Transcripts

Erik: Joining me now is Uranium Insider, founder and newsletter editor Justin  Huhn. Justin, great to have you back on the show. I can't believe it's been a year  since we've had you on, folks. Justin prepared a slide deck to accompany today's  interview. You're definitely gonna wanna download this one. You'll find the  link in your research roundup email. If you don't have a research roundup email,  just go to our homepage, macrovoices.com. Click the red button above Justin's  picture that says, looking for the downloads. 

Justin. Wow. First of all, I want to give you credit just a few weeks ago, this  correction that we saw in uranium stocks. I think you called the bottom of that  exactly to the day in the newsletter. 

And that was a great help to me and your other newsletter subscribers. I wanna  move on though to another call that you've just made in the last few days. You  guys are starting to trim some positions just because, boy, this, as much as I'm  incredibly bullish, we've had such an incredible run the last few weeks. 

I look at the Stochastics now that we're extreme oversold on both the daily and  the weekly charts. Eh, now they're falling into overbought territory. So what do  you think is are you guys trimming just because it's discipline and you've done  

so well? Or is it maybe a turning point where we're about to get a swing trade  lower? 

Justin: It's definitely the former. First of all, happy to be back. Thank you so  much for having me on. Always enjoy speaking with you. I know you guys  have done a lot of work in this space so always enjoy these conversations. Yeah  the space right now has had a stellar start to the year. In fact, the fast four weeks  have basically been straight up for the uranium equities. 

The ETFs are up 30 plus percent to start the year. It's pretty, been a pretty  incredible move. We have as a trading portfolio that we established last year  that did extremely well for us last year. In fact we established it in February of  2025, and it's up over a hundred percent since inception, and that involves  swing trading, a basket of highly liquid stocks in the space. 

So for us, this is more of a chart and interpretation as well as some influence  from either the physical market and or sentiment. So sentiment is definitely  heating up here. That's one sign. But the physical market is chugging along. We  just had the UXC print today over $91 a pound up from the low eighties to start  the year.

So it's been a solid move so far in physical, we think that move has plenty of  legs. So as far as trimming positions, that primarily is the swing trading  portfolio for the most part. We do have a bit of cash in both portfolios, but we're  very net long here and expecting further moves. So not expecting a big trough,  the broad market is not necessarily my forte, but if that, loses some momentum,  we could definitely see some downside here for the equities. 

But for now it's looking very strong. And Sprott here has a war chest. They're  gonna end the day with over 200 million in cash and that's a lot of money to buy  physical uranium. And luckily they're not the only players in the spot market  right now, but we can dive deeper into that if you want. 

Erik: Yeah, let's go a little deeper on that subject because SPUT, this sprott  physical uranium trust. I think most investors don't understand how pivotal of a  role it plays when SPUT is trading at a discount to NAV. It does not have the  ability, somebody buying some more SPUT is not. Like buying uranium in the  market and taking any supply, off the market. 

But when SPUT trades at a premium to NAV like it is right now, every, share  that somebody buys where this trust itself can issue a new share and raise cash,  that's cash that you would think is immediately in the most immediate sense. In  the moment that you buy that share. 

You would think that's buying uranium on the spot market, but that's not really  how it works. There's a lag effect there. SPUT built up a war chest, as you said.  Why are they doing that and what happens and when will it happen that they  start to put that money to work? Because for, for the longest time everybody  was saying SPUT's not raising money. 

That's the reason we're not really seeing the spot price moving. Now we are  seeing the spot price, moving SPUT is raising money, but they're not putting the  money to work. How come.  

Justin: So they bought, the monthly average of the prior negotiated limitation  of annual purchasing of 9 million pounds in January, already 750,000 pounds. 

And in our estimation, they were doing this because they needed to do a couple  of things before they could come back in and raise a lot more money or buy a  lot more pounds, which is reestablish their ATM and renegotiate the, not only  the shelf prospectus and file the shelf prospectus, which they did for 2 billion.

And their ATM now has a fresh 1 billion, but also renegotiate that annual  limitation with the Ontario Securities Commission, which I believe they are in  process of doing right now or if not in, in the coming weeks. Either way, they  are back in the market doing some purchasing today, but leading up to filing  that new prospectus. 

Negotiating with the OSC, it seemed like they were treading lightly, so they  weren't issuing as much as many units as they normally would when trading at a  premium. And as mentioned, we've had a very equities risk on environment for  the entire month so far, with the exception of a couple of days. 

And so they just traded at an increasingly large premium to their net asset value.  I think the highest closing nav that they had this month was pushing 9%  premium. So yesterday, once we saw that their ATM had been re-up to a billion,  we saw SPUT trade down pretty heavily, taking it all the way essentially back  down to nav. 

And what that was SPUT actually ising issuing units into the market. They  raised almost 20 million yesterday. As far as we can tell, they've probably raised  north of 50. I think they've raised somewhere between 60 and $70 million today  alone on Tuesday the 27th as we record this. So the war chest is basically a  factor of them not buying uranium because they were treading lightly prior to  negotiating again with the osc. 

So that is all coming to a close and they're gonna be back and it feels to me,  Eric, there's a bit of a Wall Street awareness of some type of kind of uranium  squeeze environment here. In fact, we're seeing multiple elements in the  physical market that are resembling Q3 of 2023, which is essentially, we had a  firmly established trend in the spot price and the sellers started to hold on a bit  more tightly to their pounds. 

And we started to see that, that dynamic over the past, let's say week or so.  Wasn't there to end the year, not in the beginning of the month, but it's not just  spud in there buying, we see traders in there as well. Other financials, hedge  funds and banks are in there as well, and utilities also. 

Some of the utilities are chasing the spot price here, and there's decent activity  in the term market, so all signs are pointing to further tightness in the physical  market and higher prices. 

Erik: So just to recap all of that, the story of the last quarter of 2025 was  basically, look the fundamentals are really terrific for the uranium market, but  unfortunately the spot price just isn't moving for some reason. 

And until it does, this thing can't really be unleashed. Then you get all of a  sudden SPUT raising all this money. They've got the cash to buy a much more  uranium, they're not allowed to do it because their agreement with the OSC  limits the amount that they can buy. As a result, they're getting all of this cash  built up, and despite the fact that they're not allowed to put that cash to work in  the spot market, we're still up 30% on the year in January is not over yet. 

So when they hopefully negotiate with the OSC and are allowed to invest the  money that they're sitting on, the cash that they're sitting on it potentially is a  big pushup on prices. Now, what I want to come to next, because I think it's  really important for investors to think about is a lot of people have been saying,  look. 

If you look at the charts as much as the the uranium miners have done  fabulously well, that seems to be a lot of speculation. The spot price of uranium  wasn't really doing so well, and therefore, the smart money ought to not be  buying any more uranium stocks. We ought to be buying SPUT and other  proxies for direct investment. 

In not uranium miners, but uranium itself because it's the commodity as  opposed to the stocks that hasn't moved yet. So you really ought to be doing a  sector rotation, if you will, out of the uranium miners into Spot and other  proxies for uranium itself like YCA and the other tickers that are just uranium. 

Now that's a pretty popular view. I don't agree with it. Justin, what I think is  going on is the commodity market has to balance itself in real time. The stock  market is forward looking. The stock market saw this coming. That's the reason  you saw such a big appreciation in the miners, and I think the miners have been  at a point where they can't get too far ahead of SPUT. 

Is SPUT finally takes off. I think the miners are set to explode higher. Which of  those views is right? 'cause there, it really affects where you're gonna put your  money in this sector.  

Justin: I think that the, an investment in SPUT or physical uranium, let's say  here, a proxy for physical uranium is a very strong risk reward proposition.

The downside for the spot uranium market here is relatively minimal. Of course,  you can have markets go risk off and SPUT can technically trade at a much  larger discount to n as it has a few times in the past, pushing a 15, 16, 17%  discount. I would argue the downside for spot here is, 15 to 20% maybe in a risk  off environment. 

But spot price is highly unlikely, at least right now, to be moving down at all,  let alone, a five or $10 move down. Now we will see this move up eventually  peak and eventually pull back probably to a higher low. The low of last year  was in the low sixties. Then we had a floor move up into the seventies, and I  would argue the floor now is probably in the mid to high eighties as we're  trading 91 here. 

So the confidence in SPUT moving higher is very high. And so your risk reward  for spot is extremely attractive. Your downside might be 10, 15, 20%  maximum, and the upside here could potentially be a hundred percent, maybe  even more if things get really wild. So it's a very, it's a much safer investment. 

It's very liquid. So for large institutions that don't want to take on individual  mining, stock risk buying SPUT is a no-brainer. With that said, I agree with  you. I think that Q4, Q3, late Q3 into Q4 of last year was the equities market for  the Iranian mining stock. Looking over the valley and expecting the prices to  eventually move and that was a pretty consensus type thought back then and  still is. 

We had the term market start to move up after 15 months of consolidation. We  had the spot market slowly start to mo move up. Like I said, we saw the floors  move from the sixties into the seventies. Over just a few short months, we were  seeing evidence that utilities were starting to step back into the term market. 

And in particular last summer, we saw large, very large utilities placing very  small RFPs into the term market, seemingly dipping their toe in the water,  testing the market to see where, what sort of responses they would get. And all  of that tightening has, one obvious conclusion, which is a move up in price. 

So are the equities technically overbought? If you're looking at unbiased view of  the charts? Yeah, sure they are. But what is the backdrop? How do you value a  company like NextGen, like Denison Mines these emerging producers. If you  price in $120 uranium, instead of going back to their feasibility studies pricing  in 50 or 60 uranium, it's a very different environment.

So I agree with you. I think the equities are looking over the valley expecting  this price move that we're currently in. I would argue the early stages of. I  would say yes, and I own both. I think it's a, if you're gonna buy uranium  stocks, that's best to, diversify. I think that just the classic investment capital  preservation tactics are, you shouldn't spare those. 

If you're investing in uranium, definitely be diversified and don't go all in on  one mining stock 'cause it's still mining and crazy stuff happens in mining. You  can have permitting risk, you can have all sorts of things, accidents, Etc, Etc. So  diversified basket of miners plus a reasonable holding in a Sprott, physically  random trust or yellow cake, I think is really the way to go to allocate long hair. 

Erik: Let's look at some of the charts in your slide deck, which is excellent. On  the first page, you're talking about nuclear growth projections, and I think this is  really important to get into because as much as you and I are both extremely  bullish on this sector I think it's the trade of the decade, if if not longer than a  decade. 

But look, our job as professional investors is to take the contrarian side and say,  how could we be getting this wrong? It seems to me like the growth projections  for nuclear. We have to ask ourselves, okay, what could turn this trend around?  Because as your chart on page one shows, it's just. 

Crazy high projections in terms of what's likely to happen, especially if the  Trump administration continues to get its way and is able to promote the  nuclear Renaissance as much as Secretary Chris Wright has been seems to me  like we do have a political risk here in the sense that President Trump fronts that  are completely unrelated to energy is maybe starting to not have as much  unified support in the Republican party for all of his policies. 

Do we have a risk that maybe the Trump administration won't be able to pump  this as hard as they have been, and we're going to have some of these  projections come back down?  

Justin: The good thing with Trump's proclamations in this particular case is that  this is something that the industry actually wants. 

So you're seeing utility interest in building new nuclear. You're obviously  seeing the Trump admin highlight the absolute imperative to increase electricity  generation capacity domestically. Not only just the growth of AI and data  centers, Etc, but just the growth of electrification and demand for electricity.

Even X data centers is set to grow significantly. So they see the problem, they're  trying to invest in it, they're trying to do what they can to support it. But you  also have the tech companies and the tech companies have extremely deep  pockets, arguably almost as deep as the government itself. 

And they're investing directly in nuclear. And there's a further slide on this as  well, a slide number three if you wanna jump to that. A tech company  investment is huge. We're seeing meta Oracle, Amazon Microsoft, all invest  billions and billions of dollars either with power purchase off takes from nuclear  utilities that are currently operating or restarting island reactors like  constellations deal with Microsoft to restart three Mile Island. 

And we're actually seeing big tech companies make direct offtake deals like one  Amazon made a deal with Rio Tinto for copper supply. And I highlight this  question here, just throwing it out there, but it really is more of a tongue in  cheek statement is, will big tech companies secure fuel for their nuclear  investments? 

I think that they will, I think that's an extreme right tail. Driver and potential  catalyst for this investment for the price of uranium is to actually have a tech  company make some sort of deal with a producer or an emerging producer to  

secure pounds as an offtake for future production of uranium, an eventual fuel  for these reactors that they're either funding to life extend or funding to build. 

So how many reactors will we see the United States build in terms of new  capacity is difficult to say. It's obvious. Been a, obviously been a challenge for  many decades. Clearly there's support not only from the federal government, but  from all the entities I already mentioned. So I think if it's going to happen, it's  probably going to happen now and soon. 

Will they be able to have 10 large AP 1000 reactors under construction by  2030? I think so, but it remains to be seen. And this graphic, of course, goes out  all the way to 2050. That on page one here, and the big red bar is government  targets. So anytime you're modeling that far out, you have to make a bunch of  plugs and a bunch of assumptions. 

But the, which, the World Nuclear Association, arguably, a pro-nuclear, but an  unbiased analyst in terms of uranium demand, like they don't necessarily want  to see more uranium demand or whatever you might say on that front, but  they're taking all of the government targets and factoring those into this  extremely bullish graphic.

But if you even go over to 2035, so a 10 year picture. There's barely any plugs  for those government targets on that 10 year timeframe. And in our own  models, Eric, just looking at what's currently operating, what is likely to be life  extended or already officially approved for life extension and what's currently  under construction and expected to hit the grid over that timeframe. 

That's the demand We actually model out for out to 2035 with very few plugs  besides China continuing on the pace they're currently at now. That's how we  model it. That's what we see for demand. Obviously the WNA even going way  out like this is a, this is more than a three X in global nuclear capacity by 2050,  will we hit those targets? 

It's hard to say, in my estimation, it doesn't actually matter for the length of time  for this investment thesis, in my opinion, but. Clearly there's an enormous  amount of momentum, not only in the United States, but on many other  sovereigns that are looking to build nuclear here  

Erik: On this theme of tech companies. I want to touch again, on another  potentially bearish risk factor, and again I couldn't be more bullish on this  sector, but if I think about what could go wrong, one of the things that could go  wrong is Russia has a very large percentage of the enrichment capacity. So even  if we can mine all the uranium that we need, and we can't, but the uranium  bullish thesis is based on the idea of growing. 

Demand not for raw uranium, although it can be raw, uranium can be used in  just a few reactor types. Most of them require enriched uranium and we're very  dependent on foreign sources, particularly Russia, for that enrichment capacity.  It seems to me that if the tech boys could figure out how to help, let's say,  improve the pace at which something like laser enrichment is being adopted. 

By improving that technology, it could take a risk factor out of the market and it  could accelerate demand dramatically. Because if I look at what the demand for  the next 25 years for uranium is gonna be, it seems to me like, there's no  question in my mind that there's gonna be more demand than we could possibly  build mines for. 

If we can figure out how to refine and enrich it, and it's that enrichment capacity  that I'm not so sure about. What do you think in terms of maybe the tech players  getting more involved in enrichment or investing directly in enrichment?  

Justin: I think it's definitely possible. With that said, we're seeing a lot of  investment at least domestically here, coming from the US federal government.

We just saw three $900 million awards to general matter centris and Orano  which is ironically a French company that wants to build enrichment capacity  here in the us. And a smaller award for global laser enrichment. It's certainly  possible. I'm honestly expecting the tech companies to get more involved in  direct investment in the fuel cycle now that they're putting billions and billions  of dollars down to build out the actual new nuclear capacity for the data centers.  So that has yet to really hit, we have heard kind of whispers over the past year  that the tech companies have been poking around the fuel cycle and now seeing  this direct offtake investment by Amazon with Rio Tinto for copper offtake. 

I don't think it's a wild estimation to believe that this is going to continue to  happen on the uranium front. But yeah, the enrichment capacity I think is an  interesting one. We're definitely seeing some being built out in China. Russia  still has the largest capacity. The French are building some, there's a bit more  being built out in the United States. 

Will it keep pace with the existing demand in the market? It seems to be, will it  be sufficient for these lofty projections like that graphic on page one of the slide  deck? No. So if we're going to meet those needs, we're gonna have to see much,  much more capacity of both conversion and enrichment built out. 

Assuming that this build out is largely light water, boiling water or advanced  reactor designs and not heavy water, which so far it has been not a whole lot of  heavy water being built besides in India. And those are smaller reactors, much  smaller capacity. So a lot more of the fuel services fabrication, enrichment  conversion is going to be needed to meet these targets. 

Again, these targets are also based on a lot of the reactors that haven't started  construction yet either. So we hypothetically need that capacity right now based  on what's under construction. It does appear that we see growth of enrichment  capacity relatively in line with the growth of nuclear capacity. 

Erik: Ultimately what really matters the most is whether the buyers are buying  and whether the sellers have enough to meet the amount they wanna buy. Let's  move on to page four. Talk to me about what the history of this market has been  and how it's evolving in terms of the attitude of fuel buyers. 

Because it seems like for a while, the last couple of years, we just had this buyer  strike where the buyers were convinced that increasing uranium prices were just  a blip, that the prices were gonna go back down, and they seemed to be waiting  it out. Is that changing finally? 

Justin: It does seem to be changing. 

It's very difficult for the investor mindset to, to fully comprehend how utility  fuel buyers generally operate and think about this market. You have fuel buyers  that in many cases have been working in this industry, sometimes for the same  utility, for multiple decades. And the history of this market is very different  from the present reality of this market. 

So if you go back, go back into the nineties and the two thousands following a  huge price spike in the seventies where you had a, just a gigantic nuclear build  out. You had 40 or 50 reactor construction starts per year in the mid seventies. It  was a huge build out and in a massive mine supply. 

But you had utilities clamoring for uranium, you had the US buying uranium,  you had the Russian buying uranium. It was crazy. Just an absolute huge price  spike in the seventies with the oil crisis. Then you had the price crash because  

we had so much secondary supply. So starting in 1993, we had a, the Megatons  of Megawatts program with 20 million pounds of Russian down blended high,  enrich uranium into fabricated fuel that was sent over to the United States fleet,  20 million pounds a year for 20 years. 

So the history of this market is big fluctuations in price, but most of the time,  with the exception of a few spikes, one in the seventies, one from oh four to oh  seven, and one theoretically potentially happening now, although I wouldn't  argue that this is a temporary spike being driven by either some, exogenous  event or financialization. 

I think the financialization is influencing things here, but I just think SPUT is  buying the marginal pound. We're seeing a hundred thousand pounds, 200,000  pounds move price. It shouldn't be happening if it wasn't such a tight market,  but the fuel buyer is looking back and saying, okay, forever there's been all of  the uranium I need at a relatively reasonable price. 

With very few exceptions. And their view of 2004 to 2007 was a massive  commodities run. The Chinese did a decent amount of buying for a couple of  years there we had some mine floods and we had Uranium Participation  Corporation, which became SPUT in 2021, buying uranium along with some  hedge funds. 

It was a temporary spike, came right back down after the GFC, but it started to  grind higher again because the fundamental drivers were there. So that was a  contracting cycle going back, and you can see in the graphic page four, that we 

had greater than replacement rates. So replacement rate essentially is how much  uranium is being burned up in the nuclear fleet on globally on an annual basis. 

So going back to 2005, we had 250 million pounds contracted, but we probably  had about 170 million pounds burned up in the reactor fleet. So greater than  replacement rate contracting, big volumes. And that really led to that big move  in price. Following that, following Fukushima, Japan shut off all the reactors. 

Germany started shutting them off. A few other countries had phase out plans  like Belgium and Taiwan. And you had an abundant amount of uranium that  was just hundreds of millions of pounds of oversupply. Liquid mobile inventory  globally. The price crashed and utilities did not need to contract. 

So this is long-term contracting. This is a, these bars here are utilities calling up  Cameco, Kazatomprom, Uranium One, Orano and saying, I want a contract for  a few million pounds a year, delivered out for a five year period, whatever it  might be. They didn't need to do that because there was so much uranium  floating around the spot market. 

They engaged in in hundreds and hundreds of carry trades and not thousands  where utilities engage with a trader and say, I want a couple million pounds  delivered, let's say 2, 3, 4 years out. They're usually more midterm, usually  slightly smaller volume, and the trader goes and buys that material in the spot  market. 

The carry trade went a long way to cleaning up that mobile inventory. Those  mobile inventories are largely gone. In fact, UXC, which is the primary nuclear  fuel consultant in the space. Has essentially was warning, let's see, this was  August of 23, so two and a half years ago, they were warning that the age of  inventory overhang is over. 

The buffer is largely gone. So fuel buyers here are starting to see that liquidity  in the market has largely dried up. You can still buy in small volumes in the  spot market or the carry trade if the math is right, based on the forward curve.  But their options are running out in terms of what else can they do besides  stepping up and signing large long-term contracts with the primary producers,  which is what they're starting to do. 

So we saw 71 million pounds added to the long-term tally in Q4 of 2025 alone.  A lot of tenders came into the market. A couple of large contracts were signed.  And so how much can be bought in the spot market and carry trade? That 

number is diminishing. Secondary supplies are diminishing. Inventories are  diminishing. 

They can only flex up on contracts so much. So the flex provisions that were in  these contracts that signed back in late 20 teens, early two thousands that are  still being delivered on now, those flex provisions were for contracts that were  majority, if not entirely base escalated or fixed price contracts. 

So if you signed a contract in 2020 for 80% fixed price and 20% market  referenced at the time of delivery, and that fixed price was $40 a pound, and  you're taking delivery now, you flex up, whatever's allowed in the contract,  20%, 30% flex provision, sometimes volume. Now that we're shifting to mostly,  if not entirely market reference contracts, those flex provisions start to look less  attractive because you end up paying the same amount as the market reference  delivery for the added pounds. 

So not only are there fewer flex provisions in the contracts signed last year or  the year before this year and moving forward, but the types of contracts have  shifted. So all of the signs are there that we're shifting from a buyer's market to  a seller's market. And this is a really difficult position for a fuel buyer right  now. 

I'll give you one example just to finish off this thought. These fuel buyers and  these utilities are signing other fuel buyers. The utilities are signing power  purchase agreement off takes with electricity consumers. And oftentimes these  are long-term agreements, 10 year agreements that basically fixed prices with,  inflation adjustments so they know what they're going to be earning on the  electricity side of things, right? 

With these agreements. Then they go and they call up Cameco, whoever it  might be, and say, I need to buy uranium to, to feed into this, right? So Cameco  says, okay, we're here at $91 spot. We'll sign a contract at $85 floor, 150, $160  ceilings reference to the market at the time of delivery. We're talking 50, 60,  $70 spread between the floors and the ceilings. 

It's very difficult for utility to know what they're going to be bringing in on the  revenue side of things to not know what they're going to be paying on the fuel  side of things. Really what it comes down to is they don't really have a choice  and they're going to have to pay that. And they're starting to come to, let's say,  an acceptance.

They've moved past the denial stage. Now they're moving into that acceptance  stage and signing these larger, higher price contracts that are largely referenced  to the market at the time of delivery. And why are they referenced to the market  at the time of delivery? Because producers want exposure to higher pricing  environment, which they're all very confidently betting on. 

And that really should tell you more than my pontifications, more than anyone  else who's analyzing this market. What are the sellers asking for and what are  they getting in their contracts? If you want stability in an uncertain market,  you're going to sign fixed price contracts. 

If you want exposure to what you are highly confident, it's going to pan out.  You want reference to the market with ceilings that are sometimes close to a  hundred percent higher than where we are here. So that's what we're looking at.  Utilities are slowly coming around. Fuel buyers, from what I'm hearing that  have been multiple fuel buyers for large utilities that have been largely reliant  on the spot market and carry trade for literally decades are shifting their strategy  and focusing on security of supply rather than pulling every lever they possibly  can to get a little bit here, a little bit there, as cheap as they can. 

That strategy is shifting and that's important as we go forward for term market  volumes. Term market pricing, ultimately spot pricing.  

Erik: I would think that the seller's confidence has also got to be increasing  with just the mechanics of what we're seeing in SPUT right now. Because if  you're Cameco and you're asking for those really high, a floor that's just barely  below the market, a ceiling that's way above the market. 

And the guy on the other side of the table is saying, don't pull this crap on us or  else we're gonna pull a buyer strike. You can just say, no, you're not SPUT is  just awaiting regulatory approval to unleash a huge amount of cash that they're  sitting on, 

which will easily support the spot market as long as we need to. You guys are  not in a position to negotiate anything shut up and sign. It seems like all of the  sudden Cameco and the other big uranium suppliers can engage in I'll go out in  a limb here and say, Trump style negotiating tactics of you don't have a choice. 

You're gonna do what we tell you to do.  

Justin: Sure, yeah. The confidence in where this market is headed is very high  amongst producers. And I think that the financialization of the sector is 

certainly supporting what the producers are wanting. To your point and like I  said, SPUT being able to buy a hundred thousand pounds here, 200,000  thousands pounds there in a highly liquid market, that shouldn't really matter,  but it's that marginal pound is moving the price here. 

And that, that alone is as evidence of how tight the market is. And, there's  always some production coming into the spot market. It's not the static bucket  that once it's gone. It's just a settlement. It's a, it's a surplus settlement market.  But for the producers seeing the SPUT activity. 

Seeing the pressure on the spot market is certainly something that, that supports  them wanting market referenced contracts that they're signing with utilities here.  And like I said, seeing how high these ceilings are going, that actually is  literally telling you where they expect the price to go and who's done more work  on the sector than the actual producers, especially the big producers that are  having to sign these binding contracts for delivery 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, sometimes 10  years out. 

This is very important to their shareholders, very important to their bottom line.  And they're seeing shareholder pressure that, that wants them to capture more of  the upside in the future. And you see some of these brownfield restart  companies that sign base escalated contracts at 80 bucks a pound, were coming  under fire from their shareholders. 

Stop giving this away. We know the price is going higher. Hold out and capture  that. And shareholder value is something that I think the utility fuel buyers don't  really give enough attention to. These companies don't exist to break even. And  they all went through hell from, 2008 all the way till, just recently. 

So these companies went through ab absolute hell, shareholders had been  diluted to oblivion in the 20 teens. Finally, the market is returning to bring some  value to the actual producers and they're going to be beholden to their  shareholders. And the shareholders want exposure to these rising prices. 

And that's something that utilities definitely have to understand going forward.  

Erik: Something he said earlier, Justin, was that the alignment of the industry  with government policy meant that, you're not getting a lot of pushback. One  place, I think there might be some pushback if we move on to page five, is the  talk of a strategic uranium reserve.

Intuitively you'd think the industry would be all for that. From what I hear, the  utilities don't want there to be a strategic uranium reserve. What's that about?  

Justin: It's just about the government being, potentially a price insensitive  buyer and adding pressure to an already tight market. 

The utilities are fully aware of the financialization of the sector and that you  have, very aggressive financial entities. And SPUT is just a vehicle. It's really  the investors that are coming into that and providing it with the capital to raise  cash. But you also have hedge funds and banks and plenty of trader  commodities traders that are all positioning net long. 

So the utilities are aware of all of this and they don't see a strategic uranium  reserve being in their best interest. Despite the fact that the spirit of the reserve  potentially would be to hold, a bunch of uranium for harder times in the future  when perhaps that uranium could be sold or distributed to those utilities. 

That's really the spirit of the potential reserve and the existence of the reserve as  it is now with this tiny amount of buying needed a few years back. Our  understanding is that the buying that the SUR did, let's see, I think this was  2022 when they did buy from a couple of US producers that uranium is now in  possession of the DOD. 

That's my understanding. So we believe that the Department of Defense actually  is on the lower side in terms of their inventory, and that's not just for weaponry.  That's of course with the nuclear navy and nuclear aircraft carriers. They're  building multiples of these very large multi-billion dollar ships currently. 

Take a lot of uranium, actually it's very highly enriched uranium that goes into  these subs and these aircraft carriers, and they're fueled once and we're talking  many millions of pounds for a single fueling for one of these ships. So we, we  think that there's pressure coming from that, but yes, of course the utilities have  

a strong lobby and I guarantee you they're doing what they can to put pressure  against this establishment. 

So we're not necessarily betting on it. We're just going off of what we're hearing  for the administration. They did establish, or there's a proposal currently. In  Congress for a two and a half billion dollars stockpile of critical minerals of  which uranium is one. And we hear Christopher Wright mention multiple times  that they're considering a strategic uranium reserve.

So maybe it happens, maybe it doesn't. It obviously would be intelligent for the  security of the nuclear fleet of the United States to do that because the US  utilities typically only hold about two years of inventory. So whether it happens  or not really, not sure, but you're absolutely right, utilities don't want it to  happen and are doing what they can to pressure pressure, interest in the US  government to, to keep that from happening. 

Erik: So the government wants to underwrite free of charge and insurance  policy to protect the nuclear utility industry from hard times by providing a safe  haven resource of available uranium so that those utilities don't have to absorb  the cost of holding those long-term reserves themselves. And the utilities are  objecting to that because it potentially interferes with what the prices are in the  next three months. 

Sounds brilliant to me.  

Justin: Yeah  

Erik: just genius. It's and about and not at all out of character, from what I've  heard from Mike Alkin about these nuclear fuel buyers. It sounds like exactly  their mentality.  

Justin: Yeah, it's and I think the spirit of the reserve really is more of an  acknowledgement of the reliance that 20% of our grid is on foreign entities. 

We're mining a couple million pounds of uranium and consuming 50 highly  reliant on Russia for conversion and enrichment. Highly reliant on Kazakhstan  for uranium, and then secondarily Canada. So it's more of a just wanting to  establish that to support the uranium miners in the United States than it's  necessarily a basket of uranium for utilities. 

But to your point. Utilities. Again, looking at that W&A graphic on page one,  looking at the analysis that we do, that Goldman Sachs has been doing, that a  number of other entities in the space have been doing, showing a clear and  obvious very large growth in demand and struggling supply response. 

On the uranium side of things the utilities and the fuel buyers don't really pay  attention to that. And now that's speaking generally they, there are a few fuel  buyers in the United States that I know of personally that are very ahead of the  curve. Their utilities are very well covered. They've done their own supply and  demand modeling, for example.

So they get it and they're well covered and they know and believe that prices are  coming. Higher prices are incoming for most of the rest of the utilities. They  buy what they need to buy when they need to buy it, and they have to get  approval to do so from their upper management that has a budgeting committee  and their bottom line matters. 

If the US strategic uranium reserve announcement causes a $5 jump in spot, and  then the actual buying causes another few dollars. Jump in spot. That's tens of  millions of dollars to their bottom line that they're looking out for not only on  deliveries, but for their future purchases as well. 

So I understand why they're pressuring, but at the same time, it doesn't really  feel like it's in line with kind of the spirit of what's happening here.  

Erik: Justin, you mentioned some of the international aspects of this. Let's talk  about the other side of slide number five here, where you talk about a huge  amount of demand from China and India for uranium. 

They're engaging with Canada for uranium supply. As soon as I saw that, I  thought, well, wait a minute. Last time anybody tried to sell anything to China  or India, president Trump intervened and said, no, you're not allowed to do that,  or, I'm gonna hit you with tariffs. 

Is there a risk that the US government in for the sake of America first policies,  tries to veto or nix those deals and say, Canada, don't sell your uranium to India  or China. It is only sell it to us. Does that potentially affect the market?  

Justin: It's hard to say really. It's hard to really predict exactly what Trump will  end up doing on this front. 

Obviously he wasn't happy to see that Kearney was meeting with Xi and trying  to establish a critical minerals, deal selling, selling uranium and a number of  other elements to China. I think that he's trying to influence that deal, not  necessarily to make more uranium and other things available to the United  States, but also just to throw his weight around and influence these decisions. 

And I think that there's, a lot of this stuff with Trump and in my personal  opinion, there's just so much more that's going on behind the scenes that, that  any of us have any idea of. So what's really behind this, I have no idea, but we  do know that China is scouring the globe for critical minerals, uranium  included.

China. China as a sovereign, has the largest inventory of uranium by a long  shot. Their numbers are huge, like north of 600 million pounds of uranium. But  importantly, that's total strategic commercial inventory. It's not just utility  inventory. That also includes military inventory. So how much of that is  actually allocated for the, for their new civilian nuclear program is harder to  say, but they also have the more, most aggressive builds, and that uranium is  never leaving the country. 

This is strategic. Once it's on their shores, it doesn't leave. The only exception is  that is sometimes they buy and then resell. So for example, they been buying  Russian enrichment and reselling it into Europe and the United States. Those  volumes are small, but they engage in that type of trading. With all of that said. 

Simply seeing both the Chinese and the Indians. And most importantly to this  point is that they're both sovereigns, right? The Chinese utilities state owned,  the Indian nuclear operators are state owned. They are looking at Canada for  supply, and Canada has been the most reliable supplier to the west by far  because Kazatomprom has been perfectly reliable, but they've had trouble with  their shipping routes when the West is trying to avoid shipments out of Russia. 

And they've had much more business engagement with both the Chinese and the  Russians. So Canada is really our best source of uranium in the western world.  And to see two Eastern sovereigns start to negotiate with Canada and potentially  with Cameco directly especially on the fa on the side of India, should be and is  somewhat of a wake up call to multiple Western utilities that the sovereigns are  stepping up because you have these private or publicly owned utilities that are. 

That are hemming and hawing about large procurements and mu much more  price sensitive. And then you have the eastern sovereigns just stepping up and  I'm your huckleberry and let's get it done. So this is something that I think is  going to be a trend going forward is, we're seeing that general trend anyways,  just globally right now. 

We're going much very quickly away from a multipolar world to more of a  nationalization type of world. And I think that a lot of countries are starting to  look out for number one in a way that we haven't seen in a number of decades  forth turning type stuff. So will we see more sovereigns engage in, america first  type policies for themselves. We've heard the EU talking about having a  strategic nuclear fuel stockpile. I think more of this is coming. And importantly,  Eric, this is all right tail. These strategic stockpiles, this secondary demand is  not something that is very modeled out.

So in our own models, that secondary demand, we have a plug number of 10  million pounds a year. Last year we saw the financials do almost double that  alone. That's not talking utility inventory restocking. That's not talking  sovereign stockpiling, that's just the financials. So that secondary demand is a  very potentially large number. 

I think more of this is coming in the near future.  

Erik: Now we've been talking about western supply. Let's also cover the  Eastern Hemisphere supply. Russia has, as we discussed, most of the  enrichment capacity, but they don't produce a whole lot of uranium in Russia.  It's Kazakhstan. That's the big producer in that part of the world. 

Tell us what's going on here on page six.  

Justin: Yeah, this, I think, is a really interesting element of this market that is,  is emerging. And, the table on the left hand side came from some analysis that  came out from Ocean Hall. So I wanna plug those guys. They did some good  work on this front. 

So Kazakhstan is by far the world's largest producer. They produce about 40%  of the uranium supply on an annual basis right now. And what happens in  Kazakhstan affects this entire market. Now, the graphic on the upper right of  slide number six shows their existing production profile. They expect their  production to peak in the next, two or three or four years. 

And that is based on a very large project, the Budenovskoye project, which is a  joint venture with Russia. So Russia, like you mentioned, has the largest  capacity for both conversion and enrichment and conversion is the process of  turning U308 or mined uranium into a gas uranium, hexa fluoride so that it can  be enriched in a gas centrifuge? 

Despite the fact that Russia has the most capacity for conversion, they net  buyers of UF6, the product of conversion. That's how much demand they have  for their enrichment services globally and how short they are on the uranium  front. So they need uranium and they need it now, and they need it badly. 

So they're putting a lot of pressure on Kazakhstan to develop this large JV. If  you look at the production volume ladder with these new mineral extraction tax  hikes, you know that Budenovskoye project, it's max capacity, a hundred  percent of subsoil use is 6,000 tons a year.

So assuming they reach that, which is possible we model out that they do, but  it's no guarantee that they do, they'll have an 18% tax on that. And look at the  uranium price, we're already above $90 a pound. They could potentially be  paying a 20.5% tax on the uranium coming out of the country. And this of  course, is a move on behalf of Kazakhstan, which is the state is 75% owner of  Kazatomprom and 25% publicly floated on the London Stock Exchange. 

The state is trying to do what they can to establish this taxation and ownership  of the joint ventures as well to maximize what they will be earning and  benefiting out of these limited deposits in the country. Yes, they're very large.  They'll be able to produce for decades going out into the future, but they want to  capture this lightning in a bottle. 

So what this means is that the Budenovskoye project in the second largest is the  Katco JV with the French, who are also very short uranium, and that can  produce potentially up to 4,000 tons. So the two largest projects are gonna be hit  with the largest levels of taxation coming outta Kazakhstan by the two entities  that most need uranium globally. 

The French and the Russians. They need it, and they need it very badly. They're  both very short with pipeline problems for the uranium projects. I don't see this  increase in the MET. In lowering production out of those projects, I see it  affecting price, so they're going to wanna do what they can to ramp those  projects, which means prices have to go higher based on that. 

This is all to say that Kazakhstan is limited and you can see their own  production profile going out into the future. Yes. They don't have years on this  X axis, but this is about a 2050 graphic. So after peaking, you can see it declines  very rapidly. Some of their existing legacy projects are already in decline, many  more hit de sharp decline rates in the next 5, 6, 7 years. 

So they need to invest a lot of money in establishing new deposits, which of  course are less attractive than the deposits they first started to develop back in  the two thousands, 2000 teens. And this all plays into, the, just the looking at  this price graphic at the lower right of this slide is, this is inflation adjusted. 

And so if you look back at the inflation adjusted spike, even the term price went  to 150 inflation adjusted back in 2007. And now we are at $88 term with a  much, much more favorable environment. And all of the elements I've been  discussing today, including these high mineral extraction taxes and the  increasing moves that the country is making to to increase their ownership of  their joint venture projects when they renegotiate the license for the joint 

ventures so that some of these projects, all these JVs that are existing now have  to be negotiate renegotiated over the course of the next 10 years when they are. 

Ownership goes from many cases, 50 50, 49, 51 goes to 90 10 Kazakhstan, and  the new developments for the JVs is automatically 75 25. So Kazakhstan is  starting to take much more seriously the ownership of their mineral wealth, and  that is only going to have a creative pressure on the price.  

Erik: Let's jump ahead to page eight where you talk about secondary  commercial inventories. 

First, let's define that term, what we're talking about, but then explain what this  trend is about, where it seems like everybody had plenty of inventory and all of  a sudden they don't. Why don't they?  

Justin: A lot of that inventory drawdown has simply come from the lack of  procurement in the long-term market and the lack of supply response. 

Erik: Let's just start with a definition of what we mean by secondary  commercial inventory. Who's holding what inventory of what, where?  

Justin: Sure. So this is a little bit tricky because this data and this graphic  comes from UXC and UXC counts inventory drawdown as secondary supply.  They've come under a little bit of criticism for doing that over the years because  they're technically double counting, right? 

That those pounds come out of the ground and year X and that's counted as  supply and then when they're draw down, that's counted as secondary supply.  The reason they do that is because we're not seeing reactors actually not be able  to operate because there is no fuel. So anytime you see the purchasing volumes  on any given year, less than the burnout rate, that gap is quote unquote  inventory drawdown and or secondary supplies. 

So in this case, you see that giant orange bar in 2021 as inventory drawdown or  secondary supply that was largely influenced by SPUT buying, right? We had,  what did they buy? 20 something million pounds in 2021. So they were buying  

excess inventories that were in the market. And so these commercial inventories  is basically just any inventory that's held by any commercial entity. 

And so in 2021, a lot of that came from traders who were holding pounds in  carry, meant to deliver to utilities. The following year, two years, three years  down the road, the spot started buying the spot price spike. These traders sold 

those held pounds to spot and then went back into the midterm market to  procure from a producer. 

So that was this reverse carry trade. And the reason why that inventory that  inventory number and that secondary supply number is so big for 2021, but  secondary supplies, they're always a part of this market. And so you can put  

those in two different buckets. One is actual mobile inventories that are held by  somebody commercially somewhere, and the other is actual supply coming into  the market. 

That's new secondary supply. Now that would primarily come from enrichment  underfeeding or tails reen enrichment. And without getting super geeky with  this is a number that was pushing 25 to 30 million pounds annually just five  years ago. This is probably closer to 10 million pounds a year right now. 

And this is basically when there's excess enrichment capacity. What Enrichers  will do is they'll actually spin those centrifuges down to a lower tails assay than  what was. Dictated in a contract that the utility has to provide to them the feed  stock for that enrichment contract. So they spin to a lower tails, they have a  little bit of extra feed and they under feed the centrifuge and sell that excess  feed stock into the market as UF six. 

That is underfeeding tails. Reen enrichment is actually when there's really a  trough in enrichment demand, they can actually take tails material and spin it  back up to natural UF six and sell that into the market as well. So that is, that  has literally been cut by two thirds over the past five years. 

The other bucket is just these buffer inventories. Utilities hold them. In some  cases sovereigns hold them, and this is just material that's been sitting around  from decade of overproduction in the 20 teens. Now that material is largely  gone. But utilities will always hold some inventory. And the reason they do that  is because the fuel cycle takes so long for uranium to go from mine out of the  ground into fabricated fuel takes at least 18 months and most commonly 24 to  sometimes even 30 months. 

So because it takes so long, utilities will always hold inventory and they usually  hold it across the fuel cycle. So every utility will at least have one extra core  load of fabricated fuel onsite at all times. But they'll also hold some uranium,  some UF six at the conversion facilities. They'll hold some enriched uranium. 

And then, like I said, the fab fuel. So utility inventories are kind of always there  and what you're seeing when this UXC is projecting this out into the future is 

that buffer inventory is gone. So all we really have is a small amount of utility  inventory that can buffer some, some temporary swings in price or some  temporary issues around supply, whatever it might be. 

But it's not this enormous amount of material that's overhanging the market.  And as you see these big numbers, 21, 22, like I mentioned, August 23, the age  of inventory overhang is over. They can see that, and that's why they're  projecting this out into the future. They're just no longer is that buffer and the  conditions are absolutely there for this market to be disrupted. 

I say this all the time, Eric, you don't really have to even know exactly what is  going to be the disruptor. Just that the conditions are there for something to  disrupt this market. And I'm not necessarily betting on disruption, but it's so  obvious to me that something will disrupt this market. We don't know where the  eventual supply is going to come from. 

The balance, the market and the inventory side of things. The secondary supply  side of things are so tight that. A shock to supply, whatever it might be.  Whether that's the announcement of a stockpile from some sovereign, whether  it's one of these large development projects like NextGen's Arrow, the entire  nuclear industry is expecting this to be producing 29 million pounds a year,  starting in 2031. 

That isn't happening. They don't know it yet, but that's not happening. Will it be  producing eventually? Absolutely. How much and how soon is harder to say.  But even by their own timelines, we see 2032 as first production and that would  be ramp up. And the company is already taking advantage of the power of the  narrative here and the power of the story of this deposit because it's so  fundamental to the supply. 

Even approaching anything balanced in the 2030s, which it will maybe barely  do if it comes online on time and on budget, but they're already saying, Hey, we  will be producing according to the market signals. Such a low cost high grade  project, they can cycle that production up and down as they see fit and  essentially control that narrative and they're starting to express that to the  market. 

So it's just very fragile. Something's gonna disrupt it. You don't have to know  what that something is, just that the conditions are there for it to happen.  

Erik: Okay, so to summarize all of that, because I wanna make sure I'm  interpreting this right. If I went back 10 years and I said, oh my gosh, this 

uranium trade's gonna be great because boy, look at the balance of supply and  demand. 

If just one mine went offline, they could unbalance the market and the price  could skyrocket. People in the know would've said sorry, it doesn't work that  way. There's plenty of inventory hanging around. If the price goes up to the  point that incentivizes those people to sell it, they'll sell it. 

There's plenty of buffer to absorb something going wrong. That was how it  worked until last year that it stopped working that way. Now it really is back to  if just one mine went offline, we'd be screwed and it would rocket the price  much higher. Is that right?  

Justin: Absolutely. Yeah. I don't know if I would necessarily agree with the  statement that we'd be screwed. 

I do think that there's sufficient inventories out there to buffer something like  that. But the price response would be massive. And, this could really happen at  any time. I think the most likely disruption is these very important larger  development projects not panning out exactly as the industry expects. 

And the industry is basically looking at what the investors are looking at, right?  They're looking at the feasibility studies. They're looking at what the company  is telling investors that what they'll be producing and when, and of course, that  historically speaking, especially in the uranium world just never happens. 

These mines are never built on time. They just aren't. And that disruption is  highly likely to pan out, but are there inventories? Yes, of course. The problem  is those inventories largely are not for sale. So what are there, I remember  there's a very popular uranium investor out there. 

I'm not gonna mention him by name, but he basically was bearish at this  moment in time over the past couple of years, basically saying there's, there's  1.3 billion pounds of commercial inventories. It's yeah, okay. Half of that's in  China. The rest of it is distributed around the global nuclear utilities. 

So US utilities of two years of inventory, EU utilities of three years of  inventory. They don't draw those down besides maybe a five or 10% draw down  here or there to try to buffer what they might feel is a temporary price spike.  And that's it. They're not gonna draw them down to zero. Yes. If we go to a  hundred dollars, $115, $130, $150, will we see supply shake out here and there?

Absolutely. We will see some inventory be sold in the market. We'll see some  profit taking. There's a decent amount of positioning here on behalf of hedge  funds. They're not holding those pounds into perpetuity. They will sell them  eventually. So there's always a little bit, a tiny bit of flex, but the big buffers are  gone. 

There's no megatons of megawatts. Underfeeding is almost entirely gone. In  fact we would expect that we'll potentially see some overfeeding in the coming  years, which has the opposite effect, extra demand for that enrichment process.  And then of course, commercial inventories are on the low end, historically  speaking as well, because Adam proms at a 10 year low in their own  inventories. 

So just the general buffer is very small here.  

Erik: Justin, final question. We cannot responsibly both be as bullish as we are  without asking the critical question of, okay, what could happen to turn this all  around? There has to be something, obviously, I guess the big one would be a  worse than Fukushima sized nuclear accident that completely changes public  sentiment globally around nuclear energy. 

And that could happen if somebody blew one of these things up as an act of  terrorism. In the world we live in it it's not at all impossible. Aside from that,  what else can go wrong that could derail the extremely bullish hypothesis that  both you and I share?  

Justin: Yeah, the nuclear accident potential. 

It's always there. I, in my opinion, the industry is. Has much, much better safety  checks in place following the Fukushima Daiichi disaster. So that was  something that happened, had no fatalities, but it did affect the industry. It  caused Japan to shut off all the reactors and a number of other countries do the  same. 

So it had demand destruction effectively, 10 and eventually about 15% of global  demand that was there in 2010 was gone by 2015. So demand destruction of  some form or another is probably the biggest potential to turn this investment  around because we don't see, at least in the near term, let's say the next five  years, where supply is going to change the investment thesis. 

Eventually are we above 150, $200 and it stays there for a while and all of a  sudden we see, phosphate projects producing uranium and all of these marginal 

producers eventually get in production. Yeah, it will be a, a natural commodity  cycle. This will have a peak someday. We don't see that happening in the near  to the midterm. 

So the only thing that we could see that would change this thesis for us, would  be some kind of demand destruction. It wouldn't necessarily be because of a  nuclear accident, because that doesn't necessarily mean demand destruction  depending on how the accident actually would pan out. 

Certainly it'd be terrible for sentiment, at least in the near term, and probably  really bad for the equities in the near term. But would we see. 50, 60, 70, 80  reactors shut off because of that. I don't really know, and I don't really think so.  With that said something else, like if China all of a sudden says, okay, we're  done building nuclear, we've reached our goals, if that narrative is going to hurt  and if they change their actual demand projections and their growth projections  for nuclear, that affects the bottom line in terms of the supply and demand  calculation. 

So a change in demand projections for whatever reason, is really the only thing  I can see that's going to derail this in the near to the midterm. But like I said,  eventually this will be a commodities trade where high enough prices for long  enough incentivizes enough supply that will eventually cap that price move and  eventually will turn the price down. 

How soon that happens, I can say very confidently. I don't see how that happens  in any way, shape or form. Assuming the demand stays as what we're  projecting, which I believe that it will in the next 5, 6, 7, 8 years, I really don't  see that happening. So even if we were at $150 uranium next week, it's still  gonna be years and years and years down the road for these marginal projects  that could be profitable at that price to actually be producing into the market. 

So I think we have a strong runway here, Eric. I know that you agree with me  there, but hard to say what would cause that demand destruction, but that's the  only thing that we would be looking for to actually change this trajectory.  

Erik: Justin, I can't thank you enough for another terrific interview. 

Before we close, tell us about what you do at Uranium Insider. You publish a  terrific newsletter. I quite enjoy receiving it. You got videos and all kinds of  stuff. What's involved? How much does it cost and how do people sign up? 

Justin: Yeah, thanks Eric. Appreciate the support on that front. So yeah, we  basically cover this sector in and out on a daily basis. 

We've got a small team behind us. We've been doing this since 2019. We put a  lot of focus into the physical market. This, in our estimation, is the most  important thing to fully understand if you're going to be invested in the sector.  So we have multiple price reporters, multiple services, multiple connections in  the industry, fuel buyers, traders, and we're communicating with these folks on  a daily basis. 

We wanna know what's happening out there in the physical market. The equities  markets will definitely fluctuate. Sometimes they get way overbought relative to  physical. Sometimes they get way oversold relative to physical, but generally  speaking, they move. At least directionally with the price of uranium. 

So that's the most important thing that we follow, and we track that and we  report on that to our membership on a daily basis. We have a very in-depth  monthly newsletter. We do weekly update videos for our membership. We do a  daily data sheet that follows the ETF and spot flows, as well as the most  important pieces of news on the physical market on a daily basis. 

We do a weekly watch list that does a technical analysis of the stocks that we  cover. And I do a physical uranium market report once a week. That dives much  more deeply into what's happening in the spot, the term markets. And in my  estimation, if you have a decent amount of money along this sector you have to  have this information. 

It's an absolute must to stay on top of what's happening here. And like we  mentioned at the top of the interview, we have something called the dynamic  model portfolio, which is a trading portfolio, which as I mentioned, we  established last February, 2025. And that portfolio is up over a hundred percent. 

So that aims to track physical sentiment and charting to give us trade signals  buying and selling to trade this sector because even though we are directionally  very bullish for even the long term, we do have very strong swings to the upside  and the downside. It's a very tradable market. 

So that's been a huge success for us. The newsletter is 7 99 a year, which I think  is a pittance compared to what this sector offers in terms of upside potential, if  you have even a small amount of money invested here. 

Erik: Patrick Ceresna and I will be back as Macro Voices continues right here  at macrovoices.com.

Erik: Joining me now is Craig Tindale. Craig is a private investor, longtime  Macrovoices listener, and has recently penned an article called Critical  Materials, a Strategic Analysis, which has gone absolutely viral. The Financial  Times reported that it has gained the very direct attention of the White House  and the Pentagon. 

So this is really just incredibly great work that you've done. Craig, as as a long  time listener, this is not. The first time that our listeners have heard concerns  about how China's dominance, in terms of the supply chain has considerable  strategic implications. But I think you've done a far better job than anyone else  of just concisely writing about exactly what the issue is. So congratulations on  that. Why don't we dive right in strategic diagnosis of what you call the end of  infinite materiality. What is this article about? Why is it important?  

Craig: I guess it's the ultimate genesis of state capitalism versus stateless  capitalism. 

You've got on one side a a state that is intent on dominating all areas of  commerce internationally. And on the other side, you've got a free market.  Philosophy that is gained by, price. And so the Chinese are basically the system  by lower the cost of refining and smelting so that they gain control. If you look  at 50 to 98% of the critical metals needed by the west to, to go forward with all  their electrification, their data centers, their the EVs, just about everything, you  can think of the, even the nuclear build out, it requires critical metals. 

Without those critical metals, you can't go forward. And what the Chinese  supply chain has done is grabbed it in the middle and directed it towards itself.  And it's done that at multiple layers. The one layer is the smelting refining,  which I just mentioned, the other is the Offtake agreements and the mine  ownership which directs towards those smelters. 

Another area is, the ownership of the actual mines. If you look at Xin Jing and,  and some of the, the Chinese state owned mining conglomerates, they've  gradually bought everything in the west, in particular gold, silver and copper  and many of the others and then directing those outputs. 

Until the last few years, those outputs haven't been used by the west. They've  been used by China. They now control everything that we need to control to  reshore, everything. And it's Alexander Hamilton, I think pointed out in 1791  article of manufacturers that went Congress. That liberty and freedom exists,  not by itself.

It's a contingent on having a manufacturing and a supply channel that allows it.  That at that stage, Hamilton was looking at the dependence on the english And I  I guess I put it today that we're looking not at the English, but at the Chinese  and that all his assumptions about the importance of that existing and the  manufacturing existing is actually, you know, conditions precedent 

For the West to be successful. And without that, we'd be, we'd become  enslaved. We're almost serfs in the whole global supply chain. I guess I, I frame  it like this, that we have a, financial balance sheet, and we're good at that. 

Putting claims upon claims. But we've disconnected from the physical or the  balance sheet that matter. And so these two things are separating as we speak  and as they separate the ability for us to control our destiny becomes less and  less.  

Erik: You write about the feedstock paradox. 

I love that terminology. You're describing this phenomenon where it seems like  there's something about human nature, that people think about the raw material  as the strategic asset. President Trump has clearly become aware of the  importance of rare earth elements, but. He's talking about where we can mine  them and the reality of the situation is China's got you've done some fantastic  statistics, so I shouldn't speak for you. 

Give us a perspective how much of the refining and Processing that's necessary  in order to get any benefit from these raw materials. How much of that does  China control today? And what would it take if the United States were cut off  from that Chinese supply? What would it take for the United States and the rest  of the West to recover if that event were to happen? 

Craig: They've got 50% to 98% control depending on the category of the metal.  90% is, things like scandium, I'll start at scandium. Scandium is used in an  aluminum alloy, and that aluminum alloy is I guess relevant to the new combat  drones. And F 35 was built on the physics of G force 9 because that's all human  beings can connect with 

A combat drone can do 20 to 30 G because there's nobody sitting in it and the  alloys required of that are a new industrial material. The whole west produces  15 tons of scandium per year at the moment, and they need hundreds, if not  thousands of tons of scandium to build these combat drones.

The only source of that scandium at the moment is virtually China. And so if we  wanna build our combat drones and defend ourselves and not create incentives  for war, that is, there's two sides of this. One side is we have to defend  ourselves. I think what people miss is if we can't defend ourself, we create a, an  incentive for the more powerful nation, the foreign nation, to take advantage of  that and having a good defense is, is important to creating a world piece as  anything else, but copper's the same. Copper goes into almost everything, , in  some of these ultra high voltage Cables per kilometer. There's about 60 tons of  copper. 

I read an article yesterday there's 2177 tons of copper in Microsoft's new AI  data center in Texas. The US planned to build 13 to 15 of these. That's a lot of  copper. Everything we look at the physical intensity of copper is apparent in it.  The, and it go, and not just the copper, it goes into everything. 

Siemens at the moment have 138 b euro back order on equipment, things like  the major transformers the major transformers are taking four to five years to be  delivered. So we can build as many nuclear power stations as we want, but if  you can't put the transformers in place to actually move the electricity, and if  you can't put the UHV in place that is the ability to transmit over power lines.  They're stranded assets, these nuclear power stations. That's why a lot of these  new these new AI data centers are being set next to nuclear power stations  because they already have equipment in place and they don't have to wait. 

So you end up in a situation where they control our destiny they've already  licensing a double licensing program and, it was a few days ago, they decided  that they work gonna supply rare earth to Japan for the defense industry. You  know on, the other side of it, Siemens with their 138B Euro back order 

Relies almost a hundred percent on rare, heavy, rare earth from China. The  order book from China is about 15%. You can really imagine China going well,  if you want your rare earth, we want our transformers first. So they, they layer  upon layer the ability to dominate the supply chain just by the, their initial  influence. 

And, this happened in history if We look, go back to 1914. There was a thing  called the zinc crisis. A company called Metallgesellschaft German company  was established as the major refiner of zinc and copper and a whole bunch of  the other industrial metals. They had subsidiaries in North America and they  

had subsidiaries in Australia.

Ironically called Australian Metals and American Metals, and they basically  took the off takes from those mines and sent 'em to Germany. And the Battle of  Algiers in 1914, the French were overrun because they ran outta shells. A lot of  people don't understand why the French got overrun so easily. 

A lot of people say, they lost to the old generals were relying on horse cavalry  and things like that. The reality is they ran outta shells. And Lloyd George the  Future British Prime Minister was made minister for, munitions in those days  because the fear was that they wouldn't be able to supply themselves. 

So this has happened before many times. It's not actually a unique thing in  history. It happened, you go back in the 16th century Spain, the Spanish had, all  the gold from the Americas and silver as well. But they couldn't, eventually they  couldn't buy, anything because the Dutch were making everything and Europe  was making everything and no take their gold because they couldn't  manufacture anything themselves. 

And eventually the Spanish Empire fell, even though they had, a mountain of  gold. So you, we've got rhyming right through history of this kind of thing  happen. We just haven't had that happen at this scale. Now how can we fix it?  That's a complicated subject. It obviously depends on will. 

Whether we can optimize the political skills to do that. I think President Trump  obviously sees it and I think he's probably seen it intuitively. He's almost  hamiltonian in his regard of manufacturing and Reshoring the future materials  and manufacturing capacity of the USA, he almost follows a complete  Alexander Hamilton playbook. And Hamilton came up through, intense conflict  and so he knew the importance. Eisenhower was similar. Everybody reads their  Eisenhower speech and says, watch out for the military industrial complex.  Eisenhower was even more interesting if you read the rest of the speech. 

He was worried about the manufacturing complex and the ability to be self sustaining, and that's what he warned about. We take one message it's similar to  this freedom and liberty. It's an ideal, but we forgot what the foundation of that  ideal was, and that's interdependence. 

If we're beholden to foreign powers. We risk that liberty and freedom right  across the west because we become beholden to the supplier of our goods. And  they can withdraw them. They can stop our reassuring, they can do all the things  that they need to do. 

Erik: Craig, I think that your focus on the midstream, in other words, it's not  where the rare earth elements get mined from, it's who's got the ability to  actually separate those rare earth elements and produce the final product that we  need for all of these applications. 

Some numbers taken directly out of your article, and by the way, I should have  mentioned at the beginning, folks. Craig's article is linked in your research  roundup email. It's free on his substack, and I very strongly recommend that  everyone read it, start to finish. It is cover to cover, just an outstanding piece of  writing. 

But if you look at something like Gallium, which is essential for certain kinds of  military radar and 5G networks and semiconductors and so forth. China controls  98% of gallium production, not where it's mined, but where it gets refined and  produced. Magnesium smelting, 90 to 95% rear earth separation, 90%. 

The high tech magnet production, which is the heart of electric vehicle motors  wind turbines for for wind powered energy and so forth, and the actuators in  defense mechanisms. More than 90% controlled by China graphite. Anode  production for lithium ion batteries, more than 90% controlled by China. 

Tungsten production, more than 83% controlled by China. And there's a long  list that continues after that. Craig, what would it take? If president Trump were  to get together with other Western leaders and say, boy, this leaves us exposed  to where if China cut us off from all this stuff, we would be completely  helpless. 

We can't have that vulnerability. Let's reshore and rebuild all of that capacity so  that we're not dependent on China for any of this stuff. How many years and  how many dollars would it take to eliminate this dependency?  

Craig: Short answer is trillions. I think it's variable because there's a lot of stuff  on foot at the moment. 

They can already see this, the White House and Congress and the Department of  War as they call it now. I track a lot of companies who are receiving funds. You  know as far back as two or three years ago to develop our capacity to refine rare  earths and all these metals. 

If you look at a company like UCU UNICOR I think they've received  something like a hundred million dollars already to produce a rare earths  capacity in Louisiana

Which has gone into initial production, I think this month or the or next month.  You've got companies, an Australian company like IPX, Hyperion X. Now  they're producing titanium. Outta Virginia. And they've got a new process that  they took from the University of Utah from a, a scientist called Zach Fang  which I is a delightful name. 

He works in the University of Utah. He's like the Steve Jobs of. Of materials  science, he's come up with a way of making titanium powders, at 80% less cost  than the current method. There's another company that comes from Metal is also  Australian lead. 

It takes the, technology and the IP from James Tour outta Rice University. And  they use a thing called flash dual heating, which heats everything up to 3000  joules, injects some chlorine into it. You get a methyl ox oxide out it that then  can be separated into its different streams. 

You know, not many people realize it but, the department of energy tend put out  just before Christmas for three $25 million worth of funding to take rare earth to  titanium gold and silver out of fly ash out from from coal fired power plants, for  every coal fired power plant is billions and tons of fly Ashes sitting around it  

that were, the output of the burning so much coal. , they all have a a significant  amount of minerals still in them. They just have to be extracted. There's a  number of innovations that we're doing, and it's like fits the old American,  Yankee knowhow innovation cycle, that a lot of this stuff is coming to the floor  But what it take is lowering the cost of capital for these projects. These projects  haven't, flown in the past because, we've been funding things that give quarterly  results. Like social media, like a lot of the software's gonna eat the world type  stuff. You learn the code type of stuff where the cost of capitali not Not high at  the start, and once you've built the software, you just have to incrementally add  to it. 

It's not a 10 year return and it, the return is fairly significant. So we haven't, we  measure bread and milk as far as inflation, but we don't measure the asset  market as inflation. 

So we measure bread and mild but we don't measure the price of shelter. And so  when bread and milk have gone up, we've raised the cost of capital and not  notice that a lot of the industrial projects have been killed off. It be, as soon as,  we go to four and 5%, the industrial projects, die on the vine. And we go back  to the kind of hollowed out economy that the Fed policy.

Creates for us. And it's the Fed policy that's, at the core of the problem, the core  of the problem is that industrial projects just don't get the funding that they  need. Now the other one is weaponized pricing. We've gotta deal with that.  Weaponized pricing is, every time, at the moment there's great example is  copper melting in China is being done at negative cost. So if Peru and Chile  ship their copper to china they're getting paid $50 a ton to, to process it. Now  you imagine what that does to the copper refiners in the west. They can't  compete. It's their method of, gaining complete control. They send us broke in  the key areas that we need to evaluate. 

I think one example is the chairman of Palantir has put together another startup  called Epirus, and Epirus basically shoots a gallium gun, microsecond at drones  drone and they just fall out of the sky. It fries their internal electrics. You put  these gallium guns in low earth orbit and you can fry the electrics of an ICBM  inside the silo. 

So they have very consequential, you, if you take it away from us because it  changes the, the pathway of our defense. You know we talked about copper, if  you cannot put the copper in place. The end product it you can't build anything  that we're talking about. So we need to do what we did in 1914 and what we did  in different other scenarios and bring that onshore now. I think there is a  pathway to do that. I've got another paper coming out on how to change the fed  to do that and separate the Fed's ability to price control consumer prices, but  separate out the infrastructure and industrial items so that they can survive. 

So they're not measured as part of inflation. And, we may even have an interest  free bond or something like that type solution where we offer. Not an interest  free bond. A tax free bond where we offer pension funds, an alternative to  investing where a pension fund would flow money into an industrial project and  it wouldn't be paid by the treasury. 

It would be paid by the industrial project and a tax free rate.  

I guess the industrial project owners would be would part, would, partner with  the state like the Chinese do to produce the industrial output that they need to  do. There's no other way of doing it. State capitalism on the Chinese side I think  is, 50 points ahead at half time. 

And has got, we're not playing well enough to make a comeback.  

Erik: Let's talk about how the AI trend plays into this, because a lot of military  experts have opined that basically the AI race between the US and China for 

leadership on AI is akin to the US Soviet arms race because AI has such  profound implications in terms of its military applications and so forth. From  reading your article, it sounds to me like we're headed, this is 1947. We're  headed into an arms race, not with the Soviets this time, but with China, and it's  about AI, and the strategy is gonna be that we'll buy our nuclear warheads from  Moscow. 

What? That doesn't make sense. How much of you know you gotta do two  things to build an AI data center, you've gotta have all of the copper and all the  materials that go into building that data center, and then you've got to power the  data center. How much are we dependent on China? If China, th thought that the  str, if we be ever did get into a kinetic conflict where we're actually at war with  China and they decided to cut us off. 

How much would that impair our ability to build AI data centers?  

Craig: It could potentially totally impair, you'd end up with a situation where  you've gotta do rationing on the western side to make sure that they get the  materials they need, build the data centers. If we. If we start looking at AI not as  a consumer device I guess Michael Burry sees it, and as a weapon system which  you've just outlined then, it becomes a different equation because. 

If you can't build these ai da data centers and they're weapon systems, the arms  race takes a whole different feel, look, and feel, and all of a sudden, you return  on investment and the various metrics that you would put on it as a con, as  consumer item go out the window and it becomes a must do. 

OpenAI to me is a weapon system manufacturer of the future to  reconceptualization. But You know, it, it essentially is. And so a lot of this  Michael Burry thing about, it's a bubble. It doesn't equate properly with where  it, it actually sits. It's making it sound like it's a new Google. 

Where in fact if they don't succeed. The West might not succeed either. Now,  individually, they, they may or may not succeed. But I think the workloads that  are potentially coming onto these, systems are so important that, we can't look  at them as a consumer device Now. If you've got Transformers taking, four or  five years to get to you from Siemens or Hitachi and the rare earths they're  depended on, and then you're in quite a chokehold you need to find that stuff  from somewhere else. 

And, I think in the article I outlined. Potential areas that would probably  unthinkable today, but they won't be unthinkable tomorrow. They, it's 20 grams 

of silver in a solar panel. I propose that you tear all them up if you get into real  desperate circumstances and use them for data centers and weapon systems. 

The same goes for gallium and all the other things. Where we have to reframe  the world to some extent. The world is not how we see it or how we've seen it.  The world is a different place and we have to, reframe our conceptual building  

blocks to, to look at the world this way because a denial by China or Russia  because trust Russia control some of these, these things as well, in particular  titanium. 

That framing changes how we look at capitalism. We have to adopt some type  of state capitalism and everyone will think that's nationalization. It's not  nationalization, it's just an admittance that stateless capitalism that followed  price to the point of efficiency so far that letting our foreign power supply the  things that are crucial to the ongoing perseverance as, as the west, it's that  important. And the density of copper is significant. The density of silver is  significant as well.  

Erik: Now you wrote this article, Craig, from the perspective of geostrategy  and basically trying to get policymakers attention to recognize how vulnerable  we've made ourselves to being cut off by Chinese dominance of supply chains,  but. 

You actually got to this through your own research. Not trying to research  geopolitics, but research investments. So let's talk about where the trades are  and where some of the opportunities are. I hate to take such a grim topic and try  to make a buck out of it, but, that's what we do here on Macrovoices sometimes. 

Craig: That's what I do too.  

Erik: Let. Let's talk about that. I wanna start with silver, which you mentioned  a couple of times. Most analysis that I've read recently about silver says, okay,  look, what's going on here is silver is basically gold on steroids. We've got  central banks buying up a lot of gold because they're concerned about US policy  that's just causing the bubble in silver that's about to blow off. 

There's really nothing substantial behind it. I think you've got a very different  perspective from reading the article. Tell us about silver's atrategic importance. How does it play into the rest of everything that we're talking about? And is this  a bubble that's over in silver or is it just getting started?

Craig: It's, yeah, let's just do some numbers. We've been 5,000 ton of silver  short For the last four years, I think the overall it's 24,000 tons. Since 2020.  When we're in deficit, we have to drag it outta vaults or people's cutlery drawers  in order to pro provide it, silver is actually central to the whole electrification.  The AI, there's 20 to 40 grams of silver in a major missile. There's eight tons of  silver in a data center. There's almost, in the robotics world, if Elon's gonna  build these robotics armies there's a good percentage of silver. 

In each robot. So it becomes a substantial input. Now, 70% of our silver comes  as an off take from copper, zinc, and lead refining. That's 60% happening in  China. Now we are already in deficit, let's take that into account, even with the  chinese output. Now just before christmas they put some licensing in that  basically said that all silver would be licensed to the end supplier. I think there's  43 different Chinese companies that can output silver. 

Now, what if they decided to cut all that off from us, from the west? All of a  sudden the 5000 ton a year deficit turns into maybe 10000 ton a year deficit or  more now they all must have to come from the cutlery drawer so one analyst  says there are 200000 ton in inside people's cutlery drawer . Like I doubt that  because I actually don't think anyone knows how much is in the cutlery drawers  and the jewelry drawers. But we would have to drag it out the vaults and that's  gonna send silver. Obviously skyrocketing because the net cost of silver in  some of these products is marginal anyway. 

There's a lot of silver in an EV, but, if silver doubled it's only gonna add 1% or  so to the cost of the EV And then we've gotta prioritize what silver goes into  what, we if we look at AI as weapon systems rather than consumer items, they  would get priority over an EV. 

I'll give you another thinking model. And this is triggered by what happened to  BHP recently. BHP were told that they were gonna take offshore C&Y.  

As payment for iron ore and BHP refused for a month. And then they decided  that they would accept the offshore C&Y They were the last holdout of all the  iron ore producers. What if China said to us you can have these rare earth  minerals but we're gonna require offshore C&Y to pay for them. That would  introduce a really weird dynamic because all of a sudden you've gotta have  industrial companies in the west trying to reshore the AI companies building the  data centers, the defense companies trying to sell C&Y in order to pay for these  things.

I noticed there's a number of gold producers being acquired by, if you look at  the quantity of that, it's getting quite significant. What if they gave for golders  money and they backed the C&Y with gold and they require all of the rare  earths and critical metals to be purchased under offshore C&Y. They could still  run their internal renminbi. As a currency that was fiat and then they run the out  outside currency as a as a reserve currency, so to speak. 

All of a sudden you, the tables change. There's, doesn't mean that USD would  crash or Euro would crash or anything like that because they're still required to  service debt, but it would change the whole dynamics of the currency market.  Still put them in a place because, you even go down to the machinery level. 

Linus Metals put out a note. A few months ago, basically saying it's all well and  good for us to start building these refining points in Texas. But we need the  Chinese machinery to do that because we are not making in the west, the  machinery to refine these metals. We're beholden to them for even the  machinery. 

So we've gotta learn how to do that. So that puts a lot of gap, that puts a lot of I  guess risk in the west, climbing back into a situation where they enjoyed for the  last four decades, and that is dominance over, Hegemony, the over the east.  

Erik: As you look at this picture overall, where do you think the most  opportune trading opportunities are? 

We talked about silver briefly, but what else is going to get scarce? As much as  the solution to this problem would be for governments to make big investments  in reshoring, you've also said in the article that you don't think that reshoring  will be. Profitable for a lot of American companies in the short term. 

So it's not the actual reshoring that you want to invest in. You probably wanna  invest in scarcity. First of all, would you agree with that? And if so, what other  things besides silver that, silver's already seen a huge move. What hasn't moved  yet? Where's the ripe trading opportunity? 

Craig: Isaac's, the ripe training opportunities are the ones where our own form  of state capitalism starting to show their face. You know, I mentioned a few of  them before where, the Department of War and the Department of Energy are  starting to finance some of these companies, and I think they give us, the trails  to follow about the companies that will flourish in this new era

You know, the, the new scandium plays, the new gallium plays. There's some  winners being picked and being subsidized with state capital from the West, and  that's happening right across Canada, and it's happening in the Australia as well.  And they're the, I guess they're the sense to follow to, to good returns. 

Some of these companies that I'm sitting on at the moment have already had,  you know, four, five hundred up to a 1000 percent near term increases in price  as far as stocks. MTM for instance, I think I bought at 8 cents and it's near a  dollar at the moment. I wouldn't be surprised that goes to $50 at some stage. 

Now that's crazy. I know, but they're the kind of returns I think you'll get from  this circular economy. IPX that I mentioned, basically uses some IP out of the  Rice University. And what it does is it heats up fly ash and e-waste so all the  circuit boards and that, is sitting in millions of tons in the US and it, he heats  them up and injects some chlorine into it and makes a chloride, metal chloride  mix outta it. 

And then you can separate it at the chloride stage. I can envisage a company and  then, I just don't mean this one. There's a there's a dozen of these types of  companies where all of a sudden, we're processing the e-waste. They just made  an agreement to take 2,500 tons of e-waste off glencorp. So they're fraternizing  with the large industrials and they take that e-waste and, out a ton of e-waste is  about 500 grams of gold. Out a ton of e-waste is about 300 grams of silver. I  mentioned fly. The same thing is if you heat it up. 

And in that add the chlorine mix, you get this chloride that all of a sudden  makes it a circular economy. We can start processing these things. And this  kind of fits the mode that we've used in the past in war situations under, under,  under conflict where we've had to use our own resources and I think ultimately  it serves us because it's gonna teach us to be innovative. There's another one  Hyperion X that's gonna make titanium outta Virginia. 25% of an F 35 is  titanium. I don't know. The, we're letting the, I guess the. The capabilities, even  now downgrade. 

But they've been given $115 million outta Department of Defense to, upscale  this titanium capability so that they can produce titanium oxides. Now, this is an  innovation story. We've just had the two last two decades where we've  worshiped at the altar of, Zuckerberg who I guess is, main claim to fame. This is  hypnotizing our attention and distracting us where we've had, real scientists  developing IP that hasn't been recognized yet because they can't get it off the  ground because they can't get the capital. Now if you look at some of these 

places they're moving from pilot to commercialization and you've obviously got  that risk element there. 

But if they can make it through the commercialization stage, and they've  virtually done that, certainly in the IPX case. These are the industrial companies  of the future. These are the materials company that have to emerge. If the West  is gonna survive. There's no other way to do it. 

If you think of all the paths of doing this it's gonna be innovation and it's gonna  be reestablishment of this materials capability onshore. Whether it's, whether it's  in Australia through the allies, or whether it's onshore in the US. It has to be  developed. 

There's no other way of doing it, and you're not gonna do it the same way.  That's not the American way. They'll do it in a more innovative way, to stop the  pollution. One of the reasons that we offshore everything is that we didn't want  the pollution tax the, we didn't want the pollution in our country. 

I think Ricky, Gervais, know, made it great analogy About you, slavery being  relocated to Foxcon factories with nature around them that, just because we  haven't got ships and we're not bringing people over we're still enslaving them  in their own countries. Now we can divert past that with innovation. 

We can, I, me, I mentioned UCU. I'll mention them via symbols because I'm an  investor first. There in Louisiana they're developing an amazing closed loop  system that doesn't have any heavy, rare earth pollution with it. But throughput  is lower costs than the old metric. 

Now obviously the, the limitations on this is, we have a limited skill base. We  have a limited education base. We're teach, we're telling everyone to learn to  code a few years ago, and now we should be teaching them, learn to go to  chemistry or learn to go to engineering in order to create the, I guess the  industrial age 2.0. 

There's a number of these companies I mentioned Linus, they're building a,  they've got the go ahead in Texas, they had ESG problems in Texas. You've got  all these I guess folks who are worried about the development of some of these  capabilities in US states slowing the whole process down with. 

Agreements and bureaucracy, they're now starting to be taken out the way. So  you know, Linus has been trying to get this thing off the ground in Texas as a 

rare earth refining project for a few years. And now they're going forward and  we have to get these things out of the way for them. 

But I think it's just common sense. I would go down the rabbit hole of all of  these critical mineral plays, and chemical plays too. We're gonna need the  chemical. There's a lot of a chemical association with critical metals plays, and,  if you go down there you'll find that, that's the future of investment. 

The future of investment. This era is, pivoted to a critical metal survival.  Industrialization 2.0 that provides the feedstock and supply chain into the things  that we've talked most about in the greater financial environment, investment  environment. We keep talking about an AI bubble. 

In order to do an Ai, whether it's a bubble or not, and I don't think it is. I think  it's a military capability. We need to, understand the conditions precedent to  creating those massive AI data centers and those, and the, all the electrification  that goes with it, the energy, the gas the nuclear needs, copper. 

Like I said, the, that one, that Microsoft one, I just read a report on 2,177 tons in  one AI data center and there's 20 of 'em around the world. That's a lot of copper.  That's but I think we have to be, careful of where this is not an automatic  commodity play either because China's gaming that system too. 

I put a note out yesterday about iron ore the Simon the the Guinea iron ore play.  For China and Rio Tinto, they've put $20 billion into an iron all play. It's, I  think, a large percentage of that goes into a railroad and, $20 billion. And it's  not something that we would've risked in the west because we'd have to have a  return of 20%. 

If you look at what China uses, they use about a billion ton of copper a year In  all their industries for 20 billion, they get, I think, stage four and five. They get  up to about 60,000 ton By the, when the mine's fully operational, they get to  about a hundred thousand ton per annum. But that's at 65% mineral  Concentration.  

You if you look at something like fmg, they're at 56% mineral concentration.  Now that nets out that you've gotta process 8500 tons more. In ore, in dirt to get  the same amount of via ore out, sorry, I think I said copper. You've gotta get the  same amount of via ore out. 

So you've got this thing where if they finance it they might lower the cost of,  iron ore They might lower the cost of iron ore by 10% Say $10 a ton. And that 

$10 a ton will give them an overall saving across their their iron ore usage of 10  billion dollars. 

And that $10 billion gives them an ROI of 50% of their investment straight  away in, inside, say, 12 to 24 months. You know that's a significant difference  because if their return on investment. Also looks at the price. It means that the  iron ore they, that they, them investing in iron ore production and making these  mines and making an oversupply is pay pays them back. 

Their ROI is differently configured to our ROI and so where we're saying the  copper demand's going up. Significantly so the price will go up. That's old  analysis. The new analysis says the copper demand's going up. They have  complete control of the supply, so our copper costs might go up. But their  copper cost, if they decide to, stop refining it for us and giving it to the, and start  giving it to themselves exclusively, means that they've lowered the cost of  copper from all their supplies. 

And that changes everything because it changes the valuation of, a company  like Escu fmg, it changes the valuation of bhp. It changes the valuation of Rio  altogether because Rio, all of a sudden, even though they own 45% of the,  similar, our mine, they're in a cost plus situation. 

They're not in a, an iron all price situation.  

Erik: And Craig, you've got an entire section in your article, which is about  disruptive technologies and where some of the investment opportunities are. So  again, I very strongly encourage all of our listeners to read the article. Craig,  you told me off the air you're not really promoting anything as a private investor  other than reading your articles. 

Tell us where your substack is and if there's anything else you'd like to tell our  listeners about what. You do  

Craig: well, my Substack is just my name, Craig Tindale. You'll find it there.  Same with my @ctindale for X. And then you can find me on LinkedIn as well  because I'm publishing there as well. 

Just my name again. All I'm asking from anybody. I've done pretty well at  investing over the last decade and I don't really need to promote anything. What  I'm really trying to promote is our own survival and awareness of what we need  to do for our own survival. So it's pretty pure in that context.

I just ask you to read it thoroughly because it's important to every one of your  investment portfolios out there and to forward it to other people because we  need to get the word out. We need to change the way we're thinking about  things in the west to so that we. We become resilient, that we survive as a  culture, as a civilization. 

And that if we don't do that we have a different future than I think we're all  we've grown up with.  

Erik: And again, folks, the name of the article is Critical Materials, A Strategic  Analysis, and you'll find a link to that article in your research roundup email.  Patrick Ceresna and I will be back as Macrovoices continues right here at  Macrovoices.com.

Erik: Joining me now is Commodity context founder Rory Johnston. Rory boy,  we live in interesting times. We've got the situation in Venezuela, and I think a  bigger picture to talk about, which is overall President Trump has. Described an  agenda, which is, Hey, we've really gotta get oil prices down. It's very near and  

dear to his heart because it's one of the most important things for him to do in  order to secure the potential of not losing the house in the midterm elections. 

How would you score the the president in terms of using the best tools available  to him to bring prices down?  

Rory: It's a great way to kick it off and thanks for having me back on the  podcast. Eric 2026 is off to quite the start. So this question about Donald Trump  and using the various very real levers of the presidency in order to reduce the  price of oil, I would say that the president's actually been really bad at this to  date. 

I think if the president did nothing. The oil price would be considerably lower  today than it is right now. I think it's important to walk through why that is,  because I think that's actually a fairly, this is a claim that gets me a decent  amount of hate online. That people are like, no, of course listen to what Donald  Trump says. 

He clearly wants lower oil prices and look, he just conquered Venezuela in  order to get lower oil prices. Whatcha talking about? But what we've seen is  that. One of the things we've talked about, routinely, I think that we talked about  this last time I was on the podcast, that the global oil market has headed in  2025, particularly the latter half of 2025, into fairly pronounced oversupply, at  least on paper, that supply considerably outran demand by upwards of 3 million  barrels a day, which is for those that watch the oil market, a very large glut in  the oil market. 

But while prices have been broadly under pressure, they are by no means under  the degree of pressure you'd expect if that kind of surplus was bearing down on  stocks. And while there have been a couple different things that have prevented,  I think the. Full transmission of that glut into prices and term structure. 

So far, I think un undoubtedly the most important variable there has been  president Trump's considerable increase in both the volume and enforcement of  various sanctions throughout the oil market. Both, on Venezuela, on Iran, and  on Russia, and across all three of these countries you've seen considerable  buildups.

There's essentially really two ways you can judge. Efficacy of these sanctions,  and that's by observing both the price that these producers are getting, or  essentially what price their crude is clearing the market, and also looking at oil  and water, essentially. How much are their logistics getting backed up? And oil  and water has surged through the latter half of last year and in the last quarter of  last year. So Q4 of 25, you are building oil and water at a pace of around three  quarters of a million barrels a day across the three of those sanctioned  producers. That's a lot of oil and that alone takes almost a third of that of that  supply glut right off the market. 

And I think even though PE people will say look. Their barrels are obviously  being produced, which is true. But they're not. This is the difference between  production and supply. They're being produced, they're ending up on tankers,  but they're not actually available to supply any piece of the market. 

So you're getting that kind of double whammy of it not happening and also  rising on the side. So this is preventing or blunting that supply from hitting the  market, and that I think is the most direct way. The president has actually  affected the oil market to date is essentially by taking off a bunch of supply that  otherwise would've been there. 

So to that point, I think that if you're grading him on his ability to keep oil  prices low, I would say he has been to date. A bearish factor on oil prices sorry,  a bullish factor on oil prices. And prices would be much, much lower if he, or, if  Kamala Harris had won the presidency 'cause and presumably she would not  have been quite so harsh on various angles of this sanctioned kind of buildup. 

Erik: Now one of the counter arguments that you would hear to what you just  said is, Rory, haven't you been paying attention to the news? President Trump  just announced that Venezuela is about to hand over 32, maybe as much as 50  million barrels of oil right away, which has got to help the market. Rory does  

Venezuela have 50 million barrels of oil to hand over to Donald Trump. 

Rory: Yes and no. And I think it really depends on how we define what we're  looking at. And Eric, I think you and I actually interacted earlier this week or I  guess late last week on this question of like how much oil is actually floating  around out there on Venezuela. 'cause we were talking earlier about a lot of  Venezuela oil backing up on water. 

That's, I think, a piece of what the president has talked about, seizing his, what  I've called his kind of like pirate booty of his conquest of Venezuela. Is this 30  to 50 million barrels now. One of the things, and I think when you look at what 

he said it's very clear that at least in the president's mind, part of what he will be  grading himself on. 

And I think what we should also be grading him on, is whether or not you have,  whether or not Venezuela's oil production actually begins to recover. He's  basically said that Venezuelan oil production, the industry is essentially rotted  away for lack of foreign capital and because of domestic mismanagement,  which is all true. 

So presumably he wants that production to rebound fairly quickly, which again  goes to his claim of wanting lower oil prices. So one of the issues with  Venezuela and the blockade that he imposed is that you essentially backed up a  lot of pressure on those systems and without tankers to get rid of the crude. 

And with domestic storage tanks overflowing, you saw more and more pressure  for PDVSA, the national oil company to shut in production, which is going the  opposite way of what the president wants. So I think what Trump is saying or  claiming here is that, while before they even figure out what's happening with  all the sanctions and the blockade and everything else, we're just gonna quickly  take off that, 30 to 50 million barrels to relieve some pressure on the system  Now. 

You can cobble together, very charitably, a way to do this, but it's unlikely we're  gonna see that full volume of crude delivered to the Gulf. But I think regardless,  markets are now, I think, acting in a way where that is beginning. To show up  and in prices you've seen, for instance, while global Brent crude markets I, I  think are rising rallying pretty aggressively. 

And the backwardation at the front of the Brent Curve has turned decisively  bullish. Again, WTI is lingering on a weaker back foot, not quite able to get that  same bid. You've seen, especially heavy pressure on things like Western  Canadian select or heavy crude oil benchmarks in the US Gulf Coast, where  essentially from November levels you've rise you've widened from a differential  of about $4 a barrel under WTI for WCS at Houston to roughly around 8, 7 50  $8 a barrel in WTI at Houston. 

So that is, I think, is your evidence that there is some pressure coming there, but  this now we can get to the whole question of what does this mean for the future  of Venezuela? And is this a problem for Canada and these, incrementally, I  think the future of Venezuela is probably better without Nicolas Maduro at the  helm than with him at the helm.

But I think it's obviously much more complicated than just all of a sudden  Venezuela and oil production's just gonna start mooning going forward.  

Erik: It seems clear, Rory, from both President Trump's comments and as well  as Chris Wright's comments that, the agenda is very clear here. It's going to be  the government of the United States does everything possible to encourage US  oil companies, if not subsidize US oil companies to make massive investments  to rapidly bring that production in Venezuela back online. 

And the thing that seems. I guess surprising to me is most of the other things the  president has done seem to be temporarily focused on the midterm elections  now, at least according to our mutual friend, Dr. Alhajji. He did a podcast or I  guess a Twitter space is about this. He thinks that the most aggressive, no matter  how much money you throw at it. 

It would take at least three years to get just 1 million barrels per day of  Venezuelan production back online. And I don't think anybody disputes that  Venezuela has the, more reserves than anybody else. So over a long period of  time and a huge amount of investment, there's lots and lots of oil there. 

But Dr. Alhajji says. At best it's three years to get just 1 million barrels a day of  additional production. What's your take on that? Does it take that long? Does it  take less than that? Longer than that? What do you think?  

Rory: No, I think that's about right. I think one of the big questions is where are  you measuring the growth point from? 

Because I think one of the things that's happened with Venezuelan supply and  production in the market is that it's changed a lot over the last couple months.  So for instance, whether, Trump could claim a much larger victory, a much  larger growth pace if you're measuring off the low point of shut in production  due to the blockade, right? 

Trump can just remove the blockade and some of that will just bounce back  naturally. Now. If we're talking about, say, how can we get incremental growth  from say, October levels from before the blockade was really imposed, that I  think is gonna be a much harder sell. And I think that's where you're gonna get,  three, five plus years before you can really get a million barrels a day of  production. 

And again, this is talking, this is with 50 plus billion barrels of investment. This  is with everyone beginning work very quickly or immediately none of which is 

currently happening. But I do think that you can probably get. A piece of that,  say two, 300,000 barrels a day, probably quicker than that. 

Maybe, a year, maybe 18 months. That would be more mostly focused on  Chevron's operations and essentially squeezing out what else you can get from  the current system. But I think. After that immediate low hanging fruit is  exhausted, that's when you move to this question of, okay, now we need to  repair pipelines. 

We need to fully begin to refurbish fields. We need full workovers, we need, all  the other things. We need more diluent coming in the market. We need  upgraders back up and running. This is when you start to get this really heavy.  Mountain of pent up investment demand that has yet to be kinda satiated. 

And the further you go down, the harder and harder it gets because eventually  you run into things like the Venezuelan power market, like the power grid is  deeply. Unreliable and, prone to blackouts, that's not a good way to run  upgraders and refineries and various other components of the industry. 

So when you get to that stage, that is obviously you need to fix like the entire  country's power grid. So these are obviously extremely difficult, expensive  things to do, and that I think is where you're gonna start to run into more  pushback or reticence among the people and the companies that would be  required to do that investment. 

I think you saw that this past Friday when Trump and Wright, Etc, all had the,  collection of oil industry executives gather for this press conference about what  the future of Venezuela was. And you saw a fairly broad spread. You saw  everyone there. You saw everyone from upstream companies, service  companies, refiners, trading companies, Etc. 

And I think each of those. Had a very different view of how optimistic they  were coming down the line. For instance, Chevron, which most listeners would  know has been in Venezuela, never left Venezuela, was able to work at a deal  with the Chavez and then, and the Mado government, and was able to cut  sanctions, waiver deals with, the Biden administration. 

And now again, the Trump administration, they think that, I think reasonably so  they can get, it's all upside for them because they've held on. Against all odds to  their Venezuelan assets. That I think will be some upside for them. But other  companies like Exxon is the one that coming outta that meeting had all of the 

headlines about it was saying it was, the quote was that Venezuela in its current  state is uninvestible. 

And talking about, the long, slow work of rebuilding institutions and rebuilding  the rule of law and rebuilding a culture that respects contracts and kind of  continuity of government. These are obviously. Much more difficult things and  things that the President can't just snap his fingers and say voila. 

Other companies, I think, I'm sure, trading companies are gonna be all over this.  You had Trafigura and Vitol at the meetings were very enthusiastic about,  essentially acting as the White House's broker of Venezuelan, repossessed and  resold Venezuelan oil. They're very enthusiastic with that. 

Unsurprisingly, I think overall, refining companies seemed happy to have more  heavy crude availability. But in terms of companies that were jumping over  themselves to get in and really make those hard investments, no, that happens  much slower. And then we get to this question of, okay would you have  subsidies? 

The one thing that they said in the. The meetings was, Trump committed to  some quote unquote security guarantee, but obviously the next day the State  Department advised all Americans to leave Venezuela because of the security  situation. There's a carton that a horse and a cart situation here, and I don't think  the president knows which one comes first. 

Erik: Let's go back in the short term to this 30 to 50 million barrels of oil that's  supposedly about to be handed over. First of all I think there's a psychological  effect that we're used to talking about oil supply in barrels per day of  production. This is not per day. This is a one time thing. 

So if we did hypothetically get 30 million barrels all at once, okay, that's 1  million barrels a day for just one month, and that's it. And so in terms of  context, it's not very much oil, but even if we said. Okay. 30 million barrels still.  That's, something to throw at the market, at least short term. 

Maybe that'll bump the price down a little bit and overcome some of the upside  that we've seen in the last couple of weeks. But hang on, where is this oil, first  of all? Does it exist? And if it exists, where does it exist? Because from the  Twitter exchange that I had with you and Dr. Anas. It sounds Anas was saying  there's really only about 11 million barrels is the most that they have.

And then somebody else, I don't re remember if it was you or someone else said  wait a minute. No, they've got more. It's in floating storage, but it's not in  Venezuela, it's in Asia. And I'm thinking to myself, oh yeah, so the Chinese are  gonna say, oh, that's Venezuelan oil. Send it back. How does this work?  

Rory: You know if you're looking at the barrels, actually physically off the  coast of Venezuela, you're probably looking at somewhere between 10 and 15  million barrels, depending on whose estimate you're using. But it's not  obviously the full 30 to 50, you've probably got another 10 or so at various  stages of transit throughout the world and floating around, waiting to be  delivered into China. 

I think that's probably what is being referred to by the president here, mixed  with some additional. Volumes that have built up on land in Venezuela as part  of this attempt to not shut in production. So they've been filling onshore  production and or onshore storage in production areas. So I think that's probably  what we're talking about, but just again, to reiterate. 

So far this, this volume of oil, it's been taken off the market by Trump in the  first place. So this would essentially be a debt almost that's being repaid. So it's  only a million barrels a day for a month. But that theoretical, I think you it in  another way. You could say that, let's say Venezuela starts producing and  flowing again, that could theoretically double Venezuela supply to the market  for one month. 

I think it's another way of framing the same thing, which again, to this point that  right now we're feeling a lot of these weird idiosyncratic, seemingly one-off  supply disruptions, whether or not it's Venezuela. We're gonna talk, I'm sure  about what's happening in Kazak flows. The CPC terminal or , Russia or Iran. 

These are all theoretically supplies that have been lost to the market that will.  The assumption is not that they're going to be permanently offline, so eventually  they're not just going to come back online. But in the case of Venezuela's  floating storage or built up oil and water, you could theoretically double the  pace at which that supplies for a certain number of months. 

Erik: Okay, so really what we're talking about is Trump took a bunch of oil off  the market with his blockade. That oil got trapped in Venezuela, and what he is  really saying now is about that oil that I trapped through my military operations  and prevented you from exporting that you've got. Piled up however much there  

is there, and let's inflate it, then exaggerate the amount by a President Trump  factor.

Whatever that number is we'll take it and you'll give it to us. And that's what's  going on there. But it's probably not a full 50 million barrels. Now. Meanwhile,  in other news president Trump seems to be encouraging Iranian protestors to.  Continue protesting and it seems like he's almost trying to spark a bigger  conflict or even civil war in Iran. 

I think most people are assuming that is a precursor to some kind of military  intervention from the US and Iran. Do. Would you agree with that? Do you  think that's what's coming next and in what timeframe?  

Rory: I think it definitely seems like that's what the market is currently  assuming, and I think at this stage, given what we've seen both from. 

The Prime President Trump regarding Iran as recently as last summer where  they dropped 14 bunker busters on various nuclear Iranian nuclear facilities.  And then we obviously saw a fairly unprecedented capture of Nicolas Maduro  and Venezuela. I think at this stage, he views those two interventions is wildly  successful as kind of proof of American power, which I think so far. 

Has only, and I think will continue to embolden him until one of these  interventions goes badly. So I would say at this stage it seems reasonably likely  that the president is going to do something here. And I, and while it's still, I  mean if we're just flashing back. To this past June when you had the 12 Day  Israel Iran War that's when obviously prices got really spiky again, I think for a  good reason. 

You had act, you had missiles flying around the region. But again, I think at this  stage when we, whenever we get to talking about Iran. You're talking about? I  think when we're talking about the price impact, and I think a lot of what we've  seen over the past, call it three, four days of trading in oil as we've rallied  roughly $5 a barrel higher. 

A lot of that has been a Ron risk, particularly running into a fairly overstretched  short. Positioning market positioning situation in the oil market. And just for  those, again, for those that don't know that, we're always talking about massive  amounts of oil traveling through the strait of hormoz. 

So even though it remains this like really. Minuscule tail risk. I think even a  one, two, 3% move in the probability of something happening in or around the  strait is worth a lot to the oil market, particularly in what we'd call this sense of  like precautionary demand. So you have these companies traders, Etc, that are  bidding up the front, particularly the Brent Curve, worried about.

The loss of these barrels. I think particularly coming at a moment that we're also  seeing, still tightness in Venezuelan supplies tightness in Russian supplies,  tightness in Kazak, supplies outta the ccpc terminal. All these things are keeping  the market tighter. And now you have this worry about the situation in the,  again, and all of this. 

It's, if it's starting to sound a lot like 2015, I think you're paying attention. It's  the same idea that. We have this overarching consensus view of. A surplus. It's  about to hit the market at any moment. It's this freight train running at you. And  then each single month you have some kind of shock that comes in it, whether  it's whether it's a CBC terminal outage, whether it's the Venezuela blockade,  whether it's before that the sanctions by Trump against Rosneft and Luke Oil,  Russia's two largest oil exporting companies. 

These things are still having these ripple effects to the market are keeping. All  that prompt supply tied up in knots in ways that it's really not able to fully bear  down on prices. So again, back to this point of is Donald Trump bullish or  bearish? I would say, again, he's bullish for prices because absent these knots,  we would've a lot more barrels trying to actually clear the market. 

But as of yet, they're all still, wrapped up in varying degrees of logistical legal  sanctions. Red tape.  

Erik: Now Rory, you are based in Canada. You're a Canadian citizen. I want to  ask you an awkward question, which is look it used to be that if someone said  the United States sometimes engages in regime change operations for the sake. 

Of taking oil from from countries by removing the government that's in charge  and replacing it with a different one. That was just crazy conspiracy talk. It  seems like the president's not really hiding the fact that his agenda is very much  to resources and certainly the folks in Greenland are very, acutely aware of this  right now, that he's not afraid to say, look, we think that we should have this.  We think it's in the world's best interest. We think we've decided that it's in the  Greenland people's best interest. Not necessarily checking with them to see  what they think, but just deciding for them it's in their best interest. 

It's best for everybody, and it's really important because it's really about the  development of the Arctic, including. Oil exploration in the Arctic. What  President Trump is saying is, we need Greenland because in, in it, please, what  President Trump is saying is the United States needs Greenland because if they  don't get it, if the United States doesn't get it.

Then Russia and China will, and it's gonna change the balance of power in a  way that's unhealthy for the world. And hey, I'm just doing the, president Trump  feels that he's just doing the right thing for the whole planet by telling the  people of Greenland that this is in your best interest, even if you don't think so. 

How do you guys in Canada feel about this, considering that you also have the  other big landmass that goes up into the polar region? If you were talking about  Arctic exploration acquiring Canada and President. Trump's words as the 51st  state would seem to achieve that goal just as well as getting Greenland would. 

It used to be crazy to think that there would ever be any overt pressure or forced  action for the United States to want to annex any part of Canada anyway, for  heaven's sakes. We're we excellent allies? Always have been. What are  Canadians thinking these days about all of that?  

Rory: It's certainly not lost on, on. 

Canadians, I think what's happening? I think. In a way it's Canada is both as  large heavy oil resources like Venezuela does, and it has a obviously large  mining and arctic kind of territorial expanse, much like Greenland does. So  there's obviously a lot of parallels here. 

I think the way I think about it is a couple different ways. I think on the first.  Simplest, geopolitical lens. Yeah. I think if we're, if you view kind of North  America as your risk board Venezuela kind of secures your entrance to North  America from the south and Greenland, from Europe. 

Canada's obviously an important piece of that entire continental control. So  yeah, that's obviously an obvious point of concern I think. In terms of assuming  that the level, I would say that we still feel relatively safer that our, no matter  what opinion you have of Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, I don't think  anyone believes that he's, the head of a narco terrorist syndicate. 

So I think that, you would at least need to create some other pretext there. But I  think what we have seen is this discussion increasing. The next thing that's  gonna be bearing on US Canada relations is going to be the renegotiation of U S-M-C-A or a Canadian call north of the border Uzma. 

We put the sea at the front, of course. Which is, I think, again, your sign of how  unified that that trade deal was. I think that each of the countries had their, has  their own name for the same deal. But that's the, that renegotiation is what's  going to be coming next. And I think one of the interesting things that's 

happened over the past year it wasn't, it was just a year ago that we were talking  about how, Trump was thinking about imposing tariffs on Canadian crude oil  experts in the United States. 

And despite. Pushback from essentially every corner of the industry. They  actually did impose tariffs on Canadian crude access for a day or two until the  U-S-M-C-A exemptions kicked in. But I think that, there's this feeling of, did  Trump feel like reality put him in a bind? 

I think there was a similar feeling of when he tried to go really hard against  China and then there was this, that rare earth's kind of export ban blow up that  kind of felt like he got, kinda got his hands tied by these physical mark  constraints. I think one of the things that's interesting heading into these  renegotiations is. 

I will, I can tell you many different ways in which Venezuela does not replace  Canada in terms of the US' crude slate in terms of energy security, Etc, Etc. I  think what you've seen is amongst the coalition of actors underpinning President  Trump, call it the broad MAGA movement, you've seen a very heavy anti  Canada kind of political tone take hold, and particularly after Trump. 

Captured Nicolas Maduro, last weekend, two weekends ago now. Ever since  that happened, you basically, there were comments around how, oh, now we  don't need Canada because we have another country with very large heavy oil  resources. But just on that, just I have to do my Canadian duty to 60 seconds  and say that's, you can. 

You're gonna see additional competition in the US Gulf Coast, but those  Venezuelan barrels, Venezuela produces less than a quarter of what Canada  exports regularly to the United States. It can't get into the Midwest because all  the pipelines point south, Etc, Etc Etc. But I think that what you have seen in  the Trump administration is that reality doesn't always. 

Bind as we've seen even with talking about Trump and and what he wants  international or US oil companies to do in Venezuela. It doesn't really matter  what they say. It matters more like his perceived vibe is. And I think right now  there's a perception among his coalition that having Venezuela as potentially the  51st state, so Canada would get bumped to, the threat of 52nd State. 

That I think becomes a, they believe that to be a point of leverage. So even if it  isn't physically a point of leverage, I don't think that matters. I think that the 

Trump administration's gonna come into these renegotiations with a feeling of  an advantage in Venezuela they didn't have last time around. 

Erik: Now one of the ideas that's been floated by Chris Wright, I think, or  maybe it came from President Trump, I'm not sure, was using any oil from  Venezuela to refill the strategic petroleum reserve. That actually seems like a  strategically good idea to me because the oil that the US is most dependent on,  in addition to the oil is produced in the United States, is blend stock. 

The heavy blend stock that's needed into mix with that very light. Bachan shale  oil in order to to be able to refine it in our refineries. What do you think about  the idea of using Venezuelan oil to refill the strategic petroleum reserve? Is  there enough supply from Venezuela to actually do that? 

'cause of course, the SPR is much bigger than the 30 to 50 million barrels that  they're talking about. Is that a realistic thing? And if so, is it a good idea?  

Rory: I think, to your point, I think that as an example, like this 30 to 50 million  barrels, I think, if we're talking about what the most strategic thing the United  States could do with it. 

Yeah. I think given that we've consistently talked about how one of the  limitations to limiting or to refilling the SPR is the lack of congressional  appropriations to do the lack of money to actually buy the oil. Suddenly. If  Trump claims that, Venezuela has turned over 30 to 50 million barrels, that is,  roughly market prices, two and a half billion barrels, sorry, two and a half  billion dollars on the upside. 

That's the 50 worth of oil, which is actually double the amount they even  initially tried to get from Congress in the last, kinda a big, beautiful bill before it  got hacked down to I think only a hundred something million. But yeah, I think  it's actually it's not a bad idea. 

The trouble is that, to my knowledge, and I've chatted with a few people that  know more about the SPR than I do. But I think to my knowledge, the merry  crude or your kind of heavy Venezuelan crude exports don't really match the  spec well of what's in the SPR, which is typically more of a medium sour barrel,  

more like your. 

Mars or Poseidon Barrel your ASCI kind of blends if those that are more  familiar with the US Gulf. But I think what could be interesting is there is  precedent before that the, oil that has been. Let's say put into the possession of 

the United States Federal government in the past that could be, for instance,  through royalty in kind programs where, the government actually got physical  barrels in exchange for production royalties rather than a cut of profits. 

In the, in prior moments that has been essentially exchanged a barrel for a barrel  or a barrel for a fraction of barrel or whatever for grades that are more  conducive to the US SPR, I think that is an interesting possibility here because  obviously the administration has not been very successful at getting those  congressional appropriations to refill the SPR. 

They've had other budget priorities whenever that's been going on. And I think  this, given that the, Trump administration has so front and center frame this  around oil and strategic energy security and everything else. I think that  obviously makes sense from a narrative kind of cohesiveness point. But again, I  think they would need to do some kind of. 

Roundabout maneuver in order to do that and end up with crude, that's actually  useful to the SPR.  

Erik: So let's try to bring this conversation around to things that our audience  can actually trade. We've got a pretty I don't know, it's the first time in how  many months that we've not only. 

Come off of that $55 very strong support level, but we're above 60, at least as  we're speaking on Tuesday afternoon as we're recording this, when's the last  time we were above 60 on WTI? It looks to me like we just barely touched it  briefly sometime in Dec early December. Before that, it goes off off one of my  charts I'm looking at, I'd have to look back to what sometime in October was the  last time before that.  

Rory: Yeah I'm looking at Brent the last time. We're at 65 40 on Brent right  now, which the last time we were there was in late October.  

Erik: Is this, has this rally got legs? Is this the beginning of something big? Or  is this one of those geopolitical rallies that you wanna fade? Because as soon as  the geopolitics come down, you know we're gonna retrace the whole thing back  down to 55. 

Rory: So my bias here is that it's the latter. It's this geopolitical again, this is  Iran, this is CPC. And again, we, I keep mentioning the CPC pipeline. So just  again, 60 seconds of what I'm talking about there. The CPC or the Caspian 

Pipeline Consortium Pipeline, which is essentially the way. 80% of  Kazakhstan's oil gets to market. 

This was, it's a pipeline that comes outta Russian territory that has historically  been safer than some of the other Russian ports. But in Nov in late November  Ukraine bombed the loading points the single point moorings that the facility  

uses to ship on. And essentially that's had this massive blowback effect and  taken upwards of a third of kaza production off the market in January so far. 

So there's also this there's a bunch of these compounding supply losses that are  keeping the market much tighter than it would otherwise be. So I'd say all else  equal the assumption is that those will not remain forever going forward. That,  

that, right now. LA based on later number that I'm seeing, you're looking at  Kazakhstan's production down to roughly a million barrels a day through the  first half of January, down from 1.75 million barrels a day in November. 

So that's, we're talking huge chunky losses. Presumably then Kazakhstan's  gonna wanna get that back up. So as long as Ukraine doesn't continue to bomb  the CBC terminal or tankers as they did today, that were heading to the CBC  terminal that should normalize. But I think the challenge with saying that is that. 

We've been saying that for a little while now, that these one-off things keep  happening repeatedly, and I think to a degree it's useful to just think of just a, a  theoretical regime to talk about how we're, how, what we're seeing right now,  which is we have a fundamentally weak oil market, which in my mind has  emboldened and facilitated particularly President Trump to take ever more  volatile, destabilizing policy actions in the market 

Yes, eventually this should all roll over and then we get the glut and the prices  grind lower and we go fully into Contango on the curve. But so far, these, he's,  Trump seems quite committed to continuing to pressure these various countries  

and I think as we've seen him emboldened by his, at least ostensible, thus far,  success in Venezuela. 

How far is he gonna go? In supporting the Iranian protestors, how far is he  going to go in, pushing harder on Russia. And I think all of this in the context  of, I don't know if you saw Eric earlier today but Donald Trump came out and  said that he really wished he could see oil go back down to $53 a barrel again. 

That's a very specific target in the president's mind, which I'll note is $3 a barrel  higher than his target used to be? So maybe that we can, maybe he is  acknowledging his own his own bullish slant on the market over time. 

Erik: Rory, could it be that? What's going on here is President Trump is trying  to do a calculated, risk management move where he says, okay, what he really  needs in terms of oil prices is that $53 number that he's talking about before the  midterm elections. 

And therefore, let's go fast and furious, bill. China shop, Donald Trump style,  do all of the geopolitical upsetting that he might be inclined to do early. Get it  over with in January, and then give the market time to calm down as we get,  into summer driving season. And the other pressures that tend to take us back  up in oil prices have it all over with so that we're in the blow off phase and  we're retracing, as you said. 

Could it be that he's just trying to get all of his, geopolitical upsetting, done and  over with.  

Rory: It's not a bad idea. If that was actually, what if there was a, a National  Security Council meeting or a National Economic Council meeting and like  someone said this should be the strategy. 

I think it's not a bad strategy because again, I think that this is the period of the  year where prices are going to be weakest when balances were weakest. That  provided you additional fundamental support for doing various supply side  destabilizing moves. I think even if you wanted to go one step further, even  more galaxy brained here, I think there's a factor that, Trump obviously says he  wants low prices speaking to that consumer sentiment around cost of living and  pump price pain, Etc, Etc. 

But I think what you've seen. If you're, if you wanna be purely rational about it.  I, I've come to really like this theory of essentially this like parabola of political  price pressure. That when you get. Over. So there's really compelling research  that was done by Brookings that showed negative media mentions that  essentially as you get above $3 and 50 cents a gallon for us pump prices,  negative mentions in media, which I think both reflect and further drive  consumer sentiment around these pump prices builds up rapidly after you hit  above three 50. 

But that doesn't, it basically flat lines under three 50. Like you don't get this  commensurate. It's not like people get happier for $3 or two 50 gas. So that I  think is interesting because it, you, your downside payoff is less it's almost like  a prospect curve that the, consumers overweight their losses and they don't  really give you the benefit of their upside.

If it's better than that. On the flip side, you have us producers that, if they go  from $90 a barrel to $60 a barrel on crude, maybe they go from making  gangbuster profits to only scraping by. That's obviously unpopular, but it's much  more painful to go from 60 to say. 40 or 30 where you go from, not it, it is from  breaking even to like outright bankruptcy or worrying about layoffs and  winding up your company, that becomes much more painful. 

So I think if you got much below 50 for any durable period, even below 60 for a  durable period as we saw, I think the pushback from. Trump's base in the oil  sector, which I think has felt reasonably and understandably burned, but I think  still naturally gravitates towards. Coalition for, let's say the upcoming midterms. 

So I think there could be an attempt to balance those competing factions and  don't get too offside on either one of those kind of rising parabola of pump price  pain or or barrel pain on the producer side. But I think at the end of the day, the  one thing I'll say is that I think all of this we can. 

Trump does so many things and says so many things that I think it's easy to  overfit a theory onto him. But I do worry that this, I think the other side is that I  think it's just reasonable to think that he is just winging it, that he wants pro, he  wants prices to be lower and you know he says that, but he does a bunch of stuff  that increases the price with sanctions and everything else without fully  recognizing why. 

And he'll just post about how, if you were a patriot, you would bid the price of  oil lower or something like that. So I think I, I do worry about overfitting and  giving him too much credit for having a consistent strategy here. 'cause I just  don't know if that's the case. 

Erik: I wanna get a little bit more technical here because this is where I think  the best trading opportunities are in this market. Last time I had you on, I don't  remember how long ago it was or maybe it was two interviews ago. You and I  had both noticed something that we thought was quite unusual in the shape of  

the forward curve, the term structure of WTI, crude oil, which is all, it's they  call it a curve for a reason. 

It's usually curved. And what we noticed, both of us was, eh, it's funny. It's like  there's really, pronounced backwardation right to one specific contract. And I  think it was actually right now around January of 26, and then all of a sudden  there's like a, a very sudden bend in the curve and it's all contango after that.

And we were both kind of scratching our heads saying, why that specific month,  why not the usual curvature that you would see there? It's happened again,  Rory. If you look at the WTI curve right now it's exactly as you and I predicted  at that time. You and I have said, wait a minute, that contango that you see after  January of 26, that's gonna flip into backwardation, at least at the front of the  curve. 

That's exactly what's happened, but now it's March of 27. Just about one year  out. 'cause we're just flipping from the February to the March contract and the  contract role that's coming in the next week. All of a sudden, that's the inflection  point. Why are these funny shaped curves happening at odd months where all of  a sudden that there's that abrupt shift from backwardation to contango? 

And specifically what you and I thought at that time was okay, it means the  trade is. To buy the spread that started at that time in January 26th. By January  26th through January 27, that calendar spread and expect it to flip from  contango into backwardation is the it would be the the H seven. 

H eight the March of 27 to March of 28 one year calendar spread, which is all in  contango. I, is that a ripe trade to expect that over the next year to switch into  backwardation? And if so how does that compare with trading the front, the flat  price on the front month?  

Rory: So I think one thing that's interesting that you've seen, and you've seen  this almost. 

Almost every month since April, since last, since last April when Trump  announced his Liberation Day tariffs. And this is, I think when this whole, at  that point you got the add-on of opec adding all that, crude back to the market.  This is when the global glut thesis really took hold very rapidly. 

And what you've seen really interestingly, pretty much every single month  since, is that for the first half of the month. The front of the curve weakens you  basically flirt with flipping into prompt contango, and then something happens  in the middle of the month, whether or not it's Ukrainian attacks on the CPC or  it's Trump sanctions against Russian oil majors or anything else. 

This, it's just the moment that you basically get the shock higher, and then  basically at the end of the month you always end back and fairly pronounced.  Backwardation only for that to begin sliding again the next month. And  essentially it's this recycled, it's this yo-yo up and down.

Flat prices had I think a bit more of a range, like a trend to it. But if you just, if  you're just looking at prompt time spreads or or even let's say the front couple  time spreads along the crude curve that has been a cyclical thing every single  month that it goes. Lower and then higher and lower and then higher. 

And I think I've joked with some, friends, analysts that are they're watching  someone in the White House is watching for when this curve is about to flip  into contango. And that's when they're like, aha, that's when we'll announce the  next section against against Roz n Luko or whatever. 

And I think that's something that's been thoroughly consistent. Now what's  interesting about this cycle is that. Got started much earlier in the month, about  a week earlier than it has in prior months, and this is when Iran got started up.  So I think if we were to follow this back to it, if this was to repeat itself, I would  expect this, us to remain heavy and hot on the, at the front of the curve up until  the end of the month. 

Then begin to essentially fall back down again as the market says, okay, is this  the month when we finally begin to see that surplus arrive on shore? And again,  until it, it's going to happen eventually. It's just a question of how many more  months we kick it down the road because each one of these crises, for most of  them at least it's not a complete change in narrative. 

It's just a, essentially you're either delaying that barrel from going to the market.  Which means you get a double whammy down the line or you're just,  preventing it from hitting right now. And I think that's what we're looking to see  is that these barrels will eventually hit. We just don't know when. 

So I think the market's gonna keep waiting every single month to say, is this  contango month? Is this contango month? And then as soon as something  happens, in this case, Iran and prior cases, it was something else. It was  Venezuela. That I think is the cycle that we're gonna keep following here. 

Erik: Rory, I want to come back briefly to this whole regime change question  that we discussed earlier in this interview, just because of some news that's  happened while we were speaking and now of course, the idea that the US  would ever engage in regime change operations for the sake of getting the oil is  obviously preposterous, ridiculous, crazy conspiracy talk that could never  happen. 

However just after the market closes on Tuesday as we were speaking, Chris  Wright announces, quote, the US would happily partner with Iran on oil if the 

regime ends. Now this is not a regime change operation of course, but just,  hypothetically, if the regime did end, the US would happily partner with Iran on  oil. 

Any comments on that? And as a Canadian any concerns?  

Rory: Yeah, I think I, I'm even, I haven't even seen the comment come across  the line yet, but it sounds very similar to what we've heard from other what  we've heard from Wright and others about Venezuela. 

I think there is this definite interests, and I think we haven't even really talked  about what these subsidies or, they also talked about potentially putting like  equity investments into US oil companies. Like we're going down this weird.  Kind of state capitalist, fusion line that I think is like very unfamiliar to more  modern markets but is like very almost cliche to like imperial markets. 

And I think that's what this is starting to feel like is, regime change with the  kind of the catch of and will get, traffic and vitol or whomever to market your  crude for whatever regime replaces you, But I think The thing that we have  seen, and I think this is something that has been relatively consistent despite  Trump's kind of bravado on foreign policy, is they have not like the, we're still a  far ways away from, say, your Bush era neoconservative democracy, promotion,  regime change kind of sentiment that. 

Very briefly was the thought in Venezuela with getting rid of Nicolas Maduro.  Obviously, Marco Rubio Secretary, secretary of State, has been a very long  running Venezuela regime, change hawk, and I think representing a fairly core  constituency of that kind of South Florida vote. Whether it's Venezuelan,  diaspora or Cuban diaspora populations, but again, what we've seen very  quickly there is that, very quickly Trump decided, actually no, we're, we don't,  it would be harder to deal with, say, a new Democratic opposition taking power  in Venezuela. 'cause that's destabilizing and that's messy and that's hard. So  mine as well, just, even in Venezuela, it's, we're just dealing with Delcy  Rodriguez, who is the Maduro's vice president and oil minister, notably here. 

That I think is, it's easier. That's let's just deal with the people we know. And I  think there's this question of like, why would that be any different in Iran? So I  think right now it's taking this this sound of democracy promotion and  supporting the protesters. But what we've seen historically from Trump is like a  fairly, rote willingness to.

Collaborate with whomever ends up being holding the keys to power at the end  of this, in which, in, in this case is, would that just be the IRGC or whomever  else? It's not necessarily that the protestors going to automatically get the keys  to the government, and I don't know if Trump is interested in the messy long  term post conflict reconstruction work that would be involved with something  like that. 

In Iran or Venezuela, which is, I think right now we're in this moment where  this stuff could turn into just a game of musical chairs and, the next strong man  goes into power and that strong man's a little bit more favorable to Trump and a  very, very familiar kind of, coup to desperate that's more favorable to  Washington vibe that we've seen from the United States over prior decades. 

I think that's not, at least what we're hearing from the White House right now.  So it'll be interesting to see where this goes, but I don't think that he has the  appetite for the kind of follow through that would be required there. And I, who  else is gonna be controlling Iranian oil after the Ayatollah Falls? 

Again, I don't think it's any of the protestors at this point.  

Erik: Rory, I can't thank you enough for a terrific interview. But before we  close, I wanna ask you to tell us a little bit about commodity context, your  company, what you do there. I know that you just wrote an excellent piece,  really giving your readers a, a, a. 

A perspective on this whole situation in a little bit more depth than we had time  to cover here on what's going on with Venezuela. Could we have your  permission to share that with our listeners in the research roundup email? And if  so, we will share it with them and please tell us what you do and how people  can find out more about your services. 

Rory: Absolutely. I, appreciate you sharing the research and for anyone that's  interested, commodity context is a research outlet where I provide all of my  thoughts on oil markets evolving as this market continues to roll forward. Got  three main different types of research on commodity context, which is a oil  context weekly, which is published every week around Friday at 4:00 PM  Eastern after Markets close. 

That kind of brings a roundup of essentially what nonsense has happened the  week and how oil markets have begun to process it. I've got three different  monthly data heavy reports, which are called data decks which are on global oil  balances, opec production compliance, everything else as well as a more 

detailed look around flows around North America, as well as on top of this, I  also offer an advisory service to higher touch clients and a data service for those  clients as well that look, they wanna provide a kind of a deeper data driven  backend that drives my own research head over to commoditycontext.com. We'd love to have you and and let's keep following this market together,  

Erik: and you can find a link to Rory's report on the situation in Venezuela in  this week's research roundup email. Patrick Ceresna and I will be back as Macro  Voices continues right here at macrovoices.com.

 

Erik: Joining me now is 42 Macro founder Darius Dale. Darius, prepared as  always a slide deck to a company. This week's interview for our regular  listeners, you already know this, but for everyone else, the way this works is  Darius has a huge slide deck which he shares with his paying subscribers. He's  kind enough to share the entire deck with us, with the condition out of respect  for those paying subscribers that we have to redact the slides that we don't  actually use. 

So please forgive any blank slides that you find in the download link. You can  search. Certainly get all of it by subscribing to 42 Macro. We only provide you  with the slides that are discussed in this week's interview. Darius, I wanted to  get you on the show, very first guest of the year because boy, back in 2022, I  think we had you as the first, or maybe it was the second guest of the year. 

Everybody was bullish. Boy, sounds exactly like today where everybody's all in,  running it hot and you actually were bold enough to use the words crash year  and say guys, I think there, there's a lot to be worried about. You've nailed that  call in 2022. It turned out not to be the very positive year, everybody thought. 

Let's start with the real high level. Is this gonna be a crash year or is everybody  right to be all in?  

Darius: Ooh, that's a great question. Way to start us off Hot Eric. So thanks  again for having me. It's always a pleasure to be with you and your wonderful  macro Voices community. I'll also add just one quick highlight. 

We also had the same view coming into last year, 2025. Recall that we thought  the Trump administration would kitchen sink the economy from a policy  sequencing standpoint. And ultimately we thought the markets would crash to  price that in. Ultimately recover very sharply and violently to the upside. 

And that's obviously exactly what happened last year. Kudos to the team at 42  Macro for getting that getting into answering your question I'll jump right into  sliders, hop right into it. We'll go to slide 115 where we show our the latest  refresh of our positioning model, which we refresh daily for our clients. 

And right now we're observing a historic degree of crowded bull positioning.  Which makes me very uncomfortable as an investor because typically what  happens when you get to this extremes, incredible positioning. You tend to have  bad outcomes in financial markets. That doesn't necessarily guarantee a bad  outcome in financial market, but it certainly increases the probability of one.

So when we look at, the positioning cycle indicators that correspond to the short  to medium term time horizon, in which are the AI bulls bear spread and the  National Association of Active Investment Manager Stock Allocation survey.  Both of those the latest values for both of those time series are breaching their  respective bull market peak thresholds. 

Going back to the early late eighties for the AI bulls bear spread , early two  thousands for the name survey. So that's that indicates that there's a high risk of  a correction over a short to medium term time horizon, which in our risk  management nomenclature is one to three months. 

If you look at the indicators on the far right of that table, on, on the right of slide  one 15 where we show the AI stock allocation survey the AI bond allocation  survey, the AI cash allocation survey, we use that to proxy investment advisor  positioning. We look at the S&P 500 3 month realized volatility to proxy,  systematic fund exposure positioning. 

We look at implied volatility correlations to proxy the gross exposure of our  market, neutral hedge fund clients. And then finally we look at the S&P500  press the next 12 month earnings multiple, as well as investment grade credit  spreads, and as well as economic policy uncertainty to proxy various cohorts of  the broader buy side and their crowd and their crowded positioning, whether it  be bullish or bearish. 

And right now, the. The compendium of indicators are enough of those  indicators are breaching their respective bull market peak thresholds. That  suggest that there's, some bumps likely ahead of us over a short to medium term  time horizon and potentially a medium to longer term time horizon as well,  purely from the perspective of the positioning side. 

And one final thing I'll say on this, on slide 116 if you go back and look at all  those indicators and just look at them in terms of the percentile of implied  crowd at bullish positioning based on the latest values, this is about the third  highest crowd at belows positioning we've ever seen on a median on a mean  basis and the second highest we've seen on a median basis. 

And that would seem to suggest that we're gonna have to have a lot of good  news accumulate for markets to power through this through this dynamic.  

Erik: It seems to me that there's a lot of parallels here. Going into the 2000  trading year, boy, quarter of a century ago. I guess I must be getting old or 

something, the thing that seems similar to me is everybody was betting then on  the internet being a really big deal. 

They were right about that, but it just got so far ahead of itself that we ended up  having to have dotcom bust before we could, a couple of years later get a  recovery. And of course they were still right. The internet was a really big deal.  It still is. It seems to me the parallel there is AI. 

It seems like it's the big driver in the market. Everybody's right that AI is gonna  be a really big deal, but it also feels really overdone. So how do you see, and I  guess the, the challenge there was. Almost everybody knew there was a bubble,  but nobody knew how to time it. So how do you see this crowded positioning  that you're describing on page one 15? 

Resolving?  

Darius: Yeah, that's an excellent question. I'm so glad you brought up the early  two thousands market cycle. 'cause it's very akin to what we're experiencing  here here in 2026. Historically when you have these CapEx bubbles going back  to the 19th century railroad, build out the 20th century consumer durable goods  build out as well as the 20th and 21st century internet CapEx build out. 

You always tend to see those mar those CapEx bubbles tend to precede. Secular  bear markets, and oftentimes, significantly adverse outcomes in the economy as  well. The panic of 1873 led to the long depression. The 1929 stock market crash  ultimately led to the Great Depression. 

We obviously saw the.com bus lead us to the jobless recovery and then  ultimately the housing bubble, which ultimately gave way to the global financial  crisis. I think if you take a multi-year time horizon and perspective. Things  aren't great, I'll just leave it at that. But from a medium term time horizon  perspective, which is set of three to 12 plus months, three, three to 12 months in  our risk management nomenclature, we do see this historic degree of bolus  positioning resolving itself positively. 

But this will probably the last gasp higher in that, from that perspective. If we  could turn to slide 24 where we show the latest refresh of our macro weather  model, which we again, alongside our positioning model. We refresh six days a  week for our clients here 42 Macro. What we find is that if you look at the  current constellation of the six key macro cycles that matter, with those being  growth, inflation, monetary policy, fiscal policy, liquidity, and positioning.

Four of the six are currently headwinds for the market. Now again, this model is  designed to help project the dispersion within and across asset markets, or really  mostly across asset markets. Over short to medium term time horizon, which is  again, one to three months in our risk manage nomenclature. 

And so that suggests that right now we're probably due for a correction and or  some violent chop to burn off some of this crowded bull positioning before we  can set the stage to a meaningful move higher. And looking at what's currently a  tailwind growth in inflation. 

They're both currently tailwinds as determined by the the features in the model.  But when we look at the things that are currently headwinds. Ultimately, we  have to see these things transition to becoming tailwinds for us to, make new  highs on a durable basis and really any meaningful and or explosive move  higher, which still may be in the cards, by the way. 

I don't think the AI CapEx cycle's done. We certainly still see a tremendous  amount of fundamental support for the market, aside from this Credis position  dynamic. So let's unpack the. Monetary policy, fiscal policy and liquidity cycles  independently because those are headwinds that we ultimately expect will  transition to becoming tailwinds over the medium term, which will support an  unwind, a positive resolution to this current credit bull positioning, which is  likely to remain a headwind until this market peaks. 

So on the monetary policy side of things we had a strong easing impulse in the  Fed funds rate. We had a weak easing impulse in the two year nominal treasury  yield. Fed funds rates spread. We have a strong tightening impulse in the Fed's  treasury holdings to marketable treasury debt ratio. We have a strong tightening  impulse in commercial bank reserves to commercial bank assets ratio. 

And then we have a strong tightening impulse in the SOFR IRB spread. So  ultimately we think the fed's. Response to the tight conditions in the repo market  will ultimately be one that is more balance sheet expansion, more reserve  management purposes, and ultimately we expect the structural forms that the,  that we've been forecasting at the Fed for years now. 

We expect the advent of those structural forms will ultimately push the Fed  funds rate lower. And make the market more right? With regards to established  policy bias. So ultimately the monetary policy cycle, which is currently a  headwind for of risk assets and broader financial market risk taking will  ultimately transition to becoming a tailwind at some point over the next three to  six months.

So that's why that's one dynamic that could change, that could help this credit  bullish positioning resolve positively. On the fiscal policy side of things we  that's currently a headwind. We have the strong tightening impulse in the  sovereign fiscal balance to GDP ratio. We got a weak tightening impulse in  Charlie 12 month federal revenue. 

We have a strong tightening impulse in trailing 12 month federal expenditures.  We have a strong tightening impulse in the church of general comp balance.  The bank reserves ratio 30%, essentially an all time high. The bills. The  marketable treasury debt ratio is a weak easing impulse, but not enough. 

To offset the current headwind that is the fiscal policy cycle to, to broader risk  taking in financial markets. Ultimately, particularly as we get past the kind of  late Q1, Q2 of this year, early Q2 of this year, we're gonna start to see these  these indicators transition largely as a function of the one big ugly bill and the  fiscal stimulus that we're likely to see from that our math has the deficit  expanding by, three to $500 billion. 

This year and perhaps doing that again in 2027 as well. So we're in this kind of  u-shaped fiscal policy dynamic where we've seen a tremendous amount of fiscal  retrenchment in the economy, which we can unpack later. We've seen a  tremendous amount of fiscal retrenchment that ultimately more of transition to  fiscal easing. 

And so the fiscal. Policy cycle, which is currently a headwind for the financial  markets, is ultimately gonna become a tailwind, a high probability tailwind at  some point. Let's haul it in the next three to six months as well. And then lastly,  with the liquidity cycle, which is the other cycle that needs to to, to transition  from being a current headwind to a tailwind at some point over the medium  term to get us outta this awkward position that we're currently in as a function  of the positioning cycle. 

If you look at our global liquidity proxy that's a strong positive impulse. Our 42  macro net liquidity, that's our US liquidity model. That balance sheet, T-J-A-R P that is a strong negative impulse. Now we got a strong easing impulse in the  move index, which is biomarker volatility. We have a strong tightening impulse  in the 10 year treasury term premium. 

And then we got a weak tightening impulse in the broad nominal dollar  effective exchange rate. We got a modest head wind right now, the liquidity  cycle. Ultimately we think that'll transition to becoming a tailwind over the 

medium term if we're right on the transition on the inflections in the monetary  policy and fiscal policy cycle, which we see as high probability outcomes. 

Erik: Darius, so many things I wanna dive a little bit deeper on, on this slide  24. Let's start with the monetary policy aspects of this. Something our regular  listeners know I've been stuck on for the last several weeks is it seems to me  that a dovish policy error by the Fed is a near certainty this year. 

And the reason I say that is President Trump is being extremely heavy handed  in terms of just demanding that anybody he allows onto the FOMC board is  going to have to. Vote for a reduction, a continued cutting of policy rates. And  as Jim Bianco has warned, at some point if you cut too much, you end up  having that blow up in your face. 

I don't think the president fully understands that. And you end up with the back  end of the curve revolting as the bond market starts to get afraid of runaway  inflation. How does that thesis fit into your model and how does that jive with  what you're thinking?  

Darius: Yeah, that's, I think that's one of the key risks in financial markets. 

However, I think that risk is dissipating at the margins. If you look at slide 54,  where we show trends in, in, in key inflation operates, we've been declining for,  a couple quarters now across the one year. Two year, five year, and 10 year  tenor. Of these these inflation swap rates, which suggests that the bond market  is getting less concerned about the prospect of a federal reserve that is  ultimately makes a dovish policy error that reignites inflation. 

If you look at slide 55 where we show various estimates of our various market  based estimates of neutral and R star, if you look at the second panel on this  chart here, where we show the floor Fed funds rate. At three spot 11% 3.11%.  That's the market in our view. 

That's the market's estimate of the neutral policy rate, which is again, the  minimum value on the OIS curve about five years. Given that we're in a, given  that we're in an easing cycle, we'd be using the terminal rate if we were in a  hiking cycle. And if you look at that value relative to the effective Fed funds  rate we're still about 64 basis points north of that in effective fed funds rate  terms above neutral. 

So it's highly unlikely that the Federal Reserve creates any sort of meaningful  inflation without at least getting the policy rate to a easing bias. Right now 

there's at least a couple, two to two and a half rate cuts, if you will between the  current effective Fed funds rate and neutral. 

So it's very likely that the Fed is still actually applying downward pressure upon  the economy and labor markets and ultimately upon inflation. And if you got  one final thing I'll say on this is the, if you look at the bond market. On slide 57  the bond market is not overly concerned about sticky inflation either. 

So right now the 10 year treasury yield is currently about 4.15%. Historically  with data going back to the early seventies, the 10 year treasury yield tends to  be about a hundred, 120 basis points above the fed funds rate. So that's  essentially saying the bond market is, it thinks the Fed funds rate should already  be somewhere close to three three and a quarter. 

Right now would be totally fine with that outcome based on its current pricing.  And so that kind of leads me to the next few slides which says, okay, what  could actually go right on inflation? We're also concerned about tariffs, which.  Our math and our analysis has always suggested that tariffs were a, regressive  hit to aggregate demand that would ultimately wind up in lower aggregate  demand and ultimately lower inflation. 

The San Francisco Fed eventually published a paper confirming what we had  already signaled to our customers back in April when we were telling them to  get along. The, if you look at on slide 58 if the middle panel on slide 58 where  

we show Zillow rent index, strong positive, a strong negative impulse in the  Zillow rent index. 

With the three month annualized, we had a change of 1.8%. That's gonna  continue to drag down shelter inflation and housing, housing, PC inflation to the  levels that are below. Trend. They're already modestly below trend currently,  and we ultimately think the trend of disinflation in shelter and housing inflation  is likely to remain ongoing. 

And then finally, on slides 59 and 50 and 60, we have to remind ourselves that  this is a labor market, but the unemployment rate is still gradually increasing.  And a labor market where the unemployment rate is gradually increasing. And  you have on slide 60, super depressed low labor market turnover is evidenced  by the structurally depressed private sector hires rate of 3.5%. 

Below the pre COVID trend, the structurally depressed private sector quits rate  at 2.2% below the pre COVID trend. And then the the structurally depressed  private sector layoffs and discharges rate at 1.2%. That's below the pre COVID 

trend. We know that this is a labor market that has a very limited turnover, is a  labor market that also has a gradual increase on unemployment rate. 

So ultimately the labor market that should, if you look at slide 59, have slower  wage growth. Workers who change jobs tend to experience faster wage growth,  which by definition workers who do not change jobs tend to experience a  slower wage growth. So we're essentially replacing workers who are changing  jobs with workers who are staying put and or being fired and put into the ranks  of the unemployed. 

And so ultimately we think their, the wage growth dynamic is disinflationary,  the housing inflation dynamic is disinflationary and obviously we continue to  see a disinflationary impulse across. The energy complex which is which is  deflationary as well.  

Erik: I wanna come back to slide 24 now and talk about some of these short to  medium term outlooks, the one to three month traffic lights that you have in the  center of the slide there. 

I appreciate these are. Short term outlooks, one to three months. I'm very  curious on some of these asset classes, how that compares to your longer term  outlook. Because I certainly I don't have any reason to, to dispute what you say  in terms of short term cycles, but it seems to me something like commodities, a  lot of notable people who I respect feel that. 

In the bigger picture, we're at the, maybe the ending stages or final stages of an  equity bull market and the beginning of a secular commodity bull market.  Obviously you've got a red light here on commodities, at least in the short term,  so I'm curious about longer term. And then I look at something like gold. 

Okay. It does feel like it's up an awful lot recently. Maybe it's overdue for a  bigger correction than we've seen. At the same time, if I look at the  fundamentals, it depends, on the reason that you think gold has been so strong.  A lot of people think it's been so strong because central banks are losing trust in  the US government. 

And they want some independence from US Treasury paper as their primary  reserve asset given geopolitical developments of late I, I don't see that trend  reversing anytime soon. The other reason that. People will cite for buying gold.  Is that it's really just about the size of the debt.

Reaching a point where it's unserviceable and you've got a serious concern  about the long-term viability of the US treasury market. I don't think that  argument's going away either. So how do these short-term signals jive with your  longer term views?  

Darius: Yeah, great question. I would invert them. From a longer term  perspective, not even necessarily a longer term. 

So just from a perspective of the median term, which again, in our risk  management nomenclature is three to 12 months. Yeah, I think the next few  months could easily be choppy because we don't have enough accumulated  good news from the perspective of each of these six key macro cycles, namely  the five that aren't the positioning cycle to cause the markets to, make us a  meaningful move higher over a short to medium term time horizon. 

However. If we're right that the monetary policy cycle will to inflect from a  headwind to a tailwind, if we're right, that the fiscal policy cycle will inflect  from a headwind to a tailwind, and ultimately both the confluence of those two  things. With the ongoing tailwinds and the growth in inflation cycle persisting,  then it's likely that the liquidity cycle will inflect from a headwind currently to a  tailwind. 

So ultimately if all that it becomes true, where you have five of the other six key  macro cycles, exposition cycle all being tailwinds for asset markets, then you're  obviously gonna see an inversion of the the traffic lights in the middle of the  page There. You can have green light for stocks, green light for gold, green  light for bitcoin, green light for commodities, and red lights for the bonds and  the US dollar. 

So that, that. That is what our fundamental research summary is currently  anticipating. If you go to slide six in this presentation, we don't have time to  unpack the, everything on the fundamental research summary, but one thing I  call out on slide six is the words the color coding of the words is is associated  with dynamics that are bullish for risk assets being green, and dynamics that are  barriers for risk assets being red. 

So from a fundamental research perspective. And this slide on slide six  summarizes everything in this 160 plus slide presentation. Most of the stuff that  we're, pitching to our clients and have been for since since late April, since we  altered the paradigm C theme in late April of last year.

Most of the things have been bullish and are likely to become increasingly  bullish over the medium term. And so that's why we have so much conviction  that the monetary, fiscal, monetary policy, fiscal policy, and liquidity cycles on  slide 24 will inflict from headwinds to tailwinds. Answering your question,  going back to this you touched on something briefly on slide that, that is near  and dear to my heart and is the guiding principle for our. 

Research it has been for a few years now which is this geopolitically driven  supply demand imbalance in the treasury bond market. If you go to slide 73,  where we show the approximate next 12 month marketable treasury debt supply  as a percent of global savings. You can see that we have a meaningful deviation  from the long run mean of this time series in terms of the latest value of 39% of  global savings in terms of how much percentage of the flow of global savings  that the US government is capitalizing itself at. 

From the perspective of rolling over maturing debt the the annualized fiscal year  to date budget deficit, as well as the annualized divestment for the Fed's  portfolio, which obviously is since is now actually a tailwind from that  perspective. But a very modest tailwind in terms of 40 billion a month of arm. 

It's about 223% of us the flow of us savings. And so obviously both of those are  about a double relative to their long run means. So we have all this debt supply.  But we don't necessarily have the same de demand dynamics that we used to  throughout the great moderation. And ultimately the period of time that, we  created the that created that, that featured the conditions, that created the dual  broad performance of the, let's say 60 40 portfolio. 

If you go to slide 95 where we show some of the foreign dynamics in the  treasury market we've been losing foreign ownership for over a decade now.  Foreigners peaked out at 56% of the total marketable treasury debt market.  Back in back in June of oh 08'. 

We're now at 31%. Currently if you look at slide 50, or sorry, my apologies,  slide 102 where we show, these various cohorts of the marketable treasury debt  market. We see that the fed, the blue line of the fed's share of the marketable  treasury debt market has been declining for a few years now, it's now down at a  lowly 14% from peaking at a route 25%. 

In mid 2022 we see commercial banks. Share of the marketable treasury debt  market has been pretty stable over the past couple of years, but it's still at a very  structurally depressed level of 15%, which is down from a, a high in the early 

two thousands of around in the low thirties. And then obviously the black line,  which is foreign official sector treasury holdings. 

So foreign central banks their reserve management that's declined from about  40% to 13% since peaking out in oh eight. And so the residual of all that  declining flow from these price insensitive buyers. Because central banks  manage buy treasuries for reserve management purposes. They buy treasuries to  implement monetary policy via QE or some other form of a large asset  purchase. 

And then they commercial banks, they buy treasuries because of regulation,  banking regulation, you are losing all these price insensitive buyers and  replacing them with price sensitive buyers, which are the light blue line in this  chart which are now at 58% of the total marketable treasury debt market up  from 36% in late 2021. 

So this is not a good dynamic and this is a dynamic that is likely to sustain this  structural uptrend in term premium on slide 103 that we highlight if you had a  normal level of term premium in the bond market and normal being somewhere  around, let's call it just five 2%. If we had a normal level of term premium, the  bond market, the 10 year treasury yield will be five and a quarter as opposed to  4.15%. 

And so ultimately the excess yield that we should ultimately be having in the  bond market is being replaced by gold, by the capital appreciation by gold. And  this is something we explicit, explicitly forecasted and called out and helped our  clients position for starting in the summer of 2023 when we first authored this  fundamental research view, this geopolitically driven supply, demand and  balance in the treasury bond market as part of our investing, doing a four  turning regime framework. 

And ultimately this is why you saw my fellow Yelly, Janet Yellen. She pivoted  to dovish ne financing policy in the summer of, in the shortly after this  presentation was printed. And then you had our fellow Yelly treasury Secretary  of Scott Besson get on the job after you 18 months of lambasting the Dovish  Financing Policy actually rubber stamp it and promise to keep it going for the  foreseeable future. 

Now that he's on the job. In our view, we think we're right on this supply  demand. I balance and as a function, as that supply demand, I balance, we're  seeing institutional investors, which is something we called for. Institutional 

investors increasingly adopt gold as a diversifier away from the treasury bond  market. 

Erik: So if I can just assimilate everything you've said so far, it sounds like we  should interpret your view as saying, look, there's some really good reasons to  be cautious about, oh, let's say the first quarter of 2026, maybe as being a  choppy time time for some overdue corrections to, to play out, but. 

Beyond that longer term. If we go back to page six, which is your longer term  fundamental outlook, really it's almost all green. So you're very much still long term bullish, but also feeling like we're overdue for some corrections before that  can continue. Is that a fair summary?  

Darius: That is an absolute fair summary that the relative frequency of green  words on the page in slide six in our fundamental research summary relative to  the red words in the page, implies that from a fundamental standpoint. 

Based on everything we know today and could forecast today with any  reasonable degree of precision, suggest that we have an incredibly positively  skewed return distribution. With regards to the medium to longer term time  horizon. Doesn't mean the market has to go up every day between now and then,  or even has to go up. 

It just implies that unless something changes in a material manner to, to alter the  relative, frequency of red and green words on that page, it's highly likely that  this. Current crowded bull positioning that we're all very concerned about right  now gets resolved in a meaningfully positive manner. 

When you look out, let's call it six to 12 months.  

Erik: Darius, let's talk about President Trump, who has been, let's say, not  bashful about implementing policies that are quite bold and non-consensus. He  doesn't seem to be going too far out of his way to keep the opposing Democratic  party happy. 

They're getting more and more upset, it seems as we near the. Midterm elections  later in the year. It seems to me the closer we get to the midterm elections, the  more markets are going to start to get sensitive to, Hey, wait a minute, what  happens if the Democrats take the house in November? And that really starts to  weigh on the President's ability to continue to press some of the bold policies  that he's been pressing.

How do you think about how politics and fiscal policy plays into the whole  outlook for the next year or so?  

Darius: Excellent question, Eric. I think the outlook for bold fiscal policy is one  that requires a rear view mirror. If you go to slide 91, we already passed the one  big ugly bill, and the vast majority of the impact has yet to be felt in the  economy. 

Most of it is likely to occur in 2026 in 2027, where we're likely to see a one to  two percentage point positive fiscal impulse in both years. And that's a  meaningful delta relative to consensus expectations. Transition from slide 91 to  slide 26 here. If you look at slide 26, the our consensus short run potential real  GDP growth estimate that's the blend of 26 and 27. 

Right now, it's only at 2%, and I'll tell you. We're gonna go to slightly, maybe  slightly above two here in or back in 2025 with a, three to $400 billion tariff  shock with the highest average annual level of economic policy uncertainty as  measured by the Baker Bloom Davis Index with time series back to the mid  eighties ever in the time series. 

And oh, by the way, a guy who can't stop tweeting changing policy every five to  10 minutes. I don't know how we don't grow at least three, perhaps even 4% in  2026 and 2027, 4% seems a bit much, and we probably need to see some sort of  productivity boom, which I think we should touch on after we hit on fiscal  policy. 

It's very likely that we're gonna grow three, at least 3% in 2026 and 2027 as a  function of what we highlighted on slide 91. And we're already starting to see it.  If you look at slide 88 where we show our fiscal policy monitor if you look at  the impact that the tariff policy. 

And the tariff really largely, the tariff policy has had in terms of reflating the  federal tax revenue tax revenues up 9% on a calendar, year to date basis through  November in 2025. Whereas expenditure's only up 1%. So you've had this  significant fiscal retrenchment that, led us to minus 5.4% budget deficit versus  in 2025 on a calendar year to date basis versus 6.8% for 2024. 

So we've had 130 ish percent basis point fiscal retrenchment in, in, in 2025,  which is pretty meaningful. It's very meaningful. The thing about, looking ahead  with, in, with regards to the impact of the one big ugly bill that's going to  reverse and reverse meaningfully in 2026 and 2027.

If you look at slide 89 where we show the our fiscal policy monitor on a fiscal  year to date basis. So we have a couple of months of fiscal 2026 in the data  already, we're gonna, at the bottom there that one of the bottom rows there, a  federal budget balance. We're going from a 5.8% deficit to GDP ratio in fiscal  2025 to a 9%. 

Deficit to GDP ratio in the first two months of fiscal 2026. Now, it's not gonna  say at 9% it's gonna go down from 9% to something that's probably closer to  7% or maybe even seven point half 8%. But this is a meaningful fiscal  expansion that's taking place. As a function, partially as a function of the one  big ugly bill, but also as a function of what our friend, our mutual friend Luke  Groman, over a forest for the trees caused the the true interest expense. 

The runaway freight train that is true interest expense. If, and that's for those  who may be new to the framework. That's the aggregated sum of Medicare  national defense, debt interest and social security. Together, they're about, on a  fiscal year to date basis. They're about, four point $7 trillion annualized two  thirds of the federal budget. 

They're 16% of GDP and they've been compounding growing at about nine 10%  per annum. Whether you look at, on a, a fiscal year to date basis on a calendar,  year to date basis, so we have double digit growth in two thirds of federal  expenditures. Which we know are, have a low probability of ever being  legislated down, let alone flat, or, sorry flat, let alone down. 

In fact the signal that we got from the one big ugly bill legislative process was  that these things are untouchable, and then when they do get touched, they go  up faster. And so in our view this is a runaway freight train from a fiscal policy  standpoint from a messy and uncomfortable fiscal policy standpoint that will  ultimately require some very creative solutions and erosion of a further erosion  of central bank independence, which is something we've been explicitly  forecasting since we altered. 

That investing doing. Afford attorney regime presentation back in the summer  of 2023, which featured that geopolitically driven supply demand imbalance in  the treasury market. Analysis.  

Erik: Let's continue on that topic around central bank independence and go  more into monetary policy since we've been talking fiscal policy here. 

It seems to me like there's a lot of room, especially as we get to potentially a  changing mix. If the Democrats take the house, if there's confirmation 

difficulties after that of the President not getting his way with who he wants to  put in various, FOMC positions and so forth what could happen with respect to  fiscal policy if we have a revolt, if you will, against some of the president's bold  policies. 

Darius: Yeah, look, in our view, it's highly unlikely that we get a revolt  partially as a function of our jobless recovery thesis. We are of the view that AI  is productivity enhancing and ultimately will be job replacing maybe not at a, at  an alarming rate, at least in 2026, but on a multi-year, taking a multi-year time  horizon. 

And it's very likely that this technology causes some meaningful societal  disruption in the form of a higher unemployment. And if we're right on that  view, or even partially right on that view, you're talking about a federal reserve  that's going to see a just a consistent and persistent threat to its maximum  employment mandate in a way that essentially forces it to do what the president  wants. 

If you throw slide 79, pre fed chair, Powell already started alluding to this at the  December FOMC press conference. Where he highlighted, some of the  structural changes in the economy. He didn't say what I just said, but I'm not  even sure the fed chair or anybody the Fed is allowed to say what I just said. 

But the reality is, what I just said is, in my opinion, in our opinion of, 160 slides  of research that we pump out every month to our customers it's a high  probability outcome. So let me walk you through that thesis here over the next  couple of slides. So the slide slide 80. 

Shows the blue line in slide 80 shows labor share of national income where we  show nominal employee comp compensation divided by gross domestic income.  That's down at an all time low of 51.3%. We show capital share of lash national  income at the red line, which is corporate profit using corporate profits as a  proxy for that as a share of gross domestic income. 

That's up at 13.2% an all time high. We've had a secular downtrend in labor  share of national income. Without AI, a technology that can replace people. Just  due to globalization, just due to among other things, the neoliberalism era and  the various forms of tax treatment that caused this, that, that have contributed to  this dynamic. 

Obviously things like NAFTA and China joining the WTO as cause of this as  well. We've had a secular bear market and labor share of national income 

without a technology that can literally replace labor. It's already replacing labor.  If you look at the youth unemployment rate, it's already replacing labor. 

If you look at slide 41, the bottom panel is slide 41, where we show the long term unemployed as a percentage total. We're up at a structurally elevated  24.3% which compares to a long run mean of this time series of 16.4%. When  you get fired now or you lose your job, for whatever reason, it's very difficult to. 

To find a new job. And this is because every company in the world is  incentivized to wait and see, to see how much of their biggest cost expense. The  biggest, expense in most businesses is labor. To see how much of that expense  they can take down with the with the development and adoption of ai. 

And so ultimately, if you go to slide 81, where we show how this is likely to  impact the economy. Know this top panel shows the the time series of non-farm  productivity in, in, in, through meth annualized six month annualized, and you  rated change terms. And then in this kind of the third to fourth panel show, the  third panel shows the time series, the same dynamics of unit labor costs  inflation. 

The light blue horizontal line show, the pre COVID trends of each and you, we  somewhere around 2% for both. The promise of AI is that we go from a trend  2% productivity economy to a trend. A 3% productivity economy, which  ultimately implies that we're going from a trend 2% unit labor cost inflation  economy to a trend 1% unit labor cost inflation economy. 

And so ultimately we're talking about a significant tailwind for corporate  profits. We're talking about a significant headwind for inflation in terms of how  in productivity has historically impacted both of those cycles. And every  company, whether they implicitly understand what I just said or what, they all  inherently understand this as business owners and as business operators. 

And so ultimately we just think this, low, higher low fire environment, whether  unemployment rate continues to gradually rise, particularly as more and more  companies that throughout the economy adopt ai and find creative ways to use  AI to, to hold back labor their most their biggest expense. 

We think this dynamic is gonna be ongoing. It's a secular dynamic that will  ultimately require. The Fed to implement dovish monetary policy regardless of  how politicized they may appear to be in the context of what the signalling that's  coming outta the White House. 

Erik: Darius, let's pull all of the things that we've talked about together into,  okay, where are the trades for our investor audience? 

Because we've talked about monetary policy, fiscal policy, there's so many  different things you're talking about. Really, a very. Bullish longer term outlook  with some serious cautions about the next three to six months. So how do we  position for that?  

Darius: Yeah, that's a great way to put it. I, maybe not even the next three to six  months, I think by, but certainly by six months and probably by three months,  we're, it's likely that we could be resolving our way through this uncomfortable  setup from a crowded bull's positioning standpoint. 

But again, that does imply we're probably gonna chop around perhaps violently  in the interim, if not even correct. Again, when you're in this. When you're at  this extreme in terms of incredible Bullish positioning terms, it doesn't take  much. A squirrel could get hit by a bus and markets could correct. 

So I want investors to be aware that, just because the, frequency of green words  relative to the frequency of red words and the fundamental research summary  on slide six is over overwhelmingly positively skewed from a return distribution  perspective. It doesn't necessarily mean that, we're outta the woods yet. 

However, when it comes to how we think investors should be positioning for  these emergent and developing market risk, the fundamental research has no  bearing on that answer for us at 42. Macro as you know from our previous  discussions, Eric, we're systematic investors. 

We rely exclusively on our institutional grade risk management overlays to help  our clients and myself as someone who uses our KISS model portfolio to  manage his entire liquid net worth. We rely exclusively on that as it relates to  what investors should be doing in their portfolios at any given time. 

I'll just briefly touch on kiss and ultimately touch on the KISS system itself.  And then I'll conclude with where KISS is currently allocated. So if you jump to  slide eight, just real brief kiss, there's three core elements of our KISS model  portfolio, which is short for keep it simple and systematic. 

Number one is our factor selection. So this is a 60 30 10 quantitative trend  following strategy that is designed to expose investor portfolios to productivity  growth. And it's also designed to help investors outperform outrun financial  oppression and monetary debasement via allocations to gold and bitcoin.

And where KISS really shines is in its risk management. We use our market  regime now casting process to incorporate volatility targeting into the strategy.  And then we use our volatility, just momentum signal to incorporate dynamic  position sizing into the strategy. And the, anybody on the buy side understands  that, volatil targeting and an AM position sizing. 

These are the two of the core hallmarks of institutional risk management that  KISS uses. To create a positively or skewed return distribution in investor  portfolios and in my own portfolio. So if you look at, jump ahead to slide 12. A  couple numbers I'd hit on in this, on this back test is rolling out a sample back  test. 

If you look at KISS relative to 60 40 60% stocks, 30% gold kiss has an upside  capture ratio of about 300%, and a downside capture ratio of about 60%. So  you're essentially getting. 60% of the downside of 60 40, 300% of the upside  effectively. If you wanted to compare KISS to a naked long portfolio, 60%  stocks, 30% gold, 10% Bitcoin, which is what KISS is when it's maxed out, it's  not always maxed out, but that's what KISS is. 

When it's maxed out you'd have an upside capture issue of about 90% and a  downside capture ratio of about 50%. So you're essentially getting 90% of the  return you would have in these high beta asset classes. With only about half of  the downside which obviously creates an incredibly positively skewed return  distribution from the set of investors with a very minimal max drawdown,  particularly relative to the frequent crashes that we've seen in 60 40 and 60 30  10 stocks go Bitcoin naked long. 

So where we are today in Kiss. Kiss is 10% cash on slide 13. It's at 10% cash.  It's at a hundred percent of its maximum exposure of 60% stocks. Both the top  down and bottom upper manage and overlay are giving it a green light to be  fully invested in the equity market here. Gold. It's at a hundred percent of its  maximum exposure of 30% in gold. 

Both the top down to bottom upper percent over there, giving it a green light to  be fully invested in gold as well. And then it's at 0% of its maximum social of  10% in Bitcoin. Neither the top down risk manage overlay's, giving Bitcoin the  green light, but the bottom up risk manage overlay, which again, we use to  feature dynamic position sizing into the strategy that's giving it a red light. 

And right now KISS is, more or less, let's call it 90% invested. We think that the  gold position can do reasonably well in a choppy market environment. 

Obviously if stocks are choppy and or correct, that's not gonna feel so great. But  ultimately we think the kiss is. 

What markets, what the risk management systems that feed into KISS are likely  looking ahead to is where we started this conversation on slide 24, which is four  of the key six key macro cycles that influenced the momentum and dispersion  within and across asset classes are currently headwinds. 

Ultimately we think based on our fundamental research, which again is  summarized on slide six, based on our fundamental research, we think three of  those four which are currently headwinds, will eventually transition to tailwinds  and ultimately make Kiss right over a medium term time rise of perspective,  which again is three to 12 months. 

And our risk manager nomenclature, I think all bets are off when you get  beyond 12 months. Like I said, when we started this conversation, it's highly  likely that this bull market. Concludes or transitions to a secular bear market as  we've seen historically at following all these major technological revolutions  that you know, that feature CapEx bubbles. 

Erik: Darius, I can't thank you enough for a terrific interview. As we close, tell  us a little more, this slide deck that our listeners have seen a snippet of that's  actually more than 160 pages. You send this out to who this is for, what kind of  investor, who's your service for how do people find out more about it? 

Darius: Yeah, I wanted Eric thank you for this brief opportunity to embellish  what we do. I'm, one of the things I'm most proud of in my entire life is the  breadth and depth of our customer base. When we started 42 Macro, half a  decade ago, it was done, designed with the express intent that, I just, I don't we  don't believe that the gatekeeping exercise that is institutional insight and  institutional risk management process. 

That is either kept via prime brokerage gates, or, two and 20 or three and 30  accredited investor gates. We just don't think those gates are appropriate in a  kha society, of which, I come from the very bottom of that K-shaped society. So  we, we built 42 macro to break down those gates and supply an institutional  grade insights and more importantly, institutional grade risk management of  portfolios to every investor on the world. 

In the world, and we do so at price points that meet people where they are in  terms of what they can afford, as opposed to what we would prefer to charge,  what could, what we easily could charge if we wanted to, gate this thing up and 

turn it into a hedge fund. And we're very proud to say that many of the world's  top financial institutions across the asset manager, pension fund, insurance fund  spec cyber wealth fund space, or customers of ours in so much that, the your  barber could be a customer of our, your Uber driver could be a customer of  ours. And they very likely are we're very proud to say we work with some of the  best investors in the world, and we work with many of the ver more, most  novice investors in the world. 

They're all here benefiting from built. And I'm incredibly proud of that. As  someone who, like I said, comes from the very bottom of the bottom. I wanna  make sure that, we're lifting everybody up with these insights and these risk  management signals.  

Erik: We'll look forward to having you back on later in the year after. 

We see how the this choppy period that you're anticipating plays out Patrick  Ceresna and I will be back as Macro Voices continues right here at  macrovoices.com.

Erik: Joining me now is Mark Williams, who is a partner with Lane Neave.  Mark is not only an immigration consultant who processes investor visas, but  he's actually one of the architects of New Zealand's Active Investor plus Visa  program. So Mark, it's great to have you on the podcast. I wanna start at the  high level. 

We've heard a lot of news stories and so forth about famous people, Hollywood  movie stars flocking to New Zealand to get residency there. A lot of our  investors are familiar with Peter Thiel, a very high profile fund manager who  didn't just get a in an investor visa. He actually got citizenship in New Zealand  leads some people to wild-eyed conspiracy theory, speculation. Do these people  know something? Are they going there to survive World War iii? I don't think  that's what it's really about. So why don't we start with why are all of these  people flocking to New Zealand for investor visas? 

What is the appeal and what's driving the sudden rush of interest?  

Mark: Typically, this seems to be two trains of thought around looking at New  Zealand as an option. First train of thought is that a lot of family offices that we  deal with identify that it's probably good to have assets or funds outside of one  single jurisdiction. 

So it's seen as a way to diversify. Investment holdings into an alternative  jurisdiction where there's maybe potential jurisdictional risk. Basically, I guess  the old adage is just not having all your eggs in one basket as they say. And the  second common piece advice that our clients seem to be receiving from family  offices. 

Is that it's wise to have a Visa option banked in the event it becomes necessary  or desirable in the future to be able to utilize a visa like New Zealand at  relatively short notice without having to go through what can sometimes be a bit  of a lengthy process.  

Erik: Let's talk about how this process works, what it takes to qualify for it. 

There's two different ways to qualify different investment levels depending on  what you're investing in. Suppose that I want to get myself a New Zealand visa  and I think it's important to point out this is not just a, something that lasts for a  

year. If you. Go through this program after a couple of years, you get a New  Zealand permanent resident visa.

That's good for life, if I'm not mistaken. What does it take to do that? How do  you qualify? What's involved?  

Mark: Yeah, there's two subcategories under the Active Investor plus policy.  The first is what's called the balance category, and that's for investors who wish  to take a fairly soft entry into New Zealand's economy. 

It requires. An investment of 10 million in New Zealand dollars in the country  for a period of five years. That investment can be placed into fairly passive  investments such as New Zealand government bonds and the main applicant in  a family filing is required to spend 105 days physically in New Zealand during  that five year investment term. 

So that's the first general category balanced. The second category is the growth  category. That has by far been the most popular. Around 80% of filings have  been moved into that category. That requires investments that are of a higher  risk in nature. Things like venture capital, private equity, private credit, and  direct investments into New Zealand companies. 

That's a three year investment commitment, and the main applicant is only  required to spend 21 days in New Zealand during that three year term.  

Erik: Okay, so for a lot of our audience who thinks in US dollar terms, that  works out. If you convert those New Zealand dollars to US dollars, a choice of  either about 5.8 million US dollars equivalent in government bonds or some  other very low risk investment, or much more likely about 2.9 million US  dollars into some kind of either venture capital fund or something that invests in  growth in New Zealand's economy. 

After two years, if you spend I think it's 21 days of visiting New Zealand in  those two years, you end up with a permanent resident visa. That's good for life.  Is that just for the investor? Does it cover their family as well? If so, is it just the  spouse? Is it children? Who gets this thing?  

Mark: The growth category's a three year commitment, so it's 21 days over the  three years, so it works out to be on average, say a week, a year. 

But you can clock up all the days in one single visit if you wish. The policy  focuses on a main applicant who is required to make that time commitment.  Secondary applicants such as a person's partner and dependent children can also  be included in the application. They the secondary applicants are required to 

come in within the first 12 months of residency to activate their residency, and  then after that, they have no time obligation whatsoever. 

So as long as the main applicant. Spends those 21 days here, in that three year  term, they're able to then upgrade their residency visa to a permanent visa. And  you're quite right now that can include all the individuals who are included in  the application. And the permanent residency visa is indefinite, meaning there is  no ongoing investment commitment or any other commitment required. 

So in theory, if someone invests them for their funds for that three year period.  Subject to what they invest in. At the end of that period, there are no  immigration restrictions. So they could technically take all of the funds out of  New Zealand, never return and then 10, 20 years later decide to buy one way  ticket travel in here as permanent residency visa holders. 

So a lot of the people we are dealing with. Like securing the option because not  only does it right, create a setting or a visa for the entire life of the, individual  investor, but also children included in the application will have this permanent  re residency visa for their entire lives. So a lot of our clients are looking at long  term succession and like the fact that they can secure a permanent visa for their  children, even at a very. 

Early age that will be valid for their entire lives.  

Erik: So let's talk a little bit more about the 21 day visit and so forth. Basically,  if I want to get myself, my spouse, all my dependent children, the right to move  to New Zealand anytime they want to. So it's a call option if the world really  were to take a turn downhill if there was a risk of a global war or something.  New Zealand is one of the safest places on earth because of its physical  location. It also has a ratio of people to natural resources that's very low. So in  terms of competition for natural resources, if you really got to a Mad Max kind  of situation, it's a very good place to be. 

You can basically, for a. Little less than a 3 million US dollar investment over a  period of three years. You can earn that unlimited lifetime call option for you  and all your family members. And the only thing that the government asks of  you beyond that investment is to visit the country and kind of check the place  out. 

That can be a single visit of three weeks, or it could be several visits that, you  know cumulatively. Total up to 21 days. What's the rationale, what's the reason  for having that and how do people usually spend that time? 

Mark: Yeah. The rationale for having that a desirable setting around 21 days is  to make it manageable. 

Many people obviously have poor time at hand and it's just, it's New Zealand  kind of sneaks up on people. People would say 21 days is not too significant  time. They come in. What the data shows us in New Zealand and perhaps also a  reason why we issue a permanent residency visa at the end of the investment  term without, demonstrating any ongoing obligation or commitments is that the  money tends to stay here. 

It grows over time. It diversifies, and the more time that people come into the  country, the more integrated they get and the more the typically more funds  flow and they increase their commitment. Into the countries. So it's seen as  desirable from an external point of view where you can commit and obviously  move funds. 

But typically what we do see is we do see the money re remaining here and  people actually spending more time as they integrate in New Zealand society,  enjoy their time here and spend, have, an incentive to spend more time. I think  it's fair to say too that the, if you look at the categories, people tend to score  success in these categories in terms of the amount of capital that's be coming  into the New Zealand economy. What's missing from that is the extent of the  human capital or the value of that to New Zealand. So we're talking about  obviously some very sophisticated. 

Often very influential investors who not only invest their capital but integrate  into our society. They have offshore international connections, which New  Zealand can utilize. And we have quite a few people who are venture capital  investors who are making quite significant contributions to, early stage  companies down here just because of their experience and their capability. 

Erik: Mark, I want to congratulate you and the New Zealand government for  the design of this program. I've evaluated quite a few of the Golden Visa  programs around the world. I think this program is superior in many ways to  almost all the others that I've looked at. There is one wrinkle, though in the  design of this that I want to ask you about, which is a story I've heard a couple  of times now from immigration consultants who help people get these visas is  the investor applies for this thing. They make their investment. They're granted  the visa they now have to make their their 21 day visit. A lot of them will do  that in a single visit to knock it off, as you said. And frankly, from what I've  heard, many of them come with an attitude coming in of, okay, this is a burden.

I have to go and spend these 21 days. I don't really want to, it's a long ways  away. I'm gonna do it. About halfway through those 21 days, their immigration  consultant gets the phone call that says ok we can't believe this. We've  discovered this place called Queenstown. We just can't imagine any place being  more beautiful. 

We've got to have a home here, but the realtors must be confused 'cause they're  saying we can't buy one. Call 'em and tell 'em who we are. We've got these  active investor plus visas. Surely, even though we don't intend to become tax  residents, because we're really doing this for optionality now that we've seen  what a beautiful place this is, we wanna buy a home here. 

So we've got that home ready to go if we ever decide to move here, and we'll  just use it as a holiday home, spend a week or two a year here, they're not  allowed to buy it. That actually is the truth there. The realtor's not confused.  That's the law. Why in the world if the government is frankly trying to seduce  people into falling in love with New Zealand, by having this 21 day  requirement, why wouldn't they allow them to buy a home? 

Mark: Yeah it's a. I guess a long, complicated history in terms of New  Zealand's restrictions around buying residential property in 2018. Due to some  offshore speculative investment into the country into our residential property  market restrictions were put in place where individuals could only purchase a  residential home here if they had a residency visa, and they either were or had  intention to become tax resident here within 12 months. 

We, however, when the government was looking at mechanisms to increase  foreign direct investment in the country. They ask a simple question, what  mechanics are missing or what do we need to change to facilitate, increase  foreign direct investment and there were three inputs from the private sector on  that. 

The first one, what was the visa or the previous Visa was not up to spec to be  competitive international, in international stage. So that was the first thing that  was reviewed, changed, and this is the current policy we've got in contemplation  of that. The second part of it is that we advised that people, if you're wanting to  integrate people into New Zealand society, encourage them to spend more time  in New Zealand. 

Then they really should have the comfort of having their own home here. Two  rationales for that. One. If you've got a property in New Zealand, you're likely  to spend more time, so therefore the chance of integrating is higher. And also, 

of course, if you're investing in New Zealand, you want to be comfortable in  terms of your stay here rather than having to move around hotels. 

Second rationale around that was that if individuals have got property here,  they're likely to invite friends and those friends coming to New Zealand for the  first time may also fall in love with the country. And that may lead to a visa application made. So the current policy has been reviewed and that is about the  change as legislation being introduced in Q1 next year, which will basically  confirm that if individual holds one of these active investor visas they will be  permitted to purchase a single residential property in New Zealand or buy land  and build a home in New Zealand as long as the price is in excess of 5 million  New Zealand dollars. And they do not need to become a tax resident to do 

Erik: okay. So this podcast is going to air on New Year's weekend. So from a  planning standpoint, anybody who's starting now, if they're about to go through  the process of evaluating New Zealand working with you or another firm in  order to get that active investor plus Visa, by the time the Visa's been granted  and they're making their trip to New Zealand. 

The law will have been changed and they will have the option. At least that's  what's expected. If the law goes through that they will be able to buy one home,  but they're not allowed to buy a dozen homes and flip houses and do that kind of  thing. You don't want that sort of speculation. But to buy your own personal use  residence, that's going to be changed, it sounds  

Mark: yes. That's more or less a certainty so the coalition government have  reached a deal in terms of this legislation coming in. Those requirements have  been set. The legislation was supposed to be introduced into the house in  November. However, this is a very busy government. They're introducing a lot  of legislative changes at the moment. 

So it's been delayed. It's likely to come into force in, in Q1, so yes, if you've got  someone who's say starting on January, by the time they've moved through the  process. Completed the investment. Then we're expecting this policy to be in  place where they can then access New Zealand's property market. 

Conservatively what we are thinking is that the policy should be in place by one  April. However, it just depends on the legislative priorities. It's already, it's been  bumped back a little bit because of the priorities. However, discussions with.  Has recently indicate that this certainly is something that's going to be  introduced in Q1, and it's designed to actually accelerate.

And further incentivize further applications under the policy. When the  government made the announcement, they're making the changes and stipulated  what they were you, within a week of that notice, we onboarded quite a few  new applications from people who saw, the ability to purchase a home was a  trigger for them to actually commit and invest under the setting. 

The theory around. Having that property as a draw card has been proven already  and we've got multiple investors who are at various stages. Some of 'em already  have their residency visas. Some of them we're still preparing filings, but they  all have the intention to purchase a home here once the legislation is in place  and they're able to do  

Erik: and listeners stay tuned. Later in this podcast, I'll have another interview  where we'll go into the real estate aspects of moving to New Zealand in much  more detail. Mark, I wanna come back and stay focused on your specialty,  which is the visa itself. I want to talk about how. Long it takes to do this, and  frankly, I think you guys are doing a fantastic job because I've been through this  a couple of times myself with other golden Visa programs. 

Normally there's a lot of red taping, bureaucracy, and just a mountain, a  ridiculous mountain of KYC background checks. Private investigators have to  be hired. All kinds of things have to be involved in getting a golden visa in a lot  of countries. When I talked to another immigration consultant and they told me  they were turning these visas around, in some cases in three or four weeks, I  said, no, don't tell me the date when they first acknowledge the application.  When you actually get the visa and they said, no, we're actually getting Visas  issued in a matter of a few weeks. Is that really true? And how are you guys  managing to do this? Frankly, so much more efficiently than most of the other  countries that offer Golden Visa programs? 

Mark: When the policy was set through and worked with the government, one  thing we raised is that, if you're aiming to create the best investment visa  product available internationally, then you have to have a very swift process to  do that. So the government actually scaled up personnel internally before this  policy released on the 1st of April to achieve that, generally speaking. 

It takes around two to four weeks for the documentation to be prepared and we  typically file applications, which we term decision ready. So really there should  be a few questions, if any, coming back. When we were filing in April and May,  I can tell you we could file one of these applications from a a good jurisdiction  and we were getting approvals within as little as three to five working days from  submission.

That has pushed out a little bit due to the volume coming into the system. So it's  fair to say at the moment, from filing, I think people should expect preliminary  approval. Within one to two months. And assuming there's no other  complexities and then from there, individuals have six months to actually  transfer their funds to invest, to then secure that, that visa. 

So a lot of resources at the government side have been put in place. To actually  create what is hopefully a very efficient, fast process. And if you think about  that, it's logical because if you are wanting foreign direct investment to come  into the country, then the quicker you process those applications, the quicker  that money lands and goes to work. 

So the, yeah, the processing times at the moment, it pushed out a little bit  because of the demand Now that's come into the system. However, it's still  fairly fast in our view based on alternative jurisdictions.  

Erik: I predict that backlog is going to get even bigger because I think it is the  best program that exists anywhere worldwide, and it also happens to be a  country that's absolutely a beautiful, amazing place. 

So just to summarize all of that, if a listener of this podcast, here's this New  Year's weekend, says, wait a minute, $3 million US investment, actually less  than that. I put that to work for three years in a venture fund where I'm gonna  actually make a decent return, hopefully, and I end up with my entire family  having a lifetime call option to move to New Zealand if they want to. 

If they call you after listening to this podcast, they want to go with that  program, it sounds like by April 1st, when the law is expected to change around  purchasing real estate, they've probably got the visa in hand by that point. Is that  realistic timeframe?  

Mark: It's realistic if they move quickly. 

However, if we take a step back in terms of looking at the design of this policy.  The prior duration of this policy a few years ago brought in around a billion  New Zealand dollars into the economy per annum. And that was the aim was to  achieve that standard and that work, the math works out to be around 200  applications. 

Per annum. However, as of the end of November, eight months in, there's been  just over 450 applications already made. So it's well subscribed. If we continue 

to see that momentum, we do believe applications all tend to slow. That said,  we've had some very fast approvals through recently aswell. 

So I think the, this Visa product hasn't reached maturity in the market. And what  I mean by that is when you design investor visa products like this  internationally, it takes around two years for that to reach maturity, where it's  very well known. Internationally. So we think we see the demand is actually  increasing over time and will continue to increase over time. 

But we're hoping, the people that are applying Q1, they should. Expect quite  swift processing times, but that certainly does depend upon how many  applications are being made. We've got multiple applications under  management here, which we're preparing to file. We're onboarding weekly and  we just don't see that demand stopping. 

It's been extremely busy, pretty much from the 1st of April.  

Erik: Mark. One more point I want to cover is we've discussed the immigration  law requirement, which is a three year commitment to this program. Over that  time, you've gotta spend 21 days in the country. But if you're choosing the  growth option, it's probably gonna be something like an investment in a venture  capital fund. 

Now, most venture capital funds, as our investors already know, have a longer.  Commitment period than that. Is that true in these investments? And what do  people need to know in terms of, I suppose if they went for the larger  investment in government bonds, they would be done after three years. 

I'm guessing that although they may have met. The government requirement to  get the visa after three years, they probably still have a longer lockup than that if  they chose a venture capital fund. Is that right?  

Mark: Yes, that's right. So taking the growth category as an example, it's a  three year immigration related commitment, however. It depends. The actual  investment commitment depends on the instrument entered into. So if you're, if  people are looking at venture capital, obviously those legal investment  commitments will exceed that three year term. There are, however. Alternative  instruments within the growth category, which do offer liquidity, around year  three or four. 

Private credit, for example is one of them. But it is a common misconception  where people confuse the fact that what's just a three year commitment, that's it. 

But it does depend on what you are committing you are committing to. But like  I've said there, the growth category is designed to channel funds into various  investment options. 

We have people who are focusing just on venture. We have people have a  spread venture private equity. And then we've got, private credit and some other  development funds where infrastructure developments are being put into the  country, which have liquidity options. Most people look for liquidity at the end  of the investment term if they're not familiar with the country. 

That said. I've said previously very few people end up withdrawing once they've  got, confidence in the system. They've spent some time here. So the investment  class under the growth category is always under active review. It may well be,  by the time list is prepare and file applications. 

There may be other more diverse investment assets available under the system.  It's an ongoing piece of work around that. But definitely it is. Yeah. A common  misconception that people have is that it's three years in and out. It certainly  does depend on the investment instrument that you're entering. 

Erik: Well, mark, I can't thank you enough for a terrific interview, but before I  let you go, obviously some of our listeners may be interested in this program.  Your firm, Lane Neave is not only a, an advisor who helps people get these  visas, but you're one of the designers of the program. So needless to say, you're  highly expert on this. 

If someone is interested in pursuing this, how do they contact you?  

Mark: Yeah, certainly probably email is the best contact for us. But yeah, we  are, I'm an immigration partner, so I'm actually a I guess an attorney in New  Zealand, so a little bit different than licensed immigration advisors. And we're a  full service law firm in addition to the immigration aspects. We also handle  property transactions, commercial, corporate investments, the whole suite of  services typically required to manage one of these applications. Yeah, like I  said, email is probably the best. My email address is  

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Happy to hear from everybody, anybody who  wants to discuss this further. And we tend to set up teams or Zoom calls with  people to get 'em across the details to allow them to make fully informed  decisions before they move forward with with the process.  

Erik: And we'll put that email contact in the research roundup email, so  listeners, you'll be able to find it there.

Or if you don't have a research roundup email. Again, it's  

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. listeners, I was surprised in talking to Mark off  the air to learn that really the main reason that people are flocking to this visa,  there's quite a few of them. It's primarily about the interest in New Zealand. 

It's a beautiful place. It's a potentially, if the world took a turn in the wrong  direction, it would be a great place to move to with your family. They don't  seem to be pursuing this visa for the sake of the four year tax holiday that's  offered by New Zealand to new immigrant investors. I think the reason for that  

is nobody knows about it. 

We're going to break that story next In my interview with Graham Lawrence,  who is a tax advisor in New Zealand, will find out about that four year tax  holiday, which I don't think most people pursuing this visa are even aware of.  That's coming up next. 

Joining me now is Graham Lawrence, managing tax partner for New Zealand at  Acclime, which is a global tax advisory firm. 

Graham, it's great to have you on. Our listeners have heard about the active  investor plus Visa from Mark. A lot of people as Mark described, are really not  intending to move to New Zealand full-time. They're going to New Zealand or  they're making a visit to New Zealand for the purpose of obtaining what  eventually becomes a. 

Permanent resident visa that would allow them to come to New Zealand  anytime they want to. What, if any, tax implication is there just to getting the  visa? Is there a tax obligation if they don't move to New Zealand and they've got  the visa?  

Graham: Yeah. Thank you Eric. For putting, for inviting me onto the show. 

I guess to answer that question, if people are looking to apply for a Visa and not  move to New Zealand. The tax implication is essentially nothing. New Zealand  just taxes their investments that they make in New Zealand and they don't seek  to tax their worldwide income.  

Erik: Okay? So if they made an investment in order to qualify for the active  investor, plus they took $5 million, put it in a New Zealand fund.

The income that they make from that investment will be taxable in New  Zealand, but any of their other global income is not taxable in New Zealand. Is  that an accurate summary?  

Graham: Yeah, that's correct, Eric. And the tax rates are relatively low and in  some instances the tax can actually be a 0% tax rate. 

Erik: Okay, now I wanna move on for people that would consider moving to  New Zealand to something as far as I can tell, very few people know about,  which is New Zealand offers a four year tax holiday to what are called  transitional residents. What's a transitional resident who qualifies for this, and  what are the details of this four year tax holiday? 

Graham: Yeah, that's a good question, Eric. So a transitional tax resident  person is essentially someone who has not come to New Zealand and become a  New Zealand tax resident for the previous 10 years. And what the rule seeks to  do is exempt your worldwide assets in liabilities for a period of four years,  really just to enable you to come to New Zealand, settle in. 

And give you four years to reorganize your affairs so that you don't get  essentially a tax surprise.  

Erik: Okay? So that's the intention. But I'm gonna go out in a limb here and say  I think that there's a profound value for some global investors. Now, I don't  think this helps Americans or Japanese or. 

Eritrean very much. I'm not sure there's a whole lot of wealthy Eritrean to worry  about, but those are the three countries that are going to tax those investors  global assets or global income based on their citizenship, regardless of where  they live. So for those people, I don't think that this particular rule has any  profound advantage, but for Canadians or Western Europeans. 

If you are willing to move to New Zealand, physically, take up residents in New  Zealand, pick up and leave the country that, that you were born in. As I  understand this, for the first four years, you would have essentially the same  benefits as moving to a territorial tax jurisdiction where any income that you  make in New Zealand, you get a job there. 

Sure. You gotta pay income tax on that like everybody else. But all of your  global income from investments would be completely exempt from taxation for  the first four years. That seems to me like a really big deal, and I was expecting, 

when I spoke to Mark, I was expecting to say this is the reason everybody's  flocking to New Zealand. 

It's because of this tax holiday. Mark said, no, actually, that's very uncommon.  A lot of people don't even know about it. Most people are. Pursuing the active  investor plus Visa because they wanna have optionality to come to New  Zealand later, or because they want their kids to have that lifetime visa grant,  which, would hopefully benefit them, give them more flexibility of what they  might do in life. 

Is this an undiscovered gem here and am I understanding it correctly in terms of  its implications for people, let's say from Canada or Western Europe who could  move to New Zealand and essentially be, tax exempt on their global investment  income outside of New Zealand for the first four years? 

Graham: Yeah, let's, that's a great summary, Eric. Look, I'd love to say as a tax  guy, this is the reason why people are coming to New Zealand but it isn't, mark  is absolutely correct. People are coming to New Zealand because of the, you know, the friendly environment, the open spaces, the beautiful landscape. 

But then what they do understand is there is actually a significant tax advantage  to actually moving to New Zealand. And, the four years is a hidden gem. And  then post those four years, there's even more surprises. New Zealand does not  have. A broad based capital gains tax. 

It doesn't, tax shares, doesn't tax a lot of real estate. Obviously there's some  exclusions around that, but we have a very good tax system here in New  Zealand.  

Erik: Now this is something I was really fascinated to learn about because my  first thought being a skeptic and something of a cynic at heart was, okay, if  they're teasing you with this four year tax holiday, there must be a real Gotcha. 

Afterwards, in the fifth year they're gonna, they're gonna nail you with a really  heavy tax. Actually, the opposite is true, is, I understand that it's called FIF it's  not really a capital gains tax. It's not really a wealth tax. It's a hybrid between  the two. But the Effect of it, as I understand it, is you are fully taxed on the first  5% of gains on your global income. 

So if you're a, an aggressive investor and you have a great year and you make  40%, yeah, you're gonna pay a 39% tax on the first 5% of gains that you made 

in New Zealand. But. The next 35% of gains if you had a 40% year is, I  understand it is basically tax free. Am I in, am I interpreting that right?  

Graham: Yeah it's a really complex area, this FIF or foreign investment tax  regime. 

But if I would've taken an example, someone who's moved to New Zealand, you  post their four years and let's to say they've got some shares in Apple. So the  way the rule looks at it is on the 1st of April, you take the market value of those  shares. You just return 5% of that as taxable income. 

So you pay tax on that 5%. You don't pay tax on any gains, any dividends. And  so essentially, if you're making more than 5% on those Apple shares during the  year being capital gains or dividends those are all tax free. From a New Zealand  point of view.  

Erik: Now what happens if at the beginning of the year you take that 5% and  it's not a tax of 5%, it's you take 5% of the value of those Apple shares. 

That's the presumed return that they think you might make, and you would be  paying tax of whatever your marginal tax rate. The maximum is 39% on that.  That 5%. So it really works out to about 1.95% of the asset value of the Apple  shares is the maximum tax you're gonna pay. What happens if it's a down year  

and you lose 10% because Apple shares go down that year, do you still pay tax  on that 5%? 

Graham: Yeah, that's where it hurts Eric. We are talking about a paper tax  here, so in down years. Irrespective whatever the value those shares is on the 1st  of April. So if it's down 10% compared to the year before you're still paying tax.  

Erik: Okay, so it is effectively a form of wealth tax, but it's not on all of your  assets. 

It's on stocks and certain other qualifying assets. And if you know it sounds like  it's 5%, but if you multiply the 5% by the mo, maximum marginal tax rate of  39%, which you actually get is a 1.95%. Wealth tax on your overseas stock  shares. What about things like overseas real estate and other types of investment  that are not directly in financial markets? 

Graham: From a New Zealand point of view, we do not have a capital gains  tax across the board on real estate. So the first premise is that you won't be  taxed on gains point of view. A couple ways to explain when you do get taxed 

on them would be if you're in the business. So if you're in the business of  buying and selling real estate, you will get taxed on it. 

Or if it is residential real estate. If you are buying and selling within two year  period, at the moment, you will get taxed on that game. But outside of that, New  Zealand does not seek tax capital gains on real estate.  

Erik: Okay. So it really is, and I'm gonna make a prediction here. I think what's  going on is New Zealand is such a beautiful place that people are flocking to  New Zealand because it's, it's an amazing place to go and see the countryside. 

I don't think people know about this. I don't because I, when I lived in Hong  Kong full time, I met lots of Canadians, lots of Western Europeans both Hong  Kong and Singapore because their territorial tax jurisdictions, meaning that they  don't tax your offshore income. A lot of people were moving. To those countries  just because they were high net worth investors, most of their income WA was  essentially tax free. 

They only had to pay tax on the income that they had inside of Hong Kong,  which was typically minimal. I don't think that community of global high net  worth private investors knows that there's a deal in New Zealand. On, it's an  English speaking first world country where you can live in an absolutely  beautiful place and really not be taxed at all for the first four years. 

And after those first four years, it still sounds to me like it's one of the best tax  regimes anywhere in the world. Am I overstating that?  

Graham: Look, I don't think you are. We are, New Zealand is one of the few  countries without a broad-based capital gains tax for starters. We offer this four  year exemption that you've explained really well. 

I think to add to that when I travel and present on this matter, people are  surprised that, we don't have a wealth tax, we don't have an inheritance tax, we  don't have a payroll tax, we don't have a social security tax, and on top of all of  that, New Zealand has a vast network of what we call double tax agreements  with other countries. 

From a, an exit point of view. A lot of the high net worth people that we look  after, they're looking at, when they come to New Zealand, that's great, but these  people are really smart and they wanna understand if they exit, what does it  mean also? So these double tax agreements allow us to plan really easily in 

terms of if they do potentially exit, how do we exit and how do we minimize  any implications on that side? 

Erik: And that would be particularly relevant. As I said before, the real benefit  of the four year tax holiday is mostly for people who are not American or  Japanese, but for people who are American or Japanese, you don't want to have  to pay tax in two countries. So you've got the agreements with both of those  countries that you're not gonna get double taxed if you're paying US taxes and  New Zealand taxes there, there's gonna be a deduction on one side or the other,  so you don't get taxed twice.  

Graham: Yeah, that's right Eric. And we look after a lot of American Japanese  clients and what I would say is you bang on those agreements, allow those  investors to be taxed relatively low rates and rates that allow a full tax credit  back in their home country. So there is no double taxation so long as you look at  what you're investing in properly and apply the appropriate rates.  

Erik: Now, I heard a rumor that the government has looked at this and has  realized that the four year tax holiday is such a good deal, that there are some  people that have come for four years and left just. Before the end of the fourth  year, there's a rumor that the government may be revisiting the rules, trying to  figure out how they could encourage those people to stay permanently, maybe  making the deal even better than it is now. 

Any truth to that or do you know any more about that?  

Graham: There is some truth to that and we've been working with the  government on those rules. So those rules are currently contained in a tax bill,  and that will be passed. At this stage in probably March 26, there's still a bit of  discussion going on. 

We've, we've gone one step forward and a couple steps back, if that makes  sense. So we've made a positive step forward on the rules but there's still some  work to be done. Around those rules. But really what they're looking to do is,  instead of the 5% tax that we talked about earlier in this interview, they're  looking to bring in a realized taxation. 

And the question is, does that realized taxation provide a better result, for the  individual as compared to the 5% taxation under the foreign investment fund  rules. So this is a little bit of wait and see, but we are making positive steps. 

Erik: Is there any consideration for making it a 5% cap so that you would have  a 5% maximum? 

But if it's more than that, you don't get taxed on it,  

Graham: so that cap will still stay. So the old rules will still stay. It will just be  more a realized basis. We have suggested a cap. At this stage there is no cap.  And I guess to give the example. In comparison, I talked about the Apple  shares. 

So under the proposals, as they are right now, you would essentially be taking  an individual who's moved to New Zealand. They've done their four years, so  we're now a full New Zealand tax resident. So at the end of those four years. A  value on the Apple shares would be made, which would just be on the date, and  then if that individual sold those Apple shares, the difference between the  opening and closing value would be taxed at the New Zealand marginal tax rate. 

But only 70% of that gain is actually taxed. I guess in a roundabout way, the tax  rate on the gain is about 27%, which is, still relatively high. But you need to  take into account that the valuation of it is the date that the individual finishes  their four year tax holiday, and when they sell the gains. 

So the cost base could actually be quite, low in comparison to what the  individual bought the Apple shares at some time ago. 

Erik: Let's imagine that international high net worth private investor from  Europe, from Canada, someplace other than Japan and the United States where  they don't have to deal with citizenship based taxation, they move to New  Zealand. 

What about the part of, you're still taxable obviously on your income in New  Zealand? What about other taxes? Terms of real estate taxes social security  taxes, Medicare taxes Etc. What is the tax regime like if you were considering  moving to New Zealand to live there and be a private investor there? 

Graham: Pretty simple, Eric. We don't have, any of the payroll, social security.  We don't have any real estate, capital gains tax. We do have, real estate taxes in  terms of local councils. From a, I guess an insurance point of view you are to  what we call a CC and that will come out of your wages, essentially. 

Or if you're a contractor you make the payment yourself to the government. And  that is to co that covers you for, personal. And also business injury outside of 

that really we just have a form of sales tax called GST guess it's just really a  simple system, Eric.  

Erik: It certainly I think is a fantastic opportunity for people who can live  anywhere, who derive most of their income from investments and are not  burdened by being Japanese or American and having the the citizenship based  taxation. It's one of the most beautiful countries in the world. Fantastic place to  be, and at least for the first four years, all of your offshore income from capital  gains, from interest, from dividends, whatever is completely tax free. I don't  think most people know about that. You heard it first here on Macrovoices. 

Folks. Graham, I can't thank you enough for a terrific interview, but before I let  you go. Please tell our listeners how they could contact your firm if they're  interested in learning more about the tax implications of either just getting the  AIP visa or investing in New Zealand or moving to New Zealand and being a  private investor based in New Zealand. 

Graham: Yeah, thank you Eric. It's been a pleasure to be on your show and in a  hope I'll being able to distill some of the matters around taxation. Look, we've  been doing this for about 25 years. We've got a team of people that help  investors from all around the world move to New Zealand. 

If people do want to get in contact for a discussion, please go to  Newzealand.acclime.com, and my details will be on there. Or alternatively I'm  on LinkedIn under Graham Lawrence. I'd be really happy to help you, think  about. What this means in terms of New Zealand. 

And once again, Eric, thanks for being on your show.  

Erik: You're very welcome, Graham, and we tremendously appreciate your  perspective. Listeners, stay tuned. We've got one more interview coming up  with Brendan Goodwin, who is a realtor slash lawyer slash jack of all trades and  concierge to high net worth in individuals migrating to or considering migrating  to New Zealand. That's coming up next. 

Erik: Joining me now is Brendan Goodwin. Brendan, your background and  career history is a little bit confusing. Why don't you walk us through it?  

Brendan: Eric, thanks for having me on the show. Yeah, so I'm a Auckland  born and bred, and I actually started my career as a lawyer, which is a little bit  unusual. I practiced property law with DLA Piper in New Zealand, Australia,  and Auckland.

So I spent a lot of time on the legal instruction side of commercial real estate  transactions before I ever actually sold a house. About a decade ago, I moved  into the family business at Auckland, which is good ones. A multigenerational  real estate firm, but over time I've specialized more and more in high-end  property and I'm looking after international clients. 

Who are trying to make New Zealand home either part-time or full-time. So  that's ultimately led to what I focus on now, which is dedicated offering for high  networth clients under my new brand called Unique, which has felt a little  differently. UNIQ  

Erik: I certainly can attest personally that you approach real estate quite a bit  differently than most realtors I've encountered. 

In the interest of full disclosure, I do wanna let our listeners know that I do have  a business relationship with Brendan when I was looking to set a second home  in Auckland. I I ended up meeting Brandon. He told me basically what I was  looking for didn't exist in the market, but he thought it would in about six  months, he went out of his way to basically. 

Call in a favor with a developer he knew. He showed me a penthouse that was, I  think it's probably the most elaborate penthouse in Auckland, if not the entire  country. A little bit overkill for what I was looking for, but he set up a short  term lease on that property for me, even though it wasn't listed for for rent, it  was only for sale as a holdover until I could find the property I was actually  interested in. 

Turned out I never got to stay in that amazing penthouse because he was able to  accelerate the availability of the property that was a fit. So I definitely, my, my  hat's off to you, Brendan, for making that all come together. I never got to stay  in the cool penthouse. But other than that, it worked out fine. 

Brendan: Yeah. Yeah. And it's still available for sale, just quietly. But yeah,  anyway, yeah, it was a good experience.  

Erik: So I want to get into what really is going on in terms of this people  flocking to New Zealand. To my surprise, I thought it was gonna be about this  tax holiday thing and people being interested. 

For that reason, Mark Williams told us in the first interview, no, that's really not  it. Almost nobody that he encounters is coming for that reason, most people are  coming because, it's a beautiful. Full countryside, English speaking, first world, 

country and so forth, and they're setting up a backup plan, having a place for  them and their families to have a lifetime call option on residency, which is  fairly easy to obtain with this new active investor plus Visa. 

You have the benefit though, of talking to people, not when they're considering  this, but after they've already done it and they've come to New Zealand and you  find out what their reactions are, tell us a little bit about who's doing this and  also with respect to what they're doing, give us the rundown for people who  don't know the country well, north Island, south Island what's it all about? 

For people who are considering real estate, what are their options?  

Brendan: Geez, Eric, that's a good question. How long do we have? I guess I've  been lucky enough to travel a little bit globally and New Zealand really is a  stunning. Even by global standards. So essentially we are three small islands  located in the Pacific Ocean. 

We are never far away from the water and obviously a lot of stunning coastline.  So recreational boating, scuba diving and fishing are all world class. But we  have snow cap mountains with amazing hiking trails or lakes. Rivers for  freshwater fishing. So there really is something for everyone who loves the  outdoors. 

And the convenient part for me, when you think about, big larger countries like  the US we've got a, a huge continent. You can pretty much drive the length of  New Zealand and under about 30 hours. You can drive from Auckland three  hours depending on the season and be either skiing or snowboarding or deep  game fishing up north. 

So I think that's a pretty unique feature and Stunning part of the country. But  ultimately I think there's, New Zealand does have a few layers. 'cause I think  probably a lot of people globally just think of the natural beauty. But actually,  we do have true city living in, in Auckland that, that's our commercial hub to a  lesser extent, Wellington and Christchurch. 

But in, in Auckland, you have a very international walkable lifestyle. You've  got city and harbor apartments, you've got character inner city homes. So I think  that's something that could appeal to a lot of your listeners. And then you've got  the lifestyle destinations. People might have heard of places like Queenstown,  Wanika, parts of the Bay Islands, Waihiki Islands.

That's where you see the classic postcard, scenery, lakefront Vineyards, big  Land holdings, coastal estates. You raise an interesting question. So in terms of  is it restricted, to purchase those types of properties for overseas people? The  short answer is no. So New Zealand has a concept called sensitive land, which  simply means some types of property, like larger rural blocks, coastal land, or  islands like Wahiki, which is a 45 minute ferry from downtown Auckland, need  extra consent if you're an overseas person. But that doesn't mean they're off  limits, you can still buy them. There just is an overseas investment office  consent process, which you'll hear people referred to as OIO Consent. But most  high-end urban homes and places like Central Auckland aren't classified as  sensitive at all. So many buyers proceed without any additional approvals. 

If someone is looking at coastal estate a vineyard, a lifestyle block for example  or anything on Waihi the OI consent is required and we help clients navigate  that from day one. So the takeaway really in that sense is simply awareness, not  alarm. The rules aren't a barrier, they're just part of the buying premium off an  iconic New Zealand property.  

Erik: Brandon, as someone who's very well traveled, I can certainly attest that  New Zealand is the only place I've ever been that really outdoes Hawaii in terms  of natural beauty. 

It really is a strikingly beautiful place for people who are interested in that kind  of real estate. There's lots and lots of it. Personally, I happen to be more of a city  dweller myself, so I can't speak from personal experience to to living in that part  of New Zealand or wanting to. And, despite the fact that Mark said that's  probably what most people are are looking for. 

I'd like to talk a little bit more about this idea of mine, which. I don't think the  offshore world knows about this tax deal yet. The combination of the four year  blanket tax holiday where there's no tax, whatever on your offshore income, and  then after that, it's capped at 5% of your gains under these FIF rules. 

Now it doesn't help Americans or Japanese very much, but for everybody else.  All the people I met in Hong Kong, the guys that were either high high-end  private investors or running hedge funds and so forth, they moved to Hong  Kong and Singapore because of the territorial tax doctrine, not having to pay tax  on. 

Offshore sourced income. There's a huge community there, and I think frankly,  that's the reason it costs 50 million US to buy a decent apartment in Singapore is  because so much wealth has moved in because of Singapore's golden Visa 

program. I think. Frankly, the New Zealand's program is pretty darn close to as  good as Singapore's, and it's an English speaking first world country that's more  beautiful than Hawaii. 

It's an amazing deal, and from the sense I get from Mark, either I'm the only  person who thinks that or a lot of other people haven't figured it out yet. Out yet.  So what's your take? You talk to people after they've come to New Zealand,  after they're down this process. Is that part of this or is it just unknown so far? 

Brendan: Yeah, from my experience it's unknown. And I guess one of the  challenges that we have for those, involved with the AIP Pathway program is to  really get it out there into forums like this with people like you who are able to  understand how much of a good opportunity this is, not just in relation to tax but  lifestyle. 

As you say. We, we've got a beautiful, generally a pretty beautiful climate and  it's a really big opportunity, which when I think it gets out there, will potentially  cause some issues with the amount of stock. And that is in the market to meet  the demand. So I think it's a really interesting time at the very beginning of the  program. 

Erik: The other thing that occurs to me is Australia, a couple of years ago,  canned their significant investor visa program, which was Australia's golden  visa. In terms of English speaking first world countries, where else can you go  besides New Zealand to get a a golden visa that allows a path to permanent  residency the way that you can get in New Zealand? 

I'm not sure if there is any.  

Brendan: Yeah, Australia closing what they called their SIV has definitely  made New Zealand more interesting in the English speaking world. Particularly  for people who like the idea of this part of the world and wanna safe. Rule of  law of jurisdiction. I from what I hear from clients, which I guess is where  you're asking me on the coalface, very few people will say, Hey, I'm moving to  New Zealand solely for tax. 

Normally it starts with lifestyle, sort of safety. Education for children is a big  one. Political stability, quality of life, and then the tax and the investment  framework reinforces the move. Once they learn more about what is globally a  pretty good. Financial framework as you've identified yourself, and I think for  the European and Asian investors, once their tax advisors explain those 

transitional rules and how New Zealand treats offshore investment income, it  becomes a much more compelling package. 

And I guess, you touch upon the Americans in the Japanese as your market  discussed, that picture is different, but they're still very active because the value  of the lifestyle and that diversification. That has value. So I would say Mark is  right, that sort of people don't lead with the tax conversation. 

It absolutely features in the decision making for a lot of families once they dig  deeper.  

Erik: I'm going to posit a hypothesis that New Zealand has a serious marketing  problem because I don't think that the community of high net worth global  investors who have based themselves in Singapore and Hong Kong, and much  less so Hong Kong now because of the PRC complications. 

I don't think they know about this because if they did, I don't know why you  would be paying 50 million US for a small apartment in Singapore when there's  a better deal here. And I suppose the counter argument to that is Hong Kong and  Singapore are both major financial centers. So there's a lot of people who came  from banking. 

In those financial centers and are staying in the town that they know. But  frankly, I met a lot of people in Hong Kong Europeans, Canadians people who  were able to relocate and escape from their home country's tax regime to a much  more favorable tax regime with territorial tax jurisdiction. 

And I think maybe because New Zealand is not technically a territorial tax  jurisdiction it doesn't get considered. I didn't. Know about it. I was curious as to  why Peter Thiel and other people were relocating to New Zealand. I had  absolutely no idea that I would ever consider it myself until I got curious about  this. 

For the sake of this, we needed something to fill the year end special on  Macrovoices. This year we did nuclear energy last year. I was looking for  something to do when I found out about the difference in quality of life and.  Cost of living. The penthouse that you showed me at 51 Albert Street in  Auckland is ridiculously expensive by New Zealand standards, but it's dirt  cheap by Hong Kong or Singapore standards. 

The thing that I think you've got a problem with though, if I imagine that  community coming to Auckland is. I think a lot of those people like myself are 

city dwellers. They're people who are used to living in a big city with walking  distance to lots of really good restaurants and so forth. I'm actually very  impressed with the restaurants in Auckland based on the size of the city, but. 

In terms of housing you showed me one very impressive penthouse. How many  more of those do you have? Because if this was Hong Kong and I said, look, I  wanna see at least, 30th floor or higher luxury condo and, priced it, say 3  million US or higher. They would say it's gonna take six months to look at all  those properties. 

I think you could look at all of the properties like that in Auckland in about six  minutes or maybe six hours. How much inventory is there? Could you support a  community of let's say, metropolitan, the high net worth investors? Because  frankly, I think that once this story breaks, maybe this podcast will be the  catalyst. 

I think that if people discover the tax deal, you're gonna see an influx of the  same people that moved to Hong Kong for that reason.  

Brendan: Yeah and I agree with you. I think that once the offshore world really  understands the combination of the AIP pathway, the transitional tax rules and  general quality of life proposition, New Zealand should be on a lot more  shortlist than it is, for city dwellers. 

Sorry. Like yourself, people are used to Hong Kong and Singapore and London.  Auckland is interesting because it gives you, a reasonable sized city. We're not  huge, but it has lovely food, good restaurants, as you have attest to, the public  transport connectivity is improving in the city, and it's only 20 or 30 minutes  from beaches and vineyards. 

It's not trying to be Hong Kong. It's a different scale, but that's exactly the point  at the end of the day. So I guess on the inventory piece I am a little bit nervous  around, hopefully people do engage with us around moving to New Zealand  through this pathway and I think there's gonna be a real shortage because as you  said, right now, there's one full floor luxury apartment on the market and it's  sitting around 8 million USD.  

And behind that. There's, part floors or there's apartments being built on the city  fringe. But I think there's gonna be, I'm hoping a shortage of stock because this  is gonna be such a popular program, which will be a good problem to have. But  I think that marketing piece in getting it out so they understand the opportunity 

in New Zealand, not just from, the tax implications and the financial structure,  but the quality of life. 

I think this, there should be a really. Sound based to, to launch this program or  encourage it to keep growing.  

Erik: I suppose something else that I don't know is my own personal preference  as a city dweller. I'm not sure the other people who are in Hong Kong and  Singapore for those reasons, share that value. 

They might prefer to be in, an oceanfront home someplace. There are a few of  those in Secco and in Hong Kong, but it's it's quite expensive on that side of the  island. What about the not way down in Queenstown and snowboarding  country, but around Auckland? Is there plenty of housing, high end housing? 

If you did have an influx of high net worth migrants, is there enough inventory  to support that outside of the city?  

Brendan: Look, I think a lot of the high-end real estate in New Zealand and in  and around Auckland particularly, it's around those networks and having  someone plugged into to unveil those off market opportunities. 

Short answer, there's probably gonna be a struggle of in inventory, but there's  increasingly developments that are people, the listers might have heard of the  golf enthusiast. There's a couple of becoming now pretty world famous golf  courses called Tara Iti and Te Arai You know, there's more and more  development. 

There's helicopter rise from Auckland. Direct almost to those golf courses  where there's international standards and there's an ever-growing presence of  those type of properties. But I think, the window for people to be able to  purchase those type of properties is definitely closing. 

And for our Australian friends or Singaporean friends, or even the expats, Kiwis  that might be listening, this change is coming legally where people under this  program will be able to purchase one residential property. At a minimum of $5  million, and I think we've already touched on it, that window is closing and the  reality of what's happening in the market, I can tell you for certain, there are  already real estate transactions that are happening that are subject only to the  change of the rule where one of these people down the pathway can buy a  property over 5 million.

For those that are considering, that's changed in the new year when this airs, the  sooner people can reach out. The better because I think the stock is gonna  become a problem. There is not enough properties to service a potential surge.  So I think the best way to either grab that opportunity is to reach out as soon as  possible because I think there's gonna be fewer and fewer good quality  properties to purchase. 

Erik: That's an interesting point 'cause when I heard Mark's interview I was  thinking, boy, come April 1st when they pass this new law, you better move  quick if you want to get property in New Zealand. 'cause it'll get, I should say, if  you want to get city property, it seems like there's plenty of countryside in New  Zealand and I don't think you're gonna run out of that. 

I do think you're gonna have an inventory problem in downtown Auckland. So  you are saying it's not a question of hurry up as soon as you get to April 1st,  you're saying? Put an offer on a property that's contingent on that law passing  and lock it up in a contract before the law changes. Is that, did I get that right? 

Brendan: That, that's what I'm saying. So it's December, 2025 for those  listening and those contracts are already happening subject to the law changing.  So for anyone who's considering it or thinking about it, when you think about an  investment of, I think just under 3 million USD to get into the program, and  then you're looking at properties, which as you say globally. 

Really dirt cheap. When you think about the US dollar currency and those other  global currencies, I think there's a real good chance that people are gonna miss  out if they don't act really quickly.  

Erik: Brandon, I am still convinced that there is just an untold or unbroken  story here, and I hope that this podcast will break it, which is for that global  investor community, and especially if you trade US markets and you're living in  Hong Kong or Singapore, I've been there before. 

Trying to get up at three o'clock in the morning to catch that last hour of trading  in New York. That all happens late morning in Auckland. So the time zone is  way better for trading US markets if you're a trader and it's a way better quality  of life. The real estate is dirt. It's not dirt cheap. 

Compared to other places, but compared to Hong Kong and Singapore, it's dirt  cheap. I really think that this tax deal for non-Japanese and Americans is gonna  bring all of the Canadians and Europeans that I met in Hong Kong, many of  which have already moved to Singapore flooding in. And frankly, I'm fascinated 

by the idea of a market to create, I'm thinking of a residential tower that is  designed to accommodate that community in Auckland and frankly, if the influx  of high net worth investors because of the tax reason, which is, nobody seems to  be doing that yet. I think it's 'cause nobody knows about it. 

If that influx happens, dude, I'll partner with you to build that building.  

Brendan: Look and I think what you're describing is very plausible, right? The  same type of people who moved to Hong Kong 20 years ago because it was a  well run territorial tax jurisdiction, and who now want this plan B, that's  geographically boring in the best possible way, we'll eventually look at New  Zealand very seriously. 

And to touch on what you mentioned before, if the government keeps the  settings sensible. Particularly around FIF in the absence of a broad capital gains  tax, then yes, I can see a future that is defined where a global community of  investors who base themselves and then around Auckland live very well, and  they run their offshore affairs from here. 

You, you raise a funny point around time zone because I think for active  investors and traders, that time zone is actually a quiet superpower. You can  trade US markets from here and still be functional human being the next day  you are not annihilating your sleep to watch the market open. And then when  you wake up, you're in objectively a pretty easy place to live. 

So it's a nice combination. That tower concept is something that is really  something edit, that, that tail concept you mentioned is exactly where I see this  going. If the material the demand materializes, it's about. Something that was be  built to specific design requirements, a bespoke offering for people that have,  full double floor residences, lock up and leave Security concierge services  designed for frequent international travel. 

Connectivity to the rest of those amazing places that we've talked about, the golf  courses and the ski resorts and, who knows, maybe a pretty cool helicopter  hanger on the roof for those that are inclined to that sort of travel. But yeah, if  we get a dozen like-minded financially qualified people aligned with that sort of  vision, then I think we could definitely get a building marketed to a very  defined audience. 

And that's the sort of projects that I think Auckland. Has the opportunity to, to  harness and create and like you say, create a hub of people of like-minded  opportunities. 

Erik: I've lived in a building like you're describing before, where it wasn't just  the penthouse, but every floor was a full floor apartment. 

And it, it really created a community of, people of similar high net worth who,  who worked well together. And the helicopter idea is amazing because the  traffic from the Auckland International Airport is not exactly ideal. That's a five  or 10 minute helicopter ride with helitrans. 

But the thing is, the heli trans heliport is a good 15 minutes outside of the CBD  if you had the helipad on the roof, so the concierge in the building could just get  ahold of Heli Trans and say. Pick my resident up in 15 minutes and take him to  

the airport. That would be at a pretty amazing lifestyle, and the cost of that  building compared to Singapore or Hong Kong would be nothing compared to  those other markets. 

I think it's a really fascinating idea. I don't know, maybe it's just me, but I don't  think anybody knows about this yet because there's a lot of people that go in  Singapore and Hong Kong used to have a a golden visa program called CIES  that was decommissioned years ago. And frankly, with. 

The PRC kind of taking over Hong Kong. I don't think anybody really wants to  go there anymore. But Singapore's program which is called GIP, is still  extremely busy. That's I think a $25 million golden visa if you invest in a fund  as opposed to 5 million in New Zealand. 

And then the cost of real estate here is so much less. I think probably the reason  it's not on anybody's radar is technically speaking, it's not a territorial tax  jurisdiction, but when you consider that there's basically no broad based gains  tax, so what you're paying. 

Taxon is your global interest in dividend income. That's not that big of a deal  for most investors, and it certainly is possible to structure your investments to  optimize around that. So I'll be very fascinated to see what kind of reaction we  get to this podcast. I think there, there's a real potential for a significant influx of  of high net worth international investors who would come here for the same  reason as you said that they went to Hong Kong 20 years ago. 

Brendan: Yeah. And my role in all of this is essentially to make it easier for  people who are thinking seriously about New Zealand to help them understand  their options on the ground, from where to live, what to buy, and who to speak  to, introduce 'em to the right people in relation to tax advice and lawyers, and  how to buy a boat.

And, I shared with you a contact to, to buy a car because I think a big part of  any transition to a new country is about. Dealing with trusted people and let's be  honest, not a lot of people have a lot of time these days, and when you're based  offshore, before you move, having someone locally to help navigate that and  save you time is an essential part of making that journey. More palable or even  enjoyable, which is I think we, you've got to over the last few weeks. So I think  that's an important part of that connectivity, that trust network, having someone  plugged into those off market opportunities. So I'm on your page. I'm excited  about this. I think there's a lot of opportunity, not just for Auckland and the  country, but also for people that are listening to the podcast that are thinking,  Hey, where do I go next? 

Or What are the other opportunities to have a nice quality of life for my family  when, let's be honest, globally. Things are a little bit shaky. The good thing  about New Zealand is we're so far away, and that's probably the first time that  people have seen that in such a positive light. And with air travel the way it is  now, we're a lot closer to the rest of the world. 

I'm helping people at the moment from the US and they're getting here in less  than half a day. So I think that whole piece for people around thinking that we're  so isolated, actually we're not as isolated as you might think. And I think once  people get here and they experience that lifestyle and that community, as you  say, I think it will be high on, or it should be high on a lot of people's wishlists  of where to base themselves.  

Erik: That's an important point that you just made, and I guess most of our  listeners probably already know this, but for anyone who doesn't, the face of  long haul international air travel has changed radically in the last 10 or 15 years  as a result of lay flat seats in first class or in business class. 

Make no mistake traveling to New Zealand from anywhere in economy class  sucks. It's just not a fun experience. But I've gotten to the point, Brendan, where  I actually much prefer a 12 or 13 hour flight over an eight hour flight because  on an eight hour flight you don't really get to sleep. And I should actually  correct that statement. 

I prefer a 13 hour flight with prescription sleeping pills over shorter flights. And  the reason is with lay flat seats, you just sleep through the whole thing. I'm  awake for the first hour on my laptop, checking email. I'm awake for the last  hour and a half, two hours to make sure I'm ready to put my sleep back and tray  table forward so I don't get yelled at for landing.

Everything that happens for those, 12 hours in between I'm zonked out on on  Ambien. It is so much better than it was 15 years ago. So I really am sold on  this and like I said, I had no idea until I started researching this podcast episode  that I would actually end up with a second home in New Zealand. 

And I'm actually recording this episode from Auckland New Zealand in real  estate that Brendan helped put me in. So it's it's been a real discovery for me and  I'm gonna be fascinated to see what kind of reaction we get because, maybe the.  People in Hong Kong and Singapore feel like they would only want to be in a  place that is a major banking center. 

Although, frankly, if you're running the kind of fund that most of the guys that I  knew in Hong Kong were running I, I think it's much nicer here.  

Brendan: You have been a really interesting test case or I guess scenario of  people that were probably less than super positive or motivated about the move.  People make different moves for different reasons and I've had clients that have  come to New Zealand from all around the world for various motivations, but I  think once people get here, they really do enjoy the environment and the  lifestyle and the way things move relatively easily through we're not a perfect  country by any means, but I think globally, again, what we've thought is  something that people should look really strongly at and all those reasons you've  highlighted for those high net worth individuals. 

Again, the 21 day scenario of people coming through the country, we can help  put together a curated. 21 day tour to give people a feel for all those parts of  New Zealand that they might be interested in, in, in exploring, before deciding,  Hey, look, yeah we would like to make New Zealand a second home or a  primary place and we would like to buy a property. 

And one of the other things that I do, which in New Zealand is not.  Commonplace is I'm a buyer's agent, so I represent the interest of those people  coming in to the country. And that right now I'm acting for various nationalities.  Back to your point earlier in the conversation, I'm helping someone from China,  I'm helping someone from Switzerland, I'm helping someone that's just coming  back from Ireland. 

I'm helping someone that's from the us. So I think more and more having people  and networks that you can plug into quickly. Will make that experience so much  easier. So yeah, I'm really excited about the opportunity for New Zealand and I  think we should be sitting in a very different space talking about this maybe in  12 months time and looking at what impact, hopefully Macrovoices has had on 

this program, which I think is a really exciting, smart, and essentially well  played out program, like you say, so long as they keep it sensible and don't  make huge changes to the taxation piece, then we should be good to go. 

Erik: That was something that I was concerned about from Graham's interview  is even though the tax holiday doesn't really do much for Americans and  Japanese, although it's extremely valuable to everybody else, the FIF rules  around capping capital gains tax at 5% is important to me long term for sure. 

If they were to. Undo that and turn it into a realized capital gains tax, which  sounded like maybe is under consideration that would completely sabotage the  whole thing that would guarantee that everybody moves out after the first four  years. What have you heard about that? Are they actually dumb enough to think  about doing something like that? 

'cause frankly, I was a little bit disappointed in the government. We reached out  to them several times to offer them the first interview on this episode, and we  couldn't get a reaction out of them. I think that they're not really that good at  marketing.  

Brendan: And I've had heard that from various people coming in that are high  net worth, that similar to yourselves, they just didn't realize the opportunity that  was here. 

So I think that's one of the areas that the government can improve. And I know  that there's a lot of people putting in a lot of time and effort, but ultimately, if  people don't hear the story as clearly as what we are talking about with Graham  and Mark, I think that there's gonna be really. A lot of trouble punching through  the noise that's potentially out there with a lot of these countries trying to attract  the high net worth. 

You touched on the American and Japanese clients, and even though that tax  holiday isn't as transformative for them, as I said, there's still strong interest.  They're looking for political stability, English speaking jurisdiction, a safe base  for family access to good education. So I think New Zealand is often about  diversification and quality of life rather than headline tax. 

Implications, but as you've said, they're actually globally very good. They may  not be the, essentially the best, but those other jurisdictions come with lifestyle  differences or you don't get to drive 30 minutes to the beach, into the pristine  water you do in New Zealand. So I think they may keep their primarily fi, 

financial institutions in the US or Japan but they want a well, structured  foothold. 

That they can genuinely call home and have a happy time. So I think that's how.  That's how ace up the sleeve for sure. Down in New Zealand.  

Erik: As you were talking a minute ago, I realized I should have asked you  earlier, let's imagine the high net worth investor who is contemplating, maybe  they're motivated by the tax holiday, maybe they're just motivated by the fact  that it is an amazingly beautiful place, and they come to you and they're saying,  okay, Brendan, I don't know anything about New Zealand other than I've heard  it's a beautiful place. 

I don't share Eric's. City dweller obsession with having to live in walking  distance to lots of restaurants. I wanna see the smorgasbord. Can you  recommend, since I've, I'm gonna do this 21 day thing, I'm gonna get my AIP  visa I've gotta do 21 days visit of New Zealand and I wanna optimize that to see  as much of the country as I can to get a sense of if I was ever to move here,  where I would move to. 

So I wanna do the tour of the country for the purpose of seeing all the different  lifestyle options from. Golf courses in the Bay of Islands all the way down to  ski and snowboard retreats in Queenstown. What's the itinerary? What would  you recommend for someone if they just wanted to see the whole thing? 

Brendan: Yeah, look, so what I do essentially is act as a single point of contact  for those high net worth families who wanna explore New Zealand seriously. So  luckily we are past that post COVID. Era where or during COVID era where  you just had to buy from overseas. But now we have the benefit of, yeah, that  practically looking around for 21 days. 

So what I help people do is essentially tailor a tour. I might not be the person  driving the bus or driving the plane, but we try and work together with the, with  essentially at that point, are a guest, what are they interested in, what do they  like to see? What things, so it's not a, it's not a cookie cutter. 

Type operation that we run for our business. But it's about understanding do  they like golf? Do they like fishing? 

And try and tailor a package, which let's be honest, sells New Zealand in its best  possible light for that particular person. And then moving forward from that, it's 

that sort of trusted, safe pair of hands, whether it's, a concierge type service to  say, Hey, if this is what you need to do, go and speak to this person. 

I help introduce people to trusted tax advisors. You heard from Mark and the  team around immigration, but there's banking, there's private healthcare. There's  cars, there's boats private shifts. I even help people with things like  memberships and relocation, logistics. So these are all the pieces of the puzzle  that when you probably look at a move for yourself or your family. 

Even though they may have done it many times, it can still be intimidating. It  can still be time consuming, and you're still not sure if you're talking to the right  people or paying too much money. So I think the idea of what I do for this type  of client is essentially instead of having to deal with what, five or six providers  across various industries, they can come to one place and then I can curate or  orchestrate that for them. 

Typically when they're overseas. I do a lot of. Teams and Zoom calls with  videos at various times of the night to help those clients. Make that transition  and coming up in, in this Christmas holidays I've got clients coming over from  the US where we're organizing what cars they're gonna drive, how they're  getting over to Wahiki. 

In that particular case, I had a, a Mercedes-Benz parked in the, of the basement  of a client 12 months ago because he arrived on Boxing Day and had a pregnant  wife and two other children. Just trying to make things as smooth as we  possibly can for people to have the best experience. Is where we position our  sales under that unique brand and cater to these types of people that we are  hopefully gonna see more and more of in the near future. 

Erik: If anyone wants to reach out to Brendan particularly if you're interested in  that idea of a themed building just for an investor community, which I think is a  fascinating idea, it's Brendan, at unique UNIQ.nz or nz if you're American. In  closing, if anyone listening decides to pursue an Active Investor Plus Visa,  please tell 'em you heard about it on Macrovoices. 

As I mentioned, we were a little bit disappointed that the government didn't  respond when we in invited them to participate in this podcast, and particularly  tell 'em not to screw this up by changing the the 5% FIF rule, because that  would completely sabotage what I think is a fantastic deal that I think has the  potential.

To attract a huge amount of capital into New Zealand and to really maybe  change the face of Auckland's business community because I saw what  happened in Hong Kong, all the people who moved in because of the the tax  opportunity that existed there. As far as I can tell, New Zealand is a better deal  when you consider the cost of housing and the lifestyle and everything else.  Anyway, we'll see what happens. That's gonna be a wrap for our 2025 New  Year's Holiday special. We'll be back to our regular show format next week  when Patrick Ceresna and I will welcome a regular format guest to the show. 

Happy holidays everyone.