Description:
LOCK IN THE EARLY BIRD PRICE DISCOUNT FOR THE THOUGHTFUL MONEY FALL CONFERENCE AT ...
Transcript:
And we should be live. Uh, welcome to Thala Money. I'm Thulful Money founder and your host, Adam Tagert, welcoming you here for another live stream live reaction to uh, the latest Federal Reserve's FOMC release and the subsequent Fed Chair Jerome Powell press conference. I am joined as always by my colleague here uh, Axel Murk uh, who is the founder of Merc Investments. Um he also is a longtime Fed watcher and actually has uh some relationships, some deep relationships with some people that actually used to sit on the Fed. So Axel, um got a lot to talk about here. Uh first rate cut of the year of 2025. Um I have been recording all day, so I just got to see the uh initial results of the FOMC release. I have not watched the PAL presser, so I'm going to be relying on you heavily for the details here. But there's, you know, there's a lot to talk about what the future holds given a lot of um, you know, I would say this is a different uh different time in the Fed that we've seen for much of this year. Um, rather than just telling us everything is fine, they're now starting to get a little bit worried about the direction of the economy. >> Yes. Um, and first of all, it's great to see you with your eyes open, not those silver coins glued to your eyes. >> I thought you would have liked my silver laser eyes. >> No, the reason I don't like them is because that that sounds like we have a top in the mock folks doing this sort of stuff. So, >> well, I was I for those who haven't didn't know what we're talking about on my ex account, um I gave myself initially silver eyes like coins where my eyes were because I was trying to once we pass $35 an ounce around silver. I was sort of wondering how come people aren't getting really excited about silver the way that we've seen the crypto people get really excited when Bitcoin has moved. So I tried to create my own version of that and then a a a follower of mine on X then took that and created a version where there are silver laser beams coming out of my sober eyes. >> Uh and that's what Axel was referring to. >> Of course we got to talk about the see the other thing that happened today. One of the homepage headlines was from Greg Gip that was the journal journalist who used to be the editor of the economist also at the financial times I believe at somebody in Korea who said why every investor should own some gold. that sort of thing you don't see in major newspapers. So, right, >> getting very concerned here about the the levels. If I see folks like you and Greg, who I also know um doing these things anyway, >> answer your questions and we're talking about the Fed. Um, lots happened today at the Fed meeting and uh it fetch tried to have a consistent message. Um the short of it is they cut rates and uh he gave all kinds of interesting reasons. Um but if you look at the economic projections for example the the projections on the where the rates are likely to be the dot plot they're all over the place including some that want to have a rate hike. and uh he um kind of said as much that we have an environment where risk of inflation is to the upside, risk to the economy is to the downside. >> And then he said, well, the risk to the economy have increased and therefore they're cutting rates. Um what was stunning to me is that the reason one of the key reasons why he said he changed his mind was the revision to the jobs data. Now most of the audience may not be quite as surprised because that was obviously touted quite extensively that the jobs data have been revised downward and I'm sure some of your guests have talked about it. The reason why that's a pretty lame thing for the Fed to say is that even though this was a record downward reision, a year ago we had a record downward division and nobody talked about it because it wasn't a political thing. It's because it's the data nerds doing what they do. It's water under the bridge and so forth. But what it what it does suggest is and as as some of you who are glued to Fed policy as much as I am know that we do have a new Fed governor as of the um the beginning of the week who's coming from the administration. He's on leave from the administration. Um he desented wanted to have the 50 basis point rate cut. >> Steve Marin you're talking. >> Exactly. Exactly. Steve Mer and and so his key argument or one of his key arguments was hey the economy was worse than expected we got to have some makeup cuts. Um he that kind of been part of what the administration has been talking about. Y >> and the mere fact that Powell is giving more than lip service to it but actually says there was a reason >> means either he has a cognitive bias from the discussions that happened on the table and is just blurring out what comes to his mind or that he's actually embracing that idea. And the reason I phrase it this way is that as as you know, I have long been a a critic that the Fed doesn't have enough of a process. It matters less of where the rates will be this month or next month. It it the reaction function matters, I believe, in a quantitative one, not one subject to the debating club at the Fed because that creates all kinds of issues. And so, but of course, the more you're on the qualitative side and have a debating club, the more noise factors in, the more the latest great thought of the day factors in. Um, and uh anyways, but to answer your question, the we cut rates or we the Fed cut rates and uh and the forecast based on the so-called dot plots is that we'll have another two cuts this year. um which is 25 basis points lower than at the June forecast. Now the market had already been there. If you look at what's into priced into the markets, we are already uh we're pricing in a good two rate cuts by um by December. >> Yeah. >> Okay. And uh I'm going to I'm just taking a screenshot here of the dot plot which I'll I'll put up in just a second. But um so I think as we talked about last time, Axel um you know, Pal had been really pretty nonchalant uh we we'll say, you know, um you know, unflumixed um by the cooling jobs market this year. And and every time he'd come out and give his press conference and journalists would ask about, you know, the the cooling jobs numbers, he would say, "This is all good. jobs market was way too hot. This is just normalizing. We don't see anything that worries us, right? Everything's fine. And and even in the last couple of of um press conferences, you know, a couple journalists have really tried to push back and say, you know, this isn't really mapping to what we're hearing from people in the real world. And Pal was like, "No, you know, everything we're seeing so far looks pretty good." And then all of a sudden, Jackson Hole comes and he he says, "Oops, you know, actually this labor market looks weaker than we thought." in in the um revised statement today, you know, in the red line, um I think they basically said that uh the the the balance of risks have now shifted to a weakening job market. Essentially saying we're we're more worried about where the job how the job market could weaken from here than we are about how inflation might strengthen from here. Right. And so, um, I guess my question for you here, uh, Axel, is the Fed, I mean, it seems to be the weakening jobs market is in the driver's seat here in terms of what the Fed's paying attention to now and and what it's basing its policy decisions on. Is the Fed do you think now maybe becoming a little bit nervous that that maybe they have been behind the curve and you know now they're predicting more rate cuts ahead and it's not that dissimilar from the movie that we've seen many times in the past where the Fed hikes stays high for too long and then starts chasing the curve down with cuts. >> Yes. But there's a whole bunch of stuff going on. First of all, you mentioned in August at Jackson he he kind of projected about the rate cuts. As you might recall, he had set forward guidance is dead. Yet, that's exactly what he gave in Jackson. He all but pre-announced the rate cut in August, which is most inappropriate. Um, because that was before the September jobs report even came in, right? And so, what is that all about? And by the way, you have all these uh potential g candidates to succeed him. um if they want a job, they they have to jump onto the bandwagon and say, "Yeah, we should be cutting rates." Right. Right. Um but of course, it's uh it's a little bit they they shouldn't just jump to that. The the the next one is um are they behind the curve? Well, they're always behind the curve. Um and that's kind of the nature of the beast. They just think that they have the luxury to do that. Um but of course, they're relying on very stale economic data. They've obviously been exceedingly criticized. um and they haven't really undertaken a lot of efforts to rely more on real time data. But the the broader point that's missing in your question I think is the fact that we're talking about this at all because for those of you old enough um under Greenspan for example there was a clear dogma that you worry about inflation. The best way to achieve maximum employment is to have stable prices with stable prices being defined as 2% inflation. >> Mhm. >> Whereas after Bernagi with Yellen in particular with uh with Powell as well um he has been talking up the dual mandate quite extensively. Now, of course, it's the letter of the law that you worry about the the the jobs market as well. Other central banks um don't have that dual mandate. And by the way, Madame Lagard in her recent press conference, the the head of the ECB also talked about being more focused on the jobs market, which is even more inappropriate for the ECB because it is not part of the mandate. >> It doesn't have an official mandate for it. Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. But um but the the traditional view, the classic view is that you worry about inflation, the job market is going to take care of itself. and the power Fed, and this is the power Fed that endorsed the backwardlooking inflation targeting um averaging, right? That that got us into the mess that we had in the first place is now saying, "Ah, we don't inflation. Yeah, there are inflationary pressures, but let we're not worry about inflation because the job market is even worse." I mean, that sounds to me like Arthur Burns in the 1970s. And that's like using a a four-letter word in in in fet because nobody ever wants to be compared to Arthur Burns, right? >> But he he pretty much said we are facing a stagflationary pressures. He did not use that word. Um and he's going to cut rates in on the backdrop of that, right? And so that is I mean it's of course all fine for the administration to to criticize him but it is not fine for the Federal Reserve to give into that because they must focus on inflation. Now, they can argue, hey, inflation is under control, but but why is it? And what they're doing is they're saying, oh, inflation expectations are anchored. But you're you're mixing up the chicken and the egg here, right? Because the the reason inflation expectations are anchored is because the expectation is that the Federal Reserve will do the right thing. You cannot do it the other way around and saying, "Hey, let's see what we get away with. how much can we kind of boost the economy with lower rates, hope that inflation is not going to go out of whack. Uh, and the sea change that's happened here is that of course we've talked before how how power was haunted by the 1970s and had this high of a longer environment for a very long time, but at some point has declared victory. Um and indeed again parallel to to the ECB Lagard in many ways has declared victory as well because if you look at the ECB there's no rate change on the horizon whatsoever. It's one of the reasons why the dollar has been so weak because there's no rate cut plan at the ECB. They're much lower already. But the the argument is that the inflationary pressures have dissipated. He uses very fancy words there. Um in the US they haven't dissipated. We have high inflation, continue to have high inflation, and we're cutting. Now, you can argue the argument you should make if you want to cut rates given the framework they have is that um we were quite restrictive and we are much less restrictive now. We don't know exactly where it is on the easing side, but we still have to be slightly on the restrictive side because inflationary pressures are high. We just don't want to be quite as restrictive. So that argument I think would be the appropriate argument. Whereas what he says is eh we don't worry about inflation so much because the economy is getting so weak and he says that based on data revisions um and rather than than concurrent data I mean this is literally something that the data nerds are doing based on some statistical method which by the way is available to the public and so anybody else could run those numbers too. This is it's it's a it's a process to to rebalance those numbers. It's not that they go back a year ago and and then interview more people from a year ago to get to a new job number. >> Okay. Let me ask you this, Axel. From from your perch, when you're looking at the economy and inflation, what do you think? What are you seeing? I mean, most of the people I talk to say, look, um the economy is slowing. Most the data suggests that um people are still kind of divided on inflation. Um, I think most people who have been concerned about like sustainably high inflation from here often cite the tariffs and that they think the tariffs are going to be inflationary. But, you know, we we don't know the end of this story yet. But they certainly don't seem to be as as inflationary at least in terms of prices as I think folks feared in April. um you know so so some I can understand the argument that like well look as as long as tariffs continue to not prove to be that inflationary and the economy slows inflation may just take care of itself may not have a problem getting to 2% the next >> one one of the one of the things Paul said and I think there he's right based on where we are with these different drivers it would be surprising if there weren't any disagreement and divergent views on how this is going to play out so in that sense is very honest right because reason people can disagree now economy is anybody's guess how all of this is going to play out there a lot of things in terrorists that haven't gone through the system yet um the one thing I have seen and if if you ask me about my vantage point if you're a business that doesn't know what the heck is going on um because tariffs up this is up this policy changes well you're going to control what you can and that's exactly what happens Um, a lot of these companies have been controlling costs and have been cutting layers of middle management and that has been boosting profitability. Now, might be nice for the earnings, it's not so great for the consumer spending power because when you get rid of middle management and whatnot and for the first time um, ever potentially, right, we do have a really IT job type of recession where IT workers are are having difficult time finding jobs. So we've just generated too many of these these folks. Um but at the same time we also we seem to be back to this K-shaped economy for those who who have means are doing just fine. asset prices are very high and and so retail sales especially I highend seem to be just doing fine whereas the folks who actually have to work for a living um they are not doing so fine I mean you can argue about how poorly they're doing and they're doing all right but there is some some stress on that on that side of the system overall the economic data are a mess it wasn't helped by the various job cutting efforts that the data crunch show us that the folks that you literally have people going to the shops and compare the the price of goods today versus a month ago and looking for very specific things. Um they were short staffed, right? Um and so but the the the the bigger structural issue is that the Fed is looking at at very stale data and I I think I've mentioned it on um on on your on thoughtful money here that the reason why the jobs report is so valuable is not that it is so accurate. It is because it is so timely. It is an amazing insight into the economy um on a very timely basis. uh it's about I think it's the third week of the month where the survey is taken and the data is released at the end of the first week of of the first month. Um and that is super timely and the the the important thing here is that the methodology is known and then anybody can interpret how flawed it is and you can give it a political spin if you want to. Um but a perfect number with three months delay is much less valuable. A revision a year later is is nice political talk but it's it should be irrelevant almost for for policym >> but it's not because referenced it right. >> Yeah. Well um all right so um you know where to go from here. So uh two things. One I just want to show two charts. One because I promised I would. Um here is the dot plot. Um, and >> by the way, before before you move on, because it takes a while for people to to absorb that, >> the entire the yellow dots all over the place, right? They're from the top to the bottom. This is this is not a uniform view. And uh, yes, by the end of 2028, you have a few things kind of zooming in, but look at 2027. Like, it's everywhere, right? Um and and so it's uh and and even at the end of 20 26 it's everywhere even at the end of 25 um you have somebody yeah then I run cut there right um but the but you have you have people who want to have a rate hike right um by the end of the year so it's it's all over the place and it it reflects that tension that's in the market and what it needs I think um Kevin Wer I've mentioned mentioned I think several times um former Fed governor one of the candidates he says when there is uncertainty and when where there is mistrust in the market you've got to go back to basics and that's how you regain trust rather than throwing out ever more things about what you could possibly do um and changing your argument as to why you're doing things. Um, it makes for good sound bites, but it is not healthy for the markets. And and and to to maybe take a step back as to why I'm such a nitpicker with this stuff. It's it's because these things matter. These things matter because the you have trillions of dollars priced off the risk-free rate and of the projection where that will be. And when there is no anchoring of of what that process is, there is more volatility in the forecast and that leads to worse prices. It leads to more expensive policy as well. And so the reason why quote unquote sound monetary policy is a thing because it's ultimately the best stimulus for the economy to have things that are managed properly. And so this is not supposed to be a a job where you're in the headlines all the time and so forth. It's one of the reasons why telling sometimes, hey, if you have nothing to say, don't say something, right? Um but any case, so um the the main message here on these dots is that if you're confused, well then you're paying attention because you you circled something to make it a little bit clearer. But yeah, that's take something from a few years ago and you have much less divergence. So, um, okay. So, totally agree with you. Um, although I think what we can take from this chart is that the current FOMC board expects there to be more rate cuts coming in the next year and a quarter, right? >> And and so does the market. Um, for for what it's worth, right? If I look at the the market that's usually more accurate than the Fed or might be leading, we have >> um I'm stuttering here because I um >> you're pulling up the data. I'm I'm going to guess a minimum of three well two more cuts this year now that this has been made. >> No, I I see something that's that's what am I doing wrong here? Um we're not going to have five cuts in October. What is Bloomberg has some data? Bloomberg tells me five rights great cuts are cut priced in for the next meeting. >> That is not right. Of course it's not right. So let me >> as much as would want that >> as much as he would want that. So that's based on Fed's future. So there sometimes there are some oddities. By the way, one thing we haven't talked about is we have what's called quadruple witching on Friday. Um and so that could well have something to do with that. But if you go not to the futures market but to overnight index swaps which is a fancy way of an alternative way of looking at these things um there is a um 87% chance of a rate cut um for October and December it is um it is 1.8 eight rate cuts and then little over two in January, about three by March next year, and you got to go out to June next year to have almost four rate cuts. Um, and I'm I'm using a this is a different way of of looking at implied rates here right now. Um, but the whatever Bloomberg has on the futures was priced in is completely out of whack. And I think that probably has to do with expiring futures that haven't been low yet. >> Okay. But let let me just take away from this that right now the Fed and the markets are kind of predicting, you know, maybe like a a 3.0% um federal funds rate by the middle of next year. And again, you know, this this will change. Um but a couple things. First off, um, could we make the argument that that the this is this is this is the dot plot of the current FOMC board, but if Lisa Cook gets replaced, um, Pal is going to get replaced uh, pretty soon here. So, this could potentially become even more doubbish if those replacements, >> you don't need any of that to happen to be more dobbish. Historically, if as we talked about, right, the Fed is late. It's not the first time, it won't be the last time. Historically, if the economy does weaken in a more pronounced way, we will see more pronounced rate cuts, right? And and even I mean, as Paul said, what's priced in in the dot plots is 25% more doubbish for December than it was three months ago. And bec because new when the information changes the Fed will change its outlook. So everything is always always hunky dory until it is not. So if the economy does plunge into a recession I am certain that this is going to be more dobbish the outlook. So regardless of who is going to be at the Fed and I I want to separate that because if it is not because of the pressures that that are coming in from the outside necessarily. You do want to now clearly it is super important who the next F fed share is going to be, right? Um but and and if you have somebody come in who says, "Oh, we need to have five rate cuts now by December and uh you make his job at the Council of Economic Advisors dependent on him being super dovish." Um then then then clearly yes that more things could get out of whack. If that were to happen, we would see much more volatility in the market and we talked about the price of silver and gold. They they have then more potential for volatility and upside if that were to happen. But but yes, we can and and one of the things Bess and the Treasury Secretary said is the Fed is almost always wrong and he's absolutely right. Right. Um, but that's part of the design that they'll then play catchup to to whatever it is and they only worry about the carb of the day. >> Okay. So, I I I think you more or less validated my point, which was there's kind of two two barrels of the shotgun here, which is, hey, things that the Fed are reflexive. So if the data continues to worsen, yes, they're going to get more doubbish, but also there is a chance that more doubbishly minded, you know, Fed governors could could or executives could get on the board. Um, so we, you know, TBD, but but we have the mix of both, but the key but the key difference is that if the market if the economy weakens, then the rate cut expectations are going to increase obviously, right? If we have more dobbish folks at the Fed, it will have a greater impact throughout the yield curve because that means the market will start pricing in that that the Fed is less focused on inflation which will push inflation expectations and long-term borrowing rates. And so that is why there's a key difference as to what the composition of the Fed is. And as Paul points out, hey, there are 18 people on the table now. Not all of them are voting, but all the governors are voting. and then a rotation of some presidents that is voting and so we'll we'll have to see and and clearly if I mean Trump has now put in place somebody who appears to not just talk dobbishly but be dobbish and so the question is how much influence that camp is going to have. >> Okay. All right. And great clarification there on how that that is more likely more doubbish personnel is more likely to impact and can we talk a little bit about kind of executive and the Fed and Lisa Cook and so forth because talked about it with a lot of people, but I I do want to >> Yeah. No, I'd love I'd love to hear your thoughts and then just in your answer if you can also include your thoughts on what you just referred to, which was I think there was an op-ed that uh that Treasury Secretary Basant wrote recently kind of excoriating the Fed. And so would love to get your thoughts on that too. >> Yes. So I' I've heard him talk about things. I didn't read that specific opet, but there's a difference between specifically criticizing the approach that the Fed has, but he's gone beyond that and called for rate cuts and and other things, which historically had been a taboo, right? It's it's what and it's a new thing for the administration as well. It was that the president talked and uh about the Fed. The Treasury Secretary historically does not talk about monetary policy explicitly. Um now clearly if you want to change the conduct at the Fed that's a discussion to be had but it is it is an escalation of the interference and so step by step there is more stepping on it and and just for those who don't know know my view on that the reason why I there are many things at the Fed I don't like that need reform but it is not good for a credible voice no matter who that is to interfere with Fed policy. because it makes Fed policy more expensive. And the example I like to give is when there's a crisis or something to be done, the Fed chair can say a few words and the market takes that input and prices that in. If that input gets questioned by some by by an outsider, that means rather than saying a few words, the Fed may actually need to do things, take out the bazooka. And so it makes monetary policy more expensive, it increases the cost of borrowing. And that's why interference isn't good. Now, of course, the challenge is there are structural issues with how the Fed operates and you got to be able to talk about it. And the political process is playing out, of course, not in an ideal world, but in in the messy world of politics. But let me let me pivot here to to kind of the attack on Lisa Cook. For those of you who have followed it, they may have heard that the appeals court kind of rejected the um her dismissal. It's going to like to go to the Supreme Court and the it was a 2:1 decision and uh it was a bit technical, but I looked specifically for two for for one thing and both sides made that argument, opposing sides. And the short of it is that the the folks who rejected um the dismissal the for cause that that the Fed is different that it is not an exe in the ex power of the executive the dissenting judge said hey the president nominates the Fed chair it's then the consent is given by the senate and so of course the president can also fire her argument I have is the institutional one that the constitution clearly states that it is the power of congress and not the executive to regulate money. And uh the reason is that Mr. Madison was very concerned that if the president has the power to tax and regulate money that there's too much power in the executive. Obviously president is also putting in place tariffs and whatnot. It's obviously the same arena. But if the president has influence over monetary policy that is stepping way beyond what at least the framers had in mind. >> Now I'm not saying Congress necessarily doing its job properly but it is Congress that should supervise the Fed. And of course, the Fed is reporting to Congress. And in my view, the president shouldn't even be allowed to dismiss somebody for cause. It should be Congress that should impeach somebody at the Fed if they were to misbehave. Um, and by muddling those war waters, it's it's it's very. So the the Supreme Court also when they struck down the doctrine that kind of the administrative state can just balloon without the executive interfering they did raise at the time a carve out hey the Fed may be different. Um and they didn't tackle that too much because that wasn't on their plate and it's going to be super interesting to see how the the the the um the Supreme Court is going to decide on that when it comes to it. the the danger is always that the folks who decide on these things don't understand all the nuances. >> Um it does appear that this particular nuance is being trumped up, no pun intended, and so the people will make a a conscious decision on it. But it it goes to the and the the issue is is is is always that for those who like the policies of this administration, always keep in mind somebody else is going to be in that position down the road, right? It's about the president rather saying the same reason why it's not helpful for for Iran to serve on the Fed. It's not that he's going to cause any harm over the next six months by by dissenting today. It's the president that he sets and the next president who might be who knows who that is, right? Um might do things and take that yet to another level. >> And so it's it's it's that sort of framework that I think >> I'd like to remind people of anyway. Okay. Yeah. My my my comments on this and I I don't know, you know, the um governance of the Fed as well as you do, Axel. Um but um I I do share um Madison's concerns, but but also, you know, we we've had a couple other FOMC members who were guilty of of at least the appearance of impropriy. Um, I'm thinking of Clarita and some of the, you know, the recent sort of like, you know, what might be considered to be insider trading and as as far as I recall that the Fed kind of cleaned up its own mess there, right, where, you know, the they stepped down or pal had a private conversation with them. And so here, I think that the Fed chair should be the one kind of running the, you know, investigation of wrongdoing about somebody in the Fed and making the decision to get rid of them. Because if if if a president can just get rid of anybody at the Fed, you know, for whatever reason, then what power does the Fed chair have? The Fed just becomes a proxy of the administration at that point in time. >> Yeah. I mean, it's and of course there are no perfect answers. Just as a reminder, the code of ethics at the Supreme Court, right, the court makes that up themselves and that's been of course being debated about what sort of standards they should hold and and nobody is supervising them. Well, it's because it's a separate branch and and the Fed being this semiautonomous um function is is of course an odd structure and most notably the fact that the the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is supposed to be under the Fed is is an outrage, right? because you're you're stuffing things in there that to to protect it from executive influence, right? So, you're um you're using you're using some designs for that they're not intended to be that way and the Supreme Court even let it stand, right? They there I'm sorry I'm digressing here, but there we're of course not in a in a perfect world. Um in this particular case with Lisa Coke, I mean there there are lots of questions is first how did that come out to the public in the first place, right? So clearly somebody dug into data that um maybe shouldn't have. Um but to the extent that there might have been wrongdoing, yeah, of course it should be investigated. Um it does appear and this might have gone under a little bit. Um this is listed as a second home and there are other reports and filings where it was second home. So was that a mistake? Was it not a mistake? Was it was it criminal intent? Does it matter in the context of monetary policy? Um, it is very important. I would fully agree that the the appearance of misconduct is is is important that that that doesn't happen. And I I talked to a um former federal official at some point many years ago and he told me that even when he hired a gardener, this was way before immigration was a hot potato. this was like in the 80s, early 90s. Um, he would make double sure that this person has a work permit because by holding public office, he's held to a high standard, >> right? >> And he needs to not just trust that this is going to be all right. Um, he needs to make double sure and and so having and by all means that has been watered down. Um, you've seen the trading activity from something. So, so there's a reason why there's a backlash, right? um and to just say, "Okay, well, yeah, maybe she cheated and she can stay anyway because the president can't fire her." Well, that's not good enough either, right? And so it's a and and of course, this is the political season like it always is. And so people are are rightfully saying, "Hey, what the hell is happening here?" Um, it's a it's and the fact that this has gotten so political is the Fed's own fault because ever since 2008, the Fed has stepped onto fiscal policy. As a reminder, monetary policy is about setting interest rates. You can argue it's about the credit growth, but it is not about allocating resources within the economy. And the Fed has done many such things notably during the pandemic as well. Giving direct credit to consumers favoring certain consumers over others. These are all fiscal policy sort of things for which elected official are responsible. And so it is no surprise that then the political side is interfering with that side because if you step on that turf you're going to get backlash. The other thing is of course that when fiscal finances are out of order, there's a natural temptation to increase pressure on the Fed. Um, which is of course not necessarily the Fed's fault, but good monetary policy is only possible when fiscal when the fiscal house is in order. And I only need to mention Mario Draghi with his whatever it takes, right? when push comes to shove um monetary policy is is subjugated right to to what the fiscal side is doing um and the independence is only goes so far uh but it doesn't mean that one can't fight for proper institutional processes and I'm doing my thing with your hugely influential um audience to to tell them that we should heed Mr. Madison, who's had some good ideas when he helped put this constitution together. >> All right. Well, very much appreciate you doing that. So, actually, let me let me get it down more to the practical here. So, um again, I didn't watch the um I haven't yet watched the the Palace press conference, but did did the Fed alter the pace of QT in any way? And were there any other >> they they little bit of dimming? He was asked about it. Why do you still reduce it while they they they don't want to talk about QT because it's they don't know what to do with the balance sheet. They know they want to raise the balance sheet when when when there's a crisis, but they otherwise they don't really want to talk about it. They said they want to they continue to stay in Apple reserve environment. They're only reducing it by a little bit, but apparently it's larger than they want it to be. I mean, it's a again, right, you got to you got to dig deeper. You got to clear clean up streamline the regulatory environment so you know where the limit is and that may never be possible because there too many regulatory bodies on too many different types of institutions. I happen to think you should get rid of this entire exit reserve regime because it it only creates a mess and this is but one of them which by the way as I think you've communicated is you literally pay billions to the banks right in this environment paying interest on reserves again a political hot potato why on earth um does the Fed which is a club of banks pay itself billions right and and and >> I understand why it does the question is why should be allowed to. But yes. >> Yes. And and and of course the banks still make money in in the in the traditional environment where the Fed intervenes to set the funds rate. But those are just basic mistakes of politics. If you want to stay out of politics, get rid of this stuff. And the folks at the Fed that are more academics than anything else um just don't get it right. And again, the interference, I may have issues with the interference, but there there's a reason for it. and you got to get rid of the the causes on that side as well. And so there's a lot that the Fed can do. I don't expect the lame duck Fed president, a Fed chair to do that, though. >> Okay. Um All right. Were Were there any other surprises coming out of the press conference? >> Now you're quitting me of how well I paid attention. I like >> Did Did you hear anything where you were like, "Oh, I that's news to me." Well, the the big thing I I pointed out is that by trumping the the employment mandate as explicitly as he did, he went into Arthur Burns territory because he had the same sentence almost said inflationary pressures are are concern, right? And so he I was surprised that the market didn't react more to that. Um, other than that, I mean, you saw on the dot plot, right? We now have a Miran dot there at the end of the year that that says much lower rates. The the thing that's I mean, the surprising thing is always the stuff that's not set that there is he he talked about the five-year review that the five-year review was some word tweaking on on their outlook. They haven't done a proper review and a deep assessment of what's gone wrong. And so none of that stuff has happened. And so what what I'm looking for is that when the next Fed chair is to be announced, whether that is a person who can actually reform the Fed, the sort of things to to to go back to basics. And and by the way, we um a former Fed president, Charlie Pla, the former Philly Fed president, he passed away um a few weeks ago and he was >> I hadn't heard unfortunately. Yeah. No, it wasn't. It it was announced at some point on Bloomberg. was he was somebody who his health had been rather poor for an extended period. Um but even so in the I I last saw him in May at the Hoover Institution at the monetary policy conference and he was on a panel and uh despite not being well he he was there on a panel and arguing and doing things and one of the big things he had was simile go back to basics the Fed should be doing less um and it's there's so many duties and mandates at the Fed it just creates problems and uh and he is absolutely right and So when when you have a mess, you you try to think about, well, what are you good at? Or you could argue you're good at nothing. Maybe you get rid of the bed, but but what can you do within within the law, right? I mean, obviously, Congress can change and say certain things. Um, but within the mandate, there's a lot that can be done to improve the decision-making process. um and and the communication process, right? I mean, the folks at the Fed say, "Hey, we can't control what the Fed president says here and there. They're independent." The word at the top does matter. If if if the chair says behave yourself, talk less, talk more substance. Don't comment on the markets. Uh but one one of the things he was asked is, "Hey, do you are you worried that a rate cut would induce a stock market bubble?" And uh like any fed share would he he punted that question and said they are focused on the on the dual mandate. And it's it's one of the things that on the one hand and and Greensman of course tried it with his irrational exuberance. On the one hand when a bubble at least to some people is apparent. It is of course in the eye of the beholder. And if they were to pop a bubble they're again getting out of their mandate, right? they're focus supposed to focus on inflation and inflation is not defined at at the value of the S&P 500. Now, my own take on that is that there's a backdoor way to to do that because one of the things the Fed cares about is financing conditions. And so when credit conditions are too tight, which is a very common association with a bubble, you could tight monitor conditions and that would be consistent with with their work. >> Okay. All right, Axel, I've got um got three at least three big questions to ask you. We don't have a ton of time left, so we're going to have to start going in a little bit of lightning round even though these are big questions. Um, so I'm going to put up this image that I've been showing a lot recently, which is the um, unemployment rate mapped against the federal funds rate with recessions shaded here in gray. And the key thing to take away from this is that um in almost every cycle in the past 75 years when the employment rate has bottomed out and started rising it is then spiked up into the next recession. Similarly, the federal funds rate after a hiking regime and the Fed has then you know held rates steady for a while and then starts to cut again. That tends to be right when we enter the next recession and the Fed is panic cutting. So here in 2025, we are seeing that we're sort of at the cusp of both of those trends. And so my question for you is um especially with the Fed guiding more rate cuts ahead here, you know, substantial number of rate cuts ahead here um is history about to repeat itself and if not, what's a compelling reason why it shouldn't? Well, I answered the question earlier when I said the Fed is going to cut most vigorously no matter who is at the Fed should economic data deteriorate, right? And that's exactly what this chart is showing that um they everything is hunky dory until it does not. And uh it's because the Fed act slowly, Fed policy acts with a lag. And so when the economy does weaken in earnest, well, they they better hurry up and wait, right? I mean, they they're going to they're going to move more more decisively. And it is I mean I talked about Greenspan before um is it skill or is it luck? I mean he was the maestro right to anticipate certain things and and so where you don't have to do these if you've just pulled it up again the um if you look at the green span years we um it was in in many ways there in the a a smoother process much of the time here. um and the we had the the hikes here and then we were even and so he was able to navigate things much more. But of course the one thing that happened then is we introduced the Fed put in earnest and now everybody is going to going to know that they're going to be bailed out if they just gear themselves up high enough so that they become a systemic risk. >> Okay. But it sort of sounds like and and taken from you is is we should probably expect history to repeat here um more likely than not. >> Yes. And I I I see that in other markets as well, right? I mean, we we started out joking about your your your silver coins. Um as as most of your listeners presumably know, precious metals have done very well. And uh the the one thing that usually is that where history hasn't repeat itself, at least not yet, is historically when precious metals do as well as they do now, the rest of the market might not be doing as well. And of course, currently we have a little bit more of a quote unquote everything going up. Um and and so that is that is a little different. Now, of course, we also have this recession that has never happened partially. The one thing that's different from the past is that the Fed is ever more micromanaging the economy. Mentioned false money before like banks mismanage interest rate risk and the banks get bailed out. Well, in a normal environment, the banks fail and you have a recession. But if you provide a safety net to the banks that have mismanaged and give a put option on that side, yeah, the economy is going to do better than previously priced in. >> Mhm. >> Right. if you change the rules of the game. Of course, that happens. >> Okay. Um I'm going to move on to the next question here, but real quick, just because you brought it up several times. I'm going to show people what we talked about when this was when I created the silver eyes that Axel was initially reacting to. And then here's what the uh follower created on X was the laser beams coming out. And yeah, you know what? If if if that top ticks silver, um I apologize everybody. >> I will continue to tease you and uh I Yes. Yes. Yes. >> I I'm I'm just trying to show the metal. The only reason I forgive you for that if if it were for me to give you in the first place is that you have moved to Nevada which is the silver state and so >> Yes. Well, thank you very much. >> It is it is okay in that sense. Yes. >> And I should note too that when I first put the silver eyes up, silver was at 45 uh sorry, silver futures were at $35 an ounce as of you know well yesterday they were at $43. >> But I cannot forive that you keep mentioning the futures price. You of all people should be mentioning the spot price, not the futures price. >> Well, the real thing and not the derivative. >> Yeah, I I just I Yahoo Finance is my quick check for everything and they post the silver futures price there. >> I'm I'm just giving you a hard time. >> I know you're But it's it's it's somewhat welld deserved, so don't worry. Um all right, so in terms of market reaction to this latest FOMC release and then Pal's comments kind of muted. Um you know, it's the indices didn't really go anywhere. um the the 10 year went up a little bit. >> Sorry. >> Of course, it's a question of of scaling, but um put up I don't know whether you can put up an intraday chart of the of the 10 year and it's not exactly fair because the range isn't so high, but um but yes, the 10 year ticked higher, right? I mean, we were we were at 402 or so in the beginning of the day and we ended the day at 409 on the 10 year. Yeah, I'm working on that. >> Yeah. And by the way, the one thing that since we last talked has come down extensively is the 10-year real yield at 169 right now. Now, many in your audience don't believe in 10ear real yields because nobody on earth knows what the real yield will be over 10 years. But those are important market measures of what the market thinks um will happen and changes in that affect affect other asset prices. Um the the price of gold and equity is kind of shot higher and then it fizzled out. Um gold ended the day um ended the day down right down I think 30 bucks on the day right now on the spot market actually futures market as well. >> Yeah. It was up a tiny bit and then it just Yeah. dropped 30ucks now. Yeah. And and by the way we've had of course an amazing rally and keep in mind this week which we haven't talked about. It's not just the Fed that's meeting. Everybody and their dog has a central bank meeting. Um, you know, my dog barking. We had the Bank of Canada. We have tomorrow the the the Norwegian Central Bank. We have the the Japanese central bank. We have all kinds of stuff happening. The the um the Brits have an interest rate decision tomorrow as well. And then we have a major expiration on Friday. Many times these days they don't have as much of a market impact anymore, but it really depends on on where prices are relative to to to for example your options market. If there's a lot of money and one is near there, you can have dramatic volatility there. And so in some ways, you need to wait to next week to see where things will settle. um when a lot of these things are through and and and specifically also we we've had finally some speculative buildup in in precious metals and whether that will persist or whether that that will come off and then so I'm I'm already looking at next week. >> All right. And that's a good segue into the last major question here which is the precious metals. So, um, they've continued to have a great run, um, this year, um, and since our last your last appearance here, Axel. Um, gold up more or less close to 40% for the year. Silver up a little bit more. The miners themselves, GDX, uh, up, uh, about 100%. Um, so obviously hopefully a great year for the the Merc funds in those spaces. Um uh I guess first off anything material is said today by the Fed that should have implications for the precious metals and then two just given their performances here how you feeling about their per their their potent price performance going forward still pretty bullish are we you know is is a pullback merited here what do you think >> so first to just give an idea um you talked about us right we we manage gold and gold miners we are at uh around 2.9 billion in assets under management and a year ago we were at 1.5 billion >> oh congratulations almost double >> that gives you that gives you an indication that um and usually when these things are doing that well the rest of the market is not doing well and I I joke that I want to buy a new toy but I expensive one and I'm waiting for a recession to come because that's going to make that easier. Um I lost my train of thought on your question though. You you the outlook. Yeah. >> Um so the outlook though is I I mentioned right the speculators that have been more with the meme stocks and crypto and whatnot. Some of them are kind of starting to embrace gold and golden miners again. Uh nobody knows how long that can last but that tends mostly to exacerbate volatility. Um, historically there have always been gold miners in recent years they have always been speculators in recent years they haven't been around as much. On the mining side what is stunning to me is that even though we've had this major move up the juniors that historically often have an exacerbated move and move with a lag, >> they have kept up or even slightly lagged but they haven't outperformed. And uh to me that is a sign that uh this this wave is not over. Um now I'm not making a market prediction and this is highly speculative play. So don't just start buying stuff based on on my feedback here. But if history is any guide then we might see substantially more in that space. the two of the uh well there was well one smaller and one major conference of the year in the gold mining sector just took place and there appears to be significant discipline still in this market when capital is raised these unit companies often used to raise money um they are quite reasonable and sensible with the cost b they don't assume that we going to have $3500 an ounce gold to be profitable and and similar valuations in in these capital raises for the most part what I see continues to be reasonable. Now, there's a bullish atmosphere. In previous years, there wasn't. So, we're certainly not in the first inning, right? We're not coming out of the high of a longer environment where was super tough. But it is and you never quite know how long these funding windows are open. Um, but it seems to me that um we are we are not at the end of this this development. And in the context of the Fed meeting, there was really no sign that that we should be because the Fed is concerned about weaker growth but keeps rates somewhat high. Um but at the same time isn't 100% committed to inflation. So historically that's a good environment to be in precious metals. Although of course I like to caution anybody, right? I mean the how much is the price of gold up here today when you get that in >> around 40%. >> It's a Yes. 39.4. 45% as we're speaking here on Wednesday evening. Um, by the way, the one thing I'd like to mention if I I compared it on on my chart here to the G10 currencies, this the best performing G10 currency is the Swedish crona which is up 19% year to date. And what's noteworthy about that currency is as a percentage of GDP, Sweden has the highest percentage of defense um spending. So military equipment, things like that. And Europe, as most people know, wants or needs to spend more on defense. So there are other reasons why these countries um are have currencies that may be be strong is because there's a lot of money being invested or spent on these sort of things. um of course doesn't necessarily explain why the price of gold is so high, but um unlike other central banks, the um the Fed is far more pronounced in in easing mode. And uh it's uh it's it's quite incredible how um the ECB in particular is is just about done with it coming. If I'm just pulling up here, um, in July of next year, we might be having a little bit less than half a 25 basis point cut. Now, that is how much is priced in. Nothing in the Euro zone, right? Compared to all these rate cuts here. And as we're talking, we're at 118 in the in the euro. The the euro is down half a cent for the day. Um, but again, this is all in the backdrop, of course, that the dollar has weakened quite significantly. Do you expect the dollar to continue to weaken then given given those expectations? >> Well, it's all relative to what's priced in, right? And so, of course, how much more will happen is is is anybody's guess. I do know that the eur when you talk about the dollar, it's often versus the euro because at least versus the the dollar index that just has an outsized waiting and in I mean they're spending a gazillion on things. So if you take Germany, one of the stories that was just out, in order to get the 500 billion approved to spend on the military on the defense spending, they needed to tell the social democrats that we're going to spend 500 million on infrastructure. And so now some data diggers have come out, you're increasing the the infrastructure spending, but you're not taking that from the additional 500 million pot. You're using the 500 billion euros infrastructure money to stuff deficit holes elsewhere. So nobody should be shocked by that. Politics as usual anywhere in the world. But basically the Germany is going to spend a trillion alone. And I mentioned Sweden and other countries, right? They're going to spend a lot. So all that pushes economic growth in some ways um pushes growth more in Europe because they are fiscally more expansionary. We can be criticizing that the Fed, the US doesn't get its fiscal house in order, but still relatively speaking, we might be cutting back on some of the spending. And so the money and then we have the tariffs. I've argued that tariffs inhibit financial flows, right? It's one of the reasons why long-term borrowing roads are higher. So all of that is a red flag for the dollar, but I don't know what the dollar is going to do tomorrow. The dollar has weakened so much that it anything can happen. Um my own guess is and I pointed to the the Wall Street Journal article that said oh everybody should have a small allocation to gold based on that article is that what used to be fringe views is moving more to the mainstream and because the the precious metals market is not that huge. You don't need that much money being reallocated to have a significant impact. And that's partially why why gold is up so much this year. But I I would think that could play out for several years potentially anyway. >> Okay. All right. Well, look, we got to start wrapping it up here. I guess the last question for you, Axel, is just looking as an investor, as a capital manager, um not not just precious metals, but just the markets writ large here. Um when you look back at at comparable times in history um highly richly valued assets um you know uh slowing economy weakening labor market Fed that's starting a cutting regime likely um you know as you look out to the next say 6 months um from an investing standpoint you know what are you thinking now clearly it see seems that that you think okay precious metals still pretty good to have as a part of your portfolio here um but what about what about other assets >> well it's about the risk you can afford to take right you ask me how precious metals are going to do I have my views the question is can you take the risk of that volatility right because something that's up 40% year today can also go down 40% or more right and and while I don't that's not my baseline you got to take that risk scenario into account and when he asked me right what what parallel in history. Um well 1999 comes to mind except precious metals were rock bottom in 1999. Um it is very very difficult to um to time the top of a bubble. More money is invested in AI than has been the place ever since the investment in in railways. Right? These are huge amounts of money that are being spent. When is that going to fizzle out? It's difficult to say, right? I mean if you if you go back if into 9798 right the irrational exuberance speech was in 97 >> right >> and we went all the way to 2000 to to get to the peak in the markets >> and so I am not going to sit here and say hey the market are going to pop tomorrow they what what you want to do is you want to crisis check shock test your portfolio and whether you're comfortable with the sort of risk that happen and then the one reminder I like to give people as a 2008 example that some people called the low in March of 2009 in the market, but it would have been irresponsible to double down on that if you were overallocated to equities on the way up, right? The prudent thing would have been to to kind of rebalance your portfolio, take some chips off the table, and then when markets are down, do the Warren Buffett thing. Then you have market money to allocate. And so it's say look at what I like to encourage people is look at it from a riskmanagement point of view can you afford the risk to be in the market. Um if you if you say I cannot afford the risk not to be in the market that's a terrible reason to be in the market which means you should be you should be focus more on your expenses then >> and and let me just note on that Axel that you know the the month we're speaking year we're speaking um US investors have a higher percentage exposure to equities than they ever have and the cohort that has the highest amount of of the total is the people who were basically at retirement age. >> Yeah. And and by the way, in in the Netherlands, I think they're just changing the the pensions plan system that they're going to invest in equities and they actually they're warning about systemic shocks as as they're reallocating a fixed income portfolio to to an equity portfolio. And I think in Switzerland, the central bank has continued to invest in equities and and whatnot. So there's all kinds of stuff happening that that I don't think is very prudent. I don't think pension funds that government pension funds should be investing in on the equity side of things, but that's a discussion for another day. >> Let me let me let me just mention let me get your reaction to this and then we'll we'll wrap things up here. Um unless your dog wants to uh answer this. >> Yeah, he he he wants he chimes in on monetary policy. I told you everybody in the dog is chiming in. >> I can tell he's very passionate about it. Um okay, on August 7th, this this is something that was sent to me, so I haven't spent time to really bet it yet, folks. So, take this with a grain of salt. On August 7th, 2025, Trump signed an executive order titled Democratizing Access to Alternative Assets for 401k investors. It directs the Department of Labor, the Treasury, the SEC, and other agencies to re-examine and clarify rules around what alternative asset fiduciaries uh are allowed to offer to participants. Alternative assets are broadly defined as private equity and debt, real estate, digital assets, commodities, which would include gold. So the question is is um you know what what are the implications of this right I mean you could make an argument oh my goodness uh we could see a ton of new capital go into some of these markets private equity commodities I'm sure the private equity folks have probably been lobbying the president hard for this um I know we probably have some concerns about whether the risk is appropriate especially in people's retirement accounts but what do you think >> yeah I'll give a few answers. Um, first of all, while I think the government should only invest in public stuff, I don't think it's for the government to tell me what I do with my own money. And so, I for the most part think that we should be free to choose. You can argue, of course, there should be proper disclosure and whatnot. The the big challenge is that the entire pension, the 401k system is a liability based system, right? And uh you have liability when you outperform, when you underperform, when you just about breathe when you do one of these programs. And so historically they are super conservative and defensive in what they do. They don't make any decisions themselves. They outsource them to consultants and whatnot. the way to do this and some of your your audience may be familiar with that. We have it at American Investments for example. We have a 401k where we do it with Fidelity. Um you choose from several different funds you can invest in but then there's one choice that you have that says self-directed. >> Mhm. >> And so and if you check that box you basically you open a separate um brokerage account and you do what the heck you want. It's called It's called the brokerage option. And let me just let folks know if you're if you're at a company that offers a 401k and you only have three to five choices or whatever, chances are pretty good if you go and ask is there a brokerage option that I can elect in for that they may offer you exactly what Ash was talking about. >> And it's it's not exactly anything that there are some limitations what you can do, but generally speaking, you have pretty much complete control. And obviously the the pencil pushers have figured out that the trustees all these 401ks or trusts don't have liability over the dumb choices that investors might make. >> And so and obviously with these things you cannot buy private equity but you could use that channel that where you have people directly opt in that they make their own decision and then choose something. That is how that has to work. What is not going to work is that there's going to be some big hedge fund choice that you can now suddenly do as one of the the public offerings because that would mean that it's been vetted by the trustees of these things. So, it's it's a it's an exercise in liability management and uh something for the pencil pushers to hash out. If you have leadership from the executive to move in that direction, I think that is helpful. Um but like most of these things um this is not going to happen overnight because there there's a lot of TE's to be crossed before these sort of things are enabled. >> Okay, let's assume for a second that those TE's get crossed, knives get dotted. Would this be a big deal say for the precious metals markets just because we've talked about how small that market is relative to other asset? Well, in the self-directed program, you can already invest in products and few people do it and all that stuff, but if if all of a sudden became, >> but it's the same thing, right? I mean, and and money is going to flow to what's popular and it's not necessarily going to be the best investment at the time. I mean, there's a lot on the private credit side that the character has changed substantially since it's been commoditized. It's a very different market. So, these markets will evolve. Um, and I'm not saying that private equity is going to be the best thing since I spread. What I'm saying is that investors should have a choice, right? The investors should have a choice. These markets are supposed to be allowed to mature. Um, and then especially if you can choose it yourself, well, make it let let the best one win, right? I mean, it's a it's about providing choice to investors and not telling them you're only allowed to invest in stock XYZ or in fund ABC. Um, I think that is that is not acceptable. And um when uh I'm in a fortunate position that I'm the boss of my company. So I had an influence over the sort of 401k program that that we we signed up for. Um but having only very few choices I don't think is I mean the flip side of that is most people are like deer in the headlight when they have too many choices. Right? If you give people too many choices that's not good either. But that's why there are folks like you on thoughtful money that give people an insight of of what to point out to and what to call. So you you you have to you have to work to educate people and and by all means these products will still have um basic choices. And uh to just wrap this up, a fun fact, one of the things that I'm told, even though at Merk Investments when asset manager, everybody kind of knows what they're doing, I am not allowed to give investment advice to my employees on what to invest in. Um so and and and of course they they know what they're doing, but again, it's about liability management, right? Because um if they were to lose money because in a self-directed account, they would buy something that goes down. you don't want that liability to bubble back up. So, it's all about liability management, unfortunately, rather than thinking about, hey, what the heck is best for the investor? And and so, that's why I'm a believer in in easing the regulation to provide more competition because that's the next best thing, how you can can try to level the playing field a little bit. >> Okay. And I can totally understand that. All right. Well, look, folks, we're going to have to end it there. Um, please let Axel know how much you appreciate him coming on and doing this for us every time there's an FOMC release. Um, let him know that by hitting the like button, then clicking on the subscribe button below. Feel free to let us know in the live chat in the comment section, too. I always want to do more of what you guys want to see more of. And I think you've historically really like these live uh reactions, but again, let me know. Um, Axel, important question. Um, for folks that want to follow you and your work in between now and the next FOMC live stream here about this, where can they go? >> Mercin.com is our website where uh you have a free newsletter there. Our products are there that I can't talk about here too much. Axelmer is my Twitter handle. I still call it Twitter. Um, I live tweet on central bank conferences and otherwise I chime in what's happening. mainly I can't talk about products on Twitter but I can comment on the news of the day and put that into the context of the markets and u my speech is censored so I am not as um engaging as some others are my my speech is much drier but maybe you appreciate it to not be too loud and it's >> go ahead >> I was going to say we very much appreciate um you saying what you're able to say and uh and obviously coming on this channel. I've been putting up the URLs to both your website and your Twitter handle here. So hopefully folks know exactly where to go who who can follow you. Um all right, Axel. Well, look, um it's it's always wonderful folks. Um yep, you're getting lots of nice prompts here in the live chat. Uh so we'll keep doing this and the next one is November. >> No, it is in October. >> Is it in October? Okay. I know there's a December one. >> Yeah. No, no, it's in October. and it is October 29 and uh I'll probably be joining from San Francisco on that day. I'll be at a conference and I'll go to a side room to to make sure we don't miss out on this. >> I appreciate that even though we'll miss your dog. Um but okay, we we'll see we'll see you right before uh right right before Halloween. Um, all right. And then folks, um, real quick, if you want to get, uh, some help in trying to figure out how to manage your own personal portfolio given your own unique, um, you know, specific needs and goals. Um, highly recommend that most people watching this get that advice from a good professional financial adviser. Uh, importantly, I think one that takes into account all the macro issues that Axel and I have discussed here. If you've got a good one who's doing that for you, great. Stick with him. If you don't, consider scheduling a free consultation with one of the adviserss that Thoughtful Money endorses. These are the firms you see with me on this channel week in and week out. To do that, just fill out the short form right there at thoughtfulmoney.com and the firms will be in touch with you right away. These consultations are totally free. There's no commitments involved. It's just a free service they offer to help as many people as possible position as prudently as possible for what may lie ahead. And a quick reminder that the thoughtful money fall online conference is coming up really fast. It's now just a month away. So, if you haven't bought your ticket yet, go buy it at thoughtfulmoney.com/conference. Uh, if you can't watch live on the actual date itself, which is Saturday, October 18th, don't worry. Replay videos of the whole event, all the presentations, all the live Q&A will be sent to everybody who registers. Um, right now too, we are still offering that lowest early bird price discount. It's not going to be around for too much longer. So, make sure you snap that up before it's gone. And if you are a premium subscriber to our Substack, look for the code I've emailed you that will let you get an additional $50 off of that low early bird price discount. Axel, thanks so much again. Um, I personally I think things are starting to get kind of interesting. Um, and uh, they're probably only going to get more interesting and maybe even a little bit more rocky. >> We live in interesting times. Yes. >> Yeah. Well, as as they continue to get so, I very much appreciate you coming on here and helping this audience make sense of it. So, look forward to seeing you on October 29th. >> Yep. Talk to you then. >> All right. And everybody else, thanks so much for watching.
