BlackRock, Vanguard & State Street: Market Dominance

[0:00] JD: Boop, beep, boop, beep, boop. It's retired. All right, here we go, people. Welcome to the show. Welcome to a new version of Retireholics. We're moving to an experimental format in 2024. Here's the way it's going to work. My 401k peeps will continue to do our shows on the first and third Thursday of every month. The first show will be a classic retire holic format with a guest and acron and irresponsible drinking and fancy guests and headlines and drunk stock tips and all that kind of jazz and new things to come. The second show of each month will be more of a free for all kind of an experimental thing. We'll figure it out as we go. And as an example today, I'd like to try something a little different. There's no organized format. I simply wrote the boys two weeks ahead of time. Mark said, hey, this is the subject. I'd really like y' all to study it up, find some examples, watch some videos out there, read some articles and come to the show so we can really kind of get down and dirty and detailed on a subject and have just more of a free flowing conversation. [1:32] Mark: I'm just here to drink, just so [1:34] JD: you know, so this will be a lot less of me. [1:37] Mark: I read your email like 13 minutes ago, JD it was well done, it was well written, a lot of good examples. Don't know what it was about though. [1:47] JD: The normal show you got to be get tired of is, is me trying to shove some agenda down your throat, trying to get to certain segments and, and do certain things. I'd much rather have this one be like, I listen to these podcasts out there where people just have good conversations and that's what I'm trying to go for today. Me, myself, I even poured myself a really nice glass of wine. Just chilling. There's no smearing off around me. Felt very freeing. I got, oh wow. Chad's got tea. I like it, I like it. So, so let's, let's set up the, the first, the topic for today. Hold on. [2:24] Mark: Can I, J.D. i, I, I, of course, Mark, I [2:29] JD: just said it's free flowing. [2:30] Mark: Do whatever you want. [2:31] JD: This is now. Now you're interrupting me and I'm not even stressed because I have no agenda to follow. Go right ahead. [2:38] Mark: Now you're interrupting me. [2:40] Justin: All right, [2:42] Mark: so wait, first off, I know that drinking is optional, like I get that, but is acro sin still being played? [2:51] JD: Oh, Peps, Peps. Suck them. The peps. Okay, we'll Keep those for the first show of the month. Random made a graphic, but I'm not playing along. There's no. Any other questions? [3:04] Mark: Rob GUY no, that pretty much covers it. [3:08] JD: J.D. okay, let's, let's. [3:11] Chad: We just saw half the audience tune out when we said no Acura Santa, no no S or drunk stock tips. [3:17] JD: So hey, you gotta try, you gotta try some new things. You gotta try some new things. Okay, I have, I have heard this come out of the mouth of a lot of people on this, in this world. This concept that Black Rock, Vanguard and State street control the country and, or control the world, if you will. I can't remember where I first heard it, but it has been spoken by. Bernie Sanders has mentioned this. Elon Musk has talked about this. The presidential candidate, Vivic Ramaswami, is he still running or did he back out? I forget. I don't know. He's mentioned this. This will add to the conspiracy theory. But I kind of like RFK Jr. He's talked about this. Our very own government has launched an investigation mid last year into this concept. I first saw it on like YouTube or something and I kind of dismissed it. I think the second time I heard it I was like, well, wait a second. Like I work with some of these companies. Like, what's up with this? I think it's about the fourth time that I tried to go dig deeper into it. So I'll just set up some of the, some of the facts that people spit out, spit out there. Okay. BlackRock, Vanguard, State street are the largest shareholders in 88% of the S P 500 companies. I don't know if you've done this, Chad. Bro, it's really weird. [4:54] Mark: Their investors are JD not themselves, not the companies. They're investors who, they have a responsibility to make sure they're making the right decisions for. [5:09] JD: Well, yes, but just for fun, anybody out there, go to Yahoo. Finance or whatever you use and look at Apple, look at Google, look at Meta, look at all the big companies in the world. I mean, branch out, look at General Mills or, or you know, all these companies and you're going to be shocked to see in the top five every time, many times in the top three, you will see these three names over and over and over again. And yes, we'll talk about what Robey just said. They, they are, these are investment companies. Only give you a few more stats. Vanguard and BlackRock together have 17 trillion and to Robey's point, in assets under management, that's roughly one third of the entire United States market. And they also get tapped by the government at times for kind of special deals. So remember when we had our big, like, mortgage subprime mortgage crisis and the big banks were gonna go under all the big institutions and they need to be saved? Well, apparently the government called in BlackRock to kind of sort a lot of this out and do stuff. So when someone says that these companies have power and clout and influence, I'll go to you, Chad, like, just because what Mark says true is that they're an asset manager and this isn't all their trillions of dollars, it's their clients. You still got to feel like there's some kind of something going on here. There's some validity to that. [6:42] Chad: I don't think the question is you got to feel like there's some. It's not a question. It should be a statement. There is something going on here. And, and their influence is worldwide. It's not just US Markets, it's not just US Companies. Their influence into United States military forces and, and those contracts is significant. So there, there are a number of different paths you could take this conversation. For me, as I started to read deeper into this, I don't put the tinfoil hat on. I look back and go, you want me to believe that these large organizations are in cahoots with one another in some way in which they're minimizing the competitive nature of our, our marketplace and they're behind the scenes convincing different board of directors to do certain things and throwing their weight around. [7:36] JD: Go, Chad. Go, Chad. [7:38] Mark: Yes. [7:38] Chad: Anybody knowing without anybody speaking out, without any real evidence. I mean, every. [7:44] JD: What do you mean? What do you mean? No one's. No one knowing or speaking out. Our government is investigating them. People are speaking out all over the place and not just crazy from their [7:57] Chad: little room time out. Who is speaking out in the inside of these relationships, though? There's. I haven't seen a whistleblower come out be like, yeah, you know, I was sitting next to Fink because they got rid of them. Chad, when we were on a train and he told me that this is how he muscled up Alphabet to doing this or that. No, because I don't. I, I honestly look into this and going, there is influence and is happening, but it is not this conspiracy hat of them all getting together in some Illuminati room and chatting through how they're gonna dominate the world. I, I don't. I just can't and won't believe we won't possible without leaks. [8:35] JD: Go ahead, Brian. [8:36] Justin: Well, I was gonna Say like, yeah, but they're, let's say with the airlines, they own a piece of all these major airlines. They're in the stockholder meetings, but you know, and they don't need a conspiracy, they need to just have their own self interest. And then they go, one airline goes, hey, we're going to lower fees to try to take out Southwest. And then they go, oh man, we got a big position in Southwest. Let's not do that. [9:05] JD: That's a great conflict of interest. [9:08] Justin: And then they're going to all the different airlines, they're going, no, we don't want any of them to lower fees. We own all of them. Like, why would we want that to happen? [9:16] JD: Let's, let's further cement Robi's point of, of them being just an asset manager, because I, because. So I'll jump on the other side real quick on Chad's side here. This is a big counter argument. We haven't mentioned this yet. Vanguard, I mean, you all know Vanguard, they're massive and passive index funds, right? So if your, your investment model is index or passive, I'll just use the simplest example ever, the S and P, then you really don't have the clout, right? Vanguard doesn't have the clout to say, hey, better do what I'm telling you or we're gonna pull our assets from you, you know, airlines or Apple or whatever. Because no, Vanguard has to follow the rules of the index fund, right? It's not an actively managed fund. It's passive. And by the way, for Vanguard, almost 80% of their investments are index. Passive strategy or style. BlackRock is. Of the 6.2 trillion that they manage, 66% is index funds or passive. So no shocker there either, especially with their big kind of ETF output. So that does kind of soften the blow a little bit, right? Like they can't, you can't really, Larry Fink can't run around in these boardrooms and say, I'm going to pull my trillions of dollars when these trillions of dollars are really in index or passive based stuff. Okay? So that needs to be mentioned or discussed. Just backing up Robi's point to this is not BlackRock's money. This is not Vanguard's money. This is not State Street's money. This is their client's money. No different than a record keeper having their client's assets or a financial advisor having their client's assets. [11:06] Chad: Okay, but not, not entirely. No different. So maybe you're getting there with the but. [11:11] JD: But no, I don't know. [11:12] Chad: I was just gonna say they've got seats and meetings that record keepers, the plans aren't getting in with record keepers. So. Yeah, go ahead. [11:20] JD: Voting rights. So that's the next kind of shoe to drop. Right. So voting rights. So believe it or not, when you're a participant in a 401k plan or even just a retail investor and your money is over at blackrock, you're not going to that meeting and voting because you have a tiny little bit, but the voting rights are pushed to that custodian. And so blackrock State Street Vanguard do have voting rights. And when you have voting rights, that could deal with like big business things, right? Like mergers and acquisitions or I don't know about Brandon's example, but maybe like a big pricing change or some kind of shift in the business. These are all for the board of directors to vote on and decide what direction they're going to take the company. It surely has to do with who's going to be on the board of directors. And I will tell you that these three companies have been under the spotlight in trying to push certain people either in or out of these board of directors. So you're right. We can't say they don't have influence and power for sure. [12:25] Chad: And can we acknowledge that as a whole? As a whole, blackrock Vanguard State straight. They have an obligation to their shareholders to do it is in their best interest and create value, rate of return. Right. And so much of what we're saying, while we have an issue with perhaps in conversation, much of what we're saying is not illegal and they're doing so in a way that is driving massive amounts of money and value to the people who are investing their money there. So getting three people put onto a board or flexing your muscles in a room and keeping prices of airlines going up. Yeah, it's up. It is. But is it not leading to their primary point of business which is to drive revenue? [13:13] JD: No, I think what you just said is a conflict in itself. You truly believe Chad, the guy who said he smoked on his insurance thing because he had a cigar after having a child, you truly believe that their, their sole responsibility is their fiduciary responsibility and that they're not puppeteering other things for other influence you have. You have a real trust in humanity in a big way. Like, [13:43] Justin: can we real quickly the difference between something being illegal and something needing to be done? Kind of like breaking up Rockefeller Standard Oil at one point, like, like. [13:54] JD: So just because it's legal. [13:56] Justin: Yeah, yeah. He monopolized the thing. It was legal to be a monopoly. There was no issue there. But we. We did something about it because it was ruining competition. [14:06] JD: I don't want to get crazy conspiracy. It's not on the topic today, but [14:09] Mark: isn't that the point of all this? [14:11] JD: Getting a little. [14:13] Justin: Chad's saying it's not illegal. And it's like, yeah, this goes outside [14:17] JD: of, like, this goes outside of finance, which I don't want to do. But it's like we're clearly seeing conflicts of interest with big drug companies and media and advertisements and what's being pushed, [14:29] Mark: who's got their hand in that, too? [14:32] JD: So to think that everyone's just following the rules and doing things that are legal and that's okay and not manipulating markets or doing things for their own benefit. And usually when you do something for your own benefit, it's not always a win win, Chad. There's usually a loser on the other side of that. You know where this argument tends to go? Where everyone got really fired up about it was with ESG. So Larry Fink of BlackRock, who's the founder, in case anyone doesn't know that, of blackrock, and the guy runs the ship these days, came out in 2020 with a letter to CEOs of all the big companies. And in this letter, he was basically saying, hey, look, BlackRock is going to take an interest in ESG. And we invest on behalf of our clients. We are a fiduciary for our clients, and so we are the ones in charge of putting their money in the right places. And it was basically a threat to all these companies. And we're going to start looking at what companies are good for our future, good for the environment, and fill in these ESG qualities that are. Check these boxes that we're looking for. This was in 2020. It's out on the Internet. It's a letter from. From BlackRock to all these companies. So don't tell me that that's not power and influence. They were literally telling everyone. And you can look at think all over TV, all over YouTube, are things reiterating this message of, hey, this is where blackrock stands on this. And I kind of felt like, I won't say at the time, but as I've soaked it in, I was like, how dare you? You're not the voice for your investors in terms of where they want to put their money in that sense, you know, like in terms of environment. And now we're getting back to the whole. We had a great conversation with who was on the show last time. Charlie. [16:35] Chad: Yeah. [16:35] JD: Or no. Who's the guy went in front of the government. Preston came on the show. [16:41] Chad: Yeah. [16:42] JD: And had that kind of woke agenda concept going on. So. So that was very clear from Fink. I want to give you an update on that. He's since. I mean, maybe this is me taking out of context a little bit, but he has since kind of backed away from that. So there was a massive backlash of people from both sides of the aisle flipping out on Fink and blackrock and their very public opinion of sustainable investing. So I don't know, give me your thoughts on that. That's influence. Go ahead, Bryn. [17:19] Justin: He kept the sustainable but sort of change. He got rid of sort of the environmental and his push. Now is he saying, hey, you. You know, you got to look at your longevity as a company and if. And then. So he's. He's hot. He's smuggling it in by saying change the narrative. [17:37] JD: Right. [17:37] Chad: Yeah. [17:38] Justin: Yeah. So. Oh, well, if you're not environmentally kind of conscious in 20 years, that could be a detriment to your company. Like you could get wiped out because you're too, you know, into a technology that the. [17:51] Chad: Yeah, well, I do believe in what he had said be. To support that point initially in ongoing. In terms of defense was that we see some future regulations coming from the government side down on certain things that businesses need to be doing, especially around the side of clean energy. And so if. If we're looking at companies to invest in and you're not preparing yourself for what is to come, then we know you're going to struggle. And so we need to find. Find a way to grade this. We need to find a way to understand whether or not you're going to be able to adapt to change of regulation that will come down. I don't see any. J.D. i'm not disagreeing with the influence or flexing of the muscles, by the way, [18:34] JD: but let's stop with what you. Let's stop with what you just. [18:36] Mark: I always love how Chad has to make sure that everybody understands exactly what. [18:41] JD: It's okay, Chad. It's okay, dude. [18:44] Mark: We're gonna snip the parts to make [18:45] Chad: you look like it's not. [18:48] JD: Can we stop it? Can we stop. [18:50] Chad: Stop it? [18:51] JD: Can we stop and kind of pause on what you said there? Like, what you said was very logical, which was, if I'm trying to vet out companies to invest in and I believe in a certain future of the world or what have you or different sectors, then it makes sense for me to Bet on companies that are forward thinking as it relates to those things. That seems very logical when you say it, but to me that's still. A lot of people don't agree with what you just said. That's still a gamble. You just gave me an investment theory that you thought that a certain company that takes a certain approach will benefit from that in the long term. You don't know that to be true. And by the way, historically, if you [19:38] Chad: look at that, a lot of what [19:40] Mark: I'm saying, nobody knows what you're saying, Chad. It's great. [19:43] Chad: I'm saying the other side of this that. I'm not saying that they're going to benefit. I'm saying the other side is that if you're not prepared, you're going to lag. [19:51] Mark: What's going to happen to those who aren't prepared? They're going to cut corners, they're going to do things they shouldn't and then they're not going to actually be. They're going to be checking boxes for the wrong reasons to make sure they stay a part of whatever Black Rock wants them to be a part of. And also if somebody like, hey, I'm just going to say it, some old dude is sitting across the table from me telling me like, you need to be like this in 20, 30, 40 years. I'm like, you're going to be dead then why am I listening to you? [20:21] Justin: I've heard Larry talk about the greenwashing that companies would do and the. So it's a problem he's aware of. He's not naive to the fact that you were to do this environmental thing that companies are going to plant trees, [20:36] JD: you know, and although do you know, Chad, you, I don't know how much research you did on this one. Black Rock had their own. Part of the controversy here was they had their own kind of ESG rating system and a lot of people are losing their. Because the one I've, the one narrative I've heard out there is that I don't know why Elon always ends up in these things in the middle of it, but is, is Tesla is very low rated on this, this system and like Philip Morris who makes like tobacco products and am I getting that right? Is like really high on it. To Brandon's point, that's not true. But they planted a couple trees or whatever the it is they're doing. They've made a, they knew how to pull the neutral in 2120 or something and, and they're getting a positive Black Rock ESG Rating where? Elon Musk, Tesla company. Who's. Who's changing the game as it relates to cars and electric cars is. Is very low rated. And so there was that conflict of interest too, where not only were they pushing the narrative, they were actually ranking the very funds. Wait, what's. Preston's here. [21:52] Chad: Yeah. Someone had called him a wet towel, and he's saying, I'm a wet blanket, not a wet towel. [21:57] Mark: I'm not sure I understand. [21:58] JD: I don't know either one of those analogies, but. [22:01] Mark: Because look at Moody getting himself in trouble again once. [22:05] JD: Moody's a goddamn bull in a china shop, bro. [22:09] Mark: Yeah. Wet towel, wet blanket. I mean, first off, I don't get [22:13] JD: it at all, but yeah, Preston don't use. It's not an analogy. What do you call that phrase? A metaphor. Don't use metaphors from the 40s and 50s here on this show. We don't. That doesn't. [22:24] Mark: Moody. Moody started it. [22:26] JD: What blanket? What did Moody do? So the ESG one gets people really up in arms. I, I. [22:34] Chad: You. I didn't find a. Their. Their rating system for BlackRock. [22:38] JD: Yeah. [22:39] Chad: And all the different things you read. No, I mean their actual company. Because in everything you read, there's pushback on blackroc, what they're saying to the masses, yet they're still a major stakeholder in weapons and arms dealing. There's still a major stakeholder in fossil fuels. They're still like, from. From an investment strategy standpoint, they've clearly said, yeah, that's important, but rate of return is more important. And we're going to put our money where we want it to go. [23:04] JD: This is a weird kind of side shoot. I talked about the drug companies earlier, but you. You chat. Have brought up the. The arms companies, like the military companies. That's a whole nother little conspiracy shoot, right? Where there's like four or five of these companies that really kind of scares [23:23] Chad: me the most do all this. [23:26] JD: And. And what is their business model? Their business model is to make weapons. [23:32] Mark: And so wars. Their business. Yeah, war. [23:35] Justin: Yeah. [23:35] Chad: Just making weapons, though. It's making everything and providing all kinds of different products and services for. For war. Not just Rob. [23:45] JD: There you go. Military industrial complex. And they have their own lobbyists. What. That's so shocking to me. What do those lobbyists tell the people in D.C. like, yeah, no, we really need more war. This is going to be good for us as a country or whatever. [24:03] Justin: I mean, a lot of people have seen this, but have you seen Eisenhower's speech when he was Leaving office on the military industrial comple. Watch that, that'll blow your mind. He's basically saying like, we can't do this. Like this is gonna, this is gonna ruin the country. And we went ahead and did it and it's like it's the last thing he said as president. Like, wow, it was big warning to the world. [24:28] JD: Like, you know, although I would love to see those types of companies build like cool drone things and things that like, save people's lives. Wait, wait, they don't save people's lives. I guess they save your people's lives while they kill other people on the other side. But, but like technology like that, I guess it seems like a cool evolution, you know, I'd rather see. There, there I go. Here's my smart way of saying it. I'd rather see strategic weaponry than like the continued evolution of like big massive bombs that kill millions of people, you know, so maybe that industry will. [25:07] Mark: I really think they just need to find a way to bring dinosaurs back. [25:12] JD: I don't think they're working on that one. [25:14] Mark: Dude. There's so many technology advancements going on. I mean, why don't we focus on the cool things like, hey, take the ocean water, make it drinkable. That's number one, right? Find dinosaurs, make sure they can bring them back. [25:26] JD: Have you seen Jurassic Park? [25:27] Mark: I don't know. Make sure there's no. Make sure the rainforest stays alive. Like, I don't know, just. There's a lot of things we could be doing way better than, you know. Yeah, funding. [25:38] Chad: None of those have massive dollar signs in. In ROI on them though, Mark. So the people who have the money don't want to spend it there. [25:46] Mark: Chad, I don't care what you say. [25:48] JD: Let's bring it over to. Let's bring it closer to home, closer to the 401k side as it relates to target date funds. Come on, J.D. you know, like you get a little more wasted when you're drinking wine, to be honest with you. [26:06] Justin: While you're doing that, something that dawned on me and all this is like, okay, I'm an investor in BlackRock, like, good for me, you know, or whatever. I'm making money as an investor. But if all this like weirdness is happening and there's this sort of monopoly aspect and maybe my consumer pricing, you know, my plane tickets are higher, my car company costs are higher, and all these other things are higher because, you know, very few companies own everything at the top and they're trying to milk the participant or not the consumer. It's like, so I'm, am I losing more money as a consumer than I'm gaining as an investor? Like, you know, like, yeah, it's like, [26:53] Chad: hey, yeah, we're making you a lot of money. But at the same time your dollar's not being stretched as far in this same concept and they're diluting of cryptocurrency. That's, that's the fight back from the cryptocurrency community is if they, if with these large institutions get in there and can monetize it in a way in which they dilute the value. And you know, your one bitcoin is worth $50,000, but now the value of the dollar has gone down, then you end up having a wash anyways. Yeah, they're making you a lot of money, but your money can't get you what it once did. [27:26] JD: Right? I kind of had that realization as a 53 year old. I guess I'll be 53 in April. The other day is I, I kind of took inventory of my life and I was like, okay, yeah, inflation is a big part of the 401k story, right? Like when you do a PowerPoint to a company's 401k plan, you always talk about inflation and, and how a gallon of milk cost this much back in the day and now it cost this much. But I started to take inventory for myself and I was like, what does Mike? So now I can look back 20 years and it seems like a quick minute and I'm like, am I really paying way more for stuff now than I did 20 years ago? And how does that impact my or how does that kind of lay alongside my 401k savings, my personal savings, my net worth? And it's a bit of a shocker when you think about it for a second. Like you think to yourself, you have X. But sometimes it's the 20 year ago person in you that thinks you have X and you don't realize that X isn't worth X anymore. And it's an interesting, it's interesting math problem to go through Target day funds. These guys are big in this space too, by the way. Everybody Vanguard is. Any guesses where do you think Vanguard sits on the target date fund ranking list of total assets [28:56] Mark: one. [28:57] JD: You got it. Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding. Number one. Vanguard is number one in the target date space. Come on, J.D. stick to your thing here. With over a trillion dollars, BlackRock is in fourth with 250 billion and State street is in sixth with 120 billion. Those numbers are a little Dated, but you get the idea. These three companies also permeate into our 401k space and are massive players in terms of the target date funds. And. And this is a very different power and control, because this isn't about voting rights and this and that. This is, in my mind, this is power and control to make decisions, move that money around, change asset allocation. And now I know I'm reaching here because I'm sure Larry Fink's got better things to do with his day, but he can walk in places and kind of swagger around and say, hey, do what I say. Follow my rules. Or I might just make some business changes. Is that crazy? [30:07] Chad: No. [30:08] Mark: Chat. Chad doesn't think so. [30:10] JD: Because he wouldn't do that. [30:11] Mark: He would never do that. [30:14] JD: No, no. [30:14] Mark: The Midwest has gotten to you, Chad. [30:16] JD: By the way, haven't you ever watched a movie with a bad guy before on YouTube? That's right, Rob. T Row. I'm surprised T Row is. Is so big too. I always think of Tiro's, I shouldn't do this. This is stupid of me. But as like kind of a. A lower record keeper, you know, like that. I'm waiting to see them kind of evolve and be better. But what am I talking about? They're a massive money manager and a very big one and, and top on that list of target day funds and stuff. My, my point is, imagine you're Larry Fink for a moment. And by the way, Larry Fink does go to where. Where did all the bigwigs just meet up? Chad's saying, like, this Illuminati stuff doesn't exist. Weren't they just said. What's it called? Davos or whatever? [31:02] Mark: Oh, I wanted to say something really bad. [31:04] Speaker E: Really bad. [31:05] Mark: Right there. Yeah. I wanted to say Epstein Island. Okay, I said it. [31:10] JD: Yeah. Is that where that's at this year? [31:11] Justin: That's where I'm filming from. [31:16] JD: Hey, that's where we can have the retireholics conference is Epstein's Island. So they. They are rubbing shoulders, all these big wigs. And you don't think they have some, like, fine bottle of brandy, some leather couch, little cigar smoking room, and kind of discuss like. [31:37] Mark: No, they drink. They drink. They don't drink fine brandy. They drink the tears of poor people. [31:45] JD: Okay. [31:46] Justin: The blood of babies. I thought that was right. [31:48] Mark: There you go. Same thing. [31:51] JD: I just mean that if Skull and Bones. Skull and Bones. If they got certain theories, they can play those. How. How about this? Here's a big theory, a big thing that's happening. Digital assets, bitcoin yes. This story Venn diagrams into this, believe it or not, Black Rock, our boy at Black Rock a few years ago claimed that I actually have the quote. I could find it. But he called digital assets, or Bitcoin specifically. Like, the only thing was good for was like, what? What's that, Brandon? [32:27] Justin: Nothing, go ahead. [32:29] JD: The only thing that's good for was like laundering money and like terrorists or something. Was. Was what he says a couple years ago was Aaron Schumat. David. No, he wasn't. [32:42] Justin: This is where Chad might really not like him. So his whole notion of Bitcoin is that it will, at least from what I've heard, is that he sees a future in this, but he sees it in a controlled token system that will get rid of all of that. So he's looking at Bitcoin as a technology to totally get rid of any sort of cash ways of hiding transactions and money. [33:13] JD: So. So, Chad, I want to. I'm going to tee you up. I want to tee you up. So here he natively speaks about the entire asset class. And now literally, what has it been? A week ago we get approval from the SEC on Bitcoin, spot ETFs and guess who's in that game. BlackRock. [33:36] Chad: It wouldn't be a smart business move. [33:37] Mark: I mean, is anyone really surprised by that? [33:40] Chad: No. [33:41] Mark: Right. I don't. [33:42] JD: Again, what are we getting at here? [33:44] Chad: What do you, what do you, what [33:45] Mark: do you want from blackrock, dude? Like what. What are we trying to get at here? [33:48] JD: Like, yeah, to stick to your morals. You told me a couple years ago that it was the goddamn Devil's child. And now that you go buddy up and have cigars and at the 2022 Davos conference, I'm making shit up. You learn that the SEC is actually going to thumbs up this shit and you start creating your own and putting it. I know I make. [34:12] Mark: You know, jd. People can change their mind. It happens. You know, maybe one day I feel like evolve. I'm not, I'm not going to. I'm not going to eat meat anymore. And then somebody says, you ever reverse seared a steak? And I'm like, no. And then I try it. I'm like, this is really good [34:34] Chad: to invest in Apple. That Apple was never going to work. But did those people flip their switch when Apple started to thrive? Yes. So I can't fault him for that. Now what you're getting at is did he have an inside track into the government conversation? Did he know this was coming? They launched immediately once some information was leaked like, yep, sure he did. Sure he had influence in that. Sure. They were prepared for it. Sure they were ready. And then, Brandon, to your point, by the way, you solidified everything I've ever said on the show about cryptocurrency is he's going back to the technology of blockchain, which so many have now. He's saying the cryptocurrency itself probably won't exist, but he's knowledge. He's acknowledging the way in which blockchain works and that that should be a massive move in the financial services space. [35:24] Justin: Yeah. But he's wanting to use it. He wants to use the ledger system to, you know, stop all the things. [35:33] Chad: Cryptocurrency. Yeah. [35:34] Justin: Everybody else loves cryptocurrency because it's like a way of hedging cash and hedging, you know, governments inflating their currency. [35:45] JD: And when banks, meanwhile, when banks go upside down, bitcoin rallies. Right. [35:50] Chad: Which is why banks like JP Morgan have a massive holding inside bitcoin. [35:56] JD: Really? Jamie diamond is always talking so much [36:00] Chad: about a bunch of the banking system that has a ton of bitcoin and [36:05] JD: JP Morgan, because tell someone out there, tell me I'm wrong. He talks massive on bitcoin all the time. So much so when I hear him talking, I feel like, wow, he's really threatened by this. Like, he. Of course he is. He runs a massive bank and is worried that people will hold their assets somewhere else besides banks. So Jamie Dimon is not well. [36:29] Mark: What he's trying to do is he's trying to get the. The bitcoin haters to come to his bank. Yet behind the scenes, he's like, just kidding. [36:38] JD: No. [36:38] Chad: To Brandon's point, it's a hedge. That's why. That's why they're doing it. It's another revenue stream that they can use as a hedge to the. To the stock market. [36:48] JD: Someone earlier in the chat bar had asked before we even had this conversation, like, how's bitcoin doing? And I don't know if they were trying to say, like, ha, ha ha, it's fallen from. I think it almost kind of breached like 49,000 or something. Am I getting that wrong? I think it got close to that. And now where it's like 42. Between 42 and 43 or something like that, but up from its lows is how. How low did we get? Like 17, 15, I think. [37:16] Chad: 15, I believe. [37:17] JD: Something like that. So the answer is it's been on a motherfucking tear. You know, since it's bottom like creating a higher return than many, many, many, many, many asset classes. Chad, I, I know you've always kind of been pro on this or at least you know, waiting to see what's going to happen here. But with the spot ETS and by the way, billions, several billions of dollars have gone into those tickers for obvious reasons. For anyone who's not clued in, I no longer have to go to Coinbase or whatever little weird janky application to invest in digital assets. And by the way, I have a Coinbase account and myself and I will tell you, it seemed complicated to me, I set it up, you know, a while ago, but I was like, this is so weird and so like hard and so difficult to like do all this. And then when you see SPF go down for ftx, I love using acronym Ms. By the way. [38:25] Mark: I'm having a real hard time. My hands keep flinching every time that happens. I had, yeah, it's not good when [38:32] JD: you see FTX go down and, and spf. And I think we had slightly recent news from. Who's the dude who runs Binance? He's like, had a Twitter handle. It's like Steve. No, it's like I'm joking, like a weird name, like see something or whatever. Like he's. No, he's like an occult figure and he was Binance and if you remember Binance, Shyster Binance was the company that in a way kind of. What's his name? Brandon? [39:06] Justin: Cz. [39:08] JD: Cz, yeah. [39:09] Mark: And is it Binance the, the team that was going to help FTX before their collapse? [39:15] JD: Yeah, but they sort of took them down. They were kind of the ones that actually like kicked, kick their legs out from under them by kind of exposing something and then they were going to help. And by the way, that's that cz. Thanks for the research, Brandon. He just got prosecuted because Binance, which is another version of Coinbase and what was ftx, they got in trouble for money laundering and that terrorists were using their platform or whatever and he was removed as the CEO or whatever. He still has his ownership, he's not in jail but they basically removed him and find him some God awful amount of money. So what was your point jd? My point is all that stuff seems a little creepy and scary, right? Coinbase, ftx, Binance. But now I can just go to my Fidelity account, my E Trade account, my whatever and I can buy an ETF that will track bitcoin. This is going to be huge, right Chad? I mean it's got to be massive. [40:24] Chad: Yeah, I think that many investors have looked for a way into this space for a while. But what's the percentage? It's been a while since I've looked. I think that for folks that have money to invest, it's somewhere along the lines of like 60% are holding cryptocurrency now in some way shape or form a digital asset. I should say not cryptocurrency. So I, I think that this is going to create a flood, but I don't think it's. The people who are going to be leveraging it aren't going to be the people that aren't already involved in it. [40:55] JD: Oh really? I think, I think, I wish, I, I wish I didn't do the research on the stats, but I want to say like, I can't, I'm not going to guess, but billions in the tens of billions have flown into these spot Bitcoin ETFs. Yeah, I want to say some of them got like 22 billion just on their own, you know. And so to me that the people that are eventually, if they haven't already, if they're not part of that 22 billion, I made up that number. It's going to be new ones. They're going to be regular folk, people that live on my little street here that were no way on earth they're going to set up a coin, coinbase account. But now that they can setting up [41:40] Chad: any of their own accounts. [41:42] JD: What's that? [41:43] Chad: You think anybody on your street is setting up any of their own accounts? They've got financial advisors to do that and those advisors are using and are already in some flavor of cryptocurrency or digital assets. [41:56] JD: I don't, I think advisors hands are tied on a lot of that though, aren't they? [42:01] Mark: Like this percent of people. [42:05] JD: Chad, I'll jump on your bandwagon then. The fact that it's an ETF now broker dealers and RIA is all across the country are starting to figure out how to loosen up their protocol and allow their investors to have a 3% bitcoin exposure. [42:28] Chad: Right? Yeah, I would agree. [42:30] JD: So why has the price of bitcoin fallen from when this all came out? I've been waiting for it to like Spike. I'm, I guess I'm some kind of dumb surfer and it just goes down a little bit. Down a little bit down. I thought this would have been great news. [42:45] Chad: No idea. [42:47] JD: Wow, great answer, Chad. No idea. [42:53] Mark: I think that's the appropriate answer. [42:56] Chad: I mean the pricing of bitcoin in the, in the cryptocurrency space in general is, I mean it's a shot in the dark to me. It's a, it's a limited asset that has significant demand just like certain companies and the stocks that they have out there. So the, the value of it, the drive of it is kind of an obscure number that you can't, you can't look at PE ratios and come up with a thought as to what the stock value should be. Well, the limited goes up and down. I got no clue. [43:25] JD: Well, the limited version of it. I mean there are so many, what I would call smart people now. Do they have a vested interest? Because they've already said it out loud and they're. But I'm talking about like investors, asset managers on the retail side, hedge fund managers that you know, think this thing Bitcoin, the price, they laugh at 49,000 and they think that it'll be 500,000, 750,000amillion in a, in a short period of time, three, five years. So anyways, it'll be interesting. I just logically if we could play back this episode in, in two years. I just, and maybe a lot of people agree with me, but how can you not think that the SDC approving spot Bitcoin ETFs will not be a catalyst for this asset class? Just someone's got to talk me out of that. Like I just. To me, I feel like this is a time to buy that. Anyways, we'll have to ask drunk rogue guy in a future episode. Let's go one more. We can reach to one more BlackRock connection. And good news is everybody, if you're a 401k person, it's right in our little neighborhood. Guess who BlackRock invested in? Almost a year ago to this date, they became a investor for an undisclosed amount in a company. Tony Davis says Veswell. No, no, no. Yes. Human interest. Human interest. Good old Captain 401 Black Rock has their tentacles on them. And mind you, I've been getting a lot of. I said this at the kind of start of this show or in the pre show. One of the cool things about doing retireaholics is people feel very free to. As a 52 year old. Maybe I'm saying this wrong robe guy, but to slide into my DMs on LinkedIn and share saying that wrong and share with me little tidbits about things. Little, little whistleblowers if you will, or little information. [45:40] Mark: You believe everything that people who watch this show say to you. That's a really scary thought, dude. [45:47] JD: Pretty much. It's the most exciting message I get when someone's giving me some, hey, let's [45:52] Mark: tell JD a bunch of crazy. He'll believe it. [45:55] JD: Yeah. And yeah. [45:58] Mark: Hey, can I say one thing? The. The change from black shirt to white shirt. You're looking good, buddy. [46:04] JD: Thanks, bro. [46:05] Mark: Yeah, I really wanted to get your mind off of people sliding into your DMs. [46:11] JD: I like it. Please slide into them, everybody. Like I'm wide open. Just slide on it. Wow. I'm all about it. So your, your boy blackrock is invested in human interest. Chad, come on. You have any thoughts about this? And by the way, Webby, Webby gave you your answer earlier when I asked you why bitcoin was falling instead of rising. He said it very intelligently like they do on cnbc. He goes, oh, I think it was already baked into the market. You should have said that. [46:42] Chad: Yeah. [46:43] JD: Instead of, I don't know, Black Rock and human interest. Come on, Chad. Are going to be looking at human interest unveils Black Rock Manage account service. Human interest offers Black Rock target date funds at the lowest disco discount from any record keeper. [47:05] Chad: They already have Black Rock on the chassis. Right? Like that. That's already there. Those options exist, do they? [47:14] JD: I thought they were all vanguard and like, [47:19] Chad: not to my knowledge. [47:19] Justin: Not anymore. [47:22] Chad: But jd this nothing changes in the conversation that we've had over and over regarding human interest in some of these other plays for data. Does BlackRock want access to more information about individual investors and where they are in their savings career and their personal private info? Of course they do. Where can they get access to those people? The retirement plan, the employer sponsored community is where they're going to get access to these folks. But why? That's a data plan. [47:51] Mark: Why, why human. [47:52] Chad: But someone just wrote it above Mark, why they have 65,000 plans. [47:57] JD: No, no, no, no. [47:58] Mark: I want to go, I want to go deeper because there's other folks that have decent sized plan cal, high level participant count. There's plenty of those. I didn't do the investigative research, but I'm challenging others to do so. There's got to be a human connection here somewhere. Like maybe in the past there's a human interest blackrock connection within executives. Somebody there. [48:24] JD: I don't know about that one, but that would be good digging. I do know that if you dig into Vestwell and help me chat bar, like what is it like Morgan Stanley or something or you'll find a lot of like connections and things like that. And I believe they're an investor in that. Well, I'm probably that up, but it's some company like that, that's. That has a lot of ties to veswell and is a supporter of veswell. Chad. When I go to Human Interest, when I look up their investment lineup, I'm not as dumb as I look. Like I remember this. It's Vanguard. Vanguard. Vanguard. Vanguard. Vanguard. Vanguard. Vanguard. Vanguard, Vanguard. DFA. DFA. DFA. Vanguard, Vanguard, Vanguard. [49:06] Mark: By the way, BlackRock owns Vanguard, too, so. [49:10] JD: Whoa, that was a leap. What do you mean BlackRock owns. [49:13] Chad: It's a circular ownership. See, mom did watch the videos that you sent over. [49:17] JD: Oh, yeah. No, no, they are an owner. Yes. Yes. Wow, that is a good one. Yeah. [49:24] Justin: So. [49:24] JD: Hey, that's true. [49:25] Mark: Your benefit is our benefit. [49:28] JD: They do own each other if you look at their things, right? They are. [49:32] Mark: Yeah. [49:33] JD: Minority stake owners. Yes. Brannon. [49:35] Justin: So I ran into a fit, which was people were mistaking blackrock for Blackstone. [49:42] Mark: Blackstone, yeah. [49:43] Justin: Black. [49:43] JD: That's like the real estate company, right? [49:46] Justin: They're saying BlackRock's buying up all the single family home. [49:49] JD: Yeah. Oh, yeah. [49:50] Justin: No, it's Blackstone. And then come to find out, you know, who the first Original founder and BlackRock was? $5 million stake. Blackstone. [50:01] JD: The Blackstone guy. [50:02] Justin: Blackstone started BlackRock. Basically. They sold out in the 90s. Late 90s. But they were the. They created BlackRock. [50:11] JD: We should have done that research. Maybe Chad did. [50:15] Mark: All I could say is that's the worst ever. Deciding of. What are you gonna name your company? Oh, it was Blackstone when I was there. [50:24] JD: Rock. [50:24] Mark: Rock's like, yeah, let's go with that. [50:26] JD: I don't know. I kind of feel like what Brandon's saying is like, hey, these people are so stupid. The general folk. Let's. Let's like, show them we're connected. But they won't even figure it out, the dumbasses. Blackstone. Black Rock. [50:42] Mark: Which, by the way, I associate Blackstone with grills now. So, I mean, there's, you know, it is what it is. [50:48] JD: We didn't touch on this because I didn't do a lot of research on it, but that was another complaint, Brandon, that you have. [50:56] Mark: I just saw your comment. I didn't actually see that initially that [50:59] JD: you hear out of certain talking heads, which is that these investment companies, to your point, BlackRock, are buying up, like, residential properties all across the country and renting them out. And people get really, like, fired up about this. Wow. I. I've seen this kind of dismissed and that. It's really not true, but. But I Haven't dug in myself. I, I don't know if that's. If Chad did looked into any of that. [51:31] Chad: I mean everything I looked into and read on that topic was yes, it's happening, but is it happening at a scale that has any impact? No, it's less than 1% of the market. From BlackRock's perspective, are there other institutions out there, large institutional companies that are buying up significant shares? Yes. What are all of them? Aggregate. The. One of the articles I read, it was like 280,000 homes and it ends up being point zero four of the open market. Now I think what carried a whole lot more weight to me on that topic was the institutional money that's not buying new homes, but is buying builders and subdivisions and building homes. And then instead of those homes going on the market for individual sale, they're going on the market as rental property so that these larger institutional companies can then make profit off of it. That to me, when you look to someone who's trying to build a home, when you look at the space, there's only so many builders. And if large organizations are tying up those builders to build complexes and track homes that they're then going to buy, own and rent out, then the builders aren't building any more single family homes for people to, to buy individually. [52:45] Justin: I look, actually I looked up a stat and it was that institutional investors may own up to 40% of the single family homes in the United States. [52:57] JD: That is this. That's the conspiracy stat. That's the conspiracy stat which, that you're right, you just pulled up the thing. That's the clickbait thing that sends people looping like that cannot be true. [53:08] Chad: One of the, one of the guys that was, that I read through that was trying to kind of debunk that conversation said that if you dive down below as to who's considered part of institutional and home buying, it's. If you own two or more homes. So I'm not saying that that's large [53:24] JD: corporate, I can't be home. [53:27] Chad: But that's. I think that that's the statistic that you're working off of there. [53:30] JD: B. I did see the. [53:32] Justin: It's only rental property. So it's. They own 40% of the rental homes, not of all homes. Sorry. [53:39] JD: I did see, believe it or not coincidentally, the Blackstone CEO at the Davos on an interview on CNBC and he was talking about commercial real estate and how in Europe that they were seeing massive opportunities based. He used all these fancy words which basically meant that he was Seeing companies that were, that were upside down and because they had such coffers of cash at Blackstone, they were going to be able to buy these properties at, you know, very affordable prices and, and crush it for the future. And that's where he saw this opportunity. And it made me think of two things of like, I didn't know the connection, by the way, to blackrock that Brandon brought up, which is kind of interesting. I just thought, well, that's interesting. Blackstone, it's not blackrock. There's CEO. I literally watched this this morning, I believe, or yesterday morning, and then he was talking about the US market and how that that shoe hadn't dropped yet. But I don't know if you all know this. Like, if you think about commercial real estate and you think about, I mean, everyone uses San Francisco as an example, right? Like San Francisco is quote unquote, like a ghost town now commercially, right? All the big companies have left that city and they were in buildings that were owned by other entities then. These buildings were worth like, God, awful amounts of money, right? Like they're massive. And I don't know if I told you, you guys remember our old office in Foster City or the, in San Mateo? The old, old office, the bigger one. What was that square footage, Brandon? Like 5, 500 or 6, 000. I don't know. [55:29] Justin: We have like half a floor like that, I think. [55:32] JD: But yeah, half a floor when we were leaving. I don't remember what year that was. You guys probably can come up with that or a guess they wanted to charge us. It was going to be 40, 46 or $48,000 a month. Something like that was going to be our rent. So suck that in chat bar. That was going to be our office rent. If that doesn't give me a taste of like the value of real estate in San Francisco, it was massive. Obviously very different now. But the weird problem here is I'll try to get to the point is that these people's loans, these people, these like commercial entities that, that like package it all together are kind of spread out over time. And so even though interest rates are coming up, they still can kind of renegotiate, try to hang on, try to wait for different times. And, and this Blackstone guy said he thinks that that shit's about to start crumbling down and, and they'll be able to swoop in and buy some big building in San Francisco or wherever that once was worth a hundred million dollars and now they can buy it for 20 million. I'm making up These numbers and then wait for, for the world to get right again, you know? So I don't know. That's interesting to me because office space has changed so drastically in like a three, four year period. Yeah. [57:01] Justin: You think that's gonna work out for them? Like who the going back, I just don't see. [57:05] Mark: It's just like fashion. Everything comes back okay. [57:14] JD: Work from work from office will come back. I think it's, I think you could place that bet. I think it's possible that like we could turn around and be like, oh, that was just a Covid hangover that kind of lasted a while. Like, remember ha. When like four years after Covid, everyone still thought they could work from home. Wasn't that hilarious? And now we're looking back 10 years and everyone's slogging to the office again, you know, like it could happen. [57:40] Chad: I don't think it'll be that widespread. I think there will be certain industries that will never, never go back. There was no need to go back. Why spend that overhead? But I think the majority of folks that need deeper oversight over their employees are going back. [57:55] Mark: Well, I would, I would go just the complete opposite route of that is they're obviously going to buy these places which would sit dormant, which I, I believe would be better to have someone purchase it than have it sit there and just sit there, do nothing. But have you seen like even some places in San Francisco, these commercial places are actually taking these office spaces and selling them as residential units. Like a whole floor of office space with, with cubicles. It's now turned into 15 different, you know, I'll just call them rooms that you can buy or rent. And so there's other obviously other uses for these buildings too. So. [58:35] Justin: But unfortunately, JD Specific future, we just, we buy a building of like with like 30 units in it and then we make our employees live in the apartments and then we get rent from, from them. And then we also, you know, they [58:53] JD: work for Devon earlier. Devin earlier made a, a cool conspiracy theory comment in the chat bar about how like some institution out there was talking about how people over the world should like get comfortable with like not owning anything in the future. I've. And I've seen some of that. Devon, I, I know you didn't just pull that out of your ass. Like that's a really interesting kind of push you need to watch out for in society. But when you talk about turning those 30 units into residential units that were office and you specifically look at San Francisco, which I'm sure is mirrored on Like a lesser level in other cities is like that's hard to do when outside of your residential. Now is homeless people and feces. And the target gets broken windows into them. People run out of there with their deodorant and shit. And so. And by the way, when all the businesses go down and they're no longer in those office spaces, then the local restaurant can no longer survive. And so you had this. [59:55] Speaker E: Do. [59:55] Mark: Do you think blackrock is behind all of those smash and grabs? [59:59] JD: Yes, maybe [1:00:03] Mark: they're trying to. They're trying to get through inventory so they can replenish it. They can write some of it off [1:00:09] Chad: as lost inventory and then buy it all up for less. [1:00:14] JD: Oh my God. I just realized they started Covid. [1:00:21] Justin: Did you know. So they. Back in 2000, they created a. Or they. Yeah, they created a thing for their structure called Aladdin that like this was for. [1:00:35] Chad: That was their portfolio creation. [1:00:37] Justin: Yeah, yeah, it's. And then so Aladdin, sorry, Aladdin, this 2000, you know, and then what happens? Then you have, you know, you have 9, 11. After this, all the price of all the airlines went down. And then, okay, black rock, the Mecca, you know, and Mecca, the thing, they all go around. Touch. It's a black rock. Connecting all the dots here. [1:01:07] Chad: Follow that. I did not follow that one. [1:01:11] JD: My simpler, My simpler point was that to re build a city and to, to. To accept the fact that you won't have office space, but to now try to make it residential, you really gotta bring in things that the residential people would like to have, which is like a nice deli, a good restaurant, not tents on the sidewalk. And so it's a weird chicken and egg thing. Like you, you can't. The restaurants can't survive there because the businesses left. But yet you're going to try to rebuild from a residential. Which one comes first? It'll take time for that to sort itself out. But I think what a lot of local governments are trying to do is like, okay, less stimulate small business. I know San Francisco is. I don't know specifics of it, but I think that's their. That's what they say their strategy is. Let's make it easy for restaurants and businesses to get in here and kind of build up so we can kind of turn around this city. And, and you might find out now I'm really pulling on my ass that if the restaurants get in there, the activities get in there, people want to live there because they can walk down to the San Francisco Giants game that you might just be this. That might Just be the. The chain reaction to get the offices back in that same space and then everything takes off. I don't know. Making up. Okay, that was good. What's our conclusion? In all honesty? [1:02:45] Mark: Yeah, I would love to know. [1:02:49] Justin: How do they stop it? What's the. What's the solution? [1:02:52] JD: Well, Brandon wants to stop it. It's. It's. [1:02:54] Justin: Well, no, I mean, like the problem. Like if there are. [1:02:58] Mark: If you stop it, what. What's there from this not happening from another source again? What are you going to give the government control? Is that going to be better? [1:03:07] Speaker E: What are you going to give the [1:03:07] Mark: control to the people? We're all corrupt. We're all scattered by the Internet nowadays. There's no perfect answer here. People are going to make a lot of money, make a lot of important decisions. Everybody else is going to fall in line and just live their lives and not care about the. And then other people are going to live in poverty and be like, this sucks. There's nothing else we can do. [1:03:27] JD: And until. [1:03:29] Mark: Until the aliens actually land and we meet them and they tell us that you are not the intelligent source of this universe. You're our controlled environment that we've been studying. And guess what? Time's up, dinosaurs. [1:03:47] JD: That's it. That was it. I was gonna try to come up with something else, but I think Roby actually nailed it. That's the real conclusion of what's happening here. That's. Thanks. Thanks, Rob guy. That's it. You can't top that. That's. That's the professional assessment. What's going on? So I guess invest your money in blackrock is what Robey's saying. Invest your money in black. [1:04:09] Mark: Let me just. Let me just echo Chad a little bit here. That's not what I said. It's not what I said. [1:04:16] JD: I think what Chad said was, I don't know. Okay, once again for everybody that tuned in, we're not going to do it this way every second show. By the way, if you guys would get off your ass, send us some ideas you'd like to do the point. [1:04:35] Mark: JD's DMS. [1:04:36] JD: The point is we're going to do 24 shows this year. 12 of them are going to be classic style, and 12 of them are going to throw at the wall and see what sticks. And so a very special episode of Retire Alex, brought to you by blackrock. Thank you, Webby. I'm sure I'll be getting some text messages in the morning and emails from people we've offended with that. Thank you for tuning into another retire Alex, second one of 2024. I hope everyone is having a great year. And Robi, Chad, Brandon, I love you. You guys out there in the audience, I love you too. And we'll see you next time. Our guest on the 1st, it's gonna be an interesting show, is some lawyer dude from Matthew Eichmann from. What did I tell you? Where's he from? I told you guys. Come on, help me out, man. [1:05:43] Chad: And go back and look at emails. [1:05:45] Mark: You just said he was an ERISA attorney. [1:05:46] Justin: That's all you said. [1:05:48] JD: He's like an internal arrest attorney for. God damn it. Didn't I text you guys? [1:05:54] Chad: No, you sent it me. For attorney for Qualified Plan advisers for White. [1:05:59] JD: Thank you. [1:05:59] Chad: White. [1:06:00] JD: White Pebble Qualified Plan Advisors. He's like their. He's their jd. Get that. He's a jd. Yeah. So thanks everyone. We'll see you for that show in its classic format. Who knows what we'll do in the next show in February. We'll find out. Until then, you know, keep believing in aliens and conspiracy theories and we'll see you next time. Play us out, Brandon. [1:06:37] Mark: How's that wine tasting, J.D. [1:06:39] Speaker E: pretty good. [1:06:40] JD: It's a different kind of buzz, man. [1:06:42] Mark: Yeah, this definitely that way. [1:06:44] JD: I don't usually drink wine. It's a different kind of buzz. [1:06:47] Speaker E: Come to an end at noon Friday, Mr. Eisenhower has chosen this time for his final. [1:06:51] JD: Oh, that's what brand? Oh, okay. I'm watching this. [1:06:59] Speaker E: Good evening, my fellow Americans. First, I should like to express my gratitude to the radio and television networks for the opportunity they have given me over the years to bring reports and messages to our nation. My special thanks go to them for the opportunity of addressing you this evening, three days from now, after half a century in the service of our country, I shall lay down the responsibilities of office as in traditional and solemn ceremony. The authority of the presidency is vested in my successor. This evening I come to you with a message of leave taking and farewell and to share a few final thoughts with you, my countrymen. Like every other citizen, I wish the new president and all who will labor with him, Godspeed. I pray that the coming years will be blessed with peace and prosperity for all. Our people expect their President and the Congress to find essential agreement on issues of great moment, the wise resolution of which will better shape the future of the nation. My own relations with the Congress, which began on a remote and tenuous basis when long ago a member of the Senate appointed me to West Point, have since ranged to the intimate during the war and immediate post war period. And finally to the mutually interdependent. During these past eight years in this final relationship, the Congress and the administration have on most vital issues, cooperated well to serve the nation nation good rather than mere partisanship, and so have assured that the business of the nation should go forward. So my official relationship with the Congress ends in a feeling on my part of gratitude that we have been able to do so much together. We now stand, 10 years past the midpoint of a century that it has witnessed four major wars among great nations. Three of these involved our own country. Despite these holocausts, America is today the strongest, the most influential and most productive nation in the world. Understandably proud of this preeminence. We yet realize that America's leadership and prestige depends on not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interest of world peace and human betterment. Throughout America's adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace, to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among peoples and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people any failure traceable to arrogance or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice. [1:10:23] JD: Are you sure he's going to say this? [1:10:25] Speaker E: Grievous hurt both at home and abroad? [1:10:28] Justin: Yeah. [1:10:30] Speaker E: Progress toward the. [1:10:31] Mark: That dude's a black rock plant. [1:10:33] Chad: Just saying. [1:10:34] Speaker E: By the conflict now engulfing the world, it commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. Invest in BlackRock Global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose and insidious in method. Unhappily, the danger it poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is call for not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely and without complaint, the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle with liberty. The stake only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment. Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in newer elements of our defenses, development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture, a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research. [1:12:02] JD: Give me a guess what these and [1:12:03] Speaker E: many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road. But each proposal proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration. The need to maintain balance in and among national programs balance between the private and the public economy balance between the cost and hoped for advantages balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable Balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual Balance between actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance in progress. Lack of it eventually finds imbalance and [1:13:00] JD: frustration for the next experimental record of many decades stands. Let's find a black and white video like this and just watch him not say anything. [1:13:07] Speaker E: Understood these truths and have responded to them well in the face of threat and stress. But threats new in kind or degree constantly arise. [1:13:21] JD: These are threats. [1:13:22] Speaker E: Of these I mention two one. [1:13:24] JD: Here we go. [1:13:26] Speaker E: A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction. Our military organization today bears little relation to that known of any of my predecessors in peacetime or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea. Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense. We have been compelled to create a permanent armance industry of vast proportions. How to do this? Three and a half men million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security alone more than the net income of all United States corporation corporations. Now this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total inventory, influence, economic, political, even spiritual, is felt in every city, every state house, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development, yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved. So is the very structure of our society. Society. In the councils of government we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together, akin to and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial has anyone asked [1:16:06] JD: him today what he thinks? [1:16:09] Speaker E: During recent decades in this revolution, research has become central it also becomes more formalized, complex and costly. [1:16:21] JD: A steadily increase the last person to [1:16:25] Speaker E: stay here or at the direction of the federal government. Today, the solitary inventor tinkering in his shop has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free University, historically the fountainhead of free ideas. [1:16:49] JD: And he didn't have a prompter, right? [1:16:51] Speaker E: Someone's literally holding the conduct of research because of the huge costs involved. [1:16:58] JD: Or is there like school? Like becomes virtually like. [1:17:01] Speaker E: What do you call it? [1:17:02] JD: Not digital, like mechanical prompter or something. [1:17:06] Speaker E: For every old blackboard, there are nine hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by federal employment, project allocations and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. Yet in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite. It is the task of statesmanship. [1:17:46] JD: Although most of what he said saying is true, right? [1:17:50] Speaker E: He's pretty much a visionary within the principle of our democratic system, ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society. [1:18:00] JD: I mean, it's not rocket science to [1:18:01] Speaker E: figure out another factor in maintaining balance. But he's right involves the element of time as we peer into society's future. We, you and I, and our government must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for our own ease and convenience the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political that's exactly what you [1:18:32] JD: boomers did to everyone. [1:18:34] Speaker E: We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow during the long lane of the history. [1:18:46] JD: Every time you think he's going to say and thank you, [1:18:50] Speaker E: ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate and be instead a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect. Such a confederation must be be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same competence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certainty agony of disarmament of the battlefield. Disarmament with mutual honor and confidence is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent, I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment, as one who is witnessed the horror and the lingering Sadness of war, Democrat. As one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years, I wish I could [1:20:09] JD: say to pure definition of the words, probably different back then than it is now. [1:20:13] Speaker E: But happily, I can say that war has been avoided. Steady progress toward our ultimate goal has been made. But so much remains to be done. As a private citizen, I shall never cease to do what little I can to help the world advance along that road. So in this, my last good night to you as your president, I thank you for the many opportunities you have given me for public service in war and in peace. I trust. Trust in that. In that. In that service, you find some things worthy. As for the rest of it, I know you will find ways to improve performance in the future. You and I, my fellow citizens, need to be strong in our faith that all nations under God will reach the goal of peace with justice. May we be ever unswerving in devotion to principle. Confident but humble with power, diligent in pursuit of the nation's great goals. To all the peoples of the world, I once more give expression to America's prayerful and continuing aspiration. We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations may have their great human needs satisfied. That those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full. That all who yearn for freedom may experience its few spiritual blessings. Those who have freedom will understand also its heavy responsibility. That all who are insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity. And that the sources scourges of power, poverty, disease and ignorance will be made disappear from the earth. And that in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect. [1:22:21] Mark: He looks. [1:22:21] Speaker E: Now on Friday noon, I am to become a private citizen. I am proud to do so. I look forward to it. Thank you and good night. [1:22:35] JD: He looks old as. No disrespect, he's a icon, dude, but he looks seriously old. Yeah, and then Kennedy comes in, right? Kennedy. I won't talk about Kennedy. All right, Play him some music, Brandon. We'll get the out of here. I was kidding about a prize. Nobody gets a prize. There's like a hundred of you still left here. [1:23:06] Justin: Have you heard us? Did you. You ever look at, like, his tax rates? Like, what were going on during his administration? [1:23:13] JD: Like 90, right? To the high marginal. [1:23:16] Justin: Yeah, it was crazy. [1:23:18] JD: Yeah. How does that even. Yeah, you were a rich guy back then. You gave away, like all of your money. [1:23:24] Justin: Yeah, it's weird. To see how that has economic effects. Like, because then what you do is you don't want to give it to the government. So what do you do? You pay your people better. [1:23:35] JD: Yeah, maybe you're definitely, like, you're definitely shifting your income around, right? Like, because if you're. If you're fairly well off or super rich, you have that kind of flexibility, right. So you're probably waiting out, like, change, right. You're like, okay, I just won't take income, but I'll dump it into these properties. This other, you know, until hopefully things change. And I was looking back at kind of presidents, and it's odd, is. Is they done some study or is this just common knowledge that we tend to like, just like. It's like a rotator, right? We go Democrat, Republican, Democrat, Republican. Mind you, I get it. Like, it could be Democrat, and then it's their vice president or something, or they get another term or whatever. But usually when the change. Well, obviously when the change happens, it's going to go to the other one. But I feel like there's this kind of pattern of like. Like, it's almost. What I'm trying to say is, like, I feel like society is like, okay, yeah, you get the job. And then it's like, no, we're against. You fucked up. We'll try this other one. And then it's like, no, you fucked up. We'll try. We'll go back the other way. And we just. I'm probably making. [1:24:52] Justin: You know, I always thought it was that just, you know, it's like, all right, so how much of Biden can you take before you're not enthused to vote the next time, you know, for [1:25:03] JD: the Democrats, their voters go down. [1:25:06] Justin: Yeah, you're just. You just one side, their voters just get depressed, pressed, fired up by the administration. Then the other side, they're just so happy for the change. [1:25:15] JD: Don't you feel like it? It's like George Bush, Bill Clinton, George Bush Jr. Right on the. Yeah. Obama, Trump, Biden. It's literally right. [1:25:34] Justin: Yeah. Anyways, I mean, that was. That's always kind of been the case. Yeah, there's always been a lot of that. Like, not. I mean, there's lots. [1:25:41] JD: I don't understand why that's okay. That seems very grade school to me. [1:25:45] Justin: Like, because people are simple, man. People are really simple. And like, it's like, oh, well, that. That's guy. I trusted that guy, and that's his kid. So. Okay. You know. [1:25:57] JD: Yeah. That's weird, dude. Looking at the last. I feel like, if you look at the last 30 to 40 years, that's pretty much happened. [1:26:08] Justin: Yeah. I mean, then you got Gerald Ford is Gerald Ford. [1:26:11] JD: He's a Republican, Right? [1:26:13] Justin: Yeah. [1:26:15] JD: Yeah, that's exactly what's happened. I can take it back further. Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan. Oh, no, sorry. Reagan went to Bush. [1:26:25] Justin: Yeah, yeah. [1:26:27] JD: But then Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump, Biden. [1:26:30] Justin: Although four doesn't really count because Ford only took the office because Nixon resigned, so wasn't, like, no one elected. [1:26:38] Speaker E: Right. [1:26:38] JD: Well, good point. And so Lyndon B. Johnson is before Nixon and then jfk. I. I. [1:26:47] Mark: There's. [1:26:48] JD: Yeah, I'm probably seeing the obvious. Everyone start off. [1:26:51] Justin: You know, you sort of had, like, Adams and, you know, Jefferson, and then that flipped. Like, then it was Jefferson was, you know, president. It's like, so there's a. There's a lot of that, but I don't know. Yeah, clearly, the names we know, they're at the top, you know, like, of course. [1:27:08] JD: Clearly. Okay. All right, everyone, thanks for. [1:27:13] Justin: Who said that? Webby. [1:27:15] JD: Getting a little. [1:27:15] Justin: I'm get. I'm getting there. I actually have a set of presidential playing cards I'm gonna. [1:27:22] JD: Oh, nice. [1:27:22] Justin: I've been drilling myself one day. [1:27:27] JD: Wow, that's cool. Your son can do that. I like that. I have no idea. I actually went to D.C. and there was a few presidents where I was actually like, that's a president. Give an example. Benjamin Harrison. I was. Sorry. Server me is like, what? I. That's a. I. I don't even recognize that name. Like, Benjamin Harrison is a president. Chester Arthur. Okay. President Rutherford. Rutherford Hayes. [1:28:03] Chad: Yep. [1:28:06] JD: That's not the only one. Oh, no. And that's gonna really make me feel bad, because he was early on, but Millard Fillmore. I would have got that wrong. [1:28:15] Justin: Oh, yeah. It doesn't sound right. I got him right here. Yeah. 13th president in the United States. Wig party. [1:28:24] JD: Those are just a few where I was looking at pictures. I'm like, okay, I'm a dumb. I. If someone walked up to me on the street with a microphone, I would get those wrong middle school name in the Simpsons. All right, I'm Audi. All right, see, everybody. [1:28:44] Justin: I'll play some music here. [1:28:47] JD: See you next time. I don't know about this wine thing.