Deflation and Insolvency Risks: Gold and Bonds’ Moment to Shine

Published on
January 26th, 2021
67 minutes

Charting the Future of COVID-19: Is “Back to Normal” Within Reach?

Deflation and Insolvency Risks: Gold and Bonds’ Moment to Shine

The Interview ·
Featuring Steven Van Metre and Travis Kimmel

Published on: January 26th, 2021 • Duration: 67 minutes

Steven Van Metre of Steven Van Metre Financial and Real Vision president Travis Kimmel discuss how bonds and gold perform during times of deflation and insolvency. After Kimmel shares his journey as an entrepreneur and a technologist to Real Vision’s president, he explains why he thinks insolvency poses a serious risk for the U.S. economy. He and Van Metre discuss why Treasury bonds perform so well during times of economic distress, comparing the performance of long Treasury bonds relative to the S&P 500, as well as to gold and gold miners. After Van Metre explains why he believes quantitative easing is, in fact, deflationary, Kimmel describes the “greatest trades” he sees on the horizon. Filmed on January 21, 2021.

Key learnings:
The repayment of debt destroys dollars, so the overhang of tremendous debt loads and obligations (rents, corporate borrowing, etc.) will prove deflationary. In this scenario, Kimmel and Van Metre think bonds offer a favorable risk/reward.



  • NB
    Nabil B.
    27 January 2021 @ 23:08
    What about allocating a position to the VIX instead of, or in addition to, owning bonds, to hedge for a deflationary crash?
    • MC
      Mark C.
      29 January 2021 @ 23:53
      I like your thinking.
    • JD
      Jane D.
      7 February 2021 @ 09:30
      Long VIX has massive negative carry.
  • sc
    sung c.
    1 February 2021 @ 18:50
    Loved the trade analysis on Bonds vs. Gold. Thank you!!!
  • pt
    popejumpingjohnpaul t.
    26 January 2021 @ 20:07
    wearing a hat, not looking at the camera, cmon on man.
    • DB
      Douglas B.
      26 January 2021 @ 20:18
      Ripping on content creators, creating nothing in your own life. C’mon man!
    • MK
      Michael K.
      27 January 2021 @ 02:22
      Didn’t bother me one bit. You do you.
    • JB
      James B.
      31 January 2021 @ 17:18
      U notice this and not the safe, cmon on man
  • RN
    Richard N.
    31 January 2021 @ 05:04
    What would be your recommendation for a retail investor in bonds? It is hard to capture cap gains in bonds in retail because of the access tp a bond broker. Is there a better mechanism to make this bet?
  • JL
    J L.
    26 January 2021 @ 14:56
    I would highly recommend counterbalancing this listen with the Jan 25 discussion between Jim Bianco and Ed Harrison. Bianco lays out very clear reasoning as to why he expects inflation in 2021. Not a huge amount, but just enough to meaningfully dislocate the bond market -- which would mean bond prices falling and yields rising. This matters because, if Bianco is correct and Boockvar are correct -- and I am largely in sync with their views, with add-on factors like China exporting global inflation pressure via aggressive buying of copper and grains -- that means that: -- 2021 could see just enough inflation (not a lot, but enough) to dislocate the bond market -- this dislocation would occur downward, not upward (investors existing treasuries) -- the 10-year yield could rise a significant amount (e.g. to 200bps) before the Fed is forced to do YCC -- if this happens, and yields rise faster than inflation as bonds fall, then real yields rise -- that in turn would be a TERRIBLE INVESTING ENVIRONMENT FOR GOLD To sum up, Bianco sees moderate inflation and makes a good case; if he is right the bond market could dislocate downward, which could cause yields to rise, which in turn could cause real yields to rise if interest rates go up faster than moderate inflation expectations. And that, in turn, would make this forecast dead backwards, and the current PRICE-based forecast -- which has treasuries in a meaningful downtrend and gold breaking down too -- more spot on. In which case, you guys would be dead wrong (and the charts would be right... again...)
    • SV
      Steven V. | Contributor
      26 January 2021 @ 17:03
      The problem is we are stuck in a Fed-induced liquidity trap, which will lead to lower Treasury yields and disinflation. I'll be posting a video on that on my YouTube channel and on the Exchange later today.
    • JL
      J L.
      26 January 2021 @ 18:08
      Except we AREN'T actually stuck in a liquidity trap at all. You guys keep ignoring the fiscal — and now you are ignoring recovery prospects too. Consider: — a $2.2 trillion CARES act stimulus — a $900 million follow-up — a $1.9 trillion add-on in the works — a multi-trillion infrastructure package — a backdoor Treasury bailout to the states — $300 to $400 billion worth of SPAC deals in 2021 — private equity sitting on $1.6 trillion in dry powder There is no liqudity trap when the government is sending money directly to households, U.S. household net worth is at an all-time high, the real estate market is booming, and Americans with incomes over $60K have already recovered to the point as if the pandemic never happened. The whole liquidity trap model is predicated on the idea that the Fed is trying to stimulate in an absence of fiscal help. When you get a fiscal tsunami in the works — and not just one wave, but multiple waves — it changes the game. Money sent directly to households is spent. Money put directly into large public works projects flows through the economy. And speaking of those inert bank reserves, they are another huge pool of liquidity waiting to be unleashed. If the economy recovers enough for banks to be excited about lending again, they will have a biblical flood of reserves to call upon when ready to start actively lending again — and the Fed won't be able to hold them back. After 2008, the banks were hesitant to lend to anyone other than blue chip companies buying back shares because, even though monetary policy was loose, fiscal policy was tight, and the economic recovery was slow and grinding. It isn't that way anymore. Fiscal is the big driver now, and there is real potential for optimism-based recovery and business expansion post-pandemic. Not only will you have national chains looking to expand post-pandemic — stepping into the void that small businesses left behind — you will see huge nationwide FDR-style projects devoted to rolling out charging stations, installing solar panels on roofs, retrofitting homes and buildings for energy efficiency, on and on. And you are also going to see a home renovation boom as the top half of the economy pours more investment into home spaces as they engage in WFH on a partial or part-time basis. And you are also going to see renewal in urban centers as they shut down streets, bring about more public areas and outdoor dining, retrofit buildings, and other things. QE, in other words, is not inert energy. It is stored energy (in the form of reserves) that can be unleashed at a later time when animal spirits return. And fiscal will be the bridge that gets us here to there. Your model is simply wrong because you are ignoring the biggest parts, or otherwise refusing to account for them. In your myopic focus on monetary drivers, you are working with half a pair of scissors — and it isn't even the important half. Fiscal matters first; the potential for animal spirits as a result of construction and renovation on the other side of a recovery matters second; and the monetary side matters third, assuming the Fed doesn't screw up and taper too early.
    • DS
      David S.
      26 January 2021 @ 19:27
      MMT is a completely different kettle of fish to QE. Conflate them and you will have problems seeing the divergent outcomes. DLS
    • JL
      J L.
      26 January 2021 @ 20:08
      Since terms are being thrown around anyway: Fiscal stimulus is not MMT. When the government sends money directly to households, that is still not MMT. It's just aggressive fiscal stimulus. MMT is something else and relates to assumptions around policy constraints. An actual MMT approach would look significantly different, would likely have automatic mechanisms tied to inflation measures, and would require a shift of congressional mindset. As for QE -- that is a separate thing, but it doesn't have to be confusing. QE adds to bank reserves, which are just restricted cash. Except the cash isn't even restricted any more, because the Fed cut the reserve requirement to zero in March 2020. So now the reserves are just sitting there, which is why the banks will have a free hand to rapidly expand lending capacity when animal spirits return. As one last tangentially related point, it's amusing to hear arguments that hinge on the assumption that governments cannot create inflation. This is incorrect. With sufficient political will, a government with a printing press can definitely create inflation. If this weren't true, they could issue an infinite amount of bonds or currency, which doesn't make sense. The Fed, by itself, cannot generate inflation -- but that is the point of emphasizing the importance of the fiscal component (and the presence of political will) in the first place.
    • DS
      David S.
      26 January 2021 @ 20:58
      Fiscal stimulus is the first step in MMT. It would have been better if I said fiscal stimulus in this case. I do feel, however, this is the camel's nose in the tent for MMT. DLS
    • JL
      J L.
      27 January 2021 @ 00:01
      100% agree it is the camel's nose. Regular injections of fiscal stimulus over time, and a de facto emphasis on fiscal policy instead of monetary policy to shape economic outcomes, coupled with a de facto ignoring of the deficit apart in the absence of undesirable inflation, could arguably be MMT in all but name. I suspect we will get there too, because of broke millennials and the tech deflation thesis. If Jeff Booth is right about the exponentially deflationary nature of rapid technological advancement, the eventual policy reaction function -- which broke millennials will vote for -- will be MMT, and the government will have the productivity surplus to carry it out via technology-driven productivity gains in aggregate.
    • TW
      Todd W.
      27 January 2021 @ 01:19
      JL, I think you are confused. MMT is not yet possible in the united states. The fiscal is moving currency from private sector to individuals via T Bonds and is a form of debt. I advise you read about how debt vs credit vs new currency creation works. I think we all agree that if something changes and you are correct, you would be correct. You are pointing out that investors are buying T Bonds from the FED and that is being spent is happening to pay oil expenses as inflationary. There will be market dislocations in pricing, in the short term because of stimulus etc. Infrastructure bill if all American sourcing would cause localized inflation of the goods purchased.
    • TW
      Todd W.
      27 January 2021 @ 01:21
      Lol also bank reserve are not just restricted cash. Go to the FEDs website and look at the difference between bank reserves from QE and Currency. The FED makes a clear distinction between to two in many papers. one can leave the banking system and the other cant.
    • JL
      J L.
      27 January 2021 @ 02:26
      Todd, "LOL" — seriously? Your smugness is misplaced. You don't what you are talking about. First, there is no reason why "MMT is not yet possible in the United States." That statement does not have any logical or factual grounding. MMT can be looked at in two ways, first as a theory, and second as a de facto mode of operations. On the theory side, Democrats are already "MMT curious," prominent MMTers have already held positions on senate budget commitees, and Democrats currently hold the legislative and executive branch. And on the policy side, MMT in practice simply looks like entrenched fiscal dominance, enacted as repeat policy decisions, with undesirable inflation as the main spending constraint, rather than worrying about deficits as a constraining factor. So there is no reason to say "MMT is not yet possible in the United States." The statement has no merit. The only thing that prevents MMT from unfolding further is political will — and the country is moving in that direction, as evidenced by the fact that $2,000 checks are popular with rank and file Republicans as well as Democrats. And yes, bank reserves ARE just restricted cash. You are wrong again. You said go to the Fed website, fine. This is from the Fed's website: "A reserve balance requirement is the portion of an institution’s reserve requirement that is not satisfied by its vault cash and therefore must be maintained either directly with a Reserve Bank or in a pass-through arrangement." That is still cash. The only question is where the cash has to be domiciled, or the manner in which it has to be domiciled. It does not materially change the true statement that bank reserves are restricted cash — meaning, a portion of cash deposits that has to be held back relative to the amount that can be lent out, in order to constrain the fractional reserve multiplier effect. The Fed's definition of what a reserve requirement is only delineates technical details of how reserves are to be stored. We further know that reserves are merely cash because, logically, it wouldn't make sense for them to be anything else. This is why the Fed uses interest on required reserves (IORR) and interest on excess reserves (IOER) as policy management tools. If the Fed wants to lower monetary velocity, they can raise the IORR or IOER to withdraw cash from the system by attracting it internally. So yes, bank reserves are just cash. And no, there is no restriction that says they can't be used. You may be getting confused with how the "restricted" part of restricted cash used to work. But that is a moot point now anyway, because the reserve requirement was cut to zero in March of 2020: "As announced on March 15, 2020, the Board reduced reserve requirement ratios to zero percent effective March 26, 2020. This action eliminated reserve requirements for all depository institutions." And this: "Currently, the Board has no plans to re-impose reserve requirements. However, the Board may adjust reserve requirement ratios in the future if conditions warrant." So in response, "LOL" at your lack of knowledge.
    • LJ
      Lynn J.
      27 January 2021 @ 04:11
      my best guess is gov't/Fed do not want inflation. they want stimulus, and keep interest near zero.
    • JL
      J L.
      27 January 2021 @ 08:27
      They do want inflation -- but a Goldilocks amount of it (which is very hard to pull off): "The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) judges that inflation of 2 percent over the longer run, as measured by the annual change in the price index for personal consumption expenditures, is most consistent with the Federal Reserve’s mandate for maximum employment and price stability. When households and businesses can reasonably expect inflation to remain low and stable, they are able to make sound decisions regarding saving, borrowing, and investment, which contributes to a well-functioning economy. For many years, inflation in the United States has run below the Federal Reserve’s 2 percent goal. It is understandable that higher prices for essential items, such as food, gasoline, and shelter, add to the burdens faced by many families, especially those struggling with lost jobs and incomes. At the same time, inflation that is too low can weaken the economy. When inflation runs well below its desired level, households and businesses will come to expect this over time, pushing expectations for inflation in the future below the Federal Reserve’s longer-run inflation goal. This can pull actual inflation even lower, resulting in a cycle of ever-lower inflation and inflation expectations. If inflation expectations fall, interest rates would decline too. In turn, there would be less room to cut interest rates to boost employment during an economic downturn. Evidence from around the world suggests that once this problem sets in, it can be very difficult to overcome. To address this challenge, following periods when inflation has been running persistently below 2 percent, appropriate monetary policy will likely aim to achieve inflation modestly above 2 percent for some time. By seeking inflation that averages 2 percent over time, the FOMC will help to ensure longer-run inflation expectations remain well anchored at 2 percent."
    • JL
      J L.
      27 January 2021 @ 10:31
      p.s. Re MMT and camel's nose: The below quote is from Janet Yellen, now confirmed as Treasury secretary, in a memo to Treasury's 84,000 employees: “Economics isn’t just something you find in a textbook. Economic policy can be a potent tool to improve society. We can, and should, use it to address inequality, racism and climate change.” I will say it again: It is NOT monetary driving the outlook. It is FISCAL now. Anyone who STILL refuses to see this is either deluded or blind.
    • TN
      Tim N.
      29 January 2021 @ 05:06
      I thought we have always had MMT - its only the degree- in a deflationary environment there is more scope to run the printing press hotter
    • DA
      David A.
      30 January 2021 @ 21:10
      JL, you nailed it in my view in your comment : "QE, in other words, is not inert energy. It is stored energy (in the form of reserves) that can be unleashed at a later time when animal spirits return. And fiscal will be the bridge that gets us here to there".
  • NT
    Nicholas T.
    30 January 2021 @ 17:17
    Great stuff guys, thank you. To add to the view on gold miners: If you pick the right individual miner that is producing now, it may be as good as bonds and still with the long term gold upside you foresee. The reason being that miners just went through a decade bear market. The ones left standing, and producing now, have already accounted for higher commodity price inputs at a price of gold hundreds of dollars less than we have now. For sure ETFs may suffer as the insolvency crisis hits and people need cash, but the right individual miners are making bucket loads of money now, and will just keep on being cash machines right through whatever macro events may unfold.... unless you think gold is going below say, $1200 any time soon.
  • MC
    Mark C.
    29 January 2021 @ 23:59
    Thanks to both you guys and Brent Johnson...and also a few others on here e.g. Raoul, i have gone down the rabbit hole of Bonds and dollar milkshake. It's way more sexy than people think. Not quite as sexy as crypto but I am completely looking forward to the 3 week Bond bull market. Thanks guys!
  • BA
    Bruce A.
    28 January 2021 @ 00:30
    Seems like we could have a weak economy (lots of private and public entities repaying debt) and the same time a heap of currency is sloshing around the system. May not be a heap of private money creation (bank lending) during the economic weakness but I can see a bunch of govt money creation (govt deficits financed with QE= debt monetisation). Please show me where the following reasoning falls down: 1) Is there anyone more short of US dollars than the US govt? How will the US govt service it's debt? 2) Won't be by raising taxes/ cutting entitlements and running a surplus. Will it just issue more debt to repay the ever growing amount of debt? 3) Isn't that just a ponzy scheme that someone calls 'bullshit' on at some stage (with rates rising as a result)? Or are rates gonna be held down with yield curve control (massive QE)? 4) But isn't that just more USD being pushed into the system (to soak up the increasing govt debt issuance). All during a period of low growth due to excessive debt still on balance sheets and everyone servicing those debts. 5) And so we get to the question: what is the END GAME? I've read two theories, and I expect they could both transpire during period of economic weakness: A) Inflate away the debt problem with grand govt spending plans while yield curve control is used. Wages are supported, employment is supported, welfare payments are supported, all with large amounts of govt deficit spending and FED QE; or B) Debt Jubilee with creditors being left with capital losses or the Govt taking on the private debt (and I guess foreign investors holding US debt taking any losses via USD collapsing)
    • MC
      Mark C.
      29 January 2021 @ 23:55
      They can borrow all they want and then start taxing to take away the money when things start to get overheater...or at least That's basically the what MMT would tell us. I think we will see this play out.
  • mw
    michael w.
    29 January 2021 @ 07:46
    Miners only care about the price. Inputs haven't affected their price at all.
  • VS
    Vidak S.
    26 January 2021 @ 20:39
    Dear Steven, I have really enjoyed your interview with Travis. I am watching your show on Youtube regularly. I am also in deflation camp as you and Travis (although I cautiously own Bitcoin :) I think that you have brought up enough arguments for the bond bull thesis for people to believe it. And if they don't, probably they never will. Therefore if I may suggest to move the focus to "the day after insolvency event happens". As Travis mentioned in this video, bond bull cycle lasts for 3 week. It would be good to prepare your fans to that moment. I believe we are very close and Feb is right at our door. So if you could kindly expand on your next move into gold miners following the drop in yields. Many thanks to both of you for sharing your knowledge and views.
    • SV
      Steven V. | Contributor
      27 January 2021 @ 23:45
      Bond bull moves are fast and short. You'll know about my next move when I change crowns!
  • he
    hanni e.
    27 January 2021 @ 18:48
    Regarding the way to invest according to the lower yield-thesis: We know that the Steve is always talking about TLT, Raoul is into TLT-options. Why isn't anybody (except for David Rosenberg, if I remember well) talking about STRIPS (ie ZROZ, EDV..), which would be a pure play on this thesis?
  • JT
    Joseph T.
    26 January 2021 @ 16:24
    Lots of speculation; little analysis
    • JB
      Jake B.
      27 January 2021 @ 08:59
      Agree. They pretty much parroted the deflation party line from the “smart macro guys”. No discussion of YoY inflation in 1H21 which is going to be massively inflationary. That isn’t even debatable when comparing with Covid lockdown comps. Yields and commodities will rip in that environment. Ultimately, I think there will be another deflationary burst, possibly as early as 3Q21. But it may start from the 10 year yield being at 1.50%. Too much narrative.
  • TT
    Tokyo T.
    27 January 2021 @ 08:59
    Steve is the King 👑
  • JP
    John P.
    27 January 2021 @ 08:02
    The fed can't create inflation if they define inflation as a basket of deflationary consumer items. Meanwhile housing is up 5-20% depending on where you live...which IS very obviously inflation.
  • BT
    Bryan T.
    27 January 2021 @ 07:41
    The charting of GDX with any long bond ETF overlay was eye opening. If you're paying attention it's a relatively simple 3-4x trade and provides liquidity when needed as was noted. Thank you both for that tidbit.
  • ac
    adam c.
    26 January 2021 @ 16:45
    Great video thank you, do you think 1400-1500 Gold price is possible, taking that you deflationary thesis plays out.
    • SV
      Steven V. | Contributor
      26 January 2021 @ 17:03
    • ac
      adam c.
      26 January 2021 @ 18:35
      Steven V Very Interesting people are talking about the amount of fiscal that is going to happen, but I think if i understand you correctly this will be more reactive and after the event. I am not an expert I just really enjoy listeing to all of you guys thank you again.
    • ac
      adam c.
      26 January 2021 @ 18:52
      Also a lot of the fiscal will run out or be stoped just as things look like they might improve.
    • SV
      Steven V. | Contributor
      26 January 2021 @ 20:21
      Fiscal is reactive as the government itself is reactive. Fiscal hasn't gotten us to the Fed's target yet people believe it will. There is a negative factor to borrowing that is overlooked by those who believe fiscal is the cure all.
    • mw
      michael w.
      27 January 2021 @ 07:13
      Rising bond prices will bring gold with them. Look at the charts.
  • DG
    David G.
    27 January 2021 @ 06:40
    I think it was Howard Marks that said, "there is not a lot of difference between being early and being wrong." Michael Gayed said something like, "there is a difference between destination and the path to that destination." TLT has been making lower highs, and lower lows since august. I'm not going to wake up to TLT at 200; it has to break its downtrend before it hits new highs. TLT's price is below it's 20, 50, and 200 day MA, bear order. Price will have to break above it's 20, 50, and 200 d MA before you get something juicy to the upside. If you know the reason why something will happen, its easy to pull the trigger when that day comes. Look at TLT or the 1O year chart back in Nov. to Jan. 2019-2020. They made Higher low, then broke above their MAs and their down trendline, then a small tight consolidation into a higher low, and boom! This trade can be revisited at any time, if you are paying attention. Who is to say that the the bond top wasn't put in back in march, and the "last hurrah" won't actually be a lower high, after a sharper decline? Respectfully!
  • MD
    Matt D.
    27 January 2021 @ 05:25
    Great chat - really enjoyed, and some good, thought-provoking insights. Thanks Steve and Travis.
  • mw
    michael w.
    27 January 2021 @ 03:02
    Wasn't gold dipping while rates were spiking? Right before the Fed came to the rescue in march?
  • JH
    Johannes H.
    26 January 2021 @ 22:29
    What are the books in Travis background? I cannot read the titles and now I am intrigued...
  • MJ
    Marcus J.
    26 January 2021 @ 21:05
    At about 26 minutes to go I was watching Steve fall in man love as Travis gave us his visualization of the yield curve. Great conversation
  • dw
    douglas w.
    26 January 2021 @ 20:20
    Nice chat gents, love the 3 pints of blood/qe delivery analogy. But I'll take the opposite side of the gold deflationary trade. Any large deflationary shock where all assets sell off, sure gold can go down 30%. But a slow deflationary grind, fed keeps on printing, gold up. And if Inflation rears its ugly head, gold will react accordingly- up. Longterm gold goes much, much higher. I think Raoul and Mr. Sokoloff have both eluded to this thesis as well. I also hold a portfolio of crypto/defi as they compliment each other nicely. BTC/ETH/ADA much higher longterm, but we all must look at what is on the central bank's balance sheets, and that is gold not crypto. Imo, digital assets have reached escape velocity and as central banks struggle with their disruption, it will force them to significantly rerate their gold assets on their balance sheet to give the appearance of control. BTC over 100k as Fed announce yield curve control doesn't give central banks the appearance of strength and omnipotence. Gold has the ability to solve this problem for them.
    • dw
      douglas w.
      26 January 2021 @ 20:24
      and a quick note, yes the crypto market is tiny and insignificant compared to other asset classes, and can be argued as a fly on the head of janet yellin, -"its nothing" but it is the optics and exponential adoption that can impact markets in ways we don't currently envision.
  • DS
    David S.
    26 January 2021 @ 12:20
    Anecdotal Macro seems to be a new field in economics. It is like a jigsaw puzzle. If we fit all the anecdotes together, a macro picture may become apparent. I do not think, however, that humans can sum enough anecdotes together to get an understandable macro view. It is vastly more difficult to give a weighting to each anecdote in a macro view. Normally anecdotal information is used to give examples of a macro view or an investment option. Anecdotes can help us understand the abstract. They are not the abstract. Anecdotal information is certainly important to help us understand parts of our world, maybe not to synthesize a macro view. DLS
    • JL
      J L.
      26 January 2021 @ 15:46
      That might be too kind. "Anecdotal Macro" could also be described as cherry picking, or confirmation bias, or working backwards to support a preconceived notion. Charts are the best safeguard against this. If you refuse to fight the chart, you will let go of your hypothesis by default when the chart says something different. It seems, though, that too many traders and investors only use charts when it's convenient -- i.e. when the chart agrees with their theory -- as opposed to using price like a guardrail.
    • LS
      Lemony S.
      26 January 2021 @ 16:20
      This is accurate AND why macro has become "boring" at this point - as even RP has mentioned multiple times now. It's also why the Besecker Cohodes interview is the most entertaining interview that RV has put out in a while, apart from the information aspects of a lot of crypto (channel) interviews. There are very few "anecdotal" synthesizers that can truly get it right. One is likely Michael Burry, another might be Mike Green. The others who made that single right call have proven (Schiff, Bass, Roubini, etc) that they were just lucky, because they are so off and have been on so many subsequent ideas (yes EARLY IS WRONG) that it's quite obvious they are anecdote and input guessers, like David S states. I've battled with I think both of you in the past (JL and David S.), but you are smart and I enjoy the back and forth.
    • JL
      J L.
      26 January 2021 @ 16:35
      Macro "boring?" You almost made me spit out my coffee :p This is maybe one of the most interesting times for macro in our lifetimes... Just off the top of my head: -- fiscal dominance returning to the fore after decades -- the long-term debt cycle near a potential peak after 40+ years -- the tech deflation thesis accelerating toward hyperdrive -- the dollar entering into a historic downtrend -- Bitcoin challenging gold for store of value market share -- the potential for a new commodity supercycle igniting -- currencies likely to be wild for years with interest rates pegged -- a new technology-driven cold war brewing between China and the U.S. -- CBDCs around the corner which could change everything -- the U.S. markets in the midst of a historic mania -- small investors on message boards bull raiding $12 billion hedge funds -- potential for a large-scale equity market collapse (depending on what yields do) AND a complete and total paradigm shift from the past four DECADES if persistent inflation returns via structural forces (repeat fiscal injections against a crumbling labor market in response to automation, monetizing the global debt mountain) which could ultimately mean the death of passive investing, the return of 1970s style market swings, huge opportunities in commodities, currencies, FANGs trading like zero coupon bonds with huge moves in both directions... on and on... I'm sure I'm forgetting some stuff there too... I've been in markets for 25 years and the macro looks more exciting now than at any point in my lifetime :)
    • DS
      David S.
      26 January 2021 @ 19:33
      Lemony S. - It is not a battle. It is a discussion. One of the best ways to learn. DLS
  • DS
    David S.
    26 January 2021 @ 13:07
    There is always risk in a position. MMT can generate inflation. Interest rates can go up. Bond prices can go down. The future may not be deflation. No one knows, therefore there is risk. DLS
    • JL
      J L.
      26 January 2021 @ 15:05
      Not only that, the 10-year yield could easily rise 80-100% from here before the Fed was forced to act, and rising that much would only take it back to mid-2019 levels (which were historically low prior to the pandemic). These guys are acting as if the fiscal tsunami doesn't exist (which is kind of insane).
    • DS
      David S.
      26 January 2021 @ 19:30
      J. L. - I agree. The pandemic recession is one of the few times I would use MMT. DLS
  • LL
    Lance L.
    26 January 2021 @ 11:02
    To start off I just want to say as a subscriber Real Vision has truly changed the course of my life and has helped me rapidly mature more mentally in the world of economics and finances. Real Vision has provided for me a platform of the worlds elite minds & thinkers, where I have continue to learn, grow, and even thrive in this volatile world that we all live in today. I am very grateful for the true commitment and passion of everyone at R.V and what you all have accomplished, I can't wait to watch R.V grow over time! On a side note - commenting from 3:00 - 4:30 Maybe a good or lame suggestion, but IMO I know it would be interesting to me if there was a way where at the base level membership where one could preview short clips of higher grade membership content to see how much more valuable that could be for someone. Personally speaking I know it would help me construct a better consensus for myself in my membership level with R.V, weather I'm content at my level now or if I need to upgrade because I'm missing out lol.
    • MR
      Milton R. | Founder
      26 January 2021 @ 16:23
      Noted Lance, thanks!
  • MO
    Master O.
    26 January 2021 @ 15:28
    Travis can you please see if RV can organize the old videos? There are so many gems in the old stuff so it would be lovely if you guys can categorize the old videos and make it easily accessible. Cheers.
    • MR
      Milton R. | Founder
      26 January 2021 @ 16:22
      Yes! The first step was the "Into the Vault" series, followed by the upgraded search function and more features are on the pipeline.
  • JK
    John K.
    26 January 2021 @ 16:06
    Welcome to real vision Travis. Happy to finally put a face behind the Twitter user
  • OA
    Oliver A.
    26 January 2021 @ 15:27
    Always enjoy listening to Travis' POV
  • tj
    thomas j.
    26 January 2021 @ 11:08
    YES!! this is my kinda lineup
  • BT
    Boris T.
    26 January 2021 @ 10:33
    Small request related to the RV App since Travis brought up the software platform at the beginning (and in case he reads this): you really should add support for Picture in Picture mode on the iPad. Pretty much every other video App supports it, and it is rather annoying not to be able to quickly jump to another App to complete a small task without the RV content being interrupted.
    • JB
      Jeremy B.
      26 January 2021 @ 11:06
      I agree completely. This "feature" seems very out of place for a content provider like Real Vision. (I'm on android, and it is the same)
  • MR
    Marco R.
    26 January 2021 @ 10:37
    I like Travis and Steven a lot. Both are appreciated as experts. But two bears, or two bond bulls in one room is a little overweight.