Trump Fires Fed Governor, Intel Stock Deal, and Cracker Barrel’s Stock Market Fiasco

On this episode of The Matt Allen Show, Matt Allen and Rob break down the biggest investing stories moving the stock market. The U.S. government takes a ten percent stake in Intel, buying Intel stock nearly four dollars below the market price in a deal worth nine billion dollars. Cracker Barrel stock tumbles after a controversial rebrand and then bounces back as the company reverses course under political and customer pressure. President Trump fires a Federal Reserve Governor in an unprecedented move that shakes confidence in the independence of the Fed and raises new questions for investors. Matt Allen and Rob cut through the noise with conversation about what these headlines mean for Intel stock, Cracker Barrel stock, the broader stock market, and anyone focused on investing today.

Episode Transcript

Matt Allen (00:01):
Welcome back to the Matt Allen Show. I'm Matt Allen,
and I'm here with my mentor,philosopher, philosopher of
life, PhD of life, I guess youshould say, Rob. And today,
we've got three big storieslined up to the debate. US
government has bought a 10%stake in Intel. They did it on a
major discount.
President Trump has fired afederal reserve governor in a

(00:21):
move that could change thehistory of the Fed forever. And
we're bringing this story backfrom a couple of weeks ago
because we haven't got to talkabout it yet. Cracker Barrel's
logo fiasco has been one of thebiggest disasters since Bud
Light went woke, so we're gonnatalk about that. Let's get into
it. Rob, what's going on, man?

Rob (00:41):
Oh, man. Just setting up for my first foray into the
twenty first century. Literallyless than two months ago, I made
a comment to my wife that I wishy two k had won. And so now here
I am doing a podcast with you.It's different times.

Matt Allen (00:59):
I appreciate you doing this and coming on. I know
you just got back from LasVegas.

Rob (01:05):
I did. I did. Still recovering. Not from partying
too much because I'm way too oldfor that, but just the time
change, the travel, the longhours, it just it hits
different. Las Las Vegas wasdefinitely interesting.
Way different than it, than itused to be pre COVID.

Matt Allen (01:23):
How how was that? Why is that, do you think?

Rob (01:27):
You know, I had read all these articles in the last year
or so about how people 30 don'tgo to Las Vegas anymore, don't
wanna party, are too anxietyridden to go to Las Vegas. I
didn't believe any of it, butwhen we were out there, I got to
tell you, it was the leastcrowded I've ever seen it. And

(01:49):
we were having late dinners, andit it you just you just didn't
see people clamoring, going tonightclubs, going out partying.
It was it was people there justto enjoy food, enjoy drink, and
and gamble.

Matt Allen (02:03):
Do you think this represents kind of the decline
of alcohol consumption,especially with Gen Z, is a
reason for that?

Rob (02:16):
I don't know.

Matt Allen (02:17):
I mean, it's an obscene fact. Mean, the numbers
are eye opening, and I've alwaysassociated that with, hey, Gen
Z's just smoking weed, whichcould be true too, but you can
smoke weed in Vegas.

Rob (02:32):
So I I really can't comment to that. I have no idea whether
you can or can't, but, I wouldsay this. We live in a college
town, and there is no evidencehere that Gen Z or the younger
generations are not drinkingalcohol. That is for certain.

Matt Allen (02:50):
Well, is the lowest it's been in recorded history.

Rob (02:57):
Yeah. And

Matt Allen (02:59):
Eisor Bush is moving their investments around.
They're getting more CBD than afew stuff and Gen Z, and a lot
of millennials really care abouttheir health. So alcohol, you
know, there's been a real bigpush in the podcast space of,
Hey, Anti alcohol, anti I mean,it's a disaster. I mean, some
Anheuser Busch executives arecalling it a crisis. So I just

(03:19):
wonder if that does anything ifthat has anything to do with
what's going on in Vegas.

Rob (03:24):
It that that it must be. You know, either that or may
maybe the younger generationsjust you know, they just party
at home now or since COVID,they're they're too nervous to
go out. I I don't know what itis, but they certainly aren't
doing it in Las Vegas, which,hey, for me, it's great. Had a
great time. Bunch of great food.

(03:46):
I will tell you the youngerpeople that do go out there
certainly do not know tableetiquette when it comes to
playing blackjack at a What

Matt Allen (03:54):
do you mean by that?

Rob (03:56):
So we had a great lunch at the Bellagio. Did not say at the
Bellagio, but had a great lunchat the Bellagio. When we were
done, my wife said, Hey, do wantyou to go do some shopping? I
said, Yes, I'd love to go shopat some blackjack tables while
you do some kind of othershopping. So she did, I went and

(04:17):
let me back up.
Let me preface this by saying toall of our listeners, the
Bellagio is the best place toplay blackjack on the strip by
far.

Matt Allen (04:26):
I agree with that.

Rob (04:27):
And so I went, they had a couple of good $50 hand tables,
which means it's a four deckshoe. I spot one with a couple
openings. There's three guysplaying at the table like like
any polite person should do. Iwaited for the deck to finish.
Buy in.
We are crushing this deck. It isgoing remarkably well for all of

(04:51):
us at the table. I'm playing inthe middle of the table. There's
a chair next to me to my right.A young lady sits down, buys in
for a large amount of money.
The dealer to his credit and oldtimer says, Hey, the, the shoe's
almost finished. You know, doyou want to wait? No. Why would

(05:11):
I wait? He says, well, you know,we're, we're dealing here.
There's only like three morehands left. You get a fresh new,
new shoe of cards. No, I don't,I don't want to wait. Buys in
proceeds to lose maybe $3,000 inthe next three hands. And then,
is just belligerent about it.

(05:32):
The shoe ends. Luckily, she getsup. Rest of the people at the
table had some nice, kind thingto say about her. And so
anyways, public serviceannouncement number one on the
Matt Allen show. Please,whenever you're in a casino,
observe blackjack etiquette,wait till the shoe's done.

Matt Allen (05:50):
Did you, did you did you go with our friend Michael
Fisher? Or

Rob (05:54):
I I did not. I did not. I I know better than to go to Las
Vegas with with Fish.

Matt Allen (06:01):
With Fish. Yeah. Fish fish, fish, you know, made
a lot of comments, makes a lotof comments to me about my
podcast. He says no, he says noone's going to listen to it, but
I guarantee you we're going tomake this man famous before it's
all said and done.

Rob (06:17):
Well, he's the type of person that deserves to be
famous.

Matt Allen (06:20):
Yeah. And he didn't, he's the last person that ever
wants to be famous.

Rob (06:24):
Second to last person. I'm the last person that wants to be
famous.

Matt Allen (06:28):
Well, I saw a meme that was like, if you start a
podcast in your middle age,you're going through a middle
age crisis. And, if you werestarting when you're young,
you're probably single, have nolife. It's like a little bit I
was like, that's unbelievable.

Rob (06:43):
Yeah. Hey. It's half true. Right? The half true part is for
you.
I would say I was not goingthrough a middle age crisis.

Matt Allen (06:51):
Well, with that being said, you you ready to get
into our first topic?

Rob (06:55):
Yeah, man. Let's go.

Matt Allen (06:57):
All right. So let's start with Intel. The United
States government has bought a10% stake in Intel, which is
nearly $9,000,000,000 worth atand they bought it at $20.47 a
share. That's about $4 belowwhere the stock trades at today.
So Washington not only becameone of Intel's biggest
shareholder, they got it at adiscount.

(07:18):
And I say Washington, I mean meand you because it was taxpayer
money. So first question I havefor you, Rob, is by Donald Trump
doing this, is he ruiningAmerican capitalism for the
foreseeable future?

Rob (07:35):
You know, Matt, I I've gone you you and I have talked a lot
about this. You know my personalphilosophy. I started out
thinking, hey, this was just asound business move. They were
getting grant money anyways.They might as well have gotten
something in return.
I am now 100% in the camp of,hate this, and in my opinion,

(08:01):
this is the dipping of the toeinto communism in America. It's
awful. The United StatesGovernment has no business, no
business in any private equityposition, period. Now, with that
said, they pick a terriblecompany. Intel is a failing

(08:22):
company.
There's nothing you can do toconvince me that this was right.
This is this is a horribleprecedent. It's Intel is a
terrible trash company. I willuse those words. They have not
been able to keep up with therest of the market.
And so I think it's disgustingto see our American government

(08:49):
owning 10% of a privatebusiness. So what does that do
to American entrepreneurship ifyou and I want to go out and
raise capital to get into thesemiconductor chip business?
We're gonna compete against thefederal government?

Matt Allen (09:03):
That was Well, we won't be allowed. I mean, I
completely agree with you. Thisis you know, and I've supported
the man, and he's a capitalistat heart. Howard Lutnick and
Scott Bissent is the treasurysecretary. This is one of the
most disgusting things I've seenfrom a Republican president in a

(09:23):
long time.
It's, you know, we need see,this is the issue here. America
needs semiconductor factoriesbacked. In theory, it's not a
bad idea. They're doing this sowe can try and get them built
here. But the issue at hand isnot the capital.

(09:45):
We will find capital in thiscountry. America's the greatest
country ever when it comes torisk capital. That's what
separates us from being acountry, and it always will. We
have investors that will alwaystake the risk, to put up money,
and to fund the next biginnovation. What we have a
problem here now is we can'tsupply the factories.

(10:06):
And what do you mean? What do Imean by that? So everyone talks
about there's gonna be jobs withAI that we won't be able to,
that will lose tons of jobs.Well, is the thing. There are
millions of jobs that will becreated.
Job number one, semiconductorworkers. The problem is they're
uneducated enough. They have tobe engineers. In Taiwan, it is a

(10:27):
badge of honor to go toengineering school and become a
blue collar engineer. In Americafor the longest time, nothing
wrong with it, it was a badge ofhonor to go to Harvard or MIT
and become a developer orStanford and drop out because
you're a white collar engineer.
Nothing wrong with that. You'rea software engineer. But the
problem is, is softwareengineers are gonna be obsolete

(10:50):
in five years or the ones weknow as of today, whereas
there's a million personshortage for factory, for
semiconductor factory workers inAmerica right now. We talk So
about all this, and robots can'tfix it. This is the thing.
If robots would fix it, ElonMusk would put everything he
could right now and focus onhumanoid robots building

(11:13):
semiconductors in chips andfactories. It's that simple.
It's that hard. It's thatmeticulous. It's a very, very
long process to build a verytiny semiconductor.
And we should have taken thatfunding and used it, the great
money, to help them build thatfactory if we wanted to do that.
I don't personally believe inthat, but I understand that. And
then the other thing that weshould have done is focused on

(11:34):
education.

Rob (11:35):
I totally agree. So a couple things. Number one, we
have decades long histories inthis country of giving
incentives to build factoriesand work sites. We also have
decade long experience ininvesting in education,
vocational education. I thinkthe term blue collar engineer

(11:56):
fits this perfectly, We shouldbe taking kids out of high
school that graduate, that don'twant to go to college, and
sending them to a specializedtraining school to make
semiconductor chips.
This is of utmost importancebecause there's a national

(12:16):
security component of this, thatin today's world, we have lost
our footing because we are waybehind in the chip race. So even
better, instead of taking 10% ofthe failing company Intel, had
the military do this, had themilitary learn how to make chips

(12:36):
and then roll them out. Investthat way if you have to, because
it puts the country at such adisadvantage in the foreign
policy space. Regardless, therewere a dozen different ways to
do this. This was the worst.

Matt Allen (12:51):
Do you if if Rob was president, would you would you
how would you help incentivizehigh school students to say,
hey, you know, don't, you know,everyone wants to be a YouTuber,
things like that. I get that.That's, you know, that's, if you
make a million dollar, you know,that's the new, understand that.

(13:12):
But that's not a realisticpossibility for most people, but
being a semiconductor factoryworker is, and you're gonna make
a lot of money.

Rob (13:19):
Yep.

Matt Allen (13:19):
How would you incentivize this from a
government standpoint while alsokeeping limited government
values?

Rob (13:28):
You know, so to me, there's a societal aspect of this, Matt,
and you're correct. All of ourkids going to high school now
wanna make tens of millions ofdollars being a YouTuber, being
an influencer. You know, I guessI don't wanna talk too badly
about that because here you andI are doing a podcast.

Matt Allen (13:49):
And I don't I don't and if they create value in the
world and education, I think Idon't have any problem with it.

Rob (13:55):
Agreed. But like you said, it's unrealistic.

Matt Allen (13:57):
It's hard. Now,

Rob (13:59):
as you know, both of my kids have graduated. One
graduated vocational school, onegraduated college. If you ask
any of their peers, if you askany 18 year old, Hey, do wanna
be when you're 45 years old?Every one of them will say,
Well, I'd like to be wealthyliving in a big house and living
a great lifestyle. So to me,that's where you start.

(14:21):
What's the most realistic way orone of the most realistic way to
get there? Go learn how to makesemiconductor chips. And that's
where it has to start. And thenwe have to reinstitute a hard
work ethic into the Americansociety and say, look, this is
hard work, but you're going tobe rewarded for it. You're going

(14:43):
to be able to provide for yourfamily.
You're going be able to live agood life and you're gonna be
able to contribute to society.All of those things. That's what
has to be taught in addition tohow do you put these things
together, how do you make them,how do you make the best chips
in the world? So to me, it's atwo pronged educational

(15:04):
approach. There's a societalaspect and then there's a
technical aspect.

Matt Allen (15:09):
You that, let's say the state of Florida should pay
for kids to get educated in thisvocational training? And should
they create public schools?Because we don't even have right
now the resources that we needon scale to fill these jobs.

Rob (15:30):
Right.

Matt Allen (15:30):
So For and I'll say one last thing before we get
going. Speaking of our buddy,Michael Fisher, he there's a
company, it's Micron, building achip factory near where he's
from in Syracuse, New York, andthey're having to flood money

(15:51):
into the community colleges totrain these workers. I mean, is
a national security crisis, andit's a crisis on a lot of levels
because, you know, it's been along time if I don't remember in
history where we've needed toflood money into community
colleges to get people educatedto do a job.

Rob (16:10):
So it's interesting you say that. As you know, some of my
background is in public policy.For years, when I was coming up
thirty years ago, the mantra wasgo to college, get a good job.
Nobody wanted to be an airconditioning mechanic, which by

(16:31):
the way, that's what my dad was.I've crawled around installing
air conditioning since I was 14years old.
Nobody wanted to be anelectrician. Nobody wanted to be
a plumber. Now you talk to a lotof kids coming out of high
school and they want to go intothe vocations. It pays well, and
a lot of times they can maketheir own hours. And so you're
starting to see that shift inAmerican society to go back to

(16:55):
vocational training.
And to me, this is just the nextstep. You look at a lot of kids,
they're going to welding school,HVAC, general contractor, all of
those things you can get withouta college degree. And to me,
semiconductor chips is just thenext evolution of that. So it

(17:17):
can be done Each state has theinfrastructure to do it. And
that's one of the main goals ofgovernment is to invest in
education.
And so, to me, Florida, would bevery easy for them to take their
community college system andturn a couple of them into

(17:37):
vocational hubs forsemiconductor chip research and
assemblement.

Matt Allen (17:43):
But that brings me back to my initial question.
Should the federal governmentsend money to states to pay for
kids to get educated on how tobuild semiconductors?

Rob (17:55):
So let me, I will answer that with a simple word of yes.
Yes, they should, because thesame way they send money for
healthcare and everything elsethat the federal government
sends money for, they should begiven the states that want to
get into this business, want toget into the training. They
should be giving them some ofthe resources to do it.

Matt Allen (18:13):
Okay. So then I kinda just thinking about this.
Do you think this is leading tothe Trump administration and
ultimately United Statesgovernment developing a
sovereign fund?

Rob (18:26):
I hope not.

Matt Allen (18:29):
Why not?

Rob (18:30):
Again, I think America has been a world leader in economics
because there has been a clearline of separation between the
private sector and the federalgovernment. Our government is
founded upon Adam Smith, theinvisible hand, and capitalism,

(18:54):
And that's the way it should be.I'm okay if the government wants
to give out incentives to helpemerging markets, to help
entrepreneurs grow theirbusiness. I'm okay with all of
those things. That's okay.
But sovereign wealth funds,taking stakes in big companies,

(19:16):
it's too much. It's not thegovernment's role. And I support
a lot of the things thisadministration's doing. I think
it's been the bestadministration we've had in a
long time. There's a lot to fix,but this is not this is not one
of them.

Matt Allen (19:30):
Would you support a sovereign wealth fund if if the
profits were going to pay downthe national debt?

Rob (19:37):
No. While a worthy cause, any sort of sovereign wealth
fund that the federal governmenthad puts a damper on American
entrepreneurship.

Matt Allen (19:49):
So you think do you so you do truly believe that the
that the Trump administration ison the verge of war with
capitalism?

Rob (19:56):
Now you're putting words in my mouth.

Matt Allen (19:58):
No. I was asking.

Rob (19:59):
I think what the Trump administration

Matt Allen (20:02):
Because because I I'm not putting but but, you
know, they they said they'relooking invest in now Palantir
no. Sorry. Take over part ofPalantir, part of Boeing,
looking at part of Microsoft.

Rob (20:12):
So a a couple things. And we can this is a fascinating
subject we can talk about onevery podcast, but I would I
would say this. This Intel deal,I think, was the Trump
administration who are filledwith businessmen making a
business decision. Giving themgrant dollars. We don't trust

(20:33):
the way Intel runs their companybecause they're clearly failing.
And so we're going to take anownership stake. It's wrong, it
sets a bad precedent, and itrolls right into what you just
said. Look, Boeing is a terrificexample, one that we should talk
about. They cannot build a planeanymore. They just can't.

(20:57):
And so I'd much rather Now whatI'm going to say is going to
actually sicken myself because Icannot stand Teddy Roosevelt,
but they're better off breakingBoeing up the way Teddy
Roosevelt broke up Standard Oiland putting it into smaller
companies and allowing Americanentrepreneurism, allowing

(21:18):
ingenuity to get in there andreally grow smaller businesses,
as opposed to taking a stake inBoeing, which they're beyond
even a family. They are awful.They're awful. They are
crippling air air travel in TheUnited States because they
cannot build planes anymore.

Matt Allen (21:42):
And, yeah, they they they are struggling, and but I
don't really know how that howwould how that necessarily would
work because you mean that theywould stop manufacturing all the
parts?

Rob (21:54):
Well, again, take the When the government split up AT and T
all those years ago went to 14smaller companies, they can go
and do the same thing to Boeingand see which companies are then
thriving, which ones are not,and then invest in those

(22:14):
companies by giving themregulatory resources to grow.
And then the ones that arefailing, guess what? We have
almost a two fifty year historyin this country of when a sector
fails, other people step up intoit and are successful.

Matt Allen (22:30):
Interesting. I believe the only way to have a
sovereign wealth fund is if makeit where it's embedded in the
constitution, and that's allwhere it's embedded to where the
government has no voting rightsand there's no, you know, you
get this so sealedconstitutionally, almost ruled,

(22:52):
you know, eventually it wouldget sued by the Supreme Court,
eventually the Supreme Courtruled in favor of that. That's
the only way I ever see asovereign fund work in this
country. Because if we don't dothat, a sovereign wealth fund
will be the end of capitalism.

Rob (23:05):
I agree with you. And I think we're long past ever
amending the constitution again,Outside of some catastrophic
failure of The United States, Idon't see us being able to amend
the constitution again.

Matt Allen (23:22):
Is fair. Kind of going on that same topic, I
believe that we should haveinvested social security money a
long time ago. It's too latenow. These people who wanna say
it's, you know, started doingthat now, I love the idea, but
it's just not realistic. Do youbelieve social security is a

(23:43):
grade A Ponzi scheme?
Because what a Ponzi scheme isby definition, I give you money
to give the next person money.And when that money runs out,
it's over with. Bernie Madoffhad the greatest Ponzi skiing of
all time, and it'll still begoing today if 2009 didn't
happen or 02/2008.

Rob (24:02):
Right.

Matt Allen (24:03):
And I don't know. And how he got away from all the
regulators and that, that's awhole different story. So maybe
someone would finally realizethat. But the only reason he
turned himself in was becausethey came to him and said, hey,
we we need our money out, andthere was no more money to get.

Rob (24:18):
Right. I I would say to you, Social Security is a broken
system. And if we were to starttalking about Social Security,
we would go on for the next twohours. American whoever is
elected in Washington is isgoing to have to make some hard
decisions on that. And so, look,I've told both my kids, Matt,

(24:43):
you're 30 years old.
I would hope that you're notpredicating your future on
having social security. And ifwe continue to tell our younger
generations that maybe weextricate ourselves from this
social security debacle.

Matt Allen (25:00):
Yep. One of them, I completely agree. One thing that
I tell my aunts and uncles,people are gonna retire,
actually, there was thisinterview from Larry Fink, Larry
Fink's CEO of BlackRock, and hesaid he is worried. And
obviously he's in this business.He benefits from people staying
longer invested.
I understand that. But his pointwas not, he wasn't selling. He

(25:22):
was speaking at a panel with abunch of intellectual people. So
he wasn't trying to sellanything, but he made this great
point that said, one of hisbiggest concerns is that people
who are retiring right nowaren't considering the fact that
they're gonna live possiblylonger and longer and longer.
There's going to, if you look atthe rise of technology, how AI
is coming, especially in themedical field, there's gonna be

(25:43):
a breakthrough soon.
Larry Ellison talks about it.Larry Ellison's in his early
eighties, and he's like, I'mtrying to get to this point
where I'm alive for thebreakthrough. Looks And great
for his age, and he's, you know,doing a lot of work. I mean, you
can't tell he's 80, obviously,if he's a plastic. But that
breakthrough's gonna happenwhere there's been a point of

(26:06):
our lifetime where, you know,you're not die from health
issues like we're seeing today.
It's gonna be crazy becausetechnology isn't gonna be that
good with the rise of AI. WhatLarry Fink said is that we don't
know when that's gonna be, butstaying one or two years extra
in your retirement and yourcurrent job could help save you

(26:27):
down the road because you don'twanna be 95 at the equivalent of
what someone at 80 is today, butyou don't have any money to
live.

Rob (26:35):
Right.

Matt Allen (26:37):
And so that goes on the point of social security
too, is that you don't, youcan't rely on that because we
don't even know it's gonna bethere then. And also we don't
know how long we're gonna livebecause I tell you one thing, if
people keep on living towardslonger life expectancy, social
security is definitely doomed.

Rob (26:55):
Look, we're really discussing some big issues here,
but yes, life expectancy iscontinuing to go up in United
States. And so all of oursocietal rules are based on
societal norms of seventy toeighty years ago. Life

(27:16):
expectancy is mid seventies, 76,77. So you work till you're 65
and then, you know, you get toretire for ten, eleven years and
that's it. But yes, now peopleroutinely live past 80, 85, 90
years old.
And so to retire at 65 and thenlive a whole another quarter of

(27:39):
your life, I think there's someunreal expectations there.

Matt Allen (27:45):
Especially if you're not set up, if you didn't sell a
business, if you're relying onthe normal social security and a
retirement that someone wouldhave lived off twenty years ago,
I agree with you. Your qualityof life will not be the same.
No. So, well, let's move on tothe next topic. A topic that

(28:09):
just keeps on researching thenews.
It's arguably the biggest storyin finance in terms of policy.
And in my opinion, it's gonna beone for the record books,
history books. As we all know,President Trump has fired
Federal Reserve Governor LisaCook, claiming that she made
false statements on her mortgageapplications. Cook says he has

(28:33):
no legal authority to remove herand that she's refusing to
resign. This is a historical andunprecedented class between the
class between the White Houseand the Fed.
Central bank is supposed to beindependent of politics. Rob, do
you think first of all, do youthink this is constitutional? Do
you think Trump firing the Fedchair Fed governor is

(28:55):
constitutional?

Rob (28:56):
So let me, before I get into that, Matt, let me ask you
a question. Who appoints the fedchairs?

Matt Allen (29:02):
The president of The United States does, and it's
confirmed by the Senate.

Rob (29:05):
That's correct. So in my opinion, if the pre, it can't be
apolitical. If you're apolitical appointee, which these
Fed chairs are, then by thedefinition itself, you're
political. With that said, ifyou have cause, which clearly,

(29:29):
you know, the DOJ isinvestigating this in fact, I
think they chief justice Robertstoday released a memo or no. I
think it was yesterday.
Yesterday, he released a memosaying that the president could
fire Lisa Cook. And so, yeah,with cause, president should be

(29:49):
able to fire a fed governor.

Matt Allen (29:52):
Well, I I did not see the the chief justice say
that. That's very interesting. Iwill give an example. There's
two things that I see here.Someone who's a political nerd
as much as I'm a finance nerd.
When you had, in early 1930s,you had this case, Humphreys
Executor versus FDR. And whatthat was is FDR hated Humphreys.

(30:17):
Right. Humphreys was this FDCchair. So he just fires
Humphreys because he hated him.
That was his reason. He had nocause, nothing. So Humphreys,
instead of just taking hisfiring and going to the house,
he sues and it goes all way tothe Supreme Court. The Supreme
Court actually ruled in favor ofHumphreys. And the reason is

(30:38):
because when the FTC was createdin the FTC Act, it specifically
states, it says, a FTC chair canonly be fired with cause.
Okay? And so the Supreme Courtsaid Congress took this power
away from the president and tookit into their hands and said,

(31:01):
Hey, this is their reason. Sothen you had a few other
lawsuits that came along. Andwhat happened is the Supreme
Court has ruled over and overand over again that unless
Congress says that, puts it inthere that someone has to be
fired with cause, then thepresident can fire them at will.
And when the FTC Act wascreated, there is nothing that

(31:24):
puts any reasons in there why aFed governor or a Fed chair can
be fired.
So if you go on the basicprecedent of five Supreme Court
cases now, I don't believe a Fedchair or a Fed governor needs
cause to be fired. I don't thinkthey need cause based on the
ruling history the president,but I do believe there's a

(31:48):
chance that they can make it aruling that it's an independent
agency, at least who's the mostrecent Supreme Amy Comey Barrett
has made comments saying the Fedneeds its independence. So I

(32:08):
believe there's also a chancethat they might not use that
historical precedent and rulesomething completely different
that almost sets the Fed up byitself. I think that's a
possibility.

Rob (32:21):
So I agree. I think it's hard to predict what the Supreme
Court's going to do in thiscase. What we're talking about
is there is cause with GovernorCook. And so I do believe that
the president should be able toremove a Fed chair or governors
if there is cause. And so at thevery least right now, she should

(32:42):
be suspended without pay pendingthe investigation.

Matt Allen (32:48):
Do do you do you think so I will backtrack. Do
you do you believe in anindependent fad? No. Why not?

Rob (33:04):
I I think it's dangerous. It's it's it's as dangerous as
the Trump investment into ininto intel. If we have a purely

Matt Allen (33:16):
Well, we've always had an independent Fed.

Rob (33:20):
Again, I disagree with you. If How they are

Matt Allen (33:25):
long how long are Fed governors appointed for?

Rob (33:27):
Fourteen years.

Matt Allen (33:28):
Fourteen years. And you and none's been fired
before. Through that fourteenyear timeframe and no one
getting fired, that allows itfrom as close to independence as
you get.

Rob (33:40):
Yeah. And I'm okay with that, but I don't believe that
the Fed is independent becauseit's made up of political
appointees. So what what are yougoing to take out the political
process and put some independentboard that nominates? I mean,
how how do you how do you get ifyou're asking me, do I support a

(34:01):
completely independent fed? Howdo you even get there?

Matt Allen (34:05):
You you can And how do

Rob (34:07):
you stop from running away with bad monetary policy?

Matt Allen (34:11):
I mean, I think that's part of the unfortunate
part of of the independencezone. Because guess what happens
is if we this is my big concern.If she gets fired, like I said,
I don't I don't believeaccording to the constitutional
supreme court president, I don'tbelieve a president needs cause
or doesn't need cause. Andthat's not a popular opinion in

(34:31):
the finance world, but I'verealized a lot of people in the
finance world don't really knowmuch about politics. And so, on
historical precedent, I don'tthink they need cause at all.
That being said, my biggest fearis that if this is allowed, then
a president Matt Allen's gonnaget in there who says, Hey, low
interest rates are gonna be badin six years, but I'm gonna fire

(34:56):
every single Fed governor. I'mgonna put my people in. We're
gonna lower this thing down to1%, and the economy's gonna get
bolster up, and I'll go off as alegend in three years because
our economy just be crushing it.And then we come into a great
depression in year four isn'thow stupid of a decision that
was. And it was a short termminded decision by a president

(35:19):
who just wanted to getreelected.

Rob (35:21):
Yeah. No, I agree with all that. I totally agree with that
philosophy.

Matt Allen (35:26):
But you can't, but I mean, but you can't, it's like a
it's a catch 22.

Rob (35:30):
Yes, it is. But you can't have a completely independent
fed where it runs away and anddoes what you say anyways. And
then you have no recourse tostop them.

Matt Allen (35:45):
Do you think that there should be do you think
Congress should go in there andadd an amendment to the Fed Act
that says, hey, this is why youshould be can be fired? To just
because, hey, that would fix alot of things.

Rob (35:56):
Yeah. I I agree with you. If if congress could actually
achieve something, that that'swhat they should work on. Yes.

Matt Allen (36:03):
Because I know from a political standpoint, Mike
Johnson will never do this.Senator Thune would Senator
Thune probably would. It'd bethe wrath from the Trump
administration. But the way tofix all this, and no one's
talking about this either, theway to fix this is Congress go
in there and and add anamendment to the Federal Reserve
Act, and that will fix it.Right.
Then If, if, and if, and ifshe's found guilty of fraud,

(36:28):
fired.

Rob (36:29):
Yes. I, I, as she should be, by the way.

Matt Allen (36:32):
Yeah, for sure. As she

Rob (36:33):
should be.

Matt Allen (36:34):
That it's caused. Right. But I don't I think it's
a very scary thing becauseeveryone keeps on using when
when everyone said, hey, Trumpwould be impeached when he fired
James Comey. No. James Comey,when he was FBI director,
reports to the attorney generalof the Department of Justice.
This is a lot. This is not evenapples to oranges. They keep on
saying that on CNBC and stuff.It's not even apples to oranges

(36:57):
in my opinion. This is a it's awhole different I mean, it's a
whole difference.

Rob (37:02):
I I I think you and I are saying the same thing because I
think you and I both agree on ifthere is cause here that she
committed fraud, she should befired.

Matt Allen (37:12):
But do you are you worried, though, that the
Supreme Court might rule thatthe president can fire someone
with or without cause?

Rob (37:22):
Yeah. If that's the question you're asking me, then
yes. Yes. I am worried aboutthat.

Matt Allen (37:27):
Because I think that's gonna come from the
ruling. Wouldn't you wouldn'tyou imagine?

Rob (37:31):
It depend it just depends on how it's written.

Matt Allen (37:34):
Yeah. I mean, you know, justices historically have
always liked to lay their laytheir, pin on history, and this
is this is one way to do it.Yes. Because we just talked
about Humphrey's executor versusFDR, what, almost a hundred

(37:54):
years later. Right.

Rob (37:56):
Because again, if Congress could just do their job that we
elect them to do to pass publicpolicy, We wouldn't allow the
courts to actually rule all ofus.

Matt Allen (38:09):
Yeah, for sure, man. And a lot of people might just
read this, this Supreme Courtmajority of them do not like to
rule on things like this. But inthese situations, they have no
choice.

Rob (38:20):
Right.

Matt Allen (38:21):
And that's the problem is that they can send
this thing back to Congress orCongress should do their damn
job, like you just said, andthis would be taken care of. And
an investigation happened intoher, fair or unfair, and let the
system figure its way outbecause they should also have a
way of how someone could getappointed as an interim.

Rob (38:42):
Right. I agree with you. Again, we're not doing the
investigating. She's accused ofmortgage fraud because she's
claiming two homesteads. I thinkthe stately thing to do is,
whether you whether youphilosophically believe with the

(39:03):
current administration or not,is you say, okay.
If you're gonna investigate me,the stately thing to do is you
step down and say, let me,pending the outcome of the
investigation, I've done nothingwrong here, that to me is how it
should work.

Matt Allen (39:20):
Completely disagree with you. I agree with you on
the stately thing to do that yousay. I completely disagree
though. That's against how ourcountry was founded. If they are
trying to set her up and shelegitimately believes that she's
done nothing wrong, I think herstepping down in this situation

(39:41):
is everything our country waslike was fired against.

Rob (39:44):
So maybe stepping down was the wrong term. She should
voluntarily at least say, I I'mgoing to sit out until pending
the results of theinvestigation.

Matt Allen (39:59):
Fair. But they're they would just drag that out.
You don't think she should sue?

Rob (40:06):
No. I don't know. I'm torn on that. Everybody sues for
everything these days. So Idon't know.
Like, I it's hard to separatepolitics from injustice anymore.

Matt Allen (40:21):
That's fair. And and and this time, I mean, the
reason why this is such a bigdeal in the finance world is
because this only comes down toone thing in my opinion, is
interest rates.

Rob (40:32):
Right. Agree.

Matt Allen (40:34):
And is is someone being wrongly prosecuted so we
have lower interest rates inthis country? Right. I don't
know, but that is a problem ifthat's the case, and she should
Yes. Fight it tooth and And butif she did something wrong,
well, she she shouldn't havebeen in that position in the
first place.

Rob (40:53):
Correct.

Matt Allen (40:53):
So I it's it's gonna be interesting to find out. I've
it's gonna be I looked I lookedrecently. The average supreme
court case, this is according toPerplexity, so no one quote me
on this, but takes four to sixyears to play out, sometimes a
lot of times longer. Based onhistorical precedent, this
should go to the Supreme Courtand have a roll over within

(41:14):
ninety days.

Rob (41:15):
Right.

Matt Allen (41:16):
So that's pretty quick. Do you have anything else
you wanna add to that? Anyquestions?

Rob (41:23):
I don't think so. I would hope that the DOJ would wrap up
their investigation in time forthe Supreme Court case. That way
everybody has all of theeverything they need to know to
make a to make a sound decision.Right? Because let's say the
supreme

Matt Allen (41:42):
what you're saying there, but do you not think she,
well, at that point woulddeserve to have her time in
court, though?

Rob (41:50):
She should. Yes. What I'm saying, though, is I'd much
rather Supreme Court say, yes,sitting president can fire a Fed
gov chair with cause and thenhave a DOJ report that says
there is cause as opposed tothis unknown variable out there
on whether there is cause ornot.

Matt Allen (42:13):
And then that's what he thinks she should do this
state. He thing to do is juststep down. Yeah. I can agree
with you on that. Even thoughshe doesn't deserve her time in
courts, that's another thing ourcountry is founded on.
But I do believe at this timeright now, she should not back
down no matter because I dobelieve she's a political victim
who might have done somethingcompletely wrong.

Rob (42:35):
Well, and that's what makes this argument so hard. Because
you you you could convince methat, yes, being harmed.

Matt Allen (42:44):
Then- Because they went after this prowl, pow, pow,
pow, pow, fetch your pal. Andthen all of a sudden, they said,
Oh, buddy, we're gonna fire himwithout cause. And then look
what we might or might not havefound.

Rob (42:58):
Yes.

Matt Allen (43:01):
So one last thing on this, what is more, what exactly
is she accused of? What type ofmortgage fraud?

Rob (43:07):
So from the way I understand it is she had
multiple homes that she filledout for mortgages that said this
was her primary home, whichmeans she would have got, I
believe, a lower interest rate.

Matt Allen (43:21):
Okay. And so is that I guess it's the same thing
Peter Schiff is being accusedof.

Rob (43:27):
Yes. Okay. Adam Schiff.

Matt Allen (43:29):
Yeah. Yeah. Adam Schiff. Yeah. Not Peter Schiff.
The gold guy. Well, to wrap onelast story to wrap things up.
Man, we had to address this.This is just a lot more fun than
talking about mortgage fraud andinterest rates, in my opinion,
but it's just, our last story isCracker Barrel. And like I said,

(43:50):
it's a wild one.
The company's stock absolutelytanked. It was down 14% or so
after they undid a rebrand thatstripped out their old school
logo and made it with a modernone. They completely redid the
inside. Customers hated it.Social media roasted it.

(44:11):
And then Donald Trump got ontrue social and told them to
immediately reverse course.Since then they reversed course,
scrapped the logo, the stockback bounced, bounced back, but
it's still down now at 12% inthe past month at $50 a share.

(44:31):
So let's just open this up witha question. Is Cracker Barrel
the new Bud Light?

Rob (44:40):
I would say no. I think now I've not read anywhere that why
they changed their logo. It wasa stupid decision for sure, but
I don't know if they changed itbecause they thought it was too
Southern or you know, wasn'tpolitically correct. If they did

(45:04):
it for all of those things, thenyes, they are the new Bud Light,
and they deserve everything thathappened to them and more. But I
I've not seen any of that.
I think what Cracker Barrel istrying to do is say they had not
pivoted their business modelnearly fast enough in a changing

(45:24):
world. And so I don't know whytheir C suite thought, well, the
one thing people love aboutCracker Barrel is it's supposed
to you come in and you see oldworld things like from a hundred
years ago, you're supposed to godown on the farm and eat
wholesome food and all of thatkind of stuff. That's their

(45:47):
whole business model. Why theywould change that as opposed to
trying different things isbeyond me. I I just think I
think it's bad leadership.
I think, you know, C suiteshould be fired for all this.
Now we'll give them kudos thatthey didn't dig in. And once
president Trump came out andsaid, hey, this is stupid, they

(46:09):
reverse course and their stocknow is back. So they do deserve,
you know, lot of, a lot ofcompanies wouldn't do that. So
they do deserve some, some propsfor that, but it's just dumb.
It's Why does anybody bring afamily to Cracker Barrel? It's
because it's a uniqueexperience. Now you could hold
the argument that says theirwhole business model is

(46:30):
predicated on car travel. And intoday's world, people love to
fly. And so they're nottraveling.
I mean, there's a ton of travelon the interstate system. A lot
of it is trucking. Truckers arenot going to stop at a Cracker
Barrel because they've got toget from point A to point B as

(46:51):
fast as they can and as safelyas they can. And so, they need
to look at other things in theirbusiness model, not the quaint
old signs, not the quaint logo,not the things that people
actually like about it.

Matt Allen (47:07):
Yeah. I think what the one thing they're worried
about as well, everything yousaid is that Cracker Barrel is
target audience is baby boomersby far for for years. And they
are not seeing that type ofsuccess with millennials, which
I am, and then especially withGen Z. You know, I mean, well, I

(47:30):
went with them. Well, I wentwith my parents growing up in
Cracker a lot.
I love Cracker Barrel. But withthat being said, I would
probably go to Waffle House.Cracker Barrel's nicer. Food is
it's it's a little moreexpensive, but all things the
same, the food is both good onboth of my both both both food
is good, in my opinion.

Rob (47:51):
Yeah. I I I'd argue that you get a better selection of
food and a little bit higherquality food at Cracker Barrel
even

Matt Allen (47:57):
for almost That's the same fair. But it's also
wild that me and and your sonwould choose Waffle House 10
times out of 10. And let's justsay all things are the same
price wise.

Rob (48:10):
Okay.

Matt Allen (48:10):
And that is because Waffle House does a lot better
job of advertising to youngerpeople. And I think that's maybe
what Crocker Barrel wasthinking, but I'm with you. I
think there's a lot biggerissues. Because I mean, you
don't modernize everythingtrying to impress the baby
boomers. When you proposed thisin your C suite, you said, hey,

(48:32):
this is our target audience.
Just like when Bud Lightproposed the influencer that
they hired for their campaignthat

Rob (48:44):
Fuck. Don't don't get me start don't get me started on
that. Well, let's just say let'sjust say this. No one is going
to Waffle House except for theymarket better to the younger
population. And by the way,they're open twenty four hours.
Right? So for the younger peoplethat are left out there

(49:07):
partying, as we discussedearlier in the show, it's one of
the few places they go at 2AM.Right? So Cracker Barrel, what
they should have done is gottensome social media savvy people
together and say, hey, how do wemarket ourselves to become more
hip? And by the way, anybodygoing to Waffle House, they

(49:29):
don't care what the logo is.
They don't they they obviouslydon't care. I don't wanna offend
anybody, but you go to WaffleHouse, it's disgusting. It is
not clean. And so to me, CrackerBarrel is just It was stupid. It

(49:50):
was like going to the doctorwith a sore throat and them
saying, Hey, problem with yoursore throat is, you need your
knee amputated.

Matt Allen (50:00):
Do you think that the Cracker Barrels thought that
they should do a campaign ofstarting to put Cracker Barrels
in airports?

Rob (50:10):
That's a great idea actually. Yes.

Matt Allen (50:12):
I got a lot of great ideas, Rob.

Rob (50:14):
Yeah. Well, Hey, idea number one, I would patent that
if I was you.

Matt Allen (50:19):
Cracker Barrel and airports?

Rob (50:21):
Yes. I think Cracker Barrel would destroy an airport.

Matt Allen (50:24):
Yeah. I mean, that's the things that they should be
focused on and not modernizingtheir logo.

Rob (50:29):
It's the thing that separates them in the whole
marketplace. What else is likeCracker Barrel? Right? So the
old marketing 101, you could bebetter than, less than, or
different than. So if you weregoing to argue about less than
or better than, Hey, guess whatCracker Barrel has got going for
it is different than anythingelse in the marketplace.
Why would you change that?

Matt Allen (50:50):
Yeah. And I feel like, I feel like there's a lot
of opportunity internationallytoo, because people, people
internationally would probablylove that. Just like we love
international food in America,Cracker Barrel is Southern food.
That's a rare experience thatyou get.

Rob (51:05):
Right.

Matt Allen (51:05):
You could get overseas. I mean, there's a lot
of opportunities there. I couldsee them changing that decor for
obvious reasons. That's a wholedifferent conversation.

Rob (51:13):
Sure.

Matt Allen (51:15):
But they had a lot of opportunities. I mean, the
stock let's look at what thestock's done in the last stocks
down 63 in the last five years.Clearly, the CEO is in need.
Clearly, she needs to be fired.

Rob (51:27):
A 100%. Needs to be fired. Maybe what they should do, Matt,
the reason lot a lot of timesthe younger population don't go
to Cracker Barrel is becausethere are interstate exits. Now
just think about that from acommercial real estate

(51:48):
perspective, Okay? Where youlook at rooftops and how many
rooftops are in within a mile, amile and a half.
Generally, there's not a lot ofrooftops at interstate exits.
So, you know, if Cracker Barrelput their restaurant in
residential hub where there's8,000 rooftops within a mile,

(52:15):
and it's easy to get to, IfCracker Barrel put a restaurant
and ran it late near collegesall throughout the Southeast,
they'd probably be busy twentyfour hours a day. And guess
what? People would think it'scool to come in there and see a

(52:36):
90 year old soda sign or, youknow, the the old buckets or
farm equipment they have. Theywould.
And by the way, they buy allthose trinkets that's in the,
that's in the store that theyhave as you got to walk through.

Matt Allen (52:51):
Are they, are you saying they would like this when
they're drunk? Yes. Yes. Well,what do you, do you think Buc
ee's has hurt them?

Rob (53:06):
I'm not, I'm not familiar enough with Buc ee's to be
honest. I don't know.

Matt Allen (53:09):
Buc ee's is doing $15,000,000,000 in revenue all
off interstates.

Rob (53:14):
Okay. But, boy, they have that. Right?

Matt Allen (53:16):
Smallest smallest part of it. Food and all the

Rob (53:19):
other people know, shop there, get gas, use the
restroom,

Matt Allen (53:24):
and everything. They go in there and stay for fuck
for hours.

Rob (53:28):
No. I don't know anything. I've never been to a Buc ee's.

Matt Allen (53:31):
Well, you're about

Rob (53:32):
have lesser extent, I I find it interesting. They just
opened a bunch of Wawa's here,and the college kids talk about
how excited they were to be ableto eat at Wawa's.

Matt Allen (53:41):
Well, Buc ee's is coming just right down the
street from you in Tallahassee,Florida. It's expected to be one
of the busiest ones in Florida.And if you live in an area, your
traffic's supposed to be go upexponentially.

Rob (53:54):
Hey, one, I'm excited to hear that. Two. I appreciate you
telling all, all, all of YouTubeland where I live at. So now
they can steal my, identity.

Matt Allen (54:04):
Yeah. Hey, I'm sure they will.

Rob (54:06):
Yeah.

Matt Allen (54:08):
Anything else left to do with Cracker Barrel
besides that they should firethe CEO?

Rob (54:12):
Yeah. I think that they should not stop at the CEO and
get rid of a lot of their otherleadership as well.

Matt Allen (54:17):
And then their value, stocks were worth around
$50 a share, $1,000,000,000company right around it. Do
think they're a prime privateequity acquisition being only
worth a billion dollars as awhole company?

Rob (54:35):
Oh, I don't know. I I would there's a lot of risk there. I
don't I don't know. If if here'swhy I say there's a lot of risk.
I think to change your businessmodel, which I think it has a
lot to do with location, it's ahuge capital cost.

Matt Allen (54:53):
Yeah. So that's a it's interesting. Yeah. That's a
that's a great conversationbecause that's a good target
point number for a privateequity company.

Rob (55:04):
Yeah. Totally agree.

Matt Allen (55:08):
Brand. Right. Even after this, but you know,
private equity, as we all know,is is great, and they have to go
in there and slash, you know,cut, cut, cut. And so I don't
know.

Rob (55:20):
I mean, I guess they could cut their lowest 20% performing
stores and then use thosesavings to build in more
lucrative locations.

Matt Allen (55:33):
Yeah. I mean and but it's it seems like the stocks
match that no matter whateither. They're down 6% in the
last five years.

Rob (55:39):
Agreed.

Matt Allen (55:40):
And and it came to it's I guess it's become haven't
followed their stock. Obviously,I'm a I'm a tech guy, but it
seems like obviously it's sodramatic that they thought they
should just change it all. Fiftyyears worth

Rob (55:50):
It's of just laughable to me that in today's world, people
are to think that somebody's notcoming to your establishment
because of your sign.

Matt Allen (55:58):
True.

Rob (55:59):
You know? It's just it's just it's just laughable.

Matt Allen (56:05):
Yeah. That's very, very true. It's it's one of
those people think it's an easyfix to a problem that's a lot
deeper than an logo.

Rob (56:15):
Agreed. And I figure, you know, two semi intelligent
people on a podcast, if they canfigure that out, you would think
the CEO who they're payingmillions to should be able to
figure that out. Yeah. But Iguess not. Alright.
Hey, here's the deal. CrackerBarrel. Give us a call.

Matt Allen (56:32):
Well, they they had someone who went absolutely
viral on TikTok and Instagram,like a million likes, where it
was creating all this merch thatwas Gen Z would like. And it was
basically this whole campaignabout is where's the old man at?
I mean, it was, I'll find it andsend it to you. Was an awesome
video. And like the, and I'msorry, the, the video, the idea
was awesome.

(56:52):
Like make this whole thing bynext month, make this big
campaign about where's the oldman at, find the old man, like
give him all these kind ofawards and stuff. Right. And,
and keep, and then likeeventually bring him back. He
was like, this is how you saveyour brand. And they've had to
this, you know, a million likes.

Rob (57:08):
Right. Yeah. You would Someone

Matt Allen (57:10):
would see that at a C suite area or of corporate
Cracker Barrel. I find it veryhard to believe that they won
it, but they clearly did notcall them. So and that's also
right around the time presidentTrump got involved. And as we
know, president Trump loves agood fight, especially with the
public company.

Rob (57:30):
Yeah. Well, hey. Hey. Here's the thing. The president
probably saved their company.

Matt Allen (57:38):
Yeah. Do do you do you think do you think it was
would've gotten a lot worse thatthey would've went to war with
them?

Rob (57:43):
Yeah. Yes. Had he remained silent, I think they'd still be
going down this remodel,refurbishment, rebrand, and
would've just said, hey, no,it's just gotta take some time.
We gotta get in there. You know,all that kind of stuff.
And they'd probably be out ofbusiness in thirty six months.

Matt Allen (58:03):
Well, speaking about demographics in Crack Barrel, we
know that, we do know the targetdemographic for them is baby
boomers. Mhmm. And we do knowhow they have how how they have
voted in the last threeelections. And so they probably
got very, very worried when hegot involved.

Rob (58:20):
Right. Hey, so one thing they did right.

Matt Allen (58:24):
Because they're like, well, has a very good,
very high influence in thatdemographic. So he might've
bankrupted them. Yeah. And thentrying to put a trunk tower in
each one. Well, Rob, do you haveanything else?

Rob (58:40):
Let's, why don't we, why don't we end the podcast with a
little bit of financial wisdom?

Matt Allen (58:45):
Okay.

Rob (58:46):
So, you know, as our listeners know, we were powered
by Bean Wealth. That's that'syour, your, your parent brand on
that. In that brand, you do alot of, stock tips, stock
education, things like that. Ithink it would do good, just
sort of ending our discussiontoday, do a little bit of stock

(59:08):
talk. And so what comes to mindis yesterday you and I did one
of these, a swing trade on aparticular stock, and I think it
is the most underutilized playin layman's terms.
And so I think a lot of peoplelistening to this would benefit

(59:29):
from you telling them what aswing trade is. You know, I
think a lot of people arefamiliar with day trades or or
maybe even wanting to be a daytrader thinking that, it it
leads to riches. They obviouslyknow about retirement investing.
But, Matt Allen, where lifestyleand finance meet, what's a swing

(59:51):
trade?

Matt Allen (59:52):
So a swing trade is it's well, first of all, it's my
personal favorite way to totrade. And so the first was to
break it down from the basicsand you have investing in stocks
and trading stocks and investingin stocks, in my opinion, is
when you go in there, it's whatWarren Buffett does. You buy the
company that you, that you lovethe fundamentals for. You love

(01:00:13):
their leadership, you believethis is gonna be a long term
success. You become a part ownerof the business when you buy the
stock.
So you're there for the next,you're owning the stock for the
next five, ten years. So thenyou have trading where you're
looking at this thing calledtechnical analysis and you have
different subsects of it. Andthe first one, the most popular
one is day trading. And so whatday trading means is, is you get

(01:00:33):
into a stock at say 09:31 on theday the market opens and you
have to sell it before themarket closes. Well, a swing
trade is you get in somethingthat you see and you hold it for
the next, I would say three toeighteen months.

(01:00:55):
Usually more six to eighteenmonths, but that's my favorite
type of trading. The things Ilook for that is usually blue
chip brands or tech companiesthat are either one or two
things, one that is a beatendown brand. So for example, when
Meta crashed in 2022 andNetflix, two of my biggest wins
of all time, Netflix crashedbecause ended password sharing

(01:01:18):
and people thought, Wall Streetthought for whatever reason that
it was gonna be negative for thebusiness. But I was like, Hey,
this doesn't make any sense. Ifthey get one customer, they're
gonna make more money.
So what that means is that ifyou and your son were sharing
passwords and he stoppedsharing, but became a subscriber

(01:01:40):
and they made more money. Well,the stock had the biggest two
day fall of all time in thestock. And it got down to its
lowest levels there were interms of valuation. So I got in
the move, did a bunch of leapoptions, stock options, and the
stock came ripping back at ournext earnings. That was the
catalyst.
So what you need is you eitherneed a catalyst and you get in

(01:02:02):
the stock and you say, this isgonna make a move back to the
next, for the next, in the nextyear or so. Or you could do
things like a great swing tradeis that when Stanley and
Drunkenmiller got in when whenas soon as they unveiled a
Nvidia oh, sorry. Sorry. As soonas they unveiled ChadGPT, the
next day he bought so muchNvidia, was crazy. And he held

(01:02:24):
it for a year and a half.
He sold it. And they said, Whyare you selling it? And he goes,
I'm a swing trader. And he said,I'm not here to own the stock
forever like Buffett is. And sothe difference between that was,
is that he saw the catalystbeing AI and he got in it before
the catalyst.
He got, he didn't need the stockto go all way down. He rode the

(01:02:45):
catalyst all the way up. Right.So that is what you do is you
can either to get down when thestock's beating down and wait
for the catalyst for it to comeback up or hop on a catalyst
that you think is gonna be therefor an extended period of time.
I do not consider a swing tradeif you hold it for two to three
weeks.
Some people do, I justpersonally don't. Good. I think

(01:03:05):
it's also, if people wanna learntechnical analysis and trading,
my opinion, it's the easiest wayto be profitable. And also I
think it limits emotions. Thehardest part about day trading
is the emotion part of it.
You can, you can trade anaccount and make a million
dollars when it's paid for moneybecause you're doing everything
the right way. But as soon asyou get your real emotions in
there, for whatever reasons youstart losing because it's so

(01:03:30):
emotional, swing training reallyeliminates that big time.

Rob (01:03:34):
Agreed.

Matt Allen (01:03:36):
And at the end of the day too, I mean, you know,
you try and beat the S and P500, which is 10 to 12% a year.
You know, if you get somethingwhere you get 25% in a year at
least, I mean, we we look forbigger wins than that. That's
huge. I mean, Nevis is a I hopeyou saw that. I think we I sent
out Nevis to our premiumsubscribers on the Everyday
Investor Club, which is you canfind that on beanwealth.com.

(01:03:59):
And it was up 60%, let alonejust and yesterday, 60%. And
people swing I said, hey, dothis as a swing trade because
it's part of the AI movement.They were it's a data center
play. So there's just differentways to play them. I will say
this in swing trades.
If you you need to have amarket, You need to know where

(01:04:20):
the market's going. If it's abullish or bearish market, when
it's shopping, swing tradingdoesn't really work. And that's
because you have to have adirection. You have to either
hop on the direction all the wayup or find it all the way down.
You can do one or the other, butyou have to have a direction.
In a choppy market, you don'tneed a direction.

Rob (01:04:41):
Good. No. I think you broke it down real well.

Matt Allen (01:04:44):
So but, Rob, you have anything else?

Rob (01:04:48):
I think that's it.

Matt Allen (01:04:50):
Well, you can, follow us on Matt Allen
underscore show, on Instagram,TikTok, and subscribe to us on
YouTube, on Spotify, Apple,whatever is your favorite
service. And we will be backnext Thursday. And then we will
start an interview series wherewe bring in some of the top
minds in finance, business andtech starting in the next couple

(01:05:11):
of weeks. So let us know in thecomment section what you think
about these episodes. We'd loveto hear your feedback.
And if you wanna come on aguest, please just DM us on my
account, at investmattallen orthe at Dean Wealth account, we
will go from there and possiblyhave you on. All right. Talk to
you then.