111 - Bombs, Fear, and Buying the Dip: The Truth About Geopolitical Selloffs

Is the U.S. bombing Iran the start of a market crash—or the best buying opportunity you’ll see this year?

In this episode, we unpack decades of historical data showing how stocks behave during wars and geopolitical conflicts. From the Gulf Wars to Russia-Ukraine, the playbook is almost always the same: an initial drop, followed by double-digit gains within 12 months.

Here’s what you’ll learn:

✅ Why you shouldn’t panic sell when the headlines turn ugly
✅ The 79/80 success rate for buying post-conflict dips
✅ How to build a war-resilient portfolio with defense stocks, dividend growers, and disruptive tech
✅ The tickers you should be watching right now

Whether you’re a conservative investor or a risk-taker, this episode will help you stay grounded—and capitalize—when markets get volatile.

Want FREE weekly market updates, Tim's top 10 dividend picks, and our portfolio updates delivered right to your inbox? Subscribe to our email list.

Stay connected. Follow us on social!

**DISCLAIMER**
Ticker metrics change as markets and companies change, so always do your own research. The content in this podcast is based on personal experience and is for educational purposes, not financial advice. See full disclaimer here.

Episode music was created using Loudly.

Transcript

Welcome to roaming returns a podcast about generating a passive income with dividend stocks so you can secure your finances and liberate your life. 

If you’re feeling the urge to panic sell because the U.S. bombed Iran—pause. History tells a different story. In 79 of the last 80 geopolitical conflicts, stocks not only recovered, but soared within a year. Today, we’re breaking down why war-driven selloffs are usually golden buying opportunities, what sectors benefit the most, and how you can position your portfolio without falling into fear. Let’s dig in.

So last week, guys, hello. We were supposed to be doing, what did you say we were supposed to be doing this week? I forget, already. We're going to do, while the psychology behind overpaying for stocks is not the same, I call it psychology that applies to overpaying for houses.
Yeah, but because we have had some crazy stuff go down in the economy. The geopolitical realm, we're like overlord bombed Iran. So we could be in a geopolitical volatile situation.
And I don't think that the US is going to go to war with Iran, per se. But it's a possibility. But even even if it doesn't, like what we're going to talk about actually should apply to everything.
I'm sorry about my camera. But like, I don't know why it keeps doing that. Roll with it.
We can't do anything about it. Next one, we'll record with the light in a better situation. Because I think it's fun.
Yeah, so like, I mean, this happened last weekend. So Monday, the markets are volatile because of the bombing. But I do, I do foresee this occurring a few more times in the next few months.
So like, this is something good. Like, this is good information to know about, like, when there's geopolitical, not I'm going to say war, we'll say conflicts with geopolitical conflicts. The guy, there's a guy who specializes in his name is a Marko Papic.
You don't know him, you should know him. Because there's a few people on earth that are qualified to talk about how wars affect stocks. Oh, that's fascinating.
Does he have any actual like published material out there? He does. Yeah, he's been studying geopoliticals and markets for more than a decade. He wrote the book, geopolitical alpha, an investment framework for predicting the future.
Wow, I might actually have to read that. Like all basically what he's, here's what here's, here's the data in the book. In his book, he said, you should just buy every time there's a geopolitical conflict.
There's only been one out of around 80 events when this wasn't the case. So like, I want you guys to like, think about that. That's a very small probability of it.
79 out of 80 geopolitical conflicts have been buying opportunities. So like, why would they be buying opportunities? It kind of goes against everything that we as investors are trained to think. Like, whenever there's uncertainty in the market, that's bad for investing.
We want like economic certainty before you invest. But like, what he's saying kind of contradicts that. Over the, he quantifies it by saying over the last 50 geopolitical conflicts dating back to the 19, is that 50s? 50s.
50s. The data shows that stocks dropped around 10% in the initial days after the conflict. But then one year after the onset of the conflict, stocks gain on average 11%.
So like, I know that sounds weird. Sounds like it balances completely out. When the conflict starts, here's the starting point.
Stocks drop 10%. After a year after this, after the conflict has started, stocks make up this 10% and they progress 11%. So it should be 21% like when you read it.
Oh, okay. So they actually go up from their datum point 11%. Yeah.
So if you can actually like, that's like, this is one of the few times where if you can kind of try to time the bottom, you can make a lot of bank. But most people are already in stocks at the onset of a conflict. Yeah.
So you're kind of like... Dry powder. But if you have dry powder, you can wait until the market say drops six or 7%, which they did on a Monday. They dropped like, I think six or 7% before they turned around.
So if you wait till everything falls... You mean last Monday, by the time this publishes last Monday. Yeah, last Monday. So if you can wait till it drops six or 7%, use your dry powder to invest in whatever you want to.
There's a high probability 79 out of 80 times that you're going to make 11% from this point. So whatever you can get it down here. So say 17 or 18%.
That's an awesome statistic. It's one of the few times that you can actually time the market. Like they always say that you can't time the market.
Well, when it's a geopolitical conflict, you can't obviously time the bottom. But you know, like going in that generally it's about 10% drop from whenever the conflict starts. We've actually had a couple instances.
I can't remember the episodes we talked about it, but this isn't a timing the market. This is a something happens and it's a reaction to it. Those are the ones that you can actually predict based on past patterns.
And this is a past pattern. So it's not a predicting the market. This is a completely different, like I wouldn't even call it that.
It's not in the same category. It looks like it, but it's not. Don't believe me? Well, we're going to go over a couple examples.
Like in the last, I don't know, we'll say. I love when you do the example. 30 years.
The first Gulf War for you. I mean, a lot of people might not like you're too young to remember the Gulf Wars. Well, because then we'll have context because I'm like 10 years younger than you.
There was two Gulf Wars. So from August 1990. I also sucked at social studies.
August 1990 around that time is when the first Gulf War conflict happened. Stocks fell 18% in the three months after the conflict started. From August 1990 through October 1990.
Then stocks rallied 41% from the October lows. So November 1990 through December of 1991. It took 14 months.
They rallied 41% from those lows of the first conflict. And if you go down 18%, that means you need double that to get up, right? From the October lows. No, like it rallied from the lows.
Like I did, like the way. Yeah, from the lows. So that means it got back to just above break even.
So that's 23% gain. If you had been in the market and stayed in the market from August 1990. The conflicts happened.
It dropped 18%. It rallied 41% from down here. So you actually gained 23%.
But I thought it was double once, whatever it goes down. Like if the market drops 50%, you need 100% to get back to break even. That to me says it's only above 3%, something like that, where it started.
I mean, I didn't give like the exact numbers of the S&P, but I guess. I think that's what it's saying. So that's the other ones.
Because the other one, the next one. So you made 5% using your size. As opposed to somebody who got scared, got out at bottom, and then didn't get any of the upside, right? That's kind of the lens to look through this with.
That's the whole premise is not to panic sell, but it's also a buying opportunity. Yeah, but mainly panic selling. Yeah, the second Gulf War occurred in January of 2003.
Stocks fell 14% in the three months after the conflict started. So from January of 2003 through March of 2003, the S&P. This is all index basis as an individual stock.
So this is just like we're trying to paint a broad picture. The S&P fell 14% between January 2003 and March 2003. Stocks rallied 53% from the March low.
So from October 2003 through December 2004, which is 20 months, the S&P rallied 53%. So in this case, you take the 14 and the 14, that's 28. So that'd be 25% from your baseline.
So that's a heck of a jump. Dropped 14 and made up 53% from here. So you actually made 25%.
That's a heck of a bounce up. Dang. So that was two conflicts.
We had a second Gulf War in the 2000s? Where the hell have I been? This Gulf War here happened right after 9-11. We went in there and- I love how freaking illiterate I am when it comes to anything news. Well, you have to remember like in 1990, you were what, four years old, five years old? Four.
I see you don't really remember that when I was- That would make sense. But I thought the Gulf Wars were like in my parents' generation. Apparently not.
Yeah, that was, ironically, the first one was Bush and the second one was Bush. It was just Bush's son. Tim's useless knowledge.
In 2014, that's when Russia invaded Ukraine for the first time. That's when they overtook the Crimea Peninsula. Stocks fell 7% in the three months after the conflict started, January 2014 through March 2014.
And they bounced, they rallied from the March lows. They rallied 22% from the March lows. So from April 2014 to July 2015.
So that took 15 months. You got an 8% gain, which is still a pretty good one if you weren't as scared of your parents. And then we have the second time that Russia invaded Ukraine.
This time they- There seems to be a lot of recurring. Double Gulf War, double Russia-Ukraine. Well, that's where most of the conflicts are either in the Middle East or they're in the, I guess that's the Asia continent.
Is that where the Gulf War is? Gulf Wars in the Middle East, that was- I thought we were literally talking like down in Florida, Texas area. I must be confusing that with like the civil war. I'm so bad at social studies.
Yeah. The second time that Russia invaded Ukraine, which this time was a full-fledged invasion. It wasn't just the Crimea Peninsula.
Stocks fell 8% in the month after the conflict started, February 2022 through May 2022. So that was, what is that? I'm sorry, March 2022. So it actually was one month this time.
So February through March, the stocks fell 8%. They rallied 15% from the March 2022 lows within a month. So they were still technically down like 1%.
You have to remember that 2022 was a really, really, really shit year for the stock market and as a whole, but this does show that the patterns was still intact. Yeah. So a 1% decline instead of like a 20% decline on a normal like crap year or 10%, whatever, that's actually pretty decent.
Yeah. So that was an extenuating one because- Like in the recent history, like the most recent four examples, I mean, obviously there was other geopolitical conflicts than those four, but like this is the ones that there was, I guess in his book, there was readily available data. Like, I mean, it's very hard to quantify like whenever, say like a company, a country in Africa invades another country in Africa, because that doesn't really have an impact on the US stock market too much.
Like every now and then it could, because it could be like a diamond, like a country that produces diamonds. It could actually affect a different sector, but it wouldn't affect the market as a whole. So these are four examples where it actually affected the market as a whole.
It wasn't just sector based. So what does this all mean? To me, this means that stocks could go 20% lower from the current levels due to this action, but that's not what we saw. Like we saw that the stocks, they fell real quickly and then they rebounded like within two or three days.
But again, that still shows that the pattern held because on the Monday after the invasion, the stocks dropped like 7% and they're up like, I want to say probably 13 or 14% from those lows already. So like this is the purpose of this isn't to say, Hey, you should invest right now because we just had a conflict. This is because we know there's going to be more conflicts going forward.
Don't panic sell. And in fact, if you have dry powder, you can literally start picking up. And buy those dips every time you like have the news pop out with something because they fell off a cliff on Monday, didn't it? Yeah, it was really bad.
They went down a lot. The only thing that was really up was the oil. Oil shot up like 10 or 14% and now it's kind of settled back down to where it was before around the $68, $69 per barrel.
I would say exclude that one because I think more of the conflict is going to be around the oil situation. Is that jive or am I inferring poorly? Now, the only way that I could actually see that being like a prolonged problem is if we stumbled into world war three, which is, I mean, it is, it is a possibility because we do have strange policies coming out of the policymakers. So like there is a possibility that we could like slide into world war three in the next couple of years.
Probability that would be low. Like we're talking 10, 15% that we actually get into world war three. But even if we got into world war three, I would imagine that the data would take, it might take a year or two for the stocks to reach bottom because world wars are drawn out longer than my complex.
Yeah, definitely. But like, again, this is just like, I mean, it's like any, any time that you're investing, you read investing material, like the whole point of investing is to stay in the markets. The longer you're in the markets, the more money you make.
And there are like times when there's like economic problems or there's like financial collapses or whatever the case might be. Like this is just another example to reemphasize that stocks are going to go down whenever there's uncertainty. When they go down, the probability of them actually going up above where they were before is relatively high because you pull out the chart, you see that the stocks have been doing this for like 80 years.
I said, but what makes it more pertinent? It was that this actually just occurred. So this is fresh on everyone's mind. So like there was a lot of, there was a lot of people to panic.
So on Monday after the markets opened and they will panic. So they probably didn't lose any money because they've been in the market so long, but still if they panic sold and they missed like that, if they had known about the pattern, they could have picked up investments at the lower end of the Monday drop and still made money. We can actually kind of overlap with what we said last week.
We were talking about how there's all this unemployment. One of the biggest things that happens during wars and these bigger conflicts is a lot of jobs are created. Has that been like something through history? I remember reading that somewhere.
They can be created. Or maybe it helps boost the GDP. I can't remember, but it does something for that.
And I'm wondering if this is all manipulation based on the numbers that we talked about last week, if maybe this was intentional to try to actually further get those numbers into compliance. That's a possibility. But like at the same time, like what? Okay.
Like a quick geopolitical history lesson. Yeah. Give us, give us that.
Ever said, like we've been trying to create a two, a two state Israel type region in the Middle East for like, I don't know how many years. And it's been probably 50, 60 years. It's been since before I was born.
We've like, they presented ideas slow kick. Cause Israel is here and like, there's the, there's the, the Palestinian part of the Israel's right down here. And we've been trying to create like, we're Palestine's its own country and Israel's its own country.
Well, Palestine is backed by Iran, which is right over here. So we've been trying to create a two, a two state system forever in, in Israel. And Israel has a said no to it.
Like every time that we presented something, the problem geopolitically that we have is that our policymakers are in bed with Israel. So when Israel says, no, the policymakers have no choice, but to go along with that, because they are, whether it's contributions and financially to the Paul politicians, or whether it's like the people are so afraid to, like they don't want to appear antisemitic when they say, well, the Jewish people in Israel need to accept that the Palestinians down here need to have their own, their own state. Cause a lot of people, there's a lot of people that have been canceled for saying some not even crazy shit, just saying stuff about like Israel and Palestine need to share this, this area.
And like the Jewish people have a lot of pull when it comes to politics. So like, it's been very difficult for the politicians to break free from the Israel things. So I don't think the overlords regime is doing anything different than any other presidency going back in my life.
Like Israel just has like in the context of Israel is our daddy. Okay, we can't, we can't disobey our daddy. So Israel basically trumps Trump.
Is that what I'm hearing? Okay. So this wasn't like a pouty fest. This was actually probably not what I said.
The rapid, the rapid ascension from, hey, you guys shouldn't be fighting. You guys should like broker peace to the overlord saying, well, hell, I just dropped bombs. That was relatively quick.
But like the whole premise, the whole problem has been there for 50, 60, 70 years. So it's precedent. Okay.
So whatever I said before probably doesn't actually have viability. Gotcha. So that's just like, I mean, that's a very broad, quick geopolitical history lesson about that straight where Palestine and Israel share land.
Isn't it Palestine? I don't know. I call it Palestine. Just like I call it salary, whatever you make, whatever you make a year is your salary.
All I have to say is hammock. Sounds so like... We were making fun of how we pronounce words the other day. So German.
Hammock. So like, well, like, so that, but then that like, okay, so, you know, there's going to be conflicts. And when there's conflicts, where would you want to invest your money whenever there's a drawback? Yep.
I personally like closing the funds that have a basket of American and international defense companies, like SHLD, for example, there's other ones, like you literally could just go do a closing the fund finder. But I like you could try it rather than trying to pick out which individual defense company you want to invest in. It's easier to get a basket.
Exactly. Just, yeah, just to get a closing to fund when it comes to that. The problem is American defense companies are overvalued and they're way behind like international defense companies.
That makes any sense. Like, well, the people are so like, people are like, they think investing in defense companies is a defensive play, the way to hold their money, that's smart. So they're overvalued.
But like their technology is not as good as some of these other international defense companies. So like they're actually, you're paying more for less whenever you invest individually. That's a juicy tidbit.
It is. Now you could do, if you wanted to go individually, then you'd have to like determine what countries have the best defense companies for the proper valuation. There's like Israel's preferred defense company is ESLT, Germany's preferred defense company is RNMBY.
Now some of these are going to be on the OTC market. If you're not familiar with the OTC market, some of these defense companies are going to be in the OTC markets. And if you're not familiar with the OTC market, that is just a fancy way of saying over the counter, which is, it's a completely different, not to say brokerage, but like an index like with the lesser known companies or like the lower price companies, they reside.
Can you buy them through a normal brokerage? You can. Yeah. Like I mean, it depends on your brokerage.
Like Vanguard, you can't, but like Schwab, you can. We have nothing good to say about Vanguard ever. This is so funny.
We are going to start signing the papers to get my mom's thing rolled over into a Schwab account because we're getting to the point where Vanguard is so cumbersome. Say like you like, some people like to dabble in penny stocks. Like Vanguard, if it's under, I think a dollar, you can't buy it.
Whereas Schwab, it can be anything. I mean, obviously like below a penny, you can't be, but like say you want to invest in like a, like when I got into RXRX, for example, it was like 70 cents. When I was in Schwab, I was able to buy, at the time it was a CST or whatever the hell it was called, but it's RXRX now.
I was able to, in Schwab, I was able to get it like 70 cents. I had to wait for it to get above a dollar in Vanguard before I could buy it. So I missed out on like 30% gain by waiting for it to get to a certain price point.
Yeah. Yep. France's preferred defense company is THLLY.
Sweden's preferred defense company is SAAB, which should sound familiar. We should know that, the cars. And England's preferred defense company is BAE, although RYCEY, the Rolls-Royce one that we talked about last year that we were in is another one in England.
But you see the general thing I got going on there. You either find a basket that holds a lot of the best defense companies in the world and just buy it pleasant and fun that way. Or you buy individually in a country that you think has an undervalued defense company.
And then you find the best defense companies in the country, whether it be Sweden or Germany or Ukraine or Russia, whatever country you think has an undervalued defense company, that's how you would do that. How I would invest if you wanted to really worry about the American side of things.

Because our defense companies are so old and kind of shit when you have actually find them with other, um, other countries, I'm not saying like the technology, like we have obviously airplanes that are good and bombs that are good, but like the cutting edge technology, ours is like, it's falling behind. Like you see, like if you watch the overlords parade that he had, when he had tanks, like rolling down the street in Washington, all you heard was like the creaking of the tanks and shit. Like our shit is old.
Does that need to update that? I didn't verify a lot of that from working in the government. I did want to say that I think if you invest in some of the countries that we do not play patty cake with, if you work for the government, there's like a thing you have to submit from an ethics disclosure or something. If you own like Chinese companies, I remember being asked that for like security clearances and stuff.
And it was just like, seriously, I don't even know anybody from China. Yeah. So, but what I would do if I wanted to invest in American companies, I would look for high quality businesses profiting from a disruptive mega trends.
And this case would be artificial intelligence. Like the AI is going to guide a lot of missiles and do a lot of things in the, in the computer chips of like the planes and stuff like that. So that's why I would like a AI PI, like personally, I'd like to make 30.
Question. I'm segwaying just a smidge here. Nvidia just came out.
The CEO just announced a whole bunch of stuff that just like, that's why Nvidia took off in that discussion. Did they talk about anything with artifacts, their chips, artificial intelligence for robots for defense stuff by any chance? No, it was just robotics. Okay.
I was just curious. Well, like they wanted to, since he planned for so many other things, he wanted to discuss like where his company is going. Like I, I watched the, um, the shareholder video of Nvidia and like that company is so far advanced compared to most American companies.
It's sick. Because most American companies are worried about artificial intelligence right now, and Nvidia is like, okay, well we got a self-driving cars and we have the robotics and we have the Androids and we have all this other stuff. So they're like two steps ahead of where we are.
Like right now, like most companies are focused on the AI and the data centers that go with the AI and the video is already like, oh, we have already, we've already established a monopoly in that most people that wanted to perform AI have to buy our chips and most people that want to put like AI into the data centers have to buy our chips. And now they've actually progressed to like, we want to control, have a monopoly in the robotics and the self-driving cars and stuff like that. So there's just so far advanced.
And the problem with Nvidia is that they don't pay a dividend. So as income investors, you have to find ways around that. I thought they had a smidgy.
No, it's like, it's like 0.03. So it's basically nothing, but they do have for those of you who are anal retentive, $130 stock, it was a penny. Yeah. The last dividend was a penny.
So it's basically negligible. So the problem is you have to get around that. You have to find ways to make money from exposure to Nvidia.
And so like we actually held NBDY forever. Yep. So the yield max, which is the yield max, that exit that a call one.
And I've actually just started dumping money into the round hill. It's a NVDW is the round hill, um, weekly payer. They hold like 20% of Nvidia stock.
I really liked that one. I'm hoping that one does really well because we have an R and this is just how much either, how strongly I feel about Nvidia, but how strongly I feel about like, uh, the income investing in our account, we have, uh, we have Nvidia stock by itself and we have NVDY. And now we have NVDW, like we have three different things.
Plus we have exposure and AIPI and FEPI. So like, I mean, I understand that you're supposed to diversify a little bit better than that. I bet you probably, I bet you, we have 10 to 12% of our portfolio has exposure to Nvidia somehow.
But that is because they are a disruptive megatrend, megatrend, like artificial intelligence and robotics, stuff like that. So, so sidebar, sorry, I got Tim off on a tangent, even though that was actually really relevant to a lot of stuff. We are picking up a lot of, uh, ways to get invested in well, like some like that.
So the megatrends, the current megatrends are artificial intelligence, which, uh, AIPI covers that because they just basically invest in companies that are part of the artificial intelligence trend. Robotics, blockchain is another one. Those are like the three biggest megatrends right now that people, I bet you people didn't know about robotics.
I didn't know that was a separate category. That's a huge, yeah. That's a huge, um, megatrend right now, like what they're trying to do.
Well, like Amazon and Google and, um, Facebook meta, whatever you want to call them, they're all replacing, like right now they've replaced between like 8% and 15 to 20% of their workforce with robots. So the, the trend is there where like, they're starting to take out like the menial jobs and no one wants to work. And they're starting to replace them with robots.
And like the trend is going to continue because once the big companies take advantage of that, then you're going to start pulling the, like, so you're going to pull up to say, if you eat McDonald's, I feel sorry for you, but if you eat McDonald's, it's going to be a robot that processes your order. And it's going to be like robotics that actually extend the order out that there's a drive-thru window. If you go that way.
So if they can do that, my whole question, the whole reason I even segued was, I was wondering if some of these companies that you were going to be talking about would easily be able to segue into the defense sector. Cause we were talking about like, in America, it's mainly like you got, uh, Kendra Morgan does some, um, things, but like, there's only like five or six main players in the defense sector. Now, granted what they're trying to do is they're actually using Palantir no matter how you feel about them.
Cause there was a lot of people that think Palantir is basically stealing people's data to give it to the government. But Palantir is also has a lot of defense contracts where they're using artificial intelligence to preemptively, um, predict like a terrorist attacks and things of that nature. So for all the negative that Palantir has with all the data that they're accumulating from the average Americans, there is the positive side where they're actually using the artificial intelligence to play out millions of different data chain things where they can have a predictive, okay, well, there's going to be a terrorist attack in Minneapolis.
So we should probably be prepared for that. So Palantir is one that's starting to do that, but that's why we have exposure to Palantir with the weekly round hill player. Because again, Palantir doesn't pay a dividend.
Most of it's most, most of the problems with the cutting edge tech, uh, tech companies that deal in defenses, they don't pay a dividend. Rolls Royce does not, but we got that for like $2. That was what I was wondering.
I thought that was more of a growth by, okay. No Rolls Royce is in your retirement, your, uh, your retirement account. And it's in my retirement account.
We got those in our retirement account. Because we were planning on there being a substantial growth. So like if you have a, like, say you have your brokerage where you do most of your income investing, but you do have like a retirement account where you're doing growth investing, I would every, all the defense stocks would pretty much be in the, in your retirement account for the growth investing.
Cause you're not going to get a lot in terms of income. Yeah. And you don't have to worry about the tax aspect if it's in that account, which is nice.
So you don't have to worry about when you do the selling, cause dividends, you just hold on to, so you don't have that, that tax incurrence. But like with, like with robotics, one of the biggest companies right now that's to dabbling in robotics is one that people wouldn't even think of. And that's John Deere.
That's John Deere. DE. Yeah. John Deere is actually starting to put, uh, robotics into there.
Like they're basically, it's going to be like self driving tractors and shit like that. So like that's what they're doing now. They've done a lot of investing in it because I can see that only way that like farmers can make money is to not pay anyone.
I can see that. I didn't realize that they actually went into the whole farming stuff. That makes a lot more sense.
And IBM is another one in the robotics sector that you should look at. I mean the dividends are small, but it's still like two or 3%. So IBM was that one that recently cut its dividend, right? Something happened with it, but then there's like emerging technology.
I think we got into it or we talked about it, talked about it. Unless I'm confusing that with a different company. That was Intel.
Oh, that was Intel. Nevermind. Pardon me.
IBM is the blue chip that's been around for like 80 years. It used to be the only company that made computers. I knew it was one of the big blue as they call them.
But IBM has like a 3%. John Deere and IBM both have like 3% dividends. So you're still making a little bit of income while you've actually invest for the macro trend of robotics.
Blockchain is just to be like, again, it's going to be a fund of some sort. Cause it's just easier to invest in say BKCH, which is the closing of the fund for blockchain or it might be an ETF. It's going to be ETF or closing the fund because to individually try to vet and research the different companies dabbling in blockchain, it's just way easier to actually have closing the fund when it comes to the blockchain.
So basically you just buy those companies or those closing the funds or the ETFs whenever there's a dip and then just hold on, like just hold them. I understand like I was reading somewhere, forget exactly where it was, but like 70 some percent of investors no longer buy and hold. So as income investors, you can't actually not buy and hold.
The way that you make money is the way you make money is to buy and hold. So you get dividend payments. So you actually have to do a little bit more research than most individual investors.
I think that statistic actually makes sense because we're everything's so gig economied that think it's like also going into the day trading thing. So it's just people are trying to like come up with that money. But Tim and I were like, I'd rather just buy a freaking dividend stock that pays me on a weekly basis than trying to like stay glued to a screen every day.
That's the whole reason I got out of momentum trading. It took me, I did it for like a month and a half. And then I realized, Oh my God, I'm going to be literally attached to the screen every hour that the stock markets are open.
And I'm trying to get freedom, not that. And that was when Tim kind of segued over to dividend investing. And I was like, thank God we needed something different.
Well, it's the only way that you can do what you want without having to sacrifice time and time. It's the most important thing. You can definitely make money, but it does take a lot of time immersion.
So it's basically like having another job. So I mean that's all individually. Like if you feel like you have the time to do it, then yeah, man.
And if you do definitely look into momentum trading and Timothy Sykes is one of the best people that I've seen that actually does, does that whole thing. My point is I'd rather have free time to do what I want. Agreed.
It's easier just to check in like 15 or 20 minutes a week than it is to be on the computer for four or five hours a day or more. The last thing I would like to mention, um, but so you have the disruptive mega trends, but like, uh, as we mentioned in our previous podcast or podcast now, I don't know, I forget it's time to become a little bit more conservative and defensive in that it basically it means, um, stocks that have a proven dividend growth streak history and they have a proven like a economic moats and things like that. So you actually got to, you're going to have to, because there's so much uncertainty with the tariff policy, with the budget that's coming out policy.
Plus you have political conflicts. Like it's easier at this time. It's easier to just pull back all your, uh, like say your investing portfolio was like a tentacle beast, like pull the tentacles back into the heart of it, which would be dividend growth.
Yep. The core quality, the craps, you're freaking champion and that champ, I don't know the ones that are the higher numbers, like the Kings, you can still invest in the weekly payers as long as you're doing it. Like, so like you know that Nvidia is going to be the bomb for like the next 20 years.
Like they're projecting the video to go from a three, a $3.4 trillion company to a $6 trillion company in the next 10 to 20 years. So you know that no matter what happens, the price is going to go up in that one. And they're probably going to have to do and do another stock split.
And if you're not familiar with that, we actually did report a podcast that pertained to stock splits and generally like when the companies do a stock split, it has a positive reaction. Yep. I mean a complete sidebar, like O'Reilly just had a stock split and they're like, they went from like $1,200 a share down to $90.
So I'm assuming that would be a good one to get into. For sure. I don't really have a big dividend.
Walmart did it. Chipotle did it. Like they all follow that paradigm.
And O'Reilly is a big one. And I did want to say that if we weren't already in the Coney experiment, we'd totally be like double and quadrupling down on Nvidia's Roundhill and Yieldmax. The only thing that I would like mention that's like a complete sidebar other than like the investing in conflict times is that if you have been on the sideline about crypto and the blockchain and things like that, the government basically just okayed the framework for stable coin.
So like crypto is about to take off. The premise of it was like stable coins are supposed to be like if you're like, if you hold a stable coin, it's like holding a one American dollar, but there was no framework to it. So like companies could, the exchanges could do whatever they wanted.
Like they could say have trillions of dollars in stable coins allocated to their wallets on the, on the platform, but not have a trillion dollars to cover it. Like what the, what the legislation is basically doing is they're establishing that if you have $500 million worth of stable coins, you have to have $500 million worth of assets. So they're making sure that like all these places are going to do like, what was that? That, uh, the exchange that went under, uh, FTX.
So they're not going to have that. So there's going to be regulations on it with the government regulating stable coins. It's just a mere, um, year or two before they start regulating crypto.
So like, like you might not want to get into Bitcoin, that's fine, but you should know that it's a possibility. You might want to start looking at ETFs and closing the funds that deal with because cryptocurrencies don't actually, uh, or companies that hold crypto don't actually pay a dividend. You have to like, you have to navigate much like you do with the tech stocks.
So like CPI, which is the Rex style, the Rex share thing that actually holds all the cryptocurrency companies pays like a 20, 25% yield. And it's pretty good. Like I'm actually really impressed with the rec shares, like how they're holding up and everything.
And if you think I'm full of shit, just this past, like I think it was like two or three days ago, the government passed basically a resolution, not a, not a law yet, but a resolution extracting, um, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to actually start accepting cryptocurrencies as a form of collateral for home loans. So like cryptocurrency, between like the legislation for the stable coins, and now they're going to start accepting cryptocurrencies in government sponsored loans, cryptocurrencies here, whether how you feel about it, it's irrelevant, irrelevant. It's how you make money from it.
Yep. So that's it. That's a huge thing, but that's just my two cents on that.
Speaking of if you don't like stuff, we had a conversation the other day cause people, um, are getting into this whole sustainable investing thing, or they're only investing in companies they like, which is fine. If that is your modality, that's fine. But we were talking about how most people don't like the tobacco companies and like whatever, which one did you say that you think is the most irresponsible one? And it's not one that anybody would expect.
I was giggling. My, uh, like the, one of the most evil companies that we invest in is, uh, it's ADM, which is, uh, a farmer, a farming, um, company. Farming it's a, it's a, it's a dividend.
I don't think it's a risk crap. It's it might, might be an aristocrat or king or whatever. It has multiple years of dividend growth.
What they did was they found out that Americans can't grow sugar, but they can grow corn. And they said, Hey, we can actually make sweetener from corn. So like the whole reason that we have five high fructose corn syrup in the American diet is because companies like that, where they basically replace sugar with corn syrup, the health implications of that, like that, that's probably more sinister than some of this other stuff.
The whole reason that conversation started was because I said, you understand the only difference between Mexican Coke and American Coke is Mexican Coke uses cane sugar and American Coke uses high fructose corn syrup. Yeah. And I read somewhere that cocoa change a recipe based on what country they're selling out of.
So like, so like, that's why the people are buying those, um, Mexican Cokes. It costs like $2 a bottle as opposed to American Coke, because it actually has a cane sugar and it doesn't have crappy high fructose corn syrup. But yeah, that, like what they did to the farming, like the, the whole sector of corn is evil.
Like it, to me, that's like, that might be one of the most evil companies that we actually invest in, but it doesn't matter how I feel about high fructose corn syrup. It's how do I make money from it? We invest in a company that's raised instead of them like 40 years in a row. And then we're going to take the money and put it into places and invest in like other stuff that's going to help the planet.
Yeah. We're going to use the money to like fuel our travels. And like our, uh, our endeavors beyond the condo, like we're going to be planting trees and doing a animal rescue or donating to animal rescue places and shit like that.
So like, yeah, you just take this, how you feel about cryptocurrency, that this all this all rolls back to cryptocurrency. You might think crypto is the next devil. It doesn't matter how you feel about it.
You know that you can make money from it. And when you make money from it and you actually are generating more money than you need because you're investing in companies that are bad, you then can make them make a change in the way that you see fit as opposed to not investing in a company and harming yourself. Yeah.
Cause money really is something that helps you make the bigger impact for sure. That is the tool. Like if you, once you start viewing money as a tool, you'll actually become better first and how to use that tool to make everything like your life more like how you want it.
So if anybody's having that moral quandary struggle, there's a different perspective for you. Not saying it'll work for you, but just putting that out there. All right.
So since we hijacked this episode for this wartime, which is totally relevant, are we doing what we plan to do this week? Next week? Yeah. Next week is going to be the the home homeowners are not overpaying for a home, but overpaying for stocks. Like the psychology behind it is important because it might not pertain to people's investing per se.
It could, but it might not. But there's a high probability that it'll pertain to a lot of other things in their life that don't deal with investing. Like, you know, like the people that buy say Charmin toilet paper, when they can buy the exact same thing, Charmin is at the Walmart for like half the price of Charmin, this shit like that, where you don't mind overpaying for stuff when you could get alternatives that are better value.
Like the psychology behind it is, it's pretty, pretty unique. So that'd be an interesting episode. That's next week's.
And then we're going to have a CONY episode coming out here whenever, I don't know, we're going to record it here in a day or two. We just got our last payment for that. So if you want the update on that, we'll have that on a different thing on YouTube.
But I'm just out here in New Mexico riding a bike and watching the grass. There's no grass. Literally.
It's like all dirt field with like, it's like all the dirt field was straw. Like it rained like the last few days and it didn't do shit. It's literally just, it's like if you remember like when you were a kid and you went to play baseball or a softball or soccer or football and like one of those old fields that was all fucking clumpy and there was just straw everywhere.
That's literally what the whole entire, like as far as I can see, that's what it looks like here. It might've only been where you grew up or lush in the frigging Northeast. Yeah.
Where I, where I grew up, it was bumble and freaking the head, no grass. So I'll be for next week. I'll see you guys.
Unless something changes between now and then when we record the next podcast, which I don't think it will, I think kind of like we covered the war thing. So unless there's some major thing that needs to hijack again, we'll be doing that episode. Yeah.
All right. Indeed. See you guys next week.
See you guys next week. Have a good week.