Latest / Brian Thomas / Money Monday with Brian James

Transcript

Money Monday with Brian James · Brian Thomas

0:00
Speaker 1: Station.
0:03
Speaker 2: It's 806 here at 55K RCB Talk Station. Brian Thomas
0:07
Speaker 2: right here. Always looking forward to this time of week.
0:08
Speaker 2: We get the benefit of financial planner Brian James. While
0:13
Speaker 2: we're financial, it's time for Money Monday. Brian James, welcome
0:15
Speaker 2: back to the morning show. Hope you had a wonderful weekend.
0:18
Speaker 1: I did, and who date everybody out there? Yet another
0:22
Speaker 1: year of saying they are going to get that man killed.
0:24
Speaker 1: But it was a fun game to watch.
0:25
Speaker 2: That's a good point. He did have a back injury
0:28
Speaker 2: and he got sacked. How many times?
0:29
Speaker 1: Five or something? Five, I think. He said something about
0:32
Speaker 1: he thanked the Texans for putting his rib back in
0:34
Speaker 1: place at some point. I saw this morning.
0:37
Speaker 2: So it worked out as a form of chiropractic adjustment,
0:40
Speaker 2: him getting tackled multiple times. Nice offensive line there protecting
0:45
Speaker 2: Joe Burrell. No, but, you know, it was weird because
0:47
Speaker 2: throughout the game as I was watching it, it I mean,
0:50
Speaker 2: I'm looking at 0-0 for basically the entire first half.
0:53
Speaker 2: It felt like we were doing a hell of a
0:54
Speaker 2: lot better than that, though. You know what I mean? Defense,
0:57
Speaker 2: I thought, performed admirably. And you're like, man, they're doing
0:59
Speaker 2: really well. They're doing well.
1:00
Speaker 1: And then you look at the score and you're like, well, no,
1:02
Speaker 1: not really. Yeah, where is this lightning-fast offense we have?
1:05
Speaker 1: But the defense was ridiculously good. That was really, really
1:08
Speaker 1: fun to watch. A nice change from recent years.
1:10
Speaker 2: Well, at least there's a win in the Bengals' win-loss column,
1:14
Speaker 2: which is great. So congratulations to the Bengals. I share
1:17
Speaker 2: your joy over the outcome of that game. Brian James.
1:20
Speaker 2: I know Donald Trump does not share the joy of
1:22
Speaker 2: the Fed raising the interest rate. He has obviously expressed
1:25
Speaker 2: out loud, as he has wanted to do, his concerns
1:27
Speaker 2: and frustrations over that. But the president doesn't have any
1:30
Speaker 2: say on this. And I guess with inflation going up
1:33
Speaker 2: and the Fed viewing its obligation as dealing with inflation,
1:36
Speaker 2: this is the right direction to go. At least they
1:38
Speaker 2: concluded that. What's your take on this? Quarter point rise, right?
1:41
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's Kevin Warsh's job. The Federal Reserve Chair is
1:45
Speaker 1: not an employee of the president. It's his job. His
1:49
Speaker 1: job is twofold. Basically, keep inflation out of control and
1:52
Speaker 1: get us to full employment and keep us there. So
1:55
Speaker 1: in order to do that, he made the decision that
1:57
Speaker 1: we need to raise rates. A quarter point rate hike
1:59
Speaker 1: last Wednesday. That takes the Fed fund rates range to 3.75%
2:02
Speaker 1: to 4%. This is the first increase we've had in
2:08
Speaker 1: three years, and the message was pretty plain. The economy
2:12
Speaker 1: is still expanding at a solid pace, and unemployment remains low.
2:15
Speaker 1: These are good things, but inflation is too high. So
2:18
Speaker 1: the Fed said the goal is a timelier return to 2% inflation,
2:22
Speaker 1: which is just more creative words to, we want to
2:24
Speaker 1: get back to 2% inflation, which we've been saying since
2:26
Speaker 1: inflation became a headline. So that headline hasn't changed. But
2:30
Speaker 1: the important story, Brian, was not just that quarter point move.
2:33
Speaker 1: It was the updated outlook. The moves are somewhat predictable.
2:37
Speaker 1: This wasn't a major shocker. Usually, we're talking about what
2:41
Speaker 1: is the next move going to be. So the Fed
2:43
Speaker 1: says it's now expecting 3.7% PCE inflation in 26 versus 3.6%
2:49
Speaker 1: in June, at the same time projecting 2.3% economic growth
2:53
Speaker 1: and just 4.1% unemployment. There's a bunch of numbers. Here
2:56
Speaker 1: it is in English. The Fed sees an economy strong
2:59
Speaker 1: enough to withstand tighter policy, but inflation is stubborn enough
3:03
Speaker 1: that it can't declare victory. Therefore, we've got to add
3:06
Speaker 1: some pain to the mix with higher rates, but the
3:09
Speaker 1: Fed thinks we can take it.
3:11
Speaker 2: Well, I guess I'm old enough to remember, although I
3:14
Speaker 2: didn't have an absolute clarity about economic realities in the 1970s, stagflation.
3:19
Speaker 2: You had inflation that was pretty substantial then. along with
3:22
Speaker 2: stagnation in the economy. So unlike now, I get the impression,
3:26
Speaker 2: at least then, the job market wasn't very good. There
3:29
Speaker 2: was your stagnation part. So are we with this rate hike?
3:33
Speaker 2: Are they trying to push us toward a slower growing
3:37
Speaker 2: economy and moving toward the stagnation we faced with inflation
3:41
Speaker 2: in the 1970s? Are there any parallels to be drawn?
3:43
Speaker 2: I guess is what I'm struggling to try to ask there, Brian.
3:46
Speaker 1: Yeah, and I think it is different, right? That's why
3:48
Speaker 1: it's tough to find a clear parallel because we want
3:51
Speaker 1: to look at the 70s and say the energy headlines
3:54
Speaker 1: were a problem back then. They're a problem right now.
3:57
Speaker 1: But I think the difference is, of course, we've got
3:59
Speaker 1: economic growth happening, right? Maybe it's not cooking as much
4:02
Speaker 1: as we want, but in the 70s, we really just
4:05
Speaker 1: had no growth at all. And there were no catalysts
4:07
Speaker 1: back then. So technology has been a major driver for
4:11
Speaker 1: decades now, and that's continuing to happen today. So the
4:15
Speaker 1: fact that the economy is still chugging along, we're doing okay,
4:18
Speaker 1: and there's a huge catalyst in the form of artificial intelligence, right?
4:22
Speaker 1: Not everybody loves AI, and it comes with sharp edges
4:24
Speaker 1: just like anything else, but it does exist as an
4:27
Speaker 1: opportunity to make things more economically productive. So the way
4:31
Speaker 1: I think about this is maybe I'll think about a
4:33
Speaker 1: married couple who has built up a substantial amount of
4:37
Speaker 1: debt for whatever reason and need to pay that down.
4:41
Speaker 1: And perhaps I'm sitting down with them. We're putting a
4:43
Speaker 1: financial plan together. We can say, you know what? We
4:45
Speaker 1: can take some hits here. You can back off of
4:47
Speaker 1: your 401k savings in order to focus on the shorter
4:51
Speaker 1: term savings. to get this debt paid down with the
4:54
Speaker 1: debt being, of course, the inflation that we're battling now
4:57
Speaker 1: in the comparison I'm making here. We can sacrifice something
5:00
Speaker 1: elsewhere in order to focus on another goal temporarily, and
5:03
Speaker 1: we will not be put in a place where we
5:05
Speaker 1: have to worry about where the next meal comes from.
5:08
Speaker 1: In the 70s, we didn't have that choice. We had
5:10
Speaker 1: to make those sacrifices, and it was a lot more painful.
5:13
Speaker 1: We got through that, but it took a decade or more,
5:16
Speaker 1: an awful lot of pain and extremely high interest rates
5:18
Speaker 1: in the early 80s. But we did fix it that way.
5:21
Speaker 1: Now we've got a little more wiggle room because there
5:23
Speaker 1: is a healthy economy underneath all this. Wow. You know what?
5:26
Speaker 2: As I was hearing you talk about the financial recommendation
5:29
Speaker 2: you give to your client couple, and I know you
5:31
Speaker 2: do this all the time, Pair back the 401k for now.
5:35
Speaker 2: Pay off this credit card balance you got. You're having
5:38
Speaker 2: to pay interest on it. Oh, if only the federal
5:41
Speaker 2: government were given that advice by someone like you, Brian James.
5:44
Speaker 2: You need to stop spending so much. You've got $ 40 trillion.
5:47
Speaker 2: You've got $ 40 trillion. Your interest is a trillion dollars
5:51
Speaker 2: and growing every year. You clearly have a spending problem.
5:53
Speaker 2: It's time to start curbing the expenditures. Logic and reason,
5:56
Speaker 2: that just doesn't exist on a federal level, though, Brian.
5:59
Speaker 1: No, the federal government does not function on a household
6:03
Speaker 1: budget the way people have to. But the difference is
6:05
Speaker 1: the federal government is not looking to retire someday and
6:08
Speaker 1: never go to work again. It's going to kind of
6:09
Speaker 1: always exist. That doesn't make it okay, but that means
6:13
Speaker 1: we do– we should expect a little more crazy.
6:15
Speaker 2: You stumbled upon the reality of the problem is that
6:18
Speaker 2: they're not interested in solving the problems of these massive,
6:21
Speaker 2: expensive programs they designed because they all want jobs today, tomorrow,
6:24
Speaker 2: and down the road and for the next generation of
6:26
Speaker 2: government workers.
6:27
Speaker 1: Yeah.
6:28
Speaker 2: There's no end point in future. Sorry, I have to
6:31
Speaker 2: go in this room. It's like when you donate to
6:33
Speaker 2: a big organization like United Way, the dollar you give
6:35
Speaker 2: them results in maybe 50 cents going out into the
6:38
Speaker 2: world to help because they've got a massive bureaucracy to
6:40
Speaker 2: pay for. I read some figures this morning exactly like that.
6:43
Speaker 2: It was a Milton Friedman quote about government programs, and
6:47
Speaker 2: they calculated right now that the value per individual who's
6:51
Speaker 2: considered poor in this country is $ 38, 000 or $ 39, 000. For
6:53
Speaker 2: a family, it's $ 181, 000. And Milton Friedman had made an
6:58
Speaker 2: observation back in the 1970s. Well, you know, if all
7:01
Speaker 2: that money ended up in the actual hands of the recipients,
7:04
Speaker 2: there wouldn't be any more poor people.
7:09
Speaker 1: That is a great point. We would love for that
7:10
Speaker 1: situation to happen. Yes, it would. Yeah, it's not quite
7:14
Speaker 1: as simple as he makes it.
7:15
Speaker 2: No, it's not. But, you know, it is something to observe.
7:18
Speaker 2: And any opportunity I have to interject something like that, Brian,
7:21
Speaker 2: folks like you have to suffer through it and let
7:23
Speaker 2: me get it out of my system. Brian James. We'll
7:25
Speaker 2: take an early break because I want to hear about,
7:28
Speaker 2: I've got to talk about the Clarity Act, and there's
7:29
Speaker 2: not enough time in this segment. Unless you think you
7:31
Speaker 2: want to squeeze in in a minute why Warren Buffett
7:34
Speaker 2: has stepped down from Berkshire Hathaway after, well, forever.
7:38
Speaker 1: Well, we could do that. Yeah, sure. So Warren Buffett
7:40
Speaker 1: stepped down. He's 96 years old. I think we know
7:43
Speaker 1: the why. But that completes a full transition. So this
7:46
Speaker 1: isn't sudden overnight news. Greg Abel became the CEO as
7:50
Speaker 1: of January 1st. So Warren is stepping down as chairman.
7:54
Speaker 1: He's now chairman emeritus, which means he's still in the mix.
7:56
Speaker 1: He's still a director on the board and will continue
7:59
Speaker 1: to offer his judgment perspective and all that. Now his
8:01
Speaker 1: son Howard is the chairman. And Howard himself is 71, right?
8:06
Speaker 1: So the age is still a thing here. But Howard
8:10
Speaker 1: is not new to this. Howard's been involved for 30-some years.
8:13
Speaker 1: He is not in the investment world. He's much more
8:16
Speaker 1: in the philanthropic side of things. But he's got a
8:19
Speaker 1: lot of experience with Berkshire Hathaway. And Greg Abel is
8:23
Speaker 1: basically the one running the show. And that's been in
8:26
Speaker 1: place for a very long time. So Greg will be
8:28
Speaker 1: worried about– the one worried about how the business runs forward.
8:32
Speaker 1: And Howard will basically kind of ensure that his father's
8:36
Speaker 1: legacy and the way he ran things still kind of
8:38
Speaker 1: hold true there.
8:39
Speaker 2: So this is– I'm just going to answer this. This
8:43
Speaker 2: change in the hierarchy of Berkshire Hathaway is not going
8:46
Speaker 2: to result in there. What is it trading at now
8:48
Speaker 2: per share? They never split, right?
8:51
Speaker 1: Oh, yeah. No, they never do. Yeah. So, boy, you're
8:54
Speaker 1: putting me on the spot. It's OK. No, no.
8:57
Speaker 2: It's like 80 or 100 thousand dollars a share.
8:59
Speaker 1: It's just outrageous.
9:00
Speaker 2: So they never split. But it's not going to impact
9:02
Speaker 2: the share value. This is not some major disruption at
9:05
Speaker 2: Berkshire Hathaway.
9:07
Speaker 1: No, no. At the end of the day, Berkshire Hathaway
9:09
Speaker 1: is basically one giant mutual fund. It owns a bunch
9:11
Speaker 1: of things underneath it. So there's a lot of insurance
9:15
Speaker 1: companies under there. There's real estate companies. There's all kinds
9:18
Speaker 1: of things. It's not just a factory that makes widgets
9:20
Speaker 1: out in a field somewhere. Those companies are all in
9:23
Speaker 1: their own financial position, and no, this isn't really a
9:26
Speaker 1: concern overall. It's just notable because Warren has been obviously
9:31
Speaker 1: a soothing and sometimes prompting voice out there for those
9:36
Speaker 1: of us in this industry and those of us not
9:38
Speaker 1: in the industry. A lot of people pay attention to him,
9:40
Speaker 1: so we will still hear from him, I'm sure. He
9:43
Speaker 1: just doesn't have his hand on the till completely anymore
9:47
Speaker 1: at Berkshire Hathaway.
9:49
Speaker 2: All right, Brian James from Allworth Financial. Put on your
9:53
Speaker 2: fifth-grade teacher hat so you can explain to me in
9:55
Speaker 2: very simplistic terms the Clarity Act, which apparently— makes a
10:00
Speaker 2: difference between the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Securities
10:03
Speaker 2: and Exchange Commission. 819 here at 55KRCD Talk Station. It's Monday.
10:13
Speaker 2: Allworth Financial loans out, Brian James. who's a financial planner.
10:16
Speaker 2: Every Monday for a few seconds, we talk about stuff
10:18
Speaker 2: going on in the world, in the financial markets anyway,
10:21
Speaker 2: and how it relates ultimately to our retirement savings.
10:23
Speaker 1: You need a financial planner.
10:24
Speaker 2: Everybody does. Make sure you've got a plan in place
10:27
Speaker 2: and follow it, and everything will probably work out right
10:29
Speaker 2: for you. Anyhow, Brian James, much like financial planning, not
10:33
Speaker 2: quite like the peace of God for me. I do
10:35
Speaker 2: have some understanding, human being as I am, but I
10:38
Speaker 2: don't have any when it comes to bitcoins and stablecoins
10:41
Speaker 2: and cryptocurrencies I never have. And then again, I really
10:43
Speaker 2: haven't lifted much of a finger to find out because, honestly,
10:47
Speaker 2: I just really don't trust it. One day it was
10:49
Speaker 2: not in existence. The next thing you know, everybody's trading
10:51
Speaker 2: this stuff. It's a bunch of ones and zeros. It
10:53
Speaker 2: has no connection to reality, except, I guess, if it's
10:56
Speaker 2: a stable coin, which are these cryptocurrencies that are actually
10:59
Speaker 2: pegged to something that we at least traditionally have perceived
11:02
Speaker 2: to have actual value, like a dollar, a fiat currency,
11:05
Speaker 2: or a commodity. But what's the Clarity Act, which is
11:08
Speaker 2: supposed to be dealing with all of these cryptocurrencies? What's
11:11
Speaker 2: it all about? What's it do? And why are the
11:13
Speaker 2: Democrats against it?
11:15
Speaker 1: So the clarity, this isn't brand new, right? We do
11:17
Speaker 1: have a new headline for it. But the clarity is
11:19
Speaker 1: basically for digital asset market clarity. The main goal was
11:24
Speaker 1: to answer a question that has plagued crypto for years.
11:27
Speaker 1: When is a token a security that's regulated by the SEC?
11:31
Speaker 1: And when is it more like a commodity, which would
11:33
Speaker 1: be the Commodity Futures Trading Corporation, right? So two government
11:37
Speaker 1: regulatory bodies. The industry would very, very, very much prefer
11:41
Speaker 1: the CFTC because there's less regulation there. Treating it like
11:44
Speaker 1: a commodity basically means it gets a lot less oversight
11:51
Speaker 1: and it's just easier for those industries to operate versus
11:54
Speaker 1: the SEC that, of course, is going to want to
11:55
Speaker 1: register everything as an individual security, which makes things enormously
11:59
Speaker 1: more complicated. That's been floating around for a while. The
12:02
Speaker 1: bill had passed the House pretty significantly, 294 to 134
12:07
Speaker 1: back in July of 25. Senate Banking Committee approved it
12:10
Speaker 1: 15 to 9 in May. But the reason we're talking
12:14
Speaker 1: about this headline, the Senate did not reject it outright, right?
12:19
Speaker 1: This wasn't a vote that says, no, we're shooting this
12:20
Speaker 1: out of the sky. This was a rejection of a
12:23
Speaker 1: motion that is needed to start debate on it. So basically,
12:25
Speaker 1: they tabled it for now. And it was still pretty
12:28
Speaker 1: much split down the middle, 49 to 50. This was
12:31
Speaker 1: a procedural vote, so it needed 60 votes to go
12:34
Speaker 1: one way or the other. It got 49 yes and
12:36
Speaker 1: 50 no, which basically means we talk about it later.
12:40
Speaker 1: So this is going to push it past the midterms,
12:42
Speaker 1: of course, and that's a setback for the industry. Is
12:47
Speaker 1: that what it's all about?
12:48
Speaker 2: They don't want to vote on this thing before the midterms,
12:49
Speaker 2: but after that, you think it'll move past the procedural
12:52
Speaker 2: vote and they'll actually start debating it?
12:54
Speaker 1: Well, I think that's the plan here. There's a lot
12:56
Speaker 1: of people who just didn't want their names tied to it, good, bad,
12:59
Speaker 1: and different. I think with all the stuff going on,
13:02
Speaker 1: enough names came out and said, you know what? My
13:04
Speaker 1: name is already attached to a lot of things that
13:06
Speaker 1: could push in one direction or the other. We don't
13:08
Speaker 1: need to decide this right now. Let's procedurally table it
13:11
Speaker 1: until after the elections.
13:12
Speaker 2: Well, those that would understand this and see, you know,
13:14
Speaker 2: I consider myself at least not the sharpest knife in
13:18
Speaker 2: the drawer, but I'm not a complete moron. But, you know,
13:21
Speaker 2: this is a very confusing topic. And I imagine those
13:25
Speaker 2: that would respond had they voted on this and had
13:28
Speaker 2: they brought it up for debate would be all of
13:29
Speaker 2: the major industry players who have lots of money, campaign contributions, influence,
13:34
Speaker 2: lobbyists and all that. So it would bring that particular
13:37
Speaker 2: very loud group out, but maybe not, you know, Joe
13:40
Speaker 2: and Jane Doe out living the real world looking for
13:44
Speaker 2: money to fill their gas tank.
13:47
Speaker 1: Correct. And that's literally what this is about, right? We're
13:49
Speaker 1: basically trying to enshrine in law what cryptocurrency is. And
13:53
Speaker 1: this has been a debate really since kind of the
13:56
Speaker 1: beginning of it being used as an investment tool. Cryptocurrency,
14:00
Speaker 1: despite its name, it's not a currency. People don't use it.
14:04
Speaker 1: It's not exchanged for goods and services. Could it be? Absolutely.
14:07
Speaker 1: But does anybody do that now? No, we hoard it.
14:09
Speaker 1: We sit on it because we hope it goes up
14:11
Speaker 1: in value and people jump in and out of it.
14:12
Speaker 1: They speculatively trade it. And so forth. So it's not
14:15
Speaker 1: actually a currency. Not yet. I guess it could be.
14:17
Speaker 1: But I have a feeling it's kind of ensconced itself
14:20
Speaker 1: as a special investment.
14:22
Speaker 2: You can hoard gold. Of course, you can trade it
14:24
Speaker 2: if you want to use it as currency. But just theoretically,
14:26
Speaker 2: you can hold gold. And the idea is you hope
14:28
Speaker 2: it returns a greater investment down the road. At least
14:32
Speaker 2: it has an independent value beyond the investment. Crypto does not.
14:37
Speaker 1: You just sit on it.
14:41
Speaker 2: Until it goes up, and then you sell it. But
14:44
Speaker 2: it's not really worth anything except something theoretical. It's like
14:47
Speaker 2: Pokemon cards. Exactly.
14:49
Speaker 1: I think we'd be in a better spot if we
14:52
Speaker 1: didn't have all of the flavors. If there were a
14:54
Speaker 1: handful of them, rather than all celebrities tying their names
14:57
Speaker 1: to something that is effectively the exact same structure as
14:59
Speaker 1: the big boys, as Bitcoin and Ethereum, Melania coin is
15:02
Speaker 1: the exact same thing. They're all the same. It's just
15:04
Speaker 1: slapping your name on something, letting it move in a
15:07
Speaker 1: speculative manner, which completely clouds what are these things actually for,
15:10
Speaker 1: which leads us to the situation now where we can't
15:13
Speaker 1: decide what the heck the thing is to begin with.
15:14
Speaker 2: Well, in an effort to be politically neutral, call me
15:16
Speaker 2: Switzerland this morning. Don't forget there was a Hunter Biden Bitcoin, too.
15:20
Speaker 1: All of them. All of the coins, right? There was
15:21
Speaker 1: also a Huk2a1, if I recall correctly. There's no logic
15:24
Speaker 1: or intelligence to this. There you go.
15:26
Speaker 2: There's no logic or intelligence to it. I'm going back
15:29
Speaker 2: to my earlier point and thinking, well, you know what? Maybe, Thomas,
15:31
Speaker 2: you're not as dumb as you think you are. Anyway,
15:34
Speaker 2: Brian James, not dumb. We're going to talk one more time.
15:36
Speaker 2: Are you dating? And if you are, I hope you're wealthy.
15:39
Speaker 2: We'll find out why I got a better way to
15:41
Speaker 2: date and it doesn't cost as much. And it's far
15:43
Speaker 2: more impressive for your, uh, your date. Eight 25 right now.
15:46
Speaker 2: Don't go away. Be right back.
15:48
Speaker 1: 55 KRC.com.
15:50
Speaker 2: And on a Monday, which means we're still talking with
15:51
Speaker 2: Brian James from all worth financial money Monday. And here's
15:55
Speaker 2: a good topic. Dating Brian James. Guess dating is expensive.
16:00
Speaker 1: Yeah.
16:00
Speaker 2: Real quick question, Brian. And I don't know why I
16:01
Speaker 2: have my thumb in the pulse of modern culture, but, um,
16:04
Speaker 2: Dutch treat where the parties to the date pay for
16:07
Speaker 2: their own meals and divide the check? Is it still
16:10
Speaker 2: an expectation in the world that I still have is
16:13
Speaker 2: that the man is supposed to pay? But maybe I'm
16:15
Speaker 2: just being paternalistic or something like that. But just the
16:19
Speaker 2: idea of dating apparently is expensive. So is there some
16:24
Speaker 2: sort of guideline or expectation out there in the world
16:28
Speaker 2: of what people expect of the earnings of the person
16:34
Speaker 2: they're dating? What's going on with this story?
16:37
Speaker 1: Yeah. So this is coming from, there's a study out
16:40
Speaker 1: there that was actually done by Northwestern Mutual, big insurance company,
16:43
Speaker 1: and they paid the Harris poll to do this, right?
16:47
Speaker 1: I cite that because this sounds like it came from
16:49
Speaker 1: a dating app, but it really didn't. It came from
16:50
Speaker 1: a financial services company and some of the conclusions they
16:53
Speaker 1: were able to draw. So Northwestern Mutual surveyed about 4,300
16:57
Speaker 1: adults 18 and older in January. And then they looked
17:00
Speaker 1: at the responses across gender, age, generation, and so forth.
17:04
Speaker 1: And the big conclusion that they drew was that 59%
17:08
Speaker 1: of singles said a partner's income is not important to them.
17:12
Speaker 1: So that's important. But on the other hand, but for
17:15
Speaker 1: the rest of those, the remaining 41%, they say the
17:20
Speaker 1: average ideal income for a potential partner is $ 139, 000. Single
17:24
Speaker 1: women in that group, they averaged $ 172, 000. Remember, this is
17:28
Speaker 1: the response to when asked what's the ideal income for
17:31
Speaker 1: a potential partner. Single women said $ 172, 000. Single men averaged
17:33
Speaker 1: about $ 101, 000. Now, this one's interesting. So in terms of
17:39
Speaker 1: the cross-generational opinions, millennials said that that income needs to
17:43
Speaker 1: be $ 160, 000. Gen Z was down to $ 135, 000, X at $ 123, 000,
17:48
Speaker 1: and boomers about the same there as well. So it's
17:50
Speaker 1: interesting to me. Millennials are the ones who are in
17:53
Speaker 1: the biggest of all the grinders right now, meaning they're
17:56
Speaker 1: at the most expensive time of paying mortgages and raising
17:59
Speaker 1: kids and all of that. So they are the ones,
18:01
Speaker 1: of course, who are seeing a higher dollar amount as
18:03
Speaker 1: potentially necessary rather than the other generations.
18:07
Speaker 2: Do any of these people have a concept of what
18:09
Speaker 2: the median or mean salary is in the United States?
18:12
Speaker 2: Because I think these salaries exceed what is largely considered
18:15
Speaker 2: to be the norm.
18:17
Speaker 1: Oh, absolutely. These expectations that they're saying in the survey here,
18:20
Speaker 1: you're not going to find that many people out there. Remember,
18:24
Speaker 1: the question was, what's your ideal? And that's how hard
18:27
Speaker 1: it is to get to the ideal. Not a lot
18:29
Speaker 1: of people are in these situations. So some of the
18:31
Speaker 1: other conclusions that they drew here are 60% of them
18:35
Speaker 1: said poor money habits are a deal breaker in a
18:37
Speaker 1: new relationship. That's good. 60%. That's good. What's the other 40% thinking?
18:43
Speaker 1: What are you looking for? If you're saying, you know,
18:44
Speaker 1: you can be a financial mess, just be good looking.
18:46
Speaker 1: I don't really care.
18:48
Speaker 2: As I was writing down, one should evaluate the person's
18:52
Speaker 2: earning potential. What are they earning now may not be
18:56
Speaker 2: enough down the road, but you know what, Brian, like you,
18:58
Speaker 2: when I first started out working, I didn't make as
19:01
Speaker 2: much as I've made in every year thereafter, right? the
19:05
Speaker 2: earnings are going to go up. And if you combine
19:07
Speaker 2: that earnings with a spouse who also is able to
19:10
Speaker 2: make a decent amount of money, the two and two
19:11
Speaker 2: added together can provide you a quite comfortable life in marriage.
19:15
Speaker 1: Exactly. That's coming from experience. And here's a conclusion also
19:18
Speaker 1: that comes from obviously experienced people in this survey. For
19:22
Speaker 1: the ones who flagged themselves as married or at least cohabitating,
19:25
Speaker 1: 72 percent of them said financial compatibility mattered more than
19:29
Speaker 1: emotional and shared interests and lifestyle and all those kinds
19:32
Speaker 1: of things. Well, I think people do come to the
19:34
Speaker 1: conclusion eventually that, you know what, looking back, the reason
19:36
Speaker 1: we are not such a mess is because we were
19:38
Speaker 1: financially compatible to begin with.
19:40
Speaker 2: Well, you know, doesn't that make sense? Maybe it isn't
19:42
Speaker 2: the money doesn't make you happy. But the absence of
19:45
Speaker 2: money creates problems and challenges in any relationship that makes
19:48
Speaker 2: you unhappy. More stability on the financial side frees your
19:52
Speaker 2: time up psychologically to enjoy the benefits of being married,
19:55
Speaker 2: which are very long in length.
19:58
Speaker 1: Absolutely. And a shared goal of let's make more than
20:02
Speaker 1: we spend for the balance of our lives really, really
20:05
Speaker 1: does lead to happiness. Does the money create it? No,
20:08
Speaker 1: but the, but the teamwork does.
20:10
Speaker 2: That's where it helps to really seriously evaluate your potential spouse.
20:14
Speaker 2: How are they thinking? Are they going out and racking
20:17
Speaker 2: up big credit card debts? Do they buy stuff they
20:19
Speaker 2: don't need? Oh, Brian James taking me back a lot
20:22
Speaker 2: of years and God bless you to my wife. I
20:25
Speaker 2: love Paulette, and we've been very happy and compatible over
20:28
Speaker 2: the years because we shared that exact idea and those
20:30
Speaker 2: exact goals. Quick, Brian, I wanted to mention because one
20:33
Speaker 2: of the reasons I'm married to her is I learned
20:35
Speaker 2: how to cook. And good morning to my mom who
20:38
Speaker 2: cooked me. It was part of the wonderful birthday meal
20:41
Speaker 2: I had yesterday, but mom taught me how to cook.
20:44
Speaker 2: I found that to be a very, very successful date.
20:49
Speaker 2: Ask a girl out and cook her a meal at
20:52
Speaker 2: your place.
20:53
Speaker 1: Reasonably priced. It shows that you've got something unique going on.
20:56
Speaker 1: You're not swiping a credit card for $ 250 at a
20:58
Speaker 1: nice restaurant and portraying yourself as something that you're not.
21:02
Speaker 2: And you don't have to go out and spend money
21:04
Speaker 2: on a movie when you've got an infinite number right
21:06
Speaker 2: in front of you. You can choose together what movie
21:08
Speaker 2: you want to watch. Steer the entertainment. And you've got
21:11
Speaker 2: the bottle of wine there with the meal you cooked.
21:12
Speaker 2: It turns out that it can really work out to
21:14
Speaker 2: your advantage and you don't have to spend much. Ah.
21:18
Speaker 1: Creative dating thoughts from Brian Thomas. Amen, brother.
21:21
Speaker 2: And cheers to the soundbite, Joe Strecker. Cheers to the soundbite.
21:25
Speaker 2: Brian James, thank you to Allworth Financial, your company, for
21:28
Speaker 2: sharing every week. I appreciate our conversations and discussions. And
21:31
Speaker 2: thanks for shedding a little bit more light on cryptocurrency
21:33
Speaker 2: for me. I don't feel nearly as bad as I
21:35
Speaker 2: did before. Brian, we'll do this again next Monday. I
21:38
Speaker 2: hope you have a great week.
21:39
Speaker 1: All right. Thanks for letting me talk to your listeners.
21:41
Speaker 1: Who day? 3-0 next week.
21:42
Speaker 2: Amen, brother. I'm with you on that as well.
21:44
Speaker 1: It's 835.
21:44
Speaker 2: We're going to hear from Cheryl.