Projects
![]()
No projects found
Investors
New
DAO Treasuries
DATs
Lend / Borrow APRs
Chains
Categories
Spaces
#FinanceDaily: Jobs Report LIVE! Better than expected!
Recorded: May 5, 2023 Duration: 1:43:01Space Recording
Short Summary
The discussion highlights innovations in blockchain technology, such as Bitcoin's impact on traditional finance and the potential introduction of central bank digital currencies. Growth is evident in the labor market with strong job gains and positive financial results from companies like Coinbase. Trends in economic policy are influenced by expectations of deflationary wage aspects and the administration's concerns about future Fed actions. Technological advancements continue with IBC's focus on AI and Web3 companies.
Full Transcription
All right. No bank talk today. Zero talks about banks today. Oh, Simon.
What we haven't had enough. Yeah, Simon is here. We're going to talk about banks today. Just kidding.
Simon, no bank talk today. I'm exhausted with banks.
All right. I can always do a bit of no banks talk. We like building a world without banks.
Oh, God. I'm really hoping that the jobs report is completely normal so that we don't have to talk about how the whole world is falling apart.
But I have a feeling that the jobs report is going to be a surprise.
It was a fascinating assignment yesterday.
I don't know if you heard our space in the evening like the means.
No, give me the quick, give me the quick summary.
Quick summary is that there are still people that believe that everything is fine.
They believe it completely in the heart of their hearts that this whole thing is happening because the banks are focused.
These were just three bad banks that this happened to or four bad banks.
And, you know, we got into it a little bit yesterday about it.
Obviously, this was not because there were a few bad banks.
We have not had a bank run in decades.
And it's easy to play Monday morning quarterback, which is literally what they were doing.
And so, yeah, the point that they're making is that there's nothing wrong with the underlying system.
There's no systemic issue right now.
There is no contagion.
These were three separate instances and that the reality is that the Fed is completely at fault for raising rates way too fast.
And...
Yeah, I think that's...
So what they were saying was that they raised rates so fast
that these three banks were uniquely vulnerable
and there is no contagion and there aren't going to be any additional issues
and everything, you know, all the doom and gloom is overrepresented,
which is just absolutely BS.
Yeah.
Okay, well, we said we didn't talk about banks, but you've brought me in now.
Yeah.
You know, to, and I'm always a, you know, a macro guy.
I'm always trying to think a decade ahead,
rather than just in the now and the moment and trading.
So, but the entire design of the banking system is a systemic regulated Ponzi scheme.
And they are just an outlet and a vehicle for creating digital currency.
And so if you reframe it, the reason I loved Bitcoin is because it gave us a framework to actually analyze the economic model of traditional finance in a way that people could understand.
So, you know, prior to Bitcoin's launch, when I would give a presentation and say, banks own your money, they'd say, well, no, it's a demand deposit. I can always demand it.
And then when you try to tell someone that you, with Bitcoin, you know, you could, banks spend your money.
Literally, they control the flow of the entire digital currency that they create by simply deciding who to lend to.
And, you know, with Bitcoin, it gave the ability for people to actually spend their money peer to peer and for law enforcement to actually do their job rather than outsourcing it to the financial institution and ruining the experience of money because anyone that's got more than $10,000 in a bank account knows that it's pretty hard to spend your money.
And then finally, the whole, you know, explaining to people how money was created and that money is,
You know, if you were to design a monetary system from scratch, which is essentially what we do in what we did in Bitcoin, would you really design a system whereby every time someone borrows money from a bank, they create a new digital currency.
And that digital currency has to also factor in the interest payment.
And by the way, you simultaneously create a Ponzi scheme because as the bank creates 97% of all the digital dollar in existence,
and you add the interest on top, there's not actually enough money to pay off all the interest.
And so you create a game whereby you have to have more money in order to have, you know, you have to have more debt in order to have more money.
So you have this digital dollar.
And this digital dollar creates new dollars and then creates a new additional liability.
And the only way to find that additional digital dollar to repay the loan is to roll it over.
And so you have to pay new depositors with old depositors money.
And when that goes down, you introduce new regulations.
And eventually you make the whole thing legal.
And the end result of that is that every single fee a currency that is designed in this way has only one choice.
Choice one, get more consumers in debt.
So you have credit card debts exploding.
You have personal debts exploding.
You have student loan debts exploding.
And once everyone's maxed out on their credit cards, you've got to get more companies to take on more debt.
And once all the companies are maxed out, because they start using their bonds in order to purchase stocks and you create a stock market bubble.
that creates valuations that are completely away from reality
because they're closer to the ability to borrow at the cheapest rates.
And then those that buy the assets become rich
at the expense of those that don't buy the assets.
And you end up with all the consumers that took on the credit card debt
getting poor and you have this ginormous wealth inequality until the point where you have
the government that needs to step in. So the government always has to step in. And then eventually
the government's credit rating becomes to the point where another country is not willing to lend to it.
So credit rating agencies then say, well, really, can they sustain that debt once you're at 150%
debt to GDP? What can we do?
Well, the only thing we can do is we can get the central bank to take on all of that debt.
And so you end up in a systemically risky system where bank deposits,
because you can't own your money, you can't spend your money,
and it's being inflated away.
Instead, you end up lending your money to the government,
which causes systemic risk in the banking system,
because now people are taking out their deposits,
and instead they're buying government treasuries.
And eventually...
The end result of the entire regulated Ponzi scheme is you have to choose between recession and inflation.
And once inflation, if you choose inflation, which is essentially what the last decade has been since the financial crisis,
well, if you choose recession or inflation, you end up just increasing the debt and increasing the debt.
So you increase the debt ceiling.
And then eventually...
you reach the point where you either destroy the currency,
and the only way to rescue it is to find a new tool.
So that next tool is a central bank digital currency,
because you let the banks go bust.
They all get gobbled up by a larger bank,
and then eventually those larger banks just become the issuers
or partners of the central bank digital currency.
And eventually the end, inevitable, predictable, and guaranteed result of all of this
is you end up with a new fiat currency that competes with the existing fiat currency,
a change of empire based upon those that run the inflationary experiment,
and the Ponzi scheme finally hits the stage where you have to choose.
Do we allow the free markets in a system that's rigged to fail to continue,
or do we switch our entire way of organizing our economy into something that looks very more communistic
and takes away people's freedoms, liberties and everything that built the economy.
And that's the phase we're at right now.
And you normally get that at the extremes of left and right popularism,
where the people that didn't play the system right, blame the rich people.
and the rich people try and get out of the country because they're going to be taxed into non because they're going to be taxed so heavy when the reality is it's systemic and it happens every cycle and we're at the end of a debt cycle so no it's all good uh so like i said no more banking talk guys no more dollar talk but just then please don't ask a question about it
Just kidding.
Sorry.
Simon, very interesting comments.
It's just an interesting time to have those comments
after we had like a four-hour session yesterday
talking about this.
And there were people that were echoing your commentary
in the beginning about the sort of ills of the system itself.
But this morning, we're here to talk about earnings
The biggest one of which was yesterday, which was Apple, you know, we have a few more speakers coming, but oh, there's Neely as well.
So, you know, we're going to talk a little bit about the Apple's earnings that came out yesterday.
There were also, I'm going to do a really quick roundup of all the other earnings that came out pre-market.
And then we're going to do the jobs report that is coming out in 18 minutes,
which I think is going to be, I'm really hoping for my...
mental health and and for everybody here.
I know people want drama,
but I'm looking for a little bit more of a chill morning.
I have a feeling jobs report is going to turn out to be unexpected,
let's just say.
But we'll see what the jobs report comes out to.
And again, as a reminder,
we were on the spaces yesterday last night for...
way too long talking about banking and all these other things so i think i'm a little tired um and then the
economic outlook um
What does this all mean for the economic outlook?
We will touch very briefly at the end on how everything comes together.
But let's get started with earnings.
So really quickly, pre-market, right now, stocks that are making the biggest moves pre-market are Cigna, Apple, Draftings, Warner Brothers, Bumble, Bookings, Holdings.
So I'll go through these really quickly.
Signa, Cigna,
is up 3% pre-market.
Both top-line and bottom-line estimates were beat.
Not surprising, insurance companies continue to do well.
And specifically, though, this is the first time that Cigna's results actually
were better not because of just rapid growth, but actually because of lower medical loss ratio.
So hilariously, in healthcare, the money that you give the insurance company in the U.S.,
the percentage of that money that they actually spend on taking care of you is seen as a loss.
which is kind of interesting.
So they call it medical loss.
That means that, you know, that money went towards taking care of the patient and not towards,
you know, the underlying shareholder value.
And so their medical loss ratio was lower than expected.
And they did have some growth.
So very interesting that there's been a movement in healthcare called value-based care,
which is that.
you know, instead of negotiating with healthcare providers,
like the health systems and the doctors and so on,
on a per service basis.
So when you go into the doctor in the U.S.,
the insurance company pays the doctor for that visit as a service.
That's called fee for service.
That's how it works.
But now what they're doing is they're saying, hey, I want you to take care of Neely.
So I'm going to give you a certain amount of money to manage Neely's health.
And the more that you can save on Neely's health, the, you know, keep her healthy, save money,
the more profit you will make as a healthcare provider.
And so you're getting paid fee for value, which according to the insurance company,
is reduction in cost, really, while maintaining quality.
Also, just so people know, and I'm going pretty deep dive because this is my area of interest
and knowledge.
But, yeah.
But when you think about healthcare, value in healthcare is defined as quality over costs.
So hilariously, what they're doing is they're saying, hey, if you maintain the same quality
of healthcare you have today at a lower cost, you're delivering more value.
That's why they use value and not quality as the metric.
It's awful in all kinds of ways.
And if people want to learn more about it, I can let you know.
But you will notice that over the last few years, a
a bunch of insurance, health insurance companies, have been doing better and better.
It's because of expansion of privatization of Medicare, privatization of Medicaid,
and privatization of healthcare exchange, which is Obamacare.
When they put these programs together, when Obamacare came out, they essentially were
in cahoots with the insurance companies, the private insurance companies, and that
enabled them to be able to essentially privatize what was traditionally a public and government
entitlement. And I think that has led to a lot of issues, but also enable these insurance
companies to just grow at a rapid pace. So this is the first time I'm going to say this,
but I'm going to say it throughout, which is,
Do you think this is a good thing, people listening?
If you do, explain to me why privatizing health insurance is actually good.
You know, some people say maybe it's about the choice.
You have more choice.
And, you know, if government runs health care, it will become like the DMV.
If you believe that, please go in the comments on the bottom right and put that in there.
If you think that this is awful, and I will tell you where my, I don't know if you can tell I'm clearly leading and leaning in a specific direction.
SIGNA is making more and more money.
United Healthcare is making more and more money.
And I think ultimately, the question is,
are patients actually getting better care?
And are we really reducing total cost of care?
So go in the bottom right and put in that information.
I would love to hear from people about this.
I'm going to move forward, though, really quickly.
Warner Brothers...
their stock is down about 2.5% pre-market because they reported a quarterly loss,
more problems with their streaming business.
Draft Kings actually did incredibly well pre-market today.
They're up nearly 11.6%.
They reported significantly higher than expected revenue.
I guess gambling addiction is still strong.
Apple...
you know, as I mentioned, is up pre-market.
We're going to talk a lot about them.
Interestingly, lots of buybacks,
and we'll talk about why they're doing so many buybacks
instead of investing in growth.
Bumble posted a higher than expected revenue quarterly,
yeah, higher than expected revenue.
And, you know, dating apps are doing really, really well right now.
It's definitely a reopening play.
So as, you know, people have gone back out
and are out again and all of these Bumble and all of these other dating apps actually really
struggled during the pandemic.
And they're doing really,
really well right now.
Booking Holdings, again, you know, they had a big surge over the last year.
They actually are now starting to lag.
Really quick question on that.
Is it all dating apps or just Bumble doing well?
I haven't looked at the data.
I'm not challenging you.
I saw the data you saw a while ago, which is they were struggling, but I haven't looked at it recently.
All dating apps are doing better this year than they were last year.
Yeah.
And it's not surprising.
You know, it's just a much more accessible time for dating.
So not that I would know anything about that.
But booking holdings is down 3% pre-market.
You know, they...
Interestingly, they reported that their profit and sales both beat analyst estimates, but the adjusted earnings, so the actual reported profit in sales were better than analyst estimates, but their adjusted earnings fell slightly short of analyst forecasts and they're down 3%.
That is another opening play.
And then...
The next one is Expedia.
They actually are up 5.6%.
So again, a lot of these like reopening plays have been very interesting because...
you know, they're just returning back to normal,
but they were hurt so much during the pandemic.
And so now we're starting to really reap the benefits of all of the reopening.
So Expedia is up 5.6.
They were better than expected.
They had a 20% increase in gross bookings.
And so kind of interesting.
DoorDash, pre-market is up 4%.
You know, they're still not profitable.
So smaller than expected loss.
And therefore, your guidance is looking good.
Again, another reopening play.
Interestingly, Lyft is down 15.4%.
They had a weaker than expected forecast.
I think they're getting annihilated by Uber.
and others, we can talk about Lyft as separately,
but this is what happens when you don't reinvent yourself
and you just have, you're a one-trick pony.
I have tons of points about that,
and we can talk about that separately,
but they've not diversified their product,
they've not diversified their sources of revenue.
They spent way too much money trying to go after enterprise
and it has not worked out.
What I mean by enterprises, for example,
Lyft has gone after healthcare to provide rides for patients.
They've gone after a commercial real estate
to provide rides for tenants,
It's just not working.
People don't provide rides as a service.
It's not like a...
Well, not to mention Uber has a better user experience and their times are more accurate.
And every time I check both apps, usually Uber comes in a little cheaper.
Interesting.
You know, I kind of never think of Uber as cheap anymore.
I think like I kind of want to return back to like regular taxis.
I feel like they're going to be, it's like Airbnb.
I'm with you, Donish.
It's like Airbnb.
And I'm not being ironic.
100%.
And I mean, I was kind of being ironic, but not really.
Yeah.
Interestingly, Coinbase posted better than expected results, and they're up 8.1% pre-market.
Now, as a reminder, they've been down like crazy.
So, you know, it is interesting.
I think people's expectations were very low.
And...
you know, just as a reminder, they're up pre-market, even though they put out a warning saying that the upcoming pressure on its subscription service will affect services revenue.
So I don't know if anybody wanted to jump in on Coinbase and they're better than expected.
earnings. I'm not very bullish on Coinbase. I think there's too much regulation
en route, but any of the people that follow Coinbase closely, feel free to jump in
before we jump into Apple. Simon, go ahead. Yeah, so full disclosure, I'm a shareholder in Coinbase
from when it was private, still hold that stock as a public. I'm the idiot that didn't sell it
for $300 when it launched.
You're a hoddler.
Of Coinbase though.
But yeah, go ahead.
I just had a question from someone, because I haven't actually had a chance to dig into it.
But is it, and I think it's an interesting question, maybe no one knows the answer, but if we've got any accountants in the room, obviously most of the companies hold a lot of Bitcoin on their balance sheet, and I imagine Coinbase is one of those as well.
But there's accounting processes where gap accounting will only allow you to mark down your Bitcoin on your balance sheet, but they won't allow you to mark it up.
And I think there was some changes that were implemented recently that would allow you to mark your crypto assets to market, which may potentially lead to, you know, in a bull market, you'd expect the...
the things to go parabolic just with unrealized gains.
So I don't know if anyone's actually dug into the numbers and the balance sheet
and whether we're still at that state to play
or whether the accounting reforms has impacted the numbers.
Yeah, I can say it.
Yeah, I can say. So there is so much, there's so many issues with GAAP accounting and crypto, especially on the corporate side. I mean, there's issues on the personal side, right? Last few years ago, the IRS made you, you know, like report, you know, gains on sales. And by the way, gains on sales can include things like if you buy an NFT, the gas fees that, you know, to that.
transaction, you know, let's say it's like 10 bucks or whatever, you know, those are now gains on sales if you bought it a low enough cost basis, right?
So for folks who've bottled Bitcoin for a long time or Eath and suddenly have to convert those, then those become, I mean, your account actually makes you choose between, you know, there's FIFO and LifeOS, the first and first out or last and first out.
Usually first and first out is kind of better. Even the last and first out could be better for people with lower tax spaces on things.
you know, for the long term, FIFO first and first out is probably a better choice.
That's on the personal side.
On the corporate side, it gets really weird.
And the FASB, right, which is, you know, sort of is starting to issue things about how, you know,
you should report crypto on your balance sheet on the corporate side is interesting.
So basically right now, a lot of people are reporting it, at least on the U.S. side,
I know less on the, you know, European, et cetera, side.
You have to report it as an intangible asset.
Yeah.
And what's interesting is, to your point, Simon, unless there is large changes, and of course, we all know that there's been some price volatility in the last year, you can actually keep the things on your balance sheet.
Again, I don't know how Coinbase specifically does it, but I can look into other companies.
Or I have an insight.
I can say direct insight to other companies on how it's managed.
Basically, it's about.
It's basically about you can actually keep it on your balance sheet, not mark to market, which is kind of interesting.
But if there are, of course, significant changes, and that's where it gets into interpretive interpretation, then there are questions about how you mark to market.
And there's so many arcane nuances.
And really, actually, my conclusion, my like kind of just quotidian, simplified conclusion is I think...
I think that basically accountants and accounting regulators have like no idea what to do cryptocurrency.
That's been my, and it's actually really frustrating on the corporate side.
If you're trying to manage crypto assets, just like no, like the rules were made for, you know, a system from like,
you know, decades ago and they have no idea how to handle these digital assets on the, on the just, just on like how do you account for them on your balance sheet. And I imagine that's actually kind of a big issue for any, any companies like a coin base that are, you know, obviously holding these things on their balance sheet.
Absolutely. So I just wanted to remind everybody that the jobs report, and this one is actually an important jobs report. This was the week of jobs. So Neely, I was messaging you on the back end. If you can keep an eye on the jobs report or if anybody else, Rob, you know,
anybody else can keep an eye on the jobs report as soon as it comes out oh there you go all right neely's
gonna uh jump in with the jobs report in three minutes so we can continue to convalued i didn't see
the back channel tanish i was so focused in getting my head right for the jobs report yeah because
this jobs report so neely before the jobs report comes out really quickly could you give us a sense of
why this jobs report is perhaps uh
ripe for unexpected compared to other jobs reports, or if you agree with that supposition.
You know, here's, let me just answer this way. Here's what we're looking for. This is the first
job support that you really get the fuller view of sentiment on both hiring and intention to find
a job post the Silicon Valley Bank situation. Jobs are collected kind of in the first 12 daysish or so
of each month.
And so when we got the March data,
you really didn't capture kind of a post-SVB view
or a post-concern about banks view.
So that is something we're looking for in this particular set.
Like how are the hiring trends doing on the other side of 30 days
of kind of really taking in what's been going on
with the banking sector?
Right.
The other thing we're looking for is whether or not people are going to come off the sidelines.
We've got about 99 million people who are not in the labor force.
And we're looking to see if some of those people are going to come off of the sidelines and come back into the labor force,
either because they need to for paying bills or perhaps they're...
I'm trying to secure some health care insurance as some of those pandemic assistance benefits have gone away.
So there's, as we look under the hood, there's a couple little substories we're looking for.
And so it's a ton of data that comes crushing out.
So I'll try to give the headlines as fast as possible.
And feel free.
You know, Neely, I'm going to give you the space to be able to do it correctly.
Oh, there's one minute left.
Sorry, Neely.
I didn't think through that.
I know that you're going to be watching it very, very quickly.
Okay.
And yeah, feel free to interrupt any of us.
All the guys on stage will shut up when you speak.
So I appreciate.
And if someone else has the number before me, go for it.
I'm just, you know, I'm an intentional reader.
That's so there we go.
Trevor, thanks for joining us.
Any thoughts on the jobs report?
What should we be looking out for?
Yeah.
You know, I think what's interesting right now is just where we sit as, you know,
kind of a, we look at international economies and also domestically,
I think the banking crisis is going to contract a lot of the labor market in certain areas,
but I think,
There's also been kind of a drought in other areas.
And I think some of the rotation of service-oriented jobs might see a pickup.
But I think overall it's going to hit probably wages a little bit more than people are expecting.
So when we get wage numbers and we kind of get into deeper detail,
I think you're going to start to see hopefully some deflationary aspects on wages
that can kind of taper the Fed's expectation around...
you know, any of the anticipated Fed pausing.
You know, what's been bothering me, Trevor,
is that the jobs data is so skewed.
You know, the...
you know, that ultimately we're looking at.
We have some numbers.
There you go, Neely. Go ahead.
All right.
So the headline numbers would be $253, $253,000.
Last month it was $236,000.
The estimation was $180,000.
So this is a confirmation of better than expected on the employment report,
which is similar to what we saw out of the ADP numbers.
So the two are actually, they're not always together on the same page.
These two are actually telling you the same story at the headline.
So, Neely, I'm going to confirm the analyst expectations were 180,000.
And we came out and these are new jobs.
So again, expected job growth was,
I think so it's again.
Expected job was 185,000.
I have 180 on my system.
I have an 180 on mine.
But 180 or 185,000 still was the analyst's expectations for last month.
And the economy added 230,000.
253,000.
Yeah.
Last month it was 236.
So it's an acceleration.
What is going on, Neely?
Well, it does to us because we do believe that our people who are coming off the sidelines
and into the workforce looking for additional benefits now that you have the ending of the Medicaid
assistance through pandemic.
With 17 million people in the nation operating with essentially free health care because
of pandemic assistance, that went away at the end of March.
And so as people come off the sidelines and into the job market, looking for that additional benefit, we think this is where you're going to get this kind of weird dynamic where people are coming off of the sidelines into the workforce, finding a job.
And keep in mind, and Trevor said this, some industries are going to show weakness.
And we'll get into that at some point where we can get really deep into the data.
But recessions express in industries before they express in economies.
So this is not crazy to think that you could actually have some job growth with these dynamics at play.
It's slowly than swiftly, right?
The unemployment rate is now 3.4%.
Expected was 3.6% of where.
So just so that I can explain.
How are the earnings, half a percent of them and then expected 0.3.
So again, better.
Yeah.
So let's walk through this.
This is top line numbers.
Let me just remind everybody that top line numbers can be very confusing because they are taking all of these different sectors and combining them into one.
But the expectation was that the job growth would increase by 180,000.
It actually increased by 250 plus thousand.
The underlying expectation was that wage growth would be 0.5%.
2% or 0.3%? I don't have the numbers.
That's 0.3%? It was 0.5%.
0.3% but it was actually 0.5%
So it's up from last month as well.
Exactly. And
unemployment rate came in also
lower than expected, which was 3.4%.
But it came up at 3.5%.
But interestingly as well, previous 3.5, so we've kind of
kind of dropped a little bit, but way less than expected.
Oh, sorry, raised a little bit.
Rob, what is going on?
I feel like...
I don't really know.
I can't really work that out.
I mean, a very tight labor market,
obviously businesses are still looking to hire,
and at the moment they're not feeding that credit pull as much.
So this is probably a high, I'd imagine.
So you remember yesterday, Rob, our friends on stage were saying...
And I was being ostracized for saying that there will be no cuts this year.
There will be zero cuts.
There's going to be pause for longer, possibly additional increases in interest rate.
After seeing this, is there anybody up here that believe that there are still going to be cuts?
I'll wait.
Yes.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Go ahead.
A lot of people on me.
Yeah, I think the interesting bit about this is, you know, that perspective can change fairly rapidly, depending upon how many outflows and equities happen within, you know, a specific time.
I think one of the things that we also have to take note of is,
you know, we have become such an information cycle.
We've talked about this previously on a couple of different things,
Mario, but the influx and the digestion of information
has become so rapid that I think, you know,
we saw the, you know, the certain banks, you know,
go under fairly quickly at a faster rate than we ever have before.
So I think in order to navigate the narrative,
you have to really be conscientious of the fact that,
yes, this is trailing data from, you know,
the previous months.
And I think the expectation is that,
if there is any fear that we have a liquidity crunch or a credit crisis.
I mean, we've talked about all of the potential scenarios that could drive a narrative change.
And I'm not saying that I think that the Fed will cut, but I am saying that you can't discount a gray or a black swan coming out of left field and not being.
Trevor, the job of the Fed is.
Is to do what?
It's mitigating monetary policy.
Yeah.
There's only two mandates.
Yeah.
Yeah.
It's price stability and jobs.
And if prices going up and jobs or if jobs are high, that means inflation and wages
increasing, what is the only thing they can do, Trevor?
You and I both know this.
So I'm going back to the basics.
I get it.
I think my only note here is that in the event, we've pumped so much money into this market.
And I think one of the things and the dynamics that's changed economically is we constantly think that we've put ourselves in this fixed box.
You know, we go back to Econ 101 and we have certain stipulations around, you know, organizations or bodies that influence economics in ways that, I mean, we're just talking about like Bitcoin regulation with accounting.
These concepts are fairly abstract, and I think there's a lot of ambiguity around the actual practice versus theory.
And my concern is that when you have, you know, the level of derivatives that we have and exposure to specific assets that have that have been levered, you know, for the last eight years, if you would, I think my concern really is looking at the productivity number, right?
Because, you know,
What I'm seeing is a constant decay in productivity with an increase by 0.2% of hours worked increase.
You know, there's some inflection point, I think, that we're going to hit where companies are going to start to realize that if margins are contracting based on labor costs going up,
that you've got to have some rotation that increases productivity from the labor, right?
People say, okay, well, AI is going to make a big impact of this, et cetera.
So maybe that's the next revolution that actually predicates why these goods, you know, can stabilize.
And real wages go up.
I think that's one of the only narratives that I've heard recently that seems to make sense is that there's actual productivity growth.
that we're having that isn't necessarily recognized in day-to-day numbers.
So my challenge is...
Am I wrong in assuming these are like smaller wage job growth?
Because that's actually...
So this is the beauty.
Overall wage growth went up.
Because the journal has a...
I posted the paragraph from the journal that they're talking about restaurants and bars
are the ones that are...
Hotel workers are the ones seeing the rise.
Sure, absolutely. But at the same time, when you look at the economic level, not sector specific, like Neely was saying earlier, when you look at the total economy, the numbers went up. So therefore, the underlying hypothesis here is that wages are actually up. And again, this is, Robert, I've been surprised. I feel like I'm surprised. Wait a second. Are you guys going to now shift me from Monday morning quarterback to Fortune Teller?
I mean, come on.
Do it.
I think if I could see a stand thing.
Oh, man, I didn't realize I was going to get a whole dose of I told you so this morning.
If I could see you guys live in a standing ovation, you'd all be up at once.
Okay.
I know you guys want to piss on this economy, but I have said every day I'm on.
I'm nervous about long tail inflation.
Don't underrest this jobs market.
The numbers have been crushing.
Wages have been going up.
We had the debate yesterday.
I said wages continue to go up.
Service sector is five times bigger than the Durables sector that will pop during COVID.
And you guys keep wanting to make it a tech-driven recession because of where most of you guys kind of live.
But the truth is, the numbers are strong.
And they've been strong every month.
And unemployment has stayed low.
12 months.
It's now the 12th months in a row.
I'm just saying you guys.
I know that you guys keep on a pissing on this.
But the truth is this jobs market is strong.
That's all you can say.
And wages, which has always been my concern,
why we're going to have long tail inflation,
because I think wages are going to continue to be strong.
continue to be strong.
And I actually said that I think we're going to see wage growth outperform where inflation is.
So, listen, I wasn't going to come on, but you know, you guys have been heckling me for a few days.
You know.
Hey, Robert, quick.
Robert literally came on this morning just to say, I told you so.
I love this.
I'm telling you.
Robert, you know, I feel like we're learning a lot about you.
There's a level, I don't want to say petty, but there's a level.
It's funny.
I like it.
I actually love that you came on just to let us know that we were all wrong.
And it's okay.
You know what?
I will be the first to say that I, Donish, Nagda, I was absolutely...
I am completely in shock at this jobs report.
I think obviously this week was kind of foreshadowing this with other jobs reports,
but the ADP report, but I still thought that this job's report would come back
you know, I didn't expect it to be this bother.
I think it's 50 today that Robert's got
versus 180.
250.
Yeah.
I mean, like, it's not just good.
It is hot.
But the revision was, listen, I'm, you know,
listen, the revision kind of offset some.
But the point I was trying to make yesterday
is we've been averaging the last three months.
Remember, when the Fed, when Powell uses numbers,
When he is quantitative versus qualitative, listen to those.
When he says 2%, although I think he shouldn't use that as a gauge,
that tells you inflation is one, two, and three priority.
When he talks about 311,000 the last three months for job gains on average,
didn't use 12 months, didn't use six months.
He picked a point that was very high.
He uses it for a reason.
And my only point is, I've been doing this for 40 years, is, you know, I think we should, we can debate whether they're right or wrong.
We can debate policy all day.
But when the decision makers are talking, we should be listening.
And we should have the debates whether they're right or wrong.
Two Neely's earlier point, because of the health expiring in March,
does that kind of artificially inflate the jobs report, though?
Well, and I think the point about the revision needs to not be overlooked that Robert made.
I mean, the 236 from last month, I think, was revised back down to 165.
So these are, and this is the problem with working with seasonally adjusted data.
And, you know, something that bears extra...
examination, right, on the not-seasonally adjusted data, which we will do, you know, in our
firm for our clients later today. But this is, that's a big revision. Yeah. I'll just put that out there.
My point is, is, and the reason, you know, we should stick to numbers. I may not remember
anyone's name, but I'm pretty good at numbers, is, you know, we applauded the Trump administration.
That average was 188.
We thought the Obama administration was all world at 2-11.
So we have this view of what is a good number.
250 is frigging crazy good.
Okay?
It used to be, you know, 150 and above was good.
So, you know, I just think we have to look at historical perspectives.
And I do think you guys have been overemphasizing.
tech job losses. And I think I've been clear on that. It's a small, it's, you know,
10 million total jobs or 12 million total jobs of a 170 million dollar labor market. So when someone
cuts 7,000 jobs, yes, I feel terrible for the individual who's being cut. But in the scheme of
the, of the labor market, it doesn't move the needle.
So a question for you, Robert.
Now that we know that this is going on,
I agree that we have to wait for the adjusted numbers.
Neely, whenever your firm does come up with it,
please do tweet it and we'll share it with everybody that's here.
By the way, everybody that's listening,
if you have questions for the people up here,
please go to the comments on the bottom right.
You know, we're also, just as a heads up, talking about the tech sector.
IBC, who is sponsoring this, is incubating and accelerating AI and Web3 companies.
They partner with BCs and funds to work with their portfolio companies in return for equity and zero cash.
If you're interested, please DM Mario and his team and they'll get a call organized.
Interestingly, also, they're doing Shark Tank style pitches,
and they've been doing it in crypto and AI spaces,
but they're actually doing it across startup.
So any startup, or if you're a VC that is a portfolio company,
please reach out to Mario and his team for that.
All right, we got that out of the way.
Now, back to the regular schedule programming.
You know, Robert, one of the big questions I have is there's a very clear mandate of the Fed.
The mandate is, you know, you've got to maximize employment.
while maintaining price stability.
That is the mandate.
I know people want to believe that they will act based on,
I don't think they care about the stock market.
I don't think they care about anything.
I think they're laser focused on this.
Now they have room.
Employment is continuing to rise.
We are actually at the lowest unemployment rate since 1969.
That's according to CNBC.
So I have not looked at the numbers myself.
So, you know, the question that I have is what does this mean about what the Fed does?
Because clearly, you know,
You know, we are at risk of stagflation. We could bounce off this lower, you know, this little lull.
What is, in your opinion, since we have all been talking the deflation narrative, are you still worried about inflation?
And do you think that there's a world in which now the Fed may be emboldened to do more despite all the bank issues that have been going on?
Well, you guys have a lot of good speaker, so I'll make a few comments, and then I'm going to hop and let, you know, the smarter minds who are more deep in detail, kind of take it from care.
Robert, before you hop, I want to.
I just, let me just respond to my question.
I just want to ask you this one question, Robert, before you hop.
Let me just rebalance.
Okay.
And I will let you.
But, um.
A few things. One, I think when you use the term stagflation risk, we should really say we're talking about, you know, I don't know, 5%. I mean, let's not overemphasize what we think risk is. Number two, I think that, you know, one thing I learned advising presidents while also running a bank is,
We as a, you know, in financial services, focus on the stock market.
That's kind of our daily gauge.
The administrations have realized over many, many years trying to use the stock market as a gauge of their success is a dangerous, slippery slope.
You can be, you can be great and then you can be, you know, horrible.
So one, I don't think that any administration should use...
you know, the stock markets, daily fluctuations or monthly fluctuations as a gauge,
they obviously always want the stock market to go up because of how they think of pension
money and, you know, and business wealth.
But I don't think it's the gauge that you guys may think about.
It's not it's not one, two, three, four, five for them.
With respect to the Fed, we've been having this discussion for months.
You know, in my opinion, I said the other day, I think I was on the other side of most of you guys.
I think that rates are stay neutral to going up.
I think when he used the word firming, that was assigned to me that, you know, I was on the other side of what the forward looking curves telling you on rate cuts.
I don't think that's the next move.
And so, yeah, you know, once again, I'm just telling you my concern for inflation hasn't changed. I think wages will continue to creep up. I think inflation's going to stay probably north of 4%. I think it's going to be stubborn for a while. And so, yeah, I think that the Fed...
is, you know, what we applaud is low unemployment and wages up.
And it's great that people are working more and more each and every day.
And our average hours are up and labor participation is doing better than it has in the past.
You know, if I'm sitting at the Fed, I'm saying, you know, stubborn, you know, stubborn labor force,
stubborn core inflation, stubborn this, stubborn that.
And that stays my concern.
So, you know, I think I've been clear.
Robert, I have two questions.
So are you saying that we're a service-driven economy and we don't manufacture much in this country anymore?
No, no, not at all.
I was what I was saying.
And, you know, I've been on off and on for the last couple months.
But what I was saying is during COVID,
And, you know, there's a couple economists who were sharper than me on this, but, you know, I wrote a lot about this in my advisory work.
But during COVID, inflation was durable goods driven, which is very unique for this country, right?
It was computers and couches because the supply chains got hammered.
I've always said that when we shift from that kind of one-off type of inflation, durable goods driven, to the service sector when the economy reopens, the service sector is five times bigger than durable goods.
So, you know, a small move of inflation of service sector wages.
is exponentially bigger than where we were with durable goods.
So, no, I'm not saying we're not a manufacturing or this.
We just happen to be, I'm just telling you the facts of where inflation was during COVID,
where it was post-COVID, which was one of my concerns that inflation was going to be,
you know, uglier than we thought at inception.
And it kind of came to...
Well, you just...
You just contradict yourself because you talk about supply service, supply and then driven inflation.
No, no, I was saying supply, no, supply chains during COVID with what you cause the drug again?
Okay, so the supply chain is, supply chain is getting things from overseas.
And my biggest concern about inflation is not necessarily our inflation, but global inflation.
And in Europe, it is really much higher than ours.
Yeah, I agree with you.
I've said that all along.
So inflation is not just centered on our country.
Since we import so many manufactured goods and inflation globally is higher than here, we are still
challenged by what's going on away from us.
Yeah, I would agree with that.
I wasn't saying it's an either-or.
Absolutely.
So now, so we have this dynamics here where we tend to be driven by employing people who weren't
employed during pandemic because they couldn't get to their jobs.
but yet those jobs are not manufacturing sofas.
They're not much, they're made in other places, okay?
And goods are not made in the United States.
I think the administration made a great effort with this chips situation.
But unless we start making steel, producing goods here,
Okay. mining, lump, doing lumber reduction here. Okay. We don't do those things that comes
from Canada and other places. So we have to become, I guess, more, not global, but a little bit
more independent. I'm not saying being isolationist, but more independent and produce more of our
goods here. Robert, a quick comment on that, Alan, thank you. Robert, a quick comment on that
before you have to jump off. Sorry, I want to be thoughtful about your schedule as well.
I think that gentleman's spot on.
I think that we live in a, you know,
a interconnected, you know, globe.
And no question that geopolitical risk
and what's happening in the UK and other areas,
you know, impact, especially where we are
when we're 70% consumer driven.
So, you know, we have to always look at it
from a global perspective.
I also think,
We're stubborn in the U.S. and we're more stubborn elsewhere when it comes to inflation.
So, yeah, I would think the gentleman's spot on.
Do you think that makes it more sticky before we jump off?
You know I think it's more sticky.
I know.
I know, but I wanted you to take your trophy before you leave.
I said the geopolitical risk combined with, you know, the world opening up all at one time after being closed for a few years,
I think there's going to be a long tail.
I think we're somewhat naive to...
to fight this battle continually to think that inflation is not going to, we've never had COVID.
We've never had a shutdown of the world for two years. We have no idea when the reopening takes
place how long that impact will impact us. We don't know. And it just feels to me more sticky.
And I think that gentleman said it very well when looking at from a global perspective.
I have to hop.
I came on just because I, you know, you guys hammer me on.
I mean, you don't follow me on Twitter, but you seem to be able to hammer me on Twitter.
So I figured I'd come on and take my bow.
I'll duck down.
All right.
Everybody follow Robert on Twitter right now.
Bye, bye.
All right.
Thanks, Robert.
Appreciate you.
Thank you.
Thank you so much.
So, you know, that was really good perspective just to be, just to be clear.
you know, we've been, he's not wrong. We have been hammering him. He has said that there is not
going to be a recession. He was very clear that he thinks that it's not going to be a super deep
recession like everybody's predicting. He said that the job market was actually healthier than people
thought that he said that, you know, that inflation is going to be potentially stickier. And so,
you know, when somebody gets it right, you've got to.
admit that and that that's the beauty of these spaces that we can you know converse and agree to
disagree and by the way he might be wrong next month we don't know like he said we've never had
COVID before and so I will stick to my priors
uh you know uh even as i uh as i play the violin as the ship is sinking uh nearly any specific
data from the jobs market uh the jobs report you know it's stumbling me right now is there is
it appears to be a significant revision to historical data not just last month so uh
standby like i i it's one of those where i'm like i keep on like looking at the two columns and i'm
like that looks like half of so so so just so just so that our our listeners can understand
when they come up with the jobs report data that jobs report data is the top line data then they
adjust it for previous year comparators
Neely, is that a fair assessment?
What is the adjustment here?
It's for the seasonal adjustments.
Exactly.
And so here's here.
Let me break it down.
Super simple.
Unfortunately, I have to deal in seasonal adjustments because that's what everyone in the world reads.
We prefer and we tend to model and project in not seasonally adjusted data.
What is seasonally adjusted data?
It's a lot like preservatives and food.
It will look, it'll help, it's an economist way of putting their hands and mitts, basically, on data, raw data to make that data look a little shinier, last a little bit longer, similar to how Twinkies look really, really good even 25 years later, right?
The problem with seasonal adjustments is that that is an individual's assessment in midst, basically making some additional preservatives.
It doesn't really provide any nutritional value in what really happened or what was really reported.
So that, but the world deals in seasonal adjustments.
Like I would love to banish it for here on now.
There's other ways to do it.
But that's, I don't get to make the rules.
I'm not the game maker.
And what's been happening, if you can imagine a seasonal adjustment, this is the best
visuals I can give.
A seasonal adjustment is a lot like a fly that's hanging out at the end of a dog's tail, right?
And if the dog's a calm dog, that fly won't move that much, right?
If it's hanging out on a dog's tail.
But if you have a global pandemic and you have to fire 24 million people overnight,
that dog's tail is wagging quite a bit.
And it makes it really difficult for the fly to know where to land on that dog's tail.
That is probably the best, like, visual as I can give as to what's going on with seasonal adjustments
and why you're going to get some, like, what I think I'm looking at right now is, like,
a massive revision on seasonal adjustments.
So I don't want to speak on specific numbers because this is how,
big it feels like in my model, but it could recast maybe the demand overall in hindsight.
Hey, Neely, I was going to ask you, do you think any of these numbers are delayed in the financial services?
I'm looking at financial activities.
It was, you know, negative one for preliminary for March.
And now they're anticipating 23 for preliminary for April.
Do you think that we've actually seen the maturing process in the labor market with these cuts with recent, you know, banking turmoil?
Yeah.
You know, it's an interesting question.
I would say conceptually, no.
Well, let me put it this way.
Let me answer it this way.
I have friends who work in the financial services industry
in various different roles and what have you.
There are...
there are banks that are hanging on to people right now because they're anticipating what's going to be happening in workouts, right, in commercial real estate.
So I, you know, I wouldn't necessarily speak to demand of labor in financial services as being the be all end all indicator of demand overall in the economy.
You need bodies to do workouts.
So that would not be what I consider a leading indicator.
Interesting. You know, I'm just looking at the market right now and how it's responding.
The Dow is up 0.64% in pre-market. The S&P futures are up 0.8%. So, Dow is up about 217 points pre-market.
S&P is up 32 points, and the NASDAQ is up 85 points. You know, we're seeing the 10-year...
react very significantly.
It's up about 30 basis point, not 30 base point.
It went from 3.41 to 3.46 in like the matter of minutes.
And then crude oil is up as well this morning.
Gold is down quite significantly as well.
So everything is sort of reversing at least from a
very early response
like Neely was saying
I want to be very very clear
also you know we're going to start doing more disclaimers
since people are actually trading based on what we're saying
which is nuts don't do that
this is not financial advice please
do your own diligence Jesus Christ
you know we're
just up here sharing our thought process.
And if you are going to listen to our quote unquote financial advice,
please reach out to people and make sure that you actually understand the whole diligence.
This is not financial.
I'm just going to start calling Dr. Danish the Jim Kramer 2.0.
Yeah, I really, the only difference is I'm actually.
Please don't do that.
Please, please don't.
We'll do an inverse.
Where are my sounds?
I need those sounds.
Mario, our team need sounds in the back.
I need a whole, bear.
In the morning, wake up.
Good morning, everyone.
That's right.
Good morning.
Oh, no.
Please don't do that, Rob.
Oh, my God.
That is awesome, actually.
Dr. Danis, one thing that's happened here is we have had a flattening of the yield curve.
And remember, next week we have a three-year auction, a 10-year auction, a 30-year auction.
So it's going to be our first experiment going into a debt ceiling issue with rates actually flattening.
And historically, I believe that when the yield curve flattens, all rates move up,
and another
just one more point
and all the time
that I worked with
Robert
that is the first time
he acknowledged
that I was
correct in something
by the way
10 year minus
the two year
people need to watch that
holy cow
are people watching that
right now
the yield card
so yeah it's narrow
but that's because
all the rates are moving up
okay
alex
Alan, you wouldn't say the same thing
and the other way around.
No, no.
I actually think that the thing I look at more
is the spread between the 10 and 30,
which is widened out.
That's fair. But the 10-year, come on.
The spread between the 10-year and the two-year is the inverted yield curve.
Come on. We know that is the best.
That's a, we never use that.
Okay.
We never use that two-tens inversion.
And this happened many times because the two-year is reflective of Fed funds rates,
which are going to be going up, as we know.
Okay.
And the 10-year is more of...
an investment vehicle.
So this thing that was created
by the press and the social media is not something that we reflected back when there was really
inflated in recessions, stagflation.
We looked at more the forward-going, the total yield curve and how it was moving.
And now it's flattening.
And again, when things flattened, they don't stay flat, they either move down or they move up.
So just be cautious on that 2-10, please.
that's fair all right
i wouldn't just use one instrument to make all my decisions i agree with allan
100% i think that's a really good sort of life lesson but
no you use a dartboard done i've seen it i've seen the darkboard
I definitely use a dartboard.
There you go.
That's actually how I, you know, but Bitcoin fixes that.
I was going to say that, you know, ultimately that there was a, the spread between the 10 year and the two year has been used, as Alan said, by the media and others, the inverted yield curve where it goes below zero.
where the spread goes below zero has been seen as has been reported as a predictor of whether we're in a recession or going into a recession and it has returned significantly it dipped all the way down to negative 1% and it is now
I mean, it's kind of nuts to say this, but it's now closer to negative 0.5% and rising quickly.
Again, Alan, you might be completely right, but I think market sentiment will be affected by this.
Oh, you're 100% right. This is all market sentiment-driven event here.
Remember also the 10-year rally, reducing the 10-year rates, is caused by people thinking that there's going to be a pivot.
Right.
And therefore, let me buy a tenure at three and a quarter or three and a half or three and three quarters.
And it's going to be at a 2% within the time that it matures.
So I'll make a lot of money there.
Also, remember, the 1030s are a flight to quality bond where people want to go into be in the market for an extended period of time, but are going for quality.
And that's why we've seen large purchases in here.
Remember, I pointed out, I think the last time that most of our auctions have been bought by indirect buyers, which are foreign buyers.
Which is kind of interesting.
It's been between 67 and 72%.
So let's see how the auctions come out next week before we make these hypotheses on the yield curve.
We will see, but that's why we have Patrick here, Eugene, one second.
Patrick, thank you for joining us.
The charts have been telling us something, but we weren't listening.
There's got to be something here because this is an unexpected result, Patrick.
Jobs report came out way...
I mean, at least unadjusted came out way higher than expect analysts' expectations.
What do we know now, Patrick?
Well, right now I'm looking, I'm going to post it shortly there.
I'm looking actually at the oil chart because it's creating a wick.
So oil was really down.
I think it went down almost to like this month back almost to 63, 65.
But in trading, let's say I'm on the monthly time frame.
Intramount, there's volatility, right?
It could go all the way down, then goes up.
But if you look at a Japanese candle chart, it's the close that matter.
And right now, when I'm going to pose this chart in the Twitter space,
you'll see that if we could close, if oil could close around these levels or even higher,
let's say if it could climb back all the way above 75 by the end of the month,
that's very, that's very bullish for peak.
recession fears.
So usually oil recently has love bottoming in the abyss of a recession,
even if they backfill that data,
if ever oil is able to mount a comeback and break out,
and I'll draw in a wake-up line for you guys and show you what level I'm looking at.
But if it could close a month back above 75,
it could be forming a bottom right here,
and there could be a recovery phase going on.
But you got to remember now, as let's say U.S.
equities recover,
you have to make sure that they are outperforming the metals.
If...
If SPX has a rally, NASDAQ has a rally, but they're not able to outperform gold or silver on the way back up, then that rally is not a new bull market for U.S. equities.
It's a bare market rally within a secular bear market for...
Let us through that a little bit, Patrick.
So can you just define some of the terms of people there are listening?
Yes.
Patrick, are you there?
Yeah.
So right now, SPX, a little while back, has broken down versus the producer price index.
So if you go guys to my pin chart in Twitter, you'll see that the damage done to the SPX versus
inflation, the produce price index is massive.
It's a clear, clear breakdown.
So whatever we see here nominally for the SPX, any rallies it does, and even if it does a nominal
new high.
As long as it cannot, as long as it doesn't break out versus producer price index, all that are considered bare market rallies.
We had that in the late 1960s.
SPX broke down versus producer price index.
And it even did a nominal new high, I think, in early 70s.
But that was still a bare market rally within a secular...
bare market for US equities.
And what that means is not the classical definition.
Like you guys say, oh, 20% down.
It's a bear market.
It means for a decade, the US equities will go up and down, up and down.
And you'll just go sideways.
So then when that happens, other asset classes as commodities, energy, they outperform.
So those...
sectors in the SPX, the ones that were overweight, let's say tech and all those, they will
become, they will shrink and the ones that were underweight like energy, basic materials,
they will gain a bigger part of the SPX.
So looking at what's happening in the bond markets right now, and I don't know how much you're following that, you know, the inverted yield curve has, you know, receded a little bit.
We're seeing it go from negative 1% all the way up to negative 0.5%.
The concerns around a recession are, I mean, theoretically going down.
Inflation is more of a concern again.
What are the bond markets telling us about what they think the Fed is going to do?
Right now, I'm looking at the 30-year divided by the 10-year, and that thing just plummeted.
But every time it bottoms, especially at the levels we are now, most of the times, I can't say every time, but most of the recent times, where that, when the 30-year started outperforming the 10-year and started breaking out back to the upsides, those were major lows in gold.
It happened in 2000, 2006, 2000.
2018 and it's happening now.
So if that could mount a comeback,
we'll see that that's where gold
and all the pressure of this metals
will outperform.
Incredible. Super helpful. And like Patrick always tells us, you got to follow the charts because the market often knows and has already made decisions on what's going to happen. Now, we do have new data. And so this has been incredibly helpful. You know, wanted to return back to like the fundamentals. And Alan, I did notice that Patrick mentioned the 1030. So hopefully that made you happy. I was going to say that, you know, ultimately what we're seeing right now is a new narrative develop.
Now, Neely is right. We need to be cautious. Nearly any additional data from the jobs report data that is of worth that is concerning for you? Or is it all pretty rosy at this point?
It's looking pretty good, bud.
I don't want to tell you.
Like, there's still a question as to, you know, seasonal adjustment sort of data, et cetera.
You know, what does that look like?
We'll be digging into that when we have some time blocks.
But, you know, it looks robust.
I mean, I don't know how else you read this without, you know, having a clear line of site to the summary of economic projections out of the Fed.
which they will revisit again, you know, here, I believe, right in June.
And that is, the unemployment rate is moving in the opposite of direction of where they are, they need it to move.
I mean, it is one of the key, four key metrics that they have on the SEP.
And it just got favorable.
So this is so confusing.
Like what, I mean, they've been trying and trying.
We have gone up 500 basis points and it's doing nothing.
Because monetary policy isn't the only component to fighting inflation and taming the economy.
I think this is where...
And Powell himself has indicated this.
You know, in testimony last summer, he would point blank had a conversation with Senator Kennedy on this and, you know, indicated that, you know, we're only half of the equation.
And I realized people want to debate this all day long, but, you know,
When you hand trillions of dollars to people and they spend it, it's going to have an effect.
It's not just around supply chain causing inflation.
Now, I think the, as we see it, there's still kind of two...
stimulative sort of factors going in play right now that need to be addressed,
possibly for things to be cooled.
First and foremost, you have students who graduated the spring of 2020
who have not yet actually made one payment on their student loans.
We have 40 million people who are not paying on their student loans out of 43 million loan holders.
That will very likely go back into repayment and possibly full repayment this summer.
That would probably go far to cooling demand and cooling demand substantially.
The other thing that you have in play right now, which candidly, there's still not enough conversation about this,
is when you have exempted, you know, largely key components and parts of the state of California
from having to pay their taxes until mid-October, right?
That's, you know, somewhere between 70 and 100 billion-ish sort of dollars that have not been paid back into, you know, out of people's pockets, right, into the treasury.
That is itself its own de facto stimulative effect.
And I will continue to raise the question, how is it that the nation had a three-month,
you know, delay on our taxes being paid during a global pandemic, but apparently some rains in California give them six months.
So I question that and I wonder about that.
But nonetheless, that is rearing its ugly head on the debt ceiling issue.
And it is also having a stimulative effect by not requiring people to have to pay their taxes yet.
So that is something else to be in consideration. Until we reconcile these two components, I don't know if we really have what a full view of the consumer economy is. So that's my piece.
That's extremely well said. The economy is basically not even real. It's been heavily manipulated and adjusted. So do we even know these numbers are legitimate? To Neely's point, I think it's,
We can just skip this jobs report.
I do want to caution.
By the way, I don't think that's what Neely was saying, Justin.
I'm going to push back a little.
I think Neely was saying that...
Yeah, she's not saying skip the jobs report,
but I am saying take it with a grain of salt because, you know,
I completely forgot that...
People, there's still people who haven't paid their college, their college bills.
And then she, of course, brought up that health care in March.
Remember, that was earlier.
She brought up health care benefits from COVID in March expired.
Right.
So, you know, people were the art, you know, people have been saying for years the economy has been put in an artificial sleep.
And so, like, I don't, there's, there is no playbook for how the economy responds when we put it into an artificial slumber and then manipulate all these little levers.
There's, there's no playbook for that.
So how, how the heck are we supposed to know if these numbers, or I should say, how should we know what these numbers indicate?
I think that's a better way to phrase that.
I'd put a final point on that.
I wouldn't trust quite a lot of these,
the politicians and certainly the people
who run the Fed to drive me home
or take my children home in a car.
So the idea that they would then know,
the idea they would suddenly know how to deal
with a situation they've completely artificially
created when you wouldn't,
you honestly wouldn't trust some of these people
to drive you home is quite hilarious and
There's no financial point here.
It's just more of a standard point.
You look at these people and you think,
would I trust you to run my personal finances?
And the answer is probably not.
Would I trust you with my children? Probably not.
And therefore, we're trusting that they would understand how to soft land
one of the most wacky, ridiculous financial situations we've ever put ourselves in
is mildly hilarious.
I don't think there's going to be a nice way to land it.
I think there's just going to be a very messy way to land it.
Well, I have a feeling that we're going to use this information
and it's going to lead to aggressive,
You know, we're not going to, I mean, there's been talks about a pause.
Everybody yesterday was convinced that they were going to cut rates.
And they thought that I was completely wrong when I said, hey, maybe inflation will continue.
You know, maybe they should join us in our spaces every morning at 8 a.m. Eastern.
I mean, how can inflation not continue?
This is the thing I don't understand right now.
If, if, if, if,
jobs are if job losses aren't happening at any sort of scale and you've got a market which is still recovering from supply side issues and you've got tightening credit but greed is still persistent then I don't see how inflation moves I mean it goes down sure but it doesn't go anywhere close to the 2% target no
You know, this is just more of a meta conversation and not related to the stock.
But, you know, I think that's why our morning spaces have been so successful.
I still can't.
I still find it hilarious that people come every morning to listen.
They're probably not coming to listen to me, but to everybody else.
But the point is just that, you know, every morning we have these spaces.
And I think that everybody that's here is willing to adjust their prior notions of what is correct.
And when you bring on experts to some of these spaces,
people in general just like, no, this is what I believe.
And it automatically, they just like dig in and they assume that that's right.
And I can tell you, if you're listening and you're trying to learn,
you're actually a hundred times better than 90% of those people
that assume that they're automatically correct.
You know, just as a reminder, you can listen to the spaces from last night.
We had a very long discussion about this.
And I was like, how do you know...
that the banks are fine. How do you know that inflation? This was my entire point last night.
I was like, I was messaging you behind the scenes. I was like, okay, it's great. We're having a
great history lesson and it was really good and you should listen back to it. It was a really good
history lesson. But then they were sort of forward projecting, you know, oh, there's three easy
solutions and the banks will be fine because whatever. And I'm sitting there thinking, guys,
you guys wouldn't have called any of these bank collapses. Agreed six months ago. So
So I'm just not by, like the solution is not.
If they did, they would have made it a ton of money, a ton of Al- Right, exactly.
They wouldn't be on a space as talking about it.
They'd be in the Bahamas for their feet up.
Well, some Congress people did call it right, surprisingly.
But to be clear, you know, our goal here is to let you know the information.
Please do not follow what we say for dogma because if you've heard me speak in the last few weeks, this is unprecedented.
You know, we're in an unprecedented position.
Well, all I know right now is that the situation is incredibly choppy.
Right? Like you'll hear the words choppy. That means that it can go up really, really quickly and sentiment can change very quickly. And sentiment can go down very quickly. You know, Patrick is right that the charts are speaking to us. It looks like maybe oil has bottomed. Maybe, you know, gold is ready for another bull run. Maybe silver is ready for another bull. I mean, there's all of these signs. But you know what? Those bottoms that he's talking about, if the line crosses the chart,
crosses that level, he will be the first one to say, actually, we've crossed this level,
we need to be concerned. Patrick, go ahead.
That.
That's exactly right.
So again, that's why I love hearing that
because it's all about probabilities, right?
We're looking at charts, collecting the evidence,
and what we do with the evidence,
then we weigh the probabilities, right?
So for above certain levels, we know that support.
We have a statistically better chance of bouncing
and then moving back up.
And you're right, I just put in a chart
with the crude oil one,
and I overlaid for you guys,
the US year to year inflation rate.
And you'll see essentially,
Forget the CPI ratings, just look at the oil chart because if oil bounces on that level right now and is able to break out, then you know where CPI is going, right?
The track, I could have put the sugar chart.
So it's all about probabilities.
But if oil does break down below these levels, Jesus hell.
So yes, then higher inflation is not, you take those probabilities off the table.
And so this is kind of where we are.
So just wanted to wrap up, Alan, you know, if you have a quick comment, I wanted to do a quick wrap up of the.
Yeah, I just checked my charts and the aversions that took place that you were talking between the two's tens.
Actually, you have the same inversion between the tens, 30s on almost the exact same date.
So it is kind of confirmers my thought that the 10-year was a stopping point for a lot of investors,
a flight to quality, and the pivot points, the pivot yields, the ones that were affected greater by supply and demand,
or the two in the 30s.
So please, you know, again, we have a lot of, my question to you, Dr. Danish, is that, yes, you are 100% correct.
We have a lot of changing dynamics in the marketplace, a lot of things that are going on.
But I'll reiterate, I did not have a computer on my trading desk until 1990.
So now we have, and we have used fax machines.
So now we have a social media driven marketplace where people grab on things that may be absolutely meaningless to disqualify.
What's the proper word?
Nearly will come up with a great word.
But to dissuade or to confuse the investors, right now, the most important things, as you said, is everyone has to do a deep dive, go into their own feelings, their own needs, and use those.
Please don't listen to social media.
Don't listen to the talking heads.
Make your own points.
And I think that's why these spaces that you head are spectacular.
Thank you, Alan. Appreciate that. Eugene, any thoughts?
Yeah, one thing I haven't seen talked about in these spaces, and I agree that there's been a lot of great information shared.
But yesterday, the ECB raised rates by 25 bibs.
And I'm not sure that there was a lot of discussion.
There's some people touched on it, right?
There's still 7% inflation.
You know, had line inflation has measured a little differently across different regions.
So that should be kept in mind.
But obviously, very persistently high inflation.
I think Robert Wolfe alluded to that.
And yesterday, I think Patrick...
and some others in our spaces we're talking about relative interest rates between, let's say, the Fed and the U.S. and the Eurozone, which would also imply differences between, you know, core inflation and how that differs between the zone.
There's something to keep in mind.
One thing to keep in mind is, you know, the German tenure yesterday had some wild moves, right?
I mean, there was a hundred basis point move in just a few hours to the downside.
And then it kind of went back up based on things that happened yesterday afternoon, Europe time.
So, you know, we talk a lot about the U.S.
Obviously, the U.S. is extremely important at the world's largest economy.
But, you know, what's happening with other places has lots of impacts, you know, on things like the dollar.
Just speaking is a proud of your date on this one.
the ECB have been and actually I would say as also an Englishman the Bank of England have been
uncharacteristically oh no absolutely characteristically copying the Federal Reserve's moves I think
they've all got together have a nice coffee and basically the ECB has proven itself throughout this entire
thing and I'm not a big fan of the ECB if you're not going to get this then you know I make it obvious the
The ECB is confirming its position in my mind as a European as the 51st state.
All it's doing is copying the Federal Reserve.
And you could tell it was serious because we had Christine Lagarde come out and say absolutely nothing for 35 minutes.
And basically the report might as well read as a complete copy in French of the Federal Reserve's report.
Anyway, not to be a too lambusting report.
No, no, I think it's really funny.
It's a big change between what happened in 2008, right?
In 2008, they height, ECB hiked into the recession, whereas the Fed cut, and, you know, that was seen retrospectively as a terrible decision by ECB.
Yeah, it was terrible because it caused the Greek, it was, they're not going to follow anything that threatens.
It may have caused the Brexit.
We can talk about that separately, but it may have been the first of, oh, oh.
The first step into Brexit.
I'll tell you what caused Brexit, and I'm going to say it out loud, if it wasn't financial policy,
the biggest thing that caused Brexit is the fact that the English have been systematically
trying to dismantle Europe for the last 700 years, and we continue to try.
that's fair and it's okay you can say it since you're in englishman but i was going to say that
uh you know um just want to make sure that we summarize everything uh so that people uh people that have
joined us have an idea of of what this jobs report is actually telling us so you know
The jobs report that came out this morning showed that as compared to an estimated 180 or 185, depending on what consensus estimate you're following, there was a change, the actual non-farm payrolls showed an increase of 253,000 jobs.
In 2020,
It also showed something else, which is important,
which was that last month was revised from 236,000 jobs,
which was a beat of the analyst's consensus estimate,
to 165,000, which was not a beat, interestingly.
Pretty big revision.
Now, interestingly, the bounds are down.
The QQQ is up.
Bitcoin is up.
We're seeing the markets rally on this news.
And, you know, one thing that Robert said that I want to remind everybody on,
this is probably one of the most important aspects of this data,
that in general, our economy is not a goods and manufacturing economy.
It is a services economy.
Yet.
Yet.
I will say that it will take us possibly generations.
The Chips Act is not enough.
I'll take credit for saying that, not Robert.
Go ahead, Alan.
Why don't you?
But my point was...
I said that to Robert.
Robert was singing that they come in this very cheap.
But I thought that was a very good conversation.
Man, everybody wants their flowers this morning.
It's okay, Alan.
I'll get your address and send them over.
I was going to say that, you know, ultimately...
Just a kiss, that's all.
Just a kiss.
Yeah.
Just a real quick side note, Dr. Danish, if you'd like to get into manufacturing coming on shore briefly, I'd be happy to touch on some insight there.
I agree. Manufacturing is going to come ashore briefly.
So just sure, but today we are a services economy.
Yeah, and by the way, there's no way that the move from this anti-China move where people
are moving, manufacturing on-bore, onshore sticks, the minute India ramps up.
Exactly.
As soon as we have a viable alternative, we will go to that viable alternative.
That's why I don't even want to go down this road.
I feel like it's a completely different space.
But I wanted to make sure that this is clear to our audience.
Again, our audience is the smartest audience on Twitter.
They can't.
They come in every morning and listen to us at 8 a.m. Eastern.
They come into the bottom right and they listen to the,
they comment to this.
And they're very smart and they don't take it as legal or financial guys.
And word on the street is they're the best looking audience,
which is fascinating.
I don't know how people know this.
I don't think it's heard of Australia.
I've seen it.
I've seen it.
And so,
so ultimately what is really interesting about this jobs report is one,
Yesterday on the spaces, we had all this conversation around.
Inflation has peaked.
The data is showing, and again, the data may change, that wages grew, grew more than expected.
People were saying that the dollar is dead.
The data is showing the dollar is stronger.
Actually, if you watch what's happening to the dollar right now, it's actually going up quite a lot.
People were saying that, you know, it's all doom and gloom.
I actually think that from a sector perspective, I think this is going to be bad for tech.
It's going to be bad for growth.
And it's going to be bad for the banking sector, not because of the job numbers, but because of the Fed's response to this.
And everybody yesterday, all the freaking experts were like, oh, the interest rates are going to drop dramatically.
And this points towards the fact that the Fed that only has two mandates –
Just as a reminder, the Fed has two jobs.
You know, one of the jobs is price stability and the other job is maximizing employment.
That's it.
Everything else, they don't give a shit about shareholder value.
I'm just throwing this out there for anybody that doesn't know this and has not heard me say this 100 times.
They don't care about the stock market.
they actually probably don't even care that much about the banking shareholders.
What they care about is that they maximize unemployment,
which, by the way, unemployment as of today, in the Biden administration,
we have to say it, is the lowest it's been since 1969.
Now, Neely could be right, and I think she is,
that this is a little bit of a red herring because we have a ton of people
that are outside the workforce and we have to be honest about that as well.
But this is incredible.
I mean, we have to admit that this is at some level incredible.
The other side of this is...
Well, also, a lot of boomers retired over COVID.
That's another factor there.
Tons of them.
Just that's when they decided to opt out.
Agreed, Justin.
100% agree.
There are other factors involved.
But, you know, when the Trump administration was taking its flowers, when the Obama administration
was taking its flowers, you know, like...
you know, it's really hard in this current social media environment to have any positive news.
So I'm going to double down and make sure that it's clear that this is actually positive.
We should be happy about this.
It's always been positive.
This is what I don't understand.
This whole US dollar thing and inflation.
Inflation peaking doesn't mean anything.
If it stays high, if it's peaked at, I know in Europe, for example, at 10%,
but then it descends to six and then gets sticky and stays there for ages.
It's just as bad.
Yeah.
so I don't really
buy that as a
necessarily a positive thing
but then this US dollar thing
is nonsense
the reason that China is
asking of the way
I just remember reading this morning
there's word that
some of these Chinese deals are falling through
well of course they are
the President Xi is going around the world
saying please do trade in the yuan
I'm going to force you to do trade in the one
I'm going to do as much as I can
because I need to prop up the fact that China's economy
is in a
dire straight and the US dollar is so powerful. He wouldn't need to do that if the US dollar was
weak and so everybody's going out the saying that all that everybody's going to China. No, President
Xi's coming out of China and getting the French president over and asking him to do oil trades
and getting the Saudis to do it and ask them to pay their debts back in the Yuan because they
desperately need to trade in the Yuan and they wouldn't need to do that if it was so powerful and strong.
I'm not saying that it's not, you know, they're not.
doing some things that would damage the U.S. dollar over time.
I'm just saying it's not this big thing.
I think it's actually a demonstration that U.S. dollar is incredibly strong right now.
You know, what's fascinating, Ed, thank you for joining us.
I know we're closing up the space, but, you know,
I wanted to give you the chance of giving us some insight into how is the administration –
looking at this data, obviously positively, but, you know, are there, is there a conversation
right now about saying, hey, look, we were right. The economy actually is strong,
stronger than people are trying to make it sound. And, you know,
How does this affect the death ceiling conversation?
Is it time to, because everybody obviously knows that that's what's looming.
Are they more willing to play ball now since they have this positive news on their back, or is this leverage?
Yeah.
I don't know if it's either, really.
Like, I view the debt-sealing thing is something completely out of this ballpark.
I think they're probably really happy with the numbers.
But at the same time, they're probably like saying, oh, crap, now the Fed's going to go even farther.
And they're not going to reduce interest rates as soon as we thought they would.
I think that's something that they're going to be concerned about.
Especially, you know, as we get closer to the elections, I mean, I'm sure they're hoping that interest rates come down before their elections.
I think they will, but I mean, I think there's a lot.
This isn't good as far as what the Fed's going to do in the future, I don't think, according to them.
Interesting.
So even though employment is so good right now, wages are increasing.
Right.
People are, you know, we're not, you know, there was some talk yesterday on the spaces about,
Well, who cares about inflation if people don't have jobs?
And it's like, well, price stability is really important.
You know, I mean, I've always been of the mindset that a president really doesn't have much to do with the economy.
I said it under Trump and I still feel the same way under Biden.
I think, you know, a lot of the numbers are inflated because of COVID.
A lot of the numbers were...
I deflated because of COVID.
Like inflation, I blame inflation mostly on COVID.
Just like I think that, you know, Biden always says, oh, I bought all these jobs back, but you're not really bringing them back.
They're just, I mean, I guess you're bringing them back, but they were going to come back regardless, right?
Yeah, I mean, the manufacturing, the Chips Act was a pretty big wing.
I would say it was the beginning of this movement of bringing jobs back.
To be fair, and I don't know if people want to hear this,
and we're going to talk about this on some other spaces, hopefully,
because it's going to be a whole conversation.
A lot of the manufacturing that's coming back
is not going to lead to as many jobs as people think they are.
Robotics is here.
We know that collaborative robotics is being used in most factories in the U.S.
I'm just, you know, I think,
I'm less worried about the jobs going to somebody in a different country
and more worried about jobs going to robots and factories.
And I think it's like a part of this like narrative that nobody's really talking about.
That, you know, especially with robotics and now collaborative robotics,
One, with collaborative robotics for people that don't know, you can actually work with a robot and together you're better than a human or a robot on their own.
The collaborative robotics movement has been really big in the manufacturing sector.
And I'm concerned that they're going to be able to, you know, get one person to do a 10 person job because they'll have robotics help.
And so all of this talk about like, hey, we're going to switch from a services economy to a goods economy.
That might not be a good thing, actually.
I agree. And I also think the Chipsack was amazing. I think that was a great piece of legislation. I think it's going to help us a lot in the long run. I'm a big proponent of technology and forward-looking technology. So I think anything we can do to get the U.S. ahead of other nations when it comes to future technology. I think that's an awesome thing, whether it's solar, whether it's wind, whether it's just robotics.
But just because the Tipsack doesn't actually do that.
Well, I'm part of the Florida contingent for the Chips Act, and it doesn't do that.
I mean, it's actually, it's really good in the sense that they actually thought about it,
but what it's going to do at best is allow the United States to catch up.
And it's being allocated in the same way defense budgets are allocated.
So every state gets its thing, and they have to bid, and they have to go through the universe.
And what that's actually going to do is create lots of micro businesses that can't scale very quickly.
Yeah.
Yeah, I mean, I agree.
I agree to some extent on that.
But I think in a long one, it's good for bringing technology manufacturing to the U.S.
I mean, I guess we have to wait and see how it all unfolds.
But ultimately, I think the more we can focus on future tech,
the better it is for us.
We have to be at the leading edge of innovation.
It's America, for God's sake.
And so on that wonderful note,
brief, brief, brief side tangent.
Just really quick picture.
If you have a 10,000,
I think I've said this in a room like last week,
but if you have a 10,000 person iPhone factory in China, right,
Foxconn,
or we're leaving the country, I think,
Everyone's like to Rob's point, yeah, a lot of that will go to India, a lot of that will go to Thailand.
But a lot of it, I think, will come here because if you have a 10,000 person factory in China and you introduce AI on automation, we can bring that on shore in the United States.
and run the same facility.
Still doesn't resolve the fact that cost of production here is higher regardless of when you remove
labor.
But yeah,
I'm getting to that.
If it's a 500 to 1,000 person shop cut from 10,000 in China,
it's still a net gain for the USA.
Yeah.
Yeah,
I don't buy that.
Just on land values alone,
it's impossibly expensive to open anything up here.
I'm not to say that it won't.
Well,
the capital cost is very different than the operating costs.
Yes.
Yeah, but the capital costs is the main constraint for starting.
It's also extremely expensive to ship things.
It's also extremely expensive to ship things internationally with limited lanes and limited shipping lanes too.
And you even notice like Elon...
Not with the volume when Apple gets, it isn't.
Well, you notice when Elon was talking about their new announcement, one of the things that just bizarre that everyone kind of skipped over...
in their recent like manufacturing announcement of their new car.
I don't know if it was cyber truck.
I don't know what he was talking about.
But he mentioned he was going to locate manufacturing facilities within the regions they serve in the U.S.
And I imagine we see this.
start to happen where facilities start to locate smaller facilities in the regions they serve.
As long as we're talking about the right thing, he's talking about assembly, not manufacturing.
The component manufacturing is still happening in specific areas because it's all about
skilled labor and also.
And capital expense is really important because
you have to justify new capital expenditure
and leaving an area that you've already
invested in charge.
Can I just say that I cannot believe that we were
unable to get through one spaces
without talking about Elon. God damn it.
I was trying to do one.
You almost did it. I'm sorry, but I didn't bring them up.
I normally do, so I didn't bring them up this time.
I'm just messing.
But it's components, right?
Components, right?
Yeah.
So the, the last, a non-Elon tangent here, the last piece to this puzzle is one of my clients who I can't talk about, sorry.
I know it sounds really shady, but they're dealing with a lot of tool transfers.
So they're, and this is from China, and this is in the United States, and they're having a huge influx.
they've had to reposition their salespeople to basically take all these incoming tool transfer requests.
Now, this is tool transfers within the case of, like, injection molding and manufacturing.
So most of these tool transfers are coming from China,
but they are actually getting influx from people moving manufacturing from India.
No, I'm not saying here, Justin is that people are doing it.
Well, what I'm not saying is people aren't doing it and they won't.
I agree they will.
And what I'm saying is if we think that in a general economic sense,
this is going to be positive for a consumer,
the fact that a load of additional capital expenditure is being thrown into the system.
But that's not going to, you know, iPhone sales will increase,
moving to India or to the UK, you know, whatever.
In relation to capital expenditure, it has to.
And then operating costs here are much higher, even if you have less stuff.
so it's some realism to that.
Over time, it might not be, but right now, that's the case.
Oh, yeah, 100%.
I'm not saying this is a next week thing.
I'm just saying the trend has started.
And, um,
Yeah, I mean, I want to say this in a way where Dr. Danish doesn't get mad at me.
But like if I could invest in, I'm basically at this point looking at where to invest dollars in American manufacturing.
So again, to Dr. Danesher's point, if you're taking investment advice from me, you're screwed.
So please don't do that.
Well, by the way, something of interest before we jump off.
We are going to end in a second.
I do have a day job.
But I was going to say that.
you know and i'm sure all of you do too as so so you know one thing i was going to mention was that
the regional bank stocks if people aren't watching holy cow pack west is up 32 percent western
alliance is up 33 percent three three not 3.3
It's on a note from J.P. Morgan that came out that upgraded Western Alliance, Zion's West Bank Corp. and Comerica.
And this is...
incredible movement
kind of interesting since we know that
the interest rates are going to go up so it's fascinating
that this is happening but that will be
a conversation for sorry neelie if you want to say something on it
quickly i was just going to say i mean there's obviously it's floating
out there about whether or not there will be a ban on short selling right so
that would be likely a contributing factor yeah
They could be a ban on short selling?
Holy cow.
I haven't heard.
That's wild.
There's speculation about a ban on short selling in the...
Correct.
Not my view.
It's out there in the public to me.
I don't know.
I think there was a not free market to me.
Time and Moutor,
they've talked about banning short selling.
It's not going to happen.
Is another Matt Gates and AOC, Bill Neely?
Yeah.
Hey, the 1850s, 1812 is the 1850s was when the last time we banned short selling.
So it is certainly possible, but it's been obviously a minute.
All right, guys.
Well, I feel like we're about to go into another one.
I'm going to stop it.
I'm going to call it today.
This is why we have shows every morning.
You started it.
I know.
I know.
I'm the worst.
But I was going to say that because this is way too much fun.
And if you'd like to have this much fun, every morning at 8 a.m. Eastern, you know, we do these spaces so that we can learn from experts and then question them constantly.
So you don't have to.
So thank you again.
Please follow everybody that's up here.
And we will see you tomorrow at 8 a.m. Eastern.
Actually, we're taking the weekend off.
No weekend.
Sorry.
On Monday.
Oh, God, I have the weekend.
Thank God.
Startup counters have no weekends.
Done.
That's right. I don't even know what day it is most of the time.
So we'll see you on Monday at 8 a.m. Eastern.
Thank you, everybody.
