Tariffs Tangle Markets, Businesses, Investors
39:01 Share

We're taking in the big picture, all of it, everything. This week's Motley Fool Money Radio Show starts now. Everybody needs money. That's why they call it money. The best things in life are you, but you can't get them to you.

From Fool Global Headquarters, this is Motley Fool Money. It's the Motley Fool Money radio show. I'm Dylan Lewis. Joining me over the airwaves, Motley Fool senior analysts Emily Flippen and Matt Argersinger. Fools, great to have you both here. Hey, good to be here. Dylan.

I'm happy to have you because we have some big-time market moves this week. We're going to be talking about that. We've also got Malcolm Gladwell's take on investing and revisiting some of his past work. And of course, you guys have brought your radar stocks this week. Excited to dig into that. We are going to kick off looking at the headlines, though. No shortage of big

picture headlines coming out this week. A lot moving the market around. Emily, S&P 500 down about 6% in the last two weeks. NASDAQ down about 10% in the same time. The market is trying to process tariff news, some zigging and zagging on the policy side, economic data. Where has your attention been?

We're all trying to process a lot. And if there's ever a time to kind of take a deep breath right now is the time to do it, right? Breathe in with me, breathe out. I will say where my focus has been over the course of the past week and what I really think started off this whole conversation has been tariffs and the lack of predictability that the conversation around tariffs has brought. And this has really caused this flywheel effect with economic data that has led to a fear around the state of the economy, which I think has then

subsequently led to the sell-off that we're seeing in the market, right? So the fear around stagflation in particular, and for investors who are unfamiliar with what stagflation is, that's the really dangerous combination of higher unemployment, high inflation, and low GDP growth. That's bad because it really ties the hands of the government about what they're going to do with monetary policy because of lower interest rates that

increases inflation, but helps GDP growth, whereas higher interest rates lowers inflation, but then potentially hurts GDP growth. And we're seeing some of that happen directionally right now. Inflation, right, has risen every month since September. It's now at around 3%.

for January, and expectations are for that to continue to rise this year. Unlikely, the federal government will lower interest rates with those expectations, given their mandate to control inflation. And a lot of those expectations, again, driven by the narrative right now around tariffs. So, with that inflation picking up, that is feeding into the narrative around stagflation. And then we're also seeing some concerns around GDP growth

we're seeing some expectations for GDP growth to actually decline over the course of this year. Again, driven around that hesitancy around the impact of tariffs and the uncertainty about how long tariffs will come, what industries will hit, what potentially retaliatory tariffs will come about. All of that uncertainty is being baked into this economic data and economists are just kind of shrugging their shoulders right now saying, I don't know what's going to happen. And the market's

hate that uncertainty. And when you combine that with some of the unemployment data that we're seeing this week, there's just so much fear and uncertainty hitting the markets right now. Yeah, we are processing tariff talk as it comes in. I'm hesitant to even put out a number because the story has changed so much even in just the past week. We do have that regularly scheduled jobs data though. Matt, February report out this week, what did you see?

I feel like we could be on the leading edge of a storm here with employment. I mean, the number itself was fine. I mean, the economy added about 150,000 jobs in February. That was a little bit lower than I think what most analysts were expecting, but it was better than January, which was revised down to 125,000 jobs. But important thing to remember about this jobs report, this February jobs report, is the data is as of February 12th.

It doesn't include really any of the Doge actions by the government, the federal layoffs. It does include the hiring freeze that the Trump administration put in place when they took office back in January. I think that's why, if you look at federal employment, it was down 10,000 jobs during the month, and that's probably because of retirement or natural attrition, and the jobs just aren't being replaced.

But I do expect that when we get the March data and the April data and subsequent months, we're really going to start seeing the impact of these jobs layoffs that we're seeing.

If you're looking for some indication on that, outplacement firm Challenger and Gray giving us some sense of what is going on with employment data outside of what we get from the federal government. And from their data, U.S. employers announcing over 170,000 layoffs for February, about a third of those from Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency. And what it feels like we're looking at here a little bit, Emily, is a lot of companies trying to process what the tariff

elements might mean for their own cost structures and what that means for their hiring decisions a little bit as well.

Yeah, that's exactly right. It all goes back to that uncertainty. If you're trying to make business decisions without a visibility into what not only the economy looks like, but what your cost structure looks like, where you're getting your suppliers from, all of that feeds into, okay, well, let me do what I can to control my current costs. And a lot of that feeds into usually what is the largest source of costs for companies, which is their hiring pool. And while we do see some of these jobs numbers coming out, to Matt's point, beneficially not

as bad as some people like myself feared, we do see unemployment taking up a bit. I believe unemployment did take up only around 0.1% over the course of the past month, around to 4.1% from 4% in January. But that's only over the period of one month.

And that's a pretty dangerous trend, again, especially when you're combining with higher inflation and lower GDP growth. All of that points to that stagflation. Now, these are just temporary trends. One month is not a trend within itself. But should those trends continue month after month, quarter after quarter, that's when things start to get a bit dangerous. I do know that the private jobs data that we saw earlier this week from ADP, which saw private jobs add nearly half of what they were expected to add for February,

that's what scares me a little bit more as opposed to what we're seeing happen at the federal level. We really want private enterprises to be making up for what we see happen. The federal government and the craziness that's happening there, I think, is separate from what we see management actually happening and the decision-making that's happening in private enterprises. Because should they start to make decisions that are fearful for the broader economy, that starts to kind of create the long-term trends that could result in a broader sell-off in the market.

Yeah, I think the uncertainty point that you both are making cannot be overstated enough. It's one thing to have a lack of certainty if you're a federal government agency, we know that. But yeah, on the private side as well, these major corporations, especially multinational corporations who are uncertain about what their sourcing is going to look like in the near term with all these tariffs. I just think there's so much uncertainty. It's an amazing thing to step back. Six weeks ago,

new administrations coming in, a very -- general consensus was very pro-economy, pro-capitalist was coming in, less regulation, more dealmaking. It was going to be boom times for the economy and the stock market. And here we are about six weeks later, and I think there's more uncertainty, more fear in the market. And Dylan, you pointed out to some of the numbers at the top of the show, it's remarkable where we've come in such a short period of time that the sentiment right now, certainly among investors, is actually pretty negative.

And I just want to reiterate, this can change so quickly. And we have seen, as Matt pointed out, this change quickly over the course of the month. So while it may sound scary for investors to sit here and be like, oh my gosh, unemployment's picking up, inflation's picking up, GDP growth is concerning, all of these companies are

hiring people potentially, right? We've said the word uncertainty about a million and one times over the course of this podcast, and we're only a few minutes in. All of that saying, all of this could change pretty quickly. So while there is fear and uncertainty driving the market, that usually does present opportunity for investors, especially long-term investors. So as long as you're not sitting here trying to day trade the markets, as long as you're doing the right thing, which is usually sitting on your hands, taking a long-term focus, this is not something that anybody should be

too fearful about in their portfolios. You should be aware about, but not overthinking. Yeah, Matt, you struck a little bit of a cautionary tone earlier when you were talking about the state of things. How is that flowing into the way that you're thinking about what you buy, your cash position, stuff like that for 2025?

Well, it does have me thinking more defensive. You guys know the stocks I tend to talk about. I'm already talking about mostly defensive stocks anyway. If you look at the year-to-date returns, healthcare sector, for one, is one of the best-performing sectors. Financials are doing pretty well. Consumer staples are on fire. There are parts of the market that are doing just fine. I think that's because they tend to be the most defensive and more conservative places where investors tend to hide. I think there are things that are going to work.

All right, coming up after the break, we're adding in retail results to the big picture and checking in on some big earnings movers. Stay right here. You're listening to Motley Fool Money.

Dylan Lewis: Welcome back to Motley Fool Money. I'm Dylan Lewis, here on air with Matt Argersinger and Emily Flippen. We are keeping the big picture in view with updates from some of the country's biggest retailers. Shares of Target down over 5% this week following earnings, continuing their skid. Now down 30% over the past year, over 50% from 2021 highs.

Emily, when will the bleeding stop here? You know, if you had asked me that last quarter, I would have said last quarter was probably the bottom here for Target. I'm actually relatively surprised to see yet another quarter of impressively poor performance from Target. They saw a sales decline for all of fiscal 2024 of nearly a percent, a similar decline in earnings per share. And I will say the good news is we

it did seem to firm up just a little bit in the fourth quarter. They saw a plus 1.5% increase in same-store sales. But even with that same-store sales growth, they still saw 3% lower total sales and a nearly 21% decrease in operating income. And of course, management said,

there were a lot of factors that went into this. They attributed some of this to the uncertainty around consumer spend, of which I will give them credit there. We have seen that narrative driven by a lot of retailers across the market today. Tariffs obviously playing into that. But they also chalked a lot of it up to cold winter weather.

I don't think there was enough discussion here around merchandising at Target. And I continue to think that this is what Target is fighting against, that they're just struggling to perform against the other retailers of the world like Walmart and Costco that are much more focused on necessary spend as opposed to discretionary. Their merchandising has always been heavily focused

oriented towards discretionary spend, a little bit higher end discretionary spending, which in a looser economic environment tends to do well. But unfortunately for Target over the course of the past year, people have been trading down. And I think as people have been trading down to the Walmarts of the world, they've realized, hey, Walmart's not that

not that bad. And you know what? Target may be a little bit overpriced. And I think they need to do more with merchandising to convince consumers to come back to their stores. And they truly, and I say this as a loyal Target customer myself, they truly have not done a lot to convince customers to come back to stores. That being said, I will just point this out. This business after this fall is

is trading now at something like 12 times trailing earnings and has a 4% dividend yield. And Dylan, I said this last quarter, I'll probably say it again now. Can it really fall further from here?

I don't know, Emily, but I love the characterization of impressively poor. It almost sounds like a compliment, and then you really dig into it, and you realize, no, that's a dig. That's a dig. In addition to a lot of the macro issues, Target also contending with a 40-day boycott in response to the company moving away from DE&I policies, we're also seeing

consumers voting with their dollars. There's an economic blackout movement affecting not only Target, but Walmart, Amazon, I believe Costco as well. Matt, the environment for retailers, very difficult right now. We got a sense of what's going on at Costco because they reported they are typically a best-of-breed retailer, even they are not immune to a lot of the issues that we're seeing. That's right. I had to actually clean my glasses this morning because I was looking at Costco's stock price.

It's down 8%, at least as of Friday morning. Costco never declines like that. Did they raise the price of the hot dog or something? I wasn't sure what was happening. The stock has just been on a steady escalator higher for what seems like forever. It can't be because of the results, guys, because the results were fantastic as usual. Sales up 9.1%, 62.5 billion. U.S. comp sales

up 8.3% year-over-year. What large U.S. retailer is doing numbers like that? Certainly not Target, as we talked about. E-commerce sales up 21%. Food,

high single-digit growth. Non-food categories, though, mid-teens growth. Management pointed to big-ticket consumer electronic products as a huge seller during the holidays. Of course, Costco, the strength there is the membership base. Paid members up 6.8% to 78.4 million. Now, why is the stock selling off on Friday? Well, maybe a few reasons. I mean, they're not immune to the tariffs, which we talked about. About one-third of Costco sales

come from other countries. The lion's share of that actually comes from China, Mexico, and Canada, which of course are the three favorite countries for the administration's tariffs. That issue is there to contend with. Margins were actually also slightly down year-over-year. You mentioned, Dylan, this economic blackout. We don't know what the impact of that is going to be, but the stock was already expensive coming into the report. I know that Costco is trading for 55X forward earnings.

That is a higher valuation than Nvidia and Amazon, just to put that into context. Does it deserve a premium valuation? Absolutely. But I'm not sure of that much of a premium. One of the things I'm interested in, taking a step back here on the retailer side, is, we have seen a lot of retailers emulate the Costco model of membership. We've seen Walmart move into that direction. Obviously, Amazon pioneering that with Prime over on the e-commerce side.

Do you feel like in this tough retail backdrop, the businesses that have that membership have a little bit more ballast than one that is reliant on getting people in the store all the time for those dollars to come in? Absolutely. It's a huge strength, and it's been that way for a long time with Costco. And I just think that brings in sort of that

that recurring revenue that's so key to the business, but also just the loyalty from its customers that want to keep coming in because they're paying that fee. Yeah, I don't actually think it's the fee that causes it though. I actually think it's an understanding of the customer. I don't think it's the fact that I am paying a membership fee that causes me to say, oh gosh, I have to go to my Costco this time. I think it's the fact that Costco and other membership-based business models have a true understanding of here is the type of customer that

And here's what they need. And here's the reason why they're visiting. And I think part of the reason why we're seeing a boycott at a business like Target is Target has truly lost understanding of who their customer is. And this is the expression of that, right? And you could argue the same thing has happened for the Amazons of the world. And when you start to lose understanding of who your core customer is, it makes it a lot easier for your customer to come out and say, guess what? I'm not shopping here anymore, right? You're replaceable to me.

I'm going to move us out of retail to hit one more big earnings mover this week. Not everybody down. Shares of identity management company Okta up over 25% following earnings. Emily, what is behind the market's excitement here?

Okta is always that type of business where when it's good, it's good, and when it's bad, it's bad. I'll tell you what, this quarter was what was described by CEO Tog McKinnon was a blowout quarter. They had over a billion dollars in booking for the first time ever, record performance in both their core Okta and Auth0 platforms.

And revenue growth of 13% doesn't sound like much, but their backlog indicator, that's the remaining performance obligations, that was up 25% in the quarter. So kind of great guidance heading out into 2025 and what otherwise is kind of a year where enterprise companies are not providing a lot of great forward-looking indicators of growth. So it was a great quarter for Okta. And again, there was expectations heading into this quarter that were maybe just a little bit muted in comparison to others in the place.

I will say, one thing stood out to me in this quarter that I feel like this company is...

not getting enough flack for. And that's their dollar-based net retention rate. It's at 107%. Now, north of 100%, always a good thing. Plenty of companies would kill for that number. But it's been declining here for two years. And that's down from 111% at this point last year. It doesn't really make sense to me because their average contract value for all of their customers has been rising at double digits for years now. Their contracts are larger, growing faster. So really, that

That number should be stabilizing. Management has said that their gross retention has also been strong. So it's not a matter of just losing customers. It makes me think they're not doing a great job of cross-selling or upselling their products. So while this is a great quarter for Okta, that is really the metric that I'm going to be watching in future quarters to make sure that that performance will continue. Emily, the tariff story obviously playing more into companies that have physical goods and software...

is digital, but ultimately a lot of the customers for a company like Okta or other enterprise companies may be subject to some of those whims. What are you keeping an eye on to get a sense of what's going on in the enterprise market and how that might flow through and be biting those companies?

I think everybody in the industry, and this applies to Okta, as well as a bunch of companies, MongoDB being another good example, I'm looking at their guidance heading out into fiscal 2025. And so many companies are being incredibly conservative with the guidance that they're giving. And I think that's prudent of them just because as we talked about at the beginning of the show, employment numbers coming down, cost structure coming down, that is the critical number to watch.

All right, Emily, Matt, we're going to have you guys a little bit later in the show to talk radar stocks. Up next, bestselling author Malcolm Gladwell reflects on our response to COVID and the book that kickstarted his book writing career.

Welcome back to Motley Fool Money. I'm Dylan Lewis. This March marks five years since early COVID lockdowns and the initial pandemic responses of 2020. And this year also marks 25 years since Malcolm Gladwell's first book, The Tipping Point, was released. Gladwell revisited concepts from his bestseller and examined modern issues like COVID and the opioid crisis in his new book, Revenge of the Tipping Point.

Ahead of the March anniversary, Gladwell and I chatted about how he looks back at his own work, our response to COVID, and how his approach to investing has changed. It's great to have you on because I'm a longtime fan. I've read most, if not all, of your books. I've read a lot of your New Yorker work, going all the way back to The Tipping Point 25 years ago. And when you published that book,

The original premise was this idea that epidemics are not just things of diseases or viruses. They are these things that happen with ideas and trends. And I'm curious, was it inevitable that you would revisit that idea after we had a global pandemic in 2020? Kind of. I mean, I sort of felt like I talked about this thing. All the ideas that I talked about in the original Tipping Point seemed very novel at the time. And then...

They went from being novel to being kind of omnipresent. So it was a different experience writing this second go-round, but the ideas still seemed to have a lot of relevance.

What was that process like of revisiting the books? Because I think I've heard in the past that you're not big on going back and rereading books and rereading some of the ideas that you'd originally published. It was the first time I'd reread the book since I published it. I was originally just going to do a revise, a kind of on its 25th anniversary, do a 25th anniversary edition of the original Tipping Point. But then I kind of got into it and realized I wanted to write something different.

new, which I was kind of halfway through. And I was like, I realized that I was, the chapters I was revising were a hundred percent different. And, you know, I wanted to talk about COVID and the opioid crisis and a million other things that had happened in the intervening quarter century. And so it just made sense to start over.

So you started fresh, but you also had the benefit of looking back on that work. And with the perspective of 25 years, I think I saw a TED talk you gave where you're talking about things like broken windows theory. With the hindsight that you have now, being able to revisit some of that, how did that flow into the process, knowing now some of the stuff you got right, some of the stuff you got wrong, or maybe how you wanted to approach things a little bit differently this time? Yeah.

Yeah, you're right. I had a long discussion of, you know, the initial book was prompted by my trying to make sense of the sudden drop in crime in New York City in the late 90s. And I sort of argued that crime was a contagious social behavior, which I still believe many people believe. And out of that argument, I fell very in love with broken windows policing, which was the norm in the 90s. And I now have a much more, I think, nuanced position on

what worked and didn't work about 90s era New York City, big city policing. And I think that's one of the fun things about revisiting work that you've done a long time ago is that it is an opportunity to prove to yourself that you're still learning things. You know that, I mean, the scary thing would be to revisit a

book that you wrote 25 years ago and think that you shouldn't change a word? Nobody's that prescient, right? Yeah. Well, no, no. I was thinking the opposite, that you would be so brain dead that not a single new thought had occurred to you in a quarter century. Yeah. That is a static mind, I guess, right? Yeah. That would be terrifying. So I was gratified to learn how much of my original book I was quarreling a little bit with.

I think when I originally read The Tipping Point and when I went back to it in prep for this conversation, I was struck by this idea that the book is very optimistic in its outlook. And it's very much about small ways to create larger change. And revenge in the title here has a bit of a different connotation to it.

And on the one hand, I mean, I think it's a little bit of the era we're in. We have so many reasons to be very optimistic. We have AI as this kind of magic type technology. We have just addressed a worldwide pandemic in record time. That's incredible. But it feels like even underneath some of those more reasons to be optimistic, there's a lot of distrust. There's a lot of differing public opinions about

You get into this idea of the overstory in the book. It's kind of meta-narrative. What do you feel like that is right now? And what do you think is versus what it was when you wrote The Tipping Point originally? Well, I think when I wrote The Tipping Point originally, which was in the late 90s, we were in an unusually optimistic moment. Every major social problem was in steep decline. You know, when the 90s began, if you asked Americans what the biggest problems in a country would have been, they would have said poverty.

Crime, teenage pregnancy, youth smoking. By the end of the 90s, those are all vanishing from, I mean, teen pregnancy drops precipitously. Teenage smoking used to be this thing that everyone was like fretting about. Teens just stopped smoking. And then crime in New York City was a tiny fraction of it.

by the early aughts of what it had been in the early 90s. And then you had the end of the Cold War. You had the Clinton presidency, in retrospect, was in America a kind of unbelievably calm, unruffled moment where the single biggest scandal was

The president fooled around with one of his interns. I mean, that was it. Like today, like that just seems ridiculous. I don't even know whether that would even get a headline today. So, you know, that was the context in which I was writing the book and I couldn't help to have been swept up in that kind of euphoria about the future. What do you think that outlook is now?

I think simply that there is an absence. If in the 90s we were all agreed on the fact that things were going well, I think today we're not agreed on anything. You know, that you can, as you just said, as plausibly make a case that things are going well as you can make a case that things are going disastrously. Either AI is going to save us or it'll doom us. Either Trump is going to fix the federal government or...

He's going to destroy it. I mean, I could just go on. It seems like it's, we're either on the verge of a golden age of medicine or we're going to get swamped by, you know, another virus coming down a pike. Like it's, I mean, it's just like, it's just really hard to get a handle. There's so much uncertainty, I guess. It's hard to get a handle on what happens next.

I think you're probably one of the first people to reflect on COVID in a book where people really felt like there was enough time and distance for it to make sense. You know, five years since early cases, I think is a healthy enough distance that people are ready for that message again. We're going to be seeing a ton of stories, articles, coverage as we pass a lot of these anniversaries. And I'm sure for, you know, the next five, 10, 100 years, it'll probably be something that people spend a lot of time studying and

Where would you like to see more of that discussion and more of that focus as we look back and kind of do these retrospectives on this crazy kind of unprecedented period in a lot of ways? Well, understanding the key to a lot of policy, I think, is understanding the diversity of human responses to COVID. So I touch on one piece of that in my book.

chapter on COVID in the book where I talk about the fact that the assumption we had that everybody was bearing an equal risk of passing on the virus to others is completely false and that a tiny portion of people are really the ones who do all the job of spreading. And if you know who that tiny portion is and you simplify your attack on COVID. But I would generalize from that and say that an enormous amount of the political and social dislocation from the epidemic was caused by the assumption that children were at risk of

or equally at risk for the virus. And that's why so many schools were shut down in so many places. And it was the shutting down of the schools that was so incredibly divisive. And if we better understood how at risk children were for a viral epidemic like this, we could have had a lot smarter policy on

And if we kept schools open far more, I think the kind of fallout from the political reaction to the virus would have been a lot less. And so like that's sort of one area where I feel like

If we can sort that out for next time, we'll be doing well. So this language we had that we are all equally at risk, we are all equally to blame, we all need to equally take precautions, just doesn't work. It doesn't ring true to people and correctly doesn't ring, because that's not, it isn't true. And I don't think you will be able to pull that off a second time. Has the way that you invested changed over the last 25 years?

Well, for a long time, I had a Schwab account where I would make highly speculative, very small investments for fun. And after almost without exception, losing money in those trades for 15 years, I finally gave it up. And now I'm Mr. Index Fund. I have turned my back on that game. I bet you sleep a little bit better. Well, I also do a thing where I only check my balances once a year.

Hmm. So that's a, that's like a system you've put in place knowing yourself. Yeah. It's like, what's the point? I'm not, you know, I'm not, when I retire, I'll check them out. I'm not using the money yet. I'm not retiring. So why would I bother checking it until I'm retired? Does it make any difference? I will only boast about one thing. Oh, I'd love to hear you boast. I have two moments of extraordinary market prescience. I went immediately prior to the 2008 meltdown

I went 100% cash. I sold every single equity I owned. What told you to do that at the time? I don't know. I just thought it seemed frothy. Yeah. And then in December of 2019, two months before COVID, I bought a very large short on the stock market, which I cashed into great effect several months later. Okay.

Anything you'd like to tell us about the future? Thank you very much. I can retire on those two things alone. If you make any big moves anytime soon, just give us a heads up, all right? Well, it's because I've been riding it by viruses for years. I knew a bunch of virologists, and I was chatting with one at the end of 2019. I was like, how serious is this SARS thing in China? They're like, oh, it's serious. I was like, oh, okay. And then in

So I bought the short and then I called him up and I was like, so now that we know what this thing is, is it a hard target? Like, is it like, no, it's totally easy. We'll have a vaccine in no time. Like, oh, okay. So then I made sure I cashed it in before.

But that's like a stop clock is right once a day. It's never happening again. Chris Hill: Listeners, you can get Revenge of the Tipping Point wherever you get your books, and you can catch more of my conversation with Malcolm Gladwell over on our Motley Fool Money podcast feed. He gets into how he'd re-imagined the world of insurance and his recommendations for fixing the rat problem on my block in Washington DC. Up next, Matt Argersinger and Emily Flippen return with the stocks on their radar this week. Stay right here, you're listening to Motley Fool Money.

As always, people on the program may have interests in the stocks they talk about, and The Motley Fool may have formal recommendations for or against, some parts of the content based only on what you hear. All personal finance content follows Motley Fool editorial standards and is not approved by advertisers. If Motley Fool only picks products it'd personally recommend to friends like you. I'm Dylan Lewis, joined again by Emily Flippen and Matt Argersinger.

And Matt, the NASDAQ is going the way of the late-night diner. The exchange is planning on offering 24-hour trading for stocks. If all goes according to plan, in the second half of 2026, investors will be able to buy and sell stocks on the NASDAQ at any time of the day. How are you feeling about 2 a.m. buy orders? Dylan, I love late-night diners. I hate this idea, though, for stocks. I do not want to be waking up at 2 in the morning to see how my stocks are doing. And I also think this is just...

Imagine some bad news hits a company late at night, say 11:00 PM Eastern, and most retail investors, at least on the East Coast, are asleep by then. They wake up in the morning, their stock is down 25%. They're mad because they couldn't trade it or sell it if they wanted to. I just worry what this does to our attention spans, to our sleep schedules, and also just how we think about stocks.

If the beauty of an exchange closing, in my view, that we have here in the U.S. right now with our major stock exchanges is that it's the pause that refreshes. If there's bad news, there's the market's crashing, or there's just something negative going on, the market closes and investors get to sleep on it and think about it. And it kind of makes other things happen. If the stock market is consistently open, you could see a situation without circuit breakers. Stocks could be in free fall forever just because everyone's piling in and it doesn't stop.

So, I think part of the pitch here, from what I've seen on reporting, is that opening up the U.S. markets to 24 hours, in theory, opens it up to more international investors when those investors are aware. But, Matt, I do hear you on what it may do for Americans that are investing and paying attention to the markets. Emily, what's your take here?

Yeah, I personally think there's a lot of unwarranted fear-mongering around the idea of 24-hour trading. If somebody doesn't want to wake up at 3 a.m. to trade, don't wake up at 3 a.m. to trade. I think we should be trying to educate people around the values of long-term investing as opposed to limiting access to trading just to cater to the lowest common denominators.

just my two cents. But I do think that the idea that 24 hour trading is bad is kind of the same argument that people made when we started trading over the internet, right? They're like, well, it's great to limit access. You have to call up your broker. It prevents people from making these like emotional decisions. But generally,

I think having more liquid, more accessible, more efficient markets is better for everyone. That being said, I understand some people may make poor decisions as a result. But again, it goes back to focusing on education. And hopefully, everybody listening to this podcast is a true fool at heart and understands that if you wake up in the morning and stocks are down, which by the way, you can still trade after market right now, but it's mostly limited to high net worth individuals and institutional investors. So this is further democratizing access. But still,

If you wake up and your stocks are down, hopefully you aren't panicking. You are long-term buy and holding. And you're just getting your coffee, going about your day as usual. This is terrible. Terrible idea. I love that Emily invoked the democratization element because it's such a winner when you're making an argument. It's a great word. I will land on Matt's side. I like having some discipline forced on me, but I understand. And it's nice for more money to be flowing into the U.S. markets.

Alright, let's get over to stocks on our radar. Our man behind the glass, Dan Boyd, is going to hit you with a question. Matt, you're up first. What are you looking at this week?

Sorry, Dan, breaking the rules a little bit. I'm looking at a basket of stocks, looking in particular at private equity stocks, which, guys, have been in a free fall over the past month. I don't know if you've noticed, but you've got stocks like Brookfield down 15%, Blackstone down 19%, Carlyle Group down 19%, Apollo Global Management down 21%, and KKR, the big loser, down 27%. This is supposed to be an amazing environment for these major private equity firms. If you think about it, asset prices are down

These firms have no problem raising capital. They raise a new $10 billion fund every other day, it seems. We're in a supposedly less regulatory environment, so deals can happen. They've got billions in dry powder. Most of them pay nice dividends. Why are these stocks down so much over the past month? I'm looking into it, not making any moves, but I'm interested to see if there are any bargains among the basket.

Dan, the tickers there, Brookfield, BN, Blackstone, BX, KKR, and APO for Apollo. Do you have a question or a comment here for Matty's private equity basket? Private equity is down? Well, I say good. An industry based on buying something almost profitable or profitable and then immediately making it worse shouldn't exist. Dan is joining the economic blackout with the rest of the people around the country. There you go. Emily, what are you looking at? What's on your radar this week?

I think Dan's going to have a hard choice this week, but the stock I'm looking at is actually Lovesac, and the ticker is L-O-V-E. And the reason it's on my radar is actually because I have a very expensive Sactional split up into about a million and one different boxes sitting in my living room right now. So my weekend is going to be painstakingly assembling this Sactional. But it actually is a very interesting business model. So this is

a company that sells initially giant beanbags, of course, love sacks, but has expanded its business into a number of different products, including these sectionals that are very modular in design. Now, sales have been kind of declining for a love sack over the course of the past year. I think part of that is they have a challenge with their business model of the fact that it's hard to get repeat purchases online.

But I do very much like this management team. And I think they're doing a great job of upselling customers as somebody who went into a showroom myself and was successfully upsold. And I think they're doing a great job with their cost management structure as well. One that I am personally interested in learning more about and adding to my own radar.

Dan, a question about Lovesac, ticker L-O-V-E. So my wife has been threatening to buy one of these for our den for a while now, and I'm terrified because they're extremely expensive. I don't really see the utility of a $5,000 couch, but I guess the market's excited about it.

I can tell you what the sales lady told me, which is, A, you can, if you are a Costco member, get them through a bit of a discount through Costco or on sales during President's Day weekend or Labor Day weekend. You know, they have occasional sales and they're modular. You know, they move with you. They can adjust with you. So, you know, there's options out there, Dan. Okay, sure.

Dan, it doesn't seem like you're really sold on either radar stock or basket of stocks this week. Where are you going? Well, I'm certainly not going to private equity, Dylan. Let's go LoveSac. LoveSac. And maybe you'll give Emily a hand putting that together this weekend. No. Emily, Matt, thanks for bringing your radar stocks. I'm Dylan Lewis for Dan Boyd. We'll see you next week.