June 30, 2026 • 30 mins
Don and Tom tackle the blurry line between free speech and market manipulation after the conviction of prominent short seller Andrew Left. They debate whether financial influencers should be allowed to profit from public stock recommendations, discuss why members of Congress continue trading individual stocks despite widespread public opposition, and explain why ordinary investors should avoid trying to outsmart people with superior information or influence.
The conversation then shifts into listener questions covering Roth employer matches, Roth IRA withdrawal rules, Roth conversion strategies for retirees, and whether paying taxes now simply to benefit heirs makes financial sense. Along the way, there’s plenty of lighthearted banter about soccer, politics, podcast reviews, and Don’s growing passion for his Litreading short story podcast.
00:05 – Introduction and Independence Day reflections
01:27 – Andrew Left convicted of stock market manipulation
03:24 – Is market manipulation protected free speech?
06:56 – Why Don opposes congressional stock trading
09:18 – Congress made over 13,000 stock trades in 2025
12:29 – Why public officials should be held to a higher standard
14:12 – The lesson for ordinary investors: you can’t beat insiders
15:27 – Podcast reviews, politics, and avoiding crypto
17:12 – Florida’s proposed property tax amendment
18:22 – Transition to listener questions
19:38 – Employer Roth 401(k) matching contributions
20:10 – Can you withdraw Roth IRA money before age 59½?
21:49 – Should retirees convert large IRAs to Roth accounts?
24:52 – Soccer, World Cup talk, and the “laws” of the game
26:44 – Don promotes Litreading and Short Storyverses
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
SPEAKER_00 (00:05):
We're gonna do a really great financial future.
Tom and Don are talking realmoney.
SPEAKER_03 (00:12):
Well, we're coming up on the 250th anniversary of
these United States of Americafrom the signing of that
Declaration of Independence July4th, 1776, to the Constitution
to today.
And there's one thing that we'vesort of had that whole time.
It's kind of interesting.
Well, there's a money angle tothis.
You'll see in a minute.
And that's the freedom to speakpretty much as we want to speak.
(00:37):
But it does have limitations.
And where are those lines andhow do they affect you as an
investor?
Well, we're going to addressthat question or those
questions.
Hey everyone.
Welcome to the Talking RealMoney Podcast.
I'm Don McDonald.
That guy over there is Tom Cock.
And we're here pretty much everyday to make money make more
(00:59):
sense and possibly entertain youjust a tad with bad humor.
And hopefully one of these daysyou're going to go, wow, look,
these guys actually helped out.
The proof, though, is we stillget calls from people who said,
I started listening to you like30 years ago and I'm doing
really well.
Okay, it worked.
So, anyway, let's talk aboutfree speech.
(01:21):
How free is free speech?
Recently, a gentleman by thename of Andrew Left, a
relatively well-known shortseller who runs a company called
Citron Research.
SPEAKER_02 (01:34):
I think right there you should say again, describe
short selling.
SPEAKER_03 (01:38):
Short selling means you sell a stock you don't own
because you expect it to godown.
Now that is perfectly fine.
Anybody can short sell anytime,any place.
But some people short sell andthey have the money and the and
the the soapbox, and then theywrite articles slamming the
(01:58):
companies that they're shortselling.
This has been done.
This has been done for a longtime.
Bill Ackman did it.
You know, there there's a lot ofthis.
Well, Andrew left recently inthe last few weeks, was
convicted of manipulating thestock market for profit and uh
(02:19):
guilty of 13 charges where he uhhe slammed uh companies like
Roku and Nvidia and Tesla andmade about$20 million.
Now he faces about a milliondollars a year in jail.
25 years.
SPEAKER_02 (02:35):
So according to the Justice Department, he made bold
public calls on stocks, oftenusing social media, and then
exited the trade minutes orhours later.
unknown (02:48):
Right.
SPEAKER_02 (02:48):
Because little moves in the stock market.
SPEAKER_03 (02:51):
Is if you have followers, followers tend to do
what well, what is it's it'sbuilt into the word.
They tend to follow.
And so followers would sell thestocks that he had already
shorted.
Yep.
And so what it's in s in someparlance, it's called front
running.
He would influence the futureprice of that security because
(03:13):
he's telling people get out ofthis.
Yeah, and then he gets out of itbefore they realize that they
need to get out.
So is this legal or illegal?
Hmm.
That's the question.
Uh Tom and I actually have verydifferent opinions on this.
SPEAKER_02 (03:28):
It's fascinating.
SPEAKER_03 (03:36):
And he knew.
See, there's the thing (03:37):
it's intent and knowledge.
You know, he wasn't just a guywho had a position in his
portfolio and wrote an articleabout it.
Although, even if you do that inthe media, you're supposed to
say, I have a position in thiscompany.
That is a legal requirement.
You're supposed to say that.
But I think this exceeded that.
(03:59):
It's not just free speech, in myopinion.
It's just yelling fire in a in amovie theater?
Kind of no.
Okay.
No, because it's not, it doesn'trise to that level of danger.
But what he did do was useothers to make him a prophet,
knowing full well that theseothers would do what he told
(04:22):
them to do because they'd doneit before.
But he said to do X and he did Yin some cases.
Well, no, he did X first.
And then he told them to do X.
Yep.
And then when they did X, he didY.
SPEAKER_02 (04:37):
Yeah.
SPEAKER_03 (04:38):
Because cause and effect.
He knows.
SPEAKER_02 (04:41):
So in his mind, he says the criminal case is an
effort to regulate financialinfluencers.
SPEAKER_03 (04:49):
Mm-hmm.
Okay.
You can be a f a fin fluencerall you want as long as you're
not playing the stocks you'retalking about.
But if I said here, wait aminute, we we've got an audience
of thousands and thousands ofpeople, tens of thousands of
people.
All right?
SPEAKER_02 (05:04):
Yep.
SPEAKER_03 (05:05):
If I bought a stock today, today, and I went on this
show and I said, Oh my God, thisis an incredible stock.
You gotta buy it, and you know,because 10,000 people put in buy
orders, I'm watching the priceand it goes up like 15%, boom,
like that, and I sell.
Is that should that be legal?
(05:28):
If disclosed, I think you couldsay yes, right?
I I even think it should be no.
SPEAKER_02 (05:35):
Fascinating.
Yeah, that we're on theopposite.
SPEAKER_03 (05:37):
It's so but he may not be able to do that.
I know I'm using you, I know I'musing you, the listeners, to
make me money.
Uh and manipulating the marketto do so.
I think that's wrong.
Am I naive?
SPEAKER_02 (05:52):
I don't know because that in that same vein, then in
some way, short selling itselfshould be illegal.
SPEAKER_03 (06:00):
No, I disagree.
If I don't believe, like I thinkNvidia is overpriced, and I'm
not saying I do, and I shortsell it and it goes down, I'm
lucky.
That's fine.
I didn't tell you that I thoughtit was going to go down and rely
on you selling it to make mytrade work.
(06:21):
That's the difference.
SPEAKER_02 (06:22):
Yeah, and the witnesses they had against him
said his words carried specialweight because traders thought
he had skin in the game.
You got it.
And that's why they said, oh,well, if Andrew's in on this,
I'm in.
But he had in many cases soldout of the position uh, as you
(06:42):
said, kind of along the way orbefore whatever it is to profit
by it and then used otherpeople's trades, you know,
they're on their own.
They either going against wherehe actually was at that moment.
It's tricky.
And let me ask you this.
SPEAKER_03 (06:56):
You are, I know you are a huge advocate of laws that
would not allow governmentemployees and members of
Congress to trade stocks,correct?
SPEAKER_02 (07:08):
We'll talk about that, those numbers, which I
think are far from the samething.
SPEAKER_03 (07:11):
Yeah, I want to get to those numbers in a minute.
But but let me but let me thequestion, though, is the the
implication, the reason we don'twant our representatives and our
our government officials to ownstocks and to buy stocks on
their own is because they haveknowledge that we don't have,
and therefore they could, and ofcourse, are.
We're not naive.
I mean, we're not that stupid.
(07:32):
If these guys are makingthousands of stock trades, some
of them a year, they're makingit on knowledge that they got
somehow.
Because they're doing reallywell.
They're doing better than youraverage stock pickers.
How is that different?
How is that different from theshort selling guy?
SPEAKER_02 (07:49):
Yeah.
But they aren't doing a headfake with the public, right?
SPEAKER_03 (07:53):
They're not saying they're kind of doing it.
They're taking advantage ofknowledge they have before the
public gets it.
SPEAKER_02 (08:01):
Well, that's that's a separate issue to me, because
that's insider.
What he's really doing is usinghis influence to convince people
to do a certain thing and thengoing against that.
SPEAKER_03 (08:11):
But he's kind of an insider, though.
I mean, in the fact that he canmove that he can move money, he
can move markets.
Can he?
It's been proven he did, Ithink.
SPEAKER_02 (08:21):
Because listen to the numbers.
He the trades he was making wererelatively small.
I think I read 20 million orsomething.
Relatively small.
Yeah.
In a market where the dailytrading is of one trillion
dollars.
SPEAKER_03 (08:34):
Yeah, but still that's a 20 million here and 20
million there.
Pretty soon you're talking realmoney.
unknown (08:40):
Yeah.
SPEAKER_02 (08:40):
Um there are 70 to 75 million trades a day,
roughly.
Daily trading volume, somewherearound a trillion dollars around
the globe.
So I think his impact is prettyI'm not saying he's innocent,
but I think when I read it, Iwas like, I think this will get
overturned on appeal.
I don't know.
SPEAKER_03 (08:58):
All right, but those those 75 million trades are in
how many stocks?
SPEAKER_02 (09:07):
Well, I don't know how to say 10,000 for sake of
argument.
Yeah.
SPEAKER_03 (09:12):
He's making 20 million on trades in one day on
one stock.
Yeah.
It puts it in a much, muchbrighter light, in my opinion.
SPEAKER_02 (09:23):
Yeah, but since you brought it up, I think a far
bigger issue is exactly what hesaid.
According to Common Cause, in2025, members of Congress made
13,324 trades, totaling$630million.
Um That's shocking.
SPEAKER_03 (09:45):
Well, although how many wait a minute?
I okay, I'm gonna get in alittle bit of political trouble.
This has nothing to do with I Iam not deranged for all of you
who support the slightlyderanged.
I am not deranged.
I am opinionated, but notderanged.
Um so you said it was 13,000trades?
13,000 trades, that's right.
In what period of time?
SPEAKER_02 (10:07):
A year.
SPEAKER_03 (10:08):
How many trades were made in Donald Trump's personal
brokerage account?
SPEAKER_02 (10:14):
I think we knew this because we talked about it once.
Was it 3,000 or something or4,000?
SPEAKER_03 (10:18):
Yeah, it was about 3,000.
Um gee, that seems to me that'sabout 25 percent of what the
entirety of Congress did.
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
But his isn't a blind trust.
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
It's not a blind trust.
That's the thing.
It's not a blind trust.
Oh boy.
No, but it literally is not ablind trust.
If it was typically it would be.
SPEAKER_02 (10:39):
The president would have it in a blind trust.
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_03 (10:40):
Right, but not in this case.
SPEAKER_02 (10:42):
No.
But just to finish my thought onthe congressional situation.
Uh by the way, SenatorBlumenthal, congratulations,
you're number one.
406 trades totaling$76 million.
Apparently they don't read muchbecause traders generally don't
end up with as much money aspeople that just buy.
SPEAKER_03 (10:59):
By the way, Mr.
Blumenthal is a Democrat, and Ifind what he does appalling.
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_02 (11:03):
It's shocking.
Let me finish the thought.
In a world, as I was saying,where 86% of the public supports
banning Congress from trading.
Yeah.
(11:32):
I think Nancy Pelosi said thatwhen they brought it up last
time.
It's like, oh, well, that's justunfair to us.
No, it's not.
Buy a danged index fund.
I know, but uh insiderinformation, as you just
mentioned, conflicts of interestover the top.
SPEAKER_03 (11:47):
And I find it appalling that Democrats and
Republicans are doing it.
I hate it with a white hotpassion.
And by the way, I just checked.
Trump's assets are held in atrust managed by his children.
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
That's right.
SPEAKER_02 (12:00):
So it's not blind.
He can sit down every nightafter work.
SPEAKER_03 (12:02):
He can pull up the numbers.
They're right there in front ofhim.
SPEAKER_02 (12:05):
Yeah.
SPEAKER_03 (12:06):
A blind trust requires an independent trustee,
and the office holder is notinformed about the investment
decisions or the holdings untilafter the fact.
SPEAKER_02 (12:16):
Trevor Burrus, Yeah.
How did I end up doing the lastfour years?
SPEAKER_03 (12:23):
Oh, well, sir, I made a really bad bet.
Actually, it's probably a itwould probably be better.
Unless, of course, there is somenefarious behavior.
And the reason we don't likethis kind of trading on the on
the part of members of Congressand the executive branch is
because there is a whiff ofpotential impropriety.
SPEAKER_02 (12:51):
You already said there was impropriety.
There has to be.
Right.
SPEAKER_03 (12:56):
In some cases we know of trades that were that
happened prior to a war breakingout, for example.
SPEAKER_02 (13:04):
There were some oil trades that have been kind of
here in the last few months.
SPEAKER_03 (13:08):
They happened right before a war started that nobody
was supposed to know aboutbecause it was, I don't know,
top secret?
Classified?
Congress, Wall Street, thepresident, wake up, other
officials.
You need to act better thaneverybody else.
(13:35):
You need to set a better examplefor the world.
And if you keep doing whatyou're doing, the example you're
setting is that, well, if youcan't beat 'em, cheat 'em.
SPEAKER_02 (13:46):
And what you're saying about where we started
with this about Mr.
Left is that this is unfair.
And by the way, if it is, and heis convicted, he's been
convicted of the city.
He's been convicted of thirteencounts.
If it holds, I want aninvestigation of every
FinFluencer, all these peoplethat are on the internet, et
(14:07):
cetera, promoting this orshooting us whatever.
I want to see their tradingrecord.
SPEAKER_03 (14:12):
I think we should, but it's a it's a huge job, and
it would require uh a massiveeffort, and I don't think we're
willing to do that.
But there is a moral, though, tothis whole story.
No matter what side of it you'reon, no matter what you think of
the parties involved, there's amoral to this story.
And this is a moral that we havecarried throughout this program
(14:34):
since its inception.
And that is you can't beat theseguys.
They have too much power foryou.
A person sitting at home orsitting in your car listening to
this podcast without a bigaudience, they you you can't
(14:54):
beat them.
You don't have the edge, and youprobably don't want to cheat.
Do you?
Maybe you do.
I don't know.
It sure seems like a lot ofpeople do.
Members of Congress, it'scheating.
It's cheating.
You're just you don't want toadmit it because you're greedy.
(15:16):
You're just greedy.
How much money do you need,really?
Any of us.
Anyway.
I've ranted enough.
Send us your questions.
And by the way, okay, if youwant to give us a bad review for
something we said, you listen tothe show.
You know it's not a one starshow.
(15:38):
At least if you don't like whatwe say, put in three stars.
You know, I kind of like theshow, but sometimes I don't like
what they say.
If you're gonna do that, okay?
SPEAKER_02 (15:47):
But don't make it one star.
SPEAKER_03 (15:49):
One star means you absolutely hate the show.
Then if you absolutely hate theshow, why are you listening?
I I don't understand.
Anyway, moving on.
Well, at least it wasn't cryptotoday.
What was it today?
No, we had a little politics,but no crypto.
SPEAKER_02 (16:07):
Oh, no crypto on the show, you meant today.
No crypto on the show.
SPEAKER_03 (16:10):
Crypto always gets us into trouble.
It's so funny.
It's so funny to read thereviews and find that there are
two things.
There are if we ever say thatthe president is wrong about
anything, even though I've saidBiden was wrong about things,
I've certainly said the Clintonswere wrong about things, uh I
(16:32):
there were some things Obama didthat I did not like.
You know, I have criticizedevery president that uh has come
down the pike since I was a Iwas able to critique.
I mean, I remember with Nixon, Ihad fights with my mother about
Nixon, and then I became aRepublican.
After that, I don't know howthat happened.
Oh, money, probably.
Uh selfishness.
(16:53):
That's why I became aRepublican.
You wanted the truth.
It's the truth.
I wanted lower taxes for me.
Selfish me.
SPEAKER_02 (17:01):
And that's pretty much everybody wants lower taxes
for moi.
SPEAKER_03 (17:05):
Oh my gosh.
And speaking of lower taxes,this is a an aside, but what the
heck, it's a podcast.
The Florida legislature a fewweeks ago passed a
constitutional amendment toslash property taxes in Florida
(17:26):
dramatically.
Uh with the goal to eventually,hopefully, they want to
eliminate property taxes inFlorida.
We don't have a state incometax.
Right.
I don't know how they think thelocal governments are gonna pay
their bills, but kind ofinteresting.
And it's gonna be on theNovember ballot.
SPEAKER_02 (17:43):
Oh, it is.
Mm-hmm.
And people are just, yeah, sure.
I don't want to pay that alltime.
I don't want to know.
SPEAKER_03 (17:48):
I bet it passes.
I bet it it needs sixty percent,by the way, to put to become a
constitutional amendment.
Getting 60 on anything is tough.
I still think because peoplevote their self-interests.
I mean, I looked at it and went,holy cow, this could save me
like a thousand dollars a yearinitially on the first round.
SPEAKER_02 (18:11):
Yep.
SPEAKER_03 (18:12):
And I'm going.
So do I vote my self-interest ordo I vote what I believe is
better for my community?
I haven't I don't know.
What should I do?
I'm gonna ask the listeners.
SPEAKER_02 (18:26):
You're gonna no, you're gonna vote what's right
for your community.
Come on, I know you.
SPEAKER_03 (18:29):
I probably should involve in your community.
So all right, shall we get tothe questions?
Okay, by the way, the questionscame in at talkingrealmoney.com,
talkingrealmoney.com.
Uh, these are the ones that youtyped.
If you type them, they go on theMonday through Thursday shows.
If you go and hit the recordbutton in the corner, the mic,
and you speak them, they go onthe Friday QA show.
So here are some of those typedones that Tom just loves
(18:52):
ruffling, riffling, rifflingbetween his fingers.
SPEAKER_02 (18:54):
Riffling between the fingers.
Ah, from Hartzell, Alabama.
Jamie writes, in the latestepisode.
Hartzel.
Hartzel.
Oh, I was wondering about that.
Yeah.
Yeah, it's not Hartzell.
Hart Selly.
Hartzelli.
How about that?
Uh in the latest episode, you ifyou you asked if anyone's
employer matches with the Rothcontribution.
My employer's 401k is with JohnHancock, and they do match 50%
(19:18):
of my Roth 401k contribution.
In other words, we had we hadfirst I didn't even know that
people that that was legal, soI'm shows you how out of time I
am.
And I didn't know anybody doingit.
So a few people have written andsaid, Yeah, my employer matches
with the Roth contributionrather than a pre-tax one.
There's a change in the last fewyears, so that's that's really
great.
Uh but then Jamie went on, sinceI'm already here, a little
(19:42):
weird, but you're not actuallyhere.
But since you're already writinga question, yeah, he's kind of
here.
SPEAKER_03 (19:46):
He was there at the he was there in the moment.
SPEAKER_02 (19:49):
Okay.
Says I'm 54 starter Roth Iowawith Fidelity this year and plan
to max it out each year.
If I retire in the year I turn59, could I go ahead and take
distributions from it withoutpenalty, even if I'm not
fifty-nine and a half kinda.
You can take the contributionsout.
SPEAKER_03 (20:10):
You can take the contributions out.
You can't take the earnings out.
SPEAKER_02 (20:12):
Yeah.
SPEAKER_03 (20:13):
Or the gains, the the increase in value.
SPEAKER_02 (20:16):
But if you did a conversion, you could not.
But um so yeah, you can you cango I uh why would you do that
though?
Why would you save for the nextfive years and then start taking
the money out?
That doesn't make sense.
SPEAKER_03 (20:25):
I I don't think see, that's not taking advantage of
the biggest benefit that theseaccounts provide, which is
tax-free compounded growth.
SPEAKER_02 (20:35):
Yep.
So I would leave that there andprobably pull money from other
another place.
Says thanks for all you do.
Enjoy the podcast, and hope weget Don's Civil War book soon.
I ordered it today.
SPEAKER_03 (20:47):
Oh, he ordered it today.
Yeah.
I thought you did.
I was gonna say you ordered it awhile ago.
You ordered a bunch of them.
You ordered 15 of them.
I know.
I've been giving them oil.
They're hot case.
He skewed my sales numbers.
SPEAKER_02 (20:58):
Popped them right up there.
I'd love to.
SPEAKER_03 (21:00):
For that one day.
It was a good day.
SPEAKER_02 (21:02):
I gotta find somebody else to do 15 tomorrow.
SPEAKER_03 (21:06):
I made like six.
SPEAKER_02 (21:08):
Wait, I gotta get a re how much.
SPEAKER_03 (21:09):
I made about seventy dollars.
SPEAKER_02 (21:11):
Wow.
Okay.
Well, every 70 bucks helps.
Um from Blacksburg, Virginia,isn't that the Oh, the home of
the hokies?
SPEAKER_03 (21:19):
Yeah.
Do the hokey pokey and you turnyourself around.
SPEAKER_02 (21:22):
Spouse went there.
SPEAKER_03 (21:24):
I'm a I am what they call and at Virginia Tech in
Blacksburg, I am what they calla spokey.
Because you're a spouse.
SPEAKER_02 (21:31):
I'm a spouse of a hokey.
I'm a spooky.
I never heard that before.
Armendo.
SPEAKER_03 (21:36):
I love Blacksburg, it is a beautiful town, by the
way.
SPEAKER_02 (21:39):
Um hi Don and Tom, great show.
And you are the rock stars offinancial podcast bar none.
Well, Armindo, pretty much we'regonna do anything you say after
that.
You know that.
SPEAKER_03 (21:48):
So you're right about everything, and thanks for
writing.
Thank you.
SPEAKER_02 (21:52):
Uh I was listening to one of your podcasts from
2021.
Wow, we did this podcast in2021.
Were we uh
SPEAKER_03 (22:01):
Yeah, we've done it for a long time.
SPEAKER_02 (22:04):
You advised your caller to let his traditional
individual retirement accountgrow forever.
And when he passes the kids themoney, when he passes the kids
can take care of the taxes dueon his IRA and they can enjoy
the free money.
Do you still maintain the samebelief?
In other words, many people wantto convert everything over to
Roth, pay the tax so their kidsget money tax-free.
(22:25):
Um trying to do that.
SPEAKER_03 (22:31):
Well, listen to me.
I just have so darn much moneythat I I don't think.
SPEAKER_02 (22:35):
You may think that when I tell you what Armendo's
got.
They're not that kind of rich.
They're not that kind of rich.
SPEAKER_03 (22:56):
Sorry?
They're not that kind of rich,where you just like can
willy-nilly convert Roth IRAs soyour kids don't have to pay
taxes over.
No, it's a terrible reason to doit.
SPEAKER_02 (23:07):
So if you're doing it for you situation over time,
sure.
If you're doing it because youwant to stay in the 22% bracket
for a period of time and youdon't want your RMDs, then maybe
that does make sense to fill itall the way up there, do that.
But just to do it for your kids,I I have the same opinion.
SPEAKER_03 (23:24):
No.
Yeah.
Like okay, they're they theycould take it out over ten years
and pay the taxes over tenyears.
And that means that you knowthey the for every hundred
dollars, they end up withseventy-five after taxes,
basically.
SPEAKER_02 (23:40):
Yeah.
Good for them.
And it might bounce them intoanother bracket, it's that okay.
Still, I don't think that's abig deal.
Um, by the way, Armindo adds,hey Tom, keep up the soccer
talk, especially now with theWorld Cup just days away.
So this was sent before theWorld Cup started, which has now
started.
I know we're all sitting aroundour sets every day watching
numerous games, debating VARcalls, trying to decide whether
(24:03):
it really was offside or not.
Don has been a lot of people.
I don't even know.
SPEAKER_03 (24:06):
I I to this day, Tom has taken me to some soccer
matches.
SPEAKER_02 (24:10):
That's true.
SPEAKER_03 (24:10):
We've gone to several, and uh I try to
understand how that was offsidesand that wasn't.
SPEAKER_02 (24:17):
Well, the first problem you have, there's no S
at the end of it.
It's just offside.
SPEAKER_03 (24:21):
So Oh my gosh.
You mean there is only one side?
And here's the other problem Ihave with football.
Yes.
Is that they don't call themrules.
They're so pretentious they callthem laws.
SPEAKER_02 (24:34):
That's right.
SPEAKER_03 (24:35):
It's almost biblical.
You know, it's like Moses camedown from the uh mount with
tablets establishing soccer.
SPEAKER_02 (24:44):
Yeah.
SPEAKER_03 (24:45):
Yeah.
He did the Ten Commandments andthe FIFA laws.
SPEAKER_02 (24:49):
We put it back together for him.
SPEAKER_03 (24:50):
So who um who decides what the laws are?
Who is the law giver and in thesoccer world?
SPEAKER_02 (24:56):
I thought that was back to Congress.
I thought that was their job.
So I don't know.
Uh I try to question.
SPEAKER_03 (25:03):
Dude, I try so hard.
I have MLS.
I have the MLS thing on Apple.
I know.
I know.
I've gone to the Orlando Citygames.
You've gone to the U.S.
SPEAKER_02 (25:13):
You've seen the U.S.
men's national team play.
I was there with you.
SPEAKER_03 (25:16):
I I have.
I've watched the SeattleSounders play.
That's true.
You've been there at LumenField.
I've watched games on the telly.
You were a luminary at LumenField.
I just thought of that.
And you know, watching them onthe telly is actually easier
than watching them on the realpitch thing.
How's that?
Look, I called it a pitchbecause the field is so damn
(25:36):
big.
Yeah.
How do you think I feel runningall over that field, huh?
Oh my God, I don't know how youdo it.
Then I watched this 3D thing onmy Apple Vision Pro about
Barcelona.
Uh was it Barcelona?
No, it was Real Madrid.
Real Madrid.
SPEAKER_02 (25:50):
Yeah.
SPEAKER_03 (25:51):
About their stadium and their team.
Their stadium is so amazing.
The burn bow?
Strips of the field move up anddown.
Oh, that's right.
Yeah.
They hide them down below wherethey nurse them into perfection.
They actually have a dude whowho who who rolls balls on it to
make sure it's perfectly leveland flat.
SPEAKER_02 (26:13):
It's an obsession.
Yeah.
Well, there's big money involvedin all this, as you may know.
SPEAKER_03 (26:18):
So speaking of that'd be like seeing some
greenskeeper on an NFL fielddown there with a pair of
scissors snipping the little.
SPEAKER_02 (26:25):
That one's quarter inch too tall.
SPEAKER_03 (26:27):
That's what they do it in soccer, apparently.
Well, it's very important.
Balls to go to the phone.
Because it's not just rules,it's laws.
You could go to jail if thefield is bumpy.
It's a law.
It's a law.
Pay attention to the law, dangit.
All right.
Look at the time.
Oh, I think that means we haveto end.
(26:47):
I think it does.
We try to keep these somewherebetween 20 and 30 minutes.
SPEAKER_02 (26:51):
And about the average dog walk, because it
seems like that's where mostpeople are doing their
listening.
SPEAKER_03 (26:55):
Dog walk, commute.
A lot of people commute with us.
You know?
It's it's it's like it's likegive you an analogy and a plug.
Um it's kind of like anaudiobook.
Audiobooks are nice.
They're good.
You're on a long trip orwhatever, but but short stories
are audio short stories are somuch nicer for short trips and
(27:19):
you know standing in line andthat kind of stuff, which is why
I do all these short storypodcasts that need more
listeners, by the way.
Oh, okay.
They do.
I was looking at the well no,this is a because here's here's
the thing there's a guy, and I'mnot gonna say who he is, but he
does a short story podcast, andhe does like two a week.
(27:41):
And he's got so many listeners.
And I try I've listened to himand I try to listen with a
critical ear.
He's horrible! He's a terriblenarrator.
But he does two a week.
And yet he has more listenersthan I do, and it bothers me.
(28:01):
I can get that impression.
It it bothers me.
Lots more listeners.
SPEAKER_02 (28:08):
Yeah.
SPEAKER_03 (28:09):
I work really hard on my short stories.
I even write some of them.
So go check out.
If you want to find them all,here's the easiest way.
Go to shortstoryverses.com orjust go on Apple Podcasts or
Spotify and look for me.
Just look for me.
SPEAKER_02 (28:23):
The picture just pops up there.
SPEAKER_03 (28:25):
Does it really well, you know, now I better oh hold
on.
I may be wrong.
Before I say that, I I'm I'mgonna check, see if my name does
come up.
It may not be me.
Let's see, Don McDonald.
No, it really doesn't.
Uh so look for lit reading orshort story.
SPEAKER_02 (28:40):
L-I-T, not L-I-P, by the way.
SPEAKER_03 (28:43):
Lit reading.
I'm gonna have to change thename.
SPEAKER_02 (28:45):
I it confuse confusing.
SPEAKER_03 (28:47):
Because it bothers Tom.
SPEAKER_02 (28:48):
Yeah, it doesn't bother me.
It's just a branding guy, it'skind of a concern, that's all.
SPEAKER_03 (28:52):
It means reading literature.
Lit reading.
SPEAKER_02 (28:55):
Reading Liperture.
So I get it.
SPEAKER_03 (28:58):
We gotta go now.
We're done.
We're totally apparently we aredone talking real money.
SPEAKER_00 (29:04):
The opinions and views expressed in this podcast
were current on the daterecorded.
Opinions, estimates, forecasts,and statements of financial
market trends that are based oncurrent market conditions
constitute our judgment and aresubject to change without
notice, including anyforward-looking estimates or
statements which are based oncertain expectations and
assumptions.
SPEAKER_01 (29:18):
Although information and opinions given have been
obtained from or based onsources believed to be reliable,
no warranty or representation ismade as to their correctness,
completeness, or accuracy.
SPEAKER_00 (29:27):
Information presented on the podcast is not
personalized investment advicefrom Oppello Wealth.
The views and strategiesdescribed may not be suitable
for everyone.
This podcast does not identifyall the risks, direct or
indirect, or otherconsiderations which might be
material to you when enteringany financial transaction.
Past performance does notguarantee future results, and
profitable results cannot beguaranteed.
We hope you realize that theinformation provided on Talking
Real Money is for informational,educational, and hopefully
(29:49):
enjoyable purposes only.
The podcast is not trying to getyou to buy or sell any financial
products or securities.
Instead, the program is providedas a public service by Appello
Wealth, a fee-only registeredinvestment advisor.
Appello Capital, LLC DBA AppelloWealth, is an investment
advisory firm registered withthe Securities and Exchange
(30:10):
Commission.
The firm only transacts businessin the states where it is
properly registered or excludedor exempt from registration
requirements.
Registration with the SEC or anyState Securities Authority does
not imply a certain level ofskill or training.
Appello does not provide tax orlegal advice, and nothing either
stated or implied here should beinferred as providing such
advice.
Thanks for listening, and pleasevisit TalkingRealMoney.com for
more information and importantdisclosure related to
(30:32):
performance of any specificindex or fund quoted in this
podcast.
We're gonna do a really great financial future.
Tom and Don are talking realmoney.
SPEAKER_03 (00:12):
Well, we're coming up on the 250th anniversary of
these United States of Americafrom the signing of that
Declaration of Independence July4th, 1776, to the Constitution
to today.
And there's one thing that we'vesort of had that whole time.
It's kind of interesting.
Well, there's a money angle tothis.
You'll see in a minute.
And that's the freedom to speakpretty much as we want to speak.
(00:37):
But it does have limitations.
And where are those lines andhow do they affect you as an
investor?
Well, we're going to addressthat question or those
questions.
Hey everyone.
Welcome to the Talking RealMoney Podcast.
I'm Don McDonald.
That guy over there is Tom Cock.
And we're here pretty much everyday to make money make more
(00:59):
sense and possibly entertain youjust a tad with bad humor.
And hopefully one of these daysyou're going to go, wow, look,
these guys actually helped out.
The proof, though, is we stillget calls from people who said,
I started listening to you like30 years ago and I'm doing
really well.
Okay, it worked.
So, anyway, let's talk aboutfree speech.
(01:21):
How free is free speech?
Recently, a gentleman by thename of Andrew Left, a
relatively well-known shortseller who runs a company called
Citron Research.
SPEAKER_02 (01:34):
I think right there you should say again, describe
short selling.
SPEAKER_03 (01:38):
Short selling means you sell a stock you don't own
because you expect it to godown.
Now that is perfectly fine.
Anybody can short sell anytime,any place.
But some people short sell andthey have the money and the and
the the soapbox, and then theywrite articles slamming the
(01:58):
companies that they're shortselling.
This has been done.
This has been done for a longtime.
Bill Ackman did it.
You know, there there's a lot ofthis.
Well, Andrew left recently inthe last few weeks, was
convicted of manipulating thestock market for profit and uh
(02:19):
guilty of 13 charges where he uhhe slammed uh companies like
Roku and Nvidia and Tesla andmade about$20 million.
Now he faces about a milliondollars a year in jail.
25 years.
SPEAKER_02 (02:35):
So according to the Justice Department, he made bold
public calls on stocks, oftenusing social media, and then
exited the trade minutes orhours later.
unknown (02:48):
Right.
SPEAKER_02 (02:48):
Because little moves in the stock market.
SPEAKER_03 (02:51):
Is if you have followers, followers tend to do
what well, what is it's it'sbuilt into the word.
They tend to follow.
And so followers would sell thestocks that he had already
shorted.
Yep.
And so what it's in s in someparlance, it's called front
running.
He would influence the futureprice of that security because
(03:13):
he's telling people get out ofthis.
Yeah, and then he gets out of itbefore they realize that they
need to get out.
So is this legal or illegal?
Hmm.
That's the question.
Uh Tom and I actually have verydifferent opinions on this.
SPEAKER_02 (03:28):
It's fascinating.
SPEAKER_03 (03:36):
And he knew.
See, there's the thing (03:37):
it's intent and knowledge.
You know, he wasn't just a guywho had a position in his
portfolio and wrote an articleabout it.
Although, even if you do that inthe media, you're supposed to
say, I have a position in thiscompany.
That is a legal requirement.
You're supposed to say that.
But I think this exceeded that.
(03:59):
It's not just free speech, in myopinion.
It's just yelling fire in a in amovie theater?
Kind of no.
Okay.
No, because it's not, it doesn'trise to that level of danger.
But what he did do was useothers to make him a prophet,
knowing full well that theseothers would do what he told
(04:22):
them to do because they'd doneit before.
But he said to do X and he did Yin some cases.
Well, no, he did X first.
And then he told them to do X.
Yep.
And then when they did X, he didY.
SPEAKER_02 (04:37):
Yeah.
SPEAKER_03 (04:38):
Because cause and effect.
He knows.
SPEAKER_02 (04:41):
So in his mind, he says the criminal case is an
effort to regulate financialinfluencers.
SPEAKER_03 (04:49):
Mm-hmm.
Okay.
You can be a f a fin fluencerall you want as long as you're
not playing the stocks you'retalking about.
But if I said here, wait aminute, we we've got an audience
of thousands and thousands ofpeople, tens of thousands of
people.
All right?
SPEAKER_02 (05:04):
Yep.
SPEAKER_03 (05:05):
If I bought a stock today, today, and I went on this
show and I said, Oh my God, thisis an incredible stock.
You gotta buy it, and you know,because 10,000 people put in buy
orders, I'm watching the priceand it goes up like 15%, boom,
like that, and I sell.
Is that should that be legal?
(05:28):
If disclosed, I think you couldsay yes, right?
I I even think it should be no.
SPEAKER_02 (05:35):
Fascinating.
Yeah, that we're on theopposite.
SPEAKER_03 (05:37):
It's so but he may not be able to do that.
I know I'm using you, I know I'musing you, the listeners, to
make me money.
Uh and manipulating the marketto do so.
I think that's wrong.
Am I naive?
SPEAKER_02 (05:52):
I don't know because that in that same vein, then in
some way, short selling itselfshould be illegal.
SPEAKER_03 (06:00):
No, I disagree.
If I don't believe, like I thinkNvidia is overpriced, and I'm
not saying I do, and I shortsell it and it goes down, I'm
lucky.
That's fine.
I didn't tell you that I thoughtit was going to go down and rely
on you selling it to make mytrade work.
(06:21):
That's the difference.
SPEAKER_02 (06:22):
Yeah, and the witnesses they had against him
said his words carried specialweight because traders thought
he had skin in the game.
You got it.
And that's why they said, oh,well, if Andrew's in on this,
I'm in.
But he had in many cases soldout of the position uh, as you
(06:42):
said, kind of along the way orbefore whatever it is to profit
by it and then used otherpeople's trades, you know,
they're on their own.
They either going against wherehe actually was at that moment.
It's tricky.
And let me ask you this.
SPEAKER_03 (06:56):
You are, I know you are a huge advocate of laws that
would not allow governmentemployees and members of
Congress to trade stocks,correct?
SPEAKER_02 (07:08):
We'll talk about that, those numbers, which I
think are far from the samething.
SPEAKER_03 (07:11):
Yeah, I want to get to those numbers in a minute.
But but let me but let me thequestion, though, is the the
implication, the reason we don'twant our representatives and our
our government officials to ownstocks and to buy stocks on
their own is because they haveknowledge that we don't have,
and therefore they could, and ofcourse, are.
We're not naive.
I mean, we're not that stupid.
(07:32):
If these guys are makingthousands of stock trades, some
of them a year, they're makingit on knowledge that they got
somehow.
Because they're doing reallywell.
They're doing better than youraverage stock pickers.
How is that different?
How is that different from theshort selling guy?
SPEAKER_02 (07:49):
Yeah.
But they aren't doing a headfake with the public, right?
SPEAKER_03 (07:53):
They're not saying they're kind of doing it.
They're taking advantage ofknowledge they have before the
public gets it.
SPEAKER_02 (08:01):
Well, that's that's a separate issue to me, because
that's insider.
What he's really doing is usinghis influence to convince people
to do a certain thing and thengoing against that.
SPEAKER_03 (08:11):
But he's kind of an insider, though.
I mean, in the fact that he canmove that he can move money, he
can move markets.
Can he?
It's been proven he did, Ithink.
SPEAKER_02 (08:21):
Because listen to the numbers.
He the trades he was making wererelatively small.
I think I read 20 million orsomething.
Relatively small.
Yeah.
In a market where the dailytrading is of one trillion
dollars.
SPEAKER_03 (08:34):
Yeah, but still that's a 20 million here and 20
million there.
Pretty soon you're talking realmoney.
unknown (08:40):
Yeah.
SPEAKER_02 (08:40):
Um there are 70 to 75 million trades a day,
roughly.
Daily trading volume, somewherearound a trillion dollars around
the globe.
So I think his impact is prettyI'm not saying he's innocent,
but I think when I read it, Iwas like, I think this will get
overturned on appeal.
I don't know.
SPEAKER_03 (08:58):
All right, but those those 75 million trades are in
how many stocks?
SPEAKER_02 (09:07):
Well, I don't know how to say 10,000 for sake of
argument.
Yeah.
SPEAKER_03 (09:12):
He's making 20 million on trades in one day on
one stock.
Yeah.
It puts it in a much, muchbrighter light, in my opinion.
SPEAKER_02 (09:23):
Yeah, but since you brought it up, I think a far
bigger issue is exactly what hesaid.
According to Common Cause, in2025, members of Congress made
13,324 trades, totaling$630million.
Um That's shocking.
SPEAKER_03 (09:45):
Well, although how many wait a minute?
I okay, I'm gonna get in alittle bit of political trouble.
This has nothing to do with I Iam not deranged for all of you
who support the slightlyderanged.
I am not deranged.
I am opinionated, but notderanged.
Um so you said it was 13,000trades?
13,000 trades, that's right.
In what period of time?
SPEAKER_02 (10:07):
A year.
SPEAKER_03 (10:08):
How many trades were made in Donald Trump's personal
brokerage account?
SPEAKER_02 (10:14):
I think we knew this because we talked about it once.
Was it 3,000 or something or4,000?
SPEAKER_03 (10:18):
Yeah, it was about 3,000.
Um gee, that seems to me that'sabout 25 percent of what the
entirety of Congress did.
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
But his isn't a blind trust.
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
It's not a blind trust.
That's the thing.
It's not a blind trust.
Oh boy.
No, but it literally is not ablind trust.
If it was typically it would be.
SPEAKER_02 (10:39):
The president would have it in a blind trust.
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_03 (10:40):
Right, but not in this case.
SPEAKER_02 (10:42):
No.
But just to finish my thought onthe congressional situation.
Uh by the way, SenatorBlumenthal, congratulations,
you're number one.
406 trades totaling$76 million.
Apparently they don't read muchbecause traders generally don't
end up with as much money aspeople that just buy.
SPEAKER_03 (10:59):
By the way, Mr.
Blumenthal is a Democrat, and Ifind what he does appalling.
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_02 (11:03):
It's shocking.
Let me finish the thought.
In a world, as I was saying,where 86% of the public supports
banning Congress from trading.
Yeah.
(11:32):
I think Nancy Pelosi said thatwhen they brought it up last
time.
It's like, oh, well, that's justunfair to us.
No, it's not.
Buy a danged index fund.
I know, but uh insiderinformation, as you just
mentioned, conflicts of interestover the top.
SPEAKER_03 (11:47):
And I find it appalling that Democrats and
Republicans are doing it.
I hate it with a white hotpassion.
And by the way, I just checked.
Trump's assets are held in atrust managed by his children.
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
That's right.
SPEAKER_02 (12:00):
So it's not blind.
He can sit down every nightafter work.
SPEAKER_03 (12:02):
He can pull up the numbers.
They're right there in front ofhim.
SPEAKER_02 (12:05):
Yeah.
SPEAKER_03 (12:06):
A blind trust requires an independent trustee,
and the office holder is notinformed about the investment
decisions or the holdings untilafter the fact.
SPEAKER_02 (12:16):
Trevor Burrus, Yeah.
How did I end up doing the lastfour years?
SPEAKER_03 (12:23):
Oh, well, sir, I made a really bad bet.
Actually, it's probably a itwould probably be better.
Unless, of course, there is somenefarious behavior.
And the reason we don't likethis kind of trading on the on
the part of members of Congressand the executive branch is
because there is a whiff ofpotential impropriety.
SPEAKER_02 (12:51):
You already said there was impropriety.
There has to be.
Right.
SPEAKER_03 (12:56):
In some cases we know of trades that were that
happened prior to a war breakingout, for example.
SPEAKER_02 (13:04):
There were some oil trades that have been kind of
here in the last few months.
SPEAKER_03 (13:08):
They happened right before a war started that nobody
was supposed to know aboutbecause it was, I don't know,
top secret?
Classified?
Congress, Wall Street, thepresident, wake up, other
officials.
You need to act better thaneverybody else.
(13:35):
You need to set a better examplefor the world.
And if you keep doing whatyou're doing, the example you're
setting is that, well, if youcan't beat 'em, cheat 'em.
SPEAKER_02 (13:46):
And what you're saying about where we started
with this about Mr.
Left is that this is unfair.
And by the way, if it is, and heis convicted, he's been
convicted of the city.
He's been convicted of thirteencounts.
If it holds, I want aninvestigation of every
FinFluencer, all these peoplethat are on the internet, et
(14:07):
cetera, promoting this orshooting us whatever.
I want to see their tradingrecord.
SPEAKER_03 (14:12):
I think we should, but it's a it's a huge job, and
it would require uh a massiveeffort, and I don't think we're
willing to do that.
But there is a moral, though, tothis whole story.
No matter what side of it you'reon, no matter what you think of
the parties involved, there's amoral to this story.
And this is a moral that we havecarried throughout this program
(14:34):
since its inception.
And that is you can't beat theseguys.
They have too much power foryou.
A person sitting at home orsitting in your car listening to
this podcast without a bigaudience, they you you can't
(14:54):
beat them.
You don't have the edge, and youprobably don't want to cheat.
Do you?
Maybe you do.
I don't know.
It sure seems like a lot ofpeople do.
Members of Congress, it'scheating.
It's cheating.
You're just you don't want toadmit it because you're greedy.
(15:16):
You're just greedy.
How much money do you need,really?
Any of us.
Anyway.
I've ranted enough.
Send us your questions.
And by the way, okay, if youwant to give us a bad review for
something we said, you listen tothe show.
You know it's not a one starshow.
(15:38):
At least if you don't like whatwe say, put in three stars.
You know, I kind of like theshow, but sometimes I don't like
what they say.
If you're gonna do that, okay?
SPEAKER_02 (15:47):
But don't make it one star.
SPEAKER_03 (15:49):
One star means you absolutely hate the show.
Then if you absolutely hate theshow, why are you listening?
I I don't understand.
Anyway, moving on.
Well, at least it wasn't cryptotoday.
What was it today?
No, we had a little politics,but no crypto.
SPEAKER_02 (16:07):
Oh, no crypto on the show, you meant today.
No crypto on the show.
SPEAKER_03 (16:10):
Crypto always gets us into trouble.
It's so funny.
It's so funny to read thereviews and find that there are
two things.
There are if we ever say thatthe president is wrong about
anything, even though I've saidBiden was wrong about things,
I've certainly said the Clintonswere wrong about things, uh I
(16:32):
there were some things Obama didthat I did not like.
You know, I have criticizedevery president that uh has come
down the pike since I was a Iwas able to critique.
I mean, I remember with Nixon, Ihad fights with my mother about
Nixon, and then I became aRepublican.
After that, I don't know howthat happened.
Oh, money, probably.
Uh selfishness.
(16:53):
That's why I became aRepublican.
You wanted the truth.
It's the truth.
I wanted lower taxes for me.
Selfish me.
SPEAKER_02 (17:01):
And that's pretty much everybody wants lower taxes
for moi.
SPEAKER_03 (17:05):
Oh my gosh.
And speaking of lower taxes,this is a an aside, but what the
heck, it's a podcast.
The Florida legislature a fewweeks ago passed a
constitutional amendment toslash property taxes in Florida
(17:26):
dramatically.
Uh with the goal to eventually,hopefully, they want to
eliminate property taxes inFlorida.
We don't have a state incometax.
Right.
I don't know how they think thelocal governments are gonna pay
their bills, but kind ofinteresting.
And it's gonna be on theNovember ballot.
SPEAKER_02 (17:43):
Oh, it is.
Mm-hmm.
And people are just, yeah, sure.
I don't want to pay that alltime.
I don't want to know.
SPEAKER_03 (17:48):
I bet it passes.
I bet it it needs sixty percent,by the way, to put to become a
constitutional amendment.
Getting 60 on anything is tough.
I still think because peoplevote their self-interests.
I mean, I looked at it and went,holy cow, this could save me
like a thousand dollars a yearinitially on the first round.
SPEAKER_02 (18:11):
Yep.
SPEAKER_03 (18:12):
And I'm going.
So do I vote my self-interest ordo I vote what I believe is
better for my community?
I haven't I don't know.
What should I do?
I'm gonna ask the listeners.
SPEAKER_02 (18:26):
You're gonna no, you're gonna vote what's right
for your community.
Come on, I know you.
SPEAKER_03 (18:29):
I probably should involve in your community.
So all right, shall we get tothe questions?
Okay, by the way, the questionscame in at talkingrealmoney.com,
talkingrealmoney.com.
Uh, these are the ones that youtyped.
If you type them, they go on theMonday through Thursday shows.
If you go and hit the recordbutton in the corner, the mic,
and you speak them, they go onthe Friday QA show.
So here are some of those typedones that Tom just loves
(18:52):
ruffling, riffling, rifflingbetween his fingers.
SPEAKER_02 (18:54):
Riffling between the fingers.
Ah, from Hartzell, Alabama.
Jamie writes, in the latestepisode.
Hartzel.
Hartzel.
Oh, I was wondering about that.
Yeah.
Yeah, it's not Hartzell.
Hart Selly.
Hartzelli.
How about that?
Uh in the latest episode, you ifyou you asked if anyone's
employer matches with the Rothcontribution.
My employer's 401k is with JohnHancock, and they do match 50%
(19:18):
of my Roth 401k contribution.
In other words, we had we hadfirst I didn't even know that
people that that was legal, soI'm shows you how out of time I
am.
And I didn't know anybody doingit.
So a few people have written andsaid, Yeah, my employer matches
with the Roth contributionrather than a pre-tax one.
There's a change in the last fewyears, so that's that's really
great.
Uh but then Jamie went on, sinceI'm already here, a little
(19:42):
weird, but you're not actuallyhere.
But since you're already writinga question, yeah, he's kind of
here.
SPEAKER_03 (19:46):
He was there at the he was there in the moment.
SPEAKER_02 (19:49):
Okay.
Says I'm 54 starter Roth Iowawith Fidelity this year and plan
to max it out each year.
If I retire in the year I turn59, could I go ahead and take
distributions from it withoutpenalty, even if I'm not
fifty-nine and a half kinda.
You can take the contributionsout.
SPEAKER_03 (20:10):
You can take the contributions out.
You can't take the earnings out.
SPEAKER_02 (20:12):
Yeah.
SPEAKER_03 (20:13):
Or the gains, the the increase in value.
SPEAKER_02 (20:16):
But if you did a conversion, you could not.
But um so yeah, you can you cango I uh why would you do that
though?
Why would you save for the nextfive years and then start taking
the money out?
That doesn't make sense.
SPEAKER_03 (20:25):
I I don't think see, that's not taking advantage of
the biggest benefit that theseaccounts provide, which is
tax-free compounded growth.
SPEAKER_02 (20:35):
Yep.
So I would leave that there andprobably pull money from other
another place.
Says thanks for all you do.
Enjoy the podcast, and hope weget Don's Civil War book soon.
I ordered it today.
SPEAKER_03 (20:47):
Oh, he ordered it today.
Yeah.
I thought you did.
I was gonna say you ordered it awhile ago.
You ordered a bunch of them.
You ordered 15 of them.
I know.
I've been giving them oil.
They're hot case.
He skewed my sales numbers.
SPEAKER_02 (20:58):
Popped them right up there.
I'd love to.
SPEAKER_03 (21:00):
For that one day.
It was a good day.
SPEAKER_02 (21:02):
I gotta find somebody else to do 15 tomorrow.
SPEAKER_03 (21:06):
I made like six.
SPEAKER_02 (21:08):
Wait, I gotta get a re how much.
SPEAKER_03 (21:09):
I made about seventy dollars.
SPEAKER_02 (21:11):
Wow.
Okay.
Well, every 70 bucks helps.
Um from Blacksburg, Virginia,isn't that the Oh, the home of
the hokies?
SPEAKER_03 (21:19):
Yeah.
Do the hokey pokey and you turnyourself around.
SPEAKER_02 (21:22):
Spouse went there.
SPEAKER_03 (21:24):
I'm a I am what they call and at Virginia Tech in
Blacksburg, I am what they calla spokey.
Because you're a spouse.
SPEAKER_02 (21:31):
I'm a spouse of a hokey.
I'm a spooky.
I never heard that before.
Armendo.
SPEAKER_03 (21:36):
I love Blacksburg, it is a beautiful town, by the
way.
SPEAKER_02 (21:39):
Um hi Don and Tom, great show.
And you are the rock stars offinancial podcast bar none.
Well, Armindo, pretty much we'regonna do anything you say after
that.
You know that.
SPEAKER_03 (21:48):
So you're right about everything, and thanks for
writing.
Thank you.
SPEAKER_02 (21:52):
Uh I was listening to one of your podcasts from
2021.
Wow, we did this podcast in2021.
Were we uh
SPEAKER_03 (22:01):
Yeah, we've done it for a long time.
SPEAKER_02 (22:04):
You advised your caller to let his traditional
individual retirement accountgrow forever.
And when he passes the kids themoney, when he passes the kids
can take care of the taxes dueon his IRA and they can enjoy
the free money.
Do you still maintain the samebelief?
In other words, many people wantto convert everything over to
Roth, pay the tax so their kidsget money tax-free.
(22:25):
Um trying to do that.
SPEAKER_03 (22:31):
Well, listen to me.
I just have so darn much moneythat I I don't think.
SPEAKER_02 (22:35):
You may think that when I tell you what Armendo's
got.
They're not that kind of rich.
They're not that kind of rich.
SPEAKER_03 (22:56):
Sorry?
They're not that kind of rich,where you just like can
willy-nilly convert Roth IRAs soyour kids don't have to pay
taxes over.
No, it's a terrible reason to doit.
SPEAKER_02 (23:07):
So if you're doing it for you situation over time,
sure.
If you're doing it because youwant to stay in the 22% bracket
for a period of time and youdon't want your RMDs, then maybe
that does make sense to fill itall the way up there, do that.
But just to do it for your kids,I I have the same opinion.
SPEAKER_03 (23:24):
No.
Yeah.
Like okay, they're they theycould take it out over ten years
and pay the taxes over tenyears.
And that means that you knowthey the for every hundred
dollars, they end up withseventy-five after taxes,
basically.
SPEAKER_02 (23:40):
Yeah.
Good for them.
And it might bounce them intoanother bracket, it's that okay.
Still, I don't think that's abig deal.
Um, by the way, Armindo adds,hey Tom, keep up the soccer
talk, especially now with theWorld Cup just days away.
So this was sent before theWorld Cup started, which has now
started.
I know we're all sitting aroundour sets every day watching
numerous games, debating VARcalls, trying to decide whether
(24:03):
it really was offside or not.
Don has been a lot of people.
I don't even know.
SPEAKER_03 (24:06):
I I to this day, Tom has taken me to some soccer
matches.
SPEAKER_02 (24:10):
That's true.
SPEAKER_03 (24:10):
We've gone to several, and uh I try to
understand how that was offsidesand that wasn't.
SPEAKER_02 (24:17):
Well, the first problem you have, there's no S
at the end of it.
It's just offside.
SPEAKER_03 (24:21):
So Oh my gosh.
You mean there is only one side?
And here's the other problem Ihave with football.
Yes.
Is that they don't call themrules.
They're so pretentious they callthem laws.
SPEAKER_02 (24:34):
That's right.
SPEAKER_03 (24:35):
It's almost biblical.
You know, it's like Moses camedown from the uh mount with
tablets establishing soccer.
SPEAKER_02 (24:44):
Yeah.
SPEAKER_03 (24:45):
Yeah.
He did the Ten Commandments andthe FIFA laws.
SPEAKER_02 (24:49):
We put it back together for him.
SPEAKER_03 (24:50):
So who um who decides what the laws are?
Who is the law giver and in thesoccer world?
SPEAKER_02 (24:56):
I thought that was back to Congress.
I thought that was their job.
So I don't know.
Uh I try to question.
SPEAKER_03 (25:03):
Dude, I try so hard.
I have MLS.
I have the MLS thing on Apple.
I know.
I know.
I've gone to the Orlando Citygames.
You've gone to the U.S.
SPEAKER_02 (25:13):
You've seen the U.S.
men's national team play.
I was there with you.
SPEAKER_03 (25:16):
I I have.
I've watched the SeattleSounders play.
That's true.
You've been there at LumenField.
I've watched games on the telly.
You were a luminary at LumenField.
I just thought of that.
And you know, watching them onthe telly is actually easier
than watching them on the realpitch thing.
How's that?
Look, I called it a pitchbecause the field is so damn
(25:36):
big.
Yeah.
How do you think I feel runningall over that field, huh?
Oh my God, I don't know how youdo it.
Then I watched this 3D thing onmy Apple Vision Pro about
Barcelona.
Uh was it Barcelona?
No, it was Real Madrid.
Real Madrid.
SPEAKER_02 (25:50):
Yeah.
SPEAKER_03 (25:51):
About their stadium and their team.
Their stadium is so amazing.
The burn bow?
Strips of the field move up anddown.
Oh, that's right.
Yeah.
They hide them down below wherethey nurse them into perfection.
They actually have a dude whowho who who rolls balls on it to
make sure it's perfectly leveland flat.
SPEAKER_02 (26:13):
It's an obsession.
Yeah.
Well, there's big money involvedin all this, as you may know.
SPEAKER_03 (26:18):
So speaking of that'd be like seeing some
greenskeeper on an NFL fielddown there with a pair of
scissors snipping the little.
SPEAKER_02 (26:25):
That one's quarter inch too tall.
SPEAKER_03 (26:27):
That's what they do it in soccer, apparently.
Well, it's very important.
Balls to go to the phone.
Because it's not just rules,it's laws.
You could go to jail if thefield is bumpy.
It's a law.
It's a law.
Pay attention to the law, dangit.
All right.
Look at the time.
Oh, I think that means we haveto end.
(26:47):
I think it does.
We try to keep these somewherebetween 20 and 30 minutes.
SPEAKER_02 (26:51):
And about the average dog walk, because it
seems like that's where mostpeople are doing their
listening.
SPEAKER_03 (26:55):
Dog walk, commute.
A lot of people commute with us.
You know?
It's it's it's like it's likegive you an analogy and a plug.
Um it's kind of like anaudiobook.
Audiobooks are nice.
They're good.
You're on a long trip orwhatever, but but short stories
are audio short stories are somuch nicer for short trips and
(27:19):
you know standing in line andthat kind of stuff, which is why
I do all these short storypodcasts that need more
listeners, by the way.
Oh, okay.
They do.
I was looking at the well no,this is a because here's here's
the thing there's a guy, and I'mnot gonna say who he is, but he
does a short story podcast, andhe does like two a week.
(27:41):
And he's got so many listeners.
And I try I've listened to himand I try to listen with a
critical ear.
He's horrible! He's a terriblenarrator.
But he does two a week.
And yet he has more listenersthan I do, and it bothers me.
(28:01):
I can get that impression.
It it bothers me.
Lots more listeners.
SPEAKER_02 (28:08):
Yeah.
SPEAKER_03 (28:09):
I work really hard on my short stories.
I even write some of them.
So go check out.
If you want to find them all,here's the easiest way.
Go to shortstoryverses.com orjust go on Apple Podcasts or
Spotify and look for me.
Just look for me.
SPEAKER_02 (28:23):
The picture just pops up there.
SPEAKER_03 (28:25):
Does it really well, you know, now I better oh hold
on.
I may be wrong.
Before I say that, I I'm I'mgonna check, see if my name does
come up.
It may not be me.
Let's see, Don McDonald.
No, it really doesn't.
Uh so look for lit reading orshort story.
SPEAKER_02 (28:40):
L-I-T, not L-I-P, by the way.
SPEAKER_03 (28:43):
Lit reading.
I'm gonna have to change thename.
SPEAKER_02 (28:45):
I it confuse confusing.
SPEAKER_03 (28:47):
Because it bothers Tom.
SPEAKER_02 (28:48):
Yeah, it doesn't bother me.
It's just a branding guy, it'skind of a concern, that's all.
SPEAKER_03 (28:52):
It means reading literature.
Lit reading.
SPEAKER_02 (28:55):
Reading Liperture.
So I get it.
SPEAKER_03 (28:58):
We gotta go now.
We're done.
We're totally apparently we aredone talking real money.
SPEAKER_00 (29:04):
The opinions and views expressed in this podcast
were current on the daterecorded.
Opinions, estimates, forecasts,and statements of financial
market trends that are based oncurrent market conditions
constitute our judgment and aresubject to change without
notice, including anyforward-looking estimates or
statements which are based oncertain expectations and
assumptions.
SPEAKER_01 (29:18):
Although information and opinions given have been
obtained from or based onsources believed to be reliable,
no warranty or representation ismade as to their correctness,
completeness, or accuracy.
SPEAKER_00 (29:27):
Information presented on the podcast is not
personalized investment advicefrom Oppello Wealth.
The views and strategiesdescribed may not be suitable
for everyone.
This podcast does not identifyall the risks, direct or
indirect, or otherconsiderations which might be
material to you when enteringany financial transaction.
Past performance does notguarantee future results, and
profitable results cannot beguaranteed.
We hope you realize that theinformation provided on Talking
Real Money is for informational,educational, and hopefully
(29:49):
enjoyable purposes only.
The podcast is not trying to getyou to buy or sell any financial
products or securities.
Instead, the program is providedas a public service by Appello
Wealth, a fee-only registeredinvestment advisor.
Appello Capital, LLC DBA AppelloWealth, is an investment
advisory firm registered withthe Securities and Exchange
(30:10):
Commission.
The firm only transacts businessin the states where it is
properly registered or excludedor exempt from registration
requirements.
Registration with the SEC or anyState Securities Authority does
not imply a certain level ofskill or training.
Appello does not provide tax orlegal advice, and nothing either
stated or implied here should beinferred as providing such
advice.
Thanks for listening, and pleasevisit TalkingRealMoney.com for
more information and importantdisclosure related to
(30:32):
performance of any specificindex or fund quoted in this
podcast.
Popular Podcasts
Betrayal Weekly
Betrayal Weekly is back for a new season. Every Thursday, Betrayal Weekly shares first-hand accounts of broken trust, shocking deceptions, and the trail of destruction they leave behind. Hosted by Andrea Gunning, this weekly ongoing series digs into real-life stories of betrayal and the aftermath. From stories of double lives to dark discoveries, these are cautionary tales and accounts of resilience against all odds. From the producers of the critically acclaimed Betrayal series, Betrayal Weekly drops new episodes every Thursday. If you would like to share your story, you can reach out to the Betrayal Team by emailing them at betrayalpod@gmail.com and follow us on Instagram at @betrayalpod and @glasspodcasts. Please join our Substack for additional exclusive content, curated book recommendations, and community discussions. Sign up FREE by clicking this link Beyond Betrayal Substack. Join our community dedicated to truth, resilience, and healing. Your voice matters! Be a part of our Betrayal journey on Substack.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
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