Podcast: Play in new window
- 45 Countries attend BRIC Summit in Russia
- Gold seen as antidote to political/economic insanity
- Listen to Doug Noland’s analysis this Thursday: https://mcalvany.com/wealth/tactical-short-registration/
“Gold is sobriety in a world drunk on credit. Credit markets are where the action will be. Maybe that’s over the next two to three years, not necessarily the next two to three months, but the downstream implications that stem from a credit bubble bursting will be like a flood, very difficult to contain.” —David McAlvany
Kevin: Welcome to the McAlvany Weekly Commentary. I’m Kevin Orrick, along with David McAlvany.
David, yesterday I was talking to a client in North Carolina, and it’s tragic in some places, what happened in North Carolina, and then there’s other places that were relatively unaffected—the higher elevation, and my client was in the higher elevation.
But what we’re seeing right now in real time in the physical world, there seems to be an analogy to that, doesn’t there? You’ve been talking about the debt problem, and we just heard Morgan talking about the debt problem. It seems to me like there’s a flood coming, and that is something that we can predict ahead of time.
David: I have a picture on my phone. I have a little picnic with my family, and it was in Asheville a year and a half ago. We were looking for colleges for my oldest, and we stopped off at this little arts community, and lots of things, almost like a flea market and art gallery combined. We’re sitting there, and off in the distance is this big mural about two stories high of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. And I look at these pictures from Asheville just a few weeks ago, and that entire complex was underwater, entire complex. From the picnic where you don’t think that something like that can happen to looking in shock that, wait a minute, that’s the tree we sat under. And you can see just the tippy-top of the tree.
Kevin: Well, and the problem that you have with something like that, anytime you have an enormous deluge like came through, the dams are the things that you have to worry about because you don’t just get the water that came at the time, but you get all the water that’s been stored going backwards.
David: Yeah, a few weeks back I watched a video that recapped those floods, and one I found fascinating to watch was— I think it has a debt market corollary. Dam nearly overflowing. It’s a trickle of water, finding a weak spot through which to run. It went from a trickle to a flood as the dam itself was eroded, and then blew out, and downstream, there was nothing that could be done.
So as I think about the debt markets, it’s the downstream implications that stem from a credit bubble bursting, very much like a flood. It’s difficult to contain. Join us this Thursday, Doug Noland and I will discuss late cycle bubble fragilities. This is our quarterly Tactical Short call. That’s 2:00 PM Mountain Time. Register for the call. I think you’ll need these insights pre-election.
Kevin: Dave, we’ve often talked about when you were doing triathlon very regularly, about having in reserves— You have to have reserves, toward the end of the race especially. Like a matchbook. We talked about the analogy. You get 24 matches in a matchbook. You don’t want to burn them all right off the bat.
But I look at our debt. Again, Morgan just gave us our latest update, and this is the year we’ve talked about the interest on our debt exceeds what we pay for the military, and then next year, it’s going to exceed what we pay for Social Security. You’ve got countries right now that are meeting—we’re not talking just four or five BRIC countries. We’re talking dozens of BRIC or potential BRIC countries meeting in Russia, Dave. Could they be discussing a critical breach in the dam that they think might be triggered?
David: Yeah. Barron’s did a great write-up on the 25th. “China, Russia, Brazil Want to Demote the Dollar. Gold is the Answer.” That was the title of the Barron’s article. And they’re looking at this post-World War II situation where the dollar’s been the world’s reserve currency, and 80% of international contracts are priced in dollars. We’ve seen some demotion in terms of its reserve status in the last 25 years. It’s gone from 70% of global central bank reserves to about 60% now. And the conjecture is that that could slip to 40, 45% over time.
So you’ve got the BRIC Summit hosted in the Russian city of Kazan. It was attended by the nine current member countries and 36 other, call them BRIC-curious country representatives, 22 of which were heads of state. And I think one can look at this and be either hyperbolic on the one hand or even dismissive. But the BRICS’ gathering to consider our currency’s demise, it’s worth considering. I don’t want to be either hyperbolic or dismissive. Is it a real concern? I think if the headcount is an indication of an interest in that topic of de-dollarization, even if the concerning aspects of a changing regime, if that remains a very distant threat, I think it’s worth paying attention to the growing chorus, the growing number of people who want to have that conversation.
Kevin: You and I have both read Thomas Kuhn’s book about how long it takes for a particular scientific model or theory to be overturned when the data no longer works. But when that overturn occurs, it may take 50, 100 years to overturn a theory, but when it overturns, everybody has to acknowledge it. Is that what we’re seeing with de-dollarization?
David: Well, Kuhn’s idea of incumbency and being the dominant ideology, if you will, it does not suggest that a revolution is impossible, just that you have to have a better alternative. That has to be in place in order to displace an older model. So when we look at what the conversation was about there in Russia, nothing has matched the SWIFT system for money transfer.
Kevin: Yeah, the dollar, the SWIFT monetary system.
David: Yeah. Not yet. Nothing has matched the dollar for currency stability, and nothing has matched the US military for guaranteeing that the global shipping lanes remain open. Nothing has matched the US bond markets for their depth or liquidity. And these are not unchanging brute facts, they’re current states, and that can shift. With enough time and pressure, it could be otherwise.
And we already have alternatives for the SWIFT capital transfer system that exist in the form of a digital currency. Ripple Labs comes to mind. If you’re looking for currency stability, that is subject to popular vote, not merely an administrative reality. So one of the things we’ll have to continue to watch is foot traffic and flows for an indication of whether the stability of the US dollar is at risk.
As for the US military, we have leadership that was gutted in 2015 by the Obama administration. The scale of our military shrunk in that era. Between Clinton and Obama, much of our military might was traded for popularity on the world scene. And you see the long-term unintended consequences of that, and there’s certainly social aspects to this as well, but recruitment challenges today are reflective of the system’s health.
Then, of course, you’ve got the bond market. While it’s praised for its depth and for its liquidity, it is running into something of a demand problem. Maybe it’s a supply problem, could it be too liquid, too oversupplied for current levels of demand?
Kevin: I just wonder about what could accelerate this transition? We brought up Thomas Kuhn and scientific revolutions, but in chemistry you can have two chemicals that react with each other and then you add a third, a catalyst, and it can accelerate that reaction. We talk about that with platinum. Catalytic converters. Platinum is a catalyst for making a reaction like that occur. What would you consider an accelerator or a catalyst on de-dollarization?
David: Certainly more aggressive sanction regimes, and that is something that’s still being discussed. The US Treasury would like to put on another round of sanctions on Russia. But yeah, what could accelerate a rethink of the dollar’s global role? I would have to think a more aggressive sanctions regime. And it’s not merely the affected countries—I think this is what we have to learn from 2022—but it’s the observant bystanders that would no doubt be influenced by a further flexing of the US Treasury muscle and be forced to reconsider their own exposure to the US dollar and US dollar assets.
And it’s the bond market that today finances our way of life. It’s the bond market that allows for political promises, large and small. It’s the bond market that pays for military hardware and salaries. And so to face problems in the bond market is really to face problems in all of the areas just mentioned.
Kevin: Dave, a good friend of ours sent me a video last week. Paul Tudor Jones was talking about this very thing, and the situation that we just cannot continue to pay our debt, and the person interviewing him basically said, “So what are you saying? Gold?” And he was like, “Yeah. Gold.” He talked about raising taxes, having to cut back fiscal spending. There were things that he was talking about for the system, but he also was looking at that and he’s going, you know what? What we have seen in the past that has worked does not look like it’s going to work in the future.
David: And this was the conclusion that we came to in conversation with Charles Goodhart over dinner. And it was that this is a really good time to own gold. He looked over at me and leaned in and said, you are in the right business.
And I was asking him, what are the solutions to our fiscal problem? And he just shook his head. It’s on too large a scale. So, just as Paul Tudor Jones and Stanley Druckenmiller we mentioned last week, you’ve got other leading hedge fund billionaires placing bets against the US Treasury bond market for reasons that are frankly obvious to an accounting novice.
One might assume that this gaggle of global decision makers gathered for last week’s BRICS forum, they’re looking at US dollar pressure, pressure in the bond market, maybe an imminent devaluation. Would that be a motivating factor? I don’t really think that US dollar devaluation is the nub of it. It’s not the issue. The currency is an effect. It’s an aftereffect. I think more to the point, the bond market is the cause. If we have currency weakness, wouldn’t that likely follow on the heels of a bond market capitulation, which requires monetization of US debt on a scale never seen in US history?
Kevin: I think, Dave, about that dam analogy that you were using. And a dam stores an amazing amount of water, but you also have flow from that dam. Now, once you lose that dam, once that dam breaks— We’ve got Nighthorse, the dam that’s up here. If Nighthorse breaks and just wipes out the town, we also no longer have a water supply going forward. You have to come with something different to get your flow of water.
David: Well, I think we’re all familiar with the criticisms of the quantity of debt. Even US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen this last week was saying, “Look, yep, it’s too much. We need to control our fiscal deficits.” So, again, the criticisms of the quantity of debt we have and the questions about its sustainability, those are reasonable for sure. But at the interest of the BRIC countries, I don’t think they’re centered on sort of a snapshot issue. They’re wanting to shift liquidity flows globally. It’s not just, hey, there’s a debt problem. Actually, they’re looking at a re-engineering project, change the plumbing to circumvent the US. Like Russia wanted to circumvent Ukraine and the delivery of its energy resources to Europe, create a closed loop that sanitizes the involved countries from any US exposure. In that sense, the decision is political and it’s strategic and it’s about flows.
Kevin: So it’s not just about the stock of dollars, it’s the flow of where those dollars go. You talked about the SWIFT monetary system. That is actually how we work the future with the dollar.
David: I think this concept of stocks and flows is important. A helpful framing, if you look at those two, a stock of anything is like a tallied snapshot at a point in time. So, ask the grocery clerk if he has bananas in stock, or what is the current money supply? That is a stock question. How much is the current debt level in the US? This is a supply snapshot, a stock question. We’re measuring something. All examples of stock.
It would seem that the BRICS countries can talk about the quantity of debt because, obviously, that’s the elephant in the room, but strategically, you can set aside that snapshot for the bigger prize, a totally different flow management going forward.
Kevin: Okay. So, that flow management, what are we talking? I would imagine that’s many trillions of dollars.
David: Yeah. And remember I mentioned 80% of international contracts are priced in dollars. This is what we’re talking about. You’re talking about the global economy and the exchange of funds, and here you have the dollar as central to transaction settlement. Invoicing and trade settlement of goods and services, according to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, just over 31 trillion annually. That’s an annual recurring figure. So, think about the fees and the margins and the commissions and other transactional benefits associated with that 31 trillion in flows. Yes, in case you missed it, those flows are recurring.
Kevin: $31 trillion a year.
David: So, stay close to the flows of global capital, and you’ll find both the powerful and the rich. So, I think Putin is striking a chord when he talks about sanctions, confiscated assets by American and European powers. I think that’s his fear tactic to garner an emotional uplift at the BRICS gathering, and sort of creating the issue, which is sort of, think of it as a lightning rod. Weaponization of the dollar is a pretty solid rallying cry. But the biggest win is in redirecting capital through new pipes. We have the petrodollar recycling of the 1970s and ’80s, that kept us alive here in the US. That kept the US dollar alive, relevant, palatable, if you will, well past our sell-by date.
And it was all about the flows. If the world needs oil and those transactions occur in dollars, then the world needs dollars. Now, the world needs data and payment for services and information flow. Does it require US dollars? Will it, at some point, include something like digital currencies or central bank digital currencies, some new mythical breed or basket of currencies? Because that’s really what the BRICS meeting was about. How do we create something that is an alternative for the flows of currency globally?
Kevin: One of the finest avalanche schools in the world is just north of us in Silverton, and one of the things that they teach, other than avalanche, is stress. How to measure stress on a particular slope. Now, Dave, it reminds me, was it Mount Hood that you were on, that you all felt the shift and you and your good friend, who you were climbing with, decided to come off the mountain?
David: Mount Rainier?
Kevin: Was it Rainier?
David: Yeah.
Kevin: Okay. And weren’t there a number of people killed the next week because of that stress? So where I’m going with this is, that snow could have stayed on all winter long and not broken, but it did. It broke and there were people killed. Crisis can really accelerate something as well, can’t it?
David: Well, and that’s, I think, a key point. The process of dollar decay, the transformation from an old system to a new one. This is something that requires many decades. The exception to that—the idea of gradualism or slow monetary evolution—the exception is crisis. And we’ve said this many times, crisis compresses time, decades and weeks. Remember the quote, “there are decades where nothing happens and weeks where decades happen”.
Now, crisis tied to what? Fiscal strain? That’s obviously on the table. Crisis tied to political unrest? Who knows, the next 10 days to six weeks could be very intriguing. A void of civility filled by war? Anything’s possible. Could it be a more global issue, a slowing of goods flowing globally to the point of liquidity insolvency crises within certain sectors? Or sort of go down the road a bit, we have some crisis in the bond market and then a QE backfire that turns stable dollar holders to complete dollar dumpers.
Kevin: Well, and what if it has nothing to do with the financial markets? It’s interesting, after 38 years of working here, my wife, she’ll see something happen geopolitically and she’ll say, “Wow, the financial markets are going to be affected today.” And I had to tell her over the last 10 or 12 years, geopolitical events have zero effect on the financial markets, as if they’ve separated. They used to not be separate, but it’s as if they’ve separated and the financial markets only care about themselves. The political system right now and the social system, could it be that the crisis that comes isn’t at all financial—the financial side is just the setup—and then war?
David: Yeah. There is a sense of foreboding in social and political circles today. And granted, we’re a week out from a contentious election. And none of that foreboding in the social and political realms is reflected in the financial markets today. We’re dancing as high as you can imagine, new all-time highs in many of your equity indices. Does the stock and bond market catch down to match the dour political sentiment? The hate-filled reaction on November 5th by 50% of the electorate? The trickle of demand for alternatives to the US dollar?
What causes a flood? What causes a deluge of interest into US dollar alternatives? We’ve got gold, which is now a beneficiary from this global discontent. I mentioned the Barron’s article, “China Russia, Brazil Want to Demote the Dollar. Gold is the Answer.” That’s the title from October 25th. Bitcoin, too, was much discussed at this BRICS soiree.
You’ve got this global skepticism of the status quo which is growing, but trigger recession or depression and I think you begin to see the confidence dominoes begin to fall one after the other. Theoretically, if you just said, “Let’s think of this as decisions being made to create a particular outcome.”
If you were a BRICS member, what kind of crisis would grease the skids and move you from a think-tank style discussion gripe session of what is wrong with US dollar hegemony to an action tank style solutions and implementation regimen?
That’s really what we’re seeing happen. The unique aspect of this meeting in Russia is that for the last decade, the BRICS have been griping. Now they’re planning. And those are two very different things. It’s one thing to lodge a complaint and say, “Hey, I don’t think this is fair. My definition of social justice is not being met. Expectations are not being met. Something’s got to change.” Now they’re defining change.
Kevin: So if they are sensing that there is a weakness in the system, which is everywhere, sometimes history can be helped. We’ve seen each of the world wars start with actions where you go, “Huh.” That was really interesting timing for the United States to have to enter World War II, or Druckenmiller, you brought him up last week. Druckenmiller and Soros helped history along when they broke the Bank of England. Could that happen with a collusion of some of these hopeful BRICS or current BRICS?
David: Yeah. If that sounds too conspiratorial, bear in mind that conspiracies are nothing more than common interests around common objectives. That’s it. We see that sometimes our kids have an agenda and they want to present something at the next family meeting.
Kevin: Don’t tell mom and dad, let’s do it this way.
David: That’s right. There’s a conspiracy afoot.
Kevin: Yeah.
David: So the BRICS meeting meets the definition of conspirators designing a currency assassination attempt. Where we’re most vulnerable, where we are unguarded is in the bond market. The elephant in the room is a rather large target, debt summing to 36 trillion today, racing towards 50 trillion at a 2 trillion annual clip, a recession which would make things worse. As you mentioned earlier, we’ve gone from the second-largest line item—that is, interest is now the second-largest line item—to being in 2025 the first-largest line item, that is, more than Social Security. We’ll spend more in 2025 on interest than on Social Security. Let that sink in, and just realize that we’re not the only ones who see it and who get it.
Kevin: So when we talk about those line items, let’s just think this through for a minute. Okay? The military, interest is already exceeding. That’s one of our largest line items. Social security is our next one that our interest is going to take out. You’ve got Janet Yellen right now saying, “We absolutely have to cut fiscal spending.” So what do you do? How do you cut the military right now when you’ve got the war drums sounding? How do you cut Social Security? The only thing they can probably cut is interest, and that sounds like inflation to me, Dave.
David: Yeah, and you’ve got former governor Kevin Warsh from the Federal Reserve, he says, “About a year ago, they said the best measure of inflation is now, blah, blah, blah.” They created a new category they called Core Services Ex Housing. Well, that’s in the 4% range now. So all of this is to say the Fed doesn’t seem to have a serious theory of inflation that’s theoretical and empirical. It’s not obvious.
They acknowledge what their role is in prices, instead claiming it has something to do with wars and pandemics. In a world this dangerous, Warsh goes on to say, “With fiscal policy so irresponsible, the central bank needs to be very clear about its reaction function, be clear about its goals, and not look like it’s lurching because that’s what put us in the mess we have.”
Kevin: So could the problem be also that we just can’t stop spending? Democrat or Republican, we just keep spending.
David: Yeah. Our vulnerability has been developed on a bipartisan basis through spending incontinency, if you will. The debt is ours. Our elected politicians have minimized its burdensome nature, selling it to small constituencies as a part of their birthright. You deserve it. This is for you. Still, we’ve got elected officials playing fast and loose with wartime levels of deficit spending, and really it’s just in search of partisan gain.
Kevin: Do you realize we wouldn’t even be having this conversation, we wouldn’t really even need to sell gold, if we would’ve stayed on the gold standard. What we’re talking about here, all of these deficit problems used to be solved with the gold standard because you had to settle your payments in gold.
David: Right. Well, Jim Grant sums it up thus, “We chose paper money over a metallic standard. We chose government deposit insurance over individual responsibility of bank shareholders for the solvency of the institution in which they held fractional interest.
We chose Elastic EBITDA—earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization—as our preferred measure of corporate cash flow over simpler, more rigorous, and less malleable EBIT. We chose a central bank balance sheet packed with mortgage-backed securities, the purchase of which contributes to house price inflation, rather than Treasury bills alone.
“We chose abundant bank reserves and quantitative easing over the so-called scarce reserves and small-scale market operations. And we chose, or at least chose to tolerate, a central bank policy explicitly supporting asset prices rather than one allowing ostensibly free markets to discover prices.”
And he went on to say, “Perhaps what will drive yields higher is the realization that inflation is a part of the fabric of our finances. America has chosen it.” So, Kevin, we reflect and we need not wonder why the BRICS are seeking an alternative. The old dollar system with golden moorings was at times harsh, but never exploitative in the way that our current system is. Now the BRICS vie for a world without US policy exploitation and without US policy interference. No one has to wonder why.
Kevin: In The Wizard of Oz, that curtain comes back and the confidence that they had had that the great and awesome Oz actually existed was torn down simply by Toto. Wasn’t it Toto who pulled the curtain back, if I remember right? And Dorothy and all the other members looked and they said, “Hey, there is no great and mighty Oz.”
We talked about history being helped along. If you’re at a BRICS meeting and they’re going, “Okay, we want to take over the flows for the United States dollar,” whether you and I can predict when or how that would happen, could it be that they could trigger a crisis in confidence where that curtain comes back and we find out that the great and mighty Oz is just a little old man who’s deep in debt?
David: And over the loudspeaker comes, “Pay no attention to the man behind the screen.” Right? We risk a crisis of confidence in the bond market. And as goes the bond market, so goes every market. A nasty bear market in bonds is the trigger for a yet nastier bear market in real estate—I say a yet nastier bear market in real estate—and of course, equities as well.
Kevin: Okay, so how can they nudge us into a different currency system?
David: Well, if the BRICS want movement towards a post-dollar world, they might provide a nudge, a nudge in the moment that we’re off balance. Can you picture that? If you’re stably, soundly footed, not much can move you, but if you get off balance at all, it doesn’t take much to knock you over. 2025 brings 9 trillion in government debt refinancing. It’s a healthy supply of bonds that needs buyers, and that’s alongside the fresh deficits that require financing. Gillian Tett notes in her article in the Financial Times over the weekend, that they’re boosting auction sizes by some 30%.
So a buyer’s strike of any kind, even at the margins, could be sufficient for the US bond market to be off balance. And a nudge in the form of US dollar asset liquidations, whether that’s agency paper or Treasury paper, could take an already oversupplied market closer to being unmanageable.
Now, you’ve got 8.3 trillion in the total of foreign Treasury holdings. That includes hedge funds in the UK and Luxembourg and the Caymans, but $8.3 trillion in total foreign Treasury holdings, which needs to stay put. We can’t afford a buyer strike with auctions increasing by 30% next year. And we certainly can’t afford to see previous buyers turn to sellers.
Kevin: Yeah, but they have. I mean, can quantitative easing actually fill the gap? I mean, granted, it creates inflation.
David: Yeah. If we end up with a supply issue in the debt markets, QE can fill the buyer gap. It can soak up new net liquidations. But at what cost to the consumer? At what cost via inflation? At what cost to the US dollar? So the buyer of last resort, which we know to be the Fed, can be the global market maker for bonds, but only at the expense of currency stability. So the setup here is concerning to say the least.
Kevin: If you’ve been in New York when there’s a downpour, Dave, and we all have, you and I were there actually one time. I still have that jacket that I bought at Macy’s because I came without a rain jacket. But whenever you’re in New York and those deluges come in, the guys who are holding umbrellas and will sell you an umbrella, they make bank.
David: A $5 umbrella quickly gets repriced to $25.
Kevin: Oh, or more. Or more. And I’ve been that guy who’s paid way too much for an umbrella in New York. And I’m wondering if the BRICS, you’re talking about a nudge, if that nudge turns into something where there’s a crisis, what umbrellas should they buy to start with? Or what would that look like?
David: Well, the BRICS are there waiting in the wings to take advantage of a bond market crisis. It’s a fulcrum that gets them to where they want to be, more in control of global capital flows. We can muddle through a crisis of confidence. But the larger question for us here in the US is whether the dollar system can survive a reconfiguration of trade and capital flows and a circumvention of our currency, essentially undoing the benefits that we’ve had from petrodollar recycling, undoing trade dollar recycling. It undoes the basis of our deficit-dependent economy. That’s the bigger question in terms of our long-term outlook.
And again, if we go through a minor blip in the equity markets or even in the bond markets, that’s one thing. But a re-engineering project for global capital flows is something altogether different. The BRICS gripe session of the past decade, it’s moving to BRICS planning sessions for the next decade. And we are, here in the US, lost in partisan bickering, with our attention already spoken for.
Kevin: But this is the thing that really concerns me because I think we have been focusing on, well, if the dollar is replaced, we’re just talking, like you said, stock versus flow. I’ve been thinking stock as well, but what you’re talking about is a reorientation of all the flow of money at some point. Now, if I look at those BRIC countries, I don’t think that they value what I value. Dave, I don’t know that we’re just talking about our standard of living monetarily. We’re talking about a standard of living change value system-wise as well.
David: Yeah. We are talking about the difference between an event, a problem, a solution versus a longer-term orientation to destiny and being on a very clear track. So we are stuck in the sort of partisan bickering here in the US: is this the end of democracy? Is this a ratchet into new wokeist extremism? I sit back and I wonder where are the adults? Where is the engagement with the issues in play today that will remake the world as we know it?
Whether you view the global dollar system as exorbitant privilege or an exorbitant burden, the viability of our standard of living is in play. So I mean, if you’re concerned about whether or not your 401(k) and Social Security income are going to be sufficient to meet your needs, if you’re concerned about market volatility over the next 3, 6, 12, 18 months, I think you’ve missed the bigger issue. We’ve chosen leaders that have chosen to protect their careers through their various spending policies. And in so doing, they’re salting the land.
Kevin: Is this why people have been running to gold, especially the people outside of this insanity who see it coming?
David: I think so. Gold is your antidote to political insanity. When you look at stupidity which is institutionalized and codified in law, gold is an antidote. Gold is your insurance. It’s financial insurance. It’s monetary insurance. It’s stupidity insurance. Gold is sobriety in a world drunk on credit.
Credit markets are where the action will be. Maybe that’s over the next two to three years, not necessarily the next two to three months. But the downstream implications that stem from a credit bubble bursting will be like a flood. Very difficult to contain.
* * *
Kevin: You’ve been listening to the McAlvany Weekly Commentary. I’m Kevin Orrick, along with David McAlvany. Be sure to join us on the call on Thursday with Doug Noland. Go to mcalvany.com to sign up. And you can call us at (800) 525-9556.
This has been the McAlvany Weekly Commentary. The views expressed should not be considered to be a solicitation or a recommendation for your investment portfolio. You should consult a professional financial advisor to assess your suitability for risk and investment. Join us again next week for a new edition of the McAlvany Weekly Commentary.
