Listen to the show here:

Description:

In our quest to bring you global insights into the markets, we are thrilled to welcome Dimitri Zabelin to Magic Markets. As Founder and Geopolitical Strategist at Pantheon Insights, Dimitri has worked for institutions ranging from the World Economic Forum through to Daily FX(IG Group). He has a portfolio of international clients who he advises on geopolitical trends affecting markets, economies and businesses.

In this podcast, we touched on US jobs data and what it tells us about consumers, an investment thesis for defense stocks (like Lockheed Martin) and various tech ideas ranging from Big Tech down to the frothy stocks that are a feature of Cathie Wood’s world.

Take your market knowledge to the next level with Magic Markets.

This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not financial or investment advice. Please speak to your personal financial advisor.

Full transcript:

The Finance Ghost: Welcome to this episode of Magic Markets. It’s so good to have you here. And we’ve had some really cool stuff in recent weeks. We’ve been doing some macro-related shows. We’ve been talking about stocks as we always do. We’ve obviously covered some really juicy stuff in Magic Markets Premium as well. And we’ll be recording Costco soon. So that’s an interesting one to look at, Moe.

But on this show, and I’m going to hand over to you to do the introduction, we have a very macro-focused show with some great geopolitical stuff as well, but also, as always, some equity ideas that will come through as well, which I think is great because it really just makes everything so much more investable and actionable. So I’ll hand over to you now to introduce our guest.

 

Mohammed Nalla: Yeah, Ghost, always a pleasure doing this with you. I mean, we’re now on episode 184, so that’s just amazing. And I think sticking to our DNA in today’s discussion, we hope you’re really going to enjoy it as our listeners because as Ghost indicated, we’re going to be touching on macro. There’s a lot going on in the global economy. We find ourselves at this inflection point of when is the fed going to cut, what does that cutting cycle actually look like? What does the economic data tell us?

But we’re not leaving it there. We actually also want to get into the weeds with regards to a geopolitical discussion. And that is why we brought on our guest this week, Dimitri Zabelin. He’s someone I kind of connected with a couple of months ago, and he’s a geopolitical strategist.

Now, I’m going to go through Dimitri’s very, very impressive bio here, but briefly, because if I have to go through the entire bio, it’s going to take up too much time on this podcast. Dimitri is the founder of Pantheon Insights and he is a geopolitical strategist. But previously he was also an analyst at the World Economic Forum, and he’s worked closely with many Fortune 500 companies, governments across emerging markets and developed markets. Prior to that, he was also an FX analyst at DailyFX, and he’s been featured on big media networks like the BBC and Reuters. He’s also got a very impressive academic background with degrees from Berkeley as well as the London School of Economics. I think I’m going to leave it there because again, the rest of the bio is significantly longer.

 

The Finance Ghost: No, you’ve left out one thing, Moe, you’ve left out one thing! He’s now also been featured on Magic Markets. Clearly, this is like the highlight of this entire wonderful career.

 

Dimitri Zabelin: I mean, I would say so. Certainly this is the accolade I’m going to put top of my resume, no doubt.

 

The Finance Ghost: Thank you, Dimitri. Thank you. You’re on form today. Moe – I don’t know what’s going on there.

 

Mohammed Nalla: Dimitri, welcome to Magic Markets. And again, as I indicated, really excited to get into the weeds with you. I want us to jump right in because, at this juncture, we find ourselves at a point where the Fed’s going to have to look at cutting interest rates. But they’ve actually pushed that out. If we have a look at the Fed’s dot plots over the course of the last, let’s call it six months, we started off the year, or rather ended 2023 with the market and the Fed dot plot expecting around six cuts during the course of this year that then moved down to three at the latest FOMC. And on that dot plot, we saw that move down to one. And so the markets kind of pushed us out. And, we’re expecting one in September, potentially, and depending on the data. Again, we just had a really soft inflation print, effectively catalyzing some of the markets expectations for maybe more than one cut during this year. Let’s maybe start off there. What’s your overall view on the US economy? What’s happened with some of the recent data, and where are we with this cutting cycle starting off in the US?

 

Dimitri Zabelin: So, first of all, great to be here and thank you. And that’s a really great question. So at the beginning of the year, I don’t know if you guys caught this, but Bill Ackman famously said, I think we’re going to get a rate cut in Q1 of 2024, which at the time, for me – I think for all of us now in hindsight – actually is quite hilarious because it’s July and we haven’t gotten one yet. When I first saw that, my instinct was “that’s not good” because that means that something really bad is going to happen in the economy that will necessitate such an aggressive cut so soon, especially since we were just coming off the tail end of the previous year. But at the beginning of the year, it seems that the market was built on three narratives that were converging to create, to quote Robert Schiller, a constellation of narratives that were driving markets higher.

The first is we’re going to get rate cuts. That’s obviously a bullish indicator. The second one is we’re going to see disinflation. And the third one is, we are not going to have a recession. That is a pretty bullish narrative. Each of those variables independently is a lot, but if you have all three of them together, that makes for a very powerful story. But then over time, we saw that the narrative was beginning to get chipped away at. We didn’t see inflation move down. Sometimes it was moving sideways, and in some instances, up. And when it came to a recession risk, it seems that that’s now being elevated. I can get into that a little bit, and the third one is the resilient consumer may not be as resilient as we think.

In Q1 of this year, we did have this “resilient consumer” – but it seemed a little bit odd, because at the end of last year, you saw a record high number of buy now, pay later loans. And statistically speaking, and this is not my research, this is the Fed, people most likely to take on those kinds of debts are people in a lower income bracket that are highly vulnerable to debt default.

That was a bit of a red flag, but I kept it an indicator and I just moved past it.

Then I began to see headlines saying that people are taking record number of withdrawals from the 401k’s. And I thought, how can you reconcile those two? How can you have record consumption and a resilient consumer while they’re pulling on emergency funds that are for retirement? So that seems a little bit strange. And then anecdotally, and it seems that the anecdotes are becoming more data. I don’t know if you’ve spoken to anybody who’s trying to find a job right now, particularly in the US in tech and finance, but I, there’s one word that I’ve come across on various social media platforms, and it’s brutal. And I think what we’re going to see now is pandemic-era savings are depleted in Q1 of this year, which they already have, or past the mark, I think in the second half of this year, you’re going to see weaker consumption. Which then begs the question, what exactly are markets rallying on then? Because if it looks like the latest data print, yes, it does indicate inflation is beginning to quiet down. It seems, though, that the recession risk is a little bit higher. And it seems that our “resilient consumer” isn’t so resilient anymore.

So what exactly is it that markets are going to be looking forward to? Part of it you can attribute to the AI narrative, which is a powerful one, as indicated by Nvidia’s earnings. But the second one also could be, well, wait a minute, the economy is getting weaker. That could give the Fed impetus to cut rates. I think Chairman Jerome Powell said that we cannot wait to cut rates until inflation is down to 2%, which is why in all of his meetings, he always said sustainably moving lower. That seems to suggest that they can cut interest rates even if it’s at 2.5 or 2.4, just as long as over the preceding months you see a clear downtrend of disinflation, which makes a lot of sense in terms of the labour market.

The headlines have been very misleading. We’ve been talking about stellar job growth, but that’s not really the case. Most of the job creation has been in part time jobs, and there’s actually been a loss of full-time jobs by, I believe, over 600,000. But there’s been an increase of 300,000 plus part time jobs. And four out of the five months, if memory serves, have seen job revisions actually go down. And if you look at the JOLTS numbers, I would be very skeptical of those, because a lot of job postings that you see now, some studies have indicated that maybe as much as a third aren’t real, which seems insane until you learn about what the reasons are.

The first one is that companies want to appear like they’re growing, so they post these fake jobs of which they have no intention to actually hire anyone. The second one is sometimes companies are so big, or even small, for that matter, they don’t even know the job posting is out. And the third one is to get ahead of potential great resignation, which was the term used in 2021 where people were switching employers right and left, and there was a labour shortage, and workers were clearly at an advantage at that time. There was obviously a huge advantage for them, but now that’s not so the case. What employers are trying to do is get ahead of the curve of something like that to gather a large pool of applicants.

All this to say is that we are seeing a very weak labour market. And in fact, over the past, I believe five months, five to six months, 50% of all job creation, on average, 49%, if we want to be technical, has been healthcare and government. In some instances it was as low as 41%. In some instances it was as high as 60%. Now, that seems so very strange that the majority then, or at least half of all job creation has been attributed to two sectors, the public sector and the healthcare sector. There are a couple of reasons for this. The first one is a post-pandemic recovery. We saw a lot of government stimulus and investment in infrastructure, education. Naturally that then led to a lot of job creation, and that’s also part of the second reason, which is the economic stimulus. The third reason is demographics. Our demographic trend is indicating aging at a much faster rate, certainly not as bad as China or Japan, but nonetheless notable. So that explains the growth in the healthcare sector vis-à-vis job creation.

All this goes to say is that I think that in the second half of this year, what you’re going to see is a weaker consumer. You’re going to see that reflected, I think, likely in weaker earnings, maybe towards the latter half of the year, because these things do take time. It’s like fed interest rates. They take a while for the lagging effect to actually impose its effect on the economy. And I think you’re going to eventually see that drag down inflation. The tricky part about that, though, is that the majority of inflation is coming from shelter, I think as much as 70%. And the problem with that is that the way you cheapen housing costs is by lowering interest rates. So it’s almost like a little bit of a chicken or egg question, because no one wants to, under the current interest rate, credit conditions, want to take out a loan, especially where mortgages are now. And if you’re going to see a weaker job market in the future, you may think, well, you know what? I think I’d rather stay at this job. It may not pay as much, but at least I can pay my mortgage in an individual basis. That may not seem like a lot, but if you compound that, it does have a big effect on the economy.

 

The Finance Ghost: There’s so much to unpack there. I’m sure Moe’s got a million questions. I’ve got one that I want to ask, which is probably less “macro-ey” and definitely less smart than whatever Mo is going to ask you. Mine is a bit more bottoms-up. The job postings and talking about healthcare and governments – that sounds like we’re talking about South Africa. It’s quite remarkable, actually, to see that kind of job creation in what is effectively sort of that public sector as opposed to, commerce, I guess some of the downturn in tech, et cetera and those sort of jobs. AI has got to be part of that. I spoke to a friend of mine who has a tech business just the other day, and the world has changed completely for developers, the salaries they can command and the amount of work, because AI can code at an incredible speed. So I was just wondering if you have any thoughts on within the job market, there are jobs that are affected by AI and there are jobs that are not. And any trends that are coming through there that you might have a view on would be really interesting?

 

Dimitri Zabelin: Yeah. So I’m glad you brought that up. A report by Vanguard came out recently. They showed that the job market growth for jobs that pay about $55,000 or below is growing. I think about pre-pandemic levels. About 1.5% if memory serves. However, for jobs that pay, I think their marker was $96,000 and above, it’s now shrunk to half a percent of growth. I think at the lowest point in ten years, so 2014, if memory serves, I do think a role in AI pays for that. Companies are now right-sizing, which is just another word for downsizing. But I think the reason why they’re using the term right-sizing and how it has affect the job market is because when you have really low interest rates and the cost of money essentially was nothing, companies could hire a lot of people for roles that necessarily weren’t necessary for the business integrity or operational functionality of an organization.

And they had all these perks and bonuses, but now with higher interest rates and especially with, I think Elon Musk taking over Twitter (now X) and gutting it essentially to what is now, I think, what is it, like 45 people? It’s some ridiculously small number, I think, that had a cascading effect on reducing some of the jobs numbers that we have. I think Microsoft recently just announced they laid off their entire DEI team, for instance, and as far as AI goes, I think a lot of these positions, like if you’re a copywriter, for instance, I’m not saying those aren’t in demand, but AI can mimic style. So if you’re trying to put out, let’s say, I don’t know, let’s say you’re Meta and you want to put out an ad for something, you can say generate an ad for me in the style of Meta, and then you can even take one of their previous copywritten posts, copy and paste it and say, mimic the style but not the content, and you just iterate from there. It takes a while sometimes to generate really good copy. It has to iterate, you have to send it to your manager. But now you can just do that. And I’m not saying it’s perfect, but it certainly streamlines the process. I think Accenture, for instance, and a lot of these companies are developing their own LLM models, large language models, in order to essentially deploy their own effective AI driven strategies. And I do think that has had a negative effect on the job market to the extent that it’s made a lot of roles much more superfluous and you have to work much harder to stay where you’re at.

 

Mohammed Nalla: Dimitri, I want to jump in because before I let us end off or close off this macro segment of the discussion, I want to ask one last question specifically on the jobs side of the equation. And it kind of ties into what Ghost has just asked around the AI. It’s something that we tried to grapple with a couple of shows ago as well. Maybe you have an answer for us, or maybe a quick answer before we then pivot to a geopolitical discussion. Where will we find the impact come through in terms of the gig economy? Because in South Africa, for example, there’s a very large informal segment of the economy. You don’t see it in formal job creation and so forth. And in the US, certainly post the pandemic, you’ve got a lot of people participating in that gig economy, a lot of people freelancing. Does that come through? Does that mitigate some of the risk of the softer consumer that you’re seeing for the second half of this year? I know it’s at the margins, but just maybe your quick views on what role that gig economy actually plays in.

 

Dimitri Zabelin: The overall consumer story, that’s a really great question. Well, I think certainly in today’s job market, it’s no longer enough that you have to be an applicant. You also have to have a brand. That’s why I think a lot of job apps now I’ve been told by one of my close friends now require: what’s your personal link? And most people sometimes put their social media, but then it says, what’s your X account? What’s your LinkedIn? What’s your personal website? So it seems that in the context of the gig economy, you now need a personal brand to show companies, look what I’m doing outside of it in terms of overall contribution to the economy. I think that’s where a lot of interesting economic research is.

And to put my answer shortly, the short answer is I don’t know. I think it has to do with the spending patterns because the APC and MPC average and marginal propensity to consume, respectively, measures how much someone spends of a dollar that they have and or earn on top of their existing salary wage. And I think with people with lower incomes have a tendency to spend a higher portion of their income, which makes a lot of sense. If you’re a billionaire, you can only buy so many breakfasts or so many yachts. Choose whatever item you want. And I think as we get into this more precarious economy, I think the term people have now is the pretariat. It’s like proletariat and precarious. I do think that’s going to have an impact on consumption patterns. To what extent, I do not know, though.

 

Mohammed Nalla: I like that. I’m going to use that. You said it was the pretariat, right? That’s an interesting one.

 

Dimitri Zabelin: I can’t take credit for that. It’s too clever. It’s like greenium or greenflation. All these great terms. I think I would have loved to have gotten in on those.

 

Mohammed Nalla: I’m going to try and use it in the next Scrabble game I play. I want to pivot from this into geopolitics, you know, just cognizant of time. I want to make sure we actually have a detailed and a proper discussion on this because something I’ve seen you write a lot about has been the defense sector. And obviously defense kind of plays into the geopolitical story.

Let’s maybe set the tone there. This year we’ve had geopolitical risks coming out of our ears. We’ve had lots of elections. We had India, we had Mexico. We’ve got the upcoming election in the United States. And at the time of this recording, we’ve also just had an attempted assassination of a former US president and presidential candidate Trump. This sets a very interesting backdrop because geopolitical risk is hard to quantify. It’s hard to then bake that into an investment thesis. And I want us to maybe use that as a launch point to say now, right now, yes, we can look at the US. Let’s maybe touch on what you see as the political risk spectrum looking like there, because that’s going to be topical heading into November, and then also maybe beyond that, because this is a global story. We’ve got wars going on in the Ukraine. It’s now over two years. We’ve got the Middle East. We’ve got the tensions with China, which, incidentally, have now moved onto the back burner. No one’s really speaking about that. But that doesn’t go away. Chinese ambitions longer term around Taiwan, that doesn’t go away. I think that gives us a lot to chew on in the remaining segment of the show. So I’m going to stop talking. I’m going to let you jump in here.

 

Dimitri Zabelin: Yeah, definitely. And even along that, and perhaps this is something we can talk about another time. There are several geopolitical related themes that are parallel to all of this. The energy transition, AI and quantum computing. As we’re about to talk about defense, there’s a lot of converging and parallel themes, but we’ll just stick to defense for this one.

So in December, Congress passed the largest national defense authorization act budget ever, I think at about over $800 billion, about $863 billion, if memory serves. And what’s interesting is that the NDAA has been signed for 63 years straight, which is interesting because at the same time, you have also seen that there has been increased political polarisation, and there’s actually ways to quantify this. You can, it’s really interesting. If you look at a graph, you google congressional political polarisation. You can see there’s a series of blue dots, a series of red dots, and they’re pretty purple for a little while, and then you see them increasingly grow into their distinct colours. I found that interesting, that despite this polarization, there seems to be unanimity when it comes to defense. I thought that was interesting. And my investment thesis was, well, if we have a secular geopolitical theme, which is that the world is growing riskier, security is taking precedence over hyper economic efficient integration, which was characterized by the late 1990s and early two thousands, then it seems that defense contracting stocks will likely outperform benchmark equity indices. And while past performance isn’t indicative of future results, Lockheed Martin, over the past 20 years, averaged a return of about 19.09%. And the S&P on average, I think over that same period was about 9%. If you average it out, and technically, if you account for inflation, it was about 7%. And I think the biggest driver of this dynamic is going to be China.

And in fact, I actually want to read a couple of statistics for you. I wanted to make sure I got it right, because these numbers are important. Here it goes. The Pentagon’s Indo Pacific commands budget request for 2024 stood at $15.3 billion. For perspective, that’s $4 billion above the previous year’s average. And it noted a 40% increase for the Pacific Deterrence initiative, which was $9.1 billion, which was the highest in history. Clearly, risks in Asia are driving defense spending in the US. China and just generally their regional ambitions in Asia are driving this. But it’s also one driving the other, because China accounted for 43% of the entire region’s defense spending. That’s huge. And those numbers are actually likely understated when it comes to Vhinese economic data or just data in general, one has to be very skeptical. So we can see how there is this sort of push and pull. The US is spending a lot. China thinks, okay, we have to spend a lot too, and vice versa. I would say those are some of the big drivers of defense spending.

Now, as for Lockheed Martin, let’s say Honeywell and Northrop Grumman and Raytheon, there’s been mixed performance. And Raytheon aside, and I’ll get into perhaps why they’ve outperformed the other stocks, have done quite poorly. Lockheed Martin is only up about 2%  3% for the year. Honeywell is around the same margins, and Northrop Grumman is actually down 6% year to date. Raytheon is up about 20%. There’s a couple of reasons behind that, it seems, because the investment thesis seemed pretty clear. But it turned out that some of these nuances are actually very, very important to incorporate. And the irony of all of this is that the reason why Lockheed Martin is partially underperforming has to do with geopolitics specifically. It was that dynamic I mentioned earlier, that security takes precedence above everything else. There’s an increased demand for a lot of this military hardware. However, under the current climate, we’re seeing how the US is very apprehensive about China not attaining strategic hardware and software. So naturally that’s going to have a ripple effect where even though allies may want some of this hardware to protect against China’s regional ambitions, there’s a whole bureaucratic labyrinth that these companies have to essentially navigate in order to get to these arms. Another reason why Lockheed appears to be underperforming is they’ve had pretty weak earnings and their forecasts also have been pretty dismal. The third reason is that their, I think it’s their F-35 Lightning II program has seen cost overruns, delays, technical issues, whether it relates to software or hardware updates or mostly software updates. And then the other reason appears to be it has to do with supply chain, specifically component shortages. And cumulatively, all of these things seem to be hindering their performance.

Another factor is with the emergence of AI and more recently quantum computing, which is a theme and investment vehicle I’ve been talking about a lot that seems to be of interest to the defense industry and to political security, because all of the implication it has dual-use applications, civilian, commercial, political insecurity, and the fact that they don’t have as much exposure to this, what you might call a software frontier, that space is getting taken up by other players, like Raytheon, for instance, that is investing more into their hypersonic missile program, Lockheed as well, but they’re also having component shortages, as I mentioned earlier, and other supply chain issues. Raytheon also has been investing more into their aerospace division, and demand for that has been quite high, and that’s offset some of the fluctuations we’ve seen in defense spending. I think certainly with the political climate coming up in the election, it’s unclear what defense spending is going to look like, and there’s competing visions for that. And I’m still trying to work out my thesis for that because I can see compelling arguments for both.

I would say Raytheon is also investing a lot into these frontier technologies that I was talking about that have tremendous military applications, and civilian, which makes sense. And I could see paying dividends in both a literal and figurative way because like I said, with the aerospace division, a lot of it is getting their revenues from commercial applications more so than military. So I would say that’s my overall assessment. And again, I’m not endorsing any of these assets to officially purchase or sell, but rather just giving a macroeconomic assessment and what’s hindering it and what’s potentially being a tailwind.

 

The Finance Ghost: I’d love to jump in on maybe the last couple of minutes we have and just hit you with a slightly different question and just get your view on something.

It’s obviously interesting to always watch the tech sector of the markets. That’s been the big source of the rally this year, specifically big tech. If interest rates do start to drop, which, you know, we have to assume is going to happen at some point. There’s good old Cathie Wood’s ARK, which has had quite a run in the last couple of months. I cannot believe I’m about to say this, but long Cathie Wood and short, the big techs who have run really hard, that could be a very brave trade into the back end of this year? I think it could be something quite fun, I guess, the thesis being that the very long duration cash flow, very frothy tech companies that were absolutely butchered by higher interest rates as the reverse starts to happen, and those long-dated cash flows get discounted at a lower rate, that’s going to support them. Whereas in big tech, you’ve got to start to wonder at what point it starts to run out, because at some point it’s going to happen. So that’s just an idea I wanted to throw on the table. And Dimitri, you may or may not have a view on it, and it’ll be fun to end the podcast there, because I do like to think of these practical trades that people could think about putting on, or at least go and chart and have a look at.

 

Dimitri Zabelin: Sure. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Cathie Wood’s arc outperformed during a time of ultra-low interest rates. A lot of her investment thesis is very thematic driven. It’s very forward thinking in that way. There’s this great quote, I think it’s Ezra Klein, but the quote goes, if you’re right at the wrong time, you’re wrong. And at the end of the day, if the returns aren’t there, they’re simply not there.

And you have to contextualize that with the interest rate conditions. As for these big tech companies, will they outperform or will they underperform? Like you said, long Cathie Wood, so to speak, short these big tech stocks? I’m not sure about that, because I also thought, well, a lot of these are running hot. Meta last year had an insane run. It was like up over 150% or something. There’s some absurd number. But I would not underestimate the strength of a lot of these companies, particularly firms like Nvidia, where they are seeing a huge demand still for a lot of their chips. Now, there obviously have been concerns about their market cap, the stellar rise that they’ve seen, and maybe there is some sort of. I don’t want to use the term reckoning because that’s a little bit too biblically apocalyptic for me. But there’s certainly, I do, I certainly can see a correction between now and December, but nothing necessarily on the magnitude of like a recession level collapse where you would see the S&P plunge 15% – 20%. I don’t anticipate something like that. Of course, everything is a risk, but I think that’s a very small one. In short, I don’t know how Cathie Wood’s ARK is going to perform. As for these large tech stocks, one thing I’ve learned is, even if it doesn’t make sense, let’s not forget Keynes: the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent. I’m not one to short stocks, but I certainly would not intend on shorting tech just because of the bright prospects it has as the investment in these frontier technologies develops.

 

Mohammed Nalla: Yeah, Ghost, I’m going to jump in because I have a view. I think Cathie Wood’s ARK, we’ve always joked about this. Sometimes you’ll find John Deere is in her space fund, for example. Yes, I like the thematic play, but I’d say I’d almost look to leverage off some of those themes and then go and do some bottom-up research myself on some of the stocks that I like and look at buying quality companies at what I perceive to be reasonable valuations when it comes to some of the tech stuff, you know, reasonable valuation is a very, very relative liberal term, because what is a reasonable valuation on Nvidia? Well, the market’s going to tell you, but I wouldn’t blindly just go out there and look to get some sort of passive exposure to ARK, for example. But I do think there’s some merit to some of those underlying themes, and I think you can get exposure to some of those themes directly through stocks or just doing some of your own homework. In fact, that’s going to be a shameless plug for Magic Markets Premium, because that’s the kind of work that we do in Magic Markets Premium. Dimitri, that’s unfortunately where we’re going to leave it, because we are out of time on this particular podcast.

But to our listeners, don’t despair. I’ve managed to twist Dimitri’s arm, and we’re going to definitely bring him back in the future. You should be seeing him featuring a lot more prominently here at Magic Markets, and we’ll share the details with you in time. Dimitri, it’s been a fantastic and insightful conversation, and with big topics like this, it’s always so much to unpack in so little time. It’s why we’re definitely going to have you back. And again, thanks for availing us of your time, and we’ll definitely see you in a couple of weeks’ time.

To our listeners, we hope you’ve enjoyed that show. Hit us up on social media. It’s @magicmarketspod, @financeghost and @mohammednalla, all on X. Contact Dimitri on X or on LinkedIn and visit his Pantheon Insights website here. And until next week, same time, same place. Thanks and cheers.

 

The Finance Ghost: Ciao.

 

This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not financial or investment advice. Please speak to your personal financial advisor.