Chris Casey: What 2026 Has in Store for Markets—Debt, QE & a Reckoning
Summary
Geopolitical Risk: Elevated political uncertainty (Greenland, Ukraine, executive vs. Congress dynamics) is seen as a persistent backdrop rather than a near-term catalyst for markets.
Bond Market Risk: The guest warns that long-term bonds, especially U.S. Treasuries, face structural headwinds from soaring deficits and potential waning foreign demand.
Precious Metals: Gold and silver’s sharp gains are attributed to fiscal solvency concerns, though the guest urges rebalancing and profit-taking after parabolic moves.
Cash Strategy: “Cash is king” in 2026, with cash yields attractive and dry powder valuable for navigating volatility and potential drawdowns.
AI: Despite possible pullbacks, AI remains a powerful multi-year tailwind, potentially larger than the internet, with enduring secular growth prospects.
Energy/Natural Gas: The energy sector screens attractive on valuation, with a preference for natural gas over nuclear as the pragmatic, scalable power solution for AI’s electricity needs.
Europe: A Ukraine resolution may not materially harm European equities, but structural energy policy choices pose longer-term competitiveness risks.
Market Posture: Favor a nimble, barbell approach—maintain exposure to long-term growth themes like AI and energy while emphasizing cash, discipline, and rebalancing.
Transcript
Is anyone questioning why gold and silver were up between 70 and 150% last year? I mean, it's not because of inflationary fears. Something else is a foot. I'm not sure who's going to be the next Fed chairman. But ultimately, I don't know if it matters because they only know how to do one thing. They only can do one thing. That's print money. There's no reason to be lending the US government money for 10 years at 4.3%. That makes no sense. I wouldn't be surprised if the deficit for 2026 fiscal year 2026 was more like three 3 and a.5 trillion. The markets the smart money at least is clearly concerned about the fiscal solveny United States and other western countries. Don't forget to sign up for a free portfolio review with one of our endorsed investment partners at wealthon.comfree. Hello and welcome to Wealthy. I'm Maggie Lake and joining me today to talk about how to navigate through the political risk in 2026 is Chris Casey, the founder and managing director of Wind Rockck Wealth Management. Hi, Chris. Great to see you. >> Yeah, good seeing you again, Maggie. So, uh, we we we've been saying it and I have a feeling that we're going to sound a bit like a broken record throughout this year because there is just there are so many headlines coming out as we tape this. World leaders are gathering in Davos, Switzerland, and the tensions just seem to be boiling over. We have world leaders posting private text messages between each other on social media. You know, all this kind of stuff that we really haven't seen before. As you look at this broadly, is this just political theater or do you think there are real risks that investors need to be mindful of? >> Well, these risks have been going on for some time, but I I do think this particular meeting of world leaders, Davos, is going to be more headlines than really headway because the two issues they're going to be talking about are Greenland and Ukraine primarily. And I doubt you're going to see any resolution on either of those fronts or at least a meeting of the mind between the US and European allies. >> Yeah. the issue I I heard someone say they're worried actually that the issue of Greenland sort of consumes everything now and there's there seems to be some discomfort uh around this issue so much uncertainty do you worry that this will cause a permanent rift between the US and Europe as they try to work through this how are you thinking about this >> I think it will it certainly Um, I may not have thought that until literally maybe last night, but these social media posts that Trump is doing are so over the top, right? It's crazy. And I understand why he wants Greenland. It makes total sense. Whether it's ostensively he's talking about national security, he's talking about rare earths. Who knows? Maybe he looked at a Merkar map and it was like, "Wow, Greenland's huge, right?" And he realized that the actual size was much smaller. Who who knows? But I can see Trump doing that, right? Um, this issue is going to go on for some time. And I think Trump's going about it completely the wrong way. Right? If you want to do something, make an offer they can't refuse. But to do that, you need Congress. What you don't do is you start antagonizing the Danes. You don't start antagonizing the Greenlanders. It's making the issue worse. Now, what I think is going to happen because he's largely bluffing, right? There's if you're going to acquire territory in the United States, you have to have Congress. You have to have Congress for a treaty. You have to have Congress authorized funds. You have to have Congress to have war powers, right? To actually invade if he's going to do something. So, I wouldn't be surprised if he went about in a stealth way, meaning it's extremely sparse uh an island. I wouldn't be surprised if they massively beef up their current military presence there. Maybe they've already done so and they haven't announced it. I wouldn't be surprised if they're actively building another base. I mean, how would they even know the Danes or Greenlanders if they were doing that? I could see that. So, in some ways, he could kind of de facto go ahead and at least achieve his national security aims. But I think the way this plays out, I think it's a multi-year um process. I do think eventually the US could acquire Greenland. I think there's a very high risk or likelihood of that. The predictive markets are showing that as well, but it's going to cost a lot of money. Um, put it this way though, the money they're talking about, if someone offered the US30 $30 trillion for Hawaii or Alaska, may want to take that. It's a pretty good deal, but I think that's what they're going to end up offering the equivalent of down the road. >> Yeah. Um, I'm I'm sort of, you know, smiling and shaking my head. Not because any of this is humorous, by the way, but it's just so sort of this is such a different situation than we're used to. I mean, it has been the case. We know that with Trump. But you hit on something that's really, I think, important, and that is the sort of, you know, the the public nature, the uncertainty. it it seems like it's a new set of rules uh and this tension between what the executive branch can do without Congress, the sort of power grab that's been happening. I think all of that if you if you sort of step away from the issues themselves seems to be unnerving investors. It's hard to quantify that, right? And you mentioned the tariff situation. I mean that's really been at the sort of forefront. We know it's making its way through the Supreme Court. we didn't get a decision again. Is this u a I don't want to say a risk, but are markets pricing in adequately pricing in what may happen as a consequence of the Supreme Court ruling? They kind of just keep kicking the can down the road and it seems like the markets are of the opinion that the Trump administration will just figure something out. Is that is that where you lie on this? Yeah, maybe the actual decision, and I do think it's going to um affirm the lower courts, meaning they're going to overturn his tariffs. And I think it's a no-brainer. I think it's going to be a n decision for a number of reasons. It's not emergency. You know, that the law he's using doesn't actually mention tariffs. That's not a power it assigns to him. And even if it did, there's a really good argument that Congress can't actually delegate that power to him. So, I think Trump loses. I've read the trans oral transcripts, the oral argument transcripts. I've read the amiggas briefs, all that. I think it's hands down he loses 90 maybe 72. Robert S Kavanagh could descent. Um as far as how it impacts the markets, I don't think this particular decision will impact it directly, but I do think it's the first of a string of bad um circumstances for Trump throughout the course of the year. I think this is his first big loss. I think it's the in the armor and I think he seems vulnerable after this because I think more things are coming down the pike. >> Wow, that's really interesting. And one has to wonder h how he'll beha what the behavioral consequences of that will be because we've seen that um things t tend to get more extreme uh if they if they hit setbacks. What what is the relationship? Does Congress suddenly become more active if that's the case? are is Congress emboldened and do they try to reclaim uh a a leadership position on some of these issues if that ruling goes against Trump? How does the relationship with Congress play out? >> I don't know if that matters either in Congress. Um and this is not unique to the Trump administration. Certainly, we saw this in the Biden administration. In fact, I think there's almost an overemphasis about so-called executive power grab, etc. because we saw we I mean ordering people to stay in their homes and wear masks when they're outside. I mean, how much more authoritarian are you going to get, right? So, that's that's far worse than what we're talking about. And obviously, the media's hates Trump a lot more than they did Biden. So, I think it's somewhat overplayed, but certainly it's it's a long-standing trend. And that that trend also is Congress enabling that. They've repeatedly deferred to executive branch, whether it's foreign policy, whether it's immigration. They've done a ton of things where they keep laying down and let the executive branch uh do what it does. As far as if now is the time that they they stand up and do something about it. No, I think they're power more powerless this year than ever because of the midterms, because of how the midterms they position themselves ahead of it. So, no, I don't think they stand up to the president at all. >> I think that has really big domestic implications. We'll get to that in a second. uh the Ukraine war. This is a you know this is a line item that everyone have been fighting about and I think some of the concern is that all of the attention on Greenland distracts away from the Ukraine war. Do do you see that continue? And there's been a lot of action on defense stocks around this. Do do you see that dragging on? Do you think we finally get some sort of conclusion to the Ukraine war? >> I think this year is the year we do get some resolution to it. I mean as of next month it'll be four years >> since the Russians invaded. Right. That's a long time. And the circumstance right now kind of reminds me of 1918 in France, right? You have these clear lines of control. You have a stalemate, but it could have play out just like it did in World War I, right? You get one breakthrough, you have an army encircled, things can turn against Ukrainians quickly. I mean, if history's taught us anything, it's don't is Russia wins wars of attrition. I mean, that that's just a basic fact that they've repeatedly done. So, I'd be very nervous um if I was in the Ukrainian leadership right now. Zalinski, I can't believe he has not taken a deal. Um if he doesn't, I think this gets resolved either with a deal where they give up territory or there's going to be Russian tanks in Kiev at some point. That's I think what what's going to happen. And Zilinski may have to flee at that point. I mean, he may may be performing in Branson, Missouri in a couple years for all I know. Like, it's this could go very ugly for the Ukrainians if there's not some compromise. But either way, whether they make peace or things break down, I think something happens this year. It's gone on for a long time, and both sides are pretty overwhelmed right now. >> If you're looking for a simple, secure way to invest and own physical gold and silver, visit our sister company, Hard Assets Alliance, at hardassetsalliance.com. That's hardassallalliance.com. Is that a negative for Europe? because we we saw European markets just based on valuations perform pretty well last year outperform in some cases. Uh is that if we were to see some sort of conclusion which sees Russia take Ukraine is that is that a negative for you would that make you concerned about investing in Europe? >> Not particularly. I I would be for other reasons to the extent that there's peace and you know Ukraine exists but they gave up you know the four provinces on the eastern front what have you um I don't think that would be worrisome for European equities. Uh what I do see think is worrisome is the long trending suicide that Western Europe is doing right whether it's cutting themselves off from Russian oil whether it's embracing green energy initiatives where like Germany it's a pretty dark country right there's not a lot of sunlight there so they're doing all these things they're really shooting themselves in the foot so you could argue that that was a consequence of the Ukraine war how they've reacted to it I just don't think the conclusion the Ukraine war will change that. M yeah Jamie Diamond said something interesting and I I I have a feeling we're going to hear this reiterated this week that uh he he's concerned about the US I don't know if allowing is the right word but concerned about Europe's situation and sees that as a negative for the US to lose a strong ally in Europe if the European economy does continue to weaken for the reasons you just said that that's not good for the US. Um do you do you agree with that? Is that is that something that you worry about? >> Yeah, in part I mean in other ways you could look at it maybe it's good for you it's good for you as companies right to have effectively a major competitor um that's that's not performing as well. So I could see both pluses and minuses from that kind of circumstance. M the uh one of the things I think that unnerved the markets and again some of this may roll back some of this may be you know may be posturing more than real policy is that a Danish fund unloaded treasuries. Uh we've got a lot of pressures on the bond market. Uh how are you thinking about bonds in this environment? >> Yeah. Well, long-term bonds are definitely I think a risk for a number of reasons. right there what you just mentioned like a retaliatory type measure >> uh by Western Europe um but you could argue that's just as likely from the Chinese um etc. So that could that could easily happen. That's a very real and a very legitimate threat if the Chinese take away their you know vendor financing effectively what they're doing. Um yes, but the bigger threat is more so than not the fact the fact that they may not be buying bonds is the fact that there's so many bonds out there, right? We're going to pass 40 trillion in debt this year. Um, you have I think we're going to have just stalem stalemate in Congress unable to deal with it. And this is not my opinion. The markets already reflect this. I mean, >> is anyone in questioning why gold and silver were up between 70 and 150% last year? I mean, it's not because of inflationary fears. Something else is a foot. the markets, the smart money at least is clearly concerned about the fiscal solveny United States and other western countries. And I think that's already reflected in precious metal prices. It's already reflected somewhat in the media over the last year that we've seen. >> We haven't seen it take place in long-term bonds yet. We're starting to see it in Japan, right? They just hit their highest 40-year bond rate in well 40-year bond rate I think in the last 40 years uh that they have. we saw it play out a couple years ago in the UK with the 2000 September 2022 uh the mini budget the the guilt crisis they had. So I do think that is a big risk for investors from a couple different fronts and I think it's starting to be recognized. >> Is this are you concerned about sort of a bond vigilante revolt? Is this a spike in rates that would have negative spillover effects to the economy or is this a gradual move higher kind of like that, you know, balloon that you can't suppress any for anymore? It just drifts higher. >> Yeah, I I'm not sure how that plays out, but certainly I think you're going to get to the same place at some way, right? The long-term rates, there's no reason to be lend the US government uh 10 years money for 10 years at 4.3%. That makes no sense. If you look at I mean they have 40 they're going to have 40 trillion in debt. They take in between five and six trillion. They're still overspending by a couple. I wouldn't be surprised if deficit for 2026 fiscal year 2026 was more like three three and a half trillion than less than two which was last year. So um it could play out a couple different ways but ultimately the result I think is going to be the same. >> Yeah. Which is incredible when we're talking about buying Greenland. like you know there just there's just price tags on everything as you mentioned the midterms are coming up you know there will be all sorts of promises around that >> and that'll make it far worse right that's probably a trillion dollars right there that's probably a trillion dollar expenditure >> how so the Fed chair job is up for grabs we still haven't had any news as of as we speak which obviously we could get it any day um boy who that's a tough job to want to take on how does that play out does that does the Fed lose its independence to the extent it had any. Um, are they going to be tasked with finding a creative way out of this debt issue? >> Yeah, it's actually it's kind of a slowmoving train wreck, right? I'm I'm actually surprised Trump hasn't nominated someone already just to kind of undercut Powell right now. That Powell video was historic, right? Like it's it's shocking that it got to that level that they're under investigation, you know? That's that's pretty amazing. Ultimately though, as far as who's Fed share, I don't think it matters. I don't think it's Hasset. Like Trump's already said, it's probably not going to be him. I didn't think it was going to be him before that. I think it'd be very hard to get that guy um nominated or I'm sorry, approved by the Senate. Um so I'm not sure who's going to be the next Fed chairman, but ultimately I don't know if it matters because they only know how to do one thing. They only can do one thing, that's print money. And I think they're going to go back to that some point in 2026, especially with the labor market >> continuing to show show signs of deterioration, especially with the fiscal situation. They're going to print money. So, a lot of people talk about inflation around the corner. I don't know if it's around the corner, but it's maybe it's around the block because ultimately they're once they start doing that, that's when you really got to protect yourself. >> Yeah. Uh that Yeah, that would have have huge implications. I mean, we just talked about, you know, the the upward pressure on bond rates. So, first of all, should you own any bonds in your portfolio right now given what we just talked about? >> Well, I always say, you know, it's when you when you have all this bad news, there's it's very easy to look out there, see a lot of risks and kind of climb into a cave and have a bunker mentality where you have, you know, gold, bullets, and, you know, canned food or something like that. Yeah, >> that's never a smart way to do it. Um studies consistently show that apherism it's better to be you know returns are guided more so by being time in the market versus time in the market. That that's absolutely true. However, there are major inflection points. So um in times like this people should doesn't mean you can't take some asymmetric risks and really try to swing for the fences on AI stocks what have you. But apart from that I'd also be very nimble very defensive and kind of cash >> heavy. M so kind of like a barbell approach where you you don't want to be completely out of the market. I think that's really important because you're right. I think the tendency just on the headlines flying around is that it's it's so uncertain. I I can't even quantify this. I'm just going to be uber careful and just go all cash until I figure out what's happening. But but that's not that's not something you think is is a worth >> It's never Yeah, it's never prudent. I mean people should always remember um there's this you know sizing is a big issue rebalancing is a big issue right probability of events happening you know before you get into that bunker remember about sizing probability and timing those those are three things that really you should be thinking about because you can't time everything you got to really assess the probabilities nothing's necessarily inevitable um so consider that before you start making uh investment moves but but you should be disciplined though take profits when you can. >> Uh, it's funny you mentioned AI because, you know, that had such a bad rap, right? The overvaluation, the AI bubble. That's all we heard, AI bubble. You think there's still opportunity there? >> Oh, absolutely. I mean, that doesn't mean so-called AI stacks can't sell off 30, 50%. That wouldn't be shocking. That doesn't mean that you can't have capex spending take a serious hit in the AI field. That wouldn't be surprising. But it but it does mean um but I do think it means that this is a long-term trend, right? The so-called vernacular of you know investment guys it's there's this big tailwind and it's great to invest in tailwinds things that are helping you from a long-term trend. I think AI is here to stay. You can make an argument it's easily bigger than the internet potentially any other so-called revolution we've had in human history. Um so I think that's a trend and anything supporting it. So the electricity needs and energy and stuff that's all there as well. Yeah, the energy it's it's interesting because we we know that this needs a huge amount of energy and yet there was a while where energy was out of favor. People are looking at the price of oil. They're looking at electricity and saying, "Well, it's utilities, right?" And there are price caps on that. They're looking at sort of government intervention in terms of them taking stakes in things and Trump coming out and saying to technology companies, well, you have to pay for it. So there's there's a trend that looks super strong, but then there are all these again getting buffeted by some of the political headlines coming out, but you like the energy sector. >> Absolutely. And it's not even um so-called overbought. If you look at all the sectors >> and look at things evaluation wise and look at their median price relative to the ranges of highs and lows, it's still probably the most attractive sectors out there. It's the only one that's even approaching its median along with real estate and maybe consumer staples or healthcare or something like that. But it's, you know, most of them don't do that. So it is a relative value. You do have some bubbles in it. I think right now everyone's talking about nuclear. They think nuclear is a very hot industry. And maybe there's some decent things there. But in general, I'd be very nervous in nuclear relative to natural gas because nuclear President Newsome in three years, right, could reverse everything. We may have no new power plants. So natural gas fits all the bills. Unlike nuclear, it's completely green. It's abundant. It's cheap. It's easy to get online very quickly. So, I think natural gas is the way to go. I like energy in general, but especially natural gas. >> Why Why do you think it's so out of favor? I mean, they call it the widowmaker. And anybody who's been certainly trying to play the nat gas market itself has gotten hurt. You think equities, if you have a longer time horizon, you think um that you can see gains in equities? There's sort of a disconnect, isn't there? It's a little bit there because I mean is obviously it's an extremely volatile um area >> but if you I like it just from a contrarian play. I mean look at the the amount that natural gas the actual price of natural gas has gone down over the years. Um it's you know probably last three years is probably down three massively three out of five years it's down. So >> in general yes there's there's it's very difficult to play. Um, but I think it's the only long-term solution for the energy crisis, which means at some point the market's going to realize that. >> Interesting. So, if we think about portfolio uh diversification or balancing, I think we have to ha end with those sort of metals that you talked about because they've been parabolic. How should people if they're a little riskaverse and everyone's different and and as always if you want to stress test your portfolio or figure out if your allocations are appropriate given everything that's going on. Um you can head to the link in the description or to wealthy.comfree to get a free portfolio review from um Chris or anybody at the Windrock team which I think is so helpful right now. But rough rule of thumb, how are you thinking about in this environment we're in at the beginning of 2026? Where should people be thinking about uh cash versus some of the areas that that still look good in equities versus um something like metals? >> Yeah, I think this may be the year that cash is king. I mean with these if you're sitting on silver gains of 150% over 12 months and you're like I'm and you've got 40% of your portfolio in that and you're not going to sell it because you think it's going to go up. I think it's a really poor decision. You know, you always got to be prudent. You always have to rebalance. Take profits. Don't let and don't let tax decisions guide it could influence. Don't let it guide uh investment decisions. >> So I think this may be the year that cash is king >> because look, we could easily have a downturn. We could have a recession. We have a downturn just based on valuations alone which are astronomical right now on a historical basis. We could have a downturn because of of I think fiscal stalemate in college in uh Congress that doesn't get resolved and the budget starts looking worse and worse and people start waking up to the fact that long-term bonds are not a place to be. So all these things would argue that there could be if you don't have necessarily a recession, you don't necessarily have a massive draw down in the market, but you could have a lot of volatility and cash is the only way to take advantage of that. So I think people should be prudent and plus you're getting paid for it nowadays. >> It's not like 5 years ago we're sitting here and you're getting less than 1%. I mean you're going to get four or 5% easy on cash. So why not hold it and wait for those kind of things to happen? >> Sounds like great advice, Chris. Interesting times that we're in. a lot of news to get through, but thank you for sort of helping separate the signal from the noise in terms of what you're paying most attention to. Really appreciate it. >> Thank you. >> Thanks everybody. We'll see you again soon.
Chris Casey: What 2026 Has in Store for Markets—Debt, QE & a Reckoning
Summary
Transcript
Is anyone questioning why gold and silver were up between 70 and 150% last year? I mean, it's not because of inflationary fears. Something else is a foot. I'm not sure who's going to be the next Fed chairman. But ultimately, I don't know if it matters because they only know how to do one thing. They only can do one thing. That's print money. There's no reason to be lending the US government money for 10 years at 4.3%. That makes no sense. I wouldn't be surprised if the deficit for 2026 fiscal year 2026 was more like three 3 and a.5 trillion. The markets the smart money at least is clearly concerned about the fiscal solveny United States and other western countries. Don't forget to sign up for a free portfolio review with one of our endorsed investment partners at wealthon.comfree. Hello and welcome to Wealthy. I'm Maggie Lake and joining me today to talk about how to navigate through the political risk in 2026 is Chris Casey, the founder and managing director of Wind Rockck Wealth Management. Hi, Chris. Great to see you. >> Yeah, good seeing you again, Maggie. So, uh, we we we've been saying it and I have a feeling that we're going to sound a bit like a broken record throughout this year because there is just there are so many headlines coming out as we tape this. World leaders are gathering in Davos, Switzerland, and the tensions just seem to be boiling over. We have world leaders posting private text messages between each other on social media. You know, all this kind of stuff that we really haven't seen before. As you look at this broadly, is this just political theater or do you think there are real risks that investors need to be mindful of? >> Well, these risks have been going on for some time, but I I do think this particular meeting of world leaders, Davos, is going to be more headlines than really headway because the two issues they're going to be talking about are Greenland and Ukraine primarily. And I doubt you're going to see any resolution on either of those fronts or at least a meeting of the mind between the US and European allies. >> Yeah. the issue I I heard someone say they're worried actually that the issue of Greenland sort of consumes everything now and there's there seems to be some discomfort uh around this issue so much uncertainty do you worry that this will cause a permanent rift between the US and Europe as they try to work through this how are you thinking about this >> I think it will it certainly Um, I may not have thought that until literally maybe last night, but these social media posts that Trump is doing are so over the top, right? It's crazy. And I understand why he wants Greenland. It makes total sense. Whether it's ostensively he's talking about national security, he's talking about rare earths. Who knows? Maybe he looked at a Merkar map and it was like, "Wow, Greenland's huge, right?" And he realized that the actual size was much smaller. Who who knows? But I can see Trump doing that, right? Um, this issue is going to go on for some time. And I think Trump's going about it completely the wrong way. Right? If you want to do something, make an offer they can't refuse. But to do that, you need Congress. What you don't do is you start antagonizing the Danes. You don't start antagonizing the Greenlanders. It's making the issue worse. Now, what I think is going to happen because he's largely bluffing, right? There's if you're going to acquire territory in the United States, you have to have Congress. You have to have Congress for a treaty. You have to have Congress authorized funds. You have to have Congress to have war powers, right? To actually invade if he's going to do something. So, I wouldn't be surprised if he went about in a stealth way, meaning it's extremely sparse uh an island. I wouldn't be surprised if they massively beef up their current military presence there. Maybe they've already done so and they haven't announced it. I wouldn't be surprised if they're actively building another base. I mean, how would they even know the Danes or Greenlanders if they were doing that? I could see that. So, in some ways, he could kind of de facto go ahead and at least achieve his national security aims. But I think the way this plays out, I think it's a multi-year um process. I do think eventually the US could acquire Greenland. I think there's a very high risk or likelihood of that. The predictive markets are showing that as well, but it's going to cost a lot of money. Um, put it this way though, the money they're talking about, if someone offered the US30 $30 trillion for Hawaii or Alaska, may want to take that. It's a pretty good deal, but I think that's what they're going to end up offering the equivalent of down the road. >> Yeah. Um, I'm I'm sort of, you know, smiling and shaking my head. Not because any of this is humorous, by the way, but it's just so sort of this is such a different situation than we're used to. I mean, it has been the case. We know that with Trump. But you hit on something that's really, I think, important, and that is the sort of, you know, the the public nature, the uncertainty. it it seems like it's a new set of rules uh and this tension between what the executive branch can do without Congress, the sort of power grab that's been happening. I think all of that if you if you sort of step away from the issues themselves seems to be unnerving investors. It's hard to quantify that, right? And you mentioned the tariff situation. I mean that's really been at the sort of forefront. We know it's making its way through the Supreme Court. we didn't get a decision again. Is this u a I don't want to say a risk, but are markets pricing in adequately pricing in what may happen as a consequence of the Supreme Court ruling? They kind of just keep kicking the can down the road and it seems like the markets are of the opinion that the Trump administration will just figure something out. Is that is that where you lie on this? Yeah, maybe the actual decision, and I do think it's going to um affirm the lower courts, meaning they're going to overturn his tariffs. And I think it's a no-brainer. I think it's going to be a n decision for a number of reasons. It's not emergency. You know, that the law he's using doesn't actually mention tariffs. That's not a power it assigns to him. And even if it did, there's a really good argument that Congress can't actually delegate that power to him. So, I think Trump loses. I've read the trans oral transcripts, the oral argument transcripts. I've read the amiggas briefs, all that. I think it's hands down he loses 90 maybe 72. Robert S Kavanagh could descent. Um as far as how it impacts the markets, I don't think this particular decision will impact it directly, but I do think it's the first of a string of bad um circumstances for Trump throughout the course of the year. I think this is his first big loss. I think it's the in the armor and I think he seems vulnerable after this because I think more things are coming down the pike. >> Wow, that's really interesting. And one has to wonder h how he'll beha what the behavioral consequences of that will be because we've seen that um things t tend to get more extreme uh if they if they hit setbacks. What what is the relationship? Does Congress suddenly become more active if that's the case? are is Congress emboldened and do they try to reclaim uh a a leadership position on some of these issues if that ruling goes against Trump? How does the relationship with Congress play out? >> I don't know if that matters either in Congress. Um and this is not unique to the Trump administration. Certainly, we saw this in the Biden administration. In fact, I think there's almost an overemphasis about so-called executive power grab, etc. because we saw we I mean ordering people to stay in their homes and wear masks when they're outside. I mean, how much more authoritarian are you going to get, right? So, that's that's far worse than what we're talking about. And obviously, the media's hates Trump a lot more than they did Biden. So, I think it's somewhat overplayed, but certainly it's it's a long-standing trend. And that that trend also is Congress enabling that. They've repeatedly deferred to executive branch, whether it's foreign policy, whether it's immigration. They've done a ton of things where they keep laying down and let the executive branch uh do what it does. As far as if now is the time that they they stand up and do something about it. No, I think they're power more powerless this year than ever because of the midterms, because of how the midterms they position themselves ahead of it. So, no, I don't think they stand up to the president at all. >> I think that has really big domestic implications. We'll get to that in a second. uh the Ukraine war. This is a you know this is a line item that everyone have been fighting about and I think some of the concern is that all of the attention on Greenland distracts away from the Ukraine war. Do do you see that continue? And there's been a lot of action on defense stocks around this. Do do you see that dragging on? Do you think we finally get some sort of conclusion to the Ukraine war? >> I think this year is the year we do get some resolution to it. I mean as of next month it'll be four years >> since the Russians invaded. Right. That's a long time. And the circumstance right now kind of reminds me of 1918 in France, right? You have these clear lines of control. You have a stalemate, but it could have play out just like it did in World War I, right? You get one breakthrough, you have an army encircled, things can turn against Ukrainians quickly. I mean, if history's taught us anything, it's don't is Russia wins wars of attrition. I mean, that that's just a basic fact that they've repeatedly done. So, I'd be very nervous um if I was in the Ukrainian leadership right now. Zalinski, I can't believe he has not taken a deal. Um if he doesn't, I think this gets resolved either with a deal where they give up territory or there's going to be Russian tanks in Kiev at some point. That's I think what what's going to happen. And Zilinski may have to flee at that point. I mean, he may may be performing in Branson, Missouri in a couple years for all I know. Like, it's this could go very ugly for the Ukrainians if there's not some compromise. But either way, whether they make peace or things break down, I think something happens this year. It's gone on for a long time, and both sides are pretty overwhelmed right now. >> If you're looking for a simple, secure way to invest and own physical gold and silver, visit our sister company, Hard Assets Alliance, at hardassetsalliance.com. That's hardassallalliance.com. Is that a negative for Europe? because we we saw European markets just based on valuations perform pretty well last year outperform in some cases. Uh is that if we were to see some sort of conclusion which sees Russia take Ukraine is that is that a negative for you would that make you concerned about investing in Europe? >> Not particularly. I I would be for other reasons to the extent that there's peace and you know Ukraine exists but they gave up you know the four provinces on the eastern front what have you um I don't think that would be worrisome for European equities. Uh what I do see think is worrisome is the long trending suicide that Western Europe is doing right whether it's cutting themselves off from Russian oil whether it's embracing green energy initiatives where like Germany it's a pretty dark country right there's not a lot of sunlight there so they're doing all these things they're really shooting themselves in the foot so you could argue that that was a consequence of the Ukraine war how they've reacted to it I just don't think the conclusion the Ukraine war will change that. M yeah Jamie Diamond said something interesting and I I I have a feeling we're going to hear this reiterated this week that uh he he's concerned about the US I don't know if allowing is the right word but concerned about Europe's situation and sees that as a negative for the US to lose a strong ally in Europe if the European economy does continue to weaken for the reasons you just said that that's not good for the US. Um do you do you agree with that? Is that is that something that you worry about? >> Yeah, in part I mean in other ways you could look at it maybe it's good for you it's good for you as companies right to have effectively a major competitor um that's that's not performing as well. So I could see both pluses and minuses from that kind of circumstance. M the uh one of the things I think that unnerved the markets and again some of this may roll back some of this may be you know may be posturing more than real policy is that a Danish fund unloaded treasuries. Uh we've got a lot of pressures on the bond market. Uh how are you thinking about bonds in this environment? >> Yeah. Well, long-term bonds are definitely I think a risk for a number of reasons. right there what you just mentioned like a retaliatory type measure >> uh by Western Europe um but you could argue that's just as likely from the Chinese um etc. So that could that could easily happen. That's a very real and a very legitimate threat if the Chinese take away their you know vendor financing effectively what they're doing. Um yes, but the bigger threat is more so than not the fact the fact that they may not be buying bonds is the fact that there's so many bonds out there, right? We're going to pass 40 trillion in debt this year. Um, you have I think we're going to have just stalem stalemate in Congress unable to deal with it. And this is not my opinion. The markets already reflect this. I mean, >> is anyone in questioning why gold and silver were up between 70 and 150% last year? I mean, it's not because of inflationary fears. Something else is a foot. the markets, the smart money at least is clearly concerned about the fiscal solveny United States and other western countries. And I think that's already reflected in precious metal prices. It's already reflected somewhat in the media over the last year that we've seen. >> We haven't seen it take place in long-term bonds yet. We're starting to see it in Japan, right? They just hit their highest 40-year bond rate in well 40-year bond rate I think in the last 40 years uh that they have. we saw it play out a couple years ago in the UK with the 2000 September 2022 uh the mini budget the the guilt crisis they had. So I do think that is a big risk for investors from a couple different fronts and I think it's starting to be recognized. >> Is this are you concerned about sort of a bond vigilante revolt? Is this a spike in rates that would have negative spillover effects to the economy or is this a gradual move higher kind of like that, you know, balloon that you can't suppress any for anymore? It just drifts higher. >> Yeah, I I'm not sure how that plays out, but certainly I think you're going to get to the same place at some way, right? The long-term rates, there's no reason to be lend the US government uh 10 years money for 10 years at 4.3%. That makes no sense. If you look at I mean they have 40 they're going to have 40 trillion in debt. They take in between five and six trillion. They're still overspending by a couple. I wouldn't be surprised if deficit for 2026 fiscal year 2026 was more like three three and a half trillion than less than two which was last year. So um it could play out a couple different ways but ultimately the result I think is going to be the same. >> Yeah. Which is incredible when we're talking about buying Greenland. like you know there just there's just price tags on everything as you mentioned the midterms are coming up you know there will be all sorts of promises around that >> and that'll make it far worse right that's probably a trillion dollars right there that's probably a trillion dollar expenditure >> how so the Fed chair job is up for grabs we still haven't had any news as of as we speak which obviously we could get it any day um boy who that's a tough job to want to take on how does that play out does that does the Fed lose its independence to the extent it had any. Um, are they going to be tasked with finding a creative way out of this debt issue? >> Yeah, it's actually it's kind of a slowmoving train wreck, right? I'm I'm actually surprised Trump hasn't nominated someone already just to kind of undercut Powell right now. That Powell video was historic, right? Like it's it's shocking that it got to that level that they're under investigation, you know? That's that's pretty amazing. Ultimately though, as far as who's Fed share, I don't think it matters. I don't think it's Hasset. Like Trump's already said, it's probably not going to be him. I didn't think it was going to be him before that. I think it'd be very hard to get that guy um nominated or I'm sorry, approved by the Senate. Um so I'm not sure who's going to be the next Fed chairman, but ultimately I don't know if it matters because they only know how to do one thing. They only can do one thing, that's print money. And I think they're going to go back to that some point in 2026, especially with the labor market >> continuing to show show signs of deterioration, especially with the fiscal situation. They're going to print money. So, a lot of people talk about inflation around the corner. I don't know if it's around the corner, but it's maybe it's around the block because ultimately they're once they start doing that, that's when you really got to protect yourself. >> Yeah. Uh that Yeah, that would have have huge implications. I mean, we just talked about, you know, the the upward pressure on bond rates. So, first of all, should you own any bonds in your portfolio right now given what we just talked about? >> Well, I always say, you know, it's when you when you have all this bad news, there's it's very easy to look out there, see a lot of risks and kind of climb into a cave and have a bunker mentality where you have, you know, gold, bullets, and, you know, canned food or something like that. Yeah, >> that's never a smart way to do it. Um studies consistently show that apherism it's better to be you know returns are guided more so by being time in the market versus time in the market. That that's absolutely true. However, there are major inflection points. So um in times like this people should doesn't mean you can't take some asymmetric risks and really try to swing for the fences on AI stocks what have you. But apart from that I'd also be very nimble very defensive and kind of cash >> heavy. M so kind of like a barbell approach where you you don't want to be completely out of the market. I think that's really important because you're right. I think the tendency just on the headlines flying around is that it's it's so uncertain. I I can't even quantify this. I'm just going to be uber careful and just go all cash until I figure out what's happening. But but that's not that's not something you think is is a worth >> It's never Yeah, it's never prudent. I mean people should always remember um there's this you know sizing is a big issue rebalancing is a big issue right probability of events happening you know before you get into that bunker remember about sizing probability and timing those those are three things that really you should be thinking about because you can't time everything you got to really assess the probabilities nothing's necessarily inevitable um so consider that before you start making uh investment moves but but you should be disciplined though take profits when you can. >> Uh, it's funny you mentioned AI because, you know, that had such a bad rap, right? The overvaluation, the AI bubble. That's all we heard, AI bubble. You think there's still opportunity there? >> Oh, absolutely. I mean, that doesn't mean so-called AI stacks can't sell off 30, 50%. That wouldn't be shocking. That doesn't mean that you can't have capex spending take a serious hit in the AI field. That wouldn't be surprising. But it but it does mean um but I do think it means that this is a long-term trend, right? The so-called vernacular of you know investment guys it's there's this big tailwind and it's great to invest in tailwinds things that are helping you from a long-term trend. I think AI is here to stay. You can make an argument it's easily bigger than the internet potentially any other so-called revolution we've had in human history. Um so I think that's a trend and anything supporting it. So the electricity needs and energy and stuff that's all there as well. Yeah, the energy it's it's interesting because we we know that this needs a huge amount of energy and yet there was a while where energy was out of favor. People are looking at the price of oil. They're looking at electricity and saying, "Well, it's utilities, right?" And there are price caps on that. They're looking at sort of government intervention in terms of them taking stakes in things and Trump coming out and saying to technology companies, well, you have to pay for it. So there's there's a trend that looks super strong, but then there are all these again getting buffeted by some of the political headlines coming out, but you like the energy sector. >> Absolutely. And it's not even um so-called overbought. If you look at all the sectors >> and look at things evaluation wise and look at their median price relative to the ranges of highs and lows, it's still probably the most attractive sectors out there. It's the only one that's even approaching its median along with real estate and maybe consumer staples or healthcare or something like that. But it's, you know, most of them don't do that. So it is a relative value. You do have some bubbles in it. I think right now everyone's talking about nuclear. They think nuclear is a very hot industry. And maybe there's some decent things there. But in general, I'd be very nervous in nuclear relative to natural gas because nuclear President Newsome in three years, right, could reverse everything. We may have no new power plants. So natural gas fits all the bills. Unlike nuclear, it's completely green. It's abundant. It's cheap. It's easy to get online very quickly. So, I think natural gas is the way to go. I like energy in general, but especially natural gas. >> Why Why do you think it's so out of favor? I mean, they call it the widowmaker. And anybody who's been certainly trying to play the nat gas market itself has gotten hurt. You think equities, if you have a longer time horizon, you think um that you can see gains in equities? There's sort of a disconnect, isn't there? It's a little bit there because I mean is obviously it's an extremely volatile um area >> but if you I like it just from a contrarian play. I mean look at the the amount that natural gas the actual price of natural gas has gone down over the years. Um it's you know probably last three years is probably down three massively three out of five years it's down. So >> in general yes there's there's it's very difficult to play. Um, but I think it's the only long-term solution for the energy crisis, which means at some point the market's going to realize that. >> Interesting. So, if we think about portfolio uh diversification or balancing, I think we have to ha end with those sort of metals that you talked about because they've been parabolic. How should people if they're a little riskaverse and everyone's different and and as always if you want to stress test your portfolio or figure out if your allocations are appropriate given everything that's going on. Um you can head to the link in the description or to wealthy.comfree to get a free portfolio review from um Chris or anybody at the Windrock team which I think is so helpful right now. But rough rule of thumb, how are you thinking about in this environment we're in at the beginning of 2026? Where should people be thinking about uh cash versus some of the areas that that still look good in equities versus um something like metals? >> Yeah, I think this may be the year that cash is king. I mean with these if you're sitting on silver gains of 150% over 12 months and you're like I'm and you've got 40% of your portfolio in that and you're not going to sell it because you think it's going to go up. I think it's a really poor decision. You know, you always got to be prudent. You always have to rebalance. Take profits. Don't let and don't let tax decisions guide it could influence. Don't let it guide uh investment decisions. >> So I think this may be the year that cash is king >> because look, we could easily have a downturn. We could have a recession. We have a downturn just based on valuations alone which are astronomical right now on a historical basis. We could have a downturn because of of I think fiscal stalemate in college in uh Congress that doesn't get resolved and the budget starts looking worse and worse and people start waking up to the fact that long-term bonds are not a place to be. So all these things would argue that there could be if you don't have necessarily a recession, you don't necessarily have a massive draw down in the market, but you could have a lot of volatility and cash is the only way to take advantage of that. So I think people should be prudent and plus you're getting paid for it nowadays. >> It's not like 5 years ago we're sitting here and you're getting less than 1%. I mean you're going to get four or 5% easy on cash. So why not hold it and wait for those kind of things to happen? >> Sounds like great advice, Chris. Interesting times that we're in. a lot of news to get through, but thank you for sort of helping separate the signal from the noise in terms of what you're paying most attention to. Really appreciate it. >> Thank you. >> Thanks everybody. We'll see you again soon.