Market Increase, Streaming Services, Real Estate, December 2022, Population, Investing, Home Sales, Rising Interest Rates, Investing, & Increases in Price 

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. Looks like some investors are getting the message that the stock market is too high. Money market funds recently hit an all-time record of $7.7 trillion, showing that some investors are concerned about the overvaluation of the markets. This is good that all investors are not throwing caution to the wind and are satisfied to put some of their money into short-term funds, earning 4%, while they wait out the potential storm heading our way. It appears that since 2022, money market funds have seen a nice increase considering they were just around $5 trillion at that time. If you’re wondering if nearly $8 trillion in money market is a large amount, go back to 2017, that year there was only a little over $2.5 trillion in money markets. Investors in money markets will experience over the next month or so probably a quarter percent drop in their yields, but that should not be enough to scare them into risker assets at this time. I would hope that from the reading that I did, it appears that some investors are just being cautious and putting 20 to 30% of their money into money markets, while keeping the rest invested. A 100% allocation in money markets is never a good idea. I think holding that 20-30% allocation is a prudent move at this time because no one knows when the storm will come. It could come tomorrow or next year, but we are confident a storm is coming, and I believe it's better to be prepared for it. Don’t blame rising food prices just on tariffs Last month consumers saw fruit and vegetables increase 2% and prices for apples and lettuce in particular climbed 3.5%. Tomato prices climbed another 4.5% on top of July's 3.3% increase. Beef prices continued to climb as they saw an increase of 2.7% and coffee climbed 3.6%, which now makes it 21% more expensive than one year ago. Before you jump all over the President and say this is all because of the tariffs, you have to look at it from the perspective of the farmers. Yes, some of the cost increase is from tariffs, but the cost of fertilizer in August was up 9.2% from the previous year. Labor costs have also risen, but it’s hard to get an exact figure since roughly 40% of agricultural workers were undocumented. The reason for rising food costs is not just the higher costs for production, but distribution and higher transportation costs are also having an impact as well. Weather this year has not been in favor of the farmer and has caused some disruption with harvest and livestock production. Unfortunately, going forward, it is predicted that these issues will continue to push the price of food higher for the near future. That means for those going grocery shopping, you need to continue to compare prices and look for the sales. AMEX raises platinum card fee 29%, is it worth it? It was only a matter of time before AMEX raised their fee on their Platinum Card after Chase raised their fee on the Sapphire Reserve Card to $795. If you want the status of having an AMEX Platinum Card, it will now cost you $895, a 29% increase from the $695 they were charging before. The AMEX Platinum Card came out over 65 years ago in 1958 with an annual fee of just six dollars. The marketing AMEX does is phenomenal and I think many will continue to hold the card and pay the extra $200 because the company has increased the rewards by $2000 to $3500. Holders of the card will still get access to airport lounges and seats at fashion week events in New York, which I’m not sure how that benefits holders around the country. But what holders may not realize is these other perks like the $600 hotel credit is $300 every six months. This is true with many of the perks you get like the $300 reward at Lululemon is really only $75 a quarter. If you buy all your stuff at Christmas time, you only get a $75 credit. Don’t expect to receive $200 off your next Uber bill for that Black car ride, it is only $15 a month, except for December when you get an additional $20. The highest earning 10% of Americans accounted for 49.2% of all the spending in the second quarter of 2025, which is the highest on record since 1989 when they began keeping track. I have a hard time believing that these people with that income are going to spend time going on the website and doing all the accounting to keep track of their credits to maximize their rewards. I think many hold it just because of the status that comes with the card. Myself, I like my 2% cash back reward on all my purchases from my Wells Fargo credit card. I don’t have to keep track of anything; I just get a nice check in the mail when I ask Wells Fargo to send it. I save $895 every year because my annual fee on the Wells Fargo Active Cash Card is zero. I like clean and simple when it comes to my credit card rewards. Which way are mortgage rates heading? That’s a big question many people ask and I wish I could say with certainty I could give you the exact direction, but all I can do is give you information to hopefully allow you to make a more intelligent decision if you’re dealing with a mortgage. People wonder why mortgages are tied closer to the 10-year Treasury than the Fed short-term overnight interest rate, which is impacted when the Federal Reserve cuts rates. The reason for the tie to the 10-year Treasury is that the expected amount of time a homeowner will hold their mortgage before either selling their house or refinancing that mortgage is longer term. The only tool that the Federal Reserve has to really move the price of mortgages is purchasing Mortgage-Backed Securities, which they did back in 2008 and during Covid in an effort to restart the housing market and help improve the overall stability. When the Federal Reserve purchased Mortgage-Backed Securities, they kept interest rates low on mortgages, and it encouraged people to buy homes and refinance their mortgages to put more money in their pockets. The reason I don’t see that happening now is even though the housing market is slow, if they stimulated the market further, they could increase inflation, which is not the goal of the Fed at this time currently. Based on the information I see I believe we will see mortgage rates in a current trading range up or down around a quarter of a percent for the next six months or so. 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! China controls roughly 85% of the global processing in rare earth materials. Can the USA compete? It really is not a question; the USA has to compete or else our economy and our country will be in dire straits perhaps as soon as the next decade. There are 17 rare earth elements with names that most cannot pronounce, but they’re becoming more important because they are used in catalytic converters, to refine oil, and even polish glass. The big one that is not really thought of as rare earths is magnets. Magnets account for about 40% of total rare earth demand because they are used in many items like iPhones, electric vehicle batteries, and even the F-35 fighter jets. There are now some public companies in the U.S. like MP Materials coming on strong and they have their own mining and processing plants. The US government has taken through warrants a $400 million preferred equity stake in the company, which now makes the US the largest shareholder. As time goes on, we will see other types of incentives for rare earth companies in the United States. China got so far ahead of us because of the red tape and permitting that was required in the US. China fast tracked many of their mines and processing plants to get them up and running, while here in the US the plans sat on someone’s desk waiting for approval. It should also be noted in China the government is the largest shareholder in some of these mining companies, and they are willing to take small margins like 4%, which would be unheard of in the United States. Going forward, I think you will see less red tape and a faster permitting process with rare earth minerals so we can have more rare earth minerals here and not be held hostage to the communist Chinese government in the future. Back to the office has hit a slowdown! Companies like Amazon, JPMorgan Chase, and Dell have pretty much gone back to having most employees in the office five days a week and there are companies like Paramount Studios and NBC Universal that told employees to commit to coming to the office five days a week or else take a buyout. With that said, there are still your diehards out there who got used to working from home and are refusing to go back to the office full-time. Some companies like Amazon ran into trouble when they required employees to come back to the office full time as they forgot to match up the number of people coming back to the number of desks for people to sit at. Also, there weren't enough parking spaces and even video conferencing rooms were overflowing. To get the diehards back, it may take some more time. Numbers show that if they want perfect attendance from their employees that are still working from home, they can get that with the employees coming in one day a week. But when they start asking for three days or more per week, that is when the resistance starts, and the success rate falls below 75%. If the economy does slow down, you will see a higher compliance because employers will want employees to be more efficient, and employees would likely be more scared to lose their job as getting another one quickly would be more challenging.

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 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 of 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. Should you be able to do a sleepover at the house before you buy it? Buying a house is a big commitment and recently some buyers have asked sellers if they can stay overnight for one night if not longer. The argument is you get to test drive a car before you buy it, why can't you do the same thing when you're buying a home, which is your biggest purchase. Some buyers and some agents are open to the concept, others are not. It appears to be trending with your higher price homes, but even some mid-price homes see buyers make this special request to "test drive" the house. It is up to the seller and sometimes they will allow it if the buyer is willing to pay a reasonable rent and if they have the renter's insurance to cover any liabilities. The concept is unconventional but is catching on and can really make the buyer very comfortable with their buying decision. Sellers have to be careful of all the liability that can come with this process and the person that is buying the house should be checked out thoroughly before you let them stay in your house. The real estate market is changing, I remember just a few years ago during Covid there were people buying houses sight unseen, which is very dangerous. Now with a slowing real estate market, it is more friendly to buyers, and they can ask for and many times get extra things such as staying in the home to make sure it fits their needs. Adult children living at home could be hurting your retirement The most recent data from 2023 shows 18% of adults ages 25 to 34 years old were still living at home with their parents. Another survey by the American Association of Retired Persons, also known as AARP, found that 75% of parents were still providing some form of financial support to at least one adult. The average amount of support per year was $7000. If you notice, that is the same dollar amount as the contribution limit for an IRA for your retirement and just think how nicely that will compound in the years to come. This is putting a larger burden on people in their 50s or 60s since many people had children later in their lives as opposed to back 50 years ago when people had children in their 20s. For the first time on record, there are more babies born to a woman over 40 at 4.1% of all births than to teenagers which was 4% of all births. If you’re going to have a baby in your 40s, that child will still be living with you in your 50s and maybe even your 60s. So, what can parents do about it? Be upfront with your children about your situation. In most cases, kids don’t understand about saving for retirement and they probably have no idea about your current financial situation. Let them know that you need to save for retirement because you don’t want to be a burden on them when they get older and there’s no reason why they can’t chip in financially as part of the household. Even if you only charge them $500 a month to help out, that is $6000 a year that you can contribute to your retirement account. A mistake that people make is thinking it’s not a problem and they can work forever but sometimes your health issues prevent you from working into your 70s. You need to be realistic about how long you can work. It is also very important to invest wisely with good investments because you’ll probably need more than you think when you retire. The reality is when you hit retirement there is not much help and your own children may be struggling with their family. I always say prepare for the worst and hope for the best. Are corporate managers being overworked? At first glance, if you’re not a manager, you might think they get paid more and they should work more. Which is true to a certain degree but unfortunately in the long term the business and the employees suffer if managers are overworked. A research firm Gartner showed that in 2017, one manager managed roughly five employees but data from 2023 show they were managing 15 employees. Corporate boards and upper management view less managers and employees as a sign of company strength as they can make more money with less people. But the reality is when a manager has more people to manage, they are unable to spend as much time with each employee, which means they have to cut out things such as helping employees with career goals, building a relationship with that employee or helping with productivity in their jobs. Some managers are using AI tools that will handle routine approvals and not spending any time with employees going over important items. Going back to 1950, Peter Drucker came up with and developed a management style where managers set objectives, motivated workers and helped develop them throughout their careers. Managers were not just supervisors but would build trust to inspire employees and help them understand their sense of purpose with the company they were working at. The theory worked very well for nearly 70 years, but now many employees feel less engaged because they don’t get feedback from their managers. In a recent Gallup survey, more than 50% of employees don’t really know what is expected of them. Across US public companies, the number of managers has dropped by over 6% in just the last three years. This may be great for the bottom line; however, I think long-term it will hurt productivity as employees become lost in the corporation or move on to another job because there’s no connection to the company or a manager. The Fed is cutting interest rates, and you may think what a great time to refi your mortgage. Not so fast.... Before you call your mortgage broker to refinance your mortgage it’s important to understand the difference between the federal reserve cutting rates, which is the cost of overnight money versus mortgage rates, which generally tracks the yield on 10-year treasuries. A good example was one year ago in September 2024 when the Federal Reserve began cutting interest rates. At that time the 30-year mortgage was about 6.2%, but even as the Federal Reserve cut rates three times over the next few months, mortgage rates climbed above 7%. So many people were able to refinance their mortgages when rates were low so many people do not stand to even benefit from lower mortgage rates. If your rate is below 6% you likely would not see any benefit from the current rate environment, but if your rate is above 7%, it may be worth exploring. Just make sure you understand all the costs associated with refinancing and I would again make sure you don't pay points at this time. If the broker is quoting you a rate in the 5's, that is likely too good to be true, and you are likely paying unnecessary costs. What does benefit from the Federal Reserve reduction in short-term rates are what are known as HELOCs, which are home equity lines of credit. Rates still remain somewhat high on these products, but with the reduction it may be tempting to tap that credit line. I always tell people to be careful doing so, because if rates go up again your interest costs will also rise. It generally makes sense to use these lines to pay off other high interest debt or for home improvement expenses. The big thing here is you need to remain disciplined and have a plan on how you will repay the credit line. Credit card rates also closely follow the Federal Reserve rates, and while a decline in the APR may be nice, borrowing with credit cards long term should be avoided as the cost of debt will still remain high on these products. How to get more out of your short-term money with the Federal Reserve cutting interest rates If you’ve been lazy with your investments and have just been throwing a lot of money into money markets or high yield savings accounts that were paying around 4%, you are going to start seeing those yields drop due to the Fed rate cuts. The question is what should you do now? The good news is you’ve got a few weeks before it begins to hit your money markets. First off, ask yourself a question, do I really need that much liquid in a money market? It is generally advised to have somewhere between 3 to 6 months in easily accessible funds, but ultimately it really depends on your situation. One area investors can look at for this short-term money is short-term bond funds, which can be found as mutual funds or ETFs. The yields will be slightly higher between 4.1 to 4.3% and your yield will stay higher for longer since those bonds don't all mature at once and are spread out over varying time periods, but as rates continue to fall these rates will also fall. As bonds mature those funds will likely be used to repurchase other bonds at now lower interest rates. Since you are going out a little further on the yield curve, the rates should still be more promising than the money market accounts. The big thing you need to understand here is the duration risk and the further you go out on the yield curve, the larger the impact rising/declining rates have on the price of the bonds. If it is truly for short term money, I wouldn't use any ETF or mutual fund that has maturities that go out more than a few years. Be sure to comb through all your accounts, like your checking accounts and your brokerage accounts as sometimes you may not realize how much you have sitting there, earning very little for you. Make sure you move your liquid funds to either a higher yielding money market or again the short-term funds and then longer-term monies should be utilized for investing. You can also search the Internet for high-yield savings accounts but be sure to read the fine print that you’re not getting a teaser rate and then next month you’ve got to do the process all over again. Also, you may want to look at some financial institutions that have CDs from 6 to 12 months. Some financial institutions may need to increase their capital and will pay slightly higher rates to get that money into their institution. Be careful not to go over the FDIC insurance limit just in case that institution was to fold. Some of them will even offer a CD for a certain timeframe but may have a special provision to get the money out without a penalty. Again, be careful of being enticed into long-term or higher yielding bonds that have greater risk due to the rating and duration. If the yield sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Going to an elite college does not guarantee you’ll be in the top 1% of earners in the United States I believe parents and some high school counselors put way too much weight on kids going to elite colleges like Harvard or any one of the Ivy League schools. It seems like both parents and counselors feel that going to an elite college guarantees success and will get you into the top 1% of earners in the country. That current threshold comes with earnings of around $700,000 a year. Yes, going to an Ivy League school does give one a slight advantage, but if you look at the numbers such as a study that looked at the CEOs of the Fortune 500 companies, only 34 of the CEOs came from elite colleges. Both Duke University and Brown University had three graduates on the list, but so did Ball State, Louisiana State and San Diego State University along with many other similar schools that would be viewed as less prestigious. David Doming, who is an economist at the Harvard Kennedy School, did a study on the differences between those students attending an Ivy League school versus selective public flagship schools like Ohio State, UCLA and the University of Texas. What he discovered was in the beginning of their careers those that attended an elite college did outperform those who did not. They were 60% more likely to have earnings in the top 1% and they were three times as likely to work for a prestigious employer, such as a top law firm or consulting firm, but when looking at the average income of Ivy league graduates it was pretty close to the public flagship schools. It was also revealed that not all graduates were chasing a job on Wall Street, some big consulting firm, or the most recent Silicon Valley startup. Most students, when they graduated, stayed close to where they either grew up or graduated from. It was also pointed out that employers generally want employees who remain with them for a while, and sometimes when you have a student that comes too far from home or where they graduated from, they end up leaving. What generally doesn’t make the headlines is the number of students who work hard and outperform the elite school graduates that sometimes might feel they don’t have to work as hard when they get to the interview or in the job. If you look at most successful people that are in the top 1%, the one thing they generally have in common is they do not just work the basic 9-5 and put in 40 hours a week. Not everyone wants to work 50 to 70 hours a week, but if you love what you do and you have the discipline you may not need that degree from Cornell University to be in the top 1% of earners.

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. Who will benefit the most from the Federal Reserve rate cut this past week? You may think it is people looking to buy a home, but that is incorrect because mortgage rates generally follow the longer-term 10-year treasury yields rather than overnight rates. Real Estate developers, who borrow on the short term to develop different projects will benefit from the short-term lower rates. Who benefits the most will be the United States government with their massive $37 trillion in debt. This is because they should be able to get a better rate on short term debt issuance. The other concern with the federal debt is roughly 61% will mature in a little over two years. This puts the government in a precarious situation as they will need to determine how to best finance these debt maturities. On the current path, by 2029 the interest the government pays on their debt would be close to 4% of GDP. It is also estimated that on the short term, a one percentage point cut in rates would lower interest costs by 0.51% as a percent of the current GDP. Other than the psychological advantage, the consumer will not benefit much. The reason for that is chief global strategist at JPMorgan Asset Management, David Kelly, noted in a research note that the reduction in interest rates reduces household income more than what they save on interest expense. His calculation is that a one percentage point drop in short term rates would be a decline in interest income for household of roughly $140 billion annually in money markets alone. This number does not include all the short-term CDs and T-bills that will come due in the near term at lower rates as well. In 2025 who is performing better gold or Bitcoin? One would think with a higher risk, Bitcoin would be outperforming the more conservative inflation hedge of gold. But that is not the case, year to date gold is up a surprising 39%, which is almost double Bitcoin's gain for the year of 22%. There is still crazy talk of companies like Eightco Holdings that announced a private stock sale and said it plans to use the money to buy Worldcoin, which is a cryptocurrency that is backed by OpenAI founder Sam Altman. I guess that’s more competition in the crypto world for Bitcoin? Bitcoin currently has a market capitalization of around $2.2 trillion, and I was surprised but also disappointed to see that corporate treasuries now hold roughly 6% of the total Bitcoin supply. If you do the math that is roughly $132 billion of Bitcoin. It’s important to note that the aggressive company called Strategy, which used to be MicroStrategy, run by Michael Slayer holds over half of that amount with an estimated value of about $72 billion. I couldn’t resist but take a look at the market capitalization of this company and discovered it’s at $95 billion, not much more than the cryptocurrency it holds. It looks at this point that if you want to hold cryptocurrency, you’re far better off to hold it yourself rather than buy this stock, which had a high this year of $543 and is now down 39% from that peak. On a side note, the company has been denied membership in the S&P 500. I was glad to see that this crazy company got rejected from what should be a more conservative index. If you like going to concerts, you may have interest in investing in StubHub You may enjoy going to concerts and events and feel like you’re spending a lot of money on the tickets through a well-known company called StubHub. In 2024, in the United States total concert and event sales were nearly $430 billion. I’m sure you have thought about how great it would be to get a piece of the action. One possible way is by buying StubHub, ticker symbol STUB, since it is now a public company, but based on some recent information I saw about the business, I would recommend you just spend your money on the tickets, not on the stock. If you ever wondered how much StubHub gets from the fees, it’s around 20% of the total price of the ticket which averaged around $200 last year. That may sound enticing, but competition in the secondary ticket market is coming on strong from companies like Ticketmaster and Live Nation. The Federal Trade Commission is now requiring total fees for tickets to be displayed at purchase to avoid what is known as bait and switch tactics. Even the musical acts themselves are tired of the premiums charged for tickets and some tours have invalidated any tickets that were sold at a premium on the secondary market. The primary ticket market, which is much larger and is around $150 billion annually, is currently dominated by Ticketmaster with a market share of over 50%. StubHub just recently entered this market last year and is hoping to gain share, but once again there’s heavy competition, which is not a good thing for an investor in a business. We don’t like competition because there’s no moat to prevent people or other companies from reducing prices to take some of your market share and reduce or eliminate your profits. It looks like the market may have seen some of these concerns as it was not overly excited by the IPO considering the price action was quite lackluster. The IPO price was $23.50, and the opening trade came in at $25.35. While it did climb as high as $27.89, it actually ended the day below the IPO price at $22. Can the Trump administration fix the housing emergency? Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent recently said the administration may declare a national housing emergency. This may sound very appealing to the roughly 75% of American households that can’t afford a median priced new home, this data is according to a builder's trade group. I would believe those numbers considering we have a housing shortage that started back in the aftermath of the 2008 global financial crisis. Since then, 20 million households have been formed, but yet only 18 million new homes have been built. There was a lot of concern from builders that they could get hit hard like they did in the 2008 Great Recession, and they became more hesitant about building too many homes. They didn't want to get stuck with them or have to sell them below their cost. The question is, what could the US government do to help bring down prices? A large portion of the housing prices come from local laws and zoning along with a difficult permit process to build homes. These roadblocks come from local governments and are quite the revenue generator for them. I doubt that they would be willing to give that up to let the federal government control the process. Another problem in many high demand areas such as the Northeast is would they be willing to give up local regulation over control of safety and environmental concerns. I do believe a push in this direction would lead to unfortunately more court challenges that cost more money and tie up our legal system and while an emergency may be announced nothing will likely get done. Will we get more bank mergers? This has been talked about for the past year or so and the number of bank mergers has increased with 118 bank mergers so far this year worth almost $24 billion. In 2024 for the entire year, 126 deals were completed for $16.3 billion. In 2023, only 96 deals were made with a total value of $4.1 billion.1998 was the peak of deal making for banks when 500 deals were completed. There is talk that we could see as much as $100 billion in bank consolidation within the next few years. The table appears to be set for that to happen with the Trump administration reducing many of the stringent merger guidelines and providing a more favorable attitude towards such activity. We also have the prospect of lower short-term rates, which helps in deal making because funding costs are less expensive and at this time we have favorable valuations with potentially higher multiples. Many banks have stronger balance sheets than they did just a few years ago, which allows them to make more deals. With over 4400 banks of different sizes in the US, we have the most banks of any major country around the world, but even that number is down 75% from 1986 when we had over 18,000 banks in the United States. Generally, when a bank acquires another bank, the bank being acquired increases in value. Some potential names that look like they could be absorbed would be Zions Bank Corp. in Salt Lake City, Eagle bank Corp. in Maryland, First Foundation located in Irvine, Texas, and BOK Financial in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Before taking advantage of any of these potential bank takeovers, be sure they have strong fundamentals. You want to make sure that in case a takeover doesn't happen, your investment will give you good dividends and growth in the years to come.