There's no limit to what people will do physically. You saw the 61-year-old woman that just did a five-and-a-half-hour plank.
What? What? 61-year-old lady. Five-and-a-half-hour plank.
Well, like I said, my wife just did the world championship Ironman 70.3 in Nice, France without training.
That doesn't make sense. You got eight and a half hours to do what she did in eight hours and 15 minutes.
Why without training? She was just already in shape for that. I could do 20 push-ups without stopping, without... because she's too busy to train. And for her, this is like, it's just fun. Like, she's not trying to medal or anything.
Oh my god. But a number of years ago, she had this trophy case installed with no trophies, and she says, 'I'm going to fill this case up with trophies.' And now it's full of trophies. Like, you know, that's determination.
That's pretty awesome. I have a cousin who is doing or attempting to do a marathon. Seven marathons in seven days on seven continents.
Do you know about this? Seven marathons.
So that's like an extra super... on seven different continents.
You run a marathon and wake up the next day and run a marathon.
How do you get from one to the other?
Wow. That one I haven't heard. People are maniacs.
It's good to be back because I was in Europe the last time with the Peter Lynch thing. So I unfortunately missed it. I was on one of our crazy institutional road shows that Fidelity International does, our sister organization. And this year I did three weeks throughout all of Asia Pacific on one carry-on. But last year it was a big Europe trip.
How many cities? Three weeks.
I did Seoul and then the southern city where the national pension fund is, then Tokyo, then Beijing, Shanghai, Taipei, Hong Kong.
Does Fidelity have clients in all these places?
Oh yeah, I met with all the central banks. They have mandates with the governments in these places.
So Fidelity International is institutional and wholesale. So it's not like the US where you buy a mutual fund. And being the Fidelity brand, we have access. I mean, I was at the PBOC. I was at CIC, the big sovereign wealth fund, all asking about gold. What's going on with gold?
Gold in this day and age.
Because they don't have a reserve currency. For us, it's a luxury. Like, who cares, right? It's a size show. It's like Bitcoin. You play or you don't. But for them, it's existential.
That Fidelity event I did with Peter Lynch was definitely like a career highlight.
Like guys like you and I, we're always talking. We're always... He doesn't do a lot of that. And he was razor sharp.
And I think so, I think at first we did a prep call and as you could imagine, it's Fidelity, so there's 10 people on the prep call.
So this is a true story. So we're talking, he has no idea, like it's a podcast. I don't... and then all of a sudden he starts telling stories and I slacked, I forget who I was slacking with. Somebody on my side.
Yeah. I was like, 'Holy, he thinks this is the podcast.' Like, I was worried because he was like, he was great. He was riffing. He was making jokes. And I'm like, 'I think he thinks we're recording the podcast.' It turns out I'm an idiot.
What he was doing was warming me up. Like, hey, I can have fun. I know the types of things that you want to ask me. He was showing me that he's into it, which was really cool. So, we get on stage. He was kind of like backstage. He was kind of like, I would only do this for Fidelity clients. He's like, that's pretty much it.
So I thought like, all right, he kind of got dragged into this, but he warmed up and by the end the audience was laughing at everything he was saying. Like, so can I tell you my... he took the room over.
So, Peter Lynch was the only person other than me who ever did TV for Fidelity. He was on... Is that true? He was on... well, for the 99%, he was on Louis Rukeyser or Wall Street Week.
And then he retired, but nobody... nobody who's a big shareholder at Fidelity ever really retires. I think they just kind of keep you on and he's still not really retired, but he was retired enough that when he did TV, he needed to be coached a little bit. So I was his coach.
So that's how I started. So he was the guy down in the field and I'm the guy in the booth feeding him the stats.
And ironically now I'm him. No one's ever him, but like now I do the TV. But I was like, you know, like he's like, fill me in, like you know what are the latest stats and this and that. So somebody said to me, he retired in 1990. What does he know about the market? I said, have you ever read a book about the market? It's always the same. That's number one. Number two, this guy just spent 40 years doing philanthropy.
At like the highest imaginable levels.
You think he has less to say than you do?
You know what I mean? Like it was one of those things where you realize because he's like, I don't own any tech stocks.
And I'm not involved in the AI stuff.
But his stories were so much more important than that.
Well, because all the stuff that we're going through now with AI stocks, it's just a time and a place. He's already been through all of that.
No, I'm with you. I thought it was magical. Shout out to Fidelity for letting us do that.
That was so cool. I think the venue was really amazing, too. Was it the Boston Museum of Fine Art or MFA?
You've been there? I would imagine.
All our anniversary events are there. So if you hit a round number anniversary like 15, 20, 25, we do an event at the MFA and Peter's there, Aby's there, and it's nice.
So what's your next round number? How many years?
I'm at 31. So I got to wait a few years till I get to 35.
And Bruce Johnstone, who is our oldest active employee, he's at 61 and he sits close by. I've known him forever.
61 years at Fidelity. Holy cow.
He was in the same class.
Oh, he was there. I met him.
Yeah. So, same class as Peter Lynch, like in terms of when they were there, but I'm like, 'Bruce, I'm catching up to you. I'm at 31.' He says, 'You'll never catch up to me.' So, so he was backstage sitting with Peter and me.
I didn't meet that guy though.
The other older gentleman that was sitting in the chair was... That's Bruce.
I was going to say... so when Peter ran Magellan, Bruce ran like our value fund. Yes. So they were kind of like duos in that sense, but in different style boxes.
I was going to say the other thing that happened that week is they invited Michael and I into the chart room, which we had only ever heard about. It's pretty epic.
Yeah. And it's kind of a shadow of its former self in a way because, you know, life has moved on and, you know, Will Danoff knows that anything that is worth seeing, someone's going to show it to him. He doesn't need to go meander to the chart room. But I was hired to work in the chart room by Ned Johnson himself. Like, you know, if you're a PM, fine, you go through the thing, but if you're working in his chart room, he vetoes whoever comes through. So, my last out of like 12 interviews back in early '95 was with Ned Johnson and we just talked about the markets and it was like the most amazing experience ever.
So a lot of those charts I created and, you know, we were always... you have a favorite? It's like having a favorite child, you know. I'm a big fan, as you probably know from my work, to incorporate different disciplines. So I'm not exclusively a technical analyst, I'm not exclusively a macro fundamental, and so I like to tell stories. So if there are different indicators, both technical, fundamental, whatever, that really give the narrative of what we need to think about, then to me that's a great chart. Although there is something to be said for keeping the technicals and the fundamentals separate, and Ned always insisted on that because he wants the signal to be pure and not to be, you know, infected by other disciplines because that's going to come from someone else.
What was the purpose? What did they tell you when you went to work there in the chart room? What was the purpose that they explained to you? This is why we're keeping... So, for people that don't know what we're talking about, in the Fidelity headquarters, there's a room with walls inside of the room and every wall is plastered with these massive charts. Some of them are highly detailed. Some of them are like a zoom out, but I mean they have eight-foot-long charts in there, right? So, what do they tell you you were supposed to be doing?
It's both like a museum, an archive, a lab. The centerfold chart, for lack of a better word, is a daily chart. I think it goes back to like 1789 or something. And, you know, Ned was very precise about displaying information. So the lights are museum lights. But everything would be on an equivalent log scale so that when you look at the NASDAQ in 2000 versus the Dow and the Dow goes flat, the NASDAQ goes down whatever it was 80%. On a log scale, even though they're different scales, but they're still log, you can visually compare the two, which on a linear scale you can't do. And like, you know, we were always on standby. Okay, Mr. Johnson is in the building, be ready to go and spend two hours with him in a chart room, which is what he would do. He'd have to go to like a board meeting, but he would sneak out like a kid and go to his candy store, which is the chart room.
And, you know, we would look at the S&P or whatever today, and he would just take his finger and kind of go to the left and say, 'Okay, last time... well, just it brings us back to this date in time.' And on a chart that's, you know, 30, 40 feet wide and floor to ceiling high...
30 or 40 feet wide, right? Way bigger than 8 feet.
You can't do that on a screen. You have to do that as if you're standing in front of Rembrandt's Night Watch, you know, and so that was... so that's the appeal. In older versions of the chart room, we had, you know, hundreds of flip panels with like every sector, every Select fund, which was our sort of pre-ETF sector funds. And, you know, he would be like, let's take a look at gold or let's take a look at this and we're flipping through charts and it's, you know, that's what it was. But, you know, times have evolved, everything is electronic and again, we have so much scale now and fund managers manage so much money and they're so inundated with data that we have a team of technical analysts and if there's something worth seeing, they will make sure the portfolio manager sees it.
We met one of our favorite now recurring guests on the Compound and Friends, Denise...
Denise Chisum when we were up there and we did a session with her and she...
And I remember we looked at each other like, how many people like this does Fidelity have hiding up here in Boston? Because we had never heard of her and they're like, you should meet Denise Chisum and then she just crushed the show. So, and then they moved the Museum of American Finance out of New York,
I think Fidelity sponsored to have it at the pier.
The pier is the new headquarters, which I saw.
Okay. So what's the museum like up there? Is it cool?
I have not seen it yet actually because we have two buildings and I'm still in the old building because we just don't have space because we're all back five days a week. So we just don't have the space. But I've been meaning to go and look at it. I'm there a fair amount, but it's sort of in and out to do.
Okay, I'll go. I'll show you what everything is.
Sounds good.
All right. How we doing, guys? All right. Time is money, right?
This podcast is brought to you by DBMF, the world's largest managed futures ETF. Feel like the world's changing fast? Sure do. Imagine a strategy built to move when everyone else is standing still. Going long or short across global markets is a trend shift. DBMF is made to move differently. A single low-cost ETF offering genuine diversification even when stocks and bonds move together. Discover why DBMF's liquid, uncorrelated managed futures strategy could be what your alts allocation is missing at www.dbmf.com/tcf. DBMF, made to move differently.
The IMGP DBI Managed Futures Strategy ETF's investment objectives, risk, charges, and expenses must be considered carefully before investing. The statutory and summary prospectuses contain this and other important information about the investment company. It may be obtained by visiting www.imgp.com. The fund is distributed by ALPS Distributors, Inc. DBMF is the world's largest managed futures ETF as of July 31st, 2026, with 4.16 billion AUM.
Oh wow. 263. What a treat you guys are in for. Michael and I get research from all over Wall Street. Everybody sends us their stuff. My inbox is inundated with tables and charts and commentary. Couldn't even imagine the volume. There's only a few must-reads in there. I think you'd agree with this. Well, now you kind of have to. There's only a few must-reads in there that I never miss. And the work of Juri Timmer is one of those. Longtime listeners, you guys have heard and seen him on the show before. We are so thrilled to have him back. Juri is director of global macro at Fidelity Investments where he is part of the firm's global asset allocation group focusing on asset allocation and global macro strategy. He has held that role since 2005 having previously served as a technical research analyst and portfolio manager of the Fidelity Global Strategies Fund. Welcome back, my friend.
Thank you. Great to be here.
All right, let's start here. What is your year-end S&P 500 target?
Is this... Michael and I keep saying it's the weirdest year?
It's... yeah, but it's also one of the... I think it's one of the silliest things Wall Street strategists do.
Do you understand why they have to do it though?
Yeah, because they make headlines. They have to be on record. But it's such an arbitrary thing. Like I want to know what the returns are going to be the next, you know, one, five, 10 years. How much of that comes from price gains versus income. You know, and also one of my pet peeves is that people are so focused on price. But price is just a byproduct of earnings and valuation, right? So solve for earnings. Solve for what people are willing to pay for those earnings based on the longevity of the earning cycle, the cost of capital, which of course is a big topic, the risk premium, how much of the earnings get returned to shareholders as dividends or buybacks. And then you get a sense of, okay, earnings are worth 20x. And then you get an earnings forecast and you put them together in a DCF model and out comes a price or a present value of future cash flows. And to me, that's what I solve for. Price is just a residual.
Counterpoint though, like, and you know this, you get sent out from Morgan Stanley or from wherever, Bank of America, and you're sitting with institutions and professional asset managers and PMs and they sort of want, like, is the house view higher or lower? And if it's higher, how much higher? So it's almost like a shorthand, like forget about the price target itself, directionally we think the market will go higher. And we're just saying S&P 8000 just because we're saying...
Yeah. I mean, it's fair. They have to do that. Of course, the market goes up 67% of the time, right? So you definitely always want to be on the upper side because if you're wrong, at least it doesn't happen very often. So perma-bears is a really tough business because you're really fighting the odds. But I see why firms do it. But I'm not a believer. And when I get... and of course I'm also not allowed to make predictions from our compliance. So when I get questions like that, like on TV, or questions that are maybe a little bit politically loaded, my stock answer is, well, I've been in the business 41 years and the reason for that is that I don't answer questions like that.
I love it. Good for you. So I'm going to turn the mics off though. Tell us what your target is.
All right. Let's start. So a lot of times when we're preparing the show, we have to load the doc up with the charts that we're looking at as conversation starters, but when we talk to you, you've already done the most amazing stuff so we can just work on what you're telling people. Your October deck came out today.
Okay. Yeah. It's always evolving. It evolves every week because every single weekend I do a complete download of everything and then I publish on Sunday. You get the report and so the material is always fresh, which is why it's always in my head, which is I think...
All right, here's something you put out on social media. Let's do chart one. Tell us what we're looking at here.
This is the increase in the national debt since COVID, almost 17 trillion, and there are no non-economic buyers of that debt. So central banks aren't buying, some are even selling like Japan, China. The commercial banks are not really buying.
And so when that happens and when rates start to approach or exceed growth rates in the economy, the market starts pricing in fiscal risk, which is obviously what's happening here, but everywhere in the world except for China where nobody wants to take any risk on anything so they buy Chinese government bonds. But of course France is sort of exhibit A right now because the economy in nominal terms is like growing at 2% and bond yields are like four and a half. And when you have a lot of debt and you don't have the ability to outgrow it, then you have a problem, you have a debt sustainability problem. The US isn't there and it's a priority I think of the administration in Washington to outgrow the debt and that's why they're all proponents of AI in part. But it's an issue because there are economic buyers, like I would be an economic buyer.
Economic buyer is somebody that cares what the interest rate is. Non-economic buyer is somebody that has like international trade issues and they need to have treasuries on hand.
Yeah. It's reserves. It's like big banks in Europe that are strictly policed by the central banks in terms of their risk budget. So they kind of have to buy it. So we don't really have any of those. And as that gap keeps widening, you wonder what the endgame is. And, you know, we're looking at 5.3% nominal 10-year treasuries and almost 2.9% real rates. And, you know, it's not entirely because of fiscal risk. It's also about growth. And there's technical things about mortgage convexity and all this stuff. But it's, you know, the bond move is a big one and that chart is part of the story.
I have a question about this. Do you think that... Oh, we're about to get blasted. It's a fire drill. It's not an actual fire. No, I just mean by the noise. All right. Yeah. Nicole, just stand there for the next hour. I'm sorry. I go to Burning Man. I'm used to blinking lights. So Daniel, can we throw up chart six? So obviously you can't take this out of the equation because it's a huge part of the story. Hyperscaler bonds, this is from 22V Research. Hyperscaler bonds as a percentage of net new treasury borrowing. It's a lot. It's 14%. Obviously giving investors a lot of choice. There's a spread. It's not a huge spread, but whatever. If you can get a spread, Microsoft is money good. How much lower do you think yields would be absent this particular part of the story?
I think reverse crowding out is definitely one of the factors here. So it's fiscal risk. It's just real growth.
What's reverse crowding out?
So we're crowding out the government with private debt. So historically, you read the economic books and crowding out is like governments are, you know, they're spending too much and it squeezes the corporate sector because there's too much supply of debt. But this is reverse crowding out, right? So the hyperscalers are borrowing half a trillion this year. Our analysis suggests they're going to borrow another half a trillion next year. If you look at the Fed flow of funds data, the corporate sector alone, both bonds and now also equity, like the IPO thing has flipped right now, companies are net issuers of equity because instead of buying back shares they're spending it on capex and then other companies are going public. When you add those two up over the last 12 months, it's about $3.6, $6 trillion of new capital that's being raised.
And it's being absorbed pretty well.
It's being absorbed so far so good. But, you know, we always wonder like when does a boom turn into a bubble and we think about the internet story and I don't think we're in a bubble at all because earnings are exploding to such a degree that valuations are actually falling. And, you know, when the melt-up started for AI, which I think started in April 2025 after the tariff tantrum, the market went vertical, the PE on the tech sector was like 21 and today it's 20. So it's like the earnings have exploded.
It's hard to have a bubble when you're paying less for earnings.
It totally... But that doesn't mean the story doesn't have an unhappy ending and that's not a prediction. But, you know, at what point does the market sort of choke on the fire hose of capital? Not yet. Not yet. And the irony is that, you know, the Fed is now raising rates.
But I think the hyperscalers could care less where rates are because they go into the market, they borrow bonds and they'll make a 30, 40% return on that debt issuance because they're building a data center and there's insatiable demand. But it's not just the hyperscalers. I was talking to Josh about this the other day. Paramount, not exactly Microsoft in terms of their creditworthiness, raised 50 billion, 52 billion and $150 billion worth of buying showed up. There is a lot of money sloshing around looking for returns.
Yes, there is. And so far it's okay. You know, the capacity is so constrained in terms of semiconductors, GPUs, other infrastructure. I mean, you look at Japan is one of the hottest markets because they are supplying the AI space not with semiconductors but equipment. So it's still going on. And, you know, the parties...
Poetic. Japan is where the transistor was invented.
So it's sort of poetic. I want to double down though on a question Michael asked you. So if you had to quantify, not in percentage terms, but maybe in a rank of the cause of what we've seen happen this summer with rates, you would not put reverse crowding out or corporate selling of bonds at number one. You would probably put energy prices... or no,
I think it's a confluence of narratives. So fiscal risk definitely.
I'm trying to... because here's what I'm asking you. Maybe you'll answer it differently. I think what a lot of people are thinking is we had this really fun summer of a broadening trade. We had small caps, midcaps rising, value stocks working. We had stocks in every sector making 52-week highs. That seems to have come to an end when WTI crude crossed 80 and the yield on the 10-year crossed 5%. All of a sudden, the market got more selective again, which makes perfect sense.
So now, if the question is, how do we end the year? And people are thinking about, well, what would be the catalyst for a catch-up trade? All those blown-up sectors for the stocks to recover in my mind. Well, the only real answer is yields at least stop going up and maybe we get a little bit of pressure from high oil prices down. That's the catalyst for the rebroadening. So I guess the reason I'm asking you that question is what do we need to look for to get some kind of inkling that that's possible.
Yeah. So you hit the nail on the head because I look at correlations a lot and so oil and the S&P are about 50% negatively correlated and the S&P and long-term government bonds are about 50% positively correlated. Right? So it's all one trade. It's oil feeding into sticky inflation. It's just inflation in general, like we were just talking about, you know, buyers of bonds, but the whole savings glut era, the kind of new normal, the secular stagnation, that's all in the rearview mirror and it turns out that that really was the exception in history, not the rule, but it is the period that most of us grew up in career-wise. So clearly that's a big part of it. I just, you know, I have a colleague who, this is genius, who looks at all of these esoteric things and he's telling me about oil tanker rates, how they've gone up like 10-fold. So there are still real bottlenecks. So I think that's probably the number one. Fiscal risk definitely is being repriced. You know, the term premium is now 90 basis points. Real rates have gone from minus 200 bips five years ago to now almost 300 bips.
Right. There's a real interest rate now, like adjusting for inflation. You actually are earning something.
And that is the fiscal risk.
If you buy a 5-year TIPS and you hold it to maturity, you're getting like 2.6% real plus whatever the inflation is going to be over the next five years, which is probably, my view is going to be at least 3%. I mean, those are good numbers, right? And so you don't want to overstay your welcome being short bonds. And they could easily go to six and per the Fed model, a 6% bond yield is a 16 PE on the S&P. So that's 20% down, but again, not price, but PE. And then it's a question of to what degree is that offset by earnings, which are growing 30, 40%. And so I see this as like an echo of 2022 and we're having a sort of a stealth correction where, like you just said, right? 25% of stocks are above their 50-day. As of last week, 46% was above their 200-day. That is a 1994-like correction.
Yeah. And a 2022... and again it's the DCF math, right? If earnings are... like in 2022 earnings were decelerating because they had boomed after COVID but that was all base effect recovery so earnings growth was slowing and it ended up being 8% in 2022 but the PE went down 33% because the cost of capital went from like zero to five and that's what's going to happen to PEs and especially now. And this is the essence of the Fed model that if the risk-free asset, treasuries, are competitively priced against risky assets, which they are at 5.3, their yield is higher than the S&P. If that yield goes up, the S&P has to listen. And if it ignores it, we get an '87, a 1987 where it's ignored up until a point where it can no longer be ignored and all of that risk gets repriced in one day.
It's ignoring it right now. Are you surprised?
No, it's not because the PE is falling. So again, this is not about price, it's about valuation. But like '87, right? Rates went up, cost of capital went up, Fed was tightening, bond yields went to 10%. Stock market was like, 'Yeah, yeah, nothing to see here.' And then it crashed.
Interesting. All right. So I said that it's not responding to what you said. No, it actually is. It is. I'm looking at the price of the S&P and drawing the wrong conclusion.
You're saying the PE is rerating precisely because of screaming rates.
It's rerating because of screaming rates. It's rerating because...
Peak earnings growth. And we don't know if we're at peak earnings growth, but, you know, earnings growth is like 35%.
Investors aren't that dumb. They're not going to keep bidding it up higher.
So investors do not pay for peak earnings. And I think one of the key things we need to solve for, and I don't know if we can, is not the level of earnings growth, which of course is very high, but how durable that is. And then you have the separation between long-duration stocks like the Mag 7 and more cyclical stocks with weaker balance sheets. Those companies do get hurt by Fed tightening. And I think that's one of the delineations that we're going to be looking at. But again, it's, you know, present value of future cash flows. Cost of capital goes up, PE goes down, all else being equal, which of course it never is, especially right now. And so in 2022, there was not enough earnings offset to keep the market from falling. At GPT...
And now there is enough earnings offset and that's why the market since early June has really not gone anywhere and underneath the internals are pretty...
I looked at this, the industry group and sector internals earlier this week. Somebody did a piece and it just occurs to me that most of the damage in the market, this sub-rosa correction that's happening, it's in order of what's the most rate-sensitive. It's almost monotonically in...
It's rational. It's completely rational. And the way I think about it is it looks as though every portfolio manager independently decided I want less exposure to rate-sensitive and more exposure to long-duration tech assets and they all did that individually and then the collective aggregated manifestation of that is the leaders and laggards by sector.
And, you know, it's worth, of course I'm a student of history, but 1994 is a cycle worth looking back at. That was under Alan Greenspan, of course. He doubled the cost of capital. We had at that point, I think, the worst bond bear market in history.
Well, he did it between meetings. It was a shock.
It was a shock and, you know, he was famously opaque. I think Kevin Warsh is trying to take a page from that playbook. But the market just sat there. It had two drawdowns of 10% and it basically did nothing for a year while the internals were kind of rotting, right? Like more than two-thirds of the stocks in the S&P were down more than 20%. But you didn't see it because it was kind of a cap-heavy market and earnings were very strong just like they are today. And as soon as he took his heavy hand off of the rate market, the market exploded.
And to your question earlier, we could see that, right? Because if somehow this Iran thing gets settled and, you know, here we are like month eight and it still hasn't been, but the market calls the all-clear on the bond side, we could get another big breakout.
I think that's going to happen. I have a few pieces of evidence that I'd like to get your take on. Let's start with chart eight. So this happened today. I think today might prove to be an interesting day looking back on the internal breakdown. Lisa Brammer tweeted evidence of how leveraged the entire tech sector is to OpenAI, Anthropic. An FT story about OpenAI's revenue being less than initially reported is spurring more than a 5% drop in Oracle shares, exacerbating losses from Nvidia and AMD to Microsoft. So, in conjunction with that, you have the 30-year making a pretty decent reversal, which we haven't seen that in weeks and weeks and weeks. And I know that you respect technicals. Jump to chart 12A, please, Daniel.
All right, we have a 12A and a 12B. So here we go. So look at on top first. This is the ratio of the equal weight to the S&P and this got very stretched very fast where the S&P was holding up and underneath the surface the average stock is getting the kicked out of it. So it bottomed here in October of 2025, October, November. It bottomed here in May 2026. And for whatever reason, not for whatever reason, the rubber band is getting stretched to the same levels. And you have this monster reversal. The ratio is up 1% today. It's the best day of equal weight versus the S&P since July. While everybody is talking about it, everybody has been focused on how weak the breadth breakdown is. And Josh and I were looking at this chart.
You like stories. I think this is a terrific one. Chart 10. So this comes from Duality Research. This is such an awesome chart, Juri. The purple line is the S&P 500 technology index and the green line is the rest of the market, S&P 500 ex-tech. And what Alex was saying is that everybody is focused on the wrong signal. They are worried about the breadth breakdown leading to further weakness in the index. And he's saying, no, no, no, the opposite has proven to be true. Every time tech breaks down, the rest of the market seems to wobble. Tech leading and the rest of the market selling off is not a bad thing because what has happened for the last five years is the rest of the market catches up eventually. And if we get inflation, interest rates coming down a little bit, some energy prices coming in a little bit, and rotation away from the tech trade into the rest of the market, that's the happy ending. You could see a rip into the rest of the fourth quarter.
And a piece of trivia, so, you know, Goldman has all these thematic equity baskets, so they have an AI basket and an ex-AI basket and the two are negatively correlated to each other.
Which is pretty amazing because they're two halves of the same index. And the same applies to, you know, equal... I track Mag 7 to equal weight and equal weight, the SPW has outperformed by 1,800 basis points over the last... Oh, sorry. Mag 7 has outperformed by 1,800 basis points. And so I...
Would you like to hear a fun fact?
