Leigh Goehring

Published on
March 2nd, 2018
51 minutes

Leigh Goehring

The Jim Grant Series ·
Featuring James Grant

Published on: March 2nd, 2018 • Duration: 51 minutes

Master commodities investor Leigh Goehring sits down with legendary financial writer Jim Grant in this wide-ranging but deep-diving interview. Mr. Goehring and Mr. Grant discuss the outlook for crude oil at length, before moving on to natural gas, uranium, copper and gold. They also discuss the broader reasons for investing in commodities, and examine what it takes to be a great investor in the natural resources space. Filmed on January 24, 2018 in New York.


  • PG
    Paul G.
    18 July 2018 @ 05:40
    As an aside the best meat/ steaks are in South Africa! haha (from an Aussie)
  • JB
    Jason B.
    20 June 2018 @ 09:57
    Awesome.....Every guest with Jim Is just fantastic.....More Jim Grant is most welcome....Ah RV you’ve done it again....
  • PD
    Peter D.
    4 March 2018 @ 21:18
    Gee 522 votes for, 13 against. RV is the last place I'd expect to find group think.....
    • JC
      John C.
      7 March 2018 @ 13:11
      well, it was an informative interview to be sure. Not really sure it's 'groupthink'..that's mostly in the mainstream media and universities. Leigh's views on "Green Energy" even though logical and well thought out (and mostly correct) are anathema to the PC environmentalists out there in mainstream society and would be harshly condemned in the EU, UK, Canada and even the US now (at least by the mainstream media and government agencies).
    • JB
      Jason B.
      31 May 2018 @ 07:27
      Hi Pete....You may be correct In your comment, although there are many great interviews on RV which makes it a lot easier and interesting for newbies to learn....and obviously for the longer term investors too Cheers
  • WS
    William S.
    11 May 2018 @ 01:45
    Luuuuv the tie and bow tie of both...cows and orange on blue!!!
  • RD
    RP D.
    6 April 2018 @ 23:54
    Beautiful, just beautiful.
  • SN
    Sean N.
    14 March 2018 @ 00:14
    Enjoyable interview. I love Jim Grant and his ability to cut to the chase. There were a few parts that raised my eyebrows... Shale oil potential is largely confined to the United States and that his group has calculated the true size of that potential resource as being much smaller than what everyone thinks..? As a professional geoscientist currently participating in this industry, I can say that the first part is almost certainly not true in the long run, and the second part is simply a guess/estimate that must necessarily put values on many complicated variables that have a very large uncertainty on them at this time. The second point was that Germany is producing more CO2 emissions now than in 2010? I was surprised to hear that and tried to find some evidence for this but could not. If anyone can point me to this data I would love to see it. We'll see if it plays out so bullishly for commodities... I'm skeptical it will be that easy.
    • MO
      Mike O.
      3 April 2018 @ 21:16
      The officially recognized arbiter of information (for millenials, I believe... even though it is not listed among the most credible sources on the internet), i.e., Wikipedia says (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale_reserves) - "A 2016 conservative estimate set the total world resources of oil shale equivalent to yield of 6.05 trillion barrels (962 billion cubic metres) of shale oil, with the largest resource deposits in the United States accounting for more than 80% of the world total resource." "According to the 2010 World Energy Outlook by the International Energy Agency, the world oil shale resources may be equivalent of more than 5 trillion barrels (790 billion cubic metres) of oil in place of which more than 1 trillion barrels (160 billion cubic metres) may be technically recoverable." "For comparison, at the same time the world's proven oil reserves are estimated to be 1.6976 trillion barrels (269.90 billion cubic metres)." So ... who are you going to trust ... some fly-by-night professional geoscientist ... or the internet? (tongue-firmly-planted-in-cheek) ... Thanks for the insights, Sean N. (level-headed voices are hard to come by ... although I still like the story on commodities ... at least in the near-term) :)
  • DH
    Dale H.
    21 March 2018 @ 08:34
    Great as usual. Loved it.
  • JM
    Jason M.
    11 March 2018 @ 02:58
    There are only a few people in the English speaking world that can interview like this. Glorious. Content is Grade A but seems bent on some extreme outcomes that I feel should be at least counter-argued by the discussion in this comments section. On the actual content, I would only add that I think the Fed is well aware of high-powered money risk they have created and the fact that wages in China are WAY up from a few years ago. Its likely that we'll see continuous rate hikes and fiscal stimulus (to offset the rate hike neg effects) in the US such that we get to nominal growth of 5% and 3% inflation. The dollar index will be way up in that environment as the US will be attracting a lot of capital. That hurts EMs - the primary demand source for commodities. If oil goes to $100 in concert...that hurts EMs (inc China) very badly (much worse than US obviously). I think we need to tap the brakes on the super-cycle theory here and ponder the reaction function of the authorities in US plus the negative effects of EM demand destruction.
  • MA
    Melanie A.
    10 March 2018 @ 22:06
    One of my favourites - thank you!
  • SS
    Steven S.
    9 March 2018 @ 22:05
    so happy Jim has been given this platform - but let's get him to interview someone with opposing views- like Charlie Lee of LTC or Mark W Yusko - or both!
  • DD
    Daniel D.
    9 March 2018 @ 19:29
    Very much enjoyed this. As someone who has made his living almost exclusively in the commodities market over the past 25 years, I know how important it is to always dig deeper and challenge the conventional wisdom of how everything is different this time. Doesn't make you the first invite to a cocktail party, have to get used to being professionally lonely, have the patience of a saint but it sure is fun/rewarding. Always enthused to learn from others with the same passion.
  • TP
    Tom P.
    7 March 2018 @ 19:14
    Thumbs up for contribution. Thumbs down for disagreeing.
  • CS
    C S.
    4 March 2018 @ 03:12
    With regard to the Uranium story, one of the cautions I perceive is geopolitical. China and the US, and Russia for that matter, are antagonistic. Resources can be withheld. Much uranium production occurs in north America and Australia. Western miners could be seized or restricted in their operation in Kazahkstan, affecting the value of that company. Miners locally could be restricted from selling material to 'enemy' nations. Prices locally could be capped. Same for rare earths which China controls presently. So a material involved in energy and weaponary, could be a sensitive one. So be careful if tempted to invest 50% of your savings into uranium. generallypolitical intervention even nationalisation.
    • JC
      John C.
      7 March 2018 @ 13:19
      Kazakhstan is the biggest producer of uranium and continues to shut down capacity. Canada continues its war on miners and metal producers under Trudeau and the far leftists who now control the country so would not expect them to be too open to more invasive uranium mining. More and more reactors are coming online in China and other places as it's the only cost-effective and fairly 'green' way to produce electricity. If we really are headed to a world of electric cars then nuclear energy will have to be a critical part of the electric car phenomenon. Don't see any other way. I'm long UEC so talking my own book but eventually I do think prices will go up from the $20s to over $100 as the interviewee stated...but probably years away.
  • AD
    Anthony D.
    4 March 2018 @ 20:06
    The comments on Germany's green revolution are a real surprise. How I remember the NYT articles praising the German way of setting the goal, implementing their omnipotent engineering skills and cutting through the bureaucracy to accomplish the deed === Double the cost of electricity and higher CO2 emissions. I shouldn't forget to mention German friends of mine bemoaning the unsightly use of limited land for solar panels and wind mills. What a great interview.
    • RL
      Radu L.
      6 March 2018 @ 13:05
      and still one of the Major exporters in the world. talking efficiency...
    • JC
      John C.
      7 March 2018 @ 13:14
      From what I'm hearing German bureaucracy is becoming quite stifling and it's no suprise that they ended up cutting off their nuclear capacity and doubling their electrical costs all in the name of being green. I'd expect the "Mittelstand" manufacturing base to go nuts at some point if it gets worse and the Chinese start competing heavily against them in the more value-add/sophisticated manufacturing sectors. Let's just saw with this plus the migrant mess that Merkel hasn't exactly been the best leader
  • AC
    Andrew C.
    5 March 2018 @ 09:17
    Great Stuff ! Just had attended a geological talk here about prospects of shale production in Thailand. Close to “0% chance” seems to be the answer. Just the wrong type of shale. I have already loaded up on offshore drillers and support vessels.
    • RL
      Radu L.
      6 March 2018 @ 13:05
      can you share some "Support vassels" names, pls? thank you
    • AC
      Andrew C.
      7 March 2018 @ 09:20
      not to give investment advice; googling "oil services vessels" gives some. https://www.marineinsight.com/types-of-ships/what-are-offshore-vessels/ or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platform_supply_vessel
  • ML
    Michael L.
    7 March 2018 @ 00:56
    this guy was conceived at a refinery. no wonder he knows oil & gas so well!
  • VP
    Vincent P.
    6 March 2018 @ 03:26
    Well, I've gone about half way into this interview but am already having some issues with it. First Brent was $70 back in January and $65 around the date of this publication. Ok, let's not quibble about $5 but this guy is bullsh*tting and Grant doesn't know unless the interview took place near the end of JANUARY??? What's up with that? Thought we've complained enough about late publications! Also and more importantly, the "normal" market for crude is in fact "backwardated", Leigh calls this unusual. Yes it now and reasonably flat/backwardated given the element of oil reduction in storage etc...The truth is when crude is in contango, it simply means there's heavy selling pressure in spot due to excessive supply and lack of storage. I'd probably pay the premium as supply gets stored thru other methods, if I was that bullish on crude. Commercials back in early 2016 were selling back months at a premium then dumping spot physical to unload over production. I'm not an Energy expert but Leigh looks a bit worn down and wouldn't leave a dime with him. The first 15 years of my career dating back from 1974 where my desk was the most voluminous on NYMEX and remember a few things from those days. What I do recall vividly are guys that looked like Leigh after trading all day. I do know some guys who've developed derivatives and storage options to perhaps address oversupply but I see nothing here unless we have an inflation spike of which Oil can trigger for sure. So, I certainly wouldn't short it but wouldn't buy it either! Our New FED chairman may just cut off any out of control inflation issue or Trump might just trigger more recession risk following day after day GDP now changes in forecasts, lol. On the other hand, a break much lower in USD could also spike oil! Somewhat disappointed with the interview especially with some old talking points about Shale/Drilling and all the BS. Nothing really new. Sorry :(
  • CB
    C B.
    5 March 2018 @ 19:17
    Joel Salatin would be proud.
  • AA
    Aymman A.
    5 March 2018 @ 03:07
    Simply phenomenal. This was a great big-idea conversation.
  • JH
    Joel H.
    5 March 2018 @ 01:34
    "Sing me a song Leigh" Ha, love it. Thanks for the interview guys!
  • RM
    Ron M.
    4 March 2018 @ 04:07
    Grant is a class act. Don't know how any Millennial will ever replace him, ha!
    • PD
      Peter D.
      4 March 2018 @ 21:16
      I think he has a kid working at the WSJ.....
  • RO
    Robert O.
    4 March 2018 @ 06:07
    There was a real vision interview more than a year ago (can't remember exactly), where the analyst noted that there were very large and easy to recover copper deposits in an area of Africa, but with the price being somewhat low that there was not much interest in trying to turn this area into a producing field. If copper prices double how long would it take production to increase enough to bring the copper price back down? What ever happened to the idea of nat gas powered trucks and cars? If nat gas is so plentiful why have we not seen a conversion of transportation trucks to nat gas? MSA had a recent report suggesting that grain commodities may improve later this year. The big investment question is: Will commodity stock behave like the rest of the stock market in a sell off or will they follow their commodity price up?
    • PD
      Peter D.
      4 March 2018 @ 21:15
      Yes. However that "easy to recover" copper that he is talking about may be the one in the Congo. https://www.ivanhoemines.com/ Trouble is, you'd have to fight your way through a civil war to get to it.
  • PB
    Pieter B.
    4 March 2018 @ 21:14
    Thanks a lot for the fantastic interview Jim & Leigh!
  • MG
    Mohamed G.
    2 March 2018 @ 15:02
    Hmm interesting guest, Jim Grant doesn’t seem at his best though. Didn’t extract much details on nat gas or uranium discussion, just jumped ahead and changed topics on too many occasions.
    • WM
      Will M.
      3 March 2018 @ 17:17
      Sorry Mohamed, I listened closely and felt the message was clear. This isn't a video on natural gas or uranium, there are others providing more detailed info on that. I heard a clear message on Uranium and I am long and going longer. There are several good uranium investment opportunities for the long term. URA and Cameco best 2 of the best.
    • CS
      C S.
      4 March 2018 @ 03:38
      Just as a precaution, William, I can foresee a situation whereby the price of Uranium could rise yet the price of Cameco could plummet. Eg, Russians and Chinese take umbrage at the US, and the favour is returned. Cameco assets are confiscated in Kazakhstan and Cameco assets in the US are restricted/regulated, possibly with pirce capping if prices got out of hand for local users/allies.
    • CS
      C S.
      4 March 2018 @ 03:40
      Useful to contemplate when considering how much of your net work you plough into what, at face value presently, appears a 'home run'.
    • RM
      Richard M.
      4 March 2018 @ 20:23
      Hot M, Cameco is a Canadian company, not a U.S. company, so not sure the Russians/Chinese would target them.
  • ml
    michael l.
    4 March 2018 @ 19:02
    What a great interview! Please have Leigh back periodically.
  • VS
    Victor S. | Contributor
    4 March 2018 @ 12:22
    This issue of technology increasing supply is almost spurious to increasing supply as it is all relative to inflation! In an inflationary environment producers “hoard” the bulk of their supply ,no matter how much Is produced because of higher prices to come. See the 1970’s as the example. J.Carter was increasing money supply causing interest rates and prices to rise dramatically. He sold US gold holdings only to drive prices higher! Leigh’s forecast of $13,000 gold in 10 years(?) is a 25% compounded rate -it did 30% in the 1970’s. That is $18,000. He is conservative ?
  • DM
    Dan M.
    3 March 2018 @ 05:09
    One of the very best and there have been some great ones. No idea how anyone could vote thumbs down.
    • EF
      Eric F.
      4 March 2018 @ 11:15
      Agree. A small minority I suppose and I guess a few will always slip through the net. Beyond me how any sensible, semi-intelligent person could down vote this. Great series, I really do hope Jim comes back for a second series.
  • TA
    Tajassas A.
    4 March 2018 @ 11:13
  • EM
    Ewan M.
    2 March 2018 @ 14:05
    Bitcoin is horrible for the environment. Please checkout Nano, no miners required. Feeless, Instant transactions. Check it out, it's quite new but will disrupt Bitcoin.
    • CH
      Crag H.
      2 March 2018 @ 20:56
      Please don't turn the RVTV comment section into the "shill your favorite sh*tcoin section". No offence (I'm sure Nano is great).
    • WM
      Will M.
      3 March 2018 @ 16:50
      Ewan, RVT is clearly not for you, keep calm and move on.
    • CS
      C S.
      4 March 2018 @ 03:49
      Ewan, I think you've just submitted evidence for a potentially useful contrarian indicator. Where do we subscribe? ;)
  • PW
    Phil W.
    3 March 2018 @ 23:59
  • MO
    Mike O.
    3 March 2018 @ 21:56
    Brilliant! (best interview yet!) Of course, my own interests have been in uranium, zinc, copper, cobalt, nickel, vanadium, gold and silver miners (have suffered greatly, since I have been MUCH too soon in my interest in this area). I also lost a bundle intesting in oil a few years back when I thought it couldn't go any lower (alas ... being too soon is the same as being wrong). This interview has brought comfort to a contrarian who has discovered he resonates completely with another (it was more than a "meeting of the minds" to hear this interview). Here's hoping that these thoughts play out exactly as described! (everyone who listens to this, please disregard since there are a few incredibly cheap stocks out there that I haven't bought yet ... and I would prefer that you don't bid them up before I get a few more of them ... thank you!).
    • MO
      Mike O.
      3 March 2018 @ 22:00
      "intesting in oil?" ... please RV ... permit editing of comments to allow corrections of entries and/or amendments to thoughts ... would be a great help to discussions (just a thought).
  • MN
    Marcus N.
    2 March 2018 @ 14:06
    Interesting discussion regarding the disconnect between oil price and offshore oil drillers. My take is that exploration budgets are set annually, around the end of each year. No oil major, lease holder, or operator can present an exploration budget to their board until they can confidently forecast +/- 25% ROI. So, imagine, expro divisions start to propose significant investment in offshore leases and wildcat drilling. ROI is just a projection. The majors will not move until they can see the upside. These decisions are seasonal, synchronised to the budget cycle - a spike and persistent uptick in the oil price will not have much effect in offshore oil & gas exploration activity until the following January. After that, the stock of idle rigs of all types has to be cleared - this process could take 1-2-3 years before the offshore drillers begin to see day rate pricing power.
    • KF
      Kenneth F.
      3 March 2018 @ 19:03
      Off shore Drillers are priced for bankruptcies. (SDRL & ORIG did file) But most moved debt out & have more cash on balance sheet than total market cap. Trade .25-.50 of book. How often can you buy a business at those levels? https://finviz.com/quote.ashx?t=esv
  • BT
    Brian T.
    2 March 2018 @ 21:57
    There is a lot of consensus across various RVTV contributors that we are in the early year or years of a commodity bull market. This was a very insightful interview with a number of those key "a ha" statements that make me an extremely grateful RVTV subscriber. I actually liked Grant's movement from one topic to the next and was happy he had time to get to each of the major categories, which he might not have had if he hadn't managed the interview the way he did. Nice one Grant - I will rewatch! Thanks for a terrific interview.
    • WM
      Will M.
      3 March 2018 @ 17:23
  • GS
    Gerold S.
    3 March 2018 @ 16:22
    Great stuff Please bring me more...
  • JH
    Jesse H.
    3 March 2018 @ 14:35
    Absolutely loved this one - fascinating listening to Leigh Goehring, but the real star for me is Grant as an interviewer. Grant has an inimitable style, rich set of questions / discourse, a wealth of knowledge about markets and financial history and a great sense of humour. PLEASE BRING HIM BACK to do another series! This is one of my all-time favourite series on RV.
    • JH
      Jesse H.
      3 March 2018 @ 14:48
      Wow this keeps getting better...Leigh is a gardener / grower with a history of work on the land?! Awesome.
  • IO
    Igor O.
    3 March 2018 @ 13:04
    Wellp that was a quick one hour.
  • JD
    John D.
    3 March 2018 @ 10:57
    Superb ... His comments on Germany and renewables are enlightening....
  • RW
    Robert W.
    3 March 2018 @ 05:21
    Like Leigh's cowtie... :)
  • BR
    Boyd R.
    3 March 2018 @ 01:48
    Jim series is excellent
  • SW
    Scott W.
    3 March 2018 @ 01:07
    Jim is a NUT! Love this series! Real laughs along the way, but fantastic content underlying.
  • TJ
    Terry J.
    2 March 2018 @ 23:07
    Fascinating to hear Leigh's thoughts and insights on commodities and especially oil. Having recently looked closely at an excellent research paper titled “Peak oil demand and long-run oil prices”, by Spencer Dale, Group Chief Economist at BP and Bassam Fattouh, Director of The Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, I was already excited about the potential for oil since their paper suggests there is every possibility that we are haeding towards a potential golden age for oil, ironically not because of peak oil but thanks to “peak demand”, which could last for decades. Hearing Leigh's views has convinced me further to invest in this excising asset class. I can't believe Jim's discussion with Leigh is the last of his superb series.Jim has the most delicious combination of knowledge, charisma and satire! Please try and persuade him to do another series!
  • NH
    Neil H.
    2 March 2018 @ 21:13
    great interview and great content. keep it coming.
  • RD
    Ron D.
    2 March 2018 @ 18:09
    Jim is a great interviewer and I like this series - but his lack of patience when trying to direct the flow is annoying at points. Too many interruptions disrupt flow - at least give them a chance to go off-track and then redirect instead of constantly cutting off sentences.
    • SH
      Spalding H.
      2 March 2018 @ 21:02
  • RM
    Richard M.
    2 March 2018 @ 16:17
    Great interview by Jim Grant again! I myself have felt that now is a good time to start looking at natural resources again. From offshore oil drillers to uranium to copper (and even the agriculture space) but just did not feel I had the knowledge or expertise to pick individual companies based on my lack of skill in balance sheet reading etc (ie, fundamental analysis). I had been planning on going the brain dead route and just buying ETFs in these various spaces but now knowing that someone as knowledgeable as Leigh actually runs a mutual fund (and not an exclusive hedge fund only open to accredited investors with very large minimums) I now have something to really investigate to see if I am comfortable with his product. Many thanks Jim Grant and Leigh Goehring!
    • RM
      Richard M.
      2 March 2018 @ 20:11
      Hmmm, after a little research some questions emerge! From their SEC FORM N-1A/A (Filing Date: 2016-12-12), their fee structure is stated as this (hope the table shows up correctly after copying): ********** Annual Fund Operating Expenses (Expenses That You Pay Each Year as a Percentage of the Value of Your Investment) Institutional Class/Retail Class Management Fees 0.90% 0.90% Distribution and Service (12b-1) Fee None 0.25% Shareholder Services Fee(1) None 0.08% Other Expenses(1) 0.51% 0.51% Total Annual Fund Operating Expenses 1.41% 1.74% Fee Waiver and Expense Reimbursement(2) (0.49)% (0.49)% Total Annual Fund Operating Expenses (after fee waiver and expense reimbursement)(2) 0.92% 1.25% annual costs: 1 Year 3 Years Institutional Class Shares $94 $390 Retail Class Shares $127 $500 ********** So, it looks like a 1.25% annual expense for retail investors (with a little bump up after initial fee discount). Now, looking at their PROSPECTUS dated SEPTEMBER 30, 2017 ********** Annual Fund Operating Expenses (Expenses That You Pay Each Year as a Percentage of the Value of Your Investment) Institutional Class/Retail Class Management Fees 0.90% 0.90% Distribution and Service (12b‐1) Fee None 0.25% Other Expenses(1) 16.48% 16.96% Other Fund Expenses(1) 16.48% 16.88% Shareholder Services Fee(1) None 0.08% Administrative and Shareholder Servicing Fees(1) 0.00% 0.00% Acquired Fund Fees & Expenses(1) 0.01% 0.01% Total Annual Fund Operating Expenses(1) 17.39% 18.12% Fee Waiver and Expense Reimbursement(2) (16.46)% (16.86)% Total Annual Fund Operating Expenses (after fee waiver and expense reimbursement)(1)(2) 0.93% 1.26% annual costs: 1 Year 3 Years Institutional Class Shares $95 $3,298 Retail Class Shares $128 $3,431 ********** YAWSSA!!!! That is one heck of a difference in fee structure ($500 vs $3,431)! Maybe those "low fee" brain dead ETFs don't look so bad after all <grin>! Obviously will require some more digging!
  • SS
    Steve S.
    2 March 2018 @ 19:50
    Wonderful piece. Jim, I love your interviews and you manage to get some of the most interesting people. And I laugh every time they ask you if you can state your name. :) You might have had a second career in comedy.
  • DJ
    D J.
    2 March 2018 @ 17:13
    Brilliant as allways:-) I know this space well.
  • TS
    Tim S.
    2 March 2018 @ 16:03
    Slightly slow start but finishes very strong. I learned a lot in this interview about commodities and how one might view the world. As always, I wished I was there over a meal to listen in on the conversation. Thanks, RV. I would gladly pay the annual fee *just* for 12 or so episodes of this series.
  • RM
    Richard M.
    2 March 2018 @ 15:18
    *** RVTV *** Thanks for listening!!! (re: posting recording date) ;-)