January 20, 2025 • 51 mins
Trump’s Taxes, Tariffs, Immigration & the Market – With the inauguration of President Trump, the focus is shifting from political rhetoric to actual governing. Chris Boyd, Jeff Perry, and Russ Ball dig into the likely economic policies of President Trump and how they may impact the financial markets. Topics include, income taxes, tariffs, immigration, deregulation, cryptocurrency, budget deficits/debt, and TikTok.
For more information or to reach Chris Boyd, Russ Ball or Jeff Perry, click the following link:
https://www.wealthenhancement.com/s/advisor-teams/amr
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
Welcome to something more with Chris Boyd.
Chris Boyd is a certified financial planner, practitioner,
and senior vice president, financial advisor at Wealth
Enhancement Group, one of the nation's largest registered
investment advisors.
We call it something more because we'd like
to talk not only about those important dollar
and cents issues, but also the quality of
life issues that make the money matters matter.
(00:22):
Here he is your fulfillment facilitator, your partner
in prosperity, advising clients on Cape Cod and
across the country.
Here's your host, Jay Christopher Boyd.
Thanks for being with us for an episode
of something more with Chris Boyd.
I'm here with Jeff Perry and Russ Ball,
both from our team, the AMR team at
Wealth Enhancement Group.
(00:43):
And today we're talking a little bit about
what the new administration taking office momentarily.
We're, we're talking about what some of the
Trump anticipated or discussed topics when it comes
to taxes, tariffs, immigration policy, and so on
and so forth.
(01:04):
We're going to talk a little bit about
that.
And I get this asked a lot from
clients and who come in to the office
inquiring, what's your take?
You know, how should we be thinking about
some of these issues when it comes to
the markets and you know, just positioning of
portfolios and so forth.
(01:26):
So I thought that would be a fun
topic for us to talk about before we
got even started, Jeff's got me all riled
up, ready to jump on all these topics
and get fired up for our conversation.
I think you were riled up before we
started talking out there.
I think you came in, I think you
came in this morning, ready, looking for a
fight, quite frankly.
Loaded for bear, huh?
Is that what it is?
(01:46):
All right.
I don't know, but it's passion.
That's what it is.
So let me start off with a few
things and then we'll dive in.
Okay.
So, you know, I think big picture I've
been, when I've asked, been asked this, I've
been saying that, you know, overall right now,
the economy is pretty good.
(02:07):
Yeah.
You know, general, general strength.
Um, when we think about, uh, the, uh,
uh, new administration, the expectation is that tax,
lower tax rates that we have under the
tax cut and jobs act, which has a
lower rate of tax for corporations and, uh,
(02:30):
it's a lower income tax rates, uh, that
take longer to get into the next rate.
So, and a higher standard deduction.
So generally, I know this isn't always the
way people talk about it, but in most
instances, people pay less tax income taxation, um,
across the board.
So, um, that would be beneficial in that
(02:53):
consumers keep more money to spend and, uh,
corporate, uh, or, you know, earnings there's less
taxation.
Therefore, there's more going into either the, the
shareholders get more of a profit or they're
going back into research and development or whatever,
maybe.
So that that's generally on the plus side.
(03:14):
I think additionally, uh, you'd argue from a
business point of view, from a profitability point
of view, the expectation of a less burdensome
regulatory policy, uh, we can debate whether that's
good long-term policy or not, but from
a profitability point of view, you'd expect that
(03:35):
to be on the plus side for, uh,
markets and for shareholders, for businesses to do
well when it comes to, um, on the
other side of the, you'd expect the possibility
of tariffs being, and I only want to
talk about this in a little more detail
in just a minute, but you'd expect that
to be on the negative side.
(03:55):
Cause that's an added cost.
It's a drain, uh, on the economy.
Then you'd have, uh, the question of, uh,
deportation.
Uh, you know, there's been a strong, uh,
argument for stronger order control.
I think also, I don't think there's a
lot of people opposed to that personally, but,
(04:16):
um, the issue then becomes, uh, what do
you do with the people who are here
illegally?
Uh, I expect there'll be some sort of
a big show of some deportation, but I
think that the idea of mass deportation becomes
really impractical and challenging.
(04:36):
So it's, again, there's all these things that
were, uh, markets, I think are making assumptions,
how much is rhetoric, how much is positioning
and what's actually going to be implemented is
to be determined, right, to be seen.
But in the meantime, generally, uh, I think
the market expects that there's some of these
(04:59):
things, but not everything that's been talked about,
uh, in, on the campaign trail.
And so I think the market seems to
be responding, saying all the good stuff mostly,
and not, not so much about the worry
stuff.
Uh, so in any case, uh, that's sort
of where I've been trying to set up
the positioning of when talking with clients about
(05:21):
here, here's what it looks like, but we
have to be watchful of what happens and
how this will affect the economy.
Let's start with the topic of tariffs, because
we were talking a little bit about that
before the show started.
And I think it's really important that we
understand essentially how a tariff works.
So, uh, essentially my understanding is if a,
(05:44):
uh, tariff is applied to, let's say China,
we're going to apply, uh, you know, 10
to 60% on the goods from China.
Well, the president's, the president Trump has been
very clear on that, that where the starting
point with China is 10%.
(06:05):
So these are, this is what's been threatened,
I think through the campaign rhetoric, right?
Right, right.
And he, you know, last week he kind
of doubled down on that.
Let's just assume some element of tariff goes
up on Chinese goods, right?
Yep.
Now, um, that means that the importer, the
company trying to import those goods has to
(06:27):
pay more for those goods.
That means the U S consumer who's going
to buy those goods from that importer, whether
it's because that then it turns into a
product or because it is the product either
way, right?
Somehow that cost gets passed on to the
U S consumer.
That's a tax.
That's an tax increase.
(06:48):
It's not necessarily called a tax increase, but
it's effectively a tax increase.
Now, the reason for it is to try
to dissuade the buyer from using that product
that is made in this particular instance, China.
So to find alternative, uh, sources of products,
right?
Um, now, but ultimately let's not, let's be
(07:11):
clear.
It's not China who pays that tariff.
It's the U S importer or the U
S consumer that pays for that tax, that
costs that disincentive.
Um, so that means there's less generally Jeff.
I know you're not a fan of taxes,
right?
(07:31):
More taxes generally thinks it's a slowing economic
impact, not generally a favorable, uh, position to
have.
So, I mean, that being said, we do
have a pretty big deficit.
So maybe there's some favorability.
The reality though, just as an aside is,
um, we've seen this in the past.
(07:52):
This is not a new playbook.
What happens when one country increases tariffs on
another country?
The other country says, well, I'm not going
to take that.
I'm raising tariffs on you on something else.
So if you're going to try to import
here, we're going to have some, uh, in
cost on you, or as we saw, we're
(08:13):
going to boycott some of your product, uh,
when it came to farmers or something like,
you know, different, uh, goods of one type
or another resource resources that we export.
So, um, it's not without consequence and it
has, uh, generally an effect where, uh, it's
(08:34):
inflationary costs.
Just go up, um, on both sides of
the, the trade arrangement.
So in any case, and that affects, yeah,
you know, that's one of the things that,
uh, the Trump administration in the past has
been kind of obsessed about is the idea
of our, uh, trade imbalance.
Well, this doesn't help a trade imbalance.
(08:56):
If you start, um, it can, it can
help.
It can create a disincentive for people to
import our goods.
So we have less exports going out.
And I guess that's a, you know, it's
an individual question country by country.
And, you know, I hope that president Trump
treats it as an individual question.
(09:18):
You know, you can make this, you can
make the arguments that there's other reasons besides
tax income.
And that's the, that's the reason for tariffs.
You alluded to that, Chris, it's a, it's
an income generating thing, right?
Revenue in for the government, right?
That's right.
It also, if there's an unfair trade, not
just balance, not just looking at, you know,
(09:40):
imports versus exports, but import, uh, prices and
export prices, but looking at fair trade or
whether or not there's, um, criminal activity or
improper activity going on between the partners, so
it can be, it can be, uh, can
be punitive, can be sending a message.
(10:00):
Like if you're going to, if you're going
to steal our trade secrets, if you're going
to have slave labor, if you're going to
have this and that totally agree with your
point, um, that doesn't seem to be the
case when we talk about China and Mexico
and, you know, essentially all of these other
places that tariffs have been threatened as well.
I don't, I don't know if I a
hundred percent agree with that.
(10:20):
He, it, I think it may be implied
because those countries both have things that are
not doing, you know, different things that those
countries are not doing that the United States
want them to do, but you know, we
could debate that and whether or not it's
in the motive of the president and his
administration to be part of that.
I can see, I'm not clear.
I'd be curious in the case of Canada,
(10:42):
for example, what are you writing?
I didn't put Canada in there.
I said, China and Mexico.
Okay.
I Canada and Mexico.
I meant to say when I said, uh,
you know, Canada is another one where we've
had this threat.
I think we're trying to make Canada the
51st state or something.
I'm not sure what's going on up there.
But for, for, for Mexico and China, I
think there's reasons to put pressure on their
(11:04):
countries to get them to do things that
we want them to do.
And it's also a way aside from taxes
and aside from political pressure, it's also a
way to protect protectionism, which is certainly a
word that can be used under the, um,
Trump doctrine.
If you want to say that, um, to
protect certain American businesses from unfair trade practices,
(11:25):
um, across the globe, if you will, but
China and Mexico and to protect American companies
who are competing in those sectors.
So I think there's a lot of things
other than just, you know, the simple way
to look at why we're doing tariffs to
punish our enemies, if you will.
I think there's other economic reasons to do
(11:46):
them.
And I just hope it's not broad based.
The thing I liked least about some of
the president, president Trump's proposals, um, was tariffs.
I'm not in favor of tariffs.
Generally, I think they have a place, but
I certainly don't think they have a uniform
place to say 25% for a whole,
everything coming in from a country.
(12:07):
I think if they're targeted, if they have
a clear economic and political message, then they
can be effective.
Yeah.
And I think, you know, we've seen this
whole question of, uh, technology, um, you know,
the essentially, uh, whether things are being treated,
uh, properly and fairly with the, uh, essentially
(12:30):
stealing technological, uh, thought we thought, you know,
uh, trades, whatever it is that, that, that
seems reasonable to me to say, Hey, wait
a second.
Um, I mean, that kind of leads us
to, uh, one of the other things you,
you had brought up Jeff before we got
(12:50):
started was the whole tick tock topic.
All right.
That's, that's, that's one of those going to
be the, uh, hot news right after the
inauguration here.
Um, as we know, when we're recording this,
the Supreme court is, has a case before
them, there have an appeal from tick tock
to stay the, the elimination basically of tick
tock.
Congress passed a law, president Biden signed the
(13:12):
law, which would ban tick tock from the
United States.
The Supreme court could put that law on
a pause, you know, paste facing further review.
Um, they may or they may not.
And if they don't, by the time the
president takes the oath of office, tick tock
in essence will be gone from the United
States, unless they make some deal with there's
(13:34):
been rumors of deals, you know, part of
the, um, legislation was that tick tock could
divest himself of Chinese interest and sell it
to an American entity.
And tick tock could survive.
So at the time of the recording here,
there's no deal sealed, but that could happen
as well.
Um, and then there's some rest.
(13:54):
We were talking about before the show, there's
some kind of political news about tick tock
as well about who might be sitting behind
the president.
Right.
Yeah.
So the, uh, CEO of tick tock is,
uh, in front of Congress and all these
hearings, uh, over the past couple of years,
um, is going to be joining for the
inauguration and sitting in a, in a seat
(14:15):
of honor, uh, behind, uh, the incoming president.
So, uh, a little bit of, uh, interesting
dynamics there.
Yeah.
Okay.
And it feels like it's a political message,
right?
I mean, president Trump's been saying that he's,
he, he, he, and in essence asked the
Supreme court to stay the decision so he
could try to make a deal, right, instead
(14:35):
of tick tock being banned, which is kind
of a change in his position from what
a couple of years ago, he had a
lot of a very different kind of rhetoric
around this, he did.
And I think that his, uh, his, his
win, he, you know, he said tick tock
was, was useful in the campaign process.
And I think he, uh, it kind of
changed his tune around, uh, tick tock.
(14:55):
It's really put, uh, Republicans in a odd
spot because most Republicans, I don't know if
it was all, but most Republican legislators, it
was not all.
There were a few that voted against the
bill, but most Republican senators and reps voted
to ban tick tock.
So now they're having to answer that question
of what do you think about president's Trump's
(15:16):
change of opinion?
Um, just as an aside, uh, what, where
do you, what are your thoughts around this,
uh, this notion of that, uh, this creates
the potential for some threat to the U
S um, national security.
I thought the bill was fairly balanced, balanced
(15:36):
national security, uh, interest, uh, concerns about issues
with, uh, personal information and certain content getting
to children.
Um, but it didn't, uh, it didn't say
this has to be banned.
It sets some reasonable conditions to address those
specific concerns.
And the Supreme court basically agreed with that
(15:57):
part of that the bill was, was constitutional.
So I thought it was a balanced bill.
And the most plausible is to, uh, have
it sold.
Right.
That's right.
Um, the concern is that the current arrangement
has ties to the Chinese government and that
could, that could be used in an adversarial
(16:19):
way.
That's right.
And I think that's legitimate.
I think as the world turns more and
more to everything being online and the use
of AI and the way, you know, communication
and false communication and manipulative communication has been
in existence between adversaries from planes dropping leaflets,
(16:39):
you know, till now it's all in our
television and such and radio, right?
That's right, Chris.
So we do have to be aware of
it and we do have to be vigilant
to protect our military and social and I
mean, I think it's going to create a
little bit of an uproar if they actually
have to close it down.
I think they're trying to, I think that's
(17:01):
the position that seems to be put forth
right now is we're not going to sell,
therefore they're going to create a lot of
angst among American users of TikTok with the
frustration of that and then, so there'd be
some kind of backlash and the expectation that
it would therefore be reversed, but, and I
(17:22):
don't know.
President Trump cannot reverse it, no, it's law,
so it would take an additional act from
Congress and that would mean something that legislators
do not like to do is to change
their vote.
Yeah, reverse themselves.
In the matter of a year, it would
be less than a year that they'd be
saying, oops, I changed my mind.
(17:43):
So, well, you know, the way it would
happen is it gets slid in with something
else, right?
It could, but I think, I think I
really liked this one, but I just had
to go along with it, you know, I
guess, I guess, I mean, honestly, I hope
it's, it's like, they take the position of
like, these are your options.
You know, A or B, what do you
want to do?
If I was a member of Congress or
(18:04):
the Senate, I would not change my vote.
If I was that convinced that it was
a national security threat, I think it would
be very hypocritical to say now it's not,
unless, unless they came up with some new
arrangement on how the data is stored and
such, you know.
All right, let's, let's move on from TikTok,
although it's an interesting topic, let's, let's talk
more about what are some of the things
(18:26):
that are anticipated under the Trump administration that
people think could move markets or have economic
impact that ultimately would have some consequence.
So we talked briefly about tariffs, the idea
that, I mean, I put this in the
negative column, personally.
I understand your point, Jeff, that sometimes there's
(18:48):
like targeted reasons.
It could definitely be a negative.
It's just broad-based, you know, punitive and
no real, no real logic.
It's inflationary, I think.
And I think it's likely to be retaliated
and therefore, you know, you get into this,
like, everyone gets wet, you know what I
mean?
(19:08):
It's not, not a great outcome.
Or it could be a great tool to
get our adversaries or countries that we want
to do things to be more cooperative in
doing the things that protect America.
Yeah.
And I suppose if you're using it for
not just purely in this realm of tariff
(19:29):
thought process, but other kinds of national security
or, you know, leverage for one thing or
another, you know, there could be some virtue
in that, how it applies.
It does seem right now that, you know,
when it comes to China, they're in an
economic less leverage and, you know, coming from
(19:51):
less from a position of strength than they
might have at other times.
China is, yeah.
China.
Yeah.
So, so you do probably have the opportunity
to use something like this for leverage and
other elements of your negotiations, perhaps.
Yeah.
So and with Trump, maybe that's the game
plan.
You know, he's all about the negotiations.
Part of the deal.
Part of the deal.
(20:12):
So, well, let's see what happens with tariffs.
How much is rhetoric and how much is
actually going to be implemented?
I think that's rubber meets the road question.
You know, how's this really play out?
And those are within his discretion.
You know, most some of the things that
we're talking about, TikTok and taxes, maybe we'll
move on to taxes, but that those items
(20:33):
and most items, quite frankly, take the act
of Congress.
Yeah, it's a good point.
The tariffs do not.
It's it's within the purview of the executive
branch.
Mm hmm.
And President Biden continued, you know, just yeah,
I know we're trying to get away from
tariffs, but he can some of these tariffs
are in existence today.
So, yeah, I mean, President Trump implemented tariffs
(20:57):
on China originally.
Right.
And the Biden administration didn't change that at
all, which you would have thought, you know,
just.
Policy wise, they might have been in a
different perspective or whatever.
But, you know, they really maintained the same
same game plan would have been difficult for
(21:19):
President Biden to do so.
The relationship with China has degraded.
In fact, you know, we had a period
where we weren't even communicating with China, even
on the even on the secure military, military
to military communication.
So I think it would have been difficult
for him to ease up on China when
kind of the relationship was so bad.
(21:40):
Yeah.
Yeah.
So thinking about taxes, which is something our
clients are asking us a lot to, you
know, with will the twenty eighteen tax and
jobs and jobs act right be extended?
And if it is extended, does it look
the same as it does today?
(22:01):
And of course, again, this is an element
of crystal ball gazing to know what will
happen.
I think it is widely expected, though, that
the the essence of the tax cut and
jobs act, which is, you know, some of
these key parts of it would be extended.
Now, you know, that's again, it's a tight
Congress.
(22:21):
And as much as it is Republican leadership
presently when it comes to both houses of
Congress, it's pretty thin majorities.
And it might might not be as easy
as we, you know, just on its face
what we might expect.
But I would say, I think that there's,
(22:44):
you know, hope, expectation that just the current
status quo gets extended.
Now, the problem, of course, is we continue
to be operating at a pretty big deficit.
And, you know, one point nine trillion, I
think we said previously, that was last year's
last fiscal year.
We still don't have any kind of budget
(23:04):
for this year.
We're operating on last year's.
Yeah, we're going to launch.
Right.
Right.
So, you know, and by then we're halfway
through, you know, the fiscal year.
Right.
So you got to assume it's going to
be something similar next year, you know, twenty
twenty five rather, you know, this year.
Not but there's no reason to really be
optimistic about it.
(23:27):
So that leads us to this question of,
you know, is it good policy from the
point of view of the growth of our
debt or, you know, that issue?
But from, you know, the idea that, oh,
there's less government burden, less there's more money
(23:49):
in my pocket, I've got more money to
spend.
That's good for consumption.
We're a 70 percent consumer driven economy.
Well, by and by and large, that sounds
like, you know, less lighter load on taxes
generally is good.
So kind of mindset.
My crystal balls has me thinking that to
(24:12):
get the tax cut bill passed again.
Yeah, this is in it's contrary to good
government policy and how to do this.
It's contrary to thinking about the debt.
But this is what I think is going
to happen.
Salt state and local taxes, which impact typically
(24:34):
states that have high property taxes and high
state taxes, typically blue states, incidentally blue states,
California, New York, New Jersey, just Connecticut, maybe
just to name Massachusetts, I guess.
So to name some states.
So I think there's a lot of pressure
from Republican members of Congress and certainly Democrat
(24:59):
members of Congress agree with eliminating salt.
So if you have a bill to extend
the tax cuts for a period of time,
just to be clear.
So for right now, there's a cap.
I think it's $10,000 of what you
can deduct when you have these expenses that
you were just talking about.
Yeah.
And for many people in those states, you
(25:20):
know, this their income tax and their property
taxes are combined is over 10,000.
Never mind if they have a second home
or a high income or whatever.
So state and local taxes, salt ends up
being limited as to how much you can
deduct.
Right.
Doesn't work too well.
So if they eliminate salt, the salt provision,
(25:44):
it delays the Republican members from those states.
California and New York are really the only
ones that have many members of Congress.
But it also makes it difficult for Democratic
members who have run on this issue.
And so I think that's one of the
things they'll do is, of course, that's bad
for the national debt and deficit.
(26:05):
Right.
But even even more disappointing, if you will,
for good government, lower taxes is good government.
So I don't want to make it sound
like it's not.
But I think the tax bill, the border
bill and some other types of bills are
going to be in one bill that are
(26:25):
going to be released as this massive piece
of legislation, the Trump proposal, the Trump desires,
right?
The things he ran on is going to
be put together in one single bill, February
or March, and they're going to try to
get it done all at one time.
So they're going to use all the pressure
of, you know, if you want better immigration,
(26:49):
you have to vote for this bill.
If you want lower taxes, you have to
vote for this bill.
And if you don't vote for this bill,
you're voting against all those good things.
So we'll put the.
Well, good luck with that one.
Number one, that's that's entirely hypocritical based on,
you know, if you remember, you have to
pass it to read it kind of thing.
Single subject rule, all those things.
(27:12):
It's but anyway, that's what my crystal ball
is telling me, it's probably the most plausible
way that it would get past a number
of things.
You know, it holds the Republicans in line
because if they don't vote for it.
They're going to be voting if they vote,
no, they're going to be voting no on
immigration reform, they're going to be voting no
(27:34):
on tax decrease and no on whatever else
is in there that is on the Republican
agenda now in the campaign trail, the president
elect now probably on the day this airs,
the president talked about eliminating taxes on Social
Security benefits, eliminating taxes on tips.
(27:56):
I don't know if they're going to be
in there.
I don't know.
I think that's going to be really hard
to include all that stuff.
But yeah, I'm sure that that'll be an
effort to see what he can get in
there.
Yeah, I think not at this point.
I think I think they won't formally take
it off the agenda.
But if they put too much of just
(28:18):
try to extend what's there and then do
some immigration stuff.
Yeah.
All right.
So that and that leads to immigration with
the topic.
One is border control.
I think there's no question we're going to
see a more significant emphasis on border safety,
border security, what that translates to in terms
(28:39):
of more infrastructure for the existing structure of
trying to do more legal immigration, the processing
of legal applications, which is a big delay.
I mean, it's a long, long delay for
people who are trying to pursue the immigration
(29:00):
through the legal process.
The system is overwhelmed, obviously.
Yeah.
So I think, you know, you need more
infrastructure there as part of the way, as
part of the solution.
But in addition to the security of, you
know, don't want people sneaking in.
The the the bigger question, I guess, becomes
(29:22):
what will really happen relative to the rhetoric
around deportation?
I think it's pretty clear if you listen
to Horman, who's going to be President Trump's
border czar, if you will, and the president
himself recently, his tone on immigration has changed
from the campaign rhetoric a bit.
(29:43):
Yeah.
Being targeted against.
Criminal aliens, criminal people who are illegally or
here legally, but on a temporary basis, if
they commit certain crimes, they had a big
debate last week in Chicago where they tried
to the city council tried to void the
(30:03):
previous law that Chicago wouldn't work with ICE.
And so this this discussion's happening around the
country.
And I think that the first thing and
the first thing is so big that I
don't know if you get to the second
thing of getting the people out of the
country who are committing crimes, harming children, you
know, not being good citizens, if you will.
Yeah, I think there's enough work there to
(30:25):
keep everybody busy in the system busy.
On the other end of that spectrum, I
would think you'd have more political cover, more
support for that kind of thing to say,
look, you know, these are people who are
putting our citizens at risk.
You know, that's one thing.
And I think most people would say, OK,
yeah, I agree with that.
That is the low hanging fruit in this.
(30:46):
Yeah, I mean, it's a term that we
use.
So that I think that's where that goes.
And on the other end of the spectrum
are the dreamers and dreamers are defined as
a minor that was taken into the country,
not on their own, taking in either smuggled
in by a parent or, you know, across
the border with a parent.
And the child, if you will, at the
(31:07):
time had no criminal intent, no intent at
all.
They're just going where they're told to go.
Yeah.
And they become part of the part of
their culture, their experience.
They've been raised in this country, really have
no ties to anywhere else.
They speak English.
They've attended school.
They, you know, depending on how old they
are, I mean, some are in first grade
(31:28):
now and some are 30 years old.
Right.
So.
Right, right.
And President Trump just last week made comments
about that.
That was something that was on his agenda
as well.
So those two things in the immigration debate
are the easy and right things to do.
(31:49):
Deporting people who aren't supposed to be here,
who are harmful to our society, criminals, let's
work on that.
And the people who are.
All but, you know, for that, they weren't
born here, have been good American citizens, they
didn't violate a law intentionally.
Yeah.
I think that's where you start.
(32:09):
I know there's a big middle there.
There's a lot.
No, but I think you're right that there's
a lot of support around both ends of
that spectrum.
And why not do the things that most
Americans support makes our country safer and makes
people make people have the legal ability to
work and be good citizens?
So I think, you know, when you talk
about that and the economic consequence of that,
(32:30):
you think, OK, that that's that's palatable.
It's not something that's going to be disruptive
to the economy.
The idea of deporting every person who's here
illegally, though, you know, fair in some sense,
OK, it's, you know, it's, you know, violates
the our laws.
(32:51):
You know, that that's one thing.
But.
As a practical reality, that becomes really disruptive
to the economy and obviously these individuals.
But, you know, the the economy impact, we're
already short of labor.
And if we then scoop out, you know,
I don't know how many million people that
(33:12):
is from 10 million, maybe 10 to 20,
I think I've heard.
Right.
Anyway, whatever the number on it on purpose,
meaning.
Yeah, at least.
So you have this if you had this
enormous and the logistics of that and the
cost of that and just the whole endeavor
would be so enormous.
(33:34):
I think, you know, maybe there's an element
of, hey, we do some deportation and try
to encourage self-deportation, you know, that people
go, oh, they're cracking down.
I better go home, you know, that kind
of thing.
But by and large, I think, you know,
what we often forget is that we don't
we're not growing as a nation demographically by
(33:55):
births.
And for an economy to grow and expand,
in our case, part of the way it's
grown and expanded historically has been because of
demographic considerations.
We've had more consumers.
You know, growing population, and we rely in
part on immigration for that.
(34:15):
Now, we want that to be legal immigration.
But the reality is, too, we do have
people here who spend money, who are consumers,
who are here as part of that group
that you're talking in the middle, right?
That's like, where do we go?
So I just think there's likely to be
a challenge for the economy in terms of
labor and in terms of the consumer impact.
(34:39):
It is an economic component as well as
all these other dimensions of the issue.
And if you tried to do that first,
you don't have the resources to do the
other ends of the spectrum.
Right.
So and it's not going to work.
So it just seems unlikely, I guess, is
the expectation.
(34:59):
You're not going to have as much of
that.
So I think most the market generally, I
think, has dismissed some of that talk as
not actually likely to happen and therefore less
worrisome as an economic consequence and therefore how
does it affect the markets?
I would agree with that.
(35:20):
And Trump's going to be able to fulfill
his broader promise if the border is actually
secure and he's decreasing the number of criminals
who happen to be illegal in the United
States.
And there's a lot of news on that.
And the Dreamer question is solved.
If those three things happened, I think he
(35:40):
would deserve an A plus on his immigration
policy if those get done in four years.
What were some of the other topics that
you thought would be relevant to discuss here,
Jeff?
Well, you touched on, you know, it's not
a real exciting one, but it is impactful.
I think is the regulatory environment, you know,
the rules and regulations that agencies make.
(36:03):
Sometimes Congress passes broad, you know, inspiring laws
that will do X, Y or Z and
they leave it to the agencies to promulgate
regulations.
And oftentimes it's a complaint of conservatives, including
myself, that these regulatory agencies act beyond the
scope or, you know, or have broad powers
that are somewhat you question is this beyond
(36:27):
their legislative, beyond the intent of the legislation.
You know, it comes up in all forms
of businesses.
But some of the two industries that I
think the prognosticators are thinking will be beneficial,
benefited by this less regulation or deregulation is
energy, right?
(36:48):
More energy development, more drilling, drill, baby drill.
And the finance industry, quite frankly, who is
a general consensus among Republicans that the financial
industry has been overregulated by previous the previous
administration, the Biden administration.
So I think it's interesting.
I bet a lot of people would be
(37:09):
surprised to know that we produce more oil
than ever before, you know, that people think,
you know, drill, baby drill, that there's been
some restraint because of public lands and things
like this that may be publicized.
But when it comes to output, the U
.S. is doing a great deal of production.
(37:32):
We are a net exporter of energy when
it comes to that kind of thing.
So that this also ties into that question
of when you think about what will be
the impact of, say, a more liberal regulatory
(37:55):
policy in the case of energy, as an
example, you might expect energy stocks to do
better.
When you look at the past Trump administration,
energy did not do as well under that
administration because the prices went down, I guess,
and therefore the profitability was greater supply.
(38:17):
And the opposite is true under the Biden
administration.
You'd have thought it would be the other
way around, that energy stocks wouldn't do as
well.
It's just it's one of these things where
things don't always move the way you expect.
You can't look at it overly simply.
It's not as simplified as that.
Yeah.
So in any case, but yeah, I think
there is expectation that those are two examples.
What was the second one that you mentioned,
(38:39):
by the way?
It was security, securities, financial, financial sector.
Yeah.
And, you know, one of those instances, the
current SEC chair who will be is being
replaced, has been pretty antagonistic toward cryptocurrency and,
(39:00):
you know, desiring to limit access or in
terms of products like ETFs and mutual funds,
they've been sort of guarded about this from
the idea that this may not be always
something consumers understand.
(39:20):
And would it be in their best interest?
You know, that kind of thing.
I think it's right, by the way, to
go slow and make sure you don't just
jump in.
And I think that you're right, that Gensler
was really more of a challenging, trying to
(39:41):
add some regulatory burden, trying to be more
proactive in a consumer protection kind of mindset.
But in any case, so we'll see what
what that translates to.
Well, the market certainly thinks it's, you know,
Wild West is coming because its price has
gone up substantially.
(40:03):
Bitcoin people, there's lots of cryptocurrencies, but people,
you know, casual viewer has heard of Bitcoin
and maybe they follow the price a little
bit.
CNBC is flashing it every 30 seconds on
the TV.
So price of bitcoins, you know, when I'm
talking today here, I think it was around
$100,000 and that's up from the $70
(40:25):
,000 range right before the election.
And it had gone up before that in
speculation that Trump could win.
So it certainly thinks that Trump is going
to be favorable to the industry.
Yeah, I think that's very true.
That's its own show.
I mean, let's let's have more conversation about
cryptocurrency.
(40:47):
Sometimes a bubble.
There you go.
I think it's I think it's a topic
that's worthy of more in-depth conversation.
I've heard repeatedly on the campaign trail that
we really don't need an education department.
What are some other examples of deregulation that
might?
(41:09):
Well, energy department, I think, is in that
same bucket of things that might disappear.
I'm not sure it's going to happen.
I don't know that it'll actually disappear in
any of these instances.
But, you know, what's the the idea that
government is an organism that doesn't like to
shrink or something?
Well, we have we have another I don't
(41:29):
know.
It's not an agency.
We have a group led by Ramaswamy and
Musk who are who are delegated with the
task of doing just that.
Doge, they call it, which is, you know,
I don't want to go back to cryptocurrency.
Yeah, it is the same.
I have a client who said, I'm going
(41:50):
to buy that just because I think there's
a lot of people because of this Doge
department that are going to.
Stranger things have happened, right?
Yeah.
Yeah.
And so far, it's worked to his advantage.
I don't know.
Remember the dotcom days?
Recently, Elon Musk was bringing down his estimate
for how much they're going to he's going
to be able to cut.
I think it went from two trillion to
one trillion.
Yeah, I mean, he's actually done some homework.
(42:13):
He realizes there's it's going to be harder
to do than he planned.
Right.
Yeah.
But, you know, I agree with you, Chris.
Government is ever expanding.
And, you know, that's it's a natural growth
of government where it's either under both parties.
Yeah.
I mean, conservatives, Republicans, we try to.
(42:33):
The rhetoric is we want it to be
small, but actually it's not made smaller when
we're in office, unfortunately.
But if it's ever going to happen, this
is the opportunity that it could happen because
you have a president who who campaigned on
it.
He created an entity to focus on it,
whether or not it can achieve the what
number.
(42:53):
Yeah.
And how much fraud, waste and abuse, you
know, that kind of thing that we always
talk about, how much really they can identify
and eliminate is.
It's there, whether or not they can identify
and eliminate it, but it is there.
And so I think that's going to be
one of the more entertaining aspects of this
next administration in a good way is when
(43:15):
they expose hopefully when they expose whatever they
find.
And there's a public debate of, you know,
for example.
Should we be paying hundreds of millions of
dollars to subsidize public radio today?
I think that's a good debate that the
country should have where we are in our
society and how we get information and the
(43:36):
resources available is certainly different than when this
started.
Should we be should we be doing that?
And I know everything I know when this
debate comes up.
Oh, it's only a very small part.
It won't mean anything to the national deficit.
No.
But when you have all of these things,
you know, assuming they find hundreds of things
like that, which I think they will, it
(43:57):
does add up to something and it does
matter.
So I look forward to that entity releasing
information and the public debate around it and
hopefully finding some things to reduce our burden.
I think one of the things that is
on undiscussed and maybe underestimated is the uncertainty
(44:23):
that comes with the Trump experience, right, that,
you know, there's a little bit of chaos
that surrounds Trump when it comes to his
management style.
There's no uncertainty there, Chris.
Yeah, it's going to be that.
I mean, that's just there's nothing new there.
And so my point is the market impact
that that can have is what I'm driving
(44:44):
at, you know, that we may have some
unanticipated moves just because of.
The way things are communicated, the.
The I think there's perpetually the notion that
there's I remember in the last administration, it
was drinking from a fire hose just trying
to keep up with what was being talked
(45:05):
about, what were some of the things being
attempted to be addressed?
And, you know, there is some sleight of
hand in the way that's dealt with where
we're looking over here, but there's something happening
over there.
And I think that's just an element that
we have to be mindful of.
There's other variables in terms of foreign interactions.
(45:27):
And what does that create for market?
You know, the last four years have been
full of them.
You know, we have a we had a
calm president, I'll give you that.
But we've had a increasing geopolitical scene.
So how does that play out over time?
It has the potential to get better.
(45:49):
Of course, it has the potential to get
worse.
I mean, I'm not saying it doesn't, but
I think having a strong president who.
Talks the talk of peace through strength and
in his first year, his first term certainly
exercised that, and we had more peace than
we have today.
I'm hopeful that that's a positive that we
(46:09):
see in all the noise.
I hope it's a positive element of it.
I think the the other variable that we
just will have to see how it plays
out is how well does Trump and the
Congress get along?
You know, will there be a collaborative effort
(46:30):
or will there be antagonism?
And I think the first day is the
best day.
That's why I think you're right.
That's why I think this bill that my
crystal ball, I refer to, is coming out
is is in recognition of let's get done
what we can get done, because.
(46:51):
You know, the closer we get to the
next election, I know it's two years away,
but the less likely members of Congress are
going to be willing to go along with
everything that they have to answer for.
Well, and I'm really concerned about March with
the debt ceiling and just how that plays
(47:12):
out and how that gets positioned.
You know, I just think there's a real
I don't know, I feel more worried about
it this time than in the past.
We may see the elimination of the debt
ceiling.
I think that would be a favorable thing.
And to deal with these issues on the
budget, that's where it belongs.
Where are we going to spend the money
or not?
Not at the time when we have to
(47:33):
pay the bill that we've already spent.
I think I think the idea of a
debt ceiling was it had merit, but I
don't think it's worked out.
It has obviously hasn't worked out because it
hasn't meant anything other than stress on the
system and fear in the market.
So it's a good point.
It's not serving.
It's not serving a purpose.
We need a better way.
(47:54):
Well, I don't know if there's anything else
you want to cover.
We covered a lot and we went a
little long, very long.
But it was it was entertaining to me.
I enjoyed the conversation.
Anything you want to add to something, Jeff,
that we didn't get to talk about?
No, just be positive and enjoy the next
(48:14):
four years of a wild ride.
Let's hope it's good.
Yeah, let me just mention that, look, you
know, as you're thinking about these issues, a
lot of times people will make the political,
the primary decision.
And factor in their portfolio and financial planning
(48:34):
considerations, we generally discourage that.
Let's say it's not relevant.
Let's not say it's not part of the
equation.
But, you know, we can be driven to
the extremes of, oh, I'm I'm out, you
know, the crazy town or I'm I'm out
when the other guys are in, you know,
(48:54):
like this notion of if it's not your
cup of tea for who's running, in this
case, the presidency or the Congress, you might
be inclined to say, oh, I want, you
know, it's bad or whatever.
Don't necessarily do that.
When you look back at various instances, I've
had clients who are Democrats and I've had
(49:16):
clients who are Republicans.
And we have probably have the same kind
of reaction when the other team wins.
It's just going to be a different group
of clients in the next four years than
it was in the previous four years.
And what ends up happening is when we
look back over a four year period.
(49:36):
Almost always markets are benefited from time and,
you know, increasing and profitability, so don't don't
overreact.
But if you have challenges, if you if
you're or you if you want to be
discussing, you can overreact on the other side
to taking more, you know, abundance of risk
(49:56):
because of your optimism or whatever.
When it comes to thinking about your portfolio
and you need a little bit of interaction
in that process, sometimes, you know, Jeff, when
you came in before you were part of
our team, you were looking for someone to
challenge your assumptions to right.
You know, I came in as a client
(50:17):
and saying, what am I missing?
Is there something I'm not seeing that, you
know, you might see?
Sometimes there's virtue in that getting a second
opinion.
And if you need a little help in
that process, that's that's what we do.
That's our here.
So let us let us know if we
can be a help to you in your
financial planning and portfolio management.
(50:38):
And then thanks for listening.
And until next time, everybody keeps striving for
something more.
Thank you for listening to something more with
Chris Boyd.
Call us for help, whether it's for financial
planning or portfolio management, insurance concerns or those
quality of life issues that make the money
matters matter.
Whatever's on your mind.
(50:58):
Visit us at something more with Chris Boyd
dot com or call us toll free at
eight six six seven seven one eight nine
zero one.
Or send us your questions to A.M.
R dash info at Wealth Enhancement dot com.
You're listening to something more with Chris Boyd
Financial Talk Show Wealth Enhancement Advisory Services and
Jay Christopher Boyd provide investment advice on an
(51:20):
individual basis to clients.
Only proper advice depends on a complete analysis
of all facts and circumstances.
The information given on this program is general
financial comments and cannot be relied upon as
pertaining to your specific situation.
Wealth Enhancement Group cannot guarantee that using the
information from this show will generate profits or
ensure freedom from loss.
Listeners should consult their own financial advisors or
conduct their own due diligence before making any
(51:40):
financial decisions.
Welcome to something more with Chris Boyd.
Chris Boyd is a certified financial planner, practitioner,
and senior vice president, financial advisor at Wealth
Enhancement Group, one of the nation's largest registered
investment advisors.
We call it something more because we'd like
to talk not only about those important dollar
and cents issues, but also the quality of
life issues that make the money matters matter.
(00:22):
Here he is your fulfillment facilitator, your partner
in prosperity, advising clients on Cape Cod and
across the country.
Here's your host, Jay Christopher Boyd.
Thanks for being with us for an episode
of something more with Chris Boyd.
I'm here with Jeff Perry and Russ Ball,
both from our team, the AMR team at
Wealth Enhancement Group.
(00:43):
And today we're talking a little bit about
what the new administration taking office momentarily.
We're, we're talking about what some of the
Trump anticipated or discussed topics when it comes
to taxes, tariffs, immigration policy, and so on
and so forth.
(01:04):
We're going to talk a little bit about
that.
And I get this asked a lot from
clients and who come in to the office
inquiring, what's your take?
You know, how should we be thinking about
some of these issues when it comes to
the markets and you know, just positioning of
portfolios and so forth.
(01:26):
So I thought that would be a fun
topic for us to talk about before we
got even started, Jeff's got me all riled
up, ready to jump on all these topics
and get fired up for our conversation.
I think you were riled up before we
started talking out there.
I think you came in, I think you
came in this morning, ready, looking for a
fight, quite frankly.
Loaded for bear, huh?
Is that what it is?
(01:46):
All right.
I don't know, but it's passion.
That's what it is.
So let me start off with a few
things and then we'll dive in.
Okay.
So, you know, I think big picture I've
been, when I've asked, been asked this, I've
been saying that, you know, overall right now,
the economy is pretty good.
(02:07):
Yeah.
You know, general, general strength.
Um, when we think about, uh, the, uh,
uh, new administration, the expectation is that tax,
lower tax rates that we have under the
tax cut and jobs act, which has a
lower rate of tax for corporations and, uh,
(02:30):
it's a lower income tax rates, uh, that
take longer to get into the next rate.
So, and a higher standard deduction.
So generally, I know this isn't always the
way people talk about it, but in most
instances, people pay less tax income taxation, um,
across the board.
So, um, that would be beneficial in that
(02:53):
consumers keep more money to spend and, uh,
corporate, uh, or, you know, earnings there's less
taxation.
Therefore, there's more going into either the, the
shareholders get more of a profit or they're
going back into research and development or whatever,
maybe.
So that that's generally on the plus side.
(03:14):
I think additionally, uh, you'd argue from a
business point of view, from a profitability point
of view, the expectation of a less burdensome
regulatory policy, uh, we can debate whether that's
good long-term policy or not, but from
a profitability point of view, you'd expect that
(03:35):
to be on the plus side for, uh,
markets and for shareholders, for businesses to do
well when it comes to, um, on the
other side of the, you'd expect the possibility
of tariffs being, and I only want to
talk about this in a little more detail
in just a minute, but you'd expect that
to be on the negative side.
(03:55):
Cause that's an added cost.
It's a drain, uh, on the economy.
Then you'd have, uh, the question of, uh,
deportation.
Uh, you know, there's been a strong, uh,
argument for stronger order control.
I think also, I don't think there's a
lot of people opposed to that personally, but,
(04:16):
um, the issue then becomes, uh, what do
you do with the people who are here
illegally?
Uh, I expect there'll be some sort of
a big show of some deportation, but I
think that the idea of mass deportation becomes
really impractical and challenging.
(04:36):
So it's, again, there's all these things that
were, uh, markets, I think are making assumptions,
how much is rhetoric, how much is positioning
and what's actually going to be implemented is
to be determined, right, to be seen.
But in the meantime, generally, uh, I think
the market expects that there's some of these
(04:59):
things, but not everything that's been talked about,
uh, in, on the campaign trail.
And so I think the market seems to
be responding, saying all the good stuff mostly,
and not, not so much about the worry
stuff.
Uh, so in any case, uh, that's sort
of where I've been trying to set up
the positioning of when talking with clients about
(05:21):
here, here's what it looks like, but we
have to be watchful of what happens and
how this will affect the economy.
Let's start with the topic of tariffs, because
we were talking a little bit about that
before the show started.
And I think it's really important that we
understand essentially how a tariff works.
So, uh, essentially my understanding is if a,
(05:44):
uh, tariff is applied to, let's say China,
we're going to apply, uh, you know, 10
to 60% on the goods from China.
Well, the president's, the president Trump has been
very clear on that, that where the starting
point with China is 10%.
(06:05):
So these are, this is what's been threatened,
I think through the campaign rhetoric, right?
Right, right.
And he, you know, last week he kind
of doubled down on that.
Let's just assume some element of tariff goes
up on Chinese goods, right?
Yep.
Now, um, that means that the importer, the
company trying to import those goods has to
(06:27):
pay more for those goods.
That means the U S consumer who's going
to buy those goods from that importer, whether
it's because that then it turns into a
product or because it is the product either
way, right?
Somehow that cost gets passed on to the
U S consumer.
That's a tax.
That's an tax increase.
(06:48):
It's not necessarily called a tax increase, but
it's effectively a tax increase.
Now, the reason for it is to try
to dissuade the buyer from using that product
that is made in this particular instance, China.
So to find alternative, uh, sources of products,
right?
Um, now, but ultimately let's not, let's be
(07:11):
clear.
It's not China who pays that tariff.
It's the U S importer or the U
S consumer that pays for that tax, that
costs that disincentive.
Um, so that means there's less generally Jeff.
I know you're not a fan of taxes,
right?
(07:31):
More taxes generally thinks it's a slowing economic
impact, not generally a favorable, uh, position to
have.
So, I mean, that being said, we do
have a pretty big deficit.
So maybe there's some favorability.
The reality though, just as an aside is,
um, we've seen this in the past.
(07:52):
This is not a new playbook.
What happens when one country increases tariffs on
another country?
The other country says, well, I'm not going
to take that.
I'm raising tariffs on you on something else.
So if you're going to try to import
here, we're going to have some, uh, in
cost on you, or as we saw, we're
(08:13):
going to boycott some of your product, uh,
when it came to farmers or something like,
you know, different, uh, goods of one type
or another resource resources that we export.
So, um, it's not without consequence and it
has, uh, generally an effect where, uh, it's
(08:34):
inflationary costs.
Just go up, um, on both sides of
the, the trade arrangement.
So in any case, and that affects, yeah,
you know, that's one of the things that,
uh, the Trump administration in the past has
been kind of obsessed about is the idea
of our, uh, trade imbalance.
Well, this doesn't help a trade imbalance.
(08:56):
If you start, um, it can, it can
help.
It can create a disincentive for people to
import our goods.
So we have less exports going out.
And I guess that's a, you know, it's
an individual question country by country.
And, you know, I hope that president Trump
treats it as an individual question.
(09:18):
You know, you can make this, you can
make the arguments that there's other reasons besides
tax income.
And that's the, that's the reason for tariffs.
You alluded to that, Chris, it's a, it's
an income generating thing, right?
Revenue in for the government, right?
That's right.
It also, if there's an unfair trade, not
just balance, not just looking at, you know,
(09:40):
imports versus exports, but import, uh, prices and
export prices, but looking at fair trade or
whether or not there's, um, criminal activity or
improper activity going on between the partners, so
it can be, it can be, uh, can
be punitive, can be sending a message.
(10:00):
Like if you're going to, if you're going
to steal our trade secrets, if you're going
to have slave labor, if you're going to
have this and that totally agree with your
point, um, that doesn't seem to be the
case when we talk about China and Mexico
and, you know, essentially all of these other
places that tariffs have been threatened as well.
I don't, I don't know if I a
hundred percent agree with that.
(10:20):
He, it, I think it may be implied
because those countries both have things that are
not doing, you know, different things that those
countries are not doing that the United States
want them to do, but you know, we
could debate that and whether or not it's
in the motive of the president and his
administration to be part of that.
I can see, I'm not clear.
I'd be curious in the case of Canada,
(10:42):
for example, what are you writing?
I didn't put Canada in there.
I said, China and Mexico.
Okay.
I Canada and Mexico.
I meant to say when I said, uh,
you know, Canada is another one where we've
had this threat.
I think we're trying to make Canada the
51st state or something.
I'm not sure what's going on up there.
But for, for, for Mexico and China, I
think there's reasons to put pressure on their
(11:04):
countries to get them to do things that
we want them to do.
And it's also a way aside from taxes
and aside from political pressure, it's also a
way to protect protectionism, which is certainly a
word that can be used under the, um,
Trump doctrine.
If you want to say that, um, to
protect certain American businesses from unfair trade practices,
(11:25):
um, across the globe, if you will, but
China and Mexico and to protect American companies
who are competing in those sectors.
So I think there's a lot of things
other than just, you know, the simple way
to look at why we're doing tariffs to
punish our enemies, if you will.
I think there's other economic reasons to do
(11:46):
them.
And I just hope it's not broad based.
The thing I liked least about some of
the president, president Trump's proposals, um, was tariffs.
I'm not in favor of tariffs.
Generally, I think they have a place, but
I certainly don't think they have a uniform
place to say 25% for a whole,
everything coming in from a country.
(12:07):
I think if they're targeted, if they have
a clear economic and political message, then they
can be effective.
Yeah.
And I think, you know, we've seen this
whole question of, uh, technology, um, you know,
the essentially, uh, whether things are being treated,
uh, properly and fairly with the, uh, essentially
(12:30):
stealing technological, uh, thought we thought, you know,
uh, trades, whatever it is that, that, that
seems reasonable to me to say, Hey, wait
a second.
Um, I mean, that kind of leads us
to, uh, one of the other things you,
you had brought up Jeff before we got
(12:50):
started was the whole tick tock topic.
All right.
That's, that's, that's one of those going to
be the, uh, hot news right after the
inauguration here.
Um, as we know, when we're recording this,
the Supreme court is, has a case before
them, there have an appeal from tick tock
to stay the, the elimination basically of tick
tock.
Congress passed a law, president Biden signed the
(13:12):
law, which would ban tick tock from the
United States.
The Supreme court could put that law on
a pause, you know, paste facing further review.
Um, they may or they may not.
And if they don't, by the time the
president takes the oath of office, tick tock
in essence will be gone from the United
States, unless they make some deal with there's
(13:34):
been rumors of deals, you know, part of
the, um, legislation was that tick tock could
divest himself of Chinese interest and sell it
to an American entity.
And tick tock could survive.
So at the time of the recording here,
there's no deal sealed, but that could happen
as well.
Um, and then there's some rest.
(13:54):
We were talking about before the show, there's
some kind of political news about tick tock
as well about who might be sitting behind
the president.
Right.
Yeah.
So the, uh, CEO of tick tock is,
uh, in front of Congress and all these
hearings, uh, over the past couple of years,
um, is going to be joining for the
inauguration and sitting in a, in a seat
(14:15):
of honor, uh, behind, uh, the incoming president.
So, uh, a little bit of, uh, interesting
dynamics there.
Yeah.
Okay.
And it feels like it's a political message,
right?
I mean, president Trump's been saying that he's,
he, he, he, and in essence asked the
Supreme court to stay the decision so he
could try to make a deal, right, instead
(14:35):
of tick tock being banned, which is kind
of a change in his position from what
a couple of years ago, he had a
lot of a very different kind of rhetoric
around this, he did.
And I think that his, uh, his, his
win, he, you know, he said tick tock
was, was useful in the campaign process.
And I think he, uh, it kind of
changed his tune around, uh, tick tock.
(14:55):
It's really put, uh, Republicans in a odd
spot because most Republicans, I don't know if
it was all, but most Republican legislators, it
was not all.
There were a few that voted against the
bill, but most Republican senators and reps voted
to ban tick tock.
So now they're having to answer that question
of what do you think about president's Trump's
(15:16):
change of opinion?
Um, just as an aside, uh, what, where
do you, what are your thoughts around this,
uh, this notion of that, uh, this creates
the potential for some threat to the U
S um, national security.
I thought the bill was fairly balanced, balanced
(15:36):
national security, uh, interest, uh, concerns about issues
with, uh, personal information and certain content getting
to children.
Um, but it didn't, uh, it didn't say
this has to be banned.
It sets some reasonable conditions to address those
specific concerns.
And the Supreme court basically agreed with that
(15:57):
part of that the bill was, was constitutional.
So I thought it was a balanced bill.
And the most plausible is to, uh, have
it sold.
Right.
That's right.
Um, the concern is that the current arrangement
has ties to the Chinese government and that
could, that could be used in an adversarial
(16:19):
way.
That's right.
And I think that's legitimate.
I think as the world turns more and
more to everything being online and the use
of AI and the way, you know, communication
and false communication and manipulative communication has been
in existence between adversaries from planes dropping leaflets,
(16:39):
you know, till now it's all in our
television and such and radio, right?
That's right, Chris.
So we do have to be aware of
it and we do have to be vigilant
to protect our military and social and I
mean, I think it's going to create a
little bit of an uproar if they actually
have to close it down.
I think they're trying to, I think that's
(17:01):
the position that seems to be put forth
right now is we're not going to sell,
therefore they're going to create a lot of
angst among American users of TikTok with the
frustration of that and then, so there'd be
some kind of backlash and the expectation that
it would therefore be reversed, but, and I
(17:22):
don't know.
President Trump cannot reverse it, no, it's law,
so it would take an additional act from
Congress and that would mean something that legislators
do not like to do is to change
their vote.
Yeah, reverse themselves.
In the matter of a year, it would
be less than a year that they'd be
saying, oops, I changed my mind.
(17:43):
So, well, you know, the way it would
happen is it gets slid in with something
else, right?
It could, but I think, I think I
really liked this one, but I just had
to go along with it, you know, I
guess, I guess, I mean, honestly, I hope
it's, it's like, they take the position of
like, these are your options.
You know, A or B, what do you
want to do?
If I was a member of Congress or
(18:04):
the Senate, I would not change my vote.
If I was that convinced that it was
a national security threat, I think it would
be very hypocritical to say now it's not,
unless, unless they came up with some new
arrangement on how the data is stored and
such, you know.
All right, let's, let's move on from TikTok,
although it's an interesting topic, let's, let's talk
more about what are some of the things
(18:26):
that are anticipated under the Trump administration that
people think could move markets or have economic
impact that ultimately would have some consequence.
So we talked briefly about tariffs, the idea
that, I mean, I put this in the
negative column, personally.
I understand your point, Jeff, that sometimes there's
(18:48):
like targeted reasons.
It could definitely be a negative.
It's just broad-based, you know, punitive and
no real, no real logic.
It's inflationary, I think.
And I think it's likely to be retaliated
and therefore, you know, you get into this,
like, everyone gets wet, you know what I
mean?
(19:08):
It's not, not a great outcome.
Or it could be a great tool to
get our adversaries or countries that we want
to do things to be more cooperative in
doing the things that protect America.
Yeah.
And I suppose if you're using it for
not just purely in this realm of tariff
(19:29):
thought process, but other kinds of national security
or, you know, leverage for one thing or
another, you know, there could be some virtue
in that, how it applies.
It does seem right now that, you know,
when it comes to China, they're in an
economic less leverage and, you know, coming from
(19:51):
less from a position of strength than they
might have at other times.
China is, yeah.
China.
Yeah.
So, so you do probably have the opportunity
to use something like this for leverage and
other elements of your negotiations, perhaps.
Yeah.
So and with Trump, maybe that's the game
plan.
You know, he's all about the negotiations.
Part of the deal.
Part of the deal.
(20:12):
So, well, let's see what happens with tariffs.
How much is rhetoric and how much is
actually going to be implemented?
I think that's rubber meets the road question.
You know, how's this really play out?
And those are within his discretion.
You know, most some of the things that
we're talking about, TikTok and taxes, maybe we'll
move on to taxes, but that those items
(20:33):
and most items, quite frankly, take the act
of Congress.
Yeah, it's a good point.
The tariffs do not.
It's it's within the purview of the executive
branch.
Mm hmm.
And President Biden continued, you know, just yeah,
I know we're trying to get away from
tariffs, but he can some of these tariffs
are in existence today.
So, yeah, I mean, President Trump implemented tariffs
(20:57):
on China originally.
Right.
And the Biden administration didn't change that at
all, which you would have thought, you know,
just.
Policy wise, they might have been in a
different perspective or whatever.
But, you know, they really maintained the same
same game plan would have been difficult for
(21:19):
President Biden to do so.
The relationship with China has degraded.
In fact, you know, we had a period
where we weren't even communicating with China, even
on the even on the secure military, military
to military communication.
So I think it would have been difficult
for him to ease up on China when
kind of the relationship was so bad.
(21:40):
Yeah.
Yeah.
So thinking about taxes, which is something our
clients are asking us a lot to, you
know, with will the twenty eighteen tax and
jobs and jobs act right be extended?
And if it is extended, does it look
the same as it does today?
(22:01):
And of course, again, this is an element
of crystal ball gazing to know what will
happen.
I think it is widely expected, though, that
the the essence of the tax cut and
jobs act, which is, you know, some of
these key parts of it would be extended.
Now, you know, that's again, it's a tight
Congress.
(22:21):
And as much as it is Republican leadership
presently when it comes to both houses of
Congress, it's pretty thin majorities.
And it might might not be as easy
as we, you know, just on its face
what we might expect.
But I would say, I think that there's,
(22:44):
you know, hope, expectation that just the current
status quo gets extended.
Now, the problem, of course, is we continue
to be operating at a pretty big deficit.
And, you know, one point nine trillion, I
think we said previously, that was last year's
last fiscal year.
We still don't have any kind of budget
(23:04):
for this year.
We're operating on last year's.
Yeah, we're going to launch.
Right.
Right.
So, you know, and by then we're halfway
through, you know, the fiscal year.
Right.
So you got to assume it's going to
be something similar next year, you know, twenty
twenty five rather, you know, this year.
Not but there's no reason to really be
optimistic about it.
(23:27):
So that leads us to this question of,
you know, is it good policy from the
point of view of the growth of our
debt or, you know, that issue?
But from, you know, the idea that, oh,
there's less government burden, less there's more money
(23:49):
in my pocket, I've got more money to
spend.
That's good for consumption.
We're a 70 percent consumer driven economy.
Well, by and by and large, that sounds
like, you know, less lighter load on taxes
generally is good.
So kind of mindset.
My crystal balls has me thinking that to
(24:12):
get the tax cut bill passed again.
Yeah, this is in it's contrary to good
government policy and how to do this.
It's contrary to thinking about the debt.
But this is what I think is going
to happen.
Salt state and local taxes, which impact typically
(24:34):
states that have high property taxes and high
state taxes, typically blue states, incidentally blue states,
California, New York, New Jersey, just Connecticut, maybe
just to name Massachusetts, I guess.
So to name some states.
So I think there's a lot of pressure
from Republican members of Congress and certainly Democrat
(24:59):
members of Congress agree with eliminating salt.
So if you have a bill to extend
the tax cuts for a period of time,
just to be clear.
So for right now, there's a cap.
I think it's $10,000 of what you
can deduct when you have these expenses that
you were just talking about.
Yeah.
And for many people in those states, you
(25:20):
know, this their income tax and their property
taxes are combined is over 10,000.
Never mind if they have a second home
or a high income or whatever.
So state and local taxes, salt ends up
being limited as to how much you can
deduct.
Right.
Doesn't work too well.
So if they eliminate salt, the salt provision,
(25:44):
it delays the Republican members from those states.
California and New York are really the only
ones that have many members of Congress.
But it also makes it difficult for Democratic
members who have run on this issue.
And so I think that's one of the
things they'll do is, of course, that's bad
for the national debt and deficit.
(26:05):
Right.
But even even more disappointing, if you will,
for good government, lower taxes is good government.
So I don't want to make it sound
like it's not.
But I think the tax bill, the border
bill and some other types of bills are
going to be in one bill that are
(26:25):
going to be released as this massive piece
of legislation, the Trump proposal, the Trump desires,
right?
The things he ran on is going to
be put together in one single bill, February
or March, and they're going to try to
get it done all at one time.
So they're going to use all the pressure
of, you know, if you want better immigration,
(26:49):
you have to vote for this bill.
If you want lower taxes, you have to
vote for this bill.
And if you don't vote for this bill,
you're voting against all those good things.
So we'll put the.
Well, good luck with that one.
Number one, that's that's entirely hypocritical based on,
you know, if you remember, you have to
pass it to read it kind of thing.
Single subject rule, all those things.
(27:12):
It's but anyway, that's what my crystal ball
is telling me, it's probably the most plausible
way that it would get past a number
of things.
You know, it holds the Republicans in line
because if they don't vote for it.
They're going to be voting if they vote,
no, they're going to be voting no on
immigration reform, they're going to be voting no
(27:34):
on tax decrease and no on whatever else
is in there that is on the Republican
agenda now in the campaign trail, the president
elect now probably on the day this airs,
the president talked about eliminating taxes on Social
Security benefits, eliminating taxes on tips.
(27:56):
I don't know if they're going to be
in there.
I don't know.
I think that's going to be really hard
to include all that stuff.
But yeah, I'm sure that that'll be an
effort to see what he can get in
there.
Yeah, I think not at this point.
I think I think they won't formally take
it off the agenda.
But if they put too much of just
(28:18):
try to extend what's there and then do
some immigration stuff.
Yeah.
All right.
So that and that leads to immigration with
the topic.
One is border control.
I think there's no question we're going to
see a more significant emphasis on border safety,
border security, what that translates to in terms
(28:39):
of more infrastructure for the existing structure of
trying to do more legal immigration, the processing
of legal applications, which is a big delay.
I mean, it's a long, long delay for
people who are trying to pursue the immigration
(29:00):
through the legal process.
The system is overwhelmed, obviously.
Yeah.
So I think, you know, you need more
infrastructure there as part of the way, as
part of the solution.
But in addition to the security of, you
know, don't want people sneaking in.
The the the bigger question, I guess, becomes
(29:22):
what will really happen relative to the rhetoric
around deportation?
I think it's pretty clear if you listen
to Horman, who's going to be President Trump's
border czar, if you will, and the president
himself recently, his tone on immigration has changed
from the campaign rhetoric a bit.
(29:43):
Yeah.
Being targeted against.
Criminal aliens, criminal people who are illegally or
here legally, but on a temporary basis, if
they commit certain crimes, they had a big
debate last week in Chicago where they tried
to the city council tried to void the
(30:03):
previous law that Chicago wouldn't work with ICE.
And so this this discussion's happening around the
country.
And I think that the first thing and
the first thing is so big that I
don't know if you get to the second
thing of getting the people out of the
country who are committing crimes, harming children, you
know, not being good citizens, if you will.
Yeah, I think there's enough work there to
(30:25):
keep everybody busy in the system busy.
On the other end of that spectrum, I
would think you'd have more political cover, more
support for that kind of thing to say,
look, you know, these are people who are
putting our citizens at risk.
You know, that's one thing.
And I think most people would say, OK,
yeah, I agree with that.
That is the low hanging fruit in this.
(30:46):
Yeah, I mean, it's a term that we
use.
So that I think that's where that goes.
And on the other end of the spectrum
are the dreamers and dreamers are defined as
a minor that was taken into the country,
not on their own, taking in either smuggled
in by a parent or, you know, across
the border with a parent.
And the child, if you will, at the
(31:07):
time had no criminal intent, no intent at
all.
They're just going where they're told to go.
Yeah.
And they become part of the part of
their culture, their experience.
They've been raised in this country, really have
no ties to anywhere else.
They speak English.
They've attended school.
They, you know, depending on how old they
are, I mean, some are in first grade
(31:28):
now and some are 30 years old.
Right.
So.
Right, right.
And President Trump just last week made comments
about that.
That was something that was on his agenda
as well.
So those two things in the immigration debate
are the easy and right things to do.
(31:49):
Deporting people who aren't supposed to be here,
who are harmful to our society, criminals, let's
work on that.
And the people who are.
All but, you know, for that, they weren't
born here, have been good American citizens, they
didn't violate a law intentionally.
Yeah.
I think that's where you start.
(32:09):
I know there's a big middle there.
There's a lot.
No, but I think you're right that there's
a lot of support around both ends of
that spectrum.
And why not do the things that most
Americans support makes our country safer and makes
people make people have the legal ability to
work and be good citizens?
So I think, you know, when you talk
about that and the economic consequence of that,
(32:30):
you think, OK, that that's that's palatable.
It's not something that's going to be disruptive
to the economy.
The idea of deporting every person who's here
illegally, though, you know, fair in some sense,
OK, it's, you know, it's, you know, violates
the our laws.
(32:51):
You know, that that's one thing.
But.
As a practical reality, that becomes really disruptive
to the economy and obviously these individuals.
But, you know, the the economy impact, we're
already short of labor.
And if we then scoop out, you know,
I don't know how many million people that
(33:12):
is from 10 million, maybe 10 to 20,
I think I've heard.
Right.
Anyway, whatever the number on it on purpose,
meaning.
Yeah, at least.
So you have this if you had this
enormous and the logistics of that and the
cost of that and just the whole endeavor
would be so enormous.
(33:34):
I think, you know, maybe there's an element
of, hey, we do some deportation and try
to encourage self-deportation, you know, that people
go, oh, they're cracking down.
I better go home, you know, that kind
of thing.
But by and large, I think, you know,
what we often forget is that we don't
we're not growing as a nation demographically by
(33:55):
births.
And for an economy to grow and expand,
in our case, part of the way it's
grown and expanded historically has been because of
demographic considerations.
We've had more consumers.
You know, growing population, and we rely in
part on immigration for that.
(34:15):
Now, we want that to be legal immigration.
But the reality is, too, we do have
people here who spend money, who are consumers,
who are here as part of that group
that you're talking in the middle, right?
That's like, where do we go?
So I just think there's likely to be
a challenge for the economy in terms of
labor and in terms of the consumer impact.
(34:39):
It is an economic component as well as
all these other dimensions of the issue.
And if you tried to do that first,
you don't have the resources to do the
other ends of the spectrum.
Right.
So and it's not going to work.
So it just seems unlikely, I guess, is
the expectation.
(34:59):
You're not going to have as much of
that.
So I think most the market generally, I
think, has dismissed some of that talk as
not actually likely to happen and therefore less
worrisome as an economic consequence and therefore how
does it affect the markets?
I would agree with that.
(35:20):
And Trump's going to be able to fulfill
his broader promise if the border is actually
secure and he's decreasing the number of criminals
who happen to be illegal in the United
States.
And there's a lot of news on that.
And the Dreamer question is solved.
If those three things happened, I think he
(35:40):
would deserve an A plus on his immigration
policy if those get done in four years.
What were some of the other topics that
you thought would be relevant to discuss here,
Jeff?
Well, you touched on, you know, it's not
a real exciting one, but it is impactful.
I think is the regulatory environment, you know,
the rules and regulations that agencies make.
(36:03):
Sometimes Congress passes broad, you know, inspiring laws
that will do X, Y or Z and
they leave it to the agencies to promulgate
regulations.
And oftentimes it's a complaint of conservatives, including
myself, that these regulatory agencies act beyond the
scope or, you know, or have broad powers
that are somewhat you question is this beyond
(36:27):
their legislative, beyond the intent of the legislation.
You know, it comes up in all forms
of businesses.
But some of the two industries that I
think the prognosticators are thinking will be beneficial,
benefited by this less regulation or deregulation is
energy, right?
(36:48):
More energy development, more drilling, drill, baby drill.
And the finance industry, quite frankly, who is
a general consensus among Republicans that the financial
industry has been overregulated by previous the previous
administration, the Biden administration.
So I think it's interesting.
I bet a lot of people would be
(37:09):
surprised to know that we produce more oil
than ever before, you know, that people think,
you know, drill, baby drill, that there's been
some restraint because of public lands and things
like this that may be publicized.
But when it comes to output, the U
.S. is doing a great deal of production.
(37:32):
We are a net exporter of energy when
it comes to that kind of thing.
So that this also ties into that question
of when you think about what will be
the impact of, say, a more liberal regulatory
(37:55):
policy in the case of energy, as an
example, you might expect energy stocks to do
better.
When you look at the past Trump administration,
energy did not do as well under that
administration because the prices went down, I guess,
and therefore the profitability was greater supply.
(38:17):
And the opposite is true under the Biden
administration.
You'd have thought it would be the other
way around, that energy stocks wouldn't do as
well.
It's just it's one of these things where
things don't always move the way you expect.
You can't look at it overly simply.
It's not as simplified as that.
Yeah.
So in any case, but yeah, I think
there is expectation that those are two examples.
What was the second one that you mentioned,
(38:39):
by the way?
It was security, securities, financial, financial sector.
Yeah.
And, you know, one of those instances, the
current SEC chair who will be is being
replaced, has been pretty antagonistic toward cryptocurrency and,
(39:00):
you know, desiring to limit access or in
terms of products like ETFs and mutual funds,
they've been sort of guarded about this from
the idea that this may not be always
something consumers understand.
(39:20):
And would it be in their best interest?
You know, that kind of thing.
I think it's right, by the way, to
go slow and make sure you don't just
jump in.
And I think that you're right, that Gensler
was really more of a challenging, trying to
(39:41):
add some regulatory burden, trying to be more
proactive in a consumer protection kind of mindset.
But in any case, so we'll see what
what that translates to.
Well, the market certainly thinks it's, you know,
Wild West is coming because its price has
gone up substantially.
(40:03):
Bitcoin people, there's lots of cryptocurrencies, but people,
you know, casual viewer has heard of Bitcoin
and maybe they follow the price a little
bit.
CNBC is flashing it every 30 seconds on
the TV.
So price of bitcoins, you know, when I'm
talking today here, I think it was around
$100,000 and that's up from the $70
(40:25):
,000 range right before the election.
And it had gone up before that in
speculation that Trump could win.
So it certainly thinks that Trump is going
to be favorable to the industry.
Yeah, I think that's very true.
That's its own show.
I mean, let's let's have more conversation about
cryptocurrency.
(40:47):
Sometimes a bubble.
There you go.
I think it's I think it's a topic
that's worthy of more in-depth conversation.
I've heard repeatedly on the campaign trail that
we really don't need an education department.
What are some other examples of deregulation that
might?
(41:09):
Well, energy department, I think, is in that
same bucket of things that might disappear.
I'm not sure it's going to happen.
I don't know that it'll actually disappear in
any of these instances.
But, you know, what's the the idea that
government is an organism that doesn't like to
shrink or something?
Well, we have we have another I don't
(41:29):
know.
It's not an agency.
We have a group led by Ramaswamy and
Musk who are who are delegated with the
task of doing just that.
Doge, they call it, which is, you know,
I don't want to go back to cryptocurrency.
Yeah, it is the same.
I have a client who said, I'm going
(41:50):
to buy that just because I think there's
a lot of people because of this Doge
department that are going to.
Stranger things have happened, right?
Yeah.
Yeah.
And so far, it's worked to his advantage.
I don't know.
Remember the dotcom days?
Recently, Elon Musk was bringing down his estimate
for how much they're going to he's going
to be able to cut.
I think it went from two trillion to
one trillion.
Yeah, I mean, he's actually done some homework.
(42:13):
He realizes there's it's going to be harder
to do than he planned.
Right.
Yeah.
But, you know, I agree with you, Chris.
Government is ever expanding.
And, you know, that's it's a natural growth
of government where it's either under both parties.
Yeah.
I mean, conservatives, Republicans, we try to.
(42:33):
The rhetoric is we want it to be
small, but actually it's not made smaller when
we're in office, unfortunately.
But if it's ever going to happen, this
is the opportunity that it could happen because
you have a president who who campaigned on
it.
He created an entity to focus on it,
whether or not it can achieve the what
number.
(42:53):
Yeah.
And how much fraud, waste and abuse, you
know, that kind of thing that we always
talk about, how much really they can identify
and eliminate is.
It's there, whether or not they can identify
and eliminate it, but it is there.
And so I think that's going to be
one of the more entertaining aspects of this
next administration in a good way is when
(43:15):
they expose hopefully when they expose whatever they
find.
And there's a public debate of, you know,
for example.
Should we be paying hundreds of millions of
dollars to subsidize public radio today?
I think that's a good debate that the
country should have where we are in our
society and how we get information and the
(43:36):
resources available is certainly different than when this
started.
Should we be should we be doing that?
And I know everything I know when this
debate comes up.
Oh, it's only a very small part.
It won't mean anything to the national deficit.
No.
But when you have all of these things,
you know, assuming they find hundreds of things
like that, which I think they will, it
(43:57):
does add up to something and it does
matter.
So I look forward to that entity releasing
information and the public debate around it and
hopefully finding some things to reduce our burden.
I think one of the things that is
on undiscussed and maybe underestimated is the uncertainty
(44:23):
that comes with the Trump experience, right, that,
you know, there's a little bit of chaos
that surrounds Trump when it comes to his
management style.
There's no uncertainty there, Chris.
Yeah, it's going to be that.
I mean, that's just there's nothing new there.
And so my point is the market impact
that that can have is what I'm driving
(44:44):
at, you know, that we may have some
unanticipated moves just because of.
The way things are communicated, the.
The I think there's perpetually the notion that
there's I remember in the last administration, it
was drinking from a fire hose just trying
to keep up with what was being talked
(45:05):
about, what were some of the things being
attempted to be addressed?
And, you know, there is some sleight of
hand in the way that's dealt with where
we're looking over here, but there's something happening
over there.
And I think that's just an element that
we have to be mindful of.
There's other variables in terms of foreign interactions.
(45:27):
And what does that create for market?
You know, the last four years have been
full of them.
You know, we have a we had a
calm president, I'll give you that.
But we've had a increasing geopolitical scene.
So how does that play out over time?
It has the potential to get better.
(45:49):
Of course, it has the potential to get
worse.
I mean, I'm not saying it doesn't, but
I think having a strong president who.
Talks the talk of peace through strength and
in his first year, his first term certainly
exercised that, and we had more peace than
we have today.
I'm hopeful that that's a positive that we
(46:09):
see in all the noise.
I hope it's a positive element of it.
I think the the other variable that we
just will have to see how it plays
out is how well does Trump and the
Congress get along?
You know, will there be a collaborative effort
(46:30):
or will there be antagonism?
And I think the first day is the
best day.
That's why I think you're right.
That's why I think this bill that my
crystal ball, I refer to, is coming out
is is in recognition of let's get done
what we can get done, because.
(46:51):
You know, the closer we get to the
next election, I know it's two years away,
but the less likely members of Congress are
going to be willing to go along with
everything that they have to answer for.
Well, and I'm really concerned about March with
the debt ceiling and just how that plays
(47:12):
out and how that gets positioned.
You know, I just think there's a real
I don't know, I feel more worried about
it this time than in the past.
We may see the elimination of the debt
ceiling.
I think that would be a favorable thing.
And to deal with these issues on the
budget, that's where it belongs.
Where are we going to spend the money
or not?
Not at the time when we have to
(47:33):
pay the bill that we've already spent.
I think I think the idea of a
debt ceiling was it had merit, but I
don't think it's worked out.
It has obviously hasn't worked out because it
hasn't meant anything other than stress on the
system and fear in the market.
So it's a good point.
It's not serving.
It's not serving a purpose.
We need a better way.
(47:54):
Well, I don't know if there's anything else
you want to cover.
We covered a lot and we went a
little long, very long.
But it was it was entertaining to me.
I enjoyed the conversation.
Anything you want to add to something, Jeff,
that we didn't get to talk about?
No, just be positive and enjoy the next
(48:14):
four years of a wild ride.
Let's hope it's good.
Yeah, let me just mention that, look, you
know, as you're thinking about these issues, a
lot of times people will make the political,
the primary decision.
And factor in their portfolio and financial planning
(48:34):
considerations, we generally discourage that.
Let's say it's not relevant.
Let's not say it's not part of the
equation.
But, you know, we can be driven to
the extremes of, oh, I'm I'm out, you
know, the crazy town or I'm I'm out
when the other guys are in, you know,
(48:54):
like this notion of if it's not your
cup of tea for who's running, in this
case, the presidency or the Congress, you might
be inclined to say, oh, I want, you
know, it's bad or whatever.
Don't necessarily do that.
When you look back at various instances, I've
had clients who are Democrats and I've had
(49:16):
clients who are Republicans.
And we have probably have the same kind
of reaction when the other team wins.
It's just going to be a different group
of clients in the next four years than
it was in the previous four years.
And what ends up happening is when we
look back over a four year period.
(49:36):
Almost always markets are benefited from time and,
you know, increasing and profitability, so don't don't
overreact.
But if you have challenges, if you if
you're or you if you want to be
discussing, you can overreact on the other side
to taking more, you know, abundance of risk
(49:56):
because of your optimism or whatever.
When it comes to thinking about your portfolio
and you need a little bit of interaction
in that process, sometimes, you know, Jeff, when
you came in before you were part of
our team, you were looking for someone to
challenge your assumptions to right.
You know, I came in as a client
(50:17):
and saying, what am I missing?
Is there something I'm not seeing that, you
know, you might see?
Sometimes there's virtue in that getting a second
opinion.
And if you need a little help in
that process, that's that's what we do.
That's our here.
So let us let us know if we
can be a help to you in your
financial planning and portfolio management.
(50:38):
And then thanks for listening.
And until next time, everybody keeps striving for
something more.
Thank you for listening to something more with
Chris Boyd.
Call us for help, whether it's for financial
planning or portfolio management, insurance concerns or those
quality of life issues that make the money
matters matter.
Whatever's on your mind.
(50:58):
Visit us at something more with Chris Boyd
dot com or call us toll free at
eight six six seven seven one eight nine
zero one.
Or send us your questions to A.M.
R dash info at Wealth Enhancement dot com.
You're listening to something more with Chris Boyd
Financial Talk Show Wealth Enhancement Advisory Services and
Jay Christopher Boyd provide investment advice on an
(51:20):
individual basis to clients.
Only proper advice depends on a complete analysis
of all facts and circumstances.
The information given on this program is general
financial comments and cannot be relied upon as
pertaining to your specific situation.
Wealth Enhancement Group cannot guarantee that using the
information from this show will generate profits or
ensure freedom from loss.
Listeners should consult their own financial advisors or
conduct their own due diligence before making any
(51:40):
financial decisions.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show. Clay Travis and Buck Sexton tackle the biggest stories in news, politics and current events with intelligence and humor. From the border crisis, to the madness of cancel culture and far-left missteps, Clay and Buck guide listeners through the latest headlines and hot topics with fun and entertaining conversations and opinions.