被动投资者为何失败 | 逆向投资者迈克尔·格林

如果在比特币框架中货币变得过于昂贵，就没有调整机制。因此讽刺的是，比特币实际上是反人类智慧的。在货币价格高企导致许多资本形式和债务渠道被切断的情况下。

If money in a Bitcoin framework gets too expensive, there is no mechanism for adjustment. And so ironically, Bitcoin is actually anti human ingenuity. In a scenario in which the price of money is going cuts off access to many forms of capital, debt.

欢迎来到无银行世界。我是瑞安·肖恩·亚当斯。今天只有我，所以我来帮你变得更无银行化。迈克尔·格林认为被动投资的盛行已经把我们现有的金融系统搞得一团糟，酿成灾难，他认为总有一天这会让我们自食恶果。我们会为盲目从众付出高昂代价。

Welcome to Bankless. This is Ryan Chaun Adams. It's just me today, so I'm here to help you become more bankless. Michael Green thinks the dominance of passive investing has made an absolute mess, a catastrophe out of our existing financial system, and someday, he thinks it's gonna bite us in the ass. We're gonna pay a very high price for blindly following the crowd.

这是个引人入胜的观点。和加密货币很像，这显然不是主流看法，正因如此我觉得它特别有趣。我们讨论的几个要点：指数基金的问题、被动投资者为何亏损、波动末日与巨头企业、基本面与叙事孰轻孰重、他为何不喜欢比特币却看好代币化和智能合约，而最让我好奇的是他对长期债券的论证。我发现自己大约认同迈克尔50%的观点，剩下50%至少也让我深思。

This was a fascinating idea. And very much like crypto, it's certainly not the mainstream take, which is exactly why I found it so interesting. Few things we discuss. The problem with index funds, why passive investors lose, Volmageddon's and mega firms, fundamentals versus narrative, which one's more important, why he doesn't like Bitcoin but likes tokenization and smart contracts, and I thought, most curiously, his case for long duration bonds. I found that I agreed probably with about 50% of what Michael had to say, and the other 50, I found myself thinking about it in the very least.

对我来说这就是一期成功节目的标志。现在让我们和迈克尔·格林探讨被动投资者为何会亏损。不过在开始前，我要感谢本期节目的赞助商。

And that to me is the mark of a successful episode. So let's get into why passive investors lose with Michael Green. But before we do, I wanna thank the sponsors that made this episode possible.

在DeFi的狂野西部，稳定与创新就是一切，因此你应该了解Frax Finance——这个正在革新稳定币、DeFi和rollup的协议。Frax Finance的核心是Frax USD，由贝莱德的机构Biddle基金支持。Frax设计的Frax USD能提供DeFi领域顶尖收益、国债收益和套利交易回报三合一。只需访问frax.com，质押即可获得DeFi中最优收益。想要更多？

In the Wild West of DeFi, stability and innovation are everything, which is why you should check out Frax Finance, the protocol revolutionizing stablecoins, DeFi, and roll ups. The core of Frax Finance is Frax USD, which is backed by BlackRock's institutional Biddle Fund. Frax designed Frax USD for best in class yields across DeFi, T bills, and carry trade returns all in one. Just head to frax.com, then stake it to earn some of the best yields in DeFi. Want even more?

将你的Frax USD跨链到Frax二层网络，在获得同等收益的同时还能赚取Frax积分，并探索包含Curve、Convex等协议的多样化二层生态系统——所有早期采用者都有奖励。Frax不仅是协议，更是由FXS代币驱动、全球社区治理的数字国度。通过frax.com或常用DEX获取FXS，质押它，共同塑造Frax Nation的未来。准备好加入DeFi前沿了吗？

Bridge your Frax USD over to the Frax tool layer two for the same yield plus Frax tool points and explore Frax tool's diverse layer two ecosystem with protocols like Curve, Convex, and more, all rewarding early adopters. Frax isn't just a protocol. It's a digital nation powered by the FXS token and governed by its global community. Acquire FXS through frax.com or your go to DEX, stake it, and help shape Frax Nation's future. Ready to join the forefront of DeFi?

立即访问frax.com开始用Frax USD和质押Frax USD赚取收益。无银行听众使用frax.com/r/bankless跨链至Fraxel还可享专属福利和加成奖励。想象一个传统金融与区块链无缝融合的世界——这正是Mantle通过'区块链银行'开创的革命性新领域，处于传统金融与Web3的交汇点。其核心UR是首个完全链上构建的货币应用。

Visit frax.com now to start earning with Frax USD and staked Frax USD. And for bankless listeners, you can use frax.com/r/bankless when bridging to Fraxel for exclusive Fraxel perks and boosted rewards. Imagine a world where traditional finance meets the power of blockchain seamlessly. That's what Mantle is pioneering with blockchain for banking, a revolutionary new category at the intersection of TradFi and Web three. At the heart is UR, the world's first money app built fully on chain.

它提供瑞士IBAN账户，将欧元、瑞士法郎、美元或人民币等法币与加密货币集于一处。既享有现实世界可用性，又具备区块链的信任与可编程性。交易直接上链，兼容传统金融通道，并整合了DeFi期货。UR将Mantle网络打造成链上金融服务的终极平台，统一支付、交易与mI4、MEth协议等资产，以及FBTC功能，通过开发者资助、生态激励和UR应用、奖励站及Bybit启动池实现顶级分发。对MNT持有者而言，UR中所有经济活动都将价值回馈给你，体现这个超级应用生态的全栈发展与未来增长。

It gives you a Swiss IBAM account, blending fiat currencies like the euro, the Swiss franc, the United States dollar, or the renminbi with crypto all in one place. Enjoy real world usability and blockchain's trust and programmability. Transactions post directly to the blockchain, compatible with TradFi rails, and packed with integrated DeFi futures. UR transforms Mantle Network into the ultimate platform for on chain financial services, unifying payments, trading, and assets like the m I four, the MEth protocol, and functions FBTC, backed by developer grants, ecosystem incentives, and top distribution through the UR app, reward stations, and Bybit launch pool. For MNT holders, every economic activity in UR drives value back to you, embodying the entire stack and future growth of this super app ecosystem.

在X平台关注@Mantle_official获取区块链银行最新动态。网址x.com/mantle_official。以太坊二层生态选择爆炸式增长，但若想为代币寻找最佳停泊和转移地，下一站请选Unichain。首先是流动性。

Follow Mantle on X at Mantle underscore official for the latest updates on blockchain for banking. That's x.com/ mantle_official. Ethereum's layer two universe is exploding with choices. But if you're looking for the best place to park and move your tokens, make your next stop, Unichain. First, liquidity.

Unichain拥有所有二层网络中流动性最强的Uniswap v4部署，为ETH/USDC等旗舰交易对提供更深资金池。更高流动性意味着更优价格、更低滑点和更顺畅兑换——正是交易者渴求的。数据为证：在Uniswap v4总锁仓量上，Unichain领跑所有二层网络。而且不止是深度。

Unichain hosts the most liquid Uniswap v four deployment on any layer two, giving you deeper pools for flagship pairs like ETH USDC. More liquidity means better prices, less slippage, and smoother swaps, exactly what traders crave. The numbers back it up. Unichain leads all layer twos in total value locked for Uniswap v four. And it's not just deep.

它快速且完全透明，专为成为DeFi和跨链流动性的核心枢纽而设计。在成本方面，Unichain是无需犹豫的选择。交易费用比以太坊主网便宜约95%，大幅降低了创建或获取流动性的成本。想了解Unichain的最新动态？请访问unichain.org或在X上关注Unichain获取所有更新。

It's fast and fully transparent, purpose built to be the home base for DeFi and cross chain liquidity. When it comes to cost, Unichain is a no brainer. Transaction fees come in about 95% cheaper than Ethereum mainnet, slashing the price of creating or accessing liquidity. Want to stay in the loop on Unichain? Visit unichain.org or follow at Unichain on X for all the updates.

无银行国度，我非常激动能邀请到迈克尔·格林加入。他是Simplify资产管理公司的首席策略师，也是一位有着三十年市场结构逆向思维的人，对被动指数基金深恶痛绝。迈克尔，欢迎来到无银行。

Bankless Nation, I'm very excited to be joined by Michael Green. He's a chief strategist at Simplify Asset Management. He is also a thirty year market structure contrarian who just simply hates passive index funds. Michael, welcome to Bankless.

哦，谢谢邀请。实际上我需要澄清一点——我并不憎恨指数基金本身，而是厌恶它们对市场造成的影响，以及政府强加给它们的这种外部干预机制。我们必须非常明确这一点。

Oh, thank you for having me. I actually I I have to clarify that. I don't hate index funds. I hate what they are doing to the market and the fact that they are effectively that that that an external forcing has been introduced on them by the government. So let let's be very, very clear on that.

我喜欢这个说法。我之前在推特上用一句话总结过我对你观点的理解。不过我们确实需要深入探讨你看到的被动投资普遍存在的问题。但在那之前——你知道吗，有时候你突然出现在我的推特推送里，我总看到你在金融推特圈和人辩论。

I like that. Yeah. I, you know, there was a tweet sized, summary of of my take on your take. But, yes, we we do wanna get into the the clarification of the problems that you see in passive investing in general. But before we do that, you know, the way sometimes you actually pop up on my Twitter feed is just occasionally, and I'll see you in kind of arguments in in, I guess, the finance Twitter.

我们无银行的大量听众，包括我自己，主要活跃在加密推特（现在叫加密X）这个圈子里。这本身就是一个信息茧层。而金融推特又是另一个圈子，偶尔会有交叉——比如我会看到你的推文，看到你参与的辩论。

So much of the bankless audience, I myself, very much in this realm of of crypto Twitter, crypto x, basically. And that's a bubble in and of itself. Yep. And then you've got finance Twitter, and often sometimes there's some cross like, sometimes I see your stuff. I see arguments you have.

在加密推特上我们争论的话题可太魔幻了：二层网络是否具有寄生性？一层代币应该按收入产出估值还是当作特殊货币资产？这就是我们的日常辩论。你们在金融推特上都争论些什么奇葩话题？

In on crypto Twitter, we get in the weirdest arguments, man. We we talk about whether layer twos are parasitic. We talk about whether layer one tokens should be valued based on revenue output or whether they're these special snowflake monetary assets. These are the types of weird arguments we get into. What weird arguments do you get into in finance Twitter?

我们主要争论二层网络是否具有寄生性这类玄学问题。也会讨论这些资产是否该被视为货币——黄金是货币资产吗？美元是货币资产吗？比特币是货币资产吗？它应该被看作价值储存手段吗？这类问题。

Well, we largely get into weird arguments about whether level two are parasitic. Sometimes we'll talk about whether it's the same sort of esoteric stuff. Right? So you will have discussions around should these assets be valued as money? We'll have discussions around, well, what is actually money?

还有如何评估证券价值，既然它们本质上是金融债权。这些讨论本质上都是相通的。有趣之处在于，虽然我们把这两个圈子区分开，但最终我们讨论的都是金融资产。关键问题是：它们将如何整合才能惠及绝大多数人？这才是最重要的。

Is gold a monetary asset? Is the dollar a monetary asset? Is Bitcoin a monetary asset? Should it be thought of as a store of value? Is there something unique to that?

黄金是货币资产吗？美元是货币资产吗？比特币是货币资产吗？它应该被视为价值储存手段吗？这类资产有什么独特性？

How should you think about valuing securities given that they are financial claims? These are all the same sort of discussions that we are having. Part of the reason why that's so interesting is that as you talk about it and you describe the two as separate, ultimately we're all describing financial assets. So the question is how are those ultimately going to integrate in a way that is beneficial to the vast majority of the population? That's really what matters.

迈克尔，今早我发了条推特——因为准备这期节目时我在想：在那些阴暗时刻，我怀疑基本面是否真实存在，还是说一切归根结底都是叙事？你怎么看？你认为基本面存在吗？

You know, I tweeted this out this morning, Michael, because I was just thinking about doing this episode with you. And I I said, my darker moments, I wonder whether fundamentals actually exist or if it's just narrative all the way down. What do you think about that? Do you think fundamentals exist?

我认为基本面存在于对过去事件的陈述中。对吧？这有点像纸上写的文字。在过程的每一步都存在解读。我们是否将其归类为短期负债？

I think that fundamentals exist in a statement as to what has happened in the past. Right? It's a little bit like the written word on paper. At every step in that process, there's interpretation. Do we classify this as a short term liability?

我们将其归类为长期负债吗？我们要将某些资产货币化吗？我们要确认销售收益吗？我们是否将经常性成本视为一次性成本？这些都是构成所谓'事实基本面'的解读性要素。

Do we classify it as a long term liability? Do we monetize certain assets? Do we recognize a gain on sale? Do we, you know, treat recurring costs as one time costs? These are all interpretive components that go into the quote unquote factual fundamentals that we receive.

最能说明这点的莫过于像资产减记这类事。对吧？我们在传统金融中讨论'厨房水槽季度'——本质上是指当不利事件发生时，企业常会借机彻底清理历史遗留问题，声称'虽然做了错误假设，但大家都犯了错'，然后一次性撇清。

And there's no better illustration of that than things like write offs. Right? We talk about kitchen sink quarters in TradFi. The idea effectively that when something adverse happens companies will often use it as an opportunity to effectively clean all the skeletons out of their closet and say, oh, some bad assumptions were made, but everybody made bad assumptions. So let's clear that out.

通过一次性计提在单季度核销所有问题，但你们应该忽略这点。这些确实是基本面，但对基本面的解读取决于呈现方式，而我们如何处理极大依赖于具体情境。所以，基本面存在吗？存在。这些基本面模糊吗？

We'll have a one time charge that writes off all those things in a single period, but you should ignore that. Those are fundamentals, but the interpretation of the fundamentals is what has been put on the page and how we choose to handle that is very much dependent on the context in which it exists. So, like, are there fundamentals? Yes. Are those fundamentals fuzzy?

确实模糊。

Yes.

所以这些基本面需要通过叙事来解读。归根结底全是叙事。

So those fundamentals need to be interpreted by narrative. So it is narrative all the way down.

确实存在叙事成分。对吧？基本面本身也受叙事影响。这正是我要表达的观点。所以没错，存在一定程度的叙事性。

Well, there is an element of narrative. Right? The fundamentals themselves are influenced by the narrative. That's actually the point that I'm making. So, yes, there is a degree of narrative.

但如果某公司声称完成1亿美元销售额，那它实际销售额必然接近这个数字。我们可以争论最后100万是否源于优惠融资条款促成的交易，或是否应计为递延收入，但最终结果会非常接近。而我对这些基本面的反应将取决于几个因素：首先是市场参与者的构成。

But if a company says I sold a $100,000,000, it either sold something very close to a $100,000,000. We can debate whether that last million was a final sale that facilitated by favorable financing terms or whether that should really be deferred revenue or how you should calculate that. But at the end of the day, it's gonna be pretty close. How I choose to react to those fundamentals is going to be a function of several things, right? One is who are the actual participants in the market?

如果市场参与者发生变化，对基本面的反应也会改变。举个简单例子：假设价值投资遭遇十年熊市。这个十年熊市本身就带有叙事属性——价值投资曾因超额收益风靡一时，人们赋予其'价值投资合乎逻辑，证据就是它有效'的叙事。

If the participants in the market change, you should expect the reaction to those fundamentals to change. Super simple example, imagine we enter into, let's just take for example, a ten year bear market for value investing. Ten year bear market for value investing has a narrative component to it. Value investing became very popular because it outperformed. We ascribed a narrative to it that said value investing makes sense, the proof is it outperforms.

十年后价值投资者的数量相对动量投资者急剧萎缩。此时我们会直截了当地论证：动量策略优于价值投资，因为价值股质量更低、增长不可持续、选股经理能力不足——于是动量投资获得了基本面合理性支撑。它们就是更优质的公司，证据就是策略有效。对吧？两种情况下，证据都显示策略有效。

Ten years later the pool of value investors has shrunk dramatically relative to the pool of momentum investors And our argument is very straightforward that momentum outperforms value because value companies are lower quality, they have less sustainable growth, the managers that are picking the securities have no idea what they're doing, and therefore Momentum has a fundamental justification behind it. They're just better companies. And the evidence is it works. Right? In both situations, the evidence was it works.

好的。我想我们可能会在这一期节目中多次回到这个话题。我我我想讨论一个主题，这要追溯到我接触加密货币之前，个人理财对我来说算是一种爱好，投资也是。我当时有一份日常工作。

Okay. I I think we'll maybe circle back on this topic throughout this episode. I I I wanna get to one, I guess, theme, and this goes back to when before crypto, before I was in crypto, personal finance for me was was somewhat of a hobby. Investing was somewhat of a hobby. I had a day job.

我进入这个爱好的途径是通过约翰·博格尔，他宣扬低成本指数基金的理念。这个理论相当简单：为什么要为那些无所作为、只会跑输标普500还收取高额费用的共同基金经理付费？别管那些。还有波动性。

And the way I got into this hobby was by route of John Vogel, and he preached the word of low cost index funds. The the thesis was pretty simple. Like, why pay expensive fees for do nothing mutual fund managers who are just gonna underperform the S and P and cost you a lot of money. Ignore that. Also, volatility.

只需定期定额投资低成本指数基金，基本上随着时间的推移，你会获得复利回报，表现会很好。这大概算是初学者的投资理念。现在如果有人从传统金融领域来问我‘瑞恩，我该怎么投资？’，这依然是我会给出的建议。

Just dollar cost average in to low cost index funds. And, basically, over time, you'll compound returns. You'll do very well. This was kind of, I guess, investment investment thesis for somebody getting into it. And it's still generally the advice that I would probably give to someone in the normal world coming to me and saying, Ryan, like, how how should I how should I invest?

可能也是我会给孩子们的建议。这个建议有什么问题吗？你对被动指数投资有什么批评意见？

Might be the advice I'd I'd give my kids. Is there a problem with this advice? What's your criticism of passive index investing?

这里有两个独立的部分。首先还是那个问题——证据是什么？事实证明它确实有效，对吧？

Well, there's two separate components to it. Right? One is the question, again, going back to the narrative of what is the evidence? Well, it's worked. Right?

这就是部分论据。就像我们讨论价值投资、动量投资时说的，答案是每个人都应该指数化投资，因为它有效。但当所有人都采用这种被动投资方式时，实际上恰恰违背了被动投资的本质定义。这正是我对被动投资如今占据市场50%以上份额（以市值加权策略定义的指数基金形式）的扩张和主导地位深感忧虑的核心原因。

And so, you know, that is part of the argument. Again, just like we were talking about value investing, momentum investing, the answer is everybody should index because indexing has worked. The process of everybody adopting that indexing process, right, becoming passive investors, actually, by very definition, defies the definition of passive investing. And so that actually is the core of why I'm so concerned about the growth and dominance of passive investing that's now emerged where over 50% of the total market is invested in one form or another in an index fund defined as a market cap weighted strategy. The second issue is the preference that the government has provided for that effectively endorsing the John Bogle message that the safe way to invest is in US public equities through a total market index and that receives due to a designation introduced in 02/2006, the Pension Protection Act, what's called qualified default investment alternatives.

第二个问题是政府的政策倾斜。2006年2月《养老金保护法案》推出的‘合格默认投资替代品’（QDIA） designation，实际上变相认可了约翰·博格尔‘通过全市场指数投资美国公开股票是安全选择’的理念。这个 designation 为401k计划发起人或注册投资顾问提供了责任豁免保护——很难因为投资标普500或全市场指数亏损而起诉他们，因为这些被视为安全选择。这种政策倾斜影响巨大，我的大量研究正是要揭示政府如何系统性偏袒这个方向。

That QDIA designation basically creates a liability protected form of investing for the sponsors of programs like 401ks or for RIAs. It's very difficult to sue somebody for losing money because they bought the S and P 500 or they bought the total market index because those are viewed as safe choices. Right? That thumb on the scale is very, very important. And part of, you know, a huge portion of my research basically involves identifying the various ways in which government has actually biased the system in this direction.

第二个根本性问题在于被动投资的定义。我可以调出幻灯片说明——这直接来自支撑被动投资理念的原始文献：比尔·夏普1991年发表的《主动管理的算术》。该论文定义了‘主动管理者和被动管理者总体持有相同资产，唯一差异在于费用，因此被动管理者会因费用优势跑赢’。

The second issue is because passive investing by definition and I can actually bring up a slide to show this. Okay so this is literally from the actual literature that underpins the idea behind passive investing. This is Bill Sharp's The Arithmetic of Active Management written in 1991. This paper is the source of the definition that you hear that active managers and passive managers in aggregate own the same thing. And therefore, the only difference is going to be fees, and therefore, act passive managers will outperform due to fees.

但关键在于如何定义被动投资者。比尔·夏普的定义是‘被动投资者始终持有市场上所有证券’，而主动投资者则反之。2016年2月，AQR的合伙人拉斯·彼得森在《锐化主动管理的算术》论文中挑战了这个定义，指出每次指数再平衡时，被动管理者必须交易，因此本质上变成了可能行为异常的主动投资者。这后来发展成了最大的对冲基金业务——指数套利。

Yeah. The issue is how you define a passive investor. And Bill Sharp's definition was a passive investor always holds every security from the market. And an active investor is one who is not passive. So in 02/2016, an a partner at AQR called named Lars A.

拉斯完全正确。而我的分析在此基础上补充了第二个维度：指数再平衡从终端投资组合的角度调整组合构成时...

Peterson wrote a paper called Sharpening the Arithmetic of Active Management in which he challenged this definition and noted that anytime an index rebalanced, the passive managers had to trade. And so by definition, they became active investors with a potential to not behave as you would expect. This has actually turned into the largest hedge fund business, index arbitrage. And so Lasse was a 100% correct. My analysis, my introduction to this was to add a second wrinkle, which is index rebalancing addresses the portfolio composition from the standpoint of the end portfolio.

但每当你向被动基金投入资金时，你并非在配置市场的全部资产，而是在注入现金。因此，你迫使基金调整其投资组合，需要他们主动部署这些现金。所以根本不存在所谓的被动投资者，因为他们持续接收资金流入，而资金流出则罕见得多。按照比尔·夏普的定义，他们从来就不是被动投资者。他们实际上是遵循全球最简单算法的系统性算法投资者。

But anytime you contribute money to a passive fund you aren't contributing the holdings of the market in its totality, you're contributing cash. Therefore you are forcing a change in their portfolio that requires them to become active to deploy that cash. So there is no such thing as a passive investor because they are continually receiving inflows and far less frequently outflows into these passive vehicles. So by the very definitions that Bill Sharp uses, they're never passive investors. What they actually are is a systematic algorithmic investor operating off of the world's simplest algorithm.

你给我现金了吗？如果是，那就买入。你要求赎回现金了吗？如果是，那就卖出。一旦你认识到这就是他们作为算法的本质，你就能同时体会到他们为市场带来的益处。

Did you give me cash? If so, then buy. Did you ask for cash? If so, then sell. And the minute you recognize that that is actually what they are as an algorithm, you can both appreciate the benefits that they bring to the market.

这是个极简主义的投资者，他只问：你给我现金了吗？若有，则买入。当这种策略进入由主动投资者主导的市场时——那些投资者会说'我认为估值合理才买入，否则持有现金，若估值过高甚至可能做空'——情况就不同了，对吧？

This is a simplistic investor who simply says, did you give me cash? If so, then buy. Well, introducing that into the market that is dominated by active investors who say something along the lines of I buy when I think it's a good value, otherwise I hold cash. If I think it's a particularly bad value, I might short it. Right?

引入新型投资者为投资领域增添了异质性，这降低了市场波动性，因为买卖双方更容易匹配。但当这种策略成为主导力量时——正如当今现状——它会从根本上改变市场行为，与我们历史模型所依据的情况大相径庭。

Introducing a new type of investor introduces heterogeneity into the investment universe that lowers volatility because it becomes easier to match buyers and sellers. But when that strategy becomes dominant is where we are which is where we are today, it actually changes the market behavior quite dramatically from what we build our historical models off of.

好的。所以你的意思是实际上不存在真正的被动投资者。所谓被动投资者，他们只是运行着一个非常简单的算法：如果有现金，就基本买入整个市场。但为了我们后续讨论方便，能否简化这个算法，姑且称他们为被动投资者以便区分？

Okay. So you're saying there's there's really no such thing as the passive investor. What a passive investor actually is, they're running off of a very simple algorithm, which is if I have cash, then buy the market essentially. But for the purposes of the rest of this conversation, is that okay if we shortcut that algorithm and kind of call them passive investors so we can just differentiate?

我们可以称其为被动投资者以示区分，但我要指出这正是问题所在。他们并非被动投资者。任何将其如此标签化的行为，本质上都是在张冠李戴。

We can call them passive investors to differentiate, but I wanna recognize that that is part of the challenge. Right? They're not passive investors. And so anything that labels them as such is effectively saying, you know, somebody is x when they're actually y.

明白，明白。很公平。那么听众们请记住这个脚注，我们继续讨论。迈克尔，我对你的问题是：你对被动投资的批评更多是系统性的吗？

Okay. Okay. Fair enough. So so listener with that footnote, we'll maybe proceed. I guess my question to you, Michael, in in this critique of passive investing is, is your critique more systemic?

比如，这是个问题因为被动投资已占据主导地位？还是说你的批评针对的是个体——假设我是个遵循'有现金就买入市场'算法的被动投资者，每周都将闲余资金如此配置直至永远。你是否认为这种个人策略将表现不佳？因为如你先前所言，过去二十年左右它确实行之有效。

Like, this is a problem because we have passive investing dominant, and this is a problem. Or is your critique that for for the individual, say, I am a passive investor operating on that algorithm. If cash, then I just buy the market, and I do that on a weekly basis with my excess cash into into perpetuity. Are you saying that that strategy for an individual will underperform? Because to your point earlier, it has worked for, I don't know, the past twenty years or so.

我的意思是，你来告诉我——但被动投资确实为个人投资者展现了相当不错的业绩记录。这一点毋庸置疑。

I mean, you tell me, but passive investing has shown a fairly good track record for individuals. Absolutely.

这正是我努力向人们阐明的一点。我给任何个人的建议实质上是：要跑赢这个基准极其困难，因为除其他因素外，它实际上吸纳了所有流通股。我过去常用——现在偶尔仍用——一个游乐园的比喻：你玩过那种用水枪射击赛马或充气靶子的游戏吗？

And this is one of the things I try to make very clear to people. The advice that I give any individual is effectively it is incredibly hard to outperform this benchmark because among other things, it is actually attracting all of the floats. And so, you know, I used to use the analogy, I still sometimes do. Have you ever played the game at the carnival where you shoot a gun, a water gun at a horse race or a balloon that inflates.

没错。你是想让它越来越大，演变成一场竞赛。

Yeah. You're trying to get it to get bigger and bigger into a race.

要么变得更大直到气球爆炸，要么马匹赢得比赛。对吧？这个游戏的最佳策略就是你和伙伴同时报名，共同射击同一个目标，增加该目标的水压、你们的命中率等等。单独行动必输，但可以平分奖金。

Become bigger and burst the balloon or the horse wins the race. Right? The best strategy in that game by far is you and a buddy both sign up, and you both shoot at the same target, raising the water pressure on that target, the percentage of the time that you're hitting it, etcetera. Right? Each individually, you're going to lose, but you're gonna split the prize.

这有点像纳什均衡。重点不在于独自取胜，而在于与他人协同获胜。被动投资也是同样道理。

It's a bit a little bit like a Nash equilibrium. Right? You don't actually try to win. You try to win in concert with other people. Passive investing is the same thing.

对吧？如果我有效号召大家集中射击某个目标，该目标就会表现优异。要预测市场在这种框架下的变化，必须先理解历史行为。为此我调研了基金经理，问了个学术界竟从未探讨的简单问题：作为组合经理，当估值变化时，你会如何应对新增资金流入？

Right? If I've effectively designated, hey, everybody shoot at this target, that target is going to outperform. And so if I actually look at how the market would be expected to change under this framework, You know, before you start talking about how markets are gonna change, you have to understand how they behaved in the past. And so in order to do that, I went out and I surveyed managers and I asked them a really simple question I was kind of surprised the academic literature hadn't explored before, which is you're a portfolio manager, you receive an incremental inflow of capital. How do you react given valuations?

比如收到1美元流入时，若席勒PE为1倍或100倍，你的边际购买倾向分别是多少？中间所有点位又如何？

Right? What do you how do you react if you receive a dollar of inflows? What's your marginal propensity to buy if valuations are one times on a Shiller PE? What is your marginal propensity to buy if it's a 100 times and all the points in between? Right?

毫不意外，估值越高人们卖出倾向越强，买入倾向越弱——这与主动管理者的决策框架完全吻合：当前价格越高（未来预测不变时），预期回报就越低。但惊人的是，这两条边际倾向线的交点正好落在历史平均估值水平，形成五五开局面。为验证这点，我将反馈数据输入基于代理的模拟系统，随机分配响应策略和资金流动。

Totally unsurprisingly, people's propensity to sell rises as valuation rises and people's propensity to buy falls as valuation rises. That makes perfect sense given the framework that active managers tend to approach things with which is a higher price today all else being equal if my forecasts for the future have not changed lowers my expected return. Right? What was surprising is in this really simple example that the intersection between these two marginal propensity lines hit at almost exactly fiftyfifty at exactly the market's historical valuation average. What that's telling you is that if you so in order to test this, I took these responses, I fed it into a agent based simulation where I gave each agent basically randomly some fraction of the responses and then I randomly gave them cash or took cash away.

模拟结果呈现出均值回归的市场模式：估值上升时，买入意愿降低/卖出意愿增强，单位美元购买的份额减少，从而导致均值回归——这正是市场历史上围绕16倍市盈率波动的原因。但当我引入被动投资者（其算法极其简单：给钱就买，要钱就卖）时，

And what emerges from that is a mean reverting market pattern in which valuations rise, people become less willing to buy, more willing to sell, the incremental dollar buys fewer shares, etcetera. Right? And that causes mean reversion and this is why the market has historically vacillated around 16 times rising during bullish periods, falling during bearish periods. But if I introduce a market participant that we call passive and they have that super simple algorithm that simply says, if you give me cash, then buy. If you ask for cash, then sell.

这种基于资金流100%的边际买卖倾向（完全不考虑估值），会推动市场从均值回归转向均值扩张模式——即估值持续上升。

That's a 100% marginal propensity to buy and a 100% marginal propensity to sell based on flows. There's no consideration of valuation. And so what ends up happening is as passive gains share, it shifts the market from that mean reversion towards a mean expansionary mode. Right? In other words, valuations rise.

这正是当前市场的真实写照。注意到我在此处截断了图表，因为后续走势会冲出屏幕然后暴跌归零。

And this is exactly what we are actually seeing in the markets. Right? Now you'll notice that I cut this off here. And the reason I do that is because it goes off the screen and then crashes to zero.

等等，解释下「冲出屏幕然后暴跌归零」是什么意思。

Wait. Explain that. It goes off the screen and crashes to zero.

最终发生的情况是，价值数量相对于那些基于价值判断而介入购买的自主买家而言变得如此之高，以至于他们根本无法阻挡这股趋势。我们之前就见证过类似事件。我最初进行这项分析时所做的交易实际上是XIV（波动率末日事件），当时被动或系统性算法交易已占据市场约70%的份额。根据我的模型，这导致该产品有约95%的概率会遭遇归零事件——即便价格不断攀升、吸引更多资金涌入、更多人坚信这是完美的赚钱工具。这种现象的根源在于被动卖盘的规模压倒了市场流动性，最终使其跌至法律允许的最低值——零。

So what ends up happening is is that the quantity of value becomes so high relative to the discretionary buyer who steps in to buy for value that they simply can't step in front of it. And we've seen this happen before. So the the trade that I did first when I began to do this analysis was actually the XIV, the Volmageddon event, in which the passive or systematic algorithm share had grown to about 70% of the market. In my models, this made roughly a 95% probability that this would encounter an event that would cause it to collapse to zero even as the price went higher and higher and higher and more money was attracted to it and more money was confident that there was this was a perfect money making vehicle. The reason why this occurs is because the size of the passive seller overwhelms the liquidity that's in the market and it effectively goes to its lowest legal level, which is zero.

我的所有模型都指向标普500指数将面临极其相似的结局。你可以这样理解：像Palantir这样的公司，基于其现金流能力的基本面买家在哪里？其真实价值远低于当前价格。

All my models lead me to a very, very similar outcome in the S and P 500 and you can just simply think about this as, like, where is the fundamental buyer for a company like Palantir on the basis of the cash flows that it can generate? Right? It's dramatically lower than it is today.

好的。那么你对那些采用被动投资算法的人有什么建议？是否意味着只要市场参与者还在集体推高泡沫，标普指数作为集中火力点，这个策略就能持续有效？但迟早会失效，届时回报将惨不忍睹——我不知道该怎么形容...

Okay. So what is your message then for those that are doing the passive investing algorithm? Is this is it basically like it's going to continue working probably as long as the market participants are are are shooting their guns together at the at the balloon, and S and P is basically a shelling point. But at some at some point, this is going to stop working, and your returns are going to be, like, abysmal, subpar. You're going to get, like I I don't know.

你一直在说归零风险。我并非认为标普真会归零，而是指某种负面事件会导致被动投资策略失效。是这个意思吗？

You keep talking about going to zero here. I I don't think you actually mean the S and P is kind of going to zero, but some negative event happens and the passive investing strategy no longer works. Is that

你的基本预测是市场将出现无法清算的事件？实际上标普不会归零，他们会直接关闭市场。

your basic forecast? Enter into a market non clearing event. Right? And so what would actually happen is the S and P would not go to zero. They'd simply shut the market.

他们之前就这么干过。2015年8月我亲历过这样的事件：ETF无法交易，强生股价从80美元跌至1美分。这就是市场缺乏清算机制时可能发生的极端情况。

They've done it before. Right? To your point of going to zero, I lived personally through an event in a in August 2015 in which you walked in and ETFs could not trade. Johnson and Johnson had fallen from $80 to a penny. You know, those are the sorts of events that can occur if there is a lack of market clearing.

市场清算失败的几率随着人类参与度降低和自动化程度提高而增大。加密货币市场就经常出现这种情况。

It becomes easier and easier for the market to fail on those clearing attempts. The more you remove humans from the process, the more automated you make the process. You see it in crypto all the time.

嗯。但你并非在预言真正的末日级事件吧？考虑到标普和美国股市已成为'大而不能倒'的存在——这关乎婴儿潮一代的退休账户，政府不可能放任崩溃。

Mhmm. Yeah. But but you're not are you forecasting an actual Armageddon type of event like that, or is there not the the idea that well, because everyone's doing it effectively, S and P, US equity markets have become too big to fail. This is basically baby boomer retirement accounts. The government can't let this fail.

当局必定会救助任何末日级危机。最坏情况也就是回报率极低，而非大萧条级别的崩溃，对吧？

They're surely, would bail out any situation that that goes in a Armageddon type scenario. And so at worst, you're looking at, like, very poor returns. You're not looking at actual collapse to, you know, Great Depression types of events, are you?

对此我必须非常谨慎。你的观点很有道理——它确实正在变得'大而不能倒'，政府很可能干预。我想强调的是：我们应该为此做好准备，意识到这个风险，并明白这是我们亲手制造的，而非随机事件。

I I wanna be very, careful on that because I think there's a lot of truth to what you're saying, that ultimately it is becoming too big to fail and the likelihood is that the government would actually step in. What I am actually trying to articulate is we should be prepared for that event. We should be aware of it, and we should also understand that we have created it. It's not a random event.

嗯。

Mhmm.

因此，最重要的是，我正努力在预见的可能事件发生前提高人们的意识，这些事件会引发你所描述的行动，以便我们能在事后建立一个更好的系统，而不是像二月份以来我们主要做的那样，每次事件发生时都束手无策地说，谁能预料到这种情况呢？对吧？然后我们就只能试图拖延问题。

And so more than anything else, what I'm trying to do is raise awareness ahead of what I think is a likely event that will precipitate the actions that you're describing so that we can build a better system on the other side of it instead of doing what we have largely done since February, which is throw our hands up at every event saying, who could possibly have predicted this? Right? And therefore we just try to kick the can down the road.

我明白了。所以你基本上是在说，这种被动投资占据绝对主导地位的局面最终会以糟糕的方式结束。对于那些不了解基本情况的人来说，自1995年以来，市场结构发生了多大的变化？迈克尔，你在最近的一篇Substack文章中有一张图表，显示交易结构的变化。1995年，我们看到80%属于主动管理类型。2022年，我猜数字可能差不多，甚至更少，现在被动做市占了1036%。

I see. So you you're you're basically you're effectively saying that pass this this this massive dominance of passive investing is is going to end badly. So for people that are unaware of basically the composition, how much it it's changed since say 1995, you've got a chart in one of your recent sub stacks, Michael, the composition of of trading has changed. 1995, we see 80% in this active management type category. 2022, I I imagine it's probably similar numbers, maybe even less, it's 1036% passive market making now.

所以过去三十年左右，市场结构已经完全改变了。我们是怎么走到这一步的？这种变化是如何发生的？

So the market composition has completely changed over the past thirty years or so. How did we get here? How did this change occur?

嗯，我认为这主要是因为我们试图引导市场朝这个方向发展。对吧？1994年发生了一个非常实质性的变化。我们首次豁免了被动指数管理人遵守《40法案》的规定。我们允许他们开始使用保证金账户交易期货来复制指数，而不是必须自行购买每只个股或采用统计抽样方法。

Well I I would argue that it has largely occurred because we have tried to guide it in this direction. Right? So in 1994 something very substantive changed. We exempted passive index managers for the very first time from the 'forty Act. We allowed them to start using margin accounts to trade futures to replicate the index as compared to having to buy each individual stock on their own or in a statistical sampling approach.

这一变化将指数复制的流程从先锋集团的问题转变为市场问题，并创造了我们现在看到的指数套利条件。讽刺的是，这实际上正是引发互联网泡沫周期的原因。虽然听起来荒谬，但问题在于1994年确立指数时做出的那个改变——突然为华尔街创造了一个利润中心，使得指数能通过期货被高度精准地复制。当时的指数采用市值加权法，至今多数人仍误以为如此。

That changed the process of index replication from a Vanguard problem to a market problem and created the conditions of index arbitrage that we see. Now perversely, this is actually what caused the .com cycle. And that sounds absurd to say, but the problem was when you had the indices in 1994 and you chose to make that change, which suddenly created a profit center for Wall Street to basically cause the index to be very closely replicated with futures. The index at the time was market cap weighted. Most people think it's still market cap weighted.

实则不然。现行的是流通股调整加权法。这意味着在1994年至2003年2月期间，若资金流入指数基金，该基金就会买入相应期货。期货经纪商继而按指数成分比例购入股票来复制头寸。但由于90年代中期市场状况特殊，存在大量市值高但流通股比例较低的大公司。

It's not. It's float adjusted. And so what that meant is in the period from roughly 1994 until 02/2003, if you put money into an index fund, a future would be bought by that index fund. The future's broker in turn would try to replicate that position by buying the shares in proportion to its representation in the index. But because of the condition in the market in the mid 1990s, were a large number of relatively large companies that had high market caps but relatively low floats.

微软、思科、戴尔等新近上市的公司就是典型，沃尔玛也是绝佳案例。当按市值与流通股比例购买时，实际购入的微软股票数量可达流通量的两倍。这直接推高了微软股价表现。1995年至1998年末，低流通股因子始终是主导市场的核心特征。

Companies like Microsoft, Cisco, Dell, etcetera that had relatively recently gone public. Walmart was another good example of this. When you tried to buy those in proportion to their market capitalization as compared to their float, you were effectively buying twice as many shares of Microsoft as actually were available to be traded. That causes Microsoft to outperform. That low float factor was the dominant feature in the market from roughly 1995 until late nineteen ninety eight.

这三年间的超额收益记录，足以实质性引导资金流向。90年代尚无因子基金，也没有高管持股基金，只有行业基金。而低流通股与高市值的交集，恰好高度契合科技板块或新上市公司。科技基金的资金涌入潮，正是对低流通股因子超额收益的反馈，最终推动了互联网泡沫的终极阶段。

That three year track record effectively was enough to start driving flows in a very meaningful fashion. In the 1990s we didn't have factor funds. We didn't have high insider ownership funds. What we had was sector funds And the Venn diagram of the intercept of the intersection between low float and relatively high market cap was very closely aligned with the technology sector or recent IPOs. So the demand to flow into the technology funds, there was reaction of this outperformance of the low float factor is what drove that final stage of the .com.

我们对此心知肚明，因为2014-2015年中国股市完全重演了这套机制——几乎相同的诱因使股市六个月内暴涨500%，随后又以1929年式崩盘暴跌，至今未能恢复。

Right? We we know this because we saw the exact same mechanics play out in 2014, 2015 in the Chinese stock market in which almost identical considerations caused that stock market to rise 500% over the course of six months and then crash back in a 1929 style crash from which it still hasn't recovered.

你能帮我们向一些加密货币听众解释市值与低流通量的区别吗？按照我们的理解，有一个指标叫完全稀释估值，基本上就是市值。对吧？它是全球所有流通供应量乘以价格得出的完全稀释估值。然后还有另一种市值，指的是市场上实际流通供应量的市值。

Can you help explain the difference between market cap and low float to so and and float to some of our crypto listeners? So the the way we understand this is we have a metric called fully diluted valuation, which is basically market cap. Right? It's all outstanding supply that exists in the entire world multiplied by the price, and that gives you a fully diluted valuation. And then we have another kind of market cap, which is, like, market cap of existing supply that that's out there in the market effectively.

是的。你知道，人们非常关注那些流通量极低但市值极高的代币，这些代币的供应大多被内部人士锁定。你指的是类似的情况吗？

And Yep. You know, there's been much attention to very low low float tokens with very high market caps, the supply kind of locked up with insiders, that sort of thing. Is this a similar dynamic that you're

你说的就是这个现象？完全相同的现象。想象一下，突然出现一个买家，这个买家以某种特定方式受到政府支持，他们说：我们要按市值比例购买所有这些代币。

you're speaking of? It's it's the exact same phenomenon. Right? And so imagine a buyer suddenly shows up that is blessed by the government, you know, in a particular fashion that says, you know what? We buy all these tokens in proportion to their market capitalization.

对。

Right.

如果一个代币99%由单一个人持有，只有1%流通量，而我试图按市值比例购买它，那1%的流通量价格就会飙升。

A token that is 99% held by a single individual, 1% float, if I try to buy it in proportion to its market capitalization, I am going to send that 1% float ballistic.

有意思。确实如此。

Interesting. Yes.

这就是互联网泡沫时期的情况。对吧？

That was the .com cycle. Right?

而这是

And this is

顺便说一句，这也是为什么传统金融领域这么多人看着加密世界会说：如果你们愿意和我们沟通，我们可以向你们解释这些现象的根本原因。

this is, by the way, the same underlying reason why so many people in TradFi look at the crypto world and say, look. If you guys would simply talk to us, we can explain some of this stuff to you guys.

当然。我们正在这么做。我们此刻就在做这件事。是的。

Of course. That's what we're doing. That's what we're doing here. Yeah.

没错。但你知道，普遍的说法是‘好吧，老家伙’。对吧？就像我们无法理解这些。

Right. But, you know, the the general narrative is okay, boomer. Right? You know? Like, we don't understand it.

不。实际上我们亲身经历过。问题在于，即使在我们自己的行业里，大多数人也没有花时间去问这些问题并尝试理解这些东西。

No. We actually have lived through it. The problem is even in our own industry, most people have not taken the time to ask these questions and try to understand this stuff.

是的。好的。明白了。所以我理解你的意思。你实际上是在说，被动投资正在导致这些市场扭曲，而我们现有的指数并不是高质量的指数，因为它们存在偏差。

Yeah. Okay. Alright. So I see that. So what you're effectively saying is, you know, the passive investing is causing these market distortions, and the indices that we actually have, they aren't like high quality indices because they're skewed.

它们在不同方向上存在偏见。系统性上，事物在某些方向上存在偏见。也许我们可以稍微谈谈这类扭曲的次级效应？其中一个我听你提到过，比如这个‘七大巨头垄断’。我也听其他人谈论过大型企业的崛起。

They have biases in different directions. Systemically, things are biased in in certain directions. Maybe can we talk a little bit about the second order effects of this of these types of distortions? So one of them I think I've heard you talk about is, like, this mag seven monopoly. I've heard others talk about the rise of the mega firms.

那么这种现象是什么？在这种环境下，大公司是否仅仅从资本角度变得更大？

So what is that phenomenon? In in this type of environment, do the big companies just get bigger from a capital perspective?

是的。在某种程度上。密歇根州立大学的张有一篇论文叫《被动投资与大型企业的崛起》。这是张在2023年发表的论文，他们所说的内容值得深入探讨。对吧？

Yes. To a certain extent. So there's a paper by Zhang who's at Michigan State called passive investing in the rise of mega firms. So this is the paper by Zhang, came out in 2023 and, you know, to zoom in on what they're saying. Right?

我们研究了被动投资如何影响资产价格，流入被动基金的资金不成比例地提高了经济中最大公司的股价，即使基金跟踪的指数包含所有公司。被动资金流还最大程度地提高了公司的回报波动性，提高了整体股票市场，即使这完全是由于投资者从主动投资转向被动投资。对吧？现在这种现象发生的原因非常有趣。这是来自第二篇论文的。

We study how passive investing affects asset prices, flows into passive funds, raise disproportionately the stock prices of the economy's largest firms even when the indices tracked by the funds include all firms. Passive flows also raise the firm's return volatility the most, raise the aggregate stock market even when they are entirely due to investors just switching from active to passive. Right? Now why this is actually happening is quite interesting. So this is from a second paper.

这是瓦伦丁·哈达德在2021年的研究。他在这里研究的是弹性与非弹性之间的理论关系，这实际上是衡量什么与市值的关系。公司越大，增量购买的影响越大。比如，如果我购买微软1%的股份，那是一个难以想象的巨大买单，大约在300亿美元左右。对吧？

This is Valentin Hadad in 2021. And what he's looking at here is there's a theoretical relationship between what's called elasticity or inelasticity, which is really what this measures versus market capitalization. The larger a company is, the more an incremental buy. Like, if I buy 1% of Microsoft, that's an unfathomably large buy order that goes into the market, somewhere in the neighborhood of $30,000,000,000. Right?

一个试图购买300亿美元的订单对市场来说是一个巨大的订单，会影响价格。部分原因是做市商坦率地说无法提供接近那么多的资本来促进有效的做市，所以这种规模的订单会改变价格。如果我为一个市值3亿美元的公司下一个1%的订单。对吧？那只有300万美元。

A single attempt to buy $30,000,000,000 is a huge order into the market and will influence prices. The reason why in part is because market makers candidly can't put anywhere near that much capital up to facilitate efficient market making, and so that size order is going to shift. So I put up a 1% order for a $300,000,000 market cap company. Right? That's only $3,000,000.

没人会在意。这很容易消化。所以这里的红线是弹性与市值之间的理论关系，即价格相对于供需变化的弹性变化。哈达德发现这个图表要陡峭得多。原因在于它与指数化效应和替代能力有关。

Nobody cares. That's easy to accommodate. And so the red line here is the theoretical relationship between elasticity, the change in price relative to changes in supply and demand versus market capitalization. What Haddad found is that that chart is much, much steeper. And the reason why turns out that it's tied to the indexing effect and the in the ability to substitute.

这些最大规模的公司采用对数刻度显示，为了让听众有个概念，12.5对应的市值大约是3万亿美元。那些巨头企业，我根本无法替代。如果你给我一个标普ETF的买入指令，我能忽略联合航空吗？可以。它只是个市值约300亿美元的公司。

So the largest companies this is in log scale, so just to orient people, 12 and a half is about $3,000,000,000,000 in market capitalization. The largest companies, I simply can't replace. If you give me a buy order for an S and P ETF, can I ignore United Airlines? Yeah. It's like a $30,000,000,000 market cap company.

这对指数复制根本没有实质影响。也许当天有关于联合航空的异常新闻报道，导致其股价走势怪异，那我当天就不买它。改天再买就是了。这对我的指数跟踪策略不会造成可量化的影响。

It really has no impact on it. Maybe it's you know, there's a news report that's out on on United and it's behaving weirdly, so I'm not gonna buy it that day. Right? I'll buy it another day. It has no tangible impact on my index replication.

但我必须买英伟达吗？绝对要买。必须买微软吗？必须买苹果吗？是的。

But do I have to buy NVIDIA? Absolutely. Do I have to buy Microsoft? Do I have to buy Apple? Yes.

以什么价格买？市场给出的任何价格都是合理价格。明白吗？实际上我对这些证券的选择是完全无弹性的。

At what price? Well, whatever price the market gives me is the right price. Right? So I'm actually perfectly inelastic in my selection of those securities. Right?

只要收到标普指数基金的买入指令，我会不计价格买入它们。另一个现象是：由于我们正在用被动管理取代主动管理， paradoxically（反常地）这意味着主动经理人偏爱的股票类型会遭遇净卖出。比如小盘股、价值股等——这些市值较低的公司本应通过个体研究来发现市场尚未察觉的价值。

I will buy them at whatever price if you give me an order to buy an S and P index fund. The other thing that's happening is because we're actually typically firing active managers and replacing them with passive managers, perversely, that means there's net selling of many of the types of stocks that active managers are drawn to. Right? Small caps, value stocks, etcetera, things that inevitably will have lower market capitalizations where theoretically my individual attention to the name could uncover something that other people have not yet found.

嗯。

Mhmm.

所以我们发现小盘股具有极高价格弹性。这是资金流动特性的体现——随着被动投资占比上升，它实质上推高了这些巨头股票，带动整体市场上涨，但对小公司的影响则微弱得多。

Right? So what we discover is is that there is very high elasticity amongst the smaller stocks. And this is a function of of the flow behavior. So as passive is gaining share, it's effectively pushing up these largest stocks and taking the market with it even as it's having a much smaller effect on smaller companies.

明白了。所以我们偏向大盘股。你的观点是这会导致相对于均衡配置的回报率下降吗？

Okay. So we're skewed towards the large. And is your argument that that will result in, you know, decreased returns relative to a more balanced?

最终会的，这是另一个带有必然性的因素。记住：投资额度永远受收入水平制约。我能购买的上限取决于收入可支撑的融资额度或储蓄余额。

Eventually, right, and this is the other factor that has an air of inevitability to it. Right? Remember that contributions are always going to be a function of income levels. The most I can buy is what my income allows me to either finance or to buy directly out of my savings. Right?

而赎回额度始终与资产总价值挂钩。这在加密货币市场同样明显——当迷因币、山寨币甚至比特币本身价格过高时，就会引发持有大量头寸的巨鲸抛售次级供给。

What I can withdraw is always going to be a function of the value of the assets in total. And so again, you see this in crypto. Right? When prices get too high for a meme token or for an altcoin or even for Bitcoin itself, it draws out secondary supply from whales who have accumulated huge holdings.

嗯。

Mhmm.

这进而压低了价格。同样的现象正在股市上演。当估值达到足够高的水平，当市值变得足够大时，自然卖家相较于自然买家会成为主导资金流。而这正是巴菲特指标之类工具所揭示的，对吧？当你将股市总市值与GDP联系起来时，本质上是在观察财富存量相对于收入的比例。

That in turn pressures prices lower. Same phenomenon is playing out in the stock market. When valuations get high enough, when market caps get large enough, natural sellers become the dominant flow as compared to natural buyers. And that's really what something like the Buffett indicator is telling you, right? When you relate stock market capitalization to GDP what you're really doing is you're looking at a stock of wealth relative to income.

GDP可以从收入法推导出来，对吧？所以两者之间的比率实际上告诉你潜在的大额卖家池有多大。你在加密货币市场看到的也是同样现象。这种情况屡见不鲜。问题就像加密领域一样：我们是否引入了外部强制力？

GDP can be derived from an income approach, right? So that ratio between the two is effectively telling you how large that potential pool of whale sellers actually is. It's the same phenomenon you see in crypto. You see it all the time. The question is just like crypto, are we introducing an external forcing?

这再次体现了市场向被动投资转型的认知。我们引入的外部强制力，与贝莱德将比特币纳入其模型投资组合或ETF采用比特币毫无二致。对吧？这是新资本洪流的外部强制力，迫使价格上涨。

This is again the the recognition of Jang by shifting the market towards passive. We've introduced an external forcing that's no different than BlackRock including Bitcoin into its model portfolios or ETFs adopting Bitcoin. Right? It's an external forcing of a new flood of capital that forces prices higher.

好的。那么这种对大盘股的超配，基本上我们给出了一个迄今为止行之有效的原因——仅仅因为所有人都在这么做且持续这么做，被动投资也在不断增加。这部分我们已经讨论过。不过迈克尔，第二个可能的原因只是一个观察：你知道，美股七巨头很多都是科技领袖。

Okay. So this overweight towards large cap companies, basically, we we've given maybe one reason why this has worked so far, and that's just because everyone's doing it and everyone continues to do it and passive continues to increase. So we've talked about that. A second reason this might work though, Michael, is just one observation. You know, a lot of that in the mag seven, it's it's tech leaders.

对吧？关于科技的一个观察是存在网络效应。存在幂律赢家。强者确实会愈强。就连人工智能这样的领域，彼得·蒂尔也论证过这是种真正拥抱中心化的技术。

Right? An observation about tech is there are network effects with with tech. There are power law winners. The big do indeed continue to get bigger. Even something like AI, Peter Thiel, has argued that's a, you know, a a technology that really embraces centralization.

我的意思是，更多数据、更大规模经济、更多GPU。所以或许在大公司的实际价值产出动态中，本就存在幂律偏态使其更具优势——至少在这类技术和市场领域如此。因此超配大盘股是有道理的。

I mean, more data, more economies of scale, more GPUs. So maybe there's actually a a power law skew anyway in the actual value outcome dynamics of large companies that that makes them superior, at least with this technology, this part of the market. And, it makes sense to be overweight large.

但这又是个叙事，对吧？和价值投资有效的论调如出一辙。我们的确凿证据是什么？嗯，价值投资确实有效。

But, again, that's a narrative. Right? It's the same argument that value investing works. What's our definite what's our evidence for it? Well, value investing works.

对吧？动量投资有效。证据呢？动量投资确实有效。对吧？

Right? Momentum investing works. What's our evidence for it? Momentum investing works. Right?

大盘股有效。证据呢？大盘股表现优异。问题在于为什么有效。对吧？

Large caps work. What's our evidence for it? Large caps outperform. It becomes a question of why. Right?

现在我已经向你提供了一种机制，它实际上逐步解释了确切原因。而你实际上在说，如果有其他解释呢？你完全正确。我无法反驳未来可能发生的事情。不过你强调的更广泛观察——即'大即是美'的理念——本身是对我们多年来所听叙事的逆转。

Now I've offered you a mechanism that actually walks through and explains exactly why. And you're effectively saying, well, what if there's an alternate explanation? And you're a 100% correct. I can't dispute what is going to potentially happen in the future that could create that. The broader observation that you highlight though, which is this idea that large is beautiful, is actually itself a reversal of the narrative that we heard for years and years.

对吧？所有创新和增长都来自小公司。竞争催生创新。而你实际上在说的是：不，我们真正需要的是能在规模上竞争的国家级巨头。

Right? That all the innovation and growth comes from small companies. Right? Competition is what creates innovation. Instead, what you're effectively saying is no, what we really need are, you know, national giants that can compete at scale.

实际上，让我们创建新国家吧。一个叫AI国，另一个叫AWS国，还有个比特币挖矿国。然后我们允许主导参与者出现。

Effectively, let's create new countries. Right? We'll call one country AI country, another country, you know, AWS country, another country, bit coin mining country. Right? And we're gonna allow dominant participants to emerge.

我们其实知道这带来的影响。是的，它提高了企业盈利能力，但降低了整体效用和收益。因为你正在创造按平均总成本而非边际成本生产的垄断，结果导致生产不足，在经济中人为制造了本不该存在的稀缺。

We actually know the implications of that. Yes. It raises corporate profitability, but it lowers aggregate utility and and benefits. Mhmm. Because what you're doing is creating monopolies that produce to average total cost as compared to marginal cost and as a result, under produce creating scarcity in the economy where it doesn't have to exist.

所以正确答案是：你是对的。规模经济确实存在，在跨国层面尤其显著——比如我可以在不同税收制度间套利，或把工厂从密歇根迁到美国南部利用低工会工资，当南方工资不够低时再迁到中国，然后以优惠条件从中国出口商品。

And so the the correct answer is you're right. There are economies of scale and those are particularly extreme at the multinational level where I can do things like tax arbitrage across different regimes. Right? Or I could move my factory from Michigan to Southern Part of The United States to take advantage of low union wages. And then when the low union wages in the South are not enough, I can move that labor to China and I can then export goods from China under favorable terms.

这些都是规模带来的好处，但监管的核心正是将这个体系重新导向社会财富最大化，而非个别公司和个人的利益。当我们讨论其影响时，部分问题在于：如果决定让退休系统投资公开股票，我们已经在为这些大公司创造差异化的资本通道，使它们相对可能诞生真正创新的本地小店获得优势——而适应当地市场的竞争本应能与国内技能发展同步繁荣。讽刺的是，我认为二阶效应之一正是当今这个我们深信'小即弱势'的世界——它确实弱势，因为是我们选择让它如此的。

These are all ways that size benefits you, but the entire point of regulation is actually to reorient that system back towards maximizing wealth in society, not for the individual companies and individuals. And so you know when you talk about the implications of this, part of the problem is if we decide that our retirement systems are going to invest in public equities we're already creating a differential access to capital for these large companies providing them with an advantage over the local mom and pop where true innovation may actually occur and where competition that is tailored to that local market could actually be allowed to flourish at the same time that you're developing a skill set inside the country. So perversely, I actually think one of the second order effects is the world that we inhabit today in which we're convinced that small is disadvantaged. It's true. It is disadvantaged because we've chosen to make it so.

我完全同意。尤利克，说得好。这确实不应该是世界的本来面貌，监管体系和制度本身更不该鼓励和偏袒大企业。活力对美国资本市场乃至所有市场都至关重要，我们应尽可能创造公平环境，有时甚至要扶持小企业。

I completely agree with that. And, Yulik, well said. I mean, I, you know, agree this is not the world as it should be, and certainly the regulatory and and the system itself should not be encouraging and giving advantage to the large over the small. I mean, dynamism is so important for, you know, US capital markets and markets in general. And so we should, where possible, at least level the playing field or, in some cases, advantage the small.

这种对被动投资的过度侧重还造成了哪些扭曲？除了催生巨型企业，是否存在治理权被俘获的现象？当前局势中还有哪些你认为不健康的扭曲？

What are some other distortions, I guess, this this overweighting towards passive investing have caused? So we've talked about the rise of these mega firms as well. Is there something about governance capture here, or, like, what are some other distortions that you find unhealthy about our current situation?

我认为最关键的是它对创新的负面影响。美国正在变得缺乏活力，经济、社会甚至地域流动性都在下降——因为你指出的各种动态因素导致实现这些流动的壁垒越来越高。

Well, think I think the most important component is actually the negative impact that it has on innovation. Right? So what is unfortunately happening is is you are seeing all the symptoms of what you are describing. The United States is becoming less dynamic. Economic and social and even geographic mobility are falling as the barriers to executing those get higher and higher and higher from any of the dynamics that you're that you're identifying.

简单例子：如果租金极高，年轻人就难以积累资本，继而难以组建家庭或为工作迁徙。迁移成本大幅提升而回报降低。居家办公曾短暂打破这种局面——人们可以在怀俄明或爱达荷州从事硅谷或纽约的工作，在小城市获得大都市收入。

Simple example, if rents are extremely high, it makes forming capital very difficult for young people. That in turn makes it makes it very difficult for them to start families, to relocate for jobs, everything else. Right? The cost of moving is dramatically higher and the rewards associated with it are lower. We temporarily interrupted that with things like work from home that allowed people to execute arbitrage, taking Silicon Valley jobs or New York City jobs and doing them in places like Wyoming or Idaho, right, where you were able to capture a big city type income in a small city location.

如今形势逆转，我们又回到了居家办公模式。哪些领域正从中受益？而我们又从居家办公回归办公室，哪些领域开始因此获益？比如纽约等地的租金正在飙升，年轻人正试图涌入这些城市以获取日益稀缺的机会。

Now the tides have turned and we've moved back towards work from home. And what are the areas that are benefiting from and we've moved away from work from home back to office. What are the areas that are starting to benefit from it? Well, rents are exploding in places like New York City. Young people are trying to flock to these cities to obtain increasingly scarce opportunities.

要知道，这一切都源于我们在政策层面做出的选择。若忽视这点，天真地认为市场如同魔法——只需随时间自动积累价值，退休规划只需机械执行美元成本平均法投资最低成本标的就能躺赚。对吧？但这套逻辑有效的前提是市场永远运转，问题是：万一失灵了呢？

You know, all of these things are a function of choices that we make on our policy stage. And, you know, to ignore that and to simply think that like, well, the market is just magic and it just kind of, you know, accumulates value over time and I'm gonna save for my retirement by doing no work whatsoever other than showing the discipline to dollar cost average into the lowest cost alternative. Right? Again, it works until it doesn't. And the question is what happens?

社会将面临什么后果？我们已在'波动率末日'事件中见识过严重案例——那只是个25亿美元的ETF。而现在我谈论的是60万亿美元市场，几乎涵盖美国全部退休储蓄。明白吗？

What societal are implications? We already saw a, you know, pretty serious event in the Volmageddon component. That was a two and a half billion dollar ETF. Now I'm talking about a $60,000,000,000,000 market for basically the entirety of US retirement savings. Right?

简而言之，这是个岌岌可危的局面。

I mean, the simple answer is it's a very precarious position.

能否为不了解的听众解释下'波动率末日'事件？您指的是2018年2月那次吗？毕竟市场出现过多次波动性事件。请先描述该事件，再关联到您预见的风险——听起来您认为未来可能出现某种'超级波动率末日'时刻，就像超级火山爆发般的事件？

Can you talk about the Volmageddon incident for those who aren't aware of it? Is this are you referring to the the 02/2018? I mean, there have been many kind of volatility sort of events. And so describe that maybe, and then link that to what you think could happen. It it sounds like there's some possibility in your mind of, like, a super Volmageddon type moment, like, almost like a super volcano erupting at some point in the future.

不过请聚焦当前语境下的'波动率末日'事件。

But but talk about the Volmageddon incident in the context here.

好的。'波动率末日'事件本质很简单。具体指XIV和SVXY这两只反向VIX ETF，它们的走势与恐慌指数VIX相反。

Yeah. Sure. So the Volmageddon incident is pretty straightforward. Prior to so the Volmageddon incident itself refers to a couple of ETFs, XIV and SVXY, that were inverse VIX ETFs. That meant that they behaved the opposite of the VIX fear index.

多数人以为它们与VIX存在方向性关联，实则是套利交易。做空波动率的核心收益来源于：卖出两个月后定价19%的波动率合约，待其滚动至一个月合约时（此时因时间临近确定性更高）以16%买回。典型利差约19到16，更常见是15到12。

Most people thought it was a directional component tied to the VIX. The reality is it was a carry trade. And so the the primary source of return in volatility selling is selling uncertainty in, let's say, month two that's priced at 19 and buying it back as it rolls down to volatility priced for month one, which is only one month further out one month out, and therefore we have a little bit more certainty around it, that roll down is typically something like 19 to 16. Right? Or more typically actually about 15 to 12.

这相当于每月极高回报率。若以15卖出12买回，月收益率约20%。持续重复该操作将产生惊人回报曲线——这正是收益来源。

That's a very, very high return on a monthly basis. If sell something at 15 and I buy it back at 12, I'm making somewhere in the neighborhood of 20% a month every single month. If I repeat that over and over and over again, I get a price pattern or a return pattern that looks absolutely phenomenal. Right? That's the source of the return.

这些策略最初是为满足华尔街稀缺资本的对冲需求（又回到做市商本质：需要占用稀缺资本来提供流动性）。如此诱人的回报催生了反向产品，以应对汹涌的对冲需求。

Those strategies which initially emerged to allow people to hedge their portfolios because capital is scarce on Wall Street. Again, it goes back to that market making phenomenon. I have gotta put up capital in order to make markets, and that capital is by definition scarce. Those sorts of returns were really, really attractive to people. And so, you know, we had to effectively create an inverse product in order to accommodate the demand for hedging.

就像你在《大空头》里看到的RMBS那样，人们从利用过度对冲需求创造的波动性中获利。他们反过来开始通过做空波动率来构建股票的合成多头敞口。本质上就是说，既然卖出保险（赌股市会崩盘）长期来看能获得比直接买股票高得多的回报，何必还要买股票呢？讽刺的是，政府居然认可这种做法。2008年监管改革中，《沃尔克规则》下推出了CCAR（资本充足率评估），明确规定投行对不同交易类型必须持有的准备金比例。

Then just like you saw in the RMBS in the big short, right, people went from using the volatility that was created by excess hedging demand. They flipped it around and began create synthetic long exposures to equities through short volatility. Basically saying, why sell the you know, why buy the equity when I can sell the insurance that the equity is going to collapse at much, much higher returns in aggregate over time? Perversely, the government actually blessed this. And so during the 2008 regulatory reforms, under the Volcker rule, there was something introduced called CCAR, capital adequacy ratios, which basically told or dictated to investment banks how much they had to reserve against different types of trades.

明白吗？如果是持有股票——比如客户持有股票而我在自己账上为其做市，我必须为股价瞬间暴跌30%做好准备。但如果用波动率术语表达完全相同的交易，对应的风险指标只是VIX指数跳涨10个点。给大家个概念：标普500瞬间跌30%，按过去不够精确的算法换算成VIX指数，大概会从20飙到120左右。

Right? In the case of owning equities, so if my client owns equities and I'm holding that on my portfolio, right, in my on my book where I've facilitated that by holding equity positions against that, I had to prepare myself for instantaneous volatility of a 30% drop. If I express that exact same trade in volatility terms, the equivalent risk metric was a 10 jump in the VIX. Right? Now just to orient people, a 30% drop in the S and P 500 instantaneously translated to a VIX using the old methodology, which was less precise, somewhere in the neighborhood of about a 120, jumping from, give or take, 20 to a 120.

1987年股灾时VIX就暴涨过100点。由于做空波动率所需资本远低于直接做多股票（两者本质是相似交易），华尔街机构纷纷扎堆做空波动率。这种扎堆行为最终导致了2018年2月2日监管变动引发的'波动率末日'——美联储突然修改CCAR条款，将VIX风险阈值从跳涨10点上调到30点。

So a 100 jump in the VIX associated with the crash in 1987. The difference between those two, because it was so much cheaper to put capital up against short volatility than it was to express it in long equities, which is very similar to the same trade, caused the street to crowd into short vol positions. That crowding created the conditions that facilitated Volmageddon which was actually caused by a regulatory change on 02/02/2018. The Federal Reserve changed unexpectedly those CCAR provisions, raising the volatility risk from a 10 jump in the VIX to a 30 jump in the VIX. Alright?

这导致相关头寸的资本准备金要求激增。当机构开始平仓这些空波动率头寸时，引发了XIV交易所交易票据的抛售潮，最终压垮了市场流动性。2018年2月5日周一，XIV在单日交易中从115美元暴跌至5美元，随后基金被迫清盘。我们围绕它布局的交易倒是获利了结。

That's a dramatic increase in the quantity of capital that was required to be held against those positions. And as the street began to unwind those short vol positions, it created the conditions for selling of the XIV that ultimately overwhelmed the available liquidity. And on Monday, 02/05/2018, in a single session, the XIV went from, I believe it was, a 115 to five. At that point, they shut the fund, liquidated it. We got paid out on our trades that we had taken around it.

但标普500不太可能重蹈覆辙——现实中有熔断机制这种'防火墙'，市场跌到一定阈值会暂停交易。虽然恢复交易后的清算价格难以预测，但至少不会出现无限下跌。

But that is a very simple model and a much less complex framework to what could happen to the S and P. Now the simple reality is it can't actually happen because we have firebreaks or effectively points at which we stop trading, and we would stop trading. Like, it's you would end up halting the markets. Where they clear after that is is unknown.

但2018年波动率末日有个关键点：像彼得·蒂尔这样的主动投资者大赚2.5亿美金，可很多被动投资者甚至不记得这事。

But here's the thing about Volmageddon in in 2018. Right? So, obviously, some active investors, active managers, like, played that very well. I mean, I think you you you talk about how Peter Thiel just on on that trade, 250,000,000, something like that. For a lot of the people operating under the passive investing algorithm, they might not even remember what happened in 2018.

我刚刚回忆这事还挺费劲——'哦对是有这么回事，但我当时继续执行傻瓜定投策略，压根没管'。

I was, like, actually coming to this conversation kinda struggling to remember. It's like, oh, yeah. I remember when that happened. I just ignored it. I continued my dumb algorithm.

当然加密货币要另当别论...但传统市场就是无脑定投，那种波动不过是雷达上的小光点。既然被动投资会助长剧烈波动和'波动率末日'事件（下次可能更严重），作为定投者能否直接无视噪音？继续按策略定投，长期来看真的没问题吗？

I mean, minus modified for for crypto, of course, but just, like, buy the market, dollar cost average in, and that was a blip on the radar. So, like, what's the argument for why, you know, certainly passive investing creates conditions for these massive volatility spikes and these Volmageddon type incidents and, you know, possibly a future one could be even worse? But still, as a passive investor, can I just, like, ignore that noise? I'm not gonna I'm not gonna do anything when those events happen. I'll continue dollar cost averaging in, and I'm fine over the long run or not.

这取决于你是资金净流入方还是净提取方。市场本质是每个买家都要对应卖家...

Well, it depends. Right? Are you a contributor or are you a net withdrawer? And so the characteristic of the market is ultimately that every buyer has to have a seller. Right?

反过来说每个卖家也需对应买家。随着人口老龄化和被动投资成熟化，退休人群开始提取养老金会导致净卖出活动增加。这种情况下市场不可能无限上涨。

The converse of that is, of course, every seller has to have a buyer. As the population ages and as passive investing becomes a more mature phenomenon, we're encountering more and more net selling activity as those who have the assets held in retirement ultimately need to start living off of those funds. Right? Mhmm. So you end up in a situation in which it cannot go to an infinite level.

对吧？想象市场处于无限水平。现在作为资产持有者的我拥有无限财富。我该如何表达这一点？我想增加消费。

Right? Imagine the market is at an infinite level. Now I as an asset holder am infinitely wealthy. How do I express that? I wanna increase my consumption.

这意味着我必须出售一些东西。那么，我如何出售无限的一部分？必须有人提供无限。对吧？就像，这是一个你知道的，在其极端情况下崩溃的过程，而稍微不那么极端的形式会带你回到相同的基本结论。

That means I have to sell something. Well, how do I sell a share of infinity? Somebody has to come up with infinity. Right? Like, it's a you know, it is a process that breaks down in its in its extreme and just walking it back from that in slightly less extreme forms takes you to the same underlying conclusion.

对吧？归根结底，提款始终是资产价值的函数。对吧？如果市场资本是100万亿美元，我提取4%，那就是每年4万亿美元。根据401k之类的规定，我必须这样做。

Right? At the end of the day, withdrawals are always going to be a function of the asset value. Right? If the if it's a market cap of a $100,000,000,000,000 and I'm taking withdrawals of 4%, that's $4,000,000,000,000 a year. I'm required to do that under things like four zero one k's.

根据目标基金等规定，我还需要慢慢减少我的股票敞口。所以流出最终是不可避免的。然后问题就变成了贡献是什么，正如我所说，这些始终是收入水平的函数。而收入水平并没有跟上。这就是当我们看到薪酬占GDP比重下降时感到担忧的原因之一。最终，购买你产品的人会减少。

I'm also required under things like targeted funds to slowly sell down my equity exposure. So the outflows are ultimately baked into the cake. It then becomes a question of what are the contributions and as I said those are always going to be a function of income levels And the income levels have not kept pace. This is one of the reasons it's a concern when we see compensation as a share of GDP falling. Ultimately, there are fewer buyers available for your product.

好的。在这种情况下，产品指的是金融资产。

Okay. In this case, product being financial assets.

对，对。好的。所以，关于婴儿潮一代人口老龄化，并开始退出这些市场，将部分资产转向消费，以及这将产生的连锁效应，绝对是这样的。

Right. Right. Okay. So so definitely on the kind of the baby boomer demographic aging and sort of starting to exit these markets, moving some of these assets to to consumption and the ripple effect that that's going to have.

是的。我给你一个非常简单的例子。当我2015、2016年开始研究这个问题时，一个有趣的研究是摩根士丹利经纪客户的平均年龄是多少？

Yeah. I'll I'll I'll I'll give you a really simple example. So when I started doing my work on this in 2015, 2016, one of the interesting pieces of research was what was the average age of a Morgan Stanley brokerage client?

嗯。

Mhmm.

你猜是多少？2016年。

What would you guess? Twenty sixteen.

2016年的平均年龄，我猜是45、50？71。好吧。我们开始储蓄的时间并不早，对吧？

Twenty sixteen average age, I'm gonna say 45, 50? 71. Okay. What gonna We're not starting the saving early, are we?

不完全是。要成为摩根士丹利的经纪客户，你已经积累了不少财富。对吧？

Well, no. To get to be a Morgan Stanley brokerage client, you've saved a lot already. Right?

所以其中一部分是

So some of it's

仍在筛选人员。

still selecting crew.

财富门槛。

The wealth threshold.

平均年龄大约是71岁。你猜现在是多少？

Average age is about 71. What would you guess it is today?

我猜如果从71岁开始算，考虑到财富积累的情况，现在应该比这个数字高得多。是这样吗？

I'm gonna say if you if we start at 71, I'm gonna say it's much high it's higher than that probably, you know, given kind of wealth accretion. Is that the case?

是72岁。略有上升主要是因为摩根士丹利新增客户很少。对吧？但这里有个制约因素。72岁之后是什么？

It's 72. It's gone up a little bit mostly because Morgan Stanley's gotten very few new clients. Right? But there's a governing there's a limiting factor. What comes after '72?

73岁。好吧。

'73. Okay.

对吧？就像你不可能有150岁的摩根士丹利客户。这是个自然有限的序列。

Right? And so like you are like there are no 150 year old Morgan Stanley clients. Right. Right? It is a naturally limited series.

当我开始这项研究时，先锋集团客户的平均年龄是多少？

When I started doing this research, what was the average age of a Vanguard client?

明显偏向年轻群体。我是说，我二三十岁时某种程度上也算是Boglehead的潜在人选。所以我猜现在受众年龄应该更年轻些，中年左右。

Definitely skewing younger. I mean, I would I was kind of a candidate for being a bogle head, you know, in my, you know, twenties and thirties. So I I would imagine it's much younger. Mid middle age.

37岁。

37.

明白了。

Okay.

对吧？你猜现在是多少岁？

Right? What would you guess that is today?

我觉得这个群体年龄随着先锋集团的发展同步增长了，我打赌会更高。估计要高出十岁。

I think that that demographic has just aged up with with Vanguard, so I bet it's higher. Give it ten years higher.

没错。实际上更高对吧？因为越来越多人退休时转向被动投资，他们也相信这个理念。有趣的是，先锋客户现在的平均年龄是五十出头。

Yeah. It's actually more than right? Because more and more people as they enter retirement are actually rotating into passive because they're also buying the narrative. Interesting. Of a Vanguard client is now in the in the early fifties.

确切数字我记得是52岁。

52, I think, is the actual number.

嗯哼，对吧？

Mhmm. Right?

所以这十年间，先锋用户群年龄增长了十五岁。这意味着被动投资者正越来越接近开始降低股票配置、准备退休的阶段。我们实际观察到的一个关键现象是：被动投资的净流入正在放缓，反映出这种老龄化趋势。实际上更多人开始提取资金，这点在共同基金领域尤为明显——目前其资金流毫无疑问是负增长的。

So in that ten year period, we've seen a fifteen year aging of the Vanguard universe. That means that the passive investor is getting closer and closer to the point at which they start to reduce their equity allocations, start to actually process retirements. One of the key things that is ultimately we're actually seeing is we're starting to see a slowing of the net flows into passive that reflects this aging out. Effectively more people are taking distributions. We particularly see this in the mutual fund complex, which is unquestionably negative in terms of its flows at this point.

现阶段所有增长都集中在ETF领域而非共同基金。所以趋势已经很明显了，对吧？不确定的只是具体时间——究竟是下周二还是五年后的下周二会发生，这还取决于其他条件。

All of the growth at this stage is hitting the ETF space as compared to the mutual fund space. And so the writing is on the wall here. Right? Whether it happens next Tuesday or whether it happens five years from next Tuesday is what we truly don't know yet. And it's contingent.

对吧？这其中存在一个随机性框架。如果失业率急剧上升，缴款额会下降，这会提前那个日期。如果市场波动性增加，人们的持有意愿就会降低，对吧？矛盾的是，如果利率突然下调，这会减少人们从固定收益投资组合中获得的收入，实际上会提高他们为实现退休目标需要出售资产的比例。

Right? There's a stochastic framework to it. If unemployment rises sharply, contributions will fall, it will pull forward that date. If market volatility increases, people will be less incentivized to hold, right? Paradoxically if interest rates get cut suddenly that reduces the income that people are receiving from their fixed income portfolios that actually raises the proportion of assets that they need to sell in order to meet their retirement objectives.

所以所有这些因素最终都会产生影响。正如我所说，迹象已经很明显。我们只是不知道这个迹象是下周二出现，还是五年后的下周二出现。

So all of these factors will ultimately matter. You know, as I said, the writing is on the wall. We just don't know whether that writing is next Tuesday or five years from next Tuesday.

这很有趣。我很想进一步探讨这一点，因为我确实同意你的观点。如果，你知道，水枪停止向气球喷水，对吧，在被动投资中，资金流停止增长并开始反向流动，这可能为所有市场基础带来全新的动态，而这正是你基本上预测的情况。让我问你一个问题，迈克尔。对于那些想要稍微抵御被动投资末日风险的人，你会建议他们关注哪些类型的资产？

That's fascinating. And I'd I'd love to dig into that a bit more because I I do agree with you. If if the, you know, the the squirt gun stops squirting in the balloon, right, and the in passive, like, investing, the flows stop increasing and start going the other direction, that could spell an entirely new dynamic for everything that underlies all markets, and that's what you're basically forecasting. Let me ask you a question, Michael. So for someone who wants to passive doom proof their portfolio a little bit, okay, what what kind of assets do you encourage them looking at?

对吧？我并不认为你完全反对SMP，但你更喜欢，比如说，更合理权重的标普指数。不过你为什么不直接告诉我们呢？如果我有一个典型的投资组合——我们暂时忽略加密货币，相信我，我们马上会谈到加密货币——但我明白。

Right? I I don't think you're against the the SMP necessarily, but you like more, I guess, better weighted, you know, indices of S and P, for instance. But why don't you tell us? So how do I if I've got a typical portfolio we'll ignore crypto. Believe me, we'll come to crypto in a minute here, but I get it.

忽略加密货币。迈克尔·格林式的被动投资末日防御组合是什么样的？你会对一个标准投资组合做出哪些调整？

Ignore crypto. What is the Michael Green passive doom proof portfolio? How does that how does that look? What modifications would you make on a standard portfolio?

是的。首先，我要非常明确地说，没有任何投资组合能完全抵御末日风险。对吧？归根结底，如果一颗小行星撞击地球，你的政府短期债券会像你的黄金或比特币一样一文不值。

Yeah. So so first, I wanna be very clear that no portfolio is doom proof. Right? At the end of the day, if an asteroid hits the earth, your government t bills are gonna be just as worthless as, you you know, your gold or Bitcoin.

有道理。

Fair enough.

所以，让我们通过明确这一点来界定问题：没有什么是可以改进的。我被迫做的是寻找那些反常地受这种动态负面影响的资产。这意味着，正如我的好友大卫·艾因霍恩指出的，你要寻找具有内生流动性的东西。换句话说，你不是依赖下一个人会支付你什么，而是寻找资产内部产生的现金流是否有效。

So, you know, one, let's let's dimensionalize this by specifying, then nothing is to improve. What I'm forced to do is effectively look for assets that perversely are negatively impacted by this dynamic. So that means as my good friend David Einhorn has pointed out that you're looking for things that have endogenous liquidity to them. In other words instead of relying on what the next person is going to pay you, you're actually looking for the cash flows that are generated within the asset to be valid.

明白。

K.

对吧？换句话说，你只需关注那些基本上有保障的现金流，就能实现目标回报。大卫的方法是关注小盘股公司，关注有高回购潜力的公司等。即便如此，这些也已经变得非常昂贵，他承认在那个领域确实找不到太多机会。这又是被动投资推高所有资产估值的一个副产品。

Right? In other words, you're able to generate your target returns simply by looking at cash flows that are effectively guaranteed to you. David's approach has been to focus on smaller cap companies, to focus on companies with high buyback potential, etcetera. Even that has gotten really expensive and he's he he is admittedly noting that he really can't find much in that area. And again, part of that is a byproduct of passive investing raises all boats in valuation.

它只是让某些股票比其他股票涨得更多。所以，很多人认为小盘股非常便宜。但实际上它们绝对昂贵。因此，从相对价值的角度，我理解这种观点，尽管我会辩称你并未真正避开这个问题。

It just raises some more than others. And so, you know, a lot of people think small caps are really cheap. Basis. They are absolutely expensive. And so, on a relative basis, I understand that argument even as I would argue that you're not really getting away from the problem.

我认为真正存在廉价机会的领域是由指数套利或反向操作所创造的。哪些领域不受这些因素影响却饱受严重忽视？这里就变得非常有趣了——如果你思考债券市场的真实状况，我想带你们看看我最近的研究成果。首先我要明确一点。

Areas where I think you actually have genuine cheapness are created by index arbitrage or exploitation in the opposite direction. What are the areas that are not subject to those components and actually suffering from significant neglect? And there it gets really interesting because if you think about what is actually happening in the bond market, I just wanna I'm I'm gonna take you through some of my much more recent stuff. Okay. So first thing, I just wanna be very clear.

这些都是理论模型，是用简单方式解释两种证券本质的框架。股票本质上是所谓的'庞氏资产'（请允许我澄清：并非指查尔斯·庞兹那种骗局），其价值绝大部分取决于下个接盘者愿意支付的价格。

These are theoretical models. They're very simple ways of explaining what ultimately is happening in two different types of securities. An equity is a quote unquote Ponzi asset. And I I wanna be very clear on what I mean by that. I don't mean literally Charles Ponzi, it's all made up, etcetera.

股票存在两条可能路径——就像展开的可能性锥面：今天我花1000买入，三十年后别人可能只付200；也可能最终支付超过10万。其间所有可能性都存在。

But it is an asset that ultimately derives the vast majority of the value that you receive from what the next person is willing to pay you for it. Yep. And so there are two paths, effectively a cone of possibilities that exists in equities. I can pay a thousand for it and somebody pays me 200 for it thirty years from now, or I can pay a thousand for it and somebody pays me a 100 plus thousand for it in thirty years. And everything in between is kind of fair game.

这就是期权模型用几何布朗运动模拟随时间扩张的可能性锥面的原因。另一种期权定价模型考克斯-鲁宾斯坦二叉树也表明：价格从这里到这里的变化概率，比从这里出发时更容易预测。

Right? This is why options models effectively model geometric Brownian motion in an expanding cone of possibilities over time. Right? Another version of option pricing is the Cox Rubenstein binomial pricing tree, which simply says, you know, it gets easier to go from here to here from here than it was from here. Right?

随着时间推移，这个可能性锥面不断扩张。但最终我的回报主要取决于接盘者的出价——除非估值极低时，分红和股票回购能创造价值。而当估值越高，获取基本面回报就越困难。

And so it just is is expanding that cone of possibilities over time. But at the end of the day, my return is largely determined by what somebody else is willing to pay for it unless I get valuations so low that, like, dividends and share buybacks can generate that value for me. Yep. Okay? As valuations get higher and higher, it gets harder and harder to get that sort of fundamental return.

优质债券则呈现完全不同的分布形态，更像飞行中的橄榄球。我们知道：债券以面值发行，最终按面值兑付，期间获得固定票息。

Bonds high quality bonds have a very different distribution pattern that looks much more like a American football in flight. Right? So if you think about a high quality bond, the things I absolutely know about it are that it was issued at par and it is going to mature at par and I'm going to receive the coupons associated with it over time.

是的。

Yeah.

因此其回报分布的可能性明显更窄。更重要的是：债券价格存在明确路径——低利率时价格上涨但幅度有限，高利率时价格下跌但可通过资本增值补偿。但无论如何，优质债券最终价值必然回归面值。

And so the return profile is obviously much lower in terms of its possible outcomes. But more importantly, there is a defined path that it can possibly take. There's a low interest rate environment in which the price goes higher and then barely rises at all. And there's a high interest rate environment in which the price falls, and then I earn a portion of my return through capital appreciation. But at the end of the day, there is no scenario in which a super high quality bond is worth anything other than its terminal value.

这意味着被动投资在股票市场没有约束，但债券指数随着到期日临近，成分债必然向面值靠拢，这种牵引力会随时间减弱。

K. Right? Now what that means is that passive, which is at whatever price I will buy, is inherently unbound in equities, but bonds eventually have to pull towards par. So the influence wanes over time as you get closer and closer to maturity in a passive bond index. Right?

这引发了一个我认为极其有趣的现象。加拿大央行刚刚开始意识到这一点，其他机构也逐渐觉醒。但当我观察诸如总债券市场指数，并将其权重与未偿债券的名义数量或各债券的实际未偿数量进行比较时，我发现久期目前被严重低估。其原因其实非常简单。

This has given rise to a phenomenon that I think is super interesting. The Bank of Canada is just starting to wake up to this. Others are starting to wake up to it as well. But if I look at something like the total bond market index and I compare its weightings relative to the nominal quantity of bonds that are outstanding or the notional quantity of bonds that are outstanding in each of these, what I discover is duration is fundamentally underweighted at this point. And the reason for that is really straightforward.

如果我构建一个市值加权的债券指数，以1%的票息发行证券，随后将利率提高到5%，那些1%票息的长期债券价格会跌至约60美分。对吧？所以2020或2021年发行的票息低于1%的三十年债券，现在交易价格基本腰斩。这意味着它们在指数中的权重不足。新资金流入指数时——回想那个非弹性框架——实际上会低估这些债券，从而形成我们所见的那种交易行为。

If I build a market cap weighted bond index and I issue securities at 1% coupons and I then raise interest rates to 5%, those 1% long duration bonds fall in price to roughly 60¢. Right? So a bond that was issued in 2020 or 2021 as a thirty year bond with a coupon below 1% is now trading basically 50% down. That means it's underweight in the indices. And so as new money comes into the index, think back to that inelasticity framework, it effectively underweights those creating the type of trading behavior we're seeing.

即便我去购买债券，我买入的久期也更短。这正强化了债券市场根本性失灵、债券不可投资等叙事。嗯。这正是吸引我的地方。对吧？

Even if I go to buy bonds, I'm buying less duration. This is creating that narrative that the bond markets are fundamentally broken, that bonds are uninvestable, etcetera. Mhmm. This is where I'm drawn to. Right?

我认为人们对债券市场行为驱动因素存在根本性误解。比如如果你现在买入BND，从结构上就是在低配久期。

I I think there is just a fundamental mistake in terms of what people think is actually driving the behavior in the bond market. So if you are buying BND, for example, you are structurally underweighting duration at this point.

明白了。所以你的论点是：被动投资正在低估久期。因此如果要被动调整投资组合，应该适度超配或增持长期债券。这是在个人组合中你会调整的资产类别？

Okay. And so are you making the case that the you know, passive is underweighting duration. Therefore, if you were to kind of passive adjust your portfolio, you should somewhat overweight or over allocate to long duration bonds. That's that's an asset that you would modify in the in the individual's portfolio.

是的。我还会进一步指出，其中有几类债券完全未被充分代表。比如免税的市政债券——这些指数里根本没有任何配置。

Yes. And I would go a step further and say even within that, there's a couple of categories that are totally underrepresented here. Municipal bonds which are tax advantaged. K. Don't have any representation in these indices at all.

对吧？大多数组合里根本不购买市政债券。它们被忽视了，这点从利差就能看出。第二个我想强调的是通胀保值债券(TIPS)。

Right? So there is no buying of many municipal bonds in most of these portfolios. They're ignored. We see that in their spreads. The second area that I would emphasize is tips.

TIPS被严重低配。如果你担心长期债券的通胀风险——顺便说，由于政府最终会出手救助退休体系的响应机制，我也部分认同这种担忧——但看看30年期TIPS现在的收益率：2.6%。一张通胀保底、零风险的2.6%债券在当下极具价值，尤其当先锋集团都在看空股票未来收益的时候。

Tips are fantastically underweighted. And so if you're concerned on long duration bonds is the inflation risk. And by the way, I share some of that because of the response functions that we talked about with the government ultimately stepping in to bail out retirement systems. Right. I'm super aware that that is a potential issue.

更讽刺的是，他们还在继续把资金塞进这些策略，只因别无选择。

But look at what a thirty year tip is yielding right now. It's 2.6%. Right? A 2.6% inflation guaranteed zero risk piece of paper is incredibly valuable, particularly in an environment in which Vanguard themselves are looking at equities and saying, these returns are gonna be really terrible going forward. How about we're gonna continue to pile you into these strategies because we have no alternative?

这太有意思了。让我透露下典型银行客户的倾向，也许你能回应：他们可能更偏向所谓的'加密杠铃策略'——杠铃一端是高风险高波动的加密资产，另一端则是国债之类的超安全资产。

This is fascinating. Let let me give you an insight into the typical bank list lister and and allow you to maybe respond. Right? It's they're probably a bit more towards what we call the crypto barbell, which is basically, like, you know, a whole bunch of their portfolio is super high risky, high highly volatile crypto assets, right, on one side of the barbell. The other side is basically something very safe, treasuries, let's say.

或许在那部分听众中，他们能理解你的观点。确实，比如国债，可能还有配置一些长期债券和通胀保值债券（TIPS）的空间。但典型的Bankless听众倾向于回避这类组合，因为他们从根本上不信任长期债券或任何债券。当你谈到股权像是某种庞氏骗局结构或金字塔骗局结构——依赖于下一位接盘者时，他们也认为基础债券体系和法币体系在未来几年将面临大幅贬值。漂亮的大账单、美联储印钞、财政政策失控等等，所有这些因素都无法阻止这场列车脱轨。

And maybe in that portion, they're hearing you. And and, yeah, like, treasuries, maybe there's there's room for some long duration bonds and tips, that kind of thing. But the typical bankless listener is weighted towards that portfolio because they don't ultimately trust long duration bonds in particular or any bonds. Because when when you were talking about equity as being sort of a a Ponzi scheme type structure or, like, a pyramid scheme type structure depending on the, you know, kind of the the next buyer, They also see the fundamental bond system and the fiat system subject to a massive debasement in the coming years. Big beautiful bill, all of these things, you know, money printing from the Fed, fiscal policy, can't stop this train, then all in all of the things.

因此他们从根本上将法币和债券视为类似庞氏骗局的工具。那么你如何向那些听众论证债券的价值？比如有人会说：‘迈克尔，我持有债券只是为了抄底加密货币，除此之外根本不想长期持有市政债或其他任何债券。’对此你会怎么回应？

And so they fundamentally see fiat and bonds as a Ponzi like instrument as well. So how how do you address, like, the case for bonds to to someone listening who's like, Michael, man. Like, I'll hold bonds in order to, like, buy crypto or, you know, on the dip, basically. Otherwise, I don't wanna hold anything like bonds, municipal or otherwise, for any long duration here. What do you say to that?

有意思的是，人们一边预测恶性通胀、货币体系崩溃等情景，一边却在为这种趋势推波助澜而非解决问题。简单的事实是：如果美国实验失败，如果我们最终发现国债真是庞氏骗局，你做其他任何事都无济于事。

Yeah. I I I find it fascinating that people are simultaneously predicting runaway inflation, hyperinflation, a collapse of the currency system, etcetera. And instead of actually taking steps to fix that, they're basically cheerleading it. Right? The simple reality is that if The US experiment fails, if we end up discovering that our bonds are truly pontency, it doesn't matter what else you do.

我们将陷入内战——这类场景我们见过。这绝不是任何人期望的结局，也别妄想加密资产能提供实质保护。第二点：这种预测毫无依据。

We will devolve into a civil war. We've seen what these look like. This is not an outcome that anyone should want nor remotely anticipate that their crypto wealth is going to protect them in any meaningful way. The second is it's just it's it's without evidence. Right?

当初有人声称我们将经历类似1940年代的加速通胀周期。首先，通胀从未接近过那种水平——这不是我说的，而是加密社区推崇的工具显示的。

So the claim was that we were going to experience cycles of accelerating inflation that it was gonna look like the 1940s, etcetera. First, inflation never came anywhere close to the levels. And that's not me saying this. Right? This is using tools that were embraced by the crypto community.

比如Truflation等工具现在显示通胀率低于2%，但没人愿意相信。第二点：我们实际有市场定价预期指标——通胀互换合约。

Tools like Truflation, etc. That are now telling you that inflation is running below 2%. But nobody wants to believe that now. Right? The second is that we actually have market derived pricing expectations or something called an inflation swap.

通胀互换合约给予你充分的盈利动机：如果你认为通胀将飙升，你就会做多。但现实是这些合约显示未来通胀会下降。这些数据已趋于稳定，在需要真金白银押注的领域毫无不确定性迹象。我欣赏这种猜测，但它终究只是猜测。

Inflation swaps have all the profit incentive in the world for you to turn around and say, gosh, if I think there's going to be a lot of inflation, I'm going to bid it. But the reality is that those inflation swaps actually are telling you inflation is going to fall going forward. We've normalized on those. There is no sign of any uncertainty in anything that actually requires people to put up capital. You know, I love the speculation, but that's exactly what it is.

所谓杠铃投资组合的本质是：通过加密资产做多混乱与新机遇的看涨期权。那么这个头寸的对冲工具是什么？加密稳定币？美国国债？

And so I I the idea of a barbell portfolio where you are effectively saying, look, I wanna be long call options on chaos and distress and the next great thing, right, through crypto. What is your offset to that position? Is it crypto based stablecoins? Mhmm. Is it US treasuries?

标普500指数？我想强调的是：如果你们真担心通胀和投资组合的平衡，为什么不锁定这些异常高的实际收益率？

Is it the S and P 500? Mhmm. Right? And the point that I would just emphasize is, my gosh, guys, if you're actually worried about inflation and you're actually worried about that barbell in your portfolio, why wouldn't you lock in extraordinarily high real returns?

具体如何操作？最佳实现机制是什么？

And how do you do that? What's the best mechanism for doing that?

直接买通胀保值债券(TIPS)吧。

Just buy tips.

直接买TIPS。顺便问下，你的ETF就是这样的吗？那个Simplify CDX ETF？

Just buy tips. Is is that what, by the way, your ETF is? The Simplify CDX ETF?

实际上我们并没有提供——信不信由你——包含TIPS的ETF。我的ETF其实聚焦高收益债领域。在这个领域，我可以通过几个市场结构层面的优势来增值，这你们现在可能也发现了，正是我一直在寻找的。HYG这个ETF被许多信贷基金用来做空高收益债市场敞口，这能放大他们对单只证券的选择效果。但同时也给交易商资产负债表带来压力。

So we actually do not offer, believe it or not, a an ETF that has tips. My ETF is actually in the high yield space. It's an area where I can add value through a couple of areas of market structure, which is always as as you've probably figured out by now what I'm looking for. HYG, the ETF, is used by many credit funds to short market exposure in the high yield space that allows them to amplify their single security picks. But it also places pressure on dealer balance sheets.

对吧？所以这些交易商实际上愿意通过所谓的总收益互换（TRS）与我分享这部分收益，本质上就是把那些做空份额从他们的资产负债表上转移出来。这样我通常能获得比HYG高出50到150个基点的收益，完全覆盖了我产品的管理费。然后我还会运用各种对冲策略进一步增厚收益，最重要的是采用了一个模拟信用利差的专有衍生品叠加策略，让我的基金在信用风险上升时期也能跑赢。目前信用利差处于历史第二百分位左右的极低水平...

Right? And so those dealers are actually willing to share those returns for me with me if I access it through what's called a total return swap, effectively taking those shortage shares off of the dealer balance sheets. And I pick up between 50 and a 150 basis points typically over and above the HYG, which more than pays for the asset management fee on my product. And then further augmenting that using various hedging techniques, most importantly, a derived proprietary overlay that mimics credit spreads and allows my fund to outperform in periods in which credit risk is rising. With credit spreads really, really tight, currently, they're at, you know, give or take the second percentile level in history.

这种情况下，我几乎不用付出什么成本就能获得对冲保护，同时还能从潜在利差走阔中获益，这感觉像是稳赚不赔的买卖。这个基金表现非常出色，已经开始吸引大量资金。这种对所谓贝塔敞口的调整，在我们Simplify的产品中相当常见。

That actually is feels like a a fairly safe bet that I'm willing to basically pay almost nothing for that hedging protection at the same time that I benefit from a potential spread widening in the category. And that fund has done very well. It started to attract significant assets. And that type of modification to what's called a beta exposure is fairly common across simplified products.

Michael，关于这个投资组合，我好像听你提过你也看好黄金配置？是这样吗？

Michael, as part of this portfolio as well, I I think I've heard you talk that you actually like gold as part of the portfolio. Am is that correct?

我认为黄金有些有趣的特质，某种程度上和比特币类似。但黄金的问题主要在于那些误导性宣传。黄金并没有什么神奇之处...

So I think that gold has interesting features to it, not unlike Bitcoin in some ways. Right? So I just wanna wanna lay that out there. The problem with gold is largely the disinformation campaign. There is nothing magic about gold.

它不是货币，只是元素周期表上的一个元素，我记得是第71号元素？

It is not money. It is an element on the periodic table. I think it's number 71. Right?

每

Every

次我反复展示这些资料时都会强调——很乐意再演示一次——基本上那个金属元素象限里的每种金属都曾被用作货币，无论是铂、铝、锡、镍还是铜等等。它们都曾被铸造成硬币，根本原因在于其元素和分子特性适合铸造。而黄金是其中最稀有的一种。

single I've shown these presentations over and over and over again. Happy to show it again. But, basically, every single metal that is in that quadrant of metallic elements has been used at money for one point in time, whether it's platinum, aluminum, tin, nickel, etcetera, copper. They've all been used in coinage for the very simple reason that they have elemental properties, molecular properties that make them very suitable for coinage. Gold is among the rarest of those.

对吧？下一层级是——我忘了叫什么名字——可能是‘rosingentium’之类的元素，顺便说一句，它拥有与黄金完全相同的特性，只不过半衰期大概是六十分钟。所以，如果你决定用它作为货币，基本上你的钱会每六十分钟消失一半，这绝对是一种极度通缩的货币。但正因为这些原因，我们选择不使用它。对吧？

Right? The next level down is I forget what I think it's called rosingentium or something, which has identical properties, by the way, to gold except it has a half life, I think, sixty minutes. And so, basically, your money would disappear half of your money would disappear every sixty minutes if you decided to use that as your coinage, a very deflationary currency to say the least. But we've chosen not to use it for exactly those reasons. Right?

但黄金本身并没有什么神奇之处。它只是一种元素。有趣的是，黄金之所以有效，是因为它只能通过超新星爆发产生。而我们获取它的方式则是通过人类的智慧。因此，如果你从供需框架来看黄金，如果你选择它作为基础货币，当货币价格过高时，社会就会投入资源去获取更多所谓的‘钱’——开采黄金、提炼它、应用技术等等。

But so gold has nothing magical to it. It's just an element. Now interestingly enough, the reason why gold worked is because the only way it could be manufactured is in supernovas. And the way that we extracted it is through human ingenuity. And so if you think about the supply demand framework for gold, if you choose it as your base currency, right, if the price of money goes too high, society will devote resources to obtaining more quote unquote money, mining gold, extracting it, applying technology to it, etcetera.

黄金的供应会随着货币价格而变得弹性。这实际上创造了一个非常稳定的系统，人类的智慧可以解决货币短缺的问题。嗯。同样地，信用功能也是如此。这就是摩根大通那句‘黄金是货币，其他一切都是信用’的观察来源。

The supply of gold becomes elastic to the price of money. That actually creates a very stable system in which human ingenuity can address shortages of money. Mhmm. Likewise, a credit function. This is the source of JPMorgan's observation that gold is money, everything else is credit.

这并不是对黄金元素属性的断言，而只是反映了私人部门创造的任何信用最终都会回溯到以黄金支付的层面，而消除信用的唯一方式就是用货币。这才是货币的真正意义——它是用来清偿债务的东西。对吧？

That's not actually an assertion as to the elemental properties of gold. It's simply a reflection that anything that comes out of the private sector in terms of credit creation references back to that payment in gold, and the only way that you cancel out credit is with money. That's really what money is. It is that which cancels debt. Right?

好的。所以这最终让我们认识到，黄金在并非其他重要活动的副产品时表现得非常出色。而就在昨天，我们刚刚发现，一些新的核能技术实际上已经意识到，它们可以将黄金生产作为核能发电的副产品。具体方法是在核反应过程中加入放射性汞，通过中子轰击加速其衰变为稳定的金同位素——金恰好位于汞的下方。换句话说，炼金术突然成真了。

Okay. So where this ultimately brings us to in gold is gold worked really, really well as long as it wasn't a byproduct of anything significant. Now literally yesterday, we actually just found something out, which is that some of the new approaches to nuclear power have actually recognized that they can make gold production as a byproduct of nuclear power generation. And the way that you do this is by adding a radioactive form of mercury to the actual process, inundating it with neutrons in the the nuclear process and accelerating that particle decay to the stable isotope of gold, which is right below mercury. In other words, alchemy has suddenly become real.

对吧？如果真是这样，我就不再看好黄金了。

Right? Now, if that's the case, I'm no longer favorable towards gold.

为了

For the

一个非常简单的原因——它变成了副产品。它是在工业流程中制造的，其价值可能因此崩溃。我们在哪里还见过这种情况？嗯，不知道你对铀了解多少，但铀曾经是钒矿开采的副产品。而现在钒反而成了铀矿的副产品。

very simple reason, that becomes a byproduct. It's being manufactured in an industrial process in which its value can collapse. Where else have we seen this happen? Well, I don't know if you know anything about uranium, but uranium used to be a byproduct of vanadium mining. Now vanadium is a byproduct of uranium mining.

我们对铀的关注度远高于钒。银矿开采过去会生产包括铜在内的多种金属，对吧？如今银很大程度上成了该流程的副产品，因此其供应可能受到重大变化的影响。如果像黄金这样的东西成为核能生产的副产品，金价就会崩溃。

We pay far more attention to the uranium. Silver mining used to produce various types of metals including copper. Right? Now silver is largely the byproduct to that process and as a result its supply can be affected by significant changes. If something like gold became a byproduct to nuke to nuclear power production, the price of gold would collapse.

我对它没有任何情感依恋。话虽如此，我确实认为历史上存在的黄金——顺便说一句，看到这种新情况的出现很有意思——但历史上黄金的功能在于那种精妙的平衡。它奖励人类的智慧：当货币价格上升时，我们会投入更多资源去获取更多货币。

Like, I have no emotional attachment to it. Now with that said, I do think that gold as it has existed historically, and I think this the emergence of this is fascinating to see, by the way. But I think gold as it's functioned historically was that nice balance. It rewarded human ingenuity. If the price of money went up, we devoted more resources to obtaining more money.

如果货币价格下跌，我们将减少对其的资源投入，而这一体系在人类智慧的框架下能够提供某种平衡。这不幸地成为我对比特币的主要反对理由之一，因为它采用如此严苛的标准，通过难度调整机制来模拟现实世界中挖矿活动的纯度或集中度。对吧？我们最初开采的铜矿品位是30%，如今已降至0.6%。

If the price of money fell, we would devote less resources to it, and the system was capable of providing some balance under the framework of human ingenuity. This is one of my primary objections to Bitcoin, unfortunately, which is because it is such a hard standard, right, with the difficulty adjustment, which is designed to mimic effectively the purity or concentration of mining activity in the real world. Right? So we used to start out mining deposits that were 30% copper. Now we're down to 0.6% copper.

这种挖矿难度正是比特币调整机制的理念。但矛盾的是，这意味着在比特币框架下，若货币变得过于昂贵，将缺乏调节机制。因此讽刺的是，比特币实际上反人类智慧。当货币价格上升时，它会切断多种资本形式的获取途径，尤其是债务——这种在你描述的杠铃投资组合中创造选择权的有效工具。债务作为资本工具本质上就是在卖出看跌期权。

That mining difficulty is the idea behind the Bitcoin adjustment. But perversely, what that means is if money in a Bitcoin framework gets too expensive, there is no mechanism for adjustment. And so ironically, Bitcoin is actually anti human ingenuity. In a scenario in which the price of money is going up, it cuts off access to many forms of capital, especially debt, which is a very useful way of creating exactly that optionality that you described in your barbell portfolio. Debt as a capital instrument is effectively just selling a put.

我愿意承担所有下行风险以换取有限的上行收益。作为该框架下的股权发行方或债务发行方，你突然将资产转变为看涨期权。若形势大好，我获得全部上行收益；若形势恶化，损失由他承担。而这类资本结构框架在比特币世界中被切断，正是由于通缩结果的风险。

I am willing to take all the downside in exchange for limited upside. You as an equity issuer in that framework have suddenly or a debt issuer in that framework have suddenly turned your asset into a call option. If things go really well, I get all the upside. If things go badly, it's his. And so that type of capital structure framework gets cut off in a Bitcoin world because of the risks of deflationary outcomes.

这不幸意味着其生产效率低于我们现有的体系。

And that unfortunately means that it is less productive than the system we currently have.

这与本·亨特在Bankless节目中提出的论点相似，他认为世界比特币化将系统性恶化，就像期待其他所有事物崩溃。但这里存在两个层面的讨论：一是这种极端的比特币化或全面加密化世界是否系统性恶化；二是与你预期会发生的情况对比。

This is similar to an argument that Ben Ben Hunt has given when when he's come on bank list, basically, that that the bitcoinization of the world would be just systemically bad. It's kind of, like, rooting for everything else to fall. But I think there's there's two discussions here. One is whether that's systemically bad or not, some world of hyper Bitcoinization, hypo hyper crypt you know, crypto everything versus, like, what you kind of expect to happen. Right?

极端比特币最大化主义者设想的是比特币标准世界，万物基于比特币，取代金本位等。但问题还在于它是否能作为社会价值储存手段替代黄金。它未必会统治世界，但可用于跨时间转移价值——这正是我们对话初期讨论的谢林点资产原理。越来越多人正将他们的水枪对准这个不断膨胀的气球。

So they're like, the extreme Bitcoin maximalist is there's the Bitcoin standard, and everything is based on Bitcoin and, you know, well, it replaces the gold standard, etcetera. But there's also just the question of whether it replaces gold as a society, you know, store of value and alternative. It's not necessarily going to take over the world, but it can be used to port value across time. And it's basically the same principle that we were talking about at the beginning of this conversation, which is it becomes a shelling point asset. More and more people are, you know, squirting their their squirt guns into the balloon.

即使你认为这不是系统性利好，作为抗通胀的价值储存资产，比特币仍可能上涨。人们寻求替代方案时会想：'我要将价值储存在无法被通胀侵蚀的资产中'——这本质上是黄金的使用场景。

The balloon's getting larger and larger. What about the case for even if you don't think it's systemically good, it could still go up and will still go up as a store of value asset because people are looking at, you know, alternatives and and they're thinking, well, we I I want to store my value in something that can't be inflated. It's basically the gold use case.

不，这不是黄金的使用场景。这实际是对黄金用例的误解。黄金的核心意义在于国家采用其作为金本位标准。

No. It's that's not the gold use case. That is actually a misunderstanding of the gold use case. Right? So the entire point behind gold was actually nations adopting it as the gold standard.

正是这点促进了国际贸易：无论我用可兑换黄金的美元在西班牙交易，还是用可兑换黄金的西班牙八里亚尔银币在美国交易，实质上都是在实现货币跨域流通与贸易便利化。

Right? That facilitated trade on an international basis because if I'm executing a trade in Spain in US dollars that are convertible to gold or I'm executing a trade in The United States in Spanish pieces of eight that are convertible to gold, I'm actually crossing my currencies and facilitating trade.

那么你认为国家主体不可能像这样采用比特币吗？

And you don't think that can happen with a a Bitcoin basically, like that nation states adopt it, for instance?

关键在于，由于它本质上是稀缺的，我们无法在那个体系中利用债务。我是在切断一种融资途径——我知道很多人认为债务是坏的，但它只是个工具。就像你基本上在说，看，我真的很喜欢园艺，我打算只用一把耙子来做所有园艺工作。好吧。

The the the point would be that because it is inherently scarce, there is no potential for us to then use debt in that system. I'm cutting off an avenue of financing that I understand a lot of people think debt is bad, but that's just a tool. A little like you're you're you're basically saying, you know, look, I'm really into gardening. I'm gonna do all my gardening with a rake. Okay.

那样修剪灌木会非常困难，对吧？能做到吗？当然可以。你或许可以退后几步，经过大量练习后，刚好能挥动那把耙子刮掉一些树枝。

Well that makes trimming bushes really hard. Right? Can it be done? Sure. You can probably stand back and with a lot of practice you can swing that rake just right to, you know, scrape away some of the branches.

但天啊，这效率实在太低了。

But god, it's a terribly inefficient way to do it.

你怎么看待像雷·达里奥这样的人提出的观点？他们谈论这些债务周期，基本上每隔八十年左右就会出现一次大规模去杠杆化。目前世界储备资产可以说是国债，就是你提到的那些债券。每隔八十年左右，这些资产会过度杠杆化，需要转移到某种新的、更具可信中立性的货币体系——可能是比特币、以太坊，甚至黄金会暂时充当这个角色，直到民族国家找到解决方案并重置体系。这只是我们周期性起伏的一部分。

What do you make of arguments from people like Ray Dalio who just talk about sort of these these debt cycles, basically, great great debt cycles every, you know, eighty years or so sort of there's a a great deleveraging. Right now, the world reserve asset, let's call it, is is basically treasuries, basically some of the bonds that that you've been talking about. And every eighty years or so, that gets over levered, and it needs to bleed out somewhere to some sort of a a new, more credibly neutral monetary system. Maybe maybe that becomes a Bitcoin or a, you know, an Ethereum or gold even for some period of time while nation states figure it out and kind of reset. So it's just part of a cycle here that we ebb and flow.

是的。当你这样描述时，一方面你把周期呈现为某种可以冷眼旁观的奇观。但这些周期往往伴随着剧烈的社会动荡，而你在社会中的位置也会被彻底颠覆。

Yeah. I think when you frame it in that way, one, you're presenting these cycles as if they are, you know, mere oddities to observe. Right? And those cycles tend to involve extraordinary societal disruption. And your place in that society is inherently shaken up in an extraordinary way.

如果你不幸在某个周期中身处错误的建筑，很可能被炸得粉碎。这只是对历史现象的优雅描述，并无新意。波利比乌斯在公元前就在写政治经济周期了。所以包括我在内，总有一长串夸夸其谈的评论者，对吧？

If you happen to be in the wrong building during one of those periods, the odds are you get blown to pieces. You know, it's a nice erudition of what we've seen in the past and it's nothing unique. Polybius was writing about political cycles and economic cycles in August BC. So there's a long history of talking heads that engage in these various forms of pontification, including myself. Right?

我只是其中之一。一长串终将被遗忘的人。但现实很简单：这样描述问题，就忽略了可能出现的阻碍你有效应对的行动。坦率说，我觉得雷的很多言论都是无稽之谈。

I'm just one of them. A long series of people who will probably not be remembered in various ways. But the you know the simple reality is is that to characterize it as such is to fail to consider the actions that are likely to emerge that prohibit you from effectively getting ahead of this. Right? Candidly, I think that a lot of what Ray says is nonsense.

对吧？都是些高谈阔论——是的，存在周期，就像电影里那个白痴园丁钱斯·菲利普斯。

Right? It's very, you know, high level stuff, you know, yes, there's cycles. It's very being there. And the movie, you know, referencing the idiot gardener, Chauncey Phillips. Right?

他对各种事情发表看法，人们惊叹他思想的深度。比如'春天会有花开'——好吧，我们要对此过度解读了。

You know, who, you know, opines on various things. He's like, oh, the depth of his thought is amazing. In the in the spring, there will be flowers. Oh, okay. We're gonna project onto that.

对吧？我认为这里面有很大成分的虚张声势。我和任何人一样有这毛病，只是尽量用数据说话。最根本的现实是：主权债务本质上并非真正的债务。

Right? I I just I I I think there's a huge component of of that. And I'm as guilty of it as anyone. I just try to base things in numbers. The simple the simple reality is the idea that debt is debt at the sovereign level is not accurate.

这实质上是权益问题。对吧？我不能用自己发行的货币来为以该货币计价的债务破产，因为我总能印更多的麦克币。

What it really is is equity. Right? You can't go defy I can't go bankrupt printing my own currency for debt against my own currency. I can always print more Mike bucks.

嗯。

Mhmm.

我能摧毁的是麦克币的价值。

What I can destroy is the value of Mike bucks.

没错。

Right.

所以你不愿用这些货币兑换真实资产。对吧？这就是人们最终描述的恶性通货膨胀，确实可能发生。但如果你将主权债务重新定义为流动性管理工具，本质上就是说我要吸收之前超额发行的货币，并承诺支付人们某种回报——我们称之为二级市场利息，让他们延迟消费这部分货币。实际上没有任何证据表明有人在意这个机制。

So you're unwilling to take those for real assets. Right? That is the hyperinflation that people ultimately describe, and it is possible. But if you instead reframe sovereign debt as simply a liquidity management tool that basically says I'm going to soak up the excess quantity of currency that I printed and I'm going to offer to pay people something, right, we'll call that a secondary market of interest to allow them to defer their consumption on that. There's really no evidence that anyone cares.

事实上，我们看到的证据显示通胀预期在降低而非升高。美元在这段时间其实是走强而非走弱。当然它对黄金是贬值了，但黄金当前有特殊催化剂——2022年6月美国政府决定冻结俄罗斯联邦的国债资产。这释放了什么信号？

And in fact, what we're actually seeing is evidence that inflation expectations are lower, not higher. And the dollar has actually strengthened over this time period, not weakened. It certainly has weakened against something like gold, but gold has a very particular catalyst that's driving it right now, which is the US government in June '22 decided to take the treasury assets of the of the of the Russian Federation. Right? What was the signal that was sent?

如果你与美国交易并持有美债作为储备资产，他们可以剥夺这些资产。这迫使中国做了什么？转向增持黄金。这就是黄金开始跑赢的原因，就像比特币通过ETF获得资金流入一样。

If you are trading with The United States and accumulating resources in treasuries, they can take that away from you. So what did that force China to do? It forced China to redirect into gold. That's where gold started to outperform, and it is forcing just like Bitcoin into ETFs. Right?

如果贝莱德宣布配置1%资产到比特币且顾问遵循该指引，资金流入就会推高价格。同理，如果政府发出信号表明外国持有美债不安全（因为可能被没收），资金就会转向黄金等资产。

If BlackRock tells you that it's gonna be 1% of portfolios and their advisors follow that guidance, that is money that is gonna flow into Bitcoin should create a price response. Same thing is true if governments send a signal it's not safe for foreign entities to hold US treasuries because we can take them away from them. They're gonna redirect into things like gold.

我想知道你的看法，因为加密领域存在两种思潮：一种是你常批评的——认为法币体系即将崩溃，需要彻底推翻，比特币等加密资产将取而代之；另一种则是重建现有金融体系，比如代币化、稳定币、去中心化金融，重点不是摧毁旧体系而是构建新系统。

I'm wondering what you think, because there are sort of two phases within crypto of, you know, just there's one side certainly and the side that I think you you've you've talked about being critical of, which is the the fiat system is, you know, crumbling, basically. Burn it down type of system that, you know, and and crypto assets like Bitcoin are the things that are gonna replace. There's certainly that side, the debasement side. There's another side, though, that's just about rebuilding the existing financial system, things like tokenization, things like stablecoins, things like decentralized finance. And that's less of the burn down the existing system and more, hey.

我们正在重建全新系统。前几天我尝试汇款时，迈克尔，光是把我一个银行账户的钱转到另一个就遇到各种问题——款项被错误路由，他们有联邦汇款编号却找不到资金。这流程简直愚蠢又低效。

We're rebuilding a brand new system. I was trying to make a wire the other day, Michael, and the pain of just, like, moving money from one of my bank accounts to another ended up getting routed in the wrong place. They couldn't find it. It had a fed wire number. It was so stupid and inefficient.

为了转账这笔钱，我不得不与至少五个人沟通，而稳定币只需几秒就能完成转账到任何地方。加密货币似乎构建了一套完整的体系。我想知道你是否对此持较少批评态度，是否研究过这方面，以及你如何看待这一领域。

Must have been five people I had to talk to in order to get this money transmitted versus stablecoins where it can just be gone in seconds and I can get it to another location. It seems like there's a whole building type of aspect to crypto. And I'm wondering wondering if you're less critical of that, if you've checked into that, and what you think of of that side.

没错。实际上我在Solana大会上就这个话题做过演讲。你知道吗，最令人沮丧的是，人们既处于重大突破的边缘，又恐惧真正去实现它。我用艾米莉·狄金森的诗作比喻——就像一位本应十五年前入土却仍活在阁楼里的老妇人。

Yeah. Actually, I gave a presentation at the Solana conference on exactly this topic. I have you know, this is this is one of the, you know, kind of frustrating points is that, you know, you end up in this weird place, you know, where people are are are simultaneously on the edge of an incredible breakthrough and at the same time terrified to actually execute it. You know, I gave a slide in which I used the analogy to Emily Dickens' poem, you know, about a grandmother who's, you know, alive in the attic but should have been buried fifteen years ago. Right?

实质上已经死亡。这就是传统金融的现状。ETF领域的所谓创新不过是增加杠杆。

Effectively dead. That's where we are in much of traditional finance. Right? What's happening in ETF land is not innovation. It's adding leverage.

明白吗？那里几乎没有真正的创新。股票市场本身正在萎缩，上市公司数量减少且同质化严重。曾经丰富的金融工具如今只剩下公司债和股票——只因它们被纳入被动指数，成为资本流动的唯一去向。

Right? There is very little interesting that's actually happening there. What's happening in equities themselves is that we're seeing fewer and fewer equities and less and less diversity of equities. What used to be a very rich toolbox has now basically fallen apart and become, you you know, corporate debt and corporate equities. Because those are blessed by passive indices, that's where nearly all the capital activity is occurring.

除非像微策略公司那样玩花样，利用特定受众进行分销。传统金融原本有丰富的工具：优先股、可转换股、次级可转债、有担保/无担保债务等。如今这些因CUSIP标签和指数投资的标准化要求几乎绝迹。就在传统金融垂死挣扎时，你们却用着半懂不懂的术语，

Unless you enter into weird setups like micro strategy, etcetera, where they're basically exploiting a somewhat captive audience to obtain their own distribution. But there used to be a very rich world in TradFi of preferred equities and convertible equities and convertible subordinated debt and secured debt and unsecured debt, etcetera. All of those have largely disappeared. And it's because of this enforced conformity of CUSIP labels and designation in index investing. So we're weirdly dying in TradFi at the same time that you guys are running around using language that you don't fully understand,

但是，

but,

面对着数字原生代币创造的崭新可能——这些在模拟世界根本无法实现。虽然我们认为股票是数字资产，实则它们仍是纸质资产。DTCC仓库里那些印着防伪水纹的实体股票凭证，本质上就是NFT。

you know, facing a very interesting universe of digitally native tokens that allow you to do things that simply can't be done in the analog world. Right? And so, while we all think about stocks as digital assets, the reality is they're paper based assets. There's a little literal stock certificate that's sitting at DTCC that says this is a valid share. Right?

因其纸质属性，真正的可执行代码必须另存于S-1招股书或SEC文件。两者完全割裂。而智能合约能将逻辑直接嵌入证券本身，实现可审计性，还能以远低于传统金融的成本创造结构化产品。

It's a NFT for all intents and purposes. That because it's a paper document, and, again, its focus is on cryptography. It's got all sorts of interesting watermarks and designs on it to make sure that it's the original. Right? But because that's a paper document, its actual executable code has to sit separately in something like an s one prospectus or the filings at Edgar and the SEC, etcetera.

回想次贷危机的住房抵押贷款证券（RMBS）。那不过是堆积在铁山公司仓库里的300万份湿签名合同——尽管已数字化归档，但每次执行仍需调取实体文件。

There is no link between the two. A smart contract actually allows me to take that same security and embed the logic and execution in the security itself so that it's auditable. I can understand exactly what it's done. It allows me to do things like create structured products at fantastically lower cost than I can do in TradFi. Right?

（注：此处延续上条RMBS案例说明，展示传统金融的低效与智能合约的变革潜力）

So think back to the residential mortgage backed securities of the GFC. What is an RMBS? An RMBS is literally a collection of wet signature mortgages that are stored in a physical location as an aggregated security. So the barrier to entry among other things is in order to issue an RMBS, I have to source and obtain 3,000,000 pieces of paper that have wet signatures on them and store them in an Iron Mountain facility while I've digitized the paper so that it's easily searchable, etc. All of the executions actually require that physical analog piece of paper.

这是主要的准入壁垒。相比之下，如果我真正实现所有这些抵押贷款的数字化原生，整个流程意味着什么？意味着我只需一个U盘。对吧？我可以把它存放在任何地方的任何存储设施中。

That's the primary barrier to entry. In contrast, if I truly make all of those mortgages digitally native, that entire process, what does it mean to store it? It means I have a thumb drive. Right? I can put it in anyone's, storage facility anywhere.

它能即时激活。顺便说一句，它还可以变得可执行。它能自动为我支付款项，自动分离现金流。我可以将两笔抵押贷款或一千笔、五万笔抵押贷款，甚至两种不同的RMBS（住宅抵押贷款支持证券）组合起来，在数字空间以远低于实体空间的成本创造出全新产品。

It's instantaneously active. And by the way it can also become executable. It automatically makes payments for me. It automatically separates out cash flows. I can combine two mortgages or a thousand mortgages or 50,000 mortgages or two different RMBS to create an entirely new product in digital space at a fraction of the cost that I can do in analog space.

所有这些创新实际上正等待被发掘。我认为核心问题其实来自加密货币领域。他们抵制证券定性是因为害怕被监管。而IC（智能合规）主张的恰恰相反——你们应该认识到数字化原生代币和证券化代币实际上能强化合规性。

And so all that innovation is actually sitting out there waiting to be taken. My identification is that the primary issue is actually coming from the crypto space. They are resisting the security designation because they're terrified of being regulated. Everything IC says you should be doing the exact opposite. You should recognize that digital digitally native tokens and tokenized securities actually enhance compliance.

它们能彻底颠覆合规模式，将其从惩罚性体系转变为奖励性体系。这正是我目前积极研究的课题。

They can turn compliance on its head, changing it from a penalty based system into a rewards based system. And so that's actually stuff I'm actively working on right now.

这太有意思了，Michael。我猜现在听众可能很难把你归类——你并非加密货币反对者，虽然对加密资产的储值叙事持谨慎态度，但听起来你对代币化、智能合约这类技术非常看好。或许让我来解释为何加密货币对代币化和证券化存在恐惧。

That's really fascinating, Michael. It's I I guess it's maybe hard for for people at this point the conversation to bucket you in one group. You're you're you're not a crypto hater. You you you maybe you are more bearish on the store of value narrative around crypto assets, but it sounds like you're very very bullish on tokenization, smart contracts, that kind of thing. Maybe allow me to, make a case for why crypto has some some phobia around tokenization and security.

不知道你是否关注过SEC前主席Gary Gensler。在之前的证券监管体系下，根本不可能实现你所说的方案。事实上，该领域许多优秀企业都遭到了——恕我直言——迫害。我们完全无法推进你提到的构想。但在现任主席Paul Atkins领导下，情况可能不同。

And I don't know if you've been following the previous chair of the SEC, Gary Gensler. There was very there there was not a path to doing what you just said under previous securities administrations. And in in fact, there was, you know, a lot of persecution, I would say, of incredible companies in the area. We just couldn't do anything like what you're talking about. Now under chair Paul Atkins, I think that could be different.

或许加密货币正在翻开新篇章，开始涉足你所说的代币化证券领域。这次对话太棒了，我们本可以探讨更多话题。说实话我想再邀请你来做客播客，聊聊政治、产业政策等议题。不过现在能否给听众留下两个关键信息？Bankless听众中有不少人采用被动投资算法管理部分资产...

So maybe crypto is, you know, turning a page, getting into tokenized securities in the way that you're you're mentioning. This has been great. I we could have touched on so many things. In fact, I feel like I wanna get you back on the podcast and talk, you know, you know, politics, your your thoughts on industrial policy, all of these things, but I'm I'm wondering if we could maybe leave folks with with two messages. So I think there are a number of people in the bankless audience that have some aspect of their portfolio managed using the the passive investing algorithm.

请先给这些被动算法投资者一个今日要点，再为加密货币杠铃策略投资者提供建议（虽然不一定能改变他们的策略方向）。这样应该能覆盖今天80%的听众。

I I want you to give maybe them what are the takeaways for someone listening who's on that passive investing in algorithm? Drop drop a takeaway from them, what they should learn from today's episode. And then maybe maybe another takeaway for the the crypto barbell type investor. I don't know if you're gonna convince them to not do crypto barbell, but maybe you can modify them in in some direction. So first, give a message ending message to the the passive algo investor and then and then to the crypto barbell investor.

我认为这会涵盖今天约80%的听众需求。

I think that'll cover about 80% of our audience today.

没错。听着，对被动投资者我想先说《心灵捕手》里的台词：这不是你的错。明白吗？

Yeah. Exactly. So, look, to the to the passive investor, the first thing I would say is the line from Goodwill Hunting. It's not your fault. Right?

我想非常、非常明确地指出。你从现行体系中获得的利益以及体系最终施加的弊端，并非源于你的个人行为，而是监管框架本身。正是这个阻碍了数字原生代币发展的监管框架——正如Ryan强调的那些原因——迫使你和其他类似处境的人进入一个优先惠及大企业的系统，助长了社会中那些你目睹并厌恶的行为，并实际上推动你将加密货币作为另一部分资产配置。因此请认识到，即便我无法提供实质更好的替代方案，你此刻的行为实则违背自身利益。我要强调的第二点是：作为投资者，你应在机会集中寻找不受此框架影响的领域。

Like, I just wanna be very, very clear. The both the benefits that you're receiving from the system and the abuse that the system will ultimately mete out is not because of something you did, it's actually because of the regulatory framework. That same regulatory framework that has prevented the growth of digitally native tokens for all the reasons that Ryan highlighted is also forcing you and people like you into a system that is preferentially advantaging the largest companies, facilitating much of the behavior that you see and detest in our society and that is actually driving you towards having crypto in another portion of it. And so like just recognize that you are working against your own interests as you do that even as I can't offer you a meaningfully better alternative. The second point that I would emphasize on this is that you as an investor should be looking within your opportunity set for areas that are not subject to this.

这个逻辑同样引导我重视债券和通胀保值国债（TIPS）。你真正需要识别的是那些正因此遭受负面影响的领域，因为我们似乎正走向一个可能逆转现状的转折点。若真如此，讽刺的是，市场中那些被视为理所当然的特征——大盘股跑赢、小盘股落后——很可能会发生重大反转。'唯有美国大盘科技股值得投资'的叙事，可能像互联网泡沫破灭后那样被彻底颠覆。历史必将重演。

The same process that led me to emphasize bonds and tips. You actually wanna identify areas that are being negatively impacted by this because it does appear we are headed towards a transition point at which this process could begin to reverse. If that's the case, perversely, many of the features that we take for granted in the market, the outperformance of large caps, the underperformance of small caps could very easily flip themselves quite meaningfully. The narrative, The US large caps and technology are the only place to be could just as easily be replaced as it was in the aftermath of the.com. We'll do it again.

我向你们郑重承诺。当面对这种机械性系统时，理解其产出结果对社会造成的损害，应该会降低你向民选官员或他人提议'我们需要改革'的意愿。关于杠铃策略组合，我想再次强调：其本质是资本结构交易。你试图在组合中构建看涨期权与看跌期权。终极看跌期权其实就是你在加密领域信奉的叙事——美元将泛滥成灾、即时可得因而一文不值。

I absolutely promise you. And so, you know, when it is a mechanical system, understanding that those are the outputs from it and that they are societally disadvantaged should reduce your willingness to actually present to either your elected leaders or to others that, hey, maybe we should actually make some changes here. In terms of of the barbell portfolio, again, I just wanna emphasize what you are trying to do with a barbell portfolio is a capital structure trade. You're trying to create a call option in your portfolio, and you're trying to create a put option in your portfolio. The ultimate put option is effectively that all of the narrative that you are buying into in the crypto space, that dollars are going to become more plentiful, that they are going to become instantaneously available and therefore worthless.

而相反的看涨期权则是：等等，我认为美元可能升值，其他所有替代资产都只是对体系崩溃的投机猜想。历史经验表明，债务积累周期不会以通胀告终——除非伴随严重破坏生产能力的战争，它们最终必然与通缩周期相伴。更可能的情景是：两年后的某天我们突然发现，自己连基本义务都难以履行，无论是房租、车贷、房贷等现实债务...

The opposite of that is actually, wait a second, I think dollars could become more valuable and all the other alternatives out there are mere speculation about how this could break. And I just want to emphasize that if you go back and you look in history, cycles of debt accumulation don't end in inflation, right? Unless they're tied to a war that destroys productive capacity in a meaningful way, they inevitably are associated with cycles of deflation. And so what is the far more likely outcome is that we wake up at some point two years from now and suddenly discover that we're struggling to meet the obligations that exist, whether those are real world obligations like can I pay my rent or can I pay my car payment or can I pay my mortgage? Right?

还是因政府突然加税或物价剧烈波动（比如食品杂货价格远超承受能力）产生的衍生债务。任何推演都会发现：我们正在给民众制造债务陷阱。这才是现实。在此框架下，通缩远比通胀更可能发生。通胀只是后续反应。

Or whether they are synthetic ones that are created because the government suddenly raises taxes or because the price level changes radically and my groceries are now much more than I could have afforded. Any scenario that you run through with that, you discover that basically we're creating a debt trap for people. That's really what is what we're engaged in. And in that framework, deflation is the far more likely outcome rather than inflation. Inflation comes after.

即时冲击必定是通缩。

It's the response. But the immediate impulse is gonna be deflation.

Michael Green，非常感谢你今天在Bankless节目分享这些逆向思维观点。我们受益匪浅，这期内容太精彩了。

Michael Green, thank you so much for sharing your contrarian perspectives today on Bankless. We really appreciate it. This has been great.

非常感谢。

Thank you very much.

Bankless社区的听众们注意了：立即关注Michael的推特账号@professorplum99，如果你对传统金融推特圈感兴趣的话。还有他的Substack站点Yesigiveafig.com——

Gotta give a shout out some action items for you Bankless Nation. So, go follow Michael, professor Plum ninety nine on Twitter. Okay? Get into some, TradFi Twitter if if you're into that kind of thing. Also, Yes igiveafig.com.

刚得知第一年订阅完全免费！至少目前如此。Michael我不确定你是否会调整这个政策，但这绝对是让大家接触你观点的好机会。

That is Michael's Substack. And, actually, I just found this out. The first year is free, completely free of charge. At least it seems so right now. Mike, I don't know if you plan on changing that, but, you know, that's great to get get folks plugged in here.

实际上，这这这是个临时决定，但我很乐意提供一个代码，让你的用户享有一段免费参与的时期。

Actually, it it it was a temporary decision, but I'm happy to give you a code that gives your users a period of of of free participation.

来了。

Here we go.

我稍后就发给你。

I'll shoot that to you right afterwards.

搞定。这个会放在节目备注里。今天节目里有优惠活动，对吧？所以得让你知道。

There we go. That'll be in the show notes. We got deals are happening, right, on the on the show today. So gotta let you know.

我收费的唯一原因是希望人们真正重视他们正在阅读的内容。对，明白吗？所以这不是钱的问题。我很乐意提供折扣。

The the only reason I charge for it is I want people to actually value something that they're reading. Yeah. Right? So it's not about the money. I'm happy to offer discounts.

如果你申请免费订阅，我总是很乐意提供。但我确实认为人们应该重视他们所读的内容。

If you request a free subscription, I'm always happy to give it. But I do think that people should value what they're reading.

就是这样。你得有点投入证明。在这件事上得有点付出。当然得让你知道，这些都不是财务建议。你们懂的，加密货币市场都有风险。

There you go. You gotta have some proof of scape stake. Some skin in the game here. So gotta let you know, of course, none of this has been financial advice. You guys know crypto markets, they're all risky.

你可能会亏损投入的资金，但我们正朝西进发。这是前沿地带，不适合所有人，但我们很高兴有你一起踏上这场无银行之旅。非常感谢。

You could lose what you put in, but we are headed west. This is the frontier, not for everyone, but we're glad you're with us on the bankless journey. Thanks a lot.