← Macro Voices
Macro Voices
MacroVoices #522 Matt Loszak: Factory Mass-Production of Advanced Nuclear Power Plants
01:13:12
Loading summary
Transcript55 lines
- [00:00]
A
Foreign.
- [00:07]
B
This is Macro Voices, the free weekly financial podcast targeting professional finance, high net worth individuals, family offices and other sophisticated investors. Macro Voices is all about the brightest minds in the world of finance and macroeconomics, telling it like it is bullish or bearish. No holds barred. Now here are your hosts, Eric Townsend and Patrick Ceresna.
- [00:34]
A
Macro voices Episode 522 was produced on March 5th, 2026. I'm Eric Townsend. As our longtime listeners already know, I'm passionate about nuclear energy, but I think the nuclear renaissance may be off on the wrong foot. The nuclear industry has been very slow to recognize my vision that this moment in history demands revolutionary rather than evolutionary change to the way that we build nuclear power. I've argued on Substack that we need to mass produce entire modular nuclear power plants, not just reactors in gigafactories with fully robotic assembly lines at massive scale in order to avert a global energy crisis when fossil fuel production becomes prohibitively expensive in the2030s. So when Allo Atomics, a company that seems to share my vision, almost perfectly, hit my radar screen recently, I wanted to share their vision for nuclear energy with our Mac voices audience. ALO's CEO Matt Lozak will join me as this week's feature interview guest and we'll talk about the big picture of what the advanced nuclear industry needs to do in order to bring the cost of nuclear energy down to the cost of energy from fossil fuels. VCs in the audience. You're not going to want to miss this one. Allo expects to have their first prototype advanced nuclear reactor up and running by 4th of July of this year and they're shopping their Series C term sheet right now. Obviously the developing situation in Iran is driving markets this week and Patrick and I will have plenty to say about what the conflict means for major markets in our post game segment after the feature interview on the future of advanced nuclear energy. That starts with Patrick's Trade of the Week revisiting the S&P 500 options caller to hedge out short term market risks
- [02:27]
C
and I'm Patrick Ceresna with the Macro Scoreboard Week over week as of the close of Wednesday, March 4, 2026, the S&500 index down 111 basis points to 6,869. The market continues to resiliently hold support in spite of material headline risks. We'll take a closer look at that chart and the key technical levels to watch in the post game segment. The US dollar index up 140 basis points to 9901. A substantial reversal of the dollar trend. The April WTI crude oil contract up 1412 points to 74, 466 the war risk premium sharply advancing oil prices the April r Bob Gasoline up 1156 basis points to 251 the April gold contract down 176 basis points to 5134 the May copper contract down 134 basis points to 590 and the March uranium down 211 basis points to 85. 90. The US 10 year treasury yield up 6 basis points trading to 411 the key news to watch this week is Friday's jobs numbers and next week we have the CPI and the core PCE price index, inflation numbers and the US Preliminary GDP numbers. This week's feature interview guest is Aloatomics Founder and CEO Matt Lozak. Eric and Matt discuss the next generation of nuclear power, the potential for mass produced modular reactors, why breeder technology could dramatically expand nuclear fue fuel supply, and more. Eric's interview with Matt Lozak is coming up as Macro Voices continues right here@macrovoices.com.
- [04:28]
B
And now with this week's special guest, here's your host, Eric Townsend.
- [04:34]
A
Joining me now is Matt Lozak, founder and CEO of Allo Atomics, a company that proposes to mass produce not just modular nuclear re but entire modular nuclear power plants in a gigafactory for the express goal of rapid deployment at scale. ALO's initial market focus will be on data centers where rapidly deployable power solutions are most critically needed. In the interest of full disclosure, I am personally a private equity investor in Matt's company, Allo Atomics. Matt, it's great to have you on the show. Thanks for joining us today.
- [05:09]
D
Thanks so much for having me. Great to be here.
- [05:11]
A
I want to start by playing devil's advocate and describing the most common in the conventional nuclear power industry. Despite the fact that I personally disagree pretty strongly with that view, the common wisdom says that the pressurized water reactor originally designed for the Nautilus submarine back in the early 1950s has evolved to become the gold standard of nuclear power alongside its close cousin the boiling water reactor. Most seasoned nuclear industry professionals share the view that the operational experience that we've gained from running these light water reactors is they're called for several decades now is the most important safety consideration that we should think about. And so they question why anybody in their right mind would even consider deviating from what's already been proven to work for nearly six decades and thousands of reactor years of commercial Service. For those reasons, they strongly advocate focusing the formative nuclear renaissance on building more of them, more light water reactors like the Westinghouse model AP1000. And a lot of these people think that experimenting with different reactors, reactor designs involving coolants other than water is just asking for trouble, both economically and from a supply chain perspective. Matt, you and I disagree with the consensus view. What's wrong with the narrative shared by so many of your peers in the nuclear industry that we should just stick with what we already know, which is light water reactors that have been proven to work for decades.
- [06:41]
D
If we had to boil it down, I'd say it's that essentially the current solution is a local maxima, but not a global maxima. So if we think about some of the problems that have happened in the past 20 years of nuclear deployment, we saw Vogel go 10 years over schedule, $15 billion over budget. And essentially the problem is that you have a industry where every reactor that's been built in the past 75 years is bespoke. They've been one off projects. And in that world, the best way to try to lower cost is just make the reactors bigger and bigger and bigger and stick with the same design you've been doing before. But as we know, there's two ways to optimize economics. One is make things bigger and two is make a lot more of them. The interesting thing is the idea of making a lot more of nuclear reactors has really not been attempted properly. In other words, there's no single large factory we can point to globally that is mass producing along the lines of Henry Ford's cars nuclear reactors. The reason to switch off of water is essentially this emergent realization when you start to explore and ask yourself what is the best design to mass manufacture. And if you're no longer just going bigger and bigger and you want to get a better design that can be maybe transportable on everyday roads, then you start to look at these other coolants, things like liquid metals, sodium, molten salt, or even gas, and especially sodium and molten salt allow you to make the, the vessel of the reactor much smaller. So in other words, if the vessel was the same size for all these coolants with sodium and molten salt, you'd get around anywhere from 2 to 10 times more energy out of it. So you can imagine that's much better from a mass manufacturing perspective. And so you also get other advantages, things like more inherent safety and something I think we might talk a bit more about later around when you can achieve higher temperatures, you can service things like industrial process heat and so on. But those are some of the core reasons for exploring other technologies beyond just water based gigawatt scale reactors that we have today.
- [09:07]
A
Well, certainly the high tech boys have recognized this case, and I know that's where you're focusing a lot of your business. Help our audience understand what this so called advanced nuclear industry really is all about. One of the most commonly held views among institutional investors is, look, we don't want to invest in science projects, we don't want to mess with unproven technologies. So even if you're onto some great idea that's going to completely change the course of human history, it probably belongs in a research lab at mit, not in a startup company like OKLO or ALLO that proposes to actually be selling nuclear reactors to data centers in the next few years. So we really only want to invest in stuff that's already been proven to work and proven to be deployable in a commercial context. How much do we really know about all this advanced nuclear technology and to what extent is it proven to be viable and how much technology risk is involved in deviating from that accepted norm of, you know, essentially light water reactors forever, which is what a lot of the industry wants to focus on.
- [10:09]
D
I think a lot of people don't realize that advanced reactors actually do have quite a bit of operational history. So water cooled reactors definitely have the most to the tune of thousands of cumulative years of operational history. But sodium still has around 400 operational years, gas has maybe 100, and molten salt has on the order of just a few years. It's kind of the least one on molten salt. These have been built before. And the interesting debate in nuclear is why these technology branches on the tech tree weren't fully explored. Our argument, essentially my belief is that it was largely for political reasons. If you look at the history that these reactors do not get further explored. You know, one interesting anecdote is EBR2, which is one of the reactors that we take the most inspiration from, operated from essentially for 30 years at 20 megawatts of power. And it was a real success. I mean, when they decommissioned it, the sodium had been, the liquid metal had been so compatible with the stainless steel that the welder's etchings were still visible inside the pipes. So it operated with a very high capacity factor for that time as well. And interestingly, they did a test where they basically tried to make the reactor melt down by removing all the backup power and leaving the control rods, the brakes on the reactor, fully open. And what they found is that the reactor was able to safely shut itself off inherently because of the physics of the system. They're depending on human control. So it demonstrated good capacity factor, good safety. But you'll never guess what happened 12 days after that test occurred. Chernobyl. Some of these sodium reactors had different political challenges that caused them to slow down in development. But I think that you're taking a step back. The thing to realize is these advanced fission reactors are not really like for example, fusion, where there's Nobel prize winning discoveries that have to be made or new science has to be unearthed in order to make it feasible. They've already been deployed. And the kind of best analogy in my mind is some of these advanced coolants like sodium, are kind of like SpaceX with landing a rocket. Is it easy compared to water? No. There's a bit of extra engineering challenge, but if you can do it, it unlocks a holy grail of economic. And if you get a smart team together with a bunch of capital and the right environment, with the right customer, in this case AI data centers, we think you can really make this work. And so I think that's what's most exciting about this technology.
- [12:59]
A
Matt, you mentioned a holy grail of economics, and that's what I want to focus on next. Not so much what's possible in the next few years, but let's kind of zoom out and talk about the future of nuclear energy and what it's going to take to truly change the course of human history and deliver a source of energy that will eventually be able to replace fossil fuels and give us a cleaner, greener, better future. The more I've learned about all this nuclear energy technology, the more that I've come to realize two things. Number one, we're never going to really and truly change the world and be able to scale nuclear up enough to replace fossil fuels until we get to something called a breeder reactor economy. The second thing though, is that breeder reactors, at least as they've been developed and deployed to date, have generally not proven themselves to be economically viable for commercial deployment. So that's a real conundrum. Let's start with what is a breeder reactor in the first place? Why is that important? Why do we need breeder reactors to eventually change the world completely with nuclear energy? And then what are your thoughts on how we overcome the fact that frankly, breeder reactors haven't proven themselves economic, at least not yet? And how do we get to that eventual infrastructure that we need? How does the evolution occur and why is that important? Important?
- [14:15]
D
Currently, the, the Nuclear fuel supply chain is primarily based on Uranium 235. And if we were to burn all of the known resources on U235, it would probably have a similar life span to oil and gas and lasting us another 200 years. Maybe. But if you can do a breeder, it unlocks different fuels still in a nuclear reactor like thorium and uranium 238, which are both much more abundant than U235. So essentially that enables you to expand the usable fuel lifespan of known reserves on Earth to 4 billion years. So that's what's really exciting is when you think about scaling up in the future of energy production on Earth, really, it almost seems inevitable that this will become the main source of energy that replaces oil and gas on Earth and certainly inevitably within a 200 year time frame. But we think much sooner because of the demand from AI data centers and nuclear being the best fit for powering them. That's the kind of bottom line now is if that's the case, why are we not doing breeding right now? The answer is it's a bit more expensive right now. And there's going to be a crossover point in the supply chain of U235 and U238 when it makes sense to actually do the extra step of recycling and reprocessing the fuel, to access the resources within spent fuel and to switch the mining supply chain to be for thorium and U238. So there's going to be an economic crossover point when that occurs. For the time being, the cheaper, faster, short term path is to use standard low enrichment, you know, 5% uranium dioxide, which is what we're doing at our company. But yeah, that's essentially how we see it is it's an inevitable move that'll happen in the coming probably couple decades. But for now, the cheaper, faster approach for the customer of the day data centers is to use the existing supply chain and the existing reactor technology.
- [16:24]
A
I think there's a point here that a lot of people don't fully appreciate, which is they've heard about these breeder reactors being able to use this fuel. Less than 1% of uranium that's mined out of the ground is U235, the kind of fuel that's actually used today. The other 99.3% is U238. And when people think about it, they hear, okay, we're wasting all of that U238, we're not putting it to use. But hey, you know, the cost of the Uranium is not really that big of a deal to run a nuclear power plant. Let's not worry about it. What I don't think people really understand is we're not just wasting it in the sense of not putting it to good use. We're literally creating so called nuclear waste. Spent fuel waste is mostly all of that U238 that people think is just this horrible, awful, toxic stuff that stays around forever. Really, it's perfectly good nuclear fuel that we could have used to make energy. We just didn't do that because we didn't build the style of reactor that we've known about since before, before I was born that can use that U238 fuel. So I want to talk about this so called nuclear waste. Now. A lot of experts say, you know, don't worry so much about it, it's a public perception problem, but technologically speaking, they shouldn't worry because it's not as big of a deal as they think it is. And I think that those technical experts are missing the point because the public perception that this nuclear waste is horribly dangerous is really, I think, the biggest thing that's holding back the growth of nuclear. So talk to miss a little bit about. We've been hearing these stories that some companies are coming up with technology that can actually take the stuff we call nuclear waste that's been sitting around for decades, burn it up and use it as fuel in order to make more energy, which covers two, you know, kills two birds with one stone. One is we're making energy that we don't have to mine new uranium for. But the other thing is we're getting rid of all that nuclear waste that everybody's so concerned about. Are we back to science projects here? Is this brand new unproven technology or is there really a way that's available, available today that we could get rid of those 250,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel waste that's sitting around in dry cask storage all around the world and get rid of it by actually making power from it.
- [18:43]
D
So there definitely is a way. And again, coming back to EBR2, the reactor we spoke about earlier, that was actually the first time we demonstrated what's called closing the fuel cycle. Essentially the way to think of this is as follows. So, so first of all, nuclear waste. The fears of nuclear waste were somewhat propaganda, driven by in large part the oil and gas lobbyists in the 70s and 80s. That created fear around something that really hasn't ever harmed anyone is pretty easy to store. And there's tiny amounts of it. You know, I have to be empathetic to fears of nuclear meltdowns and radiation, you know, causing relocations. And that's something we also can avoid through technology. But the nuclear waste issue, I think is almost entirely propaganda and not really at all technological. Technologically, it's a solved issue from a safety perspective. But to your point, it's not just about keeping it stored safely. It's also about the fact that when you have nuclear waste, it's actually a very useful substance. There's still 95% of the energy still in there. What's happening around the world today is France is currently recycling most of their fuel and they're extracting. So once fuel is burned, some of the what's called fissile isotopes like U235 and plutonium are still in there. You can make what's called mixed oxide fuels by recycling the fuel and just extracting those leftover fissile isotopes. But with the approach of using breeder reactors, we can then tap into the other 95% of the energy that's still in there, which is the U238. And in doing so, you can really get a lot more energy out of the fuel and also reduce the volume of waste that you have to even store to begin with. So to give you an anecdote, the entire history of nuclear power production in America, so 70 years for 20% of, on average 300 million people has produced only a football field of waste stacked around 10 yards tall. And if you were to do waste burning and use the useful stuff in that leftover fuel, then the height of the true waste would only be 6 inches on that whole football field. It goes to show you a waste is not really this existential problem for nuclear. It's actually one of the main selling points because everything produces waste. Oil and gas puts waste into the air we breathe. Breathe. Solar panels have an end of life and must be put under the earth or expensively recycled. Same with wind turbine blades. So everything produces waste when it reaches end of life. But nuclear's main selling point, or one of them, is that there's such a small amount of waste and it's so easy to maintain. And what we conceive of as waste today is actually, like you said, a very useful substance. It's a very valuable substance that we actually want to use and future reactors.
- [21:41]
A
Matt, you and I share a vision that the way we get from where we are today to the point where nuclear energy finally becomes cost competitive with energy from Oil and gas, is that we need to mass produce not just components to build modular reactors, but we need to do factory assembly line mass production of entire nuclear power plants in gigafactories. So the whole power plant just gets set up and configured on like IKEA furniture, as opposed to having to be custom built on site the way we've built all of the nuclear plants that exist today. I'll save my own reasons for thinking that's important for another podcast. What are yours at a high level,
- [22:25]
D
what we're trying to do, I think what the ideal solution here is, is to turn nuclear from being a project into a product. And I'll give you a few examples of that. But the key advantage, you know, if we're asking why does it make sense to do this for the current customer of the day data centers, it's all about speed. And if you can mass produce your nuclear power plant, again, not just the reactor, but the whole plant in the factory, you can do a lot more in parallel and essentially deploy hundreds of megawatts in under a year, whereas normally it would take, take, you know, five or 10 years. Eventually the goal is to be deploying 10, 20, 30 gigawatts per year by doing a lot of sites, a lot of reactors, a lot of nuclear product in parallel. But that's essentially what's the key unlock for AI data centers who will pay a real premium in return for speed. You know, clean is nice and baseload is important, but speed is really one of the most important things there. In our view, the key to achieving this is extreme vertical integration. And maybe we can talk a bit more about this later, but that's a really key part to achieving that scale and speed. And essentially cost reduction will follow from that scale and speed. And nuclear, a big part of the cost today is actually interest because it takes so long to build all this, all this major hardware. So if you can build it much faster in a more predictable, repeatable way, costs come down. And then that unlocks a whole bunch of other markets for whom a gigawatt scale nuclear plant would have been just too big and too expensive and too slow. But when you get faster and below a certain cost threshold, let's call it 7 to 10 cents a kilowatt hour, then it opens up all these other markets, like large industrial on site loads, for example, desalination, industrial process heat, small utility, even large utility, and then micro grids for powering EVs, hydrogen production, ammonia, et cetera. So those are some of the biggest reasons to mass produce a Slightly smaller nuclear product that can see major cost reduction and then unlock entirely new markets that were not previously available to nuclear.
- [24:55]
A
I want to stay on this topic of scale because I think it's the single most important thing we have to think about. There's been a lot of hype in the industry about, hey, we're going to triple nuclear by 2050. Sounds great. A lot of people are skeptical that that's even possible because that's a lot of old school nuclear power plants to build if you build them the old way. The thing is, what you'd need to replace fossil fuels is not tripling nuclear. It's literally 25 times the amount of nuclear that we have in operation. So my view is the most important thing is get the cost down to the cost of energy from coal and gas. Because when you do that, it unlocks what I call the nuclear Henry Ford moment. And you alluded to Henry Ford and his automobiles a little bit earlier. I think this is really what the game is all about, because there's 10 terawatts of nuclear generation capacity, 25 more than we have today that could be deployed if we could somehow get the cost down to where nuclear costs the same as coal and gas. You know, I don't think it's at all an exaggeration to say we could change the course of human history in a way that it is more impactful than the industrial revolution if we could figure out how to get the cost down and really scale this up so that we could actually build 25 times more nuclear than we have today. But we're struggling right now just to get back in the business of building nuclear power plants. So I want to talk about the future. Do you think that that vision can ever be real? Is it mass production that gets us from there, from here to there? And if not, what else do we need to worry about in order to achieve that vision?
- [26:36]
D
It's going to be really hard, but I think it's possible. If you think about the pathway in going from 10 reactors per year to 100 to 1,000 to 10,000, and in doing so, you go from at our reactor output, you know, 100 megawatts per year to 100 gigawatts per year, you can imagine a lot of different things in the supply chain will break along the way. And so I think this is all very doable, but it requires a very ambitious effort from a company really thinking about the future and how to break down those barriers in the supply chain at every step along the way. So if you Think about what it takes to deploy 10,000 reactors a year. For example, in the short term, you can deploy a bunch of reactors like let's call it 10 per year, with existing fuel supply chain, pump supply chain, turbine supply chain, heat exchanger supply chain. But different parts of that supply chain will break as we go in that journey. For example, at 100 reactors per year, vertical integration on the heat exchangers becomes important. At a thousand, the company will have to make its own turbines. And at 10,000, a company using sodium might have to create its own sort of industrial conglomerate that does things like sets up a reactor at Salt Lake City to separate sodium from chlorine and the salt that's there and manufacture its own sodium at scale. So none of this is really, you know, impossible from a first principles physics perspective. It's all very doable. It just, just takes the right team, the right effort. And I think the beautiful thing is what this unlocks, if you kind of look at some of the techno economic models, is you can very rapidly get below 10 cents per kilowatt hour, let's call it n equals 20 reactors, by then you could probably get below 10. And then to get to, for example, maybe 3 cents one day, which would really unlock a whole bunch of new markets and really beat oil and gas across the board. Call it 2 to 3 cents might require a different kind of learning. So, for example, to get down below 10 might involve just construction learnings, turning it more into a product versus a project, building most of the modules in the factory and keeping on site construction to basically a very simple concrete slab with no excavation and really productizing nuclear. But then to get it down to 3 cents might require much more of what I just referenced with the extreme vertical integration in the supply chain to achieve way faster, greater scale, faster deployment, lower costs. But I think that is kind of the core way to allow nuclear to really do stand a chance of replacing oil and gas almost wholesale in the next century or so.
- [29:29]
A
So back in Henry Ford's day, automobiles were like private jets are today. Everybody knew what it was, everybody wanted one, but nobody except the super rich could afford to actually have one. And I've contended that the same thing is true of nuclear energy. It's the safest, cleanest, greenest form of energy that's known to man. But it frankly just costs too darned much, it seems to me. You know, if you think about Henry Ford's challenge, he wanted to bring the cost way down, but he needed at least a small number of rich guys that could afford the bespoke automobiles in order to get his business going before he could really build his assembly line and bring the cost down to the point that the common man could afford one. It seems to me if we take this analogy forward to the 21st century, the hyperscalers and their AI data centers are the rich kids who can afford to buy private jets. They're the guys who could afford. If you said, look, we can deliver your data center energy from an alloatomics nuclear plant that we can roll out in a period of months rather than years, they can afford to pay extra for that is that the strategy is to use the budget of the data centers to get this started and then eventually scale it up to mass, really big mass production from there.
- [30:41]
D
Our kind of top secret master plan is to start by servicing data centers because they have a high willingness to pay with a lot of urgency, so they'll pay a premium for speed. And as we come down the cost curve, we can go after all these other markets that we talked about. So industrial process, heat desalination, large utilities, small utility, for whom if you go and talk to them today, they would say come back and talk to us when you're below 10 cents per kilowatt hour. But once you get down below 10 cents, it really opens up this whole other set of markets. And like we were referencing earlier, eventually you can imagine going after the developing world with around 3 cent per kilowatt hour electricity to bring the world out of energy poverty. So in the long term that would be be our goal. I think it's a good goal. But I think it's important to realize, like we talked about earlier, there are two main ways to make nuclear cheap. You go bigger or you go more numerous. And the beautiful thing is the hyperscalers have a huge amount of demand. We're talking 100 gigawatts in the next five years in the US alone for a. It's a huge amount of demand for a very consistent product. And they want a reactor that's a bit smaller because then you can deploy a fleet of smaller reactors and have a higher availability. Meaning if you have a single gigawatt scale reactor, it has to go offline for refueling for a month every two years. So you lose the whole gigawatt, which puts a big strain on the grid. And then you see data centers being kind of bad Samaritans with their local communities putting a strain on the grid grid. So if you have a fleet of these smaller reactors, you can refuel one by one and essentially always have power. Available at a high availability. So it's cool how these customers, they want exactly this product, which almost is inventing this new nuclear product that can then, once it comes down the cost curve, go after all those other markets we talked about. It essentially allows you to go from large bespoke reactors to small, repeatable, mass manufacturable ones. And the fact that it's clean is essentially a nice to have right now, but frankly will benefit everyone in the long term. That's the last kind of benefit of doing this approach. But yes, I think the hyperscalers are arguably the core unlock to this new model in nuclear that we haven't really seen done before.
- [33:08]
A
Now I want to touch on what has to be the hottest marketing trend in the nuclear power industry. Something called smrs Small Modular React. I have to confess my naivety. When I first heard that phrase, I assumed that they were talking about nuclear reactors that would be both small and modular, given the name Small Modular Reactor. Frankly, I don't think either of those things are true for products like the Westinghouse AP300 or the GE Hitachi BWRX300, which seem to have taken over that marketing phrase of small modular reactor. So let's just talk for a minute about why would small be better than large in the first place? Because as you said, the whole trend of the 1960s and 70s was to go to much larger reactors for the sake of economy of scale. So why do you want to go from large to small in the first place? And how small does it have to be in order for that benefit to actually be realized? And do these SMRs like the AP 300 achieve that goal in terms of
- [34:10]
D
achieving the Henry Ford vision for nuclear? There is a sweet spot in terms of size and that size of all the modules for the reactor and the whole plant. But if you think about it, a reactor that's too small will have very bad economics for physics reasons. It has a very poor neutron economy. And if you go too large, you can't ship it on normal roads. So if you're trying to build one reactor a year, then yeah, I'd say build a bigger reactor. But if you're trying to ship 10,000 reactors per year, you've got to have something that's the right size to ship normally on everyday roads and the rest of the global transportation network. That's kind of the thinking behind what is the optimal size for mass production and for rapidly achieving the scale that data centers are desiring. But the other kind of thing to highlight. So the SMR Term, you kind of of correctly highlighted that they are not small nor modular. But in my view, one of the other major disconnects and maybe the biggest flaw in the SMR vision so far in terms of how it's been expressed is that traditionally those modules all come from different factories. So a single company, for example Westinghouse or Oakland Oklo, they could be a reactor designer. But something that often surprises people is Oklo, for example, is a fully remote company. They don't have a factor. So what you see happen is the reactor designers send the design of their so called SMRs to dozens of different companies who each have their own factory. And when those modules come together at site, they don't fit it. They have reworks and slowdowns. And that's why Vogel went 10 years over schedule and $15 billion over budget. So if we kind of think about the best approach to SMRs, in our view, what that would be would be a single factory that takes raw materials in and outputs modules that we know will fit together. In fact, we've integration tested them in the factory and then when they come together at site, it's way faster and way easier. And by the way, they're all sized properly for mass transportation. That's what we think is really the proper incantation of the SMR vision. And so that's what we're working on
- [36:36]
A
at ala. Well, I think we're very much aligned in our thinking because I've always said that what matters about small is it's small enough that you can ship it in the existing container ship based and flatbed truck based global infrastructure of logistics. But the other side of this is the time to actually build the on site part of it. And it blows my mind when I see Westinghouse bragging about this is going to be great because with the AP 300 SMR, we're going to be able to build the entire reactor in only four and a half years. And I'm thinking, wait a minute, isn't that how long it takes the Koreans to build a conventional nuclear power plant? It seems to me, Matt, that we should be striving for four and a half months at most to take a, a entire nuclear power plant that was factory built and set it up and hook it together. And I don't mean the site work and grid connections, but once you've got the site prepared and you ship in all the stuff that comes from the factory, I think it should be months, less than a year to completely set it up, hook it up and get it running. Is that realistic and how long will it take to realize that vision?
- [37:43]
D
I think we might talk about this a bit later, but our first power plant we are building currently and all in, it'll be under a year in terms of start to finish on turning that thing on. And the whole goal here again is to turn nuclear from a project into a product. And so if you're doing more in parallel in the factory, it allows you to at the site really reduce the work that's involved. For example, if you're trying to make nuclear deployable more quickly and more predictably, a really dumb way to start is by digging a gigantic hole because different sites have different water table, different rock hardness, and that can introduce a lot of variability between sites, which can slow you down. And you really want to try to make it so that every project is the exact same as predictable as possible. And that's where you see the speed benefits. So yes, we believe that it will be possible and almost already is, to deploy these reactors at this scale in under a year. And that's kind of even accelerated further by some of the new licensing pathways under the current Trump administration around DOE authorization, categorical exclusions for NEPA and more. So the somewhat short answer is yes, that will be possible and it's going to have to be to keep up with the pace of development that the hyperscalers are demanding.
- [39:03]
A
Matt, you've mentioned something called industrial process heat a few times in this interview, so I want to come back to that and understand little bit more detail what that means. Only 38% of global energy is used to make electricity in the first place. What we normally think about when we're discussing nuclear reactors, of course, is making electricity. Now another 25% of global energy goes to transportation fuels. But almost a full quarter of global energy consumption, that's nearly as much as we spend making all of the transportation fuels that we need combined to power the entire global economy. The rest of that, that last quarter of global energy production goes into something that's called industrial process heat. Examples of that are smelting steel, making concrete and so forth. Why are light water reactors poorly suited to delivering process heat? And what's better about advanced nuclear reactors in order to better solve that problem?
- [40:03]
D
With light water reactors, the reason they can't go to as high of a temperature is because water is the coolant and water boils at around 100 Celsius. So the, the way that water based reactors have essentially made their designs to date is they apply a lot of pressure, hence the name pressurized Water reactors to allow the water coolant to go up to as high as 300 Celsius. But if you look at industrial process heat application, most of the applications occur at temperatures greater than 300 Celsius. So with advanced reactors using high temperature gas or sodium or molten salt, you can achieve temperatures in the range of 500 to 800 Celsius. And that unlocks essentially roughly half of all industrial process seed applications global globally, which could be decarbonized and replaced and powered by nuclear in order to reach the higher temperatures. Still, you could in theory use more advanced nuclear designs or electrical assistance to reach those higher temperatures. So it's still possible with nuclear, but at the lower temperature from 500 to 800, you get a really nice benefit on efficiency because traditionally when you make electricity with a nuclear reactor, reactor, two thirds of your heat energy overall is going to waste heat and only a third is converting to electricity. But if you are doing industrial process heat, you can essentially use the heat coming straight out of the reactor and use 100% of it or much more of it, use it much more efficiently than than the electrical use case. So it has extra economic benefit there as well. But yeah, fundamentally we can kind of think of it as data centers will be the ideal initial customer to bring the cost down. And it unlocks all these other markets to help bring industrial process heat to be decarbonized with nuclear around the world.
- [42:13]
A
Matt, I can't thank you enough for a terrific interview. But before we close, I want to give you an opportunity to pitch what your company is working on. Because frankly, you're the only advanced nuclear company that I've found that shares my own vision for mass produc, not just nuclear reactors, but entire nuclear power plants in gigafactories for the sake of cost reduction. It's that Henry Ford concept of bringing the cost of nuclear way down by mass producing it in a gigafactory so that all that has to happen on site is setting it up and hooking it together as opposed to any kind of custom building of anything. Again listeners, in the interest of full disclosure, I am an investor in Mat's company. Matt, give us the elevator pitch on alloatomics. What are you working on? When will your technology be ready for commercial deployment? And where can our institutional investor audience find out more about your company and its business plan?
- [43:10]
D
Thank you again for having me on. This has been a real honor and privilege. We are all atomics. We're mass manufacturing nuclear power plants that are purpose built for powering AI data centers. We started around two and a half years ago and at that point we were two people. Now we're 140. To date we've raised 180 million and we are on pace to turn our first nuclear power plant on in under just a few months. I can't say exactly when, that's confidential, but it is very soon. So hopefully when I say that the audience is shocked. Shocked, because going from founding to fission in three years is very unprecedented. But right now we are raising our Series C, it'll be 500 million to a billion. And the use of this fund will go towards the first gigawatt factory. So scaling out our 40,000 square foot pilot factory space that we've already built into a million square foot facility that will have the ability to mass produce, produce at least 1 gigawatt per year initially and then scale up to 5 and then 10 and then likely around 20 gigawatts per year per factory in the not too distant future. So essentially we're turning the first plant on in the next few months. It's a 10 megawatt plant that's purpose built for powering a data center. By the end of the year it'll achieve full power operation. And that's the aggressive internal goal on powering the world's first co built nuclear plant and data center. And it'll be a great demonstration of something that I think we'll see a lot more of in the years to come. Yeah, thanks again for having me on and it was a real pleasure.
- [44:56]
A
Well Matt, I'm really excited about what you're doing. That's why I invested in it. But I just want to probe a little bit on the business plan because first of all, I think you're doing exactly the right thing. But selling nuclear power to data centers sounds to me like selling private jets to rich guys is your strategy eventually to to the point where you can bring the cost down enough mass produce these nuclear power plants at a price point where you don't have to be an AI data center to afford one. And can you give us a rough sense, I know it's probably an unfair question, but is that two years out, 10 years out, 20 years out? When do we get to the point where factory mass production brings the cost of nuclear down to the point where it starts to compete with the cost of fossil fuel fuels?
- [45:40]
D
So I think the interesting thing is right now, if you look at the hyperscalers build us of data centers, the price point they're seeing for net new natural gas production is in the 10 to 15 cents per kilowatt hour range. We're seeing as the current pipeline gets tapped out, new fracking, new pipeline expansion has to be built out. And that also adds costs and delays. So the interesting thing is even at the speed, speed that we're talking about right now and the scale for powering data centers today, we can come in at a price point right around that same range initially. So by many measures, coming in right off the bat, being competitive with the ideal oil and gas solutions for this end customer. But as you know, in order to displace much more of oil and gas, it'll have to get cheaper. And we believe within n equals 20, 20 to 40 or so. So in other words, after the first 20 to 40 reactors, which would be around 5, call it 5 to 10 pods, getting well below 10 cents is fully within range. So it doesn't have to be in the thousands to see a very good price point. But in order to eventually get to $0.03, which is a very aggressive number, it's our, essentially our company mission that is more of the multi decade effort. But I'd say probably in the early 2000 and 30s to mid 2000 and 30s, getting below 10 cents is very achievable.
- [47:09]
A
Well, Matt, I'm really excited to be investing in what you're doing and I just want to say that I hope that other companies will come to the table and share your vision and my vision of mass producing nuclear energy in factories so that all you have to do is set it up and hook it up on site as opposed to custom building anything on site. And I think it's really going to be important that the Western nuclear industry embrace this idea because frankly, the People's Republic of China gets it and they're working hard on this too. And if we want to be competitive in the west, more companies need to follow the lead that Matt's company is taking. So that's my soapbox for this episode. I want to move on now and encourage everyone to stay tuned for our post game segment after the feature interview. Ironically, we happened to go a little bit off of our usual macro theme for this, this nuclear focused episode in a week where the world went to hell in a hand basket and we've got lots to talk about around Iran, the evolving geopolitical situation and so forth. And that's coming up when Patrick Tsaresna joins me as Macro Voices continues right here@macrovoices.com.
- [48:24]
B
Now back to your hosts, Eric Town Townsend and Patrick Ceresna.
- [48:28]
C
Eric, it was great to have Matt on the show. Now, listeners, you're going to find the download link for the postgame Trade of the Week in your Research Roundup email. If you don't have a Research Roundup email, that means you have not yet registered@macrovoices.com just go to our homepage macrovoices.com and click on the red button over Matt's picture saying Looking for the downloads
- [48:51]
A
Patrick with volatility elevated and the market environment feeling increasingly uncertain with all the conflic conflict in Iran, it seems like a prudent time to consider protection. In previous episodes you've structured some very effective hedge trades, so how would you approach hedging in this market backdrop?
- [49:10]
C
Eric Listeners will remember that the last time we featured The S&P 500 caller back on episode 508 with Lakshman Achuthin, it worked exactly as intended. The short call that financed the hedge was never tested and the structure has now expired. The reason we're revisiting the caller today is that the market conditions have shifted, technicals are deteriorating, leadership is lacking, and we have geopolitical shocks driving oil higher alongside credit stresses emergent in the system like we've seen around Blue Owl. In this environment, upside potential looks limited, and it's a critical time to consider an overlay that helps hedge and dampen downside volatility. So here's the structure with the S&P 500 at 68.80 looking at the April 16, 2026 expiration 43 days out, we're buying the 6535 put strike about 5% below spot for $67, and we are selling the 7100 strike call roughly 3% higher above spot near the recent highs for about $51. That gives us an net debit of $16. This sets the floor about 5% below current levels while capping upside roughly 3% higher. But the real point of the trade is as a volatility dampener. It structurally lowers portfolio drawdown risks and gives you the psychological staying power to hold through noisy tape instead of getting shaken out at the wrong tape time. In light of the market risks, upside is likely limited. This overlay strikes a smart balance, paying a small debit to hedge downside volatility while giving up only a modest portion of the potential upside.
- [51:09]
A
That explanation worked for the pros and for our retail listeners. Patrick's Monday webinar at Big Picture Trading will break down this week's Trade of the Week in detail. As always, and because of the market turmoil caused by the Iran conflict I've asked Patrick to consider offering our Macro Voices listeners another free webinar focused specifically on options strategies for protecting portfolios in turbulent times. Stay tuned and hopefully Patrick will announce something along those lines in next week's podcast.
- [51:39]
C
All right, Eric, we gotta dive into the equities. What are you thinking here?
- [51:43]
A
Patrick? The usual playbook when a war breaks out is first you get a panic in the markets. Oh my God, sell everything. There's a war on, for God sell sake. That usually lasts a week or so. Then there's a realization as calmer heads prevail. Wait a minute. Wars are always inflationary and they always lead to increased government spending. And there's a need to replace all of the spent munitions and rebuild all the stuff that gets blown up. Hey, wait a minute. Wars are usually good for the stock market despite the fact that they're always bad for humanity. Then once that realization hits everyone's collective consciousness, a rally begins that often takes the mark back above the pre war highs. Now, the reasons that this time might be different is that was the playbook for what happens when a war breaks out when the market was not already top heavy and looking like it wanted to roll over with a looming private credit collapse and numerous other signs that a top could already be in. So if this turns out to be the start of a really big correction or bear market, I don't think it will have been because of the Iran conflict. Rather, the Iran conflict will have been the proxim trigger that unleashed something that was already set to happen anyway. Meanwhile, the possibility exists of a wartime rally that actually has the potential to extend what was probably an overstretched bull market to new all time highs. So I can see this going either way. I don't pretend to be smart enough to know which way we go from here, but I am glad that I put on an S and P hedge the last time Patrick recommended it a few episodes ago and which we revisited in this week's Trade of the the Week.
- [53:28]
C
All right Eric, I just want to keep this technically simple. For the last month we have spent the majority of the time below the 50 day moving average on both the S&P 500 and the NASDAQ and the MAG7s. The primary trend has been distributive in its nature, but surprisingly the technical levels continue to hold the support lines, particularly on the S and P. There is obviously the risk of systematic trading kicking in below 6,800, but that line has held very very well up until now. Now we have heightened volatility we have a top in the Cosby. There's all sorts of stress gauges occurring. Even the breadth of the market is deteriorating. The market is structurally vulnerable for a breakdown. But what is the counter to this? The counter to this is that everyone is starting to get pretty bearish and very rarely do markets crash when everyone is expecting it. That's what the bulls have to hang on at this point is, is that a short side has just gone, gotten too crowded and some sort of counter trend rally can get this market out of the danger zone. Nonetheless, the way I'm keeping it super simple, if this market trips up below 6,800 on the downside of the S and P, it really can start a feedback loop of selling, hitting the bid on a lot of systematic selling that can overwhelm the flows and drive a much, much deeper correction. But if the bulls can keep it together and squeeze, there's so many people starting to move to the sideline that that in itself could actually drive the counter bull move. So I'm looking at it very neutrally here. The 6800 will accelerate things to the downside. And if the bulls can somehow manage to get this back above the 50 day moving average, neutralize this current sell cycle, the bulls could actually hold things together for another month or two or so past the March expiration. All right, Eric, let's move on to that US dollar.
- [55:31]
A
Patrick, there can be no doubt that the surge above 99 and a half on the Dixie was driven by the Iran conflict. It's important to understand the mechanics of how this works. A lot of people might say, oh, but wait a minute. You know, the dollar is really changing its role in the global currency system. And maybe it's not the most intelligent safety trade after all. Look, that doesn't matter in a situation like this. A lot of institutional finance is driven by written mandates that were written decades ago. They have to go to US dollar treasuries as their safety trade, regardless of what the manager thinks about whether that's a good idea or a bad idea. So it comes as no surprise whatsoever that those mechanics have driven this or any other war conflict to lead to an upward surge in the dollar index. That in turn ignites a short squeeze, which I think is probably already underway because there was a lot of structural short interest in the dollar market. That in turn might trigger trend following algos to start buying the dollar in size. So one thing leads to another leads to another. This might have much farther to go to the upside, especially if those trend followers get into the game. But going back to the fundamentals, it's important to consider the evolving attitudes globally towards US foreign policy. So is the Iran conflict really dollar bullish on a fundamental basis, or did it just trigger a whole bunch of counterfund fundamental mechanical events that are gonna lead to a squeeze and a trend following move and eventually a blow off that reverts into a downside correction and then maybe a new low to lower lows, resuming the primary downtrend which has been prevailing in the dollar for several months. Well, the answer to that rhetorical question probably depends on your politics or your geopolitics. So as investors, my advice to you is don't let your own feelings about whether the US is doing the right thing or the wrong thing here guide your trading instinct on the US Dollar. The question to ask after the initial impulse is over is not how you feel about US policy, but how do the central banks that are holding U.S. treasuries as their primary reserve asset feel about current U.S. foreign policy? And are they more likely to continue to divest away from dollar assets assets, or are they going to redouble their interest in U.S. treasuries because they see growing tension in the world? Obviously that depends on the perspective of the policymakers, but I do think it's a different world than it was several years ago.
- [58:13]
C
Well, look, we were talking about how critical that 98 level was on the dollar, and we saw a substantial breakdown in the euro that drove that dollar higher. The yen remains weak, the pound remains weak. So structurally the dollar strengthening here seems to have room to come to the top of the trade range near the 100 handle. On the upside, there are some divergent currencies like the Canadian dollar, which actually looks like it's bucking the trend on the upside. Maybe it's the, you know, wading into resources that potentially is a tailwind there, but overall the dollar has neutralized a sell cycle. Doesn't make me immediately bullish, but it certainly takes the imminent bear breakdown of the dollar completely off the table. And at minimum, we're back into like a trade range kind of currency that has resistance above but is not in a primary downtrend. All right, Eric, we gotta talk about this oil move.
- [59:14]
A
Well, obviously Iran is the driver of the big spike upward in oil prices. And as of late Wednesday, we had moved above 78 on WTI. I don't have a Brent print in front of me, although Brent is probably the relevant geopolitical yardstick to follow here. We're moving to new higher highs in the course of the conflict suggesting, you know, this ain't over yet. And I definitely don't think that it's over. Of course the market will eventually peak and come back down as this whole conflict dies down. But I'm not convinced that it's going to die down anytime soon. President Trump of course told us it should be over in maybe three weeks or so. Where did I hear that before? Oh, I know it was President Bush in 2003 who said it would be over in just a matter of weeks. That turned into 20 years. Now I don't think there's any reason to necessarily conclude this one's gonna be 20 years, but I don't think it's gonna be over in three weeks. And I think it's really just getting started. Time spreads are outperforming the flat price here. I'm already taking some profits, probably prematurely. Not yet. On my Z6 Z7 spread which I've talked about here on Macro Voices, I also had another tranche of J6U6, just a summer tranche that was based on my pre war expectation of an expansion of backwardation through the summer months. I already went well beyond my expected price targets for that trade. So I went ahead and took profits on that one. I'm holding on to my Z6 Z7 longs because I think it will be a few months before they really start to peak out.
- [60:49]
C
Well Eric, we clearly got the war risk premium into the price of oil. But what is a little bit surprising is that we only managed to surge to the same levels where we were in May. The nuclear sites were were hit. But back then this trader Hermuz was nowhere near being closed down and now we have that situation. Like I a little bit surprised that the oil prices actually didn't surge even higher on the short term. This is now going to be a headline driven number. It's very hard to technically observe that some sort of a technical level's got to be hit at this stage. At this moment my speculation is that oil will structurally stay in bull trend until there's clarity straight will be reopened and then maybe that will lead to that profit taking cycle. But it's very hard to make any technical calls beyond that. All right Eric, let's touch on gold.
- [61:42]
A
Patrick, the recent strength in gold is obviously Iran related. But something happened on Monday night between about Monday midnight eastern time and Tuesday 10am that was utterly bizarre and I think is very worth paying attention to. What was happening is bombs were, were dropping oil was going straight up in reaction to escalating geopolitics and gold went straight down at the exact same time that the bombs were falling. The gold down on geopolitical escalation was surprising. So I investigated with both Google and ChatGPT searches. What I learned is that the consensus view on this is actually pretty darn clear. It's because the dollar index is up significantly. Gold is priced in dollars and that's the reason for gold going down. Now, as I read that, the first thought to come to my mind is, gosh, that's exactly what I would have said if I were some sell side imbecile who has absolutely no clue what's really going on, but needed to make something up that sounded smart. First of all, oil is priced in dollars too. And that didn't stop oil from going up in reaction to rapidly increasing geopolitical escalation at the exact same time this was happening. The argument for the last time the Dixie was at this level. Gold was at such and such a level is entirely sensible and it would make sense in terms of where the dust would ultimately settle. But gold dropping suddenly down $400 in less than 12 hours as the bombs were dropping, as oil was pushing to new cycle highs, just doesn't add up. The only explanation that I can come up with, and this is raw speculation at this point, I can't figure it out. I'm grasping for straws here, but the only explanation I could think of as to why that would be happening is that someone who has a lot of size to sell needed to sell into strength. So in other words, they were using fundamental events that would normally be expected to be very positive for gold, and they were selling into that strength. Now normally as a trader, if you're trying to do that, you set a bunch of limit orders and you allow the market to come to you, so you're supplying rather than consuming liquidity. Whoever was doing this, if that hypothesis of mine is correct, was willing to move the needle not just a little bit, but $400 to the downside in less than 12 hours. So they must have had a whole lot of size to move. I'm asking myself, okay, which central bank would have a motive here to reverse their gold buying plans into gold selling plans instead as a reaction to these geopolitical developments? I can't really think of why that would make sense, but the fact that gold was down 400 bucks in less than 12 hours as bombs were falling, as oil was rocketing up to new high highs just doesn't add up in my mind. It Makes me wonder what's going to happen to the price of gold when those bombs are not falling and oil is not spiking to new highs but rather is starting to mean revert back to the downside. So yes, the explanation of, well it's because of the Dixie being at a level, last time it was at that level gold was below 5,000. It makes sense in terms of where it might eventually shake out but it doesn't explain that price action that we saw Monday night into Tuesday morning. So I think this is an important open question. If anybody knows, knows the answer that I'm missing, by all means, let us know on Twitter.
- [65:21]
C
Well Eric, I mean obviously there are geopolitics in play on this, but I'm in a position at this stage to stick with a technical landscape in gold which is essentially that after major blow offs in the past, gold has spent at least two to four months in some sort of absorption consolidation where prices consolidate before they go bullish again. I overall think that the bull trend is very likely to continue in gold. But cur my enthusiasm that it all happens here in the first quarter of the year at this stage these kind of short term tests on the upside could lead to retesting of 50 day moving averages and I'm going to reserve kind of the idea that we're going to 6,000 plus for later in the year. Well finally Eric, any thoughts here on uranium?
- [66:10]
A
Well, the URA ETF retested its 50 and 100 day moving averages as soon as on a broad market dip of course as a result of the Iran news. It recovered nicely on Wednesday but we're not out of the woods yet and there's still an open question as to what happens next in terms of the broader market and the Iran conflict. As of recording time before the market opened in London on Thursday morning, we're still looking at a down candle on S and P futures just barely below that support line at 68.65 is where the support line was. We're about 15.2 points below that as I'm recording. Are we headed back down to lower lows or is the bottom already in? I really don't know what's coming next for the broad market, but I suspect that if we do get more broad market weakness, we'll probably see a deeper dip in uranium prices. If that happens, I say it's a buy the dip opportunity. At what level? Well it depends on how far we go deeper on the broad market correction and that's any anybody's guess.
- [67:14]
C
Well, uranium to me has been surprisingly quiet, but it certainly hasn't, in my opinion, done anything bearish. This fits a lot of the criteria of what would be a typical retracing correction. And I don't see any reason to deviate from that thesis. All right, Eric, what are your thoughts here on copper?
- [67:32]
A
Patrick, I'm starting to pay more attention to copper here because we've been really nicely supported by the 55 day moving average and all of a sudden it looks like maybe it's starting to be given up. We're only a little bit below it as I'm recording, but we dipped substantially below it a couple of days ago and it looks like maybe we're headed down again. Of course, copper is nicknamed as Dr. Copper because it tends to be a predictor of where the broad economy is headed. If we're about to be thrown into some serious correction as a result of the Iran conflict, or I shouldn't say as a result, if the Iran conflict has been the catalyst to bring us into an economic correction that was probably in the works anyway, Dr. Copper should be a good barometer to indicate that's coming. Watching it carefully.
- [68:18]
C
Well, Eric, interestingly to me, copper seems to have correlation directly with the precious metals. We sort of seen a blowoff top in the same window, counter trend rally in the same point and a little bit of profit taking here in the last few days. At this stage I'll be watching very closely to see whether that correlation between them continues.
- [68:39]
A
Patrick, before we wrap up this week's episode, let's hit that 10 year treasury dollar chart.
- [68:44]
C
We clearly had a bond rally underway as yields were coming down to some critical levels. But this has decisively bounced back in the last three, four days. It'll be very interesting to see whether or not these yields are simply retracing their previous decline or whether in fact that was a major support line that was tested and now we're, let's say going back to the top end of the trade range at this stage. This is a key level right along this 50 day moving average. And it'll be very interesting to see whether this just sits here in this retracement zone or not.
- [69:21]
A
Folks. If you enjoy Patrick's chart decks, you can get them every single day of the week with a free trial of big picture trading. The details are on the last pages of the slide deck or just go to bigpicture trading.com Patrick, tell them what they can expect to find in this week's research roundup.
- [69:35]
C
Well, in this week's research roundup you're going to find the transcript for today's interview and the Trade of the week chart book we just discussed here in the post game, including a number of links to articles that we found interesting. You're going to find this link and so much more in this week's Research Roundup. So that does it for this week's episode. We appreciate all the feedback and support we get from our listeners, and we are always looking for suggestions on how we can make the program even better. Now, for those of our listeners that write or blog about the markets and would like to share that content with our listeners, send us an email@research roundupacrovoices.com and we will come consider it for our weekly distributions. If you have not already, follow our main account on X at Macro Voices for all the most recent updates and releases. You can also follow Eric on XRricks Townsend. That's Eric Spelt with a K. You can also follow me, Patrick Ceresna on behalf of Eric Townsend and myself, thank you for listening and we'll see you all next next week.
- [70:48]
B
That concludes this edition of Macro Voices. Be sure to tune in each week to hear feature interviews with the brightest minds in finance and macroeconomics. Macro Voices is made possible by sponsorship from BigPicture Trading.com the Internet's premier source of of online education for traders. Please visit bigpicturetrading.com for more information. Please register your free account@macrovoices.com Once registered, you'll receive our free weekly Research Roundup email containing links to supporting documents from our featured guests and the very best free financial content our volunteer research team could find on the Internet. Each week. You'll also gain access to our free listener discussion forums and research library. And the more registered users we have, the more we'll be able to recruit high profile feature interview guests for future programs. So please register your free account today@macrovoices.com if you haven't already. You can subscribe to Macro Voices on itunes to have Macro Voices automatically delivered to your mobile device each week, free of charge. You can email questions for the program to mailbagrovoices.com and we'll answer your questions on the air from time to time in our mailbag segment. Macro Voices is presented for informational and entertainment purposes only. The information presented on Macro Voices should not be construed as investment advice. Always consult a licensed investment professional before making investment decisions. The views and opinions expressed on Macro Voices are those of the participants and do not necessarily reflect those of the show's hosts or sponsors Macro Voices. Its producers, sponsors and hosts Eric Townsend and Patrick Ceresna shall not be liable for losses resulting from investment decisions based on information or viewpoints presented on Macro Voices. Macro Voices is made possible by sponsorship from bigpicturetrading.com and by funding from Fourth Turning Capital Management, LLC. For more information, visit macrovoices.com.