

Those things are just losers every time. All I do is parley. I'll throw a few shekels here. By the way, I bet on every single game for the first touchdown scored, lost every single one. Of course. The odds are just too titillating. So anyway, that particular bet was 20-something to one. I put a few bucks down, and Scotty Miller had one catch for eight yards.

Every other one hit. The over-under for Scottie Miller was eight and a half yards. And as I saw that one catch, I'm like, I'm pretty sure that was nine yards. I'd like a replay. Pretty sure it was nine yards. Oh, man. This one from Demoder and I thought was also good. He said, mean version works until it doesn't.

someone sent us a John Husman piece, which I'm sure he's a nice guy. I don't know why people still read him because he's been saying the same thing since 2010. But they're asking us, what do you think about this? Because it said, if valuations go back to where they have from prior peaks to prior troughs, the S&P has to lose a minimum of 70%. And he's been saying something like this for the last like 13 years. I'm sorry. You know why this really grinds my gears? I remember, I think I was on my honeymoon in 2013. And I read this post from Henry Blodgett and I think Husman has been like his Sharpa. I don't know if I'm using the word properly, but has been his guide in terms of, like, why the market is going to crash.

Do you think Blodget is reinvesting his dividends yet? Remember, that was an all-time Twitter moment? It was like 2014, and he said he's worried about the stock market. He said, you know what? I'm going to keep investing, but I'm not going to reinvest my dividends. I'm not going to say anything. I know. You know, my mother always told me if you have nothing nice to say, don't say anything.

I'm not going to say anything. I did that. But that post pissed me off because I felt a little bit of, ooh, wait a minute, that got to me. I was a little bit nervous. But after reading that, and I think the reason why that stuck with me so severely as well, obviously, given what the market did, how could it not? But I could only imagine how many people read stuff like that and are still reading stuff like that and blow up their

portfolio, blow up their long-term returns, and just get totally corrupted and poisoned forever. I first read him in like 2010 or 2011 and I was like, this guy's the smartest guy in the world. Everything he says must be right. And he's been wrong every year and he just doubles down and doubles down and hopes that eventually betting on red every year is going to win. But the markets don't really work like that. So Sam Rowe had one on his ticker substack where he taught Goldman did this work on CAP ratio, which is probably essentially what husbands and I say thank you to Sam because he quoted me in that post. He called me a blogger extraordinaire. Never been called that before. I appreciate that. Very nice. I must have missed that. Goldman, this report just said, we've found

no statistical evidence of me or version in equity evaluations. He's like there's some upper bound where they can't reach infinity and there's some lower bound where they can't go below zero. anywhere in between there though there's no long-term mean that they revert to it's a moving target essentially by saying i'm going to wait until they come back to here whether it's lower or higher that just doesn't exist it doesn't exist i'm sure there are obvious answers to this i can't think off the top of my head so don't dunk on me in the comments but what are some things in nature that like by law of physics are mean reverting you asked me to do some science in the markets there's nothing that's the thing your range is so large that if you think like i'm going to get the

average in the middle, and then that's what I'm going to wait for. The markets don't work like that, unfortunately. It would be a lot easier if they did, but they don't. And that's why waiting for like a 70 or 80 percent crash in the S&P so we can get back to 10 times earnings. I don't know. I'll see you in like 2047 or whenever. All right. Last one from Demoderin. The consensus can be wrong. A few months ago, I made the mistake of watching money heist, a show on Netflix based upon its high audience ratings on Modern Tomatoes. And as I wasted hours on this abysmal show. I got a reminder that crowds can be wrong and sometimes woefully so. This struck a chord with me because my father will not stop talking about this show until I watch it.

Okay. I haven't watched it yet. He's right. I watched one episode and I'm like, this is horrible. Okay. I stopped. No offense to my dad, but I'm pretty sure that you and demoted him are right and he's wrong. But in fairness, because I do love him, I will try it. You know, it's another one that got me that a lot of people have been recommending forever to us. Loop in on Netflix. Loopin. I tried it for an episode. Nothing. It didn't do it for me. Hang on. Don't be that. guy. You can't write up a show after one episode. You could say it might not be for you. Do you know, sometimes you can tell just the tone of a show is not going to be for you personally? The overall tone. Totally, totally. That was it for me. The tone of that show didn't do it for me.

I watched the John Sina show, The Suicide Squad. I love that movie. Tons of fun. I watched the first episode, and I'm pretty sure I'm out. I could tell that from the poster for that one for me, but you're more of a comic book than I am. Even though I'm being hypocritical, I'm going against what I just said. my point is, you, sir, cannot say that a show is no good just because you watch one episode and didn't like it. What you can say, what you can say, you can say it's not for me and I'm out, but you can't cast judgments after one show.

That's why there's a difference between, I always say there's difference between best and favorite. If people would just, instead of saying this is the best show ever, say it's my favorite show ever, that solves it all. You just fixed the internet. That's no fun if you do that, though, right? Stop. Do you know how fast you were going?

I'm going to have to write you a ticket to my new movie, The Naked Gun. Liam Nissan. Buy your tickets now. And get a free Tilly Dog. Chilly Dog, not included. The naked gun. Tickets on sale now.

August 1st. Oh, I just want to say one more thing on this Demodran piece. We're going to link to this. The investor resources that are available today is remarkable. Ben, you said earlier in the show that you started your career calculating returns by hand. Demodron has this resource where he has these risk measures, beta, standard deviation in stock price, regression statistics. stuff like that, profitability, returns, cost of funding, financial leverage. And each of these has a hyperlink where you could download data and comb through all of this. None of this was

available back in the day. The amount of data now, it could be overwhelming to his point, but data overload. But the events, investor resources, there's no shortage of places to learn these days. I should update this. I did a post like five or six years ago, like my best free investment resources. And one of them was his. He just posts every single year, the calendar your returns for the S&P 500, the three-month T bill, which is effectively like a savings account or cash, the 10-year treasury bond, and then he also updated it to include real estate and like triple B corporate bonds. And he also adds the inflation rate in there. It's just annual returns. And I use that thing for my blog. Maybe once a week, it feels like once a month.

Really? I never use it. I should add that to my free resources list. It's just annual historical returns for stocks, bonds, cash, and real estate. And it's going to show like the growth of $100, of stuff. It's very useful. I use it all the time. Here's a good one I thought was worth reading. I want to mention, Michael and I did another appearance on Derek Thompson's plain English podcast. We talked a lot about the economy. What a thrill. Huh? What a thrill. We're regular. But I thought this post was a nice addition to what we were talking about. And it's by this guy, Darlo Perkins. And the name of the post is, hang on. Oh, don't extrapolate. The name of the post is, hang on. Don't extrapolate from this fake business cycle. The name of the

post is my internet's a little slow today. And he says, like, a lot of confusion of people who are trying to figure out where we are in the cycle. He's saying throw that out. Like, what inning are we in? Because he's basically saying the recession was fake. The recovery has been fake. It's kind of true. He's like, listen, we went into recession not because of some macro instability or some shock. It was chosen by policy makers. And so trying to say, are we early, mid, late cycle, whatever? He's like, you can't, you have to throw that all out the window. What year, maybe we spoke about this, maybe even recently, what year did Silicon Valley premiere. You know what year that was? 2014. You know what ending that was? The 13th.

Yeah. He also said, and we talked about this with Derek, he said, GDP in most parts of the world is roughly where it was expected to be in the absence of the panic. So people trying to say, we're overheating. He's like, compared to what? Yes, compared to a huge trough in spring of 2020. But compared to the trend line before, we're actually back where we were. So he's saying like this whole overheating, it's impossible to say because this was a manufactured economic cycle. And I believe that, too. So he's saying the risk is policymakers make a mistake based on this. When you just said the word trough, for some reason, I thought of the trough at a football stadium. One of the most barbaric things in the world is urinating into a trough. I did that one time

at Ralph Wilson Stadium, maybe 15 years ago, where the bills play. Just a totally inhumane experience. You ever been to a game at Wrigley Field before? At Wrigley, no. I mean, the trough is probably from 1915, the grossest thing you've ever seen in your life. Just. And when all the people and all the guys and the bleachers are seven beers deep, there's no aim. I mean, it's the grossest thing out. You know, Pittsburgh. I went to Heinz Field. They also do troughs, I believe.

Anyway, enough with the troughs. Retail sales missed. Not exactly sure what that's about, but dropped by 1.9% in December. Although, interestingly, still 17% year over year. Look at the chart I have in here on retail sales and tell me, like, if it shouldn't drop some. If GDP is back on trend, retail sales. sales is so far off trend. If mean reversion does exist, it should probably exist here. Yes.

This is so bananas, how high it is off of trend. I'm just staring at this chart because it's truly unbelievable. Yes. If you want to know why we have a supply shortage, like obviously there's pandemic related stuff and labor shortages, but this has got to account for like two thirds of it at least, just people spending so much money. Maybe the miss was because people shopped in advance of Christmas because there's of December numbers, probably too early for Omicron. But either way, looking at this chart, it's hard to get too worked up over this.

The great thing is about seasons is that you can always say, it's probably seasonal, because that sounds smart when you say, it's seasonal. Yeah, totally seasonal, totally seasonal. Blame it on this season. Somebody asked us, why is the housing market included in the inflation number, but not the stock market? What would inflation be if we included the S&P? Well, the reason why the S&P 500 and the stock market is not included in...

Inflation would be negative, because people are getting richer. Oh, good take. good take. Well, but if you use, like, how much does it cost to buy the stock market? Remember they used to do the comparison of hours of labor? That was a chart crime, I believe. But because it's called the consumer price index. And in my opinion, anyway, stocks should not be included in the consumer price index. It's not consumer prices. The caper issue is the inflation indicator of the stock market. How's that? Yeah, it wouldn't make sense. That's also why I keep coming back to this idea that the housing market for those who own a house, it makes inflation so weird because if you're

buying your first house, you're feeling big time inflation in housing because your rent probably went up as you were waiting and the cost of your first time home is way higher than it would have been. If you own a home, then it's up in value. So how is that inflation? Because it's worth more to you in your pocket. That's deflationary. The stock market would be a huge component of CPI if it was in there. It's interesting to think about half the country doesn't even own stocks. I guess Ben goes back to your point of inflation being very personal. National averages for these things are, don't throw them out the window because they are indicative of what's going on. I wrote a post this weekend about this. When it came out last week that the inflation was

7.1% or whatever it was, it's so funny because even when it's high, people say it's got to be higher because of this. And no, it's got to be lower because of this. And if we take used cars out, but if we add an owner's equivalent rent or whatever it is, the average is never going to be right for exactly even one household in the United States, probably. Because consumption patterns are so different in what you're focusing on and what your stage of life is, that that average is essentially worthless. And the only thing that matters is probably the trend. Because even if you took used cars out, so if 7% is inflation, 1% of that 7 is used cars. So it's still in new cars absurdly high. Yeah, that's the thing, the trend. So even if you took that out and used cars

weren't going crazy, it would be six, which is still higher in a trend going up. So I think that's the whole thing, even if you break down these components. But by the way, back when they didn't have this stuff to be able to break down in components, do you think people just didn't care or didn't know like the data was even happening? Like back in the 50s. Oh, no. They definitely know. They definitely know. Come on. They're not cavemen. Kind of though. You didn't have the internet. You didn't, I mean. You still went to the store. But you didn't have Twitter scrolling 30 seconds until the inflation number comes out. Like back then. But inflation was the story of the entire 1970s. Or I should say the biggest story. That on Watergate probably.

So don't tell me that it didn't matter. Or they didn't feel it. So speaking of inflation, I'll tee up here. How high would Netflix have to go for you to say, I'm out? All right. Let's get into this. Well, to answer your question, by the way, I've been a customer with Netflix since I was receiving DVDs in the mail from them. 2010? No, earlier than that, probably like 2005. I've been to Cuffs for Netflix for so long. When they gave me streaming, I remember saying, hey, we're going to attach streaming to your DVD thing. I was like, oh, cool, whatever. I care more about the DVDs. I'm getting four discs a weekend or something. I'd get like four or five Sopranos disc or whatever show I was watching.

It's fun to look back on Blockbuster. Blockbuster was not fun. When you, You would walk up and down the aisles for an hour trying to find something. You ended up picking out a bad movie. If you wanted to see The Gladiator because you missed it in the theater when it came out, there was like 15 of them and they were all gone by the time you got there. You'd have to go up to the desk and go, hey, did anyone return Gladiare yet? And the guy would have to source for them. Yeah, hold on. Let me say.

Yeah, it was horrible. Yeah, so it was awful. All right, so Netflix is raising prices. The company's standard plan will rise to 1550 per month from 14. They've raised prices throughout the years. There was one in 2017, then 2019. then 2020, now 2022. Here's the reason why Netflix is so much so worth it.

Even though sometimes, like, their TV shows, like, they've been lagging, I feel like and having high quality TV shows of late. They just go for, like, quantity or quality. I feel like whereas, like, HBO, you can know, like, almost every time it's going be good, but there's zero latency when you log on Netflix and you click on something. I have every streaming channel there is now. We talked about this the other day, watching 1883 on the Paramount Plus. Still can't find it.

I still can't find it. You get this bar across your screen as it's pre-rolling, and then you have to watch a commercial on there. you're paying for it. Showtime. I've been watching Yellow Jackets, which I want to get to in recommendations. There's no skip intro button on there yet. Still. And then when you go to roll in right to the next episode, they show you the highlights from the previous episodes. It's like, no, I'm binging this. I don't need to see the highlights. I just saw that episode. Whereas Netflix, everything is so seamless and they take all that junk out and just make it easy for you

to watch as much TV or movies as you possibly can. Like their quality is so much higher than any other streaming network channel. Oh, you mean the quality of their streaming? actual streaming. Yes. Okay. The user experience is by far the back. So I'm cherry picking here. But if you go back to the middle of 2018, which is, I don't know, almost four years ago, three and a half years ago, the stock hasn't done well. Since the middle of 2018, the cues are up 122%. The S&P's up like 80%. And Netflix, 43%. That's surprising to me, because I would have assumed they would have got a huge pandemic bump at least in 2020 that would have carried them through a little bit more. Well, 2020 was a monster year.

You're saying other than that, they didn't do much. Again, I'm definitely cherry-picking because prior to 2018, it went on like a miraculous run. And even if you zoom out over the 10-year numbers, the numbers are very good, I'm just saying for the past three and a half years, again, I'm cherry-picking. It's underperformed Disney, which has had a ton of its own problems. Yeah, it's also interesting that Disney hasn't done that much better because Disney Plus all came out in this time. So obviously the other stuff going on with their company has heard it as well. That is surprising. So 150 million Americans have Prime.

The last time they raised prices was four years ago when the price rose from 119 from 99. The prior increase was four years before that. This is from the New York Times, meaning that it might be time for another bump. And given that Netflix just did it, I wouldn't be surprised if Amazon goes as well. I feel like- Look at this renewal rate. It says their renewal rate over the last two years is 98%. No, no, no, no.

Prime members, people have been mentioned. members. Oh, who have been members of two years is 98%. Which is remarkable. But I do feel like this is less sticky than Netflix's. I feel like there is definitely a tipping point with Amazon where people are like, no, there are so many more competitors. Not for my household. We use Amazon Primes for everything. What would the price have to go up to? So let's say that it goes to 140. In. I'm like an auction guy right now. I'm just going to keep doing this. I'm going to keep bidding higher. I'm going to say like probably. Probably 200 is where I would start like me.

It's just really worth it. Okay. I would still pay, but you're right. Some people would. But there's also like there are a lot of other competitors that you and I and a lot of other people don't know about because we're just so comfortable with Amazon. And I still don't understand how they're getting stuff to you in a day with a lot of the delays that are going on all over the country.

There was something my wife ordered in the morning and was there by that same night. It is kind of crazy. How quickly it happened. All right. Let's just talk about crypto just for a minute. One of the coolest things about crypto, and you can't do this as stock market, obviously, is seeing the behavior of individual buyers and sellers. So, for example, Glass Node did a post a week or two ago.

One of the takeaways was only the holders remain. Like, you can see, you can't look at Apple and be like, wow, 20% of outstanding shares are held by people that have owned Apple since 2012. You can't do that. With crypto, you can. Okay, so what are they saying here? Do they have percentages or not? Yeah, it doesn't even matter.

But my point is that a lot of the newer money has been washed out. Okay, but the people who've been holding the whole time are obviously still not selling. Yeah, they don't sell. All right. How about this? Crypto, if we want to make people truly love Bitcoin, Satoshi has like how many trillions in Bitcoin now, billions or whatever. It's a ridiculous amount of money.

Why not airdrop that Bitcoin to like everyone who's in the bottom 25% of Americans? We're airdropping you, your fraction of Bitcoin to everyone. Creating a wallet for you, Satoshi hasn't touched that money anyway, whoever that is, he or she is, we're doing an airdrop of Bitcoin. Does Bitcoin immediately shoot up price by 20% because you have a bunch of new people in it and using it? I think it would have to be wrapped Bitcoin. I don't know what that mean.

Okay, well, maybe this is what. So I think that there's a lot of really like bad faith crypto takedowns these days. But I think it's legitimate to like have a gripe of the whole idea with crypto was, hey, financial intermediaries take way too much of a cut. Crypto is going to take care of that. And Matt Levine had this thing. He's like, I sometimes come across the claims that crypto will somehow disintermediate finance, that the decentralization of crypto puts the power and all of the economic benefits of crypto in the hands of ordinary people and gets rid of the need for Big Middleton like Citadel. He said these claims are crazy. There are endless profile pieces of people who become billionaires

starting crypto exchanges. He talks about the finance guy who's worth 96 billion. The Sam Bankman-Fried is like the richest 29-year-old in the world. Strong just bought $133 million house. So I think that idea that crypto was going to make everything cheaper obviously has not come to fruition. I don't know if we're... I think the point is there's always going to have to be a middleman in these markets to take a cut to make sure this happens faster and more seamless and probably especially in crypto because it's not that easy to use. I don't think they're ever going to be able to get rid of the middleman in some of this stuff for if we're talking about wide adoption. If you look at all of the accounts, and you

could see this on GlassNode, all of the Ethereum Bitcoin millionaires, there's tens of thousands of them, of people that, I don't know say that they were brought up from poverty, but in a lot of cases, people got rich very quickly that otherwise would have never, ever, ever, ever amassed this much money. And here's what I want to talk about, a lot of these takedowns. But don't you think they're all Silicon Valley people that are now? No, no, definitely not. I'd say 80% of them are.

They have to be. They would have been rich anyway they already were. Otherwise, how do they know about it? Like, how did you get into a bit? of that, but I don't want to say 80%, but whatever it is. You're right, of course. Okay, I'm torn on this one because on the one hand, I don't like the idea of judging something so prematurely that could be really a game changer. Take Netflix as an example. Maybe this is a bad example. It probably is a bad example. But if you look at Netflix, probably the House of Cards,

and you look at their streaming, you would say, this is dog shit. What are these like D-level movies from the 1990s? I didn't want to watch that. I don't want to watch now. Think about how bad Netflix was. Netflix did change the world. It really did. Think about what it did to the movie industry, the entertainment industry, like at large. It really did. But the difference is nobody, maybe read Hastings aside, the entire world wasn't saying that Netflix was going to change the world. So on the one hand, I don't like judging something too prematurely. On the other hand, you're damn right, people are going to judge when you're making these grandiose claims. Yeah, you're right. That Bitcoin fixes everything. That Web 3 fixes everything.

The creator economy fixes everything. No, it doesn't. Number one. Number two, if you're going to talk like that, then you're going to be a magnet for some bad takedowns. agree. It's like both sides are bad, but the bad takedowns are bad, and the people who say this is going to change the world and solve world hunger. Yes, I agree. People need to, like, tone it down a little. But I feel like that's everything these days, if you want to get attention, has to be hyped. I feel like people feel that way. So Galloway went in on Web 3, and then there's the backlash to his backlash. And the truth is probably, it's a tug-of-war somewhere in the middle. All right, we're back with Great Quarter guys. Are you ready for this? I don't know if

I'm ready for this. Another earning season? Didn't we just do this? We're going to break it up now. All right, Black Rock, congratulations. Great quarter, guys. They crossed $10 trillion. $540 billion of full-year total net inflows. Jeez. $10 trillion. I feel like they don't get talked about in the same breadth as Vanguard,

except by like people that are deep into finance. Don't you think Vanguard just has a better PR machine than BlackRock? BlackRock seems more stealth about it. I'm not sure. I have to think about that. I need to let that marinate. This stood out to me. 2,021 revenue up 19.5%.

2,021 employee comp and benefits up 19.8%. That's pretty neat. I think you're going to see this a lot of employee comp outpacing, top line, certainly bottom line growth. Makes sense. And their net income was up 70. It was also like everything that they made that kind of went into back into the employee.

We never talk about this. We never talk about Black Rock the stock. It's been a really good stock. not shockingly so over the past i think i'm going back 10 years here it's up 500 percent the s&ps up like 330 you're right i'd never look at it really like that what a vanguard was publicly traded remember when larry think was going to drive the bus off the cliff for the jn k or hig which one was it the high-yled bond from what do you mean oh who said that carl icon remember he had the cartoon drawn of larry think driving a bus off a cliff it was like 2015 that was 2015 i wrote a post about that

and well what does it doesn't matter all right what else we got last week. I did J.P. Morgan. There wasn't that much great. The financial ones, I got it, say, are a little boring. But this kind of stuck out to me. First of all, so BlackRock has $10 trillion. J.P. Morgan manages $3.1 trillion of assets. That's in their investment accounts. That is an insane amount of money for someone we don't really talk about in terms of those other asset managers. Here's something that's average loans at J.P. Morgan for the bank up 6%. Average deposits up 17%. They also said the median household's checking account was 50% higher in the summer of 2021 than in the months before the pandemic. So people should be probably going crazy right now

because their assets are all up. Interest rates remain low. People should probably be borrowing their faces off if you look at it on the surface. But they're really not. People are pouring more money into their checking and savings accounts than they're borrowing right now, which is still kind of bizarre behavior to me. There's not like some crazy credit bubble yet, even though it feels like there should be. Oh, interesting. There's not a huge borrowing bubble. Exactly. Like, rates are so low, you would expect people to be borrowing and borrowing more and more, and it's just not the case. Whereas rates were like double what they are today in 2005 and 2006, and everyone was borrowing their faces off. That means credit standards matter way more than

interest rates for this stuff, because everyone was giving loans back then, and today maybe it's a little harder. So John Street Capital tweeted about J.P. Morgan, their earnings report. They spent $15 billion on tech up one and a half times a lot. last three years, enough to capitalize the 11th largest US bank. All right, so you spoke about their $3.1 trillion in assets. They bought 55 IP and open invest to build algorithmic-based digital platform with tax efficiency and ESG investing. They bought a digital wealth manager nutmeg. They partnered with thought machine to move the retail bank's courses into the cloud. Anyway, they spent, that's a gigantic number. They spend, I'm sorry, I miss quoted, they spent $12 billion

dollars annually with guidance of $15 billion next year. That's not messing around, uh? It is interesting, this dichotomy of what legacy tech is spending on fintech and the performance of fintech, which Linson spoke about or tweeted about last week, just going the opposite direction. All right, Robin Hood. What do you got here? So they did this settlement with a guy who, like a 27-year-old truck driver.

They wore this guy $30,000. I think he was making some claim about. their buy button or something. It was an arbitration, just a small amount of money, but aren't they going to have way more of these now, if there's precedent for this? You would think. And isn't this a huge pain in the ass for the company? What was the complaint?

Was it specific to this guy? It can't be, or can it be? That's what I'm saying. There has to be way more of this. If it happened to one guy, other people are going to see it and go, that happened to me, too. I don't know. I'm trying to look at the Bull and Bear Case Robin. So Howard Linson talked about this earlier in his podcast, and it kind of blew on nine.

He was saying that the price to sales ratio for Robin Hood is lower. than the price to sales ratio for Charles Schwab, which I think Charles Schwab is trading at all-time highs now, and Robin Hood has obviously way down to all-time lows, even though it just went public. I know that you can't look at one valuation metric on its own and say, like, this tells the whole story. But if you would have asked me, who has a higher price? I would have said Robin Hood is 10 times higher than Charles Schwab's without knowing the difference. Yeah, I was looking at their PE. Schwab is at the upper end of where it's traded over the last decade. It's at 36 times earnings. I guess that's the difference. Robin Hood doesn't have a PE because it doesn't have any

So Robin Hood lost more than $3 billion over the last nine months. By the way, this is, when you talk about what's going on with growth stocks, especially companies like these that are just hemorrhaging money that are relying on investors' good graces, guess what? Windows of rates rising, there are no good graces. We talked earlier about the rise of retail investors. We talked earlier about the rise of retail investments open in the last two years. Does Robin Hood just get totally run over in a bare market?

Do people still keep flooding money in? this trading stuff is way harder than I thought. I'm out. Does Robin Hood get just crushed if there's an actual bear market? You would think. But there was just a really bad bare market in all of the names that they were trading. True. That's true. Which is one of the reasons they're down so much right now probably, right now, because their accounts are probably down way, way more than the market right now. You were right, by the way. Not about Robin Hood, but about Coinbase. It seems to trade very much and locks up with the price of crypto, which I don't think makes much sense, not that the market needs to make sense on a day-to-day basis, but you would

think that during high volatility, even if it's volatility on the way down, that people are trading way more and therefore they're going to make more money. Again, I know that that doesn't at all need to translate to daily price action. Yeah, you'd think that would eventually go away a little bit. But if that's the case, if you're an equity holder, would you say, okay, why don't I just own Bitcoin or do you say, wait, Coinbase is a cheaper way to do it through the stock? do people look at Coinbase as a proxy for Bitcoin and just say I'm just going to own Coinbase then or vice versa. I'll just own Bitcoin and not Coinbase.

It looks like they are. Okay. That was just a guess. I'll take my victory up. That was just a guess. Credit to you. I'll take it. Hey,

you talked about the Silicon Valley show in 2014. I'm going to let it go a little longer than that. Do you think like 2019 was the all-time peak for Silicon Valley, the area? Like Silicon Valley peaked in 2019. Basically, pre-pandemic. Pre-Travice getting into trouble? Well, Adam Nimmu was New York. That was the apex of Silicon Valley is 2019.

Why? Well, so this is from the Stripe CEO said that in Q1, 2019, 39% of Stripes hiring was outside the Bay Area in Seattle. Last quarter was 74%. I know a bunch of other Silicon Valley CEOs replied to this tweet and said the same thing. He's just saying that like this whole industry going global is still underappreciated and it would be a huge tailwind for the world of the next decade. If you follow a bunch of tech people that still live there, all I ever see people who live in San Francisco

do is complain about living there. The crime and the homelessness and it's not like the Chamber of Commerce is really having a good PR campaign right now for moving there. It's expensive and there's homeless people everywhere and the crime is out of control and it just doesn't seem like a very inviting place to live when you can kind of work from anywhere now. Don't you think that like the peak of people seeing Silicon Valley as this place I have to be is just over now? Especially since all the tech companies are going full 100% remote in most cases. Yes. But this surprised me. So CB Insights had their 2021 state of venture report. It said in 2021, $105 billion worth of funding in Silicon Valley was the number one metro area. So they said

Silicon Valley included in San Francisco is still by far the tech capital of the U.S. Startups raised $105 billion in 2021. Ben, listen to this, doubling what they did in 2020. Yeah, that's just because there was more money that poured in, though, probably right? Well, so what? I'm saying it's still by far the biggest source of tech funding. Yeah, that makes sense. It was twice what New York was. Okay. I'm just saying it's decelerating. It's going to go down. Well, the relative gap has come down for sure.

Yes. Okay. Let's do some housing stuff. So we've been talking in recent. I think we asked a couple weeks ago, is it possible if rates rise that you can finally ding the mortgage market. What can stop the housing market? So this is from Redfin. And they say actually, according to their service, take it for what it's worth, anti-survey podcast, all this stuff. Higher mortgage rates for 47% of house hunters say they would feel more urgency to buy a home if mortgage rates rose above three and a half percent because they're worried that housing prices are going to go up and maybe mortgage rates keep going up higher. So it's kind of like if there's inflation, it's going to last for a long time.

You buy stuff now thinking prices are going to be having the future. That's inflation. Yes. So that's the same thing here. I actually kind of think there's something to this where if you've been on the sidelines, you know, wait, wait, wait, if mortgage rates are going to go to 4%. I'm buying now, and housing prices could get a bump. Look at this chart that I just put in here. I'm writing a blog post about this. Because in theory, if a discount rate rises, you would think

a price would go down. If the cost of borrowing goes up, the financial asset price should, in theory, on a textbook, go down. I looked at these other instances going back to 1970. When the mortgage rates rise, what happens to the housing prices? Not once could I find an instance where mortgage rates were rising and housing prices were falling. In fact, the opposite. Every time mortgage rates rose, Housing prices rose too. Why? I have to think about this. How many instances? How many times are we talking about? Look at my chart here, probably 10 times.

Because people don't buy a house because of interest rates. People buy a house, think about it. Mortgage rates have been low for five years now. And it took a pandemic to get people off their butts to start buying, and now we have this huge groundswell of people buying houses. Rates matter more to finance people than normal people who just want to buy a house. Emotions and where you're on your life cycle matter way more. So if you think about the early 80s...

I really don't know about that. Look at this. 1977 mortgage rates were 8.7%. In 1980, they went to 16%. Housing prices were up 50% in that time. Obviously, inflation was up too. But why did that happen? Because a bunch of baby boomers hit their household formation years.

Yeah, yeah. Weren't down payments much more affordable for our parents than they are today? Probably. I mean, housing prices were obviously way lower, but I'm not... I also think, like, houses are so much bigger and more expensive these days. Generally speaking. My wife and I were talking about this.

I think you and I hit this too. When we were growing up, I think we've mentioned this before. Yes, nobody had a nice house. No one had a nice house. Like just, and no one cared. Even the nice houses weren't that nice.

No, yeah. Like I had plenty of friends growing up who like they were like the rich ones. Their parents were doctors or whatever. And it was like, is an okay house. I feel like people our age and maybe lower like really care way more about nice houses now

than people did back in like the 80s and 90s. That just wasn't a thing. All right. Someone sent us this. If you think like the housing market can't get any crazier, it surely can. I'm not saying we're going to be Toronto, but this Ben Rabbito guy sent this to us on Twitter. There's about 3,000 active listings in Toronto, which is like a half a month of inventory. And there's 60,000 active realtors in Toronto. This makes no sense. How? I don't know. Obviously, everyone just decided to become a realtor, but that one has to be the craziest housing market in the world. It has to be. Somebody sent this to us. Canada is not on here, but it's a chart from the FTA, I think, showing housing assets as a percentage of GDP. This wording confuses me. Housing assets? I'm assuming it's just housing, right? Someone in London must have written this. Okay. By the way, it looks like someone took a picture of this from their actual physical newspaper sent it to us. That's pretty impressive. So it's showing, again, housing is a percentage of GDP, Japan, the U.S., which are both over 200 percent. It's amazing how much lower Japan's is from that 89. Yeah, yeah, it's amazing. And the UK, which is 400%.

I don't know how many listeners we have in the UK. Somebody could explain this to us. What the hell is going on? It looks like there's like the gigantic housing bubble in the UK. That's my whole thing is that if you think the U.S. is crazy, look elsewhere. We get emails like this from people a lot in other places saying the U.S. looks tame by comparison. Fine, but you're saying that accesses of people are choosing to live here or the U.K. It's erroneous.

It's erroneous on all counts. No, but my whole point is, if you think it's crazy now, it can definitely get crazy. Okay, that's fair. Let's hit one. Question. All right, my fiance works as a physician's assistant, and over the past year, she has accrued about 30K in overtime bonuses, all of which are sitting in a checking account. Her primary goal is to pay down as much of her student as possible before May when

interest rates go back into effect. I explain that that's a great idea, but it would also be worthwhile to invest in something that earns interest. She was risk of her, so I mentioned some tips and some eye bonds. unfortunately she has come up with every reason not to do it, one of which is her checking account. Maybe just maybe if she hears your suggestion on what to do the 30 case, she will finally see the light.

I appreciate your time. I actually hate to say this, but I'm going to take the other side because having $30,000 sitting a checking account until May, you're probably losing out on, I'm making this up. I am not doing this in the calculator, $275 worth of income, maybe. That's true. Is it really worth it? Interest rates are sold, though, that even if you reach, you. for something risky, which you shouldn't do.

The iBonds would make the most sense to me. If it's sitting or checking, she could at least move it into an online savings account. I know you're right. The amount of money you're going to earn on it. For an extra $47. It's not much, but you could talk me into iBonds here, where it's a six-month yield anyway. That kind of makes sense, but you're right. I think if people actually looked at that, if they have $10,000 in their savings account,

they're trying to go from 50 basis points to 55 basis points, does it really make sense? Think in terms of what the dollar amount. on that actually is. And it's probably not. So you figure out if it's worth it or not, I kind of tend to. So my point is like, if this is my fiance, I don't know that I would want to expend that much mental energy in exchange for a payoff that's relatively small in comparison. I would probably focus my efforts elsewhere. But that's just me. All right, Ben, what recommendations do you have, sir? Been catching up on Yellowjack? I've been hearing about it all on Showtime. That's one that they know skip intro still. I've been in since the beginning. I'm curious to hear your take.

We're like six episodes in. We cut up pretty quick. We did some good binging. the last few days. I love the fact that they have the 90s music. That's great to me. I didn't really watch it until I got some good word of mouth on it. It's a very dark show. And my wife is not into the horror stuff at all. There's like a little of the cult stuff in there and she almost had to sign out because she's like, this is too much for me. I like it. It is very dark. I don't know. It seems like it should be like a one season kind of show maybe. Yeah, right? That's pissing me up. I hate that it's going to be a two season thing. I just want to know what happens. Yes. It's very mysterious and there's a lot of mystery and there's a lot going on. How far

into it already. I'm caught up. I've been watching since my wife loves it. I don't know why. I feel like I should like it a lot more than I do. If my wife wasn't watching with me, I would have bailed. I don't know why. See, I'm into it. Okay. Yeah. I don't know why. I don't really care about the characters and I'm not quite sure why I just didn't catch me. The flashback up and forth, I love it when they're able to get younger versions of someone that look and sound like the older versions of them. I'm always very impressed by that. If they're a good actor or actress. You're right about that. I finished Station 11 last week. I feel like this one might have got lost in the holidays, so I'm going to mention again to people. I absolutely loved this

show. One of my favorite shows I've seen in a long time. It was so good. And the ending was so satisfying. I swear I got chills. It was so, so good. I loved all the characters. You, I don't know if you like it right. It's very character driven. So it's like kind of like this apocalypse end of the world type of thing. But the stuff that you'd think would happen in that kind of setting doesn't really happen. But I thought it was such a creative way of telling stories. It's jumping back and forth in time horizons between when this flu pandemic that wiped out 99% of the world started and then 20 years later. I have to be honest, it doesn't quite hurt my feelings for you to say that, but the fact that you love something so much that you got chills watching it and then said, well, you, you're so

heartless bastard. I mean, what are you trying to say? No, I'm just, okay, if you're not hooked after the first episode, you're not going to like it because the first episode is amazing. And I really love this show. And I'm reading the book now too, I liked it so much. This is actually a instance where the show is better than the book, even though I probably am blinded by the fact that, I watched the show first, but I listened to an interview with the Andy Greenwald and Chris Ryan show, The Watch with the creator. And there was a huge, huge choice that they made for the show that wasn't in the book. Shattah Ringer Family.

There was a huge change they made from the book to the show. And it was the entire, like, it was the pivotal thing of the whole show. And the fact that this decision that they made, and he talked about how they made this decision, just kind of boggles my mind because the book is very good, but I was still, like, blown away, and I'm just saying, this is the highest of Ben recommendations here for Station 11. I loved it. And Josh might like it, too, because they actually had a tribe called Quest rap in there at some point. That's, like, a really good scene that people like. So, I'm kind of in awe of the whole prestige TV thing. Ryan Rosillo interviewed a guy from Ozark, the guy who is

like the show run for Ozark. I have an idiot. What is prestige TV? We didn't have this good of TV shows. Like, back in the day, you'd have like an 24 episode show that ran for 12 seasons. instead of like a show that's going to run for eight episodes for four seats like and they can actually really think it out and it's really just well done stuff that should have been movies in the past that's TV shows now okay that's where I'm at I went to the theater on Thursday night to see scream expecting it to be terrible guess what not terrible is Wes Craven still alive did he write it no he died a couple years ago not terrible at all I actually kind of liked it it it was fun I would have very low expectations for that yeah I had a good time definitely surpassed expectations

which were very low do you watch euphoria I might be out I tried to watch the first couple episodes. It's almost too much for me. Again, same thing. My wife loves it. I feel like I should love it. And I don't know why it's, is it like too dark for me? That can't be possible because I love dark.

I don't know why. I get it. I just don't love it. It's really well done. But it's almost like, okay, I get it. It's almost too much. I think Zendaya is great in the show too much. She is amazing.

All right. I want to talk about this real quick. I saw this on HBO Max. I saw Unforgiven. You ever see Unforgiven? Long time. Ninety three, written and directed by and starring Clint Eastwood.

Morgan Freeman this blew my mind it won best picture Oh you're saying Because it's a Western It was like a good movie Gene Hackman my god Oh okay

You're saying even though it was 93 That it's overrated It was not that good Oh interesting Okay it's been a while It was a good movie Gene Hackman is obviously I'm not breaking ground

One of the best actors ever But this blew me away So I'm looking at I'm like how did it possibly win What else was on the Oscar docket that year The Crying game A Few Good Men Obviously that should have won

Okay, if you could mention it. Howard's End? What's Howard's End? I don't remember. And scent of a woman. Never saw scent of a woman. Ben, here's what blew my mind. Oh, scent of a woman is really good.

With Pacino and not Chris Robbins. What's his name? Chris Robbins. That's one of the poo. Chris O'Donnell. Okay. The year before that, the 64th Academy Award, I was just poking around. Silence and Lambs won at that year.

How is this possible? Wait, what year am I looking for? I could have sworn that the Godfather Part 3 was nominated for Best Picture. I thought everybody hated the Godfather part three. Oh, I'm sure that was like a career achievement award. No, no, no. Best picture. Right.

I don't know how that's possible. I got a plumber here. We got to wrap this up frontissimo. Animal Spiritspod at gmail.com. Thank you for listening. We'll see you next time. Thank you.