The Macro Trading Floor transcript – 04 October 2024

This is a transcript of The Macro Trading Floor podcast featuring Brent Donnelly and Alfonso Peccatiello.

To watch or listen to the podcast and see the show notes, go to Podcasts.

Alf (00:00.000)

Buongiorno everyone, welcome back to The Macro Trading Floor. As always with me, my good friend Brent Donnelly. How are you Brent?

Brent (00:07.921)

I’m good, Alf. My favorite author has a new book, Sally Rooney, so that’s exciting.

Alf (00:13.388)

There you go. We also have a news, a big one. So if you’re not awake, you’re like sleepy, wake up. Okay. So we have a news. We are launching the first ever Macro Trading Floor conference. It’s called the Macro Roadmap 2025. And these are the three reasons I think why you should think about getting on this conference. First of all, it’s a few weeks before the elections and we’re to have a very special guy that can tell us something valuable about the election outcomes or risks.

The second thing is that you get to interact with us. So now you listen to us every week. This time you can also ask questions. You never know, you get something interesting out of it. And the third is that we’re gonna make it really affordable for you, hopefully delivering in-store quality at an affordable price. Brent, tell us a little bit more. What are we gonna talk about?

Brent (01:03.631)

Sure. So this is the kind of thing we usually do for institutional clients and we’re trying to broaden it out a little bit. And let me just give you a quick sense of the agenda. I’ll go through it quick. So we’re going to start with a primer on prediction markets because I think a lot of people fail to understand how important prediction markets have become for looking at what’s priced in and things like that.

Then we’re going to have Bruce Mehlman, who used to be a U S assistant secretary of commerce. And you might know him from his sub stack and his slides. His quarterly slides are kind of famous. And he’s going to go through the election game plan. And the whole point of this conference is supposed to be to give people actionable stuff, not just a bunch of, you know, finger in the air kind of stuff, but actual things you can use. So specifically, for example, going through election night and when, when results are going to come in, what to look for so that if you’re trading the election, you have a better understanding of what is going to move the needle on the night.

Then we’re going to do building a macro framework from the ground up. That’s going to be Alf mostly with me piping in and then flip the script a bit. And then it’s going to be me mostly doing the trading and investing metagame, which is understanding what kind of game you’re playing, psychology, risk management, position sizing, staying away from kryptonite and things like that.

And then 11:30’s sort of the big one, which is the 2025 macro roadmap. And that’ll be our top five trades for 2025, why they might work, why they might not work, and then also the implications, the trading and investing implications of the main election outcomes. So hopefully this will be useful for traders, investors, and even for CFOs and corporate and real money.

Alf (02:49.208)

We’re gonna talk about trades, so, you know, asses on the line and then you can blame us for being wrong. And now the kicker, guys. So, the Macro Trading Floor is a podcast which is listened by 20,000 of you and more every week, so thanks for that. Now, we want to make this special only for you guys that are listening on this podcast. So, we are gonna give away a big discount code to make this at a very affordable price.

The discount code is TMTF, well, The Macro Trading Floor, so the acronym of the podcast. And only the first 100 people who use the code will end up paying $299 instead of 499, which is the full price. So I would suggest you stop the podcast right now, go in the description, click on the landing page, go there, put up TMTF code and only pay 299.

The beauty is as well, this is a live conference but if you buy the 299 you can also listen to it later on. You don’t need to attend specifically on the day which is going to be a Saturday before the elections. Go and do it.

Brent (03:59.315)

Tango Mike Tango Foxtrot, TMTF.

Alf (04:04.728)

My Italian accent must have messed up the acronym. Okay, enough advertising, I think that’s way too much. Why don’t we talk about macro a little bit, Brent? And let me start by saying that we are often wrong. I’m a macro guy, I’m wrong half the times, but this time we got it right.

So rates were a little bit mispriced. I mean, you went to a point where you needed some marginally bad information to have rates keep rallying from where they were and the dollar to keep weakening from where it was. And over the last week or two we have had actually a reversal there. Rates a bit up, the dollar is doing okay against the euro for example. So what do we have to say about that apart from we are the best, we got it right. Anything else?

Brent (04:46.441)

Well, it’s really an excellent example of bad news, good price for yields. So essentially you had the 50 basis point cut and yields couldn’t go down on that. And then you had some other stuff too. Goolsbee was quite dovish. Consumer confidence was weak. And actually there was some other weak data in there and mixed in with the strong JOLTS. And yet yields are just kind of grinding, grinding, grinding higher.

And a lot of times when you see price action that doesn’t make sense, it’s a strong signal that something’s going on. In this case, think the signal was that rates had come too far essentially and that bond positioning was a little bit too long. And then you did have in there also Powell talking a little bit more hawkish. So they were looking like 25, then they did 50, signaled 25 in the dots, market went to 50. Now they’re signaling 25 again maybe, in the end, forward guidance is dead and it’s all about the data.

Alf (05:49.336)

Forward guidance is dead. I should use this in one of the titles of my articles. Now, I mean, it’s all about risk reward, right? When we look at things and as you said, when you were pricing basically high odds of another 50 basis point cut this year, to buy rates from there and make them rally further, what is that you need? A 75 basis point cut or do you need the Fed to basically tell you that terminal is 2%? I mean, you need some, the bar is very high effectively.

And the fun part about, if you talk about the dollar for a second, is that, yes, it was almost 112 versus the euro is now closer to 110, but I’m using the euro specifically here as a comparison. If I take the sterling, for example, which is something I would like to talk about maybe for a minute or two, the UK, if I take the sterling, oh man, it’s unstoppable. Like over the last 12 months, it’s up over 10 % versus the dollar. And I would challenge anyone to raise their hands and say, I was long UK stocks or I was long the sterling. Nobody seems to be willing to be long sterling.

It’s like when you talk to European government bond traders and every time they need to find a short leg for something and I’m long, whatever, Greece, what are you short against it? France. They’re always short France. Everybody hates France on EGBs. And the UK seems to be the same on macro. Everybody wants to be short UK. Everybody wants to be short pound. This thing keeps rallying. So can you tell me what the hell is going on Brent, please?

Brent (07:15.027)

Well, you know, it’s interesting. Of course, the last couple of days, it got hammered on the Bailey comments. But in the months before that, I think honestly, part of this has been that the more vulnerable economies haven’t ended up being as vulnerable as people thought.

So like we’ve talked about this before in our writing and on the podcast is that if you look at the external vote or consumer debt or any vulnerability kind of measure, UK, New Zealand, Canada always look bad and it’s kind of been surprising like GDP growth has been pretty bad actually in those countries especially in Canada considering how much immigration there’s been and yet all you’ve got is and also there’s been rate cuts there and inflation has gone down but all you’ve got is kind of flat currency most of the time and I think in a way those countries were priced for some kind of I wouldn’t say a crisis exactly, but they were priced for dramatic underperformance and the performance hasn’t been, the economic performance hasn’t been bad enough to ratify the large short position.

So I think a lot of sterling, the sterling unwind in rates too, in rates and the currency was just people got very excited about like a really aggressive cycle from the Bank of England and they just never delivered. And then in the meantime, the CFTC has been building this huge long cable position, which has been a flow that’s been hurting obviously the specs that are short.

Alf (08:47.96)

Yeah, it’s the importance of understanding what the expectations are when you put up a trade. I remember distinctly… this was amazing. A headline hit my screens during, after Liz Truss was actually fired basically, or she wasn’t the prime minister anymore. It was the peak of the sterling crisis and there was a headline hitting my Bloomberg that says, Spectra Markets Brent Donnelly says there is nothing that can push the sterling down from here anymore. It was more about risk reward really where you said, look, everybody here is pricing that the UK is basically an emerging market crisis mode right now. What else do you need in terms of additional bad news to make the sterling go down?

This was almost the lows in the sterling. It made me think like, wow, this is intelligent as a thing to say because you are working on today’s set of information, which is extremely skewed and bearish on the UK. What else do you need to push the Sterling to go down further from here? And indeed, people I think are generally tend to obsess about wanting to be right or call it correct. It’s more about getting consensus off guard really. That’s the game we’re playing, I guess.

Brent (10:00.201)

And you know, it’s interesting actually, just thinking back to that, cause I remember one of the screenshots from that was like so and so, I can’t remember who it was, says UK has entered emerging market style bond crisis or whatever. And I remember screenshotting that and it reminds me of when dollar yen was at 160. And remember there was all the headlines like China’s going to deval, yen in crisis, dollar yen to 200. When you get a confluence of, like really emotional headlines like that. Sometimes it can be a reverse indicator.

Just one thing I forgot to mention on the data front, just as something that I think is interesting. So manufacturing ISM came out this week and it kind of blows my mind that we still look at that. If you look at the evolution of the US economy over whatever the last 30 years, services jobs have gone from 64 million to 120 million, and manufacturing jobs have gone from 18 million to 13 million in the US. So when manufacturing employment comes in at whatever, 43.7, it’s literally meaningless. Like manufacturing hasn’t added a single job to the economy in the last 30 years. It’s been a negative to the economy.

So whether ISM manufacturing employment is 28 or 67, it just doesn’t matter. So I think… I think there’s a legacy aspect to the two ISMs and the manufacturing one, you know, obviously used to mean a lot more back in the day when it was called NAPOM or National Association of Purchasing Managers, but it’s just not meaningful anymore.

So there’s this tension between some of the newer data like JOLTS, which nobody really watched before 2017 or so, and then the stale older data like manufacturing ISM. And I think it’s good to recalibrate your models or your mental models to the newer and more relevant data like JOLTS, which I think is much more important than manufacturing ISM.

Alf (12:01.356)

sometimes I’m still surprised of how old are you to call things NAPOM? I mean, it’s just impressive. Just kidding. Look, the other, I mean, soft surveys have been like a disaster in trying to predict where actual economic activity is going to go. And we have talked about it for a while. The most important thing that I found here is that the response rates, Brent, are extremely low.

Like if you look at how many people are actually replying to these surveys, it’s sometimes like discouraging. You’ll find like 35 % response rate and you’re like, is there any significance if most people aren’t even replying anymore to these surveys? And unfortunately, it is a problem if you’re a micro investor because for example, there is a very tight relationship between Eurozone PMIs and actual economic activity in the Eurozone. So you can use the PMIs and you will see the ECB even mentioning the PMIs as a way to say economic activity from a nowcast perspective is low, therefore we’re going to be more accommodative.

But if we can’t rely on these soft surveys anymore, it becomes a little bit harder to triangulate where economic growth is, which is again, it’s probably the job of a macro investor to always challenge yourself. Like, I looking at the right stuff? Is it relevant today? I know you don’t care about JOLTS quit rates, but they are relevant right now because guess what? Mr. Powell keeps mentioning the quit rate in the JOLTS report, so you should look at it too. It’s a very nimble game and sometimes a bit confusing too.

Brent (13:34.993)

And I’m going to put up this crazy chart in the video version of the podcast, but I’ll describe it a little bit for the audio listeners as well. So generally, like you said, there should be some forward looking aspect to ISM data. Like you should be able to use it to forecast. Otherwise, obviously it’s meaningless. And so if you chart ISM today against GDP over the next 12 months, you would expect that would have a positive slope. Like if ISM is higher, then you’re going to get stronger GDP.

And that was the case in the nineties. That was a case in the two thousands. That was a case pre COVID. And if you look at post COVID, the slope is actually completely the other way. So the lower the ISM, the higher the growth has been a year later. And the slope is so steep. So it should be this flat slope, bottom left to top, right. And it’s actually the opposite. It’s, it’s crazy to look at. I’ll put it in the podcast.

And then just talking about manufacturing, I guess the really big question in my client base this week is whether China stimulus in the stock market will flow through to the real economy. So you kind of have two scenarios. One’s a financial story and one is an economic story. And so that actually may be one reason to watch some of the manufacturing PMIs around the world because you’ll get the China data, you get the loan data, PPI and things like that in China, which will be useful. But you may actually see if there is a China reflationary vibe, you might actually see it in some of the German and US data as well.

Alf (15:11.932)

I think it’s here we need to talk about two different things that people are always confusing. One is markets and the other is the economy. So now the Chinese have been very, very smart at engineering, basically a stop loss facility for people. So it’s like, hello, we’re going to have people pledge collateral to get money and go buy stocks. we suggest you don’t short because there is this facility here and people can just borrow and stop you out basically by buying the lows.

And so a lot of people were shorts, definitely. A lot of people were short in China. It makes sense, right? It was an economic sensible idea to be short Chinese stocks. And then you get stopped out, fair enough. And then you have spillover effects in Aussie dollar and copper and so on and so forth. But now we’re moving to the fact that people are watching this line go up on the FXI ETF, the Chinese stock market ETF. And they say, man, China is booming.

No, the Chinese stock market is rallying. Sure. China is booming is not an automated consequence of the first assumption. So let’s make an example. In 2011, 2010-2011, I distinctly remember that after the first QE rounds from the Fed, the market was completely freaking out. You know, you would have every day an editorial that said, policymakers are irresponsible. This is money printing. This is gonna break America. Inflation is gonna go through the roof. QE, these guys are crazy. They’re printing money.

And because you had every day this theme going on, you basically had for a few months the bond market completely freaking out. So you had like the long end selling off and you have all these trades put up to basically protect against an inflation tale that comes from QE’s money printing. Well, we had Japan do QE 15 years before and nothing happened there, but okay, people have a short memory. So they said in the US it’s going to be different, QE is going to be inflationary.

You couldn’t convince anyone else that this was not going to happen. It’s like, dude, here is the accounting, they’re printing bank reserves. It’s not going to do anything to inflation immediately, not at all. You couldn’t convince anyone. And so people translated what was happening in the market with what was going about to happen in the economy, which of course it wasn’t true.

And so guess what? There was no inflation spike. There was nothing else. But the problem is how do you fade that? Because you have a clear trend ahead of you and people are interpolating the market reaction into the economics reality. And I’m afraid with China so far, it looks a little bit like the same.

Brent (17:52.049)

Yeah, that’s the thing is that it creates this sort of mirage of correlation because the announcement effect, obviously anybody that’s short copper or long Aussie or anyone that trades FX and thinks it’s going to be reflationary is going to buy Australian dollars. And that’s all happening on the stimulus announcement. But then if you look at like ‘09 to ‘11 is a pretty good comparison or the stock market bubble in 2015 in China. And we’ll put some charts up… that really neither of those times were the stock market and the commodity market, which were they correlated.

And I would say the commodity market is a much better reflection of whether there’s actual reflation happening. And in 2015, mean, Chinese stocks, I think they tripled or something like that. And copper was going down the whole time. So there’s this thing called Goodhart’s Law, which says that if something becomes a target, then it loses its value as a measure. And I think Goodhart’s law applies here in that the stock market in China as a measure is meaningless now as a measure of economic growth because it’s become a target.

It’s like, if you’re standing outside and it’s really cold out and you have a thermometer in your hand and you put the thermometer into a cup of hot coffee and you see the temperature going up, it doesn’t really mean that ice cream sales are gonna go up. It’s just that you know, you’ve distorted the measure.

So I think it’s important for people that are trading all these proxies to understand that if you’re long these proxies on the China story, it really doesn’t matter what the stock market does now. What matters is what the economic data does and what commodities do and how commodities react to the growth variable. And you know, Chinese stocks can be a three bagger from here and copper could end up lower.

And actually an interesting sort of weird mathematical aspect to the way that copper and the stock market traded in that period of the stock market bubble in 2015 is that they were positively correlated, but copper went down a lot and stocks went up a lot. So on any given day, the directional change did correlate, but because copper barely ever went up, the rallies were small and the sell-offs were big. There was an asymmetry. So stocks went up, copper went down, and they were positively correlated, which I think is sometimes a bit of a confusing thing for people.

Alf (20:20.088)

Fair enough. So in general, I would say that the lesson here is that if you were long Chinese stocks because you expected the Chinese policy makers to stimulate the economy, so far you made money for the wrong reasons, which is completely okay. It happens all the time to me too.

Brent (20:44.979)

That’s the best way to make money.

Alf (20:46.684)

I am so lucky sometimes I was in a trade and then something gets announced and bam you make money. And then you try always as well to attach an ex-post narrative that explains how smart you were. And in this case what people are doing is like you see, I was right on the stimulus and that’s why Chinese stocks are rallying.

Frankly there is the only way that China can stimulate the economy here is credit or fiscal and on credit the private sector guys it’s topped, wherever you look at. Corporates were topped in 2016 already with leverage. Households, well, we have seen what happens to household leverage when you exaggerate on the housing market. They are not going to volunteer to show up and get more leverage. So the only guy left here is the government.

So fiscal stimulus. So have you ever seen any detail about how China is going to apply fiscal stimulus in size? Remember the size of the Chinese economy. So now we all say basically that the US needs to do a trillion more a year and that’s what we consider to be proper fiscal stimulus. A trillion dollar, do you know how many trillion yuan that is? It’s a lot of trillions of yuan. So when you start seeing stuff like 10 trillion yuan in fiscal deficits announced, yes, then you’re stimulating. Before you see that, the reality is that they’re not doing much from a fiscal perspective yet, yet. We’ll see what they figure out going forward.

Brent (22:07.953)

And another challenge with this trade is that essentially what the government has done is put in a bottom and truncated the left side of the distribution. But it doesn’t necessarily mean that the stock market has to go up, up and away. What it can mean is that the trade is to sell puts, not buy calls. And definitely what people have been doing based on the data is buying calls. And really, maybe it just ends up eventually being more bearish volatility and bearish puts, but we’ll see.

One, just a little bit more micro thing, but China’s going to come back. So it’s golden week from national day, which was Monday to Monday. So Tuesday, China will come back, which would be Monday night in New York. And that should be a pretty big event because the market and people in China have had now a week to digest. Obviously some other markets are open, but mainland China has not been open.

So I think when the mainland comes back, you could see a lot of volatility on what would be Monday night, New York time. I just want to mention that because I think it’s an interesting setup from an options point of view, because generally if you look at something like non-farm payrolls, it’s just, it’s a known event that’s on the calendar. Every single options trader in the world knows what their markup is going to be for that event and the market prices it very efficiently. It’s always a little bit too expensive relative to realized and there you go.

But then sometimes there can be an edge in something that is like quote unquote an event, but isn’t actually a calendar event. And I think this qualifies as that. So I think when China reopens, you’re going to see a lot of volatility and that volatility just for that day or that those couple of days is probably underpriced because it’s just not clear enough of an event for option market makers to price in. But yet, I mean, things could be moving absolutely all over the place. I mean, up, down, sideways, all over the place. I think that’s an interesting setup.

Alf (24:10.252)

I can see the Chinese option makers putting in their model like, what’s the probability that Chinese retail people are gonna behave like crazy maniacs and keep buying? Please model, tell me how to price this option. It’s impossible basically.

Brent (24:25.872)

And actually, just speaking of that, so an interesting parallel to 2015. So in case anyone wasn’t around in 2015, I’ll just give the quick summary. But there was a stock market bubble in China in 2015, and it didn’t lead to any good economic outcomes. You know, commodities went down. Eventually they devalued as well. So there wasn’t really anything great happening economically, but the stock market tripled or whatever.

And one of the features of that was very similar to 2021 when everyone had to open a Coinbase account at the highs in Bitcoin. There were a lot of account openings, like so many account openings in 2015 that you had to rescale the Y axis. And this week has actually been similar. So you saw like websites crashing in China because so many millennials and zillennials were trying to open new accounts.

And actually they were flooding the branches of the Chinese brokerages because they wanted to open accounts so badly and the websites weren’t working. So they were physically running to the offices. And to me, that reminds me more of 2015 than any legitimate kind of, know, more like a crypto bubble than a real economic reflation.

But like I said, I mean, I think if it’s a reflation story, which I do believe is possible, you’re going to see it in the data. But the problem is, whenever you have like an announcement like this and then you’re waiting for the data, there’s always this baton pass problem where the hot money, fast money, specs will react instantly to the announcement effect, but then the real money is not going to come in until you actually see the rubber hit the road and the data.

So you have a baton pass issue for a few weeks or a month or two where the announcement effect people have bought, but there’s no marginal buyer now for a little while because everyone’s already long, so we’ll see what happens.

Alf (26:21.366)

Yeah, I also have this thing that I look at sometimes, which is the distance from the 200-day moving average. A very simple indicator just tells you how much have you boomed up or down versus a slow moving average, a 200-day. And you then standardize it, right? You want to know like how many standard deviations are you away from the 200-day moving average.

I did that for Chinese stocks just for fun. We’re like four standard deviations away. Four standard deviations away from the 200 moving average. Above this, you only got two times since last 20 years when the Chinese stock market ETF exists. Those two times are 2007, everything mania. So people were buying everything they could get their hands on. Doesn’t matter, Chinese stocks, everything. So well, we could get again there.

Sure, if it’s like a 2015, 2016 mania, yeah, sure, again, you can go that, but that was not fundamentally justified. It was just like a frenzy, a bubble basically. And then the second time, interestingly, Brent is 2009. And in 2009, China did deliver a very fat ass stimulus for real in that case. It wasn’t fiscal that much. It was more about credit creation, but they created a whole lot, freaking lot of credit. So the economy was inundated with money basically.

And it’s interesting because they, these guys seem to do it very counter-cyclical, right? They want weakness elsewhere, then they print and then they stimulate their economy and maybe they are in a better position than you know to go and acquire foreign shares, trade shares, foreign assets, whatever they’re looking for at a discount.

And so yeah, those are the two moments when Chinese stocks went up versus their moving average even more than today. So you choose it. Either you think it’s a full mania or you think that China is gonna stimulate for real. Ball is in your court.

Brent (28:14.569)

And one thing here, I want to remind people to go to the show notes, click on the conference thing. So the conference is going to be $499, but the coupon will be for $200 off, so it’ll be $299. And it’s only going to be good for four days, so I just want to remind people to go in there, sign up for the conference.

Alf (28:32.13)

Do it, buy it, only the first 100 people, hurry up, code TMTF and again my Italian accent guys handle it, TMTF. Anyway, go.

Brent (28:41.873)

And there’s so many things to talk about. This week we’ve gone a little bit more speed round than usual because there’s just so much going on. We should probably quickly touch on the Middle East. I feel like generally including geopolitics in your trading and investing framework is not always a winner. It’s more often a loser simply because it ends up being this huge tail risk that usually thankfully does not actually happen.

And so the market will aggressively price in this massive tail, even if it’s a small probability. But I mean, there’s been conflict in the Middle East since I was a little kid and these things continue. And sometimes they can escalate, but very often they remain contained. And so it’s very, very difficult to make money trading geopolitics, even if you knew what was going to happen. I mean, there’s this long history of, the second the bombs drop, equity start rallying from there. It’s essentially every single time it’s always buy the rumor, sell the fact.

So I generally try to avoid it, but you can’t completely ignore it, especially from a risk management point of view. And obviously in 2022, I mean, even though oil came all the way back down, it was up there for a long time. So you can’t completely ignore it. But what I tend to do is as a short-term trader, mostly fade it.

And as a bigger picture, in any bigger picture trades, I just factor it into risk management. So you know, like, okay, if I’m short oil over the weekend, there’s a lot more gap risk than normal because things are tense in the Middle East. But I’m never going to be long oil because things are tense in the Middle East. just doesn’t work well enough.

Alf (30:26.872)

This brings back a framework I think we both use when thinking about the risk. A risk is a function of two things. It’s probability of an adverse event times the magnitude of that adverse event. And now what’s happening here is that every time there is the risk of a war or an escalation of that perspective, people only think about the magnitude, which actually is correct. You should think about if there is a war and we can’t produce any freaking oil anymore in the Middle East, well, the magnitude of that impact is going to be very large, right? On oil prices.

Okay, I get it. I’m with you. What about the probability of that happening? Because a full scale Middle East conflict, it’s not something that happens every day, is it? Actually, generally speaking, the times in which this has happened in a way to impair oil production in a massive way, well, those are not a lot. You can count them on probably one hand, going back a few decades.

So again, probability in this case is very low. Magnitude is high, potentially, but people tend to look at magnitude only, I think, and then they lose a bit sight of the risk equation.

Brent (31:33.885)

Right, and there’s two other factors I think that come into play. One is that if you’re long a risky asset as a trader and you see that headline of missiles being launched, you just sell. Because if you’re long, you don’t want to be long while that’s happening. So there’s a knee jerk aspect.

And then I think the other thing is that just fundamentally on a human level, these things are scary, right? Like, you know, human beings are dying. It’s not a joke. So when you see those headlines, you also have a visceral human reaction, which is fear. And that fear also makes you sell.

And I don’t want to sound like this will sound kind of cynical, but also practical, I guess. But really one way you can think about these things is, is this going to affect US corporate earnings? If yes, sell stocks. If no, don’t sell stocks. And I think that’s like a good way of trying to stay rational because you know, war is a scary thing and you are naturally as a human being gonna feel some fear instinct. And so generally I try to think of like, okay, does this actually matter for the stock market? And usually the answer is no, even though maybe that’s a sad inhuman thing. You the stock market is just a machine.

Alf (32:50.412)

Fair enough guys, we are about to close on a sad Middle East war escalation thing. So let’s not do that. Let’s remember that life is not so bad after all. Well, I think that the only thing left to say is that we are very excited about doing this thing. It’s going to be a few weeks before the elections. Please consider taking a look. There is the description below. Go, click. There is a link. There is a coupon.

Thanks for your support anyway, even if you decide not to be in this conference. We still love you, don’t worry.

Brent (33:26.985)

Alright, thank you everybody for listening and for watching. See you next week. Thanks, Alf. Ciao.

Alf (33:32.205)

Ciao!

Professional skills for finance.

Tap into the wisdom of the most respected names in global markets. Connect theory to practice and advance your career.