Insightful Investor Podcast interviewed Paul Podolsky on Mar. 25, 2025

Welcome to the insightful investor podcast, a weekly series that seeks to share industry, investment, and market insights. We define insights as concepts that are counterintuitive, widely misunderstood, or underappreciated. In other words, unique ideas that you probably won't hear elsewhere. I'm Alex Shihidi, the host of the podcast and co-CEIO of evoke advisors at leading investment advisory firm. Learn more about our show at insightfulinvestor.org.
歡迎收聽《洞見投資者》播客，這是一個每週系列節目，旨在分享產業、投資與市場的深刻見解。我們將「洞見」定義為反直覺、普遍被誤解或未受重視的概念——換言之，那些您在其他地方可能聽不到的獨特觀點。我是主持人艾力克斯·希希迪，同時也是頂尖投資顧問公司 Evoke Advisors 的聯合首席執行投資官。更多節目資訊請瀏覽 insightfulinvestor.org。

I'm so pleased to have Palpidolsky back on the show. Pal was kind enough to be my first guest over a year ago, can't believe it's already been a year, when we started the insightful investor podcast. As a reminder, Pal is the founder and CEO of Kate Capital, which he launched about five years ago, after a 16 year career as a portfolio strategist at Bridgewater, one of the world's largest hedge funds. Pal, welcome back. Thanks for having me, Alex.
非常高興能再次邀請波多爾斯基上節目。一年前我們開播時，波爾就慷慨地成為首位來賓——真難以置信已經過了一年！提醒聽眾們，波爾是凱特資本的創辦人兼執行長，該公司是他離開全球最大避險基金橋水公司（任職投資組合策略師 16 年後）約五年前所創立。波爾，歡迎回來。謝謝邀請，艾力克斯。

Pal, in addition to being an investor, which we're going to spend a lot of time talking about, you've written three books, done comfortable truth about money, raising a thief, and master a minion. And you regularly share commentary on your sub-stack and on your podcast. What would you say is harder to do well? Create content or invest well. Investing is harder. And the reason is that you're constantly forced to make a difficult decision with imperfect information. And you know what's difficult, and you have to make a decision.
老兄，除了投資者這個我們待會要深入討論的身份外，你還寫過三本書：《關於金錢的舒適真相》、《養出一個小偷》和《駕馭小人物》。你定期在 Substack 和你的播客上分享評論。你覺得哪件事更難做好？創作內容還是投資得當？投資更難。原因是，你經常被迫在資訊不完善的情況下做出艱難的決定。你知道這很困難，但你必須做出決定。

Like we're speaking on Sunday afternoon, the future's markets open in two hours. And I'm going to be making decisions right then. And writing, obviously, to be a great writer is incredibly hard. And the people that do this, you know, who we still go back and read, they're unbelievable, they talented, hardworking people. For me, they'll write the beauty it has is you get to go back and revisit the decision. Like you, it's writing is really not about the first draft. It's about editing.
就像我們現在是星期天下午在聊天，期貨市場再過兩小時就要開盤了。我馬上就得做出決策。而寫作呢，顯然，要成為一名偉大的作家是極其困難的。那些我們至今仍會回頭閱讀的作品，其作者都是令人難以置信的天才，勤奮的人。對我來說，寫作的美妙之處在於你可以回頭重新審視你的決定。寫作真的不在於初稿，而在於編輯。

So my first draft's always stink. And frankly, my second and third and fourth draft's do often as well. And the first page of most of those three books, I probably wrote them 50 times. To try to get it just right. And you can't do that with investing. Investing is moving fast. And you have to make that decision. And those decisions are final. You have to live with the consequences of it.
所以我初稿的品質總是很差。坦白說，二稿、三稿甚至四稿也經常如此。那三本書的首頁，我大概重寫了五十次。只為了力求完美。但投資可不能這樣。投資瞬息萬變。你必須當機立斷。那些決定都是最終定案。你得承擔隨之而來的後果。

Or writing what you put it out you do, but you can take as long as you ought to edit something. And I guess part of investing is also recognizing that you don't have full information. And you may, and the information you have may be much more limited than you may be even you realize. I started off as a foreign correspondent, Russia. And I switched from being a journalist. I was out of back trading floor for six years. I was the chief strategist there and I also traded futures. And what are the things that my boss did at the time, which was pretty clever was a lot of people always ask, yes, what's your view on this exchange rate, what's your view on this interest rate? And he had something called key determinants. And he would just write down, okay, here are the five reasons why something can go up, here are the five reasons that it could go down. And I do think investing is a little bit like that, like you're sort of pressing a case each time. And it's never a crystal clear.
或者說，你可以隨心所欲地寫下你的想法，但編輯時應該花足夠的時間。我認為投資的一部分也在於認識到你並未掌握全部資訊，而且你所擁有的資訊可能比你意識到的還要有限得多。我最初是作為一名駐俄羅斯的外國記者開始職業生涯的，後來從記者轉行。我在交易大廳待了六年，擔任首席策略師，同時也交易期貨。當時我老闆的做法相當聰明，他有一套叫做「關鍵決定因素」的方法。很多人總是會問，你對這個匯率有什麼看法？對那個利率有什麼看法？而他會簡單地寫下：這是某件事可能上漲的五個原因，這是它可能下跌的五個原因。我確實認為投資有點像這樣，每次你都在提出一個論點，而這從來都不是一目了然的。

What's particularly, there's one thing building a portfolio, like say you want to hold a 60 40 portfolio or more diverse five portfolio for 10 years. That's one thing. But what I do actually actively negotiating markets going long and short and putting things and massively switching where the significantly switching where the risk weights are the portfolio. And that type of thing just comes down to an argument of, here are the reasons why I could go this way. Here are the reasons that you could go that way, and be it gets copper heads of as you can in issue a verdict. And that would you issue a verdict, you have to act. So you obviously wear multiple hats, your investor and author, you create content. How do you maintain work life balance in such a demanding field? I guess I don't really think about it as work life balance. I think that what gives me that phrase to be conjures up, oh, if you're at work, you're not happy. And you're if you're off work, you're happy. And I've really tried to register myself what I'm happy and what I'm sad. And I found actually the types of things that can make me happy often are related to work. And then while I like traveling and doing things, but you put somebody like me like sitting on a beach,
特別值得一提的是，建立一個投資組合是一回事，比如說你想持有 60/40 的投資組合，或是更多元的五種資產組合長達 10 年。那是一種做法。但我實際上做的是積極地與市場協商，進行多空操作，大幅調整投資組合中的風險權重。這種做法歸根究底就是一種論證：這邊是我可能採取這種策略的理由，那邊是你可能選擇那種策略的原因，最終你得像陪審團一樣做出裁決。一旦做出裁決，就必須行動。顯然你身兼多職，既是投資者也是作家，還創作內容。在如此高壓的領域中，你如何維持工作與生活的平衡？我想我其實不太用「工作與生活平衡」這種概念。對我而言，這個詞會讓人聯想到「工作時不快樂，下班才快樂」的二分法。我真正試著釐清的是什麼事讓我快樂、什麼事讓我沮喪。而實際上我發現，能讓我快樂的事往往與工作相關。 雖然我喜歡旅行和做各種事情，但如果你讓像我這樣的人坐在海灘上，

I'll be incredibly restless after a short period of time. So I do do things that are not investing in writing and I take enormous pleasure on those. But I look at the whole thing as an integrated whole. In other words, for me, having a good night's sleep is actually directly related to good writing and good investing. As is taking a long row out on Long Island sound where I live and be out there and seeing the birds and the waves because so much of the right answer to that, you know, is the market going this way or that way judging those two things, the pros of the gods or in a piece of writing, figuring out the structure for the whole book.
我很快就會感到極度不安。所以我確實會做些與投資和寫作無關的事情，並從中獲得極大的樂趣。但我將這一切視為一個整體。換句話說，對我而言，擁有良好的睡眠實際上直接關係到好的寫作和好的投資。就像在我居住的長島海灣上划船，出去看看鳥兒和波浪，因為這些事情的正確答案，你知道的，就是市場朝這個方向或那個方向發展，判斷這兩件事的利弊，或是在寫作中為整本書找出結構。

A lot of times you sort of have to register the question and then throw it back into your brain somewhere and give it time to cook. And your brain will give you an answer, but you have to give it room to have an answer. So I just think about those two things work and life that whole things are integrated into a whole and the one I just try to do is keep track of like am I engaged, am I interested in what's going on? And if I am, I have that mix of things right. But I don't think about it as like work and life. So you let Bridgewater in 2020 about five years ago after spending almost 16 years there. What would you say are some of your key learnings since you've left Bridgewater? How many?
很多時候，你必須先記住問題，然後把它放回腦海中的某個角落，給它時間醞釀。你的大腦會給你答案，但你需要給它空間來產生答案。所以我只思考這兩件事——工作與生活，它們其實是一個整體，而我試著做的就是追蹤自己是否投入、對正在發生的事情感興趣。如果是的話，我就掌握了正確的混合比例。但我並不把它們視為工作與生活的對立。你在 2020 年離開橋水基金，大約五年前，在那裡待了近 16 年。你會說離開橋水後有哪些關鍵的學習？有多少？

The biggest one I think is that to depends what your goals are. My goal has always been continuous evolution of learning. Like I said, I started my career Russia. It did make sense financially to go to Russia in the 1990s. But it made sense if the goal was growth and leave a well-paying job with smart colleagues and good health and assurance. Most people would say that that's not. And you did the same when you started your firm. You left something that was certain for something that was uncertain. But the big thing for me is that to continue to grow, you have to make changes like that in your life.
我認為最重要的一點取決於你的目標是什麼。我的目標始終是持續進化的學習過程。就像我說的，我的職業生涯始於俄羅斯。在 1990 年代前往俄羅斯在財務上確實有其道理。但這只有在你的目標是成長、離開一份高薪工作、離開聰明的同事、良好的健康保障時才成立。大多數人會說這並不值得。而你在創立自己的公司時也做了同樣的選擇——放棄確定的東西去追求不確定的事物。對我來說，關鍵在於要持續成長，你必須在生活中做出這樣的改變。

Because my rate of learning since I left has accelerated massively. And when I first got to Bridgewater, I had a very rapid rate of learning, but after I felt like I moved around and basically done everything that I wanted to do in terms of research and clients and travel and working with CIOs, etc. And other really smart people, I wasn't going to grow anymore. I thought if I stayed there. So I had to move on. That's probably the biggest thing. And then what have I learned about Big A Rider? I mean, there's so many lessons.
因為自從離開後，我的學習速度大幅提升。當初剛到橋水基金時，我有過一段非常快速的學習期，但當我覺得自己已經輪調過各部門、完成了所有想做的研究、客戶工作、出差、與投資長們共事等等，與其他真正聰明的人共事後，我知道如果繼續留在那裡，我不會再有成長。所以我必須離開。這大概是最重要的一點。至於我在宏觀投資者身上學到什麼？天啊，實在有太多教訓了。

What have I learned about Big A Rider Investor? The growth thing at a certain point in both fields. That's about finding your voice. In other words, if you read great American writers, if you read Faulkner or Hemingway or a quarterback McCarthy, they are all great writers. But they write very differently. You can't force quarterback McCarthy to write like Tolstoy. You just can't. Different.
我從大 A 騎士投資者身上學到了什麼？在兩個領域的某個時刻，成長的關鍵在於找到自己的聲音。換句話說，如果你閱讀偉大的美國作家，比如福克納、海明威或四分衛麥卡錫，他們都是偉大的作家，但他們的寫作風格截然不同。你無法強迫四分衛麥卡錫像托爾斯泰那樣寫作。就是做不到。風格迥異。

And it's the same thing ultimately with investing. That Big A part of a team is a wonderful thing. But right, Alio, invested the way he invests and I invest the way I invest. They're really, really different. And to fog your voice, you have to take those risks and sort of go down that path. Something that I've always thought about is one of, at least for me, one of my goals in life is to always keep the learning curve steep. And if I hit a point in my career where I feel like it's flattening, then I'm either overconfidence or I'm not spending enough time talking to the right people or reading the right things. And I always try to surround myself with people who know more than I do so I can keep the learning curve steep, which is one of the reasons I actually started the podcast is to engage with people who have different perspectives and different experiences. And it sounds like what you just described is comparable to that. Yeah, the same thing exactly. And also learning takes place on so many different levels. Learning isn't just a intellectual thing. It's a very visceral thing. And I feel like I learned by doing. In other words,
而投資最終也是同樣的道理。團隊中的那個「大 A」是件美好的事。但沒錯，艾里歐以他的方式投資，而我以我的方式投資。它們真的、真的非常不同。而要找到自己的聲音，你必須承擔那些風險，並沿著那條路走下去。我一直思考的一件事是，至少對我來說，人生目標之一就是始終保持陡峭的學習曲線。如果我在職業生涯中感到曲線趨於平緩，那要麼是我過於自信，要麼是我沒有花足夠時間與對的人交談或閱讀對的東西。我總是試著讓自己身邊圍繞著比我懂得更多的人，這樣我才能保持學習曲線的陡峭，這也是我實際上開始這個播客的原因之一——與擁有不同觀點和經驗的人交流。聽起來你剛才描述的與此非常相似。是的，完全一樣。而且學習發生在許多不同的層面上。學習不僅僅是智力上的事，它也是非常直覺的事。我覺得我透過實踐來學習。換句話說，

I could talk with you a lot about what it's like to be a parent, but then you're a parent and all of a sudden you're understanding about what that means shifts fundamentally. And somebody who's never had kids, I don't think they can really understand what it's like to be a parent. And then you can take that further to degrees. You know, there's some people who have kids who are, they raise themselves. They're so well functioning and balanced. So they're athletic and smart stuff. And the parents are like, this is easy.
我可以跟你大談為人父母的感受，但直到你真正成為父母的那一刻，你對這個身分的理解才會發生根本性的轉變。那些從未有過孩子的人，我認為他們很難真正體會身為父母的滋味。這種理解還能進一步細分——有些人的孩子簡直是「自帶說明書」：他們功能完善、情緒穩定，運動神經發達又聰慧過人，讓父母直呼「這也太輕鬆了」。

I know families like that. They're like, it's like a couple of four wonderful great kids. And then you talk to people of a kid who has a challenge. And that's another thing. So all these things are experiences that I feel like are beyond intellectual. You have to feel them. And that's what growth really is both the intellectual, but also the emotional understanding. And I'd love to spend some time talking by your investment framework. Because I find it extremely interesting.
我認識這樣的家庭，他們養育了四個完美無缺的優秀孩子。但當你與那些養育特殊需求兒童的父母交談時，那又是截然不同的體驗。這些經歷都超越了純粹的理性認知，必須親身感受才能領悟——真正的成長既包含智性理解，更需情感層面的體認。我很期待能花時間聊聊你的投資框架，因為我發現它極具啟發性。

And let's start high level. What parts of the investment world do you feel are counterintuitive in relation to the way the world normally works? There's a, this is what the third book was about. They are uncomfortable truth about money. They're fundamentally all asset prices. Everything that people use to save is unstable. And I feel like a huge aspect of the investment industry is designed to glide over that fact and make you feel like they're stable. And even the commercials and everything where they show people together are going to have a plan. And it's disciplined in all that lagg. Which it's tried to skate away from the fact that fundamentally what you're looking at is highly, highly unstable. So currencies don't retain the value that they have. Bonds often get inflated away. Equities are subject to vicious crashes. So I think what the first things investing that is counterintuitive is even though you think oh, I need to do it in a sober way. And these people look at these long-term values and stuff like that. And it is important to do that to estimate what growth and inflation and earnings and all that stuff is going to be. But realize that the very structure itself is rickety. That what you're investing in, what you rely on is rickety.
讓我們從高層次開始。你覺得投資世界的哪些部分與世界通常的運作方式相違背？這是第三本書的主題。關於金錢，存在著令人不安的真相。從根本上說，所有資產價格都是不穩定的。人們用來儲蓄的一切都不穩定。我覺得投資行業的很大一部分設計是為了掩蓋這一事實，讓你覺得它們是穩定的。甚至那些廣告和所有展示人們在一起制定計劃的內容，以及所有那些關於紀律性的陳詞濫調，都在試圖避開一個根本事實：你所看到的東西極度不穩定。貨幣無法保持其價值，債券經常因通脹而貶值，股票則可能遭遇劇烈崩盤。因此，我認為投資中最違反直覺的第一件事是，儘管你可能認為「哦，我需要以冷靜的方式來做這件事」，這些人看著那些長期價值之類的東西。雖然估算增長、通脹、盈利等確實很重要。 但要意識到，這個結構本身就不穩固。你所投資的、你所依賴的，都是搖搖欲墜的。

These things are unstable. And so that is the first notion that I think that people have to get their mind around. And I think people are reluctant to say that out loud because if you're offering them some sort of investment solution, you're like, is this rickety? And the answer is, it is all rickety. It's just a question of how much rickety you're willing to tolerate. Because there's no perfect solution. There's least worst choices to make. That's one thing. And the second thing is, for me, in terms of investing, like I said to the right of you, got to find your own style. Obviously for a lot of people just having a portfolio and rebound, say it is a perfectly fine solution for them. They say, no, want to fall markets and all that type of stuff. For me, it doesn't work though because I feel like there's many times in my life where I can look at markets and just tell something either extremely good or extremely bad was going to happen. And for me, not to act on that as completely counterintuitive. I just can't not do it. And so for me, actively managing these abs and blows of the markets and risks is the only way I know how to do it.
這些事情是不穩定的。因此，我認為這是人們必須先理解的第一個概念。而且我覺得人們不太願意大聲說出來，因為如果你向他們提供某種投資解決方案，他們會問：這可靠嗎？而答案是，所有方案都不太可靠。問題只在於你能容忍多少不穩定性。因為沒有完美的解決方案，只有相對較不糟糕的選擇。這是一點。第二點是，對我來說，在投資方面，就像我對你說的那樣，必須找到自己的風格。顯然，對許多人來說，擁有一個投資組合並進行再平衡，對他們來說就是一個完全可行的解決方案。他們說，不，不想參與市場波動之類的事情。但對我來說，這行不通，因為我覺得在我生命中很多時候，我可以觀察市場並判斷出某些極好或極壞的事情即將發生。對我來說，不對此採取行動是完全違反直覺的。我就是不能不這麼做。因此，對我來說，積極管理市場的起伏和風險是我唯一知道如何應對的方式。

But that's, you know, it's a very personal choice, just like how you write a book as a personal choice. I guess you also have to be honest with yourself about whether you can do that well. Because a lot of people who feel like they have some insight about which way the market's going to turn next and they act on it and without actually tracking your results and making sure you're adding value. My guess is a lot of people do that and actually hurt themselves over time. Totally. Totally. And that's why for them, just have a good stay with portfolio. So the roots of K-CAP, or the firm, I started actually started with a disagreement with Ray Dahlio in 2007.
但這，你知道的，是個非常個人化的選擇，就像寫書一樣是個人的抉擇。我想你還必須誠實面對自己是否能做好這件事。因為許多人自以為對市場下一步走向有洞見，並據此行動，卻沒有實際追蹤結果、確保自己創造價值。我猜很多人這麼做，長期下來反而害了自己。完全同意。完全同意。正因如此，對他們來說，持有一個穩健的投資組合才是上策。至於 K-CAP 這家公司的起源，其實始於 2007 年我與雷·達利歐的一場分歧。

So I enjoyed in 2004. And Ray, obviously, taught me an enormous amount of things. He taught me about great research, portfolio structure and about how to build a firm. All those things that I take away from him, but I really count as a gift that I learned. But early on there, I said to him, listen, you know, Ray is a systematic investor meeting that he tries to cause markets or so difficult. He tries to still think to rules and then apply those rules. And I said to Ray, hey, you know, discretion can be really valuable to.
我在 2004 年很享受那段時光。雷無疑教會了我許多事情——關於嚴謹的研究方法、投資組合架構，以及如何建立一家公司。這些都是我從他身上學到的珍貴禮物。但早在當時，我就對他說：聽著，雷是個系統化投資者，意味著他試圖將難以捉摸的市場行為歸納成規則，再套用這些規則。而我告訴雷：嘿，你知道嗎？人為判斷其實能創造巨大價值。

And Ray was sort of like, oh, yeah, prove it. So I created a spreadsheet that I called K-CAP, and then I had a bridge water, which actually they were kind enough to let me take with me when I left. And I took all of my capital that was not somehow tied up in bridge water. And I traded it. And I measured the results. And after 10 years, I looked at the results. And it was only after that 10 years of data. I was like, oh, it is possible to do this.
而雷的反應有點像是，哦，是嗎，證明給我看。於是我創建了一個我稱之為 K-CAP 的試算表，然後我在橋水基金時——他們其實人很好，讓我離職時帶走它。我把我所有沒有被橋水基金綁住的資金都拿出來進行交易，並記錄結果。十年後，我檢視這些成果，正是在這十年的數據之後，我才恍然大悟：哦，原來這是有可能做到的。

And then I shared it with Ray and his attitude was, well, could you systematize this? And my answer was, no, I can't. That's the very nature of this. And so then, you know, after a few more, you know, then a 20 20, I decided to move on. So now I've been tracking that way of doing things really like day to day, week to week, since 2007. And I agree with you. It was only after I had a lot of data that I got confident that it was difficult. And as I says, at least for me, that was a better solution that sort of hold XYZ acid allocation and stick with it. Would you describe the attributes of a great investor? They tend to be a little odd in my experience. And that makes sense to me because the tricky thing is, is that all noted information is in the price. Everything that we think about, Nvidia or US inflation or what the Fed is going to do, it's all in the price of all those assets. If J. Powell gives a speech, and he says he thinks he should do XYZ with policy, it's in the price of the bottom, already. So what great investors are really good at, I think, is two things. A is imagining a future that looks very different than what is in that set of discounted prices, which is extremely difficult. So if you look at what's going on for instance this year, we came into the year and if you read all the investment, newsletters and everything, it was American exceptionalism and that there's this huge tech boom, it's stuff like that. And low and behold, tech stocks are off about 5%.
然後我跟雷分享了這件事，他的態度是，嗯，你能把這個系統化嗎？而我的回答是，不，我做不到。這就是它的本質。所以後來，你知道，經過幾次之後，到了 2020 年，我決定繼續前進。所以從 2007 年開始，我就一直在以這種方式追蹤事情，真的是日復一日，週復一週。我同意你的看法。只有在我有了大量數據之後，我才確信這很困難。正如我所說，至少對我來說，這比堅持 XYZ 資產配置並堅持下去是一個更好的解決方案。你會如何描述一個偉大投資者的特質？根據我的經驗，他們往往有點古怪。這對我來說是有道理的，因為棘手的是，所有已知的信息都已經反映在價格中。我們所考慮的一切，無論是 Nvidia、美國通脹還是聯準會將採取什麼行動，都已經體現在所有這些資產的價格中。如果傑·鮑爾發表講話，說他認為應該在政策上採取 XYZ 行動，這已經反映在價格中了。所以我認為，偉大的投資者真正擅長的是兩件事。 A 正在想像一個與那組折現價格所呈現的截然不同的未來，這極其困難。舉例來說，如果你看看今年發生的事情，我們進入這一年時，如果你閱讀所有的投資通訊和其他資料，都是關於美國例外論和巨大的科技繁榮之類的內容。然而，科技股卻下跌了大約 5%。

But that's the S&P 500, which most of us are off couple of percent. So things have worked out the exact opposite of what people are thinking. So I think great investors have the ability to imagine a future that's not there. This I think that they're similar to writers. In other words, if a writer is coming up with a book, they're imagining a whole world that's never been created, a point one. The second thing that I think great investors do really well is they're very, very sober about weighing the pros and the cons of whether or not it's getting well per dad, which is very difficult to do. So we all have our biases take right now, what's going on, some people are very enthusiastic about this new administration, some people are very negative. And there's clear investment implications about whether this current administration is doing things that are helping the economy or hurting the economy. So what great investors are doing is imagining a future that hasn't happened, but also being really careful in weighing their logic, whether something can go up and down, and they're willing to revise that logic. What are the most interesting reads that I had was George Soros's unbelievably talented investor. So he has this book, he wrote in the '80s called the Alchemy of Finance. And it literally has his very interesting because right now it looks like we're on the cost of a significant shift in exchange rates.
但那是標普 500 指數，我們大多數人都偏離了幾個百分點。所以事情的發展與人們的預期完全相反。我認為優秀的投資者有能力想像一個尚未出現的未來。這讓我覺得他們與作家很相似。換句話說，當作家構思一本書時，他們正在想像一個從未被創造的完整世界，這是第一點。我認為優秀投資者做得非常好的第二件事是，他們非常冷靜地權衡利弊，判斷是否真的如預期般順利，這是非常困難的。我們都有自己的偏見，看看現在的情況，有些人對新政府非常熱情，有些人則非常負面。而當前政府所做的事情是幫助經濟還是損害經濟，顯然會對投資產生影響。因此，優秀的投資者不僅在想像一個尚未發生的未來，同時也非常謹慎地權衡他們的邏輯，判斷某件事可能上漲或下跌，並且願意修正這種邏輯。 我讀過最有趣的書之一是喬治·索羅斯這位才華橫溢的投資者所寫的。他在 80 年代寫了一本書，名為《金融煉金術》。這本書非常有趣，因為現在看來我們正處於匯率重大變動的邊緣。

George was writing about the Plaza Court in 1985. And he literally is week by week, his diary is in there. And he's describing his struggles that he thinks that the dollar is going to go down a lot. So he sells a lot of the dollar, but then it rallies viciously against somebody's losing all this money. And he's sitting there. He says, you know, I barely held onto my positions, but then it reversed this way. That's what it's like. And he is very good about a thinking differently than other people, be weighing the evidence, but be very flexible with that, how you're seeing these things because the markets are incredibly dynamic. And some people try to do that through systems, but a lot of the great investors who I really respect, you know, Warren Buffett, George Soros, Dr. McKinnor, these types of people, they're doing it at their head. And they're constantly weighing how that prism is shifting. I think about a little bit like a kaleidoscope. And if you look at the kaleidoscope for you to twist it, picture changes, that's what financial markets are like, because they're so complex, it are related. It's also what makes it really interesting. And one thing you just said that I think is particularly insightful, which is recognize that you don't have full information, which is where we start our conversation. And not only is it not full information, it's probably not even close, as far as that information necessary to know what's going to happen in the future. Right. So I guess you have to be imaginative about what the future may hold, but be humble about your ability to predict if that's going to occur and when it's going to occur.
喬治在 1985 年寫下了關於廣場法庭的內容。他的日記幾乎是逐週記錄，裡面詳細描述了他當時的掙扎——他認為美元將會大幅貶值，因此大量做空美元，但隨後美元卻猛烈反彈，導致他損失慘重。他坐在那裡說道：「你知道嗎？我差點就撐不住我的持倉了，但後來市場又這樣逆轉了。」這就是市場的常態。喬治的過人之處在於他總能與眾不同地思考，權衡證據，同時保持極高的靈活性，因為市場動態瞬息萬變。有些人試圖通過系統化方法應對，但我真正尊敬的許多偉大投資者——比如華倫·巴菲特、喬治·索羅斯、麥金農博士這類人——他們是靠頭腦決策的。他們不斷評估局勢如何變化，就像觀察萬花筒一樣：當你轉動萬花筒時，圖案就會改變，金融市場也是如此。正因其極度複雜且相互關聯的特性，才讓這一切顯得格外引人入勝。 你剛才提到的一點我認為特別有見地，那就是要認識到自己並未掌握完整資訊，這也是我們對話的起點。而且不僅資訊不完整，甚至可能遠遠不足以讓我們了解未來會發生什麼。對吧。所以我猜你必須對未來可能的情況保持想像力，但對於自己預測這些情況是否會發生以及何時發生的能力，則要保持謙遜。

Yeah. So you have to be really rigorous and knowing. For instance, I think that the US economy is about to slow precipitously here. But if you look at the data that's in there, and I should say, by the way, this is by no means an effort to recruit anybody. I'm not here to sell anything or I'm just telling a story. The economy is going to slow a lot. But if you look at the official data, it's not in there. The unemployment is relatively low. Official job growth looks pretty good.
是的。所以你必須非常嚴謹地去了解。例如，我認為美國經濟即將急劇放緩。但如果你看看現有的數據——順帶一提，這絕非試圖招募任何人，我不是來推銷任何東西的，我只是在講述一個情況——經濟將會大幅放緩。但如果你看官方數據，這些跡象並不明顯。失業率相對較低，官方就業增長看起來相當不錯。

And I'm pretty convinced that that's going to change in the future. But so you have to do a very balanced job of looking at all the past data and really knowing what's there. But that would be a matter of how much the numbers could look radically different. And people have an awfully hard talk doing that. And if you just think about when you're active in managing portfolio, you have to have a view of the future that's different from what the consensus view is and you have to be right about that view. Otherwise, you might as well just be a passive investor. That's right. And to do that takes a huge amount of effort because the rewards for doing it are significant and not surprisingly a lot of people try to do it. So the notion when I hear people make off-head remarks, this market is going to do that and that market is going to do that. I'm like, are you out of like, on what basis? Now people who have really thought about it hard, who know all the information, who are really good at valuing markets who understand a lot where the flows are and how people are positioned, which can be incredibly important in the short term, and could identify catalysts, even that when you speak with great investors, they're sort of like, it looks like the evidence is pointing this way. And that's as close as they'll come, but they're really not overconfident about anything. And also, the people who realize about investing is fantastic investors get 65-70% of their decisions right. That means at least 30% of the time. Sometimes worth of that. They've done all that homework and then they just get an absolutely run over, which it's happened to me. It's a terrible feeling. But that's, you can't play the game unless you're willing to endure that sensation.
而我相當確信未來這種情況將會改變。因此，你必須非常平衡地審視所有過往數據，真正了解其中的內容。但這將取決於數字可能出現多大程度的根本性差異，而人們在這方面往往難以達成共識。如果你想想在積極管理投資組合時，你必須擁有一個與市場共識不同的未來觀點，並且這個觀點必須是正確的。否則，你還不如做一個被動投資者。沒錯。要做到這一點需要付出巨大的努力，因為這樣做的回報是顯著的，因此毫不奇怪，許多人試圖這樣做。所以當我聽到人們隨口評論這個市場會怎樣、那個市場會怎樣時，我就會想，你是憑什麼依據得出這樣的結論？ 現在那些真正深入思考過、掌握所有資訊、擅長市場估值、了解資金流向和投資者持倉狀況（這在短期內可能極為重要），並且能夠識別催化因素的人，即使與頂尖投資者交談時，他們也會表示，證據似乎指向這個方向。這就是他們最接近確定的說法了，但他們對任何事情都不會過度自信。此外，了解投資的人都知道，優秀的投資者做出的決策中，正確率約為 65-70%。這意味著至少有 30%的時間，甚至有時更多，即使他們做了所有功課，最終還是可能遭遇徹底的失敗，這種情況我也經歷過。那種感覺糟透了。但這就是遊戲規則，除非你願意承受這種感覺，否則無法參與其中。

Would you walk us through your investment framework starting with a highest level and working your way down? And if you could highlight any areas where your framework may differ from conventional approaches. The conventional approach for most people is A, they only buy assets. They don't sell them. So they make money when assets get in value. They don't make anybody when assets decline in value. Which makes a certain degree of sense, because over time, stocks go up and bonds go up and value. So being on the long side makes sense. And then the other thing that most investors is that they stick to their silo.
能否請您從最高層次開始，逐步介紹您的投資框架？並特別指出您的框架與傳統方法有何不同之處。大多數人的傳統方法是 A，他們只買入資產而不賣出。因此他們在資產增值時賺錢，在資產貶值時則無法獲利。這在某種程度上是合理的，因為長期來看，股票和債券的價值都會上升。所以做多是有道理的。另一個多數投資者的特點是他們固守在自己的領域內。

So I know a lot of investors are a great value stock pickers. They're really good. They're thoughtful people. They know their companies well, et cetera. But they don't know anything about bonds. Anything. So if you describe to the Fed as discounting this, the yield curve looks like that and that the flows and the dollar into the equity market look like this. All of that stuff, they'll say buy a large, they say listen, I know my companies and these companies are going to do well regardless of what the Fed is doing.
我認識很多投資者是優秀的價值型選股專家。他們非常出色，思考周密，對自己投資的公司瞭如指掌等等。但他們對債券一無所知。完全不懂。如果你向他們描述聯準會的貼現政策、收益率曲線的形狀，或是美元流入股市的情況等等，他們會說：「聽著，我了解我的公司，這些公司不管聯準會做什麼都會表現良好。」

So the vast majority of investors, in my mind, they are log-oldly and they know their silo. They have a much harder time of adjudging, putting it into their framework that the assets can decline just as much as they can go up in value. And you know, you think about the stock market, it's a cloud 90% in 2000. And it's 19.29%, 70% the tech stocks went down in 2000. Like stocks can go down a lot during the first term of Trump, they went down 20%. So it's a very, very volatile asset class. So the first thing in my framework is I'm thinking about asset prices can go up and down and then I'm looking across asset classes.
因此，絕大多數投資者在我看來，他們是長期投資者且熟悉自己的領域。他們更難判斷的是，如何將資產價值可能下跌與上漲一樣多的情況納入他們的框架。你知道，想想股市，2000 年時有 90%的泡沫。而科技股在 2000 年下跌了 70%，達到 19.29%。就像股票在川普第一任期內可能大幅下跌，它們下跌了 20%。所以這是一個非常、非常波動的資產類別。因此，在我的框架中，首先考慮的是資產價格可能上下波動，然後我會跨資產類別進行觀察。

To me, they all fit together. The stocks relate to the bonds, the bonds relate to the currency, global growth relates to global commodities. And I see the whole thing as a picture that interulates. In terms of how I actually do it, it's just repeating the same discipline, like around this same discipline you'd have around eating their exercise or whatever your practices. And I just started the very highest level and I say what's global growth, what's global inflation, what's global policy. So if you take that picture right now, it's pretty good. Global growth is positive inflation is falling in many central banks or EECB, EAS last week, people expect the Fed to EAS, et cetera, et cetera. Then I take that picture that I break it down by country. So the United States, for instance, looks radically different than China, looks radically different than Japan. And so I say, if that aggregate global picture, what does it look like by country, then I break that picture down and I say, okay, if the picture is slowing growth and tightening fiscal policy in the United States and it's slowing growth and easing fiscal policy in Europe, how does that picture change? If it's slowing growth and deflationary depression and China, how does it change? So then you get that aggregate, you get it down to a very granular in the country. Then you begin to translate that to specific assets. So if you think that there's an implication of if you think that growth is going to slow more than expected and you say, that's bullish bonds, or you think that growth is going to be strong and that expected to bearish bonds, where exactly are you talking Fed funds futures? Are you talking the silver curve? Two year rates, five year rates, ten year rates, is it a curve trade?
對我來說，它們都是相互關聯的。股票與債券相關，債券與貨幣相關，全球增長與全球商品相關。我把這一切視為一幅相互交織的圖景。至於我實際上是如何操作的，就是不斷重複同樣的紀律，就像你對待飲食或運動等日常習慣一樣。我從最高層次開始，問自己：全球增長如何？全球通脹如何？全球政策如何？如果你現在看這幅圖景，情況相當不錯。全球增長是正面的，通脹在許多央行或歐洲央行（EECB）的管轄範圍內正在下降，上週歐洲央行（EAS）的行動讓人們預期聯準會（Fed）也會採取類似措施，諸如此類。然後，我將這幅圖景按國家細分。例如，美國的情況與中國截然不同，與日本也大相逕庭。因此，我會思考，從這個全球整體圖景來看，各國的情況如何？接著我再進一步分解，問自己：如果美國的圖景是增長放緩和財政政策收緊，而歐洲是增長放緩和財政政策寬鬆，這幅圖景會如何變化？ 如果經濟增長放緩、通縮性蕭條與中國有關，情況會如何改變？那麼你就能得到總體情況，再細化到國家層面。接著開始將其轉化為具體資產。因此，如果你認為增長將比預期更為放緩，這對債券有利；或者你認為增長將強勁，這對債券不利，那麼你具體指的是什麼？是聯邦基金期貨嗎？還是殖利率曲線？兩年期利率、五年期利率、十年期利率，這是一種曲線交易嗎？

So getting as high as possible, very, very ground-yellow to where specifically there's a potential this pricing. And then what's have identified that, I try to be as granular as possible about who are the people who are interacting at that market. In other words, if you go to do a transaction in ten year bonds, United States or stocks, you're basically going into a bizarre. If you've ever been to a farber's market, people buy a tomato, it's like that. You're in the bizarre. And if you look at the prices, you've got to know everybody else that's in the bizarre. What are pension funds doing? What are foreigners doing? What are households doing? All those things matter in terms of having that picture. And then out of that, I can come up with a picture of things that are attractive to buy yourself. And next step is sort of putting them together into a portfolio where you're putting the other things that are unrelated as possible. So I love, for instance, having a bond position with a currency position, because the pressures of the currency can be very different than the bonds did other stocks.
所以盡可能達到最高，非常、非常接地氣的黃色，具體到某個可能存在這種定價的地方。然後，一旦確認了這一點，我會盡可能細緻地了解在該市場中互動的是哪些人。換句話說，如果你去進行十年期美國債券或股票的交易，基本上就像走進一個市集。如果你曾去過農夫市集，人們買番茄的情景就是那樣。你身處市集中。而當你觀察價格時，必須了解市集裡的每個人。退休基金在做什麼？外國投資者在做什麼？家庭投資者在做什麼？所有這些因素對於構建完整的市場圖景都很重要。基於此，我才能勾勒出哪些標的對你來說具有吸引力。下一步則是將這些標的組合成一個投資組合，盡可能包含彼此不相關的項目。例如，我喜歡同時持有債券部位和貨幣部位，因為貨幣的壓力可能與債券或其他股票截然不同。

So I just think about the whole thing together, and I try to risk battleship as aggressively as I can. I hate losing body as your partner, David, knows well. Having dealt with me for years, I'm very, very sensitive to any time. I think something is going to lose body. And I'll get out of it in a minute a second. I'm not always right, obviously. But I'm very sensitive to, if I'm short of market, it's going to go up. I think it could go up. I'm out of there.
所以我會把整件事放在一起思考，並盡可能積極地進行風險管理。我討厭虧損，這點你的夥伴大衛非常清楚。多年來與我共事的人都知道，我對任何可能造成虧損的時刻都非常、非常敏感。只要我認為某個部位即將虧損，我會在一秒鐘內立刻出場。當然，我並非總是正確。但我極度敏感——當我做空市場時若感覺行情可能上漲，我就會立即平倉。

If I'm long of market, I think it could go down. I'm gone in a second, or I might even go short. So it's a lot to keep into your head. That type of thing. It's not for the fate of heart, but I would say. But the beautiful thing is it really does. When I feel as I feel very plugged into the world, like what's going on with Japan and tried out everything. It's sort of like a half a picture by head. And then I can look at the prices on the screen and see if that picture is accurately playing out.
如果我做多市場而認為可能下跌，我會瞬間離場，甚至可能反手做空。這種操作模式需要高度專注，確實不適合心臟脆弱的人。但美妙之處在於，當我感覺自己與全球脈動緊密連結時——像是掌握日本局勢或各種事件動向——腦海中會形成半幅拼圖。此時我只要觀察螢幕上的價格走勢，就能驗證這幅拼圖是否正在市場中真實上演。

So earlier you talked about how in your conversation with Ray, asking whether you can systematize the structure you just talked us through, you said probably not. So with that to me, suggests is that there's art and science in investing, which is more important. I think they're both important. At least for the way I do it the way I think about it is, yes, there's art and science. It's investing to be is left-braided right-braided. So the left-braided is all the analytical stuff.
所以你剛才提到，在你與雷的對話中，詢問是否能夠將你剛才所談的結構系統化，你說可能不行。這對我來說意味著投資中既有藝術也有科學，哪個更重要呢？我認為兩者都很重要。至少就我的做法和思考方式而言，確實存在藝術與科學。投資對我來說是左腦與右腦的結合。左腦負責所有分析性的事務。

If you're involved in a market, you better know what's discounted there. If you look at the S&P 500 right now, it's discounting 21.5 PE ratio, which is the absolute upper range of what people have ever paid for those earnings. And if you flip that around, if you divide the P by the E, look at the earnings yield, it's a 4.5% yield on putting your money in stocks, which is roughly equivalent what it is for bonds. So it's said differently, there's no risk premium there for buying US stocks at all right now.
如果你參與某個市場，你最好知道那裡已經折價了多少。如果你現在看看標普 500 指數，它的本益比是 21.5 倍，這是人們為這些收益所支付的絕對上限。如果你反過來看，用價格除以收益，看看收益收益率，將資金投入股市的收益率是 4.5%，這與債券的收益率大致相當。換句話說，現在買入美國股票根本沒有任何風險溢價。

So that's just straight, that's just math, that's just straight left-braided left-braided left-braided left-braided, which is important. But then I think the intuition is having a sense of how things can play out in the future. And imagine, okay, if I'm a small business owner in the United States, and the margin on my business is called a 10% which is not unusual. And I import 30% of my stuff abroad to make whatever I'm doing because that's the way things work. Okay, if there's a 20% tariff, that's basically going to wipe out my profits from that. What would I do if I were that type of business person?
所以這只是直接的，這只是數學，這只是單純的左編左編左編左編，這很重要。但我認為直覺是要對未來事情如何發展有所感知。想像一下，好吧，如果我是美國的一個小企業主，我的業務利潤率是 10%，這並不罕見。而我進口 30%的原料來生產我的產品，因為事情就是這樣運作的。好吧，如果有 20%的關稅，那基本上就會抹去我這部分的利潤。如果我是那種生意人，我會怎麼做？

Well, I would do X and Y and Z. So the imagination is thinking through all those types of things. So if I were to do that, I don't think I'd be hiring people. I think I'd be cutting costs now. So where would I see if they were cutting costs? I would think it would show up at the data here. And so what I look at data that's coming in, I don't say, oh, the number came out X. What does that say? I have a picture of my head about what the number should say? So right now, like on Friday, the, like I was saying, the employment report came out where the middle of freezing a lot of hiring for government workers.
嗯，我會做 X、Y 和 Z。所以想像力就是在思考所有這些事情。如果我要這麼做，我不認為我會僱用人手。我想我現在會削減成本。那麼，我會在哪裡看到他們是否在削減成本呢？我認為這會在這裡的數據中顯現出來。因此，當我查看這些數據時，我不會只是說，哦，數字出來了 X。這意味著什麼？我腦海中有一個關於這個數字應該代表什麼的畫面。就像現在，比如上週五，就像我說的，就業報告出來了，其中政府僱員的招聘大量凍結。

So I would have been a stodish to that category with strong and it was weak. So I'm like, okay, this is playing out like the frozen this thing, this thing is now weak, now we play through what's going to happen next. So the, the, the, the art and the science, the science is being very rigorous in terms of knowing what's discounting, knowing the report that's come out, how you get a break it up. But then the art of it is a match. They go all those pieces the way they could interact at some point in the future. So in some ways, rather than just looking at the data as a picture of what's happened looking backwards, you look at it in terms of verifying your forward looking picture of what the world looks like and if things are moving in that direction are not. Yeah, I did I look at market prices to see how people respond to that. So if the report comes out and I'm saying, wow, underneath the hood, this thing looks, this thing looks kind of weak to me. And but then you would have seen bonds really sell off on that, you're like, huh, the people are seeing it differently than I am. Why is that? And that raises a question. So you know, you, you ought to be ahead of people in the markets, but you don't want to be too far ahead because that's the person that was really far ahead, but they didn't make money for five years. They were right over five year time for him. I'm a little bit more impatient. I would like to be right over a shorter time for him. That's interesting because you hear about a lot of what they call permabers where they have a, you know, catastrophic view of the future. And they're right, you know, one out of ten times. And people talk about the one that they were right, but they forget about the nine that they were wrong or way too are absolutely. I think over over time things basically most times they work out.
所以我本來會是個固守那一類的人，強勢時如此，弱勢時亦然。於是我想，好吧，這就像冷凍這件事一樣發展，現在這件事變弱了，我們接著看接下來會發生什麼。因此，這其中的藝術與科學，科學在於非常嚴謹地了解什麼是折價、知道報告出來了、如何拆解它。但藝術則在於匹配。它們將所有這些片段以某種方式在未來的某個時刻互動。所以某種程度上，與其只是將數據視為回顧過去發生的事情的畫面，不如用它來驗證你對世界未來樣貌的前瞻性看法，以及事物是否朝著那個方向發展。是的，我會觀察市場價格來看看人們如何反應。所以如果報告出來後我說，哇，表面之下，這件事看起來，這件事對我來說似乎有點弱。但如果那時你看到債券因此大幅拋售，你就會想，嗯，人們的看法和我不同。為什麼會這樣？這就引發了一個問題。 所以你知道，你應該在市場上領先他人，但又不希望領先太多，因為那些真正超前太多的人，可能五年都沒賺到錢。他們在五年後才被證明是對的。我比較沒那麼有耐心，我希望能在更短的時間內被證明是對的。這很有趣，因為你會聽到很多所謂的「永久悲觀者」，他們對未來持有災難性的看法。而你知道，他們十次中可能只對一次。人們只會談論他們對的那一次，卻忘了其他九次他們是錯的，或者錯得離譜。我認為，隨著時間推移，大多數情況下事情終究會解決。

So not so, you know, notwithstanding all the terrible things have happened to the US equity market over the last 100 years, these precipitous falls. It's still that if I'd asked it class to hold. And so that's worth bearing in mind. I just would tolerate a 90% loss of my wealth. And if you were, if you happen to invest it, well, that's true over time that being a permaberas is not a good way of apprehending reality. It's also true that the volatility of specific markets can have an unbelievably deleterious effect on wealth. And I did, I did grow wealthy.
所以並非如此，你知道的，儘管過去 100 年來美國股市經歷了所有這些可怕的暴跌，但如果你問這個班級是否應該持有，答案仍然是肯定的。這一點值得記住。我只是能夠忍受自己財富損失 90%。而如果你碰巧投資了，長期來看，做一個永遠的悲觀者並不是理解現實的好方法。同樣真實的是，特定市場的波動可能對財富產生難以置信的有害影響。而我確實，我確實變得富有。

And it took a lot of effort to accumulate the savings I have and I'm very cautious about things that can destroy it. And in our last episode, a little over a year ago, you mentioned using emotion and intuition as an early warning signal to take action. I guess that part of that is like the art of investing. Can you elaborate on this distinction between your approach and the way emotion normally influences investment decisions? You know, for most people, they get scared and they sell, they sell low and then they get greedy and they buy a high. So how do you distinguish the way you think about it versus that? It's true that most people say, again, the way investing, you know, we would discipline the approach.
我花了很多心力才累積到現在的儲蓄，因此對於可能摧毀這些積蓄的事物非常謹慎。在我們上一次的節目中，大約一年多前，你曾提到運用情感和直覺作為採取行動的早期預警信號。我想這部分就像是投資的藝術。能否請你詳細說明你的方法與一般情緒如何影響投資決策之間的區別？你知道，對大多數人來說，他們會因為害怕而賣出，低價拋售，然後又因為貪婪而高價買入。那麼，你是如何區分你的思考方式與這種常見行為的？確實，大多數人會說，再次強調投資的方式，我們會以紀律來規範這種做法。

We've loved to roll, we're not to, and the whole idea is that emotion is really disastrous for investing. It's certainly emotion can be disastrous for investing. That's true. But I think about it a little bit differently, which is that we've forgiven this unbelievably powerful mind. And it has a very Darwinian survival instinct to it. And if you listen to it, it can have really relevant information. You know, people say sometimes, as having to buy wife was, the people have a sense of, I've heard this particularly from women that I was in a spot and something didn't feel right and I just decided to take a cab or, you know, I got out of that situation fast. And one, this actually came up in that one I was writing, what are the books as a fiction? It's a spy book that I wrote, Master Minion. And I talked to an actual CIA officer about this. When I was doing it, and I had invented this, these techniques for the, the big character to be aware when he was being followed. He was a Russia where I spent a lot of time. And the agent said to me, he said, if you're any good, is an agent.
我們曾經喜歡隨波逐流，但現在不再如此，整個概念是情緒對投資確實是災難性的。當然，情緒可能對投資造成災難，這點沒錯。但我對此有稍微不同的看法，那就是我們原諒了這個難以置信的強大心智。它有著非常達爾文式的生存本能。如果你傾聽它，它可能提供真正相關的資訊。你知道，人們有時會說，就像必須買妻子一樣，人們有一種感覺，我特別從女性那裡聽過，說當時處於某種境地，感覺不太對勁，於是決定搭計程車，或者迅速脫離那個情況。這一點實際上在我寫的一本小說中出現過，書名是《Master Minion》，是一本間諜小說。我為此與一位真正的 CIA 官員談過。當我在創作時，我為主角設計了一些技巧，讓他在被跟蹤時能察覺。主角是個俄羅斯人，我在那裡待了很久。那位探員對我說，如果你是個優秀的探員。

If you're being followed, you know it. He said, you just know it. And that really struck me that on some intuitive level, you know, if you're, that, that if you're prey, if somebody's after you. And I think that the same thing could happen at markets too, that if you, you know, if you're operated, I got a fear of reactive, that's not good. But if you, if you really listen to, wow, I think that something, it could be extraordinarily good. But I think that, I think, people have on this, it made a ton of money when they were like, wow, this is going to be transformational until recently, when they are the long side. Or it could be something bad that bonds are going to go down a lot or stocks are going to do a lot or whatever it is. And so I believe listening to those things is important. And it depends on the person, like I was saying, this is worked for me. And I've tracked, you know, my results with my own wealth. That I was very skeptical of it until I saw the results. And I was like, huh, ray uses rules. I don't use rules. But this is working for me.
如果你被跟蹤了，你自己會知道。他說，你就是會知道。這讓我深刻體會到，在某種直覺層面上，如果你成為獵物，如果有人盯上你。我認為市場上也可能發生同樣的情況，如果你，你知道，如果你被操控，我對反應感到恐懼，那並不好。但如果你真的傾聽，哇，我覺得有些事情，可能會非常有利。但我認為，人們在這方面，當他們處於多頭時，直到最近，他們賺了大錢，當時他們覺得，哇，這將是變革性的。或者可能是壞事，比如債券會大幅下跌，股票會大幅波動，諸如此類。因此，我相信傾聽這些事情很重要。這因人而異，就像我說的，這對我有效。而且我追蹤了，你知道，我用我的財富來驗證結果。我原本非常懷疑，直到看到結果。然後我想，嗯，雷使用規則。我不使用規則。但這對我有效。

And rays thing works for him. And I suppose where you can draw the distinction is, if you're reacting to something, something bad that's already happened or something really good that's already happened, that's a little different from, I think, what you're describing, which is almost, you can see it coming and you can act, you know, right as it happens or just before. It seems that's that seemed like the right distinction. It's true, but I would say the emotion is always there. The, the, the, the, so the Alkha be a five dance described.
而雷的做法對他有效。我想區別在於，如果你是在對已經發生的壞事或好事做出反應，那與你所描述的有些不同，你幾乎可以看到它即將發生，並在發生時或之前採取行動。這似乎是正確的區分。確實如此，但我會說情緒總是存在的。阿爾卡的五步舞就是這樣描述的。

He said he always, he was managing to that environment. He said, what's something good? Unfolded relative to his portfolio bets. He experienced that as relief. And with something bad, uh, happened. He experiences his pain. That's so Ross, like he's pretty amazing investor. And he is subject to paid and relief. So I think that that's, it just comes with a territory. And for me, a lot of it helps just build it in expectations.
他說他總是根據環境來管理。他說，當他的投資組合出現好的變化時，他感受到的是解脫。而當壞事發生時，他感受到的是痛苦。這真是太羅斯了，他是一位相當了不起的投資者。他也會經歷痛苦和解脫。所以我認為這只是投資的一部分。對我來說，很多時候這有助於建立預期。

Like if I hold a 60 40 portfolio and we go through a period of time, more stocks are to do really bad. If I know ahead of time, okay, this portfolio, 60 40 portfolio is you know, well, is mostly it all stock portfolio because the volatile to stocks is bigger than the odds, meaning that if we go through a 2000 style correction in the markets, that portfolio could lose 20 30 40 percent. And that would be normal. So a lot of it, the emotion like, would it be painful for anybody losing that money?
比如說我持有一個 60/40 的投資組合，而我們經歷了一段時間，股票表現得非常糟糕。如果我事先知道，好吧，這個 60/40 的投資組合，你知道的，基本上就是一個全股票組合，因為股票的波動性比債券大，這意味著如果我們經歷像 2000 年那樣的市場修正，這個投資組合可能會損失 20%、30%甚至 40%。這是很正常的。所以很大程度上，這種情緒就像是，對任何人來說，損失這些錢會不會很痛苦？

I think so. But a big part of it is being prepared for that ahead of time, emotionally knowing that that can happen. And at least for me, it makes it much easier to negotiate it. So I like to think about all of the pieces of my portfolio, what is the range of outcomes that can happen? And even in life, that's true. No way what the range of outcomes are. And so when you go through something difficult, it's part of your expectations.
我想是的。但很大一部分是事先在情感上做好準備，知道這種情況可能會發生。至少對我來說，這讓應對變得容易得多。所以我喜歡思考我投資組合中的每一部分，可能會發生什麼樣的結果範圍？甚至在生活中也是如此。知道可能結果的範圍。所以當你經歷一些困難時，這已經是你預期的一部分。

Earlier you alluded to risk management. How do you think about risk and how do you approach risk management? So the first answer is very holistically. So I think risk is anything that can take your body. Risk could be a bad counterparty. It could be your accounts getting hacked. So first, think about it very holistically. So I have taped up on the wall behind me the confirmation for the first future straight that I ever did in my life when I was at the back, with my personal body, it was a long position in Canadian dollars. That firm that did that transaction with me is bankrupt.
剛才你提到了風險管理。你是如何看待風險以及如何進行風險管理的？首先，答案是非常全面的。我認為風險是任何可能讓你損失資產的事物。風險可能來自不良的交易對手，也可能是你的帳戶被駭。因此，首先要從非常全面的角度來思考。我身後牆上貼著我職業生涯中第一筆期貨交易的確認單，那時我在後台用自己的資金做多加拿大元。與我進行那筆交易的公司已經破產了。

And actually three of my futures brokers went under all three of them before I switched somebody else. So this is a real, and each of them I managed to for a very different reason. I had bad experiences. And I was like, God, this firm doesn't seem great. I think I could put my body somewhere else. And it was just, again, that was a little bit the intuition. This doesn't feel right. So first of all, risk is really holistic. Then in terms of managing portfolio,
實際上，在我換到另一家公司之前，我的三個期貨經紀商都倒閉了，這三個都是。這是一個真實的情況，每一個經紀商的倒閉都有非常不同的原因。我有過不好的經歷，當時我就想，天啊，這家公司看起來不太行，我或許應該把資金放在別的地方。這再次證明，有時候就是直覺告訴你，感覺不太對勁。所以首先，風險確實是非常全面的。然後在管理投資組合方面，

I would say a number of things or ones. First, I'm always translating the dollars in the portfolio to risk. We were talking before 644. Fully, I wasn't really a 644 portfolio because the stock is so risky. But for all the things I do, stocks, bonds, currencies and commodities, their volatility is very different. And if you have an investment position in two year bonds, it has much different characteristics that are positioned at 30 year bonds. So I'm constantly translating the dollars I have to risk and then I'm thinking about how those risks can move together. That's just table stakes though, converting all of your dollars to a risk perspective. Then I spend a lot of time thinking about how that portfolio might act around discrete events. So if there's a fed meeting, an election, the with very uncertain outcome, the election, I wasn't, I had no idea whether Harris would win or Trump. And I had no idea the way the Congress would go. So I was thinking very much, well, this basket of securities, there was four different scenarios. I was looking for things that would survive any of the scenarios, which was actually very limited number of securities that would. So I always converting dollars to risk and then looking at that over a long periods of time.
我會說幾件事或幾點。首先，我總是將投資組合中的美元轉化為風險。我們之前談到了 644。嚴格來說，我並不是一個 644 投資組合，因為股票風險太高。但對於我所做的所有投資——股票、債券、貨幣和大宗商品——它們的波動性差異很大。如果你持有兩年期債券的投資部位，其特性與 30 年期債券的部位截然不同。因此，我不斷將手中的美元轉化為風險，然後思考這些風險如何相互影響。不過這只是基本功夫，將所有美元從風險角度進行轉化。接著，我花很多時間思考這個投資組合在特定事件中可能如何表現。例如聯準會會議、選舉等結果極不確定的事件——那次選舉，我完全不知道賀錦麗會贏還是川普會勝出，也不清楚國會將由哪黨主導。所以我深入思考了這組證券在四種不同情境下的表現，尋找能在任何情境下存活的標的，而實際上符合條件的證券非常有限。 所以我總是將美元轉換為風險，然後在長時間內觀察這一點。

You look at the specific event that can hurt. And then also I find fragedly looking at how by gains or losses are happening on the day over series of days are really helpful. In other words, say you think that you're running low risk. But your P&L is as measured by those measurements. So you look at your volatility that I was saying, listen, I'm not taking much risk here at all. If the P&L is going up and down a lot, you know that what you're in a period of time, where markets are not that normally distributed. So it's useful to have those numbers, but don't pay, don't overly rely, don't rigidly follow them and go, oh, I'm only running 10% risk. Well, look at what's actually happening with your numbers. The actual risk might be much, much higher. And any time the risk is much higher, that's where the risk of ruin begins to rise exponentially. So I'm very cautious about that. And the last thing is I talk with one of the wonderful things about now having a K-capple to be up and functioning is that when I left Bridgewater at that period of time, I was just investing a bio. Now I have colleagues that I can do this with and people who have years of experience and we'll just talk. Like what would happen if this portfolio goes through a 2018 style drawdown?
你觀察那些可能造成傷害的特定事件。同時我也發現，零散地檢視每日或連續幾日的損益變化情況非常有幫助。換句話說，假設你認為自己承擔的風險很低，但根據這些衡量標準顯示的損益卻告訴你：聽著，我根本沒冒什麼風險。如果損益波動劇烈，你就知道自己正處於市場分布異常的時期。因此，擁有這些數據很有用，但不要過度依賴或僵化遵循它們，然後說：「喔，我只承擔了 10%的風險。」實際上，你應該看看數字真實反映的情況——實際風險可能高出許多許多倍。而每當風險大幅上升時，毀滅性風險就會開始呈指數級增長。所以我對此非常謹慎。最後我想說，現在能擁有運作良好的 K-capple（註：應為某種投資平台或系統，原拼寫保留）最棒的一點是——當初離開橋水基金時，我只是單打獨鬥地投資。現在我有共事的同事，他們擁有多年經驗，我們可以一起討論策略。 如果這個投資組合經歷像 2018 年那樣的下跌，會發生什麼情況？

What happens if we get a big risk off all those types of scenarios we look at? And so to get what is a high return per unit risk, you have to think a ton about the risk. And I think about it a lot. I'd like to ask you some questions about your outlook. Ever since I've known you, I feel like you've always had a well informed perspective about what the world looks like and how it may change. And let me start with inflation. So for a long time inflation was low and stable. And now looks like it may be higher and more volatile than it's been for decades.
如果我們遭遇大規模的風險規避，所有這些情境我們都考慮過，那會怎樣？因此，要獲得每單位風險的高回報，就必須深入思考風險。而我對此思考良多。我想請教您一些關於您的前景展望。自從我認識您以來，我總覺得您對世界的現狀及其可能的變化有著深刻的見解。讓我從通脹開始談起。長期以來，通脹一直處於低位且穩定。而現在看來，它可能比過去幾十年來更高且更為波動。

What would you say are the implications both for investments and also for the assumptions that investors who have been investing for three or four decades may have that may change if we're in this new regime? Yeah, I don't think we're in a new regime with inflation. So I've got a lot of concerns, but not that actually worried about inflation for, I'd say, three reasons. The first reason is I think that growth is slowing pretty immediately. And that'll tend to bring inflation down. The second thing is that if for instance, if the stock market which is stopped going up and you can start it falling, if it falls further, I can't actually inflation will begin to fall. Because one of the things that's in the inflation is all the brokerage fees, people pay, etc. And all that stuff will begin to diminish. So that's the first point. Second point is technology really matters. And I believe we're on a wave of whether people value these companies correctly or incorrectly as a separate matter. But AI is transformative and labor-saving. And I think that it's actually a diminished demand for labor and the short term or already six sides of it. And so I think again, the risk is that inflation is too low, not too high. And the third thing is that a lot of the inflation I believe was caused by the policies both in terms of supply chains and fiscal stimulus around COVID. And that's in the past. And so it's gradually going to diminish.
你會怎麼說這對投資以及那些已經投資了三、四十年的投資者可能持有的假設意味著什麼，如果我們處於這個新體制下，這些假設可能會改變？是的，我不認為我們處於一個通膨的新體制中。所以我有很多擔憂，但實際上並不那麼擔心通膨，可以說有三個原因。第一個原因是，我認為增長正在迅速放緩。這往往會使通膨下降。第二件事是，例如，如果股市停止上漲並開始下跌，如果進一步下跌，我實際上認為通膨會開始下降。因為通膨中包含的其中一項是人們支付的經紀費用等，而所有這些都會開始減少。這是第一點。第二點是技術真的很重要。我相信我們正處於一波浪潮中，無論人們是否正確評估這些公司的價值是另一回事。但人工智慧是具有變革性和節省勞動力的。我認為這實際上在短期內減少了對勞動力的需求，或者已經在某種程度上體現出來。 因此我再次認為，風險在於通脹過低而非過高。第三點是，我相信許多通脹是由疫情期間的供應鏈政策和財政刺激措施所導致。而這些已成過去，所以影響將逐漸減弱。

But who knows if I'm right? I think for investors, the key thing is inflation is horrible for portfolio. Horrible. There's very few good places to hide. And thinking about how you could possibly protect your portfolio from that, I think is critical. There are that many good solutions that really aren't. But the solutions that are available, having some inflation like bonds, having some commodities etc are better than nothing.
但誰知道我是否正確呢？對投資者而言，關鍵在於通脹對投資組合極為不利。真的非常糟糕。幾乎沒有什麼好的避風港。思考如何可能保護你的投資組合免受其害，我認為至關重要。現有的解決方案其實並不多，但像通脹連結債券、大宗商品等選項，總比什麼都沒有要好。

And so a lot of people don't have any familiarity with those asset classes. And I think for the perspective of a long-term investor, they can be helpful. But I do think even with the place of like bonds, what do you really need to be careful about government policy? So Paul Krugman, some people who might hate him. But he's a Nobel Prize winner. He's not a dumb guy. He is publicly come out and cautioned Americans about holding inflation like bonds because he's worried about institutional erosion of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. So I don't know whether Paul's right or wrong.
因此，很多人對這些資產類別並不熟悉。我認為，從長期投資者的角度來看，它們可能有所幫助。但我確實認為，即使是像債券這樣的投資，你也需要特別注意政府政策。保羅·克魯曼（Paul Krugman），有些人可能不喜歡他，但他是一位諾貝爾獎得主，絕非愚笨之人。他公開警告美國人不要持有類似通脹債券的資產，因為他擔心勞工統計局的制度性侵蝕。我不知道保羅是對是錯。

But I'm just citing that there that's even one more element at how hard it is to protect yourself from inflation. But the big thing is, is knowing that it can occur. And at least having a conversation with whoever's helping you with your portfolio or if you're doing it or your own, really thinking about what can possibly help you with those environments. To the arguments for higher and more volatile inflation that I've heard, I'm curious to hear your thoughts. One is this shift from globalization to decobleization. We think it's a secular shift. And another is tariffs and policy, immigration, etc. That could be inflationary over the near term. What do your thoughts about those?
但我只是引用這一點來說明，要保護自己免受通脹影響有多麼困難。但最重要的是，要知道通脹可能發生。至少與幫助你管理投資組合的人談談，或者如果你自己操作，認真思考在這些環境下什麼可能對你有幫助。關於我聽到的支持更高且更波動的通脹的論點，我很好奇你的看法。一個是從全球化轉向去全球化的轉變。我們認為這是一個長期趨勢。另一個是關稅和政策、移民等，這些可能在短期內導致通脹。你對這些有什麼看法？

I think that that de-globalization is not good for inflation. That's true. But you need to weigh it against what the impact is of this labor-saving technology, which what is going to be a bigger force. And then on the tariffs, it's also true that tariffs mechanically raise prices. But I just think of tariffs as a tax. They're also really get a hurt growth. And so if you raise taxes on the US economy by 25% of course less than that because imports are a certain fraction of the economy. But if you do that, you're going to get weakened at growth.
我認為去全球化對通膨不利，這是事實。但你必須權衡這與節省勞力的技術所帶來的影響，後者將是更強大的驅動力。至於關稅，機械性地提高價格也是事實。但我只把關稅視為一種稅收，它們確實也會損害經濟成長。因此，如果你對美國經濟課徵 25%的稅（當然實際會少一些，因為進口只佔經濟的一部分），經濟成長將會減弱。

And I think you're already being the sea signs of it. And so you have to weigh the slow and growth relative to the rising inflation. So that's true the decolabization and tariffs are inflationary. But I think to our point earlier, there's other forces that are going to dominate relative to that that people in my estimation are having a hard time incorporating into their process. And we also talked about always looking at what the market is discounting. It's not discounting very high inflation for a long period of time. Do you feel that's about right? It's discounting.loatinflation relative to relative to what it has been.
而且我認為你已經看到了一些跡象。因此，你必須權衡成長放緩與通膨上升之間的關係。確實，去全球化和關稅會導致通膨。但正如我們之前提到的，我認為還有其他力量將主導這一切，而人們在評估時很難將這些因素納入考量。我們也討論過要始終關注市場的預期。市場並沒有預期通膨會長期維持在高位。你覺得這樣的預期合理嗎？相對於過去的水平，市場預期的通膨是偏低的。

And it's certainly not basically I would say US assets or discounting a boom as what they're discounting. They're discounting incredibly strong earnings, strong enough growth to sustain very high real rates and pretty positive inflation, called 2.5% inflation. That's basic. I mean, I can turn my blueberg and look at exactly what it is. But that's basically what it is. But that's kind of like a boom. And I don't think we're going to be in a boom. And so that's why when I look at the discounting of those assets relative to what's my mind is a fair value for them.
而且這絕對不是——我會說——基本上美國資產或是在預期一個繁榮期，他們所預期的。他們預期的是異常強勁的盈利，足夠強勁的增長來維持非常高的實際利率和相當正面的通脹，即 2.5%的通脹率。這是最基本的。我的意思是，我可以打開我的彭博終端查看具體數據。但基本上就是這樣。但這有點像是一個繁榮期。而我不認為我們會進入繁榮期。因此，這就是為什麼當我將這些資產的預期與我心目中的公平價值相比時。

They look off to be. So someone related to that, there's a common perspective that the S&P 500 is ironclad that you could just hold it alone or make it a material party to portfolio. You know, they're the best companies in the world. And you can just that could be your portfolio and you can hold it for a long time and be fine. What's your perspective about that? I disagree. I mean, I think it's a fine portfolio as long as you're willing to stuff like 50% draw doubts. And I don't want to stuff like 50% draw doubts.
它們看起來偏離了。所以與此相關的是，有一種普遍的觀點認為標普 500 指數是堅不可摧的，你可以單獨持有它或讓它成為投資組合的重要部分。你知道，它們是世界上最好的公司。你可以就這樣把它們作為你的投資組合，長期持有也沒問題。你對這種觀點有什麼看法？我不同意。我是說，如果你願意承受像 50%的下跌，那這是一個不錯的投資組合。但我不願意承受像 50%的下跌。

So right now, as I said, the price you're paying for those great companies is about the highest historically that people have paid. And the last time we introduced Tara of Stocksville by 20% and they were trading evaluations that a fraction of what they are right now. So I think it's totally reasonable to think that stocks could fall 20 to 40%. There wouldn't be anything unusual about that. And there's great companies there. The way I described it in a piece recently is that say you have a favorite car and you think it's a great car. And the example I used to say, say you have a thing for Porsche. I don't have, I don't have Porsche, but I do think they're cool cars. So I think a new Porsche costs like 150 grand, which is a lot of money.
正如我所說，現在你為那些優秀公司支付的價格，幾乎是歷史上人們所支付的最高價位。上一次我們介紹 Stocksville 的 Tara 時，股價下跌了 20%，而當時的估值僅是現在的一小部分。因此，我認為股市下跌 20%到 40%是完全合理的，這並不罕見。而且這些都是優秀的公司。我最近在一篇文章中這樣描述：假設你有一輛最愛的車，你認為它很棒。我舉的例子是，假設你對保時捷情有獨鍾。我沒有保時捷，但我確實認為它們是很酷的車。所以，我想一輛新的保時捷大概要 15 萬美元，這可是一大筆錢。

But even if it was a Porsche, there's no way you'd spend $500,000 to buy it. You just wouldn't do it. There's a lot of companies that people hold that they're like this thing will never go down. I can list the names for them, but I don't want to get it. Sound like I'm speculating on stocks. But look at the companies that a lot of households own and look at what their PE is relative to average. One of them that's very widely held. It has a PE of 56 right now. It's a PE over the last 10 years is about 30.
但即便那是輛保時捷，你也不可能花 50 萬美元去買它。你就是不會這麼做。很多人持有的某些公司股票，他們總覺得這東西永遠不會跌。我可以列出這些公司的名字，但我不想讓人聽起來像是在對股票投機。不過看看那些許多家庭持有的公司，再看看它們的本益比與平均值的比較。其中一家被廣泛持有的公司，目前本益比是 56，而過去十年的平均本益比大約是 30。

And differently, this great company. It is a great company that I've gone to. If the value of that company falls by 46%, it would even be cheap. It would be completely normal. That's just getting the Porsche price. That's like the Porsche trading for 300 grand. And then it goes down to 150 grand. Still a great car. And so I'm not comfortable with that set and forget. And maybe I'm neurotic or something.
不同的是，這是一家偉大的公司。它確實是一家我曾投資過的優秀企業。如果這家公司的價值下跌 46%，它甚至會變得很便宜。那只是回到保時捷的正常價格。就像是保時捷從 30 萬美元跌到 15 萬美元。它依然是輛好車。所以我對那種「買了就不管」的策略感到不安。或許是我太神經質了。

Anyways, we all got to get through this the way we do. And the way I do is I pay attention to the stuff. And if I think that something is worrying, I take action. What do you think about gold and Bitcoin as portfolio diversifiers? I think they're a little bit different. Both of the bureaucracies. I think gold can play a role for sure. It's an ancient form of body. People have a lot of energy. It's not very useful for transactions.
總之，我們都得用自己的方式度過這一切。而我的方式就是關注這些東西。如果覺得某件事令人擔憂，我就採取行動。你對黃金和比特幣作為投資組合分散工具的看法如何？我認為它們有點不同。兩者都涉及官僚體系。我認為黃金確實可以扮演一定角色。它是種古老的實體形式。人們投入大量精力。但它用於交易不太實用。

But I think in portfolios, it's a moment of time. It can be helpful now. Probably one of those moments. Bitcoin used to be very skeptical on. But I came to understand that it can't be. If that useful to portfolio useful in life. And what helped me understand it was actually a trip to Argentina. I took. So Argentina has a history of its crazy hyperinflation. And I spoke with some people because I speak Russian.
但我認為在投資組合中，這是個時機問題。現在它可能有所幫助。或許正是這樣的時刻之一。我過去對比特幣非常懷疑。但我後來理解到它不可能...如果那對投資組合有用，在生活中也有用。真正幫助我理解這一點的，其實是去阿根廷的一趟旅行。阿根廷有著瘋狂的通貨膨脹歷史。由於我會說俄語，所以和當地一些人聊過。

I started by career there. I spoke with some people who had fled the war in Ukraine. Russians who were softwares, engineers who were working in Buenos Aires. Because you don't need a visa to get there for the Russians. So they were getting paid in rubles, which is a sanctioned currency. And they needed to spend in pesos, which had hyperinflation. There was no way they could translate that to gold to do anything. So what they would do is they would get paid in rubles. They would go to a bit court exchange, flip that all into Bitcoin. And then in Argentina, whether you do to buy groceries, they would go to an exchange, sell their Bitcoin, get Argentina and pesos, literally for that day. Because the inflation was so high at that point. Get the pesos delivered by MoPAD by a career. And then they would go out and buy their groceries. And so I understood that Bitcoin was a little bit like a cell phone. Like for, you know, to set up landline technology. It's really too expensive for Betty Kuttrace. And cell phones, Latte, to leaf frog, that most places of the world have terrible monetary policy.
我在那裡開始了我的職業生涯。我與一些逃離烏克蘭戰爭的人交談過。他們是俄羅斯人，軟體工程師，在布宜諾斯艾利斯工作。因為俄羅斯人不需要簽證就能到那裡。所以他們以盧布領取薪水，這是一種受制裁的貨幣。而他們需要用披索消費，披索正處於惡性通貨膨脹中。他們無法將盧布轉換成黃金來做任何事。因此，他們會這樣做：領到盧布後，去一個小型交易所，全部換成比特幣。然後在阿根廷，無論是買雜貨還是其他東西，他們會去交易所賣掉比特幣，換取阿根廷披索，而且只換當天需要的量，因為當時的通膨實在太高了。接著，他們會透過職業快遞收到披索，然後出門購買雜貨。於是我明白了，比特幣有點像手機。你知道，就像要建立固網技術對 Betty Kuttrace 來說實在太貴了。而手機讓 Latte 能夠跳躍式發展，世界上大多數地方的貨幣政策都很糟糕。

Offer. And Bitcoin is crazy volatile. And so if you're the US or Europe or Japan, I don't think it makes that much sense to the portfolio. But if you have the misfortune of being a divast majority of people who have terrible monetary policy, I think Bitcoin can be useful. Because it's less bad than the alternatives of safe and your domestic currency. And you might not have access to other more stable currencies. So I think it can help. But even all these things, like I don't always hold gold in the portfolio. I think, but it moments in time can be helpful.
提供。而比特幣的波動性極其瘋狂。因此，如果你是美國、歐洲或日本，我不認為它對投資組合有太大意義。但如果你不幸屬於那些貨幣政策糟糕透頂的大多數人，我認為比特幣可能有所幫助。因為比起安全資產和你本國貨幣的其他選擇，它沒那麼糟糕。而且你可能無法接觸到其他更穩定的貨幣。所以我認為它能有所助益。但即使是這些東西，比如我並不總是在投資組合中持有黃金。我認為，但在某些時刻它可能有所幫助。

Are there any market segments that look particularly attractive or are potentially very risky today when you scan the landscape? Dollars and nominated stocks look incredibly risky to me. Right now, that's the big thing that stands out to me. So, you know, how do we get to such elevated valuations, they don't say it's, well, what if there were things these companies was fantastic? They'd rather they'd rather they'd strong post-COVID earnings. But the other thing was the rest of the world sent their money to the United States to buy these stocks. So, for an ownership of US equities is really, really high. Now what's happening is these countries are, Betty of the, where these savers reside are at a trade war with the United States. Very uncertain what the magnitude of it is, but you know you're at a war. And treaties, some of them decades old, not only trade treaties, but also security treaties, are being dismantled. And I think it's totally reasonable to imagine that foreigners say, "Hey, we should buy so many US products. We shouldn't put our money there to save." And so, if that happens and that money pulls out, US households are now buying a lot of stocks. They've been buying the dip, but foreigners have been pulling out.
當你審視當前市場時，有哪些領域看起來特別吸引人或潛在風險極高？美元和指定股票在我看來風險異常高。目前，這是最引人注目的一點。那麼，我們是如何達到如此高的估值呢？他們不會說，好吧，如果這些公司表現出色呢？他們寧願認為這些公司在疫情後有強勁的收益。但另一個原因是世界其他地區將資金投入美國購買這些股票。因此，美國股票的持有比例確實非常高。現在的情況是，這些儲蓄者所在的國家正與美國處於貿易戰中。雖然不確定其規模有多大，但你知道這是一場戰爭。一些已有數十年歷史的條約，不僅是貿易條約，還包括安全條約，正在被廢除。我認為外國人完全有可能會說：「嘿，我們不應該購買這麼多美國產品，也不應該把錢放在那裡儲蓄。」如果這種情況發生，資金撤出，而現在美國家庭正在大量購買股票。 他們一直在逢低買進，但外資卻在撤出。

And it seems to me totally plausible that the foreigners can pull out much, much more than they have, which would lead to a sharp decline in equities. And also the dollar. So, again, this is an investment advice. You got to do your own research. I'm not trying to sell you anything. Because I like that, but you're asking my views. I'm sharing with my views. As I say, by blog, I say, "Advistic is risky and often painful, do your own research."
在我看來，外資完全有可能撤出比現在多得多的資金，這將導致股市急劇下跌。美元也會如此。再次強調，這只是投資建議。你必須自己做研究。我不是在向你推銷任何東西。因為我喜歡這樣，但你在詢問我的觀點。我只是在分享我的看法。正如我在部落格中所說：「建議是有風險且常常令人痛苦的，請自行研究。」

But if you want my view, that's my view of this thing. So, I think that it's really, it's a very tricky time to be an investor. I think that the administration is essentially saying, "We want to get yields lower and the dollar lower." And the easiest way to do that is to get the equity market down. So, if you're willing to sacrifice the equity market and the currency for the sake of bonds, then you would get those outcomes. And there's anything look attractive. Well, the flip side of this, I think, I think foreign currencies.
但如果你想知道我的觀點，這就是我對這件事的看法。所以，我認為現在對投資者來說是一個非常棘手的時期。我認為政府基本上是在說：「我們希望降低收益率和美元匯率。」而實現這一目標最簡單的方法就是讓股市下跌。因此，如果你願意為了債券而犧牲股市和貨幣，那麼你就會得到這些結果。而且，有什麼看起來吸引人的嗎？嗯，我認為這的另一面是外幣。

I go through long periods of time where I have no currencies, my portfolio. I think foreign currencies are extraordinarily attractive relative to history right now. So, the dollar is because all these inflows came in. The dollar is it's most expensive if you adjust it for inflation. Since the breakup of Bretton Woods. So, these foreign currencies, I think, are incredibly attractive relative to the dollar. And if we get a slow doubt, even bonds, which I think everybody is a US-Boring old, government bonds, which a lot of people are afraid to buy, I think it could be fantastic. Right now, the typically as bonds are good, what the Federal Reserve needs actually begins to cut a great salon. And I think they're telling you that they're going to take their time. But if I'm right about the direction of these things, that would begin to set a motion those changes. So, piecing all this together, it almost sounds like, you know, at least in my experience, most people extrapolate the recent past into the dis-in-future. And market pricing tends to follow that path.
我有很長一段時間沒有持有任何貨幣在我的投資組合中。我認為目前外幣相對於歷史水平來說極具吸引力。美元之所以如此，是因為所有這些資金流入。如果考慮通脹調整，美元處於布雷頓森林體系解體以來最昂貴的水平。因此，我認為這些外幣相對於美元來說極具吸引力。如果我們遇到緩慢的疑慮，甚至連債券——我認為每個人都覺得美國政府債券很無聊，許多人不敢購買——我認為可能會非常出色。現在，通常債券表現良好時，聯準會實際上需要開始大幅降息。我認為他們在告訴你他們會慢慢來。但如果我對這些趨勢的判斷正確，這將開始推動這些變化。所以，把這一切拼湊起來，聽起來幾乎就像——至少根據我的經驗——大多數人會將最近的過去推斷到不確定的未來。而市場定價往往會沿著這條路徑走。

And the world that you're describing, it's almost like the opposite of the world that we've lived in. Yes, I think the barricades at this particular point in time are distant. Our discounted to a future that no longer exists. And it's such a big shock, people are having trouble getting their mind around it, which is what I've been trying to write about in my posts. That is a very different world than the one we've lived in. But you see it in other places too, like what happened this last week in Europe was very important, I think.
而你描述的世界，幾乎與我們所生活的世界截然相反。是的，我認為在這個特定時間點上的障礙已經遙遠。我們所折現的未來已不復存在。這是一個如此巨大的衝擊，人們難以理解，這正是我在文章中試圖探討的。那是一個與我們所生活的世界非常不同的世界。但你在其他地方也能看到這一點，比如上週在歐洲發生的事情，我認為非常重要。

So they've had decades of where their whole lesson after World War II was a economic integration, would produce war. Be the way to reduce extremism, which led to all the trouble in the first past, that's what I said to you, is very prudent, fiscal policy. Now, they're saying, "Listen, if we have no security umbrella for the United States, all that's out the window." And so you see huge, you saw the biggest increase in German interest rates since the breakup of, since the collapse of the Berlin Wall. And I think that this is for a very good reason, because if other countries follow what Germany is going to do, and I think that they likely will, because the security umbrella is likely going to be taken away, you could get a massive fiscal boom in Europe. And that could be, you could get the negative, you could get the opposite reaction in European bonds that you're getting in US bonds. So fiscal tightening in the US, and really potentially very significant fiscal expansion in Europe.
所以他們在二戰後幾十年來學到的教訓是，經濟整合能避免戰爭，是減少極端主義的途徑，而極端主義正是過去所有問題的根源。正如我對你所說，這是非常審慎的財政政策。現在他們卻說：「聽著，如果沒有美國的安全保護傘，這一切都將化為烏有。」因此，你會看到德國利率出現了自柏林圍牆倒塌以來最大的漲幅。我認為這背後有充分的理由，因為如果其他國家效仿德國即將採取的行動（我認為他們很可能會這麼做，因為安全保護傘很可能會被撤走），歐洲可能會迎來大規模的財政擴張。這可能導致歐洲債券出現與美國債券相反的負面反應——美國正在實施財政緊縮，而歐洲實際上可能迎來非常顯著的財政擴張。

And when you look historically, typically, the biggest market moves are when you have a very different environment from what you've had for next-end period, that extended period results in expectations of that continuing. And if you get a very different world, that's when you get market moves in pretty significant ways. And it sounds like what you're describing is early signs of that potentially happening. Yeah, so it's, you know, what's discounted as this boom, this US exceptional is a sticky inflation. And I think that it, the United States, you're likely to get the exact opposite.
當你回顧歷史時，通常最大的市場波動發生在環境與過去一段長時間截然不同的情況下，這種長期延續會讓人們預期現狀將持續。而當世界突然變得非常不同時，市場就會出現相當劇烈的變動。聽起來你描述的情況正是這種變化的早期跡象。是的，當前被市場低估的是這種繁榮——美國例外論下的頑固通膨。我認為美國很可能會迎來完全相反的結果。

I don't know, I'm not just being contrary to being contrary. I don't always have that view of this period of time that I'm very excited about US equities. I have to wipe portfolio there. They've been frankly trading markets that are rising is much, much easier than trading markets that are declining. Because these short, these sharp falls that US equities statistically, it only happens about 10% at the time. So in a way, you're kind of betting against city hall, do I? Like you're not doing something that an average should work. On average, by the whole, it works great.
我不知道，我並不是為了反對而反對。我對這段時期的看法並不總是如此——我其實對美國股市感到非常興奮。我必須調整投資組合。坦白說，在市場上漲時交易要比下跌時容易得多。因為統計顯示，美國股市這種短暫而急劇的下跌只佔約 10%的時間。所以從某種意義上說，你就像在對抗體制，不是嗎？這不是一般情況下會奏效的策略。但從整體來看，它的效果其實很好。

But like I said, there's a moment's in time, but it really doesn't. And my hypothesis is that we're in one of those times right now. We're going to see more, we now get an hour till the future is open. We're going to find more, more than knowing you for a long time, I've always felt that you have a well informed view of geopolitics. So let me ask you, what do you think we're headed in perhaps you can outline different scenarios and their odds? I think that there's a confrontation with Russia building. And I think the odds of that confrontation are quite high as long as Putin is alive. Because what's happened is he's been very transparent with what his desires are, which is to expand his territory. It's very different if somebody is doing this with who's nuclear armed, because the risks of confrontation are incredibly high. It's why they buy administration so cautious, but essentially four US administrations. And multiple ones in Europe have failed to do anything about this. So Russia first got involved in taking territory. People who remember this, but it was in 2008 during the Beijing Olympics. So while the Olympics were going on, Russia seized part of North Georgia. Called the C-Shia.
但就像我說的，雖然有那麼一刻，但實際上並沒有。而我的假設是，我們現在正處於這樣的一個時期。我們將會看到更多，現在我們還有一個小時，未來是開放的。我們將會發現更多，比起認識你很久以來，我一直覺得你對地緣政治有很深入的見解。所以讓我問你，你認為我們正走向何方？或許你可以概述不同的情境及其可能性？我認為與俄羅斯的對峙正在形成。而且我認為只要普丁還在世，這種對峙的可能性相當高。因為發生的事情是，他對自己的欲望非常透明，那就是擴張他的領土。如果是一個擁有核武的人在做這件事，情況就非常不同，因為對峙的風險極高。這就是為什麼美國政府如此謹慎，但基本上四屆美國政府。歐洲的多國政府也未能對此採取任何行動。所以俄羅斯首先參與了奪取領土的行動。記得這件事的人，那是在 2008 年北京奧運會期間。所以當奧運會正在進行時，俄羅斯佔領了北喬治亞的一部分。 被稱為 C-Shia。

That was under George W. Bush. And Bush later said that he looked into the eyes, a Putin, did he trust it, had etcetera. And then under Obama there was the Seizing Crimea. We looked the other way. Then under Trump, there was lots of denigration of Ukrainian sovereignty. We looked the other way. Then under Biden, you know, there's the full scale war in Ukraine. While there's more aggressive action to others. And we provided defensive weapons, but we're very reluctant to provide offensive weapons, because we're worried about provoking a nuclear confrontation. But what's happening is that Russia is violating international law again and again and again. And again, and again, and this is so you can say that you want to make peace with them whatever, but there's no indication that they're going to honor international law. They're going to continue doing that. But so it's subpoith. There's going to have to be a confrontation to stop them. And that's incredibly dangerous.
那是在喬治·W·布希的任期內。後來布希說他看著普丁的眼睛，試圖判斷是否值得信任等等。然後在歐巴馬任內發生了克里米亞被吞併的事件，我們選擇視而不見。到了川普時期，烏克蘭主權屢遭貶低，我們同樣選擇忽視。如今在拜登任內，烏克蘭爆發全面戰爭，而俄羅斯對其他國家的侵略行為也越發猖獗。我們提供了防禦性武器，但極不情願提供進攻性武器，因為擔心引發核對抗。但現實是俄羅斯一再違反國際法，一次又一次。你可以說你想與他們達成和平協議或其他什麼，但沒有任何跡象顯示他們會尊重國際法。他們會繼續這樣下去。因此，問題的核心在於，必須通過對抗來阻止他們。而這極其危險。

I don't know what exactly that comes, but that's going to come. And then in Asia, I believe that Xi Jinping is watching what's going on in Ukraine very carefully. And clearly, would like under his tenure to probably one of the reasons they deserve to have term limits to incorporate Taiwan. And I think that if Putin is successful in meeting his objectives in Ukraine, which he might not be if Europe defends it, but if he were to be, that I think that the odds of China, seizing Taiwan are very high. And I think that's something, and then that moves us into a much more dangerous world, a world more like the 1930s. I hate to be such a doubter. Like there's all sorts of optimistic things that are happening to you. I do think this technology is incredibly cool. That where the mist of, I think that we know what the potential solutions are to these problems. It's just very difficult to get the political world to deal with. But objectively as an investor, I think it's a, I think it's a, a time that, Great caution is, uh, Putin. Yeah, I think that is good advice.
我不確定具體會發生什麼，但那終將到來。而在亞洲，我相信習近平正密切關注烏克蘭的局勢。顯然，他可能希望在任期內實現將台灣納入版圖的目標，這也是為什麼他們應該設有任期限制的原因之一。我認為，如果普丁在烏克蘭達成他的目標——歐洲若加以防禦，他或許無法成功——但假使他成功了，那麼中國奪取台灣的機率將會非常高。我認為這將使我們進入一個更加危險的世界，一個更類似於 1930 年代的世界。我討厭如此悲觀，畢竟你身邊正發生各種樂觀的事情。我確實認為這項技術非常酷。我們知道這些問題的潛在解決方案是什麼，只是政治世界很難處理這些問題。但作為一名投資者，客觀來看，我認為這是一個需要極度謹慎的時期，嗯，普丁。是的，我認為這是個好建議。

Paul, I appreciate you taking time with us again, sharing our insights. I always enjoy our conversations. Thanks so much. Thanks for listening. We hope you enjoyed this episode. Please visit our website at insightfulinvestor.org to access past shows and learn more about our podcast. If you have questions, feel free to email us at info@insightfulinvestor.org. And if you enjoyed the discussion, please subscribe to this podcast to ensure you don't miss future episodes.
保羅，非常感謝你再次抽空與我們分享見解。我總是很享受我們的對話。非常感謝。感謝收聽。希望您喜歡這一集的內容。請訪問我們的網站 insightfulinvestor.org，收聽過往節目並了解更多關於我們的播客資訊。如有任何問題，歡迎發送郵件至 info@insightfulinvestor.org 與我們聯繫。如果您喜歡這次的討論，請訂閱本播客，確保不錯過未來的節目。

And don't forget to forward today's conversation to others you think would enjoy listening. This podcast is provided for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon as legal, business, investment or tax advice. All opinions expressed by podcast participants are solely their own opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of evoke advisors, their affiliates or companies feature. Due to industry regulations participants on this podcast are instructed not to make specific trade recommendations, no reference past or potential profits. And listeners are reminded that security is trading, commodity trading, and alternative investments are complex and carry risk of substantial losses. As such, they are not suitable for all investors.
別忘了將今天的對話轉發給其他你認為會喜歡收聽的人。本播客僅供資訊參考，不應被視為法律、商業、投資或稅務建議。播客參與者表達的所有觀點僅為其個人意見，不一定反映 evoke advisors、其附屬機構或所提及公司的觀點。由於行業監管規定，本播客的參與者被指示不得提供具體的交易建議，也不得提及過去或潛在的利潤。提醒聽眾，證券交易、商品交易和另類投資複雜且存在重大損失風險，因此並不適合所有投資者。

Listeners should be aware that guests featured on the insightful investor may have current or past associations with evoke advisors or the host, including as an investment manager of a private fund opportunity by evoke or access through an affiliated evoke fund or as a client. Participation as a guest on the podcast should not be perceived as an endorsement or testimonial with respect to evoke advisors, the podcast host or their services. Similarly, the inclusion of a guest on the podcast does not imply that evoke advisors or the host and ors is the guest or any company with which they may be affiliated or employed. Evoke has neither paid nor received compensation from guests for their participation. participation.
聽眾應注意，出現在《洞察投資者》節目中的嘉賓可能與 Evoke Advisors 或主持人有現任或過往的關聯，包括作為 Evoke 私募基金機會的投資經理，或透過附屬的 Evoke 基金參與，抑或是其客戶。嘉賓參與播客不應被視為對 Evoke Advisors、播客主持人或其服務的背書或推薦。同樣地，嘉賓出現在播客中並不意味著 Evoke Advisors 或主持人與該嘉賓或其可能隸屬或受僱的任何公司有關聯。Evoke 並未向嘉賓支付或從嘉賓處獲得參與節目的報酬。