Big Business, Buying, Shipping, Inflation, Growth, PPI, Childcare Credit Payments, & Better Days

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. Should Meta Platforms change its name again? It’s been about four years since Meta changed its name from Facebook as they thought the metaverse was the place to be. Since 2020, Meta has seen operating losses of over $77 billion in what is known as its Reality Labs division; this includes the metaverse work. One can’t knock Mark Zuckerberg too much; he has built a tremendous social media network and has made billions of dollars. His current net worth depending on the movement of his stock is around $230 billion.... a little bit more than my net worth. But I have to point out he seems to be lacking in technology advancements; he is no Steve Jobs. He is now switching to AI wearables and believes this will be the next major computing platform, and he wants his company to be a big part of it. He has had some success with the Ray-Ban AI glasses, which have had about 2 million pairs sold this year, and he predicts next year they will sell 10 million pairs. The company seems all over the board because internally they are cutting roughly six hundred AI jobs. However, the AI division is offering $100 million pay packages to AI specialists to join his Superintelligence Labs. He has hired 50 people for these positions. If you do the math, that is $5 billion per year just in salaries. Maybe this will work out for him, maybe it won’t. But my question is should they change the name of the company to something with AI in it? Or should he drop his technology pursuit and stick with social media marketing and go back to the old name, Facebook! Competition is coming for Nvidia chips! Nvidia has been on top of the mountain for quite a while, but there are signs that other companies are beginning to gain momentum against the number one chip designer. If you think that can’t happen, realize no one company can stay on top forever. Just look at the history of Intel as an example. At one point no one could touch them. Amazon has come out with an AI Chip called Trainium3 that is produced by their AWS Annapurna Labs custom design business. They claim it can reduce the cost of training and operating AI models by up to 50% compared with systems that use the equivalent Graphics Processing Units or GPUs. The main function of the chips is to provide a stronger backbone of computing power for software developers. This has to be somewhat of concern for Nvidia, which virtually controls the GPU market. Google also recently announced that Meta was talking to them about buying billions of dollars of advanced AI chips known as Tensor Processing Units or TPUs. Open AI has made some deals now with AMD and also rather new to the AI market is Broadcom for custom chip design. Nvidia had a post on X that stated that their company chips offer greater performance, versatility and fungibility compared to the more narrowly tailored custom chips made by Google and AWS. We will see how this plays out going forward, and I would not be worried about Nvidia collapsing or going broke, but a stock decline? Maybe? Competition is part of business, but the problem for Nvidia is it could slow down the growth in their business. The risk in AI bonds is increasing as the AI build out continues People may be getting concerned with the heavy concentration of AI stocks in the S&P 500 now accounting for roughly 40% of the index. So maybe they feel it would make sense to reduce some of their stock exposure and put it into a bond index for safety. Well, surprise! You probably forgot that many of the companies building out the AI infrastructure are borrowing billions of dollars to construct the data centers and other needs as well. Investment-grade corporate bond indexes have seen the concentration of AI bonds increase by around 26% from just five years ago as the concentration in the index has climbed from 11.5% to 14.5%. It is estimated that at the current trend AI bonds could make up roughly 20% of the investment-grade bond indexes over the next five years. An investor may feel safe because many expect interest rates to fall going forward, which would increase the value of bonds. However, if AI companies who borrowed money to build out their infrastructure begin to struggle, don’t forget that a bond also has credit risk and that can lead to downgrades. Even though interest rates could be falling, a downgrade of a bond would have a greater magnitude than falling interest rates on the price of the bond. So if you’re looking at diversifying from the higher risk AI stock investments, and you’re thinking bonds would be a safe haven, you may want to look at buying funds or ETFs where the manager can control the amount and the type of bonds in the portfolio rather than just an index. Should you do a year end review for your investment portfolio? It seems like the obvious answer is yes, but I know time does go by very quickly and before you know it, the holidays are over and you never looked at your portfolio. Unfortunately, many investors just add or delete a piece throughout the year in the portfolio never taking a look at the full portfolio for balance and over concentrated positions and many times they miss the most advantageous way to manage the portfolio for taxes. I do want to point out an investor should never make taxes the primary focus as your goal should always be to increase the value of your portfolio and then see if there are ways you can reduce taxes. Investors should look at their portfolio at least at the end of the year to see if they have too much of any one type of investment. This could include too much in financials, real estate or with the recent run up in technology, obviously you want to look at that to see if you should pair it back to reduce the risk going forward. Since you are reviewing your investment portfolio, it’s a good idea to look to see if you just have too many accounts scattered around and figure out if it's making your life difficult keeping track of all of them. If you’re married the most you should have would be seven accounts which would include a retirement account at work for you and your wife. You may also have an IRA rollover you each set up along with some Roth IRAs and as a couple you may have another investment account that would be set up as either joint tenants or in your trust if you have one. There are always special circumstances, but try to keep your life easy by having as few accounts as you can for your situation. Lastly, when looking at your tax situation you only have a couple more weeks to do tax loss harvesting. If you understand what you are doing in investing, this can be a great opportunity, but don’t get focused on saving $1000 in taxes when next year that same investment may have grown by two or three times your tax savings. More concerns around private credit The private asset-backed finance market has doubled since 2006 to now over $6 trillion and it is expected to top $9 trillion by 2029. This market is now larger than the syndicated loan market, high-yield bond and direct lending markets combined. Asset-backed finance is when lending is done against an income stream, loan, or specific asset like aircraft, warehouses or even music royalties, rather than lending to a company based on its cash flow. While this should in theory help reduce the risk, with the massive increase the concern is the assets that are being collateralized come with lower standards and are increasingly exotic. As an example, after the recent bankruptcy of First Brands it is believed the same receivables were pledged to multiple lenders. My concern with all this being done in the private market is if there's a slowdown there could be problems beneath the surface no one knows about until it's too late. My advice is to again avoid the private market as the risk of the unknown is just too large! Why investing in hype names or stocks with no fundamentals is dangerous It can be so tempting when you see something with what you think is a can’t miss opportunity based on the name of the investment. Unfortunately, that is your emotions taking over and not your brain warning you about an investment that has no earnings and probably has no chance to ever be profitable. An example of this is investing or speculating on anything with the name Trump on it. This is not a political statement against the President, but an example of how even well-known names can have investments that falter. Reality has now set in on stocks like Trump Media & Technology Group Corp which trades under the ticker DJT and has fallen around 70% since the Presidential Inauguration. The large decline now has people questioning their investment. You may have also tried to latch on to the Trump family's crypto venture through a token called World Liberty Financial but since September that has lost around 40% of its value. Other types of gambles like Trump's meme coin is down around 90% from its high, and Melania Trump's meme coin has lost almost all of its value as it's down 99% from its high. The Trump coin, depending on the source had a high of over $100 and the Melania coin at one point had a market cap of $2 billion. I must ask what were people thinking? If you lost money in these investments, just come to the reality that you were gambling and not investing and your risk of losing money was very high. Maybe you like the thrill and the excitement, but if you want to grow a good portfolio, don’t invest in any investment or stock that is losing money and has very little chance of making money in the future!

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. It may not be a great deal to take advantage of that builder's cheaper home loan Your monthly payment with that new home may be lower because the builder brought down the mortgage for you so you could qualify and get into that home, but it could be artificially propping up the price of the builders' new homes they are selling. It is estimated that for a builder to cut the price of a home by 10% to what may be the true value is more costly to them than buying down the mortgage for you to qualify. It is believed that it costs them half as much. You may say what is the risk? I still got that new home for a reasonable mortgage payment. A major problem is that we are seeing 27% of those new homes underwater based on 28,300 FHA loans. This comes from the builders such as Lennar that were tracked by Ginnie Mae’s MBS database. It was better for home builder DR Horton as they had a lower rate of houses under water at 10%, but I would say that is still a negative effect. It is also estimated that the cheaper loans are inflating property values for new home prices. Data shows prices for new homes between 2019 and 2024 from large builders have increased 6% more than existing homes. Another major risk is if you find a new home in a development underwater with say 100 other new homes, the whole lot could be underwater because the home prices were artificially high from the mortgage buy downs. If you or someone you know is negotiating on buying a new home, you may be wise to ask for a reduction in the home price as opposed to a lower mortgage payment. Rising cost are starting to weigh on middle class consumers We have seen the lower end consumer cut back on spending at companies like Wendy’s and Chipotle, but it looks like the middle class is starting to feel the strain as well and is cutting back on their spending too. You may wonder what middle class household income looks like and really depending on where you live in the country it is anywhere between $66,000 up to $200,000. Target, which has more middle-class income buyers, said it is starting to see a slow down on purchases in areas like home decor and apparel. One may be wondering why Walmart had such strong sales; they claim it’s because the middle class to upper class are starting to shop at Walmart to save money. The last University of Michigan consumer sentiment survey revealed that 44% of middle-income respondents are becoming concerned with their financial situation. That’s a 21% increase from a year ago as just 23% had concerns at that time. It is believed that the higher income or more affluent households are feeling fine because their stock investments are doing well. I do worry that many of them have the highflying AI related companies in their portfolios and if they see their investments decline, they too could pull back on their spending. It looks like prices are still staying high partly because demand is on the high side. If demand was not strong, prices would have to fall. Even if things are slowing down, what appears to still be happening is in all income classes people may be complaining about prices but still spending on items they want and need. AI spending is currently unrealistic People think AI is coming very quickly, but I have heard some of the experts say it’s going to take longer than many people believe. There are factors to consider even though there’s record spending for AI infrastructure to keep in mind. The reality is that there are other pieces to the equation like data centers, chips, servers, HVAC systems, transformers, gas turbines, powerlines, and power plants that could slow down the buildout. A recent global model projects the global AI infrastructure through 2030 has limitations because of the $5 trillion investment that is needed. Currently OpenAI has revenue of about $20 billion, and it's important to remember that is revenue, not profit. It is also estimated that AI products would have to generate $650 billion a year going forward just to give investors a 10% return. The global footprint for data centers is currently at a capacity of 455,000,000 ft.². Just to keep pace in a little over two years that footprint will need to increase to over 645,000,000 ft.². If you have a hard time comprehending how big that is, every Costco warehouse in the world is 132,000,000 ft.². I just don't see no matter how much money is thrown at AI that type of expansion is going to happen anytime soon. And let's think about that $650 billion a year in hopeful revenue, how will that be paid for? At this point no one seems to know, but if you took every iPhone owner in the world, they would have to pay an extra $35 a month to reach that level. Artificial intelligence is coming, but it may slow down, and companies that are putting billions of dollars into AI like Microsoft, Meta and Amazon may have lower earnings as expenses continue to rise. I've said it before, but be careful with over ambitious expectations in the AI investment space. Berkshire Hathaway sold more Apple stock In the most recent quarter, Berkshire Hathaway sold 41.8 million shares of Apple stock. The price of Apple stock was anywhere between $212 a share to $250 a share, so proceeds were probably somewhere around $9 to $10 billion. It did purchase 17.8 million shares of Alphabet for probably somewhere around $250 per share, which would be an investment of about $4.5 billion. Before you get too excited about what a great purchase that was of Alphabet stock, keep in mind that while the dollar investment of about $4.5 billion sounds like a lot, that is only 0.6% of the entire portfolio, which is worth close to $700 billion. To put that into perspective, if you had a half million-dollar portfolio and you made an investment of 0.6% that would only be $3000, which would not move the needle on your investment portfolio. Also interesting to note is that the cash position of $382 billion has now surpassed the value of the equity positions. Berkshire Hathaway has continued to be a net seller of equities as even though in the most quarter they did purchase $6.4 billion, they also sold $12.5 billion of equities, raising their cash position a little bit more. Warren Buffett steps away from management January 1, and I’m not sure if it makes any sense to continue to follow Berkshire Hathaway investments because they will no longer be managed by Warren Buffett Will California ever get out from underneath all the debt they have? It doesn’t look good based on the most recent numbers that show California has a $497 billion of state liabilities and the debt continues to pile on. The State Legislative Analyst Office, known as LAO, is a non-partisan policy advisor and is projecting an $18 billion budget gap in the coming fiscal year. The LAO also says that spending continues to far outpace revenue growth. That's even with revenue growing at a nice clip. Based on data from the first four months of this year revenue was up about $12 billion or 20% higher than the previous year for the same period. Revenue from the state does come from taxes and because of stocks that have done well because of AI, the capital gains from stock sales and stock options has boosted the revenue for the state of California. We all know from history that capital gains do not continue to grow for ever and the concern I have is if the liabilities continue to climb and the revenue drops because of a slow down or a reversal in AI stocks, California’s debt will rocket even higher. The US consumer is addicted to shopping Today, consumer spending accounts for 68.2% of US GDP, and there are no signs of it slowing down, tariffs or not. Psychologists say that the human brain is wired toward short term pleasure over long-term goals. When shopping we justify things that will maybe make our life a little more convenient, pleasurable or stylish and people can really get a rush of feel-good dopamine from shopping. However, the good feeling dissipates very quickly, and another purchase needs to be made quickly to continue to get that good feeling. From 2019 to 2024, the increase in purchases is easy to see from examples such as home and garden purchases up 16% from 95 to 110 per household. Children toys climbed 15% from 33 to 38 and unfortunately many of these toys come from China. Women’s clothing was up the most climbing 27% over that period of time from 15 items to 19 items per household. As items have become cheaper over the years, nothing gets repaired anymore. It is easier to just throw it away and buy something new. According to experts, people now wear articles of clothing for only seven times on average and then either donate it or throw it away. Ways to reduce this addiction would include unsubscribing from all the marketing emails that one may receive. I know this next one is hard but cancel your Amazon subscription. Lastly, if you really do need something, go to the store to buy that particular item and leave the store after you get it. This will take more time but sometimes the effort is worth it. Also, making a list of what you need and focusing on that as opposed to all the in-store promotions will keep you on track. These few items will help, but it also does take will power to fight off a shopping addiction.

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. What to do before the spouse who manages the investments passes away In most relationships either the husband or the wife takes on the primary role of managing the financial affairs, including the investments. Not always but most of the time the husband is the one who takes on the primary role of investing the couple's assets when they are seniors. The problem with this is that women generally live longer than men, and it’s very possible that when he passes away the wife is clueless on what to do with the investments and she could be open to scams or just bad investment advice. This does not mean that one spouse is smarter when it comes to investing; it just many times is due to one spouse having no interest in understanding investing or wanting to spend the time to learn about it. If someone has no interest in learning investing, they will not do it. I know some people like to manage their assets and their investments themselves, but this can be very difficult for the surviving spouse who is left with a spreadsheet and account statements, and they have no idea what to do. The best thing to do is when both spouses are alive is to find a financial advisor they trust and found together so that the spouse with less interest in investing knows that the spouse that knew investing felt good trusting this advisor. It may be hard for the primary spouse to give up control of investing, so I don’t recommend to give the advisor 100% of the assets, but at least a third to a half of the assets to get a good feeling of what that advisor will do when that spouse passes away. Don’t wait a few months before you die to find the advisor, it should be done when you’re both doing well and also have an experience with that advisor for at least 3 to 5 years. Since no one knows when they’ll pass away, it is better to do it early rather than to wait until it’s too late! Do you know who the beneficiary is of your retirement accounts? I’m sure many people say yes of course I do, but unfortunately, things change in life and the beneficiaries you have may not be the ones that you want. You could have also deleted the beneficiaries with the intent to change to new ones at a future date but forgot to do so. If you have parents that are still living, it’s important to remind them as well to check to verify that the beneficiaries on the retirement accounts are the ones that they want to receive the retirement funds. Whether the funds are in a workplace retirement plan like 401(k) or an IRA, you could be giving a lot of money to people you did not intend to. Some important reminders when it comes to beneficiaries, be sure to list both primary beneficiaries and contingent beneficiaries. This can be very helpful if your primary beneficiary passes away, and you forgot to update your beneficiaries. If you list multiple beneficiaries, be sure to make it clear what percent each beneficiary receives of your retirement account. It is also generally a mistake to list your estate as a beneficiary because your heirs could lose the benefit of deferring taxes over a 10-year period and could instead have a large tax bill all at once. Another tip is to be sure if you or someone you know gets divorced that they update their beneficiaries. You probably would not want your ex-spouse to receive your retirement account. With the holidays coming up, it’s probably a good time to verify your beneficiaries to make sure the people you have listed are the ones who deserve your hard earned money when you pass. Check your coins, they could be worth a lot more than you think! With the price of silver now averaging around $50 per ounce, there are quarters and dimes that you may have that could be worth far more than the currency value. For example, if you have a quarter that was minted in 1964 or prior, the silver is worth about eight dollars. While a dime is only worth $.10 when you spend it, if it’s the same year or older as that quarter from 1964; it is worth roughly 35 times that amount or around $3.50. 1965 was an important year for coins because that’s the year when the coinage act ended the use of silver in dimes and quarters. Half dollars also saw the percent of silver in the coin drop from 90% down to 40%. If you do find some of these coins that could be valuable, don’t run to your local pawnshop or jeweler to cash in on the silver price. You’re far better off going to a coin dealer because there could be more value in the rarity of the coin than even the silver value. Due to the increased use of silver in electronics, medicine, solar cells, water purification, and other high-tech needs consumption is now double what silver production is on a yearly basis. What this means is the demand is real. It’s not like when the Hunt brothers back tried to corner the market on silver in the early 80s and it rose to $50 an ounce before regulators stepped in as demand now comes from real use cases. If you factor in inflation since the 80s, silver would have to exceed $200 an ounce today to be the equivalent of $50 an ounce back then. And people wonder why we prefer investing in businesses over commodities over the long-term. I believe public companies will far outperform the price of gold and silver in the long run. The chicken wars have become intense, and Colonel Sanders is losing Colonel Sanders, who I think everybody knows, is the star behind Kentucky Fried Chicken or better known as KFC. A little history lesson goes back to the 1930s when Harlan Sanders was serving his chicken in Corbin, Kentucky. The famous red and white buckets that hold 14 pieces of chicken came out in 1957. For many years this was an easy dinner for an American household. I’m sure many baby boomers don’t forget the joy of seeing that sturdy red bucket of chicken brought home by mom or dad when they were a kid. But now competition is tough in the chicken space with companies like Chick-fil-A, Dave’s Hot Chicken and newer to the scene Raising Cane’s. KFC, which is owned by Yum Brands, has experienced six straight quarters of same store sale declines and is now in fourth place in chicken restaurant sales and Wingstop could take fourth place next year. The reason for the change is that Americans now seem to not enjoy eating chicken off a bone and prefer nuggets and eating their chicken in a sandwich. A market research firm says people’s eating habits have changed tremendously and nowadays 26% of consumers eat their fast-food orders in their car. I also think they eat while they are driving, which I have seen unfortunately on the freeway. US fast food restaurants have seen menu listings for bone and fried chicken meals drop 72% in the past four years, but the Colonel is not taking this standing down as KFC has brought back its original honey barbecue sandwich which came out in the late 90s and is now at a discounted price of $3.99. KFC went head-to-head with Chick-fil-A saying our sandwich is bigger than yours and you can get ours on Sundays. For those who don’t know, Chick-fil-A is not open on Sundays. I don’t think we will see a big return of the 14-piece bucket of chicken, but I do think we’ll see a heated war for your dollars when buying chicken and the consumer should benefit. Has big government gone soft on big corporations? On Wednesday, I saw a headline that read “Meta wins FTC suit alleging it is a monopoly”. Andrew Ferguson, the FTC chairman, took on the case and took it trial. He said he was confident his agency would win, and the FTC stated, even though Meta doesn’t charge for the service or raise their prices, it could extract more money from its user's personal data by serving them with targeted ads. The judge ruled against the FTC and said it was easy to ignore those ads. The FTC was also going after Meta saying it had a campaign to buy upstart rivals rather than to compete with them. The judge ruled that Meta was shifting its emphasis because of competition. After Google won their recent case in court, which also benefited Apple, it seems to me that the courts are going easy on big business. November 14th was a big day, and no one noticed November 14th, 2025, was the day that Cisco reached $78 a share. Why is this a big day? 25 years ago, was the last time Cisco was at $78 a share during the tech boom. At that time in the newspapers and the media there were warnings like there are now about the exorbitant valuations of tech companies, but many investors chose not to listen. Looking back, the well-respected Barons magazine, which has been around for over 100 years with its first publication in 1921, was attacked for questioning the value of such a great company. At the time the cover story explained that the valuation stood at 130 times estimated earnings. Barons turned out to be right as by October 2002, the stock traded under $10 a share. So, congratulations to Cisco for reaching its all-time high of $78 a share, but investors should take note that there are many articles coming out these days about valuations of AI companies. Maybe some of them will not reach these highs again until the year 2050.