Category: Week Ahead

  • Perfect Storm: Synchronized Global Risks, an Unstoppable US Consumer, & Copper Gap in Energy

    Explore your CI Futures options: https://completeintel.com/promo

    In the latest “Week Ahead” discussion, three experts delve into three crucial topics: synchronized global risks, the spending patterns of the US consumer, and the copper gap in the energy transition.

    Keith Dicker of IceCap Asset Management and Loonie Hour Podcast takes the lead on synchronized global risks, highlighting how a banking crisis in Silicon Valley has led to crises at other regional banks in the US and abroad. He also discusses the potential risks of the Hong Kong dollar breaking its peg and its impact on the Canadian dollar.

    Albert Marko shares his insights on the spending patterns of US consumers, presenting surprising findings on mainstream companies like Carnival Cruise Lines and McCormick, which have been able to raise prices despite the economic recession. These findings challenge the notion of the Federal Reserve’s ability to pivot or pause.

    Tracy Shuchart from Hilltower Resource Advisors warns about the copper gap in the energy transition, which is emerging just as the energy transition gains speed. She provides insights into what this means for copper prices in 2023 and how it will impact the energy transition.

    The episode concludes with the experts’ predictions for the week ahead.

    Key themes:
    1. Synchronized global risks
    2. The US consumer isn’t slowing down
    3. Copper gap & energy transition

    This is the 59th episode of The Week Ahead, where experts talk about the week that just happened and what will most likely happen in the coming week.

    Follow The Week Ahead panel on Twitter:
    Tony: https://twitter.com/TonyNashNerd
    Keith: https://twitter.com/IceCapGlobal
    Albert: https://twitter.com/amlivemon
    Tracy: https://twitter.com/chigrl

    https://open.spotify.com/episode/7EQFAugL9isfEPHrRDhXie?si=e059f5e3f7254008

    Transcript

    Tony

    Hi, everyone, and welcome to the Week Ahead. I’m Tony Nash, and today we’re joined by Keith Dicker. You’ll know Keith on Twitter as @IceCapGlobal. He’s with Ice Cap Asset Management. He also hosts the Looney Hour Podcast, which is one of the most popular business podcasts in Canada. So we’re really lucky to have them today. We’ve also got Tracy Shuchart from Hilltower Resource Advisors and Sam Rines from Corbu. Sam Rines will be joining us a little bit later.

    Tony

    So let’s get started, guys. We’ve got a few key themes this week. First is synchronized global risks. And we saw that recently with the banking issues, and we’ll get that into a little bit into that a little bit deeper with Keith. With Sam, we’ll talk about the US consumer and how it really isn’t slowing down. And we’ll go into some detail on company annual reports and quarterly reports on that. And then with Tracy, we’ll talk about the copper gap and the energy transition and a message that she’s been talking about for maybe about a year, but is really kind of coming to the forefront now. So, guys, welcome. And Keith, thanks again for joining us for the first time. We really appreciate it.

    Keith

    Yeah, thank you for having me here. And I think with Tracy, I consider you like half Canadian, sort of with the Quebec ties, but still like one and a half Canadian against one guy from Texas. We’re still not winning, are we?

    Tony

    Yeah, you’re welcome here anytime.

    Keith

    So I’ll just talk a little bit about how we do things. We manage money for individuals and family offices, basically across Canada, as well as some European clients, in the US, and Asia. And so we’ve had a lot of success with our strategy and just a couple of things to get the view started, which I think is important. We’re Canadian. I founded Ice Cap back in 2010-2011ish around then, but prior to that, I was offshore in Bermuda for over a decade. And then before that, I was with one of the big bad Canadian banks. But I like to share this Bermuda story because I think it’s really important today because I think a lot of people today get so focused on the day-to-day and short-term factors, what’s happening. And the other challenge a lot of investors have, we tend to see the world through the eyes and minds of where you live and where you’re from. And our view, the financial world does revolve around the US. That’s just the way it’s put together. But being offshore, you don’t really belong to any country. You’re living in between the seams.

    Keith

    So you get to see and feel and live the world from the perspective of all these other ex-pats you hang out with and so forth. So I just share that with you because, like up here in Canada, if you know the Canadian environment or not, Tony, you should head up when it’s a bit warmer. Maybe for you, I know, but Canadians have this very insular view of our banking system and our housing market. Everyone around the world should behave and act and walk the way Canadians do and so forth. As we all know, that’s not the case at all. It’s a very bigger world out there. With just that in mind, just before I go into the immediate view that we have with the world, it’s our view that long-term interest rates, looking at the ten or 30 years, really did peak in 1982. That’s when it peaked. Back then, rates were called 20%. So from the early 80s right up to eight nine, they went to 0%. And everybody makes money when that’s happening, especially the bond managers. And when that hit zero in 809, policymakers should have let the world reset.

    Keith

    But we know, of course, that wasn’t permitted, and some jurisdictions did a better and worse job than others that trying to protect that. But effectively, what happened then, for the next decade-plus, we’ve been living in this world with zero rates, negative rates, unbelievable re-escalation of borrowing at both the sovereign debt level households and companies, and so forth. And the other part I like to add to it a bit of a joking way, but it’s also factual. We now have basically two generations of university kids coming out for their entire university academic careers. And now ten years of working in, say, the investment world has been in this period that just doesn’t exist. It’s zero rates. Nothing exists, because as we know, Tony, you put a zero in your denominator for any number. You’re calculating what happens. It doesn’t work. Right. So what we see now today in response to all the policies we have with the Pandemic and COVID, for better or worse, all of the economies and central banks in the world, now they’ve all synchronized. So risk has been synchronized in the US. Canada, Australia, Asia, Europe, you name it.

    Keith

    And now we’ve gone from this period with zero negative rates. Short term rates are now they exploded higher, and it’s created this moment where increasingly we’re starting to see these risk just come out of the blue.

    Tony

    Just to clarify something, and I want to make sure that I understand correctly, when you have a zero or negative interest rate, the cost of risk is only the nominal cost of the money that you put at stake. But with an actual interest rate, you have a multiplier on that risk. It may be just a small portion of the multiplier, but there is an accelerator on that risk, right? And so I think this is what it’s been really hard for people well, really easy for people to fall in love with, with zero risk, I think, is that if I risk $100 and I lose it, the value of it is only $100. But if I’ve got a 10% interest rate, then I’m not just losing $100, I’m losing $110. Right. So as we transition back into a positive interest rate environment, the financial planning and the investment planning for people, as you mentioned, say, two generations of people coming out of school, this is an environment people have never had to deal with before. Right. And at the same time, we have BOJ, ECB, and the Fed, who to varying degrees, have had zero or nerp environments where nobody’s had to deal with that.

    Tony

    And it’s crazy. So I know that is just some basic, basic stuff compared to the advanced calculus you’re talking about, but I think we really kind of need to highlight that that there is an actual cost to risk now that we have real interest rates.

    Keith

    Yeah. And it’s something we haven’t experienced for a long time. So people tend to forget that. In school, and these CFA studies that we all went through, we call that the risk free rate of return. And it’s been zero for a long time, and it’s been reset. I think this is the greatest global macro setup that we’ll ever see in our lifetime. I mean, if you’re a money manager and you’re not enjoying this right now, then I think you should get a different career, move along somewhere else. But if you think about, for example, over the last five or six months, the Brits had their crisis in their pension fund and guilt market. Of course, then we had Silicon Valley Bank just recently, and then right behind that, Credit Suisse was there. So one good result about that, policymakers, which is mostly the Fed Reserve, of course, were able to react very quickly to prevent contagion. And so they should be complemented for that. I know it’s not nice to compliment or it’s not cool to compliment Central Bank. Yeah, definitely not cool. But that’s something that is a result that did happen. However, it’s also telling us here at Ice Cap that if you went back six months ago and I said, hey, I want you to list ten things that could blow up over the next six months, you wouldn’t have had those three events on your bingo card.

    Keith

    Maybe the Credit Suisse story, maybe, but the other two were pretty hard to find. So that tells us that, hey, there’s other events that are out there lurking around. And because they’re out there, it doesn’t mean they have to occur. It just means that the probability of them occurring, in our opinion, it’s a lot higher than it normally would. It normally would be your normal distribution chart or graph. So we have that happening, and it seems like every day there’s increasingly more data coming out. We just say, wow, I can’t believe that’s still going down that path. But these are the things that we look at. And again, we find it’s incredibly interesting. It means it does create a lot of opportunities coming up for people managing the portfolios. But you have to be aware of these fattail events that are out there because they could happen and maybe the next one is central banks are not able to save us.

    Tony

    So let me ask you on the, on the kind of synchronized risk part, seems to me that developed markets are highly calibrated to these risks. A small issue causes a huge reaction in developed markets. I spent a lot of my life in emerging markets, China, Sri Lanka, India, Southeast Asia, Eastern Europe, all over the place. And so it seems to me that emerging markets can bounce around a lot and the perception of risk is a bit lower. I know that there’s a perception that if the US or if developing markets have problems they’re going to be felt even more in emerging markets. But is that true when you talk about these synchronized risks? Do they necessarily feel worse in emerging markets?

    Keith

    I think in a normal cycle that is the case. You just go with it because from a fundamental perspective, emerging markets look awesome. You know, they have lower debt, faster growth rates, younger, you know, younger demographics and, and things like that. However, again because we’re in this world again I call it synchronized risk. And a quick example is housing markets, real estate markets like Canada and Australia as an example. Again it’s our view that if risk does re escalate, so it happens rapidly. Then because the world.. It operates on the US dollar, that’s just a fact. That’s the way it works. All of a sudden liquidity dries up and liquidity comes out of those markets. So then it doesn’t matter how strong or weak the fundamentals are. If you don’t have dollars to operate, you have US dollar tax revenues coming in or economic gross domestic product revenues, all that stuff, then it’s going to push someone off sides. I think back prior to the 809 housing crisis it would have been hey yeah, just ride it out and you’ll be fine. But these days for example, we’re avoiding these markets. We’re not in the EM markets at all.

    Keith

    And sometimes that’s great, other times it’s oh wow, you missed one there Ice Cap. The main goal with investment management that we look at is if you avoid the large drawdowns for your primary portfolios then the return side will take care of itself. But if you get these big chops in value and I mean we know the numbers, if you’re down 50% you need a 100% return to get back to where you started. Again it’s being cognizant of these risks that are out there and we keep going back to this US dollar wheel that’s greasing the world.

    Tony

    Yeah. Speaking of currencies, Keith, you had posted this tweet earlier this week responding to a message from Kyle Bass about the Hong Kong dollar breaking and you said if the Hong Kong dollar breaks, the CAD also breaks. Can you talk us through that a little bit?

    Keith

    Yeah, because obviously we’re Canadian up here and the challenge that most Canadian investors have is that they don’t appreciate that the Canadian dollar and the Canadian economy and the yield curve up here in Canada, it can be significantly influenced by an external factor and that’s lost on most investors up here. So if you’re reading, like, big bank research, like, they’ll never. Sorry, they’ll rarely talk about these outside events. It could be something within the eurozone, for example, like the Italians or something. We know China is struggling quite a bit, but I will frequently talk and write and chat about these events and that if they happen, it is going to affect Canada. So the comment this week sort of stems back to… So we know the Fed opened their USD swap lines with all their friendly central banks that are set up for it and everyone drew on it. Everyone immediately. “Hey, yeah, we need the dollars.” But they also have this other repo line set up. It’s FIMA. I think it’s Foreign International Monetary Authorities. I think it is that stands for. So basically it’s a repo facility for central banks that are not attached to the swap line option.

    Keith

    That’s my understanding of it. And at some point, it was one week ago Friday, someone out there borrowed 60 billion USD for that. And if I think of people if you’re not aware how the repo facility works, Tracy, if I’m giving you $60 billion, you have to exchange with me at least 60 billion plus in US Treasuries to act as collateral for it. Even though you have Treasuries, you don’t have US dollars. We like to joke about if you go to a restaurant, you get your bill at the end of the night. You can’t pay it with a T bill. They’ll laugh at you. You need US dollars for it. So someone needed US dollars last week. And because of the size, and because they’re not one of the USD swap line friendly nations, you’re looking around who has that much in Treasuries that they can use for a repo? It really looks like it was or is China. And Hong Kong is the conduit for capital flows coming out of China. And it happened on a Friday afternoon. And as you know, if anyone here is running a bank, your goal is to last Friday afternoon and then you try to sort it out to get through to the weekend.

    Keith

    And then with that then 60 billion, it went to the Chinese, supposedly. And then every day this week we’ve had the Hong Kong dollar peg. It’s been up against its upper range, so it’s been sitting at 785, basically. And when it did open on Sunday evening, it actually broke through the range. So for this brief moment in time, it was up there. And so when I referenced that tweet, I’m more or less just pointing out to Canadians that, hey, if this peg was going to break, it is definitely going to affect world capital flows. Money will flow into the dollar, which means it’s coming out of the Canadian dollar. I like to poke Canadians sometimes with these things because they know we all feel we’re the best in the world at a lot of things, but that was the message with that.

    Tony

    Okay, so just staying on the Canadian dollar for a second, do you think the sensitivity with CAD, where outflows from CAD is as sensitive as, say, Hong Kong dollar could be? Especially given that CAD is so resource driven, do you think that would have an impact on it?

    Keith

    Yeah. So just be clear, if the Hong Kong dollar peg broke, this would be a once in two lifetime financial economic event. It will reverberate around the world several times over. If it doesn’t, and we’re just having a normal economic cycle, Canadian dollar is just going to ebb and flow with the demand for commodities and something else. But up here in Canada right now, we have a very tightly wound housing market. Everyone is familiar with that. There’s lots of reasons to support why it is strong. Our population growth has been unbelievable. We’ve had a million immigrants come in. In Californians, too. I don’t think they would last with the weather.

    Tony

    Albert’s got the New Yorkers. Albert and Tracy have the New Yorkers. We have the Californians.

    Keith

    So Albert and I met a few years back. I’ll give you guys one guess where we met in a location.

    Tony

    I don’t know if we can talk about that publicly.

    Albert

    It was actually Orlando. It was actually Orlando. I do like the Canadian dollar short term, anyways. But speaking about the population, I mean, the demographics for Canada is excellent. Probably the best they’ve had in a generation. The housing market is interesting, though, because I saw a statistic where in 2003, the average income for Canada was $60,000, yet the average home was 213. Now it’s $64,000 and $612,000 for a home. So the housing market is quite an anomaly in Canada. It’s over my head, but it’s something that I definitely should pay attention to.

    Tony

    I don’t mean this to sound stupid, but do you have the generational loans like they did in Japan back in the day? Do you guys do that up there?

    Keith

    What do you mean? No, our mortgage is…

    Tony

    One generation to nother to pay off a house.

    Keith

    No, we have 25 year amortization periods. The banks now have to do a few funny things to keep these loans from being impaired. So they’re extending to amortization period. But just a couple of quick things with Canada to be aware of right now. We have basically five major banks up here, and their loan portfolios are homogenous. They will tell you, no, we’re a little bit different than the next guy, but they’re all the same. So if we were to experience some kind of crisis in our economy or in the housing market, it will affect all banks at the same time. So we also have our term deposit insurance up here. It’s $100,000 canadian. It’s highly likely they’re going to need to increase that, but they’re not able to increase it to any level. That would actually be helpful if we were to experience a crisis because if one bank ran into trouble and they had to go to the CDIC to make a claim, all the banks are going at the same time. That’s just a function of what it is. But we are in this sort of precarious moment right now. We just had a budget came out yesterday, or the day before, I think it was.

    Keith

    And again, it’s like deficits forever, debt is going to grow forever, there will never be a recession. All these perfect scenarios are lining up. Again, we just like to highlight that we are in this global world and some kind of event can happen outside of your country. It doesn’t matter if it’s Canadian or Australian or British, something can happen that will trigger most likely would be a shift in your yield curve in some way where the credit spreads are hit or the long end of the curve gets hit, or banks have to take actual losses and things like that. And that’s when things get a bit funny out there. But that’s the story on what we see. Again, we think it’s incredibly interesting. There are great opportunities coming up, especially in the commodity world. We’ve been adding that space over the last three to four weeks. And the path that we like to talk about, not journey. The path, and it seems to be going where we’re expecting this year.

    Tony

    Perfect. We’ll talk about Canadians or commodities with Tracy in a little bit. But first, how is the Canadian consumer doing? We’re going to talk about the US consumer in a second with Albert, but how is the Canadian consumer doing?

    Keith

    You look everywhere, everyone is over levered. So you have that happening. Employment growth is fine, but if you look under the hood, it’s really in the service sector. One person might have they’re running three jobs, they’re an Uber driver, they’re running Uber food or DoorDash, whatever they call it, and maybe something else at the same time, because it’s kind of interesting in that we’re all expecting a recession to hit up here, but the data is still not showing that it’s going to happen. And the most important contributor, the positive contributor again, is population growth. So again, we’ve taken in over a million immigrants this year and I think that works out to about two and a half percent population. So our GDP per capita is actually declining, right? So if you take out the population growth, then we are struggling a bit. But Canadians right now, and banks are tightening their standards on lending. There’s increasing evidence that if we do start to see job losses, then it could be a bit rough. A lot of Canadians have bought houses over the last three years. They went with variable overnight mortgages, and all of a sudden, they’ve been resetting lock and step with the Bank of Canada.

    Keith

    So the good news is the Bank of Canada is done. They ain’t hiking anymore. Yeah, maybe we’ll get some relief with that. But the Canadian story, if something bad happened in Canada, it’s not going to affect the rest of the world. If something outside of the rest of the world happened, it will affect Canada. So we have this bit of a challenge here.

    Tony

    Okay, great. Keith has been it’s been really helpful to I mean, for people outside of the US and Canada. We’re different. The US and Canada are different. And Americans, I’m sorry to say, don’t really pay a whole lot of attention to what happens in Canada. So this really is helpful for us to understand this stuff. It is America’s largest trading partner, but we are a little bit selfish. And I’m sorry to say it, but it’s true. So it’s helpful for us to learn this stuff.

    Tony

    So let’s move on to the US consumer and little programming note. Sam Rines does not look like Albert. This is actually Albert. And so Sam Rines is ill. So Albert has so very graciously jumped in to this spot. And so, Albert, thank you so much. So I want to ask about the health of the US consumer. And Sam had done this newsletter earlier this week, and this is very much in line with things that you have been saying about inflation, Albert. And so let me just bring up a couple of things. And Sam brought up Carnival Cruise Lines earnings. And the highlighted part of this thing on screen says the company experienced the highest booking volumes for any quarter in its history, breaking booking records for both North America and Australia and Europe segments.

    Tony

    Okay, so Carnival Cruise Lines is not exactly a high end cruise line. This is a middle America cruise line. And they’re seeing bookings that are far beyond what they’ve ever seen. And next, Sam looked at the earnings for McCormick, a spices company, and McCormick talked about 11% growth from their pricing actions while they saw a 3% decline in volumes.

    So this goes along with this concept that Sam has been talking about for about nine months called price over volume, where companies have been passing on their costs through their prices to their consumers while accepting a small volume decline. And so we’re definitely seeing the broad basis of prices continuing to rise in the US. And Keith mentioned this, that there is some broad expectation that we’re going to see a recession in the US. But Albert, we still see hiring relatively strong. We still see service wages strong. We still see price rises coming. What’s happening? How are we going to see a recession? First of all, what is your view of the US consumer. And second of all, how are we going to have a US recession while all this stuff is happening?

    Albert

    Well, the US consumer has been surging. It’s been relentless. I mean, wage inflation is at the core of it. I mean, people are finally the public is getting a 20-30% jump in their wages after 40 years of stagnation basically. It’s become such a problem for the Fed that they’re resorting to bank crises now to stop lending and credit from the banks. It’s just the reality of what’s happened. I don’t see it lighten up. They want the market up. That’s providing liquidity. Consumers are getting liquidity from all over the place. Certain states still have stimulus. It’s just relentless. And it’s really problematic for the Fed.

    Tony

    Wait, certain states still have stimulus?

    Albert

    Yeah, they still have stimulus programs. California has inflation checks and certain unemployment benefits are still rolled on. I think it’s 16 or 22 states still have some sort of stimulus programs kicked in for unemployment.

    Tony

    Okay, so one of the things that I’ve said today actually on Twitter about trying to pull back on the consumer is that we’re going to have to see some change in the housing market in order for the consumer to stop spending in the US. Because the perception of wealth in the US. Comes more from the perceived value of your house than it does from equity markets. There is this belief that as equity markets rally, there’s this broad basis of spending that comes from consumers. And while that’s certainly true for a portion of them, the value of someone’s house is so much more a part of their spending habits in practice. So does that make sense to you?

    Albert

    It does, but it creates another problem politically. Washington wants housing more affordable for their constituents. But on the flip end, the boomers don’t want to give up their increased prices of their homes. And on top of that, people are taking out Helocs and buying secondary and third homes for rental income. So this problem is just simply not going to end in the near term. And on top of that, thinking about jobs, when you talk about layoffs, it’s only tech. There’s not any construction jobs that are being laid off. I don’t know one company in the housing or construction field that’s dropped workers, the significant amount of workers, zero.

    Tony

    Right. Well, because there’s supposedly an undersupply of housing. That’s what we keep hearing. But when we hear about people taking home equity loans to buy a second house to rent out, how real is that housing shortage? I just don’t know. I mean, you can see all kinds of different data showing that there’s a shortage or not a shortage. But when we have a synthetically low interest rate and we have the Fed holding a lot of mortgage backed securities, we do have an interest rate that’s lower than it naturally would be.

    Albert

    Of course, there is. But when it comes to the housing shortages or oversupply or whatnot, you can’t even look at it at a national level. You have to take it state by state or even city by city. I mean, Florida and Texas are absolutely booming, but the same can’t be said for Pennsylvania. So I think we have to look at it from that aspect. It’s really hard to look at the housing.

    Tony

    We’re still seeing wages surge in the middle of the country, although they may not be surging on the coast. We’re still seeing prices rise and price and margins expand. With a lot of these consumer companies and services companies. We’re seeing patchy housing values rise or stagnate. What does the Fed do? Will we see a pause this year? Will we see a pivot this year?

    Albert

    I don’t think pivots even in the cards at the moment. A pause certainly is in the cards. The problem that the Fed faces is super core inflation. It’s just services like, even in Canada, like Keith was saying, is just sky high, rocketing up. It’s just not stopping. This is the biggest roadblock that the Fed has for combating inflation at the moment.

    Tony

    CI Futures is our subscription platform for global markets and economics. We forecast hundreds of assets across currencies, commodities, equity indices, and economics. We have new forecasts for currencies, commodities, and equity indices every Monday morning. We do new economics forecasts for 50 countries once a month. Within CI Futures, we show you our error rates. So every forecast every month, we give you the one and three month error rates for our previous forecast. We also show you the top correlations and allow you to download charts and data. You can find out more or get a demo on completeintel.com. Thank you.

    Tony

    Right, so we expect to see, I think you said before, at least a couple more 25.

    Albert

    I think two more before a pause hits.

    Tony

    Is it possible they could take some action on QT for MBS to hit the housing sector a little bit?

    Albert

    They could, but again, they’re facing headwinds from the boomers that are up there with Hank Paulson and Larry Summers and their crews. They certainly don’t want to hear from them that the housing market is crashing and their wealth being erased slowly. So that’s just again, there’s two dynamics. You have the middle class voters that can’t afford houses, and then you have the boomers that don’t want to lose their value and their wealth. So that’s what we’re stuck between.

    Tony

    I suspect that at some point that might be one of the only levers they have to pull to slow things down.

    Albert

    It’s a dangerous level to pull.

    Tony

    It is, but I don’t know.

    Albert

    I don’t even know if the banking sector can absorb too much of that kind of pain. I don’t know. I haven’t really analyzed that in any way. But theoretically, you start dropping housing prices 20, 30%, and I don’t even know what. That does to loans for people and the banks.

    Tony

    Keith, what do you think about that?

    Keith

    Just to add to that, back to the Fed comment, Albert. If you have the Fed hiking another 50 basis points and everyone else has effectively stopped, I think the ECB has stopped or they’re pretty well close to that. You could have this environment where maybe the economy does slow somewhat in the US. Yet the dollar is surging. Like it’s continually gets stronger and you just get this vicious cycle going back and forth with it. But it’s funny because everyone has been watching the Fed now since Jackson Hole back in August, expecting that they’re going to pivot. They’re going to pivot. And in my mind, I think the Powell has been very clear with which direction they want to go. And somehow they dodged that there at their last meeting, they had every opportunity to pause if they wanted to because of the banking crisis, and they just plowed straight through. So I agree with Albert. They want to continue hiking until they’re told they’re not able to do it anymore. And if they can get through several banks basically going under within a few days of each other and to continue hiking, then maybe there’s a world to get more than 50.

    Keith

    And again, if that happens, it’s going to push someone off sides out there. But that goes back to the whole global macro view.

    Tony

    Right? Well, we used to talk about how the Fed is going to push until something breaks. And so we saw some banks break and they’re continuing to push. So something else has to break. Right.

    Albert

    Something bigger.

    Tony

    What’s that?

    Albert

    Something bigger has to break. Something with more gusto to limit to help out the Fed right now. I mean, they unwound six months or nine months of QT in a week. Exactly. We’re back to square one now.

    Tony

    Right. And so banks failed, didn’t break enough. They want something else to break.

    Albert

    Joke. This bank failure thing is an entire joke.

    Tony

    Of course it is.

    Albert

    It’s a pre planned event. I mean, when First Republic loses 90% or 60% of their deposits and the founder is pushing back on the FDIC about a plan for salvaging the bank, it’s a joke. It really is.

    Tony

    Okay, so, Keith, you mentioned Fed continues to rise, stronger dollar. That seems to me to put pressure on downward pressure on commodity prices. Not necessarily everything, but it seems to put some serious pressure on commodity prices if we have a rising dollar, is that fair?

    Keith

    Yeah. I mean, our expected path this year with commodities prices that we go lower Q1 into Q2, and that’s exactly where we are. We start to see slower economic data coming out, Q2, Q3. They should bottom before any recession actually hits. So in that world, unless there’s a major supply disruption or discovery or something like that, we’re using this as an opportunity to start building small positions in that space, but you keep going back to like, is it a normal cycle or is there something else that may happen here at this point.

    Keith

    I think everyone’s been calling out for a recession. Say, hey, if you go from zero to five with overnight rates and the yield curve gets inverted so much, no matter which way you want to look at it, the recession is here and people have been looking for this back in Q4. Here we are, like five months into it and still no sign of it coming. Again, something is a bit odd out there. Maybe it’s just delaying the inevitable or maybe it’s as, you know, a bubble. You keep blowing into a bubble. I don’t mean that the economy is in a bubble or anything like that.

    Keith

    It just means that, again, everything has been synchronized around the world that it is giving the opportunity for something to go off sides. And when that happens, because everyone has so much risk on the table, people can start running around. And again, that doesn’t mean that you go all into cash or whatever your favorite overnight holding is. It just means you had to be aware of it and be positioned for it. And then when it does happen, it’s funny how nobody buys low and sells high anymore and most people do the opposite. So I think, though, maybe you can be a bit traditional, that opportunity will come up.

    Tony

    A recession is whatever we call it. So we had two quarters negative growth last year with strong employment. Right. So will we see the opposite of that this year with employment weakening but continuing GDP growth and maybe call that a recession? I have no idea.

    Keith

    Yeah, I think one of the main contributors to recession coming up is when banks stop providing credit to the economy or they slow the growth of credit. That’s the main thing to look for. And just using the Canadian economy as an example, that is happening. It’s now more difficult to get a mortgage. If you need credit, you’re using credit cards or stuff like that. I know the boomers are doing well. We always have access.

    Tony

    Boomers have always done well. It’s been good for boomers since they were 18 years old. They’re never going to suffer until they die.

    Albert

    That’s exactly what Keith is saying, is until the banks stop lending out, this is just going to continue. And this is most likely why this bank crisis was preempted, to stop the banks from lending.

    Tony

    Okay, so, Tracy, we started going down the path of commodities and with Albert and Keith, Albert thinks we’re going to see at least two more rate rises. If that strengthens the dollar. What’s your view on that in terms of general commodity prices? Does that push commodity prices down or do we start to see growth toward the end of the year pick back up and that helps commodity prices?

    Tony

    Sorry, you’re muted.

    Tracy

    Sorry. I think that it’s really going to depend on multitude of factors. The thing is that if you’re looking at some of these base metals, battery metals and things of that nature between energy transition and in Europe and North America have committed to this at all costs, even asking central banks to look past inflation in these areas. And so I think that demand particularly, and if we see pickup in China, which is also one of the largest EV makers in the world, I think that we’re going to have a problem where we’re going to have these metals go higher even in conjunction with a higher dollar. I think it’s very possible.

    Tony

    Okay, so let’s look at a comment you put out on Twitter earlier this week about copper.

    Copper is critical to the clean energy transition. Europe and North America have committed to the transition. After 2023, incremental copper supply decelerates into 2030. And then you actually sent out a chart in November of ’22 showing kind of the copper supply gap. So can you talk us through why is there a copper supply gap? It looks like the supply just kind of flattens after growing. Why is the supply flattening out as demand is rising?

    Tracy

    Because we don’t have, because nobody’s mining it, really. We have about 1.1 million tons being added this year to supply as far as supply growth is concerned, and new supply coming online from new mining. But after that it levels off. And I actually sent you those charts so that you can show everybody, but you can see where supply growth literally goes from 1.1 million tons to literally nothing from here to out to 2030.

    And then you have this incremental supply growth. When you’re looking at just take for example, an EV, right, it requires four and a half times the amount of copper as an ice vehicle. And when you start talking about buses, that’s twelve times as much. This doesn’t even include solar, wind, charging infrastructure and stationary energy storage that also require huge amount of copper.

    And you have the green plan in the United States, and you have Europe’s rendition of a green plan, right? And so they’re planning to build all this out, and we just don’t have the supply available, and we’re just not going to have it. And if you add into this, for the past seven years, the mining industry suffered from the same problem that the oil industry has. Lack of capex.

    Tracy

    So you’re coming from already seven years of no cap, barely any capex, declining capex. So you’re not having supply really come haven’t had supply really come on in any notable amounts in the last seven years. And then moving forward to 2030, we’re not seeing that increase at all either.

    Tony

    Do you know that Simpsons meme, where they’re like barts in class and they say, say the line, say the line.

    Tony

    We’re going to think about that there when I say why has there been a lack of capex in mining?

    Tracy

    Because it’s dirty.

    Tracy

    Right? Is the reason.

    Tracy

    And nobody wants mining. Same with the oil sector. Nobody wants oil to drill for oil either. It’s dirty. Right? ESG these things are dirty, but yeah, we need them. So here’s our conundrum, and it’s not going to I think that not get any better. Regardless if we’re in a recession and regardless if we see the dollar spike. I mean, we’re already seeing copper prices are still holding up very well through this banking crisis, where we have seen oil wobble a little bit and the dollar has been over 100 and we’re still seeing these metals. We did see a pullback from the summer high when we had the electricity crisis or the natural gas crisis, right. So we did see those metals pull back from 2022 highs, but we’re starting to see them all spike again because again, we have these green programs that are coming to light now, particularly in the United States, and then again with Europe having their own kind of rendition of the IRA plan.

    Tony

    What will win? If you look five years out? Okay. And we have these ESG constraints on upstream development and mining and other things, and it almost seems like we’re going to have to continue to have some sort of subsidy for energy in places or some of that ESG regulation or legislation can change what will happen? Will ESG loosen or will we just continue to subsidize these things until we’ve kind of finished the transition, whatever that means?

    Tracy

    I don’t think just to reach 2035 goals right now, we need $35 trillion, right?

    Tony

    Because we’re just making money up now, right? So what is that $35 trillion spent on?

    Tracy

    And that’s just to get us to where the countries have their 2035 goals. So really, that’s not going to happen. You know, that’s not going to… Europe is not going to cough that up. United States is going to cough that. Canada is not going to cough that up.

    Tony

    Remember the Kyoto Protocol from the UN talking about green goals? It was done in 1992 or whatever. And I think the only country that did it was I think there were only two countries that did it, maybe three, like Canada, the US, and Iceland or something like that, right? So everyone signed this deal. These were all aspirational the goals were far enough advanced that nobody who signed the treaty was going to be in office when the accountability was made.

    Tracy

    Exactly. And that’s where it gets me to. My next thing is that they’re going to have to push these goals out. You know that, right. Because everybody decided these 2035 goals, whoever’s in office, we have the UK, and all these people are going to be gone, right?

    Tony

    Whoever is the chancellor in Germany will still be there because they keep those guys.

    Tracy

    That’s true. So my opinion is we’re not going to have enough money. You still aren’t getting these mining companies excited enough to you can’t get oil companies excited enough to drill right now. Right. They’re all focused on investor returns, paying down debts, capital discipline. It’s no different in the mining industry. Right. So we’re going to have a problem. So you’re going to have to pull just by pure logistics. You’re going to have to push those out. I mean, it’s just logistically impossible. We just don’t have enough metals, period. And you can’t just wish that into existence.

    Tony

    I don’t necessarily need to get into company names. And Keith, I know you want to comment. I just come to you in just a second. But I’ve been trying to think of how do you play this ultimately, because all of these green things plug into a grid. So is the ultimate play for the energy transition power companies or the companies that provide hardware for the power grids? What is the real play here?

    Tracy

    I think that it’s infrastructure to build all this stuff out. Right. So I like things like heavy machinery, steel, things that make infrastructure to actually build this out or to mine, right. Not necessarily the actual metals themselves because those tend to be very volatile. So I would look at what goes into making these metals, what goes into making these grids. That’s where you’re playing. Utility companies are, I think, going for the utility companies, they always get screwed in the end. That wouldn’t be my go to for an investment longer term, looking at this sector. So I was more into kind of the infrastructure again.

    Tony

    Good. Okay, Keith, you had a couple of things you wanted to say.

    Keith

    Yeah, I just love this conversation. And maybe one thing for us to think about is that maybe the current path we’re on, it changes. So we get the pendulum swinging to the other side where it’s no longer whether it’s socially or politically, you don’t have that huge push towards green technology and so forth. It doesn’t mean that people don’t want it, but it’s not going to be pushed by the public sector. Instead, it’s going to be into the private sector. And that could change a lot of things. I do think that a lot of countries are going to be prohibited from doing a lot of these investments because they just won’t be able to raise the capital in their bond markets. And there’s also going to be other needs coming up. Again, I go back to here in Canada right now with their budget that just came out. 10% of our at the federal level of our tax revenues are now going to interest expense on the federal debt. Again, I suspect everyone is in that kind of position. So what worth goes. I love the concept of stranded assets in the energy and commodity space.

    Keith

    I’m incredibly bullish on this space and maybe the dirtier that the commodity is is probably the better opportunity for return. And again we’re just in this world now, we’re even having this conversation. It’s not acceptable by some sides but I think we have to be realistic that we live in a period of extremes and I think if we’re using linear thinking that that’s going to be wrong. Like something will swing back to the other side.

    Tony

    Extrapolate today until forever.

    Tracy

    I actually tweeted out a German survey today. So only 10% of Germans believe that renewable energies will be able to meet energy needs for the foreseeable future. Even among the Green voters, that figures only 18%. Instead citizens want natural gas 59% and nuclear power 57%. And that’s across all parties in Germany. So the citizens wants, needs, likes are not necessarily coinciding with our government overlords. Right.

    Tony

    Because they’ve lived over the past year. Right. They’ve seen how this stuff can’t meet their needs.

    Tracy

    Swinging.

    Albert

    Well, the wall of reality is starting to hit these governments. Like what do you do here? You got a budget, you have to increase your defense. Specifically for the Europeans, you have to increase your defense budget. You still have to maintain your social programs. You still want to push these subsidies for renewables. There’s no money for that.

    Tony

    It also comes at a time where you have a lot of baby boomers retiring so you don’t have the income taxes on those guys going into your budgets. Right. So you’ve got a gap of say ten years until millennials hit that income level. And so there is a revenue issue and a spending issue and yeah, I think there are so many things in this calculation that it’s just a very.

    Albert

    These renewable programs are nothing more than tax schemes by the government. They see their budgets dwindling so they know that they can tax and spend a little bit more by throwing out these beautiful narratives like the Paris Accords where nobody but the United States had haired to.

    Tony

    So whatever we’ll go from there just a little fact and I’m sure I’m not going to become anybody’s friend from this, but I actually co authored a couple of papers with my friend David who was the person who pulled the US out of the Paris Accords in 2017 on behalf of the Trump administration.

    Albert

    Good. Exactly what they should have done. If people are going to make up their own numbers and have no mechanism for enforcement, then what do we do?

    Tony

    Exactly. So that’s where I sit in that anyway. Okay guys, really quickly to wrap up. Keith, your first. If we look at the week ahead, what are you looking for in the week ahead? I’m not looking for companies or anything here, but what are you looking for in terms of issues whether in Canada or globally or the US or something? What do you see in the week ahead?

    Keith

    I mean for one week ignoring any economic data points coming up, we’re finishing quarter end today it’s been risk on for the last ten days. I suspect on Monday morning we might see a bit of a shift in that stance, but that’s it. We continue on this. I keep going back to this path and where’s the next kind of crisis going to escalate from.

    Tony

    Good call. Great. Tracy, what are you looking for?

    Tracy

    Well, OPEC meetings this week. I expect no change, so nothing really to get that excited about in the oil sector.

    Tony

    Even with crude prices continuing to wait.

    Tracy

    No, I think they’ll stay the course right now because I still think that we did have Russia come out and say they’re cutting 500,000 barrels per day. It was just supposed to be just for March. They pushed that out to June. So I think that OPEC will kind of look at that and want to see how that is factoring into everything as it is.

    Tony

    Very good. Albert? 

    Albert

    Specifically grains. I’m very curious to see how grains are in the commodities market, and whether food inflation starts to go up because wheat starts going up also. The Ukrainians said that they’re 10% lower on their crop yields. The Russians have been starting to make noise about Cargill. So I’m going to be very curious to see if we can catch a bid and drive itself up into the 800s.

    Tony

    Okay, very good, guys. Thank you so much. Thank you so much for your time. Have a great weekend, and have a great week ahead.

  • Energy Market on the Brink: Russia, CNY, and the Fed’s Dilemma

    Explore your CI Futures options in this March Madness Promo: http://bit.ly/3T7Htlr

    In the latest episode of The Week Ahead, Tony Nash is joined by Michael Nicoletos, Tracy Shuchart, and Albert Marko. The panel first explores Russia’s recent announcement that it would use CNY for trade settlement outside of the US and Europe. Michael Nicoletos explains that this move could be viable, but it would depend on whether all countries would accept the terms of trade.

    Albert Marko believes that the recent rate hike was the right thing to do and predicted that the Fed would raise rates twice more. He also criticizes the lack of depth in the economics department of some central banks, citing examples from the RBNZ and the ECB.

    The panel also analyzes the energy market and predicted when we might see an uptrend. Tracy Shuchart updates the chart and pointed out that crude seemed to break the down cycle a bit, leading to a good week for the commodity. The team answers a viewer’s question about the possibility of energy prices remaining low for a long time and offered their perspectives on the matter.

    Finally, the panel discusses what they expected for the Week Ahead. Michael Nicoletos predicts that the energy market would remain volatile, and Tracy Shuchart believes that the focus would be on the stock market, particularly the Nasdaq. Albert Marko highlights the importance of watching the inflation data and suggests that investors should keep an eye on the bond market.

    Key themes:
    1. Russia ❤️ $CNY. Why?
    2. Where does the Fed (and other central banks) go from here?
    3. When will we see an uptrend in energy?

    This is the 58th episode of The Week Ahead, where experts talk about the week that just happened and what will most likely happen in the coming week.

    Follow The Week Ahead panel on Twitter:
    Tony: https://twitter.com/TonyNashNerd
    Michael: https://twitter.com/mnicoletos
    Albert: https://twitter.com/amlivemon
    Tracy: https://twitter.com/chigrl

    https://open.spotify.com/episode/2ujg40keCP0XGFQNm9OHit?si=fae9f6191cc14ec9

    Transcript:

    Tony

    Hi, and welcome to The Week Ahead. I’m Tony Nash and today we’re joined by Michael Nicoletos. Michael is the founder and CEO of DeFi Advisors based in Athens. We’re also joined by Tracy Shuchart of Hilltower Resource Advisors and Albert Marko. Guys, thanks so much for joining us. We have a couple of key themes and I was really in questioning mood when I put these together. The first one is around Russia and the CNY. There was an announcement this week. My question really is why? What’s the point of that? Next is where does the Fed go from here? And really where do all central banks go from here, but mainly the Fed, ECB. Albert is going to lead on that and I know Michael has some views on that as well. That’ll be really exciting to talk through. And then we’ll talk to Tracy about energy. For the first part of this week, we saw energy on an uptrend and we’ve seen a little bit of turbulence on Friday. So when do we expect to see an uptrend in energy? So again, guys, thanks for joining us. Michael, I really appreciate you taking the time from Athens to get involved with us today. Thanks so much.

    Michael

    Thank you. Happy to be here. Great, love to talk to you guys.

    Tony

    Great. So first, Michael, I know that you know a lot about China and you follow a lot of their economic activity. And I saw you commenting on this Russia announcement about CNY. Of course, they announced that they’ll use CNY for trade settlement outside of the US and Europe, which is Latin America, Africa and Asia is what they said in their announcement. So that’s about 37% of Russia’s exports. So I put a little chart together. I used UN ComTrade data.

    This is 2021 data, which is the latest data that UN ComTrade has. So if they’re really doing that, Latin America is 2% of Russia’s trade, Africa is 3% of Russia’s trade. China is 14%. Okay? And so I guess is all of their trade with China settled in CNY? I seriously doubt it. And then Asia is rest of Asia is 18%. And of that about 1%, just under 1% is Taiwan. So I seriously doubt Taiwan would settle in CNY. But what’s obvious from looking at this chart is Europe is more than half of Russia’s trade. So it’s not as if this is necessarily a massive bold announcement that everything is going to be in CNY from here on out.

    Tony

    It really is just kind of putting a stake in the ground saying I think it’s almost a best efforts thing. So I guess is this viable? That’s really the question. And Michael, you put out this thought-provoking tweet.

    You said if that were the case, China would have no issues running out of USDs. Let’s take that on and help me understand why is China trying to do this and what is the US dollar question that you have around this arrangement?

    Michael

    Well, first of all, again, thank you for having me. It’s great to be here. Now we need to segregate two things: wanting to do something and being able to do something. It’s clear that a lot of countries which are highly dependent on the US dollar for trading would rather be on something else and not be dependent on the dollar. We saw what happened with Russian FX Reserve when the war started. So clearly this was a warning shot or a lot of countries said we could be next if we go into a fight with the US. So clearly there is a tendency and China wants this to happen as soon as possible. Now, for this to happen, there are a lot of things that need to happen first. I’ll give just an anecdotal example because we get all this news flow and all these headlines where one signs an agreement with another and then two people or two prime ministers come up and say we’re going to do it, and everyone takes it for granted, especially on Twitter. It’s either a fanatic from one side or a fanatic from the other side. So again, I agree with everyone who is afraid of this happening in the sense that a lot of people are saying that the end of the dollar is close and that everyone’s going to go to something different.

    Michael

    I agree there is the willingness. I’m not sure this can happen soon, and I don’t think it can happen without some conflict occurring somewhere. So an example is that in 2018, Iran signed an agreement with China to sell oil in Yuan. Still, after four or five years, the volumes are ridiculously low. So again, there are agreements, but in order to enforce them and in order for them to happen, they take a lot more time than one would want. So Russia had no option. So because of the sanctions, they still sell to Europe, a few things, but they’re trying to outweigh it by selling more to China. And China and Russia are trying to make these agreements where they will be settling in Rubles or in Yuan. And they try to make these agreements. They want to expand them to other countries as well. However, you see, for example, India. India doesn’t want to settle in Yuan or doesn’t want to settle in ruble. They want to settle in Dirhams, which is back to the dollar. So you get all this information and the data, at least until now, does not support that there is a threat to the dollar.

    Michael

    There is a threat to the dollar in terms of willingness. There is no threat to the dollar in terms of data which says that this is going to happen tomorrow. So I think that this will eventually happen, but I don’t think it will happen soon. I think until it happens, we’re going to see a few episodes. And these episodes are not straightforward, how they will evolve.

    Michael

    Now, regarding China and its macro, the reason I’m saying what I’m saying and I’m saying that China needs dollars. China has been dependent, first of all, on its real estate, which was like 30% of its GDP. We saw what happened to the real estate. The second leg was it was highly dependent on exports. There’s a global slowdown. So these exports will have some issues. And now, how has China managed to keep this economy running? I’ll give you a few metrics to understand. The US is an economy which is like 26, I think 26 trillion of GDP. And if I’m not mistaken, its M2 is around 21 trillion. In China, the GDP is around 17 trillion, all in dollars. Okay? And M2 is $40 trillion. 40. Four, zero. So what does that mean?

    Michael

    The China government prints money. Prints money. Prints money. Because there are capital controls, the balloon gets bigger and bigger and bigger, but the money can’t leave, or it can leave for selected few, and I’ll explain how it leaves. And for the rest, because our capital control, the money can’t leave. So it stays in. But this is in one. Some try to buy gold, some try to invoice over invoice to Hong Kong and take it out of Hong Kong. But when the disparity is so big, clearly there is a problem. There’s an NPL problem. Chinese banks are like four times China’s GDP.

    Tony

    Sorry, NPL is non performing loans.

    Michael

    Non performing loans. Sorry. Sometimes they’re non performing. You cannot have an M2 of 40 trillion and a GDP of 17 trillion and not have non performing loans. Chinese banking system.

    Tony

    Sorry, I just want to go back and I don’t mean to interrupt you, but I just want to make sure that people understand. China has currency in circulation of $40 trillion, and they have a GDP of $17 trillion. Whereas the US has a GDP of what you say 24 trillion. I don’t remember what number you’re… 26 trillion. And they have 21 trillion in circulation. Right. So for all of these people who talk about China being this economic model for other people, why does it matter that their M2 is more than double the size of their economy?

    Michael

    Let me say something. First of all, let’s put something that the US. Is also the global reserve currency. So everyone in the world wants dollars. It’s not like only the US wants dollars. At this stage, less than 10% of the world wants Yuan. So it’s not like everyone wants to get.

    Tony

    I think it’s 2.1% of transactions or something like that.

    Tracy

    2.8%?

    Tony

    2.8, yeah, transactions.

    Michael

    Okay. I saw a number which was around 6%. Maybe I’m wrong. Okay. But again, it’s a number which is very small. 

    Michael

    All this money that is in the economy, if Chinese people were given the choice, they would be able to take it out. The economy is growing at a faster pace than its potential. I’ll give you a number. Right now, Chinese banks are more than 50% of global GDP in terms of size. The US, I think its peak was 32% in 1985 and Japan’s 27% in 1994. So we’ve passed all metrics in terms of the world dominant power or the dominant economy, if you want to put it this way, being a percentage of GDP in terms of banking assets. So the banking assets clearly have a lot of bad debts in there, which we cannot know what they are because the Chinese economy wants the Chinese government wants to control that. Now, there was a special committee put in place this month, I think, in order to oversee the financial situation in China. So I’m pretty sure they’re a bit worried about it. They want to switch from an export oriented economy to a consumption driven economy. But this is still less than 40% of GDP and this takes a lot of time to go like the US is around 70%, but it takes a lot of time to go for 40%, 70%.

    Michael

    Now, all this money stays in China. They have no option, they can’t do anything. So it’s an issue. And I’ll give you a ratio. If you take their FX reserve, it’s around 3 point something trillion. If you divide FX to M2, it’s around 7%. So if that money were to want if that money wanted to leave, in theory, only 7% can be covered by FX reserves, the fixed reserves of the government. Just to clarify, the Asian tiger crisis in 97, the tigers collapsed when the ratio went below 25%. So they didn’t have that support to keep it up.

    Tony

    And just be clear for the US that’s 100%, right?

    Michael

    The US doesn’t have any problems. So this is something that needs to be addressed and I don’t know how they will address it. They try to make all these agreements so that the one becomes a tradable currency and they can invoicing one. So if the Yuan, in theory was to become the global reserve currency tomorrow morning, their debt would become the world’s problem. Now, they haven’t managed to export that, so they need these dollars to keep that balloon, let’s say, from all the area in the balloon to be taken up. They need these FX reserves to keep the money in and they need to build confidence, and they try to build confidence with narratives and not with data. But again, they don’t have a choice right now, in my opinion.

    Tony

    CI Futures is our subscription platform for global markets and economics. We forecast hundreds of assets across currencies, commodities, equity indices and economics. We have new forecasts for currencies, commodities and equity indices every Monday morning. We do new economics forecasts for 50 countries once a month. Within CI Futures, we show you our error rates. So every forecast every month, we give you the one- and three-month error rates for our previous forecast. We also show you the top correlations and allow you to download charts and data. CI Futures is available for $50 a month, $75 a month or $99 a month. You can find out more or get a demo on completeintel.com. Thank you.

    https://youtu.be/yYom7Zqezio

    Tony

    The difference between, say, the onshore and offshore CNY or CNH or whatever, there is a huge difference in perceived value. I would think you can’t change the perceived value of CNY onshore, but offshore, if people are nominating contracts in, say, I’ll say “CNY” in quotes, there is an exchange right there. But again, this M2 issue, which I can’t stress how important that is, I haven’t heard anybody else talking about this. And it’s so critical to understand the fiat value of CNY itself, right, because it’s not limited, and the government because they’re effectively fun tickets with Mao’s face on it.

    Tony

    Right. And that’s how the PBOC was treating it. And again, when people talk about CNY as a global reserve currency, nobody is looking at the integrity of the PBOC and nobody is looking at how the PBOC manages monetary policy in China.

    Michael

    I’ll give you anecdotal information. I haven’t checked the number for a few years, but the last time I checked, if you look at the import-export numbers from Hong Kong to China, and you look at the PBOC, and then you go and see the same numbers in the HKMA, you would assume that these four numbers should be the same, not the same. Import should be export and export should be imports. The numbers should be very close. The discrepancy is huge. These numbers do not reconciliate, which means that in some form there is some over invoicing to Hong Kong.

    Tony

    And you’re not talking about 30%, you’re talking about multiples.

    Michael

    You’re talking about a lot. It’s ridiculous. So I think if you see the Hong Kong peg has been stable to the upper bound lately because I guess because of the interest rate differential, a lot of money is leaving. So it’s putting pressure on Hong Kong as well. So it remains to be seen what happens there.

    Tony

    So let me go to Tracy. Tracy, in terms of Russia using CNY, okay? And I know you look at a lot of their energy exports, and of course there’s all this official dumb around sanctions and stuff, but what’s your kind of guess on Russia using either USD or proxy USD, Dirhams or something else as currencies for collecting on energy exports or commodity exports more broadly?

    Tracy

    Well, first, I think that they prefer dollars no matter what this kind of China saying we want to trade a Yuan. And Russia said, okay, but that was a suggestion. That does not mean that it’s necessarily happening. But what is really interesting is earlier this week, on Monday, Russia laid out conditions for extending the grain, the black seed grain deal, right? Because it was supposed to be for 90 days, but they cut it to 60 days because they’re trying to use that as leverage. And one of the things that they are trying to use as a leverage is they will extend the deal or they’ll give or the other part is they’ll give African countries just free grain instead of selling it. But one of the big conditions for that was for the removal of some Western sanction, specifically to get them back on Swift. And so if that happens, forget it. Everything’s going to be all the trade will be all euros and dollars.

    Tony

    I thought Swift was terrible and everybody wanted on Swift.

    Tracy

    I just thought it was important to point out because if they get back on Swift, obviously that’s going to make trading in dollars easy for everything, all commodities across the board.

    Tony

    Right. And so that goes back to what Michael said initially about kind of these guys really want dollars and all this other stuff. There’s the official dumb of the prime ministers meeting each other, right. And then there’s the factual activities they undertake based on the reality of their position in the world economy. Right. What are your thoughts here?

    Albert

    I agree with Michael and Tracy to talk about the reserve currency. Switching from the dollar to the Yuan is a joke, to be honest with you. You do have some people in other countries in the Middle East and China and whatnot talking about the death of the dollar and actual serious tone. But anyone with even like a shred of financial backing and insight knows that it’s just an impossible thing. From what it sounds like, it’s more of like a barter system. But that introduces even bigger problems. I mean, you can’t scale it up. There’s no standardization. How do you value things to begin with?

    Tony

    That’s it.

    Albert

    Valuing goods and services without using the dollar right now is just an impossibility. And on top of that, you have the political problems that come along with it. I mean, like the Saudis, they want dollars for their oil. They need defense assistance. The Greeks needed US defense assistance. The Turks, as much as they want to make noise again, they’re reliant on the US and NATO for defense and whatnot. These components not just financially, what Michael talked about and decided much more eloquently than I would ever would, but there’s also political components that you just can’t get around in the near term.

    Tony

    But even if they had a barter system, they would reference the price in dollars, right?

    Albert

    Well, yeah.

    Tony

    10 billion.

    Tracy

    Your chocolate is back to iran did that when they were first sanctioned over a decade ago. They were trading oil for gold, but it was still referencing dollars.

    Albert

    On top of that, you run the risk of hyperinflation eliminating dollars from your FX reserves and starting to trade away from the dollar. You’re going to end up in a hyperinflation event.

    Tony

    Right.

    Michael

    Can I say something? Can I say something? About all these points? I agree with all these points. There’s one more thing. Let’s say you trade in rubles and you trade in Yuan, okay? It means that you’re going to keep FX reserves in rubles or in Yuan. So you feel more comfortable keeping a currency from an authoritarian regime than holding the US. Dollar, which is fully liquid, fully tradable, and anyone in the street will take it at a split of a second. You need many years of track record to build that trust. There are a lot of bad things about the dollar. We agree that I don’t think anyone will say that it’s a perfect mechanism, but right now, it’s very functional, it’s very liquid. And if you want to keep your reserves in US Treasuries, you can sell them at the split of a second. You don’t have any issues with that. If you have Yuan, you’re going to do what? You’re going to buy Chinese government bonds? And how will you sell them if the PBOC calls you and says, it’s not a good idea to sell your Chinese bonds this week? We would prefer you didn’t.

    Tony

    Bet on the central bank, right? If you’re holding rubles, you’re betting that the Russian central bank is trustworthy. If you’re holding CNY, you’re betting that the Chinese center. So what central banks are out there that you could potentially trust? You have the Fed, you have the ECB, you have BOJ, right? Those are really the only three that are visible enough that have the scale and transparency to manage a currency. And look what the BOJ has done since Abenomics. And on and on and on. Do you trust the ECB? I don’t know. And it becomes, do you trust the ECB or the Fed more? I mean, sorry, but I just don’t trust the ECB.

    Michael

    I don’t trust ECB. But it’s relative. I mean, you don’t have a problem keeping Euros. Maybe it’s not your preferred choice, but you don’t lose your sleep on holding Euros. Let me put it at this stage.

    Tony

    That’s exactly right. That’s exactly right. Okay, guys, this is great. Let’s move on to the next thing, because I think we all agreed violently here, but I think we’re going to not agree on the next one, which I’m really excited about. So let’s talk about central banks. And where does the Fed and where do other central banks go from here? So, of course, we saw the Fed raise this week. I think it was the right thing to do. Albert, I know you think it’s the right thing to do. Markets have been up and down since then. And Albert, you’ve said that you expect the Fed to raise two more times, and I want to talk about kind of what’s behind that assertion. And then we get silly statements like this one from the RBNZ in New Zealand, where the chief economist basically says, if inflation expectations don’t fall, we’ll be forced to do more regarding interest rates.

    Well, of course. Why wouldn’t you do that. So can you walk us through a little bit, kind of just very quick, because there have been thousands of hours of Fed analysis this week. But why do you think the Fed is going to raise two more times?

    Albert

    Supercore is trending up and it continues to trend up. Services are on fire. Real estate numbers have been on fire. There’s no slowdown in reality. I mean, even the layoffs have been slow. They’ve come from the tech sector. They haven’t come from construction or any other blue collar jobs at the moment. So until we see that, the economy is going to be red hot and it’s a problem for the Fed, inflation overall.

    Tony

    Okay, so play devil’s advocate here. Banking crisis, Fed had to bail out banks, all this other stuff. So why isn’t the Fed saying, let’s pause on the banking crisis worries?

    Albert

    Because banks are fully liquid. The big banks have no problem whatsoever. Some of these smaller banks that have no risk protocols are getting exposed. The tech heavy investments are getting exposed. Everyone knows that higher rates hurts the tech sector the most. And those banks were at fault. They didn’t hedge properly.

    Tony

    Now you have duration risk. I just want to be clear. I just want to make sure that people understand. You’re not saying that they failed necessarily because they’re tech, but they failed because of duration risk and then their tech depositors took their money out. Right?

    Albert

    Absolutely. But the banking system overall is not really at risk. They’re just shaking out some of the weaker players. But that was inevitable as interest rates have risen. A lot of the problems stem from the Fed and them guaranteeing four, five, 6% deposits, while the banks only do 1%. They can’t compete with that.

    Tony

    Right. Michael, I know that you think this wasn’t the right action. So what’s your perspective?

    Michael

    Well, let me say something first. I believe that it was a mistake, and I’ll say why it was a mistake. I think it’s a mistake when you raise interest rates as a central bank and the banks follow by raising rates on the loan side and on the deposit side, what do you do? You make debt more expensive and then you make people because you have, let’s say, a 5% interest rate on your bank, you create an opportunity cost so people want to save. So you reduce liquidity from the deposit side, and also you reduce loan demand because it’s more expensive, and that creates a slowdown. What happened now, because we had ten years of QE, everyone forgot that there was an interest rate on the deposit side. So the Fed, MDCB and all the central banks raised the interest rate. So the loan side adjusted. That became more expensive, but the deposit side stayed zero at 1%. I don’t know where this is in the US. But it’s really low. At some point, people started waking up when it arrived at 4% and they suddenly started saying, okay, I don’t have any interest on my deposit.

    Michael

    Let me put my money in the money market fund. How much does it give? Three, four, 5%? I don’t know. It’s a much higher rate. So I think I saw somewhere today that around 5 trillion have gone into money market funds. The numbers close to that. So when you take your money out of the deposit and you take it to a money market fund, this is the equivalent of a bank run for the bank that you’re taking the money, it’s a deposit living. It might not feel like a bank run, but on the balance sheet of a bank, it’s a bank run. So this started happening, and again, because of what you mentioned, they had invested in Treasuries and the duration risk was a mismatch. They didn’t do some of them at least hadn’t done appropriate hedging. They started losing money and they started selling this bond at a loss, although they had them at the Healthy Maturity portfolio where you don’t need to take a mark to market loss. And suddenly both sides of the balance sheet were screwed. Let me put it this way. So a few banks started going under. Now, I know that the central bank has come up and I know a lot of people come up.

    Michael

    And I do agree that there’s no systemic risk. And I mean that I don’t see a cascade of people losing their deposits. But nevertheless, people feel uncomfortable and try to do something about it. Either take them more money market funds or take their money from a regional bank, if they can. To JP morgan or one of the big guys. This creates a big problem for the economy. Yes, there are some signs which show that the economy is still robust. But I think a lot of leading indicators suggest that the economy is slowing down and most of the metrics coming from the inflation side have collapsed. Yes, core CPI is still high and it’s a lagging indicator, so it will take time for it to come down. But I think that given the stress we saw this week and why do I say that? Because we look at the US as a closed system. It’s not. When you raise interest rates as the Fed and you are the global reserve currency, you create a global credit crunch. You saw that last week. The Fed had come out with swap lines for everyone. You saw today that foreign banks borrowed 60 billion in liquidity, the ones that didn’t have a swap line.

    Michael

    And we see today Deutsche Bank being in the headlines and Commerce Bank being in the gate. So you might think that the US system is okay, but it creates a domino effect, which we’re starting to see. We saw Credit Suisse going under in a deal, which was not, I’d say, what we would think of. I believe that that deal in combination with the high rates is probably the root of the problem in the sense that they destroyed the capital structure, they wiped out all the 80 ones without wiping out the equity holders. Which means now that in Europe everyone’s wondering if my 81 is of any value. And that creates another uncertainty in combination with the higher interest rates and the stress that has started to build up. I think we’ve passed the moment where, okay, it could be debatable if they did right or if they did wrong. The US bond market is saying that it was wrong. It was a mistake. The two years at 370. And so the bond market went from the one side and the Fed went on the other side.

    Tony

    Why? The two year at 270 is important.

    Michael

    373, 70. Sorry, yeah. Three seven. Because if in two years you’re getting 3.7% and the Fed fund rate is five someone, it means that someone is buying a two year bond getting much less. Which means what? It means that the market is saying rate cuts are coming soon. So the market is saying there’s no way we can keep it this way. And the Fed is saying the opposite. Historically speaking, the bond market has been right. If you take it into context, it could be this time that they are wrong. It feels to me, at least from the stress I look in global markets and not in US. Only, that things are getting a bit out of hand. And having a bank like Credit Suisse go under, which is a big bank, and having all the central banks come in together on a Sunday night to give up swap lines, it means that the stress in the system, it’s much bigger than with yeah, but Sunday night.

    Tony

    Is the best time to get swap lines. Okay, so you talk about European banks, but we had Mueller from the ECB out this week saying, I wouldn’t worry about a financial crisis in Europe.

    So we have ECB guys out there going, yeah, Credit Suisse happened and we know Deutsche is an issue, but I wouldn’t worry about that in Europe. So I think we’re seeing statements from Yellen, the Fed, the ECB, other guys who are saying, no, there’s nothing to see here, but then we see things kind of blowing up all over the place. Right, and then we have a question especially specifically for you, Michael, from a viewer who said, I’d like Michael’s thoughts on the EU, particularly banks, pensions and future growth prospects. So can you talk us through? How do these banking issues in Europe flow through to European pensions?

    Michael

    First of all, let’s say something. We’re talking about the US and.

    Albert

    Duration.

    Michael

    Risk on the bond losses. Let’s remind everyone that at the peak of QE 18 1818 trillion worth of bonds had negative yield, and these were mostly Europe and Asia. So pension funds and banks in Europe which are forced to buy these bonds were buying bonds. With a negative yield. So they were losing on day one these bonds from -50 basis bonds have gone to two and 3%, the losses on these are much greater and pension funds will have much bigger issues than the ones that have in the US we were talking about a pension crisis in the US. But the European one is pretty bad too. Just look at in France, they raised this week the year that you take your pension from 62 years old to 64 and the country is burning to the ground. Now, you understand that it’s 62 to 64. It’s not like they made 62 to 70 years old. So it’s very delicate. And the situation in Europe, given the negative bonds, given the interest rate hikes and given one more thing in Europe, given that Europe doesn’t have the dollar and it has the Euro was mostly a supply driven issue.

    Michael

    It means that we were importing oil and energy from Russia and from everywhere and all these commodities were priced in dollars. So as a Europe tell, the price of these commodities were more expensive. So inflation was a supply driven problem. I think there’s a report, I think from the San Francisco Fed two thirds of the inflation was supply driven in Europe. So when inflation is supply driven and you raise rates to stop it, you’re using the wrong medicine to stop the problem. You need to crash the economy in order for this to stop. This is not really efficient. Now, in the meantime, you have yields going higher and now the yields that we see on our screen on Bloomberg or anywhere are not the yield real yields because the ECB is in and tries to contain the spreads. If you left the market low, I’m pretty sure the spreads would be much, much wider. And you have the new thing which came up this week when the Swiss National Bank decided that tier one, additional tier ones would be written off and equity holder, an equity holder would be saved. Now, imagine what happened. You probably saw what happened this week, all the 80 ones in Europe got smashed because everyone says I don’t trust this instrument.

    Michael

    I don’t know. Yes, central bankers will come out.

    Tony

    These are the cocoa bonds that came out in I think, 2013, right?

    Michael

    Yeah, there are a few of them, yeah, but it’s a cocoa, it’s contingent convertible. It means that they’re convertible be converted to equity if something happens. Let me put it as simple as it is, but these are supposed to be wiped out before the equity. So the question is what prevents for something else similar to happen again, the ECB came out, BoE came out, they said this is not accepted. But the fear and the is now everywhere. So you have a combination of factors. You have a factor that this ECB has been raising rates when I don’t think it’s a proper mechanism to address inflation in europe, they’ve created a slowdown. If you see Germany’s numbers and everywhere’s numbers in Europe, the economy is slowing down fast. You have a discussion on the capital structure of lending, which is very critical in the way companies and banks go and borrow themselves and all this at the same time and when the US. Is draining liquidity from the global system. I think the situation in Europe is very tough. Again, after 2008, I don’t think we have a systemic risk on our hands and the risks never materialize in the same place.

    Michael

    But I think things are about to get tough and it’s going to be much worse before it gets any better.

    Tony

    So what I would offer back, and I think everything you’re saying is valid and Albert Tracy, let me know if you want to think about this, but in the US. We have a presidential election next year. There is almost no way that we will see the US economy crash in the next 24 months because Janet Yellen won’t let that happen. And so we may see issues in Europe and we may see Europe and the rest of the world suffer based on US interest rate and monetary policy. But the US. Will do everything, the current administration will do everything they can to keep the US. From crashing in that time. And I’m not just saying this because they’re Democrats, Republicans would do the same thing to keep the economy afloat in the year before an election.

    Albert

    Albert, what do you think about that? It depends on what is happening specifically with debt ceiling, right? I mean, Janet Yellen and the Biden administration would gladly let the economy sink, the market sink anyways if they could blame it on escape both the GOP on the debt ceiling not getting hyped. So that’s definitely something you need to watch over the next six months because it is campaign fundraising season and they can’t really agitate their voters all that much, to be honest with you. Certainly the political component is going to be high over the next twelve months.

    Tony

    Okay, great. Let’s move on. Thank you for that, guys. Let’s move on to energy.

    Michael

    Can I say something?

    Tony

    Absolutely. Yes, please.

    Michael

    What appears to be happening right now, at least in my eyes, is that the Fed is using interest rates to attack inflation and it’s using the balance sheet to give liquidity. So these two do not go in the same direction at this point. The question is if they can do this for a long time. It doesn’t feel to me that they can. But at least right now they’re giving liquidity on the one side and they’re raising rates on the other side. I’m not sure they can do this for us.

    Albert

    We’ve actually talked about that at length here. But it’s not the Fed. It’s really the treasury. Sterilizing QT They’re coordinating.

    Michael

    They’re coordinating.

    Albert

    Of course they coordinate for the most part, but sometimes in the last six months or the last twelve months. Powell and Yellen have been at odds with each other in policy. So this is a lot of the reasons why the markets has just been topsy turbine. Don’t understand which way it’s going because you have conflicting policy and agendas from the treasury and the Fed.

    Michael

    So you feel it’s conflicting or do you think it’s coordinating? They’re doing it on purpose. That’s what I haven’t figured out yet.

    Albert

    I think the want to eliminate excess cash in the system is coordinated but I think the policy of how they’re doing that is conflicting and that’s going to be a bigger problem, say second half of this year.

    Michael

    Okay, sounds logical, but it’s one of these things that pass on me. I don’t know if they’re doing it on purpose or if they do any as you say, because they’re using other tools and they step on each other doing so.

    Albert

    My rule of thumb is to side with incompetence rather than conspiracy.

    Tony

    Okay.

    Michael

    It’s not conspiracy when the Fed chairman talks with the treasury guy?

    Albert

    No, I am absolutely in your corner on this one. I absolutely believe that they talk and coordinate things for sure. I just think that their agenda at the moment doesn’t line up 100% of the time.

    Michael

    Okay.

    Tony

    Very good. Okay, thanks for that guys. Tracy, let’s talk about energy for a while. Up until Friday we had a pretty good week for crude. I thought we were breaking that down cycle a bit, but we’re seeing some chop in energy markets. And so we had a question for you from a viewer saying when do you see oil and natty in a sustainable uptrend?

    Tracy

    Yeah, nat gas is a whole other issue. I think it’s going to be very difficult really. We’re trading in the range that we’ve been trading in most of the time for the last 20 years or so. That $2, $3 range has been very comfortable for nat gas. We produce a lot of nat gas. Yes, we are building out LNG facilities and yes, we have had problems with freeport and such. I just think that we probably won’t really see a big spike in prices unless we see another energy crisis in Europe, do you know what I’m saying? And then we’re going to have to force to sell even more. So for right now I would kind of get comfortable with nat gas about that range. But if it starts breaking above like 375 or so I would start getting bullish. But for right now, just kind of in that area where it’s been comfortable most of the time. Right. So I think it’s going to be a while for that. So we got to kind of assess the situation in Europe as we get to summer air conditioning use and to next winter if they have a bad winter, I think it’s going to be a few more months at least down the line for natural gas as far as oil is concerned.

    Tracy

    Brent said about $75 right now, saudi Arabia would like it around 80, 90 range is where they’re really comfortable. I think right now what we’re going to have to get through is we’re going to have to really assess we need more time to assess Russia’s situation. They just extended that 500,000 barrel a day cut out until June. The latest records do show that they actually have cut that much so far in March. So the cut is happening, which also means that they’re experiencing kind of a pullback in demand, even though they have really it’s more on the product end rather than, I should say, rather than the crude oil end, because they have floating storage, they have ships piling up everywhere with product. And so I think that will help clear their excess product a little more. So it’s really on the product end and that we also have to see everybody’s freaking if the Fed again decides to stop raising rates or pause. I think commodities really like that situation just because of the cost of carry and transportation and storage for all these commodities is very expensive. Right.

    Tony

    Because.

    Tracy

    You get bank credit lines for that. Right. And so I think that’s putting downward pressure on markets right now. And then obviously fear of recession is kind of kicking in again after the recent bank crisis in the US. And in Europe. And so I really don’t think that we’ll see higher prices. I mean, typically this is the time of year we do start seeing higher prices heading into high summer demand season. But we’ve also been seeing, I think everybody expected China. China demanded to shoot up right away. That’s taking longer than anticipated, which I kind of have been saying that on this show for quite a few months.

    Tony

    Long time. Exactly.

    Tracy

    So I think that there’s a lot of factors involved right now. I do think, again, it’s higher for longer. Historically still, prices at $70 is high for oil. The market is crashing by any means, just coming down from geopolitically induced spike last year. I think it’s higher for longer. And definitely I could see prices go into that $110 range, but likely into 2024. Not really this year, obviously, unless something happens. Okay.

    Michael

    Do you think if the Fed poses or whatever reason, or if they do a rate cut, do you think that commodities will explode or do you think.

    Tracy

    I think if they cut, commodities would get really excited. I think if they pause, they would get excited. Right. I think we would see a rebound in a lot of these commodities, grains, things of that base metals and industrial metals and oil. But if they start cutting, then I think that they’ll really like that because then they don’t have to throw product at the market because they can’t afford to store it.

    Michael

    Thank you.

    Albert

    I’m actually quite bullish for oil in the near term. One of the reasons is I’ve heard through the grapevine that the Chicanery and the futures market and I’m reading that hedge funds and other money managers sold the equivalent of 139,000,000 barrels of oil in futures over seven days a week and a half ago. So, I mean, to me, it’s like they’re almost out of ammo when it comes to suppressing oil at the moment. And any little flare up or anything is probably going to be bullish for oil and probably shoot right back up to 80.

    Tony

    So what could that be, Albert?

    Albert

    It could be a natural event. It could be weather, I mean, some kind of economic policy stimulus from Europe coming out there, or even the United States going into, like Tracy was saying, the travel season and whatnot. It could be anything, really. I mean, I think the market is just begging for some kind of bullish signal for them to run it up.

    Tony

    Okay. And Tracy, if you’re sitting in Europe because energy prices were such a factor in 2022, what are the main things that you’re worried about? Their nat gas storage. Has that been depleted much over the winter?

    Tracy

    No, it wasn’t depleted. They just had to start injections again because what we are seeing is that this really started in fall of 2021. Everybody kind of forgets that the crisis started before the Ukraine invasion, but what we saw is industry start to shut down, especially industry like smelting and glass blowing and things of that nature that require a lot of energy. Right when nat gas prices started spiking, and that was well before that summer of 2022 spike, they didn’t need to spike much where we saw a lot of those industries shut down. So what we’re seeing now is that since prices have been muted for long enough now, now we are seeing manufacturing and whatnot pick up with the numbers came in overnight for Europe. We’re seeing manufacturing pick up again. We’re starting to see some drawdowns finally in storage. Spain in particular has really ramped up a lot of their industry that had shut down prior. I have to say, natural gas prices are still more expensive than they typically are in Europe. Even at this price, right, they’re still higher than normal. So this is also why we’re not seeing a flurry of activity.

    Tracy

    As soon as prices came down, you have to realize that relative to where they were, they’re still generally high. But we are seeing, I think people are getting used to kind of this price range for Ttf, which is Dutchnet gas. And so we are seeing in manufacturing and industry pick up again in some of these traditional industries that require a lot of energy. So we’ll have to see, and if that really picks up, companies are going back to where they went to fuel instead of gas. We’re seeing them go back to gas now. And so that’s really what I’m watching on the energy end. Is this just one off, kind of, or does this continue throughout the summer?

    Michael

    Okay.

    Tracy

    Sorry.

    Tony

    And then everybody’s favorite energy secretary, Jennifer Grandholm, had some comments about refilling the Spr this week. Can you fill us in on that? And what does that mean for markets?

    Tracy

    Basically, she said we’re not filling in the Spr, refilling the Spr anytime soon.

    Michael

    Sorry.

    Tracy

    She said a few years, which means a lot more years unless there’s a change of administration and a policy change. But I would say from until the election not going to see an Sbr, which makes sense because they know that if they fill the Spr, what’s going to happen? Oil prices are likely going to go higher, and they can’t afford that going heading into an election year. And so I think that’s really why they kind of pushed that off. That’s kind of what’s going on with that.

    Michael

    Can they be saying something and doing something else?

    Tracy

    Yeah, but we would know if they’re actually filling the Spr or not because it’s a public auction.

    Tony

    Okay, why don’t we just stop calling it the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and just call it the Petroleum Reserve? Nothing strategic about the way they’re using the Tactical Petroleum Reserve.

    Tracy

    They’re using it as a piggy bank. Right.

    Albert

    Instead of strategic, you use slush fund, petroleum reserve.

    Tony

    Right, exactly. Okay, guys, one last question, I guess. What are you looking for in the week ahead? We’ve had a lot of volatility over the past couple of weeks. Michael, what are you looking for in the week ahead?

    Michael

    I’m focusing on central banks and interest rates. I think the issue will be banks. Again, I think the big stress in the economy is private markets and not public markets. BCS, private equity, all these investments need to do write downs. It will take a bit more time for them to do that. It doesn’t happen that fast. They don’t adjust as fast as public market. I believe that bank we will see that stress mostly on banking stocks. A because the cost of funding goes up, b because the capital structure is put into a discussion. C because they continue to raise interest rates. And there is a stress within, I think, focusing on what happens to the banks and to the two central banks. Again, we’re looking at the same thing, unfortunately, but the problem is not in the same place. But these are the indicators you need to look. I believe that you’re going to see inflation coming down fast. That’s my expectation. Maybe I’m wrong, but if you see inflation coming down, it’ll make the life much easier for central bank. Yeah.

    Tony

    And for all of us. Do you expect to see, like VCs, for example, some VCs close up because of the cost of funds and a lot of these banking issues, or do you think it really doesn’t impact them much?

    Michael

    I don’t know if they’re going to close down because it’s a 510 year investment. It depends if they can reinvest or if they have to liquidate. But I think funds that are coming up to their maturity, they need to liquidate or they need to roll over. It’s going to happen at a much lower price than they thought, or they’ll have to wait one or two years more. So I think that stress is going to show up somewhere.

    Tony

    Tracy, what do you see over the next week?

    Tracy

    I think it’s type based markets. There’s not really a lot coming up as far as oil is concerned. OPEC meeting is the following week, which we already know they’re going to do nothing. So really, next week, end of month stuff, there’s not a whole lot going on in the commodities world, really newswise next week. So I think probably see the same sideways action.

    Tony

    Okay, great. Robert, what are you looking for? Let me ask a little bit of a kind of loaded question with that. As springtime is coming in in Ukraine, do we expect that to heat up at all as things warm a bit there?

    Albert

    Well, yeah, I would say yes. Geopolitically? I think it would be advantageous for Russia to do something to stay face. Absolutely. But for the week ahead, I think the narrative shift I’m watching for the narrative shift of interest rates to banking, like Michael was talking about, I think Yellen is most likely going to come out and try to guarantee 500,000 in deposits and even talk about 750 and get it up there and just get the crisis over and done with. So that’s what I’m looking for.

    Michael

    Okay.

    Tony

    Wow. Would that require congressional no, they can use emergency powers. Everything’s. Emergency power is great. Perfect. Okay, thanks, guys. Thank you very much. Really appreciate your time and all your insight, and have a great week ahead.

    Albert

    Thanks.

    Michael

    Thank you very much. Have a great weekend, too.

    Tony

    Thank you.

  • The Great, Great Depression: Navigating Banking Risks, Rising Rates, & China’s Changing Global Role

    Explore your CI Futures options in this March Madness Promo: bit.ly/3T7Htlr

    This Week Ahead features a discussion on banking systemic risk versus inflation with Hugh Hendry, Tracy Shuchart, and Albert Marko. The group covers recent events in the banking sector, including Credit Suisse and the potential risks posed to the global economy, the impact of higher interest rates on crude prices, and China’s growing diplomatic role.

    To start, Hugh expresses concern over the lack of GDP per capita growth since the Great Financial Crisis and the failure of the remedial work undertaken since then, labeling the current environment as “The Great, Great Depression”. He warns that raising interest rates in this environment could be disastrous and discusses the creation of credit and the muted credit cap, as well as the contraction of the M2 series.

    Hugh questions the need for central bankers and believes that the totality of credit creation should be examined. He suggests that the bond market has been more accurate in predicting rates than central banks and he notes that there are persistent trade surplus nations that create surplus capital, which is being invested in the United States, resulting in asset price inflation. He argues that the problem lies in the flow of capital rather than the currency (the US Dollar) itself.

    Next, Tracy highlights how rising rates are affecting the prices of commodity cargoes. The discussion digs into the possible impact of falling cargo rates on the supply and pricing of commodities. Meanwhile, the discussion anticipates that the upcoming CPI report could inform the Fed’s expected raise of another 25bps at this month’s meeting. They also discuss the ECB’s recent 50bps raise to offset European inflation.

    Finally, Albert leads a discussion about China’s shift from an aggressive “wolf warrior” foreign policy to one of a peace negotiator. The discussion explores the motivations behind China’s recent diplomatic efforts to negotiate a Saudi-Iran agreement and facilitate a Russia-Ukraine peace agreement. They also explore the position and potential level of involvement in these discussions by the United States.

    Key themes:
    1. Banking systemic risk vs inflation
    2. Higher rates & commodity cargoes
    3. China: From wolf warrior to peace negotiator?

    This is the 57th episode of The Week Ahead, where experts talk about the week that just happened and what will most likely happen in the coming week.

    Follow The Week Ahead panel on Twitter:
    Tony: https://twitter.com/TonyNashNerd
    Hugh: https://twitter.com/hendry_hugh
    Albert: https://twitter.com/amlivemon
    Tracy: https://twitter.com/chigrl

    https://open.spotify.com/episode/6MlbLrB1oN7C3x4BszwQOP?si=2703adc25dc74ac0

    Transcript

    Tony

    Hi, everyone, and welcome to the Week Ahead. My name is Tony Nash. Today we’re joined by Hugh Hendry. I don’t think he needs an introduction, but Hugh is a founder of Eclectical and Macro, as well as being a hotelier in St. Bart’s and a lot of other things. We’ve also got Tracy Shuchart with Hilltower Resource Advisors. And we’ve got Albert Marko. Guys, thank you so much for joining us. So much has happened over the last two weeks in the banking sector and especially over the weekend with Credit Suisse. So looking forward to a lot of this discussion.

    We’ve got some key themes today. The first is banking systemic risk versus inflation. As the Fed meets, and as we sort out a lot of these banking backstops, I think there’s a lot of discussion about which is more important right now. I think a lot of it is focusing on banking systemic risk panic, but we’ll talk through that with Hugh. We also want to talk about higher rates and commodity cargo prices. Tracy brought some thoughts about that earlier, I guess, over the weekend. So we want to talk through that today. And then we’ve seen China kind of come forward as kind of a negotiator for the Middle East and Russia, Ukraine and other things. And I want to talk to Albert about kind of how real is that, how much of a good faith negotiator is China in those areas?

    So, Hugh, first of all, thank you so much for joining us. Hasn’t been easy to get you, and we’re really glad to have you. So we really appreciate having you here. Great. So first off, banking systemic risk versus inflation. Everybody knows the Silicon Valley Bank and First Republic and the BTFP stuff here in the US. All the Credit Suisse and UBS stuff happened over the weekend. What are you watching there? Like, what’s your biggest worry? Is it these 81 bonds? What are you focused on there?

    Hugh

    Well, I have been focused for some time. My focus has been this impending car crash, which is now becoming more apparent perhaps to the many. And my concern had been Fed by my observation, my belief that we’ve been operating in a silent form of depression ever since the remedial work undertaken since the great financial crisis. Let’s date that to March 2009. It has been a spectacular failure. I will share with you a chart. Maybe we’ll be looking at it now. And it comes from who does it come from? I want to say I always get these names mixed up. Michael Klein. I think the wonderful economist academic works of Michael Barr, doesn’t work with Michael Pettis, but collaborated on trade wars, of political class wars. And he shows the indexing of US GDP per capita from the starting point of the Great Depression. And likewise, he superimposes a similar series for now, if you will, from that March 2009 and over the period spanning to almost 15 years us. Per capita GDP in the Great Depression went from 100 to almost 190. And this time around we’ve gone from 100 to 115. So I said silent.

    We should call it the Great Great Depression that no one is allowed to speak of. We went through the pandemic environment to realize that there are some terms where there’s almost a censorship and it would seem that in US financial literature the word depression has been assigned to the past and not to the present. So raising interest rates in a Great Depression has filled me with dread and I think that is what has come to light in the last ten days or so.

    Tony

    So when we look at the amount of credit that’s been created since the financial crisis and kind of the payoff in terms of GDP per capita, is that one of the variables that concerns you most? I know it’s everything and I think we’re all looking at everything, but it seems to me that the payoff for every dollar of debt incurred by the government and by individuals is rapidly kind of falling down.

    Hugh

    Yeah, I would say that the credit cap has been muted. And again, I make a distinction between sovereign dollar creation and by that I mean the dollar creation from onshore domestic US banks entering into new loan agreements and if you will, printing dollars versus the dollar creation. I would call it non sovereign, which is the Euro dollar which is taking place offshore and where with the ability to provide collateral, new dollars will be created. Now, the Fed I believe, is less interested in the latter and I believe over the last 40 years the latter, these non sovereign dollar creation have come to be really much greater than the sovereign onshore and the credit provision there has been really to fund assets and it’s funded asset price inflation. And I think market participants have been very aware that that credit spigot got turned off, let’s say 18 months ago very dramatically. So I would say it’s been contracting. And now we’re seeing I don’t like discussing the M two series because I think it takes away from this non sovereign creation, but we’re seeing that the onshore M Two series is now contracting as well. We don’t have much per capita GDP augmentation to show for for that.

    Tony

    Right. So so wouldn’t, after all of the creation of money in and I would say through, largely through government spending and obviously Fed balance sheet in 2000 and 22,021, isn’t this kind of a normal reaction, kind of a normal medium term reaction to that much creation and distribution of money into economies?

    https://youtu.be/yYom7Zqezio

    CI Futures is our subscription platform for global markets and economics. We forecast hundreds of assets across currencies, commodities, equity indices and economics. We have new forecasts for currencies, commodities and equity indices. Every Monday morning. We do new economics forecasts for 50 countries once a month within CI Futures. We show you our error rates. So every forecast, every month, we give you the one and three month error rates for our previous forecast. We also show you the top correlations and allow you to download charts and data. Cfutures is available for $50 a month, $75 a month or $99 a month. You can find out more or get a demo on completeintel.com. Thank you.

    Hugh

    Well, again, it’s kind of crossing my arms. It’s a funny money conversation.

    I keep saying, I go to Starbucks and ask for a caffeine latte, and I promise to pay it in bank reserves, and they kick me out. The Silicon Valley Bank was acutely sensitive because their corporate customers are startup businesses, which are very much at the riskier end of the spectrum. And typically that bank would be funding between the last six to three months. Your cash is disappointing. You need another fundraise.

    But the bank steps in and it holds you over. There was no prospect of more fundraising, so it was kind of exaggerated. But I think with the other banks, what you’re seeing is that and with Silicon, you were seeing that their assumptions with regard to operating cash flow from their client, from their clients, just was not being met. That actually the economy is weaker. That we’ve we’ve, again, within this kind of silent depression, we’ve imposed I mean, I don’t dispute we’ve imposed structurally higher prices, but without again, without the legacy of a dynamic of credit creation, which left, like, a really strong economy, which was to be tamed and to be tempered by the Federal Reserve’s oversight. To my mind, it’s been a muted economy for the real folk. If we move a kilometer or so outside the financial centers of the world, the real world just seems rather grim. And that real world is being hammered by higher rates. And again, with the prevalence of debt, I keep saying, if debt was one X GDP in the so we’re taking out decimal points, then I’d say we’re four X today. And so the Fed at 5% rates is really the Fed at 20% rates in the 70s.

    If I can get away with that kind of leap and you break things and we’re breaking things, that’s been my concern. My concern is, I believe, that the depression has been fueled by Bernanke. Back in was it 2013 when we had the taper tantrum, where he encouraged the private sector to raise rates on his behalf? We had seven and a half percent adult unemployment. He was saying, Heavens, I’m beginning to worry that the economy is getting overcooked. The market doubled ten year rates. You know what? The economy hit a wall. Then we had John Yellen, tentatively, in 2015, trying to raise rates again. Why? There was never this economy which was running away. And then you had Jay, and Jay is just being determined from his first day in office to kind of be some kind of volcker guy, what was it called? The Duke of York. He marched them up to the top in 2018 and promptly had to take them down and then he came back again and finally I think I feel like particularly the American economy has been crucified on the cross of Jay’s miscommunication. During the pandemic, he explicitly said on daytime television that they were printing money.

    I get why he said it. He was saying it to alleviate the real fear of that time. But it was I mean, I’m going to say it, it was a lie. And so he now owns the price, I would say. Is it causality? Is it something I don’t think the inflation that we saw is monetary. I say it was a supply side thing. I think it will abate because the monetary power will not be there to perpetuate it. But Jay couldn’t escape that. He was the guy who said I’m printing money and then you had an explosion in prices. And so they’re fighting desperately to kind of preserve or reign back their reputation. But it’s the economy and these banks and other actors which are feeling that.

    Tony

    Yeah, I guess so if the Fed is kind of trying to bring back in their reputation I know this seems a little bit random, but who has a better reputation? Like all central banks have terrible reputations right now. No. So are they in fact the best of the major central banks or are there other people that are more credible? ECB raised 50 basis points last meeting. So is that a credible trajectory?

    Hugh

    There’s only one thing we know for certain that the ECB will raise rates at the wrong time.

    And again, it’s like the pushback I also have is just tell me the last time any central bank made a glorious decision, you thought, gee, these guys, they got it, they got it. Maybe it was 1994 and there was a kind of preemptive hike by Greenspan maybe, but 1994 is a long time ago. So in terms of do we need central bankers? Given I mean the American central bank is the regulator of the onshore banking sector and I maintain that we should be investigating and spending a close amount of money to examine the totality of dollar creation, credit creation because I believe it’s tremendously larger outside the review of the central bank. And then finally, who does it better? Well, the inversion of the treasury curves, not just the US treasury, but it’s a global phenomenon. If you’ve seen what the German curve has been doing, especially the last really if following that huge eruption in the UK pension market when we had the fake budget or whatever, when you have an inversion, it is not the bond market telling you it’s best guess of where rates will be. They create the inversion via a desire to hedge against the expectation of negative consequences like unforeseen consequences of Federal Reserve tightening in a world of tepid demand.

    And in a world of great leverage, the bond market has been spot on. Those inversions are at record levels. And again, we are seeing a record form of banks going wrong and needing record forms of financial intermediation from the central bank to fix it.

    Tony

    Right. So it’s interesting when you say do we need central banks? I know that’s a hypothetical question, but especially over the past week and a half, as we’ve seen the Fed come in to backstop bank runs, that’s precisely the reason why central banks were created. Is that right?

    So they kind of are with this BTFD, they’re kind of doing what they were created to do. And I guess with the Swiss central bank, what they did over the weekend, they’re kind of doing what they were created to do. Although nobody loves the fact the kind of bank bailout discussion nobody loves that, but they’re kind of doing in the purest form what central banks were created to do. Is that a fair categorization.

    Hugh

    At the tail end of the process? Yes. I don’t dispute what they’re doing. I wouldn’t ask them not to do it. Right. But I feel that especially this time around, they are the malignant force that is causing the failure in the host banks. I mean, Credit Suisse credit Suisse has been a problem that should have been addressed at least a year ago. Oh, yeah.

    Tony

    It surprises nobody. I mean, the fact that anybody’s surprised is surprising.

    Hugh

    And there’s no bailout. Even if you bought the equity on Friday, I think you lost 60%. The equity lost just about everything. And of course, that spread into one of the tiers of the kind of quasi debt debt structure. So again, we accept that. The wider question is just why is it happening and why is it caught out the central banks? There’s no dispute that the central banks are responding. And I don’t take huge exception to how they’re responding. I take exception to the fact that they’ve been the custodians of a if you were to accumulate the myths in potential GDP you know this, Tony, that in the 30 years up to 2007, most kind of g seven. Economies outside the phenomenon of China were kind of compounding like 2.7%. And it’s been more like one and a half in those years since then. So the miss is now the equivalent of the entirety of the Chinese economy. It’s a big mess. I think it stems from a change in the risk seeking behavior of the horse bank supporting the euro dollar system. They had a near death experience and they’ve been regulated to bring it down.

    Okay. And secondly, it’s been periodic preemptive hiking by the central bank, maybe with a noble cause, but actually ending up doing wrong. Those those two functions. I actually believe at the end of this, I think we’re I think the generational time clock where you get profound, you know, like ray Dalio talks about these things, you know, 75 years. He has different clocks, and they all have like, a variation of 25 years, give or take. But we’re in one of those variations in terms of where we look at the underlying monetary system. We had a gold standard. It failed. Great Depression. People talk about bread and woods. I think bread and woods was a kind of in between. It didn’t really work. Private banks went, this doesn’t work. Let’s work it to our ends. And I think that Eurodollar system from was it NatWest Bank in London in 1956 or something, I think that system is near its death as well. I think we’re getting to the point where we’ll have to invent a better way now that’s not to kind of come back and see the dollar is doomed. It’s actually that the system that America accepts is really no longer doing it.

    It’s not an unfair advantage. It’s the opposite. You have to really question why they support it. What do I mean by that? Why they support being the recipient of the world’s surplus capital inflows? Why are the world’s capital inflows going into the US. Where they have absolutely no desire for investment beyond the domestic pool of savings? Okay? And so the result of that is we get profound asset price inflation. We turn an economy famed for its entrepreneurial ship, and we turn it into an economy of speculation. That speculation is being unwound with the advent of GDP. When debt accumulates or debt to GDP rises, then you end up there’s a danger that you’re overstating the current GDP at the expense of future GDP. And as you overstate growth, you kind of create a fictional wealth in terms of the price of property, the price of price of stock market, the price of private equity. And it’s not done through kind of sinister means. It’s a miscalculation. And the US. Now, for the last heavens, the last 25 years, we’ve had, what, three or four events within 25 years that in a normal distribution, if there is such a thing, you’d expect these things to be spread out over 70.

    We got four events that you would expect to kind of come to bear over maybe 100 and 5200 years. And yet we’ve seen it within 25. It’s no longer doing the US. Any favors. And so I think ultimately the US. Will have to look to perhaps mimic China and say and put up barriers whereby you cannot be the recipient of all these surplus capital flows. I think there would be a better place for that, but that’s perhaps for another time.

    Tony

    That’s really interesting.

    Albert

    I’d like Tony. I don’t want to be the one to defend central bankers, by all means, but how much of it is political influence for central bankers to combat supply side inflation? I mean, voters in each of these countries are facing 2020 5% inflation on goods and services and the way I look at it is those politicians need to get reelected. And for them to push back on the central banks to try to do something to combat inflation is the way that I would work it.

    Hugh

    I agree. It’s an agency to my mind, this is an agency problem and not an economics problem. I mean, it’s creating an economics problem, but it’s the agency of government. It’s the government being the principal and turning to its agent, the Federal Reserve, and saying, you guys messed up and messing up. You affect me, okay? And if you affect me, I’m really going to affect you. So do something about it. It’s mafioza. But my point is this is not an economics problem. Inflation I was saying she was going to have all my tombstone. Inflation is a monetary phenomenon, okay?

    Tony

    Many tombstones, not just yours. Yeah. So, Albert, what you brought up about the euro dollar kind of out kind of outlasting its use. What are your thoughts on that? I know you know the euro dollar inside and out. Can you talk us through your view on that?

    Albert

    The problem that I have with that argument is there’s just no alternative at the moment. And I understand what she was talking about is, yeah, maybe we should look at a different alternative. And I think I was on this podcast maybe two weeks ago where saying that theoretically the Anglo sphere could come up with a digital currency founded by the dollar and whatnot to come up with a new system. But these are all theoretical policies that I don’t know how would they work. I don’t know what it would do to the economies, how things would even transpire at that point. There’s a lot of unknowns, in my opinion. But I don’t think that the euro dollar I don’t think even Hugh believes that the euro dollar is in any danger of going away in the foreseeable future.

    Tony

    Right now, the Euro, if we go back 20 some years, the Euro was supposed to kind of be that offshore mechanism, but it never really worked that way. Partly because the Dutch and the German.

    Albert

    Different national interests tony the different national interests, different financial policies, different political interests. It just doesn’t work right.

    Hugh

    But it’s also tony but it’s this point that Europe is founded still upon the rock of Germany, Holland, et cetera. And these are persistent trade surplus nations that create surplus capital, and that surplus capital is invested in the United States. The housing crash of 2007, 2008, the majority of mortgage credit was provided by European banks, not American banks. So again, Europe and China, Asia are less open to the flow of capital than principally the US. And the United Kingdom. I don’t believe to Alba’s point, that we have to invent a new currency. I don’t believe it has to be digital or physical or, God forbid, commodity. There just has to be a greater regulation in the conduct and behavior of trading blocks with regard to each other.

    Albert

    I agree. There’s a problem where Yellen is the one she’s done this before in 2013, where she drives up US. Dollar policy and hoping that capital comes back into the United States to keep asset prices elevated just purely for her own labor ideas and political leanings. So that’s something like for me, if you don’t put any controls to stop yelling and others from doing this, they’re going to just keep doing it over and over again. We’re going to be stuck in a doom loop of capital flows coming into the United States.

    Tony

    Okay, but that’s interesting. What you said, Albert and Hewitt, you said about almost trade flow. So it’s the flow that is the problem. It’s not necessarily the currency is that my point.

    Hugh

    And again, there are achievable. Here we are, and we want to talk about Greta’s recent Silicon Valley, but it’s buried so deeply the underlying problem, which has been with us for at least 25 years. I want to say that the last time the kind of Charles Kindleberger handbook to a currency crisis actually worked out with the great logic of his orthodoxy, where you could monetize it was the Thai bat. And since then and what was the change, because it was the specter of China et al. Seeing the vulnerability to those Asian currencies from being so open and so those bolt fast to being effectively closed or very much controlling the money coming in. So in return, the US. Has had profound asset price inflation. Now, if you wanted to discourage that, you could put a withholding tax on treasury holdings by central banks, by foreign central bank. They already have it at custody with the New York Fed. And and I don’t believe that these institutions are like hedge funds, that they are profit seeking. They are working to a political goal and they will pay it. And if you squeeze it enough, you may actually discourage them, but at least you could impose a rent on their behavior and the disturbances that that behavior is, as we see the disturbances today, play out again.

    Tony

    Okay, very interesting. Okay, so we’ve gone into kind of the core of the problem. But if we go very short term because we have a Fed meeting coming up, everyone’s nervous about the systemic banking crisis or inflation, what do you think takes the priority in the next Fed meeting? Do you think the Fed stays on its trajectory? And all you guys, Tracy, Albert, Hugh, what are you guys views on this? Do you think the Fed says, hey, this banking thing scared us. We’re going to stamp pad on zero for a meeting and then we’re going to see what happens? Or do you think they proceed with 25s as they’ve been talking about and saying, hey, we put the backstop up. The Swiss central bank came in and put their backstop up. All is good with the banking crisis. Nothing to see here. We’re going to keep fighting inflation. What scenarios do you see them coming through again with a very short term mindset.

    Hugh

    Or Tracy, forgive me, Tracy, we haven’t heard from you. Why don’t you contribute?

    Tracy

    That’s fine. I hate having an opinion. Because everybody has an opinion.

    Tony

    Yes, that’s why you’re here.

    Tracy

    Everybody’s talking. I would think they stay at 25. That said, I think that if they decided to hold, that would be great news for commodities, and the commodity markets would react very positively towards that. But I think that they’re going to stay with the 25 because they’re going to say everything’s contained, just like we’ve heard a million times before. But we’ll see.

    Tony

    I remember in 2007, at the beginning of the financial crisis, the early indication said, it’s a 200 billion dollar loss. We’ve got it contained. Nobody talks about this today, but it’s $200 billion. Don’t worry about it. It’s all fine. We’ve got it contained. Is it possible that we’re in one of those scenarios now where 2007, $200 billion, it’s all fine, and we just kind of keep kind of raising into this when there’s a bigger specter living out there, or do you think it’s done? Tracy?

    Tracy

    I feel like this is not a repeat of 2008. I think it’s completely different. So I don’t want to equate it with 2008 exactly, but I feel like the rhetoric is kind of the same where everything’s contained. It’s okay. We took care of it.

    Tony

    Yes. Okay. Very good. Albert, what’s your view on the next Fed meeting?

    Albert

    You think they’re going to do 25? I don’t know what they’re going to do, but I think they should do 25. Going to zero. Pausing is, I think, a bad sign for the market. I mean, it might be bullish for a few days, but realistically, it’s not going to help solve anything to do with inflation, specifically supercore, which is what I think the Fed is. Powell has said himself is what he’s been watching, and its trajectory is going up. So I think they have to stay the course and do 25. That said, they could do zero just because this banking issue has gotten, at least in the press, out of hand, with a lot of bazookas being sent out by central banks to squash it. So we’ll see. But I hope they do 25.

    Tony

    So if they do zero, do you think it indirectly confirms everyone to worst fear? It’s like, oh, my gosh, they did zero.

    Tracy

    It must be worth really bad.

    Albert

    Yeah. Narrative wise, that’s exactly what I would be thinking. It’s like, what’s going on? Why are they overreacting like this? So that’s exactly what I think the sentiment would be. Definitely negative over the long run.

    Tony

    Right, Hugh?

    Hugh

    You’re all blinking crazy. May I remind you, for the last 15 years, the growth in per capita GDP for the average American has been catastrophic. It’s been one 6th that experienced during the Great Depression. And we’re talking about the Fed hiking rates further. I recall my trading experience, Tony, you mentioned 2007, and I always sat on big dumb leverage positions and we had northern rock go under. We had some French banks kind of have closures, but it was still modest. It wasn’t really what we’ve seen of late. And the Fed cut rate and the S and P was like pretty much at his all time high. And they won’t do anything. They’ll talk about it. They’ll express concern, boom, cut interest rates. The question is, is that an old Fed? And that may be relevant in the sense that I think the Fed should have been cutting rates six months ago. I think that the sovereign curves have been telling you that. But they’re kind of trapped again to the agency point and to the assumption, as Tracy said, hey, if they hold, can you imagine they cut, your commodities would be off to the stars and risk assets would explode.

    And I think the Fed is very conscious of that. And so a Fed that should be, I think, should be cutting. Can I just say, banks have discovered that they have funding deficits. These regional banks, they’re not money center banks. They don’t have colossal sums of other instruments that they can sell off to meet liquidity needs. They have illiquid pools of mortgages to corporate America. And what you can do with that is you can package them like a CDO, these illiquid tranches, and you can offer it to the big money center banks and they’ll give you Treasuries. And then with the treasury, you into the eurodollar system and then they’ll address your funding. Now, the funding is coming I believe the funding is coming from the inflation in that everything is 15% or more expensive, but the underlying business health and revenue isn’t there. And so the corporate customers are their cash balances are coming down and down and down, creating the deficit which these banks can’t fund. Like I say, we’re in a depression. And the preoccupation is how far will the Feds raise rates? It’s going to get worse. The economic fallout, the consequences of this, like finding you remember, we have what percentage of the economy is the Frankenstein businesses that were supported by the fact that the carry was so low?

    How much of the economy is the conceitful economy, which hasn’t marked the market, is I am full of angst.

    Tony

    But are we here partly because interest rates were kept so low for so long? I mean, that was really on some level, what was behind Silicon Valley Bank is they were holding this debt that was so far underneath the market that they couldn’t keep up with their cash needs. So is that part of the problem? If they cut rates, it puts us back into that environment?

    Hugh

    Yeah, that is the problem. But the deeper problem again, is beg of thy neighbor policy. We’re. Missing, like I say, $15 trillion of global economic demand. And I think that’s because China et al, pures a policy of making things cheap and keeping its current. Imagine if where are we on the remembri? We’re six.

    Tony

    Nine.

    Hugh

    Yeah. Seven. Eight. They call it seven. It was at nine when we created NAFTA many years ago. So nine to seven in terms of appreciation, the damn thing should be at four. The Chinese should be the citizens in the household sector should be really rich, they should be buying tons of overseas products and we wouldn’t have that deficit. But again, owing to the Thai pad episode and how we’ve organized trade flows, that hasn’t happened. And so, again, that’s why the per capita GDP for the ordinary folk in the States has barely budged, which is why we’ve had to keep rates on life support. But of course, the consequence is you blow up asset prices and trying to get the two balance between the two. I don’t envy anyone that decision.

    Tony

    No, it’s painful. And as we see housing prices come down to earth, if that happens here in the States, that’s where most people’s wealth is based. Right. So if their portfolio is coming down a bit, if their house price is coming down a bit, there are a lot of delicate balances, delicate, say, household balances, that will be upset here in the States, if not globally. So I think you have a great point. I think it’s a really difficult dilemma. I hear people all the time talk about how dumb the guys of the Fed are. They’re not stupid people. I don’t think they’re stupid people. I think they understand the problem. I think it’s a very complex issue that they have to get out of.

    Hugh

    Right. Yeah. Can we ask Tracy? But on oil, why is oil so weaker? And where that huge surplus has come and it’s changed the shape of the curve, there’s no demand for it. Can you speak to that?

    Tracy

    Yeah. I think part of the problem is a lot of Russian oil is still on the market that most were anticipating. It not be. We are seeing China demand come back, but not as fast and furious as everybody had anticipated, and still kind of very soft, even though mobility data has improved significantly. Still, their demand for oil is because they were stocking it for a year in their surplus. So they have a lot of surplus. So obviously they’re going to drain that first, while oil prices are high and making deals with Russia for cheap oil. And the other part of it is that interest rates are high, and that is because when you’re talking natural resources, they’re particularly exposed to rising rates, right. Because trading houses rely on bank credit to buy, transport and store these commodities. So with higher rates, what is happening is these companies are either having to sell right away at any price because they can’t hold it like they used to and wait for a better time to sell when the price was higher or the opportunity was better. So they’re having to sell it right away for whatever price that means, which is also causing downward pressure on prices right now, realistically speaking and hearing from some of the big trading houses that they’re having to forego some trades.

    Tracy

    Right. And so that’s stranding product with the producers. So I think that’s why we’re seeing weaker commodity prices pretty much overall.

    Hugh

    Do you have data on the driving statistics in the continent of North America?

    Tracy

    Yes, I do.

    Hugh

    Am I making it up to say that here we are, so many years after the pandemic when we know that everyone was kept at home and that the mileage is not really changed much?

    Tracy

    It really depends on the area, I think. Right. So we’re kind of still seeing more limited in, say, some of the blue states where you’re seeing a lot of uptake in some of the red states. Obviously, in the south there’s a lot more mobility, or the mobility data is a lot better. If we go and we look at TSA, I mean, TSA, we’ve been wobbling, like just above 2019, just dipping just below and then just above. So that data is still pretty strong. So that looks good. But mobility data is very regional in the United States.

    Hugh

    And I guess with anyone shouting at the screen saying it’s the adoption of Teslas and electrical vehicles, I hear you. But the whole notion of this curse of inflation, that it doesn’t persist, or a sign that it’s unlikely to persist, is when you see changes in economic behavior where you have discretion. You cut back because you just don’t. Have the financial wherewithal to support a wallet which your wallet is not 15% higher. But the price of goods and services are 15% higher. And so maybe driving would be discretion in that sense. Anyway, thank you for that.

    Albert

    Yeah. On top of that, I’ve talked a lot about Spr releases timed with the Fed selling oil futures to bring down the price of oil in their mind to help combat inflation. I mean, that’s something that’s happening.

    Tony

    Happened.

    Albert

    Last year for a little while. And I know that they’ve been doing it again this year. And, I mean, I heard through the grapevine that it was up to $800 million worth.

    Hugh

    Really? So, Tracy, I thought that had come to an end. The biden policy of selling the reserves, the oil reserves.

    Tracy

    We have the last little bit sold in December of 22, and that was from that 180,000,000 barrel release that was released throughout the year. There’s about 26 million barrels to release this year. That was scheduled back in 2015. That’s part of a whole different deal. It was part of the upgrading of the Spr, paying for the upgrades of the Spr. So that release will still happen. The thing is, traders were looking at at these prices the government was going to rebuy. Right? And so they did hold an auction on in January and they didn’t get any offers. They didn’t get any bids so they decided not to do that. And people are definitely looking at prices this low because really their target area was $68 to $72. So at these prices they were looking for the government but it looks like that’s just not going to happen because I think they are very happy with prices this low and they know if they start reflecting the spr that’s going to raise prices.

    Tony

    Okay great, thanks for that and Tracy, I appreciate the cargoes or the pricing and the urgency of the finance of commodity sales. How long do you expect that to last? Do you expect that to continue to last for the next couple of months or is that something that we’re just kind of in this period where things are changing really fast and it’s a relatively temporary issue?

    Tracy

    Yeah, I think it’s a relatively temporary issue. I think really what we’re going to I still think we need a few more months to really see what Russian oil is or is not off the market. And by the way that is getting very difficult to track these days because they have their own fleets and you have a whole gray market there. But from whatever Sts satellite information that those people gather they are seeing a lot of product build up on water that’s not going to be able to be sold because February 5 is when that policy enacted with the ban on products. So I think we still need a few more months to see where that goes. I still think we need a few more months and I’ve said this for months now when China started to reopen I said I think this is not going to be like it’s going to cause commodities to skyrocket. I think it’s going to be very bumpy. I think particularly the property sector is still a mess. They’re not building anything there’s not really creating a lot of stimulus right now and they have a lot of oil stored.

    Tracy

    So I think they’ll need to kind of work through those issues a little bit before we really see China demand take off. Maybe an H, two of the share if the whole world is not in a global depression.

    Tony

    Yeah I remember a few months ago I remember a few months ago talking about that when China was kind of supposed to open in Q One and there were a lot of cheerleaders saying it’s going to be a rocket ship, it’s going to take off really quickly. And I think what we talked about here was it’ll be slower than most people think and that’s come to pass right?

    Albert

    Yeah they’re pragmatic, they staggered their reopening. They’re making moves for the next six to twelve months on commodities. Which leads me into my section today is what they’ve done in the Middle East with brokering a deal between Iran and the Saudis. I mean, this is specifically done because the Chinese are the biggest clients of both parties. So you’re going to have to appease your biggest client and come up with some sort of truce. But it’s a short lived truce. As the Russians, the Iranians and Saudis start competing for more Chinese market share, since they are the biggest buyers on the Earth at the moment, tensions will inevitably come back up. They’ll bubble up again and this truce just doesn’t have any legs to it.

    Tony

    The most surprising part to me is that China just a few months ago was still under this kind of wolf warrior diplomacy kind of theme, right? Very aggressive, very direct, very unlike what I’d seen in China for decades before. And now they’ve changed really quickly to this dove policy of we’re going to negotiate peace in the Middle East, we’re going to negotiate peace between Russia and Ukraine. What happened there? Why is it just easier to sell stuff in a peaceful environment than it is in war environment? Or what is it? Because they’ve been the biggest buyer of tiny crude for a while, so that’s.

    Albert

    Not necessarily it’s mainly to do. The United States is leaving vacuum, their newest foreign policy, leaving vacuum in the Middle East. They’ve just basically abandoned it. We abandoned Afghanistan, we’ve pretty much abandoned Africa at the moment. And the Middle East is we’re not visible at the moment. So inevitably people like China and Russia are going to sit there and go and fill the vacuum. And it’s very easy for them to leverage their purchasing power on Iran and the Saudis and say, hey, cut a deal between you two so we can keep these trade deals going. Now I think also the Saudis are leveraging their oil reserves versus the United States and say, hey, if you don’t become a little bit more friendly with us in the defense sector and start pushing back on the Iranian nuclear aspirations, we’re going to cut deals with China. And I mean, I would do the same thing, to be honest with you.

    Tony

    So why this may sound like a stupid question, but why doesn’t the US come alongside these discussions and say, hey, it’s peace, let’s negotiate. Let’s get involved with this and support it? Why would the US. Not do that?

    Albert

    Well, it’s much more complex to say, let’s just have peace. I mean, the Iranians and the Saudis absolutely despise each other. The Israelis are also a major lobbying group in the United States. They certainly don’t want to see Iran benefit financially over this and push that right into their nuclear program. So there’s a lot of moving parts at the moment. And specifically when you talked about Russia and the Ukraine brokering peace there, the reality is the Russians are not going to leave their annexed areas and the Ukrainians are not going to accept that at best, you can get to a status quo, as we were a few years ago. But in terms of peace deals, it’s just not realistic.

    Tony

    But over the weekend, didn’t the White House come out and say, ukraine is a sovereign nation, but basically we won’t let them negotiate a peace deal with Russia right now? There was something like that that came out over the weekend. So how can the White House supposedly recognize Ukraine as a sovereign nation, but also not allow Ukraine to negotiate a peace deal? That doesn’t really make sense.

    Albert

    Ukraine’s defense is completely based on US. Armaments at the moment. So of course they can use that as leverage. And, I mean, the United States loves specifically the Biden administration loves to have Putin as a scapegoat for inflation. The moment the Russians marched in there, the term Putin price hikes came out and all over the news. It’s just one of those things where politics has reared its ugly head trying to influence economics. And here we are.

    Tony

    Great. Okay, so let’s take a quick look at what we expect, say, this week or the week ahead. What are you guys looking for? Tracy, we’ve seen crude way down over the past two sessions. What do you expect to happen in energy? Is this likely to continue with crude continuing downward, or is this very temporary?

    Tracy

    I think it is a temporary move. I mean, if you look at this, even though we have some softer demand, we are heading into higher demand season. Right. And so, again, there’s a lot of recession fears right now, too.

    Tony

    Right.

    Tracy

    So that reared its ugly head again, because of all of the banking crisis. And you also had a lot of what we saw, too, is when US treasuries spiked, right? Because everybody was short spiked. There were a lot of margin calls. And so it was kind of sell what you have to. Oil been sideways for three months, and so sell what you have to. And so I think that was part of that initial push down just from the price action, because we’ve seen that before. But I think it’s going to take a couple of months to digest all of this, to see where we’re at. Let’s see what the Fed does decide to do. Again, if the Fed decides to do nothing, commodities would love that, right? Yeah, they could.

    Tony

    Love it. Everyone would love it.

    Hugh

    I’m not sure I’d love it. I’m not sure I’d love it. And I’m not sure commodities would fly. When you say the Fed does nothing, the Fed sits at 5% rates. Or if we’re in the 1970s, the Fed sits there content with rates at 20%. I think oil has done something extraordinary. I mean, from the high tick with the Ukrainian invasion. I mean, oil the oil price is halved. I mean, oil is trading at levels prevailing 2004. That’s extraordinary. And it speaks more, I think, again, to my notion of this silent depression, an aggressive tightening of policy which is appropriate for asset price inflation, but is sheer misery for the ordinary folk.

    Albert

    I’m actually looking for a 25 basis point rate hike just to agitate you. But I agree with actually, I agree with you. I think that the Fed needs to actually cut rates if you want to see commodities start going these sky high parabolic moves again. And I don’t think we’re close to that at the moment. I do think that a pause would push commodity prices up, but I don’t think it would go parabolic like it did before.

    Tracy

    Oh, yeah, definitely it would be parabolic.

    Albert

    Yeah.

    Hugh

    Of course, if I was to talk my book, I want the Fed I want them being ECB. Like, I have to be cautious of how I say this because I don’t want them doing malevolent things to ordinary folk. But if I was to top my book, I’m really very enamored, very long of the very long end of the treasury curve. Because, again, to repeat myself, broken record depression in terms of price, if we ignore the Carry On Treasuries, which is, again, you could say fanciful, but we’ve wiped out 20 years of price performance, which is to say you’ve had profound mean reversion. And so I do like mean reversion events in terms of global asset. I don’t like mean reversion for individual stocks or individual kind of eclectic risk positions. But the generic give me something trading at the 20 years. So to my mind, where the treasury bond trades, where the inversions are trading, is that most likely we have for the curves to be correct? They’re really imagining a situation where the Fed could rapidly unwind like it did from September 2007 from five and a quarters to terminal of zero. Not a terminal five and a half, six or terminal of zero.

    Hugh

    And so you’ve got to think, how do you get to a terminal of zero? Well, you get there by inflicting, again, just a colossal deadweight cost of economic pain on the economy. So you can conspire how that would come about from this intellectual reputation or agency trap where they’re just forced to continue with hiking.

    Tony

    Yes. Over the next week. What are you looking at here? What are you looking in the very short term? What are you paying attention to in the very short term?

    Hugh

    You don’t want to know.

    Tony

    Oh, I do.

    Hugh

    My insights for these markets come from not watching them a great deal. I mean, I’m heading to the most outrageous party in Paris on Wednesday, thursday night. I’ll restock maybe Monday on the West Coast, next week in the US, and we’ll see what’s happened. If I had to guess, I’d expect there’s a huge desire to buy the markets here. The fed’s done something. We’ve even resolved the long standing corpse of Credit Suisse. You look at the equity market, it’s not really indicative of any great danger. The commodities. I mean, yes, I was talking about oil, but the commodity complex, it’s not kind of signaling any profound falling off a cliff. There’s just been a profound revision, I think, coming from hedging activities at the very short end of the treasury curve. Even the long end of treasury curve, it’s not really done anything. So the notion, I think and I was speaking to friends who manage risk, and they’re all agitating, and we were looking at banks. If you look at Irish listed banking securities, they’re way above where they were trading september, October last year. They’ve had a pullback for certain, but they don’t look whole.

    Hugh

    So I think the presumption is still going to be to feed and come back and try and chase a rally higher. That would be my guess.

    Tony

    Very good, guys. Thank you so much. This has been a fantastic discussion. Hugh, I’m glad we can keep up with you. Really good kind of long term views, and I really appreciate your perspective. Tracy, Albert, as always, thank you so much for your time, guys. Really appreciate it. Have a great weekend. And you have a great time at that party in there, right?

    Hugh

    Nice white shot.

  • Systemic Risk: Silicon Valley Bank(ruptcy) & America’s Feckless Energy Policy

    Explore your CI Futures options in this March Madness Promo.

    In this episode of The Week Ahead, the hosts discuss three key themes: Silicon Valley Bankruptcy, the Federal Reserve’s Quantitative Tightening (QT) and systemic risks, and America’s energy policy.

    The discussion begins with a focus on Silicon Valley Bank (SIVB), which had a major issue raising capital and faced a bank run on Thursday. On Friday, the California bank regulator shut the bank down. SIVB had $175 billion in deposits, $151 billion of which were uninsured. One of the discussions surrounding the SIVB collapse is how venture capitalists have been affected.

    The hosts then move on to discuss the Federal Reserve’s QT and systemic risks. They note that the US has been experiencing strong data and inflation, and Fed Chairman Powell hinted at a 50 basis point increase this month. The hosts discuss whether the Fed will accelerate QT in this environment, what that could look like, and what risks it would pose to the US financial system.

    The third theme discussed is America’s energy policy. Host Tracy Shuchart mentions a speech given by US Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm, which didn’t seem to give her more confidence in Granholm’s competence as an energy secretary. The discussion touches on the problems with America’s energy policy and how it affects the country’s overall economic outlook.

    Finally, the hosts share their expectations for the week ahead.

    Overall, this episode offers a comprehensive analysis of current events and trends in finance and policy, with a particular focus on the implications of SIVB’s bankruptcy and the Federal Reserve’s actions. The hosts provide insightful commentary and thought-provoking questions that will be of interest to anyone following these issues.

    Key themes:
    1. Silicon Valley Bank(ruptcy)
    2. Fed’s QT & systemic risks
    3. America’s feckless energy policy

    This is the 56th episode of The Week Ahead, where experts talk about the week that just happened and what will most likely happen in the coming week.

    Follow The Week Ahead panel on Twitter:
    Tony: https://twitter.com/TonyNashNerd
    Joseph: https://twitter.com/FedGuy12
    Albert: https://twitter.com/amlivemon
    Tracy: https://twitter.com/chigrl

    Transcript

    Tony

    Hi, everyone, and welcome to the Week Ahead. I’m Tony Nash. Today we’re joined by Joseph Wang. You may know him as @FedGuy12 on Twitter. He’s a CIO at Monetary Macro and a former senior trader at the New York Fed. Joseph, we’re really happy to have you here. Thanks so much for joining us. We also have Albert Marko and Tracy Shuchart will be joining us during the show. There are some key things we want to talk about. First is a hawkish Fed of course we can’t talk about that without the Silicon Valley Bank things, events that happened today. So we’ll cover that a bit. We’ll get into the systemic risk of quantitative tightening and the likelihood of that happening, as well as America’s rudderless energy policy. And we’ll talk to Tracy about that in detail.

    So guys, thanks very much. There’s been a lot going on this week. Albert, I know you’ve been on the road. Joseph, it’s your first time here, so I’m really glad we can have this conversation. Guys, let’s start out with Silicon Valley Bank. I mean, this is something that just kind of happened yesterday. It actually happened with a communications announcement on Wednesday coming in the wake of another bank failure.

    And it was really bad timing, it was really bad advice for them to do this. And we’ve just seen a bank explode right, or implode. So can you help us walk through what actually happened from your perspective?

    Joseph

    Yeah, well, first of all, thanks for having me on the show, guys. I love your show and I do listen to it. So it’s real honor to be here today.

    Silicon Valley Bank. So as of recording today, it looks like they’ve been taken into receivership by the FDIC. So basically it’s bankrupt. Now, Silicon Valley Bank over the past couple of years, if you look at their equity prices, they soared really high, especially during the crypto boom. They were known as a bank that would lend a lot to the financial tech sector. And as the financial tech sector imploded, it seemed like that kind of hurt them as well. These past few days you saw it stock price steadily decrease. So if you’re a bank, you have two big concerns. The one is solvency. Are your assets worth more than your liabilities? And the second is liquidity. Do you have enough cash on hand to meet investor withdrawals. When I put money in a bank, so I am an investor in that bank, right. So I eventually lent money to local bank and local bank bought from me and I can go and get that money back anytime I want. And that is part of the problem of a bank. Your liabilities, they are short term, so they can disappear anytime you want. But your assets tend to be longer dated, things like loans, let’s say a five year, ten year loan.

    So I can’t really comment on the solvency situation of Silicon Valley Bank. I suspect that they are insolvent simply because I read that they’ve been making a lot of loans to these fintech companies and we all know how that turned out. But you can actually get pretty good insight on their liquidity situation by looking at their regulatory filings. If you want to study a bank and I study bank, so you want to look at something like this.

    That’s all this is a call report. A call report is a financial report that banks file. It’s literally 100 page reporting form, and it comes with instruction manual that’s 800 pages in leads. So that’s why I can actually keep a reference here. So if you look at Silicon Valley’s financials, you’ll see that it’s a bank that is vulnerable to liquidity runs. It might not seem so on the surface, but so just for the audience, Silicon Valley Bank has about $210 billion worth of assets. It’s largely funded by deposits. Now let’s look at their asset side first. Now if you’re a bank, you got to keep liquidity on hand because what if everyone starts to ask for their money back? You want to have some liquidity on hand to meet those redemptions. So Silicon Valley Bank has actually a pretty good portfolio of liquid assets. Of the 210 billion in assets, about 120 billion are securities. Securities are good because you can sell them. That’s what a security is. If you have a loan to local company, you can sell them. That’s illiquid. Of the 120 billion, 80 billion are high quality liquid assets. So in the banking world, you want to have high quality liquid assets because you can sell them easily to raise cash.

    These are Treasuries and Agency MBS. So so far, $80 billion of high quality liquid assets. Sounds like a great liquid bank. You dig down a little bit more, you find out they’ve already pledged about 50 billion of those away. So they’re already using that to either to secure borrowings. For example, let’s say you are a huge investor. You’re putting money into Silicon Valley Bank, but you don’t really know if you want to take that risk. So you could ask for some collateral. So that could be a possibility as well. So the bottom line is they don’t actually have that much liquid assets, even though they look like they do. Now let’s look at their liabilities. It doesn’t look good either. So normally if you and I okay, I don’t know about you guys, but when I put money in a bank, I have less than 250,000. So it’s within secured by the FDIC. But if you have a lot of money more than 250,000, then it’s not secured by the FDIC. Then you have credit risk. When you look at the depositor profile of Silicon Valley Bank, you can see that they have $150 billion unsecured deposits.

    So those are institutional investors who basically lent maybe unsecured, maybe definitely uninsured to Silicon Valley Bank and they could lose everything. If Silicon Valley Bank goes bad, down really badly, they probably will, they’ll get something back. But it’s not good to lose money when we put it in the bank. So they have liabilities that are runnable and they began to run. Now I’ve been hearing anecdotally that everyone was like, get your money out of Silicon Valley Bank. So I’m sure they were. Now you have if you’re a Silicon Valley Bank, that’s a huge, huge problem. You have no liquidity. Everyone is asking for their money back. Your last lifeline is to borrow from, let’s say, the Fed or a Federal Home Loan Bank. It looks like they’re already borrowing from the Federal Home Loan Banks and I don’t know if they can borrow even more. A Federal Home Loan Bank is basically a government sponsored agency whose job is to provide cheap loans to the commercial banks they’re already lending to to the Silicon Valley Bank. In theory they could lend more, but they have a lot of exposure to Silicon Valley Bank. So the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, which is the bank that’s lending to Silicon Valley Bank, 20% of their loan book is to Silicon Valley Bank.

    So if you’re a CFO there, do you want to increase your exposure to this bank that’s probably going bankrupt? So yeah, it’s over for them, which is why the FDIC souped in.

    Tony

    Those are amazing details and it’s exactly what I wanted to hear. Now what I had read earlier was that there are $171 billion of deposits at Silicon Valley Bank and 175 billion but 151 billion of that is uninsured. So basically $24 billion people can pull $24 billion out, but there’s $151 billion that they may or may not get back. Right. So for a lot of these VCs, early stage tech companies and so on, I don’t know if private equity firms or investment funds bank there, but certainly it seems to me to be a systemic risk, especially in the venture capital community. Is that a fair assumption to make?

    Joseph

    I don’t think it’s systemic to the banking sector and we can talk about that. But these guys who in that community for sure, Tony, I imagine that a lot of people in that community are banking with Silicon Valley Bank. And if Silicon Valley Bank goes under, they’re going to have to have haircuts and maybe it’s a lengthy process. Maybe they get tied up in bankruptcy court or something. So that’s a liquidity problem for them. And so for that community, yeah, I agree, it could be a big problem.

    Tony

    So if I’m a limited partner in a venture fund today, I’m checking with that venture fund to make sure that my cash is okay. Is that the process that people would be doing? For people who don’t know, limited partners are the investors who put money into a venture capital fund. And my assumption is a venture capital fund would likely store that money in Silicon Valley Bank. And if they can’t access all of well, they could take the first $150,000 of that. But if they can’t get beyond that, then it’s not just the VC that’s hurt, it’s that limited partner. Is that correct?

    Joseph

    Yeah. So that losses, like you mentioned, partnership losses flow through from the entity to the partnership. That’s what being a partner is about. I imagine there are some rules depending on your general partner, limited partner, things like that, but yeah, it’s investors that get hurt.

    Tony

    And so the allocation just both of you guys probably know more about this than I do, but the allocation of, say, venture capital from, say, a pension fund is a relatively small allocation of all of the allocations of, say, a pension fund. So I would suspect that this probably isn’t a systemic risk back to, say, pension funds and other investment funds like we had maybe in 2007-8. Right. It’s probably less of a systemic risk than that was.

    Joseph

    Yeah, I totally agree. I don’t view this as a systemic risk.

    Albert

    I agree with that. Tony. I don’t think anything systemic is going to happen because SVB Bank goes under. I mean, SVB Bank is the FTX of the fintech banking world. I mean, everything on there, everything that they invested in, is based on trust, and not very much for the fundamentals at A. So it’s not a surprise that it went under as the Fed has been raising rates. Everyone knows that if the rates rise, the tech sector is one that gets hit the most. So it’s not really a surprise that this happened now.

    Joseph

    Yeah, I totally agree. When the Fed is raising rates, it’s trying to slow down the economy through sectors that are interest rate sensitive. I think the great irony here is that we all expected that to be real estate, right? But real estate is fine, but we miss the fact that the other really interest rate sensitive sectors is tech. And we see big layoffs in tech. So it’s actually all the well paid people who complete on Twitter who are having a bad problem, but the more blue collar industries seem to be doing fine.

    Albert

    Yeah. Housing got a boost because there’s a lot of cash buyers. People were cashing out at the behest of bloodstone, buying everything, but they were cashing out three and four times the value of the homes that they had a mortgage on. So they go and buy other homes, pure cash. There’s no mortgage risk in the system for the rate. Just like you were saying, the housing sector is not really affected by rates at the moment. You can see that because the houses are still going up and still a little bit of a shortage. But the tech sector was always the biggest loser of the hawks.

    Joseph

    One of the things that I hear is that there’s the fiscal stimulus from all the construction stuff, like is flowing into the state and local governments. And so that kind of construction spending seems to be supportive of employment, at least in the construction sector. So the guys who, if they’re building residential houses, maybe they can go and do something that’s benefiting from fiscal stimulus.

    Tony

    Sure. Here in Texas and probably in Florida, where Albert lives, there is construction all over the place, and it’s helping the tax base, it’s helping the overall impact of related jobs and other things. So it is still very strong, at least in the south.

    Albert

    Well, look at the layoffs. It’s all been tech and no construction. Construction has a shortage of workers at the moment, that’s the best indicator that you can have at the moment.

    Tony

    CI Futures is our subscription platform for global markets and economics, we forecast hundreds of assets across currencies, commodities, equity indices, and economics. We have new forecasts for currencies, commodities and equity indices every Monday morning. We do new economics forecast for 50 countries once a month. Within CI Futures, we show you our error rates. So every forecast every month, we give you the one- and three-month error rates for our previous forecast. We also show you the top correlations and allow you to download charts and data. CI Futures is available for $50 a month, $75 a month or $99 a month. You can find out more or get a demo on completeintel.com. Thank you.

    Tony

    Right. Okay, in talking about that strength, let’s talk about the Fed a little bit. Okay. If we were talking two days ago, there would probably be a bias toward the Fed becoming more hawkish. Right.

    All the buzz two days ago was, well, we’re going 50. Fed is going to be more hawkish. It’s going to be tough. But over the last 24 hours, things have really started to lean away from that. So what do you see as drivers of the Fed being hawkish and drivers of the Fed being less? So we can’t say that they’re dovish. Right. But it’s more the degree of the rate rise. So what do you see in the calculus that they’re thinking through?

    Joseph

    Yeah, so let’s level that a little bit. So at the last FOMC conference, Chair Powell basically said that from now on, we’re going to do 25 basis points. He said that through his statement. So the language was that rather than talk about the pace of the hikes, we’re going to talk about the extent. So that’s kind of a that would seem like a done deal. And from my experience with the Fed, very slow, very conservative organization. 75-50-25-25-25, you know, you don’t go from 25 to 50. Now, that’s what everyone assumed. And also corroborated by, let’s say, President Mester. And then Chair Powell kind of threw that whole thing upside down this past week when he was testifying before the House and Senate. He was basically suggesting that, you know, if the data is still strong, we’re going to do 50 until the market began to price that in. So the question ultimately is, is data strong? And that has to do with what happened today with the non farm payrolls and what happens with the CPI report next week. Now, when you’re looking at market pricing, like you suggested, Tony, they seem to be taking out that 50 basis point hike today, Friday, and that could be in part because of fear contagion in the banking sector, I don’t know.

    Now, looking at the non farm payroll itself, it looks like the jobs number over 300,000 was comfortably above Bloomberg expectations of about 200 some thousand dollars. But there was a little bit of a mix in it as well because of the unemployment rate increased. I think the pace of a wage increase is also moderated as well. So it seems to be on the stronger side, but not unambiguously. So my perception from this is if the Chair Powell is basically upending everyone’s expectations and putting 50 on the table, the presumption is 50. And this was not clearly weak. We got to watch CPI next week as well. As long as CPI is not like super, like a big disaster, I think the presumption should be about 50 basis points for the March hike.

    Tony

    So you think the presumption is 50 now?

    Joseph

    I think today’s headline employment was pretty strong. It’s not something that is weak enough, I think, to take away the presumption. Again. Everything could change with CPI next week, but we’ll see.

    Tony

    Thank you very much. That’s okay. We know you’re busy, so thank you so much. So Joseph, with the jobs data, there were 50,000 department store jobs in that jobs data. And to me that seems like a statistical extrapolation from an old model or something. I mean, I don’t know of any department store that’s hiring. So when these things come out, what are we supposed to think about that type of data?

    Joseph

    Yeah, so a lot of people get into the guts of the report and the Fed actually, internally, they have their own model for stuff like this. I would be hesitant to be looking into too much into these adjustments. As you mentioned, they matter. But then you can look at every single job report and say, oh, it’s actually not as strong as it is, or not as weak as it is. For all these little idiosyncratic reasons. I would just take it as it’s presented and knowing of full well, of course, that it is a statistical abstraction of what reality is.

    Tony

    So is it fair to say you see it more as a kind of a direction than something that’s more specific?

    Joseph

    Yes. And also if you just average this one with the past few months, it does seem like the labor market not slowing, has decent momentum and there could be revisions going forward. I mean, January was revised slightly, slightly weaker. So it’s just not obvious evidence that data is weak from my reading.

    Albert

    Tony, for a long time I’ve been saying the Fed should have been doing 50 basis points months ago, but here we are now talking about 50 after doing 25 a few times. I don’t think that they’re going to do 50. I think more that what they’re going to end up doing is talking about QT and doing QT for longer rather than rates at the moment, just because I think Powell and Yellen and the entire crew over there is a little bit worried about the economy, especially after the bank failed. And looking at the jobs numbers, I just can’t see more than that’s. I just think that things will start breaking. If we go 50, we’ll be down 200 points on the S&P, and things will start breaking. And you start wandering down to 3500 on the S&P, you actually make it a financial crisis.

    Tony

    Isn’t that kind of what they like? They kind of want some things to start breaking. Right. Not that they don’t bankrupt people, but they do want some things to start breaking.

    Albert

    They keep talking about a soft landing, and that’s the plan at the moment.

    Joseph

    I agree with Albert. I think the right policy would just be emphasized QT a bit more. It makes perfect sense. I guess we’ll talk about QT in a bit, but it’s a good policy from my perspective, because when you do QT, you’re putting upward pressure on the rates that actually matter to the economy. You hike the Fed funds up and down. Nobody really cares about the overnight rate. When you’re talking about economically sensitive rates, like mortgage rates or like your auto loan rates, those are like the five year, ten year sector, and that can be influenced by QT. So you want to slow the economy down, you want those rates to go higher. But I think the Fed is pretty stubborn when it comes to QT, in part because they don’t really understand they don’t feel like they understand it well. They feel that they understand the overnight rate a bit better.

    Tony

    Okay, so let’s talk about that. QT is on our agenda, so let’s move to that. So in terms of rates, Joseph, you’re the 50 camp. Albert, you’re the 25 camp. Let’s move to QT. We have been undertaking QT for, what, ten months now or something, and it’s been gradual. Albert, you smile when I say that. What’s your thought?

    Albert

    Well, I mean, we’ve been doing QT, but then it’s been offset by Yellen’s TGA activity.

    Tony

    Yeah. Now what are you hearing about the TGA? Has that slowed down?

    Albert

    It slowed down now, but once the tax revenue comes in late April, she’ll have that again in May.

    Tony

    Okay. So if we have quantitative tightening, which means the Fed is selling things from their balance sheet into the market, probably at a discounted rate, which takes money out of the out of circulation and it tightens the money supply. Right, but if we have the Treasury issuing funds from the general account, it’s offsetting those QT efforts. Right?

    Albert

    Yeah, that’s exactly what it’s doing. She’s actually, right now, as we speak, being questioned by the TGA from the House Ways and Means Committee. That’s exactly what she’s been doing, and I think it’s more like why she’s doing it politically rather than anything with economic policy in mind.

    Tony

    Okay, so what are the politicians generally asking her about, Albert?

    Albert

    Well, they’re asking her about her sterilization of QT by using the TGA and the effects of inflation because of it at the moment. I have a list of the questions that I can definitely give you guys for afterwards if you want to post them up here. But that’s what they’re asking her about. Why is her action why is she talking about rates when she is a CFO of the country? She is the Treasury Secretary. She’s not the Fed chair. She should be talking about rates one day after Powell comes out being hawkish.

    Tony

    Right. It’s hard to quit the Fed, I guess. Okay, moving on.

    Joseph

    I have a question, Albert. Do you have any views on who might be the next vice chair? I mean, right now the frontrunner seems to be Janet Everley, this academic in Northwestern, but I watched the hearings and everyone there was like, from the Democratic side was like, “”oh, we got to have an Hispanic vice chair. We got to have an Hispanic vice chair. And Janet Everley, maybe she has distant relatives or maybe she’s going to write a cookbook about tacos or something like that, but she doesn’t appear to be Hispanic to me.

    Albert

    Yeah, I don’t know. That decision is going to be made by Brainard who they want is the vice chair. That goes with their liberal policies and enacting and using the Fed to push those political agendas. That’s what they’re looking for. I mean, it could be Hispanic or black or white or whatever, but the base case is that they need someone with a liberal slant in their view to help them out.

    Joseph

    Yeah. Janet Everly definitely has a liberal slant. For you guys who are not aware, she thought it was a good idea to have a higher inflation target. Maybe that will be in the future, not with Jay Powell, but maybe in the future, maybe like 3%, maybe 4%. Who knows?

    Albert

    I think 3% is definitely coming no matter what. I don’t think it’s realistic for us to get back down to 2%, especially with the Fed members being former liberal than they were a few years ago.

    Tony

    Okay, let’s talk about the three 4% rate at some point.

    Tony

    But let’s get back to QT. Joseph, can you talk us through some of the if the Fed were to accelerate QT, which seems to be something that you’d like to see them do, more of what forms would that take?

    Joseph

    They could just simply raise the cap for Treasury. So right now the Treasuries can match. The QT pays for Treasuries is a maximum $60 billion a month. They could raise that. So what happens mechanically is that you can think of it as the private sector having to hold more Treasuries. You’re increasing the supply of Treasury debt that must be held by the private sector. So basic supply and demand, increasing supply prices for Treasuries decline and so yields go higher. So that’s a way that they could try to tighten policy by making, let’s say, longer dated interest rates higher. And I think it’s helpful, especially in today’s context. So investors look at the world, look at the future based on their experience in the past. And our experience over the past decade was a Fed who would just cut rates at the drop of a hat. And so because the investor community believes that you have a very, very deeply inverted curve and that’s a big problem because as the Fed is hiking rates on the front end, you don’t see that as much in the ten year. And so you can see, for example, mortgage rates continue to go down as they did in January, thus essentially undoing all the hiking the Fed is doing in the frontend.

    Joseph

    So you really need the market to either believe that the Fed is higher for longer, or you could have the Fed engineer it by just boosting the supply of longer dated Treasuries. And it’s hard to convince the market of something and the market has a reason to believe that JPowell and his committee of largely dovish committee is just going to cut rates. So it’d be easier to just boost the supply of Treasuries through QT.

    Albert

    Okay, that’s something that nobody talks about, is durational liquidity. Nobody speaks about that right now with the Fed and the Treasury. I haven’t seen one analyst talk about duration liquidity.

    Tony

    Okay, so can you guys talk about that? How would they change? Well, first of all, if we focus more on QT, would that potentially pose a threat to, say, banking systems or there are other potential systemic threats that QT could pose for the US.

    Joseph

    Yeah, it could blow up the Treasury market.

    Tony

    Okay, tell us how that wouldn’t tell us.

    Joseph

    So I think there’s huge the great systemic risk today is not in the banks or the private sector. It’s in the public sector. It’s in the Treasury market. And we saw kind of a prelude to that with what happened with the gilt market in the Bank of England last year. For those of you who don’t remember, last year we saw gilt yields basically 30 year long good data gilt yields basically explode higher late last year, and in part because, one, the Bank of England announced that they were doing quantitative tightening and also because the government announced that they were going to issue a whole bunch of gilts. Now there are some levered players in that market who basically blew up. Now if you recall throughout late last year, okay, the summer of last year, there’s a lot of articles about Treasury market liquidity. This is something that I’ve been writing about since last January. And Treasury market liquidity is not really strong, in part because the size of the Treasury market is just growing so quickly. It’s not growing in proportion to the underlying market. So I think about this as like a stadium that gets bigger and bigger, but the exits don’t get any bigger.

    Joseph

    So 20 years ago we had about $7 trillion in Treasuries outstanding. Today we got about 25. And Biden is going to promise that he’s going to issue even more through his spending. And the underlying market liquidity in the market hasn’t scaled in the same way. 20 years ago we were doing $400 billion a day in cash transactions. Today it’s 600. So again, there is some potential for fragility. Now the market got was looking pretty dicey in the summer last summer, but it got bailed out when recession fears predominated and people began to think that Fed is going to cut rates. Recession, you got to buy Treasuries. But in the event that those recession concerns go away or inflation stays persistent, you can have, I think, some real discontinuous event there where yields spike higher like they did in the UK, which of course wouldn’t lead the Fed to respond. Yeah. So that’s what I view as I’m not really worried about banking or anything like that. So one thing that people have to be aware of is that the banking system has really changed a lot over this past decade. So an easy way to look at that is just Fed QE, right?

    Joseph

    So now banks have $3 trillion of basically liquidity from QE on their balance sheet. They didn’t have that preg. There’s also a lot more regulation. Now banks are really, really boring businesses. Back then it was exciting. Everyone is making huge bonuses and so forth. But now that’s all in the tech sector.

    Tony

    Okay, so you say that the gilt blow up happened because of long dated yields. Is there anything, if we move into QT, is there anything the Treasuries could do? Could they move that to the shorter end of the curve to avoid that?

    Joseph

    I think that would be a great idea. So one of the things that they floated is a buyback operation. So what they would do is they would issue bonds and use that proceeds to buy old bonds. Now I think it would be a good idea to issue shorter dated bonds and buy longer dated bonds. They basically change the duration profile. I don’t think that’s what they want to do. So far they’ve been pretty adamant that they want to make it a maturity bond. Now I’ll give you an example. Let’s say you issued a 30 year bond and. After ten years, it rolls down to a 20 year bond. Now it’s an off the run bond. So an off the run is something that was issued, not recent, and that off the run market is very, very illiquid. So what you could do is you could issue a new on the run 20 year on the runs are very liquid because they’re the recent vintage. Take that money and buy back the old 30 year, which became a 20 year. So you don’t really change the duration of the debt outstanding, just the liquidity profile. That’s what they’re floating.

    And maybe that’s something they’ll do. I suspect that it’s not going to be enough. If they want to do something like that, they probably will need to rely well, it’s not going to work, so they’re going to have to rely on the Fed. Just like in the UK, they relied on the Bank of England.

    Tony

    In Japan. What they’ve been doing particularly kind of seven to ten years ago, the Ministry of Finance was issuing shorter duration debt to buy longer duration debt, and the BOJ was buying that shorter duration debt and letting it expire at maturity. Is that something that we could do here? Where the Treasury would issue shorter duration debt, the Fed would buy it, they would pay off the longer duration debt, and then it would just go into nowhere?

    Joseph

    They could totally change the maturity structure of Treasury debt. It’d be a really good idea if they did that. They don’t actually need the Fed to buy it. There’s a ton of demand for cash at the front end in the US financial system right now. There’s so much demand that people are putting it into the Fed’s reverse repo facility, which is about $2 trillion. So that means that the Treasury could issue $2 trillion worth of Treasury bills, and the market would just lap it up like that. So they don’t need the Fed to buy it.

    Tony

    Okay, while we’re here, while we’re talking about people buying Treasuries, I saw some notes over the past week or so where people are saying China is selling their Treasuries, everyone needs to worry. Can you talk to us about that? Joseph Albert, can you talk to us about that? To me, that seems laughable, but it is laughable.

    Albert

    They need dollars to keep even if you look at if you look at over the long run, I think over the last, like, five years, yeah, sure, they had bought a lot of Treasuries and now they’re selling Treasuries. But it’s pretty even at the moment, if you look going back five years, I don’t even take that kind of argument seriously. When people say that China is going to sell Treasuries and dollars going to crash and blah, blah, blah, buy my crypto, buy my gold, it’s what it usually is. So I personally don’t see it as a big deal. I mean, you know, that’s just the way I think about it, so pretty pretty explicit about it.

    Tony

    Joseph, what do you think?

    Joseph

    Yeah, it’s hard for China to find a substitute for Treasuries. So Brad sets there at the Council of Foreign Relations, he’s an expert on this and he has done some pretty interesting detective work. And one of the things that seems interesting is that the China foreign reserves actually hasn’t changed all that much over the past several years. So based on their publicly disclosed data, it stayed around, let’s say three, three and a half trillion over the past few years. But if you recall, China has been making a lot of money through exports. During COVID for example, they were exporting like trades to the US trade deficit with China between US exploded higher. Right. So where is all that money going? It’s not going to the sovereign fund. It must be going somewhere else. I think part of it is going to the commercial banks, but I don’t really know how their data works out. I think they definitely have a huge problem in that they have a lot of exposure to the US. That kind of gives the US political power over them, just like the US could seize Russia’s sovereign reserves. It’s a problem for them.

    I don’t know how they can solve it. I’m sure they want to solve it, but so far it seems like they’re stuck, at least for the moment, in Treasury.

    Albert

    It is a big problem for China because when Yelling calls them up and said, you got to help us out in inflation and crush commodities, you’re going to have to do what Yellen and the Fed say just because of how much they’re held off. I absolutely agree with you on that one.

    Tony

    Let me bring Tracy in here because I don’t like it when she’s quiet. So, Tracy, what do you think about the issue about Chinese selling US treasuries? Do you see that as an issue from your perspective? Does China have other options? What do you think they’re doing with the money they’re making on US. Export, on exports to the US?

    Tracy

    Well, I think if we look at the big picture, right, we have seen increased central banks buying gold and selling US treasuries, but we have to look at the bigger picture. More people own US debt than any other country in the entire world, so that’s not going away soon. So I hate to cater to these people and say, yeah, central banks are wearing a lot of gold, but that means that they’re shutting us right? Because it’s simply not true. You still look at the highest countries that own US debt still continue to be the same one china, Japan, et cetera. That’s not going away anytime soon. It is notable in the fact that looking at the gold market, which has been particularly lagging, I think it’s very interesting if we’re looking at the commodity side of things because we’ve seen last year particularly we saw outflows of gold flows, people investing in gold, whether it’s physical, ETF, et cetera, literally for eight months straight. I think that kind of makes this market interesting. But again, I don’t want to conflate that with central banks are buying gold, digging US. Treasuries. That means nobody likes us.

    Tracy

    Debt anymore.

    Albert

    That’s an important fact that, yeah, whenever they sell gold or Treasuries, they’re just raising my opinion. They’re just arbitraging for dollars later on. It’s nothing systemic that’s a threat to the US dollar by any means.

    Tracy

    That was my point. Let’s not make this a bigger issue than it needs to be that we have often seen, yeah, central banks can.

    Tony

    Walk and chew gum and spin plates and all that stuff at the same time. I think they’re capable. They’re very smart people are capable of doing all this stuff. So okay, just before we move on from QT, albert, is there anything else on QT that you wanted to bring up that you’re watching?

    Albert

    No, Joseph pretty much talked about it extensively, and there’s not really much I can add. I just think that the proper thing for power to do right now is to accelerate QT and keep rates as they are at the moment.

    Tony

    Okay, so with housing remaining relatively strong, do you think that they’ll sell off more MBS as a part of their QT portfolio, or do you think they’ll just keep it in the same proportion that it’s been now?

    Albert

    I think they’ll just keep it in the same proportion right now. I mean, housing at the moment is a big political problem because homes are unaffordable at 70% mortgage rate. So they’re going to have to do something they’re keeping an eye on. That I can guarantee.

    Joseph

    Yeah. I also note that Powell has been asked his point, Blake, and just said no. He can always change his mind. Powell has a reputation for being a pivotal like he just did. But to Albert’s point, mortgage rates are 7%. That’s kind of already a big drag on housing. If it went to 8%, would that really make that much of a difference? It’s already very high, and you’ve already.

    Tracy

    Seen housing prices come down extensively, right? Redfin just came out and said 45% decrease in luxury homes and 37.5% decrease. So I think what we’re seeing is housing prices decrease in response to the increase in mortgage rates.

    Tony

    Okay, very good. Okay, let’s move on. Since we’ve been talking about the US. Government for the first two segments, let’s move on to the US. Government for the third segment and talk about America’s rudderless energy policy. So, Tracy, you were tweeting about a speech that Jennifer Granholm, U. S. Energy Secretary, made earlier this week, and I want to kind of parse that through with you because she is the spokesperson for US. Government’s energy policy.

    And there just seems to be a lot of mixed messages. And I’ve got a tweet on the screen about the grand home speech where you said she said, we’ll still need fossil fuels in 30 to 40 years, then to send it into how the Inflation Reduction Act makes the US. Irresistible for new energy. So can you talk us through kind of what were you thinking of as you heard her, and what were your big takeaways?

    Tracy

    Well, the first thing I want to note in that speech is that for the last two years, this administration has been pushing on the energy industry, right. And has been talking about how they have all these profits and they’re not.

    Tony

    Producing greeny energy companies. Greedy.

    Tracy

    That’s been the mo, right. For the last two years. And then in this speech, she did like, 180 when asked the question.

    Tony

    How.

    Tracy

    Do you think oil companies, oil and gas companies are responding? She said, we’re very happy how oil and gas companies are responding to our request for like, she gave them props, which is literally 180 degree. So to me that I was like, what? Because really our production has not really increased at all. But suddenly she’s at Fair a week giving props to the energy companies because.

    Tony

    The CEOs were there.

    Tracy

    Well, right. So it’s a huge mixed message. The other important thing, I think, to take away from that particular speech was that the US. Wants to move on to energy transition. We want to move away from China. We want to be able to mine our own metals and minerals in the US. For this energy transition. But she was quick to add that the permitting process is a nightmare. It takes ten years just to get a permit. And then if you get lawsuits on top of that, to get to an idea from, I want to build this mine in the US. To actual fruition is a ten year permitting process, and then it’s then plus however many lawsuits you have. I thought that was really interesting and that she actually admitted that the permitting process was completely horrible. Since her administration, or the administration that she works for, has said, what we want to do is streamline this permitting process. We’re going to give people all these incentives to build mines, et cetera. Basically, what she did I take away from the speech is basically what she said was completely opposite of what this administration has been telling us, and that is we have all these incentives.

    Tracy

    We can build all these mines, no problem. And we love the fact that the US. Oil and gas companies have responded to us and are producing more, which is outright not true. Sorry.

    Tony

    Okay.

    Albert

    These are political pipe dreams by the Biden administration. As long as the EPA is there and staff with environmental Nazis, there’s no way that manufacturing and mining is going to propel to the next level in the United States.

    Tony

    Biden budget proposes 17,000 more EPA staff.

    Albert

    Oh, yeah, that’s a great sign. That’s a great sign.

    Tony

    But what they’re saying, tracy, tell me if I’m wrong. They’ve already pushed all this money or they’re already planning to push all this money out into the market. Okay. And this week, the EU developed a proposal to kind of complement the US. And compete with the US. So there’s dump trucks of cash now out there to develop alternative energy. But both the US. And Europe have very restrictive policies on getting those mines together. So out of one side of the mouth, they’re saying they want alternative energy for a safe future. But the reality is they’re paying companies to have Congolese children mind cobalt. I mean, that’s the reality of the situation, right.

    Tracy

    Situation is it’s not in my backyard. Right, right. That’s the reality situation.

    Tony

    We want cars that plug in, and we don’t want people to know that Congolese children are mining cobalt. But that’s the crude, stark, horrific reality of these policies today.

    Albert

    Absolutely, yeah. If you want an American built iPhone or American built Tesla, from the battery on all the way up, it’s going to cost you $5,000 for an iPhone and $190,000 for a little smallest Tesla you can possibly buy.

    Tracy

    Yeah, it doesn’t matter because it’s never going to be enough, but it doesn’t matter. You think Yellen went to Africa, right? Her trick on Africa, all we heard was she went into Africa to join the renewable generator. That is not why she went. She went to go make deals for mining in Africa. It’s really the back of that situation.

    Tony

    Wow, that’s terrible. I mean, it’s just the rainbows and unicorns of the policy as it’s portrayed versus the reality, the ugly reality of this industry is pretty horrific. So, Tracy, as you watched Grand Home, what did you think about the oil and gas sector? Did you think, okay, everything’s fine, I don’t have to worry about all this restrictive stuff for 510 years, they’re just going to keep on with status quo?

    Tracy

    No, I think once you’re looking at the oil and gas sector and you have to look at what actual oil companies said. So you had Scott Sheffield, a pioneer, say there’s five good years left of the permian. That’s a scary thought. Right. And there’s no incentive to drill more because the government’s telling you that in ten years, we want you totally phase out. And so we are going to have a serious problem. And I have said repeatedly, I think that the 13.1 million barrels per day the US. Produced at the end of 2019 in December is probably the height of that’s. It that’s the height of shell, unless something drastically changes within policy.

    Tony

    Okay, so it sounds to me, since there’s five good years left to the permian, since the US. Government wants this phased out in ten years, there is no ability for oil and gas and money firms actually to have a capital planning cycle. Right. Anything that has longer than a five year payback just is not worth investing in, is that fair to say?

    Tracy

    I would say that’s fair to say in the United States. Now, if we look offshore, which is really interesting, and that’s where we’re seeing a lot of investment in, say, Guyana or Namibia or a lot of offshore sector kind of seems to be the focus right now in other countries because they just don’t have the same policy hurdles that the United States does.

    Tony

    Okay.

    Albert

    Yeah. All places where the EPA is not at.

    Tony

    Right. So the entire US energy policy and renewables policy is just a big Nimby policy, like you said, just not in my backyard.

    Tracy

    It is right now. We’ll see what happens. There’s a project going on in Alaska right now which people should be paying attention to their policymakers want this to go through. I sincerely doubt that it’s going to go through because no majors want to invest up there because they run into a bunch of lawsuits. Right. And so why would you knowingly, even if you bought the land rights or the leases, it’s a horrible place because you know that you’re going to be faced with a million lawsuits and give me a million hurdles and whatever. Even if you look at the recent Gom auction, now, you have environmentalists suing anybody that bought leases. It’s a lose lose situation if you’re really trying to explore more gas in the United States right now.

    Tony

    Okay, so when you say it’s a horrible place, do you mean specifically that Alaska is a horrible place? Because I think we have, like, three there.

    Tracy

    Alaska is amazing place. I have friends from Alaska.

    Tony

    Okay.

    Tracy

    I’m just saying the problem is that you run into a whole lot of regulatory issues, and then you run into a whole lot of lawsuits that are going to take place. And really, that’s a whole separate issue. Now, I really wrote about this in 2020 was the land that they auctioned off is part of a reserve?

    Tony

    That’s always a good idea.

    Tracy

    Probably should have never been. Right? And that’s why it really got no interest. It did get a bid from Chevron again, but I don’t see that project going forward ever.

    Tony

    Okay. Yeah, it’s crazy. And as I try to figure out the policy and I talk to you and I talk to other people, I just can’t figure out what we’re going to look like in five years. And if I was in charge of capex budgets with upstream, downstream, midstream, I honestly wouldn’t know what to do.

    Tracy

    Because there’s that’s why we continue to look at these companies, continue to focus on dividends, capital, discipline, and paying down debt. I mean, you have to remember, these studies were not making money for years.

    Tony

    That’s an important point. So when the President of the United States says that Chevron is a terrible company for giving large dividends and doing large share buybacks, they’re doing that because they cannot spend that money on capex. Because they don’t know what the environment is going to be like in five or ten years, is that correct?

    Tracy

    Yes, exactly. And that’s the point. And they’re trying to gain shareholders. You have to look, two decades ago the oil and gas sector was 20% of the SF 500 weighting wise. Right. And at the lowest in 2020 we were a little bit below 2%. We’re now at about 4%. But you can see where that market has fared fairly poorly.

    Tony

    Yeah, but Tracy, it’s all going to be AI software forward, so just complete intelligence.

    Tracy

    It’s going to be chevron AI.

    Albert

    Yeah, I’ll fund it by a new Silicon Valley bank.

    Tracy

    That’s right.

    Tony

    Okay guys, we have a big week ahead going into leading up to the Fed meeting. So what are you all expecting? Joseph, what do you expect to see next week with the various prints coming up?

    Joseph

    It’s all about the CPI. I mean, I want to know if it’s actually strong. If it’s strong, then we got 50 basis points blocked in right now. Like you mentioned, Tony, that’s been taken out of the market. It could be a violent repricing. So that’s what we want to focus. So I’m suspecting that a lot of people are pricing in rate cuts in part because of what they perceive to be some risk in the banking sector. I just don’t see that. And so when we see that come out of the market, we could have rates go back to expecting a more higher for longer stance by the Fed.

    Tony

    Okay, great. What is a high CPI to you?

    Joseph

    I haven’t checked this expectations yet, but whatever is higher than expectations.

    Tony

    Okay, so literally higher than expectations, if it’s higher than the consensus, then that’s a high CPI.

    Joseph

    Yeah. If you think back a couple of months, we’re seeing CPI go down. Right. Deceleration, I want to know if it really just did reaccelerate or if it just kind of gave back. What the increase from last month?

    Tony

    Okay, great. That’s perfect. Albert, what are you looking for next week?

    Albert

    Same thing CPI is to make a break for the Fed on 25 verse 50. I’m hoping somehow they’ve managed to manipulate the CPI number to make it somewhat in line with the consensus. Hoping for a nothing burger probably be the best option at the moment. Something meaning consensus. If core CPI is hot, like Joseph said, fifty S, fifty S locked in.

    Tony

    And if super core CPI is hot, that just reinforces wage expectations and it’s all this super circular situation. Right? Okay, so if we do see a 50, do you see an impact on equities? Like a negative impact on equities? Do you think it’d be sideways?

    Albert

    Without a doubt. Without a doubt. I think if they go out and do 50, I think we’re down 200 points in the S and P pretty quickly in a week. If they do 25, we might even rally 100 points. You know how it is, we’re in bitcoin world now in the S and P. Right?

    Tony

    Exactly. Okay, that’s good to know. Tracy. We’ve seen oil kind of move sideways. We see energy kind of move sideways lately. What’s happening and what do you expect to see?

    Tracy

    You know what? I think we talked about this the other week. I continue to think it’ll move sideways. I think we’re in a range. OPEC is very comfortable with that $80 to $90 range for Brent crude oil. And so I see no reason for much to change in that. I think as we head into high demand season right, june, July, August, we could see an uptick in prices. But for right now, the market is very comfortable.

    Tony

    Okay. And then this Saudi Iran peace agreement that was announced today, do you think that has an impact on crude supply? Do you think that could push crude prices down?

    Tracy

    I don’t think that, no. Because OPEC has existed for a very long time. Iran is an original member of OPEC.

    Tony

    They were the founding member. Right.

    Tracy

    So that relationship has existed cohesively beyond any of the other geopolitical problems that they have had. And Saudi Arabia has always said that this relationship will exist beyond whatever other problems we are having. So I don’t think within the oil market, it really changes any dynamic because that relationship was already solid.

    Tony

    That’s good to know. Okay. Thank you so much. Thanks for your time. Thanks for all your knowledge. Have a great weekend. And have a great weekend. Thank you.

    Albert

    Thanks, Tony.

    Joseph

    Bye, guys.

    Albert

    Thank you.

  • Preparing for Economic Turbulence: The Fed’s Q2 Danger Zone and Russian Oil Cuts

    Invest and trade better with CI Futures. Check your options: https://completeintel.com/pricing 👈

    In this episode of “The Week Ahead,” host Tony Nash is joined by Brent Johnson, CEO of Santiago Capital, and Tracy Shuchart, a commodities trader at Hilltower Resource Advisors, to discuss the most pressing economic themes for the upcoming week.

    One of the key topics of discussion is the Federal Reserve’s “Q2 Danger Zone,” which Brent believes could be a potentially scary time for the economy. He notes that we are still less than a year away from the first rate hike, and it often takes 12-18 months for rate hikes to show up in the economy. By the summer of 2022, we will be right in the heart of that time period, coinciding with YoY inflation numbers that should come down due to the crazy comparisons from the previous year. Brent warns that even if inflation remains somewhat sticky, we could see a bunch of disinflationary prints at the same time, which will make it challenging for the Fed. Moreover, by that time, Owner Equivalent Rents are expected to fall, adding to the Fed’s challenges.

    Tracy then delves into the topic of oil production and cuts, specifically Russia’s decision to cut 500k barrels. She explains what this means for the market, how it could impact crude prices, and who will be hurt the most – Asia or the West. Tracy also raises an interesting point about Russia’s decision to smuggle oil through Albania despite the cuts, leaving us with questions about their motivations.

    Finally, the discussion turns to commercial and industrial loan growth, which saw a sharp rise after rate hikes started. Tracy explores why this is happening, and what it means for the economy. She believes that companies are taking out loans to fund capital expenditures, which is good news for the economy as it indicates that businesses are investing in themselves and their future growth.

    Key themes:
    1. The Fed’s Q2 Danger Zone
    2. Capex & C&I Loan Growth
    3. 500k fewer Russian barrels

    This is the 55th episode of The Week Ahead, where experts talk about the week that just happened and what will most likely happen in the coming week.

    Follow The Week Ahead panel on Twitter:
    Tony: https://twitter.com/TonyNashNerd
    Brent: https://twitter.com/SantiagoAuFund
    Tracy: https://twitter.com/chigrl

    https://open.spotify.com/episode/3WmgJFm7pJ2QcepItAhUCw?si=7f7b0ad55dce485c

    Transcript

    Tony

    Hi, everyone, and welcome to The Week Ahead. I’m Tony Nash. Today we’re joined by Brent Johnson and Tracy Shuchart. We may be joined by Albert Marko at some time, but we’re just going to focus on Brent and Tracy right now. Guys, thanks so much for taking the time to join us. I really appreciate it.

    https://youtu.be/yYom7Zqezio

    CI Futures is our subscription platform for global markets and economics. We forecast hundreds of assets across currencies, commodities, equity indices, and economics. We have new forecasts for currencies, commodities and equity indices every Monday morning. We do new economics forecasts for 50 countries once a month. Within CI Futures, we show you our error rates. So every forecast, every month, we give you the one- and three-month error rates for our previous forecast. We also show you the top correlations and allow you to download charts and data.

    CI Futures is available for $50 a month, $75 a month, or $99 a month. You can find out more or get a demo on completeintel.com. Thank you.

    We’ve got a few key things, themes we’re going to cover today. First is the Fed’s second quarter danger zone. There’s a lot setting up for Q2, and Brent’s going to talk us through that. Then we’re going to get into Capex and CNI, commercial and industrial loan growth. And then finally, we’re going to talk about those Russian barrels that are coming off the market this month, and Tracy will talk us through the impact there.

    Okay. Guys, thanks a lot for taking the time. Brent, when I asked you what you want to talk about, you really want to talk about this kind of Q2, potentially Q3, these issues that we may see in markets in that time. Can you help me understand or help us understand what are you looking for there? Because there’s a lot going on, of course, and you can talk us through a number of items. But I have a tweet from Daniel Lacalle, who’s joined us a few times talking about the ECB under pressure for faster rate hikes.

    We’re seeing similar stuff in the US. But markets keep going up. What are you thinking?

    Brent

    Well, I think there’s a couple of very, I guess, poignant and competing narratives fighting each other right now. And they’ve been fighting each other for a while. And I’ll explain why I think they’re fighting each other. But I’ll also explain a little bit about why I think Q2 and Q3 have the potential, again, there’s no guarantee. We’re all speculating here. But has the potential for one of these narratives to kind of come to the fore or something to change dramatically in Q2 or Q3. So I think the first narrative that has been around for a year now, so we’re almost still not yet, but very close to now, the one year anniversary from the first rate hike. And I think a lot of people forget that it hasn’t even been a year yet since they started raising rates. And typically when you raise rates, it doesn’t have an immediate impact in the economy. Sometimes it takes nine months, twelve months, 18 months for those rate hikes actually kind of work there through the economy and have the full effect of them show up. So we’re not even to a year yet, but in another three or four months we’ll be in the 12- to 18-month range when they typically start to show up.

    Now, in the meantime, we continue to have inflationary prints that are stickier than some people have expected. Again, part of the reason markets have been pretty favorable for the last two, three, four months is the expectation that rate hikes would slow and potentially even reverse and maybe we even get to a cutting cycle. And as a result, the markets are front running that. But now in the last couple of weeks and so at the beginning of the year, we had a big rush up in bond prices as rate hike expectations came down, and stock prices and commodity prices. But for the last month, let’s call it since the, to the last week of January, 1 week of February, I’ve kind of turned it violently sideways. We’ve gone up and down and up and down and up and down, but kind of just treaded water. And actually if you look back two years, we’re kind of where we were a couple of years ago. We’ve gone up and we’ve gone down, but we’re kind of where we were two years ago. But because of the stickiness, the relative stickiness of the inflationary prints, this idea that rate hikes are now going to go the other way is starting to get a little queasy.

    And maybe they’re going to have to go back to 50, maybe they’re going to have to go longer, maybe they’re going to have to go higher for longer. And so now markets are trying to figure this all out. And so the reason I think once we get into Q2 and Q3, it gets very important is for two reasons. One, if things stay sticky in the meantime, the Fed may have to either keep hiking or continue to message higher for longer. And then if at the same time all of the previous interest rate hikes start to show up in the economy and then at that point we are going to be in the heart of the year-over-year inflationary prints. And those will most likely show negative. Even if inflation is still high, it’s probably, you know, I think was it last June or last July we had the 9% print in inflation. So even if this year it comes in at 7%, it’s going to show a negative two year-over-year. And so that puts the Fed in the position, okay, inflation is starting to come down, we’re making progress. But you still have high inflation.

    So does that mean that they stop or do they start? And it’s going to be at the same time where all the previous rate hikes are going to be showing up in the economy. Right.

    Tony

    Sorry, go ahead.

    Brent

    No, but my point is we’re getting to the point where a lot of the decisions that have already been made would naturally start showing up in the economy, but we’re not quite there yet. In the meantime, the Fed is in a tough spot as to whether to continue rate hikes or to slow them down because we are seeing some disinflationary pressures. Right. And so they’re in a tough spot right now.

    Tony

    Yeah. When Powell spoke, gosh, I think it was in the last meeting, he talked about the lag effects of Fed policy, and it was almost in a defensive way, saying, hey, it may not look like much is going on, but there are serious lag effects to our policies and you better watch out. And I think that’s when they rolled out the 25s or they started rolling out the 25s.

    I’m not sure that at this point I see an end to 25s. Sam Rine’s on the show talks several times about how it’s at least 25s until mid-summer. Right.

    Brent

    I think so.

    Tony

    And I think we’re starting to get some nervousness from the pace of inflation in Europe. And I think that’s kind of bleeding over here a little bit because people are seeing the prints in Europe and saying, gosh, is that coming our way too? The ECB is going to have to hike faster. And so what’s that going to do to say, the dollar and other things as well? And when we have a relatively strong dollar, the impact that’s having on commodity prices, it mutes them. Right?

    Brent

    So now you just touched on something else that’s very important to understand. Okay. So if Europe is pressured to keep hiking, or at least hiking more than expected, that has the potential, again, no guarantee. Not everything trades on rates, but it has the potential for the dollar to fall more. That’s why the dollar has fallen for the last four months, is the pace of rate hike expectations. So if we already have sticky inflationary data and then the dollar starts to fall in price again, that can actually provide a tailwind for the inflation that the Fed is trying to counteract. Right. So again, it puts them in this tough spot. The other part that you just mentioned is, and this is where it gets tricky as well, is if you look over the last year, but not just last year, if you look over the last ten years, oil is about where it was a year ago and about where it was ten years ago. Natural gas is below where it was a year a you go. Huge drop off in about where it was ten years ago. Corn is about where it was ten years ago.

    Wheat’s about where it would… Copper? You look at all these commodities, they’ve actually come down quite a bit from a year ago. But what has remained the stickiest is the wage data or sorry, wage inflation. Those costs, I know we’re going to talk about that at some point as well. And that could be more to do with a structural issue that the Fed has really no control over. Right. If people have, they’re retiring, they’re moving out of the workplace and they’re just not coming back. And so you have a demographic issue where there’s just not enough supply of labor. It pushes up the price of labor. That is something the Fed could influence, but not as easily as they can influence asset prices. And so, again, you get into this situation where I think everybody knows the further down the road we go, the higher the likelihood we have some kind of an event, right? Whether that’s a crash or just a volatility explosion or whatever it is, I think everybody knows that something down the road is not going to be good. Now, whether that’s six days or six months or six years from now, that’s the debate.

    But I think we all know that there’s the potential for this great event. And again, if we get into Q2 or Q3 and it hasn’t happened yet, and you have this confluence of all these events that I’m talking about and in the meantime, asset prices have gone higher or at least held where they’re at, you have the potential for this bursting of this bubble, for lack of a better word.

    Tony

    Right? Go ahead, Tracy.

    Tracy

    Sorry, I had a question. So we’re seeing that two-year and five-year inflation expectations start to rise again. So what do you make of that? And what does that mean for the Fed and the Fed’s decision? Right?

    Brent

    Yeah. Well, I think this gets to everything we’ve just been taught it puts them in a tough spot because they’ve already… They have very clearly started to slow, right? Now, they have said we’re going to maintain and we’re not cutting and we could be higher for longer. But there’s no question that they have, at least for the last four months, have not been hiking at the same pace that they were last summer. But the worst thing for the Fed is if they’re back at 25 basis points now, or if they were to indicate that maybe we’ll have one more hike of 25 and then we’ll be done. But then you get inflation starting to rise again. I mean, that’s horrible for that. That’s the worst possible thing for the Fed and it throws their whole object not objectivity. It’s not that their repu… Not that their reputation is great anyway, right? But after getting the last couple of years so wrong, for their credibility to be challenged again is a really tough thing. And I’ve mentioned this before, you cannot underestimate, in my opinion, you cannot underestimate the influence of getting it wrong would have on Powell’s legacy. And I think he’s been very clear that he doesn’t mind having asset prices lower.

    In fact, I think he wants asset prices lower. And so while I completely understand the argument for they’re going to have to cut, I don’t think he can personally take the risk of stopping hikes too soon because the risk of stopping too soon is extremely high for him personally.

    Tony

    I want to go back to your wages point for a minute. So, you know, when we have a company like Walmart make their minimum wage $15 and then that cascades through the economy because it doesn’t hit everyone immediately, you know, there’s a lag to that hitting the economy too, right. What you talk about? And it doesn’t just hit people making below $15. Those people who are making $15 are like, wait, I was making 15. Now everyone’s making $15. So it cascades up a little bit, right. And it cascades out. And so that takes months to hit also. Right. So that just happened in January, this impact on wages, at least for the next couple of months, right, or do you think it happens?

    Brent

    I think so. And again, when we get to an event, let’s call it either a credit event or a contraction in the money supply or a bursting of an asset, whatever, when we get to an event and things turn the other way quickly, then that stuff can change quickly. But until that happens, there is a tailwind for them to get worse or for the structural wage inflation for them to work themselves through the economy. And the other thing that I think many people forget this is that and I got to be careful how I say this because… I don’t want to confuse people and I don’t want people to think that I’m just absolutely bullish, because I’m not. I do think we’re going to have one of these credit events, and I do think disinflation is more likely than runaway inflation. But until we get that event, there is an inflationary tailwind, not just because of the things we’ve already talked about, but because of the higher rates. And what I mean by that is, as long as the banking system doesn’t contract and there’s not a deflationary crash, the higher rates are actually pumping more money into the economy.

    Right. It wasn’t that long ago you had to go out ten years on the yield curve to get anywhere close to 4% return on your money. Now you can put your money in the closest thing to cash and get 4% on your money. So the people who have the money in their accounts are getting more money pushed into it because the Treasury has to pay higher rates. And that’s just now, kind of, again, the federal funds rate has been slowly ticking up, but some of those rates that people receive are just now resetting higher or have just started to reset higher in the last couple of months. And the further we go along without this “event”, more money gets put into their account in the form of interest payments. And that’s a tailwind because now you have more money to spend.

    Right. No, the point that I just want to make is that I believe that we’re going to have this event and I think we’re going to have it sometime this year. But until we have it, there’s a tailwind. So it’s almost like it’s going to be speeding up into the wall.

    Tony

    How much of that tailwind, Brent, is… People have put on pretty easy trades for the past few years? And how much of that tailwind is people who have a little extra money in their account who just want to make that one last trade, right?

    Brent

    I think there’s a lot of that. I think there’s a lot of that. And that’s typically why it ends badly, right. If you think about an exponential curve, it goes up and up and up and up and up and up, and then it crashes and it’s because those last people are trying to get that last little trade in. And the other thing that I’ll say is I think this is really important to understand and we were talking about it a little bit before, so it’s repetitive but for the people on the show. It was last summer Q3 of last year where the yield curve inverted. Actually, it inverted just slightly in Q2 of last year. But then the real inversion took place in Q3. And at the end of Q3, we had a point where the stocks were at their lowest level in two years. The VIX was at its highest level in two years. The dollar was at its highest level in two years. And I actually at that point, I even sent out a tweet that said to probably do for the dollar to pull back. And I bought, I took off all my equity hedges and I actually bought equity calls and people were like, why the hell are you doing this?

    And I said, Because the yield curve is inverted. And they said, that means there’s going to be a recession. And I said, yeah, but usually that takes twelve to 24 months to show up. And historically in that twelve to 24 months, between the time the inversion happens and the recession arrives, you typically get a run in equities. And so that it kind of goes counter. Everybody thinks higher rates, you don’t want to own equities that’s bad for growth, but in actuality it ends up that way. But in the short term it’s actually typically, historically good for stocks. And so to be honest, and I fully admit it, that trade worked, but I sold it way too soon. I chickened out because I see this wall coming, right? But had I held it for this last six months. It would have been a monster trade, but I sold it after, like, one month because I chickened out on it, to be quite honest. But that’s something that’s very important to understand. And here’s the other thing, and I’ll give you some historical context and it’ll explain two things. It’ll explain the magnitude of the run that can happen, and it’ll also explain the horrendous result that can come up afterwards.

    And that is it. From 1926 to 1929… Let’s call it, from 1920 to 1926, you had seen stock prices run very high. It was like the Roaring 20s, right? And then in 1926, the yield curve inverted and it stayed inverted until 1929. And in that time period, from 1926 to 1929, the long-term US Treasury fell 30%. So if you were invested in bonds during that yield curve inversion, you lost a lot of money, just like last year, right? But guess what stocks did over that three-year period? They more than doubled. They went up 150% with the yield curve inverted for three years. And now we all know what came after 1929, right? After that last trade, to your point, pushing that last trade into the market, then you had the huge fall. We could very easily have something like that again. Now, I personally am not in the camp that we’re going to go into another Great Depression. I don’t think it’s going to play out that way, but I can’t rule it out. But it’s all of these cross currents.

    It’s because I understand the tailwinds and it’s because I see this massive wall that we’re racing towards that I think right now is the hardest environment I’ve ever seen to be an investor, or at least to be an investor with conviction, I think it’s very hard. The good news, and I would encourage people to think about this, the good news is that in the last ten years, if you didn’t have conviction, it was very hard to sit on the sidelines because you got no return in your account. Interest rates were zero, but you can now sit on the sidelines, wait for clarity and get paid 4 to 5%. That’s not a horrible idea. Right. So, anyway, that’s kind of my soapbox moment.

    Tony

    These are all great points for it. I guess it’s just time for people to be careful. I don’t think you’re saying the sky is falling today. I think you’re saying, just don’t hold the bag. Yeah.

    Brent

    And I’m not saying you can’t make money. I’ve used this analogy with clients a few times to explain what I mean, because I said, Couldn’t stocks run another 15 or 20%? And I say, yeah, absolutely they can. I said, It’s like when Evel Knievel jumps over the fountains at Caesars Palace and then his son does the same thing. Well, Evel Knievel  crashed and broke every bone in his body. Robbie Knievel landed the jump and was fine. Got a lot huge glory, but they did the same jump. So whether you landed well or land poorly, if you took the same amount of risk. So I’m not saying you can’t make money over the next six months by being in the stock market. I’m just saying you’re taking a lot of risk in order to do it. And if you don’t want to take that level of risk, you can sit in T bills and get 4.5%. That’s not a horrible that’s not a horrible sideshow. Right?

    Tony

    Right. Yeah. And just for people who aren’t familiar with Brent, I don’t know who isn’t? But he’s not a total doomer. Right. You’re not this, you know, permabear.

    Brent

    And I try not to be.

    Tony

    I just don’t want people to think you’re kind of a permabear coming on and try to spread kind of the permabear gospel. You do change your views as markets change, and this is just kind of a sober view on kind of where we are.

    Brent

    I own a lot of equities for my clients right now. We have participated in the run, but we have not been levered on it. And I’m not all in on that trade, but we own stocks in our portfolio. We think it’s time to be careful. We think you should have some hedges, we think you should have some cash. But we’re not sitting in our bunker just waiting for the sky to fall.

    Tony

    Great. Okay, that’s all good to know. Time to be very, very sober about things. You mentioned loans and interest rates, and Brent, you were mentioning some things about commercial and industrial loans. And Tracy, you’ve talked about capex, especially in energy, pretty regularly. And Brent, you were saying something about the CNI loans have risen over the past year, even as interest rates have gone up. Can you talk us through that?

    Brent

    Yeah. So this is kind of another part of the narrative. The combating narratives that I think people forget is many people didn’t think the Fed would ever be able to raise rates. But not only did they raise once, they’ve been raising them for a year now, and they’ve raised them aggressively. And the markets have not collapsed, to many people’s chagrin and many people said, well, as soon as the Fed starts raising rates, they’re no longer going to be increasing the money supply. Okay, that’s fair. And I know a lot of people think that the central banks just print money and flood the market with money. But where the real printing of money comes from, where the real creation of money comes from is when banks loan money. When you go down to your bank and you take out a loan, they don’t and let’s say you take out a million dollar loan, they don’t take somebody else’s million dollars and give it to you. They create it out of thin air. That’s rational.

    Tony

    Million dollars?

    Brent

    That’s right. That that’s a new million dollars that’s now in the economy that wasn’t there before. And so a year ago, loans had been coming down aggressively since COVID so they’ve been ramping up, I want to say, like in 2020, it was around $2.4 trillion. And then after COVID, they did all these PPP loans and it spiked to like $3 trillion. And then since the PPP loans, it’s just been steadily every month down, down, down. But I think it was last March or April, it stopped going down and it actually started to tick up. And now it’s been going up for a year, and so it’s up about 10% or 15% from the bottom. So that’s the creation of new money. And despite the fact that the higher rates have not yet caused anybody to go bankrupt, it’s starting to happen. And BlackRock had this happen to them with one of their funds recently. But despite the raising rates, you haven’t seen mass bankruptcies yet. And not only that, you see new loans being taken out. The existing supply of money is still there because we’re not getting the big credit contraction, and new money is being created through new loans.

    And so again, you have this tailwind that’s actually speeding things up towards this wall that I believe we’re heading towards. It’s kind of part of the same thing we’ve already been talking about, but it’s just another facet of it.

    Tony

    No, it’s good. Some economists are going to ride in and say “that’s not technically new money.” But it is new money, right, because it’s circulating in the system and people are using it. Okay, so what drives that? I mean, it seems to me that when you have interest rates kind of steady for a long period of time, people tend to say, well, I can always put that investment off until tomorrow. But then when you see interest rates start to rise, people wake up and go, whoa, wait a minute, I better make that investment before it rises even more. Is that what’s happening?

    Brent

    I’m actually not an expert on this, and I don’t know for sure, but here’s my theory on it. And so I’m sure we’ll get a lot of people that tell me I’m wrong, but this is kind of how I think about it. I’ve been on record in the past as saying low rates are deflationary for the reason you just explained. If the market condition is so bad that the Federal Reserve has to resort to these extraordinary measures and pull interest rates to zero, is that really an environment where you want to go borrow a million bucks? Maybe, but that’s kind of scary, right? And so I kind of feel like low rates keep people from borrowing money and keep people and it’s borne out, if you look at these reports, that’s typically what’s happened. But if you are in an industry and you are competitive in that industry, and you want to remain in that industry, and you have not taken out that loan. But then let’s pretend as an example, you own a shoe store in Dallas, right? And you compete with a couple of the malls and a couple of the other independent sellers.

    And a year ago, they took out a loan and bought more inventory and increased the size of their showroom or whatever it is. And you didn’t. But now we’re a year ahead. Market is holding up. Everybody’s going to those new stores to buy shoes. They’re not coming into your store as much. And in order for you to compete with them, you need to build a bigger showroom. You need to buy more, whatever it is. Well, now your loan costs two or 3% more than it did a year ago. And so now your question is, if I want to remain in this business and the crash doesn’t come in the next two months, if I wait another three or four months, our rate is going to be 2% higher? And so they’re kind of behind the eight ball. And so what I think happens is, as interest rates start to rise, if you need the money, you will borrow it. And we get into…

    Tony

    A friend who is doing a restaurant franchise who’s going who went through that exact process in terms of deciding when to take out money. It was extremely low. Interest rates started to rise and he felt urgency to get his loan locked in and got it locked in because of the change of rate, right? And the perception of the future change of rate made him so those expectations play.

    Brent

    I did the same thing. I bought a place in Puerto Rico last summer, and I think our mortgage is around 5%. It had been like 3%. If I’d have done it three years ago, we did it at five, and now I think they’re at six or seven. But that was part of my calendar calculation. It’s possible that rates will go higher. Now, it’s also possible that they’ll crash the three, in which case I refinance and I’ll be fine. But the point is, as money gets more expensive, if you’re going to stay in business, you need money. And so we get into this other theoretical thing where money is a gift. And I say money is a gift and good. And a gift and good is something that typically when something rises in price, the demand falls. But not with a gift and good, with a gift and good is as demand rises, price rises. Or as price rises, demand rises as well. And it’s because you just need it. It’s like this drug you just have to have. And as interest rates start to rise, you will pay more and more and more. And people say, well, if it gets too high, they won’t pay.

    And I always say, okay, maybe but if high interest rates keep people from borrowing, then explain to me why Visa is in business and why loan sharks exist. They exist because even though they have rates, people need money and they will borrow at high rates. And so I think that’s kind of what we’ve seen as well. Again, I think this is all going to end, but all of this contributes to where we see markets at today.

    Tony

    Yeah, I think you’re exactly right. Tracy, can we change this focus of capex to energy? Because it’s pretty well known and you’ve talked about several times that energy hasn’t invested in the upstream since 2014 or something, right? So do you think that rising interest rates and there is some change in the tone of ESG speak in the US over the past couple of months? Do you think the rising interest rates may push some of these companies to start investing in the upstream, or is that just completely ridiculous?

    Tracy

    I’d be hesitant to say, yeah, I think oil companies are going to jump on board with this because we still have this rhetoric in the west saying that we’re phasing you out in ten years. We want you gone. And so oil companies are therefore they just don’t want to spend the money. And it doesn’t really matter what rate it is at. It’s good news. We’ve seen Vanguard leave the Zero Alliance, and we’ve kind of seen a lot of these banks kind of push back and a lot of these investment funds kind of push back on this ESG narrative. But I just don’t think that’s quite enough until we see governments really focus more on ESG. And even though, say, for example, and it seems hypocritical, we’ve seen Germany, for example, their coal usage skyrocketed in 2022 as they’re closing nuclear plants. Meanwhile, they’re pushing this green initiative. The problem is that since natural gas prices have come back down to prices that they were pre-summer of 2022, I think that they’ve become very complacent. This is how natural gas prices will stay, and natural gas prices are going to stay low.

    But that’s looking at the European economy, on the other hand, the damage has already been done. We’re already seeing some deindustrialization in Germany. You have BASF leaving forever. You have a lot of smelters across the whole of EU that are just not going to come back online when they had to. In fact, a lot of them started shutting down in fall of 2021 before the Ukraine invasion. And the thing is, you can’t just reignite those glass furnaces. It takes a lot of money. You have to keep them running 24 hours, 24/7. You know, we’re just not seeing that industry come back, unfortunately. And the ironic thing is if we go back to BASF in particular, they are moving to China, who is buying cheap Russian oil.

    Brent

    Crazy, right?

    Tracy

    Because it’s cheaper to do business over there in general. But so I think at this point and we’ve also at one of that, we’re also seeing companies, oil and gas companies, in the UK, sort of because of their windfall taxes. That’s affecting business as well. And so they have decided to either leave the UK altogether we just had Suncor in Canada sell all their assets in their joint venture to BP. And we heard from Shell, Equinor, and BP all said that whatever we wanted to invest in UK, we’re not going to do that anymore because of these windfall taxes. I think that we’re running up against a lot of problems here that are more government-oriented, bureaucratic-oriented than our state central bank oriented, rates oriented.

    Tony

    We have had some state governments in the US push back on ESG. Right. And we did have a bill in Congress that passed that was pushing back on ESG, but there’s a veto coming or something on that bill, is that right? Governments are getting involved to some level.

    Tracy

    Absolutely. We have 20 states right now, basically, that are pushing back on the ESG narrative, saying, we do not want our pension funds investing based on ESG. We want our pension fund, our state pension funds, investing on what we think is going to make us money.

    Brent

    That’s going to make money. Imagine that. Right?

    Tony

    That would be a good focus.

    Tracy

    So there are 20 states involved in that. Texas is one of them. Florida is one of them. So that’s still kind of going through the court system at this point. And as far as this new, the amazing thing is this ESG legislation that will likely get vetoed was that it passed the House and the Senate. That’s huge. That’s a huge shift, right? Not by a small margin, I mean, relatively speaking, when we’re talking about other pieces of legislation. So the narrative is shifting in the US. So I think it’s too early to say where this is going to go, but it is definitely something worth keeping your eye on.

    Tony

    Great. Okay. All right, that’s good. Let’s talk about the Russian supply cuts going into this month. They’re going into this month, Tracy, what does that mean? Can you kind of put that in perspective of their overall supplies?

    Tracy

    Yeah, I think in general, what people expected was when they announced this and they announced this in a month ago, that oil prices were going to skyrocket. But I don’t think they were doing that to raise oil prices and stick it to the west, right. And raise oil prices that they wanted to see. What they wanted to do is narrow that spread between urals and ESPO, which are their two main crude grades with respect to Brent, because that’s how the prices quoted, European oil prices are quoted in Brent minus whatever the spread is. Right. So what they wanted to do is they wanted, after the price caps and all of the sanctions, et cetera, they wanted to, we saw those prices, those front month prices in those particular grades fall dramatically. And so I think what they want to do is narrow the spreads. And so really, that’s what I think that whole thing, that whole decision was aired for.

    And then you also have to understand that Russia includes condensates, which is those lighter oils within their total oil production, whereas the rest of the world does not. And so we don’t really know exactly where that 500K is coming from. Are they those like NAFTA, or is it pure crude? And where that really remains, just so people kind of understand the market over there.

    Brent

    I think Tracy and I might be wrong, but you’re the expert here, but I think another contributing reason that they cut production is, to your point, in order to get that spread closer, right? Because the discount was pretty significant. Right. And a month ago, I think they announced the production cuts, and a month ago, they announced that tax revenues were falling and as a result, they were going to have a budget deficit this year. But what I didn’t see until kind of a couple of weeks ago was that as a result of the production cuts and as a result of the tax revenues falling so severely in Russia that they are changing the way taxes are calculated on Russian producers.

    Tracy

    Exactly. Exactly.

    Brent

    And they are doing and this is not going to be in favor of the Russian producers, they’re going to increase the taxes on the Russian producers to try to alleviate that budget deficit. So I don’t know that they were 100% correlated, but I don’t think that they’re unrelated. Right? In other words, if they’re going to tax Russian producers at a higher rate, and it is taxed on the difference of the spread between the west and Europe, they not only want to get the spread closer or the price higher, the discounted price higher, and then tax at a higher rate. So it’s kind of a double whammy on the producers.

    Tracy

    It’s a double whammy on the producers, but it’s income for the government.

    Brent

    Right, exactly. No, exactly.

    Tracy

    You know what I mean? And this is the same thing I was kind of talking about earlier on another podcast. What is interesting is that Russia is suddenly buying this huge fleet of vessels, right? So they own the vessels and they’re now insuring themselves. So the government’s making money no matter what. They’re just paying themselves. So Russia is not really losing money on this, even with the price cap and with that spread being lower. Now, if you look at and moving on to that, there was just an independent study done that assessed the international sanctions impact on Russian oil imports. And I think it was researchers from Columbia University, University of California, and the International Institute of Finance. And what they discovered is really that Russian crude oil is really selling for $74 right now, all is said and done, which is well above the $60 price cap. All we hear from mainstream media is they’re losing money, they’re losing money. But in reality and I read this paper, and I’ll post it on Twitter later if anybody wants to read this paper. It’s very interesting and it’s very well done. They essentially are selling oil above the price cap, and there’s no way to stop. There’s no way to stop.

    Tony

    Yeah, sanctions are great, but if there’s no enforcement mechanism, they don’t mean anything. And the Russians know that. Russia, Iran, China, they all know how to circumvent.

    Tracy

    Iran is the most sanctioned country in the entire world as far as the oil industry is concerned, and they’re still making money, and they’re still able to export, so.

    Brent

    Shows you how powerful oil is.

    Tony

    Right, exactly. So, Tracy, who does the 500,000 cut hurt? Is it hurting Asia more, or does it hurt markets generally, globally, just because it’s crude oil?

    Tracy

    Well, I think, again, it’s very hard to decipher because we don’t know what 100% is being cut. Is it all oil, or is it just these light condensates? And so I think in general, I don’t think it hurts anybody in particular, because if the markets were that worried about it, well, it would be at $100 right now, easy. Right? And so I don’t think markets are that worried about it. I also think markets are kind of let’s wait and see what this actually is. And that brings to a second point, is that right now what’s happening is that we’re having a bifurcated market, right? So the oil market, which did its thing for 30 years, 40, 30 years very nicely, trade routes were settled. We were in this crew. Now we have literally a gray market. I mean, we always had a black market in the gray market, but, I mean, now we’re talking 10 million barrels a day in the gray market, not a few million barrels wherever else. So we’re talking about a large 10 million barrels, which is approximately Russia. And this is a gray market right now, right, because they have their own vessels again, their own insurance. They’re doing ship-to-ship transfers. They’re doing all these shady stuff offline to kind of mitigate and get around Western sanctions in any way possible. And so we really are seeing this market where it’s going to be harder and harder if you’re a barrel comes here, it’s going to be harder and harder to actually track these barrels because that gray market has exploded in volume.

    Tony

    Interesting, you tweeted a story about some Russian crude being seized in Albania. So that’s one of the, I guess, paths to circumvent. Can you talk us through that and why that’s important?

    Tracy

    Well, I think that it was interesting because this is not something that, you know, again, there are offshore ship-to-ship transfers going everywhere. You know, particularly if you look off, Spain is a very big on ship-to-ship transfers, right, in Greece. I just thought that was interesting because my first thought was five minutes later, it’s going to be on the black market via the Albanians.

    Tony

    Sure.

    Tracy

    But yeah, I mean, they just happened to get caught and too bad that Albert’s not here. He could probably better explain the Albanian relationship.

    Brent

    It was probably him.

    Tony

    Okay. I guess the message that I’m getting pretty consistently and tell me if I’m wrong, these are sanctions put on by Europeans, but through Albania, through Greece, through Spain and other places, they’re circumventing the sanctions. When I say “they”, I mean people in Europe are circumventing the sanctions that their own governments put on. Have I misread that?

    Tracy

    No. I mean, I think that everybody’s trying to kind of find a way around the sanctions right now. And you have to remember, this only applies to seaborne Russian crude. I mean, we still have gas pipes into Europe and we still have oil pipes into Europe right now. So it’s really only seaborne crude.

    Tony

    So when it’s piped, it’s fine.

    Tracy

    Yes.

    Tony

    That’s amazing. Really amazing. Okay, great. Hey, guys, listen, let’s just take a quick look at what you guys are expecting in the near term. What are you guys looking for, say, for the next week? What’s ahead? Tracy it sounds like energy markets are kind of sideways for a while.

    Tracy

    I think we’re kind of stuck in this $70-80 range right now in WTI. OPEC is very comfortable at $80-90 range for right now in Brent. And so, you know, I think that as we move closer to, say, high demand season and we get more clarity on China and what their domestic demand is going to really look like, I think we could definitely see a push to the upside. But for right now, I think markets are very comfortable where they are, and I think OPEC is very satisfied where markets are right now.

    Tony

    Okay, great. That’s what events happen, though, right?

    Tracy

    When everyone’s coming, right? Exactly. You never know what could happen. You had what the story this morning from The Wall Street Journal say EU is leaving. I was like, what? No, they’re not. And they retracted the statement.

    Tony

    You leaving OPEC and all that stuff? Yeah. Crazy. Brent, what are you looking for in the next week or so?

    Brent

    I kind of think we’re going to continually have this violent sideways. I think markets are going to go up one day and they’re going to go down the next. And I think in general, I don’t think we’re going to get real clarity in one direction or the other until at least the Fed meeting. Possibly. We do have CPI that comes out a week before the Fed, so that will have a big impact, no doubt, unless it comes in right on the number, which in which case it will be violent sideways again. But I’m trying to just be nimble right now. Again, I don’t have any huge convictions either way right now. I kind of have my long term view while I understand the short term tailwinds, but I think it’s a time to be prudent rather than a time to try to be brave. So that’s kind of a cop out answer, but that’s kind of the truth right now.

    Tony

    No, I think that’s a great way to put it. Time to be prudent rather than time to be brave. I love it. Okay, guys, thank you so much for your time. I really appreciate it. This is great, great insights. So I appreciate it. Have a great weekend. And have a great weekend. Thank you, thank you.

    Brent

    Thank you.

  • Economic Warfare: What kills the US Dollar & Inflation’s hold on Europe

    Learn more about the FRIENDSOFTONY promo on CI Futures: https://completeintel.com/pricing 👈

    In the latest episode of “The Week Ahead”, Tony Nash, Michael Kao, Albert Marko, and Ralph Schoellhammer discussed the current market trends and key themes in the world of finance. The discussion revolved around three main topics – “What kills the US dollar?”, “DXY to 112? Turbulence Incoming”, and “Inflation’s hold on Europe”.

    Mike started the discussion by talking about the symposium on the Great Power Competition with China and the US Dollar’s primacy in an era of economic warfare. He emphasized that the US dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency is at risk due to the rise of other currencies such as the Chinese Yuan. Mike further elaborated on the factors that could potentially kill the US dollar, such as a shift towards a new reserve currency or the decline of the US economy.

    Moving on to the next topic, Albert spoke about the DXY, which he expects to reach 112 in the near future. He explained that this is due to the strengthening of the US economy, coupled with rising interest rates and the anticipation of the Fed’s monetary tightening. However, he also cautioned that the markets are likely to experience turbulence due to the uncertainties surrounding the central bank policy and the geopolitical risks.

    Ralph then focused on the impact of inflation on Europe. He pointed out that inflation in Europe has been rising at an alarming rate, with Austria’s inflation rate being 0.9% m/m and 11.2% on year. Ralph also tweeted about the rapid increase in bankruptcies, and how this could lead to a domino effect on the European economy. He predicted that the European Central Bank’s (ECB) decision to tighten monetary policy would lead to further economic challenges, especially in Q2 of this year.

    Key themes:
    1. What kills the US dollar?
    2. DXY to 112? Turbulence Incoming
    3. Inflation’s hold on Europe

    This is the 54th episode of The Week Ahead, where experts talk about the week that just happened and what will most likely happen in the coming week.

    Follow The Week Ahead panel on Twitter:
    Tony: https://twitter.com/TonyNashNerd
    Michael: https://twitter.com/UrbanKaoboy
    Albert: https://twitter.com/amlivemon
    Ralph: https://twitter.com/Raphfel

    https://open.spotify.com/episode/0Lt3PeoAFslU4cs7rL7OLO?si=f61a377a48b44eb5

    Transcript

    Tony

    Hi, everyone, and welcome to the Week Ahead. I’m Tony Nash and today we’re joined by Michael Kao. Michael is @urbankaoboy on Twitter. He’s an ex-hedge fund manager and now he’s a private investor. We’re also joined by Albert Marko, who you’re well familiar with, and Ralph Schoellhammer, who is at Webster University in Vienna and he’s a political economics expert.

    Tony

    So before we get started, I want to talk about our Friends of Tony promo. So I have more than one friend. So it’s plural. Friends of Tony Promo. So, CI Futures is our markets forecasting platform where we forecast about 800 items every month. We do currencies, commodities and equities every week, every Monday morning. And we do the top 50 economies economic variables once a month where we do show our error rates there. So that is what distinguishes us from other folks. There is accountability. And you don’t have to guess about our previous performance. We’re having a promo. The coupon code is friends of Tony. Plural friends. It’s $19.99 per month for a twelve-month subscription. It’s for new subscribers only. We’re only doing it for the first 25 people who come in. So please make sure you get on this right away. Please go to completeintel.com/pricing and we hope you subscribe.

    So guys, thank you for joining us. We have a few key themes this week. First, Michael has written quite a bit about the dollar and about the kind of economic warfare happening now between the US. And China. So we’re going to take the other side of his typical argument and look at what kills the US dollar. We’re going to talk to Albert about dollar strength. He made a statement about the dollar going to 112 with some turbulence. So we’re going to dig into that. And then Ralph is going to talk us through inflation’s hold on Europe. So, should be a really broad macro conversation for us today, which I’m really looking forward to. Mike, you did recently attend this symposium on the Great Power competition with China, I think it was at West Point. And you spoke about US dollar primacy and an area of economic warfare, which must have been great. I missed my invite, but it must have been a great discussion and I think we’re all pretty jealous. I assume that much of the presumption or fears about the Chinese Yan, right.

    Is that kind of what the basis was of this?

    Michael

    Yeah, I think generally when people are talking about threats to the US dollar system right. The most glaring contender is the Chinese Yuan, given all the scaffolding that they’re setting up with 60 plus odd bilateral swaps around the world and one belt, one road and all this stuff. Right. But anyways, if you want I can go. First of all, I love the fact that you’re forcing me to steal, man, the counter argument against my own thesis. Good. Which is great. Yes.

    Tony

    You’ve talked about the US dollar wrecking ball. Right. And you’ve really talked a lot about how the dollar has really kind of hurt some emerging markets. So I do have a chart of USD CNY, and we’ve seen the volatility of the CNY over the past really five years, ten years. And you know, part of my concern about the CNY is the PBOC.

    And you know, we can talk about that in detail, but I’d really like to hear, what do you think? If the dollar was displaced, how would that happen? And we could spend days talking about this, but I guess in a summary conversation, how would that happen and what would be a potential other store of value that would be accepted globally?

    Michael

    Okay, so I was going to answer this question on different time scales, right? There’s short term and there’s longer term, but I believe where you’re going with this is a longer term time scale. Like what ultimately displaces the dollar as the global reserve currency. Right.

    Tony

    We can talk different timescales. I actually think that’s very interesting.

    Michael

    Right, well, look, let me dispense with the easy part first, which is the shorter time scale. I’ve been saying for a while now that I don’t necessarily think that we’ve seen the cyclical top in the US dollar in the short term just because I don’t think any of the competing regional blocks can outhawk the Fed. Or conversely, I don’t think the Fed is going to be in a position where it’s going to outdove the rest of the world either. Right. So either of those scenarios tell me that I think the US dollar is probably going to resurge. And so obviously the counter to that, what would have to happen for that not to happen? Well, I think that the US economy would have to suddenly take a turn for the worst and be in a much worse spot than the rest of the world. And the rest of the world would basically be able to become a much more hawkish visa vis the Fed. I see the exact opposite playing out in the short term. Okay, so now longer term and this is basically the topic of my paper, right? So I think the premise of my paper is that this notion that Breton Woods was basically this top down construct that it foisted a Trojan horse mechanism on the world where, hey, everybody, come use the US dollar because we’re going to be convertible to gold.

    Michael

    And then all of a sudden in 1971, nixon shocks the world and takes that gold tether away. But it’s too late. Everybody is stuck using a dollar. I call bullshit on that thesis because if you look at the Euro dollar, the rise of the Euro dollar banking system, it started happening probably 15 years before that.

    Tony

    And he was actually very popular when he did that.

    Michael

    Right? Yeah, well, it’s started happening by the way. It started happening the real catalyst to it first it was the failure of the tripartite agreement after World War II, which tried to stabilize the frank and the pound and the dollar exchange rates. But then in 1957, when Britain basically in a domestic flight against inflation, surprise, surprise, they they basically instituted capital controls. So there was a there was a tremendous global need for a liquid reserve alternative. And so the world actors on the world stage organically flocked to the US. Dollar. So the premise of my paper delves into what are if trust in the dollar already went well beyond its gold backing back then, right? What lent that trust? And so our paper posits that it rests upon national power. It’s a bedrock of national power. And I focus on three economic pillars of national power geography, which informs everything. But then geography also informs a country’s access to its natural resources and its industrial capacity. So in our paper, we talk about how, look, the US. It’s well known that the US. Is very, very naturally bowed with geographic assets that are really unparalleled in many ways.

    Michael

    And China is short a lot of those assets. However, because we have a federalist capitalist system, china is using essentially economic warfare to target that as a vulnerability, right? So they have unfairly competed and stolen IP in the world of semiconductors. Right. They’re trying very hard to replicate Taiwan success with TSMC. Fortunately the US. Controls critical choke points in that industry still. But yet, in that area at least, the US. Is finally starting to come around and make some very specific targeted export controls as well as changes to its industrial policy. The point here is that in that area alone, the US. Is starting to recognize the importance of reshoring and defending our flank from an industrial policy perspective. But when you compare and contrast that to oil and gas, which is the other critical supply chain where the US. Is currently the leading oil supplier in the world, and we are naturally long that natural resource, but because of blind devotion to ESG adoption and this erroneous assumption that an energy transition is going to follow Moore’s Law dynamic when it won’t right. Is going to leave us in a very dangerous lurch. I point out that there’s a real inconsistency there where we’re kind of shooting ourselves in our own foot when it comes to energy policy.

    Michael

    To answer your question, what has to happen for the US. To really lose its status? I started thinking. I said, well, number one, okay. Oh, the other thing is much ado has been made of the US. Weaponization and the criminal west seizure of Russian reserve assets and whatnot. Okay, well, look, I also point out in my paper that, yes, that should be a shot across the bow for US. Policymakers because, like the situation in the 1950s, right, it certainly creates an incentive for our adversaries to look for an alternative. But what are the alternatives? Because if you look at the eurozone, the yen, the pound. The euro is, frankly, the most successful challenger to the dollar to date. And yet, since its inception in 1999, us share of FX reserves has stayed constant 60%. It’s the euro that’s actually lost share. Now, the Chinese yuan. Here’s the problem. What has to happen for the yuan to supplant? The US number one, china would have to prove that it will be a better benefactor and more trustworthy sort of steward of the global commons than the US. I don’t see that happening in almost any circumstance.

    Tony

    So let me ask you just in that what allies does China have? Like, if China were to say, okay, boys, we’re going to war. Line up and let’s form a coalition, who would China’s allies be?

    Tony

    CI Futures is our subscription platform for global markets and economics, who forecast hundreds of assets across currencies, commodities, equity indices, and economics. We have new forecasts for currencies, commodities and equity indices. Every Monday morning, we do new economics forecasts for 50 countries once a month. Within CI Futures, we show you our error rates. So every forecast every month, we give you the one in three months error rates for our previous forecast. We also show you the top correlations and allow you to download charts and data. CI Futures is available for $50 a month, $75 a month or $99 a month. You can find out more or get a demo on completeintel.com. Thank you.

    Michael

    Well, that’s that’s a really good question, because right now right now well, yeah, those those are the those are the two, right? And perhaps, perhaps Iran. Right? But, like, Russia is interesting because China’s relationship with Russia over decades and centuries and even centuries, certainly, right. Has been kind of a storied one. Right. I wouldn’t say that this dragon bear romance is necessarily that chummy, because, look, China is really happy that it’s getting big discounts to Russian euros, right. And that’s directly countered to Russia’s interest, I think this whole notion that right now they share a common interest in wanting to counter the US’s. Hegemony, but that is a very fragile bromance, to say the least. The other thing I was going to say is that the other thing that would have to happen for the US. To see dominance, I think, would be that the US. Willingly essentially becomes a vassal state to China and allows China to roll over. Basically, our interest in the Indopacific, that the US. Allows China to take over Taiwan and we just roll over and do nothing. I guess in a parallel universe, that could happen. I’m not seeing that happening.

    Michael

    I think that China’s significance alone, not just as an unthinkable aircraft carrier, potentially for China if seized, given its geostrategic position in the first island chain, but obviously Taiwan semiconductor alone is of critical significance.

    Tony

    Just to take the other side of that for a minute, you know, let’s also be very aware that, you know, the wars that the US. Has lost over the last 80 years have really been to China in Korea, to China in Vietnam. Right.

    Albert

    We didn’t lose those wars, Tony. Our military objectives were all met. We’re confusing the political opponent.

    Tony

    We lost those two wars. I mean, we had to negotiate the settlement, and the US lost those two wars. So the only people the US has really lost to over the last, you know, hundred years is the Chinese. And so, you know, I do sit with you and with Albert in terms of if things were to happen, you know, with the US prevail, I actually think they would I don’t think it would be a cakewalk, and I do think there are some scars there in Asia. Right.

    Michael

    I think you have to compare and contrast that to where the US. Was in World War II, like when Britain lost its hegemony, where the pound lost its hegemony is because the UK was in a very tough spot. It had essentially bankrupted itself after World War II and was completely beholden to the US. The US’s lend Lease program. Right. So the US essentially had all the cards. Now, here the two wars that you talk about. I agree with Albert. It’s not even close to the same thing. We withdrew, and it wasn’t a great withdrawal, but it wasn’t a situation where we had essentially bankrupted ourselves and we were completely dependent on the largess of somebody else. Right.

    Albert

    If I can interject Michael, we can.

    Michael

    Go on and on.

    Albert

    About to go back to Tony’s question, what would come next? I mean, theoretically, the United States would have to have some sort of societal breakdown. Our rule of law would have to break down, and we’d have to become a nonintervationalist nation. We wouldn’t be able to protect our interests globally at that point. Something could come along to dethrone the dollar. But even if we’re at that point, I think the next logical step of removing the dollar as a reserve currency would be an Anglosphere plus Japan digital currency, where regional players would secure their own interests in those regions and have a collective I mean, this is just theoretical and way out of our lifetimes, in my opinion. But I think it would be a step down to that first where our allies and the US. Would jointly have a currency block yeah. Running through all the scenarios, in my opinion, that would be the only thing that would take the dollar. That would be I mean, the dollar would still be a part of it, but it wouldn’t be the main part of it. It would be the sole unit polar one. But you could have an angle sphere plus Japan digital currency for just for trade settlement.

    Michael

    Now, you know what I think the highest probability sort of gray rhino would be out of all this. It would be that if China made overtures toward Taiwan and Taiwan willingly just say, Here, take me. Because I think last year, or maybe two years ago, I wrote a thread about this, how some of the older guard in Taiwan and you know this, Tony some of the older guards that are with the KMT, they really don’t like the DPP because the DPP wants to get away from the Chinese ancestral roots of the Taiwanese. So the old God doesn’t like that. And so what if China says, hey, we’re going to take you? And then what if Taiwan says, Here, take me to me? That is much more worrisome than an amphibious takeover of Taiwan, which I see is very low probability.

    Albert

    Yeah, exactly.

    Tony

    Yeah. I think that is the most likely scenario of the scenarios of China taking over Taiwan. Right. It’s a mutual but with the DPP in power and with DPP as a sizable political party there, it’s a north versus south issue for people don’t really understand. KMT is largely North, DPP is largely south, and DPP comes to power when their policies really align with people in the north from time to time. Right. And so that’s how the DPP gets into power. The DPP is much more nationalistic and independent than the KMT.

    Albert

    That would be pretty risky, I mean, for the United States if it didn’t intervene in some which way, because then you could talk about North Korea and South Korea unification and siding with the Chinese at some point, which is not out of the realm of possibility, in my opinion.

    Tony

    Right, okay. Can we agree? Is it eliminated for the next probably 2030 years?

    Albert

    Yes.

    Tony

    Do you think it’s eliminated, Michael?

    Michael

    I think so. I think so as well. I was on a different podcast earlier this week, and I keep alluding to this interesting podcast that Andrew Hunt out of the UK did, where he did analysis on 36 Chinese private banks. And his assessment is that there’s four there’s a $4 trillion liability gap that’s not captured in the in the balance of payments. China is much china is much, much more levered than the US.

    Tony

    Absolutely.

    Michael

    But but it’s but it’s hidden. It’s just pin behind the Opacity curtain. That’s exactly right.

    Tony

    Doesn’t look good. So if we if we push China out, say, 30, 40 years before they’re a contender, and they may not even be they may be too old by that time, because there really isn’t immigration to China right. Except for from North Korea and maybe a couple of other places. So we pushed China out. What about Europe? Will we have European decide for morale in 30 years? Will we have the demographic age of people who can actually work and contribute to the economy?

    Albert

    They don’t have a functioning military and solely reliant. Their banks are solely reliant on the US. At the moment. They’re insolvent, in my opinion.

    Tony

    So, yeah, that’s a good point. If you can’t defend yourself and if the demographics continue to get worse, they won’t have people that will defend the area. So if you can’t defend yourself, you can’t have a functional currency. Right.

    Ralph

    I guess that was a little bit an unintended consequence. And this is something Europeans hate to admit, but of course a lot of EU policy was kind of this dirty secret. The United States were constraining China and Russia, and the Europeans were trying to make deals with them. If you think back them in the entire Russian pipeline network to Europe, and I think with all of it also mentioned, kind of psychological effect was a certain form of infantilization. Right. This idea that military conflicts simply are a thing of the past in many ways, I see the biggest security risk for the United States. I don’t want to over dramatize it, but I see it almost more in Europe than in China or elsewhere, but not because of an actual military conflict, but the commitments to Europe for cultural and historical reasons that this is going to drag down American capacities. This is going to work out. But the European idea and we hear it again europe will now rearment the Titan vendors. They talked about the Germany. If you look at what’s actually happening, it’s just not happening because they know that the populations don’t really have an interest in that.

    Tony

    Yeah. Okay, so it’s not CNY. It’s not Euro. What else is a viable it’s not Japan.

    Michael

    Right.

    Albert

    This is what’s making me allude to the fact that I think that anglosphered plus Japan digital currency would be the only logical step. Next logical step. Just in my opinion. I just can’t see anything else out there. The Swiss francs is not big enough. The pound is not a relic of what it was without any actual alternatives that we can discuss. What’s out there? Nothing’s out there.

    Michael

    And by the way, all these, like, newfangled ideas of having some sort of pan global currency backed by commodities. But you know what? John made her. Cain’s backed the Bancorp during the battle for Bretton Woods. Harry Dexter White backed the unit. The SDR was tried and failed. The US. Dollar. Is that pan global currency?

    Tony

    Sure.

    Albert

    Yeah, it is. I keep arguing with these gold back currency people, and I’m like, what would stop me being the dictator of Albania, of spray paying some lead and saying, there’s my gold? But you can’t really look at it. You know what I mean? No nation gives you a transparent audit. So how could you even have a currency based on such a thing? It’s just silly to me, in my opinion.

    Tony

    Ralph, jump in.

    Michael

    Yeah.

    Ralph

    And I think one of the things this is what Mike did so well, I think in his paper that he presented at Westbourne, I think we have to look at kind of the structural conditions. And in many ways the United States has the occasional incompetent administration, but their structural is still more sound than any potential competitor, definitely more than Europe. And I think if one takes a closer look, they’re all structurally, at the moment, more sound than China. And in the case of a real conflict, I mean, these things really, really matter. And besides the rhetoric in America, we.

    Tony

    Expect our politicians to be dumb, and we just work around that.

    Albert

    Yeah, I mean, in a perfect world, the Pentagon would be working with the treasury to weaponize the dollar. I guess in the adversaries, I mean, that’s something the Pentagon has never really understood or really looked at, is like, you can place your adversaries in a certain position, being short commodities, short food, and you can really strain bingo, bingo.

    Michael

    By the way, that is the premise of our paper. Our paper is literally saying is literally saying that rather than rely on overt sanctions, that basically cause everybody to look for alternatives to the dollar. We’re at this really interesting macroeconomic window where a strong dollar policy inflicts asymmetric pain in our largest geopolitical adversary.

    Albert

    Yeah, it’s an absolute logical thing to do. And on top of that, not only can you use the dollar, but you can now use derivatives of the dollars, specifically grains. I mean, there’s only five companies in America that control the world’s grain. You can call them up and cause problems for the world or for China, for Russia, for any nation you really want to target if you really want to get down to that level.

    Michael

    And by the way, it also kills two birds with 1 st, right. Because it basically export our inflation problem because we are in a domestic fight against inflation.

    Tony

    Okay, that’s a great idea. Let’s do that. Great. Okay, so let’s just call this new currency TBD. How about that? Because I’m not really sure what to put in there. There are a lot of cheerleaders, as you guys have pointed out, trying to push other things forward, but I just don’t see the case for them. And outside of just suspending reality, I just don’t see the case for something else right now. I don’t say that as an American. I like, I’m not necessarily trying to kind of represent for the dollar. I just don’t see the viability of other options right now.

    Michael

    Yep.

    Albert

    I would be I would be the first one waving the red flags if there was an actual alternative out there.

    Michael

    Oh, there was one thing I was going to riff on. Albert, what what you were saying, or Tony, what you were saying in terms of, you know, our politicians being idiots and whatnot. So so my my view on that is that it’s because of the geographic endowments that the US. Has that’s enabled our federalist free market system to arrive and to survive. Because if you think about it, right, if you’re China or Russia with unbelievably shitty geography, it takes an autocratic system to try to hold that bucket of bolts together. To paraphrase Han Solo, why would you.

    Tony

    Want to own all that land if you’re Russia, why do you want to own the east? I don’t get it. It’s just hard to keep it all together. So that’s a great point, Mike. Okay, great. Hey, let’s go from talking to the dollar to talking about the dollar. Okay. You put a Tweet up earlier this week saying when the dollar started breaking upward, you talked about expecting Dxy to hit 112.

    So it’s kind of we’re, we’re heading back to where we were last year, I guess. So can you walk us through that reasoning? And you talked about turbulence. Incoming. Can you, can you talk about what that turbulence is?

    Albert

    Inflation. It’s back again. And as much as the Fed doesn’t want to admit a mistake, they’ve absolutely created policies of mistakes and allowed inflation to rear its ugly head. I don’t want to leave it all on, all on the Fed. A lot of it has to do with Yellen’s actions and what she’s done with the dollar and then bringing it up and bringing it down. I mean, this goes to Michael’s point of the weaponization of the dollar is, you know, Yellen takes the TGA and she’s in charge of dollar policy. She can take the dollar up. And what she did, and it drove all the liquidity in Europe, back in Asia, back into the United States, which kept our markets propped up.

    Tony

    For people who haven’t watched this word, can you talk about what the TGA is?

    Albert

    And then if the treasury general account, she can use it in many ways, but basically it’s injecting liquidity into the economy.

    Tony

    And how much at what scale has she done over the past, say, nine months or something?

    Albert

    Prior to the midterms, she was doing about 160,000,000,000 a month.

    Michael

    Wow.

    Tony

    Okay, that’s a lot. When you say injecting, where was that going?

    Albert

    Well, I don’t know exactly where it was going. That’s not really clear. But she was absolutely using it and I’m sure it’s been dispersed throughout the economy and whatever sectors that she needed to send it out to to rally the markets. And she did a good job. I mean, the markets have stayed up here over 4000 for quite a long time and we don’t really deserve to be here at the moment. The problem that we’re having here now is as you rally the markets now, commodities start to rally. I mean, Europe was in a zombie status. China has been in lockdown for the most part. Yeah, I mean, they’re doing this, but as they reopen, inevitably inflation is going to come back. Wage inflation has been persistent. That’s not going to wave. I mean, I mean, honestly, the workers probably deserve wage inflation after 40 years of getting nothing. So, you know, I can’t really blame them on that aspect. But again, we’re, we’re sitting here with a hot PC PCE number today. You know, it looks like CPI is probably going to be sticky again next, next time around. And the Fed is going to be talking about 50 basis points when they, you know, previously the markets were calculating that we’re going to do a pause or a pivot in a later in the year.

    Tony

    That’s just not happening. A couple of meetings.

    Michael

    No. So I mean, this honestly feels like Q one of 22 to me. The whole setup right now feels like Q one of 22.

    Albert

    We’re right back where we started, Michael. Right back where we started. Because of Fed policies, they’ve done nothing to correct the situation with inflation.

    Tony

    Okay, so what’s going to happen to drive the dollar up? Yellen stops spending out of the TGA or doesn’t spend as much, or Fed policy, all the above. What happens to contribute to that?

    Albert

    I think it’s going to be a combination of Fed policy and then the ECB, the Europeans being hawkish themselves. But I think that we’re looking at 75 basis points, probably going up to five and 5.75 on the Fed funds rate by the end of the year, maybe even six. I don’t think they can go over that. But I mean, that alone should take the dollar up to 112. I’m sure they can, but taking the dollar over 115 to 120, you’re going to start causing massive problems. Rest of the world, you just start breaking things.

    Michael

    Can I ask Ralph a question?

    Tony

    Absolutely, sure.

    Michael

    So Ralph, I’m curious. I agree with Albert’s thesis. When I look at the inflation prints in Europe and in the UK, still so high, that gives me a little bit of pause right again on betting on the dollar continuing to rise, except when you look at the state of the economy. And so I’m curious how you see that, because I believe the last UK GDP print was very close to skirting the zero bound. So how much more can the BoE or the ECB really do?

    Tony

    Sorry, before we do that, let’s move into rough section, which is inflation hold on Europe, right? Which is exactly what you’re talking about. And so we saw Austrian CPI committed 11.2% year on year. When was the last time that happened, Ralph? I mean, what we’ve seen over the past few months maybe, I don’t know, 40 years ago or something.

    Ralph

    Oh, yeah, before I was born. And so this has been significantly long time ago. The problem is, despite what the ECB does for European politicians, it’s always the 1930s. So the answer, the economic problem is that it must be a demand side problem. So every time the ECB hikes rates, the government comes in with fiscal expansion. And Australia is the best example for this. Pretty much everything that would have been caused by higher rates has been softened by government spending and now expected government spending to happen in the future, which is they very slowly or not at all changed their behavior. So the, the idea to. Kind of, you know, pull money out of the system due to high interest rates is not working as as expected. I mean, we we saw it in Germany. It was when we met the last time, right? They said that there was actually slow growth in Germany in Q four 2022. Then they said that was a slight contraction of 0.2. Today we got the second revision. That actually it’s a contraction of 0.4. And that’s mostly because there was government spending. Otherwise it would have been significantly worse.

    Ralph

    And I think this is really the problem we are running into. So every time the ECB tries to high grade, governments will jump in with their own fiscal policies, trying to soften it. And what, of course, happens as a consequence, europe is losing its industrial base. So supply side politics, which would be necessary, they become more and more difficult. I mean, Tracy on the last weekend did a great job in kind of just listing all the aluminum smelters and all the heavy industry that has been closed down. We heard today that Germany’s chemical giant BASF is shrinking operations all over Europe. So at some point, you cannot just turn this back on again. So I’m very worried about the structural health of Europe, or even if we look at R and D and spending, right out of the top ten R and D spenders, there is one European company, which is Volkswagen, but all the other companies, most of them are American and some of them are Asian. But Europe is losing kind of connection to all of this just as a challenge to you guys. I mean, name one groundbreaking innovation or one groundbreaking area, and let’s say the high tech area where Europe or European nation was on the forefront in the last 20 years.

    Ralph

    Nothing comes to my mind.

    Michael

    Well, ASM Lithography.

    Albert

    Ralph brings up a great point, and one I usually harp on a lot is whenever you have political policies intermixing with economic policies, you have a problem because politicians want to get elected and their terms are a lot shorter than economic policies need. You know what I mean? That’s just the reality of it. I mean, the Germans, they say they’re tightening things up, but then they give 80% of their population, 80% of their paycheck to stay home. That’s not going to help.

    Michael

    And by the way, all this, right, all the slowdown in BASF and all that that you’re talking about, Ralph, this is with an extremely benign weather backdrop this year that enabled Ttf and NBP to collapse.

    Tony

    So huge benefit.

    Ralph

    I think there are two other very important issues that particular European politicians don’t get and that you and Mike had also talked a lot about, which is there is this weird idea that if Europeans and Americans stop drilling and supplying the world with fossil fuels, that somehow the prices will go down. But exactly the opposite is going to happen because we’re still going to consume it, we just no longer produce it, which is great for all the non European and non American producers. And the second part, what I think Europeans still don’t understand, is there is still this idea that the world will go back to as it was, let’s say ten years ago, like very early on. But even if there were, new should stop. Right? It’s obvious that there is a new kind of industrial policy happening that French showing that reassuring is going to happen and that will push upwards pressure on prices. And Europeans, at some point, they’re going to feel this. I mean, we see. With Germany, Europe is increasingly becoming a continent that has to import more and more, but everything we can export is becoming less and less.

    Ralph

    That is not a sustainable model unless we say we just become the world’s biggest retirement home tourist destination. But other than that, it’s really problematic.

    Albert

    That’s interesting because I remember Belina and I were talking about what Europe should do and it was definitely bring black your supply chains to Eastern Europe, north Africa, closer to home, something Europe can drive in investments and actually hold it close to close to their hand there. But they just have not done anything. They want to rely back on the old guard of let’s go to China and grab their market share. Meanwhile, Africa is sitting right there. That’s going to have a bigger population in the next 25 years than China and Younger and Hungary for innovation and products, but they haven’t capitalized on that.

    Ralph

    It’s like an inversion of the 19th century, right, when there was once a time where Europeans looked at the map and so everything is a potential part of the empire, not like they barely looked at the map at all. And I think it shows in their economic policies.

    Tony

    Yeah. Just going back over to what you were saying about the short termism of governments, and we see this, at least in the west, the bureaucracy is supposed to be the part of government that helps the office holders to see the longer term. But the quality of our bureaucracy has deteriorated so much over the last 2030 years that they just don’t care.

    Albert

    They don’t care. I put a lot of blame on social media right now. I mean, all these politicians get on social media and do catch phrases and this and that, and everything is in the real and now and immediate and so on and so forth, six months down the road. They don’t care. Simply, they don’t care.

    Tony

    Yeah. Ralph, one of the things that you tweeted out earlier, and I know Michael found this really interesting, was the bankruptcies in Europe. This was a Eurostat chart that came out looking at the rate of acceleration of bankruptcies across industries. Can you talk to us about that a little bit?

    Ralph

    Yeah, I mean, there’s a couple of factors not work. I mean, one is that a lot of these companies it’s kind of what happened in the financial sector during the Great Recession where you had these zombie banks. I think a lot of this is now also happening in the real economy and the industrial economy where many companies have been propped up during Cobit, they have been propped up by very low interest rates and this is now coming to an end. I can only speak for Austria, but there are many companies, of course, also have loans, some of them with not fixed interest rates. And of course they are squeezed now, so they have huge problems in refinancing themselves. And I think this is just the beginning. I don’t share the optimist. I’m kind of a little bit Albert here. Everybody who says that either inflation is going to be over, there’s no trustworthy indicator for me that inflation is ending anytime soon. And the second one is this idea and you mentioned this also, Tony, one of your tweets. I think the IMF forecast for growth in the Eurozone are too optimistic. I think that factors that are not yet calculated.

    Ralph

    Absolutely. And of course the big elephant in the room comes and go to mike, did you mention, is of course, energy. Like, everybody is like, oh, the energy crisis is over. But that’s only because elasticities in the energy sector are very low. So yes, if there is a lot available right now, it immediately affects the price. But there is no guarantee that it’s going to stay like this in the medium and long term. And if I look at European policy, I think that it’s going to get worse before it gets better seems more likely. And you see gradually signals like this coming from the International Energy Agency and from Goldman Sachs. So all of a sudden the optimists of two months ago say, well, it might be more problematic than we anticipated it to be. And one part of the story is something that also Mike mentioned. At some point, I think we have to say this also openly is this obsession with ESG and an energy transition that makes the promise that by 2030, 2035 the European economy is going to run entirely on renewables, which is an unrealistic. And we want to be more outspoken about it, which I think is a ludicrous proposal that cannot be fulfilled.

    Michael

    I call that the grativerse.

    Tony

    Yeah, we’ll all be driving.

    Ralph

    As a quick last point if we want to put real numbers on it. I mean, the German government alone, the Europeans spent almost a trillion dollars on energy last year. The Germans spent about $465,000,000,000 only on energy and all it got them was the declining economy by 0.4% in the first quarter. So what is their strategy if they want to do this again next year and we see it in the spread? At some point markets are going to look at Germany and say, listen, your reputation has been great for the last 40 years, but can you really still.

    Tony

    Deliver what what you germany’s got a lot of they’ve got a lot of capacity for fiscal spending. I just think they haven’t opened up as much as they need to yet. I mean, I think that’s part of.

    Albert

    Their they can’t they go into a doom loop of inflation.

    Michael

    What happens when Mother Nature doesn’t cooperate next time around?

    Albert

    Right?

    Ralph

    I think all of you are right. Tony’s right. I think there is still wiggle room. But what are they doing with the money? Right? Instead of making capital investment and saying, okay, we solve the problem, to do something they pretty much put it all into welfare checks, energy subsidies, but exactly. Encourage people to spend more and more products that are less and less available. So what’s the only thing you get? It’s inflation. I don’t know what the politicians are looking at.

    Tony

    Speaking of that, let’s talk about everyone’s favorite central banker, Madam Lagarde, and the choice that she has at the next meeting. She said earlier this week that they’re likely to raise by 50 basis points at the next meeting.

    So what we’ve seen, the last two rate hikes were 50. We saw a couple of 75s in September and October. So there had been a hope like there was in the US. That things would not loosen or ease, but at least slow down on the rate hiking front in Europe. But with the pace of inflation, it almost seems like they don’t really have a choice, right?

    Ralph

    I would agree. Yeah, I think they don’t have a choice.

    Tony

    Okay, well, that’s it.

    Michael

    Well, I think they’re going to try. But what I really think reading between the lines of all the tough talk with all the world central bankers what I think everybody if you look through to their actions so far, I think everybody has been holding their breath, hoping that the Fed is going to engineer a global recession so that they don’t need to be the ones to have to administer the medicine. But the problem is, and I alluded to this in a thread a couple of months ago called geopolitical mosh pits, right? We’re in this every man for himself world where everybody’s got a domestic inflation problem. And so what the Fed does needs to sorry, the United States interests need to take precedence over necessarily worrying about other central banking interests and vice versa. But the problem is that right now the US economy is still humming along whereas the rest of the world’s economies are faltering pretty badly already. Your guess is as good as mine. I just think that Lagarde’s job is really tough because there’s no panned global bond market. Really. So she’s got this ridiculous Tpi mechanism where she’s trying to hold together sovereign spreads and the ECB’s sort of bond purchases as a percentage of GDP already at like 60% compared to the Fed at like 34% compared to japan at 120%.

    Tony

    Right.

    Albert

    I’m glad you mentioned that Michael, about nation states interest because it’s one of the things I harp on, especially when I talk to younger people and they ask me about geopolitics. The first thing you have to look at is a nation’s self interest and there’s no better time than right now to prove that example and you’re seeing it firsthand. All these nations, they have to have their own self interest that are before anything else at the moment.

    Tony

    And that’s normal, right?

    Michael

    That’s healthy.

    Tony

    I think that it’s so silly when we have to consider other people. Of course there’s a time for that, but it’s not right now. You have to really look after your own country, whether it’s India, Germany, US, China, whatever, it doesn’t matter. You have to look after your country first. Rough.

    Ralph

    But that’s the thing. Exactly what Albert just said and this I think makes it an even bigger ticking time bomb for Europe. You have notice absurd situation that politicians of member states of the EU, they want to continue to do populist economic policies while when they fail they can put blame on the Europe, on the ECB. So technically what probably should do before the next and out sort of a rate hike is to go out and say listen, cannot clean up the mess that you guys make in the domestic economic policies. And of course that’s not something that she’s probably going to say, but that’s really the dilemma. Data us almost have an advantage with the somewhat something that Albert is criticizing all the time, justifiably so with the kind of the chummy relationship between the Fed and the government. But at least it all happens within one state, right? It all happens within one country. And also going back to what Mike said about the federal structure. But in Europe, it’s kind of the worst of two worlds because the ECB tries to fine tune the economic problems via interest rates and the politicians that just go out and say, oh, I know you have to pay more on your loan, but here is an extra check for you.

    Ralph

    So you could almost say it’s like the nation states are mocking in the sense what DCP is trying to do.

    Tony

    Yeah, Mike, you said that Lagarde has a very hard job. I actually think it’s very hard because it’s very easy. There really isn’t a lot of choice there. It’s hard having the wherewithal I guess to go through with these things that are probably going to end up being.

    Michael

    Pretty painful, by the way, to steal man the other side a little bit. Okay, there are some that say that okay, well the Fed, because we have all these bilateral currency swaps, the Fed is going to take care of all its friends. Right. And so we actually saw a little bit about that. I wrote a thread last year about how, when the Yen, for instance, started its first approach towards 145 ish 140 ish I got some talk from a very well placed source that basically the Fed, in conjunction with the DOJ was allowing the BOJ to essentially buy us ten years to basically kind of paint a picture to stymie the depreciation and the yen. Okay? So then we saw this big risk rally. Remember when that happened and the yen corrected back? Well, then I get a call from the same source saying, you know what my people are telling me? My people at the Fed are telling me that, you know what? They can’t hold the line anymore. They’re going to basically stop. That’s when you saw the yen go to 150. Right now we’re in this sort of everybody calls it the transitory boldilocks, where things kind of came down and you’ve got Yellen’s games with the TGA, et cetera.

    Michael

    But I really think, and I think I agree with everybody on on this call, that all hell is going to break loose again when the dollar starts approaching 110 again. And this time maybe there won’t be that sort of bilateral help.

    Albert

    Yeah, michael is absolutely right. I heard the same thing about the Fed and the BOJ on top of that.

    Tony

    I thought you were a source, Albert.

    Albert

    Right, because I talked to you about.

    Ralph

    It a couple of times.

    Albert

    But they do the same thing with the Aussies and New Zealand and Canada. They give them marching orders, say, hey, we’re going to paint a picture over here, so gives us room to do something over here, so on and so forth. But like I said, that’s the Anglosphere and plus Japan. That’s why one of the things that led me to believe is like, next thing for a currency would probably be them. But they already work together as it is, whether the market knows it or not, they talk and they work together. Yeah.

    Ralph

    I think it very often comes back to this very point that this is something that Michael’s and I said before it’s that, of course, what underwrites the dollar as the global reserve currency and the most powerful currency is because the United States have the most powerful economy. Whatever problems they have otherwise, their economy in many ways is still the most dynamic and the most innovative. And this is what I interfere about. The European situation is we can criticize politics, we can criticize the ECB, but I think we also have to criticize European industry itself. Because like in Germany with heavy industry, they never say anything. Right? They could get together and say this. You hear occasionally a voice there and occasionally a voice there, but there is no concerted actions by representatives of the industry to do something about it. And my suspicion is because they kind of made it comfortable for themselves because they know they get government subsidies, they might have to produce less, but I’d rather depend on the biggest monopoly there is. The state than on those pesky customers or those potentially unsecured international markets. But that’s a very short time perspective.

    Ralph

    I mean, this is not something it can do forever. And again, the only reason why Europe could do what it did was because they could rely on the United States to provide with the bluewater navy to everything else. They provided the framework in which Europe could do what it did. But as this framework is changing, because Albert would never talk to me again, I’m not going to move all multipolar because you would because I don’t agree with that idea either. But it’s definitely changing, I think. I think Americans are becoming more sensitive to listen, guys, you have been pre writing for 60 years. It’s time to do something yourself.

    Tony

    Yeah, go ahead, Mike.

    Michael

    So, Ralph, you touch upon another theme that we raised in our paper, which was, again, it goes back to geography, right. Because the US has had these geographical advantages. It’s allowed its military strategy to focus outward on force projection and develop that blue water navy. Right? So when you compare that and compare and contrast that to China, right, where you could argue that they’ve got greenwater superiority within the first island chain by virtue of 350 vessels versus our 270, but the gross tonnage is one third that of the US. Navy. They cannot force project. And so if you talk about real force projection and geopolitical power right. Again, to steal man the other side, what would cause the US. To see the T hegemony? Well, it would be that scenario where China somehow decides that, hey, you know what? We are going to subsidize global maritime security for the good of the global commons. Do you see China doing that? I sure don’t.

    Albert

    Not for all of us to century. And it takes a lot of money to build up a navy. And then you need combat experience. And then on top of that, any kind of conflict in Taiwan or the South China Seas shuts down their ports. China cannot afford to shut down their ports. I was going back and forth with Elbridge Colby about this. He’s a military guy, and I love the guy. Right. But when you have to look at the economic aspects of it concerning the dollar and China’s food insecurity problems and their economy in general, if they invaded Taiwan and shut down those ports and their economy collapsed, she would be dead in 30 days.

    Michael

    There’s a little issue of China having to import 80% to 90% of its crude, all of which pretty much come through the Strait of Malacca.

    Tony

    Yeah.

    Albert

    I mean, so but this is this is something that it’s really important for you to talk to the military and get that USD thing out there and talk about commodities and talk about the economic ramifications and say this is a significant deterrence for China to invade. This is a significant deterrence for any nation to really go after because there’s just no money around. The economies are really weak. So it’s a great thing that you’ve done.

    Michael

    Thank you. I hope you guys enjoy the paper. Yeah, sorry.

    Tony

    Just going back to what you said, Mike, about China not having the blue water navy, really, to protect trade and waterways. They have tried that with the Belt and Road. It’s been less than a decade, but it’s kind of been a failure since the start of it.

    Michael

    The thing with belt and road, right? If you think about what it is, they are expending tremendous amounts of national treasure to recreate what the US. Is naturally endowed with.

    Tony

    Right. Yeah. It’s very inefficient.

    Michael

    It’s very corrupt, and they’re failing at that.

    Tony

    I start with those. When I was trying to put in a tendering system for the Belt and Road transparency, I asked them, how much are you comfortable losing to corruption? 20%, 30%, 50%? People just shrug shoulders. Nobody wants to even look at those basic transparency issues, much less understand that that spending is incredibly wasteful just for some sort of desperately seeking some sort of relevance with third tier countries. Right. I mean, no offense, they’re great people and all that stuff, but they are not necessarily economic powerhouses, and they’re not necessarily strategically placed. So it’s a big problem, and corruption is a big problem in those places. So not only are they going to have to buy off Chinese industry to go in these places to build, they’re going to have to buy off the officials in those countries to get the infrastructure done. Okay, guys, let’s bring this back to Europe. Since Europe is kind of our last group. Ralph, I get the sad sense that when Mike talks about dollar resurgence and Albert talk about dollar resurgence and inflation is pushed on the rest of the world and these sorts of things, europe and European industries show this as well.

    Tony

    Europe isn’t really a growth engine, of course. Right. So is Europe the worst place of the regions in the world generally, when we see a dollar resurgence and inflation and kind of these coming headwinds? Probably not.

    Ralph

    I mean, I remember I asked all about this, I think almost a year ago, once on Twitter. I think that the ties between the US. And Europe are still so strong that I could imagine that the US. Would be willing to adapt their policies in a way to protect Europeans from the fallout that will find some ways to support them. Okay, I think that, again, maybe I’m putting too much hope in the US. Maybe this is wishful thinking on my part, but I think that these ties are still strong. I think this is the US. I think they still view Europe as part of the national interest. But spoke to be very clear, I’m glad of I mean, something that bothers me, really, is I think the best thing Europe could do would be to place itself as Athens to America’s wrong kind of place I can feel to the strongest player on the block. But don’t try to be as again, Albert, we’ve discussed it many times to participate in this fantasy of the new multipolar world where you will balance the US in a quasi agreement with India and China. This is all fantasy.

    Ralph

    None of this is real. When push comes to Sharp, I think the US are still the best bet for the Europeans. But to be kind of a psychological problem in Western Europe, I think this is another thing.

    Tony

    Of course.

    Ralph

    I think the Eastern Europeans, particularly Poland and others I think are much more willing to attach themselves or kind of align themselves with the US. I think Western Europe and it’s mostly cultural, psychological that they still wish to be kind of a counterweight potentially to the rude Americans and the alcohol.

    Tony

    We’re definitely rude. We’ll take that. Okay, guys, we’ve been an hour, so I appreciate all of the thought you put into today. For everyone watching, please don’t forget about the promo. The Friends of Tony for promo promo 1st 25 subscribers. Guys, I really appreciate your time. Time. Have a great weekend. Have a great weekend. Thank you very much.

    Michael

    Thank you for doing this.

    Ralph

    Thank you.

  • Crucial Insights: Productivity Problems, Fed Outlook, & Germany’s Industrial Downfall

    Learn more about CI Futures: https://completeintel.com/futures 👈

    In this episode of the Week Ahead, Tony Nash is joined by Mike Green, Tracy Shuchart, and Sam Rines to discuss key themes including Productivity, Inflation & Secular Stagnation, Fed Outlook, and German Gas Issues.

    Mike begins the discussion on Productivity, Inflation & Secular Stagnation by referring to his newsletter “ProcrastiNation” and explains the concept of Total Factor Productivity growing by constant amounts instead of constant rates, which may lead to secular stagnation. The team also reviews a chart from Natixis, which shows a bump in per capita productivity, followed by a sharp fall. The team discusses whether this productivity rise/fall is due to the boost of government spending and the blurry visibility of hours worked during the pandemic. The discussion also touches on how this impacts inflation and what measures could be taken to fight it.

    Moving on to the Fed Outlook, Sam notes that the Fed isn’t letting up on inflation fighting and has been working on a delicate trajectory to achieve it. Sam talks about what he’s currently looking at and what’s changed since he first spotted this in Q2 of last year.

    Tracy leads the discussion on German Gas Issues, highlighting that Natgas in Germany has been a significant topic since Russia invaded Ukraine. Tracy refers to a chart that shows how industry in Germany started curbing production during the first spike of TTF nat gas. The team also notes that capacity utilization has not come back at all, not just in Germany, but also in the Euro area as a whole.

    Finally, the team discusses their expectations for the week ahead. Overall, the episode provides a comprehensive and insightful analysis of the key themes in the week ahead.

    Key themes:
    1. Productivity, Inflation & Secular Stagnation
    2. Fed Outlook: What’s changed?
    3. German Gas Issues

    This is the 53rd episode of The Week Ahead, where experts talk about the week that just happened and what will most likely happen in the coming week.

    Follow The Week Ahead panel on Twitter:
    Tony: https://twitter.com/TonyNashNerd
    Mike: https://twitter.com/profplum99
    Sam: https://twitter.com/SamuelRines
    Tracy: https://twitter.com/chigrl

    https://open.spotify.com/episode/2gb1QSfR7rdlMMxUm5NjEe?si=602854ee14674121

    Transcript

    Tony

    Hi, everyone, and welcome to the Week Ahead. I’m Tony Nash, and today we’re joined by Mike Green, who is the chief strategist at Simplify Asset Management, and Tracy Shuchart from Hilltower Resource Advisors. And Sam Rines from Corbu. So we’re going to start off today getting a little bit nerdy. We’re going to talk about productivity, inflation and secular stagnation. There’s a great piece that Mike wrote a week ago and I want to dive into that a little bit. Next, we’re going to jump into the Fed outlook with Sam. He’s been very consistent with his view on the Fed for the past probably nine months. And so I want to really see what’s changed with the Fed outlook. And then we’re going to look at German natgas issues with Tracy and kind of how that story is evolving. So guys, thanks so much for joining us today. I really appreciate the time you’ve taken to talk with us.

    Tracy

    Thank you.

    Tony

    CI Futures is our subscription platform for global markets and economics. We forecast hundreds of assets across currencies, commodities, equity indices, and economics. We have new forecasts for currencies, commodities and equity indices every Monday morning. We do new economics forecasts for 50 countries once a month. Within CI Futures, we show you our error rates. So every forecast, every month we give you the one- and three-months error rates for our previous forecast. We also show you the top correlations and allow you to download charts and data. CI Futures is available for $50 a month, $75 a month or $99 a month. You can find out more or get a demo on completeintel.com. Thank you.

    CI Futures for Accurate Market Forecasts
    CI Futures Subscription
    Highly Accurate, Accountable Global Economic & Market Forecasts

    Tony

    So Mike, I want to talk about your newsletter, really stellar newsletter on productivity and inflation. You called it ProcrastiNation. For anybody who hasn’t signed up for Mike’s newsletter, I would definitely recommend it. Do you mind walking us through that kind of at a high level? And why is that important, particularly right now?

    Mike

    So this is going to be an interesting part of the discussion. I’m obviously interested in Sam’s take on it as well. And can you guys hear me clearly? I just realized I took off my headset. So as long as you can hear me clearly, we’re good. The dynamics of what is actually going on, are we experiencing a slowdown in productivity growth or is our model of productivity broken?

    And therefore we’re effectively trying to push on a string to get all sorts of things fixed that may actually be we may be damaging them in the process of fixing them is really kind of the core point that I was making. And there’s this question about how do we measure productivity growth? How do we think about it? The traditional model of what’s called the Solo swan framework is that productivity growth is a compounding feature.

    I able to produce 1000 this year. Next year I’m able to produce 10% more. So 1100 the year after that, 10% more twelve whatever it is, 1221, et cetera. We can continue that process as we go through an exponential series that grows in a manner and suggests that we should be experiencing something along those dynamics. That model is increasing. And what we have seen against that is a slowing of the rate of growth that we measure as productivity or as total factor productivity. Effectively, the inputs that we’re putting in are separated. Let’s ignore the inputs and we’re looking at how much more effectively we’re using those inputs in each period.

    It’s generally thought of as the technology component. The evidence is growing that our models for how to measure this and how to think about this are flawed. In other words, it’s not a compounding feature in the sense of multiplicative. It’s actually an additive feature. In other words, if executed properly, we can see our wealth or our income levels grow by a fixed amount each year, right? So if we start at 1000, the next year we grow by 100. The year after that we grow by another hundred. Year after that we grow by another hundred, et cetera. And every once in a while, technological innovations emerge that combinatorially change that and can lead to a step function increase in that. So wealth can begin growing by a differential amount. If you measure those data series, one that is compounding exponentially, one that is compounding in what’s called an additive fashion, at least initially, they’re going to look very similar, right? So 1000 plus 100 plus 100 plus 100 looks an awful lot like 1000 times 1.1 times 1.1 times 1.1 for a certain number of periods. But they very rapidly begin to diverge. If the model that you’re trying to pursue is this multiplicative one right, and this is hyper nerdy, I understand all this, then it means you’re going to try to force all sorts of things through and more importantly, you’re going to actually start budgeting around that dynamic, right?

    Well, we expect to be this much wealthier in the future, right? We’re going to see this dynamic. Anyone who’s gone through life, and we all have to do that. You’ve gotten your first job. Your very first job leads to raises that are very rapid as you demonstrate competence. And then you can kind of budget off of that. You can budget off of, okay, well, my income is going to grow at 10% a year. But you rapidly discover somewhere in your 30s that that starts to slow down, right. And you suddenly discover that things stagnate. Well, the whole point is that you’re supposed to live within your means and slowly accumulate savings till that you end up okay. But if you budgeted off the constant increases in income, you’re going to really struggle.

    That’s effectively what we’re experiencing as a nation. We budgeted off the idea of nearly unlimited and trend growth. And now it actually appears that that model was wrong. And so the answer is, do we try to bang our heads and do more of the same or do we actually start to embrace that maybe a different model is operating this and what are the implications for that? The most important one is if we try to believe in a multiplicative model and the reality is an additive model, then things like inequality really begin to matter. Because if you have the upper income classes or the elites of society taking a higher share, eventually it means that the absolute numbers that are available for everybody else begin to fall. I think there’s a tremendous amount of evidence that’s what we’re seeing we’re seeing genuine dissatisfaction rising amongst the lower income communities. Or more accurately, if I really want to address it, it’s the center of the distribution that’s really being hammered to this framework. We’re more than happy to basically buy off the very low end. We’re more than happy to encourage the very high end and say, boy, you guys are really a gift to society.

    It’s those in the middle that are increasingly getting hammered by this situation and by this philosophy.

    Tony

    Okay, so let me ask you a quick question on that. When you say a constant rate of growth or relatively constant rate of growth, you’re talking about a real rate of growth, not a nominal rate of growth, is that right?

    Mike

    So I just want to be very clear. We’re actually not talking about a rate. We’re actually talking about a quantity.

    Tony

    Quantity.

    Mike

    So instead of our income growing by 5% a year, you should think about our income growing by $500 or $1,000 a year. And that’s going to continue. Now, naturally that leads to slower rates of individual growth, exactly as I described for an individual.

    I start off my career, I get a 10% raise off my $35,000 1st starting salary. Wow, that’s fantastic. I make $3,500 more. By the time I’m 50, I’m making $150,000. I don’t get a 10% raise, but I get a $5,000 raise. Should I be unhappy with that 5000 versus the 3500? No, the 5000 by definition is more, but it’s still a slower rate of growth.

    Tony

    Okay, so let me kind of try to take this a little bit more. I don’t know, I guess theoretical when we have more theoretical than me, let me try a hypothetical situation here. If we have an inflation rate 7%, okay, and that’s goods, that’s services and so on, and then we have a super core inflation rate that takes out energy and food and a lot of other things that supercore is really telling us the price of services, wages, if we really boil it down. Is that right, Sam? What is supercore telling us?

    Sam

    Supercore is sticky, right? And it’s sticky because wages tend to be sticky.

    Tony

    Right.

    Sam

    You don’t give to the point Michael made, you tend not to give somebody a $350 raise and then take that raise away. You leave them at that and then you slowly pick them up higher or you fire them.

    There’s kind of two options. You either keep giving them pay raises or you get rid of them.

    Mike

    The problem with trying to cut pay, right, except under extraordinary circumstances, is it’s a signal to the employee that they’re less valuable.

    Nobody wants to hear that and then show up at work the next day.

    Tony

    So if we’re not seeing productivity raise, say, multiplicatively or on a percentage basis, then when we see excess inflation like we do today, there really isn’t a way for people in the middle, as you say, the top end keeps what they have. The bottom end is subsidized, but there really isn’t a way for people in the middle to keep up. Is that what you’re saying? Since that super core is constant.

    Mike

    Correct. This is actually really kind of the key component that I would highlight, and it’s why inflation feels so bad to those in the center.

    Again, at the low end, we subsidize it, we inflation adjust, and we say it’s going to rise at a rate. The inflation rate is 5%. We’re going to adjust Social Security by 5%. We’re going to adjust Snap by 5%. That person in the middle, though, can only if they’re subject to these rules, which, as I said, increasingly appear to be true. Their increment of productivity is not a percentage. Just imagine yourself on an assembly line. It is implausible that you are going to become 5% more productive every single year, your entire career. That’s just a simple reality. And I produce 10,000 tubes of toothpaste as a single worker today. As I go through my career, I get more productive, but I don’t get 5% more productive every single year. Otherwise I’d be producing basically all the toothpaste in the world as a single worker by the end of my career.

    It’s not entirely true, but you understand the illustration. What is entirely plausible is, is that I’m able to produce 100 more tubes of toothpaste each year because I figure out new ways of doing it. That’s a decreasing rate of growth perfectly matched by the data series we have in terms of things like productivity over time in a career. My initial steps into my career, my productivity rises very rapidly. Later in my career, my productivity growth slows down even though my absolute productivity is higher.

    When you have a rate like inflation, that’s hammering. That because it is a rate that is being reduced. It means that I’m experiencing a real loss of income and purchasing power. My productivity is less valuable. Under that framework, my living standards fall. It matches perfectly. If we had a rate based dynamic, we really wouldn’t care.

    Theoretically, we could just say, well, inflation is a truly pass through experience, but it’s not.

    Sam

    Thank you.

    Tony

    Okay, great. So let’s take this a little bit to kind of productivity. I saw this chart this week from Natixis, which is a European research firm. They’re a great team of smart economists. And so I’ve got it up on the screen. It’s in your packet, Mike. Looking at per capita productivity, which is economic output divided by hours, worked as a basic rough formula for productivity, right. So we see a bump in productivity than a sharp fall. Is this a real productivity rise or fall? Is it more of a boost of government spending and blurry visibility on hours work during the pandemic? What does this mean and how does this fit within the kind of constant rates discussion that you’re observing?

    Mike

    Well, I would actually highlight that this is almost a perfect illustration of that type of phenomenon. It’s something that we’ve seen since the 1990s, which is the reality is that adding additional workers to the process doesn’t simply increase the output by the number of workers.

    The production process is inherently limited in finance terms. Effectively, the beta of an additional worker is always going to be less than one.

    So when I add new workers, I’m going to end up lowering my productivity. When I add hours to the day, I’m going to end up lowering productivity. When I remove them, I’m going to raise productivity if the system does not operate under this phenomenon in which each incremental worker or each incremental hour has the same contribution.

    It’s a great description of what’s going on. And by and large, what we’ve seen in 22 is no tangible increase in outputs relative to an increase in the inputs, which is what you’re showing on. And it takes this dynamic.

    Part of that, by the way, I do think is actually measurement. How do we properly measure how many hours somebody working from home is working?

    Am I spending my time working? Am I spending my time running the vacuum cleaner? Am I spending my time experimenting with keto recipes?

    You all know the answer for me on that last one. So that has been a consistent pattern. I’m not entirely sure I completely agree with the way that natixis frames it, although I do think that that is the direction that we’re headed in. The Fed is on this path that I think is fundamentally flawed, where they’re effectively saying, okay, let’s really raise the costs of increasing production. Let’s really raise the costs of holding incremental inventory. Let’s make it increasingly difficult for companies to finance themselves. And off the back of that, we should expect to see a dramatic increase in production and a fall in inflation. Makes zero sense to me. But they’re doing what they’re doing.

    Tony

    So they’re effectively trying to force productivity improvement, at least in theory, by making the cost of that worker higher.

    Mike

    What they’re attempting to do, that’s a way of thinking about it, right. They’re trying to force a reorganization of society so that it is, at its core, more productive. That would be great if human beings were widgets. But one of the most interesting things about what’s going on right now is that this recession looks radically different than prior recessions that we’ve had. Traditional recessions target the cyclical worker, the person on the assembly line, et cetera. We’re still recovering from the depths of the Cobin crisis. On the production front, we’re producing less than 15 million vehicles. On the automotive side, we still have shortages of houses, we still have homes that are currently under construction from the last boom, et cetera. We haven’t seen the impact of those falling off yet. This cycle is very different. We’re firing people that have college degrees for the first time almost in history, without a meaningful slowdown in the rest of the economy, we all experience this. There’s shortages of housekeepers and low end workers, people that are willing to change bedpans in an environment of COVID In a nursing home, you can’t find those people, right? But you can find plenty of college educated French medieval literature majors.

    Now, what good are French medieval literature majors? I’m not entirely sure, but we stole those signals from the market a long time ago through our system of student loans. And now, of course, we’re dealing with the ramifications of it in the Silicon Valley environment, where Google basically was trying desperately to hire anybody to conceal their innate levels of profitability and avoid things like antitrust actions. They brought in all sorts of workers who are very marginal contributors, primarily contributing of various TikTok memes in terms of how their pictures are taken. But the workers being laid off at Google make $275,000 a year on average. Stop and think about that. That’s a lot of money. That’s a great job, right? You know what the unemployment benefit is in California? The maximum unemployment benefit? I’m guessing Sam knows this off the.

    Tony

    Top of his head, like $1,500 a month or something?

    Mike

    No, it’s $13,000 total. Okay, so somebody who gets fired from a $275,000 a year job is supposed to immediately go and file unemployment claims so they can generate a $13,000 benefit over 26 weeks. When, by the way, if they just wait a year, they could actually file in arrears and get it as a lump sum payment that would help to pay for a flight to Hawaii. A vacation in Hawaii. They don’t know how to do this. They don’t know how to tap into the market. They have no idea how those systems work. In contrast to the traditional cyclical employees, when they lose their jobs, have the number taped to their refrigerator.

    Tony

    So I had dinner with a technology recruiter last night. He told me that for tech jobs in New York, for every tech job that he sees, there are 3000 resumes. For every tech job. He said it’s terrible in New York. I can’t imagine. Silicon Valley is much different. But he said there’s so much slack in the tech workforce in New York. That they get 3000 applications for every job that’s posted. He said, Honestly, I can’t go through all of them. I go through about 800 of them. I can’t look at it anymore.

    Mike

    Your brain fries on that.

    But now the flip side of that is, of course, what we’re supposedly receiving from the Fed surveys of job openings and labor turnover of the jolt surveys and suggest, wait a second, there’s two jobs available for every unemployed worker. How do we possibly get to the 3000 applicants for every job if there’s two jobs for every unemployed worker? It’s just the data is a mess.

    Tony

    It’s a mess.

    Mike

    Yes.

    Tony

    Ba is not going to get that accurately. They’re working on a methodology that’s probably two decades old. I haven’t looked into it for a long time, but you guys would know more about that than I would. But I assume that their methodology is.

    Mike

    They took a terrible methodology and they made it much worse with the introduction of the birth death adjustments in 2012. So now they basically just assume that jobs are being created.

    Tony

    That’s good. Okay.

    Mike

    Yeah, I know. It’s great.

    Tony

    We have an economy based on assumptions, okay?

    Sam

    It’s why you just jump to the Indeed data and call it a day. That’s what I do.

    Mike

    You do what? I’m sorry.

    Sam

    I just look at the indeed.com data. That’s the only one I use.

    Mike

    Even the Indeed data, though, you have to recognize the dynamics of share gain.

    Mike

    So you have to make some adjustment for the fact that increasingly people are finding their jobs on Indeed.

    Sam

    Exactly. Yeah, you do. But it’s at least a little bit better because it’s at least real jobs being posted.

    Mike

    And the response rates, by the way, to the jolts data is like, it’s just so bad at this point. It’s fallen from Sam again, sam probably knows the data better than I do, but I believe the response rates for the jolt going into the global financial crisis were north of 65%. Today it’s below 30.

    Sam

    Yeah, it’s gone down about 50%, give or take count.

    Tony

    So the response rate to the jolts data you mean the companies who are responding to the surveys for jolts data?

    Mike

    The companies that are responding to the surveys for jolts data has fallen by around 50%, among other things. That’s because the bls continues to rely and this is true for the household survey as well.

    They continue to rely on things like landline surveys. You will not get a call from the bls on your cell phone. This is a legacy from the dynamics of cell phone calls used to cost the receiver, so you used to have to pay if somebody called you. Therefore, they would never call a cell phone because people would be like, hey, there’s a survey. They hang up. Now we don’t have anybody with landlines anymore.

    Tony

    So, Sam, does your company have a physical landline?

    Sam

    I have never had a landline in my life.

    Tony

    Tracy, does your company have a physical landline?

    Tracy

    That would be no.

    Tony

    Mike, does your company have a physical landline?

    Mike

    We do not.

    Tony

    Neither does mine. So I know we’re probably outliers, but still, we’re in small, mid size companies, and none of our companies have a landline. So blsba would never survey us.

    Mike

    They would never survey us. And the methodology is that we are presumed to have the same behavior as those who answer their phones.

    Tony

    Yeah.

    Mike

    It’s just a mess. That is a technical term for what happens when you go through transitions and you have far too much dependence on accuracy of data.

    We’ve tried to fine tune the system to the point that it’s not meaningful anymore, using that system to establish monetary policy of unprecedented levels of intervention.

    Tony

    Okay, so, Mike, let’s go to the conclusions of your newsletter. What does this mean for inflation? What does this mean for how you view our ability to fight it?

    Mike

    Well, again, I was saying this I say this over and over and over again. We’re a narrative based species. We have to explain everything. One of the narratives that we have deeply accepted is the idea that anything the government does is bad.

    And so we basically have gotten to the point where our conclusion is, elon Musk is a more talented individual than Mike Green, therefore, he should pay less taxes, or certainly shouldn’t have to pay taxes on surplus through a higher progressive rate, et cetera. We want to keep the money with those who have demonstrated productivity. It’s not working. It’s the easiest way to put it.

    What we actually know is that any one individual has a combination of luck and skill in their individual career. How that gets compensated, how that gets rewarded, is completely context dependent. If the world was back in the 19th century and we were reliant upon various forms of 18th century, we were reliant on various forms of physical strength, tracy’s role in the economy would be radically different today. Radically different than it is today.

    Mine as well. Instead of being a giant forehead on a TV screen, I’d probably be slaving away in a coal mine somewhere. Our ability to raise individuals to that capability and to allow them to participate in the system is really what’s a question. And we’re just doing a terrible job of incorporating people into that system. We’re increasingly saying the only people that matter are the Elon Musk, peter thiels, sergey brin’s of the world, and we should want them to continue to bestow their capabilities upon us. Again, that’s part of the reason for highlighting the productivity dynamics. There’s no evidence that that’s actually true. So what we’re doing is we’re taking away from people who could be contributing to society at a lower level, but their aggregate contribution is like a bunch of ants.

    I mean, each individual ant can bring something to the table. Even if they don’t get to be the queen, we’re disregarding them, saying that they don’t matter, reducing their role and their compensation in society, encouraging them not to participate. I think that sits at the core of the challenges that we face right now.

    Tony

    That’s a tough one, especially given where our infrastructure is today. Sam, what thoughts do you have on that?

    Sam

    I’m pretty much right there with it. I do think that there’s a significant amount of problems and it’s very problematic when the call it the lower quartile of the income spectrum and the middle in particular begins to see a real wage go negative and go negative in a meaningful way and they generally don’t see a way out of it. What’s also interesting is that we’re relying on cpi numbers. We talk about supercore, we talk about core services, ex shelter, et cetera, et cetera. But when the middle is actually looking at what their wages are going to, it’s predominantly the things we cut out, right? It’s shelter, oil and food that’s a significant portion of their income. So while it’s always entertaining and it’s always kind of a good thing to look at the underlying metrics on inflation, it is not the real world experience. The easiest way for me to feel good or bad in the morning. Well, not necessarily me because I’m in Texas. So the bigger the number on the gasoline board, the better off I am. But for the vast majority of Americans, that’s not true to me. There’s a significant longer term issue here when the consumption metrics are highly reliant on the bottom 50% and the bottom 50% is getting eaten away.

    Tony

    Yeah, sounds pretty dire. I hope it’s not really that dire. And Mike san Francisco Fed. I think you should go. Sam, Dallas Fed, I think you should be there and you guys should solve these problems.

    Mike

    I will tell you, I spent a significant amount of time last two weeks ago at the New York Fed and the answer is really quite straightforward. It is an orthodox institution that is extremely captured by the idea that the cost of money is ultimately the determinant of inflation and they’re not prepared to consider anything else. So the solution is the beating shall continue until morale improves.

    Tony

    Great. And I guess the real question to be a realist is how do you game that?

    Mike

    Right?

    Tony

    I mean, that’s the question for all of us and that’s why we talk about this every week, is how do you take that view and how do you game that to make the best of your income?

    Mike

    So the quick answer is that you do the best you possibly can to engage in the equivalent of Dumer prep. It’s not to stockpile canned food and pasta, it’s to basically remove yourself from a situation in which you are dependent upon the impact of the Federal Reserve. So the Fed is pursuing a model that is going to raise inflationary pressures that is going to lower economic activity. We’re all caught in the crossfire of that. That means that our incomes are going to be negatively affected in real terms. Our capacity to service debt is going to fall in the future. And therefore you want to reduce as much debt as you basically do the exact opposite of what we’ve been encouraged to do for the past 40 years. 40 years. You do everything in your power to reduce debt, reduce dependence on the system, and create put yourself into a situation in which you’re effectively benefiting from the higher interest rates. Meaning you’re holding cash.

    Tony

    Yeah. Very good.

    Sam

    Okay.

    Tony

    Thanks, Mike. There’s a lot to think about there. And again, anybody who doesn’t get mike’s newsletter, I would encourage them to look for his substac and subscribe his. So thank you for that, Sam. Let’s look at the Fed outlook. Given the kind of doomer Fed close out that Mike just gave us, let’s look at the Fed outlook and look at what’s changed. So back in July of 2022, you presented in your newsletter, you said peak inflation and peak hawkishness dominate the narrative. Following the fomc meeting. This was the Fed meeting in, I think it was late June, early July. But it’s you said that the fmc has tunnel vision on inflation, and the end of the tunnel is not visible. So this was, you know, almost a year ago, nine months ago this past week, you said very similar, you said until price over volume and the consumer breaks, it is still 25s for life.

    So you’ve presented a very hawkish outlook for the Fed over that period. Well, not very relatively. I’ll say hawkish. So as far as I know, I don’t know, you’re the only person who’s got it consistently right. And you’ve been pretty flawless.

    So the Fed isn’t letting up on inflation, and they’ve been working a pretty delicate trajectory.

    Mike

    Right.

    Tony

    I mean, they really went hard on seventy five s, and then they pulled back to 25s. What are you looking at now? And what has changed since Q 222 since you spotted this last year?

    Sam

    Yeah. So not much has changed. We can start there. Okay, good. Not much has changed relative to what we were thinking, that we were well above where the street was at that point for the terminal rate. And we continue to see twenty five s and those 25s continuing for the foreseeable future.

    Mike

    Right.

    Sam

    And I do think that it’s highly dependent on two things. It’s highly dependent on where inflation actually comes in, and it’s highly dependent on where wages and the consumer end up. And when you look at the data and to michael’s point, looking at the data that’s being printed off, the inflation report, the employment report, et cetera, there’s a lot of noise in those systems. So instead of doing that, I basically just go through earnings reports constantly as they’re released and take it as. These management teams tend to have a pretty good idea of where they’re going to set price, where they’re going to set wages, and what their input costs are going to be. When you look at companies from pepsi to coca cola, nestle, hershey, all of their pricing is going up and they’re going up significantly.

    Tony

    What’s the magnitude on average?

    Sam

    810 percent, 12% on average. It’s low teens in terms of year over year pricing. pepsi said they were mostly done pushing price, but that means that they’re still pushing price to date. Texas roadhouse, of all places, said they were increasing their menu pricing 2.2% in March. They saw their commodity prices increasing for the year 5% and their wages going up 5%. So that’s kind of one little I call it a cog in the system.

    Tony

    It’s interesting you mentioned Texas roadhouse. So we had retail sales, restaurants went up 25% year on year, right. How does that stop? I just don’t understand. How does that rate of growth stop? What does it look like from your.

    Sam

    Perspective in terms of the year over year numbers? I mean, the year over year numbers were somewhat skewed because of omacon last year, right. So you had some audies in the data going in to the retail sales report on a year over year basis, but on a month over month basis, they were very, very strong. And one of the things that another one of the great points that Michael made a moment ago, it’s really interesting when you look at the dynamics of income to start 2023, social Security payments increased by 8.7. That’s 70 million people that just got in a nearly 9% raise in January.

    Mike

    Right.

    Sam

    So that money is hitting the system. That’s somewhere around $120,000,000,000, and the marginal propensity to consume on that is extraordinarily high. The average dollar coming in the door on Social Security is going to the bottom half the income spectrum and mostly skewed towards the lower half of that half. That tends to get spent, and it tends to get spent very quickly. So that’s high powered automobiles directly into the system. Well, it’s a lot of eating out at restaurants, right? It’s a lot of cracker Barrel. You look at cracker Barrels earnings, their wages, et cetera, walmart raising their wage, a lot of middle America, particularly at the bottom, is beginning to see some pretty significant pay raises. And those pay raises go straight into the economy. They don’t go into savings, they don’t go into 401k, they don’t go into the stock market. They go straight into spending. And they tend to spend on, well, gasoline, groceries, eating food out, and to a certain degree, shelter.

    Mike

    Right?

    Sam

    So these these numbers are more than likely not one off type deals, right? We’re more than likely going to continue to see significant surprises to the upside. I mean, there’s, there’s some I think it was Texas roadhouse as well that said that their January was up in the mid 20s on a year over year basis. This type of dynamic, and I think it’s really interesting following on from mike’s portion, it’s a really interesting dynamic because if you don’t have inflation crack, the Fed is going to continue with these 25s for the foreseeable future. And right now we’re sitting at a terminal rate that’s 5.25 to 55. And they’re going to continue pushing those further. If you continue to have these data points, and it’s really hard to see when the data points are going to crack, you can kind of moving away from the restaurant and retail for a moment. John deere is mid teens on pricing for the year. Those prices aren’t going down so that’s farmers are going to see their equipment become more expensive. You’re going to have food becoming more expensive when you eat out. You have food at grocery stores becoming more expensive.

    To michael’s point, it’s probably not going to solve the problem by increasing interest rates immediately. And you haven’t seen a crack in construction because of the massive backlog, because we didn’t have lumber and we didn’t have piping and we didn’t have concrete, et cetera. You still have construction jobs, you still have oil field jobs, you still have all of the stuff in the middle of America, and you’ve had a few thousand people get laid off in tech.

    And they all got six to twelve months giant packages to go find another job. So they’re not going to hit the jobless claims for at least six to twelve months from when they got laid off. They’re all sitting pretty, they’re all going on vacations, they’re all spending money. So again, it’s one of those where the economy still hasn’t cracked and the Fed is going further.

    Tony

    Yeah. I just want to be clear. I know we’ve talked about this before, but I want to make sure that my understanding is still correct. The Fed is not trying to get pricing levels back to 2019. No, we’re just trying to get them to stop rising.

    Sam

    Correct. Yes. Well, they would prefer to have disinflation. Right. They want to get back to a 2% run rate, but no, they’re not trying to get back. They’re not trying to go deflationary.

    Mike

    Trying can I just toss something into sam’s point picture of North American tractor sales?

    The really critical point is that we’re talking about price increases, dramatic price increases in tractor sales, even as tractor sales themselves are, give or take, 40% below the levels from 2008.

    This is insane. This is clearly market power that is going through. The tractor industry is basically divided into two players, deer and agco, neither one of which, both of which have signaled we’re no longer going to compete on price. We’re going to basically try to load everything up and produce at a minimum level. These are monopoly and you know what I mean? oligopolistic. I’m sorry. Pricing patterns where you produce well below the marginal demand because you’re effectively trying to maximize your margins.

    So we’re seeing this over and over and over again. That’s why we have the ftc. That’s what we should be going after in terms of the behavior of individual companies. We should be penalizing them. We should be working to introduce new competition into these spaces, et cetera, and we just refuse to do it. We’re terrified that in the process of harming these individual national champions like deer, that somehow we’re going to create conditions under which we all collapse into the proverbial flames of hell.

    The second component is that Sam hit on this dynamic of somebody who has Social Security just experienced a 9% raise. They actually experienced far more than that because remember that those who are collecting Social Security tend to be amongst the class of individuals who have accumulated a degree of savings that they had anticipated living off of for the rest of their lives. Suddenly, their checking accounts or bank accounts have gone from yielding or their money market funds have gone from yielding zero to yielding four and a half to 5%.

    If I have $100,000, that’s $5,000 of incremental savings that I’m receiving. I have a million dollars. That’s $50,000 that I’m receiving. And by the way, my propensity to spend that is dramatically higher because it’s income, not principal. Now, I actually am much more comfortable spending that than I would have been spending $50,000 before.

    So everything that we’re doing in, like, the last desperate act of the boomers to totally screw us all is basically handing money to old people at the expense of young people who are going to lose their jobs.

    Tony

    I think that’s worth repeating. And we’ve talked about that in a couple of other shows. Not that directly, but say that again. So the government is handing out money to old people at the expense of younger, more productive workers who are losing their jobs.

    Mike

    Correct. It’s just that straightforward.

    Tony

    Yeah. Okay, great. Okay, so, Sam there’s a lot to digest here, guys. It’s not pretty. It’s not a pretty episode. So, Sam, tell us about what does the Fed look like over the next three or four months? It’s 25, as far as you can see. But it’s that simple.

    Sam

    It’s that simple. And it’s that simple. It really you only have a couple more prints of data before of data that matters before the Fed meets and redesign plot. I mean, that’s it’s. It’s 25s for the next four for the next three meetings. Okay. Then there’s the possibility of a pause, but I would be short the possibility of a pause there simply because, to reiterate what Mike said, again, it’s a pretty orthodox place.

    Mike

    Right.

    Sam

    They’re going to continue raising rates until inflation breaks because that’s what they believe will occur.

    Tony

    But I think June by June will have had the base effect of crude being in $130 a barrel, right?

    Sam

    Core Services, Ex Shelter doesn’t have oil in it. They don’t care.

    Mike

    They don’t care about that. But that actually is a really critical point. And forget the year over year comparisons because nobody actually does that, right? Nobody sits down and does their budget and says, gosh, oil was $130 this time last year. Now it’s only $80. Therefore I have more money to spend. They experience it immediately when they go to the gas tank and they go to fill up their gas. Their gas tank. A year ago, they were filling it up for $100. Now they’re filling it up for $60, money that has gone back into the economy from the period of June and contributed to the perception of rebound. That, in turn, is now theoretically feeding the inflationary concerns. We see this in consumer sentiment surveys that are heavily dependent upon gasoline prices, like the Michigan survey, et cetera. The minute gasoline prices bottomed or peaked, they began to experience improvements in sentiment even as the underlying conditions have deteriorated.

    Tony

    Okay, tracy, I want to bring you in here because I always get complaints when you speak last. So tell me your thoughts on that in terms of oil consumption, as far.

    Tracy

    As oil consumption in the United States.

    Tony

    And the impact on inflation, how do people experience that and what impact do you think that has on how the Fed acts?

    Tracy

    Yeah, absolutely. I completely agree with Mike. What it comes down to is what are the prices at the pump for the actual consumer, right? And that gives you extra, theoretically, or what’s envisioned is extra spending, right, extra spending money. Because you’re not paying $100 anymore, as he said, for that example, you’re paying $60. So now you have more excess cash to, I don’t know, go out to dinner. But that’s kind of like a theoretical situation. And the thing is that I think that when we are talking about gas prices and when we are talking, we really need to see longer term results for this. I think it’s premature to say we’re seeing excess spending in this area because gas prices are down this month because they fluctuate so much because gas has been very volatile since 2020. And so I think there needs to be a lot more long term data that is focused on this, which we’re probably not going to get from the government. But I think that would be beneficial into seeing how exactly does this over the long term reflect consumer spending habits.

    Tony

    Great. Okay, that’s hugely useful. Sam, back to you just to wrap this up. And you’ve had this concept of hawk grackledove, right? And for those who don’t understand, a hawk is obviously hawkish Fed. A gracklish fed. And Sam, correct me if I’m wrong, is one that kind of is talking out of both sides of its mouth, just making a lot of noise where they’re not entirely sure which direction they’re going to go. And then you have a dovish Fed, which is obviously dovish. Right. What data are you looking for or what behavior are you looking for? For the Fed to really swing kind of gracklish.

    Sam

    I do think the Fed is gracklish at the moment. The Fed went grackle when it went to 25 because that gives them wiggle room on both sides. It gives them the ability to both push the terminal rate higher, push terminal rate lower, much more data dependent. In terms of every you put in another 25 if you put up 400,000 jobs. If inflation comes in high, you put up another 25 basis point hike. If it comes in low, you take it out. That’s really what the Grackle is.

    Sam

    It’s when they talk a lot and don’t really give you any incremental information. Right. Last year, they were just pure hawk. It was every single time they open their mouth, they seem to just be hawk. Now it’s, well, maybe we wanted to go 50, but we went 25, but maybe we don’t have to go any further, which is what we’ve seen over the last week. Yeah, they’re grackles.

    Sam

    To reiterate this, and I think I said it here, I might not have the Grackle is the most annoying bird in the world. They are loud, they fly in groups, and they scream all the time. And at least in Texas, you can’t park your car under a tree for a long time. It’s just the worst thing ever. And it’s pretty easy to understand a Dubbish Fed. It’s pretty easy to understand a hawkish Fed. It’s very difficult to understand a Grackleish Fed. And that’s where I think we’re at right now.

    Tony

    Okay, great. So just more to come there. We’re waiting and seeing we’re going to see at least three more, then more to come. Yeah, that’s the story. Okay, thank you, guys. That’s great. Let’s move on to tracy, who everyone’s been waiting for, of course. And so, tracy, I’m responding to, we sent out a tweet asking for questions, and one of our regular viewers, Daniel Cook, said, how is industry in Germany coping with the nat gas situation today? So I want to bring in some of those questions pretty regularly.

    And you sent me a couple of charts. The first one is on ttf netgas, so can you talk us through that and what’s happening in markets with ttf natgas?

    Tracy

    All right, so I feel like this is a total switch from what we’ve been talking about.

    Tony

    Absolutely, it is.

    Tracy

    We’re switching to Europe right now. Right. I hate to add to the non pretty situation, but this episode is going to continue with the non pretty situation.

    Tony

    That’s okay.

    Tracy

    I think that there has been irreparable damage to industry, and not only Germany, but in the Euro area as a whole. I sent you that ptf chart because I wanted to point out that in fall of 2021 is when we had that very first spike, right? And that’s when we really started seeing industry having to pull that. That is in particular in smelters glass companies and chemical companies. I just want to run through very quickly kind of a timeline of the biggies that happened. And this will make more sense later. Why wouldn’t do this? But so in October of 2021, nystar, which is one of the largest zinc companies in the world, they cut zinc smelting production by 50% in three top European smelters. December of 2021 started the aluminum smelting horrible problem, which dunker K Industries in France. My French is terrible. So I know a million people will say that’s not how you pronounce it. But anyway, which is the largest aluminum smelter in France, curved output. Then you had followed by romanian aluminum producer alto slatina. They started a program of total closure due to high energy prices. By May of 2022, aluminum production flies more.

    July of 2022, almost all of European smelting production is offline. September 2022, that starts the glass industry. So you have French glass maker derelict stops production entirely.

    Tony

    Sorry, let me stop you. So with the aluminum smelting so if it’s not being done in Europe, where is it being done?

    Tracy

    Tell me. I was getting to that. Well, since you asked, ironically, it’s Russia. Of course it is, because ironically it’s Russian. What happened is that the EU actually sanctioned Russia aluminum imports in April of 2022. But there was a clause in that particular sanction agreement that said you can get an exemption of products from Russian origin to be imported if you can get a special permit.

    Tony

    Of course, europeans always circumvent their own sanctions.

    Sam

    Always.

    Tracy

    So long and short of that is, within six months, EU imports, Russian aluminum surged over 70%. So that happened back to my timeline. So Bass, after cutting production throughout the entire year, in October of 22, they announced permanently they were downsizing their factory in Germany as far as production and labor is concerned. And then in November 2022, they announced their largest service treatment treatment site in China. So long and short of this is that when you look at these industries, right, you have to look at especially smilting and glass in particular, these blast furnaces. You just can’t turn them back on, right? They take months and months to get them the proper temperature again. And if you look at if you revisit that ttf graph, you can see there’s been no relief for these industries to be able to get back online. So you can assume that’s gone because now it’s been over a year, right? And so people have already I mean, even Europe has already sourced other people outside of Europe. So these industries are not coming back.

    Tony

    So can you talk us through capacity utilization and how the industry is not going back has impacted capacity utilization? Because the capacity utilization is a measure of the capacity that is still there, right? Not the capacity that’s online.

    Tracy

    Right. What is still there. And so what we see in the graph that I sent you is Germany. But really, if you look at the Euro area as a whole, that graph looks exactly the same. And what we’re seeing is that even though Nat Gas prices has limited I can’t speak to that either. It’s limited over the last six months. We’re still seeing utilization down. These industries are not coming back.

    Tony

    In other words, where are they going?

    Tracy

    They’re being outsourced everywhere else. In fact, Europe has a big problem with regulations and red tape, which has been a huge pitfall for companies. And so oh, you know, companies have been looking elsewhere, for example, China, the Us. Mexico, South America, and realize they’ve been dealing with this since the first spike in fall of 2021. And so they’ve had plenty of time. And now, I know the EU has been very vocal about the Us. Inflation Reduction Act and worried that it’s going to incentivize business to leave the EU for the Us. Which is a concern. I understand that. But I guess I would say the essence of the debate has been this in face of the $369,000,000,000 worth of tax breaks and subsidies set aside to boost green technology and energy security in the Us. How can the EU maintain a leading position in clean tech industries moving forward? The problem is that they’ve taken six months to talk about this without doing anything. It’s all been talked. And so companies have already been looking elsewhere outside of Europe. So, unfortunately, I think what this is going to lead to is kind of a deindustrialization of not only Germany, but the Euro area as a whole.

    Tony

    Well, that’s pretty dire. So you say it’s going to China, Us, mexico and parts of South America. I assume that’s Brazil? Maybe.

    Tracy

    Yeah.

    Tony

    So that’s a net positive, I guess, for North America.

    Tracy

    At least it is for North America. Europe is running very scared right now. Right. Again, they’ve been having meetings for the last six months, but the problem is that they continuously drag their feet on making decisions. And when you drag your feet that long, you give companies ample time to make other plans.

    Tony

    Right. Okay. So how does this end? If if we had Nat Gas stay at low levels for three years, do you think that manufacturer would would come back?

    Tracy

    No. Back to Europe? No, I think they’ve already made once you’ve already made other plans, and you already left. And we’re talking about companies that have literally shut down things permanently.

    Tony

    So parts of Germany become western Pennsylvania.

    Tracy

    Yes, but again, I don’t want to be a doom and gloomer and say it’s totally in German manufacturing, but I will say that I would keep a close eye on that, because I think that you’re going to see, I think Germany as an industrial powerhouse is going to not be over the next ten years wow.

    Mike

    Tracy, when you say over the next ten years it’s not going to be a powerhouse, is that because the cost of producing, you’re saying effectively is so high that they’re no longer going to be able to compete?

    Tracy

    Correct.

    Mike

    Is the flip side of that just that the cost will go up because the world needs their supply?

    Tracy

    Well, that’s a twofold question. First of all, we’ve already seen industry already close there permanently, such as basf, just the largest chemical manufacturing company in the world, basically has already decided to leave Germany. Not entirely, but they have decided to pare down their manufacturing process and their labor in Germany and look elsewhere. And I think that it’s going to continue to happen because I think if you look at Germany or EU in particular, there is a lot of bureaucratic red tape there and a lot of things. And until I think that Europe really addresses that issue, more and more companies are going to be encouraged to go other places where perhaps that rig tape is not so difficult. In addition, it’s a lot cheaper as far as labor, et cetera.

    Tony

    Wow. Okay, so how does the German market what can they do to cope with nat gas prices just in terms of the day to day consumer?

    Tracy

    Well, obviously nat gas prices have come way down since the peak in July of 2022. But I don’t think that is completely over with. I think the market is a little complacent right now because prices have come down so much because the German government has been asking for people to cut their consumption not only on the consumer side, but on the industry side as well. And so we’ve seen a 30% decrease in consumer industry consumption due to a lot of initiatives that they’ve asked for.

    Tony

    While increasing their coal consumption and shutting nuclear.

    Tracy

    Yes, I think it’s a difficult road. I don’t think Europe as a whole is out of the woods yet as far as natural gas is concerned. We talked about that last week a little bit. But as far as industry is concerned, I am really worried because I think the signs are all there, that we are at least starting to see the deindustrialization process of airport, which would be mark a significant change in industry, particularly for Germany.

    Tony

    Wow. Okay. That’s something to really think about, something we want to keep an eye on because I’m very curious about that. Okay, guys, thanks for a real downer of a show. That’s awesome.

    Sam

    Wages were going up. That’s not all bad.

    Tony

    This has been great. Look, we’ve been a little more thoughtful today, I think, a little more kind of looking at kind of the whole context rather than just the markets. And I think that’s great. And I think what’s interesting to me is there’s not a lot of focus on this in the day to day hype cycle that we see. Of course. Right. But these are things that we have to look at within the context, not necessarily within the decisions that we’re making every day. And so I really appreciate this Mike, I really appreciate between you and Sam, your newsletters have such deep thought in them and application to what’s going on today as well as say the medium or longer term. It’s just fantastic to get that. Having said all that guys, what’s on your mind for the next week? So tracy, let’s start with you the week ahead, what do you have coming up next week?

    Tracy

    What do we have coming up next week? I think next week, I think honestly it’s going to be more of the same. I think we’re going to see a lot of volatility in markets, especially looking at obviously commodity markets are kind of my focus. I think that you are going to see that. I think everybody should keep an eye on the dollar, particularly if you are trading commodities because we are sort of seeing a technical breakout of some sorts looking at the daily charts. So keep an eye on the dollar and then again I still expect volatility to continue in the commodity markets. With conflicting news on a higher dollar, china reopening Russia export. They said they were cutting five hundred K million barrels per day starting in March. But then they just said this morning that their butt they’re keeping exports the same. Crude oil markets didn’t really like that.

    Tony

    Their natural production is down 20%. So of course they’re going to cut $500,000 for domestic consumption. Are you still there tracy? Okay, Sam, what are you looking for in the week ahead?

    Sam

    I’m basically just kind of listening to whatever. I don’t really think there’s that much that’s all that interesting coming out next week. Maybe jobless claims will be interesting, unlikely, I don’t know. Honestly, it’s just a lot of chop. It’s all about waiting. It’s kind of like waiting on godot except you just sub in China for godot, wait for them to reopen, wait for them to actually make a move on the stimulus. Some announcements that actually makes sense in terms of how they’re going to stimulate, et cetera, et cetera. So right now I think it’s a waiting game and sitting on your hands is probably the most intelligent thing to do through the job.

    Tony

    Yeah. China is going to announce rail stimulus like they have for the last 30 years. I can guarantee that’s part of the mix. Okay, thanks for that. And Mike, how about you? What are you looking at for the week ahead?

    Mike

    Well, we have the traditional data dynamics like tracy, I’m very closely watching the Us dollar, but more importantly I’m starting to watch the credit events that are beginning to pile up. So you had brookfield walk away from two buildings last week. You had Standing file for bankruptcy today as fuel pump manufacturer has been in business continuously for 150 years citing unsustainable levels of debt repayment from buyout done with cerberus. This is the waiting the higher for longer framework. The continued tightening of liquidity is the equivalent of a distributive top in equity terms. Right. You have to wait and it’s going to happen. You’re going to see the distress begin to mount and the Fed will ultimately manage to crush demand because they’re creating an incredibly compelling reason for those at the high end with true discretion, right? I mean, remember the low end, that bottom 50 percentile that Sam and I are highlighting in terms of the consumer, they don’t really have a choice about discretionary spending. They basically don’t really have any savings. And so when they’re faced with a loss of real purchasing power, as we’ve seen over the last year, they originally kind of that second quartile turns to credit cards and other mechanisms to allow them to continue to purchase goods and services in the hopes that things are ultimately going to get better.

    Mike

    We’re now seeing those hopes begin to run out. The additional space on their credit cards is becoming exhausted. Unlike the old and the extremely wealthy, they don’t have significant quantities of cash in bank accounts or in money market funds. So they’re not benefiting from the increasing purchasing power. They’re beginning to falter. We’ll see the signs of that. My expectation is sometime in the next quarter.

    But it is a waiting game right now, right? And until the Fed begins to see the evidence that it’s mission accomplished in hammering the demand side of the equation as compared to the supply side, which is really what they’ve hit so far, my guess is that they’re going to continue to proceed. The words we’re getting are the equivalent of subprime is contained, even as those of us who are following it closely fully understand that sub prime is a critical part of the stack and was never really the problem to begin with.

    Tony

    So what you’re all saying is kind of take a deep breath for now.

    Mike

    Take a deep breath and be prepared to hold it as we submerge. My advice.

    Tony

    Okay, it’s good to know. Guys, thank you so much. This has been a real kind of wake up. So thanks very much. I really appreciate this. Have a great weekend and have a great week ahead. Thank you.

    Sam

    Thank you guys.

    Mike

    Thank you.

  • Inflation 2.0, Bullish Metals & Oil, and Russian Supply Caps Discussed

    Learn more about CI Futures: https://completeintel.com/futures 👈

    The Week Ahead with Tony Nash brings together experts Tony Greer, Albert Marko, and Tracy Shuchart to discuss the key themes affecting the markets. In this episode, the focus is on Inflation 2.0, Market Chaos, and Russian Supply Caps.

    Albert Marko leads the discussion on Inflation 2.0, and explains his view that inflation will re-accelerate this year. He talks about how various factors such as the Federal Reserve, a potential recession or slowdown, and war could impact his thesis. He also mentions the upward revision of December Consumer Price Index (CPI) and the upcoming release of the January CPI.

    Tony Greer then takes the lead on Market Chaos and explains why he is bullish on metals and oil. He discusses his views on copper and explains his outlook on crude oil, which he tweeted about in January.

    Tracy Shuchart focuses on Energy and the Russian supply caps. She talks about Russia’s announcement to cut production to 500k barrels per day and what this could mean for crude quotas and price caps. She also discusses the impact on natural gas.

    Finally, the experts provide their expectations for the Week Ahead.

    Key themes
    1. Inflation 2.0
    2. Market Chaos: Bullish Metals & Oil
    3. Russian Supply Caps

    This is the 52nd episode of The Week Ahead, where experts talk about the week that just happened and what will most likely happen in the coming week.

    Follow The Week Ahead panel on Twitter:
    Tony: https://twitter.com/TonyNashNerd
    Albert: https://twitter.com/amlivemon
    Tracy: https://twitter.com/chigrl
    Tony Greer: https://twitter.com/TgMacro

    https://open.spotify.com/episode/0ZI5EmOsQdoHTAyDC2vC2c?si=3b4e76b2ce784967
    Listen to this episode on Spotify.

    You can also listen on Apple Podcast using this link.

    Transcript

    Tony Nash

    Hi, everyone, and welcome to the Week Ahead. I’m Tony Nash. And today we’re joined by Tony Greer. Tony is with TG macro. He does the morning navigator newsletter. He’s an OG with RealVision and he’s just very, very popular and we’re really lucky to have him today. We have Albert Marko, of course and Tracy Shuchart. We’re very fortunate to have both of them today. So thanks guys, for taking the time to talk with us today. I really appreciate it.

    Tony Greer

    My pleasure. Thanks for asking.

    Tony Nash

    Great. So we’re going to start today with Albert. We’re going to be talking about inflation. Albert, you’ve said several times over the past several months that we’re going to have kind of a re-acceleration of inflation this year. And we just had an upward revision of the December CPI. And of course, we have another CPI, the Jan CPI is out on Tuesday. There was a viewer question talking about kind of your Inflation 2.0 thesis.

    Can you talk us through that? What are you thinking of when you think through that and when do you think it’ll materialize?

    Albert

    I’m looking at multiple variables at the moment. Russia probably reactivating some of the military operations in Ukraine, which I think we started to see the last couple of days a little bit. We have China reopening. The Europeans have been in a zombie state, so they’re technically reopening, so their demand is coming back. All that’s going to be inflationary, in my opinion. But the biggest factor that I see has been Yellen’s use of the TGA to offset QT.

    Tony Nash

    What’s the TGA?

    Albert

    Well, the treasury general account. So she has a big slush fund of money where she can place wherever she wants. And what that’s been doing has been helping rally the markets purely out of political reasons. And when you have a net zero quantitative tightening cycle, it’s like, what do they expect that to happen at the moment?

    Tony Nash

    Let me back up just for people who aren’t… So we had a Fed meeting last week. They raised by 25, they’re continuing QT incrementally. Right. And so what you’re saying is that Yellen is offsetting that QT with spending from the TGA?

    Albert

    Yeah, it’s exactly what I’ve been saying. I’ve been at this for quite a long time. She’s gone hog wild on the treasury bills in the recent months and that’s pretty much the reason we got a stock rally. You’re looking at the duration of liquidity, which is very, very important and nobody really wants to talk about that at the moment. So I mean, these stock rallies have gives a perception of a solid market and overall economy aiming to help the Biden administration for purely political reasons. Right. And this revision, yeah, it was revised and people think it’s an incremental revision, but it’s a 33% rise and CPI from the for the previous data, so it’s not incremental whatsoever.

    Tony Nash

    Yeah, month on month it’s, it’s a little bit elusive for people to understand how big of a revision this is. Whenever economic data come out, anybody who follows me knows I always say wait for the revision. Right. Especially with OECD countries, wait for the revision because they hide stuff and they leak it out in previous data, other things. And so, as you just said, Albert, there was a 33% revision in the December CPI. That’s massive, right?

    Albert

    Yeah. Wage inflation is spiraling out of control. We have not just the United States, but now you have the Bank of Japan reporting more inflation from their side. In fact, the Australians did the same thing. They’re having hot CPI numbers. I mean, if we have a hot CPI number coming Tuesday, I mean, it’s just not going to be pretty for equities, in my opinion. And I think that’s why Jerome Powell would soft last week, just because he sees the data and he knows what’s coming.

    Tony Nash

    So what is a hot CPI number to you?

    Albert

    I think anything above what the consensus is, whether it’s even 0.1 or .2, anything that’s sticky in the core CPI is going to be hot.

    Learn more about CI Futures: https://www.completeintel.com/futures

    Tony Nash

    Tony, you’re wincing there. Why do you do that?

    Tony Greer

    No, I mean, I was hoping for a specific magnitude, you know what I mean? As a trader, I’m like, how much higher is he expecting? And he was anything higher and I was like, 8%, 9%, 10%, what do we like? That’s all. I’m very interested. I think he’s on the absolute right track.

    Albert

    It’s hard because the VLS has been using different calculations and methodologies to calculate CPI. They just changed the way they weigh it, so they’re trying to keep it within a reasonable amount. But when you’re looking at fertilizers and fertilizer companies like Mosaic, and then you have nat gas spiking and then wheat spiking today, either that’s Russia ramping up military affairs in Ukraine, or there’s a hot CPI number coming, my opinion, or both.

    Tony Nash

    Okay. How much of a factor is like the earthquake in Turkey? Or is any of that a factor?

    Albert

    That’s a huge factor, Tony, because that’s going to start cutting off, that’s going to start up cutting oil supply, and that’s one of the prime components of inflation. And I’ll let Tracy get onto the details of that. But that’s one in many variables that we’re going to start looking at.

    Tony Nash

    Okay, when you say inflation 2.0 is coming, are you looking at say, Q2 or something when that will kind of reemerge or what’s your timing on that?

    Albert

    I’m thinking Q2 at this point. Originally I thought it would be in September or October, but I think the timeline definitely come faster.

    Tony Nash

    Okay, so what’s driving that is largely kind of energy and ag? Is that..

    Albert

    Energy, ag, and specifically just the market just being just rallying relentlessly, it just won’t go down. And that’s spurring commodities. Copper, oil, you name it, wheat, grains, everything.

    Tony Nash

    Okay, if I understand you correctly, just to reiterate what you said. We have more money going into the money supply because of the spending from the TGA that’s offsetting QT. And that money in the money supply is going to people who are driving up commodity prices, driving up equity markets, and potentially driving up real estate. Right. Because we saw some real estate numbers this past week that were not discouraging. Right. I mean, real estate isn’t dying like many people thought right now. And mortgage rates are generally kind of going down. So it seems like we have money going into those things, which is kind of the opposite of what the Feds here are trying to achieve.

    Albert

    Yeah, the mortgage rate ticks down just a little bit and all of a sudden the spurs on buying. So everything that the Fed has been trying to do is just not happening. Labor, housing, stocks, everything, literally everything.

    Tony Nash

    Okay, and so how much longer can Yellen use the TGA, does she have unlimited capacity there?

    Albert

    No, she doesn’t. And Congress can definitely put on oversight on that. But she started off in… Well started off, but she had about 160 billion per month just prior to the midterms. But now she’s down to about 50, 60. Yeah, but that’ll get replenished in April when the tax money comes in for the use.

    Tony Nash

    Okay, so it will be muted in Feb-March. But she can go guns blazing again in April.

    Albert

    And this is part of the negotiations with the budget, with the Republicans and the Democrats is trying to limit what she can do with the TGA at the moment. They won’t say it publicly, but they’re certainly trying to.

    Tony Nash

    Okay, very interesting. Okay, so for those of you guys out there, check out the treasury general account and just see what’s out there, I think that would be really interesting to look into. Okay. Anything else on this, Albert? Is inflation 2.0? Is it going to hit the US or hit, say, Europe or Asia or where do you think?

    Albert

    I think Asia and Australia is up first for inflation and then leaking over the United States. Obviously I don’t think we’re going to see 9.9 prints on the CPI, but steady 6-7. We definitely see that.

    Tony Nash

    Okay, great. All right. And then do you think that tapers off in say, Q4 or something like that?

    Albert

    I think so. I think it’ll start tapering off again. I think it’s going to be in a cycle.

    Tony Nash

    Okay, great. All right, so we just put out our I just tweeted out our Complete Intelligence CPI print expectations for the year and we think on average we’re going to be about 5.3% for the year. So we’re probably a little bit below your expectations. All right, Albert, thanks very much. I really appreciate that.

    Albert

    Thanks.

    Tony Nash

    Tony, let’s move on to you. When we spoke before this discussion, you talked about market chaos like you enjoy it. Are you having fun with this?

    Tony Greer

    Yeah, I am. This is the kind of trading that benefits, a more active trader, I think, like me, and somebody that’s not afraid to get flat things and take advantage of what looked like absurd price opportunities in the immediate term and things like that. So, yeah, I’m having a good time with this, Tony. I really am.

    Tony Nash

    That’s great. Can you talk us through kind of… You seem to indicate that you’re pretty bullish on metals and oil, so can you help us through that? And let’s look at metals first. I’ve got a chart for copper up and that price has obviously come down recently. But why are you so bullish on metal? Is copper included?

    Tony Greer

    Yeah. So let’s go right into it, Tony. The copper is definitely included. What got me so bullish was last year, I remember spending the whole entire second half of 2022 watching copper pound 6500 on the LME. Right? And for me, that equates to the 2017 and 2018 peak in copper, from which point it failed and faded lower and then traded down below 5k during the lockdown. So we saw the big spike to 11k, where everybody thought copper was going to the moon.

    Tony Greer

    All of that was essentially the lead in to the Biden Administration. That was the lead into the Biden administration. The pivot to electronic vehicle was that big copper rally to 11k and it consolidated there for the entirety of 2021. Then in 2022, copper backed off and pounded the highs from 2018 at 6500, held, and got back up above its moving averages. So when you see that and it coincides with another fairly tight physical market, another backward dated commodity, another commodity where inventories are nosediving, so you’ve got the supply side really on your side. The sort of argument against that is that China is storing and taking a lot of copper off of inventory.

    Tony Greer

    And my response to that is if they’re taking it off inventory, they’re probably not going to sell it anytime soon, so I don’t have to worry about it. That’s kind of the sort of one basic slant of my metal bullishness, right?

    Tony Greer

    And the other side of it I have in my mind, I’m fairly convinced that the dollar is going to be on a path lower this year. If you notice last year, she peaked at the Bank of England intervention when the guilt market came apart, and then she formed a lower high when Dollar-Yen got to 150 and the Bank of Japan showed up and said, “hold on, hold on, hold on. You guys kill it.” You know what I mean? That was an absolutely inexplicable FX rally that people haven’t seen in decades.

    Tony Greer

    So with those two central banks at the top, Tony, a curl down below the moving averages, and coincidentally, with the backdrop of two stories, number one, central bank digital currency story seems to be gaining traction. Whether we like it or not, whether it’s good for us or not, I feel like we’re going to have those and that’s going to detract from the purchasing power of the dollar again.

    Tony Greer

    And then you’ve got the story where it seems like Russia, Saudi Arabia, China, the rest of the BRICS are very interested in starting their own commodity markets, priced in their own currencies.

    Tony Nash

    Don’t get Albert started on that.

    Tony Greer

    Yeah, exactly. I was going to say, I don’t know if that’s a fair topic for discussion and maybe he may be a perma petrol dollar and that’s fair too. I don’t know. But I see that as a story, as sort of deteriorating credibility in the dollar, certainly. And that’s just the way I’m leaning. And it’s not something my money is where my mouth is. The dollar for me is a barometer that tells me how much wind am I going to have in my commodity sales. So I do not have any risk on in the dollar.

    Tony Nash

    Okay, we should actually come back and talk about that at some point in detail. Sorry, Tracy. You were saying?

    Tracy

    I was going to say we should also factor into this conversation the fact that we’ve had the lack of capex in the mining industry as far as the metals are concerned. That is equal to the same lack of capex that we’ve had in, say, the oil industry. So that definitely factors into the situation as well when you’re trying to transition to EVs, EV charging stations and all of these metals, even windmills as far as copper is concerned, et cetera. The mining industry again, I don’t know how you feel about that, but I just want to kind of throw that in there.

    Tony Greer

    Couldn’t agree more.

    Albert

    The only thing I have to say about the dollar moved down and up is I do agree with Tony that I think the dollar will probably go down a little bit, probably 97, 98. Right. But unfortunately, if inflation comes back, they’re going to have to use the dollar to kick it in the rear so we could see a 97-96 and then go right back up to 105 as they try to fight inflation again. It’s certainly possible. This is going to be a topsy turvy of a year no matter which way you look at it, whether it’s going to be dollar up, dollar down, commodities up, down. It’s just going to be all about the Fed and what intervention they do with inflation.

    Tony Greer

    It’s nonlinear chaos. Right. The curve.

    Tracy

    Yeah.

    Albert

    But this is great for a trader, for a trading. You want to see volatility.

    Tony Nash

    Very good. Okay, Tony, let’s let’s move into oil then. You’re also seem to be very bullish crude and and we have a tweet from you from Jan. 17 talking about crude going through its 50 day moving average and so on and so forth, talking about some serious muscle in crude markets. So can you talk us through that as well?

    Tony Greer

    Yeah, so that’s strictly a technical look. And to me, oil continues to make bottom formations and fail. Right? That’s what it keeps doing. We keep seeing an inverted head and shoulders, and then it kinda break the moving averages, and then we see another inverted head and shoulders. That’s even shallower than the last one because they can’t pound it any lower, and that can’t break the moving averages and we back off. And now we’ve got another situation where we’ve got another pattern that’s extremely bullish, where we just had the recent low fall between the last two lows, Tony.

    Tony Greer

    And that’s a little bit of tea leaves, but that formation is called a wiggle, and we haven’t traded lower since we put in that low. That was between those two lows, if you notice. And so now we’re attacking the 100 day moving average. I mean, this could be it. I walked into this year saying technically, I’m not going to miss out on the trade where crude oil goes through the 50 day, the 100 day, the 200 day, and keeps going, right? That’s the trade I’ve got a bullseye on. And if I have to stop myself out of it ten times, I’m going to be in the 11th time, I can guarantee you. So that’s how I’m looking at the world.

    Tony Greer

    From the supply side, the driver to me has been gasoline demand. Quite honestly, gasoline demand globally is sort of everybody’s concerned about the recession now. Not concerned about recession. I’ve traded through dozens of recessions and I have noticed that many of them don’t put a major dent in gasoline demand. So I feel like we’re set up for that type of move again, where we have steady gasoline demand. We’re able to keep this crack spread elevated at a $30 to $50 level, where they used to be eight to $12. Right. That’s the margin that a refiner makes for splitting barrels of crude into jet fuel and diesel. So with that crack spread and remaining elevated, the rest of the curve remaining backwardated, although that’s another trip that’s going to be non linear and wacky. But with inventories largely diving below five-year average inventories across the board, the demand for diesel, the demand for jet fuel. Demand for diesel was last year. This year, it seems like demand for jet fuel is really coming back quite a bit. So I just see a great supply side story, a fairly good demand side story, and I see resource nationalism everywhere I look, and that’s generally positive for crude oil.

    Tony Greer

    So when you line all of that up, the stars align with the technical picture. When we do eventually go skipping through those moving averages, the stage is set for it not to come back. I don’t know if that’s going to happen, but as a trader, I’m going to put my chips in that circle and see what happens.

    Tony Nash

    Sounds very solid. Tracy, I see you agreeing pretty violently. What else do you have to add there?

    Tony Greer

    Yeah, I want to hear what you’re adding, Tracy.

    Tracy

    No, I absolutely agree. When we talk about the supply side and the demand side, we really have to take a look at China. And I know we keep talking about the China opening story, but if we do really look at mobility data and I posted a couple of charts on this today, mobility data is up. Right. And then you also have what I think is more important is if you look at flight data and jet fuel demand, which is up once again, because we know that for Chinese New Year, we had a lot of domestic demand increase, but what we’re really looking for is international demand increase. Right. And so we’ve recently seen China flights to Hong Kong increase in full because that flight pattern was shut down. And so I think this is going to be a major forecast, and we have to realize that China has been drawing down on their stocks locally. Right? And so eventually they’re going to have to rebuy on the international market. If they’ve been depending on the stocks that they accrued since they’ve been shut down over the last year, if they’re pulling down those stocks. China is one country that is not the US.

    Tracy

    Let’s put it that way. They do not want their SPR to go to zero, all right? They really depend on this. And so because they’ve had to draw down on their domestic stocks, I would be looking for them to start buying on the international market again, especially when they’re getting really cheap crude oil right now from Russia. They would start buying.

    Tony Nash

    When do you think that is?

    Tracy

    I think now. They are buying now. I’ll post some charts on Twitter again, but according to Bortex data, there is a lot of seaborne crude going to China right now. We know that they get a lot of natural gas domestically through pipeline, and they’re expanding those pipelines, but realistically, crude oil is still seaborne, and so we can track that.

    Tony Nash

    Okay, interesting.

    Albert

    Yeah. Tony a lot of people sit there and criticize it like, well, China has been open and they’re not doing anything, and blah, blah, blah. But it’s not a black or white thing with China. I mean, they’re staggering their opening. They’re not dumb, because if they open just full speed ahead, they’d have a commodity inflation issue even worse than the United States would. So they are buying. And I agree with Tony with the oil bull market case, and I agree with Tracy. The supply side demand side is heavy. The Chinese are reopening and buying still. And I think oil goes to minimum 110 this year. Minimum.

    Tony Nash

    I love it when ours says, I agree with Tony because I’m not used to hearing that. But I know he’s talking about you, Tony Greer.

    Tony Greer

    That’s fine looking, Tony. Beautiful part. Yeah. The beautiful part about this market, Tone, is that you can find the opposite side of your trade. You just got to open your eyes and ears, right?

    Tracy

    That’s what you really need to do, because if you have a thesis, you really want to hear the opposite side. Right?

    Tony Nash

    Tell me about that. What is the downside thesis for oil? What is that downside thesis?

    Tony Greer

    Drill, baby, drill.

    Albert

    That’s not politically viable.

    Tracy

    Which is not going to happen. Which is not going to happen.

    Tony Greer

    Right. So that’s why you say you can get annoyed at what’s going on or you can make moves in the market, right. You can buy the energy complex and buy oil because that’s the direction it’s naturally going to go if they’re going to try to put this electric vehicle squeeze on by 2030. Right? I mean, that’s almost necessary. And almost the necessary trade is for the Bloomberg Commodity Index to go up 40% from here. If we’re going to fill all these orders to build battery packs and battery power all over the world.

    Albert

    The only the only other downside for oil is if the government starts playing around in oil futures and trying to sell it down just to keep it relatively safe on the inflation front, which they did.

    Tony Greer

    It was remarkably effective. It was remarkably effective. What they did with the SPR, you have to say, whether we like it or not, they knocked 30, $40 off the price.

    Albert

    It wasn’t just the SPR, though. They were sitting there selling down in oil futures in the market.

    Tony Greer

    They have a president’s working group that’s allowed to do that. I’m sure they are.

    Albert

    They do.

    Tony Nash

    Free market capitalism. You got to love it, right?

    Albert

    Yeah.

    Tony Greer

    Well, free market, political-driven capital.

    Albert

    Well, this is what Tony was mentioned this is what Tony was talking about when he said nationalizing commodities and whatnot. Of course they’re inflationary effects, but the governments only care about short term. What’s going to make my voters happy for the next election in six months? That’s all they care about.

    Tracy

    It’s kick the can theory, right? The Fed does this all the time. We see central banks do this all the time. Why not governments, right?

    Tony Nash

    Yes. Okay, guys, let’s move on to crude oil, specifically. Tracy, on Friday, we saw Russia announce plans to cut production to 500,000 barrels a day. Brent rose on the news. And I’m really curious. What is Russia producing right now? So are they at that volume capacity? And what does that mean for the crude quota and the price cap?

    Tracy

    Well, Russia is already producing at their quota according to the OPEC. The thing is, their OPEC quota and I won’t get into the logistics of this, but their OPEC quota is a lot of condensate oil, not straight oil. But aside from those details, we have to go in fact, Russia Euros is trading literally between $40 and $45 right now as we are speaking today on Friday. The the what date is this? I just want to make sure some people the 10 February. And so I think that you have to you know, I think what Russia is trying to do right now is try to bump up the price of oil for themselves, because I think if oil prices are higher for them, even though they are supplying less, they’re going to make more money regardless. I also think that this puts a thorn in the side to the west, because they’re trying to bump up oil prices. When Western nations are trying to push down oil prices. Right. They don’t want to see inflation go higher. And energy is a big part of that, even though central banks don’t realize that. But we have to, you know, it is a big part of the inflation factor.

    Tracy

    And so what I think they’re trying to do is basically say, I’m going to be a thorn in your side. We’re going to kick up oil prices. I’m also going to benefit myself because oil prices are going to go higher for me. And maybe they reach the cap $60. They’re well below then. You know, they’re still making more money with reduced volumes.

    Tony Nash

    Okay, so Euro trades at $20 discount, right, at this point.

    Tracy

    To the price cap.

    Tony Nash

    Right. But who are they hurting, aside from, say, India and China and a few other countries that are their traditional allies?

    Tracy

    Well, even if that price went up of your rails, at this juncture, China and India are still getting great deals, right? At $60 a barrel, you’re still getting a great deal. Right. You’re $20, $30 below what Brent and WTI are trading at. And so I don’t think that really matters to them. As far as am I going to lose China and India as customers, I don’t think that’s even a concern of theirs because they realize that their oil is trading well below everybody else.

    Tony Nash

    So I guess if they’re going to have the same customers, the China India customers generally, why does it matter? Aside from… Why does it matter to Brent that Russia has raised or capped off their production? If it’s going to go to the same markets anyway? I’m just curious. Why does it matter to the non-Euros crude?

    Tracy

    Because you’re taking barrels off the market, and that is the only thing the market looks at. How many barrels are you taking off the market? If you’re taking 500,000 barrels per day off the market, then these other that’s 500 barrels per day off the market.

    Tony Nash

    Sorry, what do they have said this before? What are they producing now?

    Tracy

    They’re at about 10.5, but again, that includes condensate. It’s not exactly 10.5 million barrels of oil per day.

    Tony Nash

    Okay.

    Albert

    Basically, how’s the earthquake in Turkey affecting things on the supply side?

    Tracy

    All right, so if we look at saline ports, we’ve taken 8885 barrels per day off the market as well. Almost a million barrels per day off the market from that specific port. That specific port was supposed to be down for two to three days. That’s looking like a lot longer at this junction.

    Tony Nash

    Okay.

    Tracy

    That’s also affecting global markets.

    Tony Nash

    Okay. So between Russia and the Turkey earthquake, there’s a real impact on markets?

    Tracy

    Absolutely.

    Tony Nash

    Okay.

    Albert

    And of course they’d probably take advantage of it. Yeah, that’s the way things work in that part.

    Tony Nash

    Of course. Of course. Tracy, we had some viewer questions about natgas. There were probably four of them on Twitter. What new insights do you have in natgas over the last couple of weeks?

    Tracy

    Well, as far as natgas is concerned, everybody’s asking when is this market going to bottom? Right? Because it’s been just a disaster since summer. We’ve seen like over 40% decline and in my opinion, really what we should be looking at right now, I think we’ll probably consolidate down here for a while. I think what we should be looking for is going into summer because what I think it’s going to happen is that we’re going to see China demand increase because they’re coming back online and cargoes that were bound for the EU will probably go to China now. They’ll outbid the EU because EU is basically full at this juncture, right. So they don’t really need the cargoes. Those cargoes can move to Asia. But during the summer, what we may see happen is increase. And we got very lucky with the EU as far as winter was concerned. And what I think will happen is during summer, if we have a particularly hot summer, air conditioning rises, that means nat gas increases. And so what I think we could see is somewhere this summer we see an increase in prices again because you have to realize that last year EU still had 50% of their capacity filled from Russia before everything went offline. That’s gone.

    Tony Nash

    Right.

    Tracy

    I would be looking towards, more towards this summer if you’re looking for kind of price increase. And generally right now I think that we’re probably going to see some consolidation down in this 2, 2.50 area, which is where it’s traditionally traded.

    Tony Nash

    My neighbors in Texas need more money, so let’s get that pumping.

    Tracy

    But the thing is that at this, the producers in Texas that their costs are higher, that production is going to drift if we stayed up long enough. So you have to think about that as far as production is concerned anyway, I mean, we are in surplus right now, but that may not last forever.

    Tony Nash

    Great. Okay. Very good. That’s really good. Thank you for that. Hey Tony, what does next week look like for you? I know we’ve got CPI coming out. What are you looking at for the week ahead?

    Tony Greer

    I’m thinking like Carl icon, to be honest with you. Tony. No, I’m serious. If you saw his options play, I guess he’s got, I guess it’s 5 billion notional of options that are struck at 40, 50 for next Friday. If you ask me, he’s looking at number, he’s looking at a couple of things. He’s looking first at I think the bond market, the credit markets in terms of the bonds and break evens in terms of yields and break evens trading higher in the last week, they have both vaulted off of the lows. So there’s been a clear turnaround in market based inflation perception. So I think that he sees that and looks on the calendar and sees CPI and PPI next week, knows that inflation is not linear in any direction and maybe is making a bet on and maybe it’s just a hedge, but maybe investing that money on the idea that we have an upside surprise in any of the economic data. The bond market tanks, stocks tank. If rates go higher, they’re going to mash big tech again and he’s probably going to be in the money and his 40-50 puts.

    Tony Greer

    So that’s how I’m looking at it. I’m looking to see if my portfolio of trades that I’ve got on can weather that type of storm and if I’m out of the way in certain places, if I should join him in certain places. That’s the way I’m thinking about next week, man. I’m trying to stay alive.

    Tony Nash

    Sounds very exciting. Tracy, what are you looking for next week?

    Tracy

    Continue, obviously watching the commodities markets, metals, energy, watching China data, the mobility data, flight data, see how this is moving along and we’ll see how that.

    Tony Nash

    We see a higher CPI, what does that do for crude prices, do you think? Do you think there’s a direct impact?

    Tracy

    I think you’re going to see crude prices go higher, yeah.

    Tony Greer

    Tone, what, the dynamics…

    Tracy

    Counterintuitive, right?

    Tony Greer

    Yeah. It’s kind of like the market speak to each other, right. Like a dynamic that we definitely saw along the way of the commodities rally as rates went higher last year. Right. Call it the whole period going into the Russia Ukraine invasion, right. It was oil straight up, but it was kind of like the credit market. I called two year yields last year the bat signal, and I named them that because they were getting out ahead of commodity inflation. We were having weeks where the bond market was getting shellac and there wasn’t much going on in the commodity markets, but all of a sudden they would pick up at the end of the week. And I think it was a lot of the time, like the bond market signaling inflation here. The commodity markets are going to go up. And I think that that’s kind of a sort of a cadence that established itself. And so it’s going to be really interesting to see how that unwinds.

    Tony Nash

    Fantastic. Okay. That’s a really great explanation, Tony. Thank you. Thank you so much. I really appreciate your time. Thanks so much. Have a great weekend and have a great week ahead. Thank you.

    Tony Greer

    Thanks for having us. Be good. Bye.

    Tracy

    Thank you.

  • Unveiling Shocking Risks: Markets, Cracks, Freeport, and Ukraine’s Hardware

    Learn more: https://completeintel.com/futures 👈


    In this video, our first-time guest Jim Iuorio leads the discussion on the topic of whether markets are too good for the Fed. With speculation around CPI, layoffs, and interest rates, the question of the Fed’s direction and potential pivots later in the year is raised.

    Jim also delves into the recent success of the metals market and offers insight into where the market may go in the future. He also offers his thoughts on the potential impact on equities if the S&P hits his target of 4060.

    Next, Tracy takes the lead in discussing cracks and Freeport. She explains the significance of rising crack spreads and its impact on the market. She also shares her insights on the recent opening of the Freeport facility and its effect on US natural gas prices.

    Albert then discusses the risks associated with Ukraine’s new hardware. He addresses the classification of “direct involvement” and its potential impact on European countries. He also offers insight into what actions Russia may take to further complicate the situation and the potential impact on markets such as wheat.

    Finally, the team gives their expectations for the upcoming Fed meeting and what to look for in the week ahead.

    This is the 51st episode of The Week Ahead, where experts talk about the week that just happened and what will most likely happen in the coming week.

    Follow The Week Ahead panel on Twitter:
    Tony: https://twitter.com/TonyNashNerd
    Jim: https://twitter.com/jimiuorio
    Albert: https://twitter.com/amlivemon
    Tracy: https://twitter.com/chigrl

    Listen on Spotify here:

    https://open.spotify.com/episode/1g0idbQO3igp2IJ66Bq8aR?si=5c4a8953ccf547bd

    Listen on Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/complete-intelligence/id1651532699?i=1000597046195

    Transcript

    Tony

    Hi, and welcome to the Week Ahead. I’m Tony Nash and today we’re joined by Jim Urio. Jim is at TJM Institutional and he’s with the Futuresedge podcast. Or is it on the Futuresddge podcast, right? Yes. Also with Albert Marko and Tracy Shuchart with Hightower Resources Advisors.

    We’ve got a couple of key themes. Obviously, it’s the week before the Fed and we’ve had a really good week in markets. So one of our key themes is our market is too good for the Fed. Second I think Tracy is going to talk about crack spreads and Freeport and what’s happening there. And then we’re going to look at the risk with Ukraine’s new hardware. There’s been a lot of talk about tanks going to Ukraine this week, so we’re going to talk about some geopolitical risks with Albert.

    Learn more about CI Futures tiered pricing here.

    So Jim, first, thanks again for joining us and watching some of your comments through the week with markets breaking through some of the key levels that you were looking at, the Fed’s direction is obviously a big factor in markets and there’s a lot of conjecture around CPI, layoffs, rates going lower or pause or pivot or whatever you want to call it, and people saying the Fed may do 25 and then pause.

    What’s your view on that? You’ve been obviously speaking about this several times this week. So I’m curious, what’s your view after seeing a whole week, where do you think we go from here?

    Jim

    Well, I’ve been somewhat more of a bull, I think, than most over the last few months. And I’m not trying to take a victory lap or anything, it’s just a fact. And my reasoning was that every one of us knows that these Fed rate hikes have a huge lag period before we feel the efficacy. Fed knows that too. As stupid as the Fed is, this is something that’s so fundamental, but I think they genuinely do know that. So now we’re starting to see things happen. We saw a pretty good PCE report today. CPI has been trending lower too. The only things in CPI that are stubbornly high, consistently, are food and energy, which are the two things that are least rate sensitive. The yield curve is still wildly inverted, signaling to them that they still are in a financially tight market. I believe that the Fed is getting close to having some sort of gentler language. Now, whether they go 25 basis points this time and then 25 basis points again, that’s fine to me. Now, the one thing I do have a problem with is that the Fed Funds futures curve says 50 basis points over the next two meetings.

    And then toward the end of ’23, there’s going to be an ease. But they say it’s only going to be a quarter, two and a half point ease. And that I say “no way.” If they’re ever going to actually pivot and start easing, it’s only going to be as if something is burning and something is falling down and then it’s not going to be a quarter point ease. That being said, I still like risk assets. And I have because I think we are nearing the end of the Fed tightening cycle. I believed, I’ve been doing my podcast for the last hour. I wanted the market to settle above 4070. It certainly did, right? We went into the closed pretty strong, I thought. And I think that that green lights the next move higher. I particularly like the metals market, and I’ll shut up in 1 second, I swear to God. I particularly like the metals market because I think that… I don’t mean to talk for so long. I thought copper was being held down by China news, by the Fed, by the strength of the dollar, and all those things have seemed disappeared. And I’ve made good money on that so far, and I plan on keeping those lumps.

    Tony

    So it’s a good question about metals. What are you looking at? You said China and you said China reopening other things. What are you looking at in metals? Are you looking at industrial metals, copper and so on? Are you looking at precious metals or kind of all of the above?

    Jim

    Copper is number one and that’s my biggest position. Silver and then go down from base industrial all the way to just gold being pressured. And the gold thesis for me is different than the copper one in that I believed at the time when I started buying more gold, that Bitcoin and Etherium in the crypto market and all that dollar safety hedge or whatever the hell it is, if that was disappearing, then money would go back into gold. Well, that didn’t disappear. Bitcoin is butting up against new cycle highs now, but gold is still doing well. So in that I was kind of wrong on the thesis. The thesis was also the dollar weakening, which happened as well. Once the Pound of the Euro started really bouncing off those October lows, I thought, okay, the green light is on for all these metals. So I’ve done okay in gold, even though my thesis about crypto was wrong.

    Tony

    Okay, but was your thesis wrong? Do you see crypto and gold as substitutional somewhat at the margin still?

    Jim

    I don’t know. I was going to ask you that same question. I always did. And I thought that the $3 trillion crypto market was sucking away some of the gold. And I thought that that was a big deal. But then it doesn’t seem to be now, so I guess I can’t answer that. I’m confused, I guess.

    Tony

    Yeah. I’m curious. What do you think about that, Tracy, in terms of crypto and gold? Do you think there’s a trade off there?

    Tracy

    This is not really my… Crypto market, is not really my market.

    Tony

    Internet, say whatever you want.

    Tracy

    Albert knows way more about this than I do, to be honest, because I’ve never traded crypto, and he’s traded a lot in the past. So I’m going to defer this to Albert.

    Albert

    Before I do think that there was a correlation between how much money was flying into crypto versus taken away from gold, I think there is no doubt that gold suffered because of that. I don’t think that as the case right now, simply because there’s been too many blow ups in the crypto world at the moment. I don’t really know how liquid it really is. There’s certainly no retail left in the crypto market, so it looks like it’s all institutional. So I don’t know. You can’t really make a fundamental call on crypto at the moment.

    Tony

    Could you ever make a fundamental call on crypto?

    Albert

    You could at some point, because institutional money was flying in there because their clients were forcing them to get into the space. So you could make a little bit of a fundamental case for crypto, but as all these ponzi schemes blew up, like FTX and everything, that’s just gone completely out the window at the moment.

    Jim

    Sure, Tony, I can make a slight fundamental argument of it. When they were adding an additional $7 trillion, throwing it into the money supply, and really being poor stewards of the dollar, that was somewhat of a fundamental argument for crypto, I guess, right?

    Tony

    Yeah. Okay. Are markets too good for the Fed. As we’re going into next week, are these levels too good for the fed? Is Powell going to come out and really, you know, say, look, this is irrational or whatever, and it’s too much, and is he going to pour out, say, 50 basis points and disappoint a lot of people?

    Jim

    Just to punish me a rug pull? I mean, I think he’s capable of that. He certainly did at the Jackson Hole meeting a while back. So you have identified, I think, the major risk, and it’ll probably go into that somewhat hedged. And again, hedging is probably going to be expensive going into it because people realize that that’s where the risk is. So on balance, I will say, no, I don’t believe he is. I think he believes that going too far this way. And again, I think he thinks going not far enough in this direction is the worst possible thing. But I also think he’s starting to realize going too far and what that looks like. He sits around and talks about creating slack in the job market, and to him, it’s just an equation on a whiteboard where the reality is talking about people losing their jobs. I think he balances a lot of realities. I think he’s incompetent. His entire tenure has been mostly incompetent, but I think he’s done a pretty good job trying to clean up the mess that he made over the last year and a half, and I don’t think he’s going to do something stupid like that. But, yes, to your point, it is a risk.

    Albert

    I actually disagree with Jim on this.

    I think it’s going to really matter about what the market does. If we start flying into the 4200 before Tuesday on the SPX and whatnot. I think that Powell will come out. I don’t know if he’ll do 50. I don’t think he’ll do 50, but he might come out with a 25 basis point rate hike and then start talking extremely hawkish and dismiss all the rate cuts that everybody’s been talking about, which would be essentially the same thing as doing 50 to the market. If the market says that. If the market here is that we’re not getting rate cuts till 2024, I don’t see that as positive whatsoever.

    Jim

    I certainly hope you’re right in the near term, too, because I’m short some of those 4200 calls, like, too many. That’s the position I keep checking in my bold position was like, oh, sh*t, they’re getting too expensive. So I actually like what you’re saying a little bit in the short term.

    Albert

    Yeah, I have a problem because of this is falling liquidity right now and tightness at the same time. I look at the market and I’m like, well, money is starting to fly out into Asia, which we talked about Tony, repetitively for months now. Where are we going to get that $5 trillion incremental money coming into the market to keep this thing afloat? For me, it’s like I don’t see the math adding up to 4300 on the S&P and anytime soon. And on top of that, if you calculate rate hikes and everything you’re looking at the market, 4150 or 4200 is more expensive than 4800 was. It’s technically even higher valuation. So for these things, I’m just like I think we’re probably going to retrace the 3850 on some kind of ridiculous Powell talk. And on top of that, Brainard is talking about leaving. She’s not leaving if Powell is talking about being dovish. She wouldn’t be doing that, in my opinion.

    Tracy

    I asked a question. I was just saying and that’s for both of you. I mean, considering that the Fed has hiked so quickly, do we even think, and the data has remained pretty good, considering right, so do we think that the rate hikes have actually even been able to filter down into the economy at?

    Jim

    I don’t, Tracy. I think that that’s the point. I think when you look, just take the real estate market. How in the world is it not going to be a major hurdle for the real estate market to take mortgage rates from 2.8% to 7%? I think that it’s silly to think that if they just left things the way it is, I believe that we would certainly go in recession at some point in time with money being restrictive as it is compared to… I’ve argued for 30 years that rates had to be inorganically low to make up for the fact that we have all these crappy regulations and punitive taxes on companies. They need low rates to function. I think rates are to point now where eventually they would drag on us too much. Albert, do you agree with that?

    Albert

    I do. But the flip side of that is, like, if Powell doesn’t stay the course, Yellen is using the TGA, in my opinion, from what I heard, to offset quantitative tightening. This could set off another round of inflation if China comes on too fast, or even Europe starts to gear up a little bit and reset their manufacturing sectors with stimulus. The fear I have is a second half inflationary run again, and then we’re going to be talking no more pauses, but another round of 50-75 basis point rate hikes.

    Tony

    Second half of Q2. I don’t think it’s a second half inflation run. I think it’s Q2. I think it happens a little bit sooner than that.

    Albert

    Yeah, it could. I mean, you could have any kind of geopolitical event like Russia re-invading Ukraine with some gusto this time.

    Tony

    Okay, guys, here’s my question, though. We’re talking all this potential dovishness, but all we’ve seen is the rate of inflation slow. We haven’t seen prices come down. Okay, so why would he go to zero? Or why would he just do 25? I’m not seeing it. When you look at the job market, sure, you’ve lost 70,000 tech jobs, but they hired 2 million since 2020 or something like that, right? So it’s nothing. It’s dropping the bucket.

    Tracy

    Chipotle hiring 15,000 so those people can get a job.

    Tony

    Exactly. What is it that would tell us that he’s going to go 25 or pivot or whatever? I’m just not seeing that thing because the job market is still really strong.

    Jim

    So here’s what I would say to that, is that the job market is going to be strong and tighten. It’s a weird kind of anomaly that happened with 3 million boomers leaving the job market prematurely over the last three years. To your point about why would he not stay the course if prices aren’t coming down? Because, remember, ultimately, the end of the day, the inflation was intentional and it was done because of this wild indebtedness all over the board. But I always focus on the five states that could not possibly have paid their bills under any possible scenario. And that’s why for ten years, they kept telling us that they needed inflation. So I think in Powell’s mind, he tells us 2%. I think he’d be perfectly happy with three and a half.

    Albert

    And they’ll get three and a half because they’re starting to change the way CPI has waited starting 2023.

    Jim

    Just like when Nixon changed the definition of unemployment back in the 70s.

    Albert

    The BLS have done that in the past. They changed the way unemployment is calculated. Now they changed the way the CPI is calculated.

    Tracy

    They changed the way inflation is calculated.

    Albert

    Perception is reality in the market. We can sit there and b*tch about fake data from China and fake data from the Europe and the US. But perception is reality in the markets.

    Tony

    Yes. So we’re going to change the rules to win.

    Albert

    Well, yeah, of course.

    Tony

    And the CPAC calculation changes this month, right?

    Albert

    Yeah, January 2023.

    Tony

    Fantastic. Okay, so you guys are in the 25 basis point camp for next week, right? 25 and very hawkish. 25 and very hawkish.

    Jim

    Okay, I don’t I like what Albert saying. I say 25 and mildly hawkish.

    Tony

    All right, we’ll see. I think it might be a little harder than that. So we’ll see. That’s good, though. I appreciate that.

    Tony

    Okay, Tracy, I want to talk a little bit about refineries and crack spread. You sent out a tweet on Monday about diesel prices.

    Can you help us, help us understand what’s happening at refineries and what’s happening with diesel and gasoline and other refined products prices?

    Tracy

    Well, this is actually the perfect segue because I tweeted out a chart of ULSD, which is diesel, basically. And so we’re seeing those refinery margins explode again. And most people say, well, that’s anticipation of the diesel embargo in Russia and refineries across the world that are not part of Russia are seeing these increases. But that’s not just happening in the diesel market, that’s also happening in gasoline cracks. And so higher refining, basically the long and short, higher refining margins mean higher prices for consumers. Right. So Tuesday we just hit a three month high of $42. And when oil was at its highest price, those crack spreads were at $60. So this should start ringing alarm bells a little bit about inflation. This is why it kind of correlates to what we were just talking about. And so CBs, even though they don’t count energy in the CPI as part of inflation, they should be keeping an eye on these indicators because it kind of indicates that we’re going to see higher gasoline, diesel costs, jet fuel, et cetera. And that could add to inflationary pressures across the board, not only for just the consumer, you and I, but for companies that are heavily dependent on these products.

    Tony

    And when there’s inflation in energy, there’s inflation in everything.

    Tracy

    Right, right.

    Tony

    Second or two tier impacts.

    Tracy

    Exactly, yeah.

    Albert

    One of my oil friends was telling me that normally January, February, they’re running at minimum rates, trying not to lose money. But this has been like absolutely insane, where they’re just making money hand over fist right now because the demand is so high.

    Jim

    Tracy, I have a quick question for tracy, by the way. Is that okay?

    Tony

    Yes.

    Jim

    So, Tracy, just last week, I don’t know if it was Chevron or Conical Phillips, where they announced raising the dividend or whatever, paying bonuses and not investing in it. Was that an indication that they still feel that the government is not smiling upon fossil fuel companies expanding their operation?

    Tracy

    Oh, 100%. Right. For over a year now, we’ve seen elevated energy prices in that seventy dollars to eighty dollars range. Negating, the spikes that we saw from the Ukraine invasion. But so after a year of pretty much stable higher energy prices, we are still not seeing anybody want to invest in this sector. Right. They still want to cater to the investor. They still want to pay down debts. They still want to do higher dividends. They still want to engage in stock buybacks. All to placate the investor. And so that is very telling that after a year, they’re still not willing to reinvest into capex, particularly in shale.

    Tony

    It’s nothing but downside to invest, right?

    Jim

    No doubt.

    Tracy

    Yeah, absolutely.

    Jim

    It’s maddening when you think about it. Everything seems like it’s such a self inflicted wound. And this is the kind of thing that keeps me up at night. It seems like a government that’s working against us. And I’m not trying to be that guy. I’m not political. I just see policies and they’re asinine.

    Tracy

    Who wants to invest when they say, we want to phase you out, we want to kill you?

    Jim

    Right? Yeah.

    Albert

    Well, this is the problem when politics gets mixed up in economic policy, it starts muddying things up and mistakes become exponential at this point.

    Tony

    But politics is always mixed up in economic policy everywhere. You know that. I’m not telling you you don’t know, but it’s always there. When I hear you talk about refineries, and it’s been how many decades since we built refineries in the US, Tracy? The 70s was the last time we built refinery?

    Tracy

    70s was the last major. We’ve had a lot of brown projects, which means we’ve added refinery capacity to already existing refineries, but we haven’t had any new green projects, which means building new refineries. And we were talking about, I think, last week or the week before the expansion that we’re having in Texas. But the problem is that the amount of refining that is coming offline is more than the refining capacity that is coming online.

    Tony

    Right. So what’s our capacity utilization right now in refineries?

    Tracy

    Well, we’re down right now because we’re in the middle of maintenance. And we also had Elliot storm, which some refineries, for instance, Baytown, is just coming back up this week from the storm in December. So utilization rates right now at about 89.5%. But, you know, you have to realize that, you know, we’ve been over, well over 90%.

    Tony

    Yeah, 94 or something like that. Right?

    Tracy

    Yeah. And we have aging refineries. And so what does that mean? Those refineries are more prone to breakdown because we’re running them at, like, ridiculous max capacity. Right, exactly.

    Tony

    Okay, so since you mentioned Texas, let’s look at this tweet that you put out a couple of days ago saying that Freeport gets approval.

    So USLNG, the Freeport terminal has been approved and reopened. So can you talk us through what that means for European nat gas and what that means for US nat gas prices?

    Tracy

    Well, for US natural prices, that is positive. And I know that all nat gas prices have tumbled 35% to 45%. Regardless, we’re back into that two area that is pretty much where we’ve been for several years. But it is a good thing. I think the market, I think, spiked 15% or 15% $0.15 sorry, on that move. And they kind of retraced it. I think the market is a very Freeport is an export place. So what that means is that if Freeport being closed basically landlocks US nat gas, which is obviously a negative because we have a lot of it. But I think that the market in general is a little bit skeptical. But as soon as we actually start seeing export capacity increase from that facility, then I think that the markets will be more enthusiastic about the success of that because it’s really been since August since that facility is shut down.

    Tony

    So you’re saying we should see US nat gas prices rise as we have more export volumes from Freeport?

    Tracy

    Absolutely. And even this week, Semper Energy announced that their new Port Arthur facility has already been booked. And that facility isn’t even all the way built yet. And that’s another export facility. So there’s a lot coming online and a lot being built out that we will be able to see. I think that just market participants have become a little bit placated because they look at European stocks and European stocks, of course they’re still full. They’ve had a mild winter, but everybody kind of forgets that last year 50% of their storage capacity came from cheap Russian pipeline. And that’s not going to happen this year.

    Tony

    Yeah. So all of those new roads that are being built in Texas, it may have been started with other money, but it’s going to be finished with European money. Right. So I just want to take this moment to thank our European friends for finishing our transportation.

    Albert

    About time they give back.

    Tony

    That’s right.

    Jim

    Finally, their currency has come back a little bit, so now they can actually buy stuff here.

    Tony

    Perfect. Okay, very good, Tracy. Anything else on nat gas? Are you still keeping eye on fertilizer for kind of late spring time period?

    Tracy

    Yes, absolutely. I think that’ll still come into play. I mean, nat gas prices are extremely low right now, which is great news for fertilizer prices. That will give farmers a break. This is all good news in that respect, but I still think we need to keep an eye on this going forward and keep an eye on that gas prices because obviously that’s going to affect fertilizer prices and farming in general.

    Tony

    Jim?

    Jim

    Tracy, you talked about diesel before, and I don’t trade diesel. Is the spread between diesel and regular WTI still blown out? And what could possibly get diesel back in line?

    Tracy

    Well, I think that there’s been a shortage for a very long time. That spreads come in a lot, comparatively speaking. But now it’s starting to blow out again because again, you have the EU embargo of diesel, and they got literally like 95% of their diesel came from Russia. Another dependent project. And I’m sure Russian diesel will go somewhere else. It’s not more about that, but it’s more about really boils down to refining capacity as well. Because even in the United States, we can’t refine. If Europe wants to buy from us, we can’t even refine enough. We’re sending what we have over there as well as our domestic needs. So really, diesel to me comes down to refining capacity altogether.

    Jim

    That’s an unfixable problem, right?

    Tony

    Until Russia’s solved, right?

    Albert

    What about the Jones Act waivers for sending diesel up to these coast cheaper?

    Tracy

    Yes, they could do that, but they haven’t done that. They’ve done that in the past for Puerto Rico after the hurricane and all of that, but they still haven’t given waivers. Even when prices were extremely high in the United States, when we were at the height back in June, July, when prices, gas prices were highest, diesel prices were highest, they still wouldn’t give Jones Act waivers. You have to understand that the Jones Act came into play into 1920 when we had a fleet of over 1000 vessels, and we now have under 100 vessels that can transport that. So, you know, it’s the government could do it. They’ve chosen not to. Why? I’m not sure, but…

    Jim

    We can come up with some guesses. They’re either stupid or they’re nefarious. I believe at some point in time you’re going to have to say some of it’s nefarious, where they keep making the wrong decision at every turn. And I apologize for that.

    Tony

    No, don’t apologize. Look, it’s making it more expensive for people on the East Coast to get diesel. It’s not good.

    Tony

    Okay, great. Speaking of Russia, Albert, we saw a lot of news over last week about tanks going to Ukraine. And there’s a tweet from Max Abrams, who’s a great geopolitical professor talking about  Russia, says that tanks from the west count as, quote, “direct involvement in the war”.

    So I wanted to get your… Jim said what would solve the diesel problem. Obviously, Russia coming back into the market would solve the diesel problem. Now with a lot of Western countries sending tanks to Ukraine, that doesn’t sound like we’re coming closer to a solution on that. So first of all, why are they sending them if they don’t have the people to operate them? Second, tanks are to take land. Right? So what do you think is being planned? And third, how risky is it? Do you think it really implicates these kind of donor countries as direct participants in the war?

    Albert

    I don’t really buy into the whole direct participants of the war. The rhetoric coming out of Russia is a little bit bombastic in that respect. Referring to those tanks, there’s only going to be about 100 of them, right? They’re not going to be able to push out the Russians with those tanks. On top of that, they’re going to be about six months out until they’re actually even deliver, and then you still have to train these guys and they need supplies, and the Ukrainians don’t really have all that. So the best guess that I have is that they’re forcing Russia to come into a ceasefire in about six to eight months time, which gives them a window now to try to take Dambus and have some kind of wind before these tanks get delivered. Listen, they’re no joke. The Leopard tanks and the Abrams are better than what the Russians have. But in terms of the Ukrainians using them to push Russians out of all Ukrainian territories, that’s just not happening.

    Tony

    Right. So are these just old tanks or is it a quality kit that they’re getting?

    Albert

    Well, I think they’re getting like the second tier tanks of what the west has, but that’s still better than what the Russians have or even willing to use for Ukraine. So, like I said, this is more of a measure to force the ceasefire later on in the year.

    Tony

    Okay. Yeah, Jim?

    Jim

    Albert, a couple of days ago, when this escalation started in Germany, we announced I immediately put on my screens, looked at oil, wheat, even the defense sector ETF, and nothing really budged. Do you think the market was looking at it like it wasn’t a big deal? Or do you think the market was looking at it as somewhat balanced, perhaps a quicker end of the war and not an escalation, or perhaps an escalation, the two things come around?

    Albert

    Oh, man, that’s a good one, Jim. I honestly think that the market’s probably in a wait and see position at the moment.

    Jim

    Numb to the shit kind of. Right?

    Albert

    Yeah. You got to wait and see what Moscow is going to do. I certainly think they’re going to use wheat and grains and other grains asymmetrical responses to the west to push inflation out over there, make it hurt. That’s the only thing they have. They don’t really have anything else to go after. I mean, the oil that they’re selling to India and China is enough to sustain their pocketbooks for a little while until this gets sorted out. But until there’s some sort of major upheaval in Ukraine, I don’t think the defense stocks will take off or wheat yet. But they will. I think they will. They haven’t moved.

    Tony

    The defense stocks haven’t moved for a while. If it is we and other AG stuff that is going to be their lever, that probably means the Turks will get more involved in the discussion because they’re the ones who arbitrated the discussion earlier. Is that right?

    Albert

    Well, they’re trying to get into the discussion. I actually have really good connections with the Turks and their main thing is to distract the West and the Russians into Ukraine while they push their trade deals out into Africa at the moment. You know, the Turks have a great drone, the TB Two, which they sell to pretty much everybody. So that’s as far as they’ll actually get into the war besides making media comments.

    Tony

    Right, okay. And so what risk do you think there is on wheat? Do you think we see more wheat risks, say, in Q2 – Q3 this year?

    Albert

    I absolutely do. The Ukrainians, they’re planting a lot less. I think 40% less is what they’re reporting, is probably even more than that.

    Tony

    Right.

    Albert

    And on top of that, if the Russians decide to blow up a port or blow up a few ships that are trying to get out with wheat, and all of a sudden, wheat, you know, takes off back to the 900 or $1,000 mark again. So I definitely see that happening in Q2 Q3.

    Tony

    Okay. That could be exciting. All right, guys, let’s close it up. We’re in that quiet period for the Fed. We have that Fed discussion next week. So what are you keeping an eye on next week aside from the Fed, of course, but what are you keeping an eye on in markets? Tracy, why don’t you get us started.

    Tracy

    Well, I know that most people are looking forward to OPEC is next week at the beginning of February. My personal stance on that is that I think they will keep everything as is. Right. They made that 2 million cut, even though it’s technically not 2 million, because they were under quota anyway. They said they were going to carry that through 2023 unless something came up that they really needed to address. And I just don’t see anything coming. I don’t see any reason they would need to change this policy stance right now. We have Russian barrels still on the market. We have China is still kind of an unknown because they haven’t really opened up yet. So that’s what I’m looking forward to, or at least that’s what my feeling is about the data.

    Tony

    Great. Okay. Albert, what are you looking at next week?

    Albert

    Well, obviously the Fed. I think, is in order with a hawkish tone, but honestly, I want to see how the dollar reacts to all this. And the VIX. The VIX at 17, start looking at some good old put options and call options with the 17 VIX is fantastic. But, yeah, basically what the dollar is going to do. I really want to see if the dollar breaks into the 90s with some kind of bull market talk.

    Tony

    Excellent. Okay. And Jim. Wrap us up. What are you looking at?

    Jim

    The unemployment numbers on Friday. Big deal. The last shooter drop is going to be the slack in the labor market that they want. Albert mentioned that level on the dollar. I call it like 101 to 100. As soon as it goes below that, as soon as we get a nine handle on the dollar, I think it greenlights a lot of risk assets. But the thing I’m mostly focused on is unemployment and then the week after that my trip to South Florida. Because every time I leave these damn markets, something crazy happened. So you guys can count on that. I’ll tell you when I’m on my flight. Something weird is going to happen.

    Tony

    When is that?

    Jim

    I don’t know. My wife makes the arrangements. I think it’s the next, like a week from next Thursday. I think we’re going on vacation.

    Tony

    Keep an eye on. Jim, thanks so much for joining us, Jim. Guys, this has been great. Thanks very much everyone have a great weekend. Thanks Jim.

    Jim

    Thank you guys. Yeah, let’s see you guys.

  • The Great(ish) China Reopening: Unveiling the Timing of the Next Breakout

    Learn more about CI Futures: https://www.completeintel.com/futures

    This Week Ahead episode discusses the current state of the Chinese economy and its potential trajectory in the future, with experts Leland Miller, Mary Kissel, and Samuel Rines. In this episode, the panel discusses China’s gradual reopening, China’s place in the world, and the Chinese Communist Party’s economy.

    Leland Miller, who leads China Beige Book, talks about China’s Great(ish) Re-opening. He notes that the reopening has been a gradual process and not as quick as some had claimed it would be. He raises the question of when we will see China really break out, whether it will be after the Lunar New Year/Spring Festival or later. He also discussed what activity we should be watching to know that China is really back to normal, such as investment, hiring, etc. He concludes by commenting on what a “normal” Chinese economy will look like in 2024 and beyond.

    Mary Kissel, from Stephens, leads a discussion on China’s place in the world. She notes that with confirmation that China’s population has already peaked, there seems to be a subtle reassessment of the “China opportunity.” She points out that there is a very different view of China from the European perspective vs the US perspective. Europe seems to be growing closer to China while the US seems to be pulling back. She also shares how US-China relations will change as China normalizes and whether US companies are really moving out of China. She also discusses the push-and-pull factors that influence these decisions and if US companies will be complacent and stop moving to manufacture elsewhere after the slower opening in China.

    Samuel Rines, from Corbu, leads a discussion on The Party’s economy. He notes that under Xi’s leadership, we’ve seen the Chinese Communist Party return to a more involved role across Chinese society. He shares if the government will be more assertive toward businesses – both domestic and foreign businesses – in a post-Covid world and if that could impact how foreign investors view investments in China. He also mentions recent central government intervention in several sectors, most notably tech and real estate, and asks how involved the government will be in the repair of the real estate sector and protecting the tech sector. He also shares that if given renewed government involvement as well as factors like population and economic slowdown, we expect these sectors to return to rapid growth anytime soon.

    Finally, the panel members share what they are thinking about China that they’re not sure most people see.

    Key themes:
    1. China’s Great(ish) Re-opening
    2. China’s place in the world
    3. The Party’s economy

    This is the 50th episode of The Week Ahead, where experts talk about the week that just happened and what will most likely happen in the coming week.

    Follow The Week Ahead panel on Twitter:
    Tony: https://twitter.com/TonyNashNerd
    Leland: https://twitter.com/ChinaBeigeBook
    Mary: https://twitter.com/marykissel
    Sam: https://twitter.com/SamuelRines


    Listen on Spotify here:

    https://open.spotify.com/episode/0Hz8dz7NW8mpF0EfUY0QM5?si=4cdd3fa7d1f7459a


    Listen on Apple Podcasts:

    Transcript

    Tony

    Hi, and welcome to the week ahead. I’m Tony Nash, and today we’re joined for a special discussion on China. We’re joined by Leland Miller of China Beige Book. We’re also joined by Mary Kissel of Stevens and Sam Rines of Corbu. Guys, thank you so much for taking the time to talk about this. I think it’s a really critical time to understand what’s happening with China, and it’s just a really timely discussion. So I really, sincerely appreciate the time you’ve taken for this discussion.

    Tony

    CI Futures has thousands of assets that we forecast every month. We do commodities, currencies, and equity indices every single week. On Monday morning, there are hundreds, almost 800 of those that we forecast every week, updated on Monday morning. We forecast economics variables every month. Those are available on the first of every month. In total, it’s thousands of assets. We show our error. We are the only product out there, the only forecasting product out there that actually discloses our error. You can see our historical error, and you can see a year’s forecast at monthly intervals. Please check it out. Please click on the site. If you need a demo, let us know.

    Learn more about CI Futures forecasting app.

    Tony

    Thanks very much. We’ve got a few key themes that we’re going to talk through today. The first is China’s kind of great-ish opening. Everything in modern Chinese history is the great whatever. So this is kind of the great-ish reopening. We also want to talk about China’s place in the world. And so I think that’s a really important thing to understand. There’s a lot of discussion about the rising CNY and other things. And so we really want to understand China’s place in the world. And finally, a discussion about the economy, kind of the party’s economy versus the entrepreneur’s economy. And so I’ve heard some comments recently, actually, from an interview Leland did about kind of, is this the party’s economy? Is this not the party’s economy? So let’s kind of jump right into it.

    Tony

    Leland, I really want to understand the reopening in China. Post COVID, we had these protests. It’s been well covered. We had this really quick change from the central government in terms of when they’re going to open. And it seems like it’s been not as quickly as was claimed initially. And I think markets had this expectation that things were going to open on a dime.

    Tony

    And some of that’s happened, some of that hasn’t. So can you tell us what is your data seeing? Are we seeing a slow, delayed opening? And when do you see kind of the full reopening of China?

    Leland

    Sure. Well, look, reopening was always a bad term to use because markets equated a COVID Zero reversal, COVID Zero pullback with the reopening. So the second that Xi Jinping did this mystery call to just reverse himself the next day, they said, okay, China’s reopening, that was never going to happen. Obviously, if you’re opening the floodgates on COVID, then you’re going to have a COVID tidal wave wash over the country. So it never made any sense that there was going to be an immediate reopening. We like to use the word reactivation of the economy. There was always going to be a number of months in which things were just going to be bad, as people were either getting COVID, or they were hiding from COVID or they were dying from COVID. The reality was December was terrible. I mean, we don’t have to rehash the old economic data from last year, because we really are in a paradigm changing time right now. But 2022 was atrocious. The fourth quarter was in contraction. December was in contraction. It was just absolutely terrible time. January, this is where people, I think, are jumping the gun on the entire reopening question.

    Leland

    People are obsessed with subway indicators. So everywhere you turn there’s like somebody quoting a Beijing subway has more people this week than it did last week. Same with Shanghai, a couple of other tier one cities. That’s great. Look, it’s great that the low point has been pushed past in some of these bigger cities, but China is big, China is real big, and China is real rural, and a lot of the major economic engines of China are in smaller cities, manufacturing commodities, et cetera. So you’ve got a long time, or a longer time than most people think, where COVID just has to wash over the entire country. We don’t know what’s going to happen with Lunar New Year. I mean, you have the potential for it. This is the all time, world record super spreader event that anyone’s going to be ever see. And so what is going to happen? They’ve taken care of it in the big cities relatively well. Although people are dying and they’re not admitting to it. Many, many tens and tens and tens of thousands of people are dying and they’re not a day and they’re not admitting it. But when you get into the rural areas, you have massive hospital under capacity.

    Leland

    You don’t have ICU beds, you don’t have doctors, you don’t have nurses. They’ve run out of cold medicine, they’ve run out of other types of medicine. So what are they going to do? We don’t know. The assumption is that we’re not going to have a real good idea of what’s happening, but we do know it’s going to suppress any type of commercial activity, economic activity, for a little while. So I think the way we look at it is an optimistic take on this would be maybe by the end of February you start to have economic activity starting to come back. Not that you’re not going to see little jumps in travel here and there. People are running around. Obviously travel is going to do better. But in terms of the economy getting back open, maybe you start seeing that in March more broadly. It may be April, it may be later, but let’s just assume March 1 is a very optimistic way of looking at it. It still means that the first quarter is going to be bad. You’ve got January and February are going to be bad. Nothing is happening. We don’t have our January data out yet, but I can tell you what’s happening and that is very little other than people getting sick.

    Leland

    So you’ve got bad data. Q1 will look bad. The recovery story starts in Q2. And then there’s a question of how intense will this be? Will Chinese consumers… The story I hear ad nauseam from just about every one of my hedge fund clients is Chinese consumers are chomping at the bit to go spend, spend, spend, spend. I mean, that’s never been true of Chinese consumers, but let’s assume that they’ve been pent up, they want to spend. So that’s unclear. There’ll be some pent up spending. I think the big issue here is firm behavior. So in 2022, China Beige Book, probably the single most important conclusion takeaway we had from all our data was that firms told us, and thousands and thousands and thousands of firms told us that until COVID Zero was pulled back, they weren’t going to invest, they weren’t going to borrow, and they weren’t going to hire. They just weren’t going to do it. And that’s why you never saw any bounce backs after the lockdowns were eased along the way. Now COVID Zero is pulled back, COVID itself, the initial wave at least, will be passed as soon firms will start reinvesting.

    Leland

    So you will get a cyclical bounce back from that coming in the next couple of months. That’ll be great. Then maybe you have consumers spending on top of it to some degree, at least in the early going. The question is then do you have stimulus on top of that? Probably so in the early going. How moderate, modest? Mild? We’ll see. But look, you have the potential because this is the base of comparison, 2022 has been so bad, you have the potential for this beautiful cyclical bounce back for a time. But I think that the last point I would make here is 2023 has the potential to be a giant head fake because you’re going to see this cyclical bounce back. You’ve got all these things lining up. Maybe they stimulate and get the bigger numbers. Maybe they, they hold off and, and get just pretty good numbers. But this is in the larger context of a major structural slowdown. And so you’re going to see the numbers come up and then you’re going to see the numbers go back down and whether that’s the end of the year. We have an internal discussion about this.

    Leland

    Our chief economist Derek Scissors and I have different opinions on this, but he thinks it’ll go longer, a little longer than I do. But let’s say it’s two, three, four quarters of elevated growth and then you’re pushed back down again at the end so 2023 has a potential to be this nice year, particularly in the middle. People are going to start talking about the old China’s back, the old growth models back, the old stimulus playbook’s back. I don’t think any of that’s true, but you will see better times, better numbers, certainly in the middle and towards the end of the year. And then the question will be, where are we going from here? And I think it’s pretty clear we’re going to continue on the structural slowdown. But then that’s when the big questions about stimulus and whether they want to do any types of uturns, that’s when these got kickbacked in and become really interesting.

    Tony

    Okay, just to clarify a couple of things. First, you guys get new data every day, right? This isn’t a monthly or quarterly thing. You’re always getting renewed data on the Chinese economy, is that right?

    Leland

    Yeah. Back in the old days, we started over a decade ago. We were doing a quarterly survey because people said, you can’t get in for you. You’re not even going to be able to do a quarterly survey. It was smaller. Now we are not just releasing data quarterly and releasing a monthly. We have data populating our analytics platform on a daily basis in real time as the surveys are being conducted. So it’s daily to the extent that during survey periods, we’re populating the platform daily. So we don’t release the information daily because you got to be careful in what conclusions you’re making before you get your full set of data. So we release it monthly, but we populate the platform on a daily basis.

    Tony

    Right. I just asked that question because you’re not talking anecdotally, you’re talking about real data when you make the assertions that you’re making. Right.

    Leland

    Always perfect. Usually good.

    Tony

    Mary, what are your thoughts on this in terms of what you’re seeing right now and what you see in terms of the ramp up? What are the things that you’re really watching to know that a ramp up is happening?

    Mary

    Well, first of all, it’s great to be on with you guys again, and great to be on with you guys who I’ve known for a really long time. So thanks for inviting me. I agree with what Leland said. I think we should put it also in a broader context. You know, the idea that China is going to snap back to the kind of the Gogo days of the 2000s also has to be seen in light of the regime and its its view of economic growth. They don’t think about economic growth in the way that we do. The economy serves the party. Everything serves the party. And Xi Jinping was brought in to crack down on the excesses of corruption in the elite circles. He has done that. He moved on to cut off the heads of a lot of the corporate leaders and to rein in some of the more successful enterprises in the country. That’s not going to change. So in order to go back to the Gogo days, it’s not just about reopening or stimulus, it’s what is the extent to which businesses will be allowed to invest and take risks? And Leland raises a great question here about their willingness to do that.

    Mary

    How has behavior changed over this crisis? We don’t we don’t know yet. There’s another macro factor here, of course, which is demand for the goods that are being produced in China. We’re in an unusual situation where you have kind of the three pillars of the global economy, the United States, Europe and China really not positioned or implementing policy for growth, sustainable growth. And so that’s a factor as well. I think it’s interesting to see, and very predictable, by the way, to see Xi Jinping and his cadres kind of fan out and try to lure in particularly the Europeans and the labor government in Australia to renew their relationship with the regime. The Australians just in these last days came out and said that they had gotten close to some sort of trade they thought with China. Remember that Xi Jinping punished that country for some very principled stance that they took on COVID. I would expect that to continue, and I’m sure that the Germans and the French and the Australians and others will rush back in. But as Leland said, they may do well in the near term, but it could be a real suckers game in the long term. So I would absolutely caution against that.

    Tony

    Sounds like a really delicate year for China. Again, I think the prevailing sentiment is there’s all this pent up spending waiting to go, and it sounds like that’s not really what you’re seeing. And what about the lead times for some of these manufacturing firms to get back up? Is that a month or two months? So if we say March 1, hypothetically, is the date that things start, if all these factories started on March 1, would it be say, six to eight weeks before things are really moving? Or is it quicker than that?

    Mary

    Is that from you, for Leland?

    Tony

    Anybody? You guys all know what you’re talking about.

    Leland

    I could start then Mary can correct me. I think there’s a very fast turnaround in terms of how fast they can get up. The question is, what are they turning around into? The global economic situation is not terribly good going into next year. And the Chinese manufacturing sector has been going like gangbusters for years because it was producing for the world as the world was stimulating and the world was otherwise shut down for COVID. So the manufacturing numbers we’ve seen for years, up until relatively recently in 2022, were just unbelievable. So the idea that manufacturing can get back up pretty quickly, I think that’s fair. But the idea that there’s going to be a manufacturing sector and demand that will export market that will be there for this manufacturing sector the way we’ve seen the last couple of years, I don’t think that will happen. So manufacturing is unlikely to be this big driver over the next year or so and beyond. It was for a couple of years. It’s not anymore. The big idea here now is, oh, well, look, they’re going to rebuild property. They’re going to fuel a push a bunch of credit back into property, and there’ll be growth there.

    Leland

    I think that’s totally oversold. They’re going to do that a little bit, but they’re not going back to the old days. And then the question is this Chinese consumer. The Chinese consumer. I mean, how many times in the last decade have I had an interview about the Chinese consumer where people are like, we’re on the cusp. They’re going to take it away.

    Leland

    So, look, it’s a long, long myth that a lot of people on Wall Street pushed as a marketing ploy in order to get money sucked into China. So it’s never been true. It’s not going to be true. You could see a few months, maybe even a few quarters of retail sales bouncing because maybe there is pent up spending, maybe there is stuff to do. Services certainly bounce back when you’re talking about travel and other things. But look, do you have a robust enough domestic economy to sort of push this through? Well, you got enough to to give China some decent growth numbers for 2023. But this idea that Chinese, the Chinese economy resuscitated is going to be a global growth engine, I mean, that’s total nonsense.

    Mary

    We should also just talk about what was that growth engine to begin with. It was exploitation of labor. It was mercantilist policies. Yeah. It was ripping off all of the great innovation produced in the United States and to some degree also in Europe. That was the model. And I think you had a lot of credulous reporting in the west touting this kind of new version of capitalism that actually wasn’t capitalist really at all. It didn’t rest on property rights or the rule of law or fair competition or any of those things, right? It was a model to entice the capital in, to steal the innovation and to try to produce it themselves. And so it’s going to be really interesting to see, like, let’s take one sector, the tech sector. How are Chinese semiconductor companies really going to do without having American engineers over there and the export of our chips and all of our innovation, right? They’re going to hurt. They’re going to hurt bad. And you’re going to see that across several industries. I think this also really exposes the myth of Chinese competence. I mean, this is something I should say CCP competence.

    Mary

    There are many very innovative Chinese people in the United States and elsewhere and in the mainland who just, unfortunately, are stuck in the middle of this horrible system. But I’ve been talking to clients about this for years now, this idea that there’s some kind of far sided newfangled way to manage an economy. And, wow, look at the results. Well, gee, look at the results. Now we’re reopening and we’re figuring out that, hey, they’ve spent almost three years now doing absolutely nothing to prepare for the reopening, to figure out how to import drugs or develop their own that could deal with the symptoms of COVID So now they’re importing paxovid and they’re selling it at high markups to the rich people in Beijing who can afford it. And everybody else, good luck to you. I think that the scales have fallen from the eyes of a lot of investors and importantly, a lot of operators, American or otherwise, who really woke up during COVID and are waking up now in this reopening, looking at the supply chain disruptions, really for the first time asking, honestly, how much money can we really make here? Is it worth the risk?

    Mary

    What is my risk profile and what’s the trajectory of that risk profile? And they’re coming to the conclusion that actually it’s not what it was cracked up to be. And ultimately, I think that’s a good thing because I think that pulls capital to other parts of the world that, frankly, are friendlier to us and also far more predictable in the business environment.

    Tony

    Okay, that’s a great point. Sam, you talked to a lot of US investors, of course, and is what Mary is saying. Are you seeing that as well, where us investors are seeing through kind of the myth of CCP competence? Like, Mary, I’ve been talking about it for years. I know Leland has as well. And do you see us? Investors catching on to that, or is this something that I just kind of wish would happen?

    Sam

    Oh, no, they’re 100% catching on to it. Businesses are catching on to it, et cetera. Right. Because now it’s more of a risk to have that long supply chain and to have that supply chain based at least partially or mostly in China. Right. That is a significant risk not only to call it for headlines or headline risk, but also to actual revenues and earnings. Right. You miss out on actual sales. You miss out on margin expansion. That’s really becoming something that people are really paying attention to, that investing in people, plant and equipment is something you have to do closer to home. It’s not something that you can do with unfriendly neighbors. Yellen called it French shoring. I call it reregionalization. I prefer mine over hers. But I do think that there’s a lot to be said for that. There was an interesting quote from the United Airline CEO that said, “listen, we’re overstaffing by five to 10% because it costs a lot less to overstaff than it does to miss out on those revenues.” And I think a lot of manufacturers, a lot of US based companies are figuring out that it’s a lot cheaper in the long run to invest in Mexico or the US. Or maybe in parts of Eastern Europe for your plant and equipment than it is to lose out for years with a very volatile system in China.

    Tony

    Yeah. I’ve said this several times on the show. Pre global financial crisis, there was this China plus one, china plus two, China plus three strategy that a lot of Japanese companies were trying to look at. And the financial crisis went through, and everyone kind of shrugged their shoulders and said, look, it’s just cheaper to keep everything in China, so let’s not proceed with that. My concern is that these Western companies who have invested so much in China over the years, as China reopens, they’re just going to forget about kind of 2020 through 2022 and go, “oh, what the heck? We’ve already got that fixed investment there. Let’s just keep things as they are because the status quo is easier. We’ve got a new CEO.” They don’t want to figure it or whatever. Right. So is that likely to happen? Do you think American firms. And Sam, if you can start on this, do you think American firms are likely to just leave their capital in place and not diversify? Or what’s going to happen there over the next, say, two to three years?

    Sam

    Well, I would say that maybe they would want to. Maybe that would be something corporate America would do. Because corporate America tends to be rather short sighted in some instances. But you’re having it mandated. The chips act is probably call it the first shot over the bow, so to speak. Diversify your supply chains and put them in the US. Or put them in a friendly country. That’s the first stage, right? That’s the first kind of we’re going to force you to do it, period. And not necessarily force, but we’re going to highly encourage you to do it and we’re going to encourage you to do it over a fairly short time frame. So it’s not simply what corporate America would prefer to do. It’s what corporate America is somewhat being told to do. And I think that you’re going to continue to see that type of legislation, that type of tax incentive, continue to be put out there for various industries, particularly of relevance to defense and staying ahead in technology generally. Those areas are going to become much more difficult to outsource to save a couple of dollars on the bottom line.

    Tony

    Yes. Leland, what are you seeing on the ground? Or what are you hearing on the ground?

    Leland

    In terms of companies moving in terms.

    Tony

    Of companies moving remaining commitment to diversifying their supply chains, is that just a narrative that we’ve heard, or are people actually moving in that direction?

    Leland

    No. I think it’s finally happening.

    Tony

    Okay.

    Leland

    For years. There were all these reasons to be doing this contingency planning and no one did it. So you had geopolitical tensions. Companies refused to change their ways. You had the trade war, companies still refused to trade their way. You had COVID, people still refused to trade their way. It was really COVID Zero. That sort of broke the camel’s back on this. And so the combination of all these things, the fact that Expats didn’t want to be there, the fact that supply chains were just clearly breaking down, and the discussion points in the corporate boardroom changed from saying, look, we need to maximize profits, we need to maximize earnings per share. This is about efficiency. The conversation pivoted to this is about security. This is about making sure that we are not cut off, that we are not in a really bad position, and the politics are backing that up. So I think you have had a move from corporates more and more to take this seriously. Everybody has a plan B or plan C now. Some can move their supply chains easily. Some, like Apple, are going to be just toiling for years trying to get this right.

    Leland

    So it’s different depending on the size of the company and the industry. But I think this is a major issue. What I think is going to happen as well is that a lot of companies are saying we need to pull out supply chains. That is, previously Chinese production is producing for the west. So they’ll still funnel money in investment into Chinese production, but it’ll be for the Chinese domestic market. And then the rest of this will be supply chains pulled out for production demand ex China. So what you’re actually seeing or will see in the coming years is a bifurcation of production, supply chains, et cetera, going forward. So I think that’ll be inflationary. That will be costly. Corporates have resisted it for a while, but the risks of something bad happening, either geopolitically or through COVID or through something else, have just grown so significant that shareholders are finally demanding that companies do something about it. So companies finally are.

    Tony

    Yeah, sorry, Mary. I suspect that seeing companies pull out of Russia really abruptly, although it was a relatively much smaller opportunity for most, I think that may have emboldened people to be more assertive on China over the last, say, nine months. Mary, are you seeing that? And our investors from the investment community, do you believe that people will have a tolerance for that?

    Mary

    Yeah, I was actually just going to raise Russia. Totally anticipated.

    Tony

    Sorry, I’m sorry.

    Mary

    Take my thunder. Yeah. Actually there was a very interesting no doubt this morning from Euro Intelligence, which is a great little newsletter, I really recommend it of a St. Gallen study, and I’m not going to repeat it because it’s a subscriber only newsletter, but essentially the argument was, hey, we looked at how big was the actual pull out from Russia? And it’s not as big as you would imagine, but I do think that it jolted investors and sometimes it takes moments like that for investors in particular to realize, wait a second, my world could change on a dime. Have I really thought and planned for all of these scenarios? And I think that, yes, indeed, it was a very major event and a real wake up call, not just for investors, but also, as I said, for operators. There’s one other theme that I’d like to mention here, and I may have said before on this show, Tony, but that’s the concept of strategic narcissism. This idea that it’s all about what are us investors doing and what’s our next move? Well, China itself is planning, and not just planning, but activating the dual circulation strategy of Xi Jinping.

    Mary

    And what’s the goal of that? It’s to disentangle them from us. It’s to pull us in, get our capital, get our intellectual property and our expertise, train up their people and then kick us out. And that is a stated policy. You don’t need a security clearance to know about this. And I think we just didn’t pay attention, but I think investors are paying attention now. And so, again, it will be fascinating to see who the Patsies are, primarily from Europe, who go right back in and fall right back into this trap and give them all this valuable expertise.

    Tony

    I think we saw that in December when screwed. Yeah, I think we saw that in December when a bunch of German executives went there and just did everything.

    Mary

    I mean, Macron is going over. And we should talk, too, about Washington stance because let’s be honest, this is a very complex, difficult relationship to manage. I have an enormous amount of sympathy for the Biden team in what they’re confronting here from China because I’ve worked in that job and it’s hard. But I think it is also notable that you’ve had now a Republican and a Democrat administration in the United States, really recognize that this is not the partner we thought it was. And that’s where the Chips Act comes from. And they have expanded much of what we started in the Trump administration, to their great credit. Whether it’s expanding the relationship with our allies or taking some more of these steps to protect our strategic industries, I would not expect that to change. But it’s important to remember that as we take these measures, you also have to look at what is the regime saying about its goals and plans. Right. That in there. I think the direction is just very clear. They want to disentangle from us, create their own economic sphere through their Belt and Road to have their own market, and they want to pull allies of ours and partners like Saudi Arabia, like Turkey, like Brazil and others away from us and into their sphere. That’s the investment world that we’re confronting. It’s a brand new era.

    Tony

    Right, so Mary, you jumped into kind of China’s place in the world, and this was one of our key topics. We’re going to talk about. For people who are watching, who don’t understand. You advised Mike Pompeo as Secretary of State on many of these key issues. So what the person sitting in that seat today and going forward, how has that changed from, say, ten years ago? What are you watching today from, say, ten years ago? I remember when the Trump administration came in, there were all these cries of kind of free trade. Like, you can’t do these things because of kind of free trade, which is kind of a 1980s era, really sweet dream when that equates all to, say, zero tariffs without incorporating things like non tariff barriers and subsidies and other things. So do you believe that State and treasury and other organizations are now smarter about things like non tariff barriers and subsidies? Because certainly the WTO isn’t. Okay, so I believe the US. Administration. I’m hoping the US administration more constantly is paying attention to those things.

    Mary

    Well, I wouldn’t count on Treasury to get realistic about anything. It’s usually headed by a guy from Goldman who just wants to go in and do as much business in Beijing as possible on whatever terms, and then come back to the United States and talk about how great China is. Right? He’s kind of the useful spokesperson for the regime. And we’ve seen that repeat over and over, Trump administration. Hey, I too was one of those people, I’ll admit it, who said, “I don’t like the tariffs. It raises the cost to US consumers. That’s bad, bad. We can’t do that.” And then I got into the administration as the Secretary’s senior advisor, kind of his right hand person, strategist, whatever you want to call it. And what I realized was just how little leverage we actually had over the regime, how bad the behavior was, and how unfair, fundamentally unfair the relationship was across a number of areas. And so you can set ideology and demoralizing about it, set that all aside. It is very simple, I think, for US businesses and investors to understand, hey, we really just want a level playing field. If that’s the approach you’re going to take.

    Mary

    Right? Americans intuitively understand the concept of fairness and fair competition. We were never going to go from China as a friend to China as an enemy. Right? There was going to be an awakening and a process there. And so that started under the Trump administration, and it has continued under Biden. And so we call them a competitor. Well, that’s not actually accurate because if you’re competing, you’re agreeing on the rules of the game and the rules of investing in your respective rights as you trade or invest or whatever they don’t, period. And so that’s a problem for us. So eventually, I predict someday we will get to that point where we really level with the business community, with the American people, and the rest of the world. We say, no, they’re actually an enemy. Europe is moving in that direction. Remember, in March 2019, the EU called China, quote, economic. They said “competitor,” but they also called it a “systemic rival.” Okay, that’s a little bit different. So they’re starting to move there too. But, you know, we’ll have fits and starts. We didn’t figure out our strategy to confront the Soviets for decades. It took us a very, very long time, and we had great and robust debate about it.

    Mary

    I think the same thing is going to happen here. But like the Soviet era, I think the trajectory of it is clear. We’re recognizing what it is. Investors are recalibrating just how much they want to risk there. And operators, as Leland said, we’re looking at the feasibility of diversification because I don’t think anybody in their right mind believes that we’re going back to the good old days of the 2000s.

    Tony

    Okay, that’s great. And I guess, Leland, the question that comes to me after everything that Mary said is if we are truly competitors, and if those in some magical hypothetical world where all the rules are agreed, can Chinese companies generally and I know that’s a big generalization, but can they generally compete with, say, German and American companies? Do they have the ability outside of, say, cost, to compete in global markets?

    Leland

    Some can, but Beijing won’t let them. I mean, look, if you’re looking at Alibaba and Tencent, these are not Chinese data companies. These are global data behemoths. Tech behemoths. Extremely impressive. I mean, some of the stuff they were doing, we’re blowing our tech companies away. So can these companies compete globally? Sure. Is Beijing clipping their wings right now? Yes. So the question is, will Beijing let them compete? But there’s another part of this. If you’re seeing a movement towards the state sort of gobbling up just about everything. They’re gobbling up debts on one side, they’re gobbling up companies on the other side. You’re seeing golden shares being taken and all these big tech companies and other companies, too. And so what’s going to happen to these companies? Well, you’ve got them answering first and foremost to the state. Has it always been true? Sure. But it’s very different when you’re answering ultimately to the state or whether you’ve got party hacks yelling in your ear on a day to day basis about the direction of strategy. So to the extent that they keep doing this, and it looks like they’re doubling down and tripling down on this as we speak right now, then this is dramatically going to affect their ability to compete with Western firms on a global stage.

    Leland

    So this is a favor that the party is doing for the west in terms of clipping the wings of these Chinese companies. They would be able to compete. Many of them would be able to compete, but they’re not going to be allowed to.

    Tony

    Great. Okay. It’s a really valuable perspective. Sam from the perspective of, say, Western portfolio manager. If you’re evaluating Chinese companies or Chinese sectors, what are the special risks that you have to pay attention to, and how does that factor into your, say, valuation or other calculations?

    Sam

    That’s a broad question.

    Tony

    Yes.

    Sam

    If you’re an EM manager that’s tied to an EM benchmark, that’s going to be a big China allocation. If you decide that you want to be underway China, you’re going to be way outside your bench. And you’re potentially going to be in some trouble if they begin to rally. If you’re not tied to a benchmark, it’s a lot easier to look at the Chinese investment landscape and say, what are the risks here? And one is that you’re going to have significant government intervention without warning. That I would say is the number one risk. Number two would be what is the real ownership structure here of the securities I’m buying? Most investors would not be able to purchase the actual shares in the company. And number three is, what are the chances that I get Russia on this at some point? Whether it’s China decides to sell defense equipment to Russia, and all of a sudden, you have some pretty significant, instantaneous reactions from the US. And all of a sudden you’re donuted on all of your investments. And that’s an existential risk as a money manager. If that’s a three to 5% risk, that’s one thing. It begins to escalate to a 10-20 percent risk. That’s another thing. And while it’s a significant tail, it’s not a 0% risk. So I think those are the top three things that I’d be paying attention to on that front.

    Sam

    And the other one is how exactly do you define a state-owned company in a world where most at least have some sort of stake from a government entity? And I think that’s the other one. To Leland’s point that when your governance begins to break down, that’s the number one flashpoint. And there was a very large hedge fund that announced late last year that they were no longer going to do Chinese tech equity investments on public markets. That was pretty shocking. They were one of the larger investors in those securities. And they just said, no, not anymore. We’re not going to do any incrementals there. So I think there’s a number of call it cross currents to really getting behind investing in China. There’s a lot of derivative ways to do it that are a lot less risky. If you want to play the second or third quarter rebound, you don’t have to buy a Chinese equity to do it.

    Sam

    You can buy Australian Equities. You can buy mining equities. You can buy commodities. You can even buy European manufacturers. If you have really bad manufacturing numbers in the US. And you’re up on the margin, and all of a sudden, you begin to have a flood of orders on Capex from China that are pent up. That’s a significant tailwind to companies that have a lot less governance risk. And a lot less currency risk. I think if you’re looking to call it play a China reopening or play the Chinese economy, you don’t have to take the risk of buying the equities that are Chinese labeled.

    Tony

    That’s a great point, and I love the way you kind of triangulated that. So that’s excellent. It’s also a good kind of move into our last segment on kind of the party’s economy, and we’ve covered this in a lot of different ways up until now. But I think what I’ve been most surprised by over the last several months is the assertiveness of the Chinese government, not just with Chinese companies, but also with Chinese tech companies, which has really been the last couple of years more intensely, but also foreign companies. So it’s almost as if there’s a view that anybody doing business within the borders of China is, by extension, almost a party extension. Is that fair to say? And there are two big automakers, one German, one American, who sell more cars in China than they do in their home markets. Right? And so does it come to a point where firms like that start being seen as extensions of the party? So, Mary, why don’t you start us off? And then, Leland, if you can help us think through that.

    Mary

    Well, just definitionally. The PRC is a party state. The party runs everything. You can’t differentiate between selling a Mars bar in China and selling them military equipment that could help them build hypersonic missiles. It all is for the party before anything else. That’s the most important thing to understand. And I think if we had won a second term in office, that’s something that we would have socialized more broadly, because that’s, of course, what investors that’s how they’re going to try to split the baby, right? They’ll say, well, hey, look, we’re not investing in hickvision in the surveillance state that was put to such use now after the protest and in places like Xinjiang. But, hey, it’s okay. We can make T shirts and jeans in China, and that’s all fine. We’re not really helping the regime. Well, yeah, you kind of are. So you can’t separate doing business in China from the party. And the party itself never viewed the opening up to the rest of the world as embrace of our system. They viewed it, as Aaron Friedberg put in his book, getting China Wrong. They viewed it as a bird in a cage. It was something that had to be harnessed but always controlled.

    Mary

    And what we’re seeing now is the actual face of party control. And that’s not going to change because it’s not due to a single man or a single leader. It’s due to a system in which we’re doing business. It’s unfortunate but true. Now, we’re not going to decouple from China. That is a fantasy. There’s too much invested capital there. It’s going to happen in stages, or as has been mentioned earlier, it’s going to happen due to a shock like Russia when we’ll just all be forced to pull out. But will US automakers leave China tomorrow? No. But if you have a Russia situation, they may be like situation where China invades Taiwan or does something else extremely provocative. They may be forced to.

    Tony

    Right. Thank you. Leland, what are your thoughts on that?

    Leland

    Yeah, I agree completely with Mary. I think that this highlights the next big US political issue because if you look at what the Select House Committee on China, which is just getting put together by the Republicans at the Bipartisan committee, it’s going to focus on China. It may be the only part of Congress that actually works. It may not work, but if anything works in the next two years, it probably will be the Select House Committee on China. The big issue that I think that they’re looking to tangle to address is investment flows into China. And there’s two elements to that. The first is that we’ve spent a long time not being able to identify what’s going where or even how much of it. So there’s recent studies, the recent tracking shows that the amount of portfolio investment that’s going into China, the investment flow, it’s just many, many times what we thought it was before because it’s going through separate jurisdictions and it’s sort of making its way back to China. There hasn’t really been transparency on where all this money is going. So essentially you’ve got a huge investment flows that are going from Americans, American firms, American households going into China.

    Leland

    And to do what? Some of this may be buying something that’s relatively benign. Some of it may be going into parts that did fuel missile that could be shot at US troops down the line. There’s no transparency on it. So the first order of business will be to get clarity on what the situation looks like. Where is this money going? How much money is it? And then there’s a question like what do you do about it? So the question is, Mary brought up a point there’s no black and white line between here’s civilian and here’s military. But because she also brought up the point we’re not going to completely decouple, it means we’re going to be drawing these artificial lines based on what’s reasonable, what’s practical from a national security perspective in the coming years, those lines will move over time, as she said. But we’re going to have to draw, at least draw them, because we’re not drawing them very well right now. And that means figuring out, okay, well, this money is going towards the party and helping them do X, Y and Z. And we don’t like that. This money is going towards inputs into the tech sector which are helping build up their military.

    Leland

    We don’t like that. So we’re going to see more and more focus on making sure that investment flows are not going to things that Americans, by and large are very uncomfortable. One, they don’t know, but if they did know, they’d be very uncomfortable to money going that way. So this is sort of the next step in the entire decoupling drama. All of this is going in one direction, but it’s slow because it’s cumbersome and there aren’t bright lines. Not all of it’s obvious, and a lot of it has to do with Chinese behavior. If the Chinese are acting up around Taiwan, that’s a different set of circumstances than if for some reason we need Chinese assistance or support for something else that’s going on around the globe. So we’re going in one direction. This is going to be the big issue in the next couple of years. But it’s a slow plotting movement. That’s correct.

    Sam

    And to Leland’s point, from an investment perspective, it’s worth remembering. There’s a nontrivial amount of SP 500 sales and the growth over the last decade, two decades that have come from China, mainland China, right. If you look at Apple, if you look at Starbucks, Yum Brands, they split out GM.

    Leland

    Every chipmaker.

    Mary

    Every chipmaker.

    Sam

    Caterpillar, John Deere. There’s a significant amount of what I would call, “earnings risk” to an escalation of this type of rhetoric that shouldn’t really be ignored. There’s a tremendous amount of revenues and earnings that emanate from the mainland, at least in one way or another. Two very large, very high weights in the SP and other indices that maybe should get a little more attention as we move forward. Because if you begin to have call it tip for Tat type rhetoric it’s pretty easy to say, well, maybe Nike shoes can’t be sold now because we don’t like where they’re made or Starbucks is being investigated for the water quality. Right. There’s a lot of ways that you can have some pretty interesting movements here that kind of fly under the radar a little bit, but should not be ignored.

    Tony

    Very interesting. The American regulatory state applies to Chinese investment. That’s interesting. Guys, let’s wrap it up. One last thing. What are you thinking about China that you’re not sure that other people see? What do you think about that you wish other people saw, even if you already mentioned it? What’s the main thing that you’d like to underscore, that people need to see about the Chinese economy, US-China relation, anything we’ve talked about? What is that main thing? Ladies first, Mary. I hope I can still say that.

    Mary

    Yeah, of course. I love that. I think it’s the realization that the longer you’re there as an operator or manufacturer or an investor, the more you will be forced to do things that you would never do in any other jurisdiction to make certain choices of including a party member on your corporate board or requests for bribes, or tolerating a kind of risk to your staff or to your reputation that you would never tolerate if you were doing business in, say, you know, Australia or Colombia or somewhere somewhere else in the world. And so I think that China exception is going to go away. And I don’t see why we aren’t talking more about just how great the Gulf was between what we tolerated in China and what we tolerated in every other jurisdiction in the world. And increasingly, I think we’re going to talk about that, recognize it and act upon it.

    Tony

    All right, Sam, what are you saying?

    Sam

    I would go back to what Leland said about the head fake. I think that’s one of the most important things for investors to think about going forward, because it’s going to look like a wave in a lot of ways when you begin to have ordering of manufacturing goods and services out of the west again. And it’s going to look like a wave, and it’s going to look like we’re all getting back to normal, and then it’s not. Right? If Covid was an earthquake, this is an aftershock, and it should be treated as such. Yes, it can probably be treated and there will probably be some great returns, but that shouldn’t be extrapolated forward. That is one of the real critical dangers here, that investors get trapped and thinking we’re back to some sort of normality and we’re after normal. So let’s not forget that.

    Tony

    Yeah. One of the things that the Chinese Information Ministry is fantastic about is creating an air of inevitability around China. Right. It’s inevitable that they are the predominant economy. It’s inevitable that you have to put your manufacturing there. So I think what you’re saying is really important, Sam, like, don’t be misled by the head fake and make sure you separate the PR from the reality of the cycle.

    Sam

    Trade it, don’t invest.

    Tony

    That’s a great point. And Leland, what’s your last point? I think it’s really important for us to close out with you. Yeah.

    Leland

    I strongly second both what Mary and Sam just said. But I would add one piece of advice, and that is, when evaluating China, react to what not to what they say, but to what they do. I cannot tell you how many supposedly sophisticated investors react to Bloomberg headlines as if they are a reflection of actual policy. We make fun of this on our Twitter feed. We talk about stimulus 500 times a month. There’s something in which the Chinese announce some form of stimulus, ramping, rail stimulus, some sort of stimulus, this stimulus. And we saw during 2022, people react to that. It just wasn’t happening, you know, so so don’t react to these. With this, you know, shift to consumption. Yeah. Investments falling, but consumption, they’re doing nothing to structurally incentivize a shift to consumption. If they do, we’ll identify it, we’ll talk about it. It will be very interesting. But just because it’s in a headline, and just because someone like Leo Hood, Li Ka Chiang, someone comes out and makes a speech about how China is going to do this, it doesn’t mean it’s actually happening. You got to actually look at what’s happening on the ground, because 90% of the time, they just like to say stuff.

    Tony

    Yeah, that’s perfect. Guys, thank you so much. This has been incredibly valuable, and I know that everyone who watches it is going to get a huge amount of it. So thanks for your time. We hope to see you again and really appreciate all of the value and stuff you’ve shared with us today. So thank you very much. Have a great weekend.

    Mary

    Great, Steve.

    Sam

    Thanks. Take care.