[music] This is MacroVoices, the free weekly financial podcast targeting professional finance, high net worth individuals, family offices, and other sophisticated investors. MacroVoices is all about the brightest minds in the world of finance and macroeconomics telling it like it is. Bullish your bearish, no holds barred. Now here are your hosts, Eric Townsend and Patrick Sarrezna. MacroVoices episode 531 was produced on May 7th, 2026. I'm Eric Townsend. It's been another roller coaster week in the Iran conflict with the on-again, off-again signaling about ceasefires and peace talks leading to plenty of market volatility. Gav Calco founder Louis Vincent Gav returns as this week's feature interview guest to dissect what's going on in the conflict and what it will mean for global markets in coming months. We'll also touch on China and precious metals. Then be sure to stay tuned for our post-game segment after the feature interview when Patrick's trade of the week will explore a setup built around Louis Gav's view that countries and corporations are entering a new era of strategic commodity stockpiling. And then we'll have our usual coverage of all the markets with Patrick's post-game chart tick. The feature interview was recorded on Monday, well before crude oil prices collapsed in the wee hours of Wednesday morning on rumors of a peace deal that were still unconfirmed as of recording time early Thursday morning. I'll have an update on the latest in the crude oil coverage in our post-game segment. There's also big news for our listeners who invested in all of Atomix after CEO Matt Losec appeared on this podcast two months ago. I'll cover that news when we touch on uranium in the post-game segment after the feature interview. And I'm Patrick Sarrezna with the Macros scoreboard week over week as of the close of Wednesday, May 6, 2026. The S&P 500 index up 322 basis points training at 73 65. The market continues to rip to 52 week highs as semis lead the way. We'll take a closer look at that chart and the key technical levels to watch in the post-game segment. The US dollar index down 97 basis points to 98.01. The June WTI crude oil contract down 1104 basis points training to 95.08. A material pullback on hopes of an Iranian peace deal. The June Arbob gasoline down 362 basis points to 346. The June gold contract up 292 basis points training at 46.94. The July copper contract up 422 basis points to 618. A substantial breakout of copper out of a one month consolidation. The May uranium contract down 64 basis points trading at 86. Even the US 10 year treasury yield down 10 basis points training at 433. The key news to watch this Friday is the monthly jobs numbers. And next week we have the Fed Chair nomination vote. The CPI and PPI inflation numbers and retail sales. This week's feature interview guest is Louis Vincent Gav. Eric and Louis discuss the growing risk that the Strader Hermos disruption becomes more prolonged than the markets expect. Why countries may be forced to rebuild strategic inventories of physical commodities and how the shifting geopolitical landscape could impact everything from semiconductors and supply chains to Asian currencies and global inflation. Eric's interview with Louis Gav is coming up as macro voices continues right here at macrovoices.com. And now with this week's special guest, here's your host Eric Townsend. Joining me now is Gav Calco founder Louis Vincent Gav. Louis I'm so excited to get you on. This week's news is coming up as a real big news. Louis Vincent Gav. Louis Vincent Gav. Louis Vincent Gav. Louis Vincent Gav.
Like the ceasefire is a good deal for them. You know, I firmly believe in Charlie Munger saying that show me the incentives and I'll tell you the outcome. Iran's incentive is to not get bombed. And the way they don't get bombed is they say, if you bomb us, we're gonna bomb the energy infrastructure of the other guys, which is a pretty scary thought for everybody involved. So right now the market, if you look at the curve, et cetera, is essentially pricing in a reopening of the straits in the coming weeks, which I'm personally do this. I don't see what Iran has to gain. And then you get to the third big player in this arena, which is Saudi Arabia. Now, you know, Saudi now has, they can export through the Red Sea, they can export four and a half, five million barrels, which is down from the roughly eight or nine they were exporting before. But before, remember, they were exporting eight or nine at 60 bucks. And now they move into a world where it's like, we can export five, maybe at about 120 bucks, or we can export eight or nine, but then we have to give a bunch of money to Iran for every ship that goes by. And we don't really like Iran. We definitely don't want to give them two million bucks a ship. So maybe we just sell five at 120 bucks, rather than eight or nine at 60 bucks, and have to pay Iran a toll on the way. So again, show me the incentives, and I'll tell you the outcome. I think the future's oil market is pricing in a return to Saudi, to UAE, et cetera, to, you know, essentially producing fully and sending their oils through the home who straights. I'm not sure that comes back. Or it's not obvious to me that it does. So perhaps the better bet today is the idea that oil in six months time is still too cheap. Louis, you said this is not that big of a deal that a hundred dollar oil, it's not the end of the world economically. And I agree with you completely, but hang on a second. This is a much bigger physical market dislocation in terms of delivery of oil than something like the Abkake bombing that happened a few years ago. But we're not seeing that price dislocation. So I guess what I come back to is, okay, yeah, it's 100. It's not 150, but why isn't it 150? When every single oil analyst that I listen to is saying the same thing, which is this is the absolute biggest physical disruption in the history of the oil market ever. Okay, we've had lots of much bigger price dislocations than this one. So it seems like the whole investment community's kind of shrugging it off. Say, no, those oil guys are just talking their book. What's going on? That's right. What do they know? What do those guys know? No, like, look, I completely agree. And to your point, and I know it's a point you've discussed with previous guests. It's of course not just oil, it's natural gas and it's fertilizer and it's urea. And it's helium. It's like all sorts of stuff. We don't want to reduce the Middle East to just the oil. I think perhaps most importantly, what this highlights, this whole war highlights, a message we already had gotten with the Houthi things and saying that you and I had discussed before. But the days when we could always count on the US Navy to patrol the oceans and to deliver whatever goods you ordered, I'll now clearly over. And this isn't because of Trump and this isn't because of Iran. It's just in this new age of drone warfare, controlling the world's ocean is just become impossible. And this matters a lot because I think it really means that every country that for years and years just always saved in US treasuries because you could, well, you knew that in a crisis, the treasury market is the biggest, deepest liquid market in the world. You could always transform your treasuries into whatever commodity you need it. That is no longer true. You know, look at India. India's got 700 billion in US treasuries and they're out of fertilizer. And so they call China and say, hey, you guys have a lot of fertilizer because you've been smart enough to stock pilots for the past decade. Can you sell us some please? And China says, sorry, mate, you know, I'd rather keep what I have. But good luck selling your treasuries for fertilizer. You know, I don't want to belittle what we're going through. I think it's a dramatic shock to the system. I think coming out of this every country will say, you know what? I can't sprinkle treasuries on my field to grow wheat. I can't shove treasuries into my car to make it go. So every country will have to build inventories of refined products inventories of fertilizer inventories of stockpiles of oil. If you want to essentially have an independent monetary policy and an independent foreign policy, you will now need to stockpile commodities. It's just that simple because the days when you can rely on the United States to bring you what you need are now over. And I think this was, I think already obvious for anybody who paid attention following Russia, Ukraine and following Houthis. But now it really is in your face. So I completely take your point that energy prices should be higher. The question has to be why isn't it? And the only thing I can really come up with is that oil is a sort of unique market and that we have a lot of buffers in the system. Obviously the oil on the chips and the inventories and the strategic petroleum reserves. There's a lot of buffers in the system and that maybe in this crisis, maybe following Russia, Ukraine, following the Red Sea thing, people did build up their buffers. The most obvious one, of course, is China. Officially China has roughly 1.3 billion barrels and reserves. We've actually published various reports highlighting that the number is actually probably closer to 1.8 billion barrels. So China today has more oil in storage than the rest of the world combined. And the reason this matters, of course, is China's the biggest oil importer in the world. So having this massive oil inventory gives China the ability to go into the market when prices are down and to back off when prices are high. Now what's fascinating is I would have actually expected in the back of all of this for China to back off. With the price of the spike, you would have expected the price spike and expected China to back off. If you look at official import numbers for March, we don't have them yet for April. China's imports of oil were still up 8% year on year in March. So it doesn't look like China's backed off, although maybe you take the official numbers with a grain of sand, maybe on the official stuff they backed off, but all the teapots, refiners, all the dark fleet, all that stuff, maybe that faded. That's always very, very hard to know. The bottom line, I think perhaps the market is assuming two things. The market is a assuming that Hormuz is going to reopen in the Nusso-Distan future. And here, I just discussed, given the set of incentives, I'm not sure that that assumption will turn out to be right. So that's number one. I think the second thing the market is assuming is, look, there's all this storage in China. So we're not going to hit a crisis like, say, 2008, when China came into the market following the Gonsu and Search on Earth breaks and just hit the bid on absolutely everything. Everything that was energy related. So I think these are the two markets assumption and both turn out to be right, but they may still both turn out to be wrong as well. The bottom line for me, if we step away from the day today, if we step away from the why-on-market's reacting, et cetera, and we project ourselves to six months, 12 months, 18 months from now. I think you're still left in a situation where individuals, where companies, where countries will be building more inventories, where we will look at the supply shock and decide, you know what, I need to stockpile fertilizer. I need to stockpile more natural gas. Why does Korea have less than a week's worth of natural gas today and China has more than 50 days? If I'm a Korean voter, I'll say, you know what, I'd rather have fewer US weapons. I'd rather have fewer US treasuries and I'd rather have more natural gas in storage. Thank you very much. And so I think every country will add down this way. So however you cut it, you end up with a structural outlook for commodities that is from you, you know, pretty darn bullish. I definitely want to come back to both China and structural bullish argument for commodities. But first, as you said, I've spoken to quite a few guests about everything from fertilizer, you know, to other knock-on effects. There's one I've been saving just for you, Louis, before this, let's set the way back machine to before the, is it board a line that you've been saving for me? No, you've, you've already got the market cornered on that one. What I want to go back to is before the Hormuz crisis broke out, the AI trade was kind of running out of steam. And the reason, or at least one of the reasons, that a lot of people were starting to question whether we were about to see a bursting of the AI bubble was because AI was getting constrained by energy. We didn't have enough electricity to really build all the data centers that AI wanted to build. People were getting really concerned about there being enough energy and that was maybe going to pop the AI bubble. Now add an oil crisis and that means that there's even more reason for worry and semiconductors are through the roof driving this massive rally in the S&P to new all-time highs, apparently
the AI trade is back and back with a vengeance. Why? Because there's a looming threat of a global energy crisis that could make the reasons that the bubble was gonna pop even worse. I'm missing something here. So, am I maybe misinterpreting? Is the reason that semiconductors are rallying so incredibly strongly not related to AI? I mean, I don't get it. - Now look, it's the reasons you my conductors for those of us who like me, who unfortunately haven't been massively long, is quite painful. It's especially painful for emerging market investors. If you look at the EM index, well, depending on which benchmark you're using, but essentially Samsung, TSMC and SK high-nix are anywhere from a fifth to a quarter of people's benchmarks now. And in a month like April, where they all rip more than 30%, your life's crambling. So you look at the EM benchmark as it absolutely crushed it, and it's all, it's all C-mic conductors. And yet to your point, if you look at C-miconductors as a percentage of the SMP 500, it was 10% two years ago, it's now 17%. Which is very reminiscent, you'll remember this. Do you remember back in 2007, 2008, when everybody was running around talking about peak oil, how there wasn't gonna be enough oil for everyone, and oil was hitting 150 bucks. In 2006, it was 10% of the SMP 500, and then it spiked to 16% of the SMP 500 a couple years later before it old rolled over with a 2008 crisis. So there's, for me, as I look at C-miconductors today, there's a strong sense of Dijavu. If you go back to 2008, you had the mortgage crisis, it was already obvious, you know, banks were failing, et cetera. But everybody was saying, you know what, forget that. Who cares about bear sturns? Who cares about city bank cutting its dividend? Who cares about UBS doing the biggest rights issue in history? Whatever, boring. The real story is peak oil. There won't be enough energy for everyone. All this other stuff doesn't matter. And energy kept ripping in the first half of 2008, even as the world was falling apart. And today, I've got the sentiment of Dijavu, because everybody is running around saying, yeah, you know what, energy, who cares? It's not, that's not where the story is. The story is AI. AI is going to change the world. And there's no way we can produce enough C-miconductors to feed the world's AI needs. It's just, we just won't be able to keep up. And so this year, Samsung Electronics will end up being the most profitable company in the history of capitalism. And people will point out that the Samsung, the SK high nakes, the TSMs of this world are actually very attractively valued. They're trading sometimes at single digit PEs, just like oil stocks back then were treating as single digit P's. Because people forget that cyclical businesses, capital intensive and cyclical businesses, you typically want to buy them when they have low price to book and very high PEs. And you usually want to sell them when they have low PEs and high price to books. You know, that is the nature of cyclical businesses. And so you look at it and you're like, OK, either this is sort of, you know, like I said, deja vu, all over again. It's reminiscent of the 2008 peak old boom. What am I missing? Why in April that see my conductor stocks all of a sudden decide to go up 30%. Now, you mentioned in your question, I'm sorry to be long-winded, but I think this is super important. You mentioned in your question the fact that we were starting to run out of steam in the first quarter of this year. On the premise that, yes, electricity costs were going up. And you'll remember that there was like a referendum in Indiana and I think some other states when Trump was elected, re-elected this last time around, where people were saying, you know what, we don't want data centers in our state. Having a data center here means that my electricity cost goes up and it doesn't create any jobs. So thanks, but no thanks. No interest in having this in my neighborhood. And Trump's response to this was a fairly elegant one. To be fair, he said he immediately flew out. His very first trip was to Saudi Arabia, to the UAE, to Qatar, where he not only picked up a plane, but he also picked up contracts for huge rollouts of data centers all across the Gulf States. And the idea was simple. These guys had cheap electricity. These guys had cheap solar, cheap, cheap natural gas. So let's put the data centers over there. And conceptually, you know, that made a lot of sense until the Iranian drones and missile started to fly. Then I think if you're today, if your Microsoft and Amazon, you're thinking, you know what, I probably don't want to build a $20 billion data centers right next to Dubai, especially since I probably can't ensure it. So I have no choice but to bring it home. And if I bring it home, then I'm left with, how do I produce cheap electricity? Now, there's a fairly obvious way to produce cheap electricity quickly and plentiful. And that would be to cover the whole of Nevada, New Mexico, and Arizona with solar panels. And now, of course, you and I both know who would produce the solar panels. And that brings me to perhaps the reason why these things are these smart conductors are ripping higher. If we start off with the premise that the Iran war is an inflationary shock to the system. And right now, there's no doubt it's going to be an inflationary shock to the system. Just on the back of gasoline, oil, heating oil, jet fuel, et cetera, inflation's going to go up by at least 1% of your points in the coming readings. If we start off with the fact that it is an inflationary shock, then you're left with a conclusion that Trump and she, who are scheduled to meet four times in the next 12 months, are kind of condemned to get along. They have to strike some kind of deal. And there's lots of deals they can strike, because Trump desperately needs the rare earths and the magnets to replenish his weapons covered that has been emptied far faster than what he anticipated when he started this war. The first thing is he needs China to agree to sell the rare earths, that's number one. Number two, he actually probably needs the solar panels now in a way that he didn't before. And he needs them and all the big tech are going to be lobbying for the solar panels. What he wants as well is China to revalue the Remembee. This has been a big demand of Treasury Secretary Bessent, and I think Bessent is absolutely right to argue for this, since the Remembee is just, again, I have discussed this before, but it's the wrongest price in the system. It's like it's so stupidly undervalued, it's absolutely ridiculous. Now, interestingly, the Remembee is going up every day, which I think China is doing an anticipation of these meetings with Trump. The Remembee going up every day, incidentally, is sort of a departure from traditional policy at the Chinese central bank. Usually, when you have uncertainty in the world, in the past, they always freeze the value of the currency. This time, they're letting it go up. Now, what would China want out of all of this? I think it's pretty obvious what China wants. China wants the lithography machines. It wants basically from ASML, from Tokyo Electron, and it probably wants the high-end chips as well. Is there a deal to be struck where China sells the US, what the US needs? The US agrees that China can get high-end sea-mic inductors. I'm not saying that this is going to happen, but perhaps that's why the sea-mic conductor stocks are absolutely ripping. It's all quite speculative, and to be very clear, I'm not participating. I own some Samsung electronics, but that's pretty much the only one I own. Again, I think Samsung is going to be the biggest, most profitable company that's ever been this year, and I don't think it's fully priced in for that yet, for these kinds of headlines. But maybe the market, as I look at the way the markets have behaved in April is sensory saying, "Yeah, energy, whatever. S&P energy stocks were down 2% in April, and sea-mic conductor's up 30." Either the market is completely delusional and is back to, "Oh, well, the only thing that matters is AI." And notes that the AI propaganda on the media is absolutely relentless, right? It's constantly, "Oh, AI is going to replace half the jobs out there. This is the most important macro-trand, et cetera. It's absolutely relentless." So maybe that's just the simplest explanation. We have market participants that are like, you know, goldfish in a fishbowl that just played one chest move ahead, or perhaps the market is sensing that you're going to get a China-US deal that will be beneficial for Chinese rare earths, beneficial for solar panel manufacturers, and beneficial for sea-mic inductors everywhere. What do you think Trump could have lined up? He had a meeting with Xi Jinping. Then that seemed to get delayed at a time when nobody was really expecting it to be delayed. It almost feels like Trump wants to get into a certain point with the Iran conflict where he has more leverage to negotiate. I'm not sure what's going on. How do you read that situation with the upcoming summit between Trump and China? I think when Trump launched the offensive in Iran, I think he thought or was told by Netanyahu that it would be a one-week deal, that he'd come in, that all he needed to do was kill Hamini and 170 schoolgirls, and that the regime would fall all by itself. Unfortunately, or that didn't happen, and he ended up being stuck in an operation that's obviously taking a lot more time, taking a lot more attention, costing him a lot, a lot of political capital. He had to postpone the China trip because instead of rolling it to China as the victor of Venezuela and Iran, he didn't want to roll in there while having to take phone calls about what was happening in Iran. He wants to be able to sit down with Xi,
and negotiate without that concern in the back of his head. Now, as it turns out, you know, he's going to have to go almost regardless. But, but incidentally, I think all these rumors that, oh, the war's going to start again, that we're going to get to the second wave, the US is moving more assets into the region. I think if something is going to happen, it's going to happen after the China visit. I think at this stage, we're getting too close to the China visit for Trump to launch a new round of offensive. So that, I mean, I think that's the situation on the ground. I think that's where we stand. And for different reasons, but mostly for domestic political reasons, both Trump and Xi need to win out of these, well, the summit that's coming up and then the next three following up. But, by the way, I don't know if I mentioned this earlier, but it's the first time in history that the Chinese and US President are scheduled to meet four times in 12 months. And again, I don't think they're meeting to discuss the World Cup or the weather. There's a lot on the plate. A lot of things to discuss. I think FX policy is a big one. And that one is fairly obvious. Everyone's aligned on this. China wants a higher RMB. The US wants a higher RMB. It's the most undervalued currency in the world, but it's the currency with the strongest momentum today. You know, the way I work is I try to look for the easier trades. There's I have a bucket of easy trades and a bucket of hard trades. The easiest trade in the easy trade bucket is the RMB moving up. Everybody wants it to happen. It is happening. And it's a trade with massive valuation tailwinds. So from there, you know, unless the meetings go really bad between Trump and Xi, you know, the obvious consequence of the meeting goes well, then investors all across Asia will say, okay, meeting went well. RMB is now definitely structurally going up. So will the other Asian currencies. And I think that means that absolutely anything with any kind of yield in Asia gets bid up even by local savings, local savings that up until now have mostly been recycled into max seven and to Bitcoin and to gold into anything with momentum. All of a sudden, if you know that the RMB is going to go up six and a half percent a year, which is what it just did in the past 12 months. If it's going to do five to eight percent a year for the next three years, then you look at a lot of the local stocks that are yielding six, seven percent, you know, your petrochina as your China mobiles, some of the life insurance guys, etc. And you're like, okay, I can get six percent dividend yield, six percent on the currency. That's 12 percent without taking too much risk. That seems like a pretty attractive proposition. So I think the in the easy trade bucket, it's Asian currencies going up and anything with the yield in Asia gets get's re rated. But going back to to your question, sorry to ramble on, but going back to your question, you know, what what happens in the in the meeting between Trump and Xi? First, I think the meeting happens. And secondly, I think they both need the meeting to go well. They both need domestic wins. So the the incentive structure for things to happen and for things to go well are very much there. I very much agree with you on almost all of that. There's one dimension of it though that I just want to make sure I understood correctly because the place we agree is Trump wants to go in from a position of strength. He doesn't want to be negotiating with Xi Jinping when things are falling apart in the Middle East. He wants to come in with, you know, we we kicked ass in Venezuela, we kicked ass in Iran, where the tough guys, you know, you better not mess with us. So I agree with you on that part, but you're saying, therefore, it's more likely that any further escalation in the Iran conflict would happen after a meeting with Xi. I would have interpreted the other way, which is Trump is more likely to try to go for the Hail Mary and say, we got to get a win in Iran before I go meet with Xi. We can't go in, you know, from a position of weakness where we are now. We got to get a win first and try to get the win. And if he doesn't get the win, postpone the meeting again. That's possible. Like, and it's Trump, anything's possible. What I would say is the window of opportunity to get the win in Iran before the meeting is starting to close pretty quickly. It's if he was going to do it, he should have done it, but because unless the plan is to really bomb Iran to absolute smithorins, for which, you know, I'm not sure there is the political appetite even in the US, you know, for literally, you know, is there the appetite for hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties? I want to hope that that there isn't the appetite for that in the US for such a murderous type of action and behavior. And to be honest, if they did do that, if they went ahead and murdered hundreds of thousands of civilian population, then it probably wouldn't be Trump who would postpone the meeting of the Xi. You'd say, look, in these conditions, I'm not like you have blood on your hands. I'm a really keen to shake your hand, my dear president. So it's all this to say that it's, I think Trump actually needs, I take your point, he wants to come in strong, etc. But he actually needs this meeting now. Like the US is getting to the point where they need emptied the defensive armament covered, they really need the rare earths, they really need the magnets. And they really need some kind of solution on Iran. Now incidentally, you know, how do you get a solution on Iran? Option one is yes, you bomb them to the middle ages, which Trump keeps threatening. The second option is you lean on the one country that does have influence in Iran, namely China. And you tell China to look, if you help us out here, you know, you sort of Iran out, you reopen the straits for us, we can do stuff for you and see my conductors. We'll decide actually China is not the bad actor that we were saying it was. And we will help you on the sea my conductor front. It will help you, maybe will allow BYD to open factories in the United States and open our car markets, so on and so forth. And so, you know, you could twist it around and say does Trump care more about looking strong to the Chinese? Does he care more about looking strong to the American electorate six months before a midterm? If he cares more about looking strong to the American electorate six months before midterm, then actually he needs to go to China and he needs to cut a deal that where he comes back and says, I got the Chinese to revive the RMB, I got them to buy a bunch of Boeing's, I got them to buy a bunch of Nvidia chips. And they agreed because I asked them to sort out the Iranians who are paying in everybody's neck. So you can slice that slice and dice that many ways. But for me, if really they were going to go militarily for Iran, I think the window to do it before the meeting is closing fast. Because I don't think he wants to restart a war and have to be in Beijing as the war goes on. Well, it seems to me that the new risk for Trump is that the political opposition is really pushing pretty hard now for you don't have congressional approval for this. You're at the 60 day mark. Trump's defense to that has been to say, no, no, the 60 days doesn't count because we're in a ceasefire. Well, as soon as we're not in a ceasefire, which as we're recording this on restart the Monday, yeah, we're not in a ceasefire anymore as far as I can tell on Monday, things have started to heat up again. So he's got to do something in order to not have his political opposition in the US shut the war down on him. And so as you say, you know, we went from any export of Nvidia chips to China is absolutely embargoed because they're evil. Now Trump's got to make a trip to China and try to get a, you know, a salesman's commission on selling a bunch of Nvidia chips to China. That's the new twist. So I think that's one possible explanation for this face ripping rally and see my conductors from 10% again of S&P 500. You think the market sees that Trump has no choice but to basically cave to China and say, okay, you can buy all you want. So the argument against this, again, I'm scratching my head, you know, you try to put the puzzle pieces together. The argument against this is that if this is what the market was seeing, you would expect a better performance from Chinese equities, right? And you really haven't seen it. Now, interestingly, if you look at the Chinese equity markets, the performance this year, you know, you had a grade 24 for Chinese equities, you had a grade 25. This year is disappointing. And what's been fascinating, what's been really disappointing has been all the big text docs, your babas, your tensens, your bidus. Meanwhile, the Chinese hardware names, the CATLs, the BYDs, the the Cambrian, the like all those guys, they've done very well. So Chinese hardware has done well, Chinese internet plays and another sort of telecom and media, etc. That's all really struggled. So in that respect, it actually hasn't been that different from the US, where software stocks have gone crushed and hardware stocks have have thrived. You've had the same dynamic in China. The big difference is that the hardware stocks in China are pretty much meaningless in the broader benchmarks. They're very, very tiny. And your babas and your tensens, etc., are massive. And all those names are down 15, 20% year to date. But I would imagine that if, you know, the scenario I painted, Where it's okay the market is trying to price
in the fact that the US and China can no longer trip each other up, that because of the Iran war, the condemned to get along, they have to find a deal to curtail inflation and so on and so forth. That if that was the case, Chinese stocks should be doing better. If really we're on the verge of a big US-China deal, then you would expect all the guys in the White House who seem to be front running every decision to be front running this one as well by going out and buying Chinese equities. So far, there's been a little, again, there's been good performance and things like CATL, the biggest battery maker in the world. Maybe that's where the US-China deals focus on, in the broader EV space and the broader battery space because that part of the market has actually done quite well. But it's so far, I would say that the Chinese part of that equation isn't really giving a confirmation of the scenario I just made out. Louis, the most striking thing to me from this interview has been your comments going back 20 years, or 21 years, probably, it was almost exactly to the peak oil fears in the early mid-2000s. It was January of 2005 when Matt Simmons published the book "Twilight in the Desert," which started a whole bunch of Doomsday bloggers writing about a theory, a speculative possibility that we might run into a real oil crunch. And just that speculative blogging led to $147 oil inflation adjusted today, that's $212 oil in 2026 prices. That's what we saw in early 2008, just because some guy who was discredited by most of the serious people, Dan Jürgen was making fun of Matt Simmons for that book back in the day. So a guy who was discredited by most of the serious oil traders writes a book and it leads to $147 oil prices. Now we have all of those same serious guys in the oil business who were making fun of Matt Simmons. They're circulating on Twitter that movie clip where Leonardo DiCaprio is talking about there's a Mount Everest-sized comet hurling toward the earth. We took a picture of it on radar. It's coming and you guys aren't taking this seriously. That's what the serious oil guys are saying now. And streets like, yeah, but we could buy semiconductors and you know, those oil guys are just talking their book. This seems to me like a set up, really what it feels like to me is the COVID pandemic when everybody was ridiculing me and calling me a fear monger when I said there's a pandemic, global pandemic coming in early February of 2020 and it took a month before the market finally figured out the obvious. Are we in another set up that's just like that? I think that's a distinct possibility, Eric. And I would say that the longer the streets of our moustache closed, the more your COVID-like scenario becomes credible. I think so far what has happened is that cars are still driving and planes are still flying and we haven't really dealt with the possible shortages in the system because they haven't emerged for two reasons. First, there's a lot of buffers in the the energy industry so we could draw down these buffers but now on our calculation by early June, the buffers run out. So that's the first point. The second point I think is we haven't really hit shortages because the last boats that left the Gulf were still arriving at their destination by around mid-April. You know, if you left in late February, you were arriving in Australia or in the US or in Japan by early to mid-April and so it's now that all of a sudden nobody is showing up at the ports, right? That nobody's showing up at the refinery. It's now that we have to draw down on the inventories that have been built in, the buffers in the system that will take us to early June, but if by mid-June the straight of homu's is still closed, then yes, I think that this is when you start to hit panic moment. And again, you know, I think when you look at the Ford curve, the market is very much pricing in the idea that the straights of homu's are going to reopen so nothing to worry about, let's keep going. Now, and I said it earlier, but I'm doubtful that it reopens so quickly because I don't see the incentive for Iran to reopen this so quickly. Number one, and number two, there's also the sort of demically-sword scenario that the nightmare scenario that instead of just having the straights of homu's closed, we go back to targeting each other's energy infrastructure. And if that happens, then it's a whole other can of worms. And then things get nasty very, very quickly, because once you take out each other's energy infrastructure, even if the straights of homu's reopen, it's not like things are back to normal because they won't be. So I completely take your point that the down-science scenario is actually quite scary. It is a scary scenario. And I think perhaps because it is such a scary scenario, just like your pandemic parallel, it's like, you know what, I'd rather not think about it. This seems like do-mongering, it's like too scary, forget it, the AI is the trade. Let's go back to AI. That's more fun. It's thinking of the end of the world, that's no fun. So let's just think of AI and how AI is going to be so exciting. So yeah, I think there's a certain level of discomfort when you look at today's market behavior. Essentially, the clock is ticking. We probably still have the month of May to be okay, but if by the end of May things aren't open, then we're setting up for pretty horrible summer. Now, I really want to push back on that part of this because this is the one place where I just don't understand the logic of the market. Almost everybody, I think, would agree with what you just said, which is, well, we've got maybe the month of May to be okay, but if we can get this resolved in the month of May, then things are going to be okay, because we don't run out of those buffers until early June. But here's the thing, Louis, we agree that in early June, we're going to run out of those buffers. If we've solved this, if we solved it tomorrow before this episode, even airs on May 7th, if our moods is totally solved and all the ships are flowing freely, it still takes six weeks for them to get where they need to be. And we're going to run out of the buffers in early June. So we need to have solved it. I would say past 10. We need to solve it now. We need to have already been solved in order to avoid something utterly colossal starting in June. And everybody seems to be acting like, well, but yeah, if we solve this in May, then that won't happen in June. I think it's set to happen in June no matter what. So it's, look, here I'm going to sound terrible, but it's the old story of the rich do what they want and the poor suffer what they must. What's going to happen is the real victims and it's already starting to emerge. But if there's not enough to go around, it's going to be the Sri Lanka, the Pakistan's, the Kenyans of the the Bolivia's of this world that get cut off first and foremost. Oh, so if millions of people starve to death, I think this is not really that significant to the S&P 500. This is what I said. I'm going to sound terrible. It's exactly what I meant. I'd like, I said, I'm going to sound absolutely dreadful. But this is how the market is going to take it. It's going to be, you know what, if there's no electricity in Manila, do I really care? And I think that's the mentality right now. And look, I'm not saying this is awesome. And again, I'm an EM guy. So for us, it's much more problematic. But I think that's that's that's the perhaps that explains the S&P's behavior today, where it's like, yeah, you know what? Yep, I'm very sad for people in Sri Lanka. But anyway, let's what our apples are innings because that's what matters to me. All this to say that if it reopens now, I agree with you that we're still set up for some dislocations in June and July. But those dislocations will happen in the poorer markets first and foremost. And either way, though, I would say that right now, asking stand debating whether if we reopen now, whether it will be okay in June, et cetera, it's a bit, it might be just a specialist debate because we're not reopening right now. And it doesn't look to me as if there's any attempt at diplomacy in the United States, because this thing is only going to get solved through diplomacy. And it doesn't really look like there's genuine attempts at the US at diplomacy. The way the US is conducting diplomacy is through a long list of demands that are equivalent to essentially Versailles in 1919, where we told the Germans, this is it, sign here, here and here, as if Iran had been thoroughly defeated in the field. But Iran doesn't believe it has been thoroughly defeated in the field. Iran believes its position is strong. Iran doesn't feel it's negotiating from a position of weakness. And so I think that you must have seen this many times in your lives, either people going through divorces or people going through fights with business partners or whatever. The worst results and negotiations happen when both sides are a self-righteous and be believed that they're in a stronger position than they really are, because the willingness to compromise is then not there. And that's when you get bad outcomes all around. And to me, it seems like we're still there in the Iran-US situation where
Both sides believe they're very much in the right that the other side is profoundly evil, talks about things in very mannequin term of good versus evil, and both sides very much believe that they actually have the upper hand. And so if that's the case, like it's pretty hard to reach compromises on anything. You know, you and I could debate, oh, but look, if we reopen now, what's gonna be the impact, et cetera? The reality is we're not reopening now. So that's what matters. What happens if Trump gets his war-making abilities taken away from him because of this 60-day rule? What if if he loses in Supreme Court says, look, without congressional approval, you have to stop. Does Iran open the straight at that point with a toll, or do they just say, "Yeah, we won." And we control the global energy infrastructure from now on. - Yeah, I think Iran says, yeah, you wanna go through the streets, there'll be two million bucks. At that point, I think the bull then moves to Saudi Arabia. The question becomes, does Saudi Arabia wanna pay two million bucks a ship? Does the UAE wanna pay two million bucks a ship? Two million bucks, I go straight into the pockets of the IRGC. Now, if you're the UAE, by the way, the UAE leaving OPEC and essentially, thumping their nose at Saudi Arabia, strikes me as somewhat odd of an odd move because essentially, UAE is saying, we, here they are, you look at a map, they're stuck in between Iran and Saudi Arabia. They're in a fight with Iran right now. UAE has received about three times as many missiles and drone hits as Israel. So they're in a fight with Iran, and they picked this precise moment to pick a fight with Saudi Arabia. That's kind of mind blowing to me. Where it's like, the parallel I would use is, in World War I, when Germany invaded Belgium, and if Belgium had turned around and decided to thump their nose at France, I think when you're in a fight, typically you wanna look for friends rather than make new enemies. And what's particularly surprising now, I get Saudi Arabia's UAE's point, it's like, well, we're gonna need to rebuild after this. So we gotta go, we wanna produce five million barrels a day, we don't wanna produce three and a half. But how those barrels gonna move? Are you gonna move them by ship? Then you're gonna have to pay Iran, or are you gonna move them to pipeline through pipeline, and then you're gonna be fully dependent on Saudi Arabia. So you're gonna be dependent on somebody given your geography. Why would you say, thump your nose at both? It's, to me, it's a little surprising. Anyways, to answer your question, if the US Congress decides to tell Trump, okay, this war's over, you've had your fun. This has been a disaster diplomatically. It's been a disaster for the image of the US and the world. It's been a disaster for the US consumer. It's been a disaster for the US military. We've spent all of our weapons for no, for really no concrete outcome. So we've done all this, so now you're done, you're out. You can't do this anymore. I think the bulk then falls into Saudi Arabia. The Saudi Arabia decide, you know what? I don't wanna pay Iran. So I'm only gonna produce five million barrels a day and ship them out through the Red Sea, and that's that. Not only that, but I don't really have an incentive to move the UAE oil. You know what, UAE, you might wanna produce five million barrels. If you wanna produce five million barrels, you have to pay the IRGC, they're two million. And the UAE is way more against the IRGC than Saudi Arabia. So politically, it's gonna be very hard for the UAE to say, yeah, fine, we'll pay two million bucks a ship to Iran. We'll do you wanna do it. So you're still left then on the other side. If I'm Saudi Arabia, if I'm NBS, I'm saying, you know what, I'd rather sell five million barrels at 150 than eight million barrels at 60 bucks. Thank you very much. I'll just do that. And you might say, well, that's gonna really piss off the US. But by that point, the US doesn't have military bases in the Middle East anymore, and the US has just shown it doesn't have the willingness to defend the Middle East. So if you're NBS, do you still worry about what the US thinks? No, you just say, you know what? I'll sell five million barrels at 150 bucks and leave it at that. Well, Louie, I can't thank you enough for another terrific interview. I always really enjoy our conversations. Before I let you go, tell us a little bit more about what you do at GavCal, how people can find out more about what's on offer there, particularly for our institutional audience since you are an institutional advisory firm, as well as how to follow your work generally. I think, so I like Eric. I always enjoy our chats. It always helps me crystallize a lot of my own thinking. So really thanks for having me on. Thanks a sub for all the interviews that you did in the past few weeks. It's really helped me. Thanks for a lot of issues. And I think you had some great guests in the past few weeks. So thanks a bunch. Anyway, for me, yeah, the best place is our own website. It's gavcal.com, G-A-V-E-K-L. We really do three things. We publish research for institutional investors. We manage a series of fun, mostly Asian-focused fun, so Asian equities, Chinese things to income, Chinese distress debt. And we also have a private wealth business run out of Bellevue for the US for US clients and run out of Mauritius for offshore clients in Hong Kong, where our headquarters is. So if any of your listeners come through Hong Kong, they should feel free to reach out. Always happy to meet new people. Best place to find out is gavcal.com. I am on X. I'll post the occasional thing, but I'll post every now and then a paper that I've either liked or that clients have asked me to unlock. So don't hesitate to follow me on X. Patrick Suresna and I will be back as MacRevoices continues right here at macrevoices.com. [MUSIC PLAYING] Now, back to your hosts, Eric Townsend and Patrick Suresna. Eric, it was great to have Louis back on the show. Now listeners, you're going to find a download link for this week's Trade of the Week in your research roundup email. If you don't have a research roundup email, it means you have not yet registered at macrevoices.com. Just go to our homepage and look for the red button over Jim Bianco's picture saying looking for the downloads. Patrick, for this week's Trade of the Week, Louis Gav argued that this isn't just an energy shock, but the beginning of a broader shift towards strategic commodity stockpiling across energy, agriculture, and industrial inputs. So how do you position for that theme without simply tracing the latest headlines, Mike? Now, Louis' argument is that this isn't simply an oil story. It's a broader wake-up call that the countries and corporations can no longer rely on just in time supply chains or financial reserves alone to guarantee access to essential commodities. As a result, Louis suggests we are entering a new phase where strategic stockpiling of physical commodities, everything from energy and fertilizers to industrial metals and agricultural inputs becomes a structural trend rather than a temporary reaction to geopolitical headlines. So rather than chasing short-term price spikes in one isolated commodity, this trade is about positioning for that broader rebuild in physical inventories across the commodity complex through the Invesco DB commodity index tracking fund, ticker DBC, which provides diversified exposure across the commodity space. Now, what makes this setup particularly interesting is that much of the DBC's rally this year has been driven by its heavy oil exposure with roughly one-third of the ETF tied to WTI and Brent crude futures. That has helped drive the ETF to gains of us much as roughly 41% year-to-date at the peak. But it also leaves the trade highly sensitive to every headlines surrounding the straighter removes and the Iran conflict. A credible peace deal or a de-escalation could easily trigger a short-term pullback in crude oil prices creating downside pressure on the DBC, even if Louis Gavs' broader commodity stockpiling thesis remains intact. And that's why rather than taking outright linear exposure through the ETF itself, I want to introduce convexity into the structure to maintain upside participation in longer-term commodity story while better defining downside risk if the geopolitical premium, temporarily on wines, from a trade construction standpoint, rather than taking outright exposure in the ETF itself, I want to express the view through a longer dated call option on the DBC to introduce convexity and define downside risk. With the DBC trading around 2980, the structure uses the January 15, 2027 $30 strike call option with roughly 253 days to expiration trading around $3. The objective is to maintain upside participation if the broader commodity stockpiling thesis continues to unfold while limiting downside exposure if short-term geopolitical de-escalation triggers a pullback in crude oil and the broader commodity complex. The result is a defined risk way of participating the longer-term commodity stockpiling theme without needing to absorb the full volatility of the underlying ETF. Patrick, every Monday at Big Picture Trading, your webinar explains how retail investors can put on our most recent trade of the week. For those listeners that want to explore how to put on these trades in greater detail, don't miss out on a 14-day free trial at BigPictureTrading.com. Now let's dive into the post-game chart tick. Alright Eric, let's dive in.
into these equities. Patrick, one thing's clear, this market is rallying and rallying strong, even if it's on still unconfirmed rumors that a piece deal might be in the works. So it seems that only outright disaster is going to stop this S&P rally. But the broader market is still seeing plenty of new lows. So breadth is the big thing that's missing from this rally. I used the big move higher on S&P futures in the early hours of Wednesday morning to add to my downside hedges. Now, obviously that position has already moved against me as the rally has continued even higher since then. But frankly, I have no regrets. I'm glad to be hedged in these uncertain times. And I think the fog of war, frankly, just got thicker. What I mean by that is President Trump is now past the 60-day rule. He's not supposed to have any kind of foreign conflict without congressional approval that goes beyond 60 days. If we're past 60 days, what the Trump administration has been relying on is their dubious contention that, well, since we have a ceasefire on, the 60 days doesn't count because the ceasefire began before the 60 days was up. Well, if that's the story and that's the story they're sticking to, they got to continue to pretend that there's a ceasefire on whether there really is or there really isn't, because otherwise they have a congressional oversight to a violation that they have to contend with. So I think it's going to be even less certain as we move forward exactly what the situation is. In the case of Wednesday's news, which collapsed crude oil futures, that only lasted a few hours before Iran basically said, "No, we don't agree to all of that and we don't think that the terms are reasonable." Now, despite the fact that Iran basically said, "No, it didn't really happen." The market didn't even come close to a full retracement. So there's still plenty of hope in the system. I'm just not sure exactly why. Well, Eric, what is clear to me is that the broader intermarkets do care about what is happening in Iran and its impact is on oil and interest rates and inflation expectations, bonds and so on. But right now, the equity markets are marching to the beat of their own drum driven by this new parabolic rise in the semiconductor index. We just simply have not seen this type of burst higher going back through a five-year look back. This has just been an extraordinary rip on the upside. This is a very thin market. We continue to have the breadth of the market remain sticky around 50, 55%, which means half of stocks are in a downtrend. We don't have any broad buying happening here. And even the mag sevens as an index have not been able to make 52-week highs while obviously a few components like Google have certainly been able to clear that hurdle. The bottom line here is that the semiconductors are the ones that are the generals that are driving this. Now, we are seeing some extraordinary moves including in the South Korean Cosby. Everything has gone full parabolic on the upside. And inevitably, all parabolic moves have blow-off tops and mean reversion. And I think that the story of the S&P is going to be at this point linked to this. Now, will we have a broadening of the breadth? Will we see sector rotation? Once we see some sort of a short-term blow-off, those are the puzzles to solve to determine what's next for the S&P at this moment, though the S&P 500 again, it seems to be just marching to beat of its own drum and not being driven by the macro and geopolitical circumstances. All right, let's move on to the dollar here. The gradual decay in the dollar index on piece-hopium confirms my view that when the Iran conflict is really truly over, the next move for the dollar is going to be down. The thing is, I still am not persuaded that it's over. And we still have a big unfilled gap on the chart all the way up to 99 spot 39 on the Dixie, which is now well above the market. While the US dollar remains range bound, the story definitely is about the intervention with the yen. We had a material turn higher. And the big question here, are we going to see some big yen move and what kind of an impact will that have? At the same time, we're seeing that the headlines about a potential deescalation certainly popped the euro, not only in the euro stock stocks, but also the currency and so on, all reacting to a potential deescalation. So that puts the dollar in a bit of a model and certainly vulnerable for actually trading back to the bottom end of that trade range, not super bearish to dollar, but I don't see any immediate catalyst. The dollar going higher was very much a risk off kind of scenario. And that simply has not materialized in spite of the escalation in Iran. All right, Eric, let's touch on crude oil here. The big price collapse came on an Axios report that a deal for a permanent reopening of the street was finally on the table and the parties were just inches away from final agreement should be out within the hour. Except then a few hours later, Iran refuted that and said that they didn't think that the terms being proposed were realistic or likely to go anywhere. Interestingly, we only saw a partial upside retracement after Iran refuted the original report. I don't see a deal coming together, at least not yet. Trump has been absolutely adamant that he will not tolerate Iran having a nuclear weapon or having an intact nuclear weapons program. Iran, on the other hand, has been absolutely adamant that they're not willing to give up their enriched nuclear material. So it seems like they've got irreconcilable differences. On the other side of that coin, both sides, in my opinion, are losing staying power. Trump has passed his 60-day limit with no congressional approval. So he has to at least pretend that a ceasefire is still in play, whether or not that's really true because he doesn't have another good explanation for why he's beyond the 60 days and still hasn't obtained congressional approval. And we're finally reaching the point where Iran really is running out of time as has been alleged several times previously. The blockade is long as it stays in place, really is having a crippling effect on Iran's economy. And it's starting to come into serious question as to how long they can last. So both sides are really being tested on their staying power. They had both, I think, been overconfident in their ability to outlast the other side. I think they're now both getting a dose of reality. And I'm not sure who's going to crack first. But at this point, I don't see them coming together and kissing and making up. I think we still have a ways to go on this. And I won't be surprised if there's another cycle higher on crude oil prices. Now, to be sure, this will be over someday. And when it is, crude oil prices will come down and probably come down dramatically at least at first. Because of the UAE's move to come out of OPEC, everybody is expecting UAE to overproduce. But that's when we actually get the straight, opened again. And I don't think we're there yet. Well, Eric, it is clear that the front end of the curve is going to be highly sensitive to the next headline coming in. This is where I want to continue to turn my attention, going a little farther out on the term structure. And looking at, for instance, crude oil where it's trading at the end of the year, this is a little bit less volatile. And generally is where we'll see some buoyancy as there's going to be logistical problems with moving oil. And it's going to take much of the year to resolve itself, including potentially countries spending a lot of time replenishing inventories and strategic reserves. This is going to be the question in my mind is to even if there is this short term drop in the front months or a huge rip in the front months, what will happen to the longer dated contracts? And where's the longer term fair price of oil going to settle from all of the logistical issues and supply disruptions? All right, Eric, let's move on to gold here. Well, I've really been bitten by Murphy's Law this week. Gold is back well above 4730, which is where I de-risked my gold position last week. It had gotten down all the way to 4520. So it was more than 200 bucks. I guess I made the right decision at first, but the unexpected news on Wednesday of a supposed ceasefire deal being, imminently in the works, is very much behind the collapse in crude oil prices and the brisk rally higher in gold prices. I have not re-risked my gold position, however, because I'm not persuaded that this is over yet. I think we're operating on HopiM here. Now, to be sure, both the stock market and the gold market are rallying and rallying strong, and maybe I'll be left behind. But I'm not going to get whipsawed here, and it feels to me like this is not really over. We'll see what the market will bring. Well, what is clear to me, Eric, here, is that gold remains highly sensitive to rates in oil as oil moves, rates move, and gold responds. And so the path of gold here,
I think is going to be a broader geopolitical and macro story. If we see again another pivot on whether or not there's going to be a peace deal, then gold can very quickly just give back all of these gains. At this stage, that long-term gold bull thesis is going to have to wait till everything settles in and this consolidation finishes before we can see some structural bullishness. Eric, what are your thoughts here on Uranium? Well, we saw a big surge higher in sympathy with broader market strength on war-ending propaganda rumors, whatever you want to call it. I am not at all persuaded that that's over, and if we do see a move lower in stocks, at least temporarily, it will take Uranium down with it. Frankly, I would welcome that as a buying opportunity, because I think what we're seeing now is that it's very clear that when this Iran conflict is over both the broader market and Uranium, our headed higher and probably much higher. So I'll welcome an opportunity to buy the dip if we get one, but for now the market's looking really strong. And we've got big news for people who followed me into the investment in Olo Atomics, the company that Matt Losek runs. Matt was interviewed here on macro voices on our March 5th episode. Olo has had their DSA approved. The DSA is essentially the operating license from the Department of Energy to run their reactor. It basically allows them to now turn it on. This is the reactor that they built in just 40 days. This company is amazing in terms of how quickly they get things accomplished. I wrote a whole substack piece called The Race to Reactor 53. That's on my substack. It's linked in your research roundup email. You can read all the details there, but the gist of it is there are several companies. Racing to become the new first of a kind nuclear reactor to be taken critical at the Idaho National Laboratory in almost 50 years. It's actually 49 and a half years since in 1977. The last nuclear reactor was taken live before the NRC started standing in the way of progress, quite frankly. So the whole story is on my substack. You'll find it linked in research roundup. The reason this is a particular interest to those of you who invested in Olo after Matt's interview is you would have invested at a $2 billion company valuation cap in either the safe or the SPV round that followed that macro voices interview. Both of those rounds are closed and will not be reopened. So it's too late for those. But already after the DSA news, there was so much new investor interest that the company has now launched a new SPV round that they're going to conduct before their series C. And that's at a $3 billion valuation cap. So that means effectively if you assuming that you count an up-round as a market to market event, those of you who invested at a $2 billion valuation are already up 50% on the investment that you made a month ago. And expectations are for an even higher series C pre-money valuation because it's very likely that the company will achieve that goal. Whether or not they actually become the 53rd reactor, the first of several companies that's competing to cross that finish line before July 4th, it's not really certain. They've got some stiff competition, but I don't think that matters, frankly, who's first. What matters is that before the series C is priced, they've evidenced criticality and they've brought a first of a kind reactor critical at the Idaho National Laboratory. I do expect that to happen before July 4th and before their series C is priced. And that means we'll probably have yet another up-round and a further increase, although it's not liquid yet, are unrealized gain in this rather exciting investment. So that's the update and congratulations to those of you who invested in the company. Well, Eric, uranium remains very quiet and inactive. It's certainly not getting attention in nor is it getting huge geopolitical swings. At some stage, this market will wake up again. But right now, this is not drawing the attention of investors. What is is copper. I wanted to just have a quick look on that copper chart, which I have on page 8. And what we see here is that in solidation back to its 50-day moving average, we have a clear attempt to break out to fresh new highs. Now while copper back in January did trade over 650 on the upside on an intraday basis, we are on a closing basis. Now back to 52-week highs. Is this breakout in copper real and will it follow through is certainly something that I'm going to be talking about with my members? Patrick, before we wrap up this week's podcast, let's hit that 10-year Treasury note chart. Yeah, on that 10-year Treasury yield, yields continue to have that direct correlation to crude oil. Crude oil up, yields up, crude oil down, yields down. That right now has been working in. It will eventually decouple, but right now in the heat of this geopolitical circumstances on an inner market basis, this correlation is driving it. So at this stage, I wouldn't be trying to make a forecast independent of where the next move on crude oil is going to be. Folks, if you enjoy Patrick's chart decks, you can get them every single day of the week with a free trial of big picture trading. The details are on the last pages of the slide deck or just go to bigpicturetrading.com. Patrick, tell them what they can expect to find and this week's research roundup. In this week's research roundup, you're going to find the transcript for today's interview, as well as the trade of the week chart book we just discussed here in the post game, including a number of links to articles that we found interesting. You're going to find this link and so much more in this week's research roundup. That does it for this week's episode. We appreciate all the feedback and support we get from our listeners and we're always looking for suggestions on how we can make the program even better. For those of our listeners that write or blog about the markets, and would like to share that content with our listeners, send us an email at research
[email protected] and we will consider it for our weekly distributions. If you have not already, follow our main account on x@macroboyces for all the most recent updates and releases. You can also follow Eric on x@aricesstounson. That's Eric's belt with the K. You can also follow me @patricksoresna. On behalf of Eric Townson and myself, thank you for listening and we'll see you all next week. That concludes this edition of macroboyces. Be sure to tune in each week to hear feature interviews with the brightest minds in finance and macroeconomics. Macroboyces is made possible by sponsorship from bigpicturetrading.com. The Internet's premier source of online education for traders. Please visit bigpicturetrading.com for more information. Please register your free account at macroboyces.com. Once registered, you'll receive our free weekly research roundup email, containing links to supporting documents from our featured guests and the very best free financial content our volunteer research team could find on the Internet each week. We'll also gain access to our free listener discussion forums and research library. And the more registered users we have, the more we'll be able to recruit high profile feature interview guests for future programs. So please register your free account today at macroboyces.com if you haven't already. You can subscribe to macroboyces on iTunes to have macroboyces automatically delivered to your mobile device each week free of charge. You can email questions for the program to
[email protected] and we'll answer your questions on the air from time to time in our mailbag segment. Macroboyces is presented for informational and entertainment purposes only. The information presented on macroboyces should not be construed as investment advice. Always consult a licensed investment professional before making investment decisions. Macroboyces are those of the participants and do not necessarily reflect those of the show's hosts or sponsors. Macroboyces, its producers, sponsors and hosts, Eric Townsend and Patrick Sarresna, shall not be liable for losses resulting from investment decisions based on information or viewpoints presented on macroboyces. Macroboyces is made possible by sponsorship from bigpicturetrading.com and by funding from fourth-turning capital management LLC. For more information, visit macroboyces.com.
PodcastTranscript AI