May 16 Episode

[Music] Welcome to Money Talks. My name is Mike Campbell. Hey, if it's the first time. Hey, please know how welcome you are and if you're a regular listener, we appreciate your support. But we have a great show plan for you today. Joey Tremperly is going to be with me, the Canadian Bitcoiner. There's so much happening in that space. It's really funny, I think, how different the conversation was. Just two and three years ago, now much more acceptance. The opportunities are there. I want to get the latest from him and we'll do that. Also, speaking of the latest, and just a moment, I'm going to get Joseph Shackdard with Phyllis Hill and what's going on in the energy side, the oil side. We had, of course, President-G meeting with President Trump. What was the outcome of that? I'm talking from an energy and oil point of view because it sure popped up above $100. But again, as I've been saying on this show, that provides opportunity for Canadian investors and Canadian oil sands or other production too. Canadian oil production will come back on that. Plus, I've got a great Goofy award. I've got Rob Levy talking about that big move in silver. Backed off a bit on Friday, but still, it's been a big move. We're going to talk to Victor Adair and, of course, we'll talk to Ozzie Jurick. But first, the developing oil shock tied to the Strait of Hormuz should permanently end one of the most simplistic assumptions that we've been making in Canada's energy policy. Specifically, that restricting Canadian oil production would materially reduce global demand and impact climate change. It won't. It will take years and huge amounts of money to shift from fossil fuels to other forms of power. Yes, because the prices could get high enough and maybe some of the consumption backs off, but that's not the fundamental shift people are suggesting. In the meantime, I think what the current crisis demonstrates again is that when energy supplies are threatened, countries do whatever necessary to secure their oil and gas in order to keep their economies functioning. Not some of what's necessary. They'll do whatever is necessary. I mean, the Strait of Hormuz handles what? About a fifth of global oil flows in a quarter of seaboard of oil trade. But even the threat of disruption has sent markets into panic because governments understand what energy shortages would mean in the real world. I mean, you get inflation, you'll get supply changes, eruptions, industrial shutdowns, financial instability, political unrest. And notice what disappears during an actual supply crisis everywhere. But Canada, and that's lofty rhetoric about decarbonization standards, ESG frameworks, or ethical sourcing. Europe provides a clearer example. Despite, again, the lofty green rhetoric, despite sanctions and outrage following Russia's invasion of Ukraine, well, Russian fossil fuels continue to be flowing into the world markets through indirect channels, intermediaries, and loopholes because the alternative was severe economic damage. Governments talk morality and stable times. They prioritize energy, security, and crisis. That's not cynicism, by the way, its economic reality, and that brings you back to Canada. If Canada reduced or eliminated oil exports tomorrow, global consumption would not suddenly change dramatically. Countries dependent on those exports would simply buy from someone else, very likely from jurisdictions, by the way, with weaker environmental protections, weaker labor standards, worse human rights records, or higher missions intensity. The point that is consistently ignored is that oil demand, along with refined products, in short and median term, remains highly inelastic. Modern transportation systems, aviation, petrol chemicals, agriculture, shipping, industrial infrastructure cannot instantly switch to renewable alternatives during a supply shock. Governments know this, which is precisely why every major economy continues scrambling to secure fossil fuels whenever the market's tightened. That reality exposes the core weakness in the argument that restricting Canadian production is an effective climate strategy, especially given that Canada's oil production contributes only about 0.45 total global emissions. And the oil sands, taken separately, is just over a tenth of a percent of total global emissions, something like a day and a third of Chinese emissions. I'm not debating climate change or emissions reductions, technology improvements, methane reduction, carbon capture, cleaner production standards. I'm simply adding, who went, finance minister Kristia Freeland herself stated to the financial times in January 220, and that was, even if all Canadians ceased emitting carbon, we wouldn't move the dial. My point today though, is that even eliminating Canadian oil production entirely would have a very limited direct impact on worldwide consumption, given the short and median term consumers would simply shift to buying from other countries. Meanwhile, Canada would sacrifice what hundreds of thousands of jobs, tens of billions in annual government revenues, export income investment, a major pillar of national economic strength. But the straight-of-her-mose crisis goes further and illustrates something many policy makers at least resisted emitting, and that is the world is nowhere close to functioning without large scale fossil fuel consumption. In an actual shortage, countries reveal their true priorities very quickly, and those priorities are not ideological, they are economic. The fundamental debate is therefore not whether the world should eventually transition to low emission energy system. No, the real debate is whether reducing Canada's production accomplishes anything. If preventing us from maximizing our resource, does it change anything? No. Simply the demand goes elsewhere. Mirly transfers wealth, geopolitical leverage, energy influence to regimes that care far less about emissions, transparency, labor rights, or democratic values. No, it's been an argument that has been devoid of reality since day one, and continues to this day, all I'm saying is the reductions coming out of the straight-of-hormose give us a great example of that. No, Canada's production can meet that new demand globally, and it's an important opportunity for us. We're just not taking it at this point. Hey, coming up, I got Joseph Shaq to run. Go further into the oil story. We got Joey Temperely on Bitcoin. So much coming your way. And just a reminder, to sign up for five minutes with Mike. You can go to Mike's MoneyTox.ca. It's absolutely free. You can also join us on MoneyTox Tweets or Michael Campbell's Money Talks on Facebook. I hope you do. Stay with us. I got Joseph Shaq to. My goodness, so much has been happening in the oil market, duh, since February 28th, but the ups and downs have been incredible. The volatility, the kind of numbers that we've been reaching, I wanted to get an update on all of that. Plus, your opportunity in Canada. I was saying, I love to have a good news story, and that's Canadian oil producers. I've got Joseph Shaq to run with me. Shaq to our energy report.ca. Joseph, appreciate the time. I know in people in your line of work are awfully busy. But let me just start with the big picture. We've had the week featured, you know, the meetings as President Xi and President Trump. You know, that didn't seem particularly fruitful. I'm not sure if it was fair to expect that. I mean, that's maybe too optimistic. But talk about just the overview when you're looking at the oil market, whether we're talking about WTI Canada Select or going over, you know, where Europeans and some Asians are worried about. And that's Brent Crude. Yeah, we're trading today $105 for WTI, five six bucks higher for Brent. Product in Asia is probably equivalent to $200 US a barrel. There's a shortage already of jet fuel and diesel in those countries. And so some of them are even cutting back and saying, look, we're not going to make that. Refine reason India are being made to create cooking oils for people because there's a shortage of that in the country. And the government said, please, you know, we don't need as much of the other product for you to export. And a lot of companies, countries are also saying they're refineries should not export certain products because they're needed internally. So I think the big issue is Trump comes away. He didn't get an support from she to Iranian Iran and armed with star and to talk about the terrorism side and the uranium side, you know, in terms of nuclear power. All that they really talked about was trade by 200 Boeing planes, you know, and and of course Trump got his hands slapped about Trump about Taiwan saying that's our that's our backyard get a stay away. So that was effectively I think what we can see is there I think next week the fighting starts again. I think that the US has been using the time and Israel to find all the new targets, the IRGC military establishment, the leaders of the IRGC, where are the drones, where are the drones mean manufacture, where are the ballistic missiles, where are they being manufactured. I think the problem is going to be it's going to be lengthy. It'll be three four or five weeks because they bomb a lot of the western part of Iran to get the targets. They haven't done eastern Iran. And that's where you have a lot of it's like Russia during second world war. They took everything from the west to industrial part of Russia on the west, moved it to the east and they built up the weaponry they needed and the manpower trained the armies so they could come back in and defeat the Nazi. So I think that Iran has got a lot of capacity and you've seen the you know the CIA report, where it says that they may have got 30% not 70% of the targets. So I think it's going to be long and nasty and I think we'll the one 19 which we were at right after the start. out of the war, I think we punched through that. And I think we can go maybe even above the 147 nominal price we saw in 2008. Let's put it in context. Before the war, we had 90 days of global inventory onshore and offshore. We are now after the report that came out, the OPEC report came out for the first quarter. And they're now at 88 days. Probably when you're taking account April and May in June, we're going to probably get down to 83, 84 days. In 2008, when we had that run from $86 to 147, we went down to 79 days of inventory. We may get below there by July or August if the war continues and the streets are closed. That's when you start the pinch point and you have prices of oil go up. I'll just walk you through just to what happened in '08. We were sitting at the beginning of the year to $86. And we went up 71%, 71% into July at that 147. And later I'll give you a little tease on some of the companies that have been at the world outlook and how they did during that period. And I think people will be shocked that, oh yeah, we're at 105, the stocks have had a great run. You know, they're up 30%, 40%. The big stuff is just in front of us. Well, and again, I've made a distinction on this show for quite some time that we look at the oil companies. Their fortunes go up as these prices go up. And if they continue as you're suggesting, they'll be windfall. I mean, it would be major moves. And individuals can take advantage of that. Our Canada pension plan can take advantage of it. Other pension plans can. But then there's the other big picture thing about Canada. Are we taking advantage of these? Sort of, I hope it's once in a lifetime, by the way. I hope that's the case. But it certainly is this kind of thing that we see only in a generation. But it doesn't look like Canada has in any position to really benefit other than the price goes up. I'm talking in our capacity to deliver oil elsewhere in the world, other than down to the States. I'm talking about just increasing production because we have the infrastructure to support it. Yeah, well, I think we'll see TMX fill up the rest of the capacity. We also could do rail again, hard to see in the railless possibility. And again, I'd like the idea of the South Pole deal with the American firm to take oil on the old Keystone line from the Canada into the Wyoming with the Americans paying for that portion. And Trump has agreed to that. So that can even be built within the timeline of the Trump administration. So there could be takeaway capacity South. And in Americans, remember, the Americans are producing a last week, $23.7 million. But the big thing is the oil production was $13.7 million. That's up $323,000 from a year ago. So even though the rig count is down, the longer reach of many of these wells, the better completion techniques, the production is up from last year, including in the Permian. The other thing to note is that the US consumption has not declined. US consumption is up 3.1% from a year ago. So while you hear IEA saying we're going to lose 400,000 of demand, it's not going to be 1.1, 1.2 million. The Americans are the biggest consumers at 19.9 million barrels. There's no decline. And the big thing people need to remember is there is growth in gasoline, there is growth in jet fuel. The big one is other oils. So how we get the plastics, how we get the pharmaceuticals, how we get products we use every day? That's where the demand for the energy is coming from. And then the other big point to make from the IEA report is exports in the United States, just of crude oil, last week, were 5.5 million barrels. That's up 2.1 from a year ago. So that's really what's going on here. So ships that couldn't go into the Gulf are now coming to the Gulf of America. They're loading up on both crude and product, and they're taking it to the consuming nations that are desperate for it. Now, before I get, and I will, in just a moment into the Canadian situation in terms of investors, in terms of looking at specific companies, just a quick-- just your take on this. I mean, we continue the pipeline, no pipeline saga, to maybe the West Coast, or maybe North, or whatever. You mentioned, yeah, we may increase capacity going down south, but that doesn't diversify as we were told to do or promise to do. But I just like likelihood that we're still talking about the MOUs with Alberta and the federal government. But we're hearing pretty clearly from companies saying, no, if you continue to want to add the cost of carbon capture to this, which is a dead weight cost, no one's paying any extra dollars for that, and they don't ask, because you're oiled, decarbonized, and I'll pay you more if it is. But probability of you putting that that gets resolved in a way that puts a shovel in the ground. I'm not in the optimistic camp on it. I know the rhetoric is from the Alberta and Saskatchewan government as they expected deal, and there will be a pipeline. The bottom line is economics. We all know coastal when crazy over budget, TMX when crazy over budget. I don't think Enbridge or TC energy, which are the only two that could do it. Because I've got the talent and the techniques and they've done it before. I don't think the economics are going to get them a double digit rate of return. And if they can't see it after the losses they've taken building the northern gateway, and it's not going to happen, or TC taking massive write-offs on coastal, and TMX needing a massive write-off by the federal government before the first nations will show up and want to own some. I think that the economics are not going to be in favor of it. And it's either going to need a lot of government support, which I don't think the industry not as a partner. But the bottom line is going west the way things are today, and with the cost structure and with the whole process to go forward. I think it's on economic. I think we've got to be looking at Churchill. We've got to be looking at moving it north into Alaska. We've got to be looking at a lot. You can't go to Washington State or Oregon State or California. South doesn't work to the west coast of the US. So I think we're looking at other alternatives. And while they may say the government may say, we'll give you a million barrel that they pipeline to northern BC or double the TMX line. The bottom line after that is, is it economic for a company to spend the money from other shareholders? And I think that is going to say the bottom line from the boards is no way. Well, and what's incredible is how little that part gets attention. Ultimately, if you're going to get that, that's a business decision. That's the kind of thing that happens. So I'm just saying that, yeah, it's interesting. That's not been featured or focused on anywhere to the same degree as sort of the politics and other relationships. But I'll leave that for now because I don't want to lose time and not talk about, I mean, you look at the production and the money that they're making in the oil patch has been a terrific investment up to this point. I mean, really good performance. So let's come back to what you were saying earlier. Even if the futures markets, which are being very conservative at this point, we're still at a much higher level than forecast production just three months ago. As we came into or four months ago, as we came into 2026. So are we starting to see those results? Well, I'm focused on our research and Q1 is coming out. So we're busy writing up the reports for our clients. But I want to just note, no two of two companies, both have been at the World Outlook Financial Conference, both of them big supporters. Birchcliffe just reported their Q1 results, 17% liquids, but they had a 6% increase in production to 81,675 B.O.E.s a day. So they're a nice big size company. They're talking about exiting this year at 87,000, but cash flow from operating activities up 21%. So the big thing for them is they have access to dawn. They have access to 9/x. The liquids was only one month. So Q2 is going to be a barn burner. And then if we keep this up in Q3, it's even more. But the big thing for them is condensate revenue was up 30%. I'm just reading from the financial MDNA in front of me. So that was one great story. We're big fans of it. And again, we've talked about it many times at the conference and it's been one of our topics. Total energy, of course, Dan Hallike, which has compression, drilling rigs, and transportation for the oil patch, revenues are up 25%, net income up 28%. They shrunk the share count by 4%, and they have no debt. So you're looking at a cash flow of $1.46 in one quarter. So if you annualize that and the stock trades today at $25, you're talking about a $6. So that's a 4 plus multiple. That kind of company deserves a 7 or 8 cash multiple. So even though we've had a tremendous run in the stocks and great performance, if I'm right that we break through 120 next week, we're going to see a massive run on the upside. And that to me is if the war fighting continues, we will break through the 52-week high on the S&P TX Energy Index. And I want to just go through some companies that we're, and I'm going to go in alphabetical order, companies from the beginning of January of 2008 to the high when we had the high at $147. We had Birchcliffe go from $7.20 to over 11 up 53%. Bon Terra and other companies that's been there, $10 to $19 up 87%. Surgeoning a regular at your conference went from $10 to $21 during that cycle. Total energy went up 165% from under 275 to 710. And lastly, Yengara up 340% from $3 from $1.40 to $6.90. So there's been some, once you get that breakout, where companies that have been undervalued and all of a sudden they see the torque when the price of oil goes up, the cash generation, 'cause it's a fixed cost business. So all of a sudden you get next to $10, $20, $50 on the price of oil, outside of royalties and outside of, you know, some G&A and other things operating cost wise. Most of it falls to the bottom line and that's become the leverage in why these stocks really take off. And so while you've had great performance year to date, I think watch the, if it's fighting starts next week, price of oil is going up and if the price of oil breaks through $120, then we're gonna see parabolic moves in many of these names and that's where the big money is made. I think anybody who's looked at the semi-stocks or any of the parabolic groups in the last year or two, just think about that now happening to energy. - Let me just, and again, this is, you know, too broad a question, but very quickly, you know, you look at the last kind of period of energy spikes when we went up to plus 140, was it, can you give me just sort of an indication how the stocks performed in that period? And again, of course there's no guarantee, but it gives us sort of something to think about if we get that spike. - Yeah, I think this time we, if we go through 147, it might be 175. And I think you're gonna see multiples. Right now companies are trading, some are trading around PDP, which surprises me, but a lot of the big successful companies are trading at one P because of what happened with ARC. Everybody says who's next? And if you remember, we had a lot of lift of a lot of stocks because of that. And people say who's, and I'll tell you from going to meetings, a lot of companies are saying to me, we've got private equity knock it on the door. We've got big US companies knock it on the door, but our stocks is so cheap, a 20% or 30% bump up doesn't do it. We think there's doubles and triples ahead of us because of our asset quality. And if you're in the Montenegro with liquids rich, you're happy campers. And if you're in the oil sands, again, you've got 30, 40 year, 50 year reserve life industries. So there's a lot of attraction for potential deals, but I don't think anybody is gonna give them away cheaply. And so I think that next week's gonna be very dramatic for the market if we do see fighting. Once we pop through that 119, whatever, let's say 120. Let's give a nice number. You pop through 120 and the game is on and you'll be seeing gaps openings on some of these stocks. And taken to count, most companies at the market peak traded to peak. So prove plus probable. And so right now that's based on the NAVs that we calculate are based on December of 2025. Price of oil was below 60. Well, if the next at December, 2026, if the price of oil is 120, the reserve engineers are gonna use a much higher price than they did the prior year, which means if I have a company, let's say we can take a birthsclutch that we think is we're 25 bucks. All of a sudden you plug in those higher numbers, that number could be 40. Yeah. And the stock price below seven bucks. It's also a fascinating time because of course, the oil price everybody's watching. I think the anticipation was it would have done more up to this point, not necessarily today or yesterday, but generally because my goodness, you close the straight of her moves, 20% of transport, all of this stuff. So I think that's a fascinating thing you're putting out there because let's see how it performs. If we resume the fighting, I think people have to let go of the thing. It's a short term. It's already not a short term. Damage gets further out. Then the prices start reflecting 'cause right now the futures market isn't as robust as I think some people would thought it would have been, with all that's gone on. So it's gonna be a fascinating thing to see how price, as you're alluding to how the price of oil reflects if there is ongoing renewed hostilities, shooting in other words, sorry. But I was talking to companies in the last two weeks. A lot of them are saying that the cash flow generation is way above what they thought 'cause they were all using 60, 65 and they did their budgets. They're using it number one to get the debt to the target and most of them will be there by Q2. And then they say after that, 50% of the increment free cash flow will be used for share of stock buybacks. And I say to them, okay, your stock's up 50%. And they say, no, it's a word double or triple that. And so they're planning to be using that free cash flow to buy back stock. And I get that almost from every company that I talk to is at the free funds flow. If you're gonna do M&A, do you go buy another asset or do you buy your own asset? So effectively, when you do a normal course issue or bid, you're doing M&A. It's gonna be an absolutely fascinating time and what better time you can get a subscription to the shactorenergyreport.ca. But there's also a special money talks, $100 off, which will let you know, just check out us on social media and of course our mail outs. But go to shactorenergyreport.ca. Joseph, thanks for finding time. Busy time for you. - I'll busy time, but a wonderful time. Glad to be with you again, Michael. Take good care. - Thanks. (upbeat music) - Time now for the quote of the week. But first, let me ask you a question. Do you actually know how much parliament costs us as taxpayers? I'm not talking about their one time major capital projects like that multi-billion dollar center block rehabilitation. It's big money from operations. Things like, you gotta pay the salaries and benefits from members of parliament. You've got MPs, offices and constituency expenses. You've got administration like clerks and procedural staff. You've got security, all sorts of things. Obviously you've got utilities included. All told, you're talking about a pretty big number that's in the range of $644 million per year, which brings me to the quote of the week. By the popular sub-stack writer Melanie from Saskatchewan, it's a bit long, but worth it, in quotes. She addresses members of parliament. Canadians are paying for your purile behavior. That is the underlying reality sitting beneath every exchange and question period, every rehearse slogan, every sneering non-answer, every carefully packaged insult delivered with a smirk and a government lapel pin. Canadians pay the taxes that fund parliament. They pay for the translators, the pages, the procedural staff, the clerks, the security, the broadcasting administration, salaries, the microphones, every taxpayer of funding exchange is paid for inside the House of Commons. And at an absolute bare minimum, Canadians should be able to expect serious answers from the government, their financing. Instead, what they increasingly receive is theater, not leadership, not accountability, but a theater. I want to talk silver now. I want to bring in Rob Levy, bordergold.com. Rob, I got to be surprised. Well, actually, it validates how I approach the markets in that I want to have a position because I'm not going to play the timing, the trading markets, the way Victor does it professionally. It's not my emotional makeup. So I have a position. I've made it very clear what I like. And silver has certainly led the way for me. But I got to tell you, Rob, I was still surprised at that price action over such a short period of time. You look away and you turn back and it's up 20%. Mind bog, Lane Mike. Just when you think it's sort of range bound, around $70 USD ounce plus a minus a couple bucks, and as he said, over 20% in just eight trading sessions from the low 70s all the way to the mid to the high 80s through the middle of this week. And it was six consecutive days of both higher highs and higher lows. So some people taking that is very bullish for the silver market, which has moved. And I'll give you the other one. We're golds kind of gone sideways. Yeah, I think that's also a burden concept. I'm watching their silver and watching their copper. Are you thinking that's part of more of an industrial move at this point? Because of course, we always get told that silver is an industrial metal. So maybe this is that side of it coming to the forefront. That's definitely some of the market chatter where gold has gone sideways is sort of the monetary metal. But we've seen this massive move in silver just under two weeks. And then as you said, copper as well, trading at all time highs as well. And we go back a couple of weeks back. We talked about that silver institute survey. And they continue to cite 60% of global silver demand as industrial. So as you have these sort of stories taking place in the background, whether it's the rally that you're seeing in semi-conductor stocks linked to demand for AI and then perhaps a trade truth between the US and China because everyone's hyper focused on those meetings that are taking place over there over the past week. Does that open up the window maybe for a little bit of an industrial buildout and why these things are moving at such a voracious pace at the moment? The other thing I want to go to India for some, as I know you talked about this, but India raising their import duty on gold and silver. You've got the Prime Minister saying to the citizens, don't buy gold for a year, you know, that kind of stuff. It's a wild one too and it's mixed in with this story of what's been happening in the metals markets over the past week because as you said, India's the second world, second largest gold consumer in the world. So, India demand and flows to precious metals to India is always on everyone's radar because of how it impacts the market and then Modi coming out and making this plea to the Indian population to hold off their purchases of precious metals, you know, restore a little faith in that banking system over the next year and in doing so, putting a 15% import duty on both gold and silver. You know, immediate is that bearish for the market because it restricts inflows. That one, I think it's the interesting one to watch because one that India is larger a gold consumer versus silver, but with higher gold prices, we've also been seeing silver flows into India. But the other one is, okay, but where's the silver flowing? Is it India or China? So, I think it's a mixed one, but certainly, you know, there's the narrative to watch. What's it doing to demand as you got the Prime Minister making a plea to hold off on a purchases? Well, I tell you one simple one, it certainly changed the gold silver ratio that so many had been talking about for a while, as you said, because gold hasn't had that same reaction and presto here silver with that powerful move over eight trading days. Exactly right. A gold has traded sideways in this. Maybe it's a little mixed with with the US Fed, not knowing what they're going to do in the direction of interest rates. And it's sort of justified silver moving on this industrial story. And perhaps bullish for the metals markets, when silver goes out and takes the lead like this, you know, some analysts seem to take that as a nod. It's potential for silver when it leads the precious metals, but it's just so interesting here that gold has traded sideways through this past couple of weeks, but you've seen this almost historic move here in silver going back now several week highs back into the mid 80s. Well, I'm an old guy. I remember the hunt brothers. I remember some of these other moves in the past where you'd get, you know, huge percentage changes. So it's not unprecedented. That's for sure, you know, but very tough, very tough to know what to do at this point. You jump in late, do you wait for a pullback, all of those things. And that's what happens when you get a parabolic move, which always makes me nervous, whether it stalks or commodities. No, I agree with you there. And I think every silver investor knows that too. I mean, timing the silver market or any commodities market is at times. I mean, it can be a fools game, be said, because, you know, the volatility, intraday volatility will kill you, press the move that we saw the last two weeks. So, you know, that's why, you know, the dollar cast averaging, especially if you're long term metals by holding your position, not trying to be cute in time because you're holding it for the long term, because man, what a move. Well, let me just quickly finish with this at bordergold, bordergold.com. Have you seen a pickup in foot traffic buying silver, or, you know, even over the last, say, three, four months? Yeah, I mean, truth me told into this, a few deals, larger deals of silver going out the door. But on the average side, the average transaction is actually liquidations into this with physical silver. So, see some customers sell into this strength. I mean, take from that what you will. So, it's been a little bit of liquidation into, instead of people accumulating at these prices. Great stuff, Rob. As usual, people should go to bordergold.com. Rob writes every week there, the latest on what's going on. Rob, appreciate it. Thank you. Thanks, Mike. I'm now for the shocking stat of the week. Now, you got to understand, my goal on money talks is to help all of us get through this period that we're seeing, the calamity of it, the chaos of it, and obviously some people are having a very difficult time. You know, I want to get to that, though, and forgive all the numbers here. But as of early 2026, Canada's aggregate debt, that combines government, household, business debt, is at an all time high. Federal provincial territorial net government debt, about 2.3 to $4 trillion household debt, by the way, in Canada is the second highest in the 34 member OECD at around 2.6 trillion coming into this year. Oh, sorry. I'll give you one more stat here. Over the next two fiscal years, fiscal year is April 1st to March 31st, the following year. So, this is April 1st to 26 March 228. The federal government alone must roll over a shocking 906 billion dollars that's in maturing debt plus another 132 billion in forecast deficits. This is a long by the way for individuals. We got 550 to 600 billion in mortgage debt, held by about 2 million Canadians. Well, that's one long-winded way of saying that interest rates matter. Of course, the numbers are so big that they're incomprehensible. So, let me break them down further. On average, every hour, every hour, over the next two years, the federal government's got a refinance $52 million refinance plus 17 million more for new borrowing. While individual mortgage holders, this is on average, you're going to refinance at the rate of around 33 million per hour. In other words, a heck of a lot of money. So, forgive those avalanche of numbers, but they under underline why I say that our future is played out in the credit markets, which are global and impacted by events, just like kind of oil prices are right now. The challenge is that the vast majority of analysts you read and hear talk about politics. They don't talk about finances and the reality is that I continue to point out is no one has to lend you money. No one has to lend the federal government money. And when it comes to credit markets, 2 plus 2 equals 4, no matter what parties are in power, no matter whether you like the leader or not. So, just like with your mortgage payments, financial institution doesn't ask you who you voted for. They simply want to get paid the money repaid with the interest on time. But here, I just want to give you a couple of examples of what can happen because of the precarious nature of credit markets. How fast interest rates can change. That's what I'm warning you about here. Look at the prime rate increase from 2.45 percent in 2021. Wow. Two years later, it was 7.2 percent. That's up 194 percent. With it, every prime base consumer loan went up. Five year fixed mortgage rates jumped from a low of about 1.7 to over 6.5 percent in just two years. That's what I'm worried about. My question is, why do people think that can't happen again? I mean, the same drivers are in place. You got inflationary pressures as those US April, per-producer pricing, next number showed. You got government and consumer demand for money. It's at an all-time high. And let's not forget the shock, by the way. And this is the one that always grabs people. In 1979 to 1981, mortgage rates jumped over 10 percent. The high, 21 and 3/4 percent in October 1981. My point is that the biggest threat to both government and individuals is debt, who have got so much in debt, is rising interest rates, which ultimately are a function of confidence. Confidence in many areas across the board, but especially in government finances is falling, which has already manifested in falling purchasing power of her currency and in higher rates to compensate for higher inflation and other risk. All I'm saying, I say that's the biggest risk to our financial future personally. Always pleased to welcome back to the show, Joey Tremperly, the Canadian Bitcoiner's podcast. Hey, Joey, this is a great week to get you. And I'll tell you why, as, you know, we've discussed in many know that Kevin Worsh just took overhead of the Federal Reserve. And I would say he's probably the most pro crypto Bitcoin kind of guy they've ever had. I think you're probably right. Thank you for having me back. It's been a while. Good to see you in the team. We were just talking before we went live about what Worsh might mean to the Bitcoin ecosystem. And I'll lump crypto in here as well because he's going to for sure hold some assets across the ecosystem across the space. He has to be out of all his investments like every Fed share does with a public disposition document by the end of the day tomorrow. I think I was saying I could be wrong about that, but I think it's going to be on May 15th. And the issue that I think many people are kind of curious about is, or the question people are curious about is what is this guy holding? He's been a bull. He's been a someone who seems to understand Bitcoin as well, which is key. And now we're going to find out exactly what he owned, what he was thinking over the last few years of investing. And I think it's going to be a window window. What kind of policy he supports. He's only got a few levers to pull. But as we know, they have an impact on the price of these assets. So I'm curious. He can't be anywhere since Jerome. So the only place to go from here is up as far as Fed share for us. I can't help but make the smart ass remark that unlike our prime minister, they don't have to get rid of everything. But that's another story. Okay, but let's talk about this because he does help create an environment at the very least, the positive vibe. And I'm looking at things like the Senate advances their clarity act and maybe explain what that is first. But I mean, Bitcoin is on the agenda. Clarity is at the baseline, some market structure bill. So it explains how certain actors in the space can leverage Bitcoin, use Bitcoin, hold Bitcoin, deal with things like stablecoins and the like. Clarity has been in the ether for a long time, as well as the genius act. These two bills kind of are two sides of the coin, they'll pun intended, that's going to guide policy around these assets going forward. Now the US has been I don't want to say unfriendly since Trump took over, but certainly this took a little longer than a lot of us were thinking it would us being the sort of Bitcoin space, crypto space. And I think some politicians as well, especially on the Republican side, they have to get this done because this asset class is not going away. You know, this was a much harder argument to make for me on this show and on other shows that I've appeared on for the last few years, three, four years ago. But now I think this is pretty clear. You know, it's not going to leave and go to zero and all these different things people have been harping on about. So the clarity act is being marked up as we speak or marked out whatever the term is. Now big hang up is the American Banking Association really trying to mobilize against something called idle yield. Now, idle yield is what stablecoin issuers and stablecoin holders want to pay users of their platform, you know, maybe get a 4% APY as opposed to the 0.5% you might get in a savings account or a checking account with most banks. This is obviously a problem for the American banks and they're framing it as a deposit issue that's going to lead to a crunch and lending, going to lead to deposit, L flows. I would frame it as actually an issue with the scalp that they take on the overnight rate giving you some tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of whatever interest rate they're getting on your deposits. So that's a bit of a, I think, unfair framing. But the big thing is that these guys actually have tried this sort of fight before the ABA. You may remember in the 80s, I think it was the early 80s, the American Banking Association got together and really tried to rally in this under the same banner around deposit flight around lending crunches. You know what the, you know, the opponent was then it was money market, mutual funds. They said to people, we don't want anyone investing in this stuff. We need the deposits in our vaults and they lost that fight. They will lose this fight as well. And I think it just goes to kind of, it paints a picture around the lack of finesse, the lack of innovation at the, at the top of the, the organizations represented by the ABA. These guys have had a mode around them for many years, many decades and haven't had to innovate in their defense. They spent their time doing other things like taking vacations and ripping off consumers and folding, folding their, their regional branches when things got hard and, you know, doing a million other things that were not beneficial to the consumers. But now that these other vehicles exist and, and just as a more broad statement, technology now is often outpacing policy. What you're going to see is these banks run into trouble trying to keep those modes alive, especially as their opponents go from underfunded, unknown, sort of unrecognizable as far as name to very well funded, running super bowl ads against them and being something that the people like, they want to hold these assets, they want to deal with these apps. I think they're, they need to take a good hard look in the mirror that banks do and say, what are, what is our value prop in this new ecosystem? Much like the mutual funds in the 80s, banks will at some point find a way to extract their pound of flesh. They will do it by holding the assets, by issuing the assets, blah, blah, blah. You know the story there. But it is, I think, telling that they spent all this time and, you know, there was a lot of green lights on the Bloomberg terminals on Sunday of last week or earlier this week I should say when this stuff started to come out. So all good signs. We expect to sort of push back and we will win here again and see where we are a year or two years from now. Well as you said a few months ago, you know, if you look back four years, it's a very different environment. You know, for a lot of, we can give a lot of reasons for that. But I think one is that level of acceptance. You know, I saw this. I'm sure you did before me, but you know, that Bitcoin minor, I think I got it out of Bitcoin magazine that showed that they went way up after $9.8 billion data center deal and like this intersection of AI and mining. I mean, it just shows you, you know, that just the progress just continues. I love the stories I see about industrial miners, either closing their doors or pivoting to HPC. And this is a bit of a technical deep cut for your listeners, but if any crowd can get it, it is the money talks crowd. The Bitcoin network works on decentralization before anything else, before monetary policy, before issuance, before any of that, it works on decentralization. Industrial miners played a role during the maturation process from guys in their basement to what I hope will eventually be nation states and people who are mining at home. I have a miner here. My house you can't even hear right now, it's very quiet. This maturation process invariably means, I think, two things from miners. One is that they realize that as far as an equity product, it's not palatable for investors. Why? Because you're always sort of at the risk of whether or not you can get hardware and whether or not you can get power agreements, both of which were in completely different environments three years ago than they are now. You are competing with open AI and Anthropic and now XAI as well as we just saw them and could deal with Dario and Anthropic. That stuff was easier to get from regions, governments, jurisdictions, you sort of pick your word and lock in the important term here than it is to do today. Bitcoin miners don't have the same amount of firepower that these AI companies have. That's number one. Number two is Bitcoin miners are four sellers. They accumulate Bitcoin when it's convenient and when the price of Bitcoin drops, their operations become more expensive on a relative basis. They become four sellers. They flood the market. They are price-agnostic sellers at that time and it increases the pressure, the downward pressure on the price. We don't want to see that. I'm okay with a few industrial miners here and there. I don't want to see them all in one place. I don't want to see them popping up. I'd prefer if they were spending their GPU power making images of a light candle, half horse, half man at 3 a.m. Whatever they're doing. That's my preference for that sector. Well, that pan out. I don't know. I think you're seeing it over the last little while. More and more governments becoming friendly to the idea of mining on their soil. We know that Iran is mining. We have suspicions of Russia mining and there's some other sort of hash rate analysts. Hash rate is the term we used to discover whether or not someone is guessing at the Bitcoin block. We have some idea and some other guesses about other jurisdictions that are doing this. I suspect it's going to become more popular. If anything over the last six months, what have we learned? There's a need for a political, unsensurable value transfer, straights of hormones around war. You name it. This is an asset that fits that bill pretty well. Pretty well. The other thing is we're watching it also evolve. We talked going back quite a while though, but when they initiated that we could do Bitcoin-related ETFs, I said, "Well, that's a big step because you're now going mainstream with that." But the new product flow hasn't stopped. I mean, it seems to me new stuff coming all the time, which further entrenched its place in the investment universe. The amount of competition, if you think about this like a pie chart, there's more and more slices in this pie. But truly, what you expect to see is one dominant issuer and the others folding into that issuer over time. You see this in a lot of assets. This idea of zero-sum game theory. Instead in Bitcoin, what you see is one dominant issuer in BlackRock. As more issuers come on, they all just continue to accumulate AUM. There's no one who is losing AUM day to day, month to month quarter to quarter. I mean, you can pick your time frame. I'm sure there's some variants in there. Overall, they've all grown since they've launched. We were talking before the show. I mentioned this at the World Outlook conference in February that one of the big hurdles for people has been trust, specifically the older crowd, the Gen-Xers and the Baby Boomers, a lot of money in that demographic. How do you unlock that? You have to give them the platform that they trust where they can put money in. To give you an idea of how not to tut my own hoard here, how correct I was about that, Charles Schwab is launching a product that I believe launches this week or next, where they are going to hold Spot Bitcoin for you in a custodian. PackSofs is going to be the custodian. This is different from an ETF product. Now, Charles Schwab has trillions of dollars on their management, trillions of dollars sort of at its fingertips and also runs the accounts for the people whom would be investing in products like this. There's one less point of friction than you might see in BlackRock, CTO, for example. BlackRock has to work with issuers, blah, blah, blah, or work with investment desks. The Coinbase Pro equivalent Spot Bitcoin option is seven and a half times cheaper than the Schwab option is. The Schwab investors will never go to Coinbase. They will stay with Schwab even at seven times the expense. Why? Because that's who they trust. They're going to the same person they buy everything else from. The same person who sends them, for me, I get a panatone on my front porch at Christmas time from my wealth manager. That person is the person they want to deal with, the same person who sends the flowers at Easter, all these different things. You're going to see more of this if the Schwab product is successful. In the next aspect, as we discussed earlier, the money is there. The issue is not that people don't want to put money into these products. The issue is that they don't want to leave their provider. More providers are starting to figure this out. We saw some calcified investment agencies not offering these products. ETS specifically, very early on. They all jumped on board since then. And I am sure they're glad they did is probably no different. Let's finish with talking about just the investment now, you know, making money or not making money, whatever the case may be. No, but are you expecting sort of a smaller level of volatility, for example? You know, I mean, that's been one of the things you just alluded to that that people have their were reason and that's not a surprise. Look, you're talking about a brand new product, you know, it doesn't have a hundred years of history. So it takes time to build confidence and to go away from traditional products. So it's not a surprise, but it's been volatile. Do you expect that to sort of slow down a little bit or the degree of it? I gave this example at your conference in February. I'll mention again here and then maybe I'll give a little more detail into the why I think that probably volatility is here to stay for a while longer. If anything, maybe a bit more predictable, but you know, overall the monetization of a new asset, very difficult to kind of get last-odd. Because of the nature of the underlying, because nature of Bitcoin, you can really do a lot of clear, full transparency backtesting, whether you look at stuff like the realized value of coins, which is the value at which the last time they removed is supposed to when they were purchased. Whether you look at the number of wallets who are high conviction, are they selling or are they buying? Whether you look at more traditional metrics like the 200-week moving average, these opportunities don't always exist in investment vehicles. It's hard to run technical analysis on a chart for which you only have the candles and not a lot of other information. Bitcoin doesn't have that problem. And so one of the things I said in February was if you look at the sort of placement against 200-week moving average, down at, you know, we were probably at 60-something thousand, I guess at that time. This is, you know, I told your audience, this is a really good time to buy historically. Am I sure that it's going to go up from here? No. But the likelihood that it keeps going down as precipitously is fairly low and the rebound generally around these points on the chart, given the other data that we've talked about. This is a pretty good opportunity. Well, if you bought, you know, a $60,000 US Bitcoin, you're up above $22,000 in a few months. That's pretty good. You know, that's not a bad return, I would say. Now, the other thing to know here is that there are a number of firms, institutions, whatever, who are now setting the floor in a way that they weren't years ago. Specifically, we have to talk about Sailor. Sailor has not only been buying for MSTR's baller sheet, but is now also buying with this stretch product where he's issuing stock, issuing dividend, and then using the profits of that operation to buy more Bitcoin, you can track this on the MSTR website. How much they're buying every day. Most days, they are buying close to, if not more than the mining issuance for that same 24-hour period. You can imagine what that looks like as far as supply shock. I realize that Bitcoiners have been saying for a long time that there's going to eventually be a significant supply shock. I don't know if that's going to come soon or not soon or whatever, but I would suggest that as the floor continues to be set by institutions, you know, we've seen Texas, their state now, did a basically end around on the federal government, didn't want to wait for them to okay it. They have a Bitcoin strategy, you know, they've bought five or six million dollars where they're holding it in their treasury. Other corporations are doing this, family offices are doing this, I'm doing this, you might be doing this. Listen to your viewer, you may be considering doing this. As more high-conviction buyers enter the market, that floor gets higher and higher and higher. If you don't want to take my word for it, just look at the bear market violence to the downside. Those 50% drops from the high no longer take you to 3000, they take you to 60. And so my suggestion to you, listener viewer and to, you know, you as well, Mike, if you're willing to take the advice, think about buying and being a long-term holder, holder, holder, holder, holder, whatever the Bitcoiners like to say these days. And don't worry too much about the fluctuation. The movement in prices, much like inequities, that movement is your friend. That's arbitrage for you. You buy and be a price agnostic buyer and just think about holding it for four years or five years, you'd be glad you did. Well, shout out to Jim Thorne too, you know, Wellington Altis, who joins forces with you in a very strong proponent. You know, I shared a cab with him from the airport that conference and I will tell you that I did not influence him at all in his thinking. That guy was rolling downhill on Bitcoin the entire way. And I happen to agree with a lot of things he's saying. There's a lot of smart people who have come from outside the Bitcoin space and agree with the thesis. And I think that's telling as well. Yeah. Well, tell us a little bit. How often do you do the Canadian Bitcoiner? How often can people do it? We do it every Monday night. I do another show now. I forgot to mention on the BTC Sessions channel, which is, you know, a channel with I think 250,000 subscribers called the Bitcast where we cover politics, Bitcoin news, economic news, and sort of through a Bitcoin lens. That's Monday, Wednesday and Friday on YouTube, 5 p.m. Eastern. And then we do our show, the Bitcoin, the Canadian Bitcoiner show, which is longer form, mostly Canadian content in the back end, especially Monday nights at 7 o'clock Eastern. And you know, Mike, your listeners have been very, very positive on the show. I was thrilled to talk to a number of people in the crowd who had listened to the show even before meeting me at the Outlook conference. So I want to thank you and your listeners for their support as well. Just quickly on YouTube, what do I, what do I enter? Canadian Bitcoiner's podcast. Yeah. I need to know. Yeah. Good stuff is usual. Joey, great to see you again. Appreciate your time. Is well. Thanks, Mike. Well, this dovetails beautifully with the shocking stat of the week. Just trying to remind people that rates can move very quickly, whether we're talking just a few years ago or back to 1980. Aussie Jeric was there for both of them. Thank goodness. Aussie, I want to talk about one of the stats that I'm seeing is that you're getting some foreclosure news now, you know, and especially when you got a renewal of a mortgage that's, you know, beyond some people's cash flow. Yeah, no doubt, particularly when you look at the United States, there has been a massive increase in foreclosures. But the big sort of renewal cliff we were talking about in the last two years was really happened in because one and a half million households have already renewed their mortgage into higher rates in 2025 and another million or so according to CMHC will renew this year. So there has, there been a shock, yes, it hurts going from maybe 2% to 4%, but nothing like what people expected to might happen. In fact, people maybe changed their amortization period. You and I recommended to Hagelhard and maybe even change banks, you know, and so when you take a look at maybe came out very, really low. So you look at the, the, the, the liquids, even now in the United States, they have a federally organization that counts all the foreclosures. We don't have that in Canada, but CMHC says we came from very low levels from point 18% to point 26%. So in percentage of the percentage terms, it's a big increase, but really Mike, it's less than a quarter of 1% that are with all the forecasts. It's not nearly as bad as as people had made it out to be. But there's a big difference between the US and Canada. Canadians have always been more reluctant. You know, it seems to me, pay your mortgage first before other things like they may not be eating, but you know, they've taken their mortgage obligations much more. I was going to say much more seriously. That's a bit unfair because the rules are very different. I'm just pointing out that the numbers in the States have always been different than numbers in Canada. There's always been a higher incident of foreclosure and people walking away. It's much easier, by the way, in the States, to walk away. So that's the first thing people should understand that. And the other is that Canadians have a very good track record when it comes to their homes. No question about it, but for closure filings, hit their highest levels since 2020 because the US had a COVID era relief program that came to an end. When the 119,000 properties faced for closure, which is a 26% increase over last year. So in the United States, it was meaningful. But the interesting thing that people are talking about, it is come now not so much about price because the volume on price is relatively stable, but it's the affordability after you buy in the United States and also to some extent in Canada. It's not can you buy a house, it can you can you afford keeping it? I mean, tax is not a living it. Exactly. Insurance, start-off fees, all that has taken a huge leap, probably on the official inflation rate of 3%, nothing went up 3%. You know, talk about insurance, talk about start-offies, talk about all that. So there's no question about it that we live in a different world, but what I want to point out, the US is also 6.7% interest rates. Today, you and I talked about the first time buyer maybe should lock themselves in because listen, a three year term is still available at 3.8% and if you're really good-cutter-drisk, you might get it as low as 3.5%. The five year fixed term is 3.99% and in 50 years, we only had four years that it was under 4%, we only had 11 years that it was under 5%. So that's a down good rate, a lot lower than the US and maybe there's something to do with that too. Well, I'll also come back to a song I'm singing regularly, I appreciate I do, but do I want to speculate on my home when it comes to interest rates because there's lots of vehicles you can do that with. You don't have to have your home on the line. So I've tended to be far more conservative because, as I say, it's a foundation of most people's finances. So yeah, I would figure out what the differentiation is between a three year monthly payment and a five-year monthly and see, is it worth it? Because you're getting you know for that difference, you're getting two more years of certainty in a very uncertain world. As I say, I'm looking what's going on in Europe. And it is caught them by surprise, you know, I'm looking what's going on in Japan. I'm looking well. I'm looking at our own mortgage rates and also the rates the bond rates in the US. So it is a very difficult environment. So again, I just say, I quantify. What's the difference between a three-year rate and a five-year fixed? You decide whether that's worth it, but for goodness sake, do the numbers. Hey, Ozzy, let me also just finish with this. I want to talk about your hot properties because again, I always say, hey, yeah, it may be a difficult time. We've made that distinction between single family is much stronger than sort of the condo let alone the presale. But there are still some bargains out there. I again, I emphasize if this is something you've been saving for, but preparing for, you got a better environment now than you sure did two years ago. Prices are down 20% first of all, but it's also not the frenzy. No question about it. I mean, when we talked about the highest in place in February, 2021, well, since then we've come in so we on average down a half a million dollars on a single family home. That may be close to where the bottom might be, but what we have is we have a both end of the spectrum. We have a new listing in New West, Minister of Unbeidum and then 740 square feet. Now there's a lot of buildings that I have two bedrooms in 750 square feet. That's a good size. It's a couple of minutes to the Royal Columbian Hospital is on at 399. That's the the cheapy that we have. And I I borrow raising a deal is in the butterfly which is a Vancouver's ultra luxury pink trams iconic tower in the West and the unit here is close to a million dollar loss offered and what is happened at the paid 2.45 million in 2022. It now can be bought at 1,520 and listen as a lap tool. It's ultra luxury and according to the owners, the original buyer couldn't close for fit at their deposit and is passing on the saving. To maybe you. Oh, okay. Yeah. Wow. I love that stuff and you can get more of it if you go to us buzz dot CA us buzz dot CA or find Aussie on YouTube Aussie you go out and have a great week. Thank you. Thanks for having me Mike and all the best to to your fine list listeners. I just want to leave you with this thought we always talk about forecasting forecasting. Real estate is easy getting the right is the tricky part. Just ask him in the finance department in the government of Canada Aussie juror cause buzz dot CA. Let's go live to the trading desk here Victor adair joins me you can find them and Victor adair dot CA. Hey, Vic. I mean, there's so many places to start. There were some headline stuff. So forgive me. I want to start with Trump's visit to China. You know, I noted that he said, well, you know, that's straight of hormone thing. Not a big deal for us doesn't impact us. I mean, that's going to have an impact. There's so many things. But what was your overall take? I mean, was there. I'm not sure as I said to Joseph Shaq to earlier, it was fair to expect a heck of a lot out of that summit. But it didn't seem like we got a heck of a lot either. Yeah, exactly. Mike, I think there was just no big win. But then at the other side, you know, there wasn't an increase in tensions either. It just kind of came and went. It was almost a non-event really until and I think this may have been on the plane on the way home. You just kind of casually dropped this bombshell about. Isn't really not that concerned about reopening the straight of hormones. Now, of course with Trump, you kind of take that two ways. One, he's telling the truth and two, you know, he's setting the stage. Right. Right. For maybe to start dropping bombs again this weekend, I don't know, but that in terms of the Trump visit to China, it was kind of a non-event. As I talked to Joseph, it reflected though somewhat in the oil market as we sort of edge back up from again, we've been running on this hope for peace, hope for the streets open and then know that hope got repudiated by whatever was happening. So I feel we're still in that range, but it's a higher range. Certainly, then we've been in. If you certainly look at pre February 28th, Iran work commencement. Yeah, I mean, we've got the front month Brent. We're trading at about 109. I think as we went out on Friday, that's up there. Here's something. The wholesale price of gasoline in New York has doubled from where it was in January. Okay. You know, and that sort of thing is still feeding through. We had the CPI and the PPI reports this week in the states. And actually they were. They didn't have much impact given the size of the numbers 3.8 on CPI and 6% on the producer price index. But there is this certainly a building sense of more inflation because of higher energy costs in the interest rate market. For instance, at the short end. In February in the United States, the forward markets were pricing to cuts this year. Right now, the pricing won increase. It's been that big a switch. And while we're on interest rates, I could say, wait, the bond market, the bond market's getting killed yields have really surged here in Canada and the United States are are long bond. And by that, I mean, the 30 year, we're at about 18 year highs or something like that. In the UK and Japan, we both have their own fiscal problems and political problems. We're at I think it's 28 year highs on the 30 year. But these disurge in the long end and the I think the bond markets just more serious than the stock market. Okay. That's just that's just my view on things that the stock market has just had a while run here to the upside. And now with the bonds yield surging higher. I think that's maybe going to trip up the stock market a little bit, although trying to call it top of the stock market has been a fool's game. Well, what it does. So to me, it's to me is just think, you know, put the risk alert on because you're getting higher energy prices and it could go significantly higher. We do have higher prices. You've got higher interest rates. As you said, you know, the which is certainly measuring something it's measuring risk and whether the risk is most concerned about the size of the debt that they're refinancing at higher rates, whether it's inflation, you know, which we got those numbers in the States this week, which for real jaw droppers. And it was one month, the April. You know, rate of producer price index, but that was certainly a bigger jump than virtually anyone I read anticipated. So it could be reflecting that. But I think your points an important one. You look at Germany, you look at UK, you look at France, you look at Japan, you're looking at these monstrous runs to the upside in long term interest rates. And in a world of wash with sovereign debt. That's a serious issue. Yeah. And just just a little bit of history here. We've got a new Fed chairman as of the end of the week. Paul's term expired on that May the 15th. Wars is taking over and Miran, who is there for like a six month run and kept voting for let's cut by 50 days points. He's out as well at the end of the week. And here's the thing. I mean, ever since I'm going to go with green span, you know, the market tests a new Fed guy, whether it's a green span or Bernanke or, you know, Paul or now, well, we'll see what happens. So a new head that the Fed. And certainly if he is going in there expecting that he was going to have a series of rate cuts. It doesn't look like the market's going to let that happen. Well, I mean, this is just and I feel this way for a number of months now, but man, we've got to keep on top of everything. What you have to do because, of course, your back it. We're trading on Sunday. So in the meantime, you'll write your trading desk notes. Victor adair.ca people can access them every week. They're absolutely free. Take advantage of it. So, Vic, you go out and have a I'm sure a busy weekend, but a good one. Thanks, Mike. And say with us, I got a great goof you award for you. I'm now for this week's goofy award. You know what's interesting. You might recall Lindsey Shepherd. She's a former Sherwilford, Laurier University teaching assistant who gained national attention in 2017. After she was reprimanded for showing an innocuous TD clip featuring Jordan Peterson. Apparently that was a no no, at least according to some faculty. Well, it featured though she was under a university disciplinary process that was found to have manufactured false student complaints. She did in fact, in the end receive a formal public apology from the university. And we were congratulated her on money talks for standing up for principle. Well, more recently she made the news for objecting to the display of the residential school survivors flag at the BC legislature arguing that perpetuates falsehoods about the graves on school sites that got her fired as a communication officer for the BC conservative party. Flash forward to this week's goofy where she was targeted in months long months long sting operation built on fake identities, a fake company stage meetings, fabricated commercial project, only to be confronted on camera in a pre planned ambush all part of a project involving CBC entertainment Aboriginal people's television network. In other words, a project involving our tax dollars in this shepherd wasn't the only one targeted by the way. So So was Francis Wood Oson, a former professor at Mount Royal University who challenged the mass residents who gave grave narrative. But let's be clear, this isn't some independent YouTube prank channel chasing clicks. This is a publicly funded institution backed by well over a billion in taxpayers dollars every year. They're participating in an exception to target individuals engaged in public debate because they expressed views that were outside the accepted narrative or they're accepted narrative on Canadian history and residential schools. And that context is critical. The same, by the way, CBC was forced to publicly correct its own reporting on the Kamlin school, clarifying what was widely described as remains of children were in fact potential graves identified by Raider, not confirmed human remains. That should have been a moment for humility, for careful reporting, for encouraging open discussion. And said we get this, taxpayer-funded media with a goal not to inform, but to shape and enforce a narrative. I hope that makes, well I hope it makes you uncomfortable because once that line is crossed, it doesn't stop with the one issue or one individual. It becomes a method funded by our tax dollars. That's all the time we have this week. Appreciate you joining us and a reminder again, go to mics moneytalks.ca. We'll also send out on social media, Joseph Shackter's, you know, $100 off the Shackter Energy Reports. [Music]