All right, here we are. Welcome back everybody. Welcome to the show. I appreciate you guys joining in on. It's pretty crazy. A week ago, well, actually three days ago I posted this video, the investing in Costco one. This is the most recent one I posted. And before that I hadn't posted in like 2 weeks. 2 weeks ago was the one before that in YouTube time. That's like eons of time.
But it was awesome to see that this video had recordbreaking metrics for the channel as far as the amount of views and watch time right after posting it were incredible as well as when I was gone on vacation on a cruise, I still got like 2000 subscribers. People are joining the channel and joining the show. And so I really appreciate everybody new here. I appreciate everybody sharing the word and spread in this channel and thank you guys for doing that.
To everybody new, this is a channel about investing, about finance, about getting things in order so that you don't have the financial anxiety that a lot of people have and so that you can get ahead in life, get out of this rat race everybody finds himself in. And that's what I'm doing with this portfolio. This portfolio is a dividend growth portfolio where every week I go over it, talk about different investing subjects and the news, answer comments and
questions. And it's a little bit just like a community we have here. As far as an outline of what I'm going to be going over today, if you guys follow me on Instagram, you'll know the main subject I'm going to be talking about today. You already know that which it I posted this right here.
This is my Instagram. So if you guys haven't followed this, come and follow if you want to see more like behind the scenes background type of stuff and then like the latest one here for instance, I go that we're going to be talking about gambling and that's going to be the subject a little bit about gambling, how it relates to investing. I noticed a lot of people they ask what's the difference between gambling and investing, right?
And I've seen this asked over different Reddit threads and and different things and I don't agree with them the answers that are typically given. So I'm going to give you my answer of what the difference between those two are and what really separates the two. Beyond that we have news to get to. A lot of stuff has happened in
the past two weeks. I haven't talked about any of it. So one of them is United Technology Rathon merger that's going on, Bill Ackman, who is a hedge fund manager and he has a pretty colorful past. I mean, he has had huge concentrated bets and different companies, some of them he's made tons of money with and some of them he's lost tons of money with. He is a share owner of United Technologies. He's an activist investor, which means he gets involved.
He tries to voice his opinion and influence decisions of the company. And he does not like this deal that's going on. And he wrote a letter to United Technologies, of whom he's a shareholder of, a large shareholder, of laying out his case for why he doesn't like this merger. And I'll show you that letter. I think it's pretty amazing. Some of the stuff he says in it is just really entertaining to read.
So I'll be going over that a little bit, giving you my opinion on it. This article I found, this is smaller news. So this isn't like really big national news, but it's a story on how seniors were sold these riskfree retirement reverse mortgages, right, which is a product most people do not like the reverse mortgage. But I thought it relates really well to a different principle that other people do like. And I wanted to talk about this.
So I'll hit on these reverse mortgages at the end of the show. So I first wanted to do just a quick portfolio update. I promise I won't spend too long on this. I wanted to just look at the week and the month view. So if I go to the week view here, .63% return and we're up to $157.00. But the earned dividends for this week was $36.53. Pretty awesome that I was paid $36 just in the last five days. Now if I go to the month view here, look at that 2.3%.
If I go and I look at the S&P 500, right? Yeah, Okay. So here we are at the S&P 501 month view .37 percent .37 compared to 2.3. So absolutely crushed S&P 500 for the past 30 day performance. But even cooler than that, look at this earned dividends $176.70 in the past 30 days that since May 14th I've been paid like a paycheck $176 from these different companies. They say, hey, you're a shareholder of these companies, we want to let you in on the profits of our company.
So we're going to go and pay you these dividends. That's what this is, $176 that I've earned. Now if you are using M1 Finance, you probably know that the earned dividends here are different than the paid dividends here. These are already paid. And it's like when you're working at your day job, you go and you earn your paycheck throughout the two week period, then you're usually paid at the end of a two week period or like a one month period. That's the same type of thing
that happens here. So there might be on stocks a little different. It might be a few weeks until you're actually paid them. Either way, I'm owed that much money. I will get the $176. It'll show up in the activity feed and that's where it just cycles through. Now, I don't want to spend too much time on the portfolio update.
I want to get into a little story and that has to do with the vacation that I went on. So many of you that have followed the channel, you are familiar with it and you know that I went on a vacation, I went on a cruise to Bermuda and it was pretty cool to see because that was an island that my mom was born and raised on. She was able to show us around a lot of different places that she grew up and spent time and before she moved to the States. But regardless, I want to
specifically talk about cruise ships. So take a look at this ship. These things are absolutely massive. This one in particular, the Norwegian escape, was the one that we went on. It's the tallest ship in the world. And here's I'll just show you a couple pictures of this real quick. I mean this is the deck of them. They've made these a lot more modern, these new ships, they have like entire water parks on them. Here's another picture of it that it shows off.
In the background you can see the ropes course that you can walk around on. Up here has one part called like the Plank where it extends over the edge of the ship so you can look down like 40 stories into the water. It's pretty freaky. Regardless, it was a lot of fun. We went on the cruise we left here from New Yorkers right when it was docked, leaving. You can see the city skyline there and then. I mean, they feed you nonstop. So like if you go on a cruise, you're probably going to gain
about £10. And then here's a photo of Bermuda. Pretty amazing place if you've ever been there. One of the things that stuck out to me on this vacation was the gambling. Here's a video I took of a machine that people would play all night long. I'd see the same group of people playing this machine every single night of the cruise, and some of them would play it for like two or three hours or more
every single night. It's called a coin pusher, and it's actually a pretty addictingly fun game. It does it. I mean all these gambling games, they do a lot of things to play on human nature to get you to keep playing, but this one's particularly fun. You put the coins in here on the slot at the top, they drop down in here, and then these coins that are just overhanging the edge, they get knocked down into the tray. The idea of course, is for you to put in less money than gets
knocked over. And then on top of that, if I go to another video here, this shows a more close view where you can see dollar bills, these wads of cash here on top. A lot of people, what they try to do is they try to knock these wads of cash into the tray. And now, of course, casinos do a lot of things to make it so that the your chances of winning are a little bit more misleading than it seems.
A lot of people, for instance, like this bill right here, it's already almost like 1/4 of the way over the edge. You think it'd be very easy to get this thing to move over, but people would spend entire nights and you did see this thing barely moving centimeter after centimeter. I mean, just to get this wad of cash is probably like 40 bucks. They'd have to put in hundreds and hundreds of dollars to get it to move a couple inches. And that's how these things work. And it's interesting.
I've seen this before. I've seen this statement said before many times where people refer to the stock market is like a casino or like you're gambling, You're really risking your money. You're just hoping to make money easily. That type of thing. And I don't think that that's true at all. In fact, I think that there's a distinct difference in what separates gambling from investing. There's been a lot of discussion on this in past. I can go back and find these old Reddit threads.
There's literally dozens and dozens of them of people asking how is the stock market not considered gambling? And they make their cases of how people have lost money, how people have gained money. Just like happens in casinos, right? And some of these comments are good. In response, they explain that you're buying equity in companies and what you're doing as opposed to just playing games, right.
But I don't think that they go to the core of the difference between investing and gambling on a really broad sense. In my opinion, the difference between investing and gambling is called expected return. Really, in mathematics it's referred to as expected value, which I'll go and read the definition of that real quick. Expected value is a predicted value of a variable calculated as the sum of all possible values, each multiplied by the probability of its occurrence.
All right, you got that? Understand it? No, just kidding. It's a little bit complicated when you look at it that way, but really, it's not complicated at all. Pretty much. Expected value is if you took an action and there's all these different possible outcomes. It just is an average of what the median outcome would be, what the middle outcome, what the average outcome would be based off of all the possible outcomes. That's the expected value.
And the difference is, is anything where the expected value is below 0, you're gambling anything or the expected value is above 0. You're investing. That's where I would draw the line. Now this still might not be clear. I want to go ahead and go to the drawing board and I think I can actually explain this better. Let's go ahead and draw some dice here. Now as you know, dice have six sides and there is a one in six probability of rolling each
number. So I'll go ahead and to make this clear, I'll go ahead and just unravel this dice and just draw six different boxes. So here we have 123456. There's a one in six chance of rolling any of these numbers when you have a normal dice, not one that's a trick dice or something like that. Now to explain how you get expected value or expected return, I'll give an example of this. Let's say that somebody comes to you and they offer to play a game with you, right?
They say I have a dice here, it's a normal dice. And if you roll the numbers 1-2 or three, you lose $100. You have to pay me $100.00. So these numbers are all minus $100 right now. If you roll 4-5 and six, you gain $100. What is the expected return on this proposition? You're going to just calculate the odds. What is your expected return? Your expected return is 0. It's completely nothing. And the reason why is you have a 50% chance of losing $100. You have a 50% chance of gaining $100.
If you did this over and over and over again enough times, the results would likely average out to just be 0. So this is right in between. Now if you change the game and somebody said if you roll 1-2 and three you lose $110.00. So if we change this and said 110 and then you roll 4-5 and six, you gain 100 and dollars. What is your expected return now? Well, looking at this, it's easy to see that half the time you're going to lose $110 and half the time you're going to gain $100.00.
So now your expected return is -5%. And this can go on. And it gets a lot more complex when people in investing world, they look at expected return. What they do is they look at all the different possibilities a stock can have or at least they try to map out all these different results and there can be like 10s of thousands of different possibilities and then they try to find the overriding average and then that's the expected return, right?
And that's difficult to do. That's not what I'm saying that you should try to do for your different stocks. There's some people that try to model this out and they do regression testing and all these different complicated things, and sometimes that proves well. But the overriding principle is that whenever you gamble, for instance, if I go back to this machine, every time you gamble, your expected return is below 0.
If there was a gambling machine at a casino and the expected return was anything above 0, you would not be gambling. You'd be investing. Because you know that if you play that game enough, eventually you're going to come out on top. That is, the difference between investing and gambling is the certainty that if you play it enough over and over and over again, you're expected to have a positive return. You're expected to have a positive return. That makes it investing.
If you're expected to have a negative return, that makes it gambling. If I go ahead and I look at the list here, look at this, this is the expected return of all these different gambling machines. You can see the house edge. This means by how much the house is going to win, their margin of winning Blackjack has like one of the smallest craps does too. And then the rest of them, some of these, I mean the house has really big edges on them and what you can see is not all of
them are a lot. You know, casinos. Casinos don't need to win every single time. What keeps people gambling and keeps people addicted to it is the fact that they do win some of the time. They will win the 49.8%, the 49.5%, but the house in the end always wins just by these slim margins. These two percent, 3% point 6% leads to a lot of money, gets people addicted, gets people using these all the time, but their expected return is always negative.
That's why gambling over long periods of time is usually a very financially destructive thing. In some circumstances, people can use specific skills and knowledge to overcome these odds against them, but they got to know that their expected return is negative. Starting out, they're swimming in an uphill current. Here, the stock market is completely different. The expected return is positive. The average annualized total return for over the last 90 years, this is for the S&P 500
is 9.8%. So 9.8% a year for 90 years, that's a lot of data to go by and we expect that to continue because as economies we grow and expand and populations expand and companies expand as well. That leads to this return, the 9.8% year over year. Now that's the difference between what is gambling and what is investing. When you put your money in the stock market, when you put it into the S&P 500 or whatever these good solid companies that you're buying, the expected return is positive.
If you don't do anything, you're likely going to make money investing in the stock market. You have to go out of your way and do self-destructive actions to lose money over the long term in the stock market. Meaning you'd have to buy high right before a recession and then sell low like at the bottom of a recession. Those type of things. You can lose money, but the expected return is positive. If you just leave your money in for long enough period of time,
you're expected to make money. And that to me is the absolute key difference between gambling and investing. So you can look at that. If you go to these different games, just know that these type of things are like intentionally set up to make it so that over playing them for long enough periods of time you're going to lose money with them. It was interesting actually looking at this one
specifically. I tried to figure out how the casino makes money with it. Not only is it difficult to move these bills, they have this lip at the edge here that lifts these coins up and makes them so even though they look like they're just on the edge of falling over, it really takes a lot more than is expected to push them over the edge. Now there's other things they do as well.
This video showed that a lot of these machines, they have this metal triangle in the middle, and it's interesting. So what it does is it's just the width of like 1/4. But as the coins are being pushed, they're being pushed to the sides and notice they're avoiding this middle part here. And you can see if I go back to the video, where are all the bills? They're right in the middle. If you look at this, isn't that amazing?
People playing this would have no idea that all the coins are being directed away away from the bills. Now, I couldn't confirm whether this was the case. Every single night they'd go and they'd restock all the coins and make sure that this whole middle part is completely covered. But that's my suspicion is that there is a metal triangle that directs most of the pressure of these coins moving towards the
edge. In fact, to confirm my suspicion, I brought this up to my wife and she noticed something that most of the bills, the ones that were for higher dollar amounts, like the 20 and 10s, they were always in the middle. If I go, here's another 120 and 10 in the middle, there's another 120 and 10 in the middle, there's another 120 and 10 in the middle.
You can see it. I mean these things you don't notice if you just sit down and play it, but if you actually look at these things, all these things are are going to make it so your expected return is much lower than you think. These type of machines, I bet they bring in thousands a night and net profit. They're just wealth transfer systems from people wanting to have a fun time gambling. It's just to get their money from you into the casino's pocket. That's really what they do.
Now again there's certain situations you might come out on top, but I really think that the methods they do are pretty incredible and and being able to take your money while making it so that you continue to play. But anyways, interesting principle I wanted to bring that up. I want to know your guys thoughts on it as well. If you think that this is the difference between gambling or not, I think it is. But I'd be interested to know
what you guys's take is as well. Well, let's go ahead and move on from that and jump into some news. Today's top corporate story Dow, Component, United Technologies and Raytheon announcing an all stock merger after planned spinoffs. The combined company is going to be valued at more than $100 billion and have annual sales of around $74 billion. So we have United Technologies and Rathon 2 defense companies merging together now.
I wanted to look at the specific argument that Bill Ackman here had for this merger and why he's against it. I like looking at the argument these guys give because he gets he has a lot more money invested in United Technologies than any of us do. And so looking at why he has concerns about this, I think is interesting. And his letter, I have it right here that he wrote the United Technologies. This was kind of like an open
letter to voice his concerns. And I want to go through and read some of it because I actually think it was pretty, pretty amazing some of the stuff, he says.
One part, he says we were quite surprised to read recent press reports that United that suggested that United Technologies is close to announce a merger of equals with Rathon as early as Monday. While we do not know the precise details of such a potential merger, we are extremely concerned that such a transaction will significantly lower the business quality of pro forma United Technologies
aerospace business. And to make matters worse, will be accomplished through a highly diluted issuance of large amounts of United Technology stock, which is currently trading at an enormous discount to its intrinsic value. So he's saying United Technologies is already trading out of discounted value, which means that it's more valuable than really what the price is indicating right now.
And he thinks that once they separate into three separate companies that United Technologies is doing, each of those individual companies is going to be worth a lot more than they are together. And so merging with Rathon with a pure equity deal is something that is not giving it its full
value. It therefore makes no sense to us why you would consider a stock acquisition using today's massively undervalued UTC common stock to buy a large business of inferior quality to the company's existing business and for which we cannot comprehend the strategic logic behind such a transaction. We believe that post the planned
Otis and Carrier spinoff. United Technologies current aerospace business will become the world's premier aerospace company with a highly focused portfolio of assets in enviable market positions and embedded growth for decades to come. We believe that UTC's aerospace business is uniquely valuable asset that will achieve an appropriately high mid 20s P/E multiple valuation when it begins to trade as a standalone
company later, he says. Rathon is significantly inferior quality business compared to Collins Airspace and Pratt and Whitney as pureplay defense contractor. Rathon's growth and profit margins are tied to Department of Defense budgets which have a limited visibility and high volatility and which can change drastically based on dominant political parties priorities. As a pureplay company, Rathon is also not suffering from a conglomerate discount, as is UTC. So you're saying Rathon is
already a single company? It's not a conglomerate, and so there's no discount for it being a conglomerate, and it's still not valued, Well says. We believe that Rathon's diversified portfolio, which spans missile systems and cybersecurity, is much less competitive advantage than Collins Aerospace and Pratt and Whitney as it has a lower longterm growth rate, substantially more business
volatility and greater risk. Moreover, given the limited portfolio overlap between the companies, we believe that United Technologies lacks the expertise provided effective oversight of Rathon's business and in attempting to do so, at a minimum will lose focus. In summary, we believe the combination of Rathon and UTC's aerospace business will meaningfully degrade the overall quality of UTC's pro forma aerospace business and likely harm its operational
performance. So in saying not only are you going to get the true value, but it's actually going to damage the business. And I mean this just goes on and he actually gets more and more bold with the statements as this letter goes on later on to at the end of this letter he says obviously we are extremely concerned about what we have
read this afternoon. If the company intends to go forward with such a transaction, we will oppose it publicly if necessary as we expect will the substantial majority of company shareholders. We would welcome the opportunity to present our views in person to you and the board at the board's earliest convenience. I hope this is simply fake news, as it does not seem consistent with the Greg Hayes we know.
Sincerely, bill. Wow. So he's literally saying that he hopes that this is all fake news and that this is just something that he misread. That's how strongly he opposes it. And say what you will about bill Ackman. I know. I mean people go. I mean, he lost a ton of money on Herbalife. He lost a ton of money on valiant. Right. But that doesn't mean that everything that he's saying, the arguments he's saying are invalid. And he has made a lot of money
on other concentrated bets. He's had an extremely good year this year, and his hedge fund has performed really well this past, like I think past six months, he's done extremely well. So I actually agree with a lot of the things that he says. I don't think that this deal for United Technologies is good for them.
I don't think that they're going to be able to properly manage your Athon. And The thing is, I was in support of United Technologies breaking up into three separate companies because I believe that he they can manage them individually better than they can as a conglomerate. Conglomerates don't do that well. But now they're merging with another company that is more in the direction of a conglomerate having a big massive diversified company that spans into a bunch of different things.
So I I'm more side with Bill on this one. I don't know exactly how it will turn out. I bet this deal will come through. Bill has stayed out of the news recently, but it looks like he's about to throw a fit over this so we'll see what happens. I'll keep you guys up to date if he comes and makes any like public appearances and goes on the news and talks about this deal. So. But anyway, I thought this was interesting to mention.
Now the last bit of news, this really isn't big news, but I wanted to touch on it because I thought this was really interesting. This is a post on Reddit, the real estate subreddit, and it says seniors were sold a riskfree retirement with reverse mortgages. It wasn't. And what this is, this is an article that goes through and talks about how these seniors, they were sold this financial thing called a reverse mortgage.
We're pretty much what happens is they've been buying and paying for their home mortgage for the majority of their life or whatever their working life, right There's 30 years. Mortgages are the standard one that usually people get. But if you didn't really plan your retirement while you're in a situation where you don't have a lot of cash in retirement and to not live on Social Security, what will happen is some people will buy this product called a reverse mortgage.
And as the name implies, it works exactly as it sounds. Just like when you're when you have a mortgage and you're slowly paying that down and paying off the debt in your home, reverse mortgage is slowly selling back equity to the bank. That's how it works. And so hopefully what happens, the idea is, is that by the time the home is all the way sold to the bank, you're either dead or you're able to move on, move to something else. Most of the time it's so that
you're able to die before then. That's pretty much the idea, to be frank. In fact, that's why they have an age limit where you can't even start one until you're at a certain age. Now, if I look at the comments of this, this is the part that I think is interesting. Those foreclosures were riped out hard, earned generations of wealth in the decades since the Fair Housing Act. But the reason that people don't like reverse mortgages is because what happens to the kids in this situation?
These parents worked. They raised their families in these homes and then they sell them back to the bank. All that work that they went through for decade after decade after decade, they give that all back to the bank and the kids get nothing. Their generation gets nothing. For most people, you know, there's there's always people that say, well, you don't want your kids to be entitled, you don't want to give them anything. But for most people, you do want your kids to have it easier than
you did. Most people want to have a better life for their kids, and then they did the struggles that they had. At least I do. That's the perspective I come from. I don't want them to be instant millionaires from the, you know, the day they're born, but I want them to have it a little bit easier than I did. And so when you're just giving back your wealth that you've accumulated from this generation back to the bank, people see that as a negative thing.
And for this, I mean the comments on it are always negative about reverse mortgages. In fact, this one here says it mostly screws over the next of kin who are essentially buy back the house at the current market value since equity was tapped out. That's right. You're giving back all the equity in your home. And there's comment after comment after comment blatantly realizing that when you take on a reverse mortgage, you're just giving back all this wealth back
to the bank. That's exactly what you're doing. Now the thing that I think is odd is what is the argument for stocks? What is it for growth stocks? Well, everybody will tell you that what you do is you accumulate these growth stocks over and over and over again all throughout your life, decade after decade after decade. And then what do you do in retirement? You slowly start selling them. You slowly start selling them and giving them back to other
people and cashing out. That's what most people are doing with their wealth is when they get to retirement age, they saved up all this money in stocks and then they start giving back that equity to other people. All that wealth that they generated and created, all that ownership they have of different companies and different real estate and things, they start to give it back. And that is what I don't agree with. In fact, the same argument applies here.
Here's one of the comments, and this is for reverse mortgage. Unless your market appreciates faster than the interest compounds, So he's saying unless your home appreciates faster than the rate that you're selling it, Well, what does that sound like? That is the same exact argument that people make when they say, well, if I sell 3% of my holdings a year, 4%, it's going to appreciate at 8%. So I'm still going to make money. But why does that never work with reverse mortgages?
It's the same exact principle. You're just trying to sell it at a lower rate than the home appreciates. I hold the same ideas both ways. I think that if you work your whole life to accumulate something, you should try to keep the principal. You should try to keep the underlying assets that you've accumulated. I do not agree with reverse mortgages. I don't think that you should sell back your home.
Just like I don't think that you should sell back all of the stocks and all the assets that you accumulate throughout your life. You should put them in things that create passive income and then live off the yield that they generate. Just like if you have a reverse mortgage, you should be able to either live in the house till you die or be able to rent it out and so that your kids have that. So just a different line of
thinking. I see reverse mortgages very similar to the idea of building up a bunch of assets and stocks and slowly selling them off as well. You know, hopefully, hopefully your portfolio outlives you. That's the idea behind it. Hopefully this reverse mortgage outlives you. I don't love that idea. I like it the way that my dad is doing it more where he has real estate and things that generate passive income, hasn't had to sell a thing in retirement, just has.
And it's not a huge income, just enough that you can live stress free. When you have no debt and no expenses, that money goes a lot further. And so that's what I'm moving towards. That's what I advocate for. I think it's much safer, much more sensible way of looking at building wealth and being able to pass it on from generation to generation. Anyway, I'll go ahead and move on to a couple questions before
ending. These questions were actually really interesting and in fact, I'll go ahead and I'll throw up. I'll put up like 3 different questions because I feel like they're all pretty much in different ways asking the same exact thing. First one's from Billy. He says, hey Joe, I really like your videos and I've watched most of them, but I don't think this has been brought up yet. What are your thoughts on ESG scores and ethical investing?
I see portions of your dividends coming from Exxon, Duke and Chase, etcetera. And being 29 years old, you will most likely be retiring during some of the worst effects of the climate crisis. Not trying to be preach to your judgmental, but I think you are investing. I think what you're investing in is a reflection of your values. And of course I don't think that just you stopping investing in Exxon will stop the climate crisis.
But if a retail investor, if all retail investors gave up the worst fossil fuel companies, that could help make a difference in the fight and wanted to know your thoughts on it. OK, so that's one of them. He's asking why I'm investing in these oil companies when they're contributing to, you know, climate change and all of that stuff, bad stuff for the environment, right. Another question has, well, this is a comment from a guy he says Lockheed Martin. Really.
Why do you invest in weapons screwed up if you ask me dot, dot dot, Here's another one. Hey Joseph, what's your take on sin stocks like tobacco and alcohol? Do you see the similarities in all these questions? They everybody has these different you have different standards, everybody comes from different backgrounds and contexts, and you develop your own kind of moral guidelines. And some people feel more passionate about some issues
than others. The person that might say I'm never investing in oil companies climate crisis is, you know, this big thing that we have to fight in combat, right? That person might invest in Lockheed Martin and then another person might criticize them for saying, hey, you're investing in Lockheed Martin, They build missiles that go out and blow people up and then, you know, Middle East or wherever. And some people might not have any issue with building that.
And there's arguments for everything. And one person might say, well, you're investing in tobacco and alcohol. These things are addictive and destructive to people's health. So this just is a revolving thing and a lot of it comes down to your own personal, your own personal standards, your own personal morals, investing in
things that you like. As far as me personally, yes, I own some oil companies Now. Overall, it makes up I think less than 2% of My Portfolio, which as a dividend investor, that's a tiny amount of My Portfolio and I also have the percentage lowered. So pretty much at this point all I'm doing is taking the dividends they pay and putting
them into other companies. Now I probably don't share the exact same level of fervor and fighting the climate crisis that Bill does here or Billy does here, but I, I, I work for a solar company. So I have, I'm trying to contribute to a, you know, I like buying things that are electric and run clean and and efficient. I like the move towards that. There is a clip that I wanted to share that I think it was on the Joe Rogan podcast.
One of the guests and I totally agree with his way of fighting this issue. You. Lower the price of clean technologies massively. So you basically make clean technologies cost competitive with some clean technologies innovation. Ideally you can subsidize in the short to medium term until the innovation curve is is crossed. I mean like Tesla doesn't have any patents right? Or they they freely give away
their patents. That's the example of how you can do it. What he's saying there is completely what I agree with on as far as this issue goes is that I don't think destroying oil companies is going to be the solution. If we don't, if I don't invest in them and I don't buy their products, if I said everyone to buy, I would never want to fill up gas in my car.
They will find other consumers. There's there's other countries that do not feel that they do not share the same passion that you or I do and they'll find a man there. The way that I think that this transitions into cleaner energy is exactly what he said, which is making clean energy more costeffective than oil and other nonrenewable energy. So once it breaks the point, we're actually more
costeffective. We don't have to take a moral stand against it. The market will naturally reward these more costeffective forms of energy. And in my opinion, I think we're going to get there pretty soon. I I don't think the planet will be destroyed by the time we get there because I see the advances that we're making in such a short period of time, like working in the solar industry, stuff is getting cheaper and cheaper every single year by
pretty large margins. And so the sun has unlimited amounts of energy. We're finding better ways to to grab that energy and transform it. So I I think we'll get there eventually. That's kind of my take on it. As far as these other questions, what's your take on sin stocks now? You might notice actually I don't invest in tobacco or
alcohol. I don't have any of those companies in My Portfolio and that was actually a deliberate choice because I don't feel, I feel like some products there is some kind of good outcome with them. Like there's a trade off with it and tobacco especially, I just don't feel like there's a really good trade off with it. It seems like people use it mostly because they're addicted to it and they now today's, they become like a social pariah. It's not really a social thing anymore.
And so I just don't think it's a good product. And I especially don't like the idea of people using a product because they're helplessly addicted to it. And I think that is the case for a lot of people that are Alcoholics or that have issues with alcohol or tobacco.
So I don't know. I just don't put my money into it. I don't have any judgments if other people do. Again, it's not going to make a huge difference in the grand scheme of things, but there's some products that I I don't think that they have a great effect on people's lives overall. I just don't think that they're that enriching to people's lives. Now I have a brother that this, this like the same thing. He doesn't invest in Cocacola.
He says that Cocacola creates these highly concentrative, like addictive caffeinated sugar, addictive drinks that cause diabetes and heart attack and disease later on in life and run up medical costs on the country and everything. And so he has an argument for how immoral that company is with the amount of problems it's causing.
So again, this is every company that sells anything, most things you can take and find different ways to look at them negatively, very difficult to do as an investor. I would say the specific things you feel passionate about definitely guide your investment that way.
But also realize that not everybody might share the exact same ideas and and passions and they might be coming from a different background on it. And then yeah, Lockheed Martin, those type of companies, you know I, they make mostly technology for our defense. So I don't really see too too much of an issue with that. I think that we need to have some kind of national National Defense. But I'll move on to the next question. It's from Stace Norman. This is from Instagram.
So I'm going to be taking questions from Instagram as well. He says I'm pretty excited about you getting an Instagram. I do not have a YouTube account, so I've not been able to ask a question. One, my first question is, are you constantly averaging in your portfolio 2? If not, then when do you buy each sector? I don't buy. I don't do orders for specific sectors. At least I haven't done that in the past.
Now, I might change the weighting of different sectors and move those around so that future funding does go into them. But really I use the auto Invest feature for M1 Finance, which is just based off of your portfolio allocation. You set a target allocation that you want each company to hold. So it's like going in and saying I want Apple to be 1.3% of My Portfolio, I want Costco to be 2%. I want, you know, you pretty much go through and set all of that and then M1 Finance will go
well. Does this equal this much? And the ones that are the most off, the most underfunded, those ones will get the money first. So as you're going throughout the year, companies are dropping down.
They will get funded until they're back up to where they're supposed to be. Companies that are going up, they'll be, they'll be waiting to get funded until everything else catches up to it. And so sometimes I'll mess around with that throughout the year because I want to direct money flow into other different companies or different sectors. But no, I don't like have any specific buying strategy as far as that's concerned. Most of the research I do on
when I buy companies is upfront. Then from there, it all comes down to if anything really drastic happens to them, if they have a dividend cut, if they have some huge issue or huge scandal or something happen. But as far as the reinvesting, I just let the cash keep flowing into companies over and over again. Most of it gets directed into the ones that are underfunded from M1 finances, auto invest, future, All right. But that's all the questions
I'll take this time. I appreciate you guys tuning in. I have another video coming up next week and I'm going to try to do a video on my Roth IRA. So I think you guys will be interested in that. I've made some changes to it. I have it being funded for the year. I'm going to actually be maxing out the funding this year, like next week. So once that money is put in, I'll go ahead and do a video on it and show you guys what I've
come up with. I don't think, I don't know if it's perfect yet, but we'll see if we'll discuss it next week and see what you guys think. But anyway, you guys have a good one. We'll see you.