The Lion's Den

In the latest episode of The Lion's Den, Terry Sawchuk is joined by returning guest, Paul Hodges. Paul is a trusted advisor to major companies and has a proven track record of accurately identifying key trends in global marketplaces. He is the chairman of New Normal Consulting and a Global Expert with the World Economic Forum.

Show Notes

All the views discussed in this podcast are strictly Terry Sawchuk’s opinion.

In the latest episode of The Lion's Den, Terry Sawchuk is joined by returning guest, Paul Hodges. Paul is a trusted advisor to major companies and has a proven track record of accurately identifying key trends in global marketplaces. He is the chairman of New Normal Consulting and a Global Expert with the World Economic Forum.

In this episode Terry and Paul discuss some of the following topics:
  • Auto Loan Market
  • Europe
  • Food Price Inflation
  • Putin
  • Geopolitics
  • Ukraine Vs Russia
  • Horsemen of the Apocalypse

Like what Paul Hodges has to say? Read all of Paul's articles at https://new-normal.com/author/paul-hodges/ 

Any information discussed in this article is for educational purposes only. It is not meant to be any kind of recommendation or financial advice. The information contained in this video is intended for informational purposes only. Any opinions are those of Terry Sawchuk and not necessarily those of JW Cole Financial, Inc. or JW Cole Advisors, Inc.

Securities offered through J.W. Cole Financial, Inc. (JWC) Member FINRA/SIPC. Advisory services offered through J.W. Cole Advisors, Inc. (JWCA). Sawchuk Wealth and JWC/JWCA are unaffiliated entities.

What is The Lion's Den?

Looking to grow your wealth, improve your business savvy, or finally perfect that golf swing? Join Terry Sawchuk, Founder and Chairman of Sawchuk Wealth, every other week as he shares insights into today's financial markets and interviews passionate experts across a range of interesting topics, including psychology, health and wellness, business and more. If you are curious about ways to improve your overall quality of life, you are definitely going to want to tune in.

[00:00:00] Terry: So Paul, I read your last newsletter and I read the note that you sent me in the email. And so I wanna go back to your last newsletter because I'm really fascinated by the index that you created, that leads the S and P by roughly three months, your sentiment indicator. Because when I looked at that and mind you, this was back in, you know, the very end of July when I read it.
And so there's been a little bit of movement in the market since then, but, you know, based on what I, I saw at the time, it looked like your leading indicator suggested that the S and P could drop. Maybe to another 35% below where we were, or maybe that was to a maximum of 35% year to date. I couldn't, wasn't really sure how to read that part, but either way, based on what you're seeing, the people that are telling us that the bottom was put in in June are probably mistaken.
[00:01:14] Paul: Yeah. I, I mean, to be clear what the, the sentiment in index isn't meant to be a very precise on Thursday, it, the S and P will go to, you know, 2000, something like that. You know, what it's doing is it's taking two measurements, one, really one of a, of a factual kind, which is the advanced decline ratio and the, and the second Senti.
Indicator so publicly available and we put those together. And what we saw as you, as, as you've seen in, in the index is that you've got a very, very good visual correlation between movements in the S and P for the last 20 years and movements in that sentiment indicator. And then when we moved, when we looked at it in more detail, but it took us quite a long time to develop that we thought, you know, the market looks as though it's gonna fall, let's try and get something that will help people in this area.
Took us quite a bit of time in November, December to develop that. And we tried it out in the report and said, well, you know, fingers crossed. Let's see if we're right. And so where we are having looked at it and seen it operating is that the best correlation is if you move the index three months forward.
And now I, I don't want to claim too much for this because you know, there's always a danger of, of overclaiming and so on, but. On that basis. If you look at what the index said, it said you should expect a rally around July and August, and then it goes down again. Now, as, as I said, I don't want to give the impression that this is a hard and fast.
Oh, well, that's all I have to do. And so on.
[00:02:52] Terry: Right? Probably that simple.
[00:02:55] Paul: Yeah, if it was all that simple cleverer people be than me, would've, would've asked would've done it. But what it is doing is it's saying the general direction is generally right. Sometimes the index is a bit more extreme up or down.
Uh, sometimes it's bang on, uh, you know, say you you've gotta use it with judgment, but it's what we think it's doing is it's saying, look, if you're feeling a bit nervous about the market, well, you know, that frame is so wall street phrase, you know, we wouldn't advise or worry if you wanted to lighten up a bit on your holdings.
[00:03:31] Terry: No, that's great.
And I find value in your indicator. I, I think that you're onto something and nothing's perfect, right? Yeah
I am curious cuz we've had conversations and while you, and I haven't necessarily always had the same opinion on where things are going. I have to say that, you know, to your credit, you've been right quite a bit.
And I really appreciate that. And so I look at this and the, the macro picture as you call it, the, the horseman of the apocalypse. And we may add a, a fourth one in recently, which maybe we can get to and you can elaborate on that. But before we do that, I think there are in my gut. Right. And this could just be false, you know, there, there it's the boogeyman.
Right. But my, my gut is telling me that this feels a little bit like where we were in September of oh seven. Heading into oh eight, where there were signs that there were cracks in the system, but they were getting glossed over and federal reserve said everything is okay. You know, then it was, you know, Ben beak came out and said, the markets are fine.
Right? And here we are today, right? The fed is telling us that a soft landing is possible and you've got people on wall street that are basically saying, look, the earnings numbers are still good. Unemployment is still reasonably strong. Therefore we cannot be in recession. Right. And I look at this and I'm just like, I can't tell you exactly what it is, Paul, but it feels to me like there are cracks in the system that were similar to subprime, but certainly it's not gonna come from housing this time.
Right. We know housing as far as like where that's at, there's more equity in these homes than there was back then. The ninja loans are gone. The lending practices are very different in the housing market, but there's other shadow lending that's been going on that I don't think anybody can really entirely get their head around unless you're in that business explicitly.
Right. And so that's what I'd like you to share with us a little bit. If you have any particular insights as to where the cracks in the system might be and where is the scary stuff that we're not hearing about? I think I've got.
[00:05:50] Paul: Two answers really one to answer your direct question. I think that the auto loan market is a big problem area because what you've seen is a massive increase.
I think, remember the number is something like 14% of household debt is now in, in autos. And the issue with auto is you just can't do your job or look after your family, many places without a car. So, you know, if you look at the way that that volume has, has wrapped up, that worries, we would come back to that.
But secondly, whilst I agree with you, that it definitely has that feeling of sort of bear stones moment and so on. And, and others that, that we've seen. I think there's something more to it than that. And it ties in with the, uh, the comment from the president of the European central bank today, you know, Christine Lagarde in that, what we've got today, To me is much more similar to the 1970s and eighties in that what we're looking at today is Putin president Putin in Russia, weaponizing natural gas.
Right. And you know, he's already cut flows to Germany down to 20%, and this is August. So, you know, he's pretty clear. He's gonna cut one completely sometime.
[00:07:03] Terry: Why hasn't he done it sooner? This is the thing that I don't understand from his standpoint. Right. It's like, if you're, does he just need the cash? Is that why he hasn't?
[00:07:12] Paul: No. No. I don't think it's anything to do with cash at all. It's just psycho psychologically. I think that he, he originally thought, sorry, we've gotta back up a moment. Yeah. Okay. So you have Merkel in charge in Germany, and you can question why Merkel put so much effort into developing this relationship with Russia that made Germany so vulnerable.
To Russia in spite of warnings from the international energy agency, from, you know, president Bush, Obama, we no need to go there, but I don't think he understood that odor Schultz as chancellor is a different guy. So I think his original just as he didn't understand that Joe Biden was not Donald Trump.
You know, if you go back to the invasion in February, I don't think for a moment he expected that a us president would, would start had indeed been giving weapons and training to the Ukrainians for the past six months or that the west, the Germans and the French. And so would rally round. I think, you know, his idea was we're going to invade, uh, Ukraine will be into Kiev in a couple of days, you know, here's a, we've got a thousand tanks it job done.
So he miscalculated there and he also, I think, miscalculated with Schultz. Because Schultz is a new chancellor and he, he doesn't give the appearance of being very dynamic. He's a very solid German. I use that phrase in the, in the best possible light
[00:08:36] Terry: mm-hmm .
[00:08:37] Paul: In other words, he doesn't rush to a judgment. He doesn't make headlines and say, oh, this and do that. And so on. But boy, is he effective? He's been up to Canada. He's signed, uh, deals with, with Canada. He's been out to, uh, Qatar. He worked that you couldn't put new pipelines in very quickly, but you could find some LNG tankers and convert them, you know, and so on. He's, you know, he's done a heck of a lot, but it's been, you know, quiet, studied, methodical.
And I don't think, therefore coming back to your question when Putin invaded, okay, he got pushed back on that, but he thought, well, you know, the Germans they'll be very slow and you know, Europe gets act together and so on. Oh, hang on. Suddenly they started to fill in the gas damage storage. So suddenly pew Eugene had to start cutting back much earlier than 20.
Cause I think that what he was intending to do was to toy with them and let them see them doing nothing, you know, as Merkel had done nothing for years. So there we are. And then in October, November, boom, all your gas has gone now, are you gonna be sensible or not? You know, because you he's made it very clear in public statements that what he wants to do is to restore the boundaries of the former Soviet Union. So he wants Poland back. He wants east Germany back. He wants all those countries back behind the iron curtain.
[00:09:55] Terry: Let me ask you a question. Do, do you think that with respect to we'll call it Europe, but in particular Germany's response, you and I are financial guys. And certainly, um, I know that you spend some time on FinTwitt as they call it or financial Twitter, and you know, it's a mixed bag, right? There's some brilliant people. And then there's some idiots with loud voices and there's everything in between, right? Yeah. What I'm curious about with respect to Germany in particular, but I, I think you could extend this into other parts of Europe as well. Although I think based on what I'm gonna say, little, I know about the rest of Europe as a whole, is that response and their preparedness heading into this winter is much better than what it was originally purported because you get a lot of these people that are screaming around this idea that there's gonna be energy shortages and, you know, Europe is just basically doomed. But as I understand it, the L and G now, or the natural gas supplies are back up to 80%. And by maybe November, they could be as high as 90%. So at least today it doesn't look. Now, obviously weather is gonna have some say in how this all plays out, of course, but there doesn't look like there's gonna be any real shortages in Europe over the next.
[00:11:21] Paul: I, I, I don't agree with that at all. Let me just, and
[00:11:23] Terry: that's why I'm asking.
[00:11:24] Paul: Yeah, sure. Let me just take you back for a moment, Terry, because the parallel with what we've got today is the seventies and eighties. So some of the, uh, the viewers will remember the dual OPEC cutbacks on the, the O boycots and so on quotas.
And so you had the first one in 73 to 74, which crashed everything. And then you had the second one in 79, which took till 85. To, uh, to get through and what they were doing was they were weaponizing oil on behalf of a political objective. So 73 was all about the, uh, the Arab Israeli war and the Palestinian situation.
And then 79 onwards was around the, uh, Iranian situation. And what happened of course, was that in those, you know, in those days, oil went from memory two bucks, a barrel early 73, up to 10. So around sort of 70 or 80 today, and then in 79 80, it went from 10 up to the equivalent of 90 or so a hundred. They went up to 30, 30 bucks.
And I remember I was, you know, I came to work in, in Houston, in 85 for ICI and everybody in Houston believed, okay, the prices stopped at 30, but it will go to a hundred. So there was a very strong pressure by that stage, that where we were going. But what Putin has done is more dangerous because natural gas is not only a fuel.
but it's also the key raw material for ammonia, without which you don't get fertilizer mm-hmm . And if you don't get fertilizer, half of the world can't be fed. Yeah. That wasn't a typo half of the world, you know, our world and data has the data there. So, and what you are already seeing, it's all around looking at the right figures at the right time.
And judgment comes into this. If you look at inflation inflation in the states dipped a bit because the oil price came down. It's the end of driving season. Things like that, the release from the SPR, all that sort of thing, but food price, inflation didn't. Food price inflation went up to 10.9% and food price inflation has been rising every single month for a year.
And if you talk to farmers, I, I did a, did a keynote speech for the, uh, one of the main American agricultural societies. And, uh, they have to have this sort of biannual trip out out, and I always do their keynote for them. And what was very clear was that farmers are facing an appalling time that the cost, the cost of amonia amonia and fundamentally has gone up tenfold in the last six or nine months.
And you can't pass that on because people haven't wages haven't gone up that much. I was struck, you know, there's all sorts of anecdotal evidence. You know, I was struck by Nordstrom. Saying, even if we cut the price to near zero, people still can't buy it. There's a lot of people out there who don't have very much money mm-hmm and the, the oil price has gone up a bit, go to a hundred bucks or so it's been there for a while.
That's, that's a problem, but the real problem is food prices. And that's what I mean by weapon weaponizing it. And so what we, what we are seeing today is the equivalent of the 1970s and eighties. But really more dangerous because it involves food as well as energy.
[00:14:38] Terry: Well, let's talk about that. Right? So it's one of the unfortunate byproducts is collateral damage, right? And so the people that are most at risk are gonna be the poorer countries that simply can't afford to buy the ammonia, the fertilizer, the vis-à-vis, the food. Right? So where I, I, I guess I'm missing this a little bit is, are you thinking that in Europe itself, there will be food shortages or are you thinking be more expensive?
So it's going beyond more expensive. This is,
[00:15:12] Paul: you, are looking in Germany. This is an official statement from the government that there are going to be, there's going to be rationing of natural gas because the thing that all these commentators, miss, is that your storage level going into winter is one thing but normally you are also getting replacement product coming through the pipelines. But what you have to assume is that there won't be any plus because Russia is more than 50% of Germanys, natural gas supplies.
[00:15:42] Terry: What the rest of Europe, what, what percentage is the rest of Europe dependent upon about 30% overall of all of Europe. And that's the reason that number's so high is because of how highly concentrated it is in Germany. Is that a fair statement?
[00:15:56] Paul: Well, I mean, well, if the thing is about that gas. It's relatively inflexible, so you, you tend to move it by pipeline. You know, you've got, Russia has a major source of natural gas from Siberia for decades. So you've got pipelines built out and people have become reliant on those pipelines.
And you've got, you know, countries in central Europe, for example, you know, they're not near shipping. So they couldn't buy it LNG. If they, there just isn't any, within the middle of central Europe, there is no natural gas supply. So you, you have to pipe it in from somewhere and you either pipe it in from Russia, or you're gonna have to ship it through LNG and pipe it in from Rotter down or from gener or from, uh, Tris store or wherever, or all of which is, is very expensive.
Once you look at moving natural gas by tanker, you are adding in two or 300 bucks because you've gotta cool it down to, you know, minus 120 or something. And, you know, in order to get into the, you know, to liquified it and then you've gotta unliquify it when it gets to the other end. So the, those, those terminals themselves are a couple of hundred million bucks and you don't spend a couple of hundred million bucks unless you feel you need to.
[00:17:05] Terry: So, let me ask you a question from the other side of this, right? I mean, it's not like Putin can redirect that pipeline from Europe to Africa or from
[00:17:14] Paul: no, no. Yeah, yeah.
[00:17:16] Terry: So, I mean, he's hurting himself in this process.
[00:17:19] Paul: He has, but Terry, this is geo politics.
[00:17:22] Terry: Yep.
[00:17:23] Paul: He couldn't care this. No, but there is no difference between Putin and Stalin and the Tsars. There has never been democracy in Russia. The Russians are used to suffering. That's what they do.
[00:17:37] Terry: you know, that's a fair statement. I understand.
[00:17:40] Paul: There is, there is, there is no democracy in Russia. Yes. You can see videos and TVs, Jos of some people in the cities, protesting and rally and so on. They're very, very brave people because they generally get locked up and beaten up and everything else. They're very brave people. But the majority, what Putin has done is he's positioned this as a continuation of quotes, the great patriotic war. And so our brothers in the Ukraine have been taken over by the Nazis, the Germans again, that's how he describes it. And he said, once we have liberated, that's the word. Once we have liberated the Ukrainian people from these Nazis, they will be marching with us into Poland and Germany. It's not about money.
[00:18:26] Terry: You're still firmly convicted that this is a long drawn out affair where Putin won't stop until he's, you know, essentially either been beaten on the battlefield in whatever way that looks like, or he moves into Poland and the Baltics and these other areas where he wants to, um, reinstall the iron curtain.
[00:18:49] Paul: Let's just look at that for a moment. What would happen, Terry, if, for example, Ukraine won regained not only the parts of Ukraine lost recently, but regained Crimea what would, what would Putin likely do?
[00:19:03] Terry: You know? That's a, I, I don't know.
[00:19:05] Paul: You know, well, I think, I, I think the, the odds are he would use technical nuclear vessels
[00:19:10] Terry: Because he doesn't wanna lose it's it's be, it's saving face much like a Chinese term saving face.
[00:19:18] Paul: Well, yeah, but I mean, I think, I think Putin is a psychopath. Okay. Stalin was a psychopath. They tend to do rather well. So if, if Ukraine were to win, that would not be very pleasant. What would happen if Ukraine lost, but he would do what he's done ever since he went into Syria, you know, he went into Syria, went into Chatney, went into Georgia, went into Crimea. Now he's coming in, he'd go into Poland. Poland's member of NATO.
[00:19:44] Terry: The question that I have is this, Paul, I understand conceptually the argument behind that. Practically though, I find it hard to kind of imagine that he has the resources to be able to do that. Right. Like over, I mean, first of all,
[00:20:00] Paul: He's, he's got, he's got more tactical nuclear weapons than any other country in the world.
[00:20:04] Terry: Yeah. But I'm not, but that doesn't solve the problem. Right. That doesn't
[00:20:09] Paul: I think world war II solves the problem.
[00:20:11] Terry: Well, no, I mean, so what does that do? I mean, it, it wipes out a bunch of humanity. It renders the land essentially useless. For wherever he deploys that, right. So whatever he gains is of no value, there's no human capital and there's no.
[00:20:26] Paul: Well, he's, he, he, you know, you, you are, you are thinking of him as a rational person.
[00:20:31] Terry: Oh, that's right. I I'm projecting rational thought process.
[00:20:35] Paul: Yeah. Yeah. There, there was an argument that Merkel put forward when she came in, which had been in fact put forward by Schroeder, which was that we ought to open up to Russia and we ought to bring Russia into the Western system in the way that we brought in China in the way that we brought in India.
And that if we build up trade that we build up dependence co-dependent on each other. So that's the best way of ensuring that things don't ever get to today's point. Now, a lot of us felt that was pretty naive .To put it mildly. But, you know, the, the theory was tried and it clearly hasn't worked.
[00:21:13] Terry: So, you know, when you think about markets as a whole Paul, if we, if we take this back to, how does this impact markets?
I mean, it's an incredibly bearish scenario because there's no good outcome. As you know, we would define it at this point, either Ukraine loses and the battle goes on and other parts of Europe and it gets more serious or Putin loses and the mushroom clouds.
[00:21:39] Paul: Well, and I mean, yeah, what, what, what, what you do is you play for time and I think that's what we do for the next five or 10 years.
We make sure Ukraine doesn't lose. Right. Also make sure you don't accidentally give them too much so that they.
[00:21:51] Terry: Sounds like a military industrial complexes, wet dream, right? Just keep sending bullets and guns and missiles and all this stuff. And they all continue to get rich.
[00:22:04] Paul: There's that element to it.
There's also sorry to go off it seemingly a tangent for a moment, but it's actually relevant. What we just back from our vacation up to, uh, we went up to Licia at, at Spain and you are surrounded by memories of the peninsula war, which is a little bit ahead of our time, but this is where we actually stayed in places when Napoleon's troops in 18, five to 18, 10 or so were going through setting fire to everything and, you know, doing all the things that troops do.
And at the same time, Wellington who was a general was there and Wellington realized that he didn't have the, the wherewithal in order to beat the podium. And so he developed this plan of masterly, inactivity and parliament, which was paying for all this would keep writing him letter saying, why haven't you attacked?
Why didn't you go there? Why weren't you doing there to which he would reply a very sorry gentleman. We tried to get there, but there was a problem with the river. And then some of the horses got sick. And I mean, we, I can't tell you how fast, how much effort we put into. We just couldn't do it because he knew if he gave battle, he would lose as a result.
That area was completely devastated by the French troops for five or six years. But in the end, then nap polling got diverted, went off to invade Russia that gave Wellington the chance. And the battle of Waterloo battle of Waterloo is a very, very close run thing. As they say, if the PR hadn't arrived when they did Wellington, would've lost, but.
Wellington's tactic in the end was proved to be correct. If he fought in Spain, he would've lost. And that would've been that he waited, it was painful. Everybody got upset. And I think that's the situation we're in today. You know, geopolitics, all I'm saying is geopolitics is not a new invention of the 21st century.
It's been around a very long time. It goes back to the, uh, uh, you know, to the Greeks and the Trojans. We've been fighting Troy for 10, 10 years. And then somebody comes up with the idea why don't we do a wooden horse?
[00:24:11] Terry: it's kind of like watching Floyd Mayweather box. I mean, in his later years, cuz all he did was run around and play defense.
Right. He put the, the shoulder up, he did the Philly shell. He moved around. He never got punched, but he never knocked anybody out either. was just like, you sat there for 10, 10 rounds or 12 rounds watching him dance and deflect punches all day long. But you know, it was just, it was mostly 10 rounds of frustration for the audience.
And I'm not saying, you know, as an audience, it's not like we want Putin to win or we, we want a loss on other side. So, or at least not on the Europe side. It's really just, but it as an audience, it's just kind of hard to watch that because there's just no movement. It's just kind of, well, yeah, I,
[00:24:51] Paul: I I'd reframe your, your comment Terry.
Because I think that what you're really saying is we need to look at this from a different angle mm-hmm . So we come back to financial markets for a moment. What we've seen in the past for the last 20 years or so has been a, a sort of cycle where demand begins to recover. And so prices go up. So inflation goes up.
So central banks raise interest rates and then interest rates being higher demand starts to come down. Therefore, a new cycle gets ready to go. And most of wall street has only seen, ever seen, you know, you you've gotta be 60 or so before you've seen anything else. Right. So that's what they've seen. And that's what they assume today.
And even, you know, some of the people I really respect are still saying, oh, you know, the fed can't possibly carry on raising rates. Well, interesting thing was Christine ARD, president European central bank saying, you know, our models don't work anymore. Because our models don't take account of geopolitics of energy prices and demographic.
And as a result, they've been underestimating the past two or three years, everything that's been happening. So what I'm, what I'm suggesting is that as investors, what we now need to do is to reframe this discussion in terms of, look, we can't change. What's gonna happen in Ukraine. We can't change what Putin is gonna do.
All we need to do is to say, what is the impact of geopolitics? What is the impact of higher energy prices, particularly natural gas prices. What's the impact of aging populations. And once we've got that in our minds, then we start to say, ah, Hmm, I wonder what that means for the Dow and the S and P I wonder what that means for emerging markets.
I wonder what that means for bonds. And now we can actually go and make some money or best avoid losing money.
[00:26:45] Terry: In every market, there's two sides to the trade. Right? If we go back, one of the things that I think is different Paul, about this time versus the late 1970s is the United States in particular.
Didn't have $30 trillion in debt at them. Oh yeah. Oh yeah. And China, I looked at your report. And they spent more than, or roughly 50 trillion in stimulus through COVID and everything else. And so you've got a radically different debt picture. Yeah. And so what, what do you say to the argument that it's a little bit like a poker game, right?
If we sit down and there's seven people at the table, we all know who the idiot is. So it's just a matter of if
[00:27:30] Paul: we don't then it's us. Right.
[00:27:32] Terry: That's right. But let's say we do. Okay. So it's not us. Right. Right. The outcome is inevitable. The idiot ends up losing his money. Right. Yeah. Cause you don't charge, you pay the other players.
Yeah. Well, in this case, what we know is that the fed is check made from a affordability standpoint, the 10 year treasury, arguably can't get above 5% because it, it would cause a catastrophic budget issue. Would it not?
[00:27:58] Paul: The question is why is the fed relevant? The fed was relevant. In the world where geopolitics energy prices and demographics weren't major issues.
But if you go back to the seventies, was the fed relevant? No, the fed only did one thing in the seventies, which was it followed through on the principle of taking away the punch ball when the party gets going. So exactly, as you say, Terry, there wasn't the debt buildup. Everything else happened the same, same way, but we didn't have that.
Now. We've had fed chairman since Greenspan who believed in refilling the cup. You know, if you, if you haven't got enough@gotafter.com, well, you better have some more. If you haven't got enough after subprime, you better have some more, you have a got enough after coffee. Well, do you better have a whole bucket full, drink it up quickly, boys and girls, do you think
[00:28:50] Terry: Powell is more vulgar or more
[00:28:53] Paul: Beaky you see?
I don't think it matters. Okay. I was working in the, in the seventies. We didn't know the defense chairman was. People today, who weren't there? Go on about Ulka. I have nothing against Paul Volker, but he didn't bring down inflation. If you, if you look at what, at what happened, inflation carried on quite happily for a while, until the geopolitics and the demographics.
And so on sorted themselves out. Paul Volker was a fine man, but you can't what I think Christine ARD was saying in her interview was don't expect central banks to actually be able to manage a global economy of coming up to 8 billion people. You don't have enough information to do that. You can't do it for 325 million people in the states.
How can you possibly come up with a model that takes in. Texas, Michigan, California, New York, everybody else. And so on and say, oh, this is the ideal person. And if we get that right there, then everything else, like I said, at dominoes or whatever is just absurd.
[00:30:05] Terry: Yeah, no, I, I understand what you're saying. I mean, the model is complex.
There's too many moving parts and there isn't
[00:30:11] Paul: there. We don't, we don't have enough information. We rely on, on data and some of the data look at oil. I trade on and saw down, down in Houston. If you look at it, people say gasoline demand went up. Kathleen demand went down so on. Okay. No, the only data you have is the data on the rack, the wholesalers, what the wholesalers have taken from the refineries.
Now I agree. That's better than nothing, but it doesn't tell you how much inventory. Individual service stations are taking. Right, right. It doesn't tell you how much inventory the moist has society to, to take. You know, if people think prices are going up, they build inventory. If they think prices are going to be stable, they tend to reduce it across costs money.
We have no information on that whatsoever. And that is the biggest part of the, of the inventory.
[00:31:05] Terry: I understand. I don't know if we have no information, but I don't know if we have enough information. I mean, hedge funds tend to find advantages there in different ways. And I guess in the big picture, right.
What my, my point really was as it relates to the fed itself. Okay. The look, the market sets the long term rates, the fed sets, the short term rates. Exactly. Yeah. And the fed is trying to walk a tight rope here. It's a job that I wouldn't want to have it's arguable in, in addition to the economic role that they play, that they play a political role too.
So there's, there's absolutely politics involved and they're, they're most definitely going to get pressure to kind of make things look a little better heading into the midterms. Right. I mean, doesn't matter which side of the aisle is in control. Whoever's in control is gonna exert the pressure. Right.
It's just the way it is. So I, I understand that part of it, but where
[00:32:00] Paul: I was let's look at Trump, you know, Trump, Trump hired power on the basis that he wouldn't increase
[00:32:05] Terry: interest. Yeah. And then, right. And, and he beat him up on Twitter all the time, right? Yeah. Yeah. I think where, where Trump did it on Twitter, Biden's doing it behind the scenes,
[00:32:13] Paul: sending his in Greenspan's memoirs, you know, he's, he's absolutely categorically clear that he was always getting dialogue.
Central central bank is just absurd.
[00:32:27] Terry: I mean, in a fantasy world. Sure. But in reality, that's not how things work. Okay. So I, I totally get that. And so let's go back to the horseman of the apocalypse. Right. Cause I really like that framing of things. How long do you think that this, what we'll call cyclical move towards the downside could potentially last
[00:32:49] Paul: I'm a data guy and it, you know, in the report alongside the last sentiment index, we put our view of, of how long this lasts.
Cause obviously that. Quite important he says, and I look at Sheila's Cape in secretly adjusted price earnings, because that seems to me a pretty good way of, of doing things that he got a Nobel prize for it. So who am I to second guess the fact that, you know, not a lot of people who know more about this than I do think that was a pretty clever thing to do.
And so if you look at the Cape valuations, there's only two years where we've been at these kind of levels. One was 1929 and we're above that. One was 2000 and we are below that. So what we, what we did, because the data is there for the S and P is, we said, right, let's take the day by day, go start from my, you know, 300 days before saying, see how it goes up and then, you know, map them out so that the peak in 29 is the same as the peak in, in January.
This year and the same as the peak in, uh, in 2000 and there we are. And what you see is that in both of those downturns, it was about six to 700 trading days. Mm-hmm
[00:34:09] Terry: it's two years, I mean, all
[00:34:11] Paul: years trading days. So yeah, as with my send of it in debt, I, I, I'm not claiming, oh, well, I've got the key of the universe.
And, and so on. I'm just saying, if you believe that the Cape index is a reasonable indicator, mm-hmm I do. If you think that we are there for, at a similar level, having peaked to what happened in 29 and 2000, you ought to believe that history is some sort of a guide and that that's how long it will take and what you saw after 29.
And what you saw after 2000 is that you don't go down 60 or 80% overnight. What happens if you go down and then people like Jim Kramer, come in and say, Hey, don't worry, guys. It's all great. Go back to the, back to the races again. And you know, other people then come in after that and say, oh yeah, we didn't believe that time.
But this time it really is. You know? And, and the only time you get to the bottom is when nobody appears. And they, all the conversations that, that people have are, well, it's gonna get worse, isn't it. And if there's nobody left to sell, then you probably hit a ball. It's like, you know, a top cause there's nobody left to buy.
[00:35:18] Terry: No, I, I, I, I see that as, as making a lot of, of sense, where would you pinpoint where you think this all started? Where did we hit the beginning of this? And if you, if you do the math, right, 280 trading days is roughly 75% of a year. So that's three years, right. Basically from start to finish. So where did
[00:35:38] Paul: this start?
So, so this, this, this I think is January 4th. It was just simply, you know, the, the S and P peak. Then, and so that's, that's a judgment call that we have Pete that we're coming down. Let's say, that's why we, what we developed. We felt we got to the point where there was nobody left by, and therefore we were inevitably going to go into a downturn.
And also for all the reasons that you, you know about from the report, uh, we were not particularly excited by the outlook. , you know, I
[00:36:09] Terry: think that's fair. That's
[00:36:11] Paul: a fair assessment. So that, that, that, that led us that. And, and so we, we followed that kind of trend. And the interesting thing, as I say, is that the sentiment indicator, which may or may not be right overall, we can hope it is, was saying around, you know, July or August, you would get the first of the rallies and then, you know, you and you'll get bigger rallies.
Mm-hmm as, as you, as you, as you go through. But you see if you take my view of the world further forward by saying, look, don't waste your time anymore. Looking at the fed. What unfortunately has happened though, at least my generation, we never knew about the fed. We never knew about
[00:36:48] Terry: the back. Well, you didn't have Twitter back then either.
So we
[00:36:53] Paul: had chats, you know, this over lunch
[00:36:56] Terry: was that cans with a string in between them is
[00:37:01] Paul: that've been to Canada. I've seen the original
So, uh, but you had, at that point in the seventies and eighties, you'd got some background in understanding politics, in understanding that France was different from America, that Russia was different from so on and so on. Uh, you understood more about energy prices and what, what went into them. And the fact that energy prices have always been since, since spindle top, they've always been a political.
You've only gotta think about standard oil and the tres busting. And you know, the tech, you know, when I went, went to Houston, it was only a year or so before that Ronald Reagan, as president had deregulated oil prices, because until I think it was 1982, the Texas railroad commission decided how much oil would be produced in Texas and at what price it would be sold and why the railroad commission, because it was the only one that had a reach right across Texas.
So it was natural in the thirties in order to protect people and OPEC, maybe talk to anybody from, from OPEC, they would tell you that the articles at OPEC were based on the Texas railroad commissions and principles. So, so this is nothing new, Texas did not want its O to be given away to the. Bit a bit of a history between north and south this, this was, this was the south rallying together, Texas and Louisiana and so on.
And so they, they priced their oil at the maximum price that they, they could in order to preserve their so, so it's all I'm saying is, so energy's always been political. It's just political on a bigger scale. It's
[00:38:44] Terry: global now, as opposed to regional, not, not only that, but if you look at geopolitical conflict, right.
You know, the Arab spring started over high food prices if I remember correctly. And so that has spur many revolutions, frankly. And so you could see as a military strategy to increase food prices in the lands of your enemies. Yeah. And create political instability, right. Economic instability. I mean, you could see that as a viable strategy, you know, and, and I, I do think just militarily from the United states' perspective, one of our, maybe our biggest vulnerability is our debt.
And certainly our. Could be used as a weapon against us. And you know, it's possible, there's some collusion between China, Russia, you know, and others, part of this is to create a new trade system that benefits them that reduces the reliance on the us dollar. But that would be just really for, for their own benefit.
But then as a byproduct or maybe the primary, or maybe that's the byproduct, but the other major product is that you force the United States into having to buy all of its own debt. Right? If the federal reserve becomes the buyer of last resort, because nobody else is buying American debt, I'm not saying it's gonna play out that way, but you could see where at least there's some thought behind how that could be used as a weapon against the United States.
[00:40:09] Paul: There's all sorts of things. You know, debt is, is never a, a very good thing. And the issue is that you have the consumer who in the west, in the eighties, nineties, And you wanted to bring China into the global economy and all that China could do because it was dirt poor. Most of China was earning less than $5 a day, so it couldn't buy anything, but you could get them, get them up and ladder if you like from $1 towards $5 and so on.
And so they would sell two to the west and to the states, but they had nowhere to go with their money. So they parked their money in the states, which Greenspan then used to finance the subprime. You know, this is a very well known story and they, and they continued to do that. Now, of course, China doesn't need to do that anymore because you know, what Trump did was, was to break a 40 odd year pattern where Nixon had gone to China and then following that with Dan Reagan, everybody else, and it opened up and the idea was, yes, there would be bumps in the road, but what, but China and the us were the two biggest economies and they would work together.
The bigger issues. Trump blew that all outta the water. So now China doesn't trust America anymore. And Pelosi one, one
[00:41:27] Terry: could argue that China's not very trustworthy either.
[00:41:30] Paul: well, you know, all I'm saying is there was a policy Kissinger developed it and it worked and Trump came in and blew it outta the water.
Mm-hmm
[00:41:40] Terry: I mean, this is a typical populous movement, right? This happens all throughout history. Yeah. When the middle class becomes disenfranchised, right? Yeah. There's a populous movement. Well, I
[00:41:50] Paul: mean, the funny thing about it, you know, for an observer is that historically the people who hated trade agreements were the Democrats and it was the Republicans who wanted free trade for all the obvious reasons.
And if you, if you look at NA after, for example, Clinton only got NA after through. North American free trade agreement, as it then was with Republican votes. Mm-hmm the Democrat because they raised against him. And so this is why it was so unusual that inva Republican president went against a central tenant of Republican
[00:42:24] Terry: thinking.
Well, I think if you look Paul, I mean, both parties, they have shifted to where the Democrats, I, I think, used to be the party that cared about the lower class. Now they exploit them terribly. Yeah. And I think the, the Republicans have started to coalesce a little bit more like the traditional Republicans around some of the democratic stuff, mainly just because I view them all now, as part of the corrupt regime, our political system is essentially broken it
[00:43:00] Paul: ever really.
I mean, you know, I lived in Texas and is great. Great biographies of, of Lydon Johnson and so on. And Lydon Johnson lost his first Senate race because he was so confident of his votes that he told his districts to fill, fill the ballot boxes and declare them. And so his opponent then knew how many votes he had to put into the ballot boxes and looked Johnson lost and you know, is documented in that fantastic boat.
[00:43:27] Terry: Well, that's kind of funny Paul, because I thought we have the freest and safest elections in history. And you're telling me that, wait, I wanna, you're telling me that there's actually potentially corruption in the voting process. Well, there
[00:43:41] Paul: was corruption at that stage, but this is 1948, right. I,
[00:43:46] Terry: I mean idea that there, there isn't corruption in the voting process anywhere is
[00:43:50] Paul: absurd.
Oh, of course. Yeah. I mean, it's, it's, it's a, it's a, it's a level of, of things, but the other point was that Linda Johnson. With KBR money, your money used to have his on his envelopes and he would hand out envelopes with cash on the Senate floor, you know, so, so what we're talking about and, you know, the Kennedy win over, over Nixon and so on, you know, there's all sorts of stuff about that.
And so and so forth. So we've got a different type of financial influence and so on, on, on elections, but American American elections have never been clean in the sense that, you know, if I was a UN observer, I'd say, oh yeah, you know, doing a good job here.
[00:44:32] Terry: right. Well, I, I, that's the funny part. And it's, you know, it ebbs and flows each party, you know, the losing party comes is the other party of cheating.
That's just where we're at. And what's
[00:44:41] Paul: funny is that, you know, everybody thought that the Republicans would do well this time because they'd taken over the states in 2020. And so they would be able to gerrymander, but what the Dems have done by reading eight silver and 5 38, right. Is the Dems in their states.
But Gerry maned as. so now I, so we could, again,
[00:45:01] Terry: of course, and look the, the, I mean the election, like COVID changed the whole thing, right? The mail in ballot, the, the ballot boxes, stuffing, like you said, Lyndon Johnson knew exactly how many votes he had. So the other guy put two more than he needed in order.
Right. That's what happened. And if you look at, I
[00:45:20] Paul: don't think it's that way anymore. Terry, as I say, in those days, it was, you know, a paper ballot. And so, you know, the district captain, as it were, he had the chief of votes and he had the paid Mexicans, cause this is where it was happening in, in south Texas and so on.
And he just got to put their fingerprint on and the job was done. What you do today? I don't wanna get sued by the, uh, election machine piece. fair fair. I actually think that I actually think they, you know, they've done a pretty good job of automating that and making that rather difficult to fix, but what's what's happened has been the J, which is, you know, my background is, is equivalent to what happened in Ireland that you carve out, you know, areas which O you know, your voters are in, you give them the seats, and it's not a fair distribution.
And that, that to me, that's going on, of course, plus of course, this enormous amount of money that you now have to have to, uh, to run, run an election. We run an election in the UK and we run it in three weeks. We've got a population of 65 million. So, you know, okay, go five times 65, maybe it would, should be done in 15 weeks or something, but maybe you are brighter.
We could do it in 10 or something. And it's done with each candidate having a limited of about a hundred thousand pounds or something. Spend on, on leaflets and so on and very strict rules on how much money the parties
[00:46:44] Terry: can have. Yeah. That that's all great Paul, but the, in the United States and I'm, I'm sure it's this way in the UK to some degree also, but first of all, there's no contribution cuz it's not, you know, there's no paper trail on this, but the entire media complex has been leveraged.
So certain parties get complete unlimited, favorable coverage that they don't ever pay for. And the other parties either get only negative or no coverage at all. Right. Like the, the, we can go back, but the suppressing of the hunter Biden story, I mean that, that was very clear. All of social media got on one side of that debate.
Right. Regardless of whether that had anything to do with Joe Biden or not. Okay. Like were they
[00:47:30] Paul: linked? Who knows? Yeah. I'm not gonna do Terry. I mean the Henry Clinton email, why ever would a secretary of state have our own private email server? Absurd. Why on earth is that an ex-president think he can take confidential and seek very secret documents away with
[00:47:45] Terry: him.
Every president has done that. Obama took like
[00:47:49] Paul: the process is very clear cause I, we don't, we now all understand it, but, but all the, all the, the documents go to the national archives. And then you say, look, I've got my donors who are setting up my library and the NA archive said fine. As long as we can protect it there, then you can have them in your library.
But Obama never took their papers back to Chicago with.
[00:48:09] Terry: He took them somewhere else. And there were big truckloads of them, but that's not the point. I mean, the point is, you know, we, the, the reality is, you know, this is kind of what happens in the, in the political debate is we see the world the way that we wanna see it because of our own confirmation bias.
And in the end, the, the problem that I have with the political system as a whole is that. They just don't seem to be serving the true interests of the population. Good thing. Yeah. Yeah. And it's a frustrating thing to watch, right? Because you and I have some common sense. We could see the bullshit that takes place and we don't, and, and it's frustrating because for some reason, a good swath of the population I call 'em useful idiots just kind of fall in line to whatever their predisposed party thinking is.
And they don't wanna know about the stuff on the other side. And I I've gotten to the point where I, I want like outlier, free thinking candidates and I to here's a good example. Right. And you know, if I, my Republican friends would hit me with a baseball bat. I think if they heard me say this, but if you listen to Tosi Gabbard talk today, I think she makes a lot of interesting points and fair enough.
She's been, you know, kind of jettisoned by the democratic party for, for different reasons. And the Republicans would have issues with some of the things that she would say, but she's a free thinking person. Who's calls a spade, a spade, and there's, there's not really a home for people like that right now, because the two entrenched establishments want nothing to do with actual change.
And I, I don't know how you fix that. What really scares me, Paul. And I think, you know, depending on your worldview, but I would think that this should scare you also, right? But this idea of a central bank, digital currency, where the political entities can actually literally control all of the money. And I know it doesn't matter which side in of the political argument, you.
Okay. You look at what the Canadians did Trudeau did to the Canadian trucker Envoy. I don't care about the political movement when you can go in and de bank a bunch of people because, and censor their finances because of their political views. You know, it's only a matter Naval Ravikant who was one of my, I don't know if you know who he is.
He's one of my, oh, he's so smart. And he is apolitical. So he doesn't really give a shit too much about this side. Cause he thinks they're all, you know, self, uh, enriching bastards for the most part. But one of his sayings that I just think is brilliant and he may not even come up with this. I've just heard him say it.
But uh, if you want to test a good system, give it to your enemies and see how you like it. Right. Yeah. And I think, you know, in that sense, people that thought the Canadian truckers shouldn't be doing that. The people that thought that were probably perfectly happy and okay. With the fact that they got their bank accounts frozen and censored.
Right. But I would say then, well, what would you think if you put that kind of power in Donald Trump's hand, right. Yeah. Right. And that,
[00:51:10] Paul: I mean, I mean, you know, it's, it is simple than that. Isn't it? Terry, it's just wrong. Right.
[00:51:14] Terry: And that that's, what's really scary. Paul is, this is where we're heading.
[00:51:19] Paul: Look what China did in Henan when people went and protested that they couldn't get their money out of the bank and all their mobile phones went red and they had to go back home.
Cause they weren't allowed to go anywhere.
[00:51:31] Terry: That's the scary dystopian sort of surveillance police, state. Yeah. And we, we have to be careful. Because we are sort of marching down that path. And COVID, to me was an interesting test on the kind of compliance we could get through the use of fear and control and you know, the manipulation of the media outlets
[00:51:53] Paul: and all that stuff.
Yeah. Well, but there's also would be slightly positive. Here is also the example. Cause I'm hearing Portugal, we had the highest vaccination rate, the highest compliance rate, and there was no fear. There was nothing else. It was just, there was social solidarity. Portuguese people are very, very concerned about everybody.
Else's family mm-hmm and they under no circumstance. Were they going as a young person to put somebody's grandma at risk because of their behavior, but
[00:52:25] Terry: Paul, that that's great. Okay. So the, I, I would argue that the Portuguese, their values priorities are in a, in an awesome spot. Right, right. But that's a vulnerability that is absolutely something that could be weaponized and taken advantage of because the people that are pulling strings know exactly that about their behavior and said,
[00:52:45] Paul: Hmm.
One of the reasons why Portugal is why it is, is because 50 years ago, up to 50 years ago, it had Salar. And, you know, we, we had a dictator 19 20, 26 to 1974, and we had a pretty nasty detail with, you know, so people do remember all that. I, yeah, I would hope
[00:53:04] Terry: so.
[00:53:04] Paul: Right. Because they really don't wanna go back no.
And say in Spain, you know, so, so I mean, you know, equally they would come back to finance room. That's why the Germans are getting so upset about inflation. You know, that's why, I mean, I went to, as you know, I went to a buns bank meeting with you, ACHI NAGO president German, president of the buns bank, where he got in the media.
And he's saying we are not fixing inflation at all. This idea that we should be at 1% by 20, 25 is absurd. If we don't act now and fast and move inflation, that high, that move interest rates up to a sensible level, we are going to be back in the Republic. Yeah. What I think we have to recognize is that the fed and the bank central banks are not in control.
This inflation is high inflation will continue to go high. As long as beauty is doing what he's doing on energy and food, therefore we should expect. 5% interest rates relatively quickly and priority. We go to 10%. We may well go higher because if you go back,
[00:54:04] Terry: if you gonna get that high,
[00:54:05] Paul: Paul, why, why not?
I mean, why, why would anybody in their right mind? You know, I love you dearly Terry, right? You come to me for alone. Inflation is running at 8.6%. Why should I lend to you at a guaranteed loss of two and half percent or 3%, but whatever, why would I do it?
[00:54:25] Terry: Well either you just took great pity on me. and wanted to help out with your deep
[00:54:31] Paul: founded Generos.
This is, this is not the bank of, you know, I'm just saying there's an arms length and is not the bank of mom and dad. Uh, you hope for your kids as you know, but this is what will happen, you know? And you could see it now with the us housing market. Mm-hmm the us housing market is doing the classic stage of a massive of early stages of a crash.
It's gone up far too far, too fast. It's become unaffordable. It's been based on the bigger fool theory and now it will crash and probably prices will come down at least 50%. That's a
[00:55:00] Terry: big call, Paul. And that's interesting because the other side of that argument, and I'm not saying it's right, and I know you probably already know this, but I I'll just lay it out there because you're an intellectual and you like to have these discussions and debates.
That's how I learn. So the other side of that argument is, look, this isn't oh, 8 0 9 all over again, because I'm not saying it's well, but that's a that's as big of a drop in, in housing prices. No,
[00:55:25] Paul: I I'm. I'm a simple, simple, and I simply look at the house. Prices need to be connected to earning. So, you know, if you've got a rational house price yes.
Has been, it used to be four and a half times earnings. In other words, you had three times the man's earnings and one and a half time, the woman's earning because it was assumed that she would stop work for a while and have kids and so on. So, okay. We moved on from that to the dual income family. So, you know, you could say six as the, uh, as the multiple what's the average, uh, average income today, 70 grand, 80,000,
[00:56:02] Terry: 75,000, something like that.
[00:56:04] Paul: So multiply that six, seven is split four 50,000 or something. That should be the average price. It ain't. Yeah,
[00:56:11] Terry: I understand your, your perspective.
[00:56:13] Paul: All, all I believe is that if you, if you want to know the simplest way of, of doing finances, reversion to the meme, as Bo Farrell told us is the way to go.
[00:56:25] Terry: well, I, I could pick your brain all day.
It's been over an hour and, and I you've been super generous with your time and more. So, um, you put up with my silly questions and I, I appreciate this. I love, this is
how
[00:56:36] Paul: we learn. Isn't it. It's great. I, I really, really appreciate your time as well. I think that, yeah, it's very uncertain. You know, as, as a closing thought, what I think is we have to relearn at or learn for the first time, depending on our age, how to look at geopolitics energy prices and demographics mm-hmm
And we have to assume that the fed is not in control of events because the fed, you know, there's a famous phrase quoted of, of improvement with Stalin where Truman said, look, I think we could actually get the Pope on board with this. If you were to do this. And Starly looked at him and said, Hmm. And how many divisions has the Pope you know, and, and I think, you know, if you said to, um, Putin, well, you know, the fed is pretty upset about what you are doing.
And so the other central banks. Oh yeah. Okay. And how many divisions do the central banks have? Right. So, you know, now they can't give me natural gas. They can't stop the invasion of Ukraine. They can't change the demographic profile. Those are the things that matter. So we don't need to spend our time worry about what's happening at Jackson hole or at the fed anymore.
[00:57:46] Terry: I mean, that's a fair point. I, I appreciate that's wisdom, right. Coming through a lifetime of experience, right. In financial markets and energy markets. And obviously you lived through some of the things that went on in Europe,
[00:58:00] Paul: or, I mean, although I looked very young and indeed
[00:58:03] Terry: well, I was gonna say, or your family members did and you were , you know, you were probably relatively close to it in that sense.
I think we went through a long period of peace and prosperity, but that's the anomaly, right? That's the exception rather than the rule, historically humanity is, uh, it's great in some ways, and it's not so great. In other ways
[00:58:27] Paul: I was gonna say it's sort of ending thing. If, if anybody wanted to know about the oil markets, there's a really good book by a guy called Dan Yergen called the prize.
And you know, I think everybody who's ever being thinks here, this guy got it. Absolutely. Right. And it's a, it's a good read as well as telling you what to need to know. And then the other thing, the other Econo that I, I follow is Hyman Minski and you know, Minski never got Nobel prize, but his concept.
Which is counterintuitive, but then makes sense when you think about it, is that a long period of stability breeds instability?
[00:59:03] Terry: Well, that's reversion to the mean, right? That's exactly you just described
[00:59:07] Paul: that's right. You know, and, and you can sort of see that, you know, we had a hundred years in Europe, mainly no wars at all from 1815 through to 1914, and then really 1914, wasn't that good?
You know, so we've had a lot of stability here and, you know, I, I worry with you about the debt that's been built up, but you know, I, I, I'm not pessimistic. I'm just saying, I think, you know, there's money to be made here, but we have to adjust what, how we're doing it. I think
[00:59:34] Terry: the way I perceive that Paul is you just have to look and somehow find a way to turn chaos into opportunity.
Right? Exactly.
[00:59:42] Paul: Yeah. And you make some mistakes, but you know, you learn as you go, Don.
[00:59:45] Terry: And if you win more than you lose, right, then you should end up ahead of the game. We could all end up like fall oh my God. Thank you so much. You're a gracious. I enjoy, I mean, I do a lot of podcasts, but I really enjoy our chats all the time and I appreciate your perspective.
So let's stay in touch and if there's anything I can do to be helpful outside of continuing to subscribe to your newsletter, let me know. I'm I'm happy to help. Okay.
[01:00:09] Paul: You all your friends to subscribe as well?
[01:00:12] Terry: all right. You know what I have, I have institutional people and, uh, I will talk to them and see if I can get 'em on board.
Right? We need to get you traveling more than just to Portugal. We need to get you traveling other places in the world too. Oh,
[01:00:25] Paul: well, I wait, I haven't been to the states for a while, but we've got for obvious reasons, but, uh, I'm available. You
[01:00:30] Terry: better find me when you get here, buddy.
all right, Paul, have an awesome day. Thanks. Thanks again so much. We'll see you, buddy.

Any information I discussed in this article is for educational purposes only it is not meant to be any kind of recommendation or financial advice. The information contained in this video is intended for informational purposes. any opinions are those of myself, and not necessarily those of JW Cole Financial, Inc or JW Cole Advisors, Inc.