August 21, 2025 • 36 mins
Chuck Zodda and Paul Lane discuss which entity is more important to the stock market, the Fed of Nvidia. America's housing crisis is a job for congress. Some retirees are too frugal. CME teams with Fanduel to launch betting on financial markets. Landline phones are making a comeback, thanks to kids.
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 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 bus and making
a donation today. This is the Financial Exchange with Chuck
(01:05):
Zada and Paul Lane.
Speaker 2 (01:09):
Chuck, Paul and Tucker with you and taking a look
around markets. We've got a very small sell off taking
place today thus far. The Dow Jones Industrial Average down
one hundred and eight points about a quarter percent, the
S and P five hundred down fourteen points, about a
quarter percent, the Nasdaq Composite down thirty eight points about
(01:29):
a quarter percent. So just again some continued down downward
drift here, but nothing exciting in either direction. When it
comes to equities. When we take a look at the
bond market, we got again kind of a modest sell
off taking place here the ten year treasury of four
basis points to four point three three seven percent. Mortgage
(01:51):
News Daily currently has the national average for thirty year
fixed rate mortgages at six point sixty one. That'll probably
tick up to six sixty five or somewhere in that
range in response once we get the afternoon update there.
But mortgage rates continuing to hold in the mid sixes.
I you know, once you get above six and two thirds,
(02:11):
I guess that gets you to high sixes, but just
kind of hanging out where they've been for quite a
while at this point. When we take a look at oil,
We've got West Text Intermediate up twenty nine cents, barrel
to sixty three dollars right on the nose, and Gold
today is down a dollar seventy and ounce to thirty three,
eighty six and eighty cents. We are now going to
(02:36):
try to answer one of the age old questions about investing.
What matters more to the stock market? The FED or Nvidia?
And the answer is the Fed. Quite honestly, this is
not a real question. It is because this is a
real piece that The New York Times published, But ultimately
(02:58):
it's the Fed because of J. Powell pushed the wrong
button when he, you know, wakes up every six weeks.
The FED could move markets far more than in Vidia
does on a daily basis.
Speaker 3 (03:09):
Could but I don't think will have as much impact
his speech on Friday versus in Video's earnings next Thursday.
My view is that in Videa's earnings will be more
impactful to shifting the market because I feel that he's
gonna play it down the middle.
Speaker 2 (03:25):
How are we gonna measure this? Are you gonna measure
it based on performance the next day, the next week?
How do you want to approach it? So?
Speaker 3 (03:33):
In Video are they a morning report.
Speaker 2 (03:35):
Are they closed?
Speaker 3 (03:37):
Okay? So it's next Thursday, right, next Thursday. So Friday's
market moves, why.
Speaker 2 (03:43):
Don't we do the three trading days after?
Speaker 3 (03:46):
Oh, I was just gonna go day after immediate reaction.
First move is always wrong, but it's implying action one
way or another.
Speaker 2 (03:54):
It is. But if that action subsequently gets reversed, did
anything really happen.
Speaker 3 (03:59):
At the close of the day? You know what I'm saying?
Speaker 2 (04:01):
Yeah, you know how many times have we seen? Like
even just go back to the jobs report a few
weeks ago that Friday SMP's down one hundred, Monday up ninety.
Why do we put two different shirts on? Why didn't
we just stay home and call it a day?
Speaker 3 (04:16):
So here we're gonna go prediction here. So you're gonna
say that the Fed speech tomorrow will have more impact
on I will say that an afternoon speech tour. That's
a morning.
Speaker 2 (04:26):
It's morning, but I'll include tomorrow if you want you
tell me, do you want me to do Friday Monday
Tuesday or Monday Tuesday, Wednesday, Friday Monday Tuesday? Okay, So
I think there will be a greater magnitude market move.
Looking at are we doing S and P five hundred
nasdak because if it's Nasdak in video is a bigger.
Speaker 3 (04:47):
Chunk more fair.
Speaker 2 (04:49):
Okay, I think there will be a bigger move in
either direction the three days post Powell versus three days
post and video. Let's do it, Okay, look it in
there we go, Tucker, you got that up on the board.
Speaker 1 (05:03):
Yep.
Speaker 3 (05:03):
Okay, it's a nice short payoff. It is.
Speaker 2 (05:05):
It's it's not you know, hyperloop in ten years, which
I think we still have three more years to wait
until we can pay that off. But it's not looking
good for me.
Speaker 3 (05:14):
And I'll just never come back to the show if
I'm wrong.
Speaker 2 (05:16):
The uh no, we have to have you back on
so we can tell you you're wrong. Nope, nope, no.
So the big thing is in Vidia obviously is the
biggest company or second biggest company in the S and
P five hundred by market cap on any given day.
Right now, it currently makes up about just under eight
(05:39):
percent of the S and P five hundred, So it's
not uncommon for in Vidio. I still have you know,
five to six percent moves in a single day, and
it can drag along, you know, the Microsoft and Amazons
and medicine googles of the world as well. But ultimately,
all of this, in my opinion, comes back to one thing,
(05:59):
which is, look, what's the price of money? And that's
what Jay Powell and the gang set on a regular basis.
They tell you how expensive it is to borrow, lend
whatever you want to be doing, at least as you know,
benchmark rates and things like that. So I think, look,
in the two things are true actually in the last
(06:23):
three years, because it's really been twenty three, twenty four,
and twenty five that AI has been the thing. It
was late twenty two when when Chad GBRT was unveiled
to us. The first is that obviously in Nvidia has
just been on an absolute tear during that time, and it,
along with the other tech companies, has been the dominant
market force out there. It's also true that if Powell
(06:46):
and crew screwed up now, things could have gone very differently,
you know, depending on how the economy would have moved.
So I think I continue to think there is no
force in the financial universe that has the gravity that
the FED does. In Vidia is far and away the
most powerful equity mover out there, but it still can't
(07:11):
move the whole market like the FED does.
Speaker 3 (07:13):
My whole The reason for my prediction is that not
that the FED doesn't have the power to influence the
market more. They certainly do, but the path that they're
trending on, which is sort of this weight and see approach,
I just think in the near term they're not going
to say much that it's going to move the markets
as much as in Vidia could potentially move the markets
because all the earnings power has accreeded to in Vidia
(07:36):
during this AI boom period. Valuations, don't get me wrong,
have increased for other companies as a result of this,
but in Vidia is the one that's captured the majority
of the earnings PI and if there's any dent to
that story for some reason that they're not seeing as
much in terms of demand for their chips, I think
that could substantially leave a lot of AI companies in
(07:58):
a really bad spot from evaluations sandpoint, I don't necessarily
anticipate that next week, or conversely, if there is still
tremendous momentum there perhaps moves in the other direction, but
we shall see.
Speaker 2 (08:10):
Yeah, the uh, look, if you talk about other if
you talk about the companies that actually sell the AI products,
they're not making much revenue from them right now. And
the problem with look that, the problem is not just
making much revenue, it's how do you turn that revenue
into actual profit because you're spending a ton on data
(08:34):
center construction and at some point that's gonna end up
being untenable. It's not yet because everyone still is just
you know, filing it and saying, Okay, they're they're building it,
and you know the users will come. But there's a uh,
there's a hedge fun guy that I like to follow.
He goes by his name's Kuppy. I think his full
(08:56):
name is like Harrison Cooperman or something like that. I
can't remember his, uh, his full name, but he wrote
a piece on this very topic yesterday, which is why
I think that this is kind of interesting. And here's
the basic premise of it. If you look at the math,
So all of the big tech companies have committed to
about four hundred billion dollars in data center construction for
(09:17):
next year. And ultimately, what you have to do with
that is that that construction has a useful life to it.
It's what we call depreciation. How much of it, you know,
gets depreciated each year based on the estimated useful life,
and it's different for the facility versus the chips versus
you know, everything. And so basically he came to, okay,
(09:40):
it's it's probably like a ten year depreciation cycle on average.
So in year one, then you've got forty billion dollars
in depreciation and in order to actually generate enough profit
to overcome that, okay, let's say that you do one
hundred and sixty billion dollars in revenue at a twenty
five percent growth margin. So now you've got forty billion
(10:02):
of gross margin against your depreciation. Great, okay, so you
can you know, kind of get back to break even
at that point. But ultimately that's just for one year
of construction. If you're talking about doing that over and
over and over, where are the hundreds of billions of
dollars in revenue going to come from in order to
(10:22):
get you the tens of billions of dollars in gross
profit that you need in order to cover that depreciation cost.
And he basically said, look, it's not that AI isn't
going to be used or it isn't going to be
hugely transformative, but back in the nineteen nineties and early
two thousands, companies spent billions of dollars laying fiber optic
networks and all this stuff. They went out of business.
(10:45):
We still use the networks, but the companies that did
all of the groundwork for that aren't there anymore. The
company that he mentions is one called Global Crossing, who
I'm sure some of our listeners are familiar with. And
ultimately they went belly up simply because they were spending
billillions of dollars and the revenue just never came again.
We still no one looks at the Internet as a failure.
(11:07):
It's a huge success, but the companies that built it
weren't the ones that actually benefited from it.
Speaker 3 (11:12):
Yeah, just ask the web browsers out there, Alta, Vista
or Yahoo like other ones out there. Not sure, not sorry,
not the browsers, but the search engines of yesteryear, even
some of the browsers browsers too. That was Mosaic Netscape.
They didn't ultimately accrete all the value. And I'm sure
a very similar thing will happen here with AI and
(11:32):
it's I read a similar piece which was all these
big hyperscalers, the Googles the Amazons, the Microsoft's almost a
fomo effect. The fear of missing it has caused this
four hundred billion dollar of spending. But that doesn't mean
necessarily that all of them are going to get the
return on investment from all that money, because it's a big,
big hurdle to cross.
Speaker 2 (11:54):
So two things can be true. AI can be completely transformative,
and the people that are building it right now now
might not actually be the ones who end up benefiting
from it. Let's take a quick break. When we return,
we'll do a little bit of trivia after this.
Speaker 1 (12:09):
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.
Here the Financial Exchange every day from eleven to noon
non Serious XM's Business radio Channel one thirty two. Keep
it here for the latest business and financial news and
(12:30):
the trends on Wall Street. The Financial Exchange is now
life on Serious XM's Business Radio Channel one thirty two.
Face He's the Financial Exchange Radio Network.
Speaker 4 (12:44):
Another day of World War two trivia here on the
Financial Exchange. On July twenty sixth, nineteen forty five, a
US warship delivered the atomic bombs to a small island
in the Philippine See. Four days after deliver the ship
was sunk by a Japanese submarine. So trivia question today
(13:06):
is what was the name of the US warship that
delivered the atomic bombs? Once again, what was the name
of the US warship that delivered the atomic bombs? And
I'll give you a hint. Quint drunkenly retells the story
in the movie Jaws.
Speaker 3 (13:23):
Uh.
Speaker 4 (13:23):
Be the fifth person today to text us at six
one seven three six to two thirteen eighty five with
the correct answer, and you win a Financial Exchange Show
T shirt. Once again, the fifth correct response to text
us to the number six one seven, three six two
thirteen eighty five will win that T shirt. See complete
contest rules at Financial Exchange Show dot com.
Speaker 2 (13:45):
All right, Paul, we got a piece from Bloomberg. It
is in their opinion section. It's from their editorial board.
So the whole board got together and said, ah, we
think this is a good idea to write. Uh. It's
titled Americans America's Housing crisis is a job for Congress,
And pretty much what it's talking about is that it's
too expensive to buy homes right now. The prices are
(14:06):
too darn high and golly g Wilkers, how do we
fix this? I'll quote here. Bigger issue is the persistent
lack of supply. A slow down in construction after two
thousand and eight produced a short fall of nearly four
million homes, and rent regulations and not in my backyard,
zoning limits in cities such as San Francisco and New
York have retarded needed development for years. Okay, god it,
(14:27):
we don't have enough supply. Everyone in America understands this.
I think traditionally, the help Congress is offered buyers, including
subsidies and low cost loans, is spurred demand, exacerbating these
supply pressures. Also true, we don't think that just giving
more money to people to buy homes helps, because if
you just give everyone fifty thousand dollars to buy homes, well,
the sellers are just going to raise their prices by
(14:49):
fifty thousand dollars. You haven't solved the problem.
Speaker 3 (14:52):
Not to mention, five to ten years from now, you're
going to need to do the same thing all over.
Speaker 2 (14:55):
Correct, So you're not really helping anyone. Okay, great, Like
we understand this with a three hundred and fifteen page
renewing opportunity in the American Dream. The Road Act aims
to address okay, what tell me more the Sprawling Bill,
which recently received unanimous backing from the Senate Banking Committee,
which slash more of the regulations that impede home building
(15:15):
in the US, such as environmental reviews for some federally
funded housing construction. It would also eliminate the absurd requirement
that manufactured homes be mounted permanently on a fixed chassis,
which adds unnecessary costs and limits design flexibility. Okay, I
don't know that that's, you know, a huge thing, given
(15:35):
that most you know, housing is not federally funded and
most homes that are. You know, I don't know that
there's this huge demand for manufactured homes. But it's neither
here nor there. Let's let's keep going. It also rewards
communities for taking risks to build. Those that demonstrate a
track record of accelerating housing development would receive larger federal
(15:56):
block grants, such as a two hundred million dollars innovation fund.
Directly did it local governments. So here's the thing is,
are shows based out of the Northeast probably one of
the worst markets for buyers in terms of affordability in
the country, if not the world fair. And I'm convinced
(16:21):
at this point that if Americans actually wanted to build
more houses in their communities, they would build more houses
in their communities. I've seen in Massachusetts things like the
NBTA Communities Act, which forces communities to build certain levels
of housing in and around areas that are close to
(16:45):
mass transit, and the local communities have almost unanimously pushed
back on this and said, no, we don't want more building.
And so I don't think simply throwing more money at
the problem in terms of, well, if you, you know,
build more rapidly, you'll get more federal funding. I'm just
not sure that that gets there, because it's not about money.
(17:06):
It's about people saying they don't want more development. And
I don't know how to change that other than convincing
people that more development is, you know, in the in
the aggregate, good for the economy and good for them too.
Speaker 3 (17:23):
Not to mention, the local zoning laws in different communities
all across the country are so they differ so greatly
that any change on the federal level isn't going to
negate the voting down of the NBTA communities acts as
an example, or whatever provision may be out there in
other states across the country. It's valiant to be at
(17:45):
least thinking about trying to solve this problem. But to me,
it's it's I disagree with the title of the article
that it is a job for Congress. Unfortunately it's not.
I mean, the levers that they can can control loosely,
are some of the interest rates side of things, not
on the longer end of the curve. Obviously that to me,
maybe that makes the economics a little bit better, But
(18:06):
ultimately it comes down to local communities approving zoning or
deregulating some of the zoning requirements to allow for more
building to curve. But many communities take the NIMBI approach
of not in my backyard.
Speaker 2 (18:19):
And again, this doesn't have to be a one size
fits all approach. There are plenty of communities that say, look,
we don't want any big, you know, high rises or
even you know, mid rises. We don't want you know,
the five story condo building. It's fine, but can we
make it easier to allow for duplexes or triplexes? So
that on each parcel of land you're getting two units
(18:41):
of housing or three instead of just one. Like, those
are things that don't change the overall feel of a community,
but can still add additional housing. Can you change local
regulations to make it so these ad us the accessory
dwelling units, is that what it is?
Speaker 3 (18:57):
Yep?
Speaker 2 (18:57):
So that you can have those more easily, you know, built,
because hey, it's on your own land, and if you
want to put something in your backyard, why should your
neighbor have to say it's cool with them? Like, I
think that we need to figure out ways to make
it easier to build, But I'm not convinced this is
(19:18):
the answer, because it has to happen at a local level.
We've even seen again in Massachusetts state laws you know
about this stuff get pushed back, and that's coming from
a much closer place than you know, a big federal
overarching legislation. Let's take a quick break here. When we
come back, Trivia answer in Wall Street.
Speaker 5 (19:34):
Watch, bringing the latest financial news straight to your radio.
Every day, it's the.
Speaker 1 (19:45):
Financial Exchange on the Financial Exchange Radio Network. Time Now
for Wall Street Watch, a complete look at what's moving
markets so far today. Right here on the Financial Exchange
Radio Network.
Speaker 4 (20:00):
Seeing a small pullback on Wall Street as traders digest
significant retailer earnings from Walmart in a way fed Chairman
Jerome Poll's speech in Jackson Hole tomorrow morning. Right now,
the Dow is off by two tenths of one percent
or one hundred and three points. SMP five hundred is
down by only nine points, about a tenth of a percent.
(20:22):
NASDAK down a tenth of a percent as well, or
twenty four points lower. Russell two thousands off by a
tenth of a percent as well. Ten year Treasure reeled
up four basis points, is now at four point three
three nine percent, and crude oil up about half a
percent higher, trading at sixty three dollars a barrel. Walmart
reported rapid sales growth in the second quarter and raised
(20:44):
its outlook, saying it is winning over shoppers with grocery
discounts in fast shipping. However, the retail giant missed earnings
expectations on an adjusted basis, sending shares four percent lower
on the day. Meanwhile, according to the Wallstree Journal, Meta
has frozen hiring in its Ai division after spending months
(21:04):
scooping up researchers and engineers. Shares in the Facebook parent
company are down about one percent. Speaking of hiring freezes,
Nova nor Disk announced to hiring freeze and non critical
areas as it looks to fend off competition and control costs.
Shares in the Ozepic and we Govie Maker up over
two percent now. Meanwhile, beauty and sense company Cody seeing
(21:27):
its stock plunge twenty percent after it posted an unexpected
quarterly net loss. Cracker Barrel sinking over twelve percent after
the restaurant and gift shop chain unveiled to update logo earlier.
That's week this week that's drawing criticism on social media,
and beginning today in four hundred stores, Starbucks will expand
its test of coconut water beverages to hundreds of more
(21:50):
stores as it leans further into health and wellness with
its Coco Macha and Coco Cold Brew drinks. Our Buck
shares they are down by one percent on that news.
I'm Tucker Silva and that is Wall Street Watch. And
in the previous segment, we asked you the trivia question,
(22:11):
what was the name of the US warship that delivered
the atomic bombs. That would be the USS Indianapolis. David
and Edgar Towners our winner today taking home the Financial
Exchange Show T shirt. Congrats to David and we played
trivia every day here in the Financial Exchange. See complete
contest rules at Financial Exchange Show dot com.
Speaker 2 (22:30):
Peace here from Barons that I think is just a
fantastic one. Quite honestly, some retirees are too frugal. Tips
to help them loosen their purse strings and enjoy life.
And this, I think is something that I see quite often.
Which is the biggest concern that you hear from retirees
(22:51):
is I don't want to outlive my money. I don't
think we hear nearly enough. I don't want my money
to outlive me. And I don't mean that you want
the last check to because none of us know exactly
when we're gonna die. And if you know, you live
one more day and then hey, I needed one more check,
but the second to last check bounce. Now you're kind
of in a pretty dodgy spot. But I think ultimately
(23:14):
that the things that I come back to are twofold.
The first is a lot of people stick to this
idea of the four percent rule and The four percent rule,
you have to remember, is built for a thirty year retirement,
and as you get older, the odds of you having
another thirty year retirement go down. We don't have many
(23:34):
hundred and twenty year olds out there these days, So
if you're sticking to a four percent withdrawal rated age ninety,
you're probably doing yourself a disservice. Now you might say, hey,
that's great, but I don't need to spend more than this,
in which case I start to, you know, talk about
ideas such as, Okay, have you considered gifting either to
family or friends? Have you considered increasing charitable gifting so
(23:56):
that you can see, you know, improvements in the causes
that you believe in during the course of your life.
Because ultimately, if you're going to have more money left
when you die than you would like to see at
that time, then you haven't really maximized the value of
the money that you've earned. You've just kind of transferred
that to someone later. Which I'm not saying don't do that,
(24:17):
but if that's not your intention, then don't do that.
Speaker 3 (24:20):
This is by far the best article that covers what
we do on a day to day basis Chuck. It
really hits home well because so much time that you
and I spend on a day to day basis is
right around the same subject that many clients that we
work with just don't feel comfortable given the green light
to spend. And that's why we continually get together with
(24:42):
them every six months or every year to plan so
that they can understand, here's what you can spend up
to define the ceiling. There are so many of us
who's ingrained in them save it's very hard psychologically for
people to turn on the spigot and go from savings
mo which was a thirty to thirty five year horizon,
(25:03):
into the distribution phase of life. And so that's a
lot of the work that we do and enjoy doing
with the clients is appropriately finding the level to spend
on stuff that they're going to enjoy. It's not my
job to sit there and tell you what provides you fulfillment.
That's for the client to figure out. But ultimately that
planning aspect is huge.
Speaker 2 (25:21):
And I think you know, again, every person has their
own relationship with money and their own thoughts about, you know,
how they think it needs to work. There's no right
or wrong way to do it. But I do think
you have to come at it with, you know, some
kind of intention in terms of this is what I'm
trying to do, and not just stick with a general
(25:45):
rule because that might end up with you drifting further
from your goal than you think. If you've got five
hundred thousand dollars and you're like, Okay, I'm cool, you
know leaving you know this much to my kids, but
I don't want to leave more. And ten years later
you're sitting there going, gee, a million dollars. What do
I do now? The answer is, Okay, you've got to
change your plan. Don't just keep doing what you're doing,
(26:06):
because you're gonna have a bigger chunk that you're leaving.
Then you think, now, I'm not saying that's a bad thing,
but hey, again, could you be giving that to your
kids during your lifetime so they can see improvements, you know,
during you know, while you're actually able there to you know,
help them enjoy it. Is it something where there's been
stuff that you've been putting off that you want to
(26:28):
do that you say, oh, well, I don't know if
I have the money to Hey, maybe you do then,
And so if these are questions that you have. You know, hey,
how much can I actually spend in retirement in order
to get the retirement that I want and enjoy it
the way that I want to. These are questions that
the Armstrong Advisory Group can help you with because again,
(26:49):
retiring too early. I know that that's a lot of
people's fears. But what if you retire too late and
you don't get to enjoy as much time as you'd
like to. The Armstrong Advisory Group has offices all throughout
New England and to call and set up an appointment
with one of our advisors, call eight hundred three nine
three four zero zero one. That number again is eight
(27:10):
hundred three nine three for zero zero one.
Speaker 1 (27:14):
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 2 (27:31):
This next one is uh honestly a whole bunch of
suck CME teams with Fan Duel to launch betting on
financial markets, and we talked about this yesterday that look,
you know, all of us do you know, dumb investing
things in our twenties. And I understand that, but ultimately
there's a reason why you probably don't want to be
able to do a parlay of how many homers is
(27:53):
Aaron Judge going to hit today? With how much is
Nvidia's stock going to move today? And and you know,
will the result of the Diddy trial be released today?
Like you don't want to have all of these things
in one place because they're fundamentally different things. And there's
a reason why we've generally regulated betting markets and financial markets,
(28:17):
and it's because when we don't, people lose all of
their money with leverage. I mean, let's call a spade
a spade, that's what it is. The reason why we
have regulation in financial markets is because people borrow too
much and blow themselves up. And when you start mixing
gambling and investing, you can really, you know, get into
(28:40):
some pretty dodgy places pretty quickly. And I think that
this is just a whole bunch of suck quite honestly.
Speaker 3 (28:48):
It it is incredible how prevalent this is becoming. We
talked about what was it, Robin Hood offering the predictions
markets earlier this week and on sports, Yeah, basically pivoting away,
not pivoting, but also in addition to the financial markets
exposure that they have adding in sports gambling and the
(29:08):
same thing here on the other end of things. And
what I was coming back to is, you know, predictions
are something that are fun that you and I might
do to throw up on the board, but there's no
monetary value behind it. Yeah, I might get made fun
of if Nvidia doesn't move the markets next week or
vice versa, but there's no monetary commitment, and they're just
blurring the lines a lot on that. I just find
(29:31):
it hard to believe that a prediction is int a
prediction if you're in robinhood and giving a certain amount
of money towards it. And similarly here, it does seem
like these two entities should be separate. Nothing against legalized gambling.
That's fine for people who want to do it as entertainment,
but when you get into some of these other markets
out there, I just don't know if that is necessarily
(29:54):
the way to go.
Speaker 2 (29:56):
Look, there's a reason why if you are trying to
trade stock options, your broker requires you to sign a
completely separate form in order to do so. It's because
it's a huge high level of risk that you're taking on.
And this is basically it's basically the equivalent of being
able to trade options on FanDuel. It's pretty darn close.
(30:19):
And given what I'm already seeing from men in their
twenties in the amount of gambling debt that I'm seeing
them taking on, I think this is a horrible thing
that is going to result in no good at the
societal level. Now you can say, okay, like everyone should
be free to do whatever they want. Okay, why don't
I drive on the left side of the road? You know,
(30:40):
Like there's reasons why we still have some rules. Is
because it gets dangerous to do certain things. When you know,
people start just saying, ah, screw it, you know, like
why can't I drive with my feet on the steering wheel?
Like okay, Like no, we're gonna take your license. Likewise,
when we start talking about mixing sports gambling with effectively
(31:02):
futures contracts slash options contracts on financial markets, yeah, I
don't see this be Like here's the positive. Fandel's gonna
get a bunch of extra commissions come in their way.
Other than that, you're gonna lose, right like you being
us in the aggregation, the house always wins. The real
(31:23):
money is in the flow, not in the price. So yeah,
I don't think we should have sports gambling apps to
begin with. You should have to walk into a casino
and place your bet, and whatever this is shouldn't exist
either cause I don't know. Now you're betting on the
s and P five hundred on fandel. What are we here.
(31:44):
Let's take a quick break and when we return, we're
gonna have stack roulette, because that's what we do on
the Financial Exchange.
Speaker 1 (31:51):
The Financial Exchange streams live on YouTube. Like our page
and stay up to date on breaking business news all morning.
Loan Base is the Financial Exchange Radio Network. The Financial
Exchange is now available every day from eleven to noon
non Serious XM's Business Radio Channel one thirty two. Stay
informed about the latest from Wall Street, fiscal policy, and
(32:12):
breaking business news every day. The Financial Exchange is life
on Sirius XM's Business Radio Channel one thirty two. This
is the Financial Exchange Radio Network.
Speaker 4 (32:25):
This segment of The Financial Exchange brought to you a
part by the US Virgin Islands Department of tourism. 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,
playing your fall, Escape now and experience the beauty of
America's Caribbean The US Virgin Islands. Book today at visit
(32:49):
USVII dot com. That's visit USVII dot com.
Speaker 2 (32:54):
Paul, what you got for stack Robot Chuck.
Speaker 3 (32:57):
Landlines are making a comeback. Yeah, yes, you heard that right,
even though AT and T tried to stop servicing landlines
in California last year and they're largely considered obsolete. Do
you have a landline in your house?
Speaker 1 (33:10):
Check?
Speaker 3 (33:11):
No, I have it just because of the security system.
But I couldn't even tell you.
Speaker 2 (33:15):
That the security system.
Speaker 3 (33:17):
Yeah yeah, my wife is a paranoid wreck. But I digress.
What the company tin Can is trying to do is
put together for younger kids out there, the old school
nineteen eighties courted phones system that will allow for kids
who aren't old enough to have a cell phone yet
(33:39):
to be able to call to their other friends using
a five digit code. They're going to expand it out
to standard phone numbers later, but now they have these
tin Can phones which retail for seventy five bucks, that
are similar to the nineteen eighties design for a different
way for younger kids to communicate. And the reason I
cover the story is it is something that I do
think about a lot. I've kids that aren't at that
(34:01):
age yet, but I absolutely know in talking with clients
it's like Pandora's box, giving them a smartphone and trying
to find some way to slow down that transition as
much as possible, which is probably gonna be tough to
fight with all the kids in their class getting them
at an early age. It's something that I think about
often because there's a lot of stuff you can get
(34:22):
into once you give a kid a smartphone.
Speaker 2 (34:25):
I think this is awesome, yeah, quite honestly, and I
think that you're starting to see a lot of positive
movement towards Hey, we want to enable kids to communicate
and use technology, but not just be stuck on their
phone or tablet all day. I know that Massachusetts is
in the process of voting on a bill that would
(34:46):
ban cell phones in schools beginning in the excess. I
believe past one Texas, I think past one. So like
I think we're finally like waking up and being like, hey,
this stuff is kind of bad for kids. Maybe we
shouldn't just allow them to be on it all day
every And by the way, I say this is someone
who by the time I was in seventh or eighth grade,
I was playing a couple hours of video games a day.
But there's a difference because it wasn't something. And again
(35:11):
I keep coming back to this. I couldn't just reach
into my pocket during class and play video games. I
had to get home, I had to finish my homework
and then I could hang out and play some video
games and you know, play a bunch of counter Strike
and you know, do whatever I did with my friends
for a couple hours. And you know, it was great
when you're just on it all day. Especially with how
social media is now, it's pretty clearly bad. And I
(35:34):
think that anything that's getting people more communication but fewer
screens is great.
Speaker 3 (35:39):
And the ugrooms have got so much more sophisticated that
they almost are quite literally addictive. Not to say that
we didn't pay play our fair share of video games
or I was on instant Messenger a ton as a kid.
But now these things are more sophisticated desire to literally
have kids hooks, so it's a different ballgame.
Speaker 2 (35:55):
I want to talk about this piece from Yahoo Tech,
Google's new AI powered flight tool,
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 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 bus and making
a donation today. This is the Financial Exchange with Chuck
(01:05):
Zada and Paul Lane.
Speaker 2 (01:09):
Chuck, Paul and Tucker with you and taking a look
around markets. We've got a very small sell off taking
place today thus far. The Dow Jones Industrial Average down
one hundred and eight points about a quarter percent, the
S and P five hundred down fourteen points, about a
quarter percent, the Nasdaq Composite down thirty eight points about
(01:29):
a quarter percent. So just again some continued down downward
drift here, but nothing exciting in either direction. When it
comes to equities. When we take a look at the
bond market, we got again kind of a modest sell
off taking place here the ten year treasury of four
basis points to four point three three seven percent. Mortgage
(01:51):
News Daily currently has the national average for thirty year
fixed rate mortgages at six point sixty one. That'll probably
tick up to six sixty five or somewhere in that
range in response once we get the afternoon update there.
But mortgage rates continuing to hold in the mid sixes.
I you know, once you get above six and two thirds,
(02:11):
I guess that gets you to high sixes, but just
kind of hanging out where they've been for quite a
while at this point. When we take a look at oil,
We've got West Text Intermediate up twenty nine cents, barrel
to sixty three dollars right on the nose, and Gold
today is down a dollar seventy and ounce to thirty three,
eighty six and eighty cents. We are now going to
(02:36):
try to answer one of the age old questions about investing.
What matters more to the stock market? The FED or Nvidia?
And the answer is the Fed. Quite honestly, this is
not a real question. It is because this is a
real piece that The New York Times published, But ultimately
(02:58):
it's the Fed because of J. Powell pushed the wrong
button when he, you know, wakes up every six weeks.
The FED could move markets far more than in Vidia
does on a daily basis.
Speaker 3 (03:09):
Could but I don't think will have as much impact
his speech on Friday versus in Video's earnings next Thursday.
My view is that in Videa's earnings will be more
impactful to shifting the market because I feel that he's
gonna play it down the middle.
Speaker 2 (03:25):
How are we gonna measure this? Are you gonna measure
it based on performance the next day, the next week?
How do you want to approach it? So?
Speaker 3 (03:33):
In Video are they a morning report.
Speaker 2 (03:35):
Are they closed?
Speaker 3 (03:37):
Okay? So it's next Thursday, right, next Thursday. So Friday's
market moves, why.
Speaker 2 (03:43):
Don't we do the three trading days after?
Speaker 3 (03:46):
Oh, I was just gonna go day after immediate reaction.
First move is always wrong, but it's implying action one
way or another.
Speaker 2 (03:54):
It is. But if that action subsequently gets reversed, did
anything really happen.
Speaker 3 (03:59):
At the close of the day? You know what I'm saying?
Speaker 2 (04:01):
Yeah, you know how many times have we seen? Like
even just go back to the jobs report a few
weeks ago that Friday SMP's down one hundred, Monday up ninety.
Why do we put two different shirts on? Why didn't
we just stay home and call it a day?
Speaker 3 (04:16):
So here we're gonna go prediction here. So you're gonna
say that the Fed speech tomorrow will have more impact
on I will say that an afternoon speech tour. That's
a morning.
Speaker 2 (04:26):
It's morning, but I'll include tomorrow if you want you
tell me, do you want me to do Friday Monday
Tuesday or Monday Tuesday, Wednesday, Friday Monday Tuesday? Okay, So
I think there will be a greater magnitude market move.
Looking at are we doing S and P five hundred
nasdak because if it's Nasdak in video is a bigger.
Speaker 3 (04:47):
Chunk more fair.
Speaker 2 (04:49):
Okay, I think there will be a bigger move in
either direction the three days post Powell versus three days
post and video. Let's do it, Okay, look it in
there we go, Tucker, you got that up on the board.
Speaker 1 (05:03):
Yep.
Speaker 3 (05:03):
Okay, it's a nice short payoff. It is.
Speaker 2 (05:05):
It's it's not you know, hyperloop in ten years, which
I think we still have three more years to wait
until we can pay that off. But it's not looking
good for me.
Speaker 3 (05:14):
And I'll just never come back to the show if
I'm wrong.
Speaker 2 (05:16):
The uh no, we have to have you back on
so we can tell you you're wrong. Nope, nope, no.
So the big thing is in Vidia obviously is the
biggest company or second biggest company in the S and
P five hundred by market cap on any given day.
Right now, it currently makes up about just under eight
(05:39):
percent of the S and P five hundred, So it's
not uncommon for in Vidio. I still have you know,
five to six percent moves in a single day, and
it can drag along, you know, the Microsoft and Amazons
and medicine googles of the world as well. But ultimately,
all of this, in my opinion, comes back to one thing,
(05:59):
which is, look, what's the price of money? And that's
what Jay Powell and the gang set on a regular basis.
They tell you how expensive it is to borrow, lend
whatever you want to be doing, at least as you know,
benchmark rates and things like that. So I think, look,
in the two things are true actually in the last
(06:23):
three years, because it's really been twenty three, twenty four,
and twenty five that AI has been the thing. It
was late twenty two when when Chad GBRT was unveiled
to us. The first is that obviously in Nvidia has
just been on an absolute tear during that time, and it,
along with the other tech companies, has been the dominant
market force out there. It's also true that if Powell
(06:46):
and crew screwed up now, things could have gone very differently,
you know, depending on how the economy would have moved.
So I think I continue to think there is no
force in the financial universe that has the gravity that
the FED does. In Vidia is far and away the
most powerful equity mover out there, but it still can't
(07:11):
move the whole market like the FED does.
Speaker 3 (07:13):
My whole The reason for my prediction is that not
that the FED doesn't have the power to influence the
market more. They certainly do, but the path that they're
trending on, which is sort of this weight and see approach,
I just think in the near term they're not going
to say much that it's going to move the markets
as much as in Vidia could potentially move the markets
because all the earnings power has accreeded to in Vidia
(07:36):
during this AI boom period. Valuations, don't get me wrong,
have increased for other companies as a result of this,
but in Vidia is the one that's captured the majority
of the earnings PI and if there's any dent to
that story for some reason that they're not seeing as
much in terms of demand for their chips, I think
that could substantially leave a lot of AI companies in
(07:58):
a really bad spot from evaluations sandpoint, I don't necessarily
anticipate that next week, or conversely, if there is still
tremendous momentum there perhaps moves in the other direction, but
we shall see.
Speaker 2 (08:10):
Yeah, the uh, look, if you talk about other if
you talk about the companies that actually sell the AI products,
they're not making much revenue from them right now. And
the problem with look that, the problem is not just
making much revenue, it's how do you turn that revenue
into actual profit because you're spending a ton on data
(08:34):
center construction and at some point that's gonna end up
being untenable. It's not yet because everyone still is just
you know, filing it and saying, Okay, they're they're building it,
and you know the users will come. But there's a uh,
there's a hedge fun guy that I like to follow.
He goes by his name's Kuppy. I think his full
(08:56):
name is like Harrison Cooperman or something like that. I
can't remember his, uh, his full name, but he wrote
a piece on this very topic yesterday, which is why
I think that this is kind of interesting. And here's
the basic premise of it. If you look at the math,
So all of the big tech companies have committed to
about four hundred billion dollars in data center construction for
(09:17):
next year. And ultimately, what you have to do with
that is that that construction has a useful life to it.
It's what we call depreciation. How much of it, you know,
gets depreciated each year based on the estimated useful life,
and it's different for the facility versus the chips versus
you know, everything. And so basically he came to, okay,
(09:40):
it's it's probably like a ten year depreciation cycle on average.
So in year one, then you've got forty billion dollars
in depreciation and in order to actually generate enough profit
to overcome that, okay, let's say that you do one
hundred and sixty billion dollars in revenue at a twenty
five percent growth margin. So now you've got forty billion
(10:02):
of gross margin against your depreciation. Great, okay, so you
can you know, kind of get back to break even
at that point. But ultimately that's just for one year
of construction. If you're talking about doing that over and
over and over, where are the hundreds of billions of
dollars in revenue going to come from in order to
(10:22):
get you the tens of billions of dollars in gross
profit that you need in order to cover that depreciation cost.
And he basically said, look, it's not that AI isn't
going to be used or it isn't going to be
hugely transformative, but back in the nineteen nineties and early
two thousands, companies spent billions of dollars laying fiber optic
networks and all this stuff. They went out of business.
(10:45):
We still use the networks, but the companies that did
all of the groundwork for that aren't there anymore. The
company that he mentions is one called Global Crossing, who
I'm sure some of our listeners are familiar with. And
ultimately they went belly up simply because they were spending
billillions of dollars and the revenue just never came again.
We still no one looks at the Internet as a failure.
(11:07):
It's a huge success, but the companies that built it
weren't the ones that actually benefited from it.
Speaker 3 (11:12):
Yeah, just ask the web browsers out there, Alta, Vista
or Yahoo like other ones out there. Not sure, not sorry,
not the browsers, but the search engines of yesteryear, even
some of the browsers browsers too. That was Mosaic Netscape.
They didn't ultimately accrete all the value. And I'm sure
a very similar thing will happen here with AI and
(11:32):
it's I read a similar piece which was all these
big hyperscalers, the Googles the Amazons, the Microsoft's almost a
fomo effect. The fear of missing it has caused this
four hundred billion dollar of spending. But that doesn't mean
necessarily that all of them are going to get the
return on investment from all that money, because it's a big,
big hurdle to cross.
Speaker 2 (11:54):
So two things can be true. AI can be completely transformative,
and the people that are building it right now now
might not actually be the ones who end up benefiting
from it. Let's take a quick break. When we return,
we'll do a little bit of trivia after this.
Speaker 1 (12:09):
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.
Here the Financial Exchange every day from eleven to noon
non Serious XM's Business radio Channel one thirty two. Keep
it here for the latest business and financial news and
(12:30):
the trends on Wall Street. The Financial Exchange is now
life on Serious XM's Business Radio Channel one thirty two.
Face He's the Financial Exchange Radio Network.
Speaker 4 (12:44):
Another day of World War two trivia here on the
Financial Exchange. On July twenty sixth, nineteen forty five, a
US warship delivered the atomic bombs to a small island
in the Philippine See. Four days after deliver the ship
was sunk by a Japanese submarine. So trivia question today
(13:06):
is what was the name of the US warship that
delivered the atomic bombs? Once again, what was the name
of the US warship that delivered the atomic bombs? And
I'll give you a hint. Quint drunkenly retells the story
in the movie Jaws.
Speaker 3 (13:23):
Uh.
Speaker 4 (13:23):
Be the fifth person today to text us at six
one seven three six to two thirteen eighty five with
the correct answer, and you win a Financial Exchange Show
T shirt. Once again, the fifth correct response to text
us to the number six one seven, three six two
thirteen eighty five will win that T shirt. See complete
contest rules at Financial Exchange Show dot com.
Speaker 2 (13:45):
All right, Paul, we got a piece from Bloomberg. It
is in their opinion section. It's from their editorial board.
So the whole board got together and said, ah, we
think this is a good idea to write. Uh. It's
titled Americans America's Housing crisis is a job for Congress,
And pretty much what it's talking about is that it's
too expensive to buy homes right now. The prices are
(14:06):
too darn high and golly g Wilkers, how do we
fix this? I'll quote here. Bigger issue is the persistent
lack of supply. A slow down in construction after two
thousand and eight produced a short fall of nearly four
million homes, and rent regulations and not in my backyard,
zoning limits in cities such as San Francisco and New
York have retarded needed development for years. Okay, god it,
(14:27):
we don't have enough supply. Everyone in America understands this.
I think traditionally, the help Congress is offered buyers, including
subsidies and low cost loans, is spurred demand, exacerbating these
supply pressures. Also true, we don't think that just giving
more money to people to buy homes helps, because if
you just give everyone fifty thousand dollars to buy homes, well,
the sellers are just going to raise their prices by
(14:49):
fifty thousand dollars. You haven't solved the problem.
Speaker 3 (14:52):
Not to mention, five to ten years from now, you're
going to need to do the same thing all over.
Speaker 2 (14:55):
Correct, So you're not really helping anyone. Okay, great, Like
we understand this with a three hundred and fifteen page
renewing opportunity in the American Dream. The Road Act aims
to address okay, what tell me more the Sprawling Bill,
which recently received unanimous backing from the Senate Banking Committee,
which slash more of the regulations that impede home building
(15:15):
in the US, such as environmental reviews for some federally
funded housing construction. It would also eliminate the absurd requirement
that manufactured homes be mounted permanently on a fixed chassis,
which adds unnecessary costs and limits design flexibility. Okay, I
don't know that that's, you know, a huge thing, given
(15:35):
that most you know, housing is not federally funded and
most homes that are. You know, I don't know that
there's this huge demand for manufactured homes. But it's neither
here nor there. Let's let's keep going. It also rewards
communities for taking risks to build. Those that demonstrate a
track record of accelerating housing development would receive larger federal
(15:56):
block grants, such as a two hundred million dollars innovation fund.
Directly did it local governments. So here's the thing is,
are shows based out of the Northeast probably one of
the worst markets for buyers in terms of affordability in
the country, if not the world fair. And I'm convinced
(16:21):
at this point that if Americans actually wanted to build
more houses in their communities, they would build more houses
in their communities. I've seen in Massachusetts things like the
NBTA Communities Act, which forces communities to build certain levels
of housing in and around areas that are close to
(16:45):
mass transit, and the local communities have almost unanimously pushed
back on this and said, no, we don't want more building.
And so I don't think simply throwing more money at
the problem in terms of, well, if you, you know,
build more rapidly, you'll get more federal funding. I'm just
not sure that that gets there, because it's not about money.
(17:06):
It's about people saying they don't want more development. And
I don't know how to change that other than convincing
people that more development is, you know, in the in
the aggregate, good for the economy and good for them too.
Speaker 3 (17:23):
Not to mention, the local zoning laws in different communities
all across the country are so they differ so greatly
that any change on the federal level isn't going to
negate the voting down of the NBTA communities acts as
an example, or whatever provision may be out there in
other states across the country. It's valiant to be at
(17:45):
least thinking about trying to solve this problem. But to me,
it's it's I disagree with the title of the article
that it is a job for Congress. Unfortunately it's not.
I mean, the levers that they can can control loosely,
are some of the interest rates side of things, not
on the longer end of the curve. Obviously that to me,
maybe that makes the economics a little bit better, But
(18:06):
ultimately it comes down to local communities approving zoning or
deregulating some of the zoning requirements to allow for more
building to curve. But many communities take the NIMBI approach
of not in my backyard.
Speaker 2 (18:19):
And again, this doesn't have to be a one size
fits all approach. There are plenty of communities that say, look,
we don't want any big, you know, high rises or
even you know, mid rises. We don't want you know,
the five story condo building. It's fine, but can we
make it easier to allow for duplexes or triplexes? So
that on each parcel of land you're getting two units
(18:41):
of housing or three instead of just one. Like, those
are things that don't change the overall feel of a community,
but can still add additional housing. Can you change local
regulations to make it so these ad us the accessory
dwelling units, is that what it is?
Speaker 3 (18:57):
Yep?
Speaker 2 (18:57):
So that you can have those more easily, you know, built,
because hey, it's on your own land, and if you
want to put something in your backyard, why should your
neighbor have to say it's cool with them? Like, I
think that we need to figure out ways to make
it easier to build, But I'm not convinced this is
(19:18):
the answer, because it has to happen at a local level.
We've even seen again in Massachusetts state laws you know
about this stuff get pushed back, and that's coming from
a much closer place than you know, a big federal
overarching legislation. Let's take a quick break here. When we
come back, Trivia answer in Wall Street.
Speaker 5 (19:34):
Watch, bringing the latest financial news straight to your radio.
Every day, it's the.
Speaker 1 (19:45):
Financial Exchange on the Financial Exchange Radio Network. Time Now
for Wall Street Watch, a complete look at what's moving
markets so far today. Right here on the Financial Exchange
Radio Network.
Speaker 4 (20:00):
Seeing a small pullback on Wall Street as traders digest
significant retailer earnings from Walmart in a way fed Chairman
Jerome Poll's speech in Jackson Hole tomorrow morning. Right now,
the Dow is off by two tenths of one percent
or one hundred and three points. SMP five hundred is
down by only nine points, about a tenth of a percent.
(20:22):
NASDAK down a tenth of a percent as well, or
twenty four points lower. Russell two thousands off by a
tenth of a percent as well. Ten year Treasure reeled
up four basis points, is now at four point three
three nine percent, and crude oil up about half a
percent higher, trading at sixty three dollars a barrel. Walmart
reported rapid sales growth in the second quarter and raised
(20:44):
its outlook, saying it is winning over shoppers with grocery
discounts in fast shipping. However, the retail giant missed earnings
expectations on an adjusted basis, sending shares four percent lower
on the day. Meanwhile, according to the Wallstree Journal, Meta
has frozen hiring in its Ai division after spending months
(21:04):
scooping up researchers and engineers. Shares in the Facebook parent
company are down about one percent. Speaking of hiring freezes,
Nova nor Disk announced to hiring freeze and non critical
areas as it looks to fend off competition and control costs.
Shares in the Ozepic and we Govie Maker up over
two percent now. Meanwhile, beauty and sense company Cody seeing
(21:27):
its stock plunge twenty percent after it posted an unexpected
quarterly net loss. Cracker Barrel sinking over twelve percent after
the restaurant and gift shop chain unveiled to update logo earlier.
That's week this week that's drawing criticism on social media,
and beginning today in four hundred stores, Starbucks will expand
its test of coconut water beverages to hundreds of more
(21:50):
stores as it leans further into health and wellness with
its Coco Macha and Coco Cold Brew drinks. Our Buck
shares they are down by one percent on that news.
I'm Tucker Silva and that is Wall Street Watch. And
in the previous segment, we asked you the trivia question,
(22:11):
what was the name of the US warship that delivered
the atomic bombs. That would be the USS Indianapolis. David
and Edgar Towners our winner today taking home the Financial
Exchange Show T shirt. Congrats to David and we played
trivia every day here in the Financial Exchange. See complete
contest rules at Financial Exchange Show dot com.
Speaker 2 (22:30):
Peace here from Barons that I think is just a
fantastic one. Quite honestly, some retirees are too frugal. Tips
to help them loosen their purse strings and enjoy life.
And this, I think is something that I see quite often.
Which is the biggest concern that you hear from retirees
(22:51):
is I don't want to outlive my money. I don't
think we hear nearly enough. I don't want my money
to outlive me. And I don't mean that you want
the last check to because none of us know exactly
when we're gonna die. And if you know, you live
one more day and then hey, I needed one more check,
but the second to last check bounce. Now you're kind
of in a pretty dodgy spot. But I think ultimately
(23:14):
that the things that I come back to are twofold.
The first is a lot of people stick to this
idea of the four percent rule and The four percent rule,
you have to remember, is built for a thirty year retirement,
and as you get older, the odds of you having
another thirty year retirement go down. We don't have many
(23:34):
hundred and twenty year olds out there these days, So
if you're sticking to a four percent withdrawal rated age ninety,
you're probably doing yourself a disservice. Now you might say, hey,
that's great, but I don't need to spend more than this,
in which case I start to, you know, talk about
ideas such as, Okay, have you considered gifting either to
family or friends? Have you considered increasing charitable gifting so
(23:56):
that you can see, you know, improvements in the causes
that you believe in during the course of your life.
Because ultimately, if you're going to have more money left
when you die than you would like to see at
that time, then you haven't really maximized the value of
the money that you've earned. You've just kind of transferred
that to someone later. Which I'm not saying don't do that,
(24:17):
but if that's not your intention, then don't do that.
Speaker 3 (24:20):
This is by far the best article that covers what
we do on a day to day basis Chuck. It
really hits home well because so much time that you
and I spend on a day to day basis is
right around the same subject that many clients that we
work with just don't feel comfortable given the green light
to spend. And that's why we continually get together with
(24:42):
them every six months or every year to plan so
that they can understand, here's what you can spend up
to define the ceiling. There are so many of us
who's ingrained in them save it's very hard psychologically for
people to turn on the spigot and go from savings
mo which was a thirty to thirty five year horizon,
(25:03):
into the distribution phase of life. And so that's a
lot of the work that we do and enjoy doing
with the clients is appropriately finding the level to spend
on stuff that they're going to enjoy. It's not my
job to sit there and tell you what provides you fulfillment.
That's for the client to figure out. But ultimately that
planning aspect is huge.
Speaker 2 (25:21):
And I think you know, again, every person has their
own relationship with money and their own thoughts about, you know,
how they think it needs to work. There's no right
or wrong way to do it. But I do think
you have to come at it with, you know, some
kind of intention in terms of this is what I'm
trying to do, and not just stick with a general
(25:45):
rule because that might end up with you drifting further
from your goal than you think. If you've got five
hundred thousand dollars and you're like, Okay, I'm cool, you
know leaving you know this much to my kids, but
I don't want to leave more. And ten years later
you're sitting there going, gee, a million dollars. What do
I do now? The answer is, Okay, you've got to
change your plan. Don't just keep doing what you're doing,
(26:06):
because you're gonna have a bigger chunk that you're leaving.
Then you think, now, I'm not saying that's a bad thing,
but hey, again, could you be giving that to your
kids during your lifetime so they can see improvements, you know,
during you know, while you're actually able there to you know,
help them enjoy it. Is it something where there's been
stuff that you've been putting off that you want to
(26:28):
do that you say, oh, well, I don't know if
I have the money to Hey, maybe you do then,
And so if these are questions that you have. You know, hey,
how much can I actually spend in retirement in order
to get the retirement that I want and enjoy it
the way that I want to. These are questions that
the Armstrong Advisory Group can help you with because again,
(26:49):
retiring too early. I know that that's a lot of
people's fears. But what if you retire too late and
you don't get to enjoy as much time as you'd
like to. The Armstrong Advisory Group has offices all throughout
New England and to call and set up an appointment
with one of our advisors, call eight hundred three nine
three four zero zero one. That number again is eight
(27:10):
hundred three nine three for zero zero one.
Speaker 1 (27:14):
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 2 (27:31):
This next one is uh honestly a whole bunch of
suck CME teams with Fan Duel to launch betting on
financial markets, and we talked about this yesterday that look,
you know, all of us do you know, dumb investing
things in our twenties. And I understand that, but ultimately
there's a reason why you probably don't want to be
able to do a parlay of how many homers is
(27:53):
Aaron Judge going to hit today? With how much is
Nvidia's stock going to move today? And and you know,
will the result of the Diddy trial be released today?
Like you don't want to have all of these things
in one place because they're fundamentally different things. And there's
a reason why we've generally regulated betting markets and financial markets,
(28:17):
and it's because when we don't, people lose all of
their money with leverage. I mean, let's call a spade
a spade, that's what it is. The reason why we
have regulation in financial markets is because people borrow too
much and blow themselves up. And when you start mixing
gambling and investing, you can really, you know, get into
(28:40):
some pretty dodgy places pretty quickly. And I think that
this is just a whole bunch of suck quite honestly.
Speaker 3 (28:48):
It it is incredible how prevalent this is becoming. We
talked about what was it, Robin Hood offering the predictions
markets earlier this week and on sports, Yeah, basically pivoting away,
not pivoting, but also in addition to the financial markets
exposure that they have adding in sports gambling and the
(29:08):
same thing here on the other end of things. And
what I was coming back to is, you know, predictions
are something that are fun that you and I might
do to throw up on the board, but there's no
monetary value behind it. Yeah, I might get made fun
of if Nvidia doesn't move the markets next week or
vice versa, but there's no monetary commitment, and they're just
blurring the lines a lot on that. I just find
(29:31):
it hard to believe that a prediction is int a
prediction if you're in robinhood and giving a certain amount
of money towards it. And similarly here, it does seem
like these two entities should be separate. Nothing against legalized gambling.
That's fine for people who want to do it as entertainment,
but when you get into some of these other markets
out there, I just don't know if that is necessarily
(29:54):
the way to go.
Speaker 2 (29:56):
Look, there's a reason why if you are trying to
trade stock options, your broker requires you to sign a
completely separate form in order to do so. It's because
it's a huge high level of risk that you're taking on.
And this is basically it's basically the equivalent of being
able to trade options on FanDuel. It's pretty darn close.
(30:19):
And given what I'm already seeing from men in their
twenties in the amount of gambling debt that I'm seeing
them taking on, I think this is a horrible thing
that is going to result in no good at the
societal level. Now you can say, okay, like everyone should
be free to do whatever they want. Okay, why don't
I drive on the left side of the road? You know,
(30:40):
Like there's reasons why we still have some rules. Is
because it gets dangerous to do certain things. When you know,
people start just saying, ah, screw it, you know, like
why can't I drive with my feet on the steering wheel?
Like okay, Like no, we're gonna take your license. Likewise,
when we start talking about mixing sports gambling with effectively
(31:02):
futures contracts slash options contracts on financial markets, yeah, I
don't see this be Like here's the positive. Fandel's gonna
get a bunch of extra commissions come in their way.
Other than that, you're gonna lose, right like you being
us in the aggregation, the house always wins. The real
(31:23):
money is in the flow, not in the price. So yeah,
I don't think we should have sports gambling apps to
begin with. You should have to walk into a casino
and place your bet, and whatever this is shouldn't exist
either cause I don't know. Now you're betting on the
s and P five hundred on fandel. What are we here.
(31:44):
Let's take a quick break and when we return, we're
gonna have stack roulette, because that's what we do on
the Financial Exchange.
Speaker 1 (31:51):
The Financial Exchange streams live on YouTube. Like our page
and stay up to date on breaking business news all morning.
Loan Base is the Financial Exchange Radio Network. The Financial
Exchange is now available every day from eleven to noon
non Serious XM's Business Radio Channel one thirty two. Stay
informed about the latest from Wall Street, fiscal policy, and
(32:12):
breaking business news every day. The Financial Exchange is life
on Sirius XM's Business Radio Channel one thirty two. This
is the Financial Exchange Radio Network.
Speaker 4 (32:25):
This segment of The Financial Exchange brought to you a
part by the US Virgin Islands Department of tourism. 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,
playing your fall, Escape now and experience the beauty of
America's Caribbean The US Virgin Islands. Book today at visit
(32:49):
USVII dot com. That's visit USVII dot com.
Speaker 2 (32:54):
Paul, what you got for stack Robot Chuck.
Speaker 3 (32:57):
Landlines are making a comeback. Yeah, yes, you heard that right,
even though AT and T tried to stop servicing landlines
in California last year and they're largely considered obsolete. Do
you have a landline in your house?
Speaker 1 (33:10):
Check?
Speaker 3 (33:11):
No, I have it just because of the security system.
But I couldn't even tell you.
Speaker 2 (33:15):
That the security system.
Speaker 3 (33:17):
Yeah yeah, my wife is a paranoid wreck. But I digress.
What the company tin Can is trying to do is
put together for younger kids out there, the old school
nineteen eighties courted phones system that will allow for kids
who aren't old enough to have a cell phone yet
(33:39):
to be able to call to their other friends using
a five digit code. They're going to expand it out
to standard phone numbers later, but now they have these
tin Can phones which retail for seventy five bucks, that
are similar to the nineteen eighties design for a different
way for younger kids to communicate. And the reason I
cover the story is it is something that I do
think about a lot. I've kids that aren't at that
(34:01):
age yet, but I absolutely know in talking with clients
it's like Pandora's box, giving them a smartphone and trying
to find some way to slow down that transition as
much as possible, which is probably gonna be tough to
fight with all the kids in their class getting them
at an early age. It's something that I think about
often because there's a lot of stuff you can get
(34:22):
into once you give a kid a smartphone.
Speaker 2 (34:25):
I think this is awesome, yeah, quite honestly, and I
think that you're starting to see a lot of positive
movement towards Hey, we want to enable kids to communicate
and use technology, but not just be stuck on their
phone or tablet all day. I know that Massachusetts is
in the process of voting on a bill that would
(34:46):
ban cell phones in schools beginning in the excess. I
believe past one Texas, I think past one. So like
I think we're finally like waking up and being like, hey,
this stuff is kind of bad for kids. Maybe we
shouldn't just allow them to be on it all day
every And by the way, I say this is someone
who by the time I was in seventh or eighth grade,
I was playing a couple hours of video games a day.
But there's a difference because it wasn't something. And again
(35:11):
I keep coming back to this. I couldn't just reach
into my pocket during class and play video games. I
had to get home, I had to finish my homework
and then I could hang out and play some video
games and you know, play a bunch of counter Strike
and you know, do whatever I did with my friends
for a couple hours. And you know, it was great
when you're just on it all day. Especially with how
social media is now, it's pretty clearly bad. And I
(35:34):
think that anything that's getting people more communication but fewer
screens is great.
Speaker 3 (35:39):
And the ugrooms have got so much more sophisticated that
they almost are quite literally addictive. Not to say that
we didn't pay play our fair share of video games
or I was on instant Messenger a ton as a kid.
But now these things are more sophisticated desire to literally
have kids hooks, so it's a different ballgame.
Speaker 2 (35:55):
I want to talk about this piece from Yahoo Tech,
Google's new AI powered flight tool,
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.