The Debt-Liquidity Spiral

Published on
November 12th, 2020
Duration
46 minutes


The Debt-Liquidity Spiral

The Interview ·
Featuring Michael Howell

Published on: November 12th, 2020 • Duration: 46 minutes

Michael Howell, managing director at CrossBorder Capital, believes that liquidity is the ultimate force driving global markets. In this interview with Ed Harrison, Howell argues that liquidity, debt, and asset prices are interlocked in a predictable cyclical relationship that he calls "the debt-liquidity spiral." Although - as its name suggests - this cycle results in higher debt levels and risk, it isn't inherently bearish for equities. Together, Howell and Harrison discuss where we are currently in this cycle and why it has him bullish on the Euro, equities, gold, and bitcoin, but bearish on bonds and the Dollar. They also discuss the effects of the U.S. decoupling from China on a handful of assets and why it will likely continue under a Biden administration. Filmed on November 10, 2020. Key Learnings: Howell’s liquidity models have him cautiously bullish on equities — more specifically, his models are indicating that they are nowhere near bubble territory and haven’t been since 2000. His models also point towards a lower Dollar, higher Euro, 2% yields on the U.S. 10-Year in 2021, and gold and bitcoin at $2,500 and $25,000 respectively.

Comments

Transcript

  • DR
    David R.
    19 November 2020 @ 21:39
    The data this year and since 2017 inclusive is showing a big shift in East Asian demographics (exploding births, longer lifespans and healthspans - by far the best in the world). Demographics are changing drastically and most in the West are out-of-date about it. That said, do demographics matter much? Africa has had an explosive population, but it hasn't helped one bit.
  • DR
    David R.
    19 November 2020 @ 21:35
    $25K btc in 2021? That's going out on a limb. Just sayin. No opinion as I'm unqualified to value BTC.
  • TM
    Tyler M.
    15 November 2020 @ 22:30
    Interesting perspective. Got some useful information from this for sure. I’m not sure how he thinks the US has great demographics that are on par with India though. The US has an aging population. Average age is 38. Boomers drive a replacement economy as they retire.
    • DR
      David R.
      19 November 2020 @ 21:33
      India is dead weight. 80% of the population craps outside, with no access to any sort of toilet and regular running water. The nations of SE Asia, which in combination are larger, have buried India econmically already and are eight times richer, and pulling away. The Asian RCEP agreement gives them an insurmountable advantange and leaves India (as well as the US) hopelessly excluded on the outside lookiing in. At by far the most valuable and largest trading bloc in the world, with one-third of global populaiton and 51% of Global GDP PPP (versus the relatively useless/meaningless Nominal GDP the US tends to cite). No future for India and a limited, poor future for the US this century.
  • DR
    David R.
    19 November 2020 @ 21:29
    No kidding the dollar will accelerate lower. Most analysts hugely underestimated how much the US dollar and US standard of living will collapse this decade and century. At the minimum, an 80% crash seems conservative by our models. This is the Asian century, and America will be the big loser for both this century and this decade. To anyone objective, this has clearly already begun in 2020, the first year of the new decade.
  • CW
    Claude W.
    15 November 2020 @ 18:18
    Question becomes how does this debt-liquidity spiral break? Can we paper endlessly over it? Or do fundamentals (i.e. cash flows relative to interest/debt) matter at some point? We are seeing a record number of zombie companies (close to 20% as per Ed Altman's data from NYU) and, while defaults have slowed down, companies that do go bankrupt have recovery values <10%. This looks like the further we push out the moment of truth (recognize bankruptcy) by using even more leverage / liquidity the more devastating the final blow will be (until close to nothing can be recovered). How far away from this point are? What am I missing in my analysis? Comments welcome!
  • JL
    James L.
    14 November 2020 @ 05:52
    There's a divergence in the liquidy vs global wealth correlation between 1991 and 1996, so it wouldn't be out of the question for there to be one from 2020 onwards too, although the correlation does seem highest since 2008.
    • RM
      Robert M.
      15 November 2020 @ 17:42
      Noticed that as well. Late 80s and 90s, little to no correlation. But since the GFC, it tracks pretty well. Question is what is different about the two eras? One, is interest rates. Driving rates to zero for a decade assists in financing home purchases and home prices, is beneficial to gold prices, and drives stock prices. Hence the correlation over the last 10 years versus 1990s when bonds were a viable option to attract investment dollars. Other thoughts?
  • JL
    John L.
    15 November 2020 @ 15:14
    That was excellent. Can we please get Michael back for the geopolitical half of the sandwich sometime soon? Geopolitics is a constraint that can upset any narrative and hence very important to keep an eye on. Thanks RV!
  • RG
    Razmig G.
    15 November 2020 @ 10:31
    Fantastic. Very clear.
  • JL
    J L.
    13 November 2020 @ 09:56
    Ludwig Von Mises summed up the endgame we are headed for more than 70 years ago. If you understand this, you understand the ultimate convergence point where all of this is headed. "There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as the result of voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved." Ultimately, debt related issues are met with more debt, and when the debt load becomes unsustainable the debt is monetized. If you understand this, you will have a better grasp on why Bitcoin is in sprinting distance from all-time highs. Also, this is what that whole Van Metre view gets wrong. Put aside all the technical and plumbing jargon. Look at the ultimate factors and the policy reaction functions. Central banks do not alone, they act in accordance with treasury departments as needed. If monetary doesn't get things moving, fiscal comes in. When monetary and fiscal combine, you eventually get backbreaking debt loads which can only be addressed through de facto monetization. That is the end game. That is where it goes. Von Mises laid out the core thing to understand in 1949, and he was right.
    • LS
      L S.
      13 November 2020 @ 16:30
      I have said this before, that while I agree with Van Metre and like him for now, the point of the game for those of us "investing", trading or "predicting" is that deflation may come but us small peons can't capitalize on it --- if anyone can --- so the point for us is to understand that the short deflationary period is just an introduction to what you are saying: A grand combination of confidence loss and then, monetization. You're welcome, I just allowed you all to forego any subscription extension, unless of course you like the daily entertainment.
    • SV
      Steven V. | Contributor
      14 November 2020 @ 16:16
      I don't have an endgame view, so I'm not sure how I got it wrong. I've stated the financial system will crash and it will be worse than the GFC. I believe we are in agreement.
    • JL
      J L.
      14 November 2020 @ 17:01
      @Steven V -- well your reply points out some of it. Assuming the financial system will crash in a "worse than the GFC" paradigm is illogical under the endgame Von Mises pointed out. It is a possible outcome, but not the most likely one, and potentially a red herring in terms of the investable and tradable outcomes to focus on. Check out the history of equity markets during hyperinflationary periods. You will see patterns like the ones in the Weimar period, where equities lost substantial value in real terms, but their nominal valuation rose by hundreds or even thousands of percent due to a combination of rampant speculation and savvy players recognizing what was happening. For the powers that be, meanwhile, the lesson of the GFC was that they didn't do enough, and they didn't do it fast enough. Having learned that lesson, they will keep doing more -- and more -- and the system has tremendous ability to prevent crashes as we think of them in the traditional financial sense. That was part of Von Mises' point -- the endgame is expressed as a destruction of the currency because all other pathways to adjustment are effectively headed off. The real purchasing power of the currency is the only thing they can't control in the end. The Great Depression could have been prevented or truncated if they had done more; the 2008 crisis could have been prevented or truncated if they had done more; they get that now. What they don't get is that all of the mechanisms wind up in erosion of the currency. But if you see this start to play out, waiting around for stocks to melt down, or bonds to melt up, is quite possibly the least productive positioning to have. In the throes of a dying currency regime, we are more likely to see the Dow at 50,000 than 15,000.
    • SV
      Steven V. | Contributor
      14 November 2020 @ 22:10
      @JL I don't think we are in disagreement. I just don't think my view of a replay of the GFC will trigger a hyperinflationary event or the point of complete currency destruction. I think there are a couple of other steps in between before we get to the endgame.
    • JL
      J L.
      14 November 2020 @ 22:54
      @Steven V -- You are still missing what I'm driving at. You tilt against the machine, and the probability is that the machine steamrolls you rather than breaking down spectacularly in the manner you expect. Look, a market crash is policy error: — the crash of 1929 and the Great Depression were policy errors — the global financial crisis was a policy error — the March Covid crash was addressed almost instantly They are very, very good at stopping or reversing crashes. And they are getting better as their boldness increases. Monetary plus fiscal can basically stop almost any crash or dislocation in its tracks, or reverse a volatile event quickly, with sufficient political will. That is my main point. You underestimate the power of a 10,000 pound gorilla in expecting for, and overly weighting toward, another big crash. Now, am I saying the 10,000 pound gorilla is invincible? No. I am saying what Von Mises more or less said. They have an incredible range of options, and more budget flexibility than most realize, but their achilles heel is an inability to stop the macro-level erosion of currency purchasing power over time. This likely doesn't resolve with your GFC. It resolves more like with what China is doing, where they get better and better at absorbing dislocation events, like a cartoon character swallowing an ever larger series of bombs, with the ultimate transmission effects showing up in eroded purchasing power of the currency, which doesn't happen at once, but over an extended period of time — while those who were waiting for an event of the type that happened decades ago didn't happen again, other than in the form of faster dislocations that are aggressively reversed (as in March 2020).
    • LS
      L S.
      15 November 2020 @ 01:55
      Steve, what will happen, then? Do you think the central banks won't respond to insolvency events? Do you think deflation will last long enough for anyone to "make a trade"/play? I don't.
  • TE
    Tom E.
    12 November 2020 @ 18:51
    Wow. That was mind blowing. This needs to be digested and responded to by @Raoul and @Steven van Metre (and maybe even @HH). There is a HUGE and very important shoot-out to be had.
    • PA
      Philipp A.
      13 November 2020 @ 03:37
      Yes please! It would be very interesting to hear how this data is interpreted by someone with a different theory!
    • AP
      Adam P.
      13 November 2020 @ 20:55
      I agree. I would LOVE to see Steve cover this one. Michael is fantastic and gives us a ton to consider. His appearances are always dense.
  • VB
    Vincent B.
    13 November 2020 @ 11:12
    Is central Bank 'printing' leading to Bank reserves really liquidity?
    • EC
      Eda C.
      13 November 2020 @ 19:51
      Good question, it is not clear what is meant by 'liquidity'. M0, M1 or M2 money supply? M0 (FED reserves) has almost doubled this year, but M2 (representing money in private bank accounts) is only up 20%.
  • EC
    Eda C.
    13 November 2020 @ 19:46
    I enjoyed listening to Michael's perspective on equities, and that they may not be overvalued as is the common narrative, however, the derivation of chart shown @35:22 that shows equity valuations is is not really well explained at all, and I quite opaque, so I am a bit skeptical of it until I can see the derivation.
  • TW
    Todd W.
    13 November 2020 @ 03:13
    Great interview. Lots of good information to digest. I would like some clarity on part of his thesis. It seems to me that liquidity and asset price is correlation not causation. The way I am understanding this, 1) He has basically discredited the potential for the money to start moving in the economy again to rebuild wages and employment. 2) He is assuming the money wont be used to pay back credit 3) He is assuming that bankruptcies wont occur 4) He is assuming that when evictions start that rent will hold steady and home prices will increase 5) He is assuming that US equities and land will be the primary receiver of that liquidity over all foreign equities or land. Is there a reason for this relationship cause effect reason to expect this as the primary outcome or is it just a guess? I'm asking to figure out how to position because I doubt in this situation all equities will be created equal. If the logic is just supply and demand, then wouldn't gold and bitcoin facilitate that more? Do we all just say earnings on all stocks dont matter anymore and there are no expected returns? Or do some products increase more radically in price causing those expected returns to rise much more dramatically? Thanks anyone who can point me to his underlying logic for that assessment!
    • WM
      Will M.
      13 November 2020 @ 19:41
      Great points. I am assuming that resource and value equities plus agricultural may be the place to focus.
  • MH
    Martin H.
    13 November 2020 @ 00:11
    Gold $2500 is not a "big call"... :-)
    • PB
      PHILLIP B.
      13 November 2020 @ 02:04
      Yeah, not a big call. But, it's still 25%+ move above recent highs. Given the risk associated with the current, US economy, seems like it would have made the move about $2k already. Honestly, it's dumbfounding that there isn't more institutional interest, and interest on down, in the gold. One more trade in bonds and that's it. Then what is everyone going to do, take a complete and utter bath? Nasty, nasty.
    • WM
      Will M.
      13 November 2020 @ 19:39
      Thats just 2021. If my gold goes to 2500 I shall be very happy. However, the risk for gold is to the upside given all the nonsense "printing" giveaways, whatever you want to call it, that has transpired in just 10 months. My target minimum for gold is $5k within 2-5 years.
  • OB
    Oliver B.
    12 November 2020 @ 21:20
    Equities being 'nowhere near bubble territory and haven’t been since 2000" seems rich. On most traditional valuation metrics US equities are in the 90-100% percentile.
    • DG
      Dave G.
      13 November 2020 @ 16:17
      Also can't liquidity just vanish very quickly? So we never have to pay our debts?
    • WM
      Will M.
      13 November 2020 @ 19:37
      Yes that statement caught me by surprise too. Obviously I am reading the wrong commentary / books.
  • JA
    John A.
    12 November 2020 @ 19:01
    IF bond yields are going up, the last place I want to be is in stocks. Not with this much debt lying around. If the market couldn't handle 3% yields in 2018 during QT and the Fed pivot, why does anyone expect them to handle 2% today? They literally tried to do this and reversed course. If yields go up, the fed is going to have to put in yield curve control. They want inflation to run hot. The fed is literally telling you that yields aren't going anywhere.
    • TM
      The-First-James M.
      13 November 2020 @ 00:10
      Depends which stocks...
    • WM
      Will M.
      13 November 2020 @ 19:35
      Also as Bonds yields show any serious indication of rising for the medium/long term huge swathes of holders will bail to avoid capital losses and will mover either cash, equities of gold/bitcoin. I have no bonds, having missed Raoul's bond boat and cash gives me nothing at this point, so stocks (the right ones...not Tesla for example) and gold bitcoin seem appropriate right now.....
  • Jv
    Joël v.
    13 November 2020 @ 14:37
    I would like to see a discussion on China with Michael Howell and Thomas Orlik (China, the bubble that never pops). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaVtwXMv0ZE&t=1608s And exactly one week ago Jay Pelosky shares his high expectations for the EU, while Howell projects hard times when the dollar devalues.
  • DF
    Damien F.
    13 November 2020 @ 05:48
    Enjoying the content. Some feedback that the poor audio quality made the video much much less enjoyable. Thx.
  • RD
    Ryan D.
    13 November 2020 @ 02:50
    Higher Vol = Spike in Yields? No mention of 2nd wave of Covid and it's effect on the real economy. Central Bank Balance sheets don't seem to effect velocity of money. 10 year at 2. I think this guy might be jumping the gun on the reflation trade.
  • GF
    Guangle F.
    13 November 2020 @ 02:03
    I love Michael's analysis, however, while Bitcoin/Gold multiple on a linear chart shows converging, how is the logarithmic chart looks like ?
  • OT
    Omar T.
    13 November 2020 @ 01:16
    I want to watch this video again and it is not replaying it :(
    • PB
      PHILLIP B.
      13 November 2020 @ 01:52
      Go into your privacy settings for your browser, go to cookies (website data) and delete the "realvision" cookies (website data). Also, try logging into via a different browser that you aren't cookied on.
  • MK
    Mark K.
    13 November 2020 @ 01:01
    Great interview. Does anyone know how to get charts referenced?
  • MH
    Michael H.
    13 November 2020 @ 00:49
    having same problem when trying to watch same video twice... Help!
  • SS
    Stephen S.
    12 November 2020 @ 18:37
    This seems to be in contradiction to a fair amount of Raoul Pal’s view of lower bond yields and further deflation. A point of agreement seems to be on Gold and Bitcoin, so that’s a plus. For those of us sitting on a lot of Treasuries it does seem to be a conundrum on when to get out of those.
    • TM
      The-First-James M.
      13 November 2020 @ 00:11
      I'm already out. Hedgeye calling Quad 2 had that effect on me. Can always get back in during the next Quad 4...
    • SS
      Stephen S.
      13 November 2020 @ 00:15
      Yeah, I used to subscribe to hedgeeye but let it lapse, I don’t like trading around that much but maybe go ahead and sell some Treasuries.
  • MH
    Martin H.
    13 November 2020 @ 00:14
    20 years out India looks like the big mover. IMHO
  • PU
    Peter U.
    12 November 2020 @ 16:23
    What Michael fails to address is that if you do get a rise in inflation (and a rise in interest rates), ESPECIALLY if inflation is > 3.5%, equities will get rerated lower in price. Mathematical certainty plus extremely high correlation. Equities do not like inflation in excess of 3.5%.
    • TM
      The-First-James M.
      13 November 2020 @ 00:12
      Depends which equities...
  • PV
    P V.
    12 November 2020 @ 10:01
    Crystal clear as always. Macro narrative is compelling and data driven. Only issue he's anticipating BTC to hit $2,500 in 2021. I guess he meant $25,000 as BTC is already at $16,000 as of Nov 12.
    • TZ
      Toomas Z.
      12 November 2020 @ 20:38
      I'm pretty sure he said $25,000 - it's even in the video description...
    • RA
      Robert A.
      12 November 2020 @ 23:37
      Just misspoke the 2500, pretty clear he meant 25k based on his Math Gold-BTC relationship.
  • TR
    Tobias R.
    12 November 2020 @ 10:24
    I'm getting a little bit tired of this "central bank liquidity drives markets" talk when I never get a compelling explanation for how the mechanics work. Under fiscal stimulus monetized sure it makes sense - the money would flow into the economy and someone would put them into assets at some point of the money chain - but the 20 trillion mentioned here are just bank reserves. Are the mechanics then that (1) central banks do asset purchases (2) banks lends to that to real economy companies and consumers and we get a similar affect as under fiscal? We know that velocity offsets that to a large extent. Maybe it works in the real estate channel as he is eluding to where the debt is collateralized. Maybe also to finance share buybacks for blue chips to some extent. Other than that would really want someone to explain it to me. Also - the chart around min 5 does not look super compelling. Is the argument that sometimes the liquidity takes 3 years to work through the system, sometimes it's instantaneous and sometimes it does nothing at all because that's what it looks like
    • AM
      Alonso M.
      12 November 2020 @ 16:35
      Go to lynalden.com and read her November 8th article titled Banks, QE, and Money Printing. Work through her examples in detail. She explains it very well.
    • TR
      Tobias R.
      12 November 2020 @ 17:30
      Thanks - will read through!
    • EM
      Eivind M.
      12 November 2020 @ 18:00
      QE is an asset swap. The Fed swaps bonds for a bank reserve credit on their account. They just switch some numbers from one side of the balance sheet to the other. Theoretically this means the bank is allowed to lend more, but reserves haven't been a bottleneck for a very long time.
    • TR
      Tobias R.
      12 November 2020 @ 20:45
      @Alonso - Thanks for sharing the reference to Lyn Alden's work. Read through it but it just reinforces the view I had, unless the QE is fiscalized the mechanism for asset price inflation is not clear IF banks are already well capitalized.
    • PU
      Peter U.
      12 November 2020 @ 20:57
      This might help. . . . who is the largest owner of Japanese equities via an ETF . . . Central Bank of Japan who is the largest shareholder of FANGS and a few other us stocks . . . Swiss Central Bank Both inexpensively created the "money" and purchased the equities. You and I have to work for it the old fashioned way. Doesn't seem equitable does it!
    • TR
      Tobias R.
      12 November 2020 @ 21:29
      Now listening again the inconsistencies are growing - if he believes FX is a supply game then please explain why the Yen appreciated against the Dollar during Abenomics in the face of Fed QT. My takeaway from the interview is that I should consider central bank liquidity because it clearly still works in the expectations channel
  • JG
    James G.
    12 November 2020 @ 13:16
    Hi Michael, given the strong negative relationship between bond yields and gold, how do you justify a bullish stance on gold in the face of your expected rise in yields?
    • TZ
      Toomas Z.
      12 November 2020 @ 20:42
      I imagine any rise in yields simply won't be allowed as banks whack it down via QE infinity - but there may be brief collapses in gold, as we had the past 2 weeks where US10Y rose 0.2% and gold got hammered.
  • SS
    S S.
    12 November 2020 @ 18:08
    Is Michael Howell doing this interview in a bunker with no lights on? Damn, COVID in the UK must be worse than I thought.
    • EH
      Edward H. | Real Vision
      12 November 2020 @ 19:54
      Ha! I will have to tell him that. I kind of liked the fact that he was illuminated but the background was dark.
  • MJ
    Marc J.
    12 November 2020 @ 15:02
    Enjoyed this interview but can you ask Steven Van Metre to do one of his breakdowns?
    • SV
      Steven V. | Contributor
      12 November 2020 @ 19:35
      I'll consider it but I'm not sure I can do an effective job. Some interviews are more challenging than others! I've read CrossBorder Capital's reports in the past and I struggled with them.
  • MR
    Michael R.
    12 November 2020 @ 19:17
    Having a hard time understanding why equities are cheap and Bitcoin will only hit $25k in 2021.
    • SS
      Stephen S.
      12 November 2020 @ 19:23
      25k would be something like roughly 80% up, if I’m not mistaken?
  • EF
    Ed F.
    12 November 2020 @ 18:43
    One of the best Macro orientated videos I have seen on RV in a while. Very deep research and eloquently explained without any sensationalism. Michael should be a regular
  • EM
    Eivind M.
    12 November 2020 @ 07:37
    I struggle with taking this guy seriously after saying central banks are "injecting cash". That is just demonstrably false. Bank reserves aren't "cash" or "liquidity" in any shape or form. If there is "a large amount of cash in the system", why is money tighter than ever? Why aren't banks lending? Why is there still a global shortage of dollars? I kept on watching, hoping the introductory statement was ironic, but moved on when I realized he was dead serious.
    • PV
      P V.
      12 November 2020 @ 10:02
      You need to look at M2. Banks not lending is precisely why QE is no longer working and why CB digital currencies are inevitable.
    • EM
      Eivind M.
      12 November 2020 @ 17:57
      M2 is completely irrelevant for liquidity in asset markets. None of the Ms include the trillions of eurodollars in circulation. The interbank dollar market has been the "real" dollar central bank for the last 60 years - the Fed was irrelevant before I was born - which is why QE has NEVER worked (other than the purely psychological effect on the equity markets of the financial media screaming "DOLLAR FLOOD, BOND ROUT!!" for more than a decade.
    • LB
      Lorenzo B.
      12 November 2020 @ 18:40
      I think your point is spot on. But I would say that CB intervention compresses yields to a point that indirectly forces market participants to scavenge for yields inevitably elsewhere, reaching higher and higher on the risk ladder. So, as far as I find very interesting the Equity/safe assets ratio discussion (with the caveat of maybe knowing a bit more about the methodology underling the concept of "safe" through the timiline of the chart), my humble impression is that we're indeed living a huge scarcity game, but not driven by a huge pile of liquidity, despite by an artificially induced risk appetite of mkt participants. We've seen a Volatility decompression, a phisiological one past elections. My educated guess is that we're going to see a whole lot more of it in the upcoming months
  • CD
    Carl D.
    12 November 2020 @ 18:14
    I've heard the CB injecting liquidity leads to asset inflation narrative many times but I've never seen charts like his, pretty interesting
  • AM
    Alonso M.
    12 November 2020 @ 16:44
    A few of the explanations and justifications don't make sense to me. Maybe I'm totally out to lunch, but I highly doubt bond yields are low because private investors are hungry for income. I think bond yields are low globally because 1) QE has been in place on and off at almost all central banks since about 2008, hence 2) private investors are front running central banks in anticipation of more of the same idiotic policies, and 3) aggregate global demand has been very weak over the past 10 years as a result of excessive leverage in the system. It is a fact that private investors are hungry for income. These investors buy equities. Private investors buying bonds are buying them mostly in anticipation of capital gains. Last one in is a rotten egg. On that point, I agree with Mr. Howell.
    • EM
      Eivind M.
      12 November 2020 @ 18:03
      Bond yields are low because money is tight, and the market expects (and have been expecting) deflation/disinflation for the next 30 years. No need for more complicated explanations when that makes complete sense. Occam's razor at its finest.
  • ar
    andrew r.
    12 November 2020 @ 16:38
    The equity/safe asset ratio is interesting. But can we really make much of a historical relationship whose denominator (which, in Michael's words, is up 400% T10yr) has no historical precedent?
    • ar
      andrew r.
      12 November 2020 @ 16:39
      I also want to say Mr. Howells gives a great presentation, and I love speakers that bring good charts and data.
    • ar
      andrew r.
      12 November 2020 @ 16:40
      Howell, not Howells -- sorry!
  • RM
    Russell M.
    12 November 2020 @ 16:33
    Eye opening analysis!
  • FL
    Fabrizio L.
    12 November 2020 @ 12:22
    09>31 .... can we get that chart going back to 1995?
    • MW
      Max W. | Real Vision
      12 November 2020 @ 14:31
      It is the bar chart that appears at approximately 9:40
  • HK
    H K.
    12 November 2020 @ 12:08
    Great interview. Had a technical issue though... Something up with the web interface for iPhones’ browsers. Can’t fwd/step through. Android is doing fine.
  • FL
    Fabrizio L.
    12 November 2020 @ 12:00
    29>30 ...."given that economies are recovering"..... https://covid19.who.int/ I think Bill Ackman Is Right
  • MH
    Michael H.
    12 November 2020 @ 11:49
    Fabulous interview. On point, crystal clear. Thank you, RV for bringing MH on a timely basis.
  • VP
    Veselin P.
    12 November 2020 @ 11:44
    Precise, clear, data driven, excellent!
  • AW
    Abigail W.
    12 November 2020 @ 11:32
    v shape recovery?
  • SS
    Shanthi S.
    12 November 2020 @ 11:10
    More please. :) That was great! Thank you both.
  • MH
    Magnus H.
    12 November 2020 @ 07:47
    Where can i see the charts?
  • SZ
    Szar Z.
    12 November 2020 @ 07:29
    This guy is on point