DOG CHASING ITS OWN TAIL (Guest: Vincent Deluard)

Summary

This week Kevin & Patrick welcome, Vincent Deluard. They discuss the circular nature of economic stimulus and why the bond …

Transcript

Hit it. It's Friday, December 12th, 2025, episode 280. I'm Patrick Szna. And I'm Kevin Mure. And this is the last talking charts for the year. I know I'm sad. >> And I'm sad, too. >> We're all sad, but hopefully Patrick will make us happy with some uh reading of the tea leaves. >> Absolutely. >> And and while we're talking about Patrick, you got a new challenge, trading challenge this week. What's up? >> Okay. Well, listen, uh, we're hosting, uh, an asymmetric trading challenge next week. So, let me just explain what asymmetric trading is. So, asymmetric trading is the art of losing small and winning big by design. And for the first time, we're running an asymmetric trading challenge where we show you exactly how to find and build these trades in the real market. So, come and uh, join our special webinar on Tuesday, December 16th at 400 p.m. Eastern time. The link is in the description of the YouTube below or you can just visit bigpagertraining.com to register. >> All right. Do you have a beer? >> I thought you did well, Patrick. >> All right. Well, listen. Uh I do have a beer. Now, you're not drinking it because uh I guess one of your kids must have drank it or something. Just like this is >> true. But but but Ke uh >> what's it called? Danny and I not Kevin and I. Danny and I have actually the the beers and I thought this was actually appropriate for you, Kev. I know. It's called the party dad. >> I'm thinking I might >> You are the party dad. >> I am. Oh, not really. I am not the party dad. You are the party dad. Maybe you gave my mind to Danny. Uh >> so so Danny, what what are we drinking here? >> Oh, wow. Okay. Uh so we're drinking Party Dad, which is a IPA, very low alcohol, which is why I thought yes, it was very significant to Kevin because he likes his low alcohol beers. >> Yeah. Three and a half% for an IPA, Kev. Geez, I would have loved it. >> Yeah, exactly. >> It's for a party, Dad. It really was. It was my beer. I'm going to go find it. >> Okay. >> Um, >> there you go. And Kev, give us uh the um disclaimer, buddy. >> Nothing in this podcast should be viewed as investment advice. Listeners should consult an investment professional before making any decisions regarding topics mentioned in this show. Side effects of too much huddle may include the hawkishness letdown syndrome HLS bed relief reflex disorder the FFRD FRRD sorry and then the prepayroll performance anxiety the PPPA I haven't got that but I hear most guys do have it at sometime in their career >> at some point. >> Um >> all right let's get to the guests. It's our great pleasure to welcome to the show a good buddy of mine, someone I always enjoy listening to and somebody who is a fan favorite. It's none other than Vincent Deawa, director of global macro for Stone X. Vincent, thanks for coming on the show. >> I'm so happy to be back here. >> Yeah, we get you right before Christmas. Are are you going to be in the US or do you ever go back to France for Christmas? >> Yeah, rarely. I mean, because you know, Europe is almost in the North Pole. So December in because I I come from like the northeast of France. So it's it's it's really depressing. So I I try to come home, you know, in the in in the summer or the spring when >> you have gotten you've turned into a soft Californian, my friend. You are a soft Californian. France is in the North Pole. Okay. Um let's talk markets because you recently had a little bit of an epiphany and you've changed your thinking about something that's been very big to you. Why don't you tell us what this uh this new thought is that you have? >> Yeah, so I I feel you know if we go back to a lot of conversations we've had um both you and I really have been generally very bullish on on economic growth and kind of you know pointing to this um you know great reset, right? higher growth, higher rates and and in a way I think it was um a rebuttal of some of the boomer doomer theories that you know deflation, debt and uh um uh the the 5Ds all that stuff that was really popular in 2010s and and they were pointing no no that like nature is healing to some extent uh growth is better and and my view was that eventually would kind of stumble into uh a policy mix that would get out get get us out out of this debt crisis that you know we could um do the thing that we usually do in that crisis which is the uh you increase G and you repress R in in dividend model. increase G mean you you you adopt progrowth policies which I think we are seeing to some extent and and we are seeing much much faster growth since COVID uh and then you do financial repression uh where um you know you you cap uh interest rates you do QE you force banks to hold treasuries so forth and and historically that's how we've gotten out of of that crisis and my view was like this is kind of normal this is you know this happened every 75 years or so it's kind of the fourth turning argument and we're not going to get out the same way that normally get out. Um and um yeah, I'm starting to think that this is not normal. This is not not a debt crisis. Uh this is a different problem and I'm starting to worry that the policies that we are adopting are actually making the pro the crisis worse uh instead of making it better. Now explain to me what prompted this and in what way do you think it's different and what do you think the policies are that we're doing are like or are they making it worse? >> Yeah. So what prompted is this really this conversation that we seem to be having uh you know daily now on on inequalities and affordability. I mean you saw that with the uh the New York election um on um now we have it in Miami as well. Um, you know, I was just reading the that piece that my my good friend Mike Green posted and, you know, got this whole Twitter steer. It's kind of funny, right? You have a a Maring County hedge fund manager kind of almost talking like like Bernie. I mean, >> you know, a libertarian, too. A Peter Theal a libertarian. That's the part that I think is the funniest. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Uh but I mean I for what it's worth I mean you know and it's funny how we got like attacked by by this kind of like you know heritage foundation cotch funded guy. Uh I mean I I you know I was he was always a friend but I seeing him being attacked by by these people I think made him even more more sympathetic to more. Yeah. Uh so yeah so it's it's this conversation about you know um affordability and it makes me think that yeah the problem is not it's not debt uh it's not it's we don't have a and I'll die on that hill like we you know I think that so much of that conversation perhap even intentionally misleading about you you have this discussion of economists that are always oh the CBO the the CBO this and look at the debt and and they have like free reign on financial TV, right? If if you you know, if you're an economist and you complain about that, you'll immediately gain, oh, like he's what a serious man, you know, he thinks about the long term and and of course there I believe there is an um an ideological uh angle to this. I mean very often these these economies come from places that are funded by uh people who have an interest in in kind of you know making the conversation about debt rather than than inequalities. >> Uh but really the problem is not that I mean um if we look at private debts we solved it. I mean we had you know 15 years of forced leveraging after after a wait um we can argue it was brutal. I mean DoddFrank eventually did that by by rationing credit um to the to the wealthy basically. So we don't have a debt problem because the poor have not been able to take you know loans in at least on a significant basis. >> And I would argue on the public side we don't have a debt problem either. Um you know you even even the deficit I would argue you know we had 5.8%. I mean the economy is growing really at almost four. You add 3% of inflation. uh you see tax receipts going at 8%. And I mean, you know, it's the US like that. That's the part that I that annoys me about this that conversation. The you know, remember the Reinhardt Rogue paper. >> Oh, yeah. >> Uh that you know >> the whole book, forget about a paper. >> Yeah. That Excel depression, right? These guys couldn't even check. Oh, supposedly this magical point where you know if that to GP crosses a certain level. I mean, how how that got published really bothers me. uh and and you know and how is that relevant like how is the experience of New Zealand in 1980s? I mean, we're the US. Like, who who's going to come and collect the debt? Like, like like, you know, the only time I could think of was when the French invaded Mexico in the late 19th century to get repaid. Like, I mean, no one's going to do that. Okay? Like, we don't have, you know, we have so much assets, we have so much wealth, we have so much ways we could tax more that that really this conversation is is to me kind of a almost a red herring, like something that that's here to mislead people. But what we do have um yeah is an affordability problem. Um and I was you know kind of computing dividing the um I mean everybody now is is coming up with their own measure of how life has become unaffordable and you see all the memes on on Twitter about in the 1950s you know a working man could afford this kind of house. I mean I I was looking at I was taking median wage and then I divided by a bunch of stuff. I divided by by stock prices. I divide it by um cost of healthare. I divide it by home prices. Uh I divide it by the price of a veil ticket, by the price of a Disneyland ticket. Um and yeah, what you see is pretty steady erosion of 3 4% a year in terms of how much college you can buy with a medium wage. Uh how much unit of housing you can buy with medium wage, how much health. That is the problem. Not a debt problem. It's an affordability problem. And my impression is that this um affordability problem is in large part driven by the fact that asset prices are really really high. Uh and that um there is a cost to this and then maybe it's because I live in California where you know I I see this massive gravy train and it it makes life harder for the people who are not part of it. Like if if you suddenly your your neighborhood became becomes um um uh >> million over I think 80% of Nvidia employees have you know more than 20 million or you take >> is it really that high? >> Yeah. Yeah. It's it's it's shocking. I mean all you have to do is just you know be there. Right. That's >> and maybe that's my envy talking, but I I remember like, you know, um when I when I first moved here 20 years ago when my roommates were were in tech and >> um I mean they're they're smart and wonderful, but like if you just stayed at Google for 20 years. >> Yeah. >> Um I mean, you didn't create a company. You didn't I mean, of course, it's hard. I don't want to um under estimate but you know you you have generational wealth without having done the things that I would usually associate with you know you haven't become a successful hedge fund manager or started a multi no you just you just kept your job uh and and when you have like so much wealth on such such a small perimeter yeah it means that private school uh or becomes completely unaffordable housing uh is completely unaffordable so the the middle class pushed out or then you start having homelessness issues. I mean, it's it's basically the the K. You see it in San Francisco, right? You have the the the obscene wealth and at the same time the the people shooting up in the street. >> Yeah. >> Um so, so yeah, so this affordability problem is ultimately driven by the fact that asset prices are too high. That's the point that I was trying to make. And if we think of wrongly, if we misspecify the problem, if we say it is a debt problem and not an asset price problem, >> yeah, >> we have the wrong policies because what do we do if we think it's a debt problem, right? We go back to this R minus G argument. Okay, keep R low, rep, we press it and then bush G. Now, feed that into any dividend discount model. >> Basically, what we're trying to do is G is greater than R. Well, what happens to prices is prices go to infinity. And I think exactly what we're seeing that this is this is the this is Trump basically. We have very strong progrowth policies as as you and I both have argued. Uh these I mean we had them under Biden too uh since co we we've had very good growth and at the same time we have financial repression >> uh R is kept way below. This is why you know our steepen trade never works and uh the bond market vigilantes never show up. Yeah. uh and we're constantly wrong on that one. Uh and the effect is is that you boost these asset prices even higher and higher and you make the problem worse and worse. Um and that feeds into this kind of political cycle that that we are seeing today. Uh, so I I completely get where you're coming from and I thought it was interesting when we had this issue with the liberation day and if you recall like uh Trump would say the world's ripping off the US like they that was very common like he kept saying the world's ripping us off the world's ripping us off and I kept saying thinking to myself correct me if I'm wrong if I'm mistaken but like you guys are the most powerful richest country in history and somehow you're getting ripped off like that somehow you're coming out on the short end of the world global economic system stick and I kept saying the US doesn't have a wealth problem or an economic problem they have a distribution problem the problem is that all the wealth is held by you know an elite few and I guess you're coming at it very similarly. You're but you're saying all the wealth is sitting in these companies and yet we just keep sending these companies higher and higher with our policies that we're trying to fix and make things better and yet all it's doing is helping you know the companies to go higher. I guess what I would say to you in terms of my immediate push back is Trump said he wanted to help middle class and lower like lower uh regular type folks but when at the end of the day the moment the stock market got into trouble he tacoed. So isn't that really truly the problem is that they can't take the pain that is required to rebalance the economy? >> Yeah, I I 100% on everything that you said. Um yeah, and I think it's it's one of the uh the the contradiction uh of of of Trump. I mean, Trump in in some part he's kind of a if you hear him talk, I think he understands some of that populist energy like he, you know, I'm I'm gonna be your retribution. I'm going to be the mentor of the for man. I mean, uh, and in some ways you hear him talk and he just sounds like, you know, one of these, um, you know, CNBC like, you know, um, Cuddlo type, you know, stuck in the 80s and, you know, and I cut cut some damn taxes >> uh, and then the stock stock market up is good. So, that that that's his contradiction. Uh I I I think the way he uh managed to reconcile it uh and and get elected uh was by saying we're going to take it from the foreigners because at the core I think everybody at least who's honest sees that that okay the money's got to come from somewhere right I mean if we're going to improve the lot of of the for man and the bottom of the K >> you know I mean you see the the the the two the the two legs of the K are moving in a so you're like okay to fix it we got to take from one to give to the other right now of course in the US political system it's kind of hard to do because you need the top of the K to pay for your campaign and you need the bottom of the K to vote for you uh so you know so that's uh you know the for example the Democrats the Hillary the the the Camala they were really good with the top of the K they just couldn't get the the the bottom part Trump's genius is that he could get both now why It's it's exactly what you said. It's we're going to take it from foreigners. He points to like a a third group. It's like don't worry, you can have UK need it. I can have my my my billion donation and I will take care of the common people. And I mean there are policies of his that do address I mean I think that's why the there's kind of workingass shift from Democrat to Republican because they could see at least the the hint of a plan, right? Restricting immigration. Yeah. No tax on tips, no tax on overtime. that that's that that that's more than anything that Hillary ever proposed, >> right? >> Uh so and he had this magical money tree the you know the foreigners are going to pay for it which you know we talked about it many times like that that was always a lie but it was it was a good lie like we hadn't tried tariff in 75 years so no one no one remembered that it doesn't work. U so that was it. Uh and then the the second thought I I'm just jumping here on on what you said is yeah I'm reminded of uh remember when we had the um the liberation day sell off at the beginning they tried to own it. I remember best going on TV and said well Wall Street had their turn for the you know for 15 years now now it's the uh now it's the bottom and that was what like three days >> like that that was your turn. Uh and and then immediately after that we we had the taco because yes um I I I absolutely agree with you. They're they lack the u the the consistency or and you know I I think it has to do with who Donald Trump is at the end of the day. He is this kind of like weird transitional figure uh half billionaire half populist uh but he he he can't really decide on a lane and I think this will be settled at the next cycle. Uh >> oh I see the next presidential cycle you're saying because because he's not going to he's he's going to choose the stock market. We >> we'll figure out that the whole foreigners are going to pay for it was was a great lie. >> Yeah. uh and then we're going to be forced to to address it. Uh and and you know, you could already see it with you know, the you know, kind of a JD Vance or the more popularity swing of the the Republican and on the other side of course the uh AOC Mandami uh and I think it'll be it'll be for the better like we you know that that's a clear debate like you need to get rid of the delusions. You know, when I going into liberation day, I kept saying he's going to be higher in terms of doing the tariffs than people expect because if you remember back then, everyone kept saying, "No, no, he's just this is just posturing. He's not going to actually do it and stuff." >> I I remember you nailed this like you >> for for three days. Um, and so I I but the interesting part about it was I was going through here and I said, "Okay, one of the issues is he wants to reduce the trade deficit." And I said, "Go look at the trade deficit, change in trade deficit versus the change in the NASDAQ." And people don't appreciate how much those two are mirror images of one another. And one of the smartest kind of pod shop guys that I know, he took me aside. He goes, "Listen, I'm not going to disagree with your your your the logic of your argument in terms of how the trade deficits work and all that stuff, but I am going to push back and say that Trump isn't going to do it. He's not prepared >> to zero the trade deficit if that causes the stock market to get halfed." And to his credit, he was right. I I overestimated his uh Trump's willingness to stick with the tariffs if it cost the stock market going down and so yeah I just in terms of thoughts like do you agree that that you can't have the trade deficit go down in the stock stay bid? Yeah, because it's I mean the mirrors right the the trade deficit the capital account surplus and where is the capital account surplus goes in in in Max. So uh yeah uh I mean there's another public accounting angle that works the same ways I because ultimately we're just playing with sector balance here. uh we're talking about you know uh foreign sector uh trade deficit capital sector uh and then uh I would add the public sector right if you look at at public accounting it's the um the savings the bad deficits have to be funded right so if you run deficit somewhere you need to have a surplus somewhere yeah so we run two big deficits right we have a deficit with the foreign sector right >> uh and then we have a a public sector deficit um >> and then our our private savings are not not increasing if anything they are the household savings rate is kind of low and coming down and then we have this big um capex boom that means the corporate sector is is is desaving. Uh so um yeah if you want to reduce the trade deficit and you think that the uh the private savings are now going to increase um yeah I mean you need you need um uh and you you need you wouldn't need the public deficit to come down. I mean at the end of the day they're the mirror of each other right the public deficit is the mirror of the car deficit holding private savings constant. >> Uh so again same story about Trump and tacoing all the time. There was that attempt like there was that was doge and again that lasted two months that achieved nothing. Uh and then we we got back to um you know trillion dollar deficit. So >> yeah. Um >> and and like if you actually wanted to fix the trade deficit, one way would be to t to tax capital that's coming into the US, >> tax foreigners that want to invest in the stock market. And the trouble >> Stephen Mir Steven Miran mentioned that in his paper, right? I mean, there was this this idea that on on um >> in order to buy US treasury, if you're a foreigner, you'd have to there would be a withholding tax. Um yeah, you do that or you you tax consumption uh you put sales tax and that's another way to do it. >> But if you think about that then if you tax like capital coming into the US that means that the price of the assets are going to go down which nobody wants. Which goes back to the reason I bring all this up is because your original argument was we can't have asset prices keep going up and inequality, you know, is is is in essence the mirror of uh asset prices going up. >> Yes. >> So my question to you is uh how does this resolve like what happens and and how how has it changed how you've thought about what's going to occur in the next few years? So the way I think about it is we we're a dog chasing its own tail. Um so let me kind of walk walk through how that that works. So you know if I start I think the original sin really was was await where this was at the time this truly was a death crisis. This truly was um something that was would have seen comparable in in other times of history. But we we chose very different policies to get out. And if you think about like the great depression, right, we had a Canadian policies, uh massive increase in tax rates, um and then massive increase in the deficit. Uh after 09 very the deficit actually shrank uh and really relied on on on the wealth effect on monetary policy to save it. The idea was, which is a crazy idea if you think about it. It's like we're just going to keep giving money to reach people until the economy, you know, and eventually will trickle down and then and then everybody will benefit, which is, I think, one of the reason why the the postweight recovery was so long because it's a really crappy way to go at it. Monetary policy is inefficient. Yeah. >> Uh and and the wealth effect is a horrible way to to stimulate an economy because, you know, rich people have a very low marginal potent consume. We did so much of it. >> Yeah. >> Eventually it worked, right? I mean Q1, QE2, QE3 zero forever. Like we we really committed uh and um uh it worked but you know at the expense of you know these inflating these massive asset bubbles uh which which did two things. one uh inflated tax receipts and and you know that's kind of one of my um you know really one thing I keep focusing on is this tax receipt. So which are still very strong today by the way we have like 10% growth in tax receipts in the US right now which is extraordinary. So on the one hand you you have a little bit of a fiscal room here and then on the other hand you have a very pissed off population uh because we can't afford anything and you have kind of credit issues that are developing your your tririccolor first brand. So what do you do? Well, of course, you have the money, you have the angle, you stimulate, you cut rates, and um you help the bottom part of the K. I I think we'll we'll do some of that. Maybe can get to that later, but on on next year, we we'll send checks to people like at some point we need a release valve. So it was it was the the the the COVID checks or the Biden um you know, kind of proworker policies because he could see that the bubble was hurting. The problem is the moment you do that nominal growth picks up inflation and real ratio. So what oh great it's working but what works even better is the moment nominal growth picks up profits pick up even faster. Keep in mind leverage right profits are le you know there's a profits are leverage bet on growth and then asset prices because you suddenly discount the cash flows that you discount are much higher and because you're repressing rates uh your dividend discount model explodes. So you're trying to help the bottom guy and you do you give them some income. They get the checks they for for like you know two seconds they feel better but then the top feels way better because of the built-in leverage in margins and then the discounting models uh that that makes asset price source. So you go back straight where you were at the top where you had the 40 crisis and then that's it. So it's that's why I'm talking about like a dog that's trying to chase its tail. the moment we have we want to help the bottom part of the K, we help the top part of the K even more. And if I'm right that the problem is that the top part of the K is kind of like making life impossible for everybody else, you go back to it and and you ask me what how does that solve? I think for now the dog just keeps, you know, I don't know if you've ever seen a dog chase his own tail, but yeah, he runs runs faster faster faster until it falls. Uh, so I think we're still in that period where the dog is like, "Oh my god, I'm almost going to get it. If only I could reach my my, you know, I'm going to get my tail this time." Uh, and then that's I think that's what 2026 is going to be all about. >> Do you think that that ends when we finally do get the bond market like saying no moss and like that's it? Like you're laughing. You're like, "Kevin, I'm refusing to kick this ball. I've seen Lucy line this thing up. Uh, I I know she's going to pull it away on me, but isn't that the Isn't that the natural like liber? Isn't that what's going to stop this this this isn't that what's going to interrupt the dog from chasing its tail? >> I think if if we were in Yeah. If we were in Brazil or Argentina, yes. Um, but um yeah, kind of given up on it, man. And I mean, how long are we going to call for these bond market vigilantes, you know? >> So, >> are we screaming in a desert? Where are they? Tell me. >> See them a little bit today. Like 30 years are like 4.8. >> Yeah. >> Uh but um I I'm starting to think that it um >> you know, there are things that slow it down. I mean, is that the fact that everybody is doing it at the same time? Well, that's true. Much different environment than a few years ago. >> Yeah. So, so that means that, >> you know, the the thing that I I think you and I were kind of secretly hoping for in April, we we were hoping that the the foreigners would would kind of u punch punch Trump in the face, right? That was your your your an like a hockey player looking for a fight. And uh we haven't really done that, right? say if anything it's Trump has punched both Euros and Canadians even more in the face and kind of rolled over >> but don't you don't you think from that perspective because I have a theory about that because I think that the selling started like I think that that Europeans Canadians all you have to do is look at our pensions we are taking money out of the US like the big long-term money is coming out of the US I think that this past six months has been all just people chasing in the AI bubble. >> Yeah. >> And that is being what's >> been count. Yeah. I mean, it's it's easy to do counterfactual history and and prove that we would have been right in the >> No, I'm not trying to say that because you're absolutely right. Like it doesn't matter. You know, as the guys on my desk say, everyone's got a could a would a should have account. Uh it doesn't matter, right? Like the where the market went is all that matters. Um, but I do but what I guess I say to that though is what happens when the AI bubble, you know, cools or slash pops. I'm not as I haven't given up on the bond vigilantes. I haven't given up on this um willingness to to expect uh this this to change. And maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I just you know what? I'm just a little bit dumber and and not as not as enlightened as you. And I I'm a little more stubborn, but I I I I don't know. Like I think your argument makes a lot of sense, don't get me wrong, and I completely agree. And I worry that too often we are just inflating the bubble more and more and more. And that but I think eventually there will hit a point where >> the fiscal spending won't be allowed. And let's actually go there because I that was one of my theories, but now I hear you talk and you're being recently kind of highlighting that we have more fiscal room than we think. And I must say given the fact that everyone's hyperbolic and worried about fiscal spending, it actually leads me to believe that you're probably going to be right because you're like, "Hey, it's not that big a deal and we got a lot of room." So tell us what your new theory is on that. >> Okay. Um well first there is this just the observation I'll make again the deficit is is 5.8% of GDP tax receipts are growing by 10%. So you know at this point the deficit is coming down even the primary deficit uh is coming down. Um so if we cut rates uh we are in a better uh position. Uh second um let's look at um uh let's look at next year. So right now uh the primary deficit is is lower by uh 200 billion. Um and again it's very short term. Okay. I'm not long term I I I agree with you that this is the the kind of now nothing stop kind of argument but um you know let's let's start with next year. So uh 200 billion reduction in primary deficit achieved by Trump. Now we can discuss you know I think a lot of it is really just the tax receipts being really strong but maybe there was some doge or whatever some you know cutting foreign aid and then not not doing any spending. Uh second thing that's going to happen uh is capital gains are going to be extraordinary. So the the record year for capital gain I think is 2022 because we're paying on the bubble and we had about 360 billion in capital gains. So by my calculation, we're going to add about $150 billion in in in in cap gains. >> Wow. >> Uh this year compared to the to the next one. >> Can I ask you, have you looked at that as a percentage of GDP and looked at what it is like versus n 2000 >> because 2000 must have been huge as well, right? >> The the tax foundation uh uh has has very good data on that uh as a share of GDP. >> Tax foundation. E I always that's what I love about you. Um I always find some website uh and some some group that you know takes care of all these things and I'm always bookmarking a tax foundation. >> Okay. So in 2000 we had 127 billion in cap gains. >> Now an economy that was way smaller. We're going to be in almost 400 next year is my guess. Maybe 350. >> Did nominal GDP double? Probably did. Right. 25. Yeah. Growing at 600. So it's it's about the same. It's about the same, >> right? >> Um, so >> but the difference is, by the way, that's pretty interesting is that in 2000 we ran a surplus from those cap gains. >> Now we're we're at 5.8. Okay. Anyways, I interrupted you. I apologize. Keep going. >> No. Cool. So, uh, so, okay. So, 200 billion from the primary deficit getting better this year. >> Uh, 150 from cap gain. And then I I would throw in the not QEQE type of argument, right? I mean I and at the end of the day, yeah, the Fed is buying treasuries. Okay, you can call it reserve reserve management. I don't even know what the latest acronym is, but you know, it's it's it's like 40 billion a month that we had to take from the private sector that's going to come from from the Fed's balance sheet. So, uh that annualizes to 500 billion. So I add all three there's $800 billion in in in in in fiscal room from the perspective of Trump because Trump's and I'm I'm not even counting the fact that the economy has expanded by six seven% nominal, >> right? >> Um and I'm think you know I'm my my model of Trump is that you know he's he's a realtor, right? And how do you how do you make money? How do you get the contract is because you squeeze everything. That's that's how you make you make the numbers work. It's the guy that gets the most leverage that negotiates the best deal. So, I think that's going to be his mindset. He's not going to be some BS CBO 20-year projection. No, he's going to look at it. It's like, guys, I got a little room here. And he's not wrong. He's got room. Uh, and let's say it's got like $800 billion. I mean, that's that's uh that's So, what's going to happen? First thing is we're going to have massive tax refunds uh in in Q1. So the the OBB is retroactive. So no tax on tips, social security um overtime. It's going to apply to 2025 um income. Now our brackets have not been adjusted for that. So all Americans are overpaying taxes right now. >> Right? So all your retirees, right? They're paying taxes on social security right now. It's being withheld from from their checks. So when they do file the tax for on around April next year, they're going to get that back. Same thing for overtime. So my estimate is that it's going to be about a hundred billion dollars in in refunds, extra refund. And usually we get something like like 200 billion in tax refund a year. So we're going to get an extra hundred billion there. >> And but still, like I said, by my math, we have about, you know, 700 billion we can play with next year. And it's an election year, so you know, it's good reason to play. So there is room for the tariff checks. I I'm a believer. We'll get the checks. We We'll get them. >> Uh don't they have to get that through Congress though? >> Um maybe I'm I'm not uh uh but I mean they for now they have the majority. Although I guess you're right. If Trump decides Trump, Trump will get what? I mean which congressman is going to run on I literally like I'm Scrooge, right? >> Yeah, that's true. >> I don't want you to get I don't want you to get >> I hate Trump so much. I'm not going to let you have this $2,000 check. Yeah, you're absolutely right. That's a double comp. Yeah, I shouldn't have asked that. >> So, so in given that, does that mean that you're bullish the economy, bullish stocks like going into next year? >> Yeah. Yeah, very much so. I mean, uh and again, I see the biggest risk as as too hot, not too cold. Uh I I I already think we we hot now. I mean I >> I kind of if again I go back to this tax collection some of that is inflated by by the everything bubble but not all of it like if you look at withheld income and employment taxes it's still growing at you know since labor is growing by 4%. you know, if you take into account the fact that with the government shutdowns, government employees get paid, we have the immigration crackdown, it is remarkable. Uh, so it's not just the um the the the everything bubble. So my view is and again I think you know too hard to call just look at inflation. If if really we were you know we had a negative output gap inflation will be falling off the cliff. It's it's not. So the fact that we have inflation tells me that we are kind of pushing the the economy above potential GDP. So we are already hot and I think we will be so most people don't I think haven't really factor in their analysis the the 100red billion in u in tax reform is certain now there's about 100 million fiscal household in the US so that's it's a thousand bucks ahead like remember the last time we we send thousand check to people what happened >> everything to took off right I mean who knows where it's going to go is it going to go to like stupid meme stocks probably some of it is it going to go to paying insurance premium. Is it going to go to uh say I don't I don't think it's going to go to savings, but um >> Okay, let me I because I'm curious about this because no one's been able to answer me this and it sounds like you actually do have the answer. Um to understand the one big beautiful bill. You're saying that the reason that there's going to be money flowing out to individuals is because although the rates and all these kind of lower taxes were applied to 2024, everyone is being deducted based upon 2020, sorry, 2025. It's applied to 2025. Uh, everyone's being applied is being kind of been deducted based upon old levels. And so therefore, come 2026 when we do the refunds, they're going to send back the money to actually feel it. So even though they cut taxes in 2025, it's not really felt until 2026. Is that what you're saying? >> Yeah. Yeah. Correct. Yeah. So we basically all overpaid taxes. Anyone who paid taxes on overtime, on social security, on tips income is going to get that money back. Uh and by my calculation that that that that's at least um 100 billion. >> Wow. Okay. And is there other elements of the one big beautiful bill that is stimulative at the beginning of the year? Because everyone talks about how it's this stimula stimulative policy. Is there some tax on capex and stuff? Is there something that on that perspective as well that that encourages more spending? >> So I mean I think that's already happening, right? That's part of the reason why we have this AI capex boom is that that kicked in straight uh um so the 100% depreciation that was in 05. So you know going back to tax tax collection um >> and I I actually don't know why that happened in September. So here you got corporate income tax collection. Um uh usually uh you know so it's paid every quarter. Um and then all year long we're kind of tracking a little bit above um 2024 and um you know I remember thinking oh that that that makes sense right profits are up and and then I remember being um horrified that that was a case part of my case for a full correction which turned out to be kind of off. Um the September October payment of uh of corporate income tax came in way lower. We're short 50 billion like half of it. Okay. >> And then I realized, oh no, that's the um that's the the capex 100% of the capex. >> Oh, >> it can be depreciated and and we have the now what happened only in Q4 versus I I would have expect because my understanding is we should have >> I don't know maybe it takes time, right? >> I was going to say I I think if you're putting shovels in the ground, you don't just get out and immediately start digging like >> Yeah. But I think it's also one of the reasons why we are seeing this, you know, data center boom and all that is because it's free. Like basically they can write off 100% of the tax. I mean if you're a Google or whatever like I mean the fact that you can write off 100% right away. >> Uh oh yeah maybe it's not economical. Who knows? Like basically you might as well do it right because uh if I don't do it the next guy's going to do it. So I mean to your concerns about like invading the eye bubble, I think that's part of the story because we are >> telling companies is just just throw money at the problem and um you know hopefully something will come out of it. >> By the way, Vincent, one of the things that I love about you is your uh doggginess in terms of watching those accounts and it's truly something that just separates you from all the other strategists out there. I'm sure there's others that do it, but I I don't know any that are as good as you and follow it as close like you're following >> tax. this uh I don't know if you follow this guy on Twitter. I love this. He's a starfish wool. His profile picture. He's a starfish. I don't know. He's a he's there's a a sub sub X of you know five or 10 people that are obsessed with tax collection and u yeah. >> Well, listen, you're too kind. You're you're deflecting because you're really great at it. And I think it's a great way of thinking about it when you're looking at the macroeconomy. Like you're looking at the actual cash. like it's it's like the analyst the stock analyst that says show me the cash flow statement instead of worrying about the EPS you know and I >> especially now since you know we are an emerging economy who no longer produces statistics so I mean that that that's all we got >> all right uh put put together what other macro kind of themes or what are you actually here's something I should ask you when you go talk to clients because you do talk to a lot of clients throughout the world what um what are they what are they feeling now What are they uh frustrated by? Where do you think they've got it right? Where do you think they've got it wrong? I'd love to kind of get your thoughts on what you're seeing out there in terms of the institutional community. >> I mean, it's not going to be a big surprise to you, but it's really the this AI thing. I mean the the last road show I did was was in LA time just around Thanksgiving and that's when we started to see some of these uh issues with the Oracle CDS and um kind of circle of financing and and yeah I mean it's a problem any anyone who has any allocation to equities is um it seems like we're all in this train just um um every portfolio manager every investor anyone who has a 41k and and even policy wise like I um sorry I'm I'm going on a tangent but I'm >> no no go on the tangent that's what we love when you're talking about this kind of contradiction for for Trump and Bessant where where they they see the problem uh they see that the attacks the foreigners didn't work and I I think the um the way they solved is just like yeah AI is going to solve it GPT like I think we just yeah just just throw >> Oh you think that they they view this This is a magic elixir that's going to >> Yeah, it's like the magical wand that was going to make everything better and and somehow we got this it's that that's kind of the the Kevin Hasset argument, right? why we're going to have lower rates is because we get this kind of 1990s productivity boom and it'll be the D6 machina now that that gives us this painfree deleveraging because ultimately that that that's what that that's what we're trying to get right the and Ray Dalio call it the beautiful deleveraging right that's something that Wall Streeters kind of like because it's it's oh like it gives the idea you can you know you can have your cake and eating right you can get average and you're still beautiful no no one feels the pain yeah >> by the way I I need to give credit to to Radalio like if you actually read Ry right writes he does mention these um uh this policy these red redistribution policies and much higher tax rates it's part of the package we just choose to ignore it. If you look at like actual beautiful deleveraging like uh the US under FDR second half or 1950s, we talking like 75% marginal tax rate uh and things that would really make like Larry Cuddlo's head blow up on on live TV. Good. So, go back to the clients. So, everyone's worried about no problem. I guess I'm still thinking about Larry Cuddlo going berserk on live TV, which is part for the course. He goes berserk if Obama wears a tan suit. So this wouldn't be this would be something it'd be really easy for him to go berserk on. >> No, everyone is is worried about this this this max bubble and and and to your point uh going back to to what you said about the the April liberation day correction, uh is because they stayed, right? And I mean they they stayed for the AI bubble. Uh all all the foreigners. Um I think what we saw was maybe hedging at the dollar. Um you know the trade was kind of long max 7 short the dollar. Uh I think the dollar shorts have come off mostly as as the dollar kind of stabilized and now they kind of left with this massive position and and everybody's kind of nervously watching one another. It's like when when is the music when is the music going to stop? And do you think that come the new year or do you worry because you're you're kind of a newfound bull that they're going to say, "Okay, um you know what, I'm long all this mag seven. I'm going to sell it because I just, you know, I wanted to get through this new year, the past year, and I'm going to sell it." Or do you think that they're they're still in and there there's no signs? >> I don't think how that's that's how psychology works. I mean, the more something is good to you, the more you cling to it. You don't like >> especially like um I mean I you know anybody who's you know still has a job today you know I look for example I talked to a lot of of Chilean um pension but Chile has an interesting pension system and they kind of it's like a horse race they evaluated on on performance uh and so who whoever stay basically that that ensures that the ones who are here are the ones who are overweight US and the guys who who listened to too much uh Kevin and Vincent talking about Brazilian stocks and and then Chinese internet uh three years ago. Uh you know, they're they're they're unemployed. They're begging in the street. >> Um >> um you mentioned the Fed. Uh do you have an opinion on who the Fed next Fed chair will be? And do you think it matters? I it seems if you look at the the betting odd, it seems to be uh Kevin Hasset. Um does it matter? Uh um I generally I I don't know. Powell sounded really doubbish to me already. Like it it seems like you know Hasset is is already there. So I'm I'm not sure how different is going to be. I think this this uh this bullying of of Trump worked. Um you know it's uh so it's going to happen no matter what. Are we going to have a political fed? Um I mean then then the the the qu you know you have all these questions about like board composition and um you know whether power stays on but my my impression is uh that um yeah Trump Trump has has won the war and and now the the line is uh productivity is going to boom tariffs are not inflationary uh and the economy is so great that we need 200 basis point of our rate cuts and um yep everybody's falling in Fine. >> Okay. So, I've asked you a lot of questions. What question do you think that I've missed? Like, what would you have asked yourself that I've missed? >> Or here's another idea. What question did you get recently out with clients that you thought was like a really interesting, great question? Like something that was outside the box or, you know, you know, an a way of looking at it or a question that might um have slipped on a traditional interviewer. Well, I actually think you asked that question. I just kind of forgot to respond to it because I got lost. Um, was uh, you know, how does this end? Um, you suggested this kind of bond market vigilante story, which I'm I must say my faith is is diminishing by the day on that. Um I mean I I think it's uh inflation and um hard turn to the left at the end of the day. >> Okay. So it it ends politically instead of financially. >> Yeah. So we are in this this this kind of like dog chasing its own tail and it's going faster and faster. um we will uh stimulate like crazy uh in 2026 because uh Trump cannot afford to lose the midterm really like physically like I mean he fail like I I think that's that's something that that's um >> I get that you know my my clients in Latin America get that because you know if you're in Peru like the past six Peruvian presidents are in jail. Uh it's true like yeah it's like uh Chicago mayors, you know. It's like uh um you go straight to jail after the Yeah. Uh Bonaro is in jail. Um so and I I do think it changes the the nature of the political game. Like if you if you're like Obama and you lose the election and you know you get to retire on Martha Vineyards and get get your podcast and become like a world superstar, yeah, you're fine. you know, you but like if you have to fear physically for your life and that of your family and who knows with with with the Epstein stuff, there might be some like actual criminal things in there. >> Yeah. >> U so that changes the incentive that means that you really go all in and I doubt Trump will go. I still don't think it's going to be enough. Um, I think it's going to look a lot like the the 2022 midterms where, you know, it was forecasted that, you know, the Democrats would get a beating and they did better than expected in large part because there was all these stimulus, right? It it worked. You send people checks and you you know people you can buy vote. I mean, that's that's how politics are conducted in LAM for for hundreds of years now. So, but I think it still loses. Uh, then we get this kind of like, you know, gridlock which is not good. Nothing happens. the the the situation gets worse, inflation becomes more and more entrenched. Uh and then by um 2028 is is where we get the the hard turn to the left and we can already see uh all the signs uh that are here with with Mandami with the election in Miami. Uh and that's when we get the missing the missing policies when I going back to this kind of deleveraging idea and and the one that we conveniently drop because no one wants to hear about it. Okay. Yes, we boost growth, we repress uh rates and we have at the same time very distributive policies, higher tax rate, um um taxing capital gains and corporate income. So that that's how I think the music ends. But it's it's more of a for for the short term. No, I I don't see the deex machina like the people suddenly oh it's January 2 when their their worldview has changed. If anything, I you know, if if I'm right about the >> tax double down, >> who's going to get that? It's going to go straight to Amazon. Okay. And >> and the the bubble just keeps keeps keeps inflating. Maybe like a blowoff top type of situation. >> You know, I think that insight about Ray Dallio and the fact that he talked about one of the ways of delevering is actually by redistributive taxes is something you're right. No, nobody talks about and unfortunately they don't want to see it. But if that's what's going to end up and that's where we're headed, then you should prepare. But as you say, that might be, you know, three years from now. Okay. So, Vincent, I realized first of all, I'm not allowed to talk about Emily and Paris. You did something. I think you won a bet once and I said I promised I would never bring it up again. So, I'm not bringing it up. Um, >> but uh I realized and I did I'm putting you on the spot and I feel bad about this, but maybe you're, you know, quickwitted enough that we'll be able to do this. Recently, I've been asking guests for their uh what we call the uh Desert Island finance edition. So, Desert Island is this show on BBC where they ask celebrities for their top 10 albums that they would want to be stuck on an island with. So, I do Desert Island Financial Edition. We only ask for three bands, three bands or three albums. Doesn't matter. You can pick either one. I'm trying to I'm trying to give you some extra time here so you can think about them. You get them all started in your mind. And then we also ask that you're allowed to pick any trader through history that you want. Okay? Any trader through history. So you could pick Jeff Livermore. You could pick whoever you want to be on this island for you to trade and chat with. >> Okay. Are you game? Do you think that I I didn't give you any uh any heads up about this, but are you game to play? >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Okay. So, first let's start with your first three bands or three albums. >> Okay. So, I just went to the OA Union concert in Santiago, Chile >> and it was awesome and you know I I child of the 90s so uh they haven't really produced anything and uh but it's good like they you know they understand the assignment they they do the favorites and it it was awesome. So, I'm gonna I'm gonna pick them. >> Okay. Uh, it were three. Uh, I I I have to go with maybe Pink Floyd. >> Okay. >> And then and then I Okay, I gotta give the the French. Uh, the French is kind of harder. Um, for for those who know, uh, I'm hesitating between Renault. Uh, it's kind of like a working class. I mean, his voice is terrible, but he's a very um >> He's the Bob Dylan, the Neil Young. The Neil Young of France. The Neil Young of France. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> And his name is Renault. I might like him. Is it like Is it like folk rock? I'll >> I'll send you some stuff. If we just want to go for like sheer uh musical quality, I would go with Jacuma. I'm sure that you've heard the song before. If you go away, it's the American version of it. >> Okay. So these are my three I'm allowed dead people because I'm pretty sure some of these people are dead. >> Yeah, you're allowed dead people. And now what about your trader? What trader would you have? And you're allowed a dead trader if you want too. >> You can we can Bernie it. >> Oh, I mean the easiest is but it's sake drug but everybody's gonna you know what I'm going to take Dalio just a I want to I want to share some chemical product with him. asking about Burning Man. Uh >> the trouble about about Dalio is that you have to be brutally honest. He's going to be like, you know, oh god, if you you stink. Like he's just going to tell you how it is. >> I mean, personal story. I mean, I I actually almost worked there. It was when I was really starting my career. I did the whole interview thing with them. It was it was brutal and gruesome and um yeah, and I I I I I'm not equipped, man, for the brutal honesty. Like I I remember I did um I did really good on the whole like so they they have like all these like IQ things which like McKenzie bullshitty things you know like how many golf balls in a swimming pool like blah blah which really only tests whether you've read the McKenzie interview book or not. >> Uh then they had the capital markets question which is surprisingly not so difficult. Uh and then it was these you know what I think it was probably right at the end of the day this kind of philosophical debates and I I remember getting visibly angry by you know that and your your interviewers constantly contradicting you and in the most annoying way they have all these kind of like you know trust from baby there and I I I mean you you and I I go left man I'm I'm I'm a man of the people like I I believe in this stuff you know and I and I realized in the middle of it I'm like oh my god I'm making a Marxist argument in in and then I couldn't handle I could not handle the brutal honesty of it. So I think sometimes we need to be uh you know not dishonest but you know pol there there's something to be said about social grace. >> Yeah I I hear you and you have plenty of that my friend. So, why don't you tell people that want to learn more about yourself and your firm, um, first of all, tell people about Stone X, what you guys do, and then where they can find your great research. >> Oh, uh, well, so Stone X, u kind of a Fortune 100 company now, uh, growing very rapidly. Uh, I work for the the broker dealer side of it. Uh, so we do everything started, um, historically we we started with commodities. We're very big in the physical gold which has helped us very well. Uh all kind of the ads the soft um I'm on the security side. Um so um I write uh weekly reports um which you know goes to a client. So if you're already a client of Sonax uh reach out and say I want I want to get Vincent stuff. Uh if not uh under my pin tweet uh there's a link where you can um sign up uh for a free trial. Uh we can also work with uh even if you're not a clown of SOX because of MIDI there's a way that you can you can subscribe to the work. Uh and yeah it's uh it's fun. I mean I've been here for almost 10 years now. It's been a a great firm, a firm that's grown a lot that let people um um do things and kind of stepping in this, you know, I feel like the the the concentration in in in trading uh has left some some gaps that um you know, like that the big banks or the the big guys are not are not filling. Uh so there might be a fit here. >> Awesome. So you mentioned your Twitter, but you didn't mention what the handle was. Why don't you tell people what the Twitter handle is? >> Uh, so it's Vincent V I N C N T W R D E L U A R D at Vincent. >> Thank you very much for being with us. It is always such a pleasure. Thank you so much for your time. >> Thank you very much. >> All right, Patrick, last one for the year. So, make it a good one, buddy. >> Bud, things are spicy out there. Uh like the um now first of all the last two weeks were incredibly boring. >> Uh it was like watching paint dry. Everyone wanted to hear what the Fed was uh was doing. Um at least that was sort of the inflection point was uh waiting for that. And um and uh in the end what was interesting is while the equity markets were super flat, the rates markets were moving and even the dollar started moving a little bit. Well, I mean they were pulling it out. It was the everyone was pricing in correct me if I say anything incorrect, but everyone was basically pricing in a hawkish cut 100%. And I you know what I wrote about that in my uh in my chat that I have every day and I got up before the Fed and I said, "Listen, I'm looking for a hawkish cut, but one of the smartest guys I know told me that everyone's looking for a hawkish cut and that the reality is that given that expectation, chances are it's going to go the other way." And he was spot-on correct. And I said, you know, this guy's pedigree is a lot better than mine, so you should listen to him and not me. And sure enough, that is exactly what happened. There's too many people. Hawkish cut was priced in. That's in essence what like if you had to sum it up, that's what you sum it up. And you know, it just wasn't going to be hawkish enough. And not only that, Patrick, you remember back to that November meeting, that FOMC meeting, it was really hawkish. So people had a little PTSD, a little sc, you know, a little bit of uh they remembered how much Powell came and stomped on it. So they were a little nervous. And that's in essence why there was too much bearishness going into the meeting. >> Exactly. So, uh let's talk about the aftermath uh of the meeting and more importantly what's been happening today because this is much more of like that Oracle AI kind of driven thing. At least that's the headlines I'm seeing. You can tell me if there's some other under other under other underpinning drivers of it. But uh some really interesting dynamics. First of all, actually let's first talk about the Fed uh and then we'll talk about the markets and what this thing uh what's going on. So first of all uh pretty much uh the market is uh at least at this moment pricing in a Fed pause for January. >> Yes. Um uh so we got a 75% probability that they don't move and at the same time uh now basically out to April uh the probability more or less of them still having not moved versus having one rate cut is about 50/50, >> right? Uh, and so more or less there's a 50-50 chance that that was Powell's last cut uh before before a new Fed chair steps in. Uh, and at least that's what the market is pricing right now. But what I'm kind of surprised at, Kev, well, I guess not surprised, but like I feel that there's a lot of things that can happen in the data that uh still could um force the the Fed to be more dovish in this window. Uh and I I don't I think this this may very well still be too conservative in terms of that they're they're done this way, but I do think it will be data dependent. Not in any way trying to imply otherwise, but these jobs numbers are coming out next week. First of all, do you what's your kind of uh gauge on the what to expect from the jobs numbers on Tuesday? >> I think it's really difficult. There's too much going on. There's a lot of >> Yeah, there's a lot of different parts. And like not only that, I think if I gave you the jobs numbers and they were only slightly, you wouldn't know what to do with them because >> it has to be an outlier to really kick the feet out from underneath the market. It has to be it has to be a big surprise. >> Uh but but if they're weak in a bigger way, um then uh suddenly January is going to have to be baked into a cut. Like they're going to start I think there's going to they're going to lean uh to a much greater probability of a cut than not. Well, and I but Patrick, I I sorry, I completely agree with you there. The real question will be like not what the front-end stir traders do because that will be fairly obvious. What do the equity traders do with that information? Do they like cuts or do the or does the does the >> president the president the president has been that uh they will like the cut? Uh at least that that's what the behavior we have seen in the past. Now, I feel like it's one of these scenarios where if they're cutting because we're f going into a recession and >> it's much different. >> It's much different. But here, >> if the recession risks are not as high and they're cutting, that means that they're easing providing that liquidity which allows them to be baking in higher stock prices. So I think that the response mechanism of that actually surprisingly may initially be positive. >> Yeah. Listen, I'm with you. I think though in a really really bad uh employment number like if there was a real uptick in like I think that >> there's a recession coming. >> Yeah. I think that if the if they became if it wasn't if it was viewed as more than just a slowdown, I think that they would sell stocks. But I hear you on your point that the initial reaction, if it's just a slight slowdown, might be that this is kind of the soft landing everyone's looking for. It gives the Fed more chance to lower rates. Um, and I think that one of the that'll be really interesting, Patrick, if that does happen, do smalls just rip on that because smalls are very tied to rates right now and that is what's that is what's moving those and they broke out to new highs and so >> so let's talk about all this. Okay. So, so uh let's talk about the the interesting sector rotation thing that really almost seems to have developed here in um now the interesting part was it the reaction to the Fed or was it Oracle uh is the the bigger question because uh Oracle missed and it seems to kind of send some ripples through the uh NASDAQ and many of these AI names. Uh, and so first of all, do you believe that this um little rotation we're seeing is much more driven by these AI headlines or the Fed? >> I think it's both. So, first of all, I do think that if you look back, often the Fed um the Fed marks a turning point in the in the trend and a lot of times we we've seen this before where the we've ripped on the day of the Fed and then that's proved to be the high. So that's not unheard of. Now having said that, there are a lot of bad headlines in the AI and I I >> you know me, I'm a huge AI bear. Not in terms of like the technology in terms the bubbles got to get >> rid. But Patrick, I I think the Oracle is one thing, but there's this firmy or something. I don't know. FRMI dial this thing. >> MI FRMI. Okay. So this thing came public at 21 bucks. It's um a REIT that does for data centers. Came public at 21 bucks, traded up to 35. >> Now, chugging around at 15 for the past, you know, couple weeks. Just announced that they're I don't know. I guess their main only customer is is has said no MOS like I'm not in. And the thing's eight bucks or what is it right now? It was eight bucks when I looked at >> it. Still was 10 bucks, but it was down. It was down in the eight handle for sure. So listen, this is this was something that investors were just trying to couldn't get enough of, you know, a couple months ago. And it shows you how the the uh sentiment has turned in the AI square. And although everyone keeps talking about this and they're talking about it like it's always going up and things like that, these things are going sideways. like you're going to show us some charts and I'll bet you that the vast majority of these AI stocks are going sideways and maybe some of them are even going down. At the very least, they're not leaders anymore. And then Patrick, >> oh, >> did you see the Time magazine cover? >> No. What was it? >> It's okay. So, there's this famous steel worker um thing back in the 20s and I think it was 1929 this picture was taken. It was in a skyscraper in Manhattan and it was a bunch of workers sitting there eating their lunch way up high. Yeah. >> So they took that and then they put in the eight gurus of AI like Elon Musk, Sam Alman, the Microsoft guy, all these different guys that put them on there and it's like the AI architects is the time person of the year and like just like ring that bell, baby. just ring ring ring ring ring that bell >> ring like >> Brent Brent Donnelly by the way has got this great great um kind of study or you know I don't know what you want to call it but he he tracks this and he comes up with these things when he sees a magazine cover he comes up with a trade and then he tracks it and these things work way way way more than they should uh for anyone who's interested go look up Brent's work and he keeps this up you real time. And to me, it's just one of those things that we're going to look back and and say, "Holy smokes, when they put him on the cover of the of Time, that was the the top." >> So, I think we're there. I think we're there. And you tell us, you you go through the charts and tell us if that's the right call or not. >> First of all, um the the puzzle that I was trying to solve, and I think we talked about it a little bit last week as well, sorry, last episode as well, but to me, okay, we had the 6% correction. So all of this talk I had uh from August September is like we're due for a correction. It's overdue. Longest period without a correction. But once we printed 6% down the correction was done. Well I thought it could have been deeper. I thought it could have gone further. It could have been a 10 plus percent correction based on the magnitude of the rally. But it was what it was. So uh so the correction's over. So the immediate downside risk of the market um is on the very short term not there. uh you know so the question that we were the puzzle that I was trying to solve is that is this uh the midpoint of a bull continuation pattern where we go to 7400 on the S&P or is this a part of something like we saw at the start of the year which was like a three fourmonth topping formation where the market struggles along overhead resistance and uh and fails to uh follow through bullishly on the upside. side. Now, the interesting part was I was looking at a couple of things that I thought was really important. Number one, I was watching whether the financials could break out of their uh four, five month trade range bullishly on the upside and here we have the financials bullishly breaking out. >> Yeah. At the same time, I was looking at the SMH, the semiconductors, and the uh and literally on Wednesday, they actually printed a fresh new 52- week high. Even though obviously this news has caused a little bit of selling, there was a lot of these things that were actually showing that the market was improving, including we we managed to muster up a little bit of a higher high on market breath, getting up to 60% on the number of stocks above their 50-day moving average. So there is actually some money flowing but it is becoming very clear that it is a sector rotation rather than the tide rising where all ships are rising and uh and this is the interesting part because like you were suggesting with the small caps. I'm going to start with the S&P equal weight index. The S&P equal weight index did not waste any time breaking out to fresh 52- week highs even though the main S&P uh has not been able to. Similarly, the Russell has been able to break out to a fresh new 52- week high. So, what we're seeing is the money very clearly rotating. things like money uh like uh energy stocks are being bid, you know, uh healthc care stocks continue to hold up very well. Uh you know, the small caps are doing well. All of uh actually the entire commodity complex in general uh outside of the in terms of commodity stocks, not commodities themselves because n gas and and oil itself have been struggling a little bit. But uh when you're talking about equities in the commodity space, they've all been just on fire. Uh and so there's money that's going into all of these little places, but we are seeing the stalling out of things like the NASDAQ. Like the NASDAQ didn't go anywhere near its previous high and the MAG7s failed in the same way to to make it back to their highs, back to testing their 50-day moving average. And what was really the most obvious thing to me was Nvidia. Nvidia could not close above its 50-day moving average. Like so here we have the NASDAQ at least attempted to double top retest its highs. You had uh the S&P actually pretty much uh retest its highs. So you have these markets that made this big counter rally and Nvidia couldn't even muster up a close above its 50-day. And even like uh another one of the very popular ones is AMD. Look at the lack of followth through bullishly on the upside on AMD. Even though the semiconductor index has made a fresh 52- week high. >> Yeah, >> these two big boys have uh couldn't even uh get a bump on there. And so we're clearly seeing that uh managers that were grossly overweight, these MAG7s and AI stocks are starting to um uh diversify. They're probably resizing all of their AI exposures and uh redistributing it amongst the rest of the market, which is what we're sort of seeing in this dynamic of of what's working and what's not working on on the short term. and uh and so uh so so there's something going on under the surface here. The question is is it outright bearish? Um yes, it's definitely short-term bearish for uh AI stocks, but um but is there going to be a bigger problem to the whole stock market from that? Or could we have a divergent market where this initially starts off as some profit taking and selling in in AI while the rest of the stock market is actually a benefactor of the uh of that rotation because not everyone is just liquidating in the in a you know correlation of one kind of scenario in the market where everything is starts going down. What what's your take on what I said and what would you interpret differently? >> Oh, I I think you're bang on. I think it's actually the question to ask for 2026. Um, will we be able to have a correction in the MAG 7? Cuz so far the Mag 7 just have been sagging a little. They haven't really truly gone for sale yet. when the correction comes and we go down a quarter, a third, maybe even a half in those stocks, will the other names be able to go up enough to stop the indexes from getting absolutely destroyed? And I know a lot of other people, sorry, a lot of people seem to think that that's not the case. So once mag 7 rolls over, the whole market will go with it. >> I I I'm not I'm not as confident. I think that the rotation might be way more violent than anyone expects. I think all you have to do is think back to the gold stock, gold miner stocks. >> Yeah. >> And it was only six months, nine months ago that it felt like you couldn't give those things away. And now they're up 100 odd percent or whatever and they're just on fire. And it just goes to show you that when the um money comes for this sector, it's going to be massive. And the moves will be massive. and and and to one second the point is though that the amount of money in the top 10 names in that mag seven plus a few others and stuff like that it's so large like 40% of the S&P uh 500 is compromised to those top 10 stocks that is unheard of it's very very large if we got some movement within it that then the amount of money actual dollars that are going to come out of those names and go into those other names that they're going to have to buy is going to just move those things by a huge amount. And I think that's what we're seeing with the small caps. >> Small caps are tiny. Like it's like I bet you I don't know the numbers, but it wouldn't surprise me at all. I should probably do this like if Nvidia is smaller than the entire small cap market. >> It's probably something stupid like that. >> It it probably is something stupid like that. Yeah. And uh and uh so the the question okay so the easiest thing to maybe play as a relative trade is you say well look I think the equal weight S&P will outperform uh versus um the main S&P right because the market cap S&P is just going to get dragged like an anchor on these but I actually think next year will actually have to be a stock pickers market and I think that you shouldn't just assume assume that uh a bare market in AI or a pullback in AI will necessarily equate to the fact it should be sitting in cash or treasury bonds. Um that that in fact there might be things that are working. Um uh you know the most obvious example to me was back in 2008 uh in you know while banks were the focal point of the selling in the first half of the year of 2008 uh energy stocks were up 70% higher in the first half of 2008 right there was a place to make money um in that in that circumstance and while I don't necessarily think that it has to be that same dynamic but it the point being that there will probably be areas that are going to do well uh irrespective if there is selling but you probably aren't going to get the benefit of by tracking the index. You're going to have to be a stock picker. You're going to have to actually see which sectors are taking the flows, which sectors are the ones that are behaving resiliently. uh and uh and you're going to need to be much more concentrated in the things that are working and in trend and be massively underweight, those things that are being dragged in a downtrend. Uh Patrick, I saw this interesting stat the other day about the a percentage of active managers who beat the S&P 500 and it's shockingly low. And not the real problem is it's not just shockingly low this year, it's shockingly low for the past three years. This has been an absolutely impossible market to try to, you know, beat the index. And the reality is the reason that it's been so difficult is because that index is so topheavy with those mag sevens. Like even to just be full index weight on those is is a real leap of faith. So it's been really really tough on active managers. And I 100% agree with you that in 2026 we could see a situation where the vast majority of them outperform. And you say, well, how can that be? How can the vast majority of them outperform? Well, that might occur if we see a situation where those mag sevens go down and inherently they'll be underweight that thing. And this is going to be a stock picker's dream. And I I'm with you. I think that these things could go up. Not only could they just not go down as much as the Mag 7, I think we could have things ripping and going higher like we've never seen. I I think the market is underappreciating how much violence there can be within it. And if that's uh but imagine uh well for instance as an example the we could see an incredibly uh big continuation of the commodity bull market next year if and let's segue into uh the dollar here for a moment but if this dollar advance has played out right like I was always cautiously bullish the US dollar in the last two months because it's been above its moving average making higher highs there was room for it to retrace back to 102 103 but clearly that uh uh momentum has massively stalled and while I would not yet officially call this a re-resumption of the prior downtrend if the unfolding reality uh going into January was that the US dollar is re-resuming its prior downtrend when we go onto a weekly chart and look at where uh the the 2021 low of the US dollar index is it's down at the 90 level. If this um flagging formation breaks with a uh a downside move, we're talking about a measured move that could easily slam it back down to retesting 2021 lows. Now, I'm not forecasting that yet, but what I'm trying to get to is if that became the reality, uh that would be a huge bullish tailwind to the reflation trade. And many of these commodity names would actually be huge benefactors of that. And so we could really have a a dynamic where uh where uh you know international equity uh emerging markets, commodity markets, all of these things could actually be taking huge inflows and being uh you know doing well. But you know when you're an international investor overweight MAG7s and the US dollar is going down and at the same time as your MAG7s are going down you could actually have a negative feedback loop as these international investors start actually uh uh reweing themselves and and bailing out on this trade. >> Yeah, you're you're spot on correct. And by the way, um, that folk hero, the currency whisperer, >> he emailed me. And the thing about the currency whisperer is, you can't ask him for it. You got to wait for him to come to me and say, "I'm putting this on." And I got >> a true whisperer. >> He is a true whisperer. And I got the message from him. He said, "I'm uh, you know," he says, "Wish me happy holidays, you know, merry Christmas." The whole nine yards. And then he said, "By the way, I think it's time for the yen to go." And I know he's been a yen fan, but this was a new one. He's buying Australian dollars. >> The Aussie, eh? >> Yeah. >> Well, you know what? Um, okay. So, let's look at this weekly chart. Well, you know what? Well, listen. If uh if uh the commodity story combined with a weak US dollar plays out, then you have to think that the commodity based currencies would have an extra kick on them. >> Yes. Now, uh what's interesting is based on that employment number in Canada as well, the Canadian dollar had a very distinct little uptick. So, first of all, uh I you know, you can just draw pull out that super thick crayon and draw that trend line along these highs for the Aussie dollar. I mean, this thing is toying with on a weekly chart basis uh breaking what has been a four-year downtrend. uh and uh and you know and potentially making a higher high for the first time. But take a look. I'm going to do the unforex thing and look at the Canadian versus the US upside down chart. >> But wait, before you do that, going back to the Australian dollar, let's not get rid of the Australian dollar yet. >> Would this be an asymmetric trade? >> Oo. Wow. I'm glad you uh I'm glad you asked, Kevin, you know, but no, but uh in the end uh the all of these are potential asymmetric trades. Every one of these like obviously the first thing that we do, Kev, is we always try to use our macro frameworks to uh to build an idea of what is can happen and why would it happen, right? like we try to understand and then we technically are always observing you know when has something actually potentially started and where could it go right so we're trying to combine this world and then it's just simply about uh using our uh whether it's using disciplined money management skills stops and risk management or whether you construct a proper options trade you're always trying to construct every one of these themes in some form of an asymmetric thing. Thanks for the plug. >> Oh, by the way, techn mad at you if you don't actually like name when the the conference or sorry, when the webinar is. So, repeat it again. >> Absolutely. Oh, there you go. Well, thanks for the shameless uh plug in the middle of charts. It is on December 16th. >> December 16 on Tuesday. Yeah. >> And it's going to be at 400 PM Eastern time at the end of the day as the market closes. And uh so please uh join us. You can find the link in the description of the show on YouTube or you can go to bigpictureterrain.com. Thanks. All right. So, so can I go to the Canadian chart now? >> Yes, you can. >> All right. >> And and what's interesting is on a weekly chart, the Canadian uh chart actually looks almost identical to the Aussie in a sense that it's been in a downtrend since 2021. It's been in a pretty vicious decline. Uh again, you can kind of uh mash up all of these highs, whichever depends how thick your crayon line wants to be to connect highs. But in the end, what you have is the Canadian dollar uh did a a very clean uh 50% retrace back over here, establishing a low. And uh the question here is, is the Canadian dollar going to shock everyone with uh with a leg higher? like I'm not yet super convinced that this is 100% happening, but you can't ignore it because this is this could be the kind of early uh uh moments where we're seeing a new trend develop. And it obviously uh if you get in early, you can always get the better fills. Uh but then you always have to have an exit strategy if it just doesn't materialize. But uh but is we're definitely seeing price action that's reversing. Now the one I want to talk about here is that US dollar yen and the one thing that you were mentioning here like it's got very clear overhead resistance and th this is where the bank of Japan has intervened in the past. So I mean there is a good chance that at least your risk is limited at this stage if you're dabbling with a long yen trade. Uh it's very early. At least the Aussie and Canadian dollar are actually reversed. You can see that they're attempting to break out. I'm going to reverse this. The yen is actually still trading at its low, right? Like this is an incredibly premature call, but it is at a support line. And if the support actually holds um then, uh then that's a rockstar entry. Uh, and >> well, he's a little bit of a rock star, so I fully expect >> I mean the he he whispers to currencies. I mean, that's a true rockstar uh position, right? Um, so anyway, uh, on the currency front, I think this dollar call is going to be one of the big 2000. I think, Kev, for our January show, we should kind of theme it as to a 2026 outlook uh, talking charts where we don't even look at daily charts. We'll look at weekly charts and really kind of try to really size up what could happen. What are the kind of asymmetric ways that the 2026 can play out and where are some different trade ideas? I think that would be a great 2026 primer for everyone coming into the new year. >> So, you get it ready. We'll be ready for you >> in a month. We'll we'll we'll uh we'll do that. All right. So, listen. Uh we gota we got to talk u so anyway back to the equities. Will that rotation happen? big thing like the fact that financials broke out. It means to me that this isn't a broad S&P 500 sell-off. This is very much the AI having air taken out of it. Uh it it's it's not where the vast majority of stocks are down and there are places that are doing well and taking flows. So it is not not over alarming. Other thing is we do have low volumes going into the holiday period. So obviously the jobs number can create some volatility next week. But if we um don't see a big move and the jobs number just comes down the center and then we have gamma penning kicking in into the uh into the opex then low volume half cut weeks. Um we may be just stuck in a trade range for the rest of the year. Yeah, I don't disagree. For those who are interested, the JP Morgan upper strike on the call that they sold to is 7,000. Like, uh, although I don't I'm I'm probably too bearish to really think we're going to pin to there. Little part of me says, don't overthink it. That's probably where we end up. Uh, like December 30th, not December 31st, because often times the December 30th, 7,000 would be a natural spot to pin it to. Like I'll tell you like on this chart if I would say like let's say we dip here one or two more days uh the jobs numbers isn't as bad or maybe it is bad and the market takes um the the rate cut odds up and the market has a punch to 7,000. The reason I think 7,000 super interesting Kev is because the market has a history of gravitating to key round numbers like that. Yeah. And uh and for us to be this close to 7,000 and not printing it at some point doesn't uh it's not natural. These history >> not natural. >> No. No. History H history uh shows. >> By the way, do you know what day was the top in 2021? >> No. >> It was like the last day. I'm pretty sure. >> Really? >> Let's pull it up. I'm pretty sure it's really close. If it wasn't, that day was the >> on Sorry. On what? Wait. December 31st, 2021. So remember, we were all excited. It was, you know, this was the big rally off of the 2020 lows. Margaret was doing great and then she ran right into the year end. >> This was January 4th was the highest. >> Okay. So it ticked up a day or two, but >> but 28th and 29th was that little surge right at the very end. And uh and that Yeah. And that that was the high and it just sold for the >> and it held for a couple years. >> Well, yeah. Well, I mean that was the uh bond massacre. >> Yeah. But and I know everyone says, "Oh, well this time the Fed's cutting, so that won't happen." Like, sure. Okay. >> Uh you know, they there's always a reason. There's always a different reason. So, I just thought that was interesting. And I and I contend that part of the reason that there's that sort of seasonality to it is because of the prepoundonderance of derivatives. And you know, Jim Carson talks about this all the time, these auto callables and all these bonds. I mean, all these uh notes that they're issuing that that affect the volatility. Like I I you know, I'm bearish, so I probably want us to sell off going to year end. And I feel like often like everyone's looking for the year-end rally. So, kind of worries me that I'm in that camp, but little part of me just says that would be the most logical thing would be a close at 7,000. That would be what would make a lot of sense. And you know, if you were to say like don't overthink. >> I don't think it's a big accomplishment. 100 S&P points. >> No, I get it. But I think I think though to say that that's where we end up on the last day, like that's kind of >> it's not a big stretch. >> Yeah. But I also think that that that optioned action ends up being more important than people than often people appreciate. And maybe that's that's like that it would make a lot of sense for them to to be. I also think that um if uh it's also a great bear trap like uh if uh if you have a scenario where you know CNBC can print all the headlines 7,000 S&P hit and all this kind of stuff get all the bulls frothed up before the rug is pulled out. It's uh it it also kind of fits that pain trade narrative uh of you know the market makes a fool of all of us in some way or another at some point. the um let's talk precious metals. Gold did a direct double top retest uh and it's been fading. And what's interesting is as gold retested that high >> uh silver uh put in its first reversal day after what's been an epic month. Like uh what a run on silver. Uh just an extraordinary bull impulse to the upside. Uh now I'm not trying to call a top on silver per se, but all markets mean reverts their rallies and pause and do flags and consolidations. Uh something some sort of consolidation uh seems likely here on silver. It uh finished uh uh its measured move on the upside and uh as that finishes that's usually where things pause. So the question here is with gold double topping and uh and silver putting a reversal candle, is it just a break for a few weeks? Like is the is the is this going to be where things just calm down for the next little bit? Overall, I'm quite bullish uh for if that US dollar really genuinely starts a breakdown like um and the reflation trades going like I don't see why we can't have another first quarter rip on the upside of all of these precious metals. So, I'm not trying to be bearish, but uh but this is definitely from a short-term swing high, a risk that we're putting in at least uh the the high of the week, maybe the high of the month uh for for a very short period of time. All right, what else you got? Um the Oh, by the way, just in gold miners also, like look at that. Like a direct retest of that high and fading off of it. So, it's like you're seeing that on there. the uh what I what I'm surprised by is just how weak crude oil continues to be. uh like uh we've seen divergent momentum where you know usually when uh the go uh when oil has let's say one of these five six7 rallies and it tests a 50-day moving average a failure here would usually bring about a proper uh5 to$10 shellacking on the downside and breaking trend and instead uh it just bled lower uh staying below the 50-day but no downside momentum. In fact, uh using a momentum indicator like the MOM index, um it actually got positive in a sense of divergent momentum. Uh and so there was room for oil to try to strengthen, but again, oil goes directly test the 50-day moving average and rejects, right? And now we're working to low. And Kev and I know this one guy I do a podcast with says no such thing as a triple bottom. uh like uh the the uh the question here is that uh is the infamous turtle head formation going to happen? >> I don't think it's gone down to the true support level. So I don't think that you can put that in the triple bottom category yet. >> We still have a couple of bucks. It's still in the >> No, no, but okay. You know, I look at it that not only that I look at it that this was already a double bottom back over here >> and so this was already the third. This would be the fourth retest. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Right. >> Right. So, so but uh but the if if I was to give you a a measurement of of what could happen here, uh the if if you had this rule of symmetry work, then you have a risk down to 55 to 52 bucks, right? And so you could have and so the previous low is 56. So one of these little uh turtle turtle head formations where this thing has just a pop few dollars below the previous lows wash out those stop losses get everyone properly bearish and then this thing pops back maybe starts to put in uh inverted head and shoulders pattern or something in there. But I think one more wash out in oil can't has to be considered a real risk here. the ju just the price action is so awful that like you you have to respect that the prevailing downtrend is the dominant one. No matter how bullish I want to be oil, this price action is so awful. >> Yeah, >> it's um >> and don't forget you always have to wash out your turtle heads. Um >> we got to get we got to get going because I got another thing I got to hop to you. So what else we got? >> Oh no, listen. Uh okay. You know what? The only uh the only thing I'm going to look at here, the Cosby, uh obviously this is tied to this AI trade to some degree or another with the with two big components still holding at its highs very similar to the way that we saw the the highs holding in on um SMH till today like that selloff happened actually once South Korea was already closed for the weekend. So uh the question here are we seeing these semiconductors and Cosby are they going to put in uh topping formations here and are we going to see some broader selling? Uh and you know I think that Kev I think that's enough. >> That's good. That's great. >> I think that's enough. >> I think it is enough as well. All right. Thank you for tuning in everyone. Patrick, where can they find out more about you, your firm, and this terrific asymmetric? We are not going to say anything about but the asymmetric challenge. Listen, if you go to bigpicturetrading.com, it's right on the homepage. You can't possibly miss it. >> But it's going to be a great webinar we're doing on December 16th at 400 PM Eastern. I'm I'm sorry for shamelessly plugging, but we just got to get it out there. Um but uh but uh it's on December 16th. Get to that big picture.com website. And Kev, where can they follow your stuff? >> Uh the macroourist.com. And listen, bare market, bull market, we're just happy to spend some time together with you with you on this crazy ride. Now, stick around for the after show. Okay, time to rate some beers. >> I'm kind of upset that I don't have one of these. >> You know what? As an as an official party dad, >> yeah, >> I have to say this is a great beer. >> Yeah. Uh, you know what the the one of the characteristics of an IPA is usually they're very strong in their taste, right? And that's also a lot of where that extra alcohol is uh in their higher percentages. This gives you the the pleasure of that uh nice taste of an IPA, but it's so smooth. >> So smooth. >> It's actually incredibly smooth in terms of like kind of like a party. >> I see the smile. I see the smile on Danny's face, which means he's not going to agree with me. But uh but >> Danny's a he hates Canadian beer is the problem. He's the prejudice against us. >> What do you mean? He loved the beer last week and he rated it uh pretty high. So absolutely. >> You're the one who gave it the amateur score. >> Yeah, exactly. >> Oh, okay. Okay. So, give us the score, Patrick. You were raving about >> I'm liking it. I'm liking it. I'm going to give a 7.9. >> Okay. Okay. What are you at, Danny? >> Well, look, I'm going to be completely honest with you, Kev. >> Uh, for me, I hated it so much that I had to go and get something else. >> Uh, so yeah, I I thought I thought it sucked. I thought it was awful. Like, >> yeah, you have you have first of all, it's 3.5% which is >> lightweight. Lightweight amateur. I know that. >> That's perfect for me. It's perfect for Kev. >> Exactly. But se secondly, I just thought the the flavor was more like cat piss. I just thought it was terrible. I just thought it was absolutely awful. So for me on this >> clearly I have no taste buds. I have I clearly have no taste buds. >> It's cuz you're a party dad, you know. Um but uh but but for me, I think I'm going to give it a solid 4.7. >> 4 solid. At least you didn't do an amateur score. >> Yeah, that's the first time he hasn't done a an even on the evens. Yeah, >> I know. I I did that on purpose. I had to think about it there. >> Yeah. >> So, I know you have to go, but listen, uh I just got to share what uh both Danny and I are entertaining the idea tomorrow of going out to Nazare. Um so they >> like the the surf place, the big >> surf place, the largest wave in the world. And they uh are promoting that this is the largest swell in a decade >> really. And so there so there might be a championship wave. >> Oh, you guys got to go. I have to go. >> And so so uh I'm going to you know it's it's a bit of a drive for Danny because he's a couple hours more south in in Portugal. But you know what Danny's got an hour and a half. >> Danny's got a great employer that'll probably fly him to Porto. >> Absolutely. >> Company expenses. Company expenses. Well, listen. If you guys go, make sure you get some videos and share them. Like, I'd love to see it. Like, that's And Danny, you you've got all your fancy gear and you're a real videographer. Make sure you get some good photos. I want to see this. This will be awesome. >> Yeah, I'll try my best. >> It's going to be awesome. Yeah, we'll uh we'll uh maybe even show if there's a really good footage, we'll show it on the uh after hours maybe when in January. >> Sounds good. And for those who are interested, we are having a special year- end show. We're working on it diligently. It's going to be exciting. Uh lots of old friends coming back on. Make sure you tune in. It'll be published sometime right after Christmas, like on our regular schedule of uh two weekends from now. >> Boom. >> All right. >> All right. Uh, thanks everyone and uh have a happy new year because I'm uh >> No, no, you're going to be seeing we're going to you're going to record something you're going to be able to give. >> Never mind. >> You know what? You could say Christmas because Christmas will be happening between then and there. So, merry Christmas for everyone and uh we will see you before the new year.