Speaker 1: On this episode of News World. David Bonson is the founder,
Speaker 1: managing partner and chief Investment Officer of the Bonson Group,
Speaker 1: overseeing the manager of seven billion dollars in client assets.
Speaker 1: Prior to launching the Bonson Group, he spent eight years
Speaker 1: as a managing director at Morgan Stanley and six years
Speaker 1: as vice president of UBS. He is consistently named one
Speaker 1: of the top financial advisors in America by Barons, Forbes,
Speaker 1: and The Financial Times. He is the editor of the
Speaker 1: Dividend Cafe newsletter and a new sponsor of Mark Halprin's
Speaker 1: The Morning Meeting on two Way Dot TV, which I
Speaker 1: recommend very very highly. David, welcome and thank you for
Speaker 1: anyway the newts World.
Speaker 2: Well, thank you so much for having me.
Speaker 1: Now, before we get into the Syria stuff, I have
Speaker 1: to ask you a couple of things here, bio says quote.
Speaker 1: David's true passions include anything related to usc football, the
Speaker 1: financial markets, politics, and Chinese food. So what is your
Speaker 1: favorite Chinese food?
Speaker 2: In terms of restaurants, Manhattan.
Speaker 3: Just is the place in America to get Chinese food,
Speaker 3: no question, But I will admit it's kind of a
Speaker 3: guilty pleasure sometimes I like the more take out greasy
Speaker 3: places even than the real, nice, fine dining. But I
Speaker 3: do love Chinese food.
Speaker 1: What led you to Chinese food?
Speaker 3: Well, you know, I think that it was just sort
Speaker 3: of a guilty pleasure when I was younger. My dad
Speaker 3: loved Chinese food. You know, he and I were so close.
Speaker 3: He passed away pretty young. I have such fond memories
Speaker 3: as a kid of eating Chinese food with my dad.
Speaker 3: I imagine it's not just the culinary side, but a
Speaker 3: little nostalgia as well.
Speaker 1: Oh that's great, So we're div into more Serria stuff.
Speaker 1: As you know, the Trump administration stance on trade and
Speaker 1: tariffs has been a defining feature of their economic policy.
Speaker 1: From your perspective, how do you see their approach to
Speaker 1: trade compared to previous administrations, particularly in terms of tariffs
Speaker 1: international negotiations.
Speaker 3: Well, mister speaker, it puts me in a tough position
Speaker 3: because I maintain a certain traditionalist, kind of Reaganite Milton
Speaker 3: Friedman classical conservatism on the matter. And yet I'm not
Speaker 3: sure that I would put President Trump squarely in a
Speaker 3: protectionist box either. There are definitely times that he talks
Speaker 3: that way, and it isn't my favorite part of his
Speaker 3: economic agenda. But at the same time, I think that
Speaker 3: there has been a posture so far to use tariffs
Speaker 3: for negotiation, and someone like me who wants to see
Speaker 3: more total trade and let it be a boost to
Speaker 3: American economic interest, American workers, American economic growth, I believe
Speaker 3: that there's a possibility of using tariffs to negotiate for
Speaker 3: better arrangements. The confusion over the last six weeks has
Speaker 3: been I'm not sure that there's a great deal of
Speaker 3: clarity for economic actors as to what is about fentanyl,
Speaker 3: what is about border security, what is about fairness? And
Speaker 3: then what is about some sort of protectionist idea. Of
Speaker 3: all the different agendas out there, the one I'm most
Speaker 3: comfortable with are all of the above, besides the protectionist one.
Speaker 2: I do ultimately believe that using.
Speaker 3: Tariffs to try to protect one economic actor against another
Speaker 3: American economic actor, I think is problematic overall.
Speaker 1: I mean, you've watched the opening couple of months. Have
Speaker 1: you been surprised at the number of large investment announcements.
Speaker 2: I'm not surprised.
Speaker 3: I've been watching with a lot of attention a couple
Speaker 3: of early on ones from soft Bank, and then this
Speaker 3: sort of VC group they want to put together with
Speaker 3: open AI and then even the Apple one. They grab
Speaker 3: my attention a little less even though they had bigger numbers,
Speaker 3: because they were intent to do something. They hoped to
Speaker 3: go raise the money to then do a lot of
Speaker 3: this large investment. And I think those are beneficial headlines
Speaker 3: for the president. They're certainly a great way to curry
Speaker 3: the favor of the administration, and so they're positive in
Speaker 3: that sense. But a smaller announcement that is a bigger
Speaker 3: deal to me is things like Hyundai this week. Twenty
Speaker 3: billion doesn't sound like as big of a number as
Speaker 3: five hundred billion, but this is twenty billion real dollars
Speaker 3: versus five hundred billion potential dollars. And so I do
Speaker 3: think that gaining investment in the United States is a
Speaker 3: good thing, and I do believe the best way to
Speaker 3: bring capital to our country is to be a place
Speaker 3: worthy of other capital, with better environment, better regulatory environment,
Speaker 3: rule of law, and all the things we believe in.
Speaker 1: In that context, how important is the development of the
Speaker 1: tax cut and Regulatory Reform bill sometime early this year.
Speaker 2: It's incredibly important.
Speaker 3: I was just at the Treasury Department last week having
Speaker 3: meetings to this exact effect. I believe that what people
Speaker 3: have to understand right now versus the first administration is
Speaker 3: in twenty seventeen, his first year of Trump one point
Speaker 3: zero that was the largest corporate tax reform bill in history.
Speaker 3: They thought optimistically they may repatriate one trillion US dollars
Speaker 3: and it ended up being one point eight trillion. It
Speaker 3: is a massive factor as to how the economy held
Speaker 3: up so well through the Biden administration and.
Speaker 2: Post COVID period.
Speaker 3: Not only the reduction of a corporate tax rate that
Speaker 3: was highly known on competitive at thirty five percent coming
Speaker 3: down to twenty one percent, elimination of a lot of
Speaker 3: loopholes and crony deductions, but there was just a regulatory
Speaker 3: and tax reform apparatus that was highly supply side friendly,
Speaker 3: in other words, incentivizing the production of the American economy
Speaker 3: that we desperately needed. The tariffs came in twenty eighteen.
Speaker 3: In the second year, you had one of the best
Speaker 3: years you could imagine for the stock market. In twenty seventeen,
Speaker 3: you got great real GDP growth.
Speaker 2: And you signed that tax bill into law.
Speaker 3: Then we went through a kind of choppy year trying
Speaker 3: to find our footing around what was going to happen
Speaker 3: or not happen with tariffs this time. By going in
Speaker 3: the reverse order, I think they risk not having some
Speaker 3: of the economic, not to mention, political capital in place.
Speaker 3: If there's going to be a period of uncertainty, chaos,
Speaker 3: challenge around tariff announcements.
Speaker 2: I would rather the TCGA be.
Speaker 3: Made permanent first, and that a lot of the benefits
Speaker 3: of deregulation and doge.
Speaker 2: Sink in first.
Speaker 3: What has happened is sometimes you feel like maybe the
Speaker 3: administration's lost focus on that issue. I don't think the
Speaker 3: President has, and I definitely do not believe Secretary Beson has,
Speaker 3: but I think markets have questioned are we going to
Speaker 3: get this tax reform or not? Particularly for those of us,
Speaker 3: mister Speaker, who know how complex it's going to be
Speaker 3: to get the tax reform done with this budget reconciliation process,
Speaker 3: People's eyes glaze over when you talk to them about
Speaker 3: what has to happen procedurally to get it through. But
Speaker 3: it matters a great deal, and we still don't have
Speaker 3: a policy baseline in place as to what they're going
Speaker 3: to base the budget reconciliation off of. There's a few
Speaker 3: trillion dollars on the line there in terms of tax cuts.
Speaker 1: I've been impressed partly because Speaker Johnson, with his very
Speaker 1: tiny majority, has just firmly and steadily said we got
Speaker 1: to get this done early. We're going to get this
Speaker 1: done early, has to be bill and gradually. I think
Speaker 1: he has convinced the Senate that that's the right strategy,
Speaker 1: and I'm now moderately optimistic that they'll get a bill
Speaker 1: done in May or very early June.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's come up a great deal in the probability,
Speaker 3: and I'm with you there. The Speaker has been phenomenal,
Speaker 3: and I have to say President Trump has had his back.
Speaker 3: He's worked the phones behind the scenes where they had
Speaker 3: no margin of error to get that budget across the
Speaker 3: finish line.
Speaker 2: So I'm very hopeful.
Speaker 1: To what extent does cutting spending and getting spending back
Speaker 1: under control also create lower interest rates in a better
Speaker 1: environment in which to imagine economic investment and growth.
Speaker 3: It is probably the single lowest hanging fruit imaginable to
Speaker 3: not only control the long end of the yield curve,
Speaker 3: move interest rates lower and stimulate capital investment, but then
Speaker 3: it also stops digging the ditch that is the whole
Speaker 3: that is most impeding us, which is a debt to
Speaker 3: GDP ratio is climbed from a post war average of
Speaker 3: about seventeen percent to near twenty five percent. The thirty
Speaker 3: six trillion of debt gets all the attention because it's
Speaker 3: a huge number, and it's sensational and it's obviously problematic,
Speaker 3: But the debt to GDP number is the number that
Speaker 3: we should be most concerned with, the ratio of debt
Speaker 3: growing faster than economic productivity is growing. By getting spending
Speaker 3: under control and allowing the private sector to do what
Speaker 3: it does and economic growth to move faster than debt
Speaker 3: is growing, then we have a chance of saving this.
Speaker 2: The only thing I would say.
Speaker 3: Versus what you all were heroically doing in the late
Speaker 3: seventies and early eighties is we've dug the whole thirty
Speaker 3: six times bigger since then.
Speaker 1: I'm very proud of the fact that while we were
Speaker 1: the first majority in forty years, we actually balanced the
Speaker 1: budget for four three years, which is the only time
Speaker 1: in the last century, which is sort of a bad
Speaker 1: comment on how profligate we've been as a country. As
Speaker 1: I left the speakership, Alan Greenspan, who was the Chairman
Speaker 1: of the Federal Reserve at the time was giving a
Speaker 1: speech that they were estimating we would pay off the
Speaker 1: national debt by two thousand and nine, and they weren't
Speaker 1: sure at the Fed how they were going to manage
Speaker 1: the money supply if there was no debt. Of course,
Speaker 1: it didn't turn out that way, but at the moment
Speaker 1: it seemed awfully good. Now, from your perspective, with all
Speaker 1: the turmoil we're describing here, big spending cuts, tariffs of
Speaker 1: some kind, a tax cut bill will eventually get done,
Speaker 1: but it's not done yet. How does all that weave
Speaker 1: together in terms of the chance of us dipping into
Speaker 1: a recession this summer.
Speaker 3: I think if we were to have a recession this summer,
Speaker 3: we likely wouldn't know about it until the fall, and
Speaker 3: it would be caused by some contraction in capital goods, investment,
Speaker 3: in productivity, industrial production that.
Speaker 2: Right now is not necessarily in the cards.
Speaker 3: But President Trump had the highest small business optimism reading
Speaker 3: that they've had since the NFIB started doing the data
Speaker 3: in the month after the election, and then last month
Speaker 3: the small business uncertainty index was the highest it had
Speaker 3: ever been. So that's a difficult thing to wrap my
Speaker 3: arms around. But I do believe it's a byproduct to
Speaker 3: some of the things you're referring to, just a little
Speaker 3: bit of uncertainty as to what exactly is going to happen.
Speaker 2: My own read on it, and I'm not, by.
Speaker 3: Any means a political insider, but I think the messaging
Speaker 3: I hear from Treasury gives a little more clarity than
Speaker 3: the messaging I hear from commerce, and that's part of
Speaker 3: the issue.
Speaker 2: And we'll see what happens on April second.
Speaker 3: But I do believe markets and not just financial markets
Speaker 3: and risk assets. A lot of people think I'm always
Speaker 3: talking about the stock market.
Speaker 2: That's not what we're really referring to here.
Speaker 3: It's businesses being able to invest in a new factory,
Speaker 3: new R and D, new hiring plans.
Speaker 2: It's tough to do that when uncertainty is high.
Speaker 3: And I think that the biggest risk to recession is
Speaker 3: if I'm certain to get so high in April May
Speaker 3: that in June July we tip over.
Speaker 1: I think with small businesses, they don't quite know what
Speaker 1: the effect of the tariffs is going to be on
Speaker 1: the products that they have to buy. I think that
Speaker 1: really the sort of thing you have to look at
Speaker 1: and worry about in a serious kind of way.
Speaker 3: Can I add to that also what they have to
Speaker 3: sell that many of these companies are exporters, and if
Speaker 3: they face retaliatory tariffs, there ends up being a knock
Speaker 3: on effect there as well.
Speaker 1: Yeah, if you're a small manufacturer, it could have a
Speaker 1: devastating potential impact, or at least something that you have
Speaker 1: to adjust to and take into account. I noticed that
Speaker 1: the former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers did say that he
Speaker 1: thought there was about a fifty percent chance of a recession.
Speaker 1: Do you think that he's overly pessimistic or does that
Speaker 1: seem about reasonable?
Speaker 2: I never like those things.
Speaker 3: Wall Street firms do it all the time too, where
Speaker 3: they'll say, oh, it was thirty percent and now we
Speaker 3: think it's forty percent, and I think that it's a
Speaker 3: little bit arbitrary. Do I think that whatever the chances
Speaker 3: are of a recession are higher now than they were
Speaker 3: two months ago? Yes, fifty percent seems a bit high,
Speaker 3: But again I believe that the more important piece is
Speaker 3: that we could get subpar growth. That's the thing that
Speaker 3: I never understood in the eight years of the Bomb administration.
Speaker 3: We did not have a recession after we came out
Speaker 3: of the financial crisis, and yet we had eight consecutive
Speaker 3: years of subpar growth. I no more want subpar growth
Speaker 3: than I want a recession. All of it is bad
Speaker 3: for our children and grandchildren, and so we want to
Speaker 3: be operating at an optimal full capacity scale. And I
Speaker 3: do think that right now they're there are some animal
Speaker 3: spirits on the corporate side that are being held in.
Speaker 1: I kind of wonder if Trump once everything stabilizes, if
Speaker 1: it's clear what the tariff policy will be, and we
Speaker 1: actually pass the tax cut and regulation reform bill by
Speaker 1: mid June, I wonder if you don't see a similar
Speaker 1: explosion people finally saying Okay, I get it, I can
Speaker 1: understand this, I can work in this operation.
Speaker 3: There is a great pent up possibility of a lot
Speaker 3: of those things. The other piece that you and I
Speaker 3: both would add to the optimistic mix is energy independence,
Speaker 3: the ability to combine with a tax and regulatory portfolio,
Speaker 3: a real commitment that I think is not ambiguous. There's
Speaker 3: a lot of areas for administration. I give them an
Speaker 3: eight out of ten, and there's the one area we
Speaker 3: talked about.
Speaker 2: With trade that I have a lower score.
Speaker 3: But energy is one from Chris Wright at the Energy
Speaker 3: Department and Secretary Bergham and Interior to Trump one point
Speaker 3: zero and now two point zero legacy that I score
Speaker 3: a ten out of ten, and that.
Speaker 2: Supply side growth as well.
Speaker 3: That's permitting approval, removing impediments for what is a growth
Speaker 3: industry not just environmentally better, not just geopolitically better, but
Speaker 3: it's a growth opportunity for good paying wages that do
Speaker 3: not require college degrees, to a.
Speaker 2: Working class segment of American economy.
Speaker 3: I think it's a tremendous aspect of this overall economic story.
Speaker 1: It may fit in geopolitically too, because if we go
Speaker 1: back to really accelerating liquefied natural gas exports to help
Speaker 1: the Europeans wean themselves off of Russian gas, it becomes
Speaker 1: a double win for.
Speaker 3: US, that's right, and Asian and European customers that are
Speaker 3: able to ramp up their intake capacity while the Biden
Speaker 3: administration shut.
Speaker 2: Off our out take capacity.
Speaker 3: It was really a surreal policy decision that was made
Speaker 3: late in his administration.
Speaker 1: I don't want to get off on the politics of it,
Speaker 1: but it does strike me that there were an amazing
Speaker 1: number of ways in which they did not understand markets
Speaker 1: and they didn't understand economies. The opposite of recession, of course,
Speaker 1: is the whole inflation problem. It seems to me that
Speaker 1: it's been harder to bring it down than people thought
Speaker 1: it would be.
Speaker 3: Well, and I think a lot of this, mister speaker,
Speaker 3: has to do with what I refer to as the
Speaker 3: political problem of inflation. That it doesn't do me any
Speaker 3: good to talk about economics or Milton Friedman or monetary
Speaker 3: phenomena when someone says egg prices just went up one
Speaker 3: hundred percent. Egg prices did not go higher because of inflation.
Speaker 3: Inflation is an economic term for the whole price level
Speaker 3: going higher. And we have a problem of political inflation
Speaker 3: because we have three areas of economy that, for twenty
Speaker 3: five years in a reasonably disinflationary period, three areas went
Speaker 3: higher and higher and higher above wage growth and above
Speaker 3: the price level growth. And that is housing, healthcare, and
Speaker 3: higher education, the only three areas of the American economy
Speaker 3: subsidized by Washington d C. So I think the political
Speaker 3: story with inflation goods. Inflation year over year has been
Speaker 3: zero percent two years in a row. The monetary inflation
Speaker 3: we faced in the immediate aftermath of the COVID excesses
Speaker 3: and the supply shutdowns.
Speaker 2: Has largely been corrected.
Speaker 3: One off issues around eggs because of bird flu issue
Speaker 3: with chickens. You know, there's no FED governor or president
Speaker 3: that can do anything immediately about that. But I think
Speaker 3: that housing is where Americans feel inflation. Housing is where
Speaker 3: young people are spending fifty percent of their paycheck on
Speaker 3: their rent or It's incredible.
Speaker 1: But isn't the overhang of housing now likely to lead
Speaker 1: to a pretty substantial declining cost.
Speaker 3: Well, we are not yet out of place of an
Speaker 3: overhang in terms of national supply. I mean, there's more
Speaker 3: inventory available than there was last year, but we're still
Speaker 3: very tight compared to historical norms, and transactions are at
Speaker 3: a thirty year low. There's a sort of seller's strike
Speaker 3: right now. They have three percent mortgages. They're ready to
Speaker 3: upgrade to a bigger, better home, but they don't want
Speaker 3: to go take a seven percent mortgage. So artificially low
Speaker 3: interest rates become a problem later in a period of
Speaker 3: more normalized rates. The FED wants to clear the market.
Speaker 3: They're not going to get it back down to three,
Speaker 3: but perhaps around five versus seven, you start.
Speaker 2: Moving that a bit.
Speaker 3: But no, I believe that housing represents the biggest inflation
Speaker 3: threat that we have.
Speaker 1: And so that's leading to a lot more multifamily apartments
Speaker 1: and condos and things, because young people have to go somewhere.
Speaker 2: That's right, And it isn't like those who have gotten
Speaker 2: to either.
Speaker 3: You know, rents are still a very high multi family product.
Speaker 2: We did build a lot of new inventory for a
Speaker 2: number of years, but then that stopped.
Speaker 3: Over the last couple of years, permits really came to
Speaker 3: a halt. Higher interest rates and higher insurance costs made
Speaker 3: multi family construction less economical. Cities that were booming, like
Speaker 3: Austin and Phoenix and Nashville and many Florida cities, they
Speaker 3: saw a lot of new multifamily inventory come online. But
Speaker 3: we're substantially underbuilt as a country in single family residents.
Speaker 1: And you don't think that'll change until you get down
Speaker 1: to much lower mortgage rates.
Speaker 2: Much lower mortgage rates.
Speaker 3: And again, the federalist in me has to always point
Speaker 3: out that Washington, DC can't do everything states like California
Speaker 3: and New York. You know, I sort of jokingly, except
Speaker 3: for I was being serious, said to our friend Mark
Speaker 3: Halprin the this morning on Tue.
Speaker 2: Apparently we know the blueprint for what.
Speaker 3: To do about getting more supply in blue states, because
Speaker 3: I heard the Governor of California say it on Meet
Speaker 3: the Press the week or two after the fires. He said,
Speaker 3: what they're going to have to do to rebuild is suspend,
Speaker 3: seek a give zoning relief, permitting relief, regulatory relief. And
Speaker 3: I thought, I agree with everything he just said, except
Speaker 3: for I didn't need the fires to know that that
Speaker 3: would work.
Speaker 1: And we'll see if you can get the California legislature
Speaker 1: to do it.
Speaker 2: What's your reaction to the whole.
Speaker 1: Department of Efficiency, the DOGE effort, and the way they've
Speaker 1: moved forward.
Speaker 3: Well, I am mostly very supportive and sympathetic. A concept
Speaker 3: of it I liked a lot. I think the personality
Speaker 3: of it changed publicly with Viv stepping aside to go
Speaker 3: pursue his Ohio race. He has a certain eloquence and
Speaker 3: skill is a messenger that I think would have been beneficial.
Speaker 3: Mitch Daniels said something about DOJ a couple weeks ago
Speaker 3: that stuck with me that his advice would be for
Speaker 3: them to basically do what they're doing, but to talk
Speaker 3: less and do more. And part of me wonders if
Speaker 3: we didn't hear anything about it for six months, no tweets,
Speaker 3: no videos, no website update, and just in six months
Speaker 3: they called a press conference and gave us the list
Speaker 3: of everything they had done. I think it would have
Speaker 3: ninety five percent approval with the public. But this kind
Speaker 3: of day by day stuff, putting stuff on the website,
Speaker 3: having to take it back, there's mistakes made, There's a
Speaker 3: lot of messaging chaos that could be a reflection of
Speaker 3: my personality as a more traditionalist that I'm a kind
Speaker 3: of measure twice cut once kind of guy, And this
Speaker 3: lends itself to a certain degree of chaos that I
Speaker 3: understand is unavoidable. But I think that the public's approval
Speaker 3: of it dropping twenty percent is largely stylistic, and part
Speaker 3: of me thinks the substance of it is still going
Speaker 3: to be very popular.
Speaker 1: When you look at all this and you just close
Speaker 1: your eyes, we get politics, et cetera. You know Trump
Speaker 1: talks about a golden age. Do you think ten years
Speaker 1: from now America is likely to be dramatically better off,
Speaker 1: a little better off, or still sort of in the doldrums.
Speaker 3: For us to be in a better place than ten years,
Speaker 3: America cannot be as secular as a country as it
Speaker 3: is now. It is going to have to re embrace
Speaker 3: and there are signs that it is doing so, that
Speaker 3: gen Z is a bit more open to church and
Speaker 3: to Synagogue into embracing some of the Jeneo Christian principles
Speaker 3: of our nation than jen Why was but in ten
Speaker 3: years to come out of the doldrums, It's not going.
Speaker 2: To be because of egg prices.
Speaker 3: It's not going to because GDP came up from two
Speaker 3: point four to two point eight. There is a spirit
Speaker 3: around the country that is not in a good place.
Speaker 3: And there's a lot that can be done on a
Speaker 3: policy front, and there's a lot that needs stapen economically.
Speaker 2: But I still believe the largest.
Speaker 3: Things that plays are cultural and that sort of restoration
Speaker 3: of a Tokvillian vision of the country with strong communities.
Speaker 2: It's going to be very hard for that to be
Speaker 2: back in ten years.
Speaker 3: The nineteen sixties radicalism that undid it didn't work in
Speaker 3: ten years. It took thirty or forty. We're going to
Speaker 3: need more than ten to get back.
Speaker 1: This is why I think the twenty twenty six election
Speaker 1: is so important. You have to keep the House, you
Speaker 1: have to keep the momentum. You have to win the
Speaker 1: election of twenty eight for a president, Senate, and House.
Speaker 1: And if you can get three terms in a row Trump,
Speaker 1: and then two terms for the next president, you probably
Speaker 1: by then will have locked into place patterns and trends
Speaker 1: which will have ended the Roosevelt era and move us
Speaker 1: towards a more decentralized, more voluntarism and more faith based
Speaker 1: society than we've been in the last thirty or forty years.
Speaker 3: I think that there's a lot of merit to that,
Speaker 3: and that for us to conscientiously do that. It also
Speaker 3: provides the political capital and do some of the big
Speaker 3: difficult things that will have to be done entitlement reform
Speaker 3: and so forth. So there's a lot of wood to chop,
Speaker 3: but one election at a time, and in the meantime.
Speaker 2: I still believe, as much as all of us.
Speaker 3: Are oftentimes stuck in the political sphere and the economic
Speaker 3: sphere policy, so much of this will come down to
Speaker 3: our own efforts with our families and communities and churches
Speaker 3: as well.
Speaker 1: David, this has been a lot of fun I've been
Speaker 1: reading your ads with Alprin, so when told me that
Speaker 1: you were available on going to join us, I was
Speaker 1: really thrilled and it's certainly lived up to all of
Speaker 1: my hopes. I hope someday in six months or so,
Speaker 1: you'll come back and give us another view of how
Speaker 1: the world's evolving. I want to thank you for joining me.
Speaker 1: I want to let our listeners know they can sign
Speaker 1: up to get your newsletter Dividend Cafe by visiting your
Speaker 1: website at the Bonsgroup dot com slash Dividendcafe. And if
Speaker 1: you're in stued in politics like we both are, you
Speaker 1: can sign up to watch the morning meeting sponsored by
Speaker 1: the Bonson Group at two way dot tv. Thank you very.
Speaker 2: Much, Thank you so much for having me. It's been
Speaker 2: a privilege.
Speaker 1: Thank you to my guest, David Bonsen. You can learn
Speaker 1: more about his company, the Bonsen Group on our show
Speaker 1: page at newtsworld dot com. Newtsworld is produced by Gainglishtree
Speaker 1: sixty and iHeartMedia. Our executive producer is Guarnsey Sloan. Our
Speaker 1: researcher is Rachel Peterson. The artwork for the show was
Speaker 1: created by Steve Penley. Special thanks to the team at
Speaker 1: Ginglishtree sixty. If you're been enjoying Newtsworld, I hope you'll
Speaker 1: go to Apple Podcasts and both rate us with five
Speaker 1: stars and give us a review so others can learn
Speaker 1: what it's all about. Right now, listeners of Newtsworld consigning
Speaker 1: for my three free weekly columns at Gainglistree sixty dot
Speaker 1: com slash newsletter. I'm Newt Gingrich.
Speaker 2: This is Newtsworld