August 25, 2025 • 37 mins
Chuck and Mike discuss recent commentary surrounding the technology sector and if its recent rally is fizzling out. But, are we even seeing evidence in the numbers? Plus, the guys give their takes on the government officially taking a 10% stake in struggling chipmaker Intel. Also, should the retirement age be lower? Are auto makers facing larger obstacles today than in the past? And sleeping over at a home before buying?
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
The Financial Exchange is produced by Money Matters Radio and
is hosted by employees of the Armstrong Advisory Group, a
registered investment advisor. All opinions expressed are solely those of
the hosts. Do not reflect the opinions of Armstrong Advisory
or anyone else. Investments can lose money. This program does
not offer any specific financial or investment advice. Please consult
your own financial, tax, and estate planning advisors before making
(00:20):
any investment decisions. Armstrong Advisory and the advertisers heard on
this program do not endorse each other or their services.
Armstrong and Money Matters Radio do not compensate each other
for referrals and are not affiliated. This is the Financial
Exchange with Chuck Zada and Mike Armstrong, Your exclusive look
at business and financial news affecting your day, your city,
(00:42):
your world. Stay informed and up to date about economic
and market trends, plus breaking business news every day. The
Financial Exchange is a proud partner of the Disabled American
Veterans Department of Massachusetts. Help us support our great American
heroes by visiting dav five k dot com and making
a donation today. This is the Financial Exchange with Chuck Zada,
(01:06):
and Mike Armstraw.
Speaker 2 (01:11):
Chuck, Mike and Tucker with it, and we got markets
not really doing too much of anything. The Dow is
technically off half a percent, but that's basically because a
handful of components like five out of the thirty or
down one to quarter percent or more. Whereas when you
look at the S and P five hundred, which has
five hundred companies, actually not quite a little bit more
(01:31):
than that right now, that's only off a tenth of
a percent, and the Nasdaq composits up a quarter percent,
so not really too much going on that suggests any
major deviation from equity markets as to, you know, kind
of where we finished Friday.
Speaker 3 (01:46):
When we take a look at.
Speaker 2 (01:47):
The bond market, a little bit of an upward moving
yields ten year Treasury up two point nine basis points
to four point two eight seven percent, still not anything
meaningful and not giving back all Friday's gains on bonds.
So ultimately a little bit of a shift, but I'm
not really sure that there's too much meat on that bone.
When we take a look at commodity markets, Oil West
(02:09):
Texas Intermediate up ninety nine cents a barrel to sixty
four sixty five and we've got gold up seventy cents
an ounce. Wow, glad we got out of bed for
that one at thirty four nineteen and twenty cents. So
market's pretty quiet today. Quite honestly, last week they were
pretty quiet overall. It's just you had, you know, about
(02:31):
a one and a half percent slide heading into Friday,
and then markets rallied one and a half percent, so
it seemed exciting, but ultimately not too much really happened.
It was just Okay, we had to get through the
FED through J. Powell, and now we're onto the next thing,
which does bring us to I think a great topic here.
Tech rally shows signs of losing steam. Well forgive me
(02:53):
if I've heard this about a dozen times in the
last two and a half years, but.
Speaker 3 (02:58):
Yeah, you got to prove it to me.
Speaker 2 (03:00):
I'm not saying that there haven't been times where Tech's
underperformed the second half of last year. In Q one
of this year, Tech did underperformed, but ultimately that was
a relative consolidation that Tech went through, and it bounced
back with an absolutely ridiculous last three four months here
since the second half of April. So I think that
(03:23):
when I hear about, you know, the Tech rally showing
signs of losing steam, we might be seeing it in
the stocks and in kind of the pricing movement. For
me to really believe that Tech is going to lose steam,
you've got to actually see it in the numbers, in
the earnings, in the revenue, in the capex. And that's
(03:44):
something that we just haven't seen yet. And at some
point you're going to because we're not going to become
the United States of Amazon or the United States of Microsoft.
Speaker 3 (03:56):
God, I hope not. You know, it's not gonna be,
you know that thing.
Speaker 2 (04:02):
But I just look at this and I hesitate to
call top in tech just because I don't think I'm
qualified to do so. But b Okay, like, if we've
played this game, you know, ten times in the last
couple of years, it's been a pretty losing game to
be playing.
Speaker 4 (04:21):
Yeah, yeah, shorting tech anytime over the last well twenty
two and a half years, two and a half. But like,
take a longer term outlook on this, since the dot
com bubble has not been a great proposition.
Speaker 3 (04:36):
Tech wasn't what it.
Speaker 2 (04:37):
I think sometimes we forget that, like us, tech wasn't
what it was until the last few years.
Speaker 3 (04:44):
Absolutely.
Speaker 4 (04:45):
I mean, you go take a look at his composition
of the S and P five hundred going back to
the early twenty tens, I think it was less than
half of what it is now. So I don't mean
to to minimize that that massive changing factor here.
Speaker 2 (05:00):
Well, I think also, like, let's look at tech. Just
let's look at this in the context of Okay, show
me how tech actually performed relative to the other industries
in the S and P five hundred. We've got eleven
different sectors in the SMP and we kind of have
to back into this just because not all of them
(05:20):
were like they've kind of moved things around in this
and that historically. But if you look at this and say, okay,
back in twenty ten, tech was, depending on the metric
that you're looking at, either the eighth or ninth best
performing out of them. In twenty eleven, it was the
seventh best. In twenty twelve, it was the eighth best.
(05:41):
In twenty thirteen, it was the fifth. In twenty fourteen
and fifteen it was the fourth best. In twenty sixteen
it was the seventh best. Then you went on this
run in twenty seventeen, eighteen, nineteen, and twenty where it
was basically in those years just absolutely crushing everything else
aside eighteen where you know, it was basically flat, and
(06:03):
then it had a Monster twenty three as well in
Monster twenty four. So it's really since twenty seventeen that
tech has been you know, kind of what we think
of it, and even more recently, like since twenty three
that has done. There's the crazy stuff that is out there,
but it feels like forever just because like it's been
(06:23):
so dominant the last few years, but there's always this
rotation that's going on, and some years it's this, some
years it's that. I just I I always come back to,
like this, the story about emerging markets investments, where you know,
if you looked from like nineteen ninety through two thousand
and seven, EM crushed the S and P five hundred
(06:46):
demolished it, Like you had institutional investors being like why
am I invested in US stocks? Like I wish I
could change my mandates somehow because EM's where all the
growth is.
Speaker 3 (06:56):
Well, the last eighteen years have.
Speaker 2 (06:57):
Been the polar opposite of that, and and they don't
ring a bell when the regime changes for investments. You know,
they don't say, okay, everybody into the pool adults swim like,
they don't do that. You kind of just have to
figure it out. And so I do think it's interesting
to have the thought of, hey, what and when, like
(07:19):
what do we have to be aware of in terms
of when this run of tech dominance could end? But
I also think that trying to jump the gun and
being like, hey, we gotta get you know, like everybody
out of tech.
Speaker 3 (07:32):
Let's let's not go too far on this, yep, you know.
Speaker 4 (07:35):
Yeah, especially when people are talking about, oh, that tech
rally seems to have really lost steam over the last
week and a half, that maybe it just yeah, and
I hope you have a really good model for why
that's going to hold steady.
Speaker 3 (07:54):
Yeah, it's why is that going to matter?
Speaker 2 (07:58):
Will it matter a we gonna half from now right
or a decade and a half right now? Because if
all you're looking at is like the last ten days,
tech's been a little wobbly. Okay, it looked wobbly for
nine months and then showed up and you know, promptly
beat everything down over the last you know, four months
or so. So I don't know I don't know that
(08:19):
there's too much there, but I don't know. Interesting to
see people talking about it. And generally, when this stuff
actually matters is when people aren't talking about it.
Speaker 3 (08:31):
That's kind of what I tend to find. Let's take
a quick break here.
Speaker 2 (08:33):
When we come back, we've got trivia right after this.
Speaker 1 (08:38):
The Financial Exchange streams live on YouTube. Subscribe to our
page and stay up to date on breaking business news.
All morning, long Face is the Financial Exchange Radio Network.
Speaker 5 (08:54):
Time for trivia here on the Financial Exchange. In our
final week of World War Two Trivia, we'll focus on
the famous actors and actresses who served our country during
the war. So on this Monday, we'll ask you this
trivia question, which member of the Golden Girls was a
Marine during World War Two? Once again, which member of
(09:16):
the Golden Girls was a Marine during World War Two?
Be the fifth person today to text us at six
one seven three six two thirteen eighty five with the
correct answer, and you win a Financial Exchange Show T shirt.
Once again, the fifth correct response to textus to the
number six one seven three six to two thirteen eighty
five will win that T shirt. See complete contest rules
(09:39):
at Financial exchange show dot com.
Speaker 2 (09:41):
So on Friday, we received confirmation that Intel is going
to agree to allow the US government to take a
ten percent stake in the company. It's gonna be worth
about eight point nine billion dollars. This is funding that
was already appropriated through the Chips Act, that was supposed
to be in the form of a grant, that is
(10:03):
now going to be in the form of an equity
stake instead. Over the weekend and into today, the Trump
administration said they would look to likely take equity stakes
in additional companies as they look to you know, allocate funds.
Unclear if that's you know, specifically in the semiconductor industry
(10:24):
or elsewhere. But now the question I think is out there,
and again there's there's a reason why we we typically
you know, don't see this in the United States is
because you start to wonder, if you are operating, whether
it's a large, publicly traded company or a smaller privately
held one, Hey, does the government need to have a
(10:45):
stake in my business in order for us to be
able to operate a certain way or receive funding or
whatever it might be.
Speaker 3 (10:52):
It's a very open question.
Speaker 4 (10:54):
I mean, you know, the the Pentagon announced a stake
in what was the Rare Earth Company.
Speaker 2 (11:00):
So that I thought made a little bit more sense
the MP materials deal.
Speaker 3 (11:04):
I'm with you in terms of it making sense.
Speaker 4 (11:06):
Like I get that it's a strategic defense interest.
Speaker 2 (11:12):
So that the Pentagon was announcing that they were going
to be buying a certain amount of the materials each
year and setting a floor for pricing so that you
could produce it. The US government, to my knowledge, is
not saying we're going to buy Intel chips because what
are we going to do with them? Like, it's you know,
where's the DoD needs that stuff? And so I think
for you know, critical defense things, it's the technical term.
(11:35):
I believe for critical defense products, you can make a case, yeah,
the DoD probably should be directly involved in making sure
that you have a minimum supply of the things that
are needed there for broad based semiconductors, it's kind of like.
Speaker 4 (11:51):
I get that it's a slippery slope argument, Chuck, and
I think that's your point. But I think that's the
exact argument that Trump administration would make here is this
is a bet out to the United States securing a
critical supply of future semiconductor manufacturing and we'd deem that
necessary to defense interests. I guess again, I don't find
the argument compelling, but I think that's the argument they
(12:12):
would know.
Speaker 2 (12:12):
No, this is a good conversation to have, though, And
here's why I think this is different. The market is
speaking as it relates to when it comes to rare
earth materials, the market spoke this year and said, the
US needs these and we can't produce these. We heard
from all kinds of companies saying, hey, there's a problem
(12:33):
of China cuts this off. When it comes to Intel,
the market's been speaking in the exact same way. Intel's
been making plenty of product and the market has been saying, no,
we're not interested in that.
Speaker 3 (12:44):
Yeah, like Intel's been.
Speaker 2 (12:45):
Trying to run its business and the market has been saying,
you guys are not making stuff at the caliber that
you used to, and we are not interested. So, in
my opinion, it's opposite market signals that are being sent.
And this is where you get in the problem. In
both of these cases, then with the US government owning them,
is okay, do you actually get accurate market signals? If Intel,
(13:09):
quite honestly, if they should be out of business, but
they're kept afloat by the US just because we can't
figure out any other way to do this. That's not
really how the United States works. We generally let bad
businesses die, or we should, and you have new ones
that are better that spring up to take their place. Intel,
(13:30):
by the way, is an example of that. They all
the company making freaking vacuum tubes and you know, all
the big you know computers back in the sixties. Intel
came along and said, We've got a better way to
do this. And their competitors didn't run to the US
government and say, oh, please, please, please give us money
so we can stay. No leg that they had to
deal with that because they were selected against by the market.
(13:53):
And so if Intel's being selected against by the market,
which is what's been happening, right, why do we save them?
Speaker 3 (13:59):
Why?
Speaker 2 (14:00):
Quite honestly, why don't we If you want to use,
like US taxpayer money, use it for the stuff that's
being selected for.
Speaker 3 (14:06):
By the market. You know.
Speaker 4 (14:08):
Yeah, Like, I think there's a very compelling argument that
the state of chip manufacturing in the globe right now,
and the risk of all of it being done or
a critical a critical portion of it being done in
Taiwan is a national security concern and could you you
could get full stuff. We could both absolutely envision a
(14:30):
scenario where we are facing the exact same scenario as
we did with rarers.
Speaker 2 (14:37):
Right, you need to produce this stuff here in the
US full stop. The question is do you need to
have federal ownership of Intel the way to do that?
Because let's say that Intel, Intel's been producing sucky products
for a decade. Yea, it's how they got to where
they are where they needed this. Like there's a reason
why there's a reason why AMD isn't showing up being like, oh,
(14:59):
please take our equity, or Nvidia's not showing up saying
please take our equity. It's because they they don't need that.
If Intel continues to produce suck over the next ten years,
now that the US government owns a ten percent stake,
do we just throw more money at the suck because
we don't want to lose the equity state?
Speaker 1 (15:19):
Right?
Speaker 2 (15:19):
I don't know, Like these are the questions that come
up on this is like, I gotta tell you what.
Once you have you know, the federal government basically committing
to hey, we're going to fund Intel, and you know,
all those jobs generally Congress doesn't like to cut jobs
from federal allocations. That's how it usually works. So these
(15:41):
are the questions that come up here. And the other thing. Look,
you might say, look, I think the president can do
a great job, you know in this partnership with Intel. Okay,
play out the string. Let's go five ten years down
the road.
Speaker 3 (15:55):
Right.
Speaker 4 (15:55):
Do you think, let's say that president will be as
good as steward of Intel's company as the current one.
Speaker 2 (16:00):
If if Bernie Sanders Junior is running the United States government,
are you gonna be like, yes, this is what I want?
Speaker 3 (16:07):
Right? You know, this isn't a Donald Trump steak.
Speaker 4 (16:11):
This is a US government stake, and typically they don't
just go away.
Speaker 3 (16:16):
No. And there's a.
Speaker 2 (16:18):
Reason why the US is historically shied away from stuff
like this. Yeah, and it's because it hasn't really worked
in the places that have tried it.
Speaker 4 (16:29):
Again, I don't I don't want to paint this as
a full complete in total one to eighty. The US
government has on many occasions made bets on companies, not
through ownership stakes, but on bills supporting specific industries and
specific companies. There's been successes, there has, but there's been failures.
Speaker 3 (16:46):
There.
Speaker 4 (16:47):
So this is an extension in a in a pretty
broad extension of it, but it just it leads to
a whole bunch of other questions. The biggest one to
me is, is something we're going to expand upon? It
sounds like it, right, It sounds like has made statements
that he wants to expand this further, and so is Yeah,
(17:11):
I think it's a real question as to whether or
not this is how we want us taxpayer dollars going
is towards ownership in publicly traded companies, and specifically ownership.
What I further wonder is is it's specifically going towards
ownership and public companies that have not done very well
right that we see a strategic national interests Sure, I want.
Speaker 2 (17:33):
To talk about a piece from Bloomberg that just popped
up on my screen today. And look, there's a few
other things that we're going to get to here, but
there's one that just popped up and everyone's talking about it.
It's about how there are now more ETFs than there
are individual stocks in the United States. And you get
(17:53):
the people freaking out, being like, oh my goodness, this
is horrible, not even realizing, hey, there have been more
mutual funds than there are stocks in the US US
for years now, and ultimately I think that the comparison
that I've found online that's best is Wow, I guess
we just found out that there are more recipes than
there are ingredients in the world.
Speaker 3 (18:13):
You know, Yes, this isn't a big deal at all. No,
it's not.
Speaker 2 (18:16):
And someone you know made the case, Oh, it's so
hard to like choose a fun now, there's so many choices,
And to that I say, Okay, well, you have to
figure out what you're trying to do. Like, if you're
trying to make a fish dish on a Tuesday, don't
flip to you know, the poultry section and start looking
through there. Don't just you know, go through the you know,
(18:36):
you gotta find Okay, here's the fish section of the cookbook,
and I'm gonna go through and narrow down from there
and do the work. The great thing about having more
tools is you can build a portfolio that's more built
to your specific needs. The downside, it might take you
a little longer to find what you're doing.
Speaker 4 (18:52):
But and might there be some terrible recipes in that
book that cambine fish and cheese.
Speaker 3 (18:57):
Yeah?
Speaker 2 (18:58):
Uh, disagree, I will make you the most delicious blue
cheese muscles you've ever had in your life.
Speaker 3 (19:04):
My man, I'm telling you, but that's for another day.
Let's take a quick break.
Speaker 2 (19:11):
When we return, we've got the Trivia Answer and Wall Street.
Speaker 1 (19:13):
Watch, bringing the latest financial news straight to your radio.
Every day. It's the Financial Exchange on the Financial Exchange
Radio Network. Time now for Wall Street Watch. A complete
look at what's moving market so far today right here
(19:36):
on the Financial Exchange Radio Network.
Speaker 5 (19:38):
After a fit fuel rally on Friday, markets beginning the
week mostly quiet, as Wall Street away's pivotal Nvidia earnings
Wednesday after the Clothes in addition to an inflation reading
on Friday. With the Core PCE index right now, the
Dow is off by about a half a percent, or
two hundred and thirteen points, SMP five hundred dipping by
(20:00):
only four points, Nasdaq is up by three tenths of
one percent or sixty two points, Hire Russell two thousands
off by four tenths of one percent, Tenure treasureealed up
two basis points now at four point two eight three percent,
and crude oil up over one and a half percent higher,
trading at sixty four dollars and sixty six cents a
(20:21):
barrel breaking news this hour after Elon Musk accused Apple
and Open Ai in a lawsuit of unfairly favoring the
Ai app across iPhones and thwarting competition for other chat
bought makers. Apple stock is up modestly. Meanwhile, Cured Doctor
Pepper agreed to purchase the owner of Pete's Coffee JdE
(20:42):
Pete's for eighteen billion dollars. Once the acquisition completes, the
combined company is set to separate into two independent US
listed coffee and beverage firms. Shares in Cured Doctor Pepper
sinking nearly eight percent, Wellje JdE Pete stock is jumping
sixteen percent. Elsewhere, Intel stock up over one percent on
(21:05):
the heels of confirmation that the US government has taken
a ten percent stake in the struggling chip maker. Elsewhere,
furniture stocks taking ahead following comments from President Trump that
his administration would launch an investigation into imported units. Williams
Sonoma down over two percent, while rh and Wayfair tumbling
by about six percent, and shares in American Eagle Outfairders
(21:28):
pulling back two percent after Bank of America downgraded the
stock to underperform. The Bank's analysts noted that while the
retailer's Sidney Sweeney ad campaign may boost sales near term,
the momentum will be sapped by tariffs. I'm Tucker Silva
and that is Wall Street Watch. And in the previous segment,
we asked you the trivia question which member of the
(21:50):
Golden Girls was a marine during World War Two? That
would be bo Arthur. She served with the Marine Corps
from not nineteen forty three, too, are honorable discharge in
nineteen forty five. Rick from Melrose, Mass is our winner
today taking on a Financial Exchange Show t shirt. Congrats
to Rick, and we play trivia every day you're in
(22:11):
the Financial exchange See complete contest rules at Financial Exchange
Show dot com.
Speaker 2 (22:16):
All right, so, the Center for Retirement Research at Boston
College says that the average man retires at age sixty four,
while the average woman retires at age sixty two. This
despite a recent report from Empower, who polled about a
thousand adults who said, Hey, we'd like to retire at
(22:39):
age fifty eight. That's the ideal age for retirement, quite
honestly missing by anywhere from like four to six years.
I don't see as being that bad like that.
Speaker 3 (22:48):
That's pretty good.
Speaker 2 (22:49):
Actually, if you're retiring, you know, within four years of
when you say you want to, I think that's pretty
darn good quite honestly.
Speaker 4 (22:58):
Yeah, yeah, that's fair. I'm just trying to get to
how right that was the average? So most people that
I meet, I would definitely say have very little ability
to retire at fifty eight years old. That seems very hot,
you know, pine the sky to me.
Speaker 2 (23:19):
Well, it's interesting because keep in mind, there are a
number of professions where you're forced out in your late
fifties early sixties, and that contributes to this as well,
Like how you get to that average, there's somewhere you're
forced out even sooner than that, depending on you know,
the specifics of your job and things like that. So
I look at this, and what I always come back
(23:40):
to is the math that you have to do in
order to retire at fifty eight, because let's say that
on average, you start working at twenty Some people start,
you know, in high school, after high school, in college,
but let's say twenty to twenty two.
Speaker 3 (23:51):
Is when most people start.
Speaker 2 (23:53):
Sure, if you're going to retire at fifty eight, you're
going to do thirty five thirty six years of work.
You then, based on current life expectancies, are going to
be retired for twenty five to twenty seven years. That's like,
that's pretty close to imbalance, which means you need to
be saving a lot more than ten to fifteen percent
(24:13):
of your income to do so. Even accounting for things
like compounding, you probably got to be saving twenty five
to thirty five percent of your income for that.
Speaker 3 (24:21):
To be feasible.
Speaker 2 (24:24):
Or at the lottery, I listen, you gotta spend money
to make money, is what they always say. But I
don't think that's what they're talking about.
Speaker 4 (24:31):
Yeah, you know, this always comes back to something too,
which is fifty eight, you got seven years of health
insurance to figure out.
Speaker 3 (24:39):
For most people, again, you know, you might work.
Speaker 4 (24:41):
You might work as a line worker for utility company,
which case they might have that covered for you because
you can't work till sixty five. You might you might
work for the training system, in which case, yeah, they
probably have that covered for you.
Speaker 3 (24:51):
Or in the military, et cetera, et cetera.
Speaker 2 (24:52):
A lot of people working for the train system these days.
Speaker 4 (24:54):
I don't believe so. But for most of us that
work in the private sector, or retiring at fifty eight
would mean paying for private health insurance for you and
your family for seven.
Speaker 2 (25:04):
Years, which the going rate these days, depending on you know,
exactly what kind of plan that you want. If you're
you know, single, you're probably talking anywhere from like seven
to fifteen thousand a year. If you're married, you're probably
talking fifteen to thirty thousand a year.
Speaker 3 (25:17):
Yeah, big chunk of change.
Speaker 4 (25:18):
Yeah, it is huge, huge money, not completely undoable for
some people. There are also plans that get subsidized by
the federal government that some people can apply for and
actually get regardless of net worth. But to Chuck's point,
retiring that much before your Medicare age or full Social
(25:40):
Security retirement age requires a ton of planning, like way
in advance, and trying to do it at fifty two
might not be possible.
Speaker 2 (25:50):
But you got to start planning for that around thirty you.
Speaker 4 (25:53):
Do, or you have to get really fortunate in terms
of your career and the direction that it goes and
your ability to save. And maybe you are just that
natural saver type. But again, you know, retiring at fifty
eight and some times you can't even touch that retirement account.
If you are trying to make plans to retire before
that full Social Security age of sixty seven or prior
(26:13):
to that Medicare age of sixty five, I'm here to
tell you need to plan early. If you want somebody
to take a look with you at your plan and
figure out how to achieve that goal, and then you
know back into what sort of lifestyle you're going to
have if you do achieve that goal. Give the folks
at Armstrong Advisory Group a call. This is the type
of stuff that we do every day. The numbers eight
(26:34):
hundred three nine three four zero zero one for that
consultation from the Armstrong Advisory Group once again eight hundred
three nine three four zero zero one.
Speaker 1 (26:44):
The proceeding was paid for by Armstrong Advisory Group, a
registered investment advisor. Nothing in the ad or in any
Armstrong guide a specific financial, legal or tax advice. Consult
your own financial tax into state planning advisors before making
any investment decisions. Armstrong make contact you to offer investment
advisory services.
Speaker 3 (27:00):
Piece and CNBC.
Speaker 2 (27:01):
That has one of my least favorite words that's made
its way into the English language. Autogiants forced to confront
some hard truths in the age of poly crisis poly
meaning many crisis meaning crisis. And look, if we're gonna
just use that term quite honest, like recession, it's worse
(27:24):
than that because you can always claim that like, oh,
this is a crisis and that no. Like when you
get into the auto business, the hard truth that you
have to accept is that the business that you've chosen sucks,
at least to operate it. You can make some cool cars,
you can have some fun doing it, but ultimately you
(27:46):
are going to spend billions of dollars in capex trying
to eke out you know, a few margin points here
and there, and it's always hard, and then recession hits
and it gets harder.
Speaker 4 (27:58):
So let me ask you this question, then, do you
believe that automakers are facing a uniquely large set of
obstacles today compared to other times in the last two decades?
Speaker 3 (28:08):
Yes, but it's of their own making.
Speaker 2 (28:13):
What I mean by that is that if you look
at how automakers have decided to survive in the last
couple of decades, it's by building bigger cars and trying
to get more margin out of those vehicles, hence the
move over to SUVs, which, by the way, like we love,
I drive kind of a semi suv, Like I'm a
super outback guy myself, so you know, it's not really
(28:35):
an suv, and I'm just cool enough to be able
to drive it, so that's nice. Love the functionality of SUVs,
like they're great, I fully understand it. But ultimately there's
also a lot more stuff that goes into them, and
that makes them more expensive to sell, which is why
car makers like to sell them. But when the price
of those inputs goes up, it becomes harder to maintain
(28:57):
your cost structure. And so rather than saying, hey, costs
are going up, we need to start making smaller and
cheaper cars in order to deal with this and be
able to sell more cars to more people, the answer
has been no, we're gonna move in the opposite direction.
This suv now has a third row that's only fit
for people age you know, three and under because there's
(29:18):
no leg room. But hey, like we've we've got to,
you know, sell the third row is you know, some
kind of functionality. Mike's laughing at me because during the
break I was talking about, like do I need a
third row in like you knowe my future.
Speaker 4 (29:31):
So so I agree that that piece was a crisis
of their own making. I also would agree that the
transition that all these automakers are needing to do seemingly
because of political pressure from one direction of we're all
making evs to now we're all only making gas powered vehicles,
that is also a crisis of their own right.
Speaker 2 (29:48):
Toyota and they were fine. Toyota's like, no, we're not
gonna like respond to like what we think is a fad,
and they were completely right in doing so.
Speaker 3 (29:56):
Other pieces u.
Speaker 4 (30:00):
's seeming subsidization of their auto industry and intentional dumping
of cars onto other markets, as well as tariff policy.
Speaker 2 (30:07):
Automakers did that to themselves too, specifically the Germans. They
have not resisted. The people have been warning the Germans
for years about what was coming, and they said, nor
bring over the Chinese. EV's fine, and they're putting their
own industry out of business.
Speaker 3 (30:24):
And doing so.
Speaker 4 (30:25):
And the only reason to drive that point a little
bit further, the only reason that those Chinese automakers have
been able to modernize to the extent that they have
been able to is because every foreign automaker in the
world said yeah, let's go into China and we'll share
our IP with the Chinese government. Correct, So okay. I
(30:48):
was hesitant to agree at first, but I would agree.
Crisis of their own making, but we will if it
gets bad enough, end up bailing them out because they're
a national security concern. So will the Germans, so all
the French, so will every other country that supplies an
automaker in there.
Speaker 2 (31:07):
Do you think, let me ask you this for real, though,
do you think there's appetite for auto bailouts if it
came to that at this.
Speaker 4 (31:14):
Point, Regardless of the appetite, I think it was.
Speaker 3 (31:20):
Yes, do you think it would happen?
Speaker 4 (31:21):
I think there would be political appetite for an autobail
out if it happened.
Speaker 2 (31:25):
Interesting, let's take a quick break. When we come back,
it's time for stack root nets.
Speaker 1 (31:31):
The Financial Exchange is now available every day from eleven
to now non Serious XMS Business Radio Channel one thirty two.
Stay informed about the latest from Wall Street, fiscal policy,
and breaking business news. Every day. The Financial Exchange is
life on Serious XM's Business Radio Channel one thirty two.
This is the Financial Exchange Radio Network.
Speaker 5 (31:54):
This segment of the financial exchange brought to you bar
by the US Virgin Islands Department of Tour. There is
a three stunning islands, Saint Croix, Saint Thomas, and Saint
John all just a quick flight away, no passport required,
just sunshine, soft sand in that warm island vibe. Craving
a break, well, playing your fall escape now it experienced
(32:16):
the beauty of America's Caribbean. The US Virgin Islands book
today at visit USVIA dot com. That's visit USVII dot com.
Speaker 2 (32:26):
Mike, what do you got for me for stack Roulette?
Speaker 3 (32:28):
Sleepovers? Is what I have for you for stack Roulette.
Speaker 4 (32:31):
The Journal has a piece today about well they start
off with a eleven thousand square foot in Newport Coast,
California estate valued at sixty million dollars in a case
where it went for sale and they reached an agreement
to allow the potential buyers to rent it out for a.
Speaker 3 (32:47):
Couple months time.
Speaker 4 (32:49):
Not enough is the answer, and so at first I
read this as completely irrelevant to ninety nine point nine
percent of Americans. But they actually went into a few
cases where even on a half a million dollar home
that was for sale in Texas and elsewhere where. The seller,
probably in some places where there is immense pressure to
(33:09):
sell homes right now and not a whole lot of
buyers for them, allowed for the potential buyer to come
in and move in for a weekend and get a
feel for the home, try out the ac try out
the plumbing, and really get a sense for actually living there,
which I find.
Speaker 3 (33:25):
Interesting.
Speaker 4 (33:27):
I would absolutely want this as the buyer of a
potential property. I would absolutely be terrified about it as
the potential seller of a property. And my guess my
concerns about it, and my guess is that it's not
going to be done properly, and there's going to be
instances popping up of homes that get damaged during a
piece of time like this, and is there contractually anything
(33:48):
set up for that squatters that end up moving in
without any potential actual ability to buy the property. But
I do just find it interesting and it's not something
it's not something you see in a seller's market, let's
put it that way.
Speaker 2 (34:00):
No, exactly, Like the the only way that you can
do this is if you're the only person requesting it,
right you know you you're not going to as a
seller be like, Okay, Jimmy, you get Monday. Yeah, Carol,
you've got Tuesday, and I need all bids in by
the end of the week.
Speaker 3 (34:17):
You know, it's you're not going to clean the sheets every.
Speaker 2 (34:21):
Night, you know, for a week.
Speaker 3 (34:22):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (34:23):
And it's one thing when it's a sixty million dollar
property and uh, you know the buyer has potential to
lay down a quarter million dollars a month in rent.
Speaker 1 (34:31):
Uh.
Speaker 3 (34:33):
Yeah, that's a different saying. I'm talking about.
Speaker 4 (34:36):
You know, the apartment in Summerville that's for sale, and
do you let that person spend the night in it
to get a feel for the neighborhood.
Speaker 2 (34:43):
So here's the thing I don't think, as either a
buyer or seller, I like the idea of staying in
a home beforehand.
Speaker 3 (34:53):
No, I give it.
Speaker 4 (34:55):
Give it I get from the seller perspective, Give it
to me from the buyer's perspective.
Speaker 2 (34:59):
You can change an in a house. You don't like
the bed in that room, move it there. You don't
like how the living room's arranged, Fine, like you're gonna
change it anyways.
Speaker 3 (35:06):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (35:07):
Ultimately, what I do think every prospective buyer should do is,
if you're really serious about putting an offer in spend
a full day in that neighborhood before you do so.
I'll give you an example. I was looking at a
place several years ago and I was like, Wow, this
is this is amazing, this is this is great. We've
been there for like twenty minutes. As we got towards,
(35:31):
you know, the end of our tour around, all of
a sudden start hearing some airplanes from inside the house
pretty loudly, and I'm like, what's going on here? I
go outside and for the next twenty minutes or so,
there is a parade of US military cargo aircraft coming
through the airspace about two thousand feet overhead.
Speaker 3 (35:52):
Uh huh yeah, And as you.
Speaker 2 (35:54):
Know, like military aircraft are a little bit louder than
their civilian counterparts.
Speaker 3 (35:58):
Yeah, this is.
Speaker 2 (36:00):
A nice place, but I don't think this is where
we want to be. And I'm I love planes. I mean, look,
if I can't get on board with this, like, no
one's going to because ultimately I could be playing with
I love watching planes, but I also like to be
able to have control over when I do so, and
every day from the backyard is just not what I wanted.
(36:22):
Had I not spent a little bit more time there.
I wouldn't have realized that other things, Hey, is there
a lot of traffic that picks up at a certain
times and this is more in cities. I had someone
I was talking to just the other day who was
really close to putting an offer in at one point
on a place in Boston, and it happened to be
(36:42):
right near Fenway Park and just by, like a stroke
of luck, as they were about to do this, they
had to drive through at like five pm one day
and they were like, I'm not going to be able
to get home eighty one times a year because the
Red Sox are playing.
Speaker 3 (36:55):
Yea, they decided not to. So remember the movie with
Morgan Freeman Bradt What's in the Box? Uh? Yeah, So
that movie.
Speaker 4 (37:05):
They move into an apartment and they mentioned in the
movie that the realtor would only bring them by for
like fifteen minute visits because there was a train that
went right by the door and shook the entire apartment
for a day.
Speaker 2 (37:16):
So I think you should spend a full day just
so you get a sense of like what happens around
the place during that day. Do you need to sleep
in the house, No, Like, I'll be honest. The first
time I've ever moved to any new place, the first
night sucked. You're uncomfortable, You're like, where am I?
Speaker 3 (37:31):
Why am I here? What am I doing?
Speaker 2 (37:33):
I've never had a good first night in a house,
so maybe that's just me, but uh. In any case,
spend some time around what you're considering buying sleepovers eh
not for me?
Speaker 3 (37:46):
Quick break for the entire rest of the day.
Speaker 2 (37:48):
We'll see you tomorrow.
The Financial Exchange is produced by Money Matters Radio and
is hosted by employees of the Armstrong Advisory Group, a
registered investment advisor. All opinions expressed are solely those of
the hosts. Do not reflect the opinions of Armstrong Advisory
or anyone else. Investments can lose money. This program does
not offer any specific financial or investment advice. Please consult
your own financial, tax, and estate planning advisors before making
(00:20):
any investment decisions. Armstrong Advisory and the advertisers heard on
this program do not endorse each other or their services.
Armstrong and Money Matters Radio do not compensate each other
for referrals and are not affiliated. This is the Financial
Exchange with Chuck Zada and Mike Armstrong, Your exclusive look
at business and financial news affecting your day, your city,
(00:42):
your world. Stay informed and up to date about economic
and market trends, plus breaking business news every day. The
Financial Exchange is a proud partner of the Disabled American
Veterans Department of Massachusetts. Help us support our great American
heroes by visiting dav five k dot com and making
a donation today. This is the Financial Exchange with Chuck Zada,
(01:06):
and Mike Armstraw.
Speaker 2 (01:11):
Chuck, Mike and Tucker with it, and we got markets
not really doing too much of anything. The Dow is
technically off half a percent, but that's basically because a
handful of components like five out of the thirty or
down one to quarter percent or more. Whereas when you
look at the S and P five hundred, which has
five hundred companies, actually not quite a little bit more
(01:31):
than that right now, that's only off a tenth of
a percent, and the Nasdaq composits up a quarter percent,
so not really too much going on that suggests any
major deviation from equity markets as to, you know, kind
of where we finished Friday.
Speaker 3 (01:46):
When we take a look at.
Speaker 2 (01:47):
The bond market, a little bit of an upward moving
yields ten year Treasury up two point nine basis points
to four point two eight seven percent, still not anything
meaningful and not giving back all Friday's gains on bonds.
So ultimately a little bit of a shift, but I'm
not really sure that there's too much meat on that bone.
When we take a look at commodity markets, Oil West
(02:09):
Texas Intermediate up ninety nine cents a barrel to sixty
four sixty five and we've got gold up seventy cents
an ounce. Wow, glad we got out of bed for
that one at thirty four nineteen and twenty cents. So
market's pretty quiet today. Quite honestly, last week they were
pretty quiet overall. It's just you had, you know, about
(02:31):
a one and a half percent slide heading into Friday,
and then markets rallied one and a half percent, so
it seemed exciting, but ultimately not too much really happened.
It was just Okay, we had to get through the
FED through J. Powell, and now we're onto the next thing,
which does bring us to I think a great topic here.
Tech rally shows signs of losing steam. Well forgive me
(02:53):
if I've heard this about a dozen times in the
last two and a half years, but.
Speaker 3 (02:58):
Yeah, you got to prove it to me.
Speaker 2 (03:00):
I'm not saying that there haven't been times where Tech's
underperformed the second half of last year. In Q one
of this year, Tech did underperformed, but ultimately that was
a relative consolidation that Tech went through, and it bounced
back with an absolutely ridiculous last three four months here
since the second half of April. So I think that
(03:23):
when I hear about, you know, the Tech rally showing
signs of losing steam, we might be seeing it in
the stocks and in kind of the pricing movement. For
me to really believe that Tech is going to lose steam,
you've got to actually see it in the numbers, in
the earnings, in the revenue, in the capex. And that's
(03:44):
something that we just haven't seen yet. And at some
point you're going to because we're not going to become
the United States of Amazon or the United States of Microsoft.
Speaker 3 (03:56):
God, I hope not. You know, it's not gonna be,
you know that thing.
Speaker 2 (04:02):
But I just look at this and I hesitate to
call top in tech just because I don't think I'm
qualified to do so. But b Okay, like, if we've
played this game, you know, ten times in the last
couple of years, it's been a pretty losing game to
be playing.
Speaker 4 (04:21):
Yeah, yeah, shorting tech anytime over the last well twenty
two and a half years, two and a half. But like,
take a longer term outlook on this, since the dot
com bubble has not been a great proposition.
Speaker 3 (04:36):
Tech wasn't what it.
Speaker 2 (04:37):
I think sometimes we forget that, like us, tech wasn't
what it was until the last few years.
Speaker 3 (04:44):
Absolutely.
Speaker 4 (04:45):
I mean, you go take a look at his composition
of the S and P five hundred going back to
the early twenty tens, I think it was less than
half of what it is now. So I don't mean
to to minimize that that massive changing factor here.
Speaker 2 (05:00):
Well, I think also, like, let's look at tech. Just
let's look at this in the context of Okay, show
me how tech actually performed relative to the other industries
in the S and P five hundred. We've got eleven
different sectors in the SMP and we kind of have
to back into this just because not all of them
(05:20):
were like they've kind of moved things around in this
and that historically. But if you look at this and say, okay,
back in twenty ten, tech was, depending on the metric
that you're looking at, either the eighth or ninth best
performing out of them. In twenty eleven, it was the
seventh best. In twenty twelve, it was the eighth best.
(05:41):
In twenty thirteen, it was the fifth. In twenty fourteen
and fifteen it was the fourth best. In twenty sixteen
it was the seventh best. Then you went on this
run in twenty seventeen, eighteen, nineteen, and twenty where it
was basically in those years just absolutely crushing everything else
aside eighteen where you know, it was basically flat, and
(06:03):
then it had a Monster twenty three as well in
Monster twenty four. So it's really since twenty seventeen that
tech has been you know, kind of what we think
of it, and even more recently, like since twenty three
that has done. There's the crazy stuff that is out there,
but it feels like forever just because like it's been
(06:23):
so dominant the last few years, but there's always this
rotation that's going on, and some years it's this, some
years it's that. I just I I always come back to,
like this, the story about emerging markets investments, where you know,
if you looked from like nineteen ninety through two thousand
and seven, EM crushed the S and P five hundred
(06:46):
demolished it, Like you had institutional investors being like why
am I invested in US stocks? Like I wish I
could change my mandates somehow because EM's where all the
growth is.
Speaker 3 (06:56):
Well, the last eighteen years have.
Speaker 2 (06:57):
Been the polar opposite of that, and and they don't
ring a bell when the regime changes for investments. You know,
they don't say, okay, everybody into the pool adults swim like,
they don't do that. You kind of just have to
figure it out. And so I do think it's interesting
to have the thought of, hey, what and when, like
(07:19):
what do we have to be aware of in terms
of when this run of tech dominance could end? But
I also think that trying to jump the gun and
being like, hey, we gotta get you know, like everybody
out of tech.
Speaker 3 (07:32):
Let's let's not go too far on this, yep, you know.
Speaker 4 (07:35):
Yeah, especially when people are talking about, oh, that tech
rally seems to have really lost steam over the last
week and a half, that maybe it just yeah, and
I hope you have a really good model for why
that's going to hold steady.
Speaker 3 (07:54):
Yeah, it's why is that going to matter?
Speaker 2 (07:58):
Will it matter a we gonna half from now right
or a decade and a half right now? Because if
all you're looking at is like the last ten days,
tech's been a little wobbly. Okay, it looked wobbly for
nine months and then showed up and you know, promptly
beat everything down over the last you know, four months
or so. So I don't know I don't know that
(08:19):
there's too much there, but I don't know. Interesting to
see people talking about it. And generally, when this stuff
actually matters is when people aren't talking about it.
Speaker 3 (08:31):
That's kind of what I tend to find. Let's take
a quick break here.
Speaker 2 (08:33):
When we come back, we've got trivia right after this.
Speaker 1 (08:38):
The Financial Exchange streams live on YouTube. Subscribe to our
page and stay up to date on breaking business news.
All morning, long Face is the Financial Exchange Radio Network.
Speaker 5 (08:54):
Time for trivia here on the Financial Exchange. In our
final week of World War Two Trivia, we'll focus on
the famous actors and actresses who served our country during
the war. So on this Monday, we'll ask you this
trivia question, which member of the Golden Girls was a
Marine during World War Two? Once again, which member of
(09:16):
the Golden Girls was a Marine during World War Two?
Be the fifth person today to text us at six
one seven three six two thirteen eighty five with the
correct answer, and you win a Financial Exchange Show T shirt.
Once again, the fifth correct response to textus to the
number six one seven three six to two thirteen eighty
five will win that T shirt. See complete contest rules
(09:39):
at Financial exchange show dot com.
Speaker 2 (09:41):
So on Friday, we received confirmation that Intel is going
to agree to allow the US government to take a
ten percent stake in the company. It's gonna be worth
about eight point nine billion dollars. This is funding that
was already appropriated through the Chips Act, that was supposed
to be in the form of a grant, that is
(10:03):
now going to be in the form of an equity
stake instead. Over the weekend and into today, the Trump
administration said they would look to likely take equity stakes
in additional companies as they look to you know, allocate funds.
Unclear if that's you know, specifically in the semiconductor industry
(10:24):
or elsewhere. But now the question I think is out there,
and again there's there's a reason why we we typically
you know, don't see this in the United States is
because you start to wonder, if you are operating, whether
it's a large, publicly traded company or a smaller privately
held one, Hey, does the government need to have a
(10:45):
stake in my business in order for us to be
able to operate a certain way or receive funding or
whatever it might be.
Speaker 3 (10:52):
It's a very open question.
Speaker 4 (10:54):
I mean, you know, the the Pentagon announced a stake
in what was the Rare Earth Company.
Speaker 2 (11:00):
So that I thought made a little bit more sense
the MP materials deal.
Speaker 3 (11:04):
I'm with you in terms of it making sense.
Speaker 4 (11:06):
Like I get that it's a strategic defense interest.
Speaker 2 (11:12):
So that the Pentagon was announcing that they were going
to be buying a certain amount of the materials each
year and setting a floor for pricing so that you
could produce it. The US government, to my knowledge, is
not saying we're going to buy Intel chips because what
are we going to do with them? Like, it's you know,
where's the DoD needs that stuff? And so I think
for you know, critical defense things, it's the technical term.
(11:35):
I believe for critical defense products, you can make a case, yeah,
the DoD probably should be directly involved in making sure
that you have a minimum supply of the things that
are needed there for broad based semiconductors, it's kind of like.
Speaker 4 (11:51):
I get that it's a slippery slope argument, Chuck, and
I think that's your point. But I think that's the
exact argument that Trump administration would make here is this
is a bet out to the United States securing a
critical supply of future semiconductor manufacturing and we'd deem that
necessary to defense interests. I guess again, I don't find
the argument compelling, but I think that's the argument they
(12:12):
would know.
Speaker 2 (12:12):
No, this is a good conversation to have, though, And
here's why I think this is different. The market is
speaking as it relates to when it comes to rare
earth materials, the market spoke this year and said, the
US needs these and we can't produce these. We heard
from all kinds of companies saying, hey, there's a problem
(12:33):
of China cuts this off. When it comes to Intel,
the market's been speaking in the exact same way. Intel's
been making plenty of product and the market has been saying, no,
we're not interested in that.
Speaker 3 (12:44):
Yeah, like Intel's been.
Speaker 2 (12:45):
Trying to run its business and the market has been saying,
you guys are not making stuff at the caliber that
you used to, and we are not interested. So, in
my opinion, it's opposite market signals that are being sent.
And this is where you get in the problem. In
both of these cases, then with the US government owning them,
is okay, do you actually get accurate market signals? If Intel,
(13:09):
quite honestly, if they should be out of business, but
they're kept afloat by the US just because we can't
figure out any other way to do this. That's not
really how the United States works. We generally let bad
businesses die, or we should, and you have new ones
that are better that spring up to take their place. Intel,
(13:30):
by the way, is an example of that. They all
the company making freaking vacuum tubes and you know, all
the big you know computers back in the sixties. Intel
came along and said, We've got a better way to
do this. And their competitors didn't run to the US
government and say, oh, please, please, please give us money
so we can stay. No leg that they had to
deal with that because they were selected against by the market.
(13:53):
And so if Intel's being selected against by the market,
which is what's been happening, right, why do we save them?
Speaker 3 (13:59):
Why?
Speaker 2 (14:00):
Quite honestly, why don't we If you want to use,
like US taxpayer money, use it for the stuff that's
being selected for.
Speaker 3 (14:06):
By the market. You know.
Speaker 4 (14:08):
Yeah, Like, I think there's a very compelling argument that
the state of chip manufacturing in the globe right now,
and the risk of all of it being done or
a critical a critical portion of it being done in
Taiwan is a national security concern and could you you
could get full stuff. We could both absolutely envision a
(14:30):
scenario where we are facing the exact same scenario as
we did with rarers.
Speaker 2 (14:37):
Right, you need to produce this stuff here in the
US full stop. The question is do you need to
have federal ownership of Intel the way to do that?
Because let's say that Intel, Intel's been producing sucky products
for a decade. Yea, it's how they got to where
they are where they needed this. Like there's a reason
why there's a reason why AMD isn't showing up being like, oh,
(14:59):
please take our equity, or Nvidia's not showing up saying
please take our equity. It's because they they don't need that.
If Intel continues to produce suck over the next ten years,
now that the US government owns a ten percent stake,
do we just throw more money at the suck because
we don't want to lose the equity state?
Speaker 1 (15:19):
Right?
Speaker 2 (15:19):
I don't know, Like these are the questions that come
up on this is like, I gotta tell you what.
Once you have you know, the federal government basically committing
to hey, we're going to fund Intel, and you know,
all those jobs generally Congress doesn't like to cut jobs
from federal allocations. That's how it usually works. So these
(15:41):
are the questions that come up here. And the other thing. Look,
you might say, look, I think the president can do
a great job, you know in this partnership with Intel. Okay,
play out the string. Let's go five ten years down
the road.
Speaker 3 (15:55):
Right.
Speaker 4 (15:55):
Do you think, let's say that president will be as
good as steward of Intel's company as the current one.
Speaker 2 (16:00):
If if Bernie Sanders Junior is running the United States government,
are you gonna be like, yes, this is what I want?
Speaker 3 (16:07):
Right? You know, this isn't a Donald Trump steak.
Speaker 4 (16:11):
This is a US government stake, and typically they don't
just go away.
Speaker 3 (16:16):
No. And there's a.
Speaker 2 (16:18):
Reason why the US is historically shied away from stuff
like this. Yeah, and it's because it hasn't really worked
in the places that have tried it.
Speaker 4 (16:29):
Again, I don't I don't want to paint this as
a full complete in total one to eighty. The US
government has on many occasions made bets on companies, not
through ownership stakes, but on bills supporting specific industries and
specific companies. There's been successes, there has, but there's been failures.
Speaker 3 (16:46):
There.
Speaker 4 (16:47):
So this is an extension in a in a pretty
broad extension of it, but it just it leads to
a whole bunch of other questions. The biggest one to
me is, is something we're going to expand upon? It
sounds like it, right, It sounds like has made statements
that he wants to expand this further, and so is Yeah,
(17:11):
I think it's a real question as to whether or
not this is how we want us taxpayer dollars going
is towards ownership in publicly traded companies, and specifically ownership.
What I further wonder is is it's specifically going towards
ownership and public companies that have not done very well
right that we see a strategic national interests Sure, I want.
Speaker 2 (17:33):
To talk about a piece from Bloomberg that just popped
up on my screen today. And look, there's a few
other things that we're going to get to here, but
there's one that just popped up and everyone's talking about it.
It's about how there are now more ETFs than there
are individual stocks in the United States. And you get
(17:53):
the people freaking out, being like, oh my goodness, this
is horrible, not even realizing, hey, there have been more
mutual funds than there are stocks in the US US
for years now, and ultimately I think that the comparison
that I've found online that's best is Wow, I guess
we just found out that there are more recipes than
there are ingredients in the world.
Speaker 3 (18:13):
You know, Yes, this isn't a big deal at all. No,
it's not.
Speaker 2 (18:16):
And someone you know made the case, Oh, it's so
hard to like choose a fun now, there's so many choices,
And to that I say, Okay, well, you have to
figure out what you're trying to do. Like, if you're
trying to make a fish dish on a Tuesday, don't
flip to you know, the poultry section and start looking
through there. Don't just you know, go through the you know,
(18:36):
you gotta find Okay, here's the fish section of the cookbook,
and I'm gonna go through and narrow down from there
and do the work. The great thing about having more
tools is you can build a portfolio that's more built
to your specific needs. The downside, it might take you
a little longer to find what you're doing.
Speaker 4 (18:52):
But and might there be some terrible recipes in that
book that cambine fish and cheese.
Speaker 3 (18:57):
Yeah?
Speaker 2 (18:58):
Uh, disagree, I will make you the most delicious blue
cheese muscles you've ever had in your life.
Speaker 3 (19:04):
My man, I'm telling you, but that's for another day.
Let's take a quick break.
Speaker 2 (19:11):
When we return, we've got the Trivia Answer and Wall Street.
Speaker 1 (19:13):
Watch, bringing the latest financial news straight to your radio.
Every day. It's the Financial Exchange on the Financial Exchange
Radio Network. Time now for Wall Street Watch. A complete
look at what's moving market so far today right here
(19:36):
on the Financial Exchange Radio Network.
Speaker 5 (19:38):
After a fit fuel rally on Friday, markets beginning the
week mostly quiet, as Wall Street away's pivotal Nvidia earnings
Wednesday after the Clothes in addition to an inflation reading
on Friday. With the Core PCE index right now, the
Dow is off by about a half a percent, or
two hundred and thirteen points, SMP five hundred dipping by
(20:00):
only four points, Nasdaq is up by three tenths of
one percent or sixty two points, Hire Russell two thousands
off by four tenths of one percent, Tenure treasureealed up
two basis points now at four point two eight three percent,
and crude oil up over one and a half percent higher,
trading at sixty four dollars and sixty six cents a
(20:21):
barrel breaking news this hour after Elon Musk accused Apple
and Open Ai in a lawsuit of unfairly favoring the
Ai app across iPhones and thwarting competition for other chat
bought makers. Apple stock is up modestly. Meanwhile, Cured Doctor
Pepper agreed to purchase the owner of Pete's Coffee JdE
(20:42):
Pete's for eighteen billion dollars. Once the acquisition completes, the
combined company is set to separate into two independent US
listed coffee and beverage firms. Shares in Cured Doctor Pepper
sinking nearly eight percent, Wellje JdE Pete stock is jumping
sixteen percent. Elsewhere, Intel stock up over one percent on
(21:05):
the heels of confirmation that the US government has taken
a ten percent stake in the struggling chip maker. Elsewhere,
furniture stocks taking ahead following comments from President Trump that
his administration would launch an investigation into imported units. Williams
Sonoma down over two percent, while rh and Wayfair tumbling
by about six percent, and shares in American Eagle Outfairders
(21:28):
pulling back two percent after Bank of America downgraded the
stock to underperform. The Bank's analysts noted that while the
retailer's Sidney Sweeney ad campaign may boost sales near term,
the momentum will be sapped by tariffs. I'm Tucker Silva
and that is Wall Street Watch. And in the previous segment,
we asked you the trivia question which member of the
(21:50):
Golden Girls was a marine during World War Two? That
would be bo Arthur. She served with the Marine Corps
from not nineteen forty three, too, are honorable discharge in
nineteen forty five. Rick from Melrose, Mass is our winner
today taking on a Financial Exchange Show t shirt. Congrats
to Rick, and we play trivia every day you're in
(22:11):
the Financial exchange See complete contest rules at Financial Exchange
Show dot com.
Speaker 2 (22:16):
All right, so, the Center for Retirement Research at Boston
College says that the average man retires at age sixty four,
while the average woman retires at age sixty two. This
despite a recent report from Empower, who polled about a
thousand adults who said, Hey, we'd like to retire at
(22:39):
age fifty eight. That's the ideal age for retirement, quite
honestly missing by anywhere from like four to six years.
I don't see as being that bad like that.
Speaker 3 (22:48):
That's pretty good.
Speaker 2 (22:49):
Actually, if you're retiring, you know, within four years of
when you say you want to, I think that's pretty
darn good quite honestly.
Speaker 4 (22:58):
Yeah, yeah, that's fair. I'm just trying to get to
how right that was the average? So most people that
I meet, I would definitely say have very little ability
to retire at fifty eight years old. That seems very hot,
you know, pine the sky to me.
Speaker 2 (23:19):
Well, it's interesting because keep in mind, there are a
number of professions where you're forced out in your late
fifties early sixties, and that contributes to this as well,
Like how you get to that average, there's somewhere you're
forced out even sooner than that, depending on you know,
the specifics of your job and things like that. So
I look at this, and what I always come back
(23:40):
to is the math that you have to do in
order to retire at fifty eight, because let's say that
on average, you start working at twenty Some people start,
you know, in high school, after high school, in college,
but let's say twenty to twenty two.
Speaker 3 (23:51):
Is when most people start.
Speaker 2 (23:53):
Sure, if you're going to retire at fifty eight, you're
going to do thirty five thirty six years of work.
You then, based on current life expectancies, are going to
be retired for twenty five to twenty seven years. That's like,
that's pretty close to imbalance, which means you need to
be saving a lot more than ten to fifteen percent
(24:13):
of your income to do so. Even accounting for things
like compounding, you probably got to be saving twenty five
to thirty five percent of your income for that.
Speaker 3 (24:21):
To be feasible.
Speaker 2 (24:24):
Or at the lottery, I listen, you gotta spend money
to make money, is what they always say. But I
don't think that's what they're talking about.
Speaker 4 (24:31):
Yeah, you know, this always comes back to something too,
which is fifty eight, you got seven years of health
insurance to figure out.
Speaker 3 (24:39):
For most people, again, you know, you might work.
Speaker 4 (24:41):
You might work as a line worker for utility company,
which case they might have that covered for you because
you can't work till sixty five. You might you might
work for the training system, in which case, yeah, they
probably have that covered for you.
Speaker 3 (24:51):
Or in the military, et cetera, et cetera.
Speaker 2 (24:52):
A lot of people working for the train system these days.
Speaker 4 (24:54):
I don't believe so. But for most of us that
work in the private sector, or retiring at fifty eight
would mean paying for private health insurance for you and
your family for seven.
Speaker 2 (25:04):
Years, which the going rate these days, depending on you know,
exactly what kind of plan that you want. If you're
you know, single, you're probably talking anywhere from like seven
to fifteen thousand a year. If you're married, you're probably
talking fifteen to thirty thousand a year.
Speaker 3 (25:17):
Yeah, big chunk of change.
Speaker 4 (25:18):
Yeah, it is huge, huge money, not completely undoable for
some people. There are also plans that get subsidized by
the federal government that some people can apply for and
actually get regardless of net worth. But to Chuck's point,
retiring that much before your Medicare age or full Social
(25:40):
Security retirement age requires a ton of planning, like way
in advance, and trying to do it at fifty two
might not be possible.
Speaker 2 (25:50):
But you got to start planning for that around thirty you.
Speaker 4 (25:53):
Do, or you have to get really fortunate in terms
of your career and the direction that it goes and
your ability to save. And maybe you are just that
natural saver type. But again, you know, retiring at fifty
eight and some times you can't even touch that retirement account.
If you are trying to make plans to retire before
that full Social Security age of sixty seven or prior
(26:13):
to that Medicare age of sixty five, I'm here to
tell you need to plan early. If you want somebody
to take a look with you at your plan and
figure out how to achieve that goal, and then you
know back into what sort of lifestyle you're going to
have if you do achieve that goal. Give the folks
at Armstrong Advisory Group a call. This is the type
of stuff that we do every day. The numbers eight
(26:34):
hundred three nine three four zero zero one for that
consultation from the Armstrong Advisory Group once again eight hundred
three nine three four zero zero one.
Speaker 1 (26:44):
The proceeding was paid for by Armstrong Advisory Group, a
registered investment advisor. Nothing in the ad or in any
Armstrong guide a specific financial, legal or tax advice. Consult
your own financial tax into state planning advisors before making
any investment decisions. Armstrong make contact you to offer investment
advisory services.
Speaker 3 (27:00):
Piece and CNBC.
Speaker 2 (27:01):
That has one of my least favorite words that's made
its way into the English language. Autogiants forced to confront
some hard truths in the age of poly crisis poly
meaning many crisis meaning crisis. And look, if we're gonna
just use that term quite honest, like recession, it's worse
(27:24):
than that because you can always claim that like, oh,
this is a crisis and that no. Like when you
get into the auto business, the hard truth that you
have to accept is that the business that you've chosen sucks,
at least to operate it. You can make some cool cars,
you can have some fun doing it, but ultimately you
(27:46):
are going to spend billions of dollars in capex trying
to eke out you know, a few margin points here
and there, and it's always hard, and then recession hits
and it gets harder.
Speaker 4 (27:58):
So let me ask you this question, then, do you
believe that automakers are facing a uniquely large set of
obstacles today compared to other times in the last two decades?
Speaker 3 (28:08):
Yes, but it's of their own making.
Speaker 2 (28:13):
What I mean by that is that if you look
at how automakers have decided to survive in the last
couple of decades, it's by building bigger cars and trying
to get more margin out of those vehicles, hence the
move over to SUVs, which, by the way, like we love,
I drive kind of a semi suv, Like I'm a
super outback guy myself, so you know, it's not really
(28:35):
an suv, and I'm just cool enough to be able
to drive it, so that's nice. Love the functionality of SUVs,
like they're great, I fully understand it. But ultimately there's
also a lot more stuff that goes into them, and
that makes them more expensive to sell, which is why
car makers like to sell them. But when the price
of those inputs goes up, it becomes harder to maintain
(28:57):
your cost structure. And so rather than saying, hey, costs
are going up, we need to start making smaller and
cheaper cars in order to deal with this and be
able to sell more cars to more people, the answer
has been no, we're gonna move in the opposite direction.
This suv now has a third row that's only fit
for people age you know, three and under because there's
(29:18):
no leg room. But hey, like we've we've got to,
you know, sell the third row is you know, some
kind of functionality. Mike's laughing at me because during the
break I was talking about, like do I need a
third row in like you knowe my future.
Speaker 4 (29:31):
So so I agree that that piece was a crisis
of their own making. I also would agree that the
transition that all these automakers are needing to do seemingly
because of political pressure from one direction of we're all
making evs to now we're all only making gas powered vehicles,
that is also a crisis of their own right.
Speaker 2 (29:48):
Toyota and they were fine. Toyota's like, no, we're not
gonna like respond to like what we think is a fad,
and they were completely right in doing so.
Speaker 3 (29:56):
Other pieces u.
Speaker 4 (30:00):
's seeming subsidization of their auto industry and intentional dumping
of cars onto other markets, as well as tariff policy.
Speaker 2 (30:07):
Automakers did that to themselves too, specifically the Germans. They
have not resisted. The people have been warning the Germans
for years about what was coming, and they said, nor
bring over the Chinese. EV's fine, and they're putting their
own industry out of business.
Speaker 3 (30:24):
And doing so.
Speaker 4 (30:25):
And the only reason to drive that point a little
bit further, the only reason that those Chinese automakers have
been able to modernize to the extent that they have
been able to is because every foreign automaker in the
world said yeah, let's go into China and we'll share
our IP with the Chinese government. Correct, So okay. I
(30:48):
was hesitant to agree at first, but I would agree.
Crisis of their own making, but we will if it
gets bad enough, end up bailing them out because they're
a national security concern. So will the Germans, so all
the French, so will every other country that supplies an
automaker in there.
Speaker 2 (31:07):
Do you think, let me ask you this for real, though,
do you think there's appetite for auto bailouts if it
came to that at this.
Speaker 4 (31:14):
Point, Regardless of the appetite, I think it was.
Speaker 3 (31:20):
Yes, do you think it would happen?
Speaker 4 (31:21):
I think there would be political appetite for an autobail
out if it happened.
Speaker 2 (31:25):
Interesting, let's take a quick break. When we come back,
it's time for stack root nets.
Speaker 1 (31:31):
The Financial Exchange is now available every day from eleven
to now non Serious XMS Business Radio Channel one thirty two.
Stay informed about the latest from Wall Street, fiscal policy,
and breaking business news. Every day. The Financial Exchange is
life on Serious XM's Business Radio Channel one thirty two.
This is the Financial Exchange Radio Network.
Speaker 5 (31:54):
This segment of the financial exchange brought to you bar
by the US Virgin Islands Department of Tour. There is
a three stunning islands, Saint Croix, Saint Thomas, and Saint
John all just a quick flight away, no passport required,
just sunshine, soft sand in that warm island vibe. Craving
a break, well, playing your fall escape now it experienced
(32:16):
the beauty of America's Caribbean. The US Virgin Islands book
today at visit USVIA dot com. That's visit USVII dot com.
Speaker 2 (32:26):
Mike, what do you got for me for stack Roulette?
Speaker 3 (32:28):
Sleepovers? Is what I have for you for stack Roulette.
Speaker 4 (32:31):
The Journal has a piece today about well they start
off with a eleven thousand square foot in Newport Coast,
California estate valued at sixty million dollars in a case
where it went for sale and they reached an agreement
to allow the potential buyers to rent it out for a.
Speaker 3 (32:47):
Couple months time.
Speaker 4 (32:49):
Not enough is the answer, and so at first I
read this as completely irrelevant to ninety nine point nine
percent of Americans. But they actually went into a few
cases where even on a half a million dollar home
that was for sale in Texas and elsewhere where. The seller,
probably in some places where there is immense pressure to
(33:09):
sell homes right now and not a whole lot of
buyers for them, allowed for the potential buyer to come
in and move in for a weekend and get a
feel for the home, try out the ac try out
the plumbing, and really get a sense for actually living there,
which I find.
Speaker 3 (33:25):
Interesting.
Speaker 4 (33:27):
I would absolutely want this as the buyer of a
potential property. I would absolutely be terrified about it as
the potential seller of a property. And my guess my
concerns about it, and my guess is that it's not
going to be done properly, and there's going to be
instances popping up of homes that get damaged during a
piece of time like this, and is there contractually anything
(33:48):
set up for that squatters that end up moving in
without any potential actual ability to buy the property. But
I do just find it interesting and it's not something
it's not something you see in a seller's market, let's
put it that way.
Speaker 2 (34:00):
No, exactly, Like the the only way that you can
do this is if you're the only person requesting it,
right you know you you're not going to as a
seller be like, Okay, Jimmy, you get Monday. Yeah, Carol,
you've got Tuesday, and I need all bids in by
the end of the week.
Speaker 3 (34:17):
You know, it's you're not going to clean the sheets every.
Speaker 2 (34:21):
Night, you know, for a week.
Speaker 3 (34:22):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (34:23):
And it's one thing when it's a sixty million dollar
property and uh, you know the buyer has potential to
lay down a quarter million dollars a month in rent.
Speaker 1 (34:31):
Uh.
Speaker 3 (34:33):
Yeah, that's a different saying. I'm talking about.
Speaker 4 (34:36):
You know, the apartment in Summerville that's for sale, and
do you let that person spend the night in it
to get a feel for the neighborhood.
Speaker 2 (34:43):
So here's the thing I don't think, as either a
buyer or seller, I like the idea of staying in
a home beforehand.
Speaker 3 (34:53):
No, I give it.
Speaker 4 (34:55):
Give it I get from the seller perspective, Give it
to me from the buyer's perspective.
Speaker 2 (34:59):
You can change an in a house. You don't like
the bed in that room, move it there. You don't
like how the living room's arranged, Fine, like you're gonna
change it anyways.
Speaker 3 (35:06):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (35:07):
Ultimately, what I do think every prospective buyer should do is,
if you're really serious about putting an offer in spend
a full day in that neighborhood before you do so.
I'll give you an example. I was looking at a
place several years ago and I was like, Wow, this
is this is amazing, this is this is great. We've
been there for like twenty minutes. As we got towards,
(35:31):
you know, the end of our tour around, all of
a sudden start hearing some airplanes from inside the house
pretty loudly, and I'm like, what's going on here? I
go outside and for the next twenty minutes or so,
there is a parade of US military cargo aircraft coming
through the airspace about two thousand feet overhead.
Speaker 3 (35:52):
Uh huh yeah, And as you.
Speaker 2 (35:54):
Know, like military aircraft are a little bit louder than
their civilian counterparts.
Speaker 3 (35:58):
Yeah, this is.
Speaker 2 (36:00):
A nice place, but I don't think this is where
we want to be. And I'm I love planes. I mean, look,
if I can't get on board with this, like, no
one's going to because ultimately I could be playing with
I love watching planes, but I also like to be
able to have control over when I do so, and
every day from the backyard is just not what I wanted.
(36:22):
Had I not spent a little bit more time there.
I wouldn't have realized that other things, Hey, is there
a lot of traffic that picks up at a certain
times and this is more in cities. I had someone
I was talking to just the other day who was
really close to putting an offer in at one point
on a place in Boston, and it happened to be
(36:42):
right near Fenway Park and just by, like a stroke
of luck, as they were about to do this, they
had to drive through at like five pm one day
and they were like, I'm not going to be able
to get home eighty one times a year because the
Red Sox are playing.
Speaker 3 (36:55):
Yea, they decided not to. So remember the movie with
Morgan Freeman Bradt What's in the Box? Uh? Yeah, So
that movie.
Speaker 4 (37:05):
They move into an apartment and they mentioned in the
movie that the realtor would only bring them by for
like fifteen minute visits because there was a train that
went right by the door and shook the entire apartment
for a day.
Speaker 2 (37:16):
So I think you should spend a full day just
so you get a sense of like what happens around
the place during that day. Do you need to sleep
in the house, No, Like, I'll be honest. The first
time I've ever moved to any new place, the first
night sucked. You're uncomfortable, You're like, where am I?
Speaker 3 (37:31):
Why am I here? What am I doing?
Speaker 2 (37:33):
I've never had a good first night in a house,
so maybe that's just me, but uh. In any case,
spend some time around what you're considering buying sleepovers eh
not for me?
Speaker 3 (37:46):
Quick break for the entire rest of the day.
Speaker 2 (37:48):
We'll see you tomorrow.
Popular Podcasts
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.
New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce
Football’s funniest family duo — Jason Kelce of the Philadelphia Eagles and Travis Kelce of the Kansas City Chiefs — team up to provide next-level access to life in the league as it unfolds. The two brothers and Super Bowl champions drop weekly insights about the weekly slate of games and share their INSIDE perspectives on trending NFL news and sports headlines. They also endlessly rag on each other as brothers do, chat the latest in pop culture and welcome some very popular and well-known friends to chat with them. Check out new episodes every Wednesday. Follow New Heights on the Wondery App, YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. You can listen to new episodes early and ad-free, and get exclusive content on Wondery+. Join Wondery+ in the Wondery App, Apple Podcasts or Spotify. And join our new membership for a unique fan experience by going to the New Heights YouTube channel now!
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.