+0.0
net board stance
what this means
193.36
+1.4% · close 2026-09-08
+16% / +18% / +54%
1m / 3m / 12m
-52%
vs SPY since 2022-12-16
100%
of 52w range · +0.0% off high
—
hit rate as primary
Where we stand — 0 live ideas
No active idea holds this ticker. Anything below is history.
Where the winds are blowing
NET BOARD STANCE, LAST 60 EPISODES —
rising = the besties are building this position, falling = abandoning it. Replayed from
score_events; an idea counts from birth until its window closes.
PRICE VS SPY OVER THE SAME WINDOW, % — did the
talk lead the tape or follow it?
Who's pushing which way
each voice's net push ON THIS TICKER — their most recent stance per idea × the idea's direction × strength, so supporting a bearish idea pushes down. Not conviction (that lives on the idea); this is direction of travel per person. what w= means
Track record on XOP
No closed window has used this ticker as its primary play, so there is no scored record here yet. Adjacent plays are listed but never scored.
| idea | call | play | verdict | R | α | closed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ⚡ Europe has to replace Russian gas — US natural gas and LNG export is the answer | ▲ LONG | adjacent | HIT | +24.4% | +30.4 | 2023-02-24 |
| ⚡ The 2024 black swan is a wider Middle East war and an oil shock | ▲ LONG | adjacent | MISS | +4.1% | -22.6 | 2024-12-23 |
The tape — what was actually said
every capture on any idea holding XOP, newest first · quotes verbatim, timestamps deep-link into the episode
And I really do agree with you, Friedberg, there is a non-trivially high probability, the highest it's ever been, that we are just bumbling and sleepwalking into a really bad situation we can't walk back from.
And if Hezbollah and Israel are in a full scale war with ground forces, it could be very easy for Iran to get pulled into it on Hezbollah's side. And if that happens, I think it's just inevitable that the United States will be pulled into this war.
I think there's going to be a big war. I think by the time the show airs, Israel's incursion into Lebanon is going to get bigger. It's going to escalate. And by next week, we could be in a full blown multinational war in the Middle East.
which could mean an increased escalation in conflict. And that's, I think, a real kind of point of concern. And that's the one of the black swan events I think that's still outstanding right now.
If you were to place odds on this, I'd say it's at least 50-50 that things escalate into a regional war.
We have an adversary now with a quarter of a trillion dollars of excess cash who has no incentive to negotiate.
DO
Donald Trump
support ×2
▲ on
⚡ The 2024 black swan is a wider Middle East war and an oil shock
E184 · 2024-06-20
▶ 27:14
And within 90 days or so, they're going to have and could have very well a nuclear weapon.
Depending on the action they choose, we could very rapidly find ourselves engaged in a wider regional war on five different fronts. I mean, a war with Iran would involve us in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen where we're already bombing. So this could turn into a huge conflagration in the Middle East.
I still think we get an oil shock in the Middle East. If this situation broadens into a larger regional war, maybe with Iran, you could get a shock in the price of oil
RY
Ryan Petersen
oppose ×2
▲ on
⚡ The 2024 black swan is a wider Middle East war and an oil shock
E158 · 2023-12-23
▶ 12:03
the Suez Canal is too valuable, in my opinion, too valuable to civilization, to the modern world, to believe that a group of rebels, no matter how well-funded they may be, is gonna be able to disrupt that for any long period of time.
So I think this has the potential to be a black swan in 2024, meaning that somehow the Israel-Hamas war spirals into a larger regional war that pulls the US in. ... And I think that if that does happen, there could be the potential for an oil shock.
And we've discussed the benefits on this program of now we've shifted the European dependence on Russian gas to a dependence on American gas.
The West is never going to trust them again. The Germans are never going to buy their oil again.
We've basically shifted Europe onto American natural gas. We've destroyed Nord Stream.
There's an acute energy shortfall. You can't just make that up. You can't convert oil into natural gas to heat people's homes. It's impossible structurally right now in the timeframe that it's needed.
I think the only way we'll be able to deal with him is if he doesn't have the oil market he has. He just has too much power from that oil. And over time, that's the solution. We have to be energy independent.
No, it's true. If you're willing to use natural gas and fracking, America is one of the richest energy countries in the world.
in the US, I think the people of the country want us to be energy independent. ... it's elite opinion that bought into these foolish ideas that basically we should cancel energy independence, we should cancel the Keystone pipeline, we should cancel new drilling. America should be a net energy exporter.
The problem with energy independence is it takes too long. And we went through a massive capital under investment cycle over the last six or seven years. ... And so when you look at these NatGas companies, every single one to a name has basically said, we are not going to put any incremental capital into US domestic NatGas or shale or even offshore.
The op-ed made the point that we could be investing in liquefying natural gas and exporting it to Europe to create more energy independence, and that would remove their dependence on Putin. ... I don't think we should be turning our backs on the enormous reserves of natural gas that we have here in this country. ... we could be energy independent for free right now if we were just to repeal some of these executive orders