Hormuz & The Terms of Trade Shock

[MUSIC PLAYING] The macro trading floor. With me, Alfonso Piccatello, founder of the Macro Compass, and former head of investments at the large European bank. And I am Brent Donnelly, president of Spectre Markets. I've been a portfolio manager, day trader, and market maker at the biggest commercial and investment banks in the United States. I'm also the author of Alpha Trader and the Art of Currency Trading. If you want to know what's going on in markets and where they're going, you found the right podcast. Hi, everybody. Welcome back to the macro trading floor. My good friend, Brent Donnelly, and me, myself, Alfonso, completely jet lagged from Japan. So please discount anything I say today, because I'm not sure that I know what I'm saying. But we're back. We're stoked. And the market is nuts. By the rule that every time I go on holiday-- no, no, no, that's not true because everyone says that. But there is a terms of trade shock basically going on. And it's happening in effects, I would say, pretty much. So we have one guy that knows a tiny bit about effects. His name is Donnelly. So I'll ask him, what does he think? Yeah, it's really interesting, because we obviously started from a point of quite a lot of dollar bearishness for a bunch of reasons. Although the dollar bearish thesis was already getting a little bit stale before all of this happened. And then obviously, it's interesting because there would have been probably x-anti some people that would have said the dollar's not a safe haven. If the US goes to another war in the Middle East, but what ends up generally happening is the dollar's a safe haven. If people are short-tellers, honestly, that's like the simple explanation. And then, like you said, there's a terms of trade shock potentially for Europe and for emerging markets. So it all coincided with the dangerous dollar cover of the economist was the exact low in the dollar, as usual, which is interesting. There's kind of two ways to look at this whole thing. And I find it really interesting because there's this Pavlovian response from a large section of the market that's basically like geopolitics is a fade, wars are a fade, stocks are always higher 12 months later. So just ignore it and buy the dip. And it's such a reflex now. And I think obviously part of it is just muscle memory because it's worked so many times. But also it ignores, it completely ignores two things. One is the initial conditions of the market going in. And then it also ignores the scale of the conflict and the potential economic damage. So if you're fading every geopolitical event, you're just ignoring kind of everything. And it becomes this sort of dumb reflex. And there's an interesting thing that Kevin Muir wrote was that part of the reason that buying geopolitical events in the past was attractive was that people believe the opposite. So people sold and hedged and stuff on geopolitics. And that created an opportunity to buy the dip. Now there's a lot more people that are just like instantly buying the dip, especially retail because of the scale of the tax refunds. There's so much tax refund money floating around. And so now instead of the market declining, investors just think that the risk reward is instantly bullish and buy. And I, you know, I've been writing about it. I'm very skeptical of that. It doesn't mean that you got to be like Max Short either. What I think is more, you have to have a nuance view that evolves with new information. And right now to me, the information's not great. And then just to wrap up, because I said about initial conditions, you know, we weren't exactly in a bull market, a proper bull market when this war started. There was a lot of issues with private credit and the AI cap X overspending and concerns about software companies going bankrupt and things like that. So like Nasdaq, if you look at NVIDIA, it's been in a range for like a year. Nasdaq, most of the big Nasdaq stocks topped out at the end of October when Matt Azernings came out. So to me, I think people are take not everyone, but a lot of people are taking way too simplistic of a view. And the real way to look at this is to look at the facts on the ground as they evolve, you know, with oil price being obviously the key variable and anything above 90 to 100 being the sort of psychological tipping point. Now I'm going to try to say something that makes sense. So the first thing that I want to know out of this brand is how many people have capitulated. It's pretty obvious by the sharp ratio of various asset classes going into this, the six months prior to February. You also wrote about it in Spectra. You would have pretty aggressively sharp ratios. Like, you know, this British stock market was a four sharp and some emerging markets were higher sharp than that. Basically, you only went up with no vol in these markets, which means that mechanically, you're going to have people size up their trades there in terms of gross leverage because there is no vol. So in my hedge fund, I use inverse vol sizing. And I'm not the only one. I mean, there's a lot of people that look at some measure of vol when they're trying to size their position. If vol is very low and you're making money all the way up, it means your position is going to be higher, or at least the new marginal buyer is going to size up at the same position. OK, so we went there and then we had a sell of-- the first thing that I want to understand is on the terms of trade shock of oil from $60 to $75. I see the first round. We had one day of several standard deviation events in effects, mostly. I mean, we had dollar Chile move up 4.5% in a day, dollar Chilean base of 4.5% is like 3 to 4 standard deviation events there. So it means it was in discriminatory selling, a mentioning Chile, which is a very exposed terms of trade country. But I could have said the same for dollar Colombia was up. Dollar Brazil was up. I mean, countries that are less exposed to terms of trade shock were still up several standard deviations. So I have to ask you a question before I tell you what I think brand is. Because you see flows in effects through your franchise, how would you say the positioning is today? Have people been completely washed out? And especially after the washout of that day, have people come back and bought Chilean base of-- they bought Brazil in reality, they bought Hungarian foreign. Or what's going on on the flow side of things? Yeah. And then going back to what you said about the sharp ratios, so the thing that had been happening was every time-- we had some pretty big sell-ups and stocks and some scary moments in technology and software and all that kind of stuff. And every time there was a little blow up or at the end of the year in Brazil as well last year, every time there was a little blow up, everyone just came back in and smashed the dollar. And then we got to this kind of stupid point where-- this isn't hindsight because I was saying it at the time, but we got to this stupid point where people started to think that EM was a safe haven. And I said this year at the time, it reminded me of in the Eurozone crisis when people were buying Sweden in Norway as a safe haven. And it was mostly a reflexive thing based on the price action, right? Like if there's risk aversion and EM doesn't sell off, then people are like, oh shit, I guess it's a safe haven. But there's no free lunch. Like you're getting carry and your short ball. There's going to be convexity at some point. Obviously, the hard part is predicting when that convexity hits. But to answer your question-- so the convexity has hit, as you said. Now to answer your question, I think that the fast money gets out pretty quick. So you saw a pretty big blow up in a lot of this stuff. But real money doesn't get out that fast. So I would say, given the time we've been in this thing, really, Dollar Mechs just blew up two days ago. So given the amount of time that we've been in this regime, which is two days, I think the amount of position squaring is very small. Dollar Mechs has been trending for three, two years with a sharp of three. And like you said, with low-vol comes bigger positions. So I don't think that the real pain has really started. I mean, now we're seeing, as we record this, there's another wave of EM selling. Dollar Mechs is up to 1784. But again, actually yesterday on the flow side, yesterday was the first time we've seen where it was kind of hard to get prices in some options. So that's using indicator of the shit is starting to hit the fan. Normally, in FX options, if you're looking for one week to one month, it's very easy to get liquidity. And yesterday was the first day where some market makers were passing, some market makers were showing wide. And so we're not in some kind of crisis regime yet. But the cracks are starting to appear on the liquidity side. And then, like I said, there's some other stuff going on with the private stuff being marked from hundreds of cents on the dollar to zero cents on the dollar and stuff like that. So I think it's important also not to forget that the initial conditions were about wobbly before we got this potential shock or actual shock, I guess, not potential. OK. So basically, get from you and I will tell you what I also hear from my client base in general, but from you I get that it's not like people have completely hidden under their desk, you know, and there is a property leveraging, you will not be able to add risk back to your portfolio, but it seems like we have cleansed positions in general, but it's not like, oh my god, everybody's scared, we had a huge bar shock and, you know, because what happened before is very important, right? I'm making a lot of money, the public information at Goldman Sachs shared, for example, Goldman Sachs Prime brokerage business also covers, for example, Asia Long Short Equity Guys, and these guys, I mean, the best guys have made a lot of money in January and February on the Asia, like Japan and Korea rally. So they were up about, I think 10% at the end of February, Brent, and then they lost about half of what they made in the first few days of March. Now, that's a big drawdown, but you're still up on the year and quite markedly, so, and when you're up on the year, people don't hide under their desks, I think, you know, they're still there trying to assess and take some risks here and there, and that's also what I hear a bit from Mike Lyon-Base, the general feeling is people want to try to catch a falling knife, you know, they want to see value somewhere, they, Hungary is a fantastic example, and people just, or ECB hikes, by the way. So people come to me and they say, "Athva, what the hell?" I mean, they were now pricing 22 basis points of an ECB hike this year. I mean, they're not going to hike, right? I mean, it's a great value to fake this. Or they want to buy Hungary because their elections and the skew is still there and what if Orban loses and half has blown up, but everybody doesn't look at the skew and this and that. So that's the feeling I get, Brent, and the most important thing for people that manage risk here in my opinion is that you don't have a diversified portfolio anymore. It's gone. Forget about it. There is no diversified portfolio. You're basically trading one asset. The PCA of your book is one item and it's called crude oil. And that's it. Really, there is nothing almost, nothing you can do, which is not going to be directional to whether this oil goes to 100 or oil reverse backs to 60. And that, I think, is becoming a little bit more clear, but it's not fully clear yet to many people out there, Brent, I would say. Right. And then I guess now the thing is the opposite of what you described is happening where now Vols is higher. So say people want to get back into stuff and whatever look back they're using now that the convexity move has happened. People aren't going to be as big when they get back in. So if you were short, $200 Brazil and then you stopped out and then things look stable and you're all adjusting your position size, your position is going to be smaller. So the inflows are going to be smaller now that the convex move is in the recent look back. So I think just I'm going to pivot for a second because one thing I find really interesting here with this whole move is how golden silver are now trading more like risky assets than safe havens. And I think basically that the retail crowd has kind of ruined golden silver for the short run. Because if you look at there's a thing called there's a website called swaggystocks.com and it essentially collects data on what stocks are being most discussed on Wall Street bets on Reddit. And normally it's you know, regetti computing or shit unprofitable shitcoes or you know, Mara or whatever retail favorites or aqlo and all that stuff. And for the last, I would say three or four weeks, the number one and number two stocks traded on Wall Street bets have been GLD and SLV and you see it in the options market as well. And so to me, this is kind of classic good news, bad price like a war in the Middle East, you know, any macro textbook is going to tell you to buy gold on that and gold's lower than it was going into the war. So I would just say like, imagine what's going to happen when if and when there's some visibility on the end of the war, gold's going to be another 500 bucks lower. I think like there's always the bigger picture view of like we're in a trend and debasement and central banks and all that. I mean, that's always going to be true. So like if you're just long as an investor, sure, but as a trader, I think it's pretty eye popping to see a war in the Middle East that was somewhat of a surprise. Obviously you can tell by the price of oil and yeah, gold and silver are both lower. I think that's pretty bearish for those things in the short run. Yeah, I think the golden silver part is important in the portfolio diversification aspect. I should maybe spend some time on this topic. So yeah, good call. Yeah, because you know, Brent, for quite some time, if you were a real money investor, like a pension fund or an asset manager and you were long stocks. Your way to edges were generally speaking, you would buy bonds and you would consider your dollar position because I mean, if you were long stocks around the world, you probably were also long dollar because most of your position was in US stocks anyway. If you're a foreign investor, that means you're implicitly long the dollar as well. And you know, the other position would be metals. You would have gold, you would have the dollar and you would have bonds. These are the three ways that you can edge a portfolio. Bonds are obviously not working. There has been an inflationary response out of this and I will want to talk about it for a bit later on. So but bonds are not working so you cannot hide in bonds. The dollar is working very well. But the problem is that it's working right when everybody and their mothers were talking about, you know, the dollar is not a head anymore. We should be short dollars. A good thing to notice there is that people have been asking me whether I can have a share class in euros with Frank or somebody asking whether I can have a share class in gold. So what does it mean? It means that people really don't want to have dollar exposure in their positions. They want the underlying exposure to private equity, to a hedge fund, to whatever, but they don't want the dollar. So the idea that the dollar could be a hedge that been pretty much abandoned by many people and that's funnily enough the only thing that is working right now. And gold was the bastion of, but that's my portfolio diversification thing. Gold is working. Bonds are not anymore. Gold is if gold doesn't work as a hedge anymore here, then effectively you are forced to deliver. There is no other way around. Effectively, the only thing that was holding up your portfolio goes down. So I am watching gold, silver, but gold first and foremost because if I think if it has a drawdown of another few percentage points, it will force people to the risk because they're value a risk through the means of portfolio correlation across asset classes will increase to a point where they can't hold it anymore. And that could lead to another, I would say, leg of deescalation in portfolio and in risk. Yeah, I think that's a great point because there's sort of this mechanical reaction where when volatility goes up, correlation goes up and when people are degrosing obviously correlation goes up even more. And it reminds me a little bit of 2022 where there's kind of like nowhere to hide. There's no safe haven really. Yes, I guess the dollar is acting as a safe haven, but that's a little bit in hindsight. I don't think a lot of people would have said, okay, I'm going to be short euros at 1, 17, 80 because I think a Middle Eastern war is going to break out. Like that wasn't obvious. I don't think beforehand. So there's really not much in if you look at the end is not a safe haven at all. Like Yens been selling off because of bonds and then Swiss kind of operates as a safe haven, but now we're getting to the point where the Swiss National Bank is going to start pushing back. So there's really no safe haven there. And that's one of the most shocking things if you look at that one of those grids of all asset returns from 2018 and 2022. And funny enough, those are both midterm years and people like, oh, midterms are great because they're going to pump the economy, but it doesn't seem to work out weirdly. It doesn't seem to work out that way. But in 2018 and 2022, if you looked at one of those grids where mostly in most years, most asset classes are green and you have like a just this vertical strip of red in 2018 and 2022. And that's what we're seeing since the attack on Iran is essentially everything's just red. I mean, on the bond side, I want to want to talk about this for a second. People are comparing this to 2022. I think there are a few differences. Brian, the first one is that I was posted in the piece that goes out to clients in a few minutes. If you look at European gas prices or if you look at power load, one month forward price is like German electricity prices, UK electricity prices and you benchmark them against 2022. Man, we're like 50% below these levels. So it's not even close. It's not even close. This is a straight over moods terms of trade problems so far. It's pretty big. Don't get me wrong, but it's a straight over moods problem so far, so far. It can get broader, but it doesn't been prices as broadly yet. So one angle is that the other angle, which is vastly different in my opinion, is that when in Europe we had the October, you remember the winter problem, whether it was this idea that Europe couldn't turn the lights on. You remember December 2022? I still remember the headline hitting on my screen. Brand only from Spectra says it's time to buy the sterling because there is, I mean, the news is as bad as it can be. Well, you won't be, maybe there's, but it was on the front cover of the economist again. It was like Europe's frozen winter or whatever. That was with Eurodollar at 0.96. I love it. I love it. I love it. [BLANK_AUDIO] And so now the thing is very different because Germany is throwing a huge fiscal stimulus on their economy, very, very large, 1.75% of GDP of primary fiscal impulse. It's very large. And Sweden is doing the same and Australia is doing the same and the US is doing the same. And guys, but if you remember in 2022, the story was very different. People were trying to take back their fiscal stimulus because inflation was out of control in early 2022, right? So the consumer was under pressure from negative real wage growth. And nowadays it's the opposite. Inflation has been coming down, wage growth has been pretty decent. So real wages have been going up. There is fiscal stimulus on top of that. And so if you have a supply shock that brings inflation up, it's totally credible that central banks will say, well, you know what? I need to have a hawkish posture here. It's not a ridiculous thing to say, this might hike. That is quite different, I think, brand than what it was in 2022 when the curve heavily inverted on this fear and people were pricing the growth shock together with inflation shock. So there was a stagflation trade. I think seeing front and yields higher, it's not ludicrous. I think it's completely fine. And in some economies, you have even to take a decision like a central bank. If you're the bank of Japan now, for example, what do you do? You have the yen at 158. The market is trying to test the idea. You will defend it around 160. Then is a massive, straight up or moods terms of trade shock problem, very, very large, actually directly impacted like most Asia. So what do you do? You either hike rates and you avoid inflation expectations get out of control. Or if you don't hike, then the market's going to go heavily after your currency. So I don't think that it's ludicrous to think that central banks can hike. I think the bond market is doing what's rational here. Yeah, it's awkward because there is like some research from the Fed, for example, that shows that terms of trade shock can be kind of not as inflationary because of the consumer impact and confidence shock and all that. But you're right. I mean, Michelle Bullock from the RBA, I think two days ago, specifically said that March, the March RBA meeting is live because of the oil, the rise in oil. And you know, March was priced for nothing. And now it's priced to 25% or something. So like, it's funny though, because I would have thought because of 2008 and the disaster CCB hike that people would be kind of hesitant to say, like, yes, it's inflationary. I mean, undoubtedly, it's inflationary. But at the same time, it's also like a confidence shock. So does that partially offset it? But anyways, I guess the cautious or like the path of least regret when oil's up 40% is for central banks to be hawkish, not Davish, absolutely. Especially when, so one thing I wanted to get to, which I've been writing about, which I think is really important is the concept of visibility. So the US and Israel have gone in and like, you can say, like, oh, maybe there's a strategy and they're not telling anyone that I think requires a lot of faith given the $8 trillion spent on Middle East wars over the last 35 years or whatever. But if there's a strategy, we don't really know what it is. And anyways, not to get too political, but whatever the strategy is, at some point, you might have some visibility that this thing's going to end. And you know, there's a massive trade there, obviously, to sell dollars and buy equities and sell oil and all that stuff. And so I think the concept of visibility is like the most important thing because on any given day, they can just say, okay, we did what we wanted to do. We're done. Like literally, they can just say that at any point. And that's going to be such a massive trade. So I think you always have to be kind of one thing I actually was writing. And I just finished my new book and one thing that I highlight in there just at some random point in the book is having a good idea of what the headlines could be that are going to come out that could help or hurt you. And I think any headline that offers some visibility towards the end of this war is obviously a massive game changer. And so like I'm super on high alert for that because like as much as this is a big macro story, terms of trade shock and all that, it all just goes on the whims of two people basically. So they literally can at any point just say, okay, we blew up the stuff we wanted to blow up. We're not sending in troops and we're done. And so I think that makes it really, really hard to say like, okay, this is my core macro view because it's subject to the whims of the leaders that are doing what they're doing. And I want to invite people to think about the fact that if you're trying to fade the ECB hike, it's basically the same as selling oil contracts. I'm sorry guys, there is, it's very annoying. If you're a macro investor, you're always trying to build diversified teams in your portfolio. There is no diversified thing guys. You're panting on oil prices, whatever you're trading, very, very hard to find something that is uncorrelated to oil these days. And the thing is of course, like as we saw with like say, RBA in 2011 and many other times, it doesn't actually matter whether they are going to hike or not because the pricing can just keep on going and going and going until it blows up like Silvergate in 2023 or whatever. The front end is anchored about 95% of the time by policy, but then every now and then it just becomes unanchored and you have to sort of be ready for that, that two ECB hikes get priced in even though they're never going to happen. They can still get priced in. So Brent, how are we going to trade this and we're going to try to wait for some visibility one way or another or is there a point where probabilistically one says, you know, I don't know when the resolution is going to be there, but at this price, I think the odds are in my favor. Anyway, I'm going to trade with a wide stop and I'm going to start buying risk and assuming the resolution comes in. So, I mean, as you say, this is a bit like tariffs, but there are two parties involved this time rather than one party in tariffs was basically unilaterally. I mean, just Trump could tweet at any time that it was off. It was really not about the other countries, right? It was about him, just one single actor. This time it's a bit more complex than that. Maybe you can say there are two or three actors, but it's still similar, I would say. So is there a probabilistic assessment where you say if oil is at $95 or $100 or whatever the number is, I'm going to go and start buying risk or is that not the right positive expected value to trade this environment? No, I think that makes sense because the taco concept would come back into play at that point. So there's the biggest constraint on US policy has been the markets. As soon as the markets get to a level that makes the administration uncomfortable, they change their policy. So I think that's exactly right is that we get to, so for me, I'd rather be leaning short things like Korea that are sensitive to oil with, you know, sitting at my desk waiting for the headlines so I don't get my face ripped off. And then a climactic move to say like 95, 100 in oil, to me, then I would probably start fading stuff because yeah, then I think at that point, the administration sensitivity to the market shock will be high enough that then they'll probably change the policy and just declare mission accomplished banners get rolled out. And I mean, I think that's the smart thing about not really revealing what the strategy is, is that you can just at any point declare victory and say, okay, we did what we wanted to do. I mean, as soon as you've eliminated the leader, you know, there's a naive view that that leads to regime change in a country of 90 million people. That's not how it works, but at any point because they've eliminated the leader, they can say, okay, well, we blew up the stuff we wanted to blow up. We got rid of the leadership and then they can just, you know, let the country move on and do whatever it's going to do. So I do feel like what you're describing makes a lot of sense. This sort of, I wouldn't say base case because there's just too many scenarios, but this scenario where oil just keeps on ripping because of export bands and and hormones and all that. And we get into the 95 100 area and, you know, Trump was supposed to be doing affordability and no foreign wars. So at some point, the politics will just become so horrendous or heinous or whatever that I think at that point. He pivots and but I don't want to frontrun the pivot until there's real blood in the streets in terms of like, you know, I mean, Nazek hasn't even moved honestly. Nazek's where it was three months ago and oil and even gasoline prices are going up but barely so I that's, I think that's a great thesis to have is basically leaning short, risky things, whatever those things are most correlated to oil like Korea, I said. And then getting ready to flip either when there's news or when oil gets to like 95 100. So how do I think about this for so first of all, anything that has been sold off has positive drift, anything stocks, emerging market effects. They have either positive carry or positive drift in the return distribution. So you're selling off things that are normally speaking, making money every day. Okay, they have positive drift and negative skill type of asset classes, which is fine. It will happen when there is a risk premium to be priced. But once you have taken off most of the positioning for this to continue, you need gradually worse news every day. So every day you need to have an, like you need to basically prolong the duration of the conflict or the procedural of the conflict. If you do that, you're getting closer to the point where it's to shut down production, Qatar has to shut down product where they've already done it partially. But you get closer to the point where it becomes a broader terms of trade shock. So it gets increasingly worse. And only then, I would say, Brent, you can have this positive drift asset classes like equity is keep grinding down. It's fine. It's not happening as we speak. And then on the other hand, you have a big positive skill event in case there is a resolution. Because what happens is that not only you take off the uncertainty, but you can buy back assets that have a positive drift at that point. I mean, that's fantastic, right? You can buy, say, the Hungarian foreign that very high carry plus you have no uncertainty anymore. So I don't see the negative skill in risk assets anymore. The reason why I don't see that is 10 delta S&P put ball is 31.5. A normal level to buy S&P 10 delta puts is about 23.25. It's a 31, 32 right now. People have did out of the money hedges, people have unwounded dollar shorts, people have definitely been stopped out of Korea. I mean, this thing was down 20% from the top. So at some point you get stopped out. I don't see like Kevin Murz says, I don't know. I don't see that surprise anymore that can cause proper negative skill. What I see is something that can cause negative drift that's possible. So the visibility is zero, the conflict continues. But on the other hand, there is a big positive skill event that can happen. And like very, very large positive skill event. The moment Trump says, you know, enough, it is in no case now we can just get out what happens. I mean, you probably will have the NICK will be up 10% in a day, guys. That's what will happen. Literally. It's not the easiest event to trade, I would say, which also brings me to one other thing. As my mentor used to say, there's a time to go long, a time to go short, and a time to go fishing, which means just don't have a position. It's completely fine not to have a position, by the way, I think. Yeah, you know, probably the highest expected value trade right now is to just sit at your desk flat and wait for the celebratory tweet from Trump saying we won the war and then just by Ozzie or whatever. I mean, because I agree with you, I think like to push back a little bit, I guess the negative convexity would be the, so fast money's got out of these risky assets and EM, but real money hasn't. So to me, the negative convexity would be like, oils up 10 bucks in a day on some kind of, you know, export problem or refinery closures or whatever the thing is or or cargo or whatever getting bombed in Iran and oils up 10 bucks and then, you know, dollar max goes another 50 big figures or whatever. I think that still exists because real money's not out, but, but I also, so I think it's really interesting. It's sort of like this rare occasion where there's a lot of upside convexity for positive carry assets, which is unusual. Yes, very unusual. Look, I don't think we have solved the puzzle. I don't think anybody is able to solve the puzzle unless they have inside information about what Iran and the US will do. So this is a very humbling experience. If you're a macro investor, somebody used to trade short time or eyes and then look at second round effects and how valuable affect each other like brand does. Sorry, but you, I don't think here you have any edge. So it's as well a good moment to recognize that I don't think anybody has an edge here. I think there are ways to trade it where at some point, probabilistically, there is enough bad news priced in at that point though, how I recognize the situation is that I will not want to go along there. I really, every fiber in my body will tell me not to buy risk that I, and then probably you can actually start buying something. And I don't think that moment is here yet. Yeah, I think that's a great point is that when you have a plan, it's just so much easier. Like, if I write down on an index card, if 9x crude trades to 97 flip massively long, I'm much more likely to do it because that's going to be the absolute, scariest moment to do it. And that'll be the perfect moment, probably not investment advice. Okay, guys, we're back. Very happy to have done an episode, especially in these rocky markets. By the way, NFPs are out in an hour. We are recording before. We have no idea what NFPs are also very funny because nobody cares about NFPs now. AI, what's AI? Deflationary shock. Do you remember that? It was like a week ago. I know. It's funny. We don't even talk about the Fed anymore. Fed? What's the Fed? Doesn't matter. It's all about it on. So please keep cool. Have a plan. Even if the plan is wrong, it's fine, but do have a plan and try to follow it. And if you want to check your notes with Brandon, I you'll find us on Bloomberg. Brandon, I'll phone so pick a deal. Just ping us up. We're happy to chat. All right. Cool. And actually, I'm in Colorado next week. So no podcast. Sorry. Unless it finds a special guest. Exactly what it's worth. So we'll try to record every time we can. We love you very much. Thanks for listening. All right. I love you too. Have a good chat. The content provided on the Macro Trading Floor podcast is for general information purposes only. No information or other content provided in this podcast should be considered as investment advice. Seek independent professional consultation in the form of legal, financial and fiscal advice before making any investment decision. Always perform your own due diligence.