All holdings

Oil

USOMixed

Exchange-traded fund tracking near-month crude oil futures contracts for commodity exposure.Yahoo Finance ↗uscfinvestments.com

15 takes · first discussed Jun 20, 2024 · last May 22, 2026 · 3 stance reversals

Stock since first call
+58.8%
$79.41$126.14
Current call
Mixed+11.2%
since Mar 13, 2026
anchored Jun 20, 2024 · as of Jun 12, 2026

The tape vs. the takes

Every call, plotted at the price the day they made it.

$148.23$64.52FFriedberg — bull — Oct 25, 2024CChamath — bull — Mar 29, 2025CChamath — bull — Jun 13, 2025CChamath — bull — Jun 28, 2025SSacks — bull — Dec 19, 2025FFriedberg — bear — Jan 10, 2026FFriedberg — bull — Mar 6, 2026JJason — bull — Mar 6, 2026SSacks — mixed — Mar 13, 2026CChamath — bear — Mar 13, 2026JJason — mixed — Mar 13, 2026Jun 20, 2024Jun 12, 2026
letter = host · click for the quote

The discussion

The hosts and guests hold a broadly cautious, geopolitically driven view on oil, with near-term price direction dominated by supply-shock risks rather than fundamentals. The Strait of Hormuz closure in early 2026 generated the most debate: Jason and Friedberg flagged it as a severe upside price shock (Brent spiking to $119), while Chamath and guest Brad argued the spike would be short-lived given coordinated IEA strategic reserve releases (~400M barrels) and strong incentives from China and Asia to resolve the disruption quickly; Sacks carved out a tail-risk scenario where Iranian retaliation against Gulf infrastructure could make the strait's reopening irrelevant. On the longer-term structural view, Friedberg stands alone as a high-conviction bear, arguing electrification and energy storage trends make $45/barrel more likely than $65 by 2026, while Friedberg's earlier commodity-basket positioning and Chamath's repeated warnings about Iran-driven price doubling reflect a more tactically bullish posture on supply disruptions. Political framing also divided guests, with Trump-aligned commentary warning Democratic policy would send prices "through the roof," while Mark Cuban attributed the 2022 inflation spike partly to Trump's 2020 OPEC+ production-cut deal — illustrating that both hosts and guests see oil prices as deeply intertwined with policy and geopolitical decisions rather than market forces alone.

How they got there

ChamathChamath4 takes since Mar 29, 2025
flipped once
’26
BearishE264Mar 13, 2026

Chamath argues the oil price spike is likely short-lived: the market's reflexive drop from $120 to $90 on Trump's 'war over soon' comment signals confidence in a short conflict, and coordinated IEA releases of ~400M+ barrels will dampen any sustained price spike.

The market literally took oil from $120 a barrel to $90 a barrel. Almost in a nanosecond...Chris released 172 million barrels...coordinated release of about 400 million barrels of petroleum. That's going to dampen the effect of any price8:34
JasonJason2 takes since Mar 6, 2026
MixedE264Mar 13, 2026

Jason frames the oil price volatility as significant and historically notable, presenting the spike to $119 and current $99 level as a serious but uncertain shock, with the outcome depending on war duration and strait closure.

Brent crude oil...it spiked to $84 on Friday....$119 on Monday...dropped back down to $84, jumped back up to $100...Brent crude currently at $99...this is not new, but it is significant.3:49
SacksSacks2 takes since Dec 19, 2025
MixedE264Mar 13, 2026

Sacks warns of severe tail-risk scenarios where escalation could destroy Gulf oil and gas infrastructure via Iranian tit-for-tat retaliation, making the strait reopening moot — but frames this as a downside risk of escalation rather than a base case.

If the Iranians get hit, if their oil and gas infrastructure gets hit, they've already said they're going to engage in tit-for-tat retaliation against the Gulf states...it won't really matter if the straits get reopened because you won't11:25
FriedbergFriedberg3 takes since Oct 25, 2024
flipped 2×
’25
’26
BullishE263Mar 6, 2026

Friedberg explains that Strait of Hormuz disruption and collapse of war-risk insurance creates a massive risk to energy prices globally, driving inflation and threatening US economic security — implying bullish near-term oil price pressure from the supply shock.

that's obviously a massive risk to energy prices globally, which drives inflation and puts US economic security at risk.39:53
GGuests4 takes since Jun 20, 2024
’25
’26
Gavin BakerMixedE274May 22, 2026

Guest notes the Strait of Hormuz closure is bad for global oil supply/consumers (especially Europe, Asia, Japan, China) but relatively good for America, implying a divergent impact on oil prices globally vs. domestically.

the Strait of Hormuz is absolutely bad for everyone, but relatively good for America and relatively good for Trump's policy goals... Every day the Strait of Hormuz is closed is relatively good for America. It's terrible for Europe. It is1:31:08
iAbout these quotes
Quotes are machine-transcribed from the episode audio — use the Listen links to verify any take against the source, or the ⚑ link to report a problem. Takes marked unverified, low-conviction, or commentary-only never move stances, the index, or the funds.