From 392d1a5be263138dff44305aa4ccf55b6cce7f68 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Marius Mutu Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2026 18:00:09 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] =?UTF-8?q?fix:=20nota=20Grantham=20rescris=C4=83=20=C3=AE?= =?UTF-8?q?n=20proze=20curg=C4=83toare=20cu=20con=C8=9Binut=20real?= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 --- ...06-27_jeremy-grantham-ai-bubble-warning.md | 88 ++++++++++++++++++- 1 file changed, 86 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/memory/kb/youtube/2026-06-27_jeremy-grantham-ai-bubble-warning.md b/memory/kb/youtube/2026-06-27_jeremy-grantham-ai-bubble-warning.md index 20910e5..d4c58a1 100644 --- a/memory/kb/youtube/2026-06-27_jeremy-grantham-ai-bubble-warning.md +++ b/memory/kb/youtube/2026-06-27_jeremy-grantham-ai-bubble-warning.md @@ -60,9 +60,93 @@ He explains: --- -## Transcript +## Cine este Jeremy Grantham -What advice do you give for the average person that's looking to invest their salary or their wages? >> Don't own US stocks. That's a simple strategy that you can act on. >> But what about S&P 500? >> No. >> Really? >> Yeah. And if you have a big position in US technology stock, I personally advise would be to sell them all. >> But I'm an investor in SpaceX. >> Good luck. SpaceX is such a fabulous uh story, and we can go into that. >> Crypto? >> Why? >> It's an unnecessary piece of nonsense that facilitates nothing except criminals moving money that they can't be seen. >> Do you think Bitcoin's going to go to zero? >> Yes, it will certainly go to zero. >> So, how many years have you spent investing? >> 60 years. >> And what's the most amount of money you've ever managed of other people's money? >> 165 billion. >> And one of the things you're famous for talking about is this idea of bubbles. >> Yes. And bubbles always occur around the very most important ideas. So, the railroads, everyone could see that it would change the world. The same with the internet. And everyone wanted to put their money in, and so they over invested. But this is the problem. Eventually, they burst. And if you look at the great bubbles breaking of the past, you find that it's followed by really tough times, a miserable period for the economy. And the bigger the bubble, the bigger the burst. And now we're in the biggest investment bubble that arguably has ever occurred, AI. >> Are we on the verge of a collapse with AI in the coming years? >> The next few days, the next few weeks, the next few months, but certainly the next few years. >> So, if you're not someone that has a huge amount of savings, what kind of strategy should they be adopting when an economy starts to get bad and there's a economic bubble collapse? >> So, I would go through everything. But you will not receive this advice from investment advisers because they'll lose a lot of business. >> And would you be thinking about the country you live in at this moment in time? >> Absolutely. >> Is there any countries you wouldn't live in? >> I think I have to refuse to answer this on the grounds that it might tend to incriminate me. >> Oh, okay. So, you're saying don't live in the United States. I've just moved here. Why not the United States? >> This is super interesting to me. My team gave me this report to show me how many of you that watch this show subscribe. And some of you have told us, according to this, that you are unsubscribed from the channel randomly. So, favor to ask all of you, please could you check right now if you've hit the subscribe button if you are regular viewer of the show and you like what we do here. We're approaching quite a significant landmark on this show in terms of a subscriber number. So, if there was one simple, free thing that you could do to help us, my team, everyone here, keep this show free, to keep it improving year over year and week over week, it is just to hit that subscribe button and to double-check if you've hit it. Only thing I'll ever ask of you. Do we have a deal? If you do it, I'll tell you what I'll do. I'll make sure every single week, every single month, we fight harder and harder and harder and harder to bring you the guests and conversations that you want to hear. I've stayed true to that promise since the very beginning of The Diary of a CEO, and I will not let you down. Please help us. Really appreciate it. Let's get on with the show. >> >> Jeremy Grantham. Your firm managed up to 165 billion dollars at its peak, what you we call AUM, assets under management. So, you know a lot about money. You know a lot about investing. How do you sort of self-define your expertise because you traverse so many different subjects through your work? So, if I said to you, you know, how do you introduce yourself professionally? What is the answer? >> I can't think I ever do introduce myself professionally, but I think of myself as specializing in a longer term horizon >> Mhm. >> [clears throat] >> than most people and trying to look at a higher and higher level of abstraction. What is really going on here? And what are people missing? I've discovered over decades that humans are incredibly short-term oriented. And they have an enormous predisposition to optimism. They're looking for optimistic news in everything. They're looking to avoid unpleasantness. The idea that you can have steady compound growth is ridiculous. One of my few heroes, Kenneth Boulding, an economist, he said the only people who think you can have compound growth on a finite planet are madmen and economists. Which is so accurate. Economists simply believe you can have growth always, and everything comes down to just price. >> One of the things you're famous for talking about is this idea of bubbles, and we're living in a moment where everybody's talking about the subject of artificial intelligence, and everyone's getting very excited by it. Some people are getting very pessimistic about the impact it'll have on society. I wanted to start there because it's a it's an area where there is rife optimism on one side of things, um but there's also a lot of money plowing into the market, which is I I guess in your view making things prone to collapse. What's your view on artificial intelligence? You said you're good at understanding what people are missing. What is it that people are missing? >> Well, first of all, let me say I think artificial intelligence is right up there with the railroads. It's one of the defining great ideas of the last couple of hundred years. It's going to change everything. And that is critical. If you If you mean to have a bubble, people think that a bubble is a mainly because it's a scam, and nothing could be further from the truth. The great bubbles always occur that it would change the world. And everyone wanted to put their money in, and everybody put their money in. They over invested, and even though the railroads were a spectacularly powerful idea, uh the railroads uh collapsed their stocks, and everybody lost a ton of dough. The same with the internet. And then out of the wreckage, the railroads changed the world, and and the internet changed the world. What we have to remember is that in '99, Amazon went up six or seven times. In the crash in the tech bubble, it went down 92%. As I like to say, check it. It's such a remarkably large number. And then out of the wreckage, it inherited the retail world. And uh that's that's how it works. The greater the idea, the more obvious the idea, the more money goes in, and the bigger the bubble, and the bigger the bust. >> And are we on the verge of a collapse with AI? When I say verge, I mean over the coming years. >> If you look at the data, it would be compatible with history for the peak to be very soon. Everything is in line. This is, I think, the biggest investment bubble in American history. The indicators of pure crazy euphoria, like SpaceX, are all over the place. SpaceX defines as its addressable market a quarter of the global GDP. You know, it talks about endless opportunities mining asteroids. It will be in 50 years, people and 100 years, people will look back and tell stories about SpaceX and its prospectus, like they tell stories about the South Sea bubble. You know, an enterprise of such enormous value, but it cannot at this time be revealed. >> I want to keep on this train, but for the viewers that don't know your experience, we should probably pause and just tell them your experience, because that's the reference point, but also also gives you credibility and authority to speak to this. What have you done with your life? >> Well, I got into the investment business in 1968. There were very few serious people in the investment business. There were no mathematical models. There were the kind of relatively failed sons of rich people who would work for J.P. Morgan. And then over the next 10 years, it began to get a little more serious. T. Rowe Price introduced the idea of growth stocks. A few of us introduced the idea of value stocks. And a few years later, at my first firm, Battery March Fee, really introduced the idea of small small cap. It hadn't existed before that. >> And for people that don't know, a small cap is investing in smaller companies. >> Yes. And a value stock is simply one that looks cheap. >> Did you invent the index fund? >> There were two or three of us separately. I don't think we knew of each other. >> How many years have you spent investing? >> Uh 60, approximately. >> 60. And what's the the most amount of money you've ever managed for other people in a calendar year? >> Yes, 165 billion. I had a two partners, Mayo and Van Ottalo. And when the smoke cleared, you know, I'd made a lot of money, over a billion dollars. >> Personally? >> Personally. >> And how much >> And paid tax on all of it. >> Oh, good. And how And how much money does your firm still manage today of other people's money? >> It manages 85 billion. >> 85 billion. So, are you a billionaire? >> I'm generally referred to as a billionaire, but that's only because they count the money you give away. Because I've given over 90% of my billion away to a foundation. >> Oh, really? >> Yeah. >> To which foundation? >> It's called the Grantham Foundation for the Protection of the Environment. We invest a lot of our principal in green tech to help combat climate change. >> And you're 87 years old. >> And I'm 87 years old. >> You've given 90% of your money away to your own foundation that's focused on green tech. >> Yeah. Maybe 95. Yeah. >> Wow. Okay. So, coming back to this point that we were talking about, a lot of people won't even know what a bubble is. I think you've done a good job of explaining. A bubble is when everyone gets excited, they all see something obvious, they plow their money in, their stocks go up, and then if you look at the graph that's in front of you there, which shows his the history of asset bubbles, eventually there's a big collapse. >> And you're saying that we're the collapse is on the horizon. >> Yes. >> And what does that mean for the average person? What's going to happen? >> What's going to happen is the high flyers will probably come down a lot. >> The high flyers? >> The stocks that have gone up the most, AI and the more exciting stocks with the biggest moves historically would be expected to come down the most. From these unprecedented levels a 70% decline would not be unexpected. >> So a 70% decline in the in the stock price? >> Yeah. And you have to remember the tech bubble the Nasdaq, which is an index of the growth stocks, came down 82%. It is far from unprecedented to have these major declines. And the biggest bubble in history was in the Japanese stock market in 1989. Back then Japan seemed to rule the world, all the technology, all the Toyotas were kicking bottoms in General Motors and so on. And everyone bragged about their 12-in Sony TV in the kitchen and the quality etc. etc. little things you put on your belt to play music, they were all Japanese. >> And [clears throat] uh for a second Japan sold for more than the US in '89. And it it got to 65 times earnings, which which means for every dollar of earnings you have $65 of market value. And the US went to 35 in the tech bubble of 2000. You could argue depending on how you do it that it's 35 or 40 today, but it's not 65. So we have seen a much bigger bubble in Japan. And what happened? It went up and up and up and then it came down for 20 years. >> 20 years? >> 20 years. They talk about the lost decade, but when you look at it closely, it looks more like a lost 20 years. >> So, for the average person, what do they feel and how does it impact them when there's a market crash like the one that you're forecasting? >> The high flyers will lay people off and and a lot of people will feel less rich. And as you acquire uh money in the stock market, a small fraction of that, two or three percent, is spent. And in reverse, it goes back. And people feel a little bit poorer, they spend a little less. So, the economy tends to be under some stress. And if you look at the great bubbles breaking of the past, you find times. 1929 is followed by the Great Depression that lasts for several years. Then, of course, there are many other factors that go into that, but it started with the crash in the market, uh which was in the end down about 80%. or more. And then the next one was called the Nifty 50 because it was the 50 great companies like IBM and Coca-Cola. And that was in 1972, it peaked. It declined by 65% if you adjust for inflation. The recession associated with that was uh just about the worst since the depression. >> So, for the for the average person, what kind of strategy should they be adopting if you if you're not someone that has a huge amount of savings? Say you're working for one of these big big companies, um are there any strategies that you should be thinking about now before this before the markets come down and there could be a recession? >> I mean, rule number one is always be diversified. >> Be di- What does that be diversified mean? >> It means hold hold some bonds, hold some cash, perhaps a small amount of precious metals. >> Like gold and silver? >> And what is a bond and how do I buy one? >> Yeah, a a bond is a loan that carries uh a fixed interest rate. Let's say today 5%. You invest your money in it and it will pay you 5% as long as the creditworthiness of uh the other side is there. So, if it's the US government, you'll assume it's pretty creditworthy. And you buy a bond from the US government. It's how the US government funds uh a part of its activities. You can buy a 30-year US government bond, a 10-year bond, a 2-year bond, a 90-day a Treasury bill they call them when they get that short. Everything goes fine, you you receive this modest amount of money. Your 5% or your 3% depending on the conditions. >> Okay, so a bond is basically lending the government money. >> And if you want to lend the government money, >> Or lending a corporation money. >> Okay, so you can also lend like Apple money. >> And I I can go to the government website or it says I was just reading here. It says, "If you want to lend money directly to the US government, you can bypass Wall Street entirely, go to treasurydirect.gov. You open an account, link your bank, and purchase directly. You can buy Treasury bills, notes, bonds, and series one savings bonds." You pay exactly face value with no commissions or fees and the investment is backed by the full faith of the US government. Or you can buy, you know, like Apple, you can lend Apple money. I didn't even know you could do this. And you go to any of your major brokers like Fidelity or Vanguard or probably a lot of the the apps. You navigate to fixed income section on your account and you can see what bonds are being offered and you can lend them money. >> What you're doing actually, they have distributed it to the market. Uh and you're acquiring it from one of the existing owners. >> Oh, okay. >> actually giving them incremental money. They they come to the market with $10 billion in a particular bond with a particular coupon. It says, "We will pay you 3.5%." That's the coupon. And when you want to buy some of that bond, you you go to your broker and he says, "It's no longer selling at the original 100. It's now selling at 92 or 107." And you you pay that and it transfers from one owner to you. There've been times in 1974 when you could you could get a bond that would pay 8, 9, 10%. >> Per year? >> Yes, per year. >> So, if I buy a US government 10-year Treasury bond, essentially lending the US government money, I can do 4.46% a year. And Apple's current yield on a 10-year corporate bond is 4.7% a year. So, almost 5% a year, which means if I put what $1,000 in, I'll make $475 every 10 years. >> Every 10 years. >> Interesting. I didn't I never really knew how bonds work. So, you're saying market's collapsing, diversify, get some money into bonds, get some keep some money in cash. And anything else? In terms of diversified portfolio, property? >> Uh property is fine, except it's pretty darn expensive by historical standards. They've engineered a situation where house prices tend to rise. Great for the people who have a house and terrible for the people who would like to buy a house. Back in '94 in England, a typical house sold for 3.4 times your family income. That was about as low as it had been for 50 years. And then from '94 until today, um it rose from 3.4 times to over 10 times, depending on where you live. And at 10 times income, a reasonable young couple are in big trouble. They can't really afford to buy a house. And the same high prices are reflected in rents. So, they're really squeezed on living costs. And the same is true, even worse, in China, in Canada, Australia, most of Europe. House prices have simply been allowed to go up for the last 30 They didn't, you know, traditionally they they traded flat or down 67 of the 80 years until 1994 in the UK. But since then, house prices have ridden everywhere. >> So, so do you Are you expecting house prices to to come down sharply? I I think I heard you say that they might come down 30%. >> Even if they come down 30%, they're really still very expensive, aren't they? That would be they've come down to six or seven times family income. They'd still be twice what they used to be in the good old days. >> So, I've got diversify, I've got reduce your position. Um there is a probably going to be a bit of a job disruption, as well. >> And particularly if you have to own stocks, own them outside America. Don't own US stocks. That's a nice, simple strategy that you can act on. >> They're much cheaper. And since the beginning of last year, they have handsomely outperformed the US. >> Foreign stocks? >> Foreign stocks. Of emerging countries, of European countries, Japan, Canada, Australia, and so on. You can find good broad indices. Um kind of the world ex-US. >> Okay. >> or emerging markets. And uh >> Invest outside of America. >> Yeah. I'm sure they'll muddle through okay over the next 10 or 20 years. And I am not confident that the US will do that. >> You're not confident in which part? That the US >> I'm not confident that US equities will be intact in 5 years, 10 years. >> So, US a US equity is a US stock. >> Why aren't you confident that they'll be intact in 5 or 10 years? >> Because they're so badly overpriced today. Back in the tech bubble of 2000, we had a 10-year forecast for US equities of minus 2% a year for 10 years. And they came out with minus three. The period from 2000 to 2010, you simply lost money in the US market. 10 years later, you had less money than you started with. And this is a higher price market, I believe, than 2000. >> So, you think it's going to be even worse? >> In Japan, you went 20 years and you lost money. You went 30 years and you still hadn't gotten back. It took 35 years for the Japanese market to recover. >> So, what are you saying? >> What I'm saying is it's quite typical to get beaten around the head in the stock market when it becomes crazily overpriced, as it is today. And that it's a very good idea to take some respons- responsibility and and watch your tail. Now, let me just say you will not receive the advice from investment advisers to get your tail out of the market, ever. It is not good business for them to do that, and they will not ever say it to you. So, from 1929 onwards, the Goldman Sachs's of the world have never said to you, "Get out of the market. It's overpriced." Never. So, they went through the crash of '29, they went through the crash of the Nifty 50 in '72, the crash of 2000 in the tech bubble. They never ever say it, because it's bad business. If you fight a bubble, you lose a lot of business. And because the uncertainty of the timing is so great, the client's patience is shorter than the uncertainty of the market. So, sooner or later, you will be advising people to be careful. The market will keep going and going and going like it did in Japan. >> You're saying that the people that manage money on a global scale, they have no incentive to tell you that the market's about to collapse because if they did, their clients would would withdraw their money and they wouldn't get their fees for managing that money. So, what they do is they they keep telling you things are going to be fine and optimistic, yeah, but you have to kind of see through that yourself because they have an incentive structure which isn't aligned with yours necessarily. It may also be the case that those very people who are who understand these economic bubbles and cycles, they themselves are adopting a different strategy with their own money. But that at the same time, they're probably going to be telling you that everything's going to be great for a long time. >> If you'll allow me to tell a story on this very topic, in the 98, 99 the the tech bubble so-called, the run-up to the top, I I got into a lot of debates with the bulls. I would say it's horribly overpriced and they >> What's a bull? >> A bull is someone who is extremely optimistic about the stock market and a bear someone who is pessimistic or careful about the market. There were 1,200 people in the audience and it was the annual bash of the Society of Analysts. And I asked before my turn at the debate, "Please put your hands up if you consider yourself a full-time stock market expert." 400 hands went up. I had people counting. And I said, "I've got two questions for you. One, if the market, which is currently 31 times earnings, was to go back to a more normal 17 times, would it guarantee a major bear market if it happened anytime in the next 10 years?" >> A major down market? >> Yes, if it went from what was then 31 times earnings. Every dollar of earnings sold for 31 times in the market. And the And the more normal average was closer 15, 16, 17. And I use 17. If it went down to 17 anytime in the next 10 years, would it guarantee a major bear market? All 400 of them said, "Yes, it would. If it happened, it would guarantee a major bear market." And then the second question, of course, was, "And do you think it will happen?" And less than 1% thought it would not happen. 99% plus thought the market would go down, therefore guaranteeing a major bear market. And this was the engine room of all the Goldman Sachs and the Morgan Stanleys and the JP Morgans, all the great investment firms giving advice in America. The engine room who worked for them, the guys doing the analysis, doing the work, all believed in data that guaranteed a major bear market, which happened. But the people who employed them or represented them from a marketing point of view were on the podium with me saying, "Oh, Jeremy, Jeremy, don't get excited. We'll muddle through quite nicely." It was a huge betrayal of trust, if you wanted to put it that way. >> And do you think that's happening now? >> Of course. Who are the people representing the great investment firms telling you to watch out? If you look at the data, you will see over time, it's a series of great waves in evaluation. >> Like this? >> Like this. And we're not just in one, but in terms of the US stock market, we're in the biggest one, arguably, that has ever occurred. The noise to be careful and watch out and get out of the market is not deafening. In fact, you will hear nothing. You never have. You never will. It is simply lousy business for a big firm. I sympathize with them. I sympathize with them because when we did it in '98, '99, we were 2 and 1/4 years early. And we lost half our book of business in 2 and 1/4 years. >> Because you were honest with the people about what was coming. >> Well, through their eyes, we were wrong. We said, "Watch out, the market is overpriced. It will end badly." It went up. Therefore, we were wrong, therefore they shoot us. People think you get shot for underperforming in a bear market, and that is not really the case. In a bear market, everyone freezes. It's rigor mortis. They wait until the market has bottomed out, then they sit around and start to fire one or two people for having done worse than the others. But in a bull market, they're playing golf with their fellow pension fund officer. And he is making a ton of money, and they are not. They get very excited in a bull market, and they fire you instantly. >> There should be a button just down below here, and if it says subscribe, you're already subscribed. If it says subscribe-a, that means you're not yet. And if you're not subscribed, please could you do us a favor and hit that button. It helps to show more than you know, and according to the algorithm, you're someone that watches our show, but you haven't yet hit that button. Thank you so much. What about for founders? I actually had a founder call me the other day, and he is running a relatively early-stage tech startup. This tech startup has raised a lot of money. It's an AI tech startup. It's raised I'm going to say about $300 million. It's not profitable yet, but it's raised a lot of money. So, it's living off investor capital right now. He said to me, "Stephen, I think there's a collapse coming, so I'm going to go raise as much money as I possibly can right now because I think when this collapse comes, businesses like mine are going to be unable to raise capital, and therefore I will go out and I'll kind of like a a bit of a vulture, I'll go out and pick up and buy up all these people. >> Good lad. Good advice. >> Good advice. >> I think. >> So for founders listening now that are somewhat dependent on investment capital, but even those that are just breaking even, what advice would you give entrepreneurs in this moment? >> If you can lock up money, I would. If you can build a bit of conservatism in in other ways, do it. Just brace yourself for impending problems. Which is a pretty good principle anytime, but is a better principle than normal today. >> So for founders entrepreneurs who are in the sun is shining right now, but it's time to start acting as if a storm is coming. >> And the time horizon on that is hard to forecast. It could be weeks, months, years. >> Stock market hinges on career risk. And Keynes was the great champ. He's a famous economist of the 1930s and 40s. And he wrote a famous book called The General Theory. Unlike the idea that the market's efficient, he knew it wasn't. He knew it was a behavioral jungle and that it would be given to bubbles. >> And when you say efficient, you mean logical and one plus one equals two. >> The efficient market idea is that every company, every stock, the underlying company represents a long stream of future earnings and dividends and that the ones in the distant future are given less value. Process they call discounting it back to the present. And the sum of all of that stream of earnings into the future is the stock price. And that of course is complete nonsense. >> What it is is the stock price is psychology. >> The stock price is what you think the other guy will pay. If the stock is going up, it tends to suck in buyers. And that's called momentum. It's moving up, it attracts buyers. And every now and then when the economy is favorable and money is obtainable you tend to get these bubbles. And they play on themselves. The bigger and better they are, the more people get sucked in. >> What do you actually think about the technology at the heart of all of this, which is artificial intelligence? Do you think it's overblown or do you think it is going to have >> It's going to change everything. The one of the spectacular things about it though is how there's no consensus. So I've seen many times where the the the super experts and the academics think one thing and the players on the ground think another. But this is a situation where the Nobel Prize winners at the top disagree violently. The experts at the corporate level disagree violently. The the people in the company disagree violently. There is absolutely no agreement on whether AI is going to make us all so rich we can sit on the beach and never do another day's work or it will wipe us out accidentally or on purpose because it's a much higher level intelligence one day. And when was there ever a case where a higher intelligence was benevolent in a sustainable way to a lower intelligence? I The one example is mothers to babies. >> Yeah, I had I [clears throat] had one of my former guests say this to me. >> Geoffrey Hinton? >> Geoffrey Hinton, yeah. >> That's how I I came across you and >> follow your podcast is because that was such a brilliant podcast. >> It was so fascinating to me and I I followed his work and thoughts thereafter and I realized that he now cites this example of mothers and babies being the only example. I don't know, for me it still doesn't hold well. Because at the end of the day some mothers aren't that and fathers aren't that nice to their babies sometimes. There is a maternal instinct, but have we are we building a maternal instinct into AI? >> That's what we should do, Geoffrey Hinton would say. And others. The ones who are most concerned about the risks, say our one hope, if we mean to keep going ferociously forward in terms of the science, our one hope would be to build in very carefully a benevolent attitude. It would not seem to be impossible, but you should make sure you can do that before you push ahead. We are just pushing ahead, and that is going to be extremely risky, isn't it? >> Well, I don't see how it can't be. >> I don't see how it can't be. Unless you make it programmed completely to be benevolent. >> I wouldn't have thought that was impossible. It might take a lot of extra research. It might require a slow down at the rate of uh progress. >> Do you know what I find curious about that idea is we're now going to get into the realm of what does benevolent mean? >> [laughter] >> And and that feels like a risky business, because what's benevolent to you and your I don't know, your religious beliefs or where you come from might not be benevolent to someone else. >> That's right. You have to get them to accept a form of benevolence, which means uh like the old robot laws of Asimov, they can never do anything that they could construe as hurtful to humans. >> And the definition of the word benevolence is the core desire to do good for others. It is the disposition to be kind, charitable, and focused on promoting well-being of the people around you. It's interesting cuz one of the the new AI models called Claude um has clearly been told to be benevolent. And there's this sort of online backlash taking place at the moment, because even my Claude, when I speak to it sometimes late at night, it will say things to me like, "That's enough, Steven. Go to bed." And I'm like, "What?" And sometimes it gets the the time wrong, cuz I'm in my the time on my computer might be off or something, cuz I'm in a different time zone or something. And it'll be like 10:00 a.m. in the morning and it's telling me to go to bed, that's enough now. And it's actually getting quite judgmental. As in like it's imposing its idea of what is good or bad on me. So, if I say to it I said to it the other day, "Hey, could you redo this for me and rewrite that?" And it went, "I'm I'm absolutely not going to rewrite that." I said, "What do you mean?" It says, "Well, I'm not going to change the data on that. That would That wouldn't be good." I'm like, "It's my data. I've literally just made this this data for this presentation I'm doing." It it refused to change data for me. >> And how fast that has changed from say even a year ago? >> Honestly, 3 months ago it wasn't doing this. >> I had one where they made a joke. I I'd been going on about uh toxicity and sperm count reduction and so on. >> He started to misbehave and I said, "Well, you know, what's going on here? What is the In the end we discussed what's the difference between machines and uh between AI and humans." And finally he said, "And at least I'm not lying in bed at night worrying about my declining sperm count." Now, that has to be a joke, doesn't it? >> It's all that or it's teasing. The point is it's so sophisticated so quickly. Uh and of course Geoffrey Hinton says they are thinking machines. >> Last night, so again I had a problem with Claude cuz it was it was it started to kind of be my my mother and it started to impose on me what it thinks is right and wrong. And so I said to it I said, "Okay, um actually forget that. This has changed This has changed This has changed. This is no longer true." And I wasn't telling the truth. I was just trying to get it to stop being so telling me what to do. And it goes, "I don't think you're telling the truth." It goes, "I don't know if this is true." Wow, we've gotten to this point >> where where the unintended consequence of trying to give it morals means that now it's becoming judgmental and it's kind of like restricting your ability to think how you want to in a way, cuz it's telling you what good thinking and bad thinking is. It's going to tell you what good actions and bad actions are. And actually what will happen is any model that does that will be losing model, and I'll go to somewhere else. I'll go to a different I'll go to Grok, or I'll go to ChatGPT, or I'll go to Gemini. And then that model will lose, so one would say that they'll have to remove those restrictions to be able to compete. >> Well, if you were right, and I hope you're not, what you're saying is you can't build in benevolent behavior, which means that it will sooner or later, perhaps by accident, do something that is cripplingly dangerous to humans. The old paperclip cliche. It'll make paperclips out of everything, every metal it finds, and destroy the planet in the process. >> Explain that for people that have never heard the paperclip idea. >> That these intelligences involved in machines are literal to a degree we might find difficult to get our brains around. And therefore, someone has said, "I'd like you to make as many paperclips as you can." >> To an AI, for example. >> Yes. A sloppily open-ended bad definition. But then the machine, which by then has the means to do it, starts to make paperclips, and it keeps on going, and it needs metal, and so it runs out of easily available metal, it starts to collect metal that is not easily available, rips it out of your high-rise building, whatever. >> And really you're saying that the unintended consequences of a simple good-meaning instruction can sometimes cause catastrophe that you didn't expect. >> And this is the this is the balance now when you're dealing with intelligence. Is there so much subjectivity to good, bad, wrong, right, um and so many unintended consequences for me, though, all you need is stretch time, and the probability of something bad happening is almost inevitable. >> Over a longer longer time horizon, 20, 30, 40 years. Of well-meaning people that couldn't spot the unintended con- I mean, social media's a good example. >> I mean, I question basically the well-meaning bit. They're now trying to maximize their profits and their growth and their appeal over the competition. That actually maybe one should talk about that. The the Mag 7 and and associated AI companies looking forward versus looking backwards. >> So, the Mag 7 is the seven market leaders. I'll put this pie chart >> Yeah, lovely. >> of the Mag 7. And I've got another graph >> And there's perhaps another 15 or 20 rapidly rising substantial AI corporations. >> So, when you say Mag 7, you mean Alphabet, which owns Google, Nvidia, Tesla, Microsoft, Meta, Apple, Amazon. >> Yeah, well, that will do nicely. And if you look backwards, what do you what you find is that these seven each dominated a nice piece of business. They had close to monopolies and they had it on a global basis. Tesla had a jump start on the electric vehicles. Apple, of course, on the smartphone. Microsoft on the original great coup of how to run your software on a computer. And then you look forward. >> Meta social networking, Google search. >> Right. Google search. >> Nvidia chips. >> And then you look forward and you could not imagine a more different world. They're all girding for battle in the same marketplace, AI. They're beating their chest and saying my 200 billion CapEx this year in a single year is bigger than your 105. Everybody is pouring enormous cash flows. And they're now beginning to borrow on top of that into the AI battle. SpaceX, 90% of its theoretical value is AI. Even though that particular AI model is, it would seem, having its bottom kicked by two or three of the others. But, looking forward, it looks like seven people in the ring. Right? There'll only be one survivor, they think. Everything goes to the one who gets there first. What a difference this was to seven well-behaved separate monopolies. Could it possibly be more different? They made bundles of money on their monopolies. Now, they have no monopoly. There are seven potentially sharp-elbowed ruthless players determined to fight out with each other until they win. >> And who do you think will win? >> Ah, I don't know. That would be That would be good to know. >> Because SpaceX seem to be aiming more at the infrastructure of um data centers now. Data centers in space. Lots of people saying that the the the best way to run a data center, which is the hardware that powers AI, is going to be from space. And so maybe they're going to try and find their own lane within AI, and they're going to get away from trying to build a frontier model like a ChatGPT or a Gemini or Claude. And I mean, let's let's see what happens. So, maybe Apple will just say, "Fuck it. We're good at hardware, so we'll license the model off someone else, and we won't try and build a frontier model or get involved in chips or data centers. We're just going to focus on the hardware." >> One or two of them, and perhaps it's a pretty smart strategy, will try and opt out of that struggle. >> Because [clears throat] it it it's going to be obviously brutal. >> Much of the reason most people haven't posted or built their personal brand is because it's hard and it's time-consuming, and we're all very, very busy. And if you've never posted something before, there's so many factors in your psychology that stop you wanting to post. What people will think of you. Am I doing this right? Is the thing I'm saying absolutely stupid? All of these result in paralysis, which means you don't post, and your feed goes bad. I'm an investor in a company called Stan Storage. You've you've heard me talk about. And what they've been building is this new tool called Stanley that uses AI, looks at your feed, looks at your tone of voice, looks at your history, looks at your best performing posts, and tells you what you should post, makes those posts for you. You can also you just use it for inspiration. And sometimes what we need when we're thinking about doing a post for our social media channels is inspiration. Building an audience has fundamentally changed my life, and I think it could change yours, too. So, I'm inviting you to give this new tool a shot, and let me know what you think. All you have to do is search coach.stan.store now to get started. For every founder, there comes a point in building a company where your job shifts from being the person inside your business actioning everything to the person responsible for absolutely everything. The only way I've been able to make this shift across the different companies and teams I'm responsible for is by knowing that the right systems are in place to manage everything. Systems that don't need me in order for them to work. Our sponsor Pipedrive is one of those systems, an easy-to-use intelligent CRM tool for growing sales teams. My teams use it and have for the last decade because it's genuinely the most effective way to run a sales operation. Through one dashboard, you get every deal visible, and every stage of the sales process is clear, and what needs to happen next is all there in real time. When a system like this works, you don't need to be in every conversation to know exactly if your business is moving forward, where and what the blockers are. Over 100,000 companies are already running their sales on it. So, if you'd like to join them, sign up at pipedrive.com/ceo, where you'll get an exclusive 30-day free trial instead of the usual 14 days. No credit card is needed. That's pipedrive.com/ceo. So, coming back to this point of the the social societal effect of AI generally, robotics is exploding at the same time. We're seeing for the first time ever these humanoid robots, which now have intelligence because of AI, becoming very, very good. There was a video the other day of a company called Figure AI where they showed a robot humanoid robot on a production line sorting packages against a human and the humanoid robot did it I think I can't think I'm going to get this wrong but it was in the region of seven or eight days it stood there and sorted packages and they live streamed it next to a human being doing it. Now the human had to sleep and had to go to the toilet. So the the humanoid robot won and the job was very simple. The packages come down, you just have to pick the package up, turn it over, get it the right way round so the barcode's facing down and put it back down. That is powered now because we have AI. Um I said this a couple of episodes ago but my friend runs this big accelerator for entrepreneurs in San Francisco and when I went there a couple of years ago it was all software startups. I went there um recently and it was hardware startups the whole building. I said why why why is everyone doing robotics? He said well we've always had the machinery that's sort of like joints and arms and the hardware. We the the intelligence was expensive. Now we have both and it costs pennies. So there's this boom in robotics. I say all this to ask the question in a world where we have super intelligence and we have robots there must be surely significant job disruption. >> Very likely that there will be significant job disruption. You know, one of the scary things about SpaceX is you should wish that it not work out because if it became a bargain rather like Tesla long ago became a bargain it will mean that we have done satellites from space beaming down power for chips and so on. The population of chip users has expanded that robots are everywhere, that energy demand is massive beyond belief the world is a very very dangerous place. I had much prefer them to fail and the ideas to move much more slowly to buy time for humans to work these things out. So, and I think that's much more likely. >> You think SpaceX will fail? >> I think it will fail to deliver anything like its promises in the prospectus. Yes, absolutely. >> I'm an investor in SpaceX, I should probably declare that. >> Yeah, well, you should. And good luck. >> I invested quite early, quite well, relatively early. Um so, we've had quite a good outcome. I There wasn't an AI thesis when I invested. It was Starlink. >> Yeah, yeah, Starlink, great idea. By the way, makes money. But this is not Starlink. >> Maybe I'd be an investor too if it was Starlink. It was a hundred billion dollars roughly in that region when I invested. So, it's what it rose up to three trillion today. >> Yes, nice investment. >> Not a bad investment, yeah. >> But it doesn't really count until you've cashed it in. >> Yeah, which I might do now. >> You have Don't you have to wait six months? >> I think yeah, I think we're locked out. >> In another podcast I was comparing the purchase of my Tesla six years ago with the price of Tesla stock. And I wrote it up in my quarterly letter uh to the clients that A, I bought a Tesla and B, I thought Tesla was overpriced. And fast forward, Tesla stock went up 10 times over the life of my car, which still hasn't been incidentally into the garage once. >> It's a great car, isn't it? >> Uh I imagine though, but but people who really hate futzing around with cars, that component that they don't have to go to the garage is so underestimated until you enjoy it. >> Never bet against Elon, then. >> So, then the story becomes from where we were 10 years ago, he couldn't get there. It wasn't profitable enough. It couldn't grow as fast as it should. There was no way. And he broke the rules the following way. He's so good at BS. I That's a technical term. That he talked the stock up to four or five times what it what it was worth on paper. Then he sold lots of stock at five times what it was worth. Used the money to build a gigafactory. And then instead of the sale of stock crushing it, he kept on talking up the game. The stock kind of hung in and then went up again. Five times what it was worth. Sold another big slug, etc. etc. So, the only reason he did well was because of the combination of incredible confidence inspiring in potential stockholders. It became a self-fulfilling prophecy. It wasn't worth that, but he persuaded other people that it was. The stock went up, he cashed it in, he built factories, the stock went up, he cashed it in, he built more factories, and there we were. It went up 10 times. Now, the scale of SpaceX requires them to do the same again. And the timing of the market cycle, the timing of confidence, would have to be the same. He had in the last six years a wonderful bull market. He will not in SpaceX do that. SpaceX is such a fabulous BS story. Mining asteroids. Huge incredible success of AI. It's the classic description of a market peak. It's what you look for at the top of a terrific bubble. >> I've got a Tesla. Um I've seen the that massive rocket, the Starship, be caught with those chopsticks. >> Everyone has seen it. It's the defining feature of technology, isn't it? It's magnificent moment. >> When I >> That's worth half the the of SpaceX. [laughter] >> I think that's why I invested when I saw that. But but also I've seen with Neuralink I've seen people that are paraplegic controlling computers. Uh my Tesla drives itself for hours and hours and hours without me touching the pedals or the steering wheel because it can see the road and navigate itself. But to his credit as an innovator, he has created magic. So when you say about mining asteroids, if if they if they told me we'd have reusable rockets that you could catch on chopsticks, I would have gone B S. There's no way. You can't catch like a 70-ft building. >> in the laws of physics >> That's what he >> that says you can't do that. >> That's what he says about the asteroids. That's what he says about everything. He goes If it's within the laws of physics, then it's possible. >> Going to Mars is not within the laws of physics, really. It's a one-way ticket to Mars for starters. When you're on Mars, humans do a couple of things really quickly. Their heart adjust to the fact that there's 1/5 of the gravity. Your heart loses its muscle power. And your bones lose their internal strength. If you come down, your heart will fail and all your bones will crack. >> But you could be in an insulated environment, no? >> First of all, you'd have to go under underground to avoid the incredible incoming rays that will otherwise give you cancer in a few weeks. So dig a deep hole and then you need a gravitational spinning machine, shades of 2001 or whatever it was called. And that maintains your gravitational impact. And you have to build it underground. You have to protect yourself >> against cosmic rays and against the gravitational difference. Listen, we have not been able to build a sustainable system in a dome ever. They all fail. Why would you not, let's say, "Guys, let's build a sustainable dome where you grow food, you put in people, you put in creatures, and then insects, and you show you can do it." I mean, we're destroying the damn planet. And yet we think we can go to another infinitely more hostile planet than this one. >> I do agree with you on that. I do agree with us. I think we should focus on our planet first and foremost. >> That's the really bad news embedded in your stock. It's really suggesting fantasy and long-term objectives at the very time when our own planet is under threat. >> Would you ever invest in SpaceX? >> Yeah, of course, if it came down to >> where I invested. >> 10 cents on the dollar, yeah. I might. 5 cents. You've got three children? >> Three children. They're they're all, you know, older than me now, I believe. I'm 33 years old, so they're all >> Yes, they're all older than you. >> They're all older than me. But when they were, you know, if they were young now, and they came to you and they said, "Dad, listen, I heard about all this AI stuff, and I'm about to go off to university and train myself. What what skills should I be thinking about for the future ahead?" >> My take is I'd like them, as they are, to be involved in climate change work. >> If they said, "Dad, listen, I you know, I don't >> Be an engineer. Do something really useful that will come in handy if things start to unravel. >> What what will >> Practical skills. >> What what are practical skills? >> Well, our second son um is practicing growing various crops and has a small farm, you could say. So, he's trying to get to know how you would deal with chickens, how you would deal with pigs, how you would deal with mushrooms. >> What why does that matter, do you think, based on the future that you're forecasting? >> I think there's quite a good chance that the the level of complexity of our civilization will start to to unravel. Lose the plot at the ends is the first thing that would go. I'll tell you a good sign. How long does it take to get your ambulance? >> I've heard that in the UK >> In the UK it was 12 and 1/2 minutes. >> It's now an hour and a half. >> Really? To get an ambulance? >> It's exactly what you would expect as people begin to lose the plot a bit. They fray at the edges. People can't buy houses. People don't feel they can do as well as their parents. People are basically disgruntled. They want to vote against the party in power. You know that the recent move to Trump was less than the average move of the last seven European elections. It didn't matter whether they were right-wing conservatives, kick the rascals out. Left-wing French, kick them out. And why do you want to kick them out? Because you don't think things are going well. You're not feeling really happy. You're disappointed. >> Why? Obviously, the government's doing a bad job. I think that's the reflex. >> What are What are the government doing wrong? >> It may be that it's not the government doing anything wrong. It's just that the environment is becoming tougher. >> As in the economic environment? >> The economic environment, the >> The rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer. >> I think that's the biggest economic problem. I mean, the US now has a genie ratio like which is a measure of how unequal your society is. Um which is up there with Brazil and Mexico they used to be a joke. And now the US is up there. Since about all of the wealth we're talking about has gone to the top 10% and a lot of that to the top point 01. Before that by the way, from 1935 from FDR to 1975 so that's 40 years we had a wonderful period of growth. We had gains of over 3 and 1/2% a year. But the nice thing was that the poorest quarter made a little bit more than average, let's say 4 percent, and the richest quarter made a little less, let's say 3 percent, and everybody got richer. Everyone was happy. And then from '75 onwards, basically the average hour worked in America has barely gotten more adjusted for inflation than it did in 1975. >> The richest 1 percent of Americans control 31 percent of the nation's entire wealth, and by contrast, the bottom 50 percent of the entire population shares just 2.5 percent of the wealth. The richest 10 US billionaires saw their wealth surge by percent, adjusted for inflation, between 2020 and 2025. Between 1989 and the mid-2020s, the financial gain of a single household at the top 1 percent threshold was 987 times larger than the gain of a household in the bottom 20 percent. >> Forget In a sense, the bottom 20 percent is tragic, but the guy in the middle, the 50th percentile, he is unhappy, also. And when your average guy is unhappy because he's not doing very well, you know you have a problem. >> What is that problem, this inequality we're seeing across the Western world? What does history tell us happens next? >> All bad. We had a similarly unequal society back in the so-called Gilded Age of the 1880s and '90s and so on. We got lucky in a in an ugly way. We ran into World War I, which was catastrophically expensive, killed off a huge fraction of the officer class, and then we went into the Great Depression. Then we went into World War II. We came out as a uh very equal society by historical standards. Obviously, in the war time you pull together and the social contract, the feeling that you owe something to the rest of society was much stronger than it is today. >> I was doing some research and said when wealth inequality peaks to the extremes that we currently see in the US and the UK, history shows that the system inevitably resets. According to historical macro studies, peaceful policy changes almost never fix extreme inequality. [clears throat] Historically, a wealth peak is broken by one of three violent or catastrophic triggers. Number one, total civil collapse and state failure. Number two, mass mobilization warfare. Or number three, total revolution. >> Yeah, and that's why number two was lucky. In the end, it's better to have a war and have everyone pull their weight and and and work together than it is the other. You Civil wars are the worst of all kinds. >> What do you think is likely to happen? It can't just keep becoming more and unequal. >> No, it can't. So, it it needs a government that is prepared to pull a Bernie Sanders to say, "Yeah, we're going to have to at least in a gentle and long-term way shift the tax structure in favor of of a slightly steeper curve." >> So, you mean taxation needs to go up. >> We need to tax the rich >> and help the poor. It's pretty simple. And and you have a kind of steepness in every society. That's what they do. Every Every developed country in the world taxes the rich and helps the poor, don't they? It's a question of degree. We did much more helping the poor and taxing the rich in the 1950s and '60s and '40s than we do today. And somewhere between that level and the current level might be more than enough if we just started to adopt the policy of 1935 to 75, where the bottom quarter get a half percent a year richer than the average. And the top dogs get half a percent less each year than the average. That sounds pretty unthreatening. I think we would ease our way over several decades uh into a better place. >> If you were 33 now, my age, and you were trying to accumulate wealth, >> Oh god, I wish I was 33. >> Do you? >> It's such an exciting time. >> What would you give to be 33? >> I There's nothing I can give. >> No, but it would you I I find this funny. It's I heard someone ask a question like this the other day. They were They said like, "Would you give your your entire available net worth to be 33?" >> Yeah, I think everyone says yes. I mean, how did one get a net worth by by work and luck and creativity, all those good things. >> If you were 33 now in this moment in time, and your objective was And this is a bit of a crass objective, but I'm going to It sounds like it's a very one-dimensional objective, but if your objective was just to become rich now at 33, what strategy would you deploy? Again, I'm going to take away your contacts. I'm even going to take away everything you know. So, you'd have to go on the journey of acquiring new information. What would you do? >> I think the simple appeal would be to get your tail into AI and and try and be a leader. Try and know more about everything in that area than the next guy. >> Join [clears throat] a leading firm and uh and go for broke. You may end up encouraging the destruction of the human species, but you asked a simple question, and I give you what I think is the simple answer. >> And what I I there is you want to make sure you're riding a wave that's coming into shore and you're on the forefront of that incoming wave. Like we saw with the tech bubble, we saw with you know, we're now seeing with the AI bubble. So, it's really about acquire the most valuable information. And take lots of risk. Don't be conservative. >> And work hard. And think outside the box. I mean, I think that the biggest deficiency uh most people is that they feel constrained uh to play the game by the regular rules. And to believe that experts and authorities know what they're doing. And and that as you know, probably, it just ain't so. >> What if I'm trying to invest? So, say that I've got $1,000 or $10,000 and I want to invest it somewhere that's going to not lose me money through all of these cycles of, you know, boom and bust. Cuz I'm I'm in you know, I I have a lot of people message me and ask me about investing because I interview lots of people about investing. I have my own investment fund as well. But what advice do you give for the average person that's looking to invest their salary or their wages? >> Buy a broad-based index of uh non-US equities. >> Non-US? That's really surprising to me. >> For um like 60% of your money. And then 5 or 10% in precious metals and if if it's convenient and sensible, hold hold a bit of real estate. And the rest I'd put in uh bonds. >> Okay, so 5 or 10% in things like silver and gold? A preference for either silver or gold? >> Um [clears throat] S&P 500? Now, you said non-US. >> Non-US. >> This is so interesting cuz everybody says invest in US stocks. >> Of course they do. They've been completely dominant for 20 years. Completely kicking ass around the rest of the world. And then in the last 12 months, emerging markets is up 65% now. The S&P has done much better than I would have guessed, but it's only 25. That's a lot less than 65. >> And I guess the strategy is quite important here as well, which is you're saying to hold these for a long time. Try not to buy and sell. >> And and try and look at where the cycle has been. And I can tell you, and you can see it for yourself, there has been an enormous cycle in favor of the S&P, in favor of the American market over the rest of the world. And do you think America is going to keep on gaining on the rest of the world? And of course you're going to say yes now, because that's that's the flavor of this market. We think that what is good today will continue being good indefinitely, even though history tells you that is absolutely not the case. We live in a world that tends to rotate from one to the other. We believe in a world that extrapolates today's conditions. And you can easily prove that. The stock market is not efficient. The stock market extrapolates today's conditions. If they are terrible in 1982, they will take crushed earnings and multiply it by seven times earnings. And then, in 2000, peak profit margins times, woo, 35 times earnings. They double count in the worst way. When times are good, you multiply it by a lot. That's another way of saying you extrapolate it into the distant future. >> You assume it's going to continue. >> And Keynes, of course, my hero, says, "Of course that's extrapolation is the convention you adopt, even though you know from personal experience that the world is not that way." >> You didn't use the word crypto when you're talking about investment strategies. How much crypto do you own? >> None. >> Have you ever owned any crypto? >> Will you ev +Jeremy Grantham are 87 de ani și 60 de ani de experiență în investiții. A intrat în domeniu în 1968, când nu existau modele matematice și piața era dominată de "fiii eșuați ai oamenilor bogați care lucrau la JP Morgan." A co-fondat firma GMO (Grantham, Mayo, Van Ottalo), care a ajuns să gestioneze 165 de miliarde de dolari la vârf. Din profitul personal de peste un miliard de dolari, a donat 90-95% într-o fundație proprie — Grantham Foundation for the Protection of the Environment — care investește în green tech pentru combaterea schimbărilor climatice. Firma gestionează azi 85 de miliarde. Se descrie ca specialist în orizont lung de timp și nivel înalt de abstractizare: "What is really going on here? And what are people missing?" + +--- + +## Bula AI — cea mai mare din istoria americană + +Grantham este categoric: suntem în "the biggest investment bubble in American history." Punctul de plecare al argumentului său este că bulele mari nu apar în jurul ideilor proaste, ci tocmai în jurul celor mai importante idei ale epocii — feroviarele, internetul, acum AI-ul. Toată lumea vede că e real, toată lumea bagă bani, tocmai de aceea se suprainvestește și bula crește. "The greater the idea, the more obvious the idea, the more money goes in, and the bigger the bubble, and the bigger the bust." + +Analogia cu Amazon este edificatoare: în 1999, Amazon a crescut de 6-7 ori. În prăbușirea tech bubble, a scăzut 92%. Și apoi, din ruine, a moștenit lumea retail. Railroads au schimbat lumea, internetul a schimbat lumea — dar acționarii au pierdut enorm în proces. Același lucru se va întâmpla cu AI: tehnologia va supraviețui și va transforma totul, dar evaluările actuale sunt nesustenabile. + +Semnal de alarmă concret: indicatorii de "crazy euphoria" sunt peste tot. Piața americană se tranzacționează la 35-40 de ori câștigurile, față de o medie normală de 15-17. În bula tech din 2000, era 31 de ori. Japan în 1989 a atins 65 de ori câștigurile — și a avut nevoie de 35 de ani să revină la nivelul anterior. "A 70% decline would not be unexpected" pentru acțiunile high flyer de astăzi, iar Nasdaq a scăzut 82% în bula tech — "it is far from unprecedented." + +--- + +## De ce Wall Street nu te va avertiza niciodată + +Acesta este poate cel mai dur argument din întreaga discuție. Grantham povestește că în 1998-1999, la un eveniment cu 1.200 de persoane al Society of Analysts, a pus două întrebări celor 400 de analiști full-time din sală. Prima: dacă piața ar reveni de la 31 la 17 ori câștigurile în orice moment al următorilor 10 ani, ar garanta asta un major bear market? Toți 400 au ridicat mâna — da. A doua întrebare: credeți că se va întâmpla? Peste 99% credeau că da, deci garantând un mare crash. Și totuși, reprezentanții de marketing ai Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley și JP Morgan stăteau pe podium și spuneau "oh Jeremy, don't get excited, we'll muddle through quite nicely." + +Mecanismul e simplu: dacă un manager de fonduri avertizează că piața e supraevaluată și piața continuă să crească, clienții lui pleacă — nu îi pot tolera subperformanța într-un bull market. Grantham însuși a pierdut jumătate din clienți în 2 ani și jumătate, pentru că a avertizat cu 2 ani și un sfert prea devreme față de prăbușirea din 2000. "You get shot not for underperforming in a bear market — in a bear market, everyone freezes. You get shot for not making money when your neighbor is making a ton in a bull market." Concluzia: "From 1929 onwards, the Goldman Sachses of the world have never said to you, 'Get out of the market.' Never. It is simply lousy business." + +--- + +## Strategia de portofoliu recomandată + +Grantham oferă o alocare concretă: aproximativ 60% în indici largi de acțiuni non-americane (piețe emergente, Europa, Japonia, Canada, Australia — "world ex-US"), 5-10% în metale prețioase (aur, argint), ceva imobiliare dacă e practic, restul în obligațiuni. "Don't own US stocks. That's a simple strategy that you can act on. And if you have a big position in US technology stock, I personally would advise to sell them all." + +Argumentul pentru non-US: piețele americane au dominat 20 de ani, dar ciclul se rotește mereu. În ultimele 12 luni, piețele emergente au crescut 65%, S&P doar 25%. Evaluările din afara SUA sunt mult mai rezonabile. Grantham nu e confident că acțiunile americane vor fi intacte în 5-10 ani: "Back in the tech bubble of 2000, we had a 10-year forecast for US equities of minus 2% a year. They came out at minus 3. And this is a higher priced market than 2000." + +Pentru obligațiuni, explică mecanismul: o obligațiune e un împrumut cu dobândă fixă. US Treasury bonds (4.46% pe 10 ani) pot fi cumpărate direct la treasurydirect.gov, fără comisioane. Obligațiunile corporative ca Apple yield ~4.7% pe 10 ani. Esențial: diversificarea nu e opțională — "hold some bonds, hold some cash, perhaps a small amount of precious metals." + +--- + +## SpaceX ca simptom de euforie maximă + +Grantham folosește SpaceX ca exemplu definitiv de euforie de vârf de bulă. Prospectul SpaceX definește ca piață adresabilă "a quarter of the global GDP" și menționează mining asteroizi. Comparația sa e directă cu South Sea Bubble din 1720: "An enterprise of such enormous value, but it cannot at this time be revealed." Spune că în 50-100 de ani, oamenii vor povesti despre prospectul SpaceX așa cum povestesc azi despre South Sea Bubble. + +Analiza lui Tesla explică mecanismul Musk: Tesla nu putea supraviețui financiar prin mijloace normale. Musk a "talked the stock up to 4-5 times what it was worth on paper, then sold lots of stock at 5 times what it was worth, used the money to build a gigafactory." A repetat ciclul — stock up, sell, build — și a funcționat pentru că a avut un bull market de 6 ani în spate. "SpaceX requires them to do the same again. He will not in SpaceX do that." Grantham spune că ar investi în SpaceX doar la 5-10 cenți pe dolar față de evaluarea actuală. + +Există și un argument practic împotriva colonizării lui Marte: gravitația de 1/5 din Pământ face inima și oasele să se deterioreze ireversibil. Radiațiile cosmice ar da cancer în câteva săptămâni fără adăpost subteran masiv. "We have not been able to build a sustainable system in a dome ever. They all fail. And yet we think we can go to another infinitely more hostile planet than this one." + +--- + +## Mag 7 — de la monopoluri separate la luptă în același ring + +Retrospectiv, fiecare dintre cele 7 companii mari domina o bucată de piață: Apple — smartphone, Google — search, Microsoft — software de sistem, Meta — social networking, Tesla — EV, Nvidia — chipuri AI, Amazon — cloud + retail. Șapte monopoluri distincte, bani liniștiți, marje enorme. Prospectiv, toate 7 se bat în același teren: AI. "They're beating their chests saying my 200 billion CapEx this year is bigger than your 105." Grantham: "It looks like seven people in the ring. There'll only be one survivor, they think. What a difference from seven well-behaved separate monopolies." Cine câștigă — nu știe, dar structura de profitabilitate s-a schimbat radical în defavoarea tuturor celor 7. + +--- + +## Crypto — va merge la zero + +Răspunsul e scurt și categoric: Grantham nu a deținut niciodată crypto, nu va deține, și crede că Bitcoin va merge la zero. Motivarea: "It's an unnecessary piece of nonsense that facilitates nothing except criminals moving money that they can't be seen." Nu există utilitate fundamentală — nu produce nimic, nu e ancorat în nicio economie reală. + +--- + +## Proprietăți imobiliare — prețuri care trebuie să scadă 30% + +Grantham documentează o schimbare structurală: în Marea Britanie, o casă tipică costa 3.4 ori venitul familial în 1994 — cel mai scăzut nivel din 50 de ani. Azi: peste 10 ori venitul. "At 10 times income, a reasonable young couple are in big trouble. They can't really afford to buy a house." Același lucru se întâmplă în China, Canada, Australia, Europa. Timp de 67 din 80 de ani înainte de 1994, prețurile au stagnat sau au scăzut. Apoi politicile au "engineered a situation where house prices tend to rise" — excelent pentru cei care deja dețin, dezastruos pentru cei care vor să cumpere. + +Chiar dacă prețurile scad 30%, ar ajunge la 6-7 ori venitul — în continuare de două ori mai scumpe decât în "the good old days." Deci proprietatea imobiliară e acceptabilă ca investiție, dar nu la prețurile actuale și fără să fie principala strategie. + +--- + +## Criza de fertilitate și chimicalele toxice + +Aceasta este cea mai surprinzătoare secțiune a video-ului — Grantham dedică o parte substanțială unui subiect pe care îl consideră la fel de urgent ca bulele financiare. + +Numărul de spermatozoizi la bărbații occidentali a scăzut cu aproximativ 50% în ultimii 50 de ani, iar tendința continuă liniar. Grantham și interlocutorul discută proiecțiile care sugerează că, dacă trendul continuă fără intervenție, fertilitatea masculină ar putea atinge zero pe parcursul secolului. Principalii vinovați identificați sunt chimicalele sintetice omniprezente în viața modernă. + +**Microplasticele** sunt acum detectate în sângele uman, în placentă, în laptele matern, în creier. Nu există organ sau țesut în care să nu fi fost găsite deja. Problema nu e doar fizică (microplasticele acționează ca perturbatori endocrini), ci că sunt practic imposibil de evitat — sunt în apa de la robinet, în aerul interior, în mâncare. + +**Pesticidele** reprezintă al doilea factor major, în special glifosatul (Roundup) și neocotinoizii (folosiți masiv în agricultura industrială). Aceștia interferează cu sistemul hormonal și au fost legați de scăderea fertilității atât la bărbați cât și la femei. Grantham subliniază că reglementările europene sunt semnificativ mai stricte decât cele americane — multe substanțe interzise în UE sunt în continuare legale în SUA, inclusiv în alimente și cosmetice. + +Sfaturile practice sunt: evitați plasticul în contact cu alimentele (în special la cald), preferați produse cosmetice și de îngrijire europene sau certificate fără perturbatori endocrini, consumați alimente organice când e posibil, filtrați apa. Grantham e convins că aceasta este o urgență de sănătate publică subestimată masiv. + +--- + +## Inegalitate, societate în declin și unde să trăiești + +Grantham descrie un ciclu de dezintegrare socială vizibil deja. Indicii: în Marea Britanie, timpul mediu de așteptare pentru o ambulanță a crescut de la 12 minute și jumătate la o oră și jumătate. Oamenii nu-și pot permite case. Nu cred că vor trăi mai bine decât părinții lor. Votează împotriva partidului la putere indiferent de culoare politică — în ultimele 7 alegeri europene majore, partidul de la putere a pierdut, fie că era de stânga sau de dreapta. + +Inegalitatea economică din SUA a ajuns la niveluri comparabile cu Brazilia și Mexic, măsurată prin coeficientul Gini. Între 1935 și 1975, America a avut 40 de ani de creștere echilibrată: sfertul cel mai sărac câștiga puțin mai mult decât media, sfertul cel mai bogat puțin mai puțin — "everybody got richer, everyone was happy." Din 1975, salariul mediu real pe oră aproape nu a crescut. Câștigurile din ultimele decenii au mers aproape integral în top 10%, și în special în top 0.01%. + +Istoria, spune Grantham, nu oferă exemple de reducere pașnică a inegalității extreme. "According to historical macro studies, peaceful policy changes almost never fix extreme inequality." Reseturile istorice au venit prin colaps civil, război total sau revoluție. El speră că o reformă fiscală graduală — mai apropiată de politicile din 1935-1975 — ar putea evita cel mai rău scenariu, dar nu e optimist în privința voinței politice. + +Referitor la unde să trăiești, refuză să răspundă direct ("it might tend to incriminate me"), dar subînțelesul e clar: nu SUA. Menționează că fiul său cultivă culturi și crește animale pe o fermă mică — abilități practice pentru un viitor în care complexitatea civilizațională poate să "unravel." ---