All Episodes

June 20, 2024 25 mins
Host of ‘How to Money’ on KFI Joel Larsgaard joins the program to talk about Gen Z using Astrology to predict stocks, the stock market ‘bubble of all bubbles’ might be right around the corner, and ‘spaving’… the new trend of spending to save. The Supreme Court have limited time to make blockbuster decision on guns, abortions, government regulations on Facebook and many more. It’s a tense time for the mostly conservative court.
Mark as Played
Transcript

Episode Transcript

Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
You're listening to Bill Handle on demandfrom KFI AM six forty. Here comes
the money, Here we go.You are listening to the Bill Handle Show,
and this is KFI Don't handle heremorning crew. It is a Thursday,
June twentieth Solstice Solstice day, longestday of the year, and you

(00:25):
will no doubt see people dressed asdruids. I don't know how many actually
there are dancing around Stonehenge and wearingleaves and twigs and the bad robes,
and it's just it's just nuts.I mean they're crazy. Hey, Joel
Larsguard is with us as he usuallyis on a Thursday. Joel is host

(00:50):
of How to Money Sunday twelve totwo pm, and he's at How to
Money Joel and Joel talking about nutsthere. I would go back in history
and it's Nancy Reagan with Ronald Reagan. She's the first lady and she would
go to an astrologer and tell RonaldReagan what should be done or who to

(01:15):
hire or who not. She hadtremendous influence and basically she's nuts or was
nuts with that. Yeah, Imean that doesn't make any sense to be
now understand gen Z is using astrologyto predict stocks. Come on, really,
I know it's so interesting, Likeif this was so easy to do,

(01:37):
you think Neil deGrasse Tyson would bea billionaire, right, I mean,
if anybody's gonna understand what's going onwith the planets and the movements of
the stars and how that impacts stockreturns, it's gonna it's gonna be someone
who like does this professionally. Butnow twenty somethings and young thirty somethings are
are starting to According to a recentBusiness Insider article, they're using stars,

(01:57):
and they're using tarot cards. They'reusing all sorts of like funky interesting things
to try and predict what's going tohappen with the stock market so they can
get rich without having to put inas much effort or take as much time.
And as you know, maybe thatworks out for a minute, but
typically over the long haul it endsup burning you big. Yeah, it's
as good as anything else out thereto predict stocks. You know, money

(02:21):
manager, professional money managers that earna lot of money, that charge a
lot of money. Frankly, ifyou look at their success rate, maybe
you are better off looking at astrologyor having monkeys throw darts at a whole
series of companies, you know,up on our board. So there's actually

(02:45):
like been studies this has actually happenedwhere monkeys through darts at a dartboard.
And so it sounds like fantastical orfunny, but it's true, Like the
monkeys outperform some of the professional stockpickers, and so I think it's nice
to think that we can gain anedge. And I'm not totally in one
hundred percent against anybody investing a dimein single stocks. I usually think like,

(03:07):
hey, cool, if you wantto do that with five percent of
your portfolio, you like the ideaof thinking you're a day trader. Cool,
just make sure it doesn't become somesort of contagent event. And so
if you are investing a small percentage, and let's say it's with a different
brokerage firm, even you just kindof have this siloed over that go you
do you and you you know,read read those those financial reports from different

(03:30):
companies that you're interested in, andwho understands those anyways? Who understands those?
Because they're always optimistic. They alwaysdescribe incredible losses somehow as wins.
Yeah, yeah, and I'm justI'm smart enough to know my own insufficiencies
and my own laziness bill like that. I just don't want to go do
all that stuff. And so Ilove I get why people want to outperform

(03:53):
the market. There's this, especiallyin America. It's like we have this
ethos of like worth of best Warnumber one, and so settling for average
seems so Unamerican. But the truthis, settling for average returns of the
market is what's going to be.It's going to be the simplest path forward.
It's going to be the most sustainablepath forward. And when you look
at kind of what's happened over overthe past, well through history, but

(04:15):
even recent history, in the totalUS dock market, you're going to do
pretty well sticking your money in thoselow cost areas, in those low cost
index funds, just getting those thosenormal gains that the market's going to offer
over time. Just on a personalnote, I'm you know, I've spent
you know, thirty forty years workingand I live under my means, so

(04:36):
I have put money away in savingsand it's not in the bank, although
today the bank does just great.And I as crazy as I am,
here in real life and talking topeople and yelling and doing this show.
And by the way, people ask, am I the same on the show
is outside the show? Absolutely?I'm just as nuts in life outside the
show. Neil's nodding his head whenit comes to my I am so conservative.

(05:01):
If I can make five to sixpercent seven percent in a great year,
I am thrilled with it. Ijust I believe in very conservative investing.
And for me, I mean,you know, did I get rich?
Am I? Did I ever maketwenty five percent one year? I
did not? But I didn't losetwenty five percent in one year either.

(05:21):
I think that's what you're highlighting theretoo, is a lot of people.
What they're doing is they're they're they'relooking for the best investment return instead of
looking to funnel more money into investments. And I think so, like,
yeah, you get a bigger returnbut with a smaller amount of money,
good for you. But the bestthing to do is to get more of

(05:42):
your cash into investments over time.That means increasing the percentage that you're tossing
into your four one K or maxingout that roth IRA. That should be
the bigger focus with of your strategy. And where you spend more of your
time. It's like, how canI cut back or how can I find
ways to toss more into investments?But then take the simple route and you're
gonna see that go up over time. You might not see some massive boom,

(06:03):
like if you'd invested a lot ofall of your money in Nvidia three
years ago, but like who hadthe foresight to do that anyway? Right,
Yeah, and then you're putting allyour eggs in one basket and you
never know what's going to happen there. So I like the idea of just
putting and focusing more of your effortson getting money into those accounts and less
on trying to outsmart everybody else andbeat the market, and doing it early,

(06:25):
early, early, in terms ofyour investment, because in retirement,
the last five years is where youscore big, and that's where these young
people they've just they're taking the wrongtactics. I did that. I didn't.
I mean I did that, tobe honest with you. I didn't
start legitimately saving until my late thirties. And if I had started in my

(06:46):
twenties, my assistance assistant would bedoing this job and I wouldn't Joel,
you talk about the stock market.We talk about the stock market, and
it just keeps on going up andup and up, and we're hitting new
records literally almost by the day.It's a bubble, and bubbles burst.

(07:09):
Is that in proditionion bill? That'swell, at some point it has to
burst. Yeah, I mean there'sthat. You can't keep on going up
forever. It's just what win Anddo you throw a dart against the dart
board that has different dates on it. I mean, I think there's a
difference between a bubble and reversion tothe mean. Right. It's it's similar

(07:30):
to what happened with housing prices,and at some point, higher rates,
higher prices, they're going to outsharepeople's ability to afford those homes, even
with a lack of supply and evenwith the market not having enough homes in
general and US just needing to buildmore in this country. But the same
thing is true I think of thestock market. But there are people out
there, There are naysayers, thereare doom sayers. There are people who

(07:54):
are perpetual doom sayers who you know, continue to make it on primetime time
television or onto various podcasts, spewingthis bubble talk, and the bubble I
think is overrated and there might besome there might be froth in the market,
right, there's maybe an over exuberanceand we could see, yes,
declines in the market for sure fromhere for the rest of the year,

(08:18):
or you know, who knows,Like recession is one of those things that
happens every six or seven years,so it's not unheard of that we would
experience a correction. I just thinkthese some of the people like that are
going on Fox Business or they're onTwitter, and they're talking about how the
market is. Is here for likesome sort of steep correction. Some are
calling for an eighty percent Oh that'snot a correction, No, No,

(08:39):
that's that's a deodmise. Yeah,that's a straight out worse than the Great
Depression, decline or falling apart.In a quick word, I want to
move to You're talking about real estate, as you know, and I've been
talking about it. I just boughta house, downsizing from the other one,
and I paid what I think istoo much money. The housing market

(09:01):
is very limited. The house thatI wanted to add certain checkboxes that I
wanted to check, certain boxes thatwanted to check and it sort of made
sense, and so I figured,Okay, I paid what I thought was
more than market. Turns out it'sprobably one of the biggest bargains of my

(09:22):
life. Yeah, that's what everyonehas realized. I bought a house two
years ago. I felt the sameway. I was, like, am
I buying at the peak? Thisis insane? At least I'm also selling
another house at the same time,So I'm taking advantage of the fact that
we're in just this ridiculous housing market. And since then, housing prices have
continued to go up across much ofthe country. We're seeing declines in some
places, but it's crazy to thinkjust and again, so much of that

(09:46):
comes down to the lack of building, the lack of supply. We don't
have enough homes to go around,and because of that, people who really
want a home. And COVID justchanged what people wanted in a home too,
and it made more people working fromhome. You want more space.
It kind of forced people into upgradingor to buying a home that they otherwise
wouldn't have considered, funneling more oftheir budget towards housing than they used to

(10:07):
do. And so yeah, you'reright, Like, it's when when will
that calm down? That remains tobe seen, Like, I don't know,
I don't have a crystal ball.Some people are saying, oh,
you should be investing more in realestate because home prices are going to continue
to go up. They can't continueto outstrip income progress forever. Although I'm
going to throw something at you whichI think makes a lot of sense and

(10:28):
to me it resonates. I wantyour comment on it. The stock market
goes up and down simply by itsvery nature, housing continues to rise because
there is no inventory and it's gettingharder and harder to build. No one
controls the stock market by not issuingpermits to build or keep on rising prices

(10:50):
or communities that say you're not buildinganymore, or the Nimby people don't stop
the stock stock market, they dowith housing. Yeah, yeah, that's
right. And so that is thebiggest obstacle to creating the housing that we
need in this country is the Nimbipeople, and it is onerous restrictions on
builders. It's a lack of supply. And so that's why I think we're

(11:13):
seeing more of a diversience in theprice between renting and buying that not just
the monthly mortgage amount, but thinkabout all the other costs that you're responsible
for as a homeowner. And sosmart responsible renters can because of that significant
gap in what you're going to payfor a monthly mortgage and all the costs
associated with housing, if you rentinstead and invest the difference, you could

(11:33):
come out ahead financially in the bigway. We've got this cult of home
ownership in this country, and there'snothing wrong with owning a home. I
own a home, and I thinkthere's a lot of good reasons to own
a home. But then there's alsoI think a lot of people who think
that home ownership is the way tobuild wealth, and I don't think that's
true. I think the better wayto build wealth is through the stock market.
And hey, owning a home canbe a great hedge against inflation,

(11:54):
it can be a great forced methodof savings, and it can provide you
something that you just stability in yourlife and a sense of community. Those
are great things. But don't thinkingof your home as this investment that's supposed
to balloon and value. That's justkind of a weird association that we've gotten
used to, particularly in recent years. I'm one of about fifty percent of
homeowners that paid off mortgage. Iworked my ass off, I increase my

(12:18):
payments. It was really important.It makes no financial sense to pay off
your mortgage. I knew that.My accountant was telling me that every financial
person says it is crazy. Takethe money and invest it. The reason
I did it I want to wakeup in the morning and say I own
my house. Yeah, And Ithink that's perfectly fine. Again, personal

(12:41):
finance is personal, and if someonecomes to me with that question, I'm
going to give them the same advicethat the people you were talking to were
giving them. But I'm also goingto say there's room to not optimize everything,
and so it's important to do thingsthat are in your best financial interest.
But then there are things that arein your best like peace of mind
interest, and so you have tomake room for those decisions in your like

(13:01):
in your personal finance trajectory. Andso paying off the mortgage, if that's
going to help you sleep at night, I think that's worthwhile. If you're
going to be yeah, if you'regoing to have restless sleep because you've got
a mortgage, oh, that sleepspretty important. Yeah, I still don't
sleep. I just own my house. That's all. Like, nothing I
can do about that. You know, my parents, my parents were telling

(13:22):
me clean your plate because kids arestarving in Asia at that time, and
so I clean my plate, kidsstill starve. I got fat. Yeah,
And that's pretty much the way theworld goes. Joel. Thank you.
We'll catch you again next week thisSunday from twelve to two pm.
How to money. I have agood win. Thanks Bill. Now next

(13:46):
two weeks are going to be big, big weeks legally speaking. And why
is that? Because the Supreme Courthands down virtually all the major decisions in
which they agreed to take up andheard arguments and read the briefs, and
some of them are amicus briefs,meaning that with these big cases, it's

(14:07):
not just the parties. It canbe hundreds of briefs amicus briefs friends of
the Court. When Brown versus Boardof Education was decided in nineteen fifty four,
hundreds of briefs on both sides werepresented. So we're looking at the
next two weeks and this is goingto be one of the biggest court sessions

(14:31):
that we have had in a veryvery long time. Not only are we
going to hear major cases, buta lot of them. So let's turn
towards the final weeks of the termand look at blockbuster decisions on abortion,
guns, Donald Trump's claims of absoluteimmunity in some of these cases. I

(14:54):
question how the Court could take itup at all. How they didn't say,
you're crazy, You're not going toappear before the court. We're going
to deny, sirciory. You know, five thousand cases are submitted to the
Court every year, about eighty areheard and decided on. And so you

(15:15):
now have a six to three conservativecourt and we have decisions just before the
federal election in November, Roe v. Wade was overturned. Public opinion of
the court ridiculously low Justice Samuel Alitowith those two flags, and how we
won't recuse himself. And Alito andClarence Thomas both have wives that are conspiracy

(15:41):
theorists and crazy people, but theydon't talk to their wives about any of
this because there is that firewall,right of course. Okay, let's start
with a few of these cases.Absolute immunity from Donald Trump. He has
been charged from Special counsel Jack Smithwith election subversion charges just landed on the

(16:03):
court. And what he has saidthat without immunity, presidents would be hamstrung
in office because when they left office, almost any prosecutor can charge them with
crimes or perceive crimes while in office. So don't hamstring presidents? Well,

(16:26):
yeah, I don't know about thatabsolute immunity from even committing crimes. That's
what is our lawyers argued. Now, the Court may allow some of the
immunity charges or immunity decisions to goTrump's way, but I have my doubts.
Hopefully. Abortion for health and emergency. Here's one. What happens when

(16:48):
a pregnant woman shows up at ahospital with a medical emergency in states that
have strict bans on abortion. There'san Idaho law that bars doctors from performing
abortions. The other's life is atrisk. What does that mean? Life
at risk? She immediately going todie? Is this long term implications?

(17:12):
Is she going to suffer from somemalady because of the abortion or not having
an abortion? The Court has tolook at that one. Here's one that
seems a little bit wonky, butat the same time is very important because

(17:33):
of what happened January sixth and there'sa whole slew of cases going on about
January six So there's a former Pennsylvaniacop who rioted at the Capitol on January
sixth, and he was charged withfederal obstruction charges. Not just trespassing,
okay, not just hurting police officers, being part of a mob or vandalizing.
He was charged with obstruction. Andthe Trump was charged of the same

(17:57):
thing, by the way, sothis is important violating obstruction law. Joseph
Fisher charged with multiple crimes for pushinghis way into the capital after attending Trump's
rally, and the prosecutors charge himwith obstructing an official proceeding the counting of

(18:18):
the votes. And what the defendantsare saying, have been three hundred and
fifty writers charged with this. Whatthe plaintiffs are saying or what those that
are suing are saying. Wait aminute, obstructing charges was intended to be
used to prohibit the destruction of evidenceand tampering with witnesses. Okay, not

(18:44):
doing what they did that was notobstructing. Now, why did the court
even agree to hear that? Whatstopping and official proceeding? Right? They
tried to stop the vote from beingcounted. The electoral votes. That's not
obstructing an official proceeding? Are theyactually arguing that counting votes in a federal

(19:08):
election, a presidential election is notHow can that not be a stopping an
official proceeding? It can't be moreofficial than that. You can't have it.
And the Court of agreed to hearit. And the prosecutors say,
come on, the plain meaning ofthe words obstruct and official proceeding covers that

(19:33):
attack. Of course it does.The court has said they're going to hear
it. And again my question isnot which way the courts are going to
go, because I'm because the courtis so conservative, it's going to go
in that direction. But this isa case that even goes or cases like
this go even beyond that. Interms of just getting to the Supreme Court.

(19:57):
Most of the time the court denycirciori, which means it denies you
walking in here and arguing in frontof us that we're going to hear this
and then decide. So a coupleof cases I already talked about, and
let's talk about a gun case,second Amendment gun case, and once again
out the court heard this. Idon't know, Okay, there is a

(20:21):
Texas man Zaki A. Rahimi wasindicted for violating a law that's possessing a
gun when he had a domestic violencerestraining order put on him. He shot
up, didn't kill anybody or anything, but he had a restraining order put

(20:41):
against him. And Rahimu's lawyers saythat there was a Supreme Court decision two
years ago in New York and saidthat domestic violence law can't be squared with
the constitution. Second Amendment prevails evenwhen someone has a restraint order for deck
domestic violence. Now I'm assuming they'reokay. If someone has shot someone and

(21:07):
is not allowed to have a gun, would the Supreme Court say that's a
violation of sac an Amendment two?I don't know, but it's pretty crazy.
And here is why he has achance because in the case of State
Rifle and Piscopal Association Pistol Association versusBruin, a six to three majority said

(21:30):
gun regulations must be consistent with thenation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. Clarence
Thomas wrote the majority on this,and he said gun laws, restriction of
gun laws has to have a historicalconnection. We have to look at what

(21:53):
the country has done in gun controlthrough the years in decide this. In
other words, we have to lookat history. Well, I'll tell you
what history does. There was nogun regulations historically. How about that for
historical connection. That's like someone suingto make the air force illegal because we

(22:18):
have to look at the history ofthis country before airplanes. So therefore,
historically you can't have it. Now, I know I'm extrapolating here and I'm
being hyperbolic, but the premise isexactly that. I mean, it is
nuts. How the court said,yep, I'll take this case on again,

(22:41):
no idea. Then you have acase government regulation of Facebook. Now
this is interesting. This is theintersection of First Amendment social media laws in
Texas and Florida aimed at stopping socialmedia giants like Facebook and x from throttling
views conservative views. That's what thisis about. State law in those states

(23:06):
says that you can't ban online platformsremoving posts that express opinions like political content,
because the political What they're frightened of. What the states are saying is
that what's mostly on social media isour hits on the conservative movement. Therefore,

(23:30):
the anti Trump, anti the antifolks that are fighting abortion. All
of the Southern states and their laws. You can't stop them, you can't
ban them, no matter how crazy. Our opinions are First Amendment right.

(23:51):
And guess what the argument is thatyou have a First Amendment right. But
do you have a First Amendment rightto lie to try to influence an election?
You know what? I think youdo? I think you do.
I think that I think that thatpremise is going to prevail. I think

(24:11):
you're allowed in opinion. I thinkyou're allowed to lie. I think you're
allowed disinformation. I think it's okayto argue that Joe Biden has taken bribes
and has had sex with sheep atthe same time. But if you weren't
allowed to lie, and it wasn'tfreedom of speech to lie, to fabricate

(24:33):
or any of these things, youcouldn't run for office. That is correct.
But this has to do with Facebook, and it has to do with
isn't it more about the algorithms?Though, like the algorithms the hourism,
but the premise is, But thepremise is those algorithms have to be removed
because this is the conservative movement thatis saying that you can't stop now.

(24:57):
When it switches over when the liberalsstart publishing the crap big time, that's
when they change their minds. Iguarantee that, Okay, you know what,
we may do another session with ustomorrow. And because I haven't quite
finished KFI AM six forty live everywhereon the iHeartRadio app. You've been listening

(25:18):
to the Bill Handle Show. Catchmy show Monday through Friday, six am
to nine am, and anytime ondemand on the iHeartRadio app

The Bill Handel Show News

Advertise With Us

Popular Podcasts

Dateline NBC
Who Killed JFK?

Who Killed JFK?

Who Killed JFK? For 60 years, we are still asking that question. In commemoration of the 60th anniversary of President John F. Kennedy's tragic assassination, legendary filmmaker Rob Reiner teams up with award-winning journalist Soledad O’Brien to tell the history of America’s greatest murder mystery. They interview CIA officials, medical experts, Pulitzer-prize winning journalists, eyewitnesses and a former Secret Service agent who, in 2023, came forward with groundbreaking new evidence. They dig deep into the layers of the 60-year-old question ‘Who Killed JFK?’, how that question has shaped America, and why it matters that we’re still asking it today.

Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang

Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang

Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.

Music, radio and podcasts, all free. Listen online or download the iHeart App.

Connect

© 2024 iHeartMedia, Inc.