The Lost Decade 2.0? Why Future Returns May Be Muted

For years, investors were rewarded just for showing up. That may be changing. 

In this episode, we dive into the case for muted returns going forward—and why the next decade could look a lot like the early 2000s. 

We unpack valuations, macro headwinds, and the reality that markets don’t always go up in a straight line. If you're expecting the same returns as the past decade, this conversation might change your perspective. 

Want a free Portfolio review? Schedule a call with our team today-

https://lifegoalinvestments.com/contact/#get-started

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:00

From Wall Street to managing hundreds of millions in client money, Nick and I use our alphabetic tube of credentials to discuss the investing and tax strategies that actually work. Oh, and we played Division I college football together. So strapped in. This one hits hard. Let's go.

SPEAKER_01 0:21

Alrighty, folks. We need to talk about a big week in the markets. We are talking Fed week. We are talking a massive and very important in earnings week. And also, we've unfortunately still got to talk about this war in Iran. But we are going to start with something that might be more interesting to you. And that is something Paul Tudor Jones just said. Paul Tudor Jones just said buying the SP 500 right now basically says you are going to have a negative 10-year period. Folks, I have been warning about a lost decade. I know lots of you are selling real estate and piling into the stock market. I do not think you are ready for a lost decade. We're going to talk with the CEO of Life Goal Investments, Taylor, a 10-year plus veteran on Wall Street, somebody who has certainly studied the dot-com era and the last lost decade, and also knows Paul Tudor Jones at least casually. So uh it is gonna be interesting, Taylor. How are you doing?

SPEAKER_00 1:22

I'm doing great. It's uh it's an interesting take. And and I see where he's coming from. I'm not sure that there's a direct corollary between here and what was going on in the late 90s, but it depends on how you peel the onion back. Because I didn't I didn't hear this interview with Paul Tudor Jones, but I would say likely his thought is that the earnings forecast that's being projected on the market right now is so inaccurate that the earnings aren't gonna follow through, and therefore valuations are crazy, crazy, crazy right now. But if you follow, I guess talking out of the other side of my mouth, if you follow the earnings projections that are in place, valuations in the market look relatively fair. I'd imagine his argument, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, is just that the Wall Street analysts are completely drunk right now, and we're not gonna get anywhere near those earnings, and therefore valuations right now are incredibly expensive.

SPEAKER_01 2:15

Is that is that where he was going with that? Yeah, it's essentially saying when you look at the PE today, so not really forward guidance, but when you look at the PE today, it is at such an extreme level that historically speaking, when we get this stretched, the next 10 years are gonna be negative.

SPEAKER_00 2:32

Even when you look at, and and I reference this a lot, there's a there's a great JP Morgan chart that looks at forward-looking earnings, so consensus earnings. And so, with that right now, consensus earnings going forward are incredibly optimistic. We talked about this on last week's episode last week's episode, where the average analyst is expecting 25% year-over-year growth and earnings for the next five years.

SPEAKER_01 2:54

And you shared last week, but let's give them punch length. That has happened once before, once, but you don't want to know when. You don't want to know when you don't want to know when.

SPEAKER_00 3:02

No, it's following the Great Depression, right? And so you come off of these just absolute depressed earnings. So it's not hard to compound, you know, earnings for the high rate from that point. So you're 100% correct in there. Like I think last week we suffice it to say, like, listen, this has never happened before.

SPEAKER_02 3:16

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 3:16

But even if you take that and say that is gospel, that we're gonna get these forward earnings that are gonna grow at 25% in perpetuity for the next five years. If you forecast that in a dot plot against what the next five years' worth of returns are for the S P 500, right now we're trading at about 20 times multiple of the forward rosy looking forecasted estimates, it's about 5% return for the next five years. So that's taking everything at face value that these analysts are spot on and that earnings are gonna come through as they anticipate with these really rosy projections. It's still only a 5% annualized return for the next five years. So if you start to, if you start to back out and say, like, no, these earnings aren't gonna come to fruition, there's too much intensity built up and optimism built up around this AI build out that the money's just not there, then then it starts to look crazy.

SPEAKER_01 4:09

Yeah, well, as a you know, an old head or you know, sometimes called a boomer, which is insulting because I'm from Gen X. I remember the dot-com era, and I gotta tell you, I see a lot of similarities between what the AI spend is doing and the dot com. The most obvious to me, because I was up close and personal, was DSL. Right? There was a time where people thought that companies had to lay fiber in the ground to power the internet, and they got all the money in the world. And I know this because I sold to them, right? I was selling to these people, and then I watched them vaporize 18 months later because they were out of spending. And oh, by the way, technology improved, and that's where I think this AI build-out is gonna go insane. Is I think technology is gonna change in such a way that's gonna make these data centers almost irrelevant, or at least the quantity, and that's why I think this money is gonna be lit on fire. Yeah, so you know, I I think there's a very good chance that you know these uh hyperscalers, as they're called, end up, you know, burning capital. And I've got out on a limb and I'll say it here with you. I think open AI, when we zoom out a decade from now, will be the company that single-handedly burned the most cash ever. Yeah, I just don't see them surviving. Uh, I think they're I think they're destined to fail.

SPEAKER_00 5:28

I I think the difference between now and the dot-com era is the fact that the folks that are doing this ridiculous spending, drunken sailor spending, as I always refer to it as, they do have legitimate businesses that are almost making enough cash flow. They've just gone cash flow negative. They have. So let's be clear like that, they just crossed the precipice of spending more cash on this AI build-out than they're bringing in from their other businesses. Now, you got to think of that their businesses as basically siloed. It's this new frontier of AI that is gonna revolutionize the world and the profits are gonna follow. That's what they're doing all their spending on. But typically, not typically, these hyperscalers have moats in their own business. Like Meta has the moat of they are going to continue to drive revenue off social media, like, period. Right now, Google's is maybe maybe a question Google's a little bit, and their moat is around search, and maybe there's some disruptability to that, etc. But these big hyperscalers, you know, Microsoft has their office and outlook and all that, that that is that is a known quantity that will continue to drive new revenues going forward. So it's not that it's just a bet and the bet has to pay off in order for their business to be sustainable. They're still going to keep their head above water, even if they have to back out of this ridiculous AI spend. That's the big discrepancy between what was going on in the dot-com bubble and today.

SPEAKER_01 6:46

Well, let me uh let me quote Larry Page. And if you don't know Larry Page, he's one of the founders of Google. He said about this AI race, and I quote, I am willing to go bankrupt rather than lose this race.

SPEAKER_00 7:00

Yeah, yeah, yeah. And it is it is something where they're so part of me questions just how much more they understand and know than the layman about AI. It because these are some of the brightest technological brains on the planet. So it's either they know where things are gonna go in the future better than we do, because they are all so convicted. It it I always question like, how is the level of conviction in the amount of spend? It's gonna be roughly a trillion, a little under a trillion dollars this year spent.

SPEAKER_01 7:33

It'll be over a trillion by the end of this week. We'll get into that in a minute.

SPEAKER_00 7:36

Yeah, yeah, yeah. So, but the point of that is is like, what do they know that we don't know? Question mark. Is there something there that has them the level of conviction to spend the amount that they're spending? Or is it just they're all punch drunk together? They're all racing against this thing that everyone got excited about. Now you get a bit a little bit of a pullback in token spend, and you have China entering the market with open source models that are a lot more efficient. Is there just this glaring weakness from some of the folks that have operated businesses in the most productive manner in the world in the last 10, 15, 20 years?

SPEAKER_01 8:12

So I've lived in, you know, I lived in, worked in, uh, was an executive in the Silicon Valley for a long time. So I know a lot of these folks. And I think a lot of people just assume these guys are the smartest people in the room. I will remind you of Enron back in the day. They were often quoted as the smartest guys in the room. Fair. And they were nothing more than frauds, they were running a game. So I have seen quote unquote very smart people get very, very stupid by just racing to some unknown finish line. Um, they're probably afraid, certainly Google Alphabet's case, they're they're afraid of losing search and having nothing behind it. But you know, you can look at meta. Do you does anybody remember the metaverse? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, how they went after that forever. So, again, assuming these people have some omniscient idea of the future is impractical.

SPEAKER_00 9:05

They are just as fallible as I don't disagree, but it just the difference when it was meta and now or Enron, which was legitimately just you know partially fraudulent that caused caused a lot of that. Um, is that they're all convicted, and the world seems to be convicted.

SPEAKER_01 9:22

Well, see, so let me just push back on that because again, I want to be very clear. I'm not some AI doomer. I think AI is real, I think it's just like the internet. It's real. We will more and more people will use it every single day, but it's also going to be like the internet where it's essentially free. I remember going to Fry's Electronics to buy a browser. Right? Netscape browser.

SPEAKER_00 9:44

What was that? What was that name? Fry Fry's Electronics.

SPEAKER_01 9:48

What is that? Yes. It was uh it was like a Best Buy back in the day, just for tech. Gotcha. No longer exists. That's how old I am. I remember when you had to buy a web browser and install it called Netscape Navigator 3.0 or whatever that version was. AI is absolutely real, it will make our lives better, it will change fundamentally almost everything we do. I am not saying AI is not real, I'm saying it's not the ROI is not there.

SPEAKER_00 10:14

The willingness to buy it is people have gotten it. It's gonna compete to zero. It's yeah, people have gotten used to free service. I I think there's merit in that, and I think that's absolutely what's coming out of the microscope of the market right now. What was interesting to me last week was that there is a game right now where Google comes out and says, Okay, we're gonna we're gonna crank spending, we're gonna keep this spending rolling, we're gonna increase their spending on their earnings report last week. Yeah, and for a minute it was like, okay, the market's gonna support this, is it? Is it not? Bang, gaps down, and everything else was beautiful in that earnings report. Beautiful. And what was interesting was then the next day, you get a pop out of semiconductors, you get a pop out of memory. And so you're like, okay, well, I get where this is going. If if Google's gonna continue to spend, this is the stuff that they're gonna buy, and so therefore their earnings are gonna move higher and their stocks should proportionately move higher. But then you start to say, okay, well, if the market's gonna punish Google for spending, are they going to continue to spend? And is this warranting the move higher in semiconductors and memory? And now you have this week come out. We're in this, like I heard it put really well on a podcast the other day by Cameron Dawson, who's an incredible woman. And she said, Listen, we are in a prisoner's dilemma right now where you've got four prisoners, five prisoners, the hyperscalers, and they all kind of, if they look out for their own best interest exclusively, maybe one of them stands up and says, I'm gonna stop spending. And I think the market rewards that given what happened last week in the short term, but then it's the long term of okay, well, now we're gonna get behind in this race. And how does that all play out? Yeah, if they can all collectively collude and say, Okay, listen, we're done. This is ridiculous. Let's back this down five, 10, 15. We might all win or lose. We don't know stock price in the short term. We're not sure how the market's gonna react to this, but like this is getting crazy.

SPEAKER_01 12:15

Well, you know, again, as a student of history, the other thing that I think is going on right now is this is very similar to what is often called the Cold War. And I'm talking Ronald Reagan and and Gorbachev, right? Cold War. And it's often quoted, and I think it's truth, that we just basically outspent Russia, which caused them to collapse, right? And I suspect that a lot of these guys are spending again, racing ahead, trying to trying to see who blinks first, right? Who has the the weakest moat or the smallest margin, and they've gone cash flow negative, right? Google went cash flow negative for the first time in a long time. Um, you know, Tesla cash flow negative, likely this week, others to follow. So it just seems like a spending race, or I'll call it an arms race to go back to the Cold War.

SPEAKER_00 13:03

That um, you know, the winner's gonna be who can spend the most, and that's just so dangerous, especially when they can't draw the direct line of connection between spend and ROI. Bingo, that's and it's just not there, it's not there, it's not right, it's just not it that they entered a market in a world where we're used to getting technology for free, and they went in with the potential drunk illusion that they would be able to charge a significant amount for the added productivity this will get the end consumer. And so, like you know, your point on open AI is I I don't think it's misguided at all. Open AI took the dumbest approach at this. Now, now maybe we needed them to do so to get adoption of AI probably public awareness of it, probably. Yeah, so maybe that was you know, for for the broad world, maybe that was a a good thing, but from a business or an open AI's perspective, like the end consumer doesn't have the desire or the ability to pay for for you know them writing down recipes for them or building them that workout or whatever.

SPEAKER_01 14:08

It's and they're gonna so again, because they were a first mover, they had artificial pop because you always get those leaders in the you know the world to adopt tech fast. Now we've got Kimmy three and likely dozens more coming that are just as good and basically free. They're their their install base is gonna rot like termites, it's gonna it's gonna collapse.

SPEAKER_00 14:29

What was really interesting to me is that there was an open letter written to the government to say, hey, we want to stop closed looping these underlying companies and take China's model. And China's model is open source this. So, hey, I I've always used this one as an easy analogy. Like, if I have a great pizza recipe, I gotta show Michael my great pizza recipe and he might be able to improve upon that, right? And so now they're saying, like, listen, we can continue to spend like this as a country and build out and protect, quote unquote, yeah, our underlying information and data. We need to open it up, or otherwise, we're gonna get a butts whooped by China, who continues to have the best and brightest build off of what the best and brightest have already built.

SPEAKER_01 15:12

Yeah, yeah, it's gonna be it's gonna be very interesting. I do think AI uh is real again to go back to that, but I also I think the money being spent on it's gonna be worth nearly nothing. I think it's gonna, I think AI in three years or less is like a web browser where it's just used and free uh by the masses, right? By the you know, everyday consumers. And that's gonna just that's just gonna burn billions, if not hundreds of billions of dollars.

SPEAKER_00 15:39

I don't I don't think you're wrong. I think you're I think you're further on the spectrum than I am in the in in the negativity of like, listen, people aren't gonna pay for this. Um, I I I think there will be services developed and these models developed that suit underlying businesses really well, but it's gonna be more targeted, it's not gonna be broad based and hey, everyone is gonna have to pay for this because everyone is gonna benefit.

SPEAKER_01 16:03

That's been the so that so I think we're splitting hairs, but I think it's we are, we are. I guess my point is when you look at the stack, I think there are two investable pieces and one that's going to zero. There's the underlying hardware that makes it operate, right? You need chips, you need memory, all that's real stuff. It's physical. You need that. Then there's the LL LLMs, which I'm calling a browser in this analogy. They're all basically the same, they all kind of you know source the same stuff and cheated off each other, and they're all the same crap. That's going to zero. And then there's this application layer, which takes industry-specific knowledge, industry-specific stuff on top of the LLM and makes it unique. So I think there's value at what I'll call an application layer and you know, hardware layer. The LLM's going to zero.

SPEAKER_00 16:57

Yeah, but if the LLM is going to zero, and that's a lot of who's spending the money on the chips, then how does that impact the down market of that? Because that rolls downhill. Where if they can't make profits off of their LLM models, then they can't continue to build out and spend money on the chips, too.

SPEAKER_01 17:14

Hence the debt goes bad, all this past spending is stupid, the drunken sailor has a hangover, yada yada, yada. That's that's the fear that I see coming.

SPEAKER_00 17:25

Yeah, yeah. We're gonna find out again. I I have to give some merit, which you're not willing to give, and then that's fine. I have to give some merit to these folks that are have navigated markets incredibly well through very, very tough times over the past 15 years, whether it was European sovereign debt issues or whether it was COVID, whether it was inflationary pressures, they handled them all and came out looking like you know, David Hasselhoff and Baywatch, like just beautiful, right? Uh you go. So, but at the end of the day, like you're right. And and and and you have the headline right now that is grabbing attention to the market, and rightfully so. People are starting to bring this back under question where it was under question a year ago. It was where where are these profits coming from? And then somehow that headline faded and abated, and the market ripped, and everything associated with AI ripped, and now it's back.

SPEAKER_01 18:19

Yeah, well, I think what happened is anthropic came around and proved that you can generate you know the fastest growing company in history by going to the enterprise, right? That was that was what changed, right? Open AI went to the consumer B2C, anthropic went B2B, and they just had that early adopter advantage, which again I think is gonna just evaporate as we move forward.

SPEAKER_00 18:40

And and and and a year ago or more, it was on the hope and prayer that we are gonna build this thing that is incredibly productive and that there will be spend on the back end, and now businesses, real businesses, are starting to say, Well, we've spent an ungodly amount.

SPEAKER_01 18:56

Yeah, we've seen we've seen more companies say we're we're canceling spend than we saw return on. There's just no ROI. Let's just call it what it is. There's no ROI. Yeah, all right. Well, let's get to the three topics. Next topic. Yeah, you do amazing stuff on Instagram. I'm still I'm still shocked at you know, five minutes of value in a 60-second clip consistently on Instagram. So follow him for that. Um, but let's get to earnings week. We've obviously got the hyperscalers, and you know, it's a big earnings week, lots of lots of consumer stocks as well. Uh, I guess the big question for um, you know, the drunken sailors is does do they raise CapEx spend like last week? What do you think?

SPEAKER_00 19:36

I think that if if last week didn't play out the way it did, where Google said, Hey, we've got demand, we're gonna raise, boom, continue spending, and then the market pukes on them. I think that it was all but a given entity or a given uh given nature that they were all going to raise or or at least stay in line. I don't think that there's enough time for them to about face and say, Hey, now we're gonna cut and watch out and and see what the trickle-down effect of that is. Although that might be a a good thing for that individual stocks performance if one of those first mover, first mover, yeah, exactly, says, Hey, we're backing off. This is crazy. Um, but I think what they probably do is they say status quo and they say, Whatever we said last quarter, we're just gonna roll it forward. And I think the market's fear is that they pull a Google and they say, Yeah, I'm gonna up CapEx, and then they're probably gonna be punished just like Google was punished because everything else on Google's earnings report was beautiful. Yeah, it was beautiful.

SPEAKER_01 20:35

Uh well, I'm actually more interested in the rest of the earnings reports. Uh, you know, we got a bunch of small banks, right? The mega banks come out. I think you were nailed that one. Congratulations. The regional banks have been basically just as good. But now we start to get the kind of community and small banks. I'll be interested there because that's where I think the pain starts. That's where they're too concentrated in real estate or or something of that nature. We also get Whirlpool, right? I think Whirlpool, I don't know if it was before the market or after today, but they had a nasty report last week or last quarter, uh, basically saying the consumers delaying CapEx. I'm interested in UPS, what's going on with shipping, Royal Caribbean, what's going on with travel, Chipotle, right? Once a darling of COVID. There's a lot of other reports this week. Uh, any any of them catch your attention other than the hyperscalers?

SPEAKER_00 21:24

The banking space. The banking space is is really interesting because the big banks reported and they blew it out because capital markets began to really hum again. Right. You had MA, you had SpaceX, you had all of these things, kind of confluence of events come together, and it was a perfect storm for financials. But you also had the KRE, which is the regional bank index, really breaking out and bringing out in a positive way. So the KRE is an ETF that tracks the regional banking world, and and it's had a really, really good run. And what we also see is our folks like Capital One, which really kind of is more. Of on the lower end consumer credit side of things, them coming out and saying the consumer by all by all kinds of means, broadly speaking, are in good shape. And so that kind of leads me to believe that even these regional and then even smaller kind of small market banks, I think they're going to be okay because I think it's just you know, if you have to draw a direct line to some, you know, one thing, it's the consumer. And I think the consumer tends to be relatively healthy by all accounts that we have thus far.

SPEAKER_01 22:27

All right. Well, let's get to the Fed meeting. The Fed meeting this week, you know, I think most people think uh they're gonna pause. Uh, I think the last time I saw last Friday was 38%. I think it's 36 now for a rate hike. I actually think the interesting question is simply gonna be how many dissents we get.

SPEAKER_00 22:44

How many dissents do we get?

SPEAKER_01 22:46

Yeah, yeah. I do not think this is gonna be a unanimous vote. I think they gave Walsh a unanimous vote in his first meeting as kind of you know window dressing. It ain't gonna be unanimous this time, I don't think. I think Hammock and Logan are guaranteed dissents, and there could be more. What do you think?

SPEAKER_00 23:02

Yeah, I'm I'm with you on that. I think that this last and now today there seems to be a reprieve and a pause. There's too much, and what I'm talking about there is in Iran, right? So peace talks back in Iran, but you know, fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Like, I'm not getting fooled until me 17 times. I mean, yeah, yeah, yeah. I think it's you know, 37 at this point, but anyway. Um so so but now there's it it's interesting where you're getting more parties involved now. So now you have the Ukraine involved. Yeah, like I really struggle to make sense of I didn't see that one coming.

SPEAKER_01 23:38

Why are you attacking our yeah?

SPEAKER_00 23:39

Yeah, what's going on there? Why are you attacking the Red Sea now? Yeah, yeah, yeah. And so it's it's broadening. And I think what's happening, the only sense I can make of this Ukrainian war or this Ukraine kind of Iran uh missiles hitting hitting Iranian ships is this is just becoming much more of a proxy. So it's it's kind of the two-front war of the east versus the west, and people are now stepping up and saying, Hey, dude, I'll I'll I'll punch that guy for you. Yeah, like now Ukraine's trying to win a uh win a bid from the US by saying, Hey, we'll we'll do some of your dirty work for you if that's what you actually aspire for, you know, to happen as an Iranian vessel to go down or whatever. Like we'll throw that punch so you don't have to. I'm just trying to see what the layers between beneath the onion are because I can't figure out Ukraine. You would think they got enough going on, you know, between them and Russia, but now they're I don't know. And the Houthis are now very involved, right? So I I get that one. That one's an easy connection, but the Ukraine one is is is a tough one to figure out. There was a headline that I had to read twice. Yeah, you're like, did I did I misread that? You know, like what happened? Yeah, Russian refineries, I get that. I don't get I don't get their involvement now in the separate hot war that's going on. It doesn't make a ton of sense.

SPEAKER_01 24:56

Uh so let's talk about Kevin Walsh, right? I think Kevin Warsh, obviously the new Fed president. Um I I actually said this morning on the Daily Financial News that it would not shock me if uh he raises rates this week. Interesting. Because again, when I look out at the calendar, right? They don't meet in August, and the next one is September and then October. That's getting really, really close to the midterms.

SPEAKER_00 25:21

Yeah, okay, okay, yeah. So he could get backed into a corner against the midterms, and then all of a sudden the political narrative starts to interesting.

SPEAKER_01 25:29

And so that's one, and he wants to clearly show that he's not a Trump puppet, right? I think he wants to do that, and he's wants to stop this forward guidance nonsense, right? He wants to right now, I think Kevin believes the market leads the Fed, right? Follow the two-year. I think Kevin's like, all right, fuckers, I'll show you. Let me dictate the two year. Yeah, exactly. I'm gonna pull a rabbit out of the hat and give you something you don't expect. Again, to be clear, I am calling for a pause, but I'm just saying for the first time in years, I am not 99% convinced what's gonna happen. I could see a logical theme where Kevin goes, All right, you want a rate hike?

SPEAKER_00 26:13

Here we go. I'm not a buyer on your second theory there, but I am a buyer on your on your primary of all of a sudden now you're getting backed right into midterm elections. And Jay Powell got absolutely smoked by the headlines by by him, you know, kowtowing to the Democrats to try to cut rates before or or or raise rates rather going into the election of Trump, um, etc. It what'll be interesting is that Trump has said that he's gonna stay out of the way. If Kevin Walsh raises rates, he's not staying out of the way. No, so this is gonna be a reigniting of the Jerome Powell kind of issue with Kevin Walsh, both of which were appointed by Trump, which makes it even more history.

SPEAKER_01 26:53

People forget, people forget that Powell was appointed by Trump. Yeah, it's pretty funny.

SPEAKER_00 26:57

I yeah, I I I guess I I will take the other side of it. I I I think the Fed is on pause through the end of the year. I know we disagree. Wow, through the end of the year. Yeah, I think so. Yeah, I just can't come up with a oil-driven, and and again, they know not all of inflation has been oil-driven. I I get that, but the the sincere, quick, snap nature hire of oil in recent months has been a function of what's going on in Iran. And I just don't think that you can think higher cost of capital is going to fix that underlying issue that drove oil prices higher, that drove inflation higher.

SPEAKER_01 27:31

I will remind you of a very simple quote that Kevin Wars said. And it clearly he was slapping Jerome Powell with this inflation is a choice.

SPEAKER_00 27:42

Yeah, yeah. And at the same time, it's like, yeah, but that choice the other side of that choice is raising rates against the backdrop of an inflationary pressure that is not monetarily.

SPEAKER_01 27:58

The Fed can't do yeah, the Fed does not drill for oil.

SPEAKER_00 28:00

Yeah, yeah, yeah. So now now if we raise race and the raise rates in the face of that, especially if some of this capex unwind starts to take place in the AI spend, now you got that headwind, and you've got the higher cost of capital to to boot on that. And and now you have an economic pressure that that isn't so pretty.

SPEAKER_01 28:18

And now you know why I think they'll raise rates once this year and it will be a special.

SPEAKER_00 28:24

It's a very good round. Yeah, I remember that that was your thesis now that you bring that up. And and if they do, I think that I think that is the case. I think that's reality. No, and we've seen it happen before, so I don't know why you discount it.

SPEAKER_01 28:34

Yeah, no, it's I say go back and study history, folks. It has happened before. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, Taylor, you are amazing. I always appreciate our weekly conversations. Where can people find your daily updates? Because again, it's five minutes of value inside 60 seconds.

SPEAKER_00 28:48

Yeah, thanks so much. Yeah, we're on Instagram, on TikTok, on LinkedIn. We're at LifeGoal Investments, is our username on all of them. So, uh, like I said, like Mike said, six 60-second daily clips, just trying to keep you updated on what's going on in the markets and the world of finance.

SPEAKER_01 29:01

And again, folks, he operates with the 1% of the 1%. So you need to pay attention uh and understand what's going on. Thanks, Taylor. Take care.

SPEAKER_00 29:08

You're the man. Talk soon. Quick ask: if you're enjoying the show, hit the follow and drop a rating. It helps more folks find our podcast. Thanks so much. The information discussed in this video is for educational purposes only and should not be considered investment, tax, or financial advice. Investing involves risk, including possible loss principal. Always consult a qualified financial professional before making any investment decisions. Past performance is not indicative of future results.