Crude Oil Boom, Craft Beer Gloom

Featuring Alex Rosenberg, Justine Underhill, Roger Hirst

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.

Published on
31 May, 2018
Oil, Commodities, US Economy
22 minutes
Asset class
Equities, Commodities


  • ev

    ernie v.

    20 6 2018 02:36

    0       0

    There must be another way to get the message across.

  • SG

    Sherman G.

    15 6 2018 00:25

    0       0

    .....but the young lady is very attractive, intellectually speaking, of course. (No gender bias intended or inferred.)

  • bs

    bob s.

    14 6 2018 19:01

    0       0

    Maybe a little more professional next time. thanks rv

  • MA

    Melanie A.

    10 6 2018 22:32

    0       0

    "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.

  • PG

    Paul G.

    7 6 2018 04:17

    1       0

    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

  • AR

    Akshay R.

    6 6 2018 01:48

    3       0

    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!

  • MM

    M. M.

    5 6 2018 07:38

    0       0

    Its about thought process. Not unimportant and in a way educative.

  • CM

    Carlos M.

    4 6 2018 11:10

    3       0

    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.

  • SH

    Syed H.

    3 6 2018 15:56

    2       2

    This was painful.

  • WM

    Will M.

    3 6 2018 13:40

    3       0

    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......

  • DK

    Daniel K.

    3 6 2018 11:04

    1       0

    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.

    2 6 2018 14:16

    6       5

    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 6 2018 03:14

    5       1

    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.

  • TB

    Thomas B.

    1 6 2018 13:41

    7       0

    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.


    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.

  • V!

    Volatimothy !.

    1 6 2018 13:29

    4       0

    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.

  • LP

    Lionel P.

    1 6 2018 10:51

    0       1

    To say it on a positive way, can do better, specially Alex comments when Justine is speaking

  • JS

    John S.

    1 6 2018 09:06

    2       1

    Waste of time

  • DK

    Daniel K.

    1 6 2018 05:48

    9       1

    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!

  • JC

    Joe C.

    1 6 2018 05:27

    20       1

    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.

  • DG

    David G.

    1 6 2018 04:37

    17       2

    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 6 2018 02:24

    8       1

    Watch 2 minutes....Very agonizing/painful....

  • BS

    Bill S.

    1 6 2018 00:38

    10       3

    Please stop, 3 in a row bomb format.

  • GL

    Guillaume L.

    31 5 2018 21:02

    6       9

    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 5 2018 19:31

    7       3

    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 5 2018 17:54

    18       3

    really miss AIF and Grant

  • JS

    Jason S.

    31 5 2018 17:41

    9       2

    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.

  • KJ

    Kulbir J.

    31 5 2018 13:02

    27       4

    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.

  • OD

    Orin D.

    31 5 2018 10:46

    2       1

    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

  • SG

    Sophie G.

    31 5 2018 10:16

    9       2

    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.