January 8, 2026 • 38 mins
Mike Armstrong and Marc Fandetti discuss consumers loving cheap gas, but the oil patch will pay the price. The US pumps more crude than anyone else. Why does it want Venezuela's? Warner Brothers board rebuffs Paramount's latest buyout offer. The return of the IPO could spell trouble for private equity. Ford enters the race to offer eyes-off driving tech. New campaign in Massachusetts seeks to end pet discrimination in rentals.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
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
(00:21):
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 Mike Armstrong and Mark Vandetti. Your exclusive look
at business and financial news affecting your day, your city,
(00:44):
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 DOC Boston and making
a donation Today.
Speaker 2 (01:04):
Face is the.
Speaker 1 (01:05):
Financial Exchange with Mike Armstrong and Mark Vandetti.
Speaker 3 (01:14):
Good morning, Happy Thursday, Welcome back to the Financial Exchange.
We've got a mixed market at the moment, with the
Dow up two hundred and fifteen points, closing in on
half percent up, whereas the naszac's down nearly six ten percent.
SMP is as flat to flat as you can get,
currently up point one six points.
Speaker 2 (01:35):
That's what I'll say about the SMP.
Speaker 4 (01:36):
I can't see it.
Speaker 2 (01:37):
Sorry, yeah, I hear you.
Speaker 3 (01:40):
We have a jobs week here on the Financial Exchange.
Yesterday we got news on the Job Opening's Labor Turnover Survey.
That report has been showing continued weakening, but perhaps just
normalization in the labor market. There are now approximately one
job open for every one person looking for work, which
is fairly fairly normal ratio, but is far away from
(02:03):
what we saw back.
Speaker 2 (02:04):
In twenty twenty one or two.
Speaker 3 (02:06):
I don't remember exactly when, when there were two jobs
open for every person looking for work, and you know,
you would drive by McDonald's and see the science for
signing bonuses and all sorts of fun stuff that we
hadn't seen in a generation in the labor market.
Speaker 2 (02:18):
So clearly weakening there.
Speaker 3 (02:20):
The jobless claims that we received this morning came in
a two hundred and eight thousand over the previous week,
a slight uptick from where we were the last week,
but at a very low and frankly, not a concerning level.
These probably don't start to look concerning unless you're over
a quarter million a week, and we're pretty far away
from that at this point. So I'm going to sweep
that one under the rug and say that it doesn't
(02:43):
matter at this moment. Tomorrow at eight thirty am, Yeah,
at eight thirty am, we will be getting the monthly
jobs report from the BLS. This is a combination of
two different surveys, one of households that gets you that
unemployment rate among other data, and the other of businesses
that gets you the pace of job hiring. Expectations for
(03:04):
this coming report, which will be reporting on the month
of December up, the unemployment rate expected to come in
at four and a half percent, a slight downtick from
the four to six we saw in the previous month,
and the pace of job hiring continue to come in
between seventy and eighty thousand. So we will see what
we get and certainly be covering it on the show tomorrow.
Anything else to add for you, Marc to say the
(03:25):
labor market.
Speaker 4 (03:26):
You raise an interesting question about the unemployment rate in
how do how will we actually I forget how you
phrased it, but what's stuck in my mind is how
do we know what the right unemployment rate is? Well,
the unemployment rate in twenty twenty three went down to
what three point four percent, way below have typical historical experience,
(03:48):
and that was accompanied by high inflation.
Speaker 2 (03:49):
Mark.
Speaker 3 (03:50):
I was thinking about this when we were speaking this morning,
like I think, yeah, we were talking about unemployment, not
on the show, but I was thinking, like, what is
the answer to, Hey.
Speaker 2 (04:00):
What is the what is the ideal unemployment?
Speaker 5 (04:03):
Right?
Speaker 2 (04:03):
Okay?
Speaker 4 (04:03):
Well I was going to answer the question, and.
Speaker 3 (04:04):
I think the answer depends on who you're asking, because
for employees, the answer is the best, the best layer
market you had seen in a lifetime and a generation
sure was the one we got three years ago, the way.
Speaker 4 (04:16):
They economists at the FED would and what most of
us care about. And I don't mean to diminish the
experience of somebody who's underemployed or god forbid, unemployed. Uh,
and who looks at that and says, well, that's partly
my experience, and I want it to come down. I'm
just talking about this as sort of a.
Speaker 2 (04:33):
A you got it detached sort of What is the
best unemployment race? They would say.
Speaker 4 (04:41):
The economists at the FED would say, and this is
important because they determine monetary policy. We all care about
what interest rates you're going to do. They would say,
it's the rate that doesn't push inflation up. And that
rate and this is something we were talking about internally
this morning, that rate changes over time. Is the structure
of the economy changes.
Speaker 2 (04:57):
We know one thing. It certainly was not three point
four percent.
Speaker 5 (04:59):
No.
Speaker 4 (04:59):
It was that was unnaturally.
Speaker 2 (05:01):
Low and drove up inflation in part and was.
Speaker 4 (05:03):
Related to the right. Demand was too hot that pushed
unemployment too low. The FED was at least partly responsible
for that. At the very least, they failed to push
against the forces that were causing demand to run ahead
of the economy's productive capacity and thus pushed up inflation.
In the late nineteen nineties, unemployment went down to the
force I forget exactly where it bottomed. It was so
(05:27):
low that many people thought the FED should be raising rates.
Green span correctly in retrospect identified something going on on
the supply side of the economy.
Speaker 2 (05:34):
The interactivity boom, Yeah.
Speaker 4 (05:37):
The productivity boom, and he was early there. He also
got a little bit lucky because it took years to
document that that's actually what it happened. We don't know
what the right or natural or non inflationary rate of
unemployment is today. It might be five point five. That
could be why inflation remains elevated. So nobody wants higher
(05:58):
unemployment because that real human costs. But someone who's setting
monetary policy doesn't want to push unemployment, as callous as
it sounds, and think about when the FED has to
cause recessions to get inflation down, it's willing to make
that trade off. Economists have a name for that trade off.
It's called the sacrifice ratio. Again, it sounds glib and unsympathetic,
(06:21):
but you can't push the economy too hot because inflation
has victims too.
Speaker 3 (06:24):
The other major story of this week has, of course,
been Venezuela and what is happening with its oil, What
is happening with Nicholas Maduro. Will there be some sort
of shift in power in Venezuela. Many of those questions
remain unanswered, but we're starting to get more and more
written about the situation with US domestic oil production, what
it could mean if Venezuela's market is more open to
(06:47):
US companies for all sorts of drilling and things along
those lines. Fact of the matter, the state of play today,
the US pump's more crude oil than any other country
in the world without is.
Speaker 4 (07:00):
With thirteen million barrels a day, right is our output
twelve thirteen, Maybe that's about it's come down a little
bit over the past year, but twelve to thirteen.
Speaker 3 (07:07):
The recent trend in oil production has been shrinking rig
counts because at the prices that are currently being paid,
you are not really terribly profitable for a lot of
these oil companies for them to continue to drill new
rigs and get oil out of the ground. For reference,
oil prices are up a bit today, but we're still
below fifty seven dollars per barrel. And I this is
(07:30):
not my own phrasing, but I found it really interesting
a lot of it. You know, if you're looking at
the Venezuela situation, a lot has been compared to Panama
in what was that like eighty eight or eighty nine.
Speaker 2 (07:42):
Excuse me, and it was points out.
Speaker 4 (07:44):
That you know historically, just cause was eighty nine. You're
talking about this, yes, removing oreego, Yes, eighty nine, Okay,
because yeah, Bush was president. Yeah it wasn't ninety because
we were dealing with a rack at that it was
eighty nine. I think it was eighty nine.
Speaker 2 (07:56):
It'll be a trivia question three weeks from now.
Speaker 4 (07:59):
The we just google it was supposed to be stammering
for it.
Speaker 3 (08:02):
See that's what I hate about the Internet is we
used to have these fun conversations like, Okay, well, let's
see I was in middle school when it happened, so
therefore no no. Now we can just google it and
get the answer instantaneously.
Speaker 1 (08:14):
Uh.
Speaker 2 (08:14):
Nonetheless, a lot has been compared to that period.
Speaker 4 (08:17):
Yeah, I don't have to fumble around for it.
Speaker 2 (08:19):
Is a bad thing because now kids don't know how
to talk to each other.
Speaker 4 (08:23):
Yeah, it's about that with all these facts hanging around,
nobody can communicate anyone.
Speaker 3 (08:28):
I used to just be able to make up conspiracy theories.
Now I have to go to the Internet and find
them myself.
Speaker 4 (08:32):
I don't like it's a bear market for bs ors.
If that's what you.
Speaker 5 (08:35):
Mean, I love the conversation of fumbling around what year
an event occurred. Yes, I prefer that conversation.
Speaker 4 (08:40):
I'd rather grow up around in the dark for three hours. Yes,
that's my memory, one hundred percent.
Speaker 2 (08:46):
One hundred percent.
Speaker 4 (08:47):
Listeners love that one of these guys has any clue
what's going.
Speaker 3 (08:51):
The point that was made was that historically, when the
United States has done something like we did in Venezuela,
it was oftentimes loud as hey, this is about democracy
and restoring democracy in.
Speaker 2 (09:03):
The region, when everyone you knew it was all about oil.
Speaker 3 (09:06):
And this is the first time where you look at
this one you say, I'm not really sure this is
about the oil. I think the president certainly believes it's
about the oil. I think he, you know, views oil
as critical to the global economy. Frankly, I think that
viewpoint has a bit outdated in today's economy, given how
much oil the US produces.
Speaker 4 (09:24):
It's a it's an election year, so it's there's there's
a little bit of an election impetus there.
Speaker 3 (09:28):
But you know, this is the first time where you
look at it and say, Okay, they're not saying it's
about democracy at all. Right, The administration is not talking
about that. You want the opposition and reality. You know,
the advisors around him, I'm sure are well aware that, Hey,
we don't really need the oil for the United States
to continue to be successful. In fact, we'd rather additional
(09:49):
oil might not be the oil patch likes.
Speaker 4 (09:52):
H You talked about it, and we've all seen landman.
Now we know what the oil patch likes.
Speaker 3 (09:56):
And so yeah, with that in mind, yes, I do
believe the President views, you know, oil is critical and
securing these that resource as pretty important reason.
Speaker 2 (10:06):
But you do wonder, like, how much more of.
Speaker 3 (10:08):
This was really about a display of American military power
about you know, rare earth materials are just securing a
relatively close by enemy? Is I think an open question.
I like fascinating.
Speaker 4 (10:22):
I like the preventing our potential enemies China and others
from getting their hands on venit. I hadn't thought about
that angle at first when I heard about the It
wasn't really an invasion to this point what you call
that operation. But anyway, when I first heard about it,
I thought, oh God, here we go again. The first
forty eight hours look great because of our superior military
(10:44):
and tactical capabilities. But the tough part is locking those
gains down. I hadn't appreciated controlling their oil to make
sure it doesn't go to potential. If we do have
a conflict with China or Russia or both, we'll well,
Russia can rushes energy independent for the or could be,
but with China will be darn will be very glad
(11:06):
that we remove this source of fuel for the Chinese military.
I hadn't thought about that. President's not saying that he can't.
Speaker 3 (11:14):
I guess sure, I think, But yeah, the further away
we get, the more clear it becomes that in the
short term this probably does not do much of anything to.
Speaker 2 (11:24):
The oil market.
Speaker 4 (11:25):
Well, look at the price of.
Speaker 3 (11:26):
Oil hasn't moved. It might put further caps on how
much it can appreciate. But the idea of Exxon or
even Chevron, who's already in Venezuela, dramatically increasing oil supply
in the global market anywhere in the next five years,
to me seems incredibly.
Speaker 4 (11:41):
We don't know what the rules are going to be
right in Venezuela.
Speaker 3 (11:44):
Quick break when we come back, A little bit of
trivia here next on the financial exchange.
Speaker 1 (11:50):
Miss any of the show. Catch up in 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. THEA is your home for the latest
business and financial news in New England and around the country.
This is the Financial Exchange Radio Network. Here the Financial
(12:10):
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 the trends on
Wall Street. The Financial Exchange is now life on Serious
XM's Business Radio channel one thirty two. This is the
Financial Exchange Radio Network.
Speaker 5 (12:37):
It's Sam for trivia here on the Financial Exchange. Nineteen
states as well as forty nine cities and counties are
increasing their wage floors to at least fifteen dollars per
hour for some or all employees. However, the federal minimum
wage will remain at seven dollars in twenty five cents.
Speaker 2 (12:57):
So trivia question.
Speaker 5 (12:58):
Today, which president introduced the federal minimum wage? Once again?
Which president introduced the federal minimum wage? Be the fifth
person today to text us at six one, seven, three,
six two, thirteen eighty five with the correct answer along
with the keyword trivia. And you win a Financial Exchange
showed t shirt once again. The fifth correct response to
(13:21):
text us to the number six one seven three six
to two thirteen eighty five with the correct answer along
with the keyword trivia will.
Speaker 4 (13:29):
Win that T shirt.
Speaker 5 (13:31):
See complete contest rules at Financial Exchange show dot com.
Speaker 3 (13:34):
We're turning to China now, but now that I'm gonna
go back to Venezuela from a moment, did you see
the reporting that there was a Chinese delegation of diplomats
in the capitol during the US raid and in Venezuela.
Speaker 4 (13:45):
I did not see that.
Speaker 2 (13:46):
Yeah, so I don't know. I just found that interesting.
Speaker 3 (13:49):
Apparently they were they put out a statement like, not
exactly saying you shouldn't do this because they're not gonna
say that, but like, hey, a heads up to our
you know, diplomats would have been nice. I find this
all interesting in the context of.
Speaker 4 (14:01):
Oh, sure, anything else you'd like us to tip you
off on.
Speaker 3 (14:05):
China is a depriving Japan of rare earth supply again
based on a comment made by leadership there about Taiwan, and.
Speaker 2 (14:13):
I do just openly wonder there's this deal.
Speaker 3 (14:16):
That the president has been working on in Video's ability
to sell some of their semiconductors over to China. There
will be the H two hundreds. This is at least
one generation old of semiconductors. Pretty soon it'll be two
generations back of the latest and greatest semi conductors. But again,
I've been kind of openly pondering since the events in Venezuela,
(14:40):
will there be any retaliation from anyone.
Speaker 2 (14:43):
Not that China and Venezuela.
Speaker 3 (14:44):
Are terribly close these days, but the low hanging fruit
and the method that they have been using all over
the course of the last year has been rare earths,
and they're clearly still willing to flex that muscle, at
least with Japan. So I don't really have any big
opinion on whether or not China is going to actually
buy these Nvidia H two hundreds. I think part of
(15:07):
it was just getting a deal approved to appease the
folks in Washington, and so at least what we can
say right now is that there has not been any
seeming step back in relations between the US and China
as of late.
Speaker 2 (15:21):
But I don't think there's much more of a story.
Speaker 4 (15:22):
We've got a little more leverage now if we control
the flow of oil out of Venezuela so a bit.
Speaker 2 (15:27):
But again, like China has plenty of places they can
buy oil.
Speaker 4 (15:30):
That's true. It is a global market.
Speaker 3 (15:32):
Like, it's really not a problem for them to go
somewhere else, to Russia and buy their oil, or to
go to the Middle East and buy that oil instead.
Speaker 2 (15:41):
It's still pretty darn cheap.
Speaker 3 (15:42):
It's probably not as cheap as Venezuelan oil, but it's
still pretty darn cheap, I think, is my overall conclusion
on all of that. So again, I'm not sure how
that affects the overall geopolitical situation.
Speaker 4 (15:56):
Did you see the listener email regarding share reproach restrictions
on defense contractors paying out now dividends. It's very well
written and seemingly I know nothing, so to me it
seems authoritative. It comes from Don during today's show. You
seem to question the legal authority of the president. I
actually I was questioning it, but without any basis. I
(16:20):
just didn't think the president could tell a publicly traded
company what they could pay their shareholders. But the listener
points out, and we haven't verified this, but it seems authoritative,
So let's take it at face. Value dividends are included
in the definition of paraphrasing the listener Don's email a
little bit here are included in the restrictions on allowable
costs that are detailed for the Department of War and
(16:42):
the cost accounting in their cost accounting standards. Again I'm
paraphrasing a little bit here. So this listener, again, Don
worked in finance at Raytheon and he claims, again we
haven't verified it, but it sounds believable to me upon
kind of reflection. And I probably should have thought about this,
(17:03):
that the federal government can strain defense contractors. Now if
you stop contracting with them, I suppose I don't know
who else they would who else they'd be making product for,
maybe the circumstances would be different, But they apparently can
do so according according to this, And it does make
(17:24):
when you think about the relationship between the Department of
Defense and defense contractors going back to World War Two
and the cost plus arrangements we imposed on Ford and others,
it does make sense.
Speaker 3 (17:37):
It would be truly fascinating though, so take it when Yeah,
thank you for emailing Don. That's informative and I appreciate it.
It would be fascinating at a time where clearly there
is additional demand for military resources. To see the stocks
not performed terribly well because to your point, right, if
you are talking about investing in a company that is
barred from paying a dividend or share repurchase, I think
(18:01):
that would be a pretty high barrier to entry for
some of the Yeah.
Speaker 4 (18:03):
In some ways, these are quasi public entities.
Speaker 2 (18:06):
Yep.
Speaker 4 (18:06):
They have one big customer and the only specs they
care about are the specs provided by that customer. So,
you know, maybe my fanatical free market approach to things
needs to be sort of tempered in light of the
unique position of defense contractors.
Speaker 2 (18:24):
Yeah, taking a but I.
Speaker 3 (18:27):
Won't you won't do that. Okay, let's see what do
we have here that I want to cover next? Ah, Yes,
Warner Brothers, the gift that keeps on giving. Warner Brothers
board just put out a notice to shareholders that they
would recommend against Paramount's hostile takeover bid. What makes this
piece additionally interesting is they had previously thrown out there
(18:49):
some questions about the trust that was going to fund
the eventual purpose purchase of Warner Brothers and be a
backstop to it. Paramount then removed any of that concern,
and nonetheless, Warner Brothers has come back and said, yeah,
we don't care. We're still not recommending shareholders go with
this purchase. We still would prefer Netflix. Thus far, neither
(19:11):
of these companies have increased their bid. My guess would
be that might be what comes next. But first thing
is going to be this hostile takeover bid where shareholders
will be asked to vote on it, so we will
see where that goes. Quick Break Wall Street Watch coming
up next, bringing.
Speaker 1 (19:42):
The latest financial news straight to your radio. Every day,
It's the Financial Exchange on the Financial Exchange Radio Network.
Time now for Wall Street Watch. A complete look at
what's moving market so far today right here on the
Financial Exchange Radio Network.
Speaker 5 (20:01):
After yesterday's bullback, markets today are mixed as traders react
to the jobless claims data posted earlier this morning and
prepare for tomorrow's all important jobs report for the month
of December, due out at eight thirty.
Speaker 2 (20:13):
In the morning.
Speaker 5 (20:14):
Right now, the Dow is up six tenths of a percent,
or three hundred points higher. SMP five hundred is down
only two points at the moment. NASDAC down by over
two thirds of a percent, or one hundred and fifty
eight points lower. Rusted two thousand up six tenths of
a percent, and Your Treasure reeld is up three basis
points at four point one seven five percent, and crude
(20:36):
oil up nearly two percent higher, now trading just above
fifty seven dollars a barrel. Several defense stocks are rallying
after President Trump called for a one and a half
trillion dollar defense budget in twenty twenty seven, a significant
increase from the nine hundred and one billion dollars approved
by Congress in twenty twenty six. Shares in Lockheed Martin
and Northrook Grumman are up by five percent, while RTX
(20:58):
shares are climbing about two percent higher. Meanwhile, Applied Digital
stock rallying fifteen percent after the AI infrastructure company beat
earnings expectations for its most recent quarter and also saw
its revenue roughly triple. Elsewhere, the maker of Modello and
Corona Constellation brands reported lower quarterly sales and profit as
(21:19):
customers continued to buy less beer. However, the results did
beat expectations. Constellation shares are up by four percent. According
to Bloomberg, China plans to approve some imports of in
videos h two hundred chips as soon as this quarter,
and Video shares are down two percent. CrowdStrike announced that
it is buying identity management startup SGNL and a deal
(21:40):
valued at nearly seven hundred and forty million dollars. CrowdStrike
is down by three percent and Apple shares are off
over one percent following news that JP Morgan Chase has
reached a deal to take over the Tech Giants credit
card program from Goldman Sachs. I'm Tucker Silva and that
is Wallstreet Watch and the trivia qui we asked in
the previous segment was which president introduced the federal minimum wage?
Speaker 2 (22:05):
That would be FDR.
Speaker 5 (22:07):
Bill Bill from Lebanon, New Hampshire is our winner today
taking ELM a Financial Exchange Show t shirt. Congrats to Bill,
and we played trivia every day here in the Financial Exchange.
See complete contest rules at Financial Exchange Show dot com.
Speaker 3 (22:21):
There's some anticipation of a big IPO the year this year,
after frankly several years of not much in the way
of IPOs. We saw hot new listing year in twenty
twenty one during the craze of the backcraze of twenty
twenty one that didn't end up going terribly well, but
big name companies like SpaceX, Open Ai, and Thropic all
(22:42):
rumored to maybe be considering going public this year. And frankly,
this has been a trend for the last several decades.
This is nothing new, but fewer and fewer companies have
been publicly listed. I don't know if you have a
timeframe for when that kind of peaked, mark when did
like the most When were the most US companies public?
Speaker 2 (23:01):
Was that late nineties? Would be my guest before Starbanes Oxley.
Speaker 5 (23:05):
Yeah, we should keep speculating.
Speaker 4 (23:07):
Yeah, ridders and academic used to be in Florida. I
think he's somewhere else is interested. We've referenced this before,
at least I have. It was probably years ago, though
even I don't remember when. But yeah, there were one hundreds,
several hundred throughout the nineties, really peaking in the mid nineties,
waning a little bit, never really recovering to those heights.
(23:27):
The highest they've been is three hundred and eleven, and
this was in twenty twenty one, and then it's slowed
to a trickle. So yeah, dramatic slow down, Mike from
the from the last century.
Speaker 2 (23:36):
And there's a number of reasons.
Speaker 3 (23:37):
One is the cost of being a public company have
increased over time. All the accounting things you need to do,
the audits that you need to do in order to
be public are costly, especially for a smaller sized company,
and the ability of private funds to keep companies private
for longer has grown over a course of time.
Speaker 2 (23:55):
So private equity firms.
Speaker 3 (23:56):
Allison points out something that I wouldn't have really thought of,
but you know, a real IPO boom, She says, this
is Alison Schraeger from from Bloomberg. That is could spell
trouble for private equity and I have a tough time
making sense of that because IPO is one of the
methods that private actually equity actually realizes the gains on
(24:17):
their built companies that they have acquired at a smaller
it's their liquidity. And so why in her mind could
that be a problem for private equity investors.
Speaker 4 (24:27):
Well, as the name suggests, this is these are privately
traded security's known by pension funds, other institutional investors and
maybe wealthy investors too. These are valued according to what
the accountants and auditors who work for or are contracted
by private equity managers to assess.
Speaker 3 (24:48):
It's an important consideration, right, Like the reason we know
that Nvidia is worth, however many trillion dollars is because
we know there are certain number of shares out standing
on their trade off.
Speaker 4 (24:58):
We all say so, yeah, it's it's.
Speaker 2 (25:00):
That's not how firms work, transparent privately.
Speaker 4 (25:03):
Private equity firms valued it what the manager effectively decides.
Schrager's point is if they decide to use the IPO
channel to exit, which every private equity manager has to do,
they don't want to own a company forever, they.
Speaker 2 (25:16):
Doesn't need to go by IPO. But they could sell
it to any other.
Speaker 4 (25:19):
Yea, they could, but generally yeah, yeah.
Speaker 2 (25:22):
It's the story. It's usually going IPO.
Speaker 4 (25:25):
But yeah, that's gonna be the They're going to have
to mark to reality that they call it marked to
market when well, that's that's one way anyway to change
the valuation. They're going to have to uh face the
music at some point. Anyway. If they've been carrying something
on their books at an artificially high at an inflated
and there's nothing in the city is going on, they
(25:46):
may just been overly optimistic, or markets may have changed.
Speaker 5 (25:49):
This is a message for families who've put who've been
putting off their estate planning from the Elder Law Attorney's
Ax Cushing and Dolan. One of the biggest miss about
long term care is that if you didn't plan five
years ahead, you're out of options. Well, that's simply not true.
When a health crisis hits and a loved one needs
nursing home care, many families panic can start writing checks
(26:11):
for care that may cost over ten thousand dollars a month.
The reality is there may still be meaningful legal options
available even when planning starts late. Cushing and dolanv just
released a new guide called Long Term Care Planning for Procrastinators.
It breaks down what the five year look back really
means and what steps can still be considered before making
(26:34):
decisions that can be incredibly costly. If you're worried about
protecting your family and securing your financial future, called Cushing
and Dolan eight eight sixty six eight four eight five
six nine nine to get your free guide today that's
eight six six eight four eight five six nine to nine,
or you can request it from their website Legal Exchange
(26:55):
Show dot com.
Speaker 1 (26:57):
The proceeding was paid for, and the views expressed are
solely those of Cushing and Dolan. Cushing and Dolan and
or Armstrong Advisory may contact you offering legal or investment services.
Cushing and Armstrong do not endorse each other and are
not affiliated.
Speaker 3 (27:08):
Tucker likes putting stories into the stack that I'm interested in.
Ford is entering the race to offer eyes off driving technology,
starting with an alleged thirty thousand dollars EV in twenty
twenty eight, which I'm not buying it. Plenty of these
companies have said they're going to offer cars for thirty
thousand dollars and don't get to that price point. What
I do find exciting is I think that we are
(27:28):
actually getting close to cars that are pretty good at
driving themselves. We've seen it with way Mo and what
they're able to do on those vehicles, but by all estimates,
those things cost a good one hundred thousand dollars to
produce and so not exactly a retail car. Mercedes Benz
has gotten there with one of their self driving technologies,
(27:49):
but it's very limited in terms of where it's able
to go. And then the next level down you've got
the Tesla full self driving, You've got the Chevy Super
Crews and the Forward Blue Cruise.
Speaker 2 (28:02):
I believe it is all of these are.
Speaker 3 (28:04):
I think they're called level two driving systems where your
eyes have to remain on the road, but you don't
necessarily need to control the steering wheel. The vehicle will
go so far as to change lanes for you and
to move over when it's time for you to exit,
and slow the vehicle down when it's time to exit,
bring it to a full stop, start it back up again.
So that's where the technology is now, and Ford saying, hey,
(28:27):
by twenty twenty eight, we want to be able to
step that up to a new level.
Speaker 2 (28:30):
And frankly, you know, I.
Speaker 3 (28:32):
Would say that Ford, Tesla, and Chevy are probably the
front runners today in this technology. And I guess I
wouldn't necessarily trust Elon Musk's statements on the future of
this because he'd been probably saying to deliver self driving
cars for the better part of a decade. But it
does seem like we're getting pretty close to this. Does
(28:54):
this matter to either of you?
Speaker 4 (28:56):
Like this piece of technology where the demand is for it?
Is this something people are clamoring for and would don't
have to be clamoring for it. That will you make
long drives once a.
Speaker 2 (29:05):
Week on the highway.
Speaker 5 (29:07):
It would be extremely useful for me.
Speaker 4 (29:09):
Doesn't doesn't. Well, adaptive cruise control gets you part of
the way there, you still have to keep your hands
on the wheel.
Speaker 3 (29:15):
Yeah, I've found the I found that the adaptive cruise
control varies greatly depending on the make. My adaptive crewe
control in my Toyota is terrible and cannot keep me
in the lane, whereas my Honda's really good.
Speaker 4 (29:27):
So it steers for you as well. It doesn't just
adjust speed.
Speaker 3 (29:30):
Yeah, it's supposed to also keep you centered in the lane. Okay,
that's what some of these systems do. So yeah, to me,
I actually think that there's a consumer demand thing here.
Speaker 2 (29:42):
But I do also wonder about us how I.
Speaker 4 (29:44):
Spread it is though maybe it doesn't have to be widespread.
Speaker 2 (29:47):
I don't.
Speaker 3 (29:47):
I think it's pretty niche based on what I've seen,
because when I went out there to shop for it,
it was not a sales point that the people were
making that Hey, this is a really cool technology.
Speaker 5 (29:55):
OK.
Speaker 4 (29:55):
At some point it's going to be standard. This will
get cheap and easy to and at some point, well
standard means you can't refuse it, but you don't have
to eat like Lake cruise Control. It became cheaper to
just add it to every vehicle than to discriminate and
put it in only higher tier levels.
Speaker 3 (30:10):
To me, where the money is, though, it is not
some ev that you sell to Tucker, Like, if this
is truly usable, then there's massive implications for long haul trucking,
right like that is the single one of the biggest
costs of moving goods across this country is paying the
people to drive the trucks.
Speaker 2 (30:28):
Around, and they're limited in terms of their hours. It
is a stressful job.
Speaker 3 (30:32):
And this technology, if it's really usable, put into some
of those semi trucks makes a big difference. So that's
to me where the money is to be made on this,
not on selling you me or Tucker a new car,
which I'm buying one with some of this technology, and
because I find it really fascinating and interesting.
Speaker 2 (30:48):
But yeah, well we will see. I do feel like
we are getting pretty close.
Speaker 3 (30:54):
And my mind shifted on that after going into a
way mow and just seeing how how frankly impressive it
was to be able to deliver me to where I
was going right from the airport without a human being there.
Quick Break when we come back. Bit a Stack Roulette
is next on the Financial Exchange.
Speaker 1 (31:12):
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.
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,
(31:33):
and breaking business news. Every day. The Financial Exchange is
live on Serious XM's Business Radio Channel one thirty two.
This is the Financial Exchange Radio Network.
Speaker 5 (31:45):
This segment of The Financial Exchange is brought to you
by the US Virgin Islands Department of Tourism. Experience America's
Caribbean and fall naturally in rhythm with the hardpeat of
the Islands while enjoying credible beaches, world class cuisine and
unforgettable sunset. The weather is perfect all year round, so
I had to visit USBI dot com book your trip
(32:05):
to Saint Croix, Saint Thomas, or Saint John. Enjoy one
or all three, and enjoy the vacation of a lifetime.
USBI is America's Caribbean Paradise. Playing your Winter Escape now
at visit USVII dot com. That's visit USVII dot com.
Speaker 3 (32:22):
I'm gonna preface with this next story with I have
been a dog owner my own life. Love dogs, love cats,
love animals, pets of all sorts.
Speaker 2 (32:32):
But this seems like a bad idea.
Speaker 3 (32:34):
Massachusetts is considering passing a few initiatives that the MSPCA
is launching. The bills would eliminate breed specific bands in
public housing and condo bylaws. They would add pet friendly
emergency shelter terms, remove breed bands from insurance policies, cappet fees,
and support elderly pet owners. I'm not gonna get into
(32:55):
the breed stuff. I think there's plenty of evidence to
support that. You know, insurance companies and others, and private
owners of real estate should have the right to say, hey,
we're not comfortable with dogs over a certain weight or
of a certain breed based on our perception.
Speaker 2 (33:13):
Of possible problems. I don't really see that as an issue.
Speaker 3 (33:17):
Furthermore, I recognize that trying to find an apartment that
will accept your dog is challenging, but as a landlord,
I should be able to say no, right like.
Speaker 2 (33:32):
That is going to do.
Speaker 3 (33:33):
Is there any debate that an animal in the apartment
is going to do additional wear and tear to the apartment.
Speaker 2 (33:39):
Right like?
Speaker 3 (33:40):
I should be able as a private homeowner to say no,
I'm not renting to somebody with a dog. I love dogs,
but I don't want the additional upkeep. And capping the
pet fees is saying that, no, you can't go and
do that. And so yeah, I know that we have
a weird approach to housing in Massachusetts and rules, but
these are private owners of real estate that are making
(34:01):
decisions about how to rent out their properties. They're condo
owners that want to create rules that fit the most residents.
And passing a state law to say you can or
can't do this based on specific pet breeds or types
of pets or this is just crazy. This is this
is you know, tie it in with the proposal to
(34:22):
put in new rent control in Massachusetts and just make
it impossible to own rental property in Massachusetts.
Speaker 2 (34:29):
And I don't know if there's anything to add.
Speaker 4 (34:31):
On that market now. I think, again, what do we
do a good free market framework? Serve hul here if
somebody owned. Now, this is this is a this is passe.
I'm going to sound very you know, nineteenth century year.
But you own the property, you should be able to
do with it as you please, unless you're hurting somebody else.
If that means I don't want to rent to a
guy because he's Italian American and they're loud like me,
(34:53):
then I should be able to exclude them. That would
be legal, probably definitely. I use Italian American as an
example because I am on both sides, and I feel
like I can safely use that as an example. But
I am sorry.
Speaker 3 (35:04):
If I want to have an apartment where I have
no smoke detectors also going to be a problem.
Speaker 2 (35:07):
And I agree that there should story though.
Speaker 4 (35:10):
Yeah, that's that's health, safety, welfare, that's that's that's that's
traditional police power stuff that states have been able to
regulate for a long time. But when it comes to lifestyles,
including dog ownership, I too am a dog owner. If
he if he wants to peel over my hardwood floor
and make it look like a leopard skin pattern because
(35:30):
it's all stayed, now, that's that's on me. I put
up with that, But I would not expect a landlord
to now I would I would invoke the right to
choose here. The right to choose what you do with.
Speaker 2 (35:39):
Your having a property is not some inane human right.
Speaker 3 (35:43):
If you're gonna have a pet and you're gonna rent,
it's gonna cost a heck of a lot more and
it's gonna be tougher to find a place.
Speaker 2 (35:48):
Just's just.
Speaker 4 (35:49):
It's another example of government intervening in an area where
it frankly shouldn't. And this is now we're talking about
state government. I was I was ranting about the federal
government earlier, but the same general polosophy here I think.
Speaker 2 (36:01):
Can should apply.
Speaker 4 (36:03):
I think so, Mike, And it's not. Look, we all
love the cuddly You see the pictures in the article,
and it's adorable little dogs. And it's the implication is
I didn't read the whole thing. The implication is cruel
landlords are pushing these people out onto the street. But
like you said, why would you get into that business
if you couldn't do what you if you can't write,
(36:24):
if you can't control what you charge, which is what
rent control does.
Speaker 3 (36:28):
The idea of forcing this on condo associations and homeowners
is just preposterous to me. But anyway, what do you
have for us for stack?
Speaker 2 (36:36):
Really?
Speaker 4 (36:36):
Oh, trade. You'll see headlines today, it's a quickie. You'll
see headlines about the trade deficit falling by forty percent
in October, and that's true relative to September. But a
couple things. Firstly, in the year two October, the trade
deficit actually went up by eight percent relative to the
year before. I don't necessarily think that is a bad thing.
(36:58):
That means we bought more from a broad because we
wanted to. Then we sold abroad in terms of goods
and services. In exchange for that, foreigners bought US equities
and US treasuries or just held on to those dollars.
So if you're thinking, is well, an increase in tariffs
are responsible for that, I'm afraid that's probably not true.
There are countries with high tariffs that have no trade
(37:20):
deficit or a trade surplus. There are countries with high
tariffs that have big trade deficits. There's no correspondence.
Speaker 3 (37:26):
Interestingly, and keep in mind, too big story that we
haven't really covered yet but most certainly will be, is
whether this what the Supreme Court does in terms of
ruling on these.
Speaker 2 (37:37):
Terriffs that comings.
Speaker 4 (37:38):
They are tomorrow.
Speaker 3 (37:39):
It's coming January or early February. I don't think tomorrow,
but it is expected.
Speaker 2 (37:43):
This month or I thought I heard late January.
Speaker 3 (37:45):
Yeah, January or early next February is the expectations.
Speaker 4 (37:49):
When they start releasing opinions. Excuse me, okay, yeah.
Speaker 3 (37:52):
So, and in the meantime, all the companies that are
subject to these tariffs are ssuing the government to try
and get their reimbursements if they get ruled against. So
a lot more to come on the future of the
current tariffs that are in place. All the time we
have markets remain in mixed territory here. As we close
out the show, we'll have a recap for you tomorrow
as well as a jobs report on a job's Friday
(38:12):
here on the Financial Exchange had a great day of folks.
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
(00:21):
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 Mike Armstrong and Mark Vandetti. Your exclusive look
at business and financial news affecting your day, your city,
(00:44):
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 DOC Boston and making
a donation Today.
Speaker 2 (01:04):
Face is the.
Speaker 1 (01:05):
Financial Exchange with Mike Armstrong and Mark Vandetti.
Speaker 3 (01:14):
Good morning, Happy Thursday, Welcome back to the Financial Exchange.
We've got a mixed market at the moment, with the
Dow up two hundred and fifteen points, closing in on
half percent up, whereas the naszac's down nearly six ten percent.
SMP is as flat to flat as you can get,
currently up point one six points.
Speaker 2 (01:35):
That's what I'll say about the SMP.
Speaker 4 (01:36):
I can't see it.
Speaker 2 (01:37):
Sorry, yeah, I hear you.
Speaker 3 (01:40):
We have a jobs week here on the Financial Exchange.
Yesterday we got news on the Job Opening's Labor Turnover Survey.
That report has been showing continued weakening, but perhaps just
normalization in the labor market. There are now approximately one
job open for every one person looking for work, which
is fairly fairly normal ratio, but is far away from
(02:03):
what we saw back.
Speaker 2 (02:04):
In twenty twenty one or two.
Speaker 3 (02:06):
I don't remember exactly when, when there were two jobs
open for every person looking for work, and you know,
you would drive by McDonald's and see the science for
signing bonuses and all sorts of fun stuff that we
hadn't seen in a generation in the labor market.
Speaker 2 (02:18):
So clearly weakening there.
Speaker 3 (02:20):
The jobless claims that we received this morning came in
a two hundred and eight thousand over the previous week,
a slight uptick from where we were the last week,
but at a very low and frankly, not a concerning level.
These probably don't start to look concerning unless you're over
a quarter million a week, and we're pretty far away
from that at this point. So I'm going to sweep
that one under the rug and say that it doesn't
(02:43):
matter at this moment. Tomorrow at eight thirty am, Yeah,
at eight thirty am, we will be getting the monthly
jobs report from the BLS. This is a combination of
two different surveys, one of households that gets you that
unemployment rate among other data, and the other of businesses
that gets you the pace of job hiring. Expectations for
(03:04):
this coming report, which will be reporting on the month
of December up, the unemployment rate expected to come in
at four and a half percent, a slight downtick from
the four to six we saw in the previous month,
and the pace of job hiring continue to come in
between seventy and eighty thousand. So we will see what
we get and certainly be covering it on the show tomorrow.
Anything else to add for you, Marc to say the
(03:25):
labor market.
Speaker 4 (03:26):
You raise an interesting question about the unemployment rate in
how do how will we actually I forget how you
phrased it, but what's stuck in my mind is how
do we know what the right unemployment rate is? Well,
the unemployment rate in twenty twenty three went down to
what three point four percent, way below have typical historical experience,
(03:48):
and that was accompanied by high inflation.
Speaker 2 (03:49):
Mark.
Speaker 3 (03:50):
I was thinking about this when we were speaking this morning,
like I think, yeah, we were talking about unemployment, not
on the show, but I was thinking, like, what is
the answer to, Hey.
Speaker 2 (04:00):
What is the what is the ideal unemployment?
Speaker 5 (04:03):
Right?
Speaker 2 (04:03):
Okay?
Speaker 4 (04:03):
Well I was going to answer the question, and.
Speaker 3 (04:04):
I think the answer depends on who you're asking, because
for employees, the answer is the best, the best layer
market you had seen in a lifetime and a generation
sure was the one we got three years ago, the way.
Speaker 4 (04:16):
They economists at the FED would and what most of
us care about. And I don't mean to diminish the
experience of somebody who's underemployed or god forbid, unemployed. Uh,
and who looks at that and says, well, that's partly
my experience, and I want it to come down. I'm
just talking about this as sort of a.
Speaker 2 (04:33):
A you got it detached sort of What is the
best unemployment race? They would say.
Speaker 4 (04:41):
The economists at the FED would say, and this is
important because they determine monetary policy. We all care about
what interest rates you're going to do. They would say,
it's the rate that doesn't push inflation up. And that
rate and this is something we were talking about internally
this morning, that rate changes over time. Is the structure
of the economy changes.
Speaker 2 (04:57):
We know one thing. It certainly was not three point
four percent.
Speaker 5 (04:59):
No.
Speaker 4 (04:59):
It was that was unnaturally.
Speaker 2 (05:01):
Low and drove up inflation in part and was.
Speaker 4 (05:03):
Related to the right. Demand was too hot that pushed
unemployment too low. The FED was at least partly responsible
for that. At the very least, they failed to push
against the forces that were causing demand to run ahead
of the economy's productive capacity and thus pushed up inflation.
In the late nineteen nineties, unemployment went down to the
force I forget exactly where it bottomed. It was so
(05:27):
low that many people thought the FED should be raising rates.
Green span correctly in retrospect identified something going on on
the supply side of the economy.
Speaker 2 (05:34):
The interactivity boom, Yeah.
Speaker 4 (05:37):
The productivity boom, and he was early there. He also
got a little bit lucky because it took years to
document that that's actually what it happened. We don't know
what the right or natural or non inflationary rate of
unemployment is today. It might be five point five. That
could be why inflation remains elevated. So nobody wants higher
(05:58):
unemployment because that real human costs. But someone who's setting
monetary policy doesn't want to push unemployment, as callous as
it sounds, and think about when the FED has to
cause recessions to get inflation down, it's willing to make
that trade off. Economists have a name for that trade off.
It's called the sacrifice ratio. Again, it sounds glib and unsympathetic,
(06:21):
but you can't push the economy too hot because inflation
has victims too.
Speaker 3 (06:24):
The other major story of this week has, of course,
been Venezuela and what is happening with its oil, What
is happening with Nicholas Maduro. Will there be some sort
of shift in power in Venezuela. Many of those questions
remain unanswered, but we're starting to get more and more
written about the situation with US domestic oil production, what
it could mean if Venezuela's market is more open to
(06:47):
US companies for all sorts of drilling and things along
those lines. Fact of the matter, the state of play today,
the US pump's more crude oil than any other country
in the world without is.
Speaker 4 (07:00):
With thirteen million barrels a day, right is our output
twelve thirteen, Maybe that's about it's come down a little
bit over the past year, but twelve to thirteen.
Speaker 3 (07:07):
The recent trend in oil production has been shrinking rig
counts because at the prices that are currently being paid,
you are not really terribly profitable for a lot of
these oil companies for them to continue to drill new
rigs and get oil out of the ground. For reference,
oil prices are up a bit today, but we're still
below fifty seven dollars per barrel. And I this is
(07:30):
not my own phrasing, but I found it really interesting
a lot of it. You know, if you're looking at
the Venezuela situation, a lot has been compared to Panama
in what was that like eighty eight or eighty nine.
Speaker 2 (07:42):
Excuse me, and it was points out.
Speaker 4 (07:44):
That you know historically, just cause was eighty nine. You're
talking about this, yes, removing oreego, Yes, eighty nine, Okay,
because yeah, Bush was president. Yeah it wasn't ninety because
we were dealing with a rack at that it was
eighty nine. I think it was eighty nine.
Speaker 2 (07:56):
It'll be a trivia question three weeks from now.
Speaker 4 (07:59):
The we just google it was supposed to be stammering
for it.
Speaker 3 (08:02):
See that's what I hate about the Internet is we
used to have these fun conversations like, Okay, well, let's
see I was in middle school when it happened, so
therefore no no. Now we can just google it and
get the answer instantaneously.
Speaker 1 (08:14):
Uh.
Speaker 2 (08:14):
Nonetheless, a lot has been compared to that period.
Speaker 4 (08:17):
Yeah, I don't have to fumble around for it.
Speaker 2 (08:19):
Is a bad thing because now kids don't know how
to talk to each other.
Speaker 4 (08:23):
Yeah, it's about that with all these facts hanging around,
nobody can communicate anyone.
Speaker 3 (08:28):
I used to just be able to make up conspiracy theories.
Now I have to go to the Internet and find
them myself.
Speaker 4 (08:32):
I don't like it's a bear market for bs ors.
If that's what you.
Speaker 5 (08:35):
Mean, I love the conversation of fumbling around what year
an event occurred. Yes, I prefer that conversation.
Speaker 4 (08:40):
I'd rather grow up around in the dark for three hours. Yes,
that's my memory, one hundred percent.
Speaker 2 (08:46):
One hundred percent.
Speaker 4 (08:47):
Listeners love that one of these guys has any clue
what's going.
Speaker 3 (08:51):
The point that was made was that historically, when the
United States has done something like we did in Venezuela,
it was oftentimes loud as hey, this is about democracy
and restoring democracy in.
Speaker 2 (09:03):
The region, when everyone you knew it was all about oil.
Speaker 3 (09:06):
And this is the first time where you look at
this one you say, I'm not really sure this is
about the oil. I think the president certainly believes it's
about the oil. I think he, you know, views oil
as critical to the global economy. Frankly, I think that
viewpoint has a bit outdated in today's economy, given how
much oil the US produces.
Speaker 4 (09:24):
It's a it's an election year, so it's there's there's
a little bit of an election impetus there.
Speaker 3 (09:28):
But you know, this is the first time where you
look at it and say, Okay, they're not saying it's
about democracy at all. Right, The administration is not talking
about that. You want the opposition and reality. You know,
the advisors around him, I'm sure are well aware that, Hey,
we don't really need the oil for the United States
to continue to be successful. In fact, we'd rather additional
(09:49):
oil might not be the oil patch likes.
Speaker 4 (09:52):
H You talked about it, and we've all seen landman.
Now we know what the oil patch likes.
Speaker 3 (09:56):
And so yeah, with that in mind, yes, I do
believe the President views, you know, oil is critical and
securing these that resource as pretty important reason.
Speaker 2 (10:06):
But you do wonder, like, how much more of.
Speaker 3 (10:08):
This was really about a display of American military power
about you know, rare earth materials are just securing a
relatively close by enemy? Is I think an open question.
I like fascinating.
Speaker 4 (10:22):
I like the preventing our potential enemies China and others
from getting their hands on venit. I hadn't thought about
that angle at first when I heard about the It
wasn't really an invasion to this point what you call
that operation. But anyway, when I first heard about it,
I thought, oh God, here we go again. The first
forty eight hours look great because of our superior military
(10:44):
and tactical capabilities. But the tough part is locking those
gains down. I hadn't appreciated controlling their oil to make
sure it doesn't go to potential. If we do have
a conflict with China or Russia or both, we'll well,
Russia can rushes energy independent for the or could be,
but with China will be darn will be very glad
(11:06):
that we remove this source of fuel for the Chinese military.
I hadn't thought about that. President's not saying that he can't.
Speaker 3 (11:14):
I guess sure, I think, But yeah, the further away
we get, the more clear it becomes that in the
short term this probably does not do much of anything to.
Speaker 2 (11:24):
The oil market.
Speaker 4 (11:25):
Well, look at the price of.
Speaker 3 (11:26):
Oil hasn't moved. It might put further caps on how
much it can appreciate. But the idea of Exxon or
even Chevron, who's already in Venezuela, dramatically increasing oil supply
in the global market anywhere in the next five years,
to me seems incredibly.
Speaker 4 (11:41):
We don't know what the rules are going to be
right in Venezuela.
Speaker 3 (11:44):
Quick break when we come back, A little bit of
trivia here next on the financial exchange.
Speaker 1 (11:50):
Miss any of the show. Catch up in 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. THEA is your home for the latest
business and financial news in New England and around the country.
This is the Financial Exchange Radio Network. Here the Financial
(12:10):
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 the trends on
Wall Street. The Financial Exchange is now life on Serious
XM's Business Radio channel one thirty two. This is the
Financial Exchange Radio Network.
Speaker 5 (12:37):
It's Sam for trivia here on the Financial Exchange. Nineteen
states as well as forty nine cities and counties are
increasing their wage floors to at least fifteen dollars per
hour for some or all employees. However, the federal minimum
wage will remain at seven dollars in twenty five cents.
Speaker 2 (12:57):
So trivia question.
Speaker 5 (12:58):
Today, which president introduced the federal minimum wage? Once again?
Which president introduced the federal minimum wage? Be the fifth
person today to text us at six one, seven, three,
six two, thirteen eighty five with the correct answer along
with the keyword trivia. And you win a Financial Exchange
showed t shirt once again. The fifth correct response to
(13:21):
text us to the number six one seven three six
to two thirteen eighty five with the correct answer along
with the keyword trivia will.
Speaker 4 (13:29):
Win that T shirt.
Speaker 5 (13:31):
See complete contest rules at Financial Exchange show dot com.
Speaker 3 (13:34):
We're turning to China now, but now that I'm gonna
go back to Venezuela from a moment, did you see
the reporting that there was a Chinese delegation of diplomats
in the capitol during the US raid and in Venezuela.
Speaker 4 (13:45):
I did not see that.
Speaker 2 (13:46):
Yeah, so I don't know. I just found that interesting.
Speaker 3 (13:49):
Apparently they were they put out a statement like, not
exactly saying you shouldn't do this because they're not gonna
say that, but like, hey, a heads up to our
you know, diplomats would have been nice. I find this
all interesting in the context of.
Speaker 4 (14:01):
Oh, sure, anything else you'd like us to tip you
off on.
Speaker 3 (14:05):
China is a depriving Japan of rare earth supply again
based on a comment made by leadership there about Taiwan, and.
Speaker 2 (14:13):
I do just openly wonder there's this deal.
Speaker 3 (14:16):
That the president has been working on in Video's ability
to sell some of their semiconductors over to China. There
will be the H two hundreds. This is at least
one generation old of semiconductors. Pretty soon it'll be two
generations back of the latest and greatest semi conductors. But again,
I've been kind of openly pondering since the events in Venezuela,
(14:40):
will there be any retaliation from anyone.
Speaker 2 (14:43):
Not that China and Venezuela.
Speaker 3 (14:44):
Are terribly close these days, but the low hanging fruit
and the method that they have been using all over
the course of the last year has been rare earths,
and they're clearly still willing to flex that muscle, at
least with Japan. So I don't really have any big
opinion on whether or not China is going to actually
buy these Nvidia H two hundreds. I think part of
(15:07):
it was just getting a deal approved to appease the
folks in Washington, and so at least what we can
say right now is that there has not been any
seeming step back in relations between the US and China
as of late.
Speaker 2 (15:21):
But I don't think there's much more of a story.
Speaker 4 (15:22):
We've got a little more leverage now if we control
the flow of oil out of Venezuela so a bit.
Speaker 2 (15:27):
But again, like China has plenty of places they can
buy oil.
Speaker 4 (15:30):
That's true. It is a global market.
Speaker 3 (15:32):
Like, it's really not a problem for them to go
somewhere else, to Russia and buy their oil, or to
go to the Middle East and buy that oil instead.
Speaker 2 (15:41):
It's still pretty darn cheap.
Speaker 3 (15:42):
It's probably not as cheap as Venezuelan oil, but it's
still pretty darn cheap, I think, is my overall conclusion
on all of that. So again, I'm not sure how
that affects the overall geopolitical situation.
Speaker 4 (15:56):
Did you see the listener email regarding share reproach restrictions
on defense contractors paying out now dividends. It's very well
written and seemingly I know nothing, so to me it
seems authoritative. It comes from Don during today's show. You
seem to question the legal authority of the president. I
actually I was questioning it, but without any basis. I
(16:20):
just didn't think the president could tell a publicly traded
company what they could pay their shareholders. But the listener
points out, and we haven't verified this, but it seems authoritative,
So let's take it at face. Value dividends are included
in the definition of paraphrasing the listener Don's email a
little bit here are included in the restrictions on allowable
costs that are detailed for the Department of War and
(16:42):
the cost accounting in their cost accounting standards. Again I'm
paraphrasing a little bit here. So this listener, again, Don
worked in finance at Raytheon and he claims, again we
haven't verified it, but it sounds believable to me upon
kind of reflection. And I probably should have thought about this,
(17:03):
that the federal government can strain defense contractors. Now if
you stop contracting with them, I suppose I don't know
who else they would who else they'd be making product for,
maybe the circumstances would be different, But they apparently can
do so according according to this, And it does make
(17:24):
when you think about the relationship between the Department of
Defense and defense contractors going back to World War Two
and the cost plus arrangements we imposed on Ford and others,
it does make sense.
Speaker 3 (17:37):
It would be truly fascinating though, so take it when Yeah,
thank you for emailing Don. That's informative and I appreciate it.
It would be fascinating at a time where clearly there
is additional demand for military resources. To see the stocks
not performed terribly well because to your point, right, if
you are talking about investing in a company that is
barred from paying a dividend or share repurchase, I think
(18:01):
that would be a pretty high barrier to entry for
some of the Yeah.
Speaker 4 (18:03):
In some ways, these are quasi public entities.
Speaker 2 (18:06):
Yep.
Speaker 4 (18:06):
They have one big customer and the only specs they
care about are the specs provided by that customer. So,
you know, maybe my fanatical free market approach to things
needs to be sort of tempered in light of the
unique position of defense contractors.
Speaker 2 (18:24):
Yeah, taking a but I.
Speaker 3 (18:27):
Won't you won't do that. Okay, let's see what do
we have here that I want to cover next? Ah, Yes,
Warner Brothers, the gift that keeps on giving. Warner Brothers
board just put out a notice to shareholders that they
would recommend against Paramount's hostile takeover bid. What makes this
piece additionally interesting is they had previously thrown out there
(18:49):
some questions about the trust that was going to fund
the eventual purpose purchase of Warner Brothers and be a
backstop to it. Paramount then removed any of that concern,
and nonetheless, Warner Brothers has come back and said, yeah,
we don't care. We're still not recommending shareholders go with
this purchase. We still would prefer Netflix. Thus far, neither
(19:11):
of these companies have increased their bid. My guess would
be that might be what comes next. But first thing
is going to be this hostile takeover bid where shareholders
will be asked to vote on it, so we will
see where that goes. Quick Break Wall Street Watch coming
up next, bringing.
Speaker 1 (19:42):
The latest financial news straight to your radio. Every day,
It's the Financial Exchange on the Financial Exchange Radio Network.
Time now for Wall Street Watch. A complete look at
what's moving market so far today right here on the
Financial Exchange Radio Network.
Speaker 5 (20:01):
After yesterday's bullback, markets today are mixed as traders react
to the jobless claims data posted earlier this morning and
prepare for tomorrow's all important jobs report for the month
of December, due out at eight thirty.
Speaker 2 (20:13):
In the morning.
Speaker 5 (20:14):
Right now, the Dow is up six tenths of a percent,
or three hundred points higher. SMP five hundred is down
only two points at the moment. NASDAC down by over
two thirds of a percent, or one hundred and fifty
eight points lower. Rusted two thousand up six tenths of
a percent, and Your Treasure reeld is up three basis
points at four point one seven five percent, and crude
(20:36):
oil up nearly two percent higher, now trading just above
fifty seven dollars a barrel. Several defense stocks are rallying
after President Trump called for a one and a half
trillion dollar defense budget in twenty twenty seven, a significant
increase from the nine hundred and one billion dollars approved
by Congress in twenty twenty six. Shares in Lockheed Martin
and Northrook Grumman are up by five percent, while RTX
(20:58):
shares are climbing about two percent higher. Meanwhile, Applied Digital
stock rallying fifteen percent after the AI infrastructure company beat
earnings expectations for its most recent quarter and also saw
its revenue roughly triple. Elsewhere, the maker of Modello and
Corona Constellation brands reported lower quarterly sales and profit as
(21:19):
customers continued to buy less beer. However, the results did
beat expectations. Constellation shares are up by four percent. According
to Bloomberg, China plans to approve some imports of in
videos h two hundred chips as soon as this quarter,
and Video shares are down two percent. CrowdStrike announced that
it is buying identity management startup SGNL and a deal
(21:40):
valued at nearly seven hundred and forty million dollars. CrowdStrike
is down by three percent and Apple shares are off
over one percent following news that JP Morgan Chase has
reached a deal to take over the Tech Giants credit
card program from Goldman Sachs. I'm Tucker Silva and that
is Wallstreet Watch and the trivia qui we asked in
the previous segment was which president introduced the federal minimum wage?
Speaker 2 (22:05):
That would be FDR.
Speaker 5 (22:07):
Bill Bill from Lebanon, New Hampshire is our winner today
taking ELM a Financial Exchange Show t shirt. Congrats to Bill,
and we played trivia every day here in the Financial Exchange.
See complete contest rules at Financial Exchange Show dot com.
Speaker 3 (22:21):
There's some anticipation of a big IPO the year this year,
after frankly several years of not much in the way
of IPOs. We saw hot new listing year in twenty
twenty one during the craze of the backcraze of twenty
twenty one that didn't end up going terribly well, but
big name companies like SpaceX, Open Ai, and Thropic all
(22:42):
rumored to maybe be considering going public this year. And frankly,
this has been a trend for the last several decades.
This is nothing new, but fewer and fewer companies have
been publicly listed. I don't know if you have a
timeframe for when that kind of peaked, mark when did
like the most When were the most US companies public?
Speaker 2 (23:01):
Was that late nineties? Would be my guest before Starbanes Oxley.
Speaker 5 (23:05):
Yeah, we should keep speculating.
Speaker 4 (23:07):
Yeah, ridders and academic used to be in Florida. I
think he's somewhere else is interested. We've referenced this before,
at least I have. It was probably years ago, though
even I don't remember when. But yeah, there were one hundreds,
several hundred throughout the nineties, really peaking in the mid nineties,
waning a little bit, never really recovering to those heights.
(23:27):
The highest they've been is three hundred and eleven, and
this was in twenty twenty one, and then it's slowed
to a trickle. So yeah, dramatic slow down, Mike from
the from the last century.
Speaker 2 (23:36):
And there's a number of reasons.
Speaker 3 (23:37):
One is the cost of being a public company have
increased over time. All the accounting things you need to do,
the audits that you need to do in order to
be public are costly, especially for a smaller sized company,
and the ability of private funds to keep companies private
for longer has grown over a course of time.
Speaker 2 (23:55):
So private equity firms.
Speaker 3 (23:56):
Allison points out something that I wouldn't have really thought of,
but you know, a real IPO boom, She says, this
is Alison Schraeger from from Bloomberg. That is could spell
trouble for private equity and I have a tough time
making sense of that because IPO is one of the
methods that private actually equity actually realizes the gains on
(24:17):
their built companies that they have acquired at a smaller
it's their liquidity. And so why in her mind could
that be a problem for private equity investors.
Speaker 4 (24:27):
Well, as the name suggests, this is these are privately
traded security's known by pension funds, other institutional investors and
maybe wealthy investors too. These are valued according to what
the accountants and auditors who work for or are contracted
by private equity managers to assess.
Speaker 3 (24:48):
It's an important consideration, right, Like the reason we know
that Nvidia is worth, however many trillion dollars is because
we know there are certain number of shares out standing
on their trade off.
Speaker 4 (24:58):
We all say so, yeah, it's it's.
Speaker 2 (25:00):
That's not how firms work, transparent privately.
Speaker 4 (25:03):
Private equity firms valued it what the manager effectively decides.
Schrager's point is if they decide to use the IPO
channel to exit, which every private equity manager has to do,
they don't want to own a company forever, they.
Speaker 2 (25:16):
Doesn't need to go by IPO. But they could sell
it to any other.
Speaker 4 (25:19):
Yea, they could, but generally yeah, yeah.
Speaker 2 (25:22):
It's the story. It's usually going IPO.
Speaker 4 (25:25):
But yeah, that's gonna be the They're going to have
to mark to reality that they call it marked to
market when well, that's that's one way anyway to change
the valuation. They're going to have to uh face the
music at some point. Anyway. If they've been carrying something
on their books at an artificially high at an inflated
and there's nothing in the city is going on, they
(25:46):
may just been overly optimistic, or markets may have changed.
Speaker 5 (25:49):
This is a message for families who've put who've been
putting off their estate planning from the Elder Law Attorney's
Ax Cushing and Dolan. One of the biggest miss about
long term care is that if you didn't plan five
years ahead, you're out of options. Well, that's simply not true.
When a health crisis hits and a loved one needs
nursing home care, many families panic can start writing checks
(26:11):
for care that may cost over ten thousand dollars a month.
The reality is there may still be meaningful legal options
available even when planning starts late. Cushing and dolanv just
released a new guide called Long Term Care Planning for Procrastinators.
It breaks down what the five year look back really
means and what steps can still be considered before making
(26:34):
decisions that can be incredibly costly. If you're worried about
protecting your family and securing your financial future, called Cushing
and Dolan eight eight sixty six eight four eight five
six nine nine to get your free guide today that's
eight six six eight four eight five six nine to nine,
or you can request it from their website Legal Exchange
(26:55):
Show dot com.
Speaker 1 (26:57):
The proceeding was paid for, and the views expressed are
solely those of Cushing and Dolan. Cushing and Dolan and
or Armstrong Advisory may contact you offering legal or investment services.
Cushing and Armstrong do not endorse each other and are
not affiliated.
Speaker 3 (27:08):
Tucker likes putting stories into the stack that I'm interested in.
Ford is entering the race to offer eyes off driving technology,
starting with an alleged thirty thousand dollars EV in twenty
twenty eight, which I'm not buying it. Plenty of these
companies have said they're going to offer cars for thirty
thousand dollars and don't get to that price point. What
I do find exciting is I think that we are
(27:28):
actually getting close to cars that are pretty good at
driving themselves. We've seen it with way Mo and what
they're able to do on those vehicles, but by all estimates,
those things cost a good one hundred thousand dollars to
produce and so not exactly a retail car. Mercedes Benz
has gotten there with one of their self driving technologies,
(27:49):
but it's very limited in terms of where it's able
to go. And then the next level down you've got
the Tesla full self driving, You've got the Chevy Super
Crews and the Forward Blue Cruise.
Speaker 2 (28:02):
I believe it is all of these are.
Speaker 3 (28:04):
I think they're called level two driving systems where your
eyes have to remain on the road, but you don't
necessarily need to control the steering wheel. The vehicle will
go so far as to change lanes for you and
to move over when it's time for you to exit,
and slow the vehicle down when it's time to exit,
bring it to a full stop, start it back up again.
So that's where the technology is now, and Ford saying, hey,
(28:27):
by twenty twenty eight, we want to be able to
step that up to a new level.
Speaker 2 (28:30):
And frankly, you know, I.
Speaker 3 (28:32):
Would say that Ford, Tesla, and Chevy are probably the
front runners today in this technology. And I guess I
wouldn't necessarily trust Elon Musk's statements on the future of
this because he'd been probably saying to deliver self driving
cars for the better part of a decade. But it
does seem like we're getting pretty close to this. Does
(28:54):
this matter to either of you?
Speaker 4 (28:56):
Like this piece of technology where the demand is for it?
Is this something people are clamoring for and would don't
have to be clamoring for it. That will you make
long drives once a.
Speaker 2 (29:05):
Week on the highway.
Speaker 5 (29:07):
It would be extremely useful for me.
Speaker 4 (29:09):
Doesn't doesn't. Well, adaptive cruise control gets you part of
the way there, you still have to keep your hands
on the wheel.
Speaker 3 (29:15):
Yeah, I've found the I found that the adaptive cruise
control varies greatly depending on the make. My adaptive crewe
control in my Toyota is terrible and cannot keep me
in the lane, whereas my Honda's really good.
Speaker 4 (29:27):
So it steers for you as well. It doesn't just
adjust speed.
Speaker 3 (29:30):
Yeah, it's supposed to also keep you centered in the lane. Okay,
that's what some of these systems do. So yeah, to me,
I actually think that there's a consumer demand thing here.
Speaker 2 (29:42):
But I do also wonder about us how I.
Speaker 4 (29:44):
Spread it is though maybe it doesn't have to be widespread.
Speaker 2 (29:47):
I don't.
Speaker 3 (29:47):
I think it's pretty niche based on what I've seen,
because when I went out there to shop for it,
it was not a sales point that the people were
making that Hey, this is a really cool technology.
Speaker 5 (29:55):
OK.
Speaker 4 (29:55):
At some point it's going to be standard. This will
get cheap and easy to and at some point, well
standard means you can't refuse it, but you don't have
to eat like Lake cruise Control. It became cheaper to
just add it to every vehicle than to discriminate and
put it in only higher tier levels.
Speaker 3 (30:10):
To me, where the money is, though, it is not
some ev that you sell to Tucker, Like, if this
is truly usable, then there's massive implications for long haul trucking,
right like that is the single one of the biggest
costs of moving goods across this country is paying the
people to drive the trucks.
Speaker 2 (30:28):
Around, and they're limited in terms of their hours. It
is a stressful job.
Speaker 3 (30:32):
And this technology, if it's really usable, put into some
of those semi trucks makes a big difference. So that's
to me where the money is to be made on this,
not on selling you me or Tucker a new car,
which I'm buying one with some of this technology, and
because I find it really fascinating and interesting.
Speaker 2 (30:48):
But yeah, well we will see. I do feel like
we are getting pretty close.
Speaker 3 (30:54):
And my mind shifted on that after going into a
way mow and just seeing how how frankly impressive it
was to be able to deliver me to where I
was going right from the airport without a human being there.
Quick Break when we come back. Bit a Stack Roulette
is next on the Financial Exchange.
Speaker 1 (31:12):
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.
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,
(31:33):
and breaking business news. Every day. The Financial Exchange is
live on Serious XM's Business Radio Channel one thirty two.
This is the Financial Exchange Radio Network.
Speaker 5 (31:45):
This segment of The Financial Exchange is brought to you
by the US Virgin Islands Department of Tourism. Experience America's
Caribbean and fall naturally in rhythm with the hardpeat of
the Islands while enjoying credible beaches, world class cuisine and
unforgettable sunset. The weather is perfect all year round, so
I had to visit USBI dot com book your trip
(32:05):
to Saint Croix, Saint Thomas, or Saint John. Enjoy one
or all three, and enjoy the vacation of a lifetime.
USBI is America's Caribbean Paradise. Playing your Winter Escape now
at visit USVII dot com. That's visit USVII dot com.
Speaker 3 (32:22):
I'm gonna preface with this next story with I have
been a dog owner my own life. Love dogs, love cats,
love animals, pets of all sorts.
Speaker 2 (32:32):
But this seems like a bad idea.
Speaker 3 (32:34):
Massachusetts is considering passing a few initiatives that the MSPCA
is launching. The bills would eliminate breed specific bands in
public housing and condo bylaws. They would add pet friendly
emergency shelter terms, remove breed bands from insurance policies, cappet fees,
and support elderly pet owners. I'm not gonna get into
(32:55):
the breed stuff. I think there's plenty of evidence to
support that. You know, insurance companies and others, and private
owners of real estate should have the right to say, hey,
we're not comfortable with dogs over a certain weight or
of a certain breed based on our perception.
Speaker 2 (33:13):
Of possible problems. I don't really see that as an issue.
Speaker 3 (33:17):
Furthermore, I recognize that trying to find an apartment that
will accept your dog is challenging, but as a landlord,
I should be able to say no, right like.
Speaker 2 (33:32):
That is going to do.
Speaker 3 (33:33):
Is there any debate that an animal in the apartment
is going to do additional wear and tear to the apartment.
Speaker 2 (33:39):
Right like?
Speaker 3 (33:40):
I should be able as a private homeowner to say no,
I'm not renting to somebody with a dog. I love dogs,
but I don't want the additional upkeep. And capping the
pet fees is saying that, no, you can't go and
do that. And so yeah, I know that we have
a weird approach to housing in Massachusetts and rules, but
these are private owners of real estate that are making
(34:01):
decisions about how to rent out their properties. They're condo
owners that want to create rules that fit the most residents.
And passing a state law to say you can or
can't do this based on specific pet breeds or types
of pets or this is just crazy. This is this
is you know, tie it in with the proposal to
(34:22):
put in new rent control in Massachusetts and just make
it impossible to own rental property in Massachusetts.
Speaker 2 (34:29):
And I don't know if there's anything to add.
Speaker 4 (34:31):
On that market now. I think, again, what do we
do a good free market framework? Serve hul here if
somebody owned. Now, this is this is a this is passe.
I'm going to sound very you know, nineteenth century year.
But you own the property, you should be able to
do with it as you please, unless you're hurting somebody else.
If that means I don't want to rent to a
guy because he's Italian American and they're loud like me,
(34:53):
then I should be able to exclude them. That would
be legal, probably definitely. I use Italian American as an
example because I am on both sides, and I feel
like I can safely use that as an example. But
I am sorry.
Speaker 3 (35:04):
If I want to have an apartment where I have
no smoke detectors also going to be a problem.
Speaker 2 (35:07):
And I agree that there should story though.
Speaker 4 (35:10):
Yeah, that's that's health, safety, welfare, that's that's that's that's
traditional police power stuff that states have been able to
regulate for a long time. But when it comes to lifestyles,
including dog ownership, I too am a dog owner. If
he if he wants to peel over my hardwood floor
and make it look like a leopard skin pattern because
(35:30):
it's all stayed, now, that's that's on me. I put
up with that, But I would not expect a landlord
to now I would I would invoke the right to
choose here. The right to choose what you do with.
Speaker 2 (35:39):
Your having a property is not some inane human right.
Speaker 3 (35:43):
If you're gonna have a pet and you're gonna rent,
it's gonna cost a heck of a lot more and
it's gonna be tougher to find a place.
Speaker 2 (35:48):
Just's just.
Speaker 4 (35:49):
It's another example of government intervening in an area where
it frankly shouldn't. And this is now we're talking about
state government. I was I was ranting about the federal
government earlier, but the same general polosophy here I think.
Speaker 2 (36:01):
Can should apply.
Speaker 4 (36:03):
I think so, Mike, And it's not. Look, we all
love the cuddly You see the pictures in the article,
and it's adorable little dogs. And it's the implication is
I didn't read the whole thing. The implication is cruel
landlords are pushing these people out onto the street. But
like you said, why would you get into that business
if you couldn't do what you if you can't write,
(36:24):
if you can't control what you charge, which is what
rent control does.
Speaker 3 (36:28):
The idea of forcing this on condo associations and homeowners
is just preposterous to me. But anyway, what do you
have for us for stack?
Speaker 2 (36:36):
Really?
Speaker 4 (36:36):
Oh, trade. You'll see headlines today, it's a quickie. You'll
see headlines about the trade deficit falling by forty percent
in October, and that's true relative to September. But a
couple things. Firstly, in the year two October, the trade
deficit actually went up by eight percent relative to the
year before. I don't necessarily think that is a bad thing.
(36:58):
That means we bought more from a broad because we
wanted to. Then we sold abroad in terms of goods
and services. In exchange for that, foreigners bought US equities
and US treasuries or just held on to those dollars.
So if you're thinking, is well, an increase in tariffs
are responsible for that, I'm afraid that's probably not true.
There are countries with high tariffs that have no trade
(37:20):
deficit or a trade surplus. There are countries with high
tariffs that have big trade deficits. There's no correspondence.
Speaker 3 (37:26):
Interestingly, and keep in mind, too big story that we
haven't really covered yet but most certainly will be, is
whether this what the Supreme Court does in terms of
ruling on these.
Speaker 2 (37:37):
Terriffs that comings.
Speaker 4 (37:38):
They are tomorrow.
Speaker 3 (37:39):
It's coming January or early February. I don't think tomorrow,
but it is expected.
Speaker 2 (37:43):
This month or I thought I heard late January.
Speaker 3 (37:45):
Yeah, January or early next February is the expectations.
Speaker 4 (37:49):
When they start releasing opinions. Excuse me, okay, yeah.
Speaker 3 (37:52):
So, and in the meantime, all the companies that are
subject to these tariffs are ssuing the government to try
and get their reimbursements if they get ruled against. So
a lot more to come on the future of the
current tariffs that are in place. All the time we
have markets remain in mixed territory here. As we close
out the show, we'll have a recap for you tomorrow
as well as a jobs report on a job's Friday
(38:12):
here on the Financial Exchange had a great day of folks.
Popular Podcasts
Two Guys, Five Rings: Matt, Bowen & The Olympics
Two Guys (Bowen Yang and Matt Rogers). Five Rings (you know, from the Olympics logo). One essential podcast for the 2026 Milan-Cortina Winter Olympics. Bowen Yang (SNL, Wicked) and Matt Rogers (Palm Royale, No Good Deed) of Las Culturistas are back for a second season of Two Guys, Five Rings, a collaboration with NBC Sports and iHeartRadio. In this 15-episode event, Bowen and Matt discuss the top storylines, obsess over Italian culture, and find out what really goes on in the Olympic Village.
iHeartOlympics: The Latest
Listen to the latest news from the 2026 Winter Olympics.
Milan Cortina Winter Olympics
The 2026 Winter Olympics in Milan Cortina are here and have everyone talking. iHeartPodcasts is buzzing with content in honor of the XXV Winter Olympics We’re bringing you episodes from a variety of iHeartPodcast shows to help you keep up with the action. Follow Milan Cortina Winter Olympics so you don’t miss any coverage of the 2026 Winter Olympics, and if you like what you hear, be sure to follow each Podcast in the feed for more great content from iHeartPodcasts.