Europe, Trump & the Limits of Trade Escalation

Summary

Macro Mondays – Europe, Trump & the Limits of Trade Escalation

Host: Andreas Steno Larsen & Mikkel Rosenvold
Date: January 19, 2026

---

Episode Overview

This week, hosts Andreas and Mikkel provide a candid and analytical look at the latest macro and geopolitical developments affecting Europe and global markets. The spotlight is on escalating tensions between the US and EU, driven by the ongoing situation concerning Greenland and newly proposed US tariffs, as well as the broader implications for markets. The hosts also discuss macroeconomic trends, capital expenditures for 2026, and the ongoing transformation of the AI sector. True to the podcast's style, the episode is rich with actionable trade ideas and pithy, honest assessments.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Market Sentiment: Weekend Developments, Greenland, and Japan

• European Markets Reaction: The episode opens with analysis of why markets opened heavy following the weekend. The hosts highlight moves in metals, a dip in Bitcoin, equities futures down, and significant movement in Japanese long-dated yields ([02:18]).
• Japan's Political Influence: Andreas points out how Japanese election news and a 12 basis point rise in the 30-year yield added volatility across asset classes.
• US-EU Escalation Characterized as 'Tit-for-Tat': Both hosts agree that while the tariff conflict is currently a bureaucratic "semi-escalation," there's concern about the potential for escalation but no panic yet ([02:53]).

2. Greenland & Tariff Situation: Context and Impact

• Tariff Tactics: Mikkel summarizes recent diplomatic moves: Denmark’s attempt to de-escalate via bureaucratic work-groups, contrasted with Trump’s readiness to escalate with tariffs—“he grabbed into his toolbox and grabbed out the tariff weapon” ([04:03]).
• Tariff vs. Conflict: Mikkel notes, “I would rather be hit with a tariff than with a cruise missile. That’s the silver lining here. We’re not talking about war anymore.” ([05:03])
• Trump’s Proposed Tariffs: The US threatens broad 10% tariffs (potentially going to 25%) on EU goods. Concerns hinge more on tit-for-tat escalation rather than the immediate tariffs themselves.

3. Market Response and Tariff Realities

• Lessons from the US-China Trade War: Andreas compares the current situation to the US-China dispute in 2025, emphasizing that the EU’s slow, consensus-driven processes make trade escalation less likely to spiral quickly ([06:45]).
• EU Response Mechanisms: The anti-coercion mechanism ('EU bazooka') is designed to prevent escalation by ensuring responses cannot be as rapid as they were in the US-China context.

“My personal base case is that Trump is not even capable of adding the 10% by 1st of February, at least not a broad 10%." – Andreas ([08:45])

4. Potential EU Responses: A Four-Tier Model

• Tiered Responses Include:

  • Simple Tariff Retaliation (reciprocal, limited investor concern)
  • Digital Services Sales Tax (unlikely, but possible and priced into tech stocks)
  • Microchip Export Bans (improbable as it would not directly target the US)
  • Ban on Owning US Assets (seen as a “nuclear option”—highly unlikely and disruptive) ([09:09])

• Andreas on the nuclear option:

“The Eurozone…I think, including UK but the old EU, holds roughly $8.23 trillion US assets which is more than twice the rest of the world altogether. This is obviously the nuclear bomb…but…I consider it incredibly unlikely.” ([11:45])

5. European Political Unity and Strategic Weak Points

• United European Front: Mikkel emphasizes near-total EU unity on the issue, with minor dissent from Italy ([13:40]).
• Vulnerability – LNG Dependence: A real threat from the US would be cutting Europe off American LNG—a much more potent lever than tariffs alone ([14:30]).
• Greenland and Military Reality: Much recent reporting about European military moves in Greenland is "fake news"; these were advisors, not combat troops, and the future likely holds more investment in surveillance and infrastructure rather than military escalation.

6. The Real Sticking Point: Greenland’s Political Status

• Greenlandic Deciders: The key disconnect is the US expectation to negotiate with Denmark versus the reality that "the Greenlandic people decide this issue and they don't want to join the US" ([17:14]). Trump has not made his case to the Greenlanders themselves.
• Limits of Self-Determination: Andreas’ sharp take—"It is incredibly gullible to think that these 50,000 people can decide for themselves some of the biggest island on earth." ([17:54])

7. Macro Outlook: Super CapEx Cycle for 2026

• Immediate Market Outlook: Andreas is optimistic for the coming months, citing:
  • Strong regional PMIs for CapEx
  • Tax depreciation rules frontloading investment incentive
  • Ongoing rotation (small caps outperforming large) ([19:18])

“Unless we get another tariff-space roadblock, I’m fairly confident that the cycle will do well the next three, four months.” – Andreas ([21:50])

• But…Shock Risks Remain: Prior trade standstills (Xi standoff, Liberation Day) took months to recover, so vigilance is still needed.

8. AI Investing: Hardware, Software & Exponential Curves

• AI Software Under Pressure: With the rise of advanced LLMs (like Claude Code), Andreas thinks most low/medium complexity software subscriptions “will be worth zero in a year from now” ([23:09]).
• Physical Constraints Outperform: Given the exponential improvement in AI, focus remains on hardware and power exposure rather than software equities.
• When Does the S-Curve Flatten? Unsure, but “as long as we’re in this part of the journey, I would stay mostly off software as a basket” ([25:03]).

9. Portfolio Implications: Hedging Geopolitical Risk

• Hedging Strategy:
  • For geopolitical instability, “you’d rather want gold than Bitcoin in your portfolio.”
  • For US dollar or Fed-driven crises, “you probably rather want Bitcoin than gold.” ([27:14])

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On actionable content:

  "Sometimes may be good, sometimes may be shit." – Andreas ([01:53])

• On the tariff threat:

  “The positive reading here is, I would rather be hit with a tariff than with a cruise missile.” – Mikkel ([05:03])

• On the limits of escalation:

  “I think it would take a lot, let me emphasize, a lot for us to go below step one (simple tariff retaliation)." – Andreas ([10:37])

• On Greenland as a bargaining chip:

  “If the Greenlandic people wanted to join the US, a deal could absolutely be made.” – Mikkel ([17:34])
  “It is incredibly gullible to think that these 50,000 people can decide for themselves some of the biggest island on earth.” – Andreas ([17:54])

• On CapEx optimism for 2026:

  “Everything started to line up and the stars were aligning for this super capic cycle this year.” – Andreas ([19:18])

• On the current state of AI software:

  “Most of those software subscriptions will be worth zero in a year from now.” – Andreas ([23:09])

• On hedging for geopolitical risks:

  “If we talk about a geopolitical shit show, you’d rather want gold than bitcoin in your portfolio.” – Andreas ([27:14])

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

• [02:18] – Market open discussion: Japanese election and Greenland story
• [04:03] – Danish/EU diplomatic efforts vs Trump’s tariffs
• [06:02] – Seriousness of the US tariff threat for global markets
• [09:09] – Four potential EU responses to tariffs
• [13:40] – European unity and the real Achilles heel: LNG
• [17:14] – Greenlandic self-determination and the US approach
• [19:18] – Outlook for CapEx in 2026
• [23:09] – The future of AI software and hardware
• [27:14] – Portfolio hedging: gold vs bitcoin in geopolitical vs USD crisis scenarios

---

Summary & Takeaway

This episode offers a clear, pragmatic breakdown of U.S.-EU tensions, the intricacies of the Greenland issue in macro and geopolitical terms, and the practical implications for markets and portfolios. The hosts outline likely market reactions, the limited scope for immediate EU action, and new investment ideas—while sharply distinguishing between trade risk and true conflict. The forward-looking optimism for capex and the clear-eyed analysis of the AI landscape provide actionable, timely insight for macro-inclined investors.

---

For more, subscribe and participate in the discussion on the Real Vision platform. Next week’s show promises a Miami setting and (hopefully) brighter macro skies.

Transcript

[A]

Foreign.

[B]

Hello out there. Welcome to Macro Mondays at Real Vision. My name is Miguel Rosenwald and I'm very excited to host this show once again with me as usual, Andreas Dino. Welcome to the show, Andreas.

[A]

Thanks, Michael. It's been quite the weekend here in the north of Europe, I have to.

[B]

Admit, so.

[A]

Let'S have a discussion around what's next.

[B]

These, these are very, very special time. Let's just get the elephant in the room addressed it. It's very, very special times to be Danes on a, on an American platform here, but we're doing fine. We're going to Miami on Wednesday. We're very much looking forward to that. And yeah, still having a lot of fun, doing some great stuff here at Real Vision. So let's try and keep things separated but obviously we do have to talk. Greel and Andreas. It's, it's, it's affecting everything and we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll get all around that but also try and talk a little bit about the picture at play. Andreas. Before we get to that, remember guys, this is our free show at Real Vision, our free weekly Macro Insight show to give you a sneak peek into our thinking and our analysis to get the full picture. To get our flagship reports and our access to our model portfolio, you have to sign up for real vision proalvision.com Lots of good stuff in there, including our weekly catch up with ROLP on Friday. Great show. You can catch that as well with the pro Chair at Real Vision. So really recommend that even though, Andreas, we've had a great start with the, with, with our model portfolio so far. We'll get back to that a little bit later. We have to issue our regular reminder here that we try to be very actionable, we try to be very concrete in our recommendations, but they may be.

[A]

Sometimes may be good, sometimes may be.

[B]

Exactly. That's the way it is and always has been addressed. So we don't have any trading in US Markets today, Andreas, but we obviously have futures and we have European markets opening up in crypto, et cetera. Looks like it's going to be quite a heavy start to the week, mainly due to Greenland or how do you view that? Andreas?

[A]

Yeah, I guess it at least is a partial explanation behind what we've seen. We have metals flying, we have bitcoin slightly down, we have equity futures down, etc. Right. But you know, over the, the course of, of the very early trading between Sunday and, and Monday, our time here in Europe, we obviously also had a, a message out of Japan Yeah, on, on the upcoming election. Right. And the Japanese yield curve responded, if you look at the 30 year yields, I think they're up like 12 basis points, something like that. So it's a pretty nasty move. And that's probably also at least partially behind what we see in everything from equities to metals, et cetera. So that's, it's actually a little bit hard now that we don't really get to see what the US crowd will do until tomorrow. I'm kind of tempted to say that it's driven by both the Japanese election and this Greenland story. For now, I'm, I'm also tempted to say that we remain in, you know, a tit for tat bureaucratic semi escalation. I don't really consider it overly worrying at this juncture, the, the tit for tat escalation between the US and, and the eu. But obviously there are some scenarios that could bring us in, in a worse direction and my fingers are crossed that we're not going there. But I mean, I don't think it could be ruled out this at this juncture.

[B]

Oh, not at all. Address. Let's do a little bit of a recap here just, just to understand the Greenland and terrorist situation. So last week the Danish foreign minister went to Washington, had a meeting with Rubio and Vance. He tried something very Scandinavian, very European, to, to establish a working group to, to address this issue. The two sides weren't quite in agreement on what this working group would do, but that's sort of the point. You put a bunch of people together and I think what the EU and Denmark is trying to do here is to pull it down the hierarchy as much as possible. Because dealing one on one with Trump is very, very tricky. Dealing one on one with Vance is almost as tricky. But once you get further down the chain, maybe even to career diplomats in the US Secretary of State, it's, it's easier for Europe. They're more used to dealing with these kind of people than the Mecca politicians. And I think that that's what the Danish tried to do there and tried to set up sort of a bureaucratic process that you can discuss details, numbers and technicalities. Obviously, Trump has no patience for this, so he grabbed into his toolbox and grabbed out the tariff weapon. And I just wanted to say before we get into that address, the positive reading here is I would rather be hit with a tariff than with a cruise missile. That's the silver lining here. We're not talking about war anymore. I know it's not off the table. But we're not talking about invading Europe or whatever. We're talking about a trade war, which is much, much better than an actual war. Nonetheless, address a broad tariff on 10% on various European countries, which in essence means the European Union to be raised to 25% along the way. How serious is this for global markets if it becomes a reality?

[A]

Yes. So let me start by saying that even if I agree with you that a tariff war is obviously better than an outright war, I don't really think anyone dared to even think about that. Even though it's been rhetorically, explicitly mentioned, most people consider that, you know, negotiation, leverage and so on and so forth. I do that as well. I, I consider the actual risk of that blown extremely out of proportion. But, but in any case, if the market actually feared that war and this was seen as a de escalation, we would probably have seen a positive reaction today. We didn't get that.

[B]

Right. So.

[A]

Ultimately, I don't think the market is super scared of the 10%. I think the market is scared of what might come if we get this tit for tat reaction, this chain reaction where it goes back and forth as we've seen between the US and China a couple of times back in 2025. Right. Remember how they went from. I don't even. We didn't get to four digits, did we, between the U.S. but it was close to, at some point we got above 300 as far as I remember, and then we back down again. But it was this back and forth, back and forth, and they every time one part up the game, the other part up the game immediately after. I, I don't, I don't consider it likely that it will, you know, resemble that what we're going to see between the E.U. and, and the U.S. first of all, since the E.U. is not an institution that can take positions that fast. It, it, it, it's simply difficult for the EU to respond to tariffs by just tweeting something out and say, okay, we'll match that. They cannot do that. They have to vote and they have to talk to each other and all that. Right. And this is called the anti coercion mechanism that they call it the EU bazooka. When they're faced with a foreign threat on trade, for example, it is actually, as far as I understand, designed to be fairly slow because they don't want to incentivize this tit for tat where you've raised the bar on a running basis between the two combating forces. Right. So, and Then I think you mentioned that initially, Mikael, or to begin with, my personal base case is that Trump is not even capable of adding the 10% by 1st of February, at least not a broad 10%. He'll have to narrow down to, to be able to use the national security argument. And therefore, you know, to be honest, my best guess is that we'll probably, probably get a rhetorical response from the EU saying that they have a package prepared in case that those tariffs go live the 1st of February. And then from there they'll try to breathe easy and try to drag this out. I don't think we should expect an E and and an episode that kind of resembles what we saw between the US And China last year, because the EU is not that kind of institution.

[B]

No, Andres, we discussed this a lot over the weekend and today as well, you and I. I just wanted to show you this, a list of four potential US or EU responses. So in the top is the lightest one, the classic tariff retaliation, which called it, that's probably going to happen. Reciprocal tariffs or what you might call it. That shouldn't be too much of a worry for investors because that's subject to negotiation, et cetera. The next is a, it shouldn't say digital sales, digital services sales tax. That would be a step further if the EU decides to hit the max seven, because the first step, the classical tariff retaliation, would usually be aimed at the something like Harley Davidson motorcycles and bourbon and whatever, Levi's jeans, all those sort of symbolic things. But to hit the max 7 with a heavy sales tax group or something, we could be looking at an export ban on microchips from asml. And then obviously the big one could be something like a ban on owning US Assets within Europe in some way, shape or form. We're very, very far from those points, but those are steps to look out for, as you understand the EU response and how significant this is, in my opinion. So do you think we'll stay at the top tier right now or what's your assessment here?

[A]

I think it would take a lot, let me emphasize, a lot for us to go below step one. Even a digital sales services tax is something that wasn't even close to being implemented during the first part of this trade war back in 2025. It was not on table during the first Trump presidency either. So it's something that they'd like to avoid. You could argue that they already have a light digital services sales tax in place with all of the fines that they provide these Max 7s with in the Eurozone anyway. But you know, joking aside, that is I believe the only out of the three others that that could feasibly happen. Which is probably also why we saw this repricing of NASDAQ from, from the get go of the futures trading. Right. Because I, I mean it's fair to, to price in the probability of a digital services sales tax in the Eurozone as a response to this an export ban on, on ASML products. It's not a targeted measure against the US so I think that will be very difficult. And then a ban on, on holding US assets. Well you would need to make it a ban because you know I hold a lot of. Hold some US assets as well yourself. So it's clearly not something you've managed to convince people of doing just by watching the geopolitical play last year, right? No, it's something you'll have to force people to do because a lot of Europeans hold many US assets. The Eurozone I think, including UK but the old EU, let me put it like that, holds roughly 8.23 trillion dollar assets which is more than twice the rest of the world altogether. So I mean this is obviously the nuclear bomb that you could use. But you know, hopefully we're not getting there and I consider it incredibly unlikely that we put it like that. Yeah, what, what I'd like to, to ask you about Mickel, is that, you.

[B]

Know.

[A]

I've, I've kind of had the impression say over the past day or two that Trump is usual trying to figure out where is the exact red line. You know, one thing is that the Danes said it but, but he's a cynical guy so you know, he probably wants to test whether the Frenchman, whether Kirstama will back down and so on and so forth. But we know that the Frenchman and also the Brits they have pretty vested interests in you know, defending territorial interests next to the US if you know what I mean, with several islands included in both of those countries. Right. So how do you see this, you know, from a political perspective outside of Denmark? One thing is the Danish stance. But what about the French, the British stance, the German stance in this.

[B]

Right, right now we have a almost completely united European front on this issue. At least all the major European militaries economies are united on this. There may be some, some wrinkles on, on Italy and melodious support to this, but that's, that's relatively minor for now. And, and even so if, if they activate the, the anti coercion mechanics, it's, it's not a, you don't have. You don't have to have all the votes. That doesn't have to be unanimous. So that could be worked around. The big question here is what, what, what screws could Trump turn? Because tariffs is not going to be enough to break up this united front he's facing in Europe. It would probably have to include either lng, natural gas, which a lot of the European countries, the further you go to the south and the east, they're usually more reliant on that. And we're trying to wean ourselves off Russian gas. So if we can't also can't have US Gas, if they shut off, what on earth are we going to do? And the Europe is very, very, that's essentially our biggest Achilles heel, is that we don't produce any energy ourselves. So that is one step that the US could take to really put the pressure on Europe. It's also very, very hard to move back from. It would break a lot of trust with the European Union, but it is a step that could be taken. Other than that, we are seeing a very, very strong united European front. We are seeing European military advisors going to Greenland last week. There was a lot of fake news about these guys fleeing Greenland once Trump issued the threat of terrorists. Let me just say that that's completely fake news. These were not soldiers meant to jumping in a ditch and shooting. These were guys with laptops going up there for a meeting and going back. So that was always the plan. The plan is not to put 100,000 soldiers in Greenland because Greenland is so massive, what on earth would they be defending? The idea is to start having some talks within Europe and within NATO on what can be done to defend Greenland better in the future. What could such a package look like? We've covered that a bit. There are some investment ideas into that, because at the end of the day, I think the most realistic outcome of this is increased investments in the defense of Greenland. We've talked about ships, we've talked about drones. One thing that was mentioned to me earlier today was the, the Golden Dome radar network that, that Canada is investing heavily in and has been using as a way of easing Trump, Trump's rage against Canada. That that could be a wave and some massive investments in that over Greenland would make a lot of sense. So, I mean, there are some ways to this, but the fundamental issue is still that Europe and Denmark considers this. Some considers Greenland as something that can't be sold because the Greenlandic people decides this issue and they don't want to join the U.S. so Denmark and the Europe doesn't think that Greenland can't be sold. And on the other hand, the US is looking for a price to something that can't be sold. And that is at some point these parties are going to have to talk the same language if this is to be resolved.

[A]

But Nikol, I don't know how to. But maybe it can actually be bought, if you know what I mean. Because, you know, if, if I were to, you know, one thing that I continuously see, the US side of this misunderstanding is that they have to talk to Denmark.

[B]

Yeah, exactly.

[A]

They can in principle. They could go directly to, to the Greenland people and say, what's the price here?

[B]

Yeah, yeah, and they should. And I mean the Greenland people are not going to be be faced by, are going to be worried about tariffs on the EU and all these measures against the eu. That doesn't matter. They want independence and they don't see a path to independence through, through the us so they would have to be convinced otherwise. Right now they are very, very explicitly wants to stay as a part of the Kingdom of Denmark. That's not because they love it in our kingdom, to be honest, Andreas, but they prefer that to the US and that's sort of. Trump hasn't sold the idea on joining us to the Greenlandic people simply. And that's the key point because if he had managed to do that, if the Green Landing people wanted to join the us, a deal could absolutely be made.

[A]

But the simple bottom line, and maybe that should be my final words on this Greenland question for now, is that it is incredibly gullible to think that these 50,000 people can decide for themselves some of the biggest island on earth. It's not going to happen. True, true.

[B]

They don't have a free range of options, but they do have some level of self determinations. Obviously they can't choose to be a Chinese puppet, but yeah. Anyway, that's where the current misunderstanding is and that's why we don't see real negotiations because the two sides are talking completely different languages right now. Yes. So, okay, Andreas, maybe that's enough about Greenland. It's a very contentious topic. I know it's difficult for us to sit here as Danes, but we're trying to be as objective as possible and laying out the way we see it as analytical as possible. Let's talk a little bit macro. Andreas. We published, in my view, a very good article on Friday looking into the capex picture of 2026 and we covered this in our comprehensive outlook for 2026 as well. But it seems like we are getting some fuel to that fire with the depreciation rules, etc. Going on. What is it that you're seeing that makes you so upbeat on, on, on, on the.

[A]

This.

[B]

Is this ca.

[A]

So you know, outside of getting this punch to my, to my face, so to speak, literally, not literally speaking, but you know what I mean over the weekend with the screen and stuff, I was so upbeat on Friday because, you know, everything started to line up and the stars were aligning for this super capic cycle this year. We've had strong regional PMI data on capex which is, you know, fits hand in glove with my thesis that basically as of today you're incentivized to, to do a lot of capex this year due to this change in tax rules and it's by the way, only this year. So it's getting designed to make the economy fire on all cylinders ahead of the midterms, right? And then on top of it we've, we're also seeing this, you know, rotation beneath the hood that kind of supports the notion that there is actually a cyclical uptick on the way. We've seen, I think 10 sessions in a row with small caps outperforming large caps. It's typically not something we see unless the economic cycle is doing very well. And the good news, the piece of good news here is that you know, most cycle sensitive assets take the Russell 2000, take Bitcoin, they're priced for what I would call mediocrity. If you look at it year over year in the dark blue here, we're basically priced ish around an ISM manufacturing cycle that doesn't really move a lot, which has been the case three years running. So let me just highlight that. So if we get say a 10 index point increase in the PMI cycle this year, getting us to say 56, 57, 58, that range, we have loads of returns ahead of us this year and the regional service last week kind of confirmed that picture. So unless we get another tariff space roadblock, I'm fairly confident that the cycle will do well the next three, four months. I actually feel very comfortable that the cycle will do well. The caveat, and I have to remind you of it again, because it has happened twice last year, is that if we get a complete standstill in trade patterns, we got that in October with the second standoff with xi, we obviously got that after the Liberation Day in April as well. It takes the economies at least a few months to recover from such a, an exogenous shock and that exotic shock cannot be ruled out. I, I considered it ruled out on Friday, but I don't consider it ruled out here on Monday. Let's see, my base case is that this will not turn into a violent tit for tat trade war and in such case, and repeat is my base case, February to April will be one of the strongest spikes that we've seen in the PMI in over the past decade, in my opinion.

[B]

Extremely interesting, Andreas, and very, very upbeat message here. Very interesting to follow this. I just wanted to tease a little bit, Andreas about another topic that we've been covering. You can read much more about it on real vision, the approach here. We talked a lot about this graph, this chart last week, Andreas. The AI software versus hard hardware and electricity baskets. So we've talked a lot about AI hardware, about data centers, about them needing electricity. But maybe, just maybe there's a case to AI software being the next move. Can you just explain to us a little bit about the thinking behind this and your thesis here?

[A]

Well, at least since we got the announcement of Claude code, it kind of seems like also for companies kind of trade in at least if you extrapolate it in the straight lines, what's zero, right. And I, I kind of get why, but I'd like to see cloud code solve the saps of the world before I really truly conclude that. But for sure, I, I mean even, you know, our little, small, little shop nickel we have, I don't know, a couple of handfuls of software software subscriptions. I myself think that most of those software subscriptions will be worth zero in a year from now. So there's some merit to wise at least less complicated software will prove worthless more or less due to the.

[B]

Extremely.

[A]

Solid development of LLMs. Right. And clock code and so on and so forth. Having said that, I guess we'll need to figure out when the S curve de accelerates again. And I think it's very, very hard to buy software as long as an LLM doubles its capability versus an actual software engineer. Every five months, which is currently the case. Every five months we see a document.

[B]

We have the chart here. Yeah, yeah, yeah, exactly. And measured in the the amount of time that specific tasks would take a human. It looks like the beginning of an exponential or this is so far an exponential development.

[A]

It is.

[B]

The question is at what point does that begin to normalize or to break off into an S shape as you predict.

[A]

That's, you know, ultimately if it keeps toppling, it doesn't take more than a Handful of years for us to get to something that would take an engineer many years. Right. So and, and in such case, I mean, the engineering job is obviously done. I mean it's done and dusted. You can't, I mean, more or less. Right. So whether this turns into an S shape this year, next 2028, I'm not the right guy to answer that, but as long as we're in this part of the journey, I would stay at least mostly off software as a basket and rather consider which physical constraints this development face. Right. And that's basically the electricity and hardware stuff. We have much more exposure to electricity and hardware than to software. We have a little software and it's served us very well so far. I think we're up, you know, now that the US equity market is, is closed today, I can, I can actually, you know, safely say that we made money today with a few positions we have outside of the U.S. so yeah, I haven't had a red day so far this year, which is more or less a miracle. So let's see.

[B]

Yeah, up just around 16 year to date. We're really good, Andreas, obviously with a lot of these bets also, some of them making money on the Greenland case, some of the drones, but drone bets and other stuff.

[A]

Yeah, but it wasn't designed.

[B]

No.

[A]

On the background analysis, to be honest, but no, no, absolutely. I personally tend to think that there are a couple of companies involved in mining in the very south of Greenland and those bets are kind of obvious, Critical metal corpse and so on and so forth. But other than that, it's actually very hard to find any way to sort of directly hitch against what's going on in Greenland. What I can say, and I'll probably, I'll probably not get a lot of friends by saying that, but I think it is evident that if we talk about a geopolitical shit show, you'd rather want gold than bitcoin in your portfolio. If we talk about a shit show around the US dollar and the Fed, you probably rather want bitcoin than gold. So it depends on what you're hedging here. If you're hedging a complete melt up or meltdown rather of NATO, buy gold instead of bitcoin.

[B]

Very interesting distinction there, Andreas. Let's keep that as the final point of this week's Macro Mondays. As mentioned, we'll be going to Miami for the crypto gathering, the real vision crypto gathering. Still time to catch your tickets. If you're in the area in Miami beach, we will most likely be doing next week's Macro Mondays from Miami. Hopefully a bit better weather than we're having here in Copenhagen and a bit more sunny outlook also in markets, perhaps, Andreas. We'll see about that. Thanks to everyone for joining in. We didn't have time for too many listener questions today. We'll be catching up on that during the coming weeks. And on the platform. Once again, if you are a real vision subscriber, do reach out to us on the platform. We are very active there. We are posting on the feed in there. We are answering direct messages. So do reach out to us in there and we'll we'll get to your questions as well. So thanks to you for joining us. Ras. Thanks everyone for listening. We'll be back next week.