Crude Oil Boom, Craft Beer Gloom

Published on
May 31st, 2018
22 minutes

Crude Oil Boom, Craft Beer Gloom

The Knock-On Effect ·
Featuring Alex Rosenberg, Justine Underhill, Roger Hirst

Published on: May 31st, 2018 • Duration: 22 minutes

Why will higher oil prices result in disappointed craft beer drinkers? Justine, Alex and Roger discuss. Plus, Alex delves into the world of academia, and discusses an interesting finding about the way stocks react to earnings announcements. Filmed on May 24, 2018.


  • ev
    ernie v.
    20 June 2018 @ 02:36
    There must be another way to get the message across.
  • SG
    Sherman G.
    15 June 2018 @ 00:25
    .....but the young lady is very attractive, intellectually speaking, of course. (No gender bias intended or inferred.)
  • bs
    bob s.
    14 June 2018 @ 19:01
    Maybe a little more professional next time. thanks rv
  • MA
    Melanie A.
    10 June 2018 @ 22:32
    "I love it when trading relates to dating and weather". Seriously?! Why not just have Justine talk about sweet little kittens? (In the next episode can we please have Justine pour those two jars of sand over whoever wrote that script?!) I agree with others in that I like the video and some of the quirky, more playful format (Alex was quite funny) but I just found there was so much fluff it didn't hold my attention - 6-8 mins would have captured this (random babble and multiple explanations of the same concept weren't needed) although I like the 20-30 mins timeframe.
  • SH
    Syed H.
    3 June 2018 @ 15:56
    This was painful.
    • IL
      Ivo L.
      10 June 2018 @ 07:47
      Agreed, this is pure shit guys. You can do much better.
  • PG
    Paul G.
    7 June 2018 @ 04:17
    better as vid than a pod cast - its bloody awful as a podcast. can we have the old adventures in finance pod back!!!! please! please please please please. keep this a short millennial vid
  • DK
    Daniel K.
    3 June 2018 @ 11:04
    To Yury B - depends on what you mean by “fracking” . It stimulation process - there is no single resource, have to go into technical details. SPE Journal may be a good start, followed by library search on specific topic. If you mean unconventional production - check, great contrarian view. has fantastic interactive production graphs. have some interesting numbers. Latest - on staggering amount of sand used to frac a single well (~10M lb). Just ignore EROI rant; I think Steve got it wrong. On a interesting connection this episode tried to make - our US specialty chemicals supplier increased lead time from 12 to 16 weeks because they short on Dangerous Goods drivers - they are busy at Permian...
    • YB
      Yuriy B.
      6 June 2018 @ 02:11
      Thanks Daniel!
  • AR
    Akshay R.
    6 June 2018 @ 01:48
    Kudos to RV! I think a lot of us are missing the point. Knock-on Effect is an exercise in creative thinking as it pertains to buy-side investing. If one really wishes to generate trade ideas of one's own - (1) you must learn from trade ideas of others and follow those ideas till they materialize or vaporize AND (2) riff around with the core mechanics of economics-driven thesis building. Knock-on Effect is a gateway show into the latter!
  • TB
    Thomas B.
    1 June 2018 @ 13:41
    I think most of the viewers (myself included) problems with this show come down to two things: 1. The length. Obvious from reading other comments but here is why: On AVERAGE, RealVision puts out videos in the 6-12 min. range, the 18-22 min range, and the longer format interviews which can be 45-90 mins. This ones seems like a 6-8 min show that was forced into the 22 min range. As many have pointed out, this show can be summarized in 2 minutes. Perhaps 6-8mins works with the added dramatic effects. The viewers obviously don't have a problem with long-form as we watched Grant interview Marc Cohodes for 80+ mins and wanted more. I imagine the chosen length was because it was a 'replacement' for Adventures in Finance and pitched as a podcast instead of a stand alone show within the RealVision network. Which is my next point: 2. Positioning: I think RV made a mistake by making this the replacement for AiF. I honestly believe that most of us would be pretty positive on this show not only if it was it 6 minutes long, but if it had also launched on the real vision network as its own new show. If the launch was done at a different time or even simply as something other than as a replacement for AiF, we wouldn't be making comparisons. But that is human nature. If you pitch it & launch it as a replacement we will treat it that way and continue to see it as a step down from Grant and his popular long-form interviews, rather than just an interesting 8 min video to give me something to think about. That is how I see the 20/20 email. Although it was more useful before I was a subscriber (as some of the info is covered in the weekly videos), I still enjoy the summaries and the 6 degrees bit which is a similar idea to the knock-on effect. I see it as value-add, and not a step-down. My suggestions: Notice that I (and others) don't believe the content in & of itself was the issue. 1. Cut the length (obviously) of this show to 6-8 mins. It seems we all realize this would be best. It would change it from drawn-out and tough-to-finish, to a quick and probably delightful nugget of info. Like a nice example of an exercise in out of the box thinking. 2. For the 'podcast', it doesn't have to be this show. If you want to leave this as the podcast, still cut the length. Personally I listen to quite a few 5-10 min podcasts and they are just fine. I appreciate them just as much, if not more so. OR, if you insist on the longer format for a podcast, you can either pick another show. Even if this means that you just release the podcast on a more infrequent schedule. There are many great podcasts that don't release on a weekly schedule. Some go weeks without releasing. Perhaps you don't have to take it to that extreme, but you have more freedom than you think. tl;dr The Knock-On Effect is a 6-8 minute show. Like my comments above, it could be much shorter. Viewers cannot stop comparing this to AiF as this was positioned as the replacement for AiF. Podcasts can exist as weekly 6-8 min shows just fine. Podcasts can also be 25+ mins every 10-15+ days as well. They show can have any format as well. It doesn't matter. You had certain habits that worked with with the previous show. Sometimes when we 'replace' something we try to replace all of its traits (length/conversational style/release schedule), and that isn't always best. Here, it is way too forced. Take a step back and look at both the podcast and this show as completely separate products. Make both of them the best of what they are and you will probably get two winners instead of one dud.
    • TB
      Thomas B.
      1 June 2018 @ 13:42
      P.S. I love 99% of your content and will probably love The Knock-On Effect & and Podcast Changes if they were made.
    • DG
      David G.
      1 June 2018 @ 15:16
      I think you're misreading the comments in this thread. Nobody (including myself) takes issue with the length of the program *provided* the content provides value. The 'Knock-on Effect' would be intolerable to listen to/or watch if it was only 5min long. No exaggeration ... it is that bad. As for length, I've been disappointed when incredible conversations/shows ended at 1-hr because I could have continued listening for many hours more. As a matter of fact, I'd rather see RV stick to what made it great in the beginning, which was an exclusive offering and boutique platform delivering 1-2 long-form programs per week with a highly competent interviewer probing deeply into the thought process of world-class investors. Personally, this is what I paid for and what I think most investors value the most. Instead RV has appears to have lost it's way trying to grow a large scale network to compete with mainstream financial news, in the process RV is killing their brand by diluting the platform with lot of mediocre programming and constant marketing of new offerings, and in the process is resembling more and more everyday the big financial news networks they claim to want to disrupt. Just give us a few kick-ass long form programs a week ... this is what made RV special to begin with.
    • TB
      Thomas B.
      4 June 2018 @ 23:29
      Hi David. Thanks for the insights. I think we are more on the same page than you realize. I understand where you are coming from. However, there are people who mentioned length in the comments both here as well as the other episodes (mostly before). I wasn't just speaking of this thread. I understand that you don't feel that way regarding length, but I do and so do others. To me, that is just a slight difference on this one series. We agree on the rest. I think people are mentioning length less in this episodes comments than the past episodes because they are getting frustrated by this point. And many people who are not quite as negative are not as likely to comment. Heck, it took me three episodes to speak up and that was my first comment ever. Again, I feel the reason it "is that bad" is partly because of the length. If they just made this a quick 7 min. clip and launched it separately I really don't think it would have caused quite an uproar. But again, I understand you'd like to scrap the series all together. And as I said in my original comment, I agree with you 100% that I could have listened for many hours to other episodes and length was not the only factor. For me, It IS a factor HERE however. For the Cohodes, Hendry, Deden, Zulauf interviews...basically all of Grant's interviews, I could have sat here all day. But definitely not this series. That doesn't mean all of us hate it outright. To go on the record as to your idea of just a few kick-ass long form programs per week? I'd happily pay for that. Grant Williams interviews, some deep dives on certain industries like in "The Big Story", more "Master Class" videos and I'd be a happy camper. Throw in a special one-off like Grant's two-part series on gold every once-in-a-while and that would be Gravy. That view may be many of us, but it is not all of us.
    • DG
      David G.
      6 June 2018 @ 00:06
      Thomas --you're right, we agree. Like you, I enjoy the deep probing long-form interviews because they are unique in all of financial media and offers incomparable value--this why I'm a subscriber. My comments were generally about where it appears RV is headed directionally. Case-n-point, the Knock-on series.
  • MM
    M. M.
    5 June 2018 @ 07:38
    Its about thought process. Not unimportant and in a way educative.
  • CM
    Carlos M.
    4 June 2018 @ 11:10
    just as a suggestion I rather RV allocate the resources they spend on these videos in uploading trading ideas faster, making some sort of performance metric of the interviewers and their trading ideas or even doing further technical analysis ( ie the likes of what aspen trading does on its videos) on the trade or how the macro backdrop might affect the trade. cheers!
  • WM
    Will M.
    3 June 2018 @ 13:40
    Yes, well...... I think RVT is trying to test various methods of disseminating financial information to see if they can secure a winning trend or niche segment. There is probably a view out there to pull in the younger generation (I am going to say this is 20s and 30s) you have to offer a more "hip" product that appeals to those sensibilities (no problem with that at all). I would remind any readers that there are often close to a thousand votes on the better viewed videos and the majority by far are upvoted. The folks who choose to leave a message on this board actually tend to be the same folks. I haven't counted but I would guess about 50 folks have probably ever left more than about 5 comments ever. Some of the comments are excellent and most are respectful. I am a baby boomer reader, a fan of gold and silver (eventually) and a believer that the financial world of today is a fiction that will end. I believe in cycles, some of them generational, and read Martin Armstrong all the time. (I recommend his site and his model. He is not an eloquent speaker and unfortunately will likely not appeal to many under 40 but he is very active behind the scenes) RVT is simply trying various new models to see which ones work and why not, the goal is to make money after all? I think the key is to tailor their site to meet all potential interested parties. I am personally not interested in flashy bold color graphics and the sound editing of the music is just not hitting the mark. I suspect many long time RVT viewers will be in a similar position. I am a long time subscriber to RVT and currently a Macro Insiders subscriber. I did not feel the additional Think Tank subscription added much for me so pulled out. I am sure the RVT folks know what they are doing but my 10 cents worth would be to tailor the core site with its excellent in depth interviews and commentary at one segment of their viewers and put the flashier graphic / loud beat music on a site geared for a younger audience. I think there are at least 2 distinct viewership cadres at RVT and the ratings are sending this message clearly. I am sure Raoul et al are watching feedback closely. Apologies for the long comment but just wanted to get my view out there......
  • V!
    Volatimothy !.
    1 June 2018 @ 13:29
    Not sure why so many people watch this if they already know they don't like it. I don't like chicken livers, but it doesn't bother me that the grocery store sells them.
    • YB
      Yuriy B.
      2 June 2018 @ 20:09
  • DK
    Daniel K.
    1 June 2018 @ 05:48
    I frac for living and this ranting is an insult on the industry and realities. There is a lot of money to be made going long and short shale oil and gas producers and services and this "show" tells nothing of it. Bring back AIF!
    • YB
      Yuriy B.
      2 June 2018 @ 14:18
      Daniel, what do you consider a useful resource for keeping up with meaningful shifts in the fracking industry?
  • YB
    Yuriy B.
    2 June 2018 @ 14:16
    Relax RV viewers! The content presented on this segment is interesting and worth hearing (certainly more so than 99% of what is shown on CNBC). The format is quirky and may not be a suitable fit for those of you who are dead on the inside. Keep it up RV!
  • EF
    Eric F.
    2 June 2018 @ 03:14
    I don’t want to jump on bandwagon and all for change, but RV really needs to look at the trends in ratings across recent videos, and assess content plans. Where before you see low single digit percentage downvotes, it is now not that uncommon for downvotes to be equal / greater than upvotes. C’mon guys, wake up, this trend is not good. Too much chop & change, not enough sticking with stuff that really worked. Forget the style (flashy graphics, too loud music) and focus on the substance. Also, get the bloody audio mixing issues fixed. I’m fed up off being deafened one minute then struggling to hear whispers the next.
  • LP
    Lionel P.
    1 June 2018 @ 10:51
    To say it on a positive way, can do better, specially Alex comments when Justine is speaking
  • JS
    John S.
    1 June 2018 @ 09:06
    Waste of time
  • JC
    Joe C.
    1 June 2018 @ 05:27
    I’m confused by the RV selling strategy. How wide of an audience are you trying to reach? The most watched financial networks are Bloomberg/CNBC. Is there any other way to reach a wider audience than to put out sensationalist drivel to be gobbled up by the masses? You are on your way to becoming the very thing you set out to disrupt. The slashing of the price (a little irksome to someone who paid extra to become a “partner” last year). The shortened, more frequent, surface-level videos. The “hot tip” trades. Now this. What I see happening here worries me.
    • JC
      Joe C.
      1 June 2018 @ 05:29
      Almost every RV video used to have 99 thumbs up for every 1 thumb down. Either a bunch of negative Nancy’s made accounts over the last few months, or your audience is trying to tell you something.
  • DG
    David G.
    1 June 2018 @ 04:37
    Grant, Raoul - you seriously need to consider what the knock-on effects will be on your otherwise world-class RV brand if you guys allow this dud of a program format to continue. Please kill it.
  • PP
    Patrick P.
    1 June 2018 @ 02:24
    Watch 2 minutes....Very agonizing/painful....
  • WS
    William S.
    1 June 2018 @ 00:38
    Please stop, 3 in a row bomb format.
  • SS
    S S.
    31 May 2018 @ 13:02
    Another Dud I'm afraid. Cut the rambling and just go straight to the point. The Knock On Effects of Oil Prices could have been explained in under 2 minutes. Let me save you some time, Skip to 10:54 into the interview and see the following: Higher Oil Prices -> Increased Fracking -> More Sand Usage -> Glass Prices Rise -> Sad Beer Drinkers. The End.
    • KS
      Karen S.
      31 May 2018 @ 23:16
      dope. didn't even have to watch it. thanks for the highlights
  • SG
    Sophie G.
    31 May 2018 @ 10:16
    The opening gambit "Rising oil prices means we're going to see bummed-out craftier drinkers" Please give me a reason to watch for twenty minutes rather to skip mind numbing banter.
    • JP
      Janusz P.
      31 May 2018 @ 17:43
      There is none! Nothing against Justine or Alex, but this show (including the idea for this series) are total failure, in my opinion.
    • JL
      Jinny L.
      31 May 2018 @ 22:53
      RV got additional funding so I reckon they are trying different formats but this one is a complete failure. I think in these type of formats RV needs a more seasoned and experienced markets professional such as Grant or Raoul.
  • GL
    Guillaume L.
    31 May 2018 @ 21:02
    Have to admit, I was short Knock on effect big time. Solid Improvement on Justine's part. She has a fine delivery. She has enough "young" vibe and vivacity that she could lead a solo "AIF junior". Imagine the first part of this episode with her alone, fast, to the point and with actual discussions with the people she paraphrases "I talked to x and y and he told me...." Much better. The back and forth between the hosts serves no real purpose here. Annals of Finance segment was actually decent, but again, the other host didn't add much to the discussion. To many attempts at humour. Jokes are good, but not all comebacks should try to be funny. But hey, with continued improvements, odds are strong this show will pull up before hitting the ground. Yeah, Grant is great, but these two can actually do it if they try less hard to make us laugh all the time. Keep on improving!
  • SS
    Sam S.
    31 May 2018 @ 19:31
    Finance and economics tends to be doom, gloom, figuring out how to protect capital and to deal with serious implications of all kinds in anticipation of some future event. Also tends to be boring as hell. I totally disagree with several comments in the past and below! These presentations are goofy, funny, light-hearted, more relaxed and having some fun with finance. A few tidbits of usable information and food (or beer) for thought. I full enjoy watching and listening to RV presentations of all kinds-----add some positive personality and it's even better. LIGHTEN UP PEOPLE!
  • BM
    B. M.
    31 May 2018 @ 17:54
    really miss AIF and Grant
  • JS
    Jason S.
    31 May 2018 @ 17:41
    The most telling evidence of the pointlessness of this is when Justine asked Alex if there were any takeaways: ".....ugh....ummm....oh brother......what are your takeaways?" Don't worry Alex, the whole audience had the same reaction. Weak analysis, such a reach.
  • OD
    Orin D.
    31 May 2018 @ 10:46
    This could of been more succinct. Justine and Roger seemed well prepared and I really enjoyed their discussion of the unintended consequences of fracking. Alex didn't appear well prepared and didn't add much to discussion outside of his academia piece