On The Tape is brought to you by
On this bonus episode of On The Tape Guy, Dan, and Danny discuss what to expect from the markets in the week ahead (1:00) and interview famed economist Nouriel Roubini about his new book; MegaThreats: Ten Dangerous Trends That Imperil Our Future, And How to Survive Them (15:00).
Please rate and review and share it with your friends as this will help people find it.
And as always we want to hear your feedback. Please hit us with any comments at OnTheTape@riskreversal.com, and follow us at @OnTheTapePod. You can always tweet us individually @RiskReversal, @GuyAdami & @DMoses34.
You can give it a listen on the website or at your preferred podcast store (Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcasts, Amazon Music, and Deezer), and please subscribe to have it delivered to your devices each Friday.
 Apple |
 Spotify |
 Google |
 Amazon |
Show Transcript:
Guy Adami: [00:00:00] CME Ad. [00:00:01][0.4]
Dan Nathan: [00:00:30] iConnections Ad. [00:00:31][0.8]
Guy Adami: [00:01:21] Welcome to a special presentation of the On The Tape podcast. Dan Nathan, Danny Moses, Guy Adam here on a monday. In just a few minutes, famed economist Nouriel Roubini will join us off the tape. He is the author of MegaThreats. And this is a book you need to read, especially in the environment that we find ourselves in. For the first 100 people that leave a review of the on the tape podcast, we will send you a free book. Just contact us at contact@riskreversal.com. A lot going on this week. Apple seemingly throwing a monkey wrench in things they said just a couple of weeks ago. CPI this week, Facebook higher. Why is that happening? Just a lot to talk about here. Tesla either side of $200. Dan, how are you? [00:02:11][49.7]
Dan Nathan: [00:02:11] I’m doing well, guys. All right. Monday, this is always fun to do these bonus pods here and I’m really fired up for it for Nouriel. And talking about mega threats, Guy, as you like to say on the tape, you were born in the Wall Street of what could go wrong will go wrong Nouriel book I am like midway through this thing and I really wanted to kind of keep this day away from the two of you right now because there are so many themes that you guys have been talking about on the tape since we started nearly two years ago. When you talk about leverage and debt and central bank policy and all these things, I mean, he also really kind of spends a lot of time on how these are really affecting each other. When you think of some of these other things have geopolitical and climate change and immigration. I mean, the list goes on and on. It’s a fascinating read. So please leave us a review. Send it to AD at contact@riskreversal.com and we’ll send you book. All right. This Guy, it’s interesting that you mentioned Apple here. You know, less than two weeks ago, they reported, right. And they talked about China and they talked about, you know, the demand and supply dynamics with, you know, zero-covid. They manufacture a lot of phones over there. The supply chains are oriented over there. They also really rely on a lot of demand over there. And at the time, it was the only one of the five mega-cap tech stocks that gapped up after its earnings. Remember that? So we had Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet and Meta all get murdered and this one gapped up what’s filled in the whole gap. They basically preannounced for this quarter. They’re basically saying that they’re going to have a few million less phones available to be made and to be sold over there. So stocks down here. On the flip side of that Meta, which has been down, what, 30 some percent over the last few weeks here, huge gap after their earnings is up six and a half percent as we talk because Mark Zuckerberg’s announced some big layoffs. So it’s just kind of interesting when we think about gaps in the market after pieces of news Carter Braxton Worth likes to say gaps like to be filled. Well, Apple’s filled its upside gap. Matta is trying to kind of feel at least a portion of that. So one dog going one way, the other dog on the other. What do you want from me, Dannny? [00:04:12][120.3]
Guy Adami: [00:04:12] And I would submit and listen, I understand why you would interpret the Facebook news. Is layoffs being bullish? I also listened to Barry Diller this morning on the Squawk Box and when they asked him about Tiktok, he basically said it’s going to be banned here in the United States. So I think part of that is filtering into this equation as well. We’ll see. But Danny, you saw what you like to call a Friday night dirty on, as it turns out, Friday night. [00:04:37][24.8]
Danny Moses: [00:04:38] Yeah, two things before I get to that. When stocks enter value stock territory like Meta is it’ll trade up on cutting announcements. If you’re a growth stock, you do that, you get killed. But I think Meta has entered the the time period where okay, it’s kind of basing here maybe I don’t know. I’m not a buyer. I’m not I’m not shorting here. But I just wanted to mention that that means it’s in the hands now of value buyers versus growth. So we’ve been talking about the buy now pay later sector for over a year, more than a year and I covered shorten our cover later is what I think I called it at the time. But a firm which is one of the largest ones out there, remember, started by Max. Max Levchin Right. Technology genius whiz right. And they said, Oh, we’re not a bank. We don’t have to worry about it. It’s nothing. Well, guess what, when you have to build loans on your book, you then sell them to investors as part of your platform, which is what we’ve been talking about. And you can’t get it done. Well, Friday night, it turns out this happened a couple of months ago with them. They had a $350 million ABS deal, which is getting pulled because it’s pricing too wide. What? I mean, they can’t afford basically to sell those loans at that price because effectively it costs them money to originate loans onto their buy now pay later platform. When Powell makes a comment about how short term rates shouldn’t impact the consumer, I think he fails to see the fact that those costs get passed on. What does that mean? It means buy now, pay later, rates go higher. It means auto loans we’re seeing in the auto loan sector and ABS go higher. So again, something I’m also paying attention to, the stock is down, reflecting it. So let me focus on also another name here that’s piercing $7 to the down. That’s Carvana, which was over 300 bucks, as you guys know, last summer. Ernie Garcia, the second again is going to take a company to zero and sell stock all along the way. Remember, he was the ugly duckling. So when I worked with Steve Eisman in the 90s and Vinny as an analyst. That was Ernie Garcia II who was also involved in the SNL crisis. So again, people, before we get into Tesla, which I think is pertinent to this, it’s the people behind right that run these companies is very important from a corporate governance perspective. So wanted to highlight, a couple of those names that was another dirty that kind of came out over the weekend Dan. [00:06:37][119.1]
Dan Nathan: [00:06:37] Yeah, well we got to talk about this Tesla here because again, you know, the stock was trading above $300 a little more than a month ago. Right now, as guy said, it just pierced that $200 level here. Carter Braxton Worth and we’re charting our friend has a really detailed technical note out this morning on Tesla. It doesn’t look good. And really to me, you know, it’s interesting because we know that the deliveries came in lower than expected. We know that zero COVID is having a big impact on them both from a manufacturing standpoint, but obviously also from a demand standpoint. And, you know, we’ve seen this it’s kind of interesting, you know, with Apple, for instance, you know, if you’re relying on a China, for instance, for a big part of your future growth, you know, it’s a tough road to hoe, especially as we see increasingly nationalistic economic policies here. And so I just kind of wonder, you know, market share for Tesla in China has gone in the last couple of years from like 25% for EVs down to like 15 or so, you know. So to me, you know, it doesn’t seem like this is specific to Tesla at the moment. I really Danny, I’m curious what you think with Elon tweeting all day, if you are a Tesla shareholder, are you getting a bit more concerned about how he’s spending his time? [00:07:54][76.6]
Danny Moses: [00:07:54] You just nailed it. So, oh, is it our week, our week at Twitter? So if you’re a Tesla shareholder and you don’t care about Twitter, you care about actually Tesla, you got to start to ask yourself the question, what is going on? Because this guy is running spaceX, he’s running Tesla, is not running Twitter. But here’s what’s really interesting about it. You are getting a firsthand look for people that don’t understand his personality or never know he runs Tesla just like he went into Twitter fires. The board, even though Tesla does have a word, we know that they’re absolutely powerless. Does whatever he wants make these rash decisions, violates federal and state labor laws and let’s not kid ourselves. Tesla only exists because of of state and federal funding. The EV credits the loan in New York to build the plant up in Buffalo that he was for all those things he only exists because then he throws it right back in your face. So let’s be clear. This is just math. He has 13 billion in debt. The revenues or profits from Twitter will not cover that debt. I wonder if in these debt covenants somewhere or where he has pledged more stock because remember, he has not sold any Tesla stock. There hasn’t been anything reported to kind of fill that two, two, three, $4 billion gap that he needed to close. Where is that? Did they lend him the money based upon his stock? So you might see the two worlds converging. And you’re right, Dan, I mean, he took off more here than he can swallow here. [00:09:08][73.8]
Guy Adami: [00:09:08] We’ve been saying for a while that 175 was going to prove to be support in Tesla. It looks a lot more looks a lot more accurate now than it did maybe a few weeks ago. And I just mention this, not the dog pound the rabbit, but the Ark ETF continues just to sort of melt down. Now trading with the 34 handle, Danny, I think it’s within earshot of a 52 week low and levels we probably haven’t seen since the spring of 2020. [00:09:32][23.2]
Danny Moses: [00:09:33] So Jack Hough from Barron’s does this podcast is called Barron’s Streetwise. It came out over the weekend. He had Scott Galloway on and they had Brett Winton. Okay. That’s like, I mean, that’s like a fire in a matchstick. I mean, Brett Whitten is the from Ark Invest. He’s their futurist, right? And they were talking about Twitter and Tesla. Everyone should go listen to it or read it. But when you think about that guy in that context, I wrote this thing, there is no investment criteria for Tesla. You just believe in Musk. And the whole thing about Twitter and Space X and and Tesla has been about Musk’s brand and Musk brand is being damaged here by the second as he gets exposed. So to me, Tesla doesn’t trade on fundamentals. It trades on his brand and it’s being degraded by the second. But everyone should listen to that and you realize what you really up against. If you want to go buy Tesla, more power to you. But you should listen to what the arguments are on both sides. [00:10:19][46.7]
Dan Nathan: [00:10:20] And here’s the other thing. We’ve been talking about this for a while. He is literally single handedly, through his tweets, alienating the next Tesla buyer. You know, think about this one. This just hit. Okay, this is Monday morning here. Elon Musk, who has 113 million followers, I think that’s more followers than anybody on the platform that he owns himself. Okay. That has 330 million monthly active users that gets broadcasted to billions of users. Okay. So this is his sole mouthpiece. He tweeted to independent minded voters, shared power curbs the worst excesses of both parties. Therefore, I recommend voting for a Republican Congress. Given the presidency is Democratic. Think about what’s going on right here. I just think it’s really dangerous. And, you know, I’ve been saying this for a long time. And, you know, Danny, you have to from a very different perspective. I just think he’s like a really dangerous guy. I think that he like literally, you know, remember he was in like the early Iron Man movies. He was kind of like this avatar for Tony Stark. And you know what? We didn’t get Tony Stark. We got a bond villan. We literally got a guy who literally says that he’s doing this for humanity, and I just don’t buy any of it. And you look at how he’s using the platform here. So listen, man, I think it’s peak Musk. I think to your point, why are we talking about the price of Tesla and talking about a chart if this thing goes materially lower and he has pledged all of like a lot of stock. Right. We know that he’s sold a lot of stock went up in the equity, but Danny, your point is to fill the equity gap from the April sort of commitments that he had. He was either going to have to sell stock or he’s going to have to pledge a stock in the lower Tesla goes is the more likely that he has margin calls? Okay. So if you are a Tesla shareholder, you are bearing all of the risk what he does or doesn’t do with Twitter. And I got to tell you, I don’t have a position right here, but I’ve never wanted to see so many banks that actually put up the capital for the debt who are wearing it. And I’m hearing from people as you are, too, they are literally the opening bid is like $0.50 on the dollar. Okay. Like for when they’re going out and trying to syndicate this. Okay. And then all of these equity holders, I mean, are you kidding me? Six or seven months after this deal was committed at 44 billion? Jack Dorsey, who co-founded this company, rolled his two and a half percent position into the deal into the private sector. You want to ask how dumb this guy is? Think about it. Like let’s think about the exit that he got and he rolled it into it. I don’t know if you saw this is actually going back and forth on Twitter with Elon over the course of the weekend about how he’s basically thinking about the platform and that this thing’s a mess and it really can be the downfall. To your point, I think of this Tesla stock. [00:13:00][160.0]
Danny Moses: [00:13:01] And Dan, just to put that back together, your 100% people have to put Twitter and Tesla together because of the reason of what Musk has at risk here. So that’s 100% right. So his personal stake in Tesla, which would cause the stock to unravel if he was forced or got margin called on it. What happens at Twitter is going to have an effect on that. And let me just say this. He’s exactly who we thought he was. He’s a narcissist. So he would have said the opposite if it would help him. He needs Republicans in office to stop these investigations into him. It’s that simple. He does whatever’s right in front of him so we can move on from that. But that’s basically it. Guy. [00:13:33][32.3]
Guy Adami: [00:13:33] Before we get to Nouriel real quick, it’s worth mentioning, obviously, the whole EV movement was on the back of hopefully getting away from fossil fuels. But as we sit here at the end of September, I think it was September 27th, which was trading around 205, as we sit here right now, it’s about to make a new 52 week high, trading around 316. I think the high was made back in June. And the stealth rally in some of these oil service names, Danny, that we talked about last week with Vinny and Porter to me is fascinating. [00:14:01][28.2]
Danny Moses: [00:14:03] Yeah, I mean, in the coal names in particular. So when they were on the podcast the other day, Peabody, which they mentioned, Peabody, Peabody beat BTU had reported in the stock, kind of was up three bucks and kind of pulled in and they were buying the hell out of it that day around 23, 24. And you saw what happened. You have natural gas, which I believe Guy, if I’m not mistaken, someone look on their FactSet machine. But natural gas is spiking again today. That normally has a correlation directly to coal. But they came out and basically said that they’re not that they called off the merger with the company in Australia and that was kind of the overhang that prevented that stock from moving higher. But yeah, I think there’s still a lot of money to be made here. One thing I think it’s worth pointing out, I was the article today on Silicon Valley Bank and First Republic Bank. A lot of these kind of high fliers that cater to high net worth individuals and companies, specifically in the technology space as relates to Silicon Valley, stocks have gotten hammered. And I’ll say it again, this is going to be the time for active investors to make a lot of money. And even if you’re a mutual fund, it’s not about the XLF. It’s about what’s in the XLF, the divergence in that sector alone. And that has been massive. And again, I would tell people, do your bottom up work. It’s going to pay off a lot. [00:15:07][63.9]
Guy Adami: [00:15:07] When we come back, the author of MegaThreats Ten Dangerous Trends That Imperil Our Future and How to Survive Them. Danny Moses. Right Up Your Alley. Nouriel Roubini. CME Ad. [00:15:18][11.1]
Dan Nathan: [00:15:56] iConnections Ad. [00:15:57][0.8]
Guy Adami: [00:16:45] FactSet Ad. Nouriel Roubini is a professor emeritus of economics at NYUs Stern School of Business and chairman of Roubini Macro Associates, LLC. He has served in the White House, and United States Treasury is also the author of the new book MegaThreats: Ten Dangerous Trends That Imperil Our Future and How to Survive Them. Available now wherever books are sold. Nouriel, welcome to On the Tape. Mary Shelley, Edgar Allan Poe, Dean Koontz, Stephen King. All these authors are authors of fiction, and they’re terrifying. But what Nouriel Roubini wrote is not fiction. It’s nonfiction and it’s equally terrifying. Nouriel, how are you? [00:18:10][84.5]
Nouriel Roubini: [00:18:11] I’m doing really great today. It’s wonderful being here with all of you guys. [00:18:14][3.1]
Guy Adami: [00:18:15] It’s great having you. And listen, we’re reading your book and I think it is a must read. And we were just talking before the podcast and you said this is the most important book you’ve written. Speak to that, because if you think about it, when you make that kind of superlative, that speaks volumes. [00:18:31][16.5]
Nouriel Roubini: [00:18:33] Well, it is the most important book I’ve ever written for the following reason. I’m an economist, I believe in comparative advantage, and I write about the economic, monetary and financial issues and risks. But I realize that in our world today, these economic and financial risks are interconnected with many other ones. There are social and political risks that geopolitical risk are environmental risks, the health risks that technological risks coming from. I am learning about an automation. There is a risk of globalization and fragmentation of the global economy. And I realize that each one of these MegaThreats that I discuss in the book affects the other and is affected back like a ten by ten matrix. What happens in a holistic way is interconnected. So all these risks are connected to each other. We can’t talk about economics without talking about politics and geopolitics. We cannot talk about geopolitics or environment, without understanding the financial implications and the economic ones. So it’s a bit ambitious because usually people say stick to what, you know, base act to spend a long time understanding politics, geopolitics, environments, science, technology and things I didn’t know as much about. I take an economic outlook on this issue and I’m trying to connect all these threads together. That’s why it is my soulmate in some sense. [00:19:55][82.4]
Dan Nathan: [00:19:56] Well, you know, Nouriel, I’d love to get a sense of kind of when you started thinking about putting this all together in one book, was it the start of the pandemic where we saw a lot of these mega threats kind of smash together? And then we saw a lot of very unprepared organizations, whether they be governments or central banks or, you know, international organizations, not really ready for the sort of event that we had unfold over the last couple of years. And I’m just curious and again, you know, I’ve been reading this and it is a fascinating read. The idea that you put them all together and how they might intersect, as you just talked about, is something I really wanted to keep this book away from Danny and Guy because and they it was unavoidable. But these are all themes that we talk a lot about. And the ones that I know, you know, are forefront for us is central bank policy, is debt in leverage. And a lot of the way our listeners think about how those affect their investments in the like but talk just a little bit about when did you. Conceive of the idea of putting this all together in one book. [00:20:58][62.0]
Nouriel Roubini: [00:20:59] You’re right. I conceived of it at the beginning of the COVID pandemic because this was a major shock to the global economy. But then I realized that that policy response is going to eventually lead to inflation. But there will be also negative supply shocks that lead to a recession, and the combination of the two will be stagflation. I’m old enough with gray hair. I remember the seventies when we had two major oil shocks and we had that stagflation. And I realized was not just about stagflation compared to the seventies when we had stagflation. Now we have also a mountain of debt that we did not have in the 1970s. So not only are we going to get stagflation, but like after the GFC we’re going to have a debt problem. But during the GFC where that debt problem, but we did not have an inflation problem because demand shock credit crunch today. Instead, we’re facing the worst of the 1970s with a series of severe, protracted negative supply shocks that are stagflation. And at the same time, with declarations that that four times for US and advanced economies as those that were in the 1970s. So both private and public banks. So not only are we going to have inflation, not only we’re going to have recession and stagflation, we’re going to have what I call a stagflation that rises with the mother of all debt crisis on top of it, with the first time ever a major pandemic in a long time. We saw in those years also the beginning of escalation of the tensions between China and the United States and not just between China and US. And we saw what happened between Russia and Ukraine, this collision of the tensions between Israel and us on one side in Iran. So I realize that we’re not only in a geopolitical recession, we are in a geopolitical depression that was similar to the one that occurred in the 1930s where you had a bunch of revisionist powers, violent, aggressive, authoritarian coming to power. And these powers were challenging the economic, social, political and geopolitical order that the US, Europe and the West. A trade off the world to. These are a vision espoused like Russia, China, Iran, North Korea and increasingly also Pakistan that are alike to each other. And this geopolitical depression would lead to a cold war between us and China. This Cold War is going to get colder with the risk even of a hot war. And I predict in advance when people did not expected that Russia would invade the Ukraine in December of 2021, I saw it coming and I realized that in addition to the geopolitical consequences, this geopolitical depression is going to lead to a decoupling the fragmentation of the global economy, the Balkanization of global supply chains, the division of the world into warring economic, financial, technological, political, currency and monetary system. And that would be also stagflation on top of the risk of having even widened war and potentially even World War Three. This is something that people are starting to talk seriously about even in Washington, that this escalation from a Cold War to becoming colder could lead to essentially to hot war. So we will be lucky as even my friend Neil Ferguson said in a column recently, if we only repeat the 1970s, when we had the stagflation, but we have at risk of repeating what’s happened in the 1930s with the economic and financial meltdown, and then 1940s, where the rise to power of authoritarian, aggressive regimes in Germany, Italy, Spain and in Japan led to World War Two. So that’s the danger we’re facing. Economic crisis, financial crises, debt crises, but also political and geopolitical crises on top of environmental problems becoming more severe and a situation in which pandemics are becoming also more severe, in part because of climate change, and where now liberal democracy is being challenged by extremist parties of extreme right and extreme left all over the world. And on top of it, we have now the layer of AI machine learning robotics and automation that’s going to increase the economic pie, but make it more unequal and lead actually to a backlash because it’s going to cause massive job losses and permanent technological unemployment. This is a perfect storm, actually is worse than the thirties. And the forties because at that time they did not have to worry about A.I. they do not have to worry about climate change. These are new threats that are specific to our times. [00:25:44][285.4]
Danny Moses: [00:25:45] Nouriel just to bring it back to the markets for a second, we were in lock step with you in 26 and seven. You were on in offices. We were a subscriber to newsletter. And I think for the people that only see you as Dr. Doom or whatever. You’re all you want to be, Dr. Realist, which is what you are. And you and you talk about everything with such passion and knowledge. But I want to just say one thing that you highlighted in your book that I think is the key for for all these investors right now, is that I don’t think that you believed and I didn’t believe that the governments globally would bail out the system as much as they did or that they would have needed to do that. And the moral hazard that has been created as a result of that. You just want to slap people a little bit in the face and wake them up. That to me is a key ingredient in all of this, is the lack of acknowledgment of the moral hazard that’s been created by the central banks and how painful it is and going to be to unwind that. Can you talk about that, please? [00:26:34][49.6]
Nouriel Roubini: [00:26:35] Absolutely. One thing that’s happening, the global economy, these massive buildup of private and public debt, the sum of the two globally in the seventies was 100% of GDP. By 1999 was 200% of GDP. Today is 350% of GDP and rising. In advanced economies, 420% of GDP and rising in China, 330 in the U.S. That debt ratio, private and public, is higher than after the Great Depression and after World War Two. And we have not coming out of a Great Depression or a major war. Why this buildup of debt occurred? There is a long factors about it. We always kicked the can down the road. We don’t want either to raise taxes to pay for the spending when Democrats are in power sufficiently. And we don’t want to cut spending enough when Republicans are in power to cut taxes. So there is a bias both on the right and on the left towards deficits, and there’s a bias towards deficits in good times. And there’s a bias, of course, when there is a recession. And it’s not just the buildup of public debt, but those of private debt. We democratize finance because people wanted to keep up with the Joneses and the income was not sufficient to pay for their own consumption. And therefore, we created the mortgage crisis. People were using their home as an ATM machine, and now we have democratizing again by having this day trading on Robinhood and so on. Young people that skill less, less income less while less are gambling their future by gambling on this platform. So again is a way of building up leverage in debt. But one of the major factors is monetary policy. Whenever there is a bubble, central banks don’t do anything to deflate it. Their view and this was the philosophy of Ben Bernanke wrote several papers was when a bubble goes up, we cannot essentially try to control it because he says it’s like trying to do neurosurgery with a sledgehammer. You’re going to kill the patient. But then when the bubble burst, because there’s going to be an economic and financial shock, you have to bail out people. You have to ease monetary policy. You have to backstop the banks, the non-banks, the houses, the corporates and the governments. But that creates a massive moral hazard because in a good time that contains rise in the bad times, we have easy monetary, fiscal and credit policy becomes even more of an incentive to build up debt. So debt goes higher and higher and higher. We had the Greenspan, but then we had the Bernanke boot, then we had the Yellen boot, but now we have the Powell boot and has been every central bank doing the same. So that is a huge interaction between this buildup of debt and very loose monetary and credit policy that essentially they’ve allowed the creation of this debt trap. But the paradox is that now we are in a debt trap. There is so much private and public debt that the central banks now I’m trying to fight inflation by increasing interest rates. Not only they’re going to cause a hard landing of the real economy that I call the hard landing of financial markets, equities, bonds, credit, private equity, public equity, real estate and so on. This year, everything has gone down, and that’s going to imply essentially that they are not willing and able to fight inflation because they are in a debt trap. They’re not stupid. They’re not, I have to say, evil, but they’ve built up such an amount of private and public debt that now, any attempt to fight inflation is going to cause a financial meltdown. That’s why I think they’re going to blink. They’re going to win payout in advance of the higher inflation because the alternative of an economic crash and a financial crash is even worse. But they created this problem over the last few decades. Every year after year. [00:30:23][228.6]
Guy Adami: [00:30:24] We got to hang out. We have to hang. We have to have a scotch. We have to hang out. So here’s I’m going to ask questions in a row, so bear with me. That arsonist, I mean, that economist Ben Bernanke won Nobel Prize for economics. When you saw that, what was your initial reaction? Because I know mine was. [00:30:43][18.8]
Nouriel Roubini: [00:30:44] Well, my initial reaction was that it was a mistake. And I’m being polite. Mistake because is an academic research on how you deal with asset bubbles and the burst was the wrong prescription. Do not think when there is a bubble and then clean up the mess and bail out everybody when it burst first. Secondly, he underestimated the severity of the financial crisis in 2006 2007. Tim Geithner, Janet Yellen, the Fed were telling him we have a massive mortgage problem is going to go bust. The banking crisis, a recession. I was saying it more loudly. He was not listening even into the crisis, said is going to be a mild economic slowdown. There’s not going to be a banking crisis. And he’s supposed to be an expert, of course, of banking and financial crisis. And the policy response was delayed. And then what became excessive in terms of creating type of tools, zero policy rates, quantitative easing, credit easing, backstopping households, corporates, banks, non-banks, money markets, commercial paper eventually high yield high grade during the COVID crisis that led to this wide array of monetary tools that did not even exist. No one 20 years ago I heard about zero ordinary or QE or credit easing. It created that tool box and has become now standard and conventional and is becoming even more unconventional because from conventional went unconventional and now people are talking about modern monetary theory. Permanent monetization of fiscal deficits is something that even Bernanke has spoken about and written about two years ago, he said When there is a severe recession on a temporary basis, we may want to monetize fiscal deficits. He wrote it he is on record. Not having that view that actually temporary MMT might be the right policy to deal with the economic and financial crash. So I respect them, but I think he made many analytical and policy mistakes. [00:32:47][122.3]
Guy Adami: [00:32:47] Yeah, and that’s being nice. Him and Stephanie Kelton can hang out and go over their MMT together because that’s madness. I’ve said this. [00:32:54][7.0]
Nouriel Roubini: [00:32:55] She wants permanent MMT fed enough to eat me wants temporary MMT, but is MMT. [00:32:59][4.6]
Guy Adami: [00:33:00] Yeah. Well, I mean, I think temporary becomes permanent, but that’s that’s that’s neither here nor there. [00:33:06][5.2]
Nouriel Roubini: [00:33:06] So it’s like. [00:33:06][0.5]
Guy Adami: [00:33:07] I’ve said this and I’m curious as to your thoughts. I’ve said among the many villains of the 21st century and there’s a frickin laundry list, central bankers are going to be at the top of the list. And you said something before, they’re not evil people. They’re not malicious people, but they’re people with way too much power that don’t understand or at least have no comprehension of the problems that they’ve created. Thoughts on that. [00:33:31][24.1]
Nouriel Roubini: [00:33:32] I do agree. I in some sense, you know, they were in a bind because we had the first of all, fiscal policies, whether when Republicans were in power or Democrats, that led to a lot of buildup of public debt. And then if you try to use monetary policy, then to fight that, you’re starting a fight with fiscal authorities and monetary authority. They usually say, we don’t want to tell the fiscal authority what they should be doing. Then the fiscal authority decided, you know, these are the public that we’re going to democratize finance and allow people that cannot afford homes, they can’t afford auto loans, they can’t afford student loans to borrow like crazy and build up the debt. So we created the public debt trap in the private debt class. Once that happened, Central Bank de facto stopped it to say, okay, we’re going to try to ease the pain by having relatively easy monetary and credit policy. But by doing that, they created the moral hazard. They gave incentives to private and public agents to borrow even more. And when things really became bad, like during a recession or a crisis, you went to very unconventional policy, not just reducing interest rates, but zero, negative quantitative easing, credit easing, affecting bailout of everybody across the board. And that created even more of a debt trap. So essentially, the fiscal authority, what initially they want, they made that mistakes. But then the monetary authority essentially, instead of taking the punchbowl away, as they showed, they fed, essentially fueled with more liquidity, this crazy buildup of leverage, that risk taking in the private and the public economy. So it was a synergy between the fiscal authorities and the monetary authorities and did not matter whether there was a Republican in power or a Democrat center right, center left, Tories, progressive and so on. This problem occurred in the US, in Europe, in the U.K. under different types of administrations. So this is not a partizan issue. Everybody essentially was drunk at this party and we built up the mother of all debts and now the mother. Will the debt crisis. Until now, every time there was a crisis, there was deflation. So we could ease even more. Today, for the first time with inflation. So we cannot do what we did after the GFC and after COVID of going back to the same zero negative rates, QE and credit easing. We have to do the opposite. And that’s one that the system is going to break down. [00:36:05][152.7]
Danny Moses: [00:36:06] Nouriel so you talk about explicit debts and implicit debts in the system and you’re talking about pension funds. We just got a glimpse of what can happen. What you just describe was Bank of England and what’s going on in the UK when you can’t print your way out of it because it becomes more inflationary, right? Or pick your poison. You can you can start to try to inflict higher taxes, which will slow the economy. Either way, you’re kind of on the other side here of Goldilocks, so to speak. So can you talk about that? Because it feels like that’s a microcosm of both of what we’re about to see across the world. [00:36:35][29.3]
Nouriel Roubini: [00:36:36] Well, in addition to the explicit debt of the government, local governments often say there is what they call implicit, that the unfunded liabilities are coming from pay as you go Social Security, pension and health care system in aging population, because you have less workers and more retirees. And the taxes of the payroll taxes of their workers are paying for the benefits of the retiree. People have estimated that the size of this implicit debt in a typical advanced economy is about 100% of GDP. When the average is out of the official public bond, in the advanced economies are 100% of GDP in some countries in Europe larger. So not only we have a massive amount of express that we have also a massive amount of implicit debt. And in the past we resolve that problem because we didn’t have aging yet and we had migration of people coming into the country to increase growth, increase the labor supply, increase the payroll taxes. Now for economic, social and other reason was stopping. And we’re essentially having the same migration policies under Biden as we did on the problem, same thing in Europe and around the world. So we have a huge build up of debts and these debts are becoming increasingly unsustainable and these debts are now interacting, as I pointed out, with this negative supply shock. So that’s why I call it not only the mother of all debt crisis. Not only that, you go coming great stagflation, but the great stagflation are a debt crisis. And unfortunately, central banks are them if you do and damned if you don’t. Even if we didn’t have a debt problem, given the negative supply shock, the reduced growth and increased inflation, then they have a huge problem because either they fight inflation by raising rates enough and they cause a severe recession, or if they care about growth and they don’t increase interest rates, they’re going to cause a downgrading of inflation and inflation expectation in a widespread spot. That’s a traditional problem. But now they have an additional problem of financial stability. Not only when you raise rates to fight inflation, you cause an economic recession and a severe one. Severe because there is so much that in the system and that servicing rates are going to rise as you raise interest rates. But on top of the economic crash, going to cause a financial crash because there is so much debt in the system that even going from zero rates to now closer to four and bond yields have gone only from 1% to 4%. What has happened this year? Public equity, S&P 500 down about 20%. NASDAQ more. Private equity down. Growth stocks, tech stocks, venture capital stocks all down. Public rates, credit market high and high grade leveraged, long closed, all crashing. And usually when you have a 6040 portfolio equity in bonds, when you make money on equity, you lose money on bonds and vice versa. Risk on risk of growth and recession. That assumes that inflation is low because when inflation is rising, even gradually. What happened is the discount factor for equities goes higher as bond is higher. So you lose on the equity side like it did this year, about 20%. But the increase of long bond yields, ten year treasury from 1 to 4% this year implies that the price of that bond has fallen by about 25%. So you lost money, more money than your saved bond this year than your equities, the correlation that is negative between bond prices and equity prices became positive when inflation is rising. So there was nowhere to hide. You lost money on equities rather than public real estate, on credit and on bonds and even on cash, because the nominal value of cash doesn’t change. But inflation wipes out the real value of debt. So this is a situation when you have a problem, you create that with speculation and shock, too much debt and the need to fight inflation. It’s an economic problem but is a massive also loss of financial weight across the board. There was almost nowhere to hide this year. [00:41:05][269.0]
Dan Nathan: [00:41:05] So so Nouriel, you just described a lot of the kind of ripple effects we’re seeing from just, you know, the the debt splurge that we’ve seen globally. Where do you expect to see, you know, the first blow up? You know, people have been kind of pointing to China for, you know, a decade or so. You know, we know that the U.S. was ground zero for the mortgage crisis. That kind of kind of morphed into a global debt crisis. Right. And some people would say that it’s been a rolling debt crisis really since, you know, the mid aughts or so. Where are we likely to see kind of the next phase of this? Because you are literally looking out in the book, you know, like two decades here and saying it’s coming. Where do you think it really kind of gets going here? And is it in the U.S. where, again, we’re kind of first to all of those you know, you talked about zero and you talked about quantitative easing. You talk about in the book how we went from, you know, under $1,000,000,000,000. You know, as far as the Fed’s balance sheet to now, we’re nearly 10 trillion and we can’t even roll that off. So where does it all really get going? [00:42:13][68.4]
Nouriel Roubini: [00:42:14] Well, you have to be very precise by looking at country by country and balance sheet by balance sheet within each country, that is the balance sheet of households, of corporate some that private non-financial business sector banks, shadow banks, the government, central and local, and then the country overall. And depending on the country, the stresses are different. I would say to generalize, the following observation during the GFC was mostly a problem of balance sheets of households that borrowed too much for mortgages that an excessive leverage I was thinking of the banks was not just the US the housing bubble going bust in Iceland, in Ireland, in Spain, in Dubai, in Italy, in Greece, among others, because there were housing bubbles all over the world. So was housing and neglect of banks. After the GFC, the household balance sheet improved gradually, not because they saved more, but because the default debt and therefore the reduce the that to default. And then we regulated the banks from Basel three with more liquidity, more capital and so on. So the buildup of the debt, because we had very loose monetary policy for a decade after the GFC, went however into one the corporate sector, the shadow banks and the governments corporate sector, because you had the high year that it started to explode, became very cheap with spreads on high yield, very low. You had all the fallen angels that were formerly investment grade and they became below investment grade because of their leverage. $1,000,000,000,000 of those types of that’s in the US alone for fallen angels. And then with the build up of private debt not just traditional bonded high yield and I great leveraged loans CLOs called light in other forms of private debt and that those risks became also excessive, especially because the commandants on that private debt were extremely loose and dangerous. By the way, before the COVID crisis, the Fed was writing their quarterly financial stability reports. And they were all of them about the buildup, excessive of the corporate debt that was excessive leverage and so on by some fraction of the corporate system, of course, is you’re an Amazon or a Google, and you are growing very fast, you’re not very leveraged, you’re not going to have a problem. But there’s a good chunk of the corporate cycle of these high leverage, high yields that close and you name it. The Fed was warning about the buildup of assets. And on this financing, there was, according to shadow banks, hedge funds, private equity funds that funds and so on and so on. So that was the nature of the risk, not just the U.S., but also in many parts of Europe in advanced economies. But the paradox was there are many zombie corporation and businesses on the onset of the COVID crisis and they should have gone bust. But during the COVID crisis, what they would do went back to zero policy rates, quantitative easing, credit easing, even buying high yields, not only high grade corporate debt for the first time in the US and continue to do so in Japan. In Europe, we backstop money markets, commercial paper and the fiscal stuff, backstop every business in the land, household corporates, small business as big businesses. So that zombie highly leveraged corporates that the Fed was warning about, they should have gone bust. Not only did they go bust, they were bailed out and they borrowed even more. So we created even a more of a leverage problem in the corporate sector. But now the parties over the entire single market in the US and the leverage of our market, the US right now is almost shut down. The spreads have become so high that the issuance starting October is going towards zero and this is only the beginning of the problem. We don’t yet have a recession in high yield spreads on 600 basis points above Treasury in other shocks. In the past my stocks, they went to a thousand so that risk of the corporate sector in the leverage is only starting to build up even before we have an actual recession. So the time bomb right now for the US and many advanced economies is not households and banks, but corporates and shadow banks in some advanced economies like the UK and so on there’s also massive buildup of course of public debt and we have reckless fiscal policy. We know what the market discipline is telling you when you have a reckless fiscal policy. We are not yet there in the United States, but we could be there even when we get into a recession. Of course, then around the world you have emerging markets, many of them the World Bank, IMF, say about 80 of them are they’re under severe distress. They’ll have to either default or orderly restructure of the debt. And they have shocks with higher interest rates, higher inflation, negative terms of trade shock when the important raw materials in commodities and having a weakening of their currencies because the dollar is becoming stronger. So is there like a triple whammy for a large number of fragile emerging market economies. And in Europe, we have a shock to energy that is worse than the United States. Same thing in the United Kingdom. That’s why in Europe, inflation is already now in the UK, in the eurozone, double digit and rising. And the Bank of England is already officially predicting five quarters of negative economic growth and the ECB is already officially revising their forecasts to say, most likely we’re going to have a recession. The Fed is still delusional. To believe they’re going to avoid the recession, I think is mission impossible. But in the US we’re not yet they’re going to get there quite soon. So the debt problems are across the world, advanced economies, emerging markets from tier economies, poorer countries, and whether it’s households or corporates or banks or shadow banks or government in some states, it doesn’t matter because of the snowball effect from sector to sector. In the past, when you have a corporate debt crisis or a house of debt crisis, the banks and the shadow banks go bust. Then the government has to bail out the banks and then you have a sovereign debt problem like in Europe, and you have a duel between the banks and the sovereign. So it doesn’t matter whether it is a sectoral problem, the sector problem from the private sector can go to the financial system and then to the sovereign, and that often becomes a bigger debt problem that has in the past is going to happen again in this case. [00:49:00][405.7]
Danny Moses: [00:49:00] Nouriel, so the multitrillion dollar question which leads back to all everything you’re describing to me, one of the biggest things that I don’t know what’s going to happen is U.S. treasuries, will they start to trade on their own profit and loss income statement or will they be a flight to quality? Because everything that you’re describing to me, if people believe that the full faith and credit of the U.S. is at risk, there’s no bottom, obviously, to the markets. So how do we kind of are we going to be at 1 to 2%? Treasury’s here in the next 12 to 18 months, are we going to shoot up to six or seven on a credit worthiness estimate? Because that’s always been the biggest question for me. [00:49:36][35.1]
Nouriel Roubini: [00:49:36] Well, the U.S. is lucky because the dollar is still the major global reserve currency. And often when there are risk of episodes, people go into the safety of the U.S. dollar. And this year, because of still the lingering effects of COVID, because of the risk of stagflation, because of Russia, Ukraine, and because of the tightening of monetary policy by the Fed, people have gone into the dollar. Why? Of course, long term Treasury yields have gone much higher because you have inflation in the system. So you have the situation which in spite of a stronger dollar. Money is not flowing enough into Treasuries to reduce the yield. They will go higher. But at least the dollar for now gives you the ability to finance this large U.S. budget deficit. And with some exceptions, like March of 2020, when there was a liquidity shock and even bond yields were going through the roof and even safe currencies were falling in value and even gold was falling in value. Everything was falling. Liquidity crunch and the panic. Usually people are still going. The safety of the U.S. dollar. Of course, if there be sovereign debt problems, they’re going to start in the United Kingdom or maybe in Italy or eventually in Japan. The advantage of advanced economies compared to emerging markets is that they can borrow their own currency, unlike emerging markets have that dollar of debt, and therefore that’s to default when that is not sustainable. So I don’t see a formal default in advanced economies. I see a situation in which if the market imposes discipline and you cannot finance yourself, the central bank is going to print money. That’s what happened in the U.K., where the Bank of England went out as soon as there was pressure on the bond yields. And the same thing would happen in Europe and the United States. Of course, if you prevent a default by printing money, even more so when there are concerns about your debt sustainability, then what’s going to happen is going to cause even more inflation, more the ongoing inflation expectations. Bond yields are going to go even higher. So you can postpone that problem, but you cannot avoid it. So you can wipe out the real value of nominal long duration debt at six interest rates to a bout of unexpected inflation is already happening right now. But unless they go to very high inflation, you’re not going to reduce the real value of that government debt like Argentina did or Zimbabwe. And I don’t expect hyperinflation. I expect high single digit inflation. So you can fool all of the people some of the time. You cannot fool all of the people all the time. So if central banks are going to now start to monetize these deficits because interest rates are going higher and they want to prevent the economic and financial crash, inflation expectations get them caught, and then the long term debt that comes to maturity has to be refinanced at much higher interest rates in the short term that the cost, the maturity has to be financed. It’s higher nominally real rates real because when inflation is high and volatile, there is an inflation risk premium. So you can postpone the debt crisis by a couple of years by having unexpected inflation. But then when nominal real rates go higher, then you’ll have a real debt crisis. It is for the private sector that cannot essentially be monetize. The public sector can always have the central bank printing money for it. But eventually you get the debt crisis. [00:52:56][200.0]
Guy Adami: [00:52:57] Thanksgiving in your house is going to be a barrel of laughs. Let me tell you something. I. I pay money to be at that table. And I agree with everything you’re saying, which scares the shit out of me. Chinese are our biggest adversaries, without question, in terms of economies. I mean, say what you want about Russia and all those things. But I mean, I fear the Chinese. And listen, you say what you want. They’ve invaded us in a number of different ways, not least of which TikTok, I mean, completely undermining the fabric of the country. I watched a great piece on 60 Minutes last night, but speak to me about a country that is willing to lose many, many battles in order to win the war against an adversary in the United States that has a time horizon of about 7 minutes. How do you win that? [00:53:40][42.8]
Nouriel Roubini: [00:53:40] It’s hard because right now there is a clear Cold War between the US and China. And who’s going to win that war, by the way, is not only going to dominate the industries of the future that are all a combination of AI, machine learning, IOT, big data, 5G and how you connect them together to provide goods and services. But as Eric Schmidt and Eric Kissinger have written, there is a book where dominate A.I. is going to also dominate politically, militarily and geopolitically the world for the next hundred years or so. So that great rivalry is not only economic and financial and technological is who’s going to be the dominant geopolitical power in this century where there’s going to be a relatively liberal democracy with a social welfare system, a market economy like the United States, or an authoritarian, increasingly aggressive state that is based on essentially a form of state capitals. So that’s the risk that we’re facing right now. Of course, what has happened is and it’s important the US on October seven of this year declared war against China. You can mark that date as the beginning of the war between US and China, because US decided to sharply reduce the ability of Chinese to buy semiconductors and semiconductor equipment and people that deal with those businesses for Chinese military and civilian advance application to AI machine learning quantum computing. That’s a declaration of economic and technological war. What we did with it was spare change. We had to do it because the Chinese are going to then use those semiconductor equipment to win that battle. We had no choice. But remember, from a Chinese point of view, that’s not anymore competition is not any more rivalry is an attempt of the U.S. to now contain China. And I’ll remind you one thing of that happened before Penenberg. The U.S. was saying that threats coming from Japan and decided that to limit the exports of what, scrap metal and all to Japan. Japan. Consider that one such a threat to their own security that they went for Pearl Harbor and that Cold War became a hot war. The Chinese are seeing this declaration. We had no choice as a declaration of economic and technological war against the US and they’ve got to go and vote against the US, starting with restricting the exports of rare earth metals and minerals that are necessary to build the green metals and the semiconductor and so on. So there’ll be an escalation of the economic and technological war, and that escalation is the lead to an escalation of the tension over Taiwan, where 50% of all semiconductors in the world are produced and 80% of the science. This is a this is an escalation from a Cold War called the war. And it could eventually lead to a hot war. And the head of the US Navy last week said the Chinese may attack Taiwan not five or ten years from now. He said as early as 2024. [00:57:04][203.9]
Dan Nathan: [00:57:06] All right. So I ask you this next question. It’s kind of tied into a lot of what you just talked about here. And I ask you this, at the risk of losing your blue check and possibly having your Twitter account suspended, okay. If the if Elon Musk doesn’t like the answer here. But, you know, to us, we’ve spent a lot of time talking about Elon and Tesla, okay? Elon just probably overpaid for Twitter, maybe by $25 billion with his $44 billion price. Okay. And he did it, as he says, for humanity because he loves us. Okay. This is the richest man in the world who bought what he thinks is the most important town square. He has 113 million followers on Twitter. There are only 330 million monthly active users, and that list probably goes lower. Okay. So now all of a sudden, this guy who actually is very dependent on China for rare earth materials like you just mentioned, for manufacturing, for sales demand for his electric vehicles. Right. And so he cozies up to the Chinese for Tesla, but then he says he’s all in for free speech on Twitter. And then we see him using Twitter to parrot Kremlin talking points about the war in Ukraine. Right. That sort of thing. So to me, you know, and we’ve talked about this a lot on our part. He’s a really dangerous guy. He might be the most dangerous man in the world, given his resources. Now, given this platform that he has and I’m just curious your thoughts on that, because we spent a lot of time thinking and talking about him. I’m not sure. You know, I think there’s a lot of others out there. We’re making some of these really important decisions we should start should be thinking about what he’s up to here. [00:58:49][103.6]
Nouriel Roubini: [00:58:50] I fully agree with you on Elon Musk, and I’ve been very critical in recent days of what he has done with Twitter and other statement he’s made on Twitter. And if I’m going to be banned, so be it. I don’t care. I speak my mind. The point about Elon Musk is not only there is it’s going to allow anti-Semites, racists, Nazis, white supremacist, weirdos of every sort using this platform to really try them. And even our adversaries. Because that thousands of trolls in China. In Russia. In Iran, in North Korea, they’re trying to create misinformation and disinformation. So it’s delusional when he says this and leave it that free speech. That’s a joke. We know there are limits to free speech and we should not let either criminals or terrorists or enemies trying to destroy our own democracy from within with misinformation, disinformation. But the biggest threat from Elon Musk is not Twitter is a total appeaser, not only of Russia, but especially of China. Smart investors like Warren Buffett realize we’re on a collision course with China. So getting all their investments out of China, the financial investment. Unfortunately, Elon Musk has a huge factory in Shanghai of Tesla cars. Is delusional to believe that the Chinese are going to allow him not only to sell electric vehicles but autonomous vehicles they’re going to use which kind of technology because you have autonomous vehicles and move together, armies of them without hitting each other. You need to have a machine learning big data, IOT and 5G. You think that China is going to allow us, I have to say, 5G system that we use in China? Of course not. And we’re not going to laugh the Chinese cars with their own 5G that we use for our own autonomous vehicle. So is toast in China and is becoming now a piece of because says that Taiwan should get the same kind of deal that Hong Kong did of a special autonomous essentially reason what the joke. I was just in Hong Kong this past week for three days and on Kong is not anymore what they used to be. It’s a ghost town is really depressing what does happen. So in order to cover his ass in his own financial investment in Tesla in China is now telling us, let’s give up on Taiwan. It will have massive geopolitical consequences because if we lose Taiwan, we have zero credibility to defend Japan, South Korea and all our allies in Asia. We are completely lose all credibility. And then the US role in Asia is gone for good. That’s why it’s dangerous. Not just on Twitter is geopolitical views on Russia, on China are driven by his own economic and financial self-interest is talking is book like when he was talking up bitcoin and shit coins and then Russia now China and so on. It’s really a scandal that somebody like this can actually use a bully pulpit like Twitter to manipulate the prices of literally cryptocurrencies. He takes a position and says, by dogecoin or by Bitcoin and he makes money. That is, he should start investigating what is doing in his platform. He’s using it for his own financial interest. That’s a scandal. [01:02:08][198.6]
Guy Adami: [01:02:10] William Shakespeare wrote The tragedy of Julius Caesar. The soothsayer warned Julius Caesar, and the soothsayer proved to be correct about the Ides of March. My fear is, Nouriel, you’re going to prove to be correct about everything you just talked about for the last 40 minutes. We want to thank you for joining us here on the tape. And folks, run out, run. Don’t walk to your favorite book store and buy Nouriel’s book. [01:02:36][26.7]
Nouriel Roubini: [01:02:37] It’s also available on Amazon or any other online. [01:02:40][2.6]
Guy Adami: [01:02:41] Of course it is. [01:02:42][1.4]
Nouriel Roubini: [01:02:43] Most bookstores by the way, I sold out. Do you go to New York City? You can find a copy. Yeah. So you’re better off buying it online. [01:02:49][6.3]
Dan Nathan: [01:02:50] Well, here’s a deal for the first hundred of you. Leave a review and send a a review. A screenshot of that review. You’re going to get it in the mail. So thank you, Nouriel. This was fascinating. We hope you’ll come back whenever you want [01:03:03][12.8]
Danny Moses: [01:03:03] Nouriel it’s great having you here. I just worry. I just worry that if you write about all of this, there is no next book. We’ll just be huddling together in a tent somewhere. But thank you for coming on. [01:03:11][7.4]
Nouriel Roubini: [01:03:11] Working on making this a better world out of all of that doomsday. And the book is about what are the trends and we still may have some time to fix it might be too late, but it’s a warning shot. It’s not by saying we’re doomed, but we have to stop acting now. [01:03:26][14.6]
Guy Adami: [01:03:29] Thanks once again to CME Group and I connections for sponsoring this episode of On the Tape. If you like what you heard, make sure you hit, follow and leave us a review. It helps people find our show and we love hearing from you can also email us at on the tape at risk reversal. Dot com any time. Follow and connect with us on Twitter at on the tape pod and we’ll see you next time. [01:03:53][23.5]
Dan Nathan: [01:03:54] On the tape is a risk reversal media production. This podcast is for informational purposes only. All opinions expressed by me and Nathan Guy, Danny, Danny Moses and any other participants are solely our opinions and should not be relied upon for specific investment decisions. [01:03:54][0.0]
[3630.8]
See what adding futures can do for you at cmegroup.com/onthetape.