저자: RayDalio · 외국인
요약 보기
엔비디아 3분기 실적 호조로 AI 버블 우려가 완화되며 시장 상승. Dalio는 현재 시장이 버블 영역(1929·2000년의 약 80% 수준 지표)에 있으나 아직 붕괴 단계는 아니라고 진단. 버블은 미래 전망이 아니라 현금 수요에 의해 터지며, 약한 손(개인·레버리지)에 자산이 쏠린 점과 정부 부채 문제를 핵심 위험으로 꼽음. 금과 채권 조합을 위기 시 유효 자산으로 제시하고 비트코인은 1% 정도만 보유한다고 언급. 사모시장·벤처·사모신용 문제도 지적.
다듬은 글
Bring in show music, please. This is SquawkPod and I'm CNBC producer Cameron Costa. On today's episode, Nvidia has reported its third quarter results. The biggest report of earning season, it did not disappoint, blowing out expectations, calming investor jitters and boosting the broader markets. It's
a very big deal for Nvidia. It means big deal not just for Nvidia, but also for the major averages. Then one big interview with Ray Dalio. Bubbles don't happen because of good estimates of what in the future. It happens because of the need for cash. The famed hedge fund manager on AI hype and economic bubbles.
We are in that bubble territory, but we don't have the pricking of the bubble yet. A markets lesson from the legendary financeier, plus the red flags that he looks for in our economy. If you're looking at the private equity markets, they have a bunch of problems. It's Thursday, November 20th, and Squawkpod begins right now.
Stand back by in 3 2 1. Cue it, please. a Andrew Ross. And Joe is out today. The biggest report of earnings season, it did not disappoint. the AI bulls are winning and Christina Partinellois joins us right now at the table with more on Nvidia's third quarter results and u maybe some more the idea of the bubble can can continue to go a lot bigger
and that was one of the first issues that Jensen addressed on the call but Nvidia just showed exactly to your point how to calm those AI bubble fears so much so that Caner Fitzgerald is now saying AI is actually underhyped. Yes, they wrote that in their note. The CFO on the call said the $500 billion border book Jensen Wong announced back in October at GTC will quote grow.
Saudi Arabia and Anthropic both added a net new demand. So that's not included in that original 500 billion that was announced. Blackwell sales are quote off the charts and exceeding supply. The Q4 revenue guide of 65 billion beat even high buy side whisper numbers. CEO Johnson Wong really pushed back directly on spending concerns right now.
He said from Nvidia's vantage point, they see something very different. Aentic AI is growing rapidly. And then he went after depreciation fears, perhaps amplified by Michael Bur recently by saying Nvidia's older chips don't become obsolete. Chips they shipped 6 years ago are still running at full capacity.
According to him, even last generation chips are still selling strong in their third year. That line sent many of the Neocloud players higher. Iron, Core, Nebia, you can see still up. uh dramatically in pre-market trading. The $100 billion OpenAI investment though has raised some questions about whether Nvidia is essentially funding its own chip sales.
You know that circular financing that's going on. Well, Jensen Wong defended that as well, saying they're not giving up equity in Nvidia. They're getting equity in OpenAI. Here's his comments. rather than giving up a share of our company, we get a share of their company and we invested uh in them uh in one of the most consequential once in a generation company.
I was going through the the uh 10 Q last night and it did show that Nvidia hasn't committed a specific amount to Open EI and that the deal isn't finalized. Perhaps it's just lawyer speak to to you know uh dot all the eyes and the te's, but for now it's not a done deal. The stock though, as you can see, trading much higher.
Uh, for now, Nvidia has answered those skeptics. Uh, to your point, Andrew. Yeah, it it is shocking when you look at the numbers. I was just digging through some of the stuff yesterday. We know it's big. We know it's growing fast, but there was a revenue chart that was in one of the stories I checked out.
It was CNBC.com story. And if you look at their revenue on a quarterly basis, I think we've got the chart in the back, too. The growth that they saw in revenue just from quarter over quarter is more than they were seeing on a quarterly basis ago. Yeah. Two years ago, two and a half years ago. But isn't it incredible too that the magnitude of the beat is expected to be 2 billion.
So no matter what all of the uh the estimates on either sell sides or buy sides, it was minimum two billion and then okay for the guy they beat by three billion. So even better. So that is how can they keep managing that magnitude of beats and that is always an underlying concern now in today's market.
Uh but it's incredible how far we've come and how much they've grown. So the thing that I I want to go back to the your open AI piece and just the equity piece. What I can understand about that is he doesn't consider it sort of vendor financing in that way simply because he's getting the the equity for it.
I mean but that is has to assume that the equity has an extraordinary amount of value. Exactly. Exactly. And he that hundred billion is, dare I say, an arbitrary number at this point because they don't actually plan on fully committing that full amount. Tanches of 10 billion. Yeah. According to the gigawatts that they that OpenAI produces.
But uh to he would defend it saying that all of this is real demand. He's not going to agree to vendor financing much like Cororeweave CEO has said that this is real demand and he actually said that on his earnings call and saying that they've sold out of A100s, H100s. Uh even the spot price for many of these rental GPUs has continued to climb despite them being a little bit older, which fulfills the narrative that people still want the old stuff.
Yeah. So, okay, speak to this because we talked a lot about this earlier in the week. This just the depreciation schedule for these chips because there's sort of a wide variance. Some people think that these things only really, it's not that they only work for three or four years, they can work for a longer time, but they only have great value.
for some for some people they may have to be replaced every three or four years because people are going to want the highest end stuff and then the question is what kind of value can you get out of the stuff later there's there's other hyperscalers that are now putting it on their books and saying they can depreciate over six or seven years
right and that is and that's that's a huge distinction so core ree is six years but it didn't used to be six years nebases four years Microsoft CEO recently in a podcast spoke to that saying that how he can now take older chips and layer them on with newer chips and then you just you know you connect them with NV link or whatever product you want to use.
Uh and that maybe speaks to using these chips for a little bit longer. On the earnings call, he said that there is still a useful life. The depreciation problem is not going away because you can either look at it as an accounting problem. How are you going to take it off your books over the x number of years or an actual useful life problem?
And the argument from the CEO of Nvidia Corweave is that the useful life is very long. But it's the question of how are they the accounting? Yeah. No, no. I I I'm of the position by the way the useful life is not the issue that I think it's accounting is the issue. Not even I think the question is unlike building railroads where you have tracks and you can continue to use the tracks.
Yes, maybe every 10 or 20 or 30 years you have to replace the tracks. You might because of just the way this business is moving you might especially if you're in the large language model business or something else you might need to constantly be upgrading. It's the same reason that my I'm I'm getting a new phone every two or three year.
The the phone still works six or seven years later. I just don't want the phone six or seven years later cuz it doesn't work for me. It's not the latest and greatest. It's not just but it's not just the latest. But if you're in the business of needing the most high-end technology, which a lot of these guys
business model for Nvidia that you're fabulous for Nvidia, but bad for everyone else and and bad for everybody else and unclear whether then the math will make sense for them, but you keep buying it. Everyone keeps buying the phone. So the math is still making sense for you and many other as long as you have buyers that no so I'm look it's fabulous for Nvidia but if if you're meta or take meta out of it if you're open AI or anthropic or a company that's not that not profitable yet yes then you actually will have a math problem
then that's how Nvidia will is trying to go up the stack and you know get everyone locked in on every single angle not just the chips now they're going after anthropic why are they doing that when Anthropic right now may not be the most valuable customer because that's where they see the next leg of customers going forward.
Uh but you are a buyer still. So to your point that even years later and perhaps maybe you won't be the best demographic in terms of you know salary all that but people are still buying the next greatest Nike Dunks uh your shoes upgrading their car right there's there's still a market for it despite how expensive it could be.
Let's talk a little bit about what this gain in the market on my answer on that. I can see your eyes. I'm not totally sold on I know. But no, it's more that I think it could put a lot of the big hyperscalers into trouble, of course. And and and then if if the hyperscalers are in trouble, you don't have a buyer.
That's different than then why are the and and that's to why the hyperscalers are moving closer and closer to pushing out their own chips and Google is the best example with Gemini 3 on the TPUs that these are the individual chips that they created themselves. It's not trained on Nvidia chips for the first time and that's a big deal.
Yeah. the tranium chips. There's some debate on the quality for all of that, but uh the it's all about the patience of investors right now and the patience of companies. How much can they keep spending until they realize, okay, these chips are costing too much, especially on an annual cadence. If if Jensen Wong continues with putting out these chips every single year to your point,
which then gets to the next piece, which is which we haven't talked about at all, which is so we're talking about this is great from video right this moment, right? at some point whether you think Amazon's going to you know get their act together and make those chips to be the quality you think they should be or by the way OpenAI wants to design its own chips everybody right there will be huge competition at some point and so they may get great value on the training end but not on the inference end for example or something like that
and then Nvidia will say well they don't have the CUDA software which is exactly what he said to the depreciation argument that the CUDA software that they provide that has the most amount of developers right now right now um is their winning uh winning recipe almost at the at this point because you need it to revamp all of the chips etc.
I just want to talk very quickly about what this means for the markets overall. The stock is up by just under five 5% 4.9%. That may not sound like a lot but when you are talking about a company with more than $4.5 trillion in market cap 5% gain for them which is where the stock is right now is about $225 billion.
That's more than the equivalent of a Disney market cap at $186 billion. It's close to the market cap of Goldman Sachs at $235 billion. So a 5% move in the market is a very big deal for Nvidia. It means big deal not just for Nvidia but also for the major averages. Um it was a big deal when that stock was down by about 4% in the first couple of days of the week leading into this.
There were a lot of questions and concerns about whether they were going to be able to deliver. They did. The market is up substantially and that is going to have implications throughout the rest of the major averages. President Trump waiting into the debate over AI regulation and whether the US should have a federal standard.
Emily Wilkins joins us right now. She has more on this story. And Emily, this has been complicated. It's not one they were able to pass into law, but this does change things. Becky, I mean, this is it's been a complicated issue. It's been one that DC is trying to work on now for a couple months. They failed this summer, but there is a huge momentum under an effort to try again.
And look, the AI industry, they would be notching a major win if the White House and possibly even Congress are able to somehow block states from enacting an assortment of AI laws in favor of that single national standard. Of course, Trump himself came out on Truth Social calling for that national standard to go in place.
And that prompted Mark and Drees to tweet that a 50-st state patchwork is a startup killer. He said that federal AI legislation is essential. There's no bigger issue for little tech, the builders who create the future for America. Now, that White House executive order that they're working on, it's not finalized yet, but a draft scene by CNBC would create a task force led by Attorney General Pam Bondi that would challenge some of these state AI laws under the grounds that they are regulating interstate commerce.
and that's something the federal government has jurisdiction over. The draft executive order would also bar states from getting certain federal grants if they had AI laws that were not in compliance. Meanwhile, on the other side of Pennsylvania Avenue, Republicans in Congress, they're planning to use one of the upcoming mustpass bills either on defense or funding the government to limit how states regulate AI.
They're looking at things like maybe allowing states to regulate police fraud, safety, but maybe stuff that's not AI development. However, any measure is going to require Democratic support, and that is going to be an uphill battle for them. Senator Brian Shots tweeted that any sort of ban on state AI laws was going to be a poison pill, adding that it's not like we are doing regulation and preempting states.
We are preempting states and doing nothing. We'll be watching to see what if any final policy does come out of either the White House or Congress and then to see if there are any states that are going to try to be pushing back on their ability to regulate AI. Andrew. Okay. Cheese will be next. Coming up on SquawkPod, Bridgewater founder Ray Dalio.
What makes a bubble? What pops it? And maybe most importantly, what does an investor do about it? Don't sell just because there's a bubble. Okay? Don't sell just because of bubble. But if you look at the correlations with the next 10 years returns when you are in that territory, you get very low returns.
AI hype, the gold advantage, private credit, and market history. HedgeFunder Ray Dalio is next. This is SquawkPod with Becky Quick and Andrew Ross Orcin. Here's Andrew. Now to our news maker of the morning. He is here joining us to discuss the markets, the history of economic bubbles, artificial intelligence, so much more.
Bridgewater founder Ray Dallio is with us. Good morning to you, sir. Good morning. So you've been uh providing lessons for us for a very long time about economic cycles and where we are and what's going on. The big question in the market right now because we're looking at Nvidia this morning and I think a lot of people are waking up thinking where's the market headed next has been this question of an AI bubble and curious where you ultimately come down.
Are you with Jensen Wong who says he doesn't see it that way or do you see something else? Um there's uh definitely a bubble in uh the markets. Yeah. Um bubbles. What is a bubble? Right. What is a bubble? What what is a bubble? Uh a bubble um is that there's a lot of creation of wealth from various ways such as you decide that you're going to have a uh sell $50 billion worth of stock and value it at uh trillion dollars or you have multiples like that and then you create the wealth that way and then the question with all this wealth relative to money is who needs the money.
So it's all it's a matter of who the buyers and sellers are for example um if we had a wealth tax or if you had a tightening of monetary policy then there has to be the selling of those assets so in order to pay those things. So there's a mechanics of who owns it is it overowned and so on. It's not the long-term duration of the earnings.
So you think about it isn't it interesting that we have um such a short-term reaction. And it's great that what the results are, but this is a it's valued as a long duration asset. So for 25 years, the next 25 years, it's very unknown. We don't know what's going to happen. And bubbles don't go happen because of good estimates of of what in the future.
It happens because of the need for cash. Do you sell that asset? Do you have to sell that asset for cash for some reason? Well, that's the question though. So your book I I thought did such a good example. I mean I thought by the way your book is fabulous. Thank you. Um but you take the 1929 and then you say what made it go up and what made it go down and that dynamic is the way bubbles work right and so if you take who has exposures how much leverage is used and so on this is about 80% into some a bubble that um was 100% would have been 1929 and 2000.
So, how much leverage do you think is supporting all of this? Because we we were talking to um parts in the the last hour uh and she was explaining this idea that Jensen Wong doesn't see a lot of the transactions that he's been doing. We've been talking about these circular transactions where he's effectively taking an equity stake in some business and that business is then committing to buy his chips, if you will.
Yeah. A form of vendor financing with sort of a equity overlay maybe is the way to think about it. Do you look at that and say that's a problem? It's not a problem. Should we think about vendor financing in a different way? That was something that got a lot of the fiber guys in trouble in the late 90s, for example.
Yeah, I think it's an issue, but I don't think it's the main issue. I think the real issue is who owns the stock. Okay. Is it in strong hands? Not not not just one stock. Isn't it amazing? We're talking about one stock for the stock market bubble and and we're talking about for the economy bubble. So you have such a small percentage of the economy, such a small percentage of the American population in terms of wealth and so on concentrated so concentrated and everybody in it and and in a leveraged way in various ways it's it has leverage.
What are strong hands like how would you define that? Uh uh weak hands would be the public. So retail investors or weak hands, right? Strong hands are the owners of these companies. The the the right in other words, strong hands is uh that they primarily invest their own money. They're um it you don't have public, right?
The weak hands is largely let's say a leveraged public and all united about that. That's that's one of the key ingredients of a bubble. So it's not just pricing because we have to find out you know your book did such a great job of looking at uh the wonderful companies uh uh in the 1920s and then and it enumerated how electricity came out and General Electric and RCA and so on and those companies went down a 90%.
Not because of the economy and so on the bubble burst first because they needed cash. So what is you have to understand that wealth can't be spent in order to in order to get money you have to sell wealth in order to get cash to get the money to buy things. And so when that happens bubbles burst. So bubble bursting means let's say a tightening of monetary policy is classic.
But also something like wealth taxes can happen. For example, think about wealth taxes uh forcing uh sales of assets that you have to uh you're by the way, there's a proposal for wealth tax in California right now. Yeah. So state and national, right? State and national. I'm not I'm just trying to describe the mechanics of a bubble.
But you said we're at 80%. Yes. There's I have a bubble indicator that goes back to 1900 and it just makes a it has a number of indicators. How how much leveraging? Who has the leveraging? Is it um what is the amount of money in wealth that relative to the amount of cash that needs to exist and so on.
These indicators there are a number of them um show that um we're on that on that chart. If I was to show you the chart, it's about 80% of where it was um uh in those two times. That doesn't mean that that's the end of the move. Okay? Because bubbles have to be pricricked, right? And and so you can measure that there's vulnerability, a lot of vulnerability.
There's a lot of vulnerability of who's holding what. Here's my question to you about that, which is if the bubble is at this 80% range on your on your on your index or metric, there are folks, we had Paul Tudtor Jones come in here a couple weeks ago, and he said, "Look, I think we're in October of 1999.
By the way, the market would still have 40% to go. Back in 1928, Charles Merrill, who founded Meil Lynch, told everybody, "Get out of the market because he thought it was a bubble." And he was right and he was wrong in so far as from the beginning of 1928 to September of 1929, stock market went up 90%.
And so, but but I I think that when you're looking at that, you're looking at it incorrectly. Okay. What is a bubble is the definition, right? it. I I want to reiterate a lot can go up before the the bubble burst. A bubble is an unsustained set of circumstances. It has unsustained amount of buying. It has an unsustained amount of valuation.
It has and then there's something that pricks the bubble. Is there is there a way to sustain this though? You can't look at You can't look at Don't sell just because there's a bubble. Okay. Okay. don't sell just because of bubble. But if you look at the correlations with the next 10 years returns, when you are in that territory, you get very low returns.
Um, by the way, JP Morgan just did a report on this that showed that if you got in um at over a 23 PE multiple, typically over a 10-year period, your your return is a delta between 2% and minus 2% a year over 10 years. Oh. Oh, yeah. to your point. I just uh put out today a a post on this and you'll see the charts and if you go on that um so I think that you have to say it's unsustainable.
Then you have to go to the timing. What is it that pricks the bubble right? Typically a tight monetary policy we're not going to have that now. Okay. Right. But we but you could have something. In other words, the need for cash, right? The need for cash is always that which bricks the bubble because when you have wealth, you can't spend wealth, right?
You have to sell wealth in order to get the money to buy the things you need or pay the bills you have. That's the dumb. So, I think that the picture is pretty clear in that we are in that territory of a of a bubble. We are in that bubble territory, but we don't have the pricking of the bubble yet. So what does a Ray Dallio what does what does the Dalio family do with its money in at a point in this bubble of 80% and you still think it can go higher but this becomes now it becomes a game of timing which is always very difficult.
Of course it's a game of timing. Well, and elements of diversification, you know, um I think you start off with what is a well bu balanced diversified portfolio. And we talk about certain things like um gold as being part of that other um there's a lot of ways to diversify. That's a whole other conversation of what you don't know.
But I mean, I think that that's um that mix. Um we could talk about gold. We could talk about these other assets. Um uh but I think that that kind of diversification is what about cash? Uh I think that yes um gold and cash have un negatively correlated real returns. So when you take um I'm I believe that we have a debt problem.
Okay. Because we have a debt problem. We have um a a value of money problem. But but that's right. If you just said if I held cash but cash can also be gold. I I think we have to realize that money is what is money? There's fiat money and then there's um uh you know gold is the second largest reserve currency.
It's money. So when it diversifies the portfolio that is an I think an important element. It's negatively correlated. It does very well in such bubbles. So uh when you think of cash I think of cash as as being um a mixture of those things. You don't you don't love the US dollar is what you're saying because you think we have
I don't I don't like debt. I think debt assets we we have a problem. There's there's they're overheld um and we're producing too much. The supply and demand is a problem and and so if I was to take my you know what is the tactical view? I would rather be short debt in a sense. Okay. And then u that means that I'm um what what money do we have?
I think a big question of our time is what money right what is money what is a storehold of wealth that's a big question too there these two big questions happening simultaneously there is the um AI question and then there's the debt question we were talking about that a lot during this broadcast in the last couple weeks about private credit and the like where is the leverage that we should be worried about if we should be at all do you worry about private credit and how connected that is to the banking system or not
um I think we have a a challenge in private markets. If you're looking at the private equity markets, okay, they have a bunch of problems. Um, in other words, can't sell deals, uh, pricing of deals, returns, and so on. Can't get cash out of them. And then if also, um, you're looking at venture, venture is having, uh, problems.
And, um, a lot of private credit is connected to private markets, right? Okay. And I I think that that dynamic is a risky dynamic in terms of there. But the government uh credit is what I'm most worried about. In other words, the devaluation, the supply and demand of that over the next three years over I'm I'm deeply concerned about that.
So debt and and and it and it's increasing because there needs to be more borrowing. they you're seeing um the the hot companies now borrow money rather than raising and your worry is just about inflation and the value of the dollar and therefore you hedge it through gold. We haven't talked about Bitcoin.
Is that is that how you think about it or are you thinking I think that I think debt is money and money is debt. What I mean debt is money when you're holding a debt instrument you're getting a promise to get money and the value of that money makes the value of that debt. And the same is true you you hold money what you're holding it in is a debt instrument.
And so what we have is too much debt and particularly let's say the government debt but other than the government debt we were now creating the private credit. And you're also creating vehicles that are leveraging vehicles. In other words, five times the uh an ETF that's five times the volatility of something else.
That's the dynamic that I that that I concern myself with. So um that that means then what is the money what is the storehold of wealth okay in terms of that that type of would you buy bitcoin so there's a supply demand I have a small percentage of bitcoin I've had for forever uh like 1% of my portfolios
but do you think you should have more we keep watching but I think I've said the same thing over and over again about bitcoin I think the problem of bitcoin is it's not going to be a reserve currency uh for a major countries because uh it can be tracked and and it could be conceivably with quantum computing controlled, hacked and and so on so forth.
What um the advantage of gold is that it's an asset that um you can hold and it's not you're not dependent on somebody to provide it. That's why it's the most popular not fiat currency. I do think that we think um what is the problem is a debt problem. I mean particularly a government debt problem and that's not true just of the US we're paying too much attention to the US.
If you look at what's happening in the UK if you look what's happening in um France number of countries um they can't issue more debt they're at a limit because the market won't have that but they can't raise taxes because people leave when they raise the taxes and it hurts asset prices and so on and then they can't cut spending.
So what do they do? when when you can't borrow and you're running big deficits and you can't do any of those. So you have these political changes that keeps taking place. Each of those countries had five prime four prime ministers the last five years. So I think that as we have these also large wealth gap issues which means that there are billionaires and then there are these let's say the top 10% the minus 60% the uh lower 60%.
Then there's talk of wealth taxes. There's that issue that starts to enter this. There's not enough money around. Where do you think the money is? NBS is here in the US. We've always looked at Saudi as this place that has all of this money, especially as they're trying to diversify their economy and yet there's now a whole bunch of news stories and the like where people are saying maybe they're going to be challenged too.
Well, they're a new borrower, right? They have projects they want to spend, right? Okay. All these countries are new borrowers. So there's a lot of supply of debt, right? What are we going to think about the debt? Put yourself in those cycles. We have a political cycle. You know, there are these five big forces that I keep talking about, right?
The five big forces are the step money economy force. There's a political for um left right wealth gap differences that is very relevant to taxes and what that'll mean for the economy. There's a geopolitical force. Okay. Then there's acts of nature and then there's technology. These are the five big forces.
But when there's these interactions, so you can't separate the political from the u financial that we're talking about, right? So as we go ahead, let's let's say for example, I think as we look ahead, it's like I it's high risk that the uh Democrats will take the house. Okay. So now we're going to come into another kind of situation in terms of the political conflict is going to be very different and that's happening at the same time as there are these imbalances and so we must agree that uh there's this dynamic that's going on.
Your book was so good in really vividly painting the picture but if you look at that picture and just think about it is what are the mechanics? What caused the bubbles? How did the markets go up? How did they go down? What was it? What financed it and what caused it to go down? I've looked at 35 cases of those like this.
They all happen in the same way. So, it's that dynamic. It's a confluence of a certain amount of debt that is existing and we know where it lies. And then there's the issue of the need to convert wealth into too much. It's too much wealth and not enough money is basically what happens. So, the wealth just disappears and goes to wealth heaven.
It never gets transferred into being money. Yes. And and if we look back to the Bible in the Old Testament and you look all of this or you look back to banking, it's a lot of people walking around with claims on money. Okay? When the two claims on money become too great relative to the quantity of money, that's wealth relative to money.
Then you believe everybody who holds wealth believes that they can sell that money that wealth and get money and spend it. Oh yeah, try it. So it's like it's that dynamic. But here's the thing that I'm concerned about which is you talked about trying to you know diversify your holdings but in every major major moment that the markets have been quote unquote punctured and this the bubble it's hit everything almost across almost across the board and sometimes violently.
Well, again, I I would say it depends on what it is. Um, we've done I've done very well. Bridgewar has done very well in 2008 financial crisis and so on. Made a lot of money. Okay. There's always the best asset to hold uh during those times. But if you really The best asset to hold is during that time.
Uh it's a combination of bonds and gold. Bonds and gold. Okay. Right. Because one way or another real interest rates have to go down. And so for example, inflation index bonds, the real interest rates goes down, they go up and and the gold happens because they have to monetize, right? So if you look at that those correlations and take those spikes, those are the things to have.
So but even if you don't want to market time it just to have balance in the portfolio, that's the most important thing I think. Ray Dio, we want to thank you for being here. Uh it was a fantastic conversation. Learned a lot. Learned a lot. Thank you. That's the podcast for today. Thank you for tuning in.
Orcin weekday mornings on CNBC starting at 6:00 a.m. to get your podcasts. We'll meet you right back here tomorrow. Have a great day. We are clear. Thanks guys.
Comments 0