The Compound and Friends - No Worries with Jared Dillian, Josh pitches IMAX, private credit worries

Episode Date: March 5, 2024

On this TCAF Tuesday, Downtown Josh Brown is joined by Jared Dillian to discuss his new book No Worries and how you can simplify your financial life. Then, at 39:10, hear an all-new episode of What Are Your Thoughts with Josh and Michael Batnick! They discuss IPOs, private credit, market bubbles, HBO's password crackdown, and much more! Thanks to YCharts for sponsoring this episode! Visit https://go.ycharts.com/compound to check out their latest features! Plus, get 20% off your initial subscription when you start a free trial! Check out the latest in financial blogger fashion at The Compound shop: https://www.idontshop.com Instagram: https://instagram.com/thecompoundnews Twitter: https://twitter.com/thecompoundnews Investing involves the risk of loss. This podcast is for informational purposes only and should not be or regarded as personalized investment advice or relied upon for investment decisions. Michael Batnick and Josh Brown are employees of Ritholtz Wealth Management and may maintain positions in the securities discussed in this video. All opinions expressed by them are solely their own opinion and do not reflect the opinion of Ritholtz Wealth Management. The Compound Media, Incorporated, an affiliate of Ritholtz Wealth Management, receives payment from various entities for advertisements in affiliated podcasts, blogs and emails. Inclusion of such advertisements does not constitute or imply endorsement, sponsorship or recommendation thereof, or any affiliation therewith, by the Content Creator or by Ritholtz Wealth Management or any of its employees. For additional advertisement disclaimers see here https://ritholtzwealth.com/advertising-disclaimers. Investments in securities involve the risk of loss. Any mention of a particular security and related performance data is not a recommendation to buy or sell that security. The information provided on this website (including any information that may be accessed through this website) is not directed at any investor or category of investors and is provided solely as general information. Obviously nothing on this channel should be considered as personalized financial advice or a solicitation to buy or sell any securities. See our disclosures here: https://ritholtzwealth.com/podcast-youtube-disclosures/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the compound and friends. Today, I announced we have just crossed the 1000 registered mark for future proof 2024. That's 1000 professionals working in wealth management already registered with 750 of those being financial advisors. I doubt we even had 500 people signed up for 2023 by this time last year. Now, keep in mind, we haven't announced a single session or panel or speaker yet. Not one. This is all on the coattails of last September and the brand awareness that Future Proof has built. This thing is just on fire.

I don't know how else to put it. Matt Middleton and I have big plans for this year. If you're a financial advisor, a wealth management executive, a fintech founder, you work in asset management, brokerage, custody, private equity, crypto, 401k, ETFs, you name it, this is literally the only event of the year you can't afford to miss. Everyone is going to be there. You know the expression, kill two birds with one stone. Kill all the birds because anyone that's not there, you really don't need to meet with. We will sell this event out. I'm telling you this now in March, take my word for it. We will sell every hotel room in Huntington Beach that's not nailed down out. We will. We did last year. We had to put people in neighboring towns.

This year, we could be looking at more than 4,000 attendees. So if you don't know what else you have cooking in September, or maybe you have something, but you have to move things around, just do it. Make sure you're a part of Future Proof 2024. When you see me there, you will thank me. On tonight's show, I talk to Jared Dillian of the Daily Dirt Nap newsletter about his brand new book, No Worries, How to Live a Stress-Free Financial Life. Then, an all new edition of what are your thoughts with my co-host, Michael Batnick. This show is sponsored by our friends at YCharts.

YCharts has a new tool called the attribution analysis tool. It's an intuitive tab where users can gain even deeper insights into how each holding of a portfolio is impacting the performance of the portfolio. And they're giving you a lot of data, heat maps, bar charts, et cetera, in order to really visualize what's going on. So if you're a current UI charts user, you already know about Report Builder and the

proposal generation that they do. Now you can integrate attribution tables and visuals into your proposals. It'll make what you're showing to people look that much more professional and descriptive. If you have never used YCharts before you're in luck, you can get 20% off your initial YCharts professional subscription

when you start your free YCharts trial by going to go.ycharts.com slash compound. That's go.ycharts.com slash compound. All right, I'm going to send you to the show now. Thanks for listening. I hope you love it. I hope you love it. and should not be relied upon for any investment decisions. Clients of Ritholtz Wealth Management may maintain positions in the securities discussed in this podcast. Hey guys, it's Josh. I am here with Jared Dillian of The Daily Dirt Nap and a brand new book we're going to tell you all about. Jared, thank you so much for coming by today.

Yo, glad to be here. Thank you. Where are you? I'm in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. That's right. Okay. How are things in South Carolina these days? You know, I moved here in 2010, and I'm in the middle of building a house. We're never leaving. This place is awesome. Is it? Okay. We love it. Cool. So I wanted to catch up with you on a couple of things. But the first thing I want to do here is just give people a little bit of an idea of what you've been up to and what the Daily Dirt Nap is all about. Yeah. So I've been in markets for a long time. I mean, first of all, going back

a long ways, I was in the Coast Guard and I was lieutenant in the Coast Guard. And while I was in the Coast Guard, I got my MBA from the University of San Francisco. And I got a job on the floor of the Peacoast Options Exchange. And I parlayed that into a job at Lehman Brothers. I was a trader at Lehman Brothers for seven years. I did index arbitrage and ETF trading. And when the firm went bankrupt, I started the Daily Dirt Nap, which is my newsletter. And I've been doing that for 16 years. It's literally an institution now. It's been around for a long time.

You are one of the longest running, I think, one of the longest running well-known market letters. Would that be accurate, you think? Yeah. I mean, I don't know about the well-known part. The funny thing about it is that I don't really do any marketing. It's grown a lot through word of mouth. And it still kind of has that underground newspaper feel to it. I kind of – there's a part of me that doesn't even want it to be mainstream. Yeah. But I've been doing that for a long time.

I published Street Freak in 2011. That was my memoir about Lehman Brothers. I had a novel come out in 2016 called All the Evil of This World. Had an essay collection in 2023 called Those Bastards. And No Worries just came out in January. Yep. So now that everyone's up to speed, what is your take right now on what I think is the biggest topic in investing, which is the Magnificent Seven, and maybe with a dollop of whether or not we're in an AI bubble.

But let's start with the biggest stocks. How much or how little do you concern yourself with the popularity of this investing theme? Well, if you look historically, typically bull markets end when you have extreme concentrations in stocks. And there's really three times that's happened in history. One is right now, the other was in 2000, and the other was in 1929, when the top X percent of, I think it's the top 10% of market cap makes up X percent of the index. And that's the kind of, that's the type of thing that worries me when you see that historically, that extreme concentration. I'm a sentiment expert. I really focus on sentiment. And actually,

from a sentiment standpoint, sentiment is a little extended. It's pretty bullish, but it's not at extreme levels like it was in 2021 when we had SPACs and crypto and all that stuff. So it's funny. I just saw on Bloomberg, on the homepage of Bloomberg this morning, there was a picture of Nouriel Roubini, and it said that he is less worried. And when I look at that, if I see Roubini is getting less worried that's that's that's pretty troubling so to play devil's advocate on the concentration side uh one major distinction that we've pointed out a lot over the last few years has been most of these magnificent seven companies are like 10 businesses in one and that sort of thing was just not as prevalent as it is today.

That's a good point. Yeah. Another thing that I would say, and I'm curious what your take is, Apple's in a 10% drawdown off its high. Google's in a 14% drawdown. Google looks worse. That's right. And Tesla, maybe 20%. So yes, these stocks have gone up quite a lot, and there is a great deal of

concentration. There's also dispersion, and they're moving independent of one another, which I would argue is a little bit healthier than maybe what it looked like in November, December. Yeah. I actually saw a chart this morning. It showed that correlations are breaking down, not just within the market cap weighted index, but within the equal weight index correlations breaking down. So there's some interesting stuff happening. Do you think people are behaving these days to the same extent as wildly bullish as they were back in? So you and I were both around in 2000 and a lot of people have opinions on it, but weren't there.

And I guess my argument would be like, it's not the same. Uh, I've read books about the great depression. Uh, I, I don't, I don't think that I would, my opinion would be as valid as if we could unfreeze someone who was frozen during that period of time to ask him how it felt. Well, so, you know, what, what's your So what's your take on that analogy? Well, first of all, the Great Depression thing, we just had a movie about it, The Boys in the Boat. Did you see it? Yeah, I didn't see it yet. That was, I mean, if you want a clear depiction of what the Depression was like, I mean, it was absolutely terrible, and you better hope we never have anything like that again. I was at ground zero

for the dot-com bubble. I was in San Francisco in 1999. Every billboard was for a dot-com stock. The taxi cabs were painted purple. They were Yahoo taxi cabs and they had internet access in the taxi cabs. And literally, people were making so much money. Everybody was day trading. I was still in the Coast Guard. I was working in Coast Guard intelligence. And everybody in the office was day trading. Like, it was madness.

But this is why when I see people compare this to 2000, I say like, we really need an asterisk on the year 2000 because I really don't think we've ever really seen a moment like that since. And it would be really hard to manufacture that again. I don't think AI qualifies, do you? I mean, here's the thing. I actually have a theory about this. So any new technology has a couple of phases, right? You have a boom, you have a gold rush in the beginning, and a bubble, and then you have a bust. And then you have a period of three to 10 years of neglect. And during that period, that's when the real technological advances are being made. And then after three to 10 years, you have a second bull market that is five times as big

as the first. And that's exactly the way the dot-com bubble played out. There was really nothing to do from 2011 to 2018. But that's when we figured out the potential of the internet. That's when it became realized. Yeah. So it would not surprise me at all if there's some sort of AI hiccup and we see a lot of the related stocks, big and little, have just this huge disappointment. But then all of a sudden, we start to see more commercialization. And then there's a revival. Like if the AI story is going to be as big as people think it is, it's not going to be a three-year build out. And that's the end of the story. So I do think that it's a longer term story and that we should all mentally allow for there to be some bumps in the road. I think

a lot of people right now feel as though this is just going to be this linear thing that's going to go up and up and up and up. And to your point, that's really how it actually plays out. Well, it kind of reminds me of, you know, I was in business school. I was at University of San Francisco. And I had a class where they brought in one of the partners from New Enterprise Associates, one of the big VC firms in the Bay Area. And this guy, his name was Mark Perry. And he came in and he was coming in to talk about optical networking, right? So he drew this chart on the board of like this line just going parabolic. And he said, optical networking is Moore's law squared. And it's like, and the next day, I went out and shorted JDS Uniphase.

You know, because basically, there was so much capacity being built out so fast that you had overinvestment. Like, that is what's going to happen with AI. You're going, it's happening so fast, you are going to have a period of overinvestment. It's happening so fast, you are going to have a period of overinvestment. Is it, I mean, are GPUs the 2024 version of optical networking products like JDS, Uniphase, Sienna, et cetera? Like, is that a reasonable parallel?

I don't know. It could be. I mean, like, see, the thing is, is that I'm really more of a macro guy. You know, I don't really dabble. I don't really spend a lot of time in technology, so I can't answer that question intelligently. But I mean, whenever you see a boom happening this quickly, there's, there's, there's bound to be periods of overinvestment. Yeah. to be periods of overinvestment. Yeah. I think what you could say is the technological side is one aspect, but the other aspect is people are making fast decisions with a lot of money

because they feel like they have to. Whenever it seems like people can't breathe and they're just so breathlessly in pursuit of something, there's probably a lot of malinvestment. And maybe it takes a while before you figure out what's what. But I think that's a fair point. I want to ask you a little bit about, just generally speaking, financial advisors and professional allocators, the difference between what professionals are doing for clients and maybe what clients think professionals are doing for them is a really interesting area. And there's a lot of stuff in your book that overlaps nicely with the way I feel about what professionals ought to be doing. And the phrase benign negligence comes to mind, at least for me.

It's not your phrase, but what are your overall thoughts about investors, professional investors, and what you see as the right way for people to be thinking about allocating a portfolio? You really have to keep it as simple as possible. Simple is much better. This doesn't pertain to your question, but I see a lot of ETF launches where it's some Rube Goldberg strategy with 20 different moving parts and derivatives and stuff like that. And if you can't explain a strategy in a sentence or two, then it's not going to be successful. So in my book, I talk about the awesome portfolio, which is my preferred allocation strategy. So we can get into detail on that if you want. Let's do that. Tell us about the awesome portfolio.

So the awesome portfolio is 20% stocks, 20% bonds, 20% gold, 20% cash, and 20% real estate, right? And the whole purpose of the awesome portfolio is to trade off a little bit in the way of returns, but dramatically reduce your volatility. It's to create a portfolio that does not give you a heart attack every 10 years when you take a massive drawdown. If you had a hypothetical portfolio that was just the S&P 500, you know the S&P 500 has had dozens of corrections and a bunch of bear markets, and four times it has gone down 50%, right? So if you have a 40-year investing career, it's probably going to go down 50% one way along the line. a 40-year investing career, it's probably going to go down 50% one way along the line.

The awesome portfolio has returned since 1971. It's returned 8.1% a year, just a little bit less, with half the volatility of an 80-20 portfolio. And the max drawdown in any given year was 12.2%, which was actually in 2022. So the purpose of it, it aligns with the philosophy of the book, which is you want to minimize your stress when you are investing. This is a portfolio that's going to grow a little bit slower, but the purpose is you're going to be able to stay invested. You're going to be able to stay invested and reduce your stress. See, I think what a lot of professionals or advisors would say is, I actually am going to allocate clients toward the higher return portfolio. And where I come in handy is, I'm going to do the stress minimization, not just the allocation. And therefore, I'm going to enable

my clients to take more risk than they otherwise would be willing to on their own. Do you think there's some validity to that? There's absolutely validity to that. So Vanguard did a study about this, I want to say seven or eight years ago. And they came up with this concept called Advisor Alpha, right? And what they found was that Vanguard clients were not realizing the returns on their mutual funds because they actively traded them and they acted suboptimally. But with the addition of somebody who could provide behavioral coaching, it added on average 300 basis points to their returns. So that does absolutely work. If you were investing in the absence of an advisor, then the awesome portfolio would absolutely work. How are you proxying the

real estate portion back to 1971? That would be 20% of the awesome portfolio. So you can use a REIT ETF going back to about 2003 or so. And then I don't remember which index we're using, but we basically use a re-index going back to 1971. Okay. So these would be publicly traded REITs. And obviously, the REITs themselves would be different over different eras because some of them no longer exist. Some of them are much larger now than the ones that used to exist. But this is publicly traded real estate as the proxy. Yeah. Now, in the book, I talk about the idea that if you want, you can use the equity in your

primary residence as your real estate allocation, right? If you have a couple hundred thousand dollars of equity in your house, that's your real estate allocation. And then you can just focus on the other parts of the awesome portfolio. I guess the problem would be you can't rebalance out of your house. You can't rebalance out of your house, but you can add to the other portions of the portfolio. Most people are over-invested in real estate. Most people have a higher percentage of their net worth in real estate relative to financial

assets. Yeah. And not just real estate, but residential real estate. Because in the middle class, their home is their primary asset. And the idiosyncrasy of what neighborhood they live in, how the school district is doing. So it's not what the impact, what the climate, the impact of climate change. Yeah, completely. I totally, I totally agree with that. I actually am one of the people who like the fact that the S and that Standard & Poor's Dow Jones S&P took real estate

out of the financial sector and made it its own sector. I think, I think they did that four or five years ago. It's something that in my my opinion, was long overdue. And real estate really does have its own risk and return differences from everything else. And it's not quite the same as investing in banks and insurance companies. So I like that they did that. The funny thing is that, I mean, this is obviously cherry-p picking starting points. But if you go back to 2000 at the top of the dot-com bubble, the highest performing asset class is gold. And the second highest is actually real estate above stocks.

Yeah. Right. I think it's definitely its own world. Right. I think it's definitely its own world. How do you justify to people the gold holding at 20% given the fact that it pays no dividend and its valuation is not based on anything other than the desire of other buyers to come along and pay higher? It's truly a commodity. Now, there are people that would say, well, it's special amongst all other commodities in its staying power, you know, over the course of tens of thousands of years. And it has been used as money in prior eras of human life. Maybe it deserves some sort of a, not premium valuation, but a premium attitude about it versus, let's say, hog bellies or crude oil.

So I understand that. But how do you represent why it should be 20%? So in the book, in No Worries, I talk about how gold is the Dennis Rodman of asset classes, right? Gold is Dennis Rodman. So Dennis Rodman is one of the greatest basketball players of all time, but he only scored six points a game. And there was actually some discussion about whether he should be in the Basketball Hall of Fame because he didn't score. He's the lowest scoring member in the Basketball Hall of Fame. So if you had a team that was full of Dennis Rodman's, if you had five Dennis Rodman's on a team, it would be the worst team in the NBA

because he doesn't shoot. Right. But if you take Dennis Rodman and you add him to a team of four other guys that can shoot and score, it becomes the best team in the NBA. And that's really what gold is like. If you had a portfolio that was 100% gold, it would suck. But the great thing about gold is it is very weakly correlated to other asset classes. And those correlations are not stable over time. So what you have is this asset that has huge risk-reducing powers. So whenever you add gold to a portfolio, it gets better. It gets better from a risk standpoint. It brings the portfolio volatility down.

And that's why it's in there. When I built the awesome portfolio, I back-tested a bunch of stuff. I tried gold in smaller proportions. And 20% is actually the right number. I tried gold in smaller proportions, and 20% is actually the right number. So I guess 20% is too low if the year is 2010, 2011. And it's too high if the year is 2016 through 2020. So it's one of these things where if you decide you're going to do it, great.

If you decide you're not going to do it, that's okay, too. If you are going to have gold included in your portfolio, you just have to accept the fact there are going to be years where you're going to wish you were all in the S&P 500. And that's life. By the way, that's true of the awesome portfolio in general. So one of my subscribers did a study on the awesome portfolio, and he determined that 40% of the time you have FOMO, right? So 42% of the time, you are underperforming the S&P by double digits, okay? 21% of the time, you are outperforming the S&P by double digits, and it's usually by a lot. And those are the big bear markets, right? So it actually, you are going to experience emotions when you have the awesome portfolio, just like you have anything else. There's going to be periods of time when it does well and periods of time when it underperforms. Let's talk about the book. So it's called No Worries, How to Live a Stress-Free Financial Life. And it came out January 23rd. So it's about, what is that,

six weeks? Yep. You have hundreds of great reviews all over Amazon. So I want to start by saying, congratulations. What made you want to do another book? And what made you want to write this one? Well, first of all, back in 2000, the reason I wanted to write this book, and I'm not kidding you, is I wanted to help people because I thought the quality of advice that people were getting in personal finance was very bad. So back in 2018, I read Rich Dad, Poor Dad. I read the Dave Ramsey book. I read The Millionaire Next Door. I read all these books. And what I found was that they were all offering

extreme solutions, right? So on one aspect, you're really, really cheap and you don't spend money on anything. And you have a 14-year-old used car that smells like cigarette smoke. And you have a couple of cheap suits. And you live in a 1,200-square-foot foot house and you have a seven figure bank account. And on the other side, the Kiyosaki side, you're buying up a bunch of rental houses with a bunch of debt. You're leveraging yourself up. And I said, look, like extreme solutions are very easy to understand and they're very easy to sell. The middle of the road solution, which is to take a middle path, not spend too much, not spend too little is actually harder to achieve and explain. But that's what I try to do in the book. It's actually, it's also less sexy. It leads to less commotion on social media

when you're in promotion mode. And that's how you know it's the right approach. Here's the thing. Once every couple of months, Dave Ramsey, Susie Orman, one of these characters will say something incredibly dumb about personal finance. And everybody makes fun of them on Twitter for like a week. And I don't understand why people continue to follow these people. It's bad advice. They're basically recommending solutions that cause people to increase their financial stress and distort their relationship with money. One of the things about Dave, by the way, Dave Ramsey has the most listened to, largest podcast in investing, which I find interesting,

that he has not been dislodged. I think there's a first mover advantage there. I think there's a huge radio promotion machine behind it. And there's something to be said about inertia, just like he's just the default personal finance person. I actually think that he's done an amazing job helping people get out of debt. I wish he would stop there and not cross over into the mutual fund sales aspect of what he does, because I think that that's the source of most most easily ridiculed content. Yeah. I mean, he has helped a small subset of people

that have spending addictions and debt addictions, and he's helped them basically get back on their feet. And that's commendable. That's a good thing. On the investment side, he advises people to put 100% of their assets in what he calls growth stock mutual funds, right? Basically 100% growth. And the funny thing is, is that over the last 10 years, that has absolutely worked. It's not going to work forever. I was going to say, that's what I do. That's what I do with my own retirement money. It's like 100% growth. But I'm a strange example. Yeah. So, I mean, that's not going to work indefinitely. And his rationale for this cannot be more simplistic. He says, you want to invest in these funds because they have the highest return. And something that has a really high return is probably also going to have a lot of risk, right? And a lot of stress

that accompanies it. I think the other extreme, when you think about Suze Orman, she's somebody that I also think she's helped a subset of her listeners who genuinely, they just need someone to yell at them about how much they spend. So there's something to be said for that and telling people, maybe take it easy on seven Starbucks is a week. You don't need one every day. I think that's really useful for one group of people and really useless for a lot of other people. But again, somebody builds an audience. They have a powerful message. It resonates. It works. They don't abandon it. They double down on it and triple down on it. Yeah. The whole premise of the book is it's not a lot. A lot of these people say whether you have

money is the product of a million small decisions that you make on a daily basis. It's the coffee that you buy, the four bucks you spend on Dunkin' Donuts. It's getting the cheapest can of soup. It's stuff like that. It's a million decisions that determine whether you have money, but it's not. It's three decisions, three. It's what house you buy, what car you buy, and how much student loans you take out. The financial impact of those three big decisions dwarfs the little decisions by a lot. So, I mean, just for example, if you buy coffee every day for 40 years, it's going to cost you $36,000.

If you get a house that is 500 square feet bigger, it is going to cost you hundreds of thousands of dollars, not just in the cost of the house, but also the interest you pay in the debt over time. There's no comparison. And the maintenance, the wear and tear. Yeah. I wanted to ask you, where does marriage fit in? Because I would put that as the fourth decision, whether or not you choose to get married and to whom you get married to is a huge financial swing factor. One that, you know, is really tough to quantify early on,

but could have a major impact later. Yeah, actually that's one of the things I talk about in the book, who you marry is actually the most important financial decision you will make. And the person you marry, you want them to share your values on money, right? So in the book, I talk about two hypothetical characters. I talk about the CF and the high roller. And if you're a CF, you don't want to marry a high roller and vice versa because you're going to get in arguments all the time. For the audience, CF. I don't know if I can say it. Oh, you could definitely say it.

I'll just bleep it out. All right, cheap f**k. Okay, yeah. You could say cheap f**k 500 times. This is my show. Okay. So why is it? All right, so I don't think of myself as a high roller,

but I also don't count how much I'm spending. And it's like the furthest thing from my mind. Even when I had no money, I was the same way. My wife is an accountant's daughter and she will literally like show up at Costco with coupons. And that's no matter how well or poorly we're doing, that behavior never changes. I think for that reason, we work well together and she's the house's CFO. If I were married to someone with a different attitude about money, things would probably be going much worse for me or the decisions that

we are making together would be much worse decisions. And fortunately, I didn't choose her because of her financial acumen. It's one of those great things, though, that happens to work out well for the two of us. This is a difficult thing when you're out there in the dating world and you're meeting people. And there are so many other considerations beyond this one. Yeah. I mean, my wife and I, we – I didn't grow up poor. I kind of lower middle class, but my wife grew up poor, like very poor. And we moved in right after we graduated from college. It was 1996. We got an apartment that

was 350 bucks a month. If we spent $45 on groceries, it was a big deal. That's how we started out together. Yeah. all right. So that, that definitely will have a, we'll have a huge impact. I want to ask you what some of the reactions have been, I guess, because now you have people who are long-term readers of yours and they've been fans of yours and they probably kind of knew what to expect, but then you probably had people that picked up your book and it was the first thing that they've ever read by you. So what were some of the reactions like? Well, first of all, let me just say that when I wrote this book, it was a different sort of book. When I wrote a book proposal and the way I was selling it was, this was like

Tucker Mack's personal finance. So there was a lot of swearing. It was a very brash in your Facebook and Harriman house bought it. And they said, look, we're taking out all the swearing. Like we want, we want this to be for educational and corporate buyers. And we don't want to limit our audience, which was probably, and then you were like, you leave it in. you leave it in. So I, you know, the, the one, the one thing I regret about the book is that I forgot to talk about retirement funds. I forgot to talk about 401ks and IRAs, not like I would have had a whole chapter, but you can see that in some of the reviews, the he's there like, Oh, the guy didn't talk about retirement funds. And I just totally space. Like, I just, I wish I wish I at least had a couple of paragraphs about it.

That's the sequel. Can I tell you something? Your book is like digestible. That's what books are supposed to be. I don't think that it hurts the product at all that you left out huge topics that honestly should be covered separately and more in depth and maybe not by you, maybe by someone else. I think what you're giving people is just a rational blueprint for how to think about asset allocation. And if

they want to bring those ideas into a 401k, great. If they want to limit that to what they're doing in a brokerage account, that's great too. I think it's the philosophy that's more important than the nuts and bolts. That's something that people could figure out on their own. It is a philosophical book. It's a philosophical book for sure. So I think that's right. So what were some of the other responses that you got from people that maybe you were surprised by or you didn't necessarily expect?

You know, it's sort of autobiographical. I talk about my journey from, you know, kind of growing up with no money and being in the Coast Guard and working on Wall Street. So there's parts in the book where I'm pretty open about, you know, how much money I have now and what I spend and stuff like that. And some people were put off by that. Not many, but a couple. How dare you be so transparent? I mean, it's sort of, you know, we have hangups about

money and this is a big thing of mine, right? If we want to get better at money, we have to talk about it in the open, right? Yeah. Like it can't be like a taboo discussion to talk about how, like what your salary is or how much you spend in a car, how much you spend in a house. You know, that was the one thing about working on wall street, like at a bank on a trading floor is that people love to talk about money. They talked about this stuff all the time and it was was out in the open, and it's a good thing. And it's a very taboo subject for some people.

That's such a great point, because if you're making a lot of money, it's really hard to talk about it in such a way that it's not going to piss people off, because they're going to look at you and say, well, I'm as smart as that guy, or I work as hard as that guy, or, you know, what, you know, whatever, whatever their rationale is, they're, they're inevitably going to be upset. So it's, so, so when you have, when you are doing well, it becomes the harder, the better you're doing, the harder it becomes to talk about, um, money specifically in front of an all purpose audience. But your point about being on a trading floor is interesting. People know what each other make, uh, on wall street. People know what the bonus pool looks like. People have a pretty good sense of what the profits of the firm are and what

your distribution is of that profit. It's not like a complete mystery at a Lehman brothers in their early two thousands. Um, but then like away from wall street, it is a huge mystery at a Lehman Brothers in their early 2000s. But then like away from Wall Street, it is a huge mystery. You have no idea what your neighbors make. They don't know what you make. So I think that distinction is interesting. Yeah. Yeah. So Jared, I want to let people know two things, where they can buy the book and how they can follow you. You are obviously on Amazon and let's give people the name of the book and how they can follow you. You are obviously on Amazon. And let's give people the name of the book one more time. It's called No Worries, How to Live a Stress-Free Financial Life. Yep. No Worries, How to Live a Stress-Free Financial Life.

If you get lazy and you don't feel like going to Amazon, we have a link up, which is buynoworries.com. And it takes you to a webpage with links for all the retailers in the world. So buynoworries.com. And it takes you to a webpage with links for all the retailers in the world. So buynoworries.com. Okay. It's hard to imagine somebody getting so lazy that they can't go to Amazon, but I guess it's possible. And all of the information about the awesome portfolio is in the book. Um, I did not go into detail really about the nuts and bolts and the back testing and all the stuff that went into it. That's for, that's really for the next book. Um,

but yeah, there's a whole chapter on the awesome portfolio. So very cool. And where can people follow daily dirt nap and find you on social media? Uh, you can follow me on Twitter at Daily Dirt Nap. And if you want to subscribe to the newsletter, just mention the compound and I'll give you a discount. I'm at DailyDirtNap.com.

Oh, very cool. So, compound listeners, if you want to get into Jared's stuff, make sure to let them know the Compound sent you. And what are we offering here? Is there a sweepstakes, some sort of free car? What are we thinking? Big discount. Big discount.

All right. Jared, thanks so much for joining me today. I want to congratulate you on your book. And I hope people read it. I hope people absorb what you're putting out there. So I think the message about simplicity is super helpful and timely. So thank you for writing it. And we'll talk to you soon.

Thank you, Josh. My pleasure. Are you humming along to the theme song? I'm giving you a do-do-do, yeah. Very musical. Why don't you take us into the show? What are we doing here? All right. Listen, everybody. Hey, do. Yeah. Very musical. Why don't you take us into the show? What's going on? What are we doing here? All right. Listen, everybody.

Hey, everybody. Today's show is brought to you by our friends at YCharts. They've got this neat little new feature. It is, where's my window? There we are. They do attribution analysis on a portfolio. So if you're like, hey, I'm up 3% year to date, where are my returns coming from? What's taken away? Oh, I have CrowdStrike in my portfolio. Oh if you're like, hey, I'm up 3% year to date, where are my returns coming from? What's taken away?

Oh, I have CrowdStrike in my portfolio. Oh, what do you know? Big contributor to returns. So if you're an advisor managing portfolios for clients and you're looking for some help, automate what you're doing. I highly recommend YCharts.

I use it every day. Every single day. And if you've never used it before, you can do go.ycharts slash the compound. Right? Or is it slash compound? Let's get this right because it matters.

Go.ycharts.com slash compound. That will sort of... Slash compound. All right. Hey, Mike. You did a great job with that. Thank you. Hi, everyone. Welcome to What Are Your Thoughts? My name is Downtown Josh Brown. I'm here with my co-host, Michael Batnick. As always, Michael, say hello to the folks. Hello, hello. All right. Guys, CrowdStrike is going crazy. And this thing is up. Michael doesn't like when I say it in points, but in points, it just sounds so much more impactful. They reported earnings. Earnings were up 102% year over year,

which is totally normal. Stock is up 60, is it 65 points? Hold on. Is that the number right this moment? 65 points. All right, what's the Dow trading at? 21%. That's like one one-thousandth of the Dow,

one 500th,andth of the Dow, one 500th. I'm not impressed. This is obviously going to have to be S&P 500. Did they get in already? I don't even know anymore. All right. This is like one of the biggest winners I've ever had. I'm so excited about this.

We've had George Kurtz on this show, on this channel multiple times. And he told us it's cybersecurity. It's like, I called it a guaranteed bull market on downtown Josh Brown a few weeks back. I still really feel that way. I don't see how any company, government, organization, municipality stops spending on increased cybersecurity. UnitedHealth just had a massive breach. When that happens, you will pay anything to make it go away. And more importantly, anything to make sure it doesn't happen again. And there's like four or five companies at that level that you could even talk to.

And CrowdStrike is one of those companies. So congrats to George Kurtz, friend of the show. Maybe we'll have him back on once his quiet period ends or whatever. Not, not in the S&P 500. I just checked on,

on my charts. So, what's the market cap here? Is it, I'm looking right now. It's 70? It was 70 at the close today. All right.

And it's 20%, bloop, bloop, bloop. So, I don't know, a lot. Yeah, this is going, 80 something? It's got to be 80 billion lot. Yeah, this is going. 80 something?

It's got to be 80 billion. This is going into the S&P, I would say, sooner rather than later. I think this quarter seals the deal. So congrats to everyone at CrowdStrike. Okay, there's so much to do tonight. I'm so excited for tonight's show. I've been thinking about it all day. We're going to start this way.

The circus is back in town. Michael did a post last night. I loved it about the fear of missing out. And he looks back at how insane 2020 and 2021 were, and then looks at what seems to be starting to get underway now with obviously Bitcoin andIA and a few other names in the AI sphere. And it's obviously not apples to apples. And it's obviously not as pronounced a mania as we had three years ago. But Michael just makes the point like that was so recently that people who are back in the game probably are using guardrails and are maybe acting a little bit wiser? That's my takeaway from what you were saying. Do I have that right?

I just, yes. I just can't believe that we're here again so soon. We are so f***ing back. We're back. We just did this. All-time record high price in Bitcoin today. Yes? Yeah.

And then it fell, but whatever. It got to like almost 70. Here it is. Here it is. I'm scrolling. So, NVIDIA yesterday, I don't know where I closed that, but as of the time of my writing that piece, it was up $124 billion in market cap. In a day.

On no news. Holy shit. How many points is that? LOL. You know, Schwab's $124 billion. It added a Schwab on no news. And that's after the week prior or two weeks prior when it added $226 billion, which is the biggest increase in market cap in a single day ever. You've got meme coins going wild. Wild. Shiba coin, Doge coin, Bonk, all of these things. Keep this up, John. Keep this up. You see they gave a lot back.

What is this shit? Hey, what is Floki? Floki, that one I'm not familiar with, but it looks pretty rock and roll. I'm buying it. What's Bonk? That's a new one. Bonk is, I think, the equivalent of Doge, but it's a Solana-based. It's a Solana-based token.

It's Doge, but dumber. So, yeah, I just- Hold on. James Sykes says Bonk is from TurboGrafx-16. Actually, he is correct. Bonk was a caveman, a little boy caveman whose head was three times larger than his body. And you would kill enemies by bonking your head. That was, I think, the second best game on TurboGrafx, which you had to have been 13 years old in 1991 to even understand what I'm talking about.

Yeah, so things are going nuts. Bitcoin hit an all-time high before a pretty nice pullback today. ETH too. Let me ask you a question. How long bonk are you right now? And be very honest. I own zero bonk, and I will be honest. I almost, before I wrote the post, I think it was a post to myself.

I almost swapped $5,000 out of ETH and into bonk. So it was a letter to myself. Wait, which part is the letter? All right, let me read. Can I quote you? Please. Okay. It's hard to watch and not feel like you're missing out.

True. FOMO is not evenly distributed. The more online you are, the likely you are to feel it, which is why I'm not online. The less secure your finances, the likelier you are to feel it. The more your friends are making money, this is so true, the likelier you are to feel it. Some people don't have this gene, Josh Brown. I wish I was one of them. Thankfully, I've learned to control it. I've put personal guardrails in place.

I implore you to – so tell us what your guardrails are. How do you avoid getting swept up in this? So it's like when I go to the casino. So when I am – You have a limit how much money you'll put in? Listen, I'm telling you. When I am purely speculating, when I'm just like, listen, I hope to sell this to a bigger idiot within the next 24 hours, then there is a dollar amount that I will not go over, period. I think this is more dangerous than sports for many reasons.

But one of them is like the game ends at some point. This game doesn't ever end. It's bad. It doesn't end until you're in handcuffs, basically. doesn't ever end. It's bad. It doesn't end until you're in handcuffs, basically. This game ends when you're a billionaire or the coin is zero or you get arrested. There's three ways this ends. Here's where you get into trouble. These things are so volatile. We showed on the screen that Shiba Inu coin. I can't believe I said that. But seriously, that thing is up 300% for the last week. In the last 24 hours, or even in the last hour, it fell like 20%. So let's say that you lose $1,000. And you're like,

all right, that's it. I was willing to lose $1,000. But then it rips after you sold it. You're like, mother. And then you're like, $10,000. Exactly. You revenge trade. And that's where people get into real trouble yeah i could see that uh you know what what's interesting is the people that are involved are all in on the joke this time there's nobody like doing this that's like oh yeah this is like normal everyone gets it which is really fascinating so it becomes an like i don't think there's anybody that's in bonk that's like reading the white paper okay no it's i think they're saying it's a game they're saying look what blank rocket did two days ago that money

is going to rotate out into this blank rocket that's a new one i'm not saying i never heard of it okay i don't know what you're talking about i'm not gonna say what it's called but like that that is uh that's interesting to me that everyone now is in on the joke and it still doesn't matter. They still want to play. I find that to be really – and I guess if – this is the thing. If the market is big enough, and in this case it's global, then absolutely there are enough idiots to come along and play the game later at higher prices. That's not an irrational thought. It's not.

It's crazy, but it's not irrational. Let me give you the volume for the last 24 hours. It's crazy, but it's not irrational. Yeah, it's true. Dogecoin, $9.2 billion. Seriously, $9.2 billion. Bonk only did $1.6 billion, but Shiba did $15 billion. There's a billion dollars trading in Bonk only did a billion six, but Shiba, Shiba did 15 billion dollars trading in Bonk. Dude, 15 billion dollars in volume over the last 24 hours.

It's unbelievable. I don't want it all to go to zero. I need it to. Well, sorry. You're going to be waiting a while. Yeah, I don't care. I just can't believe that we're doing this again. Bitcoin topped 850 days ago.

It's not that long ago. We're back. We're doing this. And forget about Bitcoin. But Shiba Inu, Bonk, we're doing this again? Okay. We have the big protocols. We'll scroll through these really quickly. No, no, no. Yeah.

All right. Put that back up real quick. So just like for people that are listening, I don't know. When does this change as of? Are these year-to-date changes? No. Can't be, right? This is not helpful.

Yeah. Get this off. All right. Let me see the YCharts chart of Solana, Bitcoin, Ethereum. All right. Let me see. Let me see the Y charts chart of Solana, Bitcoin, Ethereum. All right. So this is a year. Is it even a year? Six months? Six months. So Solana is up 575% and ETH is up 120 and Bitcoin's up 163%. And that's just in the last half a year. So we're doing it. Yeah, we are.

We're 100% doing it again. Show me Robinhood and Coinbase. Here you go. Here are the enablers. If you're curious where a lot of this activity is taking place, Coinbase is up 178% over the last six months, and Robinhood is up 43%.% over the last six months. And Robinhood is up 43%. And going higher, it appears.

If this activity continues, why would those stocks back off? I don't know. I want to ask you this. So David Lawant tweeted, today's leverage washout in context, $338 million in Bitcoin and ETH long futures liquidations. That's the second highest daily level since November 8th, 2022, when the FTX fallout was developing. So some real numbers today.

What does that mean? Can you explain leverage washout? What does that mean? Where is this data coming from? And what is that capturing? A bunch of sites report this. Like the one that I, I think the one that I use is Glassnode.

Okay, but what is that capturing? That's capturing futures trades? I guess like stop losses that are hit. I don't really know exactly. This says long futures liquidations. So that's capturing futures trades that got liquidated because there was too much leverage. There's too much margin. We'll use it in stock terms. These are people trading futures on margin who got liquidated because the price reversed intraday violently. It went from 68 to 63,000. So again, I don't know if these are stop orders that are hit. I don't know how these are reported, but there was a big, there was, yeah, I know I put it here. I read it.

There was a big leverage washout. Exactly what that means. Sorry. I can't tell you technically what that means. But so what I, what I was going to ask you was of the people that are speculating, like how much of it do you think is like reckless betting the mortgage money? Because I think from retail, I don't think it's like that. 100% of it. No, no, no, no. Because this, these are professionals. Yeah. It's professionals trading. It's all speculation.

Hedge funds are not like long-only vehicles. They're not doing that. They're in this market. They are active in this market. My point is retail can be participating and not in a non-maniacal way, if that makes sense. Oh, I agree. I own all this shit. I own it via our index uh product i didn't sell that i'm not i'm not trading it out of no you don't no you don't count the

people that are buying and selling aren't necessarily all lever to the hill right you know that's not that's true i agree uh it's oh of course it's not every there's no such thing as everyone all doing the same thing i totally agree with. My point is the same way that people that are using FanDuel are not necessarily crushing themselves. Now, are there people that are being reckless? Of course, there always are. Yeah, but dude, everyone who's like a long only in this space is now profitable.

It doesn't matter when you bought it. If you bought it at the top of 2021, you are now up. That's literally everyone who is a long only and hasn't traded is up. I'm guessing that's most holders. I don't think most holders are transacting. I really don't. I think most holders are holding. The last time I looked, over 60% of the supply of Bitcoin hadn't traded hands in over a year. Yeah. So do you think that's changed? I don't. hadn't traded hands in over a year. Yeah. So do you think that's changed? I don't. I do. I think that over the last several weeks, there's been a lot more turnover than there had been with the ETF, obviously. Let me say it this way. I think there's more turnover,

but I still think the vast majority of people aren't touching it. By the way, every time I log in to whatever crypto stuff I have, which I don't do until it hits an all-time high, it doesn't mean I'm going to do something. I just look at it and I go, oh, cool. I have more money. I have no idea why it's up. Now, are there people who have an opinion and want to express it by selling or buying more or whatever? Totally. I just don't think that's most people. Do you? No, no. I think most people are buying and holding. And you know exactly why it's up. You know exactly why it's up. Last Hogan tweeted this. No, no, no. I think most people are buying and holding. And you know exactly why it's up. You know exactly why it's up. Last Hogan tweeted this.

No, no, no. I mean, there's a lot of reasons. But last week, 6,000 new Bitcoin were supplied onto the market. And the ETFs alone bought 30,000 Bitcoin. There was a massive demand supply imbalance. It's not rocket science. It's a new buyer. That's right.

OK. Look, it's fun. And I'm glad you have guardrails. I wanted to ask you, do you think the Fed is either formally or informally watching this stuff? Yes. I think they're aware. This makes it to their screen for sure, right? Yeah. If you ran the Fed and you saw Bitcoin hit $70,000 and you saw the return of Solana volumes and ETH volumes and NFT trading is up, you probably wouldn't be in a rush to cut interest rates. All things equal. Or you say this type of speculative behavior can happen independent of interest rates. And our job is to monitor the

economy, stable employment, stable prices. I think it can happen independent of interest rates, but not independent of overall financial conditions. Financial conditions are easing this year. The Fed does not control financial conditions, as we've learned. I think they know they have influence. And if they were to start cutting into a mania like this, it would probably look worse than if they do nothing. Just my personal opinion. I mean, he's got to testify before Congress. He's got to answer questions at press conferences.

If this circus continues and he starts cutting rates into it, it's going to look like really psychotic. Even though it should have nothing to do with it, it's not in the basket. It's not an inflation number. It's like the vibes. If inflation continues to come down, he's not going to not cut because come RocketCoin is mooning.

I can't believe you just said it. I said it. You said we weren't going to say it. No, you said it. I didn't say it. I would never. All right. You said we weren't going to say it. No, you said it. I didn't say it. I would never. All right. You're up next.

All right. Are IPOs going to come back? Yeah. Webull, this is from Bloomberg. Webull to go public via merger and a SPAC. So there we go. We have a SPAC. It's official.

We have a SPAC deal in 2024. What is the story with this? What is Webull? It's like a SPAC. It's official. We have a SPAC deal in 2024. What is the story with this? What is Webull? It's like a brokerage? Webull is sort of like Robin. It's like a Robin and competitor. Right. Okay.

I don't know if Webull allows you to follow people's trades. You know what I mean? This is $7.5 billion, and I don't even know what it is, really. That's interesting. All right. Look, I don't think that this will be emblematic of the IPO comeback, but I do have a list of everything on the runway. This comes to us via our friend Aaron Dillon, friend of the show. Aaron is our resident pre-IPO startup guru. is our resident pre-IPO startup guru. Put this up, John.

This is pre-IPO stocks implied valuation since the last primary round. So this is like looking at money they've raised, what they raised at. ByteDance is implied valuation, $283 billion. That's the biggest one in the hopper. SpaceX, $181. We might see this one later this year, depending on how badly they need cash. That's going to be a huge deal.

SpaceX is probably the only reason why anyone is putting up with the shenanigans at X. OpenAI, $108 billion. Stripe, $65 65. Databricks, I keep hearing this name over and over again, 48 billion. Epic Games, which is the parent company of Fortnite, 28.2 billion. And Disney is an investor there. Canva, what's Canva's like? Do you know what it is? We use Canva. Batman. Yeah, what you know what it is? We use Canva. Batman. Yeah, what do we use it for? We use Canva for our client decks.

Okay, so it's like design software? Is that the best way to put it? I think so. Okay. What's Revolut? That sounds like payments. That's a fintech. Yeah.

Plaid is also fintech. And then Rippling, is that crypto? $14.8 billion. I don't know. Anthropic is on here. Hugging Face, which is AI. Klarna, which is buy now, pay later. Consensus is-

Discord, eToro. Reddit, $5.9 billion, which we talked about with Aaron Dillon the other day. Discord, eToro, Chime. There's some shit here. There's some names. There's some things. So yeah, some of these are going to come. They have to. They're pent up. And to that effect, we have two things here about Morgan Stanley. Do you want to do yours first? that effect. We have two things here about Morgan Stanley. Do you want to do yours first? Yeah. So I didn't read the report, but Carl continued to tweet a new 80-page report from Morgan Stanley. We expect global M&A volumes to rise 50% versus 2023 as leading indicators flash green. Banks point to deal pipelines, building, and headwinds to corporate confidence ease.

So I know M&A and IPOs are not the same thing, but they're in the same family. Activity. Activity. Activity. There is. Capital markets are supportive of activity. Morgan Stanley is opening pre-IPO shares trading to its wealth management clients. This is probably something that would have happened three years ago, and then the crash maybe cooled everybody off. So this coming back, I think, is a really important signal that the window is open.

Morgan Stanley's wealth management arm is giving its clients a chance to buy and sell coveted shares of private companies before they go public. Now they're coveted. Two years ago, nobody wanted any of this stuff. The private markets transaction desk will assist Morgan Stanley wealth clients seeking to invest. So they have a trading desk, which is really interesting. There are 1,000 so-called unicorns. These are private companies valued at over a billion dollars. And Morgan Stanley will let its individual retail clients, I guess, probably at over $5 million net worth trade. Here's the quote,

Kevin Swan, head of private market solutions at Morgan Stanley Wealth Management. There's been increasing pressure over the past number of years to get into these companies while the value creation is occurring, rather than having to wait until the IPO. When investors have a need for liquidity, we want to be there and have a solution for them. IPO. When investors have a need for liquidity, we want to be there and have a solution for them. Yeah. So this is my opinion. This helps both sides of Morgan Stanley's business. There are wealth management clients who are like, why do I have to wait for Stripe to come public? I want to buy it now. And then there are Stripe executives who have shares who probably need to offload some because it's been on the IPO runway for like 10 years. So this is a liquidity solution. So if you're an investment bank like a Morgan Stanley

sitting in the middle of this, why not match buyers and sellers? I think it's smart. Somebody should be doing this. I know it exists already in the form of an exchange, but here's an investment bank. What do you think? I'm curious. Yeah. Yes, it helps both sides. I'm curious to see the market's reaction. And if the market does not take kindly, does not digest these prices well, if the first couple of weeks don't go well, I wonder if the turtle will put its head back in its shell and they'll wait for better conditions. I can't imagine what the better conditions would be, but I'm curious to see the market's reaction. Well, the market's reaction will be dependent on what the NASDAQ does. So I would say if we don't have some sort of catastrophic correction in NASDAQ stocks, the second half is going to have a lot of deals. Like arms a beast.

Yep. Yeah. And we've had some. They're just not like high-profile tech. But we have like Birkenstock went public. I haven't looked at Instacart in a while. It's basically not quite an all-time high. But it's, dude, look at the chart. No, I know. I'm saying the deal was a bomb.

The deal was a bomb. And it's at the highest level since it IPO'd. Yeah. I think that one trades in line with Amazon more than most people think. And the IPO ETF is also acting pretty well. So yeah, now's the time. Let's do it. All right.

Next topic. I wanted to carve out a bunch of time for this one because I think it's going to be a really important story in the second half of this year, if not sooner. and half of this year, if not sooner, is private credit sowing the seeds of the next big market-wide scandal? Is this where the next big scandal is going to emanate from? Not the whole asset class, but- Scandal? Yeah, just blowups that people weren't expecting, surprises. Maybe I should have said the next big shock or market surprise. I think it's coming from here.

I have a few reasons why. Let me just preface this. We're about to get into this. I'm probably going to say some shit that's really dumb and uninformed because I'm not an expert in this space. So with that out of the way, let's go. Great.

Turn his mic up then, Duncan. So this is what I want to say. People are starting to write articles about this asset class that are highly informed. And it took a while because private credit has been riding this unbelievable wave of momentum and good vibes. I think the returns of the asset class have been strong. There's a ton of demand on the part of investors when interest rates were zero, which is obviously no longer the case. And you just had a really supple couple of years

for this industry before anybody had really heard of it. Now, it's kind of like on the tip of everyone's tongue. You talk to a wealth management person at a big bank and ask them what they're doing for their clients. Private credit is like the first thing they spit out. The distinction between private credit and private equity, private equity, people are very aware of what it is. It's like buying private companies, buying the stocks of private companies. This is the same thing, but you're making loans to private companies. It has not been a big asset class for wealth management up until recently. It's always been institutional. Big banks have made these loans historically. Now it's family office. It's wealth management. It's RIA. It's just everywhere.

Hold on. An important detail is that the loans are emanating from the Apollos and Blackstones of the world and less so the giant, less so the Goldman Sachs of the world. Yeah, look, the regulations 15 years ago, the change in regulation, they wanted big banks out of risky activity. And one of the unforeseen consequences of that was that private companies increasingly had trouble getting loans from banks. And you had this new crop of hedge funds come along and say, oh, we'll do that business all day. And it's a great business when things are going well. By and large, things have been going well for a while. Outside this pocket during the early stages of the pandemic, there really hasn't been any cause for concern. And as a result, the AUM has just exploded.

Let's put this first chart up. This is from the FT. You could tell because it's salmon colored. We live in private equity times. You can see that even as recently as 2015, so about eight or nine years ago, this was about $2 trillion. And now we're like $6 trillion. I don't know what percentage of this is private credit, but it's not nothing. It's not nothing. It's a piece. This is global private debt assets under management. This gets a little bit closer. So this is $1.6-ish trillion just in global private debt assets under management.

So it's really big. The private credit market has tripled in size since 2015, according to Bloomberg, $1.6 trillion. That includes traditional direct lending to smaller companies, buyout financing, as well as real estate and infrastructure debt. People are saying the B word. The chairman of UBS, Colm Kelleher, said it's a bubble. There is clearly an asset bubble going on in private credit. That's a direct quote. There are many other asset bubbles building. What it needs is just one thing to trigger a fiduciary crisis. I think he meant financial crisis. People are way too comfortable throwing around the B word.

Not everything's a bubble. It's the chairman of UBS. So what? I don't care. This is not an anonymous Twitter account. So what, dude? What is it? So what?

Powerful people can't stupidly throw around the B word? They can. I just think it carries more weight when somebody like that says it, says it out loud. And you know how much money UBS is making from private credit right now? Funds, syndications, loans, so much money. So he's saying it. I just, that's interesting to me. I don't, I don't, I don't feel like a guy in his position

just yells fire in a theater, in a crowded theater. I don't know. I don't feel like a guy in his position just yells fire in a theater, in a crowded theater. I don't know. I don't know. Okay. What I do know is that there was a bubble in my inbox. Well, for sure. It's three to four a day. It feels like private credit pitches.

Yeah. And some of them are funds, like real big funds. Some of them are like, hey, we have access to middle market deals if you're looking for one. Why the f**k would I be looking for that? So the rub here is that these are private loans from a financial institution to a company. These are not bonds that trade on exchange. The prices are all over the place, depending on who you ask. So what is going to be the prick that pops if this is a bubble? Obviously, I have no idea. But it is alarming when you see the assets ballooning.

We spoke to somebody recently, and I was asking him about what he thought about this. This is an academic person. And he said, I think that the Apollos of the world are much better at making loans than big banks. So he was like sort of poo-pooing it a little bit. Right. So the theory is like Apollo has so much at stake. There's no FDIC. There's no federal bailout.

Like Apollo literally can't make a ton of bad loans all at once. They will cease to exist. I agree. And that's why I'm not like screaming and ringing the alarm bells. Because I understand there are players in this market who have been in this market for multiple cycles. They've seen it all. So I don't want to present this as like it's an imminent crisis.

I just think this is where the surprises will come from. like it's an imminent crisis. I just think this is where the surprises will come from. The good news is that if Apollo or Aries or somebody makes a direct loan to an issuer, they're all over the situation all the time. And usually it's one-to-one, which means there's no committee. Nobody could force this company into a chapter 11. They could just keep working things out. So they could restructure the deal. They could do a debt for equity swap or whatever. I agree. Okay. So all right. So that's good. In a bank loan with a syndicate, it's different. And when you have systemically important people involved, they have stronger set of rules that they have to abide by and they will drop the marks and they will,

you know, do disruptive things. Whereas a hedge fund doesn't have to. Here's the bad news. We're seeing more payment in kind deals, PIKs or PICs. And this is where a struggling company, let's say you lent me money. I'm a shoe factory and you're a hedge fund. I come to you and say, you know what, dude, I can't make these ongoing payments to you, these interest payments. I'm going to do a payment in kind deal with you where I just agree. I'll pay it all to you at the end. This sounds scary, right? Like just the concept.

That sounds like it's a bigger risk. The thing is, based on where these loans are being marked, the market doesn't seem to be that worried about it. So that to me, and why is that? Because the people managing these portfolios have their compensation tied to the value they carry these loans at. So you're not seeing these things get chalked down to $0.70 on the dollar. They're being carried at 95 cents on the dollar, even if it's a PIK.

So guess what? Investors are getting what they want. They love being lied to. Don't show me the volatility. Don't market. I know it's bullshit, but I would even forget about the illiquidity premium. I'll pay for that.

In the Bloomberg piece, there's a whole section about how actually it's better this way. We would prefer to have less transparency. Lie to me. Lie to me. I don't want to see the price. Quote, the option of kicking the can down the road is often used by lower rated borrowers.

And while it doesn't necessarily signal distress, it does cause anxiety about what it might be obscuring. People underestimate how dangerous PIK products are, says Benoit Soler, senior portfolio manager, pointing out sometimes the enormous cost of deferring interest. It can embed a huge forward risk for the company. Yeah, you think?

Three quarters of PIK loans right now are being valued at more than 95 cents on the dollar. Sorry, as of September. So that's a little- That's obviously bullshit. Here's another problem. The marks are all over the place just in general. Bloomberg cites one issue where the top mark is 84 cents

and the low mark is 59 cents on the dollar. So I would say, look at this. This is not like price targets on a stock where you're throwing darts and who cares. This is different. This is literally pricing in the possibility of getting your money back or not. I don't think that these should be that far apart.

And here's why this, hold on. So if these were publicly traded, these spreads would be much tighter. Guess what? They will be soon. There'll be secondary liquidity for these things very traded, these spreads would be much tighter. Guess what? They will be soon. There'll be secondary liquidity for these things very soon, given the size. Next slide. Here's another situation worth getting into.

There are listed direct lenders marking their positions higher than the same position held by a major bank. Of course, you should not be surprised by this. The banks who are in some of the same deals are more conservative on their marks. And here's why this matters. There's a company that went bankrupt last week called Thracio. It's an e-commerce company that sells its stuff on Amazon. Insect traps, pillows, cocktail shakers. Bain Capital and Oak Tree priced this company's loans at 65 cents and 79 cents respectively as of the end of September. Two BlackRock funds had it at 71 and 75. There was a firm called Monroe Capital who was at 84. Goldman was at 59. They went bankrupt this week.

So the Wall Street guys were closer, but none of them were pricing this thing appropriately, apparently, or things went really bad really quickly. There is definitely unscrupulous behavior in this asset class. I don't know if there's more than others. I just don't know that I have enough information to be worried that this is systemic or that this is something that the normal person needs to be worried about. Glad you said that. The market does not seem to be worried about this. Let's pull up. These are publicly traded business development corporations. It's not an exact proxy, but BDCs are often making these private credit loans. They do other things too. This is the VanEck BDC income ETF.

So I think this owns a portfolio of publicly traded business development corps. And you could see it's not at its high. It's been trending down, but it's okay. Here's the next one. This is the Putnam BDC income ETF. And so this thing is yielding, the VanEck one is yielding 11%. So that's why you buy it, right? You buy shares in a BDC income ETF. And so this thing is yielding, the VanEck one is yielding 11%.

So that's why you buy it, right? You buy shares in a BDC. You have high risk, but you have a high income. So you know what you're, look, I don't think the market is worried about this stuff at all. But the reporters are now all over it and they're asking questions.

And it's crazy. There is an insatiable demand seemingly from advisors because if there wasn't, my inbox would not look like what it looks like. It's crazy. I think there's an insatiable demand from issuers to sell more and more of this product. And I think they're selling it, looking at the amount of defaults in the rear view mirror over the last three years, which were effectively zero. Well, I also wonder – That's going to change.

So these things obviously traded a premium to liquid stuff. At what point do higher interest rates cripple these companies? I don't want a 12% yield. How are these companies paying that back? Some will. Some won't, like everything else. some will some won't like everything like everything else but i i don't think i don't think people are expecting to be surprised or shocked from this area of the market because it's so new it's been around but it's new in the sense that now it's trillions of dollars

so there will there will be headlines there will be bankruptcies i'm not again with limited knowledge i'm not worried about a systemic meltdown. I like the fact that according to the Bloomberg piece, the publicly traded, systemically important banks that are playing in this space are on the more conservative side, how they're marking these loans. I do like that. That feels nice to hear. And so maybe that's the big takeaway. I'd much rather Apollo and Blackstone and Carlyle make these loans than the too-big-to-fail banks. 100% agree. That's their business.

And they're obviously good at it if they've survived for as long as they have. So, again, the issue is not the asset class. It's probably the issue is the popularity of the asset class right after a huge interest rate hiking cycle. That, to me, seems like what the problem is. It's definitely newsworthy. Are we good here? Yep. Okay.

So Ray Dalio wrote a post on LinkedIn asking about, is this a stock market bubble? And this is how Dalio- Like the whole stock market? This is how he defines it. Okay. I define a bubble market as one that has a combination of the following

in high degrees, high prices relative to traditional measures of value, unsustainable conditions, many new and naive buyers who were attracted in because the market has gone up a lot. What's an unsustainable? Sorry. Unsustainable conditions means what? So he writes extrapolating past revenue and earnings growth rate late in the cycle when capacity limits mean that growth can't be sustained. That sounds a little bit spot on

broad, bullish sentiment. A high percentage of purchases being financed by debt. Um, by the way, private equity companies in that same financial Times piece, private equity companies, it used to be just basically purely these companies where the LBOs were financed with 90% debt. That has been trending lower. Now it's 50% equity. So I thought that was interesting. All right. And then lastly, a lot of forward and speculative purchases made to bet on price gains.

So is some of this in place? Without a doubt. I mean, we just went over some of it. He has a US equity market bubble gauge that is proprietary to, I guess, Bridgewater and 50th percentile. So according to this, there was a bubble. This is not helpful. What do you mean?

What do you do with this? 50%. I guess the answer is you do nothing. No, he's saying that this is not a bubble. We're sort of in no man's land, like we were in 2021. He makes a good point here. We can look, for instance, at NVIDIA today versus Cisco during the tech bubble. The two cases I've seen similar share price trajectory.

However, the path of cash flows has been quite different. And this is the important part. NVIDIA's two-year forward PE is around 27, reflecting that even as the market cap has grown 10 times, earnings have also grown significantly and are expected to continue to grow over the next year or two. During the tech bubble, Cisco's two-year forward PE hit 100. The market was pricing in far more speculative long-term growth than we see today. So on the left-hand side, you see just the market cap index to the peak and percentage change. And yeah, NVIDIA has had a run rivaling Cisco. But again, as Dalia said, if you look at the two-year forward earnings path, this does not even remotely result in 100 times two-year forward earnings path, this does not even remotely result in 100 times

two years forward earnings. Cisco got more expensive as it rallied because the pace of the rally was outpacing the pace of the earnings growth. And that is not the case so far with NVIDIA, which is insane when you think about it. which is insane when you think about it. The rate at which NVIDIA is growing its earnings and at these dollar amounts is unbelievable, totally unprecedented in the history of the NASDAQ. There just has never, ever been a company with this size profits growing at this rate. And of course, it won't go on forever, but it now has been going on for like a year. And it's amazing. It's amazing. I don't know what else to say about it.

The fundamentals are in a bubble. Yeah, right. Right. Forget about the share price. Like what's going on? This company's sales are in a bubble. But interestingly, But interestingly, a lot of what was powering Cisco was this just explosion in CapEx. Some of that CapEx ended up being wasteful, and some of it was just pull forward demand. And I do think that a lot of this cloud data center buildout stuff is pulling forward spending that would have otherwise happened in 2025, 2026. There is an arms race underway. The hyperscalers do not want to be looked at as behind schedule on delivering AI-capable computing. Amazon can't afford to be looked at that way. Neither can Microsoft. Neither can Alphabet. So there is some element to that.

It's a desperation. And those things don't normally end well for everyone. So that's what's on my mind there. Bank of America, Savito's team wrote, today's S&P 500 is half as levered, higher quality, and a similar or lower earnings volatility than in prior decades. Chart on, please, John. So there's a bunch of charts here. The one that caught my eye was the bottom right. The percentage of B plus or better quality-weighted stocks. And look at

the dot-com bubble. Look at that shit. Half of stocks, just half of stocks were rated B or better, B plus or better. Now it's 60%. Again, just go through the components of the NASDAQ 100 and you will find just quality, like just amazingly profitable companies that are growing their profits year after year, tenured management teams, serious institutional investors behind them. It doesn't mean the stocks can't fall. You look at what was powering the NASDAQ 23 years ago, and I was there.

It was literally junk. It was companies, people are like, oh, they had no revenue. They had no business model. They had no plan. I really don't think these situations are comparable. Let me ask you this. Can there be a stock market bubble? Listen, of course, there's some stupid shit happening. plan. I really don't think these situations are comparable. At least not yet. Let me ask you this.

Can there be a stock market bubble? Listen, of course, there's some stupid shit happening. Can there be a stock market bubble when the total return of the Russell 2000 is flat over the last three years? Is that what a market bubble, a stock market bubble looks like? You can have rolling mini bubbles. You could have speculative manias and small handfuls of stocks. They always exist. John, chart on. Look at that thing. Yeah. Flat. Three years. Yeah. No AI. This is a weird bubble. You got one AI stock in here and they just moved it into the S&P. Kill yourself. So again, I'm not saying stocks are a bargain here, but we're way too liberal with the B word. Yeah. Well, people get frustrated when other people are making money and they're not. And it's the easiest thing to toss out and make yourself feel better. Don't tell me bonk is in a bubble.

Can I throw out one more thing on this? This is from Eddie Donmez at Creative Capital. This is the performance of the Magnificent Seven since the launch of ChatGPT, which is November of 22, right at the stock market bottom, coincidentally, give or take. I like how we made this look like a Star Wars movie poster. NVIDIA up 386% since the launch of ChatGPT. That one makes sense. This one doesn't.

Meta up 325% since now. Meta was in a huge drawdown going into it. So I don't know if that's all chat GPT. Amazon up 85%. That makes sense. Microsoft up 64%. I was actually surprised. I thought it was up more.

The only face not on this chart is Jassy. Snubbed. Right. Snubbed. Snubbed. Right. Snubbed. Snubbed again. All right. HBO is, so I don't call it Max. I refuse to.

It was a terrible rebrand and a horrible idea. The brand value is in the name HBO. So somebody says, this is the new HBO show. That has like weight. That has meaning. Somebody's like, oh, did you see that new thing on Max? What the hell is that? Cinemax?

I think five years ago, and this is not just their problem. It's obviously the broader trends. But five years ago, they were doing $2 billion in profits, HBO alone. Pre-streaming. I know. Last year, they did $100 million. So not great.

There's no profits in streaming. All right. They're going to do a password crackdown. So the question for you is, if Max tells users they can't share their parents' passwords anymore so they could watch Euphoria, how many people just shrug and say, all right, and never come back? This is not Netflix. This is bad, right?

You know, I don't know why I just saw this. But remember Gary Oldman? You know, I don't know why I just said this, but remember Gary Oldman? You know, I'm not going to say that. This is a bad calculation. This is a bad calculation. They're not Netflix. So there's a guy named JB Perrette. It sounds like JC Perrette when I read it,

who is the head of global streaming and games at Warner Brothers Discovery, said on Monday at Morgan Stanley's big media conference, I'm conscious of not overselling the password crackdown because you see Netflix's success. But Netflix was in market for 17 years. That means people are sharing passwords for 17 years. We've been in the market for four, if you count the HBO Max launch.

Obviously, we're not quite at the same scale, but it's still a meaningful opportunity. All right, I buy that. They're probably leaving some money on the table. Not a lot. Netflix had a bonanza when they did the password crackdown. That was like two straight quarters

of outperform beating estimates, largely on that. That was pre- straight quarters of beating estimates largely on that. That was pre-advertising platform. So I don't think you can get that effect in Warner Brothers. These companies continue to chase Netflix over the cliff. I'm not saying that this is a great idea either. But instead of doing the password crackdown, because these people will not convert. They're not going to pay for Max as well. If somebody has an additional shared account, then show ads in the shared account. Just do that.

Well, that's part of the solution. They say, we're cracking down on your password, but here's an option in between. So rather than paying $9.99 a month, pay $6.99 and we'll show you ads. Yeah, that's how Netflix did it. Yeah. They didn't just say you're screwed. They had a alternative. Subscribers to premium subscription services grew at their slowest pace since before the pandemic began. They lost subscribers. Rising just 10.1% last year compared to 21.6% in 2022. On top of slowing growth, churn has nearly tripled since 2019. 140.5 million cancellations for the industry in 2023. That's the largest subscriber drop in the last five years. So not only are these companies not growing, They're battling with churn, which is like,

sounds like the traditional cable companies, quite frankly. They lost subscribers. They're f***ed. And they have a ton of debt still. Put this chart up. They have a 20 billion, this is Warner Brothers Discovery,

by the way, but let's just stay, this is the whole industry. This is Antenna collects this data. This is from Yahoo Finance. So you can see that red bar is getting bigger. That's net. I guess that's not net.

No, that's cancels. The net is at top. The net is shrinking. The net is 24.2 million. That's not great. Not great. All right. Warner Brothers Discovery.

Let's put the chart up. Do we have a chart of the stock? Okay. This is an $8 stock now. all-time low, I think. $20 billion market cap, $40 billion in debt. No thanks. They are claiming that their streaming business is profitable because they have slashed costs to the bone. But as we said the other day, all that means is less content in the future. It's not profitable. It's almost like a death spiral.

It's not profitable. Lucas Shaw was reporting on this. They're including the entire bundle, which obviously goes partly to cable. The streaming platform is not profitable, period. Yeah, and will not be. This is not a good situation. So I would not be a buyer. I don't think I want to risk that either.

I really don't. Could it go to 11 like that for no reason because there's a rumor? Yeah, sure. But there's easier ways to make money. I don't need to buy this. In the comments, they're saying off tangent, but is Shogun good? Off topic. Yes, it's good. Unfortunately, it could be as good as gold. it's a one and done. It's no season two. It's based on a book. Why is that bad?

I love one and done. It's a limited series. I want to get in. I want to get out. I want like five seasons. I want to like explore the world that they've created. I love this show. We'll talk about it later.

All right, you're up. Last thing. What do you got? All right. You know what? Pullback's coming. We're here. It's enough. We're in it.

It's enough. We're in the pullback. We're in it. It started already. I actually pulled it. Don't undercut me. The market made a new all-time high yesterday. So don't be like, oh, we're in it.

The market made an all-time high yesterday. What did? The NASDAQ? The S&P 500. No, I think the NASDAQ pullback is underway. Okay. Fine. It's only NVIDIA going up now.

The NASDAQ, that's not true. The NASDAQ 100 made a new high two days ago. I guess it made a new high yesterday. The NASDAQ equal weight. So you're wrong. I think the giant, the mega cap tech stocks have topped. You're wrong. One by one.

One by one, they're falling, Michael. I'm not wrong. No, no, no. How am I wrong? You just said it's just Nvidia. Dude, I just, the NASDAQ 100 equal weight. Then are you not listening? The NASDAQ 100 equal weight is not mega cap tech.

It's two different things. I'm only talking about Microsoft, Apple, Tesla, Nvidia, Meta. That's all I'm talking about. It's over. The NASDAQ 100. That's great. I'll remember that the next time I'm on Jeopardy, but that's not what I'm saying. Dude, it hit an all-time high two days ago. Two days ago. Two days ago. MegaCap Tech. That's all I'm talking about.'re like stealing my point before I even make it. Don't try and steal my point. I make the point that we're about to have a pullback. Don't do this.

Okay. What I'm saying is I agree. I'm allowed to say I agree. That's all I'm saying. Go ahead. What do you got? All right. Here's from Bespoke.

It has now been over a year since the S&P 500 had a one-day drop of 2%. That's nuts. It's the third longest streak since 2000. Furthermore, also from Bespoke, it's been a one-way market for the last four months. Look at the streak without a 2% decline from a closing high. We've been within 2% of a closing high for 85 days or thereabouts. Next chart. I mean, it's enough already.

It's enough. Now you're stealing my line. We're up 16. The S&P 500 is up 16 of the last 18 weeks. The last time you saw something like this was 1971. And honestly, why is this even happening? Short cover. Two more and then I'm done.

Yeah, short cover. Just kidding. No, positioning. All right. Positioning. The S&P 500 is the most above its 200-day moving average in almost three years. And then lastly, this is from All-Star Charts. They have the sentiment composite, and it is getting pretty hot.

Hot, hot, hot. Hold on. The sentiment composite, but that's like flipped upside down? It's backwards. So opportunity means people are bearish. And the red light means maybe pump the brakes because everybody's bullish. And it's a composite using AAII, bull bear spread, the VIX, equity put-call ratio, and stuff like that. So I am making the case, before you made the case, you tried to steal my case, that it's here.

No, it's a great case. Only I made it two weeks ago. We're going to get a 2% pullback tomorrow. You heard it here first, 2%. All right. I think, truthfully, though, I think the S&P, I agree with you, but that wasn't my point. I wasn't stepping on what you were saying. I was saying, I think that the leadership stocks, one by one, are already breaking down,

like the original leadership stocks. The MAG-7, you're starting to hear people refer to it as the sensational six. I don't know if you've picked up on that. They're not even including Tesla anymore. The next thing is they'll cut it down to the fantastic five or whatever. Yeah, they'll do it. You'll see it. So I think that that theme, Mag7 AI is over for now. I think it's over for now. The only one still going up is NVIDIA. The rest of them, I think you've seen as good as it gets. I said this on my blog. I said

this on this show two weeks ago and I'm standing by it. So does that coincide with a broader pullback? Probably. Meta made an all-time high on Monday. Do you think it's going to get into its gap? It had that monster earnings gap. Remember that? Is it going to get in there? I don't even understand what it's going up on anymore. I have no idea. It had a massive beat, like massive. No, I know. But when was that? A month ago?

That was, that was February 1st. Well, this is what I'm asking you. Why is the market just, just melting higher? 16 in the last 18 weeks? I don't think, I don't think, I don't think I have a great answer for that at all. I just, I feel really strongly that with Apple fading the way it is, Alphabet broke below its 200 day today, like this theme is dying. Amazon looks better than both.

Microsoft and Meta look better than Amazon. So it's not, they don't, like these stocks are not all rolling over. It's just hard for me to understand why they're going to keep ripping the way they have. So I think that that's something that I feel really strongly about. I'm not excited about them at all. Make the case. By the way, why are we not going to see Dune this Thursday? Why are you making me wait two weeks? Sold out. Ah. Sold out. So we're going to see Dune in IMAX. And I, like, just for the hell of it, found this old script. I was pitching IMAX 20 years ago.

This is a true story. Do we have screenshots of this? This is literally my script this is like my brokerage script and i found a copy of it deliver it i was pitching it it was like a five dollar stock my price target was 10 it ended up going to 40 um but everything that i was saying apollo 13 harry potter 3 the matrix they were converting old theaters into a new format of IMAX, not the gigantic 70 millimeter thing, but just like an upgraded experience. And it worked. I don't know how many people I pitched the stock to. You could see all the closing lines

that they teach you at the boiler room. This is so iconic. Anyway, I reread the script, and everything that I was pitching all came true. And it's the same story now. Dune is a better movie for IMAX than for anybody else. They make so much more money with the IMAX version, the profit margins. What are you laughing at? Here's the deal.

I'm sure you're familiar with the company's eight story high movie screens. Am I correct? I am. I am familiar, Michael. Tell me more. What you probably don't know, Josh, is that over the last nine months, the company has been revolutionizing the entire motion picture industry worldwide. It has? Yes. And that's not all. This is incredible. Oh my God. Dude. There's literally a line. This is incredible. Oh, my God. Dude. There's literally a line. There's literally a line.

Are you with me? Great. Yeah. Well, listen, this is how we got it done back in the day. Just picture me and JC side by side popping 10 accounts a week with this script because that's literally a thing that happened. I was very good. I was very good. I was very, very skilled.

Anyway, the stock works. We made people money. Yeah, I might buy this piece of shit. Do we have a chart of IMAX? Oh, don't do it. You don't need to buy this. I'm telling you. Not yet. I'm going to wait for the breakout. Dude, look at these crashes. That's just disgusting. Don't do it. I forbid you. I read

my old script was so good. I reread it 20 years later and I want to buy the stock. Here's what I want to say. Speaking of dumb, Chris just texted me, Shiba Inu is ripping, just turned $75 into $250. This is how it starts. Literally the dumbest money. All right. Anyway, here's what I wanted to say. $81.5 million at the box office for Dune 2, the highest of any film released so far this year. IMAX ticket sales represented 23% of the domestic ticket market,

$18. half million. Not only does that fuel the buzz for the movie, but they make more money on those sales. IMAX was really important to Top Gun. I think Tom Cruise was pissed that he couldn't get Mission Impossible into as many IMAX films as he could for Top Gun, and that's why it underperformed. IMAX is super strategic. It was important for Oppenheimer. Yeah. So we're going to go see

Dune 2 on a 70 millimeter screen. It's only around for a couple of weeks and then they take it away. I got, I got us four tickets. I hooked it up. You're welcome. We'll see you at the movies. All right. You got a mystery chart. Oh, can we put this last thing up real quick? This is Dune versus Bitcoin. I saw something that's funny. That's pretty great, right? It's ominous.

It's ominous. It's ominous. I don't know who put that up, but I love it. Okay. Go ahead. All right. I've got a chart for you. Let's throw it on.

Okay. This is, so before I give you any clues. This is another ratio chart. Before I give you any clues, would you say that this looks good or does this look, not look good? Terrible. Looks really bad, right? Yeah.

Is this Apple priced in Bitcoin? Close. I saw this chart from JC. Okay. I feel like I've seen it. It's Apple versus the NASDAQ. Holy moly. Apple versus Bitcoin would look way worse. Yeah. I feel like I've seen it. It's Apple versus the NASDAQ. Holy moly. Apple versus Bitcoin would look way worse. Yeah, it looks terrible.

Looks really bad. It's kind of remarkable that you have Apple in a 42% drawdown and the equal weight of Q is at an all-time high or close to it and S&P equal weight at an all-time high. The rally really is broadening out. So if we get a mega cap tech correction and the market can hang in there, I would love that. That would be phenomenal. Somebody in the comments is saying, Dune 2 is Warner Brothers, you morons. Oh, shit, he's right.

Maybe I am bullish on Warner Brothers now. Wait, you're talking about IMAX. Why are we morons? I don't know. Because we were saying we wouldn't buy Warner Brothers stock, but we're all excited about Dune? I don't know. You know what else was Warner Brothers?

The biggest movie last year. So what? Stock sucks. Hey, in the guy's defense, his handle is worthless stocks and chess. So he's probably a nice guy. We're going to wrap up from here. Thank you guys so much for watching, for listening. We appreciate it. Hey, everybody. Tomorrow

is Wednesday morning. Brand new Animal Spirits. Make sure you listen to that. Michael has a big reveal during this episode, I'm told. I have no idea what it is, but I'll be listening. And then later this week, Ask the Compound with Ben. Jill on Money is this Saturday. We'll have an all-new The Compound and Friends on Friday for you.

Just a whole amazing week full of content. We appreciate you all. Have a great night. Whether you're just getting started as an investor or you're managing a multi-million dollar portfolio, Ritholtz Wealth Management has the solution for you. It all starts with building the right financial plan. management has the solution for you. It all starts with building the right financial plan. To speak with a certified financial planner today, visit ritholtzwealth.com. Don't forget to check us out at youtube.com slash the compound RWM. Make sure to leave a rating and review on

your favorite podcasting app. If you love investing podcasts, check out Michael and Ben every Wednesday morning on Animal Spirits. Thanks for listening. license or exempt from licensure. Nothing on this podcast should be construed as and may not be used in connection with an offer to sell or solicitation of an offer to buy or hold an interest in any security or investment product. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Investing involves risk and possible loss of principal capital. No advice may be rendered by Ritholtz Wealth Management unless a client service agreement is in place.