Smartinvesting2000

META's stock surged last week, but investors shouldn't ignore the risks. Meta shares climbed last week as Wall Street became increasingly optimistic about the company's AI strategy. The stock was up about15% for the week and erased the year-to-date losses. Investors are betting that Meta's enormous spending on AI infrastructure, custom chips, top engineering talent, and next-generation models will lead to faster revenue growth, stronger advertising tools, and new revenue streams over the next several years. The market clearly believes Meta has positioned itself as one of the leaders in the AI race. But while investors were celebrating, Europe reminded everyone that even great companies face meaningful risks. The European Commission announced preliminary findings that Facebook and Instagram may violate the Digital Services Act because of what regulators call "addictive design" features, including infinite scrolling, autoplay videos, and recommendation algorithms that encourage users to stay engaged for longer periods. If the findings become final and Meta does not make sufficient changes, the company could face fines of up to 6% of its global annual revenue, along with potential changes to how its platforms operate across Europe. Meta has disputed the findings and says it has already implemented significant protections for younger users. This could amount to a fine of around $12 B, but the bigger problem I see is a potential hit to ad revenue if they must change their business practices. Europe is an important part of their business considering it accounts for about 23% of overall company sales. We also can't forget the legal liability Meta is facing in the United States, which could ultimately total as much as $1.4 trillion. That number may sound shocking, but it stems from multiple lawsuits brought by numerous states and plaintiffs. The first major cases are scheduled to go to trial in August, with California, Colorado, New Jersey, and Kentucky leading the way. The lawsuits allege deceptive business practices, and potential penalties range from $2,000 to $20,000 per violation. Given Meta's massive user base, those fines could accumulate rapidly if the courts rule against the company. Beyond civil penalties, the states are also seeking disgorgement of profits, which would require Meta to surrender profits earned from the alleged misconduct during the relevant period. If Meta performs poorly in these initial cases, another 25 states have similar lawsuits waiting in the wings, significantly increasing the company's legal exposure. There are already signs that these legal challenges carry real financial risk. New Mexico recently won a $375 million judgment against Meta, and a separate federal trial is scheduled to begin early next year. The AI opportunity is also far from guaranteed. Today, investors are rewarding companies that appear to be winning the AI race, but the competitive landscape is becoming more crowded every quarter. OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Microsoft, xAI, and others are investing billions of dollars to develop better models and attract developers. Meta has responded aggressively by spending heavily on infrastructure and recruiting top AI researchers, but there is no guarantee those investments will generate returns that justify the enormous capital being deployed. A big problem is today's leader in AI can quickly become tomorrow's follower if innovation slows. I also believe that all of these companies will not succeed in this space, which will mean enormous amounts of wasted capital for the losers. Wall Street seemed to be focused almost entirely on Meta's AI upside last week, and that optimism may continue to drive the stock higher. But investors should remember that valuation is increasingly dependent on AI execution while regulatory scrutiny remains elevated. If AI spending fails to produce the expected returns or regulators force changes that weaken engagement, today's bullish narrative could change quickly. Meta remains one of the strongest companies in technology, but even great businesses are not risk-free. As investors, it's important to weigh both the opportunities and the risks, not just the headlines driving the stock higher today.   The spring home sales season disappointed in June The spring home-selling season ended on a disappointing note. Through May, existing home sales had been showing signs of improvement, and many real estate professionals were becoming more optimistic about the housing market. However, June's data told a different story. The conflict involving Iran contributed to higher inflation expectations and pushed mortgage rates higher, weighing on buyer demand. Existing home sales fell 2.4% in June to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 4.09 million homes, well below economists' expectations for a 0.7% increase. Despite the monthly decline, the longer-term trend remains somewhat more encouraging. Existing home sales were still up 2.8% compared with a year ago, suggesting that underlying demand has not disappeared. There continues to be pent-up demand from prospective buyers, but many seem unwilling to make such a large financial commitment while borrowing costs remain elevated, even as housing inventory continues to improve According to Freddie Mac, the average 30-year fixed mortgage rate was 6.43% last week. If mortgage rates remain near these levels, many prospective homebuyers may continue to delay their purchases, preventing a stronger recovery in the housing market.   Another Hidden Cost of AI: Steel Most people know that the AI buildout has driven up demand for advanced computer chips, contributing to higher prices for smartphones, laptops, and other electronics. They also know that AI data centers require enormous amounts of electricity, putting upward pressure on utility rates as more power is diverted to support AI infrastructure. But there's another cost that receives far less attention: steel. Steel is a critical component of every data center. Industry estimates suggest that new data centers will consume roughly 1 million tons of steel annually, representing approximately $1.4 billion in demand. Steel is used throughout these facilities from the structural columns, roof joists, and roof decking to the server racks that house thousands of AI processors. This growing demand has ripple effects throughout the economy. Higher steel demand can contribute to increased costs for automobiles, household appliances, commercial buildings, bridges, and countless other products that rely on steel. The impact doesn't stop there. Steel production is one of the most energy-intensive manufacturing processes. A single electric furnace steel mill can consume anywhere from around 50 to 200 megawatts of electricity per day, competing for the same power resources as AI data centers. As both industries demand more electricity, utilities face increasing pressure to expand generating capacity. Ultimately, who pays for that increased demand? The answer is often the consumer. Higher electricity demand can translate into higher utility bills for households and businesses as utilities invest in additional generation and transmission infrastructure. In regions where electricity supply is already tight, the competition for power is becoming even more apparent. For example, PJM Interconnection, the nation's largest regional transmission organization, plans to begin conducting supplemental power auctions with electricity generators in September to help secure additional supply. Auctions reward the highest bidders, meaning electricity increasingly flows to those willing to pay the most. As large industrial users and AI data centers bid aggressively for power, consumers could face higher electricity prices if supply fails to keep pace with demand. AI will likely bring enormous productivity gains and economic benefits over the long run. However, it is also creating secondary inflationary pressures that extend well beyond semiconductors. Steel, electricity, construction materials, and other critical inputs are all experiencing increased demand, and those costs eventually work their way through the economy. As the AI revolution accelerates, these indirect costs are likely to become an increasingly important part of the inflation story.   Inflation Is Cooling... But Don't Pop the Champagne Yet The latest CPI report was another encouraging sign that inflation is moving in the right direction. Headline CPI declined 0.4% in June, marking the largest monthly drop since 2020, while the annual inflation rate slowed to 3.5% from 4.2% in May. Core inflation, which excludes food and energy, was flat on the month and eased to 2.6% year over year. Much of the improvement was driven by a sharp decline in gasoline and broader energy prices. While this is welcome news, I'd caution against declaring victory over inflation. One of the biggest challenges with inflation is that it doesn't always show up in the headline numbers immediately. It often works its way through the economy in waves, especially when it comes to energy. A good example is my own pool service. My pool guy recently raised his prices, likely for two reasons: higher chemical costs and the increased cost of driving from house to house. Those are both directly tied to energy markets. Even if gasoline prices temporarily fall and help bring down CPI for a month, businesses often adjust prices more slowly because they have to account for prior cost increases and the uncertainty of where energy prices are headed next. That's why I think investors should remain cautious. The recent improvement in inflation was helped significantly by lower oil and gasoline prices following a temporary easing in geopolitical tensions. But with conflict in the Middle East once again threatening energy supplies and oil prices recently moving higher, that relief could prove short-lived. The trend is encouraging, and the Federal Reserve will certainly welcome softer inflation data. But as long as energy prices remain vulnerable to geopolitical events, inflation is likely to remain unpredictable. Businesses from manufacturers to small local service providers will likely continue to pass along higher input costs whenever they have to. One softer CPI report is good news. But sustained price stability will likely require a concrete outcome in the Middle East and more stability in the energy market. While again we welcome the positive news in this CPI report, the conversation around in inflation and what to do with interest rates will continue with the ongoing developments in Iran.   Higher Gas Prices Aren't Stopping the American Consumer If you were looking for evidence that higher gas prices are slowing down the American consumer, the latest retail sales report doesn't provide much support. The headline number was relatively modest, with retail and food services sales increasing 0.2% from May. But the year-over-year numbers tell a much stronger story. Total retail and food services sales were up 6.7% from June of last year. Even if you exclude gas stations, which saw an increase of 19.8%, retail sales still grew at an impressive rate of 5.7%. More importantly, when you look across the major spending categories, not a single major category declined year over year. Furniture and home furnishing stores was the only major category that was flat compared to last year, but again it wasn't negative! Some of the strongest performers included non-store retailers, which primarily includes online shopping, increased 14.2%. Electronics and appliance stores were up 8.6%, while clothing and clothing accessories increased by 4.8%. Building materials and garden equipment stores were up 3.5% One of the more interesting data points is that Americans are still spending money at restaurants and bars. Food services and drinking places were up 3.8% year over year, showing that consumers continue to spend on experiences and dining out despite higher costs and concerns about the economy. The big takeaway is that the consumer remains remarkably resilient. Yes, higher gas prices can eventually put pressure on household budgets. But so far, consumers have continued to spend across virtually every major category. The year-over-year numbers show broad-based growth, not just spending concentrated in one or two areas. The consumer may be under pressure, but they are clearly not out of the game yet.   Financial Planning: What's Next for Social Security The Social Security Trustees' most recent solvency report highlights the need for Congress to address the program's long-term funding shortfall. Under current projections, the retirement trust fund is expected to be depleted in 2032, at which point ongoing payroll tax revenue would be sufficient to pay only about 78% of scheduled benefits unless legislative changes are made. Importantly, this does not mean Social Security will become insolvent or stop paying benefits, it means benefits would be reduced if Congress takes no action. While no specific legislation has emerged, many policy experts expect Congress to adopt a combination of gradual reforms rather than a single sweeping change. Potential solutions include increasing the Social Security payroll tax rate from 6.2%, raising or eliminating the taxable wage cap from $184,500, increasing the full retirement age from 67 for younger workers, and slowing future benefit growth for higher-income retirees. Historically, when Congress has made changes to Social Security, it has phased them in over many years, and most proposals would leave current retirees and those approaching retirement largely unaffected. As a result, individuals already receiving benefits or those within roughly the next decade of retirement are generally expected to experience little or no change, with the majority of reforms likely to apply to younger generations who have more time to prepare.   Companies Discussed: Nike, Inc. (Ticker: NKE)  

Did you ever wonder why so many people didn't get out before the dot-com crash? It's an important question to ask yourself, especially if you believe you'll know exactly when to get out before any potential correction in today's AI and semiconductor stocks.   The reality is that the dot-com bubble burst only 25 years ago. Human nature hasn't changed since then. Investors today are no smarter than investors were back then, and the same emotions that drove the bubble are showing up again. There were four major reasons so many people lost money during the tech bust.   The first was that investors stopped focusing on earnings and price-to-earnings ratios. Instead, they justified sky-high valuations by looking at metrics like website traffic, page views, click-through rates, and the number of "eyeballs" on a screen. The assumption was that if revenue kept growing, profits would eventually follow. Many ignored the reality that businesses also have expenses, competition, and execution risk.   The second reason was FOMO or the fear of missing out. Between 1995 and 2000, the Nasdaq surged roughly 400%. As people watched friends, coworkers, and investors make fortunes on tech stocks and IPOs, more and more money poured into the market. Institutional investors and retail investors alike stopped worrying about valuations. They simply saw stocks going up and didn't want to miss the ride.   The third reason was the belief that "this time is different." You heard it everywhere: "You just don't get it. This is the new economy." Investors argued that traditional valuation metrics no longer mattered because the only thing that counted was gaining market share. Profitability could always come later.   The fourth reason was the assumption that capital would never dry up. Few investors paid attention to where companies were getting their money. Many businesses were surviving on venture capital rather than sustainable profits. When funding slowed and investors became more selective, those companies had no profitable business model to fall back on. Many quickly went bankrupt.   At the peak of the bubble, investors stopped asking basic questions. What am I paying for this company's earnings? What am I paying for its cash flow? In many cases, there weren't any. Yet investors convinced themselves the speculative frenzy would continue indefinitely.   The biggest lesson is a humbling one. We like to believe we'll recognize the top and get out before everyone else. But investors in 2000 believed the same thing. Human psychology hasn't changed, which is why bubbles continue to repeat throughout history.   Don't Build That Data Center in My Backyard The race to build AI infrastructure is running into an obstacle that many investors probably didn't see coming: local communities.   Across the country, residents are protesting and filing lawsuits to stop new AI data centers from being built in their neighborhoods. One of the biggest concerns is something most people never think about, the constant noise. Data centers operate around the clock, with cooling fans, chillers, and backup generators creating a continuous hum 24 hours a day. That may not sound like a major issue until you have to live next to it.   New York has become one of the focal points of this debate. While the state has plenty of available land for development, many communities are pushing back. Governor Kathy Hochul is even considering legislation that would place a moratorium on the construction of large data centers in certain areas.   Public opinion reflects that growing resistance. According to recent polling, 44% of Americans oppose additional data center construction, while only 21% support it. When the question becomes more personal and whether people would support a data center being built in their own community, opposition jumps to 57%, while support falls to just 14%.   Residents also question the long-term economic benefits. Building a data center may create thousands of construction jobs, but once the facility is complete, permanent employment may fall to just 100 to 200 workers. At the same time, these facilities consume enormous amounts of electricity. In some regions served by smaller utilities, a single data center could account for as much as 25% of total power demand, raising concerns about higher electricity costs and increased strain on the grid.   The political landscape is becoming more challenging. Lawmakers in states including Arizona, Illinois, and Ohio have restricted or eliminated tax incentives that were previously used to attract data center investment.   Even the companies building this infrastructure recognize the growing risk. The hyperscalers are expected to spend nearly $1 trillion on AI infrastructure this year, but increasing public opposition could slow those plans. Nebius Group, for example, warned in its 2025 annual report that rising resistance to data center projects in certain communities could become a headwind for future expansion.   Investors have spent a great deal of time focusing on AI demand, chips, and software. However, another risk is emerging that deserves attention: if communities continue saying, "Not in my backyard," the pace of AI infrastructure growth may not be as smooth as many expect.   Is Crypto Weakening One of America's Most Powerful Weapons? One of the United States' greatest geopolitical advantages isn't its military, it's the U.S. dollar.   Roughly 90% of global foreign exchange transactions involve the U.S. dollar. That dominance gives the United States enormous leverage. When the U.S. imposes financial sanctions and cuts countries off from the dollar-based financial system, it becomes far more difficult for them to conduct international trade, finance military operations, or access global markets.   That advantage is beginning to erode. Countries that have long opposed the United States such as Russia, Iran, and North Korea are increasingly turning to cryptocurrencies to bypass traditional financial channels. According to reports, their use of virtual currencies for cross-border transactions surged from roughly $12.5 billion in 2024 to more than $100 billion in 2025.   Crypto gives sanctioned nations another way to move money. It can be used to purchase drones, weapons, military components, and fuel, while also helping finance operations such as smuggling oil and paying suppliers outside the traditional banking system.   North Korea has become one of the world's most aggressive crypto thieves, using hacking and other cybercrimes to steal digital assets that can then be converted into funding for its military and weapons programs.   Part of the challenge is that cryptocurrency wallets are identified by long strings of letters and numbers rather than names. While blockchain transactions are publicly visible, identifying the person or organization controlling a wallet can be extremely difficult without additional intelligence. That makes enforcement of financial sanctions much harder.   Even terrorist organizations such as Hamas have, at times, solicited donations in cryptocurrency, illustrating how digital assets can be used to circumvent traditional financial controls.   This is why I believe cryptocurrency has become more than just an investment story, it has become a national security issue.   If Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies were to experience a significant decline in value, it would reduce the purchasing power of those holding large crypto reserves, including sanctioned actors that rely on digital assets. While it would not eliminate their ability to use crypto, it could make this alternative financial system less effective and increase the relative importance of the dollar-based financial system.   The stronger the role of the U.S. dollar in global commerce, the more effective financial sanctions remain as a non-military tool of foreign policy. With cryptocurrencies becoming more widely adopted, policymakers will need to consider the risk of weakening one of America's most effective forms of economic leverage.   Even with oil off its recent peak, you still may not see cheaper airline tickets. You might assume that with the decline in oil prices, jet fuel costs are also declining, and airlines will pass those savings on to travelers through lower ticket prices. Oil and jet fuel prices have indeed come down, but don't expect airlines to slash fares anytime soon.   The reason is simple: demand remains strong. Even after airlines raised fares eight times since the start of the conflict in the Middle East, analysts say the average round-trip domestic ticket climbed roughly 19% to about $638 yet demand barely changed. In other words, consumers have shown they are willing to pay higher prices to travel. If people keep buying tickets, airlines have little incentive to lower fares and give up those higher profit margins.   Supply is also likely to remain constrained. Airlines aren't rushing to add flights because keeping capacity tight helps support higher ticket prices. The bankruptcy and downsizing of low-cost carriers such as Spirit Airlines has also reduced competition on many routes, making it easier for the remaining airlines to maintain pricing power.   To be fair, airline pricing should be viewed over a longer time horizon. From 2019 through 2025, overall consumer prices rose about 26%, while average airfares actually declined roughly 3.5%. So, despite the recent increases, airline tickets are still relatively inexpensive compared with the broader rise in inflation over the past six years.   The bottom line is that lower fuel costs alone don't guarantee lower ticket prices. As long as travel demand remains healthy and airlines keep capacity in check, consumers may not see much relief at the checkout screen.   Letting Air Out of the Investment Portfolio Balloon Before It Pops At one point or another, we've all seen a balloon inflated until it finally bursts. The same thing can happen to an investment portfolio.   Watching your portfolio grow is exciting, but every investor knows that markets don't go up forever. The challenge is that no one knows exactly when a portfolio has become too inflated. One of the biggest reasons investors refuse to sell is simple: they hate paying taxes. Believe me, I dislike paying taxes just as much as anyone else. But you should never let the tax bill dictate your investment decisions.   Sometimes the smartest move is to relieve some of the pressure in your portfolio before the market does it for you. There are two simple ways to accomplish this: trim oversized positions and sell investments that have become significantly overvalued.   The first strategy is reducing concentration risk. If you review your portfolio and discover that a single stock has grown to 10% or 12% of your total assets, it may be time to trim that position back to 7% or 8%. Yes, you'll likely owe capital gains taxes, but you'll also be reducing the risk that one investment can have an outsized impact on your portfolio if it suddenly declines.   The second strategy is selling investments that have exceeded your target price and can no longer be justified based on their fundamentals. If the valuation has become stretched and the company's earnings outlook no longer supports the stock price, it may be time to take profits. Again, you'll probably owe taxes on the gain, but remember that capital gains are generally taxed at favorable rates. More importantly, paying a 20% or 25% tax on your profit is often far less painful than watching the entire investment lose 20% or more in value. That 20% decline occurs on the entire position rather than just the gain.   No strategy is perfect. You may trim a position only to watch it continue climbing for another year or two. That's part of investing. Risk management isn't about perfectly timing the top, it's about ensuring that no single investment or sector can seriously damage your long-term financial plan.   Consistently following a disciplined, conservative approach won't always maximize returns during bull markets, but it can significantly reduce risk over a full market cycle. When the next major correction inevitably arrives, your portfolio should be positioned to withstand it. That makes it far easier to stay invested, avoid emotional decisions, and continue building wealth instead of panic-selling after the damage has already been done.   Successful investing isn't just about finding great investments. It's also about knowing when to reduce risk. Sometimes, letting a little air out of the balloon today is the best way to keep it from popping tomorrow.   Is AI creating the next memory boom... or setting up the next bust? SK Hynix just pulled off the largest foreign ADR listing in U.S. history, pricing its American depositary receipts at $149 and raising $26.5 billion. That isn't just a fundraising event, it is fuel for one of the most aggressive semiconductor expansion plans the industry has ever seen.   The company is pouring money into new factories, equipment, and advanced packaging capacity around the world. In the United States, SK Hynix is building its first manufacturing facility, a $4 billion advanced packaging plant in West Lafayette, Indiana, expected to be completed in 2028.   Back home in South Korea, the spending is even more staggering. SK Hynix plans to invest up to $720 billion expanding memory production, including a $390 billion semiconductor cluster in Yongin. The company has also committed roughly $7.8 billion by the end of 2027 for additional extreme ultraviolet (EUV) lithography machines, the highly specialized tools needed to manufacture cutting-edge HBM chips. These machines cost as much as $400 million each, are in extremely limited supply, and are only produced by ASML. The company is even accelerating its expansion timeline by more than a decade, with four new fabrication plants now expected to be completed by 2033.   The question investors should be asking isn't whether AI demand is real. It clearly is. The real question is whether the industry is repeating a familiar pattern. Memory has always been one of the most cyclical businesses in technology. Every major technology revolution from the dot-com boom, to smartphones, to cloud computing created a surge in demand for memory chips. Manufacturers responded by rapidly expanding production. Eventually supply caught up, prices collapsed, profits disappeared, and investors who arrived late learned just how brutal the memory cycle can be.   Today feels different... but that is often what every cycle feels like while it is happening.   SK Hynix's market value has increased more than sevenfold over the past year as AI infrastructure spending has created a shortage of HBM. Revenue nearly tripled between 2023 and 2025 to roughly $65 billion, and Wall Street expects sales to surge again to approximately $235 billion in 2026.   Those are incredible numbers. But when major memory producers start announcing massive capacity expansions, history suggests investors should at least consider what happens when today's shortage eventually becomes tomorrow's surplus. AI may create years of strong demand for memory, but the semiconductor industry has a long history of building too much capacity just as demand begins to normalize. The opportunity is enormous, but so is the risk if history repeats itself.   Financial Planning: Simple vs Compounding Interest Loans Many people assume that choosing a simple interest loan over a compound interest loan will dramatically reduce the amount of interest they pay, but in most real-world lending situations, the difference is minimal. The reason is that the power of compounding only becomes significant when a balance grows over time because interest is being added to the principal. With most consumer loans, borrowers either make interest-only payments that keep the principal balance unchanged or make payments that reduce the principal over time. In either case, the interest charged during each payment period is based on the outstanding loan balance at that time, not on an ever-growing balance. Since the loan balance is remaining the same or steadily declining rather than increasing, there is little opportunity for “interest on interest” to accumulate. While compounding can become important if unpaid interest is capitalized and added to the loan balance, that is the exception rather than the rule. For most mortgages, HELOCs, auto loans, personal loans, and similar debt, borrowers should focus far more on the interest rate than on whether the loan is described as using simple or compound interest.   Too Many People Are Using Target Date Funds in Their 401(k) For years, we've discussed the drawbacks of target date funds, including their higher fees and one-size-fits-all approach. Despite those concerns, they remain incredibly popular because they are simple and require very little effort from the investor. According to Vanguard, 61% of 401(k) participants invest in target date funds.   On the surface, they sound like the perfect solution. If you plan to retire around 2045, you simply choose the 2045 Target Date Fund and let it manage your investments. The fund automatically adjusts your portfolio over time, gradually reducing your exposure to stocks and increasing your allocation to bonds as you approach retirement.   Many investors don't realize how significant that shift can be. By the target retirement date, a target date fund may hold around 50% of its assets in bonds. The adjustments don't stop there. Reaching the target year doesn't mean the fund is liquidated or that you receive your money. Instead, the fund continues along its glide path and could increase its bond allocation to 70% or even 80% over the following years.   That approach may have made sense decades ago, but retirement looks very different today. Many people will spend 20 years or more in retirement. Over that length of time, maintaining enough exposure to stocks can be critical to helping your portfolio grow and keep pace with inflation. A portfolio that becomes too conservative too quickly may struggle to provide the long-term growth many retirees need.   Another limitation is that target date funds only manage the assets inside your 401(k). They don't take into account your IRAs, brokerage accounts, pensions, real estate, or other investments. As a result, your overall portfolio allocation could end up being far different than what is appropriate for your financial goals.   The convenience of target date funds is appealing, but convenience shouldn't replace planning. A successful retirement requires understanding how your money is invested, estimating what your portfolio could be worth when you retire, and developing a strategy for how those assets will be invested throughout retirement, not just until you reach it.   Is That Really Your Son or Daughter Calling You? You know your children's voices. You talk to them regularly. Then one day you get a frantic phone call from your son or daughter. They tell you they've just been in a serious accident. They need $15,000 immediately or they're going to jail. They tell you exactly how to send the money. Without hesitation, you wire the funds because you want to help your child.   Unfortunately, you have just been scammed by AI. AI-powered scams are exploding. Reports show AI-related fraud surged more than 1,200% in 2025, and at the current pace, losses from AI scams in the United States could reach $40 billion annually by 2027. Another study found that one in four adults has already experienced an AI voice scam.   Your first reaction may be, "That could never happen to me. I don't post anything on social media." But the problem may not be your online presence. It's your children.   Many people regularly post videos on social media, and today's AI only needs about three seconds of someone's voice to create a convincing clone. Once scammers have that sample, they can make it sound like your son or daughter is saying almost anything.   So how do you protect yourself? If you receive an emergency call asking for money, don't panic. Before sending anything, ask a question that only you and your child would know the answer to. Make it something that has never been shared publicly.   For example, ask about a funny childhood memory that only the two of you remember. Don't use information like birthdays, graduation dates, wedding dates, or other facts that could be found online or in public records. Remember with all these data centers there is so much information that is being obtained and saved but used for the wrong purposes.   Even better, establish a family safe word or passphrase today. Choose something simple that everyone can remember but that would never appear online.   If you ever receive one of these calls, ask for the safe word. If they can't provide it, assume it's a scam until you can verify the situation by calling your child directly or contacting another trusted family member.   As AI continues to improve, these scams will only become more convincing. The same technology powering innovation is also giving criminals new tools to exploit unsuspecting families. Stay alert. Verify before you trust. A few extra minutes could save you thousands of dollars and a great deal of heartache.   Is It Boom or Bust for Micron? It is hard to argue with Micron's incredible stock performance. Through July 2, the shares were up 242% year to date and an astonishing 701% over the previous 12 months. Even after recently falling about 22% from their peak, investors are still debating whether the company has much more room to run.   The good news is that Micron has locked in 15 new customers under long-term supply agreements, with some contracts extending as long as five years. Many of these agreements include customer deposits, giving the company excellent revenue visibility and reducing uncertainty over future sales. For investors, that is exactly the kind of stability they like to see.   But every smart investor should also ask: What is the downside?   While those contracts provide a strong foundation, they do not guarantee that demand will remain as strong over the long term. Unless a customer goes bankrupt, the contracts are largely locked in, but technology changes quickly. High prices and limited supply often encourage innovation, and the AI memory market is no exception.   Several companies are developing new architectures that reduce or even eliminate the need for high-bandwidth memory (HBM), which has been one of Micron's biggest growth drivers. As companies search for lower-cost and more efficient alternatives, demand for HBM could eventually soften.   Nvidia also signaled in June that it is redesigning portions of its upcoming Vera Rubin AI platform to use memory more efficiently. While Nvidia remains a major customer for HBM, improvements in memory efficiency could reduce the amount of HBM required per AI system over time.   Meanwhile, newly public chipmaker Cerebras has taken an entirely different approach. CEO Andrew Feldman has said the company's wafer-scale AI chips do not use HBM at all, arguing that it is too expensive and supply constrained. If other AI hardware companies pursue similar designs, it could create additional competition for HBM.   None of this means Micron's growth story is over. The company's long-term contracts provide meaningful protection, and AI demand remains exceptionally strong today. However, investors should remember that today's shortages and premium pricing often inspire tomorrow's technological breakthroughs.   The question for Micron investors is whether HBM remains the industry standard for years to come or whether innovation eventually reduces the need for it. If demand for HBM begins to slow, Micron's remarkable growth could also begin to moderate.   Companies Discussed: Caterpillar Inc. (Ticker: CAT)

Competition for AI Is Coming From a Surprise Source That Could Pressure U.S. Companies' Prices and Profits  We tend to focus on the major AI companies in the United States and assume they will be the long-term winners. However, one competitor that cannot be ignored is China. Chinese companies are making rapid progress in artificial intelligence, and they could become a serious challenge to U.S. firms.  Don't forget that China is a communist country and the government can put in a lot of capital to win the AI race. That ability to heavily fund AI development could help Chinese companies narrow the gap with, or even surpass, some American competitors in certain areas.  According to Artificial Analysis, which evaluates the capabilities of large language models, China's Z.ai ranked among the top three globally with its latest model release. Another concern is cost. Z.ai is reportedly offering models at less than half the price of many American rivals. Lower prices could make it easier for the company to gain market share while putting pressure on the pricing and profit margins of U.S. AI companies.  I certainly don't want to see American companies lose ground to Chinese competitors. However, as investors, we have to evaluate the competitive landscape objectively. U.S. AI companies have already committed hundreds of billions of dollars to infrastructure and development. If competition forces prices lower, it may take much longer for these companies to generate the profits needed to justify today's lofty stock prices and valuations.    The Business of Kids' Sports Is Changing and it May Not Be for the Better  Private equity has made its way into nearly every corner of the economy, and now it's becoming a major force in youth sports. The Aspen Institute has estimated that youth sports are now a $40 billion industry in the U.S, which is likely why private equity is now targeting the space. That's raising serious concerns about what happens when maximizing investor returns becomes more important than giving kids affordable opportunities to play.  As private equity firms buy up leagues, tournaments, training facilities, and sports complexes, critics argue the result is less competition, higher registration fees, and fewer affordable options for families. The average cost of youth sports has increased dramatically in recent years, leaving many children priced out of participating simply because their families can't afford it.  One thing that stands out is that this has become one of the rare issues drawing concern from both Republicans and Democrats in Congress. Burgess Owens, a Republican from Utah and former professional football player, pointed out “Investment is important, but it's when the mission is our kids, not investors. We're seeing too much of this. We're going to lose the soul of our nation if we don't get this right.” He also acknowledged that while some investors are doing it the right way, bad actors need to be kept out. While there are differences over how to address the problem, there appears to be broad bipartisan agreement that rising costs and reduced consumer choice deserve closer scrutiny.  Youth sports should be about developing character, teamwork, friendships, and healthy competition, not creating another industry where financial engineering determines who gets to participate. If the trend toward consolidation continues unchecked, more families may find themselves priced out of opportunities that should be available to every child, regardless of income.    Bitcoin Company Strategy Is in Trouble  Strategy, formerly known as MicroStrategy, changed its name after the company essentially became a leveraged bet on Bitcoin rather than a software business. As management shifted its focus almost entirely to buying Bitcoin, it dropped the "Micro" from its name to reflect that new identity.  CEO Michael Saylor spent years promoting Bitcoin and telling investors that owning Strategy stock was one of the best ways to benefit from its rise. To finance those Bitcoin purchases, the company repeatedly issued low-interest convertible bonds.  The next major maturity comes on September 15, 2027, when approximately $1 billion of convertible notes become due. If you're unfamiliar with convertible bonds, they allow a company to borrow money at lower interest rates because investors have the option to convert the bonds into stock instead of receiving cash repayment. For that to happen, however, the stock price must trade well above the conversion price.  In this case, the conversion price is about $183 per share, about double the current stock price of roughly $90. Unless the stock stages a dramatic recovery, those bonds are unlikely to be converted into shares, meaning Strategy would need to repay the $1 billion in cash.  The stock has fallen nearly 79% over the past year, and Bitcoin's decline has only magnified the losses. Bitcoin itself has dropped roughly 50% from its peak, falling below $60,000 depending on the day. When Bitcoin was making new highs, investor excitement seemed endless. Now that prices have been cut roughly in half, much of that enthusiasm has disappeared.    Michael Saylor has also been noticeably absent from major interviews in recent months. Whether that is because demand for his appearances has faded or because the company's performance has made those appearances more difficult is open to interpretation. Strategy stock reached a high of around $473 in late 2024 and now trades near $90.  We've discussed this company many times before. The concern has always been that Strategy is not creating meaningful operating growth as it is primarily just borrowing money to buy Bitcoin. Unlike a traditional operating company, it is not relying on expanding products or services to drive future earnings.  At the moment, there does not appear to be a clear catalyst that would significantly lift either Bitcoin or Strategy's stock price. If the shares remain well below the conversion price as the 2027 maturity approaches, investors are likely to become increasingly concerned about how the company will repay its debt. That uncertainty could continue to put pressure on the stock.    Upper-middle-class Americans may not be as financially secure as they would like  Upper-middle-class Americans, generally defined as households earning between $150,000 and $250,000 per year, may be in a stronger financial position than most, but many are becoming increasingly pessimistic about the future.  You may be surprised to learn that 86% of upper-middle-class Americans do not believe their children will have a better life than they have. Just seven years ago, in 2019, that figure was only 64%.  Many upper-middle-class households are also losing confidence in the economic system and the government. They increasingly feel that the odds are stacked against them, making it harder to continue moving ahead financially. In the most recent Wall Street Journal survey, 65% of affluent Americans said they believe the system is rigged against them, more than double the 29% who felt that way in 2017.  The news isn't much better for the middle class, generally defined as households earning between $65,000 and $235,000 annually. Only 25% said they have been able to save beyond an emergency fund. Roughly one in four also reported carrying credit card debt that they are unable to pay off in full each month.  Despite these concerns, there has still been significant upward mobility. About 75% of people in today's upper-income group said they now belong to a higher economic class than the one they grew up in. Among middle-class Americans, roughly half said they also grew up in a lower economic class than where they are today.  Views on higher education are changing as well. About one-third of middle-class Americans no longer believe a four-year college degree is the best path to financial success. Rising tuition costs, growing student debt, and the availability of alternative career paths have caused many to rethink the traditional college route.  No matter which income group people belong to, there is often a desire to improve their financial situation and move up economically. That ambition is a healthy part of human nature and is often what drives people to work harder, save more, and invest for the future. While constantly striving for more can sometimes make it difficult to feel fully satisfied, the pursuit of improvement can also provide a strong sense of purpose and accomplishment.    Did The Recent Jobs Report Tell the Whole Story?  At first glance, this weeks jobs report looked fairly uneventful. The U.S. economy added 57,000 nonfarm payroll jobs in June, and the unemployment rate fell to 4.2%. This was below the estimate of 115k, but it does follow three strong months of payroll growth.  After looking through the report, there are several numbers that raise some important questions.  The first is the labor force. About 720,000 people left the labor force in June, pushing the labor force participation rate down to 61.5%, the lowest since March 2021. Even more troubling is that if we exclude the Covid-era, it was the lowest labor force participation rate in exactly 50 years. When people stop looking for work, they are no longer counted as unemployed, which can make the unemployment rate appear stronger than it otherwise would.  Another surprising number was leisure and hospitality, which lost 61,000 jobs. June is typically one of the strongest hiring months of the year for hotels, restaurants, entertainment, and travel-related businesses. The Bureau of Labor Statistics attributed much of the decline to weaker-than-normal seasonal hiring, but it's still worth asking whether this reflects a temporary statistical issue or an early sign that consumer spending is beginning to soften. It is especially strange given the popularity of the World Cup and many speculated this would be a strong sector in the report. Goldman Sachs in particular estimated a gain of 40k in leisure and hospitality before the report was released.  Then there is the latest JOLTS report. Job openings stood at 7.6 million in May, showing employers are still looking for workers, but the question is if people are actually leaving the workforce can these jobs actually get filled?  One report never tells the entire story, but these numbers deserve a closer look. Was June simply an odd month because of seasonal adjustments? Or are we beginning to see a labor market that is slowing more quickly than the headline unemployment rate suggests? The next few months of data should help answer that question.    The biggest risk in AI may not be the technology, it may be the economics.  This week, Bradley Tusk and Ed Zitron raised important questions that investors shouldn't ignore.  Bradley Tusk (founder and CEO of Tusk Ventures and a venture capitalist) made an interesting observation: investors are treating frontier AI models the same. But China's AI companies are proving that powerful models can be developed much more cheaply and improve much faster than many expected. If lower-cost models continue to narrow the performance gap, AI models could become increasingly commoditized, making it much harder for companies spending hundreds of billions of dollars on infrastructure to earn attractive returns.  Ed Zitron (author, podcaster and tech industry critic) echoed a similar concern from a different angle. He argues that AI companies are engaged in an expensive arms race, pouring enormous amounts of capital into chips, data centers, and model development without proving that the economics will justify the investment. As he has said, companies are "burning money at an astonishing rate" while investors continue to assume future profits will eventually catch up.  This also ties into a warning from co-funder and CEO of Palantir Technologies, Alex Karp . He has criticized what he calls "token maxxing"—the idea that success in AI is simply about generating more tokens, building bigger models, and spending more on compute. Karp's point is that producing more AI output doesn't automatically create more business value. The companies that ultimately win will be the ones that solve real customer problems and generate durable profits, not necessarily those that consume the most GPUs or produce the most tokens.  History shows that revolutionary technologies don't always produce the best investments. The internet transformed the world, but many of the biggest companies of the dot-com era disappeared because expectations got too far ahead of profits.  AI will almost certainly reshape the economy. The bigger question for investors is whether the companies making the largest investments will ultimately earn the returns the market is expecting—or whether AI models become increasingly commoditized, leaving the biggest winners to be the businesses that successfully apply AI rather than simply build larger models.    Financial Planning: Trump Account Investment Options Released Ahead of $1,000 Seed Funding  Trump Accounts are expected to receive $1,000 of government seed money as soon as the 4th of July. If you have a child born in 2025 through 2028, you can apply online now at trumpaccounts.gov. This is basically a retirement account with a caveat, contributions can be made on behalf of children even if they don't have earned income.  However extra contributions are made on an after-tax non-Roth basis so no upfront tax deduction and no tax-free growth. Instead contributions establish cost basis and investment earnings grow tax-deferred, but are ultimately taxed upon withdrawal at ordinary income rates. In practice, this tax deferral benefit is overstated. This week the Treasury Department released 5 investment options: SPYM, IVV, VTI, ITOT, and SPTM. These are virtually all the same investment, a low fee fund that is heavily weighted toward the largest US companies. This means there is no reason to sell or rebalance, so the only real option is to buy and hold.  Buying and holding can also be done in a regular brokerage account with tax deferred until sale, but at the lower, potentially 0%, long-term capital gains rates rather than the higher ordinary income rates. Some planning strategies involve funding the Trump account and later converting it to a Roth. However, those conversions would still trigger tax at ordinary income rates and potentially trigger the kiddie tax, pulling the income into the parent's tax bracket. Since in every possible situation, the long-term capital gain tax rate is always less than the ordinary income tax rate, a better strategy may be to fund a brokerage account and use the future proceeds to make contributions to Roth accounts which likely could be done tax-free rather than funding a Trump account and eventually making Roth conversions at a higher rate. For this reason, while the $1,000 government seed contribution is worth it, additional voluntary contributions may be less attractive compared to already available alternatives.    Companies Discussed: Meta Platforms, Inc. (Ticker: META) 

Want the New iPhone 18 This September? Be Prepared to Pay More…. A Lot More The iPhone 18 is expected to be released in just a few months, and if current estimates are accurate, consumers could be facing some serious sticker shock. One of the biggest reasons is the ongoing battle for semiconductor components. The rapid buildout of AI data centers has created enormous demand for memory chips, and data center operators are willing to pay almost any price to secure supply. That is creating challenges for companies like Apple, which rely heavily on DRAM (dynamic random-access memory) and NAND flash storage.   According to industry estimates, the cost of 12GB of DRAM used in the iPhone 17 was about $39. For the iPhone 18 Pro, that figure could rise to approximately $145. NAND flash storage costs are also expected to surge. The 256GB of flash storage that cost Apple around $13 in the iPhone 17 is projected to cost roughly $51 in the iPhone 18, an increase of nearly 300%.   Apple may also introduce a redesigned camera system that could cost about 50% more than the cameras used in previous models, adding even more pressure to manufacturing costs.   Apple currently earns an estimated gross margin of roughly 44% on the iPhone 17. If the company attempts to maintain those margins while absorbing these higher component costs, the price of a high-end iPhone 18 could climb to around $1,300 or more.   The big questions are: Will Apple absorb some of these higher costs and accept lower profit margins? Or will consumers decide that the latest upgrade isn't worth the higher price and keep their current phones for another year?   Either scenario could create headwinds for Apple's earnings. Lower margins would hurt profitability, while slower upgrade cycles could reduce unit sales. Both outcomes could put pressure on Apple's stock in the months ahead.   Bad News: The Dollar Is Strong Again Some people may read that headline and think, "What's the problem? Isn't a strong dollar a good thing?" Not necessarily. A strong dollar sounds positive, but the reality is more complicated. The U.S. dollar is now at its strongest level since May 2025. While that may feel good on the surface, a stronger dollar can create challenges for the economy.   When the dollar rises, American products become more expensive for the rest of the world to buy, which can worsen our trade deficit. At the same time, imported goods become cheaper for Americans. Consumers may enjoy lower prices on foreign products, but it also means more money flows overseas instead of supporting domestic businesses.   Over the long term, that can weaken U.S. manufacturing, increase our reliance on imports, and contribute to growing debt levels.   What's driving the dollar higher? Two major factors stand out. First, the new Federal Reserve leadership signaled a more hawkish stance at its most recent meeting. Nine of the 19 officials now expect at least one rate hike before year-end. Higher interest rates generally make the dollar more attractive to global investors. Second, the AI investment boom continues to fuel U.S. economic growth. However, the enormous capital required for AI infrastructure is leading companies to borrow heavily to finance those investments. This increased demand for capital competes with U.S. Treasury bonds for investor dollars, which could keep long-term interest rates elevated or even push them higher.   The AI boom has already increased speculation and risk in the equity market. Now it may also be creating additional risks in the bond market. Wherever you're investing, make sure you understand the relationship between risk and reward before committing your capital   Can Alphabet/Google Take Some of Nvidia's Market Share? Nvidia currently controls roughly 90% of the AI computing chip market. Whenever a company dominates an industry to that extent, it creates an opportunity for competitors to enter with comparable products at lower prices. That's exactly what Alphabet's Google is attempting to do with its artificial intelligence chips.   Google originally developed its custom AI chips for internal use, but it quickly realized there was a much bigger opportunity. With demand for AI infrastructure exploding, Google is now producing more chips and making them available to outside customers.   Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang has repeatedly stated, both publicly and privately, that increased competition will not have a meaningful impact on Nvidia's business. But what else can he say? Competition almost certainly will affect Nvidia to some degree. The company may eventually lose some market share and could be forced to lower chip prices to maintain its dominant position.   Google has significant financial resources to support its AI ambitions. In western New York, for example, Google reportedly provided a $3.2 billion financial guarantee tied to the Lake Marina AI data center project. Nvidia has used similar strategies in the past to strengthen relationships with customers and partners.   This type of financing does concern me. When you provide financing to a company that is also purchasing your products, you take on two risks. If that customer runs into financial trouble, you could lose both future product sales and repayment on the financing arrangement.   I also suspect Nvidia has substantial leverage with many of its customers. Companies may worry that reducing purchases from Nvidia today could limit their access to future chip allocations if demand remains strong.   Google isn't the only company challenging Nvidia. Competitors such as AMD, Broadcom, and newer entrants like Cerebras Systems are all looking for ways to gain a foothold in the rapidly growing AI chip market.   Nvidia stock has delivered incredible returns over the past several years. The question investors should be asking is whether increasing competition and the possibility of future chip oversupply could eventually take some of the shine off Nvidia's valuation.   The Dow's Alphabet Move Is a Sign of Weakness, Not Strength The Dow Jones is once again proving why it has become one of the most outdated and least useful stock market indexes in America.   This week S&P Dow Jones Indices announced that Alphabet will be added to the Dow, replacing Verizon. The financial media is treating it like the Dow is finally modernizing itself for the AI era. I see it differently. This is not leadership. It is not vision. It is not smart index construction. It is the Dow doing what it has done for years: showing up late, after everyone else has already made the money.   The Dow is supposed to represent the most important companies in the American economy. But unlike the S&P 500, it is not rules-based. There is no formula, no discipline, no objective threshold that decides who gets in and who gets kicked out. Instead, a committee at S&P Dow Jones decides when the index should change and which companies “feel right” for the list. That sounds harmless until you realize what it really means: the Dow is not a market index so much as a committee-curated museum exhibit that occasionally swaps out an old display piece for whatever has already become impossible to ignore.   That is exactly what is happening with Alphabet. Google has been one of the most dominant businesses on earth for well over a decade. It has been central to digital advertising, cloud computing, mobile software, and now artificial intelligence. None of that is new. The AI spending boom did not start yesterday. The Magnificent Seven did not suddenly become important last week. These companies have been driving market returns, corporate profits, and capital spending for years. Yet only now does the Dow decide it needs more exposure to big tech? That is not being ahead of the curve. That is a lagging indicator pretending to be a benchmark.   And the timing could not be more ridiculous. Instead of adding these companies before the market fully priced in their dominance, the Dow is adding them after the entire world has piled into the trade. After valuations expanded. After AI enthusiasm exploded. After mega-cap concentration became one of the biggest risks in the market. In other words, the Dow ignored the most important trend in the market for years and is now buying into it once the trade is crowded. The Dow will now hold five of the Magnificent Seven—Alphabet, Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, and Nvidia—which together will account for roughly 18% of the index. This is not modernization. That is panic buying in a suit.   What makes it even more absurd is that the Dow still uses a price-weighted structure, which is one of the silliest relics in finance. A stock's influence in the index is determined by its share price, not by the actual size of the company or its economic importance. Think about how insane that is. In a supposedly elite index of America's biggest companies, weighting is still distorted by something as arbitrary as the sticker price of one share. A stock split can change a company's importance in the Dow more than a change in its business fundamentals. This also leads to more concentration with high priced stocks like Goldman Sachs accounting for roughly 13% of the entire index and Caterpillar making up around 12%. This compares to low priced stocks like Verizon or Nike which each only currently account for about 0.5% of the index.     So now the Dow wants to have it both ways. It wants the credibility of owning AI and mega-cap tech leaders, but it wants to keep the same outdated structure and the same slow-moving committee process that made it miss the trend in the first place. It wants to look relevant without actually fixing what makes it irrelevant. Replacing Verizon with Alphabet may make the Dow look smarter for a headline or two, but it actually exposes the problem. The Dow did not identify the future. It waited until the future was obvious, then stapled it onto an old index and called it progress.   The truth is the Dow has become a follower, not a leader. It reflects where the committee finally got comfortable going after the move already happened. And by adding more mega-cap tech exposure now, after years of delay, it may be doing exactly what bad investors do: chasing yesterday's winners while taking on tomorrow's risk.   The Dow is not evolving. It is flailing. And every one of these late-stage reshuffles is a reminder that the most famous index in America may also be one of the least relevant.   Fed Stress Test Confirms the Strength of U.S. Bank Balance Sheets U.S. banks once again came through the Federal Reserve's 2026 stress test looking structurally strong, even under an intentionally severe economic downturn scenario. The results continue to reinforce one of the most important post-financial-crisis themes: large banks today are built to withstand a shock that would have been destabilizing in prior cycles.   The Fed's hypothetical scenario was deliberately harsh. It assumed a deep global recession with the U.S. economy contracting 4.6% and unemployment rising to around 10%. Housing prices would fall 30% from their current levels, the stock market would plunge 58% and there would be a 39% drop in commercial real estate prices. The framework is designed to test not just mild downturns, but a “worst plausible case” scenario that stresses bank balance sheets across multiple channels at once. Under that scenario, the Fed estimated cumulative losses across the largest 32 banks at roughly $700 billion, with the bulk coming from credit cards, corporate lending, and commercial real estate exposure. Despite those losses, all major institutions remained above required minimum capital levels. Capital ratios declined during the stress period, as expected, but stayed comfortably within regulatory buffers, underscoring how much capital has been built into the system since the 2008 financial crisis and subsequent regulatory reforms.   What stands out this year is not just that banks passed, but the margin by which they did so. Even under simultaneous pressure from unemployment, real estate, and equity drawdowns, the system showed the ability to absorb losses while still maintaining lending capacity. That “lend-through-cycle” characteristic is one of the key goals of post-crisis regulation, and the results suggest it is functioning as intended.   From an investor perspective, the more immediate implication is capital return. Passing the stress test is effectively the green light for banks to continue deploying excess capital back to shareholders. JPMorgan Chase unveiled a new $50 billion share repurchase program and said it will increase its quarterly dividend 10% to $1.65 per share, subject to board approval. Goldman Sachs and Wells Fargo increased their dividends 11% and Morgan Stanley boosted its payout by 15%.   Importantly, the Federal Reserve did not materially tighten capital requirements in this round, which removes a potential headwind that some investors had been watching. Instead, capital rules remain broadly stable, allowing banks to operate with predictability in their capital planning. That stability is key, because it supports consistent buyback programs rather than volatile, stop-and-go capital return cycles.   Taken together, the results reinforce a familiar but important conclusion: large U.S. banks today are not only capable of surviving severe macroeconomic stress, but they are doing so while generating enough earnings power to continue returning substantial capital through both dividends and buybacks. In a market where macro uncertainty remains elevated, that combination of resilience and shareholder yield continues to be a defining feature of the banking sector.   What Is Quantum Computing All About? Quantum computing is the next big step in the evolution of computing, and there's no way around it: it's a complex subject. But it's also one of the most important technologies being developed today. If your son or daughter is in high school and unsure what they want to study in college, they may want to consider quantum physics, engineering, or computer science with a focus on quantum computing. Over the next decade, the world is going to need far more people who understand this field, whether that means working in quantum research labs, developing software, building hardware, or solving the many engineering problems that still stand in the way of commercial adoption.   At its core, quantum computing is different from traditional computing because it uses quantum mechanics rather than classical binary logic. Today's computers rely on CPUs and GPUs that process information in bits or ones and zeros. Quantum computers use quantum processing units, or QPUs, powered by qubits. Qubits can behave in ways classical bits cannot, which gives quantum systems the potential to solve certain problems dramatically faster than even the most powerful computers we have today.   There are currently four major approaches, or architectures, being used to build quantum computers: superconducting, neutral atoms, trapped ions, and photonics. Each has strengths and weaknesses, and no one yet knows which approach will ultimately dominate. But all of them are trying to achieve the same goal: building machines capable of solving problems that are effectively impossible for classical computers.   That matters because the upside is enormous. Quantum computers could transform fields like drug discovery, materials science, logistics, finance, and artificial intelligence. They may also eventually be able to crack some of the encryption methods that protect today's digital world, which is one reason governments are taking the technology so seriously. It's not just a commercial race, it's increasingly a national security race as well.   And that's where the geopolitical angle comes in. China has been heavily subsidizing quantum research. The future may not just be defined by military arms races, but by technology races, especially in areas like artificial intelligence, semiconductors, and quantum computing.   The financial opportunity is also huge. By 2035, quantum computing is expected to generate roughly $43 billion to $71 billion in revenue. By 2040, some forecasts see that number climbing as high as $850 billion. Those are enormous figures for a technology that is still in its early innings, which helps explain why so much money is flowing into the space. I have to admit, quantum computing is both exciting and a little scary. A technology that can solve problems far faster than today's computers could open the door to incredible breakthroughs, but it could also create entirely new risks. Then again, that's true of almost every major technological leap in history. Progress is often uncomfortable at first, but it also has the power to reshape the world in ways we can't yet fully imagine.   Financial Planning: Accessing Home Equity Homeowners tapped an estimated $47 billion of their roughly $11 trillion of home equity during the first quarter of 2026, the highest first quarter total since 2021. There are three primary ways to borrow against that equity. A cash-out refinance replaces your current mortgage with a larger one, but this generally only makes sense if today's interest rates are similar to or lower than your existing mortgage rate. That is unlikely for homeowners who locked in historically low rates during 2020 through 2022. A home equity loan functions as a second mortgage with its own fixed interest rate and monthly payment, making it a good choice when you need a lump sum for a specific purpose, such as a home renovation. A Home Equity Line of Credit (HELOC) is a revolving line of credit that allows you to borrow only what you need and repay it on your own schedule. While HELOCs typically have variable interest rates, they also provide the greatest flexibility and can make sense in today's interest rate environment. Regardless of which strategy you choose, home equity should be used to improve your overall financial position, such as consolidating high interest debt, funding value-adding home improvements, or purchasing appreciating assets. It should not be used to finance ongoing living expenses or discretionary spending.   Companies Discussed: Netflix Inc. (NFLX)

You Didn't Get SpaceX? Don't Worry, There Are Other Mega IPOs Coming You may feel like everyone got into SpaceX except you, and now you're wondering: Should I buy shares today? Is there something better coming next? The reality is that several other massive IPOs could be coming sooner than many investors realize. At the top of the list are OpenAI, with an estimated valuation of $852 billion, Anthropic, with an estimated valuation of $965 billion, Stripe, with an estimated valuation of $159 billion, and Databricks, with an estimated valuation of $134 billion. Before you get too excited about these potential offerings, or beat yourself up for missing SpaceX, consider what the historical data tells us. Research examining 1,724 U.S. IPOs between 2011 and 2024 found that the average IPO gained approximately 23% on its first day of trading. However, over the following three years, those same IPOs underperformed the broader market by an average of 25 percentage points. The study also found that since 1980, companies coming public with at least $100 million in annual sales and a price-to-sales ratio above 40 experienced an average decline of 45% from their first-day closing price. For current SpaceX shareholders, there could still be a near-term catalyst. Under Nasdaq's fast-entry rules, newly public companies can become eligible for inclusion in the Nasdaq-100 after just 15 trading days. However, both the S&P 500 and the Dow Jones indexes currently maintain a 12-month waiting period before new companies become eligible for inclusion. If your appetite for risk remains high, you'll likely have opportunities to speculate on OpenAI, Anthropic, Databricks, and other AI-related companies when they eventually go public. But an interesting question remains: When these AI giants hit the public markets, will investors who bought SpaceX at the IPO decide to sell some of their shares and rotate into the next hot AI opportunity? There are plenty of unanswered questions, which is exactly why we prefer not to invest based on hype, headlines, or fear of missing out. Instead, we focus on financial fundamentals, valuation, cash flow, and long-term business quality. Exciting stories can drive prices higher for a while, but over time, fundamentals tend to matter most.   What Can the Nifty Fifty and Tech Bubble Teach Us About Today's Market? Every market cycle has a story. In the early 1970s it was the "Nifty Fifty." In the late 1990s it was the internet and technology boom. Today it is artificial intelligence. The late 1990s we saw the technology boom where the internet was a revolutionary innovation that truly changed the world. Investors were correct about the technology but wrong about what they should pay for it. Companies with little revenue and no profits traded at astronomical valuations. The Nasdaq saw a five-fold increase between 1995 and early 2000. When the bubble burst, the fallout was severe. The Nasdaq ultimately lost almost 80% of its value. Hundreds of companies disappeared. Even industry leaders such as Cisco, Intel, and Microsoft experienced stock declines of 50% to 90%. Many investors assumed technology would continue growing forever and overlooked the simple fact that stock prices had already discounted years of future success. After peaking in March 2000, it took over 15 years for the Nasdaq to reclaim its previous high in April 2015. Often times I hear people say this time is different because unlike many internet companies in 2000, today's AI leaders are highly profitable businesses generating enormous cash flow. So, let's take a look at the Nifty Fifty as another, maybe more similar example. The Nifty Fifty era was built around the belief that a small group of dominant companies were so good that valuation no longer mattered. Investors piled into stocks such as Coca-Cola, IBM, Xerox, Polaroid, McDonald's, Sears and others. These companies were viewed as "one-decision stocks “buy them and never sell them. Investors would make excuses for the valuations because the businesses were strong. Through 1972, these firms averaged 22% annual earnings growth over the previous five-year period and had great profitability with an average return on equity over 22%. The problem was as enthusiasm grew, valuations expanded dramatically, with many trading at 40 to 60 times earnings despite an economy growing much slower. Then reality arrived. The 1973-74 bear market combined with inflation, rising interest rates, and an economic recession caused many of these stocks to fall 50% to 80%. The S&P 500 fell over 14% in 1973 and more than 26% in 1974. Most of the companies survived and remained successful businesses, but investors who paid excessive prices often waited a decade or longer to earn satisfactory returns. Today's AI boom has similarities to both periods. Like the Nifty Fifty, investors are concentrating heavily in a small number of dominant companies. Like the tech bubble, there is widespread excitement surrounding a transformational technology that is likely to reshape entire industries. However, history reminds us that even great companies can become poor investments when expectations become too optimistic. During every major market cycle, investors eventually discover the difference between a great business and a great stock. The key lesson from both the Nifty Fifty and the dot-com era is that transformative technologies often live up to their promise. What investors frequently get wrong is the price they are willing to pay for that future growth. AI may ultimately be every bit as revolutionary as investors believe. The bigger question is whether today's stock prices already reflect much of that future success. As we've learned from previous cycles, when expectations become too high, excellent results may not be enough to satisfy the market.   Private Credit Funds Are Facing High Redemption Requests Again This Quarter For the first quarter of 2026, redemption requests in several private credit funds exceeded the industry-standard 5% quarterly redemption cap. Second-quarter requests appear to be even higher. BlackRock's flagship private credit fund received redemption requests totaling 13.3% of fund assets, up from 9.3% in the first quarter. BlackRock has indicated it will continue to honor only up to 5% of redemption requests per quarter. Blackstone is facing a similar situation. Investors requested redemptions equal to roughly 10% of fund assets, and the firm also appears committed to maintaining its 5% quarterly redemption limit. Cliffwater may be facing the greatest pressure. Its $31 billion private credit fund received redemption requests totaling 17% of fund assets, far above the amount investors can currently withdraw and higher than the roughly 14% that was requested in Q1. Private credit funds have been dealing with a number of challenges, including rising loan losses, fraud concerns, and significant exposure to software companies. Many software businesses are facing pressure as investors question how artificial intelligence could impact their future growth and profitability. During BlackRock's last earnings call, CEO Larry Fink stated that institutional investors such as pension funds and insurance companies continue to allocate capital to private credit strategies. I don't want to call the man a liar, but it does seem strange that with all the problems that private credit is having I would think institutional funds would also be pulling back from investing. One would expect at least some institutional investors to become more cautious as risks increase. What concerns me most is the continued use of redemption gates. The longer funds limit withdrawals to 5% per quarter, the more investors may worry about liquidity. That concern can become self-reinforcing, leading more investors to submit redemption requests. If that happens, redemption demand could continue to rise in future quarters, creating additional pressure on the industry.   Investors Turn a Blind Eye to Fundamentals For many years, successful investing was built on analyzing company fundamentals. Today, however, there is a growing trend toward speculation and gambling. Many investors simply do not seem to care about valuation or earnings and instead believe stocks will continue to go "to the moon." Tesla is a good example. Three years ago, Wall Street analysts projected that Tesla would generate $163 billion in revenue by 2025. The actual figure came in far lower at $94.8 billion, more than 40% below expectations. Historically, missing growth expectations by such a wide margin would have been a major disappointment for investors. Yet Tesla shares have risen roughly 59% over the last three years despite falling well short of those revenue projections. There are other signs of speculation throughout the market. Thirteen years ago, there were only 39 private companies valued at more than $1 billion. Today, there are over 800. This trend highlights two important developments. First, private companies are staying private much longer, allowing early investors to capture a greater share of the value creation before public investors have an opportunity to participate. Second, investors are assigning much higher valuations to these businesses, many of which have little or no earnings and, in some cases, no positive cash flow at all. Markets can remain driven by optimism for long periods of time, but eventually fundamentals matter. The challenge for investors is determining when sentiment and speculation have pushed prices too far ahead of reality.   Headlines Say Crisis, Economic Data Says Otherwise The economy continues to show surprising resilience despite concerns surrounding higher energy prices and the conflict involving Iran. Many investors expected consumers to pull back as gasoline prices surged and headlines focused on geopolitical risks. Instead, economic data suggests the U.S. consumer remains in good shape. Retail sales in May rose 6.9% from the prior year, exceeding expectations and demonstrating that consumers are still willing to spend despite higher fuel costs. Even excluding gasoline stations, retail sales increased 5.4%, showing that spending strength was broad-based rather than simply a reflection of higher energy prices. Online sales, clothing purchases, restaurant spending, and other discretionary categories all contributed to the gains. Housing is also showing signs of stabilization. Pending home sales, which measure signed contracts on existing homes, rose 3.8% in May to the highest level in six months. The increase was well above economist expectations and marked a 4.8% improvement from a year ago. What makes these numbers particularly impressive is that they occurred while mortgage rates remained above 6% and energy prices were elevated because of Middle East tensions. Buyers and consumers appear to be adapting to a higher-rate environment rather than waiting indefinitely for lower borrowing costs. This does not mean there are no risks. Higher energy prices act like a tax on consumers, and housing affordability remains a challenge. However, the latest retail sales and housing data suggest the economy is far from rolling over. For investors, this is another reminder that economic fundamentals often matter more than headlines. While markets may focus on wars, oil prices, and geopolitical uncertainty, consumers are still spending, homes are still being purchased, and the economy continues to move forward.   The Most Important Part of the Fed Meeting Wasn't the Rate Decision The Federal Reserve's June meeting marked one of the biggest shifts in Fed communication and leadership in decades. As expected, the Fed left interest rates unchanged at 3.50%-3.75%, but the details beneath the surface were far more important. For the first time since 1951, a former Fed chair will remain on the Board after stepping down as chairman. Jerome Powell's decision to stay on as a governor creates an unusual dynamic as new Chairman Kevin Warsh begins reshaping the institution. Historically, outgoing Fed chairs have typically left the Board when their chairmanship ended. Warsh wasted little time signaling change. The Fed announced five new task forces that will review key aspects of monetary policy and Federal Reserve operations, including inflation frameworks, the Fed's balance sheet, its reliance on data sources, and productivity and jobs and the impact of artificial intelligence and other transformative technologies. The reviews are expected to produce recommendations later this year and could shape how the Fed operates for years to come. Perhaps the most noticeable change was the Fed statement itself. The policy statement was significantly shortened and went from above 300 words recorded in recent meetings to around 130 wors. It also removed much of the forward-looking language that investors had grown accustomed to under previous leadership. Language that suggested a bias toward future rate cuts was eliminated, reflecting a more data-dependent and less guidance-driven approach. The updated projections were also more hawkish than many expected. Nine of the 18 policymakers who submitted forecasts now expect at least one rate hike before year-end, while the other nine see rates remaining unchanged or moving lower. The result is a Fed that appears deeply divided on the path forward as inflation remains above target. Another major headline came from Warsh himself. Only 18 of the Fed's 19 policymakers submitted a forecast in the quarterly dot plot, with Warsh confirming that he did not provide one. As a long-time critic of forward guidance, Warsh appears to be signaling that the Fed may gradually move away from one of Wall Street's most closely watched communication tools. Half of the committee is worried inflation remains too high and believes rates may need to move higher. The other half sees little need for additional tightening. This sets the stage for Warsh's hope for a “family fight” as he believes more disagreement will lead to a better discussion so the Fed can finally deliver on price stability. While the rate decision itself was unanimous, the projections revealed a growing divide beneath the surface. The takeaway is clear: while rates didn't move, the Federal Reserve did. A shorter statement, less forward guidance, a chairman who won't publish his own rate forecast, five new policy task forces, and a committee split down the middle on the direction of rates all point to a Federal Reserve that looks very different than it did just a few months ago. The era of predictable Fed communication may be ending, and markets will have to adjust.   Financial Planning: Give More, Pay Less with Appreciated Stock One of the most tax-efficient ways to support a favorite charity or church is by donating appreciated stock instead of cash. When stock that has been held for more than one year is gifted directly to a qualified charity, the charity receives the full market value of the shares and can sell them without paying tax because it is a tax-exempt organization. The donor generally receives the same charitable income tax deduction they would have received had they donated cash, while also avoiding the realization of any capital gain. For example, if someone is considering donating either $50,000 of cash or $50,000 of appreciated stock, the charity receives the same economic benefit in either case, $50,000 that can be used to further its mission. Likewise, the donor generally receives the same $50,000 itemized charitable deduction. The difference is that if the stock was originally purchased for $20,000, donating the shares allows the donor to avoid recognizing the $30,000 capital gain. If the donor still wants to own the investment, they can use the cash that otherwise would have been donated to repurchase the shares, effectively increasing their cost basis from $20,000 to $50,000 and reducing future taxable gains.   Companies Discussed: Accenture plc (ACN)

Can Apple Update the 16-Year-Old Siri? This week marked Apple's annual Worldwide Developers Conference (WWDC) in Cupertino, California. One of the biggest storylines is Apple's effort to reinvent Siri, which many users now view as one of the least capable AI assistants on the market…   The Housing Market Is Finally Starting to Look Normal Again For the last several years, the housing market has felt anything but normal. Ultra-low mortgage rates, limited inventory, bidding wars, and rapidly rising home prices created an environment that left many buyers frustrated and many sellers expecting unrealistic prices…   Inflation Hits a Three-Year High, But the Details Tell a Different Story The latest Consumer Price Index (CPI) report showed inflation rising 4.2% year-over-year, the highest reading since April 2023. At first glance, that sounds concerning. But a deeper look shows that the inflation story is being driven largely by a handful of categories, especially energy and travel…   How long will the AI buildout cycle really last? The market has rewarded virtually every company connected to AI infrastructure. Chip manufacturers, networking companies, power providers, cooling suppliers, data center REITs, and cloud providers have all benefited from an unprecedented surge in spending. But history tells us that every capital spending boom eventually slows…   SpaceX IPO Finally Come To the Market, Should You Buy Now?   Live Market Discussion!   Companies Discussed: Docusign, Inc (DOCU), Broadcom Inc. (AVGO), and Viasat, Inc. (VSAT)  

Where is the money coming from that is fueling this technology rally? No one knows for certain, but there are some concerning signs that suggest many investors may not have the cash to support their positions and are instead relying on borrowed money to drive the rally higher. One metric we continue to monitor closely is margin debt, a potentially dangerous tool that has now reached record levels. Margin debt hit a record $1.304 trillion in April, an increase of 6.8% from the previous month. On a year-over-year basis, margin debt surged 53.3%, highlighting the growing use of leverage in the market. Looking at US margin debt as a percent of real GDP, it just hit 5.2%. According to FINRA data that is an all-time high and during the dot-com era it was around 2% - 3%. The risk with margin debt is that when stock prices decline, investors may receive a margin call requiring them to deposit additional funds into their accounts. If they are unable to meet that requirement, their broker can automatically liquidate positions to cover the shortfall. While margin rules vary based on several factors, you could be in hot water if your equity drops more than 25%. With margin debt at such elevated levels, even a modest setback in the semiconductor or broader technology sector could trigger a chain reaction of forced selling as investors scramble to meet margin calls. Some investors may choose to exit positions before receiving a margin call, particularly if they become uncomfortable with the amount of leverage they have assumed. In those situations, emotions can accelerate selling pressure and amplify market volatility. Technology and semiconductor stocks are already trading at elevated valuations. Adding substantial amounts of borrowed money to an already expensive market increases the risks and leaves investors vulnerable if market sentiment shifts.   Car Sales Are Down, and I Think That's a Good Thing In 2019, consumers in the United States were buying roughly 17 million cars and trucks each year. This year, vehicle sales are expected to reach only about 16 million. Many consumers complain that new-car prices are simply too high, with the average new vehicle now costing around $50,000. Currently, only about 25% of new vehicles sold in the U.S. are priced between $25,000 and $35,000. I believe this trend is actually a positive development. For too many years, automakers focused on producing as many vehicles as possible in an effort to gain market share. In the long run, this proved to be a poor business strategy. Over the years, several manufacturers required government bailouts, while others filed for bankruptcy, hurting shareholders, creditors, employees, and communities. Of course, consumers benefited from this excess production. They could often find heavily discounted vehicles, generous incentives, and large rebates. However, those deals were frequently the result of an unsustainable business model. Today, automakers, led by executives such as Mary Barra of General Motors, have adopted a different approach. Rather than producing excess inventory simply to increase market share, they are focusing on profitability and financial discipline. What a novel idea for a business. Ultimately, making a profit is the primary objective of any business. Consumers have already begun adapting to higher vehicle costs. The average age of cars on U.S. roads has climbed to 13 years, up from less than six years in 1970, reflecting a growing tendency to hold onto vehicles longer. As a result, many consumers may need to take better care of their cars and keep them in service for more years, a choice that is often financially prudent anyway. Others may increasingly turn to high-quality used vehicles rather than purchasing new ones. The industry's renewed commitment to profitability has also made some automakers more attractive investments. Strong cash flow, healthier balance sheets, and improved earnings have created value for shareholders while helping companies avoid the financial distress that plagued the industry in the past. I do not expect this trend to change anytime soon, and in my view, that is a good thing.   The May jobs report delivered another reminder that the U.S. economy remains on solid footing Employers added 172,000 jobs in May, well above expectations of 80,000, and the broader trend is becoming increasingly encouraging. Over the last three months, job growth has seen gains of 214k, 179k, and now 172k in May, an improvement from the pace we've seen really since the beginning of 2025. Rather than slowing, the labor market appears to be finding a sustainable rhythm that balances continued hiring with moderating inflation pressures. One of the most notable areas of strength continues to be hospitality and leisure. The sector added 70k jobs in May, reflecting resilient consumer spending on travel, restaurants, entertainment, and experiences. Despite concerns that higher interest rates would weigh heavily on discretionary spending, Americans continue to spend on services, supporting employment growth across hotels, restaurants, and tourism-related businesses. Perhaps the most important takeaway for investors and policymakers is what we're seeing in wages. Average hourly earnings rose 0.3% in May and are up 3.4% over the past year. That may be close to the sweet spot for the economy. Wage growth is strong enough to support rising household incomes and consumer spending, but not so strong that it creates significant inflationary pressure. For much of the post-pandemic period, policymakers worried that rapid wage gains could fuel a wage-price spiral. Today's data suggests something different: workers are still seeing real income growth while wage inflation has moderated to a level more consistent with long-term price stability. Taken together, the report paints a picture of an economy that remains healthy. Hiring is outperforming expectations, hospitality demand remains robust, unemployment remains low, and wage growth is providing support to consumers without reigniting inflation concerns. That's about as close to a "soft landing" as policymakers could have hoped for a year ago.   Financial Planning: Return on Homeownership Homeownership is often viewed as a superior financial decision, while renting is frequently considered "throwing money away." However, the comparison is more nuanced. A $1 million home in San Diego may rent for approximately $4,000 per month, while owning that same home could cost about $7,000 per month after a $200,000 down payment when the mortgage, property taxes, insurance, and maintenance are included. Even after accounting for estimated tax benefits of $1,000 per month and approximately $750 per month of equity from the principal reduction of the mortgage, the effective cost of ownership would still be about $5,250 per month. In addition, the down payment represents capital that could otherwise be invested and generate returns. When the higher cost of ownership and the opportunity cost of the down payment are considered together, the home would need to appreciate by about 3.5% annually just to produce the same financial outcome as renting and investing the difference. While homeownership offers benefits such as stability, control, and a fixed payment, future home price growth is likely to be much more modest than it was during the low-interest-rate environment of the past decade with many experts projecting between 2% and 3% per year. As a result, neither renting nor owning is inherently the better financial choice. Both can be effective strategies depending on an individual's goals, time horizon, lifestyle preferences, and overall financial circumstances.   Companies Discussed: Boston Scientific Corporation (BSX), Marvell Technology, Inc. (MRVL), The Western Union Company (WU) & AutoZone, Inc. (AZO)

Logic should tell you there may not be much growth left in Nvidia  Investing has become increasingly emotional for many people, and too often investors stop thinking logically. Could the popular company Nvidia continue climbing higher? Of course it could. But there are logical reasons to believe its future growth may be limited compared to what investors expect today.  First, consider the company's market capitalization. As the stock price rises, so does the market cap, which currently sits around $5.2 trillion, depending on the day. To put that number into perspective, $5 trillion is roughly equal to the entire GDP of Japan. With that amount of money, you could buy all the real estate in New York City, London, and Tokyo combined. You could also purchase every major sports franchise in the world several times over.  So investors should ask themselves: if you are buying or holding Nvidia today, are you expecting the company to double in value anytime soon to more than $10 trillion? Does that really seem realistic?  Over the last year, Nvidia generated approximately $216 billion in revenue, which is nearly half the size of the entire U.S. consumer technology industry, estimated at $537 billion in 2025. The company's revenue grew by about 65% year over year. If Nvidia were to repeat that same 65% growth rate in 2026, revenue would increase by roughly $140 billion, bringing total annual sales to around $356 billion.  To understand how massive that growth would be, only about 25 companies in the entire S&P 500 generate more than $140 billion in annual revenue. In other words, Nvidia would need to add more revenue in a single year than 95% of S&P 500 companies produce in total annual sales.  None of this means Nvidia is a bad company. In fact, it is an exceptional company doing extraordinary things. However, wherever enormous profits exist, competition inevitably follows. We are already hearing about major technology companies developing their own AI chips, while startups and rival semiconductor firms continue introducing competing products that could eventually take market share from Nvidia.  Does that mean Nvidia is going to crash? Probably not. Could it happen? Anything is possible in the market. But for long-term investors, the bigger concern may be that future revenue growth simply cannot continue at the pace investors have become accustomed to. If growth slows meaningfully, the stock could experience years of stagnation or disappointing returns. That is the logical case investors should at least consider.     The Consumer Isn't Breaking, it's Quietly Running Out of Cushion  The recent economic data showed that inflation came in line with expectations and much of the shift can likely be attributed to higher energy prices. A bigger concern to keep an eye on is what's happening to household finances underneath the surface.  April core PCE, the Fed's preferred inflation gauge, came in at 3.3% year-over-year, exactly in line with expectations. This was the highest annual level since November 2023.  At this point, inflation still doesn't appear to be a crisis story. If energy prices can decline, I believe much of the recent increase in inflation would dissipate and we'd head closer to the Fed's 2% target.   While I'd say inflation isn't a major concern currently, the data suggests consumers are increasingly stretched financially.  The clearest warning sign is the savings rate. The U.S. personal savings rate fell to just 2.6%, one of the lowest levels seen outside of the immediate Covid reopening period in 2022. The April reading was down from 3.2% in March and 5.8% a year prior. It also marked the lowest savings rate since June 2022 when it hit 2.2%. For perspective, Americans saved about 5-7% from 2010 to the beginning of 2020.   That gap matters. It suggests consumers are continuing to spend, but they're doing it with far less financial cushion than they historically had. Spending resilience is increasingly being supported by depleted savings, rising debt usage, and retirement account borrowing rather than excess cash reserves.  Fidelity reported that 19.2% of workers now have an outstanding 401(k) loan, up from 18.8% a year ago. Meanwhile, hardship withdrawals across retirement plans continue to rise industrywide. Vanguard recently reported that 6% of account holders took hardship withdrawals in 2025, up from 4.8% the prior year and above pre-pandemic norms.  Retirement accounts are increasingly functioning as emergency liquidity for everyday expenses. Historically, 401(k)s were largely treated as long-term investment vehicles. Now they're becoming a financial backstop for consumers trying to maintain spending in a higher-rate environment.  This data continues to point towards the concerns around the K-shape economy. While debt levels remain in check, increased debt balances or more 401k withdrawals could create more longer-term consequences that we should be aware of.      The most important part of the SpaceX IPO may not be the valuation. It may be the mechanics behind the stock itself.  SpaceX has yet to declare the size of its IPO offering, but it will likely be a single-digit percentage of the company's total shares outstanding. That matters because float, not just valuation, can determines how violently a stock moves in the early months after an IPO. When demand is huge and supply is constrained, prices can disconnect from fundamentals quickly. If institutions, retail investors, and passive index funds are all competing for a tiny number of available shares, scarcity alone can drive a major rally independent of fundamentals. Nasdaq created a rule in May that shortened the waiting period for megacap stocks to be included in the Nasdaq 100 index to 15 trading days, which is down from as long as a year. There's also a proposal to shorten the waiting period for S&P 500 inclusion to six months from 12 months and there's speculation that could be implemented before the SpaceX IPO. If SpaceX is added rapidly to major indexes, passive funds and ETFs may become forced buyers while insiders gradually gain the ability to sell into strength. That creates a setup where institutional demand collides directly with controlled insider supply releases. The result could be extraordinary volatility in both directions.  The lock-up structure may be even more important than the float itself. SpaceX plans to allow certain shareholders to sell portions of their stock before the traditional 180-day lock-up expires. Restrictions usually apply to existing investors, employees, large institutional investors or people with access to privileged information. Under the proposed structure, some insiders could begin selling as early as after the company's first earnings report if performance targets are met. Up to 20% of the restricted shares may be sold shortly after the company releases its second-quarter earnings. Another 10% would be unlocked if the stock trades at least 30% above its IPO price. Additional tranches of 7% each are set to unlock at five intervals between 70 and 135 days after the listing, with a further 28% becoming available after a subsequent earnings report. Any remaining restricted shares would be eligible for sale after 180 days. Elon Musk, who holds 85.1% of the voting power and 12.3%  of the economic interest in Class A shares, agreed to a 366-day restriction.  Historically, unlock events have often been brutal. The Facebook IPO is probably the clearest example. Facebook had an IPO of $38 in May 2012 during one of the most hyped tech IPOs ever. Within three months, the stock had already fallen sharply, but the real pressure came from the lock-up expirations. In August 2012, Facebook's first major lock-up expiration released 270 million additional shares into the market increasing the publicly tradable share count by roughly 60%. The stock fell more than 6% that day and closed below $20, almost 48% below its IPO price. Interestingly, your returns in Meta/Facebook have been great and investors who bought the stock after its first day of trading are up close to 1,500%, but investors that bought six months later are up close to 2,500%.  Facebook isn't the only example. In fact, generally IPOs fizzle out shortly after the hype fades. Jay Ritter, a University of Florida professor, point out the 1,724 U.S. IPOs from 2011 through 2024 had an average first-day pop of 23%, but over the next three years, these stocks lagged behind the market by 25 percentage points. The trend is even more troubling for stocks that trade with a high premium. Since 1980, issuers with trailing annual sales of at least $100 million and a price-to-sales ratio above 40 have seen an average three-year drop of 45% from their first day's close.  The psychology behind lock-ups is simple. During the first few months after an IPO, the market is dealing with artificial scarcity. The available supply of stock is intentionally constrained while excitement and media attention are elevated. Once insiders are allowed to sell, the supply-demand balance changes immediately. What makes SpaceX interesting is that management appears to be trying to avoid a single catastrophic unlock day by spreading the selling pressure over time. In theory, that could reduce the probability of a massive one-day collapse like Facebook experienced. But it may also create a different environment where insider selling becomes a continuous overhang rather than one clean reset event.  The lesson from previous IPO cycles is that the first trade and the long-term investment outcome are rarely the same thing. Stocks with tiny floats and massive narratives can become detached from fundamentals very quickly. Eventually supply catches up.     Financial Planning: Match or Max Your 401(k)  Many people have heard the advice to contribute enough to their 401(k) to receive the company match, but stopping there can mean leaving one of the most powerful wealth-building tools underutilized. A 401(k) allows investments to grow tax-deferred or tax-free with traditional and Roth contributions, which can significantly improve long-term after-tax returns compared to other investment options. Critics often argue that 401(k) plans have failed to replace traditional pensions, but in many cases the problem is not the structure of the 401(k) itself, it is that people simply have not contributed enough or invested appropriately over time. Not everyone is going to become a real estate mogul, successful entrepreneur, or business owner, and that is perfectly okay. The 401(k) was designed to allow ordinary workers to build extraordinary retirement security through disciplined saving and investing over decades. With consistent contributions, proper investment allocation, and time, a well-funded 401(k) can generate retirement income that exceeds many traditional pension plans while also providing greater flexibility and ownership of the assets.     Companies Discussed: The Home Depot, Inc. (HD), Intuit Inc. (INTU), Ferrari N.V. (RACE) & MGM Resorts International (MGM) 

Why do low P/E stocks perform better in overpriced markets? We are currently in a momentum-driven market, and many people are experiencing FOMO, which is the fear of missing out. Much of this is being fueled by AI and technology stocks, where investors are willing to pay almost any price because they believe these industries will continue growing indefinitely and they don't want to miss the opportunity. The problem is that high P/E stocks and companies with no P/E since there are no earnings at all already have massive future success priced into them. When the market eventually declines, as it always does at some point, it is often because these high-flying companies miss lofty expectations. That can trigger major selloffs and sharp declines in stock prices. Low P/E stocks, on the other hand, typically have more modest growth expectations. Because expectations are lower, market downturns often have less impact on these companies. Many low P/E companies are also more mature businesses with stable cash flows, which tend to hold up better during slower economic periods. Examples include companies in consumer staples and financials. In addition, many low P/E stocks pay dividends, which can help stabilize returns and reduce volatility during uncertain markets. However, investors still need to be careful to avoid “value traps” which are companies with low P/E ratios that deserve to trade at low valuations. This is why understanding the “E” in the P/E ratio or the earnings is so important. You want to avoid investing in companies with declining businesses and shrinking earnings potential. Think about companies like Polaroid or Blockbuster, which failed to adapt as their industries changed. It's also important to remember that market cycles play out over years, not weeks or months. Just because a strategy has worked well for a couple of years doesn't mean it will continue indefinitely. For example, it took roughly five years for the tech boom to fully unravel during the dot-com bubble.   Is Your Beer Budget Feeling the Gas Pump? If your beer fridge has been looking a little emptier lately, you're not alone and the culprit might not be your willpower. New Nielsen scanner data shows that U.S. beer, hard seltzer, and cider volumes dropped 6.3% year over year through the week ending May 2, both on a two- and four-week trailing basis. This was nearly double the 3% declines seen between November and mid-April. What's driving it? Analysts at Bernstein are pointing straight at the gas pump. There's a clear negative correlation between gas prices in a given state and beer volume growth, and it's becoming more visible in the data, particularly in markets with the most expensive fuel. Average U.S. gasoline prices have risen roughly 52% since the start of the Iran war, according to AAA. That's a serious hit to household budgets and it shows. California, with fuel averaging around $6.16 per gallon, saw a 16% decline in beer volumes. Arizona and Texas weren't far behind, posting declines of 10% and nearly 7%, respectively. Convenience stores seem to be seeing the brunt of the decline as they are highly sensitive to gas station traffic and impulse purchases tied to commuting and travel. Not every brand is suffering equally. Michelob Ultra is holding relatively flat, while Bud Light and Budweiser are posting double-digit volume declines. Boston Beer remains the weakest performer among major brewers.   Information is starting to trickle in about the SpaceX IPO The SpaceX IPO is expected to be the largest initial public offering on record, with the potential to raise $80 billion or more through the stock sale. Based on the information currently available, SpaceX is expected to begin its roadshow around June 4th, which could place the public offering date near June 12th. The company is expected to trade under the ticker symbol SPCX on the Nasdaq, as well as Nasdaq Texas, which would represent a significant blow to the New York Stock Exchange. If you plan to read the entire prospectus, be prepared to invest some time. The filing totals 277 pages, not including notes and exhibits. By comparison, a typical IPO prospectus is usually fewer than 200 pages. Financial data shows that in 2025, SpaceX generated revenue of $18.7 billion, an increase of 33% over the previous year. However, earnings declined sharply, with the company reporting a net loss of $4.9 billion compared with a profit of $791 million in 2024. Unsurprisingly, Elon Musk will serve as CEO. Goldman Sachs is expected to lead the offering alongside Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, Citigroup, and JPMorgan Chase. Given the size of the deal, it will certainly be interesting to see how all five firms work together. As more important information becomes available, we will continue to keep you updated.   Financial Planning: The Breakeven on Social Security Many people look at their Social Security statement and perform a breakeven analysis to determine how long they would have to live for waiting to claim benefits to pay off. These simple calculations often suggest that claiming at 62 is best if life expectancy is less than around 78, claiming at full retirement age around 67 makes sense if life expectancy is between 78 and 82, and waiting until 70 is best if someone expects to live beyond 82. The problem is that this type of analysis is often too simplistic and can be misleading. Most breakeven calculations only compare the total dollars received at different claiming ages and ignore several important factors. First, Social Security benefits continue to receive annual Cost-of-Living Adjustments (COLAs), whether benefits are started early or delayed. Second, no one truly knows how long they will live, so any breakeven age is really just an estimate. Most importantly, many analyses ignore the time value of money. If someone starts benefits earlier, they may be able to reduce withdrawals from other retirement assets, allowing those investments more time to grow and potentially generate additional future income. When you factor in both Social Security COLAs and the potential return that could be earned on invested assets, the breakeven age often moves much later than people expect. In many cases, it can take well into someone's 90s or beyond before delaying benefits actually produces a greater overall financial benefit. That does not mean taking benefits early is always the best choice, but it does show that Social Security decisions should be based on an overall retirement income strategy rather than a simple breakeven calculation alone.   Companies Discussed: Versant Media Group, Inc. (VSNT), YETI Holdings, Inc. (YETI), IMAX Corporation (IMAX) & Under Armour, Inc. (UAA)

The Fed's Inflation Problem Just Got More Complicated U.S. inflation accelerated sharply in April, with CPI rising 3.8% year-over-year, the highest reading in nearly three years, as the Iran conflict continued to ripple through global energy markets. Core CPI, which excludes food and energy, also rose to 2.8%, up from 2.6% in March, suggesting inflation pressures are beginning to broaden beyond energy alone. The biggest driver was oil. Ongoing disruptions around the Strait of Hormuz — one of the world's most critical oil shipping routes — pushed crude prices sharply higher over the past two months. Gasoline prices surged again in April and are now up 28.4% compared to a year ago. Diesel, jet fuel, utilities, and transportation costs also moved higher. Analysts estimate energy alone accounted for more than 40% of the monthly CPI increase. Food inflation also remained elevated, rising 3.2% year-over-year. Some categories saw especially sharp increases, including tomatoes (+39.7%) and fresh vegetables (+11.5%). Airline fares were another major outlier, jumping 20.7% from last year as higher fuel costs filtered through the travel industry. The April inflation report complicates the Federal Reserve's outlook. Markets had expected rate cuts later this year, but stronger inflation and resilient consumer spending are now pushing those expectations further out. Treasury yields moved higher immediately after the CPI release as investors repriced the likelihood of rates staying elevated for longer. That said, it's important not to overreact to a single report. In roughly two weeks, investors will get the PCE (Personal Consumption Expenditures) report, which is the inflation gauge the Federal Reserve watches most closely. Unlike CPI, PCE captures a broader view of consumer spending and adjusts more dynamically as spending habits change. There are several key differences between the two reports. CPI primarily measures out-of-pocket spending by urban consumers, while PCE also includes rural households and purchases made on behalf of consumers, such as employer-sponsored healthcare and government programs like Medicare and Medicaid. As those costs rise, consumers still feel the impact indirectly. PCE also better reflects substitution effects — meaning it captures when consumers shift from higher-priced goods to lower-cost alternatives during inflationary periods. The weighting differences are significant as well. Housing makes up 44.5% of CPI but only 18.1% of PCE. Meanwhile, healthcare represents just 8.4% of CPI compared to 20.6% of PCE. While the upcoming PCE report will likely also show inflation accelerating, the bigger question is whether this energy shock proves temporary or becomes more persistent. If oil prices remain elevated, energy could continue to be the primary driver behind inflation data for the next several months — and that would make the Fed's path forward significantly more difficult.   The market continues to flash warning signs beneath the surface. The semiconductor sector, as measured by the Philadelphia Semiconductor Index, has only been this extended above its 200-day moving average twice before in modern history: 1995 and early 2000. Those are not random comparisons. In 2000, semiconductors peaked alongside the final stages of the dot-com bubble, marking a generational top in speculative growth stocks. In 1995, the outcome was different but still instructive: semiconductor stocks entered their own bear market even as the broader indexes continued grinding higher. Given that semiconductor stocks are now such a large part of the market, I believe it would be hard for the market to rally if this sector entered a bear market. There was also another warning sign you should be aware of. Last week, the S&P 500 hit another record high while an unusually large number of individual stocks simultaneously registered fresh 52-week lows. Historically, that kind of divergence has rarely occurred outside of major topping periods. As Bespoke Investment Group noted: “Since 1996, the only other period where we saw the S&P at record highs with fewer than 60% of stocks above their 50- and 200-day moving averages was from late 1998 to early 2000.” That matters because healthy bull markets are typically characterized by broad participation. When indexes rise while fewer stocks carry the advance, it often signals deteriorating internal strength masked by mega-cap concentration. Today's market has become increasingly dependent on a handful of AI and semiconductor names to sustain index performance. Valuations across those leadership stocks are being justified by near-perfect expectations: uninterrupted earnings growth, sustained AI capex expansion, and continued multiple expansion despite elevated rates and slowing macro conditions. That combination leaves very little room for disappointment. None of this guarantees an immediate crash. Markets can remain overextended longer than expected, especially during periods of technological enthusiasm and liquidity-driven momentum. But history suggests these types of extremes tend to appear late in cycles, not early. The key issue isn't simply that valuations are expensive. It's that market breadth, positioning, and sentiment are all increasingly disconnected from the underlying participation beneath the indexes. That's usually when risk becomes hardest to see — and most dangerous to ignore.   Consumers Say They're Worried, But They Keep Spending The latest U.S. retail sales report continues to tell a very different story than consumer sentiment surveys. According to the latest Census Bureau retail sales data, overall retail and food service sales remained resilient, with strength in online retail, restaurants, electronics, and discretionary categories. Even after adjusting for slowing momentum from March's surge, spending activity continues to hold up far better than many expected. Compared to last year, sales climbed 4.9% and even if we back out the gasoline stations where sales climbed 20.9%, sales were still up 3.7%. If we exclude another volatile category in motor vehicle & parts dealers it was up 4.9%. This divergence matters. Consumers say they feel pessimistic and sentiment surveys confirm it. The University of Michigan consumer sentiment index recently fell to record lows of 48.2 as households reacted to inflation and higher gas prices. It's important to point out this survey has been around for close to 75 years. Ultimately, I believe behavior is more important than survey as that is what drives the economy. Behavior still shows people are traveling, eating out, and shopping online. Employment and wage growth continue to support consumption and until the labor market weakens materially, I believe that will remain the case. Part of the disconnect is psychological. Consumers are reacting to inflation, geopolitical uncertainty, and higher living costs. But at the same time, household balance sheets, labor markets, and asset prices have remained supportive enough to keep consumption moving. As long as spending continues, the broader economy remains on firmer footing than sentiment surveys alone would imply.   Financial Planning: How are your Rental Properties Performing? Rental properties should be reviewed over time just like an investment portfolio, yet many owners focus on a few attractive details rather than critically evaluating the full picture. Looking only at the rent coming in or calculating “net cash flow” using just the mortgage, property taxes, and insurance can create a very different impression than what is actually happening financially. Maintenance, repairs, vacancies, turnover costs, property management, capital improvements, and recurring “one-time expenses” can significantly reduce actual returns over time. That $1,000 per month of cash flow may sound attractive, but it becomes far less impressive if the property has $1 million of equity that could potentially be invested elsewhere. While many real estate investors benefited from rapid appreciation between 2019 and 2022, property values in many areas have recently remained stagnant, causing overall returns to slow considerably. After fully accounting for the true cost of ownership and the opportunity cost of the equity invested, many rental properties have likely underperformed the stock market in recent years despite continuing to generate rental income.   Companies Discussed: The Walt Disney Company (DIS), Whirlpool Corporation (WHR),  Shake Shack Inc. (SHAK) & Ford Motor Company (F)

Bitcoin had a nice April, will it continue The cryptocurrency gained 12.7% last month, marking its best performance since April 2025. Interestingly, according to CryptoQuant, the 30-day change in outright Bitcoin purchases remained negative throughout April. That suggests the rally wasn't driven by strong spot demand.   Instead, much of the momentum came from something called perpetual futures. Until recently, I wasn't very familiar with this product, but at its core, it's another tool that increases risk. Unlike traditional options, these derivative contracts have no expiration date and are designed to let traders speculate on the price movements of an underlying asset. Perpetual futures have grown rapidly in popularity within the crypto space, largely because they allow for significantly higher leverage—sometimes as much as 100x. That kind of leverage can amplify gains, but it also increases the risk of sharp reversals.   Historically, when there's a divergence between the spot market and the futures market like this, price gains tend not to last once leveraged positions begin to unwind. Where crypto goes from here is anyone's guess, but piling more leverage onto an already risky asset doesn't seem like a good idea to me.   When Will We See Gas Prices Come Back Down? No one can predict exactly when gas prices will decline, but many are aware the current prices are being driven higher by the situation with Iran. At this point, the bombing appears to have ended, but much of the country remains heavily damaged. Estimates suggest it could cost Iran nearly $300 billion to rebuild what has been destroyed.   The situation has shifted to one in which Iran is slowly being weakened economically because little to no oil is being exported from the country, resulting in a major loss of revenue. Reports estimate these losses at roughly $200 million per day — approximately $6 billion per month or $12 billion over two months.   Inflation in Iran is currently estimated to be above 60% and continues to rise as economic conditions worsen. Based on these developments, I still believe we could begin to see oil prices decline sometime around the end of June. If that happens, prices may fall at a fairly rapid pace, and by the end of July consumers could see more normal prices at the gas pump.   Lower energy costs would likely help improve overall economic conditions, potentially putting the economy back on track and supporting GDP growth by the end of the year.   The April jobs report just threw cold water on the “imminent Fed cuts” narrative.   The U.S. economy added 115,000 jobs in April, well above expectations of 55,000, while unemployment held steady at 4.3%. Given little growth in the labor force, only modest job creation is needed to keep the rate steady. Wage growth also remained relatively firm at 3.6% on an annual basis. In short: the labor market is slowing from the breakneck pace of the post-COVID boom, but it is not breaking.   That matters because the Federal Reserve has a dual mandate: keep inflation under control & maintain maximum employment.   Right now, the jobs side of the equation is giving the Fed room to stay patient. A few months ago, markets were pricing in aggressive rate cuts based on fears that the labor market was deteriorating. This report makes that much harder to justify. Hiring remains positive & layoffs are still relatively contained. Sectors that were strong in the month were healthcare, up 37k jobs; transportation & warehousing, up 30k jobs; and retail trade was up 22k jobs. Areas of weakness were information, down 13k jobs; and federal government, down another 9k jobs.   The bigger issue for the Fed now is inflation. Energy prices remain elevated, tariffs are feeding through supply chains, and policymakers are increasingly worried that inflation could stay sticky longer than expected. Chicago Fed President Austan Goolsbee acknowledged on Friday that inflation has been “going the wrong way lately.” As long as the labor market remains stable, it appears the Fed has little urgency to cut rates.   The key takeaway: This wasn't a “Goldilocks” report for dovish investors hoping for rapid cuts. It was a reminder that the economy is still strong enough for the Fed to prioritize inflation over stimulus. And until unemployment starts rising meaningfully or inflation decelerates, the Fed may have a hard time justifying rate cuts.   Financial Planning: When Permanent Life Insurance isn't Permanent Cash value life insurance policies should be reviewed regularly because the long-term performance of the policy often changes significantly over time. In many policies, the internal cost of insurance increases every year as the insured ages because the probability of death rises with age. In addition, policies also have other internal expenses such as administrative fees, rider costs, premium loads, and investment management expenses. While policies are commonly illustrated using attractive hypothetical growth rates, those returns can be misleading because they are shown before many of these internal deductions are applied. As the insured gets older and the insurance costs rise, the total internal charges can eventually exceed the policy's earnings, causing the net growth rate of the cash value to become very low or even negative. When this happens, the policy may begin consuming its own cash value to stay in force. If the cash value becomes depleted, the policy can lapse unless substantially higher premiums are paid later in life. Reviewing these policies proactively is important so there is time to determine whether additional funding is needed, whether benefits should be adjusted, or whether surrendering the policy and accessing any remaining cash value may be the better option before the policy becomes unsustainable.   Companies Discussed: GE HealthCare Technologies Inc. (GEHC), JetBlue Airways Corporation (JBLU), The Clorox Company (CLX) & Corning Incorporated (GLW)  

More regulators are concerned about private credit  The bad news just keeps coming for the private credit industry. If you're not sure what private credit is, it is mostly middle market business loans extended by asset managers. People often don't realize that these asset managers don't have the same strict supervision that banks have on their loans. Investors may be starting to realize the risk because in the first quarter of 2026, private credit investors requested $20 billion from some of the private credit funds. Unfortunately, they only got a little bit over 50% of what they requested or about $11 billion. This could lead to higher redemption requests above $20 billion in the second quarter as more investors become disenchanted with private loan funds. The Securities Exchange Commission over the past few months has opened several enforcement investigations of large private credit managers. The Treasury department is also requesting information from private fund managers and insurance firms to understand their businesses more. The Securities Exchange Commission is the primary regulator for the private credit industry, but the private funds don't regularly disclose holdings and don't reveal much about private credit on the forms that are used by the SEC. It is quite the dilemma for these private credit funds, and I do believe it will continue to get worse because I am confident that the SEC and the Treasury department will find areas that could really hurt the individual investor due to the lack of disclosures.    Could prediction markets be available in your IRA soon?   Bitwise, Roundhill, and GraniteShares have filed applications with the SEC to launch exchange-traded funds tied to event contracts. If approved, these products could potentially be held in self-directed IRAs. The initial proposals appear relatively narrow in scope, focusing on outcomes like which party wins the White House in 2028 and which party controls the House and Senate after this year's midterm elections. While these types of products can sound appealing—and successful bets could generate strong returns—they also carry a clear risk: if you're wrong, you lose your entire investment.  One of the main concerns is how complex and speculative these instruments are, especially in the context of retirement accounts. Event contracts are fundamentally different from traditional investments like stocks or bonds, and their all-or-nothing nature makes them more like betting rather than than long-term investing. Are we going to soon allow withdrawals from retirement assets in Vegas so people can blay blackjack? The odds may be better there than on some of these “event contracts.”  There are also broader legal and regulatory questions still being debated. Some states argue that certain event contracts—particularly those tied to sports outcomes—should be classified as sports gambling, which would place them under state jurisdiction rather than the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Tribal groups have also raised concerns, arguing that such products could infringe on their sovereign rights to regulate gambling on tribal lands.  At the moment, sports-related event contract ETFs are not part of these filings, but that could evolve depending on how the legal landscape develops. If courts ultimately allow these types of products and current applications move forward, it's possible that similar filings tied to sports outcomes could follow.  Regardless of how regulation unfolds, it's important to understand the nature of these products. While they may be packaged as ETFs, their structure and risk profile differ significantly from traditional investments. Anyone considering them should be clear on one point: this is not investing in the conventional sense—it's a high-risk, all-or-nothing proposition that is really just gambling.    Who offers a better reward program? The big gas stations or Costco?  When I pull into a Shell gas station, I always see a pitch on the screen about getting up to $0.30 back per gallon. Other stations like Chevron run similar promos, which got me wondering: how many people actually sign up—and are these deals better than Costco's credit card with 4% cashback on gas?  Right off the bat, gas station rewards programs feel overly complicated. Once you dig in, you'll find caps, conditions, and purchase limits that make it tough to consistently get the maximum benefit. In the best-case scenario, you might get around $0.35 off per gallon. If gas is $6 per gallon, that works out to roughly a 5.8% discount. Not bad—but actually hitting that number regularly is another story.  Costco's credit card, on the other hand, offers a straightforward 5% cashback at Costco gas stations and 4% cashback at other gas stations (up to $7,000 per year). At $6 per gallon, that's about $0.24 back per gallon; at $5 per gallon, it's $0.20. To hit the annual cap, you'd need to buy around 22.4 gallons per week at $6 per gallon, or about 26.9 gallons per week at $5.  If you're filling up at a Costco station, the math can tilt even more in your favor. Gas there is often $0.10–$0.30 cheaper per gallon to begin with. Pair that with 5% cashback, and your effective savings climb even further: about $0.25 per gallon at $5 gas, or $0.30 at $6.  So, when you're standing at the pump at Shell or Chevron and see an offer for a flashy rewards program, it's worth pausing. The headline numbers can look appealing, but the real-world value often depends on how much you drive and how closely you follow the program's rules. For many people, a simple, consistent cashback card—especially one tied to already lower fuel prices—may end up being the better, less stressful option.    Is there a bubble in sports teams?  We've spent plenty of time talking about stretched valuations in stocks, the frenzy in crypto, and the rise of prediction markets—but sports teams may deserve a spot in that conversation too. Valuations across major leagues are climbing at a remarkable pace.  The NFL is leading the charge, with the average team now valued at $7.65 billion, up from roughly $1 billion in 2010. NBA franchises tell a similar story: the average team is worth $5.52 billion, an 18% jump from just last year. Go back 15 years, and the average NBA team was valued around $369 million—an increase of 1,396%. By comparison, the S&P 500's roughly 425% return over that same period looks modest.  Major League Baseball is seeing it too, with the San Diego Padres reportedly finalizing a record sale at $3.9 billion. As prices climb, fewer buyers can afford entry into the top leagues, pushing capital into smaller or emerging sports that may carry more risk.  Rick Horrow, CEO of Horrow Sports Ventures, highlighted this trend: “Major League Cricket was at $5 million. Now the value's at $30 million and going higher. Major League Pickleball two years ago was at $5 million. Now the value is at $15 million or higher.”   Women's sports are also experiencing rapid growth. The National Women's Soccer League recently awarded an expansion franchise in Columbus, Ohio for $205 million—a $40 million increase over the fee paid by Arthur Blank (The Falcon's owner) for Atlanta's team in November. That deal itself was a sharp jump from the $110 million paid by Denver in January of last year. For perspective, expansion fees were around $2 million as recently as 2022.  The key question is whether these valuations are supported by underlying fundamentals. While interest is rising—about 1.2 million people watched the NWSL final, up 22% year over year—it still trails far behind the audiences of major leagues. Game 7 of the NBA Finals drew 16.4 million viewers, the World Series drew 25.9 million, and the Super Bowl surpassed 127 million.  Media rights are central to this dynamic. The NFL signed an 11-year, $111 billion deal in 2021 and is already eyeing further increases. The NBA followed with its own 11-year, $77 billion agreement starting in 2025. If these massive contracts continue to absorb the bulk of media spending, smaller leagues may struggle to sustain their current growth trajectories.  Most people will never be in a position to buy a sports franchise, but the broader trend is still worth watching and I believe is just yet another example of excessive valuations in today's markets.     Financial Planning: Understanding the Relative Cost of IRMAA  IRMAA (Income-Related Monthly Adjustment Amount) is best understood not as a flat cost, but as an additional marginal tax rate layered on top of federal and state income taxes. When your income exceeds certain thresholds, your Medicare Part B and Part D premiums increase, and because the adjustment applies for the entire year once you cross the threshold, even by $1, it creates a “tax cliff.” For example, in 2026 the first IRMAA tier for married couples begins at $218,000 of income. At that point, Part B premiums increase from $202.90 to $284.10 and Part D increases $14.50, resulting in an additional annual cost of $2,296.80. Since this tier spans $56,000 of income (from $218,000 to $274,000), that cost translates to roughly a 4.1% marginal “tax” on income within that range, but only if you fully utilize the entire bracket. If you only exceed the threshold by a small amount, you still incur the full $2,296.80 cost, which means the effective marginal rate on those extra dollars can be extremely high. When layered on top of a 22% federal bracket and 9.3% California tax rate, the true marginal rate is about 35.4% if the bracket is filled, but can be significantly higher if it is not. This framing is critical when evaluating strategies like Roth conversions or large withdrawals, because it highlights that the decision isn't just about stated tax brackets, it's about the all-in marginal rate including IRMAA. In practice, this means it is often beneficial to either stay below an IRMAA threshold or intentionally “fill up” the bracket once crossed, ensuring the additional premium cost is spread across the full income range rather than concentrated on just a few dollars.    Companies Discussed: Tractor Supply Company (TSCO), Intel Corporation (INTC) & The Procter & Gamble Company (PG)

Should the Fed still use the PCE as its inflation guide? I've talked a lot about the shelter index being misleading when it comes to inflation, especially when looking at the CPI, but the PCE has its flaws as well. The Federal Reserve has a 2% inflation target and uses monetary policy, which includes adjusting the Fed Funds rate, to tackle its dual mandate of maximum employment and stable prices. A big problem I see with the PCE is that healthcare now accounts for roughly 16% to 17% of index. This comes as an aging population led healthcare spending to be the single largest contributor to consumer spending in 2025. It surpassed housing and utilities in early 2023 as the fastest growing category in the PCE and by Q3 of 2025, it contributed nearly a full percentage point to overall economic expansion and accounted for nearly half of all spending growth. While it's important to keep an eye on healthcare inflation, the Fed's tools won't be able to have a major impact on the sector like let's say the housing sector. So, let's say inflation stays around 3%, but a large reason for that is healthcare inflation. If the Fed hikes rates, it will have little impact on inflation and in fact it could have a huge negative consequence on other areas of the economy and push us into a recession. A big reason I remain worried about healthcare inflation is labor costs. It doesn't appear we have enough workers to meet the demand for these jobs. On the positive side, the sector has provided stability and growth when looking at payroll data. In 2025, it added 686,000 jobs, which was more than all the gains in nonfarm payrolls. The question is though, can this continue without substantial wage inflation considering by 2030, we will have more people over the age of 65 than we do that are under18. I'm not sure how exactly we can rein in healthcare inflation, but I don't believe monetary policy would provide a meaningful solution.   Even with all the noise, the consumer remains strong March retail sales showed a nice increase of 4.0% compared to last year and while gas stations were a large contributor growing 18.1% due to higher gas prices, excluding them from the report still would have resulted in a good increase of 2.9%. The only areas that saw declines in the report were motor vehicle and parts dealers, which were down 2.1%, and furniture and home furnishing stores, which were down 0.8%. Areas of strength included nonstore retailers, which were up 10.1%, electronics and appliance stores, which were up 5.2%, and clothing and clothing accessories stories, which were up 7.2%. Food services and drinking places saw growth slow, but there was still a positive increase of 2.4%. It's not just the retail sales report that showed strength, Bank of America pointed out debit and credit card spending climbed 4.3% in March, the most in more than three years. While a 16.5% jump in spending at gas stations was a large reason for the increase, there was still “healthy growth” of 3.6% excluding gas. We also heard from Wells Fargo CEO, Charlie Scharf, in an interview with Bloomberg Television and he said the U.S. economy remains “extremely strong” and that loan demand is solid, consumer delinquencies are well controlled, and businesses entered this period in strong financial shape. He also said consumer spending continues to grow between 5% and 7% year-over-year. Even with all the noise, the consumer is what drives the US economy, and it appears people remain resilient in their spending, which is a major reason why I believe the economy remains healthy.   Can the new Apple CEO keep the stock gains coming? With the stock trading at a forward price/earnings ratio of around 32 times, I've got to say it's going to be a very difficult task. Keep in mind over the last 50 years the average forward P/E ratio for the S&P 500 has been between around 15 to 19 times, nowhere near 32. I'm also reminded of a similar situation where a prominent company with such great stock success was taken over by a new CEO and the 16-year return was only 27% including dividends. That company I'm referring to is General Electric when Jack Welch retired and the new CEO Jeffrey Immelt who was handpicked by Jack Welch took over. Things could be different this time when the new CEO of Apple takes over on September 1st but again given the current valuation it will be difficult. John Ternus is a mechanical engineer and was head of the hardware division. An engineering degree now represents the highest percentage of degrees among Fortune 500 CEOs, exceeding the number of CEOs with an MBA. I do have some question marks around the choice though as there have not been that many new successful products that have come out of Apple. We've had the AirPods and the Apple Watch, but they've had some major failures with the Vision Pro headset and are trying to build a self-driving car that they lost billions of dollars on. Mr. Ternus, who is 50 years old, is well liked and is said to have a friendly demeanor along with the engineering confidence, but will he have the magic that Tim Cook had finding ways to squeeze more value out of supply chain? Mr. Cook was also a great political negotiator working with President Barack Obama to President Trump and even made deals with China's president that has kept the company going. Mr. Ternus does have has some big shoes to fill and a large mountain to climb. I just don't believe Apple will see returns anywhere near the past returns they saw under Cook when he took over in 2011 and the stock grew by roughly 20 times.   Your annuity may not be as safe as you think! Many people that are sold annuities are told by the broker that they are 100% safe and to be frank they would probably say almost anything to collect their big 7% or 8% commission. But the Treasury department has concerns and is talking to state insurance regulators about the large amount of private loans that insurance companies are using in their portfolios. Back in 2024 even the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, which is also known as the NAIC and is the organizing body for regulators for every state in the US, had stated ratings that insurers had on private credit and investments were consistently overinflated. They have since pulled the report from the website. Large redemption requests from individual investors that want to pull their money out of many private loan funds are starting to show up in other areas like pension funds and insurance companies. The insurance industry holds about $6 trillion in invested assets and roughly $1 trillion or about 17% is now in private credit investments. The insurance industry uses what is known as private letter ratings and can also assign a risk score to the investment. In a study that examined 109 private letter ratings that NAIC officials received in 2023, in 106 of those cases the private rating was higher than the NAIC. To make matters worse, 17 of the cases gave an investment grade private letter rating to assets that the NAIC considered junk or below investment grade. It is especially important to look out for the smaller firms that use smaller rating agencies like Eagan – Jones as opposed to your bigger rating agencies. The smaller firms tend to rate things much higher than the NAIC, sometimes as much as three notches higher, which really disguises the risk of what the annuity you hold is invested in. I've said for years that we will someday see an insurance company file for bankruptcy and those investors who invested blindly into annuities because of a salesperson's recommendation will probably be disappointed to see that they lost all their earnings and perhaps even some of the principal. I unfortunately think it's too late for some of these insurance companies that have invested into risky assets to turn the situation around quickly.    Financial Planning: Traditional or Roth Choosing between traditional and Roth contributions comes down to one key question: will you be able to withdraw or convert that money at a lower tax rate than your rate today? Traditional contributions work best if the answer is yes, since you get a tax break now and pay less later, while Roth contributions are better if your future tax rate will be the same or higher. Many people enter a lower tax bracket starting at retirement and lasting until required minimum distributions (RMDs) begin at age 75, but this low-tax window is limited. There's only so much pre-tax money you can withdraw or convert each year before moving into a higher bracket. For example, while working someone may be in the 22% bracket and will drop to the 12% bracket in retirement, giving them some room to access that tax-deferred money at a lower rate. However, the threshold between the 12% and 22% brackets is about $100k of taxable income for joint filers, and other income sources like Social Security and pensions will take up some of that room. If those sources result in taxable income of $50k, then only another $50k can be withdrawn or converted from retirement accounts before being pushed from the 12% bracket back up to the 22% bracket.  If there is $1 million in pre-tax retirement accounts growing at 10%/year, that annual appreciation of $100k is much more than can be converted meaning the account balances would continue to grow. When RMDs begin, the taxable distributions would push income into the 22% bracket or higher and potentially trigger IRMAA. Situations like this are common when retirement account balances are large, and Roth contributions should be heavily considered while working unless the taxpayer is in the highest brackets (32% or above).   Companies Discussed: Abbott Laboratories (ABT), PepsiCo, Inc. (PEP) & Avis Budget Group, Inc. (CAR)

Has watching your favorite sports become a nightmare? It used to be easy to watch a football game as you generally had maybe two different networks it would be on and it was easy to find. Well, now the promise of streaming, reducing costs and making it easier for people to watch the shows and sports they want when they want has really missed the mark. The list can go on and on of where to watch the football game or sports you want to watch. Maybe the game will be on ESPN, Paramount+, TNT, NBC's Peacock, CBS or maybe you'll have to go to Amazon prime or the YouTube channel. It can be very frustrating trying to find the game you want and then you find out you don't have the right subscription, and you have to pay extra to sign up for it. Well, maybe the justice department is coming to your rescue. Last week it was reported that the justice department is investigating whether the NFL is engaging in anti-competitive tactics that harm consumers. The investigation involves whether having many outlets for sports viewing is costing consumers far more and the NFL is taking advantage of its behemoth size and demand. There is no doubt that sports are getting out of control and just recently the NBA signed a record payday for their media rights. This has opened the door for many other sports, including the NFL, which apparently because of the change in ownership of CBS they may have to negotiate a new contract with the NFL. No doubt in my mind it will be a far higher contract than before. I'm not sure when the last straw will break the camel's back, but it seems to be getting close as advertisers are starting to back away from the large amount that networks are asking for advertising during the games. It is possible that sports could eventually go to a cost per game because even subscription rates are getting so high that people are not keeping them long-term.   To increase your stock price, just mention AI I'm of course being facetious, but in many cases, it appears that way. This past week, Allbirds, which was a popular shoe company just a few years ago, announced it was pivoting from shoes to artificial intelligence and the stock at one point spiked by more than 700%. A large reason for the craziness is the market cap of the company was tiny at just about $21 million as of Tuesday's close. When companies are this small there is more room for manipulation and wild swings as fewer capital inflows are needed to drive the stock higher. What is even crazier about this stock is that just a few years ago it was a hot company valued above $4 billion and that was because of excitement around its shoes. The company introduced its debut shoe in 2016 and went public in 2021. As I said they are now making the switch to AI as they closed all their U.S. full-priced stores in February and will be focusing on AI compute infrastructure. Allbirds will be called NewBird AI and in a recent statement they said, “The Company will initially seek to acquire high-performance, low-latency AI compute hardware and provide access under long-term lease arrangements, meeting customer demand that spot markets and hyperscalers are unable to reliably service.” This is just crazy to me, and you must ask what qualifications this company has to make such a drastic shift. I know I will not be investing in this stock!   It looks like Meta will become the digital ad king Meta has been very patient growing its ad sales by establishing substantial user habits with their products like Reels, the microblogging site Threads, and even WhatsApp. All have been very slow to introduce advertisements to their users, but that patience has paid off as worldwide ad growth for Meta increased around 22.1% in 2025 and it's estimated it will increase another 24.1% in 2026. Because of how large Meta is, it was expected that growth would slow, but that has not happened. Their growth is far higher than Google's growth, which is projected to be around 11.9%, about the same as last year. The ad revenue numbers are staggering with Meta expected to reach $243.46 billion, about $4 billion more than Google's $239.54 billion. That growth has not been cheap for Meta as the company uses AI to enhance performance and capital spending is now estimated to be around $135 billion this year. I was also surprised to learn that Google's share of the US search ad market is expected to only be 48.5%. This would be the first time it's fallen below 50% in over a decade. There is so much competition out there from AI companies, like OpenAI, and other social media companies, like TikTok, that the ad market is continually changing. When companies compete, consumers generally win, but I'm not sure about investors as the cost of spending on technology has become a very heavy weight for many of these big tech companies.    Financial Planning: Beware of Income Taxes when Gifting When parents give assets to their children, the income tax impact depends on what's being gifted. Cash is usually the easiest and most tax-friendly option because there's no built-in gain. There is no direct income tax to the giver or receiver, but if parents gift things like appreciated stock or real estate, the child receives the original cost basis as well. This means they will owe capital gains tax on all the appreciation when they sell it. In contrast, if the child inherits those same assets after the parents pass away, the basis typically steps up to current market value, wiping out that taxable gain. Because of this, it's often smarter to gift cash or assets with little appreciation and hold onto highly appreciated assets to pass on at death.   Companies Discussed: Levi Strauss & Co. (LEVI), American Airlines Group Inc. (AAL), HP Inc. (HPQ) & Caterpillar Inc. (CAT)

Could smart glasses replace the smart phone as the number one consumer device? If you're like me, you probably remember the failure of Google Glass, which ended in 2015. Google may have exited the space early considering in 2025 global shipments of smart glasses hit 8.7 million units, which quadrupled 2024's level. Meta currently holds 85% of the market but realize that Apple, Alphabet/ Google, and Samsung are expected to launch AI equipped eyewear soon. I do wonder if this will hurt or help Apple since people may be buying more smart glasses and less high-end iPhones? There are concerns about privacy and data collection. Currently Meta is facing a lawsuit in the US that is seeking class action status. Seems like Meta can't get out of the news or the courtroom, but they do state that what the glasses collect stays on the user's device unless they choose to share it with the company. The smart glasses can see what you see and hear what you hear. You can have a conversation with the glasses the same as if you're talking to a person. Which means you may look like a crazy person standing there talking to yourself if people don't realize you have smart glasses on. Companies that would benefit from an increase in manufacturing of smart glasses, excluding the big companies I already mentioned, would include companies such as EssilorLuxottica, which is the owner of Ray-Ban and Meta's manufacturing partner, Qualcomm, which provides the central processor or the brains of the glasses, and Global Foundries. which takes care of the display technology. It appears this time; smart glasses may become as common as a smart phone in the next few years.   Is the market too expensive to buy the dip this time? With the increasing cost of oil and the turmoil in Iran the markets did see a correction, which is a drop of 10% or more from the peak. People have become so accustomed to just buying the dips without knowing the valuations of what they're buying, and many will probably do the same thing this time. Unfortunately, dip buying does not always work and given the current valuations, investors could be in for a bad surprise. Even with the recent pull back, the forward price/earnings ratio for the S&P 500 sits at 20 and is still 20% higher than the 20-year average. So even with the dip you're not buying companies on sale at these levels. Earnings can be adjusted and moved around with accounting rules, which means you're probably paying more than you believe if you don't understand accounting. Another indicator to look at is the forward price to free cash flow. This indicator takes out all the accounting craziness of how much some tech companies are spending on capital expenditures for artificial intelligence. Often, I find these two measures converge once the accounting catches up to the heavy capex spending and understanding both earnings and free cash flow is an important balance. The index currently has a forward price to free cash flow of 27.4 and that is nearly 40% above the 20-year average. Smart investors really should stop and think. They should realize they're paying a lot more for the S&P 500 than they thought. Free cash flow is not an accounting measure, and companies are not required to compute it for you. It's not that hard to calculate though as you start with cash from operations and then deduct all the capital expenditures. This is where the devil is in the details because this is where you will see how overvalued many tech companies are because of the billions of dollars they're spending. The big risk here is the return on investment will likely not come very quickly and maybe not at all. This doesn't mean you shouldn't invest in stocks as you can still find good quality equities that are generating very good cash flow and that you're not overpaying for the earnings or the free cash flow. Personally, those are the types of businesses I'm looking for when investing for myself and my clients.   Consumer prices spike in March due to Iran war While it was in line with expectations, the headline CPI rose 3.3% compared to last year. This was the highest annual rate since April 2024, and it was substantially higher than February's reading of 2.4%. The obvious reason for the increase was the change in oil prices. Energy showed an increase of 12.5%, largely due to a spike of 18.9% in gasoline prices. Month over month gasoline prices climbed 21.2%, which was the largest monthly increase since 1967 when the series was first published. Outside of the energy spike, prices did not look problematic considering core CPI, which excludes food and energy, saw an increase of 2.6% on an annual basis. This was relatively in line with recent months and was 0.1% below the forecast. While the Fed may be able to look through these inflation numbers, if energy remains elevated the concern is it will start to impact core CPI as well. Companies will need to start raising prices to offset their higher expenses due to energy costs. For example, airline fares, which rose 14.9% over the past 12 months would see further pressure. Deutsche Bank estimates that if jet fuel prices stay near current levels for a full year, airlines would have to increase ticket prices by about 17% to offset those cost pressures. Transportation would also be problematic with companies like Amazon, UPS, and FedEx needing to pay more to move goods around the economy. We have already seen the introduction of fuel and logistics surcharges and those will likely climb further if problems persist. On a positive note, the shelter index rose just 3.0% on an annual basis, which was tied for its lowest level since August 2021. As I have mentioned before, I anticipate shelter inflation will continue to decline as the year progresses. Overall, the main takeaway is if this Iran war can be contained and energy prices start to decline, which I think they will, inflation should not be a problem in 2026.     Financial Planning: Reporting a Backdoor Roth IRA Normally when income is above $236k for joint filers or $150k for single filers, the ability to make Roth IRA contributions is phased out.  A backdoor Roth IRA is a strategy that allows high-income taxpayers to fund Roth IRAs, but it needs to be done correctly.  It is a two-step process that involves making a traditional IRA contribution and then converting that contribution into a Roth IRA.  This can only be done if the account holder does not have any other pre-tax IRAs.  When the initial contribution is made to the traditional IRA, it needs to be reported as a non-deductible contribution.  When the funds are converted, a 1099-r is generated, and as long as the initial contribution was reported correctly, the conversion is not taxable.  The end result is a Roth IRA that can grow tax-free.  While this can be a benefit, it is crucial that everything is reported correctly to prevent filing errors, overcontributions, and amended tax returns.   Companies Discussed: ServiceNow, Inc. (NOW), NIKE, Inc. (NKE), RH (RH) & Invesco Ltd. (IVZ)

How much could inflation increase because of surging oil prices? It is hard to know exactly how much the increase will be, but we do know it will be increasing because since the Iran war started February 28th, a barrel of oil has increased from around $70 a barrel to around $100 a barrel depending on the day. Economists estimate that the March CPI inflation number could be around 3.4% and may hit 4% in April. If the conflict continues through summer and into the fall, we could see inflation hit 5%. While this is a possibility, fortunately, it does not appear that will happen. One would have to go back 20 years to see this type of rapid increase in gas prices. The Fed has been trying for five years to get inflation down to 2% with no success, and it does not appear that it will happen this year, which means interest rate rates will probably remain around the current level for the remainder of this year. This will be tough on the economy because mortgage rates won't be coming down as we expected, and people may not be doing that remodel on their home because home equity lines will still be high. Some may just say I want to get this done and just go ahead and accept the higher interest rate, but I believe most will choose to continue deferring the project. The good news is, I don't believe this will last much past May or June because the President knows this would be very tough on the economy and the midterm elections are approaching quickly. So, currently we're still saying this is a short-term problem and any pullback in good quality businesses that don't have high valuations is a good buying opportunity.   You may finally be able to invest in SpaceX! Bloomberg and CNBC's David Faber reported that SpaceX has confidentially filed for an IPO with the Securities and Exchange Commission, also known as the SEC. It's estimated the company could see a listing around June and that it is seeking a valuation of $1.75 trillion, which would lead to a record public offering. Don't forget that SpaceX merged with Musk's X AI, which also owns X and used to be Twitter, back in February. At that time the combined entity was valued at $1.25 trillion. Following a SpaceX IPO, Musk will become the first person to sit atop two separate trillion-dollar public companies. This IPO would also likely help increase Musk's net worth, which is estimated to be close to $840 billion. Most of Musk's net worth comes from his estimated 43%stake in SpaceX and 13% ownership of Tesla. I would have to assume this IPO would be well received given all the excitement around space, AI, and Elon Musk. This company is not just built around hype given its contracts with NASA, the Air Force, and Space Force. It also conducted 165 orbital flights over the course of 2025 and operates the Starlink satellite internet service, which runs on a constellation of around 10,000 satellites in lower-earth orbit. With that said, my guess is the stock would push higher in the public markets to lofty levels that would make it dangerous as a long-term investment. There's also speculation that we could see IPOs for Anthropic and OpenAI this year. I do believe these mega IPOs could cause problems for stocks like Tesla, Nvidia, and Microsoft as there is only so much available capital and investors may sell those positions to a get a piece of these new exciting stocks. This should be an exciting year for the IPO market.    Maybe the labor market isn't as bad as people think Coming off a weak February report where payrolls declined by 133k, March showed a nice increase of 178k jobs. Part of the volatility was due to a strike at Kaiser that led to job losses in February, but then a surge of 76k jobs in the health care space in March. Health care continues to be the driving force for the labor market, but construction was strong in the month as the sector added 26k jobs and transportation and warehousing saw a nice increase of 21k jobs. The government sector continues to weigh negatively on the headline number as federal government employment declined by 18k jobs in March. Since reaching a peak in October 2024, federal government employment is down 11.8% or 355k jobs. Financial activities also saw a decline of 15k jobs in the month and the other major sectors like manufacturing, information, and leisure and hospitality saw little change in the month. While I wouldn't say the labor market is booming, considering the unemployment rate is sitting at 4.3%, which was down from 4.4% last month, I'd say maintaining the labor market at these levels would be extremely healthy for our economy. I remain optimistic that both the labor market and economy will remain in a good spot for the rest of 2026.   Financial Planning: Setting Up 2026 Tax Payments With Tax Day approaching, it's important to think not just about your 2025 tax return, but also about planning for 2026. In the U.S., taxes must be paid throughout the year either through withholding or quarterly estimated payments, and while your 2025 balance is due April 15, the first estimated tax payment for 2026 is also due on that same day. This matters especially for income like interest, dividends, capital gains, business income, and rental income, which typically don't have automatic withholding and therefore require estimated payments. If you don't pay enough during the year, the IRS will charge both interest and underpayment penalties on the shortfall. To avoid interest and penalties, you generally need to pay at least 90% of your current-year tax, 100% of last year's tax, or 110% of last year's tax if your AGI is over $150,000.  Since projecting the current year tax can be unreliable when income is variable, a simple way to stay on track is to use last year's tax as a baseline since it's known and easy, and if you fall behind, you can catch up by increasing withholdings from wages, pensions, or retirement withdrawals since withholdings are treated as if they were made evenly throughout the year, regardless of timing.    Companies Discussed: Snowflake Inc. (SNOW), Snap Inc. (SNAP), Alcoa Corporation (AA) & Boston Scientific Corporation (BSX)    

Is the concern of stagflation putting downward pressure on bank stocks? The term stagflation was first used in 1965 by a British politician. A quick definition for an economy with stagflation is when there is slow economic growth, high unemployment, and high inflation. A scenario like that would put a strain on banks because as people lose their jobs one of the first things they stop paying on are consumer loans like credit cards and personal loans. Banks can also get squeezed because they may have locked in long-term loans at lower rates and because of high inflation, the Federal Reserve could increase short-term interest rates, which would compress margins. The banks also need meet certain liquidity requirements, which could hurt margins even more. On the bright side, this could be a buying opportunity to invest in banks since they are down roughly 9 to 10% since the beginning of the year. The reason I think this could be a good opportunity is manyfold. First off, the high oil prices that are currently causing inflation concerns appear to be a short-term problem and I believe they should start reversing by May or June. Second, employers have slowed down on hiring new people but are reluctant to let employees go because it's very costly to hire new employees. Third, the economy appears to still be doing well and consumers have already started receiving part of the $50-$60 billion in tax refunds from the Big Beautiful Bill, which should help with consumer spending. This is also the year where agreements from other countries to invest trillions of dollars into our economy should start taking place. In regard to the banks themselves, they're sitting in a pretty good situation with diversified businesses as your mega banks like JPMorgan and Bank of America have trading houses and global markets that are growing in the low double digits. Some banks expect mid-teens growth in the trading business. Some of the bankers have also said that demand for traditional commercial loans has been improving so far this year. In its most recent data, the Federal Reserve showed commercial industrial loans were up 5% year over a year, which is the largest increase since 2023. As always with investing, you should be looking out at least 2 to 3 years. One other perk is many banks pay a decent dividend around 2% to 2.5%    Meta and YouTube get screwed in court I was very disappointed to see that a 20-year-old woman, who won in a California court, is set to receive a total of $6 million from Meta and YouTube. Her claim was she was addicted to social media, and it dominated her life for years, which caused mental health issues like anxiety and depression. I'm really getting tired of the legal system in California and the theatrics played by attorneys such as her attorney having a jar of 415 M&M's saying each M&M represented $1 billion of the near $400 billion in total stockholder equity when looking at Alphabets value. He began to remove one M&M at a time and demonstrated how taking out a few M&Ms did not change the weight of the jar. My feeling is this attorney should go to Hollywood and try to get an acting job. It is disappointing to see how no one wants to take accountability for their actions any longer. They want to blame somebody else and not take responsibility for the fact that she uploaded more than 200 YouTube videos before the age of 10 and had 15 Instagram accounts before she was 15. I do have to ask where were the parents? This could just be the beginning as there are 3000 other similar lawsuits against social media companies that are pending in California courts. I do believe there should be some changes made to the regulatory framework around social media, but this goes too far and is just in my opinion greed from attorneys and people trying to get a free ride. I was glad to see that both companies are appealing the decision, and this will likely continue to move up the court system and may land in the Supreme Court. Meta also lost a case in New Mexico this past week as jurors found that Meta willfully violated the state's unfair practices. The state's Attorney General claimed the company failed to properly safeguard its apps from online predators targeting children. It is disappointing to see the number of lawsuits that are going on in our country. Our country was not built on attorneys and lawsuits; it was built on people working hard and taking responsibility for their own actions. I do fear for my grandkids if we continue on this path and wonder what our country will look like in 30 or 40 years. When it comes to investing, I would be very careful in this space, as these cases could set a dangerous precedent for trials to come. There is also a federal trial set to begin this summer in the Northern District of California involving claims by school districts and parents nationwide that apps from Meta, YouTube, TikTok and Snap helped foster detrimental mental health-related harms to young users.   Will higher gas prices hurt strong US car sales? Current US car sales are around 16 million on an annual basis, which is down from 2019 when they were 17 million, but overall, they are still very healthy. The car business has changed from low margin vehicles to more luxury vehicles with higher profit margins and the average price on a new car is now over $50,000. The car buyers themselves have changed with the average new vehicle buyer around 50 years old. This is seven years older than in the year 2000. It's no surprise, but because of the higher prices for cars, people earning over $150,000 a year account for 42% of the sales. Six years ago, it was just 29%. It was also reported that buyers who have incomes of $75,000 or less are no longer buying new cars because of the affordability. The higher gas prices do not seem to be affecting car sales at this point and according to the manufacturers, they are still saying the buyers remain resilient. However, if gas and oil prices remain at current levels that would then likely put a strain on car sales. Fortunately, at this time, based on many factors, I think by May or June we will start to see the easing of prices at the pump. Also helping US manufacturers is the deductible interest on cars made in the US. There are restrictions on this, but that does also help ease the pain with a little tax deduction. Also, since the President ended the tax credits for electric vehicles, US car manufacturers were able to scrap the losing endeavor of trying to build profitable EVs. With the stock prices for car manufacturers down around 9 to 10%, I believe the investment clouds should be clearing in the next couple of months and investors may have an opportunity to invest in a good US car manufacturer. It's important to remember that if you step in and buy here, you own a small piece of a large company and don't worry about the day to day volatility, you should be focusing on where that business will be at least 2-3 years down the road.   Should crypto companies be allowed into the United States banking system? Unfortunately, Jonathan Gould, who is Comptroller of the Currency and is one of the country's most powerful bank regulators, believes so. He thinks it's a good idea to let firms like Ripple, Crypto.com and others in this area to become a trust bank. A trust bank is a little bit different than a normal bank because they don't take deposits or make loans and instead offer other services like safekeeping of various assets. An example of trust banks would be insurance companies and payroll processors. My concern is what the average consumer may think as they could believe that because it's a trust bank it is automatically insured by the federal government. This is a gray area as some trust banks can have insurance from the federal government, but they do not insure investments like stocks bonds, and cryptocurrencies. The Bank Policy Institute and other banks are against this because it is unclear what these crypto companies would do with bank charters. There is talk that some applicants may want access to the Federal Reserve payment rails, which would allow them to move money between digital currencies and the banking system. My concern is this could jeopardize the strength of our banking system and cause our federal government to be on the hook for some big financial liability in the years to come as some cryptocurrency drops dramatically or fails.   Companies Discussed: DICK'S Sporting Goods, Inc. (DKS), Best Buy Co., Inc. (BBY), Signet Jewelers Limited (SIG) & CF Industries Holdings, Inc. (CF)

Bank stocks feel the pain from private credit You may have noticed that the bank stock index is down about 10%, which is more than the S&P 500's decline of 3% at the beginning of the year. It is estimated that banks made roughly 10% of their total loans to non-depository financial institutions known as NDFIs, which includes private credit companies. It's also estimated that these types of loans in the past three years have grown from $1.1 trillion to $1.9 trillion. The banking stocks may struggle for a few more months, but the good news is a recent study from the Office of Financial Research found that private funds and BDCs, which are Business Development Corporations, use lines of credit and currently they've only used about 50 to 65% of the buying capacity. The tough decision for the banks is do they cut off the line of credit now or do they take on more risk and let those lines of credit increase to 70 or 80%? I feel I hope they stop it now because the risk I think is too great going forward on these private loans. We do hold two banks in our portfolio, which means we may see little to no gain in those stocks in 2026 due to the concerns around private lending. However, we do invest in companies for the long term and understand that difficulties can arise and cause a down year for any company. Long-term I don't believe this will have a major impact on the financial situation for most of the bigger banks.   The big business of youth sports I remember growing up and wishing for a baseball or maybe a football for Christmas so I could go down the street and play with my friends. Fast forward to today and youth sports are a multibillion-dollar business for companies. The average American family spends $1,000 on sports per child. Whenever there's an opportunity someone or some business will step in and fill the void, Dick's Sporting Goods has helped fill this void. Dicks opened back in the 1940s by a gentleman name Richard Stack, who had the nickname, Dick. His grandmother had $300 cash in her cookie jar and that is what Dick used to start a fishing supply shop in Binghamton, New York. There are now more than 700 stores across the country and their newest concept known as Dick's House of Sport is expected to have around 100 stores by the end of next year. These are mega stores that are 150,000 square feet, which is three times the size of a normal store. In these mega stores you will find batting cages, climbing walls, golf simulators, and even fields to run around to test out your new cleats. Dicks have been doing well considering it saw revenue skyrocket to $14.1 billion last year. This was twice what it was 10 years ago, not a bad feat for any company.   It's not just oil; aluminum prices have been surging! With the recent war in Iran, the rising price of oil and gasoline has been quite noticeable and has been discussed heavily by various news outlets. One lesser-known impact from the difficulties within the Strait of Hormuz is the price for aluminum has surged. People may not notice it since they don't necessarily buy aluminum directly, but if the problem persists you could see price increases for your favorite six pack of soda or beer. Outside of packaging, aluminum is also used across electronics, construction, transportation, and solar panels. In 2025, the Middle East accounted for roughly 21% of unwrought aluminum imports, which is the raw, unprocessed metal, and 13% of wrought aluminum imports, which is aluminum that has been mechanically shaped into sheets, rods, or other finished forms. Due to supply concerns, the price of aluminum has now increased to 4-year highs and there are concerns it could push even closer to $4,000 per ton from the current price around $3,400 per ton. Aluminum is the most abundant metal on earth, but production has slowed with locations like Bahrain's Alba cutting production by 19%, this location is home to the world's largest smelter. Unlike oil, China could have a huge impact when it comes to producing aluminum. China is already the biggest producer of aluminum, but to try and reduce emissions and prevent overcapacity they keep production constrained. They currently have several idle smelters that could be restarted if they feel aluminum prices are too high. Like we have said with the price of oil, I don't see this as a long-term problem, but the longer supply is constrained for these input costs, the more problematic it is for inflation.   Surprise, US oil inventories actually increased I know what you're thinking with the price of gasoline and oil increasing, oil inventories must be declining. Fortunately, that is not the case. If the inventories were decreasing the price of oil and gasoline at the pump would probably be even higher. For the week ending March 13th, crude oil inventories rose by 6.2 million barrels to 449.3 million barrels. This does not include the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). Everyone including the analysts thought for sure there would be a decline and the estimate was for a decline of around 40,000 barrels. Gasoline inventories did fall by 5.4 million barrels to 244.1 million barrels as of March 13th, but that inventory level is still 3% above the five-year average for gasoline inventories. If the inventories remain high, we could see the price of oil and gasoline begin to decline in another couple weeks or so. It will not go back to where it was a month or so ago, but we should hopefully start seeing a decline back to more normal levels soon.   Financial Planning: How to Create a Tax-Free Account for a Child A powerful way to build tax-free wealth for a child is by strategically using the kiddie tax rules with investments that generate qualified dividends and long-term capital gains. Under the kiddie tax, the first $1,350 of investment income is tax-free, and the next $1,350 is taxed at the child's rate, which for capital gains and qualified dividends is typically also 0%. This means a child can receive up to $2,700 of investment income each year with no federal tax. Income above this level is taxed at the parent's rate, which may be 15% or 20%. While $2,700 may not seem like much, it can support a surprisingly large portfolio because dividend yields are typically low and capital gains are only recognized when assets are sold. For example, a portfolio with a 2% dividend yield would not generate $2,700 of dividends until it reaches about $135,000. While the account is below that level, capital gain harvesting can be used each year to bring total income up to $2,700, allowing gains to be realized tax-free while increasing the cost basis. Because this involves realizing gains (not losses), there are no wash sale restrictions, and investments can be immediately repurchased. By consistently harvesting gains over time, the child can build a portfolio with minimal tax drag and potentially access those funds later with little to no capital gains tax, especially if they continue the strategy after they are no longer subject to the kiddie tax.   Companies Discussed: Super Micro Computer, Inc. (SMCI), SL Green Realty Corp. (SLG), Public Storage (PSA) & The Campbell's Company (CPB)

Private credit woes continue! Investors continue to worry about the private credit market and this week has been filled with troubling news from the sector. According to the Financial Times, Glendon Capital Management said private credit funds run by Blue Owl (OWL) and several of its peers may have understated loss rates in their portfolios, suggesting actual losses could be higher than reported. This has led to concerns around the “true valuation” of these assets. This wouldn't be surprising given the little clarity that we have for these loans. We also saw JPMorgan Chase take a conservative approach and mark down the value of some loans tied to private credit vehicles. All the negativity has now caused investors to question the long-term viability of this investment, and many are now wanting to redeem their shares. The problem is these companies don't have to give you all your money back when you ask for it. Blackrock, Morgan Stanley, and Cliffwater all had to curb withdrawals as requests exceeded the pre-existing limit, which normally looks to be around 5%. Looking at Morgan Stanley's North Haven Private Income fund in particular, redemption requests totaled 10.9% of shares outstanding in Q1 and the fund said it would honor 5% of those requests, which is roughly just 45.8% of each investor's tender request. This now means those investors have to continue holding the fund until next quarter and can try again at that time to sell additional shares. I also recently learned of a term in the private credit space called Paid in Kind interest, also referred to as PIK. It is essentially an IOU that borrowers give to lenders instead of cash. When this occurs, the borrower's debt just increases by the interest due rather than the borrower needing to make an interest payment. The crazy thing is that these PIK receipts are still counted as interest income and it counts towards the management fee. An analyst by the name of Ron Kahn, who runs a unit at the Chicago investment bank Lincoln International that does valuations for about a third of all U.S. private credit loans, wondered why private credit companies were showing such few defaults. What he found was lenders were proactively amending loan agreements by allowing PIK interest rather than cash payment so they could avoid default. Lincoln International saw private credit loans with PIK interest rise to 11% at the end of 2025, which was up from 5% in early 2022. There are many concerns in this space right now and I'm sure glad I don't have any assets in this space!   Prediction markets are hitting college campuses to find gamblers Prediction markets have something FanDuel and DraftKings don't, access to the 18 to 21-year-olds in college. Gambling is generally limited to adults 21 years or older, however, prediction markets that are run by companies like Polymarket and Kalshi are trades that are regulated as financial derivative contracts by the Commodity Future Trading Commission. This allows anyone 18 years or older to gamble using these prediction markets. Both Kalshi and Polymarket are hitting college campuses across the country and throwing cash around to lure in 18 to 21-year-old students to place bets via the prediction market. They are doing this by using fraternities and even campus clubs to promote their platforms and in some cases, they pay them $10 per each new account they sign up. There was one fraternity who received $30,510 in two weeks which the fraternity used for parties and new furniture. They are also using student influencers as brand representatives to sell other students on the prediction market. These two companies have no shame as they have even used college athletes to influence others to bet on sports with prediction markets.   Don't pay attention to the price of oil on a daily basis I say that because there's so much speculation out there and likely the information you receive on the price of oil is useless when you look forward to a few months and maybe even just a few weeks from now. Last week the price of oil surged around 35%, but on Monday after comments from the President that this will not last long in the Middle East, crude oil fell back down to under $85 a barrel. Why is this volatility in the price of oil happening?  Roughly 20% of global oil consumption is exported through the Strait of Hormuz and about 20% liquefied natural gas exports worldwide also pass through the narrow waterway. The United States over the years along with other allies have spent billions of dollars making sure the waterway remains open. At the smallest part it is only 21 miles across and to the northeast there sits, Iran. Officially the waterway is not closed or blocked physically, but there are concerns of going through the strait for fear of being hit by a missile shot from Iran. The other concern is how long this will go on because storage facilities for oil have pretty much reached full capacity and when that happens the producers need to turn off the well in a process known as “shutting in” occurs. When this happens, there can be problems and delays turning the wells back on and some may not regain the original flow. As you can tell, it is not a simple process and it's not just oil that's goes through the strait but also liquified natural gas and even large amounts of fertilizer flow through the area as well. I would not recommend making any investment decisions during this time around anything that has to do with oil or even energy for that matter.   The International Energy Agency (IEA) agrees to historic oil release The IEA, which is an organization of 32 member countries primarily with advanced economies in Europe, North America and northeast Asia, agreed to release 400 million barrels of oil from strategic reserves. Currently, IEA members hold more than 1.2 billion barrels of public emergency oil stocks, with a further 600 million barrels of industry stocks held under government obligation. While the strategic release is helpful, it is only a temporary fix considering nearly 20 million barrels passes through the Strait of Hormuz per day in normal times. China also could help with oil prices if it reduced its purchasing or released some of its stockpile. Ahead of the war China was buying oil at an elevated rate and in the first two months of the year, crude imports soared 15.8% compared to a year earlier. It's estimated as of January China had a stockpile of 1.2 billion barrels as well. China has also been continuing to receive oil from Iran and since the war began it's estimated they've received close to 12 million barrels from the country.    Surprise.... Gen Z is going to the mall for in-person shopping! You may be hearing that younger people don't go to the mall any longer, but that is not true, it's just a little bit different than when people went 20 years ago. Gen Z, the generation consisting of 14 to 29-year-olds, shops at the mall but first they check online sources like Instagram and TikTok to see what's in style. According to Nielsen IQ, the global annual retail spending by this generation is expected to be over $12 trillion by 2030. Shoppers between 18 and 24 years old made 62% of their general merchandise purchases in stores last year, but shoppers 25 and older made just 52% of their purchases in person. Some of the reasons given for the in-person preference was that Gen Z does not like to pay the shipping fees along with common sense things like they want to touch the item and see it in person especially if it's clothing, they want to see how it looks on them. Malls understand this, and many of them have actually set up areas so that the young shoppers can take their selfies in fitting rooms and other areas that are social media friendly. If you're a salesperson in a retail store and if you're talking to this generation, you'd better be up to date when it comes to what's going on in social media. Some salespeople even have a tablet to show shoppers how influencers are styling different items. It is a misconception that this generation is averse to talking to people, but how you talk to them is different. They'd rather get their advice from an influencer or a friend rather than a salesperson.   Companies Discussed: The Gap, Inc. (GAP), StubHub Holdings, Inc. (STUB), Delta Air Lines, Inc. (DAL) & Uber Technologies, Inc. (UBER)

Other risks in the market you should be aware of    Since Covid, speculative investments have continued to rise in popularity. We have talked a lot about the risks we see in margin, crypto, private investments, and prediction markets, but now there is new data about the increasing popularity of leveraged funds and options. According to exchange-traded fund manager Direxion, it looks like leveraged and inverse funds, which can be very dangerous investments, saw average daily trading volumes of 1.41 billion in 2025. That's a gain of more than 130% from 2024 and 250% from 2020, the firm found. For those that aren't aware of these products, leveraged funds use derivatives to try and boost the return of an asset in up markets, but they also amplify losses in down markets. Inverse funds on the other hand try and produce the opposite performance of the underlying asset. It's not just these risky tools that have surged though as it is projected that average daily options volume hit 58 million in 2025, which is a roughly 26% increase from 2024 and is more than double the amount seen in 2020. For comparison purposes, stock volume expanded at a yearly pace of 10% between 2020 and 2025, while leveraged funds and options trading saw daily volumes grow at compound annual rates of 29% and 16%, respectively. Part of the reason for the huge increase in the volume for leveraged funds is that the total number of active leveraged funds grew by 50% in 2025, which was the largest annual increase since 2007. Ultimately, there continues to be more and more risk that is finding its way into this market. While it's great when things are going up, it could create a downturn that is more problematic than many believe is possible.      Ivy League Endowments have dismal returns because of private equity    I was concerned when I saw the Ivy League schools, who I thought would be the smartest people in the room, began investing in private equity a few years ago. The results are now in, and the returns are terrible. The best annual return goes to Cornell and for the years 2022 to 2025 they only had an annualized return of 5.7%. They were closely followed by Harvard at 5.5%. The worst performer is an embarrassment as Princeton only had an annualized return of 2.8%. A large reason for the low returns is that the managers of these endowment funds invested heavily in private equity as the category made up 40% or more of the portfolios for schools such as Harvard, Yale and Princeton. The endowment funds have tried to liquidate as much as they can, but the secondary market has been rather weak, and Yale and Harvard were only able to liquidate about $1 billion of their private equity holdings last year. I think we're in the second or third inning of how bad things will get with private equity and private debt. Unfortunately, many people, including foundations, will have poor performance and probably even some losses. A lesson to all investors, don't get sucked into a hype investment of any type as eventually the hype disappears and you end up with nothing but dismal returns or losses.      Is AI impacting the labor market?    The headlines look concerning as February payrolls showed a loss of 92,000 jobs in the month. This was well below the estimate which was looking for a gain of 50k jobs and January's reading of 126k jobs. January's reading was revised down by 4k, while December saw a major negative revision of 65k jobs and now shows a loss of 17k jobs in the month. Health care employment, which has been such a stable force, showed employment declined by 28k in February. This was largely due to the Kaiser Permanente strike that sidelined 30k workers. The strike has now been resolved, so this should be a big benefit in the March data. Another important factor to remember was the severe weather that likely had an impact on hiring across all sectors in the month. The federal government continued to show declines as payrolls declined by 10k in the month and since reaching a peak in October 2024, federal government employment is down by 330,000, or 11.0 percent. Looking specifically at sectors that could be impacted by AI, information saw a decline of 11k, and the industry has lost an average of 5,000 jobs per month over the prior 12 months. While this looks concerning and I do believe part of this is due to AI, I think a lot of the decline is due to a normalization after rapid hiring post Covid that led to bloated employment and waste at many companies. Another sector that could be impacted by AI/Robots is transportation and warehousing. This sector declined by 11k in February, but a good chunk of the job loss occurred in couriers and messengers, which fell by 17,000. I'm still not seeing robotic delivery trucks out there, so again this could be due to normalization or the weather. With that said, employment in transportation and warehousing has declined by 157,000, or 2.4 percent, since reaching a peak in February 2025. Many of the other major sectors like   construction, manufacturing, professional and business services, and leisure and hospitality saw little change in the month.   Overall, there was definitely not much strength in the report. It is important to remember that the employment rate is still healthy at 4.4%, so I'm still not overly concerned about the labor market. With that being said, it is definitely worth watching in the coming months.      Financial Planning: Beware of the Tax Hike Above $505k    For married couples with adjusted gross incomes between $505,000 and $606,333, there's a hidden tax increase caused by the way the state and local tax (SALT) deduction phases out. Below this range, taxpayers can deduct up to $40,400 in state and local taxes. As income rises through this band, that deduction gradually shrinks to $10,000, effectively losing $30,400 of deductions. Put another way, about $100,000 of extra income can increase taxable income by more than $130,000. Households at this level are usually in the 32% federal tax bracket, but because each extra dollar of income also reduces deductions, the real marginal tax rate jumps to roughly 42%. What makes this especially striking is that many people in this range are barely above the 24% bracket, meaning their marginal rate can spike from 24% to 42% over a relatively small income increase. Careful planning ahead can help avoid this sudden tax jump.    Companies Discussed: Planet Fitness(PLNT), Paramount Skydance Corp (PSKY), Old Dominion Freight Line Inc (ODFL), Salesforce (CRM)

These massive AI deals look concerning The numbers are exciting when companies like Meta or OpenAI announce they'll be purchasing billions of dollars in chips or computing power from companies like Nvidia or AMD, but there always seems to be a catch. Most recently, Meta announced that it entered a multiyear deal with AMD to deploy up to 6 gigawatts of the company's graphics processing units for artificial intelligence data centers and includes use of AI-optimized central processing units, or CPUs. This deal comes a week after Meta committed to using millions of Nvidia's processors to power its AI expansion. While I have my concerns with all the money Meta is spending, my bigger concern with this new AMD deal is the use of stock warrants. Full details for the deal weren't announced, but we did see the deal includes a performance-based warrant for Meta to acquire 160 million AMD shares, about 10% of the company. The first tranche vests when the first 1GW of Instinct GPUs are shipped. Other tranches vest as Meta, makes purchases to 6GW. Vesting is also tied to stock price thresholds for AMD and technical and commercial milestones for Meta. AMD also struck a similar deal with OpenAI where they received warrants to acquire 160 million shares of AMD and it was tied to deployment and stock price benchmarks. The reason this is concerning is because of the potential dilution and again the circular nature of these deals. Essentially these companies are saying they will spend $30 B buying our products and we will give you $30 B in stock warrants back. Stock warrants give holders the right but not the obligation to buy or sell shares at specific strike price before an expiration date. If they are exercised, it creates new stock, which would dilute current shareholders. Based on what I have seen, the exercise price for these warrants is $0.01. Ultimately, I just don't believe this will end well for all players in this space, and I think there is a lot of money that will be lost by investors.    2025 trade deficit looks deceiving Some people are saying that the tariffs didn't work because the trade deficit in 2025 only fell to about $901.5 B from just over $903 B in 2024. However, if you break down the numbers quarter by a quarter, it tells a different story. The first three months of the year, there was a $400 billion trade deficit, but each quarter after that it began to decline. In the second quarter, it fell drastically to $180 billion. There wasn't much of a change in the third quarter with a slight drop to $175 billion and then in the fourth quarter there was a drop to $145 billion. We try to explain to people that the US economy at $31.5 trillion is like a big ship in the ocean; it cannot turn quickly. If people would be patient, I think they would see by the end of 2026 there would be further progress and I believe it's possible the trade deficit could see a decline to somewhere around $600-$700 billion based on the fourth quarter of 2025. I know there's a snafu with the Supreme Court ruling that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which was used in the first quarter last year to implement many of the tariffs, was ruled illegal. But there are other ways to impose tariffs such as section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 or section 301 of the Trade Act that the president used in his first term. Also available is section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. I don't believe the Supreme Court ruling will lead to an end of tariffs as the Administration will look at these other avenues. One major positive from these tariffs has been the announcements of various trade deals that have resulted in trillions of dollars promised by other countries to build manufacturing and other things in our economy.   Why is automobile insurance so high? Your first thought may be the insurance companies are gouging their customers just to make big profits. First off, insurance companies are generally public companies that have shareholders who would not be investing in their company if it was losing money and not paying dividends. The high cost of premiums is not the insurance companies' fault as in recent years things have really changed. Over the past five years, physical damage costs have increased by 47%. This is because of the higher price of cars and all the extra bells and whistles that add up when there's damage to a vehicle. Bodily injury claims are up 52% over the last five years because of the vast amount of new personal injury lawyers who have come on the scene and are pushing for higher settlements, even on small fender benders. Around 95% of these cases are settled and do not go to court. Many of your less reputable attorneys know this and hold the insurance companies' hostage. Either settle up with us now or go to court and spend a lot more money and time. Unfortunately, if you're a responsible driver that makes your premium payments, you are helping absorb the cost of uninsured and underinsured motorists which is up 72%. I'm not a big person for government regulation, but I do believe governments need to step in and verify that all people on the road have auto insurance and a reasonable amount. There's a trend starting in Florida, which is tort reform that has reduced litigation, and the top five insurance companies in the state have requested rate reductions of 5.9%. There is something in the auto insurance industry called fender bender litigation and this tort reform would help states like New York, California and other states to prevent insurance companies from having to pay ridiculous settlements for little dings and dents and fake injuries. Wouldn't it be nice if the state of California passed laws to help consumers to pay less for auto insurance?   Financial Planning: What Is the Goal of Tax Planning? Most people would assume the goal of tax planning is simply to reduce taxes, or even to reduce lifetime taxes, but that should not be the focus.  The true purpose of tax planning is to increase the level of after-tax income by intentionally managing assets and income sources. If the objective were merely to pay less in taxes, the solution would be simple: stop earning money. But earning less would also leave you with fewer resources and less freedom. What people ultimately want is more net income, more access to money, because that provides flexibility, security, and the ability to live life on their terms. Effective tax planning achieves this by building assets and income streams and structuring them in a way that allows you to access them efficiently. This means investing in the right types of assets, placing them in the right types of accounts, adjusting the strategy over time as income and tax laws change, and withdrawing funds at the right time and in the right manner. When you understand that the true purpose of tax planning is to maximize after-tax access to wealth, not merely minimize taxes, you make better decisions that improve your financial life.   Companies Discussed: Vulcan Materials Company (VMC), Leidos Holdings, Inc. (LDOS), Packaging Corporation of America (PKG) & Caesars Entertainment, Inc. (CZR)

Is investing in Google's century bond a good idea? If you don't want to read any further, and just want the basic answer, for investors it's a terrible idea. On the other hand, for companies, universities or even governments, issuing a century bond is a great way to lock in low rates for a hundred years. As I said for investors, it's a terrible idea, here is an example. In 2020, the Austrian government issued a century bond that locked in a yield of 0.85%, which was a great deal for them. But for investors who purchased that bond, it is now trading for 30 cents on the euro. Another example of how things can change is back in 1997, J.C. Penney issued a 100-year bond. Back then no one would have imagined bankruptcy would occur just a little over 20 years later for the company. You may be wondering who would benefit from buying these bonds? Generally, it would be your insurers or pension funds. They both have long-dated liabilities, so long-term bonds give them comfort, knowing what the future cash flows will be. There will also likely be some hedge funds and high-risk investors that will want to trade the bonds as they will have a high amount of fluctuation based on interest rates. In fixed income investing, there is something called duration, which essentially looks at the number of years it takes to recoup a bond's true cost. The longer the duration, the more price volatility for the bond when it comes to interest rate moves. Ultimately, for the average investor I would say to stay away because predicting which way interest rates are heading can be very difficult game and it could destroy your investment returns.   Big expenses are coming for companies that invest in AI We have talked about this in the past couple years and now after the companies spent roughly $500 billion in 2025 it's estimated they will spend another $3 trillion by the end of the decade. As the companies spend more money on data centers, chips and other items for AI, their depreciation expense will rise each year, which will reduce their income. The big tech companies are kind of sneaky currently with depreciation. Many companies like railroads and other companies report depreciation as a standalone operating expense on their income statement. The reason depreciation is important for investors to understand is that eventually equipment becomes obsolete or worn out and must be replaced. But the big tech companies currently don't have to break out depreciation until 2028 after new rule changes take effect. Currently, they include depreciation in the cost of goods sold or sometimes in research and development or general and administrative expenses. This makes it very difficult for investors and analysts to understand the true numbers. The big tech companies defense is they currently include it in the footnotes. However, companies like Microsoft have as many as 15-20 footnotes, which are generally not seen by investors or analysts. Perhaps the big tech companies will continue to hold onto their lofty valuations for now, but at some point, the real earnings will come through, and the stocks could take a major beating. Don't blame the restaurant or the grocery store for the high price of meat I'm sure you've noticed that if you want to go out and have a good steak, you're probably going to spend somewhere in the neighborhood of $45-$50, depending on the restaurant and how big the steak is. There's a big shortage of cattle in the United States and the numbers are staggering. In January, there were only 86.2 million cattle and calves, which is down from a peak of more than 130 million in the mid 1970s. The number of people in the United States far surpasses the number of cattle and supply/demand being what it is, it is pushing the price of cattle to higher levels. The 86.2 million heads of cattle may sound like a lot, but when you look at the numbers it is the smallest herd since 1951 and that's when the population in the United States was 157 million. The population now stands around 344 million people, which is an increase of 119%. All things being equal, there should be around 188 million heads of cattle available. There are three main reasons why the price of meat is high and the number of cattle is low. We used to receive about 5% of our beef supply from Mexico, but a parasitic fly larvae called screwworm has destroyed that supply. Another problem is a lack of rain in Texas, which is the largest producer of our beef supply with 12.5 million cows. If ranchers don't get enough rain, they produce smaller herds because the cost of feed increases. You may be thinking there's a lot of cows in California as you drive up 15 and you are right because California is the fourth largest producing state for cows at 5 million, but 1.7 million of those cows are dairy cows. The third reason is simply being a rancher is hard work, and it is generally passed down from generation to generation. Most kids when they're growing up do not dream about working on a ranch in the hot sun in the dirt all day long. Also, with the price of land some ranchers realize they're better off selling the ranch for a big profit than continuing to work the land. Fortunately, many ranchers love what they do and despite the hard work continue to do it generation after generation. If you know any young kids that like riding horses, maybe they should consider going to work on a ranch and save all that college money?   Financial Planning: Do Commission-Free Annuities Make Annuities More Attractive? One of the primary downsides of annuities has always been the layers of fees that drag on returns, along with upfront commissions that create conflicts of interest in how they're recommended. Commission-free annuities attempt to address these concerns by eliminating the embedded commission and often lowering internal product expenses, which in theory should improve transparency and net performance. However, these products are typically sold by fee-based advisors who charge ongoing advisory fees, meaning that while the conflict of interest may be reduced, the cost savings inside the annuity can be offset by the advisor's separate fee. Even with improved pricing structures, the fundamental challenge remains, annuities generally offer lower expected long-term internal rates of return compared to investing directly in diversified market portfolios. While annuities provide guarantees such as downside protection and lifetime income, those guarantees come at a cost that often outweighs their benefit. In many cases, investors can generate greater long-term growth and higher income from a well-diversified portfolio. The returns may not be technically guaranteed, but it can still be done in a conservative and sustainable way.   Companies Discussed: Mattel, Inc. (MAT), DraftKings Inc. (DKNG), Ferrari N.V. (RACE) & Restaurant Brands International Inc. (QSR)

Should you invest by following when insiders buy? It sounds like it's an easy thing. Just do what the insiders do because they obviously know the company well and if the stock were to drop in value and the insiders commit to purchasing shares, it must be a smart investment. Unfortunately, it's not that easy and there are many other factors involved. Data also shows that longer term it may not even matter. Over my 45 years of doing this, I have even seen sometimes where they borrow money from the company to actually do the purchase of the shares. With that said when they are committing their own money, does the stock do well afterwards? The Wall Street Journal did an analysis of 1,400 publicly disclosed insider purchases using S&P 500 companies. Going back to 2020, they discovered insiders at 327 companies had a total of $3.7 billion in stock trades over $100,000. Most of the purchases were completed after a decline from the previous 30 days and produced a median gain of about 2% a month later but then began to decline after that. The numbers also showed that only 15% of the purchases fully recovered from where they had fallen in the previous 30 days before the share purchase. It should also be noted that they cannot act on insider information, so if there's something major that can move the stock either up or down, they would probably go to jail if they were to act upon it. In other words, since they can't act upon insider information, they don't have much of an advantage over someone doing a good amount of research about the company.   It's not a stock market, it's a market of stocks I have often made this claim when things get crazy in the stock market. What I mean by this is you don't just have to buy the stock market and instead can look for good companies within the market. The reason this is so important to understand is because individual stocks can still do well even when the broader market struggles, especially when the market gets heavily concentrated like it is today. I often reference the tech boom and bust as an example investors should study and in times like this, I believe it is even more applicable. From the tech-stock peak on March 27th, 2000, through the end of that year, the S&P 500 fell 13.4%. It is important to remember that the S&P 500 is a market-cap weighted index, which means the larger the company the more it makes up of the index. If we instead look at the equal-weighted S&P 500, where every company has essentially the same weighting, it actually gained 10.7% from March 27th through the end of 2000. Looking at specific sectors during that period, utilities, healthcare, and consumer staples were actually up about 40% to 45%, while tech fell 51.8%. It has been nice for many investors to enjoy the easy ride in the S&P 500 for the last decade plus, but I continue to believe that over the next 10 years the returns will be much more subdued in the index than investors have become accustomed to.    Inflation report comes in better than expected The Consumer Price Index, also known as CPI, showed headline January inflation was just 2.4%. This compares to an estimate of 2.5% and last month's reading of 2.7%. Core CPI, which excludes food and energy, came in line with expectations at 2.5%, but it was also lower than December's reading of 2.6% and the smallest increase since March 2021 when it climbed by just 1.6%. Food prices put a little pressure on the headline number as they were up 2.9% compared to last year. Most of this came from food away from home where prices were up 4.0%. Food at home on the other hand only saw prices climb 2.1%. Energy prices helped the headline number as prices declined 0.1% as gasoline prices fell 7.3%. Offsetting this benefit was utility prices where electricity was up 6.3% and utility gas service was up 9.8%. Many other areas saw muted price changes, and shelter continued to add pressure to both the headline and core CPI numbers. Even though the annual rate of 3.0% was lower than December's level of 3.2%, it is still above both the headline and core numbers. As a reminder, this is a huge weight at around 34-35% of headline CPI and over 40% of core CPI. If all else remains the same and shelter declines this year, I believe we could see that 2% target achieved. I was surprised to learn the Owner's Equivalent Rent (OER), which essentially measures the rate homeowners believe they could rent their house out for, carries most of the weight at over 70% of the shelter category. In January, the OER was up 3.3% while the actual rent of primary residence category was only up 2.8%.    Financial Planning: You May Be Receiving a Larger Refund New tax rules could help many filers see larger refunds this year, with some benefits happening automatically and others requiring careful reporting. The standard deduction increased for everyone, with taxpayers aged 65 or older receiving an additional $6,000 boost. The state and local tax (SALT) cap rose from $10,000 to $40,000 for those who itemize, and the child tax credit increased by $200, from $2,000 to $2,200. These automatic changes may lower tax liability without any special reporting. However, other deductions such as those for auto loan interest, overtime pay, and tip income must be properly reported to receive the full benefit. Taxpayers should review their returns carefully to ensure all available deductions and credits are captured. If a larger refund does show up, it may be a good time to update 2026 withholding elections to increase monthly take-home pay instead of waiting all year for next year's refund.   Companies Discussed: C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. (CHRW), Cushman & Wakefield Limited (CWK), QUALCOMM Incorporated (QCOM) & PayPal Holdings, Inc. (PYPL)

Has the US dollar become too weak? It can be difficult to filter through the headlines that make it appear that the dollar has dropped and lost 50% of its value and is getting close to collapse as some doom and gloom people would want you to believe. The truth is since January 2025; the dollar has been down about 10% against other major currencies. Keep in mind that it fluctuates every day, every hour, and every minute. This is normal, but the headlines can be very scary and it's also important to understand that over the last five years the dollar index has been up about 7%. There are pros and cons to a weak dollar. If you're planning on traveling to Europe or some other foreign country, hotels and other items will cost you more when the dollar weakens since our dollar buys less. Also, the price of foreign cars and trucks will increase because again a dollar buys less. But the other side of the coin is that people from other parts of the world can now come to the United States and spend money in our economy since their currency now goes further. Also, many of our products that we export will be less expensive so exports should increase while our imports decrease, reducing our trade deficit. Lower interest rates can cause our dollar to fall, but a strong economy can help counterbalance that decline. Will there be a default on the dollar? The chances of that happening are extremely low for many reasons. The US dollar is still the dominant global reserve currency, which adds strength to the dollar. It is also understood that yes, we do have high debt, but also if needed, the US can print dollars to pay that debt. Looking forward to 2026, there's a very good chance that the dollar will stabilize as the economy improves. Foreign top trading partners have pledged to invest $5 trillion in the United States. With that large investment, more travel to the US, and people buying more US products such as cars that are now a better deal due to tariffs and a weaker dollar, come the end of the year, we could actually see a firmer dollar, a booming economy and perhaps further declines in gold and silver that are still near all times highs. I get excited, just writing about it, but it will require patience for investors as I do see this as a volatile year.    18% of US adults have taken GLP-1 drugs. What's the concern? The price of GLP –1 drugs have come down and roughly 18% of adults in the US are using them. But there are other considerations outside of just weight loss. These drugs came out to treat type 2 diabetes and obesity not as a lifestyle change to lose 20 or 30 pounds. It is estimated that about half of people will stop taking the drug after one year and will probably be very disappointed with their future weight management. Studies have shown that when people stop taking the drug within about a year and a half, they regain most of the weight they lost. Studies also show that the weight gain comes four times faster than those who lost weight through normal dieting. While on these drugs, people see their blood pressure, cholesterol, and blood glucose levels improved, but when they're off the drug in a little over a year, those levels go back to where they were. Kevin Hall is a former senior investigator at the National Institute of Health and a specialist in nutrition. He says once you're off the drugs, your appetite will be much higher than it was and you could end up overeating, which leads to taking in too many calories. Another study shows people who gain weight back and decide to go back on the medication that it's not as successful the second or third time. People also don't realize a thing called weight cycling or gaining and losing weight and how that can affect the percent of fat to muscle. It is estimated that when you lose weight about 25 to 30% of it is muscle. But the sad part is when you have the weight gain after you're off the drugs, it is unfortunately more fat than muscle. So, as you can see, this is not a good cycle or a good plan for 10 to 20 years. If one thinks it is a good idea to just stay on these drugs for life, there are long-term risks such as gallbladder diseases, pancreatitis, and kidney damage. The kidney damage is one that would really worry me because as you get older and you have more pain you may want to take a pain reliever like Advil or ibuprofen, but doctors now look at people's kidneys to see if they can handle Advil or ibuprofen, which is another strain on your kidneys. Being concerned with how you look and taking the easy way to look better by popping a pill or taking an injection may cause you to have regrets when you're older.   Is the US housing market becoming a buyer's market? From 2020 to about 2022 it was definitely a seller's market and people could ask whatever they wanted for their home and if you didn't take it, there would be 10 people behind you that would. Well now things are changing back to where buyers can negotiate and sometimes even get a price below the asking price. Nationwide, about 62% of homebuyers purchased their home under the listing price. The discount of 8% was also the largest since 2012. Buyers are also obtaining concessions from sellers which could be things like cash for closing costs or buying down the mortgage. As recently as December, there were 600,000 more sellers than buyers and that's the biggest gap going back to 2013. What is helping the housing market is mortgage rates have declined a little bit, which has made homes somewhat more affordable for some buyers along with the cool-off in prices that we have seen. The best place to buy a home currently is Florida and Texas because new home construction has created a big supply of homes for sale. It can really depend on the local market you are looking at, but if you're buying in West Palm Beach, Fort Lauderdale, or Miami, about 85% of homebuyers paid under the original listing price. However, if you're buying a home in Newark, New Jersey, San Francisco, or San Jose, only 39% received a discount from the original list price. It was also noted that those markets had a low amount of new construction. There could be more to come if the supply increases, and prices ease somewhat as it would likely bring more buyers back into the market. Depending on where you're looking at buying, perhaps 2027 will be a great time to buy home.   Financial Planning: How Would an S&P 500 Portfolio Work in Retirement? Many investors nearing retirement feel comfortable staying fully invested in the S&P 500 because recent performance has been strong, but that confidence is often based on a short window of returns rather than the long reality of retirement. Retirement can last 20 to 30 years, and during that time markets will go through multiple corrections and bear markets. Once withdrawals begin, even modest withdrawal rates can amplify losses and deplete a portfolio. The late 1990s provide a clear example when the S&P 500 produced annual returns in the 20% to 30% range for several years in a row and many investors came to believe strong gains were easy and would continue… then 2000 came. Someone withdrawing an inflation-adjusted 4% from an S&P 500 portfolio in 2000 saw the account fall to roughly half its value within just three years, meaning a retiree at 62 with $1 million was left with barley $500k by 65. For those who stayed invested, after the Great Recession 9 years into retirement around age 71, the portfolio had lost close to 2/3rds of its original value.  At that point, the withdrawal rate needed to continue income was now 14%, up from the original 4%. Today the S&P 500 sits near all-time highs and trades at historically elevated forward earnings multiples, mirroring the late 90's. While the index has delivered roughly 10% annual returns over the long term, those averages hide the danger of sequence of returns risk, where starting withdrawals before or during a downturn can permanently impair a portfolio and leave too little capital to fully recover even when markets eventually rebound.   Companies Discussed: Lennar Corporation (LEN), Sysco Corporation (SYY), Microsoft Corporation (MSFT) & Visa Inc. (V)  

China's population is declining Last year's birth numbers for China recently came out and it was the lowest since 1949. What was the population of China in 1949? It was only around 540 million people so percentage wise it was a much higher birth rate than the 7.9 million we saw in 2025. With over 1.4 billion people and about 11 million people dying every year in China, it will take a long time to have results of a large declining population, but he problem with a lower birth rate than death rate is that it has major changes for an economy. China has a life expectancy of 79 years old. This means that the population is getting older, and there are fewer young people working to support the older generation that generally need more medical and social services. With an aging population, there's generally less need for housing, schools, and businesses because older people have less need for these services which can grow an economy versus the cost of higher medical demand. China also has a problem with immigration as they have over 300,000 people more leaving versus coming in. You may be wondering how the United States stacks up? In 2025 we had 3.7 million babies born and 3.2 million deaths in the country. I was surprised to learn that the mortality age is under China's at 78.4 years. With all the illegal immigration and the heightened status of what is going on with immigration in the United States, it is hard to come up with a concrete number. However, it is obvious that more people want to come to the United States than leave, which could help support a low birth rate. Another history lesson shows why we don't overpay for hot stocks We know it's exciting to be in the next hot thing on Wall Street, but that was the same way people felt just a few years ago with hot software companies like Salesforce, Adobe and ServiceNow. Looking back, many of these once hot companies now have seen very disappointing five-year returns. As an example, Salesforce is only up around one percent over the last five years, and Adobe has actually fallen around 35% during that timeframe. The reason we won't overpay for earnings on high flying companies is because many things can change like we have seen in the software industry. Software companies were supposed to benefit from AI, but now Anthropic's Claude code, which is an AI tool, says it can shrink the time it takes to build complex software. Also, new competition can come from startup companies that can slowly take away market share of the older companies a little bit at a time. Unfortunately, some of the software companies began to borrow substantial amounts of money and now have a highly leverage balance sheet, which could cause some problems in the future. In just the last 24 months, 13 software companies have defaulted on loans. I don't think many of these big software companies will go out of business anytime soon, but I don't believe their stock will run up to levels seen in the past anytime soon.   Gold has done well, but silver has surged! Should you buy it now? Silver is now up over 250% in the last year alone as it has become immensely popular with retail investors. Many investors are excited to point out that silver has a strong use case as an industrial metal. It's a key component in electronics, including circuit boards, switches, and solar panels thanks to the fact that it's an excellent conductor of electricity. Thanks to increasing demand for areas such electric vehicles and growing electricity needs, largely due to the AI push, industrial use cases now account for around 60% of demand. This compares to under 50% just a decade ago. I was also surprised to learn that silver may be subject to supply shortages as about ¾ of new silver is created as a byproduct of mining other metals like copper, zinc, and lead. This has led to silver demand outstripping supply every year since 2018. While all this sounds positive, generally markets have a way of reconfiguring the supply and demand equation. I believe this could lead to companies that have silver as an input cost will instead look for alternative sources as the price has become prohibitive after the recent surge. This would then hurt demand for silver. On the supply side since the economics of finding silver is strong at this time, you could see more mining for silver and the other metals, which would then increase the supply of silver. Declining demand and increasing supply would be problematic for the price of silver. Another way to look at the value of silver is the silver-to-gold ratio which tells you how many ounces of silver you need to buy one ounce of gold. The 50-year average is around 65, but today that ratio has fallen below 50. That is the lowest ratio in over a decade. Ultimately, your guess is as good as mine for where the top is for silver, but long term I don't believe we will see strong results from this level. Don't forget this is a volatile asset with other historical instances of massive rallies that were followed by large declines. We have talked about the Hunt Brothers' attempt to corner the market in the 80s, but more recently there was a bubble that occurred in 2011. The price peaked at around $49 in April of that year but quickly tumbled about 25% in just a week and ultimately ended the year at $27 for a total decline of nearly 45% from the high.     Financial Planning: Best Accounts for Kids and Grandkids When saving for kids and grandkids, the “best” account depends on the tradeoff between tax benefits, flexibility, and control. 529 plans offer tax-free growth and withdrawals for qualified education expenses, but non-qualified withdrawals trigger federal and state taxes and penalties on earnings. Up to $35,000 can be rolled into a Roth IRA over time without federal taxes or penalties, though some states, including California, still impose taxes and penalties. Roth IRAs provide tax-free growth and tax- and penalty-free access to contributions at any age, but contributions require earned income, which many children do not have. Trump accounts function similarly to a retirement account. Funds generally cannot be accessed before age 18, and early withdrawal penalties apply until age 59½. Growth is tax-deferred, but earnings are taxed at ordinary income rates upon withdrawal, similar to a traditional IRA funded with after-tax contributions. Unlike other retirement accounts, contributions can be made before age 18 even without earned income, and funds may later be converted to a Roth IRA, though taxes would apply to earnings at conversion. Custodial accounts (UTMA/UGMA) do not offer tax-deferred growth but benefit from the kiddie tax rules. In most cases, the first $2,700 of long-term capital gains and qualified dividends are taxed at 0%, allowing smaller accounts to grow largely tax-free. However, assets must be turned over to the child at adulthood with no restrictions on use. Finally, taxable accounts in a parent's or grandparent's name offer maximum flexibility and control over timing and purpose of gifts, but investment earnings are taxable to the adult each year, though usually at the lower capital gain and dividend rates. Because of the control and simplicity, we often recommend taxable accounts as a core strategy, supplemented by other account types when specific needs justify them.   Companies Discussed: McCormick & Company, Incorporated (MKC), Zoom Communications, Inc. (ZM), Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corporation (BAH) & Pinterest, Inc. (PINS)  

Looks like it is over for the Mag Seven stocks The name Magnificent Seven came out in 2023 by a strategist from Bank of America named Michael Harnett. The idea is the name came from a classic western movie featuring seven heroic gunfighters and their push to save a small town. But just like other hot themes like the Nifty 50 back in the 60s and BRIC where you had to be invested in the emerging markets of Brazil, Russia, India and China, it looks like the Mag Seven glory days are over. In 2025, only two companies, Alphabet and Nvidia, outperformed the S&P 500. Microsoft, Meta, Apple, Amazon, and Tesla were no longer called stock market stars, and I believe this year will be another year of underperformance for most of these players. The Magnificent Seven still accounts for 36% of the S&P 500's market cap, which is why I believe the S&P 500 will not have a great year in 2026. It will be hard for investors to give up these companies because as they look in the rearview mirror, they feel they're worth their value because they made very good returns in the past. However, just like the Nifty 50 and other hot investment themes throughout history, everything comes back to the mean. The question for many is what will be the next hot investment idea? No one knows for sure but I'm confident someone on Wall Street will come up with some exciting name for investors to chase and they'll tell them not worry about the fundamentals of the business.    Is using part of your 401(k) for a down payment on your home a good idea? The President is trying very hard to stimulate the housing market and allow younger people to buy their first home. One idea that has been tossed around is allowing people to use their 401(k) for a down payment. People can currently borrow from their 401(k) and I often hear uninformed people say it's a great thing because you get to pay yourself the interest. Briefly, it is not a great idea because those "interest" payments don't account for the negative impact of the opportunity for what those funds could have grown at. You also don't get a tax deduction when paying the loan, and then you pay taxes on distributions at a later date, so it also has a negative tax impact. Outside of 401k loans, how's the administration looking to help first time homebuyers? Kevin Hassett, who is director of the National Economic Council, threw out one possibility that a homeowner could put 10% of the equity of their home into a 401(k). That may make your 401(k) balance look artificially high because as the home grows in value so does that 10%. The problem I see is when it comes to retiring that 10% cannot provide retirement income. I still believe the best way to fix the affordability problem is to increase the supply of homes to match the demand, which would reduce prices. AI will create jobs that have not even been imagined yet There are jobs that are starting to be seen and developed as AI becomes more involved in business. One example is someone has to make sure that the systems are kept up-to-date and function properly. There's also going to be people that have to understand the technology thoroughly and then translate the output, so managers, judges, regulators, or anyone else that is using it understands the answer. Experts will have to understand such things as self-driving vehicles and how the technology works. Say there is a car accident with two self-driving cars, who determines who's at fault? There will need to be experts that understand the self-driving technology and then try to explain the situation. The AI system will have to be checked from time to time to verify that the AI system did not produce results that were unfairly skewed in one direction or the other. Once that is discovered, another expert would have to know how to fix and eliminate those problems using new data that helps eliminate the bias. Training is another area of opportunity. As people's jobs change, they will need training in the new technology. The expert trainer would also use the technology to figure out what teaching style works best for the individual. Yes, the future is always scary because of the unknown, but innovation continues onward creating new opportunities and problems that need to be solved.     Financial Planning: Start Social Security Early to Invest? When evaluating when to start Social Security, there are generally two schools of thought. Either collect early at age 62 to invest the funds or wait until age 70 for a larger monthly benefit. Proponents of waiting argue that the age-70 benefit is roughly 77% higher than collecting at 62 and that deferring protects against longevity risk. Regular people and some financial advisors alike believe this is the superior strategy. A recent article in the Wall Street Journal takes this stance, stating that many retirees will live until age 85, so collecting at 70 increases guaranteed income and reduces market risk. However, the article illustrates its conclusion using an inflation-adjusted return assumption of –3% on invested funds. While technically possible, such an outcome is extremely unlikely over a 23-year period (ages 62 to 85), especially because the analysis applies returns to monthly payments over time rather than a lump sum, meaning the cash flows would benefit from dollar-cost averaging rather than suffer from sequence-of-returns risk. In reality, retirees who collect at 62 rarely invest the benefits directly; instead, they reduce withdrawals from an existing portfolio, preserving capital that can compound and generate additional income to offset the lower Social Security benefit. When the math is examined with multiple expected returns, a retiree is better off collecting at 62 if they live to age 78 assuming a 0% return, age 84 with a 5% return, age 94 with an 8% return, and any lifespan with a 10% return. Ultimately, the decision is less about maximizing guaranteed income and more about understanding expected returns, cash-flow dynamics, and the opportunity cost of delaying benefits.   Companies Discussed: Expand Energy Corporation (EXE), Citigroup Inc. (C), The Kraft Heinz Company (KHC) & GameStop Corp. (GME)

There are many headwinds for short term interest rates to drop in 2026 It is no secret that the President wants our interest rates to drop dramatically to improve the economy, which as a sidenote is really not that bad. However, even though he gets to appoint a new Federal Reserve Chairman, that doesn't guarantee lower short-term interest rates. The Federal Reserve Chairman's term ends May 15th, which means a new chairman will be appointed by the President. But the Chairman running the Federal Reserve, no matter who they are, does not make a sole decision on interest rates.  It is done as a vote from all members, and it takes a majority of the 7 members to move interest rates up or down. Other factors include Mr. Powell can stay until January 2028, when his term as governor expires. This means a new governor who is in favor of reduce interest rates cannot be appointed until January 2028. There will also be changes to other members come January 31st when there are term expirations. This will be another opportunity to appoint members that are aggressive on reducing interest rates. Also, sometime this month, the Supreme Court will rule on removing or keeping Governor Lisa Cook over legal issues. If she is removed, that's another opportunity to bring in someone aggressive on lowering rates. At the January meeting, there will be a rotation for the voting Regional Bank Presidents, which will include New York, Cleveland, Philadelphia, Dallas and Minneapolis. Some of these new voting bank presidents have explained their concerns when it comes to lowering rates, especially with the inflation target of 2% still not achieved. Speaking of that 2% inflation target, that was set back in 2012, and it's been above 2% since March 2021. All this to say, the direction of interest rates is uncertain. If we were to see unemployment rise and more signs of slowing in the economy, we probably would see more interest rate cuts. However, if things stay status quo, I still stand behind the fact the most we will see is probably two interest rate cuts in 2026.   The tariffs seem to be working with the October trade deficit at the lowest level since 2009 The October trade deficit was only $29.4 billion, which is far better than the expected deficit of $58.4 billion. Not only was it almost half the expected amount; but it was also the lowest deficit going back 16 years to 2009. The low trade deficit was due to imports falling to $331.4 billion, but exports also increased to $302 billion. Exports benefited from the high price of gold, silver and other metals as that increased exports by $10 billion during October. The big benefit on the reduction of imports came from pharmaceuticals dropping sharply probably because in late September the administration threatened 100% tariffs on overseas pharmaceuticals. The drug makers were apparently scrambling on what to do and trying to minimize the impact going forward. The Supreme Court will not make the decision on whether the tariffs are legal or not just because they are working; they will determine if the use of the International Emergency Economic Powers act to impose tariffs is legal or not. My hope is that they do agree with it, and if not, hopefully the administration can come up with some other way of keeping the tariffs in tack as they seem to be working very well.   Is the 10% credit card interest cap a good idea? At first glance, the average person is going to say yes that is great because current credit card rates around 23 to 24% are ridiculous. However, when you dig deeper into credit cards and how they work, people have to realize the risks for defaults and late payments are rather high. Banks that issue credit cards are in business to make a profit for their shareholders and if there's no profit to be earned, then there's no point in a business offering that service. The current default rate on credit cards is about 3%, which means banks have to write off the entire balance of whatever that person owed. The higher default rates are seen in ZIP Codes with lower incomes and also for younger borrows who got in over their head. If the 10% cap on credit cards does go through, it will hurt people with lower incomes and those that have lower credit scores because banks would no longer be able to be profitable on those accounts, and they would stop offering credit to them. It would also affect many across-the-board as you could see a reduction if not elimination of points and cash rewards on credit cards, which would be disappointing for many. In my opinion, it is better to have the higher interest rate on credit cards like we have today, as it broadens the pool of people that can access this tool. Unfortunately, people need to use some self-discipline to not get in over their head and make sure they can pay their payments and hopefully not carry a balance on the card. If they can do that, they pay no interest and also can benefit from cash-back and other reward programs.   Financial Planning: Who Benefits from the New Auto Loan Interest Deduction? The new auto loan interest deduction created by the July 2025 “One Big Beautiful Bill” allows taxpayers to deduct up to $10,000 per year of interest paid on a qualified auto loan during tax years 2025 through 2028.  This is an above-the-line deduction, meaning it is available even if the standard deduction is taken. To qualify, the loan must be an auto loan for a new vehicle that had final assembly in the United States purchased in 2025 through 2028. Leases, personal loans, and cars purchased before 2025 do not qualify. The deduction is subject to income phase-outs, beginning at $100,000 for single filers and $200,000 for married couples, and fully phasing out at $150,000 for single filers and $250,000 for married couples.  Most states, including California, do not conform to this federal deduction, meaning it won't reduce state income tax. However California lawmakers have proposed a separate state deduction (AB 490), but it has not become law.  For people who receive the deduction, the actual tax savings will likely range from a hundred to a thousand dollars because most auto loans don't have anywhere near $10,000 of annual interest and only taxpayers in the 10%, 12%, and 22% bracket will qualify.   Companies Discussed: Constellation Brands, Inc. (STZ), Walmart Inc. (WMT), Expedia Group, Inc. (EXPE) & The Boeing Company (BA)  

What the recent changes in Venezuela means for consumers Without getting into the benefits of less drugs coming into our country, there are economic benefits from the large amount of oil reserves that are in the ground of Venezuela. The current daily consumption worldwide of oil is about 100 million barrels per day. Venezuela has in their ground over 300 billion barrels of oil. That alone would keep the world supplied for over eight years. Venezuela has the highest proven reserves in the world even above Saudi Arabia. Venezuela accounts for about 20% of the world supply of oil. Venezuela has four times the reserves compared to the US, yet in 2024 the United States produced over 13 million barrels per day compared to Venezuela producing under 1 million barrels per day. There is talk that the big oil companies could be going into Venezuela and they could definitely increase that production by a large amount, which would benefit not just Venezuela but also the world markets and the United States consumer. The way the United States consumer would benefit is from lower gas prices at the pump and with oil currently trading in the high 50s, we could see that drop to the low 50s maybe even a little bit below that. This will not only put more money in US consumers' pockets, but it would also help the Venezuela population as the production of oil would create many good paying jobs and could lead to a ripple effect for other businesses with more money coming into their economy. The recent events occurred just a few days ago and a lot has yet to be played out, but make no mistake there are many benefits if Venezuela can produce a lot more oil for the world.   It's a new year, is it time to hire or change to a new investment advisor? With the new year, investors should take a look to see how their investments have done and how their investment advisor has been working with them. The beginning of the year is a fresh start, so it's time to see what your percentage return was on your portfolio in 2025 and evaluate if your advisor kept you updated and gave you the customer service you need like returning your phone calls in a reasonable timeframe. You don't want to jump from the pan into the fire, so when you're looking for a new investment advisor, be sure that the company and the advisor are full fiduciaries, which means they must do what is best for you, not what is best for themselves. Ask yourself the question, is the advisor trying to sell me products that he or she makes a big commission off of? That could be a red flag that they don't have your best interest in mind. It's also important to understand the investment strategy the firm and the advisor use. Do they use mutual funds or build your own portfolio with individual equities and investments that are liquid and don't tie your money up for years to come in case the investment underperforms. I always believe it is worth asking the advisor how they manage their own personal portfolio. If it's good enough for them, why is it not good enough for you? I know some advisors will say they have different objectives, but I think everyone has the same objective of making a reasonable return on their investments. And lastly, don't be afraid to ask how they get paid when managing your investments. It may seem like an uncomfortable question, but if it's an excessive amount, that can be a red flag. If the advisor is trying to dodge the question, that means to me, they're trying to hide something from you at the very beginning, and you should runaway immediately. Take your time to find the right advisor, if you feel pressure from constant phone calls and high sales tactics, you probably want to look for someone else to work with on your investments.   The labor market ends the year on a soft note This jobs report was special considering it was the first on time report in 3 months, but I'd say the data was lackluster. Nonfarm payrolls in December increased by 50,000, which was short of the estimate of 76,000. The two prior months also saw downward revisions that totaled 76,000. For the full year, payroll employment grew by 584,000, which equates to a monthly average of about 49,000 new jobs per month. This was less than 2024's gain of 2 million jobs or about 168,000 per month and actually registers as the worst payroll growth outside of a recession since 2003. While this all might sound troubling, it is important to remember that changes to government jobs had a large impact on the data. Since reaching a peak in January, government employment fell by 277,000 jobs. This obviously created a huge headwind for headline payroll growth. With that said, the labor market was still in a slower growth environment, and I continue to believe that will be the case as we move forward considering the unemployment rate still remains healthy at 4.4%. It's also important to remember that of those counted as unemployed, about 26% or 1.9 million people are considered long-term unemployed as they have been jobless for 27 weeks or more. I always do wonder how actively these people are looking for jobs. In terms of areas of strength in the report, both healthcare and foodservices and drinking places remained healthy. Health care employment was up 21,000 in the month and for the full year averaged monthly gains of 34,000. This was down from 2024's monthly average of 56,000, but still strong. Foodservices and drinking places saw employment grow by 27,000 jobs in the month and for the full year averaged monthly gains of 12,000 jobs, which was similar to 2024's average of 11,000 jobs added per month. Retail trade was the real headwind for the month as employment declined by 25,000 jobs. This could be due to seasonal changes, but it was interesting to see retail trade employment showed little net change in both 2024 and 2025. The other major industries in the report showed little to no changes in the month. Overall, I believe this continues to show that we remain in a slow hire/low fire labor environment and I don't see much evidence that will change this year.    Financial Planning: Mortgage-Backed Security Purchase Lowers Mortgage Rates The U.S. government's announcement of a $200 billion purchase of mortgage-backed securities (MBS) through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is already pushing 30-year mortgage rates below 6%, creating an opportunity for homeowners and prospective buyers. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Federal Reserve lowered interest rates and also purchased MBS, which helped push mortgage rates down.  Mortgage rates are not directly tied to the Federal Reserve interest rates, but the purchase of mortgage-backed securities is something that would directly lower mortgage rates. This is because investors purchase mortgages after origination for the interest income paid by homeowners, so Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buying these securities increases demand which lowers the interest rates borrowers get on mortgages. For those with higher mortgage rates, this could be an opportunity to cut that down.  I don't think we are yet at a point where it makes sense to buy down the rates further, but there is no limit to the number of refinances someone can do.   It may be best to refinance now and then again in another year or so.   Companies Discussed: Tyson Foods, Inc. (TSN), Lockheed Martin Corporation (LMT), Generac Holdings Inc. (GNRC) & Seagate Technology Holdings plc (STX)

Financial Outlook for 2026 Companies Discussed: Marriott Vacations Worldwide Corporation (VAC), NIKE, Inc. (NKE), Micron Technology, Inc. (MU), Lennar Corporation (LEN)

How did China's trade surplus hit $1.1 trillion this year? The United States purchased around $450 billion of manufactured goods from China in 2024, but trade has dropped between the two countries so how did China have a record surplus of $1.1 trillion through November 2025? The current tariff on goods imported from China is around 37% according to the Tax Policy Center and imported goods from China have dropped dramatically. China has been able to increase their exports to other countries to more than compensate for the loss of exports to the United States which are down roughly 19%. China has seen an increase of exports to Southeast Asia of 14%, the European Union has increased 8%, and Latin America saw a 7% increase in exports from China. A big increase of 25% in exports to Africa was also very helpful to China's manufacturing surplus. Even though they're turning out more cars, manufacturing products and chemicals than ever before, it has created a very heavy competition in China which is pushing down prices, profits, and income for the Chinese manufacturing companies. There will not be another round of talks between the US and Chins until next year. At the last set of trade talks the US did lower our tariffs and China promised to buy American soy beans and end a plan to tighten the export of rare earths, which are critical and found in many products from jet engines to cars and many other electronics as well. We will continue to follow the developments of these trade talks as there should be more news coming next year!   Finally some data on the labor market! With the government shutdown, a lot of the data for the labor market was delayed. We finally got employment figures for October and November, and they were interesting to say the least! To start, the October numbers looked horrific considering payrolls declined by 105,000 in the month. While this sounds troubling, it's important to remember all of those government workers on severance were still counted as employed until the severance ended. This led to a decline in government payrolls of 162,000 in the month of October. Losses in government payrolls continued in November, but at a much slower rate as they tallied 6,000 in the month. Since reaching a peak in January, government employment has seen a decline of 271,000 jobs. Looking at November, payrolls increased by 64,000, but healthcare continued to carry most of the weight as the sector accounted for more than 70% of the total net increase and added 46,000 jobs. Construction was also strong in the month as the sector added 28,000 jobs, but many other areas saw little change and transportation and warehousing was weak as payrolls declined by 18,000. Another concern in the report was the unemployment rate ticked up to 4.6%, which was above the 4.4% level in September and marked the highest reading since September 2021. Overall, when I look at the labor market it is definitely slowing, but I wouldn't say I'm overly concerned at this point in time. While it is concerning to see declines in the payroll level in three of the last six months, for the most part the private market has done a good job picking up the large declines in the government sector, which I view as healthy. I don't want to say our labor market is booming at this point in time, but I would still classify as relatively healthy.    Inflation report shows great progress, can it be trusted? Headline November CPI came in at 2.7% compared to last November, which was well below the estimate of 3.1% and core CPI, which excludes food and energy, showed an increase of just 2.6%. This was the lowest reading for core CPI since March 2021 when the increase was just 1.6% and it also came in well below the estimate of 3.0%. Some areas in the report remained challenging particularly in food, where we saw uncooked beef roast climb 21.2% and coffee increase by 18.8%. Beef prices have struggled as cattle supply touched its lowest point in 2025 since the early 1950s and coffee prices have been hit by extreme weather in major coffee-producing countries as well as the tariffs levied on Brazil. Shelter inflation was positive in the report as the annual increase was just 3% and it's believed there is more relief coming for the largest weight in the CPI, which generally occupies around 1/3 of the headline number. If the inflation for shelter slows further, it would be very beneficial for the inflation rate as we progress through 2026. The big problem with this report is there are questions about how accurate the data is. Due to the shutdown, there was no data collected for the month of October, and the BLS was only able to collect data for about half the month of November as the shutdown did not end until November 12th. For the time being we are pleased with the results from this CPI report, but I do believe there will now be even more emphasis on the December CPI as that will be the first full month of data following the record-breaking government shutdown.    Want to become a millionaire? Invest in your 401(k)! There are more and more people with $1 million or more in a 401(k) as companies like Fidelity and Vanguard are seeing record numbers of people with accounts of more than $1 million. Fidelity said they hit the highest level ever when it comes to 401k millionaires with about 3.2% of their 401k's or 654,000 accounts now over $1 million. Vanguard also had similar numbers for 401k millionaires. Becoming a 401k millionaire is not a get rich quick scheme, but it's a proven way to build your wealth long-term with proper investment choices. It is estimated that roughly 86% of those with $1 million plus in their 401k are 50 or older. It is also estimated that around 1000 people per day become 401k millionaires in the US. The key to becoming a 401K millionaire is to invest wisely, which means not too aggressive, but also not too conservative. Also, when a portfolio drops, you cannot sell everything and wait for the market to get better, you or an investment professional must verify that you have good quality investments in your portfolio that can handle the financial storms and also it's important to continue adding to your portfolio during these difficult times. It is important not to pull money out from your 401(k) for any reason at all, no matter how bad you think the situation is, it will improve. It is much better to deal with problems when you're young rather than when you're in your 60s because you did not let your 401(k) grow to over a million dollars.   Financial Planning: Taking Advantage of Itemized Deductions Before December 31st With the repeal of the $10,000 SALT deduction limit, many taxpayers may once again benefit from itemizing deductions rather than taking the standard deduction, and there are practical steps that can be taken before year-end to further enhance that benefit. The SALT deduction includes both state income taxes and property taxes, and because individuals are cash-basis taxpayers, deductions are generally taken when expenses are paid rather than when they are due, meaning that paying certain obligations before December 31st can shift future deductions into the current tax year. In California and many other states, property taxes are paid in two installments, with the first due in December and the second due in April.  If the April installment is paid by December 31st, it may be deductible in the current year instead of the following one. Similarly, the final state estimated tax payment is typically due on January 15th, but making that payment in December allows the deduction to be taken in the current year. Another significant itemized deduction is mortgage interest, and while mortgage payments are usually due on the first of the month, making the January 1st payment in December can allow the interest from that payment to be deducted in 2025 rather than 2026. In addition, charitable deduction rules are scheduled to change in 2026 and will be subject to an adjusted gross income (AGI) limitation, which means taxpayers who are charitably inclined may benefit from accelerating planned donations into the current year while the rules are more favorable. Taken together, these strategies tend to be most effective when income is higher in the current year, as accelerating deductions while in higher tax brackets results in greater overall tax savings.   Companies Discussed: Oxford Industries, Inc. (OXM), Exxon Mobil Corporation (XOM), Vail Resorts, Inc. (MTN) & Costco Wholesale Corporation (COST)

Another lawsuit against generative AI company Perplexity for copyright infringement The New York Times has had enough, and they have filed a lawsuit in a New York Federal court. In October 2024, the Times sent a notice to stop accessing and using their content and then followed up with another notice this past July. Perplexity continues to ignore the warnings and a spokesperson for the company, Jesse Dwyer, said publishers have been suing new tech companies for a hundred years starting with radio, TV, the Internet and social media, but that has never worked out for them. I think this is a little bit different since AI pretty much takes the content directly from the publisher and publishes it for people to read. The Times is also including infringements for use of its videos, podcasts and images. The Times said in the lawsuit they are seeking damages, which at this point is unknown and injunctive relief which includes removing all of the Times content from Perplexity's products. This would be a major problem for Perplexity if they were to lose this case because the whole AI system pulls information from all across the web, and this would leave a big hole in the end result of Perplexity's information. The Times is not the only publisher suing Perplexity, other lawsuits have been filed by Dow Jones and the New York Post. If one company were to win in court that would be a major problem for AI companies like Perplexity. First it would set a precedent and other publishers would likely sue, it could also lead to less accurate information as there would be less sources to pull data from.    Just when Apple corrected their major problems, it looks like there's a management drain Apple did a great job handling the proposed tariffs on its products, which would have devastated the company. Also, in court they managed to keep the $20 billion a year they receive from Google. But now, they seem to be fighting a management exit by some of their top executives. Over the last couple of weeks, it was announced that both their General Council and Head of Policy will be retiring next year. Another major concern was also announced in that timeframe that their Head of Artificial Intelligence and Strategy is also going to retire. Making matters worse, their Chief Operating Officer said he'll be retiring in July of next year. Don't worry about CEO Tim Cook being age 65, he said he is not considering retirement, and people at the company said he is not slowing down at all. It was also recently announced that Meta has taken from Apple a top designer named Alan Dye. Also Jony Ive, who is a Steve Jobs protégé and helped build the iPhone along with the Apple Watch, is heading over to OpenAI to help Sam Altman. It's not just the top people leaving though as apparently dozens of Apple engineers along with designers who are knowledgeable in audio, watch design, robotics, and much more are also finding a new home at OpenAI. Running a major technology company like Apple and striving for new innovation makes it difficult when a company is losing top management and star engineers and designers. I don't think this will cause a major drop in the stock short term, but it could be difficult longer term for the company when it comes to innovation and new products, which could concern investors in the years to come!   It's time to put some commercial property into your portfolio You may be questioning why would I put real estate like commercial property in my portfolio that over the last five years or so has had a return of maybe 7% versus stocks that have done much better? The simple answer is the basic investing principle of buying low and selling high. Looking forward, I believe commercial real estate over the next five years should get better returns than artificial intelligence considering the fact that it is very pricey. Data from MSCI revealed that year to date large investors have purchased $4.6 billion more US commercial property than they sold. That is the first time that has happened in three years, and deal activity is still low compared to history. US commercial real estate values are off from the peak in 2022 and are now down on average around 17%. Looking just at commercial offices, there is a better discount considering there are down around 36% from their peak. History shows this could be a very good opportunity. There's only been two times over the last roughly 50 years or so when commercial property prices were down more than 10%. You have to go back to the early 1990s, which was about 35 years ago, and who could forget the 2008 great recession. How should you invest in office buildings and commercial property? The best and the easiest way is to use public real estate investment trusts, which are known as REITs. Please do not let your broker sell you private real estate of any sort so they can get paid a big commission. REITs that trade on the market are commission free and completely liquid unlike private real estate deals. With public REITs you can many times receive good investment yields between 4% and 6%. However, make sure to understand the fundamentals to insurethat dividend yield is safe. A history lesson shows that commercial property under performed from 1997 to 2000 when the tech boom was happening, but when the tech boom ended and went bust, commercial real estate did very well. Could the same thing happen now as there are signs that the AI rally could end? If you do invest in a good quality public real estate investment trust, you should have at least a 4 to 5 year time horizon to hold that investment.   Financial Planning: The Benefits of Capital Gain Harvesting While many investors focus on tax-loss harvesting, harvesting capital gains can be just as valuable especially when you fall into the 0% long-term capital gains bracket. For example, in 2025 a married couple filing jointly can have taxable income up to $96,700 and still pay 0% on long-term gains. Because the standard deduction ranges from $31,500 to $46,700, and itemized deductions can be even larger, a household's total gross income can potentially exceed $150,000 while still remaining in the 0% capital gains bracket. If an investor wants to keep the same investment, they can immediately repurchase it, since wash-sale rules do not apply to gains. However, even though the gain itself is taxed at 0%, the added income may increase the taxation of Social Security benefits, pulling more of those benefits into taxable income. For those who don't face that issue, gain harvesting resets their cost basis and reduces the taxes they will owe later if they sell in a higher-income year when their capital gains rate jumps to 15% or even 20%. This strategy can also make sense for those currently in the 15% capital gains bracket who expect to be pushed into the 20% bracket later. Overall, capital-gain harvesting can be a powerful tool in years of temporarily low income.   Companies Discussed: The Brink's Company (BCO), PVH Corp. (PVH), Pure Storage, Inc. (PSTG) & The Kroger Co. (KR)  

We have gone through four industrial revolutions in the US, why does the AI revolution scare us the most? Industrial revolutions are nothing new in the United States as we have had four including the current one we are in. The first one came in the mid-18th century when changes came for waterpower, steam engines, and textile manufacturing. The second industrial revolution was in the mid-19th century when steel became a big factor along with electricity and mass production. We also saw transportation by railroads and automobiles during this revolution. The third industrial revolution came around the mid-1990s. Some of us who are 50 years or older may remember the effects. Electronics including personal computers, information technologies, and this scary thing called the World Wide Web were developed during this revolution. The fourth industrial revolution is happening now and it's scary because we don't know what the future holds. This revolution includes digital, physical, and biological technologies. This includes AI, the Internet of Things, and robotics as well. The reason this is scarier than the third revolution with personal computers was that people could see how they could benefit and get more done and maybe use that computer to start a web-based business. Currently with AI, people are not seeing how it will benefit or improve their lives but only how it could take away their livelihood by making their job obsolete. There could be a slowdown in the advancement of AI similar to what happened in the late 70s with nuclear power. People as a whole rejected nuclear power, and it has taken almost 50 years to be accepted as we can see in today's newspapers. Based on history, it looks like the acceptance of AI may slow down because polls show that just 40% of people said the AI industry could be trusted to do the right thing, and 57% say the government needs more regulation on tech and AI. Maybe your job is safe for longer than you thought.   Bitcoin holder Strategy should be getting nervous about the price of Bitcoin The public company Strategy, which used to be known as MicroStrategy and trades under the symbol MSTR, should be getting nervous about its 650,000 Bitcoins that are worth around $56 billion depending on the day. The problem is the company has about $8 billion of convertible bonds outstanding that require interest payments and about $7.6 billion of perpetual preferred stock that also pays dividends. The cost to pay the interest and these dividends is about $780 million annually and since all the company's assets are essentially in Bitcoin, they don't receive any interest or profits from that asset. The CEO, Michael Slayer, is saying if they must, they will sell Bitcoin to raise the cash to pay the dividends and interest payments. The convertible bonds could also be problematic down the road as they are due in about 4.4 years on average and come with a combined interest rate of 0.421%. The stock itself has been pulverized, and its market cap has been as low as $49 billion from a high of $128 billion in July. MSCI has proposed cutting digital asset treasury companies from its indexes if crypto tokens make up a major part of the assets. This decision will come in a little over a month on January 15th and if this happens, Strategy could see $2.8 billion in passive outflows. JPMorgan estimates that about $9 billion of the company's market cap is tied to passive and index ETFs and mutual funds. This could put more pressure on the stock if more indexes also decide to remove these treasury companies. You won't believe how the company makes their profit and loss statement. When the price of Bitcoin rises, the company books a paper profit even if it did not sell any Bitcoin. Obviously, if Bitcoin goes down in value, they must book the losses as well. One must love the estimates for the earnings of Strategy for 2025.  Strategy is expected to report a loss of $5.5 billion or a profit of $6.3 billion or something in between. That is some great guidance! I don't know where Bitcoin is going today, tomorrow or anytime in the future, but I would be sweating bullets if I held Bitcoin or Strategy in my clients' portfolios or my portfolio!   Holiday shopping hits record levels! We continue to see conflicting data when it comes to the health of the consumer. They continue to say they don't feel good, but the hard data and the actual numbers remain quite strong. In a positive note from the National Retail Federation (NRF), an estimated 202.9 million consumers shopped during the five-day stretch from Thanksgiving Day through Cyber Monday. That is the largest turnout since data for the five-day period started being collected in 2017, and it easily tops last year's level of 197 million shoppers. Expectations for the period were also quite low considering the estimate was for just 186.9 million shoppers. While online shoppers increased 9% year over year to 134.9 million people, in-store shoppers still saw a nice increase of 3% to 129.5 million people. Adobe also provided sales data for the five-day period that indicated consumers spent $44.2 billion online, which was a 7.7% year-over-year jump. Black Friday in particular saw strong online sales as they totaled $11.8 billion and grew by 9.1% year over year. A big question here is if the shopping was done to capitalize on deals in an attempt to save money. That could be an indicator of a weaker economy, but I don't believe that's the full story as shoppers told NRF at the end of Cyber Monday that they had about 53% of their holiday shopping remaining, which was similar to a year ago. For the full holiday season, the NRF expects record sales of between $1.1 trillion and $1.2 trillion from Nov. 1 through Dec. 31. This would be the first time sales would top $1 trillion, and it would represent a 3.7% to 4.2% increase from the year-ago holiday period.    Financial Planning: When Tax-Loss Harvesting Makes Sense and When It Doesn't Tax-loss harvesting is often promoted as a smart tax-saving strategy, but investors should understand its pitfalls before hitting the sell button. Selling a position at a loss may reduce taxes today, but it could also mean missing a rebound in that investment potentially costing more in lost gains than the tax benefit received. For example, if an investor buys a stock for $50,000 and harvests a $5,000 loss when the investment drops to $45,000, and they are in a 24.3% combined tax bracket (15% federal + 9.3% state), the tax savings is just over $1,200. That means the investment only needs to rise 2.7% to wipe out the benefit of harvesting, something that could easily occur during the required 30-day wash-sale waiting period. Even if the position doesn't rebound, repurchasing after 31 days locks in a lower cost basis, potentially increasing future taxable gains possibly in a higher tax bracket. Many investors, especially retirees with lower taxable income, are already in the 0% long-term capital gains bracket, meaning losses may not even be needed; a married couple in retirement could have income near $150,000 and still realize long-term gains tax-free. Tax-loss harvesting can still be valuable when losses are large in percentage terms, when it helps avoid a higher tax bracket or IRMAA surcharges, when offsetting short-term gains (which long-term losses can do), or when exiting a position you don't plan to repurchase.   Companies Discussed: Weyerhaeuser Company (WY), Netflix, Inc. (NFLX), Energizer Holdings, Inc. (ENR) & Valvoline Inc. (VVV)

Fast food restaurants like Wendy's are experiencing a slowdown in business The fast-food restaurant Wendy's is planning on closing hundreds of locations throughout next year because they continue to see a slowdown in spending from their customers. They said most of their low-income consumers are cutting spending and making fewer trips with smaller purchases at the restaurants. Wendy's increased prices after the pandemic at a higher rate than grocery stores and now other fast-food restaurants have begun to add value menus to keep customers coming back, but Wendy's has held firm and not created any values for their customers. Because of this they have seen their net income decline to $44.3 million from a year ago when it was $50.2 million. Over the past year the stock has declined from around $18 a share down to under $9 a share, which is a decline of 53%. With the reduction in the stock price, the dividend yield is now 6.5% and the company trades at 10 times earnings on a forward basis. This company may be worth looking into as an investment as within in the next 6 to 12 months we could see lower end consumers stabilize.   The affordability index for people buying a home is the worst in 50 years People may be excited about buying a home because mortgage rates are around the lowest they've been in over a year, but the affordability of a home is still far out of reach for many. The reason for this, and we have talked about this for the last few years, is that the increase in the price of homes has far outpaced the increase in people's income. The 50-year average for a price-to-income ratio is around four times, and it reached a low in 1999 of around 3.6 times. But with the rapid increase of homes over the last few years, the price to income ratio has climbed to slightly over five times. Also not helping are the increases in home insurance costs and property taxes. Back in the summer of 2019, when looking at households earning $75,000, nearly 50% of those people could afford to buy a home. Today, when looking at those same households earning $75,000, only 21% would be able to afford a home. Back in 2012, the home affordability index was over 200, but it has now been cut in half to just about 100 with no signs of improving any time soon. I believe it will probably take 3 to 5 years to correct itself. If you look back in history, the affordability index does not change overnight. What will happen is probably incomes will increase slightly over the next 3 to 5 years and maybe the price of homes will either stay the same or decline slightly, which would increase the affordability index. What this means for people buying a home today is you should not have any aspirations of a rapid increase in the value of your home. What caused the problem was during the pandemic mortgage rates dropped to lows not seen in 50 years and that pushed up demand and the prices for homes climbed at a rapid rate. I believe this scenario is extremely unlikely to play out again! The brokerage firm Robinhood looks more like a gambling platform than a brokerage firm Robinhood initially went public at $38 a share in 2023 and the stock then fell to under $10 a share. It has recovered nicely since then as it's now trading around $110 a share. What has caused this shift and the huge increase in the stock price? One big reason is that the company has really allowed major speculation for their investors. Starting off with crypto, they have allowed people to buy coins like BONK, Dogwifhat and Pudgy Penguins. Just when you think there's no way they could come up with anything more speculative, surprise; they have come up with an investment known as prediction markets and event trading. Somehow the regulators have let this slide or maybe since government agencies don't move that quickly, it just has not been addressed yet. It appears for investors on their app that you can predict what the outcome will be of a football game, politics, contracts over economics, even if aliens will exist on earth this year. Chief Brokerage Officer, Steve Quirk, says this is the fastest growing business we have ever had. Robinhood stock trades over 50 times projected earnings and is looking for about $4.5 billion in revenue, which is an increase of 53% over last year. The growth appears to be there for the company, but there is so much speculation and insane crazy things there is no doubt in my mind that in the future many people will lose more money than they ever thought was possible by speculating on crazy things rather than investing into good quality businesses. A fallout in those risky "investments" could hurt Robinhood's reputation, which I believe would be bad for long term growth.    Financial Planning: The Real Cost of Employer Coverage vs. Medicare When reaching age 65, sometimes there is the option to join Medicare or stay with an employer health insurance plan.  This is most common when a spouse retires after age 65 and they have the ability to join their spouse's work plan. When comparing the cost of coverage, there is a key difference in how each affects your tax bill. Premiums paid through payroll for employer-sponsored health insurance are pre-tax, meaning you avoid federal, state, and payroll taxes such as the 6.2% Social Security, 1.45% Medicare, and 1.2% CA SDI tax in California.  This is different from a 401(k) for example where contributions are only pre-tax from federal and state taxes. For someone in the 22% tax bracket, a $500 premium would be around $300 after the tax savings. Medicare premiums on the other hand are paid with after-tax dollars and are only tax-deductible for people who itemize and have total medical expenses exceeding 7.5% of AGI, which means very few retirees actually receive any tax benefit. Additionally, Medicare Part B and D premiums may be elevated due to higher levels of income because of IRMAA. Employer health insurance can vary in coverage and cost so at times Medicare may be a more comprehensive and cost-effective option, but it is necessary to compare the after-tax costs to be sure.   Companies Discussed: Cisco Systems, Inc. (CSCO), The Walt Disney Company (DIS), Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc. (SPB), Maplebear Inc. (CART)

No surprise to me that there's a glut of apartments on the market  I saw the potential for this oversupply happening in San Diego a couple of years ago. It seemed anywhere you drove within a short distance you would see the construction of new apartment buildings. It is not just here in San Diego though as the glut of apartments is happening around the country. With the dynamics of supply and demand, if you're looking for an apartment today, you're in for a treat. In September rental rates had the steepest drop in more than 15 years. Landlords are now offering months of free rent, gift cards, free parking and some are even paying for your moving expenses just to get you to sign a lease. You may want to play hardball because in some areas they'll even cut the rent on top of all those incentives. In September, 37% of rentals agreed to concessions like months of free rent. What caused the problem for landlords is during the early years of the pandemic, developers could not begin building apartments fast enough, especially in the Sunbelt area where there was a major population migration. It became the biggest apartment construction boom in 40 years, but because of the delay of construction permits and labor shortages, development took much longer than they had hoped. It seemed no one looked around to see all the apartments going up, and now they're all competing with each other for renters. The landlords are hoping they can raise rents by the end of 2026 or at least sometime in 2027, but I don't think they are factoring in how many apartments are online with more still to come. Based on the current apartment inventory and new apartments coming online, renters could be in for lower rent maybe perhaps until 2028. This will not be good for the housing market because rent for houses will be the next to fall and then people will have to factor in the affordability of renting vs buying a home. This would also likely hurt the demand for buying rental properties as an investment if you can't get as much rent as you thought.    Are the large hyperscale companies like Meta, Microsoft, and Alphabet inflating earnings?  Michael Burry, who was made famous by "The Big Short", made the claim that some of America's largest tech companies are using aggressive accounting to pad their profits. He believes they are understating depreciation expenses by estimating that chips will have a longer life cycle than is realistic. Investors are likely aware of the huge investment these companies are making in AI, but they likely don't understand how the accounting of the investments work. If a business makes an investment in these semiconductors/servers of let's say $100 B, that doesn't hit earnings when the money is spent as under generally accepted accounting principles, or GAAP, they are instead able to spread out the cost of that asset as a yearly expense that is based on the company's estimate of how rapidly that asset depreciates in value. From what I've seen, these companies are generally depreciating their Nvidia chips for over 5 to 6 years. This seems to be a stretch considering Nvidia is on a 1-year chip production cycle, and the technology is changing quite rapidly. Burry estimated that from 2026 through 2028, the accounting maneuver would understate depreciation by about $176 billion and if Burry is correct, hyperscale's will have to write off AI capex as a bad investment, due to depreciation-useful life mismatch. This would then produce a major hit on earnings. While I remain a believer that AI is here to stay, I do believe there will be some big-time losers in this space given all the money that is being spent. Be careful chasing the hype as I do worry the fallout for some of these companies could be larger than many things possible. Burry has also warned this year that AI enthusiasm resembles the late-1990s tech bubble and recently disclosed put options betting against Nvidia and Palantir. He also stated that "more detail" was coming November 25th, and that readers should "stay tuned." I know I'm definitely curious what other information he has!    China is no longer just manufacturing; they are also beginning to innovate.  For many years innovation was generally done here in the US, and we would have the products manufactured in China. China is no longer happy with this arrangement, and its research and development spending is up nearly 9% a year well above the 1.7% here in United States. In 2024, China filed 70,160 international patents which was about 16,000 more than the 54,087 patents the US filed. China also seems to be more advanced in robotics installing 300,000 industrial robots in 2024 compared with roughly 30,000 industrial robots in the US. It also has been noted that when it comes to worldwide sales of electric vehicles, 66% came from China. While these developments seem positive for China, the country is still experiencing problems with a slowing economy as they have seen fixed asset investment decline and a slowdown in retail sales. The population of China has also declined over the last three years, and the real estate market after four years has really taken away a lot of household wealth. China's public and private debt continue to climb rapidly, which is becoming a problem for them as well. It is estimated that China is spending around $85-$95 billion on AI capital spending yet their economy is struggling as noted by the China Merchants Bank which talked about a 11% decline in consumption among customers and retail loans are now under pressure. China's exports to the US are down 27% because of the tariffs, but worldwide their exports are up 8%. It was recently reported that Beijing banned foreign AI chips from Nvidia, Advanced Micro Devices and Intel from government funding data center buildouts. Currently, China cannot pass the US and its allies in producing the most advance semiconductors, but they're making very good progress in developing mid-level chips and parts of the AI ecosystem. The US must continue to forge ahead because if we rest, China will be the world dominant power    Financial Planning: 50-year Mortgage: Helpful or Hurtful? A 50-year mortgage is being discussed as a way to reduce monthly payments and help with affordability, offering borrowers slightly lower costs that could help them qualify for homes otherwise out of reach. Critics argue that these loans would saddle buyers with far more interest paid to banks and that many borrowers would never pay off such a long mortgage, but those arguments often miss the bigger picture. Paying a low rate of interest to a bank is not inherently bad if it allows someone to invest money elsewhere at higher returns, just as today's homeowners with 30-year mortgages at 2% benefit greatly from not paying them off early. Also, most mortgages today are never fully paid off anyway because homes are sold, or loans are refinanced long before they reach maturity. A 50-year loan would be no different, especially since borrowers could always pay more than the minimum if they wanted to accelerate payoff. In practice, savvy investors would likely use the freed-up cash flow from 50-year mortgages to invest in higher-return opportunities, but most borrowers probably wouldn't resulting in slower wealth accumulation for the masses without addressing the root cause of housing affordability. If used correctly, this loan could be a useful tool, but I fear the overall impact could be damaging.     Companies Discussed:  Axon Enterprise (AXON), Zoetis Inc. (ZTS), Elf Beauty Inc. (ELF),Sweetgreen Inc. (SG)  

Apple CEO Tim Cook pulled three rabbits out of a hat Pulling a rabbit out of a hat is a pretty good trick, but pulling three out of a hat is nothing short of a miracle. In the spring of this year, Apple stock fell below $170 a share as it was faced with enormous tariffs on iPhones, the potential loss of a $20 billion per year payment from Google, and sales for iPhones seemed to be stuck in the mud. To handle the tariff situation, Tim Cook promised US investments of $600 billion over four years. This was not bringing iPhone production back to the US, but it was an investment of making AI servers in Texas and offering manufacturing training for US businesses in Detroit. Apple also announced a $2.5 billion commitment to make iPhone cover glass in Kentucky with Corning and a $500 million partnership to produce rare earth magnets in the United States. After this investment pledge, the President said Apple would be exempt from tariffs on imported electronics. To save the $20 billion yearly payment from Google, Mr. Cook sent Apple's senior vice president in charge of services Eddie Cue to testify. He convinced the judge that technology shifts are so powerful that they can take down even the most massive companies. In other words, the judge didn't need to impose harsh penalties, and the market would essentially take care of itself. And somehow consumers have been convinced that the new thinner smart phone called the iPhone Air is a must for any consumer. The marketing on this must be phenomenal because the iPhone Air has a weaker camera, a single speaker, a smaller battery with a shorter life and a higher price tag. Apple also convinced consumers that the rest of the iPhone 17 lineup was worth an upgrade. Apple is predicting up to12% revenue growth in the holiday quarter, twice what Wall Street estimated. So, in roughly 6 months the stock, after dropping to a low around $169 a share, it is up roughly $100 and somehow supports a price earnings ratio of 36. Congratulations to Tim Cook and shareholders of Apple stock. If anyone said they knew Apple would be fine either they have a crystal that really works, or they didn't understand the problems Apple was facing. Going forward the road is still bumpy with operating expenses coming in slightly over $18 billion for the December quarter, a 19% increase year over a year and well above the 10 to 12% revenue increase that Apple's projecting. We don't see any big drops in the stock coming up, but I still can't justify the share price or see any reason why the stock will continue to climb going forward.   In 2026 you could be buying stocks on the Texas Stock Exchange Businesses and CEOs are getting tired of the high taxes in New York City and the regulations that are costing them billions of dollars. Texas, which is known as a pro business state will be opening in Dallas the Texas Stock Exchange (TXSE). This has already been approved by the Security Exchange Commission (SEC). It is expected to see operations open for trading in the first quarter of 2026. The Texas stock exchange has the backing of JPMorgan Chase, who just invested $90 million into the new exchange. Large companies like BlackRock and Charles Schwab are also on board. It is backed by many businesspeople including billionaire Kelcy Warren, cofounder of Energy Transfer Partners, and billionaire Paul Foster, who founded the investment firm Franklin Mountain Investments. This could be a heavy blow to New York and New York City, who have been unfriendly to business because they felt like they have the only place in the country to trade. Now that New York City has elected Zohran Mamdani for mayor, it will be interesting to see how businesses respond since he says he will go after business and the wealthy to pay more taxes. The state of Texas has no income tax, but if you live in New York City you could pay a state tax of 10.9% plus a city tax of 3.9% and it doesn't take long to get to those levels based on your income.   Public companies that bought Bitcoin are getting worried The craziness of public companies riding the Bitcoin wave as it increased in value caused many of their stocks to jump even more than the increase in Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies. But now that Bitcoin has pulled back from its all-time high slightly over $126,000 and has dropped about 20%, those public companies that bought Bitcoin are seeing their stocks drop far greater than the decline in Bitcoin. Roughly 25% of the public companies that bought Bitcoin as a treasury strategy now have a market cap valuation below the total value of their Bitcoin value. What companies were doing was they would invest in Bitcoin then sell their shares at a premium as their stock increased in value and then used those proceeds to turn around and buy more Bitcoin. Now that Bitcoin has declined, there's no reason for crypto buyers or traders to buy those stocks and instead it looks like they have been selling them. As an example, CleanCore Solutions is now down over 80% since investing in Dogecoin and even a larger player like Japan's Metaplanet, which is a top five publicly listed Bitcoin holder, has seen its stock decline around 60% over the last 3 months. If Bitcoin were to continue its decline, the company could be forced to sell assets, which could cause Bitcoin to fall even further. So far, this has not affected the company who started this craziness of buying Bitcoin in their treasury. I'm referring to MicroStrategy, which has changed its name just to Strategy and still trades under the symbol MSTR. Really all this company does is buy Bitcoin. Strategy owns roughly 640,000 Bitcoin and at today's price it is worth roughly $70 billion. It is estimated that Strategy's average purchase price for Bitcoin is $74,000, so they seem to be safe for a while. However, stock investors in Strategy are probably crying the blues since in July the stock was around $450 and as of today it trades around $240, close to a 50% decline. As we have said for years, no one really knows what direction Bitcoin is going, it could be up or it could be down. But one thing is for certain, if those companies that bought Bitcoin and pushed the price higher, now need to sell it that will probably cause Bitcoin to fall further.   Financial Planning: The Conflict of Interest around Universal Life Insurance Universal life insurance is often presented as a hybrid policy that combines features of term life and whole life, marketed for its perceived benefits of tax-deferred cash value growth and the potential for tax-free income through policy loans in addition to a permanent death benefit. However, realizing these benefits typically requires significant overfunding, meaning the policyholder must pay premiums well above the minimum needed to keep the policy in force. Universal life offers flexible premiums, but there are ongoing fees and costs of insurance, which increase with age, required to maintain coverage. Only premiums paid beyond those costs build cash value that can be invested. The problem is that agent commissions are usually based on the “target premium”—the minimum amount needed to keep the policy active, not the funding level required for it to perform as illustrated. This creates a conflict of interest, where many agents are incentivized to sell the policy but not to ensure it's structured or funded properly. As a result, many universal life policies become underfunded, fail to accumulate meaningful cash value, and ultimately function as expensive term insurance. While some advisors structure these policies correctly, they are the exception rather than the rule. Because the life insurance industry is easy to enter and highly lucrative, it attracts many underqualified or self-interested salespeople. For most people, term life insurance combined with disciplined investing remains a more transparent and cost-effective approach that will outperform even the most efficiently structured life insurance, especially since the need for a death benefit typically declines by retirement. It's important to regularly review existing life insurance policies to ensure they're performing as intended and not quietly eroding in value over time.   Companies Discussed: Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc. (ARE), Kimberly-Clark Corporation (KMB), Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. (CMG) & Newell Brands Inc. (NWL)

The big brokerage firms are fighting for your investment accounts Our investment advisory firm over the years has never been a favorite of the big brokerage firms because we generally only do three, maybe four trades on average per year. But the big brokerage firms are now acting like the casinos in Las Vegas and are doing everything they can to get you on their platform. They will give you all kinds of tools and seminars, so you'll take higher risk and do more trading. In the meantime, they're downplaying the risk of trading. You see also like the casinos in Las Vegas, there are now stories of them giving away free rooms for the big players and they are giving you free software and free education on how to trade. Robinhood even invited 1000 people to Las Vegas and took them go kart racing and provided classes with their new trade platform. Schwab and Fidelity are doing similar types of events to get you to use more of their services. Once they get you in the door, they can show you how to use margin debt, which by the way hit a new record of $1.13 trillion in September, along with option trading and other exciting ways to make you think you can make a lot of money. Doesn't that sound like the casinos in Las Vegas that try and get you to hit the gambling tables? Unfortunately, it seems to be working somewhat because the percentage of investors who now have self-directed accounts is 33%, which is a big increase from 24% just five years ago. My problem with this, as you can tell, is I don't believe they're teaching people how to invest but more on how to gamble and how exciting it can be. Going back 100 years it's still the same with Wall Street, they will make some big profits, and the small investors will lose most if not all of their nest egg. Can Travis Kelce turn around Six Flags? If you're not sure who Travis Kelce is, he is a tight end for the Kansas City Chiefs and engaged to the well-known singer Taylor Swift. Six Flags, which is a public company that trades under the symbol FUN, has received an investment of $200 million from the activist investment company JANA Partners. It was not disclosed how much investment Travis has of the $200 million, but he does like to invest in companies both public and private. He has investments in over 30 companies that include manufacturing, distribution, consumer goods, entertainment, and a beer company. He is pretty excited about his investment because as a kid he used to love the roller coasters, Dippin' Dots and him and his brother have great memories at Six Flags. He has suggested that they do a roller coaster with a 300 foot drop where riders feet dangle from beneath. Investing in Six Flags seems to be an uphill battle. Year to date the stock is down roughly 45%, the company is losing money and has a market capitalization of $2.6 billion. Travis does have a long-term perspective on all his investments likes we do. He is OK investing in a company losing money in hopes it could be turned around. Our philosophy at our firm is we will not invest in companies that do not have earnings. One benefit he does have is obviously his name and I'm sure if him and his fiancé, Taylor Swift, would start showing up at Six Flags, you can bet that they will be all over the news giving the company some nice free advertising.   Markets actually declined after the Fed rate cut  On Wednesday, the Fed announced they would lower their benchmark overnight borrowing rate by 0.25% to a range of 3.75%-4%. This marked the second consecutive cut of 0.25% and there is still one meeting left this year where we could see another rate cut. The keyword here is could and the lack of conviction around another cut is likely what spooked the market. Powell said a December rate cut isn't a “foregone conclusion” and while recently appointed Fed Governor Stephen Miran again dissented in favor of a 0.5% cut, there was also a hawkish dissent with Kansas City Fed President Jeffrey Schmid voting for no decrease. Schmid's vote and Powell's language was likely what sent the market lower after the announcement as many essentially had the December rate cut factored in as a sure thing. Powell also added that there is “a growing chorus” among the 19 Fed officials to “at least wait a cycle” before cutting again. This resulted in traders lowering the odds for a December cut to 67% from 90% the day prior. Given the lack of data and an economy that still appears to be in an alright position, I do believe the Fed needs to be careful cutting too quickly especially since they are taking another accommodative stance with the announcement that they would be ending the reduction of its asset purchases – a process known as quantitative tightening – on Dec 1. This in theory will stimulate the Treasury and mortgage-backed securities markets, which should help with longer dated debt instruments, as the Fed was allowing these assets to just roll off the balance sheet and now will need to step in and buy new debt to replace the securities as they mature. While QT shaved off around $2.3 trillion from the Fed's balance sheet, Covid led to a major expansion from just over $4 trillion to close to $9 trillion. The question is with the rapid expansion just a few years ago, was enough removed from the balance sheet to put it at a more normalized level. Like with the Fed cuts, I do believe if monetary policy eases too much, we risk a return of inflation and a further increase in many speculative assets that could cause problems down the road.   Financial Planning: When does a Solar System Make Sense? Buying a solar system generally makes the most sense if you use a lot of electricity and plan to stay in your home long term. Installing by the end of 2025 allows you to capture the 30% federal tax credit, which significantly shortens the payback period. If the system is financed with a mortgage or home equity line of credit (HELOC), the interest may be tax-deductible, allowing for little or no upfront cash outlay and after-tax loan payments that can be lower than the monthly electricity savings. Owned solar panels usually increase home value, though not always enough to fully offset the system's cost, which is why longer-term ownership is important to recoup the investment. In California, including a battery is almost always recommended so you can store power generated during the day for use at night, reducing the need to buy expensive electricity from the grid. Leasing can be attractive for shorter-term homeowners if lease payments are well below current utility costs, but leases generally don't increase home value and don't qualify for tax credits. The main advantage is immediate monthly savings without an upfront investment, though leased panels can complicate a future home sale. In some cases, it may be best not to install solar at all—for example, if you don't plan to stay in the home long term, or if your electricity usage and potential savings are too low to justify the hassle and possible roof wear from installation.   Companies Discussed: The Coca-Cola Company (KO), Capital One Financial Corporation (COF), QUALCOMM Incorporated (QCOM), Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings Inc. (KNX)

Inflation report likely solidifies Fed rate cut this month  The September Consumer Price Index, also known as CPI, showed inflation climbed 3% year over year for both the headline and core numbers. Core CPI, which excludes food and energy, came in better than both the estimate and the previous month's reading; both stood at 3.1%. It was a surprise to get this data with the government shutdown, but since it is used as a benchmark for cost-of living adjustments in benefit checks by the Social Security Administration it was a rare economic point in an otherwise quiet period. Energy, which provided such a benefit to the headline number for many months, has started to reverse course as it climbed 2.8% compared to last year. Gasoline was a small benefit as it was down 0.5%, but energy services climbed 6.4% thanks to an increase of 5.1% for electricity and an increase of 11.7% for utility gas service. What I would look to as tariff impacted areas, has still remained quite muted considering apparel prices fell 0.1%, new vehicles were up just 0.8%, and food prices had maybe thehardest hit with an increase of 3.1%. Much of this came from food away from home, which was up 3.7%. Food at home saw a more muted increase of 2.7%. Shelter inflation remained above the headline and core numbers at 3.6%, but it is much less problematic than it was in prior periods. Another positive was owner's equivalent rent climbed 0.1% compared to the prior month, which was the smallest month over month increase since January 2021. Overall, this report likely produced enough evidence for the Fed to cut rates at this month's meeting as odds stood above 95% after the inflation annoucement. The likelihood for a December cut also initially climbed to 98.5% following the report.    The bank earnings from last week had some surprising undertones. Overall, the third-quarter report from the big banks showed things are pretty much going along OK. But then a couple of the big banks brought up the issue of private credit and some bankruptcies that led to write-downs. Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JPMorgan Chase, pointed out that even though he said he probably should not say it that "if you see one cockroach, there are probably more." Some smaller financial institutions like Zions Bancorp and Alliance Bancorp took a $50 million charge and $100 million charge respectively due to potentially fraudulent loans. The issue here is commercial banks have been making loans to nonfinancial depository institutions or NFDIs and I point out that this type of funding is not very transparent for investors to see what is going on behind the scenes. I was surprised to learn that these NFDIs now account for roughly 1/3 of commercial and industrial loans originated by large banks. One may think if you're invested in AI companies, you're safe but research has shown that even your deep pocket players of AI are funding investments with these private loans. As time passes, the more I read, the more I become concerned about what we don't know about leverage in this economy. Risky investing behavior continues to amaze me! Many people will point out that we have missed the boat on crypto, but I continue to worry about the space long term as there is no true way to value what these cryptocurrencies are worth. While this is a major concern for our firm, I would say leverage in the space is another major risk. A big problem is the rules and regulations and ultimately the transparency in the space is not as clear as when you invest in public equities. I was blown away reading an article on CNBC by how crazy the leverage can be, and I bet most investors have no clue about it. While there are ways to leverage crypto in the US, the offshore market is where things get wild! Offshore, decentralized exchanges Hyperliquid offer maximum leverage of 40-times for bitcoin and 25-times for ether and Binance Labs-linked Aster offers as much as 100x leverage, depending on the token. Leverage is so dangerous because if a decline comes and investors need to unwind a position it can create a cascade of selling that leads to massive losses. It is not just the crypto market where people are gambling though. We saw a return to meme craziness with Beyond Meat producing massive gains of 128% Monday and 146% Tuesday. On Wednesday, the stock at one point produced another triple-digit intraday gain, but it ended up closing down 1% on the day. I also saw a nuclear power development company by the name of Oklo have a sizeable pullback after the Financial Times noted the 500% advance in 2025 and $20 billion market value has come despite “no revenues, no license to operate reactors and no binding contracts to supply power.”  These are examples of pure gambling and examples like these typically come during frothy times before reality hits and big pullback comes.    Financial Planning: The real cost of financial mistakes When it comes to financial wellbeing, avoiding mistakes can be even more powerful than chasing great decisions. Too often, people lose ground not from lack of opportunity, but from unforced errors. Drawing retirement income without tax strategy can quietly cost thousands in extra taxes or Medicare premiums. Holding too much cash or being overly aggressive both expose you to risk, one to inflation, the other to unrecoverable losses. Maintaining investing discipline sounds simple but emotional reactions like selling when markets fall or chasing what's hot can destroy more wealth than poor returns ever could. Many homeowners also miss out by not structuring their mortgage correctly resulting in more short-term fees, long-term interest, and missed investment returns. The key isn't perfection; it's recognizing that protecting yourself from big mistakes is often the best investment you can make.  When making a financial decision, do your best to get your information and advice from accurate and unbiased sources so you can fully understand the impact of the decision.   Companies Discussed: The Progressive Corporation (PGR), Bank of America Corporation (BAC), ManpowerGroup, Inc. (MAN) & Snap-on Incorporated (SNA)

Will gold hit $5000 an ounce? With all the excitement surrounding the run up in gold this year it seems to be an easy target. However, as investors pour money into precious metals, such as gold, people have to remember that President Trump has pledged to stimulate the economy through tax cuts. The run up in gold has been due to investors that worry about the future of the dollar and other major currencies. Wall Street has labeled this the debasement trade. The dollar did decline in the first six months of 2025, but it has since stabilized. September saw a record $33 billion invested in exchange traded funds tied to physical gold. The excitement continues for gold buyers, but it is important to remember that normally during uncertain times investors will find safety in dollar denominated assets like treasuries that can push-up the dollar's value. The danger for gold investors is if the narrative shifts, gold could have a major decline. If you look back 165 years to 1860, you will see that gold has other multi-year runs but has consistently had a major bust after those run ups. Investors in gold should also look at what happened in 1979 with a major rally in gold but 3 1/2 years later all the gains accumulated had disappeared. Investors may want to take some of their profits because the higher gold climbs, the bigger the fall could be. In my view, $5000 per ounce for gold is a big gamble.   Great news, more working-class Americans than ever before are in the stock market. That does sound like good news, but then when you dig a little deeper, it is rather scary! 54% of Americans with incomes between $30,000 and $80,000 have taxable investment accounts. There are several reasons for this like no more commissions for trading stocks, the excitement of investing on certain social media sites, and it's so easy to trade stocks now as anyone who has a cell phone can pretty much trade stocks instantaneously. I remember an old saying from years ago that when your barber starts talking to you about stock tips that is the peak of the market. This seems to be where we're at today and unfortunately, these investors have only been investing for probably the last five years and have not experienced any long, lasting declines or turmoil in the markets. Many of these investors are simply trading stocks and don't understand the fundamentals of investing for the long-term. Some of them have experienced very good returns, not because of any specialized knowledge but because of the luck of picking some highflyers that have done well for them in the short term. In many cases, they do not believe it's luck and they feel they now know what they're doing. These investors probably have no idea what the earnings or debt is for the stocks they are trading. They just see that they continue to make money as they buy and sell. It is a shame because many of them are young investors from 25 to 45 years old and a big mistake could cost them years of compounding. Over my 40+ years of working in the investment industry I've heard the same story many times, and it never turns out well. When you try to help them understand how things really work in the investment world, they justify what they're doing with such statements as “this time it is different”. I wish these young investors would understand that investing in stocks and earning a 10% annual return per year is very good. I'm sure many who read this or hear the words I speak think I have no clue what they're doing, and they have a specialized technique that can't fail. When the day comes,  which it will, these investors will be left with a small amount of capital and not much time left to invest because they are now older and closer to retirement. Only then will they realize that their risky trading strategy proved to be nothing more than gambling!   Lower end consumers are having a hard time making their car payments With the rising cost of cars and higher interest rates, lower end consumers are falling behind on their car payments, and the numbers are starting to get a little scary. 14% of new cars that were sold to people had a credit score under 650, this is the highest percent going back to 2016. People seem to be getting in over their head as subprime loans that are 60 days or more overdue are at a record 6% this year. The number of repossessed vehicles is also climbing to a record not seen in 16 years to an estimated 17.3 million repossessed vehicles. Some consumers overbought a car probably due to a good salesperson and that new car smell that sometimes is hard to resist. Some consumers are starting to regret their new car purchase considering the average car payment is around $750 and 20% of loans and new leases are over $1000 a month. We will continue to watch this indicator along with others to verify that we are only seeing a slowdown of growth in the economy, rather than a declining economy. It's important to remember to be careful where you invest. It appears that some of these subprime loans for cars ended up in private loan deals that were sold as low risk because of no market fluctuation. The problem here is we are starting to see write-downs from publicly traded banks for bad loans and with private credit you might not know there is a problem until it's too late since they don't have to disclose the same info as these publicly traded companies.    Financial Planning: Upgrade Your Emergency Fund to an Emergency Plan When paychecks stop, as many federal employees are currently experiencing, having an emergency plan with multiple layers of liquidity is essential. The first line of defense is your credit card. When used strategically, it can buy you up to two months of interest-free spending since no interest accrues until after the statement due date. However, you don't want to carry a balance beyond that point. Next comes cash reserves, ideally kept in a high-yield Treasury bill money market fund, where your money earns competitive interest while avoiding state tax. Beyond cash, having credit lines such as a HELOC provides deeper, low-cost access to capital without forcing you to liquidate investments. These can take a couple of months to establish, and since they generally don't have origination fees, it's best to set them up before you need them. After that, investment accounts can serve as a secondary safety net. Taxable accounts may generate capital gains, but withdrawals are unrestricted. Roth IRA contributions can be withdrawn tax- and penalty-free at any age, and HSA accounts can issue reimbursements for qualified medical expenses incurred in prior years. In a true last-resort scenario, you can even access retirement funds through a 60-day rollover, temporarily using the cash before redepositing it. By layering these tools, from credit to cash to credit lines to investments, you build a structured, flexible liquidity plan that can withstand extended income disruptions and operate far more efficiently than simply keeping 12 months of expenses in a savings account. Companies Discussed: Ferrari (RACE), Papa John's International, Inc. (PZZA) Salesforce, Inc. (CRM) & Eli Lilly and Company (LLY)  

Do stock dividends give you better returns? With the S&P 500 currently paying a dividend of only 1.1%, which is the lowest in about 25 years, people may wonder if they should even care about dividends. In 2024, dividends were only 36% of profits, which was 20 points below the average going back nearly 100 years. Looking at return figures, if you go back 65 years, reinvested dividends did account for roughly 85% of the S&P 500's total return. With the market at all-time high valuations, investors should not give up on investing in companies that pay good dividends, but they also should do plenty of research to verify the dividend is strong and will last. And never ever buy a company just because it pays a dividend! When looking for companies that pay dividends, look for stocks with new or increasing dividends because since 1973 they returned on average 10.2% versus 6.8% for those companies that did not increase their dividend. Over the same timeframe, those stocks not paying dividends had a return of only 4.3%. Remember when looking at investing in dividend stocks to check that the company has a good amount of cash flow, a reasonable payout ratio to pay that dividend and a strong balance sheet that does not have excessive debt and a good amount of cash for liquidity.   How will the US government shutdown affect you and the economy? Over the last 50 years, the government has shutdown 21 times with the longest being December 2018 when it lasted 34 days. The shutdown will affect mostly those consumers who are traveling with experts from the travel industry saying it will lose about one billion dollars a week. Think about all the national parks that will be closed and the frustrations at the airports will probably curtail travelers' enthusiasm for traveling. Even with all the negative headlines, stocks tend to do well during a government shutdown with the average three month return after the shutdown at 9.5% and one year later at 22.4%. I would not encourage people to think they will get a 22% return this time around because of the valuation on the stock market these days. Unfortunately, bonds don't do as well with the three-month return being a -37% and a one-year return on bonds being a -10.7%. What this means is during a government shutdown generally long-term interest rates increase as bonds fall, and this would be detrimental to the housing market as we would then see mortgage rates increase if history repeats itself. On the shorter end of the yield curve, the Federal Reserve who sets short term interest rates will be handicapped because they will not be getting economic information such as the labor report and other government data to make their decision for interest rates cuts. It is possible if the shutdown is still ongoing at the end of October, the Federal Reserve may not cut interest rates because of the lack of data. The million-dollar question of how long it will last is a difficult one to answer as no one knows for sure but it appears since both sides are so far apart, they will not come to the negotiating table and until some negativity starts showing up in the economy there is not much pressure on the politicians. That means this shutdown could be one for the record books and could perhaps last a month or two!   Public debt looks strong, but private debt not so much Public debt, which are bonds that trade on the public market, is looking rather strong based on the small yield margin between investment grade and speculative grade securities compared with the risk-free government debt. In September, $207 billion of corporate bonds were issued and that's the fifth highest monthly amount on record. Year to date returns for those holding public corporate bonds stands between 7 to 8%. Private debt on the other hand is starting to have issues as companies such as Tricolor Holdings, which is a lender to individuals with low credit ratings, filed for chapter 7 bankruptcy in September. The debt holders may get something, but when a company files chapter 7 bankruptcy, the government receives their money first along with the attorneys and then what is left over if any, goes to the debt holders then equity holders. Also, last month an auto parts company called First Brands filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy, they had $6 billion of leveraged loans outstanding. This could be the beginning of an avalanche of defaults in private credit as I believe if the economy continues to slow down, these products will have some major problems. Hopefully you weren't sold anything that deals with private debt, equity or real estate by your broker.   Financial Planning: Updated Tax Brackets for 2026 For 2025, married couples filing jointly will see their standard deduction rise from $31,500 to $32,200 with an additional $1,650 per spouse for those age 65 or older and a new $6,000 deduction per spouse for households with adjusted gross income (AGI) under $150,000, bringing the total possible standard deduction to $47,500. The 12% federal tax bracket will now apply to taxable income up to $100,800 (up from $96,950), and the 0% capital gains and qualified dividend threshold will increase to $98,900 (from $96,700). When calculating tax liability, AGI minus the standard deduction equals taxable income.  For retirees, this means the $150,000 AGI level is an especially important threshold to stay under. It unlocks the extra $6,000 standard deduction, keeps all ordinary income in the 10% and 12% brackets, and ensures that capital gains and dividend income remain tax-free. These inflation adjustments give married couples, especially retirees and middle-income earners, more room to keep their income in lower tax brackets and reduce their overall taxable income going into 2026.   Companies Discussed: Verizon Communications Inc. (VZ), Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. (CALM), International Paper Company (IP) & Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (AMD)

Is a reduction in cardboard demand a warning sign of a slowing economy? The simple answer is yes, but it also is one of many indicators we are seeing. Cardboard is used in many items in the economy from pizza boxes to the multiple items you get delivered from online stores. The numbers show that box shipments after reaching record highs during the pandemic are now down to levels not seen since 2016. If you look at a per-person basis, the numbers are pretty staggering, as they are down over 20% from their 1999 peak. Part of this decline could be from companies like Amazon that have reduced cardboard consumption by shipping some items in paper and plastic mailers and potentially even becoming more efficient in their packaging practices, I remember seeing many times a box inside of a box. From what I can tell, I think they no longer do that, which would be a big reduction in cardboard. The price of container board has been on the rise over the years, which can cause users of cardboard to reduce their consumption as the price of corrugated sheets has risen 30% from six years ago to $945 per ton. I would not predict based on this data about cardboard that the economy is heading into a recession, but it is something definitely worth adding to the list to remember!   Will the revenue from AI cover all the debt and expenses it created? AI is definitely part of the future, but has overbuilding surpassed the revenue that it can create? When one steps back and looks at the numbers they are staggering. Over the past three years, major tech firms have committed more funds towards AI data centers than it cost to build the U.S. interstate highway system that took 40 years to build. These numbers are even adjusted for inflation. In the next five years, the AI infrastructure spending will require $2 trillion in annual AI revenue. If you think that's a lot of revenue you are correct. In 2024 the combined revenue of Amazon, Apple, Alphabet, Microsoft, Meta and Nvidia did not hit $2 trillion. It is also five times the amount of money spent globally on subscription software. Consumers have enjoyed the free use of AI, but it appears for businesses paying more than thirty dollars a month per user is the breaking point. AI executives claim the technology could add 10% to the global GDP in the years to come. With that thought they are saying the benefit comes when it can replace a large number of jobs and that the savings would be enough to pay back what they invested. My question is, if you're replacing all these jobs, consumers will have less money to spend and probably won't need or care about AI. There are many history lessons about bubbles that did not pay off because of the over excitement on inventions with such things as canals, electricity and railroads just to name a few. People may remember the excitement over the Internet and the building of tens of millions of miles of fiber optic cables in the ground. The amount spent was the equivalent to about one percent of the US GDP over a half a decade. The justification from the “experts” was that the Internet use was doubling every hundred days. The reality was only about 1/4 of the expectation came to fruition with traffic doubling every year. Most of the fiber cables were useless until about 10 years later thanks to video streaming. A report out of MIT said they found 95% of organizations surveyed are receiving no return on their AI product investments. In another study from the University of Chicago showed that AI chatbots had no significant impact on workers earnings, recorded hours or wages. I still believe AI will be here to stay, but the question is have the expectations gone too far? I think they have!    Finally, some scrutiny on private investments from the SEC! The SEC has an investment advisory committee that was formed back 15 years ago that provides guidance to the regulator. Recently, the committee approved a set of recommendations on how to deal with the private market and protect the less sophisticated investors. The recommendations cover the key problems with private investments for investors, which include how they come up with valuations, how complex they are and that they are not a liquid investment. I thought it was also a wise move that they recommended the SEC demand better disclosures and also who can and cannot invest in private markets. I was very happy to see that they're not just putting across the board if you have a net worth of X amount you can invest in private investments. The recommendation was based on the investor's level of investment sophistication. I'm hoping the SEC comes up with these rules quickly before more people find themselves in a private investment that they cannot get out of and perhaps lose all their money. Today would not be soon enough to pass this legislation. My recommendation is if you're not in any type of private investments, don't go into them! No matter how good your broker makes it sound, remember he or she is likely getting a big fat commission to put your money into these high-risk investments.   Financial Planning: Keeping more of your Home Sale Proceeds Selling your primary residence can result in a substantial profit, but the IRS provides a valuable tax break to help offset that gain. Individuals can exclude up to $250,000 of capital gains ($500,000 for married couples filing jointly) if they've owned and lived in the home for at least two of the past five years. Be careful not to confuse this with selling an investment property, which does not qualify for the primary residence exclusion. Instead, gains from investment property sales may be deferred using a 1031 exchange, where the seller reinvests the proceeds into another investment property. By contrast, with a primary residence sale, you can use the proceeds however you like, and the gain is excluded up to the allowable limit without any reinvestment requirement. Importantly, even if your income exceeds the thresholds for the 3.8% Net Investment Income Tax (NIIT) ,$200,000 for single filers or $250,000 for joint filers, the portion of the gain excluded under this rule is not subject to NIIT. Only any gain above the $250,000/$500,000 exclusion could be subject to the tax. Most states, including California, conform to the federal exclusion, meaning they also will not tax gains up to the $250,000/$500,000 limit. For those expecting taxable gain, timing the sale in a year with lower income can help reduce the capital gains tax rate, since some or all of the gain may fall into the 0% or 15% capital gains brackets. It's also wise to keep records of capital improvements such as remodels, additions, or system upgrades since these increase your cost basis and reduce the taxable portion of any gain. With proper planning, documentation, and a clear understanding of these rules, many homeowners can sell their primary residence while minimizing or even avoiding capital gains tax.   Companies Discussed: AutoZone, Inc. (AZO), Tilray Brands, Inc. (TLRY), Starbucks Corporation (SBUX) & Wynn Resorts, Limited (WYNN)

Investors have a false sense of safety in the stock market A psychologist by the name of Gerald Wilde came up with the term homeostatic years ago and I believe this is totally relevant in today's market. It essentially means that when the environment comes to feel safer, people's behavior becomes riskier. A great example he used was that people will probably drive faster in a big SUV than in a little tin can of a car. Relating it to today's market, investors seem to feel safer because of the long bull market. As the market continues to rise in the longer term, investors' appetite for risk increases. They do not realize that their behavior is risky because they have a false sense that the market will not drop. While the risk of their investments is high, because of the confirmation day after day of the market going up, they don't feel that they are taking any risk. From my perspective, the risk just seems like it continues to climb as people chase quick returns. AS an example, out of 672 launches of new exchange-traded funds so far this year, according to FactSet, 28% are tied to a single stock and 25% are leveraged and at least three seek to double the daily gains or losses of cryptocurrencies! You may not want to believe it, but there is a lot of risk in markets today and this could all end very poorly for those gambling in the market. Ultimately, there are two different types of investors, one is the long-term investor who is investing to build long-term wealth, while the other investor is in it for entertainment and they enjoy the roller coaster ride with the thrill of gains and the pain of the losses. This is a lot like the addiction that gamblers get. The difference is that long-term investors have odds of nearly 100% when it comes to making money over the long-term. Unfortunately, for those who do a lot of trading and take the higher risk road, well the odds of making money over the long term is closer to zero. If you check the prices of your stocks, I would say much more than a few times a year, you're probably in it for the entertainment and will probably make poor emotional decisions when difficult times come, and they will!   IPOs look hot, don't touch them, you'll get burned! So far in 2025 there have been over 150 IPOs which if you're not familiar with the term, it stands for initial public offering. These IPOs have raised about $29 billion so far this year and it is a nice increase in the total number of IPOs when compared to recent years. At this time last year, just 99 IPOs had occurred and in 2023 it was even worse at 76. The exciting news reads “first day gains are averaging 26%, which is the best since 2020”, but it's important to understand that those eye popping first day gains are not based off the first public trade but rather are gains on shares that were issued prior to heading to the market. Unfortunately, you as an investor have little to no chance of getting those shares as you generally see these go to your institutional investors and high net worth clients of Fidelity, Charles Schwab and other big firms. So, if you can't get the shares before they begin trading is it worth riding the bandwagon? I'm going to explain why the answer is a solid no. First off look at an ETF called Renaissance IPO (IPO). Back in 2021 it hit a high around $75 a share and by 2023 it fell to about $25 a share. With the recent frenzy in IPOs, it has climbed back above 50, but that is still a disappointing return to say the least. Also, this means any investors who bought it in 2021 through 2022 are still underwater. There is generally a ton of volatility around these trades considering when companies do an initial public offering, they're only releasing 15 to 20% of their equity many times and they often come with an initial lockup period of around 180 days, which really reduces the number of shares that are trading. Also, make no mistake that the investment bank that is issuing those shares has an obligation to try to get the opening price as high as possible to get full value for their clients. If it's an oversubscribed IPO, the demand will be higher than the supply, and the price will rise. Unfortunately, that means the company left money on the table that they could've put in their pockets rather than letting investors benefit from those gains. I believe investing in IPOs is a high-risk game, not to be played with by the average investor. A good example is Newsmax, which was a hot IPO with an issuing price of $10 a share that very quickly went to $265, as of today it is trading around $13 a share. A lot of people have lost their shirts, and I doubt they will get them back. To me the safer play to benefit from the increased number of IPOs is the banks handling this process considering they should be seeing a nice increase in profits. This would include your large players like JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs. As of now there are other highly anticipated IPOs that could occur over the next year with names like robo-advisor Wealthfront, crypto firm Grayscale Investments, financial-technology firm Stripe, and sports apparel and betting company Fanatics all potentially hitting the public market.    What's going on with the real estate market? This week we got both existing and new home sales for the month of August and there was a stark difference in the reports. The headline number for new home sales showed an increase of 15.4% compared to last year, while existing home sales were up just 1.8% over that timeframe. The first important consideration here is new home sales can be extremely volatile on a month-to-month basis, and they make up a smaller portion of overall sales. Pre-pandemic, new home sales were normally around 10% of total sales, but with the limited listings in recent years they have been closer to 30% of all sales. One other reason for the large difference is how the reports are calculated. New home sales look at people that were out shopping and signing deals in August, while existing home sales look at closings in the month, which means these were deals that were signed in June or July. Interest rates may have played a factor here as rates for the 30-year fixed mortgage were around 6.7-6.8% in June and July vs around 6.5-6.6% in August. This also doesn't include the fact that many homebuilders offer lower rates to entice buyers. The supply of new homes also looks much better for buyers considering there was a 7.4-month supply in August and that was down from a nine-month supply in July. This compares to a 4.6-month supply for existing homes in the month of August. Homebuilders have a much larger need to move homes quickly as many of them don't want them sitting on their balance sheet as that can create risks. This compares to the average home seller that may not have a need to sell their home and when looking at the crazy market from just a couple years ago, I believe many of them have unrealistic expectations for how much their homes are worth and how fast the property will sell. Homes are staying on the market longer at around 31 days on average, which compares to 26 days last year. These factors have led sellers to either pull their listing or even delay listing in the first place. One similarity between the two reports was the annual price appreciation with the median price on existing home sales climbing 2% to $422,600 and the price on new home sales climbing 1.9% to $413,500. These high prices and higher mortgage rates have continued to impact the first-time buyer as their share in the existing home sale market was near historical lows at 28%. With everything considered here I still believe the housing market will remain on a slow upward trajectory with limited supply continuing to battle against affordability concerns.   Financial Planning: Insurance Vs Investments When building a financial plan, it's important to recognize that investments and insurance serve very different purposes. Insurance is designed to protect against loss. Life insurance provides for your family if you pass away, health insurance shields you from crushing medical bills, and auto insurance protects you financially from accidents or damage. You pay a known cost, the premium, to avoid a potentially devastating unknown cost, which makes insurance a valuable safety net. Investments, on the other hand, are meant to grow wealth and produce income. Stocks, bonds, and real estate help your money work for you overtime. While they can experience short-term volatility and uncertainty, most high-quality investments are built on solid foundations and have historically rewarded patience; those who can tolerate the ups and downs are almost guaranteed to come out ahead in the long run. The confusion comes when insurance products, like permanent life policies or annuities, are marketed as investments. While they may promise guarantees or cash value, they usually come with high fees, low returns, limited flexibility, and lots of fine print, making them poor substitutes for true investments. That doesn't mean insurance is bad, it simply means it works best when used for protection, not growth. The healthiest financial plans keep the roles clear: use insurance to protect and use investments to build wealth. Mixing the two often results in an expensive compromise that doesn't perform well on either front.   Companies Discussed: Compass, Inc. (COMP), PACCAR Inc. (PCAR) & Amazon, Inc. (AMZN)

Retail sales are still surprisingly strong Although the labor market has been softening and consumers say they are worried about inflation, people are still spending money. August retail sales were up 5% compared to last year and if the annual decline of 0.7% in gasoline stations was excluded, sales would have increased 5.5% compared to last August. Strength was broad based in the report and outside of gasoline stations the only other major categories that saw declines were department stores where sales were down 1% and building material & garden equipment & supplies dealers, which fell 2.3%. Non-store retailers continued to be a dominant category as sales climbed 10.1% and food services and drinking places still saw impressive growth of 6.5%. It's because of reports like this that I worry the Fed may make a mistake if they cut rates too quickly. If they overstep, they run the risk of overheating the economy and putting added pressure on inflation.    Are quarterly reports necessary for public companies? President Trump floated the idea of switching company reports from quarterly to semiannual. It appears Trump believes this will help companies focus more on the long-term business performance rather than fixating on short-term quarterly numbers. There's also hope this will save time and money for public corporations. The SEC acknowledged they are actively looking into the plan as a spokesperson for the agency stated, "At President Trump's request, Chairman [Paul] Atkins and the SEC is prioritizing this proposal to further eliminate unnecessary regulatory burdens on companies." Being a long-term investor, I can see the benefits of changing this requirement as one quarter should not dictate your decision on whether you should buy, sell, or hold a business. Ultimately, a change like this wouldn't have a real impact on my investment philosophy and if this enabled companies to focus more on the long term and helps with costs, I would be in favor of giving companies the option to make this switch. In terms of the long-term focus, both Jamie Dimon and Warren Buffett have spoken out against not necessarily the quarterly reports, but the quarterly guidance. In a 2018 op-ed piece for the Wall Street Journal, the pair said, “In our experience, quarterly earnings guidance often leads to an unhealthy focus on short-term profits at the expense of long-term strategy, growth and sustainability.” As for the regulatory burden, I'm sure there is hope this would help entice companies to come public. There has been a huge shift in companies staying private longer and I do believe the compliance piece deters some from coming public. I'm sure there are other reasons for staying private, including control and other liquidity avenues that weren't as prominent years ago. Nonetheless, it is concerning that the number of publicly listed companies in the U.S. has fallen from more than 7,000 in 1996 to around 4,000 today.    Is your financial advisor "quiet retiring"? You may not completely understand what “quiet retiring” means, but a few years ago, my son Chase and I were on the Dr. Phil Show because they were doing an episode on what they called “quit quitting”. Chase and I were on the pro side for business and working hard, while the other side essentially felt they should still get paid the same amount and not work hard. So, I have coined the phrase, “quiet retiring”. I have been seeing this happen in the financial service industry, especially considering the fact that the average US financial advisor is 56 years old. I have noticed more of them feel they deserve to play more golf or travel more than the average person since they seem to be in retirement mode. They are not telling their clients this and they have their admin staff handle most of the routine details so you, the client, really don't know that they are not working that much behind the scenes. Hence the term "quiet retiring". Something you definitely should find out is how much your financial advisor is working? Especially if they're in their mid to late 50s because you may not have the person with the most experience watching your investments. This is very important when it comes to preparing for and weathering through difficult times. If your financial advisor is talking about retiring in the near future, be sure to understand fully what the succession plan is and who you will be dealing with. It has now been known in the industry for a few years that the average age of financial advisors is getting older and less younger advisors are coming into the industry. Be sure you understand who your financial advisor really is, who is watching your portfolio and is your investment advisor one of those that is quiet retiring?   Understand the risk of low rated bonds Some investors rightly so have started selling some stocks and they are not excited about buying more stocks at this time. As we've been saying for quite a while now, we think this is a wise move to sell some stocks that are overpriced, but unfortunately, it seems investors got used to the high returns and they have turned to low rated high-yield bonds. According to JPMorgan Chase, issuance of junk rated bonds and loans hit a monthly record of $240 billion in July. In 2025, $930 billion has been raised through junk bonds and loans. Add that to the over $1 trillion in junk bonds from 2024 and you can see that the risk for investors is starting to increase. Most investors will not buy these individual junk bonds, but they have been plowing money into the high yield mutual funds and exchange traded funds, also known as ETFs. If you dig a little bit deeper, you find some companies are raising money foolishly like a company called TransDigm Group. The company issued nearly a $5 billion high yield bond in August to pay a dividend to their shareholders. We like companies that pay dividends, but it should be from cash flow not from borrowing money that has to be paid back. Business development companies are also back in the news, and these businesses make private loans to small and midsize companies. Over the 12-month period ending in June, private loan activity increased by 33%. I have similar concerns with business development companies and private credit, which I believe will have a crash sometime in the future and cost investors more money than they anticipated. The current default rate on higher yield bonds is 4.7%, which is not bad, but it is not good either. If interest rates on the long end were to increase, which I think is a good possibility the need for debt increases. This could slow the economy and cause some of these smaller companies that have these high-yield loans to default and file bankruptcy, which means investors would lose money. It is nice to get a 10 to 20% return on your portfolio, but sometimes when things are expensive, you have to be conservative and while that may cost you some of the upside, the downside can be a lot nastier than you realize!   Financial Planning: Dealing with underwater cars About a quarter of vehicles traded in today carry negative equity, with the average shortfall around $6,500. This happens because cars depreciate quickly, and the trade-in value offered by a dealership is the lowest number you'll see—less than what you might get in a private sale, and well below the dealer's eventual resale price.  Because of this depreciation, about 40% of financed vehicles on the road carry negative equity. While it's possible to roll negative equity into a new auto loan, that often creates a deeper hole: you're financing more than the car is worth, and the new vehicle immediately begins its own depreciation cycle. Lenders may approve the loan, but the higher loan-to-value ratio can lead to higher interest rates or tighter terms. GAP insurance can be used to cover the difference between a car's actual value and what's owed in the event of a total loss, but it doesn't prevent the financial strain of trading in too early, and it comes with an extra cost. With so many vehicles underwater, the safer move for most people is to keep driving the current car until the balance catches up with its value rather than trading in and compounding the problem or bring more cash to the deal, so you don't have to finance as much.   Companies Discussed: Zillow Group, Inc (Z), Workday, Inc. (WDAY), Lyft, Inc. (LYFT) & Synopsys, Inc. (SNPS)

Should members of Congress be allowed to trade stocks? I recently saw there was a bipartisan bill presented in the House that would ban lawmakers from trading individual stocks. I feel like we have been hearing about this for years, and according to NPR, “For more than a decade, a series of bills have been proposed to address such trades, but differences about the details and a lack of support from top congressional leaders stalled past reform efforts.” The question is, will this time be different? The bill made me curious though about how active congress was when it came to trading and let's just say I couldn't believe the numbers! In 2022 154 members of Congress made 14,752 trades, in 2023 118 members made 11,491 trades, in 2024 113 members made 9,261 trades, and through July of 2025 108 members made 7,810 trades. That is a crazy amount of activity and I'm not sure how they even have time for that. Their returns were also quite impressive with Democrats producing an average return of 31.1% in 2024 and Republicans producing an average return of 26.1%. For reference, the S&P 500 was up 23.3%. The numbers were quite staggering when you look at the individual performance of some of these politicians. In 2024, Rep. David Rouzer (R-NC) was up 149.0%, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) was up 142.3%, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) was up 123.8%, Rep. Roger Williams (R-TX) was up 111.2% and Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) rounded out the top ten with 70.9% return. These are hedge funds that are beating returns in several cases! Personally, I think it is ridiculous that politicians can trade individual stocks, and I hope there is finally action in Congress that ends it!   There are risks to Nvidia stock that you may not realize! There is no denying what Nvidia has done has been extremely impressive, but one major problem with the company is the revenue is extremely concentrated. Their top customers made up 23% of total revenue in the recent quarter, which was up from 14% in the same quarter last year. Their second largest customer made up 16% of total revenue, which was up from 11% in the same quarter last year. Sales to four other customers contributed 14%, 11%,11%, and 10% of revenue respectively. This means that six customers accounted for 85% of Nvidia's total sales. My concern is what if one of them drops out of the AI arms race or if a few of them pull back spending, that could really slow Nvidia's business. I also believe that China is a risk to Nvidia. While sales have been hindered in the country due to political constraints, I believe many investors are looking to China as an area of potential growth for the company. All I can say to that, is do you really think the Chinese government wants Chinese companies using Nvidia chips? It was reported that Alibaba has recently developed an advanced chip, and I'd assume Huawei and other Chinese companies are racing to compete against Nvidia. While Nvidia stock essentially just keeps climbing, it's important to realize there are several risks that could take the stock down!    Understanding more about AI and why it's becoming more expensive We are no expert on artificial intelligence, but we have learned that while AI has gotten smarter it has also gotten more expensive. It is now broken down into a unit of AI which is known as a token and while the price of tokens continues to drop, the number of tokens needed to accomplish a task is increasing dramatically. There are two basic attributes to AI, one is called training, and the other is AI inference. The increase in cost is coming from the training side that has to use large models and demands even more costly processing. AI applications are using so-called reasoning and new forms of AI double check queries on their answers, which may include scanning the entire Web. Sometimes they write their own programs to calculate things all before releasing an answer that may only be a short sentence. Delivering meaningful and better responses takes a lot more tokens to complete that process. Looking at examples, basic chatbot Q&A requires 50 to 500 tokens. Short document summaries can be used anywhere from 200 tokens to 6000 tokens. Lawyers and paralegals who use legal document analysis require 5,000 to 250,000 tokens. If one is trying to do multi-step agent workflows, well now you're looking at 100,000 to over 1 million tokens. Please understand when we talk tokens we're not talking about anything that has to do with cryptocurrencies, and this is a different token pertaining to AI. Some big companies are spending $100 billion a year or more to create cutting-edge AI models and building out their infrastructure. However, for all that investment there needs to be a return on investment, and businesses and individuals will eventually have to pay more for artificial intelligence. The CFO of Open AI said last October that 75% of the company's revenue comes from your average person paying $20 a month. Currently the cheapest AI models, which includes Open AI‘s new ChatGPT – 5 nano is costing around $.10 per million tokens but go to the top-of-the-line GPT -5 and that costs about $3.44 per million tokens. What they are trying to figure out is what the consumer will pay for AI.  There is also concern about how long the big giants can keep up this spending when they're competing with their own   Financial Planning: 529 Withdrawal Pitfalls A 529 plan is a tax-advantaged savings account designed to help families pay for education costs, with contributions growing tax-deferred and withdrawals tax-free when used for “qualified education expenses” such as college tuition, fees, books, and room and board. A qualified withdrawal avoids taxes and penalties, while a non-qualified withdrawal means the earnings portion (not contributions) is subject to federal and state income tax plus a 10% federal penalty. The IRS also allows up to $10,000 per year, or $20,000 in 2026, per student for K–12 tuition, and under the One Big Beautiful Bill signed on July 4, 2025, Congress expanded 529 qualified expenses to include not just K–12 tuition, but also fees, books, and required supplies for primary and secondary education. However, California does not conform to this expansion and continues to treat K–12 withdrawals of any kind as non-qualified, taxing the earnings and applying a 2.5% state penalty. This mismatch means California families using 529 funds for K–12 costs may face unexpected taxes and penalties despite the new federal flexibility.  Keep this in mind if you are considering funding a 529 plan.   Companies Discussed: Lululemon Athletica Inc. (LULU), Broadcom Inc. (AVGO), PepsiCo, Inc. (PEP) & DocuSign, Inc. (DOCU)  

You don't always need to pick the hot technology stocks to get great returns Investing is very emotional and it's always nice to be part of the crowd and buy the hot stocks like Apple, Alphabet and Amazon, but they are not always the top performers. Sometimes your boring, undervalued companies can do very well. As an example, Apple over the years has performed nicely, but over the last five years the gain was 114%. Not a bad return, but if you held a boring company like Tractor Supply over the same five years, you would have a gain of 119%. Even an old insurance company like Allstate over the last five years was up 115%. Five years ago, if you saw the value in a company called Tapestry, which owns Coach and Kate Spade, your return was over 545%. Apple's not the only big tech company that was surpassed by these boring companies. If you look at Amazon over the last five years, you'll see a return of only 49%. One other area that is often discounted is that many of your boring companies are also paying dividends and generating cash flow that can be used to purchase other equities on sale. You may be thinking Apple does pay at dividend but it's important to note the yield is only 0.45%. Sometimes being boring is good and not being so concentrated in the hot stocks can pay off in the long run. I especially think this will be the case as we look out over the next 5-10 years!   Another weak job report likely solidifies a Fed rate cut August non-farm payrolls increased by just 22,000, which was well below the estimate of 75,000. This weak report also comes with another month of negative revisions as employment in June and July combined is 21,000 lower than previously reported. Healthcare and social assistance continued to lift the headline number as the sectors added 31k and 16k jobs respectively. Many other areas in the report actually saw declines with payrolls in construction falling 7,000, manufacturing declining 12,000, and professional and business services dropping 17,000. Government also saw a decline of 16,000 jobs and I worry this is a ticking time bomb since employees on paid leave or receiving ongoing severance pay are counted as employed in the establishment survey and those that opted to take the government's offer at the beginning of the year will start coming off severance pay as the deal lasted through September. The most recent data I saw was that 75,000 federal employees took the offer, but not all were accepted into the program. I guess we will see the actual data and its impact over the next couple of months. With the weakness, I was surprised to see leisure and hospitality produce a gain of 28,000 jobs in the month. While much of this sounds concerning, the unemployment rate held relatively steady at 4.3% and that doesn't incorporate the fact that 1.9 million or 25.7% of all unemployed people were jobless for 27 weeks or more. My belief is that many of those that have been unemployed that long are skewing the data as I can't imagine they have been looking for a job that hard. With the unemployment rate low and deportations potentially weighing on the supply of workers, I just don't see how it would be possible to maintain strong job growth given the limited supply. Because of this I still don't remain overly concerned by the weak showing. Even with my lack of concern, this will likely lead to a Fed rate cut this month with markets now essentially putting odds for a 25-basis point cut at 100% and even a 50-basis point cut is now on the table with markets putting those odds at 12% after the job print. That's up from a zero percent chance on Thursday.   Should you panic over the job opening data? The Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey showed job openings fell to 7.18 million in the month of July. This was below the estimate of 7.4 million and also marked the lowest reading since September 2024. It was only the second time since the end of 2020 that job openings came in below 7.2 million. While this may sound troubling, I believe it just illustrates how crazy the labor market got after Covid. If we look at job openings before 2020, nearly 7.2 million openings would have been a great number. In 2016, job openings averaged 5.86 million; in 2017, job openings averaged 6.12 million; in 2018, job openings averaged 7.11 million; and in 2019, job openings averaged 7.15 million. So, while the headline may sound troubling, I still believe we could have job openings fall into the low 6 million range and it wouldn't be problematic, especially given the fact that unemployment remains extremely low. Even with that, I do believe the Fed will use this as further evidence of a softening labor market and that will give them the excuse to cut rates at the meeting this month. I'm still not convinced that is the right move, but we did hear from Fed Governor Christopher Waller, who is supposedly on the short list to replace Powell as Fed chair, that he believes there should be multiple cuts over the next few months, saying interest rates today are perhaps 1.0 to 1.5 percentage points above their “neutral” level.    American luxury brands are destroying Europe's luxury brands It appears that European luxury brands like Gucci, Hermes and LVMH have increased their prices beyond what the average consumer is willing to pay. Currently, American consumers are spending the lowest share of discretionary income on luxury goods since 2019. The European luxury brands seem to have their heads in the clouds thinking American consumers would pay any price for a luxury purse from Europe. I think they have now discovered that the American consumer has reached their limit.  Two luxury American brands have benefited from the ignorance of the European luxury brands. Both Ralph Lauren and Tapestry, which owns Coach and Kate Spade, have seen their sales increase. A chart of these luxury brands stocks shows European brands dropping while American brands have been increasing. One may be thinking now is the time to step in and buy Tapestry or Ralph Lauren, but with the recent stock increase they are no longer a great value as Ralph Lauren trades at over 20 times forward earnings and Tapestry is now over 19 times forward earnings. I would take a different side of the coin as I believe investors should understand that the European luxury brands will likely not just sit on their hands and do nothing and they will likely try and win back market share. With the increase in prices over the years I'm sure the profit margins are very fat, and they may have a good amount of space to do some heavy discounts to get their market share back. Both Tapestry and Ralph Lauren are dealing with the current tariff situation and that could hurt their profit margins going forward as well. On a side note, in years past we have warned people paying the high prices for European purses that they would not appreciate as much if at all. I have not researched it, but I feel pretty confident that if sales are down as much as they are, the resale on those expensive purses has probably dropped as well.   Financial Planning: Mortgage rates reach 2025 low Mortgage rates have fallen to their lowest level of the year, reaching levels not seen since last October. Throughout 2025, 30-year mortgage rates have fluctuated between 6.5% and 7%, and as of Friday, September 5, they dipped as low as 6.29%. While this presents an opportunity for buyers and homeowners considering a refinance, caution is warranted. Rates are still likely to experience volatility even as the broader declining trend continues over the next several years. In 2024, mortgage rates actually rose at year-end despite the Federal Reserve implementing three rate cuts. In 2025, it is widely expected that the Fed will cut again in September, with additional cuts likely by year-end. This current window of lower rates may be worth taking advantage of, but paying upfront points may not be wise just yet, as there will likely be future opportunities to capture even lower rates.   Companies Discussed: The Kraft Heinz Company (KHC), Best Buy Co., Inc. (BBY), Snowflake Inc. (SNOW) & Alphabet Inc. (GOOGL)

Yet another warning on private investments! I remember hearing about a company by the name of Yieldstreet a few years ago and how it was a new way for smaller investors to get access to private investments and diversify away from stocks. The company promoted their platform with the tagline, “Invest like the 1%.” Unfortunately, it is now coming out that several investors may have lost everything they invested in the platform. One gentleman shared with CNBC how he invested $400,000 in two real estate projects: A luxury apartment building in downtown Nashville overseen by former WeWork CEO Adam Neumann's family office, and a three-building renovation in the Chelsea neighborhood of New York. Each project had targeted annual returns of around 20%. After three years, Yieldstreet declared the Nashville project a total loss, which wiped out $300k of his funds and the Chelsea deal needs to raise fresh capital or it will face a similar fate. Unfortunately, he is not alone and CNBC reviewed documents that show investors put more than $370 million into 30 real estate projects that have already recognized $78 million in defaults in the past year. Yieldstreet customers who spoke to CNBC say they anticipate deep or total losses on the remainder. Looking into this platform in more detail, it's crazy what they were doing. Their portfolio doesn't just consist of real estate as there is also private equity, private credit, art, crypto, and other less common investments. It appears Yieldstreet makes money by charging a management fee of around 2% on invested funds. The craziest part to me though was in several cases, Yieldstreet went to its userbase to raise rescue funds for troubled deals and told members the loans combined the protections of debt with the upside of equity. But in one case, a $3.1 million member loan to rescue a Nashville project was wiped out after just a few months! One of the big problems with these platforms is professional large investors are more disciplined when looking at investing in this space and the smaller players may be getting the bad deals that are passed over by the more established players. It's unfortunate to see people lose money like this, but this is why I avoid the private investment space. There is just not enough clarity and in many cases these platforms seem to be in it for themselves rather than for their investors. I will continue to invest in good, quality equities as I worry, we will continue to hear stories like this from investors who put money into private investments thinking they were investing in a safer asset, just to find out years later there is nothing left.     Will tariffs hurt this holiday season? Here we are already at the end of August and before you know it, you'll be thinking about putting out the Christmas lights and decorating your home. For the past few years, we have seen growth in holiday sales, but this year could be different as it appears from recent conference calls from CEOs at Walmart, Home Depot and Target that they are seeing the tariff increases starting to come through. During his recent conference call, the CEO of Walmart, Doug McMillon, said that the impact of tariffs has been gradually increasing to protect the consumer, but he also said that the company is seeing cost increases each week as it rebuilds inventories with new products post tariff. He also mentioned that they may not be able to protect the consumer from rising prices much longer. What is also bad about this is that retail sales may rise, but consumers will receive less product to put under the Christmas tree considering sales are not adjusted for inflation. This could be the delayed inflation that Jerome Powell and the Federal Reserve has been waiting for and unfortunately, it may show up when people begin shopping for Christmas gifts. Maybe there should not be an interest rate cut in September after all?    Should you work in retirement? When many people are in their working years, they can't wait to retire so they can do what they want to do. For some people that retirement works out well, but science has shown that there's health benefits to working in retirement along with financial benefits. The health benefits would include more physical activity as you're not laying around the house or sitting in the rocking chair on the front porch. Instead, you're moving around walking places and staying active. Working also helps you stay connected with other people, which has been proven to extend your life. The financial benefits from working in your later years would include taking out less from your retirement accounts to maintain a good lifestyle. Also, you can hold off on Social Security which means you'd get a larger Social Security check when you do decide to collect. The type of work you do depend on you and some people in retirement have started a second career that is a job that they always wanted to do. Some people just work part time to stay active and involved. If you're in retirement, you can take a low stress job because you don't really need all the income to cover your expenses as long as you have the financial accounts/investments to do so.   Financial Planning: The challenge of creating retirement income For decades, American workers relied on pensions, but today retirement security largely depends on defined contribution plans like the 401(k), where the burden has shifted to the individual saver. The real challenge comes when it is time to turn a pile of assets into a reliable, inflation-adjusted income stream that can last 20–30 years. Some retirees look to CDs and Treasury bills, which are guaranteed and currently pay about 4% interest, but they offer no appreciation to offset inflation and yields will likely decline as short-term rates drop. Corporate bonds may provide a slightly higher return, but they come with interest rate, credit, duration, and reinvestment risks that often outweigh the modest extra yield. Others consider annuities, which can create a pension-like income stream, but these require handing over principal, and because they are designed by insurance companies, the terms typically favor the provider rather than the investor. High-dividend stocks can also be appealing, but they may be a trap, as struggling companies often have elevated yields due to falling stock prices, which can be compounded further if the dividend is cut. On the other end of the spectrum, broad market indexes like the S&P 500 and Nasdaq have been popular for growth, but their dividend yields remain low, around 1.2% and 0.8% respectively, forcing investors to sell shares for income, and poorly timed sales can shorten portfolio longevity. Even dividend aristocrats, known for steadily increasing payouts, currently only yield about 2% to 2.5% on average. There is no simple solution, but one truth stands out: accumulating assets is very different than generating income from them. Retirees need a clear income plan before leaving the workforce in order to maximize both security and enjoyment in retirement.   Companies Discussed: Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. (CBRL), Zoom Communications Inc. (ZM), Ralph Lauren Corporation (RL) & Viking Holdings LTD. (VIK)  

How much will EV car makers lose in credits? The nations Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE, standards are still in place; however, penalties for violating those standards have been removed. So obviously there's no incentive for any car maker to abide by them. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is focusing on standards to try to make cars more affordable again. But the big EV car makers, I will call them the big three which are Tesla, Rivian, and Lucid will have some difficulties. The credits were tradable and the EV car makers were making a lot of money selling the credits to car makers who were not meeting the required standards. Tesla will probably be OK, but I think their stock could be at risk because the credits have amounted to more than $12 billion in revenue since 2008 and that essentially is pure profit. In the most recent quarter Tesla said a loss of the credit revenue will reduce revenue by about $1.1 billion. Rivian, whose stock price in May finally showed some sign of hope trading above $16 a share has now dropped back down to around $12 a share and has said they had received over $400 million in revenue over the years and the credits accounted for 6.5% of the total revenue in the first half of 2025. I do believe with the loss of the credits and lower gas prices, Rivian may have trouble staying afloat in future years. Lucid will probably be hurt the most as they said the credits represented a significant share of their revenue. I have not looked at this company recently, but I still believe their balance sheet looks very risky and this could be the final nail in the coffin for this business. A couple years ago the stock was trading around four dollars a share and it is now trading just above two dollars a share. I'm pretty confident we will not see this company around in the next two or three years. The winners in this situation are the legacy automakers that were buying the credit, GM for example has spent $3.5B since 2022 to purchase CAFE credits.   Stay away from interval funds! I have been seeing more of these interval funds when we take over accounts for new clients and let me tell you I am not a fan of them. They appear to be normal mutual funds, but when you go to sell them, you find out you can only sell once per quarter. The other problem is when you enter the sell, the next day you realize you still own shares in the fund. The reason for that is product's unique structure typically allows investors to redeem just 5% of a fund's assets! I'm sure most people have no idea when their advisor or themselves buy these funds that they will be locked in them for years to come. For example, I first saw these about 4 years ago with a new client and we still have not been able to fully exit the position. The reason withdrawals are limited is because the funds generally invest in illiquid assets, so managers want to make sure investors can't exit in masse and force the manager to sell securities at fire sale prices. As many of you know, we are not fans of illiquid investments because if things go south, you have no way of exiting these positions in an efficient manner. The allure here for many is that retail investors with less investible assets generally don't have the same access to as many private equity, venture capital, real estate, and private debt deals, so interval funds enabled those investors with minimums as low as $1,000 to gain exposure to the space. I would not recommend investments in any of those assets, but it just appears these are sold as a way for people to invest “like the wealthy”. A big problem here is the fees are just crazy! According to Morningstar, of the 307 interval fund share classes currently available, the median fund's total expense ratio is 3.02%. A big reason for the high fees is they include the cost of leverage, which these funds use in many cases to amplify returns…. That doesn't risky! Even if we exclude leverage costs though, the median expense ratio is still 2.18%. Brian Moriarty, a principal on Morningstar's fixed-income strategies team had some interesting things to say after researching the space. He concluded before deducting any fees or incorporating any leverage, there was little difference between private-credit interval funds and public bank loan mutual funds and exchange-traded funds. However, after incorporating leverage, interval funds have beaten traditional loan and high-yield bond funds, as they've had about 1.3 times exposure on average to such debt in a rising market, but the problem is they will also have that exposure in a falling one. Needless to say, you will not fund us buying any of these funds in our portfolios at Wilsey Asset Management!   ESPN just launched a new streaming product and I'm more confused than ever! I like streaming because it gives more flexibility in choosing what you want to watch, but gosh there are so many different apps and so many different bundles to choose from now. I believe it has just gotten more and more confusing and companies seem to keep increasing the prices for their services. Just this year Netflix increased their prices for various tiers, but the tier with ads went from $6.99 to $7.99, Peacock went from $7.99 to $10.99, and Apple just recently went from $9.99 to $12.99. Apple has been aggressive with pricing considering in 2022 you could get the service for just $4.99 and I personally believe it may be the worst value as I don't think their content justifies that price point. In terms of new services, ESPN just launched it's new service to allow consumers access to its programming without needing to get cable, but the price is quite high at $29.99 per month. Fox also just announced its new streaming service for $19.99 per month. You add these services to other like Disney+, Paramount+, HBO Max, and Hulu and the costs seem to just get quite ridiculous. For me I don't use all the services so I save money on streaming vs traditional cable, but during football season they really get you. Since the league splits its games among so many providers you're almost forced to have Fox, ESPN, Peacock, Paramount+, Amazon Prime, and now even Netflix carries some of the games. I'm not even going to throw in Sunday Ticket into that mix, which now costs almost $480 for returning users. It's now gotten to the point where I wish these sports leagues would just go direct to consumer to keep things simple. What do you think, has the complexities in streaming gotten out of hand?   Financial Planning: Form SSA-44 to Reduce Medicare Premiums When you retire, your income often drops significantly, but Medicare bases its Income-Related Monthly Adjustment Amount (IRMAA) on your tax return from two years prior when you may have been earning much more. This can result in unnecessarily high Medicare premiums at the start of retirement. For example, in 2025, a married couple with income above $212,000 begins to trigger IRMAA increasing premiums by $1,000 to over $6,000 per person per year depending on how high the income is.  If that couple retires and their income falls to less than $212,000, they would still be charged the higher IRMAA unless they file Form SSA-44 to report “Work Stoppage” as a life-changing event. By filing, Medicare will use their new, lower income to set premiums, potentially saving thousands of dollars per year. If you're nearing retirement or have recently retired, beware of the Medicare costs and consider filing this form to avoid paying too much.    Companies Discussed: Ventas, Inc. (VTR), KinderCare Learning Companies, Inc. (KLC), C3.ai, Inc. (AI) & Brinker International, Inc. (EAT)  

Unfortunately, more Americans are using their 401(k)'s for financial emergencies I'm sure some will disagree with me based on the headlines arguing they were so happy that they had their 401(k) to tap for whatever their financial emergency was. In my opinion, people are thinking short term and not thinking about the long-term crisis when they retire in 20 or 30 years and then might be living at the poverty level because their 401(k) was not large enough to generate a decent income and social security was far less than they thought. I also want people to understand based on how fast medical technology is moving, in 20 to 30 years you may be spending more time in retirement than the 20 years or so that you were thinking. The numbers are frightening when I look at them and I have wished many times that the 401(k) would eliminate the ability to access funds before retirement like the old pension plans from companies. According to Vanguard, 2024 saw a record of 4.8% of workers that took a hardship distribution for a financial emergency. This was more than double the 2% level in 2019. Even more frightening was nearly 33% of people decided to take and cash in their 401(k) when they changed jobs in spite of the fact of paying taxes and penalties as opposed to rolling that retirement over to an IRA rollover or their new 401K plan. Congress in their infinite wisdom has made it easier to qualify for withdrawals from 401(k)'s for emergencies. I believe the Congress that set up the 401K in 1978 under The Revenue Act of 1978 did not envision the raiding of 401(k)'s for emergencies. I'm pretty confident in 1978 Congress felt this would be a great retirement plan for all Americans, not an emergency fund of to pay off debt. I highly recommend before people take any money out of the 401(k), they talk to a real financial professional to understand the taxes and penalties they are paying. It's not just the taxes and penalties, and one should also figure out the future value of what that account could have grown to and how that withdrawal could devastate their retirement!   Inflation report shows some positives and some negatives The July Consumer Price Index, also known as CPI, showed an annual increase of 2.7%, which was in line with June's reading and below the expectation of 2.8%. The headline number was helped by energy, which showed an annual decline of 1.6%, largely thanks to a decline of 9.5% for gasoline. Energy services on the other hand were not as favorable considering an increase of 5.5% for electricity and 13.8% for utility (piped) gas service. I do wonder if the power demand for these large data centers is starting to put a strain on the grid and I worry this could become even more problematic. As for core CPI, which excludes food and energy, it was up 3.1% from a year ago and was slightly above the forecast of 3%. This was a slight increase from the 2.9% level in June and the highest annual increase since February. Surprisingly, shelter continues to be a large reason for the elevated inflation rate as it was still up 3.7% compared to last year. In terms of tariffs showing up in the report, it still appeared to be subdued. Furniture was up 7.6% compared to last year, but other areas that I would anticipate seeing pressure like apparel and new vehicles saw little change. New vehicle prices were up just 0.4% compared to last year and apparel prices were actually lower by 0.2%. I did see an economist point out the fact that core goods inflation on an annual basis registered the largest growth in over two years, but at 1.2% I wouldn't say that is putting strain on the economy. These tariffs will likely put continued pressure on inflation, but if other areas like shelter continue to see less inflation that could counteract that pressure and keep overall inflation in a manageable situation. Based on the slowing labor market and these manageable levels of inflation I do believe the Fed should cut in September.   What does the national debt surpassing $37 trillion mean for you?  On Tuesday, August 12th, the United States national debt passed $37 trillion for the first time ever. The debt is growing at about $6 billion per day, but that appears to be better than last year. In July 2024, the national debt passed $35 trillion and then in November 2024 it surpassed $36 trillion. Looking for some positives here, it did take nine months for the debt to grow another $1 trillion to the $37 trillion mark. At the end of the second quarter, debt to GDP stood at 119.4%, which is manageable but should not go much higher. Hopefully we can have a slowdown in debt expansion or maybe even a reversal and still have the GDP increase. The reason having a high national debt is a negative is it takes investment out of the private sector to fund our national debt, which can slow down the growth in our economy. A large national debt can also cause interest rates to increase as the need for more debt often means offering higher interest rates to attract buyers. It is also important to know that even when the Federal Reserve cuts interest rates, that generally has a larger impact on the short end of the curve, which includes instruments like treasury bills. Your long-term debt, such as 5–10-year notes are not controlled by what the Federal Reserve does and instead is based on supply and demand. It would not be a wise move for the government to only issue short-term debt for a lower rate because if rates were to increase in the future for whatever reason, that could cause our national debt to grow out of control and potentially cause a financial collapse. Also, keep in mind that generally mortgage rates align with the rates for longer term debt and now with some car loans being six or seven years, the interest rates for those loans will probably not drop because they are now longer-term loans not the old 3-to-4-year loans they used to be. We are not in trouble yet, but we are getting close to the edge and we need to grow the economy and still reduce the national debt so our country can continue to prosper and grow.   Financial Planning: Changes Coming to Charitable Giving The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed on July 4, 2025, delivers some new changes coming to how charitable giving may be deducted. For the first time since the pandemic-era CARES Act, those who claim the standard deduction will be able to deduct cash donations up to $1,000 for single filers and $2,000 for joint filers.  This will act as an above-the-line deduction in addition to the standard deduction.  For itemizers, however, the law imposes a new 0.5% of AGI floor, meaning only contributions above that threshold will count toward deductions, potentially reducing benefits for those making smaller annual gifts. For example, a tax filer with an AGI of $200,000 receives no tax benefit on the first $1,000 (.5%) of donations. Also, itemizers are not able to take advantage of the $1,000 to $2,000 above-the-line charitable deduction that standard deduction filers can.  In addition, high earners who are in the 37% tax bracket will only receive a 35% deduction on charitable donations. All of these changes go into effect in 2026, so those claiming the standard deduction may want to wait until then while itemizers and high earners may want to make donations before the end of the year.   Companies Discussed: Intel Corporation (INTC), UnitedHealth Group Incorporated (UNH), Nexstar Media Group, Inc. (NXST) & Bloomin' Brands, Inc. (BLMN)

Will the stock market crash? With the market continuing to march higher and setting record high after record high, I do worry more and more that a crash could be coming. It doesn't mean it will happen tomorrow, next week, or maybe even this year, but I do believe the risk to reward of investing in the S&P 500 at this point is not favorable when you take all the data into consideration. I have talked a lot about the fact that the top 10 companies now account for nearly 40% of the entire index and the forward P/E multiple of around 22x is well above the 30-year average of 17x, but there are also less discussed factors that are quite concerning. There is something called the Buffett Indicator that looks at the total US stock market value compared to US GDP. Buffet even made the claim at one point that this was “the best single measure of where valuations stand at any given moment." The problem here is that it now exceeds 200%, which is a historic high and well above even the tech boom when it peaked around 150%. Another concerning measure is the Shiller PE ratio, which looks at the average inflation-adjusted earnings from the previous 10 years in relation to the current price of the index. This is now at a multiple around 39x, which is well above the 30-year average of 28.3 and at a level that was only seen during the tech boom. While valuation isn't always the best indicator for what will happen in the next year, it has proven to be a successful tool for long term investing. Unfortunately, valuations aren't my only concern. Margin expansion is even more frightening as the reliance on debt can derail investors. Margin allows investors to buy stocks with debt, but the big problem is if there is a decline and a margin call comes the investor would either have to add more cash or make sells, which causes a further decline in the stock due to added selling pressure. Margin debt has now topped $1 trillion, which is a record, and it has grown very quickly considering there was an 18% increase in margin usage from April to June. This was one of the fastest two month increases on record and rivals the 24.6% increase in December 1999 and the 20.3% increase in May 2007. In case you forgot, both of the periods that followed did not end well for investors. Looking at margin as a share of GDP, it is now higher than during the dot-com bubble and near the all-time high that was reached in 2021. One other concern with the margin level is it does not include securities-based loans, which is another tool that leverages stock positions and if there is a decline could cause added selling pressure. Unfortunately, this data is not as easy to find since they are lumped in with consumer credit. The most recent estimate I could find was in Q1 2024, they totaled $138 billion and with the risk on mentality that has occurred, my assumption is the total would be even higher now. We have to remember that we now are essentially 18 years into a market that has always had a buy the dip mentality. Even pullbacks that occurred in 2020 and 2022 saw rebounds take place quite quickly. This has created a generation of investors that have not actually experienced a difficult market. I always encourage people to study the tech boom and bust as it was devastating for investors. The S&P 500 fell 49% in the fallout from the dotcom bubble and it took about 7 years to recover. Investors in the Nasdaq fared even worse as they saw a 79% drop and it took 15 years to get back to those record levels. Unfortunately, this isn't the only historical period that saw difficult returns. If you look back to the start of 1964, the Dow was at 874 and by the end of 1981 it gained just one point to 875. This was an extremely difficult period that saw Vietnam War spending, stagflation, and oil shocks, but it again illustrates that difficult markets with little to no advancement can occur. So, with all of this, how are we investing at this time? We are maintaining our value approach, which generally holds up much better in difficult markets. For comparison, the Russell 1000 Value index was actually up 7% in 2000 while the Russell 1000 Growth index fell 22.4% that year. We are also maintaining our highest cash position around 25% since at least 2007.  I continue to believe there are opportunities for investors, it just requires discipline and patience. One other person remaining patient at this time is Warren Buffett. Berkshire now has near a record cash hoard of $344.1 billion and the conglomerate has been a net seller of stocks for the 11th quarter in a row. I'd rather follow people like Buffett at times like this over the Meme traders that have become popular once again.   Consumers are doing a better job managing their credit card debt  Data released by Truist Bank analysts show that card holders of both higher and lower scores are doing a better job paying their bills on time. This is based on a drop in the rate of late payments from last quarter. Also improving is debt servicing payments as a percent of consumers disposable personal income. The first quarter shows debt-servicing payments were roughly 11% of disposable income, which is a strong ratio to see considering that level is below what was typical before the start of 2020 and it's far below the 15%-plus levels that were seen leading up to the Great Recession in 2008. According to Fed data, card loan growth was only 3% year over a year, which could be due to lenders increasing their credit standards. Stricter standards also made it more difficult for subprime borrowers to obtain new credit cards considering the fact that as a share of new card accounts, this category accounted for just 16% of all new accounts. This was down roughly 7% from the last quarter in 2022 when it was 23%. Consumers may also be more aware of the high interest costs considering rates stood at 22% as of May. There has been a decrease in rates from the peak last year, but Fed data reveals before interest rates began rising in 2022 interest rates stood at 16% for card accounts. If the Fed were to drop rates a couple of times between now and the end of the year, we could see a small decline in the rate. With that said borrowing money on a credit card and accruing interest is a terrible idea as even a 16% rate would not be worth it!    Real estate investors may be supporting the real estate market. This may sound like a good thing, but this could be dangerous long-term since investors don't live at the property. It would be far easier for them to default on the mortgage and let the house go into foreclosure or sell at a price well below market value just to get their investment back. So far in 2025 investors have accounted for roughly 30% of sales of both existing and newly built homes, which is the highest share on record. This is according to property analytics firm Cotality and they started tracking the sales 14 years ago. Most of these investors were small investors, who own fewer than 100 homes as they accounted for roughly 25% of all purchases. This compares to large investors which accounted for only 5% of purchases of new and existing homes. Within the small investor space, the stronger category is those with just 3-9 properties as this group has accounted for between 14 and 15% of all sales each month this year. The data also shows that the large investors like Invitation Homes and Progress Residential have become net sellers in the market and are selling more properties than they are buying. This is likely due to reduced rents from the high competition in the rental market and a softening of the overall real estate market in certain areas that has not provided the expected return that they wanted. I do worry that the small investor here has less access to good data and is less disciplined with their investment strategy. They are likely buying homes because real estate has been a good investment for the last several years, but if the market were to turn, they would be more likely to panic and sell and they may not have the means to continue holding the real estate. I do believe if interest rates remain, housing prices could remain stable or perhaps even drop a little bit. It's important to remember long term mortgage rates generally stem from longer term debt instruments like a 10-year Treasury, rather than the short-term discount rate set by the Fed.   Financial Planning: When and How a Refinance is Helpful After several years of elevated mortgage rates, steady declines have made more homeowners candidates for refinancing, but a smart decision requires looking beyond the headline interest rate. The first question is whether the refinance actually reduces the rate, and if so, what third-party closing costs and discount points are involved. Every mortgage carries these costs, and paying points may not make sense if rates are expected to fall further and another refinance could be on the horizon, especially since few 30-year mortgages last their full term before a sale or another refi. The structure of the new loan also matters: should costs be paid upfront or rolled into the loan balance, and how long will the loan likely be kept? The real goal is to borrow at the lowest overall cost over the life of the loan, factoring in both the rate and the cost to obtain it. A lower rate and payment may feel like a win, but without careful structuring, it may not be the most cost-effective move, something mortgage brokers often overlook when focusing solely on rate reduction. Here's a real example from just last week. A homeowner with a $580,000 mortgage at 6.875% and a $3,900 monthly payment has the opportunity to refinance to 5.5%, lowering the payment to $3,500 with no additional cash due at closing, and saving roughly $80,000 in total interest over the life of the loan. At first glance, this looks like a no-brainer. However, this structure would only be ideal if the homeowner never had another chance to refinance, which is unlikely given their current rate of 6.875%. In this case, all costs were rolled into a new loan balance of $616,000—an increase of $36,000—explaining why no cash was required at closing. A better approach might be to refinance to a rate only slightly lower than 6.875%, still reducing both the monthly payment and lifetime interest, but without dramatically increasing the loan balance by rolling in discount point costs. Refinances can continue as long as rates are expected to decline, and the best time to pay points is in a “final” refinance when rates are no longer expected to drop so the benefit can be locked in for the long term.   Companies Discussed: Carrier Global Corporation (CARR), Polaris Inc. (PII) & Align Technology, Inc. (ALGN)

Should you be concerned by the jobs report? The July jobs report showed nonfarm payrolls grew by 73k, which missed the estimate of 100k. Unfortunately, the news got even worse as you dug into the report. The prior two months saw major negative revisions as June was revised from 147k to just 14k and May was revised from 125k to just 19k. This amounted to a total negative revision of 258k when looking at the two months combined. Another negative was job growth in the month of July was heavily reliant on health care & social assistance as the category added 73.3k jobs in the month. This means that this category essentially carried the report as the total jobs created in the month topped the full headline number. There were some other areas that saw growth with retail trade adding 15,700 jobs, leisure and hospitality adding 5k jobs, and construction adding 2k jobs. Unfortunately, there were more categories than normal that saw declines with information falling by 2k jobs, government was down 10k jobs, manufacturing declined by 11k jobs, and professional and business services declined by 14k jobs. While all this sounds negative, I still wouldn't panic over this report. The main reason is the unemployment rate remains historically low at 4.2% and layoffs have not materially increased. I would even make the claim that the unemployment rate is healthier than it appears. Of those that are unemployed, the average weeks unemployed now totals 24.1 and those that have been unemployed for more than 27 weeks jumped to 1.82 million, which is about one-quarter of all the unemployed. If you have been out of work more than 27 weeks, how hard have you really been looking or are some of those really just retired now? It seems we are in an environment where companies are keeping their employees and limiting new hires. With more clarity on the trade deals and tariffs now, that could help stabilize the labor market, but my main concern is are there enough qualified candidates to truly fuel job growth? A large problem we have discussed in the past is an aging population that has seen assets climb tremendously, which has enabled many near retirement age the luxury to retire. While I don't want to say this is a negative, the working age population or those between 25 & 54 remained near historical highs around 83%. One positive in the report I didn't discuss yet was the fact that wage inflation came in above expectations at 3.9%, which is nice considering the decline in inflation we have seen this year. While again I may sound negative on this report, I want to be clear that there is no reason to be overly concerned yet, I would be interested to see how the next few reports look before being worried about a potential recession in the near term.   Job openings declined in the month of June The June Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey, commonly referred to as the JOLTs report, showed job openings declined to 7.4 million, down 275,000 from the prior month. While this may sound problematic, it is important to remember this is still a historically healthy level for job openings and it comes against a back drop of a historically low unemployment rate. I have said this for many months, but I believe there is even further room for job openings to decline without there being a problem for the labor market. Taking that concept one step further, I would be quite surprised to see growth in job openings from here. The main reason for that is there just aren't enough people to fill those openings especially since it appears many companies are choosing to retain employees rather than look for new ones. I say this because layoffs continue to remain quite low. In the month of June, they totaled 1.6 million and really since 2021 they have maintained that level with the average monthly total since January 2021 standing around 1.57 million. If we look pre-covid, from December 2000 (when the data first started) to February 2020, layoffs averaged 1.91 million per month. Even though you will always hear news about various companies implementing layoffs, I believe we remain in a healthy labor market with good unemployment and low layoffs. This healthy labor market remains one of the key reasons for why I believe the economy will remain in a good spot for the foreseeable future.   GDP came in stronger expected, another good sign for the economy! While Q2 gross domestic product, also known as GDP, jumped 3% and easily topped the estimate of 2.3%, the numbers were not as strong as the headlines indicate. With the tariffs having a large impact on trade and business inventories, this report is the opposite of Q1 when actual results were much better than the headlines showed. In Q1 companies were likely trying to get ahead of tariffs so they were trying to load up on inventory and import a lot more foreign goods than normal. This led to a 37.9% increase in imports during Q1 which subtracted 4.66% from the headline GDP number. In Q2 we saw a complete reversal as imports fell 30.3% and added 5.18% to the headline GDP number. The change in private inventories was also extremely volatile during these last two periods considering it added 2.59% to the headline number in Q1, but subtracted 3.17% from the headline number in Q2 as many businesses were likely working through excess inventory. I bring all this up not to say that the GDP report was bad and in fact it was still a good number, but rather to show the messiness in the numbers for the first two quarters. We should not see the type of volatility that we have seen in trade going forward as it normally has a small impact on the overall report. The main reason I see Q2 GDP as a good report is because the consumer, which is the main driver in the long-term, held up well. There was a small 1.1% increase in services spending and goods saw an increase of 2.2%. Considering we are primarily a service driven economy; I do worry the goods spending could have been further pull forward in demand as consumers try to get ahead of price increases from tariffs. This could have a negative impact on consumer spending going forward as they may not need to purchase as many goods. With many areas of the report normalizing as we exit the year, I'm still looking for GDP growth that would likely be in the 1-2% range.   Should Banks be responsible when their customers get scammed? It's a sad thing to see someone in their 60s or 70s get scammed out of their life savings. Unfortunately, there are many online scams now and it appears they just keep growing. According to the FBI, in 2024 online scams totaled $16 billion, which was a 33% increase from 2023. A big question that people have been asking is should banks be the ones that are held responsible when it comes to preventing their customers from making poor investment decisions or losing money in online romance scams? Banks are already trying to prevent money laundering, terrorist financing and other types of fraud that is costly for the banks to maintain. Adding another oversight would be another expense for the banks, which could lead to costs elsewhere in the banking system to make up for those added expenses. From the consumer standpoint this could also lead to frustration when trying to get money for legitimate purposes as it could lead to longer review periods for certain transactions or if your account were to get flagged who knows how long it would take to get that resolved. As an example, let's say a teller sees the same person coming in taking out large sums of money on a regular basis, should the teller stop the activity? Again, if it was for legitimate purposes, wouldn't that be frustrating? What something like this would likely mean for banks is they would have to set up departments to review the situations of potential scams and take many hours to discuss with bank employees, the customer and maybe even family members why the withdrawals are taking place. No surprise here, but attorneys in some states have begun going after the banks saying it is their obligation to protect their clients' assets. There are laws that were passed in the 70s that requires banks to report suspicious money laundering activity and even required banks to screen for fraudulent activities and reimburse customers for stolen funds. However, it's limited to criminal impersonations of a customer to get unauthorized access to their accounts. This is different than many of the scams we are seeing today where the customers themselves are taking the money from their own account and sending it to the scammer. In my opinion, the best thing to do is educate people about these scams and if you have parents, be sure to have conversations with them about them before they happen.   Financial Planning: The Secondary Benefits of Roth Accounts While the primary advantage of Roth accounts lies in their tax-free growth and withdrawals in retirement avoiding potentially higher tax rates, there are several powerful secondary benefits worth considering. First, Roth IRAs are not subject to Required Minimum Distributions (RMDs), which means retirees can keep their money growing tax-free for life. In contrast, traditional pre-tax retirement accounts force RMDs beginning at age 75, whether the funds are needed or not. These mandatory withdrawals must be taken as taxable income and cannot be reinvested into another tax-advantaged retirement account. The most similar alternative is a regular taxable brokerage account, where earnings such as interest, dividends, and capital gains are subject to annual taxation—ultimately reducing the net return over time. By avoiding RMDs, Roth accounts allow retirees to maintain greater control over their tax situation and preserve more wealth in a truly tax-advantaged environment. Second, Roth accounts are far more advantageous for heirs. While both Roth and pre-tax retirement accounts are now subject to the 10-year rule—requiring inherited accounts to be fully distributed within 10 years of the original owner's death—the tax treatment is vastly different. Pre-tax inherited accounts are fully taxable to beneficiaries, which can push heirs into higher tax brackets as they're forced to withdraw large sums over a relatively short period. In contrast, inherited Roth accounts allow for the same 10 years of tax-free growth, but the entire balance can be withdrawn tax-free at the end, providing greater flexibility and preserving more value. Third, for individuals whose estates exceed the federal estate tax threshold, Roth accounts offer superior after-tax value. Both Roth and pre-tax accounts are included in the taxable estate, but Roth funds retain their full value since they are not subject to income tax when withdrawn. These features make Roth accounts not just a retirement planning tool, but also a strategic asset for legacy and tax-efficient estate planning.   Companies Discussed: Hasbro, Inc. (HAS), Chipotle Mexican Gill, Inc. (GMG) & Baker Hughes Company (BKR)

Big bank earnings give a cautious green light on the economy Every quarter we get excited about listening to and reading about how things went for the big banks in the most recent quarter as they release their earnings. I'm primarily talking about JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, and Wells Fargo. We have held a couple large banks in our portfolio for years and they have provided very useful information along with great returns as well. Overall, the big banks were happy with the low rates of consumer delinquencies and writing off debt that was unrecoverable stayed around the same rate as last year. One banker made a comment that with a 4.1% unemployment rate it's not likely to see a lot of weakness in their portfolio. This is something we have said for quite a while now, but we believe as long as the employment picture stays strong, the economy should do well. Deal making for the banks looked pretty good across the board and all of them had profit increases compared to one year ago. The overall tone from the bankers was largely upbeat, but a couple banks did call out some concern around commercial real estate and office buildings. There are certain cities with economies that are doing well, but there are other areas that are more problematic and the banks generally have commercial real estate in many markets across the country. To summarize, it appears the bankers feel pretty good, but they still remain somewhat cautious as bankers always should.   Understanding new legislation on cryptocurrencies Last week new legislation on cryptocurrencies was announced as the Genius Act, which stands for Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US stable coins, made its way through Congress and to the President's desk. The legislation is supposed to provide licensing and oversight for stable coins as issuers must obtain licenses through either a national trust bank charter with the OCC, which stands for the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, or a state level money transmission license. The Genius Act is supposed to provide consumer protection in the case of the issuer of a stable coin becoming insolvent. The solution in the Genius Act is to prioritize stable coin holder claims so the holders of those coins should be able to get their money back. This is nowhere near the safety one has in a bank where your deposits are insured by the FDIC should that bank fold. I feel this law will give people a false sense of security and I don't believe it will prevent a major collapse of stable coins. There's also a conflict of interest from President Trump‘s promotion of digital currencies since he himself has a coin and his sons Donald Trump Junior and Eric Trump run a bitcoin mining firm called American Bitcoin and are heavily involved in the crypto space. I believe the whole thing is just adding to the bubble of cryptocurrencies. Keep in mind that a bubble can last 10 to 12 years, if not longer, but the bigger it gets the bigger the financial disaster it causes.   What is better for investors stock dividends or stock buybacks? Unfortunately, there's no hard and fast rule based on performance figures in terms of what is better for stock investors, but I would have to lean towards stock dividends. If you look at the right companies paying dividends over a 10-year period you can find that perhaps the company you invested in is now giving you a yield of maybe 7-8% based on your initial investment. Those dividends can be a really great tool for long-term investing and while companies could always stop the dividend, most companies that have paid a dividend for the long-term do not like to stop or even reduce paying that dividend. This can help stabilize returns during downturns and may help investors be less emotional. A problem with stock buybacks is they can be announced and the stock may see a little bounce, but then it's possible that management does not fulfill the commitment to buy back all the shares they had planned to. Also, if the company or the markets were to hit a rough patch many times the first thing to go is stock buybacks. It is also possible that the company could do a stock buyback, but within a year or two the stock might drop below the price where the repurchases occurred, which would make those investments a questionable use of capital. Benefits to stock buybacks include the fact that there's no taxes for shareholders when they occur and they do increase your ownership of that business. While dividends are generally taxed, they are tax favored and depending on one's tax bracket you may pay very little or no tax at all. And don't forget about the compounding effect of reinvesting those dividends back into another investment. Unfortunately, it has become harder to find good quality companies paying dividends for a reasonable price. Looking at the S&P 500 index, the yield is now only 1.2%, which is near the all-time low that was hit during the dot-com bubble. Over the long-term history of the S&P 500, it's yield is generally around the 10-year Treasury and I was surprised to learn that up until the 1960's, the S&P 500 actually generally yielded more than the 10-year Treasury. Even looking just 10 years ago they were both yielding around 2%, but currently the spread between the two is about 3%. This comes as the S&P 500 has seen its forward P/E based on the next 12 months of earnings expand from 17 to around 22 during that time frame. Could this be another warning sign that the S&P 500 index is overvalued?   Financial Planning: New Tax Rules for Tips and Overtime Starting in tax year 2025 and through 2028, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act exempts up to $25,000 in tip income and up to $12,500 in qualifying overtime pay per individual from federal income tax—doubling to $50,000 and $25,000 respectively for married couples filing jointly. The tip exemption applies only to workers in occupations where tips are customary and must be properly reported through W-2s. The overtime deduction applies only to the premium portion of overtime wages—i.e., the extra pay above an employee's standard hourly rate—and must be paid in accordance with Section 7 of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), meaning it only covers overtime worked in excess of 40 hours per week under federal rules. Overtime paid under state laws or union contracts does not qualify unless it also meets the FLSA criteria. The full exemption is available to taxpayers with modified adjusted gross incomes up to $150,000 (single) or $300,000 (married filing jointly) and begins to phase out above those levels. To claim the exemption, workers must file a new IRS Form 10324-T with their annual tax return. Keep in mind Social Security, Medicare, and state taxes still apply to the tip and overtime pay. The policy begins with wages and tips earned on or after January 1, 2025, with claims first filed on 2025 tax returns in 2026.   Companies Discussed: Union Pacific Corporation (UNP), Toast, Inc. (TOST), American Eagle Outfitters, Inc. (AEO) & Abbot Laboratories (ABT)

Are tariffs impacting inflation yet? The Consumer Price Index, also known as the CPI, in the month of June showed an annual increase of 2.7%, which was in line with expectations. Core CPI, which excludes food and energy, came in at 2.9% and was also in like with expectations. It was slightly above May's reading of 2.8%, but given all the news around tariffs I think most would be surprised to see the limited change in prices given all the concerns. Some economists that tried to find evidence of the tariffs pointed to areas like apparel that had an increase of 0.4% compared to the month May. My concern with pointing out limited areas like that is prices can be quite volatile when looking at single areas, plus if you look at prices for apparel compared to last June, they actually decline 0.5%. Shelter is becoming less of problem for the report, but it is still the largest reason why inflation remains stubborn considering the annual increase was above the headline and core numbers at 3.8%. I'm still looking for these tariffs to have an impact on inflation, but as a whole they didn't seem to have a large impact in the month of June. I also want to point out I don't think they will be as problematic for consumers as some economists have illustrated.   Is the market in a bubble? I have been hesitant to use the word bubble when describing the current state of the market, but as valuations get more and more stretched, I must say I believe we are now in bubble territory. Apollo's chief economist, Torsten Slok, released a graph showing the 12-month forward P/E today versus where we were in 2000 and other 5-year increments. The forward P/E for the market as a whole is higher than it was back in 2000, but Torsten raised further concerns that valuations for the top 10 companies in the index are now more stretched than during the height of the tech boom. This is problematic considering these ten companies now make up nearly 40% of the entire index. Even looking at just the top 3 companies: Nvidia, Microsoft, and Apple, those now account for nearly 20% if the index. I recently heard a gentleman say on CNBC that valuations don't cause bubbles to pop and while that may be true, when a catalyst comes the larger the bubble, I worry the larger the pop. All I can say at this time is be careful if you are investing in the index as a “safe”, diversified investment as I believe it is far riskier than many people believe.   Retail sales show another strong economic data point Even though people remain concerned about a slowdown in the economy, their fears haven't showed up yet in their spending habits. In the month of June, retail sales climbed 3.9% compared to the previous year. Due to the lower price for gasoline, gas stations were a large negative weight in the month and actually declined 4.4% compared to last June. If gas stations were excluded from the headline number, retail sales grew at a very impressive annual rate of 4.6%. Strength was broad based, but I was surprised to see areas like health & personal care stores up 8.3% and food services & drinking places up 6.6%. These are two areas that show me people are still getting out and spending money, which generally wouldn't happen in a weak economy. There are some areas where consumers may be trying to get ahead of tariffs like motor vehicle & parts dealers, which saw an annual increase of 6.5% and furniture & home furnishing stores, which saw an increase of 4.5%, but it has now been a few months of strong sales in these categories. It will be interesting to see if there is a slowdown in those specific categories in the coming months as there could have been some pull forward in demand with consumers trying to beat those tariffs. Even if that is the case, spending still looks strong in areas not impacted by the tariffs, so I anticipate the consumer will remain healthy. Given the current state of the consumer, I still believe the economy is in a good spot overall. While I'm not looking for blockbuster growth, I'd be surprised to see anything close to a recession given all the recent data.   Financial Planning: What's the Deal with These “Trump Accounts” for Kids? Under the new One Big Beautiful Bill, children under 18 are eligible to open special long-term savings accounts, nicknamed “Trump Accounts”, with a unique blend of benefits and caveats. Kids born between 2025 and 2028 will receive a $1,000 seed deposit from the U.S. Treasury, regardless of family income. Parents, relatives, and friends may also contribute up to $5,000 per year in after-tax dollars. The account grows tax-deferred, and extra contributions (but not the Treasury seed or earnings) can be withdrawn tax-free. However, like a non-deductible IRA or non-qualified annuity, withdrawals of earnings or seed money are taxable at ordinary income rates, and early withdrawals (before age 59½) face a 10% penalty unless used for qualified purposes like a first-time home purchase or education. While the free $1,000 should be taken advantage of, families may find that 529 plans, Roth IRAs for teens with earned income, custodial accounts, or even accounts in a parent's name offer better long-term flexibility and tax treatment for ongoing contributions.   Companies Discussed: Circle Internet group (CRCL), Archer-Daniels-Midland Company (ADM), Kenvue Inc. (KVUE) & Shake Shack Inc. (SHAK)