Speaker 1: Well, the shorthand is two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth. However,
we had that in twenty twenty two and I wasn't
in the recession camp because and we just saw this
this week, the trade deficit for January exploded as companies
and consumers bought stuff.
Speaker 2: Yeah, they're front end loaded.
Speaker 3: You were listening to Carrie Letz's Financial Survival Network, where
you get valuable information. You just can't find anywhere else
to thrive in today's trying times. You need the Financial
Survival Network now more than ever. Go to Financial Survivalnetwork
dot com and get your free newsletter and gift. Financial
Survival Network now more than ever.
Speaker 2: And welcome you are listening to and watching the Financial
Survival Network. I'm your host, Carrie Leutz. Well, what's doing
with these markets? Are we heading into a recession? And
are we in the midst of a nascent bear market?
Let's find out. Jim Welsh is with us macrotides dot
com And if you're listening to this on the podcast,
in the show notes, there's a link to his latest newsletter,
which we will be going over. Jim, great to have
you back. So what's the verdict? Is this the bear
market you were talking.
Speaker 1: About, Well, we'll see. I think the danger and the
risk is there. As I've been writing over the last
number of weeks, one of the things that has provided
a cautionary signal is the scoop has been making new highs,
marginal new highs at that, but the Advance Decline line
has not confirmed. It made its high back in November
twenty ninth. And the reason why this is important, Carrie,
is going back to like nineteen twenty eight, every single
major bear market and declines of you know, ten to
fifteen percent have been preceded by a negative divergence between
the S and P making a higher high and the
ad line not making a new high. So to me,
that was a warning sign that the market was vulnerable.
And then it's just a question of does a reason
to sell materialize this because Wall Street is a kind
of long bias. Mutual funds, pension funds, financial advisors tell people,
hey buy and hold for the long term. So in
order to get people to sell, they have to be
given a pretty good reason. And I thought the tariff
stuff would provide a reason. A lot of people thought
that Trump was just yeah, it's going to be like
two thousand, as any team be a lot of bluster
but not really making you know, an impact. And my
belief has been is no, he and his team are
serious about terrorists and it is going to have economic
repercussions that could get us to the point of a recession.
We just obviously have to see it play out. How
far do they go, how far do other countries respond
with retaliatory terroriffts. But the bottom line is the uncertainty
alone is causing businesses and consumers to pull back a
little bit, Carrie, and consumers are worried about in fishing.
The recent University of Michigan confidence survey showed inflation expectations
over the last three four months have jumped from three
to three to four three. That's a big move, you know,
And so they actually that's an anticipation of terrence. When
we start to see price levels go up because of teriffs,
that's just going to think and.
Speaker 2: Reinforce that, Hey, what's some tariffs among friends?
Speaker 1: Though, well, the problem is that even friends aren't going
to appreciate it. And I get what President Trump is
trying to do in terms of created a more level
playing field between our trading partners and the United States
the problem and I've written about this extensively. Historically, terroriffs
have not worked out well. The last time we had
a big terror for was started and initiated by the
US back in nineteen thirty with the initiation of the
smoothhually spare of laws. And historically globalization has provided a
plus for global GDP growth, which has in turn raised
living standards. Yeah, for billions of people. It lifted a
lot of people out of poverty. So to me, I'm
not in favor of tariffs in twenty eighteen since we
have a recent example to go buy the Federal Reserve
of other entities have done in analysis and guess yeah what.
It didn't increase jobs, especially in manufacturing, which is one
of the stated goals, and inflation did go up, granted
it was out a very narrow basket of goods based
on the tariffs from twenty eighteen who stated goals were achieved.
So doing this in a much more broad way, I
don't see that it's going to generate the results that
President Trump is hoping for. But you know, this is
his belief system and he's going to run with it.
Speaker 2: So but you know, when we look the government needs
more revenue, right yep. And in theory, you know, like
I remember when we had the so called voluntary auto
import restrictions from Japan, BA, Do you remember what the companies?
Remember what the car companies did? All they did, they
didn't increase their production. They just raised their prices and
increase their margins. So then they're going to be the
same thing. Back to the future here.
Speaker 1: Well, again, it's a little bit more complicated relative to
nineteen eighty because about I think at least a quarter
of all cars sold in the US are manufactured primarily
in Mexico and some in Canada. And what happens Carrie is,
in a sense the parts go back and forth across
the border more than once as this production process is unfolded.
So it's a little, yeah, a little bit more complicated
than back in the nineteen eighties. But President Trump thinks,
I take two things, and Scott Bess, his Treasury secretary,
has kind of emphasized from their point of view, extending
the twenty seventeen tax cuts is critically important to generate
more growth. What you don't want is effectively a tax
increase between four and four and a half trillion that
would happen over the following ten years. But to your point,
tariffs provide revenue, and I think what they're hoping to
achieve is by increasing tariffs on just about everything that
comes in this country, it will generate close to the
four to four and a half trillion dollar tax cut,
so effectively, that's what they're going to pay for it.
But the reality is most companies I think are going
to be more inclined this time around than in twenty
eighteen to pass along a greater proportion for the increase
in the cost. In twenty eight years, remember we had
years you know, six seven years are very low inflation.
Companies were competing for market share, so the idea of
raising prices was like, oh, we don't want to do that.
But after the inflation experience we had and companies having
success in raising prices, I just think more of them
are going to be tempted to say, all right, we'll
absorb twenty percent, but we're going to pass along eighty percent.
So there is going to be a jump in inflation
from the tariffs, and that I think is a negative
for the economy because we're so bifurcated. The top ten
percent of Yeah, of wag jenners now making more than
two hundred and fifty thousand carry provide about fifty percent
of all spending. The other eighty percent have not been
increasing their spending at the same level. So they're under
the gun, and I think higher prices for whatever reason
is going to make their lives more difficult and they're
likely to pull back.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think so, huh, Well, I guess well, and
the real.
Speaker 1: Risk is, you know what's keeping the economy going. I
think between September twenty three and September twenty four, that
top to ten percent of waggeners increase they're spending by
twelve percent. The bottom eighty percent that twelve month window
they're spending actually declined. So you know what's fueling the
spending of the top is ascidet values have gone off
a lot. So if you have a stock portfolio over
the last five years, you're in good shake. If you
own a home, that's going up forty fifty percent. But
if you're renting now you don't have a stock portfolio,
you're much more you know, paycheck to paycheck, and I
think that explains it. But the risk is that if
we see a significant decline in the stock market, some
of those top ten percent right vendors will also pull back.
So that's I think the risk for the second half
of this year in terms of the economy potentially going
into recession, is that you get this initial slow down
as a reaction to the tariff war, whatever it turns
out to be, and then if the markets react negatively,
you know, you see a cutback anybody, those who have
been spending most.
Speaker 2: I gotcha, I gotcha. So effectively, though, you could make
the argument that a tariff is simply a consumption tax, right.
Speaker 1: Yeah, someone's paying for it. Yeah, I mean it just
comes down to, all right, well, the originating exporting country
pay for some of it, Okay, and not a lot,
but they'll pay for some. The company that imported the
goods they pay for some. But twenty five percent is
a big number. So yeah, right, it's a consumption tax.
Speaker 2: Right, So going under another name, Yeah, well all right,
so let's say this happens now. So, uh, is it
necessarily negative?
Speaker 1: Well, the market stock market at least is priced for
economic growth. I mean, up until just the last few weeks,
people were on board with this is going to be
good for the economy. The economy's growing two and a
half three percent, might be a little speed bump from tariffs,
but no big deal. So the fact that all of
a sudden we're seeing economic gated come in before the
tariffs already showing signs of slowly, that's kind of challenged
that Sanwine outlook. And I think you know, in terms
of the stock market, it's selling at a very high
level in terms of P. All right, but Jen, look,
but other measures of evaluation, just so you know, well.
Speaker 2: How do you how do you define a recession? What's
your definition?
Speaker 1: Well, the shorthand is two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth. However,
we had that in twenty twenty two, and I wasn't
in the recession camp because and we just saw this
this week, the trade deficit for January exploded as companies
and consumers bought stuff.
Speaker 2: Yeah, they're front end loaded exactly.
Speaker 1: And so you know the short run, what happens the
way they calculate GDP, it's gross domestic production, So everything
that we import, they actually subtract that from GDP. So
the Atlanta Fed has their GDP now thing, and it
was like two and a half percent, and then after
a Friday when the trade deficit was reported, they went
from two and a half to a minus one and
a half percent because of trade. Now, the point I've
made back in twenty twenty two and would make today
is that represents demand. In other words, the economy isn't
weakening because people are pulling back on spending. It's just
the opposite. They're increasing their spending and it's causing imports
to spike. Now what that means isn't coming months. I
think you'll see the trade deficit come down fairly significantly
because you had this burst of buying pulling demand forward,
and so we'll see GDP rebound as that takes place.
The other thing is that inventories are going to increase,
which adds to GDP. So you've got a lot of
noise going on, and that's what happened in twenty twenty two.
Carry is, in the first quarter, trade brought the GDP
to a negative. In the second quarter of twenty twenty two,
Walmart Target slashed inventories enough to cause the second quarter
GDP twenty twenty two to be negative. So one has
to kind of look beyond the headlines. When GDP movements
are the result of big swings in trade and or inventories.
As long as consumer spending, which I was holding up
in twenty twenty two, holds in there. But then you know,
we'll be okay for a little while. But I am
pretty cautious that I think if President Trump follows through
on what his stated plans are, economic growth is going
to slow more than most people are expecting.
Speaker 2: All right, So but look, you agree that the actual
underlying inflation rate has been understated. Yeah, all right, So
if we actually were to apply the proper GDP deflator
and we've had und a recession for four years, what's
the difference here?
Speaker 1: Yeah, Well, the difference is talking about is you know,
a significantly higher you know, amplifying inflation by at least
two and a half percent a year, since that's what
GDP has been kind of doing. I'm growing at two
and a half percent. I'm not willing to go that far.
But your main point is the economy has been struggling
and weaker than what the state of GDP numbers are.
I would agree with that, and again it's because of
two things. The government ran a deficit of six point
four percent last year of GDP. Okay, we grew two
and a half percent, will be but a lot of
it was because of government spending. One of the things
that Besson has said there goal is to cut the
deficit from two trillion to one trillion. Yeah, and then
the point I made is, hey, that's a worthy goal.
It's hopefully they will accomplish it. But when you cut
spending in the economy by three percent or more, I
guess what's going to happen to grow. It's going to slow.
So these are all the things that I think will
take time to play out. But the combination of cutting
government spending and uh, you know, consumers pulling back because
of higher prices, I think we're headed toward a soft
spot in the economy. Doesn't fulfill the official definition of
a recession. We'll see, but I don't think that the
equity market has been priced for, you know, a significant
slowdown in the economy, and potentially later this year people
beginning to worry about, oh my goodness, maybe we're going
into a recession. Historically, the average bear market during a
recession takes the SMP down thirty six percent. Mm.
Speaker 2: Okay, well, so you're why vote you're unploded to elect
your mind old, all of a sudden, have a really
good reason to sell.
Speaker 1: Well, hey, you got to be realistic, you know. I mean,
I you know, one of the things that I'll touch on,
because the Republican has passed a budget lasts through the
House last week, and immediately the Democrats said, oh my god,
they're slashing and burning medicaid spending. They're cutting eight hundred
and eighty billion dollars. It's going to be a catastrophe
for everybody, all right. And what you know, when you
and I talk, you know, you say, well, you know,
I spent a couple thousand dollars on meat last year.
I think I'm going to cut back. We would say, okay,
I mean I'll spend nineteen hundred or eighteen hundred dollars
this year. That's not how it works in Washington. They
develop a baseline of spending for the next seven years,
and so if they project medicaid spending to rise by
let's say five percent a year, and all of a sudden,
the Republicans said, well, no, let's only allow it to
rise by two percent. So spending on Medicaid in the
next decade will increase by one and a half trillion
but the Democrats are calling that, you know, a disastrous
cut because the baseline haded going up by two point
three tray in. But other words, spending is going up
one and a half troyon, and yet the Democrats are
calling that a cut of eight hundred billion. Welliot Washington,
can a spending increase be.
Speaker 2: Termed a cop So back to their same old tricks.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, you know, tax cuts the other thing. Oh
my god, it's all for. They just want to give
the billionaires and they're rich at tax cut, and the
hell would everybody else? Well, here's the reality, and most
people don't know this. In last year, of the bottom
fifty percent of wagerners paid three percent of the total
income taxes collected. So that leans the top fifty percent
of wagerners pay ninety seven percent, with the bulk of
that going in the top twenty five. How can you
give a tax cut to people who haven't paid, that
aren't paying taxes. You know what.
Speaker 2: That's called a negative tax cut, Jim. And that's called
a general whack.
Speaker 1: That's called a giveaway.
Speaker 2: But in all seriousness, they are raising taxes on the rich.
If you own a sports franchise, you know, you're not
going to be able to like depreciate your quarterback's arm,
or your pitcher's arm, or your kicker's foot, and carried
interest for hedge's Yeah, that's going to end, and a
couple of other things. So, I mean, it really doesn't
amount to a row of pins in the scheme of things.
But at least it's like, hey, the rich are paying
their quote unquote fair share. But what about Trump's desire
just to get rid of the irs. How if we
had a consumption tax of say fifteen or twenty percent national,
would that be enough to make up for it?
Speaker 1: I don't know, but again that would be the argument
against it. Carry is that at fifty percent, if you
had a fifteen percent tax on someone who's making fifty
or sixty thousand dollars, that's a larger burden than oh,
a fifteen percent tax on somebody making a million. Yeah,
and they're spending a million, Okay, And I would quite
honestly agree with that. Our tax system as it is
today is really fairly aggressive. You just have people are
just not knowledgeable to know that in fact, it is progressive,
and it's.
Speaker 2: Counter three percent of income tadgets, and it really doesn't
achieve its purpose.
Speaker 1: It's like mushroom management, you know, mushroom management. Keep dark
in the dark, beat him a lot of fertilizer.
Speaker 2: Yeah, then can them a lot of excrement. The more
excrement to.
Speaker 1: Get, the better it is, right, decided to know the
higher road fertilizer. All right. So but we're at the
same place, right, So my only point is that you
have you know, the Democrats will do everything they possibly
can to undermine what President Trump is doing and some
of the things. You know that the thing I point
out in the March letter macrotized letter is the GAO.
Last April Kerry came out and said, you know what,
somewhere between two hundred and thirty and five hundred and
twenty billion dollars of fraud and waste exists every single
year in government spending. So all right, So here you
have Doze and Elon Musk trying to do some due
dilences and identify some of that fraud and waste. And
the Democrats are going out of their minds.
Speaker 2: Yeah, because they're the recipients. Because they're the direct recipients
of that fraud which we've seen from USAID has sprinkled
all throughout the government, all over the place.
Speaker 1: Right. So my point is, unfortunately, you know, must pulling
out a chainsaw not probably the right look. You know,
just take a serious be serious. Well I like it.
I laughed too. At the same time, you're giving political
fodder to the opposition to be able to say, look
at this guy, he's trying to take your Medicare, you're
social Security, you're Medicaid.
Speaker 2: No one's buying that stuff, Jim.
Speaker 1: Oh.
Speaker 2: The Democrats are Oh, it's they're a minority, and you know,
they've viewed so many laws here. And not that the
Republicans are so innocent either, but they've controlled the government
for twelve out of the last sixteen years, and all
this fraud escalated. And one thing we learned from Doge
is that you always knew what was happening, but it's
way worse than you ever thought it could possibly be. Right,
you know, we see it. So they've lost their credibility,
they lost their moral high ground if they ever had
such a thing before. And now the fun begins because
we just scratched the surface here. The fraud is rampant.
And I don't know about you, but if I had
to take a guess at how much money the government
wastes every year and how much is stolen and whatever
that falls into the sinkhole. I think it's thirty five
or fifty percent. I think that's a reasonable guesstimate. And
nothing I've seen so far from Doge has convinced me otherwise.
Speaker 1: You yeah, no, I mean again, I think the goal
of burning out waste and fraud is absolutely necessary, required,
and it's sacrilegious that it hasn't really happened. In yeah,
very very long waiting for the only thing I will say.
You say is though you say, okay, they lost credibility,
not with the Democrats, Okay. In other words, the Democrats,
I mean, get most of their information from the New
York Times. The New York Times is going to say
stuff that may not be attached to reality, but it's
the spoon feeding of the faithful that they're going to bleed.
Here's a pill. Gallup came out with a poll that
was taken on February nineteenth, asking people what kind of
job you think President trumb is doing so far? The
Republicans were ninety three percent approval, The Democrats were four percent.
So what I wrote about in the March Macro times.
But this shows me is there's a whole bunch of
people in the Republican Party who think, you know, Trump
is the second coming of the Messiah, They're gonna do
no wrong. And in the Democrats, he's the devil incarnate
who can only do evil.
Speaker 2: Really no power. Now the Democrats co opted out.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: What's the majority in the House for the Republicans. Yeah, well,
but then we get into voter fraud and other things.
Speaker 1: Four seats. What do you think is going to happen
in remember of twenty six I think they're going to
lose those They're going to lose that majority, I lay
out if Again, my only point here is that you
have both camps or people in the Republican Party and
the Democratic Party that are incapable of critical thinking. Yeah,
so that's the problem. I think that. But so come
on the fraud.
Speaker 2: It's not just the budget where the fraud's rampant. We
know it's rampant in the electoral process here too.
Speaker 1: Again that has to be proven beyond the shadow of
it down there's no quote, you can get hardcore people
who are Dems to believe any of that. They're just again,
they're going to believe that, oh, they're just making all
this stuff up and they're hurting a lot of people
around the world. Yeah, I have I have relatives that
are really liberal, and that's what they tell me.
Speaker 2: Yeah, they're not critical thinkers. I agree with all the happening,
but the mindset, yeah, you know, you know, I think
it's interesting that there's been no discussion at all of
voter fraud and cracking down on it, other than there's
a couple scattered cases, one in Florida, which actually details
how the fraud takes place by this voter registration cloning.
So it's too early to make predictions for twenty six,
but you know, recession, we've already we've already been there
and done it. So it'll get a little worse. But
people don't even understand it, you know, they they don't
understand Jim, that they're purchasing power and the dollar has
lost ninety eight percent since twenty thirteen, maybe ninety nine,
I mean since nineteen thirteen, rather in the one hundred
years of the Fan, twelve years of the FED. The
fact that they've carried it on as long as they
have is pretty remarkable. Okay, so the market, what do
you think the decline.
Speaker 1: Is going to be here? I think we're gonna get
a bounce in the short term. The S and P
this morning got down near the two hundred day average.
That for some people like, Okay, this is the place
to buy. Yeah, I think right, and then some short
covering kicks in. But my take is whatever bounce that happens,
I think is going to be followed by another leg
down because I think Trump is serious about the tariffs
that they're going to enact on April second. So to me,
if the market got stretched, SMP dropped like two hundred
and fifty points from yesterday morning to this morning. That's
a heck of a move in a very short period
of time. So you get a snap back rally. I
think there's another leg down that's coming. And if you know,
things blow up into a full blown trade war, you know,
twenty percent. I think that's possible. So we're talking about
a move on a forty nine hundred, fifty one hundred
potentially on the S and P. So you know, I've
been cautioning my subscribers that, hey, things are weakening, we're
going to have a reason to sell. It's going to
get a little ugged. In terms of gold. I think
gold is near an important high.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I was going to ask you about that. So
we're getting close to three thousand. Every time it gets
close it gets slammed, right.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean just from the price pattern from the
low back in September of twenty twenty two at a
gold bottom up, I think one thy six hundred and twelve.
To me, price pattern wise, it looks like we're completing
the fifth leg of that rally. And we're in the
fifth leg, and there's one more pop to take gold
above twenty nine to fifty four. But I think that
sets the table for a pullback that could take it
under twenty six hundred. The first target would be the
most recent law at twenty five fourty one. So I
think this is a place to be lighting up on gold,
all right.
Speaker 2: And so what do you invest in bitcoin?
Speaker 1: I think you know, when Bidfoy was playing trading in
one hundred and three thousand, I basically said, I think
it's going to seventy three thousand. Haven't gotten there yet,
but I still think that's not an unreasonable target. So
I think bitcoin, like the SMP, we're working our way
down to a lower price, and so you get a hit,
you get a rebound. Okay, you get hit, you get
a rebound. I think it's called lower oil. The Saudi
Arabia and the Opex that they're going to increase production
a very very small amount. The main thing is that
the economy slows carry I think that means less demand
for oil might take is that oil as a shot
for sixty sixty two? Then I guess ready here on
sixty seven.
Speaker 2: Oh geez, is anything going to go up besides inflation?
You know, this reminds me of Will Rogers investing inflation.
It's the only thing going up.
Speaker 1: Well again, I think the thing is if we have
a full blown recession, what's going to happen is you're
going to get this pop in inflation from the tariffs.
But that's a one time adjustment. It's so of like, hey,
we're going to do all this again next year or
the year after. It's a one time adjustment. So I
think what happens You get to pop int of inflation,
and then as the economy slows, that inflation starts to
melt away because demand will drop as people pull back.
So you know, again I think near term, that's problematic.
I think the biggest risk is if the CPI gets
up in there, yeah or four percent, which it very
well might. As we get towards the summertime. You know
that Fed it has to make a decision. In twenty eighteen,
they decided to look through the terraffs eight they weren't
you know, the tariff increases were relatively small compared to
what we're talking about today, and at one time nature
of them, they thought, okay, it's going to pay right,
that's through. Plus, inflation expectations were really well controlled and
had been for years. So the Fed might have a
real tough decision. But I think I don't see them
raising rates carry It just comes down to delaying any
cuts for a while longer. Okay, So so.
Speaker 2: Rate cuts they'll put off as long as they can
or what do you think?
Speaker 1: Yeah? Yeah, I mean again, you're gonna need to see
the unemployment rate really took up. That's what will get
them and prompt them to make a decision to lower rates.
Plus at that point in time, they will have a
much better handle like all the rest of us. How
far are the tariffs going, what is the size? How
long are they going to remain in place and so
forth the FED. Then we'll be able to do some
modeling to guestimate, all right, how big of a pop
and inflation are we going to get? How long will
that potentially last? So you know, they're flying in the
dark like everyone else. You know, we have no noune knowns.
The problem is they're still unknown. So I think the
FED bias is to lower rates, but they're going to
need the kind of evidence, if you will, in justification
to do so, especially if we see inflation ticking up.
The only thing that can justify it. To me, it
would be the unemployment rate ticking up to four point three,
four point four, four point five. Then they're going to.
Speaker 2: Act interesting interesting, all right, well so but then we
have the inflation right.
Speaker 1: So well again, economic slowing in recessions historically always bring
inflation downe yeah, I mean that's the pain, that's the
trade off. That's painful. Okay, we got inflation, don't But
the unemployment rate went from four to five or whatever
the numbers are, you know, and the FED has been
trying to avoid that over the last three years, and
fortunately energy prices came down a lot. If we see
oil prices drop down towards sixty and stay there. That'll
help in terms of headline inflation. You know, President Trump
has said he wants oil companies to increase production and
so that the daily production level goes from thirteen to
sixteen million barrels a day. And the problem is that
oil companies have changed the way they do business in
the last three to five years. It used to be
people with high prices were high. Okay, let's drill like crazy.
Well Cheryl has gone mad and said no, no, no, no,
when prices are up, just you can keep drilling the
same amount, but pay us more in terms of shareolds
by buying backstock and dividends ivid ends. So will oil
companies respond to Presidents Trump asking hey, I want you
to increase you know, drilling, And yes they will. I
just don't think they're going to be aggressive to the
extent of causing production to go from thirteen to sixteen
million barrels.
Speaker 2: Let's not forget, though, that most of the fracking revolution
did not come from the majors. All the majors aren't
going to be the ones that find the oil.
Speaker 1: They don't.
Speaker 2: It's the wildcatters and those hot, big, small ones to
small medium ones. Those are the ones. And we have
a new technology that hasn't been written about at all
because everyone knows about fracking, and we assume that the fracking.
Speaker 1: Revolution was over.
Speaker 2: But then they've got this new thing called refracking, right,
and that's bringing out even more oil than the initial
frack did. So what the problem has been is that
the capital was like choked off from these markets by
that's g and the yeah and whatever, you know, the
new grain deal. That's not going to be the case now.
And that's what I find kind of interesting is.
Speaker 1: I had not heard about refracking. Thank you for mentioning that.
I'm going to look that up. You know, what thing
will tell you is over the last three to five years,
a lot of the major companies have bought some of
the wildcatters down in the program basin, you know, so
their impact is less than what it was four or
five years ago, but there's still some of them are
going to pursue an aggressive strategy. But obviously if a
new technology makes a difference in terms of producing more
out out of existing wells, that's a big deal.
Speaker 2: Yeah, They're refracking is a big deal. They actually go
back into the well. That's you know, because the whole
thing was the production cycle was you know, real high,
and then it dips off and then eventually it's down
to like a stripper well doing you know, ten barrels
a day, and that's what they anticipated for all of
North Dakota. But refracking, and I will refracking it's kind
of the same as fracking, except they go back and
they fracked it, frack it again and it turns out
it you know, it winds up here. It can double
or triple the output of an existing way well cost
up to forty percent less than drilling a new will Yeah,
doesn't require additional state permits, less disruptive to the environment
because the environment's already been disrupted. You know, you're just
going back to the old wall.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah. Yeah. So now it'll be interesting to see
the longevity of those wells. Okay, they can get a
boost of thirty to forty percent because it is it
maintained for three years or is it more like eighteen months?
You know, I mean that that'll be another factor. Okay,
well here here we have an answer for you. There, Jim,
I came to the right place. You got it?
Speaker 2: Then, refracking can significantly extend its lifespan, potentially adding several
years of production to a will that would otherwise be
nearing the end of its productive life, allowing a longer
overall extraction period compared to single fracking. However, the exact
longevity depends on factors like initial well quality, reservoir and
the text.
Speaker 1: Somewells may last three years to the eighteen months it compars.
Speaker 2: And my guess is they will come up with something
else after refracking, because.
Speaker 1: There's the holes correctly been the history.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, you know so, but it is interesting to
think about it. Yeah, all right, So macrotides dot com
side on correct Jim's service there. Make sure you click
the link in the show notes. If you're doing the
podcast or the video, you can view all of the
Jim's forecasts in one place. Appreciate you coming on, Jim.
You've got a question, shoot us an email kl at
Carrie Leuts dot com. We'll get you an answer and
the link to Jim's site in the show notes. This
interview on Financial Survival Network dot com.
Speaker 1: Jim.
Speaker 2: Appreciate you stopping by, so.
Speaker 1: You carry any if you want. You can tell your
viewers and listeners that if they send me an email
Jim Welsh Macro at Gmail, I'll send them the March
Macro tides that just went out on Monday, even.
Speaker 2: Though okay, even be all right, so great, great joining you,
all right, take care, we'll talk to you, so stay well.
Speaker 3: Thanks for listening to Carrie Letz's Financial Survival Network, your
solution to today's trying times. For the latest, go to
Financial Survivalnetwork dot com. Financial Survival Network now more than ever,