Podcast appearances and mentions of robert mandel

The Wealth Formula Podcast is one of the longest-running personal finance podcasts still standing. For more than a decade, I've shown up every single week to talk about investing, markets, and the forces shaping the economy. What's interesting is how much my own thinking has evolved over that time. Early on, I was more rigid. I was—and still am—a real estate guy. But back then, I didn't give much thought to ideas outside that lane. I was dogmatic, and I didn't always challenge my own beliefs. Time has a way of doing that for you. I've now lived through multiple market cycles. I've watched the stock market melt up to valuations that felt absurd—and then keep going. I've seen gold go from flat for a decade to parabolic over a year. I've seen interest rates sit near zero for a decade and then snap higher at the fastest pace in modern history. And I've learned, sometimes the hard way, that diversification is about survival and that every asset class has its day. One lesson I learned that I am thinking a lot about these days is: ignore major technological shifts at your own peril. Back in 2014, I first started hearing people talk seriously about Bitcoin. At the time, I dismissed it. I listened to the critics, was convinced it was a scam, and didn't take the time to truly understand it. That was a mistake—not because everyone should have bought Bitcoin, but because I ignored a structural change happening right in front of me. Bitcoin went from a cypherpunk expression of freedom to the largest ETF owned by BlackRock. Today, the dominant story is artificial intelligence. And whether you love stocks, hate stocks, prefer real estate, or focus exclusively on cash flow, you cannot afford to ignore AI. This isn't a fad. It's a general-purpose technology—on the scale of electricity, the internet, or the industrial revolution itself. That doesn't mean it's easy to invest in. It's hard to look at headline names trading at massive valuations and feel good about buying them today. But investing in AI isn't about chasing a single company. It's about understanding second- and third-order effects: energy demand, data centers, productivity gains, labor displacement, capital flows, and how blockchain and decentralized systems intersect with all of it. What experience has taught me is this: you don't need to be first to invest—but you do need to be early in understanding. If you wait until something feels obvious, most of the opportunity is already gone. This week's episode of the Wealth Formula Podcast is focused squarely on AI and blockchain—what's real, what's noise, and where the long-term implications may lie. Listen to this episode. You'll come away smarter. And years from now, you may look back and realize this was one of those moments where paying attention really mattered. Transcript Disclaimer: This transcript was generated by AI and may not be 100% accurate. If you notice any errors or corrections, please email us at phil@wealthformula.com.  Welcome everybody. This is Buck Joffrey with the Wealth Formula Podcast. Coming to you from Montecito, California. Today we wanna start with a reminder. We are in a new year and we are already doing deals, uh, through the Wealth Formula Accredit Investor Club. You can go and sign up for that for free. Uh, wealth formula.com just hit investor club and you just get on there and, and you’ll get onboarded. And from there, all you gotta do is wait for deal flow and webinars coming to your inbox. And, um, you know, if nothing else, you learn something. So go check it out. Uh, go to. Wealth formula.com and sign up for Investor Club now onto today’s show. Uh, the, it is interesting. I don’t know if you are aware it’s a listener, but we are, wealth Formula is, uh, probably I would say one of the, certainly in the one of the top longest running personal finance podcasts still. Standing. Uh, I’ve been around, well, I think the first episode was on like 2014, so it was a long time, but in earnest, you know, at least for over a decade. And, you know, during that time, I’ve shown up every week, every single week. Don’t Ms. Weeks, but none, none. Isn’t that incredible? I’ve shown up, uh, talked about investing and talked about very way markets are working, forces, shaping the economy, all that kind of stuff. But you know, as you can imagine, as a. As a younger individual versus, um, my crusty self. Now, you know, a lot of my own thinking has evolved over that time, you know, back then. And I, you know, I think this appealed to some people, but, um, you know, I was really dogmatic. I’m a real estate guy, right? And I still am a real estate guy, but back then I wouldn’t give anything else the time of day to even think about, you know, and, and, uh, I, I, you know. I was dogmatic and didn’t always challenge my own belief systems. Um, I’m different now, right? I’ve softened And time is a way of, of changing all of that dogmatic stuff for you. You know, I’ve lived through multiple market cycles. I’ve watched, well, I’ve watched the stock market, which I, which I always maligned, you know, melt up to valuations. Uh, that felt absurd. And then keep going higher. I’ve seen gold, which was kind of ridiculous for the longest time. I watched it for like a decade, just pretty much flat, and then it goes parabolic. Over the last year, I’ve seen interest rates sit near zero for a decade and then snap higher. Uh, not even as time, just launch higher at the fastest space in modern history. And I’ve learned sometimes I guess, the hard way that diversification is about survival and that every class, every asset class has its day. Just like every dog has its day. And um, you know, one other lesson that I learned that I’m thinking a lot about these days is ignore major technological shifts at your own peril. So what am I talking about? Well. It’s kind of a, it is a technological shift, whether you think it about not, but Bitcoin. Okay. Back in 2014, I first started hearing people talk seriously about Bitcoin, and at that time I dismissed it. I was, uh, I was listening to critics beater Schiff that constantly called it a scam, said it was going to zero and so on. I didn’t, I didn’t take the time to truly understand it, to try to understand it the way I understand it now, that makes me a believer in Bitcoin. That, of course was a big mistake, not because, you know, everyone should have bought Bitcoin and, uh, back then, well, they, you know, would’ve been nice if they did, but because fundamentally I ignored something that was a structural change happening right in front of me. And since then, Bitcoin went from a cipher punk expression of freedom to the large CTF owned by BlackRock today. The dominant story is actually artificial intelligence. Now, whether you love stocks, hate stocks, prefer real estate focused exclusively on cab, whatever, you cannot afford to ignore ai. It’s not a fad. It’s a general purpose technology and a technology shift, and the scale of electricity. The internet bigger than the internet, bigger than the industrial revolution. Now, that doesn’t mean it’s easy to invest in. I mean, I’m gonna go invest in AI and make a bunch of money because I mean, what does that even mean? It’s hard to look at headline names, trading at massive valuations like Nvidia and all that right now, and saying, oh, I’m gonna go buy that. Who knows? That’s gonna work out. When I talk about investing in AI isn’t really just investing in stocks or any individual company or data centers or whatever. It’s about understanding. The second and third order effects, energy demand. You know, as I mentioned, data centers, productivity gains, labor displacement, capital flows, and how blockchain and decentralized systems intersect with all of that. It is very, very complicated. Um, but it’s really important to start to try to understand, you know, an experience that stop me is this. You don’t need to be the first to invest, but you do need to be early in understanding. If you wait until something feels obvious, usually the opportunity’s gone by then. And you know, the thing about AI is even if you think it’s obvious now. The reality is that most people haven’t really caught on. Maybe they played with chat GPT, but I don’t think they’re understanding what this whole, you know, this thing is gonna do to our world. Um, anyway, so that is what this week’s episode of Wealth Formula Podcast, uh, is about. It’s about AI and also, um, a little bit about, you know, bitcoin and blockchain and that kind of thing. Um, we’re gonna talk about what’s noise, uh, you know, where the long, what the long-term, uh, implications are all of this stuff. This is a show that, uh, I really enjoy doing really, really good stuff. Um, so make sure you listen in. We’ll have that interview for you right after these messages. Wealth Formula banking is an ingenious concept powered by whole life insurance, but instead of acting just as a safety net. The strategy supercharges your investments. First, you create a personal financial reservoir that grows at a compounding interest rate much higher than any bank savings account. As your money accumulates, you borrow from your own bank to invest in other cash flowing investments. Here’s the key. Even though you borrowed money at a simple interest rate, your insurance company keeps paying you compound interest. On that money, even though you’ve borrowed it, that result, you make money in two places at the same time. That’s why your investments get supercharged. This isn’t a new technique. It’s a refined strategy used by some of the wealthiest families in history, and it uses century old rock solid insurance companies as its backbone. Turbocharge your investments. Visit Wealth formula banking.com. Again, that’s wealth formula banking.com. Welcome back to the show, everyone. Today. My guest on Wealth Formula podcast is Jim Thorne, chief Market strategist at Wellington. L is private wealth with more than 25 years of experience in capital markets. He’s previously served as chief capital market strategist, senior portfolio manager, chief economist, and CIO. Uh, equities at major investment firms and has also taught economics and finance at the university level. Uh, Jim is known for translating complex economic, political, and market dynamics into clear actionable insights to help investors and advisors navigate long-term capital decisions. Uh, Jim, welcome with the program. Thanks for having me Buck. Well, um, Tim, I, I, I, uh, had been following a little bit of, uh, what you discuss on, uh, on X and, um, one of the things that caught my eye is, you know, your, your narrative on, on ai, a lot of people are tend to be still sort of skeptical of AI and what’s going on, uh, with the markets. Um, uh, but at the same time, uh, there’s this. Sense. I think that ignoring AI altogether as an investor is, is, is downright potentially dangerous. So, uh, at the highest level, why is AI something people simply can’t dismiss? Well, we live in an, uh, uh, you know, many other people have coined this term, but we live, we’re living in an exponential age of, of technological innovation. And, you know, AI and I’ll just add into their, uh, blockchain is just the normal evolutionary process that, you know, for me started when I left graduate school and came into the business in the nineties where everybody had this high degree of skepticism of the computer and the, the, the phone, the, the. And the internet. And so, you know, what we do is we go through these cycles and there are periods of time where the stars align. And we have a period of time where we have what I would call an intense period of innovation where I would suggest to you that. People are skeptical. Skeptical, and yet at the same point in time, they very early on in the, in the, in the trade, call it a bubble when it’s not. And so I think it comes from the position of ignorance. One, I think two, fear, and then three. If you think about if you are an active manager, I in a 40 ACT fund, um, you know, and you’re sitting there with, uh, you know, mi. Uh, Nvidia at, you know, eight or 9% of your index. And that’s a big chunk that you’ve gotta put into your fund, uh, just to be market neutral. So there’s a lot of people that hate this rally. There’s a lot of people that are can, going to continue to hate this rally. But the thing I anchor my hat on are a couple of things. Look at if this is no different than the railroad. Canals, any major technological innovation, will it become a bubble? Yes. Just not now. So, so let’s follow up on that, because a lot of people think, or are talking about the, do you know the.com bubble, uh, comparisons, and you’ve argued that that sort of misses the real story. So, so where are we getting it wrong right now? Are those people getting it wrong? In the nineties buck, you’d walk into a bar and there wouldn’t be ESPN on there’d be CNBC on people were getting their jobs to become day traders. Folks didn’t go to the go to university because they were basically getting their white papers financed. You had companies that were trading off of clicks. So I lived that. Anybody who is of a younger generation has no idea what a bubble is, and it’s specious and pedantic for them to use that term when they have no clue about what they’re talking about. But you did mention that it could become a bubble. How do we know when it does become a bubble? Oh, it’ll become a bubble. Well, when, when, when you know, the, what, what I am looking for is, you know, when we, when the good investment opportunities start to dry up, when liquidity starts to dry up. So what I, it’s not about valuation, to me it’s about liquidity. So in 2000, what, and I’m roughly speaking, what went down was you had all these companies that were trading at Strat catastrophic valuation, this stupid valuations, and you walked in one day and they didn’t get financing. And if you read the prospectus or you followed the company, you knew that they were not going to be free cash flow positive for another two or three rounds of financing. All of a sudden you walked in and everybody goes, oh my God, this thing, you know, trading at 250 times sales. And everybody went, yeah, of course. And so what it was is, was when does liquidity dry up? So I’ll give you a date, um, you know, with Trump’s big beautiful bill act. 100% tax deductibility of CapEx and that goes until Jan 1, 20 31. So to me, that’s a very motivating factor for people to, um, invest. The last thing I would say to you in more of a game theoretic context book is, look, if you are a big tech company and you don’t invest in ai. You are ensuring your death. Yahoo, Hela Packard. I can go through the list of companies that cease to invest, so they’re looking. If it was you and I when we were running this company, I would say, dude, we gotta invest because if we don’t have a poll position in this next platform, whatever it is, we’re done. We’re toast. And I think that’s why you’re seeing all these hyperscalers spending as much money as they are. ’cause they get this, they saw it. So, you know, you framed ai not necessarily as a a tech trade, but as a capital expenditure cycle. Can you explain that to people? Well, what we need to do is we need to build out the infrastructure of ai. Then, and that’s the phase that we’re in right now. So it’s more like we’re building out all of the railroads, the railway tracks and the railway stations across the United States back in the 18 hundreds. And then we’re gonna go through that building phase. And then as that building phase goes, some companies, some towns, are going to basically realize and recognize what’s happening and start to basically take ai. Bring it into their business model, into enhanced margins. Right. So right now we’re building it out. I mean, you know, we all focus on the hyperscalers, but the majority of companies, pardon me, governments. Individuals, they haven’t used AI and, and what is interesting about this is back in the nineties, they were talking about how the internet had to evolve to be much more. You know, uh, have critical thinking in, in, in it. And it was more explained when you went to these conferences, as you know, you know, think about this. You’re hearing this in 99, okay? Not today. You go in and you ask Google or dog pile at the same time, or excite, okay? You would say, I wanna go to Florida in the third week of March and I wanna stay here and I wanna spend this amount of money and I wanna rent a car. Plan it for me. And they would come back and they would tell you that it would come back and it would, it would, everything would be there. And you would have your over here and all you would have to do is drop your money and you had your thing planned. So none of this is as, it’s aspirational, but we’ve heard it before. And in technology, what happens is it’s not like it’s new. We’ve been talking to, I did machine learning in in graduate school. Ai, you know, I did neural networks and I’m a terrible Ian. This isn’t, you know, Claude Shannon wrote about this in 1937, right? But it’s about when does it hit, and so it was chat GBT. Can we argue, was that right? As an investor, it’s stop arguing, start investing. Then what you’ve gotta figure out, which is the question you ask, is when does the music stop? I think it goes until the end of the decade. You know, one of the things that, uh, is interesting about this, uh, AI investment, uh, it’s, it’s unfolding in a higher interest rate environment. Why is that detail so important? Understanding its significance? Well, it’s the cost of capital, right? And so this phase that we have right now. It’s funny you say that, right? ’cause our reference point is zero interest rates, right? Yeah, yeah. Right. That’s right. So, you know, you know, so, so think about this, what it happens right now. Now we’re in the phase where you’ve got these hyperscalers that instead of taking all their free cash flow and buying bonds and buying back stock, are increasing CapEx because there’s a great tax deduction on it. So you get a lot of, so we’re in this phase where, for where, where a lot of the money is, you know, was. Was, let me, let me be clear, was a hundred free cashflow. Now we’re getting these guys, these companies like Oracle and what have you, you know, starting to issue debt and look at debt isn’t bad as long as the rate of return on debt is higher than the interest rates. And so, you know, you know, I, I would say historically speaking, for a lot of these high quality names, the interest rates are not, uh, at levels that will stop them from investing. Right. Right. You know, you’ve written that, um, productivity is ultimately the real story behind ai. So why does productivity matter more than the technology headlines themselves? Well, let me just put it this way, right? So we’ve grown, I grew up, I, I joined, I’m up here in Toronto, right? So I’m gonna give it to you in Canadian dollars, right? So I joined, I joined here. You know, I grew up here, went to the states, came back home. Growing this company I joined when we’re about three and a half billion. We’re getting close to 50 billion, and we’re the fastest growing independent platform in the country. I’m a one man band, right? I use three ai. In the old days, I’d have four research assistants. Where’s the margin in that? And so I, that’s how I see it. And let me be clear, it’s, you know, this isn’t we’re, it’s not perfect. But if I wanted to say, instead of you, but hey, write me a 2000 word essay on the counterfactual of what happened with railroads up until 1894 when the, when the bubble popped, give me a f, you know, a a thousand word essay and, and just a general overview. I can get that in less than five minutes. Michael Sailor is writing product on ai, which, which, which you would take, which you would take. He’s in his presentation, say it would take a hundred lawyers. So it’s gonna be more about those. And it’s, it’s no different than Internet of things or, you know, it was, uh, Kasparov that talked about this. Gary Kasparov talking about the melding of, of technology in humans. He would ran, run this chess tournament called freestyle. You could use a computer, you could use, you know, grand Masters. You could use whatever you wanted to compete. And who won? Well, who won it Was that those teams that were generalists that had a little bit of that, the knowledge of the computer and the knowledge of the test. Uh, o of chess, right? That’s what’s gonna happen. So this isn’t we’re, as far as I’m concerned, we’re not, yes, there’s going to be some d some jobs that are going to be replaced, but that is always the case in technology. I’m not a Luddite, okay? I am not Luddite. But the same point in time. I, I would suggest to you that it, it is just a really, for me, it’s a, helps me. Do research no different than when I was an undergrad and they went from cue cards in the, the library at the university to actually having a dummy terminal and I could ask questions in queue. You know, it stalked me from having to go to the basement of the library and going to microfiche. Right. Have helping that way. Now can it, can, will it do other things? I’m sure it is, and I’ll lead that to Elon Musk and the crew. You know, that’s above my pay grade. But for me, I see it as a very helpful way of, you know, allowing me to process and delineate. Much more information a a and not have me waste so much time trying to figure out what got went on in the past or, you know, QMF. Right. You know, summarize me the talk five, you know, academic papers in this area, what are they saying? And then they gimme the papers. Right. It just speeds the process up. Yeah. You know, um, one of the things that I’ve been sort of talking about and thinking about. Is that it’s hard to not see AI as a very, very strong deflationary force. Um, how do you think about that? Yeah. Technology is deflationary, right? Doubt about it. And so I look at it this way, Ray. Um, so I work at the financial services industry, okay. You know, Mr. Diamond of JP Morgan is talking about how they are starting to embrace blockchain and ai. They are going to cut out the back end of that in the, the margins in that, in that company by the end of the cycle are going to be fantastic. People just do not get in. You know, the financial services industry is built on a platform. Of the 1960s, dude. I mean, they’re still running Fortran, cobalt. So you know what I, how I look at this is much more as a margin type story, and there’s going to be a lot of displacement. But at the same point in time, I look at Tesla and automation and ai. And you know, people look at Tesla as a car company. I look at Tesla as an advanced manufacturing company. Elon Musk could basically go into any industry and disrupt it if it wanted to. Right. So that’s how I look at it. And so, you know, the hard part is going to be, you know. Nothing. If we get back to where we were, it’s not going to be perfect, right? Because here’s, here’s where the counter is, here’s where the counter is. Right? If you, if, if you think about, and we’re, I’m gonna take Trump outta the equation and ent outta the equation right now, but if we just went back to the way things were before COVID, we would have strong deflationary forces. Okay. Just with demographics, just with excessive levels of debt. Just with, you know, pushing on a string in terms of, in terms we couldn’t get the growth up, you know, and, you know, and the overregulation of financial institutions. Trump and descent are basically applying what’s called supply side economics, and they’re deregulating. It’s says law, which is John Batiste, that says basically supply creates his own demand and it’s non-inflationary. But really what they’re going to try to do is they’re going to try to run the economy hot and they’re gonna try to pull this way out of the debt. And if you do that and you deregulate the banks. And allow the banks to get back to where they were before the financial crisis. Okay. You know, and, and the Fed takes its interest rates down to neutral, expands the balance sheet. Then I don’t think we’re gonna go back to the zero bound in deflation. I think this thing’s gonna run hot for a long time. And I think it, the real question is, is, is is 2 75 in the United States the neutral rate? I think it is. Uh, but as, as, as Scott be says, and, and, and, and, and let’s be clear, buck, the guy’s a superstar. Okay. Guy is a legend. Just you sit there, just shut up and listen to him. Okay. They keep up, right? Well, so they’re gonna run it hot, but where we are is, in his words, mine, not mine. We’re still in this detox period, you know what I mean? We still got the Biden era. We still got, you know, a over a decade of excessive ca of Central Bank intermediation. That needs to get, you know, go away. So what I say, and what I’ve been writing about is 26 is going to be the year that the baton is passed back to the private sector. Let’s get rates down to 2 75. That’s, I mean, I’m going off the New York Fed model. That says real fed funds, the real, the real neutral rate is 75 to 78 basis points. I think inflation’s at two. That that gets you 2 75. Get the rates there and then get the balance sheet of the Fed to the level so that overnight lending isn’t loose or tight. It’s just normal. And then step back, go away and let Wall Street and the private sector create credit. Create economic growth and let’s get back to the business cycle. And if we do that, we’re gonna have non-inflationary growth. It’s gonna be strong, but we’re not going back to the zero bound and we’re gonna grow our way out of this. And so that’s where I get really excited about. This is a very unique time in history. A very, very, very unique time in history where, and I don’t know how long it’s going to last because of the compression that we have now because of the, you know, we live in such a digital world, but let’s say it’s five years demographic says it’s to 33, 32 to 33. That’s, you know, that’s how long this run is. And, and to me, uh, AI is a massive play. I, I, to me, blockchain is a massive play and to me it’s to those countries and companies that get it is, whereas investors, we wanna think, start thinking about investing. Yeah. You mentioned, um, non non-inflationary growth. Can you drill down on that a little bit just so people understand a little bit where. Usually you think of an economy running super hot, you, you think automatically there’s an, you know, an inflationary growth. So I want you to think in your mind into your list as think in your mind. Go back to economics 1 0 1 with the demand curve. In the supply curve, okay? And there are an equilibrium. And at that equilibrium we have a price at an equilibrium, and we have an output as an equilibrium. Okay? Now what I want you to do is I want you to keep the demand curves stagnant or, or, or anchored. Then I want you to shift the supply curve out. Prices go down, output goes out. We can talk all this esoteric stuff, you know, you know Ronald Reagan and, and Robert Mandel and supply side economics. But it’s really your shift in the supply curve out, and that’s what, and that’s what BeIN’s doing. I mean, this is a w would just sit down and be quiet. He’s talking about, you know, what is deregulation? He’s pushing the supply provider. Oh, hold on. My phone. My, my thing. And what did, since the two thousands, what did, what was the policy? It was kingian, it was all focused on the demand curve. Everything was focused on demand. And so all we’re doing is we’re, we’re getting the keynesians out. I use 2000 ’cause that’s when Ben Bernanke really came in and was very influential. Let me just say he’s a very smart, I learned so much from reading. Smart, smart, smart, smart guy. But his whole thing was Kasan. He came from MIT, his thesis supervisor was Stanley Fisher, right? We’re going back to, you know, Mario Dragons thesis supervisors, Stanley Fisher, all these guys came from MIT, Larry, M-I-T-M-I-T, Yale, and Princeton. Whereas previously it was the University of Chicago. It was Milton Friedman. It was, it was supply side economics. We’re going back, they’re going back to supply side economics and right now we need it. We need balance. But my god, what did we end off with? We ended off with four years of mono modern monetary theory. Deficits matter. That’s insanity. You had mentioned a little bit, uh, you, you’ve talked about blockchain a few times here. Talk about the significance. I mean, it’s sort of, you know, blockchain was a thing that everybody was, everybody was talking about it, you know, three, four years ago, but now it’s all about ai. But you know, now you’ve got, um, but in, but in the background, blockchain has grown, uh, adoption has grown. Uh, tell us what’s going on there, and if you could tie it into the significance of, of where we’re at today. Yeah. Um, uh, Jeff Bezos gave a wonderful speech, I think in two thou, early two thousands, where he basically talked about the fact that, you know, once this innovation is led out of the genie’s, led out of the bottle, whether or not, you know, buck and Jim, like it as an investment, the innovation continues. And so after the internet bubble pop, right? Really smart guys like Jeff Bezos, uh, Zuckerberg, you, you, the whole cast of characters, right? Basically built it out. Okay. And it wasn’t perfect and everybody knew it wasn’t perfect. I mean, that was the whole thing that was so bizarre. But they knew it wasn’t perfect and they knew that they needed to solve some problems. Right. And you know, it was a double spend problem. I mean, the internet that we were dealing with right now was developed in the 1950s and so on and so forth. And so, you know, that always stuck with me. Right. A couple of things stuck with me because I’ve lived through a couple of these cycles. The first one is Buck. When the, when Wall Street coalesces around something just shut up and buy it, right? I mean, I, I spent too much of my life arguing about whether dog pile and Ask Gees was better than Google. Wall Street said Google was the best. Shut up. Invest, right? And so, so look, blockchain solved the double spend problem. Blockchain solved all the problems that the original iteration of the internet could solve, and everybody knew it was coming along okay. So it’s a decentral, it’s decentralized, right? Uh, does, does not need to be reconciled. So no. Not only do you have another iteration of the internet. You have basically introduced into society the biggest innovation in accounting or recordkeeping since double entry. Bookkeeping accounting was introduced in Florence, Italy centuries ago by the Medicis and, and buck. All this is out there like, so this is a profound, right? So think about you’re in an accounting department and you don’t have to reconcile, right? So look. The first use cakes was Bitcoin. And what was the, what was the beautiful thing about it? Well, first off, it grew up by itself. And secondly, it’s got perfect scarcity, right? And so let’s just full stop. And I mean, yes, gold and silver had the run that they should have had decades. So I had been waiting and listening to people, gold bugs, talking about this type of run since the nineties. Okay. Um, but look, you know, and the problem with fi money, right? I mean, this is, this goes back decades. It’s an old argument. The way you solve it is, is Bitcoin. That’s the solution. I mean, forget about it. I mean, if they’re gonna whip it around and do all this stuff, fine. But the other thing that people miss and Sailor hasn’t, and Sailor is brilliant, is look. Bitcoin is pristine collateral in 2008, in September. What caused the, the system to stop was the counter. We could not identify counterparty risk for near cash. It was a settlement problem. Anybody you talk to Buck that says it was, you know, the subprime this and it, yeah, that was crap. I get that. But when the system shut down is you had a $750 million near cash instrument with X, Y, Z, wall Street firm, and you did this for three extra beeps and it was no longer cash. Guess. And guess what? Your institutional money market fund broke the buck. That’s when the system blew sky high. When the money market broke the buck and it was a settlement problem, blockchain and Bitcoin solved that. Sailor knows that, look where Wall Street’s gonna go. They understand now that. Bitcoin is pristine, collateral and capital that is 100% transparent. Let’s lend against it, and that’s what Sadler’s doing. That’s why Wall Street hates the guy so much, right? Think about that. Think of where is he going after he’s going after all the stranded capital on Wall Street. And, and the whole point is he’s sitting there going, I’m too busy for this. And you’ve got all these other people that are gonna live off of other people’s ignorance. Meanwhile, Jing Diamond knows exactly what he’s talking about. We can identify, if I hear one more person on me in, in the meeting say, I don’t know. You know, you know, uh, micro strategies balance sheet is so complicated. Really. Compared to JP Morgans, I mean, you know what his capital is. It says Bitcoin, like, what are you guys talking about? But hey, fucking in this business, people make generational wealth on ignorance of people who think they know what they don’t know. So, you know, just going back to Jamie Diamond, you know, he spent, I don’t know how long. Throwing every insult, uh, he could towards Bitcoin. And now they’ve really kind of, they haven’t backtracked. I think he’s, he’s, you know, his, his, um, I think the way he phrases is the blockchain’s a real thing. He never seems to really say the word Bitcoin, uh, in this regard. Um, banks in general, where do you think they’re headed with this stuff? I mean, I, you know, right now, again, you can kind of see even. Um, I think, you know, some of the big advisory firms suddenly recommending one to, you know, one to 4% of people’s portfolios in Bitcoin. I mean, this is all, I mean, gosh, I, I’ve, you know, been talking about Bitcoin since 2017. This is in unbelievable transformation in less than a decade. Where do you see this going in the next five to 10 years? It’s called the, it’s called, what is it? It’s called, I’m gonna call it the Evolution of Jim. Me, you know, in my business and, and, and, and you know, the thing I have book is I’ve survived and I’ve gone through a lot of cycles. I’ve done a lot, you know, and you ask yourself, you scratch your head a lot and you’re, and you, but you’re continually doing objective research and you’re this, if you, this is why I love this game so much. Right? So let’s just go stop for a second. Let’s get some context. Right. My first summer job, one of my first summer jobs, I worked in the basement of a bank in the in, in downtown Toronto, right up the street from the Toronto Stock Exchange. And my job was to let guys in with beak, briefcases into the cage, into the big vault, to basically bring in certificates. Okay. And, and what? Stock certificates. And so remember, you know, and I remember my grandfather when we, when he died, look at, we couldn’t sell the house because he didn’t believe in the banks. And we were finding certificates all over the house in the walls. Okay? Right. So in the 1960s it was bare based. The whole industry was bare based. And there was the volume in Wall Street started to pick up to the point where they couldn’t handle the volume. There was a paper crisis where almost a third of the companies went down bankrupt because of the cage. The cage. Okay. So basically what happened was, to make a long story short, they came out with, they came, Hey, why don’t we get two computers At one point in time, they said, okay, crisis. Let’s solve it. Well, why don’t we get these two computers and we can solve, or we can sell trades among, amongst each other. Okay. And then we don’t need to have guys riding around Wall Street with bicycles and big briefcases. Okay. And then what we did was, what we did was we sat there and said, well, why don’t we have a centralized clearing, and we’re gonna call it DTC or CDS, depending on what country you’re in. And what we’re gonna do is we’re gonna offer paper, we’re gonna, we’re gonna issue paper rights to the underlying stock that was developed in the early 1970s. That’s the system that we’re on right now. There are a lot of faults with that. Let me give you, when you’ve talked about the GameStop a MC situation, when you have a company that’s basically have more shares outstanding short, sorry, more shares short than outstanding, that shows you that the old system doesn’t work. It’s called ation. The paper writes to the underlying assets, it, it doesn’t match up. There have been guys that make a career outta this and write books about this, right? Dole Pineapple. They had a corporate, a corporate event, right? Hostile takeover. 64,000 for 64 million shares, voted, I think, and there was only 3,200 on. We all know this, so this has to be solved. The way you solve it is you tokenize assets, and this was talked about a decade ago, and they know about it and true tofor, they, and if you’re thinking about it, it’s totally logical, right? But if we allow this innovation to go full stream ahead, we’re wiped out, right? So what did they do? They delayed. They delayed. And as you know, you could talk about, it’s called Operation choke 0.2 0.0. Right. You know, the Fed overreached their bounds, they de banked people. I mean, this is why, why Best it’s going after them. They, yet they stepped over their constitutional mandate. Right. The federal, the Fed Act is not, uh, does not supersede the US Constitution. Elizabeth warned the whole thing. They did it. Okay, so let’s not complain about it. So now Atkins is gonna, we’re gonna have the Clarity Act come out and they’re gonna basically deregulate New York Stock Exchange already there. They’re gonna put everything on the blockchain and when you put everything on the blockchain, trade a settlement. There’s no hypo. Immediate settlement. Immediate, which is a benefit if you can get your act together because it, you know, for Wall Street firms you need less capital, right? So it’s a natural evolutionary process. And then you sit there and go back in history, if you and I were writing it, we’d sit there and go, well, should we be surprised that the incumbents right, the status quo pushed back on innovation? No, there was a guy, there was a prophet, um. At, at Harvard, his name was Clay Christensen, and he wrote this wonderful book called The Innovator’s Dilemma. You know, why does, why don’t companies evolve, or why do they go bankrupt? It’s because they cease to evolve and the status quo doesn’t allow the evolution of the companies to take place. Right? Well, that’s what happened in RA. We’re gonna complain about it. No, it, it is what it is. It’s water under the bridge. And so what I think is happening is, you know, Mr. Diamond is basically saying. He’s pragmatic, he’s a realist. And now he’s saying, we gotta evolve. And hey, by the way, now I’ve gotten to the point where I think I can make a tunnel. Think about that. Yeah. Think about his own stable coins, right? So his own stable coins. And, uh, well think about this. If you trade like internal meetings, right? And I’m hyped this hypothetical, right? I go, fuck, don’t screw this up this time. And you’re gonna go, Jim, what are you talking about? I go. We want a nice bread between bid and ask in these financial price. We don’t wanna go down to pennies. Okay? Can we go back to the old days when we were, you know, trading in quarters and sixteenths and so we can make some skin in the game? I think you’ve got the deregulation of the banking industry where the banks are gonna, they’re fit. It’s gonna be baby steps. But what’s gonna happen is they’re gonna basically say, stop taking all that capital that’s sitting at the Fed, making four or fed funds rate overnights wherever it’s four half, 3 75 right now. And you can now trade it. Go back to prop trading, which is what they did. And they’re gonna start off, they will start off with, its only treasuries. Eventually they’ll be able to expand throughout our lifetime. So the old way you gotta look at it is, you know. We’re bringing the ba, you know, we’re putting the band back together, man. Right. And the banks are gonna deregulate, they’re gonna deregulate the banks, they’re going to innovate, they’re gonna be able to use the capital, their earnings profile going out into the end of the decade. It’s, it’s gonna be monstrous, it’s gonna be, you know, it, it’s, it’s, and, and that’s how I get, you know, when people say, where do you think the s and p goes? You know, I say, you know, 14,000, you know, double from here by the end of the decade. And he goes, well, what about ai? I go, well, they’re gonna, that’s important, but it’s the banks. I think the banks are gonna have a renaissance. Yeah. Yeah. Um, one thing just to get your thoughts on, so when you look at the banks, you talked about sort of the inevitability of tokenization. Um, the stock exchange, uh, we talked about stable coins. I mean, another great way for banks to make money. Uh, essentially where does that, how, how does that help or hurt Bitcoin adoption? Because Bitcoin is a sort of a separate, separate, you’re not, you’re not building on Bitcoin as much as you are, say, Ethereum, Mar Solana or, you know, some of the, some of the blockchain things. So, so is it just that. Is it just a, an adoption issue? Because you live in a, in a different world. You live in a world of blockchain and Bitcoin is, its currency. It’s weird, right? Because I, I’m writing this feed like, so Buck, where are you right now? Where, where, where are you located? I’m in Santa Barbara. You’re in California. So, yeah, so I’m in Toronto, right? Uh, you know, I lived in, worked in the States for, you know, a decade, a couple of decades, and I’m back home and it’s like, man, they don’t get it. Right, and, and, and, and what am I talking about? Well, well, this, this is the, the thing that you’ve gotta understand is this, right. Ethereum was invented by Vladi Butrin in this town, Joe Alozo, who’s the head of one of the largest Ethereum groups. Father is a dentist at Bathurst and Spadina. We’re up here and people are saying, oh, you know, president Trump don’t talk about being a 51st state. We act like a colony, duke. We are a, you know, we forget about calling us one. We are. So, look, it, look, there is no doubt in my mind that Ethereum is going to have a place and, and we’re going to use it. Seems like we’re going to use Ethereum and that’s the smart contract, you know? Um. And that’s fine. Um, you know, but going back in time. But, but remember, there’s not per, there’s not perfect scarcity there. So I like Ethereum, don’t get me wrong, but I look at Bitcoin and I look at the, I look at the scarcity, and I also look at the fact of, you know, what sa, what Sailor, if you sailor did a presentation in the middle of next year and all hell broke loose. What he did, and it’s, you know, and of course I’m hypothesizing. He basically went to New York and said, I am going to create fixed income products and I am going to give yields. On those products, and I’m coming after the stranded capital that sits on Wall Street that you guys have been ripping on for years. In the middle of last year, staler went public and declared war. Okay. Are we surprised that Jim Shane Oaks came out and everybody came out basically guns a blazing. Are we surprised? But what he, what Sailor did and put and slammed on the table is it’s pristine capital, it’s transparent capital. And what are you willing to pay for that? And now you GARP banks trading at. We have no idea what their capital structure really is. Honestly, we have an idea, but it’s very opaque, right? You know, the high quality names are trading at two, two to, you know, two times tangible book. You’ve got fintech’s companies trading at four to five times, right book, and you know, what’s Sailor doing right now? Diluting his stock so he can buy as much Bitcoin as he wants because he sees the next game. He says the hell with what you guys think the next game is going to be. Wall Street’s going to realize that Bitcoin is pristine capital and there’s only 21 million of it. What do you and, and what just happened today? What did Morgan Stanley just file a treasury company. So everything you and I are talking about, they know they’re smart guys, right? They’re real, they’re not. That’s, this is the whole point. They’re really, really, really smart. Okay. They see they’ve gone through the history. They know. Okay, so you’re sitting there, you get around the room, you say, so wait a minute. Wait. Whoa, sailor’s over here. And he’s basically saying he’s gonna give you a a pref that’s basically backed by Bitcoin charging 10%. And he’s going after our corporate clients. I mean, and what’s the pitch Buck? You’ve got a hundred million dollars. Okay, you got a hundred million dollars in the kitty. Okay, buck. What happens is you need $10 million a year for working capital, which is in cash, which means you’ve got $90 million sitting there idle. Hey, buck, I can give you 10% on that. You go to Jamie, he’s giving you two. What are you gonna do? Yeah. I think one of the issues right now is I the, the perceived risk profile of that. Right. Uh, you know. I tend to agree with you about the, uh, pristine nature of Bitcoin s collateral, but just in general, the perception. I don’t know that, that that’s. That’s the case. Well, you gotta go back to the fact that, do you think Bitcoin’s going to zero or not? No, of course not. Yeah. ‘ cause the Bitcoin doesn’t go to zero. There’s no, then, then that are, there’s Bitcoin could go to zero. There’s no, I mean, I don’t think, I mean, non-zero probability, of course, right? I don’t think it is. And if that has been, if it has been selected and now you have Wall Street coalescing it, I haven’t even mentioned the president of the United States or his family. Right. Uh, or the Commerce Secretary and his family, right? Or if you go to New York, wall Street, right, they’re all talking about it, right? So, I, I, you know, to me, I, I, the question about micro strategy, to me it’s not. That it’s a treasury company and it’s got a pile of Bitcoin. What does he do with it? Does he become a bank? Like why does it, this is me. I’m pitching him. Right. Hey, Mike, why don’t you just become a FinTech, say you’re like a FinTech company and you’ll get, and you, you’re gonna instantaneously trade it five to six times book. Why don’t you, why are you, you’re talking like you’re attacking them, but you’re still, you’re still a software company with a, with a big whack of Bitcoin that you are writing pres. Right? So, and, and so that’s, that’s how I look at it. I think the wave is too big. We are going to digitize. And the other thing that we didn’t really touch on with respect to AI and blockchain, and I’m gonna paraphrase the president. Right. Um, Mr. Trump is, look, um, it’s a matter of national security, duke, and when I hear that, I go back to the nineties in the eighties when I was in late eighties when I was an undergrad. Right. And it wasn’t China, it was Japan. And, and you know, what happened was, you know, it, it’s funny, Al Gore did deregulate so that. The internet could become for-profit. We all stood around and said, you know what the hell could, how do we make money on this? That’s, you know, what do we do? And then what did we do? We, we, we threw a ton of money at it and the United States controlled it. And what did we get out of it? We got out, we got, you know, all those companies. Right. The last thing I would say to you, and this is much more of a personal story, is I, when I was younger, I was in New York and it was 2000 and I was at the Grand Hyatt, and it was a tech, it was a tech conference and, uh, Larry Ellison Oracle was there and he gave a, he gave a, he gave a a, a fireside chat. Then, um, we go to a breakout room and, you know, in a break, I don’t know about if you’ve been to one, but you go to a breakout room, it’s a smaller room at the hotel, and you know, sometimes you got 25 people, sometimes you got 50 people, right. And, you know, I went to the, I went to the breakout with Mr. Allison ’cause of Oracle and I went in there and it was absolutely jammed and I was sweating and he just looked at us and he just ripped us. He AP Soly, just, I still have the scars today. I’m talking to you about it. Okay. He called it a bubble. He called it a bubble. He, he was early in calling it a bubble. I never forgot that. And then you sit there and see what he’s doing right now. Where he’s levering up the balance sheet. Now, to me, having survived in this game for such a long period of time, and I call it a game, it’s a game of strategy, whatever, you know, how does that not, you know, I would say to you, we were, your office was next to mine. Fuck. I remember New York, he’s loading the goose loaded in. He go in, he’s borrowing money from his grandmother. He’s, you know, what is going on. And he’s really stinking smart. You know, he’s, he, Larry Allenson just doesn’t do, and people, oh, he’s in, you know, he’s, no, he’s not, he’s, he’s like the mentor of all of these guys. You know what I mean? So there’s a, to me, there’s a discontinuity that these need to believe that we’re still early on because you know, what, if Larry’s, what do we take when Larry or Mr. Ellison is leveraging up to me, it’s profound because I’m anchoring off of my bias to the New York, the New York high at, at the Tech Co. I think it was, I think it was at Bear Stearn. I couldn’t remember Bear Stearns or Lehman. But you know, one of those I carry that experience on with the rest of my life. I do. It’s like, what is Larry thinking? Right? So he’s leveraging up buck. That’s all I know. He’s a priest or guy. Well, that’s probably a good place for us to stop, Jim, uh, chief, uh, market strategist at Wellington Elta Private Wealth. Thank you so much for joining me. Thanks so much and be safe. You make a lot of money but are still worried about retirement. Maybe you didn’t start earning until your thirties. Now you’re trying to catch up. Meanwhile, you’ve got a mortgage, a private school to pay for, and you feel like you’re getting further and further behind. Now, good news, if you need to catch up on retirement, check out a program put out by some of the oldest and most prestigious life insurance companies in the world. It’s called Wealth Accelerator, and it can help you amplify your returns quickly, protect your money from creditors, and provide financial protection to your family if something happens. The concepts here are used by some of the wealthiest families in the world, and there’s no reason why they can’t be used by you. Check it out for yourself by going to wealth formula banking.com. Welcome back to the show everyone. Hope you enjoyed it. Uh, and, uh, as I said before, do not ignore ai. This is something that you need to start using. Have your kids start using it. Uh, make sure that they, you know. They use it every day because this whole world is turning AI and it’s gonna happen. You know, it’s gonna happen in, in a blink of an, uh, blink of an eye. And the world is gonna change and there are gonna be real winners out there. And the winners are gonna be people who knew where there was, was going and kind of used it in their mind’s eye as they looked on navigating how. You know how to allocate their money. Anyway, that is it for me. This week on Wealth Formula Podcast. This is Buck JJoffrey signing off. If you wanna learn more, you can now get free access to our in-depth personal finance course featuring industry leaders like Tom Wheel Wright and Ken McElroy. Visit wealth formula roadmap.com.

This week on Friday Night Frightfest, we're tackling a horrifying real-life case that has inspired decades of terror! We are bringing our extensive deep dive into the Conjuring Universe to a chilling conclusion by comparing the final main installment of the cinematic saga, The Conjuring: Last Rites (2025), with an older, made-for-TV movie based on the very same haunting: The Haunted (1991). The Conjuring: Last Rites (2025) Directed by Michael Chaves, The Conjuring: Last Rites is set to be the final chapter featuring Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga as Ed and Lorraine Warren. Based on the infamous Smurl haunting case from Pennsylvania, the film chronicles what is considered the Warrens' final significant case, where a seemingly quiet family home becomes the epicenter of a relentless supernatural siege. This installment promises a blend of atmospheric horror, high-stakes investigation, and an emotional farewell to the iconic investigators. The Haunted (1991) Directed by Robert Mandel, The Haunted is a chilling made-for-television film that also dramatizes the Smurl family's ordeal. This cult classic stars Sally Kirkland and Jeffrey DeMunn as the afflicted couple (Janet and Jack Smurl), with Stephen Markle and Diane Baker portraying the Warrens. Released decades before the Conjuring universe began, this film delivers a gritty, faith-driven, and often surprisingly graphic portrayal of the long-term, devastating effects of demonic infestation on a family. Join us as we analyze two radically different cinematic interpretations of the same real-life paranormal case. And with this episode, we officially conclude our comprehensive journey through the entire Conjuring Universe film series! Thank you for joining us for every demonic possession, haunted doll, and terrifying nun. Spoilers start around 5:26

"Rollie Tyler is the movies' best special effects man. Now somebody wants him to do it for real. But is he the weapon or the victim, Is it murder or is it... F/X" In this week's episode, we are discussing the 1986 action thriller 'F/X' starring Bryan Brown, Brian Dennehy and Diane Venora. Directed by Robert Mandel. F/X - IMDB: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089118/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_5_tt_5_nm_3_q_fx F/X - Rotten Tomatoes: https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/fx Filming Location for F/X: https://nycinfilm.com/2024/01/16/f-x-1986/ Bill's Letterboxd Ratings: https://letterboxd.com/bill_b/list/bills-all-80s-movies-podcast-ratings/ Jason's Letterboxd Ratings: https://letterboxd.com/jasonmasek/list/jasons-all-80s-movies-podcast-ratings/ Website: http://www.all80smoviespodcast.com X (Twitter): https://twitter.com/podcastAll80s Facebook (META): https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100030791216864 TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@all80smoviespodcast Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

For this week's episode of the podcast, we watched the 1996 action thriller slash high school drama The Substitute, directed by Robert Mandel — a prolific television director — and starring Tom Berenger, Ernie Hudson, Diane Venora, Marc Anthony, Luis Guzmàn and William Forsythe.In The Substitute, Berenger plays Jonathan Shale, a Vietnam veteran and mercenary who takes a break from the business of wet work after a botched operation in Cuba where several of his men were killed. He returns home to Miami to stay with his girlfriend, Jane Hetzko played by Venora, who is a teacher at a local, troubled high school.Jane becomes a target of the largest and most dangerous gang at the school, Kings of Destruction, and its leader Juan, played by Anthony, directs his men to attack her. She is seriously injured and while in the hospital, Shale maneuvers to become her substitute. His plan? To take down the gang, which is using the school as essentially an open air drug market.As he moves to confront Juan, Jonathan discovers that the gang is working with the school's ambitious and corrupt principal, played by Ernie Hudson, to move and distribute ever larger shipments of drugs from foreign supplies. Eager for revenge after a friendly teacher is killed by Juan, Jonathan gathers his men to make an assault on the gang, its suppliers and their allies.The tagline for The Substitute is “The most dangerous thing about school used to be the students.” You can watch The Substitute for free on Amazon Prime or on Tubi or Pluto or one of those services.Our next episode will on Brian DePalma's 1996 espionage thriller, Mission: Impossible.Connor Lynch produced this episode. Artwork by Rachel Eck.Contact us!Follow us on Twitter!John GanzJamelle BouieUnclearPodAnd join the Unclear and Present Patreon! For just $5 a month, patrons get access to a bonus show on the films of the Cold War, and much, much more.

Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley Chief Global Economist, and Mark Cabana, Bank of America Head of US Rates Strategy, break down the US Treasury's refunding announcement. Dom Konstam, Mizuho Securities Head of Macro Strategy, previews the Federal Reserve's rate decision. Win Thin, Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. Global Head of Currency Strategy, expects Japanese yields to continue to rise after the BOJ's decision. Jennifer Flitton, Invesco Head of US Government Affairs, discusses the latest in Washington on US aid to Israel.Get the Bloomberg Surveillance newsletter, delivered every weekday. Sign up now: https://www.bloomberg.com/account/newsletters/surveillance      FULL TRANSCRIPT:     This is the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Tom Keene, along with Jonathan Farrow and Lisa Abramowitz. Join us each day for insight from the best an economics, geopolitics, finance and investment. Subscribe to Bloomberg Surveillance on demand on Apple, Spotify and anywhere you get your podcasts, and always on Bloomberg dot Com, the Bloomberg Terminal, and the Bloomberg Business app. Where this seth Carpenter at, the chief global economist at Morgan Stanley. Is this just about in our start? Are we all John Williams this morning and we're readjusting? I clared it with me last week at a Bloomberg event. At two point zero percent is not two point six percent? I mean, are we really talking, as Mike aludes tou there about a new inflation regime? I think you want to separate out a couple of things. One is the new inflation regime, and there if you're comparing it to where we were from the financial crisis through COVID to say, yes, right, the FED was consistently missing it's inflation target to the downside. I call it a quarter percentage point. We're above, clearly above target now and over the next several years they want to bring it down, but I'm not sure they want to go back to the old days of you know, being below two percent on a regular basis. So if they're going to be averaging a little higher during expansions, call it a tenth or two above. You know, you're talking about twenty five to fifty basis points high inflation, so that's got to be there. I don't think we're talking about the difference between two percent inflation and three percent of I want to tell you on radio on television where we're heading here, what half are we have. We have Dark Carpenter with this on the broader economics of this moment. Ira Jersey schedule to join us just exquisite here on fixed income dynamics, and then we do even better. Mark Cabana is going to darken the door. Who's just expert on your world about you know, the different tranches of the auctions. I want to dig into what the implications are of this announcement sas and to me, I'm looking at the idea that they're really going to force the front end to a lot of the heavy lifting here. Does that pose a greater risk than people realize. So my view is no, the way I would think about it. There was a speculation that back and forth a little bit earlier, did the Treasury just react to the market. And I think you want to remember that the folks there at Treasury, Josh Frost, the assistant secretary, the career staff in debt management, they have a structure now, they have a framework for how to think about what to issue, and they're looking at what is the market saying about where the market wants to pay up and where the market's demanding a discount, and at the margin, they'll lean a little bit more to where the market wants the paper and lean a little bit away from the place where the market's pulling back. And we've seen over the past several months a big sell off in the long end. It showed up, you know, in models speak and the term premium, and they're paying attention to that. It's not that one week to the next, or one month to the next, or even one quar to the next, is it sustained. What we are seeing is very much a strong move on the long end in that thirty year yield plunging back below five percent. As we were talking about do you think I think that this indicates that really what we're seeing in yields is entirely a supply driven story more than anything in terms of an economic read on strength and inflation in the US. So no, it's so hard depending on any single thing. When I talk to our clients here in New York, in London, around the world who are trading in treasuries, there are a whole set of different narratives, one of which has been supplied. People have been worrying about the deficit, which is exactly why Secretary Yellen came out and said it's not the deficit. People are worrying about stronger growth. Q three GDP data was very strong, There's no two ways about it, and so that contributed to it. Other people are worrying about is there going to be a pullback from risk by global investors. Other people are looking at the back of Japan. We just had that meeting right where they effectively de facto got rid of yield crop control. So it's not just one single thing, it's everything coming together. So what's your compass at a time where we're expecting the FED to come out today too in varying shades of we have no idea and we will see just along with you, what is your guiding loadstar. So we're trying to figure out, along with the Fed, sort of what's going on with the economy. The strong Q three data and notwithstanding there are some signs of the economy slowing down. The last jobs report super strong, but if you look at the trend over the past eighteen month, clear downward trend. If you look at the GDP data, consumption spending holding in, but a lot of the strength was in inventories. Capex was not very strong at all, and so we are seeing that slowing. And so what we think is the Feds look in the same data we are. They're driving by feel a little bit and they're not going to hike today. We don't think they're going to hike in December because inflation just keeps undershooting their own forecast for where they thought inflation was going to be this year. What does the job dynamic look like with an ellen Zetner's sub one percent Q four GDP, Well, I think there This is where we want to keep in mind that there's so many swings from one quarter the next to some of the spending data. Like I said, the inventory, the numbers, that was never going to be the primary driver. So she starts giving you gloom on the job economy. Not at all. I will say that we have a Morgan Stanley Ellen and I and the rest of the team have been consistent from the beginning of this hiking cycle to say, the Fed's gonna hike, They're going to bring down inflation, but we are not going into recession. It is not doing gloom. Well, she's expert on the American consumer. What is Zenner when she gets fired up? You know she does. When Zender gets fired up about the American consumer, what is she saying? Lots of things, but in particular, one of the key risks that maybe people are overlooking for why there should be a slowdown in the fourth quarter is student loans. Right, there is a moratorium on student loans that's been lifted. We're starting to see that payback starting to happen, and that has to crimp consumer disposable incomes. That matters durable goods. Right. Interest rates are high, credit card rates are high. People financing cars and other things, it's just costing more and so they'll pull back on the spending. It just extraorded her. Seth Carpenter, thank you so much, really really appreciate it. With Morgan's stay, he writes piercing notes for Bank of America. There's no other way to put it. Out of US rates strategy, He's aged in the last ten minutes. Mark Cabana joins us this morning. So I'm like refunding, so what, I don't care. Everybody's in a ladder. It comes out, and to me it was sort of I don't you know, I really don't care. Jenny Allen said, we're gonna do short paper. Yeah, we're gonna do long paper. But we're the United States. Our listeners are viewers who are not sophisticated. Do they need to fear the fiscal system of America? No, you shouldn't fear the fiscal system because the US economy is still going to be very robust. There will be buyers for treasury paper. It's just a matter of at what level will they step in, And we've had a relative lack of buying recently, but that's meant that yields have had to adjust, and as they've adjusted, that should incentivize more investors to think about owning bonds and we do think that rates are going to keep rising or they're going to stay elevated. Really, until you see one of two things. Number One, until you see the macro data slow, we don't think that you've really seen that yet. Or two until you see d risking, until you see investors who think, you know what rates are kind of high, really yields almost a two and a half percent at the tenure point. That's a decent own and maybe I should think about de risking in my portfolio. This is such a valuable conversation. Then I got to get to what we see on balance sheets right now, mark to market and the rest of it in bonds. But let's stay on this theme right now of our new higher yield regime. How far out are you in the longer? I mean, if take any given yield, any given spread, is there a cabana one year, is it a cabana three years? How do you see the regime of longer? Well, we just think that rates are going to have to stay higher for longer. Not to reiterate the Fed mantra, but we really believe it because we've seen an economy that's been so resilient in the face of relatively elevated interest rates. And as long as that happens, that just is going to mean that the f it doesn't have to cut for a while. Now, when I think about longer, I personally think about five years plus. Oh wow, okay, my attention, just because you know, most investors who really focus on liquidity and liquidity management, they think generally two years, three years. But when I think about intermediate to long end, I think about five years plus. Okay, And I'm going to invent this phrase right now. I haven't seen it anywhere else. I want to copyright on this if you use it. Is it normal for longer? Is that really what we're talking about, is we're back to a normal rate regime. Well, it's certainly we're back to a regime that looks a lot more similar to the pre financial crisis than the post financial crisis. You've got a five year window on that. So what maturity do you buy? I'm in cash, I'm really comfortable at Bank of America. What maturre do you buy given a five year normal for longer view? Well, it really depends upon what your overall investment horizon is and where your preferences are. We think that if you're focused at the front end, you probably we want to be neutral to slightly overweight your benchmark. And if you're a more long term investor, we think that you at best want to be neutral right now, and you want to stay neutral until you see those signs of feedback that tell you that higher interest rates are finally slowing the economy, not just one data point here or there, but in the tier one stuff in labor more clearly an inflation. You want to stay neutral until you see those signs, or until you believe that there's a clearer and more definitive negative feedback from risk assets, which I don't think that we have really seen sufficiently yet. I love to bust Brian moynihan's chops because he, like no other CEO, quotes his research staff and I'll go blah blah blah about Bonzi and his own Cabana says, So let's get the report from Cabana that you would give to Brian moynihan right now. I got balance sheets, nationwide, mark to market I get, and I got everything else with massive bond losses, priced down, yield up. Should our listeners and viewers be afraid of this non marked market garbage on balance sheets. Well, I think you're talking about bank balance sheets, and we do appreciate that. Brian reads our research. He's a staunch supporter, and we really do appreciate that. We think that what banks are doing right now is that they are really prizing liquidity. They really want to hold as much liquidity as possible. They're choosing to hold cash, they're keeping reserves with the FED, and they're not buying bonds, they're not buying treasuries or mortgages, and they're prizing liquidity because they know that they need to meet their outflow needs. They know that their securities book is not particularly liquid because it's so low in value. You don't want to sell and realize the loss. We saw what happened with some of the regional band. So what do you do? This is the key thing. So what do you do if you're a bank? What do you do if your bank? If you've got all this out there and you don't want to sell, just like you said, but things can happen, things can change. How do you process that reality? If you're a bank, what you're doing right now as you're holding that is the game. That's why the Fed shrunk their balance sheet through QT by a trillion dollars, and you've seen bank cash holdings not move down very much at all. They are bidding up on the liability side of the balance sheet. They're issuing CDs, time deposits, etc. To take in more money because they're seeing retail outflows. And then they're holding cash and they're going to continue to do that until they see signs that the economy is turning, until they know that their loan growth is really slowed down and maybe negative on a year over year six month average or whatnot. And they're gonna wait until the economy slows more meaningfully to extend out the curve and buy those bonds. Right now, banks are not buying duration. They've been shrinking their treasury and agency holdings, and they're going to wait to add duration until they see definitive signs that the economy is turned. And so again, what banks are doing right now, it's holding out liquidity because that is the most valuable thing that they seem to believe that what does holding out liquidity mean for mere mortals that can't hold out liquidity? Small business? Torsten Slocke at Apollo talks about ten percent small business loans as well. I saw a thirty one percent charge card the other day. It wasn't Bank of America, of course, thirty one percent charge card interest rate the other day. What does the public do given price down, yield up banks saying I'm scared stiff, I got a whole cash. Look, it's a tough time to be a borrower. I think we know that, right. It's tough time to move, it's a tough time to buy a home, it's a tough time to be a business if you need a loan. And that's exactly what monetary policy is trying to do, right, It's trying to slow down activity by reducing demand for loans and borrowing. And so if you're a small business and you do need a loan, well you need to think about, Okay, what other liquidity sources do I have? Can I draw on any other type of liquidity? And then you've got to ask yourself do I really need to expand? Do I need to make that next investment? And you got to make sure that you can clear a much higher hurdle rate in order to justify those costs. That's how monetary policy works. It should slow down activity through the lending channel, and to some extent we're seeing that, but it hasn't happened, I think to the extent of the FED, like Mark Commander, thank you so much. With the Bank of America joining us now to begin strong on this day of a Federal Reserve meeting is Dominic Constem. He's head of macro strategy at Mosile Americas. For years literally iconic Credit Suite were thrilled that doctor Constem could join us today. Dominica, I give you the phrase super restrictive. Is Jerome Powell's FED combined with market action a super restrictive FED. Well, yeah, in the context of the sustainability of the US consumer, and if you like the overhang of debts refinancing in the corporate sector really beginning in twenty twenty five, you know, clearing the front end is super restrictive, and it's going to have to get first quite aggressively. As some stage that the issue is a timing, and you know that timing has been pushed out because the consumer who's got great balance sheet, has decided that even as they spent all their fiscal excess that they were given after COVID, they're deciding to leverage up even with interest rates as high as they are, but they can do that because of the balance sheet, So that kind of delays the impact of this super restrictiveness, which is kind of a bit of a conungrum for the Fed. So that's the price for longer, not higher for longer, but just longer. What is the cost did your own power of a longer strategy at these levels? Well, I think what's happened in the last couple of months really has been that the Fed has decided that, you know, because effectively they are super restrictive, they didn't want to keep on pushing up short rates, you know, don't not quickly go to six percent. So they've emphasized this idea that they're just going to hold at a high level for that much longer. But ironically that directly feeds into a sell off in the back end, the idea that what we call term premium, this risk premium that's short rates you end up being higher than the equivalent tenor of a longer dated treasury. That's term premium that gets priced into the market, which is why you've had this enormous sort of bare steepening going on with the tens going up to close to five percent thirties, nifiing the corter, et cetera. And in a way that that's not a bad thing if you want to slow the economy, but because that will undermine and is undermining risk assets, and it will help to tighten financial conditions overall. So that's the impact of what the Fed is doing. There is a risk though, that they run because you get people concerned about the as you mentioned earlier, the refinancing of the Treasury. You know, when they decide to issue longer dated debts that now it is coming in at much higher interest rates, and you start worrying about a vicious circle where if you can't reduce a debt so through spending cuts, well you've got another problem because your interest service costs are going up at the same time. And that's kind of get people worried about this idea that Treasury isn't going to be able to sustainably fund itself down the road, particularly when you get those sort of you know, bigger issues coming up, the structural issues coming up that will mean higher deficits. There's always been a sort of uncomfortable tension, especially now between the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve, especially because the Treasury Department is helmed by the one and only Janet Yellen who used to head the FED. How much is a treasure you're going to try to game out the market and kind of give a helping hand to the Fed by not concentrating some of those debt sales in the longer end, sell tea bills and hold a pad and wait for things to normalize. Well, I mean, it's obviously a great question and issue. I mean, strictly speaking, I don't think Treasury really should gain things too much. You know, they're not really traders as such, and if they were, then you know, maybe God help us. I mean, the idea I think is is, you know, you do have rollover risk, so you know, no one really knows how quickly long term rates might might reverse, even if we go into some slowing you know, where is this sort of mutual rate It might you know, might be higher and maybe ten years trading around you know, five percent is the sort of new norm. So I think it wouldn't be appropriate for the Treasury to really try and game the markets or a near term and sort of second guests that short term rates are going to come crashing down and they'll be able to refinance themselves down the road by extending maturity later. So I think they'll they'll probably extend the duration. I think the estimates are kind of you know, you know, seem about right, this sort of one hundred and fourteen billion and putting it in coupons. And because of the announcement we had earlier in the week, they can cut bill supply bits. So that's our expectation and no gaining of it. Basically, a lot of people expect this to be a boring meeting, sibad or Jappa calling it a placeholder, Steven Linder saying, how many ways can you say we'll see? I mean, this is basically going to be a holding kind of pattern. And yet we see a dissonance growing where the market sees and escalating's chance of excelling, reaccelerating inflation. At the same time that the Feds kind of seeming to subtly agree with Janet Yella and saying that yields are going to go back down. Do you think they're going to bridge that gap today? Well, they could do. I mean they've always got the option to. I mean that there are a couple of interesting things going on. I mean, obviously this sell off in the long end is very interesting, and I think they can definitely address that in the conference call and basically say that's doing some of the work for them and be a bit more optimistic. They can also be actually, even though inflation has been a bit sticky on the very latest prints, they could be a bit more optimistic on that. We've done some background analysis on that, and the reason why inflation has been a bit stick is it's really been on the demand side, less on the supply side type thing. And I think that's encouraging because that's something a little bit more understandable and sort of indicative that, you know, the underlying trend lower is still in place for inflation, and obviously the global inflation picture has been looking a bit better, so I think they can basically, you know, I don't think it'll be an uninteresting meeting or press conference. It's just really a question of how far power wants to go down the road and try and sort of reassure markets. One interesting thing I always think is that you know, to what extent to the FED really anticipate or understand that their actions at the September meeting was going to lead to this sort of you know, near one hundred base on itseel off in the long end. I mean, it's been quite dramatic, And did they really expect that way? Yes, this is a question dominic and why this is outside your remit. But we've known each other for years, So I'm going to go from the macro of constant to commercial banking. Bernanky taught us at Princeton that financial structure and strength matters. I'm looking at the technical construct of the American banking system and I don't like what I see. Should the FED fold in what's happening to the banks right now? Should they today pay attention in their meetings to the weakness that we see in commercial banking equity prices? Absolutely? And I think the thing that so many people miss is they think that banks are kind of less important now than they were before because of alternative banking, you know, fintech, private equity, you know, other forms of leverage if you like, in the system that they people think seem to think, you know, credit is created elsewhere. Credit is that there's something called outside money, which is a central bank, and they start the credit creation process there's in something called inside money, which is the banking system, and they continue the credit creation process. And to be honest, that pretty much is where how credit is created. Money it can only be created by the FED and the banks to the bank multiplier. It cannot be created by private equity. They have to get their leverage from somewhere. And so I think you always have to go to the banking system, and you always have to focus on if the banks are kind of doing their job, even if the leverage overrule in the system is getting higher and higher, and the relatives of the banks, they're the ultimate ones who if they pull the plug, let alone the FED putting the plug, then the whole kind of system can start to implode. So I do think it's very important what's happening in the banks, and I think it's a big concern that obviously lending is slowing down. There is obviously regulation and there's some credit some cattle restrictions taking place, but that's all part of the cycle. And as long as the FED is there to pick up the pieces at the end of it, we're fine. But those pieces will need to be picked up. You sound like Alan Meltzer, the late Great Alan Meltzer, lender of letters. Who are dom I got thirty seconds? Are you concerned the massive shift from deposits to money market funds? Is that going to destabilize the system. Well, it's been a challenge, but to be fair, that TGA build up that the Treasury has done has actually come at the expense a lot of the money market funds and the repo there. So I think, you know, the Fed has actually managed this process relatively well with the help of the Treasury rebuilding TJA with all that bill issuance, so you know, you know, it's it's a relatively orderly process, but it's obviously something that you've got to keep watching. You don't want excess reserves to get too low in the banking system. Is that to Constant? Thank you so much, Dominic Constant with the Missouri Are they just a terrific brief Therey joining US doctor Wynn Thinn, global head of Currency Strategy around brothers Harriman win Thin. You were at the altar of Robert Mundel at Columbia who invented our international currency dynamics. Is there a theory to what Japan is doing? Are they making up original theory? Well, first of all, thanks, thanks, as always a pleasure to appear here with you guys. To me, it's an experiment, it's an ongoing experiment. You know, Japan has been fighting deflation for decades and they've thrown everything at the wall to see what sticks. The latest iteration was negative rates and he locor control and by hooker, by crooked, it's it's finally getting out of deflation. It's obviously the positive makers are very nervous there getting you know, starting these poses is the easy part. Getting out of them is always the hard part. We saw the FED struggle with getting out of q back after a great financial crisis. So what we've been seeing unfold over the last year is just a really haphazard so again throwing stuff at the wall to see what works. It's been again more out of fear and concern than anything else. They don't want to upset the opera card that the recovery is, by many measures, you know, quite modest and vulnerable, and so that's what we're seeing. I do think that that Japan will exit accommodations fully in early times, and by that I mean a ray hike. Why should our why should our viewers and listeners care in the Western world, it just seems to be removed and over there. For example, comparing the yuan the ren menbi in China to Japanese. Yeah, and even with we you want versus a dollar, it's studying how weak the Japanese yen is versus ren memby. Why do I care in America? Well, I think, as you guys pointed out just earlier in the segment, Japanese investors have been have been basically leaving Japan and chasing yield and returns elsewhere. And that's because of the zero rate interest policy and heal com control. Domestic eiels aren't attractive enough. So we've seen massive capital outflows of Japan over the last years, if not decades. If we get that infection point where things change and actually rates are allowed to go back to market based levels, I think the fear of at least in Japan and others, is that that wave of capital will come back from crashing back. And already seen announcements some of the Japanese life insurers that they planned the second half of this fiscal year to underweight foreign investments, foreign bonds and overweight jgb's in anticipation of normalization. So there's also the capital flow stories that I think, you know, coming in a time when we don't know what the Fed's doing, we don't know what's going on in Europe with the Middle East. It's just another sort of added uncertainty that Marcus had that jests and I think that's what I think investors in general are worried about. It's almost deliberate ambiguity. Is deliberate ambiguity by the Bank of Japan going to actually create some sort of soft gradual increase in yields and some sort of controlled departure from yaled curve control. Yeah, yeah, at least I think that's what we're seeing. In fact, in my opinion, Yeald curve control is dead. It's deader than Elvis right now, as far as I can tell, they've they've introduced this ambiguity where it's now one percent is now reference point. Who knows what that means. So the market will will prod and tested the Bank of Japan not just on heels but also on the dollary in and it's gonna be a cat and mouse game. But really, for all intents and purposes, jgbills are going up. They have been going up. They will continue go up. We'll go above that one percent sort of reference point within days, and you know the upside I think natural sort of target for the markets. Where we go from there well dependent what's going on in other global market, especially US treasuries. But again, this is normal. This is you know, we've been it's very what I would say, an abnormal period. And it's been going on for decades in Japan of zero rates, negative rates, year clear control and it's abnormal. And I think that they're trying to exit that, but are obviously very very scared of the ramification at least some moments ago, the d X y unraveling. Right now one oh six point ninety one, we're really buttressed up here against the one oh seven on DXY and is clearly yet led by en dynamics. And this goes like the banking stocks. I'm sorry, you just have to look at the Bloomberg screen and it's screaming a certain level of tension out there this morning without being you know, a toxic brew of gloom. I mean, it's just the markets are speaking before this FED meeting, and it's not all the managed message of the elites. When to that point. How disruptive is the fact that the dollar has continued to strengthen and not weaken as so many people thought this year. Well and for the for the US, it's good because the stronger currency helps to limit important inflation. What we were seeing particularly stress is with emerging markets, especially in Asia, that's being double whemmed by the yen, n by the dollar. But basically we've seen many many emerging market center banks intervene to help support their own currency. We've seen surprise rate hikes, we saw that from Indonesia last month, and we've also seen countries that are cutting weights slow. They're easy because the currencies are coming under pressure. So it's to me it's really a toxic root for emerging markets. That is a height height money conditions in the US, slowing global growth slow in China, and easing cycles in emerging markets, and that's all to be a very toxic row for emerging market currency. You should have seen Tom King's face when you said toxic brew. His ears perked up and he was fully into Robert Mondel used to say, Robert Mandel would be in a lecture and he say, look, you know the Mundell triangulation and in partically ununified currency. It's one big time. This is a difficult time because people have been throwing around people have it thrown around where it's like toxic brew for quite a while. And yet we have been in a sort of uneasy equilibrium all year that's really been tapped off by a US dynamism. You go, what do you mean? I don't think it's been an an easy equilibrium. I think the markets are talking here. You know, I'm going back and forth, Doug cass here on the banks, you can rationalize us all you want. Yen one Fifty's why we're talking to win thin so win way in on that. Are things breaking down in a more material way that'll lead to more traumatic moves in effects. Well, I think was the main driver that's really taking anyone by surprise. This is the continued strength of the US economy and by that extension the US dollar, the FED and all that. I'm of the opinion that the Fed will probably get us into a recession next year. But I don't look for anything quote unquote break by break, we mean like a financial crisis, banking crisis some sort. We had to scare back in March with SVB but we found that was, you know, to me, an idiosyncratic situation with SVB and signature. So to me, you know, all the stress tests suggest that that the global financials remains fairly resilient. Now look, that's like we all know that. That doesn't mean you know, a whole lot when when when push comes to show. But I do think that we are sorting this post gred financial crisis uh so situation where yes, the institutions and and overseers and regulators are all sort of on the same page and and hopefully uh willing and able to head off a crisis. Now, well we see pockets of stress. You know, we've had frontier markets blowing up, emerging markets or Canade remain in the stress look UK, uh Europe or into recession. But you know, nothing again, nothing sort of broken. This is sort of a normal thing. I used. I'll leave this, you know with the final thought is that, let's say, normal sort of situation terms of down town going too faster in the US, that's hiking, We're gonna slow, we maybe go into recession, but then the whole cycle starts over. It's not something to worry about. I've got to leave it there. Doctor, Thank you so much, he says Brown Brothers Harriman. There's been an issue in the US side of things, first of all how deeply the US troops will get involved, but also how much aid can actually get passed to go towards supporting both Israel and Ukraine, which no one is talking about. Jennifer Flytt and covering all of this fantastic guests to really analyze it for US head of US Government Affairs at INVESCO, Jennifer, what do you make of this split that we've seen with the House proposing a separate bill to fund Israel that yesterday President Biden said, Vito right, he issued a veto threat. That's correct. Yesterday. We're going to see what the House can do. I think it's still an open question if they have the support because they have paired the Israeli funding with an offset that directly sort of impacts that Inflation Reduction Act and of the irs, and so they will lose the vast majority of Democrats. Could they gain a couple while they lose a few of their own Republicans? I think that's the question, and we'll see that play out on Thursday. What does it tell you about the nature of funding agreements. If funding Israel comes at the expense of cutting the agency served with collecting taxes, well, first, I would say this is an opening salvo for the House because they will have to negotiate no matter what with the Senate. Schumer has the majority leader in the Senate, has already stated that this is dead on arrival, so there is an expectation that there will be further negotiation. But when it comes to offsets, this is a reflection of what is happening in America right now with regard to our own domestic debt our, own deficits that we're running right now. And that's what Republicans and their districts really feel a need to answer to. Jennifer. I believe it is November first. Count it down sixteen days to November seventeenth. It's been left in the debris. We've forgotten about November seventeenth. Give us a brief of the importance of November seventeenth inside the Beltleigh, it is coming upon us very quickly. That is an excellent point and it is not lost on most members. Also, most members that want to get Ukraine funding through the House, Republican and Democratic members and the Continuing Resolution, which is that stop gap that runs out on November seventeenth that has to be extended. The Ukraine funding may have to ride on that continuing resolution. However, they work it out and we'll see that over the next week. They're currently drafting another continuing resolution in the House. Jennifer, there's real dissonance and a headline Stiffe been reading and I am trying to square them. I'd love your help. Basically, on one side, you see the fight that's escalating in Congress, it's escalating with the White House over how to get financing to back these efforts. And then on the other hand, we're talking about US troops potentially being in Gaza indefinitely after the war to keep some sort of peace. What is the appetite in the United States to have a protracted role in some of these conflicts that seem pretty intractable right now? That's right. I think there are a number of steps though that we have to get to first, right because US troops are in the region, of course, they are in Iraq there in Yemen. This was discussed a little bit at the hearing yesterday with Secretary of Blincoln and Secretary of defense Austin. They have been attacked over the last week two weeks. They have had to retaliate in those attacks, and the expectation is to deter further escalation. That I think is the immediate issue before we get to the longer term issues in Gaza. Israel is able to contain that area. There's also a really short term kind of issue with respect to President Biden's approval rating in some of the swing states. And there was a poll that recently came out that more than fifty percent of Muslim Americans used to support President Biden and now a fewer than twenty percent currently do. How significantly is this going to color the entire debate next year? That's an excellent point. I think the tension there within the Democrat Democratic Party and seeing some of those polls, but even seeing the streets right, I mean, we've seen the protrust across America, not just among Arab and Muslim Americans, but also with young people, young progressives on college campuses, and they do see that as a threat. So how they're going to diplomatically work within their own party and their own voters. I think we're starting to see that play out. Jennifer Thank you so much. Jennifer flintne with this with Invesco there on Washington and the war in the Eastern Mediterranean. Subscribe to the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast on Apple, Spotify, and anywhere else you get your podcasts. Listen live every weekday starting at seven am Eastern. I'm Bloomberg dot Com, the iHeartRadio app tune In, and the Bloomberg Business app. You can watch us live on Bloomberg Television and always I'm the Bloomberg Terminal. Thanks for listening. I'm Tom Keen, and this is BloombergSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Get ready to be dazzled by the deadly art of illusion!No, wait. That was the sequel.Anyways, Andrew and Dave return this episode to discuss director Robert Mandel's 1986 cult film F/X, starring Bryan Brown and Brian Dennehey! How does this thriller of its era hold up? What beloved childhood figure turns up here? And why isn't this film what you think it is? Tune in and find out!Next Episode: Before Tom Cruise got into a habit of trying to kill himself on every film he makes, there was a time where all he had to do was learn how to mix drinks. All music by Andrew Kannegiesser. Editing by Dave Babbitt.

Jess and Dini travel back to September 10, 1993! We recap Season 1 - Episode 1, Pilot. “Do you believe in the existence of extraterrestrials?” This is where it all started for us and millions of fans around the world! FBI Agent Dana Scully is assigned to work with fellow agent, Fox “Spooky” Mulder on cases involving unexplained phenomena. On their first case together, the duo head to Oregon to investigate the mysterious deaths of four young people from the same graduating class. While Scully believes there's a logical explanation, Mulder suspects the victims were alien abductees. This episode was written by Chris Carter and directed by Robert Mandel. Do you have any X-Files related theories, stories,  key points or podcast feedback? Please email us at TheXFilesChatRoomPodcast@gmail.com We'd love to hear from you. Please tell us how we can improve!You can find us on:Twitter @TXFChatRoomPodInstagram @TXFChatRoomPodTraditional homeland acknowledgments are gathered from:https://native-land.ca/Resources: X-Files WikiIMDB

This week on Peanuts and Popcorn, we kick off our brand-new format, appropriately with Stanley Kubrick's classic, 2001: A Space Odyssey. Our 2nd film is Robert Mandel's F/X from 1986. Next up are Tar and The Banshees of Inisherin. We also have much to discuss on the pending MLB season, offseason grades and more on the season premiere of Peanuts and Popcorn.

In this week's episode, Daniel & Harry are joined by writer and podcast host Mark Oppenheimer to discuss Robert Mandel's 1992 film “School Ties,” starring Brendan Fraser and Matt Damon.They unpack how the film represents widespread antisemitism as it existed at the time, debate the accuracy of its depiction of Jewish practice, and discuss how screenwriter Dick Wolf infuses a Law and Order type intensity into the film.As always, they close out the episode by ranking the film's "Jewishness" in terms of its cast & crew, content, and themes.IMDB - https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0105327/Movie Trailer - https://youtu.be/bGYOP55A59cMark's LinksGatecrashers - https://www.tabletmag.com/podcasts/gatecrashersSquirrel Hill: The Tree of Life Synagogue Shooting and the Soul of a Neighborhood - https://www.amazon.com/Squirrel-Hill-Synagogue-Shooting-Neighborhood/dp/0525657193/Connect with Jews on Film online:Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/jewsonfilm/Twitter - https://twitter.com/jewsonfilmpodYouTube- https://www.youtube.com/@jewsonfilmTikTok - https://www.tiktok.com/@jewsonfilmpod

What do, a solitary teenager who forms life-changing bonds with his High School friends, and a talented Jewish athlete attending a privileged private school, have in common? This week on THE MOVIE CONNECTION: KC Watched: "SCHOOL TIES" (7:01) (Directed by, Robert Mandel. Starring, Brendan Fraser, Matt Damon, Chris O'Donnell...) Jacob Watched: "THE PERKS OF BEING A WALLFLOWER" (38:37) (Directed by, Stephen Chbosky. Starring, Logan Lerman, Emma Watson, Ezra Miller...) Talking Points include: Where'd ya go, Logan Lerman? Tunnel Songs Before School Special and more!! Send us an email to let us know how we're doing: movieconnectionpodcast@gmail.com Follow us on Instagram Rate and Review on Apple Podcasts Check out more reviews from Jacob on Letterboxd Cover art by Austin Hillebrecht, Letters by KC Schwartz

Talk about school daze! These no good punk kids (who still go to school every day) are in dire need of some asshole authority figure to give them some tough love. Will they survive until graduation? THE PRINCIPAL (1987, Christopher Cain) 10:50 THE SUBSTITUTE (1996, Robert Mandel) 1:06:00 ONE EIGHT SEVEN (1997, Kevin Reynolds) 2:02:00

On our 200th episode we look back at the week of September 29th, 1992. We talk about the album, Dirt, from Alice In Chains and the movie, School Ties, from director Robert Mandel. With special guest, Phil Norris. Dirt School Ties

Benvenuti nella raccolta in formato Podcast delle puntate di #CloseUp, a cura di Matteo Righi, aka Houssy. #CloseUp è la rubrica di recensioni cinematografiche in onda su Radio Italia Anni 60 Emilia-Romagna.

This week on Hull on Estates, Jonathon Kappy and Nick Esterbauer discuss the recent decision of Robert Mandel et al. v. 1909975 Ontario Inc. et al., 2020 ONSC 5343, and review the issue of rectification in the corporate context.  

Welcome to the Hurdy Gurdy Cafe. This is our very first podcast! In this episode I speak with Sergio Gonzalez about the Hurdy Gurdy, what it's all about, where to find one, and how to buy a hurdy gurdy.   If you'd like to watch the video, follow this link: https://youtu.be/QY0zYPC_Uic   The Hurdy Gurdy Cafe Podcast Season 1 Episode 1- Show Notes What does Sergio Gonzalez have to say about: What is the Hurdy Gurdy all about? (Where's the air?) What is the Organistrum? A very brief history of the Hurdy Gurdy. What is Avant Garde Hurdy Gurdy? What's going on with “Coil – La Loco, Paris, France (2004-05-23)”? Who is Marc Egea? Who is Efren Lopez? https://www.efrenlopez.net/me/ What does Jimmy Page have to do with the hurdy gurdy? Does Nigel Eaton like being considered a rock star? Why is the hurdy gurdy gaining so much popularity? What is “Easy Listening Gurdy”? What is the Cretan Lyra? Featured Music – Tobie Miller – Cello Suite No. 1 in G Major, track #8 from the Bach Solo Album Nigel Eaton – Three Sharks, Track #7 from the Pandaemonium Album With Andy Cutting, Paul James, Mark Davies, Julie Murphy, and Becky Price Cliff Stapleton – The Almond and the Olive – From the Bath Folk Festival in 2011. Questions Answered – What is the best approach to learning the Hurdy Gurdy? How do you make the most out of a mid to low range hurdy gurdy instrument? What is an HGSO? (It's not a hurdy gurdy.) What is a Nerdy Gurdy? – http://www.nerdygurdy.nl/ How about Gordiy Starukh or Robert Mandel as Hurdy Gurdy builders? https://robertmandel.at/shop/ https://www.facebook.com/hordijgurdy/ Do hurdy gurdy's use air to make sounds, or is that just a lyra organizzata? How does the hurdy gurdy actually make sounds? Is a Hurdy Gurdy and a wheel fiddle the same thing? What is an Infinite Violin Bow?!?! Why doesn't my hurdy gurdy sound very good? What should one expect when ordering or buying a new hurdy gurdy? What should I know about Marco Gammara or ELZ Guitars? https://www.facebook.com/people/Marco-Gamarra-Luthier/100010112567629 www.facebook.com/elzguitars/ — Thanks for being with us Sergio Gonzalez. Learn more about what Sergio is up to at: https://www.zanfoneando.com/hurdy-gurdy-online-lessons/

The Crazy Folks review F/X (1986), starring Bryan Brown, Brian Dennehy, Cliff DeYoung and Jerry Orbach. Directed by Robert Mandel. B-movie special effects guy gets hired by the Feds to stage the assassination of a mob informant but shenanigans ensue when things are not what they seem... go figure. We will also touch on how some actors today have taken the method way too far and Sir Lawrence Olivier's famous opinion about it.

Robert Mandel's F/X (1986) -- also sometimes known as FX: Murder by Illusion -- is the story of Rollie Taylor (Bryan Brown), a movie special effects man who is hired by two government agents (Cliff DeYoung & Mason Adams) to stage the public assassination of a mob boss (Jerry Orbach) who's turned state's evidence. What better way to keep the mob off the tail than by “killing him”? But things don't turn out as easy as that.Jedidiah Ayres and Adam Schartoff join Mike to discuss F/X, its sequel, and the spin-off TV series. Special guests include director Robert Mandel, writer Alan Ormsby, and actor Cliff DeYoung.Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Robert Mandel's F/X (1986) -- also sometimes known as FX: Murder by Illusion -- is the story of Rollie Taylor (Bryan Brown), a movie special effects man who is hired by two government agents (Cliff DeYoung & Mason Adams) to stage the public assassination of a mob boss (Jerry Orbach) who’s turned state's evidence. What better way to keep the mob off the tail than by “killing him”? But things don’t turn out as easy as that.Jedidiah Ayres and Adam Schartoff join Mike to discuss F/X, its sequel, and the spin-off TV series. Special guests include director Robert Mandel, writer Alan Ormsby, and actor Cliff DeYoung.

Robert Mandel's F/X (1986) -- also sometimes known as FX: Murder by Illusion -- is the story of Rollie Taylor (Bryan Brown), a movie special effects man who is hired by two government agents (Cliff DeYoung & Mason Adams) to stage the public assassination of a mob boss (Jerry Orbach) who’s turned state's evidence. What better way to keep the mob off the tail than by “killing him”? But things don’t turn out as easy as that.Jedidiah Ayres and Adam Schartoff join Mike to discuss F/X, its sequel, and the spin-off TV series. Special guests include director Robert Mandel, writer Alan Ormsby, and actor Cliff DeYoung.

Every podcast thinks terrible thoughts and this week those terrible thoughts are about The Rage: Carrie 2. Analog Jones is joined by The Jersey Ghouls to review this over the top 90's horror film. The Rage: Carrie 2 was released into theaters on March 12, 1999. The budget was $21 million, and the movie made $17.8 million in the box office. Directed by Katt SheaProduced by Paul MonashWritten by Rafael MoreuBased on Carrie by Stephen King The Rage: Carrie 2 CastEmily Bergl as Rachel LangJason London as Jesse RyanDylan Bruno as Mark BingJ. Smith Cameron as Barbara LangAmy Irving as Sue SnellZachery Ty Bryan as Eric Stark The Rage: Carrie 2 TrailersThe World is Not Enough (James Bond)The James Bond 007 CollectionThe Mod Squad (1999)Blast From the PastRocky MarcianoThe Lesser EvilThe Corruptor The Rage: Carrie 2 PlotBarbara Lang has schizophrenia and is locked up in a mental institution called Arkham Asylum. Rachel has to live with foster parents. Years later, Rachel talks with her best friend Lisa, who has lost her virginity to Eric, a football player. The football players have a game where they sleep with girls and receive points. After Eric rejects her, Lisa commits suicide. Her death ignites Rachel's dormant telekinetic powers. Rachel discovers a photo of Lisa and Eric. She tells school guidance counselor Sue Snell and Sheriff Kelton that Lisa and Eric slept together. Kelton looks into charging Eric with statutory rape. Walter, Rachel's Basset Hound dog, is hit by a car, but Jesse drives by and takes the dog to an animal hospital. They have coffee while Walter is recovering. Eric, Mark and several other football players learn that Rachel had a photo of Eric and Lisa together and gave it to Sheriff Kelton. They pay Rachel a visit at her house to intimidate her into not talking, but her powers stop them. Sue Snell meets with Rachel and learns Rachel is telekinetic. Snell shows Rachel the original high school from Carrie (1976) that she survived, but 70 people died in the fire that Carrie White started. The Senior D.A. covers up the statutory rape because of the political influence of the wealthy families. Encouraged, Mark plots to humiliate Rachel for what she did to Eric. He apologizes to Jesse and offers his parents' cabin so Jesse can spend the night with Rachel. Rachel loses her virginity, both unaware that a hidden video camera is filming them. Rachel goes to a party, and the popular kids reveal their sex game that she is a part of, which triggers Rachel's telekinesis and unleashes the rage in her. Rachel closes the doors, kills most of the party goers, including Sue Snell in a horrific display of power. Rachel gets crushed by a piece of the house, Jesse says he loves her and she saves him. A year later, Jesse is at college, sharing his room with Rachel's dog, Walter. Jesse dreams Rachel approaches him in his dorm. When he walks towards her, she shatters into pieces in a very odd ending. Behind the Scenes of The Rage: Carrie 2Original the script was titled The Curse and was stalled for two years. When the film started to shoot in 1998 it was retitled to Carrie 2: Say You're Sorry. A few weeks into production the first director Robert Mandel quit over creative differences, and Katt Shea took over. Buy the double feature with the 2002 TV version of Carrie and The Rage: Carrie 2 by Scream Factory. Come back next week when we review Heart and Souls (1993). Discuss these movies and more on our Facebook page. You can also listen to us on iTunes, Podbean, and Youtube! Email us at analogjonestof@gmail.com with any comments or questions!

Robert Mandel is a Sonoma resident, successful vineyard owner and retired telecommunications, technology sales and management executive with more than 30 years of experience. As a record promoter with Epic Records in the 1970s, Mandel also promoted the single “Brandy (You’re A Fine Girl)” by Looking Glass to be a No. 1 on the Billboard Hot 100 and the Cash Box Top 100 charts. Two years later it served as the inspiration for Barry Manilow’s classic “Mandy.” Listen more at http://www.jayrooke.com/008 Check out my website: https://jayrooke.com/   Follow me on: Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TribeCreator/ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jayrooke/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/JayRooke

Warning: all episodes usually contain a high amount of strong language, drug/alcohol references, adult jokes, and other material that may be concerning to some listeners.Be sure to check out Jon Young’s Bombs Away podcast: http://www.bombsawayshow.com/Jon’s FB https://www.facebook.com/bombsawayshowThe crew talks about the production of their movie Hookman 2Jon returns in the Tale of Old Man CorcoranThe series is currently available in the United States on Amazon, YouTube, and several other sites.Intro theme is by glassdevaney: https://soundcloud.com/glassdevaney/are-you-afraid-of-the-darkOutro song is by Maddtown: https://soundcloud.com/maddtown/are-you-afraid-of-the-darkProduced by Modulation Studios. Contact: werenotafraidofthedark@gmail.comFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/werenotafraidofthedark/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/werenotafraidofthedark/Are You Afraid Of The Dark? “The Tale of the Magician’s Assistant” (TV Episode 1993)”. IMDB. Accessed January 20, 2018. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0514428/Are You Afraid of the Dark? “The Tale of the Magician’s Assistant” Season 2, episode 11. Directed by Ron Oliver. Written by Cassandra Schafhausen. Originally aired September 11, 1993 on Nickelodeon. https://youtu.be/yYR439GX7NABrad Silberling, dir. Casper (1995). Universal Pictures, Amblin Entertainment, The Harvey Entertainment Company. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112642/Durham, Adam & Young, Jonathan, dirs. Hookman 2 (2013). Modulation Studios. Tri-B Productions. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1828200glassdevaney. Are You Afraid of the Dark? Instrumental cover. 2012. https://soundcloud.com/glassdevaney/are-you-afraid-of-the-darkJohn Fawcett, dir. Ginger Snaps (2000). Copperheart Entertainment, Water Pictures, Motion International. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0210070/Katt Shea, Robert Mandel, dirs. Carrie 2: The Rage (1999). United Artists, Red Bank Films. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0144814/McRobb, Will, Mittenthal, Robert, & Viscardi, Chris. KaBlam! (1996-2000) Flying Mallet Productions, Nickelodeon Production. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0122353/Mel Brooks, dir. Young Frankenstein (1974). Gruskoff/Venture Films, Crossbow Productions, Jouer Limited. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0072431/Michael Lindsay-Hogg, dir. Ivana Trump’s For Love Alone (1996). RHI Entertainment. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0164029/Mike Judge, creator. Beavis and Butthead (1993-2011). Film Roman Productions, J.J. Sedelmaier Productions, Judgemental Films Inc. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0105950/Mr. Skin. "Karen Elkin Nude - Naked Pics and Sex Scenes at Mr. Skin." Mrskin. Accessed January 19, 2018. https://www.mrskin.com/karen-elkin-nude-c7322.Raimi, Sam, dir. The Evil Dead (1981). Renaissance Pictures. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083907/Riversa, Jose & Schaefer, Karl, creators. Eerie, Indiana (1991-1992). Cosgrove/Meurer Productions, Hearsts Entertainment Productions, Unreality. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0101088/Ron Oliver, dir. Are You Afraid Of The Dark? Season 2, episode 11, “The Tale of the Magician’s Assistant.” Aired on September 11, 1993, on Nickelodeon. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0514428/Robert Kurtzman, dir. Wishmaster (1997). Image Organization, Pierre David. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120524/Robert Zemeckis, dir. The Polar Express (2004). Castle Rock Entertainment, Shangri-La Entertainment, Playtone. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0338348/Spielberg, Steven, dir. Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981). Paramount Pictures, Lucasfilm. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082971/

Warning: all episodes usually contain a high amount of strong language, drug/alcohol references, adult jokes, and other material that may be concerning to some listeners.Be sure to check out Jon Young’s Bombs Away podcast: http://www.bombsawayshow.com/Jon’s FB https://www.facebook.com/bombsawayshowThe crew talks about the production of their movie Hookman 2Jon returns in the Tale of Old Man CorcoranThe series is currently available in the United States on Amazon, YouTube, and several other sites.Intro theme is by glassdevaney: https://soundcloud.com/glassdevaney/are-you-afraid-of-the-darkOutro song is by Maddtown: https://soundcloud.com/maddtown/are-you-afraid-of-the-darkProduced by Modulation Studios. Contact: werenotafraidofthedark@gmail.comFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/werenotafraidofthedark/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/werenotafraidofthedark/Are You Afraid Of The Dark? “The Tale of the Magician’s Assistant” (TV Episode 1993)”. IMDB. Accessed January 20, 2018. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0514428/Are You Afraid of the Dark? “The Tale of the Magician’s Assistant” Season 2, episode 11. Directed by Ron Oliver. Written by Cassandra Schafhausen. Originally aired September 11, 1993 on Nickelodeon. https://youtu.be/yYR439GX7NABrad Silberling, dir. Casper (1995). Universal Pictures, Amblin Entertainment, The Harvey Entertainment Company. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112642/Durham, Adam & Young, Jonathan, dirs. Hookman 2 (2013). Modulation Studios. Tri-B Productions. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1828200glassdevaney. Are You Afraid of the Dark? Instrumental cover. 2012. https://soundcloud.com/glassdevaney/are-you-afraid-of-the-darkJohn Fawcett, dir. Ginger Snaps (2000). Copperheart Entertainment, Water Pictures, Motion International. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0210070/Katt Shea, Robert Mandel, dirs. Carrie 2: The Rage (1999). United Artists, Red Bank Films. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0144814/McRobb, Will, Mittenthal, Robert, & Viscardi, Chris. KaBlam! (1996-2000) Flying Mallet Productions, Nickelodeon Production. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0122353/Mel Brooks, dir. Young Frankenstein (1974). Gruskoff/Venture Films, Crossbow Productions, Jouer Limited. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0072431/Michael Lindsay-Hogg, dir. Ivana Trump’s For Love Alone (1996). RHI Entertainment. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0164029/Mike Judge, creator. Beavis and Butthead (1993-2011). Film Roman Productions, J.J. Sedelmaier Productions, Judgemental Films Inc. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0105950/Mr. Skin. "Karen Elkin Nude - Naked Pics and Sex Scenes at Mr. Skin." Mrskin. Accessed January 19, 2018. https://www.mrskin.com/karen-elkin-nude-c7322.Raimi, Sam, dir. The Evil Dead (1981). Renaissance Pictures. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083907/Riversa, Jose & Schaefer, Karl, creators. Eerie, Indiana (1991-1992). Cosgrove/Meurer Productions, Hearsts Entertainment Productions, Unreality. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0101088/Ron Oliver, dir. Are You Afraid Of The Dark? Season 2, episode 11, “The Tale of the Magician’s Assistant.” Aired on September 11, 1993, on Nickelodeon. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0514428/Robert Kurtzman, dir. Wishmaster (1997). Image Organization, Pierre David. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120524/Robert Zemeckis, dir. The Polar Express (2004). Castle Rock Entertainment, Shangri-La Entertainment, Playtone. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0338348/Spielberg, Steven, dir. Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981). Paramount Pictures, Lucasfilm. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082971/

(Attention on spoile) Neïla, jouée par Camélia Jordana, est une jeune femme qui rêve de devenir avocate. En arrivant à l’université d’Assas, elle se confronte au très misanthrope Pierre Mazard, professeur de droit joué par Daniel Auteuil. Après un dérapage raciste en plein amphi dès le premier jour, il entreprend de coacher Neïla pour un concours d’éloquence pour faire amende honorable, et se sert de la jeune femme comme caution morale. Comme tous les films d’Yvan Attal, “Le Brio” est un film à message, en l’occurrence sur le thème de la bien pensance avec une chute très prévisible et une pseudo morale mignonne mais peu réaliste. Le personnage de Daniel Auteuil ne change pas particulièrement au cours du film, on lui pardonne même presque d’être aussi débectable, son racisme n’est pas remis en question, et la jeune femme répond peu à ses provocations. On a pas détesté, même presque passé un bon moment, en grande partie grâce à la performance de Camélia Jordana. Animé par Daniel Andreyev avec Virginie Adane et Vincent Manilève. RECOMMANDATIONS Vincent Manilève : le documentaire “A voix haute” diffusé sur France 2 puis en version longue au cinéma, sur un concours d’éloquence à l’Université de Seine Saint Denis. On y trouve la finesse qui manque au film d’Yvan Attal, et des personnages passionnants que l’on suit dans leur quotidien. Virginie Adane : le film “The we and the i” de Michel Gondry, projet de fin d’année d’une classe dans le Bronx. Daniel Andreyev : “The Substitute” de Robert Mandel, un “schoolxploitation” à l’américaine. RETROUVEZ MDR - sur Facebook : https://www.facebook.com/MDR-100-com%C3%A9dies-fran%C3%A7aises-249107848855674/ - sur iTunes : itunes.apple.com/fr/podcast/mdr/id1192391840?mt=2 CRÉDITS MDR est un podcast de Séance radio, produit par Goom. Enregistré à l’Antenne Paris (10, rue la Vacquerie 11ème) le vendredi 24 novembre 2017. Production exécutive : Binge Audio. Direction de production : Joël Ronez. Réalisation : Jules Krot. Chargée de production et d’édition : Camille Regache. Générique : Corentin Kerdraon. Voir Acast.com/privacy pour les informations sur la vie privée et l'opt-out.

C’est la rentrée de PODSAC ! Vous retrouvez Jérôme et Anthony qui est là sans être là… Autour de Jérôme donc, Thibault Turcas le réalisateur des Vilains qu’on ne présente plus, Anthony Darche (donc pas Anthony mais c’est quand même un Anthony) notre comédien de cœur et aussi acteur dans les Vilains et prochainement dans une production Anje Mécanique et notre ami, réalisateur lui aussi, Vincent Lecrocq, qui participe pour la première fois à un Podsac. Cet épisode est un EPLA et tout ce beau petit monde se retrouve, en bonne compagnie canine, pour parler des films suivants : 1 - BRIDE OF REANIMATOR de Brian Yuzna (1990) 2 – ROGUE (aka Solitaire) de Greg McLean (2008) 3 - MEURTRES A LA SAINT VALENTIN de Patrick Lussier (2009) 4 - F/X EFFETS DE CHOC de Robert Mandel (1986) 5 - 31 de Rob Zombie (2016) Bonne écoute et STAY SACED !

C'est la rentrée de PODSAC ! Vous retrouvez Jérôme et Anthony qui est là sans être là… Autour de Jérôme donc, Thibault Turcas le réalisateur des Vilains qu'on ne présente plus, Anthony Darche (donc pas Anthony mais c'est quand même un Anthony) notre comédien de cœur et aussi acteur dans les Vilains et prochainement dans une production Anje Mécanique et notre ami, réalisateur lui aussi, Vincent Lecrocq, qui participe pour la première fois à un Podsac. Cet épisode est un EPLA et tout ce beau petit monde se retrouve, en bonne compagnie canine, pour parler des films suivants : 1 - BRIDE OF REANIMATOR de Brian Yuzna (1990) 2 – ROGUE (aka Solitaire) de Greg McLean (2008) 3 - MEURTRES A LA SAINT VALENTIN de Patrick Lussier (2009) 4 - F/X EFFETS DE CHOC de Robert Mandel (1986) 5 - 31 de Rob Zombie (2016) Bonne écoute et STAY SACED !

On the season premiere of We Hate Movies, the gang heads back to school with Tom Berenger and Marc Anthony in The Substitute! Why does this movie spend so much time on the botched Cuba mission? Why did Berenger's resume need to be that padded? And what on Earth is up with that bathing suit? PLUS: I'mgonnakillherI'mgonnakillherI'mgonnakillher! The Substitute stars Tom Berenger, Ernie Hudson, Raymond Cruz, William Forsythe, Luis Guzmán and Diane Venora; directed by Robert Mandel.