The Pomp Podcast - Why Trump & The Fed Will Make Bitcoin Explode | Darius Dale

Episode Date: September 3, 2025

Darius Dale is the Founder & CEO of 42Macro. In this conversation we talk about the Federal Reserve, inflation expectations, what is going on with Lisa Cook, how to fix the housing market, and how the market could play out the rest of the year. ===================== Markets are at all-time highs. Public equities are outperforming. And individual investors are driving it all. It’s officially the rise of the retail investor. On September 12th in NYC, I’m hosting the Independent Investor Summit — a one-day event built exclusively for self-directed investors. We’re bringing together some of the smartest public market investors I know for a full day of macro insights, market predictions, one-on-one fireside chats, and actionable investment ideas from each investor. This is going to be an absolute banger event. Join us if you like markets and think retail is two steps ahead of Wall Street.👉 TICKETS: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.independentinvestor.co/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ (use promo code POMPYT25)======================Check out my NEW show for daily bite-sized breakdowns of the biggest stories in finance, technology, and politics: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠http://pompdesk.com/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠======================⁠Simple Mining makes Bitcoin mining simple and accessible for everyone. We offer a premium white glove hosting service, helping you maximize the profitability of Bitcoin mining. For more information on Simple Mining or to get started mining Bitcoin, visit https://www.simplemining.io/======================Bitizenship helps Bitcoin-forward investors gain EU residency and a path to Portuguese citizenship in five years while maintaining exposure to Bitcoin. Their regulated fund qualifies you for the Golden Visa through an operating company focused on Bitcoin-native innovation. Book a free strategy call at https://bitizenship.com/pomp.======================TimeStamps:0:00 - Intro  0:54 - What is going on with the Fed & Lisa Cook?  5:19 - Rundown of the housing market and how to fix it  21:16 - What are real inflation expectations?  29:24 - How to prepare for a federal reserve regime change 

At Desjardins Insurance, we put the care in taking care of business. Your business to be exact. Our agents take the time to understand your company so you get the right coverage at the right price. Whether you rent out your building, represent a condo corporation, or own a cleaning company, we make insurance easy to understand so you can focus on the big stuff. Like your small business. Get insurance that's really big on care. Find an agent today at Desjardins.com slash business coverage.

Real Canadian Superstore has everything you need this back-to-school season. Save on lunchbox savers like Ziggy's sliced deli meat products for always $3.75. And get Life Brand Pure Vita shampoo or conditioner for $8 each. At Real Canadian Superstore, when you're ready, we're ready with a whole world and more. What's up, everyone? This is Anthony Pompliano. Many of you know me as Pomp. You're listening to The Pomp Podcast, which is my effort to find the most interesting people in the world and sit with them for hours while I ask questions in an effort to learn. So it would mean the world to me if you would subscribe to the show on your favorite audio

platform, watch episodes on YouTube, and tell your friends and family about the podcast. My goal is to help millions learn from the world's most interesting people. So let's get into today's episode. Anthony Pompliano runs Pomp Investments. All views of him and the guests on his podcast are solely their opinions and do not reflect the opinions of Pomp Investments. You should not treat any opinion expressed by Pomp or his guests as a specific inducement to make a particular investment or follow a particular strategy, but only as an expression

of his personal opinion. This podcast is for informational purposes only. What's going on, guys? Today, we've got a great episode with Darius Dale. He is the founder and CEO of 42 Macro. And in this conversation, we talk about the Federal Reserve, their inflation expectations, why they're wrong on so much stuff, what's going on in the housing market. Will Lisa Cook, the Fed governor who's under public pressure, survive? And how does Darius think about what's happening in the economy, what the Fed should be doing differently and how you should think about your portfolio, your asset allocation and what should be changing as the Fed regime changes during a fourth term. That's it. Not that much, but also very impactful. Make sure you pay

attention to the whole thing. Here's my latest conversation with Darius Dale. All right, Darius, we got to talk about Lisa Cook. Lisa Cook is the Fed governor. She's under immense public pressure. She's some may say cooked because they have her now accused of mortgage fraud. You pay attention to the Fed, what Jerome Powell is saying, what their actions are, what the Fed governors are all doing. This seems like a much bigger deal than people originally thought it was. And maybe the crack in the wall that is going to give the White House and the executive branch a lot more control over the Fed. How are you thinking about this? Yeah, no, look, I'll start by saying, you know, everything we talk about today with regards to Lisa Cook's, you know, alleged mortgage fraud is alleged.

You know, we don't know anything. And obviously there's due process associated with that. But obviously that video Pulte posted the other day is, you know, pretty, pretty damning, quite frankly. And so I think you have to think about this from the perspective of what does this ultimately mean in the context of Fed regime change? And in our view, we've been calling for Fed regime change for multiple years now. We think the administration is pulling the, you know, some levers that are you. We can agree. We can agree or disagree with the levers they're pulling. But ultimately, you have to focus on the destination as an investor. The destination is a Federal Reserve Board that is likely to be, you know, a majority of Trump appointees by this time next year.

And if they get that done by, let's say, February, when the regional Fed presidents get ratified, Then it could be the case that some of them that don't agree with the administration's desire for regime change at the institution get punted and replaced by folks who do agree with the administration's desire for regime change. So we could be talking about a Federal Reserve this time next year that is significantly more dovish in favor of the administration's desire to create an economic boom. And we would fully support that. It's interesting to me because whether you agree or not with Trump and the administration, one thing that I think does define their approach is ambition. Not a lot of people would want to sign up for a complete overhaul and regime change at the Federal Reserve. Like, that's a lot of work. They're fighting people. They're removing people there. It's, you know, like an intellectual war. It's just like bureaucratic war that they're playing out. you got to kind of have the tough skin to want to go do that. And they definitely do. It's not just in the Fed. They're doing this across the government. But it does feel like that is kind

of a defining aspect of this administration is like they want to fight and they want to create change. And so they're trying to do it at the Fed. A hundred percent. And I say this all the time. I mean, nobody has been to more podunk towns in this country than Donald Trump. No one. No one in the history of America, has been to more podunk, run-down towns that are left behind economically by all of us white-collar-wearing Wall Street people and the coastal elites. Of course, he has a sense of urgency with regards to trying to fix the K-shaped economy. Now, again, we can argue over the steps they're taking. We can argue over how they're taking the steps. We can argue over the general chaotic nature with which they're legislating policy.

But one thing we cannot argue over is the fact that they say what they're going to do, and then they go do it. And that's been very true for this administration the entire time. And so this is why we have so much steadfast belief in our paradigm C theme, which we authored back in April. That's kept us, you know,

a hundred percentile bullish across global Wall Street because we understand that they're trying to engineer an economic boom and legislating very obviously, in our opinion, needed regime change at the Fed is a very clear and easy lever for them to pull. It's just, it's crazy to me that they keep telling you what they're going to do

and they do it. And again, sometimes it has the desired effect. Sometimes it doesn't. But the fact that they just are going through the actions that they're telling, I am surprised that more people aren't just like, hey, even if I disagree with them, like they're telling me the playbook, I have better pay attention and start believing. Let's talk about housing, because I think this is like an area where we're seeing this play out very aggressively right now.

You've got a couple of charts that we can go through here. One of the things that I think is really interesting is the durable recovery in the housing market It's historically elevated, but you think that there's this like lock-in effect that's starting to play out here. What is this showing us? Yeah, yeah. So I'll answer that question. But one final thing I'll say is, you know, when I started my career almost two decades ago now, we're getting old, man. I initially covered sort of all the emerging economies before I started covering all the global economy.

And one thing I learned very quickly from covering China is that, hey, these guys in Beijing tell you exactly what they're going to do, and then they start doing it. And when you think about sort of these command and control economies, and that's very clearly where we're moving in the direction of in the context of this foreturning and having a foreturning-inspired president, someone who understands the foreturning and is obviously legislating foreturning-style change, you have to just take them at the bare minimum. You can't fight what they're saying and fight what they're trying to do. you can disagree with it. Go disagree with it at the dinner party, go disagree with the cocktail

party, go disagree with the golf course, but do not disagree with it in your portfolio because you're going to get left behind by the markets. So getting into this chart here. So you call out something that is really what I think is kind of the real key driver of the non-recovery in the housing market, which is this historically elevated spread between the marginal mortgage rate and the effective mortgage rate. The marginal mortgage rate being the mortgage rate in the market that you would have to pay if you bought a house today. And the effective mortgage rate, which is the mortgage rate that everyone kind of has on a weighted average basis. And that spreads. So the marginal mortgage rate is at about 7%. The effective mortgage rate is about 4%. So you're

talking about almost 300 basis points spread between those rates. And so folks who have mortgages don't want to sell their houses because they're going to wind up with a much more significant mortgage payment, which ultimately forced them to have a much smaller, forced them to downsize in houses and kind of step back from a lifestyle perspective. So this has created a real stasis in the housing market, if you look at the chart at the bottom panel, the blue line in the chart on the bottom panel shows existing home sales. We've been troughing along financial crisis type lows in existing home sales for multiple years now. We've basically had a financial crisis in the housing market for multiple years now. So this is, to our friend, you know Scott, I know

Scott, I know our Treasury Secretary Scott Besson for many years. He's obviously now the Treasury secretary after being a longtime client. Scott is now coming out and saying, hey, we might declare a national emergency in the housing market. And in our view, that will give them more scope to, I guess, do more creative, find more creative solutions to address this problem. I have long said they should create a bounty. They should go to the home builders and to the local governments. I used to think it was just the home builders. Now I think it's the local governments. And you say to them, whoever builds the most housing, you get whatever the bounty is, 100 million dollars and you split it the home builder you get 50 local government you get 50

or whatever the numbers are right but create an incentive to make them go change local zoning laws create the actual work for the builders um and then you gotta do what they're doing at the fed if you want to get the rate down you just gotta go to battle right well we'll talk about that in a couple slides but uh to your point in terms of the lack of building if you go slide two here, where we show residential fixed investment as a percent of real GDP at 3.3%. I mean, you know, only time it's ever been lower in the history of the data series, time series is, you know, right after the financial crisis. And so you can see that we've had a structural lack of building of houses in this country. Now, there's a variety of reasons for why we've had

a structural lack of building. One of those interest rates too high, another is zoning rules and regulations. I'm sure there are other reasons, but the reality is that undoing those reasons, is what creates the upside risk in both the economy and asset markets. And so in my opinion, you'd be a fool as an investor to sit there and assume that an administration that has now got its eyes keenly focused on this as potentially declaring a national emergency, you'd be a fool to think that they're not going to do something about it and pull those levers. And so you've got to assume that the line in this chart will start to slope upwards in the coming quarters. All right. You've got this durably negative real policy rates.

What is going on here? Yeah, so we recently outlined three sort of main steps that the administration are likely to pull, three levers that they're likely to pull, knobs they're likely to twist that will ultimately result in better outcomes with regards to the housing market. So step one in that is regime change at the Fed and catalyzing a scenario of durably negative real policy rates. And one of the reasons we believe that is, one, we've for years been calling for regime change at the Fed. The Federal Reserve does not understand that the U.S. is a 3% inflation economy, not a 2% inflation economy. And so they've been running monetary policy just structurally too tight, not me. And so for a variety of reasons, we'll talk about that later.

But the number one reason, one of the reasons why we believe our star, which is essentially the structural level of the real policy rate that either causes inflation to accelerate or the unemployment rate to rise, the consensus estimate is somewhere around 75 basis points positive. We think that number is probably negative now based on the slide here where we look at the top panel, we show the spread, the refinancing risk in the mortgage-backed securities market. That's the spread between the yield, so the market rate versus the coupon, which is what the borrowers are paying in the U.S. MBS index. And so that positive spread, one, the spread has been positive for almost three years. You tend not to have multi-years

a positive spread in the history of this time series until you have to go all the way back to the kind of late 70s, early 80s to see a persistently positive spread here. And so what that ultimately means is that borrowers in the housing market are consistently refinancing into a higher interest rate machine year after year after year after year after year. And obviously, that's going to grind down activity in that segment of the economy. And so if you want durable disinflation in housing prices and to address the housing affordability crisis, this ultimately tells you that you need to get interest rates much lower than they currently are to sort of address this. So that's step one. Today's episode is brought to you by Simple

Mining. Have you ever been interested in mining Bitcoin? As a miner myself, I've been using Simple Mining for the past few months, and the experience has been nothing short of seamless. I mine with the pool of my choice and the Bitcoin is sent directly to my wallet. Simple Mining, which is based in Cedar Falls, Iowa, offers a premium white glove service designed for everyone from individual enthusiasts to large-scale miners. They've been in business for four years and currently operate more than 20,000 Bitcoin miners, including mine. Their electricity is over 65% renewable thanks to the abundance of wind energy. Not only do they simplify mining with their top-notch hosting and on-site repair services, but they also help you benefit financially by

running your operations as a business. This approach offers 100% bonus depreciation to optimize the profitability of your investment. Do you ever worry about the completion of maintaining your mining equipment, they've got you covered there too. For the first 12 months, all repairs are included at no extra cost. If you experience any downtime, they'll credit you for it as well. And if your miners aren't profitable at the amount, simply pause them with no penalties. When you're ready to upgrade or adjust your setup, their exclusive marketplace provides a seamless way to resell your equipment. Join me and many satisfied miners who have simplified their Bitcoin mining journey. You can even get started today with a seven-day

miner trial. Visit simplemining.io slash POMP to get started today. That's simplemining.io slash POMP to get started today. With Simple Mining, they make it simple. Now, step two is the financial sector deregulation. I think deregulation across the economy has been a big part of the administration's promise and one of the reasons why people are so excited about voting for this administration. What's happening in the financial sector specifically? Yeah, so we're seeing a little bit of financial sector deregulation. We haven't seen a ton yet because this stuff takes a long time to get the, you know, the appropriate reviews and the comments from the public and all that kind of stuff. You know, it's not a it's not a straight line or a straight shot process.

But what we know is that this is a lever that they're likely to pull over a medium to long term time horizon. You know, one thing we can see that suggests, you know, deregulation may be targeted in certain segments of the housing market. We can see that there is a elasticity with regards to the change in mortgage rates versus the change in housing volumes. We see that, you know, if you look at adjustable rate mortgages volumes, they're up 90, they're almost a double year over year, right? You know, if you look at the most recent times, the most recent data points. And so the fact that we're having a double in that statistic on a modest decline in the five-year adjusted mortgage rate tells me that if you can do something to get some segment of mortgage rates down, you're going to see this elasticity with regards to the demand function. And if that's the case, it tells you that there is pent-up demand for housing. That elasticity is a very clear signal that there is pent-up demand for housing.

And so it tells you that, hey, it's a signal to me and anybody paying attention to the data, obviously the administration must be. it's a signal to them that, hey, if we twist this knob or pull this lever, we might actually take advantage and benefit from some of that elasticity. So in our view, we think the deregulation is coming. Obviously, the relaxation of the SLR is one big lever they're going to pull, but you can make it so that mortgages count for different wish ratings and bank balance sheets. You can make it so that you can reform Fannie and Freddie. I mean, there are a million things that can do. I don't want to waste too much time speculating, but the reality is if this is an administration that is now considering, even considering, declaring a national emergency,

economic emergency in the housing market. You have to assume that financial sector regulation, particularly housing-focused financial sector regulation, is going to be one of those levers. One of the easy ones that I've seen is just make all mortgages assumable. Just say, hey, look. Yeah. So, assumable means if you have, let's say, a 2.5% or 3% mortgage, when you go to sell your home right now, you basically pay back the mortgage and then I buy the home and I take out a different mortgage. Right now, it would go from two and a half to seven, whatever the number is, that lock-in effect. But what happens if you could sell your home and the home came with a 3% mortgage attached to it and I can just take over your mortgage? I assume you're a

mortgage. So there are some loans that can do this. There's a company in particular called Roam, R-O-A-M, which I'm not involved in, but I've talked to the founder a number of times. I think it's a pretty good idea. He has like a, you go on, you can search in areas for a home if you want to buy in a certain area, but he only lists assumable real estate. So you can go and you can buy. Well, if all of a sudden now you can sell and part of your pitch to someone is, by the way, not only will I sell you my house, but it comes with a two and a half or 3% mortgage that is locked in at that rate, you just take it over from me. That's pretty attractive. And so there's been talk of, should Fannie and Freddie, can they do that at their level? What about nationally?

Obviously, the banks may not be so excited about this. And there's a calculation of, if you make everything assumable, then you keep getting paid on those mortgages. But what are the odds that you would have gotten paid back on the first mortgage, and then you would have reissued the mortgage at a higher rate? Would you come out net positive of a net negative based on the churn right and do they go to the same bank or a different bank like you know it's complex but i do think that you know that's a great way to remove that lock-in effect is just sell the mortgage with the home uh and let people take over and have a lower payment uh you know on a monthly basis because they have a lower rate yeah 100 yeah that would obviously

you know facilitate a lot of transactions in the existing home sales market because you know part of having an assumable mortgage you need to also be able to move to a place where there's an assumable buy. Like you basically need to like have a daisy train of assumable transactions for that to really work at scale. Not saying that it can or can't, but that is definitely one lever they can pull. And another lever they can pull is having some sort of federal backstop for assumable mortgages. Like say basically like, hey, Fannie or Fannie, or you create a third entity that comes in and says, well, we'll pay the spread between the assumable rate and the marginal mortgage rate. You know, these are all things that they can do. Now, this stuff's not going to come

tomorrow, next week, or next month. But the reality is, you have an administration that has a high sense of urgency and a real staunch sense of alacrity with regards to addressing what they feel is an economic crisis for all the people that have been left behind, consumers and businesses that have been left behind in the prior kind of neoliberalism regime. Not to say that what they're doing is going to work, but I think it's way too early in paradigm C to suggest that it is not going to work in our view. Step three that you have here is MBSQE. What is that? Yeah, no, I can't for the life of me understand why the Fed is selling down its mortgage-backed security portfolio. So if you look at the second panel in this chart here, there's about a 260

basis points spread between the 30-year fixed mortgage rate and the 10-year nominal treasury yield. That's essentially an all-time high. I mean, we were higher in recent years. We were like 350 basis points a couple of years ago, but it's still, the current level is still essentially at an all-time high. And so what it's telling you is that there is not enough capital going to the mortgage market. And this is part of the reason, this is a symptom of fiscal dominance. When you have a sovereign that needs to capitalize, you know, 6% of its GDP year after year after year in incremental budget deficits or rolling over, you know, right now we're rolling over about, you know, nine, roughly about $10 trillion of debt that's coming due in

the next year, plus the Fed obviously is continuing this ridiculous balance sheet policy. You know, you essentially have, you know, a real big sucking of capital out of the economy that's going to Uncle Sam right now, to the tune of about $11 or $12 trillion over the next calendar year. And so what it's essentially it's doing is it's crowding out the effective stock of savings, both domestically globally, if you look at household sector savings or corporate sector profits, is essentially gobbling up a much higher share of that on a go-forward basis. And because it's gobbling up a much higher share of that, you go back to the chart on slide three where we show the refinancing risk. Part of the reason we have such elevated refinancing risk, not just in the MBS

market, but in the corporate credit market as well, is because there's just not enough capital going around. The government is hogging it all in this fiscal dominance regime. So in our view, and this has been consistent with a Fed policy in previous four journeys, and quite frankly, it's consistent with monetary policy, how it's been implemented across dozens of societies, across hundreds, if not thousands of years of data, is when you have fiscal dominance, you tend to see financial repression and monetary debasement to offset that, because otherwise, you're just going to run out of money. You need financial repression and monetary debasement in a fiscal dominance regime. Now, the Fed can sit there and argue to its blue in the face

whether or not fiscal dominance is appropriate or not. But guess what? This is what the people elected. This is what the people elected. They've elected for this. They went to the ballot in November and they said, we want this. And so it's not the Fed, in my opinion, it's not the Fed's job to stand in the way of that. It's the Fed's job to make that as easy to digest as possible for the economy so that we get positive economic outcomes. And in our view, positive economic outcomes does not end with an arbitrary 2% inflation target. It ends with positive, real, median wage growth. That's what people really want. That's what makes people happy. If you go back and you study all these psychological studies from the Netherlands and all these

other places where people are actually happy, what they tell you in those studies is people's lives getting better incrementally is what makes people happy. And so ultimately, it's not 2% arbitrary inflation target is what makes people happy. Nobody gives a damn about a 2% inflation target. What they want is real median wage growth. When we think about the economy, it has been defined by inflation over the last five years or so. You guys have this thing that you've been talking about for a while now where uh three percent inflation is the new two percent explain what that means yeah so uh was it two and a half years ago yeah two and a half years ago you and i were talking about this uh more than that almost three years ago now on your show like hey like

our motto was suggesting that the equilibrium core pc inflation rate in the economy is about three percent or like some of the high twos low threes you know we don't be too specific because who cares but the reality is we have now an economy that is throwing off as a function of a variety of different changes in the economy, whether it be deglobalization, whether it be changing demographics, whether it be the advent of the AI or monopsony power or the amount of cash that's floating in household sector balance sheets. There's all these different things that are changing in the economy that have essentially pushed up the equilibrium level of core PC inflation. And so the Fed, I don't know what the 400 PhD economists are doing over there,

but in our opinion, it's been pretty clear for us to observe that in our data here at 42 Macro. We used to consult the Fed on a regular basis, but I guess they don't like when I tweet positive things about the administration, so they don't call me anymore, but that's neither here nor there. That's neither here nor there, but the key takeaway is that if our model is correct, and I'm not even saying our model is correct or not. You don't have to take our model at face value, but what I'm saying is if our model is correct, then the Fed's arbitrary 2% inflation target is wrong because it ultimately means they're just constantly leaning against the economy trying to create an inflation outcome that is mythical. You know, it's like, yeah, sure, you can have 2% inflation, but think about all the damage you have to do to the consumers and businesses that are gasping for economic oxygen at the bottom of the K-shaped economy in order to create 2% inflation on a sustained, durable basis. And so in our view, you know, this is why we've been, you know, you've been pounding the table. I've been pounding the table for years that the Fed needs to revise its inflation target higher. Not because we're just two people who want more inflation.

You know, I grew up at the bottom of that K-shaped economy. I believe you were certainly on the bottom as well growing up. It's not like we grew up wanting inflation, but we understand that, hey, you might have to have a little bit more inflation to have a lot more real economic growth in terms of allowing for the fiscal dominance regime to proceed without causing minimal disruption in the economy. Right now, it is causing a lot of disruption in the economy because there's not enough money left to go around. Oh, stimulation may stimulate. Shocking how that works. You've got some data here that shows that actually, regardless of what the Fed's target is, 3% may be closer to reality. uh consumer finances says three percent's the new two percent too yeah so the fed does this

monthly survey of consumer finances a lot of good data in there um you know some of it very accurate some of it not so much but but one of the things that has been pretty accurate is uh the their inflation expectations uh and if you look at the fed's uh three year the fed's one year so the the response the respondents in the most recent survey of consumer finances said on a one-year basis uh inflation is likely to be 3.1 on a three-year basis inflation is likely to be 3%, and on a five-year-four basis, inflation is likely to be 2.9%. So, essentially, the Fed's own survey of consumer finance, from consumers, consumers are telling the Fed, we think inflation is 3%. So, our model is saying inflation is 3%. The Fed's own survey is saying inflation is 3%,

yet the Fed wants 2% inflation. And in our opinion, that's creating a lot of K-shaped outcomes in the economy. And so, it's our belief, you know, going back to where we started this conversation that, hey, the administration is going to continue to pull the levers that they can pull in the context of what their authorities are. And obviously, this is an administration that has no problem, you know, extending the boundaries of those authorities in certain respects. And you can argue, you can argue it or not argue it. But the reality is, is they're going to continue to do it, in our opinion, because ultimately, I think they understand everything that you and I've been talking about for years, which is, hey, this is not an economy that needs

an arbitrary 2% inflation target. This is an economy that needs a lot more real economic and that and ultimately you know uh the fed acknowledging that three percent inflation should be the new bogey and running monetary policy credibly from there in our opinion would create better economic outcomes so that's just a hunch today's episode is brought to you by bitisenship if you're a bitcoiner thinking about global mobility and securing a true plan b listen up portugal is one of the most attractive golden visa programs in the world and bitisenship has built the ideal pathway to get you there they're behind the first bitcoin ecosystem golden visa fund it's a private equity fund that purchases bitcoin via a local company that gives you exposure

to bitcoin while qualifying you for the golden visa and citizenship in just five years plus here's what makes this a no-brainer bit citizenship has the lowest fee structure of any golden visa fund in portugal and because their team handles everything in-house you skip the usual friction and bloated fundraising costs of other funds. So if you're serious about sovereign flexibility, now's the moment to act. Go to bitizenship.com slash POMP and book a free strategy call with their team.

Again, that's bitizenship.com slash POMP. Go check them out today. Take us home with these last two charts. Explain what's happening here. Yeah, so slide eight, we're just essentially saying, if you look at the bottom panel on slide eight, where we show the five-year, five-year forward inflation swap rate.

So that's what the inflation swap market is is pricing inflation to average in the five years starting five years from today so essentially it's a it's a 10-year window but it's really focused on the five-year second half of that 10-year window and that number is already at 2.5 percent and by the way has been at 2.5 percent since early 2022 you know or really since early 2021 and so you know the market is already saying that the market the market is now saying we're somewhere around two and a half percent inflation So the market thinks the Fed's arbitrary 2% inflation target is wrong. The consumers think their Fed's arbitrary 2% inflation target is wrong.

The 42 macro second inflation model thinks the Fed's arbitrary 2% inflation target is wrong. How many more sources have to tell the Fed that their arbitrary 2% inflation target is outdated and not appropriate for today's economy? You know, they're running monetary policy based on yesterday's economy, not today's economy. And the reason they're doing that, and you and I talked about this in recent months, The reason they're doing that is because Jay Powell, he doesn't want his legacy to be the guy who let the inflation genie permanently out of the bottle. Well, newsflash for you, Jay, you might be the guy who sends the economy into recession years after you let the inflation genie out of the bottle because you're sticking to an arbitrary and outdated 2% inflation target. So it seems like a Jackson Hole. He kind of got the message and got the memo and is pivoting in the right direction in that regard.

But we'll see. Next week's inflation data may pivot him in the wrong direction again. So we'll have to see on that. And then finally, this chart on slide nine, you know, one of the statistics that we've been watching and focusing our clients on is to help them understand whether or not structural regime change at the Fed has been fully priced is the real floor Fed funds rate. And so the floor Fed funds rate is the minimum value on over that index swaps curve out two years. So what does the market think the Fed is going to cut rates to in the context of the next two years? And so that

value on a nominal basis is 3%. On a real basis, it's 0%. So obviously, the market is essentially pricing in roughly around 3% inflation. In our view, if we're right on our call for regime change at the Fed, catalyzing a durably negative real floor Fed funds rate, we suspect that you're probably not going to see the market fully understand this or fully positioned for this until this number is somewhere in the minus 50 to 100 basis point range. Right now, it's flat. It's essentially zero. So we got about another 50 to 100 basis points to go in terms of the decline in the real floor fed funds rate before we would feel comfortable saying that, hey, consensus understands what we've been calling for for years and they fully positioned for it. Obviously,

our clients have benefited tremendously from research views like this in the past few years, being long stocks, gold and Bitcoin. And so we would expect this to continue. And one final thing I'll say on all this is the real floor fed funds rate has declined by 150 basis points since the start of the year. So you tell me if I'm right or wrong on regime change at the Fed. It's crazy to me how big the gap is between what people think is happening and what actually seems to be happening. And that seems to be getting wider and wider over the last three years or so. Bob, I'll tell you why. This has been the, it's been one of the easiest years of my career because we're getting such clear policy guidance,

but only because we did the work both pre and during while all of it is happening. The work we did in the fourth turning in terms of helping our clients prepare for regime change across a variety of different institutions and economic functions, that is essentially created the table upon which we're standing to help see over the crowd

in terms of all these different changes. So it required a tremendous amount of work to prepare for all the stuff that we're seeing this year. But most importantly, it's required a tremendous amount of work this year. I mean, the amount of, like every day, like, so I publish our lead-up morning note is not really just a bunch of words.

It's mostly charts. You know, we just put a chart deck together with titles and headlines, much like what we're showing folks on the screen today here. And that note used to be, note, that slide deck used to be somewhere around 50 slides per day. They've been about 75 to 100 slides per day because there's that much stuff going on.

And so to your point, I think it's just been really hard for investors who aren't doing the work or not conditioned to do the work to keep up. You know, that's not a pejorative comment. That's a comment to- It's just volume. It's volume of activity,

which creates uncertainty if you're not paying attention, if you don't have the data. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But it makes sense. No, but I will say that people should be inspired by that because what it tells you

is that you don't need to be the smartest person to make the most money in financial markets. You just need to be willing to work harder and keep up. And the folks that are working hard and keeping up are the ones that are performing this year. And the people who are with 42 Macro. Well, I didn't want to say that much, but that's obviously true. Well, where can they find 42 Macro, my friend? Well, come check us out, 42macro.com.

I'm on Twitter at DariusDel42. I post a lot of great content outside of our paywall as well. We want to make sure we're bringing up the world around us, man. Folks don't need to subscribe to my research to understand what's happening in the world. they need to subscribe to our research to get our case and doctor most signals and that's by far the most valuable thing we produce for our clients in terms of keeping them on the right side of market risk so come check us out 42 macro.com if that's of interest and just check me out on twitter or linkedin if you just want to know what we're saying about the the economy and as far as

before i forget i'm going to say this publicly because somebody said this to me uh john my brother uh told me today i told him i was uh talking to you today and he said you know what 42 macro he said that's one of the best brands like the actual brand itself right in terms of the story and the visual and all this stuff he goes i love that brand you know what i never thought about that i say yeah you know what that is true they got a perfect thing going on over there i appreciate you saying that man and thank you john uh look man he's gonna be embarrassed by the way i said it publicly that he said it but yeah he said that oh i'll just quickly say well this this is a country where you know i'm a big believer you're a big believer in this i know

because I've been friends for a long time, you can work and achieve in this country. Now, are opportunities equal? Absolutely not. Have they probably got a little bit less equal in recent decades? Probably. But the reality is, if you really want to go out and put the time and work in, you can achieve in this country. And I think I'm living proof of that for a lot of people around the world. I not only completely agree, but I think that you inspire a lot of people so i appreciate all the work that you do and uh you know it's not bad for somebody went to yale um coming out of the high point housing project samuel gumper homes man yes sir bless you brother all right thank you very much we'll do it again in the future okay