0:02

Welcome to the On the Tape podcast.

0:04

I'm your host Danny Moses. Today's going

0:06

to be a fun one of my

0:08

former partners Porter Collins and Vincent Daniel

0:10

on. We're joined by a special guest.

0:12

You might know him from the Declaration

0:14

of Independence. But we know him as

0:16

the chart master Carter Braxtonworth founder of

0:18

worth charting. Carter, welcome to on the

0:20

tape. Thanks guys, great to see you.

0:22

So for those playing at home, I

0:24

would say watching this episode on YouTube

0:26

be much easier as we're going to

0:28

have charts up. not only the stock

0:30

and the thesis behind it, but what

0:32

the chart is telling us. Let me

0:34

just give you a little history here.

0:36

Carter used to come into our offices

0:38

once a quarter, and it'd be after

0:41

market closed, so we would have some bourbon.

0:43

So all of us have some bourbon here.

0:45

So we have tradition of doing bourbon

0:47

and charts. I'm going to preview this like

0:49

a game show. So Carter has no knowledge

0:51

of the side of the trade by or

0:53

sell that we are on. He only has

0:55

the tickers. So he's want to make that known.

0:58

some various sectors and single names

1:00

and see where we match up

1:02

with the chart master. Before we

1:04

begin, Carter, how does one become

1:06

a stock market technician? And

1:08

what are your methods? And like spinal

1:10

tap, why the 150 day moving average

1:13

versus the 200 day? Sure, sure.

1:15

Well, it sure. I mean, look,

1:17

anyone could look at a chart

1:19

and then that's the beauty of

1:21

it. It's very approachable. Anyone can,

1:23

just as anyone can look at

1:26

a cure, okay, and anyone can

1:28

stick their finger up in the

1:30

air and decide it should be

1:32

three times cash flow, 15 times

1:34

cash flow. Same thing with a

1:36

chart. One can decide it's overbought

1:39

or oversold, one can decide it's

1:41

bottoming or topping. Very subjective. and

1:43

in about two and a half years

1:45

I just decided I don't think I

1:47

had any advantage and then I started

1:50

realizing no one had any advantage in

1:52

that score and that there was no

1:54

relationship between price and earnings on a

1:56

three six-month basis over ten years yeah

1:58

you make a lot of money your

2:01

shares will go up you lose a

2:03

lot of money, your shares will go

2:05

down. But this clearer, the next quarter

2:07

stocks go from 30 to 90 to

2:10

30, and nothing changed. And so I

2:12

decided I'd study price instead of companies.

2:14

And that's all that charting is. It's

2:16

a pictorial representation of price and the

2:19

study of supply and demand. All right.

2:21

So with that, let's get rolling here

2:23

and kick it off to you guys,

2:25

maybe Porter and Vinny. Our thoughts generally

2:27

on the markets here before we bring

2:30

up, you know, our first chart and

2:32

what you guys are thinking here. We're

2:34

just really anticipating Liberation Day, which I

2:36

believe is tomorrow. But seriously, it's funny

2:39

when you think about tomorrow's Liberation Day.

2:41

But let's talk about it in terms

2:43

of markets. He's the only thing that

2:45

really matters from a top-down perspective in

2:48

markets. And what he says tomorrow will

2:50

move at least in the near term,

2:52

probably more for the medium term and

2:54

long term, the needle. I feel like

2:56

the market is mostly on pins and

2:59

needles and in waiting is exactly what

3:01

the blueprint is going to be. Is

3:03

it going to be worse in expectations,

3:05

better than expectations? Who the hell knows?

3:08

We don't. Yeah, guys like us hate

3:10

markets like this because you could have

3:12

some special gem that can go up,

3:14

but everything gets caught in the jet

3:17

wash of whatever Trump says, yay or

3:19

nay, right? And so these are like,

3:21

when they get more macro macro or

3:23

more micro, this is a more macro

3:25

tape and it's just. Therein lies the

3:28

opportunity and I'll say before Carter brings

3:30

up the chart of the S&P 500

3:32

is that it's my belief that we

3:34

have now damaged kind of the multiple

3:37

of what people are going to be

3:39

willing to pay for the US markets

3:41

based upon this stop and go strategy

3:43

and this inconsistent policies and so historically

3:46

you could depend on the US market

3:48

securities laws consistency and now we've kind

3:50

of lost that. So I feel like

3:52

on a multiple basis in the markets

3:54

it's very fair to think that from

3:57

22 times, you should be 17 or

3:59

18 times, and that's without knowing the

4:01

impact that it might have on earning.

4:03

So charter with air, he doesn't care.

4:06

So the issue from my seat is

4:08

that the smoothing mechanism all but let's

4:10

see it harder. So now I yeah

4:12

sure oh there's the chart all right

4:14

so I've used the SPY here but

4:17

we could do the SPX let's just

4:19

do the real thing itself even though

4:21

the correlation is 100% so the issue

4:23

from my seat is that the smoothing

4:26

mechanism the 150 day moving average and

4:28

some people like shorter term moving average

4:30

like 50 some people prefer 200 and

4:32

all the work that I've done. The

4:35

150 has the highest hit rate in

4:37

terms of measuring trend and changes in

4:39

trend, but it is now flat, which

4:41

is to say prices 150 days ago

4:43

are exactly where they are now. And

4:46

a flatly moving average, all that a

4:48

moving average is an automated trend line.

4:50

So that's a one year, that's a

4:52

two, that's a three, that's a five.

4:55

Basically speaking, without being too simplistic, but

4:57

things live in uptrands. and they live

4:59

above a rising moving average and bad

5:01

things live in down trends and live

5:04

below a declining moving average. So buy,

5:06

sell whole, I'm a seller, it has

5:08

all the elements of a rollover of

5:10

a top and while unknown how much

5:12

lower it might very well be headed,

5:15

our hunch is down towards 5,000. You

5:17

talk about the 21 to 22 transition,

5:19

there was a throwback. back to the

5:21

150. Like my only concern about pressing

5:24

shorts right here right now is, you

5:26

know, does, is liberation day, you know,

5:28

something happens and we get the, we

5:30

get the face, because now we know

5:33

people are all hedged up, right? People,

5:35

they're not, you know, fully long like

5:37

they were, you know, a couple weeks

5:39

ago. You can easily see a throwback,

5:41

but from there, I think the throwbacks

5:44

a cell. That's right. So then, Port,

5:46

you bring up a key thing. Obviously,

5:48

here and now, can the Qs rally

5:50

back? to the kill zone as well,

5:53

right? Can they do that, right? Could

5:55

the ExcelK, so to speak? We've had

5:57

a fairly substantial drawdown pressing a short

5:59

only to have it rally in your

6:02

face and hit its head. That's deadly.

6:04

What you're speaking of, of course, is

6:06

something like a, if you look at

6:08

like a Goldman, where they break and

6:10

they rally and then they start to

6:13

churn, right, at the 150 day. But

6:15

the elemental thing is that so many

6:17

big stocks. bullish to bear a reversal

6:19

in Microsoft, right? Bullish to bear a

6:22

reversal in invidia, a bullish to bear

6:24

a reversal in Google. So many important

6:26

assets have all riled. Now the question

6:28

is, what's one's time frame? If one's

6:31

very tactical, the worry is that yes,

6:33

you could get bigger here on the

6:35

short side only to have it throw

6:37

back on you and get close to

6:39

100. But if one is looking at

6:42

the structural circumstance at hand, I think

6:44

the important judgment is that this is

6:46

a top and that something is nascent

6:48

in terms of what can come. So

6:51

for those of you who can't see,

6:53

every chart's been a sell thus far,

6:55

but I want to make one comment

6:57

on the overall market here and I'd

6:59

love to get Benny's thoughts on this

7:02

in general. So we know that there's

7:04

six or seven very large institutions which

7:06

have levered portfolios. They run these beta

7:08

neutral shops, effectively try to mitigate risk.

7:11

And when volatility moves higher and I

7:13

would love to see the Vix in

7:15

a second here Carter. basically these firms

7:17

are forced to bring their books down.

7:20

So six or seven or eight times

7:22

leverage down to five or six or

7:24

something like that. So it's hard to

7:26

see with elevated volatility that resuming itself

7:28

to re lever giving. So you need

7:31

a VIX to come down. So Vinnie,

7:33

before we look at the VIX, I

7:35

know you monitor that stuff. Give me

7:37

your thoughts on that. Well, in many

7:40

respects over the last three weeks, and

7:42

I was looking down on my screen

7:44

because I need Danny's voice. Carter basically

7:46

just said here and now, and I

7:49

don't know why, but I went exactly

7:51

to Luther Vandros. And here... now I

7:53

promise to short the S&P, but I

7:55

can't do the voice, I'll let Danny

7:57

do it, but I will say over

8:00

the last three weeks from what we've

8:02

heard, and this is a lot of

8:04

anecdotal information, right, and you get from

8:06

your friends who are institutional hedge fund

8:09

guys, the vol targeting regime has delivered

8:11

itself to a certain extent, to the

8:13

extent that they need to do more,

8:15

we'll see, but they have had to

8:18

be ahead of the game because when

8:20

volatility goes up. they have no choice

8:22

but to do gross. A good portion

8:24

of that has already happened. Now we're

8:26

waiting for the event and and the

8:29

the issue with that Danny is we

8:31

can probably go either way now and

8:33

the fundamentals would suggest to us strongly

8:35

Carter would laugh at us when we

8:38

say this. That's why he calls them

8:40

funny metals yeah. Would suggest to us

8:42

strongly that we should stay on the

8:44

sidelines if not short the the market.

8:47

But as Porter suggested, our conversations and

8:49

our contrarian senses are suggesting everybody is

8:51

hedged up. So this is a very

8:53

difficult time to make a top-down call,

8:55

at least from our opinion, what to

8:58

do. And I think right now, the

9:00

majority of the hedge fund complex is

9:02

probably more hedged up. than they have

9:04

been in a while. Just to look

9:07

at this is worth this. I mean,

9:09

here is the whole shooting match. If

9:11

the Russell 3,000 represents 98% of the

9:13

investable capital in the United States, and

9:16

it does, the index down only, what,

9:18

9, 10%, but this is how much

9:20

has happened already. You're talking about, you

9:22

know, sort of 28 to 32% whether

9:24

you take the media. I mean, stock

9:27

is already well in a bare market.

9:29

the risk of being even more aggressively

9:31

short is that this kind of snaps

9:33

back throws back on you and and

9:36

also it's not just magnitude in terms

9:38

of but its duration it's worth pointing

9:40

out the market's peak both the S&P

9:42

and the Russell 3000 was just five

9:45

weeks ago in February 19th but actually

9:47

the the mean immediate stock peaked five

9:49

months ago so it's not as though

9:51

this is new just because of chat

9:53

B.T. or deep fake or deep steak

9:56

or deep snake or whatever the heck

9:58

it was. Where is it new because

10:00

of tariffs or shimmeriffs? It's been going

10:02

on for five months. And this is

10:05

depicted here. The real question is this.

10:07

Right now, you know, just to talk

10:09

about the market, I mean, you're talking

10:11

about basically half of all stocks are

10:13

about 30 percent. And here's the, I

10:16

think the. the picture the correlation just

10:18

to be clear between the two indices

10:20

is 99.9% that is the S&B 500

10:22

and the Russell 3,000 just the Russell

10:25

3,000 includes the S&B 500 but the

10:27

next 2,500 stocks here for instance a

10:29

20 year chart and I thinking that

10:31

just as a minimum check out that

10:34

trend line that connects the COVID low

10:36

with the 2022 bare market low and

10:38

where we simply to draw down to

10:40

that level that implies another 15% plus

10:42

or minus. independent of whether we throw

10:45

back here 35% because of liberation day

10:47

or whatever you want to call it.

10:49

But anyway, I think that's a good

10:51

roadmap. In the near term, like you

10:54

can't find a bull out there, right?

10:56

Everyone's nervous. Everyone, you know, the uncertainty

10:58

is very high right now. And so

11:00

if you do get to throw back,

11:03

you know, I think we're waiting, but

11:05

I think general senses that we're in

11:07

some sort of the bare market right

11:09

now. So Carter before we get to

11:11

some other indices and single name other

11:14

single names I think in video which

11:16

you glanced over I think it's important

11:18

to identify the exact levels where you

11:20

think it could potentially go to is

11:23

if the charts saying it it is

11:25

probably the most behavioral finance name that's

11:27

out there and the thing I love

11:29

about charts is to me whether it's

11:32

the cart or the horse it depicts

11:34

behavior and it can be self-fulfilling but

11:36

it also is an eKG to my

11:38

feeling on the markets to a degree

11:40

it on single name so. What are

11:43

you seeing on the video chart? And

11:45

what is it telling us where level

11:47

may be to actually start nibbling on

11:49

the long side? Yeah, absolutely. One thing

11:52

to before looking at an video, which

11:54

will put in video in context, if

11:56

we were to look at the socks

11:58

itself and juxtapose that against the e-socks,

12:01

so now we are. semiconductor and the

12:03

European semiconductor? No, this would be the

12:05

semiconductor index versus the equal weight. So

12:07

it eliminates invidious huge undue

12:09

influence, right? So you're looking at

12:11

two lines. One is the actual

12:14

Philadelphia stock exchange semiconductor index with

12:16

Avago and Micron and Intel and

12:18

microchip and so forth. And the

12:20

other is all of those same

12:22

stocks, but equal weight. And so

12:24

what's happened, of course, is that

12:27

the average semis been in trouble

12:29

for almost a year. whereas only

12:31

recently has invidity started to come

12:33

and so you see that juxtaposition

12:35

here but let's go to invidy

12:37

itself which was of course the one

12:40

that was doing so well along with

12:42

ASML and Invago but now again the

12:44

150 moving average is flat and and

12:46

that is usually a bad circumstance so

12:49

tactically one could say what press the

12:51

short and watch it throw back to

12:53

120 and hurt us Okay, that is

12:56

the risk with short term. But structurally,

12:58

this has all the elements of an

13:00

important top. Okay, so where did it, where

13:02

can it go? Is there a level of

13:05

support that you see? Yeah, I mean, I

13:07

would think you can retrace sort of to

13:09

the point at which it really broke out

13:11

here. So that would be back in, two

13:13

years ago in, one year ago, excuse

13:15

me, in 2024 in the spring. I think

13:17

you go to sort of 98 to 100.

13:19

And we're not that far from there. That's

13:21

10, 12% from there. That's 10, 12%

13:23

from there. Alright, so a name

13:26

that's obviously controversial that's within the

13:28

MAG 7 here is Tesla. It's

13:30

a tough name obviously to trade

13:32

since it doesn't trade on fundamentals.

13:34

I know Porter's going to opine here.

13:36

Thoughts there before we give you what you

13:39

think might be our position? Who knows? Maybe

13:41

Porter's, maybe Porter Vinere Long,

13:43

Tesla, Carter, but what does a chart

13:45

tell you? Well, it's truly what a

13:47

pair of twos is, right. So first

13:50

of all, it speaks to the vagaries

13:52

of valuation of anything happening to stock.

13:54

How can we explain this intellectually? 200?

13:56

500? Oh, I can explain it. 200? Too because

13:58

it was a Trump car. Now it's not

14:00

a Trump car, or it was a

14:03

better electric car, but boy it is

14:05

better now, or the Chinese are worse

14:07

now. Is it cheap then, cheap then,

14:10

expensive now? The truth is, it's just

14:12

a gambling chip. Here and now, pair

14:14

of two's from ICA which is today,

14:16

not particularly great as a long. Sometimes

14:19

stocks are where they belong, where they

14:21

should be, if you could use that

14:23

word, I think this belongs right around

14:26

here, 270, Well hard to argue that

14:28

it's been like if you take it

14:30

on a five-year basis on a relative

14:32

basis It's been a total dog, right?

14:35

Yeah, I mean here's here's a five-year

14:37

charge So if you were simply to

14:39

screen for stocks and Russell 3,000 that

14:42

made no results in four and a

14:44

half years You'd have a pretty sad

14:46

set of losers, you know, you'd have

14:48

things like CVS things like this. Yeah,

14:51

Chevron looks great. Right. I mean, yeah,

14:53

so Tesla has, it's boom bust and

14:55

it's done nothing for anybody for almost

14:58

five years. So pair of two's hanging

15:00

from the rear view mirror there. All

15:02

right, so a couple months ago, Porter

15:04

Vinny made a really bold call. It

15:07

was totally against the grain and that

15:09

was long China when everyone hated it.

15:11

That was the peak of the S&P

15:14

500 and the probably low. So I

15:16

don't know if you want to look

15:18

at the FXi, but I know the

15:20

two names that they have trading and

15:23

I don't know not sure actually if

15:25

they're still long then we're Ali Baba

15:27

and JD.com among many others but give

15:30

me your thought on the FXI first

15:32

and let these guys give you their

15:34

current positions and themes. Yeah, bearish to

15:36

bullish reversal, you'll see that here on

15:39

the five-year, very very clear. I mean

15:41

a beautiful, I'll get rid of the

15:43

volume just so you can see it,

15:46

a beautiful double bottom, beautiful. In the

15:48

old days I just want to be

15:50

clear. If we were sitting in the

15:52

room with Steve with us and you

15:55

said something like that call. Steve would

15:57

turn to me, goes, Danny, add 1%

15:59

to Ali Baba and JD.com tomorrow, first

16:02

thing, did you do it? Did you

16:04

do it? No, Steve, the markets are

16:06

closed. All right, just make sure that

16:08

you do it. Anyway, please keep going.

16:11

Well, and it is a beauty. Look

16:13

at that. If bearish to bullish reversals

16:15

exist, look at the double bottom. And

16:18

if you could draw a trend line

16:20

with your eye, down, down, down, down,

16:22

down, breaking above that down, with a

16:24

heavy volume up thrust, check back to

16:27

the 150 day, now back to the

16:29

former high. The backing and filling is

16:31

normal. You get to a form back

16:34

and fill, and then before exceeding it,

16:36

you contend with it, and then I

16:38

would say on for more. So from

16:41

my seat, we can do KW. We

16:43

can do KW. What's this other thing?

16:45

K-W-E-B? This is a... Yeah, K-B, all

16:47

the elements, meaning it's very asymmetric. Remove

16:50

hire. Free? That too. But if we're

16:52

wrong, right, if we're all of us

16:54

who might like this or don't, it's

16:57

the worst case to my eyes we

16:59

waste time, it's 40, it's 32, it's

17:01

35, it's 31, it's 41. But if

17:03

we're right, is it 50? Is it

17:06

60? Is it 60? Is it 70?

17:08

Meaning, meaning, meaning, that's a lot of

17:10

asymmetry, meaning, that's a lot of asymmetry

17:13

to that, but that, but that, but

17:15

that, but I think that, but I

17:17

think that, but, but, but, but, but

17:19

I think that's the kind of asymmetry,

17:22

but, but, but, but, but, but, but,

17:24

but, but, but, but, but I think

17:26

that's the kind of, but, but, but,

17:29

but, but, That was music to our

17:31

ears, Carter. We've been slowly adding to

17:33

this over the last, say, week as

17:35

these stocks have come in back to

17:38

the smoothing mechanism. Oh, that's a patented

17:40

Carter. Yeah. So Carter, Ali Baba on

17:42

there. I know they're gonna all look

17:45

similar. Baba's had a much bigger move

17:47

on a relative basis. And the difference,

17:49

right? Baba exceeds. So you have a

17:51

spike here. At Tepper, or the grades

17:54

of all time, makes the case, and

17:56

rightly so, to expose oneself aggressively to

17:58

China, perchance on an intermediate basis, it's

18:01

the peak, because just the way things

18:03

work, it was so steep a line.

18:05

If you look at where FX-size-9 in

18:07

relation to that peak, versus Baba, Baba

18:10

is well above it, and that's the

18:12

difference, right? So Baba's the stronger than

18:14

the aggregate, and Baba-2 has all the

18:17

elements of a classic, bearish, two bullish,

18:19

two bullish. plenty of headroom, plenty of

18:21

room to run. What was the other

18:23

one? You can barely, you almost see

18:26

it on the chart where Vinny and

18:28

I went on CNBC there at 80

18:30

bucks. Yeah. That's pretty good. That was

18:33

in the nice weather in Miami. That

18:35

was quite a call. JD.com hasn't run

18:37

as much. I don't think Carter, I

18:39

imagine that looks even better potentially for

18:42

the upside. JD. different shades of the

18:44

same thing, right? Here too, it's more

18:46

like the FXI. It has the same

18:49

spike, it has the same check back

18:51

to the penny. You never quite got

18:53

to the high, whereas FXI exceeded it,

18:55

so we toggle back and forth, JG,

18:58

FXI, all shades of the same thing.

19:00

But I would belong this as well,

19:02

making the bet that the lows are

19:05

important laws that the bearish to bullish

19:07

reversal has so much room to run.

19:09

I mean, it's 60, 58, 60, 60,

19:11

I think I think I think I'd

19:14

trim, but that some good eating from

19:16

good eating from here from here. But

19:18

that's some good eating from here. All

19:21

right, let's keep moving this along. I'm

19:23

not going to tell you our position

19:25

anyone that knows us already knows that

19:27

but to those listeners and viewers who

19:30

don't know us Let's bring up the

19:32

GLD Which should be a nice proxy

19:34

here for gold and give us your

19:37

thoughts on that? Yes So if we

19:39

take away everything but gold is I

19:41

talk about it up into the right

19:44

north by northeast higher higher ever higher

19:46

But day to day, hour to hour,

19:48

this is getting a little bit steep,

19:50

a little bit far above trend. Here's

19:53

a two-year, here's a five-year, here's a

19:55

ten-year. Technically, I think one wants to

19:57

reduce exposure here. It is now popular.

20:00

It was in the cover of the

20:02

Wall Street Journal, just this is something

20:04

that was a snicker at, ridiculed, reviled,

20:06

reviled, and now everyone loves it. If

20:09

it's right to like something when it's

20:11

ridiculed and reviled, Maybe time to be

20:13

a little bit smaller. I think we're

20:16

spending two seconds on this and let

20:18

me just do it if we can.

20:20

While you're doing that, I want to,

20:22

that reminds me we used to bring

20:25

up was the, any of the prices

20:27

right game where you had to guess

20:29

the guy going in the Alps and

20:32

it would be so hot. And we

20:34

are now at the upper ban of

20:36

this 18-month channel. Gold has gone from

20:38

the oldler in the Alps there. But

20:41

I'm going to assume Carter. Oh, there's

20:43

your goal. Go ahead, Carter. So look,

20:45

I didn't, I didn't make those lines.

20:48

I didn't want those to fit. I

20:50

didn't kind of dream it up. Those

20:52

are mathematically parallel lines. And we are

20:54

now at the upper ban of this

20:57

18-month channel. Gold has gone from 1800

20:59

an ounce, which is essentially, what, what,

21:01

75% advanced advanced to 1350. These arrows

21:04

kind of draw themselves. Now if instead

21:06

you use the smoothing mechanism, how far

21:08

above the hundred for today are we?

21:10

Well, here's a five-year chart. Here's a

21:13

ten-year chart. This period, take a look,

21:15

is very analogous to the 2019-2020 run-up.

21:17

That and that. That and that. How

21:20

analogous? 50%? Gold can triple from here.

21:22

But it's about, tactically, does one... sell

21:24

calls. Does one trim a little bit?

21:26

I think that's exactly what tactical trade

21:29

is and you're also up against this

21:31

internal trend line. I would reduce exposure.

21:33

So Carter, Gold's obviously moved but the

21:36

miners, I'll let Vinny Porter talk about

21:38

a few that they have, have not

21:40

run as much. Obviously reasons, it's easier

21:42

just to trade the metal than it

21:45

is to figure out how these operators

21:47

are going to pull it out of

21:49

the ground, but what are your thoughts

21:52

on a couple of these? Vin Vin

21:54

Vin Vin' the mining sector while he's

21:56

doing his GDAX, not as steep as

21:58

GLD. And then probably it's worth doing

22:01

just to look at a structural long-term

22:03

thing. If I were to do X-A-U,

22:05

that's the currency or Gold Bullion, versus

22:08

ready, X-A-U, the Philadelphia Golden Silver miners,

22:10

and I were to for a fund

22:12

do this on a 30-year basis, this

22:14

is the issue. Goldminers have gone nowhere.

22:17

Do they ultimately, as operating bids, with

22:19

leverage, do they start to reflect the

22:21

prosperity seen in the gold commodity itself?

22:24

That is the hunch. AEM, for instance,

22:26

the big one is a bit extended,

22:28

but there are plenty that aren't. And

22:30

my hunch is where it's right to

22:33

trim a bit on the bullion side,

22:35

is to retain exposure on the equity

22:37

side. Porter, I know you've done some

22:40

work on Newmont. NEM, Carter, if you

22:42

could bring that up and Porter, give

22:44

us your thoughts there, because I know

22:47

you've done some work on Newmont. Yeah,

22:49

NEM, I mean, just for fun, has

22:51

been a real lagger. It's the only

22:53

gold stock in the S&P 500, there

22:56

is one, and this is it, versus

22:58

just by contradistinction, look at AEM. So,

23:00

obviously, to be long. Well, you know,

23:03

mid-sized and to get bigger on strength.

23:05

I mean, the good news for Vinny

23:07

and I is that AEM and AGI

23:09

or have been our two biggest gold

23:12

miner positions, two biggest positions in our

23:14

fun. And they're just, they've gone crazy.

23:16

So, you know, we've, look at that's

23:19

gorgeous. I'm just thinking that if I'm

23:21

a portfolio manager of fidelity and I

23:23

have very little exposure, no exposure to

23:25

the miners. as Carter mentioned, Newman is

23:28

the only name in the S&P 500.

23:30

So if you're tracking yourself against it,

23:32

I would think at some point, there's

23:35

a catch-up trade, but you know, Porter,

23:37

you've been telling me just from an

23:39

operating basis, it's just not an efficient

23:41

model, at least they've had in the

23:44

past of bad acquisitions, and so owning

23:46

the metal versus trying to own any

23:48

individual names, the ones you have have

23:51

done very well, but I'm saying it's

23:53

a little bit hard. GOL GLD the

23:55

best ticker of all time. Yeah, yeah,

23:57

that's two months and they they're they're

24:00

they're the reason that the the GED

24:02

is done so poorly. Fair enough. All

24:04

right. And just to add a little

24:07

bit, because Porter and I probably discuss

24:09

this, which and argue every once in

24:11

a while on this, is we have

24:13

been trimming a little bit on AEM

24:16

because of exactly what we're seeing and

24:18

adding to Newman and Gold, because the

24:20

disparity within the GDX. Like when you

24:23

get to the GDX, then you get

24:25

underneath the surface. Like you said, AM

24:27

and AGI have vastly outperformed. Newman and

24:29

Barak have vastly underperformed. And assuming that

24:32

Gold doesn't dirt now, which we don't

24:34

think it will, you know, I could

24:36

describe to what Carter is saying in

24:39

terms of there might be a checkback

24:41

of some sorts, but I don't think

24:43

we're looking at Gold 2000. I could

24:45

be wrong. No, if you just had

24:48

a simple camera. Look at it in

24:50

relation to its smoothing mechanism. There is

24:52

no point at which when it was,

24:55

and it's just, that's to say meaner

24:57

version is a good technique over time

24:59

because it applies a lot of trading,

25:01

but when you are extended on a

25:04

multi-month and multiple year basis, if you

25:06

just were to suspend whatever you knew,

25:08

in fact I've left the symbol off

25:11

here, you could see it up there,

25:13

but let's say you didn't know what

25:15

it was. It was just two lines,

25:17

black and it black and red. If

25:20

the black gets this far below, this

25:22

far below, this far below, this far

25:24

below, this far below the red line,

25:27

or the black gets this far above,

25:29

this far above, what happens? They get

25:31

back in touch with one another, some

25:33

form or fashion. So does that mean

25:36

sell it all short A of? No,

25:38

but trim a little bit. No, but

25:40

trim a little bit. Sure. Sure. No,

25:43

but trim a little bit. Sure. Sure.

25:45

When I say caught short. on site

25:47

and whether that means there's futures trades

25:50

going on just to protect themselves in

25:52

your term. So that does line up

25:54

Carter. Silver, if you could bring that

25:56

up, SLV, has had a more rational

25:59

type of move. not as big and

26:01

never participated as much. Give me your

26:03

thoughts on silver here. Yeah, I mean,

26:06

SLV, using that, here's SIO, which is

26:08

the minors, but SLV, this is not

26:10

extended, right? And there is a lot

26:12

of work done on the gold solar

26:15

ratio, both as a pair, as a

26:17

ratio chart, Moyunch is to not trim

26:19

this and to be full long, whereas

26:22

if I'd reduce some of my gold

26:24

in order to put it in and

26:26

beef up my silver. Great call. All

26:28

right, while we're in the medals, we'll

26:31

go to the fake medal, Bitcoin, BTC,

26:33

digital gold. What are your thoughts there

26:35

here? It should be interesting. Yeah, well,

26:38

I mean, talk about a break-up, a

26:40

level, a level, a level, and a

26:42

break-up. And now checking back to the

26:44

100% moving average, more of a pair

26:47

of twos from my seat, I would

26:49

be buying really lower, not here. What

26:51

is that can you be more specific?

26:54

We're sitting where 84,000 as we speak

26:56

here is roughly more like 75 down

26:58

to the level from which it broke

27:00

out. So in the event of, let's

27:03

see here, if I get rid of

27:05

the moving average, you know, in the

27:07

event of a full give back to

27:10

the level of the breakout. So 75,

27:12

I'd be willing to add a little

27:14

bit or initiate. I just want to

27:16

add a data point to that. I

27:19

want to get Porter's and Vinny's thought.

27:21

I know that Vini had lined up.

27:23

for a brief period of time, kind

27:26

of a Bitcoin versus micro strategy trade,

27:28

which was never going to be rational,

27:30

it's not rational, I don't think is,

27:32

but I will say this Carter, you

27:35

can bring up micro strategy if you

27:37

want, I don't know what it looks

27:39

like on the chart, but if Bitcoin

27:42

drops to 75, which doesn't know what

27:44

it looks like on the chart, but

27:46

if Bitcoin drops to 75, which doesn't

27:48

seem like a lot as volatile, which

27:51

doesn't seem like a lot as volatile,

27:53

Microstrategic will get eviscerated but it could

27:55

feed on itself to hurt. the price

27:58

of Bitcoin even more considering where what

28:00

micro strategies balance sheet would look like

28:02

at that point. Actually and is it

28:04

a red story is game stop buying

28:07

Bitcoin now? Let's not go to game

28:09

stop waste or time on that but

28:11

yes of course they are Ryan Cohen

28:14

why why wouldn't he but Carter like

28:16

you're what does micro strategy look like

28:18

is it the same chart as Bitcoin?

28:20

There are a pair of tunes and

28:23

I'm not adding here if I were

28:25

if I were long I just I

28:27

guess I'd hold it it's a pair

28:30

of pair of two. For me, Porter,

28:32

any comments on microstrades? You guys are

28:34

no longer involved or? Just might, no,

28:36

we're really not involved. My only concern

28:39

with Bitcoin is the way it acts,

28:41

the way it trades. It trades very

28:43

much like a 2X triple Qs, right?

28:46

And the question is, do you want

28:48

exposure to the Qs or not? And

28:50

for a Porter, myself, the answer is

28:53

no. So we're not involved at all.

28:55

I just don't like the way it

28:57

acts relative to the way our mind

28:59

is thinking right now. But a little

29:02

bit of liberation day ends up positive.

29:04

When people hear this it will have

29:06

been liberation day will have come and

29:09

gone and like I said on a

29:11

podcast earlier today it's the spies on

29:13

a podcast earlier today. It's the spies

29:15

like I said on a podcast earlier

29:18

today. It's the spies like I've seen

29:20

on a podcast earlier today. It's the

29:22

spies like. Looks like we're headed potentially

29:25

to touch 4% here, but I don't

29:27

want to put peas in your nose.

29:29

All right, here we go. So I

29:31

didn't have to do a note on

29:34

tenure today. So here's a chart, one

29:36

of four, identical with no annotations, no

29:38

lines. Here's some one set of lines.

29:41

That's fairly optically clear. Here's another set

29:43

of lines, converging trend lines. We've broken

29:45

to the downside out of the formation,

29:47

put them all together. I'm in the

29:50

camp of lower yields, which of course

29:52

is the reciprocal. by tenure notes. For

29:54

people that aren't can't see the chart,

29:57

where is the 10 year yield saying

29:59

that it might be? I think we

30:01

could touch the 375. Wow. Okay. So

30:03

that makes this next section very interesting,

30:06

which are some of the housing related

30:08

stocks and then some of the banks

30:10

and financials that are out there. So

30:13

if we could bring up kind of

30:15

the XHB, I think, let's move into

30:17

there. And there's a new name in

30:19

Vinny Porter's portfolio. I won't indicate if

30:22

it's long or short that's going to

30:24

fall in this world here as well.

30:26

Yeah. So all the elements. And again,

30:29

speaking of, to bear a reversal, whereas

30:31

the S&P and the Russell 3000 put

30:33

in their peak five, six weeks ago,

30:35

February 19th, housing peaked back in October,

30:38

November. And you can see, of course,

30:40

the smoothing mechanism is now downward sloping.

30:42

If we pull this back and did

30:45

a five-year chart, so this is, and

30:47

Porter made this point early with S&P,

30:49

do you press assured here only to

30:51

have this thing throw back on you

30:54

to 102, 102, do you... get long

30:56

because you think it's going to throw

30:58

back, it never does, play for a

31:01

bounce. It's in no man's land, right?

31:03

But the structural circumstance is something that

31:05

has rolled over, that is in well

31:07

along a bullish, two bears reversal, and

31:10

I would think ultimately this is going

31:12

to print what, 88, 89, it's 97

31:14

now. Well, it's so counterintuitive to think

31:17

that rates you say 375, because rates

31:19

are going down for the wrong reason.

31:21

Right, this tells you that tenure yields

31:23

a job for the wrong reason that

31:26

you would think historically the builders would

31:28

potentially be a buy on that. But

31:30

if you look at maybe a more

31:33

of a consumer discretionary interest rate related

31:35

name, like Home Depot HD, I don't

31:37

know if it says the same thing

31:39

or if it may look a little

31:42

bit better given people's equity that they

31:44

have in their homes. Yeah, it has

31:46

also rolled obviously wasn't the high flyer

31:49

the home builders were. I mean, for

31:51

instance, let's just go back and forth.

31:53

Home people could barely get above its

31:56

2021 high, whereas, of course, that's HB

31:58

went well above, well above the 2021

32:00

high and the bull market high before.

32:02

the 2022 bear market, whereas HD never

32:05

could. HD, I would reduce exposure. The

32:07

one that is really, I think, in

32:09

trouble is Sherwin, and that's related to

32:12

him. It's paint, just for fun, because

32:14

it has not sold off like the

32:16

home builders. Obviously, it's not a home

32:18

builder, perhaps more stable a business, but

32:21

it's true and still. It is a

32:23

bullish, true bears reversal, with I think

32:25

downside risk. Danny, low to

32:27

2% short for sure. Steve the

32:30

market's supposed. Make sure you have

32:32

that in the morning. That's, I'm

32:34

just giving exactly what would happen.

32:37

Danny, we actually shorted Sherwin on

32:39

Carter's call when he came out.

32:41

I think it was a week ago.

32:43

That's right. Where do we go? No.

32:45

My concern on these names is that

32:47

if you look at the peak of

32:49

the builders, the peak of the

32:51

XHB is almost exactly when the

32:54

10 year hit 360. in the

32:56

fall, right? And so if your

32:58

guess is that yields

33:00

are going lower, you

33:03

know, my contrarian senses,

33:05

contrarian nature is

33:07

that like, these

33:09

names would all throw

33:11

back, right? And that

33:13

would make sense in a

33:16

2000 analogy where teched

33:18

poorly housing did

33:20

okay. totally see that. The, um,

33:23

no, I'm not, and I'm not, the housing

33:25

data stinks right now, but,

33:27

but, but, but can it, can it

33:29

rally if you'll just go lower?

33:31

I think so. Well, that's why

33:34

I mentioned home depot, just maybe

33:36

the home equity players, not home

33:38

equity players, per se, they're not

33:41

direct, but they are impacted by

33:43

people staying in their homes

33:45

and doing work on it,

33:47

potentially taking loans out, they can.

33:49

working on and been important working

33:52

on and I'm not saying long

33:54

or short because I want you to

33:56

look at the chart but Carter R. K.

33:58

T. Rocky Bowles. Yeah. Yeah. Well, a

34:00

pair of two is for me.

34:02

I mean, this is all over

34:04

the map, surging, plunging, and I

34:07

mean, just look at yesterday, heavy

34:09

volume, dropping gap today, fills the

34:11

gap, but no trade from my

34:13

seat, no, nothing immediate, no, I

34:15

would say no discernible, immediate opportunity

34:17

to be large or short. Can

34:19

I give you another ticket for

34:21

a second? And this is where

34:23

it's so interesting for us, where

34:25

the fundamentals for us and where

34:28

Carter comes in, comes into play.

34:30

Can you do the ticker C-O-O-P?

34:32

And I'll explain why I'm doing

34:34

this in a second. Well, that's

34:36

a thing of beauty. I mean,

34:38

look at that thing. 45 degrees,

34:40

45 degrees. You just fell into

34:42

mini strap Carter. Go ahead. You

34:44

fell into my trap. So basically

34:46

rocket R-K-T, the ticker you gave,

34:49

just merged. Well, they announced the

34:51

merger. They announced the merger with

34:53

Mr. Cooper. And it's. two companies

34:55

to do almost the same exact

34:57

thing merging together which creates more

34:59

consolidation in the space where this

35:01

is quote unquote the at the

35:03

least a category killer if not

35:05

starting to develop a moat because

35:08

the market share is so strong

35:10

and then that's an all-stock deal

35:12

it's an all-stock deal so over

35:14

the last two days after the

35:16

announcement that they're going to merge

35:18

we've been buying it sort of

35:20

like Clarice covering and going back

35:22

to home in Silence of the

35:24

Lambs. Way back in the day,

35:26

I used to cover on the

35:29

cell side mortgage banking, so it's

35:31

very near and dear to me.

35:33

And to, I always think, to

35:35

consolidate two names, and both of

35:37

them are either number one or

35:39

number three, you're creating barriers to

35:41

entry and moats that are really

35:43

great. So I understand why the

35:45

rocket chart doesn't look great. I

35:48

mean it doesn't mean if an

35:50

asset has gone sideways for four

35:52

years when every business from Snickers

35:54

to sushi to soda water has

35:56

gone up, you have to wonder

35:58

what is the problem with the

36:00

people at rocket. And obviously the

36:02

Cooper people believe that they can

36:04

do better with the assets than

36:06

the rocket management can. And the

36:09

rocket management must know that about

36:11

themselves, otherwise they wouldn't be willing

36:13

to sell. All right, say everything

36:15

financial in the mortgage sector, let's

36:17

just move along to Fannie Mae.

36:19

I don't know what the chart,

36:21

it's obviously broken out here, FNMA.

36:23

I'm curious there. Yeah, I'm talking

36:25

about dynamic, talk about bullish price

36:27

volume correlation, up thrust, pull back

36:30

on light volume, up thrust again.

36:32

I mean, a little head of

36:34

itself, more of a pair of

36:36

two's here in terms of having

36:38

appreciated from one to seven, now

36:40

backing and filling, flagging. I would

36:42

just say it's sort of a

36:44

pair of two's, yeah, no discernible

36:46

immediate opportunity. The liberation, the army

36:49

liberation, what happens on that day?

36:51

Yeah, whatever. Don't listen to Porter.

36:53

All right, Excel F and financials

36:55

here. We'll get into the banks

36:57

real quick. Excellent. Okay, here we

36:59

go. Yeah, and then JP Morgan,

37:01

you can bring that up and

37:03

then that's interesting. So remember, this,

37:05

oh, not remember, that's silly to

37:07

say, but we know, all will

37:10

know that this is, it says

37:12

financials, one thing, so it's JP

37:14

Morgan, and US Bank, and US

37:16

Bank, Maryland, and Goldman, but really

37:18

what it is, is, is, is,

37:20

is, Trump. and progressive and all

37:22

state and AIG and others that

37:24

have kept this thing going. This

37:26

is probably worthwhile before we do

37:28

anything ready. I'm going to do

37:31

a ratio chart, but I think

37:33

will be sobering in terms of

37:35

any bank analyst or anyone who

37:37

likes banks. Well, sure is the

37:39

top holding in the Excel F,

37:41

too. So to your point. So

37:43

if I did BKX on the

37:45

top, and I did it relative

37:47

to... S5 financials, that's the entire

37:50

S&P financial sector, which is what

37:52

XLF is modeled after. And I

37:54

go back to the beginning of

37:56

data in 1989. What you're going

37:58

to see is something sort of

38:00

pressing that, okay, so let's do

38:02

a couple things. We are now,

38:04

just to be clear, we're looking

38:06

at the BKX index on the

38:08

top, which is going to be

38:11

Morgan, Wells Fargo and City, right,

38:13

Wells Fargo, and so forth, and

38:15

we're looking at its relative performance

38:17

to the BKX. The BKX relative,

38:19

all financials. So they're making all-time

38:21

relative lows relative lows, even below

38:23

the 2009. Now if I change

38:25

the denominator to the S&P. Just

38:27

to pick this another very sobering

38:30

reality. This is now, banks on

38:32

the top, same thing, and on

38:34

the bottom is a ratio. One

38:36

thing to about relative to the

38:38

S&P. We are below the financial

38:40

prices. Good night, Irene, Bear Stearns,

38:42

Lehman Brothers, thanks for playing out

38:44

of business. We are at epic

38:46

lows. Banks are a terrible investment.

38:48

Period. This is why Vinny and

38:51

I quit. But I get it.

38:53

Exactly. Within the banks here in

38:55

financials, though, really important. I think

38:57

the one sector where the non-bank

38:59

financials look at Morgan Stanley first,

39:01

that looks, that looks bad to

39:03

me. Yeah, rolling over. And just

39:05

here, let's have a little fun

39:07

too. Watch this. So from its

39:09

peak in the dot-com peak all

39:12

the way to now, this thing

39:14

has gone up at an annualized

39:16

rate of 98 basis points a

39:18

year. since the peak in 2000,

39:20

which means the justify for inflation,

39:22

this is a donut. It's a

39:24

joke. There it is. Right now,

39:26

but to your point, Morgan Stanley

39:28

has all the elements of a

39:31

bullish reversal. I would be short.

39:33

Pull up Jeffries, which reported recently.

39:35

It feels like that's leading indicator

39:37

down worse. down worse and all

39:39

of these sort of boutiquey things

39:41

getting murdered p i p r

39:43

getting murdered and then you've got

39:45

the Of course, the KKRs, it's

39:47

all the same thing. Well, hold

39:49

on, before you get, I was,

39:52

I was previewing the private equity

39:54

firm. So let's bring up Blackstone.

39:56

Porter, you pissed off Dan. Porter,

39:58

you picked up Jeffery, you throw

40:00

it in the middle of the

40:02

thing. So typical. All right. Give

40:04

me BX in Apollo. BX. Well.

40:06

Well, again. So this is, this

40:08

is the first. This is Blackstone

40:10

for people out there that. Yeah.

40:13

Right. Right. Right. So. So. If

40:15

one had to sit in front

40:17

of some panel, I guess when

40:19

you get a PhD, you go

40:21

in front of a panel and

40:23

you give you dissertation, right? And

40:25

you got to answer questions for

40:27

an hour and a half or

40:29

two hours. If you had to

40:32

answer, if you pick your own

40:34

panel, anybody picked a panel, how

40:36

can one explain intellectually that this

40:38

operating business went from 140 to

40:40

200 back to 240, all in

40:42

a matter of seven, eight months?

40:44

Was it cheap? 140, then it

40:46

got expensive at 200, then it

40:48

got free. I mean, the truth

40:50

is, there is a relationship between

40:53

the price of the share, the

40:55

earnings shares on a 5, 10,

40:57

20 year basis. But this month,

40:59

this week, six months, nine months,

41:01

zero relationship, better to look at

41:03

charts. I would say it's a

41:05

sell, crawling over. All right, and

41:07

that's the same for KKR. Yeah.

41:09

And Apollo is Blackstone, all the

41:12

same? Yeah. Okay. Any remember when

41:14

we owned Blackstone at $10. Yeah,

41:16

or after the financial crisis at

41:18

10 bucks, we couldn't, we pitched

41:20

everybody, everyone's like, ah, I don't

41:22

want to, I don't want to

41:24

own it. I think I got

41:26

to 20 and we sold it

41:28

and then now it's. Yeah, and

41:30

everybody owns it. All right, so

41:33

let's move on just for the

41:35

sake of time here. I want

41:37

to do one other, sorry, KRE

41:39

we need to look at, which

41:41

is more of the regionals, Carter,

41:43

I'll get this. Let's do that

41:45

same ratio chart, but we'll do

41:47

KRE relative to BKX. We have

41:49

KRE on the top, and we'll

41:51

look at its relative performance to

41:54

the BKX. Here we go, and

41:56

all we've got. is something that's

41:58

pretty darn depressing. You know, I

42:00

mean, look at this. KRE is

42:02

going straight up for the past

42:04

two, three years, it's going straight

42:06

down relative to the BKX, and

42:08

relative to the SPX, so that's

42:10

what Alpha is, right, is relative,

42:13

is relative performance. It is making

42:15

all-time historic, sorry, thanks for playing

42:17

laws. I love this added thing

42:19

to your repertoire. Thanks for playing

42:21

what your favorite station, the hard

42:23

rocket and Carterworth of them. Well,

42:25

I'll tell you that let's it's

42:27

really interesting because the credit quality

42:29

issues if they do emerge in

42:31

U.S. economy will fall more in

42:34

the KRE than they will in

42:36

the Excel F. All right, on

42:38

to Energy Carter. Let's look at

42:40

oil. Let's look at the XLE.

42:42

Please. All right. Well, so XLE.

42:44

And obviously two names dominate this.

42:46

It's. It's what it's. Exxon Mobil.

42:48

In Chevron and Exxon. But this

42:50

is the definition of relative performance

42:52

on a data. I think the

42:55

real story is this. You have

42:57

something that was obviously the worst

42:59

single thing during COVID, not one

43:01

plane or car was moving, and

43:03

then it delivered more results than

43:05

anything after COVID. It bounced the

43:07

most, having sold off the most.

43:09

But the sequence I think is

43:11

pretty clear is a huge advance.

43:14

almost a five bagger, 20 to

43:16

100, and now consolidating, consolidating, consolidating

43:18

for the better part of three

43:20

years, ultimately my bias is up

43:22

that it moves out of the

43:24

range in which it's been mired.

43:26

Exelle. Exel, or Exxon Mobil? Sorry.

43:28

Exel. Exel. Exel, Exxon Mobil. So

43:30

I'm sure Exxon Mobil is the

43:32

exact same. It feels like that's

43:35

a breakout. Not to, of course,

43:37

yeah. Yep. Thanks, Lily, Exelim, because

43:39

it's, yeah. Yeah,

43:41

I like them both. It would

43:43

be sort of small longs. The,

43:45

the, the, the smaller guys, which

43:47

is the, uh, ex-op has not

43:49

been as good. Not as good.

43:51

No. What is, move? More of

43:53

a pair of twos here. Question

43:55

is, is it turning? Another one

43:57

to maybe consider, and I recently

43:59

did a note, it was Schlumberger,

44:01

I think it's on the cusp

44:03

of a bearish jimbles, pronounced Slumberger.

44:05

Slumburger. That's not me. There was

44:07

another partner to pronounce the Slumburger,

44:09

you idiot. Just like he did

44:11

Sherman Williams. Sure. Yeah. It said

44:13

a sure. Good. Nice. Nice. Try.

44:15

Can we throw one in? Can

44:17

we throw one in? No, no,

44:19

no, Petrobras, I've got on our

44:21

list, Petrobras, a Brazilian wonderful energy

44:24

company that these two have decided

44:26

to brain damage themselves upon. Ooh,

44:28

interesting. So the question is a

44:30

little bit like the energy, is

44:32

it this consolidation, is it in

44:34

a position to start to move

44:36

out of this range? I'd be

44:38

small long, adding on strength only,

44:40

weakness would not be an opportunity

44:42

to add more, it would undermine

44:44

the premise to be long in

44:46

the first place. Carter, question for

44:48

you, your charts do not include

44:50

dividends, correct? Correct. Okay, so with

44:52

this name in particular, it's it's

44:54

poor, do this thing still paying

44:56

a decent div? Or do the

44:58

government make them cancel it? No,

45:00

so got it. Well, well done,

45:02

Danny. Thank you. Okay, very good.

45:04

All right, let's move to consumer

45:06

discretionary and some of the staples,

45:08

Walmart, which has been, I wouldn't

45:10

say the easiest cell call from

45:12

100, but. didn't take a lot

45:14

to get a 40 multiple 45

45:16

PE Walmart. I traded over one-time

45:18

sales selling garden hose towels and

45:20

bags of sugar never traded that

45:22

high ever and now here comes

45:24

the crack it's it's rather in

45:27

Costco equally cracking and I would

45:29

say there's more to come I

45:31

would not be long war well

45:33

and target I assume is one

45:35

of the worst charts on planet

45:37

Earth is obviously I've no position

45:39

in it and I've just So

45:41

whatever they do there, they're not

45:43

doing it very well. That looks

45:45

awful. All right. Two more names

45:47

in there, Visa and MasterCard, that

45:49

fall into that world just in

45:51

spending, I mean, this is critical

45:53

to me. Yes, so they've held

45:55

up remarkably well. So the question

45:57

is, does one respect that relative?

45:59

and retain the long, or does

46:01

one consider it, hey, maybe these

46:03

are the last to go? That's

46:05

my hunch is to reduce exposure

46:07

on the long side to both

46:09

names. Well then, let me just

46:11

interject here. This is where the

46:13

charts are interesting because they're telling

46:15

us not necessarily will be true

46:17

that people are pricing in a

46:19

recession because if those charts do

46:21

go where you think they were

46:23

clearly in a recession, because to

46:25

break those charts and then have

46:27

Walmart and target. continue to go

46:29

lower means their same store sales

46:32

are laughing on a negative basis.

46:34

A couple other names, I won't

46:36

tell you which way Porter and

46:38

Vine, you're leaning on this, but

46:40

DG is a kind of a

46:42

special sit, curious, your thoughts there.

46:44

Yeah, so my seat, I think

46:46

you can catch this as a

46:48

trade. What do we know? Day

46:50

today, the relative strength is incredible.

46:52

If you were to say it

46:54

was simple screen, find me all

46:56

stocks, any cap, any size, any

46:58

business that are up over the

47:00

past four or five weeks, You

47:02

have the prospects of filling the

47:04

gap. Obviously, there must have been

47:06

something grotesque that was said on

47:08

29th of August. Wasn't just a

47:10

downgrade by a journalist. It wasn't

47:12

a Goldman Sachs. It wasn't a

47:14

Barron's article. It had to be

47:16

earnings. It had to be bad.

47:18

Now the question is, can we

47:20

chill that gap? I would be

47:22

long here playing for a gap

47:24

fill. All right, a couple names

47:26

I want to throw in the

47:28

gaming sector that are more economically

47:30

sensitive, win and pen. Yep, here

47:32

we go. There'll be Y&N and

47:35

Penn Gaming P&M, which I think

47:37

is really special. Paratro's from my

47:39

seat. Is both something you can't

47:41

rush out and sell that thing?

47:43

Why? Gotta get along here? Why?

47:45

It's sort of just meandering paratroos.

47:47

How about Penn? I think others

47:49

are worse. I'm happy. Give me

47:51

pen, P-E-N-N, which is, E-S-P-N-B, which

47:53

is, E-S-P-N-B-B, which is going to

47:55

figure out at some point. That's

47:57

worse. I'm going to run the

47:59

next grouping of the online gambers,

48:01

which are starting to get hit

48:03

on Kalshi's invasion into their sector,

48:05

D-K-N-G, Donkey. Yeah. Okay. Okay. A

48:07

couple things here that I was.

48:09

getting into the nuance. It is

48:11

particularly unhappy and worrisome and negative.

48:13

If you have strength, there's no

48:15

follow-through. It's like, you know, a

48:17

bad team that always wins all

48:19

of a sudden wins and then

48:21

has no follow-through. Or a terrible

48:23

student, D, D, D, he gets

48:25

an A, he's like, oh, maybe

48:27

he's gotten batteries, stop drinking, he's

48:29

studying now. And then he goes

48:31

right back to D's, that's really

48:33

bad. sell. And flutter, flutter, F-L-U-T?

48:35

F-L-U-T. Similar, bias to the downside,

48:37

playing for 1.95? Genius sports, G-E-N-I,

48:40

and there's a reason these are

48:42

all getting hit, but they also

48:44

have a... Okay, something different here.

48:46

That's right, something's different. Price-fying correlation

48:48

is bullish, relative strengths, impressive, and

48:50

you can see from the hundred

48:52

of city moving average going off

48:54

the side of the side of

48:56

the screen that it. There

48:58

it is. Mine was just to be

49:00

long. Genius sports, genius. All right. And

49:03

that was a mmm. That was a

49:05

mmm. That's good. We can hold that

49:07

position. All right. Lightning around. These are

49:10

some of Vinny importers specials. I'll let

49:12

them take you here as let's start

49:14

with SOC, which falls in the energy

49:17

sector. Let's see. Here we go. AER.

49:19

Pay-E-R. Well, this was a beast. And

49:21

holding up so well, I would stay

49:24

long, I would act. All of Porter

49:26

give his symbol here, I came and

49:28

say it. So the next one I

49:31

think was some prison stock or something.

49:33

G-E-O. Can we go? G-E-O. All right,

49:35

well, we get a massive... Heavy Vime

49:38

up thrust and gap on 6th November.

49:40

There happens to be election day, so

49:42

it must be something that's political. We

49:44

checked back to the penny, to the

49:47

hundred for day, and balance as well.

49:49

I would be. all in the context

49:51

of something that can move back to

49:54

and through the former high. I would

49:56

play for about 38. Wow, okay. And

49:58

then the last one, these guys nailed

50:01

a long time ago, which was Zin,

50:03

which is Philip Morris, which is PM,

50:05

another Sin stock. Yeah. How are we

50:08

looking on PM? They're both good. Look

50:10

at MO. Look at PM, obviously these

50:12

are bond proxies, probably yields down a

50:15

bit, but down in here the yields

50:17

are probably six plus percent, they're probably

50:19

more like five, four and a half,

50:22

but I would stay long. Could you

50:24

sell calls here, sell the one, sixty-fives

50:26

for May, sure, April, but either way,

50:29

long? I don't see Mike Koh on

50:31

this program, we don't need an option,

50:33

I'm just kidding. I'm kidding, I'm kidding.

50:36

I'm kidding. I love the fact that,

50:38

my question for Carter was, I always

50:40

get worried, I always get worried. when

50:43

we're well north of the moving averages,

50:45

like PM is right now. So, and

50:47

whenever I trim, Porter sometimes gels at

50:50

me, like, what are you doing? Right?

50:52

Like, and I'm like, I'm channeling. What

50:54

are we doing? Right. Like, like, this

50:56

is well above the moving averages. So,

50:59

what would you do here where I

51:01

have this bill? I mean, I think

51:03

the ideas, you know, there's that, I

51:06

think, have your cake in 82, can

51:08

you, can you stay in 82, can

51:10

you stay long? Max and Philzor backs

51:13

away. Could we sell again like the

51:15

165 for April to two and a

51:17

half weeks to go and take in

51:20

premium a dollar, maybe three at lower

51:22

cost bases, yet stay long and not

51:24

have a taxable event. Let's do this.

51:27

Let's go back and pull this. The

51:29

ball so low, you're not going to

51:31

get a cell, you're not going to

51:34

get a lot of calls. You're not

51:36

getting a lot of premium for it.

51:38

I hear you, but. So yeah, if

51:41

not, I would just stay. And the

51:43

reason there's a difference if you go

51:45

up like this, or if you gap

51:48

up, it gapped up, which means it

51:50

belongs here, right? It said something that

51:52

re-rated the security. So it's in its

51:55

mouth. It couldn't sell calls, I would

51:57

just say I would not trim. Okay.

52:00

Oh, well, listen, for the sake of

52:02

keeping this in under an hour, I've

52:04

had about three burbins. So I have

52:07

my orders for tomorrow, obviously, that you've

52:09

given us here. Carter, it's extremely helpful

52:11

putting this in context with everything that's

52:13

going on. I really always felt using

52:16

it as a mosaic and the stuff

52:18

that you, whether we agree with you

52:20

or not, uncertain names, I would say

52:22

we lined up 90 to 95 percent

52:24

on this, which I don't know if

52:27

that's good or bad, I think. fundamentally.

52:29

I'm trying to think through all the

52:31

years. It was about 05 when we

52:33

met, so that's 20 years ago. And

52:36

I think sometimes we were almost more

52:38

than 50-50. It's sometimes 60-40, sometimes it's

52:40

80-20. But if we're in 90-10, either

52:42

we're going to eat like kings or

52:45

we're in big trouble. Portaveen, I know

52:47

it wasn't a fool. What are we

52:49

doing with Carter always takes precedence. And

52:51

Carter, I hope we can do this

52:54

quarterly with you this quarterly with you

52:56

like we used to do this quarterly

52:58

with you like we used to do

53:00

in the old days. We'll have you

53:03

back on in Portmanvini. I will see

53:05

you guys in IRL here in a

53:07

couple days. Can I add something? Please.

53:09

Carter always provided for us on about

53:12

three bourbon steep. So, but Carter always

53:14

added for us, we're like three fundamental

53:16

alpha dogs, right? And I know you've

53:18

walked away from fundamentals and technical. So

53:20

whenever we disagreed and just didn't see

53:23

eye to eye, you were sort of

53:25

the arbiter. who brought us on names

53:27

where there was fundamental disagreement. And let's

53:29

see what the technician say, let's see

53:32

what Carter says. And that was very

53:34

important to us. And so you were

53:36

so value added to our process in

53:38

terms of, look, I might think it's

53:41

bullish, Danny might think it's bearish or

53:43

vice versa, it doesn't matter. For you,

53:45

you provided for us, what are the

53:47

technicals telling us so that we could

53:50

walk away from our biases? and determine

53:52

what the market saying, what the charts

53:54

are saying. I want to add one

53:56

more too, if any gets an add-on,

53:59

I'll get an add-on too here, Danny.

54:01

The other thing that the patterns that...

54:03

he has or like the patterns in

54:05

my head of the of the bearish

54:08

to bullish reversal or the you know

54:10

the bullish to bearish that's where we

54:12

found we made the most money of

54:14

like you know fundamental stink fundamental stink

54:16

everyone hates it and hey got a

54:19

little bit better and the you know

54:21

the the fundamentals are inflecting the charts

54:23

inflecting and then you get the bang

54:25

explosion through through that gap. and vice

54:28

versa on the on the cut down

54:30

lower like the like a Tesla or

54:32

something like that where you can you

54:34

can really you know get your teeth

54:37

into it breaking the you know the

54:39

breaking the levels and stuff like that

54:41

so yeah no very satisfying when something

54:43

changes trend true true true alright team

54:46

you guys are great and let's do

54:48

it quarterly all right appreciate it thanks

54:50

so much Thanks

54:57

for listening to the On the Tape podcast

54:59

with Danny Moses. If you like what you

55:01

heard, please subscribe on either Apple or Spotify

55:03

to the weekly podcast and please leave a

55:06

rating and review, positive only. You can also

55:08

watch on the On the Tape channel on

55:10

YouTube and give us a thumbs up there

55:12

as well.