September 11, 2024 • 38 mins
Chuck Zodda and Paul Lane discuss last night's presidential debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris and what each candidate said about key economic factors. Why will retirees get a smaller bump to Social Security next year? A recession signal is flashing red, or is it? Oil falls to $60 in a good sign for a global soft landing. The fight against inflation gets a big win as prices fall at the pump. Some young adults are opting out of parenthood. Money is a major reason, most say.
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 Paul Lane, 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 break in 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 KM and making a
donation today. The DAV five K Boston is presented by
(01:04):
Veterans Development Corporation. This is the Financial Exchange with Chuck
Zutta and Paul Lane.
Speaker 2 (01:12):
Chuck, Paul and Tucker with you here as we kick
off the second hour of the Financial Exchange. And we
got a whole bunch of red on the board as
we look through major indices. The Dow Jones Industrial Average
off six hundred and forty points about one and a
half percent, the S and P five hundred down seventy
points about one to quarter percent, and the NASDAK down
one hundred and fifty six points or about nine tenths
(01:34):
of a percent today, So a lot of red on
the board after a little bit of a bounce to
start the week, this largely erasing most of that so far.
Tenure US Treasury down one basis point to three point
sixty three percent. Oil is finding a little bit of
stability now. It's up twenty cents a barrel on West
Texas Intermediate to sixty five ninety five a barrel, but
(01:57):
the TRIPAA national average for gas prices continues to cone
now down to three twenty five and three tenths of ascent.
And we'll talk a little bit later in the hour
about where we expect gas prices to go in the
coming weeks here. And finally we've got gold today down
four dollars and ten cents an ounce to twenty five
(02:19):
thirty nine even, And so that is what we are
seeing moving in markets today, but again kind of a
risk off reversal thus far of what we have seen
otherwise this week. We'll see where things go in the afternoon,
just because again we've seen some intra day volatility, but
thus far not a great start to the day here.
(02:41):
Yesterday there was a small gathering of politicians to discuss
issues of the day. It was televised on ABC. I
believe it was called a debate, and during that there
was some discussion of economic ideas, not a ton quite honestly,
(03:04):
So most of it we're not really going to address
because we're a business show, and the other stuff is
not really relevant to what we look at, and quite honestly,
I don't have any idea about a lot of it
because our focus is this. But we did get some
talk about tariffs, about inflation, some talk about energy, talks
(03:25):
about jobs, things like that, and so I thought it
would be useful just to kind of go through some
of the key areas and you know, talk about what
was said and kind of a hey, how does this
actually play out for the US economy? And b are
these you know, legitimate claims that were being made by
(03:46):
Kamala Harris and Donald Trump. I'll start first with just
looking at the deficit side of things, because this is
one place where I continue to argue that there is
less room between these candidates. Then they want you to
believe in that. Kamal Harris said that the proposed budget
(04:07):
from another Trump administration would expand the deficit dramatically, which
is true. The counterpoint is that the proposed budget from
the what would be a Harris administration would expand the
deficit meaningfully as well. There is no conclusive plan by
either party or either candidate to make any full, meaningful
progress on the national debt full stop, Like no one's
(04:31):
dealt with it in forty five years, and no one
really is even at least twenty years ago. You could
kind of talk about it, Republicans would consistently say, yes,
this is what we want to do. Now. The budget
plans that you have are just not even you know,
trying to get there. Quite honestly, it's the issue that
drives me.
Speaker 3 (04:49):
The craziest chuck when it comes to the election cycle
is that it's never gonna be discussed and we're gonna
sit here and continue to bang our heads against our
deaths hoping that someone would address it. But cut and dry,
it's not going to get anyone votes by saying that
they're going to cut spending, even though it's the fiscally
prudent thing to at least discuss some ideas for that.
(05:12):
The other piece of the equation is to address national deficits.
You have to talk about increasing revenue. That means saxon increases,
which no one is going to be skipping to the
polls to vote for either. That frustrates me the most.
It just drives me insane that there's no mention of that,
and that is not going to change. Unfortunately, I just
(05:33):
have to continue to vent to.
Speaker 2 (05:35):
You here on the inflation side of things, Donald Trump
said that inflation was the worst in history during the
Biden years, which it was worse during the Carter years.
But that's it so well. Actually, even post World War
Two you had some higher inflation as well. So you've
had two periods in you know, kind of recorded economic
data that were worse, so not entirely true, but also
(05:58):
not really good company to be keeping the Biden administration.
And also Donald Trump said, hey, there was no inflation
when he was president. Bloomberg gets kind of like snippy, yeah,
like weasily on this where they're like, oh, well, the
inflation was actually two point five when he took office,
reached a high at two point nine, and then was
(06:19):
one point four when he left. Look, inflation around two
percent is where we've generally wanted it. I don't really
take exception to Donald Trump saying there was no inflation
when he was in office because.
Speaker 3 (06:30):
It was really low. It was not a concern. No,
I never talked about it.
Speaker 2 (06:34):
No one talked about it. So this is like a
little Weasley being like, hey, this is you know, a problem,
Like no, like there was basically no inflation while he
was in office. And I don't really have a problem
with him saying something like that. Other things that you
have here that were talked about on the jobs front,
(06:54):
let's see Donald Trump said that the Biden administration is
lost manufacturing jobs in the last couple months, which is
not true. You've actually seen worst numbers on the Biden
side than Trump said there was a loss of twenty
four thousand manufacturing jobs in August, not ten thousand. So
I guess this again is saying that like Trump was wrong,
(07:15):
but it's not. It was wrong by like a smaller
amount than the Biden administration actually lost. So I'm not
really sure what the fact check is on that. Other
things that we see here tariffs. A lot of discussions
about tariffs and whether or not they would end up
raising costs on end users. Your thoughts on what you've
(07:36):
seen there, Paul.
Speaker 3 (07:38):
To me, it's a concern because the proposed pan from
Donald Trump is to enact a ten percent across the
board tariffs on imporse and then increase the tariffs associated
with Chinese made goods to sixty percent. I've said it
on the show before, and I'll say it again. When
we finally have inflation under reasonable control, I think we
can all agree, and we talked about in the first
(07:59):
hour of the show that the progress made there is
pretty substantial. Our focus has kind of shifted to the
economy and the labor market to enact those type of
broad based tariffs not only in my view, would invite
retaliation from other nations taxing US Additionally, what you could
run into. I'm very convinced and economists have proven this
out that ultimately it does end up going down to
(08:21):
the end consumer who foots the bill for those types
of tariffs. Again, it's important to note that all these
political concepts of a plan, ideas or just potential policies
have to be taken with a grain salt chuck, because
you got to get into office, and you got to
get Congress on board with passing something. And it's just
(08:42):
I hate that I spent so much time last election
talking about Biden and tax increases and all this different
stuff that none of it came to fruition. So I
always want to make sure I mention that when we're
talking about proposed policies that they're a bit pie in
the sky until a couple things come into place.
Speaker 2 (08:57):
Most of the time you really don't have to pay
that close attention because they usually don't end up happening.
Show me yeah, other like, I'll just wrap up with
this one. On the energy side of things, Kamala Harris
says that she would not ban fracking hydraulic fracturing in
order to you know, drill for energy. Previously, Harris had
(09:18):
been in favor of a plan that would have banned fracking.
So again, potentially some changes from previously stated positions as well.
Again we'll see, you know what policy actually ends up
coming to be once you know, we know who's president,
once we see what they do. But generally a lot
of this stuff is rarely actually enacted. It's you don't
(09:44):
have like ten bills passing in a given year normally
about economic stuff just because you can't get Congress on
board usually. So I think that the main takeaway is, hey,
most of the stuff that's being talked about probably not
going to happen. A b there's a whole bunch of
claims that get thrown out in debates that are questionable
(10:06):
because that's kind of what you do in a debate,
is you kind of go up to that line in
some cases go through it. And quite honestly, I'm not
sure that we really learned anything new as a result
of this. From an economic perspective.
Speaker 4 (10:20):
Do markets care about last night?
Speaker 2 (10:23):
I don't really know how you would even measure it.
Speaker 3 (10:28):
I'm asking on a question I had looked back at
the last debate the Vics. At that point we were
in a very subdued period of time for volatility. It
was extremely low at that point. It did not move
significantly the following day. You can make the argument that
interest rates there was a bit of an uptick two
days after the first debate, But I am of the
(10:50):
proponent that these debates do very little to move markets.
The reason that markets are down today is the inflation
report and the idea of maybe fifty basis points being
off the table, or September just being a wonky month,
more so than anything that happened to the debate last night.
Speaker 2 (11:06):
Take a quick break here. When we come back, we'll
do a little bit of trivia, and then we're talking
social Security cost of living adjustments for next year.
Speaker 1 (11:14):
Right after this miss any of the show. Catch up
at your convenience by visiting Financial Exchange Show dot com
and clicking the on demand icon, where you'll find all
of our interviews in full shows. This is your home
for the latest business and financial news in New England
and around the country. This is the Financial Exchange Radio Network.
(11:34):
Text us six one, seven, three, six, two thirteen eighty
five with your comments and questions about today's show and
let us know what you think about the stories we
are covering. This is the Financial Exchange Radio Network.
Speaker 4 (11:54):
Still a little bit of trivia here on the Financial
Change and it's brought to you by Applebee's. Take your friends,
family to any area Applebe's and enjoy half price Lenette
appetizers after nine pm, including bonus swing spininch n arctoke
dip in warm pretzels dipped in beer cheese. And don't
forget to join Club Applebee's to enjoy exclusive deals and specials.
You'll get a free appetizer just for signing up. Now
(12:17):
that's even go in the neighborhood void. We're prohibited dine
in only well. As we all witnessed, last night was
the first presidential debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump.
The first televised presidential debate took place sixty four years ago.
Triviy question today which two candidates appeared in the first
(12:38):
televised presidential debate? Once again, which two candidates appeared in
the first televised presidential debate? Be the fifth person today
did Texas at six one, seven, three, six, two thirteen
eighty five with the correct answer, and you win a
Financial Shane Show T shirt and be registered to win
a one hundred dollars gift card to Applebe's.
Speaker 2 (12:58):
Be short.
Speaker 4 (12:59):
Include the key at Applebee's in your text, and we'll
give away that Applebe's kift card on Friday show six
one seven, three six two thirteen eighty five and the
fifth correct response will be our winner. See complete contest
rules at Financial Changshow dot com.
Speaker 2 (13:13):
Peece in the Wall Street Journal here retirees will get
a smaller Social Security raise in twenty twenty five, and
that's okay. What this gets at is that the cost
of living adjustment for next year for Social Security is
determined by the average inflation data for July, August, and September.
We've now received July and August. We have not yet
(13:36):
seen the September data. But the Senior Citizens League, who
forecasts this stuff, in order to kind of give a
heads up to seniors about what to expect on it,
they are projecting a two point six percent cost of
living adjustment for next year for the for Social Security.
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget thinks will be
between two point four and two point six percent. And
(13:59):
what this so do With a two point six percent
it would raise the average retirement benefits by fifty dollars
a month to nineteen hundred and sixty nine dollars. Again,
that's average. I know if you're listening your individual benefits
could be different, but that would be again some slower
growth in these payments. But ultimately it means it's because
you're seeing slower growth in overall inflation.
Speaker 3 (14:22):
Yeah, we've seen over the past three years acumulative increase
on the cost of living adjustments to about nineteen percent
from twenty one through twenty four here, but as you mentioned,
the pace of that is going to slow down. To
be clear, that eighteen or nine per pen percent doesn't
keep up in absolute lockstep with inflation on across the
(14:44):
board on some other items that have gone up significantly
more over that period of time. But some really good
pieces of information from this article here in the Wall
Street Journal piece, twenty percent of that fifty dollars increase
that the average Social Security benefit recipient is gonna receive
will be offset by the increase in Medicare premiums. They
are scheduled on the lowest level to go from one
(15:06):
hundred and seventy four dollars and seventy cents a month
to one hundred and eighty five dollars. That's according to
the Medicare Trustees estimate done back in May. So some
of the adjustment will be offseted by that increase in
Medicare premiums, which most people have debited from their monthly
payment from Social Security.
Speaker 2 (15:27):
And the part that is tough for retirees on this
is the if you think about and again, every retiree
is different. I mean, they're retirees that do all kinds
of stuff. But you talk to a lot of retirees
and the thing that you generally hear is, yeah, you know,
my life's pretty simple right now. I don't necessarily do
a ton, so you know, my discretionary expenses aren't that high,
(15:51):
and you know, mostly spending on you know, stuff around
the house and this and that. Think about where we've
seen big increases in costs in the last year too,
homeowner's insurance, auto insurance. You know, those are up double
digits in a lot of cases over the last year. Okay, this,
you know, two point six percent bump doesn't necessarily do
(16:12):
enough to help with that. On the other hand, places
where you've seen prices come down are places, you know,
cars and trucks and things like that. Okay, that's nice,
but those are kind of one off expenses. It's not
something that a retiree is going and buying every year,
so it doesn't necessarily help as much other places where
(16:33):
you've seen prices come down. Airline fares, Okay, this is
a good one if you are a retiree who likes
to travel. Those travel costs are lower right now than
a year ago, and so that is one area where
you have seen some improvement. Food from the CPI is
up two point one percent year over year, so again
kind of in line with the overall numbers. But I
(16:56):
do wonder how much those higher insurance costs in particular
are our impacting retirees that don't really have a great
way to figure out how to offset that, and the
cost of living adjustment on Social Security is just not
going to be enough to keep up with those in
a lot of cases, especially in parts of the country
that are seeing the biggest increases, which tend to be
retireing heav you think about places like Florida. So just
(17:20):
a consideration on that front. But again, the numbers won't
be finalized for another month or so, but probably somewhere
in the ballpark of a two and a half percent
adjustment for next year, give or take a tenth or
so of a percent.
Speaker 3 (17:36):
That sound about right, sounds fair to me.
Speaker 2 (17:39):
A recession signal is flashing red, or is it? That's
the headline from the Wall Street Journal. And it appears
that maybe Paul's stack was stapled differently or something, so
he doesn't have this piece. I don't know. Paul's scrambling looking.
Speaker 4 (17:55):
For it, so maybe Lutsky took it.
Speaker 2 (17:57):
I don't know, Paul. What do you think about this signal?
Speaker 3 (18:00):
I've got it here, don't you worry? Chuck?
Speaker 2 (18:02):
I thought we I didn't even tell you what the
signal was. I was hoping you didn't have the piece.
We're just gonna have to wing it on something.
Speaker 3 (18:08):
No, I've got my notes all ready to go. It's
it's pretty reminiscent to what we were sort of debating
about in the first hour, where I was sort of
taking the stance that historically, if you go back, the
piece that they're mentioning here as a recession signal is
interest rates. We had a yield curve that was inverted,
meaning that you could get a higher interest on a
(18:29):
shorter term maturity treasury such as a three month or
six month over the last two years versus buying a
US tenure treasury. Those have now uninverted on the two
year and tenure US treasury, where the US two year
treasury you can get for three point six three percent
right now, the tenure is sitting around three point sixty five. Typically,
when you have an inverted year clurve that has preceded
(18:51):
recessions historically. Similarly, when you have a uninverted yield curve
that has also preceded recessions, those are signals. They're not
by any means gospel that necessarily this is to occur.
They just historically have in the past.
Speaker 2 (19:05):
So that's where we stand right now. Again, the yield
curve normally is uninverted, but it's that uninversion happening that
people get a little bit nervous about as a signal
for what could happen with the US economy. Interesting data
point on this is, hey, even though this can lead
to economic and even market volatility, it's not something where Hey,
(19:27):
just because it the yield curve on inverts, markets inherently
sell off right away. That's not the case. Quick break here.
When we come back, we've got the trivia answer.
Speaker 1 (19:41):
Bringing the latest financial news straight to your radio every day.
It's the Financial Exchange on the Financial Exchange Radio Network.
Find daily interviews and full shows of the Financial Exchange
on our YouTube page. Like us on YouTube and get
caught up on anything and everything you might have mis
This is the Financial Exchange Radio Network.
Speaker 4 (20:05):
Trivia question today was which two candidates appeared in the
first televised presidential debate. It would be Kennedy and Nixon.
The first general election presidential debate was nineteen sixty. It
was September twenty sixth, nineteen sixty between JFK and Vice
President Richard Nixon. The Republican nominee, Chris from Sanborville, New Hampshire,
(20:28):
was our winner today, taking on a Financial Exchange Show
T shirt and Chris is also registered to win a
one hundred dollars gift card to Applebee's which you'll give
away on Friday. Show and Trivia is brought to you
by Applebee's. Enjoy half price late night appetizers after nine
pm and joint club Applebee's to enjoy exclusive deals and specials.
You'll get a free appetizer just for signing up. Now
(20:49):
that's he can go to the neighborhood void. We're prohibited
dying in.
Speaker 2 (20:53):
Only a couple of different energy related stories to get
into here. The first one from the bloomy Berg talking
about how oil now being in the sixties gives kind
of a wider runway for a soft landing globally because
it allows central banks to cut interest rates more quickly.
Your thoughts on this, Paul.
Speaker 3 (21:13):
I would argue that sentiment just because typically when the
US Federal Reserve is looking at inflation data core PCE,
we talk about a lot of for the FEDS preferred measure,
it strips out the impacts of energy and food. We
talked about that in the first hour of the show,
that that core data is strips out the noise from
(21:34):
energy because it can be so volatile. You and I
can sit here and talk about oil being in the sixties,
but I'm not gonna sit here and say that it
couldn't be in the eighties or ninety six months for now.
It's just so hard to predict. I'm not saying that
that is something that's going to occur, but the idea
of having lower oil prices and it having direct impact
(21:56):
on the Federal Reserve and its policy changes to me.
I don't feel as necessarily the case. Is it important
for overall consumer sentiment and just people's feelings on inflation, Yeah, absolutely,
but not in terms of policy impact.
Speaker 2 (22:08):
Yeah. I don't think the FED looks at oil prices
and assumes they're going to be moving any direction when
they're trying to enact policy, because I think they basically acknowledge,
we don't know where the heck thees are going to go,
and so we're going to manage everything else or try
to because we have no idea if oil is going
to be at fifty, seventy eighty or twenty a barrel
(22:29):
going forward.
Speaker 3 (22:30):
That's the one thing I've learned in this industry is
that I don't know and no one knows how to
project oil prices. It's just so difficult to do.
Speaker 2 (22:37):
No now what you are seeing here in terms of
gas prices, the triple A national average four gas prices
currently sits at three twenty five and three tenths of
a barrel. A month ago, it was at three forty four.
A year ago, it was at three eighty three, and
so you've seen, you know, a pretty sizable move down.
Now if you look at gasoline futures and the pricing
(23:01):
that you're seeing there, it is very much feasible that
we have another ten percent or so to fall. As
far as gas prices. What that means, it's a decent
chance that's somewhere around October first, you might be seeing
national gas prices at or below three dollars per gallon.
(23:21):
Now you've already got parts of the country where you're
below that on average, pretty much the entire southeast, aside
from Georgia and Virginia, you've got gas prices below three
dollars a gallon already at the moment. On the other hand,
you take a look at the western part of the country,
where again because of gas taxes and getting the stuff
out there, it's it's much higher. But again you look
(23:44):
at the numbers that we're seeing, and you've already got
large parts of the country that are below three dollars
a gallon, and quite honestly, that is going to very
likely spread over the rest of the country within the
next count read to four weeks. Now, there are some
states that are not gonna get anywhere close to three
(24:04):
a gallon, like, as an example, California at four seventy
four right now, sorry, you're not gonna have three dollars
gallon gas there. You might have four to fifty instead
of four to seventy five, but it's not gonna be
three a gallon. Hawaii at four sixty four likewise, sorry,
it's probably not happening for you. Washington State at one
I'm sorry, at four fifteen, not happening there. The New
(24:26):
England region, though, you've got some states that do have
the possibility to get into that area. Rhode Island's at
three twelve right now, it's heading under three probably, Connecticut
at three twenty five decent chance, Massachusetts three twenty four,
decent chance, New Hampshire at three twenty decent chance. From
onn at three thirty one. Kind of a coin flip,
I think, in Main at three twenty nine, coin flip ish.
(24:47):
But you got four out of the six New England
states that are probably heading to right around three dollars
a gallon, if not below three a gallon over the
next few weeks. So when we talk about the economic impact,
this huge potential savings for drivers and households, and this
is something that can also help then to offset some
of the slowness, because if you have in the aggregate
(25:09):
billions of dollars in spending that doesn't have to happen
on gas. It can potentially happen elsewhere, and that can
help to kind of buffet the US economy and provide
a little bit of support as well.
Speaker 3 (25:20):
Two biggest reasons for some of the gas declines that
we've seen. You know, China has really fallen off in
terms of their crude imports. It fell two point three
percent the first six months of the year, their endpoints,
their endpoints of oil, and their forecast for the remaining
six months. This was done back in July. This analysis
was rather bleaked too, so that is a big contributor.
(25:41):
We're also anticipating that the global oil production will increase
about one and a half million barrels a day this year,
even with some OPEC plus cuts sort of extended in there.
Speaker 2 (25:53):
And just to show you kind of how the math works,
if you look at a gallon of oil, I'm sorry,
not a count a barrel of oil. That was, you know,
kind of a dumb way to phrase this barrel of oil,
you're looking at forty two gallons. And so the US
in terms of gasoline goes through nine million gallons of
(26:15):
jeez buh, nine million barrels a day of gasoline. So
if you do the math out, it works out to
three hundred and eighty two million gallons a day that
the United States is using. If you see a twenty
five cent drop on a day, you know, in terms
of the price of gas, that's one hundred million dollars
(26:39):
a day, ninety five million dollars a day that Americans
are saving over the course of a month. You're talking
three billion dollars in cumulative savings over the course of
a year, thirty six billion dollars in cumulative savings. That
is money that can then be spent in other places
that in turn can help drive economic activities. So when
(27:00):
we see these moves and gas prices, it is something
that does create a meaningful shift potentially in the ability
for American families to either a save money and be
able to kind of replenish their savings and not relies
heavily on credit cards, which would be nice, or b
spend that money and say yes, like there's more economic
(27:22):
activity that's generated as a result of this. So I
think all of that is something to watch when we're
concerned about where the US economy is going lower gas
prices a nice little, you know, helping hand to offset
some of that slowness potentially. Also, we've got an event
happening from the Armstrong Advisory Group, actually a couple events
(27:45):
that are going to be happening in October. The first
is going to be a seminar at the MGM Springfield
on Tuesday, October eighth. The second one is going to
be at the Margaritaville Hotel and Resort in Hyanas on
October twenty fourth. That one, we're actually gonna have Ed Lambert,
host of the WXTK Morning Show, joining us there. It's
(28:07):
going to be a live broadcast of the Financial Exchange,
followed by an educational launch with the Armstrong Advisory Group.
Topics that we're going to be discussing upcoming presidential election
and the economic policies that both candidates have proposed, what
effect they may have on the current economic landscape, and
how potential market volatility can influence your investment decisions. You
(28:31):
can sign up for the nearest event by visiting Armstrong
Advisory dot com slash events. All you have to do
is fill out the form associated with the event that
you'd like to attend. That address again is Armstrong Advisory
dot com slash events.
Speaker 1 (28:48):
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, and estate planning advisors before making
any investment decisions. Armstrong make contact you to offer investment
advisory services.
Speaker 2 (29:04):
So when we talk about the growth of families these days,
we know that families are not the same size that
they were in previous decades. Uh and a quarter of
millennials and Gen zs without children say hey, we don't
want to become parents. This is according to a study
from Mass Mutual. And one of the key things that
(29:27):
they cite in this study is that a huge reason
why people are why these people are saying, hey, we
don't want to have kids is financial. Hey, it's tough
to afford to do so. And I'm gonna call Bologne
on this. And the reason that I'm gonna call bolone
is that even in parts of the world that have implemented,
(29:49):
you know, huge paid family leave options, South Korea tried
to do some significant childcare supplements and things like that,
where you know, the cost goes down significantly and availability
of parents goes up significantly. You have not seen a
meaningful shift in birth rates as a result. And so
(30:09):
I know that everyone wants to say that, hey, it's
it's you know, financial stuff is a key driver and
this and that, And it's not to say that having
kids is financially cheap. It's not. It's it's very expensive.
And I understand that it's a huge drawback, you know,
financially having kids. It's like it's a it's a huge
suck of money, like it is, But I don't believe
(30:31):
that that's actually the main reason why people are having
fewer kids, are choosing not to have kids.
Speaker 3 (30:35):
We're in agreement here. I was gonna come at this
the same way there. It may be a factor as
one of five in someone's decision to not have children,
but the other four are equally as significant in the decision.
It's ultimately a lifestyle decision, and while financials may play
a waiting in that pie, it's not the whole pie.
There's a lot of other reasons in place that would
(30:59):
lead to a family making that decision. So it's really
hard to come at it as just financial because we
can make the counterpoint that there have been countries that
have tried to make it more financially affordable to have kids,
and that doesn't stimulate birth rate. It's more these bigger,
broader decisions that families have to make as to whether
they want to go down that road.
Speaker 2 (31:18):
Take a quick break here. When we come back, it's
time for a little bit of stack Roulette.
Speaker 1 (31:24):
Breaking business and financial news first throughout the day, only
here on the Financial Exchange Radio Network. Miss any of
the show. The Financial Exchange Show podcast is available on Apple, Spotify,
and iHeartRadio. Hit the subscribe button and leave us a
five star review. This is the Financial Exchange Radio Network.
Speaker 4 (31:51):
This segment of the Financial Exchange is brought to a
part by the US Virgin Islands Department of Tourism. The
US Virgin Islands are Saint Croix, Saint Thomas, and Saint John.
Summer is just about over, so now's the time to
start looking at a fabulous holiday vacation, and there's no
better place than the US Virgin Islands. Enjoy perfect weather,
world class dining, incredible beaches and a vibrant nightlife. No
(32:12):
passport is needed, and there's no money to exchange. Take
your next vacation in America's Caribbean paradise the United States
Virgin Islands. Go to visit USBI dot com to book
your trip. That's visit USBI dot com.
Speaker 2 (32:24):
Paul, what do you have for me for stack roulette check?
Speaker 3 (32:27):
I want to talk a little bit about golf, and
specifically as how it ties into Callaway, who had purchased
Top Golf back in October of twenty twenty. Immediately when
the news was announced close to four years ago, the
stock went down nineteen percent. I think we can all
agree that Top Golf has a exciting offering that a
(32:48):
lot of people like to get out there and try
once in a while. But now I've never been to one.
Speaker 4 (32:53):
You gotta try it, you gotta go once.
Speaker 2 (32:56):
I'd like to go once. But again, they're expense they're
always busy.
Speaker 3 (33:01):
And that's what I want to get into is the
price to rent a bay. So one of the driving ranges,
just for one set up there is about one hundred
and fifty five bucks for a two hour session. Plus
you're talking food and drinks on top of that. So
to Chuck's point, it is relative relatively expensive to go
out there for the two hour period if you tack
on the assumed costs of food and beverage on top
(33:23):
of that. Golf meanwhile, has surged significantly since twenty twenty.
In fact, they've mentioned that it's been the most significant
uptick in golf since really twenty years ago when tiger
Mania really struck the United States. According to an equity
analyst at Raymond James. Unfortunately, as a result of this acquisition,
Cowways shares are down fifty two percent since they acquired
(33:45):
Top Golf. Top Golf had reported that their same store
or same venue stales had fallen about eight percent in
the second quarter. And this contrast amusement parks and bowling alleys,
which have done well during this period of time. There
just hasn't been the same appetite. And some of that's
tied into the fact that a lot of companies out
there that would use this for corporate events they've tightened
their belts a little bit, so they've seen a drop
(34:07):
off on sales there. So it really seems as if
Callaway acquired Top Golf kind of at the peak where
it was, you know, October of twenty twenty, and you
didn't have much to do. I can't recall what the
restrictions were at that point in time, but really a
free money sort of era.
Speaker 2 (34:24):
Tucker, you're a big golf guy, I know. Yeah, yes,
if you were the global president of golf, if you
ran golf around the world, how would you change the
game to get more people into it?
Speaker 4 (34:40):
I mean I don't think I would change really. I
mean the number one is figure out this PGA live crap, Like,
figure that out. Just get it over with. Get the good,
all the good golfers in the same league. Please sure,
because watching PGA on Sunday has really gone downhill quite frankly,
you don't want.
Speaker 2 (34:57):
To see it go the same way that IndyCar and
Kart went in the States where open wheel racing basically died.
Speaker 4 (35:02):
In I want to see the best of the best
compete against each other.
Speaker 2 (35:07):
I got some bigger things that I would I would do. Okay,
too many.
Speaker 4 (35:12):
Holes, It's okay, So you're talking about golf in general,
how would you change?
Speaker 3 (35:17):
God, get chuck out there.
Speaker 2 (35:19):
If you want to grow the game, it can't be
eighteen holes. And I know you can play nine if
you want, but like, I'll give you one, make it twelve.
Speaker 4 (35:28):
I'll give you one. More par three courses, maybe with
a couple par fours mixed in.
Speaker 2 (35:35):
And here's the other thing. I don't know if either
of you have ever looked into the economics of a
golf course, but they're generally awful unless you're like a
really premium course. You can't get enough people through there.
With the land requirements and water requirements and all the
stuff that you need in order to actually pay for it,
(35:55):
it's just not affordable for people that scale. And things
like par three courses where you don't need as much
land and water and things like that can absolutely make
it more palatable and it takes way less time. So
I think that golf is a sport that is so
inaccessible to so many people because the cost is really
high and the time commitment is huge. Paul. If you're
(36:19):
a basketball guy, right, you still play it all?
Speaker 3 (36:21):
Yeah? Pick up on Thursdays.
Speaker 2 (36:23):
How long do you play for?
Speaker 3 (36:24):
Probably the commitments from six to eight thirty eight?
Speaker 2 (36:29):
No, is that including a couple of beers? After looking
for two hours here?
Speaker 3 (36:32):
Two hours? Yeah, I would say two hours? Yeah, all right,
give me, it's such a hard time here. He answered
the question wrong in the first place.
Speaker 2 (36:38):
You're and you're out, you're done. What's the cost to you?
Speaker 3 (36:41):
This one is ten bucks that it hasn't moved for
about ten bucks a game. It's ten bucks for the night. Okay,
but this is because it's subsidized anyway, it's out there
cheap either way.
Speaker 2 (36:51):
It's not very expensive to do this stuff. And that's
why you see more people playing all these other sports.
You ever see like a bunch of people, like, how
many how many adult baseball leagues do you see? Not
many softball? You see some softball here on there. But
again it's you just don't see a ton of it
(37:12):
because these are sports that are cost prohibitive to get
into even to begin with. Yeah, and so it's just.
Speaker 3 (37:17):
I think to grow them. Softball does a good job
of making what is a difficult sport a little bit easier,
and golf could go down the same route where it's
pretty hard to hit a fastball traveling, not like old
people are throwing eighty eighty five, but it's hard to
hit a baseball in general. Softball makes that easier. Golf
needs something like that to make it easier, to make
it more accessible. Par Threes are a good example of that.
(37:38):
I was talking with friends who were out at Treehouse
Brewery in the Teeks area where they have a nine
horror colist. But it's it's part three, three large. I
think there's a par four, part five, but it's short.
I've played before you played it. It's pretty good, and
it's all about the food and drinks, and it gets
more people out there, and I think it gets younger
people out there too, because it's just for fun and
you're going to have drinks and.
Speaker 4 (37:59):
It's definitely way too intimidating to go out there as
an amateur.
Speaker 2 (38:03):
And you got to get the cost down and you
got to get the time commitment down because otherwise it's
like what I got to spend like five grand just
to get passable at this? No, that like that. That
just doesn't work. You've got to figure out a better way.
And I say, this is someone who loves golf, but
it's just it's not working for a lot of people.
We're done for the rest of the day. Back at
(38:24):
it tomorrow. On the Financial Exchange,
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 Paul Lane, 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 break in 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 KM and making a
donation today. The DAV five K Boston is presented by
(01:04):
Veterans Development Corporation. This is the Financial Exchange with Chuck
Zutta and Paul Lane.
Speaker 2 (01:12):
Chuck, Paul and Tucker with you here as we kick
off the second hour of the Financial Exchange. And we
got a whole bunch of red on the board as
we look through major indices. The Dow Jones Industrial Average
off six hundred and forty points about one and a
half percent, the S and P five hundred down seventy
points about one to quarter percent, and the NASDAK down
one hundred and fifty six points or about nine tenths
(01:34):
of a percent today, So a lot of red on
the board after a little bit of a bounce to
start the week, this largely erasing most of that so far.
Tenure US Treasury down one basis point to three point
sixty three percent. Oil is finding a little bit of
stability now. It's up twenty cents a barrel on West
Texas Intermediate to sixty five ninety five a barrel, but
(01:57):
the TRIPAA national average for gas prices continues to cone
now down to three twenty five and three tenths of ascent.
And we'll talk a little bit later in the hour
about where we expect gas prices to go in the
coming weeks here. And finally we've got gold today down
four dollars and ten cents an ounce to twenty five
(02:19):
thirty nine even, And so that is what we are
seeing moving in markets today, but again kind of a
risk off reversal thus far of what we have seen
otherwise this week. We'll see where things go in the afternoon,
just because again we've seen some intra day volatility, but
thus far not a great start to the day here.
(02:41):
Yesterday there was a small gathering of politicians to discuss
issues of the day. It was televised on ABC. I
believe it was called a debate, and during that there
was some discussion of economic ideas, not a ton quite honestly,
(03:04):
So most of it we're not really going to address
because we're a business show, and the other stuff is
not really relevant to what we look at, and quite honestly,
I don't have any idea about a lot of it
because our focus is this. But we did get some
talk about tariffs, about inflation, some talk about energy, talks
(03:25):
about jobs, things like that, and so I thought it
would be useful just to kind of go through some
of the key areas and you know, talk about what
was said and kind of a hey, how does this
actually play out for the US economy? And b are
these you know, legitimate claims that were being made by
(03:46):
Kamala Harris and Donald Trump. I'll start first with just
looking at the deficit side of things, because this is
one place where I continue to argue that there is
less room between these candidates. Then they want you to
believe in that. Kamal Harris said that the proposed budget
(04:07):
from another Trump administration would expand the deficit dramatically, which
is true. The counterpoint is that the proposed budget from
the what would be a Harris administration would expand the
deficit meaningfully as well. There is no conclusive plan by
either party or either candidate to make any full, meaningful
progress on the national debt full stop, Like no one's
(04:31):
dealt with it in forty five years, and no one
really is even at least twenty years ago. You could
kind of talk about it, Republicans would consistently say, yes,
this is what we want to do. Now. The budget
plans that you have are just not even you know,
trying to get there. Quite honestly, it's the issue that
drives me.
Speaker 3 (04:49):
The craziest chuck when it comes to the election cycle
is that it's never gonna be discussed and we're gonna
sit here and continue to bang our heads against our
deaths hoping that someone would address it. But cut and dry,
it's not going to get anyone votes by saying that
they're going to cut spending, even though it's the fiscally
prudent thing to at least discuss some ideas for that.
(05:12):
The other piece of the equation is to address national deficits.
You have to talk about increasing revenue. That means saxon increases,
which no one is going to be skipping to the
polls to vote for either. That frustrates me the most.
It just drives me insane that there's no mention of that,
and that is not going to change. Unfortunately, I just
(05:33):
have to continue to vent to.
Speaker 2 (05:35):
You here on the inflation side of things, Donald Trump
said that inflation was the worst in history during the
Biden years, which it was worse during the Carter years.
But that's it so well. Actually, even post World War
Two you had some higher inflation as well. So you've
had two periods in you know, kind of recorded economic
data that were worse, so not entirely true, but also
(05:58):
not really good company to be keeping the Biden administration.
And also Donald Trump said, hey, there was no inflation
when he was president. Bloomberg gets kind of like snippy, yeah,
like weasily on this where they're like, oh, well, the
inflation was actually two point five when he took office,
reached a high at two point nine, and then was
(06:19):
one point four when he left. Look, inflation around two
percent is where we've generally wanted it. I don't really
take exception to Donald Trump saying there was no inflation
when he was in office because.
Speaker 3 (06:30):
It was really low. It was not a concern. No,
I never talked about it.
Speaker 2 (06:34):
No one talked about it. So this is like a
little Weasley being like, hey, this is you know, a problem,
Like no, like there was basically no inflation while he
was in office. And I don't really have a problem
with him saying something like that. Other things that you
have here that were talked about on the jobs front,
(06:54):
let's see Donald Trump said that the Biden administration is
lost manufacturing jobs in the last couple months, which is
not true. You've actually seen worst numbers on the Biden
side than Trump said there was a loss of twenty
four thousand manufacturing jobs in August, not ten thousand. So
I guess this again is saying that like Trump was wrong,
(07:15):
but it's not. It was wrong by like a smaller
amount than the Biden administration actually lost. So I'm not
really sure what the fact check is on that. Other
things that we see here tariffs. A lot of discussions
about tariffs and whether or not they would end up
raising costs on end users. Your thoughts on what you've
(07:36):
seen there, Paul.
Speaker 3 (07:38):
To me, it's a concern because the proposed pan from
Donald Trump is to enact a ten percent across the
board tariffs on imporse and then increase the tariffs associated
with Chinese made goods to sixty percent. I've said it
on the show before, and I'll say it again. When
we finally have inflation under reasonable control, I think we
can all agree, and we talked about in the first
(07:59):
hour of the show that the progress made there is
pretty substantial. Our focus has kind of shifted to the
economy and the labor market to enact those type of
broad based tariffs not only in my view, would invite
retaliation from other nations taxing US Additionally, what you could
run into. I'm very convinced and economists have proven this
out that ultimately it does end up going down to
(08:21):
the end consumer who foots the bill for those types
of tariffs. Again, it's important to note that all these
political concepts of a plan, ideas or just potential policies
have to be taken with a grain salt chuck, because
you got to get into office, and you got to
get Congress on board with passing something. And it's just
(08:42):
I hate that I spent so much time last election
talking about Biden and tax increases and all this different
stuff that none of it came to fruition. So I
always want to make sure I mention that when we're
talking about proposed policies that they're a bit pie in
the sky until a couple things come into place.
Speaker 2 (08:57):
Most of the time you really don't have to pay
that close attention because they usually don't end up happening.
Show me yeah, other like, I'll just wrap up with
this one. On the energy side of things, Kamala Harris
says that she would not ban fracking hydraulic fracturing in
order to you know, drill for energy. Previously, Harris had
(09:18):
been in favor of a plan that would have banned fracking.
So again, potentially some changes from previously stated positions as well.
Again we'll see, you know what policy actually ends up
coming to be once you know, we know who's president,
once we see what they do. But generally a lot
of this stuff is rarely actually enacted. It's you don't
(09:44):
have like ten bills passing in a given year normally
about economic stuff just because you can't get Congress on
board usually. So I think that the main takeaway is, hey,
most of the stuff that's being talked about probably not
going to happen. A b there's a whole bunch of
claims that get thrown out in debates that are questionable
(10:06):
because that's kind of what you do in a debate,
is you kind of go up to that line in
some cases go through it. And quite honestly, I'm not
sure that we really learned anything new as a result
of this. From an economic perspective.
Speaker 4 (10:20):
Do markets care about last night?
Speaker 2 (10:23):
I don't really know how you would even measure it.
Speaker 3 (10:28):
I'm asking on a question I had looked back at
the last debate the Vics. At that point we were
in a very subdued period of time for volatility. It
was extremely low at that point. It did not move
significantly the following day. You can make the argument that
interest rates there was a bit of an uptick two
days after the first debate, But I am of the
(10:50):
proponent that these debates do very little to move markets.
The reason that markets are down today is the inflation
report and the idea of maybe fifty basis points being
off the table, or September just being a wonky month,
more so than anything that happened to the debate last night.
Speaker 2 (11:06):
Take a quick break here. When we come back, we'll
do a little bit of trivia, and then we're talking
social Security cost of living adjustments for next year.
Speaker 1 (11:14):
Right after this miss any of the show. Catch up
at your convenience by visiting Financial Exchange Show dot com
and clicking the on demand icon, where you'll find all
of our interviews in full shows. This is your home
for the latest business and financial news in New England
and around the country. This is the Financial Exchange Radio Network.
(11:34):
Text us six one, seven, three, six, two thirteen eighty
five with your comments and questions about today's show and
let us know what you think about the stories we
are covering. This is the Financial Exchange Radio Network.
Speaker 4 (11:54):
Still a little bit of trivia here on the Financial
Change and it's brought to you by Applebee's. Take your friends,
family to any area Applebe's and enjoy half price Lenette
appetizers after nine pm, including bonus swing spininch n arctoke
dip in warm pretzels dipped in beer cheese. And don't
forget to join Club Applebee's to enjoy exclusive deals and specials.
You'll get a free appetizer just for signing up. Now
(12:17):
that's even go in the neighborhood void. We're prohibited dine
in only well. As we all witnessed, last night was
the first presidential debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump.
The first televised presidential debate took place sixty four years ago.
Triviy question today which two candidates appeared in the first
(12:38):
televised presidential debate? Once again, which two candidates appeared in
the first televised presidential debate? Be the fifth person today
did Texas at six one, seven, three, six, two thirteen
eighty five with the correct answer, and you win a
Financial Shane Show T shirt and be registered to win
a one hundred dollars gift card to Applebe's.
Speaker 2 (12:58):
Be short.
Speaker 4 (12:59):
Include the key at Applebee's in your text, and we'll
give away that Applebe's kift card on Friday show six
one seven, three six two thirteen eighty five and the
fifth correct response will be our winner. See complete contest
rules at Financial Changshow dot com.
Speaker 2 (13:13):
Peece in the Wall Street Journal here retirees will get
a smaller Social Security raise in twenty twenty five, and
that's okay. What this gets at is that the cost
of living adjustment for next year for Social Security is
determined by the average inflation data for July, August, and September.
We've now received July and August. We have not yet
(13:36):
seen the September data. But the Senior Citizens League, who
forecasts this stuff, in order to kind of give a
heads up to seniors about what to expect on it,
they are projecting a two point six percent cost of
living adjustment for next year for the for Social Security.
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget thinks will be
between two point four and two point six percent. And
(13:59):
what this so do With a two point six percent
it would raise the average retirement benefits by fifty dollars
a month to nineteen hundred and sixty nine dollars. Again,
that's average. I know if you're listening your individual benefits
could be different, but that would be again some slower
growth in these payments. But ultimately it means it's because
you're seeing slower growth in overall inflation.
Speaker 3 (14:22):
Yeah, we've seen over the past three years acumulative increase
on the cost of living adjustments to about nineteen percent
from twenty one through twenty four here, but as you mentioned,
the pace of that is going to slow down. To
be clear, that eighteen or nine per pen percent doesn't
keep up in absolute lockstep with inflation on across the
(14:44):
board on some other items that have gone up significantly
more over that period of time. But some really good
pieces of information from this article here in the Wall
Street Journal piece, twenty percent of that fifty dollars increase
that the average Social Security benefit recipient is gonna receive
will be offset by the increase in Medicare premiums. They
are scheduled on the lowest level to go from one
(15:06):
hundred and seventy four dollars and seventy cents a month
to one hundred and eighty five dollars. That's according to
the Medicare Trustees estimate done back in May. So some
of the adjustment will be offseted by that increase in
Medicare premiums, which most people have debited from their monthly
payment from Social Security.
Speaker 2 (15:27):
And the part that is tough for retirees on this
is the if you think about and again, every retiree
is different. I mean, they're retirees that do all kinds
of stuff. But you talk to a lot of retirees
and the thing that you generally hear is, yeah, you know,
my life's pretty simple right now. I don't necessarily do
a ton, so you know, my discretionary expenses aren't that high,
(15:51):
and you know, mostly spending on you know, stuff around
the house and this and that. Think about where we've
seen big increases in costs in the last year too,
homeowner's insurance, auto insurance. You know, those are up double
digits in a lot of cases over the last year. Okay, this,
you know, two point six percent bump doesn't necessarily do
(16:12):
enough to help with that. On the other hand, places
where you've seen prices come down are places, you know,
cars and trucks and things like that. Okay, that's nice,
but those are kind of one off expenses. It's not
something that a retiree is going and buying every year,
so it doesn't necessarily help as much other places where
(16:33):
you've seen prices come down. Airline fares, Okay, this is
a good one if you are a retiree who likes
to travel. Those travel costs are lower right now than
a year ago, and so that is one area where
you have seen some improvement. Food from the CPI is
up two point one percent year over year, so again
kind of in line with the overall numbers. But I
(16:56):
do wonder how much those higher insurance costs in particular
are our impacting retirees that don't really have a great
way to figure out how to offset that, and the
cost of living adjustment on Social Security is just not
going to be enough to keep up with those in
a lot of cases, especially in parts of the country
that are seeing the biggest increases, which tend to be
retireing heav you think about places like Florida. So just
(17:20):
a consideration on that front. But again, the numbers won't
be finalized for another month or so, but probably somewhere
in the ballpark of a two and a half percent
adjustment for next year, give or take a tenth or
so of a percent.
Speaker 3 (17:36):
That sound about right, sounds fair to me.
Speaker 2 (17:39):
A recession signal is flashing red, or is it? That's
the headline from the Wall Street Journal. And it appears
that maybe Paul's stack was stapled differently or something, so
he doesn't have this piece. I don't know. Paul's scrambling looking.
Speaker 4 (17:55):
For it, so maybe Lutsky took it.
Speaker 2 (17:57):
I don't know, Paul. What do you think about this signal?
Speaker 3 (18:00):
I've got it here, don't you worry? Chuck?
Speaker 2 (18:02):
I thought we I didn't even tell you what the
signal was. I was hoping you didn't have the piece.
We're just gonna have to wing it on something.
Speaker 3 (18:08):
No, I've got my notes all ready to go. It's
it's pretty reminiscent to what we were sort of debating
about in the first hour, where I was sort of
taking the stance that historically, if you go back, the
piece that they're mentioning here as a recession signal is
interest rates. We had a yield curve that was inverted,
meaning that you could get a higher interest on a
(18:29):
shorter term maturity treasury such as a three month or
six month over the last two years versus buying a
US tenure treasury. Those have now uninverted on the two
year and tenure US treasury, where the US two year
treasury you can get for three point six three percent
right now, the tenure is sitting around three point sixty five. Typically,
when you have an inverted year clurve that has preceded
(18:51):
recessions historically. Similarly, when you have a uninverted yield curve
that has also preceded recessions, those are signals. They're not
by any means gospel that necessarily this is to occur.
They just historically have in the past.
Speaker 2 (19:05):
So that's where we stand right now. Again, the yield
curve normally is uninverted, but it's that uninversion happening that
people get a little bit nervous about as a signal
for what could happen with the US economy. Interesting data
point on this is, hey, even though this can lead
to economic and even market volatility, it's not something where Hey,
(19:27):
just because it the yield curve on inverts, markets inherently
sell off right away. That's not the case. Quick break here.
When we come back, we've got the trivia answer.
Speaker 1 (19:41):
Bringing the latest financial news straight to your radio every day.
It's the Financial Exchange on the Financial Exchange Radio Network.
Find daily interviews and full shows of the Financial Exchange
on our YouTube page. Like us on YouTube and get
caught up on anything and everything you might have mis
This is the Financial Exchange Radio Network.
Speaker 4 (20:05):
Trivia question today was which two candidates appeared in the
first televised presidential debate. It would be Kennedy and Nixon.
The first general election presidential debate was nineteen sixty. It
was September twenty sixth, nineteen sixty between JFK and Vice
President Richard Nixon. The Republican nominee, Chris from Sanborville, New Hampshire,
(20:28):
was our winner today, taking on a Financial Exchange Show
T shirt and Chris is also registered to win a
one hundred dollars gift card to Applebee's which you'll give
away on Friday. Show and Trivia is brought to you
by Applebee's. Enjoy half price late night appetizers after nine
pm and joint club Applebee's to enjoy exclusive deals and specials.
You'll get a free appetizer just for signing up. Now
(20:49):
that's he can go to the neighborhood void. We're prohibited
dying in.
Speaker 2 (20:53):
Only a couple of different energy related stories to get
into here. The first one from the bloomy Berg talking
about how oil now being in the sixties gives kind
of a wider runway for a soft landing globally because
it allows central banks to cut interest rates more quickly.
Your thoughts on this, Paul.
Speaker 3 (21:13):
I would argue that sentiment just because typically when the
US Federal Reserve is looking at inflation data core PCE,
we talk about a lot of for the FEDS preferred measure,
it strips out the impacts of energy and food. We
talked about that in the first hour of the show,
that that core data is strips out the noise from
(21:34):
energy because it can be so volatile. You and I
can sit here and talk about oil being in the sixties,
but I'm not gonna sit here and say that it
couldn't be in the eighties or ninety six months for now.
It's just so hard to predict. I'm not saying that
that is something that's going to occur, but the idea
of having lower oil prices and it having direct impact
(21:56):
on the Federal Reserve and its policy changes to me.
I don't feel as necessarily the case. Is it important
for overall consumer sentiment and just people's feelings on inflation, Yeah, absolutely,
but not in terms of policy impact.
Speaker 2 (22:08):
Yeah. I don't think the FED looks at oil prices
and assumes they're going to be moving any direction when
they're trying to enact policy, because I think they basically acknowledge,
we don't know where the heck thees are going to go,
and so we're going to manage everything else or try
to because we have no idea if oil is going
to be at fifty, seventy eighty or twenty a barrel
(22:29):
going forward.
Speaker 3 (22:30):
That's the one thing I've learned in this industry is
that I don't know and no one knows how to
project oil prices. It's just so difficult to do.
Speaker 2 (22:37):
No now what you are seeing here in terms of
gas prices, the triple A national average four gas prices
currently sits at three twenty five and three tenths of
a barrel. A month ago, it was at three forty four.
A year ago, it was at three eighty three, and
so you've seen, you know, a pretty sizable move down.
Now if you look at gasoline futures and the pricing
(23:01):
that you're seeing there, it is very much feasible that
we have another ten percent or so to fall. As
far as gas prices. What that means, it's a decent
chance that's somewhere around October first, you might be seeing
national gas prices at or below three dollars per gallon.
(23:21):
Now you've already got parts of the country where you're
below that on average, pretty much the entire southeast, aside
from Georgia and Virginia, you've got gas prices below three
dollars a gallon already at the moment. On the other hand,
you take a look at the western part of the country,
where again because of gas taxes and getting the stuff
out there, it's it's much higher. But again you look
(23:44):
at the numbers that we're seeing, and you've already got
large parts of the country that are below three dollars
a gallon, and quite honestly, that is going to very
likely spread over the rest of the country within the
next count read to four weeks. Now, there are some
states that are not gonna get anywhere close to three
(24:04):
a gallon, like, as an example, California at four seventy
four right now, sorry, you're not gonna have three dollars
gallon gas there. You might have four to fifty instead
of four to seventy five, but it's not gonna be
three a gallon. Hawaii at four sixty four likewise, sorry,
it's probably not happening for you. Washington State at one
I'm sorry, at four fifteen, not happening there. The New
(24:26):
England region, though, you've got some states that do have
the possibility to get into that area. Rhode Island's at
three twelve right now, it's heading under three probably, Connecticut
at three twenty five decent chance, Massachusetts three twenty four,
decent chance, New Hampshire at three twenty decent chance. From
onn at three thirty one. Kind of a coin flip,
I think, in Main at three twenty nine, coin flip ish.
(24:47):
But you got four out of the six New England
states that are probably heading to right around three dollars
a gallon, if not below three a gallon over the
next few weeks. So when we talk about the economic impact,
this huge potential savings for drivers and households, and this
is something that can also help then to offset some
of the slowness, because if you have in the aggregate
(25:09):
billions of dollars in spending that doesn't have to happen
on gas. It can potentially happen elsewhere, and that can
help to kind of buffet the US economy and provide
a little bit of support as well.
Speaker 3 (25:20):
Two biggest reasons for some of the gas declines that
we've seen. You know, China has really fallen off in
terms of their crude imports. It fell two point three
percent the first six months of the year, their endpoints,
their endpoints of oil, and their forecast for the remaining
six months. This was done back in July. This analysis
was rather bleaked too, so that is a big contributor.
(25:41):
We're also anticipating that the global oil production will increase
about one and a half million barrels a day this year,
even with some OPEC plus cuts sort of extended in there.
Speaker 2 (25:53):
And just to show you kind of how the math works,
if you look at a gallon of oil, I'm sorry,
not a count a barrel of oil. That was, you know,
kind of a dumb way to phrase this barrel of oil,
you're looking at forty two gallons. And so the US
in terms of gasoline goes through nine million gallons of
(26:15):
jeez buh, nine million barrels a day of gasoline. So
if you do the math out, it works out to
three hundred and eighty two million gallons a day that
the United States is using. If you see a twenty
five cent drop on a day, you know, in terms
of the price of gas, that's one hundred million dollars
(26:39):
a day, ninety five million dollars a day that Americans
are saving over the course of a month. You're talking
three billion dollars in cumulative savings over the course of
a year, thirty six billion dollars in cumulative savings. That
is money that can then be spent in other places
that in turn can help drive economic activities. So when
(27:00):
we see these moves and gas prices, it is something
that does create a meaningful shift potentially in the ability
for American families to either a save money and be
able to kind of replenish their savings and not relies
heavily on credit cards, which would be nice, or b
spend that money and say yes, like there's more economic
(27:22):
activity that's generated as a result of this. So I
think all of that is something to watch when we're
concerned about where the US economy is going lower gas
prices a nice little, you know, helping hand to offset
some of that slowness potentially. Also, we've got an event
happening from the Armstrong Advisory Group, actually a couple events
(27:45):
that are going to be happening in October. The first
is going to be a seminar at the MGM Springfield
on Tuesday, October eighth. The second one is going to
be at the Margaritaville Hotel and Resort in Hyanas on
October twenty fourth. That one, we're actually gonna have Ed Lambert,
host of the WXTK Morning Show, joining us there. It's
(28:07):
going to be a live broadcast of the Financial Exchange,
followed by an educational launch with the Armstrong Advisory Group.
Topics that we're going to be discussing upcoming presidential election
and the economic policies that both candidates have proposed, what
effect they may have on the current economic landscape, and
how potential market volatility can influence your investment decisions. You
(28:31):
can sign up for the nearest event by visiting Armstrong
Advisory dot com slash events. All you have to do
is fill out the form associated with the event that
you'd like to attend. That address again is Armstrong Advisory
dot com slash events.
Speaker 1 (28:48):
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, and estate planning advisors before making
any investment decisions. Armstrong make contact you to offer investment
advisory services.
Speaker 2 (29:04):
So when we talk about the growth of families these days,
we know that families are not the same size that
they were in previous decades. Uh and a quarter of
millennials and Gen zs without children say hey, we don't
want to become parents. This is according to a study
from Mass Mutual. And one of the key things that
(29:27):
they cite in this study is that a huge reason
why people are why these people are saying, hey, we
don't want to have kids is financial. Hey, it's tough
to afford to do so. And I'm gonna call Bologne
on this. And the reason that I'm gonna call bolone
is that even in parts of the world that have implemented,
(29:49):
you know, huge paid family leave options, South Korea tried
to do some significant childcare supplements and things like that,
where you know, the cost goes down significantly and availability
of parents goes up significantly. You have not seen a
meaningful shift in birth rates as a result. And so
(30:09):
I know that everyone wants to say that, hey, it's
it's you know, financial stuff is a key driver and
this and that, And it's not to say that having
kids is financially cheap. It's not. It's it's very expensive.
And I understand that it's a huge drawback, you know,
financially having kids. It's like it's a it's a huge
suck of money, like it is, But I don't believe
(30:31):
that that's actually the main reason why people are having
fewer kids, are choosing not to have kids.
Speaker 3 (30:35):
We're in agreement here. I was gonna come at this
the same way there. It may be a factor as
one of five in someone's decision to not have children,
but the other four are equally as significant in the decision.
It's ultimately a lifestyle decision, and while financials may play
a waiting in that pie, it's not the whole pie.
There's a lot of other reasons in place that would
(30:59):
lead to a family making that decision. So it's really
hard to come at it as just financial because we
can make the counterpoint that there have been countries that
have tried to make it more financially affordable to have kids,
and that doesn't stimulate birth rate. It's more these bigger,
broader decisions that families have to make as to whether
they want to go down that road.
Speaker 2 (31:18):
Take a quick break here. When we come back, it's
time for a little bit of stack Roulette.
Speaker 1 (31:24):
Breaking business and financial news first throughout the day, only
here on the Financial Exchange Radio Network. Miss any of
the show. The Financial Exchange Show podcast is available on Apple, Spotify,
and iHeartRadio. Hit the subscribe button and leave us a
five star review. This is the Financial Exchange Radio Network.
Speaker 4 (31:51):
This segment of the Financial Exchange is brought to a
part by the US Virgin Islands Department of Tourism. The
US Virgin Islands are Saint Croix, Saint Thomas, and Saint John.
Summer is just about over, so now's the time to
start looking at a fabulous holiday vacation, and there's no
better place than the US Virgin Islands. Enjoy perfect weather,
world class dining, incredible beaches and a vibrant nightlife. No
(32:12):
passport is needed, and there's no money to exchange. Take
your next vacation in America's Caribbean paradise the United States
Virgin Islands. Go to visit USBI dot com to book
your trip. That's visit USBI dot com.
Speaker 2 (32:24):
Paul, what do you have for me for stack roulette check?
Speaker 3 (32:27):
I want to talk a little bit about golf, and
specifically as how it ties into Callaway, who had purchased
Top Golf back in October of twenty twenty. Immediately when
the news was announced close to four years ago, the
stock went down nineteen percent. I think we can all
agree that Top Golf has a exciting offering that a
(32:48):
lot of people like to get out there and try
once in a while. But now I've never been to one.
Speaker 4 (32:53):
You gotta try it, you gotta go once.
Speaker 2 (32:56):
I'd like to go once. But again, they're expense they're
always busy.
Speaker 3 (33:01):
And that's what I want to get into is the
price to rent a bay. So one of the driving ranges,
just for one set up there is about one hundred
and fifty five bucks for a two hour session. Plus
you're talking food and drinks on top of that. So
to Chuck's point, it is relative relatively expensive to go
out there for the two hour period if you tack
on the assumed costs of food and beverage on top
(33:23):
of that. Golf meanwhile, has surged significantly since twenty twenty.
In fact, they've mentioned that it's been the most significant
uptick in golf since really twenty years ago when tiger
Mania really struck the United States. According to an equity
analyst at Raymond James. Unfortunately, as a result of this acquisition,
Cowways shares are down fifty two percent since they acquired
(33:45):
Top Golf. Top Golf had reported that their same store
or same venue stales had fallen about eight percent in
the second quarter. And this contrast amusement parks and bowling alleys,
which have done well during this period of time. There
just hasn't been the same appetite. And some of that's
tied into the fact that a lot of companies out
there that would use this for corporate events they've tightened
their belts a little bit, so they've seen a drop
(34:07):
off on sales there. So it really seems as if
Callaway acquired Top Golf kind of at the peak where
it was, you know, October of twenty twenty, and you
didn't have much to do. I can't recall what the
restrictions were at that point in time, but really a
free money sort of era.
Speaker 2 (34:24):
Tucker, you're a big golf guy, I know. Yeah, yes,
if you were the global president of golf, if you
ran golf around the world, how would you change the
game to get more people into it?
Speaker 4 (34:40):
I mean I don't think I would change really. I
mean the number one is figure out this PGA live crap, Like,
figure that out. Just get it over with. Get the good,
all the good golfers in the same league. Please sure,
because watching PGA on Sunday has really gone downhill quite frankly,
you don't want.
Speaker 2 (34:57):
To see it go the same way that IndyCar and
Kart went in the States where open wheel racing basically died.
Speaker 4 (35:02):
In I want to see the best of the best
compete against each other.
Speaker 2 (35:07):
I got some bigger things that I would I would do. Okay,
too many.
Speaker 4 (35:12):
Holes, It's okay, So you're talking about golf in general,
how would you change?
Speaker 3 (35:17):
God, get chuck out there.
Speaker 2 (35:19):
If you want to grow the game, it can't be
eighteen holes. And I know you can play nine if
you want, but like, I'll give you one, make it twelve.
Speaker 4 (35:28):
I'll give you one. More par three courses, maybe with
a couple par fours mixed in.
Speaker 2 (35:35):
And here's the other thing. I don't know if either
of you have ever looked into the economics of a
golf course, but they're generally awful unless you're like a
really premium course. You can't get enough people through there.
With the land requirements and water requirements and all the
stuff that you need in order to actually pay for it,
(35:55):
it's just not affordable for people that scale. And things
like par three courses where you don't need as much
land and water and things like that can absolutely make
it more palatable and it takes way less time. So
I think that golf is a sport that is so
inaccessible to so many people because the cost is really
high and the time commitment is huge. Paul. If you're
(36:19):
a basketball guy, right, you still play it all?
Speaker 3 (36:21):
Yeah? Pick up on Thursdays.
Speaker 2 (36:23):
How long do you play for?
Speaker 3 (36:24):
Probably the commitments from six to eight thirty eight?
Speaker 2 (36:29):
No, is that including a couple of beers? After looking
for two hours here?
Speaker 3 (36:32):
Two hours? Yeah, I would say two hours? Yeah, all right,
give me, it's such a hard time here. He answered
the question wrong in the first place.
Speaker 2 (36:38):
You're and you're out, you're done. What's the cost to you?
Speaker 3 (36:41):
This one is ten bucks that it hasn't moved for
about ten bucks a game. It's ten bucks for the night. Okay,
but this is because it's subsidized anyway, it's out there
cheap either way.
Speaker 2 (36:51):
It's not very expensive to do this stuff. And that's
why you see more people playing all these other sports.
You ever see like a bunch of people, like, how
many how many adult baseball leagues do you see? Not
many softball? You see some softball here on there. But
again it's you just don't see a ton of it
(37:12):
because these are sports that are cost prohibitive to get
into even to begin with. Yeah, and so it's just.
Speaker 3 (37:17):
I think to grow them. Softball does a good job
of making what is a difficult sport a little bit easier,
and golf could go down the same route where it's
pretty hard to hit a fastball traveling, not like old
people are throwing eighty eighty five, but it's hard to
hit a baseball in general. Softball makes that easier. Golf
needs something like that to make it easier, to make
it more accessible. Par Threes are a good example of that.
(37:38):
I was talking with friends who were out at Treehouse
Brewery in the Teeks area where they have a nine
horror colist. But it's it's part three, three large. I
think there's a par four, part five, but it's short.
I've played before you played it. It's pretty good, and
it's all about the food and drinks, and it gets
more people out there, and I think it gets younger
people out there too, because it's just for fun and
you're going to have drinks and.
Speaker 4 (37:59):
It's definitely way too intimidating to go out there as
an amateur.
Speaker 2 (38:03):
And you got to get the cost down and you
got to get the time commitment down because otherwise it's
like what I got to spend like five grand just
to get passable at this? No, that like that. That
just doesn't work. You've got to figure out a better way.
And I say, this is someone who loves golf, but
it's just it's not working for a lot of people.
We're done for the rest of the day. Back at
(38:24):
it tomorrow. On the Financial Exchange,
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
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.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.