MacroVoices #511 Robert Kahn: Geopolitical Outlook For 2026

This is Macro Voices, the free weekly financial podcast targeting professional finance, high net worth individuals, family offices, and other sophisticated investors. Macro Voices is all about the brightest minds in the world of finance and macroeconomics telling it like it is, bullish or bearish, no holds barred. Now, here are your hosts, Eric Townsend and Patrick Ceresna. Macro Voices Episode 511 was produced on December 18th, 2025. I'm Eric Townsend.

Eurasia Group Global Macro Chief Robert Kahn returns as this week's feature interview guest. Robert and I will discuss all things geopolitics, from tariffs to midterm elections to the price of crude oil to who will be the next Fed chair and what to expect from money. policy to the Ukraine-Russia conflict to China-U.S. relations.

Macro Voices will be released a day early on Wednesdays for the remaining two episodes in calendar year 2025. Next week, we'll release a regular format show on Wednesday 24th, or Christmas Eve, and it'll be a good one. will be Rosenberg Research founder David Rosenberg. Then, in keeping with longstanding Macro Voices tradition, in order to give our production team time with their families over the holidays, we'll release a pre-recorded holiday special episode I think you'll...

enjoy the following Wednesday on New Year's Eve. Then we'll return to our regular show format after the holidays on January 8th, 2026.

And I'm Patrick Ceresna with the macro scoreboard week over week as of the close of Wednesday, December 17th, 2025. The S&P 500 index down 240 basis points to 6721. The stress on the AI. stocks dragging on the index we'll take a closer look at that chart and the key technical levels to watch in our post-game segment the u.s dollar index down 23 basis points trading to 98.40 The February WTI crude oil contract down 427 basis points trading at 5581.

break of oil for a direct retest of the year lows the february r bob gasoline down 449 basis points trading at 170 the february gold contract up 360 basis points trading at 43.76 testing the previous highs teasing a new breakout March copper trading up 150 basis points trading at 543. The December uranium contract up 136 basis points trading to 7830.

And the U.S. 10-year Treasury yield up three basis points, trading to 4.15. The key news to watch on this holiday shortened next week is we have the preliminary GDP numbers. This week's feature interview guest is Eurasia Group Global Macro Chief Robert Kahn. Eric and Robert discuss geopolitical evolution, midterm elections, monetary policy, and more. Eric's interview with Robert Kahn is coming up as Macro Voices continues right here at macrovoices.com.

And now with this week's special guest, here's your host, Eric Townsend. Joining me now is Robert Kahn, Managing Director of Global Macro for Eurasia Group.

Robert, last time that I had you on, we talked quite a bit about tariffs because that was the big news item of the day. Let's do kind of a review since that last interview of how the news flow in geopolitics has evolved. It seems like we don't hear quite as much about tariffs as we used to. Is it still as important as it used to be? And if not, what is? Thanks for having me back on again. And you're right to say that tariffs were...

the central story of 2025, but maybe not fully in the way we had anticipated and talked about it several months ago. It's still a source of important volatility. I always warn People, when I talk to them, tariffs will never be done with this administration. They will return. They will reopen negotiations. Tariffs are a central element of their vision of rewiring. global trade and investment and putting up a material wall around the U.S.

I think the average tariff rate now is right around 17% stated on the tariffs. It's a little lower when you take some exemptions into account in terms of what they actually collect. And that is a lot. less than we thought it might be, say, six months ago. But it is still the largest tariff shock this economy, this country's had to deal with since the 1930s. And I would argue that it...

is still playing out in significant fashions. The U.S. economy has been very resilient to these tariff rates, but I think there's disruption coming from them. And so to that extent, I would say tariffs are disruption deferred. not disruption avoided, as firms now will be trying in the coming months to maybe more fully than before pass through those tariffs to higher prices to consumers.

Let's move on to the current geopolitical situation. It seems to me as we come into a midterm election year that the midterm elections probably are the big thing. Would you agree that that's what market participants should be focusing on geopolitically? If not, what instead?

and assuming that you do agree, what do you think the big items are in terms of midterm election outlook? I think you're right to highlight the midterms, but if you ask me from my list of the economic perspective, what should investors... be worrying about, let me give you a couple of things that I want to highlight. And the first one really comes from the tariff conversation. And so let me take one step back on that. Because to the extent tariffs were the story of 2025,

I would argue that clay is beginning to harden a bit around that tariff hole. Now, let me explain how I mean that. We are seeing what's the formation of a three-tier tariff structure. China with high tariffs around 30%, much lower than they were, but still at around 30%. Most countries in the 10 to 15% range. And Mexico and Canada lower, below 10% because of the legacy.

But I do think that those rates are starting to settle. And while, as I said before, I think that we will see tariffs continue to fluctuate, exemptions continue to be negotiated, it'll still be a factor. There's less room.

to vary that. There's going to be less volatility in that space. And of course, we have a Supreme Court ruling pending which could overturn the basis on which many of these tariffs were put in place, necessitating a plan B. And so what I think we are starting to see it going into 2026 is an administration that while they will still use tariffs, are moving, are pivoting towards a greater reliance.

on what economists call industrial policy. It's deal making with companies and countries where the government is getting directly involved in the investments, the deals, the strategies that companies. take on, whether that's taking a share of profits. that NVIDIA will generate from its China chip sales, or taking an equity stake in a company for permission to invest, or giving a tariff relief to a pharmaceutical company.

that agrees to sell drugs through a portal named after the president. All these are examples of direct intervention. in markets in ways that we really haven't seen in the US economy before. And I think that's going to be a big story in 2026. So that would be the first thing on my list, the rise of a greater industrial policy, greater market intervention by this government.

Which is interesting because you have a government that on terms of its commitment, wants to deregulate, wants to free up industry, but at the same time, much more actively weighing in on the terms and conditions of deals. That ties into the midterms in the following sense. As I look at the upcoming midterm elections, I think that you're going to see the center of the debate focus on what...

political analysts call the affordability debate. I think what we are seeing from voters, and we saw this very much in recent off-cycle elections in New York City, in Virginia, in New Jersey, and elsewhere, is that Voters are very frustrated with the rising cost of living, with the uncertainty around their economic prospects, jobs, wages, and the like. And to some extent, the president is being blamed for that. Presidents often are blamed.

when people feel insecure about their future economic prospects. And certainly that is the case here. And the Democrats, I think, have probably been the first off the mark to highlight affordability as an issue they believe. should serve them well in the midterm. Well, the president is fighting back. And that means that these issues of affordability are going to be front and center heading into the midterm.

Well, of course, tariffs raise prices. That cuts the other way. It creates a tension, I think, very much for the White House in terms of that affordability. And so you're going to see them cutting deals on tariffs, lowering them, for example, on bananas and coffee. As I say, giving exemptions to firms if they lower prices. So affordability will affect and constrain that tariff structure, but it will not fully offset it. Tariffs will still remain an important part of policy.

So we're going to see this tension playing out between the president trying to both accelerate his vision for the U.S. economy, but at the same time trying to respond to these affordability concerns. going forward and trying to reclaim that narrative. I think it's going to be very hard for him. I think people's views are starting to get set in that regard. And so if you ask me how I think right now, the midterms are likely to play out.

I would put a very high probability, in fact, as Eurasia's call, is an 80% probability that the House of Representatives will move to the Democratic side of the ledger in the midterms. We put 30% probability the Democrats could take the Senate. The path for that is much tougher given the seats that are up and the candidates in play there. But it's still possible in a way of election. But getting back to the House, what we often see when a president in his first two years

has both houses of Congress. There is a backlash. There is usually a big swing in parties. And of course, we're starting with a very narrow Republican majority, even though I think political debate is more polarized now. Even though redistricting for a while we thought might tip the battleground a little bit in the Republican side, it now looks like that will be a minor factor. So as we look at it, it looks very likely that the Democrats will actually.

retake the House. And that will, of course, change very dramatically. The political balance going into the last two years, the Trump term, it means even more so than now, the president would have to rely on executive orders and administration action.

rather than looking to Congress to support him with legislation. I want to focus on the first thing you said about midterms, which was the government policy intervention directly in deals and so forth. I have a speculation. I can't prove this. But frankly, I think that. President Trump is very very focused.

for all of the reasons you just described, on getting lower gasoline prices in the United States so he can take credit for it and say, look, I'm the president who's looking out for the little guy and keeping those affordability issues under control. I think he's probably already made some kind of secret deal with Saudi Arabia that we don't know about that has resulted in the Saudi increase in production.

And I suspect that that deal has an expiration date that comes before the midterm elections. And I think probably the reason that President Trump is so obsessed with. bringing peace to Ukraine. I'm sure part of that is legitimately what it is supposed to be on the surface, which is wanting to stop the killing and bringing peace to a war-torn region for the sake of humanitarian reasons and so forth.

But frankly, I think to an equal, if not greater extent, he wants to solve that conflict so that he'll have justification to remove sanctions on Russia in order to get more Russian oil flowing in order to again keep. consumer prices down and address that affordability crisis. What do you think of those ideas? Well, I think that you're spot on, almost entirely agree with you on that.

You know, I think there's a lot of good historical analysis that reminds us that gas pump prices are perhaps the most important single variable for how people feel. about affordability. And particularly for those Americans, and there's more of them than ever, living paycheck to paycheck, what you pay at the pump matters tremendously, right, for how you feel.

And I think the president has, as you say, put gas prices kind of high on his list of how he has measured his success. At the same time, there are other factors, some of which are being driven by his policies that also. factor into what you pay for that gasoline and what you pay for energy more broadly, right? Gas prices can move differently than price of a barrel of oil.

We know that electricity prices are facing a lot of upward pressure from this boom in data centers and related investment spending. So it is a complicated story in that regard. But I think you're right to say that this is a factor that has been animating the president and probably does come up in every conversation he has with Middle East leaders.

Now, another area that I think relates to affordability that the president has not been shy about intervening in is determining the next Federal Reserve chairman. So at first, it seemed really clear that Kevin Hassett was the pick, and now... Maybe it's not so clear. What do you guys think about who the pick is? But maybe more importantly, how much does it matter? Because I think everybody's focused on who the next chair is going to be to replace Jay Powell.

Chair is only one of a whole bunch of voting members. I don't think that there are a whole lot of other changes under consideration to who the other members are, although I think there would be a rotation. So what's the outlook in terms of the Fed? people who are likely to be in charge, and what is it going to mean in terms of Fed monetary policy going forward in this election year?

So those are great questions and pretty hard ones too. And I'll start with the hardest one, which is who will the president pick to be the next chair? And the honest answer is, I don't know. And I don't think many people do know the president's mind. The sense is that he hasn't made a final decision yet. Certainly, we know that he can mull over these big decisions to the last possible minute, sometimes be influenced by the last person he talks to.

and probably keep counsel with a relatively small set of people. We do know, as you said, that early on, he was making comments that suggested he was leaning towards. Kevin Hassett, who he is known for a long time, has a great deal of trust in and values as an advisor. Kevin is also very good at communicating the president's views.

Right. Which is something the president values, that sense of loyalty, commitment to the president's vision. All of that made him, I think, probably an attractive candidate early on. His background isn't in monetary policy. He's well known from his earlier days as a person focusing on tax policy.

And he has played more of an advisory role in the administration than a driving of decision making. And so but still, all the signals were that the president might be leaning that way. It does seem like as we get close to the finish line that. those who support other candidates are making their case. And I think you've had this broad public debate now going on. And I do think there are legitimate arguments made that Kevin Passett will struggle.

as chair to command a majority in favor of Trump's policies. In other words, he could advocate them. But as you said, when you go to that Federal Reserve. open market committee meeting. There are 12 voting members around. You need a majority of them. And you can't just as chair come in and say, I want this and expect to get it. And indeed, the center of that committee right now really is.

not in alignment with what the administration wants. And so I think Kevin Hassett might struggle quite a bit. I think one of the arguments made against him is that some of the other candidates, in particular, Kevin Warsh, who was formerly on the board. or even Chris Waller, who is currently on the board and is really a very strong macroeconomist, might be able to do better at coming in and building a consensus for different policies, although those policies may not be entirely.

what the president would want. So the president seems to be trading off that sense of loyalty versus low rates versus maybe an effective and efficient.

chair. In that sense, I think the leading candidates, and I might throw a reader into the mix as well, they are very different characters and might have different outcomes. And so I'm going to say, I'm going to give you my bottom line answer here. And it's going to be a bit the two-handed answer. On the one hand, because these are different candidates, because the president himself has been so...

forceful in pressing the Fed for policies and has by doing so raised the concerns about Fed independence, that this will be a consequential choice. Who he chooses may matter a lot. On the other hand, I'm going to also argue to you that the person chosen might be quite weak in the early days because of that lack of consensus. We may see more dissents than we have seen.

For some time, we may see a board that is more sharply divided. And so from that perspective, it may take time before we really get that imprint. I do think we should be watching this very carefully. And I am hoping that whoever is chosen does recognize the huge value to the U.S. economy of having a credible Federal Reserve that is independent.

from the administration, Democrat or Republican, and pursues a mandate of price stability with full employment. Well, I want to go a little deeper on that last point, because it seems to me that... what we're seeing really is almost a certainty of the opposite outcome. In theory, the Fed has been independent from the federal government and makes its own decisions. I don't think anybody...

who's intelligent, really believes that completely, but at least there was an appearance of Fed independents. It seems to me that President Trump is pressing pretty darn hard for... dictating what he feels Fed policy should be and really looking for a new Fed chair that will carry out the president's vision. for lower policy rates. And Jim Bianco told our listeners last week, be careful because real estate guys like President Trump always think lower policy rates are a good idea.

sometimes not realizing that lower policy rates don't always translate to lower borrowing rates further out at the end of the curve. If you create an inflation risk with by. making a policy error with too low of a policy rate, you're creating a risk that inflation fears will spark higher rates at the back end of the curve. I'm not sure if the Fed's independence is really going to be

possible with so much political influence. Am I reading too much into that? You're not reading too much in it, and Jim is spot on. To use a Spinal Tap reference, I think you turn, you know, on a scale of 1 to 10, let's turn it up to 11 in agreeing with that. I do think that the president's pressure campaign over the medium term is counterproductive. It may generate slightly lower policy rates, but as you said, the risk is a steepening of the curve.

because of higher uncertainty, higher inflation risk, and the like. And so that idea that a lower funds rate means lower mortgage rates really is off the mark. There's a political... aspect to this as well. Because I think the president, you know, hoping to spur the economy and making this kind of, I think, mistaken analogy between the policy rates and growth per se, you know, in the near term.

you know, just wanted lower interest rates for a long time. I think as we head towards the midterm, and if I'm right, that affordability is going to become a focal point. And if it is also true, as I suspect it will be, that firms will start passing through more of the tariffs to prices and the immigration crackdown will create some labor market shortages, putting upward pressure on wages. And you add that all in.

We're going to be looking at an environment in a few months where inflationary concerns are the bigger concern for voters. And I think the president may well, in that moment, you know. see a trade-off where actually having a Fed that is more credible and diligent in fighting inflation actually serves him better than a Fed that is seen as bowing to political pressure, cutting rates too much.

resulting in a much deeper yield curve and tighter financial conditions. That's a real risk for him. And I think actually he may rue the day that he sort of highlighted the interest rates if we end up in that. Do you think there's a realistic chance that he sees that and comes around to the point where it's President Trump who's saying, wait a minute, let's not risk a dovish policy error. We've got to focus on inflation, guys. Maybe we should be raising policy rates.

I can't imagine those words coming off of. I certainly don't expect that last sentence. He would advocate higher rates. But I do think the first sentence saying, hey, you know, prices are too high. we understand that it's not our fault, it's the Fed's fault, could become a narrative we hear more of in 2026.

So, in other words, President Trump might be publicly saying it's the Fed's fault and those suckers at the Fed, they need to get policy rates down and they need to fight inflation harder at the same time. Get to it, boys. Get to it, boys. Now, you know, I do think that some of the president's economic advisors do, I think, do understand the inconsistency, if I can say it that way, the tension in that argument.

And they do understand that ultimately this administration is well served by a credible and strong Fed that is balancing it. Look, the Fed's cut rates the last three meetings, right? Not as much clearly as the president would want. But they have bought some important insurance against the softening labor market. There are some measures say they may have cut too much, but I think from their perspective, and it's an insurance policy in a period of high uncertainty.

and also some missing data, you know, it probably made a lot of sense. And they can always, of course, pull some of that back if they overdo it. So I do think we've seen a Fed with the willingness to act. A Fed that is attuned to labor market weakness as well as inflationary risks. And frankly speaking, in a lot of ways have gotten it right over the last year and a half. in trying to thread this needle between, you know, bringing down inflation and also putting a floor under the labor market.

I'm not giving them full credit for bringing down inflation. We're still running above the 2% mandate that Congress has given them. But I think they've acted pragmatically in that regard. And by and large, you know, Powell, Chris Waller, importantly, who's given some very insightful speeches on all of this, they have basically not been far off.

And their assessment of the economy really in the last, say, this is a year and a half, two years. I do think in the pandemic, they misunderstood the inflation spike and were slow to react to it. But I think more recently, you know, they have shown a willingness to act.

Let's move on to the Russia-Ukraine conflict. I think the curveball that's surprised me a little bit is it seems that as President Trump is... pushing really really hard to try to get a peace deal together which i think is partly because he wants to take credit for the peace deal and also take credit for the resulting lower energy prices it seems like that's actually causing

pretty significant tension between US and European Union policymakers. And I'm questioning whether that's going to lead to a breakdown in the US relationship with the EU. I think the US and European... relationship is as strained as it has been since World War II. I think it's unfortunate, but I very much, I think, consistent with the president's vision.

of the world, his distrust of Europe and his desire ultimately to get a peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine that would also come with a normalization of relations with Russia. All of that is... of great concern to European leaders. And as you say, the Russia-Ukraine conflict has exacerbated those tensions. I think, you know, the Europeans have been very focused on keeping the US involved with creating a path for peace.

providing continuing support to Ukraine. And I think by and large, Europeans have been pretty constructive in that regard. But stepping back, where are we going, is really the big question. Despite the flurry of talks over the last few weeks, it's hard to be optimistic. that this current round of negotiations will lead to any kind of peace deal. Putin has held maximalist demands. Two sides are still very far apart.

And it's hard to see the current deal being the basis for a peace agreement. Now, that said, could this be the start of a conversation that could over the next year or so, set the basis ultimately for a peace deal. One could be hopeful for that. But I think I would take as long as very significant differences remain on territory, on security guarantees, and on...

the financing of Ukraine's reconstruction, that the current talks are unlikely to lead to a breakthrough. In that regard, the war, unfortunately, is likely to continue. We are continuing to see attacks, including on energy structure.

from both sides including from ukraine and of course that's putting some upward pressure on oil prices relating into our earlier discussion it seems to me if i just think about the tactics of politicians which is usually to blame somebody else when it doesn't go your way It kind of sets the stage for President Trump to say, OK, look, I negotiated the perfect deal. Everybody loved it, except after the Europeans got to Zelensky, it got thrown out.

I would have solved everything. We would have had peace. We would have had lower energy prices. And what if the punchline on that is, okay, Europe, you're the ones who... pushed Zelensky to not take the deal. This is your problem now. The U.S. is stepping out of this. We're not spending any more money on this. Europe, you want to insist that Ukraine has to keep up the fight for not losing its territory.

pay for it we're out is that possible and and would it be a strategy for trump to kind of push the blame at least in the perception of american voters onto you know i solved the problem it's their fault for not taking my deal It's your fault, and so we need to break relations. That's certainly the concern of Europe, that it leads to a fraying of the relationship between the U.S. and Europe, first and foremost.

The recently issued national security strategy was very critical of European leaders and European politics in ways that were kind of shocking, I think, for those of us who grew up in the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance framework. And so, you know, certainly that would be the concern. At the same time, the administration has hinted that there might be more sanctions on Russia if they reject a peace deal.

So there's certainly going to be a lot, continue to be a lot of jockeying by all sides to sort of say, it's not our fault this didn't go through. We were being reasonable. They were being unreasonable. And that is certainly central to the politics of the moment. And you see this with President Zelensky offering a referendum on elements of the peace deal in the context of a ceasefire. But at the same time.

being very inflexible on ceding land ahead of any ceasefire. You're right to highlight that as an issue. If we do go down this road of the president kind of washing his hands. of Ukraine's future, at least financially, in the context of a failed deal, you know, we will expect to see the full check moves to the Europeans in some sense. The costs of keeping Ukraine afloat. of allowing them to continue to sustain the war effort, pay salaries, make repairs to energy and the like, all of that.

will fall fully to the Europeans. And that's kind of our base case. That's why I think that by the end of the year, you will see the Europeans strike a deal on using frozen Russian assets to finance Ukraine. Obviously, this will produce huge...

criticism and threats from the Russians. They'll be very unhappy with it. The U.S. itself doesn't want Europe to go ahead with that. But at the same time, absent U.S. money, I think the pressures to draw on those frozen reserves will become impossible to resist. So I actually expect to see a deal by.

end of the year. Moving forward with that, if it doesn't happen, probably some sort of borrowing arrangement with the Europeans for Ukraine. But I think that what you're saying about the direction is Europe's going to have to take more of the lead. in terms of financing, weaponry, and the like, I think is very much should be the base case.

Now, from time to time, President Trump has made threats, and I perceive them as deal-making threats as opposed to serious threats, but he's actually threatened for the U.S. to pull out of NATO completely. Representative Thomas Massey, who is... not friendly with the president, has actually introduced a bill for that to have the United States withdraw from NATO. Is there any possible actual outcome that that could happen, or is this just politics?

I think it's probably always going to be a tail risk there. The president is not inherently instinctively a multilateralist. He doesn't have trust in these institutions. And he absolutely seems a deeply held conviction that the U.S. in a sense has gotten a raw deal. from these type of large international security commitments, right? That we have paid more than we...

got out of it. I strongly disagree with that assessment. I think it has served as a keystone for the peace since World War II that has produced huge... benefits for the United States has allowed our rise as an economic and military and political power. I feel like that's the right answer is to say that we have benefited.

to an extraordinary degree from that, but that's not the president's view. So there's always a certain amount of risk for that. I am hardened by the fact that there is an element of that, which maybe is simply leverage or... for deal-making that the president does listen to his advisors who do appreciate the value of the as i would say the value of having a fire department in play and that there is a deterrent effect

from belonging to these institutions now it does mean uh ukraine remember some time ago it was pushing very hard to become a member of nato and uh that's not going to happen i think that's very much the result of this political debate But I do think that there's real value in having the U.S. engaged in these structures, even if the commitments that are being made by the U.S. are weakened relative to what has historically been the case.

We've actually seen a couple of European countries, not the central ones, making public statements saying, look, if some of these EU values continue, we've had enough of EU. Is that a trend that could grow legs? Certainly, there was recently this national security strategy came out. It is a vision statement, if you will, from the U.S. And while, look, it's importantly a messaging document, it's a signal rather than a...

specific strategy that will now be implemented. It was very harsh towards the Europeans and very much along those lines and even hinted at getting involved in European elections in the next couple of years and on the side of right wing. anti-European integration candidates. So it's very much an element in the wind, if you'll say it that way. You know, it's kind of in the air. And I think there are certainly elements of the president's team.

And I think a lot of people point to Vice President Vance as one of them who strongly believe that the U.S. should be less engaged internationally in that. But, you know, we saw his talk. It's a complicated story because. On the one hand, the president ran on an American first strategy that many people saw as saying, let's be less engaged internationally. Let's have less commitments, less wars and the like.

We used to talk about this in the context of a G0 world. The U.S. is stepping back from global leadership and there's no other country that steps forward. And there's certainly an element of that. But at the same time, this is a president that can be very assertive. aggressive even, in getting involved in international conflicts, in war, as we saw with Iran earlier this year, in mediating conflicts all around the world. And now, of course, in Venezuela, threatening.

that country in a way that could lead to a significant conflict in the region. So we do see a president that, on the other hand, is still quite engaged. And the question of having in that environment, I would say even more than ever, having these international relationships. like an engagement. Having an EU that holds Europe together and having the U.S. engaged with the EU constructively, I think serves the world and serves the U.S. very well.

As I say, there are many voices in the U.S. administration that don't feel that way and see a united European Union as actually a threat, a challenge to the U.S., not a partner. Let's move on to the other big... potential challenge, which is China's relationship with the U.S. Boy, you know, we've got a country that we rely on for almost everything. All of our...

Prescription medication, almost all of it gets manufactured in China. A lot of the midstream of manufacturing. And we talk about, well, we've got this big copper mine here. Well, the copper smelting, the aluminum smelting, a lot of. the processing that needs to happen to make most commodities actually useful happens in China. So we've got this.

massive global dependency on China and a growing geopolitical tension. It seems to me that that's a recipe for disaster. Well, I'm going to be honest. This is one where I was a bit off. I got it a little wrong. in terms of the last time we talked, thinking back. And because you're getting at this really interesting tension, as you say, between dependency and contest. And through most of 2025, I...

was focused on the growing contest between the U.S. and China and worried that we were in the process of seeing decoupling. That because both countries saw each other as chief rivals, we were going to see growing trade. frictions and a wall between the two countries. We were going to see growing competition on national security issues and like in ways that would be damaging, not just to the relationship between the two countries, but also

would serve to fragment global trade and finance, right? Because the US-China relationship is so central. Now, all of that, I think, is still true. As a longer run driver, I do think these two countries will ultimately...

be in contests all across a wide range of issues. But your point about dependency has become more clear, I think, in coming months, and particularly on things like Rare Earth. where the U.S. has come to appreciate its dependence in the near term on China for not just the mining of it, but the refining of these materials.

The Chinese, of course, have faced a difficult economic situation themselves and probably feel this is the worst possible time for a major trade war. Both sides, I think, have come to appreciate the value of it. period of stability. And President Trump met with President Xi in Busan, South Korea, now a little more than a month ago. And what came out of that was not a comprehensive deal.

but certainly some sort of ceasefire, if you will, a putting down of arms on particularly trade and also on some security issues. And a framework was sort of laid out. in a sense for stepping back. The U.S. in particular took down some of its tariff, eased some export controls, made commitments going forward. Chinese resumed shipments of soy, very important to U.S. farmers. and also agreed to provide easier export licenses for rare earth materials.

There were other elements as well. Now, implementation is going to be a challenge. A lot can go wrong, and there can always be a spy balloon somewhere that unsettles the relationship. But by and large, there was a commitment by both sides to step back. As I say, to put down their arms. I think this is pretty durable. And so in that regard, I think my outlook going to 2026 is somewhat more constructive.

than it was before. Now, part of that is indeed a kind of bad news is good news. Because from a U.S. perspective, the dependence on these rare materials and... is really profound in ways that I don't think everyone fully appreciated, from defense material to high-end technologies to everyday consumer products. And it's not going away soon. You can't just sort of decide we're going to stand up.

that industry and be competitive in a year. This could be from all our clients we talked to from the experts in the area. This is a five to seven year deal. And so I'm not sure to the extent the U.S. has decided that a pause makes sense. At this point, I'm not sure that changes in six or nine months. And so as I look down the road, I think certainly for the course of 2026, the conflict between the U.S. and China is going to be less of a geopolitical.

driver of volatility than in 2025 and that I thought it was going to be. Well, I couldn't agree with you more on the point that the coming war with Russia that so many people fear. I don't think is a serious risk. And I say that for the simple reason that although it may not be in the headlines yet, there are plenty of people in the U.S. military that are smart enough to recognize that the U.S. could not possibly.

win any kind of kinetic conflict with China because they hold all the cards. I think it's very sad that that's true, but it is true. There's an Australian entrepreneur called Craig Tyndale who recently wrote an excellent piece. about this, which is really starting to go viral after Robert Friedland, the CEO of Ivanhoe Mines, had retweeted it and it's getting a lot of circulation. We'll put that in this week's research roundup for the benefit of our listeners.

But I want to take the remaining time that we have in... really focus on the hardest question, which is, boy, so many different subjects we've talked about in this interview. How do we assimilate all of this to your actual job title, which is not geopolitics, but your managing director of Global Macro? What does this mean?

mean for markets and how do people position to consider all of these complex chess pieces that we're talking about? Well, I do think, and I know this is going to sound self-serving. But I'm pretty convinced that geopolitics is going to remain a very important driver of market volatility. That was certainly a story in 2025. And I think that that continues to be the case.

Some of that is the president, his ambitions of enacting major change, his own management style and some of the volatility and uncertainty. And that word needs to be stressed, uncertainty that it creates, right? That's a killer for making long-term irreversible investments, whether in the U.S. or elsewhere. And that will continue to play an important role. So I think geopolitics still matters, number one.

I think that as I look at 2026, and we've touched a little bit about on some of this in terms of the affordability debate in the midterms, I think the one critical question is how this administration responds to disconnects. I think the president does have a vision that he would be able to restore a manufacturing-driven future for the U.S. I don't think his policies get us there.

But what happens as that disconnect between tariffs and industrial policies and all of this don't generate the results he wants? What does he turn to? If affordability becomes an intensified concern for which the voters hold his administration, what does he turn to? Does he adopt more unorthodox policies? Does he step back?

These are going to be critical questions, I think, in coming months. But as saying that, I don't want to make it sound like this is just a question of this administration and this president. I like to always say that President Trump is both symptom and cause of the current moment that we live in, right? That he came of political age after a period in which...

Americans were losing confidence in the open market systems that we had produced and built up since World War II. Some of that I think was... The disruptions, the dislocations from globalization and the discontent from those who were losing out, who felt their futures were not as strong. Some of it was the challenges from shocks, the global financial crisis, the pandemic and the like. Some of it, I think, is social media.

in the way in which it's changed our dialogues. But that mix of policies and developments and big trends, I think has created a sense of insecurity and a sense of conflict and tension. And the president, in a sense, understood that and, in a sense, rode that wave. Now, I think he's been an accelerant to that process. But, you know, I think it raises the question of how much of this is President Trump and how much of this, if you will, is Trumpism.

How much of this is likely to persist even after his time as president? I think those are really interesting questions. I like to think that we are in some sense in a geopolitical recession. What do I mean by that? It's not quite an economic recession, but there's this analogy of a sense in time which our politics are not helping us solve big problems, are not bringing us together in ways. We've got to find better ways to do that. So if you're asking me, what does the outlook hold? Well,

On the one hand, I see in a U.S. economy that remains pretty resilient. It's very dynamic in important ways, but yet I think is also leaving a lot on the table, if you will. by its current policy mix, sacrificing in terms of innovation and dynamism in ways that I think are going to have some lasting consequences. So I think, can we find ways of coming together better and finding bipartisan and...

And, you know, solutions to the challenges we're going to face. I think this is a big question that will probably get answered over the next several years, but even beyond that.

With respect to some of the trends that we're seeing, you know, price of gold is going crazy. We're not seeing any big upside in crude oil prices. I think that's probably because of the president's efforts to intervene in the opposite direction.

Are there any significant trends that are not already obvious that our listeners should know about or think about in terms of investments? Well, I'm going to make one comment. It's an economist comment, but I think it speaks to an investment strategy, which is. And taking it back to our Fed conversation, you know, what the Fed does down the road in terms of interest rate cuts depends a lot on what they see as what they call the neutral rate or what some economists call our star.

which is the real interest rate that is right for the economy. You know, we've just been through a 20-year period where the sort of medium-term interest rate that was right for the economy to be at full employment was coming down and for some time was very low. We called it the great moderation. We got very used to having very low interest rates and a low cost of capital. It was a big source of growth for the U.S. I would argue now that the things we've been talking about today.

that include fragmentation, that include maybe some reversal of views on the U.S. as an investment environment, which makes capital more costly. We won't have the giant pool of global savings to the same extent we did, we have had in the past, all of that. is demographics. These are all consistent with a higher R star. In other words, that interest rates fundamentally will have to be higher in the medium term now than they have been in the past. Now, that is a controversial statement.

Even within the Fed, there are people like John Williams at the New York Fed who thinks that rates can go back down to where they were before the pandemic. Others like Lori Logan at the Dallas Fed says, no, no, no, our stars could quite possibly be higher. In other words.

cost of capital will have to be higher. It has profound implications for the cost of housing. It has profound implications for investment more broadly. The verdict is out on all of that. But if I had to say that our conversation today gives you some important reasons to be cautious in assuming that rates can go back down to where they were over the last couple of decades.

I can't thank you enough for a terrific interview, but before I let you go, I want to ask you about your boss, Ian Bremmer. I know he has two super high priorities going into the beginning of the year. Of course, the first one is accepting our longstanding invitation. to do a Macro Voices interview. But right behind that, he also publishes this annual top risks piece, which kind of tells people what to watch out for in the coming year. When does that come out and who is it available to?

general for people who want to learn more about Eurasia Group or follow your work, how can they do so? Well, thanks for bringing that up. I'll definitely tell Ian that he should follow up on this conversation we've had today. You're right. We put a tremendous amount of work into our top risks outlook. It's not really a risk. It's really our vision. So it's our base cases for how we think the world is going to go. But we do focus.

on developments that are not fully appreciated by investors, by political leaders and the like. And that's why we call it top risk. It'll come out the beginning of the first week of January. So I think that's around the third. Last year. was a weird one, to be honest. In some ways, we maybe forget that. But, you know, in the past, many times, top risks would focus on faraway wars or big geopolitical global trends. Last year, most of the risks had to do with the U.S.

had to do with how a new president's policies would change the world. So we talked about tariffs and immigration. We talked about norms and rule of law. We talked about deregulation and those kind of issues. And all of that remained front and center for investors. We haven't decided yet. I wouldn't want to front run Ian on all of this, but I certainly think that as we look ahead and if you think about what we've just been talking about today, the U.S. remains.

at the center there of these debates, good and bad. There will be some wins. They won't all be problems. But I do think we're kind of in a world where the US desire to rewire. The rules for global trade and investment will continue. And the implications of all that, what it means for us in terms of a country, on our politics, on our constitutional rights. rule of law and the like, all of those issues will continue to be of central importance.

for all of us in 2026. Stay tuned for our top risk report at the beginning and I'm happy to talk about it. We put it on the website. We have a lot of public facing documents and even puppets. So please tune in. It's YaleEurasiaGroup.net. And again, folks, the website is EurasiaGroup.net. Patrick Ceresna and I will be back as Macro Voices continues right here at MacroVoices.com. Now, back to your hosts, Eric Townsend and Patrick Ceresna.

Eric, it was great to have Robert back on the show. Listeners, you're going to find the download link for that post-game trade of the week in your Research Roundup email. If you don't have a Research Roundup email, that means you have not yet registered. at macrovoices.com. Just go to our homepage, macrovoices.com, and click on the red button over Robert's picture saying looking for the downloads. Patrick, what's on deck for the trade of the week this week?

Eric, what really came through in Robert Kahn's interview is how politicized and unstable the oil backdrop has become. The White House is laser focused on keeping gasoline prices down into the midterms. While at the same time, you've got Russia, Ukraine. venezuela and broader geopolitical shocks in the background that could easily send energy prices sharply higher this is exactly the kind of regime where i don't want to pick a direction in crude i want to own volatility

The chart on page two shows how oil is at a key technical inflection point. Either the low holds for a sharp rebound or a break to a fresh low opens the floodgate for the next level down. As oil trades at this. reflection point As seen on the chart on page 3, we have not seen a material jump in oil volatility as we remain in the trade ranges of the previous four months, suggesting long gamma is still reasonably priced.

To express the view on a sizable move in crude oil over the next 30 days without taking a directional stance, I'm structuring a long iron condor. using $3 wide wings. Specifically, I'm buying the January 14, 2026 expiration, the 53 by 50 put spread and the 58 by 61 call spread for a combined net debit. of a dollar. Both verticals are three dollars wide.

for a maximum payoff of two dollars if we finish in the money on either wing against a defined maximum loss of a dollar if crude oil expires between the inner strikes and both spreads expire worthless In other words, I'm laying out $1 to make $2 in a long ball structure that monetizes a break in either direction. The details are broken down on page four of the chart deck.

Patrick, every Monday at Big Picture Trading, your webinar explains how retail investors can put on our most recent trade of the week. For those listeners that want to explore how to put on these trades in greater detail, Don't miss out on a 14-day free trial at BigPictureTrading.com. Now let's dive into the post-game chart deck. All right, Eric, let's dive into the equity markets.

Patrick, I don't have a strong opinion on the short-term outlook for the stock market, other than perhaps to say that the widely anticipated Santa Claus rally into new all-time highs into year-end, well, it hasn't happened yet, so if it's supposed to happen, I guess it better happen.

soon. I'm going to use this time instead to zoom out to the much bigger picture of what I'm thinking 2026 on whole should look like for all markets not just equities and where I think the best trades are going to be. If there's anything I've learned from trading, it's to recognize and seize those extremely rare moments where the market hands you a certainty that markets have yet to discount because it's difficult for people to get their heads around it. The COVID pandemic was...

a perfect example. By February 1st of 2020, it was absolutely certain that a global pandemic was coming and that crude oil prices had to collapse. but the market didn't even start to respond until the middle of March, a true gift from the market that many Macro Voices listeners and I myself profited from handsomely. After really thinking about Jim Bianco's comments last week, I'm struck with the realization that a dovish policy error by the Fed and might become certain.

We'll have to watch the players, the dots, the messaging, and so forth over the next few weeks. But I'm close to getting to full conviction. that a dovish policy error is inevitable and certain in 2026. Now, I'm not quite there yet. And let's face it, folks, neither President Trump nor his new Fed chair, whoever that turns out to be, are likely to heed Jim Bianco's warning.

that the back of the curve could very well revolt with higher rates out of inflation fears in reaction to a cut in policy rates or excessively aggressive cuts to policy rates. So they're going to cut policy rates aggressively. because that's what Trump wants. And he's not going to put a chair in who's not going to be loyal to that. End of story.

So I predict that's going to end badly if that's what happens. Now, I have no idea how long it's going to take or what the outcome will be, but I'm convinced that the Fed, if they really cut rates aggressively, as I expect the chair, is going to push for.

2026. If they continue to do that well beyond the point where the grownups in the room start dissenting loudly that those cuts are imprudent, it's going to set up an incredible trading opportunity on the same scale as that COVID opportunity where you've got a certain outcome.

that hasn't yet been discounted by markets. The counter argument that's still there, and I still see it, is the one that Robert Kahn made in today's feature interview, which is actually echoing what Jim Bianco said last week, which is... The Fed is more than just the chair. And as Jim Bianco mentioned last week, the dot plots show that a lot of the voting members, that's the current voting members, remember the voting member roster changes when the Fed chair changes in May.

The current voting members, a lot of them were really signaling that they don't think there should be any more rate cuts after the one they just did. So that's where the current... board sits. But I think at the same time, the handwriting is pretty clear on the wall that anybody who doesn't join in the policy rate cutting party is going to bear the wrath of revenge from President Trump.

So I want to wait this out a little bit longer because, frankly, I don't feel any great urgency to miss a trade. I remember that COVID trade. I was panicking in that last week of January to sell crude oil futures just as hard and as fast as I possibly could, thinking the...

market was going to wake up in any moment to the obvious reality that crude oil had to go lower took more than a month before the market even started to react to the downside. I actually had to go through a very painful loss initially as the market. continued to rally into most of February, completely blind to what was obviously coming. So I don't think there's any rush to get into the kind of trade that I'm thinking about, because we don't yet know what the governors as a group are going to do.

But especially if we start to see more messaging suggesting that the group consensus is going to follow what the chair wants, and I think that's the direction. If I'm reading the tea leaves correctly here, I think that's the direction we're headed in. It says to me that maybe we get a setup where you know for sure that there's going to be a dovish policy error. You know it's going to take months for it to play out.

that's a non-consensus view or that people don't have really strong conviction about that. And it gives you time to plan a trade. So that takes you to the key question. What is the trade? Well, long gold is the painfully obvious answer. But because it's painfully obvious, that means it's already a very, very crowded trade that could easily retrace hard to the downside if anything panics the hot money out of that trade because it's already been on for so long.

So that brings you back to the real key question. What's the variant perception trade that nobody's thought of yet or that most people haven't thought of yet that delivers a grand slam if the Fed commits a dovish policy error? Well, you could go to the Jim Bianco. I won't say prediction because he didn't make a prediction, but you could take the. risk scenario of the back end of the curve revolting and you could bet with let's say a curve steepener well wait a minute we don't know for sure that

That's going to be the reaction. That was just one scenario that Jim suggested was possible. So what's the certain outcome? If there is a serious dovish policy error on the Fed's part that asymmetrically delivers a grand slam. return. Patrick, I think you've got many weeks left to figure out for your asymmetric trading challenge. What's that grand slam?

asymmetric trade because i think there is one there somewhere i just don't know what it is yet again folks i don't have the answer to that 64 trillion dollar question but i do plan to spend the next several weeks trying to figure it out again the caveat is i'm yet completely convinced that that policy error is inevitable because there might be a revolt from the other voting members of the fed but if the chair has their way or if president trump is able to

influence the rest of the committee. I think that policy error is very likely and could become certain. And if it does become certain, I want to have already figured out what is that grand slam trade. Don't know yet.

Patrick, I welcome your ideas. Well, Eric. There certainly is the potential for some substantial volatility in the 2026 year like you're suggesting. But let's frame the next few weeks and see what's going to happen here on the short term. We have two substantially shortened holidays.

eight weeks where volumes materially back off while there clearly is options expiration gamma that can potentially play a role in pinning the market over those holiday periods while this makes me likely want to call this a trade range bound market over the holidays there's a curveball and the curveball is the cracks in the ai market

On page six, I have the semiconductor ETF, which is actually breaking back down below its 50-day moving average and the selling pressure driven by some of the headlines from Oracle and Broadcom and more. is actually starting to stress this space.

we're talking about such huge market capitalization in these names that if we suddenly saw nvidia break to a lower low or any other type of factor like this it would certainly be a huge drag on the s p 500 that would keep it well off of its highs now overall i don't think that there's a high risk of a major breakdown but you gotta watch these ai stocks because if this somehow turns into a volatility catalyst

have to be prepared with some sort of structural hedging. I want to leave listeners with a couple of simple levels to watch. If the SMH semiconductor index starts breaking below 340, and the S&P 500 rolls over through the 6700 level at the same time, that opens a door for much more volatile environment and would have me firmly on guard for downside risk.

Alright Eric, let's dive into the dollar. Well, Patrick, the Dixie sell-off continues in what has now become a well-established downward price channel, just as we anticipated here on Macro Voices. My outlook remains bearish with the caveat that a big policy announcement from Trump and Besant could change. that in a heartbeat. But absent a policy announcement, looks to me like, you know, the trend is down, is probably going to continue.

Well, Eric, over the last year, the primary downtrend of the dollar is very clear, including the last few weeks that has had the dollar weaken back below the 50-day moving average. And in my mind, 98 is a critical level to watch because if that level is broken. we have the potential for a dollar downside acceleration. At the same time, if that isn't broken, this entire pullback would still just be a Fibonacci retracement, leaving the window open for the dollar to remain in a trade range.

to finish off the year overall i while i do think that 2026 has plenty of room for the dollar bear to re-resume, it is entirely plausible that we bounce back to 99 toward the 50-day moving average and settle in here for the rest of the year considering there are no major news announcements on the monetary. fiscal side. All right, Eric, we got to touch on oil.

Monday and Tuesday's sell-off in crude oil futures was a big deal. Now, don't fall for the false logic that, well, wait a minute, you know, April 8th and then again May 5th, we had tests of that same $55 handle on WTI didn't land.

then, so it's not going to last now. Wait a minute. That's comparing apples to oranges. Those were intraday panics based on headline news that painted gigantic hammer candles after the market reversed intraday and closed above 57 in both cases after testing a 55-handle midday. Tuesday afternoon this week, we closed near the low of the day.

barely a few ticks above 55 even. So that was a new closing low for, I don't know, since how long. It goes off the left edge of my chart here. I'd have to expand it or scroll left to figure that one out. It says to me that maybe a move lower is in the works and we haven't seen the worst of this yet.

Now, at the same time, the bounce that we've seen, well, first of all, a bounce was inevitable, but the bounce is looking reasonably healthy. We got all the way up to the eight-day moving average, then came back down to the five, and as of recording time, we're still above that five-day moving average at 50%.

56 spot 25 WTI. We really need to get above 58 WTI or so in order to get above the short-term moving averages to say that, okay, it looks like this rally has legs. Maybe the bottom is in at least. the short term. As of recording time, especially if we stay below the eight-day moving average at 56 spot 88, and that's on the February contract. I've rolled over now from January onto the February contract.

If we can't get above that level, I think we could be headed back now down to new lower lows. And if we close below 55, I think it could signal a move lower maybe to test 50 even. Again, I don't know exactly what's going to happen. It could change in a heartbeat on news, but I think President Trump is very, very strongly incented.

to try to keep energy prices down through the November elections. I think that's one of the reasons he's working so hard to get peace with Ukraine and Russia. I think it's because he wants to... have an excuse to relax sanctions on Russia and let more of that Russian oil flow to help solve the affordability crisis, which is really what's going to affect him in the midterm elections more than anything else.

Now, having said all of that, what I should say is I did start to nibble on the long side of the oil trade here because I couldn't resist that $55 number when I saw it actually go below $55 for a minute. I went ahead. and bought some time spreads, specifically the December 26, December 27 time spreads, which I was able to get for $1.75 contango. So that's minus 1.75 to buy that spread. in contango already back up to a dollar 47 at recording time the rationale there is

This nature of the crude oil futures curve is such that, you know, there are three possible outcomes. We could see a return to pronounced backwardation if there's another geopolitical upset. In that case, my trade here going long those times. spreads is a grand slam because I'm buying them in a reasonably steep contango of, I don't know, about 15 cents per month at $1.75 on the year. So it's a reasonably steep contango that I'm buying. I think.

It might go into steep backwardation if we get a geopolitical escalation. But if we don't and we keep the current structure right now, the first 12 months of the curve, because there's a little bit of backwardation at the beginning of the curve, then there's a little. bit of contango it ends up being a net contango in that first year out but one year out you're looking at about

12 cents of contango on that 12-month spread from January 26, which is the current front month contract, to January 27. The 12-month spread that I bought was minus... one spot 75 compared to 12 cents. So if we just get back to the current market, I go from 175 contango to 12 cents. That's a great big gain right there. I don't need a shift into backwardation in order for the.

trade to be profitable. Now, of course, the third potential outcome is that we get into a full structural contango all the way to the front of the curve, and that contango deepens from here, and it's more than $1.75 by the time that spread is ready to to expire when? Right around just after Thanksgiving when the market should be discounting the elections being over. So I think the timing on that.

z6 z7 spread from the long side is pretty good i like the entry that i got at 175 as i said it's already back to 147 i won't be surprised if i get a chance to buy it at maybe even steeper contango than two dollars i'll buy more if that happens. We'll see. But that would only be if the market plumbs even deeper lows from here. Getting all the way to next Thanksgiving without that contango at least flattening somewhat will surprise me, but it's always possible.

Eric, like I suggested in the trade of the week, I am expecting substantial volatility. We did a direct retest of the lows from liberation day and this is an inflection point where either this support line holds and we're going to get a material bounce that could see easily five plus dollars on the upside of oil or

Any technical breakdown puts us in no man's land where simply stop losses and selling pressure will just kind of spill oil to the downside. One way or another, this is a very important support line and we're going to see whether it's broken.

here within the next few trading sessions now eric gold's been strong what's your thoughts here Well, the move higher seems to be on just as we anticipated here on Macro Voices. The market initially rejected the strong resistance level at the previous all-time high just below 4,400. Oh my God, what does it mean? What does it mean? It means this, folks. Ready? Drumroll, please. That's why they call it a resistance level.

Pretty clear, pretty simple. And we're going to bump our head on that resistance level until we break through it or until we get a firmer rejection. But so far, what I see is a nice, steady, well-established, short-term. upward price channel. The trend is up. We're bumping our heads on the previous all-time high at $4,400. Of course we are. It might last a little longer. We might see a dip a little lower before it's over, but I anticipate we'll probably break above.

it if we do if we get a close above 4400 the next measured move target is 4930 to 5140 depending on where you measure the beginning of that move from in terms of which low you go back to in order to start the the measured move upward. So there's another 500 bucks at least of upside if we can get that close above 4,400. And I think we probably will. Let's cross our fingers and see what happens.

well here we have gold trading at its 52 week highs but at the same time we saw platinum palladium and silver all rip

The entire precious metals market is running, which certainly leaves the window open for gold to join the party with a break to fresh new 52-week highs. The big question in this holiday-shortened period, and especially if the dollar... doesn't immediately break down does gold initially just bump its head along this previous high and just consolidate into uh setting this up for a 2026 move right now

The entire precious metals market is so hot. On page 10, I have that silver chart, which is just showing this. exponential rip on the upside where stone throw away from that 70 level at this stage silver continues to be the rock star in the precious metal space and uh and it's certainly driving the sentiment toward the metals All right, Eric, let's touch on uranium.

Well, as listeners, I'm sure, are getting sick of hearing me say, I couldn't possibly be more bullish about the long-term fundamentals. Last week, I mentioned the weekly stochastics are really looking great as a setup on URA. But boy, the daily stochastic... were still overbought last week. Well, this week's sell-off in sympathy with the AI baskets took us back down to both daily and weekly stochastics in oversold territory. That's a great setup for a move higher to begin.

But the risk is still a panic out of the AI trade. We're seeing a little bit of rollover here at recording time. The S&P 500 futures are flirting right with that key 50-day moving average again. If we end up moving substantially below it, and especially if we take out the 100...

day moving average, which is now up to 6670. If we took that out to the downside, I'd start to get really worried that the AI trade is unwinding and could take the U miners way the hell down with them. But outside of that, I think this is a bullish setup. I'm adding to my longs on URA and other uranium miners here, and I could be wrong, but I think it's a good setup.

The safer play, though, would be on USPOT UN. That's the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust. Won't have as much upside leverage as the miners will, but I think it's a much safer play in terms of much more limited downside because that's tied directly to... the spot price of uranium so the safety play or the safety speculative long play if you want to think of that as a safety play is long spot the more risky play is long ura and i think it looks like a good setup patrick what do you think

Well, Eric, technically we had a scenario where the URA tried to break back above its 50-day moving average and approached its 50% retracement of the last decline. And what's interesting here is that as uranium here just... rolled over it did so in a similar window from which the semiconductors started to break down and one of my bigger concerns about this uranium story is how much is it being basketed with the ai story and the data center power story

because if we see distribution in the ai basket will it result in selling pressure in these uranium names irrespective of their long-term bullish positioning overall that correlation is probably bigger concern at this stage one of the most important things is to watch whether the previous low can hold and whether or not it can march the beat of its own drum or whether it's going to be basketed with the rest

Patrick, before we wrap up this week's show, let's hit that 10-year Treasury note chart. And finally, that 10 year, we saw the consolidation now above the 50 day moving average. And for the first time in six months, we have seen yields make a higher high. and holding that turn. So what we now see is a very clear shift in the trend that's been in place for the second half of this year. Will this perpetuate in 2026 is the puzzle to solve.

Folks, if you enjoy Patrick's chart decks, you can get them every single day of the week with a free trial of Big Picture Trading. The details are on the last pages of the slide deck, or just go to bigpicturetrading.com. Patrick, tell them what they can expect to find in this week's research roundup.

Well, in this week's research roundup, you're going to find the transcript for today's interview as well as the trade of the week chart book that we just discussed here in the postgame, including a link to a number of articles that we found interesting. You're going to find this link.

and so much more in this week's research roundup. That does it for this week's episode. We appreciate all the feedback and support we get from our listeners, and we're always looking for suggestions on how we can make the program even better. Now, for those of our listeners, and we will consider it for our weekly distributions. If you have not already follow our main account on X at macro voices for all the most recent updates and releases. You can also follow Eric on X.

at Eric S. Townsend. That's Eric spelt with a K. You can also follow me at Patrick Ceresna. On behalf of Eric Townsend and myself, thank you for listening and we'll see you all next week. That concludes this edition of Macro Voices. Be sure to tune in each week to hear feature interviews with the brightest minds in finance and macroeconomics. Macro Voices is made possible by sponsorship from bigpicturetrading.com.

the Internet's premier source of online education for traders. Please visit bigpicturetrading.com for more information. Please register your free account at macrovoices.com. Once registered, you'll receive our free weekly Research Roundup email containing links to supporting documents from our featured guests and the very best free financial content our volunteer research team could find on the Internet each week.

You'll also gain access to our free listener discussion forums and research library. And the more registered users we have, the more we'll be able to recruit high-profile feature interview guests for future programs. So please register your free account today at MacroVoices.com if you haven't already. You can subscribe to Macro Voices on iTunes to have Macro Voices automatically delivered to your mobile device each week.

free of charge. You can email questions for the program to mailbag at macrovoices.com and we'll answer your questions on the air from time to time in our mailbag segment. Macro Voices is presented for informational and entertainment purposes only. The information presented on Macro Voices should not be construed as investment advice.

Always consult a licensed investment professional before making investment decisions. The views and opinions expressed on Macro Voices are those of the participants and do not necessarily reflect those of the show's hosts or sponsors. Macro Voices, its producers, sponsors, and hosts, Eric Townsend and Patrick Ceresna, shall not be liable for losses resulting from investment decisions based on information or viewpoints presented on Macro Voices.

Macro Voices is made possible by sponsorship from bigpicturetrading.com and by funding from Fourth Turning Capital Management, LLC. For more information, visit macrovoices.com.