SKEPTIC’S GUIDE TO INVESTING
Straight Talk for All, Nonsense for None
About - Our podcast looks to help improve investing IQ. We share 15-30 minutes on finance, market and investment ideas. We bring experience and empathy to the complex process of financial wellness. Every journey is unique, so we look for ways our insights can help listeners. Also, we want to have fun😎
Your Hosts - Meet Steve Davenport, CFA and Clem Miller, CFA as they discus the latest in news, markets and investments. They each bring over 25 years in the investment industry to their discussions. Steve brings a domestic stock and quantitative emphasis, Clem has a more fundamental and international perspective. They hope to bring experience, honesty and humility to these podcasts. There are a lot of acronyms and financial terms which confuse more than they help. There are many entertainers versus analysts promoting get rich quick ideas. Let’s cut through the nonsense with straight talk!
Disclaimer - These podcasts are not intended as investment advice. Individuals please consult your own investment, tax and legal advisors. They provide these insights for educational purposes only.
SKEPTIC’S GUIDE TO INVESTING
Are You Prepared for Market Volatility?
Please text and tell us what you like
We explore the critical theme of managing investment risk amid heightened uncertainty. This discussion revolves around proactive strategies to mitigate risk in a volatile market and achieve financial resilience.
• Navigating the tumultuous landscape of investment risks
• Adjusting portfolios from stocks to bonds for safety
• Understanding the role of beta in risk management
• Exploring the use of options as a protective measure
• Embracing the philosophy of "lagom" for a balanced mindset
• Preparing for future uncertainties in investments
Straight Talk for All - Nonsense for None
Please check out our other podcasts:
https://skepticsguidetoinvesting.buzzsprout.com
Hello everybody, Welcome to Skeptic's Guide to Investing. This is Clem Miller and I'm here with Steve Davenport, and today we're going to discuss how to manage risk, to reduce risk in your portfolio, in light of the fact that we're dealing with quite a bit of uncertainty. Quite a bit of uncertainty both in terms of domestic politics, in terms of potential increased inflation and, of course, geopolitics worldwide. So, with those kinds of risks out there, we really need to be able to control the risks in our portfolio, and I think there's no better person than to talk about risk mitigation than Steve. So, Steve, why don't you lead off? And I'll jump in occasionally.
Speaker 2:Okay, I mean I was very nervous about NVIDIA's earnings and I still am. It feels to me like we kind of know. This growth can't continue at 98% a year and it's going to the Blackwell chip or the AI chips eventually. They will supply every bit they can produce in 2025. But then 2026, the question is, what will they be doing? Will the chip change? Will the infrastructure of the chip be the same? And some of the guts will change. How do we look at the change going forward and how do we look at the market?
Speaker 2:In my mind, the talk about tariffs, the talk about China and not allowing technology in the US or technology from anywhere, asml or others to go to China in the chips battle for AI supremacy and all military supremacy. I believe that we're going to see a volatile year, and we've had two great years in a row, which we can argue is oh, the past indicates the future and therefore we're going to have another great year. Unfortunately, that past leads to the future is not a good indicator, and so I believe what we're going to see is a pause, a pause or a step back in order to allow for a more consistent long-term growth. So I look at things in terms of what can I do without paying taxes to lower my risk, and so, in that regard, I've looked at the non-taxable accounts, meaning my retirement assets, and I've sold some of my exposure in some of the technology sector and some of the sectors. Overall, I think that, moving from 20% invested in bonds now I'm something like 40% invested in bonds Now I'm something like 40% invested in bonds. So I went from 80% in stocks to 60% in stocks.
Speaker 2:Is it an overreaction? Is it too much? I don't know. But I'm sleeping like a baby and when I look at things and think about them hard and do my best, it's you know, ultimately, if I'm still thinking about it going to bed and I'm still thinking that there's problems out there that I don't know about, can't anticipate, is there something else I can do? And so the next step, after you've kind of lightened up on some of the risk assets in your portfolio, I look towards is can I do something with options? Can I do something with the names that I'm thinking about turning over?
Speaker 2:Anyway, we've been invested in a few ETFs as sector exposures and we replaced individual exposure with sector exposure. Now I've sold some of that sector exposure and I'm letting it sit in cash and some of those you know. We've got names that we're debating and whether we're going to probably decide in the next few weeks. So when that happens I will take that cash that I put on the sidelines and put it to work, because those names are where we ultimately think there's value as we see names pull back. This week we saw Sempra pull back. Sempra is a utility. It missed earnings of $1.50 when the market was expecting $1.60. So a $0.10 or a 6% move in the quarterly earnings. The stock was down 25% on the news. I think that's an overreaction, especially for a utility stock, but that's the reality we must deal with.
Speaker 2:So again, first thing, are there things in your non-taxable that you can sell and lower your risk, to put yourself in a better position to not experience as much downside? How much downside is going to come? I don't have a crystal ball. If I did, I'd be probably making a little bit more money. I think we're talking about a 10% to 20% correction, but that's typically the way we define corrections and I think this will be a correction. I think that we're looking at ways to protect.
Speaker 2:The next step I do is to buy put options. I sell call options on some of the larger positions, some of the exposures, like the S&P exposure. I sell a call option 10 to 15 up and I buy a put 10 to 15 down. It's for a period right now. Now it's for a period. Right now I'm looking at the October's S&P and I think that when we look at the October's, I'm somewhere around 525 on the put side and 650, 675 on the upside, and that's for the SPY.
Speaker 2:I think that we are in a period where there isn't going to be a sign for everyone to do what they have to do. You need to do what you should do with your portfolio, based on what your needs are and what your short-term and longer-term needs are. If a client is rebuilding or renovating and they know they're going to need cash, then let's isolate that cash and put it aside so that we're not selling it in the middle of a downturn. Let's plan, let's prepare. Semper Paratus is the Marines' motto and it's also in my motto. I think it's always good to be prepared. So that's kind of where I am. Glenn, what do you think about risk and what are you willing to take and what are you willing to do to try to reduce it?
Speaker 1:So you know, just to start off, we both agree that there's a higher risk of recession. Just to start off, we both agree that there's a higher risk of recession this year and we both agree that there's a significant probability of a correction. How much, we really don't know. Is it enough to put us in cash entirely? No, I think we agree on that. I think in some ways, I'm a little more conservative in terms of what I own or no, steve's a little bit more conservative than what we own.
Speaker 1:I have about 9% cash in the portfolio 9.1 right now and I've got about 4.3% gold in the portfolio. So obviously, cash has a beta of zero and gold has a beta of 0.12. So I'm trying to reduce beta in my portfolio. So cash and gold help doing that beta in my portfolio. So cash and gold help doing that. And I hold a number of stocks that have relatively low betas that help pull down my portfolio beta. So Progressive 0.21, boston Scientific 0.75,. Spotify 0.85,. Walmart 0.56,. Philip Morris 0.85, walmart 0.56, philip Morris 0.17. Uh. Uh. T-mobile 0.45, uh. Primo Brands 0.34, and that's just within the top 15 of my stocks. So, yeah, I've got uh, I've got some pretty low beta stocks that nevertheless meet my uh, meet my other criteria. So those are pulling down my portfolio beta.
Speaker 1:I think that I do find that I'm already positioned where I've got downside protection. So on days when my portfolio is down it tends to do unless it's down a lot, it tends to do better than the downside. And so some downside protection. If the market goes up some it tends to outperform slightly, but if the market outperforms a lot then I do less well, obviously, than the market. So my beta just on stocks, is around 0.95, 0.90. If you throw in cash and gold with their low betas, I'm probably down more, around 0.85 on beta. That's the way I'm reducing risk in the portfolio is by controlling beta. If I see even more volatility and just seeing continued chaos in Washington, I think I'll tighten up even more. Have more cash, have more gold, have lower beta. Problem is that it's really hard to find. The universe of stocks that have low beta and also meet other criteria is not high, it's not large, it's not a large universe. If it was easy, clem wouldn't everybody do it.
Speaker 2:Yeah, exactly, you get the same return and take less risk. Wouldn't you have the money machine on and you just keep printing?
Speaker 1:So I mean I like to see low short interest, low peg and low beta and in this environment it's kind of hard to find those stocks.
Speaker 2:Right, I mean, I guess I'd ask you, clem, is there a point at which you might consider using options? Yes, uh, I don't. Is it because you're not, that you haven't done it in the past and you don't want to do it, or is it you have a concrete reason not to do it, because it's just not part of your?
Speaker 1:philosophy. It's not part of my philosophy. I like to, I like to look at you know, these fundamental issues, and not you know, and not try to, not try to do that, not try to uh, set myself up for that okay.
Speaker 2:I mean there's different. You know we each have different experiences getting where we are and I've kind of believed that there is a. There's a point at which you can put a stronger control in place than depending on because in there, because there's been a lot of research that says that diversification fails, it's in a down market where you see a downturn for a given week of 3% or 4%, you're going to see that the correlations tend to go to 1%. So I agree that the evaluations of beta are good long term, but in the short term, during a decline, the overwhelming move in correlation isn't maintained. So it's hard. It's even hard for names that aren't priced regularly Because you've got, just because the price that you have on your private equity gets marked at a certain point, or private real estate or private debt. It's going to get marked but it might not be as efficiently marked as the public markets.
Speaker 1:So, in other words, they'll be marked wrong.
Speaker 2:I'm not going to say that because, clint, because I'm a gentle and kind individual, I don't want to berate anybody, I think, as I was saying-. I think, as CFAs, we know this exists and therefore the question is if we know it exists, do we just pretend that diversification works and say it's the simplest free lunch, or do we say it's a free lunch for some period of time, but it isn't all? 100% free lunch for every time?
Speaker 1:Well, you know, if you're keen on too much diversification, then you might as well just hold a market ETF. Correct? You have to believe or have conviction that stock picking works, and I do have conviction in that. I know you do too.
Speaker 2:Right. I think that that's what differentiates us. We're skeptical that diversification through indexing could be de-worsification, and I don't want to de-worsify. I don't want to own names that I don't believe in. I want to own names that I really like. So by doing that, we are making decisions that could be viewed by some people as inappropriate. Why are you making those decisions?
Speaker 2:Why don't you just agree to assume the index like and I look at it as a middle child and say there's some benefit to having an index. I like having an index in the portfolio because it allows me to easily hedge. So when I think about the portfolio and I think about what do I do to protect it, I have a component of 10% to 15% that is in the index that I can easily hedge. It's very liquid. It's one of the most liquid instruments in the world. Therefore, I trade liquidity for some of the premium that other people are getting from the private and other markets. They believe that those things have a correlation that's negative or zero. I think that's entirely untrue and they know that from research that most of those asset classes, when they're adjusted for the risk properly, are just as risky as the equities. So therefore I say OK. If we know this is a false premise, if we know the correlation breaks down, I think that it's worth trying another tool. It doesn't. Just because not everyone is doing it is not a reason in my world to not do. It is not a reason in my world to not do it.
Speaker 2:I believe our job as investors, our job is trying to help clients protect their assets. It's protect and grow. There's two words, it's not one. It's not just grow my assets and I'll take whatever risk I have to. It's protecting as you go along so that, if something happens, your overall life is not affected. And you're looking at your assets as I put some things aside and I wait and I'm patient.
Speaker 2:Is it wrong? It depends on your perspective and I think that you know I am going to continue to try to influence Clem and get him on the derivatives bandwagon and pretty soon he's going to be writing calls on all his names and he's going to tell me that's the best thing that ever happened to him. His yield on the portfolio is up one and a half percent and he never realized how it would make him feel. And I'm going to enjoy those moments and you know he's going to send me a bottle of champagne and we're all going to celebrate. Well, we're waiting for that.
Speaker 2:Clem, what do you think it will take for you to become, to make your next move or to do something Like? Is there some signal you're waiting for, whether it's Ukraine, or whether it's Gaza, or whether it's tariffs? What's on your radar in terms of next things that you could see? Shoes to drop? My radar shows debt ceiling. Due date March 15th. I know that they can do things to extend, but I think they've already been doing things to extend what's on your radar. Mine says the debt ceiling on the 15th is going to be a negative event.
Speaker 1:Clearly, but I don't think there's any single event. I think what we're seeing is a slow well, maybe not so slow, but a deterioration in stability both in the United States and overseas, and I think that that creates a concern, creates a concern, and I don't know where the exact tipping point is, but I think we're seeing a lot of volatility now and I think that volatility suggests to me that we could hit a tipping point, whether that's the debt ceiling, whether that's, you know, failure to come up with a new budget, whether that's a failure of the Russia-Ukraine negotiations, the US pulling out of NATO or something along those lines. The US invading Canada, I mean that would, uh, not that I really expect that to happen?
Speaker 1:I'm not sure I should put that on the radar. Yeah, not that I would expect that to happen, but you know there there's a lot of uncertainty right now, a lot of nervousness, and you can see that in in uh. You know how the S&P 500 is moving and how the NASDAQ is moving. You see that in the negative performance you had last week. I just think that we're going through a rough patch right now and it's hard to see where I mean, what's the catalyst for getting out of where we are now?
Speaker 2:I think that coming up with a budget and coming up with the approval of their extension of the tax, the taxes that are expiring, the taxes that are expiring I think that an extension of that, even for four years or five years, would make a lot of people very comfortable, right? They're worried. Something can happen there, and I think that you know. On the other side, I can see that this negotiation with Putin on the Ukraine is not going to be a smooth sailing. I think there's going to be a point where you know, how are the governments of Europe suddenly going to come up with the resources they need to fund and to help rebuild the Ukraine? It's not like everybody has an extra 200 billion sitting around, right? It's not like everybody has an extra 200 billion sitting around, right.
Speaker 1:Germany and France are not in budgetary territory where they can say this is a wonderful climate. The Europeans the EU at least has a self-imposed ceiling on how much they can borrow, so they would have to remove that ceiling in order to be able to buy more weaponry and contribute to the war. I think the key thing is going to be the participation of the UK and the French, and maybe some other governments, in peacekeeping, but that peacekeeping requires there to be a peace agreement first, and that's what I'm skeptical about whether there will actually be a peace agreement I'm really nervous about, you know, notwithstanding the so-called critical minerals deal that's supposed to be signed tomorrow, I'm really skeptical about whether the war is going to come to an end. Uh, I think it's going to persist. I'm concerned that the us has, uh has tilted toward russia to some degree, certainly more so than before, or become neutral with respect to russia, certainly more so than before, or become neutral with respect to Russia. I'm concerned about, I'm really concerned about, the Elon Musk situation.
Speaker 2:I'm concerned about what that implies for the rule of law in the US. So, yeah, I mean, I hate to. To me, I think, the personalities of Musk and the personality of Trump will eventually have a follow up. I don't see this as an alliance that can last centuries. I think this is an alliance that will last a series of months, not years, and so I believe that when they get through all of the courts and the Supreme Court and everybody's weighing on whether you can or you can't change the budget the Congress determines the budget how do we get? How do we get where we need to go, get where we need to go? I think that some of the changes and some of the, you know, eliminating people who are on some type of suspension, I think is not going to be accepted or is going to be embraced by all the people, as that's what Trump ran on.
Speaker 2:Trump ran on a lot of things. He made a lot of statements. You know, as we know, about Panama, about Greenland, about Canada. He's very good at making outlier statements. As we mentioned the puffery before. I don't think that we will see this alliance kind of thrive and prosper. I think it will come down to egos and, as we look at political leaders. We like to think everything is based on reasons and facts. I think that we're dealing with humans, and these two humans have too big an ego to let the other get attention for or get credit for any of the changes.
Speaker 1:By the time that happens, though, steve, by the time they break up, there's going to be, I think, a huge amount of chaos within the government. There already is, but I think it's going to be even bigger, and I'm concerned. I'm concerned that Musk and Trump will ignore the courts.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I have a little bit less urgency than you do. I think that we're just I kind of believe that we're a very resilient economy. We have very resilient businesses, and I think that I don't know how we're going to absorb any of the people that are cut from government. I don't know how we're going to pay for the increased unemployment. I don't know how we're going to pay for the increase in interest rates if we keep going forward. I think there's a lot of issues to be discussed and dealt with and I don't think any of them are going to go easily. So therefore, like you, you seem to think that the steam the bulldozer keeps destroying. I look at things and say I think the bulldozer runs out of gas and I think we start to see again. He only has a time period here of about a year before we start thinking about re-election for the House and Senate, and so his time frame of when he wants to get things done and what he's able to get done, I think is getting shorter, and I think he's expending energy in places that doesn't really deserve the time and effort. So I'm a little bit less frightened by things, which maybe I'm naive, but I also believe that, you know, there's a lot of good people and there's a lot of good things in this country that will be very hard to untangle or break down, this country that will be very hard to untangle or break down, and so I have more faith in the American people than what they've shown thus far. So I think that I think we will see a resurgence, and it will be a resurgence based on some of the treatment of some of the people in these different situations, whether it's USAID or whether it's something else.
Speaker 2:I think there are a lot of people who are upset with what's happened, and to me, what's setting up for is Trump gets, you know, loses majority in both the House and Senate in the midterm elections. I've talked about it, and maybe it's too far away and we should deal with something closer. I don't know, but I look at the ability of him to get things he needs in the next six months with regard to debt ceiling, budget and tax reform, to restate or reengage or extend the tax benefits. If the government does nothing, tax rates go up and government collections go up. I think that, unfortunately, there are people who and I'll say that they are in the political realm who would walk around and say I didn't increase Trump didn't extend it long enough, I didn't increase taxes. Well, you knew that if it expired, that you needed to do something to maintain it. Oh, that's Trump, that's not me. I'm just sitting here in my own district and you know I don't like to see everybody paying more. But am I glad that you know salt went away, or am I?
Speaker 1:glad that you know that Medicaid is continuing.
Speaker 2:Medicaid is continuing, I think I am. Medicaid is continuing, I think I am. And so I think that when we look at this historically, we're going to say, just like there was the Newt Gingrich revolution I think revolution might have been a little extreme. I think Doge the government efficient. Like the two words government efficiency, they are oxymoronic. They don't make sense together. I was an industrial engineer. The efficiency in government is a non sequitur. It doesn't exist. If you believe it exists, then I got some land in Florida that you can build your house on. It's just not a factor, and so creating an agency around government efficiency is just as much a pipe dream as we're having a revolution in the House, and it's going to affect all of government and all of what's happening in the Republican Party. And 10 years later, you know we have Bill Clinton as president and he agrees to NAFTA and he agrees to, you know, do some things that he would never have agreed to before. Is that the revolution? I think a revolution might be too strong a term. I think government efficiency is too strong a term.
Speaker 2:I think we're going to see an interesting period in government and I think it's going to be very hard to see where we go in five years or 10 years after what's happened, but I think we're going to see, most likely, a lot of battles and a lot of things fight for, but I think ultimately, we're going to see a return to a more balanced government, which is a more divided government, and I think that's simply what we're going to.
Speaker 2:The only big thing I think we see out of this is, if the depression is bad enough and if things are, I think the US is eventually going to move to a multi-party system instead of the Republican and Democratic logjam that we have right now, which is neither one is truly making the Democrat voter happy or the Republican voter happy or the independent voter happy. The choices are too narrow and the choices are too defined. Therefore, I think we adopt more of a British, french, italian type consensus German government that is built by consensus, with people who want to work together to improve things, and I think that that could be the best thing that ever happens to America, because ultimately, I think it would be harder to get things done and the conditions would remain more stagnant, and if everybody loves standoff or, you know, stalemate, no businessman wants to see his tax rate changing. He wants to see his government subsidies changing. He wants to see his government subsidies changing. He wants to see his employee taxes changing.
Speaker 1:They want to know the rules of the game. That's what they want to know.
Speaker 2:Just tell me how to play and I will play the game, but don't change the game halfway through For those people who are 55 and looking to sell their business. You know, I think that changing the cap gains rate or changing, you know, it is going to be the government that delivers the most benefit to the most people that ultimately wins. And I think that right now, these groups are fighting battles that don't need to be fought. These groups are fighting battles that don't need to be fought. We need to focus on defense, education, some of the things that are core. Our healthcare system is. We're charging most and we're not getting the best results In any other sector that would immediately result in.
Speaker 2:Well, how do we get better results for the average American? But in this reality, it's so complicated and there's so many rules and regulations we can't figure out a solution. I think we've got to go back to focusing on those things health, education, welfare. Those are the things that people really care about. Those are the things that people really care about. I'm sorry if I disagree with you, clump, but I still have this idealistic, hopeful part of me that believes that we could go into a battle, we could see chaos for a period of time, but we will ultimately come out the other side.
Speaker 1:I'm a little skeptical about that.
Speaker 2:You had to use that word. I am skeptical too, clem. I'm not saying it's a 90% probability event. I'm saying that when you get into chaos and disorder, ultimately people start to ask questions of how do we restore order, how do we lessen the chaos? And I wouldn't be surprised if you know some people. You know maybe we had an independent candidate that took over in 28. I think that the time for an independent is ripe, because I think both parties have shown their failure to understand what Americans really want.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I think the likelihood of a third party is of a realistic third party is minimal. I just think that you know of a realistic third party is minimal. I just think that you know it's been tried before and the only thing it does is it throws the election.
Speaker 2:So that's all, that's the only thing it does. So do you think the Germans look at the election as having been thrown? I mean, these other countries have these multiple parties and they don't always win, and they're they represent some type of a consensus. Ultimately, they have to build between the different parties. I'm not sure. Just because we've not had it doesn't mean we're going to throw an election.
Speaker 1:So there's a big difference. Because in the US we're talking I mean, right now, you, I think you've been you're talking about a president, right? Okay? So there's only one person who can be president, and so if you have a third party, come in. They're going to take votes away from one of the candidates and then the other candidate will become president.
Speaker 1:In a parliamentary system, the prime minister is chosen by the parliament, and in a lot of these countries not all of them, but in a lot of European countries one party doesn't have enough seats in order to be able to choose the prime minister, so they have to form a coalition with another party in order to, and then they give that other party seats or roles in the cabinet, they give them positions and they adopt some of their policy stances.
Speaker 1:So it's a negotiation, but it comes up with a prime minister who's from the first party. So, taking Germany, the recent German examples as an example, even though there hasn't been a chancellor picked yet there hasn't been a chancellor picked yet it's, you know, almost certain to be they had this fellow, friedrich Murs, who's the you know who is the Prime Minister, who is the head of the Christian Democratic Party and he is going to align himself with the Social Democratic Party, which is is the center left party, and they're going to freeze, uh, the neo-nazi party, the, the uh afd out of, uh, you know, out of government. They're going to keep them out. So the first party and the third party and maybe the fourth or fifth party will gang up and keep the second party out of the, out of parliament. So that's how it works there and it's very different than you know. It works, but within a parliamentary system where the prime minister is chosen. So it doesn't. I realize we're a ways away, clint.
Speaker 2:And it might not be 28. But I I believe that we're getting a very frustrated electorate to consider trying to do something different, and maybe it doesn't work the first two or three times we try. But it feels like labor and it feels like some of the social socialist side of the Democratic Party is looking for a better candidate and they would rather, you know, elect bernie sanders and not win the election than they would voting for somebody that they feel is, yeah, you know, absolutely, you know just getting lip service.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I do think. I do think there's a a large percentage of the conservative Democrats and the more liberal you know anti MAGA Republicans, you know people who are out of power, who could gang up and become a centrist party along the lines that you're talking about. I think that's possible. But they can only throw a presidential election. They'll throw it to one of the other candidates. Will they gain power in Congress? That's a different question, and it may be that they could gain a quarter of the seats or a fifth of the seats in Congress.
Speaker 2:I don't think this. This party is going to dominate the other two parties, but all I'm saying is it will create an opportunity for those people who have been sitting in the middle of jumping back and forth, never really happy with the full, that I think we can find a middle party, right interest party that will that satisfy that scratch right, it would uh in order to uh, in order to be able to bring I mean, there'd have to be a lot of consensus uh, there would be a more moderate set of policies, more moderate set of budgets, because somebody's going to have to bring along the moderates.
Speaker 2:Correct? I look at things and say are we at an extreme of this pendulum swing? We swung with Obama and ultimately with Biden one way. We're swinging another way with Trump. One way, we're swinging another way with Trump, and what I'm frustrated with is that man in the middle who is not being addressed and is ultimately, you know, kind of lost, and I think that you know so. Anyway, one of the things that I look at as a risk is that this party system has some degree of a blow up occurring, and it could happen. It could not happen maybe in the next two or three years, but our goal was really to get people to reduce risk, and we kind of went off track here.
Speaker 2:Is there anything else you want to say to people about? No, that's about it. The other thing I would say is and this has nothing to do with your investment portfolio, but it is something that I read recently is that there's a Swedish philosophy called lagom, l-a-g-o-m, and this philosophy is a belief in enough, and the idea is, in America, we always keep growing, growing, growing, demanding, demanding, demanding, wanting more, wanting more. I want to do better, I want to do better than my parents. I want to do, you know I want to do better than my neighbor, and I think that the Swedish philosophy of enough we all could use a little bit more grounding in that concept of enough.
Speaker 2:If we think about enough all of a sudden, I don't need my portfolio to go up 25% this year for me to feel good about my investments. I think we need to focus, as a country, on more of our mental well-being, physical well-being and, ultimately, our education and knowledge well-being. And those things, when understood well together, could lead you to feel comfortable about your portfolio, just as selling some equity and buying some bonds or buying some gold will. So I think that we have to sometimes look at things in terms of what's going to get me through this next period of volatility, and it may be in your portfolio that you look and feel great. It may be looking at yourself in the mirror and saying I feel good about myself and what I'm doing and my family's doing. So I'm not going to let these things in the market influence my life. So that's my philosophical ranting for today. Do you have any rantings you want to?
Speaker 1:Well, I mean along those lines, I would say that you know, at least as far as I'm concerned, one thing that helps is to do travel right. I enjoy travel. You know I have done. You know, every fall I've been away for, like you know, or fall or summer I've been away for, you know, four or five weeks, and you know that's a way to get away and recharge and see new things and experience new things, and you know, I think that's, you know that's a good thing to do and see new things and experience new things, and I think that's a good thing to do Right. And also, teaching. I teach every Friday during the spring and I really enjoy teaching students and I think that's helpful too to give back in that respect. I know you give back too, yeah.
Speaker 2:I mean, I think I've just got a friend here in Charlotte who's starting to talk to me about doing more with financial literacy, and I think that education and financial literacy are key. As we look at our position in this industry and we look at what we're doing, I think CFAs should as much as they have benefited from their career in finance. I think we should say here's a way to give back to others and make their lives better. I hope that some of this stuff is helpful to you. I hope the Skeptic's Guide does deliver on improving your investing and financial IQ and I hope we can continue to have you listening and have you enjoy what we do.
Speaker 2:Just a note we're going to have three guests in the next three months Frazier Rice talking to us about planning ideas and tax ideas. We're going to have James Thorne from Canada talking to us about what the economics between the US and Canada is going to become in this new tariff era. And Stephen Gattuso talking to us about national debt and debt management and how do we incorporate that as we look at budgets and things going forward. So I'm excited for our three guests coming up and I hope you continue to listen and send us ideas. All right, everybody have a good day, thank you, thank you.
