← Macro Voices
Macro Voices
MacroVoices #366 Louis-Vincent Gave: Staying Humble in Troubling Times
01:09:59
MacroVoices Erik Townsend welcomes Louis-Vincent Gave to the show to discuss a number of big-picture factors driving the markets, ranging from geopolitical escalation risks to Chinese demand to why precious metals haven’t responded more to geopolitical risk escalation. https://bit.ly/3mzsKDH Download Big Picture Trading chartbook 📈📉https://bit.ly/3JpptQi ✅Sign up for a FREE 14-day trial at Big Picture Trading: https://bit.ly/2JjZR7J Check out Nick's YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/Optionfinity Join OptionFinity discord: https://discord.gg/Rvnsv6Y Please visit our website https://www.macrovoices.com to register your free account to gain access to supporting materials
Loading summary
Transcript48 lines
- [00:08]
A
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 Cerezna.
- [00:36]
B
Macro voices Episode 366 was produced on March 9th, 2023. I'm Eric Townsend. This episode of Macrovoices was made possible by Respect Energy, a leading European trader of renewable energy and a one stop shop for all green energy investors. Gavcal Co founder Louis Vincent Gav returns as this week's feature interview guest. Louis and I will talk about a number of big picture factors driving the markets ranging from geopolitical escalation to Chinese demand to why precious metals haven't responded more to geopolitical risk escalation.
- [01:10]
C
And I'm Patrick Ceresna with the Macro scoreboard week over week. As of the close of Wednesday March 8, 2023 the S&P 500 was up 1% closing at 39.95. But that doesn't tell the whole story. What was noteworthy was the mater rally on Friday that held into the start of the week but then sharply reversed down on Powell's testimony. The U.S. dollar index was up 1.2% closing at 105.65 again breaking to a fresh one month high. The April WTI oil contract was down 1.5% closing at 76.66. But intra week retest those January February highs in the top of the trade range before coming back down we will look at that chart and e the EIA inventory data in the post game segment Gold was down 1.5% closing at 1818. Copper was down 3.2% closing at $4.03. The volatility continues since putting in that January high. Uranium was up 3% closing at 5115. But resistance continues along the September October highs. The 10 year treasury yield was unchanged closing at 399 basis points. And the key news to watch the job numbers on Friday and then next week on Tuesday comes the CPI inflation numbers followed by a busy Wednesday with the PPI Retail Sales and Empire State Manufacturing Index. This week's feature interview guest is Gavkow Co founder Louis Vincent Gav Eric, why did we get Louis back on the show this week?
- [02:50]
B
Well Patrick, Louis has been a listener favorite for years and I always value his non US perspective. Louis is a Frenchman who's lived in Hong Kong and Canada for most of his life has a very strong understanding of global markets, including US markets. But being outside the US I think gives a different perspective on things, whereas most of our guests are inside the US So I wanted to get his European Asian perspective on the world and it's also been a long time, we haven't had him on in a while and he's a terrific guest and one of our listeners favorites.
- [03:24]
C
Well, Eric's interview with Louis Vincent Gav is coming up as Macro Voices continues right after this message from our sponsor.
- [03:39]
B
If you invest to bring about a world powered by green energy, you should meet Respect Energy, a leading European trader of renewable energy that serves as a one stop shop for green energy investors in Europe. Respect Energy brings together independent power producers, accredited and institutional investors holding assets in renewables or undertaking investments in new green energy production such as wind and solar photovoltaic power plants. More than 600 institutional and accredited investors have already entrusted Respect Energy with the sale of their electricity production, portfolio management, O and M services, EPC and project development. If you want to invest in green energy in Europe with the help of a trusted partner, contact Respect Energy today and ask for a tailor made solution. For more information, visit Respect.
- [04:42]
A
And now with this week's special guest, here's your host, Eric Townsend.
- [04:49]
B
Joining me now is Gavkal co founder Louis Vincent Gav Louie, I've interviewed you quite a few times over the last several years and if there's anything I've learned, the best way to approach an interview with you is take whatever the one really big macro theme of the day is and ask you to sort of frame that in terms of what the markets are telling us. Just one problem. I don't know how to decide. There's so many big macro themes from geopolitics to energy to everything else. What's the biggest theme in your mind and what should we talk about this week?
- [05:22]
D
Well, first, thanks again for having me, Eric. I really enjoy our conversation. So thank you so much to your question. To be honest, I'm as confused as you are and I want to say this really, in all modesty today, it is very hard to parcel things out. As you point out, you want to strip out the signal from the noise and all that stuff, but I think there's so many moving parts right now that I think any investor, the first thing we have to acknowledge is to be very humble to accept that we're going through things that, you know, probably no investor below 75 has gone through. And you know, I've got a whole list. I'm happy to rattle off, but you know, the first, the first thing, and I know you've done a number of episodes on this, but you know we're going through the end of the peace dividend, right? I know you've called it World War 3. Some people call it the start of a new cold war. Either way, we have the end of the peace dividend. And here, you know, I love what our mutual friend Luke Groman pointed out the other day is if, if truth is the first casualty of war, then bonds is a close second. War is and always has been inflationary, whether a hot war or a cold war. So that's for me, as a first, important, obviously big marker wherever you care to look in the world. Every meaningful economy is increasing its defense spending, whether in Europe, in China, obviously in Russia, obviously in the US and military spending is fundamentally unproductive spending. You know, you're spending money on a bunch of things, high priced items that you hope you never use. So that's, you know, that's a first dramatic shift from unless you were investing 30 or 40 years ago. You know, you've, you're not used to rising military budgets. You've always had sort of shrinking military budgets. Now against this, a second massive shift is most countries are going through a very important demographic transition. Most countries are aging and aging fast. The big pools of excess labor in the world that used to be China, India, Mexico, places where women would have two, three, four, five children per woman now have less than two children per woman. And so we are going through aging in our societies and just looking globally across the world, we no longer have somebody like China adding an additional 20 million workers to the workforce every year. And for me, that's a paradigm shift. I know a big theme of yours has been the energy transition, and it's been one of mine as well. We've talked about this before. My go to line is that economic activity is energy transformed. And really the story of the past 250 years, the story really of rising wealth levels, rising disposable incomes, is fundamentally a story of humanity always moving to more efficient methods of producing energy. You know, you start with coal, you move to whale oil, you move to oil, you move to natural gas, you move to nuclear, and you know, for the past 10, 15 years, we've decided, you know what, let's move away from all this and move towards more inefficient energies, wind, solar. And we need to do this because otherwise we're going to destroy the planet. But in so doing, there's a Tremendous economic, economic cost. And that economic cost is, you know, it means lowered living standards. You know, higher energy prices means lower living standards. So we're going through this energy transition. And you know, that's another big uncertainty out there. But for me, perhaps the biggest, most important structural question is whether the monetary system, such as we've known it for the past really 70 years, since World War II, is in the process of changing. And you know, you and I have talked about this before, but cutting off the biggest commodity exporter, namely Russia, from the US dollar system, I think basically amounted to cutting our nose despite our face. And I know we don't like Russia. I know they're bad people, I know all these things. But the fact that we're now seeing deals for oil, deals for iron ore, deals for coal being done in renminbi, rupees, Thai bahts, I think we've started a structural shift in the global monetary system. And these things of course don't happen overnight. But that to me adds a lot, a lot of uncertainty in the world that we live in. And then against that you have all the cyclical uncertainty. So you got, for me, these big four structural forces that add just enormous uncertainty, for lack of a better word. And then you got the cyclical stuff. You've got a Fed that's tightening, while on the fiscal side in the US you're still running massive budget deficits, municipalities, state, federal level, all spending money willy nilly. You have the second biggest economy in the world that had been locked down for three years, that is reopening, and a Chinese government. I know we talked about the Xi pivot last time around. Most people look at the xi pivot thinking, okay, that was just the opening. It's not just that. It's getting rid of the red lines on real estate lending, it's recapitalizing the local authorities to get local infrastructure spending again. So you got all these things going on. And what fascinates me is that most people you talk to only want to talk about the Fed all day, every day. Because I think through the years of qe, through the years of zero interest rates, we raised an entire generation of investors to just worry about what the central bank was doing and to basically build all their investment decisions on that one factor on what is the Fed doing? I think given all these forces that I've just described, what the Fed does actually matters less and less. And we're seeing it now, right? The Fed is tightening, but meanwhile inflation stay strong and growth in the US is actually not as Bad as people thought it would be. And, and growth around the world is, you know, and inflation around the world are turning out to be still decently, decently high. So I think against all this uncertainty, you have to be very, very modest. You have to look at the markets and say, what are the. What messages am I getting from the markets today? And, you know, personally, the message I'm getting is, you know, bonds are done for. You know, we're now entering a second year where U.S. treasuries are losing money. OECD government bonds serve no purpose in portfolio. We're now entering the second year where emerging market bonds are outperforming OECD government bonds. For me, these are important, important messages. Energy stocks are volatile, but they continue to do pretty well in spite of an energy price that has remained stubbornly low. And that, to me, is a big mystery, you know, why. Why isn't energy rallying more? But again, we have to be modest. There's dramatic shifts going on in the economy. And to think, you know, I love to work with decision trees. It's like, okay, you ask a question, you go, yes, no, et cetera. But when you have five, six, seven, eight questions, and each time you have a yes, no answer, your decision tree, you know, gets to be too many branches. It's. It's like being a chess player. If you're, you know, I was a very modest chess player in my youth. I could think maybe three, maybe four moves ahead. The great chess players think eight, nine moves ahead, and they've got everything mapped out. Unfortunately, I was never that guy. And so I'm. In all honesty, I find today very, very tough.
- [12:55]
B
I really want to hone in, Louis, on this theme of letting the market tell us what's really going on, because like you, I really believe that we. We should allow the market to give us important signals about how to interpret the world around us. But hang on a second. If I look at what's going on and I look at my own objective analysis of the world, which is we've got the greatest threat of nuclear escalation, nuclear war escalation, not just since the Cuban Missile Crisis, but ever. I mean, this is as big, if not bigger than the risk of the Cuban Missile Crisis right here, right now. And I also know for a fact that the world is dependent on Russian oil exports. Russia still exports almost 8 million barrels of oil, although they are being forced to take lower prices on it. The world can't live without that oil. If you took just half of Russia's oil off the market, there isn't enough spare production capacity in the rest of the world combined to make up the difference. It just doesn't exist. So I look at those risks and I look at the US now agreeing to train Ukrainian fighter pilots in someplace in the Southwest U.S. i forget where, for F16 training, so that if they decide to give F16 jets to Ukraine, their pilots will be ready to fly them. I'm looking at all of these signals of escalation. Meanwhile, gold, if you look at, you know what's supposed to be the biggest geopolitical hedge, yeah, it had a rally from November, but that was driven, as far as I can tell, entirely on inflation and interest rate and you know, what was going on with the Fed's hiking cycle. As you said, everybody's paying attention to the Fed. Looks like we're going to see real interest rates starting to come off again. That's good for gold. As soon as we got a different inflation print, all of a sudden it's reversed in the other direction. So we're not seeing the market say, I mean, if I look at what the market, what the gold market is telling me, it's saying that I've got the geopolitical risk all wrong, there's no problem and there's not really any big deal in Russia. Same thing with the oil market. We did see the first close above the 100 day continuation chart. Moving average on Monday, first one since July. I think actually there was one other one, but it only lasted one day and then the market reversed abruptly after that. If this holds, it'll be the first time we've been above the hundred day for, you know, more than six months now. But it's taken now to get there. And so do I interpret what the market's telling me, which is there's no problem.
- [15:32]
D
So I think that the first point to make is gold has been disappointing. I agree with you. Relative to everything that's been unfolding. Having said that, over the past couple of years, it's massively outperformed US Treasuries and so have many other bond markets. The Chinese bond markets has massively outperformed US Treasuries. The Indian bond market, the Brazilian bond market. For me, that's the message. That's the message that in this period, this current period of uncertainty, this current period of heightened fear, people are not rushing into the safe arms of Uncle Sam like they used to. They're not rushing into, into the safe harbor of U.S. treasuries. And so yes, you're right, you know, Gold hasn't done that great. But look, let's put things in perspective. If we'd met two or three years ago and we said, look, the DXY is going to go up 15% and short rates are going to move from 0 to 5, we probably would have bet that gold would be 1500 or even below. We would have thought that gold would be absolutely smoked. The fact that gold is holding itself up with short rates basically moving up every day with long bond yields starting to creep up once again, I think that's an important message. And yes, gold prices aren't going up, but you have a shrinking money supply in the US now, so it is doing its broad job at holding its value in the face of a challenging environment. So I take your point. We look at gold and say, oh, this is disappointing, et cetera. But over the past year, if you were in gold and not in US Treasuries, you're thinking you're lucky stars. And that, to me, that is the important message given. Again, remember a couple years ago, everybody and their dog was arguing, oh, you know, deteriorating demographics, well, that's deflationary. So, you know, you got to buy bonds. And rising, you know, uncertainty around energy, well, you know, that, that risks, you know, hurting growth, so you got to buy bonds. And, you know, geopolitical tensions around the world, well, US Treasuries is the place you want to be. For me, that's the main message is against this backdrop, US Treasuries have failed, and they failed in a very big way.
- [18:00]
B
Louis, I still want to come back to the point earlier, which is, if I look at what is the market telling me, one of two things has to be true here. Either the market is telling me through both gold and oil that my fears about, you know, nuclear war, escalation, and so forth are unfounded. I'm just the crazy coup because we're too worried about this stuff, or we're looking at the biggest market complacency bubble since the COVID crisis. When I thought I was going crazy saying, you know, we're looking at. I think it was in the beginning or the middle of February, end of February of 2020. And I had been losing money as the oil market kept going up, because in the end of January, I started buying puts and shorting crude oil futures aggressively, saying, there's obviously a pandemic coming. What the hell is going on? And the market just completely ignored it until one day it turned around. So is there about to be one day where this stuff all turns around, or am I just need to take the message to heart that this is not as bad as I think.
- [19:09]
D
Let me first say that I hope it's not as bad as you think.
- [19:13]
B
I hope so too, because I think it's pretty bad.
- [19:16]
D
Yeah, I know. I've listened to you over the past few months and yeah, so I hope it's not as bad as you think. Let me also say that I think when it comes to these big geopolitical events, and let's just wrap Covid into that, it wasn't a geopolitical event, but it's a sort of exogenous shock. The markets are not always great at anticipating those. Right. If you look at Pre World War I, the markets were rallying into World War I. The markets didn't sell off like, you know, pre Pearl harbor. And like, even the bond markets was rallying pre Pearl Harbor. And then obviously everything changed after that. I guess what I'm trying to highlight is you really have two kinds of crises in markets. You have exogenous shocks and endogenous shocks. Your exogenous shocks is exactly the kind of stuff you've talked about. You know, your Covid crisis was exogenous shock. It's like this thing that comes out of nowhere. Here you are, you're running your business, you're, you know, doing your thing, and then from one day to the next, the government says, shut down your business, send everybody home, etc. Huge exogenous shock for the global economy. And obviously, you know, nukes flying around would be another huge exogenous shocks. And then you have the endogenous problems. And I think a lot of the problems we've highlighted have been more of the endogenous nature, like your demographics, obviously an endogenous problem. It's something that evolves over time. Your energy transition is an endogenous problem. Saying that evolves over time. And the shift in the monetary system is also an endogenous shock that moves over time. Now, market participants I think are pretty well, some of them are good at sussing out these endogenous problems. We saw it with the mortgage crisis in the 2007, 2008 in the US or the euro crisis in 2011, 2012. And I would say today it seems to me that we do have this demographic problem, we do have this energy problem, we do have this monetary transition, and people are positioning for themselves for that. And that's why US Treasuries are underperforming. I don't think anybody's positioning themselves to your point, for World War three, for Nukes flying around, partly because what's the point, what's the point of positioning yourself for World War Three? Because if it happens, well, I'm probably dead anyway. And if it doesn't happen, then I've wasted capital trying to protect myself from it. So there's a little bit of a tails I lose and heads I don't win kind of thing in there. And so I think that's why when it comes to these big geopolitical exogenous shocks, et cetera, if and when they do happen, as we saw with COVID you get this brutal realignment and then typically what I think has also happened, as we saw with COVID is people then expect governments to step in and there's this now expectation. The Fed put, et cetera. It's like markets fall 30%, get the change in policy, change in monetary policy, change in fiscal policy, even if each time you get a lower bang for your buck. And so to your point, I think that's why people aren't loading up in the gold and that's why people aren't loading up on the oil. You know, I think people are slowly positioning themselves for the endogenous shock. But yeah, nobody's positioning themselves for the World War III that you describe. And that I hope doesn't happen.
- [22:29]
B
Well, I just want to clarify. I am not expecting all out nuclear warfare and I agree there's no reason to position against that. But it seems to me that it's pretty darn clear, you know, they're training the Ukrainian pilots to know how to fly F16, probably because they're getting ready to give some F16s to Ukraine. There's no doubt in my mind that that will anger Russia and it will cause Russia to escalate in some way. And, you know, does that mean somebody fires the first tactical nuke, you know, what's the next domino to drop? I'm not sure. But when this thing started, Biden was saying, you know, oh, we're not going to ever send any troops. We don't want to even send any weapons because we don't want, want to exacerbate this situation. Well, they've exacerbated it and they're going to continue to exacerbate it. And it seems pretty clear to me that the escalation of this conflict between the United States and Russia is not done. And meanwhile China is kind of being pulled into it or they're entering it. You know, we learned the hard way that fighting two wars with Iraq and Afghanistan, which seemed like such A tiny little countries that they couldn't possibly hurt us. That was a bigger deal than we thought it was going to be. That's behind us, thankfully. So now we're going to fight wars with China and Russia. That's a very, very different game. It's a completely different thing. And if it was hard to win with Iraq and Afghanistan, how could it possibly be good? What's coming next? So I don't think it's nuclear Armageddon, but I think somebody firing a tactical nuke and some big escalation is a very real possibility.
- [24:11]
D
Look, I think we now know, I think that Iraq and Afghanistan were the biggest policy owned goals probably in the past century. It hurt US credibility, it cost a fortune, it cost a lot of blood and treasure. And yes, to your point, it is amazing to think that US policymakers are sitting around thinking, okay, we basically had defeats in Iraq and Afghanistan, but let's take on Russia and China at the same time. It does boggle the mind. So I take your point, but let's remove ourselves dispassionately from the situation because of course wars generate passion and they generate anger and fear and all these things that really hurt you when you're trying to invest. It's so much of investing. I think when you invest, you basically invest against yourself. It's so much of it is training, like getting your emotions in check and not letting you know again, first casualty in war is truth. You know that during war propaganda efforts go through the roof, et cetera. And having all that not cloud your own judgment is extremely, extremely challenging. When the zeitgeist all around you feeds you that daily dose of fear, that daily dose of emotions. And so if you go back through history, you look at World War I, you look at World War II, you know, when these big conflicts broke out, who were the big winners? The only winners in a war are the people who stay out of the war. And you know, wars again destroy, destroy capital. They destroy people either because they kill them or they leave them mentally damaged or physically damaged. So the best thing you can do in a war is let's say who's not participating. And that's where I want to invest. And today in this conflict between Russia and the Western world, it's pretty obvious that most of the emerging markets are saying, I want no piece of this, this is not my fight, this is, I want to keep trading with the US and I want to keep trading with Russia and India saying this. And to some extent China is saying this as well, even though, you know, The US won't basically let them say that. So I don't think it's a mystery why emerging market bonds are outperforming. I don't think it's a mystery why emerging markets ex China equities are outperforming. You know, in my career, I'm obviously very Asia centric, Asia focused, but every time the US dollar went up, every time the Fed raised interest rates, every time oil prices went up or energy prices went up, markets like India or Indonesia would hit the wall. It was like it was a given. You know, in my career, Indonesia has always been the redhead stepchild of markets. Whenever something bad happens, they're the first one to get hit. Well, look at what happened this time around. You know, last year, you know, global equity is down 20%, Indonesian equities up, Indonesian bonds flat. That's mind boggling to me. Same story in India again for me, you listen to the markets and the markets are telling you maybe it's a cold war, maybe it's gets to something worse. Either way, let's just invest in places that aren't involved in this war. And you get an added benefit is a lot of these places are not priced for perfection. I mean, India's pretty punchily priced and it's valued at fairly high valuations. But a lot of these places, you look at your Chiles, at your Brazils, at your Indonesias, at your, you know, your South Korea's, like a lot of these places are trading at attractive valuations and they're staying the, well, hell away from this. And, and to me, that's the best way to keep your sanity is to say, okay, maybe there is this cold war going on, maybe there's this big geopolitical tension. Let's find the new Switzerland, you know, let's find the new Sweden. This is the only way you could preserve capital in World War II was investing in Switzerland and Sweden because they stayed out of it, or investing in Latin America back then. You know, in 1950, it's, it's mind boggling to think, but in 1950, Argentina, fourth richest country in the world in GDP per capita. After that they did a bunch of mistakes and so you needed to leave. But while people go at each other's throats, the best thing you can do is say, all right, you guys want to go nuts, have at it. I'm doing something else, Louis.
- [28:38]
B
I want to come back to energy because as I said, there has been a daily close now over the 100 day moving average. But look, this market has been going Nowhere, when everybody, not just me, not crazy talk from me, but Goldman Sachs saying, as soon as China reopens, baby, put your seatbelt on because the energy market's going to the moon. Didn't happen. What's going on?
- [28:58]
D
Yeah, I've said the same thing. You know, I'll put my hand up to this one. I've been super bullish energy on the very premise that China was going to reopen. And you know, once China reopened, you know, it was going to go to the moon and beyond. And yes, to your point, it hasn't happened. And it is surprising because wars are usually energy intensive. Moving fleets around, moving fighter planes around, all these things that creates extra demand for energy. Why isn't it working? Why isn't the energy trade working? I can come up with two possible explanations. The first one basically amounts to we're not wrong, we're just early. Which is of course the refuge of every scoundrel in our business. But the reality today in China, you still have about 300 flights a day. Pre Covid, you were at 1300 flights. The reason for that is they lost a lot of pilots. A lot of pilots lost their licenses because they didn't fly enough hours during COVID So they've run out of pilots. They've got to retrain pilots. Another issue in terms of traveling, at least abroad is most Chinese people's passports have expired during COVID and couldn't get new passports during COVID And so I think there's all this backlog. And you know, if I look at Hong Kong, I expected by now to be overrun by Chinese tourists. And the reality is this hasn't happened yet. So maybe it's a delayed effect. That's what I think, to be honest, I think it's a delayed effect. But if it doesn't happen in the next three to four months, I think we'll have to consider the possibility that we're wrong. So that's one possible option. A second possible option to explain what's happening in energy is the energy market of today is very different from the energy market that you and I have known throughout our careers is all of a sudden you have Russia, you mentioned the 8 million barrels per day and selling off market, no longer in US dollars to China to India for very long term contracts at big discounts. And that brings an interesting question is if the rest of the world pays, let's say 75, $80 for their oil, but China and India get to pay $50 or $55 for their oil and they do it in their local currency. So you got a $75 price, then you got your renminbi price and your rupee price, and it's supposed to be all the same price. Then what does it mean? I think it basically means that the renminbi at this point and the Indian rupee and the Korean won and the Thai baht and all these guys doing deals in other currencies, it means that these currencies, if they get to buy oil at 30% discount, then maybe it means that just that these currencies are 30% too cheap. So what could happen in the coming years, year or two or three, is that either oil prices are just higher or Asian currencies adjust higher, because I don't think you can have different markets and different prices for too long. So, yeah, look, I think the energy story is a big quandary now. I'm loaded up on energy stocks, and you and I have talked about this before. Now the reality is, you look at a lot of these energy names out there at 75, $80, these guys are still generating tons of cash flow, and they're buying back stock like Chevron has been doing, or they're raising dividends. And so, you know, you're sort of paid to wait. Like, you know, I said, the big problem is maybe we're not wrong. We're just early. And I think if you trying to play energy through the futures, it's been painful. If you've been playing it through stocks, well, you know, last year that was the only way to be up was to own energy stocks. And this year they're still doing okay. So for me, I think the energy stocks is, you know, you're paid to wait, and at some point you will get the pop. And when you get the pop, it might be in six months, it might be in 12 months, the energy stocks will rally with it.
- [32:58]
B
Louis, let's come back to the treasury market because a few years ago, I took a lot of flack from some of our institutional listeners just for inviting our mutual friend Luke Groman on the show. They said you're losing credibility to put a nut to case. Crackpot lunatic on the show who's actually saying things like people are gonna start transacting or settling oil transactions in anything other than the US Dollar or even crazier than that, that central banks might start divesting their US treasury holdings as the gold standard of central bank reserve asset. Well, gee, when Luke said those things ahead of the market, he was a nutcase, crackpot lunatic. But now that they've all happened. Everybody's just sort of acting like it's normal. But the bond market really, you know, there hasn't been any panic, there hasn't been any fear. It seems to me like the world is changing. And now we've got people like Zoltan Poser, who is, you know, a mainstream guy, saying a lot of the same things Luke was saying a few years ago. When does this all hit the tape and change the direction of market?
- [34:07]
D
So let me just first state that I think Luke does terrific work. I subscribe to his newsletter. I invite all your listeners to do the same. I think he's a genuine out of the box thinker and I always enjoy reading what he says. What you were describing made me think of what's the old saying. It's like first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you and then they accept that you're right along or something along those lines. And I think that's what's somewhat unfolding on the US treasury market. I don't think it was the last one, but a few times ago when you and I talked and you posted on Twitter, somebody posted a picture. Did you ever see that movie Office Space? You got the consultants who come in and ask people, tell me what you do here. Because they're really there to fire half the workforce in the business. And somebody sent me a picture with those two guys from the movie Office Space. The title was Louis Gov's Conversation with Bonds. And it was tell me what you do here. The reality is US Treasuries have not been doing the job in the portfolios that they were hired to do for two years now. For two years, the first job of Treasuries is to diversify your equity risk. That's their first job and I would say their most important job. It's like an offensive lineman in football. Their first job is make sure nobody goes through to hit the quarterback. And they're failing dismally at this. And again, again in February, you see February stocks down, bonds down. It's like, it's like a one for one correlation. And I think more and more people are waking up to the question, what do these U.S. treasuries do for me? And I think this question is even more important for all the geopolitical reasons you and I discussed, depending on who you are, because. And you and I have discussed this just before in the past, but when we seized the Russian assets and when we seized all the oligarchs houses and football clubs and St. Tropez beach houses and whatever else. We sent a message to the world that the law doesn't apply equally to everyone, and individual people will be judged not on what they've individually done, but on who they are, not what they've done. So now all of a sudden, if you're Chinese, if you're Saudi, if you're from Brunei or Bahrain or Qatar, you might not feel as secure owning US Treasuries as you did before. Now if you're French or British, US Treasuries are fine. The problem is, if you're French or British, your countries are running twin deficits of over 8, 9, 10% of GDP. So actually, you're not really in a position to buy a ton of US Treasuries. Where all the excess savings in the world are accumulating right now is basically China and oil producers. Those are the guys that are running huge current account surpluses and more often than not, fiscal surpluses as well. So those are the guys that technically would have the ability to buy more U.S. treasuries. And aside from Norway, we've told all these guys, your money's no good here. We've told all these guys, well, your money might be good here this week, but next week we might change our mind, or next month or next year we might decide, you're Chinese, your leader's a jerk. So we're just going to take your stuff. And, you know, that's not a very attractive proposition, especially when real yields are still so low. It's like, why would I want to take this risk? Which brings me to, like, one of my key themes for the past three years since I wrote my book Clash of Empires is, you know, we are living in a world that's de globalizing, but not in the way people think. You know, when people think of de globalization, they think of the Nike supply chain or the Apple supply chain. But if you look at China's exports to the US in 2020, it was 30 billion a month. Today it's 50 billion a month. So there's still tons of trade flowing. The real deglobalization is occurring in terms of financial flows. That's the important deglobalization. It's the fact that US Pension funds are now being told by the US Government, really, guys, you shouldn't invest in China. But that knife cuts both ways. You also have Chinese institutions that now feel, you know what, maybe US Treasuries are not as safe as I thought they were. And again, the big difference is the US runs twin deficits of 10% of GDP and China doesn't. So the marginal savings in the world are actually again happening in places like Saudi Arabia, like Kuwait, like the UAE and China. And what message are we sending to these guys? Well, the message you're sending to China right now is your money's no good here. And the message at the same time that, you know, we're sending to a place like Saudi Arabia is we can confiscate your assets at will without any kind of due process, without any court order, without any discussion. The Congress, you know, we don't like you, we don't like your leader. We'll take your stuff away. And so unsurprisingly, you know, what was the biggest contrast last year? Well, Biden came to see MBS in Saudi Arabia and the meeting was extremely cold. And you know, Xi Jinping goes to Saudi Arabia, he gets a 21 gun salute, he gets a flying parade of airplanes. I mean, he gets like the full on treatment embraces and, you know, hugs and the whole nine yards. Now you could say, well, that's just show and et cetera. But the reality today is for everybody, everybody saying China's uninvestable. Well, it's uninvestable for American pension funds, sure. It's not investable for the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority. It's not non investible for the Kuwait investment fund. It's not non investable for the Saudis. And they're pouring money in there because actually for them, as crazy as this sounds to a Westerner, China might increasingly be more safe than the U.S. and so once you remove that safety aspect from the US Treasuries, what are you left with? Well, you're left with a NASA class that is falling all the time. And that is deeply unattractive.
- [40:26]
B
Louis, let's talk about whether there's going to be a recession in 2023, and if so, when's it going to happen? Because a lot of people thought first half of the year that was going to be your deep recession. Some people say it started, but if it has started, it's not as deep as a lot of people predicted. Is it still coming?
- [40:41]
D
Hey, what if you throw a recession and nobody loses their job? Right? That's what it feels like right now. So the first question is, where? Where in the world are we talking about this recession? Because in the part of the world I live in, Asia, there's no recession. Chinese growth is re accelerating. They're pumping it up. The Chinese policymakers know that they need to have a party. And we discussed this Last time they pissed off so many people with their silly COVID policies that they now need a win. And the win is to get things ramped up again. Hence the removal of the three red lines, hence the removal of the recapitalizing of local authorities, et cetera. So in China, there's definitely no recession, which by the way, is a huge, massive shift that I don't think people have adjusted their portfolios to. Four or five months ago, everybody thought that growth in China could be negative. At best it'd be 1 or 2%. And now all of a sudden, it's probably going to be five and a half or six. And as you look at the second biggest economy in the world move from really a zero growth environment to probably six, you should ask yourself, okay, how have I adjusted my portfolio to this new reality? And the reality is few people have, because a few months before this happened, almost everybody decided that China was uninvestable. So it's hard to now turn around and buy back the things that you said were uninvestable. 40% higher. So there's no recession in China. And when China does well, emerging markets do well. Well, and when China does well, Japan tends to do well, so does South Korea. And Europe comes along for the ride because at this point, Europe is just a leverage play on emerging markets. Europe basically sources most of its growth from emerging markets. So you're really left with the big question of the US The US which is the one major economy that will not benefit from China's rebound. So can we see a recession in the U.S. well, look, yeah, you do have higher interest rates, but who does that impact? That impacts all your private equity guys and that impacts your commercial real estate lenders, but most of the consumers. I read recently that 99% of Americans today have a mortgage rate that is lower than the current mortgage rates. And a lot of people are paying three, three and a half. Now, on the problematic side, they're stuck in their homes, they can't move. So that's lower productivity. Right? Because you can't say, all right, I'm leaving Michigan to go to Texas to get another job there, because you're just moving houses, you're going to be taking a big mortgage hit. So look, I think there are reasons to think growth in the US Will be disappointing. Will it be a recession when basically everywhere else in the world is rebounding? I'm not very big on the recession camp. No. I think growth in the US Isn't going to be great, but it's not going to Be that bad, it's just going to be much better everywhere else.
- [43:41]
B
Louis, let's talk about interest rates and Fed policy now. We're recording this interview on Monday evening. So you and I have not yet heard what Jay Powell is going to say Tuesday, which our listeners will have heard by now. So listeners, bear with us if we're not aware of the latest news. Let's talk bigger picture, though, Louis. A lot of people thought we were already at, at the terminal rate with the last hike. A lot of people said the last hike was going to be the last one. Now we've got Nomura coming out saying now forget 25 basis points, it's going to be 50 basis points this month. Is this not really over like people thought?
- [44:16]
D
I definitely don't think inflation is over. I think we've had a structural shift for all the reasons we've discussed, the new cold war, the demographics, the energy problems. All this to me points to, to higher structural inflation for a long time to come. But I do think the Fed's ability to do much about this is actually, I think the Fed's on a tighter leash than most people expect. But most people believe, and here I very much agree with what a lot of Lou Groman has been saying over the past year, which is, and I think we had a preview of what could happen with the Fed with the bank of England. For me, one of the bigger events of 2022 was in September when the bank of England was flexing its muscles saying, oh, I'm going to raise interest rates and I'm going to do quantitative tightening and I'm not going to let the UK Government expand fiscal policy, et cetera, and bond yields shot up. And then the bank of England was tapped on the shoulder and said, well, look, by 3:00pm today, most of the public pension funds are bust if yields stay where they are. And so the bank of England said, okay, well, then let's do another round of quantitative easing. Let's not call it quantitative easing, but let's go out to the long end of the yield curve and buy a bunch of bonds, which basically is quantitative easing. And in the space of 30 minutes, the bank of England did a 180. And so I look at the US government and interest expense a year ago, $800 billion. Now it's going to be $1.3 trillion this year. That's a $500 billion increase in interest payment. That's money that's got to come from something. The money that's got to come from somewhere. Either the Fed is going to provide that money or otherwise, who else? The numbers are starting to get really, really big. So my belief is at some point you'll have a bond market meltdown and then the Fed will change its stripes. And when the Fed change its stripes, the US Dollar will go down. And this goes down to one of my core beliefs, which is that most people think that central banks have two mandates, and those mandates are employment and inflation. The reality is they have three mandates. The third mandate is make sure the government gets funded. And that third mandate is the most important as far as the central bank is concerned, because if that doesn't happen, the central banker doesn't get paid at the end of the month. So when push comes to shove, once bond yields, the long end of the yield curve in the US really starts selling off, which I think happens this year. I think the Fed stops talking hawkish. But for now, we're still in an environment. We're going to get the 25 basis points a meeting. I think we're getting 25 basis points at this coming meeting and we'll probably get another 25 basis points. But at some point they'll break the back of the bond market.
- [47:06]
B
Louis, I always enjoy our conversations. It's really great to have you back. So I can't thank you enough for a terrific interview. But before I let you go, please tell our listeners a little bit more about what you do at Gavcal.
- [47:17]
D
So we're a research firm. We started as a research firm based in Hong Kong. We evolved into institutional money management. We also have a private wealth arm in the US Called Evergreen Gafcal. And if you want to find out about us, the best thing to do is really go onto our website called gafcal.com so it's G-A V E K A L. And yeah, you know, sign up for trials for our institutional research. We got free newsletters for retail clients. So sign up to either one of those things. I don't spend much time on social media, so yeah, apologies for that. So the best thing is really our website.
- [47:55]
B
Patrick Ceresna, Nick Galarnik and I will be back as Macro Voices continues right here@macrovoices.com.
- [48:09]
A
Now back to your hosts, Eric Townsend and Patrick Ceresna.
- [48:15]
C
Eric, it was great to have Louis back on the show. Now joining us again in the Post Game segment is Nick Galarnik. Now let's move on to that Chart deck. Listeners, you're gonna find the download link for the Post Game Chart deck in your Research Roundup email. If you don't have a research roundup email. It means you're not yet registered@macrovoices.com just go to our homepage macrovoices.com and click on the red button over Louis. Picture saying looking for the downloads now. Eric, let's move to the crude oil chart here as well. How did the EIA inventories come in?
- [48:48]
B
Crude oil drew down 1.2 million barrels. Finally a drawdown as we come out of refinery maintenance season and into the time of year where we can start to expect more drawdowns to occur. I think it was probably the winter storms, the December storms that were causing that series of builds to occur unexpectedly in January as that took some refining capacity offline. But it seems like we've recovered from that now. Cushing, Oklahoma drawing down 890,000 barrels. Almost a million there. Gasoline drawing down 1.1 million barrels. Distillates was the only build on the board at 138,000 barrels. US production down 100,000 to 12.2 million barrels. Really feels like US production has plateaued. We saw a very rapid recovery after the COVID pandemic right back up to 12 million barrels, something that a lot of people thought was impossible. It happened, but it seems like we've hit a wall here at just over 12 million barrels. Tape action was up after the build on inventory, but that quickly retraced to the downside. And it seems like we do have a new downtrend beginning now. Just to clarify, we finally got a bullish signal on Monday, which was a daily close over the 100 day moving average on the continuation chart. That would have been an extremely bullish sign if it had held, which it didn't hold because that was only the second time that we had a daily close over the 100 day since July of last year. So it seemed like maybe that was a strong bullish signal, but it turned out to be a fake breakout after all. In fact, we only spent a few hours over the 100 day moving average. And then as Jay Powell took the stage with more hawkish than expected commentary from the Fed, everything, all assets started to dive at that point. That also caused the slow stochastics to roll over. We're now below the short term moving averages. So it looks like we're now seeing a new leg down that has begun despite all of what Louis and I discussed. And when we recorded that interview with Louis, we were still above the 100 day moving average. Felt like maybe a bullish breakout was occurring, but it's now confirmed, really the sentiment that Louis and I discussed, which is despite the fact that there are several bullish long term factors, feels like the market is a lot more focused on the coming recession risk than geopolitical demand or China recovery or anything like that. The last time we had a move above the 100 day moving average, which was only intraday, was on November 7th and that began a $22 slide all the way down to $70. 70 spot 08. Actually a similar move here would take us all the way down to 58. Now I don't think we're going all the way to 58 unless we get some really bad recession news. But I do think that another leg down if we get below 70 could take us right down to, to $66 or so, which is where the 200 week moving average is. My conviction has not changed that the global economy cannot go back to pre pandemic growth trajectory due to lack of oil supply. But I'm coming around to the view that growing expectations of a second half recession could bring prices significantly lower from here before we get that economic recovery. It's really on the other side of a recession where my scenario or my hypothesis comes as into play saying I don't think that we can recover completely from that recession, but if the recession is about to happen, that could certainly bring prices even lower.
- [52:18]
C
Well, you know, it's interesting Eric, on this chart I put that 200 day moving average on there and it just continues to show that the primary trade range consolidation of crude is certainly occurring at the bottom end of its ranges and below all of its averages. We did have that, that key test of that overhead resistance of the trade range. But clearly there is a lack of conviction to take crude oil out of this trade range at least. Yet if we see a breakdown here that heads all the way back to its previous lows, my spidey senses are thinking that they might even temporarily break it one time below to a lower low just to kind of wash out, stop loss losses and kind of clean the market out a little bit before any potential reversals. You know, in my mind the only way the bulls are really going to see a turn in this is if we see that the pattern of dips being bought at higher lows and, and working their way up towards the top in this range, which conveniently would have a breakout of the 200 day moving average when inevitably a bull move actually, actually gets underway. Nonetheless, let's move on and talk the S&P 500. First off Nick, what levels are you watching here for support resistance on The.
- [53:36]
E
S and P. Yeah. Patrick, this 4000 level has been very, very key over the past few weeks and it is the highest open interest for option expiration for March 17, next Friday's monthly OPEX. So it has been a very key battleground for the bears and the bulls and right now we're sitting just below it. But if we break above it, you know, next area of resistance will be 4120. And obviously the downside area of support will be at 3, 800 which is about 200 points from where we are right now. Now for the March 17th OpEx, we have an expected move of about 100 points in other directions. So 4,090 upside, 3,890 downside. I think we're going to see some upside before downside. Keep in mind we do have FOMC in a couple of weeks as well as CPI and PPI data which should cause some serious volatility ahead. Now Eric, what are your thoughts here?
- [54:22]
B
Well, until Jay Powell hit the stage with his hawkish comments, it looked like a new uptrend was starting and maybe we were going to take a run at 4300 or so, which is the 61.8 moving average. And of course that all comes after the 200 day moving average which we discussed in detail last week, held as I think we expected it to hold. So here we are post power. We still haven't retested the 200 day moving average. So in my mind the technical tell here is really a pretty wide range. We've got to wait for either a daily close below the 200 day moving average which is at about 39.50 right now, or we've got to see a daily close over 4,080, 4,080 which was the pre Powell high. When we get that daily close either above or below those levels, that'll tell us which way the next leg is headed. Meanwhile, I'm not sure it's really a question of whether the Powell hawkishness is going to fade and be forgotten or if it's going to set a direction for a new trend in the market. There's no reason in my opinion for so many people to have these continued expectations of a Fed pivot. I do think at some point that they'll reach a terminal rate and stop hiking. Probably not until they break something. But I don't think they're going to start to get cut until the market and the economy really tanks and they're going to break things before we're going to see any reversal of Fed policy. So I don't know why so many people are still talking about expectations of a reversal in the direction of Fed policy. I think 50 basis point hikes are entirely possible. It will depend on the inflation data. But if inflation continues to run hot, I think we're going to see some 50 basis point hikes and that that's going to eventually break the back of both the market and the economy.
- [56:08]
C
Yeah, Eric, I'm looking at very similar levels to you, but that 200 day moving average, I just put it on there just simply because it was tested so clearly, but also because the Fibonacci retrace zone also lines up perfectly with it. What will be interesting is obviously all eyes will be on this jobs data and so many of our listeners are going to be listening to the show will already see the reactions to here. I mean to me I continue to want to give the bulls the benefit of the doubt that they'll be able to make a punch back toward those February highs. But if whatever reason the job numbers turn this market and we break below that level, then the level Nick was talking about, that 3800 level which lines up with the December January lows, would certainly be the target zones for a breakdown move here. I'm still leaning and giving the bulls the benefit of the doubt here, but the job numbers are definitely going to decide what happens next. Anyway, let's move on here to page five where we have the chart here of the QQQ on the Nasdaq. What levels are you watching here, Nick?
- [57:13]
E
Yeah, so looking at the qqq for the March 17th OPEX again the expected move there is, which is next Friday is about 10 points in other direction. So upside would be around 307. Downside 287. Key area right now is 295. Highest open interest right now for that expiration is 300 or so. And the upside right now would be to 313 which is the high from early February, late January. The downside from here would be down to 295, down to 285. So support first. That's 295 just below where we are right now. And then beyond that 285 or so. Again I do think we're going to test upside prior to seeing some, some more lows. But again remember that we have FOMC and CPI and PPI coming out in the next couple of weeks, which is a lot of data to come out that should cause a lot of volatility ahead.
- [57:58]
C
You know, I find interesting Nick, is, is that when we go to page six and look at that vix for all of the market conditions being somewhat volatile and more importantly, obviously so much upcoming news that could be market moving, the VIX remains at the bottom end of its ranges and certainly we have not seen at least the market start to price in any big volatility premiums. What's your take here?
- [58:21]
E
Yeah, so the VIX is interesting right now because again I mentioned last week that we're seeing suppression in the volatility index likely because we're seeing less volume out a month or so. You know, so the VIX is predicated on 30 day option expiration on SPX on out of the money calls and puts and we're seeing a lot more activity on the zero day contracts. So that's taking away from the liquidity of the 30 day expiration contracts. And so because of this we're seeing suppression in the vix. Meanwhile, we're seeing, you know, pretty nice whipsaw movements in intraday during market hours. But we're not seeing a lot of, and I don't know if you noticed this at all is we haven't seen a lot of large gaps down or gaps up over the last few months. So Again, Vix at 19.52 or so denotes a roughly daily move in the broad markets of about 1.25%. But I'm not really taking too much stock in this given that we're seeing a changing of the paradigm or a paradigm shift if you will, from buying 30 day expiration contracts for hedging purposes to buying zero day contracts for hedging purposes. Right. So that's taking away liquidity and I think it's really affecting how you use the VIX to trade. Moving on to the dollar index on page seven here, what are your thoughts here, Eric?
- [59:35]
B
We're trying to break out now above the highs from January 6th and last week approaching 106 on the dollar index. So it's pretty darn clear that the move down on the dollar has paused if not reversed. So the question is, has the new trend become a reversal like a new uptrend, or are we moving into some kind of a horizontal consolidation range where we're going to go up and down within a certain range? I'm leaning toward finding a range here, but when we thought maybe 105 and a half was the top of the range. Well it looks like it's, it's not that maybe it's going to be at least 106. I don't know where the top of the range is, but I think that's what we're in the process of doing is finding a new horizontal consolidation range to probably carry the market for a few months. If this significantly turns into a new uptrend, and especially if we were to get all the way back up to let's say above 110 and start to approach new highs above the previous highs, that would be a really, really strong macro signal. I don't think that's happening though. I think we're looking for a horizontal consolidation range. So let's stay focused on that until we have contrary evidence.
- [60:46]
C
You know, for me, Eric, the dollar index breakout is a significant one because after a very shallow consolidation, one that could have easily seen the dollar index reverting back to 103 while seeing things like the Euro making at least a couple hundred more PIP moves, we're in a situation where the dollar once again re resumed a bullish breakout. On Powell's comments, the hawkish Fed could drive further short term dollar strength. My views here is that there's a very reasonable chance that we're heading to the 107, 108 levels and where we are doing a full retracement of the substantial decline that we've seen in the prior six months. Overall, for me to get really bullish the dollar, I think we'd have to already be in a much more turbulent stage of the market cycle and that just clearly hasn't materialized. So you know, as we approach the top end of those kinds of ranges, we could see the dollar go into a consolidation into the summer, just like the trade range you were leaning towards. But I still think overall the dollar has lots of room for another bull run later this year.
- [61:59]
E
On page eight we have the chart of gold futures. What are your thoughts here guys?
- [62:04]
B
Well, as Louis and I discussed in the feature interview, what's very clear is that gold is being driven by the dollar index and Fed interest rate policy. It's not reacting for whatever reason to geopolitical fear. So despite the F16s that are probably going to be sent to Ukraine and everything else that's going on, it really is going to be interest rates that drive this. And it seems to me that if we get more hikes as Powell is talking about, particularly if inflation runs hot and we get a few 50 basis point hikes, it's going to mean lower gold prices. And as far as I'm concerned, the lower the better because I see them as buy the dip opportunities. The support levels start at 1800 I'm targeting 1780 and maybe with hopes of a further dip to 1753, particularly if that was in reaction to a larger than expected Fed hike at some point in the next few months. All these levels are buys as far as I'm concerned. In my opinion, before 2023 is out, the Fed will succeed at breaking the market rates will come back down and gold should soar at that point. So if we got three more 50 basis point hikes before the market breaks, we'll probably get down to 1750 before gold bottoms and have an opportunity to buy at that level. And I'll be buying at all of these technical levels on the way down.
- [63:24]
C
You know Eric, those levels that you're targeting there are certainly the ones that my eyes are on as well. And that in my mind if we see that dollar index work its way higher toward 107, 108, 100, 109, that allows gold to have another consolidation down to those kind of levels. But I'll, I'll be in your camp where I think it will actually offer a tactical buy on dip opportunity in those zones. While I, I generally remain quite bullish gold, my kind of view on this at this stage is that it's entirely possible that we're just going to see false starts and and more range of bound price action in gold into the summer and that a more meaningful rally in gold will be in the latter part of the year. But time will tell nonetheless. I wanted to just cover two quick charts and the first one on page nine is on natural gas and we highlighted during these post games just that awful decline that we saw where natural gas prices went from $10 down to $2. On the downside it's clear that we put some sort of a short term low in and so now the bigger question here is will this establish itself as a basing formation and or will there be any immediate bullish response. And while I think that NatGas can make a short term advance up towards the three and a half dollar level, I suspect that going into just from seasonality perspective going into the summer, it's entirely possible that natural gas goes and retest those lows and establishes a base before a much more seasonally strong finish to the second half of the year. And on page 10 I just wanted to touch on that treasury yield spread the twos tens and what's interesting here is that it just continues to break down. We haven't seen these kind of of deeply inverted yield spreads for so like you have to go back to the like 70s and 80s to get things this deeply inverted. Obviously many people, you know, suggesting that this certainly is calling for some sort of a recession. While I'm in that camp, I continue to think that this could stay deeply negatively inverted for many more months, because I think the real meaningful turn in this will only come once we're truly entering some sort of a recessionary phase. And so certainly while it's deeply negative under 1%, it's something that I think will continue to stay down at these levels for at least the short term.
- [66:03]
B
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 in the last pages of the slide deck or just go to bigpicturetrading.com this episode of Macro Voices was made possible by Respect Energy, a leading European trader of renewable energy and a one stop shop for all green energy investors. Patrick, tell them what they can expect to find in this week's Research Roundup.
- [66:30]
C
Well, in this week's Research Roundup, you're going to find the transcript for today's interview as well as a link to the chart book that we just discussed here in the post game. There's also a link to a number of articles that we found interesting. So you'll find this and so much more in this week's Research Roundup.
- [66:44]
E
Well, that does it for this week's episode. We appreciate all the feedback and support we get from our listeners and are always looking for suggestions on how we can make this program even better. 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@researchroundupackervoices.com and you will consider it for our weekly distributions. If you have not already, follow our main Twitter account Acro Voices for all the most recent updates and releases. You can also follow Eric on Twitter rickstownsend that is Eric spelled with a K and follow Patrick patricksarezna On behalf of Eric Townsend, Patrick Ceresna and myself, thanks for listening and see you all next week.
- [67:35]
A
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 online education for traders. Please visit bigpicturetrading.com for more information. Please 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 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 BigPicture Trading.com and by funding from Fourth Turning Capital Management, LLC. For more information, visit macrovoices.
- [69:45]
B
Com.