Speaker 1: You know, this administration is also taking an independent approach
on overseeing how the government was monitoring these financial institutions.
And based on what I'm looking at, it appears that,
you know, there was a lot of misuse, a lot
of misspending, a lot of abuse of power in the
past administration, and I think this current administration is trying
to reverse those effects and bring a little bit of
balance to the market.
Speaker 2: You're listening to Carrie Lutz's Financial Survival Network, where you
get valuable information you just can't find anywhere else to
thrive in today's trying times. You need the Financial Survival
Network now more than ever. Go to Financial Survivalnetwork dot
com and get your free newsletter and gift. Financial Survival
Network now more than ever.
Speaker 3: And welcome you are listening to and watching the Financial
Survival Network. I'm your host, Carrie Lutz. Hey, we're in
March now. The Trump regime is firmly underway. Deregulation seems
to be the theme, but maybe we're looking for something
a little We want deregulation, but we do want the
cops out there regulating unhealthy and criminal behavior. How is
that all going to work out? Especially with all these
layoffs that are taking place in the public sector. We
never thought we'd see the day when that would occur.
And well, Girston Gibbs is with us now Bellet Capital. Girston,
I guess before we get started, should tell us what
you do, what your company does, and how you help
investors here.
Speaker 1: Well, we provide independent Well, first of all, thank you
for having me, Carrie, it's a pleasure of being on
your show. My name is Gerston Gibbs again and my
company Belly Capital. We provide independent oversight to investors to
a system with just looking at their investment strategies, recommendations
from their investment advisors and investment companies, and the system
with ensuring that those are actually the correct type of
strategies to be in and that what their investment advisor
telling them is actually true and they're not just telling
them and their own benefit. To ensure that they remain
investing with them, we just provide that additional oversight, a
system with diversifying their portfolio, give recommendations and suggestions. A
lot of our investors are also entrepreneurs, so sometimes they
may be a little too busy and very dependent on
their investment advisor to provide that guidance and because we're
not advisors and we provide more so of an independent
outlook on their investments. We give them the truth from
our perspective and understanding of what their intentions are, what
their intended strategies are, what their suitability needs are, and
just given an independent oversight on their investment strategies.
Speaker 3: Mm hmm. Okay, So you're kind of like outside the
system then, if you will as right, absolutely, you're not
in the government and you're not with the banks and
the financial institutions. So what do you think the priorities
are of the current administration as far as regulation is
concerned and as far as yeah, basically as far as
where their where their goals are, what what's their strategy.
Speaker 1: Well, obviously, based on all the needs that we're looking at,
deregulation is.
Speaker 4: At the top of the priority list.
Speaker 1: I believe that you know, this administration is also taking
an independent approach on overseas how the government was monitoring
these financial institutions, and based on what I'm looking at,
it appears that you know, there was a lot of misuse,
a lot of misspending, a lot of abuse of power
in the past administration. And I think this current administration
is trying to reverse those effects and bring a little
bit of balance to the market because I believe just
with the overhaul of regulation in the past couple of years,
it put a little bit of a strangle on some
of these companies to be compliant based on all the
increased rules and regulations, and some of those costs are
brought to the investors. The investors feel a lot of
the pressures of regulation because if government is required additional regulation,
that means companies are spending more money on regulation.
Speaker 4: That means an increase and the.
Speaker 1: Cost of the financial products that are being sold to
these investors.
Speaker 3: Okay, I'll buy that. So what's our alternative here though,
because we know we just have to go back and
look at the financial crisis of eight nine and the
resulting recession that came from that, that these banks are
not to be trusted.
Speaker 1: Well, I completely agree that there has to be some
form of regulation, absolutely, because you can't trust anybody, not
as we're seeing, you know, some of the government can't
be trusted because it could be misspent that at exactly exactly,
So I believe that there should be a balance. They
shouldn't completely remove regulation, but they should take a visit
at the rules and the laws and those that are
actually helpful and those that are actually not helpful, and
rebalance our approach to regulation. Not remove regulation, not get
rid of regulation, but review regulation and determine which ones
are actually working in the best interest of the investors
and which ones are actually strangling the financial markets, which
could have a direct negative impact on the economy.
Speaker 3: And you know, like the one problem I've always had
with regulation is is to say, what's in the best
interest of investors. Yes, if you're stealing their money, that's
obvious that there's one thousand and one other practices that
take place where they're not so clear cut, you.
Speaker 1: Know, absolutely, That's why I think they should be a
consistent revisit, maybe revisits annually. I kind of could appreciate,
I won't completely agree with everything that DOGE is doing,
but I can appreciate an independent oversight, someone that's outside
of the government and very similar to my company, that
just takes a look at what's going on from a
subjective eye and gives their opinion on what things they
believe can be restructured. And I also believe that it
shouldn't wait another four years till we revisit it. It
should be an annual review of what's actually working, what's
not working.
Speaker 3: Zero based budgeting and the like. You know, the interesting
thing is we've got these auditors, you know, the government,
accounting office, office, personnel management, all of that, but they
run audits and even Congress and then they never do anything.
Nothing is ever done with the results of those audits,
at least doge whether you like it or not. They're
implementing their findings.
Speaker 4: Right, correct.
Speaker 1: And it's all about implementation because you can run an
audit just to ensure that you're running the audit right,
to keep you know, the confidence of the economy there.
But if you're not implementing anything based on the results,
what's the actual purpose of running the audits?
Speaker 4: You can consider that a waste of resources.
Speaker 1: If you're not implementing any changes or making and the
adjustments to ensure that it's actually working better.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and we've seen this like in you know, I
forget what committee it was or who said it, but
that the government was paying out improper payments somewhere between
two hundred and fifty million and five hundred two hundred
and fifty to five hundred fifty billion dollars in improper
payments annually, and nobody ever saw fit to do anything about.
Speaker 1: This exactly exactly, And I think that it's going to
hurt a little bit in the initial phases, but ultimately
it'll bring balance because you're bringing more money back to government,
which ultimately means more money into the economy. And again,
if you're finding out these things, they think about how
long these things are going on. Dose was just implemented
very recently, in less than two months. We're uncovering all
of these issues and all of this misspending. Think about
what's happening in the last ten years, whether Republicans or
Democrats were in office, there could have been tremendous amount
of mismanagement and we just didn't do anything about it
or didn't implement anything after we determined that this money
was being spent. So I think that it's initially going
to be painful because restructuring and change is always a
little painful, but ultimately it'll work in our favor.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, So how much money do you think doads
can really save here?
Speaker 1: Well, just based on what I'm seeing, it could be billions.
Speaker 4: We're already pulling on the billions.
Speaker 3: Yeah, all right, so hundreds of billions just go under
the toilet every year. So do you think these cutbacks
could cause a recession?
Speaker 4: Possibly?
Speaker 1: We can't rule out the discussions of recession again with
these tarots in addition to the misspending, these are all
indicators of possible recession. So we cannot rule out recession,
but we can't rule out that ultimately this economy will
flourish because we're uncovering these things, and because we're uncovering it,
it can cause a tremendous uh.
Speaker 4: Downfall in the markets leading to recession. But I think
that that that's what the administration wants.
Speaker 1: The administration wants to uncover things, even if it leads
to recession.
Speaker 4: It's kind of pull the band aid right.
Speaker 1: Off kind of approach that I believe that this administration
is taking.
Speaker 3: Yeah, well, I guess with the deficit, out of control
spending all of that stuff, we've reached the tipping point
where this has to be done or the country is
going to fail, the economy will collapse, and anarchy probably
won't be much further off.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, I can completely completely agree with that. Where we're
living in some very scary times just based on the
spending we're in tremendous that possible defaults could loom approaching
the third quarter, and I think that this administration is
trying to get a hold of it, and they're they're
looking at things that they believe can resolve the issues
that the economy has been having for the last couple
of years.
Speaker 3: Yep, Well, we're definitely in interesting times here. And when
we have this conversation a year or two from now, oh,
what do you think the state of things will be?
Speaker 1: In my opinion, I think it will be tremendously different
and much better in many ways, because again we're we're
looking at how much the government was misspending. And that's
that's the basis in the foundation of our economy, the government, right,
so once we're not exactly exactly we depend on the government,
and the government has been conducting the misspending just based
on some of the discoveries that the DOGE team has had.
Speaker 4: And you know, I was reading an article the other
day and it's.
Speaker 1: Three hundred and fifty million dollars in PPP loans to children.
Speaker 3: Yeah, eleven years and younger exactly. You know, at first
they said, well, we got twenty million people who are
on social Security who are one hundred and ten years
and older one hundred and twelve. But as it turned out,
they're not really collecting checks, but because they're listed as live,
when the other agencies of government go to check up
on them to see if it's a real social it
comes back as active, and then that becomes the basis
for defrauding other benefits programs.
Speaker 1: Right, correct, correct, And you know, it's a little scary
to know that some of those things were going on
for so long. I know that you just reading some
of the articles. They found somebody that was collecting social
security that was over three hundred years old.
Speaker 4: It's older than which, well, say.
Speaker 3: There's mistakes in the data.
Speaker 4: The data.
Speaker 3: Government data is very dirty. And but the point is
that they said that when they discovered all those millions
of people who were probably dead but listed as active,
very few of them were actually getting paid. But like
you said, the other that's active social security number becomes
the basis for additional fraudulent activities. And they said at
the time it would cost them five billion dollars to
update their database, which sounds like total garbage. So they said,
we're not going to bother, which was an active, complete
insanity here.
Speaker 1: Gerson correct, correct, I can definitely agree, and that's why
we go back to regulation. So there should definitely be
regulation and should be oversight, but that should also include
oversight on the government. It should be oversight on big
bat to be oversight on the government, because that's how
I believe balance could be brought. You can just leave
it to one party to conduct the oversight. It has
to be overall over site of the entire country.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, yeah. And you know I said the second
I saw it, I said, we need we don't need
We don't just need DOGE. We need DOOON. The Department
of United Nations Efficiency, and any any agency that's spending
more than a few million dollars needs its own DOGE
because you know, what's happening at the federal level is
happening all over the place, right.
Speaker 1: Correct, Correct, I definitely agree with that, And I understand
people's reluxance and see because of Elon Musk and his
popularity outside of government, right, I could understand some of
the reluctancy, but I believe the overall approach is a
good one outside of Elon Musk and who he is
being the richest person on the planet. I believe that
it's it's good to have an independent oversight of government
and of companies.
Speaker 3: M hm yep. Now, I could not agree with you more.
And unfortunately, or fortunately, as the case may be, I
don't know. The fact is that that really there's nobody
else out there who is able to do this but
Elon Musk with his knowledge of systems and his ability
to assemble world class teams to take on projects. And
you know, I'm always reminded by the late great Robert
Moses who said, if you want to make an omelet,
you got to break some eggs.
Speaker 1: Right, exactly, exactly. And who's more qualified than a person
that doesn't need.
Speaker 4: The money or the popularity? Oh yeah, right, truly dependent.
Speaker 3: Yeah, the arguments they're making against them, like Elon Musk
is the identity thief, identity thief and chief, you know,
like he wants your data. Like, believe me, if Elon
Musk wanted your data, he didn't need to go to
the government to get it. There's a lot of other
places where you can you know, you can get that, right.
Speaker 4: I agree.
Speaker 1: This guy he brought Twitter now known as x so
everybody's on there, so he already had he already had it,
and I think that just based on his knowledge on technology,
it could it could also bring tremendous benefit to government
because everybody knows government's technology is tremendously outdated. That can
be a true cause of some of these oversights to
just outdated technology. But with this boom and AI and
what the role that he plays in the technology sector,
I think it can be tremendously beneficial to how we
conduct an oversight on our government utilizing technology.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and AI all of it, and yeah, the government
is so far behind. And maybe I don't want the
irs using AI because maybe you know, but look at
the thought of reimagining government. It's it's really been too
long in the making. You know, our government really works
the same way it did in when the country was
founded with computers, right, but it's really right the same way,
the same philosophy, is the same techniques, all of that,
and now it's about to see a dramatic change, right.
Speaker 1: Correct, correct, And I think it will bring a lot
more efficiency.
Speaker 4: We're still in the age of AI.
Speaker 1: We're still, I believe, in the very beginning phases, and
we don't know how we're going to incorporate We're still
learning how to incorporate it into our lives, let alone
how government is going to incorporate it.
Speaker 4: So I know we're at the very beginning.
Speaker 1: I think there are definitely some benefits to it, especially
from an efficiency standpoint, but we're still learning how it's
going to impact things.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I could not agree with you. Mark appreciate you
coming on the show. Regards. Why don't you tell us
where we find you how we connect with you on
the web.
Speaker 1: I'm definitely again thanks for having me. The name of
my company is Bellet Capital. You can find us that
Bellet B E. L I t ecapital dot com.
Speaker 3: All right, and the link is in the show notes
to this interview on Financial Survival Network dot com. We
just ask you, if you go to the site, please
sign up for your free newsletter, as over seventy thousand
other FSN community members have. And we do appreciate you
coming on here, Garson, enlightening us. You're out there in
the trenches figuring all this stuff out daily. And hey,
if you have any questions out there, shoot me an
email kl atcarrieluts dot com. Grison, we'll talk to you
again soon. Thanks for stopping by.
Speaker 2: Thanks so THT you, Kerry, Thanks for listening to Carrie
Letz's Financial Survival Network, your solution to today's trying times.
For the latest, go to Financial Survivalnetwork dot com. Financial
Survival Network now more than ever,