Pod Insights Real Vision: Finance & Investing The Real Risk Goes Beyond War About this episode Steno Research founder and CEO Andreas Steno is back with his co-host, Steno Research’s head of geopolitics, Mikkel Rosenvold, to break down the latest global drivers in macro. In this episode, with bond yields already rising and central banks under pressure, Andreas and Mikkel assess whether global markets are underpricing the inflation and energy shocks caused by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. And don't forget to check out The Arena, our new trade idea league. Get in on the action, and you could be eligible for prizes totaling $25,000. To learn more and join, visit realvision.com/arena. Today’s sponsor is Plus500 US. Take your trading to the next level with cross-market contracts, from precious metals to key indices, and more. Whether you’re a seasoned trader in the Futures arena or brand new, Plus500’s user-friendly trading platform offers you the advanced tools, market insights, and quick execution you’ve been looking for. Get started with Plus500 for as little as $100 at https://us.plus500.com. Trading in futures involves the risk of loss. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Transcript 0:06 Speaker 00 Hello all there, welcome to Real Vision, welcome to Macro Mondays. My name is Michael Ousmal, I'm joined as usual by Andreas Steno, my co-host, for another jam-packed Monday show, Andreas. We should be getting used to this by now, after almost, what is it, 15 months of this Trump presidency, but these Mondays are never boring. How about this for a Monday, Andreas? Crazy volatility in markets over Trump's opening remarks just before market opened. We'll try to unwrap it a little bit, but what's the day been like for you so far, Andreas? It's afternoon here in Copenhagen, of course.
0:41 Speaker 01 Well, you kind of know that, we had lunch with a potential upcoming business partner while Trump was tweeting from the loo. And all of a sudden, everything turned around. I'm personally pretty satisfied with what we've seen today, since I haven't implemented any index hedges, you know. We've been patient so far with a decent result. We've obviously made some changes to our portfolio, but we've been of the view that you needed to implement, say, smart alpha rotations through your portfolio instead of betting on an outright meltdown, and that has so far been an okay view. It is incredibly difficult to have a strong directional view here, since it's very dependent
1:25 Speaker 01 on these negotiations between Trump and Iran, and whether there are any fruitful negotiations, we don't even know. I'll hand the word to you in a second on that. But I'll say this, and I think it's fairly safe to say, even though I'm a young money manager, I don't think we've ever had a presidency with as much random arbitrary volatility creation as the one with Trump here. And it's it's one thing that I'll actually say again today, I I think it is incredibly sad that politicians do not face the same economic consequences as the most market participants
2:05 Speaker 01 from this volatility, because it it obviously incentivizes them to to keep going on random volatile decision makings, that they do not face the full consequences of the volatility. And I obviously refer to the fact that it is too easy to inside trade in the US. It's been it's been like that for a while. It was also an issue at the old demonstration. We've obviously seen similar issues around the globe. So I'm not speaking solely about the current administration. But politicians, if they were to face the consequences of their volatility duration, they would probably be inclined to make less volatile decisions. And I think this is another example of it.
2:49 Speaker 00 Yeah, very, very fair point, Andreas. We'll we'll get more into that. I actually bought a screenshot. I think we're talking about the same thing about that. We'll see if we have time for that, otherwise I or if if not, I do completely agree with that, Andreas. It was a bit of a strange lunch we had today, because we were sitting there having a good conversation. And then I could send in the corner of my eye, I could send the the Danish Live News channel going into breaking mode. And I noticed you going into breaking mode, which means you're looking down on on your Bloomberg app on your phone. And I was trying to keep the business meeting alive in between that. So that's that's how things are. It's very, very tricky to do, even lunches, you know. Usually, we we we have some some peace and calm in the morning and the lunchtime here in Europe. But that's that's that's getting taken away from us, even even to Andreas.
3:33 Speaker 00 So anyway, we'll we'll try and unwrap much more of that. But just a few announcements here. Remember that the Arena is live. That's Real Vision's new trade idea competition. It's your chance to win seventy five hundred dollars in cash and a free year of Real Vision Pro. So another year of having to look at Andreas and me.
3:54 Speaker 00 The total prize pot is at about twenty five thousand dollars. You should visit realvision.com/arena. To to join up and and I think Andres usually I would say when you're in the middle of such a competition is very, very hard to get in and get a proper return on investment. And and yes, you probably have have to make some some some quite exotic trade, but with this volatility we're seeing, who knows? Uh, if you have a good idea, a good option call, uh, throw it in there and let's uh, let's see who wins it. It's uh, it's a lot of fun in there already.
4:23 Speaker 01 Yeah, let me put it like this, Michael. I mean, uh, the trades that were on top of the leaderboard on Friday. They have had a very bad Monday, so.
4:32 Speaker 00 Yeah, yeah.
4:33 Speaker 01 Uh, I mean, there's still time to um, to participate.
4:36 Speaker 00 There's no, there's no exiting them. So so that's um, that's a very, very good point. Anyway, uh, that's going on. Remember, we we we have a very, very strong week for you this week. Uh, now on Real Vision, we will obviously be be be following all the developments on the Iran war. We're posting notes uh, throughout the week. We were, you're publishing your Steno signals today, Andres. I'm publishing in the drill. I'm looking at some of the Plan Bs that we might be be uh, be seen from from the Trump administration on military uh, the timelines. For those military solutions we might be looking at. Uh, tomorrow, we have a macro meets micro show, Andres. We're trying to find out what stocks to buy amidst all of this. It's going to be very, very tricky. We're gonna probably have to look a little bit longer and on a slightly longer horizon than than than most people are are focused on right now.
5:20 Speaker 00 But but but always a great show where we go over our um, our model portfolio that you can also follow on Real Vision. We obviously have our our articles, as I mentioned, and then remember on Friday, even if you're not a Real Vision subscriber yet, or if you know, if you're not a paying subscriber, we have our free for all um. Drinks with show. Uh, and so last time we didn't really do drinks. We were both on the on baby duty, essentially. Uh, I don't know about that on Friday. I think I have. I have my daughter covered. I don't know about you, Andres, but it's it's it's always a lot of fun. Uh, a little bit more shooting the shit than uh, I don't know. We're also shooting the shit every Monday here. But anyway, that's coming up on Friday, uh, free for all.
5:59 Speaker 01 As as I've, as I've told our editors already, I mean, I'm pretty unhinged without drink in my hand, so that if we allow me like sixty minutes of airtime drunk. I'm not sure where that ends up. Maybe we'll get sued. I don't know.
6:14 Speaker 00 Well, I have to see. Maybe that's a good, good, good point to throw in our usual disclaimer here. That especially in times where we're trying to essentially do prognosis of, of an ongoing war. We try to be as actionable and honest as possible, but our predictions might be.
6:30 Speaker 02 Sometimes it may be good, sometimes it may be shit.
6:34 Speaker 00 Absolutely. Okay, Andres, I want to start in a completely different realm than Iran for the laugh of the week. So you, you and I have talked a lot about what's going on in Dubai. It's relatively close to Europe. We have a lot of business partners and, and, and people we know living there. It's a very, very tough real estate market looking forward. Maybe one place that's worse to own real estate than Dubai right now, it's this. I don't know whether this, this is, this is ironic, but the Metaverse, Andres. This guy mentioned that he owned four properties in the Metaverse. He bought one of them for over $200,000. It was supposed to be the next frontier and the frontier closed last week.
7:15 Speaker 00 I mean, it seems like Mark Zuckerberg and Meta just able to move on from this. I mean, they, they renamed their entire company. Is this, maybe it was a good timing to throw this out during, during an ongoing war. I don't know, but very, very happy I didn't cash out on, on property in there. Did, did you own anything in the Metaverse, Andres?
7:35 Speaker 01 No, I'm not sure which one is more empty, Dubai or the Metaverse at the moment, but I, I thankfully never got involved in it.
7:44 Speaker 00 No.
7:45 Speaker 01 I, I, you know, I, I actually held some sympathy for the view that we could interact socially with each other in the Metaverse. But I'm, I'm probably also an introvert by nature. So I, I mean, I, I would love to see. Yeah, I would love to see all of my meetings move into such an arena. But in, in any case, yeah, it's probably no longer valid.
8:08 Speaker 00 No, no. Okay, Andres, enough about the Metaverse. Mark Zuckerberg, he'll, he'll get some rest for this week. And on to Iran. So, so Andres, we've been scrambling to try and understand what, what's actually going on this morning and during today. Obviously, over the weekend, we had the threats, Donald Trump posing threats that he would begin attacking Iranian power plants if, within 48 hours. If they didn't reopen the street. That deadline was, was, was moved ahead five days towards the end of the week here. In the light of emerging talks between the US and Iran. Then we had the Iranians completely debunked this. They had no, no knowledge of these meetings. Now we're getting an understanding of what's happening, I think.
8:53 Speaker 00 And I'm happy we didn't do this show three hours ago because then we would have, would have been even more in the dark. So what we do know, Andreas, is that there have been what we call indirect talks. So a trio of Pakistan, Turkey and Egypt have had talks with both Steve Witkoff, the US envoy, and most likely either the Iranian Foreign Minister, Arabagji, or Galiba, I think his name is. Sorry for mispronouncing that, I'm getting those confused a little bit. But anyway, the, the, the head of the Iranian parliament. And so we know these indirect talks have been happening. We know that there are plans to set up a summit later this week in Karachi in Pakistan.
9:33 Speaker 00 Potentially with Steve Witkoff, Jericho, maybe even J D Vance, which is interesting. Participating and, and, and some folks on the Iranian side. The big question here is for me, do these guys represent Iran? Are these sort of back channel talks? Because Trump has sort of been signaling this as a quasi regime change. We don't know that, but there are some talks going on. For some time this morning, I thought this was complete bullshit by Trump. We have to admit, some talks are going on and, and, and that justifies some of the market, some of the price action we've seen today in, in, in my opinion, Andreas. So, so, so maybe bring us up to speed. What, what's, what's the current sentiment in markets right now? And how, how do you see these movements today?
10:14 Speaker 01 I mean, it, it's obviously a big relief rally. And, and I, I basically think that what is happening right now is that we've, we've priced out the risk of these tit for tat attacks on energy infrastructure. That was otherwise sort of the base case just a day or two ago, right? So in, in that sense, we're, we're probably back to where we were like on Thursday. It's not like we're back to where we were at the beginning of the war, which is entirely fair. You know, much, much of the analysis that we've done. And it's very difficult to write. You know, longer research papers amidst this because it's happening so fast. And I saw my friend Dario Perkins tweeted that you know it's a crisis when you just,
10:59 Speaker 01 you know, except staring at the screen, monitoring the situation without really writing anything. But because what are there to write? But having said that, one of the things we've had a look at, which is obviously very important now, is how much damage has already been done? Even if we, you know, turn back time and assume that the strait will reopen, is there still damage? And the answer to that question is yes now. I mean, you cannot just turn back time to before the crisis started, because we do have some lack consequences of what's been going on. And as I've written the past few days,
11:43 Speaker 01 the clock is starting to tick now, if you know what I mean. The countdown until this turns really bad basically starts right from today. Because there is a lag between the beginning of the war and until you see the actual supply shortages. And to take the simple example, it takes approximately three weeks to sail from Qatar to Japan. A little bit more than three weeks on average, probably. Meaning that all of the ships that left Qatar just ahead of the war really starting to spiral out of control, they have basically arrived over the past few days here. So the real consequences on ground will be seen from today onwards, roughly.
12:27 Speaker 01 And maybe that has impacted the whole process here. Maybe the Americans have been told by their Japanese counterparts when they met, was it late last week, that, you know, it's starting to bite now. Uh. Maybe, you know, that is the real reason why we're starting to see some back channeling. I don't know. Uh. But in any case, uh, I've held the view basically since the onset of this war that as long as we could solve it, say, within four or five weeks. So, you know, this week or next week, we we will get through this without any major shock to the business cycle. You know, there are already ramifications for prices, etc. We'll get back to that. But uh, as long as we solve it this week or next, I think we'll we'll manage.
13:10 Speaker 01 But uh, the countdown is is starting to bite. We really need to see some um, some progress. And we admittedly have seen some progress today, but we're not there yet.
13:20 Speaker 03 So a quick break in your regular programming. If you're serious about your future, grab my free report called Prepare for 2030. I think you've got five years to make as much money as possible, and this guide will help you navigate what's coming. The link is in the description. Download it now.
13:37 Speaker 00 No, absolutely. I think ju- ju- just to give give a little bit insight into my thinking on this. And I'll elaborate on on on Wednesday in our weekly article there. So so it's very clear from the US perspective, they have achieved most of the objectives, depending on what you define as objectives. Uh, have they managed to to uh, take out the Iranian nuclear program? No. So that's still left for discussions or for negotiations. I don't think they can feasibly do that. Uh, and then there's the Strait of Hormuz question, obviously, that they need to solve. Other than that, Trump is pretty happy to walk away from this. Uh, so that's the one side of it. Then there's the Iranian side. And it's uh, it's interesting because obviously, as we've talked about, the Iranian
14:16 Speaker 00 response to the US Israeli attack was much, much stronger, uh, and and very much more asymmetrical than what we what we've seen early and probably what the US was expecting. So where is Iran now? Well, they're fighting for the regime's survival. So this means that there are only really two things uh, that can ensure their survival. One is a nuclear weapon, the second is a hostage, and that hostage is right now the Strait of Hormuz. So so um, the Iranians either have to keep that hostage to make sure that the US don't attack them, or they need something to replace that. So they need some sort of security guarantee that covers not only the US but also Israel. That is very, very simply what Iran is going to be looking for here. And if they have to give up their dreams of a nuclear weapon, they have to get something very, very tangible in in um.
15:02 Speaker 00 In return for that, which would correspond to some kind of security guarantee, that probably also involves someone like Russia, China guaranteeing this, which makes it very, very complicated. Because do they trust the words of the US? Do they trust the Israelis? It's very, very tough. On the other hand, this is a very, very clear cut deal. You're not talking about exchanges of territory. You're talking about the Iranians, they don't want to get attacked anymore. The US don't want them to get, the US wants no nuclears, nuclear weapons and a no playing of the strait. So, I mean, these things can be worked around. I think there is a way to a deal. There is also a way to a deal that Trump can somewhat sell as a victory back home. He has set back the Iranian ballistic missile program.
15:46 Speaker 00 How important is that when they have drones? We can discuss that. He has done that. He's taken out the top leadership. He can argue that this is some new sort of Iranian leadership. It's not a regime change, but it could be sold as such. So I see a way forward here. And what we also know, which is a bit underreported, is that inside Iran, you have massive rationing of both foreign currency, especially food, fuel, everything. So the Iranian civil society is very much beginning to feel the pressure of this. They can probably stomach this for a few more weeks. After all, we're talking about a war of survival for the regime. But obviously, they are taking their toll as well.
16:29 Speaker 00 So, yeah, maybe we're looking at the exact timeline that Donald Trump told us a few weeks ago. We should have just stopped listening to all the bullshit in between, that this was going to be a three to four week war and then it's going to be over. I don't know. It's been a hell of a ride in Dresden. Let's see where it goes. It's very, very tricky to predict these things. We have to admit.
16:50 Speaker 01 Big old, I know that a lot of people ask questions around this as well. While you were talking, we just got a headline on Bloomberg here stating that the Iranian state TV said that the US tried to negotiate with Iran via these intermediaries, but they decided not to respond to those approaches. So how do you read, you know, the communication from the Iranian side? They're obviously, at least publicly refusing to acknowledge what Trump is saying. Is that to be expected? Or is that also like optics in terms of how they, you know, present this at home?
17:29 Speaker 00 Yeah, I think two things here. One is that they're obviously trying to up the price here. What Trump did today was essentially lower his price in these negotiations, showing a great willingness to get this done. Iran is trying to signal that they can wait, essentially. It's the Putin strategy. It's also possible, I don't know this, it's possible, going back to what I talked about a few weeks back, that we are seeing some power struggles within Iran, that we are seeing some power struggles between the clerical side, the priests and the IRGC, and then the civilian leadership, the secular leadership, on the other hand. That is very much, it sounds like that from what the US is telling us. If it's happening, who knows? It's very, very tough to say inside. So that's, it's possible that we see some sort of power shift. We shouldn't expect the Ayatollah to be removed or changing the flag or whatever.
18:13 Speaker 00 It's gonna be a bit more silent behind the scenes. But we could see a power shift away from the IRGC and the priests over to the secular side of things. That would make it a lot easier for the US to do a deal with them, a lot easier to sell this as a semi-regime change and a better future for the region. So yeah, that's the hopeful version. Also, just one final point to address. This new five-day deadline is interesting. First of all, five days from that, or when that deadline hits, the markets are gonna be closed for the week. That's one thing. Second of all, at that point, we're gonna have another US marine expeditionary unit arriving in the Gulf, probably in place to invade Carthag Islands.
18:56 Speaker 00 So we have some sort of fork in the road coming up, where the US will have to decide on escalation or negotiations, and the same for Iran. So that is probably also part of this play, that the US are putting more military units in place over the next days and weeks to escalate here. So it is an escalation game, and the US has to be very, very careful not to fall in an escalation trap.
19:21 Speaker 01 But let me say a few things, Miguel. You know, I don't get a lot of friends by saying this, but... Last week, we had this discussion on whether the Iranians managed to hit more targets and do more damage than what they did during the first couple of days of the war. And a lot of people claimed that I was just listening to the Iranian authorities and not to the Israeli and US authorities on that question. And my answer to those people claiming that is that you cannot trust either side for true information in times of war. I'm not saying that the US is not decently close to the truth, but you cannot take information at face value amidst the war. That's also the case if the war is in Europe.
20:06 Speaker 01 That's always been the case historically, that you, of course, tried to paint the picture that you want the public to know about, right? And it is very difficult to get verified numbers on the nominal amount of, say, drone attacks or ballistic missile attacks on the UAE, on Qatar, on Kuwait, et cetera. Because who's there to verify it? So what I've used is these so-called open source, OSINT sources, which, you know, at least I think they're directionally correct on many of these things. Whether they are nominally correct is a very different question to answer. But, yeah, I just wanted to remind people of that.
20:46 Speaker 01 It is incredibly difficult to find information that is 100% accurate in times of war.
20:52 Speaker 00 Absolutely, absolutely, Andreas. Okay, so let's try and look a little bit beyond the situation on the ground here, look at the macro picture here, Andreas. We had the Fed meeting last week. I wanted to bring up the good old dot plot here. So no interest rate changes as expected last week. A raise of the inflation expectations. So what were your takeaways from that meeting and how much of that is caused by the Iran war?
21:25 Speaker 01 So two things. First of all, they have the same forecast for interest rates as they had ahead of the Iran war. I think that's very telling for the Federal Reserve compared to, you know, some of the European central banks, which kind of panicked in their communication last week, especially the Bank of England really created some volatility with their press release. We're dialing back some of that today with with a big, big, big drop in interest rates in the UK. But I I think it is unwise to tell people that you're going to hike because of the two or three week crisis in the Strait of Hormuz. You simply need to wait to see what happens until you take a decision. And I think it was very
22:10 Speaker 01 clever that the Federal Reserve basically did that. You know, they they upped their inflation forecast as they had to, given that the oil futures were much higher than ahead of the last meeting, right? But other than that, they basically kept everything intact. Our good old friend Stephen Mirren still expects four rate cuts this year. He even defended it live on Bloomberg earlier today. And the average participant sees interest rates a little bit lower come year end. So they still have their cutting bias intact. And if we, you know, if we manage to solve the crisis, say, within a few weeks, I actually think they will end up cutting this year. And I know that I'm it's a very contrarian call right now. The market is now moving in the direction of rate hikes
22:53 Speaker 01 in the US as well. But I don't think they're keen on doing it. And for good reasons. I I think it's outright moronic to just react to high oil prices because of a two, three week closure of the Strait, as it seems to be the case that the big European central banks want to. So that was the first thing I wanted to say. The second thing I wanted to say is what we have on page 11, because interestingly, amidst all of this, we've actually seen a pretty I'd argue conciliatory development in US money markets. We're close to breaching what I typically label as pain levels for the amount of dollars available between banks.
23:35 Speaker 01 And on top of that, if you look at the yellow line here, which is the spread between the sofa rate, which is basically a repo rate, and the effective Fed funds rate, we're now back below zero, very close to, which is basically where we came from before the whole funding crisis of the government back in October, the landslide in crypto and so on and so forth, which coincided with that.
23:57 Speaker 01 Why do I highlight that? Well, it goes to show two things. The money market is less levered than it was ahead of this crisis, because basically all hedge funds, they've had to de-gross their books.
24:09 Speaker 01 So in this kind of environment, if you're running a hedge fund, we've been running a hedge fund together, Michael, we have plenty of experience running levered books. You cannot put directional risk, because you basically tell your clients that you don't make big swings in your portfolio while stuff like this is happening. So you basically have to close the direction of your book. And that is why we see the yellow coming down now, because when you see a deleveraging event among hedge funds, it basically also means that they have to borrow less in the repo market. And that's a part of the reason why we see a much more benign development. If we pair that with continued additions to the money market liquidity,
24:54 Speaker 01 the way is actually paved for a big spike in risk-taking if the fog dissipates, if you know what I mean. If there is a little bit more clarity around the direction, we'll see a lot of risk-taking on the back of that, because, you know,
25:09 Speaker 01 books are roughly square out there. And it is also important to highlight that this is probably also the reason why we haven't seen material short-selling, because... You simply need clarity for the direction, or at least as much clarity as you can, to run a levered short in this kind of environment. And as we can see today, we're always only one tweet away from, you know, completely.
25:33 Speaker 00 That's it.
25:34 Speaker 01 But from completely getting run over by a bus in either direction, right? Which means that you cannot take a lot of risk in this. And therefore, if this continues, if we don't get a resolution, we'll end up seeing a slow grind lower in risk assets. I don't think it will be violent, because it's very difficult to take large directional risks in this kind of environment. And it remains the case in both directions, given the risk surrounding both tails here.
26:02 Speaker 00 Very interesting, Andres. And obviously, in our show tomorrow, Macro Meets Micro, we will dive a little bit more into where you can try and position yourself for this increased risk appetite, because that is very much the mindset we're in on the portfolio that we're running here. Okay, Andres, I just wanted to round off on a listener question here. We've had a lot of listener questions on the outlook for the Iran war. I think we have covered that, but this one I know you have some opinions on. Scott Besant did an interview, Meet the Press, I think it was on Sunday here. Pat Cash, our listener here, is calling it a terrible performance. I would tend to agree with that. He asks, "I can't imagine Trump likes his cabinet to look that bad on TV. Is there a risk that Besant days are numbered?
26:46 Speaker 00 That would be a market curve ball. How do you see that?"
26:50 Speaker 01 So my honest answer to that is, I don't think Scott Besant has ever been good at addressing TV questions, never. I don't think he's particularly good at it. But I think he's a great Treasury Secretary, and I'll stick to that view. What I think went wrong is, you know, it's very, very difficult to rhetorically defend a U-turn of the size that we've seen from the Trump administration on this Iran question, and the question of getting involved in wars in the Middle East. I mean, they've aggressively toured with the opposite view for more than a year, especially during the campaign, but also after getting into office. You can just, you know, go search on YouTube, or X, or whatever,
27:35 Speaker 01 and you find plenty of soundbites and video clips with Trump, Vance, Besant, et cetera, stating that they cannot spend US tax dollars fighting in endless wars in the Middle East, and you name it. So. I don't think that they're going to blame him for this U-turn. And therefore, I would expect him to stay on board. But I have to agree that it was very difficult for him to defend how to fund this war, because they've said the exact opposite for a year. I think all of us would have struggled with that. Unless you're a pathological liar, you cannot just make that kind of U-turn without sounding stupid. I mean, I'm sorry, but it's just impossible.
28:19 Speaker 01 They've said the opposite 12 months in a row. So of course, there will be some hiccups when he needs to U-turn.
28:25 Speaker 00 Yeah, I saw some comparisons of the $200 billion bill that's been pushed for the Iran war and the total terrorist collection in the fiscal year of 2025, which was $195 billion. So it's probably not going to be dividends for Americans. It's probably going to be used on a war. I don't think that was the plan, but yeah, you could probably argue that it financed it. Had other people financed it, I don't know how they're going to spin that, but I agree with you.
28:57 Speaker 00 Yeah, go on.
28:58 Speaker 01 And then Scott Besson started referring to them having a trillion at hand, which is not entirely wrong. I mean, the Treasury General account is, I think, at $860 billion, something like that as of today. They have a few more war chests out there, so they have a trillion. That's true, but it's obviously a debt-funded trillion.
29:18 Speaker 00 Yeah, that's it.
29:21 Speaker 01 It is true that they can easily fund this. I mean, of course, they can, but I don't necessarily think they're willing to run the TGA empty, but it would be very interesting for liquidity if they were to. As you can see, maybe we can bring up Chart 11 again with the TGA that Scott Besson referred to.
29:37 Speaker 00 Yeah, actually, the deadline here shows.
29:40 Speaker 01 So I guess they have a target of roughly $800 billion in the TGA. And they're running a little bit above that. I think we should expect it to run.
29:53 Speaker 01 Yeah, closer to say 700, maybe a little bit below 700 over the next week or two. And then we'll probably stabilize closer to 800 by the month end of April.
30:05 Speaker 01 Yes, they have some cash at hand and it would be very interesting if they started using it. Not that it will change everything if the war keeps going, but it will at least alleviate some of the concerns around leverage on the other side of the war.
30:20 Speaker 00 Professor Andres, okay, that's all we have for you this week from our Macro Monday show. So much stuff to unwrap that we have to do a few more shows this week. So it's a good thing that we have them. As mentioned, Macro meets Micro for Pro users on Real Vision tomorrow, where we run through our model portfolio and give you some tips on where to hide amidst all this or where to find some alpha on the tail end of this. On Friday, our Drinks With is going to be a lot of fun. That's over even if you aren't a paying subscriber to Real Vision. So thanks to you, Andreas, for joining. Thanks to everyone for pitching in with questions and listening for another week. We'll be back.
30:55 Speaker 03 You obviously enjoyed the episode because you're here with me at the end. But listen, don't forget to go to realvision.com/join and grab a free membership. It's an incredible community packed with alpha, great investment ideas and the research that you need to help you unfuck your future. So get started now. Go to realvision.com/join.
Previous Is Risk Appetite Returning to Crypto? | REKT Vision with Mando & Gmoney Next Risk Isn’t Gone and Markets Are Still Unprepared | Macro Mondays: March 30, 2026 Page updated October 26, 2026 · transcript and summary are machine-generated
