We Study Billionaires - The Investor’s Podcast Network - TIP512: Top Takeaways from 2022 w/ Trey Lockerbie

Starting point is 00:00:00 You're listening to TIP. In this episode, I discuss my top takeaways from some of my conversations from 2022. I'll be sharing sound bites from the interviews to allow the guests to showcase their perspectives in their own words. While there's no way I could possibly distill everything I learned across 59 episodes or 60-plus hours of interviews I conducted this year, I tried to capture the ones that really changed the trajectory of my thinking or investing style. In this episode, you will learn how today's inflation compares to 1970s. with Jeremy Grantham, why Michael Mobison says you have to earn the right to use a valuation multiple, how energy impacts inflation with Josh Young, why investors should consider microcaps

Starting point is 00:00:40 with Ian Castle, the vindication of the dollar milkshake theory with Brent Johnson, market indicators from Dan Rasmussen, Joe Brown, and others, and a whole lot more. It's been another incredible year of insights from some of the top investors in the world. I'm incredibly honored and privileged to have had the opportunity to speak to these titans of industry, and I'm even more humbled that you join me on the journey. My hope is that you got as much out of it as I did, so without further delay, here are my top takeaways from 2022. You are listening to The Investors Podcast, where we study the financial markets and read the books that influence self-made billionaires the most. We keep you informed and prepared for the unexpected.

Starting point is 00:01:23 2020 started off with a bang. And when I say bang, I'm referring to the last sound the bull market heard before the bear took over. 2022 was the worst year of the past half century for stocks and bonds combined. The first four months experienced the fastest decline in the S&P 500 since 1939. Looking back, it's clear to see that the market topped in November 2021 and there were all kinds of signs. Elon Musk was selling his Tesla share, something he claimed he would never do. Jeff Bezos sold nearly $9 billion worth of Amazon stock. BoardApe NFT 8817 had just sold for $3.4 million, so it's safe to say that things were getting a little squirly.

Starting point is 00:02:12 But along the way, a fundamental issue had been taking root. Inflation. The CPI or Consumer Price Index pegged inflation at 6.8% in November 2021, and the federal funds rate was still sitting at 0.08. The Fed had been sitting on the sidelines waiting to see if this acute inflation would be, quote, transitory. In early 2022, it became clear that inflation was going to be much more persistent than expected. I interviewed billionaire and investing legend Jeremy Grantham back in August 2021, episode 371, and he predicted that the top of the market was just upon us. I referenced it again in my Top Takeways episode for 2021, episode 409 at the end of the year. Turns out he was spot on.

Starting point is 00:02:54 One of my favorite lines that Jeremy used was that bull markets have these termites that typically eat away at the high-flying tech stocks first. The NASDAQ peaked on November 19, 2021. The market began to realize that Fed hikes would be inevitable due to the persistent inflation and the major sell-offs began. Interestingly, 40% of the NASDAQ companies were down by 50% or more by December 2021. The S&P 500 lagged a bit, just as Grantham had predicted and peaked on New Year's Eve before beginning its massive reversal on New Year's Day. A huge focus this year was on the Fed as it raised. rates to combat inflation. This prompted a lot of speculation around whether or not we would enter a stagflationary environment where inflation is joined by high unemployment. It appears that at least

Starting point is 00:03:40 for 2022, that didn't quite pan out as unemployment has remained low. But in an effort to understand the potential of stagflation, I brought back Jeremy Grantham on episode 466 to get his viewpoints. Well, every period is unique. The 70s had problems with the oil crises. You can call it one giant crisis or you can call it two or three. But in any case, a triple quadruple, quintuple the price of oil in a hurry. We'd come off 50 years of fairly stable, low prices, and they shot up and stayed up for a long time and inflicted enormous pain on the system. They lowered the growth rate. Why wouldn't it if you have to pay three, four times for your energy? And it also, of course, pushes up the price. So there's nothing like an oil price increase

Starting point is 00:04:29 to increase inflation. And it did. And this time, if you adjust for the passage of time, the price of oil is not as high, but it's still multiplied recently by three times. And so that is imposing a pain on consumption and is imposing inflationary pressure. We also have, because of the invasion of Ukraine, we have had some extra spikes in the price of food, fertilizer, and natural gas, particularly in Europe. Interestingly, they are now almost all of them lower in price than the day before the invasion. And this is a lovely example of how the stock market works. The stock market is saying, whoops, there's so much damage from commodity price prices, et cetera, et cetera, that we're going to have a recession. But the recession isn't bad news because the recession is going to get the Fed back in

Starting point is 00:05:21 our camp of lowering interest rates again and helping stock prices. And we're looking out into the future and therefore that's a good news. So the fear of a recession becomes a wishful thinking about future interest rates. And so the market gets a reprieve for a while. It's quite remarkable, but it's fairly typical. And that's what we're having now. And that's why we might have a bit of a rally for a few weeks, I think. Yes, what we should cover is how dangerous it is to get involved in a bubble that has more than one asset class, equities, growth stocks mainly. And this time, we've also moved into housing. Housing was chugging along OK, but last year had the biggest advance, 20% in 2021,

Starting point is 00:06:07 that it had ever had in history. And it went up to a higher multiple of family income, house price divided by family income, higher multiple than the peak of the housing bubble of 2006, which is, It just means there's a lot of value there that can be lost. And it is dependent on interest rates, as you know when you're paying a mortgage. At the bottom of the mortgage was two and a half and it went up to 5.7, 5.8. This is a brutal increase in mortgage. It means a lot of people will not move houses who otherwise would have done,

Starting point is 00:06:37 which means a lot of people will not take a new job because they're not prepared to double their mortgage payments. Everyone expanded to pay as much mortgage as they could afford, which meant that they put merciless pressure upwards on housing prices as the mortgage rates came down. So that's a problem. And then you have problems with a bubbly commodities market, inflicting pain on consumption. And as if that wasn't enough, we have the lowest interest rates in 6,000 years, as Jim Graham would say, or Edward Chancellor's written a brilliant new book and the price of time. And of course, with the lowest rates in 6,000 years, you have the highest bond prices. And that's obviously being taken to the cleaners this year, too.

Starting point is 00:07:15 So you have bonds, housing, stocks, and commodities. The only people who've tried that with Japan in 89, they're still not back to the price of the equity market. They're still not back to the price of the land and the housing market from 89. That's 33 years in county. And we did some of that in the housing bubble where the stock market came down in sympathy. And that was brutal. They give you much greater pressure on recessionary forces.

Starting point is 00:07:42 And we are playing with fire this time, which was not. anywhere near as obvious a year ago before that huge move upwards in housing. While Jeremy was confident in his predictions, and rightly so, a lot of people I spoke to agree that this was the most unpredictable market environment they had ever experienced in their career. Will there be a recession? Will we have runaway inflation? Stagflation? What about a deflationary surprise? It reminded me of a quote by Socrates who stated, I only know one thing that I know nothing. Macroeconomic developments are endlessly fascinating and it's a really fun game to try and

Starting point is 00:08:19 predict the future, but a lot of my conversations led me back to wanting to simply focus more on a company's fundamentals. In my 2021 Takeaways episode, I showcased a conversation with Brian Ferraldi, episode 375, where we explored the idea that a price to earnings ratio is only relevant to companies once they've hit a certain level of scale. This year, I explored this idea further with legendary author, professor, investor, and strategist Michael Mobison on episode 421, who provided one of my favorite quotes of the year that you have to, quote, earn the right to use evaluation multiple. Take a listen. The answer is that a

Starting point is 00:08:55 multiple has to capture a lot of stuff that's going on. And the two biggest drivers would be the return on investor capital of the business and the growth. And why are those two things so important, and this I think is quite intuitive. If your returns on capital are well above the cost of capital, you're creating value and growth is good. And you know Warren's work very well, Warren Buffett calls this the $1 test. So if you invest a dollar in the business and it's worth more than a dollar in the marketplace, that's a good thing. So that means you're earning above your cost to capital. If you're earning exactly your cost to capital, their growth makes no difference because every dollar that goes in is worth a dollar. So you're getting no lift in value. And then,

Starting point is 00:09:35 of course, you're investing a dollar and it earns below the cost of capital, that's bad, right? The more you grow. So the first thing you have to think about is return on invested capital. And then the second thing you have to think about is growth. And the impact of growth is contingent on the return on investa capital. So all that stuff that's going on is built into a multiple. So you have to really unpack it.

Starting point is 00:09:53 Now, to your point, the reason this is so difficult for young companies, there are a bunch of reasons. One is the range of outcomes is huge. So we don't really know what the returns on investa capital are. We don't really know what the growth is. And it's compounded by the fact that often young companies have to spend a lot of money on what we call pre-production costs. They basically have to spend money to get up and running. And as a business person yourself, I'm sure you can relate to this concept where you have to spend,

Starting point is 00:10:17 you have to invest essentially to reap the benefits down the road. And you don't really know how much that's going to be. And the economics don't look. They may be very good, but they can superficially look quite poor at the outset. I was like to say, you open a restaurant, the very first day you're open. You spend a ton of money building the store and putting in the furnishing. and hiring people, and you have no revenue, right? So day one, you don't look so good. It may be in a brilliant restaurant, but it takes some time for that to unfold. So that's why I think

Starting point is 00:10:43 your observation that it's tougher to do for young companies, you know, you could still run through scenarios, you can think about things, but that becomes more difficult. It turns out it probably gets easier as you go on. And we always like to say the grim reaper of multiples is basically the, we call it the commodity multiple. It's just the inverse of the cost of capital. So pretend the cost of capital is 8% and you earn a dollar, that means the Grim Reaper multiples 12 and a half times. One over 8% equals 12 and a half. And eventually, if all companies earn the cost of capital because of maturation or competition or whatever, that is the multiple toward which they will migrate. So eventually, Bruce Greenwald, my colleague at Columbia Business School has got this great

Starting point is 00:11:25 line. He says, eventually everything's a toaster. And what he means is like, eventually it all becomes a commodity, right? And you get back to that commodity multiple. So earning the right of using a multiple means that you understand the underlying drivers that support that multiple. And I'll just mention one other thing, Trey, not to go too long on this topic, but I think it's important. I recently started my 30th year teaching Columbia Business School, and we're going to be talking about this exact topic in a couple of weeks.

Starting point is 00:11:51 So there are sort of the two most popular ways to value businesses are the price earnings multiple, right? So the stock price divided by earnings, usually some sort of forward-looking earnings. And the second is enterprise value to EBITDAS, enterprise value most simplistically, you the market value the debt plus the market value the equity and EBITDA earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and meresations, or it's sort of a gross cash flow number. Well, here's an interesting thing I point out to my students. By the way, the correlation between those two is about 0.7. So high PEs and high EBDA multiples usually go together, low. Okay. But what I show my

Starting point is 00:12:22 students are instances where two companies have the same PE, but radically different EBDA multiples, or the same EVD EBDA multiple and radically different PEs. Now, what's up with that? So these are the two most popular metrics, which one do I pick and why? And so immediately when I point that out, you're going to say, well, I need to know more. Exactly. You need to know more. And then we'll go right back to where we were before, which is, I need to understand, you know, how the accounting works and how the cash flows work and how the returns like capital work and so on and so forth.

Starting point is 00:12:52 So the key is earning the right of the multiple just means that you sort of understand the underlying drivers of businesses. You understand the return on capital characteristics. And then you're using a heuristic based on all this information you have embedded. And by the way, I use multiples myself as a backdrop. There's nothing wrong with them. But I just think this idea of walking around saying, that's 15 times, that's 27 times. And, you know, without understanding what the implications are, is probably not a great way to go.

Starting point is 00:13:17 Michael and I went on to talk a lot more about valuations, how to quantify a business's mode and discount rates. It was one of my favorite conversations all year. Now, one important thing to remember about your discount rate is that you have to account for expected inflation. And since inflation had been ticking up over the last year, I really wanted to better understand the driving factors. There are a few different metrics for measuring inflation, and I want to highlight advice from our co-host, Preston Pish, that you should develop your own personal way of measuring inflation, meaning you should consider what you actually spend money on and at what rate these items

Starting point is 00:13:50 or services are increasing. But a very popular metric, albeit controversial to some, is the consumer price index. Typically, when you hear that inflation is at 7%, etc., people are really. referring to the CPI. Energy goods and services, a category of which gasoline is a major component, accounts for roughly 7.5% of the overall CPI. But it's also important to remember that energy affects nearly everything else. For example, transportation makes up over 18% and food and beverage makes up over 14% of CPI, and typically, energy is one of the biggest contributing costs. To better understand energy, I interviewed energy expert Josh Young of Bison Interest on episode 429.

Starting point is 00:14:32 In our conversation, Josh highlighted why the price of oil had skyrocketed this year, peaking at 122 on July 8th. He revealed that due to ESG narratives, a lack of investment in the energy sector has set up a potential huge gap between supply capacity and future demand. When I suggested that high oil prices would create a proverbial gold rush where producers would come in and the price would ultimately fall, Josh responded with this.

Starting point is 00:14:57 Yeah, so that will eventually happen, But there's a little bit of a couple of things going on that are going to make that hard. So one, we are at the tail end of the very long bear market for oil. We're just starting this bull market. Prices, like you mentioned in the last year, have rocketed higher. And they finally got into a point where it's economic to start investing in these long lead time projects. The problem with long lead time projects is that they're a long lead. So in many cases, you have to spend 10 years bringing your discovery onto production and developing it more.

Starting point is 00:15:28 and there's been too little activity in discovering oil fields. So you kind of need to start from the beginning. So in many cases, you may need to spend 15 years in between now and bringing oil on. And oil prices have almost, I think they've doubled in the last year. So, you know, where do they go in between now and that kind of five to 15 year from now window for those long dated projects? And then on the short dated shale and other sort of conventional but short cycle projects were just at the tail. end of this giant boom and bust in that area too. And so there were many companies that misrepresented their economics and said, oh, we can break even at $30 oil or $40 oil or whatever their economics were.

Starting point is 00:16:10 And many of those companies just reported their Q4 and they were profitable at $80 oil, but like barely profitable. So it turns out that those companies require much higher prices too for their activity to be economic. And they're only going to rush and drill a lot more. if their activities are highly economic. So that whole, the setup both for the short cycle and the long cycle, both of those are requiring much higher than historic prices in order to bring on new rigs. And then in the oil services industry, it's even worse, where there's been even less capital available for even longer.

Starting point is 00:16:48 I think people forget about this. They just kind of assume, oh, hey, there'll be plenty of rigs. And there were more rigs running 10 years ago. The problem is that that was 10 years ago. And many of those rigs have been cannibalized, they've been scrapped, and many of the people that worked on them are no longer in the business. In many cases, they're retired. And so getting the talented workforce along with capable additional rigs and frack stacks and other sort of equipment, I mean, it's a real problem. And we're not even at the point where it's economic for those

Starting point is 00:17:19 oil services companies to start. They're starting to try to hire, but wages haven't gone up enough yet. And they're not even starting to build new risks. So if you think about that from a lead time perspective, that's a multi-year cycle on its own just for kind of the short-term stuff. So I think we're set up for this multi-year bull market where the first thing you need to see is oil services stocks go up five or 10x. That way they can have an investment boom. That way they can go build over the next few years, the equipment that's necessary to have a drilling boom to have drilling go way more than it needs over a multi-year period. And then you can have a big crash, but that might be coinciding with when these long lead time projects come on. So it's really set up

Starting point is 00:18:00 nicely, I think, for a very long, very strong bull market that's really going to incent a lot of investment. But like you're saying, like, why can't they do it? Well, there's just all these logistical and investment problems that are keeping it from happening. When you had under investment, you didn't have, especially in the last couple of years, you didn't have companies building more rigs. And since they weren't building more rigs, there's a certain number of hours that a rig can can work before you need to replace the engine, you need to replace various other components, you need to replace filters. And at some point, you just hit your useful life on a rig and you're done. And so that's kind of an analogy to the process from a producer's perspective going from

Starting point is 00:18:39 undrilled land to a producing well. And one of the steps is after you drill the well, then bringing the right equipment on to frack the well and tie it into a pipe and bring it on production. And so as a part of this giant boom and bust and the short cycle shale stuff, there were a lot of wells that were drilled that weren't completed and brought on yet. I think some of it was a capital budgeting and timing thing. Some of it was some of these wells were not very good and they knew they weren't good. And so they didn't even bother fracking them and bringing them on. And what you're pointing out is white paper, you know, we talked about. And there's various other sources that have been focusing on this because it is an issue where we noticed that the number of these wells that were prepared to be fracked but hadn't been fracked yet was falling a lot.

Starting point is 00:19:26 And what that told us and what it tells us in terms of why things are going to struggle to scale how you would expect in a boom is that there's been essentially this underinvestment, essentially burning the furniture where the wells that were drilled already are being completed faster than new wells are being drilled. And that means that you need to drill a lot more wells in order to be able to complete the same number of wells that you've been completing. So if you think about it, step one, step two oil, well, they did too many step ones to start. And now they're doing too many step twos and you need to kind of coincide step one and step two in order to get to a completed well that's on production. So it's a sequencing issue, but it's also a budgeting issue. And we're seeing many producers now subsequent to that white paper. we're seeing them come out with guidance where they're raising their capital budgets anywhere from 20 to 25% without raising their production guidance at all. Some of that's cost inflation, but some of that's

Starting point is 00:20:25 also replacing. They're recognizing they did not enough step one drilling wells. And so now they have to do more step one in order to catch up with the step two, which is completing wells. Let's take a quick break and hear from today's sponsors. All right. I want you guys to imagine spending three days in Oslo at the height of the summer. You've got long days of daylight, incredible food, floating saunas on the Oslo Fjord, and every conversation you have is with people who are actually shaping the future. That's what the Oslo Freedom Forum is. From June 1st through the 3rd, 2026, the Oslo Freedom Forum is entering its 18th year bringing together activists, technologists, journalists, journalists, investors, and builders from all over the world, many of them operating on the front lines of

Starting point is 00:21:09 history. This is where you hear firsthand stories from people using Bitcoin to survive currency collapse, using AI to expose human rights abuses, and building technology under censorship and authoritarian pressures. These aren't abstract ideas. These are tools real people are using right now. You'll be in the room with about 2,000 extraordinary individuals, dissidents, founders, philanthropists, policymakers, the kind of people you don't just listen to but end up having dinner with. Over three days, you'll experience powerful mainstage talks, hands-on workshops on freedom tech and financial sovereignty, immersive art installations, and conversations that continue long after the sessions end. And it's all happening in Oslo in June.

Starting point is 00:21:53 If this sounds like your kind of room, well, you're in luck because you can attend in person. Standard and patron passes are available at Osloof Freedom Forum.com with patron passes offering deep access, private events, and small group time with the speakers. The Oslo Freedom Forum isn't just a conference. It's a place where ideas meet reality and where the future is being built by people living it. If you run a business, you've probably had the same thought lately. How do we make AI useful in the real world? Because the upside is huge, but guessing your way into it is a risky move. With NetSuite by Oracle, you can put AI to work today. NetSuite is the number one

Starting point is 00:22:33 AI Cloud ERP, trusted by over 43,000 businesses. It pulls your friends. financials, inventory, commerce, HR, and CRM into one unified system. And that connected data is what makes your AI smarter. It can automate routine work, surface actionable insights, and help you cut costs while making fast AI-powered decisions with confidence. And now with the Netsuite AI connector, you can use the AI of your choice to connect directly to your real business data. This isn't some add-on, it's AI built into the system that runs your business. And whether your company does millions or even hundreds of millions, NetSuite helps you stay ahead. If your revenues are at least in the seven figures, get their free business guide, domesticifying

Starting point is 00:23:17 AI at net suite.com slash study. The guide is free to you at netsuite.com slash study. NetSuite.com slash study. When I started my own side business, it suddenly felt like I had to become 10 different people overnight wearing many different hats. Starting something from scratch can feel exciting, but also incredibly overwhelming and lonely. That's why having the right tools matters. For millions of businesses, that tool is Shopify. Shopify is the commerce platform behind millions of businesses around the world and 10% of all e-commerce in the U.S. from brands just getting started to household names. It gives you everything you need in one place, from inventory to payments to analytics. So you're not juggling a bunch of different platforms.

Starting point is 00:24:04 You can build a beautiful online store with hundreds of ready-to-use templates, and Shopify is packed with helpful AI tools that write product descriptions and even enhance your product photography. Plus, if you ever get stuck, they've got award-winning 24-7 customer support. Start your business today with the industry's best business partner, Shopify, and start hearing sign up for your $1 per month trial today at Shopify.com slash WSB. Go to Shopify.com slash WSB. That's Shopify.com slash WSB. All right.

Starting point is 00:24:45 Back to the show. It's worth noting that at the time of this recording, the price of oil has fallen back down to $80 a barrel, but that the U.S. has depleted 177,000 barrels of oil, or 30% from its special petroleum reserve, or SPR, which is now at the lowest levels in history, meaning we've been using our reserve of oil to flood the market, and you could argue, artificially bring the price down and ease the inflation burden for our citizens, but it's only a temporary fix. If Josh is correct, we may be setting ourselves up for much higher oil prices in the future, which would inevitably lead to higher inflation. This likely explains why Warren Buffett made some huge bets on oil producers

Starting point is 00:25:26 this year. Roughly 80% of Berkshire Hathaway's Chevron stake of 170 million shares now worth $32 billion, was accumulated in 2022. Berkshire has also taken a 20% stake in Occidental Petroleum. That position is worth about $15 billion for a combined total of $47 billion. I brought Josh back on episode 468 to learn about Buffett's bets and his track record in investing in energy. Buffett and Munger are among the best market timers at oil and gas alive. And they're not known for that, right?

Starting point is 00:26:03 And if you go around Berkshire like we did and you talk to people and you listen to like what they have to say about Buffett, one, many people worship Buffett but didn't even know what my $250 WTI hat meant. Very little knowledge or awareness of oil and gas or, you know, interest in it or whatever. But they're amazing at it. So it's wild. You have like some of the best investors at this thing, right? You look at where Buffett has gotten into oil and gas where he's avoided it. He got out and was sort of negative on the industry in the early 80s. One of my friends found this, I think I was actually on your show too. He found this footnote in an annual letter in 1983 from Berkshire, where Buffett talked about how you don't need to own commodity producers in order to have

Starting point is 00:26:46 inflation protection. And he's right. But if he was talking about an environment where you had to buy commodity producers at 20 times cash flow or 30 times cash flow in order to get exposure, at two times cash flow, he's all over it. And because Berkshire has so much money, they can't really go to where Bison can go or where individual investors can go. And so if you look at the largest companies that are the most liquid that are relevant for Berkshire from a public equity share perspective, just getting to go and buy the stock in the market, you look at Chevron, which is probably the best run mega cap integrated producer. And you look at Oxy, which is at the time that he started to buy it in March was the sort of cheapest producer with the most upside to

Starting point is 00:27:33 higher oil prices. And that was sort of my analysis was it's not, I don't think it's something specific to Oxy in terms of a view on their specific assets. I think it was purely that their sort of cash flow torque to higher oil prices was superior to companies of their size and their trading liquidity. And so if you're only going to buy two, it makes sense to buy Chevron. Again, And Mike Worth is just absolutely a rock star. He's done a lot of stuff right in terms of balancing, generating enough cash flow while also keeping activist investors at bay through minimal ESG activity, but some in order to sort of keep his job.

Starting point is 00:28:09 So Chevron makes a lot of sense. And then Oxy for their high oil price torque. And so when I look at that and I think about, okay, like, what do I want to own? A number of people are just buying Oxy because Buffett's buying Oxy. And Buffett tells you not to do that. He's told the not this meeting, but the one I went to a year. years ago, he talked about how if he was running $50 million, he'd be doing everything different, and he could get 50% a year compounded returns. And so I like to think that I'd rather be like

Starting point is 00:28:38 40-year-old Warren Buffett than 80-something-year-old Warren Buffett. And so I think it's possible to learn what he's doing, which was the point of that letter, hey, like he sees a lot of value in oil and gas, and he is great at it. And he's done other cyclicals with mixed success. Oil and gas he is great at. He made a fortune for Berkshire. He made a fortune for his partnership. He made a fortune for himself. I didn't talk about him in the letter, but Charlie Munger, the money that he had to invest a lot in in Berkshire stock, he made from a massively undervalued oil producer that

Starting point is 00:29:08 honestly, like, reminds me a lot of journey where just you can do the math and it just doesn't make any sense. And so it took a lot of trust in himself to just own it anyway and just phenomenal, phenomenal run. And that was where a lot of the money that he spent in the early, I think it was the early 70s or early 80s where he came in and bought a lot of Berkshire was from an oil company too. So I think it's possible to learn from what they're doing without copying it exactly. And just to have that sort of exposure where there are these companies that can do very well from the things that would make a Chevron or an oxy do well, but they can do potentially

Starting point is 00:29:43 even better because I don't have to go put $10 billion to work when I'm buying it. and I don't need to only own one or two oil stocks in doing it. So I observe the sort of bet that it looks like Berkshire is making, and I try to express it in a way that has much more asymmetric risk and reward. And I'm able to do that because I just don't need to do what Buffett's doing. I totally get that. And it makes sense, I mean, given Buffett's size of portfolio he's working with, I'm kind of curious, though, if something like a Chevron or even Occidental, is just

Starting point is 00:30:19 massive size of those companies, is that a moat in and of itself? I don't think so. I think there's dis-economies of scale for some of these companies. So you look at Chevron and their position in West Texas and Southeast New Mexico, and they are growing their production, and they are an excellent operator, but I think it's just hard at that scale to be as effective of an operator as some of their competitors who are smaller. And there was this story that was told years ago about how the oil majors were going to inherit the Permian, the West Texas and Southeast New Mexico oil fields because they were best able to optimize all these different factors. And now shale development was really a factory type operation. And there are aspects of it that are real, but there's also aspects of it that I think people missed. And so I think there are dis-economies of scale as you get bigger. Companies like Chevron have amazing assets. And then they also have

Starting point is 00:31:15 terrible legacy assets and you're getting it all together. Same with Oxy and you're getting governance issues and you're getting, I mean, Chevron was in and they're still technically headquartered in California. So they have management policies that are more consistent with California companies and less consistent with, let's say, Texas companies, which is detrimental. If you're not having people, let's say, come into the office as much, you're not getting as many of this sort of, there's a network effect from having people in an office, especially for a big company. And so there are various challenges that Chevron has, I think, from being big, oxy, similar sort of thing. So I think there's some benefit from being big in terms of

Starting point is 00:31:55 lower cost of capital, better known. But there's also some costs. And I'm not sure that it's so obvious that's something that should be awarded with a much higher valuation. As you can see there, Josh isn't convinced that the major producers are the way to go. In fact, in our conversation, he highlighted his positions in microcaps like Sandridge, ticker S-D, and Journey, ticker J-O-Y. This really intrigued me because this year, I have also really taken an interest in microcaps. In fact, microcaps had a fairly decent year, and by decent, I mean just slightly less bad than their larger cap counterparts.

Starting point is 00:32:31 Microcaps are generally companies with market caps between 50 million and 300 million. In an effort to learn more, I invited on Ian Castle, a microcap expert who hired a highlighted the fact that investors like Buffett and Peter Lynch actually got their start by investing in microcap companies and maybe even more surprisingly had high turnover, meaning these weren't buy and hold forever type positions. Let's take a listen. When you look at the Buffett partnership, I believe he started that in 1957. And when he started that partnership, I think it launched with around $100,000 in capital. And so $100,000 in $1957 is about a million dollars today. So he, you know, Barnabut launching today would have launched his

Starting point is 00:33:13 partnership with a million dollars. And that partnership ran until 1968. By the time the partnership ended in 1968, I believe he had around 100 million in capital in those dollars, which is around 800 million today. So, which is pretty incredible when you think about it. He went from, you know, basically a million dollars equivalent today to 800 million over the course of 11 years, you know, in that fund. And in the middle of there, I believe. It was 19, some Berkshire Zell that's going to yell at me. I think it was 1965 that he kind of bought control of Berkshire. So during that partnership, actually brought control of Berkshire Hathaway.

Starting point is 00:33:51 And Berkshire Hathaway, even on an inflation-adjusted basis, was a microcap, even in today's dollars. But he started purchasing kind of large chunks of public companies and even a few private companies, even in the mid-1960s. And so his kind of entree in the microcap probably only lasted a few years because he was so successful. he quickly, you know, grew out of that ecosystem. When you look at his performance kind of over those first five or six years, I mean, they were actually probably fairly equivalent to what he did over the next 10 years, which makes sense. I mean, when you think about it, if I'm the best varsity QB in my high school football team,

Starting point is 00:34:29 you know, hopefully I excel and become the best QB in the college team and things like that. And so your performance can sustain at different levels and different market classes. And that's what the greats do. I mean, they're able to kind of continue one with. with their success compounding those great rates as they go upstream and upmarket cap. So I think most of his microcap experience was the first five or six years. And I believe he compounded at 31% gross during his partnership years, 25% net, which was probably on track with what he did over the next 10 years once he was kind of going upstream

Starting point is 00:35:00 a little bit further. When you look at somebody like Peter Lynch, I think he launched his fund officially to the public in like the early 80s. And I think he had around a 22% average rate of return. So probably somewhat similar, but a little bit better than what he did than when he was forced upstream. Because he went for managing 100 million in the early 80s to about 16 billion by the time he left. So he was obviously going upstream. But he also increased the amount of positions that he was in.

Starting point is 00:35:28 I mean, he was in 1,200, 1,300 companies at a time by the time he was done, which is pretty amazing. When you think about that, being in an active investor and being over 1,000 names. Incredible. Yeah, you know, back in 1999, Buffett said that he could still achieve 50% annual returns if he was working with like 10 million or so. What strategies do you imagine he'd be implementing in that case? Would it simply be just concentrating heavily into these smaller companies, I think like you are? Or are there like, you know, we're talking greenblatt spinoffs and other kind of strategies thrown in there? What do you think the playbook would look like? I think it would probably be, yes, concentrated. And again, he's one of the smartest

Starting point is 00:36:08 people in the planet. So you have to watch when you talk about concentration because everybody glorifies it. But there's also a dual-edged sword. But I think if Buffett was doing it today, it would be a combination of probably small micro, small cap companies and probably doing something similar to what Brent B. Short does, you know, where it's like acquiring private small companies for two or three times cash flow. It would probably be some combination of that. But concentrating in that approach. As you mentioned earlier, some small companies eventually grow up to be bigger companies. Netflix comes to mind.

Starting point is 00:36:40 They IPOed a little over 300 million. What are some of the biggest success stories that you followed from micro that have transitioned into macro? A good question. I mean, there's some big, bald bracket names like Walmart when it went public in 1971 as an IPO, it was microcap, you know, intuitive surgical. It was kind of like Netflix where it was kind of a larger, you know, microcap, Monster Energy and one of those monster drawdowns that it had actually went down into microcab for a short

Starting point is 00:37:07 period of time. Berkshire Hathaway, like I said, I believe cell gene as well. And there's a few other kind of life science companies that made huge runs over time. There's also a bunch of companies that a lot of people probably haven't heard of that, I mean, listen, you can 10x, 100x, you know, and still be a relatively small company too. You know, a company that like expel, and the symbol is XPEL. You know, that was a company that was profiled. on microcapped club by one of our members at 25 cents a share back in 2012 or 2013 that hit $100 a share last year. And so that's the other thing kind of attracted me to kind of the smaller area of microcap is because, you know, you can find a $10 or $20 million market cap company.

Starting point is 00:37:50 And if a 10x is it's still only 100 or 200 million market cap company. But I think one of the other interesting that parallels this conversation is also ill-liquid microcaps. Roger Ibbotson, who's a Yale finance professor, also runs zebra capital. He actually has a few white papers on illiquidity as that factor. And he did some work looking at all market cap classes, all liquidity profiles going back to 1971. And in one of his reports, I think the most public, or the most recent one that's public is year ended 2017 or 18, but he updates it annually.

Starting point is 00:38:25 But he has it there a matrix and it shows the best performing company since 1971. and every year, you know, over since 1971, it's ill-liquid microcaps. Not liquid microcaps, not mildly liquid microcaps, but ill-liquid microcaps, you know, versus, you know, liquid large caps, ill-liquid, large caps, mid-caps, small caps. Since 1971, the best performing, you know, kind of quartile is ill-liquid microcaps. Let's take a quick break and hear from today's sponsors. No, it's not your imagination. Risk and regulation are ramping up.

Starting point is 00:38:58 and customers now expect proof of security just to do business. That's why VANTA is a game changer. VANTA automates your compliance process and brings compliance, risk, and customer trust together on one AI-powered platform. So whether you're prepping for a SOC 2 or running an enterprise GRC program, VANTA keeps you secure and keeps your deals moving. Instead of chasing spreadsheets and screenshots, VANTA gives you continuous automation across more than 35 security and privacy framework.

Starting point is 00:39:28 Companies like Ramp and Ryder spend 82% less time on audits with Vanta. That's not just faster compliance, it's more time for growth. If I were running a startup or scaling a team today, this is exactly the type of platform I'd want in place. Get started at Vanta.com slash billionaires. That's Vanta.com slash billionaires. Ever wanted to explore the world of online trading but haven't dared try? The futures market is more active now than ever before, and Plus 500 futures is the perfect

Starting point is 00:40:03 place to start. Plus 500 gives you access to a wide range of instruments, the S&B 500, NASDAQ, Bitcoin, gas, and much more. Explore equity indices, energy, metals, 4x, crypto, and beyond. With a simple and intuitive platform, you can trade from anywhere, right from your phone. Deposit with a minimum of $100 and experience the fast, accessible, and you can trade from your phone. futures trading you've been waiting for. See a trading opportunity. You'll be able to trade it in just two clicks once your account is open. Not sure if you're ready, not a problem. Plus 500 gives you an

Starting point is 00:40:38 unlimited, risk-free demo account with charts and analytic tools for you to practice on. With over 20 years of experience, Plus 500 is your gateway to the markets. Visit plus500.com to learn more. Trading in futures involves risk of loss and is not suitable for everyone. Not all applicants will qualify. Plus 500, it's trading with a plus. Billion dollar investors don't typically park their cash in high-yield savings accounts. Instead, they often use one of the premier passive income strategies for institutional investors, private credit. Now, the same passive income strategy is available to investors of all sizes thanks to the Fundrise income fund, which has more than 600 million invested and a 7.97% distribution rate. With traditional savings yields falling,

Starting point is 00:41:31 it's no wonder private credit has grown to be a trillion dollar asset class in the last few years. Visit fundrise.com slash WSB to invest in the Fundrise income fund in just minutes. The fund's total return in 2025 was 8% and the average annual total return since inception is 7.8%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, current distribution rate as of 1231, 2025. Carefully consider the investment material before investing, including objectives, risks, charges, and expenses. This and other information can be found in the income fund fund's perspective at fundrise.com slash income.

Starting point is 00:42:09 This is a paid advertisement. All right. Back to the show. Surprisingly, what beat out most micro, small, mid, and large cap stocks this year was cash. The almighty dollar. In 2021, I interviewed Brent Johnson of Santiago Capital, episode 397, about his dollar milkshake theory, a controversial theory that flew in the face of those who believe that the dollar

Starting point is 00:42:33 is on the verge of its demise. I highly encourage you to go back to my 2021 interview with Brent, episode 397, where we explore the theory in depth. In that conversation, I asked Brent, what DXY or Dollar Index level would cause him to be concerned? His answer was 97, with a caveat out that the rate of increase was much more important. Well, the DXY index peaked at 114 on September 27th, 2022, an increase of nearly 19% from the top of the year. Prior to seeing this play out, Brent's short answer to when the dollar milkshake would go into effect was when, quote, Debt Matters Again. I invited Brent back this year on episode 449 to ask if that's where we are today. Well, I think ultimately everything in economics comes down to two things.

Starting point is 00:43:20 supply and demand and kind of a subset of supply and demand is of cash flow. A business needs to receive cash flows in one form or another. Either it needs to receive cash flow from current customers who are sending cash into it in exchange for a product or they need to be out there raising money and getting cash flow from new investors. But if you're not attracting cash flow and you're not getting any incoming revenue stream, then that company is going to fail eventually. And the same things for an individual or for a country or kind of any organization. And one of the things that governments have been absolutely, and governments and monetary authorities have been absolutely great at, you know, and I took my cap to them as kicking the can down

Starting point is 00:44:04 the road and extending the game. And typically the way that they've done that is when cash flows from customers stop flowing in, they've provided cash flow from government stimulus or bailouts or whatever you want to call it, right? And for that reason, debt. hasn't mattered. We just kicked the can down the road. In a weird way, so let me take a step back. As you said, I kind of started talking about this in 2018. And I am the first one to say that I was early. You know, on Wall Street, you're typically, if you're early, you're wrong. And so from that perspective, I was wrong. Now, I don't think I'm going to continue to being wrong, but there's no question I was early. I kind of saw this playing out 2019, 2020 time frame. And when COVID hit,

Starting point is 00:44:43 I thought that was the trigger. In hindsight, it was not the trigger. And again, I'm not blaming being wrong on COVID. It kind of drives me crazy when people blame all their problems on COVID. But what I think happened was COVID was such a, for lack of a better word, globally systemic event. It sort of forced the whole world to work together to combat it. And so we kind of saw the whole world, you know, do the same thing from a monetary policy perspective, from a government spending perspective, from a trade perspective, you know, perhaps Trump and China kind of took it a little bit easier on each other than they otherwise would have if they didn't have to deal with that. But, you know, now we fast forward and now we're in 2022. Maybe COVID isn't totally behind us, but it isn't kind of the front and center

Starting point is 00:45:25 that it was two years ago or even a year ago. But now what we have is rather than the world working together, we have the bifurcation of the world. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say we've kind of gone back to this Cold War mentality where we've got Russia and China on one side and the U.S. and the West on the other. And, you know, sides are being drawn and partners are being picked and red lines are being put down. I think it's the opposite of coordination. Then not only that, but within those two sides, there's fractions. And now we have not only monetary policy divergence between the two sides, East versus West, but we've got monetary policy divergence within the West and within the East. Some countries are tightening monetary policy and some

Starting point is 00:46:08 countries are loosening monetary policy. That is the environment, especially when the U.S. is tightening monetary policy where really volatile things happen. And it's primarily a reason because the whole world trades in dollars, because it's the global reserve currency, and because there's so much dollar debt out there, and it's the primary funding currency of most countries, when the U.S. raises rakes or tightens monetary policy, they're not just tightening it on the United States. They're tightening it on the whole world. You know, when Japan does monetary policy or Europe does monetary policy or Brazil or Australia, when they do monetary policy, it's typically for their own region. It's typically not a global event. But when the U.S. does it as a global

Starting point is 00:46:45 event. And so I think because of that happening, going back to what will cause debt to matter is I think flow of cash is going to start leaving certain places. And I think it's going to come mostly to the United States. If it moves at all, I think it's going to come to the United States. And again, if it doesn't move, capital is not moving. You're not going to get that cash flow. You're going to have problem. And I think if it does move, I think it's mostly going to come to the West and to the United States in particular. And I think that's going to deprive the rest of the world of capital. And so I think that is what's going to cause debt to matter, the lack of coordination and the lack of liquidity. Now, we'll see. If that doesn't happen, I'll be wrong again. But that's

Starting point is 00:47:20 kind of how I see it playing out. Or that's what I think causing debt to matter. That's so interesting. And when I asked really about when debt is going to matter again, I almost expected you to say, you know, when inflation matters again, now we have to increase interest rates to quell inflation. And you have everyone in the U.S. at least scratching their heads. Like, why on earth are we raising into weakness into a lot of things that are happening in the market right now? And to your point, what I'm hearing from you just now is that the Fed is thinking more globally, right? And they're saying, well, we've got to raise race because we're going to have to print more money. We're going to create more bonds to fund that money printing and who's going to buy it. Ideally,

Starting point is 00:47:57 not the Fed. You know, ideally it would be the rest of the world. And maybe they will if we are able to provide some real yield. Is that correct? I mean, that's part of it. I think them raising rates is kind of threefold. One, you make it more attractive and then you get more capital. Number two, if you raise, then you have more room to cut later if you want to. Number three is the inflation point that you just brought up. And, you know, if you think back a year ago, it was an absolute given that interest

Starting point is 00:48:22 rates were never going to be raised and the government was never going to stop sending checks. The playbook was financial repression. We're going to hold real rates negative. We're going to keep rates low. We're going to keep spending fiscal stimulus and we are going to inflate our way out of this problem. If we can get 5% inflation for the next 10 years, that decreases the debt burden by 50%. And the point is that works really, really well on a spreadsheet. It doesn't work that well in real life because there's political ramifications of having 5% inflation.

Starting point is 00:48:52 The other thing is it's very hard to get 5% inflation without it splurging out of the toothpaste tube and becoming 10% inflation or 15% inflation. And once that happens, it starts to happen, politicians start to feel it. And politicians are nothing but short-term thinkers. I mean, that's how they get re-elected is taking care of short-term problems. They don't get re-elected by taking care of long-term problems. So, and we've already seen. And so my point is, is the certainty with which financial regression was going to take hold a year ago has just a year later, we're having rate hikes. And they're going to raise rates again tomorrow or Wednesday. They may raise rates again in June. They're going to start doing QT. And if you don't believe that they're going to do this, then I think you're not paying attention. Now, at some point, they're going to have to reverse, but I think they're going to keep tightening until something breaks. And I think that they know that if something breaks, it's in a break overseas before it breaks here. And if it breaks overseas before it breaks here, that gives the U.S. political leverage, which is, you know, again, that's what they want. As the global hegemon, that's what the U.S.

Starting point is 00:49:51 wants leverage on the rest of the world. So that's why this inflation, your point about inflation, it's an important one. And to your point, inflation is causing the rate rises. The rate rises is pulling the dollar higher because you get more bank for your buck if you put it into dollars and put it into treasuries. And then putting the dollar going higher squeezes the rest of the world. So now the rest of the world, we're in a global slowdown from a growth perspective. So the rest of the world, their top line is slowing down. But because the dollar is going higher and rates are going higher, their bottom line financing costs are going up. So they're getting squeezed. And their currencies are starting to fall because many

Starting point is 00:50:28 countries are trying to combat this squeeze with more fiscal stimulus and spending more money and doing more QE in easy money policy. And again, so it becomes this vicious circle, which actually perpetuates the problem rather than solving the problem. So to your point, what causes the debt to matter is inflation is a very good, is one of the answers and maybe the best answer. Besides the DXY and its rate of change, I focused in on some other indicators this year. One indicator that I've added to my arsenal is the high yield spread. In episode 455 with Dan Rasmussen, he explains why he uses the high yield spread as a primary indicator. Check it out.

Starting point is 00:51:06 Yeah, well, let's start by talking first about what the high yield spread is and why you should care. The high yield spread measures the difference in the cost that risky borrowers, generally small cap companies or companies that have borrowed too much, pay to borrow relative to the equivalent treasury rate. And this is a wonderful indicator for two reasons. One, these are the borrowers on the margin, right? They're the big borrowers on the margin.

Starting point is 00:51:30 And so if you think about what the high yield spread rising or falling is telling you, it's telling you what banks and fixed income participants are thinking about default risk. And so if that spread moves up materially, right, that means that banks and fixed income investors are saying, hey, there's materially more default risks than there was a month or two ago. And that's not a good sign, right? Those people are sophisticated. They're not thinking about hopes and dreams of the future, right? They're thinking, like, will I get my money back on this 4% yielding bond?

Starting point is 00:51:59 When that gets repriced, it's worth looking at because it's giving you a very clear picture of where those people that are worried about downside risk are pricing that downside risk. The other reason it's really useful, and Ben Bernanke did a lot of his doctoral research on this, is that there's something called the financial accelerators, this is Bernanke's idea, that when, and the idea is an answer to the question of how small shocks turn into big crises, right? If you're watching, you know, if you're watching financial markets this year, you say, well, we've had sort of a number of small shocks, right? You know, Fed has started raising interest rates, but they haven't raised them that much, right? Russia invaded Ukraine,

Starting point is 00:52:34 which is obviously a big deal. But they didn't invade France or Germany, right? We're not in a nuclear war. And tech earnings came in slightly worse than we might have hoped. And yet the market reaction has seemed to be very big. And so why does this? the market sometimes have a big reaction to what seems like small shocks. And what Bernanke says is that the financial accelerator happens when first something happens, like Russia invades Ukraine or tech earnings come in a little weak. And then people in the financial markets reprice risks. So the people in the high yield markets say, gee, maybe we should charge Netflix an extra 100 basis points to borrow or an extra 200 basis points to borrow. Or think about mortgage rates,

Starting point is 00:53:12 right? Mortgage rates go up 100 basis points, 200 basis points, right? And then what happens is that the people that were borrowing, those marginal borrowers, that might have invested to build a new factory or do a new deal, or in the case of the consumer, buy a new house or invest in a renovation, they say, yeah, maybe I should scale back my plans or maybe I should hold it off for now until the market clears. And then the person that was going to build that house or the person that was going to work in that new factory, they don't get a job or they don't get a raise. And then they don't go buy jeans at American Eagle. And then American Eagle's stock goes down, right? And then the value of everyone's 401k goes down. And then people say, wow, gee, you know, I used to have

Starting point is 00:53:50 150,000 of savings. Now I have 120,000. You know, really, I should definitely not buy a new car this year. And then all of a sudden, the auto parts companies go down, right? And that's the financial accelerator, right? It's this feedback loop. And that's why I watched the high yield spread so closely, right? Because when the high yield spread starts to rise as it has of late, it's a real danger sign, right? The financial accelerator could be happening, right? If spreads continue at this level, or widen out further, we're there, right? We're at a place where lending is actually constricting the U.S. economy. And we're there right now, right?

Starting point is 00:54:21 Spreads at 470 is not good, right? I mean, that's not a good, that's not a good market, right? That's not helpful to businesses. It's not helpful to the consumer. It's a sign that the financial accelerator is starting to see some pickup. But when the financial accelerator really blows out, and we say 600 is sort of the metric we look at. But 600, you know, if spreads go above 600, they often go much wider.

Starting point is 00:54:42 They might go to 850 or 1,000 or in 2008 and 9, when the market totally froze, you know, they were up over 2000, right? But spreads blow through that point. And that's basically when the market just kind of shuts. And everything in liquid gets sold off. Everyone's panicking. Nobody can get new debt. All of Wall Street kind of shuts down, right?

Starting point is 00:55:00 There's no new deals being done, et cetera. And that's a very, very dire situation. And the other hand, one that we can analyze discreetly. It's this unique environment. Or we say, okay, let's say high yield spreads or that wall. and external financing is essentially shut off from the economy and the financial exudderies in full swing. What does that mean?

Starting point is 00:55:19 What do we do? How do we react? Because those are quite rare and unusual moments. Now, I want to ask about this, but I do want to go back to the time period because I still am curious about that. But as far as the 600 mark on the high yield spread, some of your latest research was showing that while the number, the nominal number is important as like a mile marker, it's the direction of the spread, either rising or falling, that's adding, that actually adds value to the strategy.

Starting point is 00:55:46 It reminds me a little bit of when I was talking with Brent Johnson recently about the DXY. He said, you know, as soon as it gets to 97, I get worried. But it's actually the rate at which it gets to 907 or the rate it gets to, you know, 104, wherever it is now, that is actually more important than the number itself. So can you walk us through why that directional focus adds value to the strategy? Yeah. So we look at both the absolute level. in the direction, right? You can think of are spreads tight, right? So the financial market's moving,

Starting point is 00:56:15 everything's kind of fine, or are they wide where you say, gee, you know, the financial market's actually constricting the economy, right? And generally, we'd say when spreads are tight, you tend to see an environment that's inflationary. And when spreads are wide, it tends to be deflationary. You know, one of the calls we would make is, hey, spreads are wide enough to be a deflationary force right now, right? They're putting down more pressure on inflation. Now, there's supply stocks that are competing with that, but broadly would say the level of the spread is giving you a sort of inflationary or deflationary metric. And it's also telling you, hey, gee, is the economy broadly kind of healthy and working or is the financial accelerator a risk? And are we

Starting point is 00:56:51 at this, you know, potentially in a crisis? And then the direction matters. I think I have a very credit-driven view of the economy, right? I think people buy things on credit. Deals happen because the availability of credit, right? Think of most of the large purchases we make, whether it's buying a house or if you're an investor or buying a multifamily apartment building or buying a small private company, you're going to use debt to do it. In fact, you might fund the majority with debt. So the actual cost of that debt matters. And when the price of that changes, it changes the actions of all the participants in the market economy, right? I mean, if mortgage rates go up, fewer people are going to be, you know, people are going to read adjust their prices down because

Starting point is 00:57:29 they can't afford as much. And they might even delay purchasing. However, on the other hand, the spreads are tightening, right? And people say, oh, my gosh, I can get a really cheap mortgage or mortgages are so much cheaper or, you know, the price of debt is so much cheaper. I could really go do a deal that was pretty big right now and get pretty good money to do it. That's going to fuel the economy. And so we broadly say, you know, when spreads are coming in and they're tightening, that's a positive thing. It suggests that GDP is growing.

Starting point is 00:57:54 Cheaper debt is stimulative. And on the other hand, you know, when spreads are rising and borrowing is getting more expensive, it's contractionary because there's just less money to go around. So I think that paying attention about the level and direction is really important. And right now we're in this moment where spreads are wide and they're rising. And that's not a good general scenario for the economy. It's a very worrisome one. Another market indicator that I've only recently picked up is the put call ratio.

Starting point is 00:58:20 The put call ratio is calculated by dividing the number of traded put options by the number of traded call options. Let's say equilibrium is around 0.7. If we go higher than that, it's a very bearish signal. And if we go below, like 0.58, where it is at the time of this recording, it's actually a very bullish signal. I brought back Joe Brown on episode 507 to break it down for us. Yeah, absolutely. It is one of those things that every once in a while is, you know, kind of flashing a signal saying, hey, look at me. And basically what it comes down to is you want to be looking at what the consensus is thinking,

Starting point is 00:58:55 the consensus of professional traders, the consensus of retail traders, usually those are different. And then as Ray Dalio always says, if you want to make money investing, you have to bet against the consensus, but you also have to be right. And most of the time, the consensus is right. And so when we look at the put-call ratio, this is one of those things that it measures sentiment on the market. We look to the total number of puts being traded, the total number of calls being traded. And then so the higher that ratio is above one, that means that there are more puts being traded. There are two different put-call ratios. one of them is for indexes, so on things like SPX, the actual index.

Starting point is 00:59:32 And then there's other ones, it's the equity put-call ratio. The index put-call ratio is mostly professional traders, mostly used for hedging. So that number is going to be higher most of the time because more puts are going to just, there's a bias towards that institutionally for hedging. When you have the equity put-call ratio, that is more going to be retail traders. So the small investor, and we know that small money is typically dumb money. And so when that number peaks high, that means there's a much larger number of puts being traded, which indicates the average retail investor is very bearish.

Starting point is 01:00:02 This is considered a contrarian indicator because by the time the masses have become the most bearish to where that number will get really high, most of the bad stuff is going to be baked into the cake already. And so when we use this in light of everything else that's happening right now, macroeconomically speaking, like what the Federal Reserve is doing, what the inflation numbers are doing, what the money supply is doing, When we put the put-call ratio in light of all of that, it looks like a pretty strong contrarian indicator that the bottom might already be in with the stock market. Now, a big belief or narrative at the top of the year was that if the Fed were to raise rates, they would really struggle to increase them beyond 2%.

Starting point is 01:00:42 This was believed to be true because the last time they attempted this in 2019, things began to get a bit shaky very quickly and they reversed course. Shortly thereafter, the repo market froze up. Joe brought to my attention the reverse repo market, which I believe to be a big focus for 2023. So what is the reverse repo market? Let's find out from Joe. Repo stands for repurchase, not repossession like a car and a bank.

Starting point is 01:01:08 And so the repo market is one where the banks would go to each other very basically simply, oh, I'm oversimplifying you here. Overnight, the banks would go to each other and they'd say, hey, I've got a bunch of extra cash. Does anybody need some cash? And then the other bank would say, hey, I've got collateral, but I'm over simplifying you. I need some cash. And so they'd go to each other and they'd say, here, I'm going to sell you my collateral and

Starting point is 01:01:27 you'll give me some cash for that because I need the cash. And I promise at some point in the future, whether it's tomorrow or a later date, I will repurchase that collateral from you. So if we go back to like 2005, 2006, a lot of this collateral was mortgage back securities that were being bought and sold to each other for overnight cash needs between banks. Well, at a certain point, all the banks decided at once, this collateral is not actually good anymore. And so I'm not going to buy it from anybody. So a lot of banks were strapped for cash. And this is actually what caused Lehman to collapse is because they couldn't access any overnight cash. So they were bankrupt

Starting point is 01:02:00 overnight. And so this is why the repo market was central to the potential of the financial system collapsing and why the Federal Reserve and the Treasury stepped in there because of the way that the banking system operates. Well, when we fast forward to September of 2019, the rates for that cash, that overnight cash, spiked again in September of 2019, many people were scared that there was rot in the system again, that there was a bunch of bad collateral on the bank's balance sheets. Well, it ended up not being the case. Really, what was happening was everybody had just bought so many treasuries that there was no cash left in the system. And so government has a high appetite for borrowing. They borrow mainly from financial institutions. Financial institutions

Starting point is 01:02:37 create those loans and loan that money to the government. So financial institutions like banks have a ton of U.S. treasuries on their books and they realized, hey, we need some cash, but nobody had cash to lend. So those rates skyrocketed. And again, banks were at risk of collapsing if they couldn't access that overnight cash. So the Federal Reserve stepped in and they just said, we're going to operate directly in the repo market. We are going to be creating cash to lend into the repo market at this point so that any banks who need that overnight cash can access it directly from us, the money printer so those rates don't skyrocket. Now, a lot of people said, hey, this is, you know, this is a way for, you know, indirect roundabout money printing. But just a few months later,

Starting point is 01:03:14 everything with COVID happened and that blew up. And so that gave them the opportunity to kind of switch and get out of operating in the repo market because it wasn't necessary anymore, given the amount of new money that was created through the trillions of dollars that were printed and then spent by the government. So what you had at that point was the government borrowed, you know, a couple trillion dollars and started spending that all into the economy. So you had this huge influx of cash into the system. So suddenly now banks have this overabundance of cash.

Starting point is 01:03:42 Well, cash deposits for banks, because when the government spends that money, that money goes into somebody's bank account. Like, that's what happens when they spend money. It goes into a businesses or an organizations or a politician's bank account, an individual's bank account. And then that person then spends that money to somebody else's bank account. And for banks, deposits their liabilities because they owe that. And so there's a certain amount of collateral banks are required to own to offset their liabilities. And so they'd have to go out there and buy like T bills and treasuries to offset their liabilities. Well, at the time, interest rates were so low that this could have pushed interest rates negative. The Fed didn't want that.

Starting point is 01:04:18 So they opened up the reverse repo facility so that banks could access collateral directly from the Federal Reserve instead of going out and buying it on the open market and pushing rates negative. They wanted to soak up a bunch of this excess capital so they increased the rate they were paying in this reverse repo facility. So basically telling all of the banks, hey, if you need collateral, come park your cash with us, will give you the collateral and we'll pay you an interest rate on that cash. So that's a great deal. It's literally the only risk free. We talk about Treasury is being risk free, but you still have

Starting point is 01:04:49 the risk of the price of the bond fluctuating if you have to sell it beforehand. And you risk the government defaulting if for some reason they can't fix the debt ceiling issue or whatever and they default on the debt, but with the Federal Reserve, they're the ones with the monopoly on printing money. So it literally is the place where you can go to get risk free return. So banks park that cash with the Fed, get that interest rate paid to them. And it's great. The problem is it soaked up about $2 trillion worth of cash from the system. And that's all still in there. And so what your question was alluding to in the beginning was what are they doing with this and what's the, you know, potential next step here. At some point, that money will leave the reverse freepo

Starting point is 01:05:25 facility. And so when we look at interest rates right now, how they're rising and borrowing costs for the government are going up, my opinion is that at some point with that gets too tight for the government, not for households, not for corporations, but for the government. The Federal Reserve will drop the amount they're paying in that reverse repo facility. Suddenly, then, you don't have that risk free return. Banks have to take that cash and go out to the open market and buy bills and treasuries. And so when they do that, that will be a nice little boost in funding for the government. When it's not coming from the Federal Reserve, it'll come out of the repo market. And that'll be about a $2 trillion buffer that ends up hitting the government's

Starting point is 01:06:04 purchasing power there. It won't be a permanent solution, but a $2 trillion dollar bandage. is a pretty big band-aid. Now, would you consider that move to be a Fed pivot? You know, everyone's talking about this Fed pivot that could potentially happen. I think everyone's thinking they're going to just lower interest rates. But are you thinking that instead of doing that or in lieu of doing that, they would actually just add liquidity through this reverse repo system? I do think this will be first, absolutely.

Starting point is 01:06:31 So they'll be able to maintain face and save credibility by saying, hey, we're still raising interest rates. We're still selling assets off of our balance sheet. but because they stop paying, you know, that risk-free rate onto into the reverse repo facility, all that money has to go somewhere. And that's all cash that's in the system that right now is kind of held outside. And so if they do that and shut off the free money flow into the reverse repo facility, all that money comes out, buys T bills, buys treasuries.

Starting point is 01:07:01 And suddenly then that makes borrowing costs a little bit lower, makes borrowing a little bit easier for the government. So if there is some sort of issue where the government, cannot fund itself, cannot access, maybe the rates get too high for when they try and do their auctions, maybe they go no bid or whatever. Well, now you have two trillion dollars of funding for the government that they can use to continue to spend. And so I think that will be kind of an undercover first phase of the pivot. Most people will not know what's going on there. Most people won't understand the mechanics of it. And so it'll just be like, you know, hey, the Fed is still still tightening,

Starting point is 01:07:32 just like they said they were. And there's this, you know, other thing out there that's making it a little bit easier for everybody and people will kind of shrug their shoulders. But I do think this will be kind of the first phase of the pivot before. They'll do that before they change their interest rate policy, lower interest rates or start increasing their balance rate again. So when we talk about using this as an indicator, because you kind of listed it earlier, are you looking for the two trillion dollars start going down as far as the Fed's balance sheet holding less and less of that repo money? Yes. And this will happen a little bit naturally anyway because, as conditions get tighter and tighter, well, interest rates are going to continue going up.

Starting point is 01:08:11 And so the amount that's being paid to the repo facility right now is just about as much day-to-day it changes as the 10-year treasury. And so as interest rates continue to go up, that gets more and more attractive where lenders might be willing to say, hey, I'm willing to take on some risk by putting it into bills or treasuries or other form of debt instead of keeping it with the Fed because there's a much higher return. So we might see that reverse repo facilities start to dwindle down. The problem is the Fed keeps on raising the rate that they pay into that facility every time they raise rates. And so when we see that change and when we see a difference in how much they pay versus the federal funds rate, that's when I think we'll see

Starting point is 01:08:52 the big draining start to happen. And that's what we'll see probably a sizable impact on asset prices. And a bullish impact, if I'm understanding. Correct. Yeah. Now that we're winding down 2022, there's a strong and widely held belief that if the Fed keeps on its current path, something will break and the most obvious assumption is likely unemployment. Now, if something does break, it's interesting to think about what the Fed's response might look like. For that, I brought back famed economist Richard Duncan on episode 488 to get his thoughts. I think that the response would be similar to what we're seeing from the Bank of England. When this dynamic took hold in the UK with the pension funds being forced to sell their government

Starting point is 01:09:34 bonds to cover their hedged positions, their derivatives exposure. Then that set off a dynamic that pushed the bond yields in the UK even higher and caused the pension funds to sell even more bonds. It was creating an out-of-control vicious spiral that was driving up the government bond yields in the UK and endangering the pension system in the UK. So the Bank of England, central banks are created to be the lender of last resort to prevent banking panics when they occur. That's their main purpose from the beginning of time. And so what the Bank of England did is exactly that. They became the lender of last resort. They announced that

Starting point is 01:10:15 over the next, I believe, is a two-week period that they would be willing to buy up to 65 billion pounds of UK government bonds in order to prevent, essentially, in order to prevent the bond yields from moving any higher and stopping the panic in the bond market. But in fact, they haven't had to buy 65 billion pounds worth of bonds. I don't have the precise figure, but I think it's more like they actually only have to spend five. Yep. And so by just spending, creating five billion pounds and buying five billion pounds worth of bonds, they showed everybody in the market that they were there and that they would buy as many bonds as necessary to stop the interest rates from going any higher. Well, they were supposed to end this on Friday, and maybe they will, maybe they won't. If

Starting point is 01:11:03 the bond yields start moving higher again, they'll have to spend some more. And so the same sort of, and that's the way the Bank of Japan controls the Japanese government bond. They've been doing quantitative easing in Japan even longer than we have. But what they discovered is just by the Bank of Japan announcing that we will buy as many Japanese government bonds as necessary to peg the yield on the 10-year Japanese bond at 25 basis points, they discovered they didn't really have to buy that many bonds. They ended up buying far fewer bonds, and they had been earlier on when they had set a fixed amount for buying every month. So the amount of bond buying that they've had to do is much lower than when they were saying they would buy X amount of Japanese government bonds every month.

Starting point is 01:11:46 So it doesn't take that much government intervention. It only takes the announcement that we are determined to get the situation under control, and we have limitless amounts of resources to do this, When they say that they're going to control the bond yield at a certain level, if the markets believe them, they don't really have to spend that much money to do it. And if the markets don't believe them and test them out, the central bank creates a little bit more money and burns everybody who tested them out. So that's probably what we would see. And if we have some sort of financial crisis emerge in the U.S., the Fed would make an announcement similar to the Bank of England that they're prepared to buy, you know, $100 billion new dollars worth. of U.S. government bonds or whatever is required to support that particular crisis to stop that particular run, whether it's in the government bond market or the corporate bond market. And by

Starting point is 01:12:38 making that announcement, they would calm the markets again. And so in that sort of crisis, that's what we would most probably see. Whether it was the Fed's responses to inflation, Russia invading Ukraine and compromising energy resources, pension plan bailouts in the UK, FTCs and other crypto exchanges collapsing, it's safe to say that 2022 was full of surprises. To wrap up my top takeaways episode, I wanted to zoom out and get some perspective on what we're all trying to do by listening and learning from this podcast. And that's to become better investors and hopefully better people. In episode 441, I interviewed financial planning expert Peter Malook, whose firm manages over $200 billion. Peter has advised countless people who have achieved

Starting point is 01:13:20 financial greatness, and I was curious to see what he's learned from their experience. It doesn't matter how much money people have, where they live, how long they've been investing. It's always the same thing. I'll cover a few of them, the big ones. One big one is going in and out of the market. And some people are dramatic about it. Like, I'm going to go to cash because of Ukraine. I'm going to go to cash because of the pandemic, right?

Starting point is 01:13:42 Or I'm going to go to cash because I don't like Trump or I don't like Biden or whatever. And that's deadly. It's just deadly because the market can go up if you're in it. Great. You're happy. It can go sideways. It's still better than cash. You're collecting dividends.

Starting point is 01:13:54 And it can go down. Your worst case scenario is it goes down. What happens if it goes down? Well, this has happened 100 times before. We know how the story ends. It comes back. That's your worst thing is you suffer through the pandemic or tech bubble or 8-09 or 9-11 or whatever. If you go to cash because you don't like who was elected or you don't like the war that's

Starting point is 01:14:10 happened or whatever you think it's going to impact your money, well, again, the market can go up and you're in trouble. It may never go back to where it was when you exit it. I mean, there are people that exited at Dow 10,000. Is the Dow going to go back to $10,000? Probably not. Could it? Of course it could, but probably not.

Starting point is 01:14:24 So if it goes up, the problem for you is that loss is permanent. If you're in the market and goes down, it's temporary. If you're out of the market, it goes up. It can be permanent. And I think that's the real problem with market timing. All you do is mess it up once in your life and the game is over. So you've got this lifetime for people to go, this time is different and get out. And I've seen it with the pandemic.

Starting point is 01:14:46 I saw it with Trump. I saw it with Obama elected. I saw it with the tech bubble, 0809, 9-11. I mean, he just takes one mess up, right? The other, I think, is this active trading and the friction that comes with active trading. And things can turn very, very quickly. I mean, something can look like it's doing really great for three years and lose everything in three months. I think that's really surprising to new investors that if it can go up 30% in a week, it can go down 30% in a week. You might not have seen it yet, but that's how it works. Right. And so I think people get surprised sometimes at how quick things can turn on them and you really get cut up in that and active security selection. And I think, you know, the biggest one, I'll go to the end, which was kind of the sixth bonus mistake. But it's probably the biggest, saddest mistake I see is that people don't enjoy their money. And I think that people that are great savers and great investors, they kind of get some joy out of saving and investing and they forget the purpose of the money in the first place. At one point, they wanted money to

Starting point is 01:15:40 do charitable things or to help their kids or to go on vacations or to have a nice car. And then instead it just becomes piling up money just to have money. To be, that's the most tragic mistake. and I'm constantly talking to clients about, hey, enjoy this. It doesn't matter if your kids get $2 million instead of $3 or $12 instead of $14,000 or $500,000 instead of $700,000. No difference. But a huge difference if you spend a little bit more incrementally every year. If you can, like if you've established a good path, don't kill yourself to save the extra dollar. Enjoy yourself now.

Starting point is 01:16:13 There might not be a tomorrow. And it's not just you. Everyone around you care about. You lose one person. You see this a lot. Someone retires and maybe they're. perfectly healthy, but the spouse has an issue, and then they can't travel anymore. I mean, you've got to have fun along the way. To me, that's the biggest tragedy that comes with,

Starting point is 01:16:28 and it happens to the great investors, because they're the ones that create the big pile. They have a hard time enjoying it. So with that, enjoy it, friends, and thank you for listening to TIP. We wish you health, wealth, and happiness in 2023. Happy New Year. All right, everybody, that's all we we had for you this week. If you're loving the show, don't forget to follow us on your favorite podcast app. And if you'd be so kind, please leave us a review. It really helps the show. If you want to reach out directly, you can find me on Twitter at Trey Lockerby. And don't forget to check out all of the amazing resources we've built for you at the investorspodcast.com. You can also simply Google TIP finance and it should pop right up.

Starting point is 01:17:05 And with that, we'll see you again next time. Thank you for listening to TIP. Make sure to subscribe to millennial investing by the Investors Podcast Network and learn how to achieve financial independence. To access our show notes, transcripts, or courses, go to theinvestorspodcast.com. This show is for entertainment purposes only. Before making any decision consult a professional, this show is copyrighted by the Investors podcast network. Written permission must be granted before syndication or rebroadcasting.

We Study Billionaires - The Investor’s Podcast Network - TIP512: Top Takeaways from 2022 w/ Trey Lockerbie

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.